The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-07 00:00:00

CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

HOARE V. JOHNSTONE.--JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to day in this case,
the arguments in which were concluded yesterday. The case
came before the Court upon appeal from the decision of the
Master of the Rolls, who had decreed that two parcels cf
land, called Upper and Lower Justice, did not pass, under a
lease, to the defendant, Lady Johnstone. His Lordship was
of opinion that the construction of the Master of the Rolls was
correct, and ordered his judgment to be affirmed.
CROSSLEY V. THE DRRBY GAS-LIGHT COMPANY.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this case,
which was heard before his Lordship some time since, upon
appeal from the decision of the Master of the Rolls, referring
it back to the Master to review his report, whereby he found
that the sum of 6,0001. was the amount of profit made by the
defendants, in consequence of the use of meters made after
the patent of the 'plaintiff. The bill was originally filed by
the plaintiff, who had obtained a patent for the construction of
gas-meters, against the defendants, for the purpcse of ob-
taining the decree of the Court, that the defendants were
bound to account to him for the profits they had made
by the use of meters, constructed after the principle of the
plaintiff's invention. The cause was heard in March, 1834,
by the Vice-Chancellor, who directed the account prayed by
the Bill, and that decision was confirmed upon appeal by Lord
Brougham. A reference was made to the Master to estimate
the profits, and upon the matter coming on before the Master
of the Rolls upon the Master's report, his Lordship stated that
he was unable to discover upon what ground the Master had
reported that 6,0001. was the amount of profit that had been
made by the defendants, and referred it back to him to review
his report; from that order the present appeal was brought.
The Lord Chancellor, in giving judgment, stated that
he did not agree with the statement of the Master of
the Rolls, that he could not discover the ground upon
which the Master proceeded ; to his Lordship's mind
that ground was perfectly apparent, and it was equally
plain to him that the course the Master had adopted was
erroneous. It would therefore be impossible for him to con.
firm the Master's report. In his Lordship's opinion the
Master of the Rolls had made a most proper order, and if the
present contest was to continue, the Master must proceed
again to consider his report. His Lordship thought however
that it would be the best thing for all parties to consider
whether they could not terminate the present eontest by some
reasonable compromise.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V, THE CORPORATION OF POOLE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this case,
which came before the Court upon appeal from the decision
of the Master of the Rolls previous to the long vacation. The
original information was filed against the Corporation of
Poole, and Mr. Parr, then Town Clerk, for the
purpose of having the declaration of the Court that
the Town Council of the borough were not justified
under the provisions of the Municipal Reform Act, in com-
pensating Mr. Parr, the late parish clerk, for the loss of that
office, out of the Borough fund. To this information the Cor-
poration and Mr. Parr put in two general demurrers, tor
want of equity and jurisdiction, for multifariousness, and for
want of parties. Upon the case coming on for argument
before the Master of the Rolls, his Lordship allowed both of
the demurrers generally, and refused to give the relators leave
to amend the information. His Lordship, after going at
some length into the facts of the case, stated his opinion to be
that the judgment of the Master of the Rolls was wrong, in
allowing the demurrer for want of equity, that being the only
ground on which the Court below proceeded. His Lordship
was of opinion, upon the whole of the case, that the demurrers,
for want of equity and jurisdiction, must be overruled ; but
those for want of parties and multifariousness, should be al-
lowed, at the same time giving leave to the relators to amend
the information. The Court would not give the costs of the
appeal to either side.