Page images
PDF

Llanverras, The King r. 603

Uoyd v. Wooddall, 29

qui tarn v. Williams, ii. 722, 792

Loane v. Casey, ii. 965

Long v. Dennis, 630

Lessee of, v. Laray, 265

e. Linch, ii. 740

Longhead on dem. of Hopkins v. Phelps,
ii. 704

Lord v. Cooke, 436

Lovegrove v. Bethell, 668

Lowe v. Jolliffe, 365

Lowndes v. Home, ii. 1252

Lucas, Lessee of, v. Fulford, 288

Luke v. Lloyd, 190

Luke r. Harris, ii. 1261, 1293

St. Luke's Middlesex, The King v. 553

Hospital, The King v. The Oc-
cupiers of, 249

MABER v. Massias, ii. 1072

Manby v. Wortley, ii. 1223

Markham, Lessee of, v. Cooke, 543

Marsden and Others, The King v. 579

Marsh v. Bower, ii. 851

Marshall's Case, ii. 912

Martin, The King v. 634; ii. 790

v. Podger, ii. 701

v. Kesterton, ii. 1089

Massen v. Touchet, ii. 706

Mash's Case, ii. 805

Mason v. Vere, ii. 1217,1309

Mast v. Goodson, ii. 848

Maxwell t>. Mayre, 271, 364

Mayre v. Coulthard and Goodwin, ii. 1230

Medhurst v. Waite, 350

Melchart v. Halsey, ii. 741

Methold, Lessee of, v. Noright, 290

Michael, (St.), Southampton, The King v.

ii. 718

Miller's Case, 451; ii. 881

Miller v. Taylor, a note relative to, 675

The King v. ii. 797

v. Seare, ii. 1141

Milward v. Caffin, ii. 1330

Mitchell v. Morris, ii. 1179

Mole, Lessee of, v. Thomas, ii. 1043

Molyneaux v. Scott, 376

Moncaster v. Watson, 402

Money and Others v. Leach, 555

Montacute (Lord) and Others, The King

v. 60

Montefiori D.Montefiori, 363

Moorhouse v. Wainhouse, 638

Moreau's Case, ii. 1205

Morgan and Others, The King v. 397

Morris v. Harwood and Pugh, 312, 320

v. Miller, 632

v. Reus, ii. 838

Morrison v. Kelly, 385

Mortis, The King v. ii. 733

Moses v. Macpherlan, 219

Motteaux v. St. Aubin, ii. 1133

Moulsdale v. Birchall, ii. 820

Murray v. Harding, ii. 859

Mylock v. Saladine, 480

NAUNTON, Lessee of, v. Leman, ii.993
Neal, Lessee of, v. Roberts, 476
Newby v. Reed, 416
Newman, Lessee of, v. Newman, 938

