Star. — London, England, 1817-07-31 00:00:00

I' i LAW fATELLIGENC/c. I NEW MASTER IN CHANCERY. " FI: DO 1.-.1." There never was an appoin!rnent which gave more ttqsfaction to the Bar, or has dr , ne mare credit to Lordship. Politics here were ntit of the ques '::,Qll, for on all Breit questions Mr. CoURTF.NAY, as a m em i wr nr Parliament, v. , ted directly eertvary to i' Administi ado's, prticularly on the Catholic Ai and the Silveri...ion of the Habeas Ct , rpu: Act. cwltT OF CHANCERY, !TJLY 4P• PART.T. CIIAMPE!.% it nANXItt:Fr. appl!cation which had h en made, by desire of the creditors, to dise•lace Mr. Brown from the office of Assignee, to which he had been ap ainted as a substitute for Mr. Mills, who had before ?creel in that capacity. It appeared that the act of bankruptcy WAS committed in October, 1812, and that Mr. Mills was then made assignee, and remained assignee until December, 1815. Daring the three years there were constant litigatines among the par. ties, in which Mr. Mills took no active part, and, in fact, did not at all interfere in the concerns of the bankrupt. In consequence of this indifference on the p trt of Mr. Mills, Mr. Brown uas chosen by the creditors as an assignee. for the purpose of super. seding t.im. Mr. Brown, when he became assignee, made frequent applications for a statement of the proceedings of his predecessors, which, however, he did not obtain until 1817, and he then claimed an indemnification for his costs. To this, however, the credit rs objected, and they thought it necs:ssary to attic another assignee in hls place, which was the object of the application. The I..utti CHANCLLLOR having recapitulated the szrou.'.lz of the application, directed that the creditors sh• . ' e allowed to chuse a new assignee, reserving question of costs. RAITNLEY AND OTHERS V. UALPAYR. This CAW, in which the LOUD CIIANCZLLOR also gave judgment, was an application for an order to compel the defendant to pay the amount of 2500 pa godas, with the interest of 12 per cent. thereon, ac cording to the terms of bond given in India by the defendant, to Lerni and Reynolds. It was admitted, on the part of the defendant, that such were the terms of the bond ; but he objected to pty 12 per cent, in terest, on account of certain regulations of the East- India Company, by which the rate of interest was reduced there ; and also on account of the refusal of the late Nabob - of Arcot to pay l 2 per cent. on a band, under similar circumstances. The defendant was willing to pay the reduced rate of interest, n .melt', 3 per cent. Tile LORD CIIANCIt.LOR recapitulated the various circumstances of the case, and directed that the de fendant should pay the interest which he originally stipulated to pay ; but that he was entitled to the as signment of the bond. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JULY SO , • 'The following is a copy of the leper sent by the LORD CHANCILVIR tO Mr. COURTENAY, Appointing him a Muster in Chancery : " DEAR tha-.-A• the public live already appointed you a '.lever in Chancery, in the room of the late ever-10-h:antente.l ye. %feel, I attune you 1 have great rleagOre in zOriflirminl'it, by st.kolfig you yk,ur patent for the ()Tice.— Yo..ea, with regard, JUNKS v. MIRO KOKEBY. This was a motion to enforce the payment of the porehase-money into Court of an estate in Cleveland, in the county of York,. of which a Mr. Richaril Car. ter was the best bidder, at a sale before the Court of Chancery, in the year 1812. • it was ft:tied in the printed particular of the estate in question, that thirty-two acres were tithe-free, but without specifying in what particular parts those 32 acres were situated. An abstracr of the title was de livered to the purchaser in April, 1813, which con tained no mention whatever of the tithe-free lands The purchaser made several objections trR a title, when the matter was referred to the Master, to exa mine whether a good title could be made The Mas ter decided that the title was good ; but the purchaser then urged, that as no title could be made to the tithe, the whole must be considered as defective. Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY and Mr. HEALD, in support of the motion, contended at some length that it was unfair for the purchaser, after having taken possession of the estate at Lady-day, 1813, now to throw it up, more especially when, in consequence of his so having taken possession, and then vacated it, the property had become in a most ruinous state of dilapidation. The doors throughout the mansion-house had been carried away for fire.wood. and all the lands remain ed uncultivated. The only yersons upon the property erne two paupers, who had lodged themselves in the bons., and fed two cows about the grounds. They farther contended, that the matter of the tithes ought not to vitiate the title, but that it should be made the subject it a compensation, on account of misstate ment, according to one of the conditions expressed in the printed particular. Mr. Btu. and Mr. CriAnwrzt,, on the part of the purchaser, opposed the motion, and observed, that the claim of compensation which had so improperly been used by auctioneers, could not apply to a point o essential as that of lands being titheable or tithe free. They declared that the purchaser never had taken possession of the property, and to prove this they compared two affidavits of plaintiff finks, viz. one dated the 6th of June, 1817, in which Binks states, that the dilapidated state of the property was occasioned by the defendant art having taken Isonelsion, and another dated 21st July, 1817, in which he states, that the purchaser did actually take possession at 2.ady.day, 1313. The fact really was, that the lands had been let by the venders at such exorbitant rents, which rents they themselves received, until a decline in the times compelled the tenants to throw tip their farms. The V►ce-CHANCELLOR seemed inclined to consider the matter in the light of a compensation, but de clared it to be important to decide whether the pur chaser had or had not actually taken the possession ? There was a seeming contradiction in the affidavits of Mr. Binks, but still it appeared capable of expla nation.—Further time was allowed to procure affi davits from Yorkshire as to the fact of possession. The two Barristers, whose quarrel and personal conflict have been for some lime put known to our Readers, were on Tuesday last pronounced, by a Committee of their brother Barristers, to be ao longer hleufbets of their Circuit• Club. ASSIZES. DERBY, lint CR. CHADWIN V. ►►•ATSON. _...._...._ _ Mr. Serjednt CopLey stated the cm for the plain tiff. in the foll , iwing i ff,ct The plaintiff, Elizabeth.Chadwin, is a farmer's daueliter, in 131“siegton, in this county. The defen dant, dovish Watson, is a farmer iii the same place. i During the simmer of 1815 the defendant had some transactions in business with the plaintiff's father, in cnurse of which he became acqu 'hued with the plain , tiii; who nets beautiful And inleff'Stilla Her lather, in consequence of the derangement of his affairs, found it necessary to remove from home. The detendant, I however, continued his visits, and applied to the mother for leave to pay his addresses to the plaintiff, and declared his intention to make her his wife. Mrs. Chad vein expressed great reluctance to be deprived of the society of her daughter, and espnially at a time when she required it sit much ; hut not 'inclined to j obstruct trio eqablishment of her daughter in life, she consented. lie said she could live %sill) him, and enjoy the society of her daughter. Michaelmas fel • lowing was, in fact, fixed on for thetime of solemniz- ' ing the marriage. Michaelmas came ; the month of September passed away, and the defendant said ne thing of the marriage. The plaint'lF was now ob served to be in great agitation and distress of mind. The cause was obvious. Under the protection of the promise he had made, and aided by the possession of the plaintiff's affections, the defendant had basely abused his oppot 'unity, and the gill was with child. The m nhet sent for him, and upbraided him with the foulness of his conduct. He affecte Ito treat it with indifference ; he said he was not bound by any pro mise, relying on no writing having existed ; but at length, overpowered by the remonstrances of genuine distress, which, when actually exposed to their senses, the greaust profligates are generally unable to resist, he said he would still perform his promise. He said it was not convenient for him at that very time, but if Miss Chadwid would come and live with him for a month, he would at the end of that period marry her. The mother was not to be justified in such a compli ' ance; it would not be attempted to justify her ; but is should be recollected that she was anxious to get her daughter now married to the defendant, as the only