The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC.I6.
Third Seal after Term.
DEER V. WARD.

The LORD CHANCELLOR required to know if the order
had been fully complied with for producing all the books,papers,
and writings; on either side before the trial ?• As he under-
stood the case at present, some complaint had been made by
one side that several of the papers had remained in the hands
of Mr. Carr, solicitor for the other side, because Mr. Carr
thought that as they came into his poSsession as Secretary to
the Chancellor, he could not give them up. Ile must in that
capacity have had all the papers in his possession, and the
question was, were they all produced before the Master ? Be-
cause the order required that all the papers, books, and writings
should be there produced. As to those which came into Mr.
Carr's possession in quality of Secretary, the order could not in-
tend that they should be withheld—be was to hold them equally
for the benefit of both parties. No sufficient answer being
ready for the question now put,
The Loup CHANCELLOR said, that the parties might take
a day to ascertain what was the fact, and be ready to answer
him the next time he should Taut the question. `k In the mean-
while, it must be understood for the future, that when the
Court ordered the books, papers, and writings to be produced
by the parties, whether in issues sent for trial to the Courts be-
low, or on inquiries in the Master's Office, all the papers, books,
and writings, belonging to the suit must be then produced with-
out any exception. If this notice should not be enough, he must
have recourse to a general order of the Court, which he would
• draw up for that purpose.
LOYD AND OTHERS v. SIR lIORACE ST. PAUL AND LADY

DUDLEY AND WARD.

Mr. HART stated this to be the case of the Wednesbury-
halt estates, in the county of Stafford, which had been before
the Court in 1821, and in pitrsuance of the opinion of the Court
upon the merits, was ,withdrawn fOr the time. The ancestors
of the plaintiff had sold the lands belonging to this estate to
William Ward in 1708, with the entire right of mining and
searching for minerals, coals, iron stone, &c. The defendants
held the estate by a title derived from the same deeds. He
would not trouble the Court by deducing either of the titles by
genealogy. The land had been demised to Lady St. Paul by
the late Lord John Viscount Dudley and Ward, to be held in
trust by Mr. Vernon until she should attain the age of 21. A
marriage had been concluded between this lady and Mr.
Liam Ward. Certain deeds were then executed, by which Lady
St. Paul and her husband were admitted .as tenants for life,
with remainder over to their children in the usual forms. Mr.
Vernon still held the title deeds in trust for the children. It
appeared that some, time about 1808, the plaintiffs, in right of
the reservation said to be contained in the first conveyance, be-
gan to work a coal-mine on a part of the estate occupied by
them. To this the owners of the land, the present defendants,
objected, and put it upon the plaintiffs to prove their right.
The plaintiffs had no instrument to assist them, but an inden-
ture of the articles which were designed to constitute the origi-
nal conveyance. "
The motion made when the case was before the Court was,
to make the defendants produce the deeds; and to remove the
injunction which restrained the plaintiffs from working the
mine which they had pierced. The ansWer of the defendants
was then, as it still remained—first, from Sir Horace St. Paul

