« PreviousContinue »
H. 2 W. 4, I. 85. Charging in execution. Colbron
v. Hall, S16. H. 2 Will. 4. V. Attachment. The King v. The
Sheriff of Shropshire, 319. H. 4 Will. 4,7. Demurrer books. Somers v. Mil.
ler, 117. H. 4 Will. 4, 17. Notice of taxing costs. Lloyd v.
Kent, 130. H. 4 Will. 4, s. 1. Declaration. Newnham v.
Hanny, s03. H. 4 Will. 4, s. 3. Relation of judgments. Col
bron v. Hall, 316. H. 4 Will. 4, s. 5. Pleading. Bastard v. Smith,
428. Serjeant v. Chufey, 273. H. 4 Will. 4. Pleading, assumpsit. Huyselden v.
Staff', 204. Shearwood v. Hay, 249. Langriage, 250. H. 4 Will. t. Pleading, debt. Jones v. Reade, 382. H. 4 Will. 4. Pleading, case. Lillie v. Price, 381. H. 4 Will. 4. Taxing costs. Masters v. Tickler,
81. H. 6 Will. 4. Admission of attorney. Anon. 65. Ex parte Ridley, 66.
SCIRE FACIAS. In scire facias, a plea that a writ of error has been sued out and was still pending, and that the judgment had not been affirined or reversed, is bad, as not being an answer to the action. Snook v. Maddor, 188.
against :-Held, that the sessions were wrong in refusing to hear an appeal on that ground. Id.
8. A party was convicted before two magistrates under the 17 Geo. 3, c. 56, and gave notice of appeal, but did not enter into recognizances to prosecute the appeal and abide the judgment, and was therefore committed for want of entering into such recognizances. When the sessions arrived, he did not proceed with the appeal, and the prosecutor did not move to affirm the conviction. At the end of the sessions he was discharged, the commitment, for want of entering into the required recognizances, being then satisfied : Held, that this Court would not grant a mandamus to the convicting magistrates to issue their warrant against the defendant upon the conviction, it being at best doubtful whether, under these circumstances, their jurisdiction was not altogether at an end. The king v. The Justices of Middleser, 222.
9. It seems that when the defendant did not proceed with the appeal, the prosecutor ought to have moved the sessions to affirm the conviction. Id.
10. If the Court of Quarter Sessions sends up a case for the opinion of the Court of K. B., and desire to have their order confirmed or quashed, according as the Court sbull think their construction of a written instrument right or wrong, but omit to set out sufficient to shew whether their order is on the whole correct or not, the Court of K. B. will nevere theless confirm or quash the order, as they think the construction right or wrong. The King v. The Inhabitants of Billinghay, 419.
11. A case sent by the sessions for the opinion of the Court of K. B., stated, that at the hearing of an appeal touching the settlement of a pauper, it was proposed to give in evidence conversations between the parties to a written agreement, but did not slate what those conversations were; also that it was proposed to give in evidence an indorsement upon the agreement, but that it was not proved thai the in. dorsement was ill existence when the agreement was signed. The question siated for the opinion of the Court was the construction of the agreement. The Court refused to send the case to be restated. Id.
SCOTLAND, LAW OF.-See PLEADING, 26.
SESSIONS.-See Poor. INCLOSURE, 3. 1. The application by the overseers against the father of a bastard, must be at the next practicable sessions after the child first becomes chargeable. The King v. The Justices of Oxfordshire, 110.
2. It is a question for the justices what circum. stances shall entitle the overseers to make the application at a subsequent sessions. Id.
3. In order to make an application at a subsequent sessions, it is not necessary to enter and respite at the first sessions. ld.
4. Where a bastard child becomes chargeable to the parish, the overseers ought to apply, under the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 72, to the next General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, for an order on the putative father ; or, at all events, if the application is deferred to a subsequent sessions, the overseers must shew that they made diligent inquiry to discover the father, and that they did not discover him in time to give him, before the next sessions, under the 730 section of the statute, fourteen days' notice of the intended application. Rer v. Heath, 143.
5. Semble, that in such a case the overseers should make the application to the sessions, and get the order for the hearing respited. Id.
