the affirmative that the verdict ought to stand. Bell v. Nangle, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 296, Q. B. The lessor of the plaintiff gave in evidence a lease of certain ground, bearing date the 4th of May, 1825, containing a clause of forfeiture in case same was not built on within four years, and proved the forfeiture. The declaration in ejectment contained two demises one upon the 5th of May, 1829, and the other upon the 1st of January, 1841. Upon the trial it was objected by the defendant that 12 years having elapsed a notice to quit or a demand of possession was necessary to entitle the lessor to maintain this action. Held that the lessor was not entitled to bring this action without a demand of possession at least. Johnson v. Russell, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 170. The defendant was put in possession by a brotherin-law of the lessor of the plaintiff, who lived in the same house with her, and tilled the lands, and the lessor of the plaintiff afterwards stated to the defendant, that "as the lands were to be canted, she was glad that he had got them sooner than any other person." Held that the ejectment could not be maintained without a previous demand of possession. Cashin v. Coady, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 298, C. P. If a grantor in a fee-farm reserving rent, and a right of re-entry to him, his heirs and assigns, assigns the rent to a third party, the condition is extinguished, and an ejectment cannot be maintained by the heir of the grantor on an entry for condition broken. Orr v. Stevenson, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 2, Ex. Ch. A demand of rent on which to ground an ejectment for condition broken at common law, must not be a demand of the whole arrear, but only a demand of a single gale; the re-entry and demand must be made at a particular time, namely, thirty days after the rent has fallen due. After that period, the right of entry, which accrued due, by the non-payment of the antecedent gales of rent, which now constitute the arrears, is gone, quoad those arrears, but it still exists, and is in force as often as any gale falls due, and remains unpaid. Ib. 6, note. [Per Pennefather, B.] Quære, is a right of re-entry at common law necessary to entitle a landlord to maintain an ejectment, under the ejectment statutes. Delap v. Leonard, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 473, Ex. Ch. In an ejectment on the title an agreement was given in evidence, whereby the defendant agreed to hold the premises for six years, which had just expired when the ejectment was brought, and by which he was to have the option of renewing for six years longer, and was bound to give six months previous notice, if he intended to give up possession at the termination of the first six years, which it appeared he did not give. Held, that the defendant was not entitled to a notice to quit. Thompson v. Andrews, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 285, Q. B. A notice to quit was given by the mother of the lessor of the plaintiff who was an infant, describing herself as his guardian and next friend. She was neither a guardian appointed by the Court of Chancery, nor a testamentory one. Held, that the infant could not give authority to her to act on his behalf, and, therefore, that the notice was insufficient to determine the tenantcy. Reade v. Kennedy, 1 Ir. Jur. 127, Q. B. Property had been devised, previously to her marriage, to a wife, for her life to her separate use. The marriage settlement did not affect the premises in question, but contained a covenant, on the husband's part, not to interfere with the management of the wife therein. The parties separated soon after the marriage. The defendant had never dealt with any other persons, in respect of the premises, than the wife and her agent, and had paid rent on the receipts of the wife. Held, that a notice to quit, sigued by the wife, and describing the holding as under herself, was sufficient. Dankert v. Wilson, 1 Ir. Jur. 141, Q. B. Upon the expiration of a lease for lives, which contained the following covenant-"That the lessor, his heirs, or assigns, upon the death or demise of the before named four lives, or cestui que vies, should, and would add, and insert to the time, or term of that demise, the natural life of such person, as should be nominated by the said lessee, his heirs and assigns, in the place, and in the stead of the said four lives, during which the said estate should be continued, in consideration that the said lessee, his heirs and assigns, should lay out, and E. G. took an absolute estate, quasi in fee, with an executory devise over to his brothers and sisters, in the event of his dying without issue, living at the time of his death, and E. G. died without issue. In an ejectment by the representatives of the persous entitled under the executory devise, against he alienee of E. G., after the death of the latter. Held, that a demand of possession was not neces-expend in building a dwelling house, upon the said ary. Geary v. Synan, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 509, Ex. A mortgage deed provided, that the