Star.
London, England, 1824-01-19 00:00:00


LAW INTELLIGENCE.
Sittings appointed in Middlesex and London, bzfore
the Right Hon. Sir RoinaT GIFFORD, Knight, Lord
Chief Justice of his Majesty's Court of Common Pleas,
at Westminster, in and after Hilary Term, 1824:

IN TERM.
MI ddienes London.
Saturday, January 24. Monday, January *6.
Saturday, January *l. • Monday,-February 2.
Friday, February 6. Saturday, February 7.
AFFIE. TCIII6I. •
Friday, February IS. I Saturday, February 14.
To sit Jan. 24 and 51, at twelve; Jan. 96, at oue; and Feb. 2 6,
7,13, and 14, at half-past able o'clock.'

COURT OP CHANCERY; JANUARY 'l7.
ootIRLAX V. THE DUCE OE SOMERSET•
In this case, after some conversation, the LORD CHAN-
CELLOR directed the parties togo before Mr.FENSAM, the
Officer of the Court to file proper affidavits. His Lord
ship, addressing the Solicitor for the Duke of Somerset,.
expressed surprise that he had not proceeded with more
speed in this case. The Solicitor made some observa-
tions in justification of the course he hadrevious pursued, and
intimat:d that it might be necessary, p tti filing
an affidavit, with respect to plans, to send into the
country.— The LORD CHANCELLGR.—. You mean, that
you will have as much delay as you please.— The parties
then left the Court to make the necessary affidavits.
HIGHGATE GRAMMAR SCHOOL.
THE ATI'ORUSIfrOZNERAL V. THE EARL ow MANSFIELD.
Mr. bawl this day concluded his arguments on the
same side with the SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Mr.
SHADWELL.
Mr. BICKERSTEITH also appeared on behalf of the
Earl of Mansfield, and Mr. Menu., the Clergyman, who
had been appointed Master of the Highgate Grammar
School. With respect to the Noble Earl, be argued that.
his Lordship ought net to have been made a party to
the suit, and that the bill ought to have been dismissed
with costs. On the part of- the ltev. Mr. Mentz, he,
stated, that that Gentleman had been nominated to the
office he now filled, under the express stipulation that
he was only to be nominally Master of the Fclux)l, and
that his duty was, the spiritual instruction of the hans-'
let. As such spiritual instructor, he had been respected!
and admired. Mr. Mentz had, however, instructed
ta state to his Lordship, that lie was ready to act wider'
respect to tife School as his Lordship thought was mole
conformable to the original intention of the founder.
Mr. Ronne at some length replied.
The Lono Crtanera.con then took a comprehensive
view of the various instruments which had been pro-
duced on bosh sides, and obniaved upon the evidence,
parol as well as documentary, upon which the Learned
Counsel had mainly rested their arguments. He ex-
pressed a decided opinion, that the true construction of
the most ancient deeds was, that these funds were not
orginally granted for two purposes, but for one only,
viz. the establishment of a grammar school at Highgate.,
It had been very forcibly argued by the Counsel tor the
trustees, that when the Bishop originally made the grant
of the chapel to Sir Roger Cholmondeley, it never was,
intended that it stiould fall into desuetude. But to this
argument a satisfactOry 'answer might be given, that no
Bishop had a right to enearge 'the encumbrances and
chat ges on the See, and, when lie made thii grant,
there was no obligation upon him to enlarge it. It
was plain, therefore, that the Bishop intended to give
the chapel and lands annexed to it for the benefit and
sustentation of the Grammar School—an Obligation
which existed in the founder before this grant was made.
His Lordship was well aware, that in the education o(
children there was a fashion, and that the schools of
Eton, Westminster, and Harrow, had been filled. Tirere
was also a fashion among sonic people to educate their
children by private tuition. The consequence had
been that the private schools had been deserted, and the
funds had proportionable been increased. A doubt had
existed'in the mind of a..ord Hardwicke. whether the
heir who had been disinherited by the 'charitable dona-
tion, had not a claim upon the surplus of such
funds which could not be applied to the purposes
originally intended by the !builder. Taking a view,
therefore, of the whole Of this case, the first and most
important question to be con4dered was, whether these'
Trustees of the Charity could take upon themselves the
obligation of enlarging the charity's and of applying the
funds for the purpose of rendering the chapel fit to car
tarn 1,500 inhabitants of the hamlet of Highgate?
Iris opinion being that the chapel and lands were granted
upon trust for the 'benefit of the school, and that it
ought to be treated in the same manner as when the
original trustees took it, it could not be liable to the
trust fund for enlarging it. No new obligations were
created, and the present trustees were bound to execute
the trust according to the ancient rule and custom.
These were the strong impressions upon his mind, and
if a decree was thought necessary by the parties, he
would pronounce it. With respect to the costs incurred
in Parliament, it was quite new to allow them in a
Court of Equity, and he would make no order with re-
spect to them.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY 17.
Before die Loan-Csiar Janice and a Special Jary.
BRUNTON V. WHITE.
This was an action for damages, the defendant hav-
ing made and vended chain cables, for the manufacture
of which the plaintiff has a patent. The cause excited
considerable interest, an action for a similar infringe-
ment of the same patent having been brought, and a
verdict obtained for damages, three or four years ago.
Mr. SCARLETT, for the plaintiff; stated, that on that oc-
casion, a motion had been made for a new trial, upon
some point not respecting the chain cable, but respect-
ing improved ships' anchors, included in the same pa-
tent; but that, though a rule for a new trial had been
granted, the defendant had not thought fit to try it, but
had applied to plaintiff for, and had obtained a license
to manufacture the chain cables under his patent, not
choosing to risk another trial.
On the present occasion the defence took a new turn.
ire ATTORNEY-GENERAL, for defendant, stated, that he
synitld not now contest that part of the patent relating
the chain cable. That being given up, witnesses were
examined as to the improvement on ships' anchors, and
the validity of the patent in that particular; when the
superiority of the patent anchors was fully established.
Before the plaintiff obtained his patent, anchors 'had
their arms made in two pieces, which were united to the
shank by welding, which often caused the iron to be
unsound at that part where the anchor should be
strongest ; and which, in fact, is the strongest part of
the patent anchor, in which the two arms are madei
in one piece, with a conical or bell-mouthed hole in
tile middle, in which the shank is inserted, the widest
part of the hole that receives .it being on the out-
s'sie, and filled up by the shank, which therefore