6. Where a statute gives a party the right of appealing to the sessions, on notice being given, that Court must not impose on him any new condition of appeal not imposed by stalute. The King v. The Justices of Staffordshire, 48.
7. On an appeal to the sessions against a churchrate, under 53 Geo. 3, c. 127, s. 7, notice of the appeal was given to one only of the two magistrates who had acted together in making the order appealed
SEWERS. Where a collector for the Commissioners of Sewers receives from them a warrant directing him to distrain and afterwards sell the goods of A., he cannot, if he distrain the goods of A.'s tenant, justify the distress on the ground of his general authority of collector. Whatever that general authority may be, it is taken away in the particular case by the warrant directing him to do a specific thing. Sabourin v. Neale, 103.
SEXTON.-See MandaxUS, 5, 6, 7.
SHERIFF. See ATTORNEY, 15. PRACTICE, IV, 79, 81. RULES
of COURT, 2. 1. If a sheriff applies for relief under the Interpleader Act, and on hearing the case his rule is discharged, he has afterwards a reasonable time to make his return; and therefore an attachment obtained against him the same day for not making a return, is irregular. The king v. The Sherif nf Hertfordshire, 122.
2. A replevin clerk is bound to make reasonable need not necessarily be construed in its larger and and cautious inquiry into the apparent responsibility legal sense, but when found with other words may be of persons who, being unknowu to him, tender then. construed with them as a word ejusdem generis. selves to him as replevin sureties. Jeffery v. Bastard,
Therefore, where a local act imposed a rate on every 60.
person “who should inhabit, hold, occupy, possess, 3. It is not sufficient to take the statements of the or enjoy any land, house, shop, warehouse, or other parties themselves, the replevin clerk must inquire building, tenement, or hereditament:" it was held, from other persons. Id.
that the word “ hereditament" meant only such as 4. Semble, that he is not bound to travel out of his
were capable of corporeal enjoyment, and did not ex
tend 10 'make liable to be rated a money payment in own office for the purpose of making inquiries, but he
lieu of tolls. Colebrooke v. Tickell, 23. may require vouchers to be brought to him. Id. 5. A writ of attachment against B. issued from the
3. The burden of proving that a party is liable to Court of Chancery at the suit of A. The sheriff
be rated, by the operation of a local act of parliament, attached B. by his body. B. was discharged from
for property for which he was never before liable to custody as privileged from arrest.
In an action upon
be rated, lies on the party seeking to impose it. Id. the case by A. against the sheriff for a negligent dis- 4. Per Coleridge, J. The words of a local act of charge of his duty, A. must state precisely the nature parliament, imposing a charge upon those who were of the privilege which prevented the ordinary duty of
never before liable to it, should be so clear and exthe sheriff from attaching with regard to B., and for press, that the Court should be able to see that the want of such statement the declaration will be bad persons to be charged have had due warping of the on general demurrer. Lloyd v. Wood, 158.
intention to charge them. Id. 6. Quære, whether an action can be maintained at 5. Where an Inclosure Act directs that a corn all by A. against the sheriff, under such circum- rent shall be awarded to the rector in lieu of tithes, Id.
and that, in making the valuation, “ the tithes of all
ancient and inclosed laods shall be taken as equal in SLANDER.
value to one.fifth part of the net value of the said 1. Words spoken by one member of a charitable
lands :"-The recior was held to be rateable in reassociation to another, respecting the conduct of a spect of the corn rent so awarded to him. The king medical man employed by the association, are not a
v. The Churchwardens of Wistuw, 95. privileged communication. Martin v. Strong, 336. 6. Semble, that when the legislature thus speaks of 2. Semble, if they had been spoken at a meeting of
“the tithes” generally, and ihen of the “net value the association, held for the consideration of the
of the lands as the equivalent for them,” it must be medical man's conduct, it would he otherwise. Id.
presumed to mean that one-fifth of the net annual
value of the land is equal to the gross value of the SMALL DEBTS ACT.
tithes, and the rector is liable to be rated for the paySee PRACTICE, 49. PRISONER.
ment substituted, as he originally was for the tithes
themselves. Id. STAMP. See LIMITATION OF Action, 2. MANDAMUS, 1.
