« PreviousContinue »
The Judges who sat in the Court of Common Pleas during the foregoing term, were
Lord Chief Justice TINDAL,
Mr. Justice PARK,
Mr. Justice GASELEE,
In an action against executors (upon an account stated) for a legacy, it is
competent to the plaintiff to impeach any particular item or items on the
credit side of the account. Rose v. Savory, 199.
Affidavit of Verification.
1. A British consul has power by the 6 Geo. 4, c. 87, s. 20, to cer-
tify as to the handwriting and authority of the party before whom
is sworn the affidavit verifying the certificate of the taking of an ac-
knowledgment of a married woman (abroad) under the 3 & 4 Will.
4, c. 74. In re Barber, 436.
2. An affidavit verifying the certificate of acknowledgment by a
married woman under the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74, cannot be received if
sworn in Ireland before a commissioner for taking affidavits in the
Common Pleas in Ireland: it must be sworn before a commissioner
of this court. In re Anderson, 626.
ACT OF PARLIAMENT.
By a canal act it was provided that it should be lawful for any per-
son seised of or interested in any lands or hereditaments which
should be set out for the purposes of the act, to contract for, sell,
and convey to the company or their nominee the land so set out;
that all such contracts, agreements, sales, exchanges, conveyances,
and assurances should be valid and effectual in law to all intents and
purposes, any law or statute to the contrary notwithstanding; and
that all such contracts &c. should be inrolled by the clerks of the peace
of the respective counties of Warwick and Worcester in which such
lands &c. should lie: and, by a subsequent section, that, upon pay-
ment of the sum agreed for or assessed &c., such lands &c. and the
fee simple and inheritance thereof should from thenceforth be vested
in and become the sole property of the company for the purposes of
the act:-Held, that the act did not dispense with a conveyance
in writing. Doe d. Robins v. The Warwick Canal Co. 717.
And see Case, 3.
ACTION ON THE CASE-see Case.
ADMINISTRATION-see ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.
ADULTERY—see ARBITRATION, 1.
ADVERSE POSSESSION-Bee VENDOR AND PURCHASER.
1:33.proyes buli :
To hold to Bail.
Sus 3981 F1:17
Addition of Parties.
1. The addition of "widow" to the name of a party in the
title of a cause is not necessary. Miller, dem., Miller, Ten. 117.
Description of Deponent.
2. In an affidavit used in shewing cause against á rule, the
deponent was described as of “ Lawrence Pountney, in the city
of London," without stating whether parish, place, or lane:-
Held, sufficient. Miller, dem., Miller, ten., 117.
3. An affidavit of debt in an action against the drawer of a bill
of exchange stated that the bill was undue and unpaid, and dis-
closed no default of the acceptor :-Held, sufficient. Irving v.
Eaton, 798. Sed quære.
4. Semble that a defendant cannot be held to bail upon an affi-
davit made more than a year before the issuing of the writ.
Taylor v. Slater, 839.
Before whom sworn.
gesys.? apa "AnriNIA
On Motions and Rules.
Addition and Description of Deponent(Continued) 34!!UTA
that the deponent (the defendant in the action) is in the Fleet
prison, his place of abode need not be stated. Sharp v. John-
meri i "open; 4, ?? Ta riis,
Stamp on-See Stamps, I.
1. In a writ of right the tenant demurred to the count for a sup-
posed deficiency in the statement of the descent. After argument
the court permitted him to withdraw his demurrer and plead de novo.
Twining, dem., Lowndes, ten., 260.
2. After issue joined and a peremptory undertaking to try, the
court permitted the plaintiff to amend his declaration by substituting
a count in trover for a count in case for negligence in the custody of
the plaintiffs' goods. Storr v. Watson, 842.
3. The court allowed the defendant to amend his pleadings after
one of the plaintiff's witnesses had been examined and cross-examined
under a judge's order-it appearing that, prior to the examination,
the plaintiff's attorney was apprised of the proposed amendments,
and the witness was examined with reference thereto. Hollingworth
v. Briggs, 794.
Claimed under a Will.
1. Testator by his will charged an annuity upon certain leasehold
premises, with a declaration, that, in case the leasehold specified
should prove insufficient to discharge the annuity, the deficiency
should be made up out of the rents and profits of his freehold pre-
mises. The annuitant distrained upon the freehold for arrears of the
annuity. In replevin :-Held, that the will, even as against the an-
nuitant claiming under it, did not dispense with proof that the tes-
tator died possessed of the leasehold. James v. Salter, 750.
2. An annuitant claiming under a will, who has never received
the annuity, is not barred by the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, ss. 2, 3, al-
though more than twenty years have elapsed since the right to the
annuity first accrued to him. Id.
Proof under a Fiat against a Surety.
3. The instalments of annuity for the payment of which a surety
expressly covenants in case of the default of the grantor, are not
proveable under a fiat against the surety, where such instalments do
not become due until after the bankruptcy of the surety. Thompson
v. Thompson, 266.
Sufficiency of Memorial.
4. In a memorial of an annuity inrolled pursuant to the 53 Geo. 3,
c. 141, s. 2, one of the columns was headed thus Person for
whose the annuity is granted:"-Held, sufficient. Flight
v. Lord Lake, 126.
APPURTENANCES-Sec Tirues, 2.
Authority of Arbitrator.
1. In assumpsit for board and lodging furnished to the defendant's
wife, an arbitrator to whom the cause was referred admitted evi-
dence of the wife's adultery to be given under non assumpsit, in an-
swer to the action:-The court refused to set aside the award. Symes
v. Goodfellow, 769.
Award, where final.
2. By a judge's order a cause and all matters in difference between
the parties were referred to arbitration, the costs of the suit, and of
the reference and award, to abide the event of the award. The arbi-
trator by his award directed that the defendant should by a given day
deliver to the plaintiff certain goods, and that the plaintiff should on
or before a certain other day pay a sum of money to the defendant;
that, upon payment of the sum so awarded, the proceedings in the
action should cease; and that each party should execute to the other a
general release :-Held, that the award was sufficiently final, and that
neither party was entitled to costs. Yates v. Knight, 470,
1. The defendant was arrested on the 12th May, carried to gaol on the
15th, and a declaration delivered on the 28th Held, that an application
on the 4th June to discharge him out of custody, on the ground that he
has been carried out of the county and there detained two days before he
was taken to the county gaol, was too late. Fownes v. Stokes, 205.
2. Quære whether this would be any ground for discharging the defen-
dant, even had the application been made in time. Id.
ARREST OF JUDGMENT-See SLANDER, 2.
ASSESSED TAXES-See Taxes.
ASSIGNMENT-See PRISONER, 1, 2, 3.
ASSUMPSIT-See MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED -PLEADING.
For Nonperformance of an Award.
1. Where an award directs a bond to be delivered to the plaintiff's
on demand, a demand by one will not suffice, in the absence of a
power of attorney from the other. Sykes v. Haigh, 193.
For impeding the Service of a Subpæna,
2. A defendant who keeps out of the way a witness material to the