Martindale's UnClaimed Money, Lands and Estates Manual.  CHAPTER V.
DORMANT FUNDS IN CHANCERY.


**************************************************************************
USGENWEB ARCHIVES NOTICE:  These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in
any format for profit or presentation by any other organization or persons.
Persons or  organizations desiring to use this material, must obtain the
written consent of the contributor, or the legal representative of the
submitter, and contact the listed USGenWeb archivist with proof of this
consent. The submitter has given permission to the USGenWeb Archives to
store the file permanently for free access.

This file contributed by Tina S. Vickery, <TVick65536@aol.com>
***************************************************************************

Devoted to the Interests of all who are in search of Unclaimed Money,
Lands or Estates---Next of Kin---Heirs at Law---Legatees, Etc. Etc.
Etc. by J. B. Martindale

Attorney and Counselor at Law.

[Author of "Martindale's United States Law Directory," "The Commercial
and Legal Gude," and late Editor of the "American Law Magazine."]
Chicago:  J. B. Martindale.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884, by J. B.
Martindale, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington
D. C.

Press of Ottaway Printing Co., Chicago.

pages 31-39


CHAPTER V.  DORMANT FUNDS IN CHANCERY.


Before quoting statistics as to these Funds, it may be useful to give
a little historical information (gathered. from a Blue Book on
Chancery Funds), as to the origin of the Accountant-General's Office,
and, as to the amount of funds belonging to the Suitors.

In the olden time the Masters in Chancery had the custody of all
moneys and effects deposited in Court in the suits referred to them,
and. the Usher took charge of any property brought into Court in suits
which had not been referred to one of the Masters. The Masters and the
Usher were responsible for all moneys and other property received by
them, and were bound to distribute the property so entrusted to them
by Orders of the Court. In the meantime they employed the money in
their hands for their own benefit. This practice continued until the
bursting of the South Sea Bubble, when it was found that several of
the Masters were defaulters. The defalcation amounted to over £100,000
; it was made good by increased fees on the Suitors, and stringent
precautions were taken to prevent a recurrence of such a scandal. Each
Master was directed by an Order of the Lord Chancellor of 1724 to
procure and send to the Bank of England a chest with one lock, and
hasps for two padlocks; the key of the lock to be kept by the Master,
the key of one of the padlocks by one of the six Clerks in Chancery,
and the key of the other by the Governor or Cashier of the Bank. Each
Master was ordered to deposit in his chest all moneys and securities
in his hands belonging to the suitors, and the chests were then to be
locked up and left in the custody of the Bank, and to be so kept that
the Masters might have easy access thereto, under Orders of the Court.
This plan did not work well, for it was found that by the rules of the
Bank of England the vault where the chests were kept could not be
opened unless two of the Directors were present with their keys; and
it was soon found that great trouble, difficulty and expense would be
occasioned to the Suitors by requiring the attendance of no less than
five officials whenever any of the chests had to be opened to deliver
out effects and to receive the interest due. In 1725. therefore, a
General Order was made directing that all money and effects should be
taken from the Masters' chests and given into the custody of the Bank.
Duplicate accounts were to be kept at the Bank and at the Chancery
Report Office, and any dealing with the Suitor's money was to be
certified to the Report Office. Another General Order extended the
plan to moneys and effects in the custody of the Usher of the Court.
In 1726 the first Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery was
appointed, and all funds in the custody of the Masters or Ushers were
transferred to his charge. An act of Parliament passed in 1725, gives
power to appoint an Accountant-General, and contains elaborate
provisions with reference to the custody and safety of the Suitors'
Funds. The following section evidently points to the misappropriations
above referred to:

" To the end that all misapplications or wastings of the subject's
money by any officer of the High Court of Chancery may be entirely
prevented for the future. Be it therefore further enacted that the
Accountant-General shall not meddle with the actual receipt of any of
the money or effects of the Suitors, but shall only keep the account
with the Bank lid the said Accountant-General, observing the rules
hereby presented, or hereafter to be presented to him by the said
Court, shall not be answerable for any money or effects which he shall
not actually receive; and the Bank of England shall be answerable for
all the moneys and effects of he Suitors which are or shall be
actually received by them."

