The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1808-08-04 00:00:00

JAMES al. DEANE.

Mr. Mar stated this ease. He raid it -woo a
rehearing; the caner had been first heard before
his Honour the Master of the Rolls, 'who made a
decree in favour of the Defendant. The Plaintiff
appealed to his Lordship. who set aside the decision
of the Master of the Rolls, and gave a decree in
favour of the Plaintiff, and then it was brought
again I . 'Ors the Court by the Defendant to be re-
heard, lot his Lordship to give a contrary deeisiuts
to his former decree. The cirentnitances of the
awe were, that William James, deceased, in the
year 1190 bellizaj.hed a certain leasehold poorty
in Lambeth, under lease from Sir W. FAA*
who held under lease from the Archbishop of Can-
terbury, to his wife, Judith James, for the term of her
natural lifeband at herdeath to John James, tbe pre.
sent Plaintiff, his godson, and son of his ant wife..
There was a datum in the lease from Sir William
Rapt, providing for a renewal at the expiration of
the team, on the condition that the lessee should
pay a proportionate part of whatever.fius might be
demanded by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The
testator died in the year 1791, and in the year fold
lowing, his wife, Judith James, renewed the lease
with Sir ‘Villiarn East, according to the clause in
the original lease ' • she had sauce died, and the Des
fendant, Dame. became tier representative, and re-
fused giving the Plaintiff the possession ; sHeging
that the iuterast of William James in the premien
ceased to wrist at the expiration -of elm original
lease, and the premises, by the renewal, become a I
new property, and belonged solely to Jedith, by
which the bequest to the Plaintiff of the remeindor
was entirely done away with.
Mr. RICSIMIDS, Mr. HART. and Mr. COM.
Counsel for the Plaintiff, observed, that they knew
of no nrwarguments to introduce. Their former
observations were in posses/aka of the Court. and
it would be only wasting time to repeat them.
They were 'perfectly se fished with the decision that
the Court had made, and the doctrine held by his
Lordship on giving that decision was a 'trouser
argument than any they could make use of. They.
therefore, trusted his Lordship would not see any
cause to alter his former opinion, particularly as
there were Do new facts introduced into the ogee.
Sir Samuel. Rein tram trusted that his Lordship;
after revising his former Decree. would see that
there were equitable reseals for altering his opi-
nion ; for it • could never have been the inten-
tion of the Testator to vest an interest in another
Th., was not vested in himself. It was optional
with Judith James. wnether to renew the leaks
or ind, there was no proviso in the will ordering
it ; and ..ipoose she had not, world her repreacies.
a:ive be Laine to the Plaintiff for her net dolmas ?
It was under this view of the case that the Master of
the Rolls hail decided, and be trusted his Lord-
%veld see it in the seine light. Jndidt Jams
had p.ii, I a considerab:e fine. and •the Testator had
no pov.,:r to say, that she should expend herpes.
perty for the benefit of the Plaintiff., .

, .
The Lula, CHANCELLOR said, however emery be
was at all times to (hirer from his Hooper the
fluster ut tie Rolls, yet, in the present eerie, be did
niost decideally. 'faking the question he every
view, so far from seeing say reason to alter his de-
ere. i -Iv! %sits only :be more confirmed is his former
opinion. 'Poe words of the will expressly said.—
I bequeath, 11,,t, to My wife, sad at her decease
to my god-,nn, John James, ►on of my 11111 t wife,
all 'ay tied., and interest." What did this
mean ? di, i it no menu, that she 'honk' derive all
the henetr from this leasehold yeeperty
during her WI-. end t:iat John should receive it at
her delta ? tie hit surprised that it could be sees
in au) other light. His Hpnour must have leis-,
riken the meaning of the worth. But he always
held it to be better in all cases of wills, to take the
pbti.s nwsning of the testator's word•, than to cobs.
str .. a weaning fur them. The testator could not
se intended to hate bequeathed the rebsaisder,
•'nly eighteen months to the time when the term of
time (initial lease expired. Lord Kenyon bad de-
cided in the Corset of King's Bench, where no in-
terest from year to year was bequeathed, and these
was only one mouth of the year unexpired, the
person on entitled could support an ejectment in the
Court of King's Beach. So that ereu.if a Court
of ;Equity was to decide against the Plaintiff, he
c.wld maintain an ejectment is a Court, of Law.
Under all those considerations, be did confirmable
former decree. . •