The Sun.
London, England, 1815-02-08 00:00:00

KNIGHT V. ATKINS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this
case. The cause came before the MASTER of the
ROLLS, who made a decree in 1811, declaring the
Defendant, a Lady, was to be considered only
tenant for life of certain tenements andakeredita-
ments in the county of Norfolk. The son of this
Lady pave, by, will, the whole of his estates in
Norfolk to her, under the condition, that-after
his death.she should demise the property to his fa-
mily.; and the rinestion was, whether, under the
terms of the will, site could' be considered as
standing in a different character from that 'of a
person t, ho had no more than a life inte!.est in the
property ? Lordship, in a most luminous judg-
ment, citing the hiv decisions as applicable, and
eNprcssing a wish -that the qtresti,,in could be cur-
rivd to the bat of the Lords for the advantage of
the opinion of the higher authorities, decided,
with sonic reservation, that.he'Couid not
disturb the ticcrce made by the •Master of the
Rolls.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 7. ,
CILIRGE Of M
Edw. Carnkli and H. Olger were brought up,
in custody of the Keeper Pahnouth Jail, in vir-
tue of a ',Writ-of Habeas Copora, Orecta to hint

for that purpose,- In order that they might be ad-
witted to Bail, on a charge of Murder,
The ATTURNEY:-Gt:Neam., thought it necessary
to acqoaint the Court, that in Ihe-notiee. of ser-
vice of t he' present, rule on the Widow ni-e•the de-
ceased, the names of the intended Bail had been
omitted by mistake, but he understood, though
ample tithe had been allowed.l4 that purpose,
there was no oppositionao them, lie did riot lenow
in these circumstances, whether the Court would
be of opinion that this emission was a sufficient
reason for delaying the liberation of these (odor-
Junate men. '
The Court were of opinion, the Bail nut being •
objected to, thaethe return to the ‘Vritmight now
be read.l
The evidence consisted of the depositions' of
Edward Kemp, the elder, and Edw. Kemp, the
younger, before the Coroner; who proved, that
on the evening of the 7th December last' they
were in a small boat, in company with Thomas
James, deceased, between St. Mawes and Fltish-7
in Cornwall, when they perceived a larger
boat, in which there were four men, followed as
if in pursuit.of them: The men in the larger boat
called out to those in the smaller boat, and, almost
at the same moment, a musket was fired -out of
the larger boat into the smaller. The amen in
the smaller boat did-not in the smallest degree en-
•dcavour to avoid the larger boat, but immediately
explained that they had nothing on board, remon-
•strating at the same time against the wanton con-
-duct of thosein the larger'boat,M"firing upon them.
One of the persons in the larger boat, who had
a musket in his hand, on this said, that his name
was Painter, that he was a King's Officer, and
that he was not ashamed of his'name. The larger
boat. was then about to separate, when Thomas
James, the deceased, complained .that he was
wounded. The witnesses accordingly called out
to the men in the larger boavfor assistance, tell-
ing them that they had'killed a man ; but of this
they took no notice. The elder Kemp bad the
deceased carried 'home for -that night to, his
house, who're surgical -aid was mantled him,
but he died next day about eleven o'clock.—
Mr. Cornish, a Surgeon, proved that he visit-
ed the deceased Ow the evening the disaster
took place, and. found hint rather easy., .but
when he called again to see him on the follow-
fag day,: before 12 o'clock, lie was no more. 'Oa
' exainining the body, be fonnd that a musket-ball
had entered a little above time navel, and had Come
mit at the back. The-wound movm the cause of
James's death. This was the purport of the
whole of the evidence before the Coroner ; and
there was nothing whatever to implicate the two
prisoners in the transaction except what was to
be found in two depositions afterwards taken be-
lore a Magistrate on the 10th day of the same
month—one of them by :Richard Kemp the elder,
is whieb he declares, that on the morning of the
9th _December he heard the prisoner, (garnish,
who is a yeoman, acknowledge that be was one
of the unfortunate men who were in the boat with
Painter, at the tithe he fired the musket ; and the
other by a person named John Finlay, who swore
that he heard the other prisoner, Henry Ddger,
who is a locker, acknowledge that he was one of
.the persons who were in the boat with Painter,
and that he-was sitting in the stern of the boat at
the time Painter fired.the musket.
The Court, in these circumstances, ordered the
two prisoners to be liberated on. bail, and they
weie accordingly discharged on entering into re-
cognisances to appear and take'their trial for the
offence imputed to thein, themselves in 2001. and
four sureties in 501. each.
et:st-Ants v. BAYNES, CLERK.
This was a case of some importance to. lay ;tn.-•
propriators and vicars. '.r he plaintiff, who is im-
propriator of Soniersham, in the county of Hun-
tingdon, brought an action of trespass against the
defendant, who is vicar of the parish, for seizing
:his goods till he paid him a sani -of money.
Jhedefenclant pleaded a justification under an
ovder •of .the Quarter Sessions, for augmenting h
corn-rot.payable to him by the impropriator, •It appeared that by au Act of I.!arliatnent for
inclosing the parish,. the
.Commuissioners were'di-
eected to fix a sum of nnoney to
.he paid to the.
vicar ra iieht of snhalf tithe:se and that fir 14 v:en•s
after the exec ntion of their award, this might be
raised by the Quarter_ Sessions according. to the
overage•priee Of wheat. lii the year 179
••

• •.'„ • .
ommrsttotters nxen tuts stun oy n 7,(tr:pr,rml.- nr-
der, but they did not .make their Rward till the
yrar 1602. In the year 1813 the Quarter Ses -
'sit's made nu order 'to raise the conr•rent., t;-bich
the plaintiff contended was illegal, and refused to
obey. The question was, whether the 1-1 year:,
Were to run from Coe counnencemen't of the con-
tract,
.or from the execution of the sward.

113 r. CAMPBELL at•gued against the order of SeS'-
sions, and Mr. MA allY A,T iilStippOrt 'Of it.
Lord ELL'ENBO46UGII said, the hest antilor4y
upon this subject was Coc%iir's Arithmetic. The
award having been made in the year 802,, there
could be no application for an.angmentation of
the corn rent till the year 1816. The Court cool,'
not alter the words of the Act of Parliament, and,
listen 'to conjectural aegutticntsiis to what miglh
be fair. between -the Vicar and linpropriator. The
average of 14 years would certainly be lower when
the year 1816 arrived than if it had been, taken in
the year 1813 ; but he did not know that any in-
justice Would on that account be d(one'between
the parties.
The other Judges expressed a similar opinion,
and gave judgment for the .plaintiff.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.