Star.
London, England, 1822-11-28 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER s 7.

lIANKIN V. LEACH.
Mr. DANIELS said, that in t: is case a bill was filed
by the plaintiff to compel the defen.!ant to return
part of the•purchase money I,f an estate. paid under
the following circumstances :—Some time since the
plaintiff purehased an estate, patt copyhold and part
fieebeld, from the defendant, on condition that the
deeds should be delivered within a month—the de-
fendant promising to make out a pod title. Th
purchase money was to be paid in five years. The
plaintiff entered upon the estate, and made consider-
able improvements and erections upon it. 'l'he title
deeds were not produced by the defendant until the
end of the five years, when it was found that he could
make out no title to the frechn:d part of the purchase.
The plaintiff now asked the Court, trnser these cir-
cumstances, that the defendant should be obliged to
make a deduction in the purchase money of the va-
lue of the freehold part of the estate ; and also to
make compensation to the plaintiff for those erections
and improvements which he had made on the freehold.
Mr. HART, for the defendant, said this was a new
and estraordinury species of equity which was at-
tempted to be set up on behalf of the pLintiff. The
Learned Cout.sel contended, that the Court had no-
thing at all to do with the case. The plaintiff ought
to take ur reject the estate as it stood, and to seek
his remedy in A Court cf Law for any injury which
he might have su-taine.f. With respect to the erec-
tionswhich hehad chosen voluntatily and imprudently
to make upon the freehold before be had got any title,
the Court wt)uld doubtless consider that he must bear
the consequences of his own imprudence.
From the defendant's answer to the bill, which was
directed to be read by his *Honour, k-appeared that
he was willing that it should be referred to the Mas-
ter to inquire what allowance Ought to be made to
the plaintiff.
The Vrce-Ceexemon.—l am afraid, Mr. Hart,,
that your client his submitted you out of Court.
Mr. HART.—WeII, your Honour, I can't resist my
client's: inclination to be honest.

. _
The Vice•CIIANCIMLOIL said, that this was a case •
in which he certainly would not have interfered, but'
should have sent the plaintiff to seek his remedy in a
Court of Law, had not the eefendaut himself sub-.
mitted to a refeience.- his Honour directed that the
case should go to the Master upon the terms 4,f. the
releieuce ; and that it should be considered what
rent the plaintiff ought to pay for the occupation t 4
:he 'freehold. •

COURT OF KING'S BF.NCIT, NOVEMBER 27.
lIABEA:S CORPUS.

On a former day Mr. LITTLEDALE obtained a Rule
calling upon the Commander of his Majesty's ship
Gloucester, to slim' cause why a writ of Habeas
Corpus should not issue for bringing up the bodies
of two men in his custody, in order to their being
forthwith discharged.
Mr. Jcitvis ibis day chewed cause against the Rule.
He stated that, on the .sth of October last, these men
were taken on board a smuggling vessel which was
brought into the harbour of Folkestone, where they
were landed, and were afterwards put on board the
vessel, which was sent round to Dover, and the Ma-
gistrates of that place committed them. The Learned
Counsel contended that the .lagistrates at Dover
were justified under the 47th Geo. 111. in committing
the prisoners, as the words of the Act were, " by the
Magistrates at or near the port where the persons shall
be so taken." He also contended that, in all transac-
tions of this kind, the port of Folkestone must be con-
sidered as within the jurisdiction of the port of Dover,
as there was not at Folkestone a Custom House, or
'any place of security -for goods of the description
seized, and, therefore, it was not necessary that it
should appear upon the face of the conviction that
the Magistrates of Dover could take cognizance of
this offence. •

Mr. LITTLEDALE, in support of the Rule, con-
tended that the prisoners ought to have been com-
mitted by the Magistrates at Folkestone ; that the
Magistrates of Dover could not take cognizance of
the offence Cand, if they could, that it must appear
upon the face of the conviction that they pcssessed
this authority. •
CHM Juartez.—ln this case two questions hare
been made—first, whether the Justices of Dover had
any authority to take cognizance of. this fact ? and,
secondly, whether this conviction is good, it not ap-
pearing upon the Lace of the conviction that they had
suclf authority ? Now it is stated in the 47th of
Geo.lll. that for offences committed upon the high
seas, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate of the port

ipto which the peplos., Committing such offences
!hall be brought to tile cognizance of it. In this
case,. it, appears. that
.the- persons applying for the
writ-were taken on board of a vessel in the hathour
of Folkestone, and that they were landed within thel
limits of that harbour, where they were-detainer& for
a day or two ; that they were vain put on board
the same vessel, and sent to Dover, where the Ma-
gistrates of that port took cognizance of the offence.
If that can be done, it would lead to considerable
abuse, because if it can be sustained that the Magis-
trates of Folkestone' can send those persons to Dover,
and that the Magistrates there can take cognizance
of the offence, I can see no reason whf those men
could not be sent to any port in England—the most
distant from Folkestone, and why the Magistrates of
such port should not exercise their juriZction.—
The inclination of my opinion at present is agdinst
such a jurisdiction ; but I do not feel myself called
upon on the present occasion to give an opinion
‘vhich might •be binding on myself or others here-
after, if this question should be brdught under consi-
deration; as I am quite clear that it should appear
upon the face of the conviction that the Magistrates
had power and jurisdiction over the offence: I there-
fore think the Rule ought to be made absolute.
Mr. Justice BAYLSY—I am of the same opinion.
Mr. Jiistize litiLncrro—l am of the same opinion.
Mr. Justice Barr—l am of the same opinion ; but
if it did appear upon the face of the conviction that
the Magistrates had jurisdiction, I still think the
Rule u.ust be made absolute. Before the passing of
the 47th of George the Third, the Magistrate; could
not take cognizance of any offences committed on the
high seas; and 1 think that that Act gives jurisdic-
tion only to the Magistrates of the first port into which
the persons shall be brought. If that be not the true
interpretation of the Act, it would lead to consider-
able inconvenience and abuse.—Rule made absolute.