The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-22 00:00:00

IN RE SAME.

This was a petition on the part of Mr. Bolton, praying for
the costs of the petition as well as the costs of taxation.
Lord LANGDALE considered the petitioner entitled to an
order to the effect required, which he would accordingly
make.

The hearing of these petitions occupied the greater part of
the day, and the remaining petitions were quite uninteresting.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jon. 21.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of EN ;LIND. )
THE MAYOR OF LOUTH V. THE WARDENS OF LOUTH FREE
SCHOOL.
The arguments in this case were resumed, and occupied the
Court the whole day.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WpanAm.)
PARSONS V. SPOONER.
It will be remembered that the plaintiff, the projector of,
and solicitor to, the Southampton, Manche-ter, and Oxford
Railway, instituted the suit to establish a lien on the depo-
sits of the shareholders, and that the cause was heard on
demurrer by the defendant.
His Hosoun, this morning, overruled the demurrer in the
usual terms.

BAIL COURT, Jan. 21.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
TIIE QUEEN V. THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE CITY ►ND BO-

ROUGH OF LICHFIELD.

Sergeant TALFOURD moved for a rule to show cause why
an attachment should not issue against Charles Simpson for
disobedience of an order of this Court. This was a prosecu-
tion. by way of mandamus, on the part of Mr. Simpson,
against the Town Council of Lichfield, commanding them to
make compensation for the loss the applicant had sustained
by being deprived of his office of town-clerk. It appeared,
however, that he had been dismissed for misconduct,
and was not, therefor% entitled to any compensation.
The rule for a mandamus was made absolute,
and the return to it alleged a disobedience of its
order. The claimant had traversed the return, and the case
came on for trial at the last Stafford assizes. Before the
period appointed for the trial the order on which this ques-
tion arose had been made. Although the claimant had been
dismissed from his office, he had thought proper to retain in
his possession all the memoranda and books belonging to the
Town Council. As it was considered necessary for the de-
fence of the mandamus that an inspection of these papers,
with the view of making extracts, should be allowed, an
application was made to Mr. Justice Wightman, who ordered
that full opportunity for inspection should be allowed. This
order had been so worded, that when the case came for trial
Lord. Denman had postponed trial in consequence
until the following assizes. Since that time various eni.ea-
Yours had been made to persuade Mr. Simpson to comply
with the order, but without success. An application was,
therefore, made last term to Mr. Justice Patteson for an at-
tachment against Mr. Simpson, but, although Mr. Justice
Wightman's order had been made a rule of Court, it bad not
been served, and Mr. Justice Patteson thought that, under
the circumstances, an attachment could not issue. The rule
bad since been served, and as the order was still disobeyed,
the present application was made.—Rule granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 21.
(Sittings in Banco.)

THE MARQUIS OF BUTE V. SIR JOHN GUEST.
This was a special case sent by the Court of Chancery for
the opinion of the Learned Barons of the Court of Exchequer.
It would appear that the Marquis of Bute some time ago let
on lease a piece of land, in Staffordshire, to Sir John Guest,
the defendant, for the term of 61 years, and a covenant in the
lease provided that the lessee was to erect premises on the
piece of land suitable and proper for carrying on the business
of a glass manufactory, and gave him power to alter or en-
large such premises so often as the exigencies or necessity of
the trade might require. The lessee took possession of the
property, and in due course built the glass manufactory, in
strict accordance with the terms of the lease. The building
had a frontage to a canal, which was also the property of the
noble lessor, and the canal was made available for the
conveyance of the glass to the market. The speculation,
however, turned out to be a failure, and the lessee abandoned
the manufacture of glass, and the premises were now unoc •
cupied, and fast falling into decay. The noble lessor, finding
that the traffic on his canal fell off after the abandonment of
the premises, applied to Sir John Guest to resume the manu-
facture of glass, alleging that, by the terms of the lease, he
had no right to give it up till the term of his tenure had
expired; but the lessee controverted this construction of the
instrument, and the result was, the parties mutually agreed
to refer the matter to an eminent conveyancer, who subse-
quently gave his decision in favour of the noble lessor, and
awarded that, by the terms and provisions of the lease, the
lessee was bound to carry on the trade of a glass manufac-
turer, whether he lost or gained by it. The lessee, being still
of his original opinion, carried the case into the Court of
Chancery, and equity referred it to the Barons of the Ex-
chequer for their opinion.
Mr. Woon; of the Chancery bar, accordingly now ap-
peared to support the case of the Marquis of Bute, and urged
that as the lease was granted for the express purpose of en-
abling the lessee to build and carry on a glass manufactory
on the piece of land in question, there could hardly be a
doubt that it was intended that the lessee should carry on the
trade of a glass manufacturer till the expiration of the lease.
In the cases of Webb v. Plummer, Samson v. Eastbury, Soul-
ton v. Houston and others, it was ruled by Chief Justice Hol-
royd and other eminent judges, that when the terms and
covenants of a lease lead to the impression that the parties
contemplated at the time of granting the lease the carrying
on of a particular trade or business, and although this inten-
tion was not expressly stated in the instrument,
the lessee was bound to carry on such trade or
business. Now when this lease was made, it was
evidently contemplated that the land would always be used,
aad without any interruption, for the purposes of a glass
manufactory, and therefore he contended that the lessee had
been guilty of a breach of covenant in abandoning the
works. The land was let at the reduced rate of 30/. per
annum, not because that was the real value of it, but be-
cause the carrying on of a glass manufactory on the spot
would increase the traffic on the lessor's canal, and the lease
never could have been granted had it been contemplated
that the lessee was to be at liberty to abandon the trade
before the sixty-one years expired.
Mr. Cnosnsrox rose to address the Court for the other side,
but he was stopped by
The LORD CIIIEF BARON, who intimated that he could not
see by what rule of construction the terms of the lease could
be said to bind the defendant to carry on the manufacture of
glass during the whole period of sixty-one years, if such
manufacture was an unprofitable one. The intention of the
parties was that the concern should be a profitable one, and
if it was not it was absurd to suppose that the defendant was
bound to carry it on for the term of sixty-one years at a loss.
The case must be remitted back to the arbitrator with the
instruction of the Court.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON and Mr- Baron PLATT concurred;
and the case will be sent to the arbitrator for his re-con-
sideration.