CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE COURT OF KING'S IN Michaelmas Term, In the Thirty-first Year of the Reign of GEORGE III. Regula Generalis. IT IS ORDERED, That the Clerk of the Rules of this Court shall, for the future, keep a Book, in which shall be entered all the Rules which, from Time to Time, shall be delivered out in Ejectments, instead of the present Book, containing a List of the Ejectments moved; in which Book shall be mentioned the Number of the Entry, the County in which the Premises lie, the Names of the nominal Plaintiff, the first Lessor of the Plaintiff (with the Words " and others," if there be more than one), and also the Name of the casual Ejector. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That unless the Rule of Judgment shall be drawn up and taken away from the Office of the Clerk of the Rules within Two Days after the End of the Term in which the Ejectment shall be moved, no Rule shall be drawn up or entered in the Book, nor shall any Proceedings be had in such Ejectment. 1790. JOHNSON against BANN. Wednesday, Nov. 10th. The stat. 13 Geo. 2. 6. 19. s. 2. having prohibited THIS action, which was brought to recover a wager of 51. on the event of a horse-race, was tried at the last Chester assizes; when, it appearing that the bet had been made on a horse-race for a smaller sum than 50l. it was objected by the defendant's counsel that, as the subject of the wager was illegal, the wager itself was than 50l. no bad in law; and the Chief Justice of Chester being of that opinion, horse races for a smaller stake action to recover a wager on such a race can be supported. Leycester [6 T. R. 499.] 1790. JOHNSON against BANN. Leycester now moved to set aside the nonsuit; contending, that as it was now determined, in Good v. Elliott (a), that wagers in general were legal, unless in some particular excepted cases; and as this wager did not come within either of those exceptions, the action might be supported. It is there said (b) that a wager is legal, unless it tend to a breach of the peace, or to immorality, or unless it affect the interest and feelings of a third person, or expose him to ridicule, or libel him, or unless it be against sound policy: now this wager is not void on either of those grounds. But Per Curiam. It is sufficient, without adverting to cases, to say that the horse-race itself is prohibited by statute (c); and as the race, which is the subject of the wager, is illegal, so also is the wager. Rule refused. (e) Ante, 3 vol. 693. (b) 695. (c) 13 Geo. 2. r. 19. 5. 25 Friday, Nov. 12th. WILLIAMS against PRITCHARD. Houses, built TRESPASS for taking the plaintiff's goods. Plea the general on lands em banked from the Thames, in pursuance of issue. At the trial at Guildhall, at the Sittings after last Easter Term, before Lord Kenyon, the jury found a verdict for 7 Geo. 3. 6. 37. the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of this Court, on the following which vests those lands in the owners, free from taxes, are case: The plaintiff's dwelling-house stands on the ground which was not liable to be formerly part of the ground and soil of the river Thames, enclosed and embanked in pursuance of 7 Geo. 3. c. 37. and paying the assessed to the general land tax imposed by ceived in gene to the act passed "for complet The house was built ral terms, and thereon after the making of the embankment. is subsequent in point of time regularly assessed in respect of his house to the land-tax, under thẹ land-tax act, 27 Geo. 3; and for nonpayment, the defendant dis trained in the regular way. The plaintiff, at the time of the assessment and distress, was neither the owner nor proprietor of the ground whereon his house is erected; but he occupied the house as tenant only. This case was argued in last Trinity Term, by Williams for the plaintiff, and by Lawes for the defendant. The Court took time to consider of the question; and now Lord Lord KENYON, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the Court. This question depends on the exposition of the statute 7 Geo. 3. e. 37. " for completing the bridge across the river Thames," &c. the 51st section of which (after enabling private persons to enclose and embank at their own expense, under the direction of the Mayor, &c. of London) enacts, that "the ground and soil of "the said river so to be inclosed and embanked in the front of $6 every such respective wharf or ground should vest, and the same was thereby vested in the owner or owners, proprietor "or proprietors, of such adjoining wharf or ground, according "to his, her, or their respective estates, trusts, or interests therein, free from all taxes and assessments whatsoever." And the question is, Whether this house, which has been built on soil recovered from the river, be liable to be assessed to the land-tax levied under an act passed since that time? It cannot be contended that a subsequent Act of Parliament will not controul the provisions of a prior statute, if it were intended to have that operation; but there are several cases in the books to shew, that where the intention of the Legislature was apparent, that the subsequent Act should not have such an operation, there, even though the words of such statute, taken strictly and grammatically, would repeal a former Act, the Courts of Law, judging for the benefit of the subject, have held, that they ought not to receive such a construction. In Bro. tit. "Parliament," 52, is this passage, “where a statute is that the merchant shall import bul"lion of two marks for every sack of wool exported; and then "another statute was made, that the merchant should not be "charged unless for the ancient custom only, this does not repeal "the first statute. Vi. Causam, ib. 4. Ed. 4. 12." And the reason is, that it clearly was not the intention of the Legislature that it should have that effect. So here, though (strictly speaking) the land-tax is an annual statute, and the words of the land-tax act, which was passed in the 27th year of this reign, are general and sufficiently large to subject these lands to the payment of the tax in question; yet, as the land-tax is one of the ways and means for raising the supplies every year, and is now become part of the constant resources of the country, the Legislature, in passing the 27 Geo. 3. could not intend to repeal the provisions of the 7 Geo. 3, which exempted these lands from the land-tax. Considering then that the Legislature did not mean to repeal this part of the 7 Geo. 3; considering also that this precise question 1790. WILLIAMS against PRITCHARD. |