The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-07-18 00:00:00

`VAPPRP!PF7'.7

' • •

- . .
COURT OP CHANCERY, JOLT IT.-
ooVaLAT O. Wag OF SOIHRIBT.
• nis was an appeal from the decision of the late Alas..
ter of the Rolla, praying the Court that a new trial may
be granted. 4)n the 27th of May, 18011, Mr. IL Gimlet
of the county of Pik, in Scotland, agreed to lease a feral,
called Deptford, in Wiltshire, from the noble defendant,
for the term -of 21 years. The terms of the agreement
were. that Mr. (Marley was to eater into possession on
the 10th of October following, the Noble Doke allowing
Mr. tiourlay 2001. for the repairs of the farmhouse. and
such other sum as might be laid onion improvements and
alterations, subject to the approval of the Duke, or a per-
son of the name of Gals; at the same time Mr. Gourley
was bound to produce vouchers for the money laid out on
such alterations and Improvements. For this farm Mr.
tlourlay weed to pay a rent of 6001. a year. livable half
yearly. Mr. tionrlay did not obtain possession of the
tarm house on the 10th of October, in consequence ortbe
previous tenant not giving up possession immediately,
and Mr. tioorlay refused to perform the contract. This
circumstance gave rise to a disagrreinent between Mr.
Overlay and the Doke, • Mr 4 Gourley being obliged in
the mean time to hire a residence for himself and
family. In consequence of this disagreement the Noble
defendant served a notice oo the plaintiff, that be
would not execute the lease, ..anit that Mr- Gourley
should give up possession of the farm. The posses.
slots was retained by the previous tenant, on the
ground that it was customary in that country to retain
possession until arrangement should be made respecting
the manure on the farm and the crop arising from it the
following year. When Mr. Gourley obtained pouessies
of the house—some months after the specified time, be
proceeded to make improvements and alter it situation.
Those improvements amounted to 497/.. and were ap-
proved of by Mr. Gale, and allowed on the part of the
Ihike. It was intimated to the plaintiff that the Duke in-
tended to put 'Mr. Gourlay out of possession by eject-
ment. In the year 1810 a bill Was hied in Chancery by
Mr. Odarlay against the Duke, to restrain him in pro-
ceeding on the ejectment, and to oblige bins to sign
the lease. On this bill an injunction was granted
by his Lordship to restrain the Duke from proceed.
ings at law, and that the Duke should execute the
- lease, which was dune. The bill was amended by
Mr. lionrlay in the year 1812, stating improvements and
alterations which cost 1,3251. To this bill an ansoer was
put in by the Duke, denying that those alterations were
any improvement, but rather the . The case came
on before the late Master of the Rolls, and two tines
were ordered by the Court: the first was, whether Mr.
Gourlay was entitled to any and what sum beyond 2001.
specified in the original agreement; the second, whether
the plaintiff was entitled to any. and what allowance, for
not getting possession of the house at the stipulated time.
Those issues were directed to be tried at the next Assizes
for-Wiltshire. On the fist of these issues the Jury nega-
tived the claim of the plaintiff to any arm beyond 2091.1
and on the second he was allowed 100!. for not getting
possession,and being put to the expense of hiring a house.
Mr. Gale was examined on this trial, but could not recol-
lect that he bad approved of any alterations and improve-
ments ; and therefore the Learned Judge (Perk) before
*Win it was tried, duly looking at the original wee-
ment, which made vouchers necessary to the improve-
ments, directed the Jury, to find the above verdict. Mr.
Gourlay being dissatisfied with thin finding- moved for a
mew trial before the sante Master of the Roll's, which was
granted on the ground that the view the Learned Judge
took of the original agreement was not the view with
which the Court had ofdered the issues. The first trial
took place in ISI3. for money laid out in improvements
amounting to 1.3251. prior to the year 1312. The
trial came on before Ar. Justice Hohoyd, in 1816, and
the Jury fauna for the plaintiff, granting him 13251. and
ako a further sum of 6001. which had been laid out on
the farm since the year 1912. Mr. Gale, on this occasion,
proved the utility of the improvements, and the amount
a. money expended.
Mr. HAT, on the part of the Duke; Wired for a new
trial, on the ground of the discrepancy between the evi-
dence of Mr. Gale on the first and second trial; bat the
Master of the Rolls refused the application °utile &mad
that lie was not to look beeond the terms of the original
agreement, stating "any farther sum which might be
raid out." From this decision the present appeal was
brought before his Lordship by the Noble defendant.-1
The tarm in question has not been occupied by Mr.Gour•
lay since the year 1817, but has been let by him to ano-
ther person.
Messrs. HART and Ruin appeared for the Duke, Mr.
Gourlay having no Counsel, appeared on his own behalf,'
and was pro-ceiling to address the Court, but his Lord-
sh:p being obliged to attend a Committee in the House of
Lords, said that he would hear Mr. Gourley on Monday
e; Tuesday next.

