H́nh ảnh trang
PDF
ePub

year. The directions of Alleyne, if followed, would have altered the foundation of the college. A bill was filed by the rector of St. Botolph against the college, and the surviving executor of Alleyne for discovery and relief. The answer was, that the lands amortized were barely sufficient, so that the latter addition of six chanters and thirty members could not be maintained, and it was added that the revenues ought not to be parted with for that purpose, but the executor was content to charge himself with the remainder of the money in his hands (1207.) to build almshouses. The parishes, however, desired the money rather than the almshouses; unless the maintenance of the almspeople could be had, and by consent it was ordered that the executor should pay the 1207. upon the security of the parishes that the money should be duly applied, and upon payment the executor was to be discharged of the bequest. Disputes, however, arose, and Archbishop Sheldon, in 1664, made an order of regulation, which was enforced by an injunction of the 9th of October, 1667. Applications were made to Archbishop Wake, in 1725, to rescind the injunction of Archbishop Sheldon, but he would not interfere. Other proceedings were taken, but at last Lord Chancellor King, by his decree, on the 4th of April, 1728, declared that the founder, Alleyne, had no right to add to the original corporation, and to allot shares to the six chanters and thirty members. After this decree the churchwardens were desirous of trying the question at law, and Archbishop Wake allowed the college to defend any action; but none was brought, and the nonpayment

to the thirty parishioners and six chanters was acquiesced in, until the Charity Commissioners made their report. They submitted to the Attorney-General that the opinion of the Court upon extending the charity should be taken, and the information was accordingly filed in June, 1836, stating that the rights of the parishes were not bound by Lord King's decree in 1728; that the revenue was increased; the shares of the members so great as to be inconsistent with the real object of the founder's bequest; that by reason of the nonpayment to the thirty almsmen and six chanters, the members received something they were expressly intended not to receive; and that under such circumstances it became necessary that further regulations should be made. The defendants argued that those parts of the statutes made by Alleyne, professing to give money to the chanters and almsmen were void, that the revenues were duly appropriated, that if any regulations were necessary they ought to be made by the visitor, and that the present interference was unnecessary. was admitted in argument that the founder could not alter the corporation or engraft new members upon it; but it was urged that there was a trust to maintain the thirty members and six chanters, and that the Court ought to execute that trust. He (Lord Langdale) was of opinion that Alleyne, the founder, was not entitled by the statutes he made, after the letters patent, or by his will, to make any alteration in the original foundation, or to endow any part of the property comprised in the letters patent for any other purpose.

It

It was not.com

petent for the founder to subject the same lands to any other trust or purpose. The objects of the foundation were specified and enumerated, and the ordinances directing the application to any other purpose were invalid. After the endowment the founder was no longer owner of the property, no longer at liberty to change his intention. If different property had been given to the college by Alleyne's will a question about that might have arisen, but the college received nothing excepting through the deed of endowment. The other question was respecting the abuse of the charity. It was not necessary for the Court to interfere.

There was a special visitor appointed. There had been nothing complained of, even if the complaint were well founded, but what might be regulated by the visitor. A question was raised whether the Attorney-General had authority to sue in the form adopted. It was unnecessary to give an opinion upon that, because as no trust was to be declared by the Court, or authority exercised for the regulation of the charity, the information must be dismissed.

[blocks in formation]

which might have existed before the commissioners of inquiry. The answer had not been put in in such a manner as to throw difficulty in the way of the Court treating the case with that sort of discretion which it exercised on these subjects. He therefore thought, that the value of the charity property (the manor of Meer, about 874 acres), at a rack rent, viz., the rent at which it ought to have been let for a term of twenty-one years, should be put upon it; and that if the defendant, Mr. Pretyman, were charged with the amount of such full value for the portion of the term, to be calculated from the time of the report of the commissioners until the expiration of the lease, that would be sufficient, and would be the best way of setting the matter right. It would not be unjust either to the party or to the public; but then the defendant, Mr. Pretyman, must pay the costs of the other defendants. These costs had been paid out of the funds. He supposed the strictly regular form would not be insisted upon, and that there would be no objection to an order as between the different defendants.

