The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-30 00:00:00

IN THE MArrElt OF BLAKE A LUNATIC.

Mr. Putty's, on the part of Sir Francis Blake, the
brattier of the lunatic, applied for an order directing Mr.
Marten to review his decision with respect to the taxation
of costs incurred on the inquisition. That inquiry took
place last year in Sloane-street. It was opposed, but upon
a careful and laborious examinatien, Mr. Blake was pro-
nounced to be a lunatic. Sir Francis on that occaison paid
the two Commissioners a sum of eight guineas each, and
one guinea each for signing the commission ; but although
the Master was directed to tax the costs as between at-
torney and client, he refused to allow more than three
guineas each to the Commissioners, although he gave the
guinea to each for signing the commission. Novi Sir
Francis Blake, having paid the fees to the Commissioners,
out of his own pocket, considered' himself fully entitled to
claim repayment, and he submitted to their Lordships that
the sum of eight guineas each was a fair and reasonable al-
lowance, as the inquiry on that occasion occupied. a number
of days.
Sir L. SIIADWELL granted the application, but observed
there was no general rule on the subject of the remunera-
tion to be granted to the profession on such occasions.

GEDGE V. THORNE.

Mr. WAKEFIELD in this matter applied for an order to
compel Mr. Hoare, the defendant's solicitor, to deposit cer-
tain papers and books with the clerk in Court. An order
had been obtained for the inspection of the books, and the
plaintiff had attended twice at the office of Mr. Hoare for
that purpose ; but on the second occasion he was informed
that Mr. Hoare could not permit his office to be occupied
for that purpose unless he was paid at the rate of 6s. Bd.
an hour for each person inspecting the books. This charge
was most unwarrantable and unprecedented, and it there-
fore became necessary to have the books rcmcved at once
out of Mr. Hoare's custody.
Mr. KNIGHT, for Mr. Hoare, gladly consented to the
motion, and would not say a word against it, but that the
plaintiff demanded costs.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said the books must be placed
with the clerk in the Court ; but, as to costs, they were,
under the circumstances, totally out of the question. •
Several other motions were disposed of, but they were of
no importance.

ROLLS COURT-SATURDAY.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE CORPORATION OF

LIVERPOOL.

