The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-05 00:00:00

LOCK V. NATTEMS.-ACQUIRING TITLE TO LAND.

This was an action of ejectment to recover possession of •
piece of land, and at the trial before Mr. Justice Keating,
at Wells, the verdict was substantially for the defendant.
Sir F. blade now moved for a rule to enter • verdict for
the plaintiff, and stated that the circumstances were these.
The land in question was about six acres in extent, and
was formerly part of the manor of Wilscombe, of
which in 1830 Mr. Beadon was the lord. In that year an
inclosure act passed, and of mine • portion of the land was
allotted to the lord, and the plaintiff's ancestor, who had
been employed in draining the manor, inclosed the land in
question, which was then worthless, and by his labour
erected a house and considerably improved the land, of which
be continued in undisturbed possession from 1830 to 1856,
without paying any rent or otherwise acknowledging title
in anybody else. In 1840 Mr. Beedon sold the manor to
Lord Ashburton, under whom the defendant claimed. The
learned counsel submitted that old Mr. Lock having had
pi.,osion, as he bad for more than 20 years, had sequin
under the statute of limitations, the 3rd and 4th Wm. IV.,
e itatutable indefeasible title. The defendant's ease was
that :a certain conversation, which occurred in 1846, de-
*trued, any right of the plaintiff. Mr. Milton proved that
is isri old Mr. Lock complained that Mr. Reeves, Lord
Ashburton 's agent, was going to torn him outiof possession
of the land, saying it was hard because Mr. Beadon had
ritid he should have the land for life. He asked Mr. Milton
to intercede for him, which be did, and afterwards told
Lock that he was not too late to make terms. Mr. Milton
tubsoluently saw Lock, who told him that he bad given up
a portion of the land upon the terms that he should have the
remainder with the house for his life and that of his wife.
In accordance with this statement Lock did, in fact, give up
a portion of the land. The learned counsel submitted that
no conversation of this kind could bar the plaintiffs
statutable title.

The Lord Chief Justice said the learned counsel was very
contest about the supposed wrongs of his client, who, how-
ever, seemed to belong to a class which a certain learned
judge used to term "land stealers." (A laugh
Sir F. Slade—The predecessors of all landlords must have
been land stealers.

The Lord Chief Justice.—All he meant to observe upon
was that the learned counsel seemed to think that it was a
very meritorious thing to take six acres of land when no.
body was looking. (Laughter.)
Sr F. Slade—His client had made a bog grow corn, and
this was at all events beneficial to the public.
Yr. Justice William►—The real question was whether
a new tenancy at will wee created in 1845.
Rule granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittiogs is Beim in Michaelmas Term.—(Before Lord Chief
11‘ron Pollock and Barons Bramwell and Channell.)
PAINTER r. AUL.

Mr. Serjeant Hayes moved, pursuant to leave reserved,
to enter the verdict for the plaintiff for 1001., or such other
51.1111 as the court might think fit, or for new trial. The ass
was tried at Derby before Chief Justice Erle,
and resulted in • verdict for the defendant. The
Fdaiutiffs were trustees of • friendly society, which was
JO the habit of advancing money upon leen, and they
brought the action to recover 4a/1. which they had lent
neon a mortgage deed of property belonging to the
defendant. The defence was that the deed was a
forgery. It appeared that an attorney named Shaw,
who bad since been tried and sentenced to penal
servitude for forgery, was employed by the defendant to
raise 1(01. for him, and the defendant entrusted him with his
title deeds for that purpose. Shaw went to the defendants
and obtained from them a loan of 4201., having first given
them a mortgage, purporting to be executed by the
defendant, and the title deeds of the property.
Interest was paid for a year and a half,
but ultimately when • year's interest was in arrear, and ap-
plication was made for it to the defendant, it was discovered
that the mortgage was a forgery. The defendant at.ted
that he never executed the deed, nor received the
4241 t., but it appeared that Shaw had advanced
in driblets to him as much as 1001., and
he induced the defendant to give him a mortgage on the
same property for 2201. which included costs. The question
left to the jury was whether the tint mortgage was genti'ne,
and they found it was not. The learned counsel said that
though the mortgage failed the defendant entrusted Shaw with
the deeds and authorised him to barrow money upon them,
and that he had obtained from the plaintiffs, through Shaw,
the sum already named. Under these circumstances he
submitted that they ought not to be deprived of that por-
tioe of the money which they had advanced.
Rule granted.

FREEMAN r. APPELTARD.
Mr. Temple said this action was tried at Livei pool before
Mr. Justice Willes, who directed a verdict fur the plaintiff,
sod he now moved with leave reserved to enter a verdict
for the defendant on the second plea. The declaration was
detenue for eight certificates of stock in the South East-
ern Railway Company, and the second plea st.ted that the
certificates were deposited with the Halifax Banking Com-
pany by Thomas Nikita/on, who was the plaintiff's agent
and entrusted with their possession, and that they
were goods within the meaning of the statute.
The plaintiff, Freeman, speculated in railway
shares, and emloyed Parkinson, who was a
sharelooker, to conduct his various transactions. Parkinson
kept an account with the Halifax Bank, who, in consequence
of its being overdrawn, required him to give some security.
He handed them a number of securities, and among
others the certificates in question belonging to the
plaintiff, and obtained additional sums from them, which he
applied to his own imposes. Parkinson afterwards became
a bankrupt, and was unable to meet his engagements ; and
the plaintiff applied to the bank for the certificates, but
they refused to give them up on the ground that they
had advanced money upon them to the plaintiff's agent.
The learned counsel said that the whole question was
whether these certificates of shares are goods within the
meaning of the Factors' Act, but he had no authorities on
the is,int either one way or the other.
The Lord Chief Baron—l very much doubt whether you
will :had any authority for the proposition that an attorney
entruded with his client's title deeds could pledge them, and
six money upon them, because money is often raised in that
War by other people.
Mr. Temple—That is the whole point.
The Lord Chief Baron—Hien there is nothing in it.
Certificates of shares an not goods within the meaning of
the act,
Rule refused.

THE POLICE COURTS.
(THIS DAY.)

BOW-STREET.
ANOTHER REY/TRATE STREET orrneck.
Po!mter and Ozarks Thontpxem were charged with
weiilting and attempting to roh Mr. Samuel Prior, a
i.entl-mau, while passing along Cookspor•street, at two
oclock this morning
The prosecutor deposed—l arse turning into Cockspar-
atreet from the Haymarket at about two o'clock this morn-
intt, when I we. suddenly seised from behind, blindfolded by
a bud being pruned upon my eyes. and thrown violate,
to the ground. I felt two hands at my wAistcoot Packet,
where my watch was, and I pot my own bands before me
to protect my watch. In this I succeeded. The
police came up immediately, and my usailante left me.