The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-03-11 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.

COURT Or C
scrol3 TIM utoltD C11•71C1

CHANCERY.
•ILLOA TIIIII DAT, AT 1114

Vvyarte, Weston re Rainey, Banc
ens Pettelon—fm Judgment
Wetvealey v. Duke ref Beaufort—pe-
tition. per order
In re Plat a—Bankrupt Petition, to
be *puke to

Attorney General V. 'farce of [re-
ter—Appeal. part beard
atorve e. Lord Onnende, three
eanses—Appeal, per order
Donn v. Watson—Appeal

*biota 711111 •ICII.CRANCiLLOII
Exceptlone and
Hetubtealt v. ittorney-Geneng---to
be spoke to
Rea. v. Colltay.part beard
Matteson r. 4voteltbanv—Rxeepts.
IPMITUirf V. hint—atto
'(Crier v. vame--itltto
I•Neake v. Walter—ditto
!tattle! V. MlD—ditto
'Mae V. .01.2

MB PAT, AT 11•LT-P•111 71111.
Antler Dim t lons.
}kerb v. fir etill—Faceptions and

further dire( tionl
--
Payne r. Titton—tiurther directions

and cmta
Tifton ♦. Payne—ditto
Tracey v. Vicker.--ditto
Attorney-Geom.' v. Westwood—do.
Smith •. Brodinn--ditto
rhunan v. Smith-46ft°
Grote v. Damnn—ditto
Toulmin v. Copland—Executions
and ditto

Ottlield T. Elwro—lrurther I)lrect
s-vne v. Rime
P.eu. worth • Veumans--ffitto
'Aiwa v. **me—ditto

ROLLS
Ing master of est Rollr will heal
Petitiouv by Convent,
Lord riouthacupton V. Duke of

COIiRT.
Cauye., Further Directions, and
(hi. morning, at nine.
Fuller v. Fuller--Cause
Tow.Oey y. Redwell—Petition
In re Powell'. Estate Htll—ditto
Le Grand v. l.e Grand—ditto
Same v. same—ditto
Wardale y. Jaryl..—Cause
Rage. v. Rages—ditto
Murray v. Addenbruoke—Further
Directions
In re Commlvionen of Clink Pave-
ment—Petition
Gibbon. v. Howell—ditto
Maul, v. Fleming--Cause
Powell v. Hunnor—Petitiun
Tomlin. v. Tomlin'--ditto
H ot.tun v. Platt—ditto

t; rafton--Peticion
I!.inini v. Gond—ditto
It.stpherron v. Pater—Canoe
Pieserlng v. Thornton—Petition
Wiarkw.rth v. Greenwell--ditto
dyer •. Ages—Canoe
I to .16re r. hucas--Further Direct.
tratony v. Oatoby—Pention
o.le-4 v. Willo•ey—ditto
*obi:lion v. Hopkins—ditto
ilaydon •. ilonsey—ditto
Hibbrrt v. Ilibbert—ditto
In to Mayor. kr. of London—ditto
'nice y T. Abbott— ditto
In re Delves—ditto
iturdy v. Linghar--ditto
General Petition Day at the Rolla
alit In the evening.

m Wed.teeday next, the 13th last. at

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, FRIDAY, 11.aca 10.

COOPER L', THORPE AND OTHERS.

Mi. SHADWIELL stated the: this waits bill tiled by the Rev. Mr.
Cooper, as Rector as parish in which the defendants were °ctn.
piers of certain lands. The defence was, that the Rector was de-
barred front receiving his tithes on account of the inclosures which
had been made on the grounds, and by the awards of the Commis-
sioners under the Inclosure Act. The late Sir Thomas Plomer
bad constricted this plea as a good one, but the plaintiff was left at
liberty by his Lordship to bring his action at law within twelve
Inonthe. Upon this action being brought in the Court of King's
Bench, It had been concluded at law that the plaintiff was entitled
tc tithes in kind. His Lordship was therefore of opirion that the
order of Mr Thomas Plower should be reversed, and that there
should be a decree to direct sn account to be taken of the tithes in
Vod payable by the defendants to Mr. Cooper. He had then pro.
ceeded to ask hr the costs in the cause, which his client ought un.
doubtedly to have up to the hearing. As the defence had been
held valid both by Sir Thomas Plomer and his Lordship, and as
the ca•e was one of appeal, he did not ask for any other costs. Mr.
Hart on that occasion said that he was able to offer reasons why his
( Shadwelrs) clients should be deprived of the costs of the •uit,
mid they were now to hear those reasons from the Learned Gen.
tletnan.

