Star.
London, England, 1813-08-04 00:00:00

CORN-EXCHANGE, MARK-LANE, AUGUST 4.

In addition to a very considerable quantity of Wheat left over
from Monday's Market, we had a further fresh supply this mor-
ning; and having but few buyers, the sales were exceedingly
heavy, and Monday's prices not obtainable. Having many arri-
vals of Oats in addition to our previous large supply, has oca-
sioned a further decline of full one shilling per quarter. Barley
is rather dearer, there being but little at market. Peas, Beans,
and other articles, remain as on Monday.
English.
Wheat, Kent and Essex, 115 s. Wheat, American Os. 00.
1355. per quarter. per quarter.
Ditto, t'ulfolk, 955. 120$. Ditto, Dantzic 110$. 1355.
Ditto, Norfolk, 90s. 100 s. I Ditto, Baltic Red 901. 1008.
Rye SO-. 635. Ditto, Hambro' or
Barley 6s. 535. Fine 00$. 00s. Bremen, 905..1005.
Malt, 84s. 90s. I Ditto, Brabant Red 901. 1001.
White Peas, 90s. 955. boilers, Rye, 60$. 658.
110 s. 115 s. j Barley, 465. 50s.
Grey, ditto, 745. 761. . Oats, Brew,
Small Bean, 745. 781. Oats, Feed,
Tick do. 7os. 725. Fine 00s. 001. White Peas, 955. 10511.
Oats, Poratoe, 41s. 475. I Grey Ditto, Ns. 82s. .
Ditto. Poland, 325. 455. I Small Beaus,
Ditto, Feed, 303. 375. I Tlck Beans,
Fine Flour, 1054. 1101. per Sack.-American Flour, 70s. to 755.
PRICE OF STOCKS THIS DAY AT TWELVE O'CLOCK
Red. 57j 58-Cons. 5711-for ace. 571 58-13ds. is. Qs. dlr.
4 Per Ct. 73U-5 per Ct. 8711 it -Onmium 6f 7
I Lg. Anna. 14 # 0-16ths-Esch. Bills par R.s. pr.

Foreign.

LAW INTBLLIGBNCZ.

va.

COURT OF CHANCERY, AUGUST 4.
COUNCIL-ROOM.—Before the Vzcz-CartscaLtoit.
JOHN VS V. MAY DW ELLo•—( WASTE. )
Bill filed by a Legatee under the will of a Mr.
Waller, who had been tenant for life without im-
peachment of waste, to carry the will into execution.
Reference to the Master to take usual accounts in
such cases. The trustees of the estate, ofvvhich the
testator had been tenant fot life, preferred a claim
before the Master, to be allowed, from the testator's
assets, various sums for waste said to hate been corn-
mitted by the testator in his life-time. The alleged
waste was, that the testator had ctit down various
trees said to be ornamental, cut down certain under-
wood, and pulled down a malt-house, a bake-house,
two other tenements, and a dog-kennel. The Master
reported, that the evidence on the subject was con-
tradictory, and disallowed the whole claim. To this
report an exception was filed, and came on for hear-
ing before his Honour the Vice-Chancellor.

