322 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



the rent of the land did not 

 amount to 120/. Bristol was 

 bound by the deed to make up 

 the deficiency. Were they to be 

 bound to pay this, and to derive 

 no benefit from the surplus ? It 

 would not be in the power of 

 arbitrators to relieve the city of 

 Bristol from the deficiency on all 

 occasions. It is agreed in the 

 deed that the corporation shall 

 make up the rent, unless in cases 

 of accidents and repairs; and 

 here they are subject to the deci- 

 sion of arbitrators, without the 

 power of applying to a court of 

 justice. One of the gentlemen 

 on the other side had said, that 

 the President of St. John's Col- 

 lege and the Mayor of Bristol 

 were appointed, in the capacity 

 of visiters, to look after the 

 management of the charity, at 

 their own expense; and hence he 

 infers that the city of Bristol had 

 no claim to the surplus on account 

 of the visitatorial labours of the 

 Mayor, any more than St. John's 

 College had for those of its Pre- 

 sident. Now it appeared more 

 likely, that since St. John's Col- 

 lege was benefitted by the will of 

 the testator, the President was 

 appointed a visiter on that ac- 

 count ; on the same principle 

 that the Mayor of Bristol was, on 

 account of the benefit intended 

 to the city of Bristol, appointed a 

 visiter. He submitted to his 

 Honour whether it did not follow, 

 that where the city was to 

 guarantee a certain amount, some 

 benefit was not intended by the 

 ' testator. 



Vice-Chancellor. — The inform- 

 ation in this case sets forth that 

 the corporation of Bristol were 

 bound, by the deed of trust, to 



lay out 2,000/. in the purchase of 

 land of the annual rent of six 

 score pounds or more ; and it is 

 contended, that if they could 

 purchase more with this sum they 

 were bound to do so by the in- 

 tention of the donor. It is said, 

 that since the purchase, the 

 annual rents have risen from 129/. 

 to many thousand pounds ; that 

 notwithstanding this great rise the 

 trustees have applied only 104/. 

 to the charity ; that they have 

 appropriated this great surplus 

 to themselves ; and that this ap- 

 propriation is a breach of trust, 

 as it does not appear to have 

 been the intent of the donor that 

 the corporation should be bene- 

 fited by the surplus. On this 

 information the corporation have 

 demurred, on the ground that 

 the question is too important to 

 be decided in this early stage. 

 As this is a question merely res- 

 pecting the intention of the 

 donor, I do not see what benefit 

 can result from delay, since no 

 other evidence than the deed 

 itself can be adduced. My 

 opinion, therefore, is, that the 

 present is the proper moment of 

 deciding. The case is of great 

 importance ; it is new in circum- 

 stance, although not in principle. 

 (His Honour then went over all 

 the cases that had been referred 

 to, and precedents, in the course 

 of the arguments, and showed 

 that none of them were applicable 

 in every circumstance to the 

 present question.) If this were 

 a case between A and B, without 

 regard to charity, the corpora- 

 tion would be considered as pur- 

 chasers of the land; and as such, 

 although bound by their covenant 

 to apply the sums provided for in 



the 



