COVENANT.

See APPRENTICE.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

The 4th and 19th sections of the stat. 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 59, (for preventing cruelty to animals), which require every person who shall impound or confine any cattle or animal in any inclosed place, to supply it with food; and empower such person to sell the animal for the value of the food, and direct notice of action to be given to him, and the venue to be laid in the proper county, &c., do not apply to all cattle taken under all circumstances, but only to cattle or animals impounded or confined in cases where the distrainer had a right to distrain, or at least some colour for it. Machell v. Ellis,

682

CURTILAGE (BREAKING INTO BUILDING WITHIN).

On the trial of an indictment for breaking into a building within the curtilage, under the stat. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 14, it appeared that the building was in the fold-yard of the prosecutor's farm, and that, to get from his dwelling-house to the foldyard, it was necessary to pass through a yard called the pump-yard, into which the back-door of the dwellinghouse opened, the pump-yard being separated from the fold-yard by a wall four feet high, in which there was a gate. The fold-yard having another gate leading to fields on one side, a hedge with a gate leading to the high road on another, the other sides of the fold-yard being bounded by the farm buildings, and a continuous wall from the dwelling-house: -Held, that the building was within the curtilage. Reg. v. Gilbert,

84

2. A judgment for a prisoner on demurrer in a case of felony, on the ground that the indictment does not sufficiently charge the felony, is no bar to a subsequent good indictment for the same felony. Reg. v. Richmond, 240.

DEPOSITIONS.

See CORONER. EVIDENCE, 10.

DESTROYING A PARISH REGISTER.

See PARISH REGISTER.

DISCHARGED PRISONER'S

PASS.

See FORGERY, 3, 4.

DISHONOUR (NOTICE OF). See BILL OF EXCHANGE, 2, 6.

DISTRESS.

See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, 1.-RIGHT TO BEGIN, 4.

Where a farm was let under an agreement, and the agreement imposed a penalty on the tenant for selling hay produced on the premises, and gave the lessor power to recover the same "by distress as for rent in arrear :"Held, that the lessor might so distrain, although the agreement was not under seal. Pollitt v. Forrest, 560

DISTRESS DAMAGE FEASANT.

See CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

DOCUMENTS (COSTS OF PROVING).

See CERTIFICATE.

DROWNING A MINE. See MINE.

DWELLING-HOUSE.

See ARSON, 3.-LARCENY IN A DWELLING-HOUSE.

DYING DECLARATION.

A person who was a Roman Catholic was shot on the 29th of July, between 12 and 1 a.m., and died at halfpast nine p.m. on the 30th. Almost immediately after being wounded, he said, "I am shot; I am dying ;" and after that he continued in a desponding state, and said, "I will never get over this;" and between seven and eight hours before his death he took leave of a child, saying, "I shall never see you more." About three hours before his death it was proposed to him that a priest should be fetched, to which he replied, "That's not of much use;" and on his then being asked to see a magistrate, he replied,

Not yet." Upon this he made a statement. It was proved by a Roman Catholic priest, that if a Roman Catholic wishes to make his peace with God, he usually sends for a priest to receive extreme unction, having previously made confession, and received the communion; but that extreme unction is not deemed by the Roman Catholic Church essential to salvation:-Held, that the statement was receivable in evidence as a declaration in articulo mortis. Reg. v. Howell, 689

EDITOR.

See AMENDMENT, 1.

1. In an action for wrongfully dismissing the editor of a newspaper, the declaration stated that he was engaged for a year. There was no direct eviIdence as to the time for which the plaintiff was engaged:-Held, that the plaintiff might go into evidence to shew a custom for editors of news

papers to be engaged for a year, unless there was an express stipulation to the contrary. Holcroft v. Barber, 4

2. Semble, that the custom is, that the engagements of editors, sub-editors, and reporters of newspapers, are for a year, unless there be an express stipulation to the contrary, and that this custom is binding on both parties. Ibid.

3. Semble, that the usage is, that the engagements of editors, subeditors, reporters, and other persons who are regularly employed on newspapers are for a year, unless there be an express agreement to the contrary. Baxter v. Nurse, 10

EJECTMENT.

See RIGHT TO BEGIN, 2.-COPY

HOLD.

In ejectment on the demise of " G. M. and Sarah his wife, Joyce Child, Armand Shallon and Eleanor his wife, S. B. and Ann his wife," the female lessors of the plaintiff made out their title as co-heiresses of Jonah Child. It appeared that the husband of Eleanor was an Egyptian, but no evidence could be given that his first name was Armand. The judge, at the trial, allowed the record to be amended by striking out the name of Armand, and held, that the fact that Shallon was an alien would not prevent the lessors of the plaintiff from recovering in the present ejectment. Doe d. Miller v. Rogers,

EMBEZZLEMENT.

See LARCENY, 11.

390

1. If a person, whose duty it is to receive money for his employer, receive money and render a true account of all the money he has received, he is not guilty of embezzlement, if he

EMBEZZLEMENT.

absconds and does not pay over the money; but if he had received the money and had rendered an account in which it was omitted, this would be evidence to shew that he had embezzled the amount. Reg. v. Creed, 63.

2. The collector of a water company, as was his practice, gave the prisoner, who was the turncock, three receipts for water rents, desiring him to receive the amounts. On a subsequent day, the collector asked the prisoner if he had received the amounts, when he said, that he had, and would pay them over on the following Monday; instead of which, he absconded: -Held, no embezzlement. Ibid.

