The Sun.
London, England, 1809-07-14 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF CIiANCERY, TULY rz,

BURGESS V. LAMBE.
A Gentleman of the name of Lambe, had be-

wreath. ' v r. larsse t,erson it property to Sir James
Bland Burgess and a Mr,. Lambe, which was to ,be
raid out by them in the purchase of estates to be'held
by !item as temints for lite, the
,temainder to -Mr,
Montague Burgess, the ,sou of Sir .1. B. Burgess, also
as tenant for lite. Accorninely the estate of Beau.;..
fort, in the County of Sussex, was purchased for
waren!. part of this devised property, the wood
,s ,n :sioch as ranted at 1,5001. This estate
. was held by Mr. Lambe, as tenant for life, with
the remainder to lilr> Montague Burgess. Some
time ago an injunation was moved for in the Court
of Chancery, in the name of Mr: Burgess, praying,
that Mr. Lambe might be restrained from commit-
ting .waste upon the estate, or cutting down, the
timber, pa rticsdarly that which was ornamental to
the est.ite. Asihe Plaintiff had previi:usTy filed his
bill againit the Defendant, to oblige him to,account
for the timber, an interlocutory order of injunLion
was given by the Court; and Mr. Lambe now ap-
plied to the Costa for the removal of this in-
iunction.
In support of this application, Mr. ALEXANDER
contenueu that his Client, Mr. Lambe, was tenant,
for Itfe, without,- impeachment of waste ; that he
—as entitled to the produce of the falls of such tim-
ber on the estate as was going to decay, or had ar-
rived -at maturity. He then read several affidavits
from Surveyors, and persons acquainted with the
management: of woods, declaring that they had
marked out for the axe such trees only as were in a
-state of decay, or already mature.
Sir S. ROMILLy was heard on thesame side. He
observed, that the chief ground on which the injun.:-
tion had been moved for was, because his Client vsas
charged It having cut dowti'wood, which contri-
buted greatly to the ornament of the splendid man-
sion of Beaufort, and the adjacent grounda. Now
every tree upon the.estate might, ,;a some sort, he,
said to be for ornament as well as use. In that beau-
tiful part of the country where the estate lies, there
was hardly a tree which had not something of the
picturesque about it, if he might be permitted to
use a term, not indeed known in thats Court, but in
very general use among modern artists. Besides,, the
opir.l of modern improvers of grounds varied so
much with regard to what constitutes ornament,
some being for clumps and others for scattered trees,
that contradictory affidavits as to what constituted
ornament,-could easily be produced to the Court.—
In short, this was a question. quite indeterminate,
- and depending solely on the taste of individuals.—
There ,t ere various sees among the improvers of
ground: ; and Mr. Knight had his followers as well
as Mr. Brown. The general principle wineh he un-
derstood to have been laid down by this Court was,
that a tenant for life was nee to be permitted to cut
down such trees as had been planted expressly for
ornament ; such as tiros- planted it) clumps, in rows,
. or forming vistas. Now his client had not cut down
any trees of this description, and therefore he sub-
mitted that the injonCt:ion ought to be dissolved.
Mr. HART and Mr. BELL wee heard on the
same side.
Sir A.PIGQrJ, Mr. RICHARDS, and Mr. Wr tit!.
- Eta., argued for the con.tinuarree orthe injunCtion.—
The original value of the timber on the. estate was
15001. and the defendant, Mr., Lambe, who was only
tenant for life, had already cut down I IUOI. worth
of timber, by which the estate must come so much
deteriorated into the halids of the next tenant for
life. Mr. Lambe was a mere trustee of the property
for his life. They therefore submitted that ' these
trees could only be cut down under the direction of
A Master, appointed by the Court,
,who should de-
termine what' trees were proper to cut, down, and
what not-; and that' the produce arising- frPM the
fall of timber should be. invested in land for
the benefit of future tenants flit. life,. till the whole
came into the posSession of a tenant in tail; who
could do with the property as he pleased.. It. had
been said that there were various seats among 'orna-
mental improvers, and that it would therefore
be impossible for the Court to decide what was orna-
mental in plantation, and what not;- but the condud
of Mr. Lambe went literally, as well as figuratively,
tolayalie axe t 6 the root of all that on which the
speculations of improvers were founded. Were he
to be permitted to go on as he haebegun, there
would soon be scarcely a tree left t.:
,standing, for h
had already cut down,timber to the Value of t tool.
the estimated value of the timber op the estate at its
purchase being only 'l5OOl.
. The Lone 'CHAN &LLCM delivered his opinion at
ronsiderable-length On various principles laid down
by the Counsel on both sides. He observed, that
Lord ThurloW-had given it -as his opinion,' that the
teuant'for life of an estate, without the impeach-
ment of waste, had a right to use his own discretion.
- as to the cutting of timber. It had been held by the
Court also,' that to restrain the cutlitt down of trees
• in such cases, they must be held to hate been plant-
. ed expressly tor ornament,,.. Doe merely that they
were ornamental, which might be more or less the
case with every tree on an estate. •' In this` case,
however; there might be other persons who had a
vested interest in this estate, beside the present Plain-
tiff and attendant ; these were future or contingent
lives, either as tenant for life or in tail. As it was
the duty of a Court of Equity to protect the interests
of all parties, he should therefore wait till next Seal,
7 to see whether any-thing was said for Stith cotisi,n-
gent lives.

JULY 13.

THE GUARDIANS OF PETER HORROCK V. MR. WIL-

LIAM.JUPP AND MISS CLARA JUP.P.

This case, which stood over from the beginning
of June last, came on again to be heard this day, and
excited a good deal bf.interest.
It was originally an appliCatiOn to the Loid Chan-
cellor to commit to the Fleet Prisetn'the Defendant,'
Mr. Jupp, and -his daughter Miss Clara .Ippp, for
contempt oran beder of the Court-, made in August
last; to prohibit all cotninunicatiOn and correspond-
ence between tier and an infant of the ni!flie of Peter
Ho :Tuck, a ward in Chancery. The application-was
anlvded to-day, by a request that his Lordship would
impose upon a 'Gentleway, named Esdale, residing