Woods, &c., Commissioners of, empowering the Commissioners of Loans for Public Works and Fisheries to make Loans to, in lieu of Loans heretofore authorized to be made in Exchequer Bills.-C. 33. U. K.

Works, Public. See Public Works.

Wreck and Salvage, for consolidating and amending the Laws relating to.-C. 99. E. & I.

Young Persons, to amend Two clerical Errors in 8 & 9 Vict. c. 29, for regulating the Labour of, in Print Works.-C. 18. U. K.

Digest of Cases.

COMMON LAW.

Comprising the Common Law Cases (not previously inserted) in the following

7 Q. B. part 4.

3 Com. B. part 1.

15 M. & W.

part 4.

Reports:

16 M. & W. part 1.

4 Dowl. & L. parts 2 & 3.
9 Ir. Law Rep. parts 3, 4 & 5.

ABATEMENT. See LIBEL AND SLANDER, 5, 6.

ACCEPTANCE. See FRAUds, Statute of.
ACCOUNT STATED. See PLEADING, 1.

ADVOCATE. See ATTORNEY.

AFFIDAVIT.-1. Certiorari-Entitling affidavit.-Affidavits in support of a rule for a certiorari ought not to be entitled at all; and where they were entitled "In the matter of the Queen v. Robert Wallwork (the name of the proceedings in the court below, which it was sought to bring up, being the Queen v. Robert Wallwork and James Wallwork), the court held them irregular, and discharged the rule. Ex parte Wallwork, 4 D. & L. 403.

2. Entitling affidavit.-Affidavits on which a rule, calling on an attorney to answer the matters in the affidavit, has been granted, need not be entitled at all; but affidavits in answer to the rule must be entitled in the same way as the rule. Where, however, they were not so entitled, the court enlarged the rule, in order that they might be amended. In re Grantham, 4 D. & L. 427.

3. Same. A defendant was called in the writ of summons W. W. Kilpin; he entered an appearance as William Wells Kilpin. In the title of an affidavit in support of a rule for judgment as in case of a nonsuit, he was described as William Wells Kilpin: Held, that the affidavit was well entitled. Lomax v. Kilpin, 16 M. & W. 94; 4 D. & L. 295.

4. Jurat-Affidavit.—Where a rule is obtained on an affidavit, by two or more deponents, the jurat of which is defective in not containing the names of the deponents, pursuant to Reg. Gen. Trin. Term, 1 Geo. 4, the court will discharge the rule with costs. bett v. Oldfield, 4 D. & L. 492.

And see ARREST. MALICIOUS ARREST, 2. SCI. FA.

VOL. VII. NO. XIII.-DIG.

I

Cob

AIDER BY VERDICT. See MALICIOUS ARREST, 1.
AMBIGUITY. See CASE, 1. CONTRACT, 1.

AMENDMENT.—Of pleadings, refused after judgment and the lapse of a year.-The court refused to allow a replication to be amended after the lapse of a year after judgment pronounced on demurrer, the case having previously stood over that the parties might mutually agree to amend, and both having declined so to do. Hammond v. Colls, 3 C. B. 212.

And see PRACTICE, 1. PROCESS, 1.

ANNUITY.-Enrolment-Plea of accord and satisfaction by grant of annuity answered by replication showing that the annuity deed had been rendered unavailing as a satisfaction by the act of the defendant himself. In debt for money had and received, &c., the defendant pleaded that after the accruing of the debt and causes of action, the defendant executed a deed, securing to the plaintiff a certain annuity, and that the plaintiff then accepted and received the same of and from the defendant in full satisfaction and discharge of all the said several debts and causes of action. The plaintiff replied that no memorial of the annuity deed was enrolled pursuant to the statute; that the annuity being in arrear, the plaintiff brought an action to recover the amount of the arrears; that the defendant pleaded in bar of that action the non-enrolment of the memorial, and that thereupon the plaintiff elected and agreed that the indenture should be null and void, as pleaded by the defendant, and discontinued the action: Held, a good answer to the plea, inasmuch as it showed that the accord and satisfaction thereby set up had been rendered nugatory and unavailing by the act of the defendant himself. Turner v. Brown, 3 C. B. 157; 4 D. & L. 201.

APPEARANCE. See PRACTICE, 2, 3.

See BILLS AND NOTES, 6.

ARGUMENTATIVENESS.
DETINUE. PATENT, 2, 3. PLEADING, 2, 5.

ARREST.-Judge's order for arrest-Appeal to court-Affidavit.-A party arrested by order of a judge may apply for his discharge either to the court or to another judge, and may, on such application, use affidavits to contradict or explain those on which the order was granted, and he may appeal to the court against the decision of such latter judge. If the judge secondly applied to should differ from the first, or if it should appear on fresh affidavits that the person arrested was about to quit England at the time those affidavits were made, though he was not so when the order was made, quære whether in such cases the judge or court ought to discharge him? An affidavit that deponent "has been informed and believes" that a party is about to quit England, is insufficient to warrant an order for arrest. Where an order to hold to bail has been improperly made by a judge, the court will not set aside the capias, but only discharge the defendant out of custody. Where a defendant, against whom a capias has issued under a judge's order,

applied to the court to have the money returned, on the ground that he was not about to quit the country, and the affidavits in answer were contradictory, the court referred the matter to the master for inquiry. Graham v. Sandrinelli, 4 D. & L. 317.

