The Sun.
London, England, 1828-11-20 00:00:00

THE CITY CARPET WAREHOUSE,
2, CHEAPSIDE, near Paternoster-row.
CARTER and FAWCETT beg to announce that their
extensive Stock of CARPETS are of the newest and most
elegant Patterns. Their BRUSSELS, for style, quality,
and cheapness, have given universal satisfaction.
s. d. s. d.
Kidderminster, yard-wi 1 10 and 2 6 per yard
Do d0......vei y stout
and fine 2 9 and 3 0
Venetian, for Bed-rooms 1 9 and 2 4
Do do all Wool 2 9 and 3 0
Stair Carpeting, from 0 10
Do do all Wool, from
Hearth Rugs, Druggets, Floor-cloths, Moreens, Da-
masks, &c.
'And at ACORN HOUSE, Furnishing Warehouse,
89, Bishopsgate-street Without, facing Acorn-street.

N. B. No other Notes under the value of 51. have been issued..
(Signed) WM. DAWES, Dep. Acct.
Bank of England. Nov. 13, 1929.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 19.
BOTCHRLZ V. BELL AND OTHERS.

Mr. SUGDEN moved to discharge an order made
by the Vice-Chancellor, who had dismissed a motion
for the payment of money into Court. It was stated
that Messrs. Bell, Scott, and Co., had houses at
Glasgow, at Malta, and Gibraltar ; and that in the
course of their trade, they had dealings with Messrs.
Whiteheads, also merchants residing in Scotland.
Messrs. Whiteheads, who had consigned certain
goods to the firm at Gibraltar, directed them to pay
out of the proceeds of the consignment a sum of
1,2001. to Mrs. Hannah Whitehead, their mother.
The money had never been paid, and Messrs. White-
heads having become bankrupts, it was now claimed
by their assignees, who had filed a bill against Mr.
Bell, residing in this country, and his partners,
Messrs. Scott and Co., who, living at Glasgow,
were out of the Chancellor's jurisdiction. Mr.
Bell, in his answer, admitted that the proceeds of the
goods consigned by Whitehends were in the hands
of his partners ; and upon this admission the motion
was now made.

Mr. PEPYS and Mr. WRIGHT opposed the motion,
and stated that the parties to the firm in Scotland
having had two separate claims made upon them for
this money, had instituted a suit of multiple-poind-
ing (which is a proceeding analogous to an inter-
pleading suit) in Scotland, and had paid the money
into Court to abide the decision of that suit. This
was stated by Mr. Bell in his answer, and it was
upon this groundlte opposed the present motion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought, that whatever
liability might attach to Mr. Bell, as a partner in the
firm by which the money hag been received, he was
relieved from it,by the steps..lv.hich his partners hall
taken in Scotland. Neither be nor they could be
called upon to pay the money twice. lie, therefore,
dismissed the motion.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 19.

THC CORPORATION OF THE TRINITY-HOUSE V. SURGE.

Mr. WIGRAM said that the plaintiffs in this case
were, by charters and various Acts of Parliament,
invested with the exclusive privilege of supplying
with ballast all vessels sailing between London-
bridge and the main seas. The defendant had in-
vaded this privilege, the profits of which were de-
voted to charitable purposes and keeping the bed of
the river in order, by furnishing numbers of vessels
with ballast ; and, although warned that he was vio-
lating the chartered rights of the Corporation, he
had persisted in a traffic to which the Corporation
had an exclusive right. The plaintiffs, therefore,
bad filed a bill against the defendant, for a discovery
of the amount of ballast he had furnished to vessels;
for an account of the profits realised from these
transactions; and for an injunction to restrain him
from continuing so to furnish with ballast vessels
sailing between London-bridge and the main seas.
The defendant had not answered the bill, but put in
a plea, and the Court was now called upon to de-
cide whether that plea was to be allowed.

Mr. RouPELL appeared for the defendant. The
plea which had been pat in was, that by making the
discovery prayed for in the bill, the defendant would
subject himself to penalties recoverable under cer-
tain Acts of Parliament, for having invaded the
rights of the plaintiffs. The rule of the Court was,
that a person in such a situation should not be com-
pelled to make discovery.
Mr. WIGRAM said, that by those Acts of Parlia-
ment it was enacted that the penalties must be re-
covered within twelve months, a period which had
now expired.
Mr. ROUPELL admitted this; but contended that
the plea was good, inasmuch as at the time it *vas
put in, the period within which these penalties were
to be recovered had not expired.

