« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
thereof on board the ship, and thereupon have the option of purthe policy was declared to be in chasing it; and on the lessor's negcontinuation of a former policy; lect or refusal to purchase, the lessee which was
a policy from `V. io might dispose of it absolutely; if her port of discharge in the united the lessee, soon after the execution kingdom, or any ports in the Baltic, of the lease bonâ fide intend to cut with liberty to take in and dis down the whole of the then growcharge goods wheresoever, to return ing timber and coppice, &c. and 15 per cent, if the voyage ended at give notice in writing to that effect, G.; held that the assured were and the lessor do not accept the entitled to recover, although the purchase, but disclaims it; the lessee goods were not loaded on board at
may proceed to cut down the whole G. but at V., and although the de in different seasons according to his fendant was not an underwriter on convenience; and is not obliged to the former policy. Bell v. Hobson, give a fresh notice at every succeedM. 53 G. 3.
Page 240 ing cutting ; and this, though the 6. A policy of insurance on goods at lessor had in the interval assigned
and from London to the ship's dis his interest in the land to another. charging port or ports in the Baltic, Goodtitle d. Luxmore v. Saville, T. with liberty to touch at any port or 52 G. 3.
Page 87 ports for orders, or any other pur. 2. But after such assignment it is sufpose, does not warrant the assured, ficient for the lessee, after ejectment after having touched at C. for or brought by the assignee of the lessor ders, and gone on to S., a
for a forfeiture, to give such assignee distant port, in retouching at C. for notice to produce the original] notice orders; but if the policy be to any in writing of the intention to cut and all ports and places in the the whole, and he is not bound to Baltic forwards and backwards, and shew that he applied for the same backwards and forwards, it is other to the original lessor, (who had left wise. Mellish v. Andrews, M. 53 the country) or to his agents, or
gave them notice to produce it; for
it will be presumed to have been LANDLORD AND TENANT. delivered up to the assignee of the See Covenant, 1, 2. Trover. reversion as a document relating to USE AND OCCUPATIÓN.
the estate; and on default of its
production at the trial, he may give LEASE. parol evidence of it.
ib. 1. Under a beneficial long lease, re
LICENCE. serving liberty to the lessee to cut 1. A licence to trade to an enemy's down and dispose of all timber and country, granted to one set of Bricoppice, &c."(the value of which tish merchants, cannot be used to was included in the purchase,) then
a trading by other British growing or thereafter to grow dur merchants, without connecting them ing the term; subject, however, to together; as by shewing that the a proviso that when and so often as licensers were agents at the time the lessee should intend, during the for the others. Busk v. Bell, T. term, to sell the timber, &c. grow 52 G, 3.
3 ing on the premises or any part 2. A licence to trade with an enemy thereof, he should immediately there granted to F. and Co, and others upon give notice in writing to the may be used by the person for whom lessor of such intention, who should
See PLEADING, 3, 4.
F. and Co. were the acting agents in procuring such licence and in carrying on the adventure, though the person was a foreigner residing here under an alien licence at the time. Feise v. Newnham, M. 53 G. 3.
CARRIER, I. LEASE, 2
LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS,
See EVIDENCE, 3, 4.
NOTICE TO QUIT,
See Tithes, 1.
See Costs, 2. 1. It seems that if a conviction be
PARTNER. good upon the face of it, the production and proof of it at the trial Where the party sued as a partner for will justify the convicting magis the value of goods furnished for trates under the general issue in an “the owners of a ship," was neither action of trespass, as well in respect a partner in fact at the time, (havof such facts therein stated as are ing parted with his share some time necessary to give them jurisdiction, before,) nor held himself out as as upon the merits of the convic such, having before withdrawn his tion. Gray v. Cookson and Clayton, name from the description of the T. 52 G. 3.
13 firm at the counting house, and sent 2. But the stat. 43 G. 3. c. 141.,
circular letters to the correspondents tends to protect magistrates against
of the house, notifying the change ; actions of trespass only in the case he cannot be charged merely because of a conviction quashed; giving to having defectively conveyed his the party grieved a remedy by ac. whole share in the ship before that tion on the case.
ib. time, he had subsequently joined
with the assignees of the bankrupt MISDEMEANOR.
partners in the ship in making a By 1 G. 1. c. 47. upon an information
good title to it to a purchaser from filed in this court for persuading
the assignees. M'Iver v. Humble, T. 52 G. 3.
