Court Of Chancery, Monday...
LAW REPORT. lne adjourned hearing of this long, and now very heavy csse, was rerumed. Mr. CtizsG, for the defendant, and MIr. IIEALD, for the con- gregation, exhorted the Court at considerable length not to erant the injunction, because there Waas no contract on the part of Alr. Flet- cher to obey thc Synod which could be found in the decd; and be- cause, If there haid been, it was admitted on the other side, that the Svnod could have no authority over the funds of' the chapel, the ap- plication of which expressly depended upon the majotity ot the con- eregation; ard by consequence, as there was no question of propertv, no there could be none in the case which would admit of the Court's juri'ediction being exercised. TheSoL.sC ITO R-G ENEInAL was partly heard in rcply,and contend- ed for the exerciseof thejurisdiction upon the contract,implied by the deed, bv the usage, and by cornmmion apprchenision, under which Mllr. Fletclehr had baund himself, when taking on himhl the administration of thechapel, iniplicitly to obey {he Synod.. He argued that the new natureof the fact which had been aensemed as a reason why the Court slould gvt interfere, was no reason at all. There was as much reason in restraining a man from preaching in a particular pulpit against hisown contract, as there was in restraining the Ham- merstrtith bell from ringing, because the churchwardens hadcon- tracted with Lady Arabella Howard not to ring it to the distraction of that gentlewoman's tcnder nerves, at 6 o'clock on every morning. On another occasion the Court had ordered Mr. George Colman not to write plays for Covent-garden, because he had contracted to write for the Ilaymtarket. On another occasion the Court had restrained a mnan from felling lemonade and other refreshments to the frequenters of VauxhaLI, becatuse of his contract not to do so. There was nothing whicit could be devised or thought of which might not become incilent in suits of this kind,quite consistently with the most undisputed brancch of equity jurisdiction. The law of patents teemed with these cases, which would be all got rid of by the ridicule a-d affectel surprise of his learned friends that a court of eqaity should be trou'ked with such stranze matters. The IOaRD CHAwcELr.on, by repeated interference in tite course of the pleadings, signified his doubt;-first, whether, supposing the ibatter of accusation against Ir.Fletcher being made out " Rmalverse of conycrsation," according to the rules and constitutiotis of theScotch Synod (and of those rules an(d constitutions hiis Lordship had not the I sfightest evidence before hltTi); and, secondly. if a breacl of prornise of marriage did atmount to tlhat ofWence,and wasso censurable by sus- pernsion or otherwise, whether thte ourt would lend its jutrisdiction to enforce suCt a trust ? Another doubt whiich pressed his Lordship's mind was of a more direct tiature. lie was clearly of opinion that tht proper application of the chapel funds was in the discretion of tte majority of the congregation. If he enjoined Mr. Fletcher from preacititg, the congregation might withhold their sup'4ice to any other minister appointed by the Synod. Tocomplywith t'epetitio-, lie must direct dir. Fletcher not to enter the piti; and the vcry next tay there would be an entd of the congregation and of all the receipts and profits, wlich. if titc injunction were properly Franted, ought to be received for the new Alirnister or the Syno's. V as tltere ever an instance of the Court executing a trust where the decree might be instantly rendered null and void by the will of one of the parties, antl no redress to be had afterwards ? Fuyrther hearing to-morrow. COURT OF (CHANCERY. MONDAY, NOv. 22. TIIE PLFSnYTERY V. REV. ALEX. FLETCHER.