The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-29 00:00:00

JONES V. POWELL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, on the application of Mr.
BAOSHAWE to know when it would he convenient for the
Court to dispose of this application, which was for a new
trial of isstps, state! that be was clearly of opinion there
must be a new trial of all the issues. There had be, n a
miscarriage. The miscarriage was not owing, it had been
alleg,d, to the frame of the issues, but if he cnuld add any
few words c ilculatvd to prevent such an errt,r 13,.;ng fallen
into again as had been committed, he would, in the course
of a few days, add those words.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

ATTORNEY.ORNERAL V. STROUD.

In this case, which we noticed yesterday, Mr. PEM-
BEATON this mernin4 addressed the Court in behalf of
the de erolants, the trustees 44 the original foundation.
The only two points insisted on at the bar were, first,
that there should be a scheme approved of by the toaster
for the administration of the connexion, and that an ac-
aunt be directed against the defendants as trustees from
the time they had respectively come into the possession
of the trust property. None of them had the least per-
sonal interest in the matter, and they would at once have
submitted to the decree now sought at the bar, did they
not entertain the conviction, that if such a decree were
pronounced, the necessary consequence of discussions and
proceedings in the Master's office, instead of establishing,
would be extremely injurious to that foundation which it
was the professed object of this information to protect
and support. In order to vindicate his clients from
the imputations which had been thrown upon
them, the Learned Counsel dwelt, at some length,
en the abandonment at the la.r of all the material allega-
tions against the trustees. The information prayed, that
having grossly and wilfully perverted the trust funds, they
might be removed from being trustees, whereas at the bar
all that was insisted on was, that they had been a little too
tenacious of their digni.y. It was charged that the power
of admitting and controlling the ministers of the connec-
tion belonged, not to the tiustees, but to the ministers of
the congregation, who represented exclusively the connec-
tion ; and the real object of this information was to
estabiish on the part of the ministers of the connection a
control over the trustees, converting them, to use their•
own expression, into something just equivalent to the box
in which the title-deeds were kept, mere depositaries,
having no control, no discretion, or infloenee, but subject
in all aesi,ecis to the dominion and authority of the mini•
sters. It was quite clear that Lady Heroangdon bad uni-
formly during her life exercised a direct, unquestionable,
and absolute discretion in all matters relating to the ap-
pointment, remuneration, and discharge of the ministers ;
and tinder the provisions of her will it was equally obvious
that the same powers, authority, and discretion were abso-
luiely vested in the trustees. The will conferred on them
an absolute and indefeasible title and control over the
property.

His ilortoun considered it extremely difficult to know
in what manner he altotild proceed. Surely the attention
of the Attorney-General had not been duly called to the
nature of the proceeding in this case. The Court was
called on to execute what it was clearly of opinion was an
illegal charity ; and how was it to act? The devise in
Lady Huntingdon's will, on which the whole depended,
consisting of fre: hold and h•aseho!cl property to the reli-
gious purposes of the connection she had founded, was al-
together void under the statute of thortmain. He was
strongly of opinion that it was an illegal trust that was
thus created here. The attention of the Attorney-General
must again he called to it. The Court could make no
decree in execution of an illegal trust; the only course it
could pursue was to dismiss the information.
Mr. PEMBERTON believed most since:ely that such
would be by much the better course for all parties. To
subject a spiritual charity of this sort to any process of
administration in the Court of Chancery would be com-
pletely ruinous to all its best interests.
His HONOUR said he could make no decree. There
was here so much property held in mortmain as appeared
to him in an illegal title. He would allow it to stand
over fur some time, in order that the parties might have
an Opportunity of considering what was tit to be done.
Mr. BICKERSTETII stated that there had ben various
subsequent devi•es of property—in one case alone amount-
ing to 29 0001. (but it did not appear precisely how much,
it any of it, was personal property) to the defendants, as
trustees, to be dedicated to the uses of Lady Huntingdon's
connection.

Mr. PEMBERTON contended that, although personal
property was thus given, yet as it was grafted on the ori-
ginal idegal foundation for the same purposes, the gift was
also void.

His HONOUR concurred in opinion with Mr. Bicker-
steth, that personal ploperty might he subsequently given
to the usts of Lady Huntingdon's will, although the devise
under that original in.trument was partly void, under the
statute of mut-twain, anti might be applied for the benefit
of the connection as it was called ; but in the present case
it was impossible for the Court, as at pressnt advised, to
determine without qu dification anti dist?tiction bow far
the prop< rty was petsonal y. Upon the whole, the parties
to this information seemed to he adopting proceedinks, the
t &et of which might be to deprive them of a very large
portion of this property under the statute of mnrtmain.
lie could n• vet consent to make a decree, considering this
an ulegal trust.

The ease stands over till the first day of Easter Term,
in order that by friendly coinninniration between the parties
the poin!s ii dispute may be privately and amicably
arranged.