« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
Lloyd, Hopkins v.
110 M'Combie o. Davis
441 Macfadzen v, Olivant
Mathews, Egerton o.
Oddie, Trummor v.
200 Rushforth v. Hadfield
- PAGI be 619
Saint John Maddermarket, in Nor. Parker, Durbishire s.
3 wich, &c. Rex o, - 189 , Harrison o. 54 Salvin v. James
571 Parr o. Anderson 202 Samuel o. Judin
333 Pearson, Doc d. Gill y.
173 Sayer, Cooke v. Perry o. Fisher
849 Scurfield v. Gowland Phillips, Prescott v.
213 Scutt, Altree v. Phillips, Rex o. 464 Shaw, Bealey p.
208 Porcell, Rez v.
136 Shepherd, Hilton v; Prescott v. Pkillips
213 Siff ken v. Wray Price, Rex o. 323 Skone, Rex v.
514 - 0. Woodburne 433 Smith, Doe o.
530 Prigmore o. Bradley 914 Smith, Martin v.
555 Purser, English o. 395 Sodergren v. Flighe
612 Southerton, Rex v.
120 Spence, Strickland, Doe d.o. 193 stable ó. Dixon
- 166 Regula Generalis
2 Stanway, Lord Northwick 0. Rex v. Badcock
Strickland, Doe d. v. Spence 120 Rex o. Bedford Level Corporation Swinton, Willoughby v.
356 Sydebotham, Lawrence v. - v. Bembridge and Powell 136 v. Broughton
687 0. Coggan
431 - v. Johnson, Justice $85 Tewkesbury, Bailiffs of, o. Dision v. Leeds, Duke of 432
438 v. Moors 419 Thornton, Newson a.
17 0. Mortlake, Inhabitants of 397 Throgmorton d. Woadby v. Whelpdale' v. Munton 590
123 0. Neild 417 Topham, Capp 0.
397 0. Phillips 464 Toulmin, Walsh v.
54% o. Price 323 Tower v. Cameron
413 d. Reynell 315 Trussell, Doe v.
505 x. Ryder 587 Tummer v. Oddie
Vaughan, Le Mesurier s.
is - v. Southerton'
Vaughan, Whitehead v. - v. Woodward
133 Reynell, Rex v.
315 Roach v. Wadham
289 Roe d. Earl of Berkeley v. Archbishop Wadham, Roach o. of York - 88 Wadsworth, Crosby u.
602 Roe v. Clayton c. 628 Walker, Jolly v.
206 Russell, Rex ve 427 Walsh » Toulmin
PAGE Waterhouse, Close v. . 523 Woodburne, Price to e 433 Waters, Lewis d. Ormond v. . 336 Woodward, Rex v.
133 Watts, Cowell v.
405 Wootton o. Harvey Welsh 8. Ireland - 613 Wray, Siffken o.
- 371 Whelpdale, Throgmortond. Woadby v.
: 123 Whitehead v. Voughan
523 Wild v. Griffin
114 York, Archbishop of, Roc d. Earl of Wilkins, Fletcher e.
283 Berkeley v. . Willoughby v. Swinton
- Hilary Term, In the Forty-fifth Year of the Reign of George III.
In the course of this Term, Sir BEAUMONT Hotham, ..
Knt. one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer, resigned his office; and was succeeded by Sir TUOMAS MANXERS Sutton, Kut, his Majesty's Solicitor General, who was thereupon called Serjeant; and gave rings with this motto, Hic ames dici pater atque Princeps. Vicary Gibbs, Esq. one of the King's Counsel, and who was also Chief Justice of Chester, and Attorney General to his Royal Highness the Prince of IVales, . resigned his two last - mentioned oflices, and was appointed Solicitor General to his Majesty, and was
knighted. ROBERT Dallas, Esq. one of the King's Counsel,
was appointed Chief Justice of Chestcr. WILLIAM Adam, Esq. who was before Solicitor Ge.
[2 neral to the Prince of Wales, succeeded Mr. Gibbs,
as his Royal Highness's Attorney General; and JOSEPH JEKYLL, Esq. was appointed Solicitor Gene. ral to the Prince; and afterwards, one of his Majesty's Counsel, learned in the Law'. VOL. VI.
llilury Term, 45 Geo. III. The granting of dav-rules to W HEREAS, by a Rule made in Easter Term, in the soch prisoners in the
Geo. 3, it was, amongst other things, Ordered, “That
Cong . B. prison during term, is no prisoner in the King's Bench Prison, or within the rules j: the ci cretion of the thereof, should bave, or be entitled to have, day-rules above Court ou ap three days in each terın." And by another rule, Michael. plication, the sain- as nefore mas, 37 Geo. 3, it was further Ordered, " That, notwith
standing the said thereby in part recited rule, if any person but prisoners out upon such in the King's Bench Prison should thereafter state, by affiday-tules inust return at or he- davit, any special cause, to the satisfaction of this court,
for having an additional day-rule or day rules beyond those in the evening.
allowed by the aforesaid rule, such additional rule or rules should be granted accordingly for any day or days ensuing such application." It is hereby Ordered, That so inuch of · the said first-mentioned role as is' above recited, and that the whole of the said last-mentioned rule, be repealed and
discharged; but that nothing herein contained shall extend . to repeal or discharge so inuch of the said first-mentioned
rule as requires That every prisoner, having a day-rule, shall return within the walls or rules of the said prison at or before pine o'clock in the evening of the day for which such rule shall be granted.
By the Court.. ( 9 )
Thursday, Jan. 24.
DARBISHIRE and Another against PARKER,
Where notice THE plaintiff's declared upon a special agreement by the of the dishonour of a bill of - defendant, to guarantee the payment of certain goods, exchange by. which, on the faith of such guarantee, they sold and delithe acceptor in London, was skut by the post to the holder in Manchester, where the letter was delivered out hetween 8 and . o'clock in the morning, and the post went out for Liverpool, where the drawer lived, be. tween 12 at 1000 and i; and the holder did not send notice to the drawer by the post, either of the same day or the next ; but sent it is a leiler by a privale person on the latrer day, who did not deliver it to the drawer till two hours after the post the livery, and only about one hour before the post left Liverpool for London, whereby the drawer was so agi ated, that he could not write in time for that day's post to London, -held, that at all events the holder had made the bill his owo by his laches; for whether reasonahle netice be a question of law or uf fact, or whett:er the general rule of law require notice of the dishonour of a bill to be sent 10 a party living at another place by the next post after it is received (by which must be un. derstood the best practicable post, ir point of time and distance); and whether four hours between the coming in are guing out of the post be a sufficient interval, in point of practical convenience, to receive the notice and to prepare a letter of advice to the drawer. At all events, the holder ought to have writien by the post of ihe next day alter notice received by him; and cught not to have delayed the receipt of notice by the drawer until after the arrival of the next posi, by scadio iba letter by a private band.