proviso on which the question arises was introduced into this
statute, in order to protect the interests of those persons which
there was
no one of competent age, of competent under-
standing, or competent in point of residence in this country, to
protect. Now two of the plaintiffs in this cause have always
been resident here; and it was their duty to watch over those
interests in which they themselves were equally concerned with
the partner who resided abroad. It is admitted that one partner
may do several acts to bind the interests of all; he may release
as well as create a debt; he may also by his acknowledgment
take a case out of the statute of limitations; and I see no reason
why the same rule should not hold also in the present instance.
The third section of this act of parliament limits the time of
bringing actions on the case, in all cases, to six years after the
cause of action accrues; the plaintiffs therefore were bound to
commence their action at an earlier period, unless they come
within the exception in the last clause of the act, by which it is
enacted "That if any person or persons entitled to such actions,
"&c. be beyond the seas, then such person or persons shall be
"at liberty to bring the same actions, so as they take the same
"within such time as before limited after their return from be-
"yond the seas, as other persons having no such impediment
"might have done." Now the words of this clause, gramma-
tically speaking, do not apply to the present case; they only
extend to cases where the person individually, a single plain-
tiff, or persons in the plural, when there are several plaintiffs,
are not in a situation to protect their interests. Neither does
this case come within the policy of the law, which provides
that, if parties neglect their interests for such a length of time
as six years, they shall lose the benefit of suing to enforce their
demands. I am therefore clearly of opinion, both on the words
of the act of parliament, and on grounds of policy, that the
plaintiffs are barred by the statute of James.

ASHHURST, J.-The plaintiffs are not now entitled to recover on this bill of exchange, whether their case be considered on the words of the statute, or on the reason of the thing. The plaintiffs do not come within the words of the proviso, as my Lord has already observed; and this statute having been always considered as a beneficial law for the public, we ought not to extend the exceptions in it to a case which does not require it. It was competent to the plaintiffs, who resided in England, to bring the action, as well as to release it. And in construing

another

1792.

PERRY

against JACKSON.

1792.

PERRY against JACKSON.

another act of parliament (a), which requires ten days' notice of
trial where the defendant resides above 40 miles from London,
we have determined that if one of the defendants reside within
that distance, so long a notice is not necessary.

BULLER, J. declared himself of the same opinion.
GROSE, J. absent.

Postea to the defendants.

(a) 14 Geo. 2. c. 27. s. 3.

Friday,

Feb. 3d.

When a declara

tion is delivered before the essoign-day of a

to plead in the

four first days of

THE

66

DOUGHTY against LASCELLES.

HE declaration was delivered, as of Trinity Term, before the essoign-day of Michaelmas Term, with notice to plead term, with a rule within the four first days of the latter Term; within which time the defendant filed this plea, "and Lascelles Lascelles, who is "sued by the name of Sturdy Lascelles, in his proper person comes and pleads that he was baptized by the name of Las، celles, &c. without this that he was ever called or known by "the name of Sturdy," &c. The plaintiff, considering this plea in abatement as delivered out of time, signed judgment; in order to set aside which a rule was obtained on the authority of Brewster v. Capper, 1 Wils. 261. and 1 Bl. Rep. 51.

that term, the defendant cannot plead within that time in abatement without a special impar

lance.

Russell now shewed cause against this rule, saying, that Brewster and Capper was determined on the authority of Keilw. 93, b; which did not warrant it. But, even if it did, there is a later case cited in Jennings v. Webb (a), in which it was held, that when a defendant has the four first days of a term, subsequent to that in which the declaration is delivered, to plead, he must plead in abatement within the first four days as of the precedent term. But this plea is neither pleaded as of the preceding term nor after a special imparlance; and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to sign his judgment.

Holroyd, in support of the rule, relied on Brewster v. Capper as deciding this identical point. There the defendant pleaded in terms precisely similar to the present, which the Court said was a special imparlance for this purpose; though they added that if the defendant had pleaded" the aforesaid J. C." &c. it would have been bad, for that would have confessed that J. C. was the true name. And upon the same distinction was the case put in Keilw. 93, b. But even if the defendant was wrong, the plaintiff should have demurred, as was done in Brewster v. Capper, and not signed judgment.

