Star.
London, England, 1817-04-28 00:00:00

LAN INTELLIOENCE;

COVET OF CHANCERY, APRIL 26.
Cowes Col.Litoi, nxrono, v. STU MONS.
The minus of this case are these s—ln 1799 Christ's
college possessed the Rectory of Faversham, and
wished to sell it; Mr. Simmons, who then farmed
it, offered to become the purchaser. A Mr. DAvies,,
since dead, was appointed to survey the grounds, and
form an estimate of their value. Both the College
and Mr. Symmons adopted Mr. Davies's estimate in
the respective statements they gave in to the Com-
missioners who were to determine the price of the
Rectory. The estimate ',lamed the annual rent in
1799 to be at4O9 ; and thirpurchase was effected epee
this assumption. in 18f4 the• College filed a bill in
Chancery against Symmdns, in order to have the sale
reduced, on the ground that,Syitimoni had defrauded
and deceived the Commissioners as to the value of
the Rectory; application was now made to the Court
for leave to mend the bill, by recording certain pa-
pers, which Mr. Simmons had transmitted to his
Solicitor, Mr. Morrell: _ _

Mr. Bay., on the part of the plaintiff, stated, that
the papers he applied now to have recorded were in
-the hand-writing of Mr. Symmons, and represented
the value of the lands at a rate far short of their real
value, and were therefore of importance to the final
issue of the question, as tending to prove an intention
on the part of Symmons to deceive.
Sir-Samuel. Roartux,for the defendant, maintained
that such an application was altogether irregular ;
that nothing was more clearly established, than that
no amendment of a bill could be admitted after three
terms had elapsed from the filing of a bill, and an
application had been made to expedite the procesr;
that, if any new matter really was discovered, the
only mode of proceeding was by withdrawing the
bill and filing a new one, or by a supplementary bill;
but in the present case he had to complain of want of
candour on the other side, for the papers now in,
question were partly copies of documents which• Mr.
Symmons had received from the College in 1813, a
whole year before the bill was filed, and which could
not therefore be unknown to the plaintiff when the
- bill was filed; and partly Mr. Symmons's remarks
upon these documents to his solicitor, Mr. Morrell,
who happened likewise to be solicitor for the plaintiff;
and these last Mr. Morrell had no right to deliver to
the plaintiff, and the, plaintiff no right to use, since
DO order of Court to that effect was ever obtained.
Mr. beyt hoped, though h might cornnut some
Mistakes in his professional proceedMgs, that Sir tia-
inuel would give him credit foe acting honourably in
private life, as he was ready to give the highest cre-
• dit to Sir Samuel in this respect, however severely he
might chastise him (Mr. Bell). As to 'the practice
of that Court, he contended that in the course of So
years, during which he had practised in the Court,
he observed considerable changes in this matter. The
changes wire beneficial, but the present application
was warranted by the late practice of the Court.
- Sir SAMUEL &MILLI( would be obliged to the
Learned Gentleman if he made some use of his cz-

parience, by referring to similar, applications that had
been received.
Mr. BELL challenged Sir Samuel to refer to. a case.
in which such application was refused.
• ' Sir firatvat..—Certainly I cannot ; but it is because
no man bad ever the modesty to make a similar
apillication.
l'lse LORD CHANCELLOR, in consequence of the
different opinions advanced as to the practice of the
Court, would take till Tuesday to consider of it.
His Lordship observed upon the merits of the case
generally ; that fraud and deceit were most unfair•
raoUbly imputed to Mr. Syrnmons, for that he and
the College acted upon exactly the same estimate ;
sad that, though gross neglect must be ascribed to
the College, the neglect was' on both sides tree from
trotd, or any intention to deceive. The Surveyor
was employed by the College; and it could not be
believed that Mr. Symnsons had made him an bistro-
Mont of deceiving the Comsniuiosers, merely because
be had invited bins is live in his house WWl* he sur-
veyed the lands, and because ba bad invited him to
bang his lady with him. At the same time it appears
that Davies never did in fact survey the lands, but
looked round them, and, consequently, represented
the extent much less than the truth : the estimate was,
in consequence, below the real value of the-lands:
this was, therefore, a fair question in equity. Sir
Santee' might think him partial to Christ's College,
Oxford p but be would really say, as a thing of in-
sce to the public, that Surveyors employed by
es and Clergymen seldom did their duty. He
decide on she present application neat Tuesday.
COURT OF =Clint/ER. APRIL IR

