Star.
London, England, 1817-07-21 00:00:00

ilk LArig zuGair MON• WM. MI :IMAM.

S:r Alt 1111.3 Pi(.tvicr moved for an order to con-
firtn the keport of the Master, to raise two sums of
.E5OOO and /COOO by mortgage on the estates devis
ed by the Lie reapectable and esteemed Right Hun.
Wind Lain to hi' executors, for the purpose
of liquidating his debta ; and that Mary and Deborah
Viner, two intimate friends of the family, and parti.
cul acquainted with I.lrs.Windhans, be permitted
to psy I. O° into the 1340 k, in the nem: of the Ac-
eomptant-General. Mr. Palmer, ode of the earcittura,
beim; willing to advance JC.I.OOU, thus making AVOW.
to nay of the debts of the deceased.

The L'IND CUANCILLUR.-.." I SiitiUld SOpperse, Sir
Arthur, no opposition is made to this."
B.r A liTtllat Ils'ketiorr--" None, any Lord."
Motion granted.
ACCOMPTANT-ORNIMALIS OFTICE.

Sir AItTIIVR Pl/309TT enured. in the name of all
tl.e suitors of the Court, that from and after the?.34,1
of August next. the books of the Accumptant-Ge-
neva be cl ,sed till the Seal before the next Michael-
mas Term; that during the interval nil money be
paid in or wit of Court, and no order relating to
lush money be, un any account, made by that Court;
provided. however, that nr,tice of this order be af-
fixed in the sever& Offices and Cuumbouies connected
with the Court.

The LORD CIIANCRLLAR-4. Such a motion Is very
proper."—Ont,r male accordingly.

WU MARK WOOD

The parties in this case had had several transac-
tions joint purchases of estates. They had pur-
chased an estate, FAIII Mai k, front Mr. Hicks Beach,
Sir Mark Wood having advanced the money, and it
having been agreed that the profits should, in the
first place, be applied to the re-paymeilt of the pur-
chase-money, and should then be equally divided
between them. They afterward; quarrelled, and
eiC h brought his action at law. To aid these litiga-
tions each agreed to withdraw a juror, and to refer
the matter ire dispute to arbitration : but not agreeing
on an arbiter, they appointed two nominees, who
chose Mr. Cox arbitrator. He awarded that the es-
tate should be sold, and that the muney advanced
should be repaid to Sir blark Woo::. Sir Mail:
Wood, in consequence, signed an order to blessrs.
Hoggart and Phillips to sell the estate, bnt Mr. Grif-
fith refused to concur. The plaintiff then filed this
bill to compel the specific performance of the award.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, Mr. LEACII, aed Mr. COOLS, ,
for the plaintiff, argued that the defendan. was bound
by the award to concur in the sale of the estate. Some
question as to the tit lc to the estate had been submit-
ted to the Deputy Remembrancer of the Exchequer,
who never reported upon it. The award orJtred
that application should be made to the Court of Ex-
chequer for the sale, and if the Court refused, which
it did, then they should Authorize Messrs. Hoggart
and Phillips, auctioneers, to sell their rights and in-
terests in the estate, and they might become bidders
at th it sale. The Master of the Rolls had accord-
ingly decreed that the defendant should concur in the
specific performance of the award. The defendant
had appealed against this decree, and they therefore
applied to his Lordship to enforce performance.
Mr. HART, for the defendant, contended that the
Master of the Rolls had taken but a cursory view of
the award, or that the award contained a principle
of great injustice; and that there was another objec-
tion, on the ground of the award implying the 01-1
fence at common law called mairsimance. If the rights
end interests of the parties were to he set to sale,
while a good title could not be made out, with al-
lowance to the parties to bid, it was :hen only an op-
tion in favour of the plaintiff, as he alone had money
to advance. But the award distinctly expressed that,
in either case of sale of the estate by order of the
Exchequer, or of the interests of the parties by Hog-
gart And Phillips, if no title could be made out, then
Mr. Cox knew not what to award. The blaster
therefore never contemplated any sale without a title,
and the defendant was justified in refusing Lis con-
currence, As the title was not yet made good.
Me. GRIFFITH, for himself, argued that the Court
had no jurisdiction, because a Rule at Nisi Prius bad
been obtained in the King's Bench for contempt of
the award, and he had been Acquitted : but the mein
ground of objection was, that if the award were
obeyed the offence of maintenance and charnperty
would be committed. In proof of this he referred
•to several statutes. Many disputes and litigations
tvcre connected with this estate. The sale of it there-
fore, was maintenance, and Mr. Farquhar, who
lately bought the estate, was guilty of that offence.
Mr. Leach observed, in reply, that Mr. Griffith,
not being acquainted with the practice in a Court of
Equity (he is a Barrister in Bristol), had not known
that the sale that took place on the Master's decree,
or the articles of it, was not before his Lordship.—
The only question was, whether the decree itself
was eight ?
His Lordship declined giving judgment, as he
could not carry Ins mind through so complicated an
aw..rd, without first going over it Attentively in his
, do:et.

LORD MAYOR'A COURT, GUILDHALL.
THE NEW FOS I'-OFFICE.

TIIE CORP./RATION OF LONDJN V. MARY HOOD.

Thi► was an inquiry to ascertain the amount of
compensation due to the defendant, who was claimant
in the case, for a compulsory removal, under the
Act of Parliament for the erection of a New Post.
Office, from a house Occupied by her in St. Martin's-
le•Grand, and which was situated on the scite of the
intended erection.

The COMMON SZAJEANT stated the case to the Jury
on the part of the Corporation, and observed, that
the sum of e2OO had been offered by that body to
the clAimant as a fair remuneration for her loss and
damages. 1-ic should prove that the suns tendald

to the defendant was fully adequate to the ioss
tained by I►er._ The sum claimed by the defendant
was ar1,570, which he was confident the Jury would
cnnsidrr most enormous, and totally wtde 01 that to
which she was fairly entitled.
Mr. Montague, the City Surveyor, proved the
value of the premises, loss of trade. Ste. and ha con•
sitlered that C2OO was it very liberal compt3hAtion
fur the removal.

Mr. Kaye, Surveyor to the Post•OA'iee, derma
to the 'Arne effect.

Mr. SerjeAnt COPLEY briefly addressed the Jury in
suppert of the claim set up by the defendant, %%Lich
he should prove was by no [maps So " enormous,"
and se wide of the mark," as the Learned Common
Serjeant had wished to show.

Mr. Bevan, a Surveyor, and several other petsons
were then called tb prove the value of the premises;
the profits of the trade carried on by Mrs. Hood,
which was that of a ceder, and the loss and incon-
venience sustained by the removal of that trade to
another neighbourhood.
The et.111141t4 &MEANT having commented upon
tl►e evidence on both ►ides, left it to the Jury to give
such damage as the justice of the case seemed to
demand,

The Jon, consulted a few m,lntents, and returned
a verdict, awarding to the claimant the sum of el4o,
tieing WAX) over and above the offer made by the
City of London. •