(e) Ante, I vol. 278.

Sed

Sed per Curiam.-Such a plea as this can only be received after a special imparlance, which should be stated on the record: but that not appearing here, the plaintiff was entitled to sign judgment.

Rule discharged (a).

(a) Vid. Buddle v. Wilson, post. 6 vol. 369; and Blackmore v. Flemyng, post. 7 vol.

447, n.

1792.

DOUGHTY

against LASCELLES.

The KING against JOHN, JAMES, and JOSEPH

THIS

YANDELL.

Saturday,
Feb. 4th.

HIS was a writ of error, to reverse a judgment of out- In a record of
lawry.

outlawry it ap-
peared by the
[6 T.R. 573.]
writ of procla
return to it that

mation and the

were required to

selves to the

their bodies before the justices, &c. at the return

of held good. If

one exigent be

The record began with stating the commission under which the justices of oyer and terminer, &c. sat in Somersetshire, before whom an indictment was found against the prisoners the prisoners John and James Yandell, as principals for sheep-stealing, and render themthe prisoner Joseph as an accessory after the fact; which indict- sheriff, so that ment was in the common form, and was set forth at length. The he might have record proceeded as follows: “Which said indictment the said justices aforesaid, to wit, of the writ; and "at the delivery of the gaol of our said Lord the King, "the said county of Somerset, holden at the Castle of Taun- awarded against "ton aforesaid, in and for the said county of Somerset, on "said Thursday the twenty-seventh day of March, in the said gether, it is "twenty-eighth year of our said Lord the King, before the jus- the accessor ❝tices of our said Lord the King above named, and others their 25 Ed. st. 5. c. "fellows, justices of our said Lord the King, assigned to deliver apply to a Court "his said gaol of the county of Somerset aforesaid of the pri- of oyer and "soners therein being, by their proper hands, do deliver here gaol delivery. If it appear on "in Court of record in form of law to be determined, &c. the record that "Whereupon at the same session of oyer and terminer and the writ of pro

the

the principal and accessory to

error only as to

statute of

14. does not

terminer, and

clamation was delivered to the

sheriff three months before the return of it, it is sufficient, though it be not so expressly alleged. The writ of proclamation required the sheriff to proclaim the parties in open Court in the sheriff's county, (not saying county Court) and held good.

The sheriff need not allege in his return to the writ of proclamation that " the persons proclaimed did not appear, and render themselves;" though he must in his return to the exigent.

The names of the coroners need not be subscribed to the judgment of outlawry: if it appear on the record that the judgment of outlawry was given by them, it is sufficient.

It need not appear on a record of outlawry that the capias and exigent were sealed by the justices of oyer and terminer, &c.

If it be stated that the justices of our Lord the King were assigned by letters patent under his seal of Great Britain, it will be presumed to be the great seal.

A person outlawed on an indictment for sheep-stealing, is ousted of clergy by the 14 Geo. 2. c. 6. s. 1.j outlawry" being a " conviction," within the meaning of that statute.

gaol

1792.

The KING against YANDELL.

Capias issued.

