The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-08-07 00:00:00

THE STATEgMA N.

Plaintiffs) for that purpose. The case came on to be
heard before the Recorder and a London Jury, when
the Jury were of opinion that the sum of 98951. was
an equivalent sum for the purchase. In his address
to the Jury, the Recorder had directed them to find
the verdict so. Mr. Blount was the agent of the
Bishop of Lunden, end the question now was, whe-
ther the sum iihould not be expended in purchasing
new lands for the Bishop, he, at the same time, to
have the power, as given to his predecessors, antiquo
ju►e, to grant leases, with the usual reserved rent?
The Recorder had held the leases of the Lord Bishop
of London to be not binding, in a certain sense; and
the agent of the Bishop brought this before the Court
of Chancery; by a hill MO for the purpose.
The Vice-Cuarrcmon took an able view ofthe
facts of the case. His Honour then went into a long
review of the provisions of the Act of Parliament,
and contended that that Act, by the 23d, 27th, 29th,
30th, and 31st clauses, gave the Court of Chancery
sufficient power to act in this case. The Act was a
special one, and so were the powers it conferred.—
lie thought, therefore, the claim of the Lord Bishop
of London was fair and equitable, and must of course
be granted. Let therefore the money be expended in
purchasing to him new grounds (that is, for him, as
the Bishop of the Diocese), with powers to grant
leases ou reserved rents, as anciently aid recently
done by the previous Bishops. He (the Vice• Cha-
ncellor) thought this the most equitable decision he
could give in the case. There was a minor point of
2851. which had been paid to the Bishop, but this
should, he thought, be repaid by the Rev. Prelate.
Mr. BELL then stated some points (of however no
public interest) relative to how this would be settled
in event of the Right Rev. William Howley, D. D.
the present Bishop of the Diocese, dying.
The VICE•CIIAUCELLOR— That, Mr. Bell, is a
question on which I am uot now called to enter.—
The question, as a mere point of equity, will lie be-
tween the present Bishop and his successor, but I
am sure you will not expect me to touch it. It is
not oow before me, and therefore do not go into it.
Here the case ended. Hie Honour having gone
through the business of the Court, will adjourn to.
morrow at three o'clock, and on Saturday morning
he leaves town for Dover, being then to remain for
six or eight weeks on the Continent. This is the
earliest period of this Court rising for many 3 ears,
and proves the remarkably improved dispatch of bu-
siness. 7.

The Lori Cbarteellor sits till Saturday, the 15th.

~ p

ZiErratelTLE ASSIZES, Alla. 3.

,I

GUILDHALL.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY sat here this morning, in order
to try both civil and criminal cases for the City and
County of Newcastle. There are only four Prison-
ers for trial in the City Jail : three for burglary and
thefts, of whom two are husband and wife; and one
for petty larceny. Ilia Lordship expressed great sa-
tisfaction that the number of Prisoners for an entire
year was so small. There was nothing peculiar in
the few cases to he laid before them. If the wife I
should appear to have acted in the presence of her
husband, the law presumed that she acted under his
controul, and was not, therefore, to be tried as a
free agent. The Grand Jury 9000 found true bills
against three; against the wife they found no bill fur
the burglary 'and theft charged. The.three were sr-
raigued, pleaded not guilty, anti are to be tried on
Wednesday morning.
There were four moles entered for the City, which
were all disposed of before 12 o'clock. They were
111 quite unimportant, unless the following be entitled
to some importance from the extreme insignificance of
the original sum; for which an enormous eipence of
litigation was incurred.

Lordship, in summing up, laßletited,-that ne cuun.
not find any gronod of doubt in the evidence,. and
suggestedmt
eon tdh eh
iJmu rtyo,
maesr tchye. onlyi‘he thing
ary left
.bt
iand t o
a them,
ter
diet of Guilly,,hot recommended Ma!' to, mercy in
consideration of his youth and former glind character.
Mr. John Lambert also strongly recommended him
to mercy. The Prisoner's unhappy father sat in Court
during the trial.
William Clark, aged 37, a well-dressed man, and
apparently superior to his imputed ,profession, was
convicted of stealing 20 dozen pairs of stockings,
from Royston, a carrier, the property of William
and John Turnbull, stocking. manufacturers, in Lang.
holm, North Britain. The Prisoner was found to
claim some stockings, which the Ternbulls identified
as theirs. But the principal evidence was Naylor's,
an accomplice.—Guilty.
CIVIL. SIDE.
In the cause list there are 16 causes, three of them
for Special Juries. There was nothing interesting
to-day. The Court was occupied from two o'clock
till seven with the folloWing rather curious case :--
BROWN V. J9IINSOS.
The Plaintiff, who is brother•in-laW to the De-
fendant, claimed payment of a bond for 1601. exe-
cuted in 1781, and interest from that tithe, making
in all 3201. For the Plaintiff it was urged, that the
bond itself was quite clear, that snendo.rsement upon
it in 1801 proved the payment of interest that year,
and that the Defendant, a man of 84, ackpowledged
to the clerk of the Plaintiff's attorney, on 'hues..
day last, that be had never paid it. For the De-
fendant it was contended, that it had beep paid,
although the distance of time made it impossible
to show when it was paid. The endorsement
was a fabrication ; it . happened to be so dated,
that it was nithin 20 years of the date of the bond
and of the (late of this action ; but it was not writ-
ten in 1801, for a copy given to the Defendant by
the Plaintiff since the action began Contained it not ;
further; it referred to an accoent whichespessed
nothing of interest, and could not .iny ray pep°.
nected with the bond. As to the pretended adMis-
sion of the Defendant, the Jury were to 'consider
that the clerk had gone to the Defendant's house on
pretence of subpoenaing his nepheiv, *horn they did
not call, but in reality in order to purhp a confession
oat of the Defendant. Neither life nor property was
safe if evidence like this could be received. But the
Defendant had only denied that he had ever signed
such a bond, and with the belief that he had not, a
want of memory not surprising in a man of 8), he
must have said that he had never paid it. The strong.
est circumstance, however, was; that the Plaintiff
had never demanded payment till 37 years after the
date, while he was so poor that he was supported by
the parish, and while he lived for many years on the
worst terms with the Defendant.'
Messrs. Serjeant HOLt.ock and vOLLOCK, for the
Plaintiff, and Messrs, SCARLEIT and RICUARDSON
for (he Defendant.
Verdict for the Defendant.

..:`~:+.

IL-