The Sun.
London, England, 1809-11-09 00:00:00

LAW EE PORT

COURT 0.7 CHANCiEIkY, WRDNE,DAYr Mair. 3.
This day the Court was occupied in the farther
hearing of the Caus of ,an application, on the part
of the Marquis of'Lansdowne, to remove an Injunc-
tion'of the Court, pronibitiug timber to be cut down
in the demesnes of his estate of Beau Wood, LnWilt-
shire, which he held as tenant in common.
Sir S. RomiL voke in support of the Injunction,
Sir F.' Baring
,and Mr. Wilmot had been.,alvointed
'by the late Marquis the Trustees for the -future
tenants in tail, and had formerly obtained that
Iniunaion, which nothing but a strong ' sense
cat that devaStation which, 'they apprehended,
had been made on these woods, and of the ir-
reniediable injury WhiCh the future tenants in
tail might thereby • sustain, could ever have in-
duced them. to apply for.: Various questions of this
kinkhad 14ate1y come before the Court;, and :it Had
been deckled,- that a person possessing an estate as
tenant in common, not impeachable of waste, was
only.entitled to cut down the timber in-a "husband-
man like manner ;" the meaning of which he conceiv-
% ed was, with a provident view to the interest of the
tenant in tail, so as not to fell trees which had not
arrived at maturity, and which, perhaps, in the course
of a few years, might double their present value.. He
conceived also, it had been laid down as a principle,
t Ilat trees planted originally fa ornament, whether
in' vistas or 'clumps, or es single trees, in pleasure
grounds, were not to be cut down_ by the tenant in
co,iimon. These were the principles which Lord
Thurift had laid down in the case of Chamberlayne
and Dammer, and to which he believelAhe Court had,
uniformly adhered. The Court did niat look to the
opinion of ibis or that artist' with regard to what
was ornamental, or the contrary, for there was no

end to the variety of opinion on that head ; but it
looked to the original view with" which the trees
were planted: The Learned Counsel then •-endea-
. voured ,hew from various affidavits, that these
principles bad not been adh,:red to; but that many
trees planted 'for ornameni bad been cut down, and
young gr;„wing trees had been felled in an improvi-
dent manner. On tiie-e grounds he submitted that
the injunction ought to be continued. ,
Barr, spoke at length op The same side.
Mr. RICHARD 6 and Mr. HART appeared tor Lord
Henry Re' ty, who succeeds to the estate, tailing issue
of the iiresent Marquis. They observed, that
.they
bad been ,instructed by their client -to content them-
selves.w ill) simply referring the different affidavits to
the consideration of the. Court.
Sir A. PlooTT spoke at length
.in reply ; after

which, . -
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he should givejudg-
went to-morrow in this cause.

:COURT OF KING's BENCH, WEDVESDAY• Nov. 2.
. A great number of young men were sworn in as
Attornies of this Court.

PRACTICE.

Mr. LAVES, moved for a rule to shew Came why
a.Detendaut should not be discharged out of the
custody of the Sheriff, .being arrested upon a defec-
tive affidavit, tor debt. The affidavit upon which
the Defendant was held to bail, was made by a per-
son in the custody of the Warden of the Fleet.
Prisorr, before.a Commissioner appointed to take
affidaVits, and the defett in the affidavit was, that in
the description given therein of the deponent,, he was
stated to be ". late.of Dyot•street,.St. Giles's," with-
out mentioning -that he was " then of the Fleet
Prison, and late tot' D•yot-street, St. Giles's."
The Court, after some :consideration) held that
the affidavit was ideteCtive, as being Contrary to a rule
of Court, which requires that the precise name and
place of residence of the deponent should be given,
and thereupon the rule was granted.
QUO WARRANTU.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL' moved for a rule to
skew. cause. why, in the case of the King" against
Ashwell, the verdi& for the defendant should not
be set aside, and a verdid .of ouster entered. Th`e
Leained-Cotinsel stated, that this was an information
tried at 'the last' Assizes for the County of Leicester,
irk the nature of a- quo tharrcnto, calling upon the
defendant to shew cause why he exercised the rights
and. fun6tions of an Alderman of the liorotigh of
Nottingham.—The rule was granted.
AI.AII4AS CORPUS.

Mr. BOLLAND Moved for 'a, writ of Habeas
Cotpus, to be directed to a Mr. John Wright, com-
manding him to bring up "the body of Mr. Thomas
Wright, that he may be r?.slored to his friends.
From the statement of the Counsel it was shewn,

that 'Mr. Thomas. Wright was in a state of mental
derangement upwards of ts'ruanths last past; that in
April List he was carried away by Mr. John Wright,
from his dwelling in the county of York,and brought
up to London ; and, during his absence, in theinorilli
ofthiober last, all his 7,00d5,..t0 the mount of 4001.
'Were, sold', by, virtne,o/ a. power of attorney executed
by him at a moment when, by the affidavits of seve-
ral' persons (among tother s, 'of a most. respectable
Physician, who knew .him well) he was quite incom-
peterit-to'the performance of such a task:
Air. Bot.LANi)'s motion was coupled with another
rer,peeting thy property, and relative to. the, parties
ho were concerned in the sale of it. But the Court
desired that' he ,would first restrict himself to the
rule for the Habeas Corpus; which being complied
the rule was granted. •
Mr. 61.1liti gY 'obtained a rule for a Habeas Corpus,
direeted to itie Gaoler. of Hertford, diretting him to
bring up the boriy,of a person in his custody charged
with stealing a hog, he having a number of affidavits
to shear that there was no species offoundation for
the charge. ,•

•
A fatal accident occurred in Itosetnary-lane last
lilondaYpiglit. SOinp boys-celebrating the anniver-
- -nary of Gunpowder Piot, by discharging o small can-
non, it burst, and killed ()tie of them. G lad About 15
•
• years of age) upon the spot.