Star.
London, England, 1809-11-09 00:00:00

:LAW lAPPELLICENCE.

COURT OP CHANCERY, NOVEMBER I.
This day the Court was occupied in the farther
hearing of the cause which we noticed yesterday, of
an application, on the part of the Marquis of Lans-
downe, to remove an Injunction of the Court, prohi-
biting timber to be cut down in the demesnes of his
estate of Bean Wood, in Wiltshire, which he held as
tenant in common.

Sir S. ROMILLY spoke in support of the injunction.
Sir F. Baring and Mr. Wilmot had been appointed
by the late Marquis the trustees for the future tenants
is tail, and had formerly obtained that injunction,
which nothing but a strong sense of that devastation
which, they apprehended, had been made on these
woods, and of the irremediable injury which the future
tenants in tail might thereby sustain, could ever have
induced them to apply for. Various questions of
this kind had lately come before the Court ; and it
had been decided, that a person possessing an estate
as tenant in common, not impeachable of waste, was
only entitled to cut down the timber in a ,g husband-
like manner ;" the meaning of which he conceived
was, with a provident view to the interests of the te-
nant in tail, so as not to fell trees which had not ar-
rived at maturity, and which. perhaps, in the course
of a few years, might double their present value. He
conceived also, it had been laid down as a principle,
that trees planted originally for ornament, whether in
*vistas or clumps, or as single trees, in pleasure grounds,
=wire not to be cut down by the tenant in common.
These were the principles which Lord Thurlow had
'laid down in the case of Chamberlayne and Dammer,
and tp which he believed the Court had uniformly
adhered. The Court did not look to the opinion of
•this or that artist with regard to what was ornamen-
' tal,.or the contrary, for there was no end to the va-
riety of opinion on that head ; but it looked to the
original view with which the trees were planted.—
The Learned Counsel then endeavoured to shew
from various affidavits, that these principles had not
' been adhered to ; but that many trees planted for
ornamenthad been cut down, and young growing trees
had been felled in an improvident manner. On these
grounds he submitted that the injunction ought to be
continued.

Mr. BELL spoke at length on the same side.
Mr. Itictiaans and Mr. HART appeared for Lord
Henry Petty, who succeeds to the estate, failing issue
of the present Marquis. They observed, that they
had been instructed by their client to content them-
selves with simply referring the different affidavits to
the consideration of the Court.

Sir ARTHUR PIGOTT spoke at length in reply ; after
which

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he should give judg-
ment to-morrow in this cause.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOV. 8.

THE KING V. ASHWELL.

TheATTORN EYZ EN ERA L applied for a rale to shew
cause why a new trial should not be granted, or the
judgment arrested in this case. It was an informa-
tion in the nature of a quo warranto, calling upon the
defendant to shew by what authority he acted as one
of the Aldermen of the Town of Nottingham. By
the charter, the choice of Alderman was vested in
the Livery at large ; but it was contended, that by
a by-law that choice had been confined to the
Mayor, and to a select body of the Corporation who
had served certain offices, in the majority of whom
present at any meeting held for the purpose, the choice
of Alderman lay. In this way had the defendant
been elected; and at the trial, which took place at
the last Assizes before Mr. Justice Le Blanc, the Jury
found foi the defendant. The objection of the
Learned Counsel to this by-law was, that, at the best
it was an unseasonable one ; the choice not being in
the majority even of the Select Body, but in the ma-
jority present at any such meeting, so that it might
happen that the choice might remain in the Mayor
and one Alderman.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH Let us have a copy of the
record, and take your rule."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL" If your Lordship
please, I shall take my rule to shew cause why there
should not be a Judgment of Ouster against the de-
fendant.

DOE, ON DEMISE OF GRAHAM, V. SCOTT.
Mr. Justice BAILEY said, he had spoken to Mr.
Baron Thompson on this case. He admitted that he
had, to the Learned Serjeant (Williams), expressed a
doubt as to the points since stated by the Learned
Serjeant, to that Court ; since then, however, he had
considered the two questions more maturely, and was
satisfied that there was nothing in the objections of
the Learned Serjeant. He, of course, had no wish
that any farther inquiry should take place on these
points.
Lord ELLENDOROVOH said, that the Court had no
doubt whatever on the subject. As to the latter of
the two objections, though no mention had been made
of the term for one thousand years in the year 1757,
till 1802, yet in the deed of 1802, the proprietor of
the estate declared that that term had never been
surrendered. . _

The ejectment of the Rev. James Scott from the
Living of Brampton Brain, of course, takes place.

CHARLOTTE COZWELL .O. THOMAS WRIGHT.

Mr. BOLAND moved that a Halm Corpus should be
issued, directed to John Wright, the brother of the
Defendant, directing him to produce the Defendant.
The Learned Counsel stated, he made this motion on
behalf of, and on the affidavit of, Mr. Glover, the
nephew, and heir-at-law of the defendant. It was
set forth that the defendant was not of sound mind ;
that in the month of April last, John Wright con-
veyed him from his residence, in Leeds, to London,
or its vicinity, and persuaded him to give the plain-
tiff, in this cause, a bond and judgment for £4OO, on
which an execution had been issued, and a part of the
defendant's property, in Leeds, sold by the Sheriff to
satisfy it. That the deponent had made every due
inquiry to ascertain where the defendant resides, but
John Wright and the plaintiff refused to answer, and
kept him secreted. He also stated an affidavit, made
by Doctor Heard, setting forth, that he had attended
the defendant for several years prior to last April, as
his physician, and that he was of opinion, the defen-
dant laboured under insanity, and was not in a fit state
to transact business. The Court granted the motion.

MATTHBWS V. WILSON.

Mr. Serjeant MANLY moved for a role to shew
cause why the verdict in this case should not be set
aside, and a new trial granted. It was tried at the

last assizes in Hereford, before Mr. Lyon Thomp-
son. The circumstances of tke case were, that the
defendant purchased a horse from the plaintiff, for
£B4. The horse proved unsound, and the plaintiff
agreed, after some time, to take the horse back ; but
stated he had not pasture conveniently for him, as
his grazing land was occupied by fat sheep, and the
horse might do them an injury; he therefore agreed
to pay the defendant a certain sum per week for the
horse's pasturage. This took place in 1807, and the
plaintiff never made his demand until the present
time, when he brought an action for the recovery of',
£B4. The proof in support of the action was, the
defendant's writing, in a book of the plaintiff's, that
he owed him the sum for the horse. In defence, it
was offered to be proved, that there was a subsequent
agreement, which cancelled .the debt. But the Learned
Judge refused to listen to it, saying it was irrelevant
to the case.

Lord ELLENBOROUOII.I6 Brother Manly, have
you stated this case correctly ? for, from our know-
ledge of the correctness of the Learned Judge, we
are inclined to doubt that he could have so decided."
Mr. Serjeant MANLY.—" I would be sorry, my
Lord, to pervert or keep any thing back—l have
stated it correctly, as much so as my memory bears
me out."

Lord ELLEKBOROUGII.—Ag Take the rule."

HABEAS CORPUS.

Mr. GURNEY moved for a Habeas Corpus to be di.
rected to the Sheriff of the County of Esser, to bring
into Court a person of the name of Glasscock, who
was committed to his custody on the 14th of March
last, on the charge of stealing a sow pig. The
Learned Counsel stated, that he grounded his motion
on the affidavits of the prisoner, and several other
persons ; that of the prisoner set forth, he had pur-
chased the pig in open market ; this was supported
by the affidavit of the person who sold it to him ; the
others traced the pig up to the time of its being lit-
tered.—Motion granted.