Page images
PDF

of the Term.—3rdly, If it does not bear either of these relations, Selwih but must be considered as subsequent to the will, yet, as the use *■

*is instantly served on the tenant in tail himself, who did not ■

die till after its completion, it only marks the time when an [ *227 ] use, which before was executory, becomes actually executed. 1st, The-recovery relates to the deed of bargain and sale; so that the whole makes only one conveyance. Cases cited:— Lord Bath and Montague(f), Holfs argument: Ferrars and Curzon, Cro. Jac. 643 (g); 1 Mod. 108; Sir W. Pel/iam's Case, 1 Rep. 14 b, which is the first case, which clearly considered recoveries in the light of common assurances. 2dly, The recovery has relation to the first day of the Term. The Court cannot, ought not, to consider any thing but the record. The whole Term is but one day in law. Objection. The return of the praecipe is on the third return of Trinity Term, and judgment cannot be intended to be before the day of appearance. But parties if they please may appear gratis, before the return. Therefore, the only question is, if there are continuances on the roll, of which, and which only, the Court is bound to take notice. Standford and Cooper, Hetl.; Hutt.; Cro. Car. 102. The case excepted in the statute of frauds proves the general rule. There is a distinction between the continuance of process, and the continuance of the plea or suit. If the parties appear before the return of the writ, the plea may then go on without notice taken on the roll; but process must always be continued on the roll, from one return to another. Rainbow and Worrall, 2 Lutw. 1177; 1 Leon. 291. Entry of the return on the record is a mere marginal memorandum, and has no business in the body of the roll. 1 Lev. 130; 1 Sid. 213. Wynn and Wynn differs from this case in four points: but principally, because, as the party appeared by attorney, it was there necessary to set out the writ of summons on the record, which determined the time on the face of it. * This relation [ *228 ] can work no wrong, it being incident to tenant in tail to suffer a recovery, as much as to tenant in fee to make a feoffment (A). Sdly, It is objected to this doctrine (viz. that the recovery only executes an old executory use) that this is a new use vested in the testator by the completion of the recovery. But it is not so considered in Hudson and Benson, 2 Lev. 28, 1 Mod. 108. It is also said to arise out of another seisin, and therefore is a new use. But the seisin of the recoveror is not

(/) 3 Cb. Ca. 106. return day of the mmmoneas ad warran

Xg) Sir John Ferrers and Sir John tizandum, there the judgment relates to

Curson v. Sir Meh. Farmer and others: the day of the return of that writ. And

it is reported in 2 Burr, that the Court re- if the parties are alive at any time of the

peatedly expressed their approbation of return day, the recovery will be good;

this case. Shelley's Case, and Wynn v. Wynn; see

(*) When the vouchee in a common 5 Crui. Dig. 346, et seq.; Coventry's Rec.

recovery appears in person at the return 114. But the judgment cannot relate

day of the writ of entry, there the judg- back to a Sunday; see Simnn v. Broome,

merit relates to the return day of that pom, 496, 526.
writ: but if the vouchee appear at the
VOL. I. N

Selwin actual, but fictitious; not so much "as a seisin for an instant. "• Were it a real seisin, I concede, that it must be a new use.

y . ' „ '. i Vid. Montagu and Jefferies, Roll. Abr. (i). [The case stood]

over for farther argument, [but] the Court seemed to incline strongly for the defendant, on the footing of the double relation of the recovery, viz. to the bargain and sale, so as to make one conveyance, in point of substance; and to the first day of the Term, so as to become prior to the will, in point of date. But, in Trinity Term following, the Chief Justice declared, that the Court, as at present advised, could not consider the judgment in the recovery as prior to the return of the writ of pntry, and directed another peremptory argument, on the first paper day of next Michaelmas Term: — (which see after, Michaelmas,—1 Geo. 3, 1760, pa. 251).

(t) 1 Roll. Abr. 615, pi. 4.

[ocr errors]

Oldknow V. Wainwright.

S. C. e Burr. 1017.

A majority dis- (JN a special verdict, the question was, whether Segrave, the

election'of j.'s. town-clerk of Nottingham, was legally elected. There were

but vote for no- twenty-one electors present; nine of whom voted for Segrave;

body else: the eleven protested against him, without voting for any one else,

by^tnelnhiority ""^ one otner sa^> *^at " he suspended doing any thing."

i» good. It was argued by Mr. Caldecot, that this was such a negative

upon Segrave, that his election was invalid. Serjeant Hewit,

contra, in Easter Term last: and now, per tot. Cur. The

election is clearly good. The eleven protestant dissenters,

having voted for nobody, could not put a negative upon the

only man put in nomination: and Wilmot, J., cited K. and

Withers (a), H. 8 Geo. 2; K. and Boscawen (a), P. 13 Anne;

and Taylor and the Mayor of Bath(b), temp. Lee, C. J., to

shew, that, where a majority do nothing, but merely dissent,

they lose their votes (c). Crawford V. Powel.s

(a) Cited also in 2 Cowp. 537, and Votes given for a candidate after notice of

10 East, 217. his incapacity, are thrown away; R. v.

(4) Ibid, and 14 East, 558, n. (a). Hawkins, 10 East, 211; R. v. Bridge,

(c) See K. v. Monday, 2 Cowp. 5fl0. 1 M. & S. 76.