Stututes on which Decisions are reported. 1. The proper stamp for a lease, demising a mes.
8 H. 6, c. 9, Forcible detainer. The King v. Wilson,
225. suage and lands at a rent ascertained by the instrument, and also certain other lands at the rent then
21 Jac. 1, c. 16, s. 7, Limitation of action. Piggott
v. Rush, 28. paid for them by A., but not mentioning the amount of that rent, is an ad valorem stamp, calculated upon
12 Car. 2, c. 24, ss. 8, 9. Guardian. The King v. the wbole amount of the rent to be paid for all the
Isley, 196. lands. Parry v. Deere, 395.
29 Car. 2, c. 3, ss. 1, 2, 4. Parol demise. Lord
Bolion v. Tomlin, 369. 2. An attornment where the tenant merely puts
1 Jac. 2, c. 22, (local). Vestry. The King v. St. one person in the place of another as his landlord,
James, Westminster, 253. but continues to hold under the same terms and con
4 & 5 W. & M. c. 20. Docketing a judgment. Doe ditions as before, is a mere acknowledgment that the d. Barron v. Purchas, 50. person making it is tenant, and it requires no stamp. 2 Gev. 2. c. 23, s. 23. Bill of costs. Pepper v. Doe d. Linsey v. Edwards, 139.
5 Geo. 2, c. 19, s. 2. Recognizance. The King v. STATUTE.-See COMPENSATION. INCLOSUP.E. The Inhabitants of Abergele, 375. OFFICER, 6. PLE/DING, 23.
7 Geo. 2, c. 20. Mortgage. Doe d. Hurst v. Clif1. The words “owner or proprietor of land,” used
De d. Orchard v. Stubbs, 285. in a compensation clause in a local act of parliament, 13 (ieo. 2, c. 18, s. 5. Certiorari. The King v. The to indicate the persons to whom compensation is to be Inhabitants of Abergele, 375. The King v. T'he Jus. made for injuries arising out of the prosecution of the tices of Middleser, 407. act, have not necessarily any technical meaning con- 14 Geo. 2, c. 17. Judgment as in case of a non. fined to the owner of the inheritance, but must be suit. Ward v. Turner, 90. Brough v. Scarby, construed with reference to the general object of the
139. act, and mean any person who has any estate or in- 17 Geo. 2, c. 3. Inspection of rate books. The King terest-as, for instance, a tenant-in the land, who v. The Vesirymen of St. Marylebone, 261. sustains loss or damage. Lister v. Lobby, 12. 17 Geo. 2, c. 38. Inspection of rate books. The 2. The word “hereditament," when used as a de.
King v. The Vestrymen of St. Marylebone, 261. scription of property liable to be rated in a statute
22 Geo. 2, c. 46, s. 14. Clerk of the peace. Fuulk
uer v. Chevell, 183,
23 Geo. 2, c. 33. Court of Requests. Wills v. Lung- Il Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 70. s. 12, Justifying
bail. Barrett v. James, 128.
s. 16. Welsh Attor-
nies, In re Ililliams, 294.
s. 21. Render. Scaith
v. Brown, 322.
bility. The King v. The Churchwardens of Wistow,
moval. The King v. The Inhabitants of Oldland, 4. 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 58, s. 1. Interpleader. Lawrence
s. 6. Interpleader. Inland v.
theus v. Sims, 298.
The King v. The Vestrymen of St. Maryleboue, 261.
v. Tugghe, 85. Wickens v. Parker, 137.
Doe d. Jones v. Williams, 213. Doe d. Burgess v.
3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 1. Pleading the general is-
Haine v. Davey, 30.
S. 23. Amendment. Serjeant
s. 39. Arbitration. The King
v. Bardell, 401.
The Commissioners of Customs, 247.
--- S. 108. Customs. Alcock v.
4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 72. Order of bastardy. The
king v. Heath, 143,
s. 81. Appeal. The King v.
The Inhabitants of Holbeach, 414. The King v.
s. 40. Rebuilding church. The 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 59, s. 9. Cruelly to animals. Hop-
5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76. Municipal Corporation. The
Assessors of Hythe, 455. The King v. Chitty, 399.
