Statute of limitations. There was broker to him against the demand no plea nor notice of set-off. It for the goods made by the princiwas proved, that on the plaintiff pal. Baring v. Corrie, M. 59 G.3. shewing the defendant the note

Page 137 within six years, the latter said, “ You owe me more money, I

FEES, have a set-off against it.” Held, Sce SHERIFF; PRACTICE, 35. by Bayley and Holroyd, Justices, Best, J. dissentiente, that that

FINE, was not a sufficient acknowledg

See DEED, 3. ment within six years, to take the case out of the statute of limita

FISHERY, tions. Swan v. Sowell, T. 59 G.3.

See Conviction.

Page 759 13. A term of years was created in

FIXTURES. 1762 and assigned over to a trus- Certain parts of a machine had been tee in 1779, to attend the inheritance. In 1814 the owner of the

put up by the tenant during his

term, and were capable of being inheritance executed a marriage removed without either injuring settlement; and in 1816 he con

the other parts of the machine or veyed his life-interest in the estate

the building, and had been usually to a purchaser, as a security for valued between the outgoing and a debt; but no assignment of the

incoming tenant: Held that these term or delivery of the deeds re

were the goods and chattels of lating to it took place on either

the outgoing tenant, for which he occasion. In 1819 an actual as

might maintain trover. Davis v. signment of the term was made

Jones, M. 59 G. 3.

165 by the administrator of the trustee in 1779 to a new trustee for the

FORFEITURE. purchaser in 1816: Held that under these circumstances on an A. being possessed of a term of ejectment brought by a prior in

years, demised his whole interest cumbrance against the purchaser,

to B., subject to a right of rethe jury were warranted in pre

entry on the breach of a condisuming that the term had been

tion: Held that A.might enter for surrendered previously to 1819.

the condition broken, although he Doe, Dem. Putland v. Hilder,

had no reversion. Doe v. Bate. T. 59 G.3.

man, M. 59 G.3.




A. had wrongfully, and without the FACTOR.

licence of B., ridden his horse, The character of broker is mate. and thereby caused its death :

rially different from that of factor; Held that a promise by a third and therefore, where a broker person to pay the damage thereby sells goods without disclosing the sustained, in consideration that B. name of his principal; held that would not bring any action against he acts beyond the scope of his A., is a collateral promise within authority, and that the buyer the statute of frauds, and must be cannot set off a debt due from the in writing. Held, also, that a mo


[ocr errors]

tion for a new trial where the

HIGHWAY. cause has been tried during the 1. A bridge is not a highway within term may be made at any time

the meaning of the 13 G. 3. c. 84. within four days after the dis

s. 60. by which carriages employtringas is returnable. Kirkham v.

ed in carrying materials for the Marter, E. 59 G. 3. Page 613

repair of any turnpike road or pub

Jic highway, are exempted from FREIGHT.

toll; and therefore toll is payable By charter-party the freighter cove for a carriage employed in carrying nanted to pay to the owner freight materials for the repair of a bridge at and after the rate of so much along a turnpike road. Osmond v. per ton per month, for the term Widdicombe, M. 59 G.3. Page 49 of six months at least, and so in 2. Where a local turnpike-act, after proportion for less than a month, empowering the trustees under it or for such further time than six to take tolls, directed that the months as the ship might be de roads should from time to time be tained in the service of the repaired by the trustees out of freighter until her final discharge, the money arising by virtue of or until the day of her being lost, the act: Held that this only made captured, or last seen or heard of; the tolls an auxiliary fund in the such freight to be paid to the hands of the trustees, and that the commander of the ship in manner inhabitants of the township where following ; viz. so much as might the road was situate, who by prebe earned at the time of the ar scription were bound to repair all rival of the ship at her first roads within it, were nevertheless destined porț abroad, to be paid liable to be indicted for non-repair within ten days next after her ar. of the road. rival there, and the remainder of Held, also, that such inhabitants the freight at specific periods : may, after conviction, apply by moHeld that this constituted one tion for relief against the trustees entire covenant, and that the ar under 13 G. 3. c. 84. s. 33. rival of the ship at her first Held, also, that 13 G. 3. c.84. s. 63. destined port abroad was a con only refers to diversions under dition precedent to the owner's writs of ad quod damnum, and right to recover any freight, and under 13 G. 3. c.78. s.19. The that the ship having been lost on Kingv. The Inhabitants of Netherher outward voyage, the owner thong. M. 59 G. 3.

