19. In an action on a bill of exchange, by indorsee against acceptor, a plea, alleging only that the acceptance was obtained by fraud, is bad. Bramah v. Baker, 66. 20. In a similar action, to a plea, alleging that the acceptance was obtained by fraud, and that the plaintiff gave no consideration for the bill, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to reply that he did give consideration, without setting out the particulars of the consideration. Id. 21. The replication de injuriá is applicable in assumpsit, where the plea contains matter of excuse. Griffin v. Yates, 387. 22. The declaration set out a contract "that the defendant agreed to sell his horse to the plaintiff for 2001., provided he trotted eighteen miles within one hour, within one month, and one Norcliffe to be the judge of the performance: if the task was not performed, the horse was thereby sold to the plaintiff for 1s.:-Held, that a plea was ill, which stated that Norcliffe refused to attend upon request, whereby the horse was prevented from performing the task. Brogden v. Marriott, 383. 23. The defendant pleaded, that the horse would have performed the task, but that one A. B., then being the servant of the plaintiff, wrongfully and wilfully, as the servant and agent of the plaintiff, interrupted the trotting of the horse: -Held, that a replication which traversed the whole of the plea, was good. Id. 24. In an action, on a bill of exchange, evidence of part payment may be given to reduce the damages, although it is not specially pleaded. Shirley v. Jacobs, 214. 25. In assumpsit for use and occupation, under a plea of non-assumpsit, the defendant may show that he has received a notice to pay rent to a mortgagee of the premises. But if the action be for occupation enjoyed before the notice was received, then such a defence must be specially pleaded. Waddilove v. Barnett, 395. 26. Assumpsit for the copyright of a play. Plea, non-assumpsit.-Held, that it could not be objected that the assignment was not in writing, but that it ought to have been specially pleaded. Barnett v. Glossop, 94. 27. In an action of assumpsit, where defendant pleaded accord and satisfaction, and the plaintiff replied, that the defendant did not pay the sum in satisfaction, nor did the plaintiff receive the said sum in satisfaction:-Held, upon demurrer, that the replication was not bad for multifariousness. Webb v. Weatherby, 39. 28. Trespass for taking plaintiff's goods. The defendants, by a special plea, stated that one A. became a bankrupt, and the issuing of a commission, and the assignment of effects to the assignees, was then set forth in the usual form. That said goods were the property of the assignees, but that the plaintiff, claiming title under colour of a certain gift, pretended to have been made thereof by the bankrupt, seized and took the goods, and therefore the defendants, as the servants of the assignees, justified the trespass. Replication, that the said goods were not the goods of the assignees, but were plaintiff's goods: -Held, that the proceedings under the commission of bankruptcy were admitted by the replication, and that the only point in issue, was the property in the goods. Jones v. Brown, 33. 29. In trover for a bill of exchange, defendant pleaded that, before the conversion, A. was lawfully possessed of the bill, and that he indorsed it to B., and that B., for a valuable consideration, indorsed it to the defendant. The replication took issue upon the averment of consideration; which was found for the plaintiff:-Held, that by this plea the title of the plaintiff was admitted, and that the defendant was not entitled to arrest the judgment upon the ground that the title appeared to be in A.:-Held also, that defendant was not entitled to a repleader. Fancourt v. Bull, 98. PRACTICE. See ARREST. ATTACHMENT. BAIL. EJECTMENT. INTERPLEADER. I. PROCEEDINGS TO APPEARANCE: 1. The proper indorsement on a writ of capias as to the payment of the debt, &c., is "within four days from the service," but a mistake in this respect may be amended on payment of costs. Lord Paget v. Stockley, 317. 2. A distringas was refused where the writ of summons had been issued more than four months, and without being continued by an alias writ. (See 2 W. 4, c. 39, s. 10.) Sewell v. Brown, 317. 3. No. 2, Clifford's Inn Passage, Fleet Street, in the city of London," is a sufficient indorsement of the attorney's residence on a writ of summons: the parish need not be named, 2 W. 4, c. 39, s. 12. Arden v. Garry, 197. 4. A writ of right was sued out on the 28th of December, 1834, but the return-day was altered, from time to time, until the 21st November, 1835, when the writ was enforced:-Held, that this was in effect commencing a real action after the time limited by 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 27, s. 36; and the writ having been returned into the Common Pleas, that Court set aside the proceedings which were founded on the writ. Leigh, demandant, v. Leigh, tenant, 411. 