Star.
London, England, 1822-12-12 00:00:00

LAW INDELLIGENCE.

'COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER ii.
•
Rift V. WARD. _

Mr. ilnaT concluded his reply in this case.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the length and
imprtance of the proceedings required that he should
have some few days to consider of his judgment.
This labour had been increased by the evidence of
the trial having received the sanction of the Judge, as
it must therefore be considered to possess the same
authority as the notes of the Judge. There were some
observations to he made upon the evidence which had
not been made at the trial. He by no means wished
to reflect on the exemplary conduct of Chief Justice
Dallas during tht proceedings: but frequently points
arose from evidence which were not observed on the
trial. The lunacy commenced in 1773 ; all the sub-
sequent proceedings had been conducted .on wrong
grounds, which had been kept up by continued mis-
representations. Had be seen as much of them be-
fore, it might have become the duty of the Court to
interfere and prevent the parties from contradicting
each other, -after having constantly misrepresented
the facts. The possession of the estates in that'case
should have been delivered to the parties who were
alleged on all hands to. be entitled ; and if they were
not so entitled, the other parties shoutl have been
referred to the Co3rts of Law for their remedy. He
hesitated to say whether or not he would now do so,
but he was not without a strong,inclination towards
adopting that course. Having.then informed himself
that the business bad been carried on in the office of
Master Coureenay, he caused the affidavits to be
handed up to him, and said that he hoped to be able
to give judgment on Monday nest.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DECEMBER 11.
TUE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. THE MASTERS AND WAR-

DENS OF THE SCNNERS' COMPANY.
In this cause Mr. BELL moved, that the Master
should report what were the rents and profits de-
rived from certain lands and tenements in St. Pan-
cras Parish, under the coutroul of the Master and
Wardens of the Ski.mers' Company, for the benefit
of a Free School at Tunbridge, endowed in the reign,
of Elizabeth, and that the proceeds of the said lands
and tenements should be applied to the support of
the said charity, according to at scheme to be formed
by the Master.
Mr. BELL, ca }visa. of Mr. Knox, the master of
the school, now prayed tin, Court to direct the ap-
plication of the proceeds of tl.e Pancras estaw sepa-
rately to the use of the charity. Consider:l'oe diffi-
culty, it appeared, existed about ascertaining or
fixhig the extent or value of the property in the City
belonging to the scho(l. As, however, the value of
t!:e property in St. P:u and its. produce were
il,c`;t:ened, and as the income from it, above
12500, was fully sufficient to carry on the school, it
seas proposed to apply that sum according to a pro-
visional scheme, until the value of the other pro-
Tett), was a•certained, when an order might be made
for the application of tic whek. The value of the
proverty in Gracechw.ch-street had not been yet as-
ce:taked, and probably never could be.. It was sub-
mitted that it would be ultimately necessary to direct
a commission to form an equivalent, to be paid by
the Company to the solicitor f:A, this propeity, of
which the value could not be at.cui rained.

Mr. HART said, he appeared on behalf of the re-
lators in this case, and was directeJ by them to sup-
port the application. It was certainly quite unrea-
sonable that the master of the school should remain
unpaid, whilst there was a large income sufficient for
the Court to give a reasonable endowment to the
charity. A separate report of the St. Pancrac pro•
perry ought certainly to be made, and the Grace-
church-street property to be lefi: for future disposal.
Mr. HEALD, who appeared on behalt of the de-
fendants, said, that they were not actuated by any
lit:gious spi!it in opposing the motion, on the con.
trary, they were most anxious to carry the Decree
pronounced into strict execution, although they might
have appealed to the House of Lords against it, but
they opposed the application because it was con-
ceived to be irregular and premature. At the fire
of -London some of the houses belonging to the
school, and others adjoining belonging to the Com-
pany were burnt. He therefore submitted to the
Court, for the purpose of bringing the suit to a re-
gular and speedy termination, it would be most ex-
pedient to allow the case to stand over until the ar-
rangements had been made.
Mr. BELL, and Mr. HART would not accede to any
further delay. The property in Gracechurch-street
could quite as well Le disposed of in the course which
was proposed.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, after having heard a fur-
ther conversation upon the point, directed that 4 se-
parate report should be made of the Gracechurch-
street property, and ordered that the Master should
approve of a provisional scheme for the application
of the St. Pancras property alone, to the purposes of
the charity. But his Honour directed that the order
should not be drawn up for a fortnight, that the
Company might in the meantime have an opporto-
9ity of suggesting anything to him that arose out of
any arrangement that might be made.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 11.
THEATRICAL CONTRACT.-BEDFORD V. BUNN.

Mr. MARRYAT stated, that this was an actionl
brought by Miss Green (now Mrs. Bedford) against.
Mr. Bunn, the Manager of the Birmingham Theatre,
for the recovery of a sum of Er, which was due to
bar out of the amount of an engagement secured to
her by Mr. Bunn. She was to perform for 34 nights
at Birmingham, and to receive £lO a week, and a
benefit secured to produce £5O. The benefit unfor-
4unately produced but tla: for the balance, this ac-
tion was brought.
Mrs. Green, the mother of the Actress, proved the
contract on the part of Mr. Bonn to give her daugh.
ter a benefit, which was secured to produce at least
ICA and which only produced
In her cross•examination, she admitted that her
daughter was taken ill at Birmingham, and in conse-
quence her benefit was postponed, and that which
was substituted for it was unproductive.
Mr. Scanutrr, for the defendant, said, he was
• prepared ta prove that Mr. Bishop, not Miss Green,
was the real plaintiff in this cause; and he assigned
as the reason for the reduced amount of Miss Green's
thexixcumstance of her indisposition, fur
whisk it wild as eareastiable the Messer should,