at any time, is not a continuing guarantee.
Bovill v. Turner.

HABEAS CORPUS.

should be declared against as an innkeep-

Page 205

er.

See COMMITMENT, 1. DECLARATION, 5.
BAIL, 66.

The House of Commons having voted the
defendant guilty of a breach of their pri-
vileges, for publishing a libel upon the
House, and having ordered him to be
committed to Newgate during their plea-
sure, and the Speaker's warrant being re-
turned into this court upon a habeas corpus,
sued out by the defendant, the court re-
fused to discharge him out of custody.
The writ of habeas corpus, whether at
common law or under the 31 C. 2, s. 2,
does not issue as a matter of course in the
first instance, upon application, but must
be grounded upon affidavit, upon which
the court are to exercise their discretion,
whether the writ shall or shall not issue.
The King v. Hobhouse.
207

Jones v. Osborn.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

See HABEAS CORPUS.

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

See BARON AND FEME.

Page 484

ILLEGAL CONSIDERATION.

See CONSIDERATION. PLEADING, 32.
TRADE, 1, 2. OFFICE, SALE OF.

ILLNESS.

See BAIL, 66. EVIDENCE, 7.

IMPARLANCE.

The court will not grant a special imparlance,
except to prevent injustice. Crook v. Peat.
214

INCLOSURE ACT.

See MANDAMUS, 2.

Inclosure act, authorizing commissioners to
make roads through inclosed lands, and
declaring that the commoners of inclosed
lands shall be entitled to the herbage of
the roads in that manner which the com-
missioners shall award, does not authorize
them to sell the herbage by auction, or
otherwise, to one individual commoner.
Ruimes v. Robinson.
501

INDEMNITY.

See COVENANT.

1. A bond conditioned to save harmless A.
from all actions, legal proceedings, and
costs, &c. which may be the consequence
of d.'s delivering over to defendant a bill
of exchange, part of the proceeds whereof
a third person is entitled to, is forfeited,
by payment over by 4. to such third per-
son of his share of the proceeds, upon his
demanding the same, without his bringing
any action, and though A. give no notice
of the payment of the defendant. Ker v.
Mitchell.
487

2. Under a bond, conditioned that if F. M.
shall duly account for all monies, &c. re-
ceived by him in plaintiff's service, as a
clerk; and also, that if the said F. M.
shall embezzle, &c. plaintiff's property,
and shall, within three days after proof
thereof repay &c. plaintiff the damage
sustained by such misbehaviour or misdo-
ing, or in default thereof, if the defendant
shall, after notice given, make a full re-
compence to plaintiff, then the bond to be

1. Motion to set aside an inquisition for ex-
cessive damages, must be made on affida-
vits, to be produced at the time the rule is
granted. Therefore where such a motion
was made on the last day of term, without
affidavit, and the rule was afterwards
drawn up on an affidavit sworn before a
judge in vacation, the court in this term
discharged the rule with costs. Williams
218
v. Reeves.

2. It seems that a notice of executing a writ
of inquiry in this court can be continued
or countermanded but once, the K. B.
concurring with C. P. as to the practice;
but where several notices and counter-
mands of enquiry had been served, and at
length there was a fresh, and not a con-
tinuing notice served, it was held that the
inquisition under it was regular. Burgess
v. Royle.

INROLLMENT.
See CORPORATION, 1.

220

INSOLVENT DEBTOR.

See BAIL, 63. PRISONER. TREASURER OF
COUNTY.

1. Discharge under the insolvent debtors
act, 53 G. 3. c. 102, does not bar an ac-
tion of trespass, where the cause of action
arose before the insolvent went to prison,
and the damages were unliquidated before
the discharge. Lloyd v. Necle. Page 222
2. A commissioner of the insolvent court has
power to have the insolvent debtors
brought before him, by a rule or order of,
and signed "By the Court," but not if
signed by the commissioner. Anon. 225
3. It is no objection to a note given to an in-
solvent debtor, that it is not entitled in
the court. Clarke v. Davis.
4. An insolvent is entitled to be discharged,
though he has proceeded irregularly, if he
makes an affidavit of ignorance. In re
Jones, an insolvent.

