The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-24 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 23.

HALLEV. VIGNE.
This was an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff against the
defemidant, to recover compensation in damages for the injury he had
received, by reason of the defendant having illegally thrown down
one of the fences on his property. The plaintiff was the occupier of
a close on the borders of Waltham Forest ; and the defendant, who
was a distinguished sportsmen, threw down the fence which Sur-
rounded lt, while he was engaged in one of his hunting excursions.
The plaintiff feeling himself greatly injured and aggrieved by this
act, instituted the present action In the Court of Common Pleas, to
compel the defendant to make him some compensation in the shape
of damages for the committal of what he considered an illegal and
wrongful act ; but the dethmalant pleaded that he was not liable at
law to make the plaintiff any compensation for what he had done,
because a forest lltense to hunt, hawk, and fish in and about the
neighbourhood of Waltham Forest had been granted to hint by the
Crown, and by that license he was prtVileged to commit the act
which the plaintiff complained of.
The ATTORNET-GENEIIAL now moved this Court for an order to
have the pleadings which had been delivered in the cane el the
Court of Common Pleas removed into this Court, on the ground that
the close was not the fee-simple of the plaintiff, but of the Crown,
which the plaintiff controverting the me Involved a question affect
ing the rights of the Crown," and Ito other Court but the Court of
lexelsequer had jurisdiction over it.
Mr. Wita.s, on the ether side, admitted that the plaintiff
time freehold of the close but deeied that the case'involvtel ell}' ques-
tion affecting the rights of the Crown, became the plaintiff," while
lie claimed the fee-simple of the land, did test deny the privilege 'of
the Crown to derive revenues from the Close. Now, the right of the
Crown, therefore, to these revettUeS not being in the slightest degree
involved in the case, there Was only one other ground which would
justify its removal into this Court, and that ground wee this----ePid
the defendant, In throwing down the fence, do that width Wite fled by the privilege which the Crown had ensiled he hilt. Now he
jllstl-
contended that he (lid not, for although the defendant had the pri-
vilege of hunting over the close, ho had no right to injure the fences
attached to it. The case, then, did not in any way involve the pre-
rogative of the Crown, but simply a question of right between sub•
Sect and eubject, and as the case was ready fer trial, the lieltened
Counsel humbly submitted that it would be an act of great injustice
to the plaintiff if the Court delayed the trial h Receding to the pre-
sent motion.
Mr. M. CHAIM/IRS, on the earn* ekle, alluded to a number of eases
on the subject, and partiettkerly to "Cawthorne v. Campbell," tried
before Mr. Justice VAyee, in which the law on the matter was fully
entered into. by that case it was laid down that Where the Crown
can interpose Its prerogative to an action between subject and sub-
ject, ft should he shown that the Crown was immediately concerned
or interests(( in the m. 0.. A remote Interest would not authorise the
Court of Excites:Mee to remove a case out of another Court.
Thee ATTitttNtr-GENERAL was about to reply, but he was stopped by
The Loan CHIEF ltaaoe, who said it was quite clear that the
Crown was interested in the case, and of course, as the Court of
Exchequer was the only Court which had jurisdiction in it, the mo-
tion must be granted.

The other judges concurring In this opinion, the order for the re-
moval of the case from the Court of Common Pl-as Into this Court
was granted accordingly.

SECOIV.DARIES' COURT, Jan. 23.
(Ilefore Mr. Secondary Jemes.)

NEELAND V. MAUD.
'hits an action to recover the sum of 71. for a quarter's rent..
The defendant said that he was net indebted.
Mr. Atkinson, the attorney for the plaintiff, said that, In his opi-
nion, the case was simple, although a Learned Counsel appeared to
support the defence. The fact was, the defendant had occupied a
house in Barclay-street, Somers town ; and, in January, 1845, defen-
dant having refused to pay, a distress was put in for 71. for one quar-
ter's rent. The amount was paid; and, therefore, there could be no
doubt as to the amount of the rent. It would be shown that the de-
fendant remained in the house after the quarter-day, and was, conse-
quently, liable for the rent !iv that quarter.
Mr. UHARNOCK, f ,r the defendant, said that there might be many
grounds for leaving premises and absolving the tenant horn liability.
This was one of the cases. Ile should prove that the ?tense had been
let to a previous tenant, who had used it for improper purposes.
Defendant was not aware of it at the time, nor that the place was
out of repair. Ile, however, spoke to plaintiff es to the repairs, and
she promised to set to them, but on defendant taking possession, she
refused to perform her promise, but teal defendant that she would
have her rent for that quarter, and he might then leave as soon as
he liked.
Witn-saes were called to prove that statement, and the jury with-
out hesitation gave a verdict for defendant.