The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CITANCERY, Nov. IfL

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. 'pliE COOPERS' COMPANY:
This cause was in part heard on 'Wednesday last.- This
morning Mr. Hour was heard in reply. The Learned Cotin-
sd denied that there was any foundation for the insinuations
which had been thrown out respecting the mismanagement of

the school under the direction of Dr. Jeans. He had heard

that a proposal for an increased salary.to Dr. Jeans had been
carried before the Master ; but he had no doubt it was intend-
ed that the increase should take place from the latest possible
period.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—Let this stand till Tuesday, and
in the mean time, if any proposal for an increased salary has
been put in, let me see it.

Mr. WETHERELL said, there was another petition in this
cause from Robert Hudson, the elder and younger, who prayed
that it might be referred to the Master to inquire whether it
would not be expedient to reduce the rent of a farm of which
they were tenants. The petitioners rented the farm, under' a
lease of the Coopers' Company, at a rent of 4301. per annum.—
In support of their prayer the petitioners have annexed to their
petition an affidavit, in which they had • very circumstantially
detailed the different prices of potatoes in the Scotch and ;Jon-
don markets, in order to shew that it was impossible to obtain
a profit from the produce of theii farm, which consisted chiefly
of potatoes.

Mr. CHING followed Mr. Wetherell in support of the peti-
tion. He said that when the petitioners took the farm, they cal-
culated upon obtaining a gain to a certain extent,- by supplying
the Londtdi market with potatoes, but they now found that in
consequence of the large quantities of that vegetable which were
imported from Scotland, the price had very much decreased.—
Formerly they could obtain 41. per ton for potatoes, but now
they could obtain only 11. The assessed taxes on the farm were
1701., which, added to the rent, amounted to 8001. upon a farm
of 108,acres. The Learned Gentleman concluded by calling on
the COrt to allow the Coopers' Company, as trustees of the
property, to lower the rent.
Mr. HORNER, on the part of the Coopers' Company dm-
tended that all leases would henceforth be considered as good
for nothing if the Court were to listen to the application of the
petitioners. The lease was granted to the petitioners in 1817,
at which time they were fully aware of the actual worth of the
farm, as they had been in possession of it some time at a rent
much under its value. The master of the Court having directed
that the farm should in future be let at an increased rent, a va-
luation of the farm was taken, from which it appeared that it
was worth 5501. per annum. The petitioners, however, offered
3301. a year, and as they had been in possession of the farm be-
fore, the Coopers' , Company granted them A lease upon those
terms. His Lordship was in possession of the facts of the case,
and it remained to be seen whether the Court would break in
upon leases in the manner, proposed. • The reasons which had
been assigned for the interrerence of the Court in behalf of the
petitioners would hold good in any other case. The petitioners
did not think fit to state the profits which they had obtained in
former years ; but the moment a change occurred in the state of
things-to which they had been accustomed, they wished to give
up the farm. He would repeat what he had before stated, that
it his Lordship granted the present application, leases would be
good for nothing.
Mr. WETHERELL said he never remembered an applica-
tion which rested on better grounds than that which he had
made to his Lordship. The petitioners gave a very minute
statement of the produce of the farm, and its relative value, at
the time they took the lease and the present time. It would be
troubling his Lordship too much to enter into an account of the
gardening stuff, the drum-headed cabbages, and the
The LORD CHANCELLOR here observed, that he did not
know much about drum-headed cabbages, but he was a sheep
farmer himself, and he knew that mutton which some, time since
sold for lid. per pound, he now saw -marked up for 3d. per
pound as he went through Long-acre. He did not, however,
think himself entitled on that account to call fur a reduction of
rent. In times of high prices he had never heard of•farmeis
giving their landlords more than the stipulated rent; yet now
the case was altered, they immediately cried out for reduction.
Though the Court had sometimes listened to applications simi-
lar to that now made, it had never gone further than to refer it
to the Master, to inquire whether the rent might not be reduced
for a particular period. He had no objection to let it be re-
ferred to the Master to inquire whether any, and what, reduc-
tion might be made in the rent of the petitioners for the
present year. But the petitioners must pay the costs of the
application.
Mr. CHING suggested that it would be advisable to reserve
the question of costs.
The LORD CHANCELLOR replied no ; it was a very bold
petition. He thought it would be a proper course to pursue,
when the Court made an order for a reduction of rent, to en.
graft upon it a stipulation that when the price of produce should
rise, the tenant should pay an increased rent, or at least to make
good the by-gone reduction.

