The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-03-31 00:00:00

3-- '4

gone far enough to show that the documents were the same.
Mr. Humphreys was further examined, and some more
conversation took place between the counsel on both sides.
His Lortnsnir then observed that he did not see clearly
his way to come to the presumption that the origi❑al docu-
ment was not 'stampea, and yet the only way to raise the
question for the court above would be to make that presump-
tion. He should therefore do so, and receive the copy,
giving Mr. Cresswell leave to move for a nonsuit.

ALEXANDER than re;liecCandttrged&jury to di-
vest their minds of all the technicalities which had been
brought before them, as they had nothing whatever to do
with the merits of the case, which was itself a plain and
simple one. He would just mention the amount of inte-
rest.
Mr. CRESSWELL —Yon have no right to interest.
•

The JUDGE.—They are not entitled to interest, as interest,
but they are to whatever damages the jury may think them
entitled, in lieu of interest.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—The interest is £1,421 2s. sd.
His lordship having summed up, the jury found for the
plaintiffs for the full amount claimed.

EJECTMENT.

DOE DEM. BEAUMONT AND ANOTHER V. DALTON.—This
was an action of ejectment. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Hog-
gins appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Wightman for the
defendant.

Mr. CRESSWELL, in opening the case, said the action had
been brought to recover possession of a chapel belonging to
the plaintiffs, called Patmos Chapel, in Todmorden. It had
been instituted in consequence of some dissensions between
different highly respectable parties respecting the uses to be
made of this chapel. The chapel, he understood, had origi-
nally been built for the use of parties who► belonged to the
Methodist New' Connection, the property being vested in
trustees. Some of those trustees wished that the doctrines
to be inculcated in this. chapel should be those of the Inde-
pendents, and in consequence some difference of opinion
prevailed. He should be able to 'show very distinctly the
title to the property to be in the plaintiff Mr. Beamnont, and
that would entitle him to a verdict. But he had no desire to
continue anything like a feeling of animosity between the
parties, and therefore, he should be very glad to take any
course best calcUlated to allay irritation. If it were more
agreeable to the other side, lie was quite willing that some
person should settle the question in private ; but if not he
was prepared to shoiv his title, on which he should be en-
titled to a verdict.

The JUDGE asked Mr. M'ightman what he had to say ?
Mr. CRESSWELL said there were rival trustees, and the
probability was, that if the matter was proceeded with it
would arrive in the Court of Chancery, and when it would
come out again no man knew.
Mr. WIGHTNIAN inquired what course his learned friend
proposed ?
Mr. CRESSWELL replied that he proposed to leave it to
some gentleman of the bar to ascertain the rights of the
parties, and what should be done with the property—to leave
him to decide all the rights legal and equitable of the several
parties. . .

WIGHTMAN said he felt a difficulty in consenting to
refer a question in which other parties besides his clients
were interested.

Mr. CRESSWELL said, that as far as the question of
trusteeship was concerned, his learned friend represented
some persons whom he (Mr. C.) called pseudo trustees—
trustees not properly appointed; and he (Mr. C.) repre-
sented the survivors of the legitimate trustees.
Mr. WIGHTMAN thought his learned friend proposed a
reference only as respected the owner of the fee.
Mr. CRESSWELL professed to represent some of the trus-
tees, but the action was brought by the owner of the fee;
and he avowed that the action was brought in consequence of
the differences. A mortgage on the chapel was in the hands
of a very respectable gentleman ; and as his interests would
be protected, he could have no objection to a reference.
The JUDGE enquired whether this mortgage had been
granted by both trustees?
Mr. CRESSWELL.—By Mr. Wightman's trustees.
The JUDGE.—There's the difficulty.
Mr. CuEsswELL.—Those who are claiming the property
will undertake to indemnify the mortgagee against loss.
Mr. WIGHTMAN.—What does my learned friend propose?
Mr. CRESSWELL.—To leave to a gentleman of the bar
competent to deal with such matters, all questions legal and
technical arising from these matters.
The JUDGE.—That would include the mortgagee, then?

Mr. CaEsswELl,.—Yes, my lord.
The JUDGE.—But it cannot be done without the mort-
gagee's consent.
Mr. CRESSWELL.—I cannot suppose be would object upon
obtaining a guarantee.
The J UDGE.—The mortgagee is not here.
CRESSWELL replied that he was, and added that if
his learned friend wished he was ready to zo on.
The JUDGE.—It would be very desirable that this matter
should be arranged.
A consultation took place, and it was ultimately agreed to
refer. A verdict was consequently taken for the plaintiff,
subject to the reference.
There had been some difficulty experienced throughout the
day in getting cases to proceed with, and the learned Judge,
after having, in their order, struck off several, in which nei-
ther of the parties were prepared, found, at last, that if he
went on striking off all the cases not ready, he would leave
very few on the list. He therefore ceased hearing civil causes,
and took a criminal one.