The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-12 00:00:00

WALKER V. JEFFRETS.

His HoXouit gave judgment in this case. The bill
was filed by the assignees of a lease, granted in October
1791, comprising certain lands and mines under them,
fur a term of 42 years, and containing a covenant of re-
hewal for the term of 21 years ; and the bill was filed in
order to obtain the benefit of that covenant. There had
been a refusal on the part of the defendants torenew the
lease ; and it was alleged on their behalf, first, that there
had been acquiescence on the part of the plaintiffs ;
and, secondly, that they had forfeited their right by
breach of covenant, in not having worked the mines
in the manner agreed on. ln consequence of the mines
being drowned, they had, from the year 1815, ceased
to work them. In July, 1833, the plaintiffs had dis-
tinct and positive notice that the owners of the mines
denied their right to'll renewal of the lease, and no
intention to assert their right had followed that inti;
mation. It had been decided in several cases, that where
trade was concerned time was the essence of the con-
tract. So far as the case depended upon the covenant
for renewal, he should have no difficulty in refusing the
decree prayed by the bill. But the plaintiff contended
that they had a title wholly inch:vend:lnt of that. They
said by the terms of a lease of 6th Oct. 1791, Hr. Car-
penter was constituted a trustee for the lessees, under
which the plaintiffs claimed upon two distinct grounds ;
first, upon crest to grant a lease for the term of 42 years,
and a covenant of renewal for 21 years ; and, secondly,
to grant that further lease upon request. The plaintiffs
further
.insisted, that inasmuch as the legal estate had
been absolutely vested in Mr. Carpenter, the lessees be-
, came absolute owners in equity of the mines to the ex-
tent defined in the trust. His Honour said the question
of the alleged trust must be submitted to the
same inquiry as the trust upon that covenant. He
thought that two issues should be directed ; first,
whether the mines became drowned out by reason of
any default in the lessees in not fairly getting, and regu-
larly working the same, according to the covenant con-
tained in that behalf in the lease ; and, secondly,
whether by fairly getting and regularly working the
mines, according to the covenant, the said mines might
have been relieved of water since they became drowned.
After some discussion at the bar, the cause was ordered
to stand over *rail this day week.
. . .

Several motions came before the Court which involved
no feature of public interest.

COURT OF QU.E L'N'a BENCH, Jan. 11.

The Court was opened with the usual formalities.
At twenty minutes to two o'clock, Lord Denman, Jus-
tices Patteson, Coleridge, and Wightman, took their
seats on the bench.
Nothing of any interest occurred up to the rising of
the Court. .

THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF DOVER.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL appeared to show cause
against a rule obtained in this case, which called upon
the Commissioners for lighting and paving the borough
of Dover, why the rule obtained in May, 1840, and the
several other orders made in the cause should not be
discharged with costs, and why the prosecutors should
not pay the cost of the present application. It would
appear that the prosecutors in the rule were the Com-
missioners under a Local Act for paving and lighting
the town of Dover, and in November, 1840,
an application was made by them to the Court
.of Quben's Bench against certain Justices of the
borough to show cause why a mandamus should
not issue, directed to them, and commanding them to
admininister an oath to the collector of rates, and issue
their warrant to authorise the levying of a distress. A
person named Weston, who was the proprietor of certain
houses in a part of the town called Wellington-crescent,
•was of opinion that he was not liable to the rates au-
Caorised to be levied under the Local Act, on the
ground that the street was macadamized and not
paved, and for other reasons. -On hearing the ar-
guments of Counsel, when the rule was moved for,
their Lordships directed the rule to be enlarged, and if
an indemnity were given to the Magistrates that they
should issue their warrant, and then the rule was to be
discharged with costs. The present application was,
that that rule should be discharged, the costs being paid
by the prosecutors, and he would be enabled to show that
the Magistrates had not acted altogether fairly towards
the Commissioners, and that their clerk was acting as
the attorney of Mr. Weston, the ploy against whom the
Commissioners were proceeding. The Learned Counsel
having entered .at some length into the details of the case,
which have been already stated when the rule was moved
for, submitted that the Commissioners could not be fairly
held liable for the expenses of the application to that
Court. The Commissioners were public officers, acting
in the discharge of a public duty, under the provisions
ofan Act of Parliament,.
Mr. Justice PATTESON inquired what had become of
the rule for the mandamus.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the rule was enlarged
by order of the Court, and still so remained. It would
appear that after the • indemnity had been given to the
Justices, Mr. Weston, through the Clerk of the Justices,
who acted as his attorney, paid the rate claimed by the
Commissioners, and the terms of their Lordship's order
to administer an oath to the collector, and issue their
warrant, had not therefore been complied with. On
these grounds he submitted that the rule ought to be
discharged.

