Star.
London, England, 1817-11-19 00:00:00

BRiANT V. BRYANT.

The LrtoCitAaceu.on `.64 I observe Mr. Bryant
is now in Comm, and have iv) doubt but he is •cry
4oxi us to 'mow my deciiion. I have read with the
utmost Atentinn the cnnflicting lavits and state-
ments in th•r case. and I am now ready to give judg-
ment. Mr. Bryant had therefore better be in Court
'on Thursday morning by tin t.'cluck, as I shall then
without fad give fins and you all my judgment."
His Lordship rose at one o'clock.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, NOVEMBER ie.
SIR WATKIN LLWEI V. NORGAN.

This d.ty judgment was pronounced in favour of
the in the important and long-pending cause
between Sir W. Leers and Mr. John Morgan. The
motion before the Court was, that Sir Watkin should
be put into possession of his emus, so long held by
the defendant, Mr. John Morgan.
Attty Counsel were' heard,
Mr. 80-on GRAHAM 1i: it emceed:A to deliver his
opi.nott, which la: did its the renewing manner t—
`• I hope 1511411 nut excite any surprise in the minds
of my Leained Brvihren, when I declare to them,
that 1 am now teady to•proci,,d to judgment, with-
out ally further consideicaion of this case—a case
which has occupied so much attention, as to carry
samething like opplobritam ,on that system of jitris.
prudence in this country, which has been long and
justly the admiiarion of the world. I have another
reason for determining to give my opinion now, be-
cause this opinion is so made up and decided, that I
am !tee to say nothing which can occur by longer
procrastination of the cause is likely to shake rt is
the smallest degree. The applicatiow Write us is in
two parts. I reject the latter, the beariug of certain
atfiticsits, becauaa I think them now unnecessary ;
but i embrace the former, namely, the letting in Sid
Watkin Lewes into the possession at his estates, and
the making Mr. John Morgan refund the money he
has received out of these (states, ultra the payment of
what is called the mortgage money, for which they
oere otiginally invested. This motion is grounded
on a report 21,,ide by the Deputy Remembrancer, in
consequence of two appeals to the House of Lords,
who directed that a certain account should be taken,
and the result communicated to this Court. The
House of Lords, when it math this order, definitive ly
stated that the mortgage &none), alone came into the
hands of Juhu Morgan, in his capacity as tag, ni to
Vie estate, and in no other. By the Deputy Rem- ni
brancer's report, it appears that the whole of this
mortgage money (originally stated to be d? 12.0019
was paid oft, principal and interest, in the year 1804;
and that so tar as the acconntr ot rents, profi,s, and
value of timber tut down, were since takes, that is,
up to 1807, John Morgan had received, ultra this
mortgage sum (the only one he was entitled to re-
ceive in the situation in which he stood), £999,
which, at a calculation made in the most favourable
manner for the defendant, must now leave in his
hands di'4sl:9 beyond tf.e mortgage claim. On ge-
neral principles, then, why should not this sum be
given up to the plaintiff, to whom of right it belongs?
It is hold to answer this question. The mortgageel
has paid die mortgagee, the receiver (if be be the
receiver) has taken beyond the amount of his trust;
why thed should not the surplus so paid be given
bask to the real owner ? Now let us revert to the
original frame of the bill filed in 1783, on which
John Morgan lays tire stress of his being an injured
man, and one to whoM the plaintiff is still largely
indebted. According to the matter an which that
bill is founded, it appears that Morgan told Sir Wat-
kin he bad teceived £13,000 for bim which he would
account for in the general settlement. The latter,
astonished at bearing this, naturally wonders how a
ltrger sum than two or three thousand pounds could
have been at that early period received by the defen-
dant on his account. Sir Watkin then says,. It that
be the case, pay off the mortgage ; I'll pay you
also every halfpenny I owe you, and give me back
my estates.' Under this idea, and under this infor-
mation, Sir Watkin files his original bill, and makes
the above declaration. But did he, when he said so,
ever mean to charge his estates, in alegal sense, in
this manner with any sums beyond the mortgage
account ? He did not, he could not; for the settled
estate put it out of his power to exceed the terms of
the original investiture. Suppose it were possible to
bind him to the words of the original bill, ace bow
every feature of the case, as it then stood, has been
subsequently altered. When the answer of Mr. John
Morgan was put into the bill, Sir Watkin naturally
s.id, I never received this money he alludes to.'--
Well, then, another alteration, giving the cause a
different shape, took place in 1901, when the separate
it:pint was Made; x double'motion' was then made,
apparently with The conturrence of both parties, and
I semenitur very little argued ; the result of that
motion was deemed unsatisfactory, and an appeal to
the Houle of Lords followed. On that occasion the
House of Lords unquestionably d;sallowed the
claimed-by Morgan, as against the trustees,
under a bond of John Adams and others, and said
this is ad shoaling, and desired that the Deputy Re-
otembrancer should put this bond out of that part of
his inquiry, and confine himself to an. account of the
&molds sums paid originally to Sir Watkin Lewes
by the trustees, and the monies afterwards had in re-
duction thewsol. Morgan, thus finding himself con-
victed (for I cannot use a softer term) of the legal
fraud of attempting to charge this bond on the trus-
tees, then turns round and charges it on the estate.—
=lbis was nothing less than trifling with the justice of
the House of Lords ; and supposing that, by an aCt
of iniquity detected elsewhere, he was-entitled to an
advantage in equity merely by shifting bid ground;
The Hduse of Lards put Adams's bond out of the
question, and threw him, be his claim what it may,
pro canto, not on the estate in right of mortgage, but
on the general issue as a crekiiior.e,
•
•The Learned Banos, 'alter a variety of arru.
runts, decided that Sir Watkin Lewes shpuld'oe
' let into tho possession forthwith of the estates; and
that Mr. Joao Morgan should, within a reasonable