The VICt-CHANCELLOR thought that the justice
of the case required that the plea should be over-
ruled. It was true that the rule of the Court was,
that a man should not be compelled to make dis-
covery, if by that discovery he subjected himself to
pains and penalties; but it was not consistent with
common sense to suppose that that rule obtained in
a case like the present, in which it was admitted
that the defendant by discovery would now subject
himself to no penalties. The plea was doubtless a
good one when it was first put in; and if it had
been argued at that time, the Court must have al-
lowed it.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII, Nov. 19.
(TRIAL AT BAR.)
ROWE V. BRENTON.-DOE V. lIRENTON...-TISE XING 2!

ROWE AND DItENTON.

Mr. FotiP.-rT opened the pleadings. This was
an action of trover brought by the plaintiff, as execu-
tor of his late father, Mr. Joshua Rowe, to recover
a large quantity of copper ore, which the defendant
had carried away from the mouth of the plaintiff's
mine, at Rowe's Lemellon, in the manor of Tew-
ington. The defendant pleaded " Not Guilty,"
and on that plea issue was joined.
Mr. BROUGHAM stated the plaintiff 's case to the
Jury. The plaintiff, Mr. Rowe, was the representa-
tive of his late father, Mr. Joshua Rowe, who was
the occupier and owner of a considerable plot of
ground in the manor of Tewington, in the county of
Cornwall. He purchased it in the year 1814, and
held it, as his predecessors had held it for centuries
before him, exercising all the acts of ownership over
it which any man could exercise in a property wholly
and exclusively his own. He opened a mine of
copper in that piece of ground in the year 1820,
which turned out extremely valuable; and it was in
consequence of that proceeding that he became in-
debted
in the morning of the sth of Sept. in
that),a to Capt. Brenton for the present cause of ac-
tion.
Brenton entered on the premises of
e
Earr,l
Capt.y
Mr. Rowe, accompanied by 30 or 40 other persons.
They first pulled down the plaintiff 's gate, and

