1. The owner of a cart who does not
reside within the bills of mortality, or
within five miles of Temple-Bar, need 3.
not enter his name and place of abode,
with the commissioners of hackney-
coaches, or have his name or any num-
ber upon the cart, though it be driven
within those limits. R. v. Powell, Hil.
32 Geo. 3.
A certiorari to remove an indictment
of an excise-officer from the sessions,
was granted on the motion of the
Attorney-General, without any affi-
davit. R. v. Stannard, Hil. 31 G. 3.
The party prosecuting a certiorari to
remove a conviction, &c. must himself
enter into a recognizance with two
other persons, to prosecute it with ef-
fect, &c. by 5 G. 2. c. 19. s. 2. R. v.
Boughey, E. 31 G. 3.
281
4. A certiorari to remove a conviction
must, by 13 Geo. 2. c. 18. s. 5., be ap-
plied for within six months after the
date of such conviction.
ib.
5. Third persons cannot object to the
misdirection of a certiorari to remove
a cause from an inferior Court, if the
proper officers in whose keeping the
record was, wave the objection, and
return the record upon such writ.
Daniel v. Phillips, Hil. 32 G. 3. 499
6. Neither will the Court here quash
such writ, because the damages laid in
the record below, which was an action
of assault against excise officers, were
under 40s.; there being reason to be-
lieve that they could not have an im
499
partial trial below.
See Jurisdiction, No. 5, 6; Pleading, No.
23, 29; Usage.
CHOSE IN ACTION.
1. An assignment of a chose in action
need not be by deed. Howell v. Mac
Ivers, E. 32 Geo. 3.
690
2. Comments on choses in action per
Buller, J.
340
CHURCHWARDEN.
See Quo Warranto Information, No. 6.
1. A commitment on the 17 Geo. 2. c. 5:
(the vagrant act) must be a commit-
ment in execution, and is therefore
bad, if it merely state the charge and
order the party to be committed for
safe custody till the sessions, without
convicting the offender of the charge.
R. v. Rhodes, E. 31 Geo. 3.
220
2. Outlawry is a conviction within the
meaning of 14 G. 2. c. 6. s. 1., against
sheep-stealing. R. v. Yandell, Hil. 32
Geo. 3.
521
3. If a conviction under the 31 G. 3. c.
21. s. 4., which enacts, that all convic-
tions against that act may be made out
"in the form, or to the effect follow-
ing" (giving the form), contain all the
substantial parts of that prescribed, it
is good, though it also contain some-
thing more. R. v. J. Jefferies, Trin. 32
. Geo. 3.
767
4. Surplusage will not vitiate a convic-
ib.
5. Two persons cannot be convicted in
separate penalties under the 5 Anne, c.
14. s. 4., for using a greyhound to de-
stroy game. R. v. P. Bleasdale, Trin.
32 Geo. 3.
809
See Carts; Certiorari, No. 3, 4.
See Quo Warranto Information, No. 2;
See Correction, No. 1; Hackney-Coach-
1. One commoner, who has surcharged,
may nevertheless maintain an action
against another for surcharging the
common. Hobson v. Todd, Mich. 31
Geo. 3.
71
See Feigned Issue, No. 2.
1. Where a charter required that the
mayor and common clerk for the time
being, and the common council for the
time being, or the major part of them
should elect corporate officers, and di-
rected that the common council should
consist of thirty-six, it was heid, that a
majority of the whole number must
meet to form an elective assembly; and
that, if the corporation be reduced to a
smaller number than a majority of the
whole, no election of officers can be
had. R. v. Bellringer, Trin. 32 Geo.
810
2. But
2. But where a corporation consists of
an indefinite number, a major part of
the existing body are competent to
elect, and do other corporate acts. 822
See Quo Warranto Information.
8. A defendant in execution for the con-
tempt, and for the costs, on a quo war-
ranto information, may be discharged
under the Lords' Act. R. v. Pickerill,
Trin. 32 G. 3.
