The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-08-19 00:00:00

His l,ninsities impTCSSIOn was, that the plaintiff wad entitled,
to the relief he prayed for, namely, a lien for Ilit on the law
given to the defendant by the original landlord.
Decree in favour of plaintiff.
DASTARD V. HASTAAD.
The gronnti of litigatMn in this cage was this : The plaintiffs
deceascu uncle bequeathed to his widow, the defm&nt, .
Judith Anne Bastard, the pow-Aston a a mansion-house and lands
at laocken, and of certain estates in Berkshire, for her use during
the term of her natural life, with the provision, that any surplus in
the rents of the latter over the sum of 4,0004. should be paid to
the person then in remainder-cspeetant. The plaintiff, the heir at
law, and next in expectancy, filed a bill, alleging the mismanage.
silent of the estates in question, praying a participation in the con-
duct of the rimpeity, and the appointment of a receiver over the
estate, and finally, an injunction to restrain the defendant, Ides.
!lastartl,funn I wilier waste of the property, in which ahe WAS

interested.
Mis I.OIIDRIIIe considered the arguments on both sides with
much attention, and was of opinion that there was no use made
out against the defendant. No mismanagement was proved against
her. The lady was tenant fur life of the estate of Imam, by vir-
tue of the marriage settlement, soul trustee of the surplus of the
rents ever tour thousand pounds s.year, for the benefit of the
plaintiff, but no breach of trust had appeared. It had been argued
for the plainuff, that the defendant made unnecessary and uncalled
for abatements of the rents, in the ovcrplus of which the plaintiff
had • beneficial interest ; but there was no evidence to that
effect, and the mere assertion must go for nothing. The only de-
cree which his Lordship should niaks was, to rent an account.
Ile should not appoint a receiver, nor grant an monetion, on the
Freseni testimony. lie saw nothing in the conduct of the lady
which could warrant him in throwing her out of the receipt and
management of her property.
Mr. lines trusted that under those circumstances his Lord-
ship would dismiss the bill.
I Mr. SCO I/1X opposed this.
Ilia Loa nsiti e would nut go an far as to dismiss the bill; the
limited nature et his decree was substantially &dismissal relatively
to the objects emitted in the decree.
smesmose w OsbGtt.. •
Vila was a bill filed astainst Lord and Lady Hastings and •
third party, their surety, for • sum of money given on a bond.
Ilia Lonnsitie decided that the plaintiff failed in proving the
execution of the bond, and failed also in proving that the principal
parties to the bond, namely, Lord and lady Hastings, were out of
the Jurisdiction of the Court Though they may have been out of
the jurisdiction at the co •neenient of the suit, yet if they come
within the jurisdiction before the decision of the cause, the plaintiff'
was bound to bring them before the Court to hear judgment. Ilia!
Lordship was aware thee the Court was not to decide on informs.
don which it may have received out of Court; bet it was a matter I
of notoriety, that the parties had been within the jurisdiction since
the conimeneenient of the suit. The plaintiff did not prove that
they had nut been within the jurisdiction since; one that they were
not within it now. Ilia Lordship should, therefore, on the two
ints, namely, the failure of priming the execution of the bond by
Lord and Lady Ilastinga, and the failure of proving they were not
within the jurisdiction, dismiss the hill.
The Court sat till after four o'clock, his Lordship having sat in
the Molls Court at a very early hour.