Court Of Common Pleas, Mo...
The Times, 1824-07-06T00:00:00

;SUn5ill HRatrco. ) at the siting Of the Court thlis day, Atr. 4aaeee, Mr. R. ~ps~ie,an&hr. . AamA havng eenpromoted to the coif, aleitm~u~4 with the ust~at fornrnieCsl, =and took their seats at lIr. OeI)sel tiet tctire4 for the purpos Nof beisg. sworn into the ofdee of one of the Judges of this court, in the seem of Mfr. Justice REchardson, who has retirea in consequence of ill bealth. GARLAND V. JEXIlL-. ItGrHT OF TUi LOF1D OF A MANOR TO A HEltIOT. In this case the plaintiff was the lord of a manor in Essex, of whith thelateSir Cbarles Bunbury was a copyhold tenant to 14 dif- ferent shares,whichl had formerly belongedto 14 diff'ercpt tenants, but which were now *unitedin his possession. The shares, it appeared, had belonged originally to two tenants, but In the course ot descent to their heirs became divided into th ose 14 shares. While so di- vided, it appeared that on the death of each tenant his heir and sue- cessor was called upon to pay a heriot in respect of the property to which he succeeded. The heriot demanded was the best horse in possession of the tenart. So that there were 14 llorses paid altogether for the 14 shares. The estates at length became united in the possession of Sir Charles Bunbury, whosc executor was the defendant, and the lord of the manor now claimed foutteen heriots, in the saure manner as If the property still continued subdi- vided among fourteen tenants. On thts ground he brought his ac- tion, which vas tried in 1822, before Lord Chief Justice Dallas. On that occasion the ury gave a verdict for the plaintiff subject to the opinion of the Court on the ?uestion whether tbe lord of the rnanor had a legal claim to morethnn the two heriots, which he could have demanded when the land went from him to the possession of tWro tenants. For the plaintiff it was contended that the estates having been once subdivided, and having paid separate heriots, those heriots should be cortinued oven by a tenant who held all the shares-toge- th r. For the defendant it was maintained, that the lord of the manor should not be placed In a better situation than that in which he was when the estate was originally granted by him. Lord Chief Justice BEST this day proceeded to deliver the judg- ment of the Court. lie obsetved, that after hearing what had been said on both sides, and giving the mnost attentive consideration to the ease, they w ere of opinion that the verdict should be entered for the plaintifl but only for two heriots, as was the original claim, It w as trle that it had been the practice of the lord of the manor to receive a beriot from the heir of each tenant, rfheni the property was subdivided between 14 persons. This had arisen fom the necessity of the case, as the heir of every tenant was bound to pay a heriot to the lord of the manor for the protection of hisinterests,and his admission to the estate of his ancestor. That necessity had now ceased, and theretore the right which arose out of it must have ceased also. In former timnes, the lord of a manor was the pro- prietos notmeTely of the estate, but in a great degree also of the tenant who occupied it. The case, however, was very different in the present day. This most fortunate change had not been effected by those statutes to which Englishmen were in the habit of referring with so much pleasure. It hatl been made, and he stated it with pride and satisfaction, by the Judges of *Vestminster-hall, whose deci- sions confining te known limits the rightof thelords of manors, had raised a numerous body of Englishmen (copyhold tenants) from a state of slavery, and created a very valuable species of property. If the Court did not decide the present case upon the same principles upoh which such former decisions had been made, it would be ut- terly destroying the benefit arising from them. The verdict must, therefore, stand for the plaintilf; but only for two of the horses which had been seized as heriots. It had been agreed between the parties that the value of the two horses should be tsken (should the Court decide upon allowing them to the plaintiff). This value was ascertained to be 1581. Ifs. The famoas race-horse Smolensko was one of the horses originally claimed by the plaintiff as a heriot, being the best horse in the pos. session of the heir; but it was held, that the horse not being on the property at the time the claim was made, it shotild not be allowed, COUlRT OF COMMON PLEAS, MONDA-. Jiri.V '- TBE NEW SERGEA?IT-.