The Sun.
London, England, 1827-03-15 00:00:00

ATTORNEY-GANERAL V. SKINNERS' COMPANY.

This matter occupied a considerable portion of time, upon a dis-
cussion respecting the alteration of some parts of the minutes.
Sir Henry Judd directed a surplus of his property to go to the
Skinners'. -Comiiany,' -after disposing of a great deal of it to
charities.--, 'That Company was to visit annually the Tunbridge
School, for which they were to receive forty shillings.
The property had greatly. increased -in value. and the
eatablishrnent much . increased in expence. Upon a refer-
ence:to, -the Master lately, he had allowed 2001. for defray-
ing the annual visitation, and it was contended. to-day, that if
that 2001, was-tel?e paid, it waa•to come out of the surplus going
to the Company. - T4lt eurp/us, without any trust, amounted
yearly at present to-7001.
His Loansure . thought .the Court could not permit more
to be paid for the visitation under the will than 2!. ; if
-the Skinners' Company chose to fare sumptuously, and
:apply 2001. for their dinner, they would have to do that at the,
risk of being called upon hereafter to-account for the 19S1. annu-
ally..i. The best decree his• Lordship had ever known made, was
`made.hy a Lord Mayor of Loridon;'upon-a'diapitte respeOting the
precedency of the Skintiera' and the Merchant Tailors' Companies,
to the latter of which,'he (the Lord Chancellor) belonged. The
dispute Wei :referred" to 'the Lord Mayor; " and ,he decreed -
that thi'tivo Conipinies Shetild- dine With each other- once
everylyear'; that Tailors- dined With the Skinners, the
first toast shonld' ',after the liealth of his Majesty was
drank, " The Merchant Tailors" and Skinriera' Companies."—
And that when the "•latter .dined With the former, the
toast should be---," The Skinners' and Merchant Tailors' Coin-.
-paiiies."'-,(Mtichliughter.):---The Matter was'at last.cirdered to
stand' over Registrar'S book \i'as produced, that it might
be seen Whit fell from the Conk-at the time the decree was pro:
nounced.

11fr:-HbitwE believed that When the book of that day was pro-
duced, it would appear that no judgment had been pronounced at
all, for that the Registrar had been so attentive; as not to have
taken any thing down, but the short hand writer would show what
the decision was.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
JUDGMENT.
HITCH V. BARTLETT.

A motion was made some time back that the bill filed in this
cause be struck off the file, and that the costs of the suit be paid by
Mr. Humphreys, the plaintiff's solicitor, or that he be directed to
produce the plaintiff within a reasonable time, so that she might be
properly identified, and that in the mean time she find security
for the costs. Several affidavits were made in support of the
application, and the case sought to be made out by them was,
that no such person existed al Elizabeth Hitch, the plaintiff, on
the record, but that she had been set up by a Mr. Branning, for
the purpose of evading a provision in the will of his mother-in-
law. It appeared that Branning's mother-in-law, who was much
displeased with him for his conduct to his wife, determined that
he should enjoy no part of her property. Wit!: this view, in de-
vising her property to her daughter, Mrs. Branning, she expressly
restricted her- in case she should die before her husband, from
leaving him any portion of it. Mrs. Branning shortly before her
death made a will, in which she devised the estate in question to
Elizabeth Hitch, the present plaintiff, and a hill was filed by her
for the purpose of getting possession Of it. The defendants, on
whose behalf the present motion was made, insisted that Elizabeth
Hitch was a fictitious person set up by 11. 13ranning, in order
that he might, through the agency of her name, evade the will of
his mother-in-law ; and it was sworn, on the part of tke applicants,
that he had used undue influence with his wife, and compelled
her to devise her property to this fictitious person for that pur-
pose. Various circumstances were stated in support of this elle-
I gation ; and, among other things, 'it was sworn that Mr.
Humphreys had refused to give up the-residence of his client.;
that at one time she was represented as residing at Stoke-Newing-
ton, and at another as living in John-street, Islington.
The V/CE..CITANCELLOR gave judgment this morning. He
said that he had allowed the matter to stand for several days, not
because be had the slightest intention of granting the application;
but that an officer of the Court might have the opportunity of
making explanatory affidavits, as to certain charges of a veryserious
and grave nature, affecting his character as a Solicitor. His
Honour could-not have granted' the application to the full extent,
no matter how
.true the allegations of the applicants might have
been, and for this reason, that the plaintiff, Eliz. Hitch, had been
admitted to probate in the Ecclesiastical Court and therefore was
entitled to sue in this Court until that probate was recalled. Whilst
that probate remained in force he had no authority to direct the
Bill to be taken off the file, hiasnmeli ai.lae was bound to conclude
that -it had been -Properly granted-:-then as to that part of the
appliCation which`prayedthat the plaintiff be compelled to give seen-.
rity for costs, His Honour Was of opinion that there were not grounds
for his making such an order: Much of the confusion in the case
was occasioned rather by the great number of affidavits filed on
both sides than by any fraud on the part of the plaintiff. He
must, therefore refuse to compel her to find security for costs..—
But, as Mr. Humphreys had acted improperly in refusing to give
up her residence,' he had given just grounds for suspicion, and so
far the jealousy of the applicant was well Warranted. His Ho-
nour, therefore, in dismissing the application, would do so with-
out costs.