Grace Woolridge, 20l. to bind her apprentice to a mantua-maker or glover; and I give and bequeath unto the said Ann Woolridge, the further sum of 5l., to be paid her at the expiration of her apprenticeship."

The bill was filed for the payment of these legacies.

The executors had selected a proper person, to whom they requested Ann Woolridge to be bound apprentice as a mantuamaker; but she had refused to become, and had not been, apprentice either to a mantua-maker or a glover.

The only question was-Whether she was entitled to the legacy without being bound an apprentice.

It was contended, that the words "to bind her apprentice" indicated only the purpose which induced the testator to give the legacy in question, but did not operate as a condition annexed to it.

There were cited Barton v. Cooke, (1) and Neville v. Neville. (2)

The Vice Chancellor was of opinion, that the plaintiff was not at present entitled to the legacy, but that, upon being bound apprentice, she would have a right to have the sum of 201. paid her.

A devisee does not lose benefits given him by a will, in consequence of his being an attesting witness to a codicil, ratifying and confirming the will.

A testator, by a will, to which his widow was not an attesting witness, devised to her certain estates. He afterwards purchased other estates, and made a codicil, ratifying and confirming the will, which, operating as a republication of his will, would have had the effect of bequeathing to the widow the after purchased estates, had it not been that she was an attesting witness to it.

Mr. Sugden contended, that the widow

(1) 5 Vesey, 463. (2) 2 Vernon, 431.

VOL. IV. CHANC.

A person, seised of copyholds in fee, makes a will, which being declared by the steward of the manor to be void, the heir-at-law is admitted as tenant, and afterwards conveys the copyhold to a purchaser :-Held, that the Court will not compel a purchaser to accept a title derived under the heir-at-law, unless the will is produced, or the contents of it ascertained by evidence.

Upon a reference of title, in a suit for specific performance, the Master had reported in favour of the title. Various exceptions to the report were taken by the purchaser, one of which proceeded on the following ground :

Part of the premises were copyhold, which the vendor had purchased from Thomas Hickman, who had been admitted to them as heir to his father; and the objection was, that there was sufficient reason to doubt whether he was entitled to them as heir. This doubt arose from the circumstances disclosed in an affidavit of Thomas Hickman. In that affidavit, he stated, that he inherited the piece of ground in question from his father, Wm. Hickman, along with other copyhold premises held of the same manor; that he was duly admitted to the same as tenant; that his father made and signed some paper purporting to be a will, which was written by one Isaac Smith, now deceased; that he, Thomas Hickman, took

I

the said paper or will to the court, at which he was admitted tenant, and showed it to the steward of the manor; that the steward, having read over the paper, said it was not worth any thing, and that he, Thomas Hickman, as heir of his father, was entitled to all his father's copyhold premises; that he

nevertheless consented, that his sister, Elizabeth Hickman, should enjoy part of the premises during her life, pursuant to what he conceived to have been the intention of his father, expressed in the paper writing; and that she accordingly received the rents of one of the said houses as long as she lived; but that she had no part of the rents of the piece of ground in question. He added, that he could not set forth the contents of the paper or will, for that he had never seen it since he took it to the court, and that it was never proved.

Mr. Preston, in support of the exception, contended, that it was quite evident, from the testimony of the heir-at-law himself, that William Hickman had made a will, under which other persons besides the heir took benefits. Until this will was produced, so that it might be seen whether it was of any force, and how the rights of the heir stood under it, or until evidence was given of its purport, or until (which was impossible) it was clearly proved that the will was destroyed, and that secondary evidence of its contents could not be given, how could any purchaser be safe, who derived his title merely from the customary heir? The steward had, indeed, declared that the will was a nullity; but he might have been, and most probably was, mistaken in his judgment at all events, it could not conclude a purchaser, to whom, in case the will should hereafter make its appearance, or evidence of its contents be found, it would not afford any protection.