. _
time, pay into Court the sums he had received since
the mortgage was paid off, to abide the issue of the
general account.
Mr. Baron WOOO deV-ered his opinion at great
length, and in direct opposition to the judgment po•
flounced by the rrecedinZ
Baron Gaanow, in a most impressive speech, de.,
dared his fnll and unqueiified c,:ncurrence in the
judgment so ably delivered by Baron Graham. In
every comment he made, whether of elucidation or
animadversion, he decidedly acquiesced. The sub-
ject was only known to. hitu (Baron Gtrrow) as it
WAS unto the public, until heiook a seat at the Bench,
and from the first moment it was brought b-lore him,
he felt it a duty tn have the decision as prompt as
possible, as, abstractedly sneaking, he could nut but
consider such a piotracted litigation a repioach to
the administration of justice. It was with regret he
differed from his Learned Brother who last addressed
the Court. Much was said of the ability and capa-
city of Sir Watkin Lewes to guard himself against
fraud. But to those observations he would answer,
that every day's experience proved, as his Learned
Brother ( Baron Graham) had so justly said, that
candid imposition was as successful in practising its
deceits on the confidence as on the distresses and ig-
norance of its victims. His own impres%ion ss as,
that the amount of the received rents since the pay.
ment of the mortgages, ought to be forthwith paid
'over to Sir Watkin Lewes, that they slight to con-
stitute a fund to enable him to pursue his claims, and
not be longer left is the hands of him who at the
moment be held the possession of the estates, by arm-'
ing himself with the whole property of Sir Watkin
Lewes, had consigned him and the heiress of a flue
estate to penury, and the father to long continueJ
imprisonment. But, under every cnbsiJaation of
the case, and in the hope of furthering the ends of
justice, he concurred in the decision of his Learned
Brother; lie trusted that this case would read a
wholesome lesson to Solicitors, who, as they valued:
their character and property, would be circumspect
in their conduct, when they became loan dealers to
their clients.

The Defendant was, therefore, decreed forthwith'
to give up possession of the estates, and to appear on
the Ist day of nest Term to settle a ;inie lot the pay-
ment -1 the money he received since 1804.
The Court was extremely crowded, and this Judg-
ment excited great interest, and appeared to give
general satisfaction.
A further motion was about to be made by Mr.
AUAH, asking the directions of the Court, that Sit
Watkin Lewes might be all:rwed to take rests on the
balance of the received rents; that is, that in every
year the amount ol trot received ex.:vetted the lute•
rest of the mortgage, interest should b.: Hilotsed for
the surplus to Sir Watkin. This ulterior motion was
fixed for argument on Saturday next.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER Is.

ROBINSON AND OTHERS ARMSTRONO AND ANOTHER.

