The Sun.
London, England, 1817-11-15 00:00:00

MNIEL v. MOORS.

This was a special case for the opinion of the
Court. It was an action of assumßsit for money
laid out-and:- expended to and for the use of the
defendant. Plea-74. Non-assurnpsit. 2. Actio
nun uccrevit inter sex annoy. At the trial before
Mr. Justice Bayley at the Summer Assizes for
Yorkshire 18161 the Jury found a verdict for the
plantiff, subject to a case of which the following
were the lea,ing circumstances :—Plaintiff had
been tenant of a house of which the defendant
was landlord, at the rent of one hundred per
annum, during the Operation of the late Pro-
perty Tax Act, by which Act it was provided
that the landlord's Property Tax should he col-
lected- on the premises, the tenant deducting
the amount thereof from his first payment of
rent to the landlord, who, if he neglected to allow
the deduction, was liable to a penalty, or subject
to an action at the suit of the tenant. For twelve
Years the plaintiff paid the landlord's property tax
voluntarily, without ever demanding the allow-
ance thereof in paying his rent, still less demand-
ing it upon the first payment of rent as required
by .the Act. The reason alleged for this was an
apprehension on the part of the plaintiff, that if
he urged the deduction'of the property-tax, the
defendant would iucrease his rent. However, at
the expiration of his 12 years tenantry, he com-
menced this action, for the purpose of recovering
the amount of property-tax which he bad so. paid
during those several years, and the question was,
whether, under the circumstances of the case, the
action was maintainable.

Mr. BARROW argued, for the plaintiff, and Mr.
LITTLEDALE for the defendant.

The Court were unanimously of opinion that
the action was not maintainable, upou the broar)
principle that these being.voluntary paymenis,and
the transaction having somewhat of an aspect of
fraud upon the Government, the plaintiff was not
now at liberty to enforce his reimbursement by
process of law, and therefore gave judgment fur
the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Their Lordships were this day principally oc-
cupied in taking justifications of bail.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

SIR WATKIN LEWES V. MORGAN.

Mr. DAUNCEY shewed cause against the rule
moved for some days past, calling upon the de-
fendant to deliver over to Sir W. Lewes., the pos-
session of his estates and the balance of the re-
ceived rents, amounting to 40001. after the pay-
ment of the mortgages. The present application,
he said, was most comprehensive. It went to
the same extent as in the simple case of a trans-
,action between a mortgager and mortgagee. Yet
during the protracted stages of the proceeding,
every Court to whose judgment it was submitted,
had pronounced it a case of great complication.
His Learned Friends in submitting their motion,
asking for a rule of such importance to the par-
ties implicated, and particularly to the defendant,
did not cite a single authority to prove that any
similar application was supported . by precedent.
They called upon the Court to do that, per soltum,
at the possible risk of great injury and injustice
to Mr. Morgan, wllich, if they were right on the
fullest investigation, and when the general report
was before their Lordships, it was then in their
power to attain without difficulty or much delay.
But their Lordships were aware that independent
of the amount of the mortgages, Mr. Morgan
bad other claims on Sir W. Lewes—judgment
debts, ‘vhich must be considered to give him an
equitable lien on the property. The Court would
hear in .mind that Sir Watkin Lewes possessed
but a life estate in this property, that he was of
an advanced age, and that therefore if the object.
he now sought was acceded to, and the defendant
was compelled to delifier up the possession of the
, estates, Mr, Morgan, on the establishment of his

claims by the general report, would have been left
wholly naked and unsecured. It was also to be.
recollected, that by the effect of the present bill the
hands of Mr. M. were tied up, quoad these claims."
Had no such object presented itself, he could long
before that time have made them effective. The
Learned Counsel proceeded into a detailed state-
ment of the connection between Sir W. Lewes
and Mr. Morgan, a connection he would admit
equally unfortunate to both. Various sums of
money were advanced to the plaintiff by Messrs.-
Morgans, anterior to the mortgages, of which
Sir Watkin at that time stood in need, from the.,
nature of the public pursuits in which he was en-,
gaged, and of the great expenditure that such
pursuits entailed. The House of Lords had in
its wisdom restricted the mortgage debts 'to a cer-
tain amount, throwing out of their comprehen-
sion a sum of 24001. on grounds which he could
not take upon himself to Sty he understood. •
Baron GARROW.-The proceedings, which 1 read
this morning, stare the grounds, and on perusing
them you will find the decision was founded on
good and striking reasons.
Mr. DAUNCEY observed, that the Howse of
Lords, though it denied their right to be admit-
ted on the ground of mortgage claims, never did
say that they ought not to be paid. These claims
where in the progress of investigation on the ge.
net al report. • Interrogatories were exhibited to.
he put to Sir W. Lewes respecting these demands.
Would their Lordships, under such cireorastances,
risk a possible evil to the defetidants ? Besi/les,
the prayer of the plaintiff in the bill he filed, not
only asked for the restoration of his estates, hot.
for the settlement of all accounts between the
.parties. There were judgment debts, indepeutl..,
ent of the mortgages held by Mr. Moreau against.
Sir \V Lewes. At ail tvents, he conk not see
how the present motion, with a regard to perfect
justice to all parties, could be accosted to. He;
did not expect that his Learned
.Frietals could
have looked for further than an order to lady the
money into Court, and give up possession to a
person appointed by its authority.
Mr. Baron GEAUANI said, that the urgency of.
the present case required a speedy determination,
and that the Court would proceed in it to-
morrow.

FURIOUS MANIAC.-The inhabitants of the
rough were. yesterday thrown into a state of con-.;.
siderable alarm by the appearance of a man in the
street with a drawn swoH in his hand, which hi
brandished about in a furious manner, assaulting
every person who went near him. Informatiori
of the circumstance was communicated to the
Sitting Magistrate at Union Hall, who instantly
dispatched some of the officers with orders to
cure him and bring- him into Court.. He made a
desperate resistance, and wounded one of the
officers in the hand, but eventually was disarmed
and secured. When brought before the Magis—
trate he refused to answer any question. He was
genteely dressed, and had an Officer's sash t
round his body ; his conduct exhibited decided
symptoms of derangement. Finding it impossi
ble to obtain any satisfactory informarion frosts
the unfortunate maniacs,: the Magistrates desired,
the officers to endeavour to find out some;of his
friends ; and after diligent enquiry, it was ascer-i'
lained that his name. was John Cuthbertson, that
he has beeti an Officer in the army, and is now
on half-pay ; he has usually resided at Stockwell,
and is subject to temporary derangement, at which
time his conduct is furious and dangerous in the,
extreme. The. Magistrate sent for the Parisi, Of-
ficers of Lambeth (in which Stockwell is situat-,
ed), and delivered him into their charge to be
taken care of.