of his estate absolutely to A.; and by a testa-writ of summons; and the action being dementary paper of subsequent date, gives the scribed to be "promises," the word "on" residue to A. for life. Held, that the former being omitted, is not material. Cooper v. absolute gift is not revoked or altered. A Wheale . Page 133 bequest out of real and personal estate in 2. A plaintiff having lodged a writ of England, for the purpose of a foreign charity, detainer with the marshal, cannot, having disis held to be within the Mortman Act; but covered it to be irregular, declare it a nullity the Crown is not entitled thereto, as in case and issue a fresh writ. Gadderer v. Sheppard of a devise for a foreigner; sed quære. Brien v. Ferrier Page 257

WRIT.

1. The street and county in which a defendant resides, is a sufficient description, in a

493

3. The re-sealing of a writ makes it a new writ, and it is held to have been issued on the day on which it was re-sealed. Semble, that the Court of Common Pleas has no jurisdiction over an original writ out of Chancery, returnable in C. B., until it is actually returned to the officer of that Court. Foot v. Collins 495

Balson v. Meggat, 373
Barber, in re, 318
Beaumont v. Dean, 374
Bellamy v. Sabine, 83
Bishop v. Lee, 306

Blunt v. Beaumont, 103
Bond v. Woodhall, 374
Boucher v. Simms, 30
Boughey v. Webb, 182
Brien v. Ferrier, 257
Brixton v. Squires, 436
Brown v. Daubeny, 306
v. Jenks, 196
Bruges, in re, 305
Buxton v. Buxton, 164
Carson v. Dowding, 134
Casby v. Smith, 501
Chell v. Oldfield, 403
Clark v. Chetwode, 404
Cooper v. Wheale, 133
Cowper v. Jones, 324
Croad v. Harris, 436
Cromer v. Brown, 117
Cross v. Wilkins, 102
Danby v. Miles, 84
Darthez v. Lee, 469
Davis v. Lawton, 259

Doe d. Smith v. Hardy, 358
Smithers v. Roe, 486
Treal v. Roe, 100
Wicks v. Roe, 261
Wells v. Roe, 405
Winter v. Roe, 61
v. Roe, 30, 213, 258
Douglas v. Winn, 355
Drinker v. Pascoe, 389
Duckworth v. Fogg, 437
Dyer v. Levy, 323
Edwards v.

Chapman, 231

Edwards v. Danks, 375

v. Jones, 271

Ellis v. Attorney General, 481
Engler v. Twisden, 258
Evans v. Baker, 62

v. Delegal, 485

Fife v. Bruere, 310
Fletcher v. Greenwell, 47
Fogarty v. Smith, 274
Foot v. Collins, 495
Ford v. Leach, 231
Forster v. Kirkwall, 471
Frodsham v. Myers, 134
v. Round, 323

Gadderer v. Sheppard, 498
George v. Fry, 45

Gerothwohl v. Cochrane, 258
Gibbs v. Grant, 85

Giles v. Watts, 196
Gilmore v. Hague, 116
Gilson v. Carr, 389
Glover, ex parte, 85
Glynn v. Soarez, 227
Godfrey v. Green, 102
Goodricke v. Turley, 451
Gordon v. Twine, 355
Gould v. Williams, 28
Granby v. Frowd, 213
Grant v. Ramsey, 307
v. Willis, 196

Gray v. Withers, 404
Griffin v. Yeates, 309
Halls, ex parte, 273
Harding v. Rawlings, 231
Harris v. Mathews, 165
v. Griffith, 85

Harrison v. Almond, 165
v. Forster, 324

20

Names of Cases Reported.

The Table of Contents of Volume XI., and Index to the general matter, will be

included in the Supplement for June.

INDEX TO VOL. XI.

Exclusive of the Reports of Cases, for which see Digested Index,
ante, p. 521-534.

