Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
prescribed in the trust-deed of 1701 / having been elected by the majority of trustees for the time being ; and that his clients did not contend that you were not trustees , but that being trustees
15
you had committed a breach of trust in permitting anti ~ trinita ~ rian doctrines to be preached in the place . Sir Samuel Romiily ' s legal knowledge is not however to be put in competition with
that of Mr . Charles Mander ; for it was further said by Sir Samuel Romilly , that if the ejectment were persisted in , you would recover the legal estate of so many parts as had been conveyed to you , but that the mere recovery of the legal estate would
4 iot settle the question as to the breach of trust . As to what may have passed between yourself and the other parties as individuals , I know not ; nor has the warmth of expression used by parties on either side any thing to do with the real question
before the public and the courts of equity . No lawyer ever denied that a portion of" the legal estate was vested in Mr . Benjamin Mander ; but the legal estate and equitable estate are two distinct things . The Master of the Rolls did not decline to
interfere in this business for want of jurisdiction , because both he and the Chancellor have a summary authority in all matters of this sort , if brought before them on petition , as we attempted to do ; and the Master of the Rolls would have heard the petition and
decided the question in a short time , if Mr . Mander and his friends had not chosen to relinquish the benefit of the late act of parliament relative to suits respecting charity estates , and have preferred the tedious and more expensive process of filing a bill
and information , during the existence of which the Master of the Holls thought it disrespectful to the Chancellor to interfere . But he showed his opinion of Mr . Mander ' s conduct , by obliging him to pay his own costs . The magistrates having bound
you over to prosecute Mander and others for a forcible entry , proves their opinion of the conduct of the parties held to bail ; and as the discussion of the subsequent proceedings redounds
little to the credit of the jury at the sessions , or to that of the parties who used their influence to mislead the jury , it is useless to discuss them , or to notice them further than to say that the