inquire whether the plea was the act of the party, or the act of the attorney; and the late cases referred to in the course of the argument have also authorized this mode of proceeding. Rule absolute, with costs. BARTLEY against GODSLAKE. (a) CAMPBELL obtained a rule upon a former day, calling upon the defendant to shew cause why the plaintiff should not be at liberty to sign judgment, as for want of a plea; and why the defendant, or his attorney, should not pay the costs of the plea and of this application. The action was upon a bill of exchange and the money counts. The defendant pleaded that the parties had accounted together, and that upon such accounting a certain sum of money was due from the defendant to the plaintiff; and that, in satisfaction of part, defendant indorsed to plaintiff a bill of exchange; and that, in satisfaction of the residue, the defendant assigned to the plaintiff a judgment obtained by the defendant in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, in pursuance of an Irish act of parliament, enabling the conusors of judgments to assign the same. The plea then averred, that the bill was outstanding in the hands of a third person; and that the judgment remained in full force, as appeared by the record remaining in the Court of Exchequer in Dublin. An affidavit was produced that the plea was wholly false. (a) This case was heard on a subsequent day in this term; but as it relates to the same subject as the former, it was thought right to report them together. 04 Comyn, 1818. BARTLEY against GODSLAKE. Comyn, for the defendant, contended that this plea did not come within the rule laid down against sham pleas, as it did not require a double replication with two modes of trial, the plaintiff being at liberty to deny the indorsement of the bill, and the assignment of the judgment concluding to the country. But the Court said, that this being an ingenious plea, which the plaintiff's attorney could not be expected to understand, would put him to the necessity of consulting counsel, and thereby occasion delay and expence. It was therefore a very improper plea to be put upon the files of the Court. Upon this ground they made the rule absolute. And to prevent such pleas being pleaded in future, they directed that the defendant's attorney should pay the costs of the application. Saturday, The statute 51 G. 3. c. 80. extends to parishes where there are three officers only, one of whom The KING against The Inhabitants of ST. MAR- TWO justices by their order, removed Hannah Barker and her two children from the parish of St. Margaret's, Leicester, to the parish of Foxton in Leicestershire. The sessions on appeal, quashed the order, warden as well subject to the opinion of this Court on the following acts as church as overseer; and, therefore, an indenture in such a case, signed by two parish officers, one of whom acted in a double capacity, was held to be valid. case: William Barker, the husband of the pauper, had a derivative settlement in the parish of Foxton, and was bound apprentice by a parish indenture dated 30th April, 1791, to Richard Warburton of Great Wigston. The indenture witnessed, that Thomas Chapman and Thomas Iliffe, churchwardens of the parish of Foxton, and the said Thomas Chapman and Thomas Coleman, overseers of the poor of the said parish, do put and place William Barker, apprentice, &c. It was duly allowed by two magistrates, but executed by Thomas Chapman and Thomas Coleman only. The panper's husband served a sufficient time under it to gain a settlement in Wigston, if the indenture were valid. It was admitted, that Thomas Chapman and Thomas Iliffe were the two churchwardens of Foxton at the time when the same Thomas Chapman and Thomas Coleman were appointed overseers of the poor, and that these persons were the officers of the parish in the year comprehending the 30th April, 1791, the day on which the indenture was executed. The question was, Whether the indenture was valid or not? G. W. Marriott and Long, in support of the order of sessions, contended that this case fell within the mis`chief intended to be remedied by 51 G. 3. c. 80. It is admitted, that if both these persons had been churchwardens as well as overseers, the case would be within the act; then if so, the present case, in which only one of the persons acted in a double capacity, is à fortiori within the statute. Phillipps and Francklin, contrà, referred to the preamble, which states, "that in divers small parishes, two persons only have been annually appointed to act," and speaks of indentures, &c. signed by such two persons and the enacting clause makes such indentures, &c. valid. The act, therefore, was intended to apply to those parishes only where there are only two parish officers, both of whom act in a double capacity, but not 1818. The KING against The Inhabitants of ST. MARGARET'S, LEICESTER, 1818. The KING against The Inhabitants of ST. MARGARET'S, LEICESTER. not to parishes where, as in the present case, there are three individuals executing parish offices at once. ABBOTT C. J. This act of parliament was a remedial act, and ought therefore to receive a liberal construction, and I do not think, that in holding that this case is within it, we put any forced construction upon its provisions. This case is clearly within the mischief of the act, and I think within the fair meaning of the words by which it is remedied. I am therefore of opinion, that the 51 G. 3. c. 80., extends not only to cases where both the parish officers act in a double capacity, but to those also where only one of them is in that situation. The decision of the sessions was therefore right. BAYLEY J. I am of the same opinion. This act was passed almost immediately after the determination of this Court in Rex v. All Saints, Derby. (a) And there, one only of the officers acted in a double capacity. It was to remedy the inconvenience resulting from that decision that the act was passed: I think it is not a forced construction of it, (when it is admitted that its provisions include the case of a double defect,) to hold that they also extend to the case of a defect in one parish officer only. HOLROYD J. concurred. Order of Sessions confirmed. (a) 13 East, 145. 1818. The KING against The Justices of OXFORDSHIRE. Monday, W. E. Taunton had obtained a rule nisi for a mandamus to the defendants, to make an order for paying Mr. George Cecil, one of the coroners for that county, a certain sum of money out of the county rates, being a compensation, at the rate of 9d. per mile, for the several miles travelled by him as coroner in returning to his usual place of abode, from taking several inquisitions set forth in his affidavit. Jervis and G. R. Cross shewed cause. This depends on the construction of the 25 G. 2. c. 29. s. 1., by which a coroner is entitled to be paid "for every mile which he shall be compelled to travel from the usual place of his abode to take an inquisition the sum of nine pence, over and above twenty shillings for the taking of the inquisition." The fair construction of this is, that the coroner has a right only to charge for the miles he travels in going out. This statute was passed sixtyseven years ago, when the sum of 9d. per mile was a full compensation for both journeys; and the usage ever since has been conformable to this view of the statute. W. E. Taunton, contrà. The object of the statute was to give a full compensation, and the sum of 9d. per mile is not sufficient for that purpose. The act enables the coroner to charge for every mile he is compelled to travel to take such inquisition. Now, he is compelled to travel the miles in returning to his place of abode, and he therefore ought to be allowed for them. Nov. 23d. A coroner, under 25 G. 2. c. 29. s. 1., is not entitled to any compensa tion for the miles travelled by him in returning to his usual place of abode from taking an in quisition. Per |