Star.
London, England, 1820-01-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JANUARY 19.
GOLDING nt:LLETT.
This case related to the supposed illegitimacy of a
child ; and the motion before his Lo-xlship was to set
aside the vcrtl.ct. the Jury, who had, ten years
ago, found a verdict in favour of the child, and to
g.-ant a new issue. lire care was tried before the
late Lord ELLENDORDUOII ; hut the Jury, in opposi-
tion to the charge oithat. Nohle and Learned Judge,
gave a verdict for the leg,i:imacy of the chill.
On the points of the case Co;msel were heard for
two days, at very great len:;th ; after which his
Lord,hip recapitulated Al the facts of the case, and
ordered the motion to be dismissed with full co;ts.—
His decided opinion wis in favour of the verdict of
the Jul-y ; and he certainly could not too strongly
reprobate th. 2 motive which could stimulate either of
the parties to bring it forward now ; but in saying
so, he meant theyarzy who wished for a ne•.v trial.—
Motion rel'u,ett Al ith coits.
TILE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. HAP-TLEY.
The LORD CHANCELLOR intimated that he- had
been prevented from looking over the voluminous
depositions in this case, and that, therefore, it would
not be in his power to give judgment in it till Sa•
turday morning.
THE MARQUIS TOWNSIIENI) V. ME IslsHor OF

NORWICH AND OTHERS.
This suit has been instituted for the purpose of
determining in whom the right of presentation to the
benefice of West Itaynam, in the Diocese of Nor-
wich, is vested. The advowson is claimed by three
parties :—by the Marquis Townshend, as heir-at-
law of the late Marquis, in whom it was vested ; by
Lord Charles Townshend, as Lord of the Manor of
West Itaynam ; and by Lord John Townshend and
Mr. Blake; the Trustees under the wilt of the late
Marquis. There are also two cross bills, in which
Lord John 'l'ownsbend, and the Trustees severally,
are plaintifs.
Tho' LORD CHANCELLOR left the Court at three
o'clock, soon after the case had been opened. Farther
hearing postponed to Tuesday next.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COITIMJANCARY 19.
ST. JOHN'S HOII'ITAL.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. F. •I'IHE MAYOR AND COR-
PORATION OF HCNTI`GDON.
Some further discussion took place this morning,
on the subject of this Charity, his floNoun having ex-
pressed a wish to have fuller information on sonic
points, before the order was drawn op.
Mr. Herten said, there was at present a Petition
from Sir John Arundel helm e the Court, praying
that he might be paid his costs in a suit which lie had
conducted, on behalf of the Charity, against a Mr.
Apreece, respecting the possession of some. lands be-
longing to the Charity. The relaters vete anxious
to have that suit in their own hands, as they did
not repose the same confidence in Sir John Arundel
as the Corporation of Huntingdon seemed to do.
The Vic E-CIIANCELLOR.—If Sir John Arundel
comes here for costs, I shall certainly put the suit into
your hands, but otherwise I cannot do it.
Mr. BELL said, he was sorry, if the conducting of
that suit was thought so easy a matter, that the
Learne4 Gentleman, who had sat down, had not had
the management of it. He (Mr. Bell) had been con-
cerned in it from the beginning, and he had no hesi-
tation in saying, that during trse whole course of his
loug professional, life he had never met u ith any
case more complicated and difficult, owing to the'
want of recut-di, and proper evidence. Before any
general allevertion of misconduct was made, the
Learned Gentleman should point out some part ef
the proceedings that had been improperly managed.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought it should be re-
ferred to the Master, to inquire what reasonable
charges Sir John Arundel had sustained in conduct-
ing that suit? and let it be made a matter of account.
In future, however, he could not give him any charge
in the direction of the suit. Ile also observed, that
it would be necessary to suspend the removal of Sir
John Arundel from the office of Master of the Hos-
pital. lie was anxious to know whether the pro-
perty of ►he Charity was in the hands of the Corpora-
tion, or of Sir J. Arundel. because if he was the per-
son responsible, the Court would get rid of the diffi-
culty of making. the Corporation pay for the loss
which the Charity had sustained.
Mr. BELL said, that in 1808, Sir John Arundel
had been nominated Master for life by the Corps)-
! ation, and that solely tor managing the suit against
I\ Apreece. The present information stated nothing
against him ; it prayed that it might be declared by
the Court, that no member of the 'Corporation should
be eligible to the office of Master, and that Sir John
Arundel might be removed from that office; and
also, that the Master might be ordered to inquire
what sums, but-for the neglect of the Corporation,
might have been obtained for the use of the Charity?
Here the question which the relaters put in issue,
was not the liability of Sir John Arundel, nor did
the information charge him at all with personal
responsibility. It was the Corporation of Hunting-
don that was charged. Sir John Arundel said, rn
his answer, that since he had ceased to be Mayor,
the Mayor for the time being had, in his name, ac-
counted to the Corporation for the rents of the es-
tates; but that circumstance could not make him
personally responsible. The Corporation was, to all
intents and purposes, the only party that could be
charged NV;...11 liability, and he had only lenehis name
for what he considered a very useful purpose. That
Court was not in the habit of charging persons who
were secondarily liable, till it had first charged those
who were so primarily.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought that Sir John
Arundel could not be made personally responsible
for these lands, under the presentinformation, which
merely prayed that he, being Master of the Hospital,
aad at the same time a member of the Corporation,
'slight be removed.
Mr. HEALD said he wes instructed, by the relaters,
nut to press that point, but to leave it entirely to the
discretion of the Court. If the Court thought, that
by his an Aver he was not personally responsible, that
opinion accorded fully with the private feelings of
This client-.
Vre e-Cit A NCELLOR thought, that in justice he
could not be made responsible; but if the relaters
had amended their 1:01, and given him an oppor-
tunity of defenelhr, himself against the charge of
the Court would undoubtedly have sustained