The Express.
London, England, 1856-03-27 00:00:00

SNIT' V. III?4D111.

This was as action to ree‘ver 1,6004 upon a baud exe-
cuted by the defendant.
The notarial an-wer relied ups to the action was sea-
Seised to what is railed, ho • patient alteration of the law
under the Cosmos Law Procedare Aet, an equitable plit
which alleged that the bead in question woo not iatended
to be carded out, but that It was merely given as • tempo-
rary security until a mortars/1i should be 'feared apes ler-
talc property beloogiag to the eon of the defendant.
Mr. Petoretkrff sod Mr. Banes were counsel for the
plaintiff; Kr. Hawkins sad Mr. Prentle appeared (or the
defendant.

The eiraumatacces ruder which this action was brought
were roseentat peculiar. It appeared that the defendant,
Mr. Matthew Winder. ,a a farmer r siding in the neigh-
bourhood of fleffnon Welles, is Eases, sad that his sea,
Mr. William Winder, was panned of prc party to some
coesiderable extent in right of his wih, in the same tionsty.
In the year 1861 be had become desirous of taking poetise-
don of the Bias Poets public-house in the Heymarket, and
all the arrangements were a .nit le,ed, and on the Slat of
August he wee to have re,saion non paying a sum
of 1,6001, aid If he failed to complete the bar-
/pin he would have inured the loss of a very
exteidersble cum that had been paid as deposit. Under
then cirsumstanen, it appeared that be at plied to the
plaintiff, who Is a solicitor in Chewers-lane, for an advance
of money upon his wif 'a property, and it was alleged that
he, well knowing the nature of the property, and having
been originally segued is aims li iguana eonnectad with it,
and having neeseded in reioverii.g it for the lady, con-
nected to advance the required sum op rn mortgage. Shortly
before the day appointed for the payment of toe money to
enable the defendant's son to take pogo eon of the public-
kerne, according to the cage for the defendant, the plaintiff
represented that he had not had time to look into the title
to prepare the deeds for the mortgage, but he said he
was ready to advance the mmey if • bond were
given bins as security uniil the mortgage was com-
pleted, and upon this the bond in question was drawn
op and executed by the defendant, his eon, and
Mr. George Wakelieg, a highly•teinetable auctioneer at
Chelmsford, who was sequaintrd with the family. It'
appeared that two or three months afterward, a regular
mortgage deed was ezecuted, but the plaint ff never gave
up the bond, and he brought the present action to recover'
from the defendant, who was one of the partite who bad
executed it, the amount that to had advanced.

Thema", acceriicg to the torus of the pleading', being
limn the defendant, Mr. Hawkins addressed the jury, and
stated the above fade. He 'hen called the defendant, his
son, and Mr. Wakebog, at witnesses, and they all swore
most &Mined, that when the deed vat eseented the plain-
tiff espreesly stated Oat the bond was merely a tem-
porary 'enmity un•il the mortgage was regularly
executed. The deed itself was quits in the ordinary form,
and made en mention of any such condition, but, on the
coatrary, exprrsly declared that it was given as a toll• I
meant; in addition to the moetg•g•. All the whoever*,
however, stated that the deed vas Lever read over to them,
and that they were quite ignorant of ite c'ntents, and they
signed it entirely up in the representations made by Mr.
13cit1ih as to the otj•ct for wn•ch it was ezmated. It tray-
spired in the mono of the case that the eon of the defendant
subsequently because ►askrupt, and that the plaintiff took
posseasiom of hie property nadir the mortgage deed, and
was of the present tme in the receipt of the lea'.. It also
appeared that there hal barn a good mane legal proceed.
' imp between the parties, and that one of Mr. Smith's bills
for coat smoneted t'• 6001.

