Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-12-03T00:00:00

I.ws uay Lle aaJournet sittings commenced belbre the LoanD CHIEF JUSTICE and commoniuries. lnais was an action fbr money had and received to the plaintiff's use. It ivas brought by Air. Bartlett, an attorney, against lr. Dosrnes, also a gentleman of the legal profesion, to recover l'ees received by him in the character of steward of the manor of Dan- bury, in hssex, to which office tie plaintiff'claims a right, and the quehtion in the cause, therefore, was, whether Mr. Bartlett was tie jare steward of the manor. It appeared that Mirs. Wray, the last lady of the manor, bya leed of the sameaatewithherwill.appointed Al1r. Bartlett steward for the term of his life. After her death, 'the brother of the defendant being devisee under the will, treated this appointment as void, and appointed the defendant. The main question, therefore, was, whether a tenant in fee of a manor can grant the office of steward to a party for life so as to bind a succeasor. ,ut AMr. Scarlett, for the defendant, raised another objection to the plaintiff's title; namely, that the legal interest was not in Airs. Wrav when lhe made uhe rzrant, because there was an out-stnnding term created in the year 1712, to raise portions for younger children on a marruLge. Hc produred, besides the original deed, a deed bearing date in 1785, in which the ter,n wa. assigned to trustees to ,artend the inheritance, and another deed in 1793, .peaking gene- rally efoutstanding terms, but not of this particular term. Ttio LORDi CU1EF JUSTICE held, that it was still a question for the jury whether this ternm had not merged in the inheritance, and proposed to levve it to them for their decision. Ar. AlARRYAT accordingly, for the plaintiff, urged that it was probable the term had been assigined, and calleli on the jury to pre. sumc it, in order to prevent tbe justice of the case from being de- featedi. The LcaD CrIEF JUtSTrCE then submitted this question to the jury, observing 'hat terms of this kind were sometimes conveyed to the heir, thoughi not very often s aud it was for them to judge whether there ha( been a mzerger. The Jury, who seemed very mssch perplexed by the matter on *which they wqre required to decide, deliberated for a quarter of an hour, and then said they were realy to delivey their verdict. The LOD CriEX JPsrcE explained, that they were not yet called on to give a verdict for the plaintiff or the defendant; but rmerely to say vhcther this eld term had been surrendered to the beir. The explanation seemed to renew the perplexities of tbejury, who Swain turned round to deliberate: after afurtherconsultation of ten minutes, the jary found tbat the term had- merged. The Lonr C('HIEX JISTICE then directed them to find a verdict for the plaintiff to the amount of fees received by the deftendant, which- thtyaccordingly returnea. rJr.' SCAT41.ETT asked 'for. leave to move for a nonsuit, if the Caurt shlould cthink that die late lady of the manor had no right to gr-ant tbs, office for l ife. The hnRD eIEtEF Jie,TrcE declined to do 8o; but lefc the le4mred ciunsel to move for a new trial, If he thought the directiob lrong. fe woutd have given leave tomovefor anonsuit,'if the de. fendrant bd relied oa the general question oir right; bat as he had o. to cet up this outstanding terra, he would leave him to move for a new trfal. - - COURT OF KING'S BENCH. AVrST5',fTYrFrn n, 9- *BARTLEtT V. DlOW)1qR.