5. Before a distringas will be granted to compel an appearance, it must be positively sworn that the defendant has not appeared. Hocker v. Townsend, 204. 6. The Court of Common Pleas has no authority over a writ of right until it has been returned, and filed in that court, and any applica tion to set aside the writ for irregularity must be made to the Court of Chancery. Foot, demandant, v. Sheriff, tenant, 412. 7. The demandant in a writ of right sued out a writ of summons with a wrong return-day, and after having delivered the issue and deposited the writ with the sheriff, he caused the return to be altered, and the writ to be re-sealed, and notice of the alteration was given to the tenant:Held, that the writ was valid, it not being executed when the alteration was made. Miller v. Miller, 185. 8. To obtain a distringas the copy of the writ of summons must be left at the defendant's supposed address, although the parties residing at the house state that they have no knowledge of him. Hooken v. Tooke, 315. II. DECLARATION AND SUBSEQUENT PLEAD INGS: 9. Where the master of a ship was served with process in an action on the eve of his departure on a foreign voyage, the Court allowed twelve months' time to plead. Hunt v. Barkley, 103. 10. If a defendant neglects to pay the debt and costs indorsed on a writ within four days from the service (R. Hil. T. 2 W. 4, II.) the plaintiff may state a further claim in his declaration. Bowditch v. Slaney, 224. 11. A plaintiff will be allowed time to declare, where, in a joint action, he cannot bring one of the defendants before the Court, in consequence of his absence from this country. Richardson v. Pollen, 75. 12. Where a judgment was set aside on payment of costs, and an affidavit of merits, with leave to plead de novo, the Court refused to allow defendant to plead that the plaintiff, an attorney, had not delivered a signed bill of costs in pursuance of the statute, that not being a plea to the merits. Becke v. Mordaunt, 196. 13. The rule that a plaintiff must declare within one year from the return-day of the process, applies to real as well as personal actions. Barnes v. Jackson, 59. 14. Before the regular time of pleading had expired, the defendant obtained an order for seven days' time to plead, the defendant then being under terms to take short notice of trial at the sittings:-Held, that the further time ought to be reckoned from the date of the order, as the cause could not otherwise be tried at the sittings. Simpson v. Cooper, 448. 15. Where the defendant admitted, in writing, that he owed the money sought to be recovered, but, after action brought, pleaded a defence inconsistent with the admission, apparently for delay, the Court refused to treat the plea as a sham plea. La Forest v. Langan, 410. 16. A defendant may, notwithstanding the new rules of pleading, plead the general issue, and another plea apparently inconsistent, if he has reasonable grounds for supposing both are necessary to meet the exigencies of the case. Hart v. Bell, 6. 17. In an action of trover for wool, a defendant may plead, since Reg. 5, H. T. 4 W. 4, 1st. The general issue; 2d. A lien by custom; 3d. A lien by agreement; 4th. A lien by custom, with a statement that the wool was deposited by one having a primá fucie title to it; and 5th. Á lien by custom, with a statement that the wool was deposited with the defendant by the plaintiff's agent. Leuckhart v. Cooper, 16. III. DEMMURRER, PRACTICE OF. 18. In a writ of right the tenant may withdraw a demurrer to the demandant's count. Twyning v. Lowndes, 196. 19. Where a defendant became bankrupt after a cause was set down for argument on demurrer, the Court refused to strike it out of the paper at the suggestion of the plaintiff, although the assignees refused to give security for costs. Flight v. Glossip, 222. 20. Where demurrers were raised on the pleadings, subsequent to the declaration, the Court refused to hear an objection as to the illegality of the contract declared upon, no exception being taken on that point in the margin of the demurrer-book. Brogden v. Marriott, 383. 21. A defendant against whom judgment on demurrer was given, having obtained further evidence, obtained leave from a judge at chambers to make a material amendment in one of the pleas:-Held, that the proceeding was irregular, but under the circumstances the Court refused to set aside the order. Atkinson v. Baynton, 144. 22. The Court will not allow a plaintiff in a penal action to amend his declaration after demurrer, where the amendment would not tend to the furtherance of justice. Matthews v. Swift, 175. IV. JUDGMENT AS IN CASE OF A NONSUIT: 23. Where an action is brought for false imprisonment, and the defendant afterwards prefers an indictment against the plaintiff for an assault, which was the offence charged to have been committed when the plaintiff was imprisoned, the Court will not compel the plaintiff to try the cause, until the other proceedings are terminated. Long v. Hutchins, 56. 