The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-05 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

RAFFETY V. KING.—JUDGMENT.
The MASTER of the ROLLS this morning gave jgdg.

meat in this case, which his Lordship stated to be this
Mr. John Dean being entitled to a piece of freehold land
subject to a mortgage term of 1,000 years, vested in Sa-
muel Manning, for securing to him 3001. and interest ; made
his will dated March 26, 1795, and thereby devised the piece
of land to his wife, Mary Dean, to hold the same for her
natural life, if she should so long continue his widow, and
unmarried. He also gave her certain copyhold property,
to be held in like manner, and after her death he devised
the land to Vesey Raffety and his heirs, in trust to sell and
dispose thereof by public sale, the proceeds to be invested
in Government or real securities, and to be divided among
his children. He gave his personal estate, aftor payment
of his debts, to his wife, and appointed Vesey Raffety trus-
tee, and his wife sole executrix of his will. The testator
soon afterwards died, and in April, 1796, the equity
of redemption was sold to Mr. Samuel Manning,
the mortgagee. By an indenture, dated April the 9th,
1796, the estate was conveyed to Samuel Manning,
and Vesey Raffety and Mrs. Dean entered into the usual
covenants for quiet enjoyment and further assurance. On
the execution of the deed, Samuel Manning entered on
the lands, and the individuals claiming under him have
continued in possession without accounting, or even being
called on to account, for the rents and profits up to the time
of the institution of the suit. Mary Dean, the widow of
John, did not marry again, and she lived till the month of
December' 1832. At that time the children of John Dean,
or those claiming under him, if they were not barred, would
become, according to the trusts of their father's will, en-
titled to have the estate sold, and the purchase money di-
vided among them. Vesey Raffety being dead, John
Raffety, together with the surviving children of John Dean,
and the representatives of the deceased children, filed their
bill to have a conveyance of the estate, or of the equity of
redemption to John Raffety, or to have the estate
sold according to the trusts of the will. His Lord-
ship, said that prima facie the plaintiffs were entitled
to a decree. The claim of the defendants was rested
on three grounds—first, that the defendants had been
mortgagees in possession, without account or admission of
mortgage, for more than twenty years before the bill was
filed ; secondly, that, after so great a length of time, it
ought to be presumed the sale was properly made ; and,
thirdly, that John Raffety is bound, by his father's cove-
nant, for quiet enjoyment and further assurance—that he
is incompetent to sue—and that, therefore, his co-plaintiff
can obtain no relief. It was admitted to be the settled
rule of the Court, that if a mortgagee took possession in
that character, and continued in possession without account-
ing, and without admitting he possessed a mortgage title
for twenty years, the mortgager was barred ; but, in this
case, the mortgagee did not take possession in his character
of mortgagee, but as the purchaser of the equity of redemption.
Under these circumstances it was contended as a general
proposition, the suit not being merely between mortgager
and mortgagee ; that the mortgager was barred, whatever
might be the disabilities under which he laboured. His
Lordship went through the authorities that bad been cited
by Counsel in the argument, and came to the decision that
the plaintiffs were entitled to have a decree for an account
of rents since the death of Mary Dean, on account of the
interest accrued due on the mortgage, and a conveyance to
John Raffety, under the trusts of the will, but without costs.

EXCHEQUER COURT-(THIS DAY.

BERKELEY, M.P., V. FRASER.

This was a Special Jury case, to recover damages for
the libel which led to the assault for which the present
defendant obtained damages on Saturday. The cause was
called on at the sitting of the Court. Only eleven special
jurymen answered to their names, and after a consultation,
the plaintiff's Counsel declined to pray a tales ; so that the
cause must stand'over till the sittings after next Term.

BOND V. DOUGLASS.

This action was brought to recover damages for an alleged
libel, which appeared in the True Sun of the 26th October,
plaintiff for church rates, in
the parish of
St. Pancras.
the
!.
respecting
The manuscript was given up by the proprietors of the
paper named, and its authority traced to the defendant.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1001.