The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-05 00:00:00

DWARRIS V. WARMS.

His LORDSHIP said he regretted that in this case,
which related to properly in the island of Jamaica,
the parties had not bean able to come to an ami-
cable arrangement. The case was merely a motion
for the appointment of a receiver. He thought that
it was sufficiently made out that a receiver ought to
be appointed. As, however, there was still room
for hope that the parties would come to some ar-
rangement, he would postpone the appointment for
two months.

COOPER V. COOPER.

This was an appeal from a decision of his Honour
the Vice-Chancellor, who had directed the appoint-
ment of a receiver. Mr. Cooper, who carried on
the business of a tailor, directed by his will, that
his business shoul.4 be divided into five parts, and
that the profits arising from it should be distributed
amongst his children. His Honour, in consequence
of the testor having thus charged the business as if it
were real estate, had thought proper to appoint a re-
ceiver, and his Lordship saw no reason to differ
from his honour. It was, however, expedient to
provide that the appointment of a receiver should
not embarrass the executors, or hinder them from
making the necessary arrangements. For this pur-
pose he would order that the receiver, instead of
receiving the debts up to the 15th of February,
1832, should receive there up to the 15th of Fe-
bruary, 1831.

REECE V. TABRUM.
The question in this case was, whether trustees
were chargeable for a loss which had occurred in
consequence of delay on their part. The question
came before Lord Lyndhurst on an appeal from the
Vice-Chancellor, and his Lordship sent the parties
before the Master, to give the trustees an opportu-
nity of explaining the cause of the delay. The
trustees stated that they waited for a better market
to dispose of the property; but his Lordship was of
opinion that they had not satisfactorily explained the
delay of five years, which they had allowed to elapse
without taking any steps to effect a sale, and he
could not but think that they might have got a bet-
ter price if they had bestirred themselves. It had
been said that if trustees were thus made charge-
able, no one would be found willing to become
a trustee; but still he thought that no one ought to
undertake the office of trustee without feeling him-
self bound by it, and obliged to consult the interest
of the persons on whose behalf he undertook to act.
There could be no harm in making trustees under-
stand that to do this was a part of their duty, and
that although that duty was voluntarily undertaken, '
they were not the less obliged to discharge it ear-
nestly and conscientiously. The evil, if it was an
evil, of surrounding the office of trustee with such a
responsibility, was infinitely less, and in its conse-
quences much less injurious to society, than per-
mitting the office of trustee to be an indemnity for
Supineness and indolence, as it might be a cloak for
worse offences.
The Court rose at five o'clock.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 4.
rinn and Rev. Dr. Grey, for leave to file a criminal
information against Mr. Thomas Smart, the vestry
clerk.of the parish of St. Botolph, Bishopsgate, for
the publication of a handbill, which contained cer-
tain resolutions, strongly reflecting on the character
of Dr. Grey.
The resolution he complained of was as follows :

" Resolved, That after having read the report of your
committee appointed at a former vestry to communicate
with the Hon. and Rev. Dr. Grey, respecting the return
of a sum of money, amounting to 6244/, inadvertently paid
over to him, together with the correspondence on the sub-
ject, this vestry deem it incumbent on them to mark their
sense of the Rev. Gentleman's conduct on this important
transaction. Although the task be painful, the vestry
cannot on thisoccasion refrain from an expression of their
deep regret that a dignitary of the church of England,
possessing so large an income, forgetting the wise precept
4 do as you would be done by,' and unmindful of the just
and honourable example followed by hie diocesan, should still
insist on retaining money drawn from his necessitous flock,
to which be has no equitable claim, and which never
ought to have come into his possession."
Dr. Grey, in his affidavit, denied that there was
any truth in the statement that the money had been
paid to him inadvertently, and from his (the Learned
Counsel's) personal knowledge of the Honourable
arid Rev. Gentleman, he could say that there wa,
no
granted.n g mn
e
he
Npsovearsnnotleesnsteitalpeadb.—le
Rofulreecneisi‘i to which