The Sun.
London, England, 1821-08-02 00:00:00

. .
..."••.....
/7 .......„_. -,----......a, 0
..,--5--in,, 7,0,50, A,
"..-fiA -
fi, 4-141,14thk
'. 4 gillr • _ _.. . . ~.
S U N 0
.. -

THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 1821.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, AUGUST 1.
TOWNSIIEND V. TOWNSIIEND.

Mr. HART, on the part of Lord Charles Towns-
head, presented a petition, which prayed that
Lord John Townshend, and Mr. Blake, the
truestees appointed by the will of the late Mar-
quis of Townshend, and their agents, might be
restrained from cutting down timber on the trust
estates. It was also further prayed, that Mr.
George Daniel, the receiver appointed by the
Court, might be removed from his office, and
another receiver appointed in his place; and also,
that the same Mr. Daniel might be made to ac-
count for all the timber which had been already
cut down and sold with his privity. The Learned
Counsel stated, that the plaintiff had found it
necessary to present this petition in order to pre-
vent the property in trust from being unneces-
sarily wasted. The trustees left the manage-
ment of the estate entirely to their subordinate
agents, who had lately been in the practice of
cutting down large quantities of timber, for which
no account had been rendered. It appeared,
too, that the parties against whom the petition
was presented had continued to cut timber at a
time when many trees which had been already
felled were suffered to lie and rot unused. The
ground on which it was sought to remove Mr.
Daniel was, that he had not interfered to pre-
vent the waste complained of, as he ought to
have done.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. HORN, on
the part of Mr. Daniel, opposed the petition.
They contended that their client was in no way
answerable for the alleged waste of the timber,
for the felling of which he had, in fact, never
given any directions.

Mr. HEALD and Mr—SHADWELL, for the trus-
tees, opposed the petition, and stated that their
clients fully approved of the conduct of their
agents in cutting the timber.
Mr. HART, in reply, maintained that the trus-
tees had neglected their duty in not personally
superintending the management of the estates.
They had not been on the estates for a con-
siderable time, and now they pretended to get
rid of this petition by stating that they were
satisfied. with the conduct of, their agents. It
ought to be referred to the Master, to inquire
whether the trustees had or had not misconducted
themselves. It was the duty of the trustees im-
mediately, when a communication was made to
them that their agents were misconducting them-
selves, to inquire whether the complaint was
well founded; and if it should have appeared to
be so, to have applied a remedy.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, after reading the
prayer of the petition, observed, that the will of
the late Marquis of Townshend devised his
estates in trust to Lord John Townshend and
Mr. Blake, for a term of 21 years, during which
time they were empowered to cut down timber
as they should think fit, and accumulate the pro-
duce thereof for the benefit of the heir. In 1812
application was made to the Court for the re-
ceiver of the rents and profits of the estates, to
which the Court acceded, and Mr. G. Daniel
was appointed to that office. The order for the
appointment of that gentleman was drawn up in
the way such orders were usually drawn up, and
nothing was said in it respecting the cutting of
timber. Although, in ordinary cases, the power
of cutting down timber belongs to the receiver; yet
here there was a special direction in the will that the
trustees should exercise that authority. From
the year 1812, down to the present time, the
estates had continued to be managed in the way
now complained of. The agents of the trustees
had been cutting down timber, and the receiver
had never interfered in any way, except for the
purpose of receiving the produce of the timber so
cut down. It did not appear that this officer
was unwilling to account for the money he had
received for the timber. It therefore was an ex-
tremely hard case to present this petition against
Mr. Daniel, who had no power to act otherwise
than he had done. The Court saw no reason for
charging Mr. Daniel with having acted improper-
ly, and therefore the petition, as far as respected
him, must be dismissed with costs. His lordship
then► observed, that though a discretionary power
was vested in the trustees with respect to the fel-
ling of timber, yet they must be held responsible
to the Court for the misapplication of the timber,
or the produce of the timber. Because they pos-
sessed a discretionary authority, they were not to
be protected against the abuse of it. If Lord
Charles Townshend would state any particular
acts of misconduct on the part of the trustees, the
Court would not hesitate to refer the subject to
the Master. At present, all the Court found it-
self permitted to do, was, to order that no timber
should be cut down, unless for necessary repairs
on the estate, without the direction of a Master
of the Court.

The result of his Lordship's decision, as far as
regards costs, is, that the costs of all parties shall
be paid out of the estate, except those which re-
late to the charges against Mr. Daniel.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Auo. 1.
THE EARL OF BALCARRAS V. ATKINSON.

This was an issue directed by the Court of
Chancery, in order to try the validity of a will.
The plaintiff took the affirmative, the defendant
the negative, of the question.
The SOLICITOR-GENERA L shortly opened the
case by telling the Jury that the will on which
they were to decide was the will of the late
Richard Atkinson, Esq. That will which had
been in operation more than 30 years, and under
which the Earl of Balcarras acted as trustee, was
now, for the first time, disputed by Mr. M. Atkin-