The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCt.
VICE4MANCELLOR'S COURT, APRIL 21.

IN THE MATTER :a is DEVIZES'GHARITIES.
Mr. KNIGHT BRUCE (with whom sveS Mr. Jacob) said this
was the petition of two gentlemen named George White and
Thomas Carter, both inhabitant householders of Devizes; -and
preying that a gentleman named-Pfritilse-siiielit be removed
fNM the officeof trustee of ,teveral. charities. ttrevhich he ha&
been appointed, and that it might be referred to the Master ,to
appoint some other and proper person instead of Mr. Phipps,
or otherwise that Mr. Phipps might be ordered to sign a power
of attorney, and unite with his co-trustees in all necessary and
proper acts to enable the trustees to transfer -certain funds in
the Three per Cent. CeMsols from the Bank of England, and
that Mr. Phipps should pay the cost of the petition and order to
be made thereon. This was the petition of two trustees to be dis-
embarrassed of their co-trustee—of a gentleman who, according
to the different views which might be eutertainedof his conduct,
either from obstinacy or firmness had persisted in refusing not
only to act himself, but also to co•operate with the other trus-
tees, so as to enable them to act in such a manner as he had
not the least difficulty in s tying, without intending any disre-
spect to Mr. Phipps personally, was most unjustifiable, because
Mr. Phipps appeared to have taken the same view of his con-
duct himself by proposing at a certain period of their proceed-
ings to pay the costs, on condition of being allowed to continue
in the trusteeship. His Honour would find certain
obvious reasons why that proposal was not consented
to, and the trustees considered they should not have done their
duty to the public at large, or as trustees of these charities,
if they had not brought the subject before the Court. They
wished it to be understood that they did not bring it forward
from any adverse feeling towar.ls this gentleman, but from a
conviction that the line of conduct which he had thought it
his duty to pursue, was such as rendered it impossible there
could be any union between them in any actions that could be
useful to the charities for which they were appointed trustees,
and that therefore they were bound to bring the matter before the
Court, in order that the Court might deal with it as it should
think proper. At a meeting of the trustees held in 1838, a sum
of money amounting to 1451. was paid by the Chamberlain of
the Corporation to the trustees, and at the same meeting it was
resolved that the same should he paid tip and invested in the
Three per Cents., in the name of four trustees appointed for that
purpose. He called biS Honour's attention to the circumstance
that four trustees, and four otily,Wereappointed trustees of this
stock. These were Mr, Phipps, Mr. Elliot, Mr. Dredge, and Mr.
Bishop. In order to enable these gentlemen to receive the divi-
dends en the Stock, the usual power was signed by three of
the parties, but Mr. Phipps refused to sign, without giving any
reason for such refusal, and he had since constantly refused to
do so. Another meeting was held in the month of De-
' cember, 1832, when Mr. Phipps, having again refused
to sign the power, and the trustees being consrquently un •
able to pay certain moneys into the Bank of England,
for the purposes of the charities, the matter was referred to Mr.
Anstie, the Solicitor of the Trustees, who again applied to
Mr. Phipps to sign the power, which he again refused, to do.
Mr. Anstie then wrote a letter to Mr. Phipps, in his reply to
which Mr. Phipps said that " had the Dissenters, in accord-
ance with their oft-repeated professions, abstained from inter-
fering with Church property, the enormous sums which have
now been expended. would not have been incurred in prevent-
ing the income of the charities falling into the hands of the Dis-
setters. Mr . Austie wrote another letter on the sth of April,
1840, and another on the 9th Nov., again applying for Mr.
Phipps's signature. He (Mr. K. Bruce) did not know whether
Mr. Anstie belonged to the Church or the Dissenters, but at
all events his letters were those of a gentleman and a Chris-
tian ; but these applications were also without success, the alle-
gations in the petition were all verified by affidavits. The peti-
tion was delayed until the 15th Dec., 1840, on which day it
was presented. 'lt would have come on to be heard on
the second day of the following Hilary 'Term, as an unopposed
petition, but his Learned Friend, Mr. Wray, came and stated
that there would be a compromise, and that it was therefore de-
sirable it should stand out of the paper, which proposition was
accordingly assented to. This compromise, however, went off
in consequence of the conduct of Mr. Phipps, from whose affi-
davit, without speaking disrespectfully of him, it appears that he
was mistaken en several points, and the petitioners, therefore,
thought themselves obliged to make other affidavits, which dis-
poeed, in a great degree, of statements made, no doubt, under
excitement, and exhibiting, in a remarkable degree, Mr.
