Page images
PDF
EPUB

Held, issuable pleas. Watkins v. Bensusan, 615

3. To covenant on an indenture of apprenticeship, the defendant pleaded that at the time of making the indenture, the plaintiffs were partners, and that before any breach of duty by the apprentice, the partnership was dissolved. The Court

refused to set aside the plea, on the ground that it was not issuable. Lloyd and Another v. Blackburn,

647

4. To a declaration containing several counts, the defendant, who was under terms of pleading issuably, pleaded two pleas, which, in substance, applied to the first count only, but in form were pleaded to the whole declaration: Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to sign judgment. Parratt v. Goddard and Another, Executors of H. Goddard, deceased, 874

PLEAS, (SEVERAL)

See COSTS, 1.

1. The 13th rule of T. T., 1 Wm. 4, does not prevent a defendant from applying to the Court when leave to plead several matters is refused by a Judge, nor need the previous application be noticed in the rule. To trespass for entering a steam-vessel, the Court allowed the defendant to plead; 1st, not guilty; 2ndly, leave and license; 3rdly, that defendant entered the vessel to prevent a breach of the peace; 4thly, that the vessel was in danger of being wrecked, and the defendant went on board to save it 5thly, that a third party had a lien on the vessel, and the defendant, as his servant, went on board to take possession of her. Johnstone V. Knowles, 30

2. Where a defendant in an action for a tailor's bill, pleaded that buttons and button-holes of materials rendered illegal by the 10 Wm. 3, c. 2,

and the 6 Ann. c. 8, had been used, on the garments supplied by the plaintiff, the Court would not allow the plea to stand with another plea, but compelled the defendant to make his election between the two. Goodman v. Morrell, 283

3. To an action for money paid, the defendant pleaded, 1st, that she was an alien, and that she requested the plaintiff to purchase an estate for her benefit; that he bought the estate, and paid the money in his own name, in order to enable her to have the benefit of it, but had retained possession of it himself; 2ndly, that the money was paid in furtherance of an illegal object, and in contravention of the alien act: Held, the pleas raised distinct matters of defence.

Semble, that the first plea would be bad on demurrer. Bailey v. Cathrey,

456

4. In trespass, quare clausum fregit, the defendant sought to plead, first, not guilty; secondly, not possessed; thirdly a plea stating that one T. was seised in fee of the close, who demised to B., and after stating various demises that one F. demised to H., who became bankrupt, and that the defendants entered as his assignees; fourthly, a like plea, stating however, that H. mortgaged to one R., and continued in possession as tenant to R., and that the defendants entered as assignees of H., who had become bankrupt; fifthly, a like plea to the fourth, only stating that H. and R., to defraud the creditors of H., demised to the plaintiff: Held, that those pleas were not in contravention of the statute of Anne, and might be pleaded. Pym v. Grazebrook and Others, 489

5. Where a defendant had pleaded two pleas to the same cause of action alleged in the declaration, one of which was disallowed by a Judge, and he afterwards pleaded them to

different parts of the same cause of action, the Court refused to set them aside. Daniels v. Lewis, 844

6. If a defendant plead one plea to the whole cause of action, and also demur to part, without obtaining a Judge's order for that purpose, the plaintiff may treat the whole as a nullity, and sign judgment. Bayley v. Baker, 891

7. The Court has no power to strike out pleas allowed by a Judge, at Chambers. The proper course is to rescind the Judge's order. Turquand and Another, Assignees of Taylor, a Bankrupt, v. Hawtrey and Another,

925

[blocks in formation]

In an action for the recovery of poor rates from the landlord of certain houses, under the provisions of the 11 Geo. 4, c. 10, the Local Act for regulating the affairs of the joint parishes of St. Giles in the Fields and St. George, Bloomsbury, it is not necessary to aver the defendant to be landlord at the time of notice of the rate, or the tenant's default in payment, or that there was no sufficient distress on the premises in respect of which the rate was made. Robinson v. James, 756

POWER OF COURT.

See ERROR, 2.

STOCK, (CHARGING).

POWER (OF JUDGE). See WRIT OF Trial, 6.

PRESENTMENT.

See TAXATION, 5. VOL. I.-N. S.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

An order of removal was made on the 22nd of February. A copy of the order and examination was received on the 26th by the appellants. On the 29th of March, the quarter sessions were held. No notice of appeal was given for those sessions. On the 12th of April, the pauper was removed. On the 28th of June, the Midsummer Sessions were held, at which the appellants, without notice to respondents, entered and respited. Notice of appeal was afterwards given on October 2nd, for the Michaelmas Sessions, which were held on the 18th of October. The Sessions having refused to hear the appeal, on the ground of its being too late, the Court compelled them by mandamus to hear it. Regina v. The Justices of Cheshire,

RAILWAY.
See SPECIAL CASE,

RECORDER.

