1833.

PRICE

v.

JAMES.

error in the order of reference may be amended. I will, however, look into the cases and state my opinion another day.

Cur. adv. vult.

LITTLEDALE, J.-I have looked into the cases and consulted the other Judges, and we are of opinion that the name may be amended.

Amendment allowed.

Where a bail

has misdescrib

residence on justification, but has been allow

ed to pass, the Court will not set aside the

EAGLEFIELD v. STEPHENS.

WHITE moved for a rule to shew cause why the rule

ed his place of for the allowance of the bail in this case should not be set aside, on the ground that one of the bail had mis-stated his place of residence. He cited Brown v. Gillies (a), where the rule for the allowance of bail was discharged, with costs to be paid by the defendant, on an affidavit that the bail had perjured himself, on his justification, in swearing that an action, in which he had been bail, had been compromised. There were other cases to the same effect.

rule for the allowance of the bail, but he

may be indicted for perjury.

PARKE, J.-I know there were two or three cases to that effect, in which the Court has interfered to set aside the rule for the allowance of bail, as now prayed. The Courts, however, soon found such a practice to be so inconvenient that it was discontinued. Your only remedy now is by indicting the party for perjury.

Rule refused.

(a) I Chit. Rep. 372.

Ex parte PITT.

(Before the four Judges.)

MR. PITT (in person) applied for a rule to shew cause why certain attornies, whose names he mentioned, should not be required to answer certain matters contained in an affidavit made by the applicant, and on which he moved.

1833.

An application quiring an attorney to an

for a rule re

swer the matters of an affi-. davit must be

made by a gen

bar.

Lord DENMAN, C. J., (after consulting the other Judges tleman at the and the Master of the Crown Office).-The motion against an attorney being in the nature of a criminal information, the Court requires that it should be made by a gentleman at the bar; and it cannot be made in person. Otherwise, we have not the sanction of a barrister for the propriety of such an application. We cannot, therefore, hear you make this motion. The only case in which it appears that the Court ever interfered, where the application was made in person, was where a party demanded protection of the Court against an attorney; and, as it then appeared on his affidavit that the attorney had been guilty of great misconduct, the Court, of its own accord, directed that he should answer the matters stated in the affidavit of the applicant. That case is, however, different from the present; as here the direct and primary object of the application is that the atorney should answer the matters contained in the affidavit.

Rule refused.

FITCH v. GReen.

CROWDER obtained a rule to shew cause why the Where a party

Master's taxation should not be reviewed. Notice had

been previously given to the opposite party that such a motion would be made.

shews cause successfully in the first in

stance, he is not entitled to costs.

1833.

FITCH

v.

GREEN.

PARKE, J., was of opinion that the rule ought to be discharged.

Follett, who had appeared on the notice to shew cause in the first instance, now applied for the costs of so appearing.

PARKE, J.-As you appeared in the first instance to shew cause, you are not entitled to the costs of appearing.

Rule discharged, without costs.

The venue cannot be changed in an indictment for conspiracy, until issue is joined.

REX v. FORBES and Others.

V. LEE moved for a rule to shew cause why the venue

in this case should not be changed from London to Staffordshire, on the ground that all the witnesses for the defendants resided in that county. It was an indictment for conspiracy, and the affidavits disclosed circumstances of peculiar hardship upon the defendants.

PARKE, J.-Is issue joined in the case?

V. Lee stated that issue was not yet joined.

PARKE, J.-Then the motion cannot be granted under any circumstances until issue is joined.

Rule refused.

DOE d. COURTHORPE v. ROE.

1833.

claration in

ARMSTRONG moved for judgment against the casual Service of a deejector. The affidavit on which he moved stated the ser- ejectment. vice to have been under these circumstances:-The person endeavouring to effect the service had gone to the premises, and presented the declaration to the wife of the tenant in possession. She refused to take it, and the deponent then left it on a table in the house. He having explained the nature and object of the declaration, left the house, and the wife, taking up the declaration, threw it after him. He then picked it up and affixed it on the most conspicuous part of the premises.

PARKE, J.-That is sufficient.

Rule granted.

DOE d. WETHERELL V. ROE.

FOLLETT moved for judgment against the casual Service in ejector. The person making the affidavit on which the ejectment. motion was founded had gone to the premises in question, where he found the son. To him he explained the nature of the declaration, and left a copy of it with him. The son stated that his father was not at home, and would not return before midnight. He called the next day, and saw the wife of the tenant in possession. On inquiring of her about her husband, she stated that he had gone out, but she did not know where.

PARKE, J.-I think the affidavit states enough to entitle you to a rule to shew cause.

Rule nisi granted.

1834.

Hilary Term,

IN THE FOURTH YEAR of the REIGN OF WILL. IV.

Where security

for costs has

been given, the

defendant will not be entitled to fresh secu

JONES v. JACOBS.

IN this case the defendant had applied for and obtained a rule requiring the defendant to give security for costs. Sureties for costs to the satisfaction of the Master were accordingly given. These sureties afterwards became inties become in- solvent. A rule nisi was obtained that fresh security for costs might be given. Time was taken by the Court to consider whether the application could be granted.

rity if the sure

solvent.

PARKE, J.-I have consulted the other Judges, and we are all of opinion that this rule cannot be made absolute. We think, that, when once the sureties for costs are obtained, there is an end of the matter; and, therefore, that you cannot obtain fresh sureties, on the ground of the previous ones having become insolvent. The present rule must, therefore, be discharged. Rule discharged.

Foy's Bail.

Where one of STEER opposed bail, who attempted to justify for a

the bail put in

for a prisoner

justifies, time

must be grant

ed for justifying

prisoner, and one only justified.

Petersdorff, who moved to justify the bail, prayed that ther justified, it the Court would grant time to justify another in lieu of the

another; if nei

would not have

been necessary.

one rejected.

PARKE, J.-It is necessary that you should have time in this case, as one of the bail has justified. If both had been rejected, it might have been different.

Time given accordingly.