to abide the event of the award, not "the event of the cause." Anonymous, T. 44 Geo. III. 426 20. Where the rule to return a writ expires in vacation, the sheriff has till the next term to return it. Such a return before the sitting of the court on the 1st day of the subsequent term was held good. Q. Whether he has not three days in that term? Anonymous, T. 44 Geo. III. 427 21. Where there has been an arrest, and afterwards a payment of money into court, by the defendant, of a less sum than the sum for which he was held to bail, and the plaintiff has taken it out and discontinued, the plaintiff is still entitled to his costs, notwithstanding the act 43 Gea. III. c. 46; unless the defendant can shew, aliunde, that the plaintiff had no probable cause for arresting him for that amount. Clarke v. Fisher, T. 44 Geo. III. 428 menced during a client's mino rity, it was granted accordingly, on the ground, that a continued employment when of age, might,' under circumstances, amount to an undertaking to pay the prior bill Guy v. Burgess, M. 44 Geo. 111. 117 3. A defendant cannot be or. dered to produce deeds, &c. unless stated in a schedule to his answer, or at least described with certainty. The practice formerly was to pray a schedule in the bill; and it is so still in Ire land. Anonymous, M. 44Geo.III. 117 4. The statutes 9 Anne, c. 14, $. 3 and 4, and 18 Geo. II. c. 34, s. 3, do not authorise courts of equity to hold cognizance of a bill by a common informer for a discovery of money won at play; for the latter statute em, powers the court to proceed to a decree, and a court of equity does Mot decree a penalty. Holloway v. Shakspeare, M. 44 Geo. III. 121 5. If an answer contains a positive denial to the facts stated in the bill, there cannot be a decree against the defendant upon the evidence of one witness only, unless the facts so preponderate over denial, that greater credit must be given to the witness than to the answer, recollecting that the latter is an interested party. Al. though the delivery up and cancelling of a charter-party takes away a remedy at law, yet it rather assists a claim for equitable relief. East India Compan v. Donald, H. 44 Geo. III. 213 1. A court of prize has origi jurisdiction over the prize and the proceeds thereof, and may decree interest against any agent or other person in whose hands it may be, if he made interest or profit thereof, as part of the res, and, independently of the authority over prize agents given, by the several statutes, to the courts of admiralty. If such agents have not made interest, they should rest their defence upon that point in the prize court below, and this court will not grant prohibition. Willis v. the Commissioners of Appeal in Prize Causes, E. 44 Geo. IIÏ. 1. PROHIBITION. 339 REMAINDER. RESPONDENTIA. Where the defendant libelled the plaintiff for tithes in the spiritual court; the plaintiff pleaded 1. B. advances money to F that the place was extra-parochial; on respondentia; the condition of the plaintiff replied an inclosure the bond recites, that the money act, 31 Geo. III. c. 91, and inwas advanced on goods on board sisted that it was thereby annexthe ship Belvedere: the condition ed to and made part of the is, that if the ship proceed from parish, whereof he was rector; the Thames on a voyage to any the spiritual court decreed accord- port in the East Indies, &c. and ingly, the tithes to be paid to the from thence return to the river defendant: Held, upon a de- Thames, at or before the end of claration in prohibition, that 36 calendar months from the the spiritual court, having mis- date, and there end her voyage, construed the statute a prohi- &c. (the casualties of the seas bition might be granted in this excepted ;) and if within 30 case after sentence; it appearing days after her arrival F. pay the that the court could no other-money, and respondentia interest, wise have decreed the tithes than or if the ship shall be entirely by misconstruction of the sta- lost in the voyage, and F. shall tute. Note. The question sug-duly account upon oath for the gested by Buller, J. in Home v. fair average on the goods on Camden, 4 T. R. 382. 2 H. Bl. 533. board the said ship, then the whether the misconstruction of a obligation to be void: Held, statute is not matter of appeal, that F. becoming a bankrupt, and not of prohibition, after senB., the obligee, has no lien up. tence, is now settled that it is on the goods on board the ship, matter of prohibition. Gould v. under the form of this obligation. Gapper, clerk, T. 44 Geo. III. 528 Busk v. Fearon, M. 44 Geo, III. PROCESS. See EXECUTION, PRACTICE. QUO WARRANTO. RETURN in Writ irregular. 103 REVOCATION of SUBMIS- RULES, enlarged Rules. See PRACTICE. RULE OF COURT, how entitled. See PRACTICE, No. 23. SAILOR. See MASTER and MARINER. SATISFACTION. See DISCHARGE and SATISFACTION. SEDUCTION. See ACTION. SENTENCE, FOREIGN. SEQUESTRATION. 1. A commission of sequestration issued out of the court of Chancery, upon a decree directed to certain commissioners, to enter upon all the lands, &c. of C. S. and to take into their hands not only the rents, &c. but all his goods, &c. " and detain and keep the same under sequestration till he shall have paid the sum therein mentioned: subsequent to this, a writ of fieri facias against the goods of C. 5. was delivered to the sheriff to be executed; whereupon he seized the goods, and made an inventory; but he was afterwards told that the goods were under sequestration, and returned nulla bona: The plaintiff in the writ of fieri facios, brought an action for a false return, and upon a case reserved, without any fraud being found by the jury, and on admission that the sequestrators had not taken possession of the goods, and that the sequestration had not been laid on previous to the return of the fieri facias: Held, that the sheriff was bound to levy the goods; for although, upon application to this court, or to the Court of Chancery, the sheriff might have been relieved, at the time of executing the writ, if there were any difficulty; yet it does not appear that the Court of Chancery would have proceeded against him for a con tempt, in disregarding a sequestration which had not been laid on. Semble, It is rather a contempt in the sequestrators not to enforce the