Star. — London, England, 1822-12-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER IL XX.PARTE RUSSEI4I., IN THIC MATTER OF ROlll, A BANKRUPT. This was a Petition to stay the certificate, on the ground that the bankrupt had practised collusion with one Turner, and one Henry Ackland, in con tracting the debt due to the Petitioner ; all the par ties being aware that they were unequal to the pay ment of the same, in amount £l2O. The Lotto CHANCELLOR could not understand to what purpose this Petition was now brought on. The question for his 'Lordship, in dealing with the certi ficate which lay before him for signature, was, whe ther or not, since the commission of bankrupt had issued, the defendant had complied fully with the Statutes of bankruptcy ? The bankrupt might have behaved very improperly in contracting this debt, or he might not; the Petitioner might have been treated very ill by the bankrupt, or be mi*ht have been very foolish and incautious in allowing such parties to contract such a debt: but unless there was some complaint of non-compliance with the laws of bankruptcy (and there was nothing of the kind al leged), the Petition must be discharged. LLOYD AND OTHERS V. SIR H. ST. PAUL. The Lotto CHANCELLOR said, that in this case, which was a motion to restrain the defendant from working coal-mines belonging to the Wednesbury hall estate, in Staffordshire, claimed as a right re served for the plaintiffs in the conveyance in 1708, and also to require Mr. Vernon to produce the deed of conveyance and others which he held in trust. It would be recollected that he had advised the ques tion on the injunction to be postponed until it should be argued and seen whether or not the plaintiffs had a right to the production and inspection of the deeds. He desired to be clearly understood that in his opi nion the heating and determining this first question would leave the question as to the injunction entirely free and unprejudiced. The question before the Court was to be considered—first, with respect to the principles which respected the rights of Sir H. St. Paul and his family ; 2dly, according to the princi ples which respected the lessees under him, and the property which they so held ; and whether, in case of the right claimed by the plaintiff being esta blished, the Court would feel inclined, after what those lessees had been allowed to do, to proteed upon a short mode to restore the plaintiff to his right, and thereby work considerable injury, if not injustice to those lessees. The immediate question of to-day, however, was confined to the production, or not pro ducing, of the deeds by Mr. Vernon. When that question should be determined, the Court would be better able to consider and decide the other questions pending on it. Confining himself, then, strictly to that one question, he would only state in passing, that by the role in the case of Norway and Rowe, the present case did not fall within the prohibition there laid down, of using affidavits in support of title, because the original title of the defendant was net 'Asserted ; it was declared by himself to be un known ; and the facts could not be understood until the deeds should be produced, to which the plaintiffs appealed to certify all the titles com prised under them. The Lord Chancellor then recited the main facts relating to the cause from the first deed of conveyance, down to the present suit. Upon all the sales and conveyances, the plaintiffs al-. leged that the property of the coals and minerals had been reserved for them, with the right of digging and searching for them, upon the payment of certain rates of compensation, agreed upon and expressed in the deeds, as would appear whenever the deeds should be produced. In their answer to the amended bill, Sir H. St. Paul and his wife denied that they. or either of them, have in their possession or power any such deeds, papers, or writings, as were mentioned in the bill. They admitted the working of coal mines, lime-stone, &c. upon the estate, which they claimed as part of their possession. His Lordship could scarcely understand the answer, where it seemed to state that the custom of the country was such as to make void reservations of coal and minerals, in con veyances of the land. They stated a clear series of acts of ownership to prove their right to the lands, which must be kept in contradistinction from the rights of the mines under them. Ile said it with all proper repect for Sir 11. St. Paul, but his answer amounted to just nothing at all, as it regarded this point of the case, which was, whether there had been a reservation of coal and minerals, or not.