Star.
London, England, 1819-07-31 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET V. SIB. THOMAS TUETON.
The Plaintiff's bill in this cause prayed that an
agreement into which the Defendant had entered, for
the purchase of an estate, might be carried into effect,
and that it might be referred to the Master'to deter-
mine what compensation was due from the defendant
to the plaintiff, for the non-fulfilment of such agree-
ment. The bill stated, that in the year 1814 an estate
belonging to the plaintiff was sold by auction, and
bought by the defendant for 0550. One of the
articles of sale was, that the buyer should deposit
ten per cent. of the purchase-money in the hands of
Messrs. Bease, Alexander, and Holme, solicitors, and
pay the remainder before a ce:tain period. Accord-
ingly the defendant deposited £855, and bound him-
self to pay the remaining 4.7695 within the time pre-
scribed. The bill recited various other stipulations
respecting the timber, sic. A doubt having arisen in
Sir Thomas Turton's mind as to the validity of the
Duke of Somerset's title to the estate, he refused to
fulfil the agreement till that doubt was removed,-1
It was at last determined that this point should be
referred to the arbitration of Mr. Benyon, who was
to be assisted by Mi. Shadwell and Mr. Roupell ;
the former counsel for the plaintiff, and the latter for
the defendant. The parties bound themselves to
abide by Mr. Benyoa's award, provided it were made

within three months after this, agreement ; but before
that period had elapsed, the plaintiff stated that he
did not wish to act otherwise towards the defendant
than as one gentleman would act towards anothea*
and therefore proposed that it should be referred to
Mr. Shadwell and Mr. Roupell, who were well ac-,
quainted with all the facts, to determine what com-
pensation he was fairly entitled to for the non-fulfil-
ment of the defendant's agreement. This propos il
was acceded to, and the Learned Gentlemen made
their award, which was, that the defendant s!jould
pay the auction duty, and that the plaintiff should
return all the money deposited, except I.:150, and
pay the defend ant five per cent. interest on the de-
posit from the time it was paid to the solicitors. In
this award the plaintiff refused to acquiesce, because
the arbitrators had evidently been ignorant of some
of the facts of the case, they having directed him to
pay interest on the defendant's deposit, on the suppo-
sition that the money had been paid to him or for
his use, which was not the case. To obtain redress
'6e had filed the peseta bill, to which the defendant
demurred, alleging generally that the plaintiff was
pot entitled to redress.
Mr. Mettnlvit.t.E stated the case for the Plaintiff;
and Alf. AGAR, for the Defendant, argued in support
'Of the demurrer.
. The VICE-CHANCELLOR, in giving judgment, re-
isadied, that the sole question on which he had to
(Seale ivas, whether or not the plaintiff was entitled
ta relief from this award ? The law undoubtedly
1 ve arbitrators the power of deciding even contrary
‘o law ; but when a decision rested on a fact which
eoth parties supposed the arbitrators to be acquaint-
d With, yet of which they were really ignorant, and
4heir ignorance of which the arbitrators themselves
'ivere of opinion rendered their decision unjust, it was
impossible to suppose that a Court of Equity would
not give relief in such a case. Consequently the de-
murrer, which denied all title to relief, must be over-
ruled.—lt was overruled accordingly.

ASSIZP.S.-YORK, JULY 26.
A RMYTACE V. BLACKBURN AND OTHERS.

Mr. Serjeant Hoctocx opened this case. It was
lan action to recover compensation in damages, for
trespass committed by the defendants. The plaintiff
had been a respectable alehouse-keeper in Iludders-
field ; he had occupied a house and lands under the
late Sir John Ramsdell, and actually 'expended upon
the premises which he had occupied upwards of
£1,600. He had, altogether, been worth not less
than £3,000; lie was now, however, ruined; and no
compensation they could give would restore him to
what he had been most unjustly deprived of. Every
inhabitant of this county must have heard of the de-
fendant, Blackburn, an Attorney in Huddersfield ;
for there was nothing troublesome or turbulent in
which he had not been concerned. In this case he
'did not hesitate to say, that his conduct had been
villaincius. The first thing he did was to get a com-
mission of bankruptcy issued against the 'plaintiff,
under which he was petitioning creditor and Solicitor.
Now, when he had sworn that he was a creditor to
the amount of £lOO, he was, in fact, indebted to the
plaintiff. I-k pretended that the debt had accrued
in consequence of his having been suretyfor the plain-
tiff to Mr. Bentley, a Brewer, to the extent of £100;
In fact, he had been joint surety to that. Amount, but
beim' not. then in any shape paid any money. or
converted his suretyship into debt. But even if he
had paid £lOO to Mr. Bentley, he had been at that
very time more than £lOO in debt to the plaintiff.—
Other two of the defendants, Bottomley and White-
ley, pretended to act as Assignees under this com-
mission, and Harrop, the remaining defendant, had
been the Auctioneer of the plaintiff's goods. Appli-
cation had been made to set aside the commission,
but owing to a blunder it failed, for all the Affidavits
had- been sworn before one Commissioner, who was
the Attorney in the cause. In Autumn, 1815, the,
plaintiff was forcibly turned out of his house, his fur-
niture was sold, the rents of his cottages were seized,
and the crops of his lands were taken possession of,
and sold. To this moment he was kept out of pos-
session of his premises by this atrocious trespass.—
This action had, indeed, been originally brought in
ISIS, but a sort of agreement was then entered into
between the parties, by which Harrop was to sustain
all the loss. Harrop naturally rejected such an ar-1
rangement, and the case was thus brought tinder their
view. lle would prove the extent of loss sustained ;
and that it really was a trespass they could not doubt,
since there was no petitioning creditor, no trading,',
and no insolvency to constitute a legal commission.
He here. again distinctly charged Blackburn with
perjury, in swearing a debt of £lOO.
Thomas Armytage, son of the plaintiff, a Butcher
in liudder;tield. proved the turning out of his father
and mother, and the selling of their furniture, which
was worth £lOO. The money was paid to Bottom-
ley and Whiteley. The house had been built by his
father four or five years before. His father had got
a building lease from Sir John Rantsden. The house
was in the market-place, and well oustomed. Ilis
father made between 20s. and ffos. profit a-week.—
;The house was sold for 1250 guineas. His father
Would now be in the workhouse but for him.

