The following certificate was afterwards sent: We have heard this case argued by counsel, and are of opinion, that an action cannot be maintained by the plaintiff against the defendant for publicly acting and representing the said tragedy, abridged in manner aforesaid, at the theatre-royal Drury Lane, for profit. C. ABBOTT. J. BAYLEY. G. S. HOLROYD, 1822. MURRAY against ELLISTON, ROBINSON against ELSAM. THE plaintiff, an attorney, had, on the 19th March, 1821, delivered to the defendant his bill for busi An attorney brought his action for his bill of costs, defendant to ness done, amounting to 5211. 1s. 3d. On the 21st April and held the the plaintiff arrested and held the defendant to bail for bail for a larger 500%. and upwards, and declared in the action. On the sum than was 14th May, a Judge's order was obtained for referring the found to be due bill of costs to the Master, to be taxed, upon the defend ant's undertaking to pay the amount that should appear due on the taxation, and the costs of the action, the defendant being at liberty to deduct any payments made on account. The Master taxed the bill at 2997. 16s. 6d.; and, after giving the defendant credit for 157., there remained a balance due to plaintiff of 2847. 16s. 6d. ; and the costs of the action to recover the bill were then taxed at 137. 15s. 7d. The plaintiff having demanded afterwards upon taxation, without having any reasonable or probable doing: Held, cause for so that this was a case within the 43 Geo. 3. c. 46. s. 3.; and that if not with in the statute, still the Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction over its of ficers, would compel an at payment of the whole sum, without giving the defendant torney to pay credit for a cross demand which he had against the such circum costs under plaintiff, the former did not pay the amount, and stances. on the 9th November he was taken upon an attachment for non-payment of the money, and conveyed to Dover 1822. ROBINSON against ELSAM. Castle. The plaintiff then issued a habeas corpus to bring him to London, and caused him to be committed to the King's Bench prison, and he then paid the sum awarded by the Master's allocatur, together with the costs of the attachment and the habeas corpus. A rule nisi was obtained in last Hilary term, calling on the plaintiff to shew cause why so much of the order of the 14th of May, and of the rule of court founded thereon, as respected the costs of the action, should not be discharged, and why the plaintiff should not refund to the defendant the sum of 13l. 15s. 7d., allowed and paid him for the costs of the action, and why the plaintiff'should not pay to the defendant his costs of this action, to be taxed by the Master, and also the costs of the taxation of his bill of costs, and why it should not be referred to the master to tax the plaintiff's charges for the costs of the attachment, and why the plaintiff should not refund what had been overpaid on that account, together with the costs of the writ of habeas corpus. Upon this rule coming on in last term, the matters of the rule were referred to the Master, and he, thinking that the plaintiff had no reasonable or probable cause for arresting the defendant for 500l., directed the plaintiff to refund to the defendant the costs of the action, and to pay to the defendant 97. 7s. 10d. as his taxed costs of the action and the costs of the taxation, and 27. 10s. as overcharged for the attachment, together with the sum of 16. 16s., the costs of the habeas corpus, and 197. 18s. 6d., the costs of that application. A rule nisi had been subsequently obtained for the master to review his report, so far as the same directed the costs of the action to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, instead of by the defendant to the plaintiff, and the costs of the application. Marryat Marryat now shewed cause. It must be now taken for granted, after the report of the Master, that the plaintiff had not any reasonable or probable cause for holding the defendant to special bail for the amount of 500l. The plaintiff has not recovered the amount of the sum for which the defendant was arrested and held to special bail, and, therefore, this case falls within the very words of the 43 Geo. 3. c. 46. s. 3. It is true, that the amount was not recovered by verdict, but that is not necessary; for where the amount of the debt was ascertained by the award of an arbitrator, it was held to be a sum recovered within the meaning of the act. (a) In this case the only mode of ascertaining the amount due was by taxation. Scarlett. The statute only applies to, those cases where the amount recovered is ascertained by verdict. Cammack v. Gregory (b) and Rouveroy v. Alefson. (c) In the case cited from Tidd's Practice, a verdict was taken, subject to an award, and when the award was made, the verdict was entered accordingly; so that the sum ultimately recovered might be considered as recovered by verdict. Here the sum is recovered by the Master's allocatur. At all events, the defendant is too late in his application. He ought to have applied before the costs. were paid. ABBOTT C. J. We must now assume, after what the Master has done, that the plaintiff had not any reasonable or probable cause for holding the defendant (a) Tidd's Pr. 1018. 6th ed. cites Neale v. Porter, K. B. 44 Geo. 3. (b) 10 East, 525. (c) 13 East, 90. 1822. ROBINSON against ELSAM. 1822. ROBINSON against ELSAM. to bail for 500l. It is unnecessary to decide whether this case be within the statute, because the plaintiff, here, is an attorney. It appears to me to be a case certainly within the spirit and object of the statute; and that being so, I think we shall do well, in the exercise of that jurisdiction which we have over the officers of the court, to compel the plaintiff to pay the costs of the action. BAYLEY J. I think that this case falls strictly within the act of parliament. The plaintiff here arrested the defendant for 500l. and recovered only 2847. Now it has been decided to be a case within the statute, where the sum recovered is ascertained by the award of an arbitrator. Here the sum recovered was ascertained by the Master's allocatur; the suit then was at an end; and all the legal consequences that result from the termination of the suit must follow; one of which is, that the plaintiff having held the defendant to bail for a larger sum than is actually due, and not having any probable cause for so doing, must pay the defendant his costs. BEST J. (a) I am clearly of opinion that this case falls within the words and spirit of the act of parliament; for the plaintiff has not recovered the amount of the sum for which he held the defendant to bail, and he had not any reasonable or probable cause for causing him to be held to bail for 500l.; and the express object of the statute was to prevent frivolous and vexatious arrests, Rule discharged. (a) Holroyd J. had left the court. 1822. The KING against WILLIAM CLARKE. Saturday, May 4th. 55 Geo.3. c. 51. 1. stating shall not give any jurisdiction to the justices that that act INDICTMENT against defendant, a constable within The proviso in the city of Bath, for not obeying an order of the s. sessions of the county of Somerset, requiring him, as such constable, to issue out his warrant to the overseers of the poor of the parish of St. James, in that directing them to collect and levy the sum of 611. the purposes of the county-rate. Plea, not guilty. the trial, before Holroyd J., at the last Dorsetshire assizes, a verdict was found for the crown, subject to city, of the county over any places for situate within the limits of At the opinion of this Court upon a case which stated, any liberties or franchises hav ing a separate jurisdiction, is confined to franchises hav ing a separate jurisdiction coextensive with that possessed by the county justices; and, therefore, where the justices of the city of B. had no jurisdiction by charter to try felons, it was held that the city of B. was liable to the county rate, |