The Express.
London, England, 1851-12-12 00:00:00

2Am intelligence.

EQUITY COUlLTS.—Yerreemy.
it.rmt..• Z. f t•ow.s*Ha v. on.alt TIM late. C. •,r8 U.S.
SILAOAAVI r. PorI.—RZUEMPTION or LLASEHoLD HZ-
aIWITAMANTII AgSIGNED To A 13V11.131,Ca SoCIETT.
This was an appeal from a decree of Vice-Chancellor
Knight Brew in a suit for redemption of leasehold beredita-
MOWS assigned to the Camberwell Building and Invest-
ment Society. The plaintiffs are Messrs. W. Seagrave and
T. B. Fleming, and the defendanu are trustees of the
building society. Fleming w.ot the person who granted
the mortgage, and the co-plaintiff Seagrove the person to
whom he had agreed to *ell the house mentioned therein.
The suit was fur redemption of the mortgage. The point in
dispute, which is of much importance to those interested
in this species of investment, is briefly this: Fleming gave
security on the leasehold property for olk. advanced by the
society on his shares. The subscription monies were 8,6 d.
per month, and 3s. 6d. redemption money was payable on
each share, and parties might redtem on notice, and com-
pliance with certain recutintions. He gave notice of his in-
tention to redet m, and being dissaCilied with the account
as made out against him by the society, tiled his bill fur that
purpose. 'flu Vice-Chancellor held that he was entitled
to do au on payment of the money advanced at the time
his notice expired, with interest at 4 per cent. from that
time ' • and that in ascertaining the balance due he was en-
titled to credit for subseriptior. monies, but not for redemp-
tion nannies, and should be debited with such of the latter
as were not paid at the expiration of the notice, but not
with any won lily payment after the end of the month.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. Hardy were fur the plaintiffs. Mr.
J. Russell, Mr. Bolt, and Mr. Terrell fur the defendants,
the appellants.
The argument is not concluded, and we therefore reserve
out report.

rmac IiIvIALIPLUT.
CATHOLIC BELLS AT CLAPHAM.-REDEMP-

TORIST FAT HERS.
Sourac e. DE HELD.—DEMVIIRER 011Z11111:LED.
The argutnt nts in this case were resumed.
Mr. Tripp, M support of the application fur an in-
junction to restrain the defendant from allowing the
hells of the chapel of the Itulemptorist lathers ut Clap-
ham from being rung, said the first question was.
what were the state of circumstances. It was admitted by

