The Sun.
London, England, 1826-01-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAx.l7.
THE MARQUIS or HERTFORD V. THE EARL OF DAR-
LINGTON.
Mr. ROUPELL moved for an injunction to restrain the
defendant, his workmen, or agents, from digging any pit or
shaft, or making any passage or adit ulider certain pre rises in
the borough of Camelford, in the county ofCornwall, and from
exploding gunpowder under or near the same premises. The
bill stated that the Marquis of Hertford had purchased the re-
maining term in a lease of the premises respecting which the
injunction was prayed, and which at the time of granting the
lease consisted of a very ancient house and a bullock-shed
adjoining, situate in the centre of the borough of Camel-
ford. The house and the bullock-shed having become very
much decayed, the Marquis, upon having the assignment
of the lease made over to him, erected three new tenaments
on the site of the bullock-shed, and had the old house repair.
ed and improved by the addition of a story. Lord Darling.
ton was entitled to the fee of the premises in question, and
to the benefit of a clause in the original lease, reserving to
him the right of digging or trying for mines under the same.
He had lately thought fit to avail himself of this right, and
under the pretence of searching for mines, he had sunk a shaft
within a few miles of the premises, and carried an adit directly
under the houses, in which he had caused gunpowder to be
exploded. The consequence was, that the new buildings had
been wholly destroyed, and the other was in great danger of
being thrown down, if this practice should be persisted in.--
Affidavits were filed in support of the bill, which stated that
there was no ground for supposing that any ore or mineral was
to be found on the premises, and that the blasting which had
taken place was believed to have been done solely for the pur-
pose of destroying the buildings.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR doubted whether the Court had
jurisdiction ; but as the affidavits were positive, he would
grant the injunction as prayed for, and the question ofjmisdic-
tion might be argued when it was moved to dissolve the injunc-
tion.
This transaction is immediately connected with the disputed
question of the patronage of the borough of Camelford. Each
of the houses confers a right of voting on the inhabitants.

COURT OP KING'S BENCE', .Ti.AI 17.
DOE, ON DEMISE OF THE BISHOP Or LONDON, V.
MARSHALL.
This was an action of ejectment, to recover possession of cer-
tain strips of land in the parish of Ilornsey, claimed by the
Bishop of London as lord of the manor. According to the
evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff; it appeared that
Mr. Marshall, the defendant, was a carpenter, holding copy.
hold premises of the manor, which his father had enjoyed be-
fore him • and that for about 50 years the occupier of these
premises itad used these strips to place timber on, and in one
of them had used a saw-pit. One of these strips was in front
of the house, but extended beyond it ; the other was on the
opposite side of the road, adjoining the church-yard.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, on the part of the plaintiff,
urged that these strips were originally part of the waste, and
that the user was merely by indulgence, which could convey no
title.
Mr. SCARLETT, for the defendant, strongly contended that
the occupation was evidence of title; that., unless the road was
made through waste land, the vacant spaces at its sides would
belong, not to, the lord, but to the freeholder or copyholder ;
and that if such 'user were not' received as a proof of right,
half the titles in the kingdom might be unsettled.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE left the jury to decide on the
evidence whether these strips were, from time immemorial,
part of the copyhold which the defendant held ; if they were,
lie was entitled to a verdict ; if nnt, there was no proof of any
conduct on the part of the lord which could give him a right to
the possession. In country places it was often observable that
a carpenter or wheelwright placed his timber on the waste, and
sawed it out in strips of land adjoining the road; and if by
such acts he could obtain a title, the proprietor would be dis-
couraged from exercising indulgence which was no present in-
jury to them, but which they would not be expected to con-
tinue, if it was to become evidence against them of an absolute
right to the soil in the party using it.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff'.