Vacher v. Cocks Van Casteel v. Booker V. 1 B. & Ad. 145 2 Exch. 691 Vandenheuvel v. United Insurance Com-} 1 Johns. U. S. Rep. 406 pany Vaux's Case 4 Co. 44 a 315 315.442 - 740 - 155 Wilkinson v. Fairrie 10 Co. 65 a 9 Bing. 382 10 C. B. 919 - 273 . 228 7 How. St. Tr. 79 Cowp. 754 3 De G. F. & J. 107 3 B. & P. 559 6 C. B. N. S. 784 6 M. & G. 965 228 - 154 281 Willesden, Overseers of, v. Paddington, 3 B. & S. 593 Overseers of Williams v. Carwardine v. Jarrett v. Millington v. Mostyn v. Pritchard Willion v. Bartley Wilson v. Anderton v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company v. Liverpool, Overseers of Wilton v. Dunn 4 M. & W. 145 4 T. R. 2 Plowd. 223 1 B. & Ad. 450 9 C. B. N. S. 632 - 366 - 30 - 231 488, 498 Com-128 L. J. C. P. 242; 5 Jur. N. S. 5 -J1104-5; 6 C. B. N. S. 336 - 823 "Anderson's Case." In col. 3, for "327," read “525. 527." CORRIGENDA. Page 110, note (b), for “ Brown & L. 167," read "Brown. & L. 253." 121 note (b), for "Brown. & L. 289," read "Brown. & L. 253.” 126, line 6, for "p. 494," read "491,” and note (a) for "404" read "484." 151, first note (a), for " p. 427," read "85." The second note (a) should be (c), 153, line 21, for "pactise," read “ practise." 155, line 3 from bottom, for "Reg. v. Edwards," read "Rex v. Edwards.” Id. last line, for "Rex v. Drury," read "Reg. v. Drury." 156, line 14, for Rex v. Archer," read "Reg. v. Archer." Id., for "Rex v. Jackson," read "Reg. v. Jackson." 234, note (a), for "54 Q. B.," read 4 Q. B." 279. The references to Blackst. Com. in note (g) should be transferred to the text line 2 from bottom after the word " to," and be followed by "and." 409, line 11 from bottom, for "p. 375," read "p. 325." 517, line 9 from bottom, for " Barclay v. Lewis," read "Barclay v. Lucas." 519, line 11 from bottom, ditto. 520, lines 3 and 5 from bottom, for "Lewis," read "Bruin.” 728, note (e), for 1 M. & Rob. 118," read "1 M. & Rob. 116." 777, first line of head note, for "plaintiff," read “defendant.” 794, add the following placitum to the case there reported. 4. Where justices dismiss an information on the ground that one of them is disqualified by interest from hearing it, they ought not to state a case under stat. 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43., as the remedy for the party complaining of their decision is by mandamus or rule under stat. 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44. s. 5. And insert in margin 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44. s. 5. 802, to head note add "pl. 4." 1. An order of reference, with the enlargements of time for making the award endorsed on the order, may be made a rule of Court on an affidavit verifying the handwriting of the arbitrator to the indorsements, and there need not be an affidavit either by the arbitrator or by the attesting witness, if there was one, verifying the times when the enlarge ments were made. 2. On a motion to discharge a rule for making an order of reference with the enlargements of time indorsed thereon a rule of Court, the Court, under The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. e. 125. s. 46., ordered the arbitrator to appear before the Master to be examined as to the time when the enlargements were made. Monday, January 16th. Award. Enlargement of time. Making order of reference a rule of Court. Affidavit. Examination of arbitrator. Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125. RULE, calling upon the defendant to shew cause &. 26. 46. why a rule obtained to make an order of reference VOL. VI. B B. & S. 1865. ROBERTS V. EVANS. and the enlargements of time indorsed thereon a rule of Court, should not be discharged, on the ground that the affidavit on which it was moved did not verify the dates at which the enlargements of time for making the award had been made. By a Judge's order, dated the 8th December, 1863, all matters in difference in this cause were referred to an arbitrator, an attorney and solicitor, who was to make and publish his award in writing on or before the 11th January then next ensuing, or on or before such further or ulterior day as he should from time to time appoint and signify in writing under his hand, to be endorsed on that order. The arbitrator made and published his award on the 5th February: and on the order of reference was an indorsement signed by him, dated the 9th January, 1864, extending the time for making the award till the 1st February next, and another dated the 1st February, extending the time till the 1st March next. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the award, and believing that the latter indorsement was not made until the 5th February, applied to the arbitrator to verify the award and the enlargements endorsed on the order of reference by the affidavit of one of his clerks or by his own; but he stated that none of his clerks saw him sign the award or the enlargements, and declined to make an affidavit himself. On the 30th March, the plaintiff, considering that without the arbitrator's affidavit he could not according to the practice of the Court properly make the order of reference a rule of Court so as to enable him to move to set aside the award and to remit the matters back for the reconsideration of the arbitrator, filed a bill in Chancery to enforce his claim against the defendant. Thereupon the defen |