The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-02-13 00:00:00

A' INTEL LIG E NGE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Frs. 14
PIK smug worm V. E. -rie.lFYlTirs, We.
Tho Lows Ceurccf.r.ott this inornio finallf.de.
tided this case, which has se long bilee .peadinebe-
fore his Lordship, and the particulars cif Whitlfire
formerly reported very tufty. lii November, 1797;
a contract was entered into between the parties for
the purchase of certain "eitates ; and it was agreed
that Sir M. Wood should advance the parilta&ntrx.
!ley, end Mr. Griffiths superintend the imptoveitents
of the estates ; after whii4 they were to be sold,
and the profits equally divided between the *parties.
Sir M. Wood, in 1797, advanced 5;0001. an 4 2,0001.-
more in 1999, on the East Mark estate, which they•
had purchased from Beech turd others for 23;0001.,
and the parties being let into possession, Sir Mart
Wood granted a lease of the !stile for 21 years, at a•
rent of. 1,1701. In January, 1806, Beech and others.
Sled a Bill in the Exchequer for' Wood and Griffiths'
to pay the balance of 16,0001 i doe on the estate, or
that it might be sold, and they have the Money paid
them.
The COURT referred the case to the Deputy Re-
membrancer to enquire into the title of the estate ;
and Mr. Co: afterwards Made a Report, ordering
the estate to be sold, which Report the Master of
the Rolls coofirmed. This *II an appeal from that
decision of Fir William Chant, which the Lord
Chancellor felt it his ditty to affirm, and to refuse
the appeal.
•

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Fre. 1%
TUE KING V. JAMES HEATH..
The Defendant had been orderedto be fined for not
attending as a Juryman, on the trial of ,Arthur
Thistlewood, Watson, end others, and the ATTOR-
Ntli-GENERAL VOW replied to an affidavit tiled by
the Defendant, as the ground on which he claimed to
to be relieved from the penalties,. staling, that he
had received a summons to attend as a Juryman, but
not being a freeholder he expected to •be challenged,
and therefore did not attend ; and that 'fie was igno-
rant of any fine having been imposed upon Mm by the
Court until the present month of ..Februery. The
Attorney-General said, it wesisot ills wish to press
the enforcement of the fine, it their Lordships
thought that, under the cifaumstances stated by Mr.
Heath, he ought to he excused. ft titis his business
to have attended on. receiving the sot:mons; and then
to have stated his disqualification.
Lord Ectewnottounn said, It was certainly the
duty of The Defendant to have attended according to
the terms of the summons ; but,' inasmuch as it ap-
peared from his affidavit, that he had been led into
error, and as he would have been discharged if-he
had attended, the Court was disposed to view his
neglect as a venial matter, and would therefore now
discharge the order made against him.
LEADEN V. TUE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE NEW

STREET.
A rule had been obtained last Term by Mr. Ser-
jeatit Ottslow, calling on the Commissioners for mak-
ing the new street from Pall-mall to Piccadilly, to
show cause why they should nut, iu complianco with
the terms of the Art of Pal Hauteur, desire the Righ
Bailiff of Weattninster to empanel a Jury,..fer. the
purpose of ascertaining what compensation the Plain-
tiff should receive itt consequence of his being obliged
to remove front the washes he occupied in St.
James's-market.
Mr. GURNEY now ehnwed cause against the sole,
in doing which he read the substance of en affidavit,
swore lly the Plaintlf, which stated that, in the year
181.2, he rented a shop in St. James's•market from
the Duke of Leeds, at the rate of 181. a quarter, and
that in January, 1815, he took abouse-lit the same
market from the Duke of Leeds, at the rate of 3M.
ti-year. It was further stated, that when the Plain•
tiff obtained possession of this house, Mr. Rickham,
the agent of the Duke of Leeds, assured him that he.
should have a lease in return for the expence be was
put to on account of repairs, end that Mr. Mill,
acting udder the Commissioners, had offered him 501.
as a compensation. for his loss. Mt. Gurney ob-
served, that his Learned Friend, Mr. Serjeaut
Onslow, had obtained this rule last Term Kith great
'difficulty, by urging the principle that the Applicant
had an interest under the Act, and that the Commis-
sinners bad recognized that interest by the offer of
501. which Mr. Mill bad made to him. It was.
therefore contended; that he was entitled to have the
amount of his alleged damage assessed by a Jury.—
The affidavit of Mr. Itickhant gave a very different
account of the case. It appeared from it, that a Mr.
• Mintram, the father-in-law of the present tenant,
who rented the shop in question by the week, long
before the year 1812, had, along with other tenants
in the same situation, made application to Mr. Rick-
ham to allow them to pay their rents quarterly.,
its-
• stead of weekly, alleging that the weekly payments
were very inconvenient to them. Mr. Ilickhsm, on
bearing their representations, said he had no objec-
tion to take the payments quarterly, to relieve them
of the trouble they complained of, hut that they were
not on that account to consider themselses in any other
situation than as weekly tenants. Ile then calcu.
• listed Mintram's weekly payments, and found that
they carne to a fraction more than 181. upon which
..he agreed to drop the'odd money, and to take 181.
witty. In the year 1812, Mintram being about to
• • leave the shop, introduced Leaderas his son.in-law,
and Mr. liickhem accepted of hireits a tenant, with
an express tnidetstanding that he was to cuscupy the
••. shop °lt the same terms as his father-itaalaw, namely,
to ronaider himself a weekly tenant, payik querterly.
lit 1815, a year and a half after the passing of the
Act for making the new uttreetii sad 'when „every
one knew that the •housef.in. St. "Jatinsei•Unii.
• ket 'would he purchased by the . Cotemissiouers,,;,
, welt the. hoists in questing
.fincu
- • Me: Rickham, for one year; and it w,as
aery low rent, on account of the repairs.; At the
ezpitation of the year he made applicatiMilnr.i.feise
for seven years. but instead of making him any pro-
mire to that select, Mr. [tit:khans told him lie could
not grant his request,. as the house would Ite ,?ken
by the Commissioners, sod that to grant a Jesse
' would be creating new' claims against the Commis-.
• linoirs., which would *.be'„ fraud:silent. anti
affidavit was supported by those of the peison
who collected tie rents for the Doke of Leeds, and
the Secretary of the Commissioners. From the latter
*veld be !coed LIM sem* cfrer to dm Vlaite.ili