Star.
London, England, 1821-11-23 00:00:00

LAP/ INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER et.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V- THE SKINNERS COMPANY.
This day the LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment,
in this case; it came before him in the shape of an
appeal from the Vice-Chancellor; and it originally
was an information by the Attorney-General, as to
the conduct of the Skinners' Company, with respect
to some property left by Sir A. Judd, to endow a
Free Grammar School at Tunbridge, in Kent. His
Lordship then went through the whole of the plead-
ings on both side;, by which it appeared, that Sir A.
Judd, an Alderman of London, had:lay a sort of',
testamentary deed, bequeathed, previous to the year
1554, the sum of £3O per annum, arising out of two
estates ; one in the parish of Allhallows, Grace-
church-street, and the other in the parish of St. Pan-
cra-, Middlesex, for the payment of £2O a-year to
a Master, £8 a-year to an Usher, and £2 a-year for
the reparation of his Free Grammar School at Tun-
bridge, in Kent. This was bequeathed, if it could
be called a testamentary deed, to the Master and
Wardens of the Skinners' Company, to be by them
applied for the purpose, before-mentioned. There
were, however, other e.tates purchased by the money
of Judd, but left in his name and that of one Tho-
mas Fisher, fot the maintenance of some alms-houses.;
but all this property had, in two hundred and fifty
years, augmented so much in value as to be worth
several thousands a-year; which the Skinners Com-
pany claimed the right of appropriating to the pur-
poses intended and meant in what was called the will
of Sri A. Judd. On the one side it had been con-
tended, t'i'nt the Act of the 43d of Elizabeth had a
retrospect as well as a prospect ; and that it not only
was meant and intended to make all invalid wills for
charitable uses good in future, but that it made this
invalid will of Sir A. Judd (if it was invalid) good
in the retrospect, it having been framed before the
enactment of this Statute for a considerable time. In
support of this. a case somewhat similar to the pre-
sent had been cited, out of the Ist Chancery Reports,
by Hubbard ; in which, it being referred to him and
another, they decided it on the ground of the Statute
of the 43d of Elizabeth. His Lordship also cited
four cases from Lord Nottingham's Manuscripts, in
which that Learned Lord decided them all on the
construction he put upon the 43d of Elizabeth. His
Lordship (Lord Eldon) could not, however, conceive
how this Statute had received such an extensive con-
struction, since it only appointed that Commissioners
might be lawfully nominated to inquite into and re-
form the abuse of donations or bequests for charita-
ble purposes ; for if that Act could render a trust of
Sir A. Judd's valid, which had been made long be-
fore its enactment (and which he, perhaps, was in law
unable to make), there was no saying how far back its
effects might be carried. The Vice-Chancellor had
declared that an account should be taken of ail the
messuages, lands, tenements, hereditaments, and
premises, and of the rents, profits, and issues arising
from the same, with the nature of their application
by the Skinners Company, bequeathed to them by
Sir A. Judd, in trust, for the maintenance of the
School at Tunbridge. He should therefore no further
disturb that decree, than by infusing some words, in
order to leave the question open, whether the will of
Sir A. Judd was a valid one or not?
DAVIS V. THE DUKE OE MARLBOROUGH.
Mr. RAY moved that the Report of the Master
might be refer' ed back in order to obtain a reduction
of costs in this cause. A bill hai been filed by the
plaintiff to recover the payment of an annuity granted
by him to the defendant. His Lordship appointed a
receiver to the estates, but it was afterwards disco-
vered that the estates could not be liable to the debt
of the Noble Duke, and his Lordship then directed
that the defendant should repay the plaintiff the ac-
tual sum he had advanced, which was £6OO. The de-
fendant had complied with his Lordship's direction,
and paid the money. The Master who had taxed the
costs had objected to several of the items, and theob-
ject of this application was to get those items reduced.
Mr. HART, for the plaintiff, objected that the ap-
plication was irregular, it being made by motion in-
stead of petition.
The LORD CHANCELLOR confirmed Mr. Hart's ob-
jection, and dismissed the application with costs.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 22.
COOK V. COLLINGRIDGE.
Mr. HART argued this morning in support of the
proposition, that a Court of Equity will interfere to
order the sale of a property, which articles of agree-
ment had prohibited to be sold, and directed to be
divided among several parties, but which are in their
nature incapable of division.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR reserved his opinion till
Monday. He would take the articles of copartner-
ship in this case, and read them before Monday. His,
present impression was, that the division in the ar-
ticles was a division by conversion, and not as among
tenants in common. He would give judgment on the
whole question on Monday next.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 22.
THE KING V. THOMAS GREGORY AND OTHERS.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL prayed the judgment of
the Court on these defendants, nine in number, seve-
ral of whom were respectable tradesmen of Chelten-
ham, and were convicted at the last Assizes for Glou-
cestershire of a riot in the town of Cheltenham, and
of assaulting certain Excise Officers in the execution
of their duty in seizing some window blinds in the
shop of one of the defendants, which had not paid the
Excise duty.
Affidavits were put in on behalf of the defendants,
in mitigation of punishment; and, after hearing Coun-
sel on both sides, the Court sentenced Thomas (ire-
gory, Thomas Boucher, Daniel Boucher, Francis Raw-
lins, and William Rawlins, to twelve months impri-
sonment in the House of Correction; Francis Raw-
lins to pay a fine of £5O; Daniel Alder and John
Alder to be imprisoned six months, the latter to pay
a fine of £25 ; and William Peachy and George Purk
to be imprisoned for four months ' • and all the de-
fendants to enter into security for their good beha-
viour for three years.
THE KING V. MILLIS AND ANOTHER.
On the motion of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, these
defendants, William Millis and Richard Lowe, who
were convicted at the last Assizes for Berkshire, of a)
riot and assault upon David Deadman and Thomfts
Pike, who had been witnesses in an Exchequer Olt
for smuggling, were sentenced to four months itn-
prisonment in Reading Jail, and Millis was ordefed
to pay a fine of £.50, and both defendants were re-

luired to give security for their good behaviour for

iree years.

• THE KING V. DANIEL RIDGWAY.
On the motion of Mr. TINDAL, this case was or-
dered to be brought on as a motion, and not to re-
main in the new trial paper.