Star.
London, England, 1819-01-21 00:00:00

VICF,CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JANUARY so.

The Vlca-Ctrancet.t.on came into Court at ten
o'clock. and prnceedcd to hear the causes set down
for hearing this day. They consisted principally of
cases that have been already argued, and now came
before the Court on exceptions and demurrers.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY sm.
COOPER V. bllt GEORGE ROBINSON, 13ART.

This was an action against the defendant, as repre-
sentative of the late Sir George Robinson, to recover
damages for injuries sustained by breach of agree-
ment.`The damages were laid at 9001. It appeared
that Sir George Robinson's family had held certain
property upon Tower-hill since the reign of Charles
the Second ; it was held on lease from the Crown.
In 1789, Sir G. Robinson granted a ;nation of his
property to a sub.lessee for eighty years, but as the
lease from the Crown had not so long to run, he en-
gaged to get it renewed. The sub-lessee disposed cf
it to the plaintiff, who expended considerable sums
on the premises. The period of the lease from the
Crown expired in 1809, and as Sir G. Robinson did
not get it renewed, the plaintiff was turned out of pos-
session. He sustained a loss in co.:sequence amounting
to WO/. which he sought to recover by this action.
The defence was, that Sir G. Robinson, in pursuance
of his agrenieent to endeavour to get the lease re-
newed, made every exertion by petition and other-
wise for that purpose. The Crown would only con-
sent to grant a new lease on condition that he pulled.
down the houses and rebuilt them, upon a plan more
beneficial to the health and convenience of the public.
A compliance with those conditions would have made
it necessary to pull down the plaintiff's house, and
lie could not have received the least benefit. Several
witnesses proved the facts, and the Learned Judge
was of opinion, that the plaintiff could not support
his action. Ile was accordingly nonsuited.

DEVEREAUX V. BADCLAT.

This was an action of trover to recover seven casks,
of oil, valued at 4171. 9s. Id. alleged to have been
purchased of the defendant for the plaintiff's account,
but which the former converted to his own use.

The case was this—both parties were dealers in oil,
and in the month of June, 1817, the defendant sold
to a person named Coleman, four tons of sperm oil,
contained in seven casks, which remained in the
warehouse of the vendor, and was sold by the pur-
chaser to a person named Classons, who received his
order for delivery on the 13th of February following.
The latter sold the oil to the plaintiff, and tt.t! ned
over the order of delivery to the plaintiff, who.paid
Classons for it by his acceptances. When the plain-
tiff came to demand of the defendant the delivery of
the oil, pursuant to his order, it appeared that the
latter had it not in their possession, having delivered
it by mistake to another order for other oil, which
Classons had sold to another person.
The CutEr Jbarica was of opinion that trover would
not lie under these circumstances, as the plaintiff's
'oils had only been delivered to another person under
a mistake. There was no conversation necessary to
found the action of trover; the action should have
been on the case for the negligence of the defen-
d. nts.—Nonsuited.