THE. AT TORNEY-GENERAL V. THE SKINNERS' COMPANY.

GREGGopened the pleadings.
Mr. I4EALD said the cause came before his Lordship as an
appeal from the decision of his Honour the Vice? Chancellor.
The information was originally laid by the Attorney-(leneral
at the relation of some persons against the Alaster and Wardens
of the Skinners Company and their secretary, for the pur-
pose of obtaining an inspection of the books and papers of
the company. The object of the bill was to make the company
account for the rents and profits of considerableproperty which had
lately been much improved by being built upon. Tne property
was called the Foundling-fields, and lay at the back of the Found-
ling Hospital. It orinally belonged to Sir Andrew Judd, who
was a skinner, whoileviscd it by will for the'ptirpose ofsupporting
Tunbridge school and other charities. It was contended, on
thapart of the school, that that part of the property which was
called the Sand-hills, and lay betv.-cen.the .Foundling Hospital
and the New-Toad, ought to be considered as specifically appro-
priated to the maintenance of the school. On the part of the
Company it was contended, that it was impoSsible legally to
separate the property, and say that any part was, specifically
bequeathed for the support of the school ; but that the whole
waxelcvised lxy Sir Andrew Judd,. together With other property
in the city of London, for the maintenance of the school and
other charities mentioned in the will of the testator. The bone
of contention then was, whether the school was entitled to the
property called the Foundling-tields, in the parish of St. Pan-
eras, now, in consequence of some recent improvements, worth
4,04)01., or whether it was entitled only to 401, per annum from
the rent of the estates.
:Ur. BART said his Learned Friend seemed to leave forgotten
the only material question, which was, whether, supposing the I

school would be content to receive the 401., 'the company were
to take the 4,0001. fOr their own benefit.