SUMMER ASSIZES.
HOME Cl RCUIT.—CII2I.II%FORTI, Jumr,l6.
'CROWN SIDE.
Jas. Coots and Wm. Lamploues were indicted for U.
milting Catherine Dallaway, ssn the King's highway it
Str aforii, on the '29th May, putting.her in fear, and steal.
irg from her person a silk scarf, her property.
It appeared that Miss Dallaway and her sister, young'
ladies of respectable appearance, were returning across
the fields from Temple Mills to Stratford on the day in
goes:Ton. and when near a stile passed two men lying
order the hedge. The men immediately rose and fol.
hrt eti them, and whilst the ladies were in the act of pass-
ing ShAtile, one of the men seized bold of the prosecu-
•trii's scarf, and attempted to poll it from her shoulders.
:ilia resisted in great terror and alarm, but, after a short
'struggle. the ruffian. succeeded in possessing himself of
tits' scarf and ran away towards Temple Mills Bridge,
luilowed Ily his companion, who had stood by and wit-
nessed the stroggle. The ladles, however,pursued them.
-r. it, N tying obtained assistance, tip", were taken into
ecsiody. Neither of the ladies could identify the pri-
soners as bring the offenders; hut a little boy, who was
On Or bridge at the time, anti to venom both prisoners
*ere well known,•plored that they passed the bridge
preeii.ely at the time stated, pursued by rae Unites. The
acid was not timid upon either of the prisoners.
• The prisoners solemnly declared their innocence.
Mr. Bsron ORAIIAM charged the Jury, that if they
ware satisfied of the identity of the prisoners, the charge
was fully established ; for the struggle between one 'of'
them and the prosectitris, and the alarm which she tie-
Glared she felt, fully supported the legal definition of a
highway robbery ; and as hot!' the ptisoaers were evi-
dently concerned in the same design, both were equally
"asnenattle to the law, though one only committed the ac-
tual a iolenee.
- The Jury &fiber ited a few minutes, and found both
'prisoners Ditilty.—Death.
NORFOLK CIRCUIT, Ilucictsrottam, JULY 16.
Before ale. SERORAN r BOSANQUST, and Special Jury.
PARRIPTT I'. SARIN AND HOLLAND.
This wati an action id recover a compensation for the
injury said to he done• the plaintiff by published
by the detendsnts in the Bucks Chronicle, respecting the
conduct of the plaintiff as Stewant to the Duke of Buck.
inch tm, in having Ind a distress on the ferns of one' of
his tenants. The defendants entered a justification on
the fekortl, as to'the principal counts.
Aster Mr. Storks had stated the case, and witnesses
bad been examinsil,Mr.Coapet addressed the Jury for the
• • defence; the Learned Jo Ige then recapitulated the prin-
cipal points of the evidence, an ....weed the Jnry, who
af:rr some eonnultation, together round a verdict for the
plaintiff; Dant:ges, 40. r., 405., costs