The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-12 00:00:00

PALMER V. PARROT.

At the rising of the Court his Lordship gave judgment
in this case, which was argued on Friday. The bill was
filed by the Lord of the Manor of Oldbury, in Shropshire,
against tha.copyhold and customary tenants, their lessees
and vendees, to restrain them from digging for coal and
iron-stone on the manor ; and also for an account of the
costs and profits derived from the working of the said
mines for the last: twenty years. The defence of the
tenants was that they bad a customary right to dig the
mines ; and that even if they had not so originally the long
acquiescence on the part of the Lord barred his right now
to prevent.them. The evidence on their part. proved that
they had exercised a right of .digging the mines, cutting
timber, carrying away clay to make bricks, and otherwise
dealing with the subsoil for the last thirty or forty years,
without any remonstrance or complaint on the part of the
Lord of the manor. They also proved that boats took
away the coal on a canal in the immediate neighbourhood of
the manor-house ; that the steward of the manor was cogni-
zant ad:is, and that bequests had been made by the tenants of
the manor, and that the wills giving these bequests were en-
rolled in the manor court. These facts, and the length of time
that had elapsed-before. the claim was preferred, must un-
doubtedly be considered as bearing much against the title of
the Lord. It was not consistent with the principles of the
Court that any party should be permitted, after such ac-
quiescence, to demand a share of property accumulated
during rrinstriA in which he had permitted other persons to
ride their capital. without incurring the slightest responsi-
bility himself. The Master of the Rolls had alloWed the
bill to be hung up for a year, in order that the Lord might
bring an action of trover to try his right, the tenants ad-
mitting, on their part, the takirr, of the coal. The Lord
had not brought this action, and his Lordship now thought
that the bill must be dismissed, and that the plaintiff must
pay the costs of the suit. He did not, however, think that
there should be any costs of the appeal, and that the depo-
sit should be returned.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 11.

MORTARA V. HALL.

In this cause, for the administration of the estate of the
late Captain Nisbett of the Life Guards, a petition, which
excited great interest, was presented by Mr. Burgham, the
surviving partner of Messrs. Burgham and Hummel, tailors,
Clifford-street, Bond-street, for leave to bring an action
against the executors to recover the amount of their de-
mands for clothes supplied and money lent to Captain Nis-
bett, to the amount of 3,421/.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, for the petitioner, stated
that Captain Nisbett came of age in June, 1831, and was
accidentally killed in September of the same year. A few
days after he came of age he made his will, and directed
all his just debts to be paid. In the inquiries in the Master's
office as to his debts, a question arose whether debts to a
very large amount contracted before Captain Nisbett came
of age, were to be discharged under the direction in his
will ; and the Master reported against the claim of the pre-
sent petitioner upon two bills of exchange. Upon excep-
eons this report was confirmed by the late Master of the
Rolls. Messrs. Ludham and Hill, glovers, then carried in
a claim for hosiery, which the Master allowed ; but upon
exceptions to this report by the legatees, his Honour the
Vise-Chancellor was of opinion, in February last, that
where guardians made a minor a reasonable allowance for
his maintenance, the question as to necessaries could not
arise ; and that in such a case a tradesman had no claim
against his estate even for necessaries sold to him on credit.
The report was referred back to the Master, and no further
claims of the kind were made. The Master made his ge-
neral report in May last, ascertaining what remained to be
divided between the legatees ; and the present petition was
presented in July following. The report was confirmed in the
absence of the creditors ; and this, though not com-
plained of, was a ground why the present petitioner should
be allowed, notwithstanding the report, to prefer his claim
at law. This account opens in 1828, when Captain Nis-
bett was only 18. He was, known to be a minor, and to
have an ample maintenance for his support ; and a trades-
man who furnished him with such articles as are now charged
for must have known that Captain Nisbett had no means
of paying fOr tihem. if a tradesman will strpply the most
extravagant articles to a minor, he has reason to suspect the
other expenses of the minor are upon the same ruinous
scale. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to comment
upon some of the items of the -account, every one of which
twheereitseumpsplrieefderbreedforteo Cweareptt Nisbett came of age. Among
1828. A rich fancy ball dress as follows :—A rich
v
A fine white cambric ruffle and collar
rpiroliedlygeotldeaspase,h
anriedhl) bra
ided
belt,wriicth gold—keAd
in squart:.!:—.,
chain, •
gotbr
. Maltese. cross—A pair
ullapv lace lets--A rich black Genoa
of white ostrich feathers
cloth pantaloons
—rvelveti—chAA rpgiaoc acilhrdps,
with broad gold lace down the 51t.:;s—A pair silk
t
a sword...£6B 0 0
terfihir:aepiiuegmh
gre,..!l
Risethoefikginugredpainntdaliooa
snilkdrmawoernrs--ingLgooal;nmoi
8 8 0
A superfine scarlet waterproof cloth Colonel Bcrit,'-
ley's hunting-coat, with rich embroidered black
velvet collar
A rich rose silk racing jacket 3 10
.A pair of racing leather breeches
A superfine green cloth lady's cloak, lined through-
out with silk, and rich sable for collar ; a rich
black Genoa velvet collar, and facing down front,
and silk neck line
Thirty-six white waistcoats

