1858.

REGULA GENERALIS.

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 an 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)

CAMPBELL.

A. E. COCKBURN.
FRED. POLLOCK.
J. T. COLERIDGE.
WM. WIGHTMAN.
W. ERLE.

E. V. WILLIAMS.

Read in Court Jan. 30, 1858.

SAMUEL MARTIN.

R. B. CROWDER.
J. WILLES.
G. BRAMWELL.
W. H. WATSON.
W. F. CHANnell.
J. BARNARD BYLES.

1858.

MEMORANDUM.

In the preceding Vacation the following gentlemen were appointed Her Majesty's Counsel:- Evelyn Bazalgette, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn; John Shapter, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn; Samuel Bush Toller, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn; Thomas Webb Greene, Esq., of the Middle Temple; Francis Henry Goldsmid, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn; Richard Paul Amphlett, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn; and James Fleming, Esq., of the Middle Temple.

INDEX

TO THE

PRINCIPAL MATTERS.

Against Justice of the Peace for (1). Agreement of Reference-Re-

eleven and a fresh arbitrator to be appointed in pursuance of the power in the submission. Lord v. Hawkins, 55

(2). Matters in Difference-Mesne Profits-Where Action of Ejectment and all Matters in Difference referred.

of by the arbitrator. Smalley v. The Blackburn Railway Company,

158

(3). Compulsory reference-Power of Court to amend Particulars after.

After a cause has been referred to arbitration by a Judge, under the 3rd section of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, the Court has power to amend the particulars of demand. Gibbs v. Knightly,

34

(4). Extortion by Arbitrator-Action to recover back excessive Charge for Award.

Lands were taken by the defendants, a Railway Company, for the purposes of their railway. On the 27th of June, 1854, the owner of the lands brought ejectment to recover possession. On the 3rd of August the defendants executed a deed poll, under the 77th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, for the purpose of vesting the lands in themselves. At the trial, on the 8th of August, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to a reference of the action and all matters in difference between the parties to an arbitrator, who was to ascer-waite and Nixon, tain what sum should be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff as the price of, or compensation for the

Where a party to an arbitration is compelled to pay to a lay arbitrator an exorbitant sum in order to take up the award, he may maintain an action for money had and received to recover the excess beyond what is a proper remuneration for the arbitrator's services. Barnes v. Braith

ASSIGNMENT.

569

land of the plaintiff, the plaintiff Of Debt by Trader after Execution

thereby consenting to make and execute a conveyance, &c. The arbitrator made his award and directed that a verdict for the plaintiff should stand, and that a sum of money should be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff as the price of and compensation for the land of the plaintiffs, which the Company, at the time

of

of Deed of Arrangement.

See BANKRUPTCY, (3).

ATTORNEY.

(1). Authority of.

See EXECUTION.

pences of Witness.

of the making of the order of refer- (2). Liability of Attorney for Exence, had taken for the purposes the railway. The plaintiff having signed judgment, sued out a writ of possession, under which he took possession of the land, and afterwards brought an action for mesne profits. Held, that the question of mesne profits was a matter in difference between the parties which appeared by the award to have been disposed

A survey and valuation of the parish of E. had been made for the purpose of a poor rate: against which certain inhabitants appealed. The defendant who was an attorney and clerk to the parish officers, thinking it advisable that the valuation should be supported by the evidence of

ATTORNEY GENERAL.

256

another surveyor, with the authority | be arrested. (Dubitante, Bramwell, of the parish officers wrote to the B.)-Thirdly, that there was evivaluer to secure the services of a dence to go to the jury that the decompetent person for that purpose. fendant had authorized the arrest. The valuer communicated with the Collett v. Foster, plaintiff, an architect and surveyor, who, to qualify himself for giving evidence, examined the premises in respect of which the litigation arose, and afterwards gave evidence as to their value. The plaintiff entered his account in his ledger against the parish officers, and sent in his bill to them, but afterwards sued the defendant for the work thus done.Held, that the parish officers, and not the defendant who was merely their

Want of Consent of, where necessary
-Pleading or staying Proceedings.

See CHELTENHAM IMPROVEMENT
ACT, 1852.

BAILMENT.

See CARRIER.

agent, were liable to the plaintiff. Mandatary-Landlord volunteering

Lee v. Everest,

285

(3). Liability of Client for illegal

Arrest by Attorney.

to do Repairs for Tenant.

A well was let from year to year, neither landlord nor tenant being Trespass for false imprisonment. well being out of repair the tenant bound to repair the steining. The Pleas: Not guilty, and justification complained to the defendants, the under a ca. sa.. - Replication, to landlords, who sent in men to repair second plea.-That the ca. sa. was it. The well was destroyed by the irregularly obtained, and set aside for irregularity. It was proved at An action having been brought by negligence of the workmen employed. the trial that judgment having been the tenant to recover damages for entered up against the plaintiff, on a the injuries sustained by him. Held, warrant of attorney, for 607. given that the defendants were not necesto the defendant to secure the pay sarily responsible, but that it was a ment of a debt by instalments of which less than 207. were due, the question of fact for the jury what was the nature of the obligation incurred defendant's attorney caused the by them by reason of their interferplaintiff to be arrested under a ca. sa., ence. Mills v. J. E. Holton, J. Gorindorsed to levy 217. 10s. The deham and J. Barnard, fendant having been informed that the plaintiff had been arrested by a person who had joined in the warrant of attorney, wrote a letter in answer not denying that such arrest had taken place by her authority. The writ was afterwards set aside by order of a Judge.-Held, first, that the replication was proved.-Secondly, that the defendant was liable in trespass for the act of her attorney in improperly causing the plaintiff to

BANKING COMPANY.

14

(7 & 8 VICT. c. 113.) Judgment against Company-Regis tering to affect Shareholder.

Semble: That a judgment against a banking copartnership, established under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 113, cannot be registered so as to affect the estate