See EVIDENCE, 7. AMENDMENT OF, see
PLEADING, 12. REG. GEN. 8, 9, 22, 23.
TRESPASS, 2.

1. Verdict in ejectment on a count on a sup-
posed demise by a party without his au-
thority, and without his concurring in the
action, set aside. Doe ex dem. Hammek
and Corporation of Plymouth v. Fillis. 170
2. If a person be named in a declaration in
ejectment as one of the lessors of the
plaintiff, without his authority, the party
served with declaration may, before ap-

pearance, move the court to have such
party's name struck out of declaration.
Doe dem. Shepherd and another v. Roe.

Page 171
3. Judgment granted against the casual
ejector, when the declaration was by ori-
ginal, and the notice was as if by bill,
omitting "wheresoever, &c." and it was
held immaterial. Doe dem. Thomas v.
Roe.
171

4. Rule isi for judgment granted against
the casual ejector, where the notice was in
the wrong term, but the tenant in pos-
session afterwards knew of the mistake.
171
Anon.

5. Declaration intitled of Michaelmas Term,
54 Geo. 3, instead of 55 Geo. 3, but no-
tice dated 11th January, 1815, requiring
tenant to appear "next Hilary Term,"
held sufficient. Goodtitle dem. Ranger v.
Roe.

172

6. The notice to appear being in "Trinity
Term," instead of "Hilary Term next,"
judgment was allowed against the casual
ejector. Doe v. Greaves.

172

7. A wrong title of the term, in a declaration
in ejectment, is an immaterial error.
172

Anon.

8. Judgment granted against the casual
ejector, where the declaration was entitled
by mistake of a wrong term. Anon. 173
9. If the title to a declaration in ejectment
is wrong, and the notice to appear thereto
is correct, the defect in the title is cured.
Anon.
173

10. Judgment granted against the casual
ejector, though the real defendant's name
was inserted at the beginning of the decla-
ration instead of the casual ejector. But
the party should amend.

11. The declaration in ejectment was inti-
tled "Doe on the demise of A. B. v. B."
and the affidavit of the service of the de-
claration upon the tenant in possession
was entitled "Doe on the demise of B.
and A. v. B." And the court, notwith-
standing the variance between the arrange-
ment of the lessors names, gave judgment
against the casual ejector. Doe on the
Idem. of Philip Worthington and James
Worthington v. Butcher.

174
12. Service of a declaration in ejectment on
one of two joint tenants, who were also
copartners in trade, is not sufficient to en-
title the plaintiff to judgment against the
casual ejector in the first instance, but
there must be a rule to shew cause. Doe
dem. Field v. Roe.

174

13. A rule nisi for judgment against the
casual ejector, where the service was on
one of three tenants in possession, and the
affidavits did not state them to be joint
tenants. Right ex dem. v, Wrong.

175

14. Rule nisi granted where the service was
on one of two joint tenants. Anon. Page 176
15. Though service of a declaration in eject-
ment on one of three several defendants,
is not sufficient, judgment will be granted
against the two. Doe ex dem. Murphy v.
Moore and others.
176
16. The affidavit in support of the rule for
judgment against the casual ejector, where
the tenant keeps out of the way, should
state the belief of the deponent that he
kept out of the way to avoid being served.
Doe dem. Batson v. Roe.
176
17. Judgment as against casual ejector,
where no one in the house, must state in
the affidavit, that the party has absconded
with view to avoid the service, or at least,
must swear to his belief of it. Doe dem.
Lowe v. Roe.
177
18. An affidavit to ground a motion, that the
service of a declaration in ejectment be
good, stating that the tenant kept out of
the way, &c. is insufficient, unless it swear
that the person serving the declaration
searched for the defendant, and could find
him no where. Anon.
177

19. Rule nisi, and afterwards absolute, for
judgment against the casual ejector, where
the house was shut up, and no tenant was
in possession, and the declaration was
stuck up on the most conspicuous part of
the premises. Doe ex dem. Hele v. Roe.
178

20. Rule absolute for judgment against the
casual ejector, where the service of the
declaration had been made on a person
believed to have been left in possession by
the tenant, who was out of the way, and
also on her attorney, and a letter sent
by the two-penny post, according to the
attorney's direction, to the tenant's last
place of abode.
Anon. 179
21. Where the tenant in possession is since
dead, and his late servant is in possession,
the plaintiff had better endeavour to get
possession; and if the servant who is in
possession resists, then treat him as ten-
ant, and serve the declaration on him as
such; and if he does not then resist, per-
haps it may be treated as a vacant posses-
sion. Doe ex. dem. Atkins v. Roe. 179
22. An acknowledgment by the defendant, of
the receipt of the declaration, is not suf-
ficient to entitle the plaintiff to judgment
against the casual ejector, unless it be
sworn that the admission was before the
essoign day. Doe dem. Tindale v. Roe. 180
23. Service of a declaration in ejectment on
a brother of the tenant in possession, is
bad, for want of an acknowledgment by
the tenant that he had received it. Right
dem. Freeman v. Roe.
180

24. Rule nisi granted to make the service of
a declaration in ejectment on the clerk of
a public body (the clerk having been di-

rected to be appointed by act of parlia-
ment), good service. The affidavit to
ground such a motion must not be entitled
in the real names of the defendants. Anon.

