The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-24 00:00:00

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

CHRIST'S HOSPITAL V. GRAINGER, AND OTHERS.-JUDG-

NENT.

The LORD CIIANCELLoR gave judgment this morning
in this case, which was argued before his Lordship a
short time tince, upon an appeal from the decision of the
Vice-Chancellor of England, giving the plaintiffs liberty
to amend their bill a second time, after the expiration of
.he time prescribed by order of the Court. The bill was
filed by the governors of Christ's Hospital on the nature
of at cross bill to an information by the Attorney-Gene-
ral for the better administration of a charity, founded by
a person named Kenrick, in the town of Reading. The
bill filed by the governors of Christ's Hospital, claimed
the whole estates belonging to that charity, under a
clause of forfeiture in the will of the founder, on the
ground that those estates had not been ad-
ministered according to his expressed intentions.
Kenrick by his will, dated in 1684, oirected that a sum
of 75,0001. should be invested in the purchase of land,
and that the income should be applied for the better em
ployment of the poor of Reading. When new trustees
were appointed in the place of the Corporation,
who had managed the estates up to the pass-
ing of the Municipal Corporation Act, an
information was filed for a new scheme,
and then it was that Christ's Hospital was advised there
had been a forfeiture, because the income had not been
properly applied, and a claim was made in their behalf
for the whole.property, which now produced upwards of
2,000.'. a-year, in addition to a sum of 10,0001. in
the public funds. To the claims of Christ's
Hospital, or rather to the will put in by
that body, an answer was put in by the trustees, the
corporation of Reading and the Attu' ney-General,
ho were all made defendants. The answer was pro-
nounced sufficient, and such being the case there was a
limited time, according to the order of the Court, within
which the plaintiffs would be at liberty to amend their
bill should they think it net essary. The plaintiffs
took from the 20th of February, 1845, to the
4th of December, in the same year, and, they applied to
the Vice-Chancellor of England for leave to amend on
the affidavit of the clerk of their solicitor, in which it
was known that it had become necessary to go through
above 21,000 papers and deeds ; that he had at various
times occupied twenty days in that examination ; that
it had become necessary to vary and limit the case
made by the bill; and that the amendments so required
to be made were material. The Vice-Chancellor, in
conformity with the practice under the 13th and 15th of
the orders of 1828, as modified by the orders of 1831,
and still further modified by the 68th of the new orders
of May. 1845, gave the plaintiffs leave to amend a second
time, and from that order the defendants appealed. When
the case came before his Lordship it was argued on
behalf of the appellants that the Vice-Chancellor had
no jurisdiction to make such an order of amendment ;
and that even if he had, that his Honour had violated
the exigency of the 68th order, by giving leave to
amend an insufficient affidavit sworn by a clerk, instead
of by the solicitor of the plaintiff himself, that affidavit
not stating any grounds for amendment, or averring or
showing that any reasonable diligence had been used to
procure the means of making the amendment earlier.
The question raised by the appeal, although one of mere
practice, was of vast importance to the profession, be-
cause' if the new orders of May last, which bad been
framed with so much care and attention, -were
not strictly maintained, it would be much better that
they should be abrogated at once. The words of the
68th of the new order were—" After the plaintiff has
filed or undertaken to file a replication, or after the expi-
ration of four weeks from the tia.e when the answer
or last answer is deemed sufficient, a special order for
leave to amend a bill was not to be granted without
further affidavit showing that the matter of the proposed
amendment is material, and could not with reasonable
diligence have been sooner introduced into such bill.
The amendment had not been made in compliance with
that order, because the' proper course fur the
plaintiff would have been in the first instance
to have gone before the Master. In support of
the decision of the Court below, it was submitted that
the new orders had not superseded, but merely modified
the old ones, and that the Court, under `the 21st of the
new orders of May, had an express leave to exercise its
discretion. With respect to got, g before the Master,
the plaintiffs had merely adopted the practice as it ex-
isted under the old order, by coming at once to the
Court, when after the expiration of the ordinary time
they asked for extraordinary indulgence.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, this mot fling, at considerable
length gave judgment, reversing the decision of the,
Court below.

ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
His LORDSHIP sat at ten o'clock, and resumed the
bearing of motions, which were quite uninteresting.