The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-18 00:00:00

MEER V. WARD.

Mr. HART informed the Lord Chancellor that he had made
inquiries as to the production of the papers in the Master's of-
fice, to assist the inquiry into the next of kin of 'William
Cotton, the lunatic. He had discovered that there had been
some neglect in producing some of the papers ; but there
was no neglect attributable to the Master in any stage of the
inquiry.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that'he had been misunder-
stood. There had been neglect of a very culpable nature : but
he did not intend to throw any blame on the Master, who had
been imposed upon in common with the Court.

LLOYD AND OTHERS V. SIR H. ST. PAUL.
Mr. PEPYS was heard further upon the objection to admit II
the affirmation of the plaintiff in aid of proof of his disputed
title in the case opened yesterday.
The Loan CHANCELLOR suggested that the most conve-
nient course would be, to try the right of the plaintiffs to the pro-
duction of the deeds ; as upon that right, and the contents of the
deeds, supposing that the right should be established, must de-
pend the usefulness of other proceedings.
Mr. HART assented to the proposition of the Court, to wave
that part of the motion which respected the injunction.
Mr. PEPYS then argued upon the separate motion, and con-
tended that neither equity, nor common sense, nor common ho-
nesty, could require a defendant to assist the laim of title made
by his adversary by producing his own deeds.
The LORD CHANCELLOR had an opinion yesterday which
yet remained not very much shaken, that the defendants had
put in an answer which was not quite correct. Sir H. St. Paul
might have put the plaintiff at once out of Court, had he de-
nied the reservation affirmed by the plaintiffs. He had, how-
ever, sworn that he knew nothing of the deeds, and had no
power over them. It appeared that Mr. Vernon held the deeds
in trust for the defendants. The assertion of Sir H. St. Paul,
therefore, that he had no power over them, was at least incor-
rect, because they were held for his benefit. The answer of
Mr. Vernon (he spoke it with full respect for that gentleman)
amounted to nothing at all. Had Mr. Vernon denied that there
was any reservation of mines, that would have put the plaintiffs
out of Court. Mr. Vernon said, that he did not feel himself at
liberty to produce the deeds; but he should have said whether or
not the deeds contained the reservation claimed by the plaintiffs.
As trustee for Sir H. St. Paul, he was hound to say whether
the property of the coals belonged to his trust : if the deeds did
contain the reservation, then Mr. Vernon was not trustee for Sir
H. St. Paul only, but also for all those who held title under the
deeds. To have acted with impartiality, he should have stated
the fact, yes or no, in his answer.
Mr. SHADWELL and Mr. BIGGS were heard on behalf of
lessees under the defendants.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, thathe had an opinion which
strongly inclined him A decide in a particular way. Were he
out of Court, he would not hesitate a moment. There were,
hoWever, before the invention of fire-engines and such other fa-
cilities for working mines frequent reservations in the sale of
coal lands, the vender littia thinking generally, that the mines
would ever be worth the expence of working, and the purcha-
ser as little supposing that the property would ever he disturbed
by the exercise of the reserved right. Considering, therefore,
the great importance of the decision to very many purchasers
and tenants of such lands, though his mind was nearly made
up, he preferred waiting till to-morrow morning.
At his Lordship's request, the bill and answer were handed
up to him that he might read them over.