The Express.
London, England, 1868-01-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIB DAY.)

EQUITY 001JRTS.
(Before Vieraisiondier Biz W. Page Wood.)
MDWREIMI M. MARQUIS or cuotstosno.Er.
The Vice-Chancellor gave judgment in this case, which
was erased as the 17th and 18th of last December.
The Hamar said that the bill had been filed by Mr.
Edwards against the Marquis of Cholmondeley u landlord
of property at Frodshaisi ,and histenant to restrain the defen-
dants from allowing to remain on their land a certain wall
whereby certain windows of Esiwards's house were blocked
up. The grounds on which relief had been prayed were
twofold ; first, a right to the light by prescription ; and
secondly. • right under the statute. Taking the first
Found, it appeared that in 1784 the marquis's predecessors
in title made a lease of the property on which the defen-
dants were building. It further appeared that such leave
was granted on the surrender of a prior lease dated in 1769.
Nobody affected to give any account of the origin of the
honee, but it undoubtedly existed in 1789 ; and hishonour
must hold that the window for which a preacriptive right
was claimed was coeval with the buildiug. That would
be sufficient of Heed to establish the plaintiff's right ; but
it was said that, from 1818 to 1846, a Mr. Lingley. the
freeholder of the dominant tenement, was the leaseholder
of the servient. That fact, however, did not merge
or destroy the right, inasmuch as the intere4
in one property was freehold, and in the other
leasehold. - It must, therefore, be held that
in 1818 a prescriptive right was acquired, and had not
since been bait. Then as to the right set up under the
statute, which applied to the amount of the light claimed
for another part of the building. In this pert of the house
the windows had undoubtedly been altered in 1e46, by
having been framed and glazed according to the modern
style, and it was necessary for Mr. Edwards to prove that
these alterations were a simple substitution for what was
enjoyed before, and that no enlargement had been made.
On this point his Honour reviewed the evidence
at length, and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff
had succeeded in showing that prior to 1846 there had
been no alteration within living memory and that during
the alterations in that year the plaintiff bad not in-
creased the amount of light. There was a third portion
of the house, as to which the evidence as the date of
construction was imperfect and conflicting the pro-
babilities and the weight of testimony, so far as it went,
were in favour of the plaintiff ; and the result must
be a decree to restrain the defendants from prrmit-
tin! any wall or other erection to remain so
to interfere or obstruct the access of light and air to the
iplaintiff's windows as they bad been previously enjoyed,
with an inquiry as to damages, the defendants to pay
what if any should be found to have been committed ; the
defendants to pay the costa of the suit too, sod including
tbequ hearing ; with liberty to apply
in as to the wets of the
iry.
fiCr. G. M. Giffard, Q.C., and Mr. Leonard Field appeared
for the plaintiff ; Mr. W. M. James. Q.C., Mr. H. F.
Bristow., and Mr. Fellows for the defendants.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice lioviU, and
Justices Willis, Keating, and Smith.)
ECLLIVAN r. THE NORTH WESTERIt RAILWAY entirxNr.
The plaintiff in this case was a journeyman tailor ; ho
had for some time suffered from consumption, he spat
, blood, and at length be was obliged to go, to Irelan
be d for
the benefit of his health. On boa return tourney was
in the train, when what was known Si the Warrington
asiest happened. It was said that the consequence of
the accident was that the progress of the plaintiff>, diseam
was accelerated, and at the trial before the Lord Chief
Justice the jury awarded the plaintiff 7:o1.
Mr. Giffard, Q.C., now moved for a rule foe s new trial
I upon the groitod that the damages were excessive, and
stated that the amount might as well have been 7,111 W.
as
' 7001. as far as any relation it bore to the injury suffernl.
'What seemed to have influenced the jury a good deal Ices
that the plaintiffs counsel impressed upon them tint its
negligence was very gross, and that the plaintiff hod since
the accident lost a child. (A laugh.)
The Lord Chief Justice—The origin of the lung disease
bad no connection with the accident. At chamber- be
stayed execution upon the terms that 3001., apart of tho
damages, should be paid at once to the plaintiff. He
thought that the amount of the damages bad been influ
have had thA-
enced by circumstances which ought not to t

effect.
11r.Giffard said that he believed that if his lordship
would state what ho thought should be tho amount of tho
damages, both parties would agree to that sum.
The Lord Chief Justice said that be had already named
a sum at chambers, and he still adhered to his opinion
thin expressed.
Rule granted.
PECLEH T. THE KOCTH WESTERN RAN.WAY COMPANY.
Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., said that this also was an action to
ree.over diuuagesfor injuries sustained in a railway accident,
and before the Secondary the jury assessed e
we
damages at 1,000/. The plaintiff was a clerk
to Messrs. Penn and Co., the engineers, and his
salary was 2001. a year. He was away froui work
on was fan
or
three months, and the principal thing relied
opinion expressed by a medical man that there was an in-
jury to the eye that might in future fee tiOlis ; but on the
other band there was the beat possible idence that there
was really no such injury. Under these circumstances the
motion was for a rule for a new trial upon the ground that
the damages were a:rewire.
Rule granted.
COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE. 1
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
HMITHSON
Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr. Swaboy for the plaint'ff ;
Dr. Tristram for the defendant.
This wale a suit relating to the will of the I:ev. John
Miokie, a beneficed clergyman in North Notts, who cool-
milled suicide in October, Pak but e. ideuce having Leon
given of his capacity in the previous February, when the
instrument was executed,
The court decreed probate, but made no order as to costs ,

THE POLICE COURTS.