lir. HAUT said :hat his clients, however dissatisfied they might
h. soh the trial at law, did not come here to offer any resistance to
the taking of the account ; but there would still be a question about
the nature of the account, and about the costs. There were several
deterelants who had restated the tithes, and all had resisted nearly
do the same foundation. His Lordship had given the plaintiff
libartv to bring an action at law : he had brought that action, and
t.A.I succeeded, and he was therefore entitled to the tithes against
t'is defendant, in whose case the action had been brought. If he
( Ur. Hart'a client) were satisfied wi:h the decision against his cos
ere•ipiera, lie would be wrong in making any further defence; but
failure of the original suit in the Court of King's Bench had
her! owing merely to a miscarriage in the mode of conducting the
Close. At the time of the deetaton they bad neglected to take a
Ell of eivsaitiona• and they were therefore unt.ble to carry the same
e eq. before the House of Lords, as was intended to be done. DUI
trey had a right to try any of the other cases ; and he now begged
Lt. Lordship to permit him to carry on the cause in the name of
archer of the defendants. lie did not take this course for the pur-
r.,,, of encouraging litigation ; and there were undoubtedly just
!rounds for such a proceeding, considering that the decision was at
ta-tance with that of the Master of the Rolls ea well as his Lord-
s! •;,. The qm•stion had turned on the construction of the Act of
1:::-:istnent, and on certain parole evidence which was brought to
te explanations about lands that were inter.ded to be given for the
psision lands. The evidence alluded to was the awards of the Com-
e: i,s'oecrituntisr the Incleraure Act. That evidence was admitted
die Rells and in this Court ; but it was refused in the law Court.
• appeal hued hem made term the Muster of the Rolls three or
j I,r yma after the decision, and the ('Dort had then Raid that the
rintWhaid'heen elffrfrenereaudtioe.bitreirfttnerd.itiff Lordship had
tvefore *ten no reason to disturb the 'Miner decree; but am they
uttered that they possessed a right at common law, they were per-
tr..uod to bring their ection in the Court of King's Bench. The
question now was, whether his Lordship would admit the account
rd costs against all the parties?
Shaun ELL observed, that his Le...med Friend, .Mr. Bart,
sets certairli indebted to hie long experience in that Court for the
gravity with which he had bleu enabled to make such extraordinary
siva:tents. There was no parole evidence, as stated by the
L.trned Gentlemal, but the award of the Commissioners. it was
t•-e- that Sir T Plower, in order to understand the affair more
• •tpletely, had admitted the affidavits of different persons ; and
t rw had crowded upon him in such numbers, that he thought it
Lost to decide against the plaintiff in order to get rid of them. The
tt:r.•e defendants all stood part diteriarige. There was not one
t •Ce to make the use of one defendant differ from that of another.
• (:art of King's Bench had decided that no other evidence
ro.u:•1 1 admitted but the Act of Parliament and the awards of the
•nmi; 'criers ; and therefore decided that Cooper could maintain
. That trial has establishes' the right at law. If there were
• dirience in the cases, it would be proper enough to bring
• separate case before the Court. It would be hard to say that
1... client was in the samesituation as if he had been once detested.
Ti-ey Mal not been allowed to make a new bill, but were gait g on
tre:h 4!?e original bill. If Mr. Hart's clients set up a defence that
could not be maintained, they must take the consequences.
hlra ii•WT observed that be had out got his original brief, and
C:at information ass scanty. He did not think that Sir Tho-
mas Planter would have been guilty of injustice in order to avoid
tra ;Isle but either he or the Court of King's Bench moat be mis.
ts“-- in this ease. The decision of that Court was not satisfactory
ever. t the common law lawyers.
To. cows of the cause up to the time of making the decree, and
so..ccrec ;Or tsil-vg an account of tithe', in the usual form, were
then awarded by the Court to the plaintiff.

AT7OIIIYEY-OErERAL V. MAYOR AAn coarowertox OF
EXETER.

