The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-22 00:00:00

OARDNER V. LACHLAN]) AND OTHERS.

Mr. PEPYS, with whom was Mr. KOE, moved, that
an order made in this cause by his Honour the Vice Chan-
cellor on the 12th of last month, might be discharged,
which order gave liberty to Mr. Lachland to receive
eight hundred pounds and upwards from the Lords
Commissioners of the Admiralty, and directed, in
substance, that the same should be paid into Court to
abide the result of the cause. Mr. Lachland, on behalf of
Mr. Scott, contracted with the Commissioners of his Ma-
jesty's Navy for the sum in question, fur the freight of a
ship called the Princess Royal, to convey female emigrants
from hence to Hobart Town. The freightage was to
be payable upon certificates arriving in this country
of the ship's having got safely to its destination with the
passengers. The ship arrived at Hobart Town in Sep.
ternber, 1532, and in January, 1833, Mr. Scott became
a bankrupt. Sometime previously he had given an
order upon the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, to
the plaintiff, a creditor of his, requesting the Admiralty
to pay the 800/. to Mr. Gardner, of which Mr. Gardner
gave Mr. Lachland notice. Mr. L., however, was no debtor,
and the nifficulty was, whether that 8001. was not at the
period of the bankruptcy in the disposition of the bank •
rupt, Mr. Lachland having been merely the bankrupt's
agent in entering into the charter-party. The parties
liable to pay were the Lords Commissioners of the Ad-
miralty, to whom the plaintiff had given no notice of his
assignment to Mr. Scott. The bill was filed by Mr. Gardner,
which prayed that Mr. Lachland might be declared to be
a trustee for the plaintiff, and that the other defendants
(the assignees of the bankrupt) might be restrained from
receiving the money. His Honour the Vice-Chancellor
had held that the notice to Lachland was a sufficient
compliance with that part of the law ; that Lachland
ought to receive the money, and that pro tem. it ought to
be impounded. The Learned Counsel submitted
that the disposition of the property remained in the
bankrupt at the time the fiat issued, and that the assignees
might now be declared entitled to the property for the
benefit of the creditors generally.
Mr. KNIGHT and Mr. JACOB were in support of the
order of the Court below, and a more proper older they
thought had never been pronounced. Had the plaintiff in
the cause said there was no question to be disposed of upon
a hearing.of the cause, he might have had some ground
for so alleging, but the gentleman on the other side surely
could have none. Every thing had been done for the
safety of the assignees.
The LORD CHANcELLon.-interrupted the Counsel for
the respondents by stating that he perfectly understood
the facts, and that if therOvaS any difference of opinion
between him and his H9iatink; it was that his Honour's
order ought to have gone 10rther, so as to have declared
the debt to be due to 11144.achland. However, at present
he would only refuse the iition.
Mr. KNIGHT pressed for the costs.
The LORD CHANCEL4OR considered that assignees were
bound to do every thing:they could for the protection of a
bankrupt's estate, and to facilitate the administration of it,
and on that ground only he refused the costs, but directed
that the respondent's costs should be costs in the cause.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. TROLLOPE.

Mr. BICKERSTETII stated that this was an information
filed at the instance of certain inhabitants of the parish of
St. Margaret's, Westminster, against the Dean and Chap•
ter and other parochial authorities, for the purpose of
having certain charities re-established, and the trusts by
which certain leases held under them were affected, carried
into execution under the decree of the Court. It appeared
that in 1586, 1587, and i 621, three persons, named
B irnhatn, Lambert, and Collard, made their wills, by which
they bequeathed the leases in question, held of the Dean and
Chapter of Westminster, situate in Tothill-fields, and in
the sanctuary as well as in Dean-street, for the benefit of
the poor of the parish of St. Margaret's, with directions
that they should be renewed in the names of the church.
wardens upon the same continuing trusts. The leases
from time to time were renewed by the Dean and Chapter
to feoffees appointed by the parish, and who were regu-
larly filled up as they happened to die off. The last re-
newal took place in 1768, for a term of thirty-seven
years. They expired in 1805,the Dean and Chapter having
expressed a determination not to renew the leases, on occa-
sion of the different applications which were made to them.
Negotiations were entered into for the purpose of disposing
to thelDean and Chapter the parochial reversionary interest
in them for the sum of 1,2001. which were ultimately
carried into effect. In the course of the investigations
which took place, the Dean and Chapter of course
were to be presumed to have become cognizant of
the trusts by which the different leases were originally
affected ; and the main question is whether, in the cir-
cumst lines of the case, they could hold the property de-
manded of those charitable trusts. One of the leases
comprised the property on which the parish work-
house is situated, and it was proposed to raise a
certain fine of 1,3001., in order to effectuate another•
arrangement with the Dean and Chapter, that that sum
should be raised by subscription among the vestry, of 50/.
each, the repayment of which was to be secured by the
annual rents of a renewed lease. In place, however, of
doing so, it appeared the vestrymen had actually appro-
priated to themselves the 1,2001. which they had received
from the Dean and Chapter, in consideration of their sur-
render of the parochial leases, instead of waiting for the
produce of the rents of the workhouse property.
The information contains a variety of otber charges, and
the case seems likely to last during the whole morning,
as well as the greater part of to-morrow.
Mr. BICKERSTETH had not finished his opening when
our Reporter hit.

VICE CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

The part-heard case of Dawley v. Bennett, in which
the bill was filed for the purpose of setting aside an agree-
ment for the lease of a house in Stainford_street, occupied
the Court the whole morning, and was not concluded
when our reporter left.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

The Court were occupied all the morning in hearing
arguments upon cases in the crown paper, hut up to the
time of our reporter leaving, nothing of public interest
occurred.