Mr. HEALD said he had not forgotten that point,. as. Mr.
Hart would have seen' had. he not incerroptA! limi ; hut he
'• would maintain, that if the Attorney-General. should fail to in.
duce. his Lordship, to /give the school a inrger. portion of the
rents than 401. a year, it was immaterial to the school Whether
the. C-onmany applied the remainder for their tiWn benefit or in
aupport of other charities. He had stated to his Lordship what
he conceived to be the question at issue, and he would then pro.
coed to detail the faets on which it rested. In the reign of Ed-
' ward VI., Sir Andrew Judd, who was an Altlesman and a per-
son of some note in the city of London, wialting to make him,
self of note to - all eternity, applied for a charter to enable him
to found and endow a free-school. The charter was obtained
in the7th of Ed ward VI., and was the first &eminent in point
of date in the cause. The. charter, like most-.other Charters of
that period, was originally written in Latin, but it had been
very•eorrectlte translated. He had compared the translation
with the Orieinal, and found that it was very'faithful ; and he
had heard no complaint with regard -to it on the part of the
school, which was so able to discover error, if any- had existed.
The Learned Counsel then read a pe,ssage from the charter,
in which permisaion was granted to Sir Am:v.9,6lmM to-found
a free-school tit.Tunbridge, to be called after-his Wane.. The
founder was also.appointed governor for, his life, with authority
to appoint a master and under-master of the school, and to deter-
mine - their salaries, and to enact statutes for-the regulation of
the school. It was provided, that after. the death of Judd, the
government of the sehoel was to be vested in the Master and
Wardeni of the Skinners' Company, who, were to possess all the
powers enjoyed by Sir Andrew Judd, with the exception of that
of determining the salaries of the Master, and under Master.
The Skinners' Company were then empowered to purchase, for
the support of the school, lands not . exceeding in value 401. a
year. It appeared, that in the 6th year of Queen Elizabeth, in
1663, about 9 years after the date of the charter, a statute of
the school of Tunbridge was published, which stated that Sir
Andrew Judi had created a free grammar, school at Tunbridge,
and that lie. had directed the Master to receive a quarterly pay-
ment of Al., and the under-master a like payment-of 405., mak-
ing altogether the sum of 281. per annum. In order to shew
from whence the funds in support of the school were to proceed,
the Learned Counsel referred to the will of Sir A. Judd, which
was dated the 2d of September, 1558, in the reign of Philip and
Mary. It ought to be observed,. however, that though the sta-
tute to which he had just alluded was dated after the death of
Sir A. Judd, yet it was evidently framed in his life-time. The
testator died in the same year in which his will was made, in
1558.. He (Mr. Heald) cortceivtal,that the will was a most im-
portant document, although the Judge who tried the cause in
another place was reported to have said that the decisiOn of the
case turned not at al ,upon the will. He ought in this stage of
the case to state, that the appeal had been lodged in consequence
of an opinion entertained by the legal advisers of the Company,
that the case did turn upoh the will mainly and principally.__
The will stated, that the testator,having founded,a school -at
Tunbridge to continue for ever, for its support bequeathed to
the Skinners' Company in trust his property inSt.Pancras, Mid-
dlesex,
and other property in the parishes of St. Helens, All
Saints, and St. Mary Axe, in the City of London. The pro-
perty in St. Pancras, at the time of the testator's death, pro-
duced an income of 131. Gs. Bd. ; and had it remained at that
value, it was not probable that the Court would have been
troubled with any suit 'respecting it. But when the Sand-hills
were overspread with streets and squares, and the rents pro-
ceeding from them. amounted to '4,0001a and would probably
equal ten times that sum when the present,lea.ses had expired,
then the school came forward and said, that though Judd did
not give them the land by his will, yet it was convenient for
them to have it, and have it they would. The yearly value of
all the lands devised by the testator was 601..135. 4d. By the char-
ter the company were empowered to employ not more than 401.
a-year in support of the school. The will then directed how the
remainder should be distributed. The Company were to have
an annual sum of 21. for paying a yearly visit to the school and
seeing that the pedagogues were employed in teaching the boys
" virtue and learning. " The Company were also to pay six
poor almsmen 4s. each on every Sunday, and-10s. a-year to the
renter warden. A balance of some pounds still remained, and
this was to be employed in needful reparations of the school and
the trust-tenements ; and the overplus, if, there were any, was
to be for the use of the Company. It appeared, therefore,
.that the testator anticipated there would be a surplus, which he
directed to be laid out in repairing the tenements, from which
the revenue was derived. How unfair, then, would ithave
been for the school, upon the death of the testator, to have' said,
" We will take the Sand-hills for our portion, because they will
never need repairs ; we shall always be sure of our 131. Os. Bd.
If a-fire should burn down the city, we shall still have our
.hills, and will leave the poor almsmen to get their support out.
of the ashes." Mr. Heald then said, that three questions
would arise with respect to the overplus. First, whether the
Company could not take it as a remuneration of their labours,
by virtue of the 43d of Elizabeth, by which, as his Lordship
well knew, the testator's. will, as well as all similar documents,
was made a valid instrument. Secondly, whether the Com-
pany could not convert themselves into trustees of the overplus.
And thirdly, whether, if the Company could do neither of these
things, the overplus ought not to be considered to be badly dis-
posed of, and as belonging to the heir at law. He next came
to the circumstance on which the claim of the school to the pro-
perty was chiefly founded. It appeared that all the property
which Sir A. Judd devised for the support of the school and
other purposes, was purchased from two persons of the name
of Gates and Thorogood. The property was conveyed by Gates
and Thorogood to Sir A. Judd and a person named Fisher. This
Fisher was a servant of SirA. Judd, and for what purpose he was
associated with him in that way did not appear. After the deaths of.
Sir A. Judd, Fisher, in compliance with the will of the master,
conveyed the property to the Skinnees' Company. The Company,
however, soon discovered that Fisher had made a previous con-
veyance of the property to some of his own relations, and
they thereforcnapplied to the Legislature to make good their
title to it. , The Legislature, by an act of the 14th of Eliza-
beth, declared that the right to the property was vested in
the Comeany, and it was upon the wording of that act that
the school founded their claim to the-lands in the pariah of St.'
Pancras. The son of Fisher, however, discovered that the
Company had still no right to the property, because, the Act of
Parliament- had given it to them under a wrong title. To
remedy this defect, the Cernpany again applied to the
turc,Legisla-
which, by an act of the 31st of Elizabeth, enacted, that
the orispany should have the benefit of the former Act, whe-
ther they were wrongly designated by it or not. The Learned
Gentleman then contended, that the construction Which was
put on those Acts of Parliament ought not to be permitted to
overturn the positive declarations contained in the charter and
the will of the testator. The Acts must be considered as pri-
vate Acts,. and the intentions of those who obtained them must
be taken into consideration. What, then, was the intention of
the Skinners' Company in applying to the Legislature ? It was
to prove their title to the property, not to obtain a -direction as
to the particular manner its which it should be appropriated.
The Loan CHANCELLOR asked whether the deed of convey,
ance from Messrs. Gates and Thorogood was extant ? (The so-
licitor for the Company said, that it could not be found, and was
supposed to have been lost, together with many other papers, at
the time of the fire of LOnclon.) His Lordship then observed,
that the Act of the 14th of Elizabeth recited the. property to
have been conveyed to Sir A. Judd and Fisher, as joint tenants
in fee, for the express purpose of being conveyed by them to
the Skinners' Company. Judd died, and Fisher conveyed the
estates to some persons who claimed them under that convey,
ance. The Legislature then made good the conveyance
to the Skinners' Company against the persons to whom
Fisher had previously conveyed. theM. But the Act did not
operate against the descendants of the Alderman. The Act of
the 14th, and the Act of. the 31st of Elizabeth, differed mate-
rially with respect to the charitable uses to which the property
should be given. When the Court came to decide upon the
case, it would require from the Company an account of thepro-
perty devised by the will of Sir A. Judd, Int not appropriated
by the Legislature. Ills Lordship concluded with desiring
Mr. Heald to conclude Ids'aegument to-incrrow.

