Star.
London, England, 1823-06-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY—THIS DAY.
• THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH.
This matter being called on, •
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked Mr. Wetherell
whether be was in it ?
' Mr. WETHERELL.—" Yes, my Lord. It is a Pe-
tition that it may be referred to the Master to inquire
and report what are the debts- chargeable on the
estate wad effects of the Earl of Portsmouth—whe-
ther the demand on which this action is brought (for
there is an action now pending against him) is a just
demand or not—and whether such action ought to be
defended or not? In short, the object of this Peti-
tion is to inquire into the debts of the Earl, with a
view of ascertaining what his estate ought to pay on
tit- charge of debts. It is quite of coarse." •
HEALD.—" I appear and consent, my Lord."
Lone Ctraxera.Loa.—" Be it as prayed."
APPEAL IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 16.
LOYD V. TRISILESTON.
This was an Appeal from the Court of Chancery
in Ireland. Some years ago, the late Lord Trimles-
ton, who had in the latter part of his life married a
second wife, namely, Miss Alicia Eustace, a young
Lady of considerable beauty, now married to Gene-
ral Loyd, died, leaving by his will the bulk of his
estates to his widow, to the exclusion of his son, the
present Lord Trimleston. The validity of his Lord-
ship's will was consequently questioned, and a suit
instituted in the Irish Court of Chancery. The Lord
Chancellor directed an action to be brought in the
Court of King's Bench, to try the validity of the will.
A trial at Bar was accordingly had before all the
Judges of that Court, in which it was urged, on the
part of Lord Trimlestoo, that his father had been
prevailed upon by the undue influence of his Lady to
execute the will in question. The trial lasted for four-
teendays, but the Jury did not agree, nine declaring
in favour of one side, and three on the other. A trial
at bar was then had before the Judges of the Court
of Common Pleas, which lasted for eleven days. A
great many interesting facts were sworn to as in-
stances of the influence which his Lady possessed over
the late .Lord ; while, on the ether side, evidence was
adduced to justify on probable grounds his Lordship's
disinheriting lei; son ; Lord Norbury charged in favour
of Gen. Loyd ; and Mr. Justice Fletcher (lately dead)
and Mr. Justice Moore in favour of Lord Trimleston.
Mr. Justice Johnson did not sit upon the occasion.
The Jury, after considerable deliberation, found their
verdict in favour of Lord Trimleston, against the va-
lidity of the will. A motion was made to the Lord
Chancellor to set this verdict aside, asteing against
t:re weight of evidence, and to grant a new trial. His
Lordship refused the motion; and against that deci-
sion General *Loyd now appealed to the House of
Lords: Before, however, the merits of the case were
gone into, the Attorney-2 General, .on behalf of the
appellants, urged, .as a preliminary objection, that
Lord Manners had refused the motion without having
the Judges' notes of the trial .before him, which ren-
dered it impossible that his :Lordship could pro=
nounce an accurate decision as to whether or. not the
verdict was had against theweightofevidence. After
some .discussion of this point, the House.of Lords
yielded to the objection, and directed that the Chan-
cellor should procure the Judges' notes of the evi-
deuce, and rehear the motion.
VICE-CIIANCELL.OR'S 'COURT, JUNE.I6.
PHILLIPS VOSAYLEY.
Mi. BELL applied to the Court to direct a new
trial in this case. He stated it was the case of a
Ventleman of considerable Property, setting up a
skim against the Spiritual Rector for a portion of the
tithes, or a modus of 4s. 10.1. for certain lands called
Slip Shades. His Honour had directed an issue to be
tried, and the Jury, under the direction of Mr. Justice'
„Park, had found a verdict for the plaintiff. The
Learned Judge's notes of the trial having been read,
Mr. Bell proceeded to argue in support of the motion.
