Page images

2 Geo. 2, c. 23, s. 22, and the rule M. T. I Will. 4, were in Exch. of Pleas,

1832. effect complied with.

[merged small][ocr errors]

Sir W. Owen, contra, referred to the statute 2 Geo. 2, c. 23, s. 22, which requires the indorsement of the name of the attorney immediately employed, and of the agent who sues out the writ, and referred to Yates v. Frechilton (a), to shew that the object of the rule, viz. the opportunity of settling the action, would be defeated by the indorsement of the agent's name only, as a payment to the agent would not be sufficient. Miller v. Bowden (6) was also mentioned.

Per Curiam. The process might and ought to have been indorsed with the name of the attorney immediately retained, and also with that of the attorney in whose name he practised. The object of the rule is to give the defendant an opportunity of settling the action without incurring expense; and, if the name of the agent only is stated, who probably lives at a distance, the defendant has not that opportunity. The statute is not complied with the name of the person immediately retained is not indorsed.

Rule absolute.

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][ocr errors]

A notice of bail THE notice of bail did not state the numbers of the did not state the numbers of the

houses where the bail resided, upon which ground Addihouses where

son, who had an affidavit that the houses of the bail were the bail resided, upon which numbered, objected to the notice. He admitted that he ground, the bail having been had found the bail. found and being sufficient, the plaintiff had BAYLEY, B.--If the plaintiff wishes for time for inquiry,

his he shall have it; but, if he is satisfied of the sufficiency of appearance to oppose. the bail, then, upon condition that the bail now justify, the

plaintiff shall have the costs of his appearance here.

the c

osts of his

The latter proposition was adopted, and the

Bail justified.

French v. Burton. A term's notice RICHARDS in this term had obtained a rule for costs before motion of the day for not proceeding to trial, pursuant to notice. or costs of the The notice of trial was for Trinity Term, 1831, since day.

which time no step had been taken in the cause.

White objected that the plaintiff was entitled to a term's notice, but

The Court said, that a term's notice was only necessary where the object was to speed the cause, and the rule was made


Exch. of Pleas,

1832. GROSJEAN v. MANNING. THIS cause stood for trial on Monday the 30th April. Notice of contiOn Saturday the 28th, at 8 in the evening, the plaintiff nuance of notice

of trial served on gave notice of continuance to the next sittings, which were Saturday, the

cause standing on the 7th May. The defendant did not appear on that for Monday, is

not sufficient. day, and a verdict passed for the plaintiff, which Carring

ring The intervening ton moved to set aside, because, as he contended, the notice Sunday is not

reckoned. was not served two clear days before the sittings when the cause was to have been tried; and a rule having been granted

Busby, who shewed cause, contended that the notice was sufficient; and he mentioned the case of bail being sued on their recognizance, where Sunday is reckoned; and a notice of countermand; and observed that the object of the rule was fully answered, as the defendant had ample time to apprize his witnesses that they would not be wanted on the day first appointed; although, if that were the only objection, it would resolve itself into a mere question of the costs of the day.

PER CURIAM.— The object of the rule was, that the party should have two clear business days after the notice. Sunday is no day for business. The defendant in fact had only 13 hours' notice, and had no time to send his witnesses back before Monday.

Rule absolute.

Newton v. Maxwell. SCI. FA. against bail. One of the bail resided in Middle- The Court will sex, and the other in Surrey. The former was summon

not give leave
to sign judg-
ment on a scire

facias against bail, on a summons of one in Middlesex, unless the other, resident out of Middlesex, is warned of the proceeding

Exch. of Pleas, ed, the latter had no notice of the proceeding. Eight

1832. w

days after the return of one sci. fa. pursuant to rule H. T. Newton 2 W. 4.


Kelly moved for leave to sign judgment for want of an appearance, but

Bayley, B., said that the object of the rule was to prevent the plaintiff from proceeding behind the back of the bail, and without giving them notice of the steps which were taken. The bail out of Middlesex could not be summoned, but he must have notice before the Court could allow the judgment to be signed; and so

Nothing was taken.

