« ForrigeFortsett »
1824. AARON v. CHAUNDRY.
Saturday, ADOLPHUS on a former day obtained a rule nisi for After issue
January 31. setting aside the judgment of non pros. signed by the joined in as
sumpsit on a defendant in this case, for irregularity, with costs. It was promissory an action upon a promissory note, and the defendant, having being ruled to pleaded non assumpsit, made up the issue, and ruled the enter the issue,
entered a plea plaintiff to enter it. The plaintiff entered it with a plea of of not guilty, not guilty, instead of non assumpsit; upon which the de- instead of non
assumpsit, fendant signed his judgment of non pros.
signed judg. Campbell now showed cause, and contended that, inas- ment of non much as the plaintiff had not entered the issue which
court set it actually joined in the action, there was no irregularity in aside without the defendant signing judgment of non pros. He relied upon IVood v. Miller. (a)
pros. but the
Adolphus, in support of the rule, was stopped by the Court.
ABBOTT, C. J.--This case is perfectly distinguishable from Wood v. Miller. That case only decided that the issue must be entered as of the term when the rule to reply was given and the similiter joined, and not as of the preceding term, when the plea was given. The objection there was, that the issue was entered as of a wrong term. In substance, the plea of Not Guilty, in a case like the present, is the same as non assumpsit; but where so much carelessness is apparent, we shall make the rule absolute without costs.
Rule absolute without costs.
(«) 3 East, 204.
any part be
BISHOP and Another d. MACINTOSH and Another. January 31.
ASSUMPSIT. The declaration stated, that in considerBy 43 G. 3. c. 56. s. 2. it is ation that the plaintiffs had sold and delivered to the delawful to con- fendants certain ships' stores, and had also effected a policy vey in any ship of insurance on a vessel called The Hope, on a voyage from from any place in the United England to New South Wales, for 3321. to be received by Kingdom to
the plaintiffs in New South Wales, at the termination of yond sea, a the voyage, the defendants undertook (unless prevented greater numher of persons
therefrom by inevitable accident) that they would cause the than in the
voyage to be performed, and the money to be paid to the proportion of one for every plaintiffs at New South Wales, within a reasonable time. two tons of
Averment that the defendants did not, although not prevented the burthen of the ship; therefrom by inevitable accident, cause the voyage to be perand every ship shall be deen formed, or the money to be paid within a reasonable time. ed of such
Plea, non assumpsit. At the trial before Abbott, C. J. burthen as is set forth in the at the Middleser sittings, after last Michaelmas term, the certificate of
case was this :—The plaintiffs had shipped on board the registry: and if any ship defendants' vessel, called The Hope, a quantity of ships' shall be partly laden
stores to be carried to New South Wales, and had effected with goods,
a policy of insurance on the vessel for the voyage, in purthen it shall not be lawful suance of a stipulation on the part of the defendants, for for the master that purpose. The vessel sailed from London, and on her board a greater arrival at Ramsgate, she was detained by the officers of number of pero the customs, on the ground that she had a greater number sons, including the crew, than of passengers on board, proportioned to her tonnage, than in the
proportion of one
was allowed by 43 Geo. 3. c. 56. s. 2. (u) It appeared every two tons (a) By which it is enacted, “ That it shall not be lawful to convey of that part of from any place in the United Kingdom to any parts beyond sea, in any the ship re ship, a greater number of persons, whether adults or children, including maining un the crew, than in the proportion of one person for every two tons of laden. Where the burthen of such ship or vessel : and every ship shall be deemed a vessel regis- and taken to be of such tonnage or burthen as is described and set forth tered at 230, in the respective certificate of the registry of each and every such ship; but in fact and if any such ship or vessel shall be partly laden with goods, wares, measuring 269 or merchandise, then it shall not be lawful for the master to receive or tons burthen,
take was partly laden with goods, and carried passengers in proportion to her measured tonnage: held that she was to be deemed only of the tonnage described in the certificate of registry, and that her actual tonnage could not be taken into consideration.
that in the certificate of the ship’s register she was stated to 1824. be of the burthen of 230 tons, but in point of fact she mea
Bishop sured 269 tons. She was partly laden, and had 90 passengers on board, and a crew of 17 men, including the master. Macintosh Her cargo was stowed in the hold, and not between decks. On the part of the defendants it was admitted that, if the vessel was to be deemed and taken as of the burthen stated in the register, there were more passengers on board than the law allowed, and consequently the detention of the vessel by the officers of the customs was justifiable; but it was contended that, according to the true construction of the act of parliament, the vessel bad no more passengers on board than she was allowed to take, and consequently, the detention being unlawful, the defendants were not liable in this action, inasmuch as they were hindered and prevented from performing the voyage, by inevitable accident, within the meaning of the contract. The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion that, according to the sound construction of the 43 G. 3. c. 56. s. 2. the certificate of the ship's register must be deemed and taken to be conclusive evidence of her burthen; and it being admitted that the vessel had more passengers on board in proportion to her burthen so evidenced than the law allowed, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict.