The Vie; CHANCELLOR, in giving judgment, gave
an able ea elaborate view of the steps by which
Courts of Equity came to interfere, to the extent
in which they now do interfere,, in cases of waste.
At law, in the case of a tenant for life without im-
peachment of waste, the remainder-man had no re-
medy. The object of introducing the words with-
out impeachment of waste," was to prevent dis-
putes on that point; and, upon this principle, though
it might bear hard upon particular individuals, the
law of property, and the ground of proceeding in
the Courts, were clear and steady. At a very
early period in the seventeenth century, however,
the Court of Chancery began to interfere.—A
tenant for life of Raby Castle, having conceived a
prejudice against his son, took the lead and the tiles
from the roof of the Castle, carried away the doors, and
committed other violent waste, so that the house was
in danger of going to ruin. His son, the remainder-
man, could have no remedy at law, as the father was
tenant for life without impeachment of waste. He
applied to the Court of Chancery ; and Lord Chan-
cellor Cowper thought it right to interfere in a case
of this extraordinary nature. The doctrine that a
Court of Equity would interfere being once esta-
blished, other cases arose in which it was thought pro-
per to extend the remedy. The ground of interkrence,
according to the description of Lord Hardwicke, first
depnided upon epithets. It was said that the Court
would interfere, where the waste was voluntary, mali-
cious, intended, humoursome, and extravagant. First,
it was held, that the mansion-house must not be
wasted; then that the avenues which ornamented
and sheltered it must not be destroyed ; and then that
certain ornamental timber must not be cut down.
The inconvenience of breaking in upon the common
law principle soon began to appear ; and the uncer-
tainty of the state of the law gave rise to a long
course of litigation, more prejudicial, perhaps, than
if the Courts had adhered to the strict rule of the
common law. This uncertainty had formed matter
of complaint with the greatest Judges—with Lords
Hardwicke, Ihni low, and Eldon. How was it to
be determined what v. as ornamental, and what not ?
One man might consider an avenue as ornamental,
another might think the contrary. Some considered
trees standing in a line as ornamental, while others
ths.s.ight these no ornament at .all, but at the same
tin— thought that straggling trees were ornamental. In
the vidence before the Master in the present case, it
app ared, that one man had declared that the dog-ken-
rid was ornamental. Who was to decide whethera dog-
kennel was ornamental or not ? One man might think
the dogs and smell of the dog-kennel, very agreeable.
Another, of a different taste, might be very happy to
get rid of them. With respect to the timber, in the
present case, it appeared that the testator had con-
sulted skilful persons relative to his proceedings, and
they had given it in evidence, that the testator had,
upon the whole, rather improved than wasted the
estate ; though on the other hand, a farmer had given
it as his opinion, that certain old trees decayed at the
top, were ornamental, or at least must have been
planted for ornament. In regard to the buildings,
he found no authority for interfering in this case.—
The restraining of waste there had been confined to
the mansion-house. Though Lord Hardwicke had
said that he would restrain the pulling down a farm-
house, it did not appear he had acted on that opinion :
but at any rate, there was no authority for restraining
a tenant for life, without impeachment of waste, from
pulling down out-houses—such as this dog-kennel,&c.
With respect to the timber, the evidence, as had been
already stated, was contradictory ; but there was this
very important feature in the present case, which was
entirely new, viz. that the Trustees, after permitting
the tenant for life to go on in his life-time, without
applying for an injunction to restrain him, now came
forward with a charge for damages against his as-
sets, before the Master, when the testator was dead.
Lord Hardwicke, in a case of a similar description,
had refused an account of this nature. The inter-
ference of the Court of Equity was properly to restrain
waste; and the 4ccount came in as incidental to the
suit : but it was a different thing whether an account
should be allowed, as against the assets, where there
had been no injunction to restrain. But what was a
Court of Equity to d 3 in this case? The complaint
had been, that the interference, if any thing, had
gone too far; and here the Court was called upon to
go a step farther. it was useless to send the parties to
law, because there could be no pretence for damages
there ; since at law the testator had a right to com-
mit waste, and put the produce into his own pocket.
No action could be maintained against his executors,
either upon the ground of tort, or for money had and
received. What, then, was to be done ? If the Court
should stop here, it might be argued for the trustees,
that the rule of equity was in a most extraordinary
situation. If a tenant for life might be restrained in ,
his life-time from committing further waste, and an
account ordered incidentally, to make satisfaction for
waste before committed—upon what principle was it
that an account could be refused as against his assets
after his death ? Here, fortunately, he had not to de-
termine that question ; for, at all events, such an
account must be founded upon a bill filed for that
purpose. It could not be permitted to originate before
the Master. Upon that ground, therefore, and also
upon the ground, in respect of the buildings, that no
authority had gone the length of the preterit claim,
the exception must be over ruled.