Removal of the Courts from Westminster. in the new palace, by a grand public entrance when the offices were built in 1775, was six mil- lions, and had now increased to sixty millions; He then describes the proposed site lying year was nineteen millions; that the business that the annual amount received and paid last between the Strand on the south, Carey-street had largely increased, there being now ten reon the north, Chancery-lane on the east, and gistrars where formerly there were only two, Clements Inn and New Inn on the west. The and twenty-six clerks instead of four. He also clearance of the lanes and alleys within that stated that there was an impossibility of inarea he points out as of vast advantage to the creasing the accommodation in the present neighbourhood. The purchase of this site he offices. estimates at £675,000. He would occupy the centre of the square with the new courts, widen rated Law Society, gave evidence in support Mr. Maugham, the secretary to the Incorpothe Strand and part of Fleet-street to one hun- of the petition presented by that society, which dred feet; Carey-street to sixty feet; and grant consisted of 1350 members, and of another building leases for chambers on the east and petition which had been promoted by the sowest sides of the courts, the ground-rents of ciety, signed by 630 individual members of the which would defray nearly one half the price profession, residing in various parts of the of the whole ground. Then the rest of the metropolis, as well in the City and West End, present offices of all the courts, which would as in the neighbourhood of the inns of court. be brought under the roof of the new courts, would be available to a large extent in further reduction of the purchase. returns, the amount of fees paid into the consoHe also stated, from several parliamentary He states the proposed style of architecture expenses) by the three common law courts, lidated fund (after deducting salaries, rent and of the new building to be that of the middle amounting to upwards of £30,000 a year, on ages, with its principal front to the Strand and which, however, certain pensions were chargeFleet-street. The former design for Lincoln's- able, but which, by the death of the parties, inn-fields was of Grecian architecture, the object being to keep the building at a moderate elevation. The proposed edifice will be much more lofty. Mr. Cadogan, the surveyor, confirms, from his practical knowledge, the estimates of Mr. Barry as to the expense of the new site, and the deductions to be made on account of the present offices. He then describes the character of the neighbourhood where the courts are proposed to be erected as still worse than formerly, deficient in drainage, much crowded, and most unwholesome. And he considers it would be a gain to the respectability and health of that great part of the town, if the houses were swept away and new buildings erected. would be gradually diminished. He also gave an account of the suitors fund and fee fund in Chancery, and stated the amount of the surplus. amount of rent paid by the several law and From the same returns he also showed the equity offices, which might be saved if those offices were removed to the site of the new courts. His evidence also went to show the inconvenient situation of the present offices in various parts of Chancery-lane, the Temple, Lincoln's Inn, and other places; and the great advantage and facility which would result in the dispatch of business by collecting all the offices under one roof. Thus has the case been powerfully Mr. Lambert Jones, the chairman of the com- strengthened by this evidence, and the mittee for City Improvements, described the plans which have been published along direction of the new street which was intended with it, furnish on the face of them an to be formed in the City from St. Paul's irresistible argument. Churchyard in a middle course between Lud-new palace at Westminster shows the comgate-hill and Snow-hill, across Faringdon-street The plan of the to Fetter-lane.a He also stated that there parative insignificance of the space occuwould be no strong objection on the part of pied by the present courts, the impossithe City to the removal of Temple Bar, pro- bility of extending it, and the great advanvided boundary gates were placed in its stead. tage to the design of the palace of removMr. Parkinson, the chief clerk to the Ac- ing the courts. countant-General of the Court of Chancery, stated the insufficient and inconvenient condition of the offices in that important department of the business of the court,-that the former fire-proof rooms were obliged to be used for the additional registrars of the court; that the books relating to the large funds in court were