The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1825-11-16 00:00:00

ing ett, by ;. Iq 't ~lt LAW^NU97CES. COURT OF lIIINCVB BENCH. sa plop 111 dre King's Bench till Saturday, the 19th inst. COVAT OF COMMON PLEAS. t A ,,Es, SKCONOSITTINOS IN MICHAELMAS * l9°l" TtEKM. THIS TAT, AT O'CLOCK. Thrones v. Manion I Jones y. Oardyno SECOND atTTINOS IN I 'o4lollloir, at I o'CLO Wragg and anothe v. Smith COURT OF EXCHEQU CAUSES TAM; DAY. 1 Atkinvon v. Hutton lielden v. Meynell Evans Y. Williams Bamford v. Archer ' Bussingbans v. Boar 'Curt Nits at ten o'clock. Cole, v. Coley—l:sceptics lICHAELMRII TERM, 'E. Tomlinson v. Hen. sell and another ER. Hamilton v, Earl or Strathmore, on Se. quextrAtion— qibson v. Butler Wide v ijj)i;) on W INTE I.LIG ENCE. CHANCRRY, Tolestsav, Nov. 11. r DT. PratteOtt o. unman' AND oTtittle. ieceeton immediately on entertog the Court judgment in this important cape ; and us we I to his lawdehia's observation's on the various II a presented to the court by the correspondence, affidsvit. of the several persons concerned in the -else of his Lordship's atatetnent on Saturday last, , more craned report of them. ' began by reading the bill anti answers. In the bill • at ge o (Mu in the year 1892 a lease of the estate in qu est i on , - . auct oove property, situate at 111311,011. was grollted by STW,.})re ilheanwoin, et HaU, near Relkvicay, I, Mr. Rhodes (whose forefathers had previons to an *BUYS gem wan ts of the property). for a term of twenty-five r i bo o me contained the usual covenants of an *grit:W /80iis" b ig Ibex was also{ covenant which gave Mr. Beauvoir Nod mow such parts et the land as he might wish tor the 161086.12 I became important in his Lordship's m apped kind* 11Pon. . . ran et the case le put a tuella& conatrucuon on that part ot this Lardalop found it stated not indeed in the pleadings. bads . p e w woieh had been handed to him, that in the month of Lhwwtwr, a notice was given by some penman interested in tea g r geet's Canal to the owners of the land lying in the neigh. t r echutst of the canal, that if they would not build wharfs, warr- Mater, en. on the banks of the canal, it was the intention of the f toile so. Thee notice Ira* given previously to the presto t Ha m leave. which had been granted upon the surrender of the teen ace, whose lour would not have expired till the year 1827. it s m ote therefore oaten*" to k ow whether the notice had been in fotrommunicated to Mr. Beauvoir before he executed the re mora inse. lb. Lordship did not find any charge in the bill or at 'driven in either of the answer. that such wan the fact. lie ' m otioned this because when he came to look at the affidavits, gaidi wit b e f ore the Vice. Chancellor, that, in his judgment (in- Mpreatnt of the particular circumstances that the affidavita filed is bract of Mr. Rhodes were prepared with a great deal more and= those filed on the part of the plaintiff ), must have hod offside:4le influence in the decision to which the l'ice•Chancellor bail ante But his Lordship observed that he could not lay so ugh stem on either cf the affidavits, width spoke of the estimated nasei the property, because in his judgment there were eiteum sacs known to the parties, and which had not been coo-mord ent(' to the surveyors by whom those affidavit. were made. For notasse, the ore of the notice which had thus been given by the Itriesit Cam] Company ; and the value therefore of the estate mein to hoe been estimated with reference to this circumstance. Tha lot Ina, granted in OW, having continued until 1818, a Dadsep (.reject was then set afloat. and a proposition was made for knit' the term of Mr. Rhodes in the old lease surrendered, and a wham granted tinter other conditions. This made the come upwatret which had been put in to be very material. It consisted of *tan on all sides, and appeared to be essential proof in the ape. Before his Lordship proceeded to read them, he begged to ikon that this ease was thp first he recollected to have occurred when it the course of his experience where it became the absolute and boonden duty of the Court to decide what was the duty of a etklasa, whe chose to place himself in the relation lira confiden :Mori batik of the buyer and the seller; and his Lordship it might he laid down as a getters' proposition, that a person *lfs plated himself in both those characters had some very import ant duties to perform. One of those duties was, that lie should gitn Reny information in his power to each of those to whom he rho' became the ontelential agent. The Vice-Chancellor seemed to bare (faulted whether Mr. Beauvoir knew that Mr. Tebbutt was flit confidential seem of Mr. Rhodos; but his Lordtship contented be ti quire satisfied that that gentleman did know the fact ; but Iva not, however, follow from thence that the duty of agent for bah tenets was properly executed towards Ale. Beauvoir, and one nitetatqvcstim to this case Mut, whether it was to merman' or hot Bit filet letter was dated 31st March 1613. and was linden by Mr. Rhodes to Mr. Beauvoir, in which lie expressed his desire Wave the lease renewed on several account.; one of which was the enseute iniprovements he hod made on the estate; and he con. cloth' by saying, that if Mr. Beauvoir had no partiality to the note. he thought he could find friends to enable him to purchase tie freetuld, upon which Mr. Beauvoir was to put his own value nos. ro this letter Mr. Beauvoir sent an 11:JOSICT en the 6th of April, Ir. vh:rh he raid he could not then enter into the contents of Mr. finks', letter, but he certainly should not sell the estate. He *mid. however. desire 31r. Ashlrin le to surrey the property, and gold ;rant a renewed lease from Michaelmas 1819 on such teens mem eattitable between landlord And tenant. He expressed his 'wpm that lie bad not heard from Mr. A dibittle as to the Regent's teal. This letter prodneed an answer from Mr. Illitalts on the 9th if AptiL its which he expressed his thanks to 3lr. Beauvoir for that etc amen having met his wishes as to the fmewal of the lease, ulna toms which were perteetly satisfactory. With regard to the Regret's Venal, he stated that be was sending bricks to the ('om. Say fee the building of the tunnel that would soon be completed I and tint any particulate 3lr. Beauvoir might in future wish to know manning the Canal passing over his estate, he ( 3lr. Rhodes) should be happy ie sire. The Vice-Chancellor scented to have considered atarivril his Lonlship) all the letters except the first as Immaterial ; but that was not his Lordship's opinion, because he found in this very lota the passage he hail last read, viz. " any information as to the fieeent's Canal parting over your estate, 1 shall be happy to Ott." There are, the question seemed to be, 33 to what the patties et did not know, at the time the subsequent letters were prime. On the 4th of November 1818. a letter was written by Mr. brides to Mr. Tebbutt. senior, In which he stated that the old hat was toe 23 Fran. at 4.151. rent, and would expire in lei and eit Ile OM eesirous for Mr. Tehhsttt to take instroctlons for pre- Poring the new lett.e. and that it was only for 31r. Beauvoir to ray what rent skatild be said, and what shou ld be thr teem, whether 26 et 31 yearn. His leethritip here observed, that with regard to the rams menthead in this letter, it amid not be very well applied Ist building I. nit.. The letter proceeded to state, dust she writer (Mr. M.; bath 41 " vi elermed 31r. B. boo bad the buildings Wert.3nd that "'fed ^ostldt , blifalt in repair* and Mt provementa ; so that if he would great bin a lento% he hoped it would be upon such terms as would he Unmet-ell to him (Mr. II). this Lordship thought it was exceed ingly clear that Mr. Beauvoir did mean to grant 61r. Rhiales a benefleid lane, bat