The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-16 00:00:00

THIS DA Y'S NEWS.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

EXPARTE VAST SANDAU.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this case
to-day, which was argued before the Court upon appeal
from the Court of Review. 'His Lordship said the facts
of the case might be stated in a few words. A petition
and motion was depending in the Court of Review in
the bankruptcy of a person named Martin. Mr. Van
Sandau was the solicitor on one side, and Messrs. Turner
and Hensman on the other., The Court of Review
made an order upon the petition, and Mr. Van Sandau
being dissatisfied with that order, wrote and circulated a
libel on the Court of Review. In this state of the
matter Messrs. Turner and Hensman presented a peti-
tion to the Court of Review, praying that that Court
would order Mr. Van Sandau to be committed for con-
tempt. The Court upon that petition made an order,
directing that for his contempt he should be committed
to the custody of the marshal of the Queen's Prison.
He was committed, bat apologising afterwards he was
discharged. For the part which Messrs. Turner and
Hensman had taken in the transaction, Mr. Van
Sandau commenced as. action in the Court of Queen's
Bench against them. They filed a replication, and
pleaded in justification the order. To this plea Mr.
Van Sandau demurred, and that case was now standing
for argument in the Court of Queen's Bench. An ap-
plication was then snide to the Court of Review for an
injunction, restraining Mr. Van Sandau from proceeding
further at law. The Court made a qualified order—the
Court restrained Mr. Fan Sandau from proceeding, ex-
cept for the purpose of raising certain questions. The
Court gave Mr. Van Sandau permission to object to the
proceedings on three grounds, but it restrained him from
raising any other questions. In this state of things and
from this decision Mr. Van Sandau appealed to this
branch of the Court, snd the question now was, what
course ought to be pursued by the Court in the present
matter. It was first contended, on the part of Mr. Van
Sandau, that no contempt had taken place. His Lord-
ship thought that nc person who read the publication
could be otherwise than convinced that it was a gross
and scandalous libel on the Court of Review,
imputing to that Court the most unworthy mo-
tives. Added to this, the libel was circulated while
the cause was depending ; and further, it appeared to
have been extensively distributed in every quarter, even
in the court itself, while the judge was presiding. No
man could doubt, observed his Lordship, that that was a
gross and scandalous contempt of court. Lord Hard-
wicke had repeatedly laid it down, that scandalising the
court was a contempt. The next point of objection taken
was, that the court had no power to commit for contempt
—upon this point his Lordship thought it clear that the
court had such power given it by the statute of the 3d
and 4th of William IV. in almost direct terms. But
there it was said, that if the court could do it one judge
could not, as the court, as originally constituted, consisted
of four judges. His Lordship could not accede to such a
proposition, as it was clear that the power of the four
judges of the court was now concentrated in the one
Learned Judge, who presided there now. His
Lordship was clearly of opinion that the Court
of Review had the power to commit. It was
then said that the order was vicious because
there was no adjudication of any contempt having
been committed. Now his Lordship thought,considering
he was sitting in bankruptcy, and that from his decision
there was no appeal, he ought to consider long before he
gave judgment in favour of the petition, in which was
granted the injunction restraining further proceedings at
law. It was unnecessary to decide the question whether
the Court of Review had the power to grant injunction,
the question being was it prudent or proper to grant an
injunction in the present case. His Lordship on the
whole thought that the injunction ought not to be
granted, he should, therefore, discharge that part of the
order, and direct the rest of the petition to stand over
till the matter was decided in the Court of Queen's Bench.
THE DUKE OF LEEDS V. EARL AMHERST.
The remainder of the day was occupied with the argu-
ments in this appeal from the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor of England, deciding that a full-length
picture of the great Duke of Schomberg, painted by Sir
G. Kneller, now hung up in the great hall of Hornby
Castle, the seat of the Duke of Leeds, was to be con-
sidered a portrait, and not a picture, the effect of which
decision would be, that it would become, under the will
of the late Duke of Leeds, the property of his son-in-
law, Mr. Walter Sackville Fox, and not that of the
present Duke, and consequently, if the decision be
affirmed, Hornby Castle will be deprived of one of its
greatest ornaments.
The arguments appeared likely to occupy several days.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The Vice-Chancellor of England took causes to-day,
but in consequence of the absence of Mr. Bethel! and
Mr. Stuart, who were engaged in the Lord Chancellor's
Court,in the case of the Duke of Leeds v. Earl Amherst,
the Court rose shortly after twelve o'clock.
(Before Sir J. WIGRAIa.)