Having thus glanced at the origin of the office if Accountant-General
of the Court of Chancery, a word or two as to the funds dealt with by
the Court may not be out of place here. From the Annual Budget of the
Paymaster-General it appears that the receipts for the year ending
31st August, 1880, added to the Securities then in Court, made up a
grand total if £ 95,504,487 9s. 5d. After deducting payments during
the year there remained in hand £ 75,108,835 5s. 1d., exclusive of
foreign currencies of he value of about £ 400,000. These enormous sums
were mainly thus invested:

Consolidated 3 per cent. Annuities, £ 47,542,458 9s. 9d. , cash, £
£5,234,015 15s. 4d. ; reduced 3 per cent. Annuities, £ 5,855,561 16s.
10d. ; new 3 per cent. Annuities, £ 8,470,314 6s. 9d. The residue was
made up of India Stock, Exchequer Bills, Metropolitan Consolidated
Stocks, and Stocks of most of the leading Railway, Dock and other
Companies.

After being informed of these extraordinary investments, no one will
be surprised to hear that very considerable sums of Unclaimed Money
have, from time to time, accumulated ; in fact, the Royal Courts of
Justice have been built almost entirely with the surplus interest of
the Suitors' money. By an Act passed in 1865 power is given to apply
,£1,000,000 from funds standing in the books of the Bank of England to
an account entitled: 'Account of securities purchased with surplus
interest arising from securities carried to the account-of moneys
placed out for the benefit and better security of the Suitors of the
Court of Chancery."

It would seem, therefore, that these unclaimed funds have been
utilized to lighten the burden of taxation, it being impossible to
divide the surplus interest among the Suitors.

The Dormant Funds have frequently been the subject of investigation.
From a Return presented to Parliament in 1829, it appears that the
total amount of Stock on which the dividends had not been received for
years and upwards previous to that date (1829), was £127,904; for
fifteen years, £ 22,288;, for ten years,  £7O,498; and for five years,
£201,558. The total amount of Suitors' Stock then in Court was £38,
597,322. 

In 1853 the Suitors' Further Relief Act was passed. By it the Lord
Chancellor was empowered to cause an investigation to be made into the
several accounts standing in the name of the Accountant-General to the
credit of any cause or matter, the dividends of which had not been
dealt with for fifteen years or upwards, and if, and when, he should
be of opinion that it was not probable that any claim would be made
for the same, to make Orders for the appropriation of the future
dividends or such part of such dividends as he should be of opinion
might safely and properly be so appropriated, for the benefit of the
Suitors, and for the carrying the same over to an account, to be
entitled "The Suitors' Unclaimed Dividend Account" and for the
carrying over, from time to time, such part of the cash standing to
the last mentioned account, as he might think fit, to the credit of
"The Suitors' Fee Fund Account." Directions were also given for a
similar investigation to be made at the expiration of every five
years.

The first investigation under the provisions of the foregoing Act was
made in 1854. By a Return made to the House of Commons in July, 1854,
it appears that the number of accounts undealt with for fifteen years
previously to 1st May, 1854, was 566, and the total amount of such
Stock £256,175 2s. 8d., the total amount of Suitor's Stock then in
Court being £46,000,000. In 1855, a list containing the titles of such
accounts, but not stating the amounts, was printed and exhibited in
the Chancery Offices, with the following highly satisfactory result:
"Many persons came forward and preferred their claims, and about one-
half of the Stock supposed to be unclaimed was transferred out of
Court to successful claimants." A fact for skeptical people to ponder
over, and very encouraging news for claimants.

In 1860 and 1866, similar lists were published, but the total amount
of funds then lying dormant does not appear therein. The
investigations under the "Suitors' Further Relief Act" are of a
limited character, and do not apply to many unclaimed funds invested
by the Accountant-General under the provisions of the "Infant Legacy
Act," the" Trustee Relief Act," and other Acts. The first
investigation into the amount of Suitors' Unclaimed Cash in Court was
made in 1850, and a Return was presented to Parliament showing the
result as follows:

Number of accounts 4,013 ; valuation (cash and stocks), £562,039. This
Return does not include cash arising from interest or dividends on the
Unclaimed Stock. 

