The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-15 00:00:00

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE COOPERS' COMPANY.

Mr. HART said this cause oriOzially came before his Lord-
ship some time since on a very litigated information, which was
filed by certain parishioners of Egliam, in the county of Surrey,
against the Coopers' Company, as trustees of the estates for the
support of the Charity School of Egham, and against Dr. Jeans,
as master of the School, for haVing removed the said School
from the spot where it originally stood, and for having made
several alterations in the alms-houses attached to the School.
In answer to that information, Dr. Jeans stated, that in all the
alterations which he had made in the school and the alms.
houses, he had acted under the authority and with the sanction
of the Coopers' Company. Ii is Lordship, after hearing the
arguments on the information, directed Master Cook to inquire
and report respecting the alterations which bad been ellhcted.
Master Cook accordingly made inquiries respecting the altera-
tions, and reported that some were abuses, but at the same time
approved of others as necessary. When the cause came on for
hearing for further directions on Master Cook's report, his
Lordship ordered all the alterations which were considered un-
fit to be reformed under the direction of Master Cook. All.the
abuses pointed out in the report of the Master had been re-
medied, and since that time the school had been conducted
by Dr. Jeans with great propriety. The Learned Counsel
then stated that he was now instructed to move his Lard-
ship
.tacia a petition of Dr. Jeans. The petition, prayed that
it might be referred to the Master to inquire what money is
due to the petitioner for the repairs and alterations which he
had effected upon the school at Egham, under the sanction
of the Coopers' Company ; also that it might be referred to the
Master to inquire whethergirls, as well as boys,might not be eciti-
rated at the Charity School of. Egliam; and, tmally, that the
Court nould direct the arrears of the annual sum of 30 guineas,
with interest :due the year 1307, to be paid to the petitioner
out of the funds of the Ceopers' Company. lie had omitted
to mention another prayer of the petition, which was, that Dr.
Jeans might be permitted to send in a scheme for the future
regulation of the charity for the approval of the master, The
original scheme of 1708, on which the charity proceeded, allot-
ted-three shillings per week to each of the alinsmen, and a sti-
pend of 401.• a year to the schoolmaster. This arrangement
continued to exist until 175 , vahen iht income of the charity
buying increased, the Coopers' Company formed is new scheme,
by which the sum of 4s. was given to each' of the almsmen.—

But the new scheme, instead of giving the Master a specific in-
crease of stipend directed that he should receive an annual gra-
tuity of 30 guineas in addition to his salary of 401. per annum.
Dr. Jeans, in his affidavit, stated, that this gratuity was pro-
mised to him on his election to the office of master to the school.
Dr. Jeans, however, could only^ obtain the salary of 401. from
the Coopers' Company, who refused to pay the gratuity of 30
guineas. To some persons who were accustomed to deal in
thousands, the sum of 30 guineas might appear very inconsid-
erable, but it was a matter of importance to Dr. Jeans, to whom
the arrears of 7 or 8 years were now due.
Mr. HORNE here observed, that Dr. Jeans had never re-
ceived the gratuity on any occasion. He also took that oppor-
tunity of observing, that the same application which Mr. Hart
was now making was made on the motion in 1817, and refused
by the Court.
Mr. HART said, that when the application alluded to by Mr.
Horne was made to the Court, his Lordship considered it pre-
mature, and refused it on that ground alone. The Learned
Counsel then read the affidavit of the Clerk to the Coopers'
Company, in order to shew that when Dr. Jeans was elected
master, he was given to understand that- he was to receive the
unnuafgratuity of 30 guineas. in addition to his salary. The
affidavit set forth, that when Dr. Jeans was chosen master, some
of the gentlemen who were prestit informal him that in addi-
tion to the salary, they believed a gratuity had been granted, but
that it was contingent and depended upon an increase of rent-4.
After the motion of 1817 had failed, and all litigation between
the parties had ceased, Dr. Jeans again applied to the Company
for the payment of the gratuity. Upon that occasion the Com-
pany informed him that they were willing to pay him the gra-
tuity, provided that the parish of Egham—that is, such
persons as might choose to meet in vestry_—would consent to it.
In consequence, a vestry meeting was called to take the question
into consideration, at which ony 17 persons, some of whom
were informants in that cause, attended. Dr. Jeans, after fairly
submitting his claims to the meeting, quitted the room, and left
the vestry to decide upon them. The meeting was divided in opi-
nion, but the majority of 9 out of 17 was in favour of Dr. Jeans.
The scale was, however,finally turned against his client by a ruse
de guerre which proceeded from a quarter whence he (Mr. Hart)
should have little expected it to come. Mr. Rosser, the solici-
tor of the informants, who was present, informed the meeting
that the Company had suspended Dr. Jeans for neglect of
duty. This piece of information, which was totally false,
had the effect of inducing the meeting to reject the claim of
Dr. Jeans.
Mr. BORNE said, he felt it due to the character of Mr.
Rosser to state, that lie made the representation alluded to up-
on the authority of a paper, purporting to be a copy of an
order of the Company, which was given to him by an agent of
the company.
Mr. limt.T said, that Mr. Rosser might have stated that fact
in an affidavit, if he had thought proper.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked what the vestry had to do
with the question ? The vestry there was assuming a power
almost paramount to that of the legislature. It happened now
that no important question, either political or otherwise, could
be agitated, but a parish vestry must be called to decide it.
Mi. HART replied, that it appeared to him that the Com-
pany were unwilling to exercise a right, which undoubtedly was
vested in them, without the approbation of the vestry.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the Company either held
the funds for some trust, or for their own benefit, and in either
case the vestry could have nothing to do with the matter.

