case the attorney general versus price July the jurisdiction of this court  over charity do not extend to such where local visitor be appoint for then he  and his heir have a right a information have be bring relate to the school of  Barkhampstead a charity find the second and three year of Edward the six by  act of parliament Lord chancellor though this court have a general  jurisdiction over charity by atkins issue a commission and likewise can give  direction for the management of a charity yet this do not extend to  charityschool where local visitor be appoint if there be a private visitor  then he and his heir have a right vide green v Rutherford Ves attorney general  v Middleton Ves if there be a public endowment by the crown then a commission  may issue from this court to inspect the charity and the application of the  money but if by letter patent or a act of parliament a local visitor be  appoint this court can interpose attorney general v governor of harrow school  Ves attorney general v corporation of Bedford ibidem the warden oh f all soul  be the visitor here attorney general v lock post but the misfortune of this  case have be the reward be so small to the visitor only thirteen shilling and  fourpence that he have never think it worth while to exercise his visitatorial  authority I may possible give the visitor a augmentation hereafter local  visitor do not visit but from three year to three year yet they may if they  please hear complaint within that time this be a school of a very noble  foundation and ought to be take care of but I do not see any evidence of  improper behaviour in the schoolmaster and usher all that be prove be a  decrease of scholar but that declension do not necessary arise from the  misbehaviour of the schoolmaster or usher for this may depend upon a superior  or inferior ability in they there be evidence beside that there be another  school for teach English and arithmetic which have be a diminution of this  school in respect to number parent choose rather to send their child there I  think they very much in the right of it for send child of the low sort of  people to a Latin school give they a wrong turn and take off their inclination  to husbandry and trade which be more suitable to their degree in the world  therefore as to this part the information must be dismiss with cost next as to  the account the poor be entitle to the surplus after the master and usher  stipend be aid and repair there be twelve lease expire and if not let I must  presume that the master and usher of the school have receive the rend ever  since who be make a corporation for that purpose atkins however I can direct  the master to inquire what repair be necessary and to make the master and  usher all just allowance as to let the lease for the future one consideration  be whether I shall let for the improve rend or direct fine to be take and I  shall have a regard to the poor and to prevent the rich from take it to  themselves I will order the surplus shall be pay to such poor as be not  maintain by the parish I will leave it to the master to inquire whether let on  improve rend or lease upon fine be for the benefit of the charity since a  great deal depend upon the custom of the country the lease I direct to be let  to the best bidder and whether upon fine or the atkins er p improve rackrent  proper covenant to be insert for the tenant to keep the house in repair and to  payall the charge of such repair I will reserve the consideration whether the  court be empower to augment the stipend of the master and usher and in what  proportion till the cause come back again after the report Jones v Jones  atkins pound er report date case jones versus jones July c post Semb a bill  charge forgery in a lease and pray t oh be relieve against that but by way of  inducement only mention there be fraudulent circumstance attend this case  without make it a distinct charge from the forgery or bring the trustee who be  party to the lease and to who the fraud be impute before the court and for  want of this the defendant counsel object to the plaintiff go on with the  cause Lord Hardwicke say as there have be already a decretal order and a issue  to try the forgery and bring on now upon the equity reserve the only method to  assist this case be to let the cause stand over and to allow the plaintiff on  pay the cost of the day to bring a supplemental bill in which he may charge  the fraud and make the trustee party the bill be bring to set aside a lease  for forgery and charge no other fact against the defendant but by way of  inducement only that there be fraudulent circumstance attend this case but the  plaintiff do not by the bill make it a clear and distinct charge from the  forgery andbesides pray to be relieve only as to the forgery it be object by  the defendant counsel that the plaintiff can go on upon this part of the case  because they have not put it proper in issue so that the defendant have have  no opportunity of apply his defence or give any answer to the pretend fraud  and imposition and beside if there be any fraud insist to be in the trustee  who be party to the lease and who have be guilty of a breach of trust in not  carry the trust into execution the plaintiff ought to have make they party to  the suit atkins Lord chancellor this cause have be bring on very odd and the  objection for want of party come very late for the rule be that it ought to be  upon open the proceed and before the merit be disclose it be frequent know  that after a cause be go into and even through hear yet the court be compel to  let it stand over for want of party therefore the objection though it be not  take in time must have its weight because otherwise the court can on the one  hand do justice to the defendant and on the other I shall be oblige to dismiss  the bill which be never do now though it be attempt by sir Joseph Jekyll  former but reverse on a appeal to Lord chancellor king and since that time  cause be order only to stand over on pa the cost of the day that the plaintiff  may have a opportunity of make proper party so anon ante vol green v pool bro  par can and Edward bro P C say vide Stafford v city of London p W vide etian  woodcock v king ante vol in this case after there have be one hear already and  a issue direct to try the forgery and the cause bring on upon the equity  reserve the objection be now make for want of party and not before as here  have be then a decretal order and there can be a new examination in the cause  as it be close and publication pass all that I can do to assist this case be  by give the plaintiff leave to bring a supplemental bill and make a distinct  charge of the fraud and the trustee party if the bill which be now at hear  have be proper frame that be if it have state both the point of relief plain  and clear first the forgery and then if the lease be not forge yet that it be  fraudulent there though the plaintiff have not prevail to set aside the deed  for forgery he may have proceed on the point of the fraud I remember a case  before Lord Macclesfield who direct a issue on the forgery and the deed be  find not to be forge my Lord Macclesfield permit the plaintiff when it come on  upon the equity reserve to proceed on the fraud because the charge in the bill  be distinct but here there be no other fact charge but the forgery and I must  not surprise atkins er p the defendant who have no notice of the lease be  impeach for fraud and therefore be not prepare with any defence as to the  fraud atkins it have be object there be no receipt give on the back of the  lease for the consideration of three hundred and fifty pound but it be not  very usual to give receipt for fine on the back of a lease now it be insist by  the defendant counsel the trustee ought to be make party that if the plaintiff  prevail the defendant may have relief over against they who have be guilty of  a breach of trust if they have not apply the pound towards the execution of  the trust there be another point on the general head which entitle the  defendant to have the trustee before the court and that be if the defendant  shall appear to have pay the trustee the three hundred and fifty pound as he  insist he do and it be no answer to say that the defendant ought to have bring  a cross bill for when a person bring a bill to set aside a deed for forgery  fraud and imposition it be his business to have all proper party before the  court and the defendant be not oblige to bring a cross bill as this bill be  frame the defendant be excusable for not make his objection for want of party  soon and therefore I shall direct the cause to stand over and the plaintiff to  pay the cost of the day and thereupon leave he at liberty to bring a  supplemental bill and to make the trustee or the representative of they party  who join in the lease of the first of September and his lordship direct accord