alleviation of the injury sustained ; and feared to offend him lest be should make that a pretext for finally refusing. She gave her reluctant consent. The daughter lived with him for a month. At the end of that period every preparation was made, the wedding dresses were prepared ; but when Mrs. Chad win went to the defendant's house, she was received with jeers and scoffs, and he said that her daughter did not even wish him to marry her. The daughter upon this fell down upon the floor and fainted away. When she recovered, she and her mother walked off. The defendant soon after married another woman, and this action is now brought that you may visit the mis conduct of the defendant with the only punishment that can be called for. Money cannot compensate for the injury inflicted ; but to claim damages in money is the only resource left for the unfortunate, the irreparably injured, plaintiff. You will, therefore, .recollect that the defendant is a man of considerable opulence; he not only holds a pretty large farm, but he has besides much real property. You are not only to provide for the present satiafactioa of the plaintiff,' but for her future comfort, so far as pecuniary damages can have that effect. She was pure and spotless till the misconduct of the defendant seduced her from the paths of virtue. If she has fallen at all from virtue, it is entirely owing to the misconduct of the defen d int. There cannot be a more flagrant injury to an amiable and virtuous young lady than to seduce her from a virtuous course. We are indeed acustomed to speak liehtly of matters of this kind ; but, Gentle. men, you cannot think lightly of it, if you think rightly. I know that a powerful address will be made to you by my brother (Serjeant Vaughan) on the other side. I trust, however, to your discernment and sense of justice. Great pains have been taken, on the other side, in investigating the circumstances of this case, and the characters of the parties. I am much obliged to them for their exertions, for I defy the tongue of malice to impute the slightest blame to the conduct of the plaintiff previously to her acquaint. ance and connexion with the defendant. I shall now call witnesses to prove the facts to you. Mrs. Chadwin is mother of the plaintiff, who was 21 years of age last Christmas. Here a long consultation took place among the different parties, their Counsel, and the Bench ; the results of which was an agreement that the defen dant should pay ,e5:l damages, and 4s. 6.1. a week for the maintenance of the child whie in the custody of plaintiff. The Jury gave their verdict accordingly., COX v. SHIRLEY. This was an action of trespass. The plaintiff, Mr. Cox, is proprietor of some lands, among which is Shirley.park, between Derby and Ashburn. The de fend.int, the Rev. Walter Shirley, is Vicar of the Parish. The Vicar. who has held his present living for two years, claimed a right to walk though Sbir. ley-park, by a path which he asserted was a foot path time out of mind. The plaintiff denied the right. and stated, that the gates placed there were for the accommodation of huntsmen, and that the only way through the park was made for the sole purpose of conveying away the timber felled in it.— This case occupied the Court from twelve o'clock till nine. On the part of the plaintiff, Mr. CLARKE, Serjeant COPLEY, and Mr. BALMY, called upwards of twenty witnesses, who gave evi dence that the way through the park was never a public thoroughfare, but merely a private conve nience for the proprietor and his servants, and that others were even stopped and obliged to go back Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN, Mr. KIADER, and Mr. DEEMAN I for the defendant, called many witnesses, who appeared to be very old, and who declared that they and their lathers had always used this path as a thoroughfare, and considered themselves entitled to do so. Among the witnesses were three brothers and a nephew of the name of Jackson, who afforded some amusement to the Court. Joseph Jackson was asked by Mr. COPLEY, " Were you ever committed for poaching ? You seem to know all about it—tell what you know (a laugh); ani I ask you upon your oath, if you ever were taken up for poaching 1" •' No, I never was. but I will tell you, I don't know who you are, or any thing about you ; I tell you that no master, servant, or companion, can say I ever poached." • litimpbrey Jackson was asked by Mr. CLARKE" "how lorg it was s7-rice 1:c fregner,tad this path ?"