Mr. HART then proceeded to contend, that if it should ap-
pear that Dr. Jeans was not entitled to the gratuity, still he
had a right to call upon hisLordishp to direct that the Company
should augment his salary, in proportion to the augmentation
which had been made to the allowance of the alms men in
1750. With respect to the prayer of Dr. Jeans to be allowed
to furnish the master with a scheme, he would merely observe,
that if it were not granted, the master would never receive any
scheme, or at least none upon which he could act. The order
directing that the informants should submit a scheme for the
approval of the master was made in 'HIV, since which time
two schemes have been submitted to that officer, both of which
he had rejected. He understood, however, that since the pre-
sent petition had been filed, a new scheme had been submitted
to the master, v:lio, in consequence of the informant's delaying
presenting a suitable scheme, had refused to take it into con-
sideration until his Lordship decided upon the petition.
Mr. SILADWELL followed on the same side.

Mr. HORNE next addressed the Court in opposition to the
petition. He thought the conduct of the petitioner very ex-
traordinary. He now asked by petition exactly the same thing,
which he endeavoured to obtain by motion in 1817. After hear-
ing all that could be said on the latter occasion, his Lordship
said that he could make no order for directing the payment of
the gratuities, but that the Company must exercise its discre-
tion on the subject. The Company had exercised its discretion,
and had refused the gratuity. He was surprised to hear his
Learned Friend dwell upon the circumstance of the vestry meet-
ing, which, as his Lordship observed, had nothing to do with
the business. The Learned Counsel next contended that the
first object of the Petitioner's prayer was already under the con-
sideration of the Master. That officer was also the proper per
to decide upon the question of an increased salary to the
schoolmaster. He denied that it could be fairly inferred from
the affidavit of the clerk of the Company, which Mr. Hart had
read, that Dr. Jeans was made to believe, at the time of his
election, that he was to receive the gratuity of 30 guineas. The
only Master who had received the gratuity was theimmetliate
predecessor Of Dr. Jeans, and it was given to him, on the ground
of his excellent management of the alms-house and the school.
If the state of those two establishments was compared under
the respective management of Mr. Jones and Dr. Jeans, his
Lordship would find ample reason why the gratuity should be
given to the former, and withheld from the latter. In answer
to what had fallen rom Mr. Hart with respect to the delay on
the part of the informants to submit a suitable scheme to the
plaster, he would inform his Lordship that thepresent petition
was tiled in November, 1820. His Learned Friends, therefore,
had kept their brief in their pockets for a year, and then came
forward to accuse him of delay in not presenting a suitable
scheme, although they knew he was precluded from doing so
until his Lordship had decided upon the petition. That part of
the petition which prayed that the Master should inquire whe-
ther the charity did- not extend to the education of female chil-
dren introduced quite a new view of the question. That part of
the petitioner's prayer ought certainly to have obtained the sanc-
tion of the Attorney-General before it was urged. The Learned
Counsel concluded by expressing his conviction that his Lord-
ship would dismiss the petition.
Mr. DUCKWORTH followed Mr. Home, against the petition.

