The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir J. Romilly.)
JUDGMENT.-IN RE ASHTON'S TRUSTS.-PHILPOTS V. ST

GEORGE'S HOSPITAL.-ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. PHIL
- - --

POTS,

His Honour, the Master of the Rolls, said—ln the matter
of Ashton's trusts and the other matter of St. George's
Hospital, the principles of construction applicable to both
are so clearly allied that I shall consider them both together
and not separately as I at first intended. His Honour
observed that in the preparation of schemes for the admi-
nistration of charities it was erroneously supposed that
the Court was at liberty to prepare the best scheme,
or adopt any scheme at pleasure. It was not
so. The Court must look to the objects of the
charity, to carry out the intentions of the testator as far as
practicable, and if that cannot be done, then to apply it to
the next best objects of the trust. His Honour then
stated the objects of the charity. The testator by his will
contemplated the erection of alms louses on his estate for
the reception of 12 poor men and women, members of
the Church of England, and who might have had the mis-
fortune to be reduced to poverty by sickness or otherwise.
His Honour considered that the trustees had a discretionary
power to select the objects of the charity, if the " de-
clared intentions of the testator could not be carried
into effect, and that in the selection of their objects theyshould
be regulated by a consideration of what was most beneficial
and conducive to the charity. I must confirm the scheme
proposed, unless a better is brought before the Court. The
costs will'be paid out of the funds in court. His Honour
made the, samd observations in the case of Ashton, which
was argued before him at chambers and not in court. The
Attorney-General proposed to erect alms-houses at! Dun-
stable for the residence of five poor men and five poor
women, who should be found constant in attendance at
Church. The testatrix's property at Lutton had
increased in value and returned about £6,000 annu-
ally, and the question was, how this surplus
was to be :applied. His Honour thought it could
not be paid to the inmates of the alms-houses, because that
would defeat the objects of the charity, but it could with
propriety be applied in the erection of schools for the educa-
tion of the children of poor parents in that town and neigh-
bourhood, and declared accordingly.
ENERAL V. v.,
This cause came on to be mentioned

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Marcia 26.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
WILFULLY SMASHING A WIFE'S PORTRAIT AT A
PHOTOGRAPHER'S.-CURIOUS CASE.-111 r. Henry Willis,
tobacconist, of 58, Oxford-street, was charged with wilfully
destroying or damagingtwo portraits andtwo glass cases, a
351, Oxford-street, the property of Mr. Frederick Brooks,
artist.

The complainant said the accused came to his passage
about eight the previous evening, and with a stick he had
in his hand broke two specimens exhibited in a case, one of
them being that of the accused's wife, which he had bought
—the damage being two guineas.
In answer to the charge, the defendant said the portrait
was that of his wife. He had felt very much annoyed at
seeing it publicly exhibited, and had requested the com-
plainant several times to remove it. He considered it a
very great nuisance having his wife's portrait exhibited
every Sunday morning at the complainant's door, and
having it pointed out to passers by by a " touter." Another
thing in the case was that it was not a specimen of the
complainant's work—therefore besides the annoyance it woe
a delusion on the public. A case had been decided at
Southwark Police Court that a person under the circum-
stances had a right to destroy a portrait after giving notice
that it should be removed.
The complainant said he bought it and therefore consi-
dered he had a right to exhibit it.
Mr. Bingham said he would give his decision on the case
on another occasion—it was of too much importance to de-
cide hastily.
The accused said he had done it on public gror nd4
—complainant had no right to exhibit a portrait under such
circumstances.

The accused's own recognizance was then taken for hi
re-appearance.

