The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-08 00:00:00

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. SHEARMAN.

This was an information filed by His Majesty's Attorney-
General, at the relation of certain Trustees of Charity Lands,
in the parish of Oakwood, against six of their co-Trustees,
and two persons of the names of Henry and Isaac Last, who
were the lessees of part of the Charity in question, for the
purpose of having a lease, dated in 1826, set aside ; and that
Mr. Shearman, one of the trustees, might be compelled to
account. In the year 1449, certain lands in this parish were
given upon trust, to apply the rents and profits in the first place
for the benefit of the poor of the parish, for the repair
of the church, and for the mending of high-ways. This
property continued to be applied in this manner, until the
year 1813, when twelve new trustees were appointed who
executed a deed by which it was agreed that the trust property
should be applied in the first place to the repair of the parish
Church and for the support of the poor-house. In 1826, the
last lease being about to expire, a meeting of the trustees took
place for the purpose of considering whether or not it ought
to be renewed. At that meeting proposals were made by two
persons to take the land, one for 701. the other for 621., and
the trustees came to the resolution that the land was worth
255. per acre, and that it ought to be let at that price. Pro-
ceedings were taken for drawing up the lease to that effect,
when it came to the knowledge of the other trnstees that Mr.
Shearman and five of the trustees had granted a new lease to
Mr. Last for fifteen years, at the rent of 521. Under these
circumstances Mr. Pemberton, who appeared for the relators,
submitted that the lease was invalid, and ought to be set aside.
Mr. Pemberton and Mr. Anderdon appeared in support of
the information ; Mr. Barber and Mr. Richards for the de-
fendants.

The MASTER of the ROLLS postponed his judgment.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

THE KING V. THE OUSE BANK COMMISSIONERS.

This was a mandamus issued under the authority of the
Court of King's Bench, and directed to the defendants, com-
manding them, according to the provisions of the Act, to put
in repair the banks of the river, and to widen the water-ways
of the bridges thereon. A very large sum, upwards of 46,0001.,
had been levied for this purpose, but the repairs had not been
made, and a mandamus was accordingly issued.
Sir W. FOLLETT now read the return made by the defen-
dants to the writ, which he contended was insufficient and
bad. The Commissioners stated that they had executed such
repairs as should be, or were, necessary ; and that, with re-
spect to widening the water-ways, they could not do so without
taking down the foundations of the bridges, and that they had
no authority to do so, the bridges not being within their ju-
risdiction, or under their control. The Learned Counsel con-
tended that these large sums of money having been raised and
paid over to the Commissioners, they were bound by the pro-
visions of the Act, to do all the repairs that were necessary,
which, upon their own showing, they had not done.
The ATTORNEY.,GENERAL argued that the defendants had
done every thing within their power to comply with the pro-
visions of the Act. It was argued on the other side that they
should have widened the water-ways, but his Learned
Friend ( Sir William Follett) had not pointed out in
what way they could do so. Ile had not shown
how the Commissioners could undertake the repair of these
bri4gss over which they had not the least authority, and
the attempt to do which would subject them to an action of
trespass. On these grouuds he contended that they could not
make any other return to the writ than that they already had
done.

Mr. ANDREWS replied.
The Connr in delivering its judgment, observed that the
answer of the defendants to the writ of mandamus was almost
unintelligible. They set forth that they had made " all such
works as should be or were proper and expedient." The
Court did not think this a fit return to the King's writ—they
had returned nonsense, and called upon the Court to make
sense of it. They had refused to widen the water ways, on
the pound that they could not do so without taking down the
foundation of the bridges ; but it did not lie in their mouths
to make such a return, because they had obtained money to do
that, and if they could not, they had deceived the Legislature.
But it appeared that they not only had the right to do so, but
that some of the Ouse Bank Commissioners were actually the
owners of these bridges—that some of the parties to whom the
writ is directed are the persons who possess absolute authority
over these bridges. For these reasons the Court was of
opinion that the return is bad, and that a peremptory mandamus
ought to issue in this case.