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. FLINT AND ANOTHER.
JUDGMENT.

His HONOUR, this morning, gave judgment in this
case, which has been argued at considerable length
dvring the week. It was an information filed in the
name of the Attorney-General by the feoffees of a charity
founded by Thos. Strensham of the parish of St. Dunstan's,
near the city of Canterbury, who, by indenture of feoff-
ment, dated the 27th day of April, in the year 1584,
conveyed his five houses and gardens, four of which
were situated in the parish of St. Dunstan's, Canterbury,
to trustees, the issues and profits of the said tenements
tnetr naturat child: ea, inhabiting or abiding, Or
to those who should inhabit or abide, within
the said parish of St. Dunstan's, Canterbury, so
as to help and comfort the parents, clothe the children,
or set them forth to service. The object of the present
information was to obtain an account of occupation
rents said to be due to the feoffees, but which had been
incorporated with a public-house called the Catherine
Wheel, and also to obtain a conveyance of a portion of
land which had been built upon, and which formed a part
of the parlour of the house in question. The defendants
were a Mr. R. Flint, a brewer at Canterbury, and him-
self, one of the trustees, and Mr. Kingsford, his
partner. They both claimed under a purchase made
by them from Mr. John Abbott, who was tenant of the
premises in question, and also one of the trustees of
the charity. The case of the relators was, that the
Catherine Wheel, which was bounded by the charity land
upon which the owner of the house and its of-
fices had encroached, and that John Abbott, a
trustee afterwards sold it as his own to the defendants.
It was contended on the part of the relators that this
conduct of Abbott was a clear breach of trust, under
which the defendants could not derive any title, and that
the question was one for equitable jurisdiction. The
defendants on the other hand contended, first, that the
piece of land claimed by,the information never formed part
of the charity estate; secondly, that even supposing
it had so belonged to it, the defendants had purchased
it for a valuable consideration, without notice of the
title now alleged by the relators. They lastly pleaded
in bar of the claim the Statute of Limitations, 3 and 4
of William IV., c. 27. They also alleged that the case
was not one for the interposition of a court of equity,
but that the title of the charity to possession might with
less expense have been tried by the process of an action
for ejectment.
His HONOUft in giving his decision, thought the case
must be decided on its general merits ; by this he meant
the question as to whom the land in dispute belonged.
The first objection to the case being so decided on its
merits was, that the question being purely one of a
legal nature, it was not properly brought before a Court
of Equity. lie was of a different opinion, and
thought that in a charity case, a jury ought
not to be left to speculate on the rights of that charity.
The next obj ection was founded on the statute of limi-
tations, but on that point he thought this statute did
not in any of its sections apply as a bar to the claim of
the relators. The third objection was, that the de-
fendants were purchasers for the value without notice
of the claim of the charity. With respect to that objec-
tion it was quite clear that in no possible view of the
case could it be maintained with regard to the site of
the parlour specified, because before the conveyance the
defendant, who purchased of Abbot, had noticed that
that part of the parlour belonged to the charity. Tho
consequence was, that the charity must have the right
now to make out their title to so much of the
said parlour, short of the whole, as belonged
to them—a right which they had neglected to
exercise in 1832. This last objection he should, there-
fore, over-rule, as well as that founded by the defendants
on their being purchasers without notice of the claim.
The general question then remaining was, whether the
charity was entitled to the land or not. His Honour
here referred to the descriptions of the property given
in the various deeds of conveyance which were made
of it at different periods from the date of
the original conveyance in the year 1584,
down to the present time. Owing to some alterations
which had been made in those descriptions, there was
something like a doubt as to the validity of the relators'
claim ; and he thought the proper course would be to di-
rect an issue to try whether the charity was or was not
entitled to the whole of the land lying to the north-west
of the wall in which the stone marked T. T. M., 1731,
was situated.

It was ultimately agreed that counsel on either side
should come to an understanding as to what should form
the specific points of the issue to be t: ied.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court took the Crown papers this morning. Up
:o the hour of our going to press no case of any public
merest had come on for argument.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
The Court was occupied the whole morning with ar.
guments in an ejectment case, of a merely technical cha•

racier.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
Sittings in Banco.
IN RE JOHN HOWARD.
A writ of habeas had been obtained in this case to
bring up the body of the defendant, who had been de-
tained in custody for an alleged violation of a contract.
The defendant was brought up this morning, and upon
application being made for his discharge a rule for that
purpose was ordered.
THE QUEEN V. THE LANCASTER AND PRESTON JUNCTION