The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-11 00:00:00

BARBER V. SWANN.

This case came before the Court on exceptions to the
Master's report, and the arguments not being concluded
when the Court rose, stand over for to-morrow.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 10.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His HoNoues paper this morning contained pleas,
demurrers, exceptions, and further directions but in
consequence of the parties not being prepared, the Court
was enabled to make but very little progress, and rose
before one o'clock. The case of Brown v. Brown, which
was part heard, was ordered to stand over, in conse-
quence of the absence of Counsel.
(Before Vice -Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
SEDDON V. PRINCE.
This was a bill of exceptions taken by the plaintiff to
the insufficiency of the defendant's answer to a bill ori-
ginally filed by the plaintiff.
Mr. Cooper, Q.C., with whom was Mr. Ileathfield,
supported the exceptions; Mr. Simpltinsm, Q.C., arid
Mr. Lowens appeared for the defendants.
The arguments were of considerable length, but the
case was of no general interest.
llis HONOUR allowed the exceptions.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. BRUNDRETH.
This was an information at the suit of the Attorney-
General, at the relation of John Joseph Haughton and
others, against Thomas Brundreth the defendant.
The information praycd that it might be declared that
a legacy of 2001., bequeathed for the benefit of the poor
of the parish of Onskirk, was a good and charitable be-
quest, and that it might be referred to the Master of the
Court to appoint proper trustees to the charitable fund.
The information was filed under these circumstances—
Mrs. Catherine Brundreth, by a will dated the Ist March,
1827, among other things bequeathed a legacy of 2001. to
the poor of the parish of Onskirk, to be settled by her
executors, and that the interest of the sum might
be paid them yearly. Of the executors appointed
by the testatrix, the defendant was the only one
who • proved the will, acted, and possessed him-
Self of the personal estate of the testatrix
upon her death in April, 1827. It was admitted that
the personal estate was sufficient for the payment of the
legacy.. The question in the cause was whether a cer-
tain application which the defendant had made of the
trust fund was a good payment of the legacy appointed
by the will of the testatrix, and a proper application of
it. It appeared that in the parish of Onskirk there
was a dispensary affording medical relief and medicines
to - the " poor of the parish and its vicinity.
This institution was suprorted by voluntary contribu-
tions, and subsequently to the death of the testatrix the
defendant paid into its treasury the sum of 2001, which
had been bequeathed as mentioned. This sum, with
other money subscribed by other individuals, was laid
out in purchasing a piece of land, and building a house
thereon for the benefit of the poor, and fur the other
purposes for which a public dispensary •is used. The
trust-deed by which the property they purchased was
conveyed for the benefit of the charity, was between the
Earl of Derby and Lord Stanley on the one hand, and
the Rev. Gilbert Fore and other gentlemen of the pa-
rish and its neighbourhood. on the other. The
trustees of the charity were seised of this property in
fee simple. This was the manner in which the legacy
was applied by the defendant. The supreme direction
of the dispensary was at the disposal of subscribers to
it of not less than ss. each, the decision of .the majority
in all general meetings was binding, unless annulled at
some subsequent meeting. The dispensary was open to
any poor person recommended by a subscriber, so that
any person, no matter whether residing in the parish or
not, might receive relief at the Institution if so re-
commended.
Mr. FOLLETT, who appeared for the Attorney-Gene-
ral, contended that the dispensary did not constitute
such a charity as was eontempleted by the testatrix. The
supreme body of the -subscribers might do what they
liked with the property; and Counsel submitted that the
application of the legacy was not a proper one.
His Ilomitin inquired if, at a general meeting of the
subscribers to the dispensary, a resolution could not be
made, securing to the parishioners a benefit equivalent
to the legacy ?
Mr. SINPRINSON, Q.C., who (with Mr. Rogers) ap•
peered for the defendant, observed, in reply, that he
was not aware of any objection existing to such a course
being adopted.
His HONOUR said, what he proposed then to the con-
sideration of Counsel was, whether or not it was better
that the cause should stand over, with a view of seeing
whether, effectually and unalterably, a regulation with
regard to the trust fund:o,frtit,hchaeltsidseirsipiv;ea, dispensary might not be
made, which would have the effect of securing a benefit
equivalent to the interest of the legacy to the poor of
the parish of Onskirk. His Honour conceived such a
thing feasible, without much expense. If the matter were
referred to the Master in the ordinary way, the whole
amount of the legacy, and even more would, in all pro-
bability, be swallowed up in the expenses ; thus it was
desirable to see that the property should not be lost to
the charity.
Counsel on both sides having concurred in the pro-
priety of adopting his Honour's suggestion, the cause
was, by consent, directed to stand over to this day fort-
night.
The Court rose at three o'clock.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WrGnAm.)
On this cause beinnglictetEllsecrl'onWA hisllpiloNoun stated, that
in consequence of a communication which he had had
fwuittihiretl:leotltn(lleaCr Chancellor, he had determined for the
fit
the
op shnrt cause
inion
;Court'
strictly
is obs
HONOUReri it; point of fact, a submission to
.e
d referred theor vde
dead, and whether they were out of inquire as to the number Ntvhhee t
sadni
the Court. 'tioun.eroef

CLAYTON V. MEADOWS. •
The hearing of this canse terminated this morning,
and his HONOUR gave judgment to the following effect:
_.—The plaintiff was Rector of Cottingham, in Northamp-
tonshire, and as such was entitled to all tithes within
that parish. The-defendant, Jr.l Meadows, was charged
in the bill with occupying a district of land comprising
about 370 or 380 acres, called Benefield Lawn, locally
situated within the pariah, inasmuch as it was sttr-