The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-04-18 00:00:00

LAN' INTILLIVfIiCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Liseeyes-INE,
Mersav, Atm. 1?.

Mil=1••••••

GWYNN V. DIXON.

Mr. Hs* La stated this was a motion to di•snlve
en injunction to restrain she Defendant from felling
trees on the Green Hatton Estate, in Carnarvon-
shire, belonging to the Plaintiff, which was grant-
ed on the Plsintiff's bill being filed. fie moved
this on the answer of the Defendant being put in.
Although this case occupied the (•ourt the chief
part of the day, the circumstances lie in a very nar-
row compass. The Plaintiff, a female, being tenant
for life of the estates in question, without impeach-
ment of waste, having intended to sell the growing
timber at the expiration of 20 years, and that term
hating expired in the mouth of March, 1819, she
directed her steward, Mr. Bodnser, to have it pot
in lots, and to have it veined, and when the ea-
!nation was made, to have it sold by public auc-
tion. Mr. Bodmer accordingly bad it allotted,
valued, and advertised for sale in the Carmar-
then newspaper, to he sold by public suction
on the 28th day of April. 1819. The Plaintiff,
before the sale took place, changed her mind
relative to its bring sold by "'action. and wrote
two letters to Mr. Bodmer, forbidding the ;
but that gestleman considered, es the tirisher
was advertised fur sale. that it was incumbent on
him to allow it to proceed. The sale took place.'
and a Mr. Pugh and the Defendant became the
purchasers. When this came to the knowledge of
the PI • ff, she filed a hill in that Court against
Mr. Bodmer and Pugh, in Easter,Term. 1819, suit
obtained an injunction against Pugh to restrain him
from cutting down the timber he had purchased at
the auction. She subsequently learned that the Dr•
'rodent had also become a purchaser at the unction.
end had commenced felling the trees that he had
so purchased. This did not come to her knowledge
until the end of the month of July in the same year,
when she immediately amended her bill, and made
the Defendant a party to it, and obtained an in-
junction against him in August last year. It ap-
peared that the injunction was not seised on him
until the November following. The Learned
Counsel contended that the Plaintiff, by her own
want of diligence after the sale. if it was alt im.
proper one; confirmed it, as she allowed the De-
fendant to expend 500/. no felling the timber be.
fore she interfered, and when she had obtained the
injunction, she did not consider it necessary to use
it, as she did not serve it on the Defendant for three
months afterward'. If slue used proper diligence and
obtained an injunction immediately after the sale.
the Defendant would not 'save been injured, fu►.
then than his loss of time in attending it. It was
therefore to be supposed that at first she was per-
fectly satisfied with the sale to the Defendant, but
that some person had afterwards told her that the
timber was worth more than it had been sold for.—
Under those considerations he had no doubt but
his Lordship would dissolve the injunction.

Mr. Manz, Counsel for the Plaintiff. con-
tended, that it was an unauthorised sale; and if
even it was not, the Defendant had not complied
with the articles of sale, which expressed that the
purchaser was to give security for the payment of
his purchase-money before he cut down a single
tree. which the Defendant hail never done. The
reason why the Defetident was not included in the
original bill was, that be was unknown at that time
to the Plaintiff as a purchaser. but she stated in her
affidavit io suppo t of that bill, that other persons
had become purchasers besides Pugh, but she was
ignorant who they were. There was another cir-
cumstance, that the Defendant only purchased one
lot at the public auction, and became the per.
chmer of two other lots by private bargain with
Mr. Bucner. Then if it could be considered
for an instant that the sale at public auction was
valid, which could not be the case. as it was NI.
mitt-fd that Budnier received notice from the ?lain-
tiff nut to proceed with it, there could be no ex-
cuse for the private sale, far it never was istiritilited
to be con4ended that the Plaintiff gave inatructions
to any person fur a private sale. The reason why
the Plaintiff was not aware instil the end of July
that the Defendant was cutting the limber was,
that she had been ►►siding in London mail that
time, and linnortiistriy nit her return to Wales, and
its c 00000 tug to her knowl►dge, she haul her gates
closed against the Defendant, and gave him notice
that if he or his fits acne on her grounds
►he would treat them as trespasser*, and immediately
afterwards amended her original bill, and ob-
tained an injunction against the Defendant. Why
she had not served it on him until the November
following he could not account for, except that
she thought herself secure, as the Defendant or his
servants did not come on the grounds after he re-
ceived the nonce that they would be considered
trespassers. He therefore was convinced that this
*me was not such as would induce his Lordship to
dimolve die injunction.
Mr. Ruse followed un the same side.

Mr. HEALD replied. '

The LOAD CHANCELLOR observed, that much
had been said at the bar about its being an impro-
per and unauthorised sale. In his judgment it was
no sale at all. Then the only question for the con-
sideration of the Court was, whether the Plaintiff
had, by her want of diligence, confirnied the act
the Defendant had been doing, in allowing him to
MI the timber. He did not think this was suffi-,
civilly explained; he would therefore give the par-
ties 14 days to present what affidavits they might
be advised in the way cf explanation, and in the
mean time he would continue the injunction. Ile
did not see what use it would be to the Defendant
if the injunction was dissolved, fur every time lie
entered the lauds of the Plaintiff fur the pulp. se of
cutting timber, he would be guilty of a trelniss,
and be liable to ■n action, as in truth no sale had
taken place. It was held by that Court, and pro-
perly held, that if a person employs an agent Inc a
certain purpose, and remands !heir instructions
only two minutes before the purpose is carried into
effect, it could not bind the employer. • It was.
however, necessary for him to know, before he de-
cided the case, why the serving of the injunction
was held back from August to November.
Further consideration postponed,
The LORD CHANCELLOR rose at three o'clock.

