Revenue, 1834. The KING V. of LONDON. is general, so far as regards the place of adjudication. In the charter of Charles 1, the words, "in the city aforesaid," are not to be read in conjunction with the words which follow, "judged or to be adjudged," but are to be The Mayor, &c., connected with the words "justices" in the clause immediately preceding, and restrict the general description of "other justices" to justices in the city. Before we finally pronounce our judgment, however, we are desirous of seeing a copy of those parts of the original charters in Latin which relate to this subject. Lord LYNDHURST, C. B., afterwards stated that the Court had examined the charters in the original Latin, and that they found no reason to alter the opinion they had before expressed. That it was obvious, from the nature of the Courts before which, according to the words of the charter of Henry 6, the fines might be adjudged, amongst which Courts was that of the Common Pleas, which could not sit in the city, that the intention was to pass all fines for misdemeanours committed in the city, whether they were adjudged there or elsewhere; and that the charter of Charles 1 contained nothing inconsistent with this grant. Judgment for the city. DOE on the Demise of GILLETT v. Roe. Exch. of Pleas. ejectment is not in the rules of MANSEL moved to set aside a declaration in eject- An action of ment, on the ground of irregularity. The declaration of an action withEaster Term was intitled generally of that term, and began in the usual form-" John Doe, a debtor to our sovereign lord the king, comes before the barons of his majesty's Exchequer, &c.;" and concluded, "to the damage c 2 Hilary Term, 3 Will. 4, and the declaration must commence and conclude in the usual form. 1834. DOE GILLETT v. Each. of Pleas, of the said John Doe, of &c., whereby he is the less able," &c. Mansel contended that the declaration ought to have preserved the form given in the rules of Michaelmas, 3 Will. 4:-" A. B., by E. F., his attorney, complains of C. D., who has been summoned," &c. The rules order" that every declaration shall in future be intitled," &c. In a late case this Court held the proceeding by quo minus to be at an end since the Uniformity of Process Act (a). ROE. PARKE, B.-The rules of Michaelmas Term, 3 Will. 4, are rules "agreed upon by the Judges in pursuance of the statute 2 Will. 4, c. 39." That statute is intitled, "An Act for the Uniformity of Process in Personal Actions in his Majesty's Courts of Law at Westminster;" and its provisions only extend to such actions. Ejectment, being a mixed action, does not fall within those provisions, nor, consequently, within the rules which were framed for the purpose of carrying the act into effect. (a) 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 39. (b) This decision resolves the Rule refused (b). doubt expressed in Dowling's Com. Law Pr. 189. of July, made SNELLING v. Lord HUNTIngfield. 4., on the 20th ASSUMPSIT.-The first count of the declaration stated, that, in consideration that the plaintiff, together with one Hannah Lincoln, at the request of the defendant, would become and be the servants of the defendant, to wit, proposals in writing (unsigned) to B., to enter his ser vice as bailiff for a year, B. took the proposals and went away, and entered into A's service on the 24th of July :-Held, that this was a contract on the 20th, not to be performed within the space of one year from the making, and within the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds. 1834. SNELLING บ. Lord HUNTINGFIELD. that the plaintiff would become such servant in the capa- Exch. of Pleas, city of a bailiff, and that the said H. L. would become such servant in the capacity of a housekeeper and to manage the dairy and some poultry, and would remain in the service of the defendant, as such servants, for a year then next following, for certain wages, &c. &c., defendant promised plaintiff to employ him in the defendant's service at those wages, and to continue him in such service until the expiration of one year next ensuing. Breachthat the defendant did not continue the plaintiff in his service till the expiration of a year, but discharged him therefrom. The second count stated, that, in consideration that the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, would become servant to the defendant, and would find and provide for a person who should act for the defendant in the capacity of a housekeeper, &c., and would remain and continue in the service of the defendant as such servant, and find, provide for, and pay such person in the capacity aforesaid, for the space of a year then next following, at and for certain wages, to wit, &c., the defendant promised the plaintiff to retain and employ the plaintiff in the defendant's service, and in the capacity aforesaid, at the wages aforesaid, and to continue him in such service and employ until the expiration of one year then next ensuing. Breach -that the defendant did not continue the plaintiff in his service and employ till the expiration of one year from the making of the promise, but refused to permit him to continue, and discharged him therefrom. The declaration also contained an indebitatus count for wages and salary as a servant, for goods bargained and sold, and sold and delivered, for work and labour, for money lent, for money paid, for money had and received, and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit, except as to 217. 3s., parcel of the sums in the indebitatus count mentioned, and as to that a tender. He also pleaded (except as to the amount tendered) a set-off for goods sold and delivered, Exch. of Pleas, and an account stated. Upon these pleas the plaintiff 1834. SNELLING v. Lord HUNTINGFIELD. took issue. The cause was tried at the London Sittings in Trinity Term, 1833, before Gurney, B., when the following appeared to be the facts of the case. On the 20th July, 1832, the defendant proposed to hire the plaintiff as a bailiff, and the defendant at that time wrote the following memorandum, (which was signed by neither of the parties), but was delivered to the plaintiff, and by him taken away: : "The pork wanted to be at 5s. a stone. "The person and his daughter, a housekeeper, to do for them and manage the dairy, and some poultry. "The person to have the road running through the parks, as the division of the lands to be managed by each bailiff. You take the south side. The salary for bailiff and housekeeper to be 80l. a year. "All expenses going either to market or sales." The plaintiff did not enter the service of the defendant until the 24th July. He boarded three of the defendant's servants, and claimed on this account, at the trial, a balance of 91. 3s. Before the expiration of the year, the defendant, being displeased with the plaintiff, gave him a month's warning to quit his service; and, on the 14th November, the defendant's agent settled an account with him respecting the board of the servants, and his own wages, and the plaintiff assented to the account, with the exception of his wages, for which he claimed the full year's amount. The defendant's agent told him that he considered him discharged from that day. On the 6th December, 1832, the plaintiff finally quitted the defendant's service; and now claimed damages for not being continued in his service for the remainder of the year. On the part of the defendant, it was ob 1834. SNELLING t. Lord jected that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover on Exch. of Pleas, either as to the tender or set-off. Bompas, Serjt., and Platt shewed cause.-First, With regard to the claim for damages for the plaintiff's not being continued in the service of the defendant for the whole year, there was sufficient evidence to support the special (a) 1 B. & A. 722. |