« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
ney on their joint credit: held that the there being no power at common law som so paid in satisfaction of the judg- for a common informer to fue for any ment might be recovered in a joint penalty: and that the form of the de. action by A. and B. against C. Oj
claration must be read in blank, as to borne and Amphlete v. Harper, T. sum, luch form being otherwise inap. 44 G. 3.
plicable !0 a larger penalty before
given: and that no such action lay to - PASSAGE-MONEY.
recover two or more penalties of 201. The plaintiff contracted to carry the de
each. Fleming, qui tum, v. Bailey, T. fendant, his family, and luggage from
4+ G. 3.
313 Demerary to Flushing; and in the course
1. A count upon an account ftated with England, and the ship and cargo libelled
the plaintiff, executrix, &c. (not saying for prize in the Court of Admiralty, and
as executrix, &c.) cancot be joined the cargo condemned, and proceedings
with counts on promises to the teftator; ftill pending against the ship; but the
for it is no allegation that the promises defendant, and his family were libe
were made to the plaintiff in her reprerated, and their luggage in fact restored
presentative capacity; and onder such to their possession. Held thai, however
a count proof might be given of an ac. the question might be as to the plain.
count ftated with her in her individual tiff's right to recover passage-money character. 24. Whether if it had been upon an implied affumpfit pro ratâ iti
laid to be on an account fared with the neris if the ship were restored, yet pend- plaintiff herself, though named as exeing the proceedings against the ship as
cutrix, &c. it could be joined, as the prize in the Admiralty Court no such
cause of action would fill appear to have action could be maintained ; for non
ariten in the time of the executrix, conftat, but that the ship might be con
though the money, when recovered, demned and she freight decreed to the would he affeis? Henshall v. Roberts, captors. Mulloy v. Backer, T. 44 G. 3.
in error, E. 44 G. 3.
150 3162. An allegation in pleading which is fenPAYMENT.
fible and consistent in the place where Sre ACCORD AND SATISFACTION,
it occurs, and not repugnant to antece.
and however inconsistent with an alle-
gacion fublequent. Rex v. Stevens and The stat. 39 G.3.c. 79. giving a penalty Agnew, T.144 G. 3.
244 of 20l. for printing papers to be pub-3. A. declared in covenant against B. and lished, without adding the printer's her husband, for that B. before her inname and place of abode, directs that termarriage covenanted with A. by deed any penalty imposed by the act exceed to leave certain accounts in difference ing 20l. may be fued for in the courts of between them to arbitration, and to Westminsler ; and any penalty not ex- abide and perform the award, provided ceeding zol. Mall and may be recovered it were made during their lives. And before
peace : : but it also A. protesting that B. had not before her gives, in the same clause, a form of de. intermarriage performed her part of the claration for recovering zol., in the covenant, averred that after making the courts of Westminsler. Yet held that indenture and the intermarriage of the a common informer cannot sue for a defendants, the arbitrator awarded B. to penalty of col. in this court; no such pay A. a certain fum; and then alleged power being given by the statute, and a breach for non-payment of such fum.
any justice of
After verdiet, on non eft factum plead- 17. Slanderous words must be understood ed; held that upon this declaration is by the Court in the same sense as the must be taken that B. intermarried after rest of mankind would ordinarily onderthe submisiion and before the award fand them. Therefore where one said inade; in which case, although the of ano:her chat " his cbaracter was in. plaintiff could not recover upon the famous; that he would be disgraceful breach afligned, for non-payment of the to any fociety; that those who proposed Jum awarded, because the marriage was him as a member of any fociety must have a counternuand to the authority of the ar. intended an infult to it; that be would kitralor; yet as by the marriage itself publish his name and infamy ; that deli. B. had by her own act put it out of her cacy forbad bim from bringing a direa power to perform the award, the cove- charge, but it was a MALE child who pant to abide the award was broken; complained to him :" such words were and therefore judgment could not be understood to mean a charge of unnaarrested on the ground that the mar. tural practices, and sufficiently certain siage was a revocation of the arbitra. in themselves to be actionable, without tor's authority, and that so the plaintiff the aid of an innuendo to that purpose, could not recover as for a breach by non- which it was admited could not enlarge performance of the award. Charnley v. the sense. And held that such words Winstanley and his Wife. T. 44 G. 3. could not be justified by any plea nam
266 ing, for the firft cime, the person from 4. The demandant in a writ of right whom the defendant heard the com
muft allege in his count that his anceitor plaint. Woolnoth v. Meadows, M. was feised of right as well as that he 45 G. 3.
