The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-20 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY.--(THIS DAY

IN RE LONG, AN INFANT.
Mr. MONRO appeared for the petitioner, the raga'
father of the infant Anne Isabella Long, upon a petition
n
which prayed that an order made by his LordsbilltUed
the 2d inst., might be discharged. The petition sta
that the infant was the daughter of the late Mr. Robert P.
Long, of Old Windsor, and the present Mrs. StiodY.,;
that she was now eleven years of age, and entitled id
about 5,0001., now standing in the three and three sus
a half per cents. on her marriage, or attaining 21 Year„
of age ; that in the settlement under which she beat
entitled to the property there was a proviso entitling At 4
mother to receive 60/. a year, while the infant was tt.,u'i
ten years of age, and afterwards 1001 to be applied
the support and education of the young lady. That, ;it
mother had intermarried with J. Sandys, a solicitor; °ice
had been referred in August last to the Master to irigl°,,
what bad been and ought to be expended in the educat'°l
&e. of Mi s Long, and under which reference the In°,tb,be.
had carried in a state effects claiming to be appointed
guardian. That on the second of this month the 00°
had obtained an order by surprise from the Court, 81);
pointing her to be the guardian, which had put a 110 nj
the further proceedings before the Master. That Mr*l7ta
Mrs. Sandys were in a state of great poverty, and got,
unable in that respect to take proper care of the jottlrr:
and that there was reason to believe the payments V;
Sandys bad heretofore received on account of Miss
bad been forestalled, and the money applied to other rthe
poses. The present petitioners prayed, therefore, rhat-f,
order of the 2d might be discharged, and that the P`f,er
tioner might he at liberty to propose himself as the ptOr
person to be the guardian.
Y
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know if A °e,
Counsel appeared on the other side, and if they were Pt
pared to support the order now sought to be discharged
,1
Mr. PEPYS was on the other side. He was prep 10°,
with affidavits answering all the statements of the petitd
The question was, whether the affidavits being now ww i,
the Court would enter into the merits, or whetber
would direct that the proceedings should go on before the
Master. He was not anxious that the proceedings 106):
the Master should be superseded. It was not e'-f:
rectly stated in the petition that the order apP°l_,.%
rig Mr-. Sandys to be the guardian had been made Or
her petition—it was upon the petition of the Infant b:
herself. It was natural of course that the mother oh _Let
infant should he appointed to the guardianship, there VI
nothing said or imputed against her. He (Mi. P.) hi
no objection to the Court directing that all proceedl
under the order now complained of should be suspend
and that the Master should proceed in the usual 97°11
tinder the refetence that had already been made to hi",'
By this course, the expense of a new order heresfl
confirmatory of the Master's report, appointing Mrs.
the guardian, would be avoided should the Master (013°

counsel firmly believed he would) make such report.
os
The LORD CHANCELLOR, after a short converset%f
between himself and the Bar upon the expediencY
getting rid for the present of the order in that wilYt ct
rested that it shoul,l be so ; but as to directing the Alae;
to receive the claim of the grandfather to be the guard's 1
the Court could not interfere with the terms of the gene:(l
hr
order, under which the reference in the first instance "
been made.
00
Air. AloNao said the mother had taken away the yo 11 ,
00,
lady, and wished to know if his Lordship would give
direction as to her restoration ?
'teed

Mr. PEPYS knew nothing about that, and submit
;he Court was not in a condition to enter into it.

The Loan CHANCELLOR was of the same opinion•

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

Vein
"
Ltite

A

th,
I'u°
Abe
4. I'

