but a dry question of boundary; and he would undertake to define the boundary now claimed by his noble client, wide as it would appear, with as much certainty and precision as that of any parish in the county. He should be able to define such boundary, not merely by evidence of the exercise of all the privileges incidental to the Chase in various parts of that extended district in times of high antiquity, and in modern times down to the moment of his addressing the jury, but by ancient decisions of courts of competent jurisdiction, in proceedings by which the exercise of such privileges was resisted and such boundary disputed. The rights were always deemed oppressive by those whom they affected, and many attempts had been made to confine their applications to narrower limits, but such attempts had led to those judicial confirmations of the extended claim of the Chase; and unless those proceedings were of no avail-unless the public records of them which remained as the land-marks of property could be reversed he rested upon them with confident assurance that he should succeed in behalf of his client. The manor of Cranborne was indeed in the county of Dorset, but not within the narrow limits which the defendants would assign to the Chase, claimed as appurtenant to that manor. He admitted that in some ancient documents, the Chase was described as situate in the county of Dorset, but that was because the manor to which it appertains was in that county; still the Chase so appurtenant might be, and its narrowest bounds were, in fact, admitted to be much more extensive. The boundary which he claimed had been defined by a map made under the direction of the King's Exchequer in the reign of James the First; a Court of the Chase had always subsisted, and had always exercised its jurisdiction over persons residing without the limits which the defendants would endeavour to prescribe to the owner of the Chase; and chiminage, which was a toll payable by persons entering the Chase at a certain period of the year, had always been received at the extreme point of the extended boundary. The rights of Lord Rivers might seem doubtful, from the moderation with which they had been exercised; in the outward parts of his franchise they had, during a long period, hardly been felt, and might almost be forgotten; indeed, they remained to the noble Lord, not as a source of profit-not as a means of practical injury to any one-but as a mere honour, and that of great expense to him-as a feather of high estimation-which, however lightly it might be regarded, would, if established as a right, be entitled to protection; and he had no doubt, if so established, would be considered by the jury as weightier in the scale of justice than all the eloquence and all the clamour with which it might be questioned. The proof of the plaintiff's title, by ancient documents, consisted of grants in the 15th year of James 1st to Lord Salisbury, in tail, and subsequent conveyances through Sergeant Best entered upon the defendant's case. He desired the jury to consider what it was for which the plaintiff contended,— namely, a right to feed his beasts of the chase over 500,000 acres of land in three counties, which included an extent of country more than 100 miles in circumference. He claimed that in that wide range no man should plough the land to the detriment of the deer; and no man should raise a fence to the exclusion of the deer; that the growth of wood should be protected only for the benefit of the deer; that if any man turned his sheep into his own woods, they should be impounded by the owner of the deer; that the growth of timber should for ever be prevented by the browsing of the deer; that the rights of the chase should in all things be preferred to the in through several families down to the family of Lord Rivers. They produced also several very ancient proceedings in the reigns of our earliest kings, in which agreements were made between the proprietors of the Chase and various persons, granting them privileges in Wiltshire and in Dorset, within the Chase.-In the Sth Edward 1st, 1280, a writ of quo warranto had issued into Dorsetshire, respecting the Chase, against Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, in which it was alleged by the King's Attorney-General, that, by a perambulation made while King John was Earl of Gloucester, the Chase had been marked out by certain known bounds, (viz. the bounds this day claimed), and those bounds were then adjudged to Gilbert de Clare. In the 15th James 1st, a decree of the King's Court of Exchequer assigned to the Earl ofterests of man; that all cultivaSalisbury the bounds now contended for in Dorsetshire, Wilt shire, and Hampshire. In the 8th Charles 1st, a similar decree passed in the Exchequer. The rolls of the Chase Court were produced, by which persons were fined for offences in Wiltshire; the accounts of the stewards of the Chase proved that such fines were paid, and that