Star.
London, England, 1817-08-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

*URT OF CHANCERY, AUGUiT
WATEIts O. TAYLOPR.
Mr. HART this morning beggeit leave to state to
his Lordship. that in the case of Waters and Taylor
he had directed his attention to the statement tub.
mitred ro the Court by Mr. Mills a few days since,
and had 4Pscrivered that the calculations it contained,
althongl, not intelligible to hire on the former occa
sion. when his mind was vari-usly emplored, were
iltbstantially correct. Mr. Waters was at present in
the unfortsinate situition of hiving been ordered to'
pay into Court a sum of between 28 and +129,000,
and whilst engaged in providing this money, was
called up .n. by a subsequent interlocutory order, to
pay in another siim of £3,931, or the amount of his
iticursibrance upon Taylor's estate. He was com-
pletely satisfied, by an inspection of Mr. Milk's ae-
coimr, that it WAS not rigut that this further sum
ought t be paid in by his client, and tl at it could
only operate to make him contributory to the pay-
mint et 'raylor's debts. Sir S. Romilly had only
pressed the subsequent order on the presumed consi-
deration. which he was not then able to controvert,
that such order WAS just and proper under the cir-
cumstances of the case. Mr. Waters was prepared
to pay in cool irmably to the original order the sum
of 03‘29,000. Ile regretted the absence of Counsel on
the oilier side, and suggested that his Lordsl.in
would perhaps allow the question to be arguedl
to-morrow.

The Lou) Cumrcrunn immediately directed that
the ,UPJ 000 should be pAid into Court forthwith, and
that notice of motion should be served for to morrow.

Mr. Waters iccordingly paid into the. Account:int
General's Office, at the BAIA, £28,973, being, we
understand, the residue of his purchase of the King's
Theatre.

EX PARTS GITTON IN TII MATTRR OP MIMICIIAEL ANDCO.

The bankrupts in this case had been carpet manu-
factorers and bankers, at Bridgnorth, in the county
ut SAltp. In the year ISO.. a commission was sued
cut against them addiessed to fire Commissioners in
the country, one of whom was an assignee, another a
banker, and a third Solicitor to the Commission.—
The present motion was to set aside the report of
these Commissioners, on the ground of various errors
in account, and the total omission of a sum of seven.
eon thousand pounds, vested in Exchequer Bills,
and which ought to have been placed to the credit of
the bankrupt's estate.
The CHANcau.oa, after directing the proper pro-
ceedings for the due verification of the account, cons-
mented on the gross impropriety of appointing as
Conimissionen in country bankruptcies, persons in
the situation of these defendants. When he was in-
formed that the practice was extremely common, he
mutt declare that up to this period of his life he had
never heard of its existence. He wished it to be un-
derstood, that it would in future be always consi-
dered as a sufficient ground for superseding the corn
mission ; it being obvitus that a most profligate use
might be made of uniting characters, the duties and
interests of whom were so directly opposed to each
other. A prompt distribution of the bankrupts'
estate amongst all the creditors was the incumbent
duty of the Assignees, but still more so of the COW.
mummers. He was sorry that he had Buffeted him-
telt to be over-ruled. when he
_proposed to the Legis-
'attire to eitend the disqualification of bankers to all
the creditors. He was influenced in not ordering the
present commission to be superseded, only by the
consideration of the time which bad been suffered to
elapse since it was issued, and because the other cre-
ditors must now be regarded as having fully ac-
quiesced in this state of things. He meant not to
prejudge the individual conduct of the Commissio-
ners in this particular case ; that remained still to be
examined ; but his observations were general. and
applied to the prevention of a general mischief.

CARLISLE ASSIZES, MONDAY, AUGUST IR
ROBERT V. ROBINSON WILSON.

