The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nor. 15.
LORD KENSINGTON V. THE WEST OF LONDON AND WESTMINSTER

CEMETERY COMPANY.

Mr. JACOB appeared in support of an appeal in this matter
&An a decision of the Vice-Chancellor, affirming the title of
Lord Kensington to dispose of forty acres of land in the parish
of St. Mary Abbott's, Kensington, to the defendants. In
1833, on the marriage of Mr. Edwardes, the eldest son of
Lord Kensington, to a Miss Ellison, a deed of settlement was
prepared, by which his Lordship settled the whole Kensing-
ton estate on the issue of the marriage, reserving to hire .elf
only a right to dispose of such portion as might be required
for a canal, railroad, or any other public undertaking. Under
the authority of this power in the deed, his Lordship, on the
sth of July, 1837, entered into a contract with the Cemetery
Company to sell to them forty acres of the three hundred, which
is the extent of the estate, for the sum of twenty thousand
pounds. The Cemetery Company having been advised
that Lord Kensington had no right to sell, now hesitate to
complete the purchase, and a bill was filed by Lord Kensing-
ton for a specific performance. It was now argued that Lord
Kensington had no right to dispose of any portion of the pro-
perty included in the deed of settlement, or that if he had
such right, it did not extend to such an amount as forty acres.
The power in question to sell a portion for a railroad or canal
evidently pointed at a small stripe, such as railroads or canals
generally required in passing through large estates, and could
not have been meant to extend to such a portion as the Com-
pany were to purchase as-a cemetery. It was also argued that
the word "require" in the Act for the incorporation of the Co-
mpany was compulsory, and that if Lord Kensington entered
into a contract to surrender so much ground to them without
being required to do so, such a purchase did not come within
the provisions of the Act of Parliament.
Mr. K. BRUCE expressed surprise that the Company should
have instructed Counsel to adopt a line of argument with re-
spect to their Act of Parliament, which, if successful, would
wholly destroy its powers, and put an end to their own exist-
ence. The word " require" was not compulsory in the Act, nor
was it and cod to express command. It meant no more
than " want," with which it was coupled.
The LORD CHANCELLOR directed a note of the Vice-Chan-
cellor's judgment to be handed up to him, and should dispose
of the matter to-morrow morning.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 15.
THE QUEEN V. THE RECORDER OF STAMFORD.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL showed cause against a rule for a
mandamus to be directed to the defendant to command him to
enter continuances, and hear the appeal of Joseph Cooke and
others, against a borough rate for the borough of Stamford.
The affidavit on which the rule was moved set forth that the
rate bad been made in September, and allowed by the Mayor
in December, 1836: that an appeal had been lodged against
it on the ground that it was unequal, that the appeal came on
to be heard in the Epiphany Sessions, when it was postponed
to the Michaelmas Sessions. In the meantime the rate was
abandoned, and at the Sessions, when the appeal came on to
be heard, the respondents did not appear, and the rate itself,
therefore, was not produced. The appellants were not pre-
pared to give secondary evidence of the rate, and the Re-
corder, therefore, thought that they did not establish a prima
facie case, and, consequently, that no matter for the exercise
of his jurisdiction was brought before him. He, therefore,
refused to hear the appeal.
The COURT directed the rule to be made absolute.
THE QUEEN V. JOHN FROST.

Sir W. FOLLETT showed cause against a rule calling on the
defendant to show cause why a mandamus should not issue
against him, commanding him to pay over to the treasurer of
the borough of Newport, in Monmouthshire, certain moneys
received by him on account of property of the borough. It
was clear that a mandamus should not issue in a case like the
present. The applicant was merely a freeman of the borough;
the defendant was a town councillor, and had been mayor ;
and if the applicant claimed any interest in the revenues aris-
ing from this property, and thought that the defendant im-
properly withheld it from him, he might bring his action to
recover the money ; but the remedy which he now sought to
enforce was inapplicable to the circumstances of the case.
Mr. MAuI.E supported the rule.
The COURT discharged the rule.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 15.
JACKSON V. GALLOWAY.
This was an action upon a charter-party which was tried
before the Lord Chief Justice at Guildhall after the Term
before last, when a verdict passed for the plaintiff, damages
1701. It appeared that the ship Rochester was chartered by
the instrument in question to take in a cargo of coals and
iron at Cardiff, and thence proceed to Alexandria, and that
ten days of demurrage at 71 pkr day were to be allowed from
the 16th of December, 1836, and forty lay days for loading
at Cardiff and unloading at Alexandria. Subsequently to the
signing of that charter-party it was proposed by the plaintiff,
the ship-owner, and agreed to by the defendant, that, the
ship being at Pembroke, a certain portiOn of the cargo of
coals should be taken on board there ; so that the original
charter-party was in fact varied by the substitution of Pem-
broke for Cardiff, the place where the coals were to have
been taken on board. After the voyage had been per-
formed a question arose between the parties as to the time
from which the demurrage was to be calculated, the
shipowner contending that the demurrage should be
calculated from the commencement of the lading at Pem-
broke, and the defendants arguing that no demurrage could
be charged until the vessel had reached Cardiff, as the delay
was occasioned by the express wish of the plaintiff. Under
these circumstances the present action was brought to recover
the full amount of demurrage, and the Jury, by their verdict,
admitted the plaintiff's claim. During the last Term a rule
had been obtained by Mr. Serjeant Talfourd to reduce the da-
mages, or for a new trial.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE to-day showed cau3e against that rule.
Rule discharged.

