An infant was a partner with his mother, who then contracted a debt. Before he became of age, they dissolved partnership. He became possessed of an estate on coming of age. The Court held, that he might be bail for his mother for that debt. Bristow's bail, 2 Law J. K.B. 24.

The Court exercise a discretionary power as to the number of bail in an action; and, in relief of a defendant, may divide the sum among more than two bail. M'Gregor v. — , 5 Law J. K.B. 70. Though an attorney's clerk cannot justify as bail, he is eligible as such for the purpose of surrendering the principal. Hill v. Thompson, 7 B. Mo. 403.

(C) WHO NOT.

A person who will not, when he is able, pay his own debts, will be rejected if offered as bail. Mills's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 13: s. p. Earl's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 15.

An acknowledgment by the bail, on his examination, that he relies on the honour of the defendant's attorney, to secure him from loss, is sufficient to create an incompetency; and, after rejecting such bail, the Court will not grant further time. Capon v. Dillamore, 2 Law J. C.P. 64, s. c. 1 Bing. 428, s. c. 8 B. Mo. 516.

Bail once rejected, can never be received; and if allowed, the Court will set aside the rule for their allowance, even though their incapacity has been since removed. Pickard v. Dobson, 1 Law J. K.B. 149, s. c. 3 D. & R. 5.

Though a party be a housekeeper in Scotland, and usually rents apartments in London for six months during the year, he is ineligible as bail. Hughes v. Stirling, 11 Price, 158.

A person living in chambers in the city, cannot justify as bail, unless he pays taxes. Lomax's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 16.

The drawer of a bill of exchange, who stated that he had paid the next indorser, but could not tell whether the holder was satisfied, was rejected as bail. Wyatt's buil, 3 Law J. K.B. 105.

The circumstance of a man being paid for becoming bail, is conclusive against his being received, whatever may be the amount of his property. Forall's bail, 4 Law J. K.B. 158, 8. c. 7 . & R. 713.

The rule, that a sheriff's officer cannot be bail, is so strict that it cannot be relaxed under any circumstances; and therefore a sheriff's officer cannot justify as bail, though it be for his own father, the defendant in the action. Hanham v. Meader, 4 Law J. K.B. 300.

(D) PUTTING IN, AND EXCEPTING TO. Before the defendant had perfected his bail, the plaintiff delivered a declaration de bene esse, with a demand of plea, to which the defendant pleaded in abatement, and the plaintiff signed judgment. This course of proceedings was held to be regular, as the defendant should have put in and perfected his bail in time. Saunders v. Owen, 1 Law J. K.B. 59, 8. c. 2 D. & R. 252.

If time be given to pay the debt, it does not follow that thereby time is given to put in bail; and if they be not put in and justified in proper time, the sheriff will be fixed. Rex v. the Sheriff of Middlesex, 1 Law J. K.B. 111.

The mere notice of an exception to bail is a nullity, it being absolutely indispensable to enter the same; and consequently, the irregularity is not waived by the defendant acting upon the notice of exception. Thwaites v. Glassington, 4 D. & R. 365.

If one person be excepted to, as bail, and another be added, the name of the former may, with leave of the Court, be struck out of the bail-piece, at any time before an action of sei. fa. is commenced; and after it is brought, the proceedings as against him will be staid. Waller v. Green, 1 Ken. 382.

The defendant having been arrested in Middlesex, original bail were put in there, and afterwards added bail were taken before a commissioner in Wales, and put in before the Filazer for Middlesex: held, that this was not irregular; the commissioner in Wales having full authority to act by virtue of his commission. Moore v. Kenrick, 4 Law J. C.P. 189, s. c. 3 Bing. 603.

Where bail was put in by the sheriff or bail, the attorney describing himself as the defendant's attorney, though not actually employed by him, and the defendant's own attorney afterwards carried on the subsequent proceedings: Held, that the plaintiff was bound to take notice of the proceedings of both. Gilmour v. Brindley, 7 D. & R. 259.

