LE BLANC J. This is insufficient; the only question is, whether the property is a freehold. I can make no distinction between the different sorts of leases, and one lease is for this purpose the same as another. Puller then referred to a case before LE BLANC J. in the last Term (a); but PER LE BLANC J. In that case the bail was re jected; and I still think the property insufficient. The bail, however, was afterwards examined by consent; and it being sworn that he was worth the necessary sum, a justification was established on that ground, (a) See the last case. 1814. ANONYMOUS. ANONYMOUS. POLLOCK moved to justify bail, and Comyn opposed the justification, on the ground that one of the bail had only copyhold property for life in right of his wife. BAYLEY J. rejected him, but gave time. 1815. 1st Feb. A copyhold estate in right of wife is not sufficient property for bail. JAMESON'S Bail. ADOLPHUS opposed the justification of bail, on the ground that one of the bail had been asked by his brother (the attorney for the defendant) to be bail for the defendant, and the bail answered, that he did not know the defendant. 1815. 1st Feb. It is no objec tion to the justification of bail, that he was not ac quainted with the defendant. 1815. JAMESON'S 1817. 23rd April. No objection to bail, that he had been trans ported thirty years ago. 1815. 24th Nov. tion, that the PER CURIAM. That is no objection (a). (a) In Tidd's Practice, 7th ed. 293, it is said, that bail have been rejected who did not know the defendant Per Cur. M. 26 Geo. 3, K. B. but that the circumstance of not knowing the defendant being only a matter of suspicion, may be explained away. ON HATFIELD'S Bail. N an objection being taken to bail, that he had been transported thirty years ago, ABBOTT J. Overruled the objection, and said that the term of transportation having expired, the bail was under no legal disability for this purpose. ANONYMOUS. It is no objec-ITTLEDALE opposed the justification of bail, on the ground that they had been put in by an by an uncertifi- uncertificated attorney. bail were put in cated attorney. 1820. 3rd Feb. Where counsel was instructed to oppose bail, who were by mistake allowed to pass without opposi DAMPIER J. That is no objection; the defendant may not be aware of it, and Pollock said, that the same objection had been lately overruled in the Common Pleas. ADDISON against Foster. was instructed to oppose the justification of bail in this case. When the defendant's bail were called, they were asked whether they came up to justify in this cause, and having answered in the tion, they were negative, they justified without opposition, under a supposition that there was some other cause of the same names; but it afterwards appearing that the bail justified by mistake, without any default of counsel, the allowance was stayed, and the bail were ordered to come up to justify to-morrow. ordered to come up again on another day, and the rule for allowance in the mean time stayed. NETHERSOLE'S Bail. 1813. 24th Nov. AN objection was taken to the form of rendering of A render may the defendant, on the ground that it could not be made without the attorney in the cause. LORD ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. The render may be made without an attorney; all things to be entered on record must be done by attornies, but the party may render himself. BAYLEY J. This is a disgraceful attempt to take advantage of a point of practice, against the evident justice of the case. THE COURT Overruled the objection. THE KING against THE SHERIFF of MIDDLESEX, The AN attachment was issued against the sheriff under the following circumstances: notice of justification of bail having been given, they were opposed by counsel on the day appointed, in the presence of the plaintiff's attorney, and justified themselves in open Court. The defendant's attorney having obtained the rule for allowance, went to the chambers of the plaintiff's attorney at a quarter past nine o'clock the same evening, for the purpose of serving it; but finding the office shut up, he went away without leaving it in the letter box. Next day at half-past twelve o'clock, he called and left it at the chambers of the plaintiff's attorney. At eleven o'clock on the same day the sheriff was attached for not bringing in the body, and now the de (a) See Tidd, 7th ed. 301. be made by the party himself, and without an attorney. 1820. 5th Feb. The sheriff is tachment for not bringing in liable to an at the body, if the rule for the al lowance for bail be not served in time, although the bail justified after opposi tion of counsel, in the presence of the plaintiff's attorney (a). THE KING against fendant came to set aside the attachment for irregu THE SHERIFF larity under the circumstances above stated; OF MIDDLE SEX, in a cause of against FARQUHAR. but THE COURT held the attachment to be regular, for it was the duty of the defendant's attorney to have served the rule for the allowance of bail on the evening of the day when the rule was granted, by leaving it at the chambers of the plaintiff's attorney; and they acted upon the decision of the King v. the Sheriff of Middlesex (a), where it was held that bail is not regularly put in until the allowance of it has been served, even though the plaintiff oppose the justification. Rule discharged. Chitty for the plaintiff, and Archbold for the defendant. (a) 4 T. R. 493. 1812. Trinity Term. Bail have eight days to surrender the principal; and where the render was made in due ESP SMITH against Lewis. SPINASSE obtained a rule to shew cause why the proceedings in an action against the bail on their recognizance should not be stayed, and why an exoneretur should not be entered on the bail piece. The facts were that the capias ad satisfaciendum against the principal was returnable the first day of this Term, was not entitled (29th of May); the principal was rendered on the to costs of writs next day, (Saturday, the 30th of May,) but no notice issued against the bail before of render was served until five o'clock on Monday time, Court set aside proceedings against bail, and held that plaintiff notice of ren der. evening, June the 1st. Campbell shewed cause. He admitted that the motion was regular, but contended that he was enti tled to the costs of writs issued against the bail, they having issued before notice of render. Espinasse contended that he was not entitled to any costs, and cited Byrne v. Aguilar, 3 East, 306. THE COURT held that he was not entitled to costs, the bail having eight days to surrender the principal; and that the rule must be made absolute. Rule absolute accordingly. 1812. SMITH against Lewis. HARRIS against GLOSSOP. 1816. 6th Nov. TINDAL moved to enlarge the time for the bail to The Court will surrender their principal, who was a bankrupt, and he cited 3 East, 145. 1 Taunt. 320. Taylor, 1 Price, 74. not grant a rule to enlarge the time for the Crump v. bail to render the bankrupt, defendant, unless it be sworn that the appli BAYLEY J. asked if the motion was for the bail or cation was the principal. Tindal. For the principal. made by the bail. ABBOTT. J. Were not those cases moved with the consent of the bail? Tindal. Yes, and so it is here. But it not being so stated in any affidavit, PER CURIAM. You must get such an affidavit. Tindal took nothing by his motion. |