mortgagees hould not be at liberty to take any proceedings ➡n foot of the mortgage debt, until they had given welve months notice. Held, that in an ejectment rought by the mortgagees, and by the assignees f the mortgagor, the absence of such notice could ot be relied on by a third person, who insisted n the title being vested in the assignees of the ortgagor. O'Brien v. Bernard, 6 Ir. L. Rep. - Q. B. Held, that outstanding tenantcies vested in deendants who suffered judgment by default, are no efence to an ejectment. Ib. Semble, a mortgagee cannot eject an elegit cretor, who, under the 3 & 4 Vic. c. 105, s. 19, bas premises, the sum of £200, within the period of four years next ensuing. An ejectment was brought, and the judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff, no evidence of the fulfilment of the condition having been given, and no demand of possession proved; subsequently to the trial, evidence of a substituted contract, which was performed, was discovered. Held, that a new trial should be granted, for the purpose of submitting the new evidence to the jury. Baker v. Harte, 1 Ir. Jur. 247, Ex. Held, that if the original contract, or the substituted one, were performed by the defendant, the lessor of the plaintiff could not sustain the ejectment without a demand of possession. Ib. Particulars of Demand.]-In an ejectment on the title, where the question was one of part and parcel, the court, upon the application of persons served with the ejectment, who were at a loss to know the particulars of the land sought to be recovered, made an order restraining the lessor of the plaintiff from proceeding in the ejectment, until he should furnish a bill of particulars, with a map annexed, and specifying by metes and bounds the premises which he sought to recover. Ross v. Ejector, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 25, Q. B. Defence.]-When separate defences are taken to an ejectment on the title, the court will order them to be consolidated upon terms. Gregory v. Archer, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 97, Ex. When the premises sought to be recovered by an ejectment are described in the declaration by one name (A.), and the person in possession claims them by another name (B.), the course for the person served is to take defence "for the lands of B. in the possession of the defendant, called in the declaration in ejectment the lands of A.” Earl of Listowel v. Ejector, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 313, Ex. A party cannot rule the lessor of the plaintiff to declare for lands in his possession until he has taken defence. 1b. According to the practice in Ireland a party served with an ejectment, and who takes defence is deemed to be in possession of the premises sought to be recovered by the ejectment, and it is not necessary to give at the trial evidence of his possession. Ib. A party whose interest has arisen subsequently to the service of the ejectinent will not be permitted to take defence. M Kiernan v. Shenkin, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 180, Ex. Where several parties have taken defence in an ejectment the court compelled them to consolidate their defences, and each of them to furnish the plaintiff with a bill of particulars of the lands for which he had severally taken defence. Boyle v. Ejector, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 220, C. P. In the absence of fraud the court will not, unless in very strong cases, set aside a defence to an ejectment on the title for matter arising subsequently to defence taken. Drought v. Murphy, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 113, Ex. Lands were devised to an infant, who with his mother, continued in possession of the premises from the time of the testator's death, and the trustees nominated in the will brought an ejectment against the mother, laying demises in their own names and in that of the minor, the court, under the circumstances, set aside the demise by the trustees in the minor's name, and gave him liberty to take defence to the ejectment by his mother and guardian. Foley v. Foley, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 235, Ex. If two defendants appear by the same attorney the court will dispense with the usual affidavit that the plaintiff's title to the entire premises is the same. French v. Cahill, Bl. D. & O. 241, Ex. [per Pennefather, B. Cham.] Judgment as in case of non-suit.]-If a party allow a conditional order for judgment as in case of a non-suit to be made absolute, he cannot afterwards object to the proceeding for irregularity. In ejectment the defendant may file a second declaration, and enter up judgment as in case of non-suit without entering a rule for liberty to proceed on giving a term's notice. Kenny v. Coffey, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 225, Q. B. The lessor of the plaintiff served notice of trial after defence taken; but before he had filed a second declaration, the cause was held to be at issue by the plaintiff's act in serving notice of trial, and after the lapse of three terms from the service of the notice, the court gave liberty to file the second declaration, and judgment thereon as in case of non-suit. Creagh v. Creagh, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 528, Ex. Judgment.]