Vice-Chancellor's Court, ...
The Times, 1824-12-11T00:00:00

"Ar. 1ISNEY wits lheard on this case, which was partly di,cussed on Wednesdaylast. He contended that the corporation of Win- chestcr ought to be held accoantable for all the rents and prefits of the lands of which they were in pessession, and which had been vested in their hands for charitable purposes. Applying himself to the olpinion which had been expressed by the Court on a former oc- [casisn, that the corporation could not be made responsible for the acts of their predecessors, he proceeded to argue against that opinion. He said that the case admitted of proof, that upon many past occasions leases had been grantedof the cor- poration property, under circuntstances so suspicous, that it could not be doubted the bargains made for those leases hae been in- fluenced by corrupt motives. It appeared that 17 leases had been made since the filing the first information, and one even sine the decree was made, whereby the property was granted fbr a term of 40 years, at a fine of 10.4, with the reservation of an annual quit- rent of 3s. 4d. and a couple of fat capons. It was known, too, that some similar grants had been made to the son of this alderman, to that member of the corporation, and to another whose vote might be valuable on particular occasions. The learned counsel then quoted cases in which the Court of Chancery had ordered retrospective inquiries into the accounts of bodies corporate, and afterwards de. creed restitution to the charities which had sufrbred in contequence of the misapplication of their revenues. In the instance of the borough of hiertford, an inquiry 60 years back had been decreed., and that decree confirmed by the House of Lords upo n appeal ; In that of the Brewers' Company, the inquiry comprised 37 years; the Haberdashers' Compan7 having received a sum of moneywbich they ouglht to have laid out in lands, but had not done so, were ordered to set ouc equivalent lands of their own, or to purchase others, and to pay costs. He could see no difference between the case of a corporaton holding property in trust, asd that of thc Bank of Bngland. If the latter were liable, as it was known to have been iD the recent case of Pauntleroy, for property intrusted to them, and which had been transferred without their knowledge by a forgery committed sevcral years ago, when not perhaps one of the existing proprietors m;ight have held stock, whyshoul not a corporation like that of Winchester be made responsible for the misapplication of roperty by their predecessois? Theiewaa no difference in point of .pgai responsibility between a cor poration and an individual; and they ought equally to be compelled by the Court of Chancery to ac- count for the execution of trusts. If it were otherwise, the tempta. tion would be too great for any corporation to withstand ; and he call. ed upon the Court to consider the mischief which might ensue in a country so full of corporations invested with charitable trusts, where it should go abroad, as it would, that they could not be called to ac- coun% anu made responsible for their tRisdoiigs. It could not be said that they were ignorant of what they were doing, because all these grants must have been made at public meetligsg the very chest in which was contained the corporate seal, held also the charter of Queen Elizabeth by which the bequest of Ralph Lamb to the Hospital of St. John was confirmed. They had the assis?- ance of law officers, bailiffs. and others, which made it imnpos- sible that they could be ignorant of the uses to which the re- venues ought to be applied. But if they were permitted success- ftilly to plead their Ignorance, he should applaud them for the thefts they had committed; he should say that these unjust stewards had d one wisely; he should commend them for having despoiled the Hospital of St. John, and having driven out the paupers for whose maintenance it was founded, for converting it into a banquetting room, anti spending the revenues of the poor in revelry ; he should think they dild wisely in observing but one of the conditions upon which these charitable donations had been made to tbem_he meant that under the will of John Beveridge, wvho left certain property upon trust, that on the lionday next after Alidsummer-day, unless some very extraordinary accident should prevent it, Ohe Mayor and Commonalty, with their wives, should repair to the towni, where each of them should receive " a couple of fat capons, and enjoy a repast in love, feast, and merriment." He did nrot hesitate to cha- racterize the conduct of this corporation as most wicked,corrupt, and audacious ; but he trusted that as long as there was any pro- pery in itw hands-as long as there was a gold mace-as long astncre was a red gou or a red cushion left belonging to it, the Court of Chancery would see that restitution was made to those who had been wronged, even through it should go to beggar the corporation. The interests of justice, and the Interests of the poor, who were the objects of charitable donations throughout the ringdom, demanded that these plunderers should be stripped of all that they had wrung from the very teeth of the pauners, and that it should be restored to those who bad been robbed. The learned Coutn- sel then went on to represent, that the relators in' thesc stits h'iud been put to an enormous expense In consequence of the protracted litiga- tion in which thtey hail been engaged, and thenight which they there- fore had to be reimbursed their costs fromn the funds rnowadnaitted to be in the hands of thecorporatiov. Tlhe VICE-C1{ATC;LLOU said they iitst have their costs and theee coats must be borne by the corporation, although he would not say any thing about the way