« ForrigeFortsett »
perhaps not very doubtful, but they appear to be, upon isos. the evidence at present before us, of the hand-writing The Km of the defendant; and, supposing thein to be so, it is terms to be collected by the jury, and by them determined, Joi,f"0 whether with intention to be published or not? They are delivered in the county ot'Middtesex to Mr. Cobbett. I cannot entertain a doubt, thai this is evidence to be sent to a jury; what ■conclusion they will draw is another question. In the case of the Seven Bishops, the publication was not proved ; the fact was admitted by some of ihem, that they were the authors of the petition to the king, but proof of the publication was wanting."
The counsel for the crown then gave further probable evidence, byre-examining Mr. Cobbett, of the probab/e destruction of the first letter and the covers. The libel was then read. Evidence was given on the j»artofthe defendant to shew that the hand-writing was not his, and not like his ; and the verdict was
Smith against Paull.—Nov. 0(5. After proceedings being delayed a year,a term's notice of eve- pra<titc. cntirrg a rcrit of inquiry is sufficient; icithout giving a term's TVnn's Notica notice of intending to proceed, and then a notice of execut- ° roCt *• ting the writ. It is therefore not necessary to give a term's notice of intending to proceed, but a term's notice of the next proceeding.
A RULE being obtained to shew muse why the execu
and said that it had been held that notice of trial given between the essoign day and the first day of the term for trial after the term, was good. Here the notice ■was given on the 11th day of Mat/, 180:5, for executincjthe inquiry on the Sth day of July 1805; a term elapsed between the interval, and he contended that a term's no'ticr of any step to be taken in the cause was sufficient; and that it was never necessary to give a term's notice of the intention to take any step in the proceeding?. The general question in all the cases was only, whether a full term had elapsed or not, between the notice and the proceedings.
On the other side, it was contended, that there should have been a term's notice of intending to proceed, and then the plaintiff should have given the usual notice of executing the inquiry.
Lord E1.1, En Bob o Ugh, C. J. "There is no case that there should be a term's notice of intention of proceeding. If you were to give a term's notice of giving notice of inquiry or of trial, you might be out of time to give notice of trial after Trinity term, and so lose the whole vacation.
Rule DisctiAnGKD on this grouud, but afterwards granted upon terms.
Inferior Coorti. Lords' Act. 1'risoiicri.
The King against the Bailiffs of Itswich.—
T7ic Lords' acts apply to inferior courts, but debtors in exe-
J>OOLEY obtained a rule to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue, directed to the bailiffs of the town and borough of Ipswich, requiring them to make a rule, or older, to cause Robert Arnold, a prisoner in execution in their gaol, to be brought up before them at a court of Small Pleas for the said town and itos.
borough, and to srrant to him the benefit of the several 1
acts of parliament made for the relief of debtors with • versu, respect to the imprisonment of their persons. The defendant, Arnold, being in custody for 181. 2s. 2d. gave notice the 21st of September, I SOS, of his intension, after fourteen days, to petition the court to be
hoklen on the 7th of , to grant him the benefit
of the act 32 Geo. If. c. 28; 26 Geo. III. c. 44 ; 33 Geo. IH. c. 5; and 37 Geo. III. with the usual affidavits and schedule. At a court held the 7tiI of October, 1805, the application was accordingly made, and tbe court was prayed to grant a rule lor the piuinlijf'xa shew cause why he should not bedischarged. By the gaoler's certificate, it appeared that the prisoner was charged in execution upon a cu. sa. out of the said court, returnable the 8th of April, 1805. The prisoner, by affidavit, alleged before the said court that he had not applied before, because he had been informed that no prisoner in the said borough gaol could be entitled to the benefit of the said acts. The said court, upon hearing the allornies, were of opinion that the statutes applied only to the superior courts, and refused the defendant the benefit of the acts. It appeared that the said court is not at all governed in its practice by any reference to the terms by which the process of the superior courts is regulated, and the court-days arc every other Monday, and processes are made returnable on those days.
Aldbssom shewed cause, and contended that the acts did not apply to the case of a prisoner in an inferior court, and that if they did the prisoner was not entitled to his discharge, having delayed to apply to the court beyond the first term after being charged in execution.
Wilson and Poolet, contra, contended that the
1805 words of the acts applied generally to all prisoners in
all courts, and that the defendant Arnold was within
^'omaj5"1 t^ie c'ause> which allows the debtor to be brought up The BAiLtm at any time after, upon shewing to the court that his tf ir«wicn. negject arose from ignorance or mistake.* They contended also that the limitation, as to the next term, could not apply to a court where there were no terms.-t' «
Lord Eli.eniioroigii, C.J. "If the prisoner appears by the acts to be otherwise entitled to his discharge, it is too much to say that by the use of the word term he is deprived of it. The statute of the 2 'Geo. II. c. 22, s. 8, is without a limitation ; and the 3
Geo. III. C. 27, relates especially to the courts at Westminster Hall and the assises. The 8 Geo. II. c. 27> introduces for the first time the mention of the word term. This is an extraordinary limitation of time, and a very strange term used with respect to inferior courts and their process; but, unless there is some absolute inconsistency, the limitation of the statute must be observed. Construing, however, nil the acts together, we are willing to do what is most beneficial to the subjected though I doubted at first as to the inferior court
* 33 Geo. III. c. 6, s. 5.
i+ The material words of llie stat- 32 Ceo. II. c 2.8., upon which the question principally arose,were as follows, " If any person shall be charged in execution for any sum not exceeding, &c. and shall be minded to deliver up, ccc. it shall be lawful for any such prisoner, before the end of theJirst term, next after he shall be charged in execution, to petition any court of law from whence the process issued, upon which he was so taken and charged in execution, &c." "And if such Court shall thereupon be satisfied of the regularity of every such notice, such petition shall be received; and such court fhall thereupon, Inj order or rule of the same court, cause the prisoner so petitioning, to be brought into the same court.
bringing the prisoner up,' by order or rule of court;' 1805.
yet it may do what is equivalent. It is indeed li- The Kiwo
inited to the term after the being charged in execution;
1 ..... p i .1 • the Bailiffs
but as there is a discretionary power or enlarging that 0fiMwic«.
time, upon particular circumstances, vested in the court
out of which the process issues, there is no impropriety
in granting a mandamus to bring the prisoner up before
the inferior court, for his case to be there examined and
Grose, J. was of the same opinion.
Lawrence, J. "The 8 Geo. II. c. 22, gives a general power to discharge, upon application to the courts out of which the process issued. And by the 8 of Geo. II. c. S3, the application is confined to the next term. It is impossible that the word term could apply to the practice of the inferior courts, but it is still as known a period of the year as if it were said ' within three months,' and it is clearly, therefore, only a deno-mination of the period jn which the party must be brought up.
The rule was therefore made absolute for a writ directed to them to have the prisoner brought before the said bailiffs, and to inquire into the cause of his delay, and grant relief if the prisoner should appear to them duly entitled.
The King against the Commissioners of Sewers for the County of Somerset.— Nov. 25.
The commissioners of severs, under stat. 23 Hen. VIII. c. 5,
must present the lands of levels, 6)'C to be benefited by Sewer». Juriisea-zculls, S(c. by juries summoned upon a precept directed ,^"4°,"^ j",^, to tie sheriff, and by him summoned from the body of the county. And tchere such a jury teas by custom summoned by a precept to the sheriff, teho issued a precept to the clerk to the commissioners, to summon the foreman of a standing jury, lummoned by the sheriff at the commencement of every new commission, andall of zchom acted for
NO. XXVII. N. S. P