Wheeler v Mercer

Die Mercurii, 31° Octobris 1956

Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom
was referred the Cause Wheeler against Mercer, that
the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Tuesday
the 17th, as on Wednesday the 18th, days of July last,
upon the Petition and Appeal of Alfred Morris Wheeler,
of "Franks", Horton Kirby, in the County of Kent,
praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in
the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's
Court of Appeal of the 24th of October 1955, might be
reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court
of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed,
varied or altered, or that the Petitioner might have
such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the
Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet;
as also upon the printed Case of Helen Molly Mercer,
lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due con-
sideration had this day of what was offered on either
side in this Cause:

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual
and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her
Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of
Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 24th day of
October 1955, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and
the same is hereby, Reversed except as to Costs and that
the Order of His Honour Judge Glazebrook of the
28th day of July 1955, be, and the same is hereby,
Discharged except as to Costs: And it is hereby Declared,
That the Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of
the lock-up shop at the ground floor of 59 Grosvenor
Road, Tunbridge Wells, in the County of Kent, and
that the Plaintiff is also entitled to recover mesne profits
in respect of the said premises, the amount of such
mesne profits 'to be determined by the County Court
Judge: And it is further Ordered, That the Cause be,
and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Tunbridge
Wells County Court to do therein as shall be just and
consistent with this Judgment: And it is also further
Ordered, That there be no Costs of the Appeal to this
House.

Wheeler v.
Mercer.