The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROLLS' COURT,MAnom 10.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. BIRCH.••••••JUDGMENT.

This was an information filed at the relation of
Samuel Kendrick, a parishioner of Handsworth, in
Staffordshire,against certain trustees appointed for repair-
ing and maintaining the bridges within the above parish.
It appeared that by a deed, dated 20th of Oct., in
thetenth year of the reign ofJames 1., Nicholas Hodgetts,
the cousin and heir of John Hodgetts, the surviving
(coffee of hereditaments before given for the mainte-
nance and reparation of bridges within the parish of
Handsweorth, at the request of some of the inhabi-
tants, enfeoffed and conveyed to Edward Stamford
and other inhabitants of the parish certain mes-
suages and pieces of ground on trust, to apply
the rents towards repairing and maintaining the
bridges within the parish, and to apply the
surplus, if any should remain, towards other good and
charitable uses within the parish. The information
prayed that the trusts and funds might be ascertained
and administered according to a scheme to be approved
of by the Court, for an account of the trust estate,
and other similar inquiries.
The case was qrgued and also partly disposed of by
the Court yesterday,
The MASTER of the ROLLS observing, that whe-
ther, if the Attorney-General had known the bridges
which were county bridges were supported in the way
that bridges of that class always were supported, namely,
by rates levied on the rich, he would have sanctioned
this infcrmatioo, which was to compel the application of
the funds in case of those rates, and therefore the with-
drawal of any large surplus for the benefit of the poor,
was more than his Lordship could very well take upon
himself to say. However, as the case had been brought
before the Court, it became necessary to make
such directions as were proper. There must be
an inquiry by the Master, of what the charity
property consisted, and what bridges the _ trustees
were bound to repair, as the trustees were in
doubt how they ought to apply the funds. His Lord-
ship did not apprehend it would be proper for the
trustees to interfere with a county bridge, which ought
to be sustained by the proper authorities; and he was
of opinion the character of the trustees had been vindi-
cated by the course that bad been adopted by the rela-
tors, who had abandoned the personal charegs they
had made by their information. The question of costs
be would consider. In all these cases it had become
quite necessary for the Court strictly to observe the con-
duct that was pursued by the relators. There was a time
when informations, which came before the Court re-
commended by the name of the A ttorney-General,
might with great propriety, and certainly with very
great safety, be at once entertained ; so that it was
necessarily supposed that that which he had sanctioned
and lent his name to was deserving of the most serious
attention, and parties who had to resist these informa-
tions, were forced to prove that every thing which was
alleged against them was untrue. But of late years
informations had been filed of such a character that it
became absolutely necessary, for the protection of the
property to examine and scrutinise most carefully the
evidence brought forward in support of them. It was
not to be denied, however, that some informations filed
in a very extraordinary manner had nevertheless led to
a very great deal of good, but there had been many
others in which the result had been the absolute de-
struct:on of the property.
His LORDSHIP, in coming into Court this morning,
ited that he had read oNer the information and the
answer, and it appeared that there had been a great
variety of circumstances stated which amounted
to erroneous, if not false charges, against the
trustees, and he was of opinion the relator ought not
to have any costs up to the hearing. The subsequent
costs upon the prosecution of the inquiries he would be
c DtiCe,l to.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. WIMBORNE MINSTER GRAM.

MAR SHOOL.-JUDGMENT.

His LORDSHIP also gave jdugment in this case, which
was argued some time ago, upon a point reserved, as
to the time from which the account ought to be taken.
It appeared to his Lordship that the plaintiffs had
acted in precisely the same manner with respect to
the trust that their predecessors had acted from the
foundation of the charity ; and the justice of the
case did not, therefore, require that the accounts should
be carried back further than the filing of the information .

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MARCH 10.
TURNER V. TRELAWNEY.
The suit in this case was instituted for the purpose
of hiving it declared by the Court that the defendant
was the trustee of certain mining shares for the us-
: signees of two persons of the name of Gundry, who
were bankrupts in 1819. The plaintiff, Mr. Turner,
was the sole assignee of Tomas and John Gundry,
who were formerly traders in Cornwall, and largely
ieterestA in certain mining concerns, and the defend-
ant, Mr. Trelawney, was a gentleman of considerable
llnded property in the neighbourhood of Helston. The
Messrs. Gundry, previous to their bankruptcy, were
largely concerned in mines which were under the
land of the defendant, and which were called The
Wheal Vor Consolidated Mines." Up to the year
1819 there were about twelve persons inte-
rested in these mines, the Gundrys possessing
between a third and a half of that interest, and John
Gundry acted as the purser. For some time the mines
went on prosperously, but in consequence of the
Gundrys becoming embarrassed and quarrels arising be-
tween the parties, the concern became unprofitable, and
it was then discovered that the Gundrys were indebted
to a considerable amount to the partnership concern.
The Gundrys admitted the debt, and in November,
1819, they executed a de,:d by which they assigned
nineteen shares to trustees to hold them as a security
for the balance due from them to the concern. The cir-
cumstances of the Gundrys becoming more embarrassed
every day, in Jan., 1820, a commission of bank-
rupt was issued against them, and it became
necessary to come to some arrangement with respect to
the future working of the mines ; in this arrangement
a Mr. Grylls, who was the manager for the Duke of
Leeds, who had large property in the neighbourhood,
and who was also a solicitor and banker, took an
active part ; several other parties joined him, and upon
its beicg found necessary that additional capital
should be raised, it was resolved that they should en-
deavour to sell the mines through the Vice-Warden's
Court, and induce other parties to take shares upon
the plan of paying 5001. per share. Mr. Grylls,
who was active in carrying out this proposition,
was shortly afterwards, together with a Mr. Reid,
chosen assignees of the Gundrys, who signed a
relinquishment of their shares in the mines, re-
serving, however, their interest in the materials.
Certain proceedings were then instituted in the Vice-
Warden's Court, and in the end Mr. Grylls bought
the mines ; the parties then proceeded to form a new
concern, and among the parties who applied to take
shares were the tru-tees of the defendant, who was
then under age, Mr. Grylls representing that
unless the new shares were taken the mines must
stop working, which would greatly injure Mr. Tre-
lawney, both as land and boundary owner. The trus-
tees were averse at first to taking shares, but ulti-
mately they agreed to take four shares, upon the un-
derstanding that Grylls 0..4 to lend them the money
for the purpose. Thesricern having turned out
profitable to all parties, tile present suit was instituted
for the purpose of having it declared that the shares
were held by the defendant as trustee for the assignees
of the Gundrys. The cause, which has been several
times before the Court upon interlocutory applications,
both during the time of Lord Lyndhurst and the
present Chancellor, now came on for hearing.
Mr. Jacob, Mr. Richards, and Sir W. Follett ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and submitted that, according
to the practice of the Court, and the circumstances
that had taken place, the defendant must be considered
as the trustee for the assignees of the Gundrys.
Mr. JACOB, in opening the case, observed that the
cause would be memorable in the annals of the Court
of Chancery, for having in it one of the longest inter-
rogatories ever known in that Court. He understood
that one cross interrogatory extended to 150 folios.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—I suppose it is intended to
reach to the Land's End.—(A laugh.)
The arguments on behalf of the plaintiff had not con-
cluded when the Court rose.