Star.
London, England, 1821-11-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER Is.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE COOPERS' COMPANY.
This cause was in part heard on Wednesday last.'
This morning Mr. HART was heard in reply. The
Learned Counsel denied that there was any foun-
dation for the insinuations which had been thrown
out respecting the mismanagement of the school
under the direction of Dr. Jeans. He had heard that
a proposal for an increased salary to Dr. Jeans bad
been carried before the Master ; but he had no doubt
it was intended that the increase should take place
from the latest possible period. •
The LORD CHANCELLOR.•••-Lel this stand till Toes-
day, and in the meantime, if any proposal for an in.
creased salary has been put in, let me see it.
Mr. WETHERELL said, there was another petition
in this cause from Robert Hudson, the elder and
younger, who prayed that it might be referred to the
Master to inquire whether it would not be expedient
to reduce the rent of a farm of which they were the
tenants. The petitioners rented the farm, under a
lease of the Coopers Company, at a rent of £490
per annum. In support of their prayer the peti-
tioners have annexed to their petition an affidavit, in
'which they had very circumstantially detailed the
different prices of potatoes in the Scotch and London
markets, in order to shevr that it was imossible to
obtain a profit from the produce of their faprm,which
consisted chiefly of potatoes.
Mr. CHINO followed Mr. Wetherell in support of
the petition.
Mr. HORNE, on the part of the Coopers' Company,
contended that all leases would henceforth be consi-
dered as good for nothing, if the Court were to listen
to the application of the petitioners.
Mr. WETHERELL said, he never remembered an
• application which rested on better grounds than that
which he had made to his Lordship. The petitioners
gave a very minute statement of the produce of the
farm, and its relative value at the time they took the
lease and the present time. It would be troubling
his Lordshit) too much to enter into a particular ac-
count of the gardening-stuff, the drum-headed cab-
bages, and the
The LORD CHANCELLOR Isere observed, that be did
not know much about drum-headed cabbages, but
Le was.a sheep-farmer hint,eh, and he knew that
• mutton which some time since sold for l Id. per pound,
Le now saw marked up for aid. per pound, as he
passed thiough.Long-Acre. He did. not, however,
think himself entitled on that account to call for a
reduction of rent. In times of high prices he had
never heard of farmers giving their landlords more
than the stipulated rent ; yet now the case was re-
versed they immediately cried out for reduction.—
Though the Cows had sometimes listened to appli-
cations similar to that now made, it had never gone
further than to rcfer it to the Master, to inquire whe-
ther the lent might not be reduced for a particular
period. lie had no objection to let it be referred to
the Master to inquire whether any, and what reduc-
tion might be made in the rent of the petitioners for
the present year. But the petitioners must pay the
costs of the application.
Mr. CHING suggested that it would be advisable to
reserve the question of costs.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, No! It was a very
bold petition. lle thought it would be a proper
course to pursue, when the Court made an order for
a reduction of rent, to engraft upon it a stipulation,
that when the price of produce should rise, the tenant
should pay an increased rent, or at least make good
the by-gone reduction:
TUF. ATTORNEY-GENERA L V. THE SKINNERS COMPANY.
Mr. HEALD said this cause came before his Lord-
ship as an appeal from the decision of his Honour
the Vice-Chancellor. The information wai originally
laid by the Attorney-General at the relation of some
• persons against the Master and Wardens of the Skin-
ners Company and their Secretary, for the purpose
of obtaining an inspection of the books and papers
of the Company. The object of the bill was to make
the Company account for the rents and profits of
considerable property which had• lately been much
improved by being built upon. The property was
called the Foundling-fields, and lay at the back of the
Foundling Hospital. It originally belonged to Sir
Andrew Judd, who was a skinner, and who devised
it by will for the purpose of supporting Tunbridge
School and other charities. It was. contended, on the
part of the school, that that part of the property
which was called the Sand-hills, and lay between the
Foundling Hospital and the New-road, ought to be
considered as specifically appropriated to the main-
tenance of the school. On the part of the Company
it was contended, that it was impossible legally to
separate the property, and say that any part was spe-
cifically bequeathed for the support of the school ;
but that the whole was devised by Sir Andrew Judd,
together with other property in the City of London,
for the maintenance of the school and other charities
mentioned in the will of the testator. The bone of
contention then was, whether the school was entitled
to the property called the Foundling-fields, in the
parish of St. Pancras, now, in consequence of some
recent improvements, worth £4,000, or whether it
was entitled only to £4O per annum, from the rent of
the estates ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed that the will of
Sir Andrew Judd was made in the time of Philip and,
Mary, and he died in the same reign, and then the
defendants, as a Corporation, had no right to take in
trust for a charity.
Mr. HEALD, in continuation, said, that was what
he contended for ; that the defendants were only
trustees to the estates, and were liable to be called on
by the heir-at-law of Sir Andrew Judd, or by the
AttornerGeneral for the use of some other charity;
but this never had been taken into the consideration
of the Vice-Chancellor; in fact, soon after the case
was opened it was discernible to every person what
would be the decision of the Learned Judge—
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—" We must stop short
bele, Mr. Heald, as it is now three o'clock, and the
Bencheis will shortly want the tiall."
Further argument postponed.
VICE-CIIANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 16.
EY-PARTE SHAW IN RE HOWARD AND GIBBS.
This petition having been fixed fur three o'clock
this day, the Court was exceedingly crowded, in ex-
pectation of hearing its merits fully discussed. The