The Sun.
London, England, 1826-05-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE CHANCERY COURT—(TaIe DAY.)
BRICK COMPANY.
ROBSON v. NIAS AND SIKLEIt.
Mr. ROUPELL moved, on the part of the plaintiff,
for an ex-parte Injunction against the defendants.—
The bill was supported by the plaintiff's affidavit,
which stated, that he was the owner of a piece of land
in the neighbourhood, on which there. were various
cottages, &c. He agreed to let part of the land to a
Mr. Astlett, for the purpose of making bricks; Mr.
Astlett was let into possession afterwards, without any
formal contract having been entered into, for the pur-
pose of ascertaining the quality and 'quantity of the
brick materials ; but in a short time subsequently the
plaintiff. found Mr. A. was not a fit and proper person,
ill point of circumstances, to be. let into the uncon-
trouled possession of the premises. It was then pro-
posed that an individual of the name of Nias should
purchase the land out and out. Without any convey-
ance having been made, Nias had made bricks, removed
them, removed brick earth, and felled a great number
of timber trees, which the plaintiff objected to. Upon
the plaintiff's going to view the premises a few days
ago, he fbuud about a hundred men at work, digging
earth, making bricks, removing them, &c. ; and; on
inquiring into the authority of these men, he was in-
formed that they were employed by a person of the
name of Sikiey, who represented himself to be one
of a set of gentlemen, calling themselves the Brick
Company.; that they had derived their title from Nies,
and that he had no longer any thing to do with the
premises._

His HONOUR directed the injunction to go to
restrain the defendants from digging brick earth, mak-
ing, or removing any more bricks, or doing any thing
further on the premises. The ground on which the
Court interfered was, the extraordinary number of men
employed.

OWEN V. FLACK.
HIS HONOUR stated, that this case stood for
.judg-
merit, which he would now pronounce. The bill was
filed by the plaintiff for the purpose of retleming
three mortgages, which were now vested in the de-
fendant ; and the title to redeem was found on a con-
veyance made in the year 1781. 13y that conveyance,
a gentleman of the name Sewell Munson, possessed his
agent, a Solicitor, Mr. Abel Jenkins, in fee °lbis estate, to
sell for the purpose of paying off incumbrances of
the estate, and the residue to Mr. M., or his execti.
tors,' administrators, &c. The estate had not been
sold, but all the incumbrances had been redeemed or
paid off, except those to the present defendant, who
denied the right of Mr. Mansell to convey to Mr.
Jenkins in fee, and therefore put the plaintiff to the
necessity of proving Mr. M.'s right. The plaintiff
relied on the language of some receipts given by the
defendant four years prior to the making of the con-
veyance, which impinge was received in respect of
mortgages on Mr. Wt.'s estate. The defendant then stated
in her answer, that the accounts were always brought
to be filled up, and on receiving the money she sign-
she could not be wrong
ed them, without regard to their language, thinking
if she only got her money.—
Upon the best consideration the Court could give to
the case, it was of opinion with the defendant that the
language of the receipts did not make out the title.—
It also thought, that 45 years having elapsed since the
conveyanee of the estate, all intention to the estate
must be supposed to have been abandoned, and that
the plaintiff was not entitled to redeem. The eonse-
quence was, that the injunction which had been grant-
ed against the defendant would have to be diasolved
and the plaintiff's bill dismissed with costs. ,

The bark harvest is now concluded. The stripping
has not been kind, but the whole has been houtsed or
stacked in excellent condition. The best sets fetched
much the same prices as last year.