The Express.
London, England, 1847-04-17 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

- -
Don DEII HOCK V. THE CHURCHWARDENS AND OTIS-
SIIRS OF WRITSOURNIA—Done Ale ADVRILIR POSSESSION
OF TIVINTT TZARS OFIRATI AS • CONVITANCI OP TIER
FRB, OR MERELY DAR THS RIGHT or ENTRY?—Mr. God-
son, Q.C., moved for a rule to show cause why the defend-
ants' verdict in this case, which was tried before Mr. Justice
Mauls, at the recent assizes for the county of Hereford,
should not be set aside, and a verdict entered for the plain-
tiff. The plaintiff claimed a certain cottage, which his
father had enclosed from Brinsley common in the year 1793.
and bad resided in till his death, in 1841. The mother of
the plaintiff then continued to reside in it, until her death,
in 1843 ; and during those two year was supported by the
rlaintitt's younger brother. At her death the parish officers
of Whitbourne, in which the cottage is situated, interfered
and turned the younger brother out of possession. The
defendants set up an agreement, on which a 11. stamp had
been put, dated the oth of March, 1798, by which the plain-
tiffs father acknowledged the pariah at large to be the
owners of the cottage, and promised to pay them an annual
rent of one shilling on a particular day ; the representatives
of the parLh promising, in consideration of the expense to
which he had been pat, not to turn him out of possession,
nor his wife during her life, if neither did anything to the
prejudice of the rights of the parish. Proof was given that
the rent of one shilling had been paid in the year 1798, on
the particular day ; but no proof was off red of any sub.
quent payment. For the plaintiff it was contended
that the agreement amounted only to an atonement;
that the plaintiff's father had only been tenant at will; and,
therefore, that there hod been an adverse possession of more
that 20 years in the plaintiff's father, to wham the plaintiff
w.fa heir-at-law; so that under the 3 & 4 W. IV., e. 27, the
plaintiff's title was complete. The learned judge was of •
different opinion, but gave the plaintiff leave to move. The
same argument was now submitted in support of the present
application. Mr. Justice Erie said that there were two
grounds for disputing the plaintiff 'a title on the facts as
stated. Though the adverse possession of 20 years would bar
the defendants' right of entry, it did not follow that it ope-
rated as a parliamentary conveyance, and gave the plaintiff
the positive title, which would entitle him to recover posses-
'lion when once turned eat. Supposing, however, that the ad-
verse possession did operate as • parliamentary conveyanoe, did
it not vest the estate a the person actually in possession at the
time the question was reified ? In this case the plaintiff's
you iger brother had been actually the possessor when the
defendants recovered possouion.—The court then granted the
rule to chew cause.
THE QURIN O. THR MAYOR OP BATH.—RESEDT POR
A CANDIDLY'S D RRRRRR D BY PERSONATION AT AN ELEC-
TION OF TOWN COONCILL01111••—Mr. Phenin moved for
rule to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not
issue to the Mayor of Bath, commanding him to re-
ceive and count the vete of RobertiCrutwell, in the meetings
of the town-council of that borough. At the election In
last November there were three candidates for two vacancies,
one in the ward of Lyncombe, the other in the ward of
Whiioombe. The votes were for Archer, 212; for Luck-
man, 212; and for Crutwell, 210. The mayor declared the
first two elected. On a scrutiny it turned out that Luekasan
had polled three personated votes; that Crutwell lad polled
one personated vote; and that one voter had been prevented
from polling for Crutwell, because some one had personated
that voter, and polled for Linkman. On quo warrant°,
judgment of ouster went by default against Luekman, but
Crutwell had not been declared duly elected, there was •
difficulty about receiving his vote.
Lord Denman observed that if the declaration of the result
of an election were to have the effect suggested, the mayor
would be enabled to nominate the town council ; a rule
raid, therefore. should be granted.
The learned counsel then adverted to the fact that there
was a discrepancy between the practice of this court and that
of the Court of Chancery, and asked how the writ was to be
addressed.—The court refused to answer.

Dos oar. BISNMETT 13. BtTRIIT.—CONSIQUINCEB OF •
COMMIX, BECOXING ♦ JUDOIL—In this case a rule nisi,
which had been obtained by Mr. Justice V. Williams when
at the bar, was celled on for argument. Lord Denman raked
the learned gentleman w►o appeared to support the rule,
what the ground of it was, and received for answer that the
gentleman interrogated did not know. The same question
was addressed to the counsel who appeared to oppose the
rule, and reerived the same answer.
Mr. Justice Wightnian, who had tried the cause, then
referred to his notes and found that a stamp objection had
been taken at the trial, but what it was the notes did not
disclose. The court, thereupon, ordered the rule to be die.
charged without argument.