The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-06-16 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

Seals, Bankrupts' Petitions, Causes, Exception+, Further Directions, and
Petitions, before the Vice-Cboncellor, after Trinity Term.l 826.
FIRST /SRL, TRUSSDAV..II/MIT2.--DARCRUFTS. IPSTITIONS
ASV CAS/Si.

Friday 241 Tuead►y
Saturday 24 Wednesday 2B Saturday July I
Monday

SZCOND 1111 At., TIMIDAT, JULY 4.—causal.
Wednesday 6 Saturday 8 Wednesday........ 12
Thur5day.......... 6 Monday
Friday 7 Tuesday

111 II D SNAIL, 11111.4 Y, !I/LT 14.--xXciilTitoxs AND /11111T11111
_ .DIRICTIONS.

I .__ --.
Saturday .... ...... 18 ‘t eduesday
Monday .......... 17 Thursday.
Tuesday .. ...... .. 18 Friday .......

IurKTU fIiAL, YUMMY. JULY 24.
yiTITIONS, TUISDAY, JULY 25.

The Clerks in Court. and `Solicitors concerned In the rehearings and ap-
peals now set down for hearing before the Lord Chancellor. are requested
to send notice to the Register, If any of such rehearing, and appeals bare
been comprombeel, abated, or from any other cause, the same when
called on fur hearing cannot be proceeded with.
Register-office, June 3, 1526. T. WALIIIKR, D.-Register.
ROLLS COURT.—Trts DAT, AT Tax.
Remaining Petitions.
West v. Clarke I Richards v. hi accies- Blackborne v. Evans
I Pleschell v. Paris I field Greenland v.Oreenland
Short Causes this day, at 10 in the morning
The Master of the Rolls Is sitting in the Vice-Chancellor's Court, where
bit Lordship will continue to sit until the First Seal. Thursday, June ZJ.

COURT OF KING'S BERM—Tuts HAT, AT HAL►-PACT Nivr. li
Middlesex Common Juries.
The King v. Hill Chambers v. Hicks Harris Y. Carpenter
Brown v. Hearing Hull v. Richa.ds Snewin v. Holmes
Doe Y. Kilner Ditcher v. Keurick Bullcock v. Guthrie
Scaly v. Champ Orchard v. Boyce Williams v. Levy
Kensington v. Smither lipstune v. Bllson Foster v. Wollaston
Sister v. Belgrave Becks v. Stevens Page v. Langridge
Pheney v. Price Holland v. Giles Smith v. Jones
Courtney v. Fields Hurley v. Richardson Selby v. Meredyth
Abingdon v. Jeans Smith v. Pain Same v. same
Doe v. Nias Temple r. Andrews Earl Y. Craig
Bond v. Todd Platt Y. Salmon Folyno v. Beven
Batts v. Crips Wood Y. Londonderry Watson v. Scott
Kelly v. Cooke Hughes v. Jones Packer v. Mortis
Martindale v. Clark George Y. Pritchard Kendall v. Smith
The Chief Justice will go to Guildhall this day, fur the purpose of
adjourning the Sittings till Monday, the _'6th inst. Nu Causes will there-
-1 fore be tried in London this duy.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Taro DAR, AT Tom.
London Cauve■.—Sittlns after Trinity Tenn, Md.
London Special Jury.—lnract v. Silver.
London Common Juries,
ataryon v. Hardy
Hunt v. Buttlvant
Hooper v. Hurst
Ware v. Juda
Lambert v. Tarnley
Wilson a. Alder
Bird v. Hill

Davie% •. Bahr

Fletcher v. liottomley
Littler v. George
IVIIIIes v. Gas Light
Company
Charlton v. Cooper
Hopkins v. Brad'oerry

Rutheen V. Brown
Slothlad v. rearnley
Turnley e. Cohen
Cutblll v. Cooper
Law4on V. Farluw
Unbent v. Mackin,

COURT OF EXCIIEQUER.—Tuts DAY, AT TAN.
Customs Cau,e.—Attorney-General v. Bed.
Excise Ceases.
Aitorney•Oenersl T. Wm. Burberry Attorney-General T. Isaac Fisher
I Same v. Juhu Spence Same v. Juba Allard

CONSISTORI' COURT.—Torre DAT, AT TIN.
Fourth and ladt Seulion In Trinity• Term, 1826.—Before Sir C. Robinson.

