ACCOUNT STATED.

See INFANT, 4.

1. An administratrix sued for a
debt due to the intestate. It appear-

ed that the debt accrued more than
six years before the commencement
of the action; but that, within six
years, the defendant and the agent of
the administratrix went through the
account together, and struck a ba-
lance, which the defendant promised
to pay as soon as he could:-Held,
that the administratrix was entitled
to recover on a count upon an ac-
count stated with her, and that the
statute of limitations was no bar.
Smith v. Forty,
Page 126

2. A party may recover the amount
of an 1. O. U. on a count upon an
account stated. Payne v. Jenkins,

every parish and township in the county." The defendant agreed to take a copy of each. They were published, and there were lines on the map denoting the boundaries of townships, but no distinct lines to shew the boundaries of those parishes which consisted of several townships :Held, that the map was not accord ing to the prospectus, and that the defendant was not bound to take the map, although, by reference to the gazetteer, it could be ascertained what townships were in each parish. Teesdale v. Anderson,

198

3. A tradesman holding a situation in a public office, being indebted to several persons, they met together, and signed an agreement, in which they stated, that he, being unable to make immediate payment, they agreed to accept payment by his covenanting and agreeing to pay to a trustee of their nomination, one third of his annual income, and executing a power of attorney as a collateral security. The debtor did not sign the agreement, but attended the meeting, and expressed his willingness to comply with its terms. Before any thing

had been done in execution of the agreement, one of the creditors, who had signed it, brought an action against the defendant for his original debt:Ileld, that he could not recover. Good v. Cheesman, 513

AMENDMENT.

APOTHECARY.

See LUNATIC.-MASTER & SERVANT, I.

1. A. gave a sum of money into the hands of B. to pay to C.; B. had not paid it over to C.:-Held, that if C. had not consented to receive this sum of B., A. might countermand the authority, and recover it back from B. Owen v. Bowen,

93

2. If A. agrees to serve B. as an apothecary's assistant at such salary as C. should think reasonable, and it appear that no application had been made to C. to fix any salary, A. cannot recover any thing for his services in an action for work and labour. Ibid.

3. A surgeon and apothecary may, besides his charges for medicine, recover such charges for attendances as the Jury shall consider to be fair and reasonable. Handey v. Henson, 110

4. A. had several of his children residing in a house distant from his own, in the charge of B.; a servant: Held, that if an accident happened to one of the children, A. was liable to pay for its cure, although he did not know the surgeon who was called in, and although the accident might have arisen from the carelessness of the servant:-Held, also, that if B., the servant, becoming ill in consequence of the service, call in C., a surgeon, and after this A. send his own surgeon, and the wife of A. know of C.'s attendance, and expresses no disapprobation, A. is liable to pay C. for this attendance. Cooper v. Phillips, 581

5. A servant who hurt her foot in getting over a gate, called in a surgeon, who was not the regular medical attendant of the family, without the knowledge of her master or mistress: -Held, that the master was not liable to pay Ibid. the surgeon's bill.

APPREHENSION.

See TRESPASS, 3.

A. went to a house at night, demanding to see the servant. He was told to depart, and would not. A constable was sent for, and A. went from the house to the garden. When the constable arrived, A. said, that if a light appeared at the windows he would break them; upon which the constable took him into custody:Held, that the constable was not justified in so doing. Rex v. George Bright, 387

ARSON.

See BOAT.

1. An indictment on the stat. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, ss. 2 & 17, for setting fire to a barn and a stack of straw, charged the offences to have been committed" feloniously, voluntarily, and maliciously," instead of "feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously:"-Held, bad. Rexv. Reader, 245

2. The prisoners had set fire to a stack of stubble, (which, in Cambridgeshire, is called haulm); they were indicted on a first indictment, for setting fire to a "stack of straw:"

-Held, that this was not straw. And on their being again indicted for setting fire to a "stack of straw called haulm," the Judge intimated, that, to convict upon such a count would not be safe; and the verdict, in consequence, was taken upon other counts, charging the setting fire to a barn and a wheat-stack.

Ibid.

3. An indictment, on the stat. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, s. 17, charged a party with setting fire to a "stack of barley, of the value of 100l. of R. P.W.:" --Held good, although the words of the statute creating the offence are

66

'any stack of corn or grain :"-Held also, that the words " of R. P. W." sufficiently stated the property:Held also, that if the indictment state that the prisoner, on &c., at &c., feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously

did set fire to a certain stack of barley, of the value of 100l. of R. P. W. then and there being," this is sufficient, without stating that the prisoner, on &c., at &c., feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously did then and there set fire to the stack. Rex v. Swatkins, 548

ARTICULO MORTIS, DECLARATION IN.

See MURDER, 1.-ROBBERY, 1.

ASSAULT.

See APPREHENSION.-PRIZE-FIGHT. -SHIPPING, 6.-THEATRE, 1.— TRESPASS, 3.

1. If parish officers cut off the hair of a pauper in the poor-house, by force, and against the will of such pauper, this is an assault; and if it be done as matter of degradation, and not with a view to cleanliness, that will be an aggravation, and go to increase the damages. Forde v. Skinner,

239

2. A. was advancing in a threatening attitude, with an intention to strike B., so that his blow would have almost immediately reached B., if he had not been stopt:-Held, that it was an assault in point of law, though, at the particular moment when A. was stopt, he was not near enough for his blow to take effect. Stephens v. Myers, 349

3. A police constable is not justified under the stat. 10 Geo. 4, c. 44, s. 7, in laying hold of, pushing along the highway, and ordering to be off, a person found by him conversing in a crowd with another, merely because the person with whom he happens to be conversing is known to be a rcputed thief. Stocken v. Carter, 477

ASSIGNMENT.

An assignment of 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

Afft.,

lard,

51

3. A solicitor to a commission of bankrupt may maintain an action for the amount of his bill up to the choice of assignees, without having had his bill taxed by the commissioners, under s. 14 of the bankrupt act, 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, that provision applying only to cases between the assignees and the estate. Taylor v. M'Gaugan, 96

4. If an attorney sue out a writ against A., at the suit of B., without any authority, express or implied, from B. for so doing, and A. pay the

costs of such writ to the attorney, A. may recover back the amount of those costs, by bringing an action for money had and received against the attorney; but if the attorney had any authority, either express or implied, from B., to sue out the writ, such action for money had and received will not lie against the attorney, even though B. had no cause of action against A. Dupen v. Keeling,

102

5. A., an attorney, did business for B., another attorney, in a cause in which B. was a party:-Held, that A. could not recover the amount of his charges, without proof of his having delivered his bill, under the stat. 3 Jac. 1, c. 7:-Held also, that, under such circumstances, A. might recover a sum of money lent on a distinct account, but not for disbursements made in the cause. Hemming v. Wilton,

318

another person, the person so employing the attorney, and not the petitioning creditor, is the person liable to pay the attorney the costs of suing out the commission. Pocock v. Russell, 14

2. If an action be brought against the assignees of a bankrupt, and, before the trial, the bankrupt obtains the signature of a sufficient number of creditors to his certificate, and be willing to release his surplus, but his certificate has not been allowed by the Lord Chancellor; the Judge will not put off the trial to give time to obtain the allowance of the certificate by the Lord Chancellor, so as to make the bankrupt a competent witness for the assignees. Tennant v. Strachan,

31

3. If bills be paid in at a banker's as short bills, (i. e. bills which the bankers are to present when due, and carry the proceeds to account), and af ter a commission of bankrupt has issued against the bankers, but before the choice of assignees, a person, on behalf of the customer by whom they were paid in, calls at the bankinghouse to demand a return of these bills, the answer he receives is evidence in an action of trover brought against the assignees for the recovery of such bills: but if, before the choice of assignees, some of the bills were paid, the customer cannot recover the value of such bills as were so paid, in an action of trover against the assignees. Ibid.

4. If the assignees, when called on to return the bills, claim a right to retain such as have not been paid, alleging that the bankrupts had dis

counted them for the customer before the bankruptcy, this is presumptive evidence that these bills were the bills paid in by such customer. Ibid.

5. If a customer pay into the hands of his banker certain bills, as short bills, and, after the bankruptcy and choice of assignees, the assignees present them for payment, and receive

the proceeds, and claim to hold the proceeds against the customer, they are liable in trover. Ibid.

6. If a person, after notice of an act of bankruptcy, sets up a claim of lien upon certain deeds, and the bankrupt pay the sum he demands to get possession of the deeds; the assig nees cannot question the amount of this lien, unless there be a count for money had and received to the use of the assignees; but if the person had really no just claim at all, the assignees may recover back the sum in an action for money had and received to the use of the bankrupt; however, if it appear that the defendant never received any money, but that A., who was to have conveyed a house to the bankrupt, at his desire mortgaged it to the defendant, an action for money had and received will not lie. Noble v. Kersey,

90

7. Commissioners of bankrupt committed a witness for refusing to read the entries in an account:-Held, that they were liable to an action for false imprisonment for so doing, because this was not a question:-Held, also, that the circumstance of the witness speaking of it as a question at the time of his refusal made no difference. Isaac v. Impey, 113

8. A defendant, in a suit by assignees of a bankrupt, was told, at an interview with the attorney for the assignees, (which was arranged by his own attorney, but which he thought proper to attend alone), that his attorney had proposed that he should admit every fact, except the merits, provided the plaintiffs would waive their right of holding him to bail; and he was asked, whether that proposal was made with his authority. He replied, that it was; and that he was ready to carry it into effect, as the only question he wished to try was, whether he was liable on the undertaking he had given:--Held, that this amounted to an admission of the right of the assignees to sue, al