The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-23 00:00:00

.LAW INTEL.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly.)

JENKINS V. GREEN..--JUDGMENT.

His Honour the Master of the Rolls said—The plaintiff's
bill was filed on the 24th April, 1855, for specific perform•
ance of an agreement for a lease of glebe lands, in which
the rent was declared payable half-yearly, whereby the
plaintiff would have had leased to him a large portion of the
valuable living of Phillington in the county of Lincoln.
His Honour said, onlooking to the act of Parliament which
declared that the rent of glebe lands should be paid quar-
terly, it was impossible to decree specific performance of
this agreement. Where the incumbent enters into an
agreement to lease the glebe lands, there is an express re-
servation in the act of Parliament that the rent shall
be payable quarterly. If the plaintiff had obtained
a lease in the terms asked, with the con-
sent of the ordinary, bishop, and patron in ignorance,
or sub silentia, of the act of Parliament he would have
had a good lease under the fourth. section of the act, but it
is impossible to decree specific performance of this agree-
ment in opposition to the well-known provisions of the act.
His Honour declared his intention to dismiss the bill with-
out costs, except as to costs up to the hearing, the effect of
which will be that the plaintiff removes from the lands
without ejectment; but a difficulty occurred here—by the
old practice decree was given for specific performance if a
good title was made out, and if no good title was made
out to dismiss the bill without costs; but of late
years the practice has been simply to dismiss the
bill. Counsel will speak on this point, and let the case be
put on the paper pro forma, and then I will pronounce a
decree dismissing the bill, which can be brought before the
Court by appeal if necessary. I remember the point was
argued in one case that came before the Court, of Sir James
D. Wigram, 3 vol., Merrivale, where I argued that the
Court never could give costs on dismissing the bill ; the re-
sult will be that I will dismiss the bill without costs, but
allow the case to come before the Court as formerly, to be
spoken to as to costs, but it is quite clear the plaintiff has
failed, and the bill must be dismissed without costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Before the Lord Chief justice, Sir A. Cockburn, and a

Special Jury.)
GARDNER V. GODI'REY.

This trial was resumed this morning, the court being, as
on all former occasions, crowded to excess.
(The case was proceeding when we went to press.)

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)
IMPORTANT TO SUITORS.-IN RE SPYERS.

Plaintiff is a solicitor of extensive practice, carrying on
business in Broad-street •buildings, and this morning he
attended the Court and made the following observations :
Sir, —I have to make a complaint of great negligence on
the part of some of your Honour's officers. The subject is
one of great importance to the suitors of this Court, and
the negligence might have caused great inconvenience
and annoyance to myself. On Monday week I was
plaintiff in a suit (Spyers v. Briant), and your Honour
thought proper to nonsuit me. Upon that nonsuit I was
condemned in certain costs, and should in due course have
received the order. No order has been to this day served,
and I find an application through one of my clerks that I
am ordered to pay on the 21st. Now, your Honour must
see that I was liable to have an execution put in my office
for these costs.
His Honour requested Mr. Aikman to assign sonie cause
for the non-service, and it was ascertained that the bailiff
who was instructed to serve the order was so ill that he had
been unable to perform his duty.

Mr. Spyers—That is no consolation to me. Surely, some
one else should have served the order.

His Honour—By law we are not bound to serve you with
an order at all, but we do so. You were in court when the
order was made, and should have made inquiries.
Mr. Spyers—Suitors, knowing the rule of the Court to
serve orders, as a matter of course wait for the same, and in
the case of a poor person the matter might be serious.
His Honour said the matter was a proper one to mention
certainly, but in the case of Mr. Spyers the result was not
serious. _ -

Mr. •
Spyers—lf my adversaries had been vindictive I
should have been a serious sufferer. (Laughter.)

The matter then dropped.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAL)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

APPLICATION UNDER. THE DIVORCE AND MATRIMO-
NIAL CAUSES ACT.—A respectably-attired female applied
to Mr. Beadon, the sitting magistrate, under the following
circumstances :

The applicant said she had separated from her husband
by mutual consent about 14 years ago, since which time
she had had a situation, and had also lived with a person
as his wife. She had acquired a little property, and she
wished it protected as her husband wanted a reunion.
Mr. Beadon said he could not assist the applicant. If
her husband had deserted her in the first instance he could
have done so, but not in a case where a mutual separation
had taken place. She could apply to the Court for Divorce
and Matrimonial Causes if she thought proper, and see
what they could do for her, but he did not think they could
help her as they were acting under the same law as himself.
The applicant having thanked his Worship for his advice,
retired.