Star.
London, England, 1829-07-28 00:00:00

SMART V. WILCOX.

This was a motion to dissolve an injunction. The notice
was dismissed, and it stood over that the Court might look
into the affidavits, to ascertain whether or not they dis-
closed facts that ought to prevent the costs following the
fate of the application. His Lordship had carefully read
the affidavits, and as nothing appeared in them to prevent
his thinking the costs ought to be given, he had now to
declare that the motion stood dismissed with costs.
ADAMS V. SMITH.
The parties were to present affidavits of explanation
this morning in this case, that was discussed last week,
but in consequence of the interminable length to which
this course was likely to proceed, the Counsel agreed to
leave the case in the hands of the Court, his Lordship
being to call for further information, should he find him-
self in a situation to require it.
The Court proceeded to hear bankrupt petitions.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JULY 27.
NEWTON V. REID.
This case came before the Court for further directions ;
after Mr. Home had concluded his argument on behalf
of the- plaintiff,
Mr. Parker addressed the Court for the defendant,
during which Mr. Horne made several observations.
Mr. Parker (with much warmth) said, " You are in
the constant habit, Mr. Home, of interrupting every one
opposed to you. I, for one, will not put up with it. It
is not your province to decide the question at issue, but
for the Court."—Mr. Home smiled.
Mr. Parker then went into the -merits of the case,
which are not of public interest, when he was again in-
terrupted by some observations from Mr. Horne, respect-
ing a matter of account.
Mr. Parker -That is your arithmetic, Sir, or your
client's : but I shall be governed in my observations by
common sense.
The Vice-Chancellor ultimately decided in favour of
Mr. Home's client.
Mr. Home—l have now to ask your Honour for costs.
The Vice-Chancellor, addressing Mr. Bickersteth, who
was engaged on the same side with Mr. Parker, and who
had just entered the Court, said, have you any thing to
say about costs, Mr. Bickersteth ?
Mr. Bickersteth—lt is useless for me to say any thing,
with the view your Honour takes of his case. The prin-
ciple on which it is decided is nothing more nor less than',
making the only innocent party suffer for the misconduct
of others. I shall say nothing about costs.
After rather a noisy conversation between Counsel en-
gaged for different parties interested, the Court ordered
the costs to be paid by the defendant.
BREEDS V. BREEAS.

Mr. Home said that this was one of those overgrown
and monstrous suits that he really had not been able to
wade through his brief. He hoped therefore, the Court
would allow it to stand over till to-morrow.
Several other Counsel said they had no objection.
Solicitor-General—l have a very great objection, and
shall insist upon its going on ; my time is as much en-
gaged as any one's, yet I am prepared.
Vice-Chancellor—l cannot put it off unless all the
Counsel consent.
Mr. Hinde—lt would save a great deal of the time of
the Court if we could have a consultation before the cause
is argued. It was not expected it would have been
called on to-day.
Vice-Chancellor—l cannot put it off.
Mr. Horne -Never mind, we can very easily occupy
• tile Court until it rises, and have a consultation afterwards.
The Solicitor-General thought such observations not
very respectful.—The case was then proceeded with.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH—Joce 27.
(Sittings at Guildhall—Special Juries).
OLD HOUSES.-WALTERS V. PFF.IL.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, who is pro-
prietor of several houses in Green Arbour-square, Fleet-
Market, to recover damages for an injury sustained by the
negligence of persons employed by the defendant to pull
down a decayed building.
'lt appeared that a sugar-house belonging to the de-
fendant, which stood upon the ancient wall in Sea Coal-
hine, was condemned by the Ward, and ordered to be
pulled down. Mr. Montagu, the City Suiveyor, em-
ployed Mr. Creighton, the auctioneer, to sell the ma-
terials, and thereby defray the expense of removing the
Warehouse. The defendant was a party to that order,
and the building was taken away. Against the party-
wall stood the plaintiff's houses, looking into Green
Arboiir-square, and when the sugar-house was removed,
bath houses fell down. The plaintiff estimated the re-
building of the houses at six or
.seven hundred pounds,
and complained that the injury had been occasioned by
the want o care and caution in pulling down the sugar-
house.
Several witnesses proved that the girders and beams of
the building had not been cut off in the party walls, but
forcibly dragged out, leaving the plaintiff's premises
without proper support. ' Other witnesses said the beams
Were cut off, but the wood was so old that it fell from the
w2ll.
There was a further complaint of the improper use of
skates or support to the wall ; bat the houses fell in con-'
sequence of the -bad state of the foundation.
The Attorney-General, who was Counsel for the de-
fendant, contended tiat his client was not answerable, as
'lice warehouse had been pulled down by the City Surveyor.
Lord Tenteiden was of opinion that the defendant being
one :of the persons who 'gave an order to sell the materials,
1r.% liable to the action....
The. Attorney-Generak then applied himself to the me-
Fits of the case, and observed that there was no law to
compel a man to keep up his house as a prop to his neigh-
bour's house. The plaintiff's premise.. ware in danger,
aad it was the duty of the plaintiff to take cambia houses
did not fall.
Lord Tenterden—lt is the duty of every man who takes'
down his house, to see does no damage ; be mart use
Crahoroiu and if Ne goes on in a careless improvi-
manner, .so as to expose his neighbour io trnecte-
sawisk, I think the party injured has un action. His

lordship left the jury to say whether the defendant did
conduct the pulling down in a negligent manner ? If they
were satisfied the plaintiff sustained an injury by want of
reasonable caution, they ought to give such a sum as
would compensate for the injury.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
ABELL V. DANIELL.

This was an action brought by the assignees of the de-
fendant's father, to recover 2001. which it was alleged
had been paid to him under a fraudulent preference by his
father previous to his bankruptcy.
Mr. F. POLLOCK stated that this action was brought
against the son of Mr. Daniell, who was formerly one of
the East India Ditectors, but had unfortunately become
a bankrupt, by the assignees, to recover the sum of 2001.
upon the ground that the bankrupt had shown a fraudu-
lent preference in paying this sum to his son, he having
previously sold out some East India Stock, with the pro-
duce of whioh he paid this sum to his eon, and two thou-
sand pounds more he forwarded, to his family, who were
at that time residing in Italy. The bankrupt having a
few days before dishonoured one bill, and being well
aware that he was not in a situation to meet some others
which would be due in a short time, he stopped payment
on the day on which he paid the 2001. to his son.
Several witnesses were called to prove thacase.
The Attorney-General, for the defendant, said that this
was one of the hardest cases he had ever known, or that
he had ever held a brief in. The defendant was entirely
dependent on his father, residing at his house, and sup-
plied with clothing by him, and this money was paid to
him in the regular course for the payment of his debts.
It was preposterous to say that a father was not to sup
port his son, or give him money to pay his tailor for clothes,
because he anticipated an act of bankruptcy. It had been
held that it was not a fraudulent preference to pay debts
contracted for household expenses, and he contended that
this case was the same ; as the father had only given his
eon this money to pay ,for his support and clothing, which
was the same as if it had been for his own, as the son
had not any means to provide for himself.
Lord Tenterden summed up, and the jury returned a
, verdict for the defendant.

1..