The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-20 00:00:00

AND OTHERS-JUDGMENT.

This morning the Lord Chiefßa;on delivered
judgment in this important case, which had come
before this court upon appeal from the judgment
of the Court of Common Pleas.

His Lordship said that this was an appeal from
the judgment! of the Court of Common Pleas on
certain points reserved on the trial of the case
before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn. It was an
action of ejectment, brought to recover the man-
sion of Alton Towers and certain lands belonging
thereto, by the Earl of Shrewsbury. At the trial
a verdict was directed for the plaintiff, subject to
certain points of law arising upon the construction
of various documents and Acts of Parliament. In
Hilary Term, last year, a rule was obtained by
Mr. Sergeant Shee to enter the verdict for the de-
fendants. Cause was shown against the rule in
Trinity Term by Sir Fitzroy Kelly, then the
Attorney-Goneral, and other learned gentlemen,
and the rule was supported by Mr. Sergeant Shee,
Sir R. Bethell, the present Attorney• General, and
other members of the bar. The cause occupied
eight days, and the Court of Common Pleas by a
unanimous judgment, delivered seriatim, discharged
the rule. The present Attorney-General had been
heard by this Court as counsel for the appellant
during a
.portion of three days upon an appeal
from that judgment. He had argued the points in
favour of his client more elaborately, perhaps, than
they were argued in the Court below, but nothing
new had been elicited nor any points presented to
their attention which were not before the Court of
Common Pleas. While the argument was proceed-
ing their lordships had an opportunity of consider-
ing it from day to day, and at its:close they thought
it unnecessary to hear counsel for the respondent,
and upon the fullest consideration they were still
of the same opinion, and he had now to deliver the
unanimous judgment of that Court in favour of the
plaintiff, agreeing as they did with the Court of
Common Pleas that the rule obtained by the de-
fendant to enter the verdict for him should be dis-
charged. It was unnecessary to set out the facts
at length as they were fully set out in the recitals
of the two private acts of 6th Geo. I. c. 29, and. 6th
and 7th Vict., c. 38.

The learned Chief Baron then gave a brief re-
sume of the facts, which are already well known to
the public, and. said that their lordships were of
opinion that the plaintiff below, as the issue male
of the first Earl of Shrewsbury, to whom the title
had descended, was under the express enactment of
those statutes entitled to the property in question
as tenant in tail, unless something could be shown
to disentitle him, and that that had not bees done,
and that the disentitling deed of 1856 could not
prevent his right from prevailing. They, therefore,
thought with the Court of Common Pleas, that the
rule should be discharged. His lordship added that
though he had pronounced the unanimous opinion
of the whole Court, who assembled to hear the ar-
gument, he alone was responsible for the manner in
which the reasons for that judgment were pre-
sented.
Judgment for the Earl of Shrewsbury, and
against the appellants.