570

See WRIT OF TRIAL, 1, 8, 9, 10.

REJOINING GRATIS.

The meaning of the term "rejoining gratis," is rejoining without a rule for that purpose, therefore, where the plaintiff added the simi

liter for the defendant (who was under terms of rejoining gratis,) and delivered the issue, it was held that the defendant might, within four days, strike out the similiter, and demur. Adkins v. Anderson, 877

RELEASE.

See WITNESS, 6.

REMANET.

See COSTS (OF the Day).

RENEWED APPLICATION. See ATTESTING WITNESS, 3.

REPLEVIN.

See SPECIAL JURY.

In a declaration on a replevinbond, the breach assigned was, that the defendant did not appear at the next county Court, and then and there prosecute his suit with effect.

Held, bad, as it was consistent with the breach, that the suit was commenced at the first county Court, and was still pending. Jackson v. Hanson and Others, 69

REPLICATION.

See DE INJURIA, 1, 2.
MUTUAL CREDIT, 2.
PLEADING, 1.

1. To covenant for rent for turnpike tolls, defendant pleaded that before it became due, the trustees entered in and upon a certain part of the tolls, and ejected the plaintiff: Replication, that the trustee did not enter or eject, &c.: Held, on error that the replication was good on special demurrer Palmer and Another v. Goden and Others, 673

2. If a plea be double the replication may answer each matter of defence. Pascoe v. Vyvyan, 939

3. To debt against the sheriff for an escape, the defendant pleaded

that he sent his warrant to G., who acted in the execution thereof, under the direction of the plaintiff, and as his special bailiff; that G., without the authority of the defendant, permitted the debtor to go at large, that defendant had no notice of the escape until the debtor voluntarily returned into custody.

Replication as to so much of the plea as relates to G., having acted in the execution of the warrant, that G. did not act under the direction of the plaintiff; and as to so much of the plea as relates to the debtor having returned into custody; that defendant, of his own wrong, suffered him to go at large.

Semble, that the plea was not double, and that the substance of the defence was, the appointment of a special bailiff; also that the replication was informal and ambiguous. Pascoe v. Vyvyan, 939

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

SCIRE FACIAS.

See LACHES, 4.

OUTLAWRY, 2, 3.

1. A scire facias issued on a judgment should recite a previous scire facias on the same judgment signed thereon, although the previous scire facias has not been returned and filed. Walker v. Thelluson, 578

2. A writ of ca. sa. may be issued on a judgment more than a year and a day old, without suing out a scire facias, if the defendant has, even by parol, agreed to waive the necessity of a scire facias, notwithstanding the stat. of Westminster 2, 13 Ed. 1, s. 1, c. 45. Morgan v. Burgess, 850

[blocks in formation]

1. The Court has not, (as a rule) any power after verdict to compel a person not a party to the record to pay costs, even though he may really be the party interested in the decision of the suit. Evans v. Rees, 338

2. The exception to this rule is in actions of ejectment, in all other cases, the defendant, if desirous of obtaining costs from a person not a party to the record, should apply for security for costs. Ib.

3. Giving notice of trial by pro

viso, in an action on a bill of exchange is not sufficient to render a defendant such an actor in the cause as to render him liable to give security for costs, although he is insolvent; and if the plaintiff, after notice of the defendant's insolvency, takes a step in the cause, the Court will not allow him to discontinue without payment of costs. Ford v. Stock,

763 4. Where a defendant in ejectment went out of the jurisdiction in the month of May, with the knowledge of the lessor of the plaintiff, and afterwards obtained a rule for judgment as in case of a nonsuit, which was discharged in the following Michaelmas Term, and subsequently gave notice of trial by proviso for the next Spring Assizes, the Court refused an application in the following Easter Term to compel the defendant to give security for costs, although an application had been made to a Judge at Chambers, previous to Easter Term, and a temporary order for security for costs made by a Judge. Doe dem. Somers and Anderson v. Brood, 875

SERVICE, (SPECIAL).

In an action by the public officer of a Banking Company, under the 7 Geo. 4, c. 46, for the balance of an account, the Court allowed notice of executing a writ of inquiry to be served at the last place of abode of the defendant, and by sticking the same up in the Master's office, in M. T., 1841, interlocutory judgment for want of a plea having been signed on the 11th of January, 1839, and it being sworn that the defendant had gone to South Australia, in March, 1839, to evade payment of his debts.

The Court also granted a rule for serving notice upon the defendant by the same means, of a suggestion having been entered upon the record of the change of the name of the

« EelmineJätka »