The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 16.

IN THE MATTER OF TAYLOR, A LUNATIC.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in
this lunatic petition, which was argued before the Court
a short time since. His Lordship said that the case came
before. him on a question of costs, the application being
on the part of Mr. Butt, a solicitor of that Court, for
the costs of defending Mr. John Taylor against a com-
mission of lunacy. A similar petition to the present
had been presented to the late Lord Chancellor and
discharged with costs by him, most properly, 'on
the ground that there was no evidence of a
retainer having been given by Mr. Taylor to Mr. Butt.
An application was afterwards made by Mr. Butt for
leave to file an additional affidavit, which application
Lord Cott nham had most properly refused to accede to;
at the same time, however, stating, that the petition being
discharged with costs, would not prevent Mr. Butt from
presenting another petition stating the evidence of the
retainer. In consequence of that suggestion the present
petition was filed, and in support of it an affidavit had been
made by Mr.'Butt, in which he stated that the reason
why he did not insert in the former pc tition any evidence
with respect to the retainer was, that he thought it was
meant, looking at the course that had been pursued by
the parties who opposed the petition, not to take any
objection on that head, but solely on ie ground of the
incompetency of the testator to bind himself by any re-
tainer. Now, the questiorrs for the consideration of the
Court with respect to the present petition were two—
first, whether there was a retainer; and next, whether
Mr. Butt had reason, when he accepted that retainer,
to consider John Taylor in that state of mind
which would justify him in accepting the retainer. With
respect to the first point, as to the retainer, the evidence
on the-whole appeared to his Lordship to be satisfactory.
A bill had been filed in the name of John Taylor, and
Mr. Butt had acted as his solicitor for two years ; out of
„that proceeding, the present commission of lunacy aroee.
On going to one of the offices, Mr. Butt was informed
of the intention to sue out the commission of lu-
nacy against Mr. Taylor ; immediately upon hear-
ing this, Mr. Butt communicated the intelli-
gence he had received to Mr. Taylor, and Mr.
Butt had sworn that upon his communicating that in-.
telligence he was directed by Mr. Taylor to take pro-
ceedings to oppose the issuing of the commission.
Shortly afterwards, Mr. Butt, being apprised that a pe;
tition had been lodged in the office of the Secretary of
Lunatics Tor a commission, entered a caveat against it.
After having done this he informed Mr. Taylor of the
course he had pursued, who wrote to him thank-
•ing him for what -.he had done to protect him
from the unnatural condttt of his sons, and desiring
him to present a petition to the Lord Chancellor for the.
purpose of selling out so much of the stock in Court
as would be sufficient to defray the expenses of opposing
that commission. His Lordship, after reading the evi-
dence in this respect, observed, that if the present was a
question fur a Court of, Law, for the purpose of weer
tabling whether Mr. Taylor had retained Mr. Butt, he
thought the evidence he had just adverted to would be
sufficient to justify the Jury in finding a verdict for the
plaintiff: It had, however, been suggested in the
course of the argument that Mr. Butt knew well
the course he ought to pursue, because when the pro-
ceedings in Chancery commenced he got a retainer of a
formal description from Mr. Taylor. Now, with respect
to that his Lordship thought it open to this remark, that
when the commencement of proceedings in Chancery-
took place it was not at all .an unnatural transaction that
such a formal retainer should be required by Mr, Butt.
On the whole, his Lordship was clearly of opinion there
was abundance of evidence from the facts that had been
stated to satisfy him that there was a retainer on the
part or John Taylor given to Mr. Butt. Then the.
next question would be, whether Mr. Butt really
considered John Taylor of sound mind, and in a
proper state to enter into a retainer of the description
his Lordship had adverted to ? Now, upon that point
Mr. Butt and his clerk swore positively that they always
considered Mr. Taylor of sound mind, and in that im-
pression they were supported by Mr. Davidson, the me-
dical attendant of Mr. Taylor, who had given similar
evidence before the Jury upon the inquiry into-, the
soundness of hiS mind ; and several other eminent men
had given similar testimony. It was true that
the Jury had found Mr. Taylor to be of unsound
mind, but, at the same time, it was to be
recollected that they were not unanimous in that
respect. On the whole of the case, therefore, his Lord-
skip was clearly of opinion that there was sufficient to
justify him in thinking that Mr. Butt had exercised a
sound discretion, that he had acted bona fide, and that,
therefore, he was entitled to his costs. The payment,
however, of those costs must not interfere with the
maintenance of the lunatic ; but if after that was ade•

luately provided for, there was any surplus to satisfy
he claim of Mr. Butt, it must be liquidated out of the
unatic's estate.

WOODC XIE V. RENNECE.

The further arguments in this part-heard appeal were
Oen resumed. The only question in the ease is as to the
alidity of a power of al pointment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR postponed his judgment.

ROLLS'- COURT, Nov 16.
This being petition day," the Master of the Rolls
was occupied all the morning in hearing petitions, few
of which were of any general interest.
RE tROWN'S CHARITIES.