When Mr. Lowe (now Lord Sherbrooke), was Chancellor of the Exchequer,
Rev.W. St. J. Wheelhouse, M. P., at the request of an influential
deputation, put himself into communication with Mr. Lowe, with a view
to having greater publicity given to the list of Unclaimed Funds in
Chancery, but Mr. Lowe could not be prevailed upon to alter the
arrangements then existing, namely, --exhibiting the list in the
Chancery Offices. However, in 1872, the Court of Chancery Funds Act
was passed, and by the Rules made thereunder a List of Dormant Funds
in Chancery was ordered to be triennially published in the London
Gazette. The first list under the new Act was looked for in 1873, but
it did not see the light till March, 1877. It contained about 2,500
entries, some of them curious. Thus:-

" Joseph Barlow --Absent beyond seas; Bowden v. Bayley --The account
of unpaid claimants entitled to £100 each; Bryan v. Collins -- The
accumulated account; Baxter v. Facherell -- The schooling and
apprenticing fund; Bleadon v. Haynes --The plough, furniture, stock,
and effects account; Brooks v. Levey The legatees' and annuitants'
account; Sophia Deacle -- Present address unknown; Bryant v. Story --
Legacy bequeathed for the relief of widows and orphans of soldiers
killed in war; in the matter of the proceeds of derelict property
brought into the Port of Nassau, in New Providence, and sold for the
benefit of the rightful owner when appearing, according to the Act 12
Anne, c. 18, s. 2; Drever vs. Maudsley --The one hundred years term
account; Gurden v. Badcock.  The creditors under the deed of 2nd
September, 1791; Heyden v. Owen -- The account of the seamen belonging
to H. M. ships Decade and Argonaut; Milner v. Gilbert -- The foreign
securities and shares account; Mason v. lee-The descended estate;
Prince v. Bourjot -The ten hogsheads account; Winter v. Kent -- Fund
to answer the unclaimed legacy given by the will of the testator,
James Underhill; Wroughton v. Wroughton --The plate and picture
account; Yates v. Rawlins --The account of Shareholders who did not
come in to substantiate their claims; the account of the unclaimed
legacy of Sebastian Nash de Brissac."

In addition to the foregoing the Bank of England is custodian of a
number of boxes, etc., belonging to the Suitors. The following are the
most noticeable items:

"A box containing small articles of jewelry; a paper marked, 'George
Colman, Will'; a box marked, 'Diamond Necklace, Coronet and Earrings ;
a box containing plate and other articles; a bag, of clipped money,
etc, 'Jones v. Lloyd, August, 1726); two boxes containing plate,
belonging to a person of unsound mind."

Complaints were made in the House of Commons of the delay in issuing
the List, and reform in this respect was promised.

The second List was not issued until 23 June, 1881. It contains some
a,000 entries, each representing an unclaimed fund of E50 or upwards.
No improvement iii the form of the list was observable ' and the
following notice of motion was given in the House of Commons:

"MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON. - Dormant Funds in Chancery. -- To call
attention to the unsatisfactory form in which the list of causes, to
the credit of which unclaimed money belonging to the suitors is
standing, is Issued ; and to move, -- That future lists be strictly
alphabetically arranged, with cross-references to the sub-titles;
together with the names and last known addresses of the persons
originally entitled; the date of the last decree or order; and the
amount unclaimed.

On March 10, 1882, an interesting debate arose on Mr. Leighton's
motion, of which the following is a short summary:

Mr. Leighton observed that an abuse existed -which might be readily
and easily removed. The magnitude of the question was apparent when it
was considered that many millions of money passed through the hands of
the Paymaster in Chancery every year. Large sums of the suitors' money
were borrowed to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry
through his financial operations, and the New Palace of Justice had
been mainly built with the surplus interest of the suitors' money. In
1881 Mr. Gladstone borrowed no less than £ 40,000,000 of the suitors'
money for National Debt purposes. Therefore the suitors had some claim
to consideration. The letter and the spirit of Acts of Parliament were
in favor of publicity, which, indeed, was called for by common
honesty. In the olden time, the Suitors' funds bad been
misappropriated by high officials, who were heavily fined. In our own
time, Orders have been passed to the effect that a list of dormant
funds should be published every three years, and in alphabetical
order. It was not published every three years, and when published, it
was not in alphabetical order. . . . . Names and addresses ought to be
given. This was done in the lists issued by the India Office and the
War Office; some of these lists were replete with suggestive details,
and would serve as useful models for our Chancery officials. The
result of publishing insufficient information was that encouragement,
was given to the levying of blackmail. If proper lists were published,
claimants would not have to pay a fancy percentage for information.
The usual answer to these complaints was that unfounded claims had to
be guarded against; but it was equally the duty of other Government
departments to protect themselves against unfounded claims, and they
did it without making a secret of information that ought to be
published. What would be thought of a member of this House if he found
in the Library a pocket-book containing bank-notes, and -said nothing
about it for fear an unfounded claim should be made? In respect to
these funds, the Government were trustees, with duties to the public;
and they were bound to give all the information they could. The true
owners were those who would be claimants if they had the knowledge of
their rights. The knowledge was kept back by the Office, which held
and utilized the money. A stereotyped official reply had hitherto been
given; but what he wished to do was to sweep away the cobwebs of
officialism, and to secure the publication of intelligible lists.
(Hear, hear.)

