Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

1822.

The KING
against

The Justices of
COLCHESTER.

had jurisdiction, and that they ought to have heard the appeal. This rule must be absolute.

Rule absolute.

Jessopp and Brodrick were to have supported the rule.

Tuesday,
February 12th.

A certificate to

FOXALL against BANKS and Another.

deprivalo HUTCHINSON, on a prior day in this term, obtained a rule nisi, calling on the plaintiff's at

tiff of costs

may be indorsed on the postea

after costs have been taxed,

and although

attorney was

present and did not object to such taxation.

torney to produce the postea in this case, before Wood

B., in order that he might certify, to deprive the plain

the defendants' tiff of his costs. The case, which was an action of trespass, was tried at the last assizes for Surry, before Wood B., when a verdict was found for the plaintiff, damages one farthing. The Judge, at the trial, intimated his intention of considering whether he should certify or not. It appeared by the affidavit, that the costs had been regularly taxed, and that the taxation had been attended by the clerk of the defendants' attorney, and that no objection was then made. Subsequently to this, a summons was taken out before Wood B., to shew cause why the postea should not be produced, and a certificate endorsed thereon. This summons was attended by the parties, and the learned Judge then expressed his intention to certify, but the plaintiff's attorney refused to produce the postea for that purpose,

Turton shewed cause, and contended,. that the application for a certificate came too late, after the costs had been taxed,

Per

Per Curiam. The application was in time, for a certificate may at any time be indorsed on the postea. Let the rule be made absolute, and with costs.

Rule absolute, with costs.

1822.

FOXALL

against

BANKS.

CHAPPELL against ASHLEY.

a

ANDREWS moved for a rule nisi to discharge
a rule granted on a former day in this term for
compelling the defendant (under the compulsory clause
in the Lords' act), to give an account of his estate
and effects pursuant to that statute. It appeared
the debt due to the plaintiff amounted to 1127.,
that the whole amount of the debts with which he
charged in execution exceeded 300l. It was contended

Tuesday, February 12th.

When a deexecution for a particular debt under 300, although the aggregate of the

fendant is in

that

debts for which

he is in execu

but

[blocks in formation]

was

that the second and third clauses of the 33 G. 3. c. 5. must be construed together, and that, inasmuch as the defendant could not be entitled to the relief given by the second clause, he ought not to be subjected to the compulsory power in the third.

ABBOTT C. J. I am of opinion that the defendant is not entitled to this rule. The act of parliament is a remedial one for the benefit of the creditor; and I think that it is competent for any one creditor whose debt does not amount to 3007. to avail himself of this clause in the act, and to compel the defendant to assign his property, whatever may be the whole amount of the debts for which the defendant is in execution.

Rule refused.

liable, at the instance of the

particular cre

ditor, to be

brought up

under the com

pulsory clause

act, 33G.3.c. 5.

in the lords'

1822.

Tuesday,
February 12th.

A clerk to an

during the term for which he

was bound, the

office of sur

of taxes

under the

crown: Held,

In the Matter of TAYLOR, Gent. one, &c.

attorney held, E. ALDERSON, in last Michaelmas term, obtained a rule nisi for striking this person off the roll of attorneys of this court, upon the ground that he had not duly served his time as a clerk to an attorney. It appeared upon the affidavits, that during the whole time for which he was bound, he had been surveyor of taxes for the wapentake of Claro, and the borough and liberty of Ripon, in the county of York; for which purpose he occupied an office, where the business relating to the proper business taxes was conducted. The affidavits in answer admitted this fact, but stated that the business of the office did

that he could not, within

28 G. 2. c. 46. s. 8 & 10., be considered as serving his whole time and

term in the

of an attorney, and that he

ought not to be admitted on

the roll, and that having

not occupy more than one-eighth of his time, and that during all the remaining portion, he was employed in

he ought to be learning his profession as an attorney.

struck off.

Scarlett and Littledale shewed cause, and contended that this was no more than if the time employed by him as surveyor of taxes had been allowed to him by the consent of his master for the acquisition of any other useful information, or for amusement; and that substantially he had served the full time required by law.

E. Alderson contrà referred to 22 G. 2. c. 46. s. 8., by which every person who shall be bound to serve any attorney shall, during the whole time and term of service, continue and be actually employed by such attorney in the proper business, practice, or employment of an attorney; and by section 10., before he can be admitted,

he

he must make an affidavit that he has actually and really served during the said whole term of five years. Here there were two inconsistent employments, and, therefore, he could not possibly have served the whole time and term.

Per Curiam. It is very important that we should require these provisions to be strictly complied with. Here the party having an employment under the crown during the whole time, could not, with propriety, have made the requisite affidavit. And, therefore, however much we may regret it, we think it our duty to make this rule absolute.

1822.

In the Matter of
TAYLOR.

Rule absolute.

REX against the Justices of SURREY.

COWLEY had obtained a rule nisi for a mandamus

Tuesday,
February 12th.

Where a statute

giving reason

gives an appeal, to the justices of Surrey to enter continuances, and the appellant hear the appeal of Andrew Barnet against a conviction able notice to for gaming under 12 G. 2. c. 28. convicted on the 6th November last, and entered into

the other par

The defendant was

recognizances to appeal against it to the next quarter

ties; such notice need not be in writing,

but a verbal

notice, if rea

time, is suffi

sessions. It was sworn on the one side, and denied by sonable as to the other, that at the time of entering into recog- cient. nizances, his attorney gave a verbal notice to the informer of his intention to appeal. The defendant attended in order to prosecute his appeal at the last January sessions, when, there having been no notice of appeal in writing, the Court refused to hear the appeal. The 5th section of the act giving the ap

peal

1822.

The KING

against

The Justices of

SURREY.

peal states, that" persons aggrieved may appeal, giving reasonable notice to the prosecutor, and entering into recognizances, &c."

Turton shewed cause, and contended that the ses sions were to judge what was a reasonable notice of appeal, and they were of opinion that it must be a notice in writing.

Cowley and Adolphus contrá, stopped by the Court.

ABBOTT C. J. We are of opinion, that where a statute requires reasonable notice to be given, it does not necessarily mean that the notice should be in writing, but only that as to time or number of days it should be reasonable. Here, however, as the fact is disputed, we shall only grant a mandamus to the justices, commanding them to examine whether reasonable verbal notice has been given, and, in that case, to enter continuances, and hear the appeal.

Rule accordingly.

Tuesday,
February 12th.

In trespass the Court will, upon a proper case being made

JOHNSON against BIRLEY and Others.

LITTLEDALE, on a former day in this term, obtained a rule nisi, calling on the plaintiff's attorney for it, require to disclose the place of residence and occupation of the plaintiff's

attorney to give the plaintiff to the defendants, and for staying the pro

to the defend

ants informa.

tion as to the place of abode and occupation of the plaintiff. And where the alleged assault was stated to have taken place, at a meeting at which many thousand people were present, and the defendants did not know, and could not find out, after diligent enquiry, who the plaintiff was, the Court thought it a proper case for their requiring such information to be given.

ceedings

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »