The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROLLS' COURT, Feb. 15.

KIRKMAN V. ANDREWS.
The object of the bill filed in this cause-was to have it declared
by the Court fhat the plaintiff; who had been removed from the
office of Resident Manager of a Life Insurance Company, was en.
titled, under the resolutions and articles of partnership, entered
into with him by the defendant, and other members, of the Com-
pany, to receive from the Company a sum of 3,5001. with the
interest thereon from February, 1340, the time of his
removal from office, which was a sum equivalent to
seven years' purchase of a salary of 5001., or that an equivalent
annuity should be secured to the plaintiff out of the assets of the
Company ; also that the Company should .be declared liable to the
debts incurred on their behalf by the plaintiff, and unless assets were
Jain:Wed on their part that an account should be taken.
In the articles of partnership it had been resolved that the plain -
tiff, who was one of the principal projectors of the Company, should
not be removed from his office of resident manager, unless for mal-
versation or gross incapacity; and hence the ground of his pre.

sent claim.
• :The plea put in by the defendants stated that the plaintiff had
twice become bankrupt ; and that on his second bankruptcy he had
t►ot paid I as. in the pound, which, being tile case, it was contended
bi Mr. Turner, that, under the Commission of Bankruptcy, all the
plaintiff's Property became vested in the assignees, and that no un.
certificasrpd bankrupt could ever sue without his assignees being
made patties the suit.
His LORDSHIP thought that according to the authorities on the
subject, he should overrule the plea. However, until he should
look over these authorities, and satisfy himself on the various
points which had been so ably advanceddn argument by Counsel on
wither side, he should postpone his decision for. the present.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Feb: 15.
(Before Vice-Chancellor W►nßnw.)

THE ATTORNEY-UENERAL V. THE CORPORATION OF NEWARK.
In this Case the bill was filed by the Attorney. General, at the
instance of the Charity Commissioners.

silrence and Mr. Blunt appeared for the relators; Mr.
Skirrow for the Trustees under the Municipal Corporations Act;
and Mr. Birt for the Corporation.

