Vice-Chancellor's Courts, Thursday, Jan. 27. 'llus was a motion made upon the answer of the defendant John Morris Coulson late of the 70th Regiment, for an in- junction to restrain hum from prosecnting in action at law against Messrs. Quarrier and Webbe, the executors of the late George. Weble Tobin, formerly a captain in the 75th Regiment, to recover the sum of 4751., thebalance of a debt of 5251., for which Captain Tobin had given an I 0 U. The suit 'waS inst:tuted by the executors to resist the payment of any prtion of the sam'for which a legal consideration could pot provced to have been given, and they alleged that Captain Tobin and the defendant having met accadezitaUy in (iermany *ere in the habit of playing together at thd'pnb- lic tables, on v;hich occadons the defendant wVas genetalIy tucce fuIs nnd Captain Tobin lost. They fOrther alleged 'that Cantain Tobin wssa of i,ntemperate habits, snd much more addicted to play when xn a state of intoxication, and that some of the debt, for which the I. 0. U..vas oiven was for monej lost under theee circuinstances at pila, and moreover that the, instrument *tself was obtained wunen (7ap- tain Tobin egrs not perfectly sober. To nIQW the nature of the consideratioetv the execators Bot foh n an extmiclt from a letter h r'btten to their aerecitor by the. de,en dint himself, when he wai desired to stite What were the particulars of hiis deynd, whbich w0ere as felloyes:- " I muc'n regret jt is not in my powver to make the atatement fou desire relative to my advances. Both Tobin and ryielf frequented the9sublc tablIes- st'differesst -Wterntcg nlsce5 we risted vhn K.oin fUgeneallyf wlfortunste, analIhave dhg,emtyge him money, anfd w5e sometimes 'phayed Rt cards, at whietAi -eitain1j' was sencessful. Thes our trs-. velling exrenses were great, and our Plode of living extra- vagant, w6ich vve-did not consider io Ion' as we haa any money in themilitQT dchbet (Ks the po6r feU6wcealled;&it), ap,d hua enouR krWeen us . e, to Lendap.'t, 4e ,e- findaut had am ten the f in l e t1e- imecxttoric l- Einboldened -byiths ~e urtejrtt'd I ;sia you mwr the very faveureble aw I rectivd iu reply to my application. I have since, aecordiag to his requst forwarded the memorandum, and Cruikshank inform,sme.. that the executors will OnlY Pay such demands as the law 'will enforce, and i that must therefore send in the items forming the amount of my dematnd. This is ot of the qaes-, tion, in consequence of the positive proomise given to my dear friend ;~ besides I have won money at cardg, and given him much. at thLe nubie tables, of which I could' give no accouint aLt this distance of time. That Tobin was satisfied hisamemoraenduim proves, and for myself I maust re- marlk (which I believe Ryan can testify) thaLt had it not been for may remonstrances; he would at any,sacrifice ihave ob- tained the money previous to leavingfo London." The defendant by his answer stated, that being in ill health in the summer of 1840, he retired from the Army and went to Baden, where he was introduced to Captain Tobis, and they became very intimate. They agreed to travel together through Giermany. and thence to Englandl. During thxe tra- vellin it was agreed that the hotel and travelling expenmse s'hould be borne in equa proportions, and at the re- esof Captain Tobin the defendant geneally paid %tIm n ence TobinL became, indebte'd o oen and small sums at difrerent times lost tcrs hrl after their returntoEga, onSndy te2h of August, 18I th eedn aldo a oi,a his xequest, atLn' oe,adproducdtemmrn dums and vouhr fterjitepniue The account was goneinoadablnesrcof25.in the defendant's favour, and the th eoadmWas gliven byCapta'inTobin, whom the defnatdcae ohv been perfectly sober at the time.Amn thecorrespondence set forth in the de- fendant's anwe ws the followin letter to him fr-om one of the execuos I- Dear i Or late lament- ed friend To bi aled you highy and often spoke of you in terso sinacere friendhpand affection. He grieved for youtr ilhat,adlt did he sup- pose he would have peee o tothat bounre whence he never can reuntrv oust his tines3 he vie-wed with pleasure the anticipation of visiting your pater- nal dwellrng, and none could exhibit a greater or, more bene- volent heart beaming with friendship than poor George. You were one of his most attached frends. He did not mention previous to his decease that he had been under any