Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

by the company, "all the costs of summoning the jury, and the expenses of witnesses," were to be defrayed by the company; but if a less sum, a moiety to be defrayed by the other party; and another clause enacted, that such party should enter into a bond to pay his proportion of the costs and expenses of summoning and returning such jury and taking such verdict, and of the summoning and expenses of witnesses," in case any portion of such costs should fall on him: Held, that the words "the costs of taking such verdict," did not mean the costs of trial; and therefore that counsel's fees, and the attorney's costs in preparing for and attending the trial, were properly disallowed.—Rer v. Gardner, 1 N. & P. 308.

And see LONDON DOCK ACT.

CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH.

If the mother causes the body of her child to be secretly buried, with a view to conceal the birth, she may be convicted of concealment under the 9 G. 4, c. 31, s. 24, though she may have previously allowed the birth to be known to some persons.-Rex v. Douglas, Moo. C. C. R. 480; 7 C. & P. 644.

COPARCENERS.

(Effect of partition.) A. and B., being seised of land in coparcenary, B. conveyed his moiety to a purchaser in fee. The purchaser and A., the other parcener, made partition by lease and release, and conveyed the whole to H. and his heirs, as to one portion, to the use of such purchaser in fee, and as to the other portion to the use of A. in fee: Held, that A.'s portion remained descendable to his heir ex parte materná. (Com. Dig. Parceners, C. 15; 3 P. Wms. 170, n.; 3 Ves. jun. 199; 8 Ves. jun. 106; 7 T. R. 416.)-Doe d. Crosthwaite v. Dixon, 1 N. & P. 255.

COPYHOLD.

(Admittance.) The legality of the title of the lord or steward who admits a copyholder is immaterial, provided the admittance is in pursuance of a surrender, and not of a voluntary grant from the lord.-Doe d. Burgess v. Thompson, 1 N. & P. 215.

CORONER.

(Inquisition― Names of jurors.) If several jurors on a coroner's inquisition have the same Christian and surname, it is not necessary in the caption to distinguish them by abode or addition.

An inquisition for manslaughter, which charges that the principals in the second degree were "feloniously present, then and there abetting, aiding, and assisting," is bad, as the word "feloniously" extends only to the word present.-Rex v. Nicholas, 7 C. & P. 538.

COSTS.

1. (Under 43 G. 3, c. 46.) Arrest for £20: 2s. 1d. for goods sold; plea, infancy; replication, that the goods were necessaries. At the trial, the plaintiff proved the delivery only of some of the articles in his bill of particulars, and had a verdict for 10l. On an affidavit of the defendant that he never owed the plaintiff 201., the Court gave him costs under 43 G. 3,

[blocks in formation]

c. 46, though the plaintiff swore that all the articles in the bill of particulars were delivered to the defendant.- Ballantine v. Taylor, 1 N. & P.

219.

2. (Of first trial.) Where, a verdict having been found for the plaintiff, a new trial was granted, on the ground that evidence had been improperly received, and the defendant then, after the plaintiff had applied for a special jury, withdrew his plea, and suffered judgment by default, and the damages were assessed: Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to the costs of the first trial. (2 D. P. C. 415; 2 C., M. & R. 232.) —Peacock v. Harris, 1 N. & P. 240.

3. (Of several issues.) To a declaration in assumpsit for money had and received, the defendant pleaded, as to all except 31. 5s., non assumpsit; as to all except 31. 5s., a set-off; and as to 3l. 5s., payment of that sum into Court. The plaintiff, by his replication, admitted the set-off, and replied that he would not further prosecute his suit, except as to the 37. 5s., and took that sum out of Court: Held, that the defendant was entitled to his costs on the two first issues.-Goodee v. Goldsmith, 2 M. & W. 202; 5 D. P. C. 288.

4. (Treble costs under Highway Act.)

By the 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 50, the 13 G. 3, c. 78, which gave treble costs to parties sued for anything done in pursuance of the act, on a nonsuit, was repealed, the new act giving, in such case, costs only as between attorney and client. A plaintiff, who sued parish officers for an act done under the 13 G. 3, c. 78, became nonsuit at a trial which took place before the 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 50, came into operation, but judgment was not signed till after: Held, that the defendants were not entitled to treble costs.-Charrington v. Meatheringham, 2 M. & W. 228; 5 D. P. C. 464.

5. (Security for.) The Court will not superadd to a rule for security for costs, the term that the defendant should be at liberty to sign judgment as in case of a nonsuit, if the security were not given within a limited time. -Kelly v. Brown, 5 D. P. C. 264.

