The Express.
London, England, 1853-12-13 00:00:00

NAILS! V. STAXi.

'lll4. wee an applea. irora VierCoin:el:or Stuart. Tt e
bid to the ear beat, wee flied to compel opecille perform.
e of • e istr set tY p•iretisse an estate aad a deer(. wM
so' de in cooluratity with the tamer of its* bill. This pr..
nto apps; erne the• broe4ht. Tar coutzen en wheel. the
iluestin was male by the two leltendosta, Enos end Wil-
liams, with 151 planted, Unbar.' llayleyi .9,66 let
the purek...: of an estate called Bow rF,rJ, in It reer•hire
el which ty ley war the mortgage for a *urn or 14,00:0/
The d.fendaiiis, together with a person named Dalkwill,
sine elecine I, were coilateral securities fur 2.1.11A1t of the
mocgage non. The ni irgeget teeing about to sure..
M• pore; el esi.. the defendaut Evan wrote a letter to the
pleintiff oa th • lilt ri..ptetaO, r, 18µ), saying "that on I.'-
11411 of li,. W.:114929, Mr. BallmeT. sod my.elf, an b°"'"
1119111 as the at aortae es Butterfat I. he begird to inlet's
you that, sh no not have eull the estate price
aufh.ient to e,t .r the balance due to you on the
29th Navas , as stir sae.-:e, at will become pur-
rhe.ttS *a W. compb t, the puri.base at
Christman neir." offer was nerept..l, althou.:h not in
yr ti sal i s the same month of September the defeat.
dauts ententd iut.s purr b oson. A correspondence then en.
end, is whit's time was asked to complete the purchase.
h sties died the de feedrets de:limed to compl to
the content, toot •ndiag that it was an longer hinting, an
it wee nut adrimed by the snevien.g parties to it, and that
it was re. t 1ad,41 h) a release given by the plaintifl in Sep-
ternher, 1141 P, ald wit to their haring entered IWO put-
ses,iort, they I 1 ar under the contract and not under the
he ti.J!iti'or•li:neral, Mr. Follett, sad Mr. J. V. Prior
appeerrd for the appellants; Mr. Melia and Mr. !toe.
burgh supprtleil the decree.
'tune lordships, without hroriog Mr. Malin* in reply,
were of opinin that the decree of the court below (More-
ins a epecifir perfornseuce was right, and at was therefore
co,fireutd, art the appeal dismissed with coets.
The nt tae: on the paper, "Ex parte Nitiron, in re
Edmonds," wes poceeding when the court rose.

IhitoAt THY 441111 OF TIM ROLL%
tmrucLt. r. ALLGOOD.

His Miaow ga‘e judgment in this ease. Pleintiff is in.
busted for her lit, to the talent of one third of the rent.
of en estate ed ei Midiletoo Lodge, in Virkshire. The
estate H in the fo.•e•siun of the two first defendants on the
record, w ho st e • ra-tee 4 under the will of Mr. George Hartley,
and the reniteninit defendant, Mr. Blckhouse, is the tenant
of the p 1.% elite.. which Pisa been let to him by the trustees
The sole object of the bill was that the defendants
might be restrained by injunction from felling any horse-
che,tnut or beech trees on the -state. The trees are elme to
the how:, and the question was whether the trees were
ornamental, and in the neat place whether they were pre-
judicial t" the house. Plaintiff formerly occupied the
limas:, and after she left it the trustees let it to the de-
li ndant Bac'etouse, who wauld only take it on the con.:
than ti e:•rta:n beech trees and chestnut trees should be
felled, as they overshadowed the house, and he considered
them prejudi:ith and the trustees filled them. Au ad-
interim thjenetion was then applied for to prevent the
felting of na:r" trees, end no application had been made to
elisiuts: that injunction. Looking at the evidence he was
of opinion that the trees in question were ornamental, end
be should theta .re grant a perpetual injunction, but the
defendant Back'-use must have his costs as against the
plaintiff, wt 0 *null not be permitted to add them to her
costs as against the other defendant', but the other de-
(enfants must pay the other costs.

■ I •GL TlCI•