The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-14 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT, Dec. 13.

Several short causes and unopposed petitions were
disposed of in the early part of the morning, after
which was resumed the part-heard cause of

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. LORD CARRINGTON.

This was an ex-officio information, which prayed
for a declaration that the lands of the defendants at
Humberstone, in Lincolnshire, were chargeable under
the will of Mathew Humberstone, bearing date
• March 14th, 1708, with the payment of two annuities
of 41. and of 401. respectively, to the curate or minister
for the time being of Humberstone, upon the per-
formance by him of the services, as by the will di-
rected, of preaching every Sunday a sermon in the
morning and another iu the evening, and reading
divine service, and also during the week days of
teaching the boys of Humberstone the English and
Latin languages, writing, arithmetic, the casting of
accounts, &c. In the year 1792 the estate was pur-
chased by the late Lord Carrington, subject to those
annuities, and it was contended, therefore, that the
property was still liable to the charge.
This view of the case was supported by Mr. Pem-
berton and Mr. Blunt for the Crown ; Mr. Cooper
and Mr. Lovett on behalf of the vicar and master,
Mr. Gedge. It was opposed by Mr. Teed and Mr.
Oliver, who appeared for the trustees of the will of the
late Lord Carrington, and by Mr. Green, who ap-
peared for the present Lord Carrington.
The arguments were brought to a close to-day, and
Lord Langdale delivered his judgment.
His LORDSHIP said the late Lord Carrington had
purchased the property in question, liable, under the
will of the testator, Mathew Humberstone, to the
annuities mentioned in the pleadings, and which were
made payable to the schoolmaster of the place for the
time being. One thing was clear—namely, that the
testator had intended that the curate and schoolmaster
should be one and the same person, and the annuities
were annuities not to the curacy, but to the school.
The construction of the will was not now a
question raised with the Court. Shortly after
the death of the testator the cause came before the
Court, and in the year 1735 a decree had been made
establishing that the annuity of 401. was on a footing
different from that of the 41. annuity which had been
devised in a part of the will subsequent to that refer-
ring to the 401. annuity. This latter annuity was to
continue to be paid till a sufficient cause for its sub-
traction had arisen, and on the person bound to
pay it, there rested an obligation to show the Court
that there were good grounds for subtracting that
annuity. The decree thus made had been confirmed
by a subsequent decree. Afterwards a recovery was
suffered, and the entire ownership was parted with
suhject to all the charges on the estate and this
charge among the rest. At the time the pro-
perty was sold it was supposed that the portion
of it charged under the will was not liable
till the sale of another estate, mentioned in the
pleadings, had been effected. The conveyance re-
cited the will, and he must say, as to the words
"-during pleasure," that he very much doubted
if any one could say that the testator left that pro-
vision at the caprice or will of the casual owner of the
estate. The testator had willed the property upon trust
expressly for the payment of those annuities. It had
been said that Lord Carrington had been taken by
surprise. That might be the case. But he (Lord
Langdale) would not on that account withhold the
annuity with which the property had been for ever
charged.