The Sun.
London, England, 1817-07-17 00:00:00

EARL MANVERS V. JOHNSTONE.

Mr. LEACH stated this was a mtvioti on the part
of the Noble Plaintiff, praying his. Lordship to re-
lieve him from being a trustee to the will and a
leer! which had been executed by the late Sir J&mn
Lowther Johnstone. Ile admitted liar;ng acted
as a trustee on the Weymouth estate. in .conjunc-
tion with his Royal -11i4Itness the Duke of Cum-
berland, but he had not. done so on any occasion
kith respect to the estates in Scotland, America,
or the NVcst Indies. The onl) difficulty in this
case being the Scot's Law, he (Mr. L ) moved
that the case be referred to the Master, to report
whether according to the Scots law a trustee could
be relieved from his trust:

LORD CHANCELLOR.—YOU put it whether the
trusts can be executed without his acting accord-
ing to the Scots law ?
Mr. Labt-t.—Certainly, my Lord.
Mr. BELL. said he appeared for his Royal High-
ness the Duke of Cumberland, who wished also
to be relieved, and who admitted he had acted aS
a trustee.

Mr. LEACH had no objection to include
Royal Highness in the minutes.
The Loll!) CHANCELLOR thought this would be
the best way, find therefore he granted the !notion.

ABUSE OF CHARITABLE FUNDS.

HAM AND AUSTER V. THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES

OF FONVEY.

This was an information by the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL, at the instance of the plaintiffs, for an
appointment of a receiver of the rents and profits ,
of lands and other property, in Fowey, appropri•
ated to charitable purposes, and for an injunction
to restrain the defendants from intermeddling with
those rents and profits. Those who had been
originally intrusted with the management of these
Charities, having been Members of the Corpora-
tion, the whole management of the funds tell by
mistake into the hands of the Corporation, who
so neglected or misapplied them, that what ought
to return a yearly rent of 2501., returned only
81. Is. An inquiry of Quo War?anto having been .
lately obtained in the King's Bench, it was found
That the Corporation was virtually extinct for 60
years, 'as there were no free Burgesses according
to the terms of the charter. While application
was made to the Crown for a renewal of a Cor-
poration, which the people of Fowey regarded as
not only useless, but mischievous, this action was
brought to protect the Charities which had been
in the management•of the Corporation.
Mr. HART and Mr. SPRANGSR, for. the defend-
ants, argued, that to grant the prayer of the hill
would bean imputation upon their clients, while
nothing was proved against them ; and throw a
colour upon their conduct that might prevent the
renewal of the chatter. If such abuses existed,
how came the plaintiffs to say nothing of theta
till an eventful occasion, when the charter was
found not good ? A receiver could not be neces-
sary for the 81. Is., and no receiver could have
the power in such a case to grant new leases ; for
if the Corporation were not invested with the
property, it must revert to the original donor ;
and as he was not to be found, it must revert to -
the Crown by escheat. •
Sir SAMUEL RoMILLY replied, that the long en•
durance of abuses was not an .argument for their
perpetuity ; and that the only question was, whe-
ther the gross and flagrant-abuses that had long
existed ought not to be corrected. The Court
should recollect that two of the afetidants, Mr.
Bennet and Mr. Hallet, were themselves occupiers-':
of part of the property in question; for which no
value was paid. There were, besides, tolls, quays, -
and fares, which required a receiver. There was
likewise property in the funds, and some one must
be appointed to receive the dividends. The de•.
tendants had no interest in the question. The law
of England had no term for the relation they held.
The law of Scotland would recognize it spes sue.cessionis. As to the inadequacy of the rent now
paid, it was sufficient to say it was the same for
60 years. The leases were void, ipso fade, on
the charter having been extinct for 60 years. The
eventful' period, the revolution alluded to by Mr.
Hart, was no other than an apprehension of a
dissolution of Parliament. The Court would ne-
ver find charities escheat in consequence of the
corrupt management of a Corporation.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he had heard Mr.
Justice Buller say, that if he declined to judge of
rights on account of the motives of parties, he
should have many holidays. The Court would
certainly see that the funds left for charitable piar
poses should not be unprotected. The Crown
could not come in- here by escheat. He would
he prepared to give judgment at the sitting of the
Court to-morrow.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 16.

