The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-07 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY

The House sat to-day to hear appeals. The Peers pre-
sent were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Wynford, the Ear]
of Sandwich, and Lord Southampton.

PERSSR V. PESSSE.
The Lotto CHANCELLOR and Lord WYNFORD gave judg-
ment to-day in this appeal, which was heard before their
Lordships ~. few weeks since, upon appeal from the deci-
sion of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, dismissing a bill
filed by the appellant for the purpose of enforcing the
covenanting of a deed executed by the respondent, Robert
Persse, in Dec. 1827, by which certain lands, called the Cas-
tleboy Estate, situated in the county of Galway, were
conveyed to certain uses. The respondents insisted that,
considering the circumstances under which the deed was
executed, it could not be enforced against them ; and
Lord Plunkett being of that opinion, dismissed the appel-
lant's bill. Both Noble Lords were clearly of opinion the
judgment of the Court below was correct, and ordered it
to be affirmed with costs below, but without the costs of
appeal to the House.

VISCOUNT MAITLAND V. BORNE.
The arguments in this part heal d appeal were resumed,
but had not concluded when our reporter left.

ROLLS' UOURT.-(THIS DAY.)

The Court took motions.
ORENFELL AND OTHERS V. THE DEAN AND CANONS OF WIND-
SOR AND OTHERS.
Mr. RICHARDS moved on behalf of the Rev. Richard
Adolphus Musgrave, one of the Canons of Windsor, and
a defendant to the suit, that an order made by his Lord-
ship on the 11th January last might be discharged, and
that the injunction awarded against the defendants, the
Dean and Canons of the King's Free Chapel of St.
George, within the Castle of Windsor, and the said
Richard Adolphus Musgrave, to restrain them from paying
to the said Richard Adolphus Musgrave, and the said
R. A. Musgrave from receiving any sum or sums of money
arising from the income of the said Corporation estates, in
which the said R. A. Musgrave was or might be interested
as a member of the Corporation, or otherwise by virtue of
certain letters patent dated the 14th of April, 1829, might
be dissolved.
It appeared that Mr. Musgrave, one of the Preben-
daries of Windsor, having fallen into difficulties, applied
in October 1838 to the plaintiffs, who represent a Loan
Society called " the Family Endowment Association,"
for a sum of 1,2001. on the security of his prebendal stall.
That sum he obtained, but failing to repay it, the plaintiffs
filed their bill, praying for the injunction and the appoint-
ment of a receiver. The defendant, by his answer, ad-
mitted that he was one of the canons, and stated that by
virtue of his appointment he was bound to reside twenty-
one days in every year in the Castle of Windsor, and to
perform certain duties, otherwise he would not be entitled
to his stipend. It also appeared that there had been
a prior mortgage to a Mrs. Ann Butcher for 5,0001.,
but which Mr. Musgrave had concealed from the plaintiff.
Mr. RICIIARDS was proceeding to argue that if Mr.
Musgrave did not perform his duties there would be no
emoluments, and therefore there could be no receiver, when
he was interrupted by
The MASTER of the ROLLS, who said he could not as-
sume that Mr. Musgrave would neglect his duties for the
mere purpose of spiting the parties from whom he had
borrowed the money. His Lordship could not deny the
defendants' right to argue the question:upon legal grounds,
but it would be better that some arrangement should be
made.
MR. RICLIARD3 was sorry to say an attempt had been
made to come to an arrangement without effect.
The MASTER of the ROLLS—I do not know what

proposition you have made. I have no doubt,lMr. Richard!,
you acted with your usual prudence and discretion, when
you desired on a former occasion that the case might stand
ever with a view of making a proposition to the other side,
but really this is a shocking sort of proceeding. However,
I cannot deny the right of your client to argue this.
Mr. RICHARDS—I am sure your Lordship never thought
I was anxious to argue it.
The AIASTER of the ROLLS—It is really too shocking to
think that such a course of proceeding as that should be
adopted.
Mr. RICHARDS—I was most anxious, my Lord, to induce
the other party to come to some arrangement.
Mr. DANIELL (for the plaintiffs)— We are anxious that
an arrangement should be made.

Mr. RICHARDS—Then if we are both anxious to come
to mune arrangement, why, in the name of fortune, don't
Tetd9,44 lam informed, my Lord, they will not come to
Any arrangement that will not shut out the first mortgagee.
Mr. DANIELL-Our mortgage was taken without any
notice of the first mortgage.
Mr. RICHARDS observed :it was impossible for Mr. Mus-
grave to perform his duties, as he could not come to this
country, and therefore nothing would be forthcoming. It
would be for the benefit of all parties if some arrangement
were mado.
The MASTER of the ROLLS—I am sure it would. Cases

of this kind, when they are brought forward, are never
looked upon without a sort of: horror. You see this is a
benefice without cure of souls. There is no public duty.
He is to attend so many days in the chapel where divine
service is performed for the benefit of his own soul and to
enable him to receive his salary.
Mr. RICHARDS.--rt is perfectly plain that unless he does
reside in Windsor for a certain time no emoluments will
come to him.

The MASTER of the Rous—l cannot assume that for
the purpose of defeating the plaintiffs, Mr. Musgrave will
voluntarily neglect the performance of that duty which,
as I understand, it is his interest to perform.
Mr. DANIELL—They have made certain proposals to
us, but nothing reasonable has been offered. What they
proposed was that we should sacrifice our security, give
up our claim on the canonry, and come in with a class of
creditors whose existence we knew nothing of.
The MASTER of the Rous—l have not heard Mr.
Richards's arguments as to this being an illegal assign-
ment, and therefore I have not formed a shadow of opinion
upon it. If there is a legal right Mr. Musgrave is en-
titled to have the benefit of it, and I must enforce it.

After some further discussion it was agreed between the
parties that the motion should stand over generally, with a
view of effecting some arrangement.

EXCHEQUER COURT-THIS DAY.

The Court was occupied the whole morning in hearing
the Attorney-General for the Crown in the case of the
Attorney-General v. Dunn, a Legacy Duty case. There
was nothing important in the case, and it is not likely to be
finished to-day.