in which they must be ultimately. sa- thifled. Mr. Ts.,iEy proceeded to say, that by the AMaster's report it appeared that many-of the lese8 granted by the corporation were at inadequate rents, and he thereforb prayed the Court to grant a re ceiver. e p The VCIcsCHArCgLLOR said he thought he should prejudice the charity by aspointing a receiver. With respect to the leaes, sa such as had been reported to bc mada for insdequate rents must be avoided, he ahould hardly think that any of those lesseca, when titey k:netP ths, would render any farthler procoeein s necessary. The Court had sepeatedly directednilinquirytobb ma a ith cases where premises had been let for insuffictent rents, even so far back as 30 years; and it had made the lessees account for the diffcrence be. tween the nctual valuie and the rent paid, allowing the amount of all reasonable expenses to the tenant, hfr. Tt1a2E:r coacluded his speech by praying the Court to deeree a forther inquiry, tnd that all monies towt In the hands of the corpotatlon, anl which had bees recefived for cbaritabfe parpooeR, silduld be paid into cburL The VrCa-CuAirCaLtst then sridOThls c sc has been areed by A2r. Tinnev, not only witli very great earnestneslA bait also with very great ability; it is impossible that more justice coasld have been done to the case in these reBrects than by the earnCd gentlc. nilan. But T must look at thesituatioh In which the Court ig placed: It appears that an intr' aion was filed. in the cause, which came on to be heard on the 21h of May, 1817. On that occasion dic Court made a decree, by which they referred it to Mlaster Cox, to inquire what devises and bequests had been ntade to the Mayor and commonalfy of the ciky of Winchester, for the benefgt of poor persons residing within the saift city and& the libertiea (tetec of. The Mliaster was directed also to take an account of all the renta and Wrof:s of such property received by the-corporation sine tic filing that iniformation. This inquiry, therefoie, would have included all the charlties in the city, and of course those of St. John's Hospital and Lamb's Charity; and the Mdaster s report would charge the corporation with all the rents and profits received since the tiling of the information, to which period the Court, by its decree, had thought fitto limit it. On tfiat same day, another fnfonnation came on to be heard, whieli related wholly to Lantb's Charity and to St. Jolhn' Hoslital, to which the former charity was by the will of Ralph Lamb directed to be annexed. The decree made in this second intbrination ordered an inquiry re- specting the property of the charities in the mnost geuerat terms. oth of these caUscs now came on to be reheara before me, and I am called upon to lay down one rule with regard to the charity of St. Jolhn' Eloapital and Lamnb's estate and anotber with regard to all the other charities of Winchester-that an accoant shall be taken to the extent of six years in the latter, and in the former toan unlimit- ed period. I can do nothing so inconsistent. I am far from being satisfied by thie able argument which I have heard that the Cburt would under any of the circumstances of this case, be justified in extending tlhe inquiry beyonid the limits of an information. The answerof the defendants states that the Hospital of St. John has for centuries fallen ilrto desuetude; but it adds, that the revenules be- longing to It, whatever they may have been, have always been ap- plied tor the general corporation purposes. Can I, then, apply tothe corporation the ternis which have been used in the ar;inent P Can I say they have acted corruptly auld abusively, or can I use towards them the strong inveetives which I have jest heartd, when I find they have done only that vrhich their predeces- sors have been in the practice of dloing Xfor centuries ? The ob- ject of the Court cani only be to re-establish a charity which I has becn lost, and it must mould its decree so as to efrect this obicet alone. flow, then. shall it proceed to do this ? Not by com- pelhin the Corporation of Winchester to account for rents and pro. h ichi haye been received for the last hundred years or more. WVill it not be enough if the Coatrt shall take care that all the future revenues of the estates be dedicated to the uses for wbieh theyv were originally destined ? If the Court ahould go back to the extent suggeste(d by the learned coursel, it woultd be, not to establiSh the will of the testator, but to create a new charitv, because the provi. sions of that will had not. been duly execate'd. The Court came to its decision upon three grounds-first, that there was no evidence of any corruption on the part of the corporation, and that it was. not even imputed against them that they had done otherwise than their predecessors for centuries ;-secondly, that they had applied all the corporate revenues, of whatever description, to corporate pur- poses; and that therefore if tie account now urged should be di. rectced, it iniglt afrect furiAs whiclh were rightfully applied to other purposes ;-and thirdly, because no such account was necessary for the purpose (the only one which the Court now contemplated) of re- establishing the charity, nor a &ompliance vwith the conditions of the original bequest to cn(low it with the arrears of the rents and pro- fits for any past period. The points, therefore, being now well an. derstood, it only remains for tie counsel to draw the minutes of the decree, which may be submitted to the Court at any fature oppor. tunilty. Lr. LART tendered exceptions to the AMaster's report, which were heard. and overrilpeL __- I VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT rFnt n. Tb 1n THE ATTOUnEY.GEVERAT. V. TI1E CORPORATION Or WIN- -- - CRYESTEI.