« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
to excuse the delay, stated that the facts had not come to his knowledge till very shortly previous to the application. Rex v. Bishop, E. 3 G.4. Page 612 15. An attorney brought his action for his bill of costs, and held the defendant to bail for a larger sum than was afterwards found to be due upon taxation, without having any reasonable or probable cause for so doing : Held, that this was a case within the 43 G. 3. c. 46. s. 3., and that, if not within the statute, still the Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction over its officers, would compel an attorney to pay costs under such circumstances. Robinson v. Elsam, E. 3 G. 4. 661 16. A motion for security for costs, on the ground of the plaintiff's residence abroad, cannot be made if the defendant has taken any step in the cause subsequently to his becoming acquainted with the fact of the plaintiff's being resident abroad, and therefore, the affidavit in support of the motion, if made after plea, must expressly state that defendant was not acquainted with it when he pleaded. Duncan v. Stint, E. 3 G. 4. 702 17. On motion for setting aside proceedings on the bail bond, bail above having justified the affidavit, must state that the defendant has a good defence upon the merits. Grottick v. Bailey, E. 3 G.4. 703 18. Where bail are rejected on account of the insufficiency of one, the bail piece becomes a nullity, and therefore, the notice should be for putting in and justifying bail, and not †: bail. Lewis v. Gadderer, E. 3 G. 4. 704 19. Defendant being taken up on the 8th of June upon an indictment for a libel, entered into a recognizance to appear and plead
within the first eight days of Trinity term, and to try the cause at the sittings after that term. The defendant pleaded not guilty, but did not give notices of trial, or make up the record either for the sittings after Trinity or Michaelmas term, nor were the recognizances respited. The prosecutors gave notice of trial after Trinity and Michaelmas term, but the causes were not tried. The defendant was ready and willing to take his trial on both these occasions. The recognizances were estreated in Hilary term without any notice to the defendant, or any motion by the prosecutor : Held, that this estreat was regular. Rez v. Clark, E. 3 G. 4. Page 728 20. The Court will grant a habeas corpus to the warden of the Fleet, to take the body of a debtor confined there, before a magistrate to be examined from time to time respecting a charge of felony or misdemeanour. Er parie Griffith v. Griffiths, E. 3 G. 4. 730 21. Where a return to a mandamus to restore a party to a corporate office is defective in form, but, on the whole, it appears that there is good ground for a motion, the Court will not award a peremptory mandamus ; the only effect of which would be to compel the corporation to restore an officer whom they would be bound immediately to remove in a more formal manner. Rez v. Edmund Griffiths, E. 8 G, 4. 731 22. Attachment irregular, being ob: tained after summons to attend before a judge for payment of debt and costs, the plaintiff's attorney not having attended at the time. Rex v. Sheriff of Middleser in Woodward v. Feltham, E. 3 G. 4. - 746 23. On an application to discharge a
defendant out of custody, on the ground that she was a married woman, it is necessary that that fact should be positively stated in the affidavit. And, therefore, where it was sworn that she was a married woman, as by certificate annexed will appear, it was held insufficient. Harvey v. Cooke, E.3 G.4. Page 747 24. Where a plea is so framed as that it may reasonably induce the plaintiff to consult counsel in order to know how to deal with it, the Court will, on affidavit that such a plea is wholly false, permit the plaintiff to sign judgment as for want of a plea. Shadwell v. Berthoud, E. 3 G.4. 750 25. It is not a valid objection on shewing cause, that a rule to compute was moved on the day of signing interlocutory judgment for not bringing in the record. Russen v. Hayward, E. 3 G. 4. 752 26. A married woman, who, with her husband, is in execution for a debt contracted by her before coverture, is not entitled to be discharged under the insolvent act; she not being capable of executing a warrant of attorney, and complying with the other terms required by the 1 G. 4. c. 119. s. 25. Ex parte Deacon, E. 3 G. 4. 759 27. In trespass against custom-house officers for taking plaintiff’s goods, which had been returned in a deteriorated state before action brought, a verdict was found for plaintiff, for the difference in price between the value of the goods at the time of the seizure, and the time when they were returned. The judge certified that there was probable cause for the seizure: Held, that the plaintiff was not precluded by the 28 G. 3. c. 37. s. 24. from taking out execution for the damages found by the
E. 3 G. 4. Page 762 28. Where a new trial is ordered, the costs to abide the event, such event means the ultimate event of the cause, and therefore, if the verdict on the second trial be set aside, and on a third trial, the ultimate event is the same as at the first trial, the party will be entitled to the costs of the first trial. Meule v. Goddard, E. 3 G. 4. 766 29. A tenancy by virtue of an agree ment in writing for three months certain, is a tenancy “for a term" within the meaning of the l G.4. c. 87. Upon a rule, calling upon the tenant to enter into a recognizance under that statute, it is unnecessary to express in the rule nisi the amount of the security required. Doe dem. Phillips v. Roe, E. 3 G.4. 766 30. An information in the nature of a quo warranto may be granted at common law, within the 9 Anne, c. 20., against a party for exercising the office of a bailiff in the borough of M. although it was not a corporate office. Quaere, whether in such a case the defendant may plead several matters. Rer v. Highmore, E. 3 G. 4. 771 31. The 17 G. 3. c. 56. s. 22. takes away the writ of certiorari only from offences for the first time, created by 22 G. 2. c. 27. and does' not apply to those created by 12 G. 1. c. 34., and extended to the silk and cotton trades by 22 G.2. c. 27. Rex v. Rogers, E. 3 G. 4. 773 32. Ajudge's certificate under 43 Eliz. c.6. is sufficient to deprive a plaintiff of costs, notwithstanding the action be brought under 11 G.2. c. 19. s. 19., by which, in case the plaintiff obtains a verdict, he is en