— The answer averred that be bad no deed-, in his pos session, hut did not give the Court the least informa tion of the import o f - the statement in the amended bill, nor inform the Court how they might get at the contents of the deeds, which alone could enable the Court to decide. Mr. Vernon said in his answer, that he had some deeds in his possession, but he did not think proper to look into them, and could there fore set forth no information which could be useful to the cause. That was the whole import of the ori ginal answer ; one of them could not, and the other would not, look at the deeds. His Lordship would not deny but that, with respect to some of the lands, such conduct might probably be proved, as would amount to a waver or cession of the reserved right: in others, the defendants might have no proof that they had acquired such a title. Alt this must depend upon the contents of the deeds, and the conduct of the parties subsequently. Mr. Vernon had declared that his trust was at an end, but that he held the deeds. If his trust had not substantially ceased, still he could be no party in these proceedings to the ex tent of refusing all information of the contents of the deeds, so long as others, besides the objects of his trust, claimed to hold something under the deeds in his possession : but being on his own acknowledg ment denuded of his trust in substance, he still was not so far divested, while he retained the deeds, but that those parties might call upon hint to surrender deeds upon which they grounded their titles of re servation. His Lordship had considerable experience of cases of coal-mines, having much intimate know ledge of the state of property in one of the principal coal counties. He admitted that there might have been Brea: folly, in cases of rights reserved, in net having a duplicate of the original conveyance exe cuted, considering all the accidents to which the suc cession of property was subject; but that folly would not have the effect of taking away a title which was contained in the conveyance, because the party had still an interest in the single deed of convey- •• . , • ante ; though -it was eivag *mkt asat in cases these from wbans the stiserentien was' held would be contiunally' . 12usr tb Weaken destroy the force of the title. lie tird.t„howeeer apprehend that any dealings with the land could the effect of an ouster of the .psegmty of the maL under them. There might ik cases in 'which the ouster was not, effected, and let the sondocunight have been such, that a Court of Equity would refuse to interfere, Parties -might be proved to lave be haved so as to induce the Cant to leave them tolho remedy of an action at law. The simpli'question 'was—whether (le not the parties were entitled to know the contents of the deeds ? not for the purpose of proving their title only, but to identify the several parcels of land which were declired by the defendants themselves to want identification. wis of opinion that the deeds ought to be produced. But to take the most temperate course, he would call on Mr. Vernon to inspect the deeds, and insert a statement in his answer, whether or not there was any reservoir don of coals and minerals in the conveyance of 1708. It was agreed, that in case the deeds contained the reservations, the plaintiffs should be furnished with copies of the passages which included them. WHITLCHURCR V. ROLWORTRY. This was a question as to the right of the Lord of the Fee, to enter and cut wood upon the copyholder's estate. There had been various trials of the case, and the present motion appealed from the certificate of the Judges of the Court of King's Bench, which des nied the Lord's.right ; the grounds of the judgment being, that as the Lord could not enter to dig for coal, or to sink mines, and as the tenant had as much and the same interest on the trees as in the soil, the Lord could not enter the copyhold estate to cut timber. Mr. PEPYS traced the practices and doctrines re specting copyholds, acted upon in the Courts through the whole series of precedents. He maintained that as the origin of copyholds was a sort of encroach ment upon the will of the Lord, so the law had al. ways been cautious of assuming any right for the tenant over the appurtenances of the soil which were inconsistent with an estate for life. He skewed from the cases, that the right of the Lord to the timber had always been assumed, -whether in those which went to stay the waste of the tenant or to hinder the Lord from taking so much as to leave not enough for the tenant's bote and estovers, and the repairs of the estate. He 'hewed also, that in all the old cases the authorities, together with the very form of the pleadings, implied the right of the Lord to the tins. ber. This was the condition of the law until the case .of Ashmead and-Ranger (10 East), when the judg ment of the Court of King's Bench, and that of the House of Lords upon a subsequent appeal, over turned the whole series of cases. He maintained still, that the particular case must be considered with re spect to its particular merits, as it could not be suffi cient to set aside the force of all the doctrines, cus toms, forms, and authorities, by which it was esta blished, that the Lord might cut down his own trees, provided he left enough for repairs. Mr. PRESTON followed on the same side, and ar gued, that as the tenant could have no right to the timber, the Lord must have the right, unless it were contended again..t common reason, the Lord could be dispossessed of that which he had no intention to give away, because he had given away something else.— If the tenant had no right to cut the timber, the Lord must have the right, or the timber must be left to rot on the ground. Wherever the law allowed right, it furnished a remedy. The Lord must have the right of entry to cut, or his right to the timber would avail him nothing. Mr. SHADWELL supported the decision of the Judges, that neither the copyholder nor the Lord of the Fee could cut the timber, except by mutual con sent. There were many rights which the law could not enable the owners to exercise A parson might work a mine, already opened, belonging to his glebe, but he could not open a new mine; yet he was seized of the minerals as parcel of his glebe. A. landlord had the right to the timber, but he could not enter to cut it unless that right were reserved in the deeds, or by special custom of the manor. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that it would be im possible for him to give judgment without knowing what was upon the record of the Court of King s Bench in the case of Ashmead v. Banger,- and also what were the questions put to the Judges in the House of Lords upon the same case. If it should turn out to be the same case as this, he must be ruled by the judgment of the House of Lords. They were at liberty to correct their judgment—he was not. The Solicitors in the suit were directed to inspect the record of the Court of King's Bench, and his Lordship undertook to have the Journals and Calen dars of the House of Lords examined, to see what questions had been put to the Judges in that case. On the application of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, The LORD CHANCELLOR agreed that the Court, should not sit on Tuesday next, that being the day before Christmas Day. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 19. THE KING v. Wi&LIAM MEAD. This was the first of a series of eighteen indict ments preferred against the witnesses for the Crown on the trial of six informations in the Exchequer, against parties accused of being engaged in a static gling transaction on the 20th of August, 1820. This indictment was prosecuted by James Law, who was alone acquitted on the informations, the other de fendants on that occasion being convicted. Mr. CHITTY stated the substance of the charge as it appeared on the record. Mr. D. F. JONES opened the case on the part of the prosecution. The evidence on which the assign ments of perjury were framed, was given against the prosecutor, Mr. James Law, on the trial of an in- 1 formation in the Exchequer, at the Sittings after last Trinity Term. On that occasion it fell to his lot to conduct the defence, and therefore the arduous duty of leading the case for the prosecution now devolved on him, which he felt the more, as it was an. excec tion to the usual habits of his professional life. i 'offence which was charged on Mr. Law was, that he had been concerned in a smuggling transaction as long. ago as August, 1820. In that month, a voila consigned from Flushing, laden with tobacco and gin, effected a landing beneath rocks called the Salt Pena, on the eastern coast of Yorkshire. For a participa tion in this offence, Law was proceeded against an the Excheq.ner ; and William Mead, the present de fendant, was examined as a witness for the Crown, when he gave the testimony for which he was this , . . . spirits. WWl ntw, spot; tree also that on part'of that evening be from home; and these circumstances heated ito basis on which the informers bad worked, and which. they depended for sweets. It would appear; however, that on the day in question be want as usual * to the parochial chapel, and after the, service was over rode with the clergyman to his' ow! Woe at Selby, about two miles distant. He then returned to the house.of a man named Gibson, wisb whom be had engaged to drink tai, and these remained with two men, named Hanby and Baker, until ten d'cloek in the evening. He had appointed two men, Wild Hogg and Crouch! : to meet him at this place, and accordingly they joined him as he was leaving Gila son's premises. With them he walked to his owe house, and then, after he had supped, prepared to set out for a purchase of wood which he had made at a place called Hawley Wood, about thirty mike distant, and prepared a cart with a load at which he was to leave on his way at Mr. OMANI% Pickering. About two in the morning, he and H?gg' set out with the waggon, and arrived at Pickering, where they saw Grason, who would be called as a witness, and to whom full credit might be given, as' he was a respectable tradesman entirely uninterested' in the transaction. In addition to this evidence, Scott, the son-in-law of the prosecutor, who was sworn by Mead to be at the Salt Pans with Law, would be called, and would positively state that he never was there, but that being in a state of infirm health at the time, had retired early to rest. Unfortunately it was impossible for Law to call Gibson, for he died sud denly the very week after the transaction ; neither could he call the wife and children of Scott, as the children were too young to be examined, and the mother could not leave them to undertake so long a journey. In cases of this kind, it was not unusual to deprive parties, charged with partaking in the same offence, of the benefit of each other's testimony, by including them all in one indictment for conspiracy but, in this case, the prosecutor had felt it right to prefer separate indictments, so that all the defendants in the other prosecutions might be witnesses in this; and he challenged the Counsel for the defendant to call them. In conclusion, he adverted to the array of Counsel on the other side ; all the power of the Crown seemed put forth to protect the defendant ; but he trusted that if his guilt should appear, the Jury would give such verdict as would satisfy public justice. Mr. Jenkins, a short-hatrd-writer, proved the evi dence given by Mead at the trial. It was substan tially, that Law came with Scott between ten and eleven on the evening of the 20th of August, 1820, to the Salt Pans, with three horses, and that they took away with them twenty-one half ankers of gin, and two bales of tobacco. _ _ _ Mr. Law, the prosecutor, gave an account of his proceedings, similar to that stated by Mr. Joites.