The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1818-08-18 00:00:00

r. STEPHVNS.

This acne an action brought by the Plaintiff,
Jobs' Stephens, to recover the sum of 250/. with
!tartest, winch he alleged to he owing to him by
lite Defendant, who is his nephew. The latter
Or:Wild that he had made ou promise ; and the
Statute of Limitarioos, From the evidence it ap-
peared that the debt originated its voincecustiery
transactions between the Plaintiff and "Tus father
and brother, site grandfather and father of the
Defendant. The brother of the Pleititiffand father
or the Defendant, stone years ►nice made over to
the Defendant a farm of which he was possessed. on
roodition that hip son should pay the debt, which
lie, the (tither, owed. This, however was held by
the Court as not obligatory mt the wan, unless he
signed a special instrument binding lotuself to the
performance of the c lit' . A !until aigued by
ihe Defendant, fur ;not was put to, but as it was
not sealed, it was held to be merely an ag►eement ;
and as it was dated prior to the passing of the last
act for increasing the *temp duties, it was rejected
by the Court, us not having all appropriate stump.
It was then ; .ed that starts the account of the
Planitiff was &lies red to the Defendant, he staid
he hrliev.d at watt ell right ; but this wan. suit held
stiflirient to Idled the Defendant under the Statute
of Frauds. •I'he 100/. claimed wirier the bard,
wars for a debt due by the Defendant's grandfather;
end ISO/. wait claimed fur money lent to the father
of the I)efersthint, by the Manuit .. f i the end,
the unstilted hand was 1111111ilied 3111 11r0111. of a simple
contract debt, end a verdict of 1001. with iitterrat
for two yews was taken for the l'hititilt„ with
liberty for the D. fend:Hit to 11111111 C the Court %bute
the a der a iiiiii •1 he ilemaild for 1501. V..
11/11111111/11vli, :IS 1111 direct promise to pay it, on the
part of the Driendent, sus ;ill/veil.

W4TTII P. It AW LE.

This ra,e drilealled Ha a t►ulnt of law. The
is heir at lOW to Job!, Watt., thr trware
milder a marriage settleiumit ul a venial'

Philip o.tk, in the rear 1799. At the time of ex-
ecuting this deed, 04k pt, d three.fouttlis of
au estate .riled Dimmrtt, and occupied the whole
of it. He settled this estate on his intended wife,
Mary Watts; five years subsequent to the martiage,
in 1793, he purchased the other fourth, whirl, lie
did not possess at the time he executed the twilit--
mem. Hr afterwards made ■ will, and bequeathed
this fourths to the Defendant, who is hie daughter
by a !Mister marriage. On his death, three years
since, the Defendant took possersion of the quarter
of the estate in question, and the Plaintiff, as heir
to the original trustee, brought sit ejectment, in
order to pot the widow in possession of the whole.
The question at issue was, whether the marriage
settlement could pass the whole estate, or only that
part which Oak possessed whet, he executed it.—
Under the direction of the Bench, the Jury found
for the Plaintiff with a case reserved fur the De-
fendant.

WEDNESDAY. ♦UGUST 5.

THE KING V. GRAHAM.

This was a trial under a writ of Quo Warrant°,
to ascertain whether the Defendant lewdly held the
office of Portreeve of the Borough of Fuwey. Only
four special Jurors attended ; awl the remainder of
the panne' was supplied from the Common Jury
list. Mr. Gimlet led the ease for Mr. .4 listen, the
Plaintiff ; and Serjeant Pell fur the Defendant.
The whole was a matter of dry special pleading.
and occupied the attention of the Court for several
hours.

The Jury had to try twelve issues, which were
apparently brought forward for the purpose of ob-
tai aa a tie all possible information, as to the defence
which will be made on behalf of the rifting Mem-
bers, upon a petition against the return of the Port-
sees... The manor originally belonged to the P►ince
of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall, who exchanged it
for other property, when it caner into the hands
of the Rashleigh family. The present rePresentn-
tive of that family sold it to a Mr. Hamlet, who
disposed of it to Mr. Lucy, the present possessor.
The practice of creating free tenants, or making
faggots, lies long prevailed et Fuwey. These free
tenants, after their election, have their titles recog-
nised by *court or homage of free tenant., and
their mimes are entered on t he Rolls oft he Borough.
The right of election for Members of Parliament,
is in these hurguge tenant« or buttistgers, and the
inhabitatits paying scot and lot; but Ilse tight of
electing the Purtreeve is with the hirmagers or free
trumps alone. One of the issues to be tried was,
whether the homage which elected the present
Portreeve was legally constituted. On this point
every objectioti which ingenuity could devise was
started ; but the st hole case filially 1-evolved itself into
a question as to the tenure of 11r. Lucy's holding.
The deed under which that Kendra:l4o claims to be
Lord of the Mati,r, is one tor certain uses, bring
intended to boo a claim of dower on the Manor.—
As Mr. Lucy had riot executed a deed an fun's. r-
anee of these trn•tr, 1.4 Lordship hared he l►sil ally
an e►tate fur ; and of so, the whole proceethm,s
under his ruilien.ty as Lord of the Manor were vend.
However, he ►aid the Jury had better flood for the
Defendant ; leaving it to the other side to bring the
question us to Mr. Lucy'. holding before the Court
shove. The Jury found accordingly.
During the trial the Rev. Mr. Siockhouse pro-
duced ale appointment from the Prince of Wales
to the Stewardship of the Mower of Fowey, for his
is the year 1795. This appointment, it was
contended, no subsequent arraug. meta could set
aside. But as it appeared that the holder never
had received any emolument from it, nor, indeed,
had possession of the deed by which lie was up-
pointed, until the morning of the trial, the Court
set it wholly uside, and •announced for the legality
.of the appoilitiutiet of Mr. Lowiedes, the Steward of
Mr. Lucy.