-The defendant, after service of the ejectment, but before defence, died; judgment was entered. The court refused to set aside this judg ment, and allow the widow of the deceased tenant to take defence before she had taken out adminis tration. Hastings v. Ejector, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 404, C. P. Habere.]-After verdict and before judgment the lessor of the plaintiff died. Held, that the judgment entered and habere executed thereon on behalf of the persons in whom the title of the lessor of the plaintiff was continued was not irregular, but that it should distinctly appear by affidavit that it was executed on behalf of the persons representing the title of the lessor. Newton v. Byrne, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 35, Ex. The execution of an habere will not be suspended for the purpose of giving a party an opportunity of filing a bill in a Court of Equity to sustain his rights. McDonald v. Lawton, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 303, C. P. Points saved at the trial were ruled with the plaintiff, and execution stayed for a fortnight at the instance of the defendant. But the court refused further to enlarge the stay of execution for the purpose of enabling the defendant to file a bill in a Court of Equity for an injunction to restrain the execution of the habere. Loughnan v. Loughnan, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 27, Ex. After an habere has been executed, returned and filed, the court will not in general grant a renewal of it, and the party applying should come in at the earliest opportunity. Lady Bandford v. Ejector, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 457, Q. B. L On the death of the lessor of the plaintiff, after the issuing, and before the execution of an habere, the court will grant a renewal of it. Lord Powerscourt v. Ejector, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 196, Q. B. The court will not permit an habere to be renewed unless there be a fraudulent or forcible repossession. Rowley v. Ejector, Bl. D. & O. 146, Ex. Evidence.]-A. the lessor, his title being admitted, proved a deed of 1792, whereby his father conveyed certain lands, of which those in the ejectment formed a part, to a trustee, in trust for the lessor, and B. his brother, for life with cross-remainders. B. died without issue in 1824, and receipt of rent by him up to that time from the defendant was proved. On cross-examination of one of plaintiff's witnesses it ap peared that upon several occasions the defendant shewed to the lessor an instrument under which he alleged he held the lands, and which the lessor at all times alleged to be a forgery; it also appeared that the lessor had in court that instrument, or some document connected with the defendant's title to nd, which he said was greatly obliterated. A to quit on the 1st of May, or at the end of six s from that day, had been personally served the defendant, and a demand of possession upon the 2nd of May, upon which the ejectvas brought. The judge who tried the case ed the jury, if they believed there was a lease er instrument in writing evidencing the tenantfind for the defendant, but if they should there was not, or that it was altered or oblitein a material part, to find for the plaintiff. that this direction was erroneous, there being dence to warrant any question being left to ry as to the existence of such instrument, or its obliteration or alteration if it did exist. v. McCarthy, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 157, Q. B. pton, J. dubitante.] d, the facts proved a tenantcy from year to and the receipt of the notice to quit by the lant without objection, although in the alter, was evidence of the determination of the ry upon the 1st of May, in the absence of all ce on the part of the defendant upon either of points. Ib Derson in possession of part of the lands sought evicted is an incompetent witness for the deit who had taken defence for all the lands in claration mentioned, although such person had served with the ejectment, and had not taken se, and judgment had been marked against the ejector. Purcell v. Donnelly, 6 Ir. L. Rep. Ex. lessors of the plaintiff having proved a lease, the ent of rent under it to them by the defendants, ced a deed made within twenty years of the ng of the ejectment, which recited, that A. being in fee in the premises in question had conveyed ee by a former deed to B., the conveying party lessors of the plaintiff in the deed produced, s deed both A. and B. covenanted with the lesf the plaintiff for quiet enjoyment. The lessors plaintiff having given no further evidence of rmer deed of conveyance from A. to B. Held, he defendants, setting up no title of their own, not rely on the recitals in the deed produced e lessors of the plaintiff, to show an outstandstate in A. Maunsell v. Curry, 8 Ir. L. Rep. Ex. ld, that proof of the determined lease and of ayment of rent under it to the lessors of the tiff is, until displaced, sufficient evidence of title reversion to sustain the ejectment. Ib. land