not secured from fire; that the money in court posed new site, with the chambers adjoinThen the second plan describes the proing-placed in the very heart of the law district. Thus on the south there is the Inner and Middle Temple, and several adjoining streets occupied by professional offices;-on the north is situate Lincoln's Inn, Lincoln's Inn Fields, Bedford-row, This street might be readily united to east, Chancery-lane, Serjeant's Inn, SyGray's Inn, and Furnival Inn;—on the Carey-street across the Rolls Estate, along the north sides of the new courts, and thence mond's Inn, Staple Inn, Barnard's Inn, and to Long-acre and the new opening to Picca- various streets in which are solicitors' and on the west is New Inn, dilly. offices; Clement's Inn, Lyon's Inn, &c. &c. We say is to be found in the last number of Messrs. the very locality, when thus viewed, demonstrates convincingly that this is the spot of all others in which the courts should be placed. And then let it never be forgotten that this "Law District" is also the centre of the metropolis, equi-distant from the City and the Houses of Parliament, and near the banks of our great river. Clarke & Finnelly's Reports, illustrative of the just severity with which professional frauds, happily in our country of but rare occurrence, are visited by courts of equity. The leading circumstances appear to have been shortly these: In the year 1770, the late Sir John Trevelyan was owner of the manor of Seton, in DevonWe deem a view of the locus in quo so shire. The steward and receiver of this estate important, and calculated to afford so con- was the late Mr. Thomas Charter, a solicitor, vincing an argument in favour of the plan, residing at Bishop's Lydeard, who, as the that we have had an engraving made, (taken agent of Sir John in that and other business, on a diminished scale from that of Mr. Barry,) had for many years enjoyed much of his conshowing the proposed site, and a large part fidence. In 1785, Sir John became desirous of the surrounding streets and inns of of selling this property, and authorised Mr. court. The shaded parts of the engraving show the residence of the lawyers. The names of the principal places are stated on the plan, and the following statement will explain the details :— Charter to look out for a purchaser. Accordingly, it appeared that in 1787 he entered, on behalf of Sir John, into consecutive treaties with two gentlemen for a sale of the estate at 13,650l., but the treaties broke off in both cases; whereupon Sir John wrote to him, saying he should be glad to receive 13,000 guineas for the property at any time," and the sooner the better, as he knew how to apply the opened a treaty with the trustees of Sir Thomas money." Upon this general authority, Charter Acland, and a bargain was concluded, without reference to Sir John Trevelyan, for the purchase of the demesne lands of the manor by ported to Sir John that he had also sold the them at 12,0231. 15s.; after which Charter reresidue of the estate, being in fact, as it appeared, the manor or lordship itself, with certain lands appertaining to it, to a cousin of his own, (one James Charter,) at a sum which, together with the sum payable by the trustees of Sir Thomas Acland, would make up exactly 13,000 guineas. In due time, Sir John Trevelyan executed conveyances to these respective purchasers. The deed of conveyance to James Charter was prepared by Thomas Charter, and bore date the 1st and 2nd May, 1788. But by indentures of lease and release, dated 1st and 2nd June in the same year, made between James Charter and Thomas Charter, after reciting the conveyance to the former by Sir John Trevelyan, it was further recited, that the purchase money in that transaction had been the proper money of Thomas Charter, and that the name of James Charter, had been made use of in the said conveyance upon trust only for Thomas Charter, his heirs, and assigns; and That Thomas Charter had requested the said James Charter to convey to him the premises comprised in the indenture of the 2nd May, 1788, which accordingly the said James Charter conveyed and assured to the said Thomas Charter with their appurtenances. Now all this part of the affair-this underhand juggle between the two cousins-was studiously concealed from Sir John Trevelyan; and herein was the fraud to which we have adverted. a Vol. ii. p. 714. Notes on Equity.