Mr. Pet r•rl rff hsetog intimated that it was not his in
tendon to call witne.a.s,
Mr. Hawkins, in summing up his cue, made tome very
severe remarks upon the conduct of the plaintiff in the
transaction, and he said be was astonished, altar the evident*
that his witnemea had given, that no evidence wee adduced
on the part of the plaintiff; end he urged that it was clear
that he was aware th t he could not answer their tottUony,
and that the attempt tart was row being made to enforce
the bond was nothing but • sesad.lous fraud.
Mr. Petendorff then addreued ih* jury la the plaiatiff
He said that it we. entirely upon his reepouibility ihst the
course of not oiling niturae. bar been liken, end the
ground for his adopting it was that he really considered
the defendant had made out no ca.. at all that required
as answer. The deed w.s proved to have bee, esecuted fa
• legal sod peeper manner, and it extressly stated that it
was given is addition to •be mortgage cent', and all the
parties umeerned must or ought to have bean aware of the
Get. He thea commented wpm the evidence fur the di -
fondant, and said that, if the statements made by the wit-
erases were to be relied upon, it was a most extraordinary
thing that when the ant gage deed was sobeequently
emitted the d. fends t did n 4 mist upon the hoed being
given up, ish eh he would have been entitled to do if his
represeataties of the facts was correct.
Mr. Baron Alders.., la summing up, said that by the
alteration that bad ou made in the law they wire
now really is the present nit sitting as • court of equity,
without basing any of the uwers pi:owned by a court of
that descriptioa. If this eau iirm submitted to •
must of equity, the first thing they would do would
be to see what amount of money wee really dee to
Mr. Smith, and that would be paid Ant out of the personal
estate; and if that were found sufficient to satisfy the claim
the bead would at arse be unlined to be delivered up This
wart had no such power; bat, as toe art of pediment said
they must deal with the case, they must do at as
well se they could. He then explained the nature
of the ere to the jury, and said that, it being
admitted that the bead was properly executed accordiag to
law, an attempt mu made to set it sold. by evi-
denes being given that whets it was snouted there was an
tandentanotag some ti totally different to that which the
bend itielf intended to convey. If this were made out to
the setae/Rion of the jury, they were at liberty, u the law
sow stood, to set the hued said. and mitre • verdict foe
the defendant; but be could not help observing that It was
• very serious matter to destroy the eff.ct of • solemn in-
etrament under such circumstances, and that, le the pre
sent ease, six years apoeared to have elapsed lieu the ens-
*atlas of the instrument.

Thejary retired, and after bolas Is deliberation tome
time they returned into court; they foiled a verdict for
the defendant, bemuse they were of 'pluton that the wort-
sage deed bad sot Woo acted 'Tan.
The learned Judge declined to receive the verdict ; and
after tellies the jury that they had bitter re-000eider t►e
matter, and t►at they were not booed to give soy reasons
fir the desist** they might come to, they again retited,end
is about a quarter at as hour they ease i■to smut a se-
cond tine, sod gave a verdict for the defend mt.
Some technical points that mete raised by Mr. Pots»►
dal were nostved tot farther coasideratioa.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.-HEREFORD, MARCH 25.

aaanca CalilliWilim

Mr. Jastiee Croswell presided la this eoart. sad was ec-
espied mealy the whole of the day la bowie( a special
Puy cause.

HATIMAX V. 11311111..

The pl•iatif is Lord Betimes, the lord lieutenant of Utlg
aunty, and the defendant, Mr William Dowses Tarsier,
of the Lyach-conn, Badielead. The decimation alleged that
the defendant bad hefting a yearly tenant of the Aymestrey
Court Farm, on the plaintiff's Bhobdoa estate, villa an un-
dertaking to cultivate it in • proper and husbandry-like
meaner, accordieg to the e•atom of the cou•y, bet that
he neglected to do as, to the icjaty of the plaiatiff; and
alai that the defeadaat had cultivated amnia crops In •a
improper and ue►esbsadry-like manner, to the farther is-
jury of the plaintiff and the estate. The anoint of the
Injury sustained was estimated at 1121. 14e.
Mr. Whatelry, Q C , with whom were Mr. Phipson and
Mr. Cooke, five the p at•df; Mr. Heating, Q.C., Mr.
Unser, sad Mr. Ho lgeos, for the defendant.
The seldom, shown that the ancestors of the defendant
—Ws father and ►n grandfather—bed been the oseipaste
se the Aymeetrey Court farm, which comprises envy 500
eerie, foe • period of up•ards of 70 years. 1a 184 v, the
defendant's father died, and the management of the farm
dinned urn his easeutors, the dee 'than sad a brother;
but subsequently the de feedast lei bed to benne the inset
of the farm, and was se ep.ed at • rental of 6161. ayes:,
with as &lowans of 20 guineas • year fa gesso, and e Ire-
ton of 10 pp•r ant. from the rest doting the plower, ot the
peeenhai. The irai.it on of this talent', &wording to lb.
slides*, of his lordehip's agent who let the lane, wi n
these set Binh la the deelaration, but whisk the defeadaat