The plaintiff had a verdict accordingly, and
Copley, A. G. moved for a new trial, and contended that, although the tonnage mentioned in the register was 230; yet inasmuch as the vessel actually measured 269 tons, the number of passengers was not disproportioned to the tonnage, and consequently she was not liable to seizure.
take on board a greater number of persons, including the crew, than in the proportion of one person for every two tons of that part of such ship or vessel remaining unladen; and such goods, wares, and merchandise, shall at the sight and under the direction of the collector or comptroller, or other officer of the customs, at the port or place where such goods, wares, and merchandize, shall be taken on board, be bestowed and disposed of in such manner as to leave good and sufficient and wbolesome accommodation for the proportion of persons thereby allowed in such case to be received on board."
It may be true that with respect to a vessel not carrying a cargo, the tonnage is to be deemed and taken to be that mentioned in the certificate of the ship’s register; but still, if the vessel is only in part laden with goods, then the actual tonnage may be taken into consideration; and therefore the vessel having been improperly detained, the defendants come within the exception contained in the contract between the parties.
Abbott, C. J.-We are all of opinion that this case is too plain for argument. The words of the Act admit of no doubt, that whether a vessel be partly laden or not with goods, she shall be deemed and taken to be of such burthen as is described and set forth in the certificate of her register. Here the vessel was described in the certificate of the register as being of the burthen of 230 tons only, and we think that her actual admeasurement cannot be taken into consideration in calculating the number of passengers taken on board.
Rule refused. (a) (a) The statute abovementioned has been since altered by an act of the present session of parliament.
COLLINS v. GOODGER.
on a former day, had obtained a rule calling on ponent, in an affidavit to
the plaintiff to show cause why the bail bond given by the hold to bail, defendant should not be delivered up to be cancelled, and described himself as of Dor- common bail filed, for an objection to the affidavit to hold set Place,
to bail. The plaintiff was described in the affidavit to hold Clapham Road, Middleser, to bail as of “ Dorset Place, Clapham Road, Middlesex ;" and his true residence was
whereas the true description of his residence was “ Dorset Dorset Pluce, Place, Clapham Road, Surrey.” He referred to the rule Clapham Road, of Court, Mic. 15. Car. 2. which requires that Surrey, the
every affidaCourt ordered vit to hold to bail shall state the true place of abode, and the bail-boud to be can
the true addition of the person making it. celled, and a common appearance entered.
Andrews urged for cause against the rule, that, as the defendant had not been at all misled by the mistake, the objection ought not to prevail.
ABBOTT, C.J. The rule of Court expressly requires, that the true place of abode of the deponent shall be set forth in the affidavit; and unless we adhere to a rule so expressed, we should open a door to the greatest laxity and carelessness. The rule must be made absolute.
Rule absolute. (a)
(a) Vide Tidd, 194.; 1 Archbold's Pr. 51. citing 1 East, 18; 3 East, 154; 1 M. and S. 103; 11 East, 528; 3 M. and S. 165; 3 B. and P. 550; and 4 Taunt. 154.
upon the for
was, that, if
Doe d. Rev.James Harris, Clerk, v. GEORGE MASTERS. Tuesday,
February 3. EJECTMENT for a certain chapel, called Spring Gar- In ejectment den Chapel, situate in Spring Gardens, in the parish of St.
feiture of a Martin in the fields, in the county of Middleser. The lease for non
payment of lessor of the plaintiff went for a forfeiture, by reason of a rent, where breach of covenant contained in a lease of the demised pre
the proviso mises, for non-payment of rent. Plea, not guilty. At the the rent was
in arrear for trial before Abbott, C.J. at the Middlesex sittings after last
twenty-one Trinity Term, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject days, the les
sor might re to the opinion of the Court on the following case.—By a certain indenture of lease, bearing date 7th March, 1891, though no and made between the lessor of the plaintiff, James Hurris, demand shall of the one part, and the defendant George Masters, of the be made for
thereof;" held, that ejectment for non-payment of the rent within the time stipulated might be maintained against the lessee, without demanding the rent, or actually re-entering the premises.
Although this case might not be strictly within the stat. 4 G. 2. c. 28. sec. 204., yet the Court refused to relieve the tenant by staying proceedings, upon bringing the rent in arrear, and the costs of the ejectment, into Court after trial.