The Sun.
London, England, 1818-12-19 00:00:00

ORDINATION.

Sunda); last the Bishop of Uhester held an Ordination in his
Cathedral, on which occasion the Rev. Wm. Pearson, Lec-
turer of St. Peter's, preached an excellent and appropriate
Sermon. The following Priests and Deacons were orelaioed :

Pritsis.—James Addison, Henry Richardson, Bober" St tut-
Imbue, Thomas 'Bligli, A. N. of St. Peter's College Cam-
bridge; Robert Bradley, Garinor Baldwin, A. B. of lirasen-
nose College, Oxford.
Deacons.—Boger Hesketb Formby, A. B. of Jesus College,
Cambridge; John Theobalds ; Joseph Newton, A B. of St.
John's College, Cambi idge ; Launcelot John Wilsoo, Thomas
Dixon, Charles Forshaw, Bobert Gibstm, A. B. of Peinbruks
Hall, Cambridge; Hodgson, John hawlandson,
William Slater, John Viiilhinson Turner, Joseph Gate, Ed-
, ward Buwniati, !Main Mitudalc.

LAW INTELLIGENCE:

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DEC. 18.

THE BLENHEIM ESTATE,.

DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH•

~~
*::

HE ATTORNhY•GENERAL, AT THE REtATION or
THE MARQUIS OF BLANDFOIIO, ANT) THE HON.

AGAR ELLIS AND OTHERS, V. HIS 'GRACE THE

Mr. Hamsoa, as Junior Counsel for the Noble
Defendant, stated this vo be a bill filed by the
plaintiffs, praying that the duteildant might be
ordered to account for the produce of certain
trees nhich had been cut down in Blenheim Park
'end di-posed of; and further, that he should-be
Testrained by that Court from cutting down any
more timber, or from committing other waste on
the Blenheim Estate. The bill set forth some
proceedings in Pailiament, which took place in
the 3d and 4th of the reign of Queen Anne, when
the,tlonae of Coinmons, on account of the signal
aermiees and bleb exploits, particularly the mili-
tary achicvments rd the first Mike of :llarlhorough
irm his victory at Blenheim, presented an Address
to her Majesty she Queen, in which they ex,
prelsed their gratittoic for those sereict s, and
stars ett that her Majesty, es the fountain of ho-
nour, would grant some means of perpetirmoina his
renown and glor v. The Address of the Com-
mons was followed buts corresponding Address front
the Lords, and the Queen expaessed her perfect
readiness to concur, in the do sire of bolt Houses.
Au Act of Pailiatnent was tht crating
the %Woodstock eat awl, coot ainioa 1894 acres,
io Oxfordshire. It was afterwards found expe-
dient by the Queen and Parliament, and approv-
ed of by the Doke, that the est wts should go
down, Aorta with the title, to Hs Grace's pos.
tcrt' Y. BY the same Act, h("1" alai, s y " as "11.
powered in raise a certart sian for the erection
of a splendid notasian, which was to be named
Blenheim )loose, in ortkr that postetity should
be acquainted e ith the sense of gratitude with
.s Helm the nation had heel) art rotted ; and that
the hoilding itself might stand a permanent mo-
torment, of his Grace's exploits. A subsequent
Act of 'Parliament, in the reign of George I. after
reciana the provisions of the Act of Queen
Army, set fortis, that the erection of the mansion
Blenheim, the gardens, grounds, ext. had been
at the expellee of the Qrteen, out of the revenue
granted to her by Parliament for that very pur-
pose It was accordingly enacted, that all de.
mantis and claims of tradesmen prior 10 the year
1712 thomild he discharged by the Crown, Tl.e
bill then complained that the Noble defendant had
cat down several nees of considerable value at
Blenheim Park, which were not only bialmly orna-
mental, but •nseful as a protection to the property.
Ile had also cut down a great number of saplings
at AI) no:seasonable part of the year, which lie had
told, and 'hati-contrac:ed to tmnish several timber
tor:chants with timber from the Park. The Bill
went on to allege, that if the Cour did not inter-
fere and prevent him, the plaintiffs would be de-
prived of time protection which Parliamerat had
provided for them, as the heirs 4nd descendants of
the great Duke of Marlborough. To this Bill the
defemlant had put in a .general demurrer —first ,
that no such, waste as the Bill stated had been
cominitted ; secondly, that the discovety sought
"ny the Mil could be of no service to the plaintiffs.
Mr. Beta., for the Noble Defendant, main-
tained, that the intention of the grant was -to vest
the estate its fee-simple in the Doke and his suc-
cessors, for which reason there was no reversion
vested in the. Crown ; therefore the King's Attor-
ney-General-was improperly introduced as a party--
in the present suit.
, The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, he conceived that
the Duke remained revetsionary in fee, because
the 2d of carieen Anne could never deprive him of
the fee he hail obtained by the first Act.
Mr. Beet, said, that waa exactly the case ; and
it- confirmed his argument, because the 20 of
Queen Anne limited the estates that were to go
%rift the title, granting, at the same time, to the
Duke and his successors certain privileges, but
preventing them front alienation. There were
two questions then to he considered ; first, what
had been the doctrine of Courts of Equity in cases
of equitable waste, so far as aenants for life were
concerned ? Secondly, whether there was, in the
case of the Noble Duke, any thing that should
require a different mode of proceeding from
'others ? Before be should go further into the
aprestion, he would observe, that when the in-
junction was moved for before Lord Chavaaellor
his 'Lordship felt some difficulty in grant-
ing it, not finding, in his recollection, any case
precisely similar, except that of Lord Shrews-
bury's ; and he granted it on the special condi-
tion, that notice should forthwith be served on
the Noble Defendant. In common law, all per-
sons, except guardians, who were not tenants for
life, had full power to cut down trees, The first
Statute, pt eventing the making waste was, that
of Matbridge. Lord Coke, in his 2d Institute,
299, speaking of that estate, says, " It furnishes
tenants in dower-tenants by courtesy and .guar-
dians, but not tenants for life ;" for it says of
such waste, " it most be owing t.o negligence of
donors in not making a proper provision." The
2d Statute was that of Gloucester, which gave
triple damages for waste committed. The next
was the 2d of Westminster, which, besides the
same damages, gave thens also retrospectively.—
In the case of 14 Vane and Lord Bernard," in
1716, which Was for ass injunction to restrain the
defendant from pulling drawn a mansion-house,
the Court held it to be contrary to the meaning
of the donor, and restrained him accordingly.—
'ln the case of " Abrams and Budd," which was for
felling trees, Lord Chancellor Nottingham
thought he could not restrain the defendant ;
but that if he went to-poll down houses, the
Court would interpose. The Learned 'Counsel
stated other cases to the same effect, and con-'
eluded, that the fee was vested in the great Duke
and his successors, under the first of Queen Anne,
• end whoever was in possession entail, had the
right to cut down timber, and dispose of it. 'Pa:
plaintiffs, by the present ploceediug, were trying
to deprive the Noble Defendant of his common
lista sight. Would the Counsel, said the Learned
-Gentleman,. pretend to say, the estate ought to
stand precisely its the same state as when it was
first granted by Cancel) Anne ?
The VICa•CHANCELLOI said they must 90 argue,

'fit the Iteaniog flee deed oi girt Vas,
Blenheim was to remain in the s►anme state as it
was at when possessed by the first Duke of Marl-
borough.

Mr. BELL then said,thevtnnst contend that the
Noble Defendant had not the right of making any
improvementon the premises. it was well known
that a change had taken place in the fashion of
carriages since the days•rif Qneen Anne, and ac-
cording to the present argument, his Grace could
tint enlarge a coach-road so as to admit 2 modern
carriage. Ile supposed it would be contended
that 'the Noble Defendant, if the 'Diane ion were
not Continued, would level the mansion to the
ground, and that every Englishman would be en-
raged that such a monnintut of the nation's vic-
tories should be destroyed. Would it not, said
he, be better to trust its safety to the care of the
owner sin possession, thin for the Corot to inter-
fere is lie trusted his llonour would allow the
demnrrer and dismiss the bill.

Mi. WRAY and Mr. IlAmsos followed on the
same side.

erk! SOLICITOR-GF N Coougel for the
plaintids, said, the present
.was ft goestion of great
important e, not only to tie parties, but to the
Public at large ; for it was, whetlicr the Duke of
I.l.l,rlborotigh or any of his successors bad the
right and power of pulbug down a splendid mo-
nument of British gratitude for- the unparalleled
victories of his ancestor. The demnirer must
admit, for tbe_porpose of the argument, that the
detend,unt bail cut rlown trees, and be had a-right
to contend that the trees were planted in the time
of Queen Anoe.

. '1 he Virp-cn,%NcELLoil here interrupted the
Learned tioneilor, s‘iyitte that the usual dine for
the Comitl'a rising had arrived, and that he should
hear the rrtnalotivr of the case to-morrow.--
Proceedings deterred till to-morrow.

counT OF KING'S BENCH, Dcc. IS.

FALtiE INIPRISONNIENT.

STAIGHT V. GEE AND GARS ER.

This W:l3 an action to, recover damages for
false imprisonment, limier the following circum-
stances :—The an ivory carver, accom-
panied by Ansley, a groom, was returning to
London on the sth of October, \s ill' a horse he
hail been to take Op from grass. They stopped at
Ilackney, ant! wept into the Cock, a public-house
kept by the defendant Gee. The plaintiff went
out to toly some chops; but being unable to pro-
cure change from the butcher's, showed a it. note
to the defendant Gee, which, it seemed, had been
thought suspicious by the butcher. The defen-
dant Gee said it was a forged note, anti asked the
plaintiff if he had any more ; the plaiutiff showed
him another, arid the defendant Gee having taken
both, refused! to restore them, saying (as was
stated by one of the plaintiff's witnesses) that he
had taken many bad notes, and the first person
he caught uttering thi mhe would punish. At
this time a soldier, quartered in the house, went
oat, and informed one Merry, a constable, of the
transaction. Merry returned with him. In the
mean time the plaintiff had demanded the restora-
tion of his notas in vain, although he had written
his name and address ot► them. He then went
out with Ansley, as Ansley stated, for the purpose
of finding a constable. Merry took the notes to
the house of Mr. Fish, a Bank Inspector, who was
ifl in bed ; and the notes being shown him be
his wife, she told Merry her husband said they►
were perfectly good, and had marked them with
his initials. Merry returned, .and seeing the
plaintiff and Ansley conferring together at a little
distance, took them both into custody, and placed
them in charge of the soldier and Garver, the de-
fendant, another constable, in a parlour in Gee's
house. The plaintiff and Ansley were then search-
ed, and their shoes and stockings taken off. The
watch of one of them was held-up jeeringly, as if
he had not come honestly by it. They were then
handcuffed together; and taken in the rain from
Hackney to the Public-office, Worship-street, the
defendant Gee walking with a stick before them.
Thee were there discharged, after having been in
custody from a little after tour till near nine.—
The notes were proved to be good.
'l'he•defence set up for Gee was, that the con-
stables had acted-without i►is order or directions;
and to i►rove this, the soldier quartered in his
house stated, that be had gone out and called the
officer Merry entirely of his own accord, and
without any order whatever from Gee ; he did
not know who gave the notes to Merry ; Merry
had gone out of the parlour to fetch them. The
officer hail proceeded to confine the plaintiff, be-
cause he did not believe the inspector's wile had
shewn him the notes ; hut Gee was in the room
during some part of the time when the plaintiff
was searched.

Another• witness stated, that Gee said he did
not wish the plaintiff and Ansley to be searched
or handcuffed ; and that tine plaintiff, on retui
ing to Hackney front the public-office in Wor-
ship•street, drank a glass of gin at the defet►dant's
house.

The defence set up for Garver was, that he was
acting as a constable, and that the grievance
complained of having been committed in Middle-
sex, the venue ought to have been laid in that
county, under the 21st of James, c. 12. •
The Learned CHIPF JUSTICE was of opinion,
that though he had no warrant, he was acting as
a constable, and was therefore within the Act ;
and a verdict was found for him but the Jury
found a verdict against Gee, the other defendant
—DArtuges, 501.