The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-01-26 00:00:00

• t


LAW I.VTPLI,IGE.Vi

COURT OF CHANCERY; TursnAr, 3Ale. 25.
There was no cause possessing the least public interest beforch!i
Lordship.

VICE-CAANCELLoII's COURT, TvEsrui, JAI. 2S.

DC nr.attroti V. RHODES.
Sir Joule Ltaen, Vice-Chancellor, delivered his judgment in •
this case. This was an injunction sought to restrain the defendant '
front raising sand or gravel, on ground in the occupation of the de-
fendant, situate near the Regent's Canal at Itoiton„ and the lease
of which had been obtained from the late Rev. Mr. Beauvoir, under
the following eircaimatatiess:—The defendant (Rhodes) had rented
the lands in question, subject to an annual payment of 5101. and for'
a term of tfeenty.one years. In the month of March, 1018,
having then hlne years of his lease unexpired, he applied to Mr.
Beauvoir to renew his lease, which, it was alleged, he promised 'to
do, and a Mr. Aspinall was employe to survey the farm. Alpi-
ne!! recommended that Mr. Ifestivoir should grant a lease at an
increased rate, viz. 7001. per year for 21 years; and at the dale
time he stated that if the lands were properly let on bitiltllfig leases,
they would produce nearly 4,0100/. per year. The coatants of this
letter were communicated to Rhoda:, who did not answer it, but
made a second application to l'ir. Beauvoir that he should hold the
lands for the unexpired term, and after that he would pay such an
increased rent as Mr. Beauvoir thought fit. It hoivever appeared
this arrangement was not carried into effect, but that at the instance
of Mr. Tebbutt, the agent solicitor of Mr. Beauvoir, Rhodes
applied for a building lease on December P, 1811 f, and on the 21st
of September, Rhodes proposed to pay his fresent rent of 5101., after'
five years 7501., and after that 1,200/. per year. This proposal Mr.'
Tebhurt sent to Mr. Beattrnir, saying in his letter that he dill
not think the proposal quite enough. Mr. Beauvoir, hcarever, re-
turned no answer, and on tire 13th ofJanuary following, Mr. Tab.
butt went in person to him on behalf of Mr. Rhodes, and procured
a minute fit= him, authorising Tebbutt to let the lands to Rhhdee
on a lease for 149 years, on condi'inn that Le would surrender by the
present lease, pay 5001. for the first year. and increa.:e the anneal
rental 100/. per annum until it reached 1,34.101., at which rate he well
to continue to hold the lands. There walidso to he a eovanaut
that Mr. Tebbutt should ri:epare all the sub-lease, ac. is prise ip •
the subsequent letting of the lands by Rhodes. to definite of
Rhodes agreeing to these terms, Tebbutt was to be at liberty to
let them on the &ante terms to any person elst. Tebbutt reirrfild
to London on the same day. On the Monday fdllowir,g. 'IL 15th.
Rhodes signed it; on 16th it was laid befbre a Conveyandircg Gran;
@eland on the 17th the lease was pretiewed and brought dolen by
Tebbutt to Mr. Beauvoir. who
seiceuted it. It appeared that
previously to Mr. Tebbutt's going down, there had been a primate
arrangement entered into. between h!rn and IlhodeS, which there
was no reason to suppost was known to Mr. Beauvoir, that Teb:
butt was to have drawn the tenants' leases; and previous to the
execution of the !lease, !Diodes had executed a bond the 10,0001.,
binding himself, that so long as Tebbutt, nr any of his sons, con.
tinued to practise as Solicitors, they should be employed by hint
(Mr. Rhodes) to prepare them. On the 16th, the a- previous to
the execution of this lease. Mr. Tebbutt, io a I.7tter to the present
plaintiff, states, that he had been down to see hits, and that he was
then very ill, that it was not likely he could live long (he was than
In his filth year); and that as he (Tebbutt) knew Mr. Beauvoir
was the person who would be most likely to be benefited by his
testamentary bounty, he had &eight it right fa apprise hirh of his
state of health, that he might receive his wishes respecting what he
should do in the event of Iris decease; and concluding bye hope,
as he had been so long engaged by the family, that his professional
services would be continued. His Honour, after enumerating all
these circumstance., was of opinion that Tebbutt had not acted in
a manner consistent with hit' duty of agent, in Fusing by altogether
the opinion of Aspinall, as to the value of the property in the event
of its being let on a building lease, and in the haste with which he
had got the negotiation completed, knowing, as he did, the state
of health which he *as then in. The only excuse that was
offered by him was that Mr. Beauvoir knew he had frequently
acted as attorney for Mr. Rhodes, hut considering all the etrcum.
stances be was bound to look at the transaction In a most sus.
picious point of view, and he would therefore grant the motion for
the injunction.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, ti-ksTitufsTin,
TUESDAT, JAN. 25.

