Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

1814.

BREALEY against HOLT.

of London or Westminster, or within ten miles thereof, the bail shall not be compelled to appear in person in any of the said courts to justify themselves, but the same may be determined by affidavit or affidavits duly taken before the said commissioners; but

PER BAYLEY J. The word said means any of the commissioners.

Objection overruled.

1815.

28th Nov.

The jurat to an affidavit by a marksman,

must state that

it was under

stood by him,

as well as that it was read over and explained to him.

GREY

ALLWORTHY's Bail.

REY moved for time to justify bail by affidavit, the affidavit being made by a marksman; and the jurat stated, that it was read over and explained to him, yet did not shew that he understood the contents thereof (a).

PER CURIAM.

Time allowed,

(a) 1 Tidd, 520.

1815.

28th Nov.

An affidavit by a marksman, must state that

the mark was

made in the

presence of the

commissioner.

SPA

ANONYMOUS.

PANKEY moved for time to justify bail by affidavit. One of the bail was a marksman, and the jurat, in his affidavit of justification, did not state that his mark was made in the presence of the commissioner.

THE COURT allowed time to amend.

1816.

7th Feb.

DRABBLE against DENHAM.

In bail by affi- LARKE J. moved for time to justify bail, there

davit, time al

lowed where

being two deponents, and the names of both of

the two depon them not being in the jurat.

ents names

were not mentioned in the jurat.

BAYLEY. J. at first refused it peremptorily, saying it was never allowed; and stated that Mr. Justice DAMPIER had frequently refused it. But upon referring to the officer of the Court, who said there was no peremptory rule for refusing time in such a case, BAYLEY J. granted the motion.

CROW against WATSON.

COMYN moved to justify bail.

Espinasse opposed them, on the ground that the defendant had been arrested, but no bail bond taken, and therefore under Fuller v. Prest, 7 Term Rep. 109, the bail should not be permitted to justify, as an action was pending against the sheriff for an escape. It however appeared that the writ was of last Term, and the defendant in custody: but

BAYLEY, J. The case of Fuller and others v. Prest, only applies where the writ is of the same Term; and as the rule for the allowance of bail, when produced, would not be an answer to the action for an escape, there is no objection to the bail's justifying.

Espinasse made another objection, that bail had been put in by one attorney, and the notice of justification given by another.

This was held not to be irregular in the case of a prisoner, and the bail justified.

MALPERSON'S Bail.

HELD, that an attorney cannot justify bail put in by another attorney, without changing the attorney;

but

ney, time given to change the attorney regularly.

[blocks in formation]

1813.

DAMPIER J. upon motion of Twiss, granted time to MALPERSON'S change attorney, it appearing to be an accidental informality. N. B. There was no affidavit.

Bail.

1818.

28th April.

The time for justifying bail in the Exchequer is before ten o'clock in the morning.

TOMKINSON'S Bail. (In Exchequer.)

JONES moved to justify bail in the middle of the day, and

THE COURT said, that though the dictum in 2 Price Exchequer Rep. 327, relating to the justification of bail at the sitting of the Court, and before the other ordinary business, was not promulged by the Court as a rule or order of the Court, but only as an intimation of what they intended to make a rule, and though that intention was never carried into effect, yet that the rule seemed so reasonable, that they should refuse the motion.

1814.

5th Feb.

Bail, though HE
THE

opposed in two

ANONYMOUS.

HE same persons appearing to be bail in two acactions,must be tions, the counsel instructed to oppose them was opposed in each about to make the exception to them in both actions at the same time; but

separately.

E. T. 57 Geo, 3.

THE COURT held, that though counsel have to oppose the same bail in two actions, they can only oppose one set of bail at a time, and must therefore make their oppositions successively in each action.

SALTER against WHITEFIELD.

Husband of de- SPINASSE opposed the justification of bail.

fendant, who

had married

after the arrest

At the time of the arrest, defendant was a widow,

and before the return of the writ, allowed to justify as one of the bail.

but before the return of the writ she married a Mr. Deacon, who now came up to justify as one of her bail. Opposition was made, on the ground that the husband would be liable in his own person for the debt of his wife, dum sola, so that the plaintiff's security would not be bettered.

Lawes, contra, urged, that the husband was not as yet a party to the cause, and

ABBOTT J. held, that he was admissible as bail.

SALTER

against WHITEFIELD.

Bail justified.

IN

NEWMAN'S Bail.

N answer to a question put to one of the bail, he said that he did not know whether he had been arrested or not during the space of two years, and on this account,

BAYLEY J. rejected him.

HOBSON'S Bail.

N bail by affidavit, the affidavit stated, that A. and
B. and each of them, were worth double the sum,

beyond the debts due to any other person.

1816.

31st Jan.

Bail who did

not know

whether he had

been arrested or not during the space of two years, re⚫ jected.

1816.

24th May.

An affidavit

that A and B.

and each of

them, were worth double the sum sworn to in the affida

HOLROYD J. thought this sufficient, each of them vit to hold to

being the same as an affidavit of each separately, and that debts due to any other person would include themselves.

bail, exclusive

of all debts

due to any other person, is sufficient.

1813.

14th Nov.

lease

ANONYMOUS.

Quere, if a be- ADOLPHUS opposed the justification of bail, on the ground that one of them was not a freeholder or householder. It appeared that the bail, though not a freeholder, was possessed of many beneficial leases for long terms, which he held at pepper-corn

holder is sufficient bail, where he is neither freeholder nor householder.

rents.

Reader suggested, that BAYLEY J. had held, that long beneficial leases at small rents were sufficient to entitle bail to justify; and this opinion of the learned Judge was also recollected by some other gentlemen at the bar.

LE BLANC J. said, he wished the rule to be settled by the Court one way or other. At present, he thought the rule was that no bail could justify, unless either freeholder or householder; and he did not wish that three or four cases should pass which might serve to establish a different rule, without all the Court should sanction it. In this case, therefore, he allowed the justification of the bail that was not opposed, and granted two days for supplying the place of that bail where property had been objected to as insufficient.

1814.

24th Jan.

ANONYMOUS.

A leaseholder PULLER moved to justify bail.

for ninety-nine years admitted

as bail by con

sent.

Littledale opposed, on the ground that the bail was not a housekeeper, and had only a leasehold estate in Worcestershire for ninety-nine years, determinable on three lives.

« ForrigeFortsett »