chiminage had anciently been levied. It was proved that these courts were held at Cranborne and at Wimborne St. Giles, in Dorsetshire, far without the narrower limits of the Chase, and at Rushmore, in Wiltshire; and that recoveries of the Chase had at various times been suffered in Hampshire and in Wiltshire. On the following morning Mr. : tion should be subservient to those rights, and that the benefit of the deer of Lord Rivers should be paramount to all the rights of property, and make the industry of the husbandman of no avail. He contended, that this claim was in its nature so oppressive, that it could hardly be consistent with any law that the King of England, putting all his forests together, could not exercise such privileges over an extent of soil nearly so great, that it was six times as large as the New Forest; that it was not credible, nay, he contended that it was not possible, that such a right could ever have been given by the worst of our kings to any subject whatsoever, and that, if given, it was contrary to the great Charter of the the Forest, and could not subsist. He pointed out, that this odious claim, so destructive to agriculture and the best rights of the community, was made not for the profit of any one; it was admitted to be an expensive honour; it was a mere feather, of no value to its owner. He was confident that that feather would now be plucked from the wing of Lord Rivers; and he doubted not that the noble Lord would soon renounce the last portion of that which was now claimed for him, and abandon altogether a right which could never be of benefit to him or to his family, and must be always in its exercise most hateful and most oppressive to those who were subject to it. The judicial decisions on which the claim of the plaintiff rested were not the verdicts of juries: but the decisions of Courts in the worst times of our history, which had dared to proceed in defiance of the verdicts of juries: no proprietor of the Chase had in former times ventured to submit his claim to the decision of a Wiltshire jury. He had no respect for such judg. ments, obtained in earlier times, to establish such odious rights: they were void from the beginning, as being contrary to the great Charter of the Forest, and the ancient rights of Englishmen. They were among the grievances which had prepared the way for the glorious revolution of King William. He doubted not that this day the verdict of a jury of Wiltshire would set them all aside. The decision in favour of Lord Salisbury, upon which the plaintiff's claim mainly depended, was fraudulently obtained; the verdict of a jury had just then overturned the rights; Lord Salisbury was then tenant in fee of the Chase; he was High Treasurer of England, and the minion of the reigning sovereign; the judges were dependent upon his will; he surrendered his estate in fee, and took back his estate in tail; the Barons of the Exchequer, then pretending to maintain the rights of the Crown, gave to him that infamous decree without the verdict of a jury, which, he trusted, the verdict of a jury would this day overturn. The evidence for the defendants proved, that the decree in question was so obtained, and contrary to a previous verdict of a jury. It proved, that in many very ancient documents, the Chase was uniformly described as locally situate in Dorsetshire; that in Wiltshire it had very often been resisted with success, and had never been confirmed by a jury. At a very late hour, Mr. Sergeant Lens replied to the defendants' case, and maintained, that, to be rightly determined by the jury, it should be considered merely as a question of boundary, and that the feelings excited by Mr. Sergeant Best were only calculated to mislead the judgment. The learned Judge recapitulated all the evidence, and under his direction, at nearly 2 o'clock on Friday morning, a verdict was found for the defendants. Mr. Sergeant Lens was ably assisted by Mr. Gifford and Mr. Baily, for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Best, by Mr. Casberd and Mr. Gunning, for the defendants. Court Court of Exchequer, July 3.Rex v. Ha!l.-This was a motion to set aside an extent in aid which had been obtained by Messrs. Oldacre and Co. of Worcester, who, as sub-distributors of stamps, had given a bond to account for stamps in their possession when called upon. It was sworn in support of the motion, that it was believed that Oldacre and Co. had given this bond for the very purpose of obtaining extents in aid against their debtors. The Solicitor-General said, that he attended on the part of the crown, notice having been given to the solicitor of stamps. This extent in aid had issued without the knowledge of the crown officers, and he therefore should not interfere between the parties interested. He would only state, that he was informed that this bond had never been required on the part of the head distributor of stamps, but had been volunteered by Messrs. Oldacre and