ABATEMENT (PLEA IN).
See PLEADING, 4.

ABDUCTION.

1. A., a girl under sixteen, who
was in service, was, as she was re-
turning from an errand, asked by B.
if she would go to London, as B.'s
mother wanted a servant, and would
give her £5 wages.
A. and B. went
away together to Bilston, where both
were found, and B. apprehended:-
Held, that this was not such a taking
or causing to be taken of A. as was
sufficient to constitute the offence of
abduction under the 20th sect. of
the stat. 9 Geo. 4, c. 31. Reg. v.
Meadows,
399

2. Semble, that a mere fraudulent
decoying or enticement away of a girl
under sixteen is not a taking or
causing to be taken within that sec-
tion,
Ibid.

3. A. went in the night to the
house of B., and placed a ladder
against a window, and held it for J.,
the daughter of B., to descend, which
she did, and then eloped with A. J.
was a girl under sixteen, viz. fifteen
years old:-Held, that this was a
"taking" of J. out of the possession
of her father within the stat. 9 Geo. 4,
c. 31, s. 20, although J. had herself

proposed to A. to bring the ladder
and to elope with him. Held, also,
that it was no defence for A., that he
did not know that J. was under six-
teen, or that from her appearance he
might have thought she was of a
greater age. Reg. v. Robins, 456

ABUSING FEMALE CHILDREN.
See RAPE, 1.

If, on the trial of an indictment for
a misdemeanour in carnally knowing
and abusing a girl between the ages
of ten and twelve, it appears that the
defendant effected his purpose by
force, and against the girl's will, this
is no ground of acquittal. Reg. v.
Neale,
591

ACCESSARY.

Three persons were jointly charged
with procuring certain other persons
to utter a forged will. The only evi-
dence for the prosecution was of sepa-
rate acts, at separate times and places,
done by each of the persons charged
as accessaries. At the end of that
evidence one of them pleaded guilty:
-Held, that the other two might, not-
withstanding, be convicted. Reg. v.
Barber,
442

ACTION (NOTICE OF). See NOTICE OF ACTION.

ACTOR.

See THEATRE.

ADDRESSING THE JURY.

See REPLY.

1. An action for goods sold and delivered had been brought against three, who pleaded in abatement the non-joinder of P. and four other persons. The plaintiff did not take issue on that plea, and brought another action against the eight, in which P. pleaded, separately, non assumpsit. At the trial, the counsel for two of the original defendants, in his address to the jury, proposed to go into evidence to prove that one of them was not liable, and also to prove, under the stat. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 10, that P. was liable. P.'s counsel asked to be allowed to address the jury after the proposed evidence was given, instead of before, and it was held that he might do so. Beale v. Mouls, 1

66

2. In an action for a conspiracy, the defendants pleaded the general issue, and also a special plea of justification, which plea was demurred to, and held bad by the Court, who gave judgment on it for the plaintiff, and the award of venire was as well to try the issue joined as to inquire what damages the said plaintiff had sustained on occasion of the premises whereof the Court hath given judgment for the said plaintiff:"-Held, that, on the trial at Nisi Prius, the defendants' counsel, in addressing the jury, had a right to refer to the allegations contained in the special plea, and to comment upon them. Gregory v. Duke of Brunswick, 24

3. Where the counsel for several prisoners cannot agree as to the order in which they are to address the jury,

the Court will call upon them, not in the order of their seniority, but in the order in which the names of the prisoners stand in the indictment. But where the counsel for one prisoner has witnesses to fact to examine, the counsel for another cannot be allowed to postpone his address to the jury until after those witnesses have been examined. Reg. v. Barber, 434

ADMINISTERING POISON. See ASSAULT, 3.

ADMINISTRATOR.

See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.-LANDLORD AND TENANT,

1.

ADMISSION.

See BIGAMY, 4.

ADULTERER.

See LARCENY, 2.

AFFIDAVIT.

The Court will direct an affidavit in a case of misdemeanour, which contains matter both scandalous and irrelevant, to be removed from the files of the Court, and the party who filed it is liable to be visited as for a contempt of Court. Also, if an affidavit contain matter that is relevant and scandalous, the Court, though they cannot direct its removal from the files, will give the party attacked an opportunity of denying the defamatory matter upon oath, by a counter affidavit. Reg. v. Gregory,

AGENT.

See SHIPPING, 1.

228

1. A was the owner of a saw-mill, and B. was his foreman. B., as the agent of A., but without any express authority, entered into a contract in

328

writing to supply C. with a quantity of Scotch-fir staves:-Held, that this contract was binding on A., inasmuch as B. must be presumed to have had a general authority to enter into such contracts as the one in question. Richardson v. Cartwright, 2. An agent has no right, without the authority of his principal, to overdraw a banking account. But if it appear that the agent has done so with the knowledge of his principal, the jury will be warranted in inferring from this, that the agent had, in fact, the requisite authority. Pott v. Bevan,

335

3. In debt against an executor for a legacy, which, it was alleged, he was, by agreement with the legatee, to retain and to pay interest upon, the defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations. It was proposed to take the case out of the Statute of Limitations, by putting in letters written by the defendant's son, who assisted him in his trade, and received for him money due to him in the way of his business as a shoe manufacturer:Held, that, though this would be good evidence to shew that the son was his father's agent in matters relating to the father's trade, it was not such evidence of agency as would render the letters of the son admissible in evidence in this case. Whitehouse v. Abberley,

AGREEMENT.
See EVIDENCE, 24.

ALIEN.

See EJECTMENT.

AMENDMENT.

642

See EJECTMENT.-PERJURY, 5.

1. In an action for wrongfully dismissing the editor of a periodical work within the year for which he was alleged

to be engaged, the declaration stated that the plaintiff was engaged for a year, at a salary of three guineas per week, to be raised one guinea for every thousand copies sold. It was objected that the terms of the contract, as to the rise of salary, were not proved. The judge, being of opinion that there was some evidence of the contract as laid, left the case to the jury, and said, that, if they found that the contract was not on the terms as to salary which were alleged in the declaration, he should not allow an amendment, but would have the finding of the jury stated on the record, under the stat. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 24. Baxter v. Nurse,

10

2. Where a plaintiff had obtained from a judge at chambers an order for leave to amend his declaration on payment of costs, but had not made the amendment, the judge who tried the cause refused to allow the declaration to be amended at the trial, under the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 23. Geeckie v. Monck, 555

ANNUITY.

See RIGHT TO BEGIN, 4.

ANSWER IN CHANCERY. See EVIDENCE, 32.

APPRENTICE.

See PUPIL AND ASSISTANT.

1. The father of an apprentice covenanted in the indenture to provide his son with washing, &c.; after that the master suggested that the father should allow the son £20 a year, and the master supply the son with washing, &c., and the son pay him for it. This was acceded to, and the master accordingly supplied the washing, &c.: -Held, that the master could not recover in an action of covenant on