, .
VICE-CHANGELLUKS COURT, Nov. 16.
EXPABTE SHAW IN RE HOWARD 'AND GIBBS. •
This petition having been fixed for three o'clock this day, the
Court Was exceedingly crowded, in expectation of hearing its
merits fully' diseusseu. . The array of
.Counsel .was sufficiently
imposing .--Messrs. Horne, :Messrs. and Blake, for the peti-
tion of 'lll'essrs. 'Shaw and Co: ; Messrs. Part, Bell, Agar,
fleald,,Motague, and Itc,sc, against it.
' Mr. HORNE said he would state the merits of this queStion
very shortly.
Mr. BART rose, and said that the affidavits filed stated new
facts, with which he had net been acqtfainted, and that he was
not therefore prepared to gaorn
AIT. MON"TAG U E said that he had been ;ending the affidavits'
till eleven last "light, and resumed the task at four,this morn-

aug ; but tbat at seven he found three' new affidavits filed, and
oa coining to his chambers:this.morning, he learnt that there
were three Inore.
Mr. Hon NE asked whether 51r. Montague would state when
he would be ready.
Mr. A oan-said that io one could tell, for Mr. Horne's clients
were going on filing afhdavits.
Mr. BLAKE said that no affidavits had been filed in answer,
from Friday till Wednesday, and that, therefore, they -could
not on his side have their affidavits filed earlier.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR. said, • that some rule must be
adopted respecting the ffinig of affidavits in this case.
Mr. HART observed, that such a rule was imperatively
celled for.