Phipps's want of recollection. Mr. Phipps, in his
affidavit, said that he was appointed Rector of De-
vizes in 1b:33. He (Mr. Knight Brute) had yet to learn
what the misconduct of the Town Council had to do with
the matter, and taking into consideration the long negotia-
tions to obtain his signature to the gentlemanly patience and
forbearance manifested with respect to the polemical letter which
he had referred to,—considering that this gentleman had had
the opportunity of taking advice, and of considering his affi-
davits, the only conclusion he could come to was that Mr.
Phipps, however valuable as a member of society, was not a
person whose forte it was to act as a trustee. Under these cir-
cumstances, it appeared impossible not to come to the conclu-
sion that Mr. Phipps had committed a breach of trust, and had
continued in this course of conduct up to the moment in which
it was to be made the subject of investigation, when he pro-
posed to adopt a different course, and pay costs.
Mr. Jacos followed on the same side. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded to state the contents of some of the
affidavits. That of the Rev. Richard Ellott, sworn the 11th
of March, and filed the day following set forth that for 37 years
he was minister of St. Mary's Chapel in the borough of De-
vizes; that he was one of the charity trustees, and acted as Ho-
norary Secretary to that body ; that they held their first meet-
ing on the 15th of February, 1837, and that he was present at
that meeting. The deponent further stated that he had
read Mr. Phipps's affidavit, and that it was not true,
as stated by Mr. Phipps, that no account was ren-
dered by the Town Council until the 23d of. July,
1838, inasmuch as the Charities' trustees, prior to that, were
furnished with copies of entries in the boas of the Toin-'
council. The copies of the entries so furnished were in prise
session of the trustees previous to July, 1838. The .deponent
further set forth, that the trustees of the charity reeeited.miith
interruption in the discharge of their duty from Mr. Phipps.
The Learned Counsel proceeded to read extracts from the affi-
davit of Mr. George Evans, a schoolmaster residing for the
last ten years in Devizes, and a trustee of the charity, and from
the affidavits of several others of the trustees, which were
to the same effect, and which he would not therefore trou-
ble the Court by reading at length. There was one circum-
stance to which, however, he would advert ; it was a complaint
of a very odd nature indeed, which was made by Mr. Phipps.
The trustees had found it necessary to apply to Counsel for
advice as to what course they ought to pursue to compel Mr.
Phipps to do his duty, and Mr. Phipps now complained that
the solicitor for the trustees would not inform him of the nature
of the proceedings about to be established against him. Such
were the erroneous views entertained by that gentleman
of the manner in which business ought to be conducted. For
very nearly two years the receipt of the payments of the
stock was stopped through Mr. Phipps's means, without any
reason being assigned by that gentleman fur such stoppage.
Because the Lord Chancellor had ordered .that one year's
amount of the revenues of the charity should be applied to
defray law expenses, Mr. Phipps had therefore thought fit to
order that the succeeding years' revenue should be locked up
in the Bank. Counsel, therefore, submitted that the Court
ought to prevent the charity from being again exposed to
the difficulties in which it had been placed by that gentleman ;
that the stock ought not to' be continued standing in his (Mr.
Phipps's) name, and that he ought not to be continued one of
the trustees. Counsel therefore hoped that the Court would
make the order prayed for.
Mr. Cor.eitince followed on the same side. His Honour
would not forget the part:of Mr. Phipps's letters addressed to
'Mr. Anstie, the solicitor for the petitioners, in which he ac-
cuses the Dissenters of interfering with the Church Charities ;
but how does he maintain this charge in his affidavits ; By alto-
gether abstaining from the repetition of it—by giving it up altoge-
ther. He would observe that throughout the whole of the affida-
vit of Mr. Phipps there was not the slightest imp, ation upon the
character of his co-trustees. There were fifteen trustees; of
these there were only five Dissenters, the remainder being
members of the Established Church, and therefore any step
they might take, which might be considered prejudicial to the
interests of the charity, would be altogether futile, as they
would be out-voted by the larger number who were of a dif-
ferent religious belief. The reasons assigned by Mr. Phipps
for refusing to do his duty, were of the most ridiculous cha-
racter, and he would not again trouble the Court by re-
peating them. Whets Mr. Phipps was asked to execute the
bond, instead of assigning any good and valid reasons it would
appear from the affidavit of one of the trustees that so far back
as Nov. 1839, when asked to assign his reasons for refusing to
do so, he absolutely refused to give any. The affidavit of Jr.A
Carter was to the same effect, and in fact throughout the whole
os the affidavits the statements were the same, and with the ex-
ception of the extraordinary observation he made respecting the
Dissenters, not one of them even heard him assign any reason
for refusing to execute the power of attorney. The offer of
Mr. Phipps to pay the costs was worth Lttle or nothing, be-
cause the offer was extremely vague and undefined. There
was no party who could decide upon what the costs were,:
nor was there any guarantee that he would pay the suns
that was agreed upon. Under all the circumstances he trusted
the Court would make the order as prayed for.