— He potitively swore that he was not on the spot on the night in question, and that he was not on that night concerned in any smuggling transaction; but he admitted that in 1818, he had been convicted on an information for smuggling. To support his testimony in its several parts, the Rev. Mr.Grundon, curate of Selby, Haxby, Crouchby, Hagg, Grason, and the other parties alluded to, were called, who deposed to the several portions of the night which Law passed in their company. John Scott, the son-in-law, positively denied being present at the Rocks, and, on cross-examination, also denied having absconded to avoid being taken into custody. Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL (the Attorney-General having retired) addressed the Jury for the defendant, He reminded them that on the trial in the Exche quer, when the Jury had to decide on conflicting testimony, they were bound to acquit the defendant if they entertained any doubt of his guilt ; and there fore it did not follow from thitt verdict that they were convinced of the falsehood of the charge. He proceeded to comment on the evidence, contending that it was improbable-and inconsistent, as far as it was material, and that the greater part of it was quite consistent with the prosecutor's guilt. It was true that he went to church—true that he drank tea at Gibson's—true that he remained there till ten o'clock at night; but the question was, what he did after that period ? Now to shew that he was at the Salt Pans, which were very near Gibson's house, he could call not only all the witnesses who had given evidence in the Exchequer, but others who had been discovered since the trial; and he would contradict the principal witnesses for the prosecution on colla teral points of their testimony, which would shew them to be undeserving of credit. In conclusion he observed that he felt ne peculiar interest in the re sult of the proceeding. He was an Officer of the Crown,init he was also an Officer of the Public, and could have no desire that the crime of perjury should escape. He only wished that the case should be well' sifted, and fully considered; and when he had seen this done to the best of his power, he should leave the decision in their hands. Mr. Tauvern, a short-hand-writer, was called to correct an alleged error in Mr. Jenkins's notes of Mead's evidence, as to the time when be said that Law came to the Rocks. This witness understood Mead to fix it at between eleven and twelve, instead of between tea and eleven. John Holmes, Thomas Walker, Jonathan Bailey, Thomas Scott, and Robert Mead, all defendants in other indictments, swore in the most positive manner that Law and Scott were both present at the Rocks between eleven and twelve in the evening, and re turned with three horses lades with gin and tobacco. John Doakes gave evidence to the same effect. John Dobson depo s ed, that he called on Sunday evening at Mead's, to buy gin, and waited his re turn, when he came witligm, and sold him a large quantity. John and Robert Robison, of York, and William Brown, said they were Rube Salt Pans, and heard a man called Law, but did not know him. Mr. Hayes, a naval officer, proved the seizure of 113 tubs of gis, which were concealed among the rocks, and an attempt to rescue a boy who was found guarding them. Witnesses were also called to prove Scott ran away when the officers came to apprehend him. In reply, several witnesses were called by the pro- S . . . to disiredit Walker, thottris Rcotr i and Bailey, aho swore that they would their oaths. ,tonort-Gartirtat. replied on thitevidencet replied on the whole case. JUSTICZ began to sum up the evidence at a guano* before nine o'clock, and com pleted his charge at three minutes before ten. In the course of his remarks, he observed, that it was pain. Jul for him to say, that on one side or the other there just have been very wilful and abundant perjury, He left it entirely to the Jury to say to which side the truth belonged. liniJury consulted together in the box until twelve Minutes after ten o'clock, and then desired leave to withdraw. • Mr. CLARKS applied to the Court to have the lir sees Scott detained for the other causes, in case they should come on. • The LORD CHIEF Jusrica directed that the Hake Cotpais should be brought to him at the sitting of the Court to-morrow morning , that it might be endorsed for that purpose. His Lordship then retired from the Court. _ _ The Jury returned at twenty minutes before twelvel and pronounced a verdict of GNiity. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 19. TOVII. V. 110w10ER. Mr. Serjeant VALIONA* (with whom were Serjeant li/ULLOCK and Mr. CAMPSILLL) stated this case to Ole Jury. It was- an action to reco►er the valite of the brig Findon, which had been run down at sea by the brig Blossom, in consequence (as was allei!ed) of the negligence of the crew of the latter. The defendant was the owner of the Blossom, and was answerable for the conduct of the crew, who-were to be consi dered his servants. It would appear that, on the 20th of April, the Findon sailed fiom Sunderland with a cargo of coals. At about half-past two the next morning the Blossom bore down, and, for the want of a careful look-out on the part of the crew, struck the Findon, which almost immediately wait down with the shock. The crew wete saved by get ting on board the Blossom. Witnesses would be called who would prove that the accident was wholly owing to the negligence of the Blossom's crew. If that were established to the satisfaction of the Jury, they would find a verdict for the plaintiff : the amount would not be disputed. The mate of the Findon was called, and his evi dence went to shew that the accident occurred by th negligence of the Blossom's crew. Had they at tended to the call of this witness, the accident might have been avoided. The Blossom had a light on her bow; the Findon had one in the binnacle. Several of the Fiudon's crew were also called,w•ho corroborated the mate's testimony. Mr. Serjeant LENS (with whom was Mr. Serjeant TADDY) contended, for the defendant, that the cir cumstance was not owing to the negligence of either, but was to be attributed to one of those accidents which could not be prevented by human skill. He would call several witnesses %. ho would prove that the night was extremely dark, and that it was impos sible to discern a ship at twice her length a-head. It would also be proved that, it the Findon had had light at her bow, she would have been seen by the Blossom, which would have thereby been enabled avoid her. If thase facts were clearly proved, a he was instructed to state they would be, he was sati)fied that the Jury would find for the defendant. A great number of witnesses, consisting of some of the Blossom's crew, and several Captains in the coal trade, were called to prove that it was a very dark night; that a ship could not be seen at mole than twice her length a-head; that it was the custom in fleets of colliers for all ships to carry lights on dark nights; that the Findon had no such light; and that, if she had, the accident might, in all probability,have been prevented. Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN replied at considerable length to this evidence. His Lordship summed up, and the Jury, after con sulting together for a few minutes, returned a verdict for the defendant. • • . 1 atipooa mob slay to answer. Mead then dolt est the night fecntor's Coonsel to with- of Sunday, the Seth of germ*, ab.otehi Robert Mead, and 8 t and Mead war present at the ildt nor IMO JONI Font, pot believe them on 'ever, his sou.in-law, was with him; tint Abe) , ease with Mr. SollialTolt-Gi d have three horses, and took away e quantity of tobacco Mr. D. F. Jost* z manes and spirits. Now it was true that Law er . 4*. near Ole The Loan Clues •_. ...: a..., &rammer tie wits evidence at a muuti BIRTH. Dee. 10, at Findrusie House, the Lady of Charles Abram Leslie, Esq. of Findrassie, of a son. MARRIED. On the 17th ult. at Lytchett Minster, Dorset, the Rev. Charles Heath, Fell•w of King's College, Cambridge, to Mary Ann, second daughter of the late James Pointer, Esq. of Ramp.. stead, Middlesex. Dec. 10, at Eskadale, John Mackay, Esq. solicitor, Inverness, to Miss Ann Fraser, eldest daughter of Hugh Fraser, Esq. of Eskadale, Invernes s-shire. Dec. 12, at Rothsay, Isle of Bute, Mr. James Malcolm No ble, Lieutenant in the late 95th Foot, to Susannah, second daugh ter of Wm. Macrae, Esq. of Rothsay. July 31, Captain George Spinks, Military Paymaster in the provinces of Malabar and Cannanore, to Martha, eldest dauz,h. ter of the late Capt. Hawkins. DIED. On the 11th Inst. at Hastings, after au illness of many years, Mr. James Barry, aged 03. ' Dec. 3, at Edinburgh, Mr. John Caird, many years Surveyor of Taxes in that city. Dee. 7, at Burrowmuirhead, Lieut. Edward Wighunan, of the Royal Marines. Dec. 15, in Upper Grosvenor-street, aged 97, Sir Geo-az Duckett, Bart. Dec. IS, Elizabeth, relict of the late Bryant Masers, Esq. of the Hon. Bast India Company's service. In St. Ann's. Jamaica, aged 24, James Sealy Robertson, Esq. Dec. 9, at Dundee, Alexander Riddoch, Esq. of Black Lunar!, aged 78. Mr. Riddoch repeatedly held the olkce of Chief Ma tro( Dundee, and was for many years one of the Deputy e ate tenants of Forfardiire. Oct. 4, on board this •Heary Portlier Indianian, on her voy age homeward, when air the Cape of Good Hope, Mr. Wm. Nivea, Assistarit-Sugeoo of the Madras European Region-u:, aged 22, son of the Rev. Dr. Nivea, of Dankeld. Lately, aged 85, Mr. John Perkin, of llonforth, Leeds. 1:c was father, grandfather, and great-grandfather to 174 childrcu Dec. 12, at Mill of Allardyce, near Bartle, Mr. Rol t. 31dcr, farmer, aged 92 ; and on the 7th inst. at Bervie, Mrs. Itack 7. his sister, aged 91. It is remarkable that Mr. Milne, in the course of his long life, never slept out of his awn house but o ne night, on which occas ion he west to Falkirk tryst to purcluse cattle, and returned home the next day. . _ . . MAILS. aaa. on a. P. our. Dublin 1 Trance 0 0 1. 0 H Waterford arnborgh 0 0 Guernsey and Jersey 0 1 Flanders 0 3 Lisb o n 0 1 M a l ta 0 0 Holland 0 0 Gottenburgh 1 0 1 Leeward Islands 0 0 1 Br azi_ j ° ° HIGH-W AVM at LONDON Daman TO.MOgltiiW. Morning • • • 46 minutes after 6 Afternoon . - 7 minutes After 7 LONDON ; FAA* and pnbliabed by Lava' KIWI, place, tvovple-Bar. 1 i