The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-09 00:00:00

THE. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.

After the disposal of some of the ordinary business on
the paper,
Mr. DE JERSEY (the Chairman of the Parliamentary
Committee) brought up the report on the subject of the
Charitable Trusts Bill. It stated that the Bill was ex-
tremely exceptionable, and that if its provisions were
carried into effect much mischief would result to the
public, and it recommended that the Court should peti-
tion against th,e measure, and apply to the members of
the Administration immediately for the purpose of pro-
curing its postponement. Mr. De Jersey spoke in terms
strongly condemnatory of the Bill, which had been ra-
pidly hurried through the House of Lords, and stood
for a second reading that night in the House of Com-
mons. He considered it to be unjust in its provisions,
unconstitutional in its principle, and capable of being
made an instrument to serve bad political purposes. In
the opinion of Lord Cottenham the Commissioners to be
appointed under it would have more paver than the
Lord Chancellor possessed in the Court of Chancery.
As to its unconstitutional tendency, the enormous inqui-
sitorial authority which it would place in the hands of
these officers was sufficient evidence of that fact. The
very working of the scheme would occasion an expense
ruinous to the charities with which the Commissioners
might think it necessary to interfere. lie concluded by
moving that the Court should agree with the report.
Mr. H. TAYLOR said the Committee had, in the repor
before the Court, deprecated the principle of the Bill,
although they had, in the former report, thought proper
to approve of it. Now he considered that they ought to
show that the Charitable Trusts Bill would place the
charities in a worse condition than that in which they
stood at present. Nothing, in his opinion, could be
worse than their existing state. They all knew that the
trusts had been most flagrantly abused, and that the Bill
to which the Committee recommended the opposition of
the Court was a measure produced by men of experience
and character.

Mr. WIRE warmly advocated the report. He objected
to the extraordinary powers with which the Commis-
sioners to be appointed by the Bill would be invested,
and the private Star Chamber manner in which they
would exercise these powers.—(Hear, hear.) It did not
signify whether the evidence upon which the Commis-
sioners chosQ to decide was true or false ; there would be
no appeal from their decision. _ _

Mr. ANDERTON confessed that he could not see any
such objections to the Bill as seemed to dismay other
pe,,ple. On the contrary, although it was calculated to
injure men in the profession to which Mr. Wire and
himself belonged, the measure appeared to him to be
calculated to remove a great deal of existing mischief,
and he should vote vgainet the recommendation of the
Committee.

Mr. PRENDERGAST opposed the report, and strongly
supported the Bill. He contended that if the Commis-
sioners were only called judges, all prejudice would be
at an end against them ; but so many Commissioners
had been recently appointed, that the name of Commis-
sioner was a bad one, and every one knew what was al-
ways the effect of giving a dog a bad name.—(Laughter.)
He had seen nothing in the Bill to lead him to believe
that the tribunal would be a secret one ; and, in fact, he
had not heard a word of argument against it. What
could be more proper than the appointment of two Mas-
ters in Chancery, and a member of the bar of ten years'
standing, to fill the situations ? Ile believed that the
public would have as much reliance upon the decisions
of such officers as upon those of the Lord Chancellor,
for certainly they were as little likely to be influenced
by improper motives.---(Hear.) The Government had
observed the monstrous abuses which existA in the re-
gulation of charitable trusts, and had determined to
come forward upon a measure of reform ; and he hoped
that the Court, the majority of the members of which he
believed to be alive to the interests of the constituency,
would approve of the Bill, and support the amendment.
lie should propose that the Court proceed to the other
business on the paper.
Deputy STEVENS seconded the amendment, and said
that the Bill would substitute a very lazy and obnoxious
and depraved system.

Mr: WILLIAM JONES and several other Members
opposed, in the most resolute tone, the measure in Par-
liament, and called upon the Court to petition imme-
diately against it.
The Court finally agreed to the report of the Com-
mittee, and referred it back to them, with instructions
to prepare a petition to the House of Commons, and to
take such other steps as might be considered necessary.
The Court then adjourned.

LAW INTELLIGENCE
HOUSE OF LORDS, July 8.
The House sat to-day to hear appeals. The Peers present were
the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, and Lord Cottenham.
TER MAYOR OF NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE V. THE ATTORNEY.GENERAL.
Mr. KINDERSLEY replied t•-day in this case, and their Lordships
postponed their judgment.

ROLLS' COURT, July 8.
The Master of the Rolls heard petitions to-day, most of which
were unopposed.

SHERIFFS' COURT, July S.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff PURCHNI.L.)
SALOMON AND ANOTHER V. NIMMA.

The plaintiffs in this case are attorneys, and the action was
brought to recover the sum of 5/. 9s. 2d., the balance of a bill of
costs for extra charges against the defendant, as assignee of a bank.
rupt, the object being to protect him from liability under his ap.
pointment.

