the peace, by a candidate upon the hustings at a county election, a rule was obtained to change the venue into Gloucestershire. Motion to set it aside, as there could not be a fair and impartial trial in Gloucestershire. Court said, the rule ought to be set aside on either ground, and discharged the first rule. Petyt v. Berkeley, esq. Cowp. Rep. 510.

must be extremely

mation.

In The King v. Harris and others, on a rule to shew Evidence of cause, why the cause (which was an information) should partiality, not be tried at the assizes for the county of Gloucester by a jury of the said county, instead of the city: the affidavit strong, to to found the motion stated generally, that they verily change the believed, that there could not be a fair and impartial venue in a trial had, by a jury of the city of Gloucester, without other criminal infor reasons for entertaining such belief, which was an information for a misdemeanor, in refusing to admit several persons to their freedom of the city, who demanded and were entitled to it, to vote at the then approaching election for members, and whom the defendants did admit, after the election was over, but refused prior, and thereby deprived them of their right of voting at it. The prosecutors moved for this rule, supposing the citizens could not but be under an influence or prejudice in this matter, though there was a list returned of above 600 persons duly qualified to serve on the jury. Lord Mansfield. No two things can be more different than changing the venue, and continuing it as it was, with such a suggestion on the roll as is now proposed. Notwithstanding the locality of some sort of actions, or of informations for misdemeanors, if the matter cannot be tried at all, or cannot be fairly or impartially tried in the proper county, it shall be tried in the next adjoining county. The case of Berwick was determined upon the foundation," That the writ of venire facias did not "run there." And so it is likewise in the Cinque Ports. In these cases, there could be no trial had at all. But as the party cannot traverse such a suggestion, when entered by rule of court, there must be a clear and solid foundation for it. This general swearing is not a sufficient ground, especially as it is sworn there are 600 persons duly qualified to serve. The question is no general question of right, nor can it affect the corporation in future. Here is a want of foundation in fact of such a suggestion, and therefore no reason for the court's granting it. Denison, J. Where an impartial trial cannot be had in the proper county, the venire may be awarded to the next county. But there ought to be the clearest

Wales.

Poole.

The motion.

Chester.

Debt on bond.

Bad venue, or want of one.

evidence in the world, to ground such a suggestion upon; or it must arise out of the record itself. This does not arise out of the record, nor is there sufficient ground to support it. In this method of entering a suggestion upon the roll, the venue remains; and the court only award the venire to the next adjoining county, but they ought not to do it in this case; because the place of trial ought not to be altered from that which is settled and established by the common law, unless there shall appear a clear and plain reason for it; which is not the present case. Wilmot, J. The rule about entering suggestions upon the record is," that the facts proving that a fair and impar"tial trial cannot be had in the ordinary course, must "be themselves suggested upon the record." Rule disch. 3 Burr. 1330. See the form of the suggestion, 2 Burr. 834. Rex v. Cowle.

If a fair trial cannot be had in Wales, a certiorari will be granted. 1 Str. 704. Rex v. Lewis.

The action was laid in the county of Poole, and for a duty claimed to be due to the corporation; court ordered the venue to be changed to Hampshire, as a fair trial could not be had. Mayor of Poole v. Bennett, 2 Str. 874.

Therefore, in these cases, the motion is to try the cause in the next county, and not to change the venue.

It is now determined, that where a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county of the city of Chester, that the court will award the trial to be had in the county palatine of Chester. 7 Term Rep. 735. Rex v. The Inhabitants of St. Mary. 1 Term Rep. 363. Rex v. Amery. Contra.

Debt on bond made at Derby to the intestate, the declaration alledged administration was granted to the plaintiff by the bishop of Litchfield and Coventry; and the venue in the margin in London. The defendant demurred generally. Buller, J. On a special demurrer, there might have been some doubt. But a bad venue, or the want of one, is cured by the statute of jeofails. Grose, J. Here the venue is laid in the body of the declaration at Derby; the addition of London in the margin will not vitiate it. Mellor, adm. v. Barber, 3 Term Rep. 387.

Changing Venue from an English, to a Welsh County, &c.

It was formerly doubted whether the court could Wales. change the venue from an English to a Welsh county. Dougl. Rep. 262. Pritchard v. Pugh.

The motion must be to change the venue into the The motion. Welsh county, and not into the adjoining English county; because of the affidavit: but after the venue is so changed, the cause may be ordered to be tried in the next adjoining English county. 2 Black. Rep. 962. N. B. The practice in case judgment goes by default is, to direct the inquiry to the Welsh sheriff.

Lord Mansfield, on a motion to change the venue It seems the from Middlesex to Denbighshire, said, he did not at first venue may be see why the court should refuse to change it into the changed from Middlesex to next English county; as the same reasons seemed to Denbighshire. hold for doing that, as for changing it from one English county, into another English county. But Mr. J. Denison had satisfied him there was a good reason for refusing it: which is, that the form of the affidavit is so religiously settled, that it cannot be departed from; and in the case of changing it into the next English county, they cannot swear in that form which is essentially requisite on such motions; namely, That the cause of action arose in the county which is prayed to change the venue, and not elsewhere out of the said county, where it was originally laid. Waddington v. Thelwell, Esq. 4 Burr. 2450.

But the court changed the venue from Middlesex into Wales, no cause being shewn. Ibid.

And in a late case Lord Ellenborough said, that the May be practice appeared now to be sufficiently established, for changed from changing the venue from an English to a Welsh county an English to (on the usual affidavit) to grant the rule absolute in the county. first instance. Hopkins v. Lloyd, 6 East Rep. 355. E. 45 Geo. 3.

a