The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-27 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

His HoNoua, in coming into Court, stated that, after the
last day of term ( Saturday) the Court would adjourn to the
16th of February, the first seal. On that and the two follow-
in days, the Court would hear motions, and his Honour would
theg n proceed with the cause of the Attorney-General V.
Pearson.

ROLLS' COURT.2-(THIS DAY.)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL U. HANKEY AND OTHERS.
This was an information filed by the Attorney- General at
the relation of the Charity Commissioners, against the de-
fendants, three gentlemen of the name of Hankey, and a Mr.
Robert Long, praying that those gentlemen, as trustees of
certain Charities, might acconet for the funds they had re-
ceived in the administration of the Charity Estates, and that
Mr. Robert Long and one of the Mr. Hankeys might be re-
moved from being trustees.
Mr. PEMBERTON, with whom was Mr. WILLIAM RUSSELL
apreared for their relators, and stated that the grounds upon
which the information was filed were the following :—ln the
year 1727 a lady of the name of Ashton by her will devised
certain property to trustees, in the first place to pay the rents
to her daughter Elizabeth, and after her decease then upon
trust in the first place to pay 6/. a year to the inhabitants of
aix almshouses in Dunstable; then for the purpose of providing
bread to the amount of 2s. a week, to be distributed among
the poor of Dunstable eve! y urtday ; then t'ie testatrix gave
1001. a year, to be dividA among the poor c'ebtors confined in
the prison of Ludgate, and other prisons in Loedoa, the
amount to be given to each person not to exceed 51., and the
residue of her property she directed to be applied to
the relief of thirty poor clergymen and thirty widows
of poor clergymen. After the death of the testatrix, 3
bill was filed for the purpose of establishing her will, and ulti-
mately the property became vested in the present defendants,
Abuses bad crept into the management of the Charity property.
One of the estates mentioned in the will had entirely disap-
peared previous to the present defendants becoming trustees;
another part of the real estate had been sold and converted
into the personal estate. In 1799 one of the defendants became
connected with the charity not in the character of trustee, but
as receiver under the order of the Court. That gentleman,
who, from that period down to 1808, had acted as Solicitor
for the trustees, had never accounted for a single shil-
ling he had received during that period. In the year
1808, Mr. Long, though filling the character of receiver,
and manager of the estates was appointed one of the trustees,
from that time to 1827 that gentleman had continued not only
to receive the whole income of the charity, but to fill the
office of trustee, receiving 151. a year, the sum the testatrix
had provided for each of her trustees, and also 50/. a year)
his salary as receiver. Added to this, Mr. Long distributed
the Charity funds just as he thought proper, and settled 10
accounts with his co-trustees, producing no vouchers, but
taking credit to himself for all that he had paid. The
surplus of the estate which was to be divided among
the poor clergymen and widows, had been distributed
in a manner inconsistent with the trusts, the trustees dividing
the surplus in equal parts among themselves, and each girieg
those parts to the objects they thought most proper, with-
out any consultation with their co-trustees. Upon the
charity undergoing examination by the charity commissionergt
the mismanagement was discovered ; previous to this I‘l.'
Long, who had resided in London, went to Devonshire,
leaving the three Messrs. Hankey, his co trustees, behind
him. Upon the Charity Commissioners applying to theta
they stated their utter ignorance of the manrer
in which the charity had been carried on, having
left everything to Mr. Long. That Gentleman, vibe°
he left London, took all the deeds and documents connected
with the charity with hint; repeated applications had bee°
made to him for an account of the Charity propertl.
This Mr. Long said he was aiAe to give.
accounts, however, had been obtained, that gentleman
stating that his health was in too bad a state to al-
low of his coming up to London ; on one occasion, when at-
tempting to come to town he was thrown off the coach at WIZ'
ton, and on another occasion he only got as far as Bath,
and a third time he reached Cheltenham, where the
Learned Counsel believed be now was. Under such cir..
cumstances, the Chancery Commissioners felt themselves
called upon to file the present information, praying that
Mr. Long might be removed from being trustee, and that lets
salary might be disallowed. With respect to the Meore'
Hankeys, he believed those gentlemen were not all desirous t
remain trustees—one, therefore, of them would consent to be
removed. There would then be a scheme for the future rege,"
lation of the Charity property, an enquiry of what it consistee,
and what had become of that part which had disappeared, re-
serving further directions and costs.
Mr. BICKERSTETH and Mr. WALKER appeared for Mess.rt
Hankey, and submitted to any order the Court night
proper. proper. Those gentlemen had done all in their power to o
tam an account from Mr. Long.
Mr. TINNEY and Mr. RICHARDS appeared for Mr. Long'
They did not resist the removal of that gentleman as trustee'
the great mistake he had made was becoming a trustee In
1808, but he submitted that he ougl:t to have an opportulla
of showing how he had applied the Charity Funds. In aS
course he had adopted, however wrong it might
Mr. Long had not in view his own private emolument. ,
The MASTER OF THE ROLLS ordered the removal of .V.(l
Long, referring it to the Master to appoint new trustees, an
85'
to take an account against the trustees from 1808. The M
ter to be at liberty to state any matters specially, and to sP'
prove of a scheme for the future regulation of the Charity. -•