« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
1. Where a party is let into posses
3. The Court will not grant i al new sion under an agreement for a
trial to let in evidence negativing lease and has paid the stipulated such consent, where that evidence rent, a tenancy from year to year might have been produced at the is created. Doev. Smith, M. 8Ğ. 4. trial.
4. It is upon the party wbo objects II. Estate tail.
to the competency of a witness to See
297 (6) prove bis incompetency. 672
5. Where, in trespass quare clausum See
fregit, it appeared that plaintiff and V. Joint tenancy.
defendant, respectively, occupied
lands under the same landlord, and See SETTLEMENT, 5.
abutting on different sides of a lane; 2. Authority of joint tenants of a farm
and that defendant held under a to bind each other.
lease, not produced :-Held, that VI. Tenancy in common.
the evidence of the landlord, stating
" that he had let the lane jointly to See EVIDENCE,5.-SETTLEMENT,
plaintiff and defendant, as much to TRESPASS, 5.
one as to the other," was properly 3. Upon a lease by tenants in com- received. Noye v. Reed, M. 8 G. 4. mon the survivor may sue for the
63 whole rent; although the reserva- 6. Bill in equity cannot be read tion be to the lessors according to against a party pot claiming under their respective interests. Wallace plaintiff or defendant, in the equity v, MI' Laren, H. 8 & 9 G. 4. 516 suit.
667 7. Nor depositions.
8. In an action by A. for the maliSee LANDLORD AND TENANT, I. cions prosecution by C. of an indict
ment against A. and B., evidence EVIDENCE,
of the misconduct of C. towards B.,
after his apprehension, tending to See COMMITMENT. 3.--Escape, I; 2.
shew the bad motives of C., is ad- PRACTICE, 2.
missible. Caddy v. Barlow, M. 8 G. 1. Onus probandi.
4. See CERTIORARI, 1, and see 419 9. A copy of the indictment, though 1. Where the interest of any person
granted to B, only, is also admisrests upon an affirmative, it is for
sible; and the Court will not enterhim to prove the affirmative. Semble. tain the question of its having been
244 fraudulently obtained. ibid. 2. Where, in ejectment, the plaintiff 10. Proof by an apprentice that when
relies on the invalidity of a second his apprenticeship expired he asked marriage, by reason of a former
bis master for the indenture, who marriage by licence, one of the par
said it was with the overseers of the ties being a minor, and the defend- parish ; and that their successors ant has notice that the question in
had searched for the indenture, but tended to be raised is, whether the
could not find it; is not sufficient first marriage was with the consent
to let in parol evidence of the conof the minor's parent, it lies upon
tents of the indenture, tbe master him to disprove such consent. Doe
being alive and not subpoenaed. v. Price, H.8 & 9 G. 4. 683
295 Rer v. Denio, M. 8 G. 4.
II. Parol evidence of the fact of the
pauper's having been tenant of premises in the respondent parish, is admissible on the part of the appellant parish, though he held under a written agreement not produced.
Rex v. Hull, M. 8 G. 4. page 444 12. The examination of a soldier un
der the Mutiny Act, as to his settlement, is not admissible in evidence, unless it appear that the examinant was quartered in a district in which the examining magistrates had jurisdiction. Rerv. All Saints, H. 8 & 9 G. 4.
663 13. A. deposits money with B. a
banker, on the terms of having a deposit note, by which B. shall engage to pay the principal, at ten days' sight, with 3 per cent. interest, until the day of acceptance. A note is given accordingly. On receiving interest on the note, A. is told that B. cannot afford to pay more than 2 per cent. in future, and “3” is struck out, and “2}" inserted instead :-Held, that the payment of interest is evidence to shew that a principal sum corresponding with, and bearing such interest, was due; and that the note, though void, may be looked at to see the terms on which the deposit was made. Sutton v. Toumer, M. 8 G. 4.
125 ll. As to the admissibility of a judg
ment in an action of ejectment in evidence against the lessee of the nominal plaintiff in ejectment, see
172 (u) 15. Terms imposed of not giving a judgment in evidence.
689 And see STAMP VII.
See INTEREST, 2. 16. A. B. draws a bill at 30 days'
sight on A. B.:-Held, that a letter written by A. B. the drawer, to the payee of the bill, expressing his apprehension that it would be dishonoured, coupled with the fact,
that the place to which the bill is
Ostler, M. 8 G. 4.
quare clausum fregit, an issue is taken
170 18. In debt by A. and B. against C.
on an award where the submission was by A. and his wife, and B., on the one side, and by C. and D. jointly and severally, on the other, the execution of the submission by the wife of A., by B., and by D., must be proved. Ferrer v. Oven, M. 8 G. 4.
222 19. Semble, that a compulsory admis
sion of a debt extracted from the
NER, 1.--RELIEF, 1._SETTLE
VII, Secondary evidence.
Vide suprà, 10, 11.
EXCHANGE OF LAND.
See INCLOSURE Act, 1.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT. 1. Wbat degree of restraint of the
person will constitute an imprisonment, see
I. How constituted. 1. A sum paid by tbe freighter to the
FARMER. See PARTNERS, 2.
owner for the use of the entire ship is not properly denominated freight. Etches v. Aldan.