Hannah Armytage, wife of John Arrrytage, plain-
tiffs eldest son, refused to sign as a creditor under
the commission, and told Blackburn that he was in
the plaintiff's debt. " l'oh, poh," he replied, " you
must not say so; if you don't sign, it will be worse
for you." •
Mr. WILLIAMS, who was Counsel for Bottomley
and Whiteley, had extracted from Thomas Armytage
that lie had himself applied to get a commission issued
against his father, and then addressed the Jury with
great energy for Bottomley and Whiteley, snaintain-
ing that they were real regular Assignees, and con-
sequently not responsible. The wicked contriver of
all these dreadful machinations might have been
Blackburn, who had disappeared, and along with
whom had disappeared this commission. He hoped
he was not now hearing all that was said of him.
Mr. SCARLETT was Counsel for Harrop, but de-
clined to enter into any defence.

Much controversy apd argument arose respecting
the non-production of the commission, but the Judge
was of opinion that since they did not produce it, any
evidence respecting the petitioning creditor's debt,
or the plaintiff's circumstances at the time it was
issued, could be of no avail.

Benjamin Stead, was, however, called, and stated,
that he had seen the plaintiff at a meeting of the
Commissioncts, and heard him urging ilottomley
and Whiteley to become Assignees : had the corn-

mission, and gave it to Blackburn's clerk. DLL k.
burn was not now to be found : he had the Accouutt:
the Assignees •had received £193: they paid it all
out; EB6 to Blackburn; £37 to the messenger; and
other similar itcms.

Cros.oexamined by Mr. Seijeant
had made an affirmation in the Court of Chancery,
and he was now on his oath.

Du y6u affirm in equity, a: d swear in law?-1
was then a Q-Jaker, but I have since married.
What! you arc married otit?-4 stnt in my re-
signation.
Of your conscience ?—I have as muchof that as you.
He was then asked as to a tatement in his affirma-
tion, but he did not recollect it. Being pressed—be
should not wonder if he had so affirmed.

Mr. Serjeant HULLOCK.—Nor shall -any here won-
der at any thing you affirm or swear.
John Scholes gave simills evidence.
The Learned Serjeant ti en addressed the Jury in
reply. Blackburn's disapt carance was foreign to the
issue. It had only been proved that the Commission
had got into his Clerk's hands; but if it had been
proved to have got into his nwa, that was nothing ;
for another Commission migh► have been got : but
neither the petitioning creditor's dubt, the act of
bankruptcy, nor any other point had been proved. The
Jury would therelOre give such damages as they
thought the plaintiff had sustained.—Damagekl:3oo.

CHELMSFORD, JULY co.
slit rif v. ELSE&

This was an action of trespass against the defen-
dant for pulling down a shed belonging to the plain-
tiff-, situate in F.ppini,.
It appeared in evidence, that the plaintiff, from being
an humble jonnieynian carpenter, had, by his indus-
try and good conduct, become a master carpenter
in a small way. • He had obtained permission from
the Lord of the Manor to erect a shed and sink a saw
pit on part of the waste of Hainault-forest, of about
ten or eleven rods in length, in consideration of his
surrendering to the Lord a small piece of land in his •
possession. The defendant, who is a man olconsits
derahle fortune and substance in the same neighbour-
hood, being ifi..satistied with this supposed encroach-
ment upon the waste, in the year 1816 attempted to
removed the plaintiff's shed, hut then failing in his -
purpose, he renewed his proceedings in the year
1817, and with the assistance of a horse and cart,
aided by other persons who complained of the al-
leged encroachment, pulled down the piles which
supported the Shed, which was itself demolished in the
end. For this injury the present action was brought.
It was contended in defence, that the plaintiff had
no right to enter into any bargain with the Lord of
the Manor. to the injury of other claimants of the
waste, and that consequently the supposed trespass
was justifiable, in order to remove the encroachment.
Mr. Baron GARROW, in his charge to the Jury, re-
marked, that if the defendant had been disposed to
dispute the supposed encroachment in a Court of
Law, he ought to have done so with a rich man, and
not fight the question in a snwpit, with a man in an
inferior station. It appeared to him that the defen-
dant's conduct was completely unjustifiable, and
consequently that the plaintiff was entitled to liberal
damages.—The Jury found for the plaintiff-. Da-
mages £150;