peounlary obligations to you. The time for preparation was so short, aad he was in so highsa state of excitement. Will you kindly send youar demand to Mr. Cruiksbank, at Cxosport, who will most readily attend to it?l" The defendant further stated, that the greater vart of the 5251. was far.travelling ex- penses, and that only 'a few small sums amo"nting in the whole to 251., were on account of money won at cards on dsfferent occasions.. He also pceitively denied playing with Captain Tobin when in a statte of intoxication, or that the Captain was in that conditionL whLen he signed the IO U. r. Bethell and Mr. Austea moved for the inj unction, and Mfr. Wakefield and Mir. Bilton appeared for the defendant. The VICE-CHANrnCLLORt WAS of opinon, from what the defendant himsel stated, there ought to be further investiga- tion. In one of his letters he said, "1Besides that I wron money at cards." Another expression'he used was, "1There was about 25.1. due for money won at cards," and a third, " The remainder consisted of small sums of money won at cards." How was it possible, therefore, to tell what sum of money was won at cards ? He should therefore grant the in- . ntonon the plaintiff paying the money into Court within. (Before Sir K. BRUCE.) OLIVER V. LAs-lisl. Mr. SiF-rcs contiLnued to read the evidence which was not of any considerable length. He then referred to the case of " Oliver v. Adderley," uecided by Mr. Baron AIderson. and establishing the present pILaintiff 'a right to the tithe of hay, and stated as a reason for the plaintiff not haLving p roduced old witnesses, that both in thitcase and the present te defen- dants had by their mode of pleadingprscluded the necessity of the plaintiff proving possesdlon by the evidence of old wit- sieses. The mode in which the defendant kad answered was this:-"They believe, and hope to be able to prove, that there is now, and from time whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary there hLathL been, a laudable cus- tom within the saidI parish of Barlastou and the tithe- able places thereof that every occupier of lanLd within thae sad parish has paid and of right ought at EAster in each year, or as soon after asdeaddtopyote mrrie rector of the said parish o te we o h iebigo the tithes," and so on., eas otne,ta nte~e sent suit the plaintiff hadntol salseattet ih of hay, but also of other sml tithe; and that this circumn- stance, coupled with the terrier of 1616, showed a general percptin wichwasincosisentwit th defence now in- tendd t be et p-nmely tht th plintff received the tites nlybvsffeauc oftheimpopraterector. The wvords of te trril wre,thatthecurte s etited to " all the absud tesusps tat te cuate as oly e tiatle by wsuf ferance. -~~~~~~~~~bystf Mr. EAGLE, on the same side, insisted that the curate Was entitled to all the tithes by virtue of the terrier of 1618, delite et oonsuetsdine, and that, in point of fact, he stood in l0co recto,ris. That in poinit of law it Was clear that where a Vicar or perpetual curate makes a case showing that he has had ai partial perception of the smsal tithes, such perception sapof that the vicar or perpetual curate is entitled to the Iwholeroof such small tithes. Now, in the present case proof had been adduced that tithe of geese, pigs, eggs, and other matters had been paid, aLnd it was also proved had such pay- ments had been uniformly made to the perpetual curate, and no title nor -shadow uf claim had ever been set up on the part of the impropxriate rector, as now insisted on by the defence. The learned counsel then, 'In suport of' the position that a vicar has a title' to all the small tithes when he prov-es his right to some of a class of those tithes- that he establishes thereby a primna facie title to stand is ccos-aloic ciedthecae o "ackonv. Walker," 3 (wilim 1,31 an th sme as unerthe name of contndedthata usge wich ouldnotin itsel upr presuptio of ndowent.Thatin te case o iai was not necessary to pMrove old perception, as sonljt, s.ses of "1Parsons v. Ba my" 3 ~gle and Youe85,i whinch the learned j'udge whio made the decree si,ta h time of living- memory was quite enough for th puroeo establishing 0the vicar's title hyperception, and an endowo- ment would be presumed. 