APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



279 



counti'y, who were disijosed to 

 do as little injury as possible, and 

 to make compensation whenever 

 reasonable complaint was made. 

 It appeared in e\idence that Mr. 

 Hume had only recently become 

 possessed of tlie 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 indivi- 

 dual in that parish who objected 

 to the diversion which the de- 

 fendant was conducting. 



After a few lemarks from Lord 

 Ellenborough, a verdict was found 

 for the plaintiff — damages 40s. 



Hance v. Stone and others. This 

 was an action of ti espass for cut- 

 tingdown a parcel of willow trees, 

 in an orchard at Brixton, adjoin- 

 ing the river Epher. Mr. Ser- 

 jeant 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 con- 

 venience to his liouse. This the 

 defendant agreed to let to him j 

 but, knowing he desired it much, 

 made a Jew's bargain with him, 

 for he made him pay lOl. an acre 

 for the land, and reserved to him- 

 self all tlie fruit, witli liberty for 

 Ids own fowls to walk, and him- 

 self and all his company j so that, 

 in fact, the plaintiflhad the mere 

 use of it as an object of pleasure 

 from his house. There happened 

 to be some shiwJy willow trees ac 

 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 ob- 

 served, had reserved to himself 

 the right of walking in the orchard 

 also, and he used this right to the 

 annoyance of the plaintiff and fa- 

 mily, and not as a gentleman 

 would have done. This led to 

 some altercation, when, to shew 

 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 war- 

 ranted 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 On- 

 slow called two witnesses to prove 

 that the trees were beyond the 

 bank, and not witliin the limits 

 of the orchard, but failing to esta- 

 blish this point, the jury found a 

 veichct for the plaintiff — Damages 

 501. 



COMMEJICIAL CAUSES. 



Court of Chancery, Wednesday, 

 Jan. 24. — Ex-parte D'jster re Mo- 

 line. — This was the second argu- 

 ment in this case, which is of the 

 utmost importance to brokers and 

 merchants in the city of London. 

 The facts were these : — Mr. Dy- 

 stcr_, a sworn broker^ was also a 



partner 



