Star.
London, England, 1820-11-18 00:00:00

LAW DiTELLIoNci.
10 'Pi ;it-a; •za
• 9 `V/Cll,-CflialegLtiDitli.oBll/1111.
lARL OF SUAFTEMORf IWO •o Ms
DUtt OF MARLDOROUGH.
Mt. Hestrort stated, that this was an exception to
the Master's Report, on the :ors:t of the Noble defen-
dant. It was referred to the-Saster to inquire and
report, whether certain meadows formed a part of
Wychwood Park,. which was bequeathed by the late
Duke of Marlborough to Lord Churchill, for his life?
The Master had reported, that they did form part of
the park, but adthitted that the evidence on which
he had formed his Report was ambiguous.
Mr. Rem, leading Counsel for the Noble defen-
dant, stated, that this important question aroseout of
the will.of the late Duke of Marlborough, and as that
will had been so recently before his Honour, it was
'not necessary for him to state it. The Noble testator
bequeathed to his son, Lord Churchill, Wychwood
Park, otherwise Blaudford Park, in the county of
Oxford, for his life, with all lodges, buildings, Bcc. in
the park ; and all buildings and tenements without
the walls of the park, bounded by the river Evon-
lode, and his estates on the other side of the river to
the Noble defendant, subject to the appointment of
a receiver. • The question between the parties was,
whether eighteen acres of meadow, on the east side
of the river, formed a part of the park, and, as such,
was devised by the Noble testator to Lord Churchill?
On the part of his Noble client, he had to contend,
that •a wall on the west side of the river was the
boundary- of the 'park; and on the part of Lord
Churchill, it was said, that an old wall on the east
side of the river was the boundary ; but the witnesses
before the Master, in support of the latter case, only
spoke of the park as it existed a century an,bo; but the
witnesses in support of the Noble defendants case
spoke cf it as it existed in more modern times.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—The whole difference be-
tween the parties turns on the word boundary'.
Mr. BELL 'said it did ; but what they understood to
be the boundary was the river, as stated in the will
of the Noble testator; the Master had reported, that
it only intersected the park. Under these considera-
tions, he contended, that the exception ought to be
allowed.
Mr. Hone, Counsel for Lord Churchill, said, that
the Master's report was correct, as the property devised
to his Noble Client contained the whole of the park,
which included ail within the outward wall, as pur-
chased from Lords Clarendon and Rochester in the
year 1751 ; and before the purchase was concluded a
case was laid before Mr. Wilbraham, for his opinion,
by the trustees of the late Duke of Marlborough, and
in looking into that case it would be seen tk4t the
meadow land on the east side of the river was con-
templated in that purchase; and in the will of the
late Duke it is specified that he gives the park to
Lord ChoiAIM as it was purchased from Lord Cla-
rendon, and that thii was the meaning of the Noble
testator there could be no doubt of, as Lord Churchill
was in possession of between four aad 500 acres of
land out of the walls of the park, by no other title
but what he derived from this clause of the Noble
testator's will, and his title had never been called in
question by the Noble defendant.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR asked Mr. Bell if that was
the case?
Mr. BELL said, he did not know : he was not in-
structed as to that point.
The Vico-CHANCELLOR observed, that it would be
better that this exception should stand over until the
next day of exceptions; and, in the meantime, Mr.
Bell would be ablt to obtain more information on the
subject. It certainly was a case more for the deci-
sion of a Court of Law than of Equity, and he would.
be sorry to decide it by any opinion of his, without
the parties did not wish to go to the expense of trying,
an issue is a Court of Law. The inclination of ins
opinion at present was certainly against Lord
Churchill, without other lands, similarly situated,
bad passed to him under the will.of the Noble testa-
tor ; and if a single acre had, he did not see how a
Court of Equity could prevent him from taking the
18 acres in dispute also under the will.— Further
consideration rostponed.
COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 17.

The Loan CHA NCELLOR was this day again occu-
pied in hearing Counsel in the case of the " Attorney.
General v. the Mayor and Corporation of Bristol,"
hich occupied his Lordship until half-past one
•o'clock, at which time he rose.
Ills Honour the VIC E-CHANCELLOR was occupied
from ten o'clock until four in hearing motions.
In the case of" Berkeley v." Austin," Mr. Tns:s-
Lova moved t:;at the order for dismissing the in-
junction which had been obtained might be made
absolute, which was granted.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVENIDER 17.:
Jane Carlile, of Fleet-street, was brought into
• Court, in custody, to put in bail to an Information
filed against her by his Majesty's Attorney-General,
for vending- other seditious libels. Mr. Benham- and
' another person offered themselves, Mr. MAtma,
however, required forty-eight hours notice. She
therefore remains in custody.
At one o'clock the CHIRP JUSTICE sat at Nisi Prius
.and tried several caries.