1844. OXFORD ASSIZES. (Civil Side). BEFORE MR. JUSTICE COLERIDGE. March 4. An examined copy of the court-roll of a manor, made for the purpose of being given in evidence on a trial, does not require a stamp. A copy of courtroll duly stamped purported to be signed by Mr. V., who was proved to be the steward of the manor. The lessor of the plaintiff's attorney, who produced it, did not know the DOE on the Demise of BURROWS v. FREEMAN. EJECTMENT for copyhold premises situate at Launton, in the county of Oxford. On the part of the lessor of the plaintiff it was proposed to give in evidence an examined copy of the court-rolls of the manor of Launton of the admittance of William Free man to the premises in question in the year 1815. It was proved by Mr. Chappell, the attorney for the lessor of the plaintiff, that he had examined this copy with the original court-roll of the manor. This copy had been made for the purpose of being given in evidence in this cause, and was unstamped. Talfourd, Serjt.-I submit that this copy of the court-roll handwriting of cannot be received in evidence, as it is not stamped. By Mr. V.; but he stated that he had shewn this copy of court roll to Mr. V.,, who stated that it had been de livered out by the Stamp Act, 55 Geo. 4, c. 184, sched., part 1, "The copy of court-roll of any admittance in court" must be stamped, although "the court-rolls or books of any manor wherein the proceedings relating thereto shall be entered or minuted " him, as steward are exempted from stamp duty; and this very exemption of the lessor of the the original by express words shews that all copies of the court-rolls must be stamped. In the case of Doe d. Cawthorn v. Mee (a), it was held that the 48 Geo. 3, c. 149, s. 32, which of the manor, to plaintiff: Held, that this acknowledg. ment of it by Mr. V. was equivalent to the witness having received it from Mr. V., as steward of the manor. (a) 4 B. & Ad. 617. required that every surrender of copyhold and admittance &c., made out of court, or a memorandum thereof, shall be stamped; and sect. 33, which enacted, that, in cases of surrender &c., out of court, the steward should make and deliver to the tenant a stamped copy of the court-roll, were merely revenue regulations, and not intended to vary the rules of evidence; and that, therefore, a surrender and admittance out of court, presented and inrolled afterwards, might be proved by an examined copy of the court-roll, without producing the original surrender &c., or the memorandum thereof; but in that case the examined copies were stamped. Whateley and Keating, for the lessor of the plaintiff.A stamp is only required to "the copy of court-roll," which is made by the steward, and delivered by the steward of the manor to the tenant as his title-deed, and not to any copy made by a private individual for his own purposes, and by him examined with the original (b). (b) In the case of Braithwaite v. Hitchcock, 10 M. & W. 494, and 2 D. P. C., N. S., 444, a deed of assignment of a lease was called for under a motion to produce, and not being produced, a witness produced a document, which he stated was a true copy of the original assignment, which he had seen. It was objected, that this copy was inadmissible, for want of a stamp. Lord Abinger received the evidence, giving leave to move on the point. Mr. Erle afterwards moved in the Court of Exchequer, and contended that this copy was not receivable in evidence, being unstamped; as, by the stamp acts, 44 Geo. 3, c. 98, and 48 Geo. 3, c. 149, sched. 1, pt. 1, a duty is imposed on every copy attested to be a true 1844. DOE d. BURROWS v. FREEMAN. 1844. DOE d. BURROWS v. FREEMAN. COLERIDGE, J.-I never saw an admittance to a copyhold proved in this way; but, if there is no other evidence of it, I will receive this examined copy, and give leave to move to enter a nonsuit. The evidence was received. Mr. Chappell also produced a copy of court-roll of the same manor, dated in the year 1843, of the admission of the lessor of the plaintiff. This was written on parchment, and was duly stamped, and purported to be signed by Mr. Vincent, who was proved to be the steward of the manor of Launton, of which the dean and chapter of Westminster were the lords. Mr. Chappell stated that he did not know the handwriting of Mr. Vincent, but that he had shewn this copy of court-roll to Mr. Vincent, who stated to him that it was the copy of court-roll that had been delivered out by him as steward of the manor to the lessor of the plaintiff, and that it was his signature at the foot of it. Talfourd, Serjt.-I submit that what Mr. Vincent said is no proof of his signature. provisions of the Stamp Act relate COLERIDGE, J.-The witness shewing the court-roll to the steward, and the steward acknowledging it, is the same as if he had received it from the steward. 1844. DOE d. BURROWS V. Verdict for the plaintiff. FREEMAN. Whateley and Keating, for the plaintiff. Talfourd, Serjt., and W. J. Alexander, for the defendant. [Attornies-Chappell, and Maley.] In the ensuing term, Talfourd, Serjt., applied to the Court of Exchequer for leave to enter a nonsuit, in pursuance of the leave given at the trial, but the Court refused a rule. WORCESTER ASSIZES. (Civil Side). BEFORE MR. JUSTICE COLERIDGE. REGINA V. HAIR. March 7. PERJURY.-This was an indictment for perjury, which If an indict ment for perhad been removed into the Court of Queen's Bench by cerjury be removed tiorari, and was entered for trial on the Nisi Prius side of by certiorari at the assizes. the instance of the defendant, and be entered for trial on the Godson, for the prosecution, moved that this case should Nisi Prius side of the assizes by the defend ant, the judge will not stop the case from being tried on a motion on the part of the prosecution, on the ground that the prosecutor has not had sufficient notice of trial; but, if the defendant is acquitted, no one appearing for the prosecution, it will be a mis-trial if proper notice of trial had not been given. 1844. REGINA v. HAIR. not be tried. The Nisi Prius record had been brought down and entered by the defendant; and by the stat. 14 Geo. 2, c. 17, s. 4, ten days' notice of trial must be given to the prosecutor; and the present motion was made on an affidavit, which stated, that notice of trial had been served on the 28th of February last, which was only eight days before the present time, and only seven days before the commission day. COLERIDGE, J.- I cannot interfere to prevent the case from being called on, upon this ground. This case must be called on in its order. If the defendant is acquitted, no one appearing for the prosecution, it will be a mis-trial, if there has not been proper notice of trial. The case was called on in its order for trial, and, no one appearing for the prosecution, the defendant was acquitted. Godson and F. V. Lee, for the prosecution. Talfourd, Serjt., and W. A. Hill, for the defendant. [Attornies-W. H. Smith, and Boycott & Co.] March 8. In ejectment on the demise of "G. M. and Sarah his wife, Joyce Child, lon and Eleanor his wife, S. B. and Ann his wife," the female lessors DOE on the demise of MILLER and Others v. ROGERS. EJECTMENT, to recover a house at Stourbridge. The ejectment was on the demise of "George Miller and Sarah his wife, Joyce Child, Armand Shallon and Eleanor his wife, and Samuel Brown and Ann his wife;" and the female lessors of the plaintiff claimed the property as the daughters and co-heiresses of Jonah Child. of the plaintiff made out their title as co-heiresses of Jonah Child. It appeared that the hus band of Eleanor was an Egyptian, but no evidence could be given that his first name was Armand. The judge, at the trial, allowed the record to be amended by striking out the name of Armand, and held that the fact that Shallon was an alien would not prevent the lessors of the plaintiff from recovering in the present ejectment. |