OUR? OP C301(1.%
i 1016". APRIL O.
...AM •
Before Mr. Justice Botaouoil and Speciul feria.

•111•11•

SUANIVIV V iItVITT.
This woven action rono d-tt titi Ihrt.. itta a a chits
ter 'wy. 'nor parties hall jot golly !Well a •101 p, or
INIIICIIIB Mr. irsiin °wooer, to .'entry N CarKti 114 r,
KllOll4 to the West ioodi.a. elou.ogotog on the rhp...•
ter party that ally. Amulet be sill/p•11 11 wool a 01,0%
cargo front the tinter port 11011.1rNaiti, Nrilso••
lbrffi 111 l veil the voyage, and aro itrd .1 1.• r Mai." • e
devtoostonot, boat tow Plaintlf N.,01 I) 1r111141111.64
/lent, abroad were tio.olde to provide h. , onto a.,
cargo, NMI OK, 11l coo, quell. r, Irl ilr u. .1 14111i1.11t
1111 r. The 0011rf 111Olig6di an Netion ...1(411o11 thr .4/
to recover the value of the rresgeti Isooth•*•rti, *l4lO
they had fooled to furnish loon *ph,

The l'lsintiftio the rya tit aviroit agreed teer4nv
the matter to arbitration without tltr ruow.Ys NUM.
DCresidSiet,llll4 it *al• accordingly relieved. The
arbitrators awarded that the c.w.0.,' was entitled hi
recover a net sum of 1.031/. 17...• it!ser deducting(
crash' rewrote. .trending site rt-ferrifwv. The
whole of this sum was Irani by the Plaintdr. who
enrol the Defendant to recover a moiety of it. vie.
SW. I
Tile false hsviug been folly asinporteri It 7 ell..
deuce, the Court direcird tlir Jury It. hod for the
Plaististr. A veretiet viad theteforrt given foe the
Phial'', with foll ritressigra.

CARLISLE, Amt. Is.

On Sour/lay niKht, or Sunday ttttt roiug 144, •
nuotber of isbiLintm4tory pl .errthoovittog tit•• pruple
to i,oitrte the rumble, 111 I:or oli•odb.eird rl ( i 1.1..
K.M. &C. were posted up, u 1.4 se:ettered stunt Oft
btrrets of this city Ilf. 113 'Wittily. It 111.1 latortl ti
to be " printed al Ihr C.too•tit totiona I iorra. (J 111,..
'COW ;" 111111 as it a feign t•esi Ike( ireVr est del. Ksit•
hrvr passed ihrotsgh Irtaly, Ir•an 'lir 1101 11., iufw
Yorkshire sod Lmenshur, it nl hogilly prulsistAle
that these agents of downturn. bud I.brn that ase•
thud to disseminate their doctsise..„

It would seem that thr pructior of secret
if out aboliplied origlilitiorl I. We •4*
very credibly informed that use Suell.,y e epeeists( lust
bevies of men were observed traming to the ',looter-
lions set Coal-fell-hill, near Nesterwee.—(torlisle
Juirsal.)
The late agitations among the Molecule of Scot-
land were not looked ui with siolitlerence by
the frosternily in the istighhourleon,t of Carlini..
lie the course of iiuturday woe, she soh ie..1,1110,
considerable member of the I:dinning address nod
slunk open the walls of tins city. mid a still
greater number secretly circulated aisoug the ()we-
lling''r woe k meet.
" Rr• • low gib 1.-Istwww !—The Reformers of
Scotland, animated with the untameable spoil of their Sire-
fathers, hare just exhibited thenaselem in an seditious straggle
against their oppremors, and its a nastily vindication of their
usurped rights. The time has arrived when longer
raceme, in noroughniongeriog tyraviny is 1:0 fronton simian
the principles of a coluditutio• that authorised itsistaiwo
to the despotic Stuarts, and triiii.frrred flee sceptre of these
realise to worthier hands. The patriots of slue North misuse
the apathy of their bra linen of the South. in Nut malting
with them commute cause in wise main and glorious Ob-
ject. Shall this stigma remain? Furld.l it, shades of our
immortal foremiders! Vision is strength irr.eastiLle, ais•
de slot let as desert oorselvi a If we do, and at end aloof,
when the opportunity is 'rode d sef emantipstion, thew
linked should we descry. to he bound wish teu.fuld
and to be crushed with still more ioiloltriade hordes's...
Glasgow, April 3.—Printed at the Constetatioaat Press."
Though • great many Mug' ed at this tormooe
able paper, there were others ettapo-rel to view it in
• more serious light, and seemed not se r$ reluctant
to obey it, were obedience prudent. Various mu-
authori.ed meetings have beets hetil m defferrot
parts, of this neighboulhood during tile week, con-
uectrcl with the sulject ; but we know nothing of
the questions which came under disommote. Tine
result of the Glasgow and iludderytielef buyinese,
however, has for the present ituilirosittl tit ill great
day of regeneratime wind. our Radical doctors
seem to think so d. "'armlet... We barns letter frame
a neighbouring town, which Pays--•• Toe Itarbeselp
here are quite inn the alert, and seem to bite in Ca-
vertastion of a sudden blow es p." ThM ettpectraiissu
in fact, less been esiteetatued its all the munifiareS
luring purls of this district for • tortisight peat.
There is nu hope that such la& uatesi abets will ever
receiver from the de bigness which mu egregiously taw-
leads them.—(Carlisle Patriot.)