EXCHEQUER COURT, Nor. 15.
GRIFFITII V. WILLIAMS.

Mr. JERVIS obtained a rule nisi for a new trial in this cause
during last Term. The notes of Mr. Justice Williams, before
whom the cause was tried, were now read over, and from them
it appeared that the action was brought to uphold the toll de-
manded in Mold, in the county of Flint. These tolls were let
to the plaintiff by Mostyn, Esq., M. P., and one penny
was taken from every person who sold in the market, until the
defendant, who had paid it for fifteen years, refused to
continue to do so. The Jury found for the defendant.
Mr. CRESSWELL now showed cause against the rule.—Rule
discharged.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Aor. 15.
SIN'S V. R. R. REINAGLE, R.A.
This was an action to recover the sum of 5/. for goods sup.
plied. The defendant had paid I/. into Court.
Mr. KEIGHTLEY stated the case for the plaintiff, who is a
tailor residing in George. street, Hampstead, and the defend-
ant, Mr. Reinagle, was a gentleman whose name must be well
known to them, as one of the Royal Academicians. In April
last the defendant wished a coat made by a certain time to go
to a party, which was done by the plaintiff, and sent home to
him. Some alterations were then required, which having
been attended to the coat was again sent home, and was now in
the defendant's possession, so that there could be no plea for
refusing to pay the money.
James Wood, of 34, Drummond-street, tailor, said he was
in the employ of the plaintiff in April last, He went to the
defendant with the coat, which lie complained was too tight,
and it was eased and altered; 4/. was a fair price for it. He
took some trousers also, which Mr. Reinagle afterwards wished
altered as he had chalked them.
Mr. KNIGHTLEY—Did he say he wanted the sleeves stiff-
ened, so that there should be free ventilation up the arm ?
The UNDER-SHERIFF—What 1 a chimney up the sleeves ?
—( Laughter.)
Cross-examined by Mr. LEE, for the defendant—Did not
Mr. Reinagle say the trousers would fit Gog or Magog ?
( A laugh.)
Witness—No ; Mr. Reinagle never said he was afraid to
move in the coat for fear he should force himself cut of it.—
( Laughter. )
Mr. LEE—Did you not pull him with both your hands to
try to button it ?
Witness—No ; I only used one.
The UNDER- SHERIFF—And held him tight with the other ?
—( A laugh.)
Mr. LEE—Did Mr. Reinagle complain that one leg of the
trousers was cut one way of the stuff, and the other leg the
other way ?—( Laughter.)
Witness—No.
Mr. LEE—Did he not say he never saw such sacks, and he
could crawl through them ?—( Laughter.)
Witness—No.
George Fletcher, another workman of the plaintiff's, said
when he heard Mr. Reinagle complained of the fit of the coat,
he went to him, and, telling him that he had made the coat,
requested to see it on. Mr. Reinagle said he would see Mr.
Sims d—d before he would put the coat on.—( Laughter.) I
called for the money, and instead of it I got " a similar con-
versation."— ( Loud laughter. )
George Garrett, a tailor, of 70, George-street, New-road.
_I was employed by Mr. Reinagle in May last, and lie showed
me a coat which Sims had made, and asked me if it was a
proper dress coat? I said it was rather a delicate matter, as
Sims was my neighbour—(Laughter)—but I must say I did not
think the style was that of a proper dress coat.—(Loud laugh-
, ter. ) Soon after I had an order for a dress coat, and as I
live rather out of the fashionable world, I thought I would in-
quire what was the newest fashion, and I went to qu eminent
tailor at the West-end, and I found that the coat Sims had
made was just the thing —(Laughter.) Mr. Reinagle was a
neighbour of mine, so I thought it my duty to tell him the
alteration in my opinion, and that if he went to law on that
coat he would be thrown over the bridge.—( Great laughter.)
The UNDER- SIIERIFF —Did you do SO?
Witness—lndeed I did. —( A laugh. )
Mr. LEE—Did he complain of the fit of Sims's coat ?
Witness---.ob, dear no; the style, the style.--( Laughter. )
Mr. LEE then addressed the Jury, and said it was not likely
Mr. Reingale would have resisted its demand, unless he had
good reason for doing so. The fact was, he was going to dine
with the Royal Academicians, and ordered this coat, which
was not sent till near ten at night, and then it was such a
coat that no Christian could ever wear it. The sleeves were
half up his arms, the back was all a pucker, but, upon the
plaintiff promising to alter it, he put it on. It was evident
Mr. Reinagle had been pulled into the coat, and when he stood
up in the trousers they reached to his arm-pits. He would
prove that the clothes did not fit, and the plaintiff, refused to
take the coat back. Mr. Reinagle had kept the trousers,
which were made of his own cloth, and had paid 1/. into Court
for the making of them. The verdict must be for the de-
foidant, aad tie plaintiff when he left the Court would take
the record with him, which would make an excellent, though
he would find it a very expensive, measure,