The National Register.
London, England, 1822-11-25 00:00:00

T(ISDAY, Nov. 19.

11.LIS V. ARMviRONO.
This was a question under the Enclosure Act, and the point
to he decided was, whether • ditch was to be considered a
fence.

The Lord Chief Justice referred to the pleadings and evi-
dence in the cause, which was tried before him at Guildhall.—
His directive, to the Jury sts,,, he thought that a fence ender the
The Solicitor General chewed cause against the rule. The
act set forth that a good and sufficient quiclset was to be planted.
Johnson's Dictionary gate this definition of a fence—% boun-
dary, a dyke, or wall. He(the Solicitor General) contended
that a river was a sufficient boundary, but not falling within the
term fence.

Chief Justice Best—A ditch is a very sutlicieut boundary in
for.ilication.

Solicitor General—A Bence, brook, or rivulet f.dls under
certain distinctions. He apprehended a fence, according to
the terms of the act, did not mean a ditch or a d)le, but
• hedge.
Mr. E. D. Jones supported the rule.
The Lord Chief Justice thought if a dike, ditch, or rivulet
had been sufficient, thousands of pounds might Lave been saved
under .he enclosure act.

The Court, however, refused to disturb th• verdict.
The Solicitor Gettersl intimated bi* iut•ntioo of bri•ging •
Writ of Error.

BUTT V. WISFMAN.
This was ao action to recover tithes, tried before the Chief
Baron at the Spring Assize. fur Suffolk.
The plaintiff is Vicar of the parish of Laken, in the diocese
of Ely, and the question at the trial was, whether certain abbey
lands, on which the defendant, a fanner, was a copyholder,
were liable to pay tithes.
The Chief Baron told the Jury, that it was not only necessary
that the defendant should prove the lands in question were
abbey lands, but he west also prove, that when the abbey held
them they were discharged from tithes.
The Jury found for the plaintiff.
Mr. Eagles moved for a new trial on several points. First,
on the ground of variance hetweeu the description of the parish,
as net out in the declaration, and the evidence.—Secondly, that
evidence was. rejected by the Chief Baron which ought to have
been received. Another objection was, a misdirection to the
Jurv.
Mr. Scarlett sliewed cause against the rah obtained by Mr.
Eagles. Ile contended, first, that the evidence rejected by the
Chief Baron was inadmissible, and that by all the doeumeutary
evidence the land held by the defendant, as a copyholder, was
liable to tithes. The Jury having found a right verdict, there
was no ground for a new trial.
Mr. Stocks, on the same aide, said, the Chief Baron had left
two points for the consideration of the Jury. First, to what
extent was the Vicar endowed. The next question was,
whether there was evidence to show this laud was exempt from
tithes whilst in the cultivation of the Dean and Chapter of Ely.
'I he argument on the part of the defendant at the trial, went
to prove that the Dean aid Chapter of Ely were Lords of the
Manor, and that the defendant had been time immemorial dis.
charged from tithes.
Mr. Robinson was also proceeding with his argument against
a new trial, when the Lard Chief Justice rose to decide with the
Lord Chancellor upon errors, and the cause was ordered to
stand over to another day.