Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Courts of Exchequer & Exchequer Chamber

The MAYOR, ALDERMEN, and BURGESSES of SWANSEA

v. HOPKINS.

THIS was a writ of error brought on the judgment of

the Court of Exchequer in the case of Hopkins v. Mayor, &c. of Swansea (a), and was argued by J. Henderson for the plaintiffs in error, and by E. V. Williams for the defendants in error. Their arguments were substantially the

same as those urged in the Court below.

Lord DENMAN, C. J., said that the Court were of opinion that the judgment ought to be affirmed; for, although they doubted whether any action could have been maintained at common law, upon the bye-law alone, they were of opinion that, by virtue of the provisions of the stat. 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 2, the plaintiff had a right enforceable by an action of debt against the corporation for the benefit he enjoyed before the statute under the bye-law, upon the principle laid down by Lord Holt, in 6 Mod. 27. The declaration was therefore good; and the Court were clearly of opinion that the plea was no answer to it, on the grounds stated in the judgment of the Court below.

Judgment affirmed.

(a) 4 M. & W. 621; where the pleadings and facts are fully set forth.

Exch. Chamber,

1841.

Exch. of Pleas, 1841.

MEMORANDA.

EARLY in Trinity Vacation, Sir John Campbell, Knight,
her Majesty's Attorney-General, was appointed Lord High
Chancellor of Ireland, and was created a Peer of the
United Kingdom, by the title of Baron Campbell, of St.
Andrew's, in the county of Fife.

Sir Thomas Wilde, Knight, her Majesty's Solicitor-General, succeeded to the office of Attorney-General.

At a later period of the vacation, the Lord Chancellor (Lord Cottenham) resigned the Great Seal, which was delivered to the Right Hon. Lord Lyndhurst, with the title of Lord Chancellor.

Lord Campbell resigned the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and was succeeded by Sir Edward Burtenshaw Sugden, Knight.

Sir Thomas Wilde resigned the office of Attorney-General, and was succeeded by Sir Frederick Pollock, Knight.

Sir William Webb Follett, Knight, was appointed her Majesty's Solicitor-General.

In pursuance of the act 5 Vict. c. 5, s. 19, empowering her Majesty to appoint two additional Judges assistant to the Lord Chancellor, to be respectively called Vice-Chancellor; James Lewis Knight Bruce, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., one of her Majesty's counsel, was appointed the first ViceChancellor, and James Wigram, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq.,

1841.

one of her Majesty's counsel, was appointed the second Exch. of Pleas, Vice-Chancellor, under the said act. They were subsequently sworn of her Majesty's Privy Council, and respectively received the honour of knighthood.

Early in the same vacation, William Whateley, of the Inner Temple, Esq.; Richard Godson, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq.; Sutton Sharpe, of the Middle Temple, Esq.; Charles James Knowles, of the Middle Temple, Esq.; Matthew Talbot Baines, of the Inner Temple, Esq.; and the Hon. James Stuart Wortley, of the Inner Temple, were appointed her Majesty's counsel; and Charles Austin, of the Middle Temple, Esq., received a patent of precedence, to rank next after Mr. Baines.

Later in the vacation, Alexander James Edmund Cockburn, of the Middle Temple, Esq., was also appointed one of her Majesty's counsel.

And John Vincent Thompson, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., was called to the degree of the coif, and gave rings with the motto-Nec ultrà nec citrà.

INDEX

TO THE

PRINCIPAL MATTERS.

ACTION ON THE CASE.

Right to set Dog-spears.
Declaration in case alleged, that the
defendant wrongfully and unlawfully
set and concealed a dog-spear, the
same being an engine calculated to do
grievous bodily harm, as well to the
liege subjects of the Queen as to their
dogs happening to run upon the same,
among the bushes near a public foot-
way, running through a close of the
defendant's; by means whereof a dog
of the plaintiff's, with which he was
going on foot along the said footway,
and which, by reason of a rabbit hav-
ing crossed the footway in his view,
had then, against the will of and un-
avoidably by the plaintiff, begun to
pursue and was in pursuit of the said
rabbit, ran upon the dog-spear and
was wounded, &c. Plea, that the de-
fendant set and concealed the said
engine for the purpose of preserving
his game, and of disabling and killing
dogs that might come upon his close,
lest they should pursue and destroy
the game, whereof the plaintiff had
notice:-Held, on general demurrer,
that this plea was a good answer to
the action; and that it would have
been so even without the allegation of
notice. Jordin v. Crump, 782

VOL. VIII.

AFFIDAVIT.

See PRACTICE IN REVENUE CASES.
Jurat.

Where an affidavit was sworn in
the usual way at a Judge's chambers,
but through mistake was not laid be-
fore the Judge, and therefore the
jurat was not signed by him, it was
held irregular, and an order obtained
upon such affidavit for a capias, and
all the proceedings thereon, were set
aside; although after some days (but
after the execution of the capias), the
affidavit was laid before the Judge,
and signed by him. Bill v. Bament,

AMENDMENT.

317

Under 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 23.
A declaration in ejectment laid the
demise on the 31st of October (with-
out mentioning any year). At the
trial, the lessor of the plaintiff proved
a title in himself on the 31st of Octo-
ber, 1840:-Held, first, that this was
not a variance between the declaration
and the proof, so as to empower the
Judge at the trial to amend the de-
claration under the stat. 3 & 4 Will.
4, c. 42, s. 23, by inserting the year:
secondly, that the omission was no
ground of nonsuit.

« Eelmine Jätka »

Books

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Courts of Exchequer ..., 8. köide