The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-12-15 00:00:00

P

ffiaI.CIIANCELLORI COURT, WIDNIUDA., Dtc. 14.
A *OPP a, 01111•WW•11 P`AII xxxxx /OM noel.
Inns hitt by Mr. Pius the architect, for en injunction
I. Ore ilia te. who arsteemuto of the late Mr. John
ttosii
0111106 a tics disposing of the edicts, ma'
04 Ilinial at the danard, and praying the appointment of •
Vte. smatnie appeared for the injanetion, and Mr. GIZOLID.
rco fat dig delbod an ts.
IltsleMli dm in 1130 the plaintiff erected • large inn, called
the ambffises• Inn, in the neighbourhood of Whitechspcl, for
SW ikaa lift a sod farther. that the amount of his bill, which was
at 4,4110.1. had never been discharged. Mr. Gosling re. '
=dkA, leaving the two defendanie, Susannah Faulkner, a fe.
who Reed. with him for • considerable time, but was not his
Was, sad :Ir. Rope, of Marlborough. his executors. The defend.
is tin„ without having proved the will of the deceased, proceeded to
%weeder it. by selling off the household furniture of which he died
peereeped. T.he present ftraieation was to restrain them from pes.
firths: is diepereag of the property, that it might remain
• dallier of the plaintiff should be satisfied, and for the
e ern of a receiver for that purpose.
tr.
, ice •thiAxckttoit expressed his opinion that the Court
had us authority to grant the epplieatior., inasmuch as no probate
ettd barn, obtained of the testator's will. Redress couLl only be
PhPhtel by citing the parties into the Leclettlast!cll Court.
Mt Soninn said the delay occasioned by such a proceeding
'woad etkable the defendants to accomplish what they desired,
rAreelv, the sale of the ion, and the remaining part of the testator's
).1•047.

COAL MINE.

r. lIIAIMOIIII.
11 Hie ease an injunction had been obtained restraining the de-
fendant ftorn wetting under the Lends cl the plaintif, and taking
WI item a certain min... said to be situated beneath the copyhold
este* ef die plaintiff, who claimed a tit:* to the same as Lord of
dwrellwww.
Mr. HIALD now appeared to move that the derencllnt be forth-
with berm tted to the Fleet Prison, for a contempt in refusing to
with She injunction of the COWL
31 je ZbladiCenoatppea foci.with
defendant,omtirlianeethme mid ergrhtehaCt.orrtr:
refur.teded
()tithe wonernry. he wished it to be decided by means rf an exami-
pation OR the spot, and vivo :vet testimony whether he iris or was
riot anteing coal from the interdicted portion of the ri;ne. His
Hamm aropeld remember that in this use the plair.tiff formerly
nesdh.eppliccion to the Court. sad complained of the corduet of
ere defendant in working a mine under leis copyhold estate. To
ilia hlr. Bamford mit in an answer. denying the fact, and further
•11410 big that the lands in question were not copyhold but freehold,
:tad avmsequently the plaintiff could not he entitled to an injunction.
His Hunnor directed en lone nt common law, in order to try
whether tbe lands were freehold or eopyhold. This point had
been decided against the defendant, and an injunction accordingly
_with the terms of which AIL Bamford declared he had
COMplied.

The rrct.Crtarrcgt.toiy.-There can be but one method of
eeradine a g 'cation like this, particularly when there are contra-
dictory afildasim and that is by sending some expetieneed person
l't persons (loan to investigate the facts, and npprise tlie Court
a tit eir opinion founded on the cireamstances of the caw.
Att. Somme—That is all we desire. Ths defendant has

already ascertained the matter by actual survey.
Mr. HEALD—Bo: we are not satisfied with your affidavits,
which merely contradict the allegations contained in our.. Besides,
there Is one object= to the course proposed, which Is, that the
joinfell will never agree in the clinic, of an umpire.
The Vict.Cisaxci Lt.° a —Let two be appointed, one by each
FlzkLD—Ent therearimen of the charge consists in our
assertion, that the defendant has palled down certain pillars sup.
reties! the mine, in consequence of which, to use the eonis of oar
afedarlt.." the whole land is crushed in." So that it is impracti-
t able to get into the mine within 170 yards of the distance to which
the works were previously carrietir
The VICE-CHANCELLOR— here are these pillars situated,
are they at the boundary between the panics' property, or under the
an hold estate c r tinder the defendant's land ?
Mr. lITALD—We assert they are under the copyhold.
Mr. fdrg etcs—And we say they are situated beneath our own
The V zcs-Cn excELLoa—Let the motion stand over to the
last seal day before next term, with liberty to some person or per.
,301, now to be appointed by the parties, to descend into the mine
sag proper assistance, on the part of both plaintiff rnd defendant,
and ascertain whether or not Mr. Bamford has extended his works
under the copyhold estate; also to certify to the Court if the terms
cf the injunction hare been complied with by the defendant and
rarther, with liberty to state special circumstances, if necessary.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GurLou•LL,
WroNrspAy, Dtc.l4.

Sittixes iw London beibre the LORD CXiEW JUSTICE awd a
Common Jury.
JU RORS.
Whcn the second Jury was called on. considaable delay ensued
la consequence of the absence of James who were emmoned to
serve. Alter some time it 11311 awry to complete the new panel
v calling oa those who had already sat their tam to serve an.
other.