70, 50, or even 40 years would be quite endugh to support a presumaption of endewmsent. The following cases were also cited from the same volume for this position, viz.:-"IKennecott v. WNatson," page 743;- "Man- by v. Lodge," page 1,052 " 1Byam v.' Booth, page 716 ; and "1 Williams v. Thompson," page 1,046. All these cases wentals toproe tat werea vcarhasan instrumtent of went on to ojto te mode in which the defendant had plededtheusous,asbeing bad in law, for that it was wholyunert'n.Thedefendant was bound so to plead the mon,httevicar might know what the real defence was. Hee oee,it was that there was a cnstom.that a certain sum wPas paal to the imnpropriate rector" " or other owner fortetm en ftette. o be good he should hvsadtwhmtetteweepabe. HIS HONOURt &sked weeiwaunrtninthe mind of the landowner to who tetithes were pay able, whether he was bound to say positivl that they were payable to any one in paticuas Mv. EALEreplied that such was the rule of law. His Ho.souit observed, that the same rule might apply to a vicar. IF, for instaince, a vicar were uncertain of his endow- mn,and were to file a bill in a coturt of equity, he miust eihrgiv-e up his proof of perception or relinquish his en- dowment. if tqe authorities on such apoint were so power- ful as to bind Iiim, hsis Honour must ef necessity bow to them ; but if he was left to the unbiassed exercise of his own jatdgment, he slhould follovw no such rule. Mr. EAGLE then cited from 13 Coke's Reports, 37, the case of msodus derjimandi and prohibitions in the time ef King James, a case which was argued before thAe King by the Archbishop of Canterbury, on behalf of the ecclesisstical courts, and by Lord Coke on that of the common law couLrts; and the case of " Wheeldon v. Harvey," ' *wlim 51. Hfis 1-osount, paying all respect to thauth2oriy of the learned judges whose decisions had been cited, did not con- ceive that they supported the proposition contended *for at the bar. Mr. EAGLE~ then took Various other objections to the form of pleading, and contended. that there had been adduced sufficient evidence of the title of the prpetual curate to the tithes in question. The decree of Mr. Baron Alderson, in the case of " Oliver %-. Adderley," haed set at r-est the title to part of the small tithes, and on the authorities it was clear that such title would comprise the whole. If the defen- dants should succeed in showving that the DDake of Sutherland, as te iproriae rcto, ws etited o these tithes, the cl,s.~.nwalslbedpried f hs wolesubsistence. lsrBortt,acomsned is aseforthe defence, and had rocededhuta Lst mnqte w enteCourt rose, EieTCHiN'S V. OSTSON. The suit was by a principal against his agnt, and prayed an account of the receipts and paymezut&of the latter in re- spect of certain estates in tie neighbourhood of Sherborne and Yeovil, in'thle counties of Dorset and Somerset.. The plaintiff was.the devisee in trutst of the estates of Mr. Bellamy, who died in 1813, leaving two chiildren, otis of whom died, and the daughter, the survivor, attained her age of 22 years, and became entitlea to possession of the estates in question in 1832. The lady and her husband subsequently required the plaintiff to account with respect to the ertates during hiis guardianship, which he stated that he wuan uable to do0. in consequence of the defendant, who had been intrusted wit the managetneist of the property, niot hasving accounted to him. The bill sought to charge the defendant with negli- encce inihaving allowed rents to be in arrear, and to be lost yv'Ciis' 5iy of the tenanuts, and with having caused tim- ber to beutforrepairs,and afterwards to have suffered it to remainsand rotfor want of appication to its properpurposesf and for which the plaintiff would be compelled to answer to the parties entitled to the property. Mir. Teed and Sir, FreelMg appeared for the plaintiff, and His o~on sad, t apeard bytheevience that the de- fendnt hd ony udertken o maagethe estates in con- juncionwithMr.Chares utchns,andhe had sometimnes conuled helaterinthecorsetobe aksawith the pro- pert. I di no felowfromthee crcustacesthat the very &actaof nelgec complained of mhtnot have taken place with llns concurrence, and if that vere so, he would be Jointly responsible with the defendant. lf the plaintiff did not waive his claim with respect to the 77sisfcassnce in qnes- tion, the cause musut he ordered to Stand over, wvith liberty to muake AMr. Charles Hutchins a party defendant. The cause stood over accordingly. W!CE-cEANCELLOR'S COURTS. THIiR5DAYI . - 97 QUARIUER V. COULSON.