1805.

versus

RANDALL

Ab. title Arbitrament, L. 256. Middleton v. Weeks,* Baspole's case,+Ormelade v. Cake, Bradford v. Bryan,§ KANDALL and Risden v. Inglett,|| to shew that where the submission states certain particulars for the arbitrators to award upon, with an ita quod, that the award be made in writing; although the words concerning the premises are omitted, the arbitrators must take notice of the special matter so submitted to them, and make an award upon it; and it is not necessary for the party complaining of the award to give further notice of the subject in dispute, than that which is contained in the submission. Here the arbitrators had neither awarded an annual rent, nor even directed that the land should be given up, but had wholly omitted to notice it."

ESPINASSE, contrà, contended that the award was good for the residue, it being only bad in part.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. "The arbitrator was to decide on three things, particularly mentioned, and he has decided upon one of them only. He could not have better information of the matter in dispute than the recital of the condition of the bond, and non liquet that the parties would have submitted the other articles to his arbitrament unless they had submitted this also. Now the authority was conditional by the ita quod; namely, on the condition of awarding on those three premises, and if they fail in doing so the award fails all together. The said award to be made in writing' is the same as ita quod, and it is by no means analogous to the cases in which awards have been held good in part and bad in part.”

LAWRENCE, J. "I doubted at first whether there might not have been found some modern case, that was

* Cro. Jac. 200. Willes, 270.

+ 8 Co. Rep. 98. + Cro. Juc. 355.

Cro. Eliz. 839.

1805.

RANDALL

persus RANDALL.

subversive of the doctrine in the cases cited, upon the
ground of an award being good in part, and bad in part;
but as there has been no such case cited, we must pre-
sume that none such exists. Under the terms of this
submission, if the arbitrators do not determine before
the day mentioned, and determine all the matters men-
tioned in the submission, the condition is not performed.
Unless therefore we were to overturn the cases, we
cannot decide but that this award is bad."

GROSE, J. and LE BLANC, J. of the same opinion,
RULE for the ATTACHMENT

DISCHARGED.

The KING against THE INHABITANTS of LONG
BUCKLEY. November 20th. 1805.

Settlement. The production of an Indenture of apprenticeship is sufficient evi

Evidence.

Indenture. Apprentice.

versus

the Inhabitants

of LoNo BUCKYLE.

dence of apprenticeship duly effected by indenture, without shewing the payment of the duty upon the apprentice fee, after 20 years, for that may be presumed; neither is it rebutted by shewing that there is no entry of payment of such duty in the book of the receiver of the duty; for non liquet, but he might have reglected to

enter it.

The KING UPON appeal to the quarter-sessions at Northampton from an order of two justices for the removal of William Lee, his wife and four children, from Long Buckley, in the county aforesaid, to Newport-Pagnell in Bucks, the said court ordered the said order of removal to be quashed, subject to the following case : The pauper, William Lee, who was the illegitimate son of Mary Lee, was born in the said parish of Newport-Pagnell, A. D. 1774 or 1775, and was bound apprentice by indenture to John Dickens, of Long Buckley aforesaid, shoe maker, for seven years, for a premium of 12. which was paid, and the said indenture regularly executed by the pauper, his mother, and

1805.

The KING versus

the Inhabitantsof LONG

Dickens, the master with whom the pauper served the' full time in Long Buckley aforesaid. There was but one indenture executed, which, after the expiration of the said seven years, was given to the said pauper, and which was proved to have been lost. For eleven or BUCKLET. twelve years last past, the pauper had resided constantly at Long Buckley, and during that time had been often relieved by the parish of Long Buckley, and received towns-money from it, which towns-money was given. away at Christmas to parishioners. No further evidence was given in support of the appellant's case; but for the respondents, it was proved by the deputy register and comptroller of the apprentice duties, that it did not appear that any such indenture had been stamped with the premium stamp, or inrolled, from the year 1775 to the 19th of July, 1805. The counsel for the respondents insisted that the appellants ought to have given further proof of the payment of the duty, and of the inrollment; but the court were of opinion, that after the length of time elapsed they might presume that all had been rightly done, and quashed the order of removal. The pauper did no other act to gain a settlement.

DAYRELL, in support of the order of sessions, was stopped by the court.

MORRICE, B. contrà. "The presumption in favour of the indenture from length of time was rebutted by shewing that the duty had not been paid, and that was clearly established from the proof that no entry of the payment of the duty existed at the head-office in London, where an entry would have appeared if the duty, had been paid."

By THE COURT. "If the officer did his duty, the receipt of the stamp duty would appear, but he might have received it and not entered it. The question was merely, whether the presumption might be rebutted

1805.

The KING

by this negative evidence, and the court of quarter sessions has drawn the right conclusion, for it does not appear but the officer might have been negligent in the Inhabitants his duty, and the parish had relieved the pauper for several years.

versus

of LONG

BUCKLEY.

ORDER OF SESSIONS quashing the order of justices

AFFIRMED.

Libel. Evi

dence. Publication, proof of.

The KING against the Hon. Mr. Justice JOHNSON.-
Nov. 23d, 1805.

A libel written in Dublin, and received in London from an unknown hand, with the Dublin post-mark, was published in Middlesex in the form of letters, which contained internal evidence of a request by the writer to the publisher to publish them in Middlesex. Held, upon a trial at bar, upon probable evidence of the loss of the envelopes, and probable evidence of their being received by the post, that this was a publication by the writer living in Dublin, by his agent in Middlesex, and sufficient evidence of publication, both to authorize the reading of the libel and to go to the jury, upon an indictment charging the publication in Middlesex, the hand-writing of the defendant to the letters being proved by persons acquainted with its character. The KING THE defendant was indicted for a libel,* and was this day tried at bar, before all the judges of this court. The publication of the libel was charged to have been in the county of Middlesex in the form of a series of letters on the affairs of Ireland under the signature of Juverna, in the publication called Cobbett's Weekly Register. The proprietor, Cobbett, proved the publication of the libel in his Register.

versus

JOHNSON.

He first received a letter with the Dublin post-mark inquiring whether it would be agreeable to him to

• Sce 2 Smith's Rep. 591.

receive from Ireland certain useful and true informa
tion respecting public affairs in that country; and de-
siring him, in case it should be so, to say where such
communications should be addressed. And in his
next number he did say, that they should be directed
to Mr. Budd's, No. 100, Pall Mall. He afterwards
received two letters, being the libels in question, under
cover directed as above, which were sent on to him
by Mr. Budd, one dated the 28th October, the other
the 2d November, 1804. They were both under
cover. The cover of the first of the 28th October was
broken open by Mr. Budd; the letter of the 2d No-
vember was delivered with the cover unbroken. The
first letter, the witness said, he had no doubt was de
stroyed, as were the covers which enclosed the libels.
He did not recollect by whose hands Budd sent them
to him. He had no certain knowledge of the covers
being destroyed, nor of the first letter being destroyed.
Part of the first letter was printed in the Register,
but a part of it, which desired him to answer the
writer, through the Register, as if he, the correspon
dent lived at York, in order to elude the vigilance of
the Dublin post-office, was omitted.
He had not
searched for them since. He had been looking into
the drawer where the papers were thrown as others
were, and he knew that he had never seen them. And
he believed that the office was-searched, and that at the
time the letters were received the covers were torn
off and thrown into the fire. But he had not made
any recent search for them, and supposed them to have
been so disposed of, from its being his usual custom to
destroy them.

This the Court held to be sufficient probable evidence of the destruction of the covers and of the first letter, so as to let in parol evidence of their nature..

Evidence was then given by several witnesses, that

1805.

versus

JOHNSON