The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-11-14 00:00:00

.__ laL_

...

rr,
I NTE LLIGENS..
• f •
COURT OF CHANCOW,IRc.,- est C,
kte. ,
.111wed,t,y, Nooeintlbt Oa; At 7 •
MA asit A N n (erases v. kailitax.
This was a que,siou relative tit Bill and
incloaure of a common callivi.BittierhifikkiMout,
iu Yorkshire. 'This Moor was enjoyed•egu.conbli
Mon by a number of adjoining Pripprietcraomo
of whom wished for its division, and others did
not. By art old deed, it hid been agreed,, that if
the 'Common should" be divide:l, the division and
allotment should be made in shares, nut accord-
ing to the extent, but the value of the adjoining
properties ; and it sv:is,nuw cuntentled by Sir S.
R ILLY and Mr. , that as this ratio was
quite uncertain au f ca►iahle in its nature, such di-
vision couid tin( toescibly take vise's. The
tilt value of the adjicent properties never re-
utained the same one day together, and of necessity
Nrlts qoite different to th.: opinion and estlinatu of any
two individuals. Ttiey contended, therefore, that
:the Conrt monki nut order a division upon the
principle lakt down in the deed, on account of its
uncertainty and variable nature.
On the other baud it wto contended, by Mr.
jest.t, and Mr. AG tu, the the Quirt, in ordering
•• a division of this kind, load often overcome equal
or greater diffirultim than the present. Of this
kind was the division of Celdbath-fields, °mitred
by Lord Hardwick e, where the ground was inter-
sected by water pipet belonging to the New niter
Company, of did. rent dimensions, and Ott liberty
of laying which, was paid for according to the
size of the pities. Notwithstanding the great ap.
parent di silty of dividing this ground into pro.
portionati stares, yet by tha interference of tide
Court4his division Was at last accomplished.
After bearing the Learned Counsel on both
sides, the Lono CHANCELLOR rose at two o'clock
to be present at the nomioation of Sheriffs its the
Exchequer Chamber.

t.

fri'l2^r", '••
rtflttet,i

14.A.743
14Efier.r.r,

COURT OF CO&IMO* PLEAS.

THE

eabsegoentlitlAsibilikag; and that in every latch'
roapeihe writ avAtit tiri•etterned, and the special
*atter indersid uptkrit, in order that the Court
wp9a4etermine whether the individual, who is the
libjegt of it, sh3H be discharged or remanded—
arid therefore this motion was refused.
slxrl:l,Cl i. RIINT.
Mr. Cr.' 'FORD She 40 missile pilot this Rule,
'which .w.is to set aside the inquisition its this
ease. 41 was an inquisition 'had u; on a writ of
inquiry before the Sheriff of the county of *site,
when it appeared ttrit the Defendant, on horse-
hack, followed by his tinge, came on the gruuud
of tae Plaintiff; a hare was started, which hare
was . killed by the 'Defendant's dogs. The De-
.tidant alighted, went a few yards on khe Plain.,
'tiff's ground, and look tip the hare, upon which.
4 this action was brougltt for a trespass, and the
Defeo taut suffeeed judgment to pass by ,default.
Upon the execution of the writ of inquiry, it
appeared by the evidence of the witness, 'Richard
Mortimer, who came to support tfic
ease, that the Defendant had not•ilone one far_
thing's • worth of damage ; and the Jury had found
accordingly. Upon which, Mr. C.slimmers ,had
obtained a Rule to showcause why this inquisition
should not be let aide; and Mrs Cuero's!) said,
he was now to chew Cause against Rule.
Lord ELTiEMBOROUOII " Is this the casein
which the Jury have found, •No damage Haute
to the Plaintiff,' in a case in which the Defendant
suffered judgment to pass by default ?"
Mr. CLIFFORD.—" Yes, any Lord; but am
instructed to submit, that although letting judg-
ment pass by default WAS
.= admission of the cause
of action, yet it was not an admission of any
quantom of damages, as stated on the face of the
•declaration. It was an admission of trespass, but
nn admission of damages."
Lord Et.i.avaonotion—" But although it be
not an admission of damages, as stated in the de.
daration, yet it is the admission of some da.
usages."
Mr. CLIFFORD-4g Bot the execution of a writ
of inquiry is for the purpose of your Lenlship's
knowing that, which, without the assistance of a
Jury, you cannot know what the damages are.—
' For that purpose, the Sheriff calls twelve men to.
gether, to ascertain what damages the Plaintiff has
sustained. How can the Jury state, upon their
oaths, the amount of the damages, in a case where.
Fitt the only witness who proves the fact, states
'they do not amount to, pne farthing ; and why
should they give damages iu such a case ?"
Lard'Eeennuosoueu—" Because the Defend-
ant has Attfered judgment to pass by default to be
sure ; bflivlkich the Defendant has admitted the
Plaintiff lies sustained some damages. Let the
Rule be absolntn."
Rule absolute.
[Mss thi‘qu;.stion of dansagesotskact again be submitted to
' a Jury—powihly, nay probably, the nest twelve mi-n taa) he
*Macs:tate op.uiou with their predereason—llow then ?:`,

