Star.
London, England, 1822-11-26 00:00:00

•
LAW INT4LLIGENCE.I.':F •
ww••••=1.0

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER IS.
ROPRIt V. WILLIAMS AND OtINNS.

The Lotto CHANCELLOR ,upon coming into Court
rift judgment in.this case. He bad carefully read
all the affidavits. The covenants in the indenture be-
tween the parties, in 1816, were very ill drawn, if
the object in view had been such as the plaintiff stated
it now. The buildings were to be thirty feet from
the road ; they were to be detached ; and they were
to be of the Third rate of houses. It was further co-
venanted that no work should be done there which
could create a nuisance. Roper was limself placed
under no obligation to build on the piece of land
which he purchased for £llO. Now, in such a case,
if there was not active diligence on the part of Roper
to prevent any departure from the covenants,.a Court
of Equity would not interfere. The obligation must
have been enforced against all the purchasers to
constitute a ground of interference in a Court of
Equity. Against Williams the only remedy that
could be sought was by an action at law. The build-
ings erected were, iu the first place, not thirty feet
from the road ; in the second place, they were not
detached ; and, in the third place, they were of 6th,
2d, and 3d rates. In 1818 a case was submitted for
the opinion of a Learned Counsel whom he now•saw
iq Court (Mr. Horne), and the opinion given then
was, as he should have expected from that Learned
Gentleman, extremely right and proper. It was, that
application ought to have been made to a Court of
Equity the moment the foundation:--the first bricks,
were laid. Notice was served upon the defendant,
B:rnard, that the plaintiff insisted upon the covenant.
It was that that the building was for a public-house.
A bill was filed six months afterwards. This, then,
in such circumstances was not a case of equity. If an
action at law should be brought. against Williams, it
would be for the Jury to say what damages eight to
be given. He thought the injunction ought to be
dissolved. It ought to be generally known that in all
cases application must be instantly and promptly
made, otherwise aCourt of Equity would not interfere.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CLEDIENTE.

Mr. K NIGH T applied to the Court for leave to have
tills petition restored to the paper. It had formerly
been ordered to stand over.--Leave. granted.

LEES V. AINSWORTH.- CONTENIPT.

Mr. HEALD said his Lordship bad ordered that this
case should be again mentioned. Affidavit was now
made that the defendant's father had a large family,
and could not, therefore, settle a large fortune on
this his youngest son. It was right also to mention,
that the bill to make the young Lady a ward of that
Court, had been filed in the name of the defendant's
father, but without his knowledge. It had been:done
by the solicitor, Mr. Chippendale, in whose name the
bill had first been drawn. This might look, if not ex-
plained in this way, very like a trick ; but the father
knew nothing of it. The father of the defendant had
been sworn w orth forty thousand pounds; but out of
respect for the youngeit son; and considering that his
two eldest children 'were provided for, be settled
e,tates on the defendant which were • sworn to be
worth £6OOO. _ _ _

The LORD CHANCELLOR.—Let it go to the Master
to approve of the settlement.
Mr. WINGFIELD mentioned that application had
been made to the Vice-Chancellor to stlike the name
out of the bill.

Mr. HEALD said, that was as he had explained it.
nere was now an aMdavit of banns if hib-Lordship
wished to see that.

• The Lono CHANCELLOR.—Let the Master inquire
whether they are properly mat tied.
Mr. HEALD asked whether they should tre married
again? They were disrosed, if his Lot dship wished it.
The LORD CIIA NCELLOR.—I think it proper.
Mr. HEALD said they would have been married
according to the Act on the Monday following the
t me of their mart iage.