The Sun.
London, England, 1829-06-26 00:00:00

ficiently protect possession. In some they re-
strict too much the right of recovery.
After an adverse possession of sixty years, by
which the highest remedy is barred, under some
circumstances a right of entry may still be put
in force. On the other hand, a wrongful posses-
sor is permitted, by going through certain forms,
which are in reality known only to himself and
his legal advisers (although a fiction of law sup-
poses them to be made public) to bar the right-
ful owner in the short space of six years from the

time when the right accrued.
We propose that the law should be rendered
simple and consistent,—by giving a uniform and
certain effect to adverse enjoyment,—by giving
all persons alleging that they are unjustly de-
prived of their estates the same time for enforcing
their claims, with a certain indulgence to claim-
ants under disabilities,—and by giving one re-
medy at law with regard to lands, instead of the
existing variety of remedies to which the different
periods of limitation are attached.
Notwithstanding the anomalies to which we
have adverted, the period of twenty years is the
limitation which in this country is generally acted
upon, and which, being established in some in-
stances by statute, and found to suit the conve-
nience of society, has been made the foundation
of legal presumption, and the rule for affording
or refusing equitable relief. We think this
should be retained, and with a few exceptions
and qualifications made universal. There is
likewise one remedy to recover possession of
land, which in practice has nearly superseded all
others. We think that this alone, with some
improvements, should be_ retained and extended
to all cases. Adverse possession of land for a
period of twenty years will then be required to
be, and «ill be a bar to all adverse claims ; and
all the antiquated for.ns of proceeding which are
now occasionally resorted to for the recovery of
landed property will give way to ejectment.
The establishment of this period of limitation,
and the abolition of real actions, would tend
greatly to diminish litigation, and would save the
owners of real property from much vexation and
expellee to which they are at present exposed,
sometimes in defending their possession, and
still more frequently when they attempt aliena-
tion. By the proposed alteration the practical
efficient remedy for recovering possession would
not be unpaired. When the ancient remedies
were framed, descent was the chief mode of trans-
mitting real property, and devises, terms of
years, and the distinction between legal and
equitable estates were nearly unknown. The ac-
tions which may now be brought after an ad-
verse possession of twenty years, are almost ex-
clusively applicable to the case of an heir claim-
ing a legal estate by descent, and they require
that he should allege and prove a seisin in his
ancestor. If a chattel interest in land be claimed,

if the claim he under a will or conveyance or en-
tail, an adverse possession of twenty years is an
absolute bar. In Courts of Equity the rule is
generally understood to be established, that after
an adverse possession of twenty years no relief'
can be given ; and when it is considered how
generally the existence of mortgages, trusts, and
outstanding terms .prevents any legal remedy, it
will be found that this rule is applicable to a very
large proportion► of the land in England.

(To BE CONTINUED.)

THE LONDON BRIDGE APPROACHES.

Most of the remaining claims under the New
London Bridge Act are, it is believed, likely to be
settled without being submitted to Juries. Indeed
the Corporation has made such liberal offers, and the
exorbitant demands of unconscionable claimants
hare ha►l such an effect upon the public feeling, that
Juries, as has been very lately testified, no longer
measure the verdict by the amount required. The
most valuable premises on the London side of the
river have been already removed, and either a ver-
dict or a compromise has set the claims for them at
rest. Several houses on the Surrey side have been
disposed of in the same way. It is calculated that
the Corporation has settled for nearly one-fifth of
the premises required to perfect the approaches.—
The cost of compromises, without verdicts, is up-
wards of 150,0001., and the following is an exact
account of the claims and verdicts :

In Southwark. Claim. Verdict.
Lease and Goodwill £23,937 .3 4 £12,700 0 0
Do. Do 9 704 8 0 1,750 '2 0
Freehold and Goodwill 31,120 12 0 18,067 5 0
Lease and Goodwill
1)o. Do '2,071 16 0 BB3 0 0
Do. Do '3,160 17 0 639 15 0
Do. Do 4,671 17 6 2,710 8 0
Freehold 3,300 0 0 2,600 0 0
Lease and Goodwill 4,170 7 0 2,126 0 0
Goodwill 923 15 0 220 0 0
Freehold 4,190 0 0 2,100 0 0
Lease and Goodwill 4,018 1 6 485 14 6
Do. Do 2,110 0 0 BB7 8 6
Do. Do 2,596 13 6 1,626 1 6
Do. Do 2,450 0 0 1,412 6 6

£95,17510 10 £50,450 0 0

So that the excess of claim upon the part of
fifteen claimaMts above the estimates of 'the South-
wark Juries, in the sum of 95,675/. 10s. 10d., was
no less than 45,225/. 10s. 10d.
The cases settled by the verdicts of Juries in
London were as follow :

Calm. Verdict.
Freehold and Goodwill £40,921 10 0 £18,095 2 8
Goodwill 1,650 0 0 lOO 0 0
Lease and Goodwill 14,400 0 0 14,061 19 6
Do. Do 913 1 4......... 147 17 8

1:57,917 12 1 .1:33.004 19 10

The disparity particularly on the London side, is
enormous, and has excited some surprise amongst
the citizens. Even the law functionaries have
turned up their eyes at the contrast. It is not ge-
nerally known that in the case of the Messrs. Jones,
who demanded the sum of 44,400/. for the lease
and good. will of their oil premises, Mr. Price, who
formerly kept a great oil warehouse on Snow-hill,
was called on the part of the claimants. This gen-
tleman had beer► obliged to remove on account of
the improvement in Skinner-street, and he was
asked, in cross-examination, what he claimed as
compensation for loss by removal from his premises.
" Nothing," said he. Nothing ! (said the Counsel
for the Corporation) why did you not make any
claim for that loss ?—Ah (said Mr. Price, smiling),
we had not the experience then that we have now.
When the last of the cases stated above—that of
the two attorneys, who sought for compensation for
the good-will of their apartments—was settled, the
Common Sergeant caused a great deal of laughter,
by quoting Lord Eldon. The Learned Counsel
was examining the claimant's clerk, and asked him
whether the place to which his employers had re-
moved was not more eligible, on account of being
nearer to the Courts of Westminster, than the
apartments in Thames-street. The clerk replied
that the proximity to those Courts was no object,
as they always laid their venues in the City of Lon-
don. He, however, was afterwards obliged to ac-
knowledgd that the present office of the claimants
was also nearer to the City Courts; whereupon the
Common Sergeant said that the argument of the
witness put him in mind of what Lord Eldon said
about a week ago, about the marginal notes in an
Act of Parliament. " Don't tell me of referring to
such marginal notes," said his Lordship, " I was
looking over a margin the other day to see where
the venue was laid, and what should I see there but
these words—" Venus is to be laid in Middlesex."
The Common Sergeant thought that whenever the
claimants (one of them was lately married) thought
proper to lay Venus, she would produce nothing-
-" Parturiunt mutes
Naseitur ridieulus true I"