LAW IN7'ELLIGENCE.

COURT OF ( ILANCERY, 'lmmoAy, JUNE I.

The Loan CHANCELLOR resumed his Sittings this morning,
in Lincoln's•lnn Hall, for the purpose of facilitating the despatch
of public business, by hearing motions, which, according to the
usual practice of the Court, would not have been heard until the
first Seal.

The IllasTEß of the 11(it.i.s. to meet the convent nee of Coun-
sel, presided in the N'icc Chancellor's Court instead of the holies

WELLESLEY V. TIM 1)I k OF BEAUFORT.
Mr. Ilairr observed, that his Lordship haul yesterday handed
down the letter of a Nobleman, to be given to his client. ilia
Lordship hail been applied to, to return it, and he now wished to
know if he wished to have it delivered back to him.
The Luau CBANcELLog asked if it did not form part of the

evidence in the cause, anJ if a copy of it would be found :n
proceed Inge.
Mr. MART replied in the affirmative.
The Loup CIIAJICELLOR NH that he did not like to deal
original document., because if they were lost, they were nev,,
hut while in posentaion of the Chancellor, and therefore he o •
refine the acceptance of it.

°BiIiCIRERSTETII) appeared Air.
HyAu)
(with
willwinAMltwllans.xCira.
in support of a motion for an injunction to restrain the defendant
from proceeding in an action at law, under certain special circuit,.
be bah:*
stances. The real parties in this case are, the Benders of Lin.
coln's.lnn and the Parish of St. Andrew, Holborn ; and the tit,:eee
in dispute Is, whether that pan of Lincoln's-Inn, called st'n..
buildings, is, or is not, subt.ret to be assessed for the relief of the
poor of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn. In order to bri
this matter to a formal decittioNit was agreed that a demand slim; ,:
be made upon Mr. Cooke, a Member of the Society, resident t,
Slone.buildings, and that upon his refusal of payment, the ra,:sl
should distrain upon his gooda, in order hat the maser might h.: made the subject of an action at law ; tacit party professing to Min their mutual assistance for the purpose of twinging the matter to E,
final decision. The action watt tried in Michaelmas Term, 1024,
and a ver.lict was given in favour of the pariah. thereby determin.
ing that part of Lincoln's-Inn, called Stone-huilthngs, to
to the payment of poufs rate, to the parish of St. Andrew. At
had
dbeetednofficiedonebeyyance
this trial at law, secondary evidence was given that the land oa
which the buildings in question stood had liwnierly been the re,.
present application for an
petty of a Mr.—, who had conveyed the same, in the year 151:f,„
to the Benches, of the Society, and that it formed a part of t! e
parish of St. Andrew, Holborn. In Htlary Term, 1821, applira.
tion was made for a new trial, on the ground that struntlani evidence had been improperly received. The court h.,4
been pleased to grant the new trial, and the action stands
for a new trial on the 20th of the present month. Bth.
the
on this occasion. as to whether or not an admix.
seqpwruisehnstlmy
wtordetrhtew twrihatlw,twa
abwilltwomfpecditshmeovewri
itoprwjactuhnteicctlleiwernnuctirwshuererd.
restrain
wed
thein Ipticelo,
proceedings
gstheat
law,
arose
out
or
the
sion of appearance had not been given by Messrs Green. Pember.
ton, and Crawley, the solicitors to the Honourable the Society of
Lincoln's,inn.
The Loan CHANCELLOR asked what was the secondary evi.
dente produced ? and was answered Mr. Lane's book.
Mr. HEALD then read the affidavit of Mr. Taylor, the solicitor
for the parish of St. Andrew, which included the various letters
that had passed between him and :Ileum Green, Pemberton, and
Crawley, and relied particularly upon one, dated May 2S, as an
upon the Benders,
undertaking, to the effect that such undertaking was sufficient to
subsequently, however, ihetotewrsevenri,i"nivtleter letters had passed.
reader
r•
h dt7e• anrrviyeil.tclethe admission said to be there given, and hence the
present application to his Lordship.-31r. Heald observed that
there was no doubt that individually the opinions of the Beecher,
were In favour of the fullest investigation, but that erillmtively
they had not been able to come to such a decision. The discus.
ulna of the matter had been put off until yesterday, which was the
last day of Term. and at the Parliament so assembled (for that was
the term of their assembly), they, like representatives in another
place, had been unable to come to any satisfactory conclusion ;
and therefore it was that, in order that the parish might not suffer
from what their professional advisers had considered an admission
ofserviceofaubpona,but width was now denied, they had been con.
pelled to bring the present motion of injunction to restrain the de-
fendant from pi acceding in an action at law, under the notice of
his Lordship. He could nut but compare the Beechen in this in.
stance to what had been said of the Equitable Insurance Company,
who were like a faggot, so tightly bound together that nothing
could loose them. The case was, whether the !leachers were not
to be bound, like all other persons, by the act of their attorney;
and if so, whether, in the present case, the act of Messn. Green,
Pemberton. and Crawley, In having said in their letter that they
would appear upon the notice given, without serving all the
parties individually with. a subposna, or letters missive, was not to
be taken as their undertaking.
The LORD CHANCEzi.on asked what kir. Cooke said to this
application ; these could be no doubt that lie had the manage.
went of it.