S. C. 2 Burr. 1013.

A. MANDAMUS had gone to Powel, to deliver over to Craw- Qu. if, on the ford the insignia (d) of the office of steward of Harwich, Corporation Act, Crawford being chosen his successor. Powel returns, that i^j"Vpro'.i.

—ti»-iii° «ii • i . i n bandi lies on the

Crawlord had not received the sacrament within a year before person elected? his election, according to the corporation act of Charles the 2d (e). Crawford brings this action against Powel for a false return. Verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court. *It appeared, that, by a subsequent statute, 5 Geo. 1 {/), the [ *280 j office, in such case, is made only voidable, and not void; and that only by a prosecution commenced within six months after the election; and no such prosecution was had in this case. Therefore the Court held the return to be frivolous and immaterial, and that no action would lie upon such a return; but that a peremptory mandamus should have been moved for. And therefore, the main question, viz. Whether the onus probandi lies upon the person elected, never was argued in this case(g).

(<f) R. v. Owen, 5 Mod. 314; R. v. In- since 5 G. 1, the election being not void,

gram, ante, 50. but voidable, in case of a removal or pro

(<•) 13 Car. 2, st. 2, c. 1, s. 12. See It. sedition within six months, which had not

v. Smith, 3T. R. 573; R. v. Brown, lb. been in this case, the plaintiff's election

n. (4). stood confirmed and became absolute: and

(/) C. 6, s. 3, and see Marten v. Jen- he distinguished it from the case of Tufton

kin, 2 Stra. 1145, and 2 Cowp. 539, per v. Nevinson, 2 Ld. Raym. 1354, where the

Lord Mansfield. plaintiff, being out of possession, brought

(g) But it appears from the report in a mandamus to swear him into office, and

2 Burr. 1013, that judgment was given it was held to be incumbent on him to

for the plaintiff, thereby shewing it was prove, that he had received the sacrament

not necessary for him to prove that he had as required. See Powell v. Milbank, post,

taken the sacrament within the time pre- 851, and next case, scribed: and Lord Mansfield said, that

The King V. Pemberton.

S. C. 2 Burr. 1035.

j\tOTION to quash an indictment for exercising the trade of Exemptions a tanner, contrary to the 5th of Elizabeth (A). There is a sta- from a penal law

»i. Ar, i ■ i , , c .!■ mav be given m

tute, 1 Jac. 1, c. 22, which exempts tanners trom this prosecu- evidence on Not tion, in several circumstances; and this motion was grounded Guilty; and the on the omission in the indictment, to set forth the negative of nesative "eeA

- , . . .. ,P not be set form

those several circumstances; as in convictions on the game m tbe inajct. laws it is necessary to set forth, that the defendant had not ment. 100/. per annum;—was not the eldest son, &c.(i). The Court

(A) C. 4, s. 31, which act, Lord Ellen- (») Though it is necessary to negative

borough said, was to a considerable degree in the conviction the several qualifications,

defunct; 3 M. & S. 190: and this section yet it is not necessary to disprove them by

is now expressly repealed by 54 Geo. 3, evidence; but the onus probandi lies on

c. 96, s. 1. the defendant, to prove, if he can, that he

The Kino

Pemberton.

held, that exceptions of this kind are to be taken advantage of in evidence on Not Guilty, and therefore refused to quash the indictment {k).

is qualified; R. v. Turner, 5 M. & S. 206.
The same rule applies to actions on the
game laws; the plaintiff must aver the
want of qualification in his declaration;
per Lord MansfeU, 1 T. R. 144; per
Heath, }., 1 B. & P. 468. On a convic-
tion for selling ale without a license, the
informer is not bound to produce evidence
to negative the existence of a license; the

defendant must shew his license, if he has one; R. v. Hanson, 1 Paley on Convictions, by Dowling, 45, from the Editor's MS. note. See also R. v. Marsh, 4 D. 8c R. 260, 2 B. &C. 717.

(*r) See 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 25, s. 115; and R. v. St. George's, Hanover Sqaare, 3 Camp. 222; and the preceding case.

Defendant removing an indictment by certiorari without good cause, cannot be admitted in/ormd pauperis.

The King V. Reynalds.

DEFENDANT was indicted at Hick's Hall, and removed the indictment, by certiorari, into the King's Bench; and now moved to be admitted to defend in formd pauperis, on the usual affidavit. But the Court held, that this was not within the statute (I), but was merely a case at common law, and therefore discretionary in the Court:—that there might be instances in which a certiorari might be necessary, as for an impartial trial, and then there could be no objections to admitting the defendant in formd pauperis. But where he voluntarily removes it himself, without any cause shewn, he shall not put the prosecutor to an extraordinary expence, and keep himself clear by being admitted a pauper (m). He shall not be vexatious, merely because he is poor. Serjeant Hewit, who made the motion, withdrew it.