Bail for a party named in the proceeding for conformity, though put in without his direction, an indemnity being offered him, held good. Cleeland v. Ryres, K.B. 1 Ken. 376.

Where a party held to bail obtains time to put in bail to the action, he cannot afterwards object to the writ for irregularity. Moore v. Stockwell, 6 B. & C. 76, s. c. 9 D. & R. 124.

Where one of two defendants removes a cause from the Lord Mayor's Court, a procedendo will be awarded, unless bail be put in for both. Keate v. Goldstein, 6 Law J. K.B. 33, s. c. 7 B. & C. 525, s. c. 1 M. & R. 305.

A sheriff's officer who has permitted a defendant to continue at large on a promise to put in good bail, cannot afterwards put in bail for his own indemnity, and seize the person of the defendant before his time for putting in bail has expired. Taylor v. Evans, 2 Law J. C.P. 22, s. c. 1 Bing. 367, s. c. 8 B. Mo. 398.

(E) NOTICE OF BAIL AND OF JUSTIFICATION.

Where time has not been given by the Court, a continuance of notice of bail need not be served before three o'clock, according to the regulation stated in the rule of M. T. 60 Geo. 3. Williams v. Taylor, 5 B. Mo. 472.

"At Leeds" is too general a description in a notice of bail, although it may have been ascertained that they actually reside there. The Court, however, gave time to amend the notice, and make further inquiry as to the sufficiency of the bail. Barter's bail, 6 B. Mo. 44.

Where the bail were called householders, instead of being described as housekeepers, the Court would not permit them to justify. Bristol's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 147.

Where a party was described as living at " Clapham": Held, that the notice was sufficient, although his residence was in the Clapham-road. Piesse v. Gibson, 6 B. Mo. 352.

A person who had been a butler, and lived on his

wife's property, was described in the notice as a gentleman, and permitted to justify. Lloyd's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 147.

It is no objection to bail, that he is described as a widower in the notice. Rossiter's hail, 3 Law J. C.P. 197.

The notice described a clerk in a mercantile house as "gentleman": Held a misdescription. Moss v. Heavyside, 7 D. & R. 772.

A builder described as a gentleman: Held insufficient. Anon. 4 Law J. C.P. 51.

It is a sufficient service of a notice on an attorney, if it be given to a woman at his chambers, and it is sworn that she is accustomed to take in papers for him. Holloway's bail, 3 Law J. K.B. 104.

A voluntary notice of justification by a defendant, without any previous exception by the plaintiff, will not dispense with the necessity of an exception before any proceedings be taken against the sheriff. Rex v. the Sheriff of Middlesex, 4 Law J. K.B. 207, B. c. 5 B. & C. 389, s. c. 8 D. & R. 149.

If a plaintiff, who has caused the defendant to be arrested, receive several notices of justifying bail, all signed by different persons, but each "as defendant's attorney," he cannot treat any one of them as a nullity, but must except to all of them, if he wishes to oppose the bail. Buckland v. Brindley, 4 Law J. K.B. 43.

In the Exchequer, notice of justification of bail must be given in the name of attornies or clerks of court. Walker v. Rushbury, 9 Price, 148.

Where a party has given three notices of justifying bail, the costs must be paid before his bail will be allowed to justify; but it is optional whether he will pay the costs, or permit the bail to attempt to justify. Richardson's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 150.

Notice of justification of bail, for a day the Court does not sit, is irregular, but time granted. Heath v. Harris, 2 Law J. C.P. 65, s. c. 1 Bing. 430, s. c. 8 B. Mo. 528.

Bail not allowed to justify, unless the hour be stated in the notice of justification. Abney's bail, 2 Law J. C.P. 1.

There must be a notice of justification, although the bail have not been changed. Partridge's case, 2 Law J. K.B. 76.

A defendant who gives several notices of justification by affidavit, but each notice referring to the same bail, is not bound to pay costs in respect of former notices. Fennell's bail, 5 Law J. K.B. 199.

