The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-04-29 00:00:00

CLAY V. IT. 30)1W.

The plaintiff in this cause had tiled a bill against the defendant,
to which the litter had demurred. and the demurrer now came on
for argument. The following were the circumstances:-
1 A pension of 1311. per annum. under the King's Sign 3lanual„
I had been granted by his late Majesty. dialing pleasure, to the
widow, with rtmainder to the non of the late Captain Henry fit.
1./ohm. who was killed in action while commanding his 31ajesty's
ship Intrepid. The vri,low enjoyed it till her death; after which
it devolved to the son, who wts in trade, and who, in the year IWO,
became a bankrupt, and the COMMissjimets directed that this pen.
sion should be put up to pale as a pension for the life of the bank-
rupt, for the benefit of the creditors. It was` purchased by the
plaintiff Clay for 3801. ; and Sir John, the bankrupt, conveyed an
assignment of it to him. At the death of the late lisrg the pension
ceased, but it was renewed by lii•present Majesty, i.rd the pension
-
ant reward to assign it to tie plaintiff, alleging that it was quite a
distinct thing front the former grant. and what ha bad never in-
tended to sell. The plaintiff, upon this, presented a memorial to
1 the Lords of his Majesty's Treasury, stagy the circumstances, and
requiring that the pension might be continued to be paid to him,
but they refused to comply with this petition unless the defendant
would make it over by lower of attorney, otherwise they could not
I interfere.
Messrs. IfOIINE and PALUEI2 briefly addressed tl:e Court In
. favour of the demurrer.
, Mr. Kw luny was heard against it. Ile contended that the
plaintiff, as purchaser of the grant of the hale King, was equitably
entitled to the grant of the ,resent King, as it was not a renewal,
but merely a continuance of 'the former pension, and subject to the
ecnveyanee aiready made of it. The first grant, it was true, did
at contain the word "assigns," but the subsequent pant did, and
therefore might be construed as referring to any po.sible privcd..tat
assignment. lie argued that Ma view of i; was mitdiraied by the
language of the warrant for the payment of the first quartet, beariog
date the Ist July, IMO, and which recoggleed it as the same pen. ,
atm by the bonds " formerly paid by thabie Paymaster of Pen.
ons' instead therein. Hut men if it was not considered as one
and the same grunt, the secar,d must be taken as the fruits of the
first grant, and to which :he assignee of the former grant was en.
titled on the saute principle that prevailed aithregard to the
renewal of leases. _ 1

7he VICE-Crtmrcet3.ol said, that, on the subject of the re-
newal of leases there seemed to be some contusive ; for that only
referred to the covet:ants of trustees under wills or trusts, and nut
to purchasers; and he should like to know why Mr. St. John, if ho
had sold his interest for a term, should be prevented from taking
a renewal of it at its expiration. It waa not now, however, mate-
rial to attend to the charges of a will ; they were matters of law.
The indenture of assignment of 11103 set forth, that it was a put.-
chase of the gemt of a pension to Mr. St. John, during the late
king's pleasure, clearly therefore determinable on the late King's I
death. if not before by die death of 111 r. St. John. The plaintiff!
new claimed it a. a pear ion during fie pleasure of the present
King, but which it wat certain he lied never purchased, as there
could be no pretence for saying that a grunt of Lit late Majesty's
was a grant of his prtsi-nt Maje‘ty's, and the plaintiff had evi-
dently founded his Bill on a violation of the nature of the laws of
this Court.
Demurrer allowed.

COURT OF KING'S BENIII, WEDNESDAY, Amt. 28.

fittings at Irestnams:!r, &lore Me LORD Cum. JUSTICE and

Sixelol Juries.

DOE, ON THE DILIIIIC OF THE COHFAXT OF CLOTH-

WOUIERS r. HAWKINS.

. _
Thi. was ao action of ejectment to nearer possession of the
Queen's Head public-house, in Twickenham. on the ground of for-
feiture of the kw, by assignment to Aleuts. Whitbread 3.4 Co.
the brewers.