THAMES.
STEALING TEA IN THE LONDON DOCKS:—John Shaw,
a labourer, aged 35, of No. 9, Holloway-court, Rosemary-
lane, Whitechapel, was brought before Mr. Yardley,
charged with stealing 41bs. of tea, value, without the duty,
38., and with the duty 145., the property of the London
Dock Company. Yesterday afternoon the prisoner was
seen by a labourer named Joseph Royall, in the West Quay
warehouse of the dock, where he had no right to be. Ho
was seen to pass along Tea-alley, between many thousand
chests of tea, and he stooped by one which was broken and
filled his pockets with tea. As he was leaving the ware-
house he was tak en into custody by George Rudkins, a
dock constable, on the information of Royall, and 41bs. of
a superior description of tea taken out of his pockets. He
then said to Royall, " What will you do ; I suppose you
want to make a case of it?" The prisoner said he would
plead guilty. He was a poor man, with a large family,
and his necessities compelled him to do what he had done. •
Mr. Yardley—You have committed a flagrant robbery;
it is a very bad case, and you are sentenced to three months
imprisonment and hard labour.
SINGULAR CASE OF ROBBERY.—Margaret Mulcaby, an
Irishwoman, who is living apart from her husband, and
has been some time cohabiting with an old mannamed Ritt,
a ballast heaver, at No. 4, Cooper-row, Upper East Smith-
field, was brought up on remand before Mr. Yardley,
charged with stealing a purse containing £7 10s., the pro-
perty and moneys of Mary Ryan and her husband.
Mr. Stoddart, solicitor, defended the prisoner.
It appeared from the evidence that the Ryans, a well-to-
do Irish couple, carry on the business of a greengrocer
and dealer in coals and potatoes, at No. 10, Green-yard,
Upper East Smithfield ; and their happiness would have
been unimpaired if they had not indulged in strong drinks
and entertained so many gossips. A few days since Mrs.
Ryan charged her husband, a tall and manly-looking fel-
low, with assaulting her. It was stated there were faults
on both sides, and Ryan was held to bail to appear a week
afterwards. Before that time expired the parties quarrelled
again, and Mr. Ryan was brought up before another magi-
strate upon, a warrant, charged with assaulting his wife;
and the wife's father, after giving evidence against his son-
in-law, became bail for him to appear before the magistrate
who heard the first case. In the interim a robbery occurred,
which has reconciled Mr. and Mrs. Ryan towards each
other, and they joined in preparing a charge of robbery
against Mrs. Mulcahy. Mrs. Ryan, upon quarrelling with
her husband, was in the practice of making a banker of her
sister, Catherine Williams, of Rosemary-lane. On Thurot-'
day, the 18th inst., Mrs. Ryan deposited a purse, containing
£7 10s. in gold, with her sister. On the following night
Mrs. Ryan sent her errand boy, Cornelius Donovan, for
her purse and money, which was given to the boy in
exactly the same state as it was received. When the boy
returned to the shop of his mistress she was attending to
some customers. Mrs. Mulcahy was there waiting to be
served with 6d. worth of eggs, and seeing the purse
in the boy's hand, she took it from him in the
presence of his mistress, opened it and looked
at it. The prisoner said, " It's all right ;" and the boy,
supposing she would return it to his mistress, took no
further notice of the matter. 'When Mrs. Ryan asked the
boy for the purse he told her what he had done with it.
Mrs. Mulcahy (the prisoner) was not to be found, and she
was absent until the following Sunday afternoon, when she
was found in bed with her old paramour, Kitt, at No. 4,
Cooper's-row. Neither the purse nor money have been re-
covered. An Irishwoman confirmed the statement of the
boy Donovan, as to his giving Mrs. Ryan's purse and
money to the prisoner in the shop.
Mr. Stoddart, in defence, said the parties had quarrelled
on the Friday night in question, and upon the next day
(Saturday, the 19th) the prisoner was in and about the
Thames Police-court all day, obtained a summons against
Mrs. Ryan for an assault, and retained him to conduct her
case. The purse which the boy gave to Mrs. Mulcahy was
her own, which she had dropped. on the floor, and the boy
picked it up.

Mr. Yardley said the case was full of singularities, and
determined on commiting the prisoner for trial.