It appeared in evidence that in the year 1836, the Marquis of Bute sold by auction a space of ground in the parish of Luton, on which there then stood a few cottages and an ancient blacksmith's shop of the defendant's. These buildings were all pulled down, and the defendant built his new shop near the old one; he also became the purchaser of one of the lots, for the purpose of building a dwellinghouse. A Mr. Burr, a brewer of Luton, purchased three other lots, on two of which he erected houses, one of which he let to the plaintiff, the other to a Mr. Harrison. Behind his house, and within a few feet of the defendant's shop and forge, the plaintiff built warehouses, and formed a yard for the drying and bleaching of straw plat, which article he manufactured to some extent. Harrison's kitchen chimney, a baker's chimney, and many others, but particularly the large brewery chimney of the plaintiff's landlord, Burr, are in the immediate vicinity of the plaintiff's premises, and send out continual and uncomfortable quantities of smoke. But above all, the plaintiff complained of the defendant's forge-chimney, from which the witnesses swore they could see not only large volumes of smoke, but great quantities of sparks and soot issue. These sooty particles, "blacks," fall on to the plat of the plaintiff as it hangs out to dry, covering it to such a degree that it is frequently necessary to wash it a second time before it is in a fit state for the market. Besides this, the plaintiff and his neighbours are often obliged to keep their house windows closed, in order to keep out the "blacks," which cover counterpanes and furniture when they are left exposed to it. It was also shown that loud and sleep-disturbing noises proceed from the hammer and anvil used by the defendant, to the annoyance of the neighbourhood, though to no great extent. Mr. Andrews, for the defendant, contended that the plaintiff had no right to build premises and establish a trade requiring a peculiarly pure and clear air, in the heart of a busy and thriving town like Luton, and then to complain of the exercise of a useful and lawful trade by a neighbour, which was carried on long before the plaintiff built his own premises. The reasonable exercise of a man's legal rights is not the subject of an action for a nuisance, even although it may annoy another; as, where a brewer, butcher, or the like, carries on his trade in a lawful manner and in a proper place. Here the defendant had established his trade before the plaintiff had built his premises, and the latter had, therefore, no right to complain. He should moreover shew, that by far the greatest quantity of smoke came, not from the defendant's shop, in which only a single workman was || employed, but from the chimneys of the breweries of Mr. Burr and others, in the immediate neighbourhood. Evidence was given in support of this statement, and the leading manufacturers of straw plat in Luton, stated that it would be impossible to carry on the business for which their town is so celebrated if they were extreme in complaining of every little injury they received from the blacks and smoke from their neighbours' chimneys. The Lord Chief Justice left it to the jury to say whether the evidence satisfied them that the smoke and dirt from the defendant's chimney rendered the occupation of the plaintiff's house, in a sensible and substantial degree, uncomfortable, or interfered in the like degree with his carrying on of the trade upon his premises. If they thought it did, the defendant could not justify himself in this action; if they thought that the house was not rendered substantially uncomfortable or lessened its value, and that the mode in which the defendant carried on his business did not interfere with the fair exercise of the plaintiff's trade, their verdict would be for the defendant. Verdict for the defendant. SPECIAL JURY. TIPLADY V. HUNT AND CHASE. ATTORNIES-Liability of, in conducting their business to an action for damages, where they had charged a party with felony for taking purchase money from an attorney's table, to the whole of which he was not entitled, and refusing to distribute it among the parties who were entitled. This was an action for maliciously charging the plaintiff with felony before a magistrate, and afterwards indicting him at the quarter sessions for that offence. The plaintiff is a plumber at Luton, in which town the defendants carry on, but not in partnership, the profession of attorneys. The following appeared to be the somewhat singular facts of this case. The plaintiff, in 1837, purchased a small property in Luton for the price of 2501. of a Mr. Barrett, of which he paid 150%, leaving the deeds in the hands of Mr. Chase, as Barrett's solicitor, as a security for the other 100. Besides this charge, the estate was encumbered with a mortgage to one Miss Barnett, for the like sum of 100%. In June, 1838, the plaintiff agreed to sell the property to one Warren for 230.; the defendant Hunt was concerned for Warren in the transaction. It was arranged that the mortgage to Miss Barnett should be discharged out of the moneys to be paid by Warren to the plaintiff, and upon the faith of her being paid when the purchase