removal, but to no purpose; Mrs. Macnamara contending that the passage was an innovation, and that the Blue Road was the proper line of communication. He proceeded, however, by force, to remove the obstructions in question, but they were soon afterwards re-established. Mr. Bushell again remonstrated, but in vain; and he accordingly gave notice, that if the obstructions were not removed in twenty days, he would again proceed as he had before done. Accordingly, on the 13th of February, he went to the spot, accompanied by some men, where he found the defendants marshalling their labourers, and Mr. Hill, in particular, ordering them not to mind what Mr. Bushell said. The parties on each side then commenced, the one to fill up, the other to dig the trenches, and alternately to pull down and remove the obstructions, the other to replace them. During this struggle, the defendants threatened to send the other party to gaol; but they persevered, and succeeded in their purpose of removing the obstructions. These, however, after some time, were again raised, and it became necessary to bring the present action. The learned counsel, having expatiated upon the nature of the offence in question, proceeded to call a variety of witnesses, surveyors, farmers, carriers, newsmen, persons who tithed the road side, who repaired and improved it, and individuals, some of whom had known and traversed the road which had been obstructed for more than seven, others for ten, fifteen, and even fifty years previously.

The foregoing facts were fully proved by a variety of witnesses, among whom were Messrs. Bushell, Taddy, Woodward, Pasmore, &c.

For the defence, Mr. Gurney made an ingenious and animated reply, and called nearly twenty witnesses in support of his statement.

Lord Ellenborough having summed up the evidence, the defendants were found Guilty.

Court of King's-Bench, Wednesday, July 10.-Hume, esq. v. Oldacre.-This was an action of trespass. The plaintiff resides at Pinner-park, near Stanmore: the defendant is huntsman of a pack of hounds employed in the Berkeley hunt. The trespass complained of was, that the defendant broke and entered a close belonging to the plaintiff on the 4th of April 1815.

The Attorney-General said, that the Berkeley hunt had been established about 30 years ago by the noble Earl who bore that title, and it had afterwards been continued by Lord Sefton. At that time it was conducted in the most regular and inoffensive manner, and a field of noblemen and gentlemen was always assembled, who restrained their sports to other parts of the country, without wanton destruction of property in the vicinity of Stanmore and Watford. The hunt then fell into the hands of subscribers, and its character was completely changed, for any Cockney who could hire a horse, or any groom who could borrow one from his absent master, repaired to it for a day's sport, to the great injury of property

property in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, where the soil was ill suited to the purpose. The Berkeley hunt and its trespasses were not unknown to his Lordship, as actions against some of the members had been tried a few years since before him at Hertförd, and it was hoped that nominal damages to settle the right would have been sufficient. In this expectation, however, the injured party was disappointed, and some proprietors of land were under the necessity of instituting new proceedings against the whipper-in, who was now in confinement for the damages and costs, though he would soon be relieved by the operation of that panacea for debtors of all kinds the insolvent act. This whipperin was the son of the present defendant, who by this action would probably be placed in the same situation as his son; but the individuals whose property had been, destroyed had no other remedy to which they could resort. The learned counsel therefore hoped that the jury would give such damages on the present occasion as would give some more effectual protection. To such an extent had the destruction by the gentlemen of the Berkeley hunt been carried, that the noblemen and others, proprietors of estates near Stanmore and Edgware, had been compelled to associate themselves for general defence, and the Earl of Essex and the Marquis of Abercorn had been compelled to put up extraordinary fences round their property: the latter had actually put up chevaux-de-frise, and had dug trenches, but in vain, for these mighty hunters from

1

town defied all obstacles but such as were calculated to resist an invading army. In truth, that part of the country to which he had referred was at present out of the protection of the law; no rights were held sacred, and no property was secure; it was rather like a border district between two hostile countries, than the centre of a land where the law restrained wilful and repeated aggressions.

