The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-06 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

THORE V. LEE AND OTHERS.
Sir E. SUDDEN and Mr. PARKER appeared for the
plaintiffs, the younger children of the late Thos. Hardy,
Esq., of Wakefield, Yorkshire, to move for an order
calling upon Mr. Lee, one of the defendants, to pay into
Court to the credit of this cause, a sum of upwards of
16,0001. part of the assets of Mr. Hardy. The deceased
left considerable property. He appointed Lee and the
others trustees, directing a part of his real estates to he
sold, and certain sums to be invested for the benefit of his
younger children. Mr. Lee only acted in the trust. He
had sold the allotted part of the real estates, and had
received in all about 44,0001., according to his own ad-
missions. The plaintiffs agreed that he had properly
laid out and expended 27,0001. and a fraction. He
alleged that he had, over and above that sum, paid a large
account to, and for the benefit of, the eldest son, for which
he was also entitled to credit. The plaintiffs denied that,
or at all events contended that this was not the proper
time for bim to receive credit for such an outlay ; and
that, therefore, the 16,0001. ought to be ordered into
Court.

Mr. PErars and Mr. Jacon appeared for Mr. Lee, to
resist the order. They contended that the Court could
not be converted into a Master's office, and be compelled
to go through the accounts, without which it would be
impossible, upon the contradictions in the pleadingP, for
his Lordship to come to a correct knowledge of what was
in the defendant's hands. In this stage the Court could
not interfere in laying hold of more than the defendant,
by his answers, had distinctly admitted himself to be in
possession of.
The LORD CHANCELLOR did not think he could be
called upon to take the accounts. The defendant alleged
that be had properly laid out certain sums; the plaintiffs
denied that statement, and how was the Court to know
the true state of the case without going through the
figures?
Sir E. SuanErt said it was every day's practice It was
a duty forced upon the Court, from which it could not re-
tire. It was, in fact, not a taking of the accounts, but a
checking of them.
His LORDSHIP directed the case to go on, and it was
being argued at length upon the details when we left the
Court.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

DOE ON THE DEMISE OF LEWIS V. EARL CAWDOR.

This action was tried before Mr. Justice BOSANQUET,
at the late assizes for Glamorgaushire, when a verdict was
found for the plaintiffs.

The Soucirou-GENERAL now moved for a rule to
show cause why that verdict should not be set aside, and
a new trial had, or why there should not be a nonsuit
entered. He said the action was brought to recover
possession of a smelting house and furnance, in the
county of Carmarthen, which were built by the late Earl
Cawdor, upon a piece of waste land, which was
situated in a lordship of which he was superior ;
and, as a matter of course, if such was the case,
it was built upon his own property. At the time the
building was put up, the father of the plaintiff was soli-
citor and agent for the late Lord, and it was by his advice
that the property was put up, and the whole expense of
8001. was incurred, and passed through his hands and
during his life, and, indeed, up till the present plaintiff,
and the Earl Cawdor had disagreed there was no pretence
set up that the fee was not in the d-fendant. Now,
however, the plaintiff claimed that he was owner of the
fee by the devise of his father, who had purchased it
along with a farm, called the Penrose Farm, of
which he contended that it formed a part. The house
stood upon about half an acre of land, and it was proved
at the trial that the worth of it was only 2s. 6d. an acre.
The case set up by the plaintiffs was, that the land be-
longed to, and formed part of, the Penrose farm, and that
Lord Cawdor paid rent for it in the shape of a set-off,
the renting a field of him in the rent of which the other
was considered. The evidence be adduced was, that the
tenants of the Penrose farm had formerly had a sheepfold
on the land—that an award had been made for an Enclo-
sure Act for the lordship, in which the commissioners
had not included that part as waste. For the defence it
was shown that the people of the neighbouring town had
a right, and did actually pasture their cattle without leave,
or let from the tenants of the farm ; and that nothing was
more common for small strips like the present to be neg-
lected by commissioners, but still that did Rot take the fee
from the Lord.

Lord LYNDHURST said that all that was for the Jury,
and unless the Learned Judge was dissatisfied with the
verdict, they could not grant the rule.
The SOLICITOR-GHNERAL said perhaps their Lord-
ships would consult the Lear,ned Judge, for otherwise it
would be useless for him to take a rule upon that part of
the case. Then, as to the other part of it, surely it was
not very tender to the memory of the late Mr. Lewis t•
say, that he would advise his Lord to expend eight hun-
dred pounds upon a piece of land which belonged to him-
self, and for which he might bring an action of ejectment
the very day after it was finished ; and he being an attor..
ney, it was scarcely possible to suppose that he was uuac•
quainted with his rights.
The Couwr granted a rule Nisi for a nonsuit. The
other part of the case stands over till their Lordship con-
sult ➢lr. Justice Bosanquet.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)