like Court was aware, that down to the period of the
aiisairlution of monasteries, no lay proprietor was per-
mined to hold tithes. But as the Crown was enabled,
-subsequently. to•that period, to grant out ecclesiastical
property to laymea, it was incumbent on the plaintiff
to shew a grant at the time when the property was
separated from the monastery. The Learned Counsel'
then cited a variety of cases, and dwelt at length on
an opinion of Lord Redesdale, in the case of "Mead'
v. Norbury," before the House of Lords. •
Mr. InESLOVE followed on the same side, and
urged the improbability of the proprietor's selling the
land, and retaining a right of so vexatious a nature as
that of tithes.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—There are two ways in
which an adverse title may exist against a lay impro-
priatoso—by grant from the Crown, and by severance;
one only against a Spiritual Rector,. namely, by the
presumption arising from long and uninterrupted pos-
session. The evidence of possession and conveyance
is in all cases evidence of legal title, and it is impos-
sible in any one cause to shy w the origin of the right,
to a portion of tithes. Upon the plain and simple
prificiple that the property in question has been the
subject of conveyance and enjoyment for 150 years,
I ground my decision.—Motion refused, with costs.
COURT OF KING'S BENCII, JUNE 16.
THE KING V. POYNDER.
-Mrs SCA RIATT prayed the judgment of the Court
upon the defendant, who was found guilty at the
Middlesex Sittings after last Michaelmas Term, unon
an indictment preferred against him for refusing to
serve the office of Churchwarden of the Parish of St.
Ann, Blackfriars. The defence set up by the de-
fendant was, that he was not liabli to serve the office,
as he had only a wharf and counting-house in the
Parish, and that his residency was in another Parish ;
but the Court held that every person having a place of
business in a Parish was liable to serve all parish offices.
The COMMON SE/LISA NT, for the defendant, having
stated that the defendant was now serving the office,
The Coon? suggested-the propriety of referring it
to the Master to say what ought to be done; and
both parties adopted the suggestion.
THE SING 9. POWELL.
The Rule obtained in this case, calling Upon the
defendant, a Magistrate for the County oi Hereford,
trisliew cause why a criminal information should not be
filed against him for publishing in the Hereford-News-
paper ..a libel upon the Rev.— Venafiles, also a Ma-
gistrate for the same County, was this day enlarged,
upon the motion of Mr. PULLU, who read the affi-
davitalf the defendant, who swore that the Rule was

obtained so late in the Term that k was impossible
for him before the conclusion a this Term to peer--
the necessary affidavits.
BISHOPS' COURT.

Mr. COMMONSF.RJEANT moved for Rule calling
upon the Bishop of Peterborough to shew cause why
a writ of prohibition should not issue, directing
to stay all proceedings upon a monition served- up 4
a Clergyman named Wetherell, to apppar 'at the 1$1:
shops' Caul t 'at Northampton, to ansanr to a cbm-
plaint made against him by his Curati.fur alleged
arrears of Stipend. The motion was • Ilinnded upon
the affidavit of Mr. Wetherell,• who swore that his
Rectory was in the Bishop of Peterborough's Diocese,
sad that he, a resident Rector, having engaged a Cu-
, rate at £lOO, per annum, applied to the Bishop for a
license for the Curate, but the Bishop said that the
stipend was too small, and ordered that it should be
'increased to £l2O, which was the sum to which the
Curate was entitled under the provisions of the 57th
Geo. 111. The Curate did the duty, and Mr.Wetherell
paid him the sum agreed upon, and the proceeding in
the Bishops' Court was instituted for the recovery of
the difference between that sum and the sum ordered
by the Bishop. The Learned Counsel this day con-
tended, that this was a common law agreement for
£lOO, and that the 57th did not, under such,
circumstances, authorise the Bishop to apportion the
stipend; but as it did not appear upon Mr.Wetherell's
affidavit that be voluntarily, and without any applica-
tion on the part of the Bishop, bad appointed the Cu-
rate. the Court would not upon such an affidavit grant
the Rule, and time.was given to amend the affidavit.