The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-31 00:00:00

WESTERN CIRCUIT.

FlVitit, FRIDAY. .71;r:v 28.
(Before Mr. Justice CIAELEE and a Special JJ y.l
WARRE,' V. LAND.

This was an action on an alleged breach or covenant, to recover
the valor of a certain close, called Great Top Close, aitusted in the
parish of Sainpford Peverell.
It apeciired from the pleadings that, in the rai 1808, a tene-
ment, celled Leeditch, and certain closes, part of Butteridge Com-
mon, canenning 15 acres, were conveyed by a Mr. Farrant to a
gentleman named Land, by way of mortgage, for seedring to Mr.
Land the repayment of 2,700/. and interest; and that. in the year
1810, Mr. Land, for a nominal consideration, joined with Mr.
Tarrant in d conveyance, to James Surridge, of a close called Great
Top Close, containing eight acre*, parcel of the above closes, and
agreed that the residue alone of the mortgaged estates should stand
charged for his debt.
Mr. C. F. Wit.i.ti.mfi (with whom were Mr../ea EMY and Mr.
' M'lttotrr) stated that the defendant's huSband had obtained en
interest in the lands in question, by holding a mortgage lb, 3.2001.
which he had lent 0 Tarrant; Mr. Land held the estate as mort-
gagee, and Mt. Warren, ha'ins, become the purchaser. obtained
from Mrs. Land a conveyance of her interest in the property. Mr.
Warren visited the lands before he completed the purchase, but it
did not appear that lie had Made any very particular obsereatien of
their situation ; for it was some time after he had poisitsitm that
he discovered the close, called Great Top Close, had not come into
his possession, because it had been conveyed by Mr. land, some
years before his decease, to a Mr. Surridee. The derentliim had
therefore conveyed that which was not in her power to convey ; she
conveyed all her late husband had derived under the deed of 111011,
whilst she !vas only enabled to put the plaintiff in tionsesaion of
what her hilsband held, minus the Great Top Close, which he had
conveyed to Surridge. The rattle of the clear would be proved to
he about 100 f.; the deed would he produced and 'proved ind lie
warned the Jury not to trust ant other evidence which the de-
fendant might produce. in opposition to a document made upon
due consideration, sod with the advice of the defendant% agcnts
and friends. _ _

..... _
The deed of 1821 was produced, in which the defendant con-
veyed to the plaintiff all the interest fritich her late husband had in
the !ands in question. The validity of the deed was not diniuttd.
A witness, tamed Palmer, WAS also called to prove the value of
Great Top Close, which Ire said Might be about DM
Mr. CotEnitaGE then addressed the Jury for the defendant.
Ile said it was not yet mentioned who the parties were in this
action. The plaintiff was an attorney, of Wellington' well versed
In the language attic! law, and knew extremely well what was con.
veyed by the deed to him. The defendant, on the contrary, was a
widow, subject to all the disadvantages of a person entirely unskilled
in law. lie did not say that she had not legal advisers. The truth
was, she had able advisers, by whose judgment she was now pro-
tected from this unworthy action. But what there the facts of the
case ? The Jury were told that the plaintiff' was sun:fitted to find
that he could Lot take possession of the Great Top Close. New
the circumstances were, that Farrant, becoming embarrassed, bor.
rowed money from the late Mr. Land, and afterwards became a
bankrupt. fire plaintiff was the solicitor to the cnnunission, and,.
of course, was acquainted with all the bankrupt's affairs. A sale
of Farrant's prorerty was ordered. The plaintiff put matters in
train for thin sale, and described the lands in question, as the agent
for the assignees. The sale commenced, the property was put up
to auction, and who was the purchaser? Who but the plaintiff:
the solicitor to the commission. Ile g tve tut 3001. fur the property,
and, when the case was brought before the Lord Chancellor, the
purchase was set aside, anti a resole ordered. The property fur
which the plaintiff gave 300/. was put up again, and sold for ;Al.;
and after this the plaintiff purchased it from the person wino then
bought, and gave .5531., exactly 253/. more than be had first bought
it for. Now, with such an intimate acraiotanee with the pre-
nti,es, could it be believed that 111 r. 11 :men eid not know what
Mrs. Land had the power of conveying? The truth was, the
plaintiff was in possession of all he meant to purchase; he had a
mortgage upon it; he knew that Great Top ('lose belonged to those
lards in ICC, but that it was alienated to Surridge in IMO. It
was no proof that because this field was a part of the estate in
lffild that it should be so in 1T24. Ile would prove that plaintiff
bad been altown the tenements without the Great Top Close, and
that there was every reason to believe-he had purchased them with-
out meaning to hccurne possessed of Great Top Close. If the Jury
btiievcd this, they would lied for the defendant, or, at the most, fur
the plaintiff, with one shilling damages.
After much argument, evidence was produced for the defendant.
which supported the statement of defendant's Counsel.
Mr. WILLIAMS then replied, and
The Learned JUDGE having summed up, the Jury said, "'We
are decidedly of opinion. that plaintiff was perfectly aware, when
he bought, of all the circumstances, and of what was assigned to
him, and knew that he was not purchasing the Great Top Close.
But, under the direction of his Lordship, we lit.d for the plaintiff;
damages one shilling."
ruder his Lordship's suggestion, however, the Jury increased
the damages to Ilk)!. ; and a verdict was recorded for that amount,

with leave to move to enter a verdict fur tl:e defendant, or to raduce
the damages to one shilling.