The Vice Chancellor was of opinion, that, the fact of the father having signed a paper, which purported to be a testamentary disposition of the copyhold, being established, a purchaser could not be compelled to take a title derived from the heir claiming against that real or supposed will, while it remained uncertain whether that will was or was not valid, and what were its contents.

He therefore allowed the exception.

1825. November.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL .
PEMBROKE HALL.

Lands of a specified annual value being given to charitable purposes, and a certain sum of the yearly rental being directed to be paid to one class of objects, and the residue to another, an arrangement was entered into two centuries ago, by which a certain part of the lands were demised for a thousand years, to the persons entitled to the certain annual payment in lieu of that payment; and the lands so demised became afterwards of much greater proportionate value than the remaining lands of the charity:-Held, that the Court will not interfere with such an arrangement, nor order the lease to be set aside.

In 1583 the Archbishop of Canterbury, in pursuance of an authority conferred on him by royal letters patent, directed lands, of the yearly value of 501., to be purchased and conveyed to the warden and governors of St. Bees school, and their successors, for the support of the school, and of poor scholars going from it to either of the universities. The following was the mode in which the revenue arising from the lands was to be distributed :—25l. a year was to be appropriated to the school; 201. a year to the maintenance of a fellow and two scholars in Pembroke Hall: the residue was to accumulate, and was to be employed from time to time in the purchase of other lands, the income of which was to go towards the relief of poor scholars in Pembroke Hall, and in Queen's College, Oxford. The archbishop died in the same year.

In compliance with his direction, certain lands, called Palmer's Fields, were conveyed to the governor and warden of St. Bees school, who demised them to two persons of the name of Gleydall for a term of ninety-nine years, at a yearly rent of 241. Shortly afterwards other lands, to the value of somewhat more than 301., were purchased with the funds furnished by the archbishop's estate, and conveyed in like manner to the warden and governors of the school; and in 1594, some surplus funds were expended in the purchase of lands of the yearly value of 4l., for the maintenance of a third scholar in Pembroke Hall.

In 1607, an arrangement was entered

It re

into between the warden and governors of the school, the master and fellows of Pembroke Hall, and the executor of the archbishop; the object of which was, to apportion the revenue of the property in the most convenient manner, with a view to fulfil the intentions of the founder of the charity. This was carried into effect by an indenture made in 1607, between the warden and governors of St. Bees school of the one part, and the master and fellows of Pembroke Hall of the other part. cited that the archbishop, when a little before his death he made his regulations for the government and maintenance of a fellow and two scholars in the said college, believed that the master and fellows of the college had not a license to hold in mortmain the 201. a year which he had appointed to them, and that it was for that reason that he had ordered the warden and governors of St. Bees school to pay to them such yearly sum; and that, since the death of the archbishop, a license in mort. main had been granted, enabling the master and fellows to purchase and receive, to them and their successors for ever, lands and hereditaments not exceeding the yearly value of 80l. : and it then witnessed, that, for the better assurance of the 201. a year appointed by the archbishop, and of the additional 47. a year produced by the lands purchased out of the subsequent accumulations, the warden and governors of St. Bees school did demise unto the master and fellows of Pembroke Hall, for a term of a thousand years, at a nominal rent, the lands called Palmer's Fields, then on lease to the Gleydalls at a rent of 24l. a year. The warden and governors also of the school covenanted, that the 247. a year, reserved by the lease to the Gleydalls, should, during the term, be paid to the master and fellows of Pembroke Hall; and there was likewise a covenant to reserve, during the remainder of the term of one thousand years, after the determination of Gleydalls' lease, the yearly sum of 241. to the master and fellows of Pembroke Hall. The indenture further stated, that John Scott, the surviving executor of the archbishop, in order to secure to the fellow and three scholars of the archbishop's foundation, the same benefit and privileges as any other fellows and scholars enjoyed in that college,

had agreed to give, out of the estate of the archbishop, a sum of 2001. to the master and fellows of Pembroke Hall; and the master and fellows on their part, in consideration of this sum, and of the demise of the lands, covenanted that the St. Bees' fellow and scholars should enjoy the same benefits as the other fellows and scholars of the college.

