But then the defendants ought to have liberty to apply, upon giving security, either to have the whole or any part or portion of the money out of court whenever they think proper to apply for that purpose; and I think that the offer which the plaintiffs have made ought to be made part of the order, namely, that the plaintiffs should be subject, according to the result of what may take place afterwards, to make good any loss of interest that may arise in consequence of the money remaining in court.

Mr. Walker wanted to add an additional provision, namely, that in case of any fall in the funds, the plaintiffs should make compensation also for that. I cannot accede to that view of the case. This Court has always considered money in the 3 per cents. as money. If the funds fall, his clients will sustain loss; if they rise, they will have an advantage. I believe hitherto they have had the advantage. I cannot accede to that proposition made by Mr. Walker; therefore, I think, upon the offer made by the plaintiffs, and subject to the condition that any part of the money may

be taken out at any time, upon security being given by Mr. Walker's clients, the money should remain as it is until the appeal is decided.

The order, as finally drawn up, did, upon the undertaking of the plaintiffs to submit to any order the Court might make for payment of interest or costs consequent on that application, discharge the order of the Vice Chancellor Wigram of the 31st of January 1844, except so much thereof as referred to the costs therein mentioned; and directed that so much of the decree made on the hearing as directed the transfer to the defendants of 255,000l. stock should be suspended; with liberty for the defendants to apply for a transfer of the whole or any part of the fund upon giving security for it; and with liberty for them to apply if the appeal should not be prosecuted with due diligence; and the dividends on the fund in court were ordered to be invested in the purchase of 34 per cent. annuities, and the plaintiffs were to pay to the defendants the costs of this application.

THE Right Hon. John Singleton, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, by and with the advice and consent of the Right Hon. Henry Lord Langdale, Master of the Rolls, the Right Hon. Sir Lancelot Shadwell, Vice Chancellor of England, the Right Hon. the Vice Chancellor, Sir James Lewis Knight Bruce, and the Right Hon. the Vice Chancellor, Sir James Wigram, doth hereby, in pursuance of an act of Parliament passed in the 5th and 6th years of the reign of her present Majesty, intituled "An Act for abolishing Certain Offices in the High Court of Chancery in England," and in pursuance and execution of all other powers enabling him in that behalf, order and direct in manner following, that is to say:—

I. That for all office copies bespoke after the 14th day of November instant, the Clerks of Records and Writs shall, in lieu and instead of the fee

of 6d. per folio, receivable by them under the Order of Court, dated the 21st day of June last, receive and take the fee of 4d. per folio, and no more.

II. That for all office copies bespoke after the 14th day of November instant, the Examiners of the High Court of Chancery and their Clerks, shall, in lieu and instead of the fee of 6d. per folio, receivable by them under the Order of Court, dated the 21st day of June last, receive and take the fee of 4d. per folio, and no more.

That this order be entered with the Registrar of the High Court of Chancery.

LYNDHURST, C.
LANGDALE, M.R.

LANCELOT SHADWELL, V.C.E.
J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE, V.C.
JAMES WIGRAM, V.C.

THE Right Hon. John Singleton, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, by and with the advice and consent of the Right Hon. Henry Lord Langdale, Master of the Rolls, the Right Hon. Sir Lancelot Shadwell, Vice Chancellor of England, the Right Hon. the Vice Chancellor, Sir James Lewis Knight Bruce, and the Right Hon. the Vice Chancellor, Sir James Wigram, doth hereby order and direct in manner following, that is to say :

That, in every case in which application shall be intended to be made for the discharge of any prisoner in contempt, and for the payment out of the Suitors' Fund of the costs of such contempt, in pursuance of the provisions for that purpose contained in an act of the first year of the reign of his late Majesty King William the Fourth, intituled, "An Act for altering and amending the Law regarding Commitments by Courts of Equity for

Contempts, and the taking of Bills pro confesso," notice, in writing, of such intended application shall be served upon the solicitor to the Suitors' Fund, two clear days at the least before the day upon which the application is intended to be made.

That, in every case in which a reference to the Master, under the said act, shall be directed to inquire into the fact of the poverty of any prisoner in contempt, notice, in writing, of the order of reference, and of every warrant to proceed thereupon before the Master, shall be duly served upon the solicitor to the Suitors' Fund.

LYNDHURST, C.
LANGDALE, M.R.

LANCELOT SHADWELL, V.C.E.
J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE, V.C.
JAMES WIGRAM, V.C.

I DO hereby direct, that any person desiring to inrol a certificate issued by one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, pursuant to the statute of 7 & 8 Vict. c. 66, shall produce to the Secretary of the Master of the Rolls, the same certificate, together with a certificate of a Judge, or of a Master or Master Extraordinary in Chancery, to be indorsed thereon, or written at the foot thereof, that the oath directed by the statute to be taken has been taken and subscribed by the memorialist to whom the certificate has been granted by the Secre

tary of State. And that thereupon, and after obtaining a fiat for that purpose from the Master of the Rolls, the Clerk of the Inrolments shall inrol the said certificate issued by the said Secretary of State, and also the said certificate of the said Judge, or Master, or Master Extraordinary in Chancery. And that the same, when inrolled, may be inspected, and copies thereof may be made, in the same manner as in the case of other documents inrolled for safe custody in Chancery.

LYNDHURST, C.

M.R. 1844. Nov. 6, 7, & 8. 1845. Jan. 11.

In the matter of the Act of Parliament, 52 Geo. 3. c. 101, and in the matter of the Lady Peyton's Hospital at Isleham.

Charity-Trusts-Appointment of New Trustees Breach of Trust-Dismissal of Petition—Erroneous Allegations—Letting of Charity Lands.

