The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-10-09 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Middlesex Adjournment day, October SO.—Middlesex—No Spet/siLLlirT
Causes will be tried In Middlesex before Tenn.
London Adjournment day, October 10.—The Court will try Common
Jury Causes on the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, and 10th Inst., and Spe-
cial Juries will begin on the lilh.
London Common Juries.—Tuesday, October 10, at Half-past Nine.
Still v. Wood Herbert v. Rubinson Lawrence y. Adams
Fenton v. NVollan Dean v. Attridge Holland v. Pagett
Same v. same Wetherell v. Lee Smart v. Marsh
Winter v. Dartkes James v. Robinson Nicholson v. Lloyd
Booth v. Goodwin Harrison v. Jackson Mackintosh v. Slade
Saunders r. Musgrove Pedder v. Jacobs. Smith v. Woolrich
The King v. Atkinson Evans v. Curtis Crundall v. Woods
Warburton v. John Hultman v. Booloola Jackrm v. Allison
Johnson Spochmon v. Piper Harris v. Fisher
Warburtoln V. Richard Edmonds v. Rowley Bridgman v. Lodge
Johnson Lamb v. Crafts Beard v. Jenkinson
Yeoman v. Williamson Rack v. Kilby Baker v. Appleton
'The King v. it'aterlow Allcock v. Nathanson Corpe v. Blackett
and another Marsden v. Blakie Cleasby v. Roberta
Morgan v. Quantock Maine v. Peter
Foster v. Frampton Dickinson v. Southall
London Special Jury Appointments.—Tue
Trower v. Roddington Riley v. Byrne
Redden v. Alexander Marsden v. ‘Valthman
Von Capeton v. the The East India Com.
Corporation of the pony v. Prince
Trinity Motive Pontifes v. Spilsbury
Buckinehurn v W.. 1. Crowther v. Lamb
Ranks Howkins V. Cubitt
Outhn site r. Wilson
Wednesday, October 18.
James v. Richards
Plunkett v. Buchanan
Meaburn v. Morgan

.(lay, October 17.
Phillips v. the Leeds
Gas bight Company
Belcher v. Sikes
Rudy v. Smyth
allwyn v. Prior
Bourke v. Worrell
Bourke v. Clement

Osborne v. Fenntil
Futneil v. Linwood
Dunn V. Lord

Reynolds v. Barnard
Same v. same
Gregwo v.Guldschroldt

"mtg... v. Irving
Robinaon r. Galloway
Haddock v. Tristram

Thursday, October IL
Donne •. Martyr
Baxter v. Stewart

Webber v. Venn

Bottomly v. Wilson
Madraso v. Mitchell
Mae•son v. Rymer
Herbert v. Mac:male
Front v. Bryant

Friday. October 20.
limpets v. Gibbs
Espelosis v. Gibbs
Edmond, ♦. Laing
Ellermanv.Reitbinuller

Child v. Searle
C.ockbaro v. Woodrow'
Evans v. Ward
Beet v. Bedgood
Park v. Horgan
Parkins v. Fry
The King v. Wal.Claric

Saturday. October 21.
Foelel v. Brooke

Gully v. lllekv
Suow v. Latham
Green v. Pole

Haney v. Johnstone
The Kiag V. Lathtany
Monday. October Z.
Griffiths v. the Corpo-
ration of the City of
London

Smith v. Monte,
Frits, v. Lamb

Waldman v. Symonds
The Trustees of the
British Museum v.
Payne
Lloyd T. Preshlield

Raughton V. Austin
Jones •. Anderson
Aobn v. Robinson

_ ...__
Featherstone v. Price
Hope v. Kaye
Rule v. Fergnason
Tuesday. October 24.
Mat:Gino/ay v. Simson
Herring v. Thompson
Wharton ?. Binge
Wednesday, October 25.
The King v. Lathbury
Gristhile v. 1.. Price
Lubbock v. Ward

Predon v. Lord Grant-
Kaye V. Howard

Brews v. Miller
Harrison v. Horradalle
Lee v. Smith

Maws. v. Crow
Curling v. Finch
Colvin v. Newberry•
Brooke v. Iludgvcit

Shaw V. Newberry
Attwood v. Rothery
Solute v. Palmer.

Heyman v. Man,ball
Thawlay, October 26.
Grepon v. Thompson
Roger+ v. Pule, Hart
Friday, October 27.
Strong v. Hart

Watson v. Born
Cocks v. Borradalle

Men v. Brooks
31 enke v. Joseph.

Barnes v. Rooke
Solaity v. Rothchild
Holden v. Elmslie
Br.n kiebank v. TOWIIII-
-

Thompson v. Frans
Solaris v. Robertson
Solute v. Maltby

Galloway v. Robinson
The Ring v. E.
ltibackell

Saturday, October V.
Bolton v. Stevenson

Wilkie e. Clarke

Wlgney v. Thw•attes.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
LONDON IItSCIAL roll TOM ADJOUANNINT SITTINCS,

3111111AE1.11AS TgRM, NZ .
Thursday, October 2G.
Flook v. Jones I Fluolt v. Fore
Same v. Same
Friday, October 2,.
Woollastou v. True-
man
Evans and others v.
Cole

Strong v. Jackson
Sail., v. Dale

Savage v. Rich, Bart.
%ga' and utherb v.

