Star.
London, England, 1822-08-08 00:00:00

DICKENS AND ANOTHER V. SHAW.

This was an action brought by the Lords of the
Manor of Brighthelmstone against the defendant, for
trespassing on the sea-shore between high and low
water-mark, and digging and carrying away the
sand and soil therefrom. The object of the action
was to try the plaintiffs' right, asLords of the Manor,
to the soil of the beach between high and low water-
mark, along the coast, in the parish of Brighthelm-
stone.—The plaintiffs rested their case upon evidence
to shew that the Lords of the Manor of Brighton had,
time out of mind, exercised dominion ever the soil
between high and low water-mark, and had the ex-
clusive ownership thereof, in contradiction to the
acknowledged rule of law, that the manorial rights
of the Lord do not extend beyond the high water-
mark, the right to the intervening soil and the low
water-mark being generally in the King. The right
of wreck—of contriving the removal of sand and
gravel—the fixing of moving capstans on the beach,
and other incidents of dominion, were insisted upon,
as confirming the plaintiffs' right. Documentary evi-,
dente, on the nature of ancient grants, was also ad-
duced for the same purpose.
For the defence it was contended, that the plain-
tiffs claim was not made out by any adequate evi-
dence of enjoyment, sufficient to controul the corn-
mon law right in all the King's subjects to the soil
between high and low water-mark, more particu-
larly as there was no distinct evidence of any inter-
ruption of this right, from time beyond the me-
mory of man.
The case went to the Jury, under the directions of

••••

tlie Learned Judge, who was inclined to think that
the esideace of enjoyment was as strong as could be
given in such a case.
The Jury retired for about thiee-quarters of afi
hour, and found their verdict for the defendant.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
John- Stuart came up to be heard on his petition .
to be discharged, and was opposed by a creditor,'
named Isaac Armstrong. The insolvent, on his exa-
mination, admitted, that he had been twice a bank-
rupt, and that he took the benefit of the Insolvent Act
in May last year.
Mr. Armstrong stated, that he was a creditor of
the insolvent's previous to his having taken the benefit
of the Act last year, and had on that occa<ion entered
an opposition againit him, but relinquished it, in con-
sequence of receiving from the insolvent four bills to
the amount of the debt and costs, which bills have not
since been paid, and constitute the debt on which he
now opposed the insolvent's discharge.
Mr. Armstronghaving examined the insolvent, and
given his evidence, addressed the Court with glea.
energy ; he said, be did not oppose the ins,.lvenes
discharge from any expectation of advantage to him-
self, but entirely for the good of the commercial
community, of which he was a member, being certain
it never could havebeen the intention of the Legisla.
cure to allow a person who had conducted himself as
the insolvent hadjdone, to enter again into the trading
world without having received some correctional
punishment; his own conduct he considered perfectly
natural and unexceptionable ; the insolvent owed
him a debt contracted in a manner that empowered
him to make an effectual opposition to his discharge;
and he had forborne to exercise the poA or be pos-
sessed to punish the insolvent, on the condition of
getting a security for the future pay mcnt of his debt.
Mr. Armstrong having concluded an address to the
Court, not inferior in length at least to that of many a
Learned Gentleman ;

The CHIEF COMMISSIONER pronounced the judg-
ment of the Court. The insolvent's discharge, he said,
was opposed by a creditor who had been so previous
to his taking the benefit of the Act last year, and
who, according to his own account, had at that time
a legitimate ground of opposition to his discharge;
but instead of availing himself of his right to oppose
the insolvent's diScharge then, he relinquished it for
the sake of an advantage to himself, not in conjunc-
tion with all the other creditors, but in opposition to
their interests and just rights. Without entering at
large into the opposing. creditor's views of the inten-
tion of the Legislature ►n passing the Act, one thing
was certain, that the Legislature never intended that
the opposition of a creditor who had so conducted
himself should receive any attention in that Court.
But although the Court could not pay the least at-
tention to the opposition that had bee❑ made to the
insolvent's discharge, they could not overlook the de-
merits of his case, and could not ~ce sailv reaso►► kr
consenting to his discharge without hi; obtaining the
consent of three-fourths of his creditors, as required
by the Act in the case of an insolvent applying for
the benefit of it within five years after he had been
discharged, unless the Conic saw some special rea-
sons for dispensing with such consent ; in the present
case no such reasons appeared, and the insolvent's
Petition must be dismissed.

George Wheeler came up to be heard on his peti-
tion to be discharged, and was opposed by Mi.
LOCK on behalf of Sir Peter Pole
aani Co. banke:-3,
Maidstone.

It appeased by the insolvent's examination, that lie
was a cattle-dealer, and kept an account at the bank
of Messrs. Jones, Smithfield; and that in November
last he went to Maidstone market and purchased
cattle from different fetsons to the amount of up-
wards of three hundred pounds, for all of which he
gave checks on his bankers, in m hose hands he had
not any money at the time, but who had frequently
paid his checks in advance to a much larger amount.
The insolvent disposed cf all his cattle in a few days,
and lodged part of the money with his bankers, who
paid his checks as far as they had funds of hk, but
refused the rest, amounting to £lBO, amongst which
was one for £2B, in the hands of Sir Peter Pole and
Co. on which the insolvent was oppe,ed ; and which,
it appeared, had not been presented for payment fur
ten days after it was drawn.
Sir Peter Pole and Co.'s solicitor proved that when
the insolvent was sued for the check they held, he
put them to vexatious defence.
The COURT said, it was impossible to say that the
insolvent had contracted a debt fraudulently, as 1:e
probably supposed when he gave the check that it
would be paid, which it was also probable would be
the case had it been presented in time ; but by the
vexatious defence he made to the action brooght
against him for the amount of the check, the insolvent
had clearly brought himself under a penal clause of
the Act.

The judgment of the Court was, thaehe should not
be discharged until he should be six months in pi ison
from the date of his petition.

The following simple remedy for Rheumatism and
Gout has done wonders in a variety of cases :—One
ounce and a half of the best sulphur, an one ounce
of calcined magnesia, to be put into a quart bottle
of the best Hollands gin, and well shaken. A ‘‘ilie
glass full morning and night will be a sufficient dose.