This was an action at debt against the intiabilauts
of the Hundred of Etsington, in the County of
Durham, founded upon the statutes of 1. Geo. 1. c.
5, and 52 Geo. 111. c. 130, to recover ;he amount
of damage done by the destruction of a stable, and
two stairs, or warehouse* for coals, the property of
the plaintiffs, which were partly destroyed, or pulled
down, by a *iambs and tumultuous assemblage ot
keelmen, on the 20th of March, 1815. At the
Sommer Assizes for the County Palatine of Dothan:,
in 1815, the Jury found a verdict for the
subject to the opinion of this Court, upon a case
which stated the following facts :—The plaintiffs
were colliers at Newbottle, on the river Wear, in the
County of Duiham, and occupied two buildings,
called stairs, as warehouses for the purpose of depo-
siting coat; and at the time of the transaction in
. question, one of hie staifs was filled with about 1,000
chaldron of coals, and the other contained four or
five chaldront. 'Chews buildings were composed of
• walls built with stone, with trellis windows, and the
roofs were of timber and coverial with tiles. On the
20:11 of March, 1815. the keelmen on the rivet Wear
rose in a tumultuous body, and tiotously and out-
rageously proceeded to demolish the stable and other
buildings in question. Having first tore off the tiles
and broke open the doors, they set fire to the stalls
and coals therein, which were partly coasurned.—
During these violent proceedings two of the plaintiffs
were present for a part of the time, endeavouring to
protect their property, but Mr. Robinson having
been wounded severely, he was compelled to retire
for safety, and the other partner was also compelled
to seek his safety under a threat of personal violence.
On the 25th of March Mr. Robinson, in pursuance
of the 4th Section of the 52 Geo. 111. c. 00, was
eaamined before two Justices, and made 'o oh that
he did not know the persOns who had ccaoriii‘ied ttie
said outrageous acts, aud this oath was IlialAr the
purpose of enablirig him toproceed against the Hun-
dred for the recovery of the damage done to die pre-
mises of himself and partners. • • re further stated,
dist the other partner who also had bean present
during part 'of the riotous proceedings ot the keel-
men, bad not made the like oath bond the said Ju-
stices ; and under these circutnstances there were two
questioe.s raised; ISt,' Whether it was necessary tor
all tie plaintiffs, there being three in number, to
make the like oath which had Wen taken by Robin-
son'? And second, Whether the erections, called
Suit's, came within the description of buildings
mentioned in the Act of Ilsirliament, which the lino-
dred a ould be l:able to make good
Mr. TYNDALE appeared for the plaintiffs, and en-1
deavoured to establish, on' the authority tit a case
Carthew's Reports, 143, in which reference was also'
made to Jones's Case, Mich. Term, IHIS, and Lhid
a. the Hundred of Ossulston, that it was tufficient
for one of the partners to make the oath in question;
in order to entitle himself and partners to. maintain
the action.

The Com% .however,•standing upon this preljrni.
nary objection, were of opinion that it w.ts detlitvels
against the plaintiffs' right to tecover, in:ramrod) ay
according collie true constsuction of the 4th section
of the. Act, all the persons inttrested in the result of
the action ought to have taken the oath, in order to
purge themselves of all suspiciOn of h.tving partici-
pated in the outrages; or of having knowledge of the
persons by whom they had been Coninnitted ; and
therefore, without hearing the other side, gave judg-
Must of-44onsuit. ,

. iiAKV V. JACOB.
Mr. ScARIATT 'hewed Cat:se aigning a rule of Mr.
;Tindal, calling upon theidiaintili beCttr4y tur

costs to lets ease (which was an :ration
on the ground that the plaiutif wrb a co::vi:Ld :004
now confined on board a tranv.rt in P.:1t",,,„..1
Dock, having been sentcncei vtAr.!:
p:;ttation, uI a conviction a. t! e I:,i t),.1 r:..
swos, fair Lavin4 forg..4
The Learned Counsel sehmi:.ec tkit
could not be required of tLe phint:tf, inast,"
Stay damage he ens 1:1:c1y recuver
matter of course, go to the Cronsi : and he
to a case in t Taunton, 61, wins, : it wets he:d th 4
the Cc urt will no: cumpel security for costs En
ground that the plaintiff' is a bankrupt, or it: N,,,1
gate r but
Mr. TINDAL being heard in support of his P;:!e,
and having reterre4l to several caws andlogous t',,
TLe Court tinusglit the case kyles atb to
such security, end therefore made the