31r. CamenEbt opened the pleadings.
Mr. GURNEY rated the ease. The company of dothwnrkers,
whose property the house was, hod been particularly careful to keep
this a free house, and had refused tepeatcd applications to let it to
brewers. In the lease for 21 years to Older., theie was an express
provision of forfeiture in caw of assignment to brewers. Olden
became indchtcd to the house of Messrs. Whitbread and Co. to the
amount of nftol. The lease was deposited as security with Messrs.
Whitbread, who applied to the Company fur a licence to Olden to
assign the lea.;, a hick the Company refused. Messrs. Blond and
Martincnu, the acting partners of the house of Mews. Wbithread
and CO., afterwards put Hawkins in possession, by prose alings
upoo a warrant of attorney.
31r. Croup, the Company's clerk, and Mr. Ilsaticesu, one of
the attorneys cf the defendants, proved that applicariJui had been
made and refused for an assignment, and this HalLlCats was now
in possession under the other two defendants, Mewl. Ilhold and
31 artmeau.

In cross-examination Mr. Martineau said that Olden was in-
debted 0001. to the defendants, and that he sas desirJus to sell his
lease.

This was the case for the plaintiffs.
Mr. ScAn LETT contended that there was no case to go to the
Jury. It did not appear by what title the defendants were in pos-
session. A forti.'.ture was odious, and must thurcfarc be strictly
moved. Nu fact was to be presumed. If then the defendants
could be in possession without forfeiture, the Jury could not pre-
sume that they were in possession in any other form.
The LoRD CIIIEP JUSTICE held, that in this case any parting
with the interest to brewers was a forfeiture.
Mr. Sc.titht: r r then addressed the Jury. The Col, orlants came
into possession without forfeiture, for they can in by the judg.
ment of the Sherif, without fraud or collusion. This be proposed
to !rove.
The LORD CIVICS' JUSTICE said, that he was of opinion the
mere depositing of the lease was a parting with die interest fur the
benefit of the brewers, which forfeited the lease.

The Jury found a ;erdiet for the plaintiffs.
THE RING V. CHAMPION AND ANOTHER.

This was an indictment to abate a nuisance established by the
defendant* in the neighbourhood of Charles-square, in the parish of
St. Leonard, Shoreditch, by erecting a manufactory for the distills.
den of vinegar.
Mr. Anne PH us opened the pleadings. The nuisance had con-
tinued, he stated, (ruin the Ist of April, 1813, until the 13th of
November last.
The ATTORNET-GENENAL stated the Me. The defendants
had formerly had a manufactory fur distilling vinegar, in Row-
i street, City-v.:lel, but in con tequence of 5011141 discovery. they hod
• n a'e in preparing acetcus arid, they had erected their present
beiti.:ings, in the neighbourhood eii Charles-square, so which they
had renter: Al their manufactory. One part of the buildings was a
11111.1.1111 opparatur. from which such volumes of snicke issued as pre-
vented :he inhabitants on are side of the square from allowing their
doors or windows to remain Open when the wind blew in that
direction. The defendants had eraleas cured to remove thisnuisance
by raising a higher shall to their chimney, but the smoke continued
to issue in volumes as large and 131/60113C as before, and accompanied
by a noise inking front the process of the manufacture, which, on
the admission of the defendants foreman. was sufficient, if made
during the night, to hinder any person in the neighbourhood from
alsrping. The acetous acid invented by the defendants was of a
very volatile and pungent nature. It was extracted from wood, and
could rot be made without a consiekrable ntixture of sulphuric acid
in its composition. So great was its volatility, that the air, when
impregnated with it, would ignite Tith a condi:, and such was its
pump ney that it frequently excoriated the faces of the workmen.
The fumes would insinuate themselves into the houses even when
the dare and windows were closed, and in consequence the houses
became intolerable to the residents. Ile understood that some sci-
•, manic gentlemen would be called for the defence, to prove that
the fumes of this afsetous acid were not inselubrious. The question
t, was not whether they were absolutely' prejudicial to health, hut
whether they rendered the occupation of the houses in Charles-
! square uncomfortable to the tenants. It would be proved that the
a alike, smell, find noise. of the defendants manufactory made the
r widences of the inhabitantsof tit arl:s-sqeuive impossible to be en.
dared with satisfaction, and therefore a verdict must go ageirst
i ter ilefendanes. The law would nut sulli.x any individual to nine
a nuisance in any neighbourhood to which his own convenience
might lead hint, in utter contempt of the comfort. of the prev tour
residents. The nuisance had h..cif considerably awned, seal tinny
of the jury had lat. ly viewed due rewires, it was their duty to
guard agmast the conclusion that the forme: state of the rMsnacc
was comparable to its present condition. It would be eliewn by
testimony pith.; most intimpeatliabln kind, that iturirg the period
named in the indictment the nuisance was absolutely intolerable to
iall the inhabitants in the neighbderheoth
31:. orsat NI. for the defend:in:a. was desirous to know wile-
illUT the preseu: state of the manufactory was satisfactory. If it
was, his clients would enter iota an undertaking to keep it in that
state for the flour...

