II. Excessive.

2. Striking out unnecessary allega tions, 397 n. Demurrer, İ.

III. Unliquidated.

Partial loss on a valued policy, 66.
Insurance, I. 1.

IV. Interest on. App. xv. 77.

DATE.

I. Amendment of erroneous, 602. Amendment, I. 1.

II. Of rule of Court. App. xxv. 149.

DAY.

Fractions of, 816. Poor, IV. 2.

DEATH.

Signature of deceased attesting witness to lost deed, 642. Evidence, IV.

DEBT.

I. Simple contract.

Preferred to claim for dilapidations, 38. Dilapidations.

II. For rent.

1. Materiality and construction of allegation of period for which rent is claimed, 415. Time, I. 1.

2. Plea of payment when not necessary, 415. Time, I. 1.

DECLARATION.

I. General form when sufficient.

For diversion of water, 665. Water, I.

II. Allegations.

1. Period for which rent is claimed, 415. Time, I. 1.

In particular cases.

1. For nonpayment of monies pursuant to statute, 81. Action, II. 1.

2. On contract to pay for services and use best endeavours to procure a situation, or to pay a sum, 99. Contract, L

3. By husband and wife, on account stated, 659. Baron and Feme, II.

4. On a covenant in restriction of trade, 391. Trade, I. 1.

5. In covenant, by reversioner against assignee of lease of copyholds, 164. Mortgage, I.

6. On surety bond given to secure due accounting by borough treasurer, 295. Surety, II. 1.

7. For infringing copyright in registered paper hangings, 439. Design. 8. Against railway company for neglect to register transfer, and for illegal forfeiture of shares, 111. Company, IV. 1.

9. For wrongful removal of fixtures, 674. Deed, I.

IV. Rules and regulations.

1. Declaration when unnecessary. App. lxv. 5.

2. Several counts on same cause of action. App. lxxviii. 1. 3.

3. No side bar rule for time to declare. App. iii. 7.

V. In evidence. Evidence, X.

DEED.

I. Estoppel of parties to.

Tenant joining, in a different capacity, in conveyance of land and fixtures.

Trustees, seised under a devise in fee of a farm, leased to defendant, one of themselves, for a term, and after

wards, in the character of trustees only, conveyed the land to plaintiff in fee, with all fixtures: Held that defendant, being a party to the conveyance, could not, after the conveyance, under the general law or the custom of the country, remove, at the expiration of his term, farm machinery annexed to the land.

And that he was therefore liable to plaintiff, who had demised to M., in case for injury to the reversion, for removing staddles built into the land for the purpose of supporting ricks, and a threshing machine attached by bolts and screws to pillars fixed in the land, assuming that he might have removed them if they had been placed there by himself and he had not joined in the conveyance.

That a granary, resting by its mere weight on staddles built into the land, was a chattel, and would not be a fixture, in the ordinary sense of the word, though it might pass by that word if, from the rest of the conveyance, an intention appeared of comprehending farm machinery in general. But that, even then, plaintiff could not recover against defendant for carrying it away, either as for an injury to the reversion in the land, the chattel not being part of such reversion, or in trover, M. being entitled to the exclusive possession of the chattel. Wiltshear v. Cotterell, 674.

II. Consideration.

What not regarded as antecedent, 15. Bankrupt, I. 1.

III. Stamp.

Omission of part of purchase money, 54. Partition, I. 1.

IV. Loss.

Signature of deceased attesting witness, 642. Evidence, IV.

V. Inspection.

Who has such an interest in as to be entitled to inspection, 279. Evidence, I.

DEFAMATION.

I. Justification in criminal proceedings. 1. Previous publication not proceeded against.

Where a new trial is to be moved for by the defendant in a criminal case, intimation must be given to the Court, during the first four days of term, that the party is prepared to

move.

Where, to a criminal information for a libel, defendant has justified, under stat. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96. s. 6., asserting the truth of the imputations contained in the alleged libel, it is not competent to him to prove, in support of the plea, that the same charges were previously published in another publication, and that the prosecutor had taken no steps against such other publication. Regina v. Newman, 268.

2. Entry of verdict on failure of proof as to part.

Where a justification is pleaded, under stat. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96. s. 6., to an indictment for a defamatory libel, and the libel contains several distinct imputations, and the plea alleges the truth of all and is traversed generally, if the evidence fails as to any one of them the verdict will be entered generally against the defendant.

