Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

were to serve his Majesty by fea or land as discriminated in the statute, the conviction shall be quafhed, though the former part of the sentence, adjudging the rogue and vagabond to be whipped, be valid. Rex v. Patchett, T. 44 G. 3. 339

VALUATION OF PREMISES.

Şce COMPENSATION.

VARIANCE. See STOCK, No. 3.

tending the protection of the stat. 24 G. 2. C. 44. for privileging justices of the peace in actions brought against them, as such, to the lord mayor and aldermen of London acting under this act beyond the limits of the city ; directs that " no action shall be commenced against any perjon or perfors for any thing done in pursuance or under colour of this act, until after 14 days' notice in writing, or after tender of amends," &c. : held that the treasurer of the Company is a person within the faid clause ; and being sued for an ad done by the Company which induced an injury to th plaintiffs, was entitled to such notice before the a&ion brought. The notice is necessary in actions for trespasses or torts; but qu. Whether in affumpfit? Wallace v. Smith, Treasurer of the West India Dock Company, E. 44 G. 3.

115

VIDELICET. An allegation in pleading which is sensible

and consistent in the place where it occurs, and not repugnant to antecedent matter, cannot be rejected as surplusage, though laid under a videlicet, and however inconsistent with an allegation Jubsequent. Rex v. Stephens and Agnew, T. 44 G. 3.

244 See INDICTMENT, No. 1, 2, 3.

WILL. See COPYHOLD, No. 1. Devise,

VENUE. A scire facias upon a recognizance of bail

taken in open court in B. R. is properly suable in Middlesex, where the record is; though all the previous proceedings which commenced by original were in London. And semble that it could not be sued elsewhere than in Middlesex. Coxeter v. Burke and Another, Bail of Price, M. 45 G. 3.

WORDS, CONSTRUCTION OF.

Charges.See CHARGES. “ Share." See DEVIZE, No. 6.

Unless." See AGREEMENT, No. 3 and

5. "'Until." See INDICTMENT, No. 12,

461

WEST INDIA DOCKS. The ftat. 39 G. 3. c. 69. S. 184. directs

WRIT. Sec PRACTICE, No. 6. The Court will qualh a writ for irregula

rity if it have an informal return, although the day of the return be equally certain as in the common form. Reus bel v. Preston, T.44 G. 3.

291

WRIT OF RIGHT. See RICHT, WRIT OF.

that the Weft India Dock Company shall sue in the name of their treasurer in all actions by or on behalf of the Company, and that he shall be sued for the recovery

of any claim or demand upon, or of any damages occafioned by the Company, and . 185., after ex

END OF THE FIFTH VOLUME.

Printed by A. Strahan, Law Printer to His Majesty,

Printers-Street, London,

[ocr errors]
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »