Star.
London, England, 1808-08-13 00:00:00

LAW )ft#7IIeLLIGENCE.

min CHANCERY, AuGyST 11.
' Tint iticonet-ozelaas, o,,euttaa, &c.
A hill bad . filed in this ease by the Atuarne•ja
Geneial, on the rela.tion of M. Ruclell, the Rector
of the narish cif Relbrden; and Mr. White, Vicar of
the parish of 'W'Aminster, against Mr;lltiller, Sir
Ilchester, 'and- others, Trustees' for Managing the'
corporate charities of these parishes. and of a chap.
Ininry adjoining.; and it was noWaskid, on the part
*of the plaintiff. that a receiver shatild, :In the mean,
time, be appointed.
• Sir Samuel. Rossittir and Mt. BELL,-for the plain-
:tiff, stated, that in the reign of Henry. VIII; the title
of the lends in tiles/ two parishei, and hi an adjtiining
chaphtiery, were made everts a charitable foonda-
tion, for the 'support' Of Red& or Vim& in each of
• the two parishes, for the ettdowthent of a free school,
aid the support of a certain* mbliber of 'boys ; and,
aster these objettc tvertaecomplithed, for'Other good
and charitable perposes eithitt the-parishes. , In the,
• reign' of Edward VI: the tititteee of, the' charity trete'
erected into a corporation ; and' in that of James P.'
a decree eat obtaiited in the Court bf 'Etehequltic
designating the objects of thettust, as already spea-
fied, and declaring that the funds should, an tin ae-
count, be in anyways applied to the use of the Trus-1
tees thensseleess or of other persons of wealth or in-
fluence. At the date of this decree, being the 22d
of James I. the tithes in question amounted to 11001.
At this moment. nearly at the distance of two centu-
ries, they did not. yield more than 13001. although it
was sworn that the value of these tithes amounted to,
if they did not exceed 59001. The Trustees them-
selves were in the actual possession, either by them-
selves or their tenants, of a great part of these tithes,
which extended over 16,000 acres, and although it
was not alledged that they granted' compositions of
their own tithes at a lower rate than they did. to stran
gers,. it was suftieient to infer a gross and' scandalous
breach of trust, to say, that these tithes were com-
pounded on an average at the rate of 6d. per pound.
It was, therefore essential to the purposes of the cha-
rity, that a receiver should be appointed. •
Mr. HART and Mr. Tnostescie, for the Trustees,
offered to undertake that notices to determine the
existing compositions should be given at the first pos
sible moment. In other respects, the general scope
of their argument Went to_rhew that there could be
nothing cotrupt in the conduct of the Trustees, who
meant to do good. and at the most were only guilty
of an tenor in judgment, which they were witßing to
correct. Thai the Relators had no cause of complaint,'
they inferred from these facts, that the Vicar of Wex-
minder had a salary of 2001, elver, in addition to
which, a sum ;of igol. had been expended in build.
its a house. As to the other Relator, Mr, Ru-
&X.& had ceased to fulfil the duties of his office ever'
since 1797, during the whole of which time hisiamily
had received the salary, which amounted to nearly
1.001.2 year, although he hireselt wes.acting as chap.
isain to a man of war. From the schoolmaster, sox}
boys no complaint was heard, fU14411 to Abets, there-
fore, it was reasonable to infer that the charity had
been duly administered.
The LORD CRANCRLADR, esteeming this .to be a
question of the very highest importauce, should tithe
time to consider before lie disposed of it altogether.
On this -point, however, he could have no doubt ;
timely, to send it bathe MMter to fix what were the
compositions which ought W. be paid by the Trustees,
themselves, and their tenant.", far 'the tithes in ques.
ttbn, occupied by them,' it not being attempted even
to insinuate that there was one of these Trustees who
did riot, by himself or his tenants, occupy some part
of the tithes 'in question. On the general conduct of
charities of this kind, he was sorry to declare- it-as his
decided opinion, from what.he had observed, and from
what he had. heard in that Court, that thelegislativel
interference was particularly called for. He ohserveds
and he mentioned it with regret, that the universe,/
eling cf Trustees for Public Charities, seemed to be
agreeable to the general axiom, that a Charity begins
at home!" His Lordship, after delivering his opi-
nion on this case, took occasion to allude to a gross
' misreprenratiqn of his sentiments, which he had read
in a Paper, in which he was'made to Day it down, (in
the case of Church r. Ilrown), that a covenant not to
assign (of**, sub-ler) could not be legally introduced
into a Lease, and 'consequently if introduced, was not
binding. Ills 'Lordship need not inform the Gentle-
men of the Court, that he had not even hinted at such
a doctrine, which wits not only inconsistent with law,
but even. with common sense.' It might, hoWever,
produce bad effects out of doors. He, thereforeolo-
ticed it, being satisfied, that whatever good ifkets a
fair Report of the proceedings of that Court
be calculated to produce, they had better pass alto-
gether, rub identity, than be misrepresented.
. .
• - „layover 1,2.4•14611. err Gee take `11:: iirtLett.
_ The LORD CHANCELLOR, this day, 'finsaly dis-
tosed'Of the motioninadesin this case, and-otdered
that the Trustees of the. Charity should, before the
Ist'Of•gepternber, lay 'before the Masteran account ,
f tht notices given bythetri, to determine the diffe-
ent -compositions"grenteth'iti order' thai.lhe'lVfasterl
eiitlit have an opportunity 'Alining ,:the' rewhirijei ti-
the vacations to say what-ought to- be the- hive +ati.,
:it which the eompoiitionidieuld be granted. -if the
trustees failed, within the time limited, toiliel 'ht to'
the Master the notices required,' hie:Lordstup should,
is that event. authorise the:Master to • *pates a Re-
ceiver, with liberty to him to act.
itiC.IOIWITH Sllleawne.
This was a petition on the part of the Defendants,
for leave to file a supplemental bill,. to obtain a re-
hearing of the cause. • This petition was supported by
an affidavit of one of the • Defendants, that he had
beets entirely igndrant of the equitable construction of
a certain act of-his.testater.- •
MrAiaaT and Mr. HRAI.D were Counsel for the
Van. • Ithey stated, that the father -of the -present
*' t h lbf ritarriage settlement apower of
charging €5601. for each of his younger' children—
but that'otl the nnirrlitge of one of his daughters with
Mrs-.131e, he paid a stet of 50001. as as marriage por-
ties. - The present Defendant had not been aware, at
theliearierot-ttie cansei. that by the construction of
teCoort of Eqiiitr, the paying a larger -tim'than
what was mentioned in• the settlement was an execu-
tion of the appointment. It -having been now in-
- 'ferredvshat such was,the coarse of decisions in that
Illentiuthey trusted•that Mr. auti Mrs. Lee would not
•

~.