Therefore, where, upon the trial of an issue upon a plea justifying the whole of such a libel, evidence was offered in support of some only of the imputations, and the jury found that one only of the imputations upon which evidence was offered was proved, the verdict was entered up for the Crown on that issue generally; and the Court refused to grant a new trial on the ground that the finding as to the other issues upon which evidence was offered was against the weight of evidence.

Where the defendant, having pleaded such a plea, is convicted, the Court, in apportioning punishment, looks into the evidence given at the trial, for the purpose of considering whether the guilt of the defendant is

aavatel or mitigated by the plea and the evidence.

In such a case the defendant may, in mitigation of punishment, shew by alavis that, after the publication, tut before plea pleaded, information was given to him which, if true, would have supported an allegation in the piea evidence having been given, at the trial. to account for the non-production of proof, but no evidence in support of the allegation itself.

But, where a document, which would have supported the plea, has been rejected at the trial for want of authentication by the place of custody or otherwise, its contents are not admissible in confirmation of the defendant's own atidavit that such a document was communicated to him before plea pleaded. Regina v. Newman, 558.

3. New trial refused where verdict against evidence only as to part, 558. Ante, 2.

It is not a general rule of practice that, where the plea traverses an allegation in the declaration and the plaintiff demurs to the plea, he will be put to his election whether the demurrer shall be set aside as frivolous or the allegation be struck out: though this will be done if the plaintiff's pleading appear to be so framed as to entrap or unfairly perplex the defendant.

So held, before stat. 15 & 16 Vict. c. 76. Tallis v. Tallis, 397 n.

II. Rules and regulations. App. iii. 8.

iv. 14.-17. x. 40.

DENIAL.

Pleas in. App. lxxix. 6. 7. 10. 11. 15. 16. 19. 20.

DEPOSIT.

Ante, 2.

5. What may be shewn in mitigation, 558. Ante, 2.

6. Practice on motion for new trial, 268. Ante, 1.

II. Criminal proceeding; jurisdiction of justices.

Requiring sureties for good behaviour, 471. Action, IV.

DELAY.

Notice of proceeding after. App. xxix., 176.

DEMAND.

Particulars of demand. Particulars.

DEMURRER.

I. Setting aside as frivolous.

To immaterial traverse; election as to striking out allegation.

DESCRIPTION.

Such as to be commonly understood, 600. Municipal Corporation, III. 1.

DESIGN.

Protection of registered designs.

Lost by publication of unmarked patterns.

The proprietor of a design applied to paper hangings, registered according to the provisions of stat. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 100., published pattern pieces, containing the whole design, not bearing the letters "Rd" and the proper number, as prescribed by sect. 4: the ordinary practice in the trade was to sell hangings in larger pieces, but to mark patterns such as those which were published. Held, that he was not protected by the Act against parties copying the design from such pattern pieces, and publishing articles with such design applied to them.

Per Lord Campbell C. J. and Wightman J. Dissentiente Coleridge J. Heywood v. Potter, 439.

DETINUE.

Plea of non detinet. App. lxxxi. 15.

DEVISE.

1. Revocation by codicil.

General words in codicil explained by reference to the will.

E., being seised in fee of tithes and also of lands, devised the tithes to his nephew D., son of H.'s sister A., for life; but, if D. should receive ecclesiastical promotion to a certain amount, then to D.'s brother W. for life; remainder to the uses expressed concerning his real estate. He made certain pictures &c. heir looms, directing the inventory thereof to be deposited with the deeds concerning his "real estate." He devised all his "real estate, of what nature or kind soever, and wheresoever situate," to his niece M. for life, remainder to her sons successively in tail, remainder to W. for life, remainder to his sons in tail, remainder over to other nephews in like manner. He bequeathed a legacy to his wife, on condition of her executing a deed binding her to receive an annuity from the person who should for the time being be in the possession of his "real estate, under the limitation aforesaid," in lieu of her taking possession of the hereditaments settled on her by way of jointure.

He executed two codicils, in which he changed the order of the parties named in the disposition of his will to succeed in the entail of his "estates real and personal;" and he declared "all the estates left and disposed of by my will," to be without impeachment of waste, with power to cut timber for repairs of "buildings on the estate."

By another codicil, he devised all

kind soever," to H., son of M., in

lxxvi.

will," declaring that the devises in the

DISCHARGE.