of)

of)

of)

v. Fowey

832

v. Turner

v. Yarborough (Lord)

70 Roberts, Mould v.

Robinson v. Vale

Rochester, Bright v. (n)

825 Rogers, Davies v.

114 Routh, Simpson v.

Rules, General

735

132

S.

v. Gainsbury, (Hundred Schmanuel, Scuerhop v.

250 Scuerhop v. Schmanuel

v. Gravesend (Mayor of) 117 Selby, Doe v.

v. Hallow (Inhabitants

v. Iddesleigh (Inhabitants

Shaw v. Broom

299

- v. Hislop
Simonds v. White
332 Simpson v. Routh
Hunter v.

734 Skaife v. Howard

Smith v. Matham

v. Ilchester (Mayor of) 324

v. Kiddy

of).

v. King's Lynn (Justices

778

v. Lydd (Inhabitants of) 295

v. Market Bosworth (In-

habitants of)

v. Marsh.

v. Mead

Opperman v.

Soames v. Lonergan
Southall, Hancock v.
306 Sparkes, Doe v.
260 Stamp, Aspinall v.
120 Stanton, Johnson v.

v. Middlesex (County Storer v. Rayson
Clerk of)
273 Strockley, Park v.

v. Middlesex (Sheriff of) 855 Swaine v. Bland

v. Middleton

v. Newark-upon-Trent

(Inhabitants of)

824

T.

Bishop of)

Thresher v. East London Wa-

terworks

ERRATA ET CORRIGENDA.

At page 365, line 19, from top, read “lien,” instead of “ general lien.”

At page 620, line 4, from top, read that the plaintiff had "a general verdict," instead of
upon the special count."

"MERRINGTON v. CHARLES BECKETT, Gent. one, &c."- In

some of the copies of the Third Volume of these Reports, (p. 231,)

this cause was mis-printed "MERRINGTON v. A'BECKETT, Gent.

one, &c." a few of which got into circulation, and led to the mistake

being copied into the Supplement to Mr. J. B. Moore's Digested

Index to the Term Reports.-The Publishers are anxious the error

should be corrected.