The Sun.
London, England, 1830-01-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.--(THIS DAY).

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
JUDGMENT.-LICWIS V. YOUNG.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this case,
which his Honour stated was a bill filed by two persons of
the name of Lewis, against Sir Samuel Young, praying that
he might be compelled to come to an account with a per-
son of the name of Stevens, one of the plaintiffs, for the
value of certain tithes, and that he might also be decreed to
pay to Stevens what might be due to the Lewis's for those
tithes. By the bill it appeared that the Lewis's had been
entitled up and prior to May, 1815, to the tithes of corn,
hay, grain, and grass, in the lower division of the parish
of Cookham, in the county of Berks. By an indenture
they demised their interest in those tithes to Stevens, un-
der the description of all the parcels of tithes of
corn, grain, hay, &c. &c. appertaining, or in any wise
belonging to the parsonage of Canon, in the pariah
of Cookham, in the county of Berks. Sir Samuel Young,
who occupied a farm in the parish of Cookham, had pro-
ceeded to take off his lands the clover, grass, and vetches,
without accounting for the tithes of them, which the
plaintiffs contended Stevens was entitled to have, and filed
their bill for the purpose of enforcing them. Sir
Samuel Young put in a plea to that bill, by which
he pleaded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to
any tithes, except such as appertained or belonged to
the parsonage of Canon ; that it was an impropriate
rectory, and, as such, was not entitled to tithes for clover
or other grass, taken away while wet. The plaintiffs,
instead of having the plea set down for argument, took
issue upon the facts stated in that plea; the defend-
ant entered into evidence to prove the truth of his plea ;
and to show that the Vicar was not entitled to the tithes
mentioned therein. That evidence his Honour considered
had not been contradicted by any evidence brought for-
ward on the part of the plaintiffs, who also contended that
they were entitled at least to have an issue. In a case
where a rector files a bill, and the occupier slakes out a
case of modus, or any other case that would go to defeat
the rector's common law right, an issue was a matter
of course. In this case, however, the Court did not
think the parties stood in that situation in which the
Court was in the habit of granting the issues. The real
question was, aye or no. Were the facts averred upon the
pletimade out ? The plaintiff, upon his own chewing, was a
mere portioner, therefore, upon the whole, his Honour
was of opinion, that the party stated in the plea were
sufficiently made out, and the only cause the Court could
take, would be to dismiss the present bill with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
FISHER V. CLEMENT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an attorney,
against the defendant, as publisher and proprietor of Bell's
Life in London, for a libel which appeared in that paper
in the form of some doggrel verses, purporting to be a
dialogue between HarrietteWilsen and her publisher, Stock-
dale. The action was originally tried in the Court of
Common Pleas, before Lord Wynford, when a verdict was
found for the plaintiff with 501. damages. Mr. Clement
brought a writ of error, and removed the ease into the
Court of King's Bench, when, after a long argument, the
verdict obtained in the Common Pleas was set aside,
and a new trial granted. The second trial took place
in the King's Bench, and a verdict was then returned for
the defendant. _ _

Mr. CAMPBZLL last term obtained a rule to show cause
why this second verdict should not be set aside, and an-
other trial had.

The ArrosamY-Gawita.Ar. this day showed cause against
the rule, and contended, at very great length, that the
verses complained of, and on which the action was found-
ed, were, to all intents and purposes, calculated, and evi-
dently meant to ridicule Harriette Wilson, and Stockdale,
her publisher. Besides (said the Learned Counsel),
any observations purporting to come from Harriette,
were not likely to injure the reputation of any indi-
vidual; her tongue was no scandal; and never conld
it injure any one she chose to introduce into her lu-
cubrations. He (the Attorney-General) would there-
fore repeat what he stated on the outset, that the
whole gist of the publication was evidently for the pur-
pose of ridiculing Harriette and her publisher, and never
was intended to bring the plaintiff into contempt, or to
hurt his feelings. The rule ought, therefore, to be dis-
charged.
Mr. Caafrazi.r., in support of the rule, contended that
it did not signify what was the intention of the defendant;
the real question was, did or did not the publication tend
to hurt the plaintiff's feelings and bring him into ridicule ;
he thought it did ; and, as his character had been assailed,
he was entitled to redress. He trusted the Court would
make the rule absolute. _ _

Lord TENTICRDEN said he did not leave it to the jury
as to the intention of the defendant, but as to the effects
of his publication, and they were the proper judges of
that question. He was satisfied with the verdict as it
now stood, and thought the rule for a new trial ought to
be discharged.
The other Judges concurring, the rule was discharged.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
THE CORPORATION OF STAMFORD V. PAWLITT.

The above case came on to be tried in this Court at.
the Sittings after last Term. The action was brought
for the recovery of some toll, which the defendant resisted
at the last May fair, and the fair immediately following.
The question wag then tried, as to whether the Corpora-
tion had a legal right to charge toll, and the Jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff, but the Chief Baron had
then given Mr. Serjeant Denman liberty to move to set
aside the verdict, if he thought he had sufficient ground
for doing sn.
Mr. Serjeant DEPHAN now moved to show cause %via,'

that verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial
granted, on the grounds that the demand for toll was quite

legal, and that the defendant had every right to dispute

it. - He contended that the fairs held the;e six times a-year
were completely free from such toll. The plaintiffs pro-
duced on the trial the Charter of Queen Anne, which they
argued had completely established their right. Now he
contended that that Charter did not give them power to
demand any toll whatever. In support of his argument
the Learned Serjeant repeated the sentiments of Lord
Coke on the subject, and also cited many other authorities
to support his argument. In the course of a speech of
some length, the Learned Serjeant read the Charter of
Queen Anne, which appeared to establish his view of the
case.
The COURT directed him to take a rule to show (sine.