Mr..IIORNTE read a aottce which had .been just put into his.
hand, bearing that affiaaVits tired in the matter of. Grinstead
Would be read in thiS case.
Much contention here arose respecting the filing of affidavits,
the handing over reciprocally copies of such affidavits, and the
probable time that might be required.
The VICE-CrIANCELLO at length ordered, that no affi-
davits should be further filed against the petition, but in so far
as new matters were stated in the affidavits on the other side, and
that -the atrulavits_in reply should be limited in like manner.
Mr. .ki.wiNE asked who the solicitors were for the several par-
ties on .the other side, that copies might be got of the several
affidavits without loss of time.

Mr. MONTAGUE said, the same solicitors were for all parties.
Mr. HORNE—I have no doubt of it. The solicitors are the
same, and the cause is one. • . .
l~lr. MONTAGUE.-Mr. Howard has done great service to
the creditors, by setting aside the first commission, for he has
saved the estate from being divided among the lawyers.-,-(A
laugh.)—lf irrelevant observations are. made on the one side,
we have a right to reply to them on the other.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, after much inquiry and delibera-
tion, finally ordered that he should be applied to on Friday next
to name a day for hearing the merits of this question.

COURT OF C011:110N PLEAS, Nov. 16.
This Court was occupied during the' whole of the day in hear,
mg special arguments on points of law and pleading, none o:
which were of any public interest.

CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. N.
RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS.
TIBIRLOV V. TIIURLOW.

