The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS, March 15.

(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
WELSH V. TREVANIAN.

This cause, which involves a question upon a mort-
gage to the Bank of England, relating to property in
Cornwall to a large amount, was only part-heard, at the
rising of the Court, Further hearing adjourned.

(Before Sir J. KNIGHT f.CRUCE.)
TIIJ ATTORNEY•GENERAL V. MUNRO.

His HONOUR gave judgment in this case. The relators
alleged in their information that the church, schools,
and premises erected in St. Peter's-square, Manchester,
had been purchased by subscriptions raised in 1832
among certain members of the Established Church of
Scotland, and were vested in trustees by a deed dated
4th of April, 1832, under certain trusts, one of which
declared that the church should be used for the pur-
pose of public worship in connexion with and according
to the doctrine and discipline of the Established Church
of Scotland. They complained that the defendants had
seceded from that church, and in violation of the trusts,
appropriated the church to public worship in con-
nexion with the Free Church of Scotland. They prayed
an injunction, and an account of the pew rents and other
income. The deed of April, 1832, was nut enrolled as
required by the statute, and the defendants. after the
secession, had a new deed executed in February, 18-11;
and in their answer they contended that the deed under
which the plaintiffs claimed was invalid for want of en-
rolment; and the Rev. Mr. Munro, although ordained
by the Presbytery of Edinburgh, denied their spiritual
and ecclesiastical authority in England. His Honour
declared that it was not necessary to state an opinion on
the question of enrolment, an possession had been taken
and held under the deed of April,lB32, which was framed
in perfect compliance with the statute of George H.
The question to be decided was whether the trusts
created under that deed had been improperly adminis-
tered. With respect to the trust prescribing that the
worship in St. Peter's Church should be in connexion
with the Established Church of Scotland, the defendants
declared that the practice and doctrines of that Church
had changed. Now, on that point, after reviewing the
evidence and materials before him, his Honour
felt bound to declare that the doctrine, polity, and
discipline of the Established Church of Scotland
was the same in 1832, and the same down to the
present time, as it was when Mr. Munro was ordained
and inducted into St. Peter's Church. In compliance
with the prayer of the relators' information, he also de-
clared that the spiritual and ecclesiastical authority of
the Established Church of Scotland did extend to those
in connexion with it in this country, and that the Rev.
Mr. Munro had been ordained a minister of that Church,
and that he had ceased to be a minister in connexion
with the Established Church of Scotland in July, 1844,
and that he ceased to be in communion with it up to the
present time,:and that the worship in St. Peter's Church
had not been since July, 1844, and was not now, in con-
nexio❑ with the Established Church of Scotland; and.
therefore, that the practical administration of the
charity was improper, and in direct contravention of the
rights and trusts created under the deed of April, 1832.
He therefore decreed that the defendants, whose pro-
ceedings he designated as being contrary to justice, fide-
lity, and plain dealing, should pay the relatofs the costs
of the suit, at least, up to this time. He also declared
that the Rev. Mr. Munro, having ceased to belong to the
Established Church of Scotland, ought not to be allowed
to continue to act as;minister in St. Peter's Church; and
he directed an injunction to restrain him accordingly.
His Honour alsu decreed that the trustees should be
changed, and that an account of the rents and profits
should be taken.

CONSISIORY COURT, March 15.
(Before Dr. LUSHINGTON.)
DAWSON AGAINST DAWSON.
The wife, in this case, is the party proceeding against
the husband for a divorce, on the ground of cruelty and
adultery; and as no opposition was offered, the Court
granted the divorce.

ADMIRALTY COUR7, March 15.
(Before Dr. LUSHINGTON.)
Motions were disposed of, this being default day, but
they were not of public interest.