Page images
PDF
EPUB

John James,

No. 3.-Demurrer to a Plaint or Defence.

Plaintiff.

Court of Queen's Bench, Saturday, the 26th day of February 1854.

Richard Roe, Executor of
Henty Roe,

Defendant.

The said Richard Roe, the defendant, appears and says, that the summons and plaint does not disclose any cause of action good in substance, because that no sufficient consideration for the alleged promise of

the defendant as executor of the said Henry Roe is stated therein, to render the said defendant liable to pay the debt of the said Henry Roe. EDWARD MOLONEY, attorney for the defendant. No. 14, Capel Street, Dublin.

No. 4.-Judgment by Default for Want of Defence.

Court of Queen's Bench, on Monday, the 20th day of June,
A. D. 1854 (Day of signing Judgment).

County of the City of John James, by William Thompson, his
Dublin.
attorney, sued out a writ of summons and
plaint against Richard Roe, claiming the sum of £140 for debt on
account of a Bill of Exchange drawn by Henry Jasper, dated the 15th
day of October 1853, and endorsed by the said Richard Roe.

And the said Richard Roe has not appeared to take defence; but the service of such writ and the contents of said plaint have been duly verified.

Therefore, it is considered, that the said John James do recover against the said Richard Roe the sum of £140, together with

for costs.

County of Sligo,
to wit.

John James,

No. 5.-Abstract for Nisi Prius.

[blocks in formation]

Court of Queen's Bench, Monday, the 20th Day of March, A. D. 1854.

Whereas John James, the plaintiff, has sued Richard Roe, the defendant, and demanded the sum of £150 as the price and value of 130 barrels of wheat sold and delivered to the defendant.

And the said Richard Roe has taken defence, and admits the delivery of the

wheat, but has alleged that he paid the sum of £130 to the plaintiff before the commencement of this action, and that such payment was a full satisfaction of the value of said wheat, and that said wheat was not sound and merchantable at the time of its delivery to the Plaintiff. Therefore let the Jury try

Ist. Whether the said wheat was sound and merchantable at the time of its delivery.

2d. Whether the value of said wheat exceeded the sum of £130. ROBERT JONES, attorney for the plaintiff. HENRY GREENE, attorney for the defendant.

John James,

Plaintiff.

Richard Roe.

No. 6.-Bill of Exceptions.

Court of Queen's Bench,
Monday, 20th Day of July, 1854.

The issues in fact in the annexed abstract of Nisi Prius having come to be tried by a jury on this day, the plaintiff Defendant. produced and examined as a witness one G. II. to prove the fact of [&c. &c.]; and the said G. II. deposed that [&c. &c.], which evidence the defendant objected to as not being legal evidence of the fact; and the plaintiff insisting to the contrary, the Judge at Nisi Prius admitted the evidence to be received accordingly, and therefore the defendant excepts, and prays that his exception shall be placed upon the record for the examination of the Court above. L. M., Counsel for defendant. L. P., Judge.

(Signed)

No. 7.-Order of Attachment of Stock.

John James,

Plaintiff.

Defendant.

Richard Roe,

Court of Queen's Bench,

Monday, 20th day of June, 1854.

By the Right Honourable Mr. Justice Moore.

It appearing to the Court that the J plaintiff hath recovered judgment against

the defendant in the sum of £300, and that such judgment is still un

be hadur-a

satisfied; and it also appearing that the defendant is possessed of a sum of £200 Government 34 per Cent. Stock, standing in his own name in the books of the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland;

The said sum of £200, and all dividends thereon, are hereby attached to answer the said debt until further order; and the said Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland are hereby ordered and required not to suffer the same, or any part thereof, to be transferred, paid, or dealt with until further order.

RICHARD MOORE, Justice.

CHRISTOPHER DUFF, Clerk of the Rules.

No. 8.-Satisfaction Piece, Affidavit, and Requisition to enter Satisfaction

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

which said judgment has been fully satisfied and discharged; and I hereby consent that satisfaction be entered on the record of said judg

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

and saith, that he is the subscribing witness to, and saw the above consent duly executed by A.B. of

and saith, that the

name E.F. subscribed as witness to the above consent is deponent's proper name and handwriting.

