The Sun.
London, England, 1826-12-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROLLS COURT, FRIDAY, DEC. 1.
VIZ GOSPEL iOCIETY V. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

Mr. SIDEBOTTONI, in the absence of Mr. Shadwell (who with
the other, King's Counsel was attending. the House of Lords),
stated this case. Archbishop Tennison, by a codicil to his will,
dated September 2, 1715, made the following bequest
_ .

_ .
,4 Whereas in my will I have bequeathed to the Society de
Promovendo Evangelio the sum of 500/., now I do revoke the
same legacy, but my will is, that my executors do pay to the said
Society within two months after the appointment and consecration
of two Protestant Bishops, one for the Continent ,and the other
for the Isles of North America, 1,0001. to be applied by them in
equal portions for the benefit of those respective churches ; but
until such consecrations are completed, my executors are not to
pay the 1,0001. or any part thereof, but are to put out the same
in the public funds, and apply the interest for the benefit of such
missionaries being English, and of the province of Canterburyr as
the said Society shall have judged to have done good service to re-
ligion in North America, and shall have returned to England poor
and distressed." The plaintiffs are now advised that the events
specified in the will of Archbishop Tennison having taken place,
the funds are now applicable, and had filed their bill to have the
funds transferred to them.

Mr. WRAY admitted the facts as stated, but suggested a doubt
whether the Court would not require the representatives of Arch-
bishop Tennison to be before the Court.
Mr. Sinzaorrost—.With regard to executors being made
parties where the fund is clear, all debts being paid, the executors
are funai officio', and have no business before the Court, which
has complete power without them. In this case it would be
extremely inconvenient, and as no personal representative of the
executor could be found, a limited administration would be neces-
sary. That the Court should interfere and manage the fund, I
apprehend, is impossible. . The Society are clearly entitled to
have the funds transferred to them ; they are to apply them, and,
as there must be an end to this trust, and from the great incon-
venience that would be produced by the Court administering the
funds, I submit they should be at once transferred.
The M. of the Ross—This is a very large sum, much
greater, probably, than the testator contemplated ; but the tee-
tator reposed
tothe trust in the Society, they are the proper
partiesreceive the money, and I have no doubt they will ap-
ply it properly.

COURT OF KINGS BENCH, Arzsrarmsrza, DEC. I.
The Lord Chief Sustici is still prevented from resuming his
official duties by indisposition.
BARKIR V. CROMPTON'.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a butcher, of
Islington,
to recover from the defendant the value of his horse,
idshich it was alleged had been killed by the furious and negligent
riving of the defendant.
Air. Justice LtruznaLE having summed up the evidence, the
Jury found
a verdict for the plaintilf--.Mamages, 101.

- -
twoMgr.uinßeftasowunhiiicahnhe appliedpto
oniTititleiel ifnulittv.repeOronfu the proceedings ocellSeditigl"—iss last week ing application to iv:accidentally
an attorney of that Court to show cause why he should not return
should not be struck offhadthe Court for a rule, calling upon
the roll of at rnt ,
not be ordered to pay the costs of that application. The state-
mentobtained, upon which,Mr. Brougham made the applicMion, as sup-
ported by affidavit., was this :—A Mr. Good, residing in Man.
cheater-buildings, W estM';
naters had accepted a bill of exchange,
made payable at the house of a friend of his named Brooks; wht
this bill, which was in the hands of a man named Gene" at
t"'
time, become due, it was dishonoured in consequence of owe mis-
time arising out of the accidental absence
of Mr. Brooks from
.home. Geneva, the holder of the bill, on its being returned to