Court Of Chancery, Thursd...
The Times, 1824-11-19T00:00:00

LAW BEPOR1 . The Couft was clescly crowdete aE an earjy nour, sou unpLanum, ,his motion. The Son tcsTost-OEKE`RAL appeared on behalfof the Scotch Synod, to move obr an injunction to restrain the defendant, who A minister of their chapel;, in Aloor-gate, from receivIng, divert- ing, and misapplying the rents and profits thereof, otherwisp than by and through the bands of trustees acting in the name aud ob belialf of the Presbyterian Synod of Edinburgh. He laid out of the case, as matter with whIcl he had-nothing to do, the prticular conduct or general, character of Mr. Fletcher, wbich had to his uuquensien by the -SynOd. All he had to contend tor was, the rightm which that bbdy held over him and the congregation over which he had hitherto superintendedi. It appeared that Mir. Fletcher had taken to the administration of this chapel, under a derd wvhich expressly bound him to obey the direcdons of the Presbyterian Synod of Scotland.. So strictly guarded were the termg hy which th3t - subordination was aecured to the Synodl, that several circumstansces were recited in the deed for no other purpose than to specify the particalar body to wrhich it was due. About 00 years ago, a division toek place in the Presbyterian Church which separated under the title of" Anti- burgher Synod." The difference was upon a point of right in the congregations in the choice ot their mrinisters. The other party held the name of the Burgher Synod, and those titles pretty carly im. plied the nature of the diference. The deed execated bound AIr. Fletcher to obey the "Burgher Synod" of the Presbytery. Since that time a re-union had been effected between them, uander the title of the " Associated Synod." Alr. HA-T said that Air. Fleteber was no party to the deed. The SO1.IO1TOjt-GEMERAL said, that there was an affidarit made, *vhich proved that Mr. Fletcher was puesent when the deed was read over ta him, and it would be seen by the sequel that Dlr. Fletcher must hav been bound by the deed to the same ecxtent, and in tne sae manner and with the sane sub. jection to the conditions and incidentr, as would be applicable to the claims of a party taking to the administration of a trust property; in which the deed of trust had never been called into questiOIn. 'JYhat Mr. Fletcher was hound to observe the uses of that trust in every contingency of them, and th:t in failing to do so the Co;rt might be called upon to cempel his obsernance of them, were the immediate objects of his argutment. Toat he was bound by ihem was clear, not only from Mwhat had bcen advanced, but also from a circumstance expressed in a wav the most emphatically descriptive of that intent. In one of the affidavits it was stated,thar at tire building et the ciapel there was lodged under the fbundation a sort of declaration of faitb, written upon parchmentin English and Latin,and laid iR a copper box. Future antiquaries, iu settling points ot learned controversy, which the vaste and havoc of time too busily supplied, would be informed by that docrument.should it ever by convulsion or decay,again emerge to the light of day, tbat this chapel, or rather the congregation, be- longedl to the Presbyterian persuasion, and that they gladly an eratefully owned their obedlience and subordination to the Synod of Edinburih. Having disposed of these 7and imany other correlative proofs oi the implied contract lat which lMr. Fletcher entered, to. gether w ith the congregatios, tO obey the Sy nod, he caine next rD the question of the jurisdiction. Hle apprehended that there was noI doubt that the C'ourt woutld Intertere in a case of nhib kind, where, there was breach of trust alleged, without regard to the particular fact that the sabject of trust was a chapel, and that the abuse com-! plained of was aei irregular preaching in the chapel which tended to the damage or destruction of the trust. le was borne out ill that by several cases which had come before his Lordship, the first of whici, being in an appeal to the House of Loris, might he in hits Lordlslip's recollection. Another case was to be found in 3d Nerrivale, " the Attorney-General and Pearsol." In the first, the Scotch Court of Sessions had proceeded upon hte abdse of a chapel trust, and had applied a renredy to the violation of R CiVIl right. ln die second, it was no less obvious that the interference of the Court might be effectuallv interposed to check an abuse of0 a trust. For though bis Lordiship would niot hold himself; or any of' the attribuites of hiis Etation, answerable for the well-being ot the Presbyterian, or any other secession from the national ckurch, nei- rher would he do or suffer any thing which it becanie his iuris,liction to control, injurioasly and unjustly to affect the right which the constitution so very properly, as well as liberally, allowed to all its Christian subjects, to worship tHod irn their own way; and above all, these considerations being wholly set aside, he would not patiently allow the abuse of this any more than any other trust to wiich a civil remedy was justly applicable by the powers of this Court. The LORtD CHANCELLOR said, that the case referred to by the Solicitor-Gerteral diftered considerablv from this. In that case, the trust was declared to be for the purpose of