Attorney General v Dew
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 July 1849 |
| Date | 14 July 1849 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 64 E.R. 574
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[488] attorney-general . dew. July 11, 13, 14, 1849. After the passing of the Act 6 & 7 Viet. c. 85, two (of four) trustees of a charity, who were Defendants to an information complaining of acts of mismanagement, were examined in chief by mistake as witnesses, by the relator, without any order for that purpose instead of being cross-examined. The relator did not tender the depositions in evidence. Held, that by reason of their examination, no decree could be made against them. Held, also, that the 32d Order of August 1841 did not, in such circumstances, entitle the relator to relief against the remaining trustees. On a motion made on behalf of the relator, after the cause had been argued to suppress the depositions of the trustees, it was ordered that they should be suppressed on the relator entering into admissions, and on the Defendants' being permitted to add to their evidence; but, on appe.al, the order was discharged, the Lord Chancellor being of opinion that, even on these termSj the relator could not be relieved from the mistake. This was an information against Tomkyns Dew, John Samuel Gowland, Thomas Delahay and Daniel Henry Lee Warner, the four trustees of a charity called "The Peterchurch Charity " in Herefordshire, founded by the will of one John Smith in 1722, alleging various breaches of trust and misconduct on the part of the Defendant, Dew, in the management of the charity property; and stating that the other trustees had never interfered to correct or prevent the acts of mismanagement complained of. The prayer was for an account of the rents and profits of the estates and property belonging to the charity which had been received by the four trustees, or any or either of them, or which they might have received without their wilful neglect or default respectively, since the time when they were appointed trustees, and of their application thereof; and that they might be personally charged with all sums 3DEG.&SM.489. ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. DEW - 575 misapplied by them, with interest thereon; that the several acts of mismanagement thereinbefore set forth might be declared to be contrary to the trusts of the charity; that all necessary inquiries might be directed into such acts of mismanagement, and respecting the management of the estate and effects, and the income of the charity since the Defendants were appointed trustees; that proper directions might be given for the purpose of preventing and correcting the same; that all the four Defendants [489] might be removed from being trustees, and that new trustees might be appointed; and for a receiver. The cause now came on to be heard; and it appeared that the relator had examined, as witnesses, the Defendants, Mr. Gowlarid and Mr. Warner, without having obtained any order for that purpose, and without their consent, and also without withdrawing the replication. These Defendants had also been examined in chief on behalf of their Co-defendant, Mr. Dew, who had obtained an order for that purpose. It was mentioned, in explanation, that their examination-in-chief for the relator arose from a mistake, the intention having been to cross-examine them only. On the cause for the relator being 'opened by Mr. Eussell, Mr. Malins and Mr. Wray, Mr. Kenyon Parker...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v Coventry
...be any decree against a Defendant whom the Plaintiff has examined; Bernall v. Lard Donegal (3 Dow. 133); Attorney-General v. Dew (3 De G. & Sm. 488); Rowland v. Witherden (3 Mac. & G. 568); Stokes v. Trumper (2 K. & J. 232); Monday v. Guyer (1 De G. & Sm. 182); Richmond's Executors' case (3......
-
Rowland v Witherden
...on the cases of Goold v. O'Kee/e (Beat. 356), Sernal v. Donegal, (3 Dow, 133), Fussell v. Ehoin (7 Hare, 29), Attorney-General v. Dew (3 De G. & S. 488; 13 Jur. 1066). On the question of the liability of the trustees generally, they cited Bacon v. Bacon (5 Ves. 331), Munch v. Cockerell (5 M......
-
Stokes v Trumper
...these terms the relators could not be relieved from mistake. (A report of these proceedings will be found nom. Attorney-General .v. Dew, 3 De G. & S. 488.) The relators died ; the present suit was instituted by the executor of the survivor for the administration of his [234] estate; and, un......