463 was feised in his demesne as of fee. Dow. 8. A plea of nul tiel record, pleaded to an land v. Slade and Wife, T. 44
action of debt on an Irish judgment, 5. Qu. Whether if one through whom muft conclude to the country; for
title is derived be improperly itated to though, since the Union, such judgment be heir to her brother, who it appears be a record, yet it is only proveable by by the record had a son who survived an examined copy on oath, the veracity him, and through whom title is pro. of which is only triable by a jury. Col. perly derived, such erroneous appella- lins v. Lord Viscount Matbew, M. tion of the filter as heir to her brother, 45 G. 3. be fatal?
ib. 9. A bill of exchange payable to the order 6. In an action against the marshal for an of A., is payable to A. without alleging escape, it being alleged in the declara
any order made; and it is sufficient to tion that the prisoner was arrested on declare that A. delivered the bill to the mesne process, and brought before a defendant, which he accepted, and by judge at chambers by virtue of a writ reason of the premises, and according of habeas corpus, and was by him there. to the custom of merchants, became livpon committed to the custody of the able to pay the contents to A., without marshal, es by the record thereof now re- alleging a re-delivery of the bill by the maining in the Court of B. R. appears, defendant: for if a re-delivery, or &c. fuch allegation is either impertinent something tantamount, to shew the afand furplurage ; for properly speaking, sent of the drawee to charge himself, be such documents are not records nor ca- necessary to an acceptance, the demur. pable of becoming so: or, considering rer, by admitting the acceptance, imthem as quaß of record, the allegation is pliedly admits the re-delivery, &c. fufficiently proved by the production of Smith'. M Clure, M. 45 G. 3.
476 them from the office of the clerk of the Papers of the K. B. prison, with whom
POOR-RATE. they are properly depofited. Wigley v. Jones, Markal 'of ibe Marshaljea, T. 1. Where goods are carried along two 44 G. 3.
different lines of canal, one of which is
by statute exempted from being rated a leet jury, according to a certain Itint, in respect of the tolls, and the other not; to such residene hurgesies who chose to though the voyage happen to finish on llock the same ; they paying 195. 4d, the unexempted line, where the tolls to each of the other burgesses who did became due and are received, yet the not flock: held chat che burgesses who canal company shall not be raied for so stocked were tenants in common of the more than such proportion of the tolls lands lo occupied by them, and as such as accrued in respect of the carriage occupiers were liable to be raced for the along the unexempted line. And the same. Rex v. Watson, M. 45 G. 3. toll arising in respect of so much per ton per mile is to be rated only for so many
POOR-REMOVAL, miles as the goods were carried along See SETTLEMENT BY Estate, No. 1. the unexempted line. And where the act directs that the tolls should be ex- An order of jullices removing
16 M. F., empt from any taxes, rates, &c. other *wife of P. F., a Scotchman, who nethan such as the land which should be ver gained a settlement in England," used for the purpose of the navigation and their children, to the place of ber would have been subject to if the act latt legal settlement; which order was had not been made; that goes to ex
faced on the face of it to be made on empo che tolls, quà rolls, altogether from examination of the husband, and with the being rated in respect of the line fo ex- consent of him and his wife, was holden empied, leaving the land rateable as bem good. Rex v. The Inbabitants of Elfore. Rex v. The Leeds and Liverpool
iban, E. 44 G. 3.