Mr. fiICHARDS was proceeding to address the Court
in support of the rule, when
Lord DENMAM said the Court would not trouble him,
as they were of opinion that the condition upon which
the rule had been enlarged, and which entitled the de-
fendants to costs, had been substantially complied with.
—Rule absolute.

THE QUEEN V. THE LONDON AND GREENWICH RAILWAY

COMPANY.

Mr. MESMER had been instructed on behalf of
Messrs. Slee, Payne, and Slee, vinegar-manufacturers,
Bermondsey, to apply to the Court for a rule to show
cause why a mandamus should not issue, directed to
the defendants, and commanding them to apply to the
Sheriff of Surrey to issue his precept, and empannel a
jury to assess damages done to their premises by reason
of the construction of the railway. The railway was
constructed under the provisions of the 3d William IV.,
chap. 46, and in it the claimants' premises were
scheduled. In consequence of a deviation from the ori-
ginal line, the premises were not interfered with, but
it was subsequently found necessary to widen the line,
by which the claimants' premises were injuriously
affected. The Learned Counsel having referred to the
provisions of the Act, which 'he submitted included the
present case, the Court granted a rule.

CRIBLIN.AL INFORMATION.-TUE QUEEN V. THE REV.

Mr. Emit: had been instructed, on behalf of Lord Fitz-
hardinge, to move for a rule to show cause why a cri-
minal information should not be filed against the Rev.
Henry Cleveland, Rector of Barkston, in the county. of
Lincoln, for a libel. The affidavit of Lord Fitzhardinge
stated that he was advanced to the dignity of an Earl,
which appeared in the Gazette of the 13th of August
last, and on the 27th of August there appeared ft. letter,
signed " Junius," and addressed to the Queen, ex-
pressing feelings of the deepest anguish in having
read in the Gazette the names of the parties
on whom these dignities had been conferred. It then
wen3on to state the seduction of a young lady at Bristol,
under peculiarly aggravated circumstances—the death of
the young lady and her widowed mother, and imputing
it to one of these parties—observing that such were the
persons upon whom the Queen, an English lady and
mother, had been advised, by the persons by whom she
was surrounded, to advance to the English Peerage.
Lord Fitzhardiuge, considering that as his residence of
Berkeley Castle, at Clifton, was not far from Bristol (the
seduction being alleged to have taken place at Clifton),
addressed a letter to the Editor, calling on him to name
the person against whom the charge was intended to be
made, and stating that if he was the party meant no
legal proceedings -would be taken against the author,
provided the charge could be substantiated, but, on the
contrary, every facility would be given for that pur-
pose. That letter was published in the Morning Herald,
with .some comments by the Editor. On the 10th of
Seii:ember, Lord Fitzhardinge, being at Berkeley
Castle received a letter through the General Post,
bearing the Grantham post-mark, and signed " Philo
Junio." It was addressed to Lord Fitzhardinge, and
.charzedlim with having been born and bred in infamy,
'With being a cold calculating debauchee, constant only
in crime, and destitute of every semblance of propriety ;
asked him how dare he presume so far on public for-
bearance as to come forward in so conspicuous a manner
—that the writer knew him well, and if he proceeded
to any further overt acts he would hold him up to public
scorn, as the vilest miscreant that ever breathed. It
also advised him to go and pour out his griefs to his
congenial friends, Lords Melbourne, Palmerston, and
Heajdfort, who would advise him to be quiet, it being
" better to bear those ills we know of, than fly to those
we know not of." He (Mr. Erle) had the affidavits of
Mr. Clarke, a solicitor, of Mr. G. Heally, and another person
tk.ito were acquainted with the hand-writing of the de-
fendant, who resided near Grantham, and that they verily
believed that the letter was in his hand-writing.
The Court grantedlhe rule.
LIDEL--TIIS QUEEN THE PROPRIETOR AND PRINTER
.1

OF TUE SU:MAX TUtLE.S.

Tin ATTORNI: Y • GLNEIIA L Iltat bethi destructed, on
behalf of Mr.
,Grove, a police Magistrate of Greenwich,
to apply to the Court for a rill© to sbQw cause whey a