Vice Chancellor's Court, ...
The Times, 1824-01-22T00:00:00

luic- . u - u it LL P-bu-u a peution trom certamn-of the trns- tees of this sotiety, stating that a sum of 300L four per cent. Bank annuities is standing in the names of themselves and of James Langley, fonterly a tnilee of the sane societv, but wvho bad been since dismissed from that office by a resolution of the members. An_. other reioluddn had arso been passed at a meeting of the society, by which it was directed that the stock should be transferred by the - said James Laugley, from his own name to that of the other. tums. tees. Application had been made to Alr. Langley, requesting him to comply with this order; and a power of attorney bad been ten- dered to nnn for tnhis purpose, which he had refiued to sign. The petition was presentea under the provisions of 33d Geb. II. cap. 54, which provides, that upon tbe refusal of any treasurer or trustee of such a society to pay over or transfer any money which may have been intrusted to his care, " it shall and 'Ray be lawful fhr eyery such societv, in the name of the treasurers or trus. tees thereof, as the case may be, to exhibit a petitio in 'the High Court of Chancery or the Court of Exchequer, &,c who shalU and mnay proceed thereupon in. a summary way, arid make srch order tlierein, upon hearing all parties concerntd, as to such court in their discretion shall Eeem Just." The petition therefore prayed, that thle Court would order Mr. Langley to execute a power of attorney in pursuance of the resolution of the Union Society, for transferring the stock standing in his name. The VICE-CHANCB LLGIL asked if Mr. Langley appeared ? ilIr. DUCK WORTH believed he did not, but produced an affidavit of the service of the petition. The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that be would not make the Qrder for his signing the power of attorney, but generally, that he. should transfer tnestock; as the power would be the least expensive way - in which Air. lIangley could obey this order, he would probably adopt it for his own sake. TREVOR AND DALBY. Air. WILLIS appeared in support of a petition-of the receiver appointed by the Court in this causz, praying that one of theplain_. tfs, Charlotte Trevor, should be ordered forthwith to give upt him possession of a hobse and premises in.Alarlborough.place, Brighton, of which she had forcibly possessed herselfd TheXetition stated at length the circumstances of the suit, and the appomtmieunt of the receiver, who had employed an agent to let thehouse at Brighton, which he had done; but the tenant was prevented from entering by the plaintiff; who claimed it to be her propes!y,t :i:- sisted upon remaining in the occupation of iL T''he receverhiad been to Brighton, and applied to a Justice of the peace there, -who, aftra lon hearing, dismissed the parties, because he was of opi- nion that i had no authority to interfere- He therefbre caen be- fore the Court to stay that its former orders might be enforced,_and thaNhephinff, dJaroeee-Treor, shouield.immtwlr to surrender her wrongful possession of thelhouse mentioned{ AMr. AMoonsE was instructed tO Opose this petiton u affidavit filed by Mirs. Trevor, wich dlscldo the foUqwiK facts. She stated that the property, the aubject of the saiitt was under a mortgage to the delendant Dalbyr nDohadieivd ed the rents to a larger amount than was necessay to.tisfly his principal money and interest. That, bein- unable to.rocure -the possession of the property, she mentionea the hardshtp she w under to aMr. Nigihtingalc, one of the plaintifr5, Riho romised file a bill in Chancery, or redemption, against Dalby. hat an n. strument had been prepared by .1r. Fielder, Mlr. Nightingale's. at- torney, which lra. Trevor signed, under the belief that it was 5 bill in Chancery, but wihich wVas, as she had since discovered, a deed charging the pro.perty as a security to Mr. Nightingale for -ny iuoney that he miglht advance in the prosecution of the Fait. Mrs. Trevor, although a fec covert, was eutitlcd absolutely to the petty; and when shelearnt the means by which she had been mdato dispossess herselfof it,sheimmediatelyproceeded toBrighton,anddid herself, as sbe thought,justice by the teans wvhich had been detailed. There was also an affidavit by a gentleian who, had been subsequently eniployed by Mrs. Trevor as her attorney, an- who stated that he had, in consequence of the inquiries he had made, learned the nature of the deed executed byAMrs. Trevor ^ and upoi his inforraing her of its eftect, he verilv believed, from tho surprisewhichsle testtfied, tbat she had,uptotiatperiod, been nm- gether ignorant of its purport. The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that the circumstances d&iailcd by the counsel for i\lrs. Trevor, even if they vwere true, were not such as he conld tal-e notice of, still less could they justify the foir- cible mueans by which she had taken possession of the property from a receiver who had been appointed by the Court writh -her own coln- sent. If the farts colitained in her affidavit were as she had related. them, she might procure redress, but it must bc by a very difierent. course. MIr. VILLIS said, that the whole of the facts relative to the execu. tion of the deed were contradicted by the affidavit of Ur. Fielder, whose professional respectability was well known. Atr. AOORE said, that in justce to Mr. Fielder, be thought it ne. cessar to state, tbat Mr.Fielder had denied tbese circumstances,but Mr. Nightingale had not thought fit to do ro. Ele feared, hovever, that he could not, in the present tstae of the cause, justify the os;. session of the preperty by Alrs. Trevcr.-The prayer of te,petiton- -was thereforegrmtef d The Court was emuployed during the remlainder of the day in hear.. cause ncitihons of no zteneral interest. VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT. WEDNESDAVY JA'- 91 IN RE THF. UNION BENiFIT SOCIETTY.