Mr. Kindersley said, he thought there would be no objection.

Lord Langdale.-The question then would be, how the value of the land would be fixed; it ought to be the value upon a proper lease, a lease extending to the utmost time to which any of the existing leases extended.

[ocr errors]

Mr. Pemberton. There was only one lease. He did not know whether it had or had not been renewed since the filing of the information.

Lord Langdale.-If there had been a renewal, the defendant must of course pay any fine he had got. Y

Mr. Kindersley believed there had been no renewal.

Lord Langdale.-If there had been no renewal since the lease stated in the pleadings, the inquiry would be, to ascertain the rent proper to be paid on a lease, at the time the lease was granted, for twenty-one years, and the defendant must be charged with the full payment of such rent during the whole of the time that the present lease had subsisted.

Mr. Pemberton.-That would be one way of doing it. Probably the better way would be to set a value upon the difference between the real rent and the rent reserved from 1835 (the date of the report of the commissioners) to the expiration of the existing lease, and that that should be paid in a gross

sum.

Lord Langdale.-To set a value upon the increased rent that would answer the purpose. Supposing the property was worth 1,2007. a year, which it appeared to be, then as a rent of 321. a year only was reserved, the defendant would have to pay the difference between these two rents from the time of the commissioners' report. If a value were put upon the difference of the two rents for the whole term, then the value of the difference from the date of the commissioners' report to the present time might be known by exact computation, and the defendant would have to pay that, and for the remainder of the term would have to pay the full rent. The lease was in 1817, the report in 1835. If there should really be any difference, the defendant would probably lay a proposal before the Master, which possibly the Attorney-General might think right to accept, and then there

could be no further difficulty. If there should be a difference as to the sum, it must be referred to the Master to compute what would be properly payable by the defendant, upon the principle that the defendant must pay the difference of the rent which would up to the present time have accrued, and must also pay during the remainder of the lease, rent according to the value of the premises.

Mr. Kindersley. On the principle of the land having been let, at the time the renewal took place, for twenty-one years at a rack rent.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
March 3.

Loss OF THE Dryad. TRIAL OF MICHAEL SHAW STEWART WALLACE, AND PATRICK MAXWELL STEWART WALLACE.

The case of the Wallaces excited very great interest among all connected with shipping, by the atrocity of the crime, and the immense amount of property of which it was suspected the insurers and underwriters had been defrauded by their deeply-laid and successful schemes. It seems sufficiently probable that these nefarious transactions had been carried on without discovery, and probably without suspicion, for a long series of years; and from evidence discovered in the course of this investigation, there is strong reason to suppose that at least six vessels, in which the Wallaces were interested either as respects the vessels themselves or their cargoes, had been wilfully wrecked, and the underwriters defrauded of immense sums.

Michael Shaw Stewart Wallace, aged twenty-nine, described as a seaman, and Patrick Maxwell

Stewart Wallace, aged twenty-five, merchant, were indicted, (before Chief Justice Tindal and Mr. Justice Bosanquet), and the indictment, which extended to a very great length and contained twentysix counts, set forth,-that Edmund Loose, late of London, mariner, on the 10th day of November, in the third year of her present Majesty's reign, being Captain of a certain vessel called the Dryad, the property of Alexander Howden and others, did, by force and arms, upon the high seas, and within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, and within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously, cast away and destroy the said vessel, with intent thereby, then and there, to prejudice the said Alexander Howden and others, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided; and that Patrick Maxwell Stewart Wallace, late of London aforesaid, before the aforesaid felony was committed in form aforesaid-to wit, on the 3rd day of August, in the year aforesaid, did feloniously and maliciously incite, move, procure, counsel, aid, and command the said Edmund Loose the said felony in manner and form aforesaid to do and commit. And further, that Michael Shaw Stewart Wallace, late of London aforesaid, did in like manner feloniously and maliciously incite, move, procure, counsel, hire, and command the said Edmund Loose the said felony in manner and form aforesaid to do and commit, against the statute, and against the peace, &c.

