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

MERRY V ECLES.

This was a creditor's suit, instituted by the plaintiff, who was a
bond creditor, ou behalf of himself and other creditors. The
bond was dated the 10th of December, 1827, and the testator died
in April last. The defendant was the testator's administratrix.
The object of the present application was to obtain the ordinary
decree in a creditor's suit, and to have an account taken of the
testator's estate.

Lord LANGDALE—Take the order.
GORI)ON v. THE CHELTENHAM ♦NO GRRAT WESTERN RAILWAY CON.

PANS".

In this part-heard cause, which came before the Court on de.
murrer, Mr. Kindersley was heard on behalf of the plaintiff; Mr.
Turner appeared for the defendants.

llis 1,011.1)6111P intimated to Counsel that it would be advisable
to see if they could agree as to the state of facts, if they could so
agree the only question then would be as to whether the acts done
did, by themselves, constitute a violation of the Act of Parliament
applicable to the case.

Counsel concurred in the justness of his Lnrdship's view, and
tho cause was ordered to stand over till to-morrow.

KIRKMAN V. ANDREWS.
The object of the bill filed in this cause was to have it declared
by the Court that 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 3,500/. with the
interest thereon from February, 1840, the time of his
removal from office, which was a suns 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
s.dmitted on their part that an account should be taken.

In the articles of partnership it had been resolved that the Wain.
tiff, who was one of the principal projectors of the Company, should
not be removed from his office of resident manager, unless for Ina/
versation or gross incapacity; and hence the ground of •
sent claim. - al. pre-

l'he plea put in by the defendants St's-
...
twice become bankrupt ; and th.• ed that the plaintiff had
not paid I ss. in the 0.,- on his second bankruptcy he bad
" -.id, which, being the case, it was contended
by Mr. Turiu that, under the Commission of Bankruptcy, all the
property became vested in the assignees, and that no un.
certificated bankrupt could ever sue without his assignees being
made parties to the suit.

Ibis
I:oancntt• 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 advanced in argument by Counsel on
either side, he should postpone his decision for the present.

VICE-CHANCELLORY COURT, Feb. 15.
(Before the Vice.CuaseeLLoa OE ENGLAND.)
IN RE TUR NORTH UNION AND CLARENCE RAILWAY COMPANY.
This case came before his Honour upon motion to dissolve an in-
junction, which had been obtained during the last long vacation, re.
straining the Clarence Railway Company from carrying their rail.
way across the Sherborne branch of the plaintiffs' railway, in the
township of Crislipgton.
The Care appears likely to occupy the Court several days.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRANI.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V TILE CORPORATION OF NEWARK.
In this case the bill was filed by the Attorney. General, at the
instance of the Charity Commissioners.
Mr. Spence and Mr. Blunt appeared for the relators; Mr.
Skirrow for the Trustees under the Municipal Corporations Act •
and' Mr. Birtfor 'the Corporation.
Th.., original information sought an account of tb-
' of certain charity estates, supposed to be v' management
' ants. It came on for hearing r ...red in the defend-
the year 1830 -wore Sir John Leach in. On that -
~ecasion it was referred to the
Master. to take an acco-
-IS-242: and the y of the rents and profits since September
had any l was also to inquire whether the defendants
pr, -.us, or other property, to answer what might be due
them. Lord Cottenham subsequently decided that the Court
had no power to direct an inquiry 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 tiled for the purpose of bringing before the Court the ex.cor.
',orators, and also the trustees under the Act. Whilst this suit
was pending it was discovered that the property had been held on
charitable trusts, having been devised to the Corporation by
Anthony Collingwood, for the use of the poor, and that it could
nut 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
Mastde; 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.
Bier, on the part of the corporation, censented to the in.
quiry on the ground that it would be beneficial to the charity.
Mr. SKlanow, fur the new trustees, resisted the prayer, his clients
refusing to sanction the proceedings under the sale.
The case was part heard yesterday.
Ills HoNouß pronounced judgment this morn' lig. 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
fur the Court to sell charity lands. The only case in which he had
ever known it to be done, in the course of twenty-one years experience
at the bar, was the case of the Attorney-General 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 gentleman, 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,
his 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 be altered,
and it was not until the case of the Attorney-General rt. 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
that Charity ; then an information had been filed for the purpose
of bringing before the Court the trustees, the object still being to
benefit other charities. Failing on these grounds, it was then
suggested that the inquiry might be for the benefit of this par.
titular charity. The Court would not direct the inquiry unless
a very special case were made out. In this case the principal ob.
jeet was to carry on the old information. His 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 QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. It.