This was an action to recover damages done to the
plaintiff by the defendant, by making a seizure of his
growing crop, and is a case of considerable interest
to the agricultural world. Plaintiff is nephew ro the
defendant, and had a farm taken of hint in the parish
of Torpenhow ; for which he had always paid the
rent regularly until the last half-year, when, from
the expenses of improving the laird and other causes,
he had fallen into arrear ; for this the landlord had
disdained upon the standing crop; but, instead of
taking it at a Lair valuation at the time, it had been
kept standia) on the ground, and otherwise misma-
naged, so that when sold in November it did not
bring the price it was worth while growing and at
the time of seizure. The damages were laid at one
thousand pounds.
Mr. 'Nemo, as Counsel for plaintiff, procee%
' to call in witnesses to prove his allegations.
William Shepherd went with Parker to defendant's
house, after the seizure had been made. The former
wished to have the business settled without bringing
the property to a sale. To this Wilson would agree
it plaintiff would give him security for a year'slent ;
he said be could not give it him, but that be should
have security for halt a year's, if that would satisfy
him. Landlord would not agree to this, but said he
would sell the property. Witness, as a mediatcr be-
twixt the parties, proposed that defendant should take
the crop at a valuators, but this he objected to.—
Witness cannot say what the crop was worth. There
were two sales, the first in September, and the second
in November. At the first Mr. Lighttoot's (attorney
for plaintiff) clerk forbade the sale, when, tit course,
the people did not get the lots they had bid fur. Saw
the property at the second sale, when it was much
damaged from not being cut in time, and !rata the
badness of the weather.
Cross-examined—ls brother-in-law to plaintiff
Does not positively know that Wilson is Parker's uncle,
but so it was generally understooi.
Henry Nicholson is an auctioneer at Whitebaven.
Made the distress on the whole growing property, to-
gether with some hay in stack, on the 12. h of Sep-
tember. The rent was due at Lammas. Took an
inventory of the goods ; there was neither furniturei
nor stock to the value of 20s. The first sale was'
made on the 18th of .Septembers many of the lots
were knocked down to defendant. Witness s. w
plaintiff betwixt the 12th and 18th of September,
who told him that if he did nut return from Gosfortla
whither he was going, with security for the rent be-
fore the time of sale, that he (witness) might go on
with it. On that day'hc came to him accompanied

by Mr. Lightfoot's clerk, after he had got about half
the prcpeny sold, and discharged him from sellirg
any more. However, by order of defendant, he
went on with the sale. None of the bidders, except
for the hay, got their purchases. Tl►e ► ale again
commenced in November, when all was sold off. lie
thinks it would have been better for plaintiff had the
crops been sold in November. At that time it was
in strck and stook. There were buns upon the pre
mises which would have held the corn.
Robe►t Beckwith. on the 18th of September; while
going from his wot k, met Wilson and somerthers on
their road to the sale. Wilson, in passing him, was
saying, ‘• That be would sell it if he should fetch the
devil." Witness also attended the sale. Ileard
Lightfoot's clerk discharge them from selling any
more, as it was unlawful. Wilson made answer and
said. " Did he (the clerk) think he would take a dis-
charge from such a monkey-faced fellow as him E"
Defendant bid for four or five lots. Some parts of
the crop was much wasted in November.
Some other witnesses proved the waste of the crops
horn the badness of the weather, and not being !towed
m time, in November.

Mr. SCAR LErr addressed the Jury.— He said he had
often thought :hat Gent'erne, in their situation were
snrprized and confounded by the w ratrhngs tit Coun-
sel, as might well be the case on the present occasion:
but he hoped in a few words to prove that, as Conn.
set for the defendant, he had a tight for their verdict.
He said it had been maintained on the other side,
that growing property had no right t.i be seized nem,:
he insisted that it had, though tie allowed that the
landlord could not sell except by consent of the te-
nant. Nor had his client done mnre than what was
allowed by law. He had seized the propt tty in order
'to indemnify himself for the rent : and it had heen
clearly proved by their own witnesses, that tt.e plain-
, tiff had given his consent to the sale, it he did not
return in time with the security. Now it had been
proved that he did not return till the sale was over.
He then discharged it, nor did defendant after that
allow any of the property to be taken away until after
a second sale, and the crops had been taken off the
ground, when, by law, he had a right to sell if he
chose.--Mr. SCARLETT continued—As to the charge
of defendant wasting the property, it .was ridiculous;
would any man in his senses wilfully waste that from
which his only remuneration was to proceed ?
The Judge summed up the evidence, and, after a
few moments' consultation, the Jury returned a ver-
dict for defendant.
AUGUST i9...-TRESPASS.+BAT/AIAX v. HAUGIL.
.