iitiVIINS W. ALDRIDOS." •
Mr. DATMCZY moved for a ruli to shew cause,
"why the lrerdiet enured for the defendant in this ease
pluisid sit be set aside, and a new trial had.. The
teetjsM irisiiied before Mr. Justice Parlr, at Reading,
Sof was brought by the plaintiff, who-is the farmer
of the tidiete if a particular paid), against the defers.
dant, who holds premises in the said parish,: to re-
civet the valcat'a certain tithes of hay and clover,
Which he had neOitted. to set out. The 'action was
brought under tM statute of Edward, and it was
clearly proved that the defendant had cut and car.
1100. ried away three fields of duvet and hay without
allotting any tithes whatever. Upon the part of the
.definulant, for whom no witnesses were called, an in.
genius' appeal wits made to the Jury by his Counsel
Mr. Jervis), on the hardship of his being forced to
• pay this demand for tithes, when the other bliedeos
which he kid to bear, in the way of taxation and
otherwlie, Mere so grekst ; and it was contended by
hien, that the clam and grass in question, was cut
alone for the use of the defeodistas own hones-which
were used on the farm, and of consequence was not
liable to pay tithes. In answer to this, however, it
was clearly proved, that the defendant's horses were,
sot comes 'employed to diiinv barges up the river,
Nei that intact pan of the hay and clover had been
• soak carried to the market aad sold.
." Leaned Amos clearly expounded the law on
*".• thlitnbject s but the Jury, influenced by. the address
aide to their feelings, footed a verdict in direct op-
- position to his Lotdship'e 'diarge.—Role to thew
cause Greeted. • ,
CONSISTOnT COURT; DOCTORS' CoSOIONS.
'LADY XIIIKVIALL. 11. &ORD steawmat,.
TM; was a question as to the ischnieeilidity of a
• libel peered on the pall, of Lady Kirkwall, is a cause,

of divorce, instituted by her Ladyship against Lord
Kirkwall, by reason of alleged. adultery,
The libel pleaded, that Lord and Lady Kirkwall
were married by special licence in August 1802, at
Abergelly, in Denbighshire; that they lived toge- I
they from that time until the year 1809, and had two
'children. A separation then took place, in conse-
quence of some unhappy differences which had arisen
between them, and her Ladyship has since resided in
various places at the Wect-end of the town, apart
from his Lordship. The libellarther pleaded, that
in the beginning of the year 1814, Lord Kirkwall
formed a criminal intercourse with a woman of the
name of Taylor, or Hankin, who lived in lodgings in
Park-place, Grosvenor-square; and that he from'
chat time became in the habit of visiting her therefor
criminal purposes. The libel then charged various
acts of adultery to have been committed by them at
those and other lodgings ; and farther pleaded, that
his Lordship, about the same time, formed a similar
Iccnnection with a married woman of the name of
Webb, then residing with her husband; that he after-
wards lived with her in various lodgings, and still
continues to do so at lodgings in Margaret-street,
Cavendish square ; and it charged adultery between
them at all those places.
After hearing Dr. Arnold and Dr. Burnaby in
opposition to the admissibility of the libel, and Dr.
Swaby and Dr. Lushington in reply,
Sir Wu. SCOTT stated the facts pleaded, and ad-
mitted the libel to proofs'

COURT OP KING'S BENCH, APRIL 11.
KIIIIR O WILLAN.

This was a ease regarding the liability of a corn-
mon•carrier, and it was tried before Lord nails°.
rough at the last Guildhall Sittings, when * verdict
was found for the plaintiff. The action was for the
loss of some black cloth, which the defendant, pro-
prietor of the Bull-and-mouth undertook to convey
from London to Dumfries. The value of it exceeded
five pounds, and it was proved, on the part of the
defendant, that the usual notice, stating that be
would not be answerable for parcels above the.value
of £5, unless They were entered and paid for accord-
ingly, was posted is his coach-office. On behalf of
the plaintiff, however, it appeared that the porter
employed by him to carry the cloth could not read,
and the defendant's clerk did not inform him of the
notice. Lord Ellenborough left it to the Jury to
decide, whether it was to be presumed that the plain-
tiff had knowledge of the existence of such a notice,
and 0i
...hound the negative. A verdict was therefore
entered in his favour.
. The Arroann-Gettnat moved for a rule lrui to
set it aside, observing upon the great importance of
the question t be contended thlsk. under the circum-
stances, it was impossible that the plaintiff should not
have known of the notice : the porter aware that
there was a large board in the defendant's coach-,
office, but, as be could not read, be could not swear
to its contents. Ail the defendant was bound to do,'
was to give the public means of knowledge, and if a
party sent an ignorant porter, he must take the con-
sequences l a tact who intended a fraud upon the
carrier would o thy in future have to advertise for a
porter who could not read.
Lord ELMO:SWIM:OW—Though the porter could
not read, be could hear, and you might have inform-
ed lira of the contents of the board.

