Star.
London, England, 1822-12-18 00:00:00

LLOYD AND OTHERS V. SIR H. ST. PAUL.

Mr. Pciirs was beard further upon the objection to
admit the affirmation of the plaintiff in aid of proof
of his disputed title in the case opened yesterday.
The Lour) CHANCELLOR suggested that the most
convenient course would be to try the right of the
plaintiffs to the production of the deeds ; as upon that
right, and the contents of the deeds, supposing that
the right should he established, must depend the use-
fulness of other proceedings.
Mr.,HART assented to the proposition of the Court,
to waive that part of the motion which respected the

injunction.
'•Mr. PEhYS then argued upon the separate motion,
and contended that neither equity, nor common sense,
nor. common honesty, could require a defendant to
assist the claim of title made by his adversary by pro-
ducing his own deeds.
The LORD CHANCELLOR had an opinion yesterday,
which yet remained not very much shaken, that the
defendant had put in an answer which was not quite
correct. Sir 11. St. Paul might have put the plaintiff
at once out of Court, but he' denied the- reservation
affirnied by the plaintiffs. He had, however, sworn
that he knew nothing of the deeds, and had no power
over them. It appeared that Mr. Vernon held the
deeds in trust for the defendants. The assertion of
Sir II- St. Paul, therefore, that he had no power over
them, was at least incorrect, because they were held
for his benefit. The answer of Mr. Vernon (he spoke
it with full respect for that gentleman) amounted to
nothing at all. Had Mr. Vernon denied that there
was any reservation of mines, that would have put
the plaintiffs out of Court. Mr. Vernon said that he
did not f.•el himself at liberty to produce the deeds :
but he should have said whether or not the deeds
contained the reservation claimed by the plaintiffs.
As trustee for Sir H. St. Paul, he was bound to say
whether the property of the coals belonged to his
trust: if the deeds did contain the reservation, then
Mr. Vernon Was not trustee for 'Sir Henry St. Paul
only,. but also for all those who held title under the
deeds, To have acted with impartiality, he should have
stated the fact, yes or no, in his answer.
Mr..DADWELL and Mr. BIGGS were heard on be-
half of lessees under the defendants.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that he had an opi-
nion which strongly inclined him to determine in a
Eiarticular way. Were he out of Court be could not
hesitate a moment. There were, however, before the
invention of fire-engines and such other facilities for
working mines, frequent reservations in the sale of
coal lands, the vender little thinking, generally, that
the mines would ever be worth the expense of work-
ing, and the purchaser as little supposing that the
property would ever be disturbed by the 'exercise of
;he reserved right. Concideriiig, therefore, the great
importance of the decision to very many purchasers
and tenants of such lands, though his mind was
nearly made up, he preferred waiting until to-mor-
tow morning.

At his Loidship's request the bill and answer were
handed up to him, that he might read them over.

MILLER V. ELKINS.

The Court was occupied the rest of the day in dis-
Ciissing the due construction of ambiguous and con-
flicting p.issages of wills, involved in this and another
case of die same kind, and the corresponding powers
of the executors who were to administer them.—
Decision postponed.