This was an action of treipass. The plaintiff is the
Rev. Mr. Batman, of Nett higgie-h4ll, 4lhi the de-
fendant the huntsman of the Carlisle pack of founds.
It appeared by the ev.dence no Robert C'uthard and
Jahn Bulman, tha' vo the Gth of December last,
Haugh and his hounds came into a field belonging
fo Mr. Bateman, who discharged him on the spot;
that notwithstanding this discharge, the defendant
afterwards went into another of plaintiff's fields, and
he was discharged tLence also.
Mr. TOPPING for the plaintiff said, that the defen-
dant had been repe:!edly.guilty of the like conduct
before, and on the occasion in question was very in-
solent and abostve. He only sought for nominal
damages in orier to ca-ry costs, which would he a
proper punishment. Verdict for the Plaintiff—Da-
wages, One Farthing.
A Ut11.76T 20.-PFASC ID V. MCKINSEY.
- _

This was a claim of right of carriage-road by de.
fendant, along the stalk below the west walls known
by the name of Backhouse's.walk. We cannot enter
into all the evidence adduced on the iiccasi.in, but
shall content ourselves by Aiving an outline sketch
of the affair as it appeared in the course of the trial.
It lasted from nine o'clock in the morning till twelve
at night. It appeared that alviut two years ago Mr.
Peascod had taken the ground in the walk called the
Town Dykes, together with the Linsey cottages,
from the Corporation, whose property they are. TLe
ground had been converted into gardens, palings put
dp, the walk made narrower, and a gate put across
the road at the entrance at Caldew brow, in prevent
horses, carts, &c. from passing that way. This gate,
and part of the palings, had been pulled down by
defendant, to maintain his alledged right of a private
carriage-way, which, it was said, had been granted
in writing to the lessee set the house of the late Alder-
man Backhouse, horn whom the walk took its name,
now the property of Mr. Mounsey, hut which grant,
trom time and circumstances, has been lost.

Mr. SCAIILITT, as Counsel for the plaintiff, con•
tended, that whatever custom a tenant might grant
during his occupation of any property, was cancelled
on its reverting back to the landlord. A great num-
ber of witnesses were called to prove that during
Alderman Backhouse's time the walk was only used
as private property, and that no horse nor carriageof
any sort was petmitted to enter it; and that a gate
or gates was kept at the Caldewbrow eirrance, and
locked every night by the Alderman or his servants.
This usage of not pettnitting horses. carriages, ace.
to pass was also proved :o have continued till within
the last twenty years; that coals, &c. were always
'carried by the darn-side-road, and from thence in
baskets to the houses in the walk. It was likewiFe
proved that the entrance at the bulwarks was even
too narrow to admit a cart; and that th.re never was
one Well on the walk, until the passage was widened
by taking down snare stones which projt:te(l from the
walls by Mr. Waldie, for th sole use et the prin.-
field of Messrs. Lamb, Scott, Waitlie, .11(1 Co. who
that had a lease upon the premises ; Alit; that in order
to prevent other carts from passing, a trench had
been dug where theirs turned on for th., print-field.
—A lease was produced in Court, by which it ap-
peared, that the term of Alderman Bad:house's least!
expired in 1784.; and that another was m.ter• bettvera
Lamb, Scott, and Co. and the corporatk:i for :no ti
years. in 1781, but which was nut t cffect -
til the expiration of the !tamer. By tl;i, tan
Ilessees were bound by covenant to prey,•nt a en:2F:
road being made of the walk. This lea..e &hi i .::
, expire till 1814; and therefore it was contended that
no right could possibly exist on he. par; nt the O. tv-.
dant, of either a public or pris ate c irre.l,;e
The right of a public footpath had bean given up
by the Corporation.
After a short consultation, the .1 try returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damage.,
These Assizes ended on r:k!.iy. Oa the criminal
side. eleven prisoners were capttalli e,t IVICIAWit 444
sentenced to death, but the whole: were alts warJs
reprieved.