Stronr observed that this was ea appeal from $ decision '
of she Vice-Chancellor. TM question arose ueon certain estates
Slack had been emoted to the corporation of Exeter in trust for
cassia purports. The point in dispute was to ascertain the mean.
tun; Certain Latin words, which had beer. differently interpreted
L f 34 dtHerent patties to this suit. The purport of these words
#11‘: OHO the rents Or ems estates should be applied
ta for the assist.
ante .'t' the puce client. of Exeter. who were filtered by certain
rtr fatly rents. ainmaiions, and talloges, and by the expenses of
eins7taiaing his Mitjeety on his waits to Exeter. The Mayor arid
Lt,L.ierstion of Elsa had applied these rents in a way which they
Coyfildered as conformable to the intentions of the donor and to ILO
o,oitill'ut the deetLieself. According to the ancient practice it was
etztotaary to raise these taxes and tillages by laying an equal por.
Con OR every person, whether for the aids anti supplies to Govern.
cant, es foot the expenses occasioned by his Majesty's visits. The
psp, eitiliftlll of the town did not maul the paupers, who could not
be burdened 'by the contributions which they were thus forced to
Mtge. -In consequence of this the corporation had applied the
myth to the payment of the fee farm rants, which the inhabitants
ot Atte city would have had to pay. Part el the rents was also ap.
vojariaza to the support of the potence' in the gaup—the expense
to Stich would otherwise have fallen upon those poor citizens MGR-
tiAtled in the trust. The Royal visits also required a great
ispentlituve, and several other sums had been discharged by the
name ninths, which would have been burdentotne on the chive's,
to tile expenses of meintainiog the Justices of the Assists. By the
pct of Prillaman of Geo. 111. they were penuitted to build a
to w gaol and house of cortectiou, on the condition that they should
lie invite expeaso—s condition to which they submitted os the
eratind•thet they were to dare), the expenses out of these estate*.
7'zie Learned Judge (the Vice-Chancellor), who first heard this
canse,"lspd ylopted several general opinions on the subject of chitr
r,i...tes, which be (Alr.Sugden) was desirous of passing in review
lefote his Lordship. It had been his opinion in this case, us well
se in many others, that when a trust is granted for the poor. it
rettostolly Occludes any benefit that might arise from it to the in.
Mamas at large, and ha had therefore determined that these funds
wife only applicable for the ulief of the poet who were not provided
ter by the parish. lie had accordingly given a decree in this case,
diseting that the rents and profits of the charity in question were
ticw.to be applied to the poor of Exeter not receiving aid from the
WWI. Ile had also directed an inquiry whether the Mayne and
Corpnralion of Exeter had any other property applicable to chari.
table, purposes. This would have the effect of rendering the pre-
refit members of that corporation accountable for the proceedings
atheir predecessors for several centuries; for the trust bears as'
• a elate as the 2d of Henry VII. Ile maintained that the
ltdtln wnids applied to the citiotehs of Exeter in general, who were
at that time berdrnal by fee-faun rents, etc.
Mr. II EU di. followed on the same lode; and
:dr. Pt; woia It spoke in support of the decree.
rie Loon CHANCELLOR obsert-ed that the word poor was
fre-
tltrTay molted as a term of endranneat, and that it might easily
le bYwnd in old charters applied in cases not at all resembling goat
its which it is suopmed to have been in the present instance.
Isla*/ alCi OA-GEE VAAL remarked, that the expression poo-
p ei ixtlywNie, uolures. in the Universities, was an instance of
a similar start to those alluded to by the Lord Chancellor.
lieX Latin mon, however. observed that they must
py to the some by
day.
The Court then rule.

POLICE.
RIANSIM-7101'SF:.

George Frederick 3frnLd, a tine loafing young man. of moat
respectable appearance, and evidently a peroon of eflucAlon, wan
brought h,fore the Lord alayor, charged with haying committed
two robberies.

Richard Lexty, shaman to Mr. Jackson, watchmaker. of Di-
shoptigate.street. stated, that at a quarter past seven t.'.10. h in the
evening of the 7th of March, the prisoner walked into his p. and
asked to look at u silver watch which hung in the window, and was
marked six guineas. Witness handed it to the prisoner. who began
•conver.satim about watches which never required winding tip, and
desired to see another watch which also hull in the window, and
which was marked `• ten guineas." Witness did as was required,
and both of the watches lay upon the counter. when in walkeit
Wither person, who iminediauly threw sonic powder %Lich ap-
peared to be snuff, into the witness's eyes ; the prisoner then
seized the watches, and he and his companion ren away. Witness
crossed the road to Threadnedie.strect. in skillet, direction the
sow ran, r 0.41 called out `• stop this ;" but as he had left the shop
unprotected, lie immediately returned, and having requested some.
body to remain there. again went after the priao:ttr, whom lie found
in the custody of an officer.
The officer, upon hearing the cry of " stop thief," and seeing the
prisoner run. caught him by the collar with a crooked stick. The
prisoner endeavoured to get away, anti when he found it impossible
he put his hand into hi. waistcoat pocket, took out two watches, and
threw them down. They were identified by Mr. Jackson as his
pro_perty.
The other case of robbery was of a similar nature. The 'hop of
Mr. Walmsley, of No. 5, London.wall, was on Monday the _'llth
of February, visited by the prisoner, who asked to are a couple of
watches, anti as soon as the prisoner had them in his hand, in came
a person who asked whether jewellery was repaired there. Upon
being told that it was, lie flung a handkerchief, titled with snuff,
into Mr. ‘Valmsley's eyes, and both of the thieves escaped.
The prisoner took notes, and questioned the witnesses with con-
siderable skill. He was remanded, and it is expected that upon
his next examination several other cases will be brought forward
against him.