then having got into his premises, and practised the
mockery of leaving a notice with his hind, proceeded
to carry off a large quantity of copper ore that was
lying at the mouth of his mine. It was in conse-
quence of this transaction that the plaintiff was now
compelled to submit his claim for redress to the con-
sideration of a Jury of his country. As they were,
however, now trying this cause for the fourth time,
he was perfectly aware that the defendant, or rather
those who put the defendant forward, claimed a right
to the copper ore seized, and that his Counsel would
produce what they called evidence, to show that
they had a right to it, and that the plaintiff had not.
He should wait till he saw what kind of defence
would be set up to this action, and should then shape
his course accordingly. If the defendant should
satisfy the Jury that the estate of Mr. Rowe, which
had been occupied by his predecessors for centuries
as freely as any freehold estate coald be occupied,
was mere leasehold property, for which his prede-
cessors had paid. rent, and from which, had they
failed to pay it, they might have been turned out by
those who at present claimed to be his landlords, they
would undoubtedly find a verdict for the defendant ;
but he thought that they would require strong evi-
dence indeed before they came to such a verdict,
which would almost /educe to nothing the value of
the plaintiff's property.
Francis Vivyan, examined by 'Air. EasKINE.—I
was acquainted, with Mr. Joshua Rowe. I was his
mine-captain. I know his property of Lemellon, in
the parish of St. Blaize, in the county of Cornwall.
He took that property in 1811, and occupied it to
his death. I paid, as his agent, the parish rates for
it. In 1820, I was directed by Mr. Rowe to com-
mence mining operations on that estate for copper
ore. I sunk a shaft, and opened a mine in the
lower part of Lemellon, towards the eastern boun-
dary. I found copper lode. I pursued it, and found
copper ore. I raised ore to the surface. We raised
on the first occasion from 12 to 15 tons. It was
partly dressed for the market under my directions. It
was then deposited near the shaft's mouth. The
last time I saw that ore was on the 4th September,
1820. I was at the mine again on the 6th. I then
found the ore removed from the place in which I
left it. I afterwards went to Mr. Brenton on the
same morning. I told him that I was informed that
he, with several others, had broken into our pre.
raises, and carried away the copper ore. He ac-
knowledged that he had done so ; said that Mr.
Rowe ought not to blame him ; be had but a small
interest; and was acting under the direction of his
employers. After this I sank another shaft.
The taking of the ore was here admitted by the
ATTORNEY-GENERAL, and it was agreed that the
value of it should be determined out of Court.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—
I went into Mr. Rowe's service in 1811. He was
not then possesed of Lemellon. He purchased it in
1814. I don't know what he gave for it. I never
heard what lie gave for it from Mr. Rowe. I be-
lieve that he bought it of Mr. W, Pearce, Mr.
Rowe began his mining operation there in 1820. I
know the East Crinnis mine. The shaft of that
mine was about 20 yards from the boundary of
Rowe's Lemellon. I was living within a mile of
it at the time. I do not know that they were
getting copper ore out of the East Crinnis mine
in great quantities at the time we sunk our abaft. I
never was in the mine. I know a person of the
name of Barbary. I don't know that he worked in
the East Crinnis mine before Rowe bought his pre-
mises. Barbary, in June, 1820, was taken into the
employ of Rowe. 1 hired him myself, but I did not
inquire where he had worked previously. He came
with three others to ask employment. I did not
know, before Rowe bought the premises, what di-
rection the lode of East Crinnis mine took. Before
we sunk the shaft in Row's Lemellon, I did not
know that it ran in the direction of Rowe's Lemellon,
—for all the lodes in the country take that direc-
tion : I knew that the miners in East Crinnis
had got under Rowe's premises six or eight yards
when we sunk the shaft at Lemellon. I fixed
the position of the shaft myself without consult-
ing Barbary, but Barbary was employed in sinking
it. The place where we sunk our shaft was within
four yards of Mr. Rowe's boundary. Our shaft was,
therefore, 24 yards only from the East Crinnis
shaft. Before we sunk our shaft, I never saw any
copper carried from the East Crinnis works. Ido
not knew that in June, 1820, the East Crinnis
people were dressing copper ore at their shaft.—
When we sunk our shaft, I went below myself. It
was only 24 yards deep; I do not know the depth
of the East Crinnis shaft. A road divides East
Crinnis from the premises of Rowe's Lemellon, and
is ten yards from our shaft. I have no recollection
of walking along that road before we opened our
shaft, and of seeing heaps of things, rubbish and
other matters, near the East Crinnis shaft. The
bottom of our shaft came down to the lode which
the East Crinnis people were working. We holed
down straight to it, and we put down our shaft to
come to it. I know Mr. Rowe's handwriting.—
Those letters are in his writing—(looking at some
produced.)—The field on which we sunk our shaft
was in cultivation. It had oats in some part, but
it had been not long before waste. It was called
Lemellon Moor. The longest ploughed land in it
had not been more than three or four years in culti-
vation. I do not know what is called Duchy land in
Cornwall.
Re-examined—The field was enclosed by stone
walls. There was a house upon it, in which Mr.
Rowe lived. The East Crinnis shaft is on the pro-
perty of Mr. Carthew. Before I sunk this shaft, I
had been employed in Great Crinnis mine, which is
near a mile from East Crinnis mine. The ore that
was taken away from our shaft was not taken away
from that which we holed down on the East Crinnis
lode, but from another.
Cross-examined—We sunk a second and a third
shaft. We threw rubbish down our first shaft, to
make them go round our shaft.
By the COURT—Mr. Rowe has 36 acres of land
in Lemellon ; about eight or ten acres of it were
moor. It was reputed a bounded estate. A hounded
estate entitles the owner to search for tin. The
bounds are holes cut in the turf. There are bound-
masters. The three shafts are all on Lemellon-moor.
They were on different lodes. They are bound for
tin, and for tin only.
Mr. Buoutatiot said that lie should rest his case
here for the present.
the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Then, if my
learned
friend rests his case here now, he must rcst it here
over.

The counsel for the defendant then submitted, that
on the evidence as it now stood, the plaintiff must
be nonsuited, as there was no even pima facie evi-
dence that the ore seized was the property of the
plaintiff. All that the plaintiff had done was to
offer very scanty evidence of his naked possession of
the surface, without showing whether it was freehold,
copyhold, leasehold, or otherwise. Now if the evi-
demce of the possession of the surface by Mr. Rowe
were much stronger than that which he had tendered
to the Court, it would be necessary for him to show
that he was entitled to the possession of the minerals,
for it was not at all unusual for the possession of the
minerals to he separated from the possession of the
session of the minerals was in the plaintiff,
surface. It was not right to presume that the pos.
because
the possession of the surface was ; and, indeed, us
far as the evidence went, the possession of the mine-
rals was proved to be:not in the plaintiff, but in another
person. Now, to sustain trover, the plaintiff must