whether such a lease Id had been granted was smother question. On the 17th of November Mr. Rhodes wrote a tote to Mr. Teltbutt, requesting to be informed what they Mr. Ash bade proposed to value the farm. On the tame day Mr. Ashbittle Rena te a letter to lle. Beauvoir, and it woukl be material to state were the terms which that gentlionen advised l ' h°tlbi be pro. f-esol en the renewal of the lease. The letter stated that ale. Telt itot having *utforned him (31r.Ashbittle) that it was Mr. Beeuroir's web whine th e licenses torus surveyed, he begged to iue(onu Mr. i tauvor flirt it had been done, but in making his report he should feel he did net tin his duty if he did not advise Mr. Beauvoir not to rset any mho, kw* (that was, presuming he had not already pro. it until the old lease had expired, so the (anti area worth morethin was at present given. No doubt he (Mr. linaureir) stilled to give Mr. Rhodes the preference, being a t old t'Ont, but he (31r. Ashbittle) saw no reason that, because Mr. Ontilts and his father had bed the form for half Its value. and boil !, ) %at I hoppsepsety out of it that be should cuoinue to do so. At toy rate its thoug ht Mr. Beauvoir should not grant a new lease 1 4 non than twelve years. PO as to "nabs two lemon of twenty-one l ei?* nth. It was not Customary, so near London, to grant longer "T frills. Ile entnidered the estate worth 10001. per *ritual. 5 " ' Q r. if iant. per pinata was to be given for the remaining five Zeus• tine w ou ld b e a lass of 2.00. per ant um . So far, said his Im ettie• this letter of Mr. Aslibittle's spoke of the farm sail* it boa to be let for ag r i cu l tura l purposes in another part of totes 3lr. Ashbill le observed, that a clause should be inserted ','', tile lease to g i ve Ai r. B eauvo i r the power to build, or to require a"' Rholta to build on fr rupart s of the estate, brig in front t'ff Urgent's Canal, and Inuit pound in Katostan.l read, 31e. 4 1 11, 5ittle thooght that he could let the lard tar 40001. per annum -•ian • bin:dine lease. therefore it must be understood that it wet • ...st platinum'. opinion at the time he wro,elthis Iw er, that 4,0t451. r sat.unt zni;tht be made somehow or the other, ei bee by the "sedated or the anent, out of this estate, aril On idea was mention ''t is sol e (lithe papers ww having been raised to 10.1k10/. per art ▪ His lordship would contrast by and by 31r. Aaltbittle's thevalneof the estate, when be contemplated making hint .at 5. and when he thought some other person was to become • r• letter was one which his Lonlabip thought himself as 3 Judge to eonsid.r ea giving Mr. Damson every their ris'n•a at the nine he granted the kale in question, sa to the real t"t Property, and which (unless his Lordship was cli‘nosed think Mr. Ilesuvoir had lost his memory entirely) was fully un "7l;eoil and kt.oen by him at the nerMent of his amending the ctsed Ili, Lottlilsift thought Mr.r. A.libittle acted very ;noway in not latorming Mr. Tebbutt of the contents of thia 1et .77.11S wnn Mr. Rhodes's attorney; and such a communication true plveril that gentleman in a very awkwartl situation. for ' a " 1 : 5 " 1 ": multi feel other w i se t h an aw k war d w h en h e was o blig e d to „. : l e t % A leaned B. end B again s t A ; and therefore this caution .kvhbittJe's kept Mr. Tehbutt nut of' that unpleasant situa .'ln.;tl.• O3 the I Ith Dtcember 1818, r. Benumb. wrote to Mr. mit in this efheci_" 1 perestiawit Mr. litmales to let him the fries safcba e i nta ., 1819, on caneelling the present lease, no t ern'" as should be fair between landlord and tenant. therefore least stand to that. If he will give MN. a-year he Stiouli. Lave my eoesent. I have no objection to let part of it on building leaks. n hen I saw Mr. Tebbutt he told me that Mr. Rhodes wished me to fix the rent myself, which I did not at all like. because I think I it had a very had appearance." Probably, said his Lordship, be- CAW! Mr. B. thought Mr. Rhodes (lieir.g the tenant) wan a bet ter judge of what to propose for the estate than he was what to exact. In consequence of this kola., Mr. Ashbittle wmte to , Mr. Rhodes, saying he was authorised by Alr. Beauvoir to offer him the estate for a term of twee ty-tive years, at 760!. rent, the ground from the Kingeland turnpike road not ex ceeding 200 feet deep, as also the land on the be, , k of the intended canal to be given up for building. It scented, therefore, that Mr. Ashbittle considered 111 r. Beauvoir's letter to authorise him to pro- pose to Mr. Rhodes what his Lordship still considered to be an agricultural lease, with the exception of that part of the land in Kingeland.road and near the canal, on which were to be built wharfs, &e. on six months' notice being riven. Ott the 11th Ja. nuary. 1819, 31r. Ashbittle wrote to Mr. Tebbutt for the counter. part of the lease to show to the umpire appointed to fix the value of the land on the brinks of the canal ; because, said 111 r. Ashbittle, the value in a great measure depended upon the terms of die lease. How Mr. Ashbittle got this information as to the contents of the leak his Lordship could not tell. There was one part of Mr. Aehbittle's letter to Mr. Rhodes in which lie took upon himself to inform that gentleman that there was a clause in the lease to enable bin to take away part of the land at six months notice for building. This letter appeared therefore to be prima facie evidence, both as to what 11r. Ashbittle thought was the value of the premises to be let on a building leek, as well as that Mr. Beauvoir knew the vs. lue, and that he had given by this lease a power for building un der the (little in question. His Lordship did not mean to say, that because the leak was granted in 1819, Mr. Beauvoir must, theretiwe, be aware of all this in 15211; bat he did say that when the plaintiff came into Court for an injunction, the party against whom that injunction was prayed was at liberty, in his answer, to show that that knowledge which Mr. Beauvoir had at one time was what he possessed at the time he granted the lease. On the 30th November, 1320, Mr. Ashbittle wrote to Mr. Beauvoir that Tebbutt, junior, was desirous to rent part or the whole of his land at Hoxton, as he thought it would bring him bu siness in Ids profession, by making underleaem and other wise, and that Mr. Tebbutt had appointed him (Mr. A.) his surveyor. Having eight young children, he felt it his duty lode) all in his power to provide for them. and hoped 31r. B. would ac cede to the proposal. On the Bth of December, 11120, 31r. Beauvoir sniveled this letter, sayiiig he had tveltafeetetais tevereede to the terms proposed. This letter therefore showed that these parties were to become related as landlord and tenant, but the terms al luded to did not appear by the letter. It would come hi a more proper place in this statement to mark what were the terms upon which Mr. Tebbatt, jun. and Mr. Ashhittle meant to become ten. ants of these premise.. On the II th December, 1820, Mr. Teb butt wrote to Mr. Rhodes. and informed him, that on Saturday next be should send to Mr. Beauvoir a lease of some premises in the Haymarkee and if he would infieren him (Mr. Tebbutt) of the pro. posals he (31r.Rhodes) wished to make for the premises at Ho x t on , they should be communicated to '3lr. Beauvoir at the same time that the other business was traredctirg. His Lordship was not dis puted to make any severe comment on this letter, and said it ap peered to be an outrage to all fair Construction to say, that because Alr. Tebbutt km to Mr. Rhoden for hie terms, he therefore meant to favour that gentleman as tin attorney. Ile quite agreed with the. obeereation that it was the duty of the Court to look very astutely and enviously indeed at what agents were doing for their princi pals ; but it did not follow that every thing was wrong that they did. It did not call in question the bottom of the persen who wrote the letter; nor did the letter appear to his Lordship to be of much importance. Bot the rest, which was wriuen by that gentleman to Mr. Rhodes, dated the 16th December, 1820, gave rise to some very imeortant observations. The letter stated that it would be more satisfactory to Mr. Tebbutt, and more proper, if Mr. Rhode, would have the goodness to state his intended proposals to Mr. Beauvoir in writing, and send them to him (sfr. Tehhutt) sealed up and directed, with any letter or observations thereon, and he would endeavour, if Mr. Rhodes increased his offer io a small de gree. to get Mr. Beauvoir to make It a building lease, as well as foe a farm. This advice, it would be seen. was not followed. It was true that the increase in the rent was made in a small degree, but it was equally true that it was not made conformably to what this letter recommended. The letter proceeded to say, that it was also proper that Mr. Rhodes should state bow far Mr. Tebbutt was to treat with Mr. Beauvoir, if it should be necessary to go beyond the sum that should be proposed in Mr. R.'s letter to that gentle man. His Lordship staid he should be sorry to be considered ca pable of doing in his last days what he had ever endearoured to avoid ; he meant that of observing harshly on what any man might have been unfortunate enough to have done; because be knew that the best of men sometimes fell into mistakes. lint he must say, rhat if Mr. Tebbutt was the confidential agent and sol , eitar of 31r. Beauvoir, and if he thought more rent ought to have been offered for the lard ; and if also he thought that Mr. Rhodes would oner more, then, whether Mr. Tebbutt found it necessary to inform 51r. Beauvoir of that circumstance or not, with a view to obtain the lease, still, in his Lordship's judgment. he oug it to have informed Mr. Beauvoir of it—that was to say, if Mr. Rhodes had said, " I will give a thousand pounds for the lease; but get it if you can for 9001." Ilia Lords h ip was bound to say, that every solicitor of this Court ought to have advised Mr. Rhodes thus:—lf you choose to employ me as your confidential agent, still I cannot make any thing that reveille the interests of 51r. Beauvoir confidential mat. ter between tit, because that gentleman also employs me as his con. fidential agent, and thereforelt Is ebiolutely necessary that TstioukT inform hint what it in he can obtain for his estate. " The thing was the more remarkable, because his Lordship could not find how it happened. after this correspondence, that tie terms of the lease were such as they were with respect to the rent. Ile could hind no proposition on the part of Mr. Rhodes that those were to be the rent.. What was it that led to the agreement which Mt. Tebbutt made on 51r. Rhodes's behalf, to be drawn up In the terms it was r He couldfind no such instructions from Mr. Rhodes ; if there were not any, it was incumbent on Mr. Tebbutt to show that there was nothing more reserved in the lease than what 31r. Rhodes con sented to give at Abe time this agreement was entered Into. IBhettttr the rents festered were proposed by Tebbatt to Rhode', Of Rhodes to Tebbutt, car Tebbutt to Beauvoir, it did not appear. His Lord ship would have occasion by and by to consider how much of the answer* lie was bound to read in explanation of the awe spontlence.' He did not think there was a single imputation t.in that was sot in some way or the other explained in the answers upon oath. It appeared In the answers', over and over again, that 31r. Beauvoir had refused to let one person the land, for the purposes of building, who had offered him 1,8001. a year for it. On the 19th of December 1820, Mr. Ritodes wrote td Mr. Tebbutt (in consequence of Mr. 'l'. having written to him on the 16th), requesting .11r. T. to see Mr. Beauvoir respecting the new lease. 0:1 the 27th Mr. Tebbutt wrote to Mr. Beauvoir, in , forming hlm of Mr. Rhodes's desire to take a new lease, and stating that, although lie did not think Mr. R. had offered enough rent, yet, as he stated he would give as much seamy other person for the pro. peel, he (Mr. T.) hoped Mr. Beauvoir would grant him the lease tequired. This letter was written, it. should be remembered, after the notice hail been given by the Regent's Canal Company of their intention to build. if Mr. Beauvoir did not. The latter passage in the letter might have led to the alteration in the terms of the lease, bat that did notappear. His Lordship then adverted to the agree ment fur the Wee, which was dated 13tb January, 1821. It was contained in instructions from Alr. Beaoveir to 3lr. Tebbutt, to we're a new lease to Mr. Rhodes of the farm of Hoxton, on the following conditions, viz.—To surrender the then existing /ease, to take a new one for 09 years. ate rent of 500/. for the fleet year, mid to increase 1001. yearly till the rent should amount to L3OOl. and then to hold the remainder of the term at that rent. These terms were quite different from any that were proposed, and whether they were accepted by Mr. Beauvoir, with the knowledge of 31r. Ithodeit's proposals or not, was a question not yet cleared up. Mr. Rhodes, on the 15th January, 1821, consented to teke a lease upon the terms above mentioned. In this agreement there was a condition v high gave Mr. Tebbutt the right to make all under lessee at Mr. Rhodes's expense, but which were all to be forfeited if made without 31r: Beauvoir's consent. His Lordship ' observed, that this wan a strange clause, making the under lease I forfeited ; though lie wits aware it was quite usual to stipulate I that the attorney of the landlord should draw the leseee and assign meats. His Lordship would have occasion to relwe presently the correspondence that passed between 31r. BffLOVOif and , his sister, about this period, as to the state of that gentle . man's health. The leak, as finally drawn, contained a de mise of the premises upon the terms just mentioned, and alien the usual covenants for esyrnent of rent, &c. ; but there was no Co venant whatever as to butVing, except as to leaving the premises in good repair. There was no obligation to build. nor was there one word said about the professional hiptinete of .11 r. Tebbutt, or that the untletleases were to be prepared by that gentleman. Mr. Benuvuir therefore, or those who come after him, as owner of the rotate, would have no means whatever of peering that the leases were to be so prepared, unless there was some col lateral instrument placed in the ir hands. But it appeared that a bond was executed, but of the contents or existence of which his Lordship could not find that any communication was ever ne de to Mr. Beauvoir. This bond was from Mr. Rhodes to three gentlemen of the name of Tebbutt, who were solicitors. It reeked the lease, and that previously to granting it, slr. lienuvoir hied agreed to grant a lease • of the same premises to Mr. Tebbutt the elder, and Mr. Tebbutt, the younger ; the condition of the bald was, that upon Tebbutt's giving up this agreement (which agreement, however, be never had had: though it was but justice to ely, that in the answer it was t sworn this was put into the condition of the bond by the mfrs . siunal advice or a gentleman who thought It was necessary to have some consideration meotioned to make the bird available) he I Tebbutti was to prepare all under-leaks at Illinclet's expense. but the winds in the agreement for making those under-leases vqid, if granted without the consent of Mr. Beauveir, were struck oat of the bend, and this circumstance wax very remarkable, and made it t very doubtful whether anything with respect to this bond had ever been communicated to that gentleman. Ilis