The Sun.
London, England, 1829-01-26 00:00:00

ii Ltio LEAR, u. Cot B, ELE)3I.

. . . . .
Sir -Jagss Spvtt.uvit moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict obtained by the plaintiff
should not be set aside and a nonsait entgred, or
why a knew trial should not be granted. The action
was tried on the 16th instant at the sittings in Mid-
tlieselt Mr. Justice • Bayley and a Special
Jury,- It 'appeared that the defendant? Mr. Cove;
ivai the son of 'a lady, wLp, miwy-years ago, pur-
chased the advowtona of two livings in Berlts, mid
with them the right of presenting, One of them,
was the rectory of \Voolhampton, and the other the
vicarnge.of Brimpton. They were both under the
yearly- Value pf ,11./.. in Oa 'King's books. Mrs. Cove
presented the defendant to Ihern io jepo, (when
they became vaimlt by die death of the inetirolrent),
and he was regOlarly instituted and inducted. The
-title to the advowsons had descended from a family
of the name of Deane. Two sisters, Jane and
HarFiet. hoop, had become entitled to them in co-
parcelWY, .]ante, dip .o.4ist cistcri who bad the
drat turn to present, ePld her interest to Mrs.
Cove, the dellintlaotis mother?. who 44 a eon,
veyance in-fee. The yourigar sister, Harriet, mar-
lied Mr. Halton, the plaintiff's father. Atter the
' lapse of some years it was discovered that the advcwr
spits d.eseendis4 it; ;gilt and no recovery or fine to
destroy the entail heipg fohunii inheritance,
upon the death of bne Pepe? tlespeode4 to
her sister Harriet, who, as the surviving ialue in
tail, then became entitled to the, entirety of the ad-
,yow,ons. The title of the defendant's mother,
serepre, 0.4 a defective. This, however, was un-
known to as well as to the defendant for many
yeißs, The 11.44,tips bad. been instituted to the
livinga.opon the PrPsPilt4tioo of hit mother on the
25th of' February; and froM that time till
1825, when Mr. Haltouis- son, the piaiotiff, liceame
-of age to take priest's orders, his right to 'hold theirt
*as t;odisputed. In July, .1825, the plaintiff, haring!
' iheP piteot';2l orders, was presented to
.the rec-
tory of ii.rooihrimptp.nt.up the/ groiTtl that as-the-de-
fendant hell both livings tpgetli:eF? Fiithpirt bztving
obtained a dispensation for that purpose from
Bishop, Woolhanipton had become vacant. Mr.
hjalon rontended that he was entitled to present in
right of iris wife, ;,-fip owner of the ad-
vowsons. Some resistani::?, APWPirq, Ft-pOp oa
the part of the defendant, who longed a pitygo
against the institution of the plaintiff, and the Bishop
rilfned to institute, on the ground that the living
was futi, .and Mrs. Halton then brought a
glare impedit, to w:.4 leap were put in on the
part of the defetidittit ; but the partiei haying mbse-
trendy proposed terms of, arrangement, all. furthew
iiii;?pshion to the plaintiff's instil town was withdrawn.
Judgmetik y flefirnit was obtained in the quare im-
j;edit, and the plaintiff W:,4 ;;nmediately instituted
and inducted. This took place pn the Oth f
hytiary, . 1827. Having thus obtained possession of
the liAring, NI% and Mrs. Helton thought proper to
proceed further to the pawl:ohm of the qua?-e int-
pedit, and accordingly executed a Ws•;t- Rf piquity to
recover half a year's value of the'prolits. of 'it:alive
inir. They obtained a verdict for 1124, and signed
final jui,lppent in Michaelmas Term, 1827. An
action for 'dilapitlatioiis; )yas afterwards brought.
Pending that action, the_prewnt tistioit was com-
menced, the object of- it being to recover. the profitt;
of the ).iviyig of Woolluunpton received by die de-
fendant, belwaen the neriod from the Bth of July,
•
1825, when the plaiiitie was precelted .to the Bth
11,of Febi nary, 1827, when be
.was inducted, the de: •
fendant having continued in possession of the par-
iaostaAe lio,set_aial glebe land, and received the profits
of dorikg 0.4. t
4ft er some mintsrestitig blitwef.ti Coun-
sel as to of htw slid precedent,
Lord TF,NTERDEN suggested Whether it woi4i not
be advisable to let the matter come before the Court
on a special case.
'rhe SOLICITOR-GENERAL had no objection to a
'special cwie, pp had to move the COUrt for leave
to increase the dirmagea, olaintiff claiming for
half a year's profits beyond the sum which the- jug
had given.
40r4 TONTERDEN—The special case will contain
all the point#?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL Wap vitp satisfied.
THE KING v. THE 3IAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF NEW

WINDSOR.

This WAS an application for a writ of. mandamus
to the Mayor 41qe!nen of New Windeori com;.:

maiming them to bold a Cnurt
of Record for the re-
covery Cr small debts, pursuant to a charter granted
Challs IL—Rule absolute.

ABM 41. LILLE.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE obtained a rule in the last
term, calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the
verdict obtained by him for 41. Os. 2d. should not be
set aside on the ground that the post-mark on a let-
ter has been received as proof of its date, without
any evidence having been given of the genuineness
of such post-mark ; and also why a sugges►ion should
not be entered on the record, to deprive the plaintiff
of his costs, the debt being under 5/., which he
should therefore have sued for in a Court of local
jurisdiction at Boston,-where the defendant resided.

. _
The COURT, after hearing Mr, Sergeant Josue
against the rule, and Mr, Sergeant WILDE in reply,
decided that the verdict ought not to be disturbed.
Rule discharged.