SLANDER (Continued.)

and, when the plaintiff arrived in Devonport, the defendant declined to
press the charge:-Held, that the communication to the plaintiff's cousin
at all events was unjustifiable; and that the whole course of the defendant's
conduct was so irreconcileable with an intention bona fide to institute a
legal investigation, as to dispense with the necessity for the plaintiff's
proving express malice; and consequently that the question of malice
ought not to have been left to the jury. Id.

SPECIAL DAMAGE-see SLANDER, 6-TROVer, 2.

SPECIAL VERDICT-see COSTS, 3-WRIT of Right, 11.
STAMPS.

On Agreements.

1. One D., being the holder of several bills of exchange, and being
indebted to the plaintiff, and also to R. & G., the plaintiff's agents,
addressed to the latter as such agents a letter wherein he proposed
to hand over to them certain of these bills on receiving from them
bills of lading for a cargo of wheat shipped on his order and for his
account by the plaintiff. R. & G. received two of the bills of ex-
change, and wrote a letter to D., varying the terms of his proposal,
and consenting to receive the bills generally on account, when cashed.
The first letter was stamped with a 17. stamp; the second was not
stamped-Held, that the first letter was the only evidence of the con-
tract upon which the bills were delivered to R. & G., and therefore
properly stamped. Schultz v. Astley, 815.

2. Quære whether an agreement consisting of a series of letters,
the whole containing less than 1080 words, requires a 17. 15s.
stamp. Id.

On the Sale of Goods.

3. A. having purchased a horse valued at 341., it was agreed be-
tween him and B. that the latter should have half at 17l.:—Held,
that this was an agreement for the sale of "goods, wares, or mer-
chandizes," within the exception in the stamp act 55 Geo. 3, c. 184,
and was consequently receivable in evidence without a stamp, not-
withstanding the introduction of collateral matter. Marson v.
Short, 243.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS-see LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.

SUMMONS, WRIT OF-see WRIT OF RIGHt, 1, 2, 8.
SURETY- -see ANNUITY, 3-TAXES, 3, 4.

TAXES.

1. By the statute 43 Geo. 3, c. 99, s. 13, the district collectors of assessed
taxes are required to give security to any two or more of the commissioners
of taxes, for their duly paying such monies as shall come to their hands:
and by 3 Geo. 4, c. 88, s. 2, reg. 1, art. 8, it is provided that "all bonds,
contracts, and securities to be entered into with or taken from the receivers-
general to be appointed, or with or from any other person or persons to be
appointed under that act, and their respective sureties, to remit the monies
arising by the taxes granted by the said acts (the acts relating to the
assessed taxes), or any of them, or any other duties or sums of money
under the management of the commissioners for the affairs of taxes, shall
be to his majesty, his heirs, and successors:"-Held, that a bond given by
a collector and his sureties under the former act, was properly given to the
commissioners; and that the bond was good notwithstanding it was con-
ditioned to pay the monies collected to the receiver-general, and also to
the commissioners, though by the 43 Geo. 3, c. 99, and the 3 Geo. 4, c. 88,
the collectors are required to pay over such monies to the receiver-general
only. Gwynne v. Burnell, 16.

2. Held also, that payment by the collector to the receiver-general of
monies received by him to the account of a different year from that for
the service of which they were collected (in order to make up deficiencies
in a preceding year's account), was a breach of the condition of the bond
for duly paying over the sums collected. Id.

TAXES (Continued.)

3. The 13th section of the 43 Geo. 3, c. 99, contains a proviso “that no
such bond shall be put in suit against any surety or sureties for any de-
ficiency other than what shall remain unsatisfied after sale of the lands,
ténements, goods, and chattels of such collector or collectors, in pursuance
and by virtue of the directions and powers given to the respective commis-
sioners by the act:"-Held (on error in the Exchequer Chamber), that
the sale of the lands and goods of the collector was a condition precedent
to the commencement of an action against the surety on the bond-Lord
Abinger, and Park, B., dissenting. Id.

4. Held also, that, to make such sale a condition precedent, the surety
is bound to aver and to prove notice to the commissioners, or at all events
knowledge in them, of the existence of the lands and goods-Lord Den-
man, and Williams, J., dissenting. Id.