-Points in Common Law. Thomas Charter ceased to act as the solicitor that the purchase money paid was greatly and steward of Sir John Trevelyan in 1806. below the value; that it was studiously conHe died in 1810; and upon his death, his son cealed from Sir John Trevelyan that Thomas and heir at law, Thomas Malet Charter, took Charter had been the purchaser; and that this possession of all his real estates. On the 3rd appears to have been discovered only in conDecember, 1825, the solicitor of Thomas Malet sequence of the letter written in the year 1825. Charter wrote to the solicitor of Sir John Tre- Under these circumstances, time could not be velyan a letter, saying, "The manor of Seaton, set up as a bar to the suit, which in other and certain lands in that parish, formerly be- respects rested upon the clearest principles of longed to Sir John Trevelyan, who sold them equity." Lord Campbell said, "the only to Sir Thomas Acland, of whom they were pur- doubt he had was, as to the lapse of time and chased by the late Mr. Charter." The state- acquiescence; for it was certainly important ment which we have quoted in italics suggest that there should be a limitation to inquiries of ing to Sir John's mind that there was some- this sort;" but he was obliged to come to the thing wrong in the case, he ordered an investi- conclusion that the remedy in this case was gation, the result of which was, that he became not barred, and that the parties had never, satisfied that a deep fraud had been committed with a knowledge of the facts, done anything upon him by his late steward. In this situation, which could be considered to amount to acit was determined to file a bill against Thomas quiescence. The decree, therefore, was affirmed, Malet Charter, praying that he might be with costs. Lord Cottenham, who was present, decreed to deliver up all title deeds, &c. re- simply observing, that after carefully attending lating to the estates in question then in his to the arguments at their lordships' bar, he custody, and that the sale might be declared had heard nothing to induce him to alter the fraudulent, and that T. M. Charter might be opinion upon which the case had been decided ordered to reconvey and to account for the by him in the court below. rents and profits. In April 1828, Sir John This decision is perhaps one of the Trevelyan died; but the suit was soon revived by his son, the present baronet; and the cause strongest upon record in support and encame on for hearing in January 1835, before forcement of the great principle, that Sir C. C. Pepys, M. R., who made a decree where there is fraud, length of time shall conformable to the prayer of the bill, accom- be no bar to the remedy; for there were panying that decree with expressions too many circumstances in the case which remarkable to be omitted in this place: "It might appear well calculated at all events does indeed become the duty of the court, to put the late Sir John Trevelyan on his when transactions of long standing are brought before it, most anxiously to weigh all the cir- inquiry; circumstances which were pressed cumstances of the case, and to consider what with great ability and confidence, though evidence there may have been which, from without success, by the appellant's counthe lapse of time, has been lost. But beyond sel. The case in all respects is peculiarly this, in cases of fraud, I think time has no deserving of a deliberate perusal and ateffect. Were it otherwise, the jurisdiction of tention. the court would be defeated. And those who may be disposed fraudulently to appropriate to themselves the property of others, may be assured that no length of time will secure them in the enjoyment of their plunder, but that their children's children will be compelled by this court to restore it to those from whom it has been fraudulently abstracted." POINTS IN COMMON LAW. LICENSE TO ENTER ON LAND WHEN From this decree the defeated party appealed have acquired all the triteness of a proIt has been repeated so frequently as to to the House of Lords, contending that it was unjustifiable to open up a transaction which verb, that the most difficult and important had been settled so long ago as the year 1788, legal questions have arisen upon the and that even the existence of fraud did not simplest and most commonplace state of warrant the doing so in a case where the party facts;- a circumstance not undeserving seeking to set aside the transaction had the the consideration of those who advocate a means of ascertaining the circumstances, and had delayed for an unreasonable time to act cheap and summary mode of disposing of upon it. These arguments, however, were pecuniary claims of small amount. unavailing, for the Lord Chancellor stated from the woolsack his impression of the evidence to be this: "That the property was purchased by Thomas Charter, in the name of James Charter, at the time when Thomas Charter was acting as agent to Sir John Trevelyan, and employed by him to dispose of it; that Sir John Trevelyan was not informed at the time of the true nature of the transaction; In the case of Wood