REGULÆ GENERALES. EASTER TERM, 1857. IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs suing in contract for £20 or less, may, if they claim costs, indorse on the writ of summons the following notice :— "Take notice, that if judgment be signed for default of appearance, the plaintiff will without summons apply to a judge for his costs of suit, unless before such judgment you shall give notice to him, or his attorney, that you intend to oppose such application." And it is further ordered, that if the defendant give such notice, the plaintiff shall proceed by summons and order. But if the defendant give no such notice, the plaintiff may produce such indorsement to a judge at chambers for an order for costs, ex parte, and if the judge shall sign his name to the indorsement, such signature shall be an order for costs, and the master may tax them thereon accordingly. In case of any application for costs without such indorsement, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to more costs than if he had made such indorsement, unless a judge shall otherwise order. ENTRY OF SATISFACTION ON JUDGMENTS. Upon a satisfaction piece duly signed and attested in accordance with the 80th Rule of Hilary Term, 1853, being presented to the clerk of the judgments of the Masters in the Court in which the judgment has been signed, he shall file the same and enter satisfaction in the judgment book against the entry of the said judgment, and no roll shall be required to be carried in for the purpose of entering satisfaction on a judgment. CAMPBELL, A. E. COCKBURN, April, 23, 1857. E. V. WILLIAMS, REGULA GENERALIS As to Claims on Bills of Exchange, &c. HILARY TERM, 1858. WHEREAS by the Rule of Michaelmas Term, 1855, with respect to indorsements on writs issued under the Bills of Exchange Act, 1855, it was, amongst other things, ordered "that no other claim than a claim on a bill of exchange or promissory note should be included in writs under the Summary Procedure on Bills of Exchange Act, 1855.” And whereas it is expedient that the said rule should be explained and amended. It is hereby ordered, that where a defendant obtains leave to appear according to the said act, and enters appearance to any such writ according to the said Rule of Michaelmas Term, 1855, the plaintiff may include in his declaration, together with a count on the bill of exchange or promissory note (as the case may be), a count upon the consideration, if any, between the plaintiff and defendant for the bill of exchange or promissory note, and deliver a particular of demand accordingly. (Signed) Read in Court, January 30, 1858. CAMPBELL, A. E. COCKBURN, J. T. COLERIDGE, E. V. WILLIAMS, W. F. CHANNELL, This rule still leaves the addition, in the declaration, of counts upon causes of action other than the consideration, between the parties, for the bill or note, an irregularity, in the nature of a variance after a special indorsement upon an ordinary writ of summons; and this it only profits a defendant to complain of in cases, where he has a good defence to the count on the bill, and is therefore entitled, in the event of his succeeding thereon, to ask for the general costs up to declaration, whatever may be the event of the issues upon the other counts. See as to amendments, Knight v. Pocock (17 C. B. 177); Leigh v. Baker (2 C. B., N. S. 367). An Act to enable the Courts of Law in England, Ireland, and Scotland to issue process to compel the attendance of witnesses out of their jurisdiction, and to give effect to the service of such process in any part of the United Kingdom. [10th July, 1854.] WHEREAS great inconvenience arises in the administration of justice from the want of a power in the Superior Courts of Law to compel the attendance of witnesses resident in one part of the United Kingdom at a trial in another part, and the examination of such witnesses by commission is not in all cases a sufficient remedy for such inconvenience: be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: 1. If, in any action or suit now or at any time hereafter depending in any of Her Majesty's Superior Courts of Common Law at Westminster or Dublin, or the court of session or exchequer in Scotland, it shall appear to the court in which such action is pending, or, if such court is not sitting, to any judge of any of the said courts respectively, that it is proper to compel the personal attendance at any trial of any witness who may not be within the jurisdiction of the court in which such action is pending, it shall be lawful for such court or judge, if in his or their discretion it shall so seem fit, to order that a writ, called a writ of subpœna ad testificandum, or of subpoena duces tecum, or warrant of citation, shall issue in special form, commanding such witness to attend such trial wherever he shall be within the United Kingdom, and the service of any such writ or process in any part of the United Kingdom shall be as valid and effectual to all intents and purposes as if same had been served within the jurisdiction of the court from which it issues. See Harris v. Barker (L. J. 25, Q. B. 98, Bail Court). 2. Every such writ shall have at foot thereof a statement or notice that the same is issued by the special order of the court or judge, as the case may be; and no such writ shall issue without such special order. 3. In case any person so served shall not appear according to the exigency of such writ or process, it shall be lawful for the court out of which the same issued, upon proof made of the service thereof, and of such default, to the satisfaction of the said court, to transmit a certificate of such default under the seal of the same court, or under the hand of one of the judges or justices of the same, to any of Her Majesty's Superior Courts of Common Law at Westminster, in case such service was had in England, or in case such service was had in Scotland to the Court of Session or Exchequer at Edinburgh, or in case such service was had in Ireland to any of Her Majesty's Superior Courts of Common Law at Dublin; and the court to which such certificate is so sent shall and may thereupon proceed against and punish the person so having made default in like manner as they might have done if such person had neglected or refused to appear in obedience to a writ of subpoena or other process issued out of such last-mentioned court. 4. None of the said courts shall in any case proceed against or punish any person for having made default by not appearing to give evidence in obedience to any writ of subpœna or other process issued under the powers given by this Act, unless it shall be made to appear to such court that a reasonable and sufficient sum of money to defray the expenses of coming and attending to give evidence, and of returning from giving such evidence, had been tendered to such person at the time when such writ of subpoena or process was served upon such person. 5. Nothing herein contained shall alter or affect the power of any of such courts to issue a commission for the examination of witnesses out of their jurisdiction, in any case in which, notwithstanding this Act, they shall think fit to issue such commission. 6. Nothing herein contained shall alter or affect the admissibility of any evidence at any trial where such evidence is now by law receivable, on the ground of any witness being beyond the jurisdiction of the court, but the admissibility of all such evidence shall be determined as if this Act had not passed. |