ILLIsTON v. now.rost-
The ATTORNET-GENEttal. said. the circumstances out of
which the motion he was about td make arose, were these:—Hr.
lilliston, who was the Manager of Drury-lane Theatre, had en.
gaged 31r. Dowton, 'the celebrated comedian, to perform a certain
number of nights at that house. The terms of the engagement
were communicated to the defendant by a 3lr. Dunn. as the agent
of the plaihtitt in a letter, a copy of which 3lr. Dunn had un.
fortunately omitted to keep. The answer of the defendant was to
the following purport Dear Dunn, I subscribe to all that al
contained in your letter;" but none of the terms were mentioned
in that answer. kir. l)uwtnn having committed a breaeh of the
terms of his engagement, Mr. Elliston had been obliged to com.
mence an action against hint ; butt as it was necessary that he
should file hie declaration before the Essoign day, in order to prevent
the defendant from being entitled to an impedance to the nest
Term, it was impossible that the present motion could have been
made to the Court before the declaration was tiled. The plaintiff,
however, not having a copy of the original agreement by him, it
was possible that there might be a variance between the terms of
that agreement and the nue set out in thedeclaration. He (31r. At-
torney-General) was therefore instructed, and did now beg leave to
Move fur a Rule, to call on the defendant Ballow cause why he
should not produce to the plaintiff or his attorney, the letter
written by .lily. Dunn to him, containing the terms of his engage.
mein ?
The Loan Curer JUSTICE—Takes Rule.
DuircaN, it's. curie. V. TREND AND orness.
The At TOnsEv-GrstElIAL Mowed for • rule to call on the de-
fendant to show cause why • new trial should not be granted in this
ease. This was an action tried before the Lord Chief Justice at the
late sittings at Guildhall. The plaintiff was an attorney, and the
action was brought by hint against the defendants, who were the
printer, pubriter, and proprietors of the Morning Advertiser,
for a libel published in that paper on the 10th and 16th of July.
123, purporting robe a report of certain proceedings taken before
the Magistrate at Bow-street, and in which the plaintiff's mono
was introduced, and certainly moist grossly libelled. The only
plea on the part of the defendants was the general issue. On the
trial the publication was proved, anti there could be no doubt of
its being of a most libellous nature, and yet notwithstanding this
proof, and in opposition to his Lordship's txpresaed opinion that it
was a libel, the verdict was, from certain circumatsnces, girth can
favour of the defendants. That there was a proof of the publics.
related to the plaintiff was
equally conclusive, from the evidence.
The Lotto CHIEF JUSTICE—There miy be a doubt upon that
point.
The ATTORNEY-GE NERAL thought he should be able to show
that there could be no doubt on the subject. The libel was con.
tanned in two papers; the first part of it appeared in the paper of
the 10th of June 1823, without mentioning the name of the plaintiff.
but in the other part, which appeared on the 16th of the same
month, a report of further TwoCeedinfte at Bow.strect porported to
be given, where the plaintiff's natae was mentioned, and which
left no doubt remaining as to the plaintiff being the party intended.
His Le-rned /client], Mr. Brougl•am, in his address to the dury.
said, indeed, that it did not appear tram the evidence, nor from
the lihel itself, that the plaintiff was the person alluded to. but he
(the Attorrey.General) answered that objection by showing that •
in the libel it was stated that Andrew Duncan, the tether, became
bail for his son, and that therefore unless his Learned Friend could „
show that there was a grandfather concerned in the transaction, it
followed as matter of course that the plaintiff was the son spoken
of in the libel, and which in fact was the case.
The LoaD CNIET Jttaxtex.—With regard to the proof that
the plaintiff' was the person intended by the libel. it appears by
my notes, that Mr. Brougham endeavoured to show that the
plaintiff' was not the person intended, and that as there was an
Andrew Duncan, the father, it ought to be inferred that the father
was the person meant; to which the Attorney-Genctal said the
answer was, that the father appeared in the libel itself to hare
been bail for the son, and Mr. Brougham theta replied, that it
might be that the father had a father. This was the point that
was referred to me.
Mr. Ilnotissirto said, he thought his Lordship had left it to
the Jury to say whether or not the plaintiff was the person in-
tended to be mentioned in the libel.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—rea, I did, but it was not
proper to have left the question with me at all ; althtugh, Mr.
Brougham, you acted with perfect candour in doing so, because
you therefore gave the Attorney-General an opportunity to prove
the fact, and that I believe was your object; you wanted him to
produce another witness, that you might have elicited some:bine
from him by a cross-examination.
His Lounsu IP having consulted with the other Judges, then
said, he certainly had expected, open the whole conviction of thr
ease, that the verdict would have been for the plaintiff, although
with very small damages.
The ATTORNEY-IIyNNENAL said, it appeared to.him that the
Jury thought they were constituting a Court of Error, when thy
delivered their verdict.
The Loup CutEr JUSTICE—I really think that Mr.
Brougham. when he was addressing there, endeavoured to prevail
on the Jury to consider this as a decision of a point el law; but L
remember that I said in my address to them, that if they did
think so, I was happy to know that the question was reserved fur • .
higher tribunal. Ido not mean to say that Mr. Brougham sail . t .
any thing disrespectful to the ('curt, quite the contrary ; but at the a • rCf
name time floosie could mistake his object.—Rule panted.

THE Elie P. THE MAYOR MOD i.ORPORATIUX Or ELWOI... .
rox-r PON-111.11.L. • •4.*
Scaint.tyr said, that last Teem a Mk Hifi had been ob.
talon}, calling upon the Mayor and Corporation of the town of
Kingston-open-Hull to show cause why. a twausidne vs bhould r.ot,i
issue, commanding them to permit certain CIIOIIIIiSsIiOIICTS of tbs.
Court of Requests, created by Act of Parliament for that place, to • .
meet in the Town or Guild Hall of that town, to conduct and carry
on the business of the Court as usual. He now appeared to shove
cause against the rule brio, made absolute. On the part of the
Mayor and Aldermen of Hull he had to complain of tile coctloct
of the person who made the affidavit, on which the prestutapplica.
tion to the Court was grounded. That Gentleman was agptuted on
the idth of November last that a propopitioq was about to be wade
by the Mayor and Aldermen to the Coarimimionera, fat arranging
the point in dispute ; but, notwithstanding this, ht had thought
proper on the following day, via. the 10th, to sweat this atrularits
without at all alluding to the facts that bad beet comets.