This suit, at the instance of Mrs. Maria Thuilow, against
her husband, for Restitution of Conjugal Rights (on the plea
that he had, without just cause or provocation, 'Compelled. her
to quit his house in 1816, under a deed of separation), was met
b y a responsive allegation on the past of Thurlow, Esq.
charging adultery in bar of the wife's suit, and praying in con-
sequence, that the Court would pronounce Kilter* of divorce.
The present question was as to the admissibility of this allega-
tion, which contained 17 articles. The chief of these were now
objected 'to by Drs. Phillimore and . Dodson (Counsel for Nita.
Thurlow), on the ground that they were expressed in a manner
which was too general, vague, diffuse, and irhetrhe Thee
objections were answered by DrS. Jenner and 4ftlibg-41, and
argued at considerable length.
Sir C. Roma:sm.' proceeded to give judgment on the several
articles as to their admissibility. It was competent for the
husband to plead the adultery of his wife, in bah of her suit
against himself, not only to oppose her claim of restitution,
but to avail himself of a divorce, which the law alie!weilf where •
the adultery should be proved ; so that, in fact, this became
suit of adultery, by means of the husband's defence.-Ist. With'
regard to the husband's pleading the marriagee the • birth of
children and a deed of separation, by which, in 1816, he ceased
to cohabit with her, as alleged, on the ground 'of unhappy dif.
ferences between them ; there was no solid objection to his
pleading those facts, although it was admitted adeed of separa-
tion was no bar to a suit of restitution of conjugal rights, unless
founded on adultery as the cause of such separation. Tho'se
pleas not being attended with additional expence or detri-
ment to the female, were yet material to the history of events,
and therefore the 'ourt would admit them to proof. Like.
wise as regarded this agreement, by which the husband' was
to take the children from their mother's charge, allowing her
801. per annum, which the allegation further avhned, was regu-
larly paid. To the sth article, it being objected, that no act
of adultery was charged to have taken place till 1820 ; yet
it set forth, that the said Maria ThurloVe resided at Sudbury,
in Suffolk, and Braintree, in Essex, after the separation, such
specification of residence having no object in this suit. The
Court,. however, determined this was a pact of the res gesta, as
connected with the more substantive facts charged, namely, that
the said Maria Thurlow afterwards resided in the neighbour-
hood of London and Southwark, at Paradise-row, Lambeth,
West-lane, Kennington, and other places, where she assumed va-
rious names, and became criminally connected in adultery with
sundry strange men, whose names this complainant cannot set
forth ! The Court observed, in answer to this general chargeeit
was not likely to find out the names of all, or any of such per-
sons as might be connected with a woman living separate from
her husband in a state of public prostitution, as tlei article set
• forth ; but being connected with the history of what took place
in that of more substantive charges . of adultery, that article
should be admitted, as it might tend to more satisfactory. evi-
dence of specific facts which might afterwards come before
the Court ; and especially where it was- charged in the nature
of confession ; though confession of-adultery was not admissible
evidence in itself, yet as decided in the case of Mortirrier v.
Mortimer, under the -peculiar circumstances' of the case,' it
might be evidence connected with other facts. This allegation
in the 6th Article pleaded, that the said :Maria Thurlow fre-
quently called upon a Mr. Parsonson, with whom she had for-
merly lodged at Sudbury ; and confessed to him that whilst she
lived at Paradise-row, Lambeth, she was regularly visited by
two young men, who were in business in-Bond-street, on-Satur-.
days and Sundays, and that they slept with and allowed •lieha
weekly support. was a confession of a singular nature,
which the Court felt reluctant to admit, until it should. appear
under what circumstances this Lady had made Mr. Pareonson
her confidant, so as to possess him of such a minute disclosuee of
her being engaged in an habitual adulterous intercourse. And
with respect so the objection-that both theSe young .men Might
be inferiid as sleeping with-her at one and the seine "time, the
Court thought it more probable that by Saturday and'Sunilay
night, was meant that one passed the Saturday night wifithher,
and the other the Sunday ; although this confession went -to
statethat they staid with her till Monday morning, and theh
went to their businesi. The names of these -young men were
not introduced, and the Court was desirous.. to know how it
comnienehd, and what gaVe rise to so' sidgular a conversation
between her and Mr: Peesonson, before it admitted that article,
especially as it eethfOrth no date or specific act of Adultery :
it might be diflicultetinthe party. to make a defense to such a
general charge, specifying no one particular day, but Sundays
and Saturdays genehally, • In consulting books of practice, the
Court was particularly cautious to admit evidence of confession,
in order to guard against collusion; for purposes of voluntary
separation and divorce the Court would at all events require that
article to be reformed. The decision of Sir W. Scott. in'the caste
of Mortimer anit'Mortimer, drew the line of distinction, the evi-
dence in that case of confession:- tieing of .a special nature, and
such confession having a connexicn with substantive facts
proved. The seventh article was more specific, in charg-
ing her - With Carrying on an adulterous connection with
a Mr. Ferguson, who lodged at the house of a Mr. An-
derson, ,No. 9, Tower Royal ; that on • the 'morning of the
lath f September 10,0, she called there and inquired
.for
Mr. Ferguson, calling herself by the name of Taylor or Turner,
and being shewndip stairs to the first floor, she breakfasted with
him thatelaye and remained taking her meals with him till the
neat morning. The servant went up about ten o'clock on the
night of the 14th, and' -found the room door fastened, and the
key-hole stopped up with paper. This was the very jet of the
husband's allegation, and therefore should be ailthitted. It was
-further charged that she lived with the said Feruson in the
King's Bench prison, passing as his wife, by the name of Mrs.
Ferguson, and that meeting a female with whom Ferguson had
cohabited, by accident, on Fish-street-hill, she confessed to her
that
.was then living with the said Ferguson in the pi leen.
Tlie,(got; the admitted the objection as to the ieference, that
this confession implied they. were living in adaltery, since it was
for the Court. to draw the inference from the -ale res gesta of
this confession. The inference could Jeniy by admitted by way.
Of inuendo.

With respect to the 13th and 14th articles as regarded repe-
tition in the manner in which identity wi,s pleaded, the Cou n T
held that was not a material objection ; if it should appear there
was a sufficient identification.

The Co u RT admitted the articles to proof, with excrytion of
the Uth, some trilling reform being direetcd in other articles.