no right to address the jury, and Page 606 18. Bail-bond stands as a security | 24. A prosecutor of an indictment has where a trial has been lost, notwithstanding the bail have rendered the principal. Whitehead v. Philips, E. 59 G. 3. Page 585 19. It is not necessary in case of a trial by proviso, after a lapse of four terms without any proceeding, to give a term's notice. Theobald 594 v. Crickmore, E. 59 G. 3. 20. An affidavit to hold to bail, stating that defendant was indebted to plaintiff, for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff for the defendant, is insufficient; because it did not appear that the goods were sold and delivered to the defendant. Bell v. Thrupp, E. 59 G. 3. 21. By rule of Court a cause and The King v. Milne and Others, Ibid. 25. Entry of commititur in marshal's book is not necessary to make a perfect render. The King v. The Sheriffs of Middleset, E. 59 G.3. 607 26. Where a defendant, in an indictment for a misdemeanor, has received judgment of fine and imprisonment: a levari facias may issue immediately to take his goods in execution for the fine. The King 609 v. Woolf, E. 59 G. 3. 27. A motion for a new trial where 596 the cause has been tried during the term may be made at any time within four days after the disKirkham tringas is returnable. 613 v. Marter, E. 59 G.3. 28. The venue having been changed by the defendant, from London to Staffordshire, on the usual affidavit, the Court refused to bring back the venue to London, on an affidavit that the cause of action arose partly in Staffordshire and partly in Worcestershire, and that a material witness resided in London, and on the plaintiff's undertaking to give material evidence in one or other of those counties. Wood v. Perkes, E. 59 G. 3. all matters in difference were referred to an arbitrator, and the costs of the cause were to abide the event. The arbitrator directed the verdict to be entered for the plaintiffs; but that they should not take out execution for the debt until they had paid a larger sum due to the defendant: Held that the plaintiff's attorney might still take out execution for the costs. The Highgate Archway Company v. Nash, E. 59 G. 3. 22. The assignee of a bail-bond without any sufficient reason for so doing, brought separate actions against each of the bail. The 597 618 Court upon payment of the costs 29. After the sheriff had returned E. 59 G. 3. 598 23. Notice of bail was given by the defendant's attorney, and bail above put in by an attorney employed by the bail to the sheriff, without any order having been made to change the attorney: Held that this was sufficient. The King v. The Sheriff's of London, E. 59 G.3. 8 cepi corpus, the plaintiff brought an action for an escape, and recovered the debt: Held, that he could not after this rule the sheriff to bring in the body. Borwick v. Walton, E. 59 G. 3. 623 30. It is no objection to the notice at the foot of a bill of Middlesex that it wholly omit to state the Humphyear or the word next. ries v. Cullingwood, E. 59 G. 3. 642 604 31. Where a cause was set down for for the sittings in term and made a remanet to the sittings after term by consent, the defendant may move for judgment as in case of a nonsuit if the plaintiff afterwards withdraws the record. Gadd v. Bennett, T. 59 G. 3. Page 709 32. A defendant, not privileged from arrest at the time, was arrested on an insufficient affidavit to hold to bail, and afterwards, on that ground, discharged, out of custody. During his imprisonment, another creditor, without collusion with the former, lodged a detainer against him: Held that such detainer was properly lodged. Barclay v. Faber, T. 59 G.3. 743 33. More than one-sixth part of an attorney's bill having been taken off on taxation, the defendant presented a petition to the ViceChancellor to allow the costs of taxation. Pending this proceeding, the attorney brought his action for the residue of the bill: Held that the action was well brought; stat. 2 G. 2. c. 23. s. 23. having only prohibited an action being brought pending the reference and taxation. Hewitt, One, &c. v. Bellott, T. 59 G. 3. 745 34. Bail above having been put in and justified, the defendant pending a rule nisi for setting aside the allowance of such bail was rendered. The rule nisi being afterwards made absolute, an assignment of the bailbond was taken. Held that such assignment was regular, the render under such circumstances being insufficient. Brown v. Jennings, T. 59 G.3. 768 35. The chief clerk is not entitled to poundage on money paid into Court by the Sheriff, under 43 G. 3. c. 46. s. 2. Stewart v. Bracebridge, T. 59 G. 3. 770 36. Where a long period had elapsed after judgment signed, and no de PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. lays had been interposed by the defendant in the mean time, the Court will not permit the term in the declaration of ejectment to be enlarged for the purpose of the plaintiff's suing out a scire facias, in order to revive the judgment and take out a writ of possession. Doe, Dem. Reynell, v. Rendall, T. 59 G. 3. Page 773 37. An action was brought for two separate sums of money, one of which the defendant offered to pay with all costs to that time, the plaintiff's attorney refused to stay proceedings on those terms, and the defendant paid that sum into Court, but the plaintiff afterwards finding that he could not support the action for the other part of his demand, took the money out of court and discontinued the action; the Court, under these circumstances, allowed the defendant his costs from the date of his offer to pay the sum paid into court, and directed that the same should be set off against the plaintiff's costs. James v. Raggett, T. 59 G. 3. 776 38. Defendant pleaded two pleas requiring different modes of trial: Held, that on producing an affidavit of the falsehood of the pleas the plaintiff was entitled to sign judgment. Bones v. Punter, 777 1. T. 59 G.3. 645. QUO WARRANTO. 2. An agent cannot dispute the title | PROMOTIONS, 1, 2. 241. 