The Attorney-General v Marrett

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 22 December 1846
• Date: 22 December 1846
• Court: Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

and

MARRETT.

The Attorney-General v. Ball See ante p. 146.

Kenney v. Browne 3 Ridg. P. C. 462.

Harris v. IngledewENR 3 P. Wms. 91.

Eyre v. Dolphin 2 B. & Bea. 222.

The Attorney-General v. Backhouse 17 Ves. 283.

Hesse v. stevensonENR 3 Bos. & P. 578.

Brett v. BealasENR M. & M. 421.

Ballard v. Way 1 M. & Wel. 529.

Whitbread v. Jordon 1 Y. & Col. 303.

CASES IN EQUITY. 167 felt difficulty in holding that a charitable trust was attached to any part of this property. Therefore, I shall not give the costs of that part of the information against Mr. Watson. But I think I cannot give him the costs of it ; because although the relators have not shown a charitable trust, they have abundantly shown the applicaÂtion of the property to corporate and not to private purposes, and that the application of it was known to all those concerned in the lease in question, and so I cannot consider the evidence altogether irrelevant to the case. Reg. Lib. 96, fol. 109, 1846. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. MARRETT. 1846. Nov.10,11,12. Dec. V. of the Common Council to audit his accounts, of whom Alderman answer relies Marrett was one ; that the committee did not report until the 29th generally on of August 1823, and that at the time of making that report Alder- as his right purchaser for man Marrett, with the privity and assent of Lord Gort, and as the value without notice,but does information charged, in pursuance of a fraudulent arrangement not specifically between them, made a proposal to become tenant to the Island of modafepanatryti Scattery. It further stated that by lease, dated the 19th September evpraatrneet isoetkui gr. 1717, the Corporation had demised those lands to one Randall Holland with which he at a yearly rent of £34. 2s. 6d. for ninety-nine years, which lease is charged in having expired in 1816, the Corporation became entitled to the pos- and the hill, would sesion of the lands, and in 1817 commenced proceedings by ejectment invalidate his title, the plain tiff not except. ing to the answer is bound to prove notice. A statute relating to the corporate property of a city, with the usual clause declarÂing that it shall be deemed a public Act, does not bind strangers with notice ; and the mere probability of a purchaser knowing it or precautions taken by him in a purchase of corporate property will not fix him with constructive notice. (a) See ante p. 146. 168 CASES IN EQUITY. to recover possession thereof, which did not terminate until the year 1829. The information then stated, that on the 29th of Aucrust two Aug 7 days before the Limerick Regulation Act came into operation, a special meeting of the Common Council was held without notice, at which Lord Gort and others, and his partizans, and, amongst them, Sir C. Marrett, attended, and at which meeting an entry was made, as the information charged, at their suggestion in the books of the Council, stating that a proposal had theretofore been made by Sir C. Marrett to become tenant of the Island of Scattery, at the yearly rent of £34. 2s. 6d., and that it had been resolved-" That the said Island of Scattery should be leased to the said Sir C. Marrett for ever at the said rent ;" and which entry was signed, amongst others, by Sir C. Marrett himself. The information then stated that no such antecedent proposal had ever in fact been made by Sir C. Marrett, and that the said resoluÂtion was entered into with a design to frustrate the...