The Express.
London, England, 1847-04-03 00:00:00

have property to so large an amount, upon the understanding
that he was only to pay one half cash, and give his bill at
three months for the remainder. in conclusion, the learned
counsel called upon the jury to look narrowly at all the cir-
cumstances attending the sale of the hops to Mr. Thomas
Eyre, and the sale by him to the plaintiff, and see whether
there was one single atom of suspicious conduct in the
whole proceeding, and whether, on the contrary,
It was not one of the most ordinary and everyday descrip-
tion • and he said that the point involv.d, although it was
important in a pecuniary view, was much more so as af-
fecting the integrity and honour of the plaintiff.—The Lord
Chief Tustice then summed up, sad after referring to the
various pleas upon the record, he said that the only material
question for the jury was, whether there had been a bowl
fide purchase and sale between Bradley and Thomas Eyre.
If there was not, then there would not be any legal posses-
sion in the present plaintiff, and, therefore, the defendants
would be entitled to a verdict ; but if the jury should think
the contrary, the plaintiff would have a right to the pro-
perty. His lordship then went through the evidence, sad
he remarked that Mr. Elijah Eyre certainly had been very
fortunste in obtaining payment of a large debt due from his
son-in-law, at the expense of Messrs. Mayor, but still, if the
jury thought there had been a fair and born: fide sale to
Thomas Eyre, they were bound to find a verdict in his
favour.—The jury, after deliberating for about ten minutes,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

OXFORD CIRCIIIT.—HEREFORD, Aran 1.
Cave. gnu—Before Mr. Justice Mania and a Oseinson Jury.
11011 MIR AND OTHERD V. DENHAM.—Kr. Serjeant Tel-
fourd and Mr. Heating appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr.
Godson and Mr. Cooke for the defendant
This was an action far a half-year's rent of a cottage, and
for damages
_for not having kept it in good repair. The de-
fendant pleaded payment of the rent, and a denial of the '
non-repair. It apparedd that the defendant, who was a me-'.
dical man, rested a cottage, at a yearly sum of 241., from the
plaintiffs, for three years, up to the 2nd of February last.
On that day the tenantcy expired, and he left. On the
3rd he sent postofflce orders for 111. 10s., and on the 4th
another order for the balance of the half-year's rent to the
plaintiffs, who resided in London, and they received the
orders for the 111. 10s. on the morning of the 4th. They
however, were bent on a law-suit, and on that day the writ
which formed the commencement of this action was issued.
The injuries to the premises which were complained of were,
that the defendant had let a dead fence go out of repair,
had not left some bat-pegs in the hall, had not kept up an
arbour—which was described by the plaintiffs' attorney's
clerk as rude, rustic, and fantastic, and made of hop.polee—
snd had allowed a shed, which might have accommodated
two donkeys, to become dilapidated. The receipt of the rose
was admitted by the plaintiffs' witnesses. Mr. Gahm
I having address the jury for the defendant, his lordship
summed up, and the jury found for the defendant on the
substantial iasues—those in to the repairs ; a verdict beingen.
tered for the plaintiffs on the issue as to the receipt of the
rent in full satisfaction, de., with nominal damages.
Doe DEN BUCK v. RIMALL AND OTHERS.—Mr. Godson
and Mr. Cooke were for the plaintiff Mr. Serjeant Taifourd
and Mr. Gray for the defendants. 'this ease involved a new
point in the construction of the late Statute of Limitations.
The plaintiff's father, who was a pauper, built, in the year
1793, &house on a common belonging to the parish of Whit-
bourne, iu this county, of which the defendants are now the
churchwardens and overseers. In 1798, a resolution wan
adopted by the pariah officers that all the persons who had
been allowed to build cottages on the common should take
leases of them and pay an annual rent. A lease in writing,
but not under seal,waa then made by the officers to the plain-
tiff's father, of the house in question, for his own life and
that of his wife, at the yearly rent of Is. This lease expired
in 1843, but the officers had neglected, for upwards of 20
yearn, to demand or receive the rent. Since 1843 they had dis-
possessed the plaintiff, who was tho heir-at-law to his father.
For the plaintiff it was contended, that the 20 years' posses-
sioo, without payment of rent or acknowledgement of title
in the parish officers, constituted a clear title to the fee-
simple ; while for the defendants it was argued, that though
the lease not being under the end was not valid as a lease
foe life, yet it operated as a lease from year to year,determin-
able only on notice from either side • that the parish officers
did not elect to give that notice till 'titter the death of the
parties for whose lives it purported to be given; that upon
their giving that notice it determined that then only their
right of entry commenced, and the fact of their not having
asked for the rent did not at all effect their right to enter,
there having been, in fact, no adverse possession. His lord-
ship inclined to this view. Verdict for the defendants, with
leave reserved to the plaintiff to move the court above to
have the verdict entered for him.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—TAUNTON, APRIL 1.
The commission of assize for the county of Somerset was
opened in this town yesterday evening by Mr. Justice Cress-
well and Mr. Justice Willi►ms. This morning their lordships
took their seats in court, Mr. Justice Croswell presiding on
the Crown side, and Mr. Justice Williams at Nisi Prins. The
business is unusually light for this county. There are only 21
causes entered for trial, and the majority of them aro of •
very trivial nature. The calendar contains the names of
104 prisoners.