113 Canal Company, T. 44 G. 3. 325
PRACTICE. 2. Where a corporation was seiled in see
of certain uninclosed lands, which were 1. Affidavits in support of, or in answer to Itocked with the cattle of the resident a rule for setting aside an award made burgesses, or the widows of such, who a rule of Court under the Itat. 9 & alone were permitted by the burgesses 10W. 3.6. 15. f. 1., there being no to claim such right, and also by poor action previously brought, nor any cause parishioners, who were admitted to fuch in court, need not be entitled. Bainenjoyment from charity; and such lands bridge 3. Houlton, E. 41 G. 3. were altogether omicted out of the 2. The Court will not inter that a writ of poor-sate ; the Sessions, on appeal by error was sued out for delay because it one who had given notice of his objec. was fued out before final judgment signtion to the parish cfficers, and to the ed. And though it should be made recorporation as the party interested un- turnable before final judgment, it will der the stat. 41 G. 3. c. 23. 5.6., hav- still operate as a supersedeas upon the ing quashed the rate, the Court con- judgment, which, when Gigned in the firmed that order. Rex v. Tbe Inhabi- same term, relates back to the first day tants of Aberavon, M. 45 G. 3. 453
of it; and therefore execution issued 3. Iron mines are not rateable to the relief thereon after such writ of error allowed
of the poor ; and being rated conjointly and served was set a fide for irregularity. with coal mines, the coal whereof was Somerville v. White, E. 44 G. 3. 145 was raised by the owner of the lands for 3. If one of two defendanis taken on a bis own use in smelting the iron, the or- joint ca. sa. be discharged under an in. der of Séllions confirming such rate ge
Solvent debtors' act, that will not ope. nerally, without ascertaining the pro- rate as a discharge of the other, the disportion at which each was rated, was charge of the former not being with the quashed. Rex v.Cunningham and Others, actual consent of the plaintiff. Nadir M. 45 G. 3.
v. Battie and Wardle, E. 44 G. 3. 147 Where a corporation were sęised in fee 4. The Court will quah a writ för irreof lands, which by the custom were an. gularity if it have an informal return, pually qeted out under their control by although the day of the return be equal
580 PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
PROHIBITION. ly certain as in the common form. Reu
PRINTERS. bel v. Preston, T. 44 G. 3. 291
See PENAL Action, No. 1. 5. An application to make the plaintiff, who resided abroad, give security for
PRIZE. the cotts refused after notice of trial given ; as the defendant might have See FOREIGN SENTENCES, PASSAGEapplicd earlier after knowledge of the
MONEY. fact of the plaintiff's residence, and be. The Prize Court of Appeals has jurisdic. fore so much of the costs were incurred. tion to decree that one who was co
Walters v. Frythail, T. 44 G. 3. 338 agent of the captors, in whose hands the 6. Where a writ of fi. fa. expires in the
proceeds of the prize after condemna. vacation, the sh-riff need not return is tion and sale were placed, should, alter till the first day of the ensuing term, and a decree of reftitution with interest pro• has the whole of that day to file it. nounced against the captors, pay interet Rex v. The Sherij of Berks, T.44 G 3
on such proceeds while in tis hands to
the claimant. And B. R. will no: grant 7. A demand of a plea indorsed on the
a prohibition to the Prize Court to redeclaration when delivered is good, and ftrain it from executing fach decree, a rule to plead may be given aricrwards,
either on the ground that it did not apwithoue any fresh demand of a plea.
pear on the proceedings below that ihe Maxwell v. Skerrett, M. 45 G. 3. 547
agent was a registered agent under the 8. Bail may render without jullifying ;
itat. 33 G. 3. c. 66 ; because that Court and where the rule expires in vacation
has original jurifdiction in rem and its a render on the first day of the ensuing incidents, independent of the statute ; term., sedenie Curiâ, is good, though
nor on the ground that the Court below notice were not given till afterwards on
were restrained by the 32d clause of the the same day, and after a writ of pro. act from decreeing reititution of more cedendo had issued to the inferior court
than the net proceeds of the sale, awarded where the cause originated. Wiggins
upon condemnation ; because interest v. Stephens, M. 45 G. 3.
533 made of such net proceeds in the hands
of the holder are to be deemed part of PRESSING.
the proceeds; nor on the ground that 1. The Court will not, at the prayer of it was not alleged that interest had in
the masler, grant a habeas corpus to fazt been made by such agent; because bring up an apprentice impressed, he that was a fact for the Court below to being willing to enter into the king's decide upon, and they muft be preservice. Ex parte John Landsdown, E. sumed to have decided on satisfactory G. 3.
evidence. Willis v. The Commissioners
of Appeals in Prize Causes, E. 44 G. 3. vice is nor exempe from being impressed becaose he is a freeholder. Rex v.
