The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-15 00:00:00

WBSTON V. PEACHE.

The defendants in this cause were the assignees of a
bankrupt. The object of the suit was to obtain the
usual decree in favour of the plaintiffs as equitable mort-
gagees. It appeared that in the year 1834 a lease of
certain houses, of which the bankrupt had a long lease-
hold interest, was deposited with the plaintiffs, as a se-
curity for a balance of their account. They had advanced
various sums in the course of their dealings as bankers
with the defendants. In the arrangement which was made
between the assignees and the plaintiffs after the bank-
ruptcy, it was agreed that the latter should repair some
of the houses, and repay themselves out of the rents of
those houses. That arrangement had been carried into
effect, and the plaintiffs claimed to be allowed for the
payment they had so made. The only question in the
case was that which should come before the Master as
to what was duo for principal and interest. Some dis-
cussion having taken place between the Counsel engaged
on the point of receivership and other particulars, his
Honour directed the case to stand over to Thursday next,
with liberty to present a petition if necessary.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WiGusx.)

PERKINS P. BRADLEY.
His Hobroun was engaged nearly the whole morning
in hearing this part heard cause. At the close of the ar-
guments, his Honour requested to be furnished with the
papers, and said he should take time to consider his
judgment.

JONES V. 111.7GUES.
Mr. WAKEFIELD moved for an injunction to restrain
the defendant from going on with an action of eject-
ment upon the merits confessed in his answer. The de-
fendant Hughes having been indebted to the plaintiff in
the sum of three guineas, an action was brought to re-
cover that amount, and the result was that execution
was issued to compel payment of the debt, which had
increased, with the costs, to the sum of 551. 9s. 4d.
The sale took place on the 26th of April, 1839. It com-
prised the lease of a house and some stables attached to
it, and some furniture belonging to the defendant, which
realised altogether 1841. The balance was, after the sale
paid to Hughes by the Sheriff's officer. The purchaser
neglected to obtain from the Sheriff the usual assignment
of the lease. Hughes alleged that more was sold
than was necessary to discharge the debt; that there,
was no necessity for selling the whole of the property,
and that he had suffered' great injury by the course
which had been pursued. He also alleged that the sale
was advertised for, and took place at ten o'clock
.in the
morning, in spite of his remonstrance to the contrary, and
that the property had, in consequence, been sold to a
great disadvantage ; that early on the morning of the
day appointed for the sale he had remonstrated, and
stated that he was ready and willing, if the sale was de-
layed till a reasonable period of the day, to pay the 551.;
without a sale, but no attention was paid to his offer.
The whole question at the bar turned upon the technical
proceedings subsequent to the sale. The bill prayed that
it might be declared that the plaintiff, as the purchaser
of the property, was entitled to the full benefit of the lease.
The case was not concluded when the Court rose.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 14.

THE QUEEN V. THE ♦ISITINO JUSTICES OF THE lIANNVELL

LUNATIC ASYLUM.
In this case a rule had been obtained, calling upon the
Visiting Justices of the Hanwell Pauper Lunatic Asylum
to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue,
directed to them, and commanding them to admit the
Rev. Francis Tebbut into the said asylum, to perform the
duties of chaplain, and to pay him the arrears of the
salary due as such chaplain.
The SOLICITO:',GENERAL (with whom was Mr. White-
hurst) now appeared to show cause against the rule. The
application stated that Mr. Tebbut had received the ap-
pointment of Chaplain, and had obtained the license of
the Archbishop of Canterbury ; it then went on to state
that he had been removed from that office, but without
going into the peculiar facts or circumstances which led
to his removal, it was contended that the appointment was
in fact virtually in the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
that he was the only party who had the power to
remove the Chaplain. Before he called their at-
tention to the appointment he would observe, that
he should have no difficulty in satisfying their Lordships
that the whole control over the asylum was vested in the
Visiting Justices, and that they had power not only to
appoint the chaplain and other officers, but to remove
them as they thought proper. In the month of July,
1839, Mr. Tebbut was elected to the office of chaplain,
with a salary of 1501. per annum. In the letter of Mr.
Tebbut in reply, occurred the words, " As long as you
are pleased to confide in me the appointment," thus
recognising the right of the Visisting Justices
to make it. The license of the Archbishop of
Canterbury could not constitute his right, because he
did not obtain it till January, 1841 ; and on the 13th of
May they came to a resolution that Mr. Tebbut was 'not
a fit person to fill the office, and removed him. The
Learned Gentleman then referred to the terms of the Act
of Parliament, which gave the right of appointment and
removal of all the officers to the Visiting Justices, sus-
tained the analogous caseof chaplains of gaols, and sub-
mitted that the rule ought to be discharged, with costs.
Mr. Sergeant HALcosinE, in support of the rule, con-
tended that they must, when the whole facts of the
case wore before them, make the rule absolute. The
Visiting Justices had, he contended, most improperly
taken the law into their own hands. In the month of
February they called upon Mr. Tebbut to resign his
appointment, and he expressed his perfect readiness to
do so, but he had a wife and fire children depending on
him for support. He was then allowed to go
on till the month of May, when in the absence of
Mr. Tebbut they passed a resolution dismissing
him from the establishment. Now Mr. Tebbutt,
up to the present moment, held the license of
the Archbishop of Canterbury, although applications
had been made to his Grace to revoke; it, or at least to
confer a licence upon another clergyman ; and, under
these circumstances, he submitted that Mr. Tebbut was
the legal clerical attendant upon the Institution,
and could not be deprived of it without the
interference of the Archbishop of Canterbury. For
all their Lordships knew a claim to the appointment
might be properly set up and sustained by his Grace, or
by the incumbent of tie parish in which the Asylum was
situated. The incumbent was instituted into the cure of
all the souls within his parish, and the Asylum contained
upwards of 900 patients and 100 officers, from whom the
incumbent was entitled to receive certain fees and emolu-
nignts, and any interference by that Court would go to
deprive the incumbent of the parish of his temporal
rights. The Visiting Justices required that Mr. Teb-
but should enter upon a book the result of his spiritual
ministrations to the patients—that book was to be sub-
mitted to Doctor Connolly, the medical attendant, who,
after making his comments, was to submit it to the Vi-
siting Justices. Mr. Tebbut was startled at the novelty of
such a proposition, and did not think he was justified in
doing so, and that, he believed, constituted the ground of
Mr. Tebbut's removal. With regard to the clause giving
the parties the right to remove officers or servants, he
contended that the chaplain was not a servant or officer
within the meaning of that clause. There was no in-
stance in which laymen could assume the right of
dictating to the chaplain the spiritual duties he
was to perform—that was matter of a purely
ecclesiastical character, and was within the pro-
vince of the Archbishop's incumbent only. The Learned