_ .
The Foreman of the new panel haring expressed to his Lordship
the hardship which was thus wailed on some of the Jurors by the
r•raleet and absence or others,
Tire l.otar, CASEY JUSTICE expressed considerable displeasure,
and said that be should glee orders to the Under-Sheriff to summon
ta who were on the Jury Llst for to-morrow morning, and if they
clod not attend, he should fine them.

VIATIIIWAY V. WILLTAXSON.

Tide action was brought to recover from the defendant the nein
of a ditty newspaper furnished to hint from rite let of October,
1818, m September, 1823.
Mt. COMMON SEUGLANT and Mr. BOLLAND conducted the
ease for the plaintiff, and Mr. CAMPBELL that for the defendant.
•The plaintiff is a vender of newspapers • the defendant, at the
commencerrtent of this period, carried on business in Basinghall-
tweet, in partnership with a person of the name of Adam. In Feb.
13t1, after the dissolution of this partnership, the defendant re-
moved In Packers'-court, Coleman-street, where lin subse-
quently carried on business in partnership with a person of the
wales d Jones, and be had pletded to this action that he was
jointly liable with Jones. This plea,. of course; precluded the de-
tbedsot from putting in his partnership with Adam as a defence,
lied therefore there must, of course, be a verdict spinet him for
the price of the newspapers from October, 1818, till February,
1821. And es to the remaining period, the only question for the
Ji.ry was, whether Cr nn there was a partnership with Jones, and
eiretier the credit was given to Williamson alone, or Williamson
and Jones jointly.
For the plaintiff several witnesses were called, who proved that
they bad delivered the papers at the warehouse in Packers'.
court ; that the nausea of Williaineon and Jones wets on the door ;
that this house was merely a warehouse, neither of the partners
residing there; that Williamson sent the paper, after he had read
It, regularly to a Mr. Clutterbuc.k, who resided in Gloucestershire,
and who had paid hip foe it.
Mr. CAMPBELL shortly replied for the defendant.
The lASI/ Cuter JUSTICE summed up, and the Jury Im.
stediately gave a verdict for the plainutf—Daibages 641. lOs., being
tam price of the newspapers for the whole period, from the year
168 to the September of the present year.
--eanee•--
OfJURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WEDNESDAY, DSc. 14.
Shakes in Leaden Wore Lord Oki Jarboe Iles/ cud Cannon
Janet.
FIANCE V. LACY. .

This Ira an action one bill of exchange, which had been drawn
by the defendant on his bankers, and accepted by them. The de-
fames wwc, that no notice had been given to :he defendant of the
disionour of the bill.
..ibtappeared in evidence that at the time the bill was drawn the
&geodes► bad cash in his hai•lter's hands, but that he bad with_
drawn the whole of it before the bill became due; and that when
leer bill vas resented for payment the bankers refused to honour it
la want of effects.
NC. Sergeant VAIIONAU contended that, under them circum-
tbe defendant was not entitled to a co:ice of the dishonour
.slate bill.
Me. CIIIIPSX [A—for the defendinit.sulimitteil, that an t!ere were
finial* dm heeker's when the bill was drawl., ci.ac defondant ought
talon received seucc.
The Loan CH[EF JUSTICE was of opinion that the defendant,
.Mayieig that he had no tends at his banker's, was not entitled to
MOP; the plaintiff must therefore have a verdict.
Verdict for the plaintiff.

PULLEN R. HEARN.
Thi- was an action to recover compensation in damages for the
fajory sustained by the plaintiff in consequence ofhis being knocked
itsand run over by a coach driven by a servant of the defendant.
defendant pleaded the geaeral Issue.
.gfr. ilerseant Se•la I E (with whom wan Mr. MOODY) said, the
gleeolit in hits eciion wan horsekeeper to the propticior of the
eetadi ruanieg between Landon and Trine, called the ••• Good
ligeae." The defendant wee the proprietor of soothe.- coach,
allied the " Voting Pilot," which ran on the Writ of road,
.end started et nearly the seine time of the day. On the I,t of July,
is 41,4 wettest year, both these coaches entered Iletkiiampstead
ahem half-past seven o'clock In the morning. and while the Good
.Jatent was stopping on the off &ideal the road, for the ptrpose of
taking op e passenger, the coachman of the Young Pibt came up
!rapid pee., and although there were but tight feet between the
Good intent sad the footpath on the off-aide, and some ladie, and
tee plaintiff were standing there, yet the coachman, tenuity disre-
garding all consequences, inhumanly drove by on the of-aide, and I
*ma ed the plaintiff down, and did him considelahle ir.Jcty. The
-chugs, therefore, against Min was, thet having the caner part of
ate woad open to him, lie ought to have driver. on that side, rid
.that he had no right to take the offside, to the imminent ',anger of
bis Majesty's eubjects. The action was brought agiunst the
wooer its*. dui coach, who was liable for the negligence id his ser-
.rant., and wisely en, as it made masters cludous is the choice of
these fey whore conduct they were thus responsible. The Jury
wield estimate what damages the pialatiff deserved rot the tocon-
rawitmes and danger be bad suffered.
, Ow* Toinkuis, the coachman of the Good latent examined—
On die i.e July la-t. the Young Pilot ai d sty coach entered
itswiffewocrad together. I was bailed to take up a paasenga, and
dread up on die off-side, within E feet of the pathway, for that pur
pear. Pullet, the plaintiff, was with ere, and got off tntr comb to