Lordship then std . vetted to the correpoodence which referred to the state of Mr. Ikauvoir's health about this time. Mr. Tebbutt. after hie return I lrom Mr. Ikauvoiett, after the agreement was signed, wrote to . .Me. Renew (the present plaintiff), Informing him that 3lr. t Beauvoir wr.s so if that he did not think he would live long, and soliciting to be continued as the professional agent of the peppily. This letter was produced to show that Mr. B. I was in such a state of weakness at the time that he did not r know what he was doing. The observation OM fair ; but in order 1 to give full weight to it, It was necessary to see what passed stin t wards with that gentlemen as to this transaction, because when it . was in:pitted to Mr. Tebbint that be knew of Mr. B.'s incompe. . termy to judge of his sedges, it breams necessary toexatnine that t charge by attending to the subsequent transactions and conduct of the party to see whether he did tlfWiCndlinni what he was doing. His lawdship then read other letters written other that date, in which t 'Mr. Beauvolr'e health was . spoken of as having imprOved. His i6 : ;3 li v itiT e t ‘ k uire 011 DOS C.ACSIEST.OB.I Utti". hate o h v. Tr* , e r . a y. Arco ,grr v. /Action, Itzt bev,:d ke T . Spencer v. Job A nd Chrotrr of t. tole' Co I. A I COLRT OF AID littYol l IN, bow „:; f d. tivirtor bra j roy b it ,* adverted IWO ths: Lliti ken p, own, and allidsto mac kith etturvr o 'rata lir' give a IT die 10 401 P beßs^ in THE BRITISH PRESS. • Lordship again adverted to the lease, and said, that however proper or improper might be. the covenants that 'were inserted in it with respect to the obligation to build on the premises there was no co- ' venant whatever. There was to obligation for the tenant to build for the benefit of the lardlnrd, but there wan a power and authority depending entirely on the pleasure of the lessee to build. but which he meth!. never execute. Such a eirenmetaece would have been a matter of no coneequence if this NM been a case in which Mr. Beauvoir was acting by the *Mike of one attorney, and Mr. Rhodes by that of another ; because let the advice be as reenlist' as it might be which an attorney gave to his client on the one aide, and let the advantage be as great as it might be on the either, still the parties had a right to hold each other at arms' length, be cause if the bargains were ever Si) foolish on the one side, yet no confidence was betrayed, and it'did not follow that the client could clime to .hat Court for an injunceioo to restrain the other party from acting upon the bargain. But the whole difficulty here was this—nut whether this was a foolish bargain on the part of Mr. Beauvoir, but whether that gentleman (if it were an improvident bargain for him) had been brought to execute it under these dr " eunistanees before he had a full and perfei:t information which he I was entitled to receive fehm Mr. Tebbutt, as his attorney while I that person was also acting vs the attorney of Mr. Rhodes ? If this case, therefore, depended upon the question, a hether this ' agreement was beneficial or not ? whether it was a fair one or not with respect • to the landlord ? whether it was an agree. ment which, with integrity and Oddity, might have been proposed to Mr. Bouvoir, Its decision would rest a great deal upon evidence, upon which there was ompriderabie difficulty upon these affidavits, to come to a conclusion. It had often happened, in his Lordship's experience, that the evidknee of surveyors was never to he reconciled. Here were several able and highly respectable men, who had stated their reasons very hilly, but which, how. ever strongly they went to euppent their respective opinions, must ever be viewed with eoneiderable allowances, the majority of whom stated, that, notwithstanding the absence of the covenant for building, and notwithstanding all the other •matters complained of, they most positively said that this was a ease which, under the circumstances of the private property of Mr. Rhodes being ad joining, and regard being had to the extreme distress that pre vailed, and the difficulties upon all building speculations, they would not have advised Mr. Rhodes to have taken. On the other hand, it was stated by several gentlemen as being the moat improvident lease that ever net arinned, containing no proper covenant for the benefit _of She larellowl, and reserving a rent thenetiter Menem:rate. thallefere, eh% ease was so depend upon the value, his Lordship knew no other means of deciding it, but by its going to a Jury. With respect to the lease itself, it had become necessary before his Lordship looked to the answers to see in what mode the agreement was executed. It was more material in this ease than in any other his Lordship had ever met with, be. cause nothing could have been done by the 'event without the knowledge of the landlord ; for as soon as the landlord was de termined upon a great and extensive scheme of buildieg, it was quite obvious that the objection to the omission of the covenant in the lease should have been made as soon as possible. The answer was, that this objection was matte as soon as the necessary inquiries had been made. It became, therefore, the duty of the Ceurt to ascertain that passed after the death of Mt. 4a., and also, whit were the declarations and the conduct of 11r. 11. himself. Upon these beads his Lordship promised to give judgment en Tnestlay next. His Lordship, on resuming his judgment this morning, observed that it was his duty to say, that he found he was mistaken when he said that it did not appear by the answers anything that would authorise him to represent that Mr. 'tenured?' knew of that notice. He found that he was perfectly accurate in stating that no notice was token in the bill of that circumstance; and if it were an ms triad as it had been represented in the nrgunient, undoubtedly in the progress of the case there should have been something said that would have explained it. But. looking at the answer, his Lordship had found it most positively sworn by every one of the defendants that Mr. Beuvoir knew that the notice had been given, and, notwithstanding, be thought right to execute the 'este. That circumstance was very materiel. The bill in the prayer of it might be represented as two-told. It prayed, first, that the lease might be set exude. offering certain terms to he sub stituted for it ; and in the next place, If not set aside, that the lease might be reformed. The motion front which this was an tenors', was simply to prevent waste in digging brick earth, though it had had the effect of preventing everything ; and if that motion was granted, considering the great operation it had on the whole of this concern. it must have been we either on the ef fect of the correspondence or from the answers of the defendants; or the affidavits before the Court. It became necessary, therefore, to look nt the lease Itself, and the circumstance 'older which it was granted, with a view to see what could be ntade of this lease In the present state of the record. His Lordship then shortly reverted to the old lease, to the proposition for the new lease, and to the state of the land at the time the negotiation was going forward. It ap peared that the lend which fronted Hingland.road, and that lying on the banks of the Regent's Canal was considered very proper for building upon ; but the rest having been excavated, it seemed doubtful whether it could be rendered serviceable tor building. By his letter to Mr. Beauvoir, Mr. Ashbittle stated that the estate in the first instance was worth 7501. a-year, and that the land at Kings. land-road and the Canal ought to be considered such as might be valuable for building. Whether this representation was true was one question, but his Lordship could