Mr. Findlanter seconded the motion. He highly approved of the form of
index suggested . . . . the present system tended to confuse searchers
. . . . officials might say that the present lists were sufficient,
but the public were not satisfied, and the interests of the public
ought to be first considered in the matter. Grave scandals sometimes
occurred in consequence of the non-publication of information. His
attention had recently been called to a case before the Master of the
Rolls, in Ireland, from which it appeared that a clerk in the
Accountant-General's Office in Ireland, had communicated, it was
supposed innocently, to a solicitor in Dublin, the fact that a
derelict fund of £ 8,000 was remaining in Court. The consequence was
that the solicitor, having looked at the file of proceedings,
communicated with the parties interested, and made a bargain with them
that, if be told them of that particular fund, he should get one-third
of the £ 8,000. The Master of the Rolls strongly animadverted oil the
matter, expressing a hope that that would be the last occasion on
which, either casually or by design, such a communication would be
made, and also a hope that steps would be taken to compel publication
of accounts of derelict funds. In Ireland they had no Act similar to
that under which even those defective lists were published in England
. . . . . Measures, he thought, ought to be adopted, both in this
country and in Ireland, to prevent the appropriation of these funds by
the Government.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. - These Dormant Funds amounted to about a
hundredth part only of the total Chancery funds, and consisted, for
the most part, of very small amounts.*  After a lapse of time they
were not thought sufficiently important for persons to make out a
claim because  they were so small.  The list was not made out in
strictly alphabetical order; but an alternation in that respect might
be made . . . . . If there was an obligation it publish the list every
three years, it certainly ought to be fulfilled . . . .   The further
information desired would involve great labor and trouble as to the
small amounts, which the Paymaster could not undertake . . . . . He
was quite sure that in this country, however poor a man might be, he
would be able to employ a solicitor . . . .  Those having practical
acquaintance with the whole question, thought that sufficient
information was already furnished, to enable persons who had a claim,
to support it, while shutting out those who made a trade of the
matter.

MR. SALT. -- What was wanted was sufficient publicity without too much
of it . . . . . It might be well that the lists should be published
annually instead of triennially.

MR. DONALDSON HUDSON. -The funds did not always consist of small
amounts, as had been stated by the Attorney-General. He knew a case in
which upwards of £ 10,000 had been paid into the Suitors' Fund, where
it totally escaped notice for twenty years without earning any
interest for those entitled to the money. (year.) When a private
person applied, all information was refused; the employment of a
solicitor was essential. It was rather hard that those who had only
small sums in Chancery should be refused all information except they
employed a solicitor The result was that some of those interested
never got their money. Unless the lists were properly published, these
Dormant Funds would go on increasing.

DR. LYONS suggested that instead of claimants having to employ a
solicitor, a fee of 1s. should be charged each applicant, as at
Somerset House. He would like to see a similar step taken with regard
to unclaimed stock and dividends in the public funds. (Hear, hear.)

MR. GRAY regretted that the Attorney-General had not referred to the
subject of cross-indexes. The adoption of such a system would, he
thought, be of advantage to the parties interested. He could not
understand how it was that the motion was opposed. For his own part,
he believed that, if carried, it would be attended with beneficial
results.

The motion was unfortunately defeated by a majority of 19, but the
question is too important to the public to be a lowed to slumber.

On March 9, 1883, Mr. Stanley Leighton renewed his motion, and the
Attorney-General promised that future Lists should contain sufficient
information for legitimate claimants; the amount standing to the
credit of each suit would be given. The next List would be published
soon after 30 September, 1883.

