66

would prove worse than useless. We have spoken of its present state" designedly; for the publishers inform us that " an addenda, index of matter, and names of cases will be ready early in this year." We hope not very early, for we would suggest that a corrigenda should be added, and that the author should have time to make ample corrections and additions. Let the most inaccurate pages be boldly cancelled, and their contents carefully remodelled. We are aware that this cannot be done "off hand;" but it must be done, or the edition will never be sold off. If Mr. Starkie has not himself leisure for the undertaking, surely, in a crowded profession, he might with ease find some friend to assist him. We know many a laborious and sound lawyer who would gladly be employed in such a task, and would work with a will-Gaudia laturus meritorum præmia.

J. P. T.

DIGEST OF CASE S.

COMMON LAW.

;

[Comprising 11 Adolphus & Ellis, Part 5; 1 Gale & Davison, Parts 2 and 3 1 Manning & Granger, Part 5; 2 Manning & Granger, Part 1; 2 Scott's New Reports, Parts 2, 3, and 4; 8 Meeson & Welsby, Parts 2 and 3; and 9 Dowling's Practice Cases, Parts 5 and 6 :-all cases included in former Digests being omitted.]

ACCOUNT STATED.

In an action against H. and C., who acted as trustees in the administration of an insolvent's estate, for a debt contracted by them as such with the plaintiffs, it was proved that H. called at the plaintiff's counting house, and was shown the account in the ledger by their clerk; that he objected to one or two items, but said nothing as to the others; and that he promised to send corn from the estate for the balance; that H. and C. were several times together at the countinghouse; that the amount of the debt was mentioned without being objected to, at a meeting of the creditors at which both were present, and that C. had by letter admitted that there was a debt due to the plaintiffs: Held, sufficient evidence of an account stated by H., and that the jury were warranted in inferring from the circumstances that he had authority to bind C.-Chisman v. Count, 2 Scott, N. R. 569.

ADVOWSON.

(Sale of advowson of perpetual curacy, under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 139.) The Municipal Corporation Act, 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 139, enacts that where any body corporate is seised, in its corporate capacity, of any manors, lands, or tenements, whereunto any advowson, or right of nomination or presentation to any benefice or ecclesiastical preferment, is appendant or appurtenant, or any advowson in gross, or has any right or title to nominate or present to any benefice or ecclesiastical preferment, every such advowson and every such right of nomination and presentation shall be sold, as the ecclesiastical commissioners may direct; with a proviso, "that in any case of vacancy arising before any such sale shall have taken place and been completed, such vacancy shall be supplied by the presentation or nomination of the bishop or ordinary of the diocese in which such benefice or ecclesiastical preferment is situated."

The 1 & 2 Vict. c. 31, s. 1, after reciting the above clause, and also reciting

that in some instances the manors, lands, &c. whereof some municipal corporations are seised, were granted to them with an obligation to nominate, provide and sustain in certain churches or chapels, able and fit priests, curates, preachers or ministers, for the performance and administration of ecclesiastical duties and rites therein, and for the cure of the souls of the parishioners and inhabitants of the parishes or places thereunto belonging; and although such corporation had from time to time duly nominated and provided such priests, &c. and provided stipends for their sustenance, and had either provided houses for their residence or made allowances in lieu thereof, yet such stipends and allowances had not been fixed or assured by any competent authority, and for want of any regular endowment or augmentation of such curacies, they had not become perpetual cures or benefices presentative, and the curates had not become bodies politic and corporate within the meaning of the 1 Geo. 1, c. 10, s. 4, and 36 Geo. 3, c. 83, s. 3, by reason whereof doubts had arisen, whether the right of nominating ministers to such churches and chapels could be sold under the provisions of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 139; and that it is expedient that such doubts should be removed; enacts, that every right of nomination of every such priest, curate, preacher or minister, which at the time of the passing of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, was vested in any municipal corporation, &c. shall and may be sold as the commissioners may direct, and shall become vested in the purchaser thereof, his heirs and assigns; and that from and after such sale and assurance, every such curacy, preachership or ministry shall become a benefice presentative within 36 Geo. 3, c. 83, s. 3, and every such curate, &c. a body politic and corporate within the meaning of the 1 Geo. 1, c. 10, s. 4, &c. and every such purchaser, his heirs and assigns, may present to such benefice from time to time, when the same shall become vacant, &c.

