The Sun.
London, England, 1823-07-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

' • COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 30.
EARL GROSVENOR AND T. EYTON V. JONES AND OTHERS.
Air. HART moved the Court to dissolve an Injunction ob.
tamed by the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants from working
certain coal-mines in the county of Flint.
The coals in question are claimed by Lord Grosvenor, as
Lord of the hlanor of Holywell, Falbrook, and Greenfield,
by grant of the said manor to his Lordship's ancestor,
Grey de Wilton, in the time of *lames I. ; and they are
also claimed by Sir Thomas Hanmer as Lord Paramount of
the Lordship of Englefield, which includes the township
of Greenfield, and the waste upon which the pits aid
shafts are sunk. It was contended in support of the motion,
that Earl Grosvenor could not he entitled to the coals under
his.grant, because the manor of Holywell was granted out of
the Royal franchises belonging to the Princes of Wales and
Earls of Chester, as long ago as the reign .of Edward 111.,
to the Abbot of Ilasingworth, With a reservation implied of
coals„ mines, and minerals, on account of which the Monks
regularly paid a sixth of the profits of the minerals to die
Crown. On the dinolution of the monasteries, the Crown re-
sumed its ownership, and the manor was again granted out
to the ancestor of the Noble Earl, in the same manner, and
upon the same conditions as those allthitsl to the Abbey. The
minerals and coals being in the condition of Royal liberties and
franchises, would not paes by any grant without express words.
—That they did not pass, the defendants,
.for further proof,
stated* king series of accoants, ip which Sir T. Hanmer hid
answered to the Crown for the coals and minerials as Lord of
Englefield ; notwithstanding which, his Lonkhip and his
tenant had ejected the defendant front working a coal-mine, of
which he had taken a lease from :fir T. Harmer, and obtained
an injunction to the same erect, which was now sought to be
dissolved.
Mr. SIIADWE LI. opposed the motion, and supported the in-
junction, on the ground that the township of Greenfield was
within the manor of the Noble Earl, and the coals and minerals
had been expressly reserved for him in an act for enclosing the
waste. It was also contended that the defendant had no right
to complain, as lie had taken his lease of Sir T. Hamner, long
after the plaintiff Eyton, had taken a lease of the same coal-
mines of Earl Grosvenor.
•
The !don't. CIIANCELLOR said, that Earl Grosvenor could
not be entitled to hold the coals, and only acsiount for them to
himself, in the face of direct evidence that. they belonged to
another manor.

The injunction was therefore dissolied, with an understand-
ing that Sir T. tlanmer must be prepared to account to the
Court for the profiticif the mines during the proceedings now
pending to try the rigiii.

tiCE-CHANCELLOIVS COURT, Jul.:r 30.
THE REV. J. STANLEY V. SOUTHERN%
This Was a motion that an attachment of contempt might
issue against the defendant for disobedience to an injunction of
the Court. It appeared that the plaintiff had obtained an in-
junction to restrain the defendint from carrying away hay,
straw, manure, &c. from a farm called Stanton of which
the plaintiff was the proprietor, and the defendant tenant. The
affidavits in support of the motion stated, that the defendant
had expressed his deterMination not • to obey the injunction,
and mentioned several occasions on which he had carried away
hay and manure from the farm.
The VICE CHANCELLOR. granted the order, after which tho
Solicitor for the defendant said, that affidavits in answer had
been sworn, but not filed, on account of the short time which
had elapsed since notice of the motion was given- The case
was then ordered to stand over, for the purpose of enabling
the Solicitor to file these affidavits.

EX-PARTE RARREVr IN THE. 3LATTER
Mr. DUCKWORTH stated, that this was a petition to the
Court to stay the Bankrupt's Certificate on an affidavit which
stated that he had ashort time before his bankruptcy given a
stun of 1,5001. to his daughter as a marriage, portion.
Mr. BELL and Mr. 3loNT.sout:, for the bankrupt, con.
tended that as the statute only made such a gift improper, on
proof that the bankrupt was at that time in a state of insolvency,
the petioner should have sworn to that fact. This he had not
done, and the provisions of the statute being highly penal should
be construed strictly.
The VicE-CirAwcruon a%ked whether this Court would
stay a certificate on an objection strictly legal ?
The Counsel On both sides were unprepared with authorities
on this point, and the ease stood over.