By the practice of the Court of Exchequer, the plaintiff is entitled to costs, upon the second notice of justification, if a brief be delivered to counsel to oppose the bail upon the first notice. Barrow v. Whitehead, 2 Y. & J. 2.

The names and descriptions of original bail intended to justify, or added bail to be put in and justify, must be inserted in the notice, or no rule for the allowance of the same shall be drawn up. Reg. Gen. 5 Law J. C.P. 51, 6 Bing. 51.

(F) JUSTIFYING AND OPPOSING.

In general, bail once rejected can never afterwards justify. Picard v. Dodson, 1 Law J. K.B. 149, s. c. 3 D. & R. 5.

Unless the debt be very large, two persons will not be permitted to justify in the place of one bail. Jones's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 15.

67

More than two persons will not be permitted to justify as bail in the Exchequer, unless leave is obtained from the Court. Anon. 13 Price, 448.

Where the defendant was arrested for 80,000l., the Court allowed several recognizances to be entered into by different sets of bail, and gave four days' time to inquire into their sufficiency before they came up to justify. Mendezabel v. Machardo, 3 Law J. C.P. 205.

Where one of the bail has justified at chambers, it is necessary to obtain an order for the other to justify in open court, or he will be rejected. Cohen's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 150.

Bail given in the vacation may be changed in Woodhouse's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 13.

term.

If, in the notice of justification of bail, one of them be misnamed, and by mistake sworn by that name, the Court will permit him to justify, on his swearing that he has sufficient property for that purpose. Levi's buil, 7 B. Mo. 282.

The Court permitted bail to justify, although the name of the attorney to the notice of bail was not the same as that to the proceedings in the cause. Bisham's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 83.

It is no objection to the justification of bail, that the bail are put in by one clerk in court, and the notice of justification and of added bail given by another, if the latter are added by the bail to the sheriff. Hancock v. Grew, 1 Y. & J. 456.

It is sufficient if bail swear that they are worth the amount required, after payment of all their just debts. Anon. 2 Y. & J. 101.

A person who comes to justify as bail is not bound to state the particulars of his dealings; it is sufficient if he tell the nature of his property, swear to an amount that will cover double the sum, and disclose the place where it may be found. Smith's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 148.

Persons becoming bail, are not bound to give minute statements of their property; it is sufficient that they describe enough to shew that they are good bail. Dobson's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 83.

Bail who has asked for time to pay a small debt of his own, cannot justify. Grey's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 14.

A man who is able, but unwilling, to pay his own debts, cannot justify as bail. Earl's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 15: S. P. Mills's buil, 1 Law J. K.B. 13.

If it can be shewn that a person, who has compounded with his creditors, and paid the composition, owes any sum of money, however small, he will not be permitted to justify as bail. Waitman's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 147.

One of the bail will be allowed to justify, although the other has been misdescribed. Jones's bail, 3 Law J. K.B. 105.

In all cases where the writ is in London or Middlesex, the defendant must justify his bail, or render within four days after exception, unless in the case after mentioned.

And in all other cases, the defendant must justify or render within four days after exception, unless the plaintiff has ruled the sheriff to bring in the body.

But in all cases where the sheriff has been ruled to bring in the body, the defendant has the same time to justify or render, as the sheriff has to bring in the body; that is to say, four days, where the writ is in London, and six days, where the writ is

in any other county, from the day of serving the rule. Whittle v. Oldaker, 6 Law J. K.B. 30, s. c. 7 B. & C. 478, s. c. 1 M. & R. 298.

If a defendant put in bail above sooner than he is bound to do, he still must perfect his bail within four days after exception; and if he fail, the plaintiff may proceed on the bail-bond. But the sheriff is not to be prejudiced by the defendant wasting his own time; and therefore, the rules, and the proceedings against the sheriff, must always be uniform, and without reference to the course taken by the defendant. Bond v. Evans, 4 Law J. K.B. 51, s. c. 4 B. & C. 864, s. c. 7 D. & R. 374.

