Star.
London, England, 1815-03-29 00:00:00

LAN, INTELLICZNCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MAItCII 27.
tlst THE MATTER OE THE EARL OF W•••••••, A LUNATIC.
This lamentable case of insanity was called on in
due course, but owing to the want of preparation,
the absence of the leading King's Counsel, or the
agents and parties concerned, the painful discussion
of the petiii►►n was, by mutual consent, postponed
till next Term.

LN THE MATTER OP MR GREGORY PAGE TURNER, A

LUNATIC.
This unfortunate cause came before the Court on
a Petition, praying a confismation of his Master's
Report of the debts of the Lunatic, now a prisoner
in the Rules of the King's Bench Prison, amounting
in all to the sum of seventeen thousand pi wads,
whiie the fortune of the ;4fllicted young Baronet, was
admitted to amount to a sum little short of half a
million sterling. •
The prayer of the Petition was granted as prayed,
and the Petitions the relatives, praying for the ap.
poititment of Committees of the person and estates
of the lunatic were adopted.

SUSSEX ASSIZES.—HORSHAM.
LORD SELSEY V. TOLLERVEY.
This action was brought to recover the value of a
quantity of Ist.ech timber sc.l .4) the defendant. The
timber had b:et sold by view and not by measure;
and having been cut down and partly carried away
by defend int previous to his makinga decisir:- ;:iyee-
rnent for the same as to the quantity, a dispute after-
wards arose upon the subject between the defendant
And the plaintiff's steward, and it being impossible,
by reason of the removal of part of the timber, to
ascertain the exact quantity by measure, the defen-
(tun agreed with the plaintiff's steward, to split the
difference of '2. loath 17 feet, which had arisen be-
tween plaintiff's viewers, and that the defendant
bhOtild pay tor eleven loads eight feet and a half, over
and abuve the least of the two estimates. These
facts being proved by the plaintiff's steward, as als()
the delivery of the timber, the defendant's Counsd
gave up the cause, and the Jury found a verdict lor
the plaintiff for the amount of timber so agreed fur.

LORD SELSEY V. P.ANELL.

Tais was an action brought by the plaintiff upon
the statute of Edward VI. for the recovery of treble
the value of tour years tithes of corn, arising from
.t fartn Lanny enclosed from Stansted Forest, in Sus-
sex. Defend int, who is tenant of Lewis Way, Esq.
of Stansted Park, in 1810 agreed to take the farm
in inestinn on lease for 18 years, at 10s. :in acre : but
shortly rater, Mr. Way being lammed it would :.tit
he liable to pay tithes to plaintiff (who is th:. liiiino-
priator) for seven years, insisted on his tenant's pay-
ing fid. an acre more, the tithes being considered
worth that sum, and the lease, after some remon-
strance by the tenant, was prepared accordingly,
whesein Mr. Way covenanted to indemnify defendant 1
e payment of tithes for the first st-ven years
of the term. The defence set up by Mr. Way (whol
parsitant t•I his covenant defended the action fie de-
fendant) was, that the land was barren and unpaoli:-
auie land, and under another statute of Edward VI.
not liable to yield tithes for.seven years after its
,brouAlit into a state of cultivation. On the part of
plaintiff it was prived that the land was formerly
planted with good oak and beech timber, and that
when it was broken up it was covered with fine tin-
derwood, and that defendant had the same for his
trouble in grubbing it; that when Mr. Way pur-
chased the forest he had paid 30 years purchase for it
at 9s. an acre - that it bore since good wheat, pease,
and oats, without any considerable ezpence fur ma-
nure ; and plaintiff, under all these strong circum-
stilliM4S brought his action. •
The Jury, notwithstanding the evidence adduced
by plaintiff (which was uncontradicted, defendant
not having entrained a single witness) and the cases
cited- by die Leained Judge in favour of plaintiff's
claim, gave the defendant a verdict.

SURREY ASSIZES, KINGSTON, MARCH en.
MART V. GRACE.

