Star.
London, England, 1819-04-23 00:00:00

A FASHIONABLE LADY.

See Lady Amara,
So broad in the back,
And her bosom uncovered so low !
She thinks she. displays
'To our wondering gaze
Tees beautiful pillows of snow !
But Lady ALMACK,
So swarthy and black
Her complexion, behind and before,
She resembles betvc!et, us
The Hottentot Vends,
Or a bust :it a grocer's shop door !

LAW INTELLIGENCE:
COURT OF CIIANCHRY, APRIL 22.
BURLINGTON ARC xI)F.

ODELL AND OTHERS V. LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH,
HERON, AND (micas.
This case was formerlv before the Court, and was
ordered to stand over in consequence of the agree-
ments not being stampell.
The• SOLICITOR-GENERAL now stated, that the
papers having been stamped, he had to move that
the Court should grant an injunction to restrain the
defendants from makin:T a passage from the Arcade
to Western Exchange, Old Bond-street, agreeably to
the stipulations in the agreement, that there should
be only two doors, one north and one south. The
defendants had, however, opened a door to the
Western Exchange, or iond-street Bazaar, which I
was become a public way, and thus the contract was
violated. At the same time he had no objection to
the proprietors of the Western Exchange who had'
shops in the Arcade, from having a private commu-
nication from one to the other, but then that should
not be public, else it would be necessary to have
twenty watchmen instead of two, as at present. It
v:as said that that door would be shut up before six,
but then there was no certainty why it might not be
left open all night.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that supposing
by accident he was inclined to go to this Exchange,
and see nothing which pleased him, and if he went
into the Arcade and bought something, was he to
be forced to go back by the Western Exchange, or
could he not go down the Arcade?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL answered, that bona fide
purchasers would not be refused access, but what he
• complained of was, that the crowd through this new
passage was so great when it was opened, that con-
stables were obliged to be called in. All,this was
contrary to the relations adopted by the lessees,
and sanctioned byLotd George Cavendish. On a
former occasion, allusion had been made by the
Court to a cause which occurred in the House of
Lords. He had subsequently looked into that case,
which was a case from Edinburgh, the Magistrates
and City Council of which had shewn the plan of a
new square, which led to some persons building
thereon, but the square not being completed, one of
the builders raised an action against the City, which
came to the House of` Lords by appeal, he com-
plaining that be had been deluded, and therefore he
refused to pay his rent, but their Lordships held that
the mere exhibit of a plan was not a sufficient war-
ranty, and they dismissed the appeal. That case did
not, however, apply here, as the Arcade was finished
as the plan specified, and that was well known to all
the parties. The other side admitted in their affida-
vits, that the opening of this door would be highly
beneficial to all parties in the Western Exchange.
Re held that this was sufficient to justify his Lord-
ship in granting the injunction. The Learned Gen-
tleman then at great length detailed all the facts,
and concluded by moving for the injunction.
Mr. PEPYS followed, and argued in a very able
manner on the same side.
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know who the
persons were whom this injunction was intended to
operate against?
Sir Aarnoa Ploooar said they complained of
Universal Snffraztre I—(A laugh.)
Mr. PEPYS said,, the complaint was against the
defendants for not allowing this door to be confined
to the intention of the lessees, as specified in the ori-
ginil contracts.
The Loan CHANCELLOR—Yes, but the words in
the license are " to open a communication with the
shops in the Western Arcade."
Mr. PEPYS admitted this, but said, that these words
were intended to include the private convenience of
the shopholders.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—AIIowing that, still you
don't prevent bona fide customers going Nom the one
to the other. Supposing 4500, or WO, or any num-
ber you please, were to pass from this shop in the
Arcade to the Western Exchange, would you call
this a public passage?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—The cast does not rest
on that, my Lord, altogether.
Mr. PEPYS then referred to two cases in 2 Vesey,
sen. Reports, heard before Lord Hardwicke, viz.
Morris v. Lord Barclay, and another in the same vo-
lume, relative to buildings in Gray's Inn, and con-
tended that the decisiOn of that Judge was a prece-
dent here,

_ .
Sir ARTHUR PWGOTT, as Counsel for Laid G.
Cavendish, observed, that his Lordship was the last
person in the world who would have wished to vio-
late the contract, but there was no joint contract
here, as each tenant had a separate lease. The ex-
pies& object was to faciiitate the trade of both places,
and this was known to the plaintiffs when they took
the shops. The affidavit of Mr. Odell, the plaintiff,
stated, he had a letter sent to him that this passage
would be opened, and the rest had the same. The
offer, as it was stated, was intended to allow them
to carry on their business in bath places, and the pri-
vate passage to be made was only to accommodate
Cie lessee and his customers, but not for the public
in general. The parties thus who took the shops
must have known that this was intended, and how
they could object to it now, he was at a loss to know.
Some rumours having reached these Gentlemen, that
the lessor was to give a public passage that way,
they went to Lord George cavendish, who denied
that he hairsuch an intention, as all he meant was
for the accommodation of the parties.
The LO liD CHANCELLOR said, it was painful to see
that such public conerns could not be kept out of
Chancery. If this Western Exchange was a Bazaar,
as ho apprehended it was, then the great mischief