The Sun.
London, England, 1826-07-08 00:00:00

FASITIONABLE INTELLIGENCE.

The report of the state of the Duke of York yes-
terday was, his Royal Highness continued better.—
On Thursday, Dr. Warren was again called in to a
consultation with Sir H. Halford and Dr. M'Gregor.
The cough, with which the Duke was afflicted, has
nearly left him. On Thursday his , Royal Highness
received a visit from the Princess Augusta. The
Royal Duke in general rides out in an open car-
riage in the evenings. On Wednesday evening his
Royal Highness rode through St. James's Park.
Yesterday the Duke • of Sussex had a numerous
dinner party at his apartments in the King's Palace,
Kensington. His Royal Highness was to have pre-
sided at the anniversary of the Mary-la-bonne Gene-
ral Dispensary, on Thursday, at the Freemasons'
Hall, but the Royal Duke sent an apology the prece-
ding day, in consequence of his Royal Highness being
seized with an attack of the cholera nimbus.

Thursday evening the Earl of Liverp9ol left town
for his seat at Coombe Wood.

Yesterday morning the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer came to town from the seat of Lady Bucking-
hamshire, at Charlton, Kent, and, after transacting
business at the Treasury, returned in the evening.
Two DEEP.—An Officer marching a. company of
grenadiers through a muddy field, in which they
stuck at every second step they took, gave the word for
them to " form two deep." The order had scarcely been
given when one of the soldiers remarked to his corn-
pa pion, " By now, what's that for I wonder ?
sure we're too deep already."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY.—(Tms DAY.)
STEWART V. EARL OP BUTE.

' His LORDSHIP had been undeavouring to read the papers
in this case, so as thoroughly to understand them ; and he
desired to state his impression of the points, with a view to
know whether or not he was correct. As to the subject of
apportioning the mortgages, he thought he had no need to
take notice of that, inasmuch as it had been disposed of by
the Court's agreeing with the Vice-Chancellor on the
point. What remained to be done was, for the Court to
state what was fit to be decided with respect to 6004 a-year
and the interest of 15,000/. Lord Bute, by his will, di-
rected the interest of the -15,0004, or a sufficient part of it,
to be applied in order to make good the annuity of the 6001.
a-year, provided the produce of the collieries did not satisfy
it. In 1809 an order was made by this Court, from which it
appeared that Lord Bute had advanced 6,000/. in discharge
of the annuity of 600/. a-year ; but that order was to be
entirely without prejudice to the. question in the•cause.
The question was . raised in the present suit, but had re-
ceived no determination . by the Vice-Chancellor, unless
it was to be considered that his Honour had declined to
give relief upon it. His Honour had directed the Master
to take an account of the rents and profit of the collieries,
subsequent to 1809, for the purpose of then determining
what was to be done with respect to that produce, and
with respect to the interest of the 15,000/. Then it was
the duty of this Court to form an opinion on these points,
namely, whether if the judgment below meant to dismiss
the bill with respect to contributions between the col-
lieries, and the interest of the 15,0001., which had oc-
curred previous to 1809—whether the.-decree was right
in that respect ? Next, what was to be done upon the
hearing of this suit, as to the relief sought, from and after
1809 ? What occurred to the Court was, if it was de-
nied, on the one hand, that there was a deficiency
from the produce of the collieries to pay the 600/.
a year, and , if, on the other band, that de-
nial was not , acceded to, to relieve the interest
of the 15,000/. rather, than take up two or three
years in going through . the Master's Office, it wouldbe
better for the Court to declare what the law was, with re-
spect. to the produce of the collieries ; and also with re-
spect to the intfirest of the 15,000/. being applied in dis-
charge of the annuity; because, when the parties knew the
law, probably they would lniVe no more difficulty.
Comm!! agreed that his Lordship was quite correct as
to the points, and felt satisfied that if the Court would be
so good.ss to lay down the law applying to the case, that
that would mq the whole litigation at rest.
His Loaostur then said, be would take the papers Wale
with hint again, anti dispose of it in judgment on Tuesday
!horning: lie should feel happy to be able to decide it as
well as he now malerstood the ease.

VICE-CHAN4i.OR'S CbtlitT-7(Tuts DAY).
ThA 'FAUSTUS or TM,: Aturisti 111UStUAL v. NSitrFA.

. .
This was a bill filed by. the Trustees of the British Mu-
seuM, calling on the heir-at-late of James White to account
to them for a sum of money, according to the bequest of the
said James White. The defendant's answer was, that the
devise was illegal, by statute the 9th of George ii., which
renders invalid all bequests for charitable uses, unless
done according to a certain form.
The Souceron-GElstom, With whom were Messrs.
Buds and Coo'ru, this day contended that the British
Musemn Was an institution vested in the Crown or in the
State, established by Act of -Parliament, supported by
grants from the Commons, and therefore did not partake
of a charitable nature. Gifts towards this institution were
the same in principle as if given in aid of the Sinking
Fund. It differed from a private corporation, inasmuch
us it was for the use of the nation at large. It was ana-
logous to the devise contained in the will of Thelluson,
directing his accumulated property to be laid out in liqui-
dation of the national debt, in case of the failure of
certain branches of his family, Yet the uses of
that will were eStablished. The testator in the pre-
sent ease intended for the public at large, for the words
of the bequest. were, " that certain land should be sold,
and the amount thereof given to the trustees of the BA..
tish Museum, for the purpose of erecting a building for
that national institution;" and in conclusion it says---" I
give this little pittance as an example to others to think
more of the nation, and less of themselves.
(The testator held a situation in the House of Conn-
mons.)
Mr. Horne, with whom was Mr. Park, on behalf of the
heir at law, briefly contended that. the British Museum
was not a part of the state, us had been absurdly stated
on the other side ; that it differed not from the Foundling
Hospital, or other national institutions, which were
founded by Act of Parliament, and supported by the votes
of the Commons, yet bequests to such had been always
Lid to be within the statute of George the Second.
The VICE-CifANcw.oß said that the object of the
statute of Geo. H. was to prevent lands to be held in
mortmain, and though in this instance it was directed to
sell the lends and pay the amount to the Trustees of the
British Museum, still that would not obviate the mis-
iehief, for the Trustees might take the lands to them.
selves. The ease of Thelluson and Woodford was
,not in
directly to the King, as trustee
paint,lort hetilliaetiboeng,uievshtit
obeceligild not be compelled to perform
his trust ; besides, it has not as yet been derided, for the
contingency has not come to puss on which the bequest was
to be available to the Sinking Fund. The British
Museum was an institution for the. protection of, Arts and
Ski:specs, .and was supported partly by: the public, and
partly by private donations. A distinguished personage, no,
living., had presented it with a very valuable collection
am. money applied towards it was not for the. state, but
far the artiernotseholy Huttthit. public- might have
r;
differed
in
that
te-
,lu from Maynooth College; yet a bequest to the latter
Was held to be for a charitable use. • There were no
grounds for taking it out of the purvieu of the statute.—
Ilis definition of a charitable use, according to the statutes
gift to an* individual or a
Elizalieth and George 11., was a
tither local or geperal.
i.orpOration, for a public :p4spoge,
Under these circumstances he thought the bequest was
The bill Wl4 accordingly dismissed.