PROHIBITION. Douglas, M. 45 G. 3.
477 Where the Spiritual Court incidentally
determines any matter of common law PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
cognizance, such as the construction of One who covenants for himself, his heirs, an act of parliament, otherwise than as
&c. and under his own hand and feal, the common law requires, prohibition for the act of another, shall be perfon. lies after sentence; although the objecally bound by his covenant, though he tion do not appear upon the face of the describe himself in the deed as cove- libel, but is collected from the whole of nanting for and on the part and behalf of the proceedings below. Gould v. Gap. fucb other perfor. Appleton v. Binks, É. per, Clerk, T. 44 G. 3.
345 44 G. 3. 148
2. “A leaman ferving in the merchant fe tot
Middlesex. Coxeter v. Burke and Ano.
ther, Bail of Price, M. 456. 3: 461 Mr. Mansfield, one of the king's counsel, on the death of Lord Alvanley, Lord | 3. A plea ot nu! tiek record, pleaded to an
action of debt on an Irish judgment reChief Justice of C. B. was promoted to
covered, muit conclude to the country ; chat office in Hilary vacation 1804, and was knighted. And on the 27th of
for though, tince the Union, such judg
mene is a record, yet it only proveo April was called to the degree of Ser:
able by an examined copy on oath, the jeant at Law, and cook his seat on the
veraciiy of which is only criable by a bench, and gave rings with this moito,
jury. Collins v. Ld. Viscount Mathew, Serus in cælum redeas.
11. 45 G. 3. On Saturday the 28th of April 1804 the
. 473 following gentlemen cook their places
RELATION. within the har; As King's Serjeant, Mr. Serjeant Wil
See JOINT-TENANT, No. 1. liams, As King's Counsel, Mr. Hollif, Mr. REQUEST, LONDON, COURT OF. Milles, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Topping ; and
S: LONDON COURT OF REQUESTS. with a patent of precedence, Mr. For. blanque.
RIGHT, WRIT OF. In the Trinity vacation 1804 Mr. Giblis
was made Chief Justice of Chesler; and 1. The demandant in a writ of right must Meffis. Cox, Harvey, and Stanley, Bar. allege in bis count that his ancestor was rillers at Law, were appointed Matters seised of right, as well as that he was in Cancery.
seiled in bis demuefne as of fee. Dowland
v. Slaúe and Wife, T. 44 G. 3. 272 RECORD.
2. Qu. Whether if one, through whom
title is derived, be improperly faced to 1. In an action against the marshal for an
be beir to her brother, who it appears escape, it being alleged in the declara
by the record had a son who survived tion that the prisoner was arrested on
him, and through whom title is pro. mesne process, and brought before a
perly derived, such erroneous appellaJudge år chambers by virtue of a wrie
tion of the Gler, as heir to her brother, of habeas corpus, and was by him there.
ib. upon committed to the custod of the marshal, as by the record thereof now remaining in the Court of B. R. appears,
ROGUE AND VAGABOND. &c. Such allegation is either impertinent
See VACRANT. and furplulage; for, properly speaking, such documents are not records, nor ca
SE AMAN, pable of becoming fo: or, considering
See PRESSING. them as quali of record, the allegation is fufficiently proved by the production of them from the office of the clerk of
SETTLEMENT. the papers of the K. B. prison, with Ste Poor REMOVAL, No. 1. whom they are propesiy deposited.
By Apprentice/bip. W'ig'ey v. Jones, marjloal of the Mlar halfea, T. 44 G, 3.
Where a fum agreed to be given with an 2. A scire facias upon a recognizance of apprentice was five guincas, which was
bail taken in open court in B. R. is inserted in the indenture, and the duty properly suable in Middlefex, where the paid accordingly, by llar. 8 ann. c.9.; record is, though all the previous pro. held well, though in fact orly four guia ceedings wiich commenced by original neas were paid ; tor the full fum received, were in London. And semble that it given, paid, agreed, or coniraded for, as could not be lucd elsewhere than in required by the act, was insert:d, and