The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that it would become a
question whether the trustees ought not immediately to apply
all surplus funds in fulfilment of the intention of the founder of
the charity by distributing them -equally among the objects. of
the charity. It happened that trustees too often lost sight of the
object for which they were appointed, and made the execution
of their duty a source of favour and patronap.
Mr. HART rose to reply, but his Lordship requested him to
postpone his observations till to-morrow.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 14.
Jolas v. BROMLEY.

The plaintiff Mrs. Jones, a widow, was, by the will of her
late husband, left the life interest of all his _property, provided
that she should remain a widow and not keep apublic-house, or
haVe any interest or concern therein, or in any other businesS.
The trustees under this will refused, after a certain period, to
pay the interest to the plaintiff, on the ground that she kept a
public-house. She filed a bill in Chancery, and it was by con-
sent referred to the master. The master reported that. the plain-
tiff had not forfeited, and the case was argued this day in the
form of an exception to the master's report.
Messrs. HEALD and KEATE contended that there was
clearly a forfeiture, because the plaintiff ppenly kept the Roman
Eagle, in. Church-street, Deptford, ordered spirits.fratm the
pots. It was very unfortunate for this poor lady,
spirit-merchant in her own name, and had her name .narked on
tbhuetPtleie termsler of the will were perfectly explicit.
Mr. 11f,a..T. • argued that Mrs. Jones was only tho servant of
Messrs. Taylor and co., brewers. There was an affidavit
proving that the pewter pots had been ordered by Messrs. Taylor
and Co., and that the • whole business was conducted as theirs,
the nlaintiff receiving one guinea a week for her services. It
was here objected that there was an Act of Parliament against
brewers selling in less quantities than whole casks, and this was
business that property from being
lg
ishould sub-
.
shewn to be the state of the law. •
The VICE-CuANcEanola said, it was manifest that the tes-
b
t ao ts ot rb' sy
theintention
plaintiff
e n 1 3
,maen
n g i n prevent any to
ject her to the bankrupt laws. The plaintiff had subieaticl her-
self to the bankrupt laws, for it was nut to be believed that re-
spectable thin, as the brewers in question, would declare to the
, world that they were guilty cf a fraud. *.zhe th.4refore kept the

The VICE-CHANCELLOR—If you get rid of thatob-jection
ariAing from the bankrupt laws, you will remove a great-diffi-
culty from 'the case.
_

If appeared that there was not even an allegation to the effect
on the other side.

Mr. LOVAT proceeded. The plaintiff was ostensibly keepfn-
of the public house, but not in reality. It also deserved to be
mentioned, though strictly it was no part of the case, that Mrs.
Jones had brought. 8001. to her late husband, and afterwards by
her activity in keeping a public-house increased that sum to the
amount left in his will, and of which the life rent was now in
question. .

Mr. BLACKBURN appeared for the trustees, and wished
that the decree of his Honour should be left subject to further
inquiry as to who were next of kin. Two brothers had ap-
peared, but it was not known whether there were not other re-
latires.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR, after some deliberation on this
point, said that the judgment he now pronounced might be open
to motions to amend the record, and that if the master should,
upon inquiry, find there were parties who were not now present
in Court, the whole case would be open to be argued again.—
The liability to the bankrupt laws being now entirely out of
view, it was evident that the plaintiff was not keeper of a public
house, either according to the principle or the letter of the will.
Therefore there was no forfeiture.

IN RE HOWARD AND GUMS

This petition, which had been fixed for 3 o'clock this after-
noon, was postponed till Friday next.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 14.

This morning the Grand Inquest for the city of Westminster
and county of Middlesex appeared in Court, and was sworn.
The gentlemen, after a. short but impressive charge from Mr.
Justice BAYLEY, retired to their jury rooms to consider of such
bills as might be laid before them.