After an action has been brought against the sheriff, when no bail-bond has been given, the Court will not allow him to put in and justify. Robinson v. Bacchus, 2 Law J. C.P. 3.

The Court will not prevent bail from justifying, until the costs of former oppositions have been paid, unless the three notices given were necessary, and the plaintiff might have acted upon them. Clarke's bail, 2 Law J. K.B. 149.

The time for justification of bail expired on the 7th, and time was given till the 9th of February to add and justify other bail; and on that day the defendant was rendered, and notice thereof given: Held, that the sheriff was liable to be attached on the 10th, if the plaintiff had lost a trial for the Sittings after term. Rex v. the Sheriff of Middlesex,

8 D. & R. 137.

Unless bail are in attendance, and their counsel instructed by half-past ten o'clock, they will not be permitted to justify. Reg. Gen. Exchequer, 9 Price, 57.

Where bail came after ten o'clock, the Court permitted them to justify conditionally, provided the attorney had not instructed counsel to oppose them. Atkinson's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 84.

Further time to justify bail will only be granted when the cause creating the incapacity to justify is of an unexpected kind. Wells's bail, 2 Law J. Č.P. 19, s. c. 1 Bing. $59, s. c. 8 B. Mo. 378.

Time will be given for putting in and justifying bail, where a serious question of doubt is raised, whether the defendant was properly held to bail. Cope v. Joseph, 9 Price, 155.

Time to justify and add a new bail can only be obtained where he is prevented from justifying by an act of God. Therefore, where, on the morning of justification, the defendant ascertained that one of his bail had been recently discharged under the Insolvent Act, the Court refused to give time to justify and add another ball. Watson's bail, 8 B. Mo. 208.

If there be strong grounds for the absence of bail, time will be granted to justify, although he is opposed. Levis's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 15.

It is not a sufficient reason, to obtain time to justify a bail, that he has not come in consequence of threats of the opposite attorney, unless he is not opposed. Wells's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 15.

Where it appeared that the bail had become insolvent after his name had been put on the bail-piece, the Court allowed time to add and justify another bail. Seal's bail, 1 Law J. K. B. 83.

Where one of the bail could not, from extreme il'ness, attend to justify, the Court granted time, without requiring an affidavit of merits. Apelgarth's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 84.

The Court will not give leave to add and justify another bail, merely because the bail had been obliged to go from London on particular business. Smith's bail, 2 Law J. K.B. 149.

Where bail are of such a desperate description as ought not to have been proposed to the Court, they will not grant time to add new bail. Anon. 8 Price, 8.

Where the time allowed for justifying bail in several causes expired on a dies non, the Court permitted them to justify on the following day; and ordered that the rule for serving the notice before three o'clock might be dispensed with, in order to prevent the issuing of attachments. Pratt v. Oddy, 3 Law J. C.P. 79, s. c. 2 Bing. 440.

If a bail is not in attendance, the Judge will grant time, on condition that an affidavit is produced to him at chambers, giving a satisfactory reason for his absence. Bond's bail, 3 Law J. K.B. 105.

The christian name of one of the bail being incorrect, the Court granted time to justify, on producing an affidavit of merits at chambers. Want's bail,

2 Law J. K.B. 76.

The Court of Exchequer will now give time to justify bail at chambers. Bell v. Horton, 11 Price, 741.

Where a Judge, sitting in the bail-court, gives time for justifying the bail, on producing an affidavit of merits, that affidavit must be produced to the clerk of the rules before he will draw up the rule. Cotterell's bail, 2 Law J. K.B. 25.

An affidavit of the justification of bail is properly sworn before a commissioner for the purpose of taking bail. Anon. 2 Y. & J. 101.

Where bail justify by affidavit, if the jurat does not state each of their names, they will be rejected. Wellings v. Marsh, 11 Price, 509.

An affidavit to justify as bail, stating that they were worth a certain sum, "exclusive of all debts due from them to any other persons whatsoever," is not sufficiently explicit. Hiron's bail, 1 Law J. C.P. 51.