Co.: and he thought such bonds should be given under the sanction of some crown officer, and, when given, deposited with those who were to make use of them if necessary. This bond had not been so deposited. He left it to the Court, and retired. Mr. Dauncey, in support of the extent, said he would not deny that this extent was issued, not for the benefit of the crown, but of the individual. This is, said he, notoriously the case in almost every instance of extents in aid. No one in this court will deny it for a moment. In another place, this has been the subject of much animadversion. It is said this is a great abuse; and one might VOL. LVIII. fancy, according to what is said on this subject elsewhere, that it is highly immoral for an active creditor to gain a preference be fore other creditors. The law allows this. Any man may gain a preference by suing a fieri facias. A crown debtor can do no more than others, only he can do it quicker and it is reasonable, for he is liable to be called on by the crown on a sudden; and he ought therefore to have a speedy process against his debtor. If the legislature thought proper to take away this right, he should have no objection; but while the law remained unchanged, the court would continue to do what it had ever done. Serjeant Copley endeavoured to show, from the form of the bond, that the crown creditor had no right, because he was bound not to pay money due, but to account, and he had never been called on to account; but the court held that, being a bonddebtor, he possessed the right of other bond-debtors. The rule was discharged. In another case of extent which had been decided the same morning, the court held that it is not necessary for a party applying for an extent to swear to what amount he is indebted to the crown, in order that the court may see that the debt to the crown is equal to the sum for which the extent in aid issues. Mr. Francis Creswell, first mate of the Thames East Indiaman, for being concerned in the unshipment of a considerable quantity of China silks from on board the said ship into boats belonging to smugglers off the coast of this country, contrary to the revenue laws: and the penalties sought to be recovered amounted to three times the value of the said goods. Edward Roche deposed, that in April, 1814, he was quarter-master on board the Thames East Indiaman. She had sailed for China, but he could not tell when she arrived there. The defendant was the chief mate, and Mr. Henry Ladd was third mate. When at China, several small boxes were taken on board by the direction of Mr. Ladd. There were from 17 to 20, weighing about 50 pounds each: they looked like sea boxes. Witness was called out of his hammock by Mr. Ladd to take them out of the Chinese boat. This was between two and three in the morning. One half was carried into Mr. Creswell's cabin, and the other half into the gun room. There was a bit of tin on each corner of the boxes put into the gun room. There was an iron mark on the others. Mr. Creswell was on board at this time, but he did not appear during the transaction. The ship arrived in England in August last; when off Scilly, a pilot boat came towards the ship, a small boat was launched from her, which came alongside the Thames, and some men came on board from it. Witness, by the desire of the boatswain, went to call the gunner; he passed Mr. Creswell's cabin, and saw some silks lying on his table, which were taken from a box standing on the floor The box looked like one of those which witness took in at China. The silks consisted of shawls and handkerchiefs. Mr. Creswell, Mr. Daniel, one of the mates, and Mr. Ladd, were in the cabin, as were the men who had come on board, smugglers he believed them to be; he saw these men in conversation with Mr. Creswell, and pay some bank notes, which they laid on the table. After this the men, six or seven in number, took the silks and wrapped them round their bodies and legs, under their clothes, and went off. There were still more silks remaining, and one of the men said these were to be left till they came back again for them. The box from which the silks had been taken, was sent to the cook to burn. Before the men went off in the boat, four boxes were brought upon deck, which were the same witness took in at ChiThe lid of one of the boxes was loosed, and witness saw it contain silks and shawls: he believed witness was ordered to put them into the boat alongside. The boat was then rowed off. The boat came alongside in the morning, and went away between two and three in the afternoon. na. George Lancaster, a seaman on board the Thames, corroborated the testimony of the last witness, as to the smugglers coming on board off Scilly, going down into the cabin, and going away again with the silk. The boxes put into the boat might contain about sixty pieces each. The boat came alongside at four in the afternoon. William Eckloffstein was also a seaman on board the Thames : was |