A petition was presented by several of the inhabitants of the parish in which an hospital was situate, praying the appointment of new trustees and a declaration by the Court, that the appointment of the trustees was vested in the minister and greater part of the inhabitants of the parish, and that the appointment of the respondents, the existing trustees, was invalid, and seeking also a proper scheme for the future management of the hospital. The petition, amongst other things, stated a decree of certain commissioners, dated in the year 1655, whereby the hospital lands and hereditaments were directed to be conveyed to seven or eight persons as feoffees and trustees for the benefit of the charity, and also a deed of feoffment dated in the year 1656, made in obedience to the decree, by which, as was alleged, trustees of the charity were appointed by the consent and nomination of the minister, and the greater part of the inhabitants of the parish. The petition also contained statements of misconduct on the part of the trustees in not properly letting the charity NEW SERIES, XIV.-CNANC.

lands, and producing the deeds and documents relating to the charity property for the petitioners' inspection, &c. The respondents in their affidavits stated the letters patent, by which the charity was founded, and a decree former decree of 1655 was set aside, and an of the 3rd of December 1656, by which the award of certain arbitrators established, which directed a feoffment to be made to Sir J. Maynard and others, and their heirs and assigns, of the hospital, houses, and lands, for the benefit of the master, brethren and sisters of the hospital, and other feoffments were directed to be made thereafter from time to time to other feoffees as occasion should require. The respondents denied the allegations of improper conduct. The petitioners brought on their petition to be heard without in any manner amending the same:— - Held, that a master and additional trustees ought to be appointed without delay, and that a reference ought to be made for a scheme; but that the petition being founded in error, it must be dismissed with costs, and another and distinct application must be made to the Court.

The letting of the hospital estates by tender, and not by public auction, not disapproved of by the Court.

The petition in this case was presented by six persons, inhabitants of the town of Isleham, in the county of Cambridge, and prayed (amongst other things) that it might be declared that according to the true purport

S

of the decree of the 29th of October 1655, the appointment of the trustees of the charity was vested in the minister and greater part of the inhabitants of Isleham, and that their consent was necessary to such appointment; and that the appointment of the present trustees, the respondents, was an invalid appointment, and that new trustees might be appointed and the complete number of trustees filled up; and that a proper scheme might be approved of by the Court, and directions given for settling and declaring in whom the nomination of master, and brethren and sisters of the hospital was vested; and that the costs, charges, and expenses of the petitioners in reference to the matters aforesaid might be duly provided for.

The petition, in support whereof affidavits had been filed by three of the petitioners and their solicitor, stated a decree of certain commissioners, dated the 29th of October 1655, whereby it was ordered that there should be chosen a fit and able master of the hospital, and six brethren and sisters, according to the foundation, and that Sir J. Maynard, and John Maynard, his son, and all persons claiming under them, should, within three months, quit and yield up the houses and lands given and appointed for the maintenance of the poor people as therein mentioned. The petition then proceeded to state that part of the decree allotting the charity houses and lands for the use and occupation of the master, brethren and sisters respectively, and the order of the commissioners that John Lukyne, the next heir of Robert Lukyne, his grandfather, deceased, the surviving feoffee of the messuage, lands, &c. granted for the maintenance of the hospital, and his wife, and all others claiming under him, should within thirty weeks next coming, make a feoffment of the houses, lands, &c. to seven or eight other men, who should by consent and nomination of the minister and greater part of the inhabitants aforesaid, be named and appointed feoffees, and do all other things necessary for the assuring of the lands, &c. according to the purposes therein before mentioned. The petition then stated, that the petitioners had been denied all access to the deeds and muniments of the charity, and all information thereof by the present trustees of the charity; that in the report of the charity commissioners, dated the 4th of February

1837, it was stated, that illegible fragments of a feoffment made by the heirs of Robert Lukyne in the year 1656, were produced to the commissioners, which by a recital in a subsequent deed of 1688, appears to have been a conveyance of five almshouses, with barns and appurtenances, and eighteen acres of arable land, together with common rights, to Sir J. Maynard, John Maynard, Roger Peachey, Edward Lukyne, and William Sharpe, as trustees; that it was to be presumed that the feoffment of the year 1656 was made in obedience to the decree, and that the persons therein named were, by the consent and nomination of the minister and greater part of the inhabitants of Isleham, appointed such feoffees; that such consent and nomination did not appear to have been afterwards exercised, and the trustees had ever since been continued by a close and strict system of self-election, and the minister and inhabitants had been excluded from all voice in such election; that such exclusion had led to great carelessness in the management of the charity, and to great spoliation of the charity estates, which had been continued to a very recent period; that the charity estates which had formerly been let by public auction had been of late let privately to the relations of one of the trustees at a reduced rent; that with the exception of the hospital itself all the charity buildings were out of repair; that one of the trustees (Buller) was resident permanently in Cornwall, and was of great age, and never interfered with the charity; that the late master of the hospital died in 1833, and the office had not been filled up, and that the trustees declined to give the inhabitants of Isleham any information about the management of the charity or the accounts relating thereto, or to allow the inhabitants to see the title deeds of the charity.

From the affidavits filed in opposition to the petition, it appeared that the solicitor of the respondents had discovered amongst the deeds relating to the charity, the exemplification of the original licence and grant from Queen Elizabeth, by letters patent, dated the 3rd of February 1580, granted to Lady Frances Peyton, the founder of the charity, whereby it was ordained that there should be one hospital or almshouse in Isleham, for one master, six brethren and six sisters, who should be a body corporate, and that