The Express.
London, England, 1851-04-30 00:00:00

forward.
Toe. EMIL oF CHICIIRSTER L. lIALL.
This was a special case, arising out ut en action of tenser,
brought by the plaintiff, as lord of the manor of South
Mullin;;, against the delendant, as the legal personal repre-
sentative of the late John William Commerell, Esq., for
hoe horses seized by the lord as been*. due upon the eath
of Mr. Comment!, in respect of five freehold tenements
alleged to have been held by him of the manor of South
Mailing, by fealty, suit, and service, quit rent, relief, and
tiered, lb,• latter being due only tin the death of tenaut, the
relief 011 death, or alienation. It was hdmitU•d that a heriot
had hero se-trial in inOi, that a subsequent death of a tenant
bad mama, d in 1021, upon which no seizure had taken
plate, and that for more than 20 years the quit rent. had not
been aims-d.
Mr. p'o'esy, for the plaintiff, now contended that the
varlet.. of 'tattoos could not act as a bar in tins case—
first, herause this was a heriot custom which could only
be enforted by seizure, and also because the death is
11421 onairryd before the estate of the present plaintiff
commenced, and that the omission to collect the quit-rents
could not a liange the tinure of the land, or oust the lord
of his right to cabins the other incidents to that tenure.
Mr. Royal, ter the defendant, relied mainly upon the
nuns-ion to collect the quit-rents, which, he contended, by
the authority of "1/0.. d. Itay r. Iluntingslon- (4 East 271),
operated to change the tenure, or at least, in conjunction
with the non-seizure in trill, raised the presumption that
the lord had released all the incidents to the tenure.
Lord Campbell said he was of opinion that the plaintiff
one monk .1 toudgmt nt. It was admitted now that the
statute 3 & 4 t'tn. IV., c. 27, did not operate as a bar,
and it was not nee,sary to repeat what had been said on
that point during the argument. The defendant then
rnded on the presumption of a n•least., grounded so far as
the heriot was 6.0111"1-1110 41. 011 the fact that alum the death
of lido r, in 1021, • "il4/11•4'11,411. Under what eireurn-
stasis, dal not 1-11111tly uppear, but it did appear that at
that time then Earl of Chichester was maly tenant for
life, and his non-seizure could be nu reason to presume a re-
haw, because he could not raring% Then, the present
earl I'OlW, in in 1021 a, anal the tint heriot n. due in 1017,
then fore then• has twin no lathes in his time. The defen-
dant then prays in aid the non-payment of the quit rent,
snit he should have at strong opituou that the right to co-
lone that paying tit would be horrid by eirtue of the data*.,
but tweaun• the statute haul barred the quit rent he did nut
or how that could raise any presumption that the heriot or
the relict had 1111'11 releastyl. There 11.11,1 no ground fur
saying that the tenor.• of the lent' was clung, d, it was free-
hold load held 01 the lord in the manor, and still remained
taw C ,di tlio•••e ear, unrstunees it was 111111111,611fy to con-
soler whi•ther the la, riot was fallen custom or beriut ber‘ite.
1 he rest of the court cont•urred.
Judinent for the plaintiff.
loot Campbell then mid I will add that I regret that the
legisilture has 11011 c nothing yet to rift et an equitable cone
ntutation of keno*. It is /1•0111 to be a custom introduced by
mat it i. to he regretted that it should be kept
up as a r•rilembrunre of tint 111111111.11(aligNI. I hare myself
1111 1111 Olenains triad to Assail upon the legislature to
do so. without cffeet. *the ...ramble a kith takes place upon
the $l, nth of • tenant of thy manor iy frequently very dis-
treetiog, and then• are cases in which the seizure has taken
place before the death upon a false report.

