The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-03 00:00:00

HER MAJESTY, &c•

BALMORAL, June 1.
The Queen went out driving yesterday morning,
accompanied by Princess Christian.
In the afternoon her Majesty, accompanied by
Princess Louise, rode on ponies up to the Sheil
in
Glin Gelder.
Prince Arthur, attended by Major Elphinstouel
left the Castle yesterday for Blackheath.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings in Banco before the Lord Chief Baron
and Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Chaunell.)
CORBETT V. HOWARD AND OTHERS.
Mr. Cobbett said that the case came before the
court in a peculiar form. There was a demurrer,
and it wa3 not according to form for him to pro-
ceed in arguing it in that shape.
The Lord Chief Baron—There are two points
that aro to be argued before us—a demurrer and a
motion. We will hear one first and then the other,
or both together.
Mr. Corbett said that he would wish to argue
both.

The Lord Chief Baron—The rule against which
you have to argue on calls upon you to show
cause why the declaration should not be Set
aside or set out, and upon this the court will hear

you now.
Mr. Cobbctt then entered into an argument to
show that by the rules of practice the defendant
had barred himself from the benefit of any rule like
the one obtained.

The Lord Chief Baron interrupted him by stating
to the counsel opposite that they should wish to
hear the demurrer first. He thought it would be
unfair to dispose of the rule without hearing the
demurrer first, argued they could then dispose of
the rule, if necessary, and called upon Mr. M`N3b
to let them hear what he had to say in support of
the demurrer.
Mr. M‘Nab (with him the Solicitor-General) said
that he would read the declaration, which stated
the defendants had deprived the ratepayers of the
city of Loudon of a right of common and pasture
in a royal forest within 15 miles of London
wit, the forest of Epping, and that 20 acres of it
had been enclosed for purposes contrary to the Act
8 and 9 Victoria, and thereby the ratepayers ha
been deprived of their right of forest and pasture.
He (the learned counsel) contended that no action
would lie, for so far as Mr. Corbett was concerned if
he could maintain such an action so should any elle
in the metropolis. Another point was that there
was no authority to show that any ratepayer in
London had a right of pasture or common right
at all. Mr. Cobbett bad not in any ilay
shown that it affected him at all, and
the Waltham forest might be within fif"
teen miles of the metropolis, yet neither by tile
Act nor by statute was there anything to show that
Mr. Cobbett had any right; although he was a rate-
payer within the royal forest, certainly that did not
give him the title to common pasture. He willd
not see, especially as the Court bad granted biel,
permission to amend, that the declaration could
stand at all.
The Lord Chief Baron—Now, Mr. Cobbett,
what
do you say ?
Mr. Cobbett said that the learned gentleman °ll
the other side had shifted his ground, and now he
general
a special declaration instead of a gene.
one. Mr. Cobbett then went into a technical ar-
gument to show that the declaration was
good. He then said that the learned collo°i
had stated that although he might be a rate"
payer within the bounds of the Royal for
yet have no right of common pasture, but be
thought that their lordships would see that the
forest law gave him that right, and he possessed 1
even before the common law was enacted. rThero
was nothing even in the pleadings to answer his de-
claration. It only recorded a simple plea of
guilty, and then he was further met by t„s
demurrer, which alleged that the declaration Ici
void. The learned gentleman had said that he l'3
not amended the declaration but their lordshirs
had given him leave to do so, and he bad. It 'nigti
be said that a commoner had a right to
the fence, and if an action was brought be !iabt
a right to defend it surely by the same I'o t,
he had liberty to bring an action like the presello
The argument supporting his case was, that tin
land enclosed was part of a royal forest. l'r°,,f
time immemorial the ratepayers had had a right via
common pasture, and he could not see how it cool ,
be abolished or abrogated now. An Act of Parka"
ment, passed in 1815, for disforesting a certain feresi;
admitted all the rights that he claimed, and ad
Act, 27th and 28th Vict., confirmed it. He w°110„5
pull dosga
call their lordships' attention to the fact that it Wet
notorious that actions had been brought to reea
ab
rights of common pasture, and in all cases
been successful. ; n of
The Lord Chief Baron said that in the °pito-
the Court the declaration was insufficient 8-rt
vague, and, therefore, the judgment of the e°ll
on that point would be for the defendants.