London Sittings after Trinity Term, before Lord

ELLENBOROUGH and a Special Jury.
WOOD V. HAVERS.

This was an action on a Bill of Exchange for
2501. drawn in May 1811, with another fur the
same amount, by a Colcn.el Morgan, upon a Mr.
Carpue, at 75 (lays after date, and accepted by the
latter, payable at the-Bank of Messrs. IVright and.
Co. London, but payment was refused. Mr.
Carpue, whose affairs became embarrassed, died
some considerable time since in the Fleet Prison.
The plaintiff, who appeared to be a baker in Black-
friars-road, Surrey, was an indorses of this' ;
and the defendant, who is a Clergyman, at Brent-
wood, Essex, and husband to the sister and admi-
nistratrix to the deceased acceptor, pleaded in de-
fence to the action, that the bill was accepted in a
gambling . transaction, and therefore void. The
merits of the case were substantially these :
In the year 1811, Mr. Carpue, a young Gentle.
man of considerable property, and recently come
of age, was in the habit of associating with men
of fashtnable dissipation, high play, and desperate
fortunes, at the west end of the town, and athowlst
others with a Colonel Morgan, a Captain Wallis,
a Mr. Twysden, a Mr. Dalrymple, and others.—
In the' month of May 1811 he lodged with theta
at Durant's hotel, where they dined together on
the 12th of that month, as was proved in evidence
by a witness named Agnew, then a waiter in the
hotel, who stated. that those Gentlemen after

