Star.
London, England, 1802-11-15 00:00:00

eOtlitT OF KINTs BENCH. NOV. t 3.

ELAM In MAW. •.
Lord rf.Ltnio!loyck gave the judgment of till.
Cotirt in this care,-".which was argued yollerday.---
It was a fpecial aelion on the cafe In tue nature of
and by the cafe referved, it appeared thft
the defendant held afarm under die plaintiff lot. the
term of twenty-one years ; that within ih.2 fifteen
lal years of the term he ere6teil feveral bsiildihgs;
vie.—a beall hotife, d foal yard, a carpentCr's-
'hop, that,tbefe buildings were of htigk
mortar, hovered with tiles, and had the:: fOiinda-
tions in the ground ; that the defendant, tvhen he
went away, pulled down the buildings, dug op the
foundations, and carried away the materials. It
was alto found that th tie buildings were tifeful and
necefrary in the occupation of the Farm The
Court, he raid, had maturely couridered rill the
cafes cited at the bar, and were of opinion that the
defendant had not a right to carry away buildings
In conflrui!led. The quellion of fixtures, as they
were called, -might arife in three cafes. rirri,
between the heir and executor ; and het e the old
role of law prevailed in all its thinners. For
whatever was affixed to the Freehold, was confi-
dered as a part of it, and the executor firotild
take it away as perysimal property againit the claim
of the heir. The second dais of cafes might :trill..
between the executor of tenant for life, and the re-
maind.r-man ; and here the rule had been forne what
relaxed, For the cafes had. decided the ileam en-
gines, furnaces, vats, coppers, &c. ereeled for the
purpofes of trade, might be removed without nib.
je6ling the party to an aBion for walls. The
third cafe, in which the queflion might arife, was
between landlord and tenant : this was by far the
molt important, and likely to produce the greateft
number of quellions. And here the rule admitted of
the greatell number of exceptions, The ground woe k
of thefe exceptions was the favour (hewn to trade,
and, therefore, whatever was eredled for the conve-
nience of trade, had been allowed to be removed by
the tenant. Thus mills, cyder preffes, furnaces,
&c. &c. had all been held removable, though af-
fixed to the freehold. It bad even gone further,
and allowed ornamental additions to honfes to be
removed, fuch as pier-glafies affixed to the walls;
marble chimney-pieces, and even a•ainicots. But
none of the cafes had gone the length of Paying,
that buildings ere&ed for the more convenient en,
joyment of the profits of the land fhould come
within the exemption from the general rule of law,
that every thing affixed to the freehold timid he
conftdered as a part of it. The cares of fire-rn•
gines in coal-pits, and cyder-mills, had been de-
cided on the ground that there were trades, and
the machines neceffary for thole trades. In a cafe
before Lord Mansfield, he held falt pans not re-
movable, becaufe they were only for the more
commodious enjoyment of the profits of the land.
On thefe grounds they were cf opinion that judg-
ment Ihould go for the plaintitf.
It may not be improper to remark, as the cafe is
one of general concern, that the law, as recognifed
and fettled in the above cafe, will be as follows;--
That whatever is affixed to the freehold, not merely
buildings, but 'loves fixed, glalres icrewed to the
walk, chimney pieces, &c. cannot be taken by the
executor againft the heir, but will belong to the
latter. That in the cafe of an executor of the te-
nant for life, againft the remainder-man, ma-
chines ereaed for the purport.. of trade may be re-
moved, but not other fixture,, fuch as chimney,
pieces, Sec. And that in the cafe between land-
lord and tenant, the latter may not only remove
machines and ereaions for the purpofes of trade,
hut alio all ornamental additions, Inch as marble
chimney pieces, &c. But that buildings made for
the more convenient enjoyment of the land, fitch
as additional building to farms, 'hall in no cafe be
removed, but remain for the benefit of thelandlord,

CRIMINAL. INFORMATION.

Upon the motion of Mr. GIBBS, ,t rule Plig was
granted for a criminal information nft Charles
Verrel, who iignd himfelf a Royal Military Draftf-
man, for a libel upon Mr. Lutterel, a Magiarate
of Devonfhire. The libel was contained in a letter
addreffea to Mr. Lutterel, in which the writer
Hgloried in being of the " True Blue Party," who
oppofed him. He next defcanted on his conduit
as a Magiarate,and accufed him of partiality and
oppreffion, and hinted an inclination to fight.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH obferved, that the chal-
lenge was rather equivocal, but the attack upon
Mr. L. as a Magiltrate was decifive.

THF. KING V. GIBBONS.

George Gibbons was brought up to receive the
judgment of the Court for a libel. The defen-
dant was a printer, the corner of Great St. An-
drew's ftreet, St. Giles's, and the libel was a bill
pi inted by him,which was hawked about Wapping,
purporting to be the " full, true, and particular
account of the bloody murder committed by Capt.
Shuttleworth, of the Hercules (a Gentleman who
was tried and acquitted at the lafl Admiralty Sef-
lions), upon one William Archer, his cabin boy."
The defendant had fuffered judgment to go by de►
fault. Several affidavits were read on the part of
the profecution, by which it appeared that the
hand-bill was hawked about the ftreet sof Wapping,
and railed the indignation of the populace fo much,
that they believed Captain Shuttleworth's the
would not have been fafe if he had been prefent.
Captain Shuttles% orth was committed on the 24th
of April, and on his trial (yid., Prport), was
honourably acquitted. It was all) added, that
when feveral perfong bought the bills in queflion
at the defendant's !hop, he refilfed to del& from
felling them, and told them that Captain S. had
better be quiet, for the more he ftirred the .worte
the matter would appear.
Mr. ERSKINa admitted that the offence was very
heinous ; but as the man had a large family he
hoped their Lordfbips would in their mercy con-
fider that the innocent mull fuffer with the goat?.
Mr. GARROW, for the Crown, preffed for a fe-
vere judgment. He Paid, that nn man criminally
charged could hope for an unbiaffed Jury if this
were permitted.
The defendant himfelf expreffed his contrition,
.itig.irnmifed. if mercy was extended to him, net