24. Where the demandant in a writ of right had neglected to proceed to trial, the Court granted judgment as in case of a nonsuit, leaving the demandant to his remedy by error, if the statute 14 G. 2, c. 17, did not apply to writs of right. Mason v. Sadler, 358. 25. Where a plaintiff has served a rule to discontinue, and the costs are taxed, but not paid, the defendant is not entitled to judgment as in case of a nonsuit. Cooper v. Holloway, 76. 26. Where a peremptory undertaking to try has been given, and default made, a rule for judgment as in case of nonsuit for non-performance of the undertaking, must be a rule nisi only. Whalley v. Followes, 77. V. INCIDENTAL PROCEEDINGS: 27. What documents a party will be required to admit under R. H. T. 4 W. 4. Smith v. Bird, 96. 28. Money paid into court in lieu of bail cannot be transferred to the account of a plea of payment. Ball v. Stafford, 316. 29. Where a judgment has been satisfied, and the plaintiff is out of the country, so that the usual warrant to enter up satisfaction on the roll cannot be obtained, the defendant must clearly prove that judgment is satisfied before satisfaction can be entered. De Bastos v. Willmott, 15. 30. Where a new trial from the Sheriff's Court has been granted at the instance of the plaintiff, who afterwards neglects to re-try the cause, the defendant must take down the record by proviso. Corone v. Garment, 74. 31. An application to set aside a judgment and execution for irregularity, will not be granted, with a stay of proceedings, unless notice of the application has been given to plaintiff. Rolfe v. Brown, 27. 32. When a judgment is set aside for irregularity on summons, before a judge at chambers, and no order is made as to costs, the Court refused to order the payment of the costs of setting aside the judgment, but discharged a rule obtained for that purpose with costs. Davy v. Brown, 22. 33. In the case of a prisoner, and under special circumstances, the Court ordered the prothonotary, in computing principal and interest on a promissory note, to inquire into the consideration for which the note was given, and to decide on the facts as a jury would do. Fife v. Bruyere, 317. Sheriffs' Court, under stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42, s. 27. Trotter v. Bass, 23. 37. If a rule is obtained against an attorney, it must appear upon the affidavit that he is an attorney of the court. Exparte Lord, 195. 38. The Rules of Hil. T., 4 W. 4, apply only to actions over which the courts of common law have a concurrent jurisdiction, and therefore they do not extend to real actions. Miller v. Miller, 31. 39. An attorney's clerk corrected the date of the jurat of an affidavit after it had been sworn, and the Court set aside the proceedings to which it referred. Finnerty v. Smith, 158. 40. The word "peremptory" was put upon a summons to attend at chambers, without the authority of the judge, and the Court inflicted the payment of costs upon the attorney. Id. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. See PARTNER, 2. STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU. PROBATE.-See ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, 1, 2. PROMISSORY NOTE.-See BILL3 OF EXCHANGE. REAL ACTION.-See PRACTICE. 4. 6, 7. 13. 18. 24. 38. RENT.-See DISTRESS, 1, 2.-PLEADING, 17. 25. REPLEVIN. See COSTS, 2. 6. 1. In an action against the sheriff for taking insufficient pledges, in replevin, he is liable to the amount of the penalty in the bond, viz., double the value of the goods distrained. Paul v. Goodluck, 370. RULES OF COURT, Upon which decisions are reported. Hil. T. 3 G. 2. (Fleet Prison.) Exparte Angle, 366. Trin. T. 1 W. 4 (Bail.) Boyd's Bail. 93. Hil. T. 2 W. 4. Boyd's Bail, 93. Barnes v. Jackson, 59. Hil. T. 2 W. 4. (continued.) Bowditch v. Slaney, 224. Hil. T. 4 W. 4. (Practice.) Leuckart v. Cooper, 16. Smith v. Bird, 96. (Pleading.) Barnett v. Glossop, 94. Assumpsit.) SET-OFF.-See PLEADING, 6. 10. SHERIFF. See EVIDENCE, 13. EXECUTION, 2. INTER- A sheriff's officer is liable to the penalty for 195. SLANDER. See PLEADING, 11, 12, 13. EVIDENCE, 7. 1. The plaintiff brought an action for slander, 2. The words so laid in the declaration, were STAMP: See BILLS OF EXCHANGE, 1. LEGACY, 1, 2. The following agreement held to be relating to within the exception in the Stamp Act, 55 G. 3, STATUTE, CONSTRUCTION OF.-See STATUTES, Upon which decisions are reported. 13 Edw. 1, c. 37. (Bailiffs.) Begbie v. Hayne, 266. 32 H. 8, c. 34. (Covenant.) Whitton v. Peacock, 376. 21 Jac. 1, c. 16. (Limitations.) c, 19, (Bankrupt.) 29 Car. 2, c. 3. (Frauds.) Hawes v. Armstrong, 179. 2 Geo. 2, c. 23. (Attorney.) Exparte Swift, 175. 4 Geo. 2, c. 28. (Landlord and Tenant.) 11 Geo. 2, c. 19. (Landlord and Tenant.) 14 Geo. 2, c. 17. (Nonsuit.) Corone v. Garment, 74. 32 G. 2, c. 28. (Insolvent. Arrest.) 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 71. (Arrest.) Ball v. Stafford, 316. 9 Geo. 4, c. 14. (Limitations.) 10 Geo. 4, c. 44. (Police.) 11 G. 4, & 1 W. 4, c. 68. (Carriers.) 1 W. 4, c. 22. (Interrogatories' Act.) The owner in fee of lands, who had purchased 401. |