The Sun.
London, England, 1828-03-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VIOE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, 31Atteit 5.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ON THE RELATION OF CAII-
WITHIN, V. THE lIATOR. AND CORPORATION OF EXETER.

In this case, which was a suit promoted chiefly by
the Commissioners for Inquiring into the Manage-
ment of Public Charities, the defendants were charged
with having mismanaged the income and estates be-
longing to the Hospital of St. Mary Magdalen at
Exeter, the Court was prayed to order them to
render full accounts of their management • to remove
them from their offices of Trustees to the charity;
to appoint new officers in their stead; and lastly,
to refer it to the Master to form a new plan for the
future management of the charity. The informa-
tion charged the defendants that they had usually
elected one of their own body (generally the Mayor
for the time being) warden of the hospital. They
had, until 1804, mixed up the accounts of the hospi-
tal with those of the corporation, and had leased the
property belonging to the charity under their own
corporate seal, instead of leasing them under the
seal of the foundation. Some of the premises be-
longing to the charity they permitted to be occupied
without receiving any rent whatever. The bill
prayed that an inquiry might be made into the cir-
cumstances under which the whole of these leases
had been granted, and that those might be vacated
that might be found injurious to the charity.
Mr. SUGDEN appeared on behalf of the defend-
ants, who, by their bill, denied having been guilty of
any mismanagement. None of the income or funds
of the charity had been applied to any private pur-
poses, but had been expended in public works.
Mr. MERSVALE followed on the same side.

Mr. AGAR, with whom was Mr. GIRDLESTONE,
contended that the Corporation, as trustees for the
publig, were hound to account fully for the whole of
their management in the same manna as other
trustees.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that it
was in this case but reasonable to give costs as be-
tween attorney and client. His Honour thought that
the Corporation having obtained the patronage of
the hospital by exchange, could not be removed from
their offices as trustees. He, however, considered
that a new scheme was requisite for the future ma-
nagement of the charity, but it must certainly be
made with relation to those at present on the foun-
dation. The question as to the extent to which the
inquiries prayed should be carried was one which
he would only decide after a more complete exa-
mination of the evidence in the cause.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Af --ARCH J.
DE LA CHAUMETTE V. THE GOVERNORS AND COMPANY OF

THE BANK OF ENGLAND.

This was an action of trover to recover the value
of a 5001. Bank of England note, dated the 16th of
February, 1826, No. 4,356.
The plaintiff, Mr. De la Chaumette, was a mer-
chant of great respectability and affluence, residing
in the city of London. The defendants were the
Governor and Company of the Bank of England.—
The question which the Jury would have to try was
a very short one. It was whether the Bank of Eng-
land had a right to retain a 500/. Bank-note, which
was the property of the plaintiff, on the plea that it
had been improperly obtained.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff--Da-
mages 500/.

ADMIRALTY COURT, MARCH b.
THE MARGARET.—SALVAGE.

This was a case of a rather novel kind. It was an
action brought by six seamen against their owners,
under the following circumstances :—The Margaret
and the Rookwood, two whalers belonging to Mr.
Mellish, left Shetland in company; they afterwards
parted, the former bound for Davis's Straits, the
latter for Greenland. The Rookwood having no
success in the Greenland fishery, proceeded to Davis's
Straits, where, at the end of September,. 1826, she
fell in with the Margaret, who had received some
damage in the after-part of her keel by contact with
the ice, and, giving up fishing, accompanied her to a
port on the east side of the Straits. No repairs,
were however, necessary; but the Rookwood attend-
ed the Margaret OR her voyage to England, till the
ships were separated by a storm. The plaintiffs,
mariners in the Rookwood, claimed a compensation
for services, and also on the ground that their remu-
neration for the voyage depended upon the quantity
of oil caught; so that the loss arising from their de-
tention was equivalent to a loss of pay to them.
After Dr. DonsoN and Dr. SALUSBURY had been
heard for the salvors, anti Dr. LUSIIINGTON and Dr.
NICHOLL for the owners,
Sir C. ROBINSON said he considered that there had
been no specific service rendered in the present case,
and no specific danger incurred; he should therefore
pronounce against the claim of the mariners, and dis-
miss the owners from the suit.

Dr. DODSON applied for the expences of the sea-
men, but the Court refused them.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.—MARcH J.
PEARCE ANT, PEARCE V. COUNT LINSENCEN ; CARTER
Garnisher.
This was an application made to the Court by,
one of the four attorneys who practice in it, for pro-
tection in a case of some moment. The public are
aware, that in the city of London the money ofa defen-
dant may be attached by a creditor in the hands of a
third person, and thatthe endsofjustice are greatly faci-
litated by this mode of retribution. Mistakes how-
ever, sometimes occur, and the following was re-
presented to the Court as a case in which an at-
tachment could not lie against Mr. Carter.
The grounds of Mr. Carter's application were
these :—An attachment had been made at the suit
of the above mentioned plaintiffs, of certain money
alleged to be in the hands of the garnisher, the pro-
perty of the Count Linsengen, under the following
circumstances. About the 7th of May, 1827, Mr.
Carter, as one of the attorneys of the Court, was
applied to by Messrs. Bebb and Ganning, solicitors
for the defendant, for the purpose of putting in bail,
and bringing a wire (arias ad disprobanduni debiturn
for the defendant in a certain attachment of his
money then pending, in which Sir W. D'Arcy Todd
was plaintiff, and Messrs. Cox and Greenwood
were garnishers. Mr. Carter took such proceed-
ings, and the defendant obtained judgment of resti-
tution of the money condemned. When this judg-
ment was obtained, Mr. Carter, by the direction of
Messrs. Bebb and Ganning issued an execution
against the plaintiff's sureties in that attachment, for
the sum of 6571. Bs. One of the sureties paid his moiety
in satisfaction of the execution, and Mr. Carter
handed over the amount to Messrs. Bebb and Gan-
ning. The other surety paid his moiety to Sewell,
one of the Serjeants at Mace of the Mayor's Court,
and at the same time that surety's attorney gave
Sewell notice not to part with the money until an
application could be made to the Court to set aside
the execution for irregularity. Counsel was heard
upon both sides, and the Court took time to con-
sider its judgment; after which, it decided in favour
of the defendant—thereby establishing the validity
of the execution. On the day that judgment was
given, Mr. Carter, by direction of Messrs. Bebb and
Canning, applied to Sewell for payment of the 3281.
14s. the moiety of the money condemned. Sewell told
Mr. Carter, in the public office of the Mayor's Court,
that he would bring the money to him next morning,
and was heard making such communication, he
(Mr. Carter) believed, from what had since trans-
pired, by one or two individuals in the office; for
when Sewell called next day to pay over the money,
and was in the act of counting it, a clerk in the
office served him (Mr. Carter) with the attachment
which formed the subject of the present application.
Mr. Carter having been employed in the first-men-
tioned attachment by Messrs. Bebb and Canning,
and not by Count Linsengen, and feeling that he
was accountable to them, and that he had no right
to he made a party to a suit which might involve
him in litigation, trouble, and difficulty, refused to
receive the money. While, however, the money
was lying on the desk, Mr. Bebb, one of Mr. Car-
ter's employers, coming by chance'into the °Go!, and
being told the circumstances, made himself master
of the 328/. 14s, with the consent of Sewell, who