Star.
London, England, 1808-12-20 00:00:00

COURT' OF CHANCERY, DEC. 19.

LUPTON. AND OTHERS V. WOOD AND OTHERS.
The parties in this case were persons concerned in
certain lead mines in Yorkshire, contiguous to each
other. A considerable time ago the plaintiffs had
obtained an Injunction from the Court of Chancery,
restraining the defendants from carrying on their ex-
cavations under a close of land, which the plaintiffs
contended belonged to them. The defendants, how-
ever, soon after applied to the Court 'for a removal
of this injunction, on the ground of the great injury
they would sustain by their mining operations being
stopped ; and consenting that their rights to the pro-
perty in question should be tried by an action of tro-
ver, and in the mean time binding themselves to de-
liver into the plaintiffs a just account of all the lead
ore which should be dug from the excavation prior to
the trying of the issue between the parties. The
issue was accordingly tried at the York Assizes, and
a verdict was found for the plaintiffs, declaring that
close of land in which one of the mines, called the
Little Jug, had been wrought, was the property of
the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, the cause was
again brought into Court, and it was referred to a
Master to enquire what was the value of the lead ore
which-the defendants had dug from the ground be-
longing to the plaintiffs, as distinguished from tlpt
which the defendants had dug from the mine of their
own in the immediate proximity. The Master ac-
corsdingly proceeded to an enquiry ; and at last found
by his report, that the defendants had made no pro-
per distinction between the ore which they had dug
from their own mine, and that which they had dug
from the ground belonging to the plaintiffs ; that
they. or their agents, had been guilty of various
fraudulent transactions ; and that, in short, it was
impossible for him to determine, from the documents
produced, to what share of the produce of the mines
the plaintiffs were entitled. Various exceptions to
this report were taken by the defendants, but the ex-
ceptions were overruled by the Court.
Sir R. ROMILLY this day moved the Court, on the
ground of the Master's report, that the produce of
both the mines, as well that which belonged to the
plaintiffs as that which belonged to the defendants,
should be lumped together, and considered as belong-
ing to his clients, the plaintiffs, till such time as the
defer dants were able to spew, to the satisfaction of
the Court, what precise share of the produce was
drawn from their own mine.
Sir A. PIGOTT was heard at considerable length
for the defendants ; after which the LORD CIIANCRI:
Loa commented at great length on the various trans-
actions which had taken place in this case, and gave
judgment, that, as the defendants, by their twn
wrongful act, had made it impossible for the plaintiffs
to discover the amount of the ore dug by the defen-
dants from the mine, which was found to belong to
the plaintiffs, se 'the best justice that could be ad-
ministered in this case was, to oblige the defendants
to prove what share of the general mass of ore was
extracted from their own mine, the plaintiffs for the
present being considered as having a right to the
whole.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. DECEMBER W.

THOMPSON V. CUMMING.
Mr. PARK stated, that this was an action for board
and lodging, and various other accommodations fur-
nished by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, Mr. David
Cumming, a gentleman of a very large fortune. He
was indeed rather surprised to find Mr. Cumming
had any appetite for appearing before his Lordship
again, as he had been before in Court, defending a
claim of a similar nature from another quarter. Al-
though Mr. Cumming was possessed of a large in-
come, and kept his carriage, yet his niggardly dispo-
sition was such as to make him like well to live en.'
tirely upon Ifs friends, wherever an opportunity
offered, without at all making them any recompence
for the favours received. Such was his conduct upon
the former occasion, and it would be found to be of
a similar nature upon the presert. His Client,
Mr. Adam Thompson, was a Clerk in the Navy Pay-
office, and at the period in question enjoyed only !
2001. subject to the Income Tax. He would leave
it to the Jury to judge whether Mr. Thompson, with
this limited income of 1801. a-year, could afford to
entertain the Defendant, his servants, horses, and
friends, and theservantsof his friends, withmeat,drink,
and' other accommodations. To please this Mr.
Cumming, Mr. Thompson took an expensive house,
for which he paid the rent and taxes, and also paid I
for a stable and coach-house for him. With respect
to the board and lodging, he should call several wit-
nesses, to shew how Mr. Cumming and his friends
were entertained for the space of ten months, together
with a nephew of his, who lived with him for several
months.' All this surely could not be denominated a ,
mere visit, made by one friend to another. He could
prove these facts incontestibly ; but at the same time
he might mention, that he had several letters from
Mr. Cumming. when in the country, to the Plaintiff,
In which he denies ever having authorised him to take
a coach-house for him, and in' which he sets off,
against any claims he might have against him, vari-
ous presents he had sent to Mr. Thompson upon for-
mer occasions, such as a goose and two fowls, &c.
Lord ELLENROROUGH observed, that if the Defen-
dant was intending to make such a set-off from the
claim of the Plaintiff, the matter would become a do-
mestic account, and ought therefore to be brought
befoie a domestic tribunal.
Mr. PARK answered, that the question had already
been submitted to arbitration, and a decision given
against Mr. Cumming, with which he had not chosen
to comply.
Lord ELLENROROUGH then observed, that the best
mode would be to submit it to arbitration under a
rule of Court.
Mr. PARK intimated, that he was perfectly ready
to accede to his Lordship's wishes.
Mr. GARROW, after some hesitation, said, that it
was against the positive orders of his client, Mr. Cum-•
ming, to agree to any reference ; but he could not
help thinking it would be wasting his Lordship's
time to try such a cause ; and, therefore, would take
upon hinuelf,to agree to what was proposed.
A verdict was accordingly given in favour of the
Plaintiff, subject to a reference to arbitration ruder a
Rale of Court.