Court Of Chancery, Wednes...
The Times, 1824-07-29T00:00:00

LAW REPORT. rue :iOLICsTron-GENEAAL applied for an injunction to stay the parties, who had obtained an intbrnation in this case againist the trustees of a certain charity, foro urging on the process, the Attor- ney-General having found it necessary to file an Information alto. gether independent of that which had before issued, because there was reason to suspect collusion between the relators and the defend- ants, the trus, ees of the charity. A gentleman of the name of Al- not, of Glocesterchire, had bequeatbed a certain amount in annuities to charitabie purposes, for thie execution of which the defendant be- came a trustee. A commission of bankrupt issued against him at a time when he had 2,0001. belonging to the charity In his hands. His co-trustee (Mr. Morland) proved this debt, and received the com- position of 7s. 6d. in the pound for it. The relators, in praying for a new schenme to modify the clarity, had made no mention of this sum, nor had they asked for any account -from the co-trustee, which furnished, in the opinion of the Attorney.General, sufficient pre. suniption of the collusion to justify him in staying the first infor- mation altogether, and filing a new one. The LoRD CHANCELLOR said, that It wras inconceivable that the parties could proceed without the Attorney-General's concur- rence, when they could not have originated the process without the sanction of his authority. BURNAL V. DA COSTA. Mlr. HART stated this case. About the year 1696 died Gaspard Francls Burnal, a wealthy Israelite, leaving,among various disposi. tiona of his property1 a beqcest of 8,0001. then in the African and India Stock, but subsequently transtferred to South Sea Stock by direction of the Court, to be applied under a perpetual trust to the use of cetrain of his kindred named in the will, should they fall into neccs,ity and distress, and to any of the descendants of his family who should at any tinie fall into distress. Various apportionmnents had been made under reference by the Master of the fruits of this clma- rity. The last order made was in 1806, when there were 32 claim- ants reported by the Alaster, inost of whom died before they could receive any benefit from the order. The ease now brought betfre the Court was this-the produce of tele charity was in danger of being wasted by the expenses of continually going into the Master's office with statements of new claims. The motion prayed, that the charity might be set aside for uncettainty of parties, and that the Court wouldeither 61ve directions for modifying the application of theffund, or for fixing St in perpetuity upon the claimants or their representa. tives reported by the Master in 1806. The LORD OHANCEL-LOR thought this a bold attempt in the plaintiff'upon the jurisdiction. There were proceedings which han. been working in the Court. for more than a century, in which there never had been a question that this was a charity, a fit subject for trust, and, consequently, under the care and protection of the Court; and now the plainti' ventures to introduce a motion under the original bill, with its proceedings of a century's growth, to set aside the charity, n6 question ever having been raised upon that point ef wehiceh thie Court at present had any Information. Tlie mostion mnust Mr. HART obtained leave to convert the mnotion inta a petition to oniginate the question of a sufficient or insu&fcient charity. EBERS AND BENEL I--OPERA..HO,SE. This case was merely opened before. the rising of the Court. The defendant took the lease of the Opera-house of the hands of the plaintiff, ag,reeing to pay him 10,0001. for the bargain, and aUl the tosses incurred in the course of last season. Upen takingr up the affairs,the losses were fiound to go beyond 9,0001.; anrd the defendant gave notice to the plaintiff'that he was conducting the theatre on his ( the plaintiff's) account, and not in fuslflnment of the contract for an under.leese. The present tnotion prays that the defendant may be compelled to specific performance of the agrecment. Further hearing to morrowv. COURT OF CHANCERY. WVDIESDAY. JULY 22. _ TIHE ATTORrEY'GEN ERAL V. RARDYNW.