not find that that proposition was properly attended by Mr. Tebbutt, because that proposition ate sworn to contained nothing us to building. By the fat lease either Mr. Rhodes lead or plod oak s terne that would fief have expired till letrffer, alrhitainf in newer, true it was that he had such a term, but the lease gave a pow* to Mr. Beauvoir tee restore the whole of the land RIC building. Now in the that place his Lordship °null uot,cortstrote that lease to give such t power, because it was toad afftsdratietat that the covenant was to aptiate in such a manner as to *Balite the landlord to destroy his own lease; but still it appeared to his Lord. ship that Mr. Beauvoir must know what his lease was, whether Mr. Ashbittle did or not, and Alr.Meavoir. seemed in his answer to apprehend from first to last that he had no right to build, nor did ' be evince any inclination ever to dose ; and he could not under that clause take the land, unless ht chose either by himself or some other person to embark in a building speculation; a thing it appeared to his Lordship he never intended to do. Is appeared to his Lordship from the letter of Mr. Ashbittle, that he did DM know of that power in the lane, but it was a little difficult, his Lordship thought, to accrunt for that gentlemen's leaving at that time offered 12001. a. year fur tae premises. Supposing the offer did include the land near Ringsland-road, and at the front of the Canal, still it was dif tinilt to make out that ignorance of his as to what the lease con tained. But if there was that ignorance on the part of Mr. Ash bittle, still it amid not be taken for granted that Mr. Benevoir did not know the contents of the lease. There was another circuit'_ stance of materiality in the case. Kingeland.roed being represent ed to be a frontage only, and the whole of the rest of the land being represented as his Lordship had before stated, the circumstance he alluded to, if true, was a most material one. which waa that the neigh bouring property belonged to alr. Rte des himself, which gave him such a command as to the land he rented from Mr. Beauvoir that he could do with it more than any other person ; if he coul d avail himself of that advantageous cireumtuarece, it was one which he certainly had a clear right to do. Under these circumstances it was cnntendetl that Mr. Tebbutt and hir Rhodes had attempted to deceive Mr. 13.eauvole, and undoubtedlY there were some circum stances which would countenance that suspicion, but on the other hand It must be recollected that this is most solemnly denied ; it was sworn that Mr. Beauvoir feed, on the fish January, desired the elder Tebbutt to go to him on that nod other business, so that the letter, coupled with what was mentioned in the answer, showed that this journey of Tebbutt, junior, was not a concerted plan be tween Rhodes and Tebbutt, but in coMequence of what had passed between young Tebbutt and Mr. Beauvoir that he went down to that gentleman ; the agreement was then and there executed, and if they looked at the messier, which his Lordship could not take to be false, a more deliberate act en the part of Mr. Beauvoir in signing the agreement could scarcely be imagined, as they represented it. But then the Court were told that the lease was the most improvident that ever was executed, and in every respect objectionable, more particularly so with regard to the apportionment of the rent. Whether it were so or not, his Lordship could not undertake to say, for when he Saw the se- vend respectable surveyor*, Mr. Abash, Air. Cockerthle, and Mr. Burton, in their judgment the rent was full as large as it ought to be. They were all of opinion, looking back to the state ao which landed property was at thrsiate that lease was executed, and considering the circumstances with teepees to the land in the neighbourhood being Mr. Rhodes's own property, they . said that 1,0001. rent wax as good rent as ought. to be paid for it. Then they went on to say that this lend ought not to be looked at as land on which to build houses of chit particular rate or of that par ticular rate, being in much a neighbourhood, and therefore they said it was a proper lease; and though it amtaineti no covenant with reference to the nature of the houses that were to he built. that was because the situation required it to he left to the telex of the party, and his speculative disposition. hloreover, with respect to the apportionment of the rent, they Insisted that it was a very proper and righteous provision, and that it was such as aught to hare been made; but they did not stop there, for it was posi. tively sworn that some conversation a ith Air. Beauvoir was held, as to these matters not being introduced into the lease, and that he, exercising his own judgment, did not object thereto, but was fully cognizant that these things were not put into the fever, and when informed thereof, his answer was, that he knew Mr. Rhodes and would leave it to his judgment. The lease wax then executed, seed lee took notice that there, was no covenant as to the undertows being prepared by his own solicitor, and that then lee was told that wax to be done by a separate instrument. His Lordship again adverted to the bond which had been executed fur this pur pose, and repeated his strong seen of the impropriety of it. It was also' stated in the bill, that great hurry was ' manifested in the getting the agreement and lease executed. This was a circumstance which deserved a great deal of attention ; but what was the quantum of time" to be given to the arrangeinent of any liminess, mum always depend . on the importance of it end other cirettnextancee relative to tie I room. time. It was stated in the answers that Mr. Beeuvoir's health was such as made it necessary to permit of no delay. 'lie Lordship thought that no person could deny that the elder Mr. Tebhutt did not, for tome reason or other, think that Mr. Beauvoir would moon go out of the world ; but the fart was that he lived to the next year. It should be remembered also that it was sworn in the answer that Mr. Beauvoir not dying as soon as Mr. Tehebutt, expected he would, he afterwards recognized this lease over and over again, was competent to make a lease of other premises to a Mr. N., and mentioned mien eiecumetasites inspecting his property ; and tha t finally he died, making %codicil, fa which be gave various legacies amounting to 1.1,000 f. It was likewise sworn that long after th, existence of this leave this was the subject of convenamon oil the part of the present plaintiff, who suceaseded to Mr. Beauvoit'e property ; and that he agaia sad again expressed his pleasureas his hither haring duns this fur an old tenant, and that the present Mr. Benyoti had. in thelife time of Mr. Bouvoir, declared his yetis faction at Mr. Rhodes having the 'and. But that seemed to his "Lardship of little consequence, suppo.ing that gentleman did not then know the terms of the lease. The lease was one which per haps presented tor consideration sircumstances of alleged confirms. Lion that regoirtil more of the attention of the Court than oc curred in any case Iris Lordship recollected to have come before him. Because every step that had been taken by the parties in the enjoyment if such a lease as this involved them In circumstances more and more difficult to extricate themselves ftom, and therefore had a right to a fair and anxious consideration of those confirmatory matters diet hail been offered to the Court. Though his Lordship thought that, under the circumstances of this case, justice might be done lit an arrangement that might be made out • teourt (if the Lease shonki be set aside), not upon the ground of con fithistion, but upon all the facts together ; yet it was necessary to consider whether the terms proposed in the bill were such as would do justice in the ease, should the lease be set aside. But his Lordship begged Mr. Home's attention to the .dilliculty under which the Court was at this ment. Thecase came to his Lordship upon an appeal for an injurction, which seethed to have very little ground to go upon, being merely with reference to some brick earth. and yet it was a case which was most important in its conse quentes. .the great diffictilty his Lordship experienced was this__ that he was not Mire nn this record that it was possible for him to set aside the lease. On the other band, with respect to the de mand of the plaintiff, his Lordship did not see how Ire could pre vent him from guing on to a hearing. Rut his Lordship would say, that if the plaintiff would do justice, he would not grant the motion, because granting the motion would put an end to the whole of the operatiorts and iinprovements that were going forward on the estate. 