The original information sought an account of the management
of certain charity estates, supposed to be vested in the defend-
ants.. It came on for hearing before Sir John Leach in
. tile year 1830. On that occasion it was referred to the
Master to take an account of the rents and profits since September
' 8'22, and the Master was also to inquire whether the defendants
ead any lands, or other property, to answer what might be due
from them. Lord Cottenham subsequently decided that the Court
had no power to direct an inquisy as to the assets of a corporation
with a view to charging them with costs, but that their funds might
be proceeded against by means of a distringas. It appeared that the
charity property, consisting of houses, was sold in four lots. On the
passing of the Municipal Corporations Act, a supplemental information
was filed for the purpose of bringing before the Court the ex-cor-
porators, and also the trustees under the Act. Whilst this suit
was pending it was discovered that the property had been held on
charitable trusts,. baring been devised to the Corporation by
Anthony Collingwood,. for the use of the poor, and that it could
not therefore be brought within the scope of Sir John Leach's
order. Mr. Knight, one of the purchasers, applied in May, 1836,
to be discharged from his purchase; whilst Mr. Massey, the other
purchaser, abided by his purchase, and paid the purchase.money
into-Court. The present information prayed a reference to the
Master, to inquire and state whether it would be for the benefit of
the Anthony Collingwood Charity that that part of the property for
the purchase of which Wright sought to be discharged, should be
re sold, and that the sale to Mr. Massey should be upheld.
Mr.'l3ner, on the part of the corporation, consented to the in.
guar on the ground that it would be beneficial to the charity.
Mr. SKIRROW, for the new trustees, resisted the prayer, his clients
refusing to sanction the proceedings under the sale.
The else was part heard yesterday.
His Froatouit pronounced judgment this morning. Lord Cotten.
ham had clearly 'disapproved of this decree directing a sale of the
property ; but as there had been a sale under that decree, the pur-
chasers were entitled to the benefit of it. By arrangement there
might possibly be a stay of proceedings. That, however, was only
a question of form. The question of substance was whether he
should direct an inquiry before the Master, whether it would be for
the benefit of Anthony Collingwood's Charity that these sales should
he completed. Such a reference assumed that it was proper
for the Court to sell charity lands. The only ease in which he had
ever known it to be done, in the course of Weenty-one years experience
at the bar, was the case of the Attorney.Oeneral v. Netbercott.
The result was, that fourteen cottages of which the South Molton
Charity consisted were sold in fourteen lots, and the expenses of
the sale had swallowed up the charity property. He had been in-
formed by a gentletnan, who was acquainted with that part of the
country, that the charity had, in fact, wholly disappeared. That
was certainly a caution against selling charity lands with the idea of
benefiting the charity. In a case head before Lord Eldon,
Isis Lordship said that an Act of Parliament was the only
authority which could properly direct the sale of charity
lands. The rule in such cases was that, when a trust
had been fixed upon the property, the Court had no
right to change the nature of that trust. It had been decided
in several cases that even grammar.schools could not he altered,
and it was not until the case of the Attorney. General v. the Ha-
berdashers' Company it was decreed, on the principle that they
would accelerate the learning of Latin and Greek, that reading
and writing might be introduced into those schools. It could not,
therefore be a matter of course that he should direct the inquiry
sought by the bill. But it had been stated, that that inquiry might
be directed in certain cases, and the question was, whether this
was a proper case? Now the proceeding had not been originally
instituted on behalf of the Collingwood Charity. In the course of
the proceedings there had been a sale of the lands belonging to
*at Charity; then an information had been Sled for the purpose
of bringing before the Court the trustees, the object still being to
June& other charities. Failing on these grounds, it was then
suggested that the iuquiry might be for the benefit of this par..
titular charity. The Court would not direct the inquiry unless
a very special ease were made out. In this Case the principal ob.
jest was to carry on the old information. Honour said he
must therefore dismiss the information, so far as It sought to con-
firm the sale of lands. The plantiff might take the usual decree in
a supplemental suit.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 15.
(Sittings in London at Nisi Prius.)
MOORE V. WOOD.
This was an action In this case, to recover from a wine merchant
the surd of 611., the amount of two claims—one for a return in
part of tine price paid for eighteen dozen of wine, supplied by
the defendant to the plaintiff; the other for the value of the
bottles returned, for which, as agreed at at the purchase, a full al_
he:thee was to be made. The case of the plaintiff (a bookseller)
was, that the wines were interior to the quality which was paid for,
Jliti,at which they were warranted ; and several witnesses, wine-
, •dealers: and others, gave their opinion to that effect. The
defence was, first, that the wines had been several years
in the plaintiff's cellars, and had deteriorated; and
4d5 to the bottles, that they had not been received back, In support
of the•latter, witnesses were called that the signature of the re-
ceipts given for the bottles on their being returned, was in the
name of a person who was never in the employment of the de.
fondant_. 'The defendant also pleaded a set off of 594 , a book ac-
count, and paid 9.1. into Court.
The jury found for the defendant on the set-oft;
BOTIBEL V. WILSON..
This was an action for false imprisonment. It appeared that the
plaintiff and his brother in March, 1840, took apartments from the
defendan t,.a grocer, In Old 'Change, for the purpose of carrying on
the business ofplumasiers and artificial florists. In March, 1841, the
defendant distrained for rent due, and again in June following, for a
further. arrear. In the first instance, the rent was paid ; in the latter
there was,not sufficient property to pay, and the goods distrained
were bought in upon a valuation. In the mean time differences
had arisen between the parties respecting the fastening of
the door, the defendant refusing to give the tenants
a key for the streettdoor, because he had recently been
robbed tla an amount by which he would have been
ruined but for the assistance rendered him by the contri.
butions of his neighbours. At length the plaintiff's brother had
the lock of the hall-door taken oft by a locksmith, and carrieJ away
to have a key made. The defendant, on discovering this, called in a
policemani. and gave into custody the plaintiff, whom alone he
• found in the apartments. On taking him before the Lord Mayor,
upon a charge of felony, the case was immediately dismissed and for
this the actors was brought. The plaintiff's brother swore that he
himself was a traveller in the employment of his daughters, and that
the plainti fr was an assistant in the business which belonged solely to
the young women. But in his cross-examination, he admitted
• that when he and his brother took the premises from defendant,
the eldest girl was not nineteen, and the youngest not seventeen.
lie had 4ratiAlerred the business to his daughter because he had
been unfortunate in business, and made a compromise with his
creditors,. but. could not go into business i n his own name. It was
by him the lock was taken off, and not by plaintiff
who knew nothing about it. The whole family, his
son, brother, and his daughters lived on the profits of the business at
his dweiling-bouse in the City.road. The manufacture was. carried
on in Old'eliange.
Witnesses for the defendant swore positively that the apartments
wire taken by the plaintiff and his brother in their own names ;
but that • when people called to be paid for goods furnished to the
concerti,s the plaintiff, who was always attending to the
business of the father of the girls, and was travelling for
orders, would refer the creditors td his brother, who
said that the business belonged to his daughter, and
these were minors, against whom proceedings were inoperative. Tye
defendant did not put in the second distress until he saw the
plaintiff' carrying away the tables and chairs, a discovery which he
. did not make until after the whole of what was valuable had been