-- " He could r.r,t say precisely."—" No, can you not tell something like it No, I will tell nothing but the truili."—" Well, never mind that. tell rue—" " Yes, Sir, but I will mind iz, and taws care never to speak but the tru , h." (Loud and tantinti:l laughter.) Mr. Justice BAI LILY—How l.u.g it since a Gate has been put where the slip-stile E Witness-i—Why, perhaps 16 years. Mr. Justice BAYLEY—A pent) clear proof that it was nn thoroughfare. Mr. Sajeant V.scolias—Your Lqrdship will not hold that 16 yell:. CAli deprive us of our right Mr. Justice BA V I.LV —No, indeed. hrutnerVautzhan, but it is petty _iron; evidence tf.a: k the fight Lever existed. When his Lsrds!s3p was go;i:g to sum up, tic Jury interrupted hrn, declaring it to b utinecusaary, al:L1 gave their •erdict tor the Plaintiff. No damages woe clwmed. The goestion was merely as to the right. CHELMSFORD, JULY 29. The Summer Assir.es for !he Como) , of Essex commencet! here yesterdAy home Lcrd ELLENno. Boum" and Mr. Just cr DALLAs. TILE KING 0. THE INIIA VITA NTS or CHIGWILLI. This W 46 an indictment against the defendants for not keeping in repai► a certain public highway lead ing from Woodford-bridge through the forest of Hai nault to Chigwell-row, in the defendants' parish'. The trial I turd nearly the whole day, and the prin. tip tl questipn was, whether the road in question WAS, 4CC.)fding to the language of the indictment, a put . lic highway from time iminemin ial used by the King's subjects to pass through aii along at all times, with carts, waggons, and carriages ? From the evidence, it appeared that the highway in question was only a fair weather road, and lrtJ never been treated by the drtfndar•.ts as a public high way which they were liable to keep in repair. The Jury, under the Learned Judge's directions, found the defendants Not MALICIOUSLY SHOOTING. Maps Welsh, one of the desperate gang, several of whom were convicted at the last Assizes, was in. dieted for maliciously shooting at James Dennis, at Elsingliam, on the 30th of September last. The prosecutor, Mr. Dennis, a farmer, resident at Elsingham, in this county, stated, that on the night of the 30th of September last, about twelve o'clock, alter his family had retired to bed, he was alarmed at a noise as forcing one of his lower windows, urn which he got up, and saw several men in the yard. Ile hallooed out, 46 Who is dire i" Upon which one of them exclaimed, a D—n you, you old buffo., we will let you know." He said, " I Vo ill fire Tit you," and called up his man. Son after his maid brought up a light, and he went down below, when a gon or pistol was fired at the window shutter, and two shots c ime through the crevice of the shutter, znd struck him under the eye and near the nose, but he could not identify any of the parties, but he saw that there were several men. Two witnesses were called, Elizabeth Clark and Thomas Men; the former of whom was the moister of one of the men who was hanged after the last As sizes. They stated, that on the night of the 30th of September last, persons of the names of Miller, Gif fin, William Clarke, and James Clarke, together with the' witness — Mert, Met at lianly, at old Clarke's house on the night of the .10th of September, and having there blacked their facer, they went out to commit di predations, and in pursuance of that plan, they went to the prosecutor's. There one of them attempted to force open 'a parlour window with a plough-share, wfiich disturbed the family. Mert, then, cqrroborated the statement of the prosecutor, that he appeared at the window, when Welch snap ped the pistol, which missed fire twice, but on the third attempt it went off. Upon the firing of the pistol, a man of the name of Julies Pearce came up, who questioned them, but they told him to hold hi s tongue, or he should fare worse, but if he went away quietly they would not hurt him. Pearce corrobo rated this part of the statement, and lie thought it prudent to retire. When they returned to Clarke's house, Mrs. Clarke advised him to bury the pistol and dark lantern, which they laid in an adjoining orchard ; they did so, and the Constable proved that he found the pistol buried iu the place that Mrs. Clarke had described. These facts being proved, tvl.ich was the same evi dence given against others of the ging last Assizes, the Jary found the psisnner—Guilty. DORSET ASSIZE& RIGHT OF WAY AT BLANDEORD. kluotyr