179 was not entitled to recover freight 3. Where a turnpike act exempted at so much per calendar month to persons from toll“ in going to the day of the loss. Gibbon v. and returning from their proper Mendez, M.59 G. 3.

17 parochial church, chapel, or other

place of religious worship on SunFREIGHTER,

days:" Held that the word “pa

rochial" extended over the whole See CHARTER-PARTY, 3.

clause; and therefore that a Dis.

senter was not within the exempGIFT.

tion in going to and returning A verbal gift of a chattel, without

from his proper place of religious actual delivery, does not pass the

wership, situate out of the parish

in which he resided. property to the donee. Irons v.

Lewis v. 551 Small piece, E. 59 G. 3.

206 Hammond, M. 59 G. 3.



INDICTMENT. By the general inclosure act the le-1. An indictment charged that degal title to an allotment is not ac

fendants conspired, by divers quired until the execution and false pretences and subtle means proclamation of the commission- and devices, to obtain from A. ers' award. And where a local

divers large sums of money, and act directed that the commis

to cheat and defraud him thereof: sioners by notice might cause all Held that the gist of the offence rights of common to be extin- being the conspiracy, it was quite guished, and might then allot the sufficient only to state that fact waste land amongst the proprie

and its object, and not necessary tors, and that the owners might

to set out the specific pretences. fence their allotments after they

The King v. Gill and Henry, had been marked, staked out, and

M. 59 G. 3.

Page 204 confirmed, and before the signing 2. A prosecutor of an indictment of the award, and might also,

has no right to address the jury, within three months before the

and state the case for the proexecution of the award, sell and

secution. The King v. Brice,

E. 59 G. 3. convey their interests in the allot

606 ments, the commissioners being The King v. Milne and Others. ib. thereby authorized to allot to the

INSURANCE. purchasers, and the latter, after the execution of the award, to hold 1. In an action on a policy on ship, the allotted lands in such manner by which, amongst other risks, the as the vendor would have done if underwriters insured against fire, there had been no sale; provided and barratry of the master and that where the allotments were mariners, they are liable for a loss copyhold, that the deed should by fire occasioned by the neglibe enrolled in the court-rolls of gence of the master and mariners. the manor, and that the purchaser Held, also, that where the assured should be admitted tenant thereto had once provided a sufficient at the same time as the other allot

crew, the negligent absence of all tees of copyhold lands, viz, after the crew at the time of the loss the execution of the award : Held was no breach of the implied warthat this authority to enclose and ranty, that the ship should be proso to enjoy in severalty, and perly manned.

Busk v. The the power to sell and

convey, Royal Exchange Assurance Commight well (considering the lan

pany, M. 59 Ğ. 3. guage in which that power was 2. A transport in government sergiven) be enjoyed and exercised

'vice was insured for twelvemonths, without the legal seisin of the during which she was ordered into land; and that, therefore, these a dry harbour, the bed of which provisions, not sufficiently coun- was uneven, and on the tide hay. tervailing those of the general in- ing left her, she received damage closure act, the legal freehold did by taking the ground: Held that not pass to the allottee till after

this was a loss by a peril of the execution and proclamation of the sea. Fletcher v. Inglis, H. the award. Farrer v. Billing, 59 G. 3.

315 M.59 G. 3.

Page 171 3. A ship insured at and from a port, sails on her voyage in an unseawor



thy state, in consequence of hav- That the ship having been sold uning a greater cargo than she could der the decree of the Admiralty safely carry. The defect is dis

Court to pay the salvage, and it covered before any loss accrued, not appearing that the assured had and part of the cargo is discharged, taken any means to prevent such and a loss subsequently accrues, in sale, that they had no right to nodegree attributable to her having abandon, and that there was no been overladen in the early part of more than a partial loss. Thorneher voyage: Held that the under

ly v. Hebson, E. 59 G.3. P.513 writers were liable for such loss. The vessel having sailed and put back

INTEREST, to the Downs, and then sailed again, See BANKRUPTCY, 5. AWARD, 4. and laboured and strained much Bill of ExcHANGE, 7. from being overloaded, and then put back a second time; and upon

JUDGMENT. an application to the underwriters A verdict obtained by the defendfor liberty for the ship to go into ant in a former action, which, if port to discharge part of the cargo, pleaded in bar, would be an estopit was only communicated to them pel, when given in evidence under that the ship was too deep in the the general issue, is not conclusive water : Held that as the subse. against the plaintiff, but is only quent loss had not in any degree evidence to go to the jury. Vooght arisen from her having so strained v. Winch, T. 59 G. 3. 662 and laboured, the communication of that fact was immaterial, and

JURY, that the communication made was

See PRACTICE, 13. quite sufficient. Held, also, that the memorandum

JURISDICTION. giving such liberty did not require The 15 G. 2. c. 24. is a declaratory a new stamp. Weir v. Aberdeen, act, and should have a liberal conH. 59 G.3.