169 soldiers to desert, and tried at the assizes, this court is the proper
PLEADING, court to award punishment, and if
See EVIDENCE, 4. they award imprisonment, besides the penalty of 401., they are bound 1. The practice of the Court is pleadalso to award the pillory. Rex v.
able where the very merits of the Read, M. 53 G. 3.
case depend upon it; therefore
where bail sued in scire facias upon MISNOMER,
their recognizance pleaded that no See Bills of Exchange, 3.
ca. sa. was duly sued, returned, and filed against the principal, according
to the custom and practice of the MONEY HAD AND RE
Court; to which the plaintiff in reCEIVED
ply shewed a writ of ca. sa. issued in See Extent, 1.
Middleser ; it is no departure for Voi. XVI.
the defendants to rejoin that the tiff, (instead of traversing the plea, venue in the action against the prin as he ought to do, if the arrest were cipal was in London; for that sus irregularly made by the sheriff's oftains the plea. Dudlow v. Watchorn, ficer, without a sufficient warrant T. 52 G. 3.
39 from the sheriff,) new assign that 2. To debt on bond, conditioned to the trespass complained of was upon
perform an award, under a reference another and different occasion than of all matters in difference between that stated in the plea; and after the parties, it is a good plea in bar the supposed arrest therein menthat at the time of the submission tioned; the defendant, on proof of certain negotiable bills of exchange, the fact as before stated, is entitled drawn by the defendant and ac to a verdict. Oakley v. Davies, T. cepted by the plaintiff, were then 52 G. 3.
82 outstanding, and that an indemnity 4. Trespass quare clausum fregit, &c.; of the defendant against such bills plea, that defendant was seised in was a matter in difference between his demesne as of fee of a mesthe parties, which was notified to
suage, &c. in the parish, and that he the arbitrators before the award and all those whose estate, &c. have made, and that they made no award right of way for himself, his and concerning it; and that some of the their farmers and tenants, occupiers bills had not been paid by the plain of the messuage, &c. over the locus tiff, and the defendant was still in quo to and from the messuage, liable to the holders; though it ap &c. as appertaining thereto; repeared by the award set forth that
plication that defendant and all the arbitrators stated therein that those, &c. have not the said way as they had heard the allegations of appertaining to the said messuage, the parties, and examined all the
Held that the defendant's accounts, bills of exchange, &c. shewing that he was seised in fee of and all other evidence and proofs an ancient messuage in the parish, to produced to them touching the which a right of way, as pleaded, matters in difference, and award over the locus in quo belonged, ed of and concerning the same, was evidence sufficient to support that the defendant should pay to his plea, although the message the plaintiff 15001. in full of all was let to and in the occupation of claims and demands upon him, &c.; a tenant, and the defendant only and so proceeded to award con
occupied a newly built house in the cerning other specific matters ; but parish at the time of the trespass. without mentioning such outstand Plea that defendant was seised ing bills, or any indemnity con in his demesne as of fee, &c., and cerning the same. Mitchell v. Stave that he and all those whose estate, ley, T. 52 G. 3.
58 &c. have a right of way for him3. In trespass for an assault and false self, his and their farmers and te
imprisonment, the defendant having nants, occupiers, &c. is good, withjustified the assault and imprisonment out alleging that the defendant is under a writ sued out by him as at occupier. Stott v. Stott, M. 53 G. 3. torney for J. M. against the plain
343 tiff, indorsed for bail for 1001., which was delivered to the sheriff,
POORS' RATE. who, by virtue thereof, arrested and Stock in trade is rateable to the poor, detained the plaintiff; if the plain notwithstanding it has never been
rated in the parish, unless there be
PRIVILEGE. some circumstances to take it out of Under the London court of requests the general rule; but on appeal act, 39 & 40 G. 3. c. 104. a husagainst a rate on the ground that A. band domiciled in Middlesex, where is not rated for his stock in trade, his wife carried on business, though the sessions ought to amend the
he was employed as a clerk in the rate, and not quash it. Rer v. In
office of solicitors in London, is not habitants of Ambleside, M. 53 G. 3.
privileged to be sued only in Lon380
don, as a person seeking his livelihood
there; for that means seeking the POOR-REMOVAL.
whole of his livelihood there. SteA pauper may be removed from a pa phens v. Derry, T. 52 G. 3. 147
rish where he is residing under a certificate to a parish in which he PROMISSORY NOTE. gained a settlement before the grant- See Bills of ExcuANGE, 3, 4, 5, 7, ing of the certificate, and need not
1. of necessity be removed to the certifying parish. Rex v. Inhabitants of
PROTECTION. St. Martin, M. 53 G. 3.
