The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-18 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 16.

The Vice-Chancellor of England took causes to-day,
but in consequence of' the absence of Mr. Bethell 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. WIGRAM.)

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. FLINT AND ANOTHER.-

JUDGMENT.
His HoNoun, 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
to be by them bestowed upon poor householders and
their natural children, inhabiting or abiding, or
to those who should inhabic 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, thit 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,
bat that the title of the charity to possession might with
less expense hare been tried by the process of an action
for ejectment.
His HONOUR 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. He 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 objection 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. The
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 tried.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 16.
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court took the Crown papers this morning. Up
to the hour of our going to press no case of any public
interest had comp on for argument.