The case depended on the point, whether payment by a third
party for a debtor, without his request or previous knowledge, was
a good payment to support a plea of payment by the debtor.

The UNDER-SHERIFF said he should leave it to the jury to say
whether the payments had been made on account of the defendant.

If they believed they were, he would reserve the legal points for
consideration of the jury.

Verdict for defendant, but execution stayed till next term, for
the question to be discussed by Mr. Thomas for plaintiff. De-
fendant did not appear by counsel.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
0L1) COURT.
(Before the RECORDER.)
Mary Anne Sailsbury, alias Salisbury, who pleaded
guilty to three charges of larceny at the May session,
but whose sentence was respited, was brought up for
judgment.
It will be recollected that the prisoner, when before
the magistrate, told a rather romantic story about her
having been seduced by a gentleman who brought her
to London, and then deserted her, the whole of which
statement turned out to be a fabrication.

The RECORDER sentenced her to six months' impri-
sonment, to commence from the period of her conviction.
(Before Mr. Bullock.)
Margaret Tiggell, 28, James Dunn, 23, and John Col-
liers, 28, were indicted, the first mentioned prisoner for
stealing a dressing-case, a ring, and other articles, the
property of David Kield, and the others with feloniously
receiving the property, knowing it to have been stolen.
Mr. Ballantine conducted the prosecution, Mr. Payne
appeared for Tiggell, Mr. Doane for Co and Mr.
O'Brien for Dunn.

The case was one entirely devoid of interest, except
from the circumstance that the principle evidence
against the pr:soners was the testimony of the female
prisoner's own sister, who spoke positively to her guilty
share in the transaction. There was, moreover, very
little corroboration of her evidence, and she admitted,
on being cross-examined, that she had herself been twice
convicted of felony, and sentenced upon one occasion to
be imprisoned six months, and upon another to be trans-
ported for seven years.
Mr. BALLANTINE, at the close of the case for the
prosecution, admitted that there was not sufficient evi-
dence against the prisoner Collins, and the other Learned
Counsel having addressed the jury for their respective
clients, the jury eventually found them all Not Guilty.
Emma Wilmot, aged 26, was indicted for stealing some
articles of silver plate, value 10/., the property of Wm.
Paxton Jervis, in his dwelling.house ; and Sarah Vick,
aged 28, was charged with feloniously receiving the pro-
perty, knowing it to have been stolen.
Mr. Doane appeared for the prisoners.
It was proved, in evidence, that the prisoner Wilmot
was in the habit of going to the house of the prosecutor,
to visit one of his servants, named Chamberlain, and she
took the opportunity thus afforded her to purloin the
property. The only evidence against the other prisoner
was, that she had, shortly afterwards, pawned the plate,
but denied the fact when she was questioned by the police-
constable. It was admitted that Wilmot had been very
respectable and well-conducted up to this transaction,
and it was suggested that she had committed the offence
under a sudden impulse, and from the pressure of tem-
porary circumstances of distress.
The jury found Wilmot guilty, and acquitted the pri •
goner Vick. They recommended Wilmot to mercy.
She was sentenced to be kept to hard labour for
eighteen months.

POLICE IN TELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE. _ _

Capt. Wm. Mackay Heriofl was summoned before the
Lord Mayor, by Mr. William Vincent, wine merchant,
of No. 45, Lime-street, for assault and battery.
The complainant, who was in a state of very palpable
excitement, stated that on Wednesday last, while in his
cffice, he heard an uproar in the street opposite to the
window, and he saw Capt. Heriott acting in an unjusti-
fiable manner towards his (Mr. Vincent's) cellarman,
and told the captain that he was not behaving like a
gentleman, but more like a blackguard. Capt. Heriott
felt, no doubt, indignant and insulted at the language,
and was disposed to use personal violence, for there
sprung up hot and angry words upon both sides.
The LORD MAYOR—And you told him he acted more
like a blackguard than a gentleman ? The complainant
—Certainly I did. I considered his conduct to my cel-
larman, who was quarrelling with another man, very
unwarrantable, and I did not conceal my opinion. Capt.
Heriott sent for a policeman to take my cellarman into
custody, and continued the uproar ; but the policeman
did not take the charge, and the captain followed my
partner, and in fact demanded an apology.
The LORD MAYOR—WeII, come to the assault.
The complainant—The assault did not take place till
next day. I then observed from my office the servant
of the gentleman, whose man had been quarrelling with
mine, go frequently in and out of his office, and when I
was going away, about three o'clock, to start by the
coach, carrying with me a parcel of the weight of 15 lbs,
under my arm, and having my gloves on, and an um-
brella in the other hand, out came the captain from the
opposite office, where he was lying per due, and struck
me a violent blow on the neck with a cane or whip. I
thought I was cut with a knife, or other sharp instill-
ment, the blow was so severe.
The LORD MAYOR—Did he say anything to you be-
fore he struck you ? Complainant—l heard something,
but I cannot exactly say what, for really my senses were