The.ITTOIISEVMEWER.U. could not nccel•t the proposed un-
idertakiag. lie would be content only with a verdict against the
dcrendants, which would give sonic security that the nuisancen tight
I be ahatetl.

_.. ___.....
Sir. BROUC 11.4 X said he would not object to a ver:!irt
against his clients, as a security that the manufactory should be;
kept in the most inoffensive state possible, and he would agree to,
leave it to any Gentleman at the Bar to determine what that state
might be.
The Loan Cm F. I, JUSTICE OINKTVeII, that the Learned Gen.
tleman had nut taken it into his consideration, whether the manta.
factory could be rendered inoffensive.
:%Ir. 111101:61IAM assured his Lordship that it could; but of
course, if it could not, his diems would be bound so remove it.
A short conversation followed between the l'outwel, after which
the following wi'nesscs were called in support of the preseeetiai :
Mr. Fr2beis Hicks, the rider, stated that he resided in Charles.l
square. lit April. last year, the dcietieLeits rtectcti a steam-apps.l
(tutus in that veighboothood. 11itness liati stiffted Itv.-:t iron.

venience from it, in consequence of the volume of smoke it threw
on his premises. When the wind was south or south-west, he had
on particular occasions seen the smoke cosculie square. A very
offensive smell accompanied the smoke, and sassed some time. It
might be perceived at a considerable distance. There was a great
' mike proceeding from the manufactory at six In the morning, and
again at eleven in the evening. Witness had also heard it about
his dinner time. Witness then read somememoranda, which he
had made day by day, describing
the variety of nuisances to which
he was exposed from the defendant's vinegar distillery. From the
minute. of one day, it appeared that the witness had waited on one
of the defendants respecting the intolerable noise proceeding from
the manufactory, when the defendant promised that that part of
the process should be conducted during the night; but the fore-
man stated, that it would be impossible. as in that case the noise
wcutd prevent the whole neigh4ourhood from sleeping. On an-
other occasion, the. same defendant declared that lie wished the
nuisance was worse, as then the neighbourhood would be con..
pelted to buy the ground on which the manufactory stood. After-
wards, however, the flues were altered. Once the wituess's servants
were obliged to mash the family linen over again, on account of
the stench cast upon it by the acid. Wetness added, that his com-
forts had been greatly diminished by this manufactory, and that
his neighbours had suffered ia a similar degree. The houses in
tharies.square are respectable. It paid 52. a year rent.
There arc other houses at a higher mr.t.
Croas-ext.inincd —The neighbourhood of the manufactory was
recently open ground. The next house to witness's was a charity-
school. Ile did not know that it had forty-eight chinincy•pots.
Slime December last the steam apparat.us had not been so bad as
before. Ile was not aware that the noise MOO front mixing giau.
her ash, with acetate of lime. He enjoyed good health.
Mr. Snellgrms and Mr. Harrison, b,th residents in Charles.
square, gave similar evidence. The latter witness stated, that the
fumes of the add had made him id more than once, and had af-
fected his stomach in an extraordinary manner. The noise, if long
continued, would drive people mad.
Another witness having bean
Mr. BIIOIJOHAD, on the suggestion of his Lordship, submitted
to a verdict against his cliems, es he could not hope to overcome
the evidence given against theta.
The Jury accordingly found the defendant' guilty, on the wider-
: standing that they world not be celled up for judgment if the
nuisance was abated.
A common jury was they sworn, and some cases of DO public
interest were disposed of.