u.Goodman, ii. 1093, 1110

Nicholl v. Nicholl, ii. 1159

Nicol v. Verelst, ii. 1277
Nightingale v. Devisme, ii. 684

v. Nightingale, ii. 1274

Noden, Lessee of, v. Griffiths, 605
Norris ». Levi, ii. 1188

v. Waldron, ii. 1199

Norwich, The Mayor of, v. Berry, 636

v.Swann,ii.ll 16

Nottingham, The King v. 59

Nueys and Galley, The King v. 416

OATES, LesseeofMarkham,v.Cooke, 543

Ogilvie t>. Foley, ii. 1111

Oldfield v. licet, ii. 1001

Oldham v. Peake, ii. 959

Oldknow v. Wainwright, 229

Olding v. Arundel, 357

Onslow v. Home, ii. 750

Openshawe, The King v. 463

Over-Norton v. Salford, 433,455

Oxenden, Lessee of, v. Laurance, ii. 1259

PALLANT v. Roll, ii. 900

Parker v. Ansell, ii. 920, 963

Parsons, The King v. 392, 401

v. Lloyd, ii. 845

Paty, The King v. ii. 721

Paul, Lessee of, v. Paul, 255

Pawley v. Holly, ii. 853

Peale v. Watson, ii. 922

Pearson v. Meadon, ii. 903

Peckham and Clarke, The Kingu. ii. 1218

Pemberton, The King v. 230

Perkins, Lessee of Vowe, v. Sewell, 654

v. Kempland, ii. 1106

Perrin v. Blake, 672

Phipps, Lessee of, v. Allin, ii. 1041

Pick v. Clarkson, ii. 1318

Pickering v. Watson, ii. 1117

Pitt and Mead, The King v. 380

Pochin v. Pawley, 670

Poitier v. Croza, 48

Pole v. Jonson, ii. 764

Poole v. Peate, ii. 1206

Pope v. Vaux, ii. 1060

Portsmouth, The King v. The Overseers of,

395

Povey, Lessee of, v. Doe, ii. 892

Powel v. Litde, 8

, The King v. ii. 787

v. Milbank, ii. 851

v. Peach, ii. 1202

Preston v. Merceau, ii. 1249
Price v. Neale, 390
Puheney v.Townson, ii. 1227

Shirley v. Collis, ii. 940

Shorter v. Packhurst, 19

Showier and Others, The King v. 419

Simon v. Mettivie* or Motivos, 599

Simmons t. Shannon, ii. 725

Simpson (Sir Edward), The King v. 456

v. the Hundred of Ashwarden,

ii. 812

v. Stone, ii. 785

Small wood, Lessee of, v. Strother, ii. 706
Smedley v. Hill, ii. 1105
Smith v. Scandret, 444

e. Stotesbury, 204

v. Fraser, 192

on demise of Davis v. Saunders, ii.

736

Purnell (Dr.), The King v. 37
Pyeu. Leigh, ii. 1065

■ Lessee of, v. Bird, ii. 1301

Pyke v. Dowling, ii. 1257

Say v. Ellis, ii. 955

Sayre v. The Earl of Rochford, ii. 1165

Scott, The King v. 291, 350

v. Perry, ii. 758

v. Shepherd, ii. 892

QUANTOCK v. England, ii. 702 v. Shearman, ii. 977

Seaford, The King». The Justices of, 432
Selwin v. Selwin, 222, 251
Seton v. Sinclair and Others,^. 880
Sharpe v. Brice, ii. 942
Shaw, The King v. ii. 789
u.Tunbridge, ii. 1064

RADCLIFFE (Charles), The King v. 3

Rafael v. Verelst, ii. 983, 1055, 1067

Raines v. Nelson, ii. 1181

Ramsey v. Macdonald, 30

Rayment, Lessee of, v. Walford, ii. 938

Reed v. Harrison, ii. 1218

Reeve and Others, The King v. 231

Reynolds, The King v. 230

Rice ». Shuts, ii. 695

Richards v. Acton, ii. 1220

Richardson v. Morriss, ii. 1179

Ricord v. Bettenham, 563

Right, Lessee of Basset, v. Thomas, 446

Rispal, The King v. 368

Roberts v. Andrews, ii. 720
Robinson v. Bland, 234, 256

The King v. 541

Lessee of, v. Wharry, ii. 728

Roche r. Carey, ii. 850

Roe, Lessee of Noden, v. Griffiths, 605

on demise of Bendall v. Summerset,

ii. 692

on demise of Kaye v. Soley, ii. 726

on demise of Gray t>. Gray, ii. 815

on demise of Lee ». Ellis, ii. 940

on demise of Callowu. Bolton, ii.1045

on demise of Thome v. Lord, ii. 1099

on demise of Gilman e. Heyhoe. ii.

1114 3'

on demise of Bree «. Lees, ii. 1171

on demise of Aistrop v. Aistrop, ii.