The other counts varied in the parties against whom the felony was alleged to have been directed,

and in the description of the vessel.

The prisoners severally pleaded "Not Guilty."

Mr. Jervis applied to the Court to allow his client, Michael Wallace, to withdraw his plea, and to suspend it until the principal offender named in the indictment was apprehended and brought to justice. The present indictment was framed according to the old form of indictment, against an accessory before the fact at common law. He was well aware that the statute of the 7th of George 4th, chap. 64, sec. 9, contemplated the indictment of an accessory before the fact in three different ways; and it enacted that accessories before the fact at common law, or under the statute, might be indicted and convicted with the principal felon, or after the conviction of the principal felon, or indicted and convicted as of a substantive felony, though the principal felon shall not have been convicted or shall not be amenable to justice. Now, the only way in which a party charged can know how to proceed to his defence, was by reference to the form of the indictment, because the mode of proceeding in a course taken under the statute must influence the mode of proceeding at the trial— questions as to the admissibility of evidence, for much that would be admissible to prove the guilt of the principal, if he were on his trial, would not be admissible as against a party charged as acces

sory.

Here, he repeated, the indictment was in the common law form, against Loose as principal, and against the Wallaces as accessories before the fact. He did not know, that it was necessary for him to put a construction upon

what was termed a substantive felony, for that point had been argued in the case of the Caspars, but he apprehended the true test was this that a substantive felony was that which would stand by itself against an accessory before the fact, independent of the charge against the principal, and that although the guilt of the accessory might be mixed up with that of the principal, the test as to whether the accessory was bound to take his trial at once was the observance whether the indictment was SO framed that the principal could come in and plead to it. If he could do so he (Mr. Jervis) apprehended the party charged as accessory had a right to say, "I will not be tried.' It was true that the principal in this case was dead, but still the indictment ought to be framed under the statute, and not at common law.

The Attorney-General, contra, submitted that the present form of indictment was that which had been followed ever since the passing of the Statute 7th George 4th, c. 64. Under that Act it was quite clear these prisoners might be indicted, tried, and convicted, without the trial and conviction of the principal, and the only objection raised was as to the form of the indictment; but the whole question was, whether, in the absence of the principal, the prisoners at the bar were not bound to plead?

[ocr errors]

The Lord Chief Justice. It seems rather a ground to put off the trial until the principal is found than a ground to postpone the plea.

SO.

The Attorney-General. Just

The prisoners were bound to plead, and, having pleaded, they might be tried on this indictment;

and what grounds were there for putting off the trial? It was admitted that Loose, the captain, was dead. Were they, then, not to be put on their trial? He utterly denied, that at common law accessories could not be tried in the absence of the principal. It was true the prosecutor must prove the corpus delicti; the guilt of the principal he admitted, and it was with that view the statute of 7th Geo. 4th had been passed.

After some further discussion in a low tone between the Court and Counsel,

The Lord Chief Justice said— We are not disposed at present to give any opinion upon the point, but it shall be open to Mr. Jervis to open it again afterwards, if it should be necessary.

Mr. Jervis inquired whether the Court held, for the purposes of to-day, that this was a substantive felony?

The Lord Chief Justice.-Yes. Mr. Jervis.-Then it is a separate offence in each person charged as an accessory, and they are entitled to be tried separately. The Crown, therefore, must make their election which case they will first proceed with.

The Attorney-General. — We proceed first against Patrick Maxwell Stewart Wallace.

The prisoner, Patrick Maxwell Stewart Wallace, having been given in charge,

The Attorney-General stated the case to the jury. It was alleged against the prisoner at the bar that he had been concerned in a scheme for fraudulently effecting insurances upon a ship, her freight, and goods on board that ship, and for wilfully casting her away for the purpose of defrauding the underwriters. The nature of that

« TrướcTiếp tục »