532

Digested Index to the Cases Reported.

over their amount, if he has received no
specific instructions from his client as to the
appropriation of the money. Harrison v. Ward
Page 29

6. The permission of a Judge before whom
a cause is tried, to apply to set aside the ver-
diet and enter a nonsuit, must be obtained be-
fore such an application can be made. Rick-
3. The Court has power only to order a
etts v. Bird
.. Page 259
bill to be taxed when it is between attorney
7. The sum indorsed on the writ of sum-
and client, and when it is for business trans-mons, being more than 20%., although that
acted in the Court, according to the statute claimed in the particulars does not amount to
2 Geo. 2, c. 23. Various matters, including so much, the Court will permit the plaintiff
common law and conveyancing charges, if ap- to amend the writ, so as to obtain a writ of
plying only to one transaction, should be in-trial before the sheriff. If the amount in-
cluded in one bill. Doe d. Palmer v. Rue 13 dorsed on the writ exceed 20/., the sheriff
4. The Court will not interfere so far with cannot try the cause. Frodsham v. Round
the Master's discretion, as to direct his report
to be reviewed, merely on a suggestion of the
amount allowed by him for certain witnesses
being too much. It would be otherwise, if
the objection were to a certain class of allow-
ances made by him. Day v. Withers .. 84
And see COSTS.

1. A defendant's attorney having tampered
with a jury, who had retired to deliberate on
their verdict, and the jury in consequence
being discharged and a new trial granted, the
Court will grant a rule calling on the defen-
dant's attorney to shew cause why he should
not pay the costs of the first trial. Denney v.
Garrett

229

UNDERTAKING.

323

1. A plaintiff having given an undertaking
to bring no action for matters appertaining to
a certain cause, and afterwards breaking the
terms of that undertaking, the Court will
grant a rule to stay proceedings. West v.
Stone

62

2. The Court will make the payment of the
costs of the last default of plaintiff in pro-
ceeding to trial, pursuant to his peremptory
undertaking, a condition precedent to the
drawing up of a rule for an enlargement of
his undertaking. Dennehaye v. Richardson 387

VENDOR AND PURCHASER.

1. In a conveyance of certain lands, sold
by the Crown under an extent from the ori-
ginal purchaser to a sub-purchaser, at a less
price, before any conveyance was made from
the Crown to the former, the Court will not
allow the name of the latter to be substituted
in the conveyance from the Crown for that of
the former, to save the expense of two con-
veyances, unless with the consent of all parties
concerned. Rex v. Rawlings
484

2. An agreement to sell crown lands may be
enforced, though the warrant from the Trea-
sury was not previously issued. An advowson
appendant to a manor belonging to the Crown,
will not pass by a conveyance of the manor.
Attorney General v. Sir G. Sitwell. . . 194

WILL.

2. In country causes, a plaintiff has the
whole term after that in which issue is joined,
to give notice of trial. Douglas v. Winn 355
3. In order to entitle a defendant to four- 1. Held, that a bequest of the residue of
teen days' notice of trial, it must be distinctly funds, consisting of stock and dividends,
shewn that he is permanently resident in Ire-" for such charitable or other purposes as
land. Leneham v. Goold
. 452 testator's trustees should think fit, without
being accountable to any person for such their
disposition thereof," is void for uncertainty.
Ellis v. Attorney General
. . 481

4. It is a positive rule, that the motion for a
new trial must be made within the four days.
Wheeler v. Whitmore
118

5. Two notices of trial, varying with one
another, having been given to the defendant,
and the cause being tried as undefended, the
Court will grant a new trial, without costs.
The defendant, although appearing personally,
must be held bound by the same rules as if he
appeared by attorney. Kerry v. Reynolds

118

2. Devise to A. B. as tenants in common;
one moiety to A. for life, remainder to his
lawful issue; but if A. shall not marry, or
have lawful issue who shall attain 21, then that
moiety to go to B. and his heirs in fee: Held,
that A. took an estate for life only. Lees v.
Mosely.
497
3. A testator, by his will, gave the residue