The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-11 00:00:00

COAL AIARKE'

YESTEnruy.

Bate's West Hartley... 24s 6d Braddyll's Hetton 26s Od
Chester Main 23s Od Bell
Hasting's Hartley 24s 6d Haswell 265 Od
New Tan field 2ls Od Keepier
North Percy Hartley.. 24s 6d Lambton
South Derwent Hart.. 21s OdShotten
Tanfield Moor ..... ... 20s 6dStewart's, re-shipped 2ss 3d
Tanfield Moor Butes... 19s Od'Caradoc
Townley 23s Odlfludson's Hartlepool... 25s 3d
Twizel 'Main
Walker's Primrose ... 20s Od Heugh hall
Wylam 23s Od Trimdon
Wall's End, &e. Adelaide Tees
Bell and Brown 24s 9dißrown's Deanery
Bewicke and Co 24s 9dllDenison
24s Od
Clarke and Co.
Elm Park
Frarnwell Gate 24, Od Seymour Tees ...... .. 25s Od
Gosforth 24s 9d South Durham 24, 6d
Heaton
Hedley
Killingworth 24s 3d Woodefield .. .. 21s Od
Riddell's 94s 6d Whitworth 2l, Od
Walker
Washington
Wh,rncliffe
24s 9dDerwentwater Hartley 24s Od
Willington 23s 6dSidney's Hartley
Eden Main 2ss OdSir J. Hope's steam ... 21s Od
Belmont 2ss 6dAlbert 22s Od
Arrivals, 167.

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
This was the first day of Hilary Term, and we are
happy to say the Lord Chancellor has recovered
sufficiently from his severe indisposition as to be able
to sit in his Court at Westminster to-day. His Lord-
ship looked much better than we had anticipated, but
rather thinner about the face than when he last sat in
Michaelmas Term.

His Lordship, who sat at eleven o'clock, was occu-
pied the whole morning with an appeal motion from
the decision of the Vice-Chancellor IVigram, in the
case of Hirst v. Robinson, in which the Court below
had granted an injunction, resting the proceedings
on an action of ejectment.
IN TILE MATTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, OXFORD.
On the application of Mr. COOPER, his LoaDsnir
ordered this matter to stand on the paper for argu-
ment on Saturday next.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
This being the first day of Hilary Term, his
Honour the Vice• Chancellor of England sat in his
court at Westminster to-day, at ten o'clock.
THE ATTORNEY- GEN ERAL v. GRAINGER. CHRIST'S
HOSPITAL v.
His HONOUR gave judgment to-day in this case,
which was argued before him in the course of the
last term. The case came before his Honour upon
an information filed by the Attorney-General at the
relation of Christ's Hospital, under the following
circumstances :—A gentleman named John Kendrick,
of the city of London, draper, by his will, executed
on the 29th of December, 1624, bequeathed 7,500/.
to the mayor and burgesses of Reading, and directed
them, out of that sum, to purchase land worth 50/. a
year, the rent of which was to be paid to his sister
for life, and, after her death, to the overseers of the
poor of the town, to he distributed among the poor of
the place in the manner therein described. Another
portion of the money was to be applied in the pur-
chase of a plot of ground, and the erection of a
workhouse, to be occupied by such persons
as should be appointed by the corporation for
employing and handling the stock of the
money which he left for that purpose.
And he directed that the residue of the fund should
be employed in clothing, either in making coloured
or white cloths, as the times should require, and also
in working wool, hemp, flax, iron, grinding Brazil
wool and other stuffs for dyes, as to the corporation
should seem expedient. The testator concluded by
declaring that if the corporation should omit, neg-
lect, or fail to perform the premises according to his
will, or should not employ the fund according to
intent and meaning of his said devise, for the good
of the poor, and such neglect should continue for a
year, it was his will that the legacy of 7, 5001. should
thence be void, frustrate, and of no effect, and should
be paid by the corporation to the Mayor, commonalty,
and citizens of London, for the use of Christ's Hospital.
Shortly after the testator's death the corporation of
Reading received the legacy, and proceeded to apply
it in conformity with the injunctions of the will. An
information was, however, in the reign of Charles 1.,
filed at the instigation of Archbishop Lnud in the
Court of Exchequer for the management of the cha-
rity; and the decree of that Court, after reciting
that a literal compliance with the testator's wishes in
the application of the money in manufactures men-
tioned, had had the effect of reducing the condition
of the general body of the poorer classes of the town,
and was calculated to drive them out of their trades
to the detriment of the revenues of his Majesty, or-
dered that the 7,500/. should be laid out in the pur-
chase of lands, and that the rents should from time to
time be lent to poor clothiers on good security, or to
other poor tradesmen, and the rest employed in ap-
prenticing poor children, marrying poor maids of
honest conversation, and in other similar purposes;
and it provided that if the corporation should
neglect to perform the premises according to the
decree, the money should go to Christ's Hospital. In
1838, the Charity Commissioners examined into the
state of this charity, and reported that its property ,
had been altogether diverted from its original destina-
tion. An information was therefore filed, for the pur-
pose of having a scheme settled for the future manage-
ment of its funds, when the corporation of London se
up a claim to the property under that provision, both
in the will of the testator and in the decree of the
Court of Exchequer, which decreed that the 7,500/.
should be handed to them if the corporation of Read-
ing neglected the duties imposed upon them, and
commenced this suit. His Honour in giving judg-
ment, observed that the case appeared to be very
plain and simple, because he conceived that he was
bound by the decree of the Court of Exchequer made
in the year 1639. It was very plain to his mind that
the things which were prescribed by that decree to be
done had not been done ; and it followed therefore, as
a necessary consequence that the 7,5001. had gone over
to Christ's Hospital. The estate and the property
which was now vested in the corporation of Reading,
notwithstanding the 71st section of the Municipal
Reform Act, must be conveyed to Christ's Hospital,
ar.d those gentlemen who called themselves the trus-
tees, must pay the costs. Christ's Hospital must pay
the corporation of Reading the costs, as they were
trustees merely as the holders of the estate through
the infirmity of the Municipal Corporation Act. It
was singular, considering the phalanx of talent that
was concerned in the preparation of that measure,
that by the provision of the 71st section that which
in other parts of it was declared should cease was
continued. His Honour remembered well, for he was
Deputy Speaker at the time that Lord John Russell
brought up the Bill from the House of Commons.
Lord Campbell was Attorney-General, at the time
it was discussed in the House of Commons, and Lord
Lyndhurst and Lord Plunkett took part in the dis-
cussion in the house of Lords, and how such a
blunder as the one he had adverted to could have
crept into it he could not conceive.
Decree in favour of Christ's Hospital.
CARTER V. BARNARD-JUDGMENT.
His Hoeoua also gave judgment in this case, on
which the suit was misconstrued for the specific
performance of an alleged agreement,
.dated the 30th
of May, 1845, for the lease of part of a house, situ-
ated at 126, Bishopsgate-street, and 61, Cornhill.
The plaintiff was the lessee of the house in question,
and the defendants were the trustees of the Australa-
sian Colonial and General Life and Annuity Assur_