The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-12-20 00:00:00

LONDON LAW COURTS.

ROLLS COURT.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE CORDWAINERS' COMPANY.
In this case a testator of the name of Fisher, by his will,
which was made in 1617, bequeathed the Falcon Inn, and two
other inessuages, situate in Fleet-street, opposite St. Dunstan's
Church, to the master, wardens, and fellowship of the craft or
mystery of the ‘cordwainers, "for the only intent, use, and per-
formation" of his last will -aud. testament. The premises in
question at the date of this bequest produced only the sum of
£i2 6s. Bd. ; and as to the application of it, the testator directed
that the annuity of £6 should be paid to his brother during his
hfe ; that £5 should be distributed per annum among poor
householders of the neighbourhood; and 6s. Bd. among what he
called random pow., besides several other small payments to es-
tablish a dirge or mass to be said or sung for the good of his
soul in- the parish church, and to reasimesate the master, war-
dens, &c., for superinteuding the services and the distribution
of the money fan's time to time, the whole thus disposed of
amounting to within a few shillings of the entire rents of the
property bequeathed to the company by the will. The value
of the premises had now increased to a very considerable
amount, and produced annually no less a sum than £358. The
object of this information was to have it declared that the de-
fendants were trustees of the rents and profits of the premises
in question, to be applied in augmentation of the charitable ob-
jects mentioned in the will of the testator, and to have the usual
accounts taken, and a scheme settled by the master for the fu-
ture administration of the property.
Mr. Bickersteth and Mr. Anderdon appeared in support of
the information.
Mr. Pemberton (with whom was Mr. Wakefield) appeared
for the defendants, and reprobated such pi oceedings being in-
stituted after the commissioners for charitable purposes had on
the fullest investigation declared themselves perfectly satisfied
with the manner in which this charity had been administered
for nearly 300 years. This was a case got up on the report of
the commissioners by some litigious individuals for the
.purpose
of involving the company in ail the expenses of a chancery
suit, without the least shadow of a foundation in justice or equity
for the declaration which was prayed. The learned counsel
went on to contend that the devise here was not generally in
trust for charitable purposes. In order to prove that the whole
rents of the estate were sUbjeet to charity, it was necessary to
show that by the will it was wholly given to charitable purposes,
specifically named, or, on the other hand, that the rents at the
date of the will were completely absorbed by charitable uses.
Neither of these positions, however, could be maintained in the
present case; in fact, the first declaration in the will had no
connexion whatever with charity, and referred to the payment
of an annuity of £6 to the testator's brother, on whose death 40s.
was to be paid to his widow, which sums afterwards were wholly
undisposed of, and therefore, went beneficially to the general
purposes of the corporation.
Mr. Bickersteth, in reply, insisted, that as fhe rents had
greatly increased, there'shoubl, at least, be a proportionate aug-
mentation to the extent in which they were originally dedicated
to charitable purposes.
His Honour said the first question was, whether it was in-
tended that the corporation should be mere trustees, or whether
a beneficial interest was given to them; and the next consider-
ation was, whether, if they were trustees, they were intended to
be trustees for charitable purposes. It did not appear to him
that the words of this devise constituted the corporation mere,
tiuetees. The estate was absolutely given to them, not on trust,
but " for the use, intent, and performation of this my will." It
was rather a'gift upon condition than a gift upon trust. They
were to take the estate so devised to them on condition of their
performing the duties which, in the terms of the will, were im-
posed on them. Those duties were not for mere charitable pur-
poses, but by way of annuity to his brother of £6 for life, and 40s.
for his widow, which, on their failure, was altogether undisposed
of. It was plain that a beneficial interest had been intended for
the corporation, because, if they failed in the duty of paying,
the brother was to be entitled to enter into possession, and de-
feat the estate so given to them. Had it been on trust, in respect
of which there was no intended benefit, how could such a con:
dition have been imposed ? The testator clearly intended that
they should have a beneficial interest on the terms of complying
with the directions in his will. There was no trust either ex-
pressed or implied with respect to charity, other than to the ex-
tent of the specifically imposed chaiges ; and, therefore, ac-
cording to all the principles applicable to such cases, this infor-
mation should be dismissed. It was to be regretted that the
name of the Attorney-General had been used in such a case,
because, if his attention had been sufficiently,called to the na-
ture of it, he never would have given his sanction to such a pro-
ceeding. he court, however, must presume that he had not
been made aware of all the circumstances, and, considering the
real merits of the case, or rather its demerits, the information
should be dismissed with costs.
[The concluding part of his honour'sjudgment we recommend
to the particular notice of the Lord Chancellor, and all corpo-
ration refotmers.—EDlT. LIVERPOOL STANDARD.]

