Star.
London, England, 1810-11-08 00:00:00

LAI, INTELLIGENCE.

. •~~

. —....-
7.
Jo,
riNsoCNOt,rD
AsOFsitoslNErsG
1 'ScorvilLCLl4rEßsNvoy..T7ll. ALE&
, Mr. Se
_causewhyrjetha Se
eat
verdicto moved
irithiscasefor a Role
should
not s
to
be
ehesetw
aside, and a new trial granted. The case came on
,to be tried at Bury, before Mr.. Justice Heath, and
the following were shortly the circumstances of it.
Villiers had purchased of the defendant a quantity of
growing timber, part of which he had cut and car-
ried off; previous to his bankruptcy ; and on this
1 event taking place, the remainder was claimed by the
defendant, on the ground that as to it, the sale had
not been completed. Relying on his right to the re-
maining part of the timber, the defendant caused it
to be cut down and carried away, and it was for the
value of the timber so carried off by him that the
present action was brought. There was no precise
evidence as to the value of the wood, but it was esti-
mated at £BOO, and it was in proof that the persons
employed by the defendant, had been three days in
carrying it away. The Learner.' Judge instructed the
Jury that the plaintiffs were entitled to their verdict.
—The Jury accordingly found for the plaintiff, but
with only one shilling damages. This, the Learned
SeriZt submitted, was a most outrageous verdict.
Eurrsottoutut asked, to the extent of how
many shillings was there proof of any actual cla-
. mate ? The plaintiffs hag brought forward a very
loose case, which had perplexed the Judge and Jury,
affording them no evidenie of the extent of thee,
damage incurred. He night be entitled to a Rule
for It new-trial; and there sheer the amount of the da-
te.tges ; but this must be on the payment of the costs
of the former trial.—On these terms the Rule was
granted.

• ; DOE ON DEM. SIR JOSEPH COPPLEY V. DAY.
kr. TOPPING moved for a rule to shew cause why
the verdict for the plaintiff in this case should not be
set aside, and a nonsuit entered. (n the trial' which
took place at the last assizes for the county of York,
Mr. Serjeant Cockle for the plaintiff, adduced the
steward of Sir J. Coppley, who proved the payment
of rent by the defendant, and a notice to him to quit
at Candlemas. On his cress-examination, however,
he was obliged to admit the usage of that part of the
country, to be, that the entry to the grounds should
take place at Candlemas, and the houses at May
Dip The Learned Judge, therefore, held that the
notice to quit in this case was net good. Mr. Ser-
jeant Cockle then gave in evidence an agreement be-
tween Sir Lionel Coppley, as a predecessor of Sir Jo-
seph, and 28 tenants, among whona was the defen-
dant, by which Sir Lionel let to them their respective
tenements, and which they agreed to quit at any time,
on receiving six months notice. On this evidence the
Jury gave a verdict for the.plaintiff. This verdict,
itowever, the Learned Counsel contended could not
stand. On examining the deed on which the verdict
was founded, it appeared to be an agreement between
2§.filifferent partici', all of whose signatures were af-
fixed to it, each of them bargaining for a separate and
distinct consideration, whereas there was only one
stamp on the deed applicable to the whole 28 sepa-
rate transackions.

EiiEN---uoitonon asked if the stamp was placed
opposim io any particular name, and if that name was
the slefendahess?
_ .

Mr. TOI'PING answered, that it was net, but applied
tolthe agreement generally.
Lord ELLENnoftoucm—Take your rule.
THE VAUXHALL BRIDGI COMPANY V. DODD.
'e ATTORNEY-GENERAL chewed cause against a
yule. obtained against the defendant in this case, for
an attachment for non-payment of money belonging
to the Company in the defendant's hands, agreeably'
to an award. The plaintiffs in this case were a COIII•
pany incorporated, he believed; by Act of Parliament.
Against a Corporation no attachment for non-par
merit of money could issue ; but if the present defen-
dant, or any person else had, or supposed he had any
claim against such a Company, he must proceed to.
make it effectual by .th action at law. If such then
was the only mode of proceeding which the defen-
daft eonW have had against the present plaintiffs, he
conceleed that it followed, as a matter of course, that
therlaintiffe could be in no better case when making
a Asian aganist the defendant, than the defendant
!would' have been had he been in their place, and were
now bringing fuevissrd a deman# against them.
-Lord Etaaminaortan." Mr. Attorney-General,
tvill-you tell us where we are to look to find this rule,
of reciprocity ?'
Mr. Arrosomv-Ganzaar.. eg Into Tour own %Minas;
as being consistent with material jusuce•"- • •
Ault made stbs9liste. . .