removed. • •
The LORD CHIEF JusTtca said, that there was no ground what-
ever for a charge: of felony, and the Jury must find for the
plaintiff; in such reasonable damages as they might consider ade-
quate tinder the circumstances of the case.
The Jury, after deliberating about half an hour, found for the
plaintiff', Damages, 40s.

• 7ROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE.
WHITEHALL, Fgß. 14, 1842.
The (I*n has been pleased to direet letters patent to be
assed und'e'r the treat Seal, p.,,Tranting the dignity of a Knight
'of the Unfired Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland unto
Jamsetje, Jeejehhov, of Bombay, in the East Indies, Esq.
' 'the Queen has been pleased to appoint Hercules J. Robert-
Esq.' Advocate, to be Sheriff Depute of the shire or she-
riffdom of Renfrew, void by the death of John C. Dunlop, Esq.
, • CROWN-OFFICE, FEB. 15.
MI:USERS RETURNED TO SERVE IN THIS PRESENT PARLIA-
MENT.
KING'S LYNN.—Robert Jocelyn, Esq., commonly called
ViS'eaunt Jocelyn, in the room of the Rght Hon. Stratford
4 Canning, who-has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
TAU:4 T041...-Sir Thomas Edward Colebrooke, of Park-
' lane, in the county of Middlesex, Bart., in the room of
Edward Thomas Bainbridge, Esq., who has aecepted the Chil-
'' tern Hundreds.
Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of Nottinghamshire.
F. T. Voljambe, Esq., to be Deputy Lieutenant.
Commisiion by the Vice-Lieutenant of Devonshire.
Ist Devon Regiment of Yeomanry Cavalry—T. Rosser,
Cent., to be Adjutant, vice Macartney, June 22.
CoramissiLes by the Lord Lieutenant and Vice-Admiral of
Devonshire.
Sir W: H. Tonkin, Knt., to be Deputy Vice-Admiral for the port of Exeter, April 10.
of
WPlym . Eastlake, E , to be Deputy Vice-Admiral for the Port
out G
h; :gEastlake Esq. to be ditto; J. Smith,
April 10.
E,e., to be Deputy Vice_ Admiral for the port of Dartmouth,
South Devonto oe Captain ;
Regiment of Militia—Sir W. P. Carew,
Bart
ditto ; C.-11 Sir J. T. B. Duckworth, Bart, to be
Ilayne, Gent to be Lieutenant ; J. R. V.
Boller, Gent., to be Ensign; J. W. Dickenson, Gent., to be
ditto, Jan..,20..
North Devon Regiment of Yeomanry Cavalry—M. Cooke,
Esq. to be Captain, Jan. 28, 1842 E. G. Cann, Gent., to be
Lieutenant, Nov. 17, 1841; T. Fridges, Gent. to be Cornet,
Jan. 20 1642; J. N. Yowler, Gent. to he ditto, Jan. 20, 1842.
ADMIRALTY, FER. 12.
Corps of Royal. Alarines— Col. Second Commandant G.
Beatty to.be Col-Col:mai:dant, vice Adair, retired on full-
pay; E. S. Mercer to be C:d. Second Com-
, Dandant, vice Beatty, promoted.; Brevet Major D. A. Gib.-
, . to he Lieut.-Col. vice Mercer, promoted ; Captain
S. R. Wesley appointed to the Artillery companies
of the
I Corps, vice Gibsone, promoted; First Lieutenant W. Lee
to he Captain,.. vice Wesley; Second Lieutenant P. H. Fel-
lowes to be• First Lieutenant, vice Lee, promoted; Colonel
Second Commandant T. A. Parke, C. 8., to be
Colonel Commandant, vice 'Connolly, retired on full-pay;
Lieutenant4Colonel J. 31‘Cillum to be Colonel Second Com.
mandant, vice Parke, promoted ; Brevet Major D. J. Bal_
lingall to be Lieutenant-Colonel, vice WCallum, promoted;
First Lieutenant R. 0. Bridge to be Captain, vice Ballingall,
Promoted; Second Lieutenant W. C. Y. Elliottto be First