This was an action against the defendant, the wi-
dow of .10lonel, by a stone-mason at Guildford, for
making a tombstone for her late husband.
Mr. MARRYATT, for the plaintifg stated that the
plaitititf was a tradesman at Guildford, and the Lady
was the widow of a Colonel in the army, who died
at Guildf,,rd in the year 1812. During the first
paroxysms of her grief, she wished to shear her love
and tegard for her late husband, in perpetuating the
memory of her husb.ind, by erecting a tomb to his
memory. The I.l4intitf accordingly made a design,
Which he eng tged to finish for £3O or £35. The
Lady fumislied an inscription which was to be in-
scr:bed, but it was both badly written and badly
spelt ; but .ts well as he could make it out, it was as
I follows :

4‘ Gone ! but whither ? Dots he cease ?
" Now his body rots away.
44 WAS hts soul a fragile piece,
" Of the sante but finer clay ?
Where's the soul? Obtained release.
" That ne'er dies near ever dies.
44 While his body deeps its peace,
" Far away his spirit Dies.
" He's to Goo to hear his doom !"
This epitaph the Clergyman objecte.d to, as doubting
the immateriality of the soul, and would not suffer it
to be inscribed. This produced some delay, and at
length the Lady thought the monument not neces-
sary, for having gone to Ireland and returned, she at
last declared that she would not have the tomb-stone
at all. But the plaintiff had completed it except
putting it up, and though the Lady had changed her
mind, it was not to be expected that he should lose
his labour; and the Jury would say. whether a trades-
man should lose his labour, although the ardour of a
Lady's widowed affections had decreased by time.—
The order and the making the tomb-stone was
proved.
Tor the Defendant, Mr. Serjeant Baer contended,
that the tomb was ordered in 1812, and v:as not
finished in October, 1814, and that, after so unrea-
sonable a delay, the Lady had a right to counter-
mand the monument. Wiih respect to the objection
of the Vicar, he said it was the duty of the plaintiff
to have communicated the proposed inscription in the
first instance, and not to have waited for two years
before he stated the objection.—He called three wit-
nesses to .hew that the defendant had made repeated
applications to the plaintiff to proceed in the work,
but be swayed it. They di.' awn, however; prove

any direct eouhtermautl, auJ tote Jury fund a vet-
'dict for the Plaintiff—Damages .C3l. 10s.
ROBINSON U. ISENNKI7.
Thif. was an.action for a nuisince.—The Plaintiff j
had a house on the bank of the Thames, near King-
:ton, Which had a lawn extending down to the water.
At the bottom of this lawn was a drain W:siCII came
from a distillery of street waters.
Mr Serpant Di:Yr stated, that the whole of the
refuse water which passed by this drain was merely
the dregs of rose water, au.f other odotiletous
latious, which gave an agreeable odour, and was
rather desirable than other wise. Tate defendant being
possessed 14 an adjoining piece of ground, built three
or tour mina]] cottages, and also elected certain ap-
pendages which are equally vecraary for cottages or
palaces, and turned the drains from them into the
old drain—but they did not convey rose wale?. La
short, the commodity they deposi,ted under the noses
of the plaintiff's family was such its to render his
house a most uncomf irtahle habitation.
The fact of the corruption of the dra;n being
proved, it was agreed that a verdict should be talcs
for the plaintiff, subject to an award, to dem mine
how the drain might be altered so as not to tumor
the plaintics family.
MOGGERIDGE o. COULSTOC:t.
This was an action fur an asauh, to which
Defendant had pleaded a justification—namAy, that
the plaintiff was making a p.oise in his sho,s, and that
therefore he gently turned hint out.
The Defendant was the Post-master at Ryegate,
and the Plaintiff, conceiving himself overchaiged in
the postage of a letter, went to his house, where an
altercation ensued. The plaintiff called the defendant
a scoundrel, &c. and the defendant called the plaintiff
a d—d canting hypocrite, amid pushed hew out of
the shop, but without any great violence.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
The Crown side produced nothing worth riporting.