See IMPRESS, 1.
REQUESTS, COURT OF.
See PRIVILEGE. to let horses to recover a penalty for not inserting in his weekly account
SALE. the time for which he let to hire Where a broker sold on Saturday certwo horses, nor the amount of the
tain goods of the defendant to the duty payable in respect of such
plaintiff for a stipulated price, subhiring, where the declaration alleged ject to the plaintiff's approval of the that the defendant let to hire for a
quality upon the Monday following, period of time less than 28 succes and sent the bought note to the sive days, to wit for 8 days, &c.:
plaintiff on the Saturday, marked Held that the letting need not be with the words “Quality to be proved to have been for the exact
approved on Monday;" but did not number of days laid under the vide send the sold note to the defendant licet. Sergeaunt v. Tilbury, M.
then, because he had met and in. 53 G. 3.
416 formed him of the contract on the
same day; but the plaintiff not havPRACTICE.
ing signified his disapproval of the See BAIL, passim. PLEADING, 1. contract on the Monday, the broker Plaintiff in an inferior court, from sent the sold note to the defendant
which a cause is removed by habeas the Friday, with the words corpus, and a rule for better bail “Quality to be approved on Mongiven, is not entitled to a proceden day," struck out; which note the do, after render of the defendant defendant returned within 24 hours, and notice of such render, although which by the custom of the trade such render be made after the day signified bis disaffirmance of the on which the rule for better bail contract, as far as in him lay; yet expires. Farquharson v. Fouche held that at any rate the defendant cour, M. 53 G. 3.
387 could no longer disaffirm it after the
G g 2
Monday, when the plaintiff, not that by 40 days' residence thereon having signified his disapproval, was by permission of the trustee, after also bound by it. Humphries v. the father's death, she gained a setCarvalho, T. 52 G. 3.
45 tlement. The King v. The Inhabi
tants of Holm East Waver Quarter, SET-OFF, T. 52 G, 3.
127 See BANKRUPT, 1, 4. The defendant cannot plead by way
SETTLEMENT— by renting a Teof set-off a bond-debt of the plain
nement of 101. a Year. tiff, assigned to the defendant by The taking of a tenement which, by another, to whom and for whose
having been cropped by the landuse it was originally given. Wake lord with clover and grass-seeds, v. Tinkler, T. 52 G. 3.
36 when let to the tenant, was worth
101. a-year, but without that cirSETTLEMENT—by Appren cumstance would have been of much ticeship.
less annual value, will confer a setSince the 13 and 14 Car 2. c. 12. an tlement.
The King v. The Inhabiindenture of apprenticeship executed tants of Purley, T. 52 G. 3. 126 by the overseers of a township which has no churchwardens or chapel
STATUTES. wardens, and maintains its own poor
Hen. VIII. separately, is a valid indenture, al
258 though neither of the churchwar- | 33. c. 39. s. 74. Extent. dens of the parishes at large within
Edw. VI. which the township is situate join in
2 & 3. Tithes.
331 the execution; therefore a service under such indenture was held to
Eliz. confer a settlement. Rex v. Inha
5. c. 1. Apprentice.
13 bitants of Nantwich, M. 53 G, 3.
228 SETTLEMENT-by Certificate.
Will. & M. The settlement of a son, coming into 5. c. 11. s. 3. Costs.
194 a parish with his father under a cer
Anne. tificate, .as part of the father's fa
4 & 5. c. 16. s. 9, 10. Attornment. mily, not having before gained any
99 settlement of his own, shifts with the settlement of the father in the
5. c. 11. Game.
19 certificated parish, though such son
8. c. 19. s. 5. Copyright. 317 were named in the certificate. The
George I. King v. The Inhabitants of Leek
1. c. 47. Misdenicanor,
404 Wootton, T. 52 G, 3.
5. c. 30. s. 9. Bankrupt. 225
17. c. 38. Overseers' Accounts. 374 A father having purchased a tenement 20. c. 19. s. 4. Apprentice.
13 for less than 301., devised it in trust to be let to farm during his daugh
Geo. III. ter's life, and to pay her the rents 6. c. 25. s. l. Apprentice. 13 after deducting the expenses. Held, 13. c. 78. s. 81. Highway, 215