The Sun.
London, England, 1821-12-06 00:00:00

HARE V. PV.TO AND AXOTRER.

.F;erjeant Huttocx stated that this was an action
brought by •Nir. Alexander Hare, of No. 17, Greville-street,
Holborn, against Jr.A Peto, who had lately erected several
buildings on the ofil site of Furnival's Inn gardens. fer ob-
structing the light which Mr. Hare's premises had formerly
received from the open cera of the gardens. The Learned Ser-
jeant said that Mr. Peto had made great improvements upon
the old site of Furnival's Inn, and erected buildings-from which,
he derived great profit;. but he must be told, that for his im-
provements and his private profit, he could not injure any other
individual's interest, or obstruct his enjoyments from the a&
vantage of local situation.
Several witnesses proved, that since Mr. Pettis buildings
were erected, the free current of light and air was excluded
from the rear-of Mr. hare's house in Greville-street, to the
great injury of the health and enjoyments of the family, and
that damp and moisture were now felt whete there were pre-
viously a cheerful prospect,- the full rayS of the sun, and pure
air.
For the defendants several 'surveyors were examined, who
declared their opinion that the space left behind the houses
showed a determination on the part of the original owners to re-
serve it for building. They, however, admitted that the build-
ings of Air. Peto had obstructed the admission of light and air
to the plaintiff's premises as formerly.
A verdict for the plaintiff, by consent, was then taken.—Da-
mages, 2001. '

PREROGATIVE COURT, DEC. 5.

This being by-day, the Court sat for a ;hurt time for the dis-
patch of business. A few motions only were taken, and some
assignations settled for the ensuing Term.

COURT OF SURROGATES, DEC. 5.
BEST V. BEST.

-Sir C. Ros INSON. stated, that this was a question arising out
of a suit, instituted in this Court, by .31rs.Elizabeth Best,against
her husband, .I.Best, Esq. for cruelty. This suit was met by a
responsive allegation on the part of the husband, denying cru-
city; and,ainong, Other articles of accusation, in bar of his wife's
s'ait, charging her with the crime of adultery, and praying to be
divorced. •The suit, it appeared, had originally commenced in
1818 and the Wife being called upon to deliver her answer to
the allegation of the husband (which contained 19 articles), the
present proceeding was upon objections taken and argued, as to
the sufficiency of those answers, on the ground, that the wife
had not answered specifically and fully, as required by forms
of law.

The objections taken by Dr. Lusniso T ON, followed by
Dr. ThasastiN, on the same side, as Counsel for Mrs. Best, were
shortly these :—ln answer to the primary articles of the hus-
band's allegation, which set forth that she had, without just
cause, quitted his house, and gone to reside at the York Hotel,
Dover, on the 7th, and did not return until the 11th of.lanuary,
1816, pretentng that she went to Dover, to consult with. Mr.
31. ;.ennet, • solicitor; her absenting _herself from her hus-
band's house at such time, being for the purpose of extorting a
settlement from him, and refusing to return until such settle-
ment was made, as the conditions of her return. That she had
repeatedly, declared " she only married him for what she could
get out of him." Her answer to this being, that she did not
quit his house for the purpose of extorting a settlement as arti-
culate ; but the only time she did quit her husband's house,
without his consent, was, when, from the cruelty of the said
James Best, she ceased to be under his protection, and went to
seek the protection of her father.
It was objected that this denial was not sufficiently explicit,
since any party might deny a fact as articulate, if it varied in
any way as to what was stated in the allegation.
The second and third Articles went on to state, that whilst the
said Elizabeth absented herself froM her said husband, in order
to extort such settlement, she wrote two several letters from the
York Hotel, at Dover, to him, to thoeffect that he should make
such settlement, demanding this as the conditions of tier return
to him : and the third article stated those letters to be her pro-
per hand-writing, and exhibited the originals ; likewise pleading
the identity of the parties. Her answer to this was, that she had
never written to her said husband for the purpose of extorting
a settlement from him as articulate, or demanding as the condi-
tions of her return ; but that her said husband, upon their mar-
riage, had promised to settle upon her 7001. per annum ; and that
she had only applied to him for the fulfilment of such promise.
With respect to the article pleading the letters in her own
hand-writing toiler huslsand from the York Hotel, at Dover,
her answer was: the cannot, and hopes the Court will not com-
pel her te answer that article ; she requests the protection of
siva Court, so that the fact pleaded may be put to lawful proofs.
It was here contended that she ought to answer specifically
whether she wrote those letters or not. _ . .

Sir C. Roungsog, in answer to the objections argued by his
Learned Friends, submitted, that the Court would consider the
answers suffitiently explicit.
Dr. PIIILLIMORE followed on the same sole.
Dr. SivABEI- (the Jude)finally determined, that the party
should answer more specifically the several articles objected, and
to which the answers were directed to be reformed, with the ex-
ception of her answer to the direct aftirmative charge of adul-
tery. The Judge further observed, that as this case had been a
long time delayed, the Court would allow only one month for
*husband to bring proofs in support of his allegation, in or-
der to bring the cause to a conclusion within the time the prac-
tice of the Court prescribed.