226

226

5. A debt depending upon a contingency at
the time of a party's discharge under in-
solvent act, 18 G. 3. c. 52, is not thereby
discharged. See the statute of 1 Geo. 4,
c. 119, which has not been referred to in
this case, and which settles the law on this
point. Hilton, Administratrix of Wilton v.
Worrall.
448

INSPECTION OF DEEDS, &c.
See PARISH AND P. QUO WARRANTO, 1.
1. Where the plaintiff, in an action on a
deed, has had the same taken from him
under a warrant against him for felony,
the court will, on an affidavit of demand
upon the magistrate and constable, direct
them to give plaintiff a copy to declare
on, and to produce the deeds on the trial,
plaintiff undertaking to pay expences.
Harris v. Aldrit.
2. Rule absolute to magistrates and con-
stables to produce deed of felon in their
custody, on paying expences.

229

230

3. Rule for inspection of a lease, in order to
obtain names of witnesses to subpoena
230
them. Anon.

4. The court will confine their order for in-
spection of a deed to particular parts of it.
231
Ramsbottam v. Cooper.

INSURANCE.

Underwriters are not entitled to notice of
the part of ship where goods are stowed,
whether on deck or otherwise, though
goods were oil of vitriol, and different
freight is payable according to the place
where stowed. Dacosta v. Edmunds. 227

INTEREST.

See LANDLORD AND TENANT, 1.
Court will not grant a rule to compute in-

1. Irregularity in process, on the ground of
a variance between the return of the writ
and the day in the notice to appear, can-
not be taken advantage of after plaintiff
has filed common bail, and also filed a
declaration in the office, and given notice
thereof to the defendant. Hompay v. Ken-
ning.

236
2. Where the defendant laid by until he re-
ceived notice of executing a writ of en-
quiry, and then came with a formal ob-
jection to the declaration delivered de
bene esse, the court said he came too late.
Minster v. Coles.

237

3. Proceedings set aside for irregularity,
where no latitat was issued, notwithstand-
ing three terms' delay in moving the
court. Anon.

237
4. It is not necessary to use the term 'irre-
gularity' in a rule to set aside the proceed-
ings for irregularity. An irregular no-
tice at the bottom of the copy of a writ, is
not a ground to set aside the writ, but
only the copy. Harvey v. Bennett.

238

5. No date to the notice of the declaration
is necessary. Anon.
238
6. A statute, making the process on which
the attorney's name and date are not in-
dorsed, actually void. It is no objection
to a motion to set it aside, that it has been
made too late. Mullett v. Alexander. 239
7. Improper names of clerks on an old copy
of a writ, are immaterial. Anon. 239
8. Nil debet to an action of debt on a judg-
ment, though a bad plea, is not to be
treated as a nullity. Anon.

239

9. Wrong name in process cured by an at-
torney's undertaking to appear. Lowes v.
Newcombe Clarke.

240

10. Irregularity in issuing an execution for

damages and costs in original action,
omitting costs in error, cannot be object-
ed to. Anon.
Page 240
11. Rule to produce the record supported,
where a perfect issue was taken, and no
costs given where the rule was opposed
in the first instance. Anon.
241
12. The order in the margin of the paper
book is peremptory, and it must be re-
turned within the 24 hours; and though
it be returned before judgment signed, yet
the judgment is regular if signed after the
expiration of the 24 hours. Simmons v.
Cope.
242

ISSUES.

See APPEARANCE, 3.

ISSUE FROM CHANCERY.
See NEW TRIAL, 6.

JOINDER OF ACTIONS.
See PLEADING, 37.

JOINT TENANTS.

See PARTNERS. EJECTMENT, 12, 13, 14.

JUDGMENT.

See AMENDMENT, 3. ANNUITY, 1. BARON
AND FEME, 1. BILLS OF EXCHANGE, 1.
EJECTMENT, 38, 39, 40. ERROR, 1.
IRREGULARITY, 12. REG. GEN. 13.

1. Where a special cause had been standing
in the paper for three years, without any
appointment applied for to have it tried,
the court refused to give the defendant
judgment as in case of a nonsuit. Rucker
243

v. Ansley.

2. Where issue joined, and there is a rule to
enter the issue, and notice of trial is given
in one and the same term, for the adjourn-
ed sittings after that term, and the plain-
tiff does not go to trial at those sittings,
the defendant is entitled, in the following
term, to judgment as in case of a non-
suit; and if no reason is assigned for not
going to trial, the court will not compel
the defendant to accept a peremptory un-
dertaking. Walter v. Buckle.
244

JURY.

See NEW TRIAL, 2. WARRANTY.

JURYMAN.

See NEW TRIAL, 3, 11.

JUSTICE OF PEACE.

See QUO WARRANTO, 1. NOTICE OF AC-
TION. PLEADING, 41.

JUSTIFICATION OF BAIL.