A notice from many noblemen and gentlemen, and among them from the defendant, dated in 1808, warning the members of the Berkeley hunt from their grounds, was the first piece of evidence: after which Thomas Shirley and Joseph Carwood were called to prove, that the defendant on the 4th of April, with about 30 sportsmen, rode over two fields belonging to Mr. Hume, and destroyed turnips to the value of 40s. or 50s. Mr. Hume had become the proprietor of the fields in question about three years ago.

Lord Ellenborough observed, that the notice, being dated in 1808, could not apply to these closes.

Mr. Gurney, in addressing the jury for the defendant, complained that the Attorney-general, in his speech, had introduced statements which had very little truth, much exaggeration, and no relation to the present cause. Like the Berkeley hunt which he had described, he had ridden over a large field without restraint, trampling down all obstacles that presented themselves to his imaginative course. The fact however was, that the hunt at present was confined to a few individuals of great respectability in the

country,

country, who were disposed to do as little injury as possible, and to make compensation whenever reasonable complaint was made. It appeared in evidence that Mr. Hume had only recently become possessed of the fields on which the defendant had trespassed, and the ignorance of the huntsman of this purchase had led to it, for the plaintiff was the only individual in that parish who objected to the diversion which the defendant was conducting.

After a few remarks from Lord Ellenborough, a verdict was found for the plaintiff-damages 40s.

Hance v. Stone and others. This was an action of trespass for cutting down a parcel of willow trees, in an orchard at Brixton, adjoining the river Epher. Mr. Serjeant Best stated, that the plaintiff was a respectable tradesman in London, and the defendant Stone, who was the principal defendant, a magistrate of Surrey, but whose conduct disgraced the name and character of a gentleman. The plaintiff was in possession of a house at Brixton, adjoining to which was an orchard belonging to the defendant, and which he wished much to possess as a convenience to his house. This the defendant agreed to let to him; but, knowing he desired it much, made a Jew's bargain with him, for he made him pay 101. an acre for the land, and reserved to himself all the fruit, with liberty for his own fowls to walk, and himself and all his company; so that, in fact, the plaintiff had the mere use of it as an object of pleasure from his house. There happened to be some shady willow trees at the

bottom over-hanging the

stream, under which the plaintiff had made a gravel walk, and had placed a tent, and used to recreate himself and family by sitting there on the summer afternoons. The defendant, as he before observed, had reserved to himself the right of walking in the orchard also, and he used this right to the annoyance of the plaintiff and family, and not as a gentleman would have done. This led to some altercation, when, to show the malignant disposition of the man, he came with his workmen one day, and cut down all the willow trees which were the chief object of the plaintiff's pleasure. Now, although he was the owner of the orchard, he was not warranted in doing this, for he had leased it to the plaintiff for five years, under certain conditions ; and although he had reserved a great deal for himself, he had not reserved the trees, and therefore was a trespasser for cutting them down during the continuance of the term.

The lease being read, and the demise proved, Mr. Serjeant Onslow called two witnesses to prove that the trees were beyond the bank, and not within the limits of the orchard, but failing to establish this point, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 501.

COMMERCIAL CAUSES.

Court of Chancery, Wednesday, Jan. 24.-Ex-parte Dyster re Moline.-This was the second argument in this case, which is of the utmost importance to brokers and merchants in the city of London. The facts were these:-Mr. Dyster, a sworn broker, was also a

partner

come

partner in the house of Moline, who traded in Spanish horsehides, and the latter having bebankrupt, Mr. Dyster claimed a debt of nearly 20,000l. which was resisted by the assignees, as illegal. Mr. Dyster then presented a petition to the Lord Chancellor, praying to be allowed to prove his debt, and the facts alleged in support of this application formed the subject of the present argument.