Mr. HART observed, that it never could be supposed that it was
intended to take the case to trial without the fulls at and most satis.
factory understanding on all subjects connected with it; and there-
fore the question of appearance was unnecessarily agitated. Bat
while iii the multitude of counsellors there was wisdom. so melt
there be also deliberation. Ile (3lr. H.) appeared on behalf of the
Benchers, whom be could not admit to be in the situation described
by Mr. Heald, but wham lie would call his " most potent, crave.
and reverend seniors" his" very noble and approved good masters :"
and he must say that lie objected to anything Ike an admission in
a cause, because he perfectly recollected what hod transpired in
the case of the Corporation of Newcastle,
The Loan CHANCELLOR observed, that it would be very dan-
gerous to let in an antiquary among their deeds.
Haar observed, that there were no doubt many of that
character in St. Andrew's, but the Bertelsen were alone 'desirous
that the name of Mr. Cooke should not be taken advantage of to
deprive them of their power of deliberation.
The Loan CHANCELLOR asked foe whom Mr. Hart appeared ?
Mr. HART said for the Benehere.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Then they do appear; and the
question is, whether your appearance for them does not admit the
service of the subptena?
Mr. Haar said that such was the ease, and Mr. Cooke con.
aidered it so. With respect to the character of the Soli. kora on
both sides, he was sure it would be conceded to him that they were
too respectable to lend themselves to the taking of aby improper
advantage.
The LORD CHANCELLOR suggested that the Court of King's
Bench was the proper place to go to, to put off the trial.
Mr. HART certainly considered steels would be the proper course,
and asked what would be the consequence, even supposing
Cooke snatched a verdict, if he might use such an expresiim ?
Why, that the parish could come to his Lordship, who would
condemn him in all the costs of the proceedings. All the Benches.
said was, that the subject was matter of deliberation, and they
must have time to know what evidence they had to pi ()duce.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had no difficulty of saying
of the Hon, Members of Lincoln's Inn, that they were a highly
respectable body of persons, possessing great legal knowledge,
certainly as much so as those of the Inner Temple, to sirich he
had the honour to belong. He wished to know what ribjection
there could be to the matter standing over. Hi. advice would be,
that application should be made to the Court of King's Bench to-
morrow morning, for the purpose of putting off the trial. In this
case all had exerted themselves very properly, but some with more
impatience than others; lie therefore would say, that be thought no
order ought to be made upon the motion.
Mr. Bicxxasr Ern repl ed, and said, that if Mr. Hart would
give any assurance that no advantage would be taken, he should be
satisfied.
Mr. HART declined giving any such assurance, and adverted to
the respectability of the Solicitors of the Benchers, as repelling.
the idea of such a suspicion.
Mr. DICKERSTETH acknowledged the truth of that observa-
tion., but raid the question was, whether they meant to go into
trial.

