The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1838.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

Short causes and unopposed petitions occupied his
HONOUR
.the whole morniug.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

HUMPHRIES V. VIVIAN.-JUDGMENT.

Lord LANGDALE, in giving judgment in this case, said,
the question was whether a lease, dated the 18th May,
1830, and granted by Charles Carpenter to John Williams,
was, as against the defendants in the cause, a valid and
subsisting lease as to certain mines and minerals in Corn-
wall, within the limits and boundaries therein described.
On the first trial of the issue that was directed to try that
question, the defendant obtained a verdict. A new trial
was granted, and a verdict was then obtained by the plain-
tiff ; and, on the motion made by the defendant for an-
other trial, it appeared to his Lordship that some points in-
volved in the main question were safely established,
but that he was unable to come to a satisfac-
tory conclusion on the whole question, because one
point appeared to be still doubtful. The validity of the
lease, of the 18th of May, 1830, depended on the title of
the le•sor. His title was good if, as he alleged, a prior
lease of the 11th of December, 1822, of the same lands,
was forfeited by the non-performance of the covenants
therein contained, and that depended on the question
whether an estate called the " Bolenna" was comprised
in the Great St. George's let. The defendant alleged that
it was. The opinion his Lordship arrived at, from the evi-
dence, was that if the Bolenna estate was not comprised
in the Great St. George's let, the lease of the 18th May,
1830, was, as against the defendants, a valid and subsist-
ing lease. If the Bolenna estate was comprised in the
Great St. George's let, the question whether the covenants
had been duly performed required further investigation.
The parties went to trial on the issue then directed to be
tried, whether the Bnlenna estate formed part of, or was
comprised in the Great St. George's let, granted by
the lease of the 11th of December, 1822. 'rhe Jury
found it did not, and then the present application
was made for a new trial. It seemed to his Lordship
to be now made out that the Bolenna was not comprised,
and was not intended to be comprised in the Great St.
George's let. To suppose it was would be inconsistent
with the facts proved and the cotemporaneous and subse-
quent conduct' of the parties. Another ground made for
the motion for a new trial was that the Learned Judge re-
jected evidence which ought to have been received, and
that there was a misdirection to the Jury. His
Lordship, however, was of opinion that exclusive of the
evidence rejected, there was abundant proof to show that
the Bolenna was not comprised in the lease of December,
1822 ; and there was no foundation for the complaint made
of the Learned Judge's direction to the Jury. The motion,
therefore, must be refused, with costs.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-THIS DAY.

THE QUEEN V. THE MAYOR OF HARWICH..

In this case a rule for a wandamus had been obtained,
directed to the Mayor of the borough of Harwich, and
commanding him to show cause why he should not insert
the name of William Middleton on the burgess roll of the
said borough. There were five other cases in which rules
to the same effect had been obtained, but they all hinged
upon the decision to which the Court would come in the pre-
sent instance. It appealed that the name of William Mid-
dleton, whose case he would take, had been inserted on the
burgess roll under the Municipal Corporations' Act (sth
and Gth Wiliam IV., chap. 76), and the 17th section pro-
vided that any person whose name was on the roll might
object to any other person by giving, on or before the 15th
September in each year, notice in writing to the town-
clerk and to the person so objected to, according to the
form in schedule D, or to the like effect. Notice
having been served upon Middleton by Alex-
ander Edgar of King's-quay-street, the parties ap-
peared before the Mayor and Asssessors at the revision,
ang then Middleton objected that the notice served upon
him was not " according to forte in sehetlale D, or to the
like effect." The Mayor and Assessors, however, decided
that the requisitions of the Act had been complied with,
and called upon Itiiiddieto4 pNvf.! which
not having done, his name was expunged' from the barge's:-
roll. When the annual election for municipal officerf came

round, William Middleton tendered his vote, but it was
rejected, because his name was not upon the burgess-roll,
and he now came before the Court for a nzandanzus, to com-
pel the Mayor to insert his name. What his object could
be he (Mr. Thessiger) did not know—it could do him no
good, because the elections were over ; and if he had a
good qualification, he could not establish it before the next
year. The whole question for the Court would be,
whether the notice signed by Alexander Edgar was a valid
notice under the Act.

Mr. DENMAN—Is there not a preliminary objection in
this case ? Here is a judicial act of the Mayor, and can
we order him to give a different decision to that which in
the exercise of his judgment he has thought fit to gave ?
Mr. THESSIGER was about to call their Lordships' at-
tention to that point, because the interpretation clause ren-
dered all the decisions of the Mayor in such cases valid,
provided the descriptions of places and persons were such
as to be commonly under-toad. Now, the parties to de-
termine whether such was the case were the Mayor and
assessors, and they determined that the description of the
party making the objection was a correct one. The notice
of objection was signed " Alexander Edgar, of King's-
quay-street," and to that notice and signature the objection
taken by the party applying was of so trifling a nature that
he apprehended the Court would find no difficulty in dis-
charging the rule. The notice was required to set out the
place Of abode and property out of which the party object-
ing registered, and it was objected in the present case that
the word " house" was not added after the name Alexander
Edgar. The Learned Counsel contended that the descrip-
tion given in the notice was quite sufficient to identify the
party making the objection.
Mr. WORDSWORTH was heard in support of the rule.

The COURT having consulted together,
Lord DENMAN pronounced the judgment of the Court,
referring to the various sections of the Municipal Act which
bore upon the case.
Mr. WORDSWORTH interrupted his Lordship, by calling
his attention to another point.
Lord DENMAN—I beg I may not be interrupted in giv-
ing the judgment of the Court, unless I state something in-
correctly, in which case I am always desirous of being set
right ; but to interrupt the Court with another argument
from another section of another Act, is most improper—it
is not gentlemanly.
Mr. WORDSWORTH—I beg pardon—l misunderstood
the section alluded to by your Lordship.
Lord DENMAN-But misunderstanding is not a cause
for interrupton. His Lordship then said that the Court
was of opinion that the rule ought to be discharged, but
without costs.—Rule discharged.
The other five rules which had been obtained against the
Mayor of Harwich were then ordered to be discharged.