Saturdag, Nor. 11.
Lord Ei.r.rmaoitocou said, that the newirials
which took place [retort: him, should come on for
discussion on this (Lay stennight.
'MC KING V. MIT.I.rII.
Mr. Serj,,irnt StrevllEltn moved for a rule to
%hew cease why an attachment should not issue
aapAst We Defendant, for not performing certain
termiinfa which he entered on a trial' at the last
Agsilre4oibr tberrittitt) of Surrey. Mr. 111iller had
ercetiikbertsiar buildings on a priblic•path in the
ti&irourhood of Camberwell, for which be was
i
ir.
Int (led, and was acqukted on undertaking to re.
store the path to its ancirnt state, for *length spe-
cified; instead of which, Mr. Miller stood charg-
; eel with betting let the lease of his premium to anti-
; ther, who had not dome the riling undertaken,
lover Which Mr. Miller pretended he had on Con.
troul.—it ulu granted. - • . .
At twelve o'clock Mu Lordship set at Nisi
Prigs, bet took only undefended Caused.

Monday', Non. 13.
RARE. OS LEICESTER V. TIII PROPRIETORS, &C. OT.
THE SIisILNI VG lISRAtrs.
tSir 3 AMES MANS?, aim read parts of the (loch. '
rati (((( , whereon this trial wet had, and observed
that the verdict could only refer to the two last
counts in the declaration, u tho Plaintiff abau.
dolled his first count on the trial, and those eottuts
which were depuudant on it, must be abandoned of
conies.
Mr. &Wiriest BEST acceded to what the Learned
Jetta° had stated.
. liig JAMS, MeststisLo then-said, that any ob.
jettien whist • the Defenttaisre—essetssul had to',
make to the verdict, must therefore apply to it as
thus restricted. And he suggested, that the De.
fendante Connsel (Mr. Serjeant Manley) should
take • rote for se arrest of jadgmeut. To this'
suggestion the Counsel un both sloes acceded, and
Ilmo rule was granted.
SUAW V. sawron.
. ' Mr. Serjeaut BE:f said, that this was a case of
very extraordinary fraud. His application to the-
Court, was fur a rule to thew cause why judd.
ment upon a warrant of attorney should" put be
arrested.
Two Ladies residing in the neighbourhood of
Maidstone were desirous,to dispose of their nit.
rest in a school ; a man of the name of Sheitua
applied in order to become a purchaser, sand refer.
red to Mr. Matson, in Tower-street, for a charac.
ter ; there certainly was in Tower.atreet a very
respectable gentleman of that name,' but unfor.
Innately for these young ladies there was silo.
ther gentleman (tie begged pardon of the Court.
for calling him.• Gentleman), a person of the same
name, in the same street. This was an artifice 104
common, he was afraid, with swindlers bearing nr
assuming the names of men of respectability. '
This other Mr. Marton of course gave the best of
r‘
ad potiible characters to his friend Mr. Shelton;
iittitielsese young ladies confounding him with the
respectable person of that name, the unfortunate
result *as, an implicit confidence in the honesty
aud solvency of this 5h,...1t0n, thu Defendant ; ac.
cordingly the school and premises were given up
•to him, os his muskies far a sum klie+ I *ad