should be completed. Mr. Chase procured her to execute the deed, conveying the property to Warren, in which deed she released the estate and all parties Mr. Chadwick Jones appeared specially to defend him, and after the charge of the learned chairman, Mr. Pym, the jury at once, and without hesitation, acquitted him. Hence the present action. His attorney's bill for the defence was upwards of 1007. By way of proving that he had sustained "special damages," by the charge of felony having been made by the defendants, the plaintiff called two shoemakers, from Luton, who stated that in consequence of that charge they refused to make shoes for his wife and children " on credit." The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said he was clearly of opinion that no felony had been committed by the plaintiff. He had been guilty of an audacious trespass, for which the defendants might have had a civil remedy, but could not proceed by indictment. Still, although there was no reasonable cause for preferring the charge, the jury must be satisfied that the defendants acted from malicious motives, and not under a fair and bonâ fide belief that the plaintiff had committed a felony, before they could find a verdict for the plaintiff. Of express malice on the part of the defendants no proof had been even attempted to be given; and it would be for the jury to say whether, under the extraordinary circumstances before them they could see any ground for inferring that the defendants had been actuated by malice in any part of the proceeding. from the mortgage money. On the 15th of || for stealing the money so often mentioned. June, the plaintiff, the defendants, Warren the purchaser, and some other parties met in order to complete the business. The deeds were produced, and Warren placed 2301., the purchase-money, in the hands of Hunt. The servant of Mr. Chase was sent to procure change for one of the notes, for 100%., and during his absence an account was produced containing a statement of the claims of the various parties. By this it appeared there was due to Miss Barnett 1051., for principal and interest on her mortgage; 621. to Barrett on his, and a small sum to Chase as their solicitor-in all amounting to 174. This account the plaintiff went through, item by item, and, finding it correct, he agreed that Hunt should deduct the amount from the 2301. On the return of the messenger with the change for the 100%. note, the 230l. was placed by Mr. Hunt upon the table at which they sat; but it had not lain there more than a minute when the plaintiff "made a long arm," took up the money and put it into his pocket, at the same time saying it was long since he had had so much money about him, and he "should like just to say he had such a sum." Presently, upon the deeds being laid before him for execution, he was required to return the money to Mr. Hunt for distribution as above mentioned, but this he wholly refused to do, though much urged by the parties. Mr. Hunt, thinking at the time that the whole matter was only a joke on the part of the plaintiff, allowed him to sign the deeds, and this having been done he renewed his request on the plaintiff to give up the money, but in vain. Entreaty was useless, and after several threats to send for the constable, that officer was fetched in good earnest. The plaintiff, being told that he had arrived, threw down a 100%. note upon the table, saying at the same time, "There's Miss Barnett's money," but refusing to relinquish either Barrett's or Chase's share. The constable was then called in, and having, with the assistance of two other men, wrenched another 1007. from the plaintiff, Mr. Hunt took 74l., and offered the plaintiff the balance of 261., which the latter refused to take. He was then taken before a magistrate, who, after taking the depositions, remanded him, but allowed the constable to convey him to his own house. The officer and his prisoner sat conversing for some hours, but towards the morning the constable, unused to be so occupied during the hours of darkness, fell into a profound sleep, from which he waked not until he felt something "brushing past him." Upon waking he had just time to see his charge escaping without his hat; he pursued him, but in vain. It appeared, however, that the plaintiff got away only for the purpose of consulting his attorney, by whose advice he surrendered himself at the first meeting of the magistrates for Bedfordshire, by whom he was held to bail to appear at the sessions. He appeared accordingly, when he was tried upon an indictment Verdict for the defendants. SITTINGS. COURT OF CHANCERY. VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT. ROLL'S COURT. Adjourned to Tuesday, April 9. TO CORRESPONDENTS. "R. P." We admit that through an error of the press, the first seven lines of our Annual Subscribers. Subscriptions, 17. 