Mr. Ricissasos (with whom was Mr. Wray) said he
appeared on behalf of the Bev. Mr. Phipps against
..lie petition. Hie Learned Friend Mr. Wigram was
introduced on behalf of two of the trustees who were
anxious to oppose the petition ; and his Learned Friend Mr.
James Parker appeared on behalf of four of the trustees who
were willing to acquiesce in any order the Court might think
proper to make. Of the other trustees he might observe, that
two were dead, two were residing abroad, and one. Mr. San.
ders, took no part in the matter one way or another. Too ap-
plication to the Court was, in reality, that the rector of the
1 parish might be discharged from being a trustee of these chari
.. -, for alleged misconduct which was attributed to him in the
0..... or that he might berdlaiirne,ctefrdomtotheexelceuttteerawphoiweherhaodf
petition, --ter that the dividends might be received. The
on it
was to remove Mr.
who
wrote
~.he letter stating that .thPehyipspaws,
attorney in o:is
Lea,rn;
object of the artifice.. '
properly
been read by
the two gentlerrien
no prospect of hii aerodiacting him:is.
The VICE-Citareeftioase---Ie Mr, Phipps willing to exe-
cute the power of attorney?
Mr. RICHARDS—Mr. Phipps was willing .th do so if his
Honour was of opinion that he ought. He ba, bee? Thisost
improperly brought into a Court of Equity, hut he sc..:e'!
Willingness to aet in such a way as the Court might ttnink
prCptit to direct him. If the Court thought the money ought
to be applied itt the way the petitioners had stated, still the
Court had authority and jurisdiction under the circumstances
to make such an order. Mt. Phipps was perfectly ready to
acquiesce. He referred to fire provisions of Sir Samuel
Homily's Act as regarded charities, and the question
was whether, when the avowed object was as to what
channels the ittiet should flow through, the Court could
make an order upon petifion without any information being
filed . His Learned Friend inki riot served the Attorney-
' General with the petition, and it W at question for the Court
Whether it would be fit and proper to deal with the funds in the
way suggested, in the absence of the Attorney-General. He
would, hoWeret, again repeat, that if the Court thought the
power of attorney should be executed Mr. Phipps would
a. so. He would noW refer his Honour to the affidavit
of Mr. John Bailey end thirty-six inhabitants of De-
vizes, who stated what their opinion was of the conduct of
the rector, Mr. Phipps, and as to the course he had adopteci.in
the management of the funds in question. The deponeFts
stated that they bad heard with regret of the petition;7,that
they were acquainted with the proceedings of the trustees of
these charities, of whom the Rev. Mr: Philips was one, and
they were convinced that lie .had used his utmost exertions to
benefit the charity, and that he had not been Intl en ,
hot
any 4
beeu-anxious to see them properly and judiciously managed. They
personal objects or motives in the course he had, tak-en, ot Si '
stated that a, portion Of these funds were for repairs of the Church
"and the benefit of
- in-his capacity of Rector, was the distributor of the (produce
persons connected therewith that. Mr Phipps,
'-of-the trpst fuid,;_, arid , it;was desirable for the benefit of the
charity that lie should continue to act as such, and that his re-
i moval wb`tild be a Serious loss to the trust fund, and materially
impair the confidence of the inhabitants and the public in
thelnanagement of these funds. He hardly knew whether it
would be necessary to trouble his-Honour with what had been
alleged in the affidavits on the other side as to the dismissal of
,Mr.: Phipps from the trusteeship. He would remind his
Honour that Mrl Phipps was appointed a trustee in 1836,
when the report of the, Master. was confirmed byestion, w the Lord
Chancellor. The, question then, and the only q
u
whether subsequently to the period when that gentleman seas
as
appointed one of the trustees he had been guilty of such con-
duct as would induce his Honour to come to the conclusion_
that he was not fit:. to continue in the trusteeship. Theotily-
objection that had been urged- against him was, that he had re.
- fused to executo:i pro of attorneys Now, he submitted t?
•