commission directed to them. Semble, A sequestration after decree can at most be considered equivalent to a common law execution. Paine v. Drew, H. 44 Geo. III. 170 SETTLEMENT, 1. A pauper hired for a year at the wages of 45s, and two pounds of wool, if she behaves well, is dismissed by her master at the end of eight months, on a dispute arising between them; she applies to a magistrate, who upon hearing the matter, orders that the master shall take her into his service again, or pay her a year's wages; the servant consents to return; the master refuses to take her; and pays the wages for the year, without the wool. She afterwards applies to be hired to other persons within the year : held, this is a dissolution of the contract, within the year, and the servant gains no settlement under it. Rex v. the Inhabitants of King's Pyon, M. 44 Geo. III. 51 2. A pauper settles at S. is afterwards hired for a year in an other parish; he serves a part of the year, and then being too ill of a fever to do his work, his master pays him his whole year's wages, and he quits his service and goes to an hospital: Held, this is a dissolution of the contract, and 3. Where there is a hiring at weekly wages, and nothing is said as to the term, the hiring will be held weekly, as the wages. In this case there were other circumstances in corroboration of a weekly hiring, particularly the servant's obtaining an occasional increase of his wages, as the summer or winter came, upon an application by the servant to the master, and without any previous running contract or stipulation for any time. Rex v. the Inhabi tants of Pucklechurch, T. 44 Geo. III. 552 4. Evidence of the relief of a pauper's father and his family by the overseers of the poor of parish A. forty years back, the pauper being thirty-eight years of age, and such paupers, so relieved, being resident in another parish B. at the time, so as to negative their being relieved by the parish A. as casual poor, is evidence of the settlement of the pauper, notwithstanding the pauper was born at another parish. Semble, the place of birth is the slightest possi ble evidence of settlement; it is only evidence of the local residence of the mother at the time. Rex v. the Inhabitants of Wakefield, T. 44Geo. 111.512 5. A pauper hired a tenement of 111. a year value, and resided upon it for a year and upwards; before he hired it, he agreed with another person to be his undertenant of a part at 51. per annum, who became guarantee to the landlord for the whole of the rent: Held, that a settlement was gained by the pauper; notwithstanding the sessions found that credit was only given to the pauper for 61. per annum, and he had continued to receive relief from his former parish for six months. Rex v. the Inhabi tants of Hooe, M. 44 Geo. III. 60 6. A pauper residing on a cottage and half an acre of land, under a lease for three lives, at Is. rent, for which he had given two guineas by way of fine, is not removeable, though he become chargeable. His application for relief is not a consent to be removed. Rex v. the Inhabitants of Martley, E. Geo. III.. 322 7 A pauper rented a tenement of 81. 10s. and also a toll for all cattle sold at the borough of Chipping Norton, which he took of the corporation of the said borough, at a court leet, by verbal agreement. Held, that the demise not being by deed, the pauper had not a good legal title to the toll, and so had not a tenement of rol. per annum. Rex v. the Inhabitants of Chipping Norton, T. 44 Geo. III. 502 8. The stat. 13 Geo. III. c. 84, s. 56, which enacts that no person keeping a turnpike-gate, renting tolls, and residing at the toll-house, shall thereby gain a settlement in such parish, does not prevent such person from gaining settlement there by other means. Rex v. the Inhabitants of Denbigh, T. 44 Geo. III. 506 c. 79 49 72 81 to be made, at the place of transfer, which is the only thing equivalent to an actual tender and refusal. Semble, that the resale or repurchase of the stock, in case of default in performing a contract for stock, to be made under the 7 Geo. II. c. 8, s. 6 or 7, need nor be on the day that the transfer ought to have been made, on the original contract, nor on the next day; but that it is sufficient if it be made with reasonable promptdamage is not strictly confined to ness, and that the amount of the the price contracted for, and the price on the resale; but may be estìmated by the jury, taking into con 38 Geo. III. c. 52, s. 12 (recogni-sideration whether the plaintiff might zance-removal of indictment-certiorari) science 39 and 40 Geo. III. c. 104, s: 5 32 (pub. loc.acts) London court of con234 43 Geo: III. c: 46, s. 2 (BA1L, deposit in Lieu of) 13 Ibid, s. 3 (costs to defendants. See COSTS. 428 STOCK JOBBING. 1. In an action on the 7 Geo. II. c. 8, for a compensation for stock agreed to be sold to the defendant, and not received by him, the plaintiffs proved a contract for the resale to another person before the action brought, and an actual transfer after the commencement of the suit: Held, that the action will not lie till after an actual transfer of the stock, although the transfer in this case was delayed only on account of the stock being shut at the time.-The actual transfer is the security to which the legislature looked for the prevention of gambling transactions, otherwise many contracts might be made of the same stock upon this pretence, and the act be evaded. Heckscher v. Gregory, E. 44 Geo. III. 293 2. On a sale of stock, the plaintiff, in an action on the 7 Geo. II. c. 8, s. 6, must prove an actual tender to transfer, and a refusal by the defendant to accept, or that he the plaintiff attended at the close of the books on the day when the transfer is and ought to have fold earlier, and at a price more advantageous for the defendant. But the Court thought this point unfit to be decided in the the present case. Bordenave v. Gregory, E. 44 Geo. III. 306 3. Action for not accepting stock; -The plaintiff tendered the stock on the day agreed on for making the transfer, and the defendant refused to accept it: Held, that the plaintiff need not wait till the end of that day, but may sell the stock to a third person immediately after the tender and refusal. Dorriens v. Hutchinson, T. 44 Geo. III. 430 |