But per curiam, (without hearing Serjeant Burland the defendant's council), The words of the ftatute are as plain and certain as poffible: there are two conditions therein, viz. the day of the first publishing of the print, and the name of the proprietor thereof, both must be engraved and printed; that any perfon may know when the proprietor's exclufive right ceafes; and when, and against whom, he may be guilty of offending contrary to the ftatute. So the poftea was ordered to be delivered to the defendants, and judgment of nonfuit to be entered against the plaintiff. Hally verfus Tipping. C. B. where he de THE plaintiff (in his own right) arrefted the defendant Plaintiff shall upon a capias ad refpondendum, with an ac etiam therein, lofe his bail to answer the plaintiff (in his own right) in cafe upon promifes, clares differto his damage of 200l. [which was marked for bail by affidavit ently from his for 120/.] whereupon the defendant's attorney applied to the writ. plaintiff's attorney, and undertook to put in fpecial bail, which he accordingly did. The plaintiff having declared in this caufe as executor, and not in his own right; it was now moved by Serjeant Burland, that the bail might be vacated and discharged, and a common appearance accepted; which was ordered accordingly by the court, and that the plaintiff might then proceed as executor. Serjeant Glynn for the plaintiff. Bruce verfus Rawlins and others. C. B. tom-houfe houfe, and where they found none; TRESPASS for breaking and entering the plaintiff's houfe Trefrate at A. in Effex, and opening and fearching feveral boxes against cufand drawers therein; the defendants fuffered judgment to go officers for against them by default. Upon executing the writ of inquiry of entering damages, it was proved, that the defendants were Cuftom-houfe plaintiff's officers; that on the 4th of July laft, in the day-time, they fearching for entered the plaintiff's dwelling houfe with a writ of affiftance, run-goods without any conftable, in order to fearch for uncustomed goods; the plaintiff's wife and daughter being only at home, were jury affefs frightened and much furprifed, delivered to the defendants (at 100l. damatheir requeft) the keys of feveral boxes and drawers, which the ges on a writ defendants fearched, but found no uncustomed goods. They Court refufed of inquiry. flaid in the house about an hour, broke no locks, bolts or doors, to fet afide and did very little or no damage; and departed, curfing and fay- the inquifiing, Damn it, there are no goods! Whereupon the jury found 100l. damages. tion. [See Cooper v. Bot. 1 Term Rep. K. B. 535.1 Serjeant Serjeant Burland moved to fet afide the inquifition for exceffive damages, under the circumftance of this cafe, and upon an affidavit that the defendants did little or no damage; that they had been informed that the plaintiff's fon was lately come home from India, and had fecreted fome run-goods in the plaintiff's houfe, and that they verily believed fome of the jury were the plaintiff's friends and acquaintance, and had favoured him in giving fuch large damages: he cited a case in B. R. of Stringer verfus Custom-house Officers, for stopping a waggon to search for run-goods, and found none: the jury on an inquiry gave 100l. damages; the court fet afide the inquifition; and upon the fecond writ of inquiry, the jury only found five guineas damages. He endeavoured to distinguish this cafe from Redshaw verfus Brook and others, 2 Wilfon 405. which was 200l. damages given by a jury upon a trial of a like trespass; because an attaint lies upon a falfe verdict, but not upon an inquifition of office, as this is; that this plaintiff was only a butcher, but Redfhaw was a fhopkeeper in London. Serjeant Leigh for the plaintiff, in fhewing caufe, produced an affidavit, wherein it was fworn, that the plaintiff knew only the face of one of the jury, that he had no acquaintance with him or any of the rest of them; that the defendants came to the plaintiff's houfe in July laft, faid they had received information, but not from whom), that uncuftomed goods were fecreted therein, and that they muft fearch the houfe; that the plaintiff's wife and daughter were much terrified; that the defendants demanded and received from them the keys of feveral boxes and drawers in the houfe, wherewith they opened and fearched the fame, but found no uncuftomed or prohibited goods therein, or in any other part of the house where they alfo fearched. The ferjeant infifted there was no difference between this cafe and that of Redfhaw verfus Brook; only that the damages there were 200l. for a like trespass to this now in queftion, wherein there are only 100l. damages; and therefore he prayed the rule to fhew caufe why the inquifition fhould not be fet afide, might be discharged. Wilmot Chief Juftice. This is an inqueft of office to inform the confcience of the court, who, if they please, may themselves affefs the dan:ages; but I am of opinion we ought not to interpofe in this cafe, which differs widely from the cafe of flopping the waggon. This is an unlawful entry into a man's houfe (which is his caftle), an invafion upon his wife and family at peace and quietnefs therein, frightened and furprised by these defendants; who under pretence of information received, and colour colour of legal authority, demand the keys of, and fearch all the boxes and drawers in the house. I cannot conceive what thefe Custom-house officers mean, by acting in this unjustifiable manner, after this matter has been fo often tried in Westminsterhall; they know the rifk they run by fuch conduct, and must take the confequence that may fall upon them by the verdict of a jury. The plaintiff being a butcher, or inferior perfon, makes no difference in the cafe. The fufpicion of having run-goods in his house is a very injurious imputation upon him; and though he is but a butcher, it is the fame damage to him as if he was the greatest merchant in London. The defendants have invaded the plaintiff's houfe and property, and difturbed his family; they continue to go on and act against the fubject in this illegal manner, and then come to this court, and fay-" the damages are too large, we pray you reduce them." For my own part, I am very clearly of opinion, that this is one of thofe cafes wherein the court will not interpofe. Gould Juftice. The entering the plaintiff's houfe under colour of legal authority, aggravates the trefpafs committed by the defendants; and though they had a writ of affiftance, yet as they had no conftable with them, they would have been trefpaffers, notwithstanding they fhould have found uncustomed goods in the plaintiff's houfe. See ftat. 12 Car. 2. cap. 19. Ject. 1 & 4. and ftat. 13 & 14. Car. 2. cap. 11. 