10. for the year, to be paid in advance. ERRATA. Page 321, in the seventh line of the first column, leading article last week are unintelligible. place a comma after the word "contemplates.” (See the Errata below.) A comma was in tended by us to be placed after the word comma the sentence, with attention, may Page 324, omit "to be continued." On the 1st April, Price 28., THE LEGAL GUIDE. an Original Essay upon be readily understood. We are much pleased CONTAINw Statute of Limitations relat men. in seeing that our readers do pay attention ing to Real Property, illustrated by the to matter so highly important to practical Opinions of Conveyancers, and shewing in what manner the Courts are disposed to give The sentence alluded to is in refer-effect to that Statute. - Also an Original ence only to the species of past possession Essay upon the present State of the Law governing the Liabilities of Legal and Equitonly, which the act contemplates; for though, able Mortgages, occasioned by Flight v. Bentley, being overruled.-The Practice of as we have said, (a) the act is retrospec- Solicitors "attesting Petitions" in Banktive, yet it must be so far qualified in its ruptcy. - The Practice of instituting Suits by Femes Covert. New Forms of Writs construction as to exclude from its operation under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110. s. 20.-Judgment of Sir H. Jenner in the Will case of James cases in which the state of circumstances Wood, of Glocester, Banker.-Important Dewithin its purview, had existed for the full Sections of the Insolvent Act coming into cision upon Attornies' Certificates. New period requisite to complete the bar, but Operation.-Law relating to the Brokers of London. Reports of Practical Cases at the had ceased to exist before the passing of the Assizes.-List of Sheriffs.-Legal Business in act, and in which, therefore, the title had Parliament, and Index to the Part. reassumed its rightful aspect. See also Hayes's Conveyancing. In the case of Doe dem. Thompson . Thompson, 6 Adolp. & Ellis, 721 ; ante, p. 321.-it was contended that a fee simple arose by the passing of the act that was impossible. TO SUBSCRIBERS. A complete Index to this work, with a Title Page, will be published every six months. This Paper will be forwarded, postage free, to any part of the United Kingdom, to (a) Ante, p. 321. John Richards & Co., 194, Fleet Street. WHITE'S ESSENCE OF EGLANTINE. A Highly Fashionable and peculiar Hand kerchief Scent, possessing extracts from the most fragrant flowers, and forming a perfume at once sweet, agreeable, and refreshing. In Bottles at 2s. 6d., and 4s. 6d. each. Also, White's Aromatic Pungent Essence, so exceedingly useful in Head-aches, Fainting, &c., and particularly reviving in crowded-rooms. In neat stoppered Bottles at 2s. 6d. each. The above prepared only by Thomas White, Chemist, 24, Cornhill, London. And sold by all respectable Chemists and Perfumers in the Kingdom. Printed by ALEXANDER ELDER MURRAY, Printer, at his Printing-Office, Green Arbour-court, Old Bailey, in the Parish of St. Sepulchre, in the City of London; and Published by JOHN RICHARDS, Law Bookseller, 194, Fleet-street, in the Parish of St. Dunstan's-inthe-West, in the City of London. Saturday, 30th March, 1839. Price 6d. Stamped Edition, 7d. The Legal Guide. No. 23.] SATURDAY, APRIL 6, 1839. MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. occasion also observes, "There is some ob It is observed by two modern writers (a) upon the subject, that "the point (the confusion) may not be of any material consequence, further than as it is important in all cases that a construction should be adopted consistent with the general principles of law; and as the privity which may exist between the mortgagee and a mortgagor in possession, in consequence of a tenancy being considered as subsisting between them, may materially affect the operation of a conveyance from the former to the latter." We cannot, however, bring ourselves to such a conclusion;—if the law be unsettled, or confused upon any point, the resulting consequences may be of the highest importance. Indeed one of the same writers on another (a) Coote and Morley's note to Watkins on Conveyancing, 13; 8th Edition. VOL. I. scurity in the books, in what light the mortgagor, during the period of actual possession, or receipt of the rents of the land, stands in respect of the mortgagee. The result of the cases, however, appear, that he may be considered as tenant for a term, or at will, or by sufferance, or a trespasser, according to circumstances. (b) Surely if the law be so obscure, the point must be of much greater importance than these gentlemen have shewn in the quotation we first made. In Keech. Hall, (c) an ejectment was brought by a mortgagee, against a lessee, under a lease in writing for seven years, made after the date of the mortgage, by the mortgagor, who had continued in possession. The lease was at a rack-rent. The mortgagee had no notice of the lease, nor the lessee any notice of the mort gage. The defendant offered to attorn to the mortgagee before the ejectment was brought. Lord MANSFIELD, in delivering the judgment of the court, said there was no notice to quit; so that, though the written lease should be bad, if the lessee is to be considered as tenant from year to year, the plaintiff must fail in this action. The question, therefore, for the court to decide is, whether by the assignment understood between mortgagors and mortgagees, which is, that the latter shall receive interest, and the former keep possession, the |