11.%11. COU EnDST.
grist AM. 1--.4.SCJ• - b rm., Ida. 411.11.11 (.01.
The learned Jud,:e stated that the l'uurt of Queen's
It. ie h stool this court would sit on Thursday.
IN it% Palo APPLItILTIoN WITH REF,
Aiwa:Nat.
Mr. Welsh), morel, on behalf of Mr. Itoohert Roberts, of
Itenbigh. for a rule Calling on Me. Thomas Price, an attor-
ney of this court, to show cause why he should nut render
to Mr. Itools rt Roberts, the administrator of hi• son, the
bite Mr. J. W an account ..f all moneys received
by horn belonging to the isolate of Mr. J. W. Itultr•rts, and
pay .nor airy Isolative which might b• found due ; and also
why he Nhoultl not deliver all papers belonging to the
e•tde, and nay the costs cif till. application. It appeart.sl
that Mr. Itulart Itooberts died on the 2lst Novends•r last,
soul that he howl io•ured hielift. (Or :lOW.. but had borrowed
lady, called Itolierts, 701. on security of the policy,
and a...iglu,' the iii.trunitlit to her. !shortly after the
death of Mr. J. W. Roberts, his father, Mr. It. Roberts,
received a letter from Mr. Price, stating that his son hail
insured hi. tire, wad requesting hint to call upon hint
(Mr. Price) the halm% mg day, as he had something
to rommunieate to his advantage. Ile slid call ac-
cordingly, when Mr. frier• told him of the policy, the
borrowed On it, and that some hundred. of pound•
would he coming to him. Ile :Lis° told hint that he
must tote out letters of adiuluistrutiuu, and partite debts
tot hi...on. Mr. Roberts, looms-ter, objected to make him-
self liable for Ili. FOR'S th las without knowing their extent,
and h.' th. n pat tlo. matter into the hand• iit a.MC.Prante,
an uttuniey, who corresponded with Mr. Price on the sub-
jeet. the hitter Is Mg requested to send in his bill, if he had
and pay over any balance due from hint to the estate;
a• also to deliver up all pals•rs in his possession relative to
the Waifs tot the late Mr. J. W. Roberts.
Mr. Justice toleridge—l am waiting to see the relation
between Mr. Vries. and Mr. R. Roberts.
Mr. Welsby.—ln one of his letters he' states that he was
t mployed by Mr. ►t. lloherts immediately after the death
of his und that he hail vont inued to act u. his attorney :
he has al.° rid red to pay anything whiell might he due.
Mr. Justice Coleridge—You may take a nth!, but I have
some fear as to what the result may be.

mina OF COMMON PLEAS.—iESTERo.►Y.
!m. o £T Num Pun• i Lmoncrx.—Xeroas >IL JL•rics Lana

•.0 * out.. Jray.

KNoTT ASO •No/Nilsr7B•alti AND AMOTUII.-
twit l'Il.oVisloN• atirrttrii TO Tgoops.
The plaintiffs iu this case are butchery at Portsmouth,
and the defendants are in the same line of business in a
large way in Seagate market. and are in the habit of en-
tering into contracts to supply portions of the army and
navy a ith meat. Some time in the month of May. L&iO,
they contracted to serve the 50th, 28th, and 62nd Regiments
with meat at Port.nioutlt, and it was out of this transac-
tion that the act arose. It appeared that the plaintiffs
had been in the habit of rending in meat for the troops on
the areount of the previous contractor, and on the 29th of
May 1610, the detendants wrote to • gentleman named
Stroad at Portsmouth, and said. " Please to go to Knott
and ask him to keep on, and we will satisfy him until we
make a bargain." %Ir. Stroud showed this letter to the
plaintiffs, and they sent meat as usual, from the Ist until the
Nth June. Uu the last named day one of the defendants called
:upon the pl intitis at Portsmouth and the plaintiffs then
c &red to supply meat at 6s. 6d. per score pounds fur sin
onths, but the defendant wished them to do it at that
pi ice for three months, which they declined, and he pro-
mised at the end of the interview to call again in the even-
ing. This appointment, however, was not kept, and on the
B.wit• day one of the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants ear
jug tk sat he would not abide by the verbal offer he bed
meek, and concluded in this manner—" therefore I dell
charge for what meat I may supply accordingly." t: sat
wee cv rcumstaneis it was contended that the goods im
plied we re to be charged for at a reasonable price.
plaintiff % eoutinued to send in meat until the ISth of Jaw,
the whole • quantity delivered by them being 18,489111 m.,
which the charged for at the rate of 6il. per pound. The
total amua tit of the bill was, therefore, 4611. 14s. 9.1., bat
200 i had be en paid on account, and the balance was now
claimed. 'ft .e delendants paid 981. 4s. Id. into court in full
satisfaction of the plaintiffs"claim.
Evidence we • called upon both sides upon the question,
whether the pre'ce charged by the plaintiffs was a reason-
able oar. On ti le part of the plaintiffs the witnesses called
were of opinion t hat the price was reasonable, but the de-
fendants• wit." thought that it was eaorbitast. The
amount paid into a %tart was at the rate of Sid. per lb.
The jury were of . 'pinion that the plaintiffs were entitled
to shame et the ryes of Sd. per lb., and a verdict was taken
fur W. lls,, la addition to the sum paid into court.
!Mw INNS Lou. Caul Jonas JaSTIS,
Noses (ININNNEA, La. ie erica elnamine ane na. Ammo Tao
Wm&
AJUNIN r. GOODACIT.--stCTION AGAINST A Sim?, PO'
Nis oenchu *remote • POISON= TO =CAPS.
. .

- - _
This woe as adios wlisk but bow beeestit by tie dim-
esr et the then .thig the SW, et Lidemenathe is se-
am* et bii efiserlseleg Melba • Mr.
ID As attailmssa bad bare applad it arriret tie
dui doia court bed ilbsuird tb• adios 6 be
iambs that it sales be aiseediarod what assestre
man 6e *Mkt was wedle restive. It appeared
tiestbe dalasarsr„Wars Illsess" mike the ewe-
libibei debs, vs., es lie &Si lIMA