The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-11-15 00:00:00

iAir hyrnud ENCL.:

COURT or CHANCERY Ltnetitn'slus Hata, *or. 14.
The LORD CHANCCII.LOII Caine into Court at twenty
minutes after ten o'clock.
CHARITABLE PROPEICh'.
Toe Arroaxair-Csasaa•t. r. THE CO4SOISAIIO* OP
Bats rot..—This ease h I een several times before the
Court. It is an appeal from the Vice Chancellor, and
our readers who have seen the atcument in the case
from time to time, may recollect that the question is
as to the appropriation of the increased rents and,
profit.; of a property which was Ltiien by trill in 1:167,
by Sir Thomas Wight, to the 0.41 wail in of Bris.ul.
Originally a suns of 2,000/. was placed in the hands
of the Curpoiatiun fur the purpose of purchasing
estates w.thin tour years after pra,!ncing r. tits to the
value of Hti••. a year, I .4'. of %Oriel, was to be distri,
bated through twenty-too towns and cities mentioned
in the deed, in succession, for the [impose of being
lent to pour clothiers to set themselves up, or to assist
them in business. The Corporation of Bristol exe-
cuted a 111.1.1.1. strewing that they shall be responsible
fur effectuating the purposes ut the charity, taking
to themselcts its torn the ..dvantace of the charity anal
their proportion of the 16.., which 'email), it after the
104/. as compensation for itistlibuting the 1u 4/. as
well as forming a fund to repair calamities to the pros
petty. Put the rents and profits have for snotty years
111101 ester tied 1211 f. a year, anal tile Merchant Tai-
lors' Company having an interest in this charity in
coiumou with other Corporations, tiled this Biil in
order to get the excess of renm and profits applied tsl
the purposes of the charity, which excess the Corpo-
ration of Bristol bare hitherto considered .s intended
to have appropriated to thtir exclusive benefit and
advantage.
During the last sittings this question occnp;sd con-
siderahle attention firing the !,curt. The whole dif-
ficulty is as to the question, whether by the Construe-
Won lot the do td Ihr excess of rents and profits he-
%vital 12.0/. a year was intended to be applied to the
I hat liable purpose- of the donor, or to the a.x.tusive
aileantop-e of Ike s'id-porathos of Bristol.
Mr. lists i is as heard yesterday for the Corporation.
Mr. \Olt) Wa4 partly heard yesterday
against the thi- Jay, It -timed ins argu•
Meta jik this case II had been areiseil on the other
side that since the t urporatioe of Bristol had entered
auto certain covenants in the deed, sperifird to pry
pz:tialties in case of violation of the artich a of the
deed, that therefore they were nut to he considered
as cot 1111 l on trustee-, and that they had a right to cer•
fain advrottages which cetre here contended to be the
superettity of the rents. But be contended that the
us i4inal t!,1100/. was a gift in trust to the Corporation
of Bristol to be appropriated to the charitable par-.
poses J. slowed in the deed, and that since no other
than charitable purposes were expressed in ;he deed,
that therefore the excess of rents which is 1.4.14 beFond
the amount triijnally specified, ought to be applied
to the purposes of the charity.
The Loan Cris C WAIN. drew Mr. TrOWer'S atten-
tion to that part of the deed which said, that the Cor-
poration were so purchase estates is itirin four years.
and that far the first eight years lalt't they were to
apply to the charity 11)4)1. a year But supper the
estates produced fur the first eight yeas s 120/. a year,
instead of 100/. what wits to be dune with that excess
of 20/. a year? There was no designation of tt men•
tioned i.s the deed. how then was a court of equity
to say, that any t king its the deed furnished a guide
to it as to the Amenities ef-es, -seat kerma the
ginal 1101., or rather 1011. a year, as it was increased
by year after the first eight years.
Mr. 'Yunnan contended that a disposition of the
remaining Ili:. a year after the first right years, was
made by the dead since it gave that sum for managing
the charity and property. The Corporation were nut
parties to a deed, but merely trustees of a charity.
At least they were trustees of the 100/. a year, though
it might not be disputed that they were cestui pre
trusts, or trustees having an interest as to the 111/.
year. littloultteilly, it was reasonable that they who
distributed the charity and managed the property
should have the 161. a year for that purpose. But if
it was really intended that all the excess over 104'. a
year altould fall to the Corporation of Bristol, oily
was there no -stipulation to that effect in the deed it-
self? There was nothing in it of that description.
Taking the deed theta wills all its articles together,
however expresseJ, no sound conclusion could be drawn
fium it, but that its intention was charitable, and 1,1).61
all the rents which exceeded the urig:nal 1201. a
year should be applied in the charitable view in which
th..t sum was originally given. It was the object of
this charity to land 1001. a year to poor clothier's of
twenty-two different towns and cities in succession
named in the deed. At the time the deed WAS ese-
cuted, ISGI, such a suns as this had been considerable;
hut mild it have been intended that a eb wiry which
was to exist fur ever, should Dever expand itself with
the increase rif trade and the increase in the value
of every article ? At ptesent the diffusion of 1001.
a year in the way prescribed in the deed would be of
little be:tetit, though the zeal with which this canto
was maintained by the Curporatiou of Bristol proved
the value which they set upon the increased routs and
profits.
blr. Warne/tam. followed on the same side, and con-
mailed, th it although the city of Bristol was certainly
ists object of the deed, yet it was nut the only City
which ties the object el Sir Thomas Wight's bene-
volence, fear there were twenty-one other cities and
towns whose " advancement and cowniodity" were
equally contemplated by the donor. The words cer-
tainly respecting Bristol were, fur the " benefit au I
commodity" of that city. But he SSW no difference
in the weaning of these words frosts which it could ba
contended that a preference of advautaso was to be
giv ti to Bristol. If be had bee@ arguing upon the
construction of this deed before ow, of his Lordship's
predecessors, namely, Sir Thomas Uwe, his Learned
Friends could never '?ave eontereded that the oily of
Bristol was entitled to claim the surplaft of the rests
and profits. But since thee a practical atjaconstrue-
tion had been given to the deed, and diacipitiee muse
from which it was now no easy tit:attar l'ltollickaki
this charity.
The 1.0911) Crasscattort expromod.bis
that if the city of Bristol was so it. reposes A its con-
solution, of the dried, no proceeding hisd.heen.l4-es

.• •