The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-19 00:00:00

IN RE E NIGHT, A SUPPOSED LUNATIC.

Sir EDWArto SCGDEN was instructed to recall this mat-
cr to his Lordship's recollection. It was the case in
which Mr. Ebenezer Burke, a solicitor, had been ordered
.0 pay the costs of an app'ication for a commission (which
was dismissed) of lunacy to issue against a gentleman of
the name of Knight. In the Registrar's wffice Mr.
Knight (or his Counsel) had objected to the words
being put into the order, " upon the affidavits being
read ;" and without the insertion of such or similar words
the Master (according to the practice) would not ttx the
costs of the affidavits. Under such circumstances the
party in whose favour the petition was dismissed, had
been obliged to come here, and Sir Edward hoped his
Lordship would make Mr. Burke pay in
riot' the costs of the present application, which
was for leave to have those words put into the order.
Mr. CItING appeared to oppose any interference on the
part of the Court. lie had b,•en instructed that his Lord-
ship had dismissed the petition, on the ground that the
Court had no jurisdiction.

The Loan CitA tiCELLOR sail—Then you are en-
tirely rnisinstructed, because I recollect very well
that we went fully into the matter, and it was
upon the merits that I ordered the application to be
dismissed with costs. I should have thought there
would have been no necessity for the insertion of the wo:d,
now sought to be introduced, because undoubtedly
the c,,sts of the affidavits must be paid, hut as it seems to
be consistent with the practice, let them be inserted. An at,
torney moving, in this Court without satisfying me that
be has authority, must clearly be answerable for the costs.
Is was a question between Mr. Burke and the cook-maid.
He did not appear to have any instructions from the un-
fortunate gentleman at all—the question was, whether be
had had instructions from the cook or not.—(Laughter.)
I remember it very well.
Sir E. SuGnEN—Ob, yes, your Lordship will never
forget it, and Mr. Burke will never forget it; but I arti
sure he will never be engaged in such another case again•
Order made.

WELLESLEY V. BEAUFORT.

In consequf.nce of o hat passed at the sitting of the
Court, Sir J. Seymour (the principal Scrjeant-at-Arots)
had an audience with the Lord Chancellor (privately)
about mid-day; and in the result it was understood that
his Lordship gave leave to the Sergeant-at-Arms to take
Mr. Wellesley to the House of Commons; but nothing t°
this effect was stated in open Court before we went to
pre.s.

ROLLS. COURT.
JUDGMENT.-MINCIIIN V. NANCT.

His HONOUR gave judgment this morning in this cage'
The bill was filed for the specific performance of a coc'
tract for the sale of an estate. The usual reference 00e
made to the Master, who repurtedagainst the title, and the
case came before the Court upon exceptions to the o'6;
ter's report. In 1721 the estate in question was devised
by Joseph Neale to the mother of Joseph Eames, subject
to a mortgage. In 1744, after the death of his mntht
Joseph Eames j rifled in a mortgage, in 1753 he paid part
of the mortgage off, and in 1758 he pail the remainder
of the mortgage money. He died in 1765, leaving
John, his eldest son, and two others, Joseph and Hugh'
By a died dated the 20th ofJune, 1775, made betweenJohZ
the eldest son, Joseph and Hugh, and the trustees, Jos
and Hugh conveyed all their interest in the estate, whico,
they derived under their father's will in consideration ot.
5761. Immediately after this transaction Juba mortgag!'a
ti e estate to Susannah Sanders to secure 6001., and iii
1781 he sold his equity of redemption to a person named
Bradley, and John and the mortgagee joined in conveying
the estate to Bradley, who sold the estate to Croft, who re-.
sold it to the present possessor. The objection takes to
the title was not produced, nor was any evidence given "I,
its contents further than what was to be collected from the
conveyance in 1775. Now the Court admitted that the
rule and equity was not to compel the specific perform
against the purchaser, unless the title be fortified by a r?;
session of sixty years. In the present case only fifty.°
years had elapsed since the conveyance of 1775 ; but if the
fact was, as the deed of 1775 imported, that an absolute
interest in the estate passed by the will of Joseph Earoe°'
then the possession greatly exceeded the term of sixty yore'
The will not being produced, nor- any evidence given of
contents, other than the deed of 1775, there was absence
of the proof of that fact, and the question was, whether,
there was such presumptive evidence of the fact as that
no reasonable doubt could br entertained upon the subject'
In the opinion of the Court, the very existence of such "
vtehr os
er ofiu)grhseovyi 'eezior:,e
aonfdtheevre'arc.t.guTphpeospinlTetshselosnuphpardembeesio,d:
deed, the fact of the mortgage, and subsequent sales, Vier,
allc
dd
of the will, on account of its not justifying the cotiveyla;
of 1775, in the opinion of the Court, the eircutnstaersi
leading to its suppression would have led to its t°'"
destruction. Upon the whole, his Honour was of opiol°-
~
that if he were before a Jury, it would be his plain duty
to state to them, that tie present case agora
that presumption of a good title which in some easel 'g
called fair and reasonable, in others a moral certaiott,
For these reasons his Honour felt bound to declare t 4.
title good, and he should therefore allow the exception',