preaching doc- trines which were inseparable from the doctrise of the trinity. The seceding partv, who were also the most numerous, professed anti- Trinitarian doctrines. The Court, acting by the analogies of law and the principles of it-s own jurisdiction, would not allow tire subver- sion of that trust, which went to secure the preaching of Trinitarian doctrines. Another circumstance which rendered this case peculiar was, that the appointment of the minister by the Synod required the consent and agreement of the congregation. i-e wanted to know what wotuld be the effect if the congregation refused consent. Thie SOI.LCrTol-GE"EHAnLs contended, thiat according to the law of Scotland and of Englanid, and according to thie intent and expres- sion of the deed of the trust, the congregation and Mlr. Fletcher owed obedience to the Presbyterian Synod ; and that in disobeying the ordter for his suspension, that gentleman had shown a disposition to break through the conditions of the trust, which clIled urn the Court to restrain hin from bo doing. lie roceeded to re=ate the circumstances untler which this disposition of .Ir. Fletcher had been manifested. The order fer his suspension was signified to him in September. The Synod, agreeably to the powers vested in them, and never called into question, proceeded to nominate othet preachers during the suspension till the next General Cortncil. which was to be held in Novemnber. Having cbmmissioned four gentlemcn of that conimunion to form a sort of row-guard ahgl9u f;l.lRit the interval, these 9tg--1--,sn I t the cs cito ~r ru. soronti lniiir1d3, 'one Oft elrlen~ proceeded to the chapl to officiate, buit found all accesa to the pulpit mi what was termedt among tie civil lawyers a state of geogra. phical blockade. The usual questionh having been put and an. swered, ats to the authority by which these transactions were war rantel, the deputies from the Synod found themselves so eff-ctually excluded, that there was no resource left them but in an application ta the Court. The learned counsel argued at great lengtlh on the right of the Presbytery to suspend,aid to appoint an interim minister. eauoteli his Lordship's wordsin tlile caseto which hebeforereferred, to 6how, that utsage was a strong evidence in cases of this nature; and he added that to the other claims which thIe Synod bad uFon *Wr. Fletcher's implicit obedience. The LORD CHANCELLOR felt greatlv at a loss in this case from wait of information upon one or two points. The first was, whether tire law of Scotland afforded a civil remedy in cases of this nature_- that being the remed), which lie was called upon to apply by analogy frou the meansof his own urisdiction; and then, supposing that question set at rest, in the affrmative what civil redress the :Synod coulul avail them?elvesofin case tie greater part of the congreation, wrhose consent was necessary to tie appointment of the mininster, shoulrd refuse obedierce to the order for s,uspension, and the minister slould persis: in preaching as before his suspension. Undioubtedly some steps should have been taken to ascertainl the sena riments of tis e majority bya meetirng called for that express purpose. His Lordship also wished to beinfornmed how the fbur deputies from tie Synjod could be maRie to participate ir thie proceeds of the chapel, ii the congregation, who must assent by tbeir majority, and upon whlrom was throwvn theburdenofprovidingfor the mini6ter, should be opposed to them. irIe SOLICITOR_GE1 tAr claimed rio n f edeputies. All he contended for was the right of the Synod to suspend. The LoaD CHAXCELLOR said, that formed another new ques I tion, which was quite apart from the question of nomination, as it was now admitted that the Syiled could only appoint during I the auspension, because the consent of the congregation was necessary for a permanent nomination. His L1ordship di. rected the counsel to infbrm themselves more strictly by to- morrow morning as to the law, both in England and Scotland. .. __ .. ..y.. .. N,4 veituy ID tLte event ot d5lseedietkce to thc synod. He observed in the course of the proceedings upon the danger of entertaining the injunction, in case it should turn out on the he.ring that there was originally no equity. DlIr. Fletcher deposcd that under his adniinistratiotn the congregation had increased from 200 to 1,300, antl the pew-rents were 1,M001. a year, and aU the other contributions were voluntary. Over these of course neither the English nor the Scotch Courts could have any power. He might, on the other hand, by granting thie injunction, reduce the congregation before to-inoirow morning, to the originsl 300; and then where woultI lU r. Fletcher's remedy be ? Alr. HAD'I' objected to the motion for two reasons, which he would wish to press in the argument. The first was, that this was no case ef charitable foundation, which required the interposition of the Attorney-General's office; the second was, that he appeared for the greater part of the trustees, who stood heavily responsible to rnortragece om thie property for the administration of the funds ac- cording to the trust-deed. Mlr. RAITsTBY followed the Solicitor-Geaeral in eupport of the rsiotion.-Further hearing to-morrow. roTrwlp nr P-wAn1flVR T1rrn'uDAY. Nov. 18. MIF PRtSBYTERIAhIAYNOD V. REV. ALUXANDER FLETCIIER.