1 he Court could not say how far on no further hearing this lease could stand. The Court was not in a condition to say one way or the other. If the case were to go as far ..s it might do in a Court of Equity, his Lordship thought it would be the most unwise, severe, end unjust course that could be pursued. His Lordship would put the question to the parties, whether on both sides they could have any objection to try an issue whether this was a lease obtained fraudulently and by imposition. It was material to have this question decided by a jury in another point of view; for whether the lease was obtained upon fraud and imposition or not, yet it became a question whether in point of value there was eel. dente to show that the lease was fraudulently obtained. In his Loedship's opinhui he thought it was not. lie had not the slightest hesitation to say, that upon the point of value the plaintiff was beat alil to nothing. - If tikes the case was to go to an issue, the mode of trying it must be such as will satisfy the conscience of the Court. But, in this case, parties had beet made de fendant* merely for the purpose of costs, who alone could give evidence as to the nature of the transactions. If these parties were to be made an objection to their being examined at the trial, then it appeared to his Lordship that the case must go on in this Court. If lie were to send it to an issue without giving Mr. Rhodes the opportunity of proving the facts which the evidence of the Mt. lebbutts could alone do, he should be working him a material in jury. In making them parties in the first instance the plaintiff subjected himself to the objection that he was shutting out persons who were atoneable to be witnesses as to what circuinstences Sc. tually took place. The Counsel would consider the nature of this proposition, and inform the Court on Monday next. Mr. lionxE said the Messrs. Tebbutt had not been made par. ties for the rake of costs. The LoaD CHANCELLOR did not mean to say they were so on that ground only, but it was not properly requisite to make them parties to the sun at all. Mr. HORNE maid his Lordship must feel that in this Court there were doctrines shut were not well understood in Courts of Law in reference to cues of conspiracy. The I.onD CHANCELLOR had looked at that point, and, in ge neral, be thought cases of conspiracy were very 111 trie.t at law ; but he could, upon the answers which had been tiled, undertake to say, that this lease could be set aside. The stage the Court was in was only bill and answer. Mr. How vt E thought it was to be considered a full hearing. The LORD CHANCELLOR.—If there is any other evidence I shall be glad to hear it; buf under the present facts before me, I cannot make up my mind to make this lease void. You wdl tell me what further occurs to you on Monday next DuRIE V. JONES. Mr. HORNE wished to know whether the Court meant to alter the intimation it had given upon Mr. Palmer's petition in this muse, that he might be permitted, at a distance of more than twenty years, to bring in • claim against the late Mr. Bowes's estate. The LORD Citasic ELLOR said, he did not mean to alter the in. timation that the Court could not permit Mr. Palmer to go into the Master's office with his demand, but he meant to slate the rea son• he had for reusing this indulgence to Mr. Palmer. Mr. HAU T did not wish to give the Court the trouble of stating its reason, fir pronouncing judgment against his client, because he was sure that those reasons, whatever they might be, would be found to be reason* not to be quarrelled with. The Lon n CHANCELLOR said, he decided upon the petition upon general principles. Mr. HORNE then asked if Mr. Hart was was satisfied, and now understood judgment to be given Mr. HART said yes ; his client would have to be content to lose 2,0001. for the rake of " general principles." hlr. Ilona; E next submitted, that Mr. Hart's client ought to pay the costs of this application, It being an appeal from an order of the Mast" of trio- Mr. HanT certainly hoped the Court would not think this a case for costs. • 31r. Hon sr E clearly considered it a ease for costs. The Court Rad decided that 31r. Palmer had DO right to touch the turd, and ROM COMA were given with the judgment, the funds would he dsmnified. He only naked the coats ou " general principles." (A laugh.) His Li:intim', refused the application for CONS. WELI.F9LF.Y V. TIIEOUILE OF BEAUFOII,T. The SO I: 1cfT011:4 riE it ai w — an truc teti 06 uy, that 1f hie Lordship did not wish to retain the affidavits he had in this case, respecting the reference to the Blaster, that the parties were anxious to have them returned. The LORD CHANCELLOR dlid, he had them at home, and would bring them into Court tomorrow. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COVRT, TUESDAY, N0v.13. NUM V. TOIMAN. This was a bill flied by the plaintiff, John Whew, a soldier, who had served in the Peninsular war, against the executor of his late master, Major Lawson, for the amount of a legacy of SOUL. Three per Cents. devised to him by the deceased. It was admitted in the defendant's answer that the plaintiff was the person to whom the legacy was left as described in the bill. It was farther allowed that there was a sufficiency of a hi u ssets to dis charge the bequest. The money had been paid m Court, subject to the Vice-Chancellor's decision as to its application ; but it was submitted on the part of the defendant, that the bequest was re stricted to the use of the plaintiff's children after his decease. The VICE-CHAS CELT-OR—I have read the terms of the bequest, and it appears to me that the plaintiff takes a life interest, and his children are entitled to the reversion. PUFFING AT AUCTIONS. wowxisovar v. ADANTIMAITZ. This was an application of a rather curious nature. It watt a bill filed by the plaintiff for the purpose of compelling the special performance of a contract entered into by the defendant m a public sole by auction, held at Appleby. in the county of Cumberland. Mr. HEALD appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. St:Grin: (with whom was Mr. Locavr) for the defendant. Mr. HEALD proceedelf to argue the case in support of the A contract had been entered Into by the defendant, a Dr Adam thwaite, who was a schoolmaster In the county of eumherlar.d, for the purchase of certain common lambi at Wateby. in that county, with the manorial rights thereunto belonging. The contract took place at Appleby, and was entered into at a public sale by auction. where the defendant appeared by his agent, rind subsequently cure forward as a bidder in his own person. and purchased the estate for a sum of 1,0001. Defendant refused to fulfil his contract, on the ground of a fraudulent and deceptive sale. It was alleged that several puffets were employed at the vale; that the defendant was in