The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-14 00:00:00

THE KING V. HEATH.

Mr. FOLLETT applied to enlarge the rule in this
case, which was for leave to file a criminal informa-
tion against James Heath, a printer at Abingdon,
for the publication of a hand-bill, containing a libel
John Walter, Esq., the late High-Sheriff of
7,4 t-ks, arid one of the candidates for the representa-
tion of that county in Parliament. The rut
been served on the 3d instant, and the affidavit
stated—

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—How much time do
rou want ?

Mr. FOLLETT—A week or a fortnight.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—A fortnight is too
long. There may be no objection, perhaps, to a
week.—Rule enlarged accordingly.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 13.

DOE, DELI. COOPER, CLERK, I'. FINCH, CLERK, AND

OTHERS.

This was an action of ejectment, brought by the
Rev. Edward Cooper, of Ridware, near Lichfield,
for recovery of certain lands, messuages, and premi-
ses,in Finchley, Middlesex, which was tried at the
sittings after last Hilary Term, and a verdict entered
for the plaintiff, as to such of the premises as were
not comprised in the settlement of Thomas Allen
absolutely, and also for such as were included in the
settlement; subject to a special case.
The case came on to be argued this day, when
Mr. FOLLETT, for the lessor of the plaintiff, corn•
plained that the defendants had not specifically
stated the point on which they meant to rely. The
lessor of the plaintiff meant to contend that a fine
levied by Edward Allen having discontinued the es-
tate tail and displaced the remainders, Thomas Allen
Greenalgh, could not, by the deeds of lease and
release of the 15th and 16th of April 1774, con-
vey any freehold estate so as to make a good tenant
to the precipe, and that the recovery being there-
fore void, the lessor of the plaintiff was entitled un-
der the will of Edward Allen.

The Counsel for the defendants contended at
considerable length that Edward Allen's fine had
not displaced the remainders, and endeavoured to
show that he was not in possession of a sufficient
estate to levy a fine.
Mr. FOLLETT replied at considerable length, and
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE concurred in the
view taken by Mr. Follett in the argument, and
gave judgment for the lessor of the plaintiff. The
other Judges stated their opinions seriatim to the
same effect.

Iho .•°"..lt-,!qt IY.'r I; tirratinn is to
put the plaintiff, Mr. Cooper, into possession of the
whole of the manor and lands in question.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 13.

NICHOLSON V. PAGETT.

Mr. LLOYD, for the defendant, showed cause
against a rule for setting aside a nonsuit, and enter-
ing a verdict for the plaintiff, in this cause, tried
before Air. Baron Gurney at Guildhall. It was an
action upon the following guarantee :—" I hereby
agree to be answerable for the payment of .50/. for
Thomas Lerigo. In case Thomas Lerigo does not
pay for the gin, &c., he receives from you, I will pay
you the amount." This guarantee was in the hand-
writing of the son of the defendant, but dictated
and 'signed by the defendant. The point was,
whether it was confined to the 504 or extended to
all the gin supplied. The Learned Counsel con-
tended that guarantees were not to be construed,
as had sometimes been held, against the parties
giving them, but that the Court should endeavour
to find out what was the real intent of the parties.
Here the liability was confined to the 50/., for it
was not a continuing guarantee, for there was
nothing to show that the defendant meant to be
answerable for all the gin Lerigo might order, and
the plaintiff supply.
Mr. JERVIS and Mr. GODSON, in support of the
ruled argued that the word " receives" meant to in-
cludO all the gin Lerigo was in the habit of receiving
and the plaintiff in the habit of supplying.
Mr. Baron BAYLEY—The question is very nice.
We shall postpone our judgment; but it will be de-
sirable, as near as we cap, to lay down a rule.