Star.
London, England, 1827-10-24 00:00:00

. 'vit.!' t • - • '
snider a coalition was aot an acceptance antß the con-
dition waapefosnidd ; but the Jury wete to consider
whether the condition were or were not a nugatory actl
The Jury deliberated some tithe, a*d Were upon rho
point of rairing—they,, however. came to a conclusion,
and found A verdict for the defendant.
SOZZARD AND OTRliii ASIDONERS, V. CAPRI.
This was an action of trover, brought by theassig.
Dees of William Robinson Jones, and Robert Jones,
wbarfingers, to recover two barges, es the Spring and
Autsmn," which bad been seised •upon as a distress
for rent by the defendmiti'wbo Was the landlord of:the
bankrupts. .. :.
The AT thenillitti. said, that this action lens
ttagght to bring before the Court a case that had beep
tried to die Common Pleas; the judgment of which
Court the plaintiffs- were desirous of having revised.
Messrs. Jones were the tenants of a wharf in SouthsVark ;
they became bankrupt in August, 1925; and after their
.
bankruptcy, the two barges were by...collusion placed ris
such resituatioa as mere the defendant an opportunity
to lay bold of them. They were, with many what,
attached to the shore by a rope, and as they were Soma
ing in the Thames, opposite the wharf, the defendant,
aslandlord, distrained upon them for rent. He would
not says. nor was he instructed to insist, that there wfa
sufficient. evidence to prove that the bankrupts end
the defepdant wire in collusioth- It would be a que
Lion vhether the act of a bankrupt, in placing, property
in spell a situation as to allow a landlord to seise upon'
it. was
..a fraudulent act; but the great point in dial
faiar paEr Whether tbe barges were pieced in such'
a, scalp", * the time, that the lantilwil could lea;
agl‘r• squab) them?. . A landlord had no tower to diii-
. try property that was not on the pretrial% delnisedi
*apt ,in the instance of alritudulent removal, e4siellt
versa .not. the present case. After the decision of Ale
, Judge of the Court of Common Plata, before whorl
i.mtber action had been tried, and, witti held that the
jsiriog tied inthe wharf was substantially on the
bamisc4 he, the Attorney General,,would not hazard
. wikoptnion upon the subject; but as Counsel foe 'the
. pliintiffs, he was to contend that the tying a barge to
. the shore did not place it in such. a situation as to give
the landlord a right to distrain. It was a question of
vary great impotence, for the river Thames, and many
other rivers in the kingdom, abounded with wharfs, and
, if would be a new security to landlords if they had the
.;mwer,of.disttainieg all vessels attached by a rope to
~:.,oPrtithrufs. The lease 'hewed the abuttals of the
premises demised, mid the Varies were not within those
abuttals.' The object of the plaintiffs, was to raise the
question in order to obtain the opinion of ths Court
above. A landlord bad a right to distrain, any man's
property that was %won the premises. A whide row of
barges and vessels might be attached by a rope to the
wharf, and thus the tandlord Would virtually halve the
power of eataiding, his :distress to the nisi le Of the
river, but he (the Attorney General) conceived that the
driggs distrained must be 911 the premises actually de-
mised. A mete easement was no occupation of the laud,
nor would the fining of . goods to the boundary of de-
mised pranises_give the landlord a tight to distrait% on
those goods. -Samosa a man were to fasten his horse's
bridle ,to a hook on the outside of a house, could the
landlord distrait% that bore. for rent? Certainly not. If
he tisaisi. be .(the Attorney General) feared that his
friend, Mr. Marryatt, who was moth used to riding,
might on some warble", upon the account of his un-
hitkaidie. have fo ;anal home wit'lout his berm
d Taitezapast—Dees be ride and tie? .
s, ,
The Arrossint-Gausitat. said, that a part WAS "
times taken for the whole, and if he failed, it iiirollil be
becestee the rope would be considered as the whole be**,
Pala, cripanissioa of bankrupt against Masts. John%
and several acts of bankruptcy, were proved; * sits
were in August and
.Sept. 1825.
. Sohn Stanley, a bargeman, stated, that on the 12th
N0v,.10.5. the two ,barges, the Spring and Alenist,
via brought from the woad (the. middle of the river)
where they used to be when they *lra: eaptlfima • not
wanted, at about.sie o'clock in the morniog by !,lieliglit:
agate, and placed tinder the who i they yrtyc olailt,
fag to the piles on the. wharf by a rope at the) irradserra I
4 trayelliog chain at the IWO- *keen did,Dett4
by„whose orders they were ,ineted. there; he dt IX
think they were wanted to, be used that day ; they laid-
.,
broadside; a punt belonging to Ruben Jones was bt,i
tweas them; the outward barge, was fastened to thoi
other by a rope. When first brought there, they were
4 mr, but they grounded when the tide fell; they ro:1
pained where they grouade.i below high watets id, a
above low water math. Witness saw slss taken a,
the defendant a little before eight o'clock the same
morning. The piles were driven in upon the wharf,
and formed the face otthe wharf. There was a brick
,well between the piles; the piles sierein the river, close
to the side of the .wall. %, ,...
crostrelamilied by Par,. MAISTAT.-.-The piles pro-
ject beyond the wall i•they, lean against end support the
wall. The piles wereltri for make fasts. lklo ask.
ward them accept ;his .Raster's malt, and the Craft of
persons who paid his pacer for wharfage. The space
occupied by the two barges was that which was eon-
etrioy./y used by persoos..4ldiag or unloading at the'
,whyrrf; the barges of straagers was never allowed to
cenkioise there.
Mr.„Nelscro,Peputy Water Bailiff, was well acquaint.'
ed,ssids.the *half, Davies Wharf. The piles attached
to the wharf were called guard piles—they were to
guard Pie.rhati from being damaged by the barges.—
Tbpse,tiad,of piles, were very general. If the piles
;were not' osi.dr any barge would moor to them ; they
have sings in them for the purpose of mooring. Wit.,
ness would moor his craft to them, if they were unoc-.'
entries!, without asking leave..
..*Cross.esarnined by Mr. (ionize—lf the wharfinger
wer*ed(thens for his own craft, .then he would, remove.
Mi..idasavar said, these was a total absence of any
Teviileacestf contrivance and collitsion. , When the wa-
ter was to theiiverl the bargemen always took that
.oppocinoicy of :btin_ging tk.eir craft in, that they might
,ir la.iti male the,wharf. It appeared, even from Mr.
lielson7sestiflrpc that the wharfinger had a sfeferable
rtgitree the fries% of
.his whirr? If the placeibire
the ,ges were token .me an eoreMent, .as.bis friend
coistentle4,*itill en easement might be demised. .iis to
[he, cafe pet about the horse, the highwly was natltes"
~at: prep( the property demised, nor centd it be Clendistiim
d
hut the larnilord had an interest, in the space bet
high and IoW water Walk ; and by the lease his temptsl
*deal *
endwise right to it. and ther4p is wet of
tbliel cae of .a horse tied to the way ode.. 1" W •
iseeratyn appendage to Use shelf, and not Mc in
*our; his friend who bad the lease cook! allow W
to in .so.. . •
, Xbe Arrizuze OeizaAr, bete called for the leis-,
and the remises were read; they acre, r. All din
dirksirfarerpret„ and premises next the river Thames,
,abpaiq monk .sio the Thames, opd, were from east • to,
ssl reete and or
i from nth to south.* tat 5 niches.
ciii
st A.RETAT C .
aed
OEVEV4iCkWO-Y-. itliera was *of of the burg
of the bankrupts. SO kyear's age they tired to Itiboetlfeir
barges opposite their wharf, and they then claimed all