dinner, -thank trine together until past ten at
uight, when 'l'kt ystien ordered a coach to be
called, into which they all went; and the coach-
man w,as ordered by them to drive to bell, mean-
ing a Dot«mot.s gambling-housp,No.77,StJames's
street. kent by a person named Bennet, and well
know, to all the loeckoey-coaelimen in London.
Colonel Morean. Mr•Twvsden, and Mr. Carpne re-
turned to the hotel about half-past one-in the morn,
whet :he witness, die only person tip in the
bruise, was ordered to get slipper, which he did.
In te n,esu ante Mr Carpite. who was not sober,
called for a cattle to stai,-s to his room,
;Ind whil- he was awav Colonel Morgan desired
the witness to get some st:oups„ Witness
ara-
S►vere.rl it was impossible at that late bolo.; but
Twysden or,!ered hint to go tip to his room
and hying down two Fice.sfitnng sjatups, which
the witness had bought for him the prereeding
Intoning, and the witness did ;(). Oo i4ir. Carpue's
return to the slipper-room, witness heard Colonel
Morgan to sav to him, that he must pass to him
some acknowledgment for the sum which he bad
lost to him (Mr. Morgan) that night. Mr.Carpue
said he had accepted so many bills already, and
which were coming due, he thought it would bp
useless to pass any inure now, as he feared they
would not be honoured ; but Mr. Morgan pro-
posed they shonld be drawn at a long date : nod,
accordingly, he drew two bills, the one at two
mouths for 1501. and the other at 75 days for the
like sum, but they were post dated, as of the Ist
J.ily following, and Mr. Carrie accepted their),
payable at \Wright's and Co. He had lost before,
in the course of a few months, between twenty
and thirty thousand pounds, and that night about
SOW. The bdIS became,tfue, but were disho-
noured, and Mr. Carptie was afterwards arrest-
ed, upon other acconnts, and impriscmcd, In
the Fleet,'where he died since, at the age of
sister, the wife of the delend4nt, took out ad-
rnWstration to him,. and those bills being ten-
dered for payment to the defendant, they were
reftised uPon the ground now pleaded. An action,
however, was brought Upon one of them, in this
COtirt, at tire suit of a person named l'hilpot, a
publican and professed navy-agent, about a year
since, when there was a verdict for the plaintiff.
The Attorney for the, plaintiff then was Mr. V;n-
tent, who was attorney for the defendant in the
present action ; and Mr. Vincent, f:".ltllineo in
evidence, deposed_that Philpot, the plaintiff in the
former acion, had presented to hint both bills;
which he said were passed to him by Mr. liennet,
keeping a gainhling-house, at No. 77, St.James's-
st'reet, and desiring Mr. Vincent to proceed in
thcin a; for his (Philpot's) account:
called, and in his examination said
he was a -',avy Agent,' and that he had received
one of ihose hills, Which was his giro, from" Ben-
net ; but that he held the other as the property of
Mt.'Wood, tire present piaititiff,,and had them in
Iris possession sinCe 1815 ; that he 'told Mr.
Vincent So, and di.l not say tire bills Were' both
on property, and that Air. Vincent. took
of both bills. Qtt lint cross-examinat ion
by Mr. Gyitst”', lie adrpi:ted Ire keßt a public-
Lplise these 14 or 15 years in §withiws-h;ne ; and
the reason clignot apply 'to Mr'. Bennet.
fdr Piryinent, who passed him the hillhc"before
sued for, ‘143 because be did not rhilse it. He
did not knoT a Mr. l3enpet its the Jesper_of a
pmbling-house in §i: Jaittes-street, but alloyays
thou ,ht he lived in Jertnyn7,,rrcei
Mr. Vincent eealfed,„,egrroborated his for Mer
te,Stitnony. 'Said that the wordl 4` Mr. Betillef.,'
Ice,eper of a ganlbYing-houSF, at No. 77, St.
Ji.ii,nes's•street," were taken down at his.officefiOni
Philpot's own mouth; that he bad spoken of the
two bills as ownproperty, and thathe (Vin-
cent)never took .
any popy of tbvn, but merely.memorandum f>t their amount. lhe hand- writitor
of Carpne aul N orman were
.proved ;
-but no evidence whatever adduced 'to spew that
any Valitableconsid;ti•ation hadever been.given
for. it, oar how it came into the hands of fiennet,l
of Philpot, or of Wopd the olaintitf.
. Mr. 'r OITING made, an ingenious speech to the
Jou on behalf of his' client, the plaintiff, admit-
.,
• •
ti.pg that an origto gamt„ ning transactions,
must by law render the Bill void ; but, contend-
it-1g there was no credible evidence to this fact,
and arguing that, although there might have, been
ggmbling transactions upon other occasions be-
tween the drawer and acceptor, still this Bill, and
the former, in which a verdict had been obtained,
ought for any thing in the evidence have arisen
from fair bona fide transactions, or from some in-
nocent and legitimate bet, the legality of, which
tip man could deny, and trot from :unlawful
Lord ELLENBOROUII, in summing up for the ,
Jitry, observed, that although there was no actual,.
esidence•additeed to sinew that any person had ac-
tually seen the cards or dice, or other implenients
by which the gautiogwas actually carried on be-
tween those parties,' and which most vitiate the
validity of the bill ; not wiastanding any chusider,
wino, however valuable, given for it by any of the
parties through whose hands it subsequently
passed ; yet, troll-) the circtlll}StanC(l PrgYVd• the
strongest inference was to he drawn thaA this
bill was the result of a ,tiatrittling qail§a(3,lon.."."
These young men were living together,. alter iu
known habits. of gambling ; they s.eot for a
coach to the house where they chimed and drank
freely, and ordered this coach to drive theist
directly to Flell, a notorious gambling-house, so,
called. They rewriter! again to the hotel at.near
two o'clock in the ;morning, the gkeceptor in a
state of intoxication. Morgan calls for stamps,
and two bill stamps, previously prepared by Twys-
den, are called for. Mr. Carpi?, after many obl.
*lions, is reluctantly prevailed on to give his
acceptance. No proof whatever is adduced by
the plaintiff, or any of the endorsers of this hill,
to spew how it came to their handP, or, that ao-y
consideration whatever was given for it ; which,
for the sake of their own characters, they most.
probably would have sbewn, if it, had reached
them by fair means.
The Jmy instantly returned a verdict. for t 4
defendant.

The Gazette of Health, of Parma, states, that
;clever l►reVailed there, (he ravages of which were
very ►lestructive ; three hospitals were filled ,tvith
the sick.. It appears to be nearly as eo►►ta~iuus as
the plague.