Sworn before me, this

Now, I G.H. of

(Signed)

E.F.

a practising attorney of this

honourable court, do hereby on behalf of the defendant require the proper officer to enter satisfaction on the Record of said judgment.

To the Master of the Court of

(Signed) G.H., attorney.

John James,

Plaintiff.

Richard Roe,

No. 9.-Suggestion of Breaches.

Queen's Bench,

Monday, the 20th day of June, 1854.

And now, on this day the said John James, the plaintiff, comes and informs the Court that after the recovery of the Defendant. said judgment, and on the 1st day of April, 1853, another half-yearly gale of the said annuity, amounting to the sum of £100, became due and payable to the plaintiff, and that the defendant has neglected and refused to pay the same, in breach and violation of the conditions of the said bond upon which the plaintiff recovered such judgment, and therefore the plaintiff prays execution of the said judgment for the further sum of £100.

No. 10.-Suggestion for Execution against the Judgment Debtor.

John James,

Plaintiff.

Richard Roe,

Defendant.

And now, on the 26th day of June, 1854, it is suggested, and manifestly appears to the Court, that the said A.B. [or C.D., as such executor of the last will and testament of the said A.B. deceased, or as the case may be], is entitled to have execution of the judgment aforesaid against the said E.F. [or against G.H., as executor of the last will and testament of the said E.F., as the case may be]: therefere it is considered by the Court that the said A.B. [or C.D., as such executor as aforesaid, or as the case may be], ought to have execution of the said judgment against the said E.F. [or against G.II., as such executor as aforesaid, or as the case may be.]

No. 11.-Form of Writ of Revivor.

In the Queen's Bench.

Victoria, &c., &c., to the said Richard Roe, greeting. County of Clare.

Richard Roe, the defendant, is summoned to appear and show cause wherefore

John James,

Plaintiff.

Richard Roe,

Defendant.

Edward Jones, executor of the said John James, shall not have execution against the said Richard Roe, of a judgment whereby John James, on the 1st day of June, 1850, in the said Court of Queen's Bench, recovered against the

said Richard Roe the sum of £300, and of which sum the said Edward Jones alleges that there remains due and unsatisfied the sum of £100.

Therefore the said Richard Roe is hereby required to appear in the said Court within eight days after the service hereof, and show cause wherefore execution should not be had accordingly; or in default thereof the said Edward Jones may proceed to execution for said sum of £100 and his costs.

Witness the Lord Chief Justice and other Justices of Her
Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench at Dublin.

Dated Monday, the 26th day of April, 1854.

WILLIAM THOMPSON, attorney for the said Edward Jones,
No. 12, Clare-street, Dublin.

No. 11 A.-Like in case of Interlocutory Judgment.

[Proceed as in last form to the asterisk (*) and then as follows:]-assess and recover [or recover] the damages in respect of a judgment whereby the said John James, on the 1st day of June, 1850, in the said Court of Queen's Bench, was adjudged in that behalf entitled, and which inquiry of damages as yet remains to be made [if the case be so].

Therefore the said Richard Roe is hereby required to appear in the said Court within eight days after the service hereof, and show cause wherefore the said assessment should not be made [if not made] and recovery had as aforesaid, or in default thereof the said Edward Jones may procced to assess and recover [or to recover] such damages against the said C.D.

Witness, the Lord Chief Justice and other Justices of Her
Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench at Dublin.

Dated Monday, the 4th day of April, 1854.

A.B. and C.D.

WM. THOMPSON, attorney for the said E.F.,
No. 12, Clare-street, Dublin.

No. 12.-Memorandum of Error.

In the Queen's Bench, the 20th day of April, 1854.

[The day of lodging Note of Error.]

The plaintiff [or defendant] says that there is error in law in the record and proceedings in this action.

(Signed)

A.B., plaintiff.

[or C.D. defendant.]

[or E.F., attorney for plaintiff or defendant.]

« PreviousContinue »