Star.
London, England, 1801-11-20 00:00:00

iifir mrELLIOEyet.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, DiovErwttEß. it.
COLLET V. lIVEOL•ND AND OTHEIL3.
The Plaintiff is an eminent Attorney in Chan-
cery-lane. Some years tince he purchafeJ an Ef
tate in Effer, at a public Au&ion, by Medi,. Skin.,
her and Dyk!, purporting to be the Elate, in Jr
_bpi:, of Thomas Rudland, the elder; a convey-
ance was Ts-vide to hint of this came by Thomas
Rudland, the cider, and the money for which it
W2S knocked down paid over to him by Mr. Col-
Rudland, the elder, died in the year 1789.
Mr. Collet's Tenant being then in peaceable un-
chain-Led poil'ellion, without any knowledge cf.
precious iticumbrances ; and in 1791 Ej' dt menu,
were ferved upon him, hilt, by John Hyams, as a
I.or 6col. and others, purporting to be
tiom the heirs in remainder of Thomas Rudland
decealed, st ho d Ici dx d themfelves as Thomas
Rudland, Jonas Rudland, Woodthorpe Rudland,
and hi ilby, who filed in sight of his wife,
as daughter to the laid Thomas Rudland, the
eld,r. They lilt, d claim as arifing from a
%%ill of Thomas ‘Voodtliorpc, the father-in-law of
the deeeafed, who demifed the elate, 60, to
Thomas Rudland for life, and then to his four
children, Thomas, Jonas, Woodthorpe and Mary,
as tenants in common, and the furrivor of them ;
and they, therefore, contended, that Mr. Collet
could not have a legal iiitereft,intheeflateissfer,de-
riving his title from a perfon having a VA inked,
only. Various proceedings by bills andanfwershave
lime been had, and it came on to be argued thisday
by Meffrs. Richards and King for the Plaintiff,
and Marrs. Plomer, Stratford, Thornton, and
Stanley, for the Defendants. The prayer of the
Bill, which the Court were called on to decide
was to decree, " That the Plaintiff Collet (hold
" have quiet poircHion of the elate; that the De-
fendants who had brought ejei9ments Ihould be
" obliged by .injunAion, to Ray all proceedings;
" and be compelled to make a proper conveyance
‘• of the elate to the Plaintiff Collet."

The Plaintiff's Counfel reafoned as to the fpecies
of fr.tud and concealment in as eriteiir point of
view, put on him by the Defendants by their not
communicating the encumbrances of the eftate
to him in due time. The Defendants anfwered,
they had fent a letter to the AuCtioneer, warning
him not to fell; but it has fince come out alto, that
they had not taken any further cps as to giving
any fuch notice, although they knew the Ohne had
been fold, until near two years after the dictate
of the father.

The Court, after hearing arguments for and
againft this Bill, and a Crag Bill, Radland againl
Collet, took time to confider of their judgment.
At three the Court broke up.

COURT OF JUNG'S BENCH, THURSDAY, NOV. tn.
The ATTORNIT GIIIIIRAL moved the judgment
of the Court upon Richard Mountain who had
been convieted at the laft AfGzes for Kent, of hay
ing uttered treafonable and feditious words.
From the report of the caufe, as read by the
LOID CHI ET JUSTICE, it appeared, that as Mr. Al.
Berman Curtis and others were travelling in the
Dover coach they flopped at Dartford to change
hurfes, when the Defendant came up to the coach
and abufed the Guard and Coachman becaufe they
would not take him in; told them to flrip off their
livery, damned the fbldiers and failors as naves,
and 'tied expretlions teloci.ling his IsLjefly, not de-.
cent to be repeated. Mr. Alderman Curtis re-
monfli Med with him, when he replied that he fup-
pol.:d he was a Nic:lll,,d;tl P•irlon hired by Govern.
ment to preach Freedom. He added that
h_ was a Jacobin, and had Oft come from is cl!:6
of ten good fellow; of ;he C:me defer iption.
afkcd his name he laid it was Mutiny, and ad-
ded (eve, al (idler eTregions oftlic fame tendency.
M. • SLIILJF AS T 111..'•T oft red feveral Afg •its
ill mitigation, Lying the blame upon Intoxication
and not arifing hnrn flit 'general charaZier of the
1), ['infant, which sca:lf.:id to he good and loyal.
The Court ordered him in (land committed, and
to be brought up again tile 'ail day but one of the
Term.