Page 181

25. Rule nisi granted for judgment against
the casual ejector, where service of the
declaration was made on an attorney who
represented himself to be the agent for the
tenants in possession, and would appear
for them. Anm.
181
26. The court will, in the first instance, only
grant a rule nisi for judgment against the
casual ejector, where the affidavit does not
swear that the import of the declaration
was explained to a servant to whom it was
delivered. Anon.

182
27. Rule granted to shew cause, why the
service of a declaration in ejectment on a
son of the tenant in possession (who said
that his father was unable to attend to any
business, and a subsequent admission by
a person whom the deponent believed was
the wife of the tenant in possession, that
her husband had received it) should be
good service. Anm.

182

28. Judgment against the casual ejector,
where the service of the declaration was
made on a person who had the care of
tenant in possession (a lunatic), and the
management of his affairs, though not ap-
pointed by a regular committee.

N. B. The rule nisi, in such a case,
should be generally to shew cause, without
being directed to any party in particular.
Doe ex dem. Lord Aylesbury v. Roe.
183
29. Rule absolute for judgment against the
casual ejector, where rule nisi was served
on the servant of the tenant in possession
on the premises, which were locked up,
and nobody in them, except the servant,
who had the keys of the premises, the de-
claration having been served on the ser-
vant under nearly the same circumstances.
Doe dem. Akins v. Roe.

184

30. Rule nisi granted for judgment against
the casual ejector, where it appeared from
circumstances that the parties understood
the contents of the declaration, though
the affidavit did not state that it was ex-
plained to them. Anon.
184
31. Rule nisi granted for judgment against
the casual ejector, where the declaration
was pushed through an iron grating to the
defendant, who was in Newgate. Wright
ex dem. Bayley v. Wrong.

185

32. Judgment against the casual ejector,
where the declaration was put on a table
before the defendant, but could not be
delivered to him, as the defendant's son
prevented the person from serving it.

Anon.

185

33. Judgment granted against the casual
ejector, where the declaration was not
read over or explained to the tenant in

possession, on whom it was served, but
who subsequently acknowledged that he
had received it, and knew what it was.
Doe dem. Thompson v. Roe.
Page 186
34. The court will, in the first instance, on-
ly grant a rule nisi for judgment against
the casual ejector, where the motion is
grounded on an affidavit of the defendant's
acknowledgment that he had endeavoured
to avoid the service of the declaration.
Anon.
35. The court will, in the first instance,
only grant a rule nisi for judgment against
the casual ejector, where the defendant's
attorney has acknowledged the receipt of
the declaration from his client. Anon. 187
36. Service of a declaration in ejectment on

186

a servant of the tenant in possession, the
latter having afterwards acknowledged the
receipt thereof, is sufficient; but the affi-
davit to ground the motion for judgment
should state when such acknowledgment
Anon.
was made.

187

37. The plaintiff in ejectment on a vacant
possession should proceed more regularly
than in a contested possession; and if, in
such a case, having obtained judgment, he
should neglect to take away the rule be-
fore the expiration of two days after the
term in which the rule was obtained, the
court will not, in the next term, assist him.
188
Anon.

189

38. In country causes, though declaration
served before Michaelmas Term, the court
will permit plaintiff in Hilary Term to
have judgment against casual ejector.
Doe ex dem. Stott v. Roe.
39. Though notice to appear was in Easter
Term, a rule absolute in first instance for
judgment against casual ejector may be
moved in Trinity Term. Anon. 189
40. It is too late to move for judgment
against the casual ejector in Trinity Term,
when the notice to appear was in the pre-
190
ceding Michaelmas Term,

ELECTION.

See MANDAMUS, 11.

ELEGIT.

Ste SCI. FA.

ENLARGEMENT OF WRITS, &c.
See EVIDENCE, 2. RULES, 3.

ENTRY OF CAUSE FOR TRIAL, &c.
See STRIKING OUT PLEAS, &c. 3.

ERROR.

See BAIL, 24, 64, 65.

up judgment notwithstanding a writ of
error, unless it is expressly shewn that it
was brought for delay. Therefore a de-
claration by the plaintiff in error, that he
would plague the plaintiff in the original
action as much as possible, is not sufficient,
because it may be by other means than by
writ of error. Pridham v. Budgett.

Page 191
2. If a party declares that he will delay a
cause, and states the means through which
he will delay it, vie. by writ of error, the
court will compel him to shew good causes
of error. Anon.