And see COSTS, 2. MALICIOUS ARREST. PROCEss, 1, 2.

ASSIGNEE. See PLEADING, 10.

ASSIGNMENT.-Of chattels - What is a present conveyanceDemise by mortgagee to mortgagor--Prospective operation of assignment.-A., to secure the payment of 5181. by him to G., assigned by indenture of January 1st, 1843, all his goods and farming stock, which were then or which at any time during the continuance of that security should be in, about and belonging to A.'s house and farm, to G., his executors, &c., as his and their own proper goods and chattels. Proviso that if A. should pay G. the 5181. on 1st January, 1845, or at such earlier day and time as G., &c., shall appoint by notice in writing to A. at least ten days before the time to be appointed, with interest in the meantime, then those presents should cease and determine. A. covenanted to pay principal and interest accordingly; and it was declared that after default, and as respected the interest, after notice in writing requiring payment, it should be lawful for G., &c., to receive and take into their possession, and thenceforth to hold and enjoy the said goods, &c.; and also to sell and dispose of the same and every part thereof, and out of the proceeds to retain the principal and interest and expenses, and to render the surplus to A., &c.; and that until default it should be lawful for A., &c., to hold, make use of, and possess the goods, &c., without disturbance by G., &c. A. not having paid the interest, G., without giving notice in writing, on 1st January, 1844, took possession of all the goods, &c., then in and about the house and farm, including the last year's crop of hay, and some other articles which were not A.'s at the time of the assignment, but had been brought by him into the farm since. On G.'s entering to take possession, A. delivered to him part in the name of the whole, and signed a memorandum of the delivery, acknowledging that he made default in payment of the principal and interest, after receiving due notice to pay. On a feigned issue to try whether the goods, &c., or any part of them, were the property of G. at the time of the delivery to the sheriff after 1st January, 1844, of a fi. fa. against A. at the suit of another creditor: Held, that the assignment was a present conveyance from A. to G., so as immediately on the execution of the indenture to vest the property in the goods, &c., then in and about the house and farm, in G.; and that the proviso did not operate as a demise of those goods, &c., to A.; but that the deed did not operate as an assignment of property thereafter to arise or be brought upon the premises. Gale v. Burnell, 7 Q. B. 850.

ATTACHMENT. See TRESPASS, 1.

ATTESTATION. See COGNOVIT, 1. WARRANT OF ATTORNEY.

ATTORNEY.-Advocate-Witness.—Where a party makes a speech and conducts a case as an advocate he cannot afterwards give evidence as a witness in the same cause. In an action tried before the undersheriff the attorney for the plaintiff opened the case to the jury, examined the witnesses, made a speech in reply, and afterwards proposed to call himself as a witness to refute the defence. His evidence was objected to by the defendant, but received by the undersheriff, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff: Held, that the court would grant a new trial. Stones v. Byron, 4 D. & L. 393.

And see PRACTICE, 4. RELEASE, 1. SHERIFF, 1. TRESPASS, 2. VENUE, 1.

AUCTIONEER.-Sale under decree.-A special bailiff, nominated by the plaintiff and appointed by the sheriff, is not entitled to sell by way of auction goods taken in execution under a civil bill decree, without being licensed as an auctioneer or procuring the assistance of a licensed auctioneer. Attorney-General v. Malone, 9 Ir. L. R. 245.

BAILIFF. See AUCTIONeer.
See AUCTIONEER. SHERIFF, 1.

BANKRUPT.—-1. Bankrupt act-Costs-Speedy execution.Where a judge at nisi prius has granted a certificate for speedy execution, and judgment has been signed thereon, and the costs taxed, an application by the defendant for costs, under the 19th section of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 122, must be made within the first four days of the ensuing term; in other cases such application must be made before final judgment. Quære, whether the 19th section of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 122, applies to any case except where a bond is given under the 13th section. Smith v. Temperley, 4 D. & L. 510.

2. Persons" suspected" within stat. 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, s. 33—Who must entertain the suspicion.--For the granting of a summons under stat. 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, s. 33, to bring before commissioners a person "known or suspected" to have property of the bankrupt in his possession, semble, per Lord Denman, C. J., and Williams, J., and held by Coleridge, J., that the suspicion required is that of a party applying for such summons and not of the commissioner. Cooper v. Harding, 7 Q. B. 928.

3. Proveable debt-Unliquidated damages.-The defendant entered into a charter-party with the plaintiffs, by which he bound himself to supply a cargo of guano. An action was brought against him for an alleged breach in not supplying the cargo in pursuance of his agree ment, and he suffered judgment by default. Before the execution of a writ of inquiry a fiat in bankruptcy issued against him, and he obtained his certificate with a suspension for six months. The damages were afterwards assessed at 10447. 3s. 9d., and for that amount he was arrested: Held, that this was a debt not proveable