1228 v

-— on demise of Pye r. Bird, ii. 1301
Rogers v. Holled, ii. 1039
Rolfe, Lessee of, t». Harwood, ii. 937
Rolls v. Barnes, 65
Ross v. Bradshaw, 312
Rowe 0. Hasland, 404
Rowning v. Goodchild, ii. 906
Rudge, The King v. 432
Ruffle v. Hitchaoock, ii. 1097

ST. DEVEREUX t>. Much-Dew-Church,
367

St. George's, Middlesex, The King ». The

Overseers of, ii. 694
St John c.The Bishop of Winton and Hill,

11. 930

St. Saviour's, Churchwardens of, v. Smith,
351

Salomon v. Gordon and Berrie, ii. 813
Sanderson t>. Baker and Martin, ii. 832
Santler v. Heard, ii. 1031
Satterthwaite, Less, of,». Satterth waite, 519
Saunders and Others v. Lowe, ii. 1014
Savage qui tarn v. Smith, ii. 1101

on demise of Ginger v. Barnardis

ton, ii. 904

v. Eyles, ii. 970

v. Parker, ii. 1230

Smollet (Dr.), The King r. 269
Snowdon v. Thomas, ii. 748
Soukby v. Hodgson, 463
Sowley v. Jones, ii. 725
Sparrow v. Naylor, ii. 876

■— ». Cooper, ii. 1314

Spelman's Case, 19
Spong v. Hog, ii. 802
Spraggs, The King v. 209
Spriggins, The King v. 2
Stafford, Earl of, w. The Bishop of Norwich,
Cambridge University, and Baker, ii. 881
Stationers' Company v. Carnan, ii. 1004
Stean v. Holmes, ii. 754
Stephen v. Coster and Others, 413, 423
Stevens v. Evans and Others, 284
Stevenson v. Snow, 315, 318

Lessee of, v. Noright, ii. 746

v. Hardie, ii. 872

Stiles on demise of Rayment v. Walford,

ii. 938
Stock v. Eagle, ii. 1052
Strithorst e.Grahrae, ii. 723
Strong v. Teatt, 200
Stuart v. Tucker, ii. 1137
Sulstonr. Norton, 317
Sutton v. Bishop, 665

v. Fenn, ii. 847

Swann v. Broome, 496, 526

Swift, Lessee of Neale, v. Roberts, 476

Symonds e. Parminter, 20

West Ridingof Yorkshire, the King t>. ii. 685

Weyhill, The King t\ 206

Wharfs, The Case of the London, 581

Wharton v. Gresham, ii. 1083

Wheatley, The King v. 273

Wheeler, The King t-. 311

v. Cooper, 603

Whitehead and the Bishop of Linclon t>. Wolferstan, 490

Whitmore, The King v. 37

Whitten and Wife v. Fuller, ii. 902

Wigan, The King v. The Inhabitants of, 47

The King v. The In-Burgesses of,

468

TALBOT v. Linfield, 450

Taiker, Lessee of, v. Burr, 596

Taunton Market, the Clerk to the Trustees of, v. Kimberley, ii. 1120

Tavistock, The King e. 635

Thome, Lessee of, r. Lord, ii. 1099

Thrustout on demise of Lerick v. Coppin, ii. 801

on demise of Barnes ». Craster,

ii. 826

on demise of Gower v. Cunningham, ii. 1046

TimbreU v. Mills, 205

Timmins v. Rowlison, 533

Timson and Another v. Noden, ii. 963

Tonson v. Collins, 301, 321

Torriano r. Legge, 420

Trinity v. St. Peter's, Dorchester, 443

Triquet r. Bath, 471

Trottr. Welsh and Swann, 392

Tyssen v. Clarke, ii. 891, 941

Tyte v. Steventon, ii. 1298

VANDEVALD, The King v. 212
Vane (Lord), The King v. 18
Varley, The King v. ii. 682
Vowe, Lessee of, v. Sewell, 654