agent of a landlord, under his directions, a notice to quit, on which the ejectment was ght The tenant at the trial produced a lease by the agent, and under which the tenant had tered as a freeholder, and the certificate of his try thereunder, kept in the landlord's office. that the tenant was bound to prove that the had a power of attorney to execute leases from andlord, and that such alleged adoption by the ford did not dispense with the necessity of such and that the judge was right in refusing to the lease in evidence. Lord Gosford v. Robb, L. Rep. 217, Q. B. he 104th section of the 6th W. 4, c.14. (BankruptEnacts, "that in actions by or against any person acting under a commission of bankruptcy no proof of the petitioning creditor's debt, trading or bankruptcy shall be required at the trial, unless notice be given that the party intends to dispute some of such matters." Held, that this section is applicable to ejectments. O'Brien v. Bernard, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 6, Q. B. Held, that where there are several lessors, they are not bound to give evidence of those distinct matters without notice, and that, though but one of them be the assignee of the bankrupt. Ib. Held, that such lessor need not appear upon the record to be assignee, if, at the time of taking de. fence to the ejectment, the defendant knew of the proceedings in bankruptcy. Ib. Held, that depositions by the defendant, in the bankruptcy, were admissible evidence of that fact. Ib. Held, that proof of outstanding tenancies, vested in defendants who suffered judgment by default, are no defence to an ejectment. Ib. New Trial.]-Ejectment on the title. The issue comprehended two questions, viz., a part and parcel and the attention of the judge was not directed to question, and of the existence of a cestui que vie, the 7 Wm. 3, c. 8, and the jury found for the defendant, without stating, or having been asked by counsel or judge on which of these grounds their verdict was founded. Coote v. O'Fallon, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 265, C. P. If a defendant have judgment of non-suit against him for non-appearance at the trial to confess lease, entry, and ouster, the court will not grant a new trial upon any terms, unless it clearly appear that MDonald v. Lawton, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 303, C. P. the defendant has a just legal defence to the action. Writ of Restitution.]-Seven persons applied for a writ of restitution, on the ground that they were dispossessed under an habere, and stated in their affidavit that their holdings formed no part of the premises in the ejectment, and were not pointed out to the view jury, who tried the case, as part of the premises sought to be recovered; and it was answered, that four of the tenants had since accepted new agreements, and that the other three were not dispossessed. They not occupying any part of the premises. The writ was refused. Wynne v. Swift, 2 Ir. L. Rep 159, Q. B. A writ of restitution will not be granted to a tenant who has lain by for a period of eight months after the execution of the habere, and permitted the landlord to repair, and re-let the premises, though the latter had obtained judgment on the ejectment, upon entering into a consent to execute a lease for three lives of the premises in question to the tenant. Martin v. Pierce, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 297, Ex. Security for Costs.]-See Costs. EJECTMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF RENT. Amendment.]-See AMENDMENT. Service.]-When a party cannot be served with the summons in ejectment, the court, upon a pro per affidavit, will deem service good by posting, &c., but it will not make an order to substitute service in ejectment cases. Earl of Derby v. Ejector, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 291, Q. B. The court will not make the order that the service be deemed good, unless it appears that person to be served could not be served, in consequence of his keeping out of the way to avoid it. Connolly v. Ejector, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 38, Q. B. Service on the parties in possession of the premises, the landlord of which was out of the jurisdiction, deemed good service, the court directing that the premises should be posted with a copy of the ejectment, notice, and order. Bourne v. Ejector, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 363, C. P. Service of an ejectment substituted on the cotrustee of a trustee residing out of the jurisdiction. Lessee of Gandon v. Ejector, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 367,C. P. The court-when all the parties to be served cannot be discovered, and every person interested, who could be discovered, was served, and also a receiver appointed, at the instance of the mortgagee of the lease sought to be evicted-will deem the service of an ejectment for non-payment of rent good service, the same having been posted on the premises, (in Dublin,) but the residence of the parties in Dublin must be negatived, and the exertion made to discover them particularly stated. Barclay v. Ejector, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 