The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-07 00:00:00

DUTIES ON FOREIGN CORN.

B HEAT. I BARLEY. I OATS. RYE. I BEANS. I PEAS.
Gs Od is Od 2s 6d 2s Od 2s Od is Od

CHANCERY.-(THIS

The Lord Chancellor sat to-day in his court'in the
Old Hall, Lincoln's Inn, and took appeals.

BEECH V. FORD.

The further arguments in this part-heard appeal were
resumed and concluded to-day, and

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment, dismissing
tl_e appeal with mts.

THE EAST LANCASHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY V. THE
LONDON AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

This appeal, which stood in the paper for hearing to-
day, on being called on was postponed at the request of
Mr. Holt.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. WILSON.

This case, which has been in the Court of Chancery
since the year 1827, came before his Lordship upon ap-
peal from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor Knight
Bruce, pronounced in March last. The information was
filed in 1827, to determine the right of Sir Thom is
Maryon Wilson to a large fine claimed by him as lord of
the manor of Hampstead, upon the death of 12 trustees
out of 14 of a charity at Ilampstrad called the I.l' ell
Charity. It appeared that the charity was established
by a decree of Lord Chancellor King, in 1729, when Lord
Gainsborough was lord of the manor, and that by such
d. erce a fine was payable whenever the Lumber of trus-
tees should be reduced to five. The main question was
as to the mode of calculating the five. Lord Lynd-
hurst, in 1829, and Lord Brougham, in 1832, had
directed actions at law to be brought, and these bad
been four trials; and on a bill of exceptions, a judgment
of the Court of Exchequer Chamber; and the ultimate
result was, that the lord of the manor recovered a ver-
dict for 5,000/. In 1839 the defendant, Sir Thomas
Maryon Wilson, petitioned the present Lord Chancellor
to be at liberty to take out execution for this sum, but
his Lordship was of opinion that there were equitable
circumstances which could only be properly disposed of
at the hearing. The information accordingly was set
down fir hearing in March last, before the Vice-Chan-
cellor Knight Bruce, before whom the principal point
turned upon the number of new trustees. The verdict
for 3,9001. was given on the footing of, and calculations
on the foundation of, there being 14 new trustees ap-
pointed, the surviving trustees being counted on their
re appointment as new trustees or lives in the admission
to the copy hold, but the decree of 1729 bad directed that
vacancies should be filled up as soon as nine tru3tees
should be dead. It was admitted that the lord of the
manor could only claim a fine upon the footing of the ad-
mission of nine new trustees, and not of 14, although the
verdict had proceeded on the ground of 14 being so ap-
pointed. On the conclusion of the arguments in the
court below the Vice-Chancellor said it was conceded
on all hands then, whatever might have been the case
formerly, that the fine to be paid was a fine upon the
principle of adding nine new trustees to the five former
ones, and not the principle of appointiug fourteen, or
any !treater number than nine. And as the fine was to
be assessed on that principle, it was impossible on any
view of the case safely to say that the amount of that
flue had been settled by a court of law, even assuming
that it was proper for the decision of a court of law.
He was of opinion that either party was entitled to say
to the Court that the amount of the fine was hitherto
unascertained, and there was a right to ascertain it,
either at law, or in the Master's office through the in-
strumentality of the Court, inasmuch as more than nine
trustees had died and had ceased to be trustees; then the
question was, whether it should be done in the Master's
office or through the medium of an action with admis-
sions? And it appeared to him the lord was entitled to
requite that it should be ascertained by means of an
action unless the Master's office was preferred. If both
parties elected the Master's office, there let it go; but if
either party preferred an action he thought that it must
be tried by one.
Mr. RUSSELL, on the part of the relatives, preferred
going to the Master's office with a declaration, but his
Honour declining to make any, observing that he did
not see hew the parties could avoid going before the Lord
Chancellor, and as Mr. Cooper, for the defendant, pre-
ferred trying an action, the matter te as brought before
this branch of the Court by way of appeal.
Mr. BETJIELL opened the case on behalf of the appel-
lants, and the arguments occupied the Court the whole
morning.