Accordingly, from that time, the college had received-first, the rent reserved by the lease to the Gleydalls, and afterwards, the profits of the lands.

In 1612 a bill was filed by the executor of the archbishop, impeaching the lease granted to the Gleydalls as having been given at a rent below the real value; but the suit was not prosecuted.

The lands purchased out of the archbishop's benefaction did not, in the course of subsequent events, all rise equally in value. Palmer's Fields, which had been appropriated to the college, were now of the yearly value of upwards of 500l., while the whole residue of the lands did not yield a rental of more than 1251.

Under these circumstances an information was filed by the Attorney General, at the suggestion of the commissioners for inquiring into abuses of charities, against the warden and governors of St. Bees school, and the master and fellows of Pembroke Hall. It stated, that both in 1585 and 1604, Palmer's Fields were worth more than 241. a year; that the lease to the Gleydalls, and the lease to the college for a term of a thousand years, were fraudulent; that the college was entitled only to 241. a year out of the lands purchased with the benefaction of the archbishop, or, at the most, to a proportionate part of the whole yearly income, settled with reference to the other objects of the charity. The prayer was, that the lease for the term of a thousand years might be set aside, or that it might be declared to stand as a security only for the 241. a year which the archbishop had ordered to be paid to Pembroke Hall, or for such increased sum as the college, with reference to the increased value of the lands, might be held entitled to, proportionably with the other objects of the charity.

Fraud, in the origin of the transaction, was denied by the answer of the defen

dants; and there was no evidence that the arrangement of 1604 was unfair at the time when it was entered into.

The Solicitor General and Mr. Pemberton were in support of the information ; Mr. Horne and Mr. Simkinson contrà.

In support of the information it was argued, that the arrangement of 1607, by which the property had been distributed between the school and the college, even though there was no evidence of fraud at the time it was entered into, was such as could not be permitted to stand in equity. It was contrary to the law of the court that a lease of charity lands should be granted for ninety-nine years, and still more so, that a lease of them should be made for a thousand years. True, the lease was here granted to some of those who were the objects of the charity; but that circumstance, instead of constituting a defence, was an aggravation of the breach of trust which had been committed; for it was more peculiarly incumbent upon those who derived benefits from the charity, than upon strangers, to take care not to acquire such an interest in the charity lands as the policy of the law condemns. From the apportionment of the original rental of 50l. a year, it is clear that the testator did not mean the college to have, at the utmost, more than the half of the income of the lands; yet the effect of what had been done was to give them four-fifths of that income. Could such a distribution be deemed a fair administration of the charity? and if it was not in itself a proper administration of the fund, it could not be aided by the circumstance, that it was effected by means of a conveyance of the legal estate in part of the lands to the master and fellows of Pembroke Hall. That the executor of the founder of the charity appeared to have assented to the arrangement, could not add to its validity. His ratification was, at the utmost, only evidence, that, at the time, there was nothing unreasonable or fraudulent in the transaction.

On the other hand, it was insisted for the defendants, that this was a case in which the Court could not interfere. It was evident, from the recital in the deed of 1607, that it was the wish of the archbishop to have given lands, of the value of 241.

yearly, to the college; and that his only reason for making the warden and governors of the school the medium of payment, was, that the college had not a license to take in mortmain. That disqualification being removed, what was more proper, what was better calculated to effectuate the intention of the founder, than to convey to the college lands yielding the yearly income which he had ordered to be paid to them? If the transaction was fair at the time, how could subsequent incidents in any way alter it? If the Court would not have interfered to annul the lease in 1607, it could not do so now. Besides, the fellow and scholars of St. Bees had enjoyed great additional advantages in consequence of the contract entered into in 1607. Under that contract, the fellow and scholars of St. Bees had enjoyed not merely the profits of Archbishop Grindall's foundation, but had participated in all the advantages which belonged to the other fellows and scholars of Pembroke Hall.

