The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-23 00:00:00

!IALLETT V. VIGNE.

This was an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff against the
defendant, 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 sportsman, threw down the fence which sur-
rounded it 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 defendant pleaded that he was not liable at
law to make the plaintiff any compensation for what he had done,
because a forest lictnse 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 privileged to commit the act
which the plaintiff complained of.
The ATTORNHY-GENERA.L now moved this Court for an order' to'
have the pleadings which had been delivered in the case in 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 case involved a question affect-
ing the rights of the Crown, and no other Court but the Court 'of
Exchequer had jurisdiction over it.
Mr. WILLS, on the other side, admitted that the plaintiff claimed
the freehold of the close but denied that the case involved any ques-
tion affecting the rights of the Crown, because the plaintiff, while
he claimed the fee-simple of the land, did not deny the privilege of
the Crown to derive revenues from the close. Now, the right of the
Crown, therefore, to these revenues 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 was this—Did
the defendant, in throwing down the fence, do that which was justi-
fied by the privilege which the Crown had grantcd to him. Now he,
contended that he did not, for although the defendant had the pri-
vilege of hunting over the close, he 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-
ject and subject, and as the case was ready for trial, the Learned
Counsel humbly submitted that it would be an act of great injustice
to the plaintiff if the Court delayed the trial by acceding to the pre-
sent motion. -

Mr. M. CHAMBERS, on the same side, alluded to a number of cases
on the subject, and particularly to " Cawthorne v. Campbell," tried
before Mr. Justice Eyre, in which the law on the matter was fully
entered into. By that case it was laid down that where the Crown
cat interpose ita prerogative is an action between subject and sub•
ject, it should be shown that the Crown was immediately concerned
or interested in the case. A remote interest would not authorise the
Court of Exchequer to remove a case out of another Court.

The ArroaNA-GENERAL was abottttoteply, but he was stopind by

' The LORD CHIEF Baßox 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.Judgcs concurring in this opinion, the order for the re-
moval of the case from the Court of Common Pleas into this Court
was granted accordingly.

SECONDARIES.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary Jsmze.)
NEELAND V. 11AtTD.

This was 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 for that quarter.
Mr. CIIARNOCK, f,r the defendant, said that there might be many
grounds for leaving premises and absolving the tenant from liability.
This Was one of the cases. Ile should prove that the house 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. He, however, spoke to plaintiff as to the repairs, and
she promised to see to them, but on defendant taking possess:on, she
refused to perform her promise, but told defendant that she would
have her rent for that quarter, and he might then leave as soon as
he liked. _ .

Witw.s.ses were called to prove that statement, and the jury with-
out hositation gave a verdict for defendant.

RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS.

MANCHESTER, JAN. 22. -
gTOCN EXCHANGE.—The sales are —Bideford and Tavistock, dis.
c.—Blackburn, Clltheroe, Etc., % dis.--Chumet and Blythe, % die. c.
—Huddersfield and Manchester Railway and Canal, 7 p.—Lanca-
shire and North Yorkshire, p. c.—Leeds and Think, 1-16 p.—
Liverpool, Ormakirk, and Preston, 2% p.—Liverpool and Preston and
Manchester and Southport, 1 p.—London and Windsor, Bs. 6d. dis.—
Manchester and Birmingham, '77—Ditto, Quarters, 7% .p.—Ditto,
ditto, 7% p.—Manchester and Leeds Extension, 4% p.—Manchester
and Southampton, 1% p.—North Staffordshire, 4 p. —?forth I,Vestern,
p.--Nottingham and Boston, % p.—Sheffield and Lincolnshire
Juletion,3 p,e.—Sheffield and Manchester, Quarters, No. 3, 4 p.—
Shrewsbury and Birmingham, 1 11-16 p.—Trent Valley, 15% —Trent
Valley,. Midlands, &c,,'% p. •

LEEDS, JAW. 22.
STocit ExCirimsz.—The sales are—Manchester and Leeds Exten-
sions, 4% p.--Newcastle and Darlington Junction Extensions, 11 p. -
Sheffield and Manchester, Quarters, No. 3, 6%—East Lancashire, No.
2 (late Accrington), p.—Great Grimsby and Sheffield, 10%-
-Ditto, Extensions,
.15s. p.—lluddersfield and Shheffield, 22—Leeds
and Bradford,. 53 —North British, New Carlisle Branch, 3% —oxford,
Worcester, and Wolverhampton, 16—London and York, 4%—Liver-
pool, Ormskirk, and Preston, 41. 198.—West Riding Union, 6% —Am-
ifergate, Nottingham, and Boston, 12s. p.—Essex and Suffolk, ss.
dis.—Grand Union, 12s. 6d. p.--Leds, Wakefield, and Midland, 225.
p.—Leicester and Birmingham, ss. p.—Leicester and Bedford, IBs. p.
—Liverpool, Manchester, and Newcastle Junction, 4%—North
Western, 31. Is.--Shropshire Union, 7s. 6d. p.—York and Carlisle, 2%.