The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-16 00:00:00

BOWER V. MORRIS.

Mr. J. RUSSELL supported an appeal in this case from
a decree of the Master of the Rolls (Sir William Grant),
pronounced in 1816, but not appealed against till 1831.
The delay in presenting the appeal and in prosecuting it
arose from the continual necessity of revising the suit,
through the birth of new plaintiffs, the death of others, mar-
riage, change of residence, and the other circumstances
which arose among extensive interests. The suit arose out
of the will of Mr. Freeman Bower, who at his death in
1793, left his property, real and personal, to a Mr. J.
Morris, in trust after the death of his widow, for the be-
nefit of his three daughters. Mrs. Bower, the widow, was
possessed of separate property ; and at her death she
also left Mr. Joseph Mon-is her trustee for the benefit of
the same persons, so that Mr. Morris was the trustee of
the estate of both husband and wife for the three children.
The plaintiffs were now very numerous, but they all
claimed as descendants or representatives of the three
daughters.
Mr. AGAR, for one of the defendants, contended that
the plaintiffs were, after the expiration of sixteen years of
submission, precluded from appealing in this decree ; that,
even if they were not, it was impossible for the Court,
with any regard to justice, to alter the decree, and there-
by shake the title of the properties. sold or disposed of un-
der that decree.

The case was not. concluded when the Court rose at four
o'clock.

ROLLS' COURT.-SATURDAY.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE CORPORATION OF

LIVERPOOL.

Mr. BICKERSTETH moved in this case for a special in-
junction to restrain the defendants, the corporation of Li-
verpool, from carrying into effect certain proposed loans or
levies of money, and from borrowing or taking up at interest
any monies for the purpose of augmenting the stipends of
the ministers or clergymen of those churches, the patronage
of which was vested in the Corporation, or any such or the
like purpose, and from fixing the common seal of the Corpo-
ration to any bond, mortgage, or other instrument, for se-
curing the re-payment of any such monies ; and that they
may be in like manner restrained from applying the monies
which may have been already borrowed or taken up, or any
other part of the funds of the Corporation, in the augment-
ing of the stipends of such ministers as aforesaid, or other
wise in endowing the churches to the nomination or pre-
sentation whereunto they are so entitled as aforesaid. The
Learned Counsel said that his Honour would recollect that
by an Act of the last session of Parliament all Corporations
found to be entitled to advowsons and presentations to
livings were directed to sell the same, and carry the pro-
ceeds to the common stock of the borough. In this case it
appeared that the old Corporation of Liverpool, being about
to expire, had fornied a resolution to raise sums of money
for the purpose of making a permanent provision for the
clergymen mentioned in the affidavit. This was considered
so direct a violation of the intention of the Legislature that
to defeat it recourse was had to the present proceedings.
His Honour the MASTER of the ROLLS, after hearing,
Counsel at length, said, I think you are entitled to the in-
junction. The Act devotes the property to certain pur-
poes, of which this is not one.
The injunction was consequently granted as prayed, and
service of the minutes of the order to be good service.