160. Q. B. Service upon the brother of the persons to be served, he admitting that he was aware of their residence, and declining to give the particulars, and he receiving the rent of the premises, and paying it to these ladies was deemed good. Lord Talbot de Malahide v. Ejector, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 114, Q. B. An application to the court that the posting of the premises, and service of the caretaker, may be deemed good service, negatives an intention of proceeding under the 15 & 16 Geo. 3, c. 27, as against an absconding tenant. Stewart v. Sisson, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 135, C. P. It is not necessary to make any application to the court previous to marking judgment against an absconding tenant. Ib. beneficial interest. Jack v. Gannon, Bl. D. & O. In an ejectment at common law for non-payment of rent, where a party could not be served with the suminons, the court deemed a service, by posting on the premises, and by service of the sum mons, and declaration on another person, who had the key of the premises, and who stated that she was authorised to let or treat for them good ser vice on that party. Doe v. Ejector, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 498, Ex. Where mortgagees reside out of the jurisdiction, the court will not hold service of an ejectment, for non-payment of rent good, upon their solicitor in an equity cause, although it was instituted to sell the lands, the subject of the ejectment, and was still pending. Lessee Macnamara v. Ejector, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 421, Q. B. In an ejectment for non-payment of rent, service on the receiver, over the premises, sought to be evicted. Held good service. Lessee Carroll v. Ejector, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 423, Q. B. Lodgment of Money in Court.]-The defendant tendered the lessee the rent reserved in the lease, but the lessors of the plaintiff refused to receive less than a penal rent reserved therein, the defendants were allowed to lodge in court the rent so tendered. Young v. Bell, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 217, Q. B. Declaration in Ejectment.]-In an ejectment for non-payment of rent, the second declaration must correspond with the copy of the declaration served upon the tenants, and any variance is fatal. Therefore, when the copy of the declaration which was served, described the premises as situated in the parish of St. Mary, and the second declaration The premises were held under a lease pur autre described of St. Mary's Lane, the plaintiff was nonvie. The lessee was dead. Held, that the defend-suited. Russell v. Thynne, 2 Jon. 733. ant in possession, who was duly served with the ejectment, could not object to the non-service of the heir at law, who could, under the circumstances, have title as special occupant only, and which title the evidence negatived. Rutledge v. Jennings, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 268. It is unnecessary to serve the assignee of a mortgage, under the lease, if he be not in possession, though the mortgage deed, and the assignment of it, were duly registered. Jack v. Macnamara, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 597, C. P. Service will be deemed good when a case of agency, by relationship or management of affairs, is made. M'Grath v. Ejector, Bl. D. & O. 146, Ex. The affidavit of service should be filed before the rules to plead are entered. Doe v. M'Egan, Bl. D. & O. 206, Q. B. One defendant may set up, as a defence at the trial, the non-service of another, having a legal or Lessors Title.-G. T. demised a house and premises from June, 1827, for 30 years, to G. H., in consideration of £1200 fine, and £500 per annum. G.T. brought an ejectment for non-payment of rent in 1838. The defendant gave evidence of a deed made between G. T., and G. H., dated 27th July, 1829, surrendering two drawing rooms, part of the demised premises, to G. T. It was executed by G. T. alone, and contained this proviso-"Provided always, nevertheless, and it is hereby declared, and agreed, by and between the said parties to these presents, to be the true intent and meaning thereof, and the same are upon this express dition, that nothing herein contained, shall in any manner prejudice, or affect the covenant, for payment of the said yearly rent of £500, or any covenant in said lease contained, on the part of the tenant, his executors, &c., or any of the clauses, con other ions, or agreements therein contained, or any remedies for the recovery of the said, or the ing of the said covenants, conditions, &c., on art of the said G. T.