If CXESAL Or TUC Pill' CESI CRAM:MIL
Lord ELLENDOIROUGH announced that this Out
w0.,1d not sit tri-utorriv, except fur the
.;wisit...
tion of hAil 6 but desired it to be unders.ood, Hutia
the VMS which stood in his Lcrddlip's pape-ro,t
his second Sittings in Tom to-nwricw, though fag
could not be then tried. )eit lhe Plairltilfs wt.° :Wild
recov:4 verdicts in the Sittings atter '!'.-t tr., woul.i be
entitled to judgment as of this Term.

Mes.wiNeHouse.—Yesterday Jowl:
7 Aortas Brown, the former' 14, and the litter aept.
ready net more than 10 years of age, wele to
up. charged with the follow ing rot)isay
Whitey:re, Esq.. of Frederick's Place, scud, that
tie w•ss passing through Thieadneed!ce.ttect wends
Austin. Friars, when tie was hustled toy the tee tee
sneers in crossing the toad, the younger one !wee.,
violently agailitt Lim. while the other. in the r..t.e,'.1
:ion of the moment, threst his hand into the vetie-
coet poeket of the witness, •ind ran eff. H: instrrely
missed his pocket-honk, and was abo.ut to pursue Use
b:;y. when a eentleman hended it to hiss, !eying le
had picked it up. The prisoner Thomas was put.
sued and taken near the London Tarim, sad Lis
ctorropenien was seemed 1 y an OrGcer. who etome up
at the time. Time priscr.eis totaliy der.ied the eliosl:r,
and declared they were hotel sir...sleets to each via.
The falsehood sit this last assertion was provcd by,
gentleman named Scott, who swore that he saso. Ile
prisoners in company, and meitine signals to each
other about a quarter of an hour previous to the vb.
bevy in question, and that he then saw the younger
one follow a gentleman to the door of the New Foe-
land Ceffee-house, looking into his soet.pocket
was ripen, in the most daring manlier. 9is searching
the prisoner Brown, 21e. in silver and a small p:.ir sof
scissars '.vere found. The LOUD MAYOR regret:et
that the gentleman who picked up the pocket-he's
was not present, as his evi,!ence would be tuateCol
This lois Lordship observed was a case of considerable
consequ-rece, end utig;it to be made the subject of a',
prosecution, as othfl-wise merchants and others in the
neighbourhood of 'Change, who were conotandy'
gloving about, soinetitnes with immense property
about them, would be daily subjected to iepreda.
tions of this kind. The prisoners were reruaetioel
till a Nuke day.
Gurennace-e-Firtes.-.-Yesterday Messrs. Beata
and Cr; tresusittetita, Proprietors of the Red Lioa
in Altiersgatiestreer, were summoned to KVS:t CI use
complaint of the Beadles of the Ward of A.limnkne,
for refusing to pay the reward for the evititti.er of .1
fire rei their premises. The Ltsamseeteer: übwive3,
that ht. ecver trifling the fire at first eppeered, rent us
consequences might have resulted from neglecting it,
check it ; and, he was of opinion, that tile Beady
had Ciolle no more than his duty, and was thetet,et
entitled to the reward. Mr. Butler imniediately pale
the sum claimed, dn. ss. anki costs.

Mant.notiouou•xxnur.---Information was g•soi
of a daring attack upon the house of Mrs.
Willsdon-lane, at 12 o'clock, on Monday
Mrs. Leet's servant, who was in the ect,age
was alarmed by some persons bring upon toe tcp
it, and she roused the servant iu a cottAge
belonging to Mrs. Derlour, a here a r•etti: was sprung.
The ti i yes were three in number, anti th.) hal de
audacity to draw a eat close up to I: r house,:cr tin
purpose of conveying aw.ty a booty. &tote tit}
ran off, they uttered the most dieudful
against their disturbers, and thre:de..,-.! ts, the
again on the next night. Proper measures Acie rr
tiered to receive them, if they dared to realise th.:l
threat.

MAIII4 IED.
Thursday the 11th instant, a.. .ss-trr. Caren, lieutenart Rest-
land Pennit,gton, Istr o the 5:11 Vow, to Gto!w_na,
ter at Uroolke H.q. or Cathy Hat:, linco nsh.re.