but merely satisfactory evidence," by affidavit or other means. There would, in truth, be no kind of safety whatever for persons who insured in fire-offices, if legal evidence was to be always called for, as it unquestionably was beyond the power of man in many instances to prove his loss by legal proof. The Jury had, however, the case before them, and though he laid down what in general was very properly the law, they would in this case come to such a conclusion as their conscience and country would Yesterday (Nov. 2), a jury was empanelled before the Deputy High Bailiff, at the Guildhall, Westminster, to assess the dam. ages claimed by Mr. Slade, the proprietor of the Argyle-rooms, as compensation for the loss of those rooms, part of which are to be removed in order to continue the line of the New-street. Mr. Sergeant Best, Mr. Sergeant Copley, and Mr. Chitty, were of counsel for the claimant. The Attorney-General, Mr. Gurney, and Mr. Shepherd, jun., were retained for the Commissioners. Mr. Sergeant Best stated the case to the Jury, and went at some length into a detail of the facts, which afterwards appeared in evidence. The claims, he said, which Mr. Slade made against the Commissioners of the new street, were under three heads; first, for the value of the freehold property, which would be proved to be worth 1,150l. a-year, which, at seventeen years' purchase, would amount to 19,550.; next, three years profits of the rooms, in consequence of the loss of his business, consequent upon a removal; the average profits of the rooms amounted to 2,500l. a year, which, for three years, was 7,500l. The third head of claim was for a loss of 2,500l. upon a sale of wardrobes, &c. The learned Sergeant then dwelt upon the loss which the claimant was likely to sustain by the removal from his present situation, and the great difficulty he would find in procuring a similar one in a place where it could be advantageous to him. The following evidence was called in support of the claim : Mr. John White, a surveyor, had seen the premises, and valued them on the 18th of August last. They were most conveniently situated, and elegantly fitted up as assembly rooms, and were occasionally used for the performance of French plays. The freehold property in the rooms he valued at 18,650l. Besides the rooms, there was a cellar and offices, which were let at 50l. a year, and also two coach-houses and stable, which would bring in a rent of from 50l. to 60l. a year. He thought two seasons would be lost before such rooms could be fitted up in another place. Colonel Mr. Squibb had examined the rooms, and the offices adjoining to them. It would, according to his judgment, be very difficult to procure such a situation in any other convenient place; and it would consume at least two sea. sons before they could be built and fitted up. The rooms he valued at 1,000l. a year, the stable and coach-house at 100l. a year, and the other offices and cellar at 50l. per year. The whole value he believed to be 19,550l. Mr. Slade's removal would, he conceived, be the entire annihilation of his business. There was property on the pre=mises which was at present worth 5,000l. to Mr. Slade, but which he could not dispose of without a loss of 2,8661. Mr. Dawson, a surveyor, had examined the rooms, and estimated their total value at 19,500l. The loss on some scenery and wardrobes would be very considerable. He also spoke of the excellence of the situation, and the difficulty of procuring a similar one in a convenient place. Mr. Cresswell estimated the rooms to be worth 20,450l., without including the goodwill. Another surveyor estimated them at 19,800l., with the same exception. Mr. Henry Slade, jun. was in the habit of assisting his father in the management of the rooms. He was acquainted with their profits. The nett profits, after deducting rents, were 2,4637. a year. In his cross-examination, he said that the sum received from the Philharmonic Society was 1747. a year. Mr. Lequin, the conductor of the assemblies, knew the receipts. In 1817, they amounted to 3,3081., and in the present year to 3,2917. Mr. Ward also stated that the profits were very considerable. The Door-keeper and Moneytaker was next called. He stated that his receipts in money on some nights exceeded 100%. but besides this there were a great number of tickets disposed of in several shops. Mr. Slade, jun. again examined, stated, that the shopkeepers who sold tickets were allowed 1s. per ticket. They got a guinea for the ticket, and paid back 17. The lowest number of persons at the assemblies was about 350, and they seldom exceeded 500. The case of the claimant being here closed, The Attorney General, for the Commissioners, addressed the Jury, and contended, that the sum demanded by Mr. Slade was most exorbitant. He went on to show that the injury, if any to the claimant, by the removal, would be very little, for only some of the offices and a very small part of the orchestra would be touched. In fact, Mr. Slade could carry on his assemblies there when the new street was finished as well as before. to the time required for fitting new rooms elsewhere, it would not at most occupy more than nine months; for it should be remembered, that Covent garden Theatre was built in less than one year. As He He then called Mr. Thompson, a surveyor, who stated, that he was employed by the Commissioners to examine the rooms. They were made assembly-rooms about 15 years ago; Mr. Slade bought them afterwards from Colonel Greville, but witness did not know what he gave for them. In 1803 or 1804 they were offered to him for 3,500l. After the passing of the New-street Act, he spoke to Mr. Slade on the subject of the rooms, and in con. sequence of what then passed the intended line of the street was in some degree altered. Only a small part of the premises were at present required: this consisted of the coach-house, stables, part of the counting-house, and a room which was used as a dress. ing-room. The assemblies could, in his opinion, be carried on there, after these were removed. In his cross-examination he said, that the intended alteration would make the orchestra near the street, which would not be so advantageous, as it would be exposed to the noise of the carriages. In the subsequent part of his cross-examination, which was very long, he spoke of several conferences and verbal communications which had passed with Mr. Slade on the subject before. He also said that Col. Greville and Mr. Slade had expended several thousand pounds on the rooms. Mr. Lethbridge, the machinist at Drury-lane theatre, stated, that the inconvenience of the orchestra being near the street could be remedied, by having two walls with a space between them, which, when filled up with saw-dust, wool, horse-hair, or woollen cloth, would prevent the sound from without; and when a boarded partition was raised inside, the effect of the music would not be diminished within. He added, that the building of new rooms would not occupy more than nine months. Mr. Ayrton, one of the managers of the Philharmonic Society, gave it as his opinion, that the assemblies could be held at the rooms after the proposed alterations. The new street he considered would be an advantage to them. Mr. Montague, Mr. Willock, and another surveyor, stated that the premises were not worth more than 14,610/. The case for the Commis sioners being closed, Mr. Sergeant Best, in reply, contended, that his client had a right, by the act of Parliament, to make the Commissioners take the whole of his premises, though perhaps only a part of them was wanted. He also maintained that the sum demanded was only a fair compensation for the loss Mr. Slade would sustain. The Deputy High Bailiff summed up the evidence, and the jury, after half an hour's delibera. tion, returned a verdict for the claimant.