The debate was commented on in the leading newspapers, thus:-

Times. - The subject of Dormant Funds in Chancery is one which relates
to a matter of the greatest importance to a vast number of persons. A
hundredth part of the Suitors' Funds mean more than £ 751,000. Looking
at the question from the Suitors' point of view, it must be admitted
that each person -would prefer reading over the list himself, and
finding there the clue which would lead to the discovery he hopes to
make . . . . the particulars exist which might enable much of this
money to be successfully claimed. It would, no doubt, be a work of
some labor to re-publish the present list with the addition of all the
information suggested, but it might be done if some official were told
off to compile from the records the necessary facts. We can see no
difficulty in providing effectual remedies against the abuses
contemplated by the Attorney-General.

Observer: - Mr. Leighton has done good service in calling public
attention to the funds now lying dormant in Chancery, and it is to be
hoped that things will not be allowed to remain as they are. At
intervals lists of these unclaimed funds are indeed ' published, but
they are lists which any man of business would be ashamed of.

Standard. - Owners for these funds could presumably be found if proper
facilities were afforded for investigation. If the existing lists were
modified in the sense proposed by Mr. Stanley Leighton, there is no
doubt that a large proportion of these Dormant Funds would find their
way into the pockets of their rightful owners.

The next list of Dormant Funds will be looked for with some curiosity
The one on which the debate arose was out of print soon after it was
issued. Its great value may be estimated by the fact that the legal
papers reprinted it in extenso.

A good precedent for the suggested improvement in form of the List is
a notice issued "for general information," by order of the Secretary
of State for India, in 1879. That notice was published in the leading
newspapers, and contains a List of "Unclaimed Balances," amounting to
upwards of £ 10,000, and it gives the following particulars: - (1)
date when account opened; (2) title of account; and (3) amount in
Government securities and Cash awaiting claimants. It is, not,
therefore, easy to understand why information voluntarily given by one
Department of the State should be refused by another. - Preston's
Unclaimed Money.

The following is from the London Law Journal of recent date, and will
be found interesting in this connection:

" The publication by the Chancery Pay Office of the list of causes
having balances to their credit which have not been dealt with for
fifteen years, is likely to produce much investigation, and to give
rise to many expectations, some reasonable and others absurd. If the
document penetrates across the Atlantic, as in all probability it
will, some heart-stirring may be expected among our American cousins,
some of whom are credited with extravagant notions as to the fortunes
merely waiting to be claimed by them in England. In 1855 the first of
the lists was published-not printed, we believe, but exhibited in the
Chancery offices-and, according to the report of the Chancery Funds
Commissioners, many persons came forward and preferred their claims,
and about one-half the stock supposed to be unclaimed was transferred
out of Court to successful claimants. This result is encouraging to
investigators of the list; but, of course the gleaners of 1855 being
the first comers, had by far the best opportunities. In 1872 the
Chancery Funds Act was passed, and the rules made in 1874, under the
authority of that Act, after providing (Rule 90) that 'the Chancery
Paymaster may, in his discretion, on a request in writing, supply such
information with respect to any transactions in the Chancery Pay
Office as may from time to time be required in any particular case,'
continue (Rule 91) as follows:

As soon as conveniently, may be after September 1, 1875, and after the
same day in every succeeding third year, a list shall be prepared by
the Chancery Paymaster, and filed in the Report Office, and a copy
thereof shall be inserted in the London Gazette, and exhibited in the
several offices of the Court, of the titles of the causes and matters
in the books at the Chancery Pay Office (other than the causes or
matters referred to in Rule 92), to the credit of which any securities
or any money amounting to or exceeding £ 50 may be standing, which
money, or the dividends on which securities, have not been dealt with
by the Accountant-General, or by the Chancery Paymaster (otherwise
than by the continuous investment or placing on deposit of dividends)
during the fifteen years immediately preceding such September 1, 'and
no information shall be given by the Chancery Paymaster respecting any
money or securities to the credit of a cause or matter contained in
any such list, until be has been furnished with a statement in writing
by a Solicitor, requiring such information, of the name of the person
on whose behalf he applies, and that, in such solicitor's opinion, the
applicant is beneficially interested in such money or securities.'

