The Sun.
London, England, 1821-01-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE,

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 17.

EAIRMAN V. KING AND °VIERS.
This was an issue from the Court of Chancery,
directed to try the question of exclusive right,
on the part of the Lord of the Manor of Milton,
in Kent, the present plaintiff, to the oyster-beds
and fisheries situated in that part of the hundred
of Milton, called the East Grounds. The de-
fendants were the free fishermen of Milton, and
the facts of the case were as follow :—The free
fishermen of Milton had held the fisheries since
1705, by lease from the Lord of the Manor,
which lease hid been renewed from time to time,
on the -payinetit of an annual rent by the Com-
pany of Free Fishermen to the Lord ; and no
fisherman was allowed to enter and fish until he-
had signed this lease, and paid a certain sum ;
the sum so paid formed a fund, out of which the
rent to the Lord was paid. On the expiration of
the last lease, however, the Lord being desirous
to raise_ his rent, the fishermen turned round and
disputed his right to -exclude them • from dredg-
ing, and the result of that refusal Was, proceed-
iings in Chancery, which . have been pending for
some years. The Solicitor-General now con-
ducted the cause on the part of the plaintiff, and
produced a multitude of documentary evidence,
from the reign of Edw. 111. to the present. time,
consisting of grants by letters patent from the
different Sovereigns to the family of Herbert,
Earl of Pembroke and Montgomerie, through
whom the present Lord of the Manor claimed.
The establishment of the Court of Free Fisher-
men in 1705, was also proved, and that the Mem-
bers of that Court paid a certain fee on admis-
sion, out of which the rent to the Lord of the
Manor was paid ; and, further, the. Learned
Counsel called evidence, and put in documents
to prove a quiet enjoylment of this right on the
part of the Lord of the Manor for upwards of
one hundred years.
Mr. SCARLET, on the part of the defendants,
went to the Jury on the general issue, abandon-
ing the special plea on behalf of the fishermen of
Milton, and contended that the ' Lord of the
Manor could not, by the law of the land; have a
right, any more than the fishermen had, ou the
evidence adduced, to exclude the public. The
oyster-beds were overflowed by the tide, and the
Crown itself could not grant such a right to the
Lord as gave him a right to exclude the public..
Upon this•ground he should contend that a ver-
dict must be entered for the defendant as part of
the
_public, He- believed the Court of Free
Fishermen and the claim of the Lord of the
Manor arose in 1705, out of a collusion between
the parties, to which the public were to be made
a sacrifice.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, if the claim of the Lord
of the Manor was not established by the evidence
adduced in the present case, he was at a loss to
conceive whatevidence would be sufficient to en-
able a man to retain possession of his estate or
property. The question was agitated as one be-
tween the Lord of the Manor and the Free
Fishermen ; the Fishermen finding themselves
beaten at every point, now turned round on the.
plaintiff, and said, if we cannot have.the oysters,
neither shall you, we, neither of us, have any
right, the whole shall be laid open to the public.
The Jury would judge of this defence, and the
effect it would have if it succeeded. They were.
aware of the nature of the property, and of the
care, attention, and expellee required to keep
the oyster-beds in eriStence. Should this pro-
perty be thrown open to the public, the result
would be, that in. less than three • years there
would not be an oyster for one.
The Jury, without hesitation, found a verdict
for the plaintiff—Datnages, One Shilling ; the
question being tried to decide the right, and not
to recover damages. . .
Mr. SCARLETT said, the unfortunate de-
fendants..were by this decision reduced to a state
of great distress, and left wholly at the mercy
of the plaintiff.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, he had no
doubt the plaintiff, Mr. Fahmati, who was not
in fact the Lord of the Manor, but the lessee
under the Lord of the East Ground Fishery,
would do every thing that was right -for these
unfortunate individuals.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT,. JAN. 17

. .
John Brunton, late the manager of the Brigh-
ton Theatre anti Brighton Circus, came up to be
examined for the purpose of taking the benefit of
the Act. In his examination, he stated that he
had held the 'Brighton Theatre for two seasons,
in the last of which the theatre was a losing con-
cern which he attributed " to this unfortunate
business of the Queen's," the Nobility, who
were the chief support of the theatre of Brighton,
haVing been detained during the greater part of
the summer in London. When he was arrested,
his property was all taken in execution, and the
theatrical 'properties, embracing all the" pride,
pomp, and circumstance" of mimick state, which
had cost him more than 2,0001. were thrown into
lots by the Sheriff, and sold for less thari 601. 111
was at the time of this sale "fretting his hour"
within the walls of the Vleet, and did not concur
in it, or take any share in it, either by himself or
by an agent. Ills schedule stated that he had
ten children to support, but he admitted that the
young Lady who is engaged at Covent-garden
supported herself by her own talents. There ap-
pearing to be no ground for opposing >lr. Brun-
ton's discharge, he was declared by the Court en-
i. to the benefit of the Act, and ordisrcd' to
I be discharged fOrthwith.