-Compensation 22,750L VICE CHANCELLor's court, WEDNESDAY, NOV. 11. The Attorney-General v. The Mayor and Corporation of Bristel. This case excited considerable interest in the court. In the year 1562, Sir Thomas White devised 2,000l. to be laid out in the as the purchase of land for charitable uses. The deed of trust appointed the mayor, burgesses, and commonalty of Bristol to act trustees; and directed them to lay out the money in the purchase of lands, of which the yearly rent should amount to six score pounds or more. The revenue of this land was to be laid out in the following manner; During the first ten years after the purchase, 100l. per annum were to be given to the city of Bristol, for the maintenance of poor apprentices; and then 24 other cities, specified in the deed, were to receive in succession 1017. each, for one year. At the end of every 34 years the same rotation was to commence, Bristol receiving 1001. for 10 years, and each of the other cities 1047. for one year. No provision was made in the deed for the application of the surplus which would, thus remain, when the 100%. or 1041. were deducted from the annual rent of 120l. The question at issue was, whether this surplus should be appropriated by the Corporation of Bristol to their own benefit, or should be given to the charity. The case had been brought before the court, by application from the Attorney General, and by complaint from the president and scholars of St. John's College. The other party had demurred, and the demurrer now came to be argued. Mr. Wetherell argued at great length for the application. He contended that as the corporation were not purchasers for themselves, but for the charity, they could not be entitled to the $ surplus. In the case of wills, executors are not to appropriate a surplus; but where the rent afterwards exceeds the sum directed by the testator, application is to be made to the court for direction. Trustees of charity are in the same predicament as executors of a will. Beneficial rights are not to arise from fiducial duties. Here were 10l. the application of which was not directed, but it appeared from the tenor of the deed that the donor intended this surplus to guard against casualties. There was no reason why it should be given to the trustees, although it was not otherwise disposed of. The universal rule of law, which denies to a trustee any beneficial title, except what is specifically stated, decides that the silence of the donor, with regard to this surplus, destroys the claim of the corporation. This deed was prepared by a declaration of trust. It was not a covenant, as had been alleged. The corporation were therefore in the same case as all other trustees. The learned Counsel cited several cases, in which he contended that the decisions of the court destroyed the right of the corporation. Mr. Taunton followed on the same side. It would be agreed on all hands that this question was to be decided by a reference to the intention of the donor. The deed of trust appointed "that the six score pounds arising from such lands and tenements are to be applied by said Mayor, Burgesses, and Commonalty, in manner as afterwards stated, and to no other uses, intents, and purposes." Here is an express an express disposition of the land to certain uses; and to find what these uses are, we have only to read through the deed. For the first ten years the city of Bristol is to have the exclusive benefit of the revenue. This shows that the corporation of that city did not undertake the management of the charity, without adequate reward. Lands at that time were selling at 20 years' purchase, and thus the city of Bristol had, in fact, half the value of the land for the trouble of the trustees. The terms of the deed require inspectors or visiters to be appointed. It was argued formerly by Mr. Bell, that this provision was incompatible with a trust. But if it be considered that deeds of trust were not then so common, nor so well understood, as at present, this provision will be satisfactorily accounted for. The learned counsel here adverted to the case of the Attorney-general v. the Corporation of Coventry, which had been decided in favour of the charity. In many points the present case was stronger in favour of the charity than the one he had cited. There, there was only a covenant, while here there is a trust. The only point of difference which might be thought to operate against this charity was the unprovided surplus. This appeared the only difference between the two cases that could be unfavourable to the present application. But this was at once done away, by the case of Attorney general v. Arnold. There the whole property particularly appropriated did not amount to one half of the surplus, and yet the whole was declared to belong to the charity. The principle on which the claim of the corporation was founded appeared to him absurd in the extreme. They say to the charity, "If the rents fall, the charity is to be reduced, because we are not to be losers; but if they increase, the donor intended that we should be the gainers by the rise, not you." Here was no reciprocity-no risk of loss to counterbalance the probability of gain. This amounted almost to a demonstration that the intention of the donor was, that if any surplus remained with the trustees, it could only be left in their hands to defray any inci dental expenses that might attend the execution of the trust, and not for their own benefit. Mr. Fillimore followed on the same side. Mr. Bell replied for the corporation. The gentlemen on the other side had travelled over a wide field of argument, while, in his opinion, the question might be reduced within a very narrow compass. The case rested entirely on what was the intent of the parties in the deed. It is said, that the corporation are deriving great profits from the management of this charity. If that question were entered into, the gentlemen would find themselves egregiously mistaken. He would say a few words as to covenants. Mr. Wetherell had stated, as a broad assertion, that where persons are appointed trustees, they are bound by every law of trust. If he meant that trustees were trustees, he (Mr. Bell) did notdispute it [a laugh.] He would not deny that a trust might be declared |