APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 323 



the deed, they would be entitled to 

 appropriate the surplus. But this 

 is not to be considered as a case 

 of individual interest. They are 

 trustees for the execution of the 

 will of Sir Thomas Wliite. I am 

 to look at this, not as a covenant, 

 but as a deed under trust; and 

 the duties by which the trustees 

 are bound are the same as in other 

 cases of trust. There is a plain 

 intent in this deed, that the sur- 

 plus should remain in their hands 

 for some purpose. Is it intended 

 that they are to take the surplus 

 beneficially, or are they to keep 

 it, in order to answer some pur- 

 pose mentioned or implied in the 

 deed ? It is obvious from the 

 nature of the property, that there 

 must be some charges occasion- 

 ally. The question I am to con- 

 sider is this — was it left in their 

 hands to answer incidental ex- 

 penses on the property, or for 

 their own benefit ? It is plain 

 that the testator gives to the 

 other 24- corporations the sum of 

 il. for expenses and repairs. Did 

 he mean bounty to this corpora- 

 tion, or the means of defraying 

 the expenses of executing the 

 trust ? The deed states, that the 

 sums are to be applied to pur- 

 poses stated, and to no other ; 

 yet the purposes mentioned do 

 not amount to the whole rent. 

 This is only to be reconciled by 

 supposing that the parties took 

 into consideration the expense of 

 executing the trust. This con- 

 struction seems confirmed by the 

 clause of the trust relating to the 

 appointment of arbitrators, who 

 were to determine, when the 

 surplus is not sufficient to cover 

 the charges, from what other part 

 of the estate they are to be 



defrayed. Looking at the deed 

 as a declaration of trust, my 

 opinion of its true meaning is, not 

 that the trustees should take 

 bounty to themselves, but that 

 the surplus was intended as a 

 security for the expenses of 

 management ; and consequently, 

 if the trustees have appropriated 

 the surplus, they have been 

 guilty of a breach of trust. I 

 shall therefore over - rule the 

 demurrer. 



secondaries' office, coleman- 

 street, nov. 21. 



Broivn V. Allen. — The defend- 

 ant, who is Lord Spencer's game- 

 keeper, was tried at the last 

 Kingston assizes, under Lord 

 Ellenborough's Act, for shooting 

 at, and wounding the present 

 plaintiff, on the high road between 

 Wimbledon and London, upon 

 which he was acquitted. The 

 plaintiff subsequently brought an 

 action for the injury he had 

 sustained in consequence of the 

 defendant wantonly shooting at 

 him, upon which the defendant 

 suffered judgment to go by 

 default; and the inquisition upon 

 the writ of inquiry was taken to 

 assess the damages, before Wm. 

 Collingridge, Esq. the Secondary 

 of London, and a jury impanelled 

 upon the occasion. 



William Purday being sworn, 

 stated as follows : — *' I was with 

 the plaintiff on the night of the 

 17th of February last, near Wim- 

 bledon ; it was a moonlight 

 night; a man named Wilkins was 

 with us ; I first saw the defendant, 

 Allen, near the Green JMan, Wim- 

 bledon, and a man was with him ; 

 they followed us about a mile and 



Y 2 



a quarter 