3. It was the duty of a clerk to receive money for his employer, and pay wages out of it, and to make entries of all monies received and paid in a book, and to enter the weekly totals of receipts and payments in another book, upon which last book he, from time to time, paid over his balances to his employer. The clerk having entries of weekly payments in his first book, amounting to £25, he entered them in the second book as £35; and, two months after, in accounting with his employer by these means, made his balance £10 too little, and paid it over accordingly:-Held, that the clerk could not, on these facts, be convicted of embezzlement without its being shewn that he had received some particular sum on account of his employer, and had converted either the whole or part of that sum to his own use. Reg. v. Chapman,

119

4. It was the duty of a servant, authorized to receive money for his employer, to account to his employer on the evening of every day for the money received during the day by him for his employer, and to pay over the amount. He received three sums for his employer on three different days, and neither accounted for those sums, nor paid them over. He never denied

1. A defendant had written a letter to Mr. H., the plaintiff's attorney, who stated in evidence that he had written a letter in answer to it, which he gave to the defendant at his (Mr. H.'s) office on the 4th of April. This letter of the 4th of April being called for under a notice to produce, the defendant's counsel stated that there was no such letter, and proposed to shew by evidence that Mr. H. had not given his letter to the defendant on the 4th of April, at his office, as stated, because the defendant was at another place, and also because Mr. H.'s letter was dated on the 6th of April, and was sent by post on that

day. The Judge received the evidence thus proposed to be given for the defendant before allowing the plaintiff to go into secondary evidence of Mr. H.'s letter of the 4th of April; but held, that such evidence was not evidence to the jury, but to himself only, and that any part of it which was written evidence should not be read by the officer of the court, but should be handed to the Judge and then shewn to the opposite counsel. Smith 48 v. Sleap,

2. If a witness, who is called to disprove the signature of the defendant to an acceptance, states that he believes the signature is not that of the defendant, and gives, as his reason for that belief, the absence or presence of certain peculiarities which he says do or do not exist in the genuine signatures of the defendant, the opposite counsel may put into his hand a paper unconnected with the cause, and ask if, in his opinion, that contains a genuine signature of the defendant; and, if he answer in the affirmative, he may then be asked, "Does the signature in this paper, which you say is genuine, contain the same peculiarities, or want the same peculiarities, (as the case may be), which you have before stated as your reasons that the signature in dispute is not genuine ?" And, semble,

that, if the witness says it does not, it would be competent to lay that paper before the jury that they might judge of that answer. Younge v. Honner, 51

3. To give evidence of the transcript of the rules of a benefit society inrolled at the office of the clerk of the peace, by proof of an examined copy of it, the witness who examined the copy with the transcript must prove that he examined the copy of all the rules with the transcript. Reg. v. Boynes, 65

4. In an action against an attorney for negligence respecting a reference of an action for breach of promise of

marriage, brought by Miss S. against the present plaintiff, in which he was attorney for the present plaintiff, it appeared that there were two parts of the agreement to refer, one signed by Miss S.'s attorney, (unstamped), which was in the possession of the present defendant, the other signed by the present defendant as attorney for the present plaintiff, and in the hands of Miss S.'s attorney. The latter had been stamped within twenty-one days after its execution, and the expense of the stamping, and part of the expense of the making of it, had been paid by the present plaintiff, the rest being taxed off. The part in the hands of the present defendant being called for and produced under a notice to produce, being unstamped, could not be read in evidence:-But held, that the present plaintiff was entitled to have the stamped part of the agreement produced by Miss S.'s attorney, although Miss S. had desired her attorney not to produce it. Held, also, that Miss S.'s attorney was not bound to produce letters written to him by the present defendant, as attorney for the present plaintiff, he stating that he was desired by his client, Miss S., not to produce them; but that, if letters written by Miss S.'s attorney to the present defendant, as attorney for the present plaintiff, were not produced when called for under a notice to produce, Miss S.'s attorney was bound to give secondary evidence of their contents, although desired by Miss S. not to do so. Higgs v. Taylor,

85

5. A. brought trover for goods which had been seized at the house of B. by the defendant, as sheriff of S., under a fi. fa. against B. A. claimed under a sale at auction, which was stated at the time of the sale to have been made under an assignment by B. for the benefit of his creditors. To shew that the sale was fraudulent,

the defendant's counsel proposed to give evidence, that, when the execution went in, and while the goods remained in B.'s possession, B. said that the goods were his son's: -Held, that this evidence was not receivable. Roberts v. Justice, 93

6. On the trial of an issue directed to try whether goods seized by the sheriff of H. under a fi. fa. against G. were the goods of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's counsel proposed to give evidence of a statement made by G., before the execution went in, that he (G.) was indebted to the plaintiff, and was going to assign his goods to him, by way of payment:-Held, that this evidence was not receivable. Prosser v. Gwillim,

95

7. On the trial of an issue directed to try whether goods seized under a fi. fa. sued out against A., at the suit of the defendant, were the goods of the plaintiff, the declarations of A., as to the property of the goods, are not receivable in evidence on the part of the plaintiff. Stothert v. James, 121

8. Assumpsit by a servant against his master, for not employing him under a written agreement to serve for a year, which had not expired. The agreement was produced under notice:-Held, that it was not necessary to call the subscribing witness to prove the execution. Bell v. Chaytor, 162

9. Semble, that on the trial of a cause a party ought not to be allowed to go into evidence to shew why he could not procure the attendance of a particular person as a witness, or to shew what steps he has taken to procure such person's attendance at the trial. Turpin v. Heald, 264

10. In an action by B. against A. for false imprisonment, A. pleaded a justification, that B. had been guilty of embezzlement. A. and his witnesses having made the charge before a magistrate, depositions were taken