The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-23 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

Mr. Justice PATTISON sat in this Court this morning to
dispose of motions.

Mr. HUTCHINSON moved for a rule, calling upon an attor-
ney (whom he did not name) to show cause why he should not
pay the sum of 2001. to Messrs. Lister and Cotter ; and also why
he should not answer the matters contained in the affidavit
upon which the application was founded. The affidavit stated
that Messrs. Lister and Cotter, in the year 1529, employed the
attorney to sue a person for a debt of SOOL and upwards. The
action was not persisted in, owing to an agreement to compro-
mise the whole debt for 2(..W., which sum the party was to raise
and pay to the attorney, and by him remitted to Messrs. Lister
and Cotter. The attorney ever since had held out to Messrs. Lis-
ter great hopes of a speedy settlement, and with these hopes put
them off from time to time, until Messrs. Lister and Cotter
made inquiries and found that the 200/. had been paid to' the at-
torney above IS months ago, and retained by hint. Under these
circumstances, the Learned Counsel conceived he was entitled
to require that the 2001. be paid over to his clients, and that the
attorney be ordered to answer the matters contained in the
affidavit.

His LORDSHIP granted a rule to shew cause.
Mr. PLATT moved for a rule calling upon two attornies
(partners) to show cause why they should not pay over to Mr.
Ashdown two sums of 401. and 1501., and why they should not
deliver up all Mr. Ashdown's books and papers. The attor..
nies had been employed by Mr. Ashdown to get some
bills discounted, and, upon a settlement of the accounts,
there appeared to be a balance of 401. due to Mr. Ashdown. In
he employed them again to get bills to the amount of 1501.
discounted for him, and ever since then they put him off by
saying that the party in whose hands the bills were was not
prepared to pay the money : upon application to that party,
however, it appeared that he had long ago cashed the bills, and
given the attornies the money, no part of which had been paid
by them to Mr. Ashdown.
The COURT granted a rule to show cause.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

JUDGMENT.—ATTORNEY-GENERAL e. PARSONS.
In this case, which was argued last term, the LORD CHIEF
BARON gave judgment at the sitting of the Court. He said
this case came before the Court on a special verdict, and the
question was whether the defendant had a right to free warren
and free chase over all the Crown' lands in the parish and
hundred of Alton, in the county of Southampton, which he
claimed under a grant made to Sir Robert Titchbourne, his
heirs and assigns, by King James. It appeared that Sir
Richard Titchbourne held great part of the lands in that parish,
and the others had fallen to the Crown, having been confiscated
from Edmund Earl of Kent. The words in the grant were
" free warren and free chase over all the other demesne lands
in the parish hundred, and our forest of Alton." At the
time the case was argued, it was contended on the one side,
that these words included the whole of the Crown lands within
those places, and on the other side, it was contended that they
only gave the power of free warren and free chase over those
lands, over which Sir Richard Titchbourne was Lord under
the Crown. The Court cited a great many old authorities,
as to the meaning to be attached to the word " demesne," and
they held that it meant only such lands as were held by a Lorci
for his own and his household sustenance. The Court were
therefore of opinion, that the defendant had no such right as
he claimed, but must confine his right of free warren, and of
free chase, to those lands over which Sir Richard Titchbourne
was Lord, for the Crown could not grant such a privilege over
lands in a third party's hands. Judgment must therefore be
for the Attorney-General.