HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0760 and id is 1 raw text is: ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. SHORE
language, and upon the weight to be given to that evidence, if admitted, it would be
much more satisfactory to refer the case to the determination of a Court of law.
After some further discussion, his Lordship's suggestion was acquiesced in, and an
order was finally arranged, by which it was directed that the *appeal should stand
over, and that an action of ejeetment should be brought in the Court of Exchequer
on the demise of Montague Gabriel Newton, the heir at law of the testatrix, against
Alexander Levi Newton, one of the Appellants, the Defendant undertaking not to set
up any legal objection to the title of the Plaintiff at law.
The action was accordingly brought, and came on to be tried on the 21st of June
last, before Lord Abinger (393] and a special jury, and evidence was gone into at
considerable length on both sides. It was proved at the trial that the words
Denmark Court were painted in the Strand on the outside and over the top of the
passage leading from that street into Denmark Court, and also on each side of the
passage in the inside; but the heir at law altogether failed in proving, as was alleged
to have been proved in the Chancery suit, that those words had been painted on the
house numbered 21 within the court, being the first house beyond the passage. The
testimony as to reputation was somewhat conflicting; but, in the opinion of Lord
Abinger, the preponderance was, upon the whole, in favour of the Defendant. The
jury found a verdict for the Defendant; thereby, in effect, deciding that the house in
question passed by the will under the description of a messuage situate in Denmark
Court.
July 16. The appeal being now brought on again, the Lord Chancellor reversed
the Vice-Chancellor's decision, and made a declaration in accordance with the finding
-of the jury.
July 20. Upon the question of costs, the Lord Chancellor said that as the heir at
law had raised a contest upon circumstances which were entirely dehors the will, and
had failed in that contest, and as he had, moreover, altogether failed in proving a
material fact, upon which great stress had been laid in the Court below, and but for
which probably his Lordship would not have thought it nectssary to send the case to
law at all, he was of opinion that so much of the costs of the appeal as were occasioned
by the trial of the action should be borne by the heir at law.
[394] ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. SHORE. March 4, 16, 1836.
Where a decree in a charity information was under prosecution in the Master's office,
and the Defendants had been refused permission to attend, leave was granted, on
petition, to persons who were not parties to the suit to intervene in the proceedings
before the Master; the peculiar character and position of the relators by whom
the decree was to be prosecuted, appearing to render them incapable of adequately
representing and protecting the interests of all the objects of the charity.
Two distinct sets of Petitioners, each shewing a prim4 facie claim to intervene, having
applied for that purpose, the Court permitted both of them to attend the Master,
on the understanding that only one bill of costs should be allowed against the
charity estate.
By two several indentures, bearing dates respectively the 13th of January 1704
and the 26th of April 1707, certain real estates which were then the property of
Dame Sarah Hewley, and which subsequently became of great annual value, were
conveyed to and vested in the persons therein named, upon trust to apply the surplus
rents and profits towards a variety of charitable purposes therein mentioned ; among
others, for the benefit of poor godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel, and poor and
godly widows of such preachers; for the encouragement and promotion of the preach-
ing of Christ's Holy Gospel in poor places; towards the education of young men
designed for the ministry of Christ's Holy Gospel; and also .towards the establish-
ment and support of almshouses, the inmates of which were to be selected and
governed according to a body of rules particularly prescribed and set forth.
,4 Lady Hewley, the foundress of the charity, belonged to the class of Dissenters
known, after the Restoration, by the name of Presbyterian Nonconformists; and, as
far as could be ascertained, the first trustees whom she nominated were members of
426
I MY. & CR. 393.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0760&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)