By a charter of the 6th of James 1, the tithes, &c. within the lordship of Bury St. Edmund's, were granted (subject to a then existing lease thereof for forty years) to the aldermen and burgesses of that town, who agreed, after the expiration of the said lease, to pay &l. 10s. for the tithe and glebe lands yearly, to the curate and ministers of the parish churches of St. Mary and St. James, in Bury St. Edmund's aforesaid. By another charter of the 12 James 1, reciting that he expected the aldermen and burgesses of Bury aforesaid would provide and sustain approved, able, and fit ministers and preachers of the word, and other officers in the churches aforesaid, necessary at all times to come; the king granted to them and their successors the whole and entire rectories and vicarages of Bury St. Edmund's, and of the aforesaid parish churches, and the advowsons and donations, free dispositions and rights of patronage of the same churches, and all manner of tithes, &c.

The corporation made no endowment, and gave no fixed stipend to the ministers of either of the said churches, but subsequently, in the year 1687, appointed two clergymen to each church, the one called a preacher or lecturer, and the other a curate or reader; the former being paid by a salary from the corporation, varying from 100l. to 80l. a year, and the latter, since the year 1712, deriving his only remuneration from the surplice fees and Easter offerings.

The office of curate or reader of the parish of St. James having become vacated before any sale had been effected by the corporation: Held, that it was unnecessary to consider whether the right of presentation or nomination to that office was within 5 & Will. 4, c. 76, s. 139, inasmuch as it clearly fell within the provisions of the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 31; that the necessary consequence

of holding it to be within the latter statute, was to bring it within the proviso of the 139th section of the former act; and consequently that such right of presentation or nomination vested in the bishop of the diocese.--Hine v. Reynolds, 1 Man. & G.71; 2 Scott, N. R. 394.

AFFIDAVIT.

1. (Scandal and impertinence.) The Court will refer affidavits to the master for scandal and impertinence.-Balls v. Smythe, 2 Scott, N. R. 495.

2. (Jurat—Judge's signature.) Where an affidavit was sworn in the usual way at a judge's chambers, but through mistake was not laid before the judge, and therefore the jurat was not signed by him, it was held irregular, and an order obtained upon such affidavit for a capias, and all the proceedings thereon, were set aside; although after some days (but after the execution of the capias), the affidavit was laid before the judge, and signed by him.-Bill v. Bament, 8 M. & W. 317; 9 D. P. C. 810.

3. (Stamping.) Affidavits used in answer to an application to set aside an award made under a submission by deed, must be stamped, notwithstanding the stat. 5 Geo. 4, c. 41. (But see now the 4 & 5 Vict. c. 34, s. 1.)—In re Templeman and Reed, 9 D. P. C. 962.

4. (Taking office copies of.) Where a counsel, on appearing to show cause against a rule, is not prepared with office copies of the affidavits on which the rule was obtained, it is matter of discretion with the Court whether time shall be allowed for taking office copies.—In re Rogers, 9 D. P. C. 926.

And see ATTORNEY, 5; HUSBAND AND WIFE, 2.

APOTHECARIES' ACT.

1. A chemist and druggist practising as an apothecary in attending the sick and giving them medicines for reward, is liable to penalties under the statute 55 Geo. 3, c. 194.-Apothecaries' Company v. Greenough, 1 G. & D. 378.

2. Debt for work done as an apothecary: plea, that the plaintiff was not an apothecary prior to the 1st of August, 1815, nor had at any time obtained a certificate to practise as an apothecary from the master, wardens, and society of the art and mystery of apothecaries: replication, that before the work was done, and before the 1st of August, 1826, to wit, on &c., the plaintiff held a warrant as assistant-surgeon in the navy, bearing date &c., and that the work was done after the passing of the 6 Geo. 4, c. 133: Held, on special demurrer, that the replication was good.

