the terms of it be extensive enough.
See Tax, No. 1, 2.
9. If a statute expire, and afterwards
be revived again by another statute,
the law derives its force from the first.
Shipman q. t. v. Henbest, Mich. 31
Geo. 3.
109
3. And therefore the 21 Jac. 1. c. 4. ex-
tends to statutes made since, which re-
ib.
vives statutes made before.
4. 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 on the ground
of a misdemeanor. R. v. Harris, Hil.
31 Geo. 3.
202
5. An act of parliament, which is to
take effect" from and after the pass-
"ing of the act," operates by legal
relation from the first day of the ses-
sions. Latless v. Holmes, E. 32 Geo.
3.
660
6. The annuity act (17 Geo. 3. c. 26.)
ib.
is of this description.
7. Though the preamble of an act can-
not controul the clear and positive
words of the enacting part, it may
explain them, if ambiguous. Cres-
pigny v. Wittenoom, Trin. 32 Geo. 3.
STATUTES cited or commented upon.
3. c. 14. Exigent.-Outlawry 533, 535
3. c. 42. Attorney.-Suit
13. st. 1. c. 2. s. 3. Replevin
18. st. 1. Quia emptores
s. 6. Appeal.—Jurisdiction
809 32. c. 28. s. 1. Arrest-Imprisonment 556
c. 28. s. 13. Lords' Act-Discharge
231, 810, 867
8. c. 9. s. 35, 36, 40. Duty on apprentice
c. 44. s. 15. Hackney-coach
8. c. 33. Paving Shoreditch
12. st. 1. c. 18. Apprentice-Certifi
c. 10. s. 4. Augmented curacies
- c. 57. s. 2. Hackney-coach
-c. 24. Kennet Navigation--Toll
10. c. 23. Paving Mary-le-bonne-Rat-
- c. 44. s. 7. Hackney-coach
11. c. 29. Draining, &c. London
666 17. c. 18. River Thames-Tolls-Rate
543c. 26. Annuity. 463, 500, 585, 660,
22. c. 41. s. 1. Division-County 224,459
c. 47. s. 13. Lottery-Affidavit
Publishing proposals 414
23. c. 70. s. 30. Revenue officer-No-
tice
24. c. 25. s. 64. Mandamus-Informa-
c. 30. s. 7. Plea by a bankrupt
s. 28. Mutual credit
9. c. 35. s. 26. Revenue officers-Assault
-st. 2. c. 27. s. 8. Carts
25. c. 50. Game-Conviction
13. c. 18. s. 5. Certiorari
c. 19. s. 2. Horse-races
14. c. 6. s. 1. Outlawry-Conviction-
26. c. 31. s. 4. Ale-licences
c. 57. East India Judicature-bill 457
c. 60. s. 17. Registry of ships
c. 17. s. 4. Notice of Trial
16. c. 18. s. 4. Justices not voting at Ses-
26. s. 16, 17. Hawkers
c. 50. s. 10. Duties on
31. c. 21. s. 4. Game-Conviction
22. c. 28. Lottery-Penalty
25. c. 36. Advertising reward for
goods
Salter's Load Sluice Navigation
26. c. 6. s. 1. Quarantine
33. c. 22. s. 1. Carts-Penalty
c. 61.-Paving Upper Ground-street
See Assumpsit, No. 4. Rates.
TENANT.
See Ejectment, No. 3, 4.
See Pleadings, No. 6.
THAMES.
1. A. having let his house ready furnished
to B. cannot maintain trespass against
the sheriff for taking the furniture un-
der an execution against B. though no-
tice were given that the goods belong-
ed to A. because trespass is founded on
a tort done to the possession, which was
not in A. at the time. Ward v. Ma-
cauley, Mich. 32 Geo. 3.
489
2. Trespass will not lie in this country
for entering a house in Canada, be-
cause the cause of action is local.
Doulson v. Mathews, Hil. 32 Geo. 3.
503
See Pleading, No. 4, 5, 14, 18, 28.
See Rates, No. 1, 2.
TIME.
See Limitation of Time.
TITLE-DEEDS.
See Prohibition.
1. A claim of toll to be taken in specie
for goods sold in a market, is supported
by evidence of a right to toll for goods
brought into the market and there sold;
without shewing any right to toll for
goods sold in the market without being
brought there. Moseley, Bart. v.
Pierson, Mich. 31 Geo. 3.
2. A sale of goods in a market in such a
case, implies that the goods are actually
there.
ib.
3. Whether a right to take toll on goods
sold by sample in a market can be sup-
ported? Quære.
107
4. An action will not lie on the writ de
essendo quietum de theolonio until the
plaintiff's goods be distrained for toll.
Lynn Corporation v. London Corpora-
tion, Hil. 31 Geo. 3.
See Rate-poor, No. 3, 8, 9, 10.
TRAVERSE.
See Pleading, No. 4, 18.
See Certiorari, No. 6. Information. New
Trial. Practice, No. 29, 31, 33. Re-
venue Officer, No. 3.
