To each commissioner, when required to go more than
one mile, but not exceeding three miles, besides his
reasonable travelling expenses

110

2 2 0

To each commissioner, where the distance required
shall exceed three miles, besides his reasonable tra-
velling expenses
To the clerk of the peace, or his deputy, for every search 0 1 0
To the same, for every copy of a list of commissioners,
provided such list shall not exceed the number of
100 names

To the same, for every further complete number of 50
names, an additional

To the officer, for every search

05 0

0 2

6

0 1 0

To the same, for every official copy of the certificate 0 2 6
To the same, for every official copy of a list of commis-
sioners, provided such list shall not exceed the num-

To the same, for every further complete number of 50
names additional
To the same, for preparing every special commission,
including a fee of 58. to the clerk of the chief justice
or other judge for the fiat

To the same, for examining the certificate and affidavit,
and filing and indexing the same, as required by the

02 6

. 0 15 0

said act of the 3rd and 4th William 4, cap. 74 . 0 5 0 And it is hereby further ordered, that the fees and charges to be paid for the entries of deeds, required by the said act to be entered on the court rolls of manors, and for the indorsements thereon, and for taking the consents of the protectors of settlements of land held by copy of court roll, where such consents shall not be given by deed, and for taking surrenders, by which dispositions shall be made under the said act, by tenants in tail of lands held by copy of court roll, and for entries of such surrenders, or the memorandums thereof, on the court rolls, shall be as follows:

For the indorsements on the deed of the memorandum
of production, and memorandum of entry on court
rolls, to be signed by the lord steward or deputy
steward, each indorsement of memorandum, 58. to-
gether

.

£. s. d.

0 0 6

0 13 4

4

For the entries on the court rolls of deeds, and the in-
dorsements thereon, at per folio of 72 words
For taking the consent of each protector of settlement
of lands
For taking the surrender by each tenant in tail of lands 0 13
For entries of such surrenders, or the memorandums
thereof, on the court rolls, at per folio of 72 words 0 0 6

N. C. TINDAL.

J. A. PARK.

J. B. BOSANQUET.
E. H. ALDERSON.

FORM OF AFFIDAVIT verifying the Certificate of Acknowledgment taken in pursuance of the act of parliament to be made by some practising ATTORNEY or SOLICITOR, and to be sworn before a Judge of the COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, or a Commissioner appointed for taking affidavits in the said court.

IN THE COMMON PLEAS

This is to be omitted when acknowledgment taken by a Judge or Master.

in the Certificate hereunto annexed mentioned, and that the acknowledgment therein mentioned was made by the said

and the Certificate signed by the Judge or Master, or by A. B. of, &c. and C. D. of, &c. the Commissioners in the said Certificate mentioned, on the day and year therein mentioned, at

in the

of

in the presence of this Deponent, and that at the time of making such acknowledgment the was of full age and competent understand

said

ing, and that the said
knew the said acknow-
ledgment was intended to pass her estate in the premises, respecting
which such acknowledgment was made. [And this Deponent further
saith, that to the best of this Deponent's knowledge and belief, neither
of the said Commissioners is (or the said A. B. or the said C. D. one
of the said Commissioners is not) in any manner interested in the trans-
action giving occasion for such acknowledgment, or concerned therein as
Attorney, Solicitor, or Agent, or as clerk to any Attorney, Solicitor, or
Agent, so interested or concerned.] And this Deponent further saith,
that previous to the said

[the married woman] making the said acknow

ledgment, he this Deponent inquired of the said

[the married woman] or if more than one, of each of them the said
and
[the married women]
whether she intended to give up her interest in the estates, in respect
of which such acknowledgment was taken without having any pro-
vision made for her in lieu of or in return for, or in consequence of
her so giving up her interest in such estates, and that in answer to such
inquiry the said
[the married woman] declared
that she did intend to give up her interest in the said estates without
having any provision made for her in lieu of, or in return for, or in
consequence of her so giving up such her interest; of which declara-
tion of the said
[the married woman] this Deponent
has no reason to doubt the truth, and verily believes the same to be
true, or declared that a provision was to be made for her in conse-
quence of her giving up such her interest in the said estates. And
this Deponent lastly saith, that before her acknowledgment was so
taken, he was satisfied, and does now verily believe that such provi-
sion has been made by deed or writing, or that the terms thereof have
been reduced into writing, and that such deed or writing has been
produced to the said Judge, Master, or Commissioners. And lastly
this Deponent saith, that it appears by the deed acknowledged by the
[the married woman] that the premises wherein

said

she is stated to be interested are described to be in the parish or place of

or parishes or places of

in the County of

[as the case may be].

and

or Counties of

SWORN, &c.