Page 320 struction. And therefore where 4. Policy on ship for four months, justices of a borough, contribuat and from a place to any port or

butory to the county-rate, have ports whatsoever: Held that an committed prisoners to the counopen roadstead (being the usual ty house of correction for offences place of loading and unloading) cognizable within the county, the was a port within the meaning of justices at their borough sessions, this policy. Cockey v. Atkinson, have a right to order such priE. 59 G.3.

460 soners to be brought before them 5. A ship received considerable da for trial there. Quære, also, where

mage from tempestuous weather, a county magistrate having conand the crew, completely exhaust current jurisdiction, has commited, deserted the ship on the high ted a prisoner for an offence withseas for the mere preservation of

in the borough, whether the botheir lives; and the ship was then

rough sessions have not the same taken possession of by a fresh power of ordering such prisoner to crew, who succeeded in conduct be brought before them for trial, ing her safely into port: Held that The King v. Amos, E. 59 G.3.533 such desertion of the crew did not of itself amount to a total loss;

JUSTICE- Authority of and, secondly,

A justice of the peace is authorized Vol. II.

3 I


[ocr errors]

damus to a trading corporation at to compel them to produce their

accounts for the purpose of declar.

to require surety of the peace fora tenant should during the term fold limitted time, according to his dis his flock of sheep which he should cretion, and need not bind the party keep on the demised premises unover to the next sessions only. Wil der a penalty if he omitted to do les v.Bridger, H.596.3. P. 278

Held that this amounted LANDLORD AND TENANT,

to a covenant to keep a flock of

sheep upon the premises. Webb v. See EVIDENCE, 4. PARTY WALL, Plummer, T. 59 G. 3. Page 746 1. COVENANT, 3.

4. Where a tenant came into posses. 1. A. being tenant from year to

sion of premises in 1816, and the year, underlet the premises to B., lessor of the plaintiff claimed unand the original landlord, with the der a writ of elegit and an inquiassent of A., accepted B. as his

sition thereon issued in 1818, but tenant, but there was no surren founded on a judgment recovered der in writing of A.'s interest ; prior to 1816; it was held that no rent being subsequently in arrear, notice to quit was necessary. the landlord distrained on B.'s Doe, Dem. Putland, v. Hilder, goods : Held that these circum T. 59 G. 3.

782 stances constituted a valid surrender of A.'s interest by act

LEASE, and operation of law within the See CovenaNT, 2, 3. Condition, 29 Car. 2. c. 3. . 3. Thomas v. 1. EJECTMENT, 2. LANDLORD Cook, M. 59 G. 3.

119 AND TENANT, 3. 2. Certain parts of a machine had been put up by the tenant during

LETTER, his term, and were capable of be

See STAMP, 3. ing removed without either injuring the other parts of the machine LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF. or the building, and had been usually valued between the out- Assumpsit on a promissory note, going and incoming tenant: Held Plea, Ist, General issue. 2dly, that these were the goods and

Statute of limitations. There was chattels of the outgoing tenant,

no plea nor notice of set-off. It for which he might maintain

was proved, that on the plaintif trover. Davis v. Jones, M. 596.3.

shewing the defendant the note 165 within six years, the latter said

, 3. By the custom of the country the

“ You owe me more money, I outgoing tenant was entitled to have a set-off against it.” Held, an allowance for foldage from the by Bayley and Holroyd, Justices, incoming tenant. Where a lease,

Best, J. dissentiente, chat that was however, specified certain pay

not a sufficient acknowledgment ments to be made by the incoming within six years, to take the case to the outgoing tenant, at the time

out of the statute of limitations. of quitting the premises, among

Swan v. Sowell, T. 59 G. 3. 799 which there was not included any payment for foldage: Held that

MANDAMUS. the terms of the lease excluded 1. The court will not grant a man. the custom, and that the outgoing tenant was not entitled to any

the instance of one of its members allowance in respect of foldage. Where the lease provided that the


« ForrigeFortsett »