Star.
London, England, 1814-11-08 00:00:00

THE ATTORNEY-OENERAL OF THE PRINCE OF WALES 'v.

STEVENS.

Sir Arrutnt PIGOTT stated, that in this case a bill
had been filed for restraining the tenants of various
tracks of common and other land belonging to his
Royal Highness the Prince Regent, in the Duchy of
Cornwall, from working the stone quarries, and car-
rying off the stones found therein, and on the com-
mons in the lands occupied by them. The stones so
carried off had been transported to London, and em-
ployed io the building of the Strand Bridge, and an
injunction had been obtained restraining the Def,:n-
dants from proceeding in their operations. A com-
munication, however, had since taken place on the
subject, the result of which was, that the Defendants
were allowed to go on in the meantime, they keeping
an account, and undertaking to be responsible, in the
event of its being found that their title to proceed as
they had done was defective. The affidavits in an'
swer had since been put in,- and the Defendants had
given notice of a motion for dissolving the injunction.
He (Sir Arthur Pigott) had looked into those affi-
davits, and from the most attentive consideration he
`had been able to give the case, he was satisfied that
it must ultimately come to be decided by an issue, or
issues at law. He had spoken to Mr. Hart, who was
for the Defendant, upon the subject, and he believed
that he concurred in this opinion. It would be con-
venient, however, for him (Sir Arthur Pigott), that
the matter should lie over for a few days, as he had
not had an opportunity of consulting with Sir Sa-
muel Romilly and Mr. Bell, who were, with him,
Counsel for the Plaintiff, nor with the Officers of
the Duchy.
Mr. HART concurred in thinking that the case must
come, in one shape or another, to be decided at law;
'either by ejectment, or by directing an issue.
Sir ARTHUR PIGOTT said, an ejectment could not
try the question, the Defendants having grants, which
they would naturally set up as a defence against any
action of ejectment. The rights of the parties could
only be tried by an issue or issues.
Mr. HAUT said, then let Sir Arthur Pigott's junior
prepare minutes of the tetras of the issues.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, as the Defendants
were allowed to proceed in the meantim; keeping
an account, the proposed delay of a few days could
be productive of injury to neither party. Let the
matter, therefore, lie over to Thursday se'nnight,
and the parties, in the meantime, communicate among
themselves.

JIMNEOII V. CATOR.
Sir SAMUEL RoMILLY, followed by Mr. SRN:WELL,
moved that the time for paying in the mortgage mo-
ney in this case should be enlarged for six months.—
This was 7an application, he submitted, entirely to
the discretion of the Court ; and as it was made in
very extraordinary circumstances he trusted it would
receive that favourable consideration to which it was

entitled. The case had been more than onee'alreAdy
before the Court, and his Lordship had already more
than once enlarged the time for paying thejponey.—
Many of our Readers may recollect it, as, tog have
more than once stated the circumstances attending the
case. About the year 1808, Mr. Cator, *Aso had
only a life-interest in the estate, mortgaged the same
Ito Mr. Johnson for the sum of 4315,000, the snort.
gape, at the same time causing him to insure his life
tor the full amount. In the year 1811, Mr. Johnson
becoming dissatisfied with the security, filed a bill of
foreclosure, in which he afterwards obtained it decree. I
He also seized upon an interest of a mercantile nature
which Mr. Cator had along with four other Gentle-
men in a pottery concern, to the trade in which he
put a stop, and from Mr. Cator's interest in which he
realized a sum of about £4,000. Not satisfied with
this the Plaintiff proceeded against the person of the
Defendant, against whom he sued out a writ of Ca-
pia: ad satisfacteriduat, and under that writ had kept
him in prison for the last year and a half. This was
not all, he then brought an action of ejectment, and
having obtained a verdict in it, was now actually at
this moment in possession of the Defendant's life-in-
terest in this estate. Under these circumstances, the
Defendant's son, being not much more than a year
from his full age of twenty-one, and being in hopes'
that he should be able, if allowed a short time
longer, to borrow money on his own interest in the
estate sufficient to pay off this mortgage, he (Sir Sa-1
muel Romilly) trusted his Lordship would enlarp
the time for paying in the mortgage moll for sit
months longer.
Mr. LEACH, for the Plaintiff, stated that it appeared
from the Master's Report, that there was upwards of
£12,000 of this mortgage debt due, while the rents
of the estate were net equal to the payment of the in-
terest, and of the premium of insurance ; Si) that the
amount of the debt must be daily accumulating.
Sir SAMUEL ROHILLY said they had now heard this
for the first time. In answer to it, however, he could
state, that next year, the lease under which the estate
was now held would expire, when the rents would
be nearly doubled.
The Lotto CHANCELLOR asked, was there an affi-
davit to this last tact, which he esteemed highly im-
portant ?
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY said there was no affidavit
to the fact, but one could easily be filed, the tact be-
ing indisputable.
Mr. LEACH had never heard that a mortgagee, who
had not lent his money fot ever, but only for a given
time, was not at liberty to bold his security, and, at
the came time, to take the usual remedies which the
law afforded him to make his debt effectual.
Sit SAMUEL ROMILLY did not dispute the tight of
a creditor to resort, one by one, to all the remedies,
and or every one of which the Plaintiff in the present
ease had availed himself. But, he contended, that
those were circumstancei which must weigh with the
icourt, in the exercise of its discretion, on as appli-
eation such as the present.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, in ladling of a Can
like the present, it was highly importantgiatthe Court
4ould be informed not only what was di actual and;
immediate tent of the estate mortgaged, but also
what would be its probable value next year. Thesal
could be no doubt too, that a mortgagee. was en.'
titled :o avail himislf of all the remedies which du)

lilt4Vowed to any ether creditor ; but, at the same
thiikkkwas proper that the Court slunk/ know what
weWjbe remedies which had been resorted to by a
mortgagee coming to the Court and asking that the
mortgage money should be irnmedia:ely paid ; in
order that the Court might be the Arua enabled to
judge whether by those remedies thotortgagre had so
pressed on the mortgagor as tomlllt e him more un-
able than he otherwise would have been to pay the
money. The resorting to twenty ditrerentremedies
against a man, it so many existed, it was'' easy to
conceive, would render him less able to pay a large
sum of money, than it only one remedy had beer.
tried. His Lordship wished, therefore, before he
disposed of this point, to have an affidavit as to the
rise to be expected in the rent of the mortgage pro-
perty, during the next year.