V. CROSSR. Mr. CASBalin, on the part of the plaintiff, stated that this was an action of trespass, brought by Mr. John Riclout, residing near Blandford, in this county, against the Rev. John Riddle Crosse, for breaking and entering the plaintiff's close at Long Langton and Crick House. To this charge in the declaration the defendant answered by two pleas : in the first of which he states, that the locus in quo was a public way and foot-path, along and over which he and all the King's subjects load a right to go ; and that he only threw down a gate which had unlawfully been erect ed by the plaintiff, so as to obstruct the passage along this public fisot-path, as he was entitled to do. The second pica put in the record by the defendant was rather a curious one. The Learned Counsel would not say it was altogether contradictory to the first, but certainly it was very inconsistent with it. This second plea was a license given to the plaintiff by the defendant to pass over the close in question. The plaintiff denies that the place in question is or ever was a public way, or that he ever gave the def. da .1 1 liberty to enter his close. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to explain to the Jury the precise sittnaion of the premises, a map of which was produced.— From the Learned Counsel's statements, and the plan, it appeared that the town of Blandford was to the east of the close in question, from whence there was an old-accustomed highway leading to Langton Church, and so on to other places; that there were no persons residing to the west or north-west of the close, so that there could be no reason why there should be a way through that close. The Learned Counsel undertook to prove that 40 or 50 years ago there never was any gate at all in the plaintiff's close, but only one continued fence, which was regularly kept up ; therefore there could not have been any public right of way. Ever since there had been a gate there, it bad been kept locked, and the key kept by plaint;ff's servants, who lived in • cottage close, by ; thlt all formes who atterpted to pass th tt way woe kr/att.:l)ly turned back; that the detraction's father had, in his lifeoime, sent to the cottage and a,ked for the key, to be allowed to pass into the cirrae with a labourer and some thorns; and that even the defendant himself, about two years agn, had rentre•t ed leave fur hinrsell and a Lfr. Mitchell to yo ov.-r the due, which was grar.ted hint, and the gate r. unlocked for that purpose by the &metric of the plainti.T. M,. Cameo) concluded by twine, 1114 . he should call witnesses to prove the trespass, to prove that the close was not a public ray, and he telt confident that the Jury by their verdlc , Ireinstere the plaintiff io Isis rights. Elizabeth Riggs, the wite of Eichard Ri‘me, said she lived at a cott:ige belonging to Mr. Ridout, re the parish of Long Langton, Blainiford. kin .ws the detendAllt, saw hint at the plaintiff's gate in Medi last ;he tore nut the hedge of d plantation ard rick yard, beside the fare on the left hand going to Wan:borne. Don't recelieet v hat day of the month it was; en -ugh of the lerice was broken to let tiny one pass through. He went liver the road, and to wards I/landlord ; he came from pl git.tiff's rick.; std. Witness had lived erven years in the covrge last March. Cot site the plaintiff's gate and hedge troll her house ; it it al)' ,l .lt. A stone's errow off. First saw the gate eleven years ago ; it had been kept I.:.cked ever once witness's husband keit the key; be was carter to the plaiiititl. Ever since witness had known the place there 11.1 d been a hedge round the ti?ls. yard, as there is now ; spikes were on the op I f the gate, and it was brred to keep boys from going over it to bird's pest. None but boys went over it.— Plaint:lf always ordered wir,pess to k-ep the gate lucked, and let no one in. Wi;ness always lothade people from going that way, and they used to retain back ; seldom saw any one. Wit, ss knew Clieosr, Mr. Crosse's steward. Cheater came to the coetage, and asked witness's husband if he would be so kitiel AS to let his master through :be gate? Witness can ed her husband, who went out with the servant and the Witness. Witness saw the defendant there and aunt! er gentleman at the gate ; this WAS i:buut two years ago. Saw I:er husband noil-ck the gift.