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
copy, in the form which hath been
commonly used for that purpose,
or in any other manner authenti-
cated or declared to be a true copy,
or made for the purpose of being
given in evidence as a true copy
of any agreement, contract, bond,
deed, or other instrument of con-
veyance, or any other deed what-
soever;" it being also declared by
the stat. 48 Geo. 3, c. 149, sched. 1,
pt. 1, that "all copies which shall
at any time be offered in evidence
shall be deemed to have been made
for that purpose." The Court of
Exchequer held, that the copy of
the deed offered in evidence did
not require a stamp; and Lord
Abinger, C. B., said, "I think the

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
only to such copies as are evidence
per se, and that the word 'copy' there
means an authenticated copy, re-
ceivable as evidence in the first in-
stance. Here the copy was evi-
dence only because the party who
produced it had compared it with
the original, and swore to the con-
tents of it word for word." And
Baron Parke said, "I quite agree
with my Lord Chief Baron, that no
stamp was requisite; inasmuch as,
though the document might in
form have been read as a copy

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,
Armand Shal-

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.