of testator's death in 1787, his uncle R. C. was dead, leaving five daughters and children of each, with whom testator was acquainted.

The first daughter died in 1799, leaving a daughter, who had a son born in 1795.

The second died in November 1820, leaving a son, born in 1770.

DISTRESS, CASE FOR EXCESSIVE.

a son born in 1773.

The fourth died in 1806, leaving a son born in 1768.

The fifth, alive in 1822, had a son, then alive, born in 1772.

J. C. died without issue, in 1808, and E. W. in July 1820:

Held, by Taunton and Bosanquet Js., that upon her death the son of R. C.'s eldest daughter's daughter took under the above devise by Bayley J., the son of his second daughter; by Littledale J., the son of the fourth daughter; and by Tindal C. J., that the devise was void for uncertainty. Doe d. Winter v. Perratt and Another. Page 198 3. Testator devised all his goods, chattels, estate, and effects, not otherwise disposed of, to trustees, to pay his debts; remainder to the use of his family.

Lands in his own occupation he devised to the same trustees, to allow his family to occupy till his youngest son came of age, and then to sell and divide the produce among his family.

The personal estate being insufficient for the discharge of the

excessive distress after tender of the rent due. Holland v. Bird and Another.

DOWER.

15

that J. went away, and returned with 321. less than the amount of the bill, the discount being 17. 19s.: Held not sufficient without proof that J. was Plaintiff's agent, to cast it on Plaintiff to prove the consideration he gave for the bill. Bassett v. Dodgin. Page 40 2. Defendant, a broker, having ef fected policies of insurance on 3... goods for R., R., putting into his hands a letter from the captain of the ship conveying the goods, told the Defendant the policies were to be altered, and he must do the needful.

In an action against Defendant for negligence in this matter, Held, that brokers might be called to say, looking at the policies, the invoices of the goods, and the letter, what alterations in the policies a skilful broker ought to have made. Chapman and Another, Assignees of Richardson, a Bankrupt, v. Walton.

57

the committee, of which during his service he had the care. The company being afterwards dissolved, the Plaintiff sued some of the members of the committee for his salary: Held, that he ought to produce the book containing the resolution under which he was engaged; and that book appearing to be in the possession of a member of the committee who had not been joined in the action, Held, that notice to the Defendants to produce it was not sufficient to entitle Plaintiff to give secondary evidence of its contents. Whitford v. Tutin and Others. Page 395 5. Where an act for conducting a private concern is declared to be a public act, and is required to be judicially taken notice of as such by all judges, without being specially pleaded, it is unnecessary at a trial to prove it by an examined copy of the original. Beaumont, Chairman of the County Fire Office, v. Mountain. 404

2. Plaintiffs, executors of A., continued to carry on his business, and draw bills as executors, for goods which they sold to Defendants: Defendants having accepted sundry such bills, Held, that Plaintiffs might properly sue as executors for the price of the goods. Aspinall and Others, Executors of Smith, v. Wake and Others. Page 51

EXECUTORY DEVISE.

A limitation by way of executory devise, which is not to take effect until after the determination of a life or lives in being, and a term of twenty-one years as a term in gross, and without reference to the infancy of any person who is to take under such limitation, or of any other person, is a valid limitation.

Secùs, if to the term in gross of twenty-one years be added the number of months equal to the period of gestation. Cadell v. Palmer.

FILACER.

140

See AFFIDAVIT TO HOLD TO BAIL, 1.

delivery to render unnecessary a memorandum of the bargain in writing, as required by the statute of frauds.

A memorandum which is silent as to price will not support a count alleging a contract at the shipping price;

Nor, where the parol evidence discloses a contract at the shipping price, will it, under a count for goods bargained and sold, prove a contract at a reasonable price. Acebal v. Levy and Another. Page 376 2. Where an executory contract is entered into for the fabrication of goods, without any agreement as to price, the memorandum of the contract required by the statute of frauds is sufficient without specification of price. Hoadley v. M'Laine.

3.

482

Held, that an infant might recover back, in an action for money had and received, a sum which he had paid in advance towards the purchase of a share in Defendant's trade; to be retained by Defendant as a forfeiture, if the infant

failed

mises demised are burnt down by the negligence or misconduct of the tenant's servant, in the ordinary scope of his employment.

The Defendant's servant burnt down a house demised to the Defendant, in Scotland, by lighting furze and straw with a view to cleanse a chimney which smoked, although she had been cautioned against the danger of such a proceeding.

In an action brought against the Defendant by his landlord for this injury, Held, that it was properly left to the jury to say, whether the servant was acting within the general scope of her duty; and the jury having found for the Defendant, the Court refused to grant a new trial. M'Leod.

M'Kenzie v. Page 385

3. The Defendant, in March 1832, took certain premises from F. and B., agents for the trustees of the joint estate of T. and S. B. Upon trial of an action for use and occupation brought against the Defendant, it appeared by the Plaintiff's own evidence, that in 1831, they were trustees for the estate of S. B. only.

Held, that the Defendant was estopped to take advantage of this discrepancy, having in 1832 taken the premises of Plaintiffs as trustees of the joint estate. Fleming and Four Others v. Gooding. 549

LIBEL.

1. Libel. Defendant wrote concerning Plaintiff, "He is so inflated

Held, without any preliminary averment, to warrant an innuendo that Plaintiff had conducted himself in a dishonest manner in the Defendant's service. Clegg v. Laffer. Page 250 2. An act of parliament, after reciting the difficulties experienced by joint companies, in suits for recovering debts and enforcing obligations, and in the prosecution of offenders, enacted, that actions commenced by the Hope Company for recovering debts, or enforcing claims or demands then due, or which thereafter might become due or arise to the company, might be commenced, and indictments for offences be preferred, in the name of the chair

man:

260

Held, that the chairman might sue for a libel on the company, although it was not a corporate body. Williams, Chairman of the Society or Partnership called the Hope Assurance Company v. J. T. B. Beaumont. 3. Libel. The Defendant published an account of the proceedings under a commission of lunacy, which the Plaintiff had attended as a witness, and stated that the Plaintiff's testimony, "being unsupported by that of any other person, failed to have any effect on the jury."-"The object was to set aside a will."-"Mr. Jervis

See ATTORNEY, 1. LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF. 1. "I beg to say I cannot comply your request. The best way for you would be to send me the bill you hold, and draw another for the balance of your money, 30l. 9s. 9d.: Held, a sufficient acknowledgment that 30l. 9s. 9d. was due, to take the case out of the statute of limitations. Dabbs