Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

35 articles on this Page

,-(Due foukt Comspntat.

--THE HORRORS OF BEDLAM.

A REAL BIT OF ROMANCE !

A VIOLENT LOVER IN CAMBRIDGE.

THE END OF A POLISH PATRIOT.

THE LANCASHIRE DISTRESS.

MR, BRIGHT EXPLAINS THE REAL…

THE REPEAL OF THE MALT.TAX.

[No title]

----INSTANCES OF HIGH CIVILISATION.

A DOMESTIC TRAGEDY IN CUMBER-LAND.

A ROMANCE IN LOW LIFE.

'"9"""= EXTRACTS FROM "MANHATTAN'S"…

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

HOW to DISPOSE of TWO MILLIONS…

LAYING CLAIM TO AN ESTATE.

News
Cite
Share

LAYING CLAIM TO AN ESTATE. In the Vice-Chancellor's Court in London, the cause of Selby-Lowndes v, Bettle" has come on for hearing. The ob- ject of the bill was to restrain the defendant from cutting down trees or sods on the plaintiff's estates. The facts, which aro of a singular kind, arc sufficiently stated, in his honour's judgment, as follows :— The Vice-Chancellor said this was a bill by Mr. IiOwndes and those entitled in succession, asking for an injunction to restrain the defendants from cutting down the timber on his estate. The facts were these —in 1768, one James Selby, who was the owner in fee of the property, could not ascertain who was his heir, and prior to his death he made a will in 1768, by which he devised to his own right and lawful heir to his estate, all his manor at Wootton, &c., to hold to his heir-at-law, charged with payment of his debts; but in case he had no heir, he appointed William Lowndes his lawful heir, on condition that he should take the name of Selby. He gave his personal estate elsewhere. He died unmarried in 1772. Shortly after his death advertisements for his heir- at-law were issued, and many persons claimed, but none were able to make out their title. In 1773, a I bill was filed to establish the trusts of his will. The same year Mr. Lowndes himself filed a bill to have his rights ascertained, and soon after that he took the name of Selby, having obtained alicence so to do. In March, 1783, the two suits came on to be heard, and a decree was made declaring the will of the testator proved and that the estates were to be considered as belonging to Mr. Lowndes, and that Mr. Lowndes should be let into possession. He accordingly entered into possession, and he and his family have enj oyed the estates ever since, i. e. for 80 years. William Selby, the plaintiff, is the grand- son of the first William Selby. It appeared that among the persons who have from time to time alleged themselves neirs-at-law of the testator, were persons of the name ol HettIe," the same name as the defendant, who now claimed to be heir-at-law, but no legal proceedings have ever -been taken, and the defendant might as we'lhave laid Claim to Chatsworth, as to this, after an enjoymentof 80 years. In Sep- tember, 1861, Bettle,the defendant, sent notices to the tenants requiring them not to pay rent to the present trustee," Mr. Selby-Lowndes. He also threatened litigation, which he had a perfect right to do. In May, 1861, the defendant wrote to Mr. Selby-Lowndes himself, stating that his family had at stated periods made nominal claims to the estate, cutting down trees, &c., but for want of means, not for want of evidence, had not prosecuted the claim. The letter went on to threaten to do some mischief, not wantonly, but in order to bar the statutes, meaning the Statute of Limitation. In reply, Mr. Selby-Lowndes's solicitor (Mr. Appleyard) wrote to warn the defendant not to trespass, and intimating to him that if he did trespass, proceedings would be taken against him. The defendant, in reply, wrote to Mr. Lowndes, stating he persevered in his intention, and would dig up trees and cut sods, and further stated that the statutes were bound by law, proceedings having been taken by Mr. Selby- Lowndes himself. He stated it was a member of liis family who some 40 years ago took forcible possession of the hall with a file of men and kept it some days. The defendant also reminded the plaintiff of certain alleged acts of aggression, and stated that when he was reduced to beggary he would suffer justly for the iniquities of which he was guilty. The two letters together, putting aside the vulgarity of them, amounted to this, that he (the defendant) was heir, and that the statute was barred; and that it was his intention when he pleased to cut down trees in order to assert his right. The bill stated these facts, and alleged that cutting down these trees would be a permanent detriment to the estate. An injunction had been granted nearly in the terms of the prayer of bill, and he had since put in an answer laying claim to the estate, but not making any attempt to establish his title as heir-at-law; but while the injunction was pending he said he did not intend to do the acts com- plained of. At the hearing of the cause it was con- tended that this Court in a case of this kind would not interfere, but he (the Vice-Chancellor) had gone through all the decided cases, which presented a very un- satisfactory state-partly arising from the change of practice in these courts, by which more facility was shown in granting injunctions in case of trespass than formerly. Lord Eldon even in his time observed a change* His honour then said, there was a distinction between cases where the plaintiff was in possession and where the defendant was in possession. His honour then quoted at some length cases which had been cited as to trespass, and said lie might refer to many dicta of the learned judges as to the in- justice of making the distinction between trespass and waste. The question now was what ought to be done here. If the defendant sought to do any act to support bis title, this Court would not restrain him, but these acts would not assist him, though the de- fendant evidently thought they would. Now, assum- ing that he claimed title, he threatened he would cut down what trees he pleased at his discretion. This came within the class of irremediable damage, and he felt he ought to make a dccree for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from cutting down timber and sods, the defendant to pay the costs of the suit.

ITHE MURDER NEAR LEOMINSTER.

O'KANE v. O'KANE AND LORD…

[No title]

THE PARISIANS OFFENDED!

AN ILLUSTRIOUS VISITOR!

[No title]