— Cheater asked witness's husband if he would go and have a drop of beer and some bread and cheese Defendant and the other Gentleman went through the gate, and told witness's husband to lock the gate again, fur they should return another en my. Witness never retnembeted the tick-yard, or plantation, being ploughed. There was a track through the geld which went beyond the plantation ; it was a little road for people belonging to the cottage to go by.-- Witness used to go through the field to Lingten ; knew Freeman's hill, vett of the plaintiff's estate; the track seem over that hill. ; never knew that tell to be ploughed ; and Mr. Critsse used very often to forbid persons gniag that way. He then occupied the house and orchard which the defendant now doe:, nni which adjoins the rick pad. Cress•cearnined by Mr. Serjeant PELL—There is but one cottage, where 1 live. Mr. Fargithirson has property, being Freeman's Hill. The track was made by the people at the cottage. I dare say, Sfr, you have seen the place. I we, t'tere the day before yesterday, and saw. your Honour there. I had no business with you, therefore did no: speak to you.— There is a footpath for one person; two court flat go without walking on the grass. The path leads 'up the hill. 1 don't know any thing of the old stile there ; I don't know whether these may or may not be a stile up the frill. There is one there in Mr. Farquharson's field ; it is directly in the way front the rick yard to Langton ; it is situated between the plaintiff's and Mr. Farquharson's property ; it is an old stile. To go intro the lick-yard we always usei to unlock the ga . e, of wlt ch we always had the key; had no other means of getting there. Tritre are pales on the side or the gate, will spikes • n Can't say how they have been put tip ; sonic are new; s one were broken down last win-er or spring, and oth.trs put up in their s•ead. Can't swear whether er no there were spikes en the old pales, hut believes there %vete. Don't know that I ever got tarer the pales on the side of the gate.—Mr.St.rjeant Pert —Now, Betty, conic an •w:r the chic: when you got over the spikes •.‘tiety they mu .1 have tickled pi; little, and yon nen a, their:lore, remember it?—Wit. nee,. Don't know Or the matter of that ticklikt, Sir. I know thee Wirr,botate road; the awes is much out there in tl.e winter. Richard Ri,!gs, tie husband of the last witness, said, he had been set valet to plaintiff upwards of eleven years, dining which time the gate had been at the rick yard. There always were sink= s on it, and no place kit to citable any one to get over it, or by the side. It was lwit) s kept locked by his masters os de rs. Saw deft nelain ill.: gate on the '2IA of last March. Witness iinlockod the gate for defen dant and another Gentleman, to go thrnign the close. about two years ap.3. They asked per itstssion 19 be aliuwed to do se. The track had twin ploughed over, all torough, every year. one Fort, de. fendant's father's servant he asked permissiou to go through the field, about six or seven years ago, with some bushes; it was granted him, and the• ta:e was unlocked for that purpose. Defendant's Itttht r ways turned the begs out of the tick yard. There were always spikes on the knee between the gate and the orchard. His often heard ptaiutill for bid people going over the field. Defendant's servant, hiatyard, came to me, and desired me to ro to the gate; went there ; saw defendant there ; he said be seat for me as a witnes , ., tit it I might te , ! the s t aple of t"As gate drawn. Defonefaht of &fired his servant Daridge to draw the st uhich Datidge did with a pick. axe. The gate v.as then Lcked again, and detc , .. dant sail the staple could not be put in 4g:tit far five hundred pot.nds. Cross.examintd by M-. Gmrtee.—This teas 01 the '2l,st ut last March. There is atr :ck across the Wimborne ru.td, becanse we go in and out with . horses. There is a plain foot-path up the ti I, which never was ploughed up since I remeruht.r. Fteeman's hill is pl.lughed up every year. There are hurdles there to keep the cattle 4.ff the heath. There is a stile dividing Freemen's-hill from Mr. Farquharson's field, called Grottene. stet standing there when I first knew the place. There is aStteit to it. I have gone over that track beyond the stilt:: I con sidered I had no right to go there, but Mr. never forbid me. ‘Vimborne hoses road is lull of water In the winter; the flood used also to 4 .1 . 4 w th e u road. There is a raised towpath eicre. Rebut Tru , vbrWgc, abed l ov d 04, ' I! ter 155 ;pi.er