The Sun.
London, England, 1809-11-08 00:00:00

LAW REPORD.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NGV

DOE ON DEMISE OF ORATIAM V. SCOTT.

. .
Mr. Serjeant Art LLlAms'applied for.a.Role to.shew.
cause, .why nonsuit shOuldot be entered in this
case., The, Defendant, the 'key. Mr. James Scott, ,
had been. indu6ted into the living of Brampton
Brian, in Herefordshire,. in February and March,
1801, ona . presentation by the Earl Of. Oxford ;
and in the.year 1805, he was collated by the Bishop
to the'anginented curacy of Tittley, in
:the same
county. The aEtion was brought on the ground,
that, by he'Oefendant's acceptance of the Curacy of
Tittley, atigmented as it had been. by Queen Ann's
bounty, the living of Brarrinton Brian; Which he
had, formerly held, had become voidable,. and being:
that Mr. Graham had been presented to it on
the joint and • separate presentations of the Earl of
-Oxford, and of T. \Vein!, Richard Woud, and 'H.
Smith, the younger. To prove this case, two things
were necessary on the part of the Plaintiff.—ist.
To strew that, the Curacy of Tittk y had beenaug-
mento by Queen Anne's Botintn: and 2d, That
the Earl of Oxford, and the other persons who. had
granted the presentation 'to•Mr. Grahatn, were 'seised
of the legal estate at the titne'of granting'the .preseb.-
union; On the first point, after other 'grounds of
objeCtion had been removed, the Learned Serjeant;
as Counsel for the Defendant, argued that tbe eVi-
i dence of 'this being a Curacy augmented under
Queen Anne'S Bounty was not sufficient, inasmuch
as it was p-Mvided at' common low that the 'pro-
perty' should he vested in rand,- and by the Ad et
ef
'l,st Geo. Ist, section2o, that .the deed containing
such landed estates should be inrolled in the High
Court of Chancery, within sit months after the
purchase. In support of thisargumeut, the Learn-
,ed ,c;rjeant adduced a decision by Lord Camden,:
Lord ELLENBOROUGH asked., Was not the, aug-
mentMion 'etfedual front the date ot, the other
Mr. Serjeant WILLIAMS again referred' to the A&
of: Parliament.. The. second -point was, . were the.
persons who ad granto the presentation vested in
the legal estatei, He referred to two terms of woo
years, which had been granted 'in 1709 and 172'7,
which, he submitted; 'must, under a deed in the 'yOr
1.,757, .be presumed to'liave been surrendered ; and in
the year 1,802-, the present Earl of Oxford had grant-.
ed'a trustdeed in favour or Mr. Williatn Scott.
•Lord ELLENBoROU.GIi observed the Earl might
have an interest in, keepingthe Old term afloat.
Mr. Serjeant WILLIAMS said, this was a new case.
,He had never seen an- ejeelnient of. the'kind; The
Learned Judge ißaron. TnouFsol) who had tried
the case, had afterwards spoken to him concerning
it and had recommended to bitn to move the
:.Court on both poims. , •
Lord ELLENIh/Rol.Mllsaid, the Court did not he 7:
sitate on either point, bu't in deference to the doubt
said to be entertained by the Learned Judge who
tried the)case, they should communicate .w:th him
.on tine subject, and if he did seriously entertain the
doubt mentioned by the Learned. Counsel, he should
1. have-his Role.

AbAR V. GIP? ON.

Mr.Ctartitnioved for a Rule to sliew cause, why•
the verdict in this case should not be set,aside, on
the gronnd'of misdirection by the Judge. The ;case
had been tried at War Wick. It appeared that the
arrest had been• made, prematurely, ft credit haying
ottginally been granted till April, whereas the De-
femiant was arrested in March. The demand was
for 2361. which the Defendant ohjeacd to, but offer;
•ed to pay cl7l. .This the Learned... Judge who tried
the case was. pleased to esteem a waver of "the origi-
nal defence, and on this ground the Jury, fburid for
the Dal:nit-T.—Rule 0-anted.

A WAGER.

bItOWN V. WALLER.

Mr. Scrjeant PEC.K.WEhL 'Moved for a Rule to
'spew cause why the Nerdia in this cause should not
be set aside, and a ntw trial granted. •He stated,
that this Cause was -heard at. the last Assiies before
Lord Chief Justice_ Mansfield ; and the -.Jury gave a
vrrdia for the Plaintiff. The ciretitnstances :of the
case were, that the Plaintiff had made a bet. with
person of the name of Guttridge, on the oth-,of
August, 0f.5.01. that he, Guttridge, hadbiokrtn <bis
word to Mr. Whitbread, in the'following
'.---There was a bill-Of inclosure' brotight into tLe-
Heuse of Coinmotis, to inclose a:part of thst.Cbin
mon in the parish of Luton; Lord Rae" was the
Lord of the Manor; Guttridge, and' a person of the
name of ROSsifore, claimed a right Of way,oVer the
laud to'be inclosed.' It Was left to arbitration.
Mr. Whitbread lind Mr. Prat-riper were art-pointed
the' arbltrators. Mr: Whitbread came forward to
the pprties, and asked .them, would they agree to
. the award Which he held in his hand ?. They all said,
they would •be heund by it. On its being read,
Guttridge, who was dice of-.the parties who agsented
to the award; before he knew its.contents, Mune-,
diately refused to -comply-wir4 it:- • The Plaintiff
was steward to Lord Bute ; and on some argument.
I..;betwee.n• hilt and Gattridge, the wager .was rnade.
Tile Defendant was the stake-holder,. acid
.that the Plaintiff .bad lost,. and piid,-the,.t ottl. over
ti to Glittridge, on which the Plaintiff brought Ills
tion, and:got a verdia faVoar, T.tict iLimtd
Serjeant contended, that •Guttridge,, had not brolien
'his word, inasmuch as a man could not be held to
a promise, the 'nature of which he, knew nothing-
of. The award' did not go to setae the, ri.glit 'ot way
to the inclosure; but to the exchange of land between
Guttridg,e and RoSsinore.;" He begged it to, be un-'
derStood, that there was-.no blame attributed .to Mr
Whitbread ; so'far from it,. he was certain that that.
Gentlethau thought it was the best mode of settling,
the dispute between the parties:
The Court observed, they Would look into -Lord
Chief Jtistice Mahsfield's notes; -taken on the trial;
alter which they-would decide, whether -a Rule should
be granted or not: • . .

COURT OF CHANCERY, MorrnAy,-,Nov. 5.

WARD IN CHANCERY.

Mr: RICHA'RDS stated this. to be an. application in
Of•the 'Guardians of Miss Augusta Nieholson,
a Ward in Chancery, for the corntriittal of Mr. Giles,
with wbornittie young Lady bad eloped from Tun-
Vridge Wehs. The young Lady had berm restored
to her guardians by the' diligence of Mr. cart/ale,

who aacd as their. so-ricftor. Ti)eLerned Cnunsd said

lie held hi • Itis•hand an affidavit of a i'./frf2. StciAe, of
i N 0.37, Westmoreland place, Gif;,•-rviri, tated