Dean v. Itt'Ghle
Ettsworth and another
v. Everett and ant,t.

Elardtts v. Chatfield
'Caitlin v. Atty
Ward v. Barger

Saturday, October 28.
Clark and another v.
Gibbs
Daniel v. Bowles
Monday, October 30.
Dull roan and another v.
Rey and another
Perring, Bart. v. bull-
van
Same v. Duntton
Tuesday, October 31.
Bischoff v.lloeby
Sumer v. Pentland

Bank of England v.

Dundate and another •
Burry
King v. Butterworth
and another v.
Linklater

Penlog, Bart. v. Alton
Same v. Perring
Same v. Hone.

Brown and another ♦.
Prow°
Colon and another v.
Smith

Haswell V. flatterley
and others.

Migh v. Wellesley

Wednesday, November I.
Jameom v. Nth:ikon%
and another

Haddon v. Stephenson

Sieveking v.blartin and
uthen

Thursday, November 2.
Maclean v. Dunn and
another

Knight end another v.
Legh.

Solarte and others v.
Barnes and others
Gib!) and on. v. Lamb

-
Friday, November 3.
IBroomfield v. Kitson
Same v. Same

IPrice and others v.
Faith and another.

THE LORD MAYOR'S COURT, OCT. 7.

[Before the RIECONDEII ani a Special Jury.]

TEE WOOLMAN'S COMPANY Y. TILE NEW CORN EXCHANGE

COMPANY.

This was a proceeding under the Act of the 7th Gco. IV., to
recover a compensation for the value of the premises No. 57,
Mark-lane, and which were required by the New Corn Exchange
Company. Acording to the practice of this Court,
Mr. HOLLAND (Mr. Law with him) stated the nature of the
claim made. The New Corn Exchange Company had offered to
the Wooltnan's Company, one of the chartered Companies of
London, to whom the freehold belonged, 1,300/. as a compensation
for the same, which the Jury would hear, from surveyors and other
competent persons, was more than its -marketable value; although
they would also hear from a witness that he had added 300/. as a
compensatory value. Mr. Munn, auctioneer. stated that the mar-
ketable value of the premises was 1,200/. ; and, taking into
consideration the lease, of which there were now seven years to
Come, the amount to go into the purse of the Woolman's Com-
pany would be 6101.
Mr. Smith, a surveyor, valued the property at 1,3591., to which
he added 3001. as compensating value.
Other witnesses were examined, but these were the chief points
in the defendants' case.
Mr. F. POLLOCL (Mr. ABRAHAM with him) contended that
the mode adopted by the witnesses was not the fair mode. 'the
facts were:—The premises were held by Mr. Hyde under a lease,
of which there were seven years to come, at a rental of fsll. per
annum ; that he had given 5001. for a ten years' lease and good-
will ; that he had let part of the premises for a year and a half,
at 80/. a year; and that the remaining part of the premises was
worth 1001. a year to him.
These facts were proved ; and it was also proved that the taxes,
including the tithes paid to Dr. Owen, the premises being in St.
Olasn's pae.sh, amounted only to 20 kwineas per annum.
The RECORDER charged the Jury that it was their peculiar
duty to give a compensatory value, and the marketable value they
would take from the witnesses.

Verdict fur the Woolman's Company, 1,3301. This mule'
all costs.

LADY CROFTS v. THE. NEW CORN EXCHANGE COMPANY.

Alr. Bot. sawn, on behalf of the Company, stated that this was
an inquiry to assess the value of the house, No. irsti, in 31ark-lane,
which MISS the esta.e of Lady Crofts, and was required, like the
house adjoining, for the erection of the New Com Exchange.—
The Company had cffered IMO/. for the freehold, which was re-
fused.

Mr. Alaun was examined, and stated that the marketable price of
the premises, between man and man, would be 1,3001.
Messrs. Smith, Higgins, and Pew, were examined, and stated
that the marketable price was 1,368/. Ss. to which they added 3001..
as compensation to the freeholder for the compulsory sale of his
property.
Mr. JERVIS addressed the Jury on behalf of Lady Crofts, and
said I.e would prove, by incontrovertible evidence, that the pre-
mises were worth much more than had been offered by the Com-
pany.
Mr. John Atkinson proved that his mother had paid 1201. a year
for the premises to the year Ina, when her lease expired.
Mr. Wing. a surveyor, proved that the premises were worth 1101.
a year at the least, and from %NW. to 2,4001. purchase.
The Jury, after some consultation, gave a verdict of 2,00 W.