-but that the entire of id yearly rent shall still be, and continue le out of the same-and the said covenants, all be, and continue in full force, &c., as to residue of said demised premises, and not surrendered—and the said G. T. shall have like remedies for the recovery of said rent, forcing said covenants, &c., as if these prehad not been made any-thing." Held, that this of surrender did not operate to destroy the of re-entry, but that it alone, as taken in conn with the original lease, constituted an , minute, or contract, within the 25 Geo. 2, Thompson v. Home, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 179, Q. B. being possessed of certain premises, under a for thirty-one years, still unexpired, the rein fee of which belonged to B. agreed l agreement to permit and suffer B to take sion of, and occupy for the purpose of plantsmall portion of the demised premises, upon rms of the yearly rent reserved by the lease reduced to a certain sum agreed upon. The ed rent was paid for some time by A. Held, ais oral agreement amounted to a re-demise. v. Leonard, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 287. [Burton, J., nte.] Id, that by the operation of this re-demise, ndition of re-entry, at common law, was susd, and that no ejectment could be brought at on law for breach of this condition. Ib. ld, that a right of re-entry, at common law, ecessary to entitle a landlord to maintain an aent, under the ejectment statutes. Ib. [Pener, C. J., dissentiente.] lease containing the usual clause, empowering ssor to re-enter and distrain, in the event of ent remaining unpaid for the space of twentylays, after either of the gale days specified in, and providing, that in case there should e sufficient distress to satisfy the rent and rs, it should be lawful for the lessor to reand re-possess as of his former estate; and s proved that the rent was due for two years, one half at the last gale day. Held, that the r of the plaintiff was entitled to recover on a se laid after the last gale day, and before the ation of the twenty-one days. Kingston v. 1,5 Ir. L. Rep. 313, C. P. [Ball and TorJ. J., dubitantibus.] a sufficient distress on the premises to satisfy mble, it was not necessary to prove that there ent and arrear. Ib. emises were laid in the names of three of five arceners, and in the names of the husbands of of them; the lease proved at the trial was one the father of the co-parceners to the person r whom the defendant derived, but no deducof title from the father to the lessors of the tiff was proved. Payment of rent for three 5, prior to the ejectment, was proved to the co-parceners alone. Held, that such paywas sufficient evidence of title, as against persons, to maintain an ejectment for non t payment of rent. Hyndman v. Bailey, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 143, Q. B. A lessee who has demised for the same lives and years for which he holds the lands, cannot maintain an ejectment for non-payment of rent under the Irish Ejectment Statutes. Porter v. French, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 514, Ex. To constitute the relation of landlord and tenant, within the meaning of the ejectment statutes, there must be a reversion; and when there is no reversion an ejectment for non-payment of rent cannot be maintained. Ib. At the time of bringing the ejectment, the title of the lessor of the plaintiff, to a portion of the premises sought to be evicted, was for the same lives as were contained in the defendant's lease. Held, that as to so much of the rent as issued out of that portion of the premises, the plaintiff ceased to have a reversion, and that a verdict which passed for the entire of the premises, and for the whole of the rent, could not be maintained. Peacock v. O'Grady, 1 Ir. Jur. 363, Q. B. 1 & 2 Wm. 4, c. 31, s. 12.]—In proceeding under the 1 & 2 Wm. 4, c. 31, s. 12, it is not essential to the regularity of the proceedings, that the right of re-entry accruing in the term should be the first and only right of re-entry that has accrued, but the Act is applicable to such cases, though one or more previous rights of re-entry may have accrued before the term in which the ejectment is brought. Jones v. Ejector, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 574, Ex. Where the gale days were the 1st of November, and the 1st of May, the lease contained a clause of re-entry, if the rent should be twenty-one days in arrear; more than one year's rent was due in November, 1844, a further half year became due on the 1st of May, 1845. Held, that a right of re-entry accrued under the terms of the statute, on 22d of May, 1845, though a right also existed in November, 1844. Ib. Held, that the express contract of the tenant, giving the landlord a right to re-enter, if the rent were in arrear for twenty-one days, gave him a right of re-entry on the 22d of May, independently of the rule laid down in Keely v. Ahearn, Batty, 18 note. Ib. Held, that this statute applies to ejectments for non-payment of rent. Ib. [Richards, B., dubitante.] Held, that the objection on these grounds were 16. properly made before the defendant appeared. Particulars of Demand, 9 & 10 Vic. c. 3.]-A summons in ejectment contained the following notice-" The lessors of the plaintiff claim £84 10s. 94d., being for over one year's rent, up to the first day of November, 1846. The times at which same accrued due being as follows, that is to say up to November, 1846, £61 5s. 43d, balance of old arrear £23 5s. 44d. Held, that this was a sufficient notification within the terms of the 9 & 10 Vic. c. 3, of the particulars of the landlord's demand. Bowen v. Cleary, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 449. Ex. |