Where the owner of goods on board
a vessel, directed the captain not to
land them on the wharf, against which
the vessel was moored, which he pro-
mised not to do, but afterwards deli-
vered them to the wharfinger for the
owner's use, under the idea of the
wharfinger's having a lien thereon for
the wharfage fees, because the vessel
was unloaded against the wharf, held
that the owner upon demand and de-
nial might maintain trover against the
captain, unless the latter could estab-
lish the wharfinger's right. Syeds v.
260
Hay, E. 31 Geo. 3.
See Assumpsit, No. 1.
1. Proof that defendant's boat run down
the plaintiff's in the half-way reach
in the Thames, will support an allega-
tion that the boat was run down in
the Thames, near the half-way reach,
in an action on the case for negligence;
because the place is not material:
Aliter if the place be material as where
a justification is local. Drewry v. Twiss,
558
Hil. 32 Geo. 3.
2. So where an action on the case was
brought upon an agreement that the
defendant would procure the plaintiff
a booth at the horse-race on Barnet
Common; and the declaration alleged
Barnet Common to be in Middlesex,
whereas it was in Hertford, yet held
to be surplusage, because it was im-
material to the agreement whether
Barnet Common lay in Middlesex or
Hertford. Frith v. Gray. Hil. 7 Geo.
3. An averment in a declaration of the
day of a formertrial must exactly agree
with the record to be produced in evi-
dence to support it; though it be laid
under videlicet. Pope v. Foster, E. 32
Geo. 3.
4. In an action against three on a pro-
missory note, two of whom are stated
to be outlawed, the third may take
advantage of the misnomer of his com-
panions upon the general issue; on the
ground of a variance between the con-
tract declared upon and that proved.
Gordon v. Austin, E. 32 Geo. 3. 611
5. Evidence of an agreement to deliver
goods to the defendant, is a variance
from a count on an agreement to de-
liver them to another person. Leery v.
687
Goodson, E. 32 Geo. 3.
6. An agreement declared on to sell oats
at so much per bushel, must be taken
to mean the Winchester bushel, and
will not be proved by evidence of an
agreement to sell by some other bushel.
Hockin v. Cooke, Trin. 31 G. 3. 314
See Inquisition. New Trial.
1. In the case of a private eleemosynary
lay foundation, if no special visitor be
appointed by the founder, the right of
visitation in default of his heirs devolves
upon the king, to be exercised by his
R. v. The Master and Fel-
great seal.
lows of St. Catherine's Hall, Cambridge;
E. 31 Geo. 3.
On this ground the king is the visitor
of St. Catharine's Hall, Cambridge;
and this Court refused to interfere by
mandamus to compel the master and
fellows to declare one of the fellowships
vacant, and to proceed to a new elec-
ib.
tion.
See Quo Warranto Information, No. 2.
1. If the borrower of money give a bond
for the principal and interest at five
per cent. and covenant at the same time
also to pay to the lender a certain por-
tion of the profits of a trade carried on
by him in partnership with another
person, this is an usurious contract,
and the obligee cannot recover on the
bond; for though he was to gain by
the profits, he was not to stand to the
losses of the trade. Morse v. Wilson,
Trin. 31 Geo. 3.
353
2. A memorandum indorsed on a bond,
which was conditioned for the pay-
ment of 1001. by quarterly payments
of 51. each, and interest 51. per cent.
"that at the end of each year the
year's interest due was to be added
"to the principal, and then the 201.
"received in the course of the year
was to be deducted, and the balance
"to remain as principal," was held not
to be usurious. Le Grange v. Hamil-
613
ton, E. 32 Geo. 3.
communication could not
have been made by way of instruc
for conducting his cause.
Kendrick, Mich. 32 Geo. 3.
3. But if any matter be disclosed to
attorney in the cause, pending
cause, he is not permitted to give i
evidence either in that or in any ot
action. Wilson v. Rastall, Trin.
Geo. 3.
4. It is the privilege of the client and
of the attorney.
5. But such privilege is confined to cou
sel, solicitors, and attornies, when a
ing in their respective characters.
6. A witness may be asked whether h
has not been in the pillory for perjur
R. v. Edwards, Mich. 32 G. 3. 44
7. Husbands and wives cannot in any cas
be witnesses either for or against eac
other. Davis v. Dinwoody, E. 32 Geo
1. On an appeal against a poor-rate be-
cause certain persons were omitted to
be rated, a parishioner, who is liable
to be rated, but not in fact rated, is 8.
a competent witness to prove the rate-
ability of the appellants. R. v. T.
Prosser, Mich. 31 G. 3.
17
2. An attorney is not restrained by any
rule of law from giving evidence of
a conversation between him and his
client touching the justice of his suit,
after a writ of inquiry executed on an
interlocutory judgment, and a com-
promise thereupon; for the purpose
of the suit having been obtained, the
In an action against a master for the
negligence of his servant, the latter
is not a competent witness to disprove
the negligence without a release. Green
V. The New River Company, E. 32 Geo.
See Evidence; Hand-writing.
See Attorney, No. 4; Practice, No. 21,
37, 38, 40; Toll, No. 4,
END OF THE FOURTH VOLUME.
G. WOODFALL, PRINTER,
ANGEL COURT, SKINNER STREET, LONDON.
|