Mr. PEMBERTON moved in this case, on behalf of the
Corporation, that the injunction lately granted might be
dissolved. The Learned Counsel referred to the affidavit
of Mr. Foster, the town-clerk of Liverpool, from which he
briefly traced the history of the different rectories of Liver-
pool. He should now direct his Honour's attention to the
circumstances which had led to the arrangement now in con-
templation. In 1834 a bill was introduced into Parliament
for the abolition of church rates, and then it first became
necessary to take steps for securing a provision for the Mi-
nisters of the Corporation. At a meeting of the vestry a
resolution was agreed to, of which the following is the sub-
stance :--Since it had been for a long period of time the
custom of this parish to vote an annual addition to the sti-
pends of the Rectors of the Church, and to appoint four
Curates, and as the Bill before Parliament would abolish
pew rents, it appeared well to the vestry that some provision
should be made for the Clergymen. This resolution was
not agreed to without some discussion. One of the relators
to the present information moved an amendment ; and on
the 12th of July, 1834, a poll was taken, when the
resolution was carried by a majority of seven hundred
out of nine hundred voters. This resolution was not acted
upon, because the Bill in question was subsequently aban-
doned. He should now proceed to consider what bearing
the Corporation Bill had on this case. In the first place
he should for a moment assume that, unless the proposed
arrangement were completed, the Clergy of Liverpool would
have no other provision than their original endowments of
701. or 901. a-year. This, of course, no person could con-
sider an adequate provision for a Clergyman. By the other
side it was contended that the Corporation Act devoted
the whole income of the Corporation, first to the payment
of the debt of the Corporation, and then to the payment
of salaries, &c. The surplus is directed to be applied for
the public benefit of the inhabitants and in the general im-
provement of the borough. The present information al-
leged that an appropriation for the purpose of maintaining
the Clergy would not come within the meaning of those
clauses, and that the present corporators were, during their
temporary existence, attempting to do that which the Le-
gislature had declared to be illegal when the new corpo-
rators should come into office. He (Mr. Pemberton) would
contend that the payment of the Clergy would come within
the meaning of the words, " benefit of the inhabitants."
In all the steps the Corporation took they conducted their
proceedings openly. They thought it would not be ob-
jected to, and therefore, on the 7th of October, 1835, at
a meeting of the Common Council, they came to a resolu-
tion, which was advertised and duly canvassed in several
of the Liverpool papers, that it was expedient that some
provision for permanently endowing the Clergy should be
made by the Corporation. In accordance with this resolution
a Committee, consisting of the whole Council, was ap-
pointed to take the necessary steps to carry into effect the
object they had in view. In order that the thing might
be done legally, and so as it might not afterwards be im-
peached, the first thing the Committee did was to direct the
town clerk to submit the matter to the opinion of Coun-
sel. The Counsel consulted were Sir F. Pollock, Mr.
Cresswell, and Mr. Jacob. On the 19th of October these
Learned Gentlemen gave it as their opinion that it was im-
possible to point out any mode by which the corporation
could permanently continue its provision to the clergy of
Liverpool, so as to be entirely secure from being impeached
hereafter ; but they recommended the corporation to raise
a loan, and invest it in the name of trustees in trust to ap-
ply the annual proceeds in the payment of the stipends of
the clergy. The Committee made their report on the 2d
of November, and proceeding upon the opinion of the Coun-
sel, they mortgaged two of their estates for a sum of
105,0001. On the 14th the application was made to this
Court, for an injunction, which was granted. He hoped
his Honour would dissolve this injunction, and in so do-
ing, tell those who brought it forward, that it was an appli-
cation which could never be sanctioned by the Court.
Mr. BICKERSTETH appeared for the Attorney-General
and the relators. He should refer to the Corporation Bill,
and see what bearing it had upon the present case. In the
first clause it made void all charters, grants, &c., inconsistent
with the purposes of the Act. This clearly made every-
thing illegal that was inconsistent with, or contrary to, the
intension of the Act. The next clause was 92, which had
reference to the mode of applying the Corporation property.
It enacted that, if there should be any surplus, that the same
should be applied for the public benefit of the inhabitants,
and the improvement of the borough. A subsequent clause
(139) directed the sale of advowsons, and of all ecclesiastical
patronage. The Corporation heir).- directed by the Act to
sell their patronage, they said, " Before the Act comes into
operation, we will apply a large portion of our Corporate
funds for the purpose of making an endowment for these
clergymen. The Act directed the advowsons to be sold,
and the proceeds to be brought into the Corporate funds.
What the Corporators proposed doing must therefore ma:-
nifestly be inconsistent with the intention of the Legislature.
It was said that the Legislature had provided a remedy in
clause 92. That clause he (Mr. Bickersteth) thought af-
forded no remedy. The present Corporators had no right
to anticipate the discretion of their successors. Such anti-
cipation had never been dreamt of until the Corporation and
the self-elected council, knowing that the new Corporation
was coming in, thought it advisable to endeavour to fetter
the latter. The only question that remained for considera-
tion was as to whether or not the Court had jurisdiction to
interfere in the matter. Upon the whole he submitted that
his Honour had a jurisdiction in the matter, that the in-
junction had been properly granted, and that it ought to be
continued.
Mr. Booth followed on the same side.
Mr. Pemberton replied at considerable length.
His Honour the Master of the Rolls would dispose of the
case next Tuesday morning in Lincoln's Inn Hall.

KING'S BENCH.-SATURDAY.

THE KING V. JOHN BULL AND JAMES NEWMAN.

This was an action for assault committed by the defend-
ants upon a person engaged in collecting rents in a street in
the neighbourhood of Whitechapel. The evidence showed
the assault to be one of a very petty kind. No defence
was offered, and the Jury found the defendants guilty.
Lord DENMAN sentenced Bull to pay a fine of 205., and
Newman a fine of 10s. The fines were paid.