The Sun.
London, England, 1815-12-08 00:00:00

LA'\V IN.rELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY,
• WA-RD IN CTIANCI::IIY..., •
, ‘• w.ADF, V. scamyri,.N.
The Lunt) Qt-iascELLo.4,, on his
coming into Court this day, said he. read Mr.
Brougbton!s affidavit laSt tiled in this cause, and "
on the face of it could see no act on whieh it
could be alleged that a contempt of Court had
been committed 'by:.any of the. parties, between
the 24th Pecendier, the day the bill was filed, and
the 25th of the saute month, the day Miss Wade ••
was recovered out of -the hands of Mr. Bazeley.
Looking at the whole circumstances therein de-
tailed, he could nut but regatd it as, one of the
foulesteintspiracies he bad ever witnessed; and
as such he•should riot conceive he discharged_ hi;
duty, if he did not hand the matter over to the
Attwney-General, to. be by hint proceeded in as
he should thildt proper. But, that .the parties
*h, pct e not before, ltis Lordship might have an
onortunity of answering -the affidaVit; if th.lr
should thi;dt proper; he ordered the . matter• to
stand dyer till Monday next. . •
- MAIIN. -WOOD, BNRT. Z 7. oitirerrirs. •
. SA MUF.L Rolkatt.LY moved;iihat the-"petition
of4ippeal in this.eause might .he eAen off. the file
thr irreolarity, It wits an-appeal froin'ne decree
of-the Mtister of the Rollsovhich !ilia turned
on the constrktion of altarticular instrument re-
s-liectiug ' the purchase or an. estate; The Learned
Co.ausel contended, that the petition could not he
'refeivel, because it introduced new matter;
and 2(ily,:ffnit a -decree by consent could not be
appealed-front, .Both these points had -been long
established: -
1111-.. Coo :Ft. followed - on-.the.sarne
tbe the•latter point -.ltad,-been deter-
' thivect by ilte flouse..of Lords. There" has; how-
'. -ever, another objection.t.o.thi-i "petition namely,
tliat-it lord not i-hceu. presented in time. By a
Idtile of Covrt, dato Jhly 9, it:was order-
-cd:; that.; ail -petitions it) aßpeal front his }lonour
tti vfaster,of the should he presented. within
oat i5i44(1.1 eta-the w 0.5 runounced.

Cnis rile remainctl h force, and he was not atrar;
that it hod been reversed, it must be fatal to the
present petition:
Mr. IlAtt'r, as Counsel for Mr. Griffith, the
anncllant. contended, that the petition contained
-no fact which did not form- psrt of the Original
record ; and he was not aware, that a suitor could
preclude .11-ittaself from appealing against-a decree,
by submitting to proceedings .in the master's
fire. lie certainly did not collie prepared to_ an-
s,..fer the .ohjvction in point of time; lout he be-
lieved, that no instance could he found where- his
.Lordship, or his predeces2ors, had heard an appeal
within, a month after the decree.
Mr. S PRANGE:II, on the same side, suggested,
that, as the ot der had been so often dispensed
with, it must now be considered as obsolete.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY certainly conceived that
the order had never been acted upon, and, there;-
"fore, he had not mentioned it ; but it stood among
the rules of the Court. .

. _
The LORD CHANCELLOR desired to see the—de-
cree, the petition in appeal, and the order.—
Judgment postponed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCI-I, DEc. 7.
-
Duzzv mooilF.. -

This was an action brought .by Colonel Dory,
of Hadley Green, in " the county 9f. Middlesex,
against Peter. Moore, Esq. M. P. for having, as
Lord of the• Manor. of the. said Green, .ioclosed
several acres thereof,. and. thereby deprived the
plaiiniff, and other inhabitants who had a common
right, of the benefit of pasturage: Several old
Inhabitants were called, who proved; that {or• the.
last 60 or 70 years the right of common on Rad-
ley Green bad never been q►►estioned until the
spring of the present year, when the defendant
had inclosed with ,ditches and mounds of earth
about 18 acres. In addition tolthese proofs a (iced
was put in, subscribed by Mr. Moore, as Well as
other occupiers in the neighbourhood of the cOrn-.
Mon, in which the right of pasturage to all was
distinctly recognized. -- .
It wag attempted to be urged on the part of
Mr. Moore, tl►at the inclosm es complained .ot
were merely -mounds of earth thrown :ipsfor the
purpose .of planting trees, and that independent
of this, the property in the soil was in the Lord
of the Manor, and had been o ever since:l667.
Under the circumstances or the case, however,
tbe 'proofs adduced.of the uninterrupted ..e.njoy7
meat Of common right for so many year,, and the
admission of the existence of that right by the cle-
fe►idant'himself in the deed which he had sub-
scribed,

Tiord ELLEN BOROUGH held that there-was not
igrOund for defence, and as .for he apology which
was made for.t he inelosnres whichhatAlaken
the' Lord of the Manor had no right to;alter in Ow
slightest degree, or to throw any ippeditneoth
tvhate'ver in the way of the-free !exercise of. pls•
turoge.Verdict for the plaintilf—Damages Is.
costs 403.