The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-27 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

Mr. Justice WIGHTDIAN having during the early part of the
morning heard several motions of no public importance, after-
wards sat at Nisi Prins, and disposed of several undefended cases.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS

WOOD V MOREWOOD.

This was a case which came on for trial at the Derby As-
sizes of Michaelmas term last, before Chief Justice Tindal,
when a verdict was had for the plaintiff.
The Solicitor-General subsequently obtained a rule for anew
trial, and Mr. Hill was now heard on the part of the plaintiff,
to show cause why the rule for a new trial shou'd be set aside
After the Chief Justice had read his notes of the trial;,Mr.
Hint said that he would shortly state to the Court the., sub-
stance of the affidavits on which his Learned Friend, the So-
licitor-General had obtained, on the ground of surpr,ise, the
rule for a new trial, to set aside which he (Mr. Hill) now ap-
plied to the Court. Those affidavits stated that there. waS
rumour abreact from the commencement of this controversy,
between Wood and Morewood, that the claim,ed lands and
minerals never formed a part of the Zouch estate ; and in order
to test the accuracy of that report, the .slefendant, Morewocid,
filed a bill of discovery, and that the answer put into that bill
led the defendants astray, and confirmed them that the rumour
was correct, and that they did not, in consequence, investigate
the title farther back than th. 39th year of the reign of
Queen Elizabeth. The plaintiff said by his replication that
the lands in question did not pass by the settleMent of the
39th of Elizabeth, the defendant, on the conttarY, alleging
that they did so pass. That was the defendant's,ease on the
ground of surprise—a ground which he (Mr. H.) wouhrshow
did not or could not exist at all. The fifth plea -states( that -
Sir John Zouch was seised in fee of-certain lands anitninerals'
that in the 39th year of Elizabeth• he levied a fine infthe's'aitl
lands (which were mentioned in very general terms),-tlial re
covery was suffered, and that the minerals were settled for.the
use of Sir John Zouch in remainder to •his son. .At a,subse-
quent period, in the reign of James she First, the sort eon—
veyed the minerals to Morewood, and the question then was,
did those lands pass under the fine and recovery of 39th of Eliza-
beth. The Learned Counsel wFnt on to show that
the answer to those affidavits did not or could not mislead the
defendants. The answer was a true one, and would have led
any reasonable person to the belief that they (the plaintiffs)
claimed those lands as being once a portion of the Zonch estate.
and so far were the defendants from being ignorant that Zouch
was seised in fee, that the defendants themselves mentioned
tint that Zouch, afterwards Sir John Zouch, was,
seised in fee in the 39th year of Elizabeth; there was then, he
contended, nothing to complain of in the answer put in by the
plaintiff to the bill of discovery filed by Morewood, and con-
sequently the ground of surprise could not be sustained.
Their Lordships were applied to ow the ground of surprise,
which surprise consisted of two facts, first, that new facts had
been brought out, and second, that in consequence of their ig-
norance they had pleaded incongruously to their title. The
plaintiffs ought to have given up the order of reference; they ought
not to have amended it, but they ought to have given notice
of their intention to move for a new trial. Sir John Zouch
in the 30th of Elizabeth, passed all the lands :in his possession
to Adam Hare. How, then, could the same lands pass by
the fine and recovery in the 39th of Elizabeth ? Yet that was
the only ground upen which his Learned Friend could
stand before the Court. Under that fine and recover)
he contended that the minerals did not pass. But suppose his
Learned Friend were to give up that ground, and take the sale
made by John Zonch in the 15th James I. ' • but that would do
him no further good than the other. They were in pos-
session of proceedings in the Court of Chancery of the 41st
of . Elizabeth, by which it appeared that Mary Zouch, in
whom the property was, after the death of Sir John, was still
alive, although the clients of his Learned Friend had killed her
long before.
(The case was proceeding when we went to Press.)