1829. DOE TIMS v JORDAN. Adams and Merewether, Serjts., and Secker, for the plaintiff. Wilde, Serjt., and Hutchinson, for the defendant. [Attornies-Roche & P., and Phillips.] Nov. 30th. for the defend. ant stated, on the voire dire, HAWKINGS v. Inwood. A witness called ASSUMPSIT for goods sold. Plea-General issue.--The defence was, that the defendant was a young man under age, and that the plaintiff had taken advantage of his indiscretion, and improperly furnished him with goods unsuited to his situation. that he was bail to the Sheriff in the action, but did not justify, and that he had not done any thing to get the recognizance he To make out this defence, a witness, named Smith, was called. Being examined on the voire dire, by Wilde, Serjt., had entered into for the plaintiff, he said that he was bail to the Sheriff for discharged. He added, that other the defendant, that he did not justify, but he had not done bail justified, but it appeared any thing to get the recognizance he had entered into disthat he did not charged. On further questioning, he said, that bail had -Held, that he justified for the defendant, but he was not present when petent witness. they did so, and only knew it from what he had been told. see them do so: was not a com TINDAL, C. J.--The explanation of the witness is not sufficient. I am of opinion that he is not competent. Wilde, Serjt.-The Court have decided very lately, that, as long as the name continues in the bail-piece, the party is liable. Adams, Serjt., for the defendant.-As the examination is on the voire dire, we must take the answer of the witness; and, he having stated that other bail justified, that is quite sufficient. TINDAL, C. J.-I allow that the answer of the witness is to be conclusive; but that answer must shew that he is no longer bail. He has said, that he was not in Court when any one else justified. The only difference between the examination on the voire dire, and the general examination, is, that it is not necessary to produce written instruments to prove a fact, if the witness can speak to it of his own knowledge, but it is not to let him in to give evidence of what he has heard other people say. There being no other witness, the defendant was unable to make out his case, and there was a Verdict for the plaintiff. Wilde, Serjt., and Chitty, for the plaintiff. Adams, Serjt., and Hutchinson, for the defendant. [Attornies-Chappell, and Vincent.] 1829. HAWKINGS v. INWOOD. Adjourned Sitting in London, after Michaelmas BEFORE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE TINDAL. LAW v. GUNBY. Dec. 5th. "Received of of 91. in full for ASSUMPSIT for work and labour. The defendant was A receipt in the the representative of a person named Couzens. The plain- folowing form: tiff was a carpenter, and the demand was partly for work W. C. the sum done to houses in Lock's Fields, Walworth, of which what I done for Couzens was the owner; and partly for service performed by the plaintiff's wife, as attendant upon Couzens while he was confined in the King's Bench Prison. For the defendant the following receipt was put in: "Received of William Couzens the sum of 97., in full for what I done for him. By me, William Law." him," is not a receipt in full of all demands, so as to require a 10s. stamp. 1829. LAW v. GUNBY. Spankie, Serjt., for the plaintiff, submitted, that if this receipt was to be admitted at all, it must be, as in fact and effect, a receipt in full of all demands, intended to exclude the making of any claim by the plaintiff, and could not, therefore, be read without a 10s. stamp. Wilde, Serjt., contended that it was not a receipt in full of all demands, but only in full for a particular kind of demand. It might be confined to the work done as a carpenter. TINDAL, C. J.—I take it that the object of the Legislature, in requiring that the larger stamp of 10s. should be put upon a receipt in full of all demands, was to prevent the necessity, where such a receipt was given, of being prepared with any other evidence. But looking at the words of this receipt, it appears to me, that it would not have the effect of preventing the party from coming prepared with other evidence to meet any claim upon him. him. I am, therefore, of opinion, that it does not require the 10s. stamp. The receipt was admitted, and the verdict was eventually for the plaintiff for 271. 7s., being for the service of the plaintiff's wife at the rate of ls. a day, during the time that Couzens was in prison. Spankie, Serjt., and Hutchinson, for the plaintiff. Wilde, Serjt., for the defendant. [Attornies-H. Chester; and Allen & T.] 1829. EMES and Another v. WIDDOWSON. of Dec. 8th. ASSUMPSIT on two bills of exchange, drawer against An assignment acceptor. The formal proof for the plaintiff having been given Wilde, Serjt., for the defendant, stated, that the defendant and the plaintiffs came to an arrangement together; in consequence of which, the defendant assigned certain property as a security for certain sums then due, and also for all future demands. There was a power of sale in the assignment, but it was not to be executed until after six months' notice. Such notice had not been given, but the defence proceeded upon the ground that the personal remedy was, notwithstanding, suspended. TINDAL, C. J.-I am of opinion that such an assignment can only be considered as a collateral security, and that the personal remedy is not suspended, as there is not any clause to that effect in the deed. It is no answer to the action, and the plaintiffs are entitled to the verdict. Verdict for the plaintiffs. Storks, Serjt., and Smith, for the plaintiffs. Wilde, Serjt., and Platt, for the defendant. [Attornies-Phipps and Shirreff] property for the purpose of securing debts due and to be due, with a power of sale upon giving six months' notice,is only a collateral security; and, without a special clause to that effect, does not suspend the remedy by action against the debtor. 1829. Dec. 10th. Two persons, jointly interested in a chattel, having made a joint demand of it, may, notwithstanding, maintain separate ac tions of trover in respect of it, against a person who unjustly detains it. If a party claim a lien on plates for his bill for printing from them, in order to estab lish it, he must shew a course of dealing so gene that persons BLEADEN and Another v. HANCOCK. TROVER, for stereotype and other plates. Plea—Not guilty. The plaintiffs were the assignees of a bankrupt, named Bumpus, who carried on the business of a bookseller and publisher, in Skinner Street; and the defendant was a printer, in Holborn, who had been employed to print, from stereotype plates, several popular works, of some of which the bankrupt was the sole proprietor, and in others of which he had a half share, in conjunction with a person named Taylor. The commission against Bumpus was dated the 26th of January, 1826. In the month of November, 1827, the accountant for the assignees tendered to the defendant a sum of 123. to cover some advances ral and uniform, in the way of discount, which he had made to the bankrupt, and demanded the plates, on behalf of the assignees. The defendant refused to deliver them up, saying, that he had a lien on them for the balance of his demand for printing. The plates were advertised for sale on the 20th of December. On the morning of that day the accountant of the assignees went to the auctioneer, and told him that the assignees could not allow these plates to be sold, and that he should stay, in order to forbid the sale. Upon which the auctioneer communicated with the defendant, who was at the time in the sale room; and on his return to the accountant, gave him a memorandum, addressed to the assignees, stating, that the plates were about to be sold, not by their "consent or concurrence, but on the contrary." Previously to this, the defendant had sent to the plaintiffs a notice, in the following form: must be supposed to form their contracts tacitly on the understanding that there is such an usage. Semble, that there is no such usage, with re spect to stereotype, and quære if there be with respect to copper-plate printing. "To John Bleaden, and Henry Thomas Curtis, assignees of the estate and effects of John Bumpus, a bankrupt; and to Benjamin Hanbury, and Henry Thomas Curtis, |