Star.
London, England, 1827-07-13 00:00:00

MORRIS V. DAVIS.

The Common Law-Counsel having attended in this
case to-day again, the motion for the new trial pro-
ceeded—this lining been the third day occupied by
the motion.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jac: 12.
DC DICAUVOIR AND RHODES.

This cause, which has been sd repeatedly before the
public, again occupied the attention of the Court to a
late hour.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that as he could not
comprehend the principle on which Lord Eldon had
proceeded in this cause, he should recommend an appeal
from his (the Vice• Chancellor's) orders to the next Court.
If the parties were nut satisfied there, they could carry
the cause into another place, where the great Judge
(Lord Eldon) who had so much to do with it would
have an opportunity to explain the grounds upon which
he had proceeded, and the views which he had taken of
the siabject.—After disposing of a few motions .of course,
his Honour rose.
COURT Ol► KING'S BENCH, JOLT 12. •
TUBBS O. THIS MARL 07 BREADALBANIL

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, the pro-
prietor of the Mansion of Harlesden House, in Middle-
sex, to recover damages for dilapidations committed by
the Noble defendant, while he occupied the house as
a tenant. _ _ _

The Aviroorral-Grwittar. and Mr. MARRTAT con-
ducted the case for the plaintiff; and Mr. Castrana.
appeared for the defendant.
There were severals counts in the declaration, claim-
ing damages on account of a quarter's rent, and on the
ground of injuries sustained, trom the land connected
with the Mansion being thrown out of cultivation; but
they were ultimately abandoned in the course of the
proceedings. It appeared, however, that his Lordship
took possession of the premises in question, in the year
1819, under an agreement that he was to take a lease
for 21 years, determinable at the end of seven or four-
teen years, if his Lordship pleased. A lease to that
effect, and containing besides a clause by which his
Lordship was obliged to account for all dilapidations
committed on the premises flitting his occupancy,was en-
grossed by the plaintiff's attorney, and signed by the
plaintiff; but. when. it was sent to Lord Breadalbane, he,
under the advice of his solicitor, refused to give its terms
his asseat,although he did not give any notice to the plain-
tiff that he made any objection. In the year.lB26, how-
ever, his Lordship left the house according to one of
the articles of that lease ; and the premises being then
examined by a surveyor, it was found that they were
injured to such an extent, as would require 2061. to
put them in theii former condition. His Lordship hav-
ing refused either to make the repairs on his own ac-
count, or to pay for their bring done by the plaintiff,
damages were now claimed to that amount.
On the part of his Lordship it was contended, that
the premises were in a very bad state of repair when
he took possession, and that he had expended a con-
siderable sum in rendering them habitable; but it came
out that he had never made any demand for these
repairs, excepting one of 281. a sum which the plaintiff
instantly paid.
Under these circumstances, Lord TENTERDEN told
the Jury that there were but two points for their consi-
deration, First, whether they thought his Lordship
bound by the terms of the lease, although be had not
affised to it his signature ? and next, if they thought he
was bound, whether they considered the damages rea-
sonably estimated?
The Jury, after a moment's consideration, gave the
plaintiff a verdict for the 2061. which he claimed.