N. B. When the whole of the facts cannot be spoken to by one Deponent, variations may be made to enable more than one Deponent to state their respective parts of the Affidavit."

COPIES AND NOTES OF JUDGMENTS,

IN SEVERAL RECENT COPYHOLD CASES.

Doe d. Hickman v. Hickman & others (a).

[B. R. Michaelmas Term, 1832.]

EJECTMENT for lands in Staffordshire, tried at the spring assizes, 1832, when a verdict was found for the lessor of the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court on the following case:

On the 16th of July, 1806, at a court baron holden for the manor of Sedgley, in the county of Stafford, Edward Cox of Sedgley, gentleman, and Mary his wife, surrendered into the hands of the lord of the said manor, all that cottage or dwelling house (therein particularly described) in the occupation of John Hickman, together with the use of taking water from a well in the adjoining premises, as then used and enjoyed by the said John Hickman, to the use of him John Hickman, for and during the term of his natural life; and after his decease to the use of such person or persons, and for such estate and estates, ends, intents and purposes, as the said John Hickman should by any other surrender or by his last will and testament in writing, such will to be by him duly executed in the presence of and attested by three or more credible witnesses surrender, devise, limit, direct or appoint; and in default of such surrender, &c. to the use of the heirs and assigns of the said John Hickman for ever, at the will of the lord according to the custom of the said manor. At the same court John Hickman was duly admitted upon the said surrender. This ejectment was brought to recover possession of the surrendered premises. Thomas Hickman the lessor of the plaintiff, is the eldest son and heir at law, and heir according to the custom of the said manor of John Hickman the surrenderee.

On the 19th of December, 1806, the said John Hickman made his will in writing, in the presence of and attested by two witnesses only,

(a) 4 Barn. & Adolp. 56.

and thereby devised the premises to his wife for her life, and after her death to the defendants William and John Hickman, subject to certain charges. The testator's wife died in his lifetime.

John Hickman the testator died on the 17th of April, 1817, without having made any surrender of the premises, or executed any other will than that before mentioned. The question for the opinion of the court was, whether Thomas Hickman, the lessor of the plaintiff, was entitled to recover possession of the premises? This case was argued in Trinity Term, 1832.

PARKE, J., in the Michaelmas Term following, delivered the judgment of the court.

"It was admitted in this case, on the part of the defendants, that the will of John Hickman was not a good execution of the power given to him by the surrender of the 16th of July, 1806, in consequence of its not having been executed in the presence of, and attested by, three witnesses; but it was contended, that it might operate on the reversion in fee which was vested in him in default of appointment, and that the want of a surrender to the use of his will was cured by the statute 55 G. 3. c. 192. It is clear that if there had been a surrender previously made by John Hickman to the use of his will, the will would have conveyed his interest, notwithstanding it was attested only by two witnesses, for copyholds are neither within the statute of wills nor the statute of frauds. And where a man has both a power and an interest, an instrument, if it be sufficient for the purpose, may operate as a conveyance of the interest, although it be defective as an execution of the power. It was argued for the lessor of the plaintiff, that this was not a case within the statute 55 Geo. 3. c. 192: but we see no reason for saying so. That statute enacts, that in all cases where, by custom, any copyhold tenant may, by his last will, dispose of or appoint his copyhold tenements, the same having been surrendered to such uses as should be declared by such last will, every disposition made or to be made by any such last will, by any person who shall die after the passing of that act, of any such copyhold tenements, or of any right, title, or interest in or to the same, shall be as valid and effectual to all intents and purposes, although no surrender shall have been made to the use of the last will and testament of such person, as the same would have been if a surrender had been made to the use of such will. Here John Hickman died after the passing of that act; and, therefore, the disposition by his will was as valid as if a surrender had been made to the use of it.

VOL. II.

SS