6. (Same.) It is not necessary to make a demand previously to moving for security for costs, unless it is intended to be part of the rule that proceedings be stayed in the meantime.-Fountain v. Steele, 5 D. P. C. 331. 7. (Taxation.) The Court will review the decision of the Master as to the number of counsel he allows on taxation, under special circumstances.— Grindall v. Godman, 5 D. P. C. 378.

8. (Same.) Where the writ is issued for a sum above 201., and before execution the plaintiff gives the defendant credit for cross-demand, which has not been pleaded, and thereby reduces the debt to a sum under 20%., the Master should tax the costs on the reduced scale. (Patteson, J., dissentiente.)-Savage v. Lipscome, 5 D. P. C. 385.

9. (Of first trial.) Where a juror was withdrawn, and the cause referred, but no award made, and the cause being taken down again, the plaintiff

succeeded, he was held not entitled to the costs of the first trial. (6 T. R. 71; 1 D. P. C. 282; 3 D. P. C. 372; 4 D. P. C. 575.)—Thomas v. Lewis, 5 D. P. C. 395.

10. The Court would not compel a third party to pay the costs of a defence, on the mere allegation of belief that it was carried on at his instance.— Blewitt v. Tregonning, 5 D. P. C. 404.

11. (Taxation-Delivery of copy of bill.) The rule of the Exchequer, which requires a copy of the bill of costs, and affidavit of increase, to be delivered to the attorney on the other side a day previous to taxation, is imperative, unless waived by the other party.— Wilson v. Parkins, 5 D. P. C. 461.

12. (Certificate under 43 Eliz.) After the trial, the judge (Patteson, J.,) certified under the 43 Eliz., c. 6, to deprive the plaintiff of costs; but in the ensuing term, new facts, which did not appear before him at the trial, being laid before him on affidavit, he made an order to annul the certificate. —Anderson v. Sherwin, 7 C. & P. 527.

And see WRit of Trial.

COUNTY RATE.

(Inspection of, by rate-payers.) The rate-payers of a county have not, either at common law or by statute, any right to inspect and copy the bills of charges of county officers, when they are deposited with the clerk of the peace among the county records, in pursuance of the 12 Geo. 2, c. 29, s. 8. The right of inspection is confined to the justices of the peace for the county. (4 B. & C. 891; 5 Ad. & E. 500.)- Rex v. Justices of Staffordshire, 1 N. & P. 260.

COURT OF REQUESTS ACTS.

(West Brixton Court of Requests Act.) A suggestion may be entered on the roll to deprive the plaintiff of costs under the West Brixton Court of Requests Act, 46 Geo. 3, c. 88, where the debt is under 5l.; and it is not necessary that the plaintiff should be resident within the jurisdiction. -Hamley v. Hutton, 5 D. P. C. 332.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

A rule nisi for a criminal information for a libel was discharged on an affidavit made by a person who swore to the truth of the libel. This person was indicted for perjury, the bill was found, and he absconded. It appeared from the affidavits of several persons, that the former affidavit was entirely untrue. The Court, under these circumstances, granted another rule nisi for a criminal information, and made it absolute.-Rex v. Eve, 1 N. & P. 229.

CUSTOMS' ACTS.

Licences granted by the Commissioners of Customs to custom-house agents, under the 6 Geo. 4, c. 107, s. 139, and bonds taken for the faithful performance of their duties, are continued in force by the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 53, s. 144, notwithstanding the repeal of the former act by the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 50.-Rex v. Atkins, 2 M. & W. 289.

CUTTING AND MAIMING.

1. The prisoner was indicted for cutting and maiming, with intent to prevent his apprehension for an offence for which he was liable to be apprehended, to wit, for that he did violently assault and beat A. B. The prisoner was taken before the magistrates by the prosecutor, on a warrant directed to him, for an assault on A. B., and was ordered to find bail, which he refused to do, and while the commitment was being made out, he escaped. The prosecutor, by the verbal directions of the magistrates, pursued the prisoner, and in attempting to apprehend him, was cut by him: Held well convicted, and that the offence was rightly described.—Rex v. Williams, Moo. C. C. R. 387.

2. A constable, who had verbal directions from the magistrates to apprehend all persons playing at thimble-rig, attempted to apprehend the prisoner and his companions playing that game in a public fair. The constable, with assistance, took one of the party, but the prisoner and the others rescued him, and got off. In the evening of the same day, the constable found the prisoner in a public-house, not having been able to find him before, and endeavoured to apprehend him, stating that it was for what he had been doing in the fair. The prisoner escaped into an outhouse, and the constable called the prosecutor to his assistance, and together they broke open the door, and endeavoured to take the prisoner, who thereupon stabbed the prosecutor. A conviction for feloniously cutting and maiming was held wrong.-Rex v. Gardener, Moo. C. C. R. 390. 3. A conviction on an indictment for maliciously cutting a police officer, with intent to resist and prevent the arrest of the prisoner for a certain offence for which he was liable by law to be apprehended and detained, viz. for committing damage and injury upon certain plants and roots growing in a garden, &c., held good.-Rex v. Fraser, Moo. C. C. R. 419. DEBT FOR RENT.

(Plea to-Tenancy in common.) To a declaration in debt for rent, stating that the plaintiff and one J. S. deceased, were seised in fee, and demised to the defendant from year to year, rendering a certain rent to the plaintiff and J. S., which had fallen into arrear since the death of J. S., it is a good plea, on general demurrer, that the plaintiff and J. S. were tenants in common. (1 Ad. & E. 759; 3 N. & M. 646; Carth. 289.)- Burne v. Cambridge, 1 M. & Rob. 539.

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR. (Assignment for the benefit of creditors-Illegal trading.) An assignment by a trader of his premises and effects to a creditor, upon trust to dispose of the trade, or carry it on for the benefit of such creditors as will execute the trust-deed, and to distribute the proceeds among such creditors, and to pay the surplus to the trader, is void as against a creditor not executing it, on the ground that by executing the deed the creditors would render themselves liable in respect of the future trade.

But it was held to be no objection to such assignment, that at the time of its execution, the assignor, whose trade partly consisted in selling ex

ciseable articles, had no licence, and was thereby liable to a penalty.— Owen v. Body, 6 N. & M. 448.

And see FOREIGN LAW, 1.

DEED.

(Attestation, what is -Corporate seal.) On a deed sealed with the corporate seal of the Governor and Directors of the Bank of England, these words were written round the seal: "Sealed by order of the Governor and Court of Directors of the Bank of England, on, &c, J. K. Secretary:" Held, that J. K. was not to be considered as an attesting witness.

And quare, whether a person who formally attests the affixing of the seal of a corporation to a deed, need be called as an attesting witness.Doe d. Bank of England v. Chambers, 4 Ad. & E. 410; 6N. & M. 539. DEED OF DISPOSITION. See MANDAMUS.

DEED OF SEPARATION. See ANNUITY.

DEVISE.

1. (What passes a fee.) A testator, seised of freehold land, after giving several pecuniary legacies, devised as follows: "I give to W. and A. his wife, for their natural lives, all my messuages, lands, hereditaments, and premises whatsoever, in the city of N., or elsewhere in the kingdom of Great Britain; and from and after the decease of the said W. and A., my will and mind is, that the said messuages, &c. shall be equally divided unto and amongst such of the children of W. and A. as shall be then living." The will then disposed of the residue of the personal estate: Held, that the children took only life estates as tenants in common, and not estates in fee. (3 Burr. 1895; 3 B. & Ad. 473.)—Silvery v. Howard, 1 N. & P. 351. 2. (What passes a fee-Adverse possession.) Devise as follows: "I give to my wife, her heirs and assigns, for ever, all the residue of my personal estate, whatsoever and wheresoever; and also all my right, title, and interest, in all and every sum and sums of money whatever, which now is, are, or shall be due to me on any bill, bond, or other securities. I also make my wife full and sole executrix of the house in G.:" Held, that by this latter clause a fee simple in the house passed to the wife.

The widow continued to reside in the house more than twenty years after her husband's death: Held, that her possession was not adverse, except perhaps against the heir, as her possession might be intended to be in respect of dower. (5 T. R. 716; 11 East, 246; Prec. in Chan. 471;. Noy, 48; 12 Mod. 593; 4 Russ. 348.)— Doe d. Hickman v. Haslewood, 1 N. & P. 352; and see Doe d. Pratt v. Pratt, ib. 366.

EASEMENT.

(What is an easement, and not a profit à prendre.) A right in the occupier of an ancient messuage to water his cattle at a pond, and to take the water thereof for domestic purposes, for the more convenient enjoyment of his messuage, is an easement, and not a profit à prendre in the soil of another. (6 Rep. 59 b; 2 H. Bl. 393; 3 Ad. & E. 554.)

But if such right were a profit à prendre, the allegation that the water

« PreviousContinue »