The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that he did not know what
discussion the question might undergo that evening between the
parties, or whether or not they would, as suggested by him, make
their application to the Court of King's Bench to-morrow ; but, if
he should hear that nothing had passed, it would be for him then
to consider whether it was not possible to get over the difficulty as
to the name of the plaintiff; by identifying the other plaintiffs with
him. lie would remark, in respect to what had passed in regard
to the official cha'acter of the learned individuals in question, that
his Honourable Friend (the late I.nrel Manslield'a) greatest delight
was, to consult a Bencher whenever he (Much lauihtero
In the course of the morning his Lordship retired fr.im Lourt fur
a short time, in order to administer the oaths of allegiance, &c., to
Lords Kinnaird and Kirkcudbright. the former being unable (his
Lordship stated) to come into Court from indisposition, in otdt: to
enable them to rote in the election of Representative Peers of Sas-
land to Parliament.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, THURSDAY, Jvxz 13.
RAYMOND AGAINST JOHNSON.
Mr. ABRAHAM opened the pleadings. Thin vnts an action to
recover damsges of the defendant, the lessor of the plaintiff; for
not defending the plaintiff's title in an action of ejectment.
Mr. SCARLETT said that this was a case of an extraordinary
nature. The pleadings were very long, and he confessed that he
had not been allowed time to read them, It appeared that 3lr.
Raymond accepted it leave of some premises at Chelsea from Mr.
Johnson. which lease contained, among other conditions, a prohibi-
tion to carry on the trade of a brewer, without permission in writing
front the lessor. The original object of Mr. Raymond was to carry
on the business of a coal-merchant, in which he had succeeded at
the time when lie was turned out of possession. Some time after
be was settled there, he made the acquaintance of a person named
Yates, who suggested to him the advantages of the brewing ftal-
ness. The same idea was also encouraged by Johnson, who, after
a little apparent hesitation, gave his consent in writing. In conse-
quence, the brewery was erected ; both Yates and Johnson came to
the premises, and approved of what was done. he brewery was
erected, and the trade commenced; and with so much success, that
the plaintiff was offered 600!. for his good-will at the erd of the
lint year. At that time the ejectment was brought by Yates, and
Raymond applhd to Johnson to defend his title. Judgment how-
ever was signed in ejectment, Raymond was turned out of posses-
sion, and the brewery was sold by auction. It then appeared that
the origival lease was held under Lord Cadogan ; and that it Mlle
to Johnson through many assignees, after passing through Yates's
hands. Yates also, it appeared, had purchased the reversion after
Jultneon's lease; he had perhaps nisde that purchase since the
brewery was built ; the original Lase prohibited the trade of brewer
altogether. Yates appeared to have been merely an agent of .iishn-
son in the action of ejectment, as Johnson got immediwe posses-
sion, anti let the premises at an improved rent. Thi re could not
be a case of greater oppression anti fraud. When the plaintiff* had
increased the value of the frentises about 1.6001., they were matt:
from him, anti let at an improved rent.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE observed that there was no cove-
nant in the lease to defend the les., a against an el,!er title. There
was a covenant to defend the title against all w:10 derived their
claims from the lessor, and nothing could be implied against a
special covenant.
3lr. SCABLETT admitted the difficulty of the case ; and tile
plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.

Piloted at THE BRITISH PRESS Office, by J. W. C Alttal)N, N. 161,
Strand, AD ti published by R. CANNON, ruse place.