On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
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.
-
-
Transcript
-
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.
Untitled Article
Mr . Leach , on the part of the De fendant , in whom , as the surviving representative of the last surviving trustee , the legal estate was , contended that he could not be distuibed in the possession and management of that legal estate , by the Plaintiffs , who stated them *
selves to be twenty pew-holders in the chapel , and by another person a total stranger to the concern , except that he stated himself to be the minister of the chapel duly elected . This was a public right , being a charity estate vested in trustees . Any application ,
therefore , concerning it , or any com * plaint as to the mis-management of it , ought to be made , not by " bill , filed by these private parties , rWit by information at the suit of the' Attorney-General . r The Lord Chancellor said Lord Hardwicfce did not seem
to be of opinion , that questions of piiblrc right could only he tried by information . In the case of tne paf ish of Su James , Glerkenwell , which came before that learned lord , and in which the ^ Attorney-General , by
information , sought to set aside the elec - tion of & minister , his lordship seeing that no distribution of the fetipend or pension was asked for , clisftiissed the information , directly the parties to seek their remedy at law .
In cases of double ejection * the usual mode 6 f trying who was duly lected was by mandamus ; but his
Untitled Article
Lordship did not see that , in such a case as the present , the party complaining might not proceed by bill . It was difficult , however , to
say what was the constitution ofj and what ought to be the form of proceeding in regard to , a dissenting chapel . To judge between the parties , he must look into the deeds ; but he could hardly figure that it could have been the intention of
any founder of such an establish- - ment that the trust should ha ^ fe continued till , by the death <* f aM the original trustees , it had ceri * tered in one person , the representative of the last surviving trustee ,
who , for any thing that he could know to the contrary , instead of be . i ng ^ a Dissenting Protestant , might 1 > e a Roman Catholic , or eVeri * a Jew and that such one person should have the sole and exclusive
right of election of the clergy truth of this Protestant Dissenting chapel . He should , however , ldofc into the deed before he finally disposed of the quession .
Untitled Article
Court of Chancery , Nov . 11 , 1814 . Evans x . Jenkins * y In this case , which regarded a Dissenting chapel in , Wales , his
Lordship was of opinion that the injunction must , to a great extent at least , be continued . He should take an early opportuiwjy of stating his reasons for being of this opinion ?
Untitled Article
Intelligences—Court of Chancery * 73 *
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Nov. 2, 1814, page 723, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2446/page/63/
-