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-WEDNESDAY.
LIBEL-FURSEY V. CLEMENT.

This was an action for libel. The plaintiff will be recollected
as the individual who was charged with taking an active part
in the Calthorpe-street affair, for which he was apprehended,
and subsequently tried at the Old Bailey on the capital charge
of stabbing a policeman named Culley, of which, however, he
was acquitted by the jury. Shortly previous to the plaintiff's
trial a paragraph appeared in the Morning Chronicle newspaper,
purporting to be a communication from a correspondent, which
was headed " Murder of Cully the policeman. "That para-
graph was to the following effect :
" It is confidently stated that Fursey, who was committed to
Newgate on the capital charge of stabbing two policemen at
the ealthorpe-street meeting, is clearly identified by a disin-
terested witness as the murderer of the unfortunate Colley.
A person was taken into Newgate a few days ago, and selected
Fursey from among several other prisoners, as the person whom
he had seen give the fatal blow, and this individual will appear
at the ensuing Old Bailey sessions and prove that fact."
Mr. Phillips conducted the plaintiff's cause in an eloquent
speech, from which we make the following extracts :
.The jury remembered that in May last a silly meeting was
summoned to assemble in Calthorpe-street, or in a waste
ground adjoining that street, fur the purpose of allowing some
ridiculous ebulition of political visionaries to evaporate. On
that occasion, he thouht, the Government would have done.
wisely to, have allowed' the evaporation, to have permitted the
meeting to take place, and the concocters of it to depart with
the contempt of some and the ridicule of others. But that did
not seem fit to the authorities at the Home-office; and then
the jury, perhaps, would expect that, for prudent men awl
statesmen, the course would have been to prevent the meeting
from taking place at all. It was not his business, however, to
criticise the conduct of the Secretary of State, who suffered
that rabble of men, women, and children to assemble in
full force, and when the idle business of the day was about
to commence, a body of about one thousand eight hundred
policemen charged them in military style, beating down and
trampling. under foot the defenceless and unresisting, the
and and infirm of both sexes, without mercy and distinction.
Now, the Morning Chronicle newspaper, of which Mr. Clement,
the defendant, was proprietor, had for many years advocated
the principles of the persons who composed the present. govern-
ment. Of course he did not blame the conductors of the paper
for that. Every man was entitled to defend and to enforce his
own opinions, and to choose his own party, without being
called to account by either of the two parties which now di-
vided the public mind. The Morning Chronicle had always ad-
vocated the cause of the Whigs out of place with all the eager-
ness of men wanting place; and had supported them in office
with all the love of ieteution which could actuate piacemen.
On the occasion of the affray in Calthorpe-street, the editor of that
paper felt himself called upon to justify by any means the conduct
of the Whig government, and to make it appear that the police
had been most foully treated; and in the whole press the govern-
ment bad no more zealous or able advocate than the editor of that
paper. If there was one principle of Bi itish law better established
than another, or more consonant with the constitution and with
humanity, it was that, when a man was called upon to answer a
charge affecting his life and character, he should be sent to
trial without prejudice; his perfect innocence being presumed
until the 'verdict of a jury should have pronounced him guilty.
It was, therefore, that he (Mr. I'.) complained, this day, that
the' proprietor. or the editor deliberately intended to violate
that principle, and that he sat down in cold blood, either for
pecuniary profit, or through political zeal, to send a fellow-
..reature to his doom. That was certainly a grave charge for
him (Mr. P.) to make against any man ; but it was still more
grave; and it was inconsistent as much with worldly honour as
with Christian charity, to make the charge of murder against a
man so situated as Fursey was, and that, too, either with deli-
berate falsehood or upon groundless rumour. That the editor
of the Morning Chronicle had dune so admitted of no dispute.
I could have adverted to my own feelings, when it fell to my
lot to defend this unfortunate plaintiff. From those feelings I
can estimate his. Never shall I forget the day, when alt that
was dear to him, depended upon that poor descretion which
this libel had well nigh incapacitated. I had enough to con-
tend with, God knows. It was not the strength of the govern-
ment that I feared. It was not the stratagems of the Home-
office. It was not the corruption of the Treasury. It was not
the strength of the bar. Nor was it the willingness—the over-
willingness of the government witnesses; it was not these that
I feared to encounter; but it was this (holding up the Morning
Chronicle) monstrous and bloody record which seemed to glow
upon the wall, and to smite me as I stood up.
Mr. Platt here interrupted the learned counsel.
Mr. Phillips proceeded.-'--I am glad that the defendant can
feel this mode of putting the case. I am glad that he can feel
that the tortured feelings of the plaintiff could not be compen-
sated by all the money in the world. Put yourselves, gentlemen
of the jury, for one instant, in this man's place. Imagine him
as he stood in the clock-, 'looking assaiously..rouniL--ssearching.
every man's face, to discoVer it' the horror of a murderer could
be seen upon it. Tell me, then, what money could compensate
him for fifteen hours of agony so exaggerated?. I call upon you
in the name of the violated laws and of the sacred privilege of
trial by jury; I call upon you for the true interests of the press
itself, not to turn a deaf ear to this poor man's complaint ; if
there be in the land a single infidel in the rich man's sympathy
with the poor; if there be a single sceptic 'in the excellence of
our institution, 1 call upon you to rebuke him. by your verdict
this day. .„
Mr. Platt replied on the part of the defendant.—The jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £4O.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, TUESDAY, Dec. 17,
LEVOY V. PARKEit.