5 & 6 Will. 4, c. xxxvi, (local). Construction of
STATUTE OF FRAUDS.
1. Two parties entered into a written agreement,
by which one was to take a farm of the other, and to
take the straw, chaff, &c. at a valuation to be made
by such competent persons as the two parties should
respectively appoint. Such agreement is entire—the
two parts cannot be separated from each other; and
if one person only is, by parol agreement, afterwards
appointed to make the valuation, the landlord cannot
maintain an action upon the parol agreement thus
substituted, even though the straw and chaff, &c.
have been taken and used by the tenant. Harvey v.
2. The defendant's testator agreed by parol with
to year, upon the special terms mentioned in some
day; the plaintiff's attorney then signed a memoran-
The King v. The London Dock Company, 267. -Held, that after a tenancy was actually created by
printed rules, and the memorandum indorsed, might be
read by the attorney who signed it, in order to re
WARRANT OF JUSTICES. fresh his memory as to the special terms under which
1. Persons applying under a statute for a warrant the land was hired, although there might perhaps
to enforce payment of rent for gas supplied, and who have been, in the first instance, merely an agreement
by themselves or their officer afterwards execute it, for a lease, which was not to be performed within a
cannot set up the warrant as their justification in an year, and was therefore bad by the fourth section of
action brought against them by the party whose goods the Statute of Frauds. Lord Bolton v. Tomlin, 369.
have been seized under it. Painter v. The Liverpool 3. A parol lease for a term not exceeding three Oil Gas Company, 233. years, warranted by the second section of the Statute
2. It seems that the warrant ought to state the deof Frauds, may be as special in its terms as a written
mand of the rent, and the summons and hearing on Id.
which the conviction proceeded. Id. SURGEON-See PLEADING, 4, 5.
WARRANT OF ATTORNEY.
See INSOLVENT. PRACTICE, 39.
Judgment entered up on an old warrant of attorney,
on an affidavit that the defendant had been seen alive TRESPASS.
eight months previously in New South Wales. JohnSee JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, WARRANT OF JUSTICES. son v. Fry, 292. A person who is not the owner of an animal can
WILL. not, under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 59, s. 9, direct a police officer to take into custody a person who has ill- Testator devised" to the use of my grandson J.G., treated it, unless such person saw the ill-treatment and his assigns, during the term of his natural life, inflicted. In such a case the bona fides of the inten- without impeachment of waste, and immediately after tion of the person giving the charge affords him no the decease of the said J. G.,” to trustees to support protection under the statute in an action of trespass. contingent remainders," nevertheless to permit and Hopkins v. Crowe, 21.
suffer J. G. and his assigns, during his natural life,
to receive the rents, issues, and profits; and immeTROVER.-See OVERSEER, 1.
diately after his decease, to the use of the first, A barn of wood, and thatched, was erected by a
second, and every other son of the said J. G., sevetenant on staddles, or blocks of stone with caps, some
rally and successively in remainder, one after another, of which stood on the surface of the soil, some a few
according to the priority of their respective births, inches in the ground, and others on a foundation of
and the heirs male of the body of such son, so that brick and mortar, rendered necessary by the uneven.
every elder of the same sons, and the heirs male of ness of the ground. The whole of the timber-work
his body, shall always be preferred to every younger rested entirely on the sladdles by its weight alone,
of the same sons and the heirs male of his body." and could be removed without removing the caps
By a codicil, he devised all his freehold, copyhold, which were affixed to the staddles by mortar :- Held,
and personal estate to his daughter A. M. H. for life, that the wood-work and thatch of such a barn was
and after the determination of that estate, to his not atfixed to the freehold, but was a chattel, for which
grandson J. G. and his heirs, in strict entail, as in trover might be maintained. Wandsborough v. Maton, my, said will directed :” and in failure of issue of the 37.
said J. G., he ordered that his said estate and effects
should go and descend as is by his will directed :TURNPIKE ROAD.-See Highway,
Held, that under this will and codicil, J.G. took only
an estate for life. Graves v. Hicks, 74. VESTRY.-See OFFICER. OVERSEER, 2.
L O N D ON:
CROWORTH AND SONS, PRINTERS, BELL-YARD, TEMPLE BAR.