2. So an entry of the receipt of money
by officers of a township from the of-
ficers of another township of a propor-
tion of church rates made in a parish-
book, is evidence to charge the latter
officers with the same proportion in
future. Stead v. Heaton, E. 32 Geo. 3.

669

3. And another entry, explaining the
proportions made on the same page, is
also admissible evidence.

4.

ib.

An allegation in an action for a false
return to a mandamus of a custom of
payment by the chapel-wardens of A.
to the churchwardens of B. may be
supported by evidence of a custom of
payment to officers acting only for the
township of B., not co-extensive with
the parish of B., but who have always
been described as the churchwardens
of B.

ib.
5. Contemporaneous usage may be given
in evidence in order to construe a char-
ter. R. v. Bellringer, Trin. 32 Geo.
3.
831
See Affidavit, No. 4,6; Attorney, No. 5;
Award, No. 12; Bastardy; Bills of
Exchange, No. 1; Covenant, No. 1;
Escape; Hand-writing; Jurisdiction,
No. 4; Libel, No. 2; Notice to quit;
Partners; Pleading, No. 14; Probate;
Settlement by Certificate, No. 2; Slan-
der; Toll, No. 1; Variance; Witness.

EXCISE.

EVIDENCE.

1. Where the right to the soil is in issue,
entries written in a book by the stew-
ard of a former owner, from whom
title is derived, of receipts of money
by the steward for that owner, as a sa-
tisfaction for trespasses committed on
the place in question, are admissible
evidence if the steward be dead. Bar-
ry v. Bebbington, Hil. 32 Geo. 3. 514

7

EXECUTION.

EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRA-
TOR.

1. A plaintiff cannot join in the same
declaration a cause of action, as exe-
cutor, with another which accrued in
his own right. Cockerill v. Kynaston,
E. 31 Geo. 3.
280

2. Where the goods of the testator never
were in the possession of the executor,
he must declare in that character. ib.
3. And

3. And whether the conversion happen
before or after the testator's death, if
the goods when recovered will be as-
sets in the hands of the executor, he
may sue for them in that character.

280
4. A count on a promise made by de-
fendant as administrator to pay money
received by him as such to the plain-
tiff's use, cannot be join d with other
counts on promises made by the intes-
tate. Jennings v. Newman. Trin. 31
Geo. 3.

347
5. Where executors pay a sum of money
on the testator's account, which they
need not have done, and afterwards
bring an action to recover it back
again, they must declare in their own
right, and not as executors. Munt v.
Stokes. Hil. 32 Geo. 3.

565

1. An action on the case for not repair-
ing fences, whereby another party is
damnified, can only be maintained
against the occupier, and not against
the owner of the fee who is not in
possession. Cheetham v. Hampson.
Trin. 31 Geo. 3.
318

FERRY.

1. An exclusive right to a ferry from A.
to B. does not prevent persons going
by any other boat from A. directly to
C. though it lie near to B., provided
it be not done fraudulently, and as a
pretence for avoiding the regular ferry.
666
Tripp v. Frank, E. 32 Geo. 3.

FINE.

1. When once the five years allowed to
an infant to make an entry for the pur-
pose of avoiding a fine begin, the time
continues to run notwithstanding any
subsequent disability. Doe d. Count
Duroure v. Jones. Trin. 31 Geo. 3.
300

2. Neither will subsequent insanity stop
the running of a fine once commenced.
Doe d. Griggs v. Shane. Mich. 28
Geo. 3. B. R.
306, n.

FISHERY.

1. There may be a prescriptive right in
a subject to a several fishery in an arm
of

457

INFANT.

See Fine. See Stat. 7 Ann. c. 19, 49.
1. An infant cannot pray the parol to
demur in any other stage of the pro-
ceeding than at the time of pleading.
Derisley v. Custance, Mich. 31 Geo. 3.
75

Sce Pleading, No. 20.

IMPRISONMENT.

See Arrest.

INDICTMENT.

1. Where a new offence is created by
an act, and a penalty annexed to it
by a separate and substantive clause,
it is not necessary for the prosecutor
to sue for the penalty, but he may in-
dict on the prior clause as for a mis-
demeanour. R. v. Harris, Hil. 31
Geo. 3.

202
2. Where two sets of magistrates have
a concurrent jurisdiction, and one ap-
points a meeting to grant ale licences,
their jurisdiction attaches, so as to
exclude the other appointing a subse-
quent meeting; though they may all
meet together the first day; and if
after such appointment the other set
of magistrates meet on a subsequent
day, and grant other licences, their
proceeding is illegal, and the subject
of an indictment. R. v. Sainsbury,
Mich. 32 Geo. 3.
451

INFERIOR COURT.
See Certiorari, No. 5, 6.

INFORMATION.

1. A criminal information having been
granted against the defendant, he be-
fore the trial at Nisi Prius distributed
hand-bills in the assize town, vindi-
cating his own conduct and reflecting
on the prosecutor's. This matter being
disclosed to the judge at Nisi Prius
by an affidavit, was held a sufficient
ground to put off the trial; and that
affidavit being returned to this Court,
they granted another information on it
against the defendant for such crimi-
nal conduct, considering the affidavit
taken at Nisi Prius as taken under the
authority of this Court. R. v. Jolliffe.
Trin. 31 Geo. 3.

285