The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-26 00:00:00

LORD CHOLISIONDELEY V. LORD CLINTON.

Mr. HEALD led in this case for the'defendant.'--Margaret
Harris, grandmother of George Lord Orford, left certain estates
to her daughter, the mother of George LciTd Orford, as tenant
for life, with remainder to Lord Orford, who, by a codicil to his
will, assigned them to trustees, to be sold, for payment of his
debts. Lord Clinton, the father of the present Lord Clinton,
gotpossession of them, according to the, plaintiffs, wrongfully;
Horatio Lord Orford, according to the plaintiffs, having had
the right title to those estates. Mrs. Darner, the plaintiff,
claimed them as devisee under the will of Horatio Lord Or-
ford; and Lord Cholmondeley claimed them as heirat law. The
Vice-Chancellor had directed a trial in the King's Bench to as-
certain the effect of the codicil in giving a power of selling
the estates for payment of debts ' • but it never tried. Appli-.
cation had been made to his Lordship to amend the bill in
order to discoVer the title. A demurrer was then put in on the"
grounds of champerty, maintenance, and a pretensive yitle. No
great quantity of argument had been used. It had 'come on,
however, before the great cause in the Lords, of Lord Chol-
mondeley and Lord Clinton. This was at present a demurrer
entered to a bill of discovery., The bill could not be support-
ed, because the plaintiffs came under the statue against chain-
perty (a divivion of lands in suit or action), and maintenance
an engagement' to maintain 'a law suit for a share of the sub-
ject of litigation); or the title was alternative, and therefore not
good. Neither of them separately had a clear title, and there-
fore both together amid not have a clear title, because it was
founded on an agreement between them.
Mr. PEPyS followed on the same side. It was surprising
that his Lordship should be called on there to revise the judg-
ment. in the Lords. This 'was in fact the very same question
which his Lordship and Lord Redesdale decided in the House
of Lord 4.

kriOtlier Gentleman, whose' name we could not learn, fol

lowed.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL appeared for the plaintiffs.
He did not conceive that this.case was affected by the judgment
of the LOrds. The estates in question were hOnses in Ashbur-
ton, and the only point before the Lords had been the length
of adverse possession. Ejectitents had been brought by sepa-
rate and joint demises of Mrs. Damer and Lord'Cliolmondeley.
A bill of discovery had then been brought in order to establish

The Lon]) CHANCELLOR quoted from The report in the
Lords the opinion of Lord Redesdale, that if there was an
agreement between the parties, they must sue on a beneficial
interest or a legal title. Now the assertion was that it was a
beneficial interest in Mrs. Darner or Lord Cholmondeley. Lord
Redesdale was of opinion that they Could: not 'support a bill in
equity without asserting the title. It clearly was in the bill
orator or oratrix. He (the Lord Chancellor) now stated this
without giving the least hint or opinion of his Own.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—The decision in the Lords
proceeded on the twenty years' adverse possession. He sub-
mitted that it was right to have stated the title aaernatively. -
Mr. SHAHwELL followed.
'The LORD •CHANCELLOR asked, what were the points
argued before the Vice-Chancellor?
Mr. SHADWELT. stated them. First, that the proper parties
were not before the Court, 'because the four trustees were .not

parties secondly, that the titles of the plaintiffs were incor-
rectly asserted; thirdly, that it was an illegal agreement be-
tween the plaintiffs. His Lordship would observe, that the
bill was brought in in order to enable the plaintiffs to bring an
action. There was no pretence here for charging champerty
and maintenance..
The Loan CIIANCELLOR.—Was it not the practice to dis-
miss bills, not merely on proof of champerty or maintenance,
but, in he language of his predecessors, because it savoured of
champe?ty or maintenance ? At the bar of the Lords it had
been boldly stated, that Mrs:Darner had the right and another
the money.-
Mr. SUADWELE argued that this case did not savour of
champerty and maintenance.
Mr. SUGDEN followed. They had not dared on the other
side to argue upon the legal estate and the adverse possession,
because those points would be an answer to their demurrer.—
He refrained also from those topics, because Mr. Heald could
not advert to them in his reply. If he should, it would be a
new matter, and his Lordship would hear them again for the
plaintiffs. He denied. that there was adverse possession.,—
What was possessed by my '-tenants was possessed by
me. .averse payment of rents was nothing. Cham-
perty, maintenance, and pretensive title, were jumbled
together, without any foundation for them. He denied
that there could be any objection to the validity of the
agreement and compromise of rights. A lawyer of the great-
est authority, Sir Samuel Romilly, had said that he made no
objection to the agreement ; but the objection was, that there
was only an allegation.
The LORD CnArroELLop..—No man could have greater re-
spect for the authority of Sir Sarriitel Romilly than he had; but
he (the Lord Chancellor) would- have said he did not know
what the allegation meant. Lord Redesdale and he had said
that the allegation ought to have been proved. At the Bar of
the Lords it had been stated that it was not necessary that the
tide should stand secundanz allegata et probata, but only sawn-
dam allegata. His Lordship here read his own observations
on.the case in the Lords, and remarked, that he had there given
no opinion on the points now argued. He might be slow in his
decisions, but he never gave an -opinion which was not called
for. Lord Redesdale had done otherwise, for he had pronoun.
ced the agreement of the plaintiffs illegal.
Here the discussion terminated* and his Lordship rose to
leave the Bench.