Where the justification of bail is by affidavit, and is opposed by another affidavit, alleging that one of the bail is insolvent, the Court will not permit the matters of the latter affidavit to be answered by a counter-deposition. Alpin v. Fox, 5 B. Mo. 482.

The Court would not give time to correct informalities in the jurat, although occasioned by the error of the commissioner in the country, without an affidavit of merits. Burford v. Holloway, 1 Law J. K.B. 83, s. c. 2 D. & R. 362.

Where the attorney, before whom an affidavit of justification was sworn, had omitted the word commissioner after his name, the Court granted time to justify the bail. Osborne's bail, 1 Law J. K.B

83.

Where the name of the parish in the recognizance, and that in the affidavit of justification, were different, the Court granted time to justify the bail. Scott's bail, 2 Law J. K.B. 75.

Where time was applied for to send an affidavit of justification into the country, to amend a mistake in the jurat, the Court made the attorney pay the costs of the application. Shillitoe's bail, 9 D. & R. 6.

Bail being rejected, time was given for new bail, on condition that the plaintiff's situation should not be altered thereby. In the meantime, the plaintiff demanded a plea : Held, that the justification of bail

was not thereby waived. Rex v. the Sheriff of Middlesex, 4 D. & R. 834.

(G) ALLOWANCE of.

Although bail justify at chambers by consent, yet it is necessary to serve the party with the rule for the allowance of the bail. Bignold v. Lee, 1 Law J. K.B. 85, s. c. 1 B. & C. 285, ș. c. 2 D. & R. 436.

The Court refused to discharge the rule for the allowance of bail, on the ground of perjury in one of them, but left the party to his remedy by indictment. Shee v. Abbott, 5 B. Mo. 321, s. c. 2 B. & B.

619.

Rule for allowance of bail discharged, because the bail had received money from the defendant. Jones's bail, 1 Law J. K.B. 16.

A person had been rejected as bail; he afterwards justified in another cause; upon a motion to set aside the rule for the allowance of bail, the Court made the rule absolute, with costs, saying, that bail once rejected could never afterwards justify. Picard v. Dodson, 1 Law J. K.B. 149, s. c. 3 D. & R. 5. Where it appeared that bail who had justified, bad been paid for his trouble and loss of time, the Court refused to set aside the allowance; but compelled the defendant to produce an affidavit of merits, and bring the sum sworn to into court, and take short notice of trial. Wyllie v. Jones, 2 D. & R. 253.

After the rule for the allowance of bail has been drawn up, the Court will not set it aside on an affidavit disclosing perjury committed by the bail at the time of justifying, although the application is made promptly. Stockham v. French, 2 Law J. C.P. 19, s. c. 1 Bing. 365, s. c. 8 B. Mo. 381.

If an infant is not opposed, and therefore justifies as bail, the Court will not set aside the rule for the allowance of bail, on a suggestion of fraud, and because the plaintiff's attorney thought that it was his uncle, of the same name, who was about to become bail. Evans's bail, 2 Law J. K.B. 24.

The Court will not entertain a motion to set aside a rule for the allowance of bail, on the ground of one of the bail baving given a false account of himself and his property, unless the application be made forthwith; upon very strong grounds; and upon some clear tangible fact, which admits of unequivocal proof on the one hand, or contradiction on the other. Anon. 5 Law J. K.B. 16.

(H) of the RECOGNIZANCE AND BAIL-PIECE. Where five defendants were named in the affidavit to hold to bail, and distinct bailable process was issued against one, and a bail-piece taken, in which he alone was named, and afterwards serviceable process was issued against the other four, who were not named in the bailable process, but the declaration was against all five-The Court allowed the plaintiff to amend the bail recognizance, by inserting the names of the four defendants who had been at first omitted. Christie v. Walker, 1 Law J. C.P. 65, s. c. 1 Bing. 206.