and his wife, Lady Dudley and Ward, that they knew 'nothing
about the deeds ; but that they believed themselves to be pos-
sessed of the minerals, coals, &c. as well as of the surface of
the soi4 because the possession from. which they held had not
been disturbed for 60 years, nor within the memory of any one
then living. The answer of Mr. Vernon was, that he had not
read the deeds, and did not know whether the original convey-
ance contained any reservation of coals and minerals ; and he
did not feel himself at liberty to produce them, except under,
the order of the Court, to which he offered entire obedience
in this matter. His Lordship thought that the plaintiffs ought
to have excepted against the bill under which the injunction
was obtained ; and he also felt great difficulty in calling on
Mr. Vernon to do any thing which might tend to prejudice
the trust held by him. There was also some weakness in the
affidavits. The plaintiff's were Quakers, and were cautious of
making their affirmations as to certain boundaries which it
was necessary for them to describe. They had come to the
knowledge of these particulars, so as to be able to correct the
descriptions in the map, and to affirm with certainty upon the
particular boundaries and parcels of land. The. bill had been
amended accordingly, and•a new affidavit, exhibiting the
circa:instances which had made it necessary for them to alter
the bill had been made ; from which they rilw claimed that
the injunction should be taken off, and the deeds of original
conveyance should be produced • or that the defendants re-
fusing to do so, should be held to admit the title of the
plaintiffs.
Mr. HART having stated the case, and described the answer
in part, was proceeding to state the particular contents of the
new affidavits; upon which
Mr. HEALD took an objection, founded on the case of Nor-
way and Horne; in which the Court determined, that affida-
vits in support of tides, denied by the other party, were inad-
missible ; that being the main issue, which could only be sup-
ported by positive testimony.
Mr. HART said, that the bill had been filed, and an answer
put in by Horace St. Paul, declaring that he knew. nothing
about the matter. When Mr. Vernon refused to produce the
deeds, unless under an order of the Court, surely he must have
a right to put in affidavits—not in contradiction to the answers
of the defendants, nor yet in support to the plaintiff's' title—
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—No, but in support of the bill.
Mr. HART added, that the claim they sought by their affi-
davits was merely to have the deeds produced, which were in
the possession of the defendants, and of which they remained
wilfully ignorant
Some discussion now followed as to the proper way of pro.-
ceeding. The answer had not been read, and there was an ob-
jection to argue. At the suggestion of his Lordship, the read-
ing of the answer was taken first : and it was agreed that only
such parts of the answer should be read as were necessary to
the right understanding of the case.
Mr. HEALD then proceeded to argue the. objection before
stated, and referred to his Lordship's Judgment in the case' Of
" Norway v. Rowe," by which affidavits were declared to be
inadmissible to prove a title which was flatly denied by the op-
posite party.

Tile-LORD CHANCELLOR said, that as far as the answer
had been read, it seemed only to go to dispute the accuracy
of the plaintiffs' description as to the various parcels of land
recited.

Mr. HEALD maintained, that the plaintiffs had nothing
whatever by which they could show their title of a reserved
right, except the appeal which they made to the defendants by
their bill and affidavits, to discover one for them in the original
deeds.

.31r. HIRT said that they had proofs of subsequent trans-
actions in 1705, wherein there was payment made by the par-
ties for whose benefit the right . had been reserved to the farmly

PRICE SEVENPENCE.

of Lord Dudley and Ward, for the (lath* done to•certain
parts of the estate by the exercise of this 'very right ; and a
certain mu was agreed upon in compensation for the effects of
similar damage which was likely to arise.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that such proof could only
prevail in regard to • the particular portions of land affected,
and only as it regarded the rate of compensation claimed and
paid. • -
Mr. Wznsosr said that one of the instruments of those
transactions described the whole of the 38 pieces of land now
in question.
Mr. SHADWELL was heard on behalf of Elwin and Jack-
son, lessees under Sir H. St. Paul, they having undertaken
their leases with the belief that Sir H. St. Paul had full power
and authority to grant them by tide and possession, which, ac-
cording to the best knowledge and belief of the lessees, had
never been called in question.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that if the deeds had been
in the possession of the defendants they could scarcely have
refused to inform themselves of the conteats. Ile did not
clearly see how the case was altered by the deeds remaining in
the bands of Mr. Vernon. The plaintiffs called for the deeds,
in order to identify certain lands. If they had any other ob-
bects it' view, they might be admissible, or they might not ;
ut thot was the immediate object which they professed to have
Mr. PEPVS was beard' In support of the objection against •
the adrnission'of affidavits in support of a disputed title.
Mr. RussEn was heard on behalf of Mr. Vernon, who was
ready to produce the deeds he held under the order of the
Court. But he was no longer trustee for the estate, and there-
fore had no right \to the deeds, only three of which now ie-
mained with hinr; and for the disposing of them he only
waited for his Lordship's direction.
Mr. HART replied to the objection. There was no'denial of
the title of his clients, either on the answer or in any thing
which had been urged. They referred to deeds in possession of
the defendants which were common munimentS of testimony
between the parties. If the defendants refused to produce
them, the Court ought to presume every thing against them.
Mr. Winsox and Mr. SUGDEN followed on the same side,
after which the hearing was postponed; and the Court ad-
journed.