Star.
London, England, 1807-11-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, OCTOBER 31.
LIIGH V. STOUGHTON-STOUGHTON V. LEIGH!

This caufe came on under exceptions to the Maf
ter's Report. The matter has been before the Court
for many years, and involves a queftion which has
been dated by the prefent LORD,CHAIICELLOI to be
of the bighell interetl to real property. In the courfe
of recording the particulars of the proceedings in this
auk, it has been faid to arife on eftates in the Prin-
cipality of Wales, in Come of its molt mountainous
diftries. Mr. John Hanbury died, feifed of this pro•
perry, in the year 1784. Its principal value confifted
in mines of iron and of coal • and the method of ob-
taining thefe, at that period, was, by colleting a
prodigious quantity of water in the heights, and then
giving it a raging torrent into the vallies, by which
all the light materials of the foil were removed, and
the minerals were laid bare on the furface. Since
that period, the eftates devolved into the hr.nds of
his widow, who was entitled to a third of them for
her dowry, and who fubfequently married Mr.
Stoughton. For upwards of twenty years they have
continued under her management, and that of her
fecond hufband ; and during this interval they have
learnt wifdom from their Eaftern neighbours, and
have introduced (hafts, levels, !team engines, and all
the other modern improvements ; by which thefe
mnerals have become a prodigious fource of opu-
knee. The queftion before the Court was, whether
Mines could be fubjeet to dowry ? Tenant in dower
is, where the hufband of a woman is feifed of an
Ave of inheritance, and dies : in this cafe, the wife
(hall have the third part of all the lands and tene-
ments whereof he was feifed at any time during the
coverture, to hold for herfelf for the term of her na-
tual life (Litt. S. 56). It the mines were fubjee to
dowry, Mrs. Stoughton would be entitled to one
third of the produce of thefe mines ; if otherwife,
the whole would go to the heir at law. The Moller
had reported that the was fo entitled, and to this
Report the exceptions were taken.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY and Mr. Lewis fpoke in
fopport of the exceptions. They faid, that a widow,
by her dower, was not entitled to the produce of
mines. She was entitled to one third of the annual
produce of the elates ; but mines were not the pro-
duce, as grain and herbage, but were the altual foil
of the eflate. On the fame principle, the could not
have the timber, and, perhaps, not the underwood.
Suppoting immenfe works had been railed for the
manufacture of backs from the foil, the could not
be entitled to the produce, on precifely the fame
principle. The widow could be entitled to nothing,
' if the were, under any circumflance, to have one-
bird of the mines, unlefs the mines were work ed
during the life-time of her hiriband. Thefe mines
were not worked • by an experiment of Welch im-
petuofity, the bowels of the earth were expofed to the
light of Heaven ; but this violent method of hydro-
flatic difcovery could not be continued, confiftently
with any notion of working the mines.
Thefe obfervations applied to the two fira excep-
tions ; the third was a mere queftion of foe, whether
any new veins were opened : for the refolution of
which the Learned Counfel referred his Lordfhip to
the Affidavits on which the determination mutt de-
pend.
Mr. RICHARDS and Mr. Malt, for the widow,
contended, that the was entitled to one third of the
produce of the mines, and that the Report of the
Mailer was corral. They affimilated the cafe of
dower to that of tenant for life, who was always
empowered to work the mines which had been open.'
ed upon the ellate, prior to its devolving into his
potleilion ; and to which he was as clearly entitled,
AS the grays or grain that vegetated upon the foil.—
No doubt could poffibly arite, if tenant in dower were
in the fame iiivation as tenant for life, as to thrfe
which had been opened in the time of the hufband ;
the only queltion would be, as to thole which had
been opened fitice ; and if thole new ones were con-
tinuity of the fame veins as the former one,, the
widow would be entitled in right of her dower.—
Whether they were, in fait, a prolongation_ of the
, veins, mutt be decided by the Affidavits.
The 141 RD CHANCFLLOR laid, that the fubjee of
mines, and the toads on which the produce was'
conveyed, had occalioned much difference of opinion
between great Lawyers. Loud Thurlow and Lord
Kenyon difputed warmly thefe queftions; the latter
Grid, that in countries where they carried burdens
from the mines upon little Welch hones, and the
mode of conveyance was altered to carts, it was ir.-
cumbent ou the country to make the breaches or

road! wide enough for the latter. He (the Chancello )
heard Lord Thurlow reply to this di &rine of Lord
Kenyon, that if the queltion were to wore on in th:
Houle of Peers, he would die before he would f th-
ink to it. A great part of the property in coal, his
Lordfhip remarked, belonged to who, c n-
turies'ago, referred it, becaufe they coo d not f 1: it
and to wlrlm now it was an immente froirce of wea.t.c.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, in reply, laid, that in the
abfence of all authority, he could not believe that his
Lordlllip would determine, that .nines were fu;>jrCß
to dower. In this peculiar cafe, the abfence of au'ho•
city was in fail the highelt authority, for it Chewed
that-it had never been claimed. There were many
hereditaments befides mines which were not the fob-
Oft of dower. A comm,n without flint, and a cattle
for the defence of the realm, were excluded. Lord
Coke had enumerated all the articles to which dower
extended, and omitted mine,.;„ plainly becaufe they
were not liable to dower. It was true, that .Lord
Chief Baron Comyns had laid, that mines by cuflom'
might be fubjeft to dower. The cafe referred to in
fupport of this doltrine was in r book rarely cited.
Mr. Jultice Montague there et.quired, " Shall a wo-
man be endowed of mines of tin ?" Yes, (replied
Harris, the Counfel), if it be of the cuflom." The
aftonifhment exprefted by the learned Judge on the
occafion of fuch an unexpefled propofition, was a
&nog argument in favour of his (Sir Samuel Ro-
milly's) fide of the queflion, fince no cuftorn was
here pretended. It was admitted, that the widow
would not be entitled to any mines, or veins, but
limb as were worked during the lifetime of her huf-
band. On this part of the cafe, an important quer.
lion arofe, whether pouring down a Tait inunda-
tion, competent to root up and tear off the ele-
ments of nature, were to be confidered working the
mines ? Suppofing the hufhand, for the convenience
of his family, had funk a well to the depth of too
feet, and, in the courfe of this operation, had cut
through twenty or fifty Itrata of valuable minerals—
could this be dominated working the mines, fo as to
give tenant in dower, or tenant for life, any priVileges
or advantages with regard to this fubterraneous pro-
perty? On the whole, he concluded, that mines were
not that fort of property to which Mrs. Stoughton in
dowry could be entitled ; but that if the could be to
entitled, the mines had not been worked in a way
to ettablith loch a claim ; and that, under any and
every conftruition which his learned opponents fhould
apply, file could not fuccefsfully fupport her claim
to the new veins that had been difcovered fince the
deceafe of her hufband.

The LORD CHANCELLOR faid, that he thould atten-
tively penile the affidavits, as the doeiine was of
great impoi lance, and he fh'uld deliver his judgment
on this day fe'nnighr. His Lordlhip enquired if the
Learned Counfel had found that mines were men-
tioned in any of the Writs of Dqwtr in the Books of
Entries, and was anfwered by Mr. RICHARD/ in the
negative.