jury. Laugher v. Brefitt,
titled to full costs. Irwine v. Reddish, E. 3 G. 4. Page 796 33. The 19 G. 3. c. 70. s. 4. is confined to those suits in inferior courts where the proceedings are similar to those in the superior courts, and, therefore, does not extend to the case of a foreign attachment. Bulmer v. Marshall, T. 3 G. 4. - - 821 34. Where a bailiff had written to an attorney for writs, which the latter ... sent without knowing any thing of the parties or circumstances, but the bailiff never represented him. self or had been considered as an attorney, nor looked for any profit upon the law proceedings: Held, that this was not a case within the 22 G. 2. c. 46. s. 11.: but that it was a most improper practice, which the Court, in virtue of its general jurisdiction over attornies, would punish severely. Er parte Whatton, T. 5 G.4. - 824. 35. A bond was conditioned for the resignation of a living, which the defendant, when requested, had refused to resign: #. that he being a wrong doer, the jury were not bound, in assessing the damages, to confine themselves to the diminution of the value of the advowson to the plaintiff by the defendant's life-interest, nor in estimating the annual proceeds to deduct the curate's stipend. Lord Sondes v. Fletcher, T. 3 G. 4. 835 36. A bill against an attorney was filed of Michaelmas term, and apeared by the memorandum to |. been filed on the 28th of November: Held, that evidence was admissible to shew that it was actually filed on the 24th December: Held, also, that a demand and refusal is evidence of a prior conversion; and, therefore, where deeds were in defendant's possession prior to Michaelmas term, and the de
of a trifling variance between the contract set out, and that proved, the Court granted a new trial with leave to amend the declaration, generally on payment of costs, with liberty to the defendant to plead de novo or demur. Williams v. Pratt, T. 3 G. 4. Page 896 42. Charges for holding the courts
leet of a manor by the steward,
are charges for business connected
with his professional character of
an attorney; and, therefore, are
like conveyancing charges, taxable
when found in a bill containing other taxable items. Luxmore,
Gent., one. &c. v. Lethbridge, one,
&c. T. 3 G.4. 898 43. The Court will not grant a mandamus to a private trading corporation to permit a transfer of stock to be made in their books. Rex v. The London Assurance Company, T. 3 G. 4. 899 44. Where a lord of a manor is indicted for a nuisance in not repairing the bank of a river, the Court will not compell him to allow the prosecutor, even though he is a tenant of the manor, to inspect the court rolls for the purpose of obtaining evidence in support of the prosecution. Rer v. The Earl of Cadogan, T. 3 G.4. 902 45. No motion can be made to stay the proceedings in an action on a judgment pending a writ of error until bail have been put in and perfected. Abraham v. Pugh, T. 3 G. 4. 903 46. Where a plaintiff, shortly previous to making an affidavit of debt, had written a letter, stating that the defendant was a creditor of his, the Court interfered in a summary way to discharge the defendant out of custody, on affidavits denying the debt, the plaintiff not having denied the writing of such
letter by him, or alleged that the debt due to him had arisen subsequently to it. Nizetich v. Bonacich, T. 3 G. 4. Page 904 47. Where a defendant, being previously in custody in execution for a debt, a detainer was lodged against him, but for too large a sum, and on this being discovered in a few hours, the plaintiff discontinued on payment of costs, and before the payment of costs lodged a fresh detainer: Held, that this second detainer was regular, and that it was not like the case of a fresh arrest, which cannot be made till the costs have been paid. White v. Gompertz, T. 3 G. 4. 48. Where a cause stood in the paper below the last cause mentioned in the written list affixed at the outside of the court, and was tried, (being stated to be an undefended cause,) the counsel for the defendant objecting to it, and declining to appear: Held, that the trial was regular, and the Court refused a new trial, there being no affidavit of merits. Blackhurst v. Bulmer, T. 3 G.4. 907 49. Where a plaintiff carried on business abroad, and had no permanent residence in England, but was in England at the time of bringing the action, and it was sworn, had no intention of leaving the country: Held, that this was no sufficient answer to an application for security for costs, inasmuch as it was not distinctly sworn that he resided and intended to continue to reside here : Held, also, that it is no answer to such application, that the action is brought in pursuance of liberty reserved by the Vice-Chancellor, it not being brought by his direction. Oliva V. }. T. 3 G. 4. , 908
price of the coals. Page 27
Granger, M. 2 G.4.
2. A power of attorney authorizing
an agent to demand, sue for, recover, and receive, by all lawful ways and means whatsoever, all monies, debts, dues, whatsoever, and to give sufficient discharges, does not authorize him to indorse bills for his principal. An agent having money in his hands belonging to his principal, purchases with it a bill of exchange, which he indorses specially to his principal; the latter, at the time of the indorsement, was dead, but that fact was not known to the agent: Held,
that the property in the bill passed
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
1. The owner of goods being in-
to the administrator of the prin-
sue upon the bill in that character.
Murray v. The East India Com
pany, M. 2 G. 4. 204
3. A. and B. having agreed to pur
chase cottons on their joint account, directed their brokers to purchase the same. These pur. chases having been made, warrants or orders for delivery were made out in the name of the brokers, and the cottons were left in their W. as the brokers of A.
mmediately after the purchase B. paid A. one half the value. After considerable purchases had been made, the brokers were informed that B. had an interest in the goods purchased; A., after this, directed the brokers to procure him a loan on the security of the warrants, and C. advanced o by discounting bills drawn by A. upon the brokers, as a security for which the whole of the warrants were deposited with C. by the brokers. While they were so deposited, the brokers received directions, both from A. and B., to make a division of the goods held on their joint account, which o