The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-12-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF RING'S BENCH, Dec. 4.

AV,141/fIiTRATOV. OF ORAPOMOFF V. NAGALA.
Mr. PARK stated, that Gransdoff wat a piano-
forte-maker, 70 years old at the time of his death,
and supposed to have been possessed of a consider.
able sum of money. The Defendant lived in the
same apartment with him, and on his death pus.
sessed himself of every !king on which he could lay
his hands. The old man had died suddenly at three
in the morning ; at seven the same morning, itagala
called in several neighbouring persons to attest the
death. On their inquiring whether any money was
left behind, Bagel& said, that it was entirely willed.
to him. The old man had 10001. stock, which was
subsequently paid over to his nephew, the regent
Plaintiff, then resident in Germany. ft appeared
that there was no will, and that the Defendant had
possessed himself of a quantity of gold • and silver
cuiti, clothes, and nava, probably amounting in the
whole to 1201. The action was undefended. The
fury found a verdict for the Plaintiff 1201.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dee 4.
DENNIS V. THE MARQUIS OF TOVINcHENO.
• This was an action brought by the Plaintiff to
tecover from the Mkrquis of Townshend acertain
sem, being the value of some alleged fixtures which
the Defendant had removed from the ground of tlie
Plaintiff, on resigqing his occupancy.'
It appeared that Lord-Townshend had taken, for
three years, a kitchen.garden in Sloane-street,
which garden his Lordship had converted into a
'pleasure-ground, and had accordingly ornamented
It with various shrubs, seats, trees, grten.house,
•irandas, &c. On the expiration of his tenancy,.
ho removed these articles, for the value of which
the Plaintiff now brought his action, denying any
-such right of removal, and contending a reversion.
ory right in the landlord when the tenant quitted
possession.
The defence set np by Lord Townshend was,
that the ornaments, &c. were placed there by him
at a great ex pence, much exceeding in value even
the amount of his three years' rent, and that they
you'd not be considered in the light of fixtures.
lie alleged, also, that the Plaintiff received nu loss
from their removal, as a street was now building on
the scite of the former garden.
MANSFIELII.—" This is a case of very
great difficulty ; the law on this subject is much
perplexed with nice distinctions as to the nature of
those articles which a tenant may or may not re.
move on the expiration of his tenancy. Anciently
the law was clear enough, but latterly it has become
more relaxed for the protection of traders, who
often erect for the purposes of their business tem.
porary concerns, far exceeding in value the ground
'itself, and since such telalation much confusion
has arisen. From the ridiculutis niceties of the
law at present, His impossible to say, without most
minute investigation, what can be called fixtures,
and what tuoyeabks, in this action. I think, Gen.
tlemen, the safest way will be fur you to give aver.
diet for the Plaintiff to the value of the shrubs and
green-house, and the opinion of the Court may af•
terwards be taken by the Defendant's counsel. As
to the wire-fence, gate, viranda, and seats, I do
siot conceive that under any construction they can
be considered fixtures, in you may leave them otit
of your consideration."
Verdict for the Plaintiff=-Damages 1501. with li.
ber►y of application to the Court.
SirJAMES MANSFIELD.—" Now, if a couple of
guineas had been, in the first instance, given to
Counsel for his opinion, all this expence might have
been spared."