1792. The KING against BELLRINGER. when it took place there was not a major part of the select body then in existence. Judgment for the King. Tuesday, June 26th. If a bond and warrant of attorney to con SHERSON against Oxlade. THE defendant having given the plaintiff a bond and warrant of attorney to confess a judgment, for securing an annuity, the latter entered upon judgment, but did not insert that judgcure an annuity, ment in the memorial; on which ground fess a judgment be given to se and the judgment be entered up before the memorial is the registered, the judgment need not be inserted in the memorial Erskine and Bower obtained a rule to shew cause why the judgment, and the execution thereon, should not be set aside, contending that the judgment was an assurance, which ought to have been registered under the annuity act 17 Geo. 3. c. 26. Russel shewed cause against the rule. It is not necessary to register more than the securities given by the party himself, which are the acts of the party. Now here the only acts of the defendant were the executing the bond and warrant of attorney; the entering up the judgment is the act of the grantee; and that in many cases is not done till the memorial is registered. If it be necessary to register the judgment, it is equally necessary to register the execution: but that was never contended for. Neither is it within the reason of the act, which required the memorial of the annuity deeds for the purpose of notoriety; for a judgment is sufficiently notorious without it. The requisites of the statute do not apply to a judgment; for the act requires the names of the witnesses and other formalities to be set forth, which shews that the Legislature only looked to private instruments usually authenticated in that manner. Per Curiam.-This is not one of the assurances which the Legislature intended should be inrolled. The contract for the annuity was made by giving the bond and warrant of attorney to enter up judgment. Those were the securities on which the party relied; and the act is complied with by registering all the securities given by the parties. This will sufficiently answer the purpose of notoriety; for every person may see, by referring to the memorial, that the plaintiff was at liberty to enter up judgment whenever he pleased. If the memorial had been made immediately after the execution of the bond and warrant of attorney, the judgment could not have been inserted in it. Then whether a matter shall or shall not be registered, cannot depend depend on an act which is to be done afterwards. If indeed the only security had been a judgment actually entered up, perhaps it would have come within the provisions of the act: but the assurances of this annuity were the bond and warrant of attorney. 1792. SHERSON against OXLADE Rule discharged (a). («) Vid. Davidson ▼. Foley, 3 Bro. Ch. Cas. 598. MACDONALD against BOVINGTON. Wednesday, bill sued the execution; the obtained his the lords' act, who, after pay sued the accep tor, and charg ecution, which THE HE plaintiff drew a bill of exchange for 201. on the de- The holder of a fendant, which the latter accepted; and which afterwards acceptor, and got into the hands of Thompson, who recovered against the de- charged him in fendant, as acceptor, and charged him in execution. The de- latter having fendant having obtained his discharge under the lords' act in that discharge under suit, Thompson then sued this plaintiff as drawer, and recovered the holder then the amount of the bill; on which the plaintiff sued the defendant, sued the drawer, on his acceptance, and charged him in execution. It was con- ing the bill, tended, on a rule to discharge the defendant out of custody, that he had satisfied the debt by being charged in execution at the ed him in exsuit of Thompson, and that he was not liable to be sued again for was held to be the same sum. But Lord KENYON, Ch. J. said, Nothing could be clearer than having been that this was not a satisfaction of the debt as between these parties, though it was as to Thompson. That it was a mere satisfaction, even to the holder, not like actual payment. this plaintiff, having been obliged to pay the amount of the bill since the defendant was charged in execution at the suit of Thompson, had a right to have recourse to this defendant as acceptor; for that, by his payment, a new cause of action arose against the defendant, which he might enforce without regard to what passed in the former action. regular; the defendant's charged in execution, at the formal holder, not suit of the That faction as between the draw being a satis BULLER, J.-The consequence of the defendant's not being liable in this action would be this: That because the drawer was obliged to pay the holder of the bill, the acceptor would be discharged without paying either. Bower in support of the rule. Mingay, contrà. Rule discharged. er and acceptor. [2 B. & P. 61. 3 East. 254. 2 Camp. 443.] THE END OF TRINITY TERM. AGREEMENT. An insolvent assigned over his effects See Variance, No. 2, 5, 6. ALIEN. The son of an alien father and English ALE LICENCES. 6. When a defendant, who has suffered AGENT. See Indictment, No. 2; Jurisdiction, No. 1. ALLEGATION. AMENDMENT. The Court will not give leave to 1. Fraud will vitiate any transaction, 39 2. If an agent, employed by the indor- 177 3. Secus, if at the time of employing the Amendments upon informations are 4. The Court will not amend a mandamus |