The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-17 00:00:00

_LIGENCE.
A
--..-_
ROLLS COURT, Dec. 16. ' ' ---
DAVIES V. GATACRE.
Mr. TINNEY to-day concluded his argument on behalf of ;( IA (IS Ma
the defendant. The Learned Gentleman, after adverting
to the facts of the ease, contended that there was a pnriod
'
of upwards of fifty years running against the estate tail, and
that where time ran against the tenant in tail it also of. ne4m
cessity ran against the remainder-man. Upon this p. l -
ple he relied, in opposition to the plaintiff's claim. Tne
title which the plaintiff now endeavoured to set up was out
of a purely legal nature, and he submitted that a Court of
Equity had no jurisdiction to deal with it. A Court oi.
Equity could deal with a legal title when an equitable ground
was made out ; but in the present case there was no equity
moved. The claim of the plaintiff rested upon the pedi-
gree now produced to the Court, but this pedigree he (M 7.
Tinney) contended entirely failed. The plaintifr allege(
that he was descended from the eldest son of John Plid-
lips ; the defendants, on the other hand, al'ieging that I e
was descended from the second son. inie Learned Coun-
sel then referred to certain proceed;:ugs taken in equity in
relation to the estate the subjerA of the present suit. He
also referred to two actions, in the Court of Common Pleas,
the one tried in 1800, ale other in 1803, in which the title
of the party through whom the plaintiffclaiined had been de-
cided. These actions had been decided in favour of the de-
fendants, and would the Court now open an arrangement ac-
quiesced in by three generations, and which had been made
the subject of marriage settlements and mortgages? With
regard to the evidence, on the part of the plaintiff, it. was,
alleged, that the marriage of John Phillips and Mary Guest
took place in 1759, and the defendants, though they did
not deny that fact,il
era Phillipsllsaoiw
fulaillal,eiggrebadyn
dtsha ant.
atande
ap:ernt
ledrgrehcle
haerF,l,eiept. iaicakrsonotli.%
tieitsledhataa
been privately married in 1747, by
mother
been
pohfiliJiposhnas
his father's property. This was strong evidence, but there
was other moral evidence of an equally stroll, nature, to
which he should refer the Court. At the galole end of the
house which these parties had inhabited tleere was a stone,
()pert
also another stone.
`` .i. M." below, and
the
ethn
uthmebleertst e,,r1"71358.
~,abaonvde,
theretle
with the letters "J. P., M. 15.' ",:ad the letters "P. P."
underneath, which he subr.,itted clearly stood for John
Phillips, Mary Phillips, -,nd Phillip Phillips. He would
letere had been an adVerse possession,
therefore.lobii
Phillipssu hnilli submit
di. that t
as against the estate or Edward Davis, since 1785 ; that
'oci,,levrar;danEddwa7;as, ferfeited his estate, which had gone to
and which Joseph Phillips could not re-
against t,lle defendants, who were now, and had been, Una
is:llP% consequently, the plaintiff could not claim
more.
garzees in possession since 1785.
Mr. PIGOTT proceeded to read the evidence on behalf. of
ttio) aits risidefendants,ng. which occupied the attention of the

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 16.

STOWELL V. ROBINSON.
In this case, which was not concluded yestet dr,y when we
went to press, and which possessed no publie, i':iterest, after
the summing up, the Jury returned a rettFict for the do.
fondant.

MACKENZIE V. JACOBS AND. OTHERS.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of
1,007/. .55., the value of fifteen bales of raw silk. The
plaintiff was the consignor of the gr,ods at Canton, and the
defendants were the owners of the, Royal George, the vessel
in which the bales were conveyrA from Canton to England.
It appeared by the bill of 14ing that 245 bales had be,!n
consigned by the plaintiff, villo was the owner of the goods
at Canton. In May last., when the Royal George was de,
livered of her cargo, thr,re was a deficiency of fifteen bales
and of those that werc delivered 100 were sold to Messrs
Durant, at the rate of 275. per lb. ; the remainder at 25s
The plaintiff now claimed for the price of fifteen bales a
the rate of 255. per lb., without any deduction on account.
of freight, brokerage, or cartage charges, to which the
goods would 'oe liable. The prime cost at Canton was
sworn to be 16s. or 17s. per lb. The defence On the re-
cord was, that the fifteen bales were never put on boo:rd.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount
claimed, subject to the deduction of the freight, hrokerage,
and similar. charges.

EXCHEQUER CO (1.7.:,!T, Dac. 16.
CALLAGHAN V. CRUDY:N AND OTHERS.
This was an action on the ease to recover compensation
for damages for the loss
..an ',L' injury sustained by the plain-
tiff,steamer, the pro:der:ty
in consequence of
duct of the persc.nS in charge, of the Star Gravesend
I'o,:etlalelledg:fedntniaelgltlsig, eilnlereuantnuilnmg miscon-
duct
plaintiff and three other persons were.
with 40s. damage's. The case occupied the
-ants pleaded Not Guilty. 'The Jury found for
ta,cih,oiebi
ueopraictia:eiulf,ei;nioxffdv
day,
3i,c,'„ia :::: e .
was not concluded till eight o'clock.