Star.
London, England, 1826-11-11 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

. „um_
COURT OF CHANCERY, Novas= 10.
IX Cal MAMA Or LADY 011PLM
Mr. HART moved that the commission which had
been issued' to inquire into the state of Lady Gresley's
mind should be supeisedeal. He said that Sir Roger
Gresley, at whose instance the proceedings had been
commenced, was now convinced that he had been
mistaken, and was desirous that no further steps should
be taken.

Mr. Spans appeared for Sir Roger Gresley, and said
that he was ready to consent to the motion which had
been made. He was not instructed to concur with the
statement made by Mr. Hart, that Sit Roger Gresley
had been mistaken; but he wished it to be understood,
that his client had had several interviews with his mo-
ther, and that, in consequence of those interviews, he
wished the commission to be no-further proceeded with.
The order was therefore pronounced as prayed.
VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Ntwassata 10.

wawa:vim R. WASTRIMAN AND 0111TRS.
A person named Merceron, who was a Magistrate
and Treasurer to the parish of Si. Matthew, Bethnal-
green, had embezzled certain sums of the parish funds,
and was prosecuted to conviction. A vestry meeting
had been held on the 20th of August, 1818, at which
the proceedings in the prosecution were approved, and a
resolution was adopted for deiraying the expenses by the
parish, and another resolution, of the same nature, was
passed for prosecuting some other patties as abettors of
the wrong. At'a subsequent meeting of the church-
wardens, trustees of the poor, and one Bumford, making'
six in all, the resolutions of the vestry were confirmed,
and Bumford was appointed to direct the proceedings.
He did so, and the ittornies. Messrs. Knight and Free-
man, took the case into the Court of King s Bench. The
Lord Chief Justice recommended reconciliation, and ad-
vised the immediate termination of the suit. In com-
pliance with this advice, no evidence was offered, and
the accused was acquitted. The attornies sued for their
costs, not against Bumford. who was in difficulties, but
against the present plaintiff, Wrightson. The defence
to that action was, that it was a joint liability, if any ;
but that it ought to be brought against the parish in
general. The Lord Chief Justice held that thesis parties
so appearing and directing the proceedings were seve-
rally liable, and the plaintiffs obtained a verdict. The
present bill was brought to recover the contributions of
the other parties who shared in this liability.
Mr. HART and Mr. WILBRAIRAIII appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr. TEED, for the present defendant, maintained that
the parish was collectively liable. It fell particularly
hard upon his client, who was in the minority of 41
against 196, at the vestry meeting, and had only ratified
those proceedings at the meeting of the parish officers
in his official capacity. There was, however, a more
fatal objection to the bill, which was the want of parties,
because all those who voted at the vestry must be liable.
Mr. Withamsaw pointed out the di/faculty of Winging so many
as 196 defendants before the Court.
The Vigo CHANCELLOR said, that the number of the
parties could be no objection on that account merely;
but it was for those who objected to a want of parties to
state who those parties ought to be.
Mr. Tam admitted that he was not prepared with the descrip-
tion of the patties wanting.
. Mr. HEALD, on behalf of • Brown, another of the
churchwardens, objected to the separate liability of the
parish officers. In the action brought by the solicitors
against the plaintiff he had neglected to plead in abate-
ment ; and having quitted that which might have been
a tenable defence, he sought. by this bill compensation.
for that which in all probability was the consequence
of his own neglect.
Mr. How for another of the defendants, contended that the pa-
rish having ordered those proceedings by a resolution of the vestry,
were bound to pay the expenses of them.
The VICE CHANCELLOR judged thAt the signing of
the parish officers, asserted co have been done in their
official capacity, bad no connection either in form or
subject with their official duties; and that they must be
held individually liable for the expenses of proceedings
which, individually, they had ordered their agents to
institute. As to the liability of the parties forming the
vestry meeting, they had no power to institute proceed-
ings by a course of this nature. An Act of Parliament
had been quoted to skew that they had such a power ;
but it would be seen by one clause °lithe Act, that such
proceedings as might be instituted by a vestry meeting
must be conducted by the vestry-clerk. His Honour
gave judgment for the plaintiff, with costs against all the
defendants except Bumford.

lIODOULINVIMI 111ADIUSIN
In this case,. a Mr. Buller had bequeathed to one
Mary Tatham 1,5001. with remainder to her children,
and in failure of issue to herself, to dispose of at
will." The plaintiffs were residuary legatees ; and Mary
Tatham having at her decease disposed of the legacy
otherwise than by is a will," to which method they con-
tended that she was confined by the words of the first-
named bequest, they claimed to succeed to it.
The Vzcz Cmancztton was clearly of opinion that
Mary Tatham was by no means bound to make a will
in the sense taken by the plaintiffs, but that she was to
have the money eventually, on failure of her own
issue, at her sole will and dispssal.—Judgment for the
defendant with costs.