(0 11 H. 7, c. 12.

(m) But the Court in its discretion will allow a defendant in a misdemeanor to defend in formd pauperis, where the indictment has not been removed by certiorari: because, if the defendant be convicted, he is not liable to pay costs to the prosecutor; R. v. Wright, Ca. temp. Hardw. 211, 253, 2 Str. 1041. But in civil actions, he is never permitted to defend in formd pauperis, because he is liable to the plaintiff for costs, and the provision of 11 H. 7, c. 12, only extends

to plaintiffs; Anon. Barnes, 328 (8vo. ed.); Hull. Costs, 229 (ed. 1810). It may be therefore inferred, that a defendant on an indictment removed by him by certiorari would not be allowed to defend in formd pauperis, inasmuch as he is obliged by 5 W. & M. c. 11, to enter into a recognizance to pay costs to the prosecutor.

A defendant may plead a pardon in formd pauperis! R. v. Morgan, 2 Str. 1214; but will not be admitted so to defend on an attachment for contempt; R. v. Pearson, 2 Burr. 1039.

[ 231 ]

Attorney, sued in a foreign Court, and lying by for a long time, waives his privilege.

Hern V. Howard.

.DEFENDANT was an attorney of Common Pleas, and was sued in King's Bench, by bill of privilege, supposing him an attorney of this Court, which his son actually was. The plaintiff, after serving him with notice of a declaration, and signing judgment by default, found out his mistake; but defendant's son, in order to gain time, assured the plaintiff, that his father ■would take no advantage of it; which induced the plaintiff to stay two Terms, in hopes of receiving his debt. But now, on the plaintiff's giving notice to execute a writ of enquiry, defendant moved to set aside the judgment for irregularity. And upon shewing this whole matter for cause, the Court thought that, by lying by so long, the defendant had waived his privilege (»); and therefore discharged the rule for shewing cause, with costs.

f Oliphant's Case, about ten years ago,

1 was cited for the defendant.

Hern

Howard.

(») For he ought to have taken advantage of that by plea in abatement; the rule at that time being, that where a defendant, attorney of one Court, is sued by process out of another Court, he must plead his privilege in abatement, and if arrested, must put in special bail; Lane v. Sailmarsh, 2 Salk. 544; Mayor of Basingstoke v. limner, 2 Stra. 864; Snee v. Humphrey), 1 Wils. 306; Crossley v. Shaw, post, 1085: but if he be arrested by process issuing out of his own Court, then he may be discharged upon motion, and if arrested, upon filing common bail; Redman's Ca., 1 Mod. 10; Wheeler's Ca., 1 Wils. 298. But that distinction does not now exist: for if an attorney be sued in a fureigu Court, such Court will stay proceedings, or discharge him on entering a common appearance, without putting him to plead Ilia privilege; Tidd's Pr. 219 (ed.

1821). An attorney defendant waives his
privilege, when he is sued, by not claim-
ing it in due time; Crossley v. Shaw, post,
1085: and loses it when sued en outer
droit; Gage's Ca., Hob. 177; Newton v.
Rowland, 1 Salk. 2, 1 Ld. Raym. 533;
or jointly with his wife; Robarts v. Mason,
1 Taunt- 254; or indeed with any other
person not having privilege; Branthwaile
v. Blackerby, 2 Salk. 544; even though
the nature of the action be several, as
trespass; Pratt v. Salt, 5 Bac. Abr. 619,
Privilege, (B) 3. But he does not lose it,
if he be sued by bill jointly with a person
having privilege of Parliament; Ramsbot-
tom v. Hareourt, 4 M. & S. 585: nor when
sued as acceptor of a bill of exchange;
Comerford v. Price, 1 Doug. 312; nor
when sued as a magistrate; Duffy v. Oakes,
3 Taunt 166.

The King V. Reeve, Morris, Osborne, et al\

S. C. 2 Burr. 1040.

IVIOTION for a certiorari to remove convictions before Mr. Certiorari canMoneypenny, a Kentish justice, on the statute 22 Car. 2 (o), TMtabebtak^n against conventicles (the defendants being methodists) and also gTneraifbutonly the proceedings on the appeal to the Quarter-Sessions, pur- by express, ncsuant to the directions of the statute, which orders such ap- sative wordspeal to be final, and that no other Court shall interpose.

Norton, Stowe, and R. Leigh, argued, that the power of this Court to grant a certiorari was not taken away by these words. That all inferior jurisdictions are under the inspection of this Court, whose power can't be taken away, but by express negative words: Dr. Fosters Case, 11 Rep. (p); Smith's Case, 1 Vent. 68 (a).—That, the objects of this act being only persons above sixteen, and natural born subjects of this kingdom, if the defendants should prove not to be such, they are not the

[merged small][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »