The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-23 00:00:00

THE EARL OF CHESTER V. LEE.

This was an action of trespass tried at Aylesbury
before Mr. Justice VAUGIIAN. The trespass was the
cutting down of trees on three distinct slips of land called
plantations, to which the plaintiff laid a claim as Lord of
the Manor. A verdict had passed for the plaintiff gene-
rally. Damages, 51.
Mr. Serjeant SCRIVEN now moved for a rule to show
cause why a verdict should not be entered for the defendant
on the second plea. The second plea was a justification of
the cutting, on the ground that the slips of land adjoined
the highway, and had formerly been a part of it, as appeared
from an award dated 1777, to which the Learned Serjeant
referred. The highway had been originally 60 yards wide,
but portions of it had been afterwards enclosed, and at what
time could not Le ascertained.
Lord DENMAN said the Court would consult Mr. Justice
Vaughan on the subject.

DIMES V. ARDEN.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, as Lord of
the Manor of Rickmansworth, to recover from Mrs. Arden
a sum of 2221. as her contribution towards the repairs of
a bridge, to which the defendant was liable, as holding
part of the demense lands of Rickmansworth manor. The
case had been tried at the last Hereford Assizes, before
Lord Chief Justice Denman, and a verdict had passed for
the defendant.

Mr. TILEssIGER now moved for leave to enter a verdict
for the plaintiff fcr the sum of 2221., by leave of the
Learned Judge before whom the case had been tried.
Lord DENMAN—Your motion is founded on the fact
that if the Lord of the Manor is liable he can claim con-
tribution from the holders of any part of the demesne lands
of the manor?

Mr. THESSIGEIt—YCS, my Lord.
COURT—Take a rule.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

Mr. COMYN moved for a rule to show cause why a man-
damus should not issue to the Hon. Edward H. Petre as
lord of the manor of Mountforest and his steward, com-
manding them to admit a tenant to the Court roll of that
manor. In the year 1825 the applicant purchased the
property from his brother, and kept possession of it from
that time downwards. A surrender had been regularly ob-
tained and the purchase money paid, but in consequence of
some family quarrels, the brother deemed that the purchase
money had not been paid, although a receipt had been exhi-
bited, and the steward had refused to admit him as a
tenant, not being able to decide between the conflicting
claims of the two parties.

CounT—Take a rule nisi.
NUGEE V. GRANT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, the well-
known fashionable tailor, of St. James's-street, against
James Charles Grant, a young'gentleman, born at Boorham-
phoor, in the East Indies, and son to a surgeon in the Com-
pany's service, to recover a sum of 781. 16s. 6d., for clothes
furnished to him within a period of six months.
Mr. THESSIGER appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr.
JERVIS for the defendant.

- ----....
Several witnesses were examined, who proved the deli-
very of the clothes, and the acceptance of a bill by the de-
fendant for the sum claimed.

The defence was, that the defendant was, at the time the
debt had been incurred (December, 1832), under age. 'To
establish this, a Clerk from the Secretary's Office of the
East India Company produced a registry of births, trans-
mitted periodically from India, in which was an entry of the
defendant's baptism, dated the 20th of April, 1813.
Mr. THESSIGER objected to the reception of this evi-
dence ; and Mr. Justice WILLIAMS took a note of it.
The Hon. Andrew Ramsay saw the defendant at Boor-
hamphoor in the years 1813 and 1814. He was then a child
in arms.
Verdict for the plaintiff, 50/.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

FRUHLING V. SCHROEDER.

Mr. Sergeant TADDY moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict in this case, which was tried before Lord
Chief Justice Tindall, should not be set aside, or a reduc-
tion of damages allowed.
It appeared that the defendant, who carried on business
at Hamburgh in June 1833, received 120 bags of coffee
from Messrs. Joppart and Co., of Rio Janeiro, with direc-
tions to sell the coffee, and remit the proceeds to
the plaintiff on account of the assignees. Some cor-
respondence took place between the parties before
the sale was effected, but in none of the letters did the
defendants offer any objection to receive and dispose of the
coffee on the terms proposed, vet, having sold the coffee
instead of remitting the amount to the plaintiff, as directed
by Messrs. Joppart and Co., he applied it to a private
account between himself and the consigners. The Jury
gave a verdict against the defendant for the payment of the
proceeds to the plaintiff, and 391. damages and interest.
The COURT, after hearing the arguments of Learned
Counsel at very great length, ruled that there were no
grounds for a new trial, nor for any diminution of damages.