Held also, on objection to the plea, that the certificate required by the 55 Geo. 3, c. 194, was a certificate from the Court of Examiners, and not from the master, wardens, and society of the art and mystery of apothecaries, that the plea was good.

By the 6 Geo. 4, c. 133, s. 4, it is provided that every person who held, or thereafter should hold, a commission or warrant as surgeon or assistant-surgeon in his majesty's navy or army, should be entitled to practise as an apothecary in any part of England or Wales, without having undergone the examination or received the certificate required by the 55 Geo. 3. By the 11th section, the act was to continue until the 1st of August, 1826: Held, that those persons who held warrants prior to the 1st of August, 1826, and who were therefore entitled to practise as apothecaries, were not deprived of that right by the expiration of the act.-Steavenson v. Oliver, 8 M. & W. 234.

APPEAL. See BEER ACT; HIGHWAY, 1; LUNATIC; SESSIONS.

ARBITRATION.

1. (Revocation of submission by bankruptcy-Taxation of costs on award.) In a submission to arbitration by an order of nisi prius, in an action between A. and B., it was stipulated that a certain sum of money should be placed by B. in the hands of C., the arbitrator, to abide the event of the award. B., after placing the sum in the hands of C., becomes bankrupt. The submission is not revoked; nor are the assignees of B. entitled to demand back the money. Under such circumstances, C. has not a mere authority, but an authority coupled with interest.

Upon the reference of a cause and all matters in difference, though the arbitrator finds no damages, and orders no damages to be entered, the costs may be taxed upon the award.-Tayler v. Marling, 2 Man. & G. 55; 2 Scott, N. R. 375.

2. (Award-Excess of authority by arbitrator.) In an action of replevin against husband and wife, in respect of a distress made for 501., 23 years' arrears of an annuity devised to the wife, the cause and "all matters relating to the annuity in question" were referred to arbitration. The arbitrator, by his award, directed the payment of the 501., and of a further sum of 401. for arrears of the annuity accrued due since the action brought: Held good; for that the terms of the order of reference included not only the subject-matter of the action, but all matters relating to the annuity to which the action had refer

ence.

The arbitrator directed these sums to be paid to the wife: Held, that the award was not therefore bad.-Wynne v. Wynne, 9 D. P. C. 901.

3. (Umpirage.) A cause and all matters in difference were referred to the award of A. and B., and such third person as they should appoint in case of difference, or of a majority of them. A difference having arisen between A. and B., a statement was made by each of them to the third, as to what he thought the award ought to be. An award was afterwards made by the umpire and A., without any further meeting. The Court set it aside.-In re Templeman and Reed, 9 D. P. C. 962.

4. (Award-Excess of authority by arbitrator.) An arbitrator, on a reference as to the right to a certain house and premises, by his award directed that certain conveyances should be executed by the one party to the other, and awarded that in case of any disputes as to the form of such conveyances, they should be settled by such solicitor or counsel as he should appoint: Held, that such reservation of future power to himself, was an excess of authority in the arbitrator; that that direction could not be separated from the rest of the award, and therefore that it was bad in toto.-In re Taudy and Taudy, 9 D. P. C. 1044. 5. (Award-Finding on several issues.) Where a cause is referred, in which several issues are raised on the pleadings, the arbitrator is bound to find expressly on each, although he is not requested by the parties to do so. Therefore, in an action in which there were issues on several pleas, and the arbitrator awarded merely that the plaintiffs had no cause of action, and directed the verdict to be entered for the defendant, the award was held bad. (5 B. & Ad. 403; 10 Bing. 568; 4 M. & W. 432; 5 M. & W. 50.)—England v. Davison, 9 D. P. C. 1052. And see AFFIDAVIT, 3; ATTACHMENT, 2.