v. Leadbitter, determined in the early part of the present year, the facts in evidence were, that Lord Eglintoun, as the steward of the Doncaster races in 1843, authorised tickets to be issued and sold for a guinea, entitling the holder to come into the Grand Stand, and the surrounding inclosure, Mees. & W. vol. 13, p. 838. during the races; that the plaintiff purchased called "a silver ticket" for the Opera House in one of the tickets and came within the inclo- 1799, and continued, by virtue of that ticket, sure whilst the races were going on; that the to attend the theatre until the year 1814, when defendant, by order of Lord Eglintoun, desired Waters, the door-keeper, by direction of certain the plaintiff to quit the inclosure, warning him trustees then in possession of the premises, that if he refused to leave, force would be used; prevented him from entering the theatre during and that the plaintiff declining to retire, the the performance of an opera. For this obdefendant forced him out, using no unneces- struction the plaintiff brought his action, and sary violence, and not offering to return the had a verdict, which the Court of Common money paid for the ticket. Pleas afterwards upheld, the judgment proceeding on the ground that the right claimed by the plaintiff was not an interest in land, required by the Statute of Frauds to be in writing, but that it was an irrevocable license to permit the plaintiff to enjoy the privilege of entering and staying in the theatre during the public performances. The plaintiff brought an action of trespass for the assault, and the defendant justified as the servant of Lord Eglintoun, to whom the close belonged. The plaintiff replied, that at the time of the assault he was in the close by the leave and license of Lord Eglintoun; and the defendant, by his rejoinder, traversed the leave and license. The last, as well as the most recent, authority relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff, was a case of Wood v. Manley,d determined by the Court of Queen's Bench This simple state of the facts and pleadings has given rise to an elaborate argument, occupying the Court of Exchequer for the greater part of three days, and fol- in 1839. lowed by a judgment of commensurate It was an action of trespass quare clausum extent, involving legal principles exten-fregit, to which the defendant pleaded, that he sively applicable, in which the authority was possessed of a large quantity of hay on the of a deliberate decision of the Court of plaintiff's close, and that by leave of the plainCommon Pleas, in the time of Chief tiff he entered on the close to remove it. It Justice Gibbs, has been directly impugned, appeared that the hay had been distrained by and the weight of some other authorities much questioned. The case was discussed upon an application for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection. Rolfe, B., (who presided at the trial,) told the jury, that assuming the ticket to have been sold to the plaintiff by the authority of Lord Eglintoun, still it was lawful for his lordship; without returning the price of the ticket, and without assigning any reason, to order the plaintiff to quit the inclosure, and if the jury were satisfied that notice was given to the plaintiff, and a reasonable time allowed him to depart before force was resorted to, it could not be said that the plaintiff was in the close by the leave and license of Lord Eglintoun when the assault was committed. Under this direction, the jury found for the defendant. the plaintiff's landlord for rent, and sold, with to. On the part of the plaintiff it was contended, that the ticket operated as a license from Lord Eglintoun to the plaintiff, to come within the inclosure during the races, and was not revocable, or at all events not without returning The Court of Exchequer, in the printhe money actually paid: and for this proposi- cipal case, described the judgment of the tion, four cases were chiefly relied upon. As Court of Common Pleas, in Taylor v. to two of those cases, the Court of Exchequer Waters, as being "to the last degree unthought they had little or no bearing on the satisfactory," and were of opinion, that point for which they were cited. The case of the attention of that court could not have Taylor v. Waters, however, it was admitted, stood on a different ground. In that case, the plaintiff became the purchaser of what was с b b Webb v. Paternoster, Palm. 71; Roll, 143 and 152; Noy 98; Pop. 151, Godb. 282, S. C.; and Wood v. Lake, Sayer, 3. 7 Taunt. 374. been called to the principles and earlier authorities, or else C. J. Gibbs, when he laid it down that the license conferred by the possession of a silver ticket was irre d 11 Ad. & E. 34; 3 Per. & D. 5. |