the lie". Mr. Weld that the bells were to be rung in •
different manner to that in which they were now rung. It
was sworn by the plaintiff that, under the present state oil
the caw, the rinsing was an intolerable nuisance to him,
and he was unable to read, write, or converse hi his house
owing to the noise. Mr. Weld stated that the times fur
winging had been fixed to suit the hours most accommoda-
ting to those persons who attended the established church.
The plaintiff had nothing to do with what was most
twuyenicut to the parish church. The nuisance to him was
as great, and that it was a nuisance there could bus no doubt
white's r. This ease was in no way similar to those authoritis s
in which the legal right was in question. This was &simple
case of nuisance, where the right had been established at
law ; but this court did not require to be told that the hells,
when they were rung en Sundays, were quite as great a
nuisance as on any other day. The noise was as great on
Sundays, and as distreesieg to the ears of the plaintiff. The
law was by no means clear that the defendant had under
any circumstances • right to ring hells, but that was not in
question hire ; it was a question of annoyance se:sing from
the noise of particular bells, and the common sense of any
man would show that this was a grievous nuisance. The
learned cuquel's own opinion was that this ',Litmus com-
munity of Itedemptorist fathers had no right whatever to
remain in this country, but certainly they had no right
under the cloak of religion to create this annoyance to the
plaintiff.
Mr. Campbell opposed the motion. Ile said the injunc-
tion asked for was to restrain these bele from being rung
at any period; but the ease upon the bill was applicable
only to the ringing on two particular Suncays. As to the
right to ring bells at any time, the argument was that one
bell rung on a Sunday would he quite as great • nuisance
as a peal of bell. The evidence altogether failed in sup-
porting the C.C. The plaintiff first stated that the uuis.
anee dieturbeil the private devotions of his family; but
this was certainly the first time that such a complaint
had ever been mode iu a court of justice. Then, as to the
removal of his sick daughter, the fact of illness alone could
never be sufficient ground for the interference of the court.
The next allegation was, that the plaintiff's property would
be deteriorated ; but this fact could never form an element
in such a case as this ; and it was in evidence that the
plaintiff hail refused to sell the property. The last reason
which induced the plaintiff to come here was the injury
done to hie feelings, mid this would be found to be the real
gravamen of the C.C. if they had been protestant bells
the court would probably never have heard of it. Th;
plaintiff would not part with his property or his grievance,
he preferred keeping his grievance to allowing his house
to pass to a Roman catholic community.
Mr. Bagshawe, on the same side, submitted that this case
had been opened on very wide grounds. It was attempted
to stop the ringing altogether. Now the sole object of the
bill was the injunction, and the injunction R. framed in
the alternative that the bells should nut be rung so as to
create an annoyance ; but now this alternative was thrown
&aide, and the absolute injunction was asked for. It had
been asserted that protestant dissenters hail no right to use
bells, and nu religious community hail such right except the
established church. It was said that the esthetics
had not used bells for three hundred years. Why it was
well known that the catholic* could not exercise their
iu the smallest degree without being liable to an indict-
ment fur felony ; but, thanks be to God, the law was now
altered. It was true that the Toleration Act of Geo. 111.
was nut extended to those who used chapels with bells, but
all that restriction had long been swept away, and this was
clearly Lid down by the judgment at law. The act of
1832 was passed expressly to remove any doubt, about the
restrictions being taken away, and catholic' were placed
upon the same looting as the rest of the dissenting subjects
at her Stoesty. If the protestant dissenters were under
any disability, so might the catholic' be ; but this was alto-
gether without foundation. 'Cite whole question then Came
to this—whether Mr. Sultau had established any cue to
preclude her Majesty's subjects from exercising their ac-
knowledged legal rights. It was confidently asserted that
the case at law was not the same as that upon which the
plaintiff now came to this court fur en injunction. The
special damage upon the action was the ringing every day
at easeesosiable hours, whereby the plaintiff was prevented
from having his natural rest. fhe bells now were rung not
ovine than seven, and that only on Sundays. Then the
bell was rung of a Sunday. evening, but the only ineonve-
Menet as to that was that It might prevent him tram sleep-
ing alter dinner. The damages called for upon the trial at
law were and the jury only gave 40s. ; but still that
established a right upon &certain state of things which did
nut at present exist.
Mr. Malin', in reply, said Mr. Bagshawe had stated this
ease involved the interests of all her Majehty's subjects ex-
cept those belonging to the established church. This was a
very wide exception. Bat the case was not one *fleeting
any particular religious community, but a simple question
whether a man could be permitted to raise up a nuisance to
the annoyance of his neighbours as to the general right to
ring bells. '1 here was no act whatever which took away
the restriction laid upon catholic' by the 31st of (leo. 111.,
as to their being permitted to celebrate divine service in a
chapel with bells. Un the subject of catholic bells, it was
to be hoped that the ringing of catholic bells in this country
would never amount to what it did abroad, for no one could
have lived in Some of the foreign towns, particularly in
Belgium, without having been continually annoyed by the
tinkling et catholic bells. However proper it might he
to ring bells, it certainly ought to be kept within
due bounds, and that unfortunate propensity of the
esthetics to rine bells must not be allowed to be exercised
to the annoyance of the public. Every dustman used SO
ring a bell through the streets, and every newsman media
blow a born to give informatioo about the tut Fres*
revolution, but this was all stopped by act of parliament.
Now, he would ask Mr. Bagshawe, who was so fund of
bell-ringing, whether he would like a dustman to stick
himself before his window, and ring his bell for five
minutes, three times every Sunday morning before he
went to church? and yet the ringing of a dustman's bell
might be approved of on the ground of tradition, which
Mr. Bagshawe was no food of, just as much as the ringing
sod clatter of these bells at Clapham. It was very
well for these holy fathers to trifle with the feel-
ings of a gentleman who was obliged to remove
his daughter from his house on account of the
nuisance, but these fathers could have no daughema
and no wonder they eared so little furohe parental fisiffings
of other persons. The question now distinctly before the
court wea,whether this noise was to be stopped or the plain-
tiff was to be driven out of his house. In the case of the
briektield, before Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, his
Honour decided that a man had a right to the pure and un-
poilated current of the atmosphere, undisturbed and un-
polluted by the smell of brick-burning. So, in thenease,
the plaintiff had a right to the free use of the air unpol-
luted and not troubled by the intolerable noise of hells.
Under all the circumstances, it was confidently asserted that
the plaintiff had a eight to be protected by the injunction of
the court.