... Wilkinson v. Malin and Others. A trust to apply TRESPASS.–First count, on statute 8 Hen. 6, c. 9, for certain funds

a forcible entry into a dwelling-house and premises at W., repairs of the church of w. the payment of the 15ths, and relief of the poor of W., buying of armour and setting forth soldiers, and repairing Sawbridge-bridge, within the parish of W.," is of a public nature; and, therefore, an act done by a majority of the trustees assembled for that purpose, is valid.

Building a school-house, and educating poor children, is within the meaning of a trust for the “relief of the poor."

The appointment of a schoolmaster, elected by a majority of the trustees at a meeting assembled for the purpose of the election, need not be in writing, nor can be be dismissed, except by a majority of the trustees at a similar meeting.

An allegation, that certain persons were seised in fee of the premises, and used the same as a school-house, and also as and for the residence of the schoolmaster of the said school-house, is not inconsistent with evidence of a trust deed, limiting the nature of the appointment, and regulating the manner of dismissal ; and possession of the premises is incident to the appointment of schoolmaster, whilst that employment continues.

To a plea of liberum tenementum in certain persons, the plaintiff replied, soil and freehold in the same persons as trustees of a charitable fund, and in no other right whatsoever ; and that the premises had been used by those persons, and their predecessors, as such trustees, for a schoolhouse, and for the residence of the schoolmaster; and that the plaintiff was duly appointed schoolmaster of the said school-house, by the then trustees of the said charitable fund, not naming nor stating a seisin in fee in the trustees who had appointed, nor any power by which the appointment was made, nor the trusts of the charitable fund, nor the deed by which they were created :-Held, good on motion to arrest the judgment.

Where the words of a second deed are sufficient to pass the whole of the property conveyed by a former deed, and the intention to do so is clear, a mistake in describing the occupation will not vitiate.

Evidence of an appointment as schoolmaster at a salary of 201. a year to himself for teaching boys, and 201, a year to his wife for teaching girls, satisfies an allegation of an appointment at a salary of 401.

of which the plaintiff, a school-master, was seised in his de- Exch. of Pleas,

1832. mesne as of fee, and expelling him therefrom, alleging spe- cial damage, second count, for breaking, &c. a certain Wilkinson other dwelling-house of the plaintiff, with an asportavit Malin. and special damage-third count, for an expulsion-fourth, for forcibly turning the plaintiff and his family out of possession-fifth, de bonis asportatis-sixth and seventh, for assaults.

Pleas–First, not guilty. Secondly, to the second count, that the dwelling-house and premises in the second count, were and are the freehold of J. Malin, and M. Jephcott, and of C. Cowley, Thomas Cock, W. Ellard, W. Dester, T. Hesom, T. Hancock, W. Crupper, and John Cock, wherefore, J. M., M. J., T. H., T. H., and T. C., in their own right entered, and the said other defendants, as their servants, and by their command, &c. entered &c. There were seven other similar pleas to the second count, stating the freehold to be in different individuals to the above ten.

Replications—similiter to general issue. To the second plea, that said dwelling-house and premises, &c. were the dwelling-house and premises, close, soil, and freehold of the said J. Malin, M. Jephcott, C. Cowley, T. Cock, W. Ellard, W. Dester, T. Hesom, T. Hancock, W. Crupper, and John Cock, as trustees of a certain charitable fund theretofore granted for (amongst other things) the relief of the poor of W. aforesaid, and in no other right or capacity whatsoever, the said dwellinghouse, &c. were used by the said M. Jephcott, J. Malin, C. Cowley, T. Cock, W. Ellard, W. Dester, T. Hesom, T. Hancock, W. Crupper, and John Cock, as such trustees as aforesaid, and by their predecessors, trustees for the said charitable fund, for a school- house for the education and instruction of divers poor children of and belonging to W. as aforesaid; and also as and for the residence of the schoolmaster of said school-house ; that, long before the said several times when &c., to wit, on 1st January, 1819,

« PreviousContinue »