Star.
London, England, 1822-12-14 00:00:00

...

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY,. DECEMBRR 13.

IN THE MATTER OF CRESWELL, THE LUNATIC.
Mr. WETHERELL applied to the Court to have the
inquisition removed from Pinckney, in Wiltshire, the
residence of the bromic, to London, because there
was a necessity for having the evidence of two Lon-
don medical gentlemen, whose attendance would be
very expensive to the parties, and very inconvenient
to themselves.
Mr. WILBRAHAM opposed the application, on the
groutid that the people about the lunatic, and in his
neighbourhood, were likely to give the best informa-
tion ; and it was of importance in this case to deter-
mine the precise time when the lunacy first occurred.
He thought a Jury of the County ought to sit in a
room of the house in which the lunatic resided.

The LORD. CHANCELLOR thought that the imme-•
diate neighbourhood was liable to objection, on the
score of common or particular prejudice. He there-
fore ordered that the Jury should sit at Salisbury
that being a place of convenient locality, and of
such extent as would secure, with little expense or
trouble, all the useful information which the case
could require.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DECEMBER IS.
MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN ONE OF TILE COUNSEL

AND THE BENCH.

Mr. Wrrueasu. was engaged in arguing a cause
respecting the construction of a will, when
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, conceiving the Learned
Counsel did not apply himself to the only Odint in
issue, twice interrupted. him, and (firmed his atten-
tion to it. Upon the last occasion
Mr. WETHERELL said, I have a right to be heard,
and I will be heard.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—I am always desirous to
hear you ; but, when you are heard, it is for the Judge
to see that you do not apply your arguments to points
about which there is no doubt or difficulty.

r.WETHERELIAR Sti pport of my public character, 1
and for the sake of the privileges of the Bar, I contend
fur my right to be heard, and to state my view of the
ca•e, and I will not submit to be put down by your
Honour. It is the unanimous complaint of the Bar,
that your honour AN ill not permit Counsel to exercise
that right, without which it is impossible they can
do their duty to their clients ; and petitions are pre-
sented, complaining that causes have not been pro-
perly heard by your 'Honour.
The. VICE-CHANCELLOR—Iot: do not address your-
self to this subject with your usual good sense and
gentlemanlike deportment. In order that Counsel
stiay do justice to their clients, it is necessary they
should know what the real difficulty in the case is,
and apply their arguments to that point.
Mr. WETHERELL—I trust I have done nothing un-
gentlemanlike ; but I must repeat, that I will not sub-
mit to receive my view of the case from your Honour.
—I have a right, and I will.not be prevented from
exercising it, to pursue any line of argument which
I really think essential and necessary to the intere.t

of my client.
The Vice-Cnatrcau.on—l haie endeavoured to
direct your attentimt to what I conceive to be the real
difficulty of the can. Having done so, I shall upon
this occasion, as IV° upon every other, permit Coun-
sel to adopt their own course of argument.
Mr. Wartisaau. then .continued his argument to
the conclusion, without being interrupted by any re-
mark from the Court. • .

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 13.
ACIEROYD D. BIRD AND °THEM

Tbis was an action on the case brought by the

lessee of a house, situated No. ‘2, Clement's-inn-pas-
sage, against Messrs. Bird, the builders empluyed by
the Commissioners of Sewers, for so cate►essly and

improperly conducting the repairs of a sewer, that
by reason of their operations, the house (then in the
possession of a tenant) fell down. The principal
cause of the accident, which took place on the 18th
of August, 1820, was the fall of a stack of chlorines
in the house of Mr. Coliens, which stood on the
crown of the arch of the sewer, and which reduced
three houses to rui►ls. On!.action by Mr. Jones, the
proprietor of another of these, was previously brought,
and the plaintiff recovered a veidict,'which, on appli-
cation for a new trial, the Court refused to disturb.
The witnesses for the plaintiff ascribed the accident
wholly to the neglect of the agents of the Commis-
sioners, whom they represented as refusing to inter
fere, on the ground that it was not their province.
In their judgment, had the premises been suppoi ted
-by raking shores and by needling, the repairs of the
sewer might have proceeded with safety. They esti-
mated the expense of rebuilding the house at more
than 3001. but the plaintiff was contented to take
'3701. as a recompense, being the sum accepted by her
landlord, and the rent of which she bad lost.
. .

0:1 the part of the defendants, it was contended
that they had taken the wisest measures, and were
not responsible for the result ; that the sewer and the
houses were in such a state of decay that they would
have fallen down if no attempt had been made to
repair the sewer: and that the Commissioners had
given sufficient notice to warn the inhabitants of their
danger. It appeared. that general notices had been
given to put the occupiers of premises on their guard;
but no specific notice in writing that there was dan-
ger to be apprehended from the chiEnnies. Some
witnesses also proved that they had conversed with
Mr. Collens on the-subject, and that he had begun
to remove the chimnies.
The LORD CRIER JUsTIC* intimated a strong opi-
nion that the builders were bound to give specific
notice to the occupier of the house whence danger
was expected, and to suspend their operations to give
him time for the removal of its cause. The only cir-
cumstance which could dispense with this rule was
that an immediate proceeding was necessary to the
public safety.
Mr. SOARLETT, however, proceeded with his case.l
He called other witnesses, who stated that all had
been done for the best, and that the means suggested
by the witnesses for the plaintiff would be rather pre-
judicial than otherwise.. He also called Mr. Nurse, a
surveyor, who represetited the house as old, and who
gave his opinion that, as a surveyor, he should advise
its removal. Several other surveyors were also called,
who gave their opinion that the means used were the
best which could be adopted. Mr. Shave, the archi-
tect, having looked at the model produced in Court,
and having-11prd the evidence, gave his judgment
that, as ha understood the Commis:loam had no