that manner induced to give more for the hind than he-would otherwise have done ; and that the sum at which it was purchased was far above its real and intrinsic value. The estate eonsipted of between 800 and 800 acres of common land, in the neighbourhood of Appleby, with manorial privileges attached. It was stated in the plaintiff's bill that it was the practice at Appleby to appoint a ' bidder in behalf of the vender. in order to prevent the property from being sold below the value which the latter set upon it. IVhen the amount which the vender was willing to accept had been bid, it was then customary for the auctioneer to throw down his hammer on the table, and declare "it was a sale." From that period it was ' derstood that no farther bidding. except bona fide real bidding, was to take place. In his answer the learned defendant admitted the existence of the custom, but urged that in the present cue a person employed by the vender continued his biddings after the auctioneer had declared " it was a sale." On the part of the plaintiff he was free to admit, if this allegation were true, it would vitiate the We; but the contrary was proved to be the tact in the evidence taken in the cue, from which it clearly appeared that no bidding, fictitious or otherwise, took place after the public declaratine of the sale. The facts were simply these :—The defendant was a learned Doctor, who kept a school near Appleby ; he was very anxious to obtain the style and dignity of lord of the manor of Wateby ; and. with the view of effecting his purpose, employed a person of the name of Bradley as his bidder for the estate in question. During this time and while the sale was going on the worthy Doctor was engaged regaling himself in a room adjoining the sale room. Bradley was first instructed to bid 600/.. then 11001.; and finally the learned Doc tor came forward, pmpria pertona, and bid 900 guineas. Pre. sinus to this the biddings had proceeded at 101. advances each time. The Doctor's agent had bid 7001., the vender's - agent bid 8001. against him, and then came the learned Doctor, and nt once rejecting and despising the pu-tillanimous advance of DM hid 800 guineas. advancing 40/. at one step. He appeared determined to be lord of the manor, and lord of the manor he accordingly was, having been finally declared the purchaser for a sum of 10001. The estate wan knocked down to him at that prim, Init. as it appeared afterwards, suspecting he had purchased, his lordship rather too dearly, he repented his bargain, and refused to complete it. Ac cordingly, he attempted to rely: , himself thorn its conditions, by saying he had been prevailed on to purt:base it too dearly by Mee and fraudulent nit ans. That the eirctimiunneea might have taken place en a moment of hilarity, he was not prepared to deny, but the defendant had not stated that in his answer, and was not therefore untitled to the benefit of the plea. Mr. SUODEN emir for the purpose of explaining the state in which it was alleged his client was at the time of the ode. It was the custom (rather a strange one) in that part of the country. to hold those aides by nigh:. They were frequently protraeted till a ' late, hoar. and the present one, as it appeared in evidence, did hog terminate till twelve o'clock. The defendant had had a party 4: - ' friends to dine with him at his own house, surd in the evenlag tad. _so journed to the place of sale. This most be held suthcient to sie..k. count for the circumstances of this extraordinary affair. . The evidence taken in this cause, which was very volum d l , was then read, and bore out the opening statement to •consi t intent. Mr. St:opt w„ for the defendant, contended against the validity of the contract. Feveral puffers Itad been employed. That was MX a necessary defensive precaution ma d e use of to prevent the land being sold below its real value, but to enhance the priori fmudi• lently on the purchaser. If such a proceeding had been resorted I to, the Cou:t could not enforce the rphial performance of &contract s• obtained. To the irregulerity , attendant on the sale he was use. disposed more particularly to allude, or follow the exeoipl of the , loather side, in the way in which they treated the iuteropentnee of I the parties. Even the plaintiff's witnesses only repstsetitert thy value of the property at about 5001. and yet the price had beau raised to 1000/. on the defendant. It was amnion land, and upolt enclosure the lord of the manor would only be entitled to one.sia.., teenth part, something le.r than 49 acres; the annual I n i f it ut`'•• 4 which, after deducting expenses, would not amount to 31. Tile L. tice to the auctioneer relative to the stmt at which the land was to ' be sold was spoken of in evidence, but neither it nor a copy of jt had been produced. Mr. Horton Bradley. the agent of Dr. it dorm thwaite, was int authorised to bid 1308/. for the land, then he was empowered to advance as far as 8001. • hiving dune whicb„hia ptia. eipal mote into the room and offered 800 guineas. This he might be supposed to do in the way of a cleneher, and to secure the estate, supposing the opposition to arise from real bidder.. He should have observed, that after having been with the Doctor, and subse quent to receiving inatructiora to &drones to C9Ol. Mr. Honors liradley met Wright the auctioneer in the passage—for the harbor were Ong in and out of the room at intervals dining the safe—and • there he understood from Mr. Wright. and was led to believe from his statement, that a sale hied been declared. Ott entering the auction room, he proceeded to bid on the faitlfof Ibis ondecstatid.o, - ing, but soon ascertained from the persons present that ibirsaki was declared. This produced a squabble, terminated by Dom* .0 4 Adamthwaite's entering the apartment, and bidding in the mans 4 1 ,, nor described. With regard to the puffers employed. Besg m e..- e , t was the principal one, but there was another who sra4 bidding without the knowledge of the auctioneer himself. 't was Captain Hammond. He was applied to by Briggs to pu he refused to continue that office any longer. No sum hid tamed or ripdointed is a limit to Briggs, *became into the ruse with a carte blanche. and might ha* proceeded as far as he thought proper. Doubtless he did go AN fares he thought the Doctor would follow him. Exclusive of the defendant, there were...it:ly two other bona fide bidders. These were. Perkins, who had bid 5001 4 'ewd l'hostipson, who had °fined a little more than 500 i. This otbers were, !Smiley, the defendant's agent, and Hammond and Briggs, • the two puffer's: so that it appeared the real hiddings only amounted to 500/. or a little more, which wee tbe.true value of the propeity. Nevertheless, it was sold for 1.0001. to Dr. Adamth vane, he bait 6 : induced to believe ther e were severa l r e a l bidd ers in the non, and Chet he might have miscalculated the Willie of the lard; Thitt vele evidently a trap laid far the defendant, as was clearly apparent fin* the fact, that when the sum offered amounted to 9041!., the ant , donee,. puffer. proprietor—in fact, all the parties left the room, for the purpose of ascertaining from Mr. Thompson, who acted as the defendant's banker, whether, in ease the estate were kitocked down to the defend**, he would advance the necessary sum as a deposit. On linding,Thourponn consented to do so, they retuned ; and, aft* a little more time spent in putting, they induced the Doctor to bid 10001., on which the auctioneer, thinking he had gone hir enough, laid his hammer on the cubic, and declared the defendant the per. chaser. Under all these circumstances of fraudulent intention and deception on the pan of the plaintiff: conslderhig too the state of the Doctor, and that he was the defendunt not the plaintiff