UPPOM v. Sumner, ii. 1251,1294

WADDINGTON, Lessee of, v. Thrustout,

ii. 800
Wade v. Sogers, ii. 780
Waldron v. Norris, ii. 769
Walker v. Parkins, Administrator, 517

e.Giblett, ii. 811

v. Carter, ii. 816

Walkhouse v. Darwent and Larwood, 19
Walien qui tarn v. Holton, 233
Walpole St Peter's, The King v. 669
Walter r. Stuart, ii. 918
Waraker v. Gascoyne, ii. 1297
Ward, The King v. 386

v. Gansefi, ii. 735

, Lessee of, r. Bad title, ii. 763

Warman's Case, ii. 1204
Watkins «. Heydon, ii. 762
Watson v. Cox, ii. 1065
Webb, The King t>. 19, 460
Wellington t. Wellington, 645
Wells v. Watling, ii. 1233
West v. Eyles, ii. 1059
Weston v. Coulson, 506

Wightwick, Lessee of, c. Truby, ii. 944

Willet t>. Atherton, 35

Williams v. Vaughan, 28

The King v. 93

, Lessee of Johnson, v. Keen and

Morgan, 197

Wills c. Palmer, ii. 687

Wilson v. Sewell, Master of the Rolls, 617

v. Smith, 507

Wiltshire, The King v. The Justices of, 467

Wingfield, The King v. 602

Winn v. White, ii. 840

Winter*.Trimmer, 395

Winterborne, The King ti. 452

Witney, The King r. The Inhabitants of, ii. 709

Wood's Case, ii. 745

Wood qui tarn v. Ellis, ii. 1154

qui tarn v. Johnson, ii. 1157

qui tarn v. CafHn, ibid.

v. Chessall, ii. 1254

Wooden v. Boyntun, 50

Woolmer v. Muilman, 427

Woolston t>. Woolston, 281

Wright, Assignee of Scott, v. Campbell, 628

t). Page, ii. 837

, Lessee of, t>. Wright, ii. 889

v. Russell, ii. 923, 934

on demise of Allingham tr. Dowley, ii. 1185

Wyndham v. Chetwynd, 95

YATES v. Carlisle and Others, 270, 291
Young v. Lynch, 27

v. Hockley) ii. 839

Yeaw v. Holland, ii. 717

ZINCK r. Walker, ii. 1154

Zouch, Lessee of Abbot, v. Parsons, 575

[ocr errors]

OF

CASES.

MICH. TERM,—20 Geo. II. 1746.—KINGS BENCH.

Hankey V. Trotman. OTION for a new trial. Plaintiff was a banker; had a No new trial

where the verdict is neither

M

bill on defendant; for which the defendant gave him a bill on another banker, at twelve at noon, who stopped payment before Against evidence the next morning. The question was, Whether plaintiff or nor law. defendant should stand to the loss; or whether there was any Noh"Jebpr|"w laches in the plaintiff, who got the bill marked for acceptance f0, the receipt the same night. On the trial, the jury found a verdict for the of bills of exdefendant. chan«e

Sir John Strange, Sir R. Lloyd, and Mr. Ford, argued for the plaintiff, thatne endeavoured to receive the bill as soon as in the common course of business it used to be received; and that some time must be allowed for the circulating paper credit.

Mr. Hume Campbell and Stracey, contra, laid it down that a trading jury was the best judge of this case, and had not gone against law in this verdict, the law not having prescribed any time for receiving bills; and that the Court was not to interpose, unless the jury was manifestly wrong.

Per Cur. Lee, C. J.—I was of opinion for the plaintiff at the trial, though there was variety of evidence; but doubt whether the verdict can be set aside, as it is a question of *fact, whether there was convenient time allowed for receiving [ *2 ) the money.

Wright, J.—The jury is the proper judge of circumstances and facts. But the question here is, Whether the plaintiff had any time at all. Some time must be allowed: Therefore I doubt whether the verdict is not against evidence, imputing laches to the plaintiff where there was none.

Denison, J.—Both juries and Judges have been of different sentiments as to this point. The question is, Whether the

VOL I. B

//

« PreviousContinue »