ness who produced a duplicate that that was the account N. had gone over, and that he had said it was correct. Ward v. Suffield. Page 381 4. A bill of exchange was expressed in figures to be drawn for 245l., in words, for two hundred pounds, value received, with a stamp applicable to the higher amount: Held, that evidence to shew that the words and forty-five" had been omitted by mistake was not admissible. Saunderson and Others v. Piper and Others. 425 an account stated. Plea, payment of 100%. in satisfaction of the causes of action mentioned in the declaration. Plaintiff proved that 961. 17s. 11d. was due to him for the balance of his account, after giving credit for the 100%. he had received, and that Defendants had admitted the correctness of the account: Held, that the plea was not proved, and that Plaintiff need not new assign. James v. Lingham and Another. Page 553 7. Plaintiff, at the recommendation of B., sent goods to a dyer, who was told by Plaintiff's son that B. would give directions about them: B. called, and gave directions and afterwards became bankrupt in trover for these goods brought by Plaintiff against B.'s assignees, Held, that the directions given by B. were admissible in evidence for the assignees. Sharp v. Newsholme and Others, Assignees of Baily, a Bankrupt. 5. (1.) In an action against an as- (2.) An agreement to assign upon payment of 200l. by instalments, 713 The disbelief of the party making a charge before a magistrate is some evidence of want of probable cause, notwithstanding other evidence has shewn that there was prima facie probable cause for making the charge. Broad v. Ham. 722 In covenant on an indenture of lease which purported to be granted by J. S., in exercise of a power given by the will of P. S., Held that Defendant, by holding under the lease and executing a FINE. See DEVISE, 2. 1. The Court amended a fine levied at the Cardigan court of great session 1830, by indorsing the proclamations, it appearing to be the practice in that court to proclaim all fines, and that two proclamations were actually made, though not indorsed, on the fine in question. Evans, Demandant; Davies and Wife, Deforciants. Defendant was arrested at the suit EXCISE. 489 See DEED, CONSTRUCTION OF, 2. FALSE JUDGMENT. FEME COVERT. 1. Under ss. 77. & 91. of 3 & 4 W. 4. c. 74., the Court of C. P. authorized a feme covert to convey her copyhold property, her husband having resided abroad for more than twenty years with another woman. Ex parte Ann Shirley. FRAUDULENT REPRESENT ATION. See DECEIT. FREIGHT. See INSURANCE. GENERAL ISSUE. See PLEADING, 11. GUARANTY. 1. Plaintiff having pressed W. for payment of a debt, Defendant, W.'s attorney, sent to Plaintiff a bill accepted by W. at two months, enclosed in a letter, in which Defendant said, "W. being disappointed in receiving remittances, and you expressing yourself inconvenienced for money, I send you his acceptance at two months." Plaintiff refused to take the bill unless Defendant put his name to it. Defendant wrote on the back of the letter, "I will see the bill paid for W." Held, that Defendant was responsible, and that the consideration for the guaranty sufficiently appeared. Emmott v. Kearns. Page 559 2. "I hereby guarantee you the payment of the proceeds of the goods you have consigned to my brother, and also any future shipments you may make, in consideration of 2s. 6d. paid me." Held, a sufficient memorandum, within the Statute of Frauds, to make the subscriber liable to the vendor, notwithstanding it did not expressly disclose by whom the 2s. 6d. was paid. Dutchman v. Tooth. 577 3. Defendant, attorney of O., au 4. thorized Plaintiffs, as brokers, to distrain the goods on A.'s premises, for rent due to O.; whereupon the distress was made. Some of the goods being privileged from distress, and claimed by the owners, Plaintiffs required an indemnity, which Defendant gave on the part of O., and afterwards said he would give a further guaranty. The owners of the privileged goods having sued and recovered against Plaintiffs, Held, that Defendant was liable to make good the loss they had sustained. Toplis and Another v. Grane. Page 636 A guaranty given by Defendant was to be void if Plaintiff should omit to avail himself to the utmost of any security he held of W. R., and if any thing should prevent Defendant from retaining the proceeds of an execution levied on the property of W. R. Held, that the guaranty was not avoided by Plaintiff's omitting to put in suit a bill of exchange drawn by W. R., and accepted by an insolvent still in prison, or by Defendant's being deprived of a part of the proceeds of his execution against W. R., such part being the value of the goods of another person wrongfully taken under that execution. v. Rogers, the Elder. Muskett 728 INFANCY. HUSBAND AND WIFE. See EVIDENCE, 2. A deed of separation between Plaintiff and his wife having been drawn up, but not executed by Plaintiff, Held, that his executing such deed was a legal consideration for a promise by Defendant to pay certain debts and expenses, for which Plaintiff was solely liable. Jones v. Waite. Page 341 ILLEGAL CONTRACT. See CONTRACT. INFANCY. 1. Defendant, an infant, living in a style of some pretension, having purchased of Plaintiff, in the course of four months, silks to the amount of 35l., some of which were delivered in the presence of her mother, and some sent to a fashionable hotel, where Defendant and her mother lived, Held, that Defendant was liable for the amount, notwithstanding plaintiff had omitted to make any enquiries of the mother whether or not the articles were necessary for the Defendant. Dalton v. Gib. 198 2. In an action against an infant for the price of necessaries furnished to him, enquiry by Plaintiff as to Defendant's circumstances is not 58 1. Upon an undertaking to effect an insurance according to special instructions, a part of the duty implied is the giving notice to the employer in case of failure; and an actual promise to that effect, though averred in the declaration, need not be proved. Callander v. Oelrichs and Another. 2. Plaintiff owner of a ship, effected a policy on freight at and from the Coromandel coast to Bourbon: the ship put into a port on the Coromandel coast for repairs; Plaintiff purchased a cargo, and had it, ready to be sent on board, about seven miles from the port: the ship was lost by an accident in going out of dock; the policy covered perils of the seas and all other perils, losses, and misfor tunes: Held, that Plaintiff's interest in the profit of conveying the cargo was properly described as freight; that the cargo being ready when the ship was about to leave the dock, the risk attached; and that LANDLORD AND TENANT. See COVENANT. EVIDENCE, 5. Defendants, as tenants from year to year, occupied a second floor, which, during their occupation, was consumed by an accidental fire: Held, that, notwithstanding the destruction of the premises, they were liable to an action for use and occupation for the period which elapsed between the fire and the regular determination of See COVENANT. LIBEL. Plaintiff's ship being advertised for freight and passengers, Defendant published that she was unseaworthy, and had been bought by Jews to take out convicts. Justification as to the whole, that the allegation of unseaworthiness was true, Held insufficient. Ingram v. Lawson. LICENCE. See CONDITION. TRESPASS. LIEN. See PAWNBROKER. TROVER, 1. LIMITATIONS. See STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 66 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. 1. Defendant agreed to grant a lease with the usual covenants, and Plaintiff to execute a counterpart and pay the expenses; and for the true performance of the agreement, each of the parties bound himself in the penalty of 500l., to be recovered against the defaulter as liquidated damages: Held, that the 500l. must be considered as a penalty, and not as liquidated damages. 2. The agreement being between Defendant and two others |