The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-11 00:00:00

; ARDEN

mi announced by
Dr two since) of
Iblishment took
t which Sir G.
rpose of arrang-
Siddons. Nu-
personal and I y
in the funeral
ig the ceremn• y
ions, as be h d
confined to tl.e

raaged that tie
five mourning
place on Wed-
The followit g
!procession :
ad, Mr. Bennett,

ry, Mr. Charles

Henry, and Mr.

r. Tumour, and

[r. Wrench, and

'1 be the chief

the Prussian
een sent by the
s towards their
n Government.
an Government
lr of neutrality. ]
!er expresses
iference relative
r contemporary
adividual of the
F the " pthon-
fess that, with-
ic on the sub.
from which the
who point to an
rious individual
say they, for
in to transpire,
do—we do not
lectly sincere in
I in an amicable
England. It
►t be an impor.
er to create pa-
There is always
ives of despotic
relative to the
ite description.
Ln Congress the
of the members,
nder discussi.ta
rm. These do-
enuine ; but we
1 to above, they
There is a great
not like. The
very anxious to
dy. The rogue
hief!" At any
oment will not
con less that we
:abinet with re-
s to us vet:), re-
p irative silence
saying that the
. We do hope
re act of au in.

We must say
extreme suspi-
ent of the State
f Lord CA STLE-
I remember the
,art, We can see
rceedings of the,
nee of London,

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY)

ROLLS COURT.
SITTINGS OF THE COUIIT.

The M sTE It of the ROLLS on taking his seat, stated that
he had intended to adjourn the Court a few days after the
hearing of the petitions, hut having understood that it wa.
usual to take short causes after hearing the petition., he
begged to inform the bar that he should hear all the peti-
tions and short causes before the adjournment of the
Court.

TUN NO V. LEWIS.

The bill in this case was filed for the specific performance
of an agreement for the lease of certain !malls called Bynea
Farm, situated in the county of Carmarthen. In 1781
Sir Edward Ball Mansell being seized in fee of the hnd
in question, entered into an agreement with a Mr. Smith
to grant a lease of the farm for 80 years at 40 guineas
a year. Smith, in virtue of the agreement entered into,
took possession of the property, which he occupied fill his
death. By his will he bequeathed his interest to his two
eons, who in 1806 sold the interest to General Ward,
through whom it came into the possession of the present
plaintiffs. Sir Edward Ball Mansell died in 1783, leaving
the whole of the property to his widow, which ulti-
mately descended to the present defendant.
Mr. PEMBERTON, who appeared in b. half or
tl.e plaintiff, stated that from 1781 to 1802 ❑o objec-
tions whatever had been made by the owners in reversion
to the agreement entered into by Sir Edward Ball Man-
sell. The present defendant, however, having succeeded
to the property, commenced an action of ejectment against
the plaintiff to recover the possession of the property, but
there being no legal defence to that ejectment the present
bill was filled. Some of the objections to_the specific per-
formance of the agreement, was the incompetency of Sir
Edward to enter into such a contract, being as it was al-
leged, a person of weak understanding ; next, that it was
an agreement obtained from him at a❑ under value, and
that even if the parties were entitled to the lease, they had
committed acts which would amount to forfeiture of it;
but the most singular defence of all was that the p'aintiff
had committed waste upon the land by pulling
down an old dilapidated public-house, and building
a substantial inn, and had also erected twenty cottages
upon waste land, which was totally unfit for agricultural
purposes, the defendant contending that the old rule of
law was that it was waste to build a house, and much
greater waste to pull it down.
Mr. BICK ERSTETIL and Mr. WALKER appeared for the
defendant, contending that by the original stipulations of
the agreement it was evident that the intention of the
parties contemplated an agricultural lease, and that as the
present plaintiff had done every thing " not in a husband-
like manner," but in a manner which had very conside-
rably deteriorated the value of the property, while he
had encroached by the cottage building upon the farm
itself, he had done what amounted to a forfeiture of the
leas-, and that therefore he was not entitled to a spe-
cific performance of the agreement.
_ _

The MASTER of the ROLLS was of opinion that if a
lease had been immediately executed, the defendant would
have been entitled to a covenant according to the regula-
tions of the original agreement, which it appeared, how-
ever, had been subsequently struck out. It was perfectly
plain that they were struck out, because they had been
resisted on the part of the intended lessor. The plaintiff
was bound by the terms of the agreement N use the land
in a husbandlike manner. By the erection of those cot-
tages, however, he had used it in a most unhusbandlike
manner, and he was therefore of opinion that the bill
should be dismissed, and dismissed with costs.