See BAIL. REG. GEN. IN PLEADING, see
PLEADING, 6.

KING'S BENCH PRISON.
See REG. GEN. 12, 4.

KING'S SERVANTS.
See ARREST, 1, 2, 3.
KING'S SILVER OFFICE.
See REG. GEN. 17.

LACHES.

See DECLARATION, 1. IRREGULARITY, 1,
2. PROCHEIN AMI.

LANDLORD AND TENANT.

DIS-

See BANKRUPT, 3. TRESPASS, 1, 2.
TRESS. PLEADING, 11, 16, 42. Evi-
DENCE, 13.

1. An agreement to take interest on rent in
arrear, does not take away the right of
distress. Skerry v. Preston. Page 245
2. Manure is assignable by the tenant,
though he thereby subjects himself to an
action. Burbugo and another v. King. 246
3. Where there is a proviso in a lease, that
upon nonpayment of rent by the lessee,
the term should cease, the lessor, and not
the lessee, has the option of determining
the lease upon the breach of such promise.
Reid v. Parsons.

247
4. In a breach of covenant on defendant's
demise for not having title to demise for
the whole of the term demised, whereby
plaintiff's assignee of the lease was evict-
ed, and plaintiff put to costs in an action
against him by such assignee for such evic-
tion, plaintiff must shew who evicted the
assignee; and merely stating that a third
person was seised in fee of the premises;
and that the assignee was evicted generally,
is not sufficient. Semble. Under the word
"demise," the lessee may maintain an
action of covenant against the lessor, for

MANDAMUS.

See INSPECTION, 1, 2. PARISH AND P. 1.
1. The Court of King's Bench will not in-
terfere by mandamus to compel a court of
inferior jurisdiction to grant a new trial
in a cause before it, in which alleged in-
justice has been done to one of the parties.
Exparte Morgan.
Page 250
2. Mandamus granted to the commissioners
of an inclosure act, to inquire if there is
any modus. Anon.

251
3. In a motion for a mandamus the court will
not grant the writ where discretion was
given to the commissioners and they had
exercised it, and no ground be shewn that
they have done it wrongfully. "Shall
and may" are only imperative, when the
cause is for the public good or benefit.
Exchange" imports equality of interest.
Rex v. Commissioners of the Flockwold In-
closure.
251

66

255

9. Mandamus to deliver up the keys of a
church, refused. Anon.
10. Rule nisi for a mandamus to pay poor
rate, though defendants had had distrain -
able goods, it being sworn that the goods
were fraudulently seized,and that the parish
would be driven to try an action on the
ground of the fraud. Rex v. The Company
of the Proprietors of Margate Harbour. 256
11. The court refused to fix any day for an
election, on a mandamus; they left it to the
proper officer.
Rex v. The Mayor of
Bridgwater.
256
12. Court will grant rule absolute in the first
instance, where a mayor holds over, or
where actual vacancy occasioned by death.
Rex v. Mayor of Truro.
257

13. Mandamus to magistrates to summon
person for not paying poor rates. Anon.

257

14. Mandamus to dismiss an appeal, refused.
Rex v. Justices of Wills.
257

MARKSMAN.

See BAIL, 37, 38.

MARSHAL.

See REG. GEN. 4.

MASTER OP CROWN OFFICE.

See REG. GEN. 6.

MASTER AND SERVANT.

See EVIDENCE, 4.

1. In order to maintain an action for seduc-
tion, the daughter must be the father's
servant; and though he receive part of
her wages, and she is under age, yet if
she is not his servant he cannot maintain
the action. Carr v. Clarke. Page 260
2. Master liable for accident in consequence
of chain stay of cart breaking when horse
ran away, and damage was done for his
negligence in not having the tackle good.
Welsh v. Laurence.
262

MAYOR.

See MANDAMUS, 12. QUO WARranto, 6.

MAYOR'S COURT.

See FOREIGN ATTACHMENT.

MEMORANDUM TO DECLARATION.
See NEW TRIAL, 7.

MERCHANTS.

See BILLS OF EXCHANGE, 11.

MESNE PROFITS.
See TRESPASS.

MISDEMEANOUR.
See CERTIORARI, 1.

MISDESCRIPTION.
Sce BAIL, 14.

MISJOINDER.

See PLEADING, 27,36,43.

MISNOMER.

See ABATEMENT, 4. ATTACHMENT, 1.
BAIL, 13. PLEADING, 33. PROCESS,

1, 7.

MODUS:

See MANDAMUS, 2.

MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED.

The plaintiff, to recover his share of a