809
See Attorney, No. 1, 2; Executor ; Prac-
tice, No. 18, 47; Replevin, No. 2.
1. If defendant pay money into Court,
and the plaintiff afterwards proceed
to trial, when a verdict is given against See Witness, No. 3, 4, 5.
him, the latter is not entitled to the
costs up to the time when the money
was paid into Court. Stevenson v.
York, and Kabell v. Hudson, Mich. 311.
2. When the defendant pays money
into Court, which the plaintiff agrees
to accept, the latter must serve the
defendant with notice of an appoint-
ment before the Master to tax the
costs. Kabell v. Hudson, Mich. 31
Geo. 3.
ib.
3. If a sessions case be sent down to be
re-stated, and the prosecutor abandon
it when it is returned, this Court will
discharge his recognizance for the
costs; but if he dispute the amended
order, they will not. R. v. Inhabitants
of Edgeworth, Hil. 31 G. 3.
COUNTY-STOCK.
If a fine be imposed on a county,
which the justices at the sessions think
illegal, they may order the treasurer
to defray the expense of litigating the
question out of the county-stock. R.
v. Inhabitants of Essex, E. 32 G. 3.
218 See Division; Jurisdiction, No. 5, 6.
1. In covenant (which runs with the land)
evidence that the defendant is in as heir,
will support a declaration charging
him as assignee. Derisley v. Custance,
Mich. 31 G. 3.
4. If an executor declare on a trover and
conversion in the testator's lifetime,
and also on a trover and conversion
after his death, the evidence offered See Manor, No. 2.
being only applicable to the first count,
and he be nonsuited, he is not liable to
pay costs. Cockerell et Ur. Executrix
v. Kynaston, E. 31 G. 3.
277
5. But if a plaintiff name himself execu-
tor when he need not, and fail, he
shall pay costs: as where his declara-
tion states a cause of action due to him
personally.
ib.
6. On a feigned issue, costs follow the
verdict but qu. when the Court per-
mit parties to try a feigned issue,
Whether they will not compel them to
consent that the costs shall be in the
discretion of the Court? Hoskins v.
Lord Berkeley, Mich. 32 G. 3. 402
7. If a defendant pay money into Court
upon some of the counts only, and
the plaintiff take it out, the latter is
only entitled to the costs of those
counts. Baillie v. Cazalet, Hil. 32
G. 3.
2. The bankruptcy of the lessee is no bar
to an action of covenant (made before
the bankruptcy) brought against him
for rent due since. Auriol v. Mills, in
3. Neither is a seizure and sale of the
error, Mich. 31 G. 3.
94
lease under a writ of fieri facias or ele-
4. Nor a forfeiture by his attainder. ib.
git, against the lessee.
5. A. agreed to sell B. his estate for a
certain sum before a particular day;
in consideration whereof B. agreed to
pay that sum on the day, and on
failure to pay 214.; it was held, that
1. A custom to take a profit in alieno See Special Occupant.
solo is bad; such a right can only be
claimed by prescription. Grimstead
v. Marlowe. Trin. 32 Geo. 3. 717,
and Hardy v. Holiday.
E. 5 Geo. 3. See Insurance, No. 2.
718
See Evidence, No. 5. Pleading, No. 1. A. devised to his son B. for life, re-
mainder to trustees during B.'s life to
preserve contingent remainders, ne-
vertheless to permit B. to receive the
rents and profits, remainder to the
first and other sons of B. in tail-male,
remainder to C.; with a proviso that
if B. should succeed to the estate of
D. the limitation of A.'s estate to B.
should cease, and the next in remain-
der should take as if B. were dead;
B. succeeded to D.'s estate before he
had a son; held, that the limitation to
the trustees continued during the whole
of B.'s life so as to support the contin-
gent remainders. Doe d. Heneage v.
Heneage, Mich. 31 Geo. 3.
13
2. Under a devise "to A. for life, and
"after his decease to and amongst his
"issue, and in default of issue" then
over, A. takes an estate-tail. Doe d.