(THIS DAY.)

Wks

olr 0.4.
orb 0.10
ro 0.10
o 0.27
Ile 0.10

; I 0.161
oe 1 0.14

oe 0.01
troll 0.10
rte 012
o 0.20
ro 0.00
rb 10.20
0019.00

i erb~l~

MANSION-HOUSR.
THE RIGHTS or A LANDLnItn.
—:se William Johnson appeared to answer a summons ebarg-
1 i',:', ing him with unlawfully removing his furniture to pre-
p, vent distraint.
It appeared that the defendant occupied a house in
s parish of St. Botolpb of the yearly rent of 21:4, plaid°
B quarterly, and on the 31st of December he removed the
;whole of his " goods end chattels," being then indebted
- for rent in the sum of 13/.
8 Mr. Harris, solicitor, appeared in support of the sum.
4 mons, and stated that the proceedings were instituted
parliament whereby the defendant hd
5 under an act se3
rendered himself liable to double the value of the goods
; removed.
ilt
_ Johnson pleaded guy, and Mrs. Mason, a lodger in
4 the house was then called and proved the value of the fur-
-5 niture removed to be about id.
2 Mr. Oke (chief clerk) to the defendant—You have no
II goods to distrain upon now ?
', Johnson—No ; [Wive bad to put them away for debt.
The Lord Mayor inflicted • penslty of 12/., or iu default
two months' imprisonment.
The defendant was then looked up.
GUILDHALL.
ROBBERY BY A BHOP3IAZT.
John Frost, a respectablmlooking young man, was placed
at the bar before Sir Robert W. Carden charged with
,
robbing his muter of half a crown, smirked money.
Isaac Smith Manley said he was a tea dealer,
oner ha carryind
g
on business at 73, Little Bell-alley, and the prim
been his shopman for upwards of two years. In conic-
quesce of his suspicions being aroused, he on Satur-
day last marked several half-crowns, florins, hillngs,
'and sixpences, and put them in the till in tea
afternoon. After leaving them there for shout
am hour he went to the till and cleared it and found them
the
all safe. On Monday he put them back again, leaving
puma, in the shop for one boar by himself, at was cus-
to
tomsty, to attend the business. When
nd he w
asd as going
away witness called him into the parlour, a ashim
to prodaces what money be bad. He took out of his pocket
a ss. piece a marked half-crown, and two penny pieces.
lie asked'
the prisoner how he became possessed of the
marked half-crown, and he replied that
washitness) had
given it to him on Saturday That not true.
He had paid the prisoner his wages on Saturday, but not
out of money from the till. That money was all in an iroa
1 safe when he paid the Owner. He had been robbed to
• very considerable extent. On Friday the prisoner took
the whole hour's takings while be was saving, and Is. or
1 Ils. lonfri He felt be must make an example of the pri-
mialsr, bat ha wished him to be dealt with as leniently as
pub cos amount of his wife and child.
Theldsonee was remanded.
BOW-STREET.
18 HZ A FENIAN?
James Livermore, a tall haggard-looking Irishman,
shabbily-dreamed, and apparently but ill-nourished,
was brought before Mr. Vaughan, charged wit. rind
i drunk, and firing a pistol in Martlett's-court. Bow-
: street (opposite the polioe-oourt), to the danger of the
hanliiintits. The case had created some superfluous ea-
t in the neighbourhood. owing to a rumour
far as we know), that this was another,
1111.613xil as
Assordlogrtitove the enevklignanmeetrath pistol was fired at shoat
10 I
reel hest purses, 51 F. and Gough, PS A, dated
that their ationtion was rolled to the prisoner by a
hperson
not now ponent and by one of the witnesses. Goug asked
Toned
Mail lissited a pistol I. He said he had not- They
ape biatjoottover, scrotal, two bottles, tugs b?heonptlbn4
Ml=ikrawily discharX:and a posad artlon bullet
the cap still
silineed te the nipple. On the way to the station he ra-
diant violently.
I Tatgador Parker read a ssslomest made by the
h recentdy
plower
at.. atadowbolooo, to the effect that be ed
'Wm mellimi at varioroy =of Wilma in Dublin,
am Loogira, and in the p