Vice-Chancellor's Court, ...
. LA' RRPOR7,. ,-44 aL cts:=rrer the plairftifs bill, filed under the follow-. iste RtI y grsnted a pvsion of 131L : rtE l tofrela?cPia St. John, oF' e RqvalINavy, dtm? e th, to her son, Henry St. John, the derendant, lg MhjesSy'sA ue 'The vidow having died, the , t einucd tO =tei%c the recgion until he became a bank- bPt~"eS i Th8zectnimi~ona had itput up for sale, ind the plaintiff ML, the dtfendant joining in the assign. - >. tbe ilath bof e kte King, his present Majesty isued psrt seal. granting acontimance ofthe nsion to the an d li usXins`daringplemsure- The plntiffmnemo. nal4 th ls of the TreoAs to oade kin, to be paid the underthe a%signinent, as had been done from d f he ~sigr2t :.n 18S dovi to thc period of the late : dath. Their lordships declinea to accede to the prayer of F aia vithout a ,vwar of attorney from the defendant, , KiSc defendant) refised to exeute ; and to compel him to 1St blst ill w&s filed. The defeadant demurred to the > h4a^ rouad thtt the granttrbich pasedunder hisassignment atl-"- --=tiTexTIhCed npor tbe demise of hiA lase Alstsy, and reeal of the pension by tbe present King was altegether a a!t meat, and thercibte eeuldnat have pased under the assignment ;on,~-~ and ZIr. PA.Lru having br.eay argued in support h.TL R ,i on the other side, contended that the presen. muilt mitw :^ tnuaneof ftb rmer grant, and not a newq thtbe getsi nis giYen to the defendant and " hia assigns," .a~ e ~rere not contained in the former, and may be -]tzl ef Or s'tany possible precedent a,sigument. In the war- ___ Il22;t Le cttf the Tresuy dated July 1, 1820, for __ _wt of the pension under the renewed grant, their . iiEeei.d it as the same pension, for they described :t as- ,,1t9rri pail bv the late Paymaster-General," &c. But ereni 'ir ~r.d not be tlirtke so be a cantinuance of the same grant, -t tntt at elI crnts be mcasidercd as the fruits arising from the for- U Tpit,o which the lintiif was entitled by the assignment &c. sme' prinidple as prersila in respect of reneQs,sDof RligRn~oert said.. tbat there was a confusion of ideas on the 5teOCt of renewela of leases, for the principle there alluded to only tereed to enewls totrss under wills, and did not apply to T&ssra: 1 ira'snce, there ws no reason why Air. Hersry St. Oet, if lhe saId to the phuzintiffn term of which he was pomessed, be lirernitt s from trallsg a renew of Xhe leae upon its ex. T--tsrt In ths caex the grrnt purchased by theplaintiff was der :t:1e late Xing's pleasure, and therefore determinable upon -ls13t JSa'sdcaz, ss thc lasewnt, ifnot previouxlv determinedl 2wh eed Nlr ohn Upon he demise,' ther'efore, of the lars ?itonarc, the grant which hal be~n signed was determined; e;rd thiereceu;l be. no retenacefor clalning under the aanmenaetgn- r*Ct anewraXnt byhis prescent hiajeste, which only commenced saCter7th eapirtion Qf the othcr.~Demurier al!owed. VZPARTZ pDWTER. tN THE %TATTER OF rN tCmOLL.s This was a pettion, whilh wa heard on a forner dar. presented br tbe tr mxnzger utider Nieholl?s banlkruptcy.praving that Samuel l :nrr and Almoe Aubreybe committed to the Fleet prison for a ccOtcnrt of Couart in baving forcibly ejected the petitioner from the P :-roatl ofcertain gads belonging to the bankrupt, which he had mx:d unaer the cotnniasion. 9 HoxoL'a, to dzy, pronounced judgmnent, saving he w:as nf *-z!4i= tht the charge of assault upon the officer was not sufficient. N.4-aer - tLhes=tar.cnt that the goois in question vere the prn. rvf apersur named Jams Lorrnmer not being substantiated. Miaolwntzr wzzs therefore bound to grand the order prayed for in tht pmtseier. MIr. Jisem. for the petit.ioner, said. thast upon the muessenger re- ceisiaD full pasiOD of the goods, and 7payent of all co.ts, it was not his in:tetion to oSearce the order. mTe Y5CE-CTIA?'Cr LLOl thought that ws proper, as these per. tzsies::cd to hare acted un:der a rnlstnheF ,";! AXGCELLOPR^s COURTJ.- IVr nYri AP tY. 90 "4!- -- CLAT V ST. ST. 309.