The Arroarrag•Gensaan replied, that a frando-
km man must then in future require that his porter
should have two qualifications, ignorance and deaf-
ness. Hg argued confidently that the defendant had
done all that the law required.
Lord ELLIUMItOUGH.--If a man sent a porter
with a parcel who was deaf, and could not read,
fraud ought to be supposed, and he (light to be
corned out of the coach-office : this case only gives
one farther proof of the difficulty of straggling
against- the wise provisions of the common law, In
restricting the liability of commonAlarriers 1 if there
be a special contract, it must be clearly proved, and
then vaunt krt. It would cure all, if, when a porter
delivers a parcel, a receipt were given him, on which
the notice of restricted Lability was printed.
The Arroarrel-Ozutnat. observed, that in the
bustle of business it would sometimes be impossible
to give receipts, And then the difficulty would still
remain to show Oat that receipt had been read by
the party.
Mr. Justice would be sufficient to
prove that the receipt had been given c not in the
particular case, bat that it was the constant prac-
tice of the office. •

Mr. Justice Annov.—And atelawr good mese-
quince of a receipt would be, that the owner of the
goods might have the means of knowing that they
had been delbered by his servant.
Lord Euammeoucus.—.ll thenhieetion be, that
there is soeb a besde of liminess, it only comes to
this...tbat they most get through it less in a burry.
--Role Refused.

*IIOIINT's CANAL COMPANY.'
In Lb. case ef the Itesenes Canal Company.
WAARIN applied to NI aside the 00115Vit, and tp ob-
tun a new Mud, but the Court refused the application.

LOAD ALVIALO V. aaanenn.
This was =section of trespass, tried before Mr.
Justice Aanorr, at the last Dorchester Auizes, when
a verdict was found for the plaintifE The declara-
tion alleged that the defendant had broke and entered
the Manor of Cranbourne, situate in the parish of.
Henley, with dogs, axe. and unlawfully chased, wenn-
, dad, and kilkd the plaintiff's deer. The 2d count
omitted the averment of kill'ng the deer, and the 3d
charged that the defendant had carried away, and
' converted to his own use, the goods and chattels of,
the plaintiff—to wit, bucks and- does. The defendant
pleaded the general issue, and en ancient custom.
,lUying the trespass, but which custom was not
proed.
Mr. Cessna now moved to enter a nonunit. • He
admitted that the plaintiff was Lord of the Manor of
Cranbourne, and that Hunley was situate within that
Manor = but he denied that the plaintiff bad any pro-
perty in that neighbourhood. The ground of bit
present motion was, that as the verdict was taken
upon the third count, which alleged that the deer
taken and carried away by the defendant was tha
property of the plaintiff, it was impossible for that
count to be sustained, because, in punt of law,- the
plaintiff could not, as Lord of the Manor, have any
in propertydeer, or other animals of that description,
which were/wa war& For this he cited Swain'.
Case, 7 Co:"17. b. a mid- he argued, that althorns))
tbs Pheimeg hid PalaMtraiimiteivilitii•ja the deer,

yet he had not such a property in them as mord give
bins a right of action, because the only property be
had in them was derived entitely from the place in
which they were found.
Mr. Justice BAILZY, however, referred to a case in
1 William Blackstone's Reports, 1151, and another
in Salkeld, where it had been held that trespass
would lie for entering the plaintiff's rabbit warren.
and taking and carrying away the rabits ; for he
had such a property in them, as gave him a right
of action.

Mr. Justice HOLROTD said, that this was also the
case with respect to.fisheries ; and he referred to a
case in Cro. Charles, and to another in Lord Ray-
mond, which %seat still farther ; and decided that the
plaintiff had such a property in deer and other game,
as entitled I►im to call them :up:.
Mr. CASISERD then submitted that on the count
upuo which the plaintiff had recovered, charged first,
that the defendant had broken and entered the close;
and, secondly, that he took and carried away the deer
in question. The whole count must be taken to•
gether ; and if so, the latter part of the count could
not be maintained consistently with the action for
trespass. For he submitted that an action for tees•
pass would not lie in this case, inasmuch as the Lard
had no property beyond the mere franchise of the char..
The COURT, utter these eases had been cited, de.
cided that the owner of a chase or free warren, had
, a property in the game contained i.i it —that the mere
act of entering the chase, even though no game were
taken, was inprinus to the owner—because, it
often repeated, it would seem that the trespasser had
a concurrent right with the owner to hunt there—
and, finally declared that, after the practice which had
obtained in pleading upon this subject, it was now
dangerous to raise the question; and therefore the
Rule must be refused.—Rule refused.