Blandford v. Applin, M. 31 G. 3. 82
3. In order to give effect to the devisor's
general intent, the Court will over-
look a particular intent inconsistent
his wife's death and after the yearly
payments to the annuitants out of his
whole estate to B. C. and D. equally,
share and share alike; held that the
executor took a fee. Doed. Beezley v.
Woodhouse, Mich. 31 Geo. 3. 89
5. 4. devised to B. preacher of the
meeting-house of C. for life, on con-
dition that he should convey the pre-
mises to trustees, to take place after
B.'s death, for the use and support of
the preaching the word of God at
the meeting-house for ever, and in
case the preaching there should be
discontinued, then over to a charity-
school; held, that B. took an estate
for life, though the devise over after
his death would be void by stat. 9
G. 2. c. 36. Doe v. Aldridge, E. 31 G.
3.
6. Issue is either a word of purchase or
limitation, as will best effectuate the
devisor's intention. Doe v. Collis,
Trin. 31 Geo. 3.
294
7. Therefore where A. devised his estate
to his two daughters, to be equally di-
vided between them, one moiety to
one and her heirs, and the other moiety
to the other for life, and, after her de-
cease, to the issue of her body, and
their heirs for ever, and she had one
child living at the time of the devise,
the second took only an estate for life,
with remainder to her children as pur-
chasers.
ib.
![[ocr errors]](https://books.google.com.co/books/content?id=MGkDAAAAQAAJ&output=html_text&pg=PA838&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&q=editions:UCM5320581273&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U0n-hXOVw8Zxh7eE9WV-LTpsfVe1w&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=147,1148,12,8)
![[ocr errors]](https://books.google.com.co/books/content?id=MGkDAAAAQAAJ&output=html_text&pg=PA838&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&q=editions:UCM5320581273&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U0n-hXOVw8Zxh7eE9WV-LTpsfVe1w&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=146,1170,15,8)
8. Under a devise to A. and his heirs,
but if he die without settling or dis-
posing of the same, or without issue,
then over, A. may settle the estate in
his lifetime, and defeat the limita-
tion over. Beachcroft v. Broom, Mich.
32 G. 3.
441
9. A. devised" to B. and the heirs of
her body, and for default of such
issue," then over; B. died in the
lifetime of A., and then A. by a
codicil confirmed his will: held, that
the heir of B. took nothing, though
it appeared that A. knew of the death
of B. and of the birth of her son be-
fore he made the codicil. Doe d.
Turner v. Kett, E. 32 Geo. 3. 601
10. The codicil operated as a republi-
cation of the will; and then it stood
thus: "A devise to B. and the heirs
"of her body;" but B. being dead,
the devise was void.
601
11. Under a devise "to A. and B. and
"their heirs, and in case they agreed
"to sell the estate, that they should
"have their equal shares of the mo-
ney arising therefrom; but if they
agreed to keep the estate whole to-
gether, then that the rents should be
equally paid and divided between
them, and to the several and respec-
"tive heirs of their bodies." A. and
B. took only estates tail. Roe d. James
v. Avis, E. 32 G. 3.
605
12. A. being seised in fee tail of an un-
divided fourth part of an estate, and
entitled to the reversion in fee of an-
other fourth expectant on the deter-
mination of an estate-tail, recited that
she was entitled to the first, and devi-
sed it to B. C. in fee; and then direct-
ed all the residue and remainder of
her estate and effects to be sold as soon
as might be after her death, and her
funeral expenses to be paid thereout,
and the overplus (if any) to be di-
vided between D. and E.; it was held
that the reversion did not pass by these
general words.
13. A. bequeathed money to trustees in
trust for B. till she should attain 21,
and then to pay the same to her; and
if B. should die under 21, leaving a
child or children, then in trust for
such child or children; but if B. should
die under 21, without leaving any
child or children, then in trust for C.'s
three nieces; B. attained 21, married,
had two children, and died in the life-
time of the testatrix; B.'s children
took nothing by the will. Doe v. Bra-
bant, Trin. 32 Geo. 3.
|