The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-19 00:00:00

SOCIETY.

The arguments in this part-heard appeal from the judg-
ment of his Lordship the Master of the Rolls, which have
already occupied the court saveral days, were resumed and
,concluded to-day. The case came before the Master of the
Rolls upon an information filed by her Majesty's Attorney-
General for the purpose of ascertaining what property be-
longed to a-charity in Bristol, founded by a gentleman of the
name of Colston in the year 1708. From the statements of
the information it appeared that in 1708 Mr. Edward
Colston, a native of Bristol, was desirous of estab-
lishing in that city a hospital- or charity for
maintaining and educating fifty poor boys, and placing them
out as apprentices, and that such charity should be conducted
by the Society of Merchant Venturers of the city of Bristol,
of which Mr. Colston was a member. Afterwards Mr. Col-
ston desired to extend the benefit of the charity to an addi-
tional fifty boys; and, for the two purposes, procured to be
conveyed to the defendants a mansion-house in St. Augus-
tine's-back, in Bristol, the manor of Beere, and lands in
Somersetshire, and certain fee-farm rents of the then aggre-
gate annual value of 1,278/. The manor and rectory of
Locking were also given to the defendants, who accepted the
trusts of the charity. It appeared that the property now
produced the annual sum of 3,000/. • and the question raised
by the information was, to whom the surplus belongs after
providing for the maintenance of the 100 boys?
The Arro!usEY-GENERAt. contended that the Society of
Merchant Venturers took the estates which were conveyed
to them, as trustees only, and for the benefit of the charity;
and that they took the trust accompanied by an obligation
to maintain the charity for 100 boys, and even if the revenue
of the charity estates should be insufficient, unless such in-
sufficiency were occasioned by fire, hurricane, or other in-
evitable accident; while, on the contrary, the defendants
contended that the estates were conveyed to them abso-
lutely for their own use, subject only to the condition of
their maintaining the charity forone hundred boys, according
to the directions of the founder; the more so as they were
bound to maintain the hundred boys whatever might be the
amount of the rents of the property, and, therefore, any sur-
plus beyond what might be necessary for that purpose be-
longed to them, in respect or the risk entered into by them.
The Master of the Rolls, by his decree of the Ist of August,
1842, declared that the lands and hereditaments were held on
charitable trusts, and that the defendants were not entitled
to appropriate any part of the rents to their own use, and, at
the same time, directed an inquiry to the Master of what the
property consisted, an account of the rents from the filing of
the informati,m, and also ordered him to approve of a scheme
for the future regulation of the charity, and against this de-
cree the present appeal was brought.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied to-day at some length,
and at the conclusion of the Learned Gentleman's argu-
ments,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he should take time to con-
sider his judgment.

LANE V. DUR.RANT.
The arguments in this part-heard appeal were then re-
sumed, and occupied his Lordship the remainder of the
morning.

ROLLS' COURT._( IS DAY.)
ELDEATON V. LACK.,
This was a suit to establish a lien on an annuity, and
also to prove its priority, under the following circumstances.
The defendant, who held the office of Examiner-General of
the Board of Customs, had as.igned his pension, as well as
current salary. to the plaintiff for a consideration of 1,200/.
and an annuity of 1951. 19s. during his lifetime. The deed
wes executed prior to the expiration of the term of servitude
which entitled the defendant to the pension, which was also
subject to the approval of the Lords of the Treasury.
Mr. KINDERSLEY, on the part of the defendant, contended
that the assignment in question was invalid and opposed to
public policy, being calculated to induce persons to cling to
office even at a period when they were incompetent to dis-
charge efficiently their duties. The Learned Counsel also
contended that the ineulorial in this case did not set forth