The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1867-02-26 00:00:00

WIMBORNE.

fC.
tßhl: 021,0/1'
rdecH
ba.ll:cti 71..2 Li7.7...1. ,
r. EarlofFiebb.aft2,3.:
bury. This was an appeel from • deers. of yin..
Chancellor Wood, dioniming the plainaff's bilL The
object of the suit was tc enforce specific perfornanes.4
an egreement which the plaintiff alleged 64 be,,,
en'ered into by Mr. Waters, then agent to the defendant,
by which the defendant We. to vent plaintff)
• lases of two farms called Horton and Woodlands, in
the irinnty of Don-et, at • yearly rental of Lem Th.
plaintiff entered into possession of the farms, and re.
mained in their occupation for five years, and epos the
strength. as lie alleged. of the agreement for 'less,,
out nearly MOM upon improving the lands. Event.
nally, upon an application being made to the defendant
for • learns, it was refused 011 the ground that if
Mr. Waters had entered into any such agreement
a. alleged by the plaintiff he bad no authority from
dofendent to do no. It appeared that the
customary tenure of the farms on the &fends. to
estates was • you!) one. or at moat upon terms of
two Or three years. Upon an action of ejecta:teat keit'
brought againat the plaintiff he gave up tosserion
rf
the farm. and then filed this bill for relief. The bill
prayed for the specific performance of the eontract
alleged by the plaintiff to have been entered into by the
defendant's agent for granting him aleaae, and oleo for •
declaration that the plaictiff was entitled to compn,.
nation for the loss be bad sustained in laying opt
money on the farina in addition to or in solutitetou
for any other part of the relief preyed. Th. eeid..c.
adduced on behalf of the plaintiff mair.ly consisted of a
very lengthy earreapoodence between hirnself and Mr.
Waters and the nefeadant's agent who socueeded him
bat the inference to he drawn from it, as urged
oo behalf of the defendant, was that it amounted
to nothing more than negotiations for the
of a lease. The case came before the Vice• Chancellor
in April, 1866, whon his Donner held that t:.•
evidence in support of the alleged eueetnant totally
failed to esteldish that fact. With respect to the claim
for compensation, under the Statutes of the 214 and
22. d of Victoria, cap. 27, his Honour considered that
the Court bad no jurisdiction to deal with the /negro.,
of damages where the plaintiff bad failed to make out al
ease for specific performance, as the discretion peen by
dist statute could only be exercised in lien of or in
addition ta a decree for an injunction or specific pan
forcance of • con'ract The bill woe therefore at..
missed, and the plaintiff appealed. The Attorney.
General ea i Mr. Ksy appeared for the appellant ;
R. Palmer and Mr. Speed for the defendant. The Lod
Chanoell.ir now gave lodgment, and, after disposing of
the question raised under the notate aa to dminges.
said that the point to be determined we. whether
an agreement in any way binding upon tie
defendant bad been made oat 1:q the evidence.
The fint rtep was to prove that Mr. Waling
had authority from the defendant to Wee
into • contract to grant such a lease, and upon this pool
his Lordship was of opinion that althougn Mr. Wide.,
did now and thee grant leases for short terms he bed..
absolot• and independent power to enter into any stoo-
-1 tract for such • lease as that claimed by the plaintiff. It
was doubtful whether the tenants believed that
Waters bad any sueb general authority ; bet, al ally
rate, the plaintiff's own letters showed dearly that co
binding contract had been entered into, for they COD -
sta•tly referred to negotiations going on as to the teens
upon which the farms were to be held. Throughout the
whole of the long corysspondetiee the plaintiff wig
negotiating for terms which the defendant would it
accede to, and his (the plaintiff's) conduct was ooneinfr
ing to show that be never had, nor believed that he
had, an agreement of which be mould Maim sessile
performance. The whole foundation, therfore, fir
relief in Nulty as to speedo performance of any even
went binding upon the defendant failed. With re.pset
to the claim made by the plaint'ff for damages on the
alleged ground that the defendant bad admitted toe
existence of some agreement, it could not be sustained,
as the defendant had clearly disproved any acquiescence
abpypti.nlimingitthtebelzrzebn:
meet ...doe
,b.dy thiebspLaiindi.tid The
with oasts.