The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-16 00:00:00

LAW fsirFELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 14.
(Sittings in Banco.)
WOLLASTON V. HAKEWELL.
This was an action to compel an executrix to surrender
certain leasehold property in Middlesex.
Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS, for the defendant, obtained a
rule nisi for a nonsuit, on the ground that the defendant,
not having taken possession, under the will of her tes-
tator, was not liable. The Court held the case
over till this day, that their Lordships might have time to
go through the documentary evidence, in order to clear
the case of some of its intricacy, before they heard the
further argument.
Mr. Sergeant STEPHEN showed cause against the rule
at great length, and cited a number of cases, to es-
tablish the liability of the executrix, in consequence
of her having taken part in the assets, whereby she in-
curred a full liability ; and he also argued that the execu-
trix, by taking probate of the will, became in the condition
of assignee, so that it was not necessary for her to enter, in
order to make her liable in the same extent as the testa-
tor would have been. This extends at least as to repairs,
although, perhaps, not as to rent, except to so much as
the profits were adequate to.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that although the
Court had gone at great length into the consideration of
this part of the case, their Lordships' minds were not
wade up about it. They would therefore prefer to hear
all the arguments so far, before they proceeded with the
rest of the case.
Mr. 1341,Es then addressed the Court in support of Mr.
Sergeant Stephens's argument. The case was rendered
more complicated by the fact that the defendant is not
merely an executrix, but the executrix of an executor, her
immediate testator having been the survivor, and Bakewell
and Boardman joint executors to a previous testator,
from whom the premises in question were demised.
Mrs. Elakewell might have avoided the liability
at present alleged, if she had renounced the exe-
cutorship of the remote testator, aid accepted only
that of her immediate testator, who was her father.
There had been evidence on the trial that Harce-
well, the first executor, entered, inasmuch as he paid the
ground-rent.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE There is no proof that this
was not paid out of the assets. To show that he entered
it was necessary to prove that he had under tenants, and
took the rents.
The further argument was then postponed, and the
Court rose at two o'clock.

COURT OFF XCHEQUER, Nor. 14.
(Sittings in Banco.)
SWEETING V. ASPLIN.
This case was tried before Mr. Baron Gurney at
the Assizes for Essex, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiff. Mr. Platt, early in the term, had obtained a
rule nisi for a new trial.
Cause was shown against the rule by Messrs. Thes•
siger and Gurney.
It appeared that the defendant entered into an agree-
ment with a person named Rolland to build a new
house upon a farm rented by him from the Corporation
lof Henley ; the plaintiff, by an under-agreement, was
1 to perform all the carpenter's and plumber's work un-
I tier Rolland, to be paid out of the money to be paid
Ito Rolland by Mr. Asplin. The Learned Counsel for
Ithe plaintiff contended that the agreement was binding
upon the defendant ; while Mr. Ogle, for the defend-
( ant, contended that the contract was between the
plaintiff and Rolland, and that the latter was the party
liable, the defendant merely saying that he would pay
the plaintiff the money due to him, upon his bringing
a proper discharge, which was one from Rolland.
Mr. Baron PARKE was of opinion that the rule
ought to be made absolute. The plaintiff ought not to
have sued for work and labour done ; his remedy was
to bring his action upon the contract between them.
The other Learned Barons were of the same opi-
nion, and the rule was made absolute.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT, Not. 14.
_ ..

GRANT AND HODSON V. THE BLACKWALL RAILWAY

COMPANY.
(Before the RECORDER and Special Juries.)
This was a claim for compensation for lease, loss by
removal, &c., from premises, 32, Crutched-friars, re-
quired by the Blackwell Railway Company.
The particulars and award of the jury for the free-
hold of these premises have already appeared. The
present claimants are the occupiers.
Mr. Thesiger, Mr. Randall, and Mr. Bullock, were
counsel for the claimants ; aad Mr. M. D. Hill and
Mr. Ryland for the Company.
The claim was—for lease, 400/. ; fixtures, 1931. ;
total, 59:3/.
Mr. THESIGER stated the claims for loss and da-
mage by removal, when
Mr. Hint. said he thought he might save the Court
some time by conferring with his Learned Friend.
The Learned Counsel having consulted for a short

time,
Mr. HILL stated to the Court that the Company had
consented to a verdict for 291/. 9s.
The RECORDER then directed the jury to assess
the damage as follow :—Fixtures, 1411. 9s. ; loss, da-
mage, &c., 1501.; total, 291/. 9s. —Verdict accordngly.
cUMMINGa AND OTHERS V. TILE SAME.
This claim was for two freehold houses, Nos. 37 and
38, •Crutched-friars, let at 1401. a year.
Mr. Bullock was for the claimants, and Mr. M. D.
Hill and Mr. Ryland for the Company.
After a long conversation between the Learned
Counsel on either side, and Mr. Tite, the surveyor to
the Company,
Mr. HILL said the Jury would in this case, by con-
sent of all parties, give a verdict for 2,9601., being for
the fee of the two houses in question.
Verdict for 2,960/. The claim was for 5,000/.
SANDERSON AND OTHERS V. THE SAME.
Mr. Platt, Mr. Randall, and Mr. Bullock, were for
the claimants, and Mr. M. D. Hill and Mr. Ryland
for the Company.
This was for a compensation for two freehold houses,
Nos. 9 and 10, Hart-street, Mark-lane. The claim
was 3,000/.
Mr. PLATT said that the plaintiffs in this case were
the trustees of this freehold property for charitable
purposes, and it was their duty to see that the charity
lost nothing by any act or connivance of theirs. He
should have been glad if some arrangement could
have been made with the speculators in this Com-
pany, but as they were desirous to get property
as cheap as possible for their own benefit, this, it was
feared, could not be accomplished, and it was necessary
to have the verdict of a Jury before the property was
given up. He need not tell them of the value of freehold
property in the City of London ; it was sought after as
the very best investment in which to speculate. He
should call before them surveyors of the first respecta-
bi;ity, who would prove the great value of this property.
One of them, Mr. Reed, a member of the Society of
Friends, estimated it to be worth 3,000/. In 1829,
the rent of the premises on lease was only 103/., but
since that time the value had been greatly increased, and
they were re-let at 120/. It would be shown to them that
the fair value of this property was at the least 120/.
a-year clear, and that to pay only 4 per cent, would
produce exactly 3,0001. And he was quite sure that in
estimating the damage these trustees would sustain by
the taking of this property, they would give such com-
pensation as would prevent injury to the charity, the be-
nefit and prosperity of which it was their duty, as well
as desire, to protect as far as in their power.
A number of surveyors were examined relative to the
value of the property, when—
The jury consulted for ten minutes, and found for the
plaintiff for damages to the amount of 2,6001.

EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE.—vuring
the overflow of the river Creedy last week a young otter
was driven into a garden-plot at Newton St. Cyres, where
it was observed by a terrier bitch with a litter of puppies.
The bitch immediately made at and caught the otter, ,and
brought it in her teeth to her own progeny, among which
it tow remains comfortably domesticated, being treated
quite as one of the family. The otter took to •suckling not
ten minutes after it was with its adopted mother. This
extraordinary freak of nature may now be seen at the
house of Thomas Moore, carpenter, in the villogc.-
IVesiern Luminary.