Mr. WOOD said this was the petition of certain vestry-
men of the parish of Stratford-le-Bow, praying for the
transfer of a certain trust-fund from the Rev. Hamlet
Harrison, the Rector, and another gentleman, The ttur-
veying trustees to Mr. W. Hunter, who had been, elected
a trustee. The petition was presented under the. Act
52 George. 111., and stated that the testatrix, Mrs.
Brown, by her will left to the Rector for the time being
of fire -parishes, of which Stratford-le-Bow was
one, and to two other trustees in each pa-
rish, to be nominated by the vestry, the suns of
1,4001. Three per Cents., on trust to pay the sum
of 201. per year to the minister, on condition of his cate-
chising the children once a month in the church, and
preaching a sermon in Epiphany. She also directed 21.
to be paid to the sexton, and ii. to the clerk, and the re-
sidue arising from the fund to be expended in the pur-
chase and distribution of Bibles and religious tracts
among the children who were catechised. At a meeting
of the vestry on the 19th January, Mr. W. Hunter, one
of the parishioners, was appointed a trustee in the room
of Mr. Bulwer, deceased, and his appointment Was
confirmed by a vestry on the 19th February following.
A letter was written to the other trustees, informing
them of the circumstance, which the Rector answered by
stating an objection to the appointment of Mr. Hunter.
At a meeting of the vestry, on the 6th July, of which no
notice had beer. given, the appointment of Mr. Hunter
was rescinded, and another gentlemen was appointed
trustee ; but at another meeting of the vestry, at the
end of that month, which was very fully attended, the
last election was protested against, and declared null'and
void, and the original election was confirmed, but the
transfer had not been made. The petition was
presented on the ground that the vestry having
appointed a trustee, there could be no further appoint-
ment until a vacancy, and it prayed the order of the
Court fur making the transfer. It had also originally
prayed for costs, but the parties had come to more ami-
cable feelings, and the surviving trustees were now wil-

Ling to mac.'e the transfer on payment of their costs.

The MAsTEn. of the RoLLB---Surely the funds of the
charity ought not to pay the expense of vestry squabbles.
They ought to be ashamed to ask for it.
Mr. WOOD said he feared unless the matter was so
settled, a number of other petitions would be presented,
and the expenses greatly increased. He thought it
would be for the interest of the charity if his Lordship
would make the order prayed for.
The MASTER of the ROLLS—I can't do that. Squab-
bles arise in these vestries, one after another, and •then

they desire they may be appeased at the expense of the
charity,-
Mr. WOOD—The parties feel that the Rector was
placed in some difficulty by the two elections.
The MASTER of the RoLLs—Yes, but if they have any
of the spirit of charity in them, they will agree to spare
the fund.
Mr. Woon—lt would be for the benefit of the charity
to stop litigation.
The MASTER of the Ronns--Very greatly ; but I
am not convinced that it would be for the benefit of the
charity to pay the costs of vestry squabbles out of the
fund. I think, if some reasonable representation were
made to them, the parties would be ashamed of asking
for it. They have quarrelled, and now find they have
been in the wrong, and have come to a more reason-.
able spirit ; but they want to set themselves right at
the expense of the charity. I hope a little more time
will set them quite right without it. They are engaged
in a work of charity, and should carry it out.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL P. PRETTYMAN.
_ Mr. PEMBERTON stated this was an information filed
ip, the Attorney-General at the instance of the Charity
Commissioners against the Bishop of Lincoln and the
in the dioceusen
of
certainfißoget,focharditable trusts. In the year 1243, Simon
poor persons,
annfaiancoln, for
now disappeared
edand endowed an hospital on his manor,
the maintenance of lg
of the charity .a_ ehapelwarden. The hospital had
was, and that had remained of late years
by the ehap,elwaartlhe rents of all lands were col-
lectedamong six poor persons, en, who paid 24/. per annum
to himself. The real ye' and appropriated 8/. per annum
the property, however,
consisted of fines, which value
of
appropriated by the pre-
alleged, by his prede-
eseen3storeshatopelhwisaro(Nlvenn,usaen.d,
In the year 1816, the present
as' rebe
chapelwarden, Dr. Prettyman,
and the estate was thenY. In July,
w' appointeda by his
father the Bishop of Lincoln,
held by a gentleman named Ma
1817, the lease being partly expired, 'i application
was made to Dr. Prettyman to renew it, to which he
replied that he declined to do so, but was ready to treat
t
for the purchase of Mr. Manhy's interest. This,
how-
ever, Mr. Manby declined to part with, and continued
hold it until his death, when it devolved on
grave. On that occasion the lease was renewedlLr Cc:-
0 I.
o for a
term of 99 years, for which a fine was paid of 9,247/. ln
1525 the lease was again renewed at a fine of 2,3001,
and in 1834 it was again renewed at a fine of I,ooe/. SC)
that the sum received by this gentleman for fines
amounted to the sum of nearly 13,000/. In the year
1535 the Charity Commissioners appred to the Dean
and Chapter, who were in possession of the foundation
deed, for the production of the documents in their pos-
session relating to the foundation, and the defendant Dr.
Prettyman, who was a member of that body, admitted,
in his answer, that in consequence of his advice they
positively refused to produce it. The production of the ,
document, however, had been compelled, and it was
now admitted that this was a foundation for the
benefit of thirteen poor persons, who were to re•
side in the hospital, and that the chapelwarden
was entitled to no more than_a fair remuneration for the
performance of his duty. In addition to the large sum
received for fines, the chapelwarden had cut down
timber of the value of several hundreds of pounds ; and
it now remained for his Lordship to say what species