This was an action brought to recover from the defendant,
who is a carrier, damages for the detention of household furni-
ture, which he undertook to convey for the plaintiff from London
to Gloucester.

Mr. Sergeant Talfourd appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Comyn for the defendant.
It appeared from the statement for the plaintiff that he had
sent to the defendant about £3OO worth of fltrniture to be for-
warded Lo Gloucester, for the purpose of being there sold by
auction; that the defendant had undertaken to carry it thither
at the rate of 2s. per cwt., provided the plaintiff did not require
him to send it all at once, as he had no boat large enough to
take it all. The goods were accordingly shipped in several
parcels, and arrived in Gloucester—the first parcel in June and
the last in August. When the consignee came for the goods,
the defendant refused to give them up until he was paid4os. per
ton, by measurement, at the rate of 60 cubic feet to the ton, for
the carriage of the goods The defendant also charged for 30
tons, but the gOods being subsequently measured, they
.only
came to 24 tons when measured in bulk, and to 19M tons when
measured separately. The plaintiff contended that £l2. would
have been a sufficient remuneration, but he had paid £2ll into
court, being something over what he alleged that he agreed to
pay for tke carriage in the fist instance.
For the defendant; evidence was called to prove an agreement,
on the part of the plaintiff, to pay 40s. per ton by measurement,
and to prove also that the goods were measured before taken out
of the vans in which the plaintiff sent them to the wharf, and
were found, to come to 30 tons, and that a card had been given
to the plaintiff, stating the terms on which household furniture
was carried by the defendant's boats to Gloucester to be 40s. per
ton by measurement of 60 cubic feet to the ton.
The Chief Justice left it to the jury to decide whether they
believed any contract had been entered into such as that alleged
by the plaintiff. If they believed there had been they must find
a verdict in his favour. If, on the other hand, they should be-
lieve that no such contract was entered into, they would then
have to consider whether there bad been a contract, such as had
been alleged by the defendant, because, in that case, however
high the terms, a man was bound by his contract, and they