157 2. As to the mode of estimating the
amount of freight as a subject-mat-
agreement for a lease, has been let
GENERAL AVERAGE. ,1. What shall be contributory to, See
165 (6), 166
See LIEN, I.
HIRING AND SERVICE. See AGREEMENT, 1. - SETTLE
202 (a) 1. A grant by deed of lands in the | 1. Ambiguity of this term. possession of a tenant from year to
HUSBAND AND WIFE. year habendum during the life of the grantor, will pass an estate of
See BARON AND FEME. freehold without livery or attornment. Doe v. Cole, M. 8G.4. 33
IDENTITY. 2. And upon the disclaimer of the te
1. Of person. nant for years, the grantee may enter or bring ejectment. ibid.
1. Where to be inferred from identity of name.
Roach v. Ostler, M. HABEAS CORPUS.
8 G. 4.
120, 123 (a) See Escape, 1.
II. Of office or benefice.
123 (a) HABERE FACIAS POSSES.
III. Of trespasses.
172 (6), See EJECTMENT, 2— And see 221 (a) 2. In declaration and plea
173 (a) HEIR.
IGNORANTIA LEGIS. 1. Judgment and execution against heir.
47, 48, n.
1. Ignorance of a public statute, not And see Devise.
1. What restraint shall amount to an See TURNPIKE Act, 1.
215 (6) 1. Notice of appeal against an order
INCLOSURE ACTS. for stopping up a highway must state that the appellant is a party
1. Award of commissioners. aggrieved. The King v. The Jus- 1. Under a power to award lands in tices of West Riding of Yorkshire. exchange for other lands, provided H. 8 & 9 G. 4.
547 such exchange he made with the
consent of the respective owners, II. Obstruction,
and to award lands to persons wbo See PLEADING, 7.
shall agree to purchase the interest III. Repairs.
of any proprietor of lands directed See Justices, 1.
to be inclosed, an award that A.
shall receive lands from B. in ex2. Under the Highway Act, 13 G. 3, c. 78, s. 34, a justice of the peace
change for lands of A. and for 20001. cannot present a road out of repair,
to be paid by A. to B., is valid.
Doe v. Preston, M. 8G.4. 713 upon the information of any other surveyor of bighways than the sur- 2. Such an award does not require an
ad valorem stamp.
ibid. veyor appointed for the particular parish, township, or place, where the
INDEMNITY. road lies. Rer v. Fylingdales, M. 8 G. 4.
See Bond, I. III.
a court or a commissioner are re1. For misdemeanour.
quired only for the submission of
disputes to arbitration and suits in See Costs, 4, 5.--EVIDENCE, 1, 8, 9.
equity, page 242 (a), 245 (6) -PLEADING, 3.-PRESENTMENT, 1.
5. The want of consent cannot be set
up by a debtor to the estate as a INDORSEMENT:
defence to an action.
243 See Bill of LADING, 1.-BILLS AND Nores, 4.
INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS.
See Escape, 1.-PRACTICE, IV. INFANT.
1. As to inspection of public records, I. His privileges.
279 (a) 1. Not bound by an account stated by him.
INSURANCE. 2. Nor by his election.
I. Interest. -914 DINFORMATION.
1. A. lets his ship to freight and char1. In an action for a malicious prose
ter to B, for a voyage, the probable
duration of which is eight months, cution a rule absolute for a criminal
at 1001. per month, and by the information against defendant is no
charter-party B. is to make the adbar. Caddy v. Barlow, M. 8. G.4.
vances for sailing charges, on ac276
count of the money payable for the 7:: INITIALS.
hire of the ship, miscalled "freight;"
B. insures 3001. with C., for money 981,683 See Sueriff, I.
advanced on sailing charges, and A.
at the same time, insures 4001. with INQUIRY, WRIT OF.
C., on freight. Upon a total loss : See
562, 562 (a)
-Held, that C. is not entitled to 1. Under 8 & 9 W.3, cap. 11, s. 8.
consider A.'s policy as effected on 496 (a)
gross freight, and that, the amount INSANE PERSONS.
being 8001., A. is his own insurer Sve COMMITMENT, 3.
for a moiety of the risk. Etches v. Aldan. M. 8 G. 4.'
157 INSOLVENT DEBTOR.
2. The implied warranty of seaworthi
ness in a policy on a sbip, does not 1. As to mistakes in the schedule, see
extend to her being seaworthy at 245 (6)
every port which she leaves in the II. Authority of assignee.
course of her voyage. Holdsworth 2. Assignee of an insolvent debtor v. Wise, H. 8 & 9 G. 4. 673 may commence an action, without
III. Negligence. first obtaiving the consent of the 3. Negligence of the crew does not creditors. Allison v. Rayner, M.
discharge the underwriter, if the loss 8 G. 4.
is occasioned by one of the perils 3. Under 1. G. 4, c. 39, s. II, the
ibid. signee could not proceed further than an arrest on mesne process,
IV. Stranding. without consent of creditors. ibid. 4. Policy on goods “ warranted free 4. But under 7 G. 4, c. 57, the con- from average, unless general, or the
sent of creditors and approbation of ship be stranded.” On the voyage