191

3. Sunday is not one of the four days in the
rule to appear to the writ of sci. fa. quare
executionem non, although it be not the
last. Goodwin v. Sugar.

192

4. A sci. fa. quare executionem non may be
tested before the return of the writ of er-
193
ror. Breach v. Dickson and others.
5. Admission by an attorney's clerk, that
writ of error has been brought for delay,
is not sufficient to prevent the writ from
operating as a supersedeas. Bygrove v.
193
Bolland.

EQUITY DAYS IN EXCHEQUER.
See BAIL, 23.

ESCAPE.

See VENUE, 3.

The jury, in an action of debt for an escape
of a person in execution, must give a ver-
dict for the whole debt. Robertson and
another, Assignee of Cottrell, a bankrupt, v.
454
Taylor and another.

ESTOPPEL.

See LANDLORD AND T. 1. PLEADING, 28.

EVICTION.

See LANDLORD AND T. 4.

EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES.

See ABATEMENT, 3. ARBITRATION, 1, 3.
ATTACHMENT, 2. FISHERY. CERTIO-
RARI, 3. MASTER AND S. 1. NEW TRIAL,
12, 13. PLEADING, 17, 32. STAMP, 2.
STRIKING OUT PLEAS, 1. CONVICTION,
4. BILLS OF EXCHANGE, 7. INSPECTION.

1. The date of a letter is evidence against
the writer, that the letter was written
where dated. Anon.
194
2. Though a witness prove a fact to the sur-
prise of the other party, and though by
mistake, he was not cross-examined, nor
was any evidence given to contradict him
or any observation made on his evidence,

the court will not grant a new trial. Bell
v. Thompson.
Page 194
3. Rule nisi for new trial granted, where a
witness was absent, and called upon a
subpoena, but did not come till just as the
verdict was taken. Doe ex dem. Clarke v.
Trapaud.
195

4. A music master of a cathedral is not jus-
tified in even moderately beating a choris-
ter for singing at a catch club, though that
might be injurious to his performing in
the cathedral. Evidence of the practice
of other cathedrals not admissible.
man v. Bennett.

New-
195
5. If, upon a fair and diligent enquiry, an
attesting witness to a deed cannot be
found, evidence of his handwriting is ad-
missible. In accounting for the absence
of an attesting witness, or loss of a writ-
ten instrument, general answers to en-
quiries, that nothing is known concerning
them, are admissible in evidence, but not
declarations as to particular facts, if the
party making them is capable of being
called. Doe ex dem. Johnson v. Johnson,

11. The whole expences must be paid or
tendered to a witness, living at a distance,
in order to ground an attachment against
him for not obeying a subpœna. Ashton
and wife v. Haigh.

201
12. In a question as to private rights, whe-
ther or not a place is parcel of a sheep
walk, evidence of reputation is admissible.
Davies v. Lewis.
535
13. A notice by the owner of premises, re-
quiring a party in possession to leave the
premises he then rented of the owner at
Ladyday next, is not conclusive evidence
of a demise from the testator to the party
in possession. Doe on dem. of Wilcockson
v. Lynch.

683

Vid, REG. GEN. 17.

456

COMMIT-

1. Where plaintiff, by a charterparty dated
1st March, let to defendant a ship to
freight, and by the terms of the charter-
party, the plaintiff was to carry an out-
bound cargo of goods (not prohibited
by restraint of princes), from Liverpool
to Carolina, in America, and to bring back
from thence a cargo for defendant, de-
fendant paying freight for the same; and
plaintiff cleared out on the 22d of March
from Liverpool, with a cargo of salt, and
on the 22d May following arrived at Caro-
lina, where the importation of British
goods was prohibited by an order issued
the 1st of March, the very day the charter-
party was dated; and also a further order
prohibiting the exportation of goods to

England, so that the plaintiff could not
unload the salt, or bring back a cargo of
rice; held, that the plaintiff could not re-
cover for freight homewards, if it could
be established in evidence that he knew
of the prohibition at the time of the ship's
clearance from Liverpool. The fact of the
plaintiff having such knowledge must ne-
cessarily depend upon the circumstances
of the case. Qu. What will amount to a
sufficient abandonment of a voyage be-
tween parties to a charterparty. Heslop
v. Jones.
Page 550
2. A charterparty, whereby the owners let
a vessel to freight by the month, for such
time as she should be taken up in perform-
ing a voyage from London to Plymouth,
the island of Grenada, and from thence
back to London, on the terms that the
owners should receive, and the freighters
should load and unload a cargo at Grena-
da, on such outward and homeward voy-
age, is to be construed to mean as two
distinct voyages, from London to Grenada,
and from thence back to London, and not
as one entire voyage; and the vessel hav-
ing unladed a cargo at Grenada, and load-
ed another, but on her return to London
was, with the cargo, entirely lost; it was
held, that the owners were entitled to
freight for the voyage to Grenada. Mack-
666
rell v. Simond and another.