HANBURY V. LITCHFIELD.
01°
Mr. BICKERSTETH and Mr. KOE appeared in
for the plaintiffs, Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, Buxton. Sio
Co., and the bill was filed for the purpose of havioghol
account taken of the sums of money which they "onti
expended in buildings on the premises in question, to
that they might be sold to pay what should appear &egg
them on that account. It appeared that in the years
and 1830 the defendants were entitled to a certain P°l3 of
house, situate in Ealing, in the county of Middlese%Pee,
which the plaintiffs were desirous of becoming the lOot
and accordingly it was agreed between the parties that ,t
plaintiffs, Messrs. Hanbury and Buxton, should 14,.°0
1,0001. in rebuilding or repairing the public-house se!).lics
then stood on the premises, in consideration for rf' of
they were to receive a lease for 31 years, at the rent
60/., payable quarterly. The plaintiffs having perortPtb,
their part of the agreement, and expended 1,0401., t 0
of
satisfaction of a surveyor appointed by the defendants, t",.,
applied for the stipulated lease according to the terms of l;
original contract. While discussions were going on as t° s t
precise terms on which the case should be settled, it Witt
out that the property in question was copyheld, and tui
it was contrary to the custom of the manor, of which le
was held, to grant leases for more than twenty'°,,,,°
years. The plaintiffs, however, having contracted for wt,
term of 31 years absolutely, insisted, as the defeodalit'
could not specifically perform their part of the agreenie°o
that it should be entirely abandoned, and delivered 09,4
be cancelled ; and the present bill was filed for t`"
purpose. the
Mr. PEatBERTON and Mr. BARBER appeared °ribs
other side, and expressed their astonishment that 8°°.0,,
bill, considering the character of the present pleint'oo
should be brought to a hearing in a Court of justice. the
its appearing that the Lord of the manor, of wh°t° for
property in question was held, could not give a licenteoti
a lease of more than 21 years,: the defendant' of.
offered to give them a lease of the premises for tivelifor
one years, with a covenant for a renewal sibs
the expiration of that term for a farther lease, °role
remainder ; which, however, had been refused hi pie
plaintiffs, although such a course amounted in 50400
to what had been originally contracted for, and WO ;lot
conformable to the custom which prevailed in the tioo
of the Ealing manorial copyholds. There was no ()hie° ti•
ere
on the part of the defendant's giving any proper o°, 00,
cation for the difference between the terms of the ilthe
In fact, the eagerness of the plaintiffs to get quit ° ress
agreement was only to be accounted for by the °„sliC
depreciation which had taken place in the value of P,"tbit
houses, and particularly to brewers, in consequenct °ll,OO
passing of the celebrated Beer Bill. No rent had erer
paid for the premises. It was submitted that the Pll. #
were not entitled to the relief now sought by their lint;00
all events they were not entitled to an equitable lie,
the property, and to have it sold in order to reit°
their outlay. flij°
His HONOUR said it appeared that at the tin:leo hid
treaty for the lease in question, one of the plaintiff' oe
been apprized that the premises were copyhold, held it
manor of Ealing. Accord ng to the custom of the ino°d
turned out that license for a lease could only be granted for
the term of 31 years, and not as originally contracts
thirty-one years. If there was no want of due Vie(
on the part of the plaintiff, it would i a case ° the
evremely embarrassing nature. It would be bard °r d
defendants, who were perhaps not in a situation to '
1,0401., to compel them to find that sum, in ot°,s
r 00
reimburse the plaintiffs for what they had exper° ittit;
the premises. But the Court was not put into that °tie
Lion of difficulty. The plaintiffs having, through °d, bt!7
their firm, go• notice that the premises were copyh°l cool'
of the manor of Ealing, and therefore that there As'
be no lease given by the defendants, except such Olt i"
warranted by the custom of that manor, inigb,;fot°
the exercise of common discretion and caution, vi o"
they had proceeded to lay out so large a sum of 110°°:,
the property, ascertained that the longest term forf 01,
a lease could be given was twenty-one years.
was now offered to them, therefore, namely a hie so?
for 21 years and a covenant for a renewal for the ret°,,,er,
of the term, did not substantially secure all the odes, 012,.
the original contract, they had occasioned their ovali ,
cat,l
rassment by not exercising due prudence and
by making the necessary inquiries in the ease. 00
the circumstances, all that the plaintiffs could reer4
require was that compensation should be given ilOOOlOO
of any difference in value which might be oafs.' oo ,e
consequence of the difference there might be bet° 4010
term originally contracted for, and that which theigiov
dants could POW give, in consequence of the Cor, 00
which was laid on them by the custom of the man for 0, "is
A reference was then directed to the Mastertopeo
purpose of determining whether any and what 00 r
,
tion should be given in that respect. t p 'ea° s: 1
Mr. WIGHTMAN moved for a rule calling 0° jft ott 14.
ney to deliver uo to Anne Preece the last will 00e4 ff.4o ‘t Lit
•-te tc.
inent of Joseph Hudson, which had been obi. red oe Letti
her under very singular circumstances. It ape %of,
the statements in the affidavits, that the attorned,
will with other papers on the morning of the die;
death, and carried them away, tied up in a 10
the oKel
to'
qee
had since refused to deliver them up, although /013
cant was the executrix, and he also refused W iot
sag
f
it was in existence or destroyed. the OH 4th
His LORDSHIP thought it was a case more for 000
ference of the Ecclesiastical Court, where tbe It" e
r
could be cited to bring in the will.
0; °oil "ti
GRANVILLE V. HROWN• ll,4 . \t,
Sl
This was a case which arose out of the fo"" ;00, the
cumstinces :—Lord Granville had certain °eel f°
machinery attached to them, which had bee° r

,
Prin
P 011
Tp,

kltt

rdi,
Th
e

I 1 col
4ii
t

`tog
rto
the

Ir.
the
kie
,1111,
;!" 4

led
ilt44