Star.
London, England, 1818-08-12 00:00:00

OW AtEtttatitai

. • -
boort OF CHANCERY, AUGUST '
11.
The Lonri eIIANCtI,LOR, on coming into Cott
soon aftdr nine o'clock, intimated that he had inten-
ded to have diSposed of the Case of Pla:cor v. Lowe,
and of another, but that he was at present tuffering
such extreme pain that he wits afraid he woulii be
unable to go through them. Should his health per:
mit he would decide them to-morrow morning.
ft-pAars JACKSON AND OTHTRE IN THE HATTER

or JACKSu%
This case, which 11 not of the slightest public in-
terest, occupied the Court the whole day. There were,
'eight Counsel engaged in it, and the whole was a
mere matter of accounts between the late Assignees,
the Bankrupt, and the present Assignees.
Atoogr I2.—BEDFORD CHARITY.
This morning the Court was crowded to excess, in
expectation of this case being decided. A great
*umber of persons of distinction of the dowich per-
, suasion were present, when it was understood that
the LORD CHIA scgLum had intimated that he should
not be able to do any thing in this business till Fri-
day morning.
6intnEY ASSIZES.—GeILDFORD, I.ISdCST to.
CIVIL SIDE.—DOE EX DEM. STONE V. ELDERTOI4

This was an action brought by Mr. Stone, the
landlord of the defendant, to eject him from certain
premises, consisdng of a house, ' garden outbuild-
ings, tec. at Brixton Causeway, in this County, on
the alleged ground of his having committed a breach
of two covenants in the leise under which the pre-
mises were held ; one of the breaches being.the non-
erection of a wall, according to certain stipulations,
and the other the non-insurance of the premises con-
tinually and at all times.
Upon the statement of Mr. MARRYAT, confirmed
by the evidence for the plaintiff, it appeared that in
1803 the defendant took the premises in question,
the garden of which was enclosed by a wall, in part.
although on one side there was no wall. That pani-
cular covenant enjoined, that whensoever the other
land beyond the part uninclosed by a wall should be
let, the defendant should construct a wall there.
That land had been let in 1805, but the defendant
bad not erected the wall, although required by a no-
tice. The breach as to the other covenant was, that
the premises, although they had been insured at times,
had not been insured continually.

Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, stated, that a more
extraordinary or unjust attempt upon the part of a
landlord to eject a tenant, after having laid out an
immense sum of money on the premises, had never
been made within his experience, for his Learned
Friend had thought it necessary to keep back one
circumstance, which disclosed the injustice and op-
pression that were attempted to he exercised by the
plaintiff in this case. The land beycnd the spo:
whereon the first wall ought to be erected, was let to
the defendant in 1805—no wall was built by him
then, nor required. to be built ; and now, when he
had laid out the whole in beautiful pleasure-grounds
and ornamental shrubberies, he was called upon to
build this wall before his drawing-room winderws,
[and completely to debar himself of all the pleasure
he expected to reap from the immense expense that
he had incurred. With respect to the insurance, the
Learned Counsel would prove, that it was regularly
continued, and the continurion•monee always paid
at the Insurance Office within fifteen 'days after the
expiration of each year—the period within which it
ought to be paid by the terms of the conditions con-
tained in the policy. The Learned Counsel proved
these facts : and that rent was received by the plain-
tiff after he had given notice, both IA ith respect to
the non-erection of the wall, and the alleged non-in-
surance, which circumstance, he contended, was a
waver cf all right of ejectment.
Mr. Maturtywr contended, that the premises were
uninsured for the fifteen days after the expiration of
one of the years, and it did not appear on the face of
the policy, that the Insurance Company felt them-
selves liable if a loss had taken place within those
fifteen days.
Mr. Guasxy and Mr. §crieant 'funny contended
on the wording of the c' ndition, that as the policy
would be void if the ren wal was not paid within the
fifteen days, consequen ly it must Le vali 1 and in
full force as it was.

Mr. Justice ABBOTT was not anxious to give any
opinion as to the liability of the Insurance Office
within the fifteen days. Such a point was of consi-
derable importance, and would be open to Mr. Mar-
ryat at a future period ; but at present, under all the,
circumstances, he was of opinion that the plaintiff
must bc n.nsuiLed.—A uonsuit was entered.

CROWN Sion.—Gr;r,se Pope was indicted for a
highway robbery, in stopping and robbing Eiiab Bre-
ton, Esq. on the 26th of July last.
Mr. Breton, who is a Gentleman of fortune resi-
ding at Witidlesharn, and also having another house
at Sunning-hill, in this county, stated, that he was
travelling in his gig from Sunning-hill to Windle-
sham on the 26th of July last, and when he was near
the 23 mile stone at Egham, a man, whom he fully
believed to be the prisoner, came from the hedge and
caught his horse's reins. He then demanded his mo-
ney, and, presenting something which he believed to
be a pistol, though lie did not distinctly see it, threat-
ened to shoot him, unless he immediately complied.
At that time he was not at all alarmed, and was pre
paring to getout of his gig, when another man came
forward and presented a pistol to his body, and ivas
apparently about to discharge it, when the first man,
(the prisoner) called out, Don't shoot him." The
other removed the pistol. They then rifled his pockets,
and took from him a bundle of papers containing
bank-notes, bankers' cheques, and other papers, and
twelve shillings and sixpence in money. While they
were doing this a neighbouring fanner, whom he
knew, came up, and they stopped him and pre-1
sented their pistols. They then departed, and soon
after some other people came up, and they went in
pursuit of the thieves ; the next morning the prisoner
was brought to him, whom he recognized directly.
T. Quad, the farmer spoken of by the last witness,
stated, that he came up as described by Mr. Breton.,
He and others went in pursuit of the highwaymen,
and they found the prisoner concealed in a corn sheaf
in an adjoining wheat field.
The prisoner, in his defence, said he was tired with
travelling, and went to lay down in the wheat field,
but that he knew nothing of the robbery.
The Jury, with li ule hesi cation, found him—Guilty.