The Express.
London, England, 1847-04-29 00:00:00

Before the Idaeter of the Rolla

OLDFIRLD O. C08AE247-7kiPI7ICATION FOR H►LEAS
CORPVII.—At the opening of the court, Mn. Cobbett ap-
plied to the Muter of the Rolls for a writ of habtas corpus
to bring up her husband, who is at present in prison, to
argue a motion which is coming on in the court to-morrow.
None of the office fees which are necessary before granting
the writ were paid, and his lordship refused the application.

Beams the Nice-Chancellor of England.
WALSPI V. THEVLNION.—PRODUCTION or DOCUMINVIL
—PRIVILIOND COMIUNICATIONII.—The object of this mit
was to rectify the settlement made on the marriage of tie
defendants, Mr. Charles Trevanion and Charlotte his vi,
by having it delared that it was intended to comprise in
the said settlement only part of the property described
in the general words. The plaintiff had examined, so
a witness in the cause, Mr. Burley, a gentleman
who had acted as solicitor to Mr. and Mrs. Trevanion at the
lime of the marriage, and to Mrs. Trelawny Brereton, the
nether of Mrs. Trevanion, and certain interrogatories were
pat to him' the object of which was to prove, by correspond-
nee that took place at the time, that attain property was
set intended to be included in the settlement. A demurrer
was put in by Mr. Burley to so macho, the interrogatories as
yelled upon him to produce any eireespeemlemee reilmling to
the settlement, on the ground then sea Weise smd docu-
ments were received in the chareetor ef eselltiestlal solicitor
to Mrs. Trelawny Brereton and that such
letters and documents contained of confidential
matters between himself and his Mr. Stuart and Mr.
}haven appeared in support of the demurrer, and cited two
eases lately decided by the Lord Chancellor, Herring v.
Cloberry, 1 Phillips, 91 ; sad Carpmael v. Powts, 1 Ph., 687.
Mr. Bothell and Mr. Wilicock appeared in opposition to the
demurrer.
The Vice-Chancellor said he admitted that it was hid
down by the cases cited, that the confidential oommanica-
tit= between a solicitor and his client would be protected
from production, but the question here was, whether the
witness, Mr. Barley, bad sufficiently averred that the letters
and documents were of a confidential and private nature.
It appeared that a marriage took place between Mr. and
Mrs. Trevankm, and certain communications were made by
the parties respecting the marriage settlements ; there was
nothing which prima facie would show that such letters as
these contained anything of a confidential character, and
his honour did not think that the witness had sufficiently
averred that they did contain confidential matter. He had
not by his position of fact made sufficient ground for
protection.

Wen Vies-Chmeeliar
BOUTHCOMB V. sita Rumor o7Wrraz,-Bractrio
PRll7olll.l.l4Cll.—in 1790 a lease of the 'manor of Bishop's
Nympton, otherwise Bishop's Nyniet, in the county of
-Devon, was granted by the then Bishop of Exeter to Mar-
garet ind Ann Bouthoomb, and their brill for three lives, at
a rent of 321. per annum. Upon the execution of the lame,
the grattfees severed the joint tummy. In 18e5 Ann
golufwelab died, having devised her share of the name to

her eon-in-law, Hugh Northcutt, for the separate um of his
wife, Anne Lewis Northeote, during their joint lives, with
remainder, if Anne L. Northeote survived her husband, to
" her, her heirs, executory, administrators and assigns;" hut
if the husband survived, then the testatrix's share of the
manor was given to one Chichester, upon trust for such toes
so Anne Lewis Northeote should by deed, to be executed in
the presence of, and to be attested hy, two witnesses, or by
will, appoint; and in default of appointment, to Mrs.
Northeote's heirs, executors, administrators and assigns.
The portion of the manor which upon severance had falls a
to Margaret Southcomb afterwards became vested, partly in
Lewis Southeumb, one of the plaintiffs, and partly in
Susanna Southcomb and her children. In 1823, two of the
lives basing then dropped, the lease of 1790 was surrendered
by the parties interested therein except Chichester, and a
new lease for three lives granted to Margaret Southcomb,
Lewis Southcomb, end Hugh Northeote, and their heirs,
I by whom the joint tenancy was shortly afterwards severed.
11 In 1836 the interest of Mr. and Mrs. Northeote in tee lease
was conveyed to the plaintiff Lewis Southcomb, for 4,500/.,
the usual acknowledgment being made by Mrs. Northcote ;
hot the deed, Ming attested by one witness only, was not an
effectual execution of the power given to her by the will of
Anne Soutbcomb. Upon a subsequent treaty for a sale of the
manor in question to the late Mr. Preston (theconveyancer),
the latter had refused to become the purchaser, on the
ground that the lease of 1823 was invalid under the
statute of Henry VIII., in consequence of Chichester
not having joined in the surrender. The defect having
come to the knowledge of the present bishop, he refused to
recognise the lease, or to accept Feet under it; but alter-
wards entered into a contract with the parties claiming under
the lease to purchase their interest therein for 8,000/.
upon the footing that the lease of 1823 should be deemed
valid for the purpose of the contract, and that the vendors
should make out a good marketable title in other respects.
The defendant then paid 1,6001. as a deposit, in part pay-
ment of the purchase money, and entered into the
possession of the manors. Upon an a'stract of title
Ming submitted, however, to the defendant's solicitor,
the defect in Mrs. Northeote's execution of the power under
Anne Southcomb's will was discovered ; and the vendors
being unable to meet the objection to the satisfaction of the
bishop, the latter, by the advice of his solicitor, rescinded
the contract. The bill was then filed by the parties claim-
ing the benefit of the lease of 1823 against the bishop, for a
specific performance of the contract.
Mr. James Parker and Mr. Rogers, for the plaintiffs, con-
tended that the defect in the execution of the power, if este.
Wished, was one which equity would supply, and was not of
itself a ground for rescinding a contract under which DCAI-
- had been taken by the purchaser.
Mr. Romilly, Mr. Melt, and Mr. T. V. Pryor for the
defendant, the bishop, submitted that the execution of the
power by Mrs. Northeote was clearly defective, and that the
property had, through that defect, become vested is Mrs.
Northeote's heir, without whose consent a good title could
not be made. The argument was not concluded at the
rising of the court.

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 29, 1847.