The GLIO Site

VICE CHANCELLOR’S COURT, Monday, Nov. 18.
———
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. JOLLIFFE AND OTHERS. 

    This was an information filed (nominally) by the Attorney-General against the defendants, Hylton Jolliffe, Thomas S. Jolliffe, J. Twyford Jolliffe, Thomas R. Jolliffe, Wm. J. Jolliffe, Samuel Twyford, and Charles Twyford, at present acting as trustees of Churcher’s College, Petersfield, praying that the Court would remove them from their offices, and appoint other trustees in their places. The application was grounded upon alleged improper conduct.

    Mr. Heald, Mr. Wetherell, and Mr. Glynn appeared in support of the information: Mr. Horne and Mr. Shadwell for the defendants. The circumstances of this case, as they were stated by counsel, were afterwards very clearly detailed in the judgement pronounced by the Court, which in substance was as follows>— The VICE-CHANCELOR said, that whenever a charge was made against the trustees of a charity, of having acted corruptly in the execution of their office, either by the improper application of the property, or in the influence of their power, it became the duty of the Court to examine it with the most jealous attention. On the other hand, when it was not imputed to trustees that they had employed the property or influence vested in them for corrupt purposes, but had administered all that belonged to the charity with the utmost exactitude, and had failed only in fulfilling some regulations, rules, and orders through inadvertence or neglect, the Court was inclined to come to a consideration of the question with the greatest moderation. The greater part of the complaints against the trustees in the present information were of the latter description. The single charge of corrupt conduct was made against Mr. Hylton Jolliffe, a gentleman of large property, and filling a high situation in life. In 1803, the father of this gentleman died, and he succeeded him as acting trustee and treasurer of the charity. When Mr. Hylton Jolliffe became treasurer, it was his duty to inquire whether any and what balance was due to the charity from his father, the late treasurer. It could not have been difficult for Mr. Hylton Jolliffe to have ascertained these points. But Mr. Hylton Jolliffe filled a double character; he was not only treasurer and trustee to the charity, but also executor to his father. It was charged in the information that a large balance of 1600l. was due to the charity from the former treasurer, of which Mr. H. Jolliffe had not paid a single shilling down to the present moment. Mr. Jolliffe answered the charge brought against him by stating that he believed there was a balance due to the charity from his father, of which he admitted he had not paid a shilling, but he added, that his father died insolvent, and that he, as his executor, never possessed any property which he could apply in liquidation of his debts. The Court must send it to the Master to inquire whether the former treasurer died indebted to the charity, and in what sum; and whether Mr. Hylton Jolliffe was possessed of any assets applicable to the payment of his father’s debts, or any part of them. When the result of their inquiry should be known, the Court would determine whether it would allow the defendant to continue in his situation or not. It had been argued that the other trustees had been guilty of negligence, inasmuch as they were cognizant of the balance due by the former treasurer, and yet had never called upon his successor to pay it over to the charity, whereby they had proved themselves to be unfit for the situation which they filled. The present was not the proper time for the Court to decide that question. If it should appear to be necessary when the report of the Master should be made, the Court would then perform its duty. With the exception of the before-mentioned charge, there was nothing in the information which imputed corruption to any of the defendants; but there was a great deal which imputed irregularities to them. ‘Since the Act of Parliament had been passed for regulating the affairs of this charity, the income had increased from 180l. to 600l. per annum: it would therefore be necessary to refer it to the Master to approve of a new scheme of management by which the increased funds would be applied so as best to answer the intention of the founder. It had been said that the trustees were all members of one family, and that they neglected to attend to the duties of their offices, but deputed the head of the family to manage the concerns of the charity. If it had been proved that the trustees had thus defeated the intentions of the founder of the charity, the Court would not hesitate to remove them; but there was no evidence of the fact. It did appear, however, that two of the trustees, namely, Thomas Samuel Jolliffe and John Twyford Jolliffe, had never attended the administration of the affairs of the charity. The Court must take an order for the removal of these gentlemen, unless they would themselves tender their resignation, which would be much pleasanter to the Court. Mr. HORNE stated that those gentlemen would resign.