Returnable at

66

gaol delivery of our said lord the king, holden at the Castle at "Taunton aforesaid, in and for the said county of Somerset, on "the said Thursday the said twenty-seventh day of March in the "said twenty-eighth year of the reign of our said lord the king, "before the same justices and others their fellows aforesaid, "the sheriff of the said county of Somerset by a writ of our said "lord the king, is commanded that he do not omit, by reason "of any liberty in his county, but that he take the said John "Yandell, James Yandell, and Joseph Yandell, if they shall "be found in his bailiwick, and them safely keep, so that he "have their bodies before the justices of our said lord the king "at the next assizes and general gaol delivery to be held for "the said county, to answer our said lord the king for the said "felonies whereof they stand indicted; at which said next asthe next assizes." sizes and general delivery, (to wit) at the assizes and general ❝session of oyer and terminer and general gaol delivery of our "lord the king, holden at the city of Wells in and for the county "of Somerset, on Monday the twenty-eighth day of July in the "twenty-eighth year of the reign of our sovereign lord George "the Third, king of Great Britain &c. before the Right Ho"nourable Sir James Eyre, knight, Lord Chief Baron of his ma"jesty's Court of Exchequer, Francis Buller, esquire, one of the "justices of our said lord the king assigned to hold pleas before "the king himself, and others their fellows, justices of our said "lord the king, assigned by letters patent of our said lord the king, "under his great seal of Great Britain, to the said Sir J. Eyre, ❝ Francis Buller, and others their fellows, justices of our said lord "the king, and to any two or more of them directed (of whom "one of them the said Sir James Eyre and Francis Buller, "amongst others, in the said letters patent named, our said lord "the king willed to be one) to inquire more fully the truth by "the oath of good and lawful men of the county aforesaid, and "by other ways, means, and methods by which they should or might better know (as well within liberties as without) by "whom the truth of the matter might be better known and in"quired into, of all treasons, misprisions of treason, insurrec66 tions, rebellions, counterfeitings, clippings, washings, false "coinings, and other falsities of the money of Great Britain, and "other kingdoms or dominions whatsoever, and of all murders, "felonies, manslaughters, killings, burglaries, rapes of women, "unlawful assemblies, meetings, and conventicles, unlawful ut"tering of words, misprisions, confederacies, false allegations,

66

"tres

66

1792.

The KING

against YANDELL.

ants not found.

"trespasses, riots, routs, retentions, escapes, contempts, falsities, negligences, concealments, maintenances, oppressions, cham"parties, deceipts, and all other evil doings, offences, and injuries "whatsoever; and also the accessories of them within the county "aforesaid (as well within liberties as without) by whomsoever "and in what manner soever done, committed, or perpetrated, " and by whom, or to whom, when, how, and after what manner, "and of all other articles and circumstances concerning the premises, and every of them, or any of them, in any manner "whatsoever, and the said treasons and other the premises, ac"cording to the laws and customs of England, for this time to "hear and determine, John Lethbridge, esquire, sheriff of the said "county of Somerset, doth return the said writ, directed to the "sheriff of the said county, thus indorsed; (to wit) "The within- Return defend. "named John Yandell, James Yandell, and Joseph Yandell, are "not, nor is either of them, found in my bailiwick. John Leth"bridge, sheriff of Somerset.' Whereupon at the said last-men"tioned assizes and general session of oyer and terminer and ge"neral gaol delivery of our said lord the king holden at the city "of Wells aforesaid, in and for the said county of Somerset, on "the said Monday the said twenty-eighth day of July, in the said "twenty-eighth year of the reign of our said lord the king, before "the said justices and others their fellows last above mentioned, "the sheriff of the said county of Somerset by another writ of our Alias capias. "said lord the king is commanded, as formerly he was command"ed, that he omit not, by reason of any liberty in his baili"wick, but that he take the said John Yandell, James Yandell, "and Joseph Yandell, if they shall be found in his bailiwick,

66

66

next assizes.

" and them safely keep, so that he may have their bodies before Returnable the "the justices of our said lord the king at the next assizes and ge"neral gaol delivery to be holden for his county, to answer to our said lord the king concerning the said felonies, of which they stand indicted; at which next assizes and general "session of oyer and terminer and general gaol delivery, to wit, "at the assizes and general session of oyer and terminer and ge"neral gaol delivery of our lord the king, holden at the Castle of "Taunton in and for the county of Somerset, on Friday the twen"ty-seventh day of March, in the twenty-ninth year of the reign "of our sovereign lord George the Third, king of Great Britain, "&c. before Sir William Henry Ashhurst, knight, one of the jus❝tices of our lord the king, assigned to hold pleas before the king "himself; Francis Buller, esquire, one other of the justices of ❝our said lord the king, assigned to hold pleas before the king ❝ himself,