5. The bond was conditioned for payment to the receiver-general of the
sums collected upon the days and at the times appointed by the acts. No
times are in fact appointed by the acts; but the receiver-general is im-
powered to appoint the times. There was no averment in the pleadings
that any times were appointed: but, the defendant having pleaded general
performance, and one of the breaches in the replication being that the col-
lector did not pay to the receiver-general the monies collected at the times
by the acts appointed, on which there was a special finding that he did :-
Held, that it must be presumed that the receiver-general had appointed
some times of payment. Id.

6. Quære whether the commissioners could sell the collector's goods
after judgment and satisfaction against the surety. Per Patteson, J., 35.

7. As against the collector, it is optional with the commissioners to
seize and sell his goods, &c., or proceed upon the bond. Per Patteson, J.,
35; and per Bolland, B., 51.

TENDER-see PAYMENT OF MONEY INTO COURT.

TITHES.

Effect of Nonpayment.

1. The mere non-payment of tithes is not a sufficient answer to a
claim of tithes made by a lay impropriator. Andrews v. Drever, 1.
How conveyed.

2. One W. G., being seised in fee of lands, purchased the tithes
thereof, and, by a settlement made on the marriage of his son, con-
veyed to trustees for the use of the son for life, remainder to the son's
wife, in bar of dower, the lands, "together with all houses, out-
houses, &c., profits, commodities, advantages, emoluments, heredita-
ments, and appurtenances whatsoever, to the said premises belonging
or in anywise appertaining; and the reversion, &c., and all the estate,
right, title, interest, use, trust, possession, freehold, inheritance, rever-
sion, possibility, property, challenge, claim, and demand whatsoever,
either at law or in equity, of him W. G., therein or thereto, or to any
VOL. II.

NNN

TITHES.

How conveyed-(Continued.)

TITLE.

part or parcel thereof: Held, that, under this conveyance, the tithes
did not pass. Chapman v. Gatcombe, 788., 1621,'4

Investigation of—see COSTS, 4.

TRESPASS ghizaya 1096 A Lot 4 serou vra fise et bug-2

116, 11. In trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff's close, the defendant
A pleaded that the close was not the close of the plaintiff:-Held, that evi-
dence of possession was sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict.
Heath v. Milward, 160, H
on of bing yub enlt end of dome
Lbyri ཙྩེ 』1 ཥྱy 1:|:ཀ བསྟྭ 16 p

TROVER.

1. Certain wine warrants coming to the possession of the defendant as
the personal representative of her decased husband, who died insolvent,
she placed them in the hands of her attorney: the warrants being de-
manded on behalf of the assignees of the husband, the defendant referred
the applicant to the attorney:Held, that this was not sufficient evidence
of a conversion. Canot v. Hughes, 663.

2. In trover by assignees of a bankrupt against the sheriff for seizing
under a fi. fa. goods of the bankrupt after an act of bankruptcy committed,
it appeared, that, in consequence of the sheriff's possession, the goods be-
came liable to the landlord for a quarter's rent of the bankrupt's premises,
and charges were incurred for a messenger that otherwise would not have
been necessary; and that the goods had, after the commencement of the
action, been delivered up to, and unconditionally accepted by, the plaintiffs
in a perfectly undeteriorated condition :-Held, that the plaintiffs were
not entitled to recover the rent and charges so incurred, by way of special
damage; there being no averment of special damage in the declaration.
Moon v. Raphael, 489.

3. Quære, whether such rent and charges were so necessary a con-
sequence of the wrongful conversion as to entitle the plaintiff to recover
them in trover, even with an averment of special damage. Id.

USE AND OCCUPATION—see LANDLORD AND Tenant, 1,2,3.
VENDOR AND PURCHASER.

Inchoate Contract.

One G. was let into possession of land allotted to one P. under an
inclosure act in 1814, upon a contract of sale under which one half of
the purchase money was paid, and interest upon the remaining moiety
regularly till the year 1828, when G. became bankrupt. No convey-
ance was ever executed, nor was the remainder of the purchase money
ever paid-Held, that the possession by G. under this inchoate con-
tract was not adverse to the title of P., the vendor; and that the
assignee of P. might maintain ejectment, notwithstanding the lapse