19 0 0
. 54 0 0

There were in all 51 coats, 100 pairs of trowsers, 119
w
. •
goali%siti cs
.0 a t ss,p. eeril ight
f everygreatthe
incf
ao
tradesmannatt
,ss abnledvi cloaks,
ng altrustsre aad nyadn supplieds iixnfda rnets sdi no
withges-
stho at thecarticles, if necessaries ; or that he has not a sufficient
maintenance allowed him to pay for necessaries. In a case
of such obvious, and flagrant, any profligate extravagance
it is impossible to pick out an item here and there, but the
whole demand must be rejected at once.
The VicE-CHANCELLOR, after stating the dates of the
transactions as already detailed, observed that every person
must be struck at this frightfully extravagant and ruinous
sort of debt against a spendthrift young man. When an
opportunity is given to tradesmen who are unprincipled
enough to enter into Itch transactions with young men, the
honest customer who will pay is defrauded by the advance
of price to make up the losses occasioned by such specula-
tions. He had no doubt the party would not succeed at
law, and the charge was of such a nature as he sought not
to lend his assistance to.—Petition dismissed with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 11.

GUSTADE V. WHITFELD.

Mr. BALL stated that this was an action brought to re-
Ifraosna a thmei
norde.fe nTdahnet
casefo r
c clotheso•er thefurnished
t oof
her son,
01n3,5; 6d. v
who
Ivas tried a few days ago at the Bail Court, before Mr.
Justice Littledale, when the question was, whether credit
was given to the mother or the son•. The plaintiff was an
army tailor, carrying on business in Vere-street, and the
defendant a widow lady, with thirteen children, residing at
Brighton. The defendant's son, who was a minor, pad
been introduced by Chatellain, a drawing-master to a
Mr. Nightingale. From Mr. Nightingale he was led to
expect that he should procure, through the intervention of
Sir John Abney Doyle, a commission in Don Pedro's in-
vading army. Mr. Nightingale did introduce him to the
defendant, by whom he was supplied with clothing and
equipments, and he sailed from London in a ship called the
Pomona; but on arriving at Oporto the ship was not
permitted to land the passengers, and the young man de-
clined entering into the service, as he found that some of
those who had gone out with expectations similar to his
own obtained no commissions, but were obliged to enlist as
privates in Don Pedro's troops. There was contradictory
evidence at the trial as to whether the credit had been
given to the defendant or to her son ; but the Learned
Counsel stated that the evidence went decidedly to show
that credit was given to the son. The Jury, however,
found a verdict for the plaintiff; and he now moved to set
asider that verdict, as against evidence.
The COURT would consult Mr. Justice Littledale on the
subject.