404. of his principal; and therefore where a ship originally belonged to one of two partners, and had been conveyed to B. for securing a debt, and B. became the sole registered owner of the ship, and afterwards, as agent for both partners, insured the ship and freight, and charged them with the premiums, &c.; and, on a loss happening, received the money from the underwriters: Held that he was accountable to the assignees of the surviving partner for the surplus, after payment of his own debt, and not to the executors of the deceased partner to whom the ship originally belonged. Dixon v. Hamond, H. 59 G. 3. Page 310 1. It is a valid objection to a relator, 2. It is in the discretion of the Court RATE. Ibid. 479 1. The two districts of which a parish consisted had from the 43 Eliz. down to the 13 and 14 Car. 2., maintained their poor jointly, and at the time of the passing of the latter act agreed to separate in the maintenance of their poor, and that separate overseers should be appointed, upon condition that the rateable property in the parish, whether situated in the one or the other district, should be rated where the occupiers resided. In consequence of that agreement they had ever since uniformly maintained their own poor sepa rately, rately, and had had separate overseers, constables, &c.: Held that this clearly shewed that the parish, at the time of the agreement, could not reap the full benefit of the statute of Eliz., and that, therefore, the separation of the two districts was valid, and that an appointment of overseers for the whole parish was now bad: Held, also, that the agreement consisted of two distinct parts, and that the invalidity of the latter part, as to rating property not situate within the district rated, did not affect the question on the former part. The King v. Walsall, M. 59 G. 3. Page 157 2. The expenses of a constable, in prosecuting an assault committed on him in the execution of his duty, cannot be paid by the overseer out of the poor's rate, and are not within the 18 G. 3. c. 19. s. 4. Held, also, that where the appeal is against the overseers' accounts by individuals paying rates within the parish, the certiorari is not taken away by 50 G. 3. c. 49.; that act only applying to appeals by the overseers against A the disallowance of any items in their accounts by the magistrates. The King v. Bird and Others, E. 59 G. 3. 522 3. Where a canal was made under the 8th G. 3., which contained no clause as to the mode of charging it to the parochial rates, and another canal was made under the 23 G. 3. c. 92., and was therein directed to be rated in a special manner; and these two canals were incorporated by the 24 G. 3., by which it was provided that all the clauses, powers, provisions, restrictions, exemptions, &c. contained in each of the two former acts should still remain distinct from each other; and afterwards, by 58 G. 3. c. 19., reciting that it was expedient to extend one system of management to the whole canal, it was enacted, "That all the canals so made as aforesaid under the former acts, or any of them, should be deemed part, parcel, and member of the Birmingham Canal Navigations, and be considered and included and governed by all the clauses, &c. in the 23 & 24 G.3. (save and except so much thereof as related to exemptions from stamp duties, or the quantum of tolls to be collected,) as if the same had been described in the 23 G. 3., as part of the works to be made and done under and by virtue of that act:" It was held that this provision only incorporated these canals, &c. for the purpose of management, and that it did not authorise the canal originally made under the 8 G. 3. to be rated to the parochial taxes in the special manner pointed out by the 23 G. 3. The King v. The Birmingham Canal Company, E. 59 G.3. P.570 The pauper, being a settled inhabitant of A., subequently acquired a settlement in the township of B. The latter township afterwards ceased to exist as a place capable of maintaining its own poor: Held, notwithstanding, that the previous settlement in A. having been extinguished, the pauper could not be removed thither from a third town as to the place of his last legal settlement. Quære, Whether in such a case a removal to the parish of which the the township of B. formed a part would not be good. The King v. Saighton-on-the-Hill, M. 59 G. 3. 2. Page 162 RENT IMPROVED, WHAT, See EJECTMENT, 1. PARTY WALL. ROADSTEAD, See INSURANCE, 4. RULES OF COURT, 240. 403. 818. SESSIONS, See APPEAL, 1. SETTLEMENT. The 35 G. 3. c. 101. did not repeal 33 G. 3. c. 54. And, therefore, where an unemancipated daughter was delivered of a bastard child in the township of I. during her father's residence there, under a certificate acknowledging him to be a member of a Friendly Society, established under 33 G.3. c. 54.: Held that such certificate extended not only to him, but to all the members of his family also; that the daughter, therefore, was at the time of her delivery residing in the township under the authority of 33 G. 3. c.54., and that by sect. 25. of that act the settlement of the child followed that of the mother. The King v. Idle, M. 59 G. 3. 149 SETTLEMENT - By Apprenticeship. Inhabitants of St. Margaret's, Leicester, M. 59 G. 3. Page 200 Where a master mariner, having no immediate occasion for his apprentice's service, the vessel being then in dock, offered either to turn him over to another master for a time, or to let him go back to school, and the apprentice said he would go back to school and learn navigation; and accordingly did so, and resided above forty days there: Held that such residence was not a residence under the indentures, and that he did not thereby gain a settlement. The King v. The Inhabitants of St. Mary Bredin, Canterbury, H. 59 G. 3. 382 3. Where a pauper was bound apprentice to a certificated man, and during his apprenticeship, he being of the age of 18, his father gained a new settlement; and the pauper did not return to his father's house till after he was 21: Held that he was not emancipated, and that his settlement followed the new settlement of his father. The King v. The Inhabitants of Huggate, E. 59 G. 3. 582 SETTLEMENT-By Estate. 1. Where there is no custom for that purpose, the lord of a manor cannot make a new grant of copyhold; and if he does, the grantee acquires thereby no settlement by estate. And, Secondly, a grant by the lord of copyhold land, paying a yearly rent of 2s. 6d. (which rent in a subsequent part was called a quit rent) is a purchase within 9 G. 1. c. 7., and being under 30l. confers no settlement. The King v. The Inhabitants of Hornchurch, M. 59 G. 3. 189 1. The statute 51 G. 3. c. 80. extends to parishes where there are three officers only, one of whom acts as churchwarden as well as overseer; and, therefore, an indenture in such a case, signed by two parish-officers, one of whom acted in a double capacity, was 2. held to be valid. The King v. The VOL. II. |