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. New-
man v. Bennett.
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,

196

198

6. In an action for an assault, though the
defendant has not pleaded a justification,
he may extract evidence in mitigation of
damages on the cross-examination of the
plaintiff's witnesses. The plaintiff cannot
give remote consequences in evidence as
special damages. Moor v. Adam.
7. The court refused to grant a rule to ex-
amine a material witness upon interroga-
tories, on the trial of an action of eject-
ment, on the ground that he was so ill
that he could not attend. Anon. 199
8. The court will permit interrogatories to
be read on a trial of an indictment for per-
jury, provided the defendant consents to
it. Anon.

199

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 subpoena. 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.
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.

535

EXONERATUR.

See BAIL, 61, 62, 63.

FALSE RETURN.

See SETTING ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, 2.

FEES.

See REG. GEN. 12.

FELONY.

See BAIL, 72. INSPECTION, 1, 2.

FIERI FACIAS.

See BILLS OF EXCHANGE, 8.
MENT, 2. REG. GEN. 13.

FINES.

683

Vid. REG. GEN. 17.

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-
rell v. Simond and another.
666

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.

Page 484

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

See BARON AND FEME.

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.
501
Ruimes v. Robinson.

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 4.'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 A. 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

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.
226
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

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
them. Anon.
230

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

INSURANCE.

231

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-

See BARON AND F. 1. COSTS, 1. DECLA-
RATION, 1, 2, 3. INSOLVENT Debtor,4.
PROCESS.

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
238
only the copy. Harvey v. Bennett.
5. No date to the notice of the declaration
Anon.
238
is necessary.
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
239
of a writ, are immaterial. Anon.
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.

ISSUES.

See APPEARANCE, 3.

ISSUE FROM CHANCERY.
See NEW TRIAL, 6.

JOINDER OF ACTIONS.
See PLEADING, 37.

JOINT TENANTS.

242

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-
244
dertaking. Walter v. Buckle.

JUDGMENT REVERSED.
See PLEADING, 3.