Although the description of the bail, in the bailpiece, be so general as to induce the Court to allow the opposition, it would not be sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to costs, since the Court will save that point until the bail justify. Richardson v. . Hodgson, 11 Price, 379.

69

(1) RIGHTS OF BAIL AGAINST THEIR PRINCIPAL. A witness who has absconded from his bail may be retaken by the bail in court, although he is at tending to give evidence in a court of justice. Horn v. Swinford, 1 D. & R. N.P.C. 20.

A witness attending to give evidence in a court may, on his return from giving evidence, be taken by his bail for the purpose of being surrendered. Ex parte Lyne, 3 Stark, 132: s. P. Horn v. Swinford, 1 D. & R. N.P.C. 20.

If a person takes a journey to become bail for another, he cannot maintain an action against such person for his trouble or loss of time in such journey. Reason v. Wirdnam, 1 C. & P. 434. [Park]

Semble, that where bail pay the amount for which they become answerable, each advancing his share, they may maintain a joint action against their principal for the entire sum. May v. May, 1 C. & P. 44. [Burrough]

Semble, that if the principal make default, and his bail are in danger of forfeiting the amount of their recognizance, they may enter into a fair arrangement to save their recognizance, and recover over against their principal in damages: provided the arrangement be not injurious to the principal; and provided, in amount, it exceed not the penalty of the recognizance, or the sum they would be called upon to pay, in case they had made no arrangement. Morrison v. Graham, 5 Law J. K.B. 254.

(K) LIABILITY OF.

An agreement for staying proceedings against bail, and giving time to a defendant to surrender in their discharge, entered into by the plaintiff's attorney, at the request of the defendant, and attornies, who represented themselves as employed by the bail, as well as by the defendant, though subsequently confirmed by the bail agreeing that their liability should continue: Held not to authorize proceedings against the bail (the defendant not having surrendered), on the ground, that their liability under their recognizances having ceased, by time having been given to the defendant without their actual concurrence in the first instance, the ratification of such agreement could not revive that liability, the fact of their responsibility as bail having ceased, not being known to them at the time of such ratification. West v. Ashdown, 1 Law 7. C.P. 26, s. c. 1 Bing. 164, s. c. 7 B. Mo. 566.

The prevarication of bail, as to his circumstances, is a ground for sending him to Newgate. Wilson v. Bodkin, 8 D. & R. 41.

In the Common Pleas, it seems, that if either of the writs are bailable, all the defendants should be named in the ac etium clause of the bailable writ, in order to fix the bail.

Where an action is brought against more than four defendants, and two writs are sued out, it is unnecessary to name all the defendants in each writ, except with a view of fixing bail. Christie v. Walker, 1 Bing. 48, s. c. 7 B. Mo. 362.

(L) PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BAIL.

In all actions against bail, the affidavits must be entitled in the action against them, and not in the original action. Ham, assignee &c. v. Philcox, 1 Law J. C.P. 21, s. c. 1 Bing. 142, s. c. 7 B. Mo. 521.

Now w
Depp, towerstanding the agreement
wlayed midi CONOR, MA a distract deniai (ör
Depp De waking of the agreement as stated.
Moving v、 Hannes 14 Dice, 754

A rule which declares that a bail bond shall stard MARA RECOVERY, Žor the debt and costs, "eny "rovides Ke security in case the plaintif sða'l obtain judgment, and the proceedings cannot therefore be carred on, it the defendant truly pleads his discharge wudder the lusolvent Act; though that discharge has been obtained after the provouncing of the rule. man v. Tom, 3 Law J. K.B. 89.

The Court will enlarge the time for the bail to surrender their principal, if he be confined in the county gaol under sentence of the Court of King's Beuch. Rouch v. Boucher, 8 Price, 104.

The Court enlarged the time for bail to surrender their principal, till a week after the expiration of the term of his imprisonment in the county gaol of D, under conviction and sentence for a misdemeanor. Ashmore v. Fletcher, 13 Price, 523, s. c. M'Clel. 252.

A writ of error had been brought from a judgment in the Common Pleas to the Court of King's