As soon as conveniently, might be after September 1, 1875, was found
to be no earlier than March 1, 1877, when the second list was
published. Some impression on the unclaimed funds must have been made
after that list was issued; and, now the third list has arrived, it
will, no doubt, be found less open to attack, but still not to be
overlooked by the enterprising. The object of the rule was, doubtless,
that there should be list every three years, but this intention has
not been observed. It was only after some correspondence in these
columns, and other pressure, that he present list is now produced. It
has been suggested that the amount banding to the credit of the cause
should be published, as well as its name. ionic of the amounts would
probably make the mouth water, and perhaps he officials are wise in
not offering too tempting a bait to the cupidity of persons who may
not be over-scrupulous in backing their claims. No mount, it should be
observed, is less than £ 50- a sum to which even the richest do not
usually object. There is, therefore, quite sufficient inducement to
any one who may think he has an interest in the cause, to make
inquiries. The names of some 3,000 causes are open to be scanned y
hopeful eyes. The fact that the amount of the prize is unknown may,
perhaps, add zest to the pursuit. But the fact that the property of he
Chancery Division of the High Court amounts to a sum nearer
£100,000,000 than £ 50,000,000 sterling -a not unhandsome slice of
which is unclaimed -- shows that much is to be won. The bulk of the
enormous sum in the hands of the Chancery Division is, of course, left
there, even then dividends are unclaimed for fifteen years. The Court
is the great administrator of property which executors, trustees, and
others prefer not o take the responsibility of distributing for
themselves; and trusts for accumulation, life interests, and other
causes, account for much that is At untouched for many years. Still,
there are sure to be some happy discoveries, resulting in the receipt
of welcome sums. Acute and persevering investigators need not fear
that enough will not be left out of their savings to finish the New
Law Courts, and we hope that many of them will be successful in
rescuing conformable sums from the maw of the Commissioners for the
Reduction of the National Debt.

Not so practically important, but more interesting to the average
reader, is the list of 'boxes and other miscellaneous effects'
remaining in the Bank of England to the credit of the Chancery
Division. Compared with the list of causes with balances unclaimed for
fifteen years, the list of boxes is short, but it gives some details
which might well be given in the longer list. Most of the causes are
marked with the 'letter, year, and number' which now appears in the
title of every cause, the most material part of which is the year in
which the writ was issued. The year is, of course, a useful guide to
the searcher, and in future issues of the list of causes with
unclaimed balances, we hope that it will appear, as well as in the
list of boxes. It may be assumed that the causes in this latter list,
which contain no numbers and letters, were commenced before it became
the practice so to identify causes - that is, before 1853. Only one of
those not so identified contains any indication of the date of the
cause. All the rest must, therefore, be treated as 'aged,' like the
horses whose years are not given in one of Mr. Tattersall's
catalogues. One box is not identified even by the name of a cause, but
is described simply as 'a box containing small articles of jewelry.'
It will probably be long before the contents of this box adorns any
place more becoming than the Bank cellars, but even its chance of
revisiting the light is not hopeless. Not long since, we related in
these columns a romantic story of a similar box, the contents of which
had been long condemned to the-same obscurity. The Bank servants, some
years ago, laid hands upon it, and it fell to pieces when touched. It
was found to contain a quantity of plate of the period of Charles II.
There was also a bundle of love letters, of the time of the
Restoration, which performed the prosaic office of disclosing the
owner of the plate, which his representative duly received. There are
several entries of 'plate, jewelry and trinkets,' heirlooms, no doubt,
of value and interest ; otherwise they would hardly be where they are;
one of ' family relics,' and one of  'presentation plate.' Many of the
contents are described vaguely as 'securities,' and some as
'promissory notes' -baits which will not tempt investigation so
strongly as solid silver. One box is marked, 'His Majesty, the King of
Spain, v. Valles and others; securities,' but we have no clue to which
king it was, or whether the securities are Spanish bonds. A little
investigation would, probably, soon disclose the owner of most of this
property. The Chancery Division does not, it must be confessed, take a
very high view of its duties in reference to the property deposited
with it. If a trustee, who found himself possessed of valuable
property belonging to his beneficiaries, were to use no more diligence
to discover their owner than does the Chancery Division, no judge
would fail to pronounce him guilty of a grave breach of duty. The
highest Court of Equity in the Kingdom contents itself with playing a
sort of game of hunt the slipper with the public. If ownership is
satisfactorily proved, the Court will disgorge, but not otherwise.
With regard to unclaimed funds and other property of long standing, an
official ought to be appointed to discover by all the means available,
and by advertisement, whose they are. As it is, the public are left to
trust to the ingenuity and penetration of themselves and their legal
advisers."

---* This is a mistake; each fund represents the some of £ 5o or
upwards; the very small amounts are not published at all.