The Vice Chancellor was of opinion, that the circumstances of the transaction, in 1607, were such as to repel any suspicion that there was originally any thing fraudulent in the arrangement then entered into. Having been fair and reasonable at the time, the Court could not look to subsequent circumstances, which had rendered it more advantageous to one party than to another. There was therefore no ground for the interference of a court of equity; and the information, so far as it sought to affect the lease for a thousand years, must be dismissed.

land, where he proved the testator's will, and filed a bill for the administration of the estate. In the mean time, the co-executor, who resided in India, died.

A motion was now made on behalf of the executor who was resident in England, that a receiver might be appointed to collect the outstanding estate in India.

The Vice Chancellor made the order for a reference to the Master to approve of a proper person to be appointed receiver of the assets in India; but such receiver was to give sureties resident in England.

A bill for an account alleged, that the matters in question had been submitted to arbitration, and that a pretended award had been made, but charged circumstances to invalidate the award; the defendant pleaded the submission entered into in pursuance of the statute, and the award made in consequence of it :Held, that such a plea is a good defence to the bill.

The plaintiff Yates, by his bill, stated, that being engaged in a colliery at Hawkesbury, he, in June 1818, entered into an agreement with the defendant Bainard, by which Bainard was to conduct and carry on the coal trade at Coventry, on behalf of the plaintiff, and for so doing was to receive 60l. per annum of salary, and an allowance of 251. per cent. on the net profits; that the business was accordingly carried on by Bainard, as the plaintiff's agent, from June 1813 to June 1821; that Bainard had never accounted to the plaintiff for the proceeds of the coals sold by him, though he had paid some small sums to Yates on account of profits; and that, in June 1821, he was indebted to him on account of the trade, in the sum of 1,300l. The prayer was for an account of all the dealings of Bainard, as the plaintiff's agent, in the before-mentioned business.

The bill also stated, that Yates and Bainard had, on the 10th of September 1822, executed a deed of arbitration, referring all the matters in dispute, relative to the said trade, to the award of David Shakespeare Waters and Thomas Oswin; and

that the defendant alleged, that these arbitrators made and signed their award in writing, bearing date on the 26th June 1823, by which they awarded the sum of 3001. to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant. But it charged, that that pretended award. "was made and signed by the arbitrators, without entering into, or in any manner examining the accounts subsisting between the plaintiff and the said Richard Bainard, and without making any allowance to the plaintiff for the land and water carriage of the coal furnished by the plaintiff, which expenses amounted to 8001. and upwards; that the pretended award was made and -signed by the arbitrators upon unstamped paper; and that the instrument was therefore wholly inoperative and void.”

To this bill the defendant put in a plea, which began by stating an agreement between Yates and Bainard, that all the matters in dispute between them should be referred to the arbitration of Waters and Oswin, so as their award was made on or before the 6th of December 1822; and that the submission to arbitration should, pursuant to the statute, be made a rule of either of his Majesty's courts of record at Westminster, if the justices thereof should so please. Then the plea, after stating that the time for making the award had been enlarged by the consent of the complainant and defendant, until after the 12th of July 1823, went on to aver as follows :-" That the said Waters and Oswin, by a certain writing duly signed by them on the 12th of July 1823, duly made and published their award of and concerning the matters so referred to them, whereby, after reciting the said submission, and that they had minutely examined the said parties and several witnesses, and also collected evidence as to the nature of the engagement between the said parties, as having been so existing with them from the 12th of June 1813, to the 17th of July 1821, the said D. S. Waters and T. Oswin did agree to the following and final adjustment, viz. that this defendant should forthwith pay to the complainant the sum of 300l., and that the charges attending the said reference, and also the law expenses incident thereto, or which might have been already incurred by each party, should be paid separately and individually by themselves." The plea also