18 A cause was tried before me at Pool (which is a town and county of itself), against a Custom-houfe officer and a conflable, for entering the plaintiff's houfe to fearch for run-goods; and though they found fuch goods in the houfe, yet because the conftable was not a conftable of the town of Pool, but of the county of Dorfet, they were trefpaffers, and the jury gave the plaintiff 100/. damages. Yates Juftice. The cafe must be very grofs, and the damages enormous, for the court to interpofe: here the defendants have acted under colour of legal authority, and we have no line or measure to go by. I think the damages are not exceffive, and have no defire to fet the inquifition afide. Rule discharged. Absent Lord Commiflioner Bathurst, in Canc'. Doe on the demife of Mafon verfus Mafon. C. B. EJECTMENT of copyhold lands holden of the manor of A fingle ad- evidence to prove the cuftom of a manor for lands to defcend to the youngest nephew: which contradicting the evidence on the other fide, the court refuf.d a new trial. the See 6 Mod. 120. 1. Clement v. Scudamore. The right of reprefentation practifed in all countries and na tions. the plaintiff, who claimed as being the youngest nephew, and heir by the cuftom of the manor, of the laft perfon feifed of the lands in queftion. On the part of the defendant it was contended at the trial, that the custom of the manor was, that the copyhold lands defcended to the youngest fon; or if no fon, to the youngest brother of the tenant laft lawfully feifed; and that the custom extended no farther. On the part of the leffor of the plaintiff it was contended at the trial, that the cuftom of the manor was, that the copyhold lands defcended to the youngeft fon; if no fon, to the youngest brother; if no brother, to the youngest nephew; if no nephew, to the youngest coufin of the tenant laft lawfully feised. It was proved for the leffor of the plaintiff at the trial, that he was the youngest nephew of the perfon laft feifed of the premifes; and it appeared, by the court rolls of the manor, that a youngest nephew, at a court leet and court baron held in and for the faid manor in 1657, was admitted tenant, as heir, by the custom, to the perfon last feifed of lands in this manor: this was the only evidence for the plaintiff. For the defendant it appeared, that at a court leet and court baron held in and for the faid manor in 1692, the jury had homage by a prefentment found, and which was entered the rolls of the manor, that the custom of defcent extended only to the youngest fon; and if no fon, to the youngest brother, and no farther. Alfo two old witneffes fwore, that they had heard and believed, that this was the custom of the manor, that the custom of defcent went no further than the youngest fon and youngest brother. Serjeant Leigh moved for a new trial, fuggesting that this was a verdict contrary to evidence; and infifting that the fingle inftance of admittance of the nephew in the year 1657, was not fufficient evidence to fupport the custom contended for by the plaintiff; whereupon a rule was made to fhew caufe why there fhould not be a new trial, and Mr. Baron Smythe having reported as above, gave no opinion one way or other in the cafe. Serjeant Whitaker for the plaintiff, fhewed caufe why there fhould not be a new trial; and infifted, that here was evidence on both fides, that the evidence given for the plaintiff was legal and admiffible, and contradicts the defendant's evidence, and in fuch case the court never grants a new trial; befides this is an ejectment, ejectment, and does not conclude the defendant from trying the cuftom again upon another ejectment. And of this opinion was the court. And the Chief Juftice faid, he thought the admittance of the nephew in 1657, was very material evidence, being done at a court leet and court baron, when it would certainly have been controverted, if the jury had not thought that to be the cuftom. And they faid, as this was an ejectment, there was no occafion (if they had doubted) to grant a new trial, for the defendant may try the cuftom again, if he thinks fit. Rule discharged, and the poftea delivered to the plaintiff. Johns verfus Whitley & al'. C. B. Cornwall THIS record is entered of laft Michaelmas term; (to wit) in the office of Prothonotary Dickens, rollJofeph Whitley, late of the parifh of Lanhydrock in the county aforefaid, victualler; Edward Whitley, late of the parish of St Winnow in the faid county, husbandman; and Peter Bennet, late of the fame place, husbandman; were attached to answer to John Johns gentleman, in a plea, wherefore with force and arms they broke and entered the clofes of the faid John, in the parish of St. Winnow aforefaid in the county of Cornwall, and trod down, confumed and spoiled the grafs and corn of the faid John of the value of ten pounds, there lately growing, with feet in walking; and eat up, trod down, confumed and fpoiled, other the grafs and corn of the faid John, of the value of other ten pounds, there alfo lately growing, with certain cattle; and reaped, mowed, cut down and felled, other the grafs and corn of the faid John, of the value of one hundred pounds, there alfo lately ftanding, growing and being, and took and carried away the fame, and converted and difpofed thereof to their own use; and with the wheels of carts, waggons and other carriages, tore up, turned up, fubverted and fpoiled the foil of the faid John, in and of the faid clofes: and alfo, wherefore with force and arms they the faid Jofeph, Edward and Peter, at the parish of St. Winnow aforefaid, reaped, mowed, cut down and felled, other the grafs and corn of the faid John, of the value of other one hundred pounds, there lately growing, ftanding and being, and took and carried away the fame, and converted and difpofed thereof to their own ufe: and alfo, wherefore the faid Jofeph, Edward and Peter, with force and arms, at the parish of St. Winnow aforefaid, feized took and carried away other the grafs and corn of the faid John, of the value of other one hundred pounds, there lately found; and converted and difpofed thereof to their own ufe, and did other wrongs to the faid John, to the great damage of the faid John, and Vol. III. F against |