in the' present cane, be Dusted his Honour would see reason to dismird the hill. The VICE-Cntewoteeon—What were the respective biddinga of Captain Hammond ? Mr. LOVATT—Thq are atated generally to have been from about six tower's handed pound's. "l'hertoo-Ceteetzt.e.oei—That Is the most important fact, and the one on which the ease must turn. You complain of a se- , mid miller. • Hammond Is the seemed puller. You say you arc defrauded by his means. Now, if Dr. Adamthwaite gave an authority to his agent to bid to the extent - of 8001. bowie he dee fronded by means of Hammond's biddinge, which do notation to • have exceeded 700 f. Mr. LOVATT—The first authority was to bid to the amount of 6001. The VICE.CITANCLI.I.PR—Yes. If previous to the enlarge ment of Mr. Bradley's powers from 6 to 61101. Hammond seas a bidder, that is, if he was a bidder at a sum under 001. the choker , - stance of his bidding may have led to the enlargement of Bradlefe authority, and then the defer lent it defrauded. But if where's*, the defendant is not defra4ded by him, and it not by him, then rot by the other : for the custom admits of one puffer. Now I may reasonably enough conjecture liemmeed's bidding% commenced somewhere between bOOl. and 0001. beeeuee at a little above beete. the bone Ale bidding terminated, but the Coon can't go neon con jecture, and it is not in evidence. It severe Hammond was ',o ohed to by the voila to bid, in order that the estate might rot be 1 depreciated in value on some future occasion, from appeathm to be • knocked down at this tale. at too low a price. Tn present this pre rtlico to its " 1611 4 - B 1 i Ags tees to Hammond. " Oh. tlen't.tet *Mire ought in an low as 0 or 7001." and accordingly Hammond ad vances on the biddinga of the puffer, and nut of the buyers. I re peat, that in my opinion the case tune on the circumstances ot . Hammond's bidding berme the land reached the price of 6001. or after. If his biddinga commenced before. then a fraud (perhaps as • unintentional yam, yet virtually a fraud,) was cottnnitted on the real percher-ere. Mr. HEALn nhserved, that he had in his opening exculpated Capt..fientenond from any intentional participation In the freed charged to have been committed bT the other side. Mr. LOVATT—It appears that both Hamaised and Briggs were bidders front 000. to 11110/. The Vice-Cweectaeot.—That .is perfectly immaterise-e It is no matter who were the bidden at those cones, for Bradley would. Wording to hie instructions. have bid against Briggs alone. np to 0001., and, of eantee. Briggs woeld have bill upon Bradley's advances, so that it matters not whether Hammond was then a bidder or not. In my opinion there ran be no objection to the employment of a punier, as retch is the understood cet;tcren or the country white the transaction took place. Dr. Adamtheine must hare known well enough that somebody was bidding on the pert of the vender till such time as the auctioneer, in whom (and halt as Mr. fengden Itippomet in the 'stiffen, the discretion he rested, striker Its hammer on the table and " declares e sale." In this case the vendee communicates his intentions as to the property . a, the auctioneer, who goes on without declaring a sale ti ll the be t& dirge amount to 1000!. If you will, you may suppose the propesey to be not worth •20111. ; that is net material. A than who goes to auction Is understand to go there smart bid on Isis own opinion of the value of the property. If he has Mood an erroneous one it is hie own fault. But if fraud lee employed to deceive him and lend hien into the formation of an erroneous opinion, then the conuac ne obtained is void. In the present instance, if Hammond never bid for theland till after it had reached the price of Wet., and 000► had been mentioned by the defendant to his agent, there was no . fraud. Adamthwaite hail already autherleed Bradley to bid to the extent of 8001 and could not have been ildleenced by Hammond's biddinga, which had not yet taken place. If, on the ,conne - y. Hammond's biddinga commenced before the defendant exceeded his order from 6001. to 11001. it was extremely material. and filtered the whole complexion of the case. As no Cll , tolll of the venue, authorized the intervention of a mecond puffer, Hammond's Diane stood ter real one., and as representations of his idea of the valeta of the property. In eof these biddines (euppostne they preceded the amount oft ) Adamthwaite mmet have mired km order from 1 , 00/. to 0001. If he heard Hammteel, a gentleman a reepeetability property. arid Information (sn it appeared he wee) bid np to MK the defendant might naturally enarlutle his own estimate of the value of the pmpery incorrect. and J etermine so advance In Ida offer*. If This was proved to hare or:7.arrA, I have no hesitation to say it would have been a fraud, mid the ('octet would not have confirmed the contract. But if this was not .tbe cane. and the defendant gave his agent enders to advance its fir as 8001. of west consequence is it whether the agent bkl against A. and B, or against A only ? Either the one or the other would have imen ' , efficient to have caused him to advance to the point speci fied. Circumstances have been !stated which render it a reemnehlt conjecture that Hammond did commence his biddiaes beaux the land fuelled the price of 6001. ; but n reasonable conjecture is not a logical conclusion. 'therefore that is not enough. It must be referred to the Master to inquire what were the biddints of Carmen Hammorte Mr. HEAL?, admitted that Mr. Mrmithouse could not Karel's@ pares. and that if the defendant had been imposed moor, In po,a. sequence of Captain Hammond'a bidding', the tontract wee %Ind. He just wished to put it to the Chart. previous to its being lefsue the Master, whether. u Dr. Adamtbiteite was in a differed men from that in which the sale took place, he wtts likely to be aware of the fact of Hammond'e biddtony, supposing she latt e r be t.kt before the estate had reached 6001. The Vteg-Clrawerilnif.lassutne the egret rep)rtef—te by principal what passed at the axle. Supposing Hnounond bad bid fore the time mentiorod. I assume Medley repromit.d thm cumin/nee to Dr. Adaeultwaite. I think it extremely orobsid.: that Captain Hammond was a bidder before the estate riss:.cd fika. because the kat of the rest bidders stopped at a little above :idd: However, that is the *object for the Master's ioquiry. Alltht nth no intention of fraud was entertained. yet., if a fraudulent siren was thereby produced on the buyer, that is no apology. Lekt i: be • referred to the Master, to inquire whether Hammond 'dad, a y bidding before the Price reached 610 t, with liberty to Nate eay,oir constant-es specially. After delivering Ina decision. the VICE-Cdaaclettdel eel& if the refusal to Abide by the terms of the aeree.rent dud heed put. ea the ground of the intemperance of all the parties, be would never have affirmed the contract. Mr Scongo—%re supposed as moth. your Renew% blot me. tient of delicacy to the defendant. who kt4-r» a lava rehopl in tile • neighbourhood of this place, entrained ut ream adopting the plea. We did not wish the circumstances to en abroad to the emrhl However. they will. owing to the cooduet adopted on the o th er ride by Mr. Heald. and that without any advantage to hiocliest. Mr.}Kann--lt was not my wish to state lily thing to the pre judice of this Learned Doctor. notwithstanding belies p im i,,i i( d us with this suit, which will homy mind punish bimetal in the end. Indeed perhaps both parties will be witfesers eventually. cOUkT.OF KPIEVB BUNCII, TutsDAY, Nov. 15: arms, 11r1XL ♦WD oTetrAte INHICA.D i &vi) OT11141111• Th: phittititre is this actin Ate ram: halm, the deFendana ca. _ , ~.,.. J 1 i ';'.. ? i y i . . 41 i 1 ~. / 1 If ; Y $ ii 1 1 i 1 i 9 i 4. 1 . U N I