The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-05-03 00:00:00

OTHERS.

Mr. HALT moved to dissolve an injunction granted in this cue,
restraining the defendants from proceeding by ejectment.
• The facts, as stated by Mr. Stones, who appeared for the
plaintiff, were as follows:
In the month of July, 1805. the plaintiff, a gentleman of repu-
tation as an arsist, purchased of Mr. Campbell his interest in some
property at Byffeet, which he held as the lessee of his Royal
Highness the Duke of York, the unexpired term of the lease be.
ing eighteen years. Tire plaintiff' then wrote to his Royal High-
: nesa,stating, that if he andel procure an extension of his lease, ha
would immediately set about the improvement of the premises.
His Lordship, in reply, referred him to Mr. Adam (the present
Chief Commissioner in Scotland), his then legal adviser, or to
Messrs. Ferrer and Atkinson, the Duke's solicitors. The plaintiff'
accordingly applied to Mr. Adam, undertaking to expend from
1,51/01. to 2,01M1., provided he could have an additional term of
Wry years. Mr. Adam said, that he must make some inquiries
eat the subject beuirre he could give an answer. On a subsequent
interview with Mr. Adam, the latter remarked, that he had satia.:
fled himself with regard to the property, and he was of opinion
that the plaintitrs offer was perfectly fair and reasonable, that his
terms should be axeded to, and that Messrs. Fearer and Atkinson
should be directed to prepare the lenses. On this assurance Mr. I
Bowyer cottn, need his improvement& Shortly. after, however, he
received it notification front the tummies, apprising hint that the
lease could rot be extended, as on inspecting the deeds it was dia.
covered that the Duke's interest in the property was only cone ur-
rent with the lase already granted. 'floe welt a great disappoint-
ment to the plaintiff'. and happening ithortly after to meet his j
Royal Ifighness in Pall-mall, be took the liberty of addressing
hint on the subject. His Royal Highness listened to hint with
his timid urbanity and corideseensitm, and regretted that he hid
been led into any error on she matter, and referred hint again to his
solicitors, who inlimned the plaintiff that his Royal highness was
then in treaty for the purchase of the fee simple of the laud, ob. '
serving, that if that purchase was not effected, still, as it was
Crown Land, a priority would be given to hi:n when it w.s re-Itt
by the Crown ice consideration of the money that he had expended
on it. In consequence of what had passed at this interview, the
plaintiff' was induced to persevere in his inipmvements on the
grounds, wherein lie had since expended between four and five''
thousand pounds. In the year 1315 an Act of l'arlisment was I
tossed, enabling the (''root to sell this property to his Royal
Highness the Duke of York, who accimlingly b. came the pur-
chaser, and the plaintiff' rested in the full security that the lease j
which Mr. Adant, as the authorised agent of his Royal Highness,
had promised hint, would be granted. In the year IWO, the trus-
tees and mortgagees of his Royal Ili fitness put the estate op to
!Mk.; and in l 8 3, at the expiration of the lease which he had
purchased of Mr. Campbell, the mortgagees proceeded against him
by ejectment Now. Mr. Sugden cuntended that his Royal
nest, having it in his power to fulfil the contract made by his'
agents in the year IBM, with the I laintifr, ought in equity to have
: done so, as it had only been suspended in consequence of the
Dukes tnabil;', to have complied with it in the first instance.

The plaintiff, on the institution of the fiction by ejectment, had
written to Mr. Baron Adam, reminding him of the circumstances
that had taken place in the year 1803; and Mr. Barna Adam had,
in his answer to the plaintiff, stated, that the recollection that he
had on the subject completely confirmed the views taken by the
plaintiff.
[This correspondence was put in, and verified by affidavit, to-
gether with some letters of Colonel Taylor and Col. stelhenson.)
Mr. tic &inv.:4 therefore trusted, that his Honour would not, under
the circumstances, dissolve the injunction.
Mr. HART on the other side, requested that Mr. Sugden would
read from his bill that part which charged the contract.

Mr. SI7(; DEN having so done.
Mr. HART and Mr. PE MIRE R TON briefly addressed the Court,
denying that his Royal Highness had ever authorised 3lr. Adam to
proceed in the manner lie had done, but, on the contrary, stated
that it was not in his Royal Highness's power to have made such a
contract ; and that even if it had been, it was not probable that his
Royal Ilighness would have granted a term amounting almost to;
a fee simple of the land, for the mere purpose of having 1,6001. laid
out on it in improvements, especially when it was recollected that'
; Mr. Bowyer had given 4001. for the term of 18 years in it, besides
which it did not appear from the bill that there had been any sub-'
'cement interview with any of the parties to that held with the soli.
mons in 18116.
The l'icE-CasacEr.r.oa said, that that was one of the greatest
difficulties of the plaintiff's case. He had looked carefully through
the bill, and had found that the matter was suffered to sleep en-
tirely, after the communication held so long back as 1006, a period
of 17 years intervening, in addition to which, there was no equity
confessed in the answer.
Mr. SuGnare admitted that there was very little confessed in the'
answer ; but he relied on the correspondence which he had put in,
and on that 'principally be demanded a specific performance of the
contract.
The Vice-Cnawetttost observed, that it ought then to have
been incorporated with the bill, as it was the bill alone which the
defendants were bound to answer; and he could only in a case of
this nature judicially look at the bill and answer, and therefore the
correspondence must be entirely set aside. When he said jutli-
• daily, he was bound by the rule of Court, and that of no modern
date, having been established by Lord Bacon, and which rule was
very generally known, declaring that no injunction should be dis-
solved where there was equity confessed in the answer; and the
meaning of equity confessed in the answer wan not an admission
that the plaintiff's bill was well founded, but that there was a mat-
I tee of ecuity to try. When he heard the case stated at the bar, he
I had formed an opinion that there was a care of equity. to try ; but
the statements at the bar were very much at variance with the state-
ment in the bill. The strongest part of the plaintiff's ease, via.
Messrs. Fume,' and Atkinson's letter, had not been mentioned in
the record, and therefore he could take no notice of that. He was
' bound to decide by the bill and answer alone; and his decision,
fouuded on thew, was, that as there existed no ground on which
the injunction could be supported, he therefore dissolved it.