On the part of the assignees it was contended, by Mr. Hart, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Montague, that the petitioner was not entitled to prove; first, because as a broker he could not act at all as a merchant; and, 2dly, on the ground of the immorality of the transaction. To establish the first point, the learned Counsel insisted on the construction of an expired statute of King William, which was renewed by a statute of Queen Anne, whereby it was enacted, that no person should act as a broker in the city of London, unless specially authorised by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, and subject to such rules and regulations for good behaviour as they should think fit and reasonable. By virtue of this statute, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen were stated to have made a certain bye-law, and to have imposed on every person who applied to be admitted a broker, the necessity of executing a bond, with certain conditions, and of taking an oath for the faithful discharge of his duty. The bye-law, it was argued, contained the regulations to which the broker was to be subject, namely, that he should

not deal as a merchant in the same transaction; and this byelaw being authorised by the statute, had all the force of a positive enactment. In support of the second position, it was contended, that the bond and oath restrained the petitioner from acting contrary to the beforementioned rules and regulations, and, consequently, that the transaction in question was immoral, and as such was prohibited by the principles of the common law.

On the part of the petitioner, Sir S. Romilly, Mr. Cooke, and Mr. Roupell, contended, that the gentlemen on the other side had argued upon supposition of a bye law, which had all the effect of a statute law, whereas the statute in question, which was purely a local statute, gave no power whatever to the city of London to make bye laws, but only to prescribe regulations as to the conditions on which a person should be allowed to act as a broker. It was, indeed, a most gratuitous assumption that there existed any bye-law, and if such bye-law had actually been made, it seemed extraordinary that the bond should take no notice of it. All that the Mayor and Aldermen had power to do was, that as soon as they found a man acting contrary to the conditions of the bond, they could enforce the penalty against him. But it had been said there was an oath, and that the Court would not assist the petitioner to recover his demand, in violation of that solemn engagement. This was much the most serious part of the case, not only to the individual concerned in this question,

but

but to every one engaged in mercantile transactions; for if the learned gentlemen were right in their construction of this oath, there was not one man who acts as a broker in the city of London who was not perjured: but what were the words of this oath? They were," You shall sincerely promise and swear faithfully to discharge your duty as a broker, between party and party, without fraud or collusion, to the best of your knowledge." It was adIt was admitted, that if a man acted as broker and principal, and took a larger price than he would have taken in any other character, he had violated this oath; but it was material to state with precision what brokers engaged to do, and in what instances they were perjured, if they did otherwise. They undertook, first, to keep a book, or register, and to enter every contract within three days, with the names of the principals; and, on demand, to produce such entries, in order to prove the truth of the contracts. Secondly, they were to produce a silver medal, to shew that they were authorised to act in the character of brokers. Thirdly, they were not to deal for themselves, or for their own or any other broker's benefit or advantage, and were not to employ a deputy. The question, therefore, came to this: whether the petitioner had done any thing to render his transactions with the bankrupt illegal, so as to prevent him from recovering his debt, on principles of public policy. The learned Counsel asked what the law was that he had violated, which made those transactions illegal? It had been said, that a

man must not carry on trade, holding out false colours, in other words, making false representations to the world. But what was the case here? One might as well say, that a man could not recover who writes up, as many persons do," This is the cheapest shop in London." The fact was, the learned gentlemen had argued the case of persons acting as brokers and merchants in the same transaction; but here, a considerable part of the debt arose out of other transactions. No less a sum than 8,000l. was for loans of money, in which there was no mercantile transaction whatever. Upon the whole, the arguments on the other side were not warranted by the facts of the case, or the principles of equity, and the petitioner was clearly entitled to recover.

The Lord Chancellor said, that this was, indeed, a most important question to the mercantile world. His Lordship had already ordered a question on the statute of James, as to dormant partners, to be made the subject of a case for the opinion of the Court of King's Bench, and he hoped, that when that question came to be argued, it would be considered that the Court of Chancery was not merely a court of equity in matters of bankruptcy, but was bound to enforce the provisions of the several statutes. In point of fact, that question had greatly distressed his Lordship's predecessors, and was justly thought a most difficult question. The present, he repeated, was a most important case, and he was quite satisfied, that he did not know enough of the facts to decide it.

He