The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 11.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir R. T. Findersley.)
MURTON V. DRIVER.
This bill was filed by a member of a club or
4ociety consisting of 70 persons, called the " Occu-
piers of the Southview Gardens, at Sheffield," on
behalf of himself and. all the members, except the
defendants. This club was formed about the year
1849, and the property of which they were tenants
from year to year was then called " Abbeydale
Gardens," each party paying his own rent to the
superior landlords, who were trustees of the pro-
perty for the Cecil family. In 1851 application
was made to the trustees to grant a lease to the
members of the club for 21 years, which was ac-
cordingly done, but there being an objettion to
grant a lease to so many as 20 persons 10 were ul-
timately chosen to represent the rest, and the lease
was granted to them for 21 years from the 25th of
March, 1852, at £BO per annum, payable in March
and September. New rules were then prepared by
Charles .E. Howard, and a committee of five was
chosen, two from the 10 chosen to represent the
rest, and the remainder from the general body. In
1853 disputes arose in consequence, as the'plaintiffs
alleged, of misconduct on the part of Howard, and
the defendants, the 10 lessees, withdrew themselves
from the meetings which had been theretofore held
at the Club Garden Tavern, and met at a different
publichouse. A question then arose as to the pay-
ment
of the rent, the plaintffs claiming to pay it at
the usual place oft meeting—the Club Garden
Tavern, and nowhere else. In consequence of this
the rent fell into arrears, and an action of ejectment
was brought by the defendants against the plain-
tiff (to try the question), and this bill was filed to
restrain such action, upon the ground that accord-
ing to the rules certain forfeits, &e., were imposed
upon parties not paying rent, and that was the
proper course, instead •of an action of ejectment.
iT,he case came to be heard and ultimately stood over
fo 'l' the purpose, if possible, of coming to an arrange
me -nt, and the injunction was meantime in force on
the terms of the plaintiff paying rent to Howard,
and oi•ders had been made to that effect, making it
a ternr. that on non-payment the injunction should
cease. .f .•'n two occasions the rent had been paid, but
the last .'der not containing the same condition of
eesser of e injunction the rent had not been paid.
Mr. Fre cm= appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr. Glas s,l and Mr. T. H. Terrell, for the defen-
dants, argueti that, although trustees in some sense,
it would be in ..possible to administer or work it out.
The rules were s ilent as to the place where the rent
was to be paid; r• 1 id therefore the plaintiff and those
he represented clearly in the wrong. There
was no other mode.. of getting, the rent but to pro-
ceed legally.
Mr. Freeman was ..heard in reply:
The Vicc-Chancellc was of opinion that the de-
fendants had no right to deal with the members of
the club as they please c. by turning out, &c., but
that every member, as i'arig as he performed the
duties imposed upon him, ..had a right to remain in
• undisturbed possession of h t s holding, and was en-
titled to the intervention of this Court to protect
him from disturbance by the b. ,ssees of Cecil's trus-
tees, who were themselves, in sc, me sense, trustees,
-
although there was no agreetiknit in writing in
strictness within the Statute of Fm uds. There was
no provision in the rules as to paymcnt of rent, ex-
cept by inference. What ought to be n:one was that
the body should holda meeting to arranoe to whom
the rent was to be paid, although there was great
difficulty in this. There must be a declaraotion that
the defendants were trustees for the who, body.
The two seceding members of the committee were
wrong, and the three others right who held the
meetings at the old plate of meeting, and they were
the committee. The rext must be paid in pursuance
of the last order. There must be a perpetual in-
junction, qualified as to the plaintiff's performance
of his obligations. There must be an account any
inquiry as to the receipt *of the rents, under the
orders of the Court.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. Stuart.).
WAKEFIELD V. DYOTT.

This was a special case for the opinion of the
Court on the will of the late George Wakefield.
The testator, by his will, gave the residue of his per-
sonal estate, and of the proceeds of his real estate,
to trustees upon trust for investment, and to apply
the interest for the maintenance and support of his
granddaughters, Rebecca Frances Wakefield and
Annie Wakefield, during their respective minori-
ties, and until the youngest should attain the age of
21 years, and, from and after that event, then upon
trust to pay and divide the principal moneys equally
between the said two granddaughters, for their
own use and benefit. Then followed these words :
‘i And I declare that each of my said granddaughters
shall have a vested interest on her attaining the age of 21
years, or on the day of marriage which shall first happen ;
and if either of my said grandchildren shall happen to de-
part tft.4s life before she shall have attained a vested interest,
then I give and bequeath her share unto the survivor."
There wa44 no gift over in the will. Both the grand-
daughters survived the testator, and both of them
died under 21, and unmarried. The question was
whether in the events which had happened the
plaintiff, as the administrator of the deceased grand-
danghters, was entitled to the whole or any part of
the shares in which they were respectively interested
under the before•mentioned will, or whether the de-
fendants, as the testator's next of kin, were entitled
to the whole or any part of the before-mentioned
shares.
Mr. Boyle, Mr. Osborne, and Mr. A. Smith, ap-
peared for the different parties.
The Vice-Chancellor, without calling on the coun-
sel for the defendants, the next of kin, held that,
under the circumstances of the case, neither of the
two granddaughters took a vested interest under
the testator's will, and that in the events which had
happened the shares in question formed part of the
testator's undisposed-of estate. -

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.)
WEBB V. SERGEANT.

This case came before the Court in the shape of
two motions—one on behalf of the plaintiff to com-
mit the defendant, Wm. L. Sergeant, for breach of
an injunction awarded against him in July last, and
for various alleged acts of interference with thelre-
ceiver appointed by the Court in the cause ; the
other a motion on behalf of the same defendant to
discharge the receiver and appoint another, and for
other matters of detail. A great number of affidavits
were read to the Conrt, and on the conclusion of the
opening: of the first motion,
His honour ordered both motions to stand over
till Wednesday next, with liberty t-) defendant to
bring forward further evidence and explanation as
to some of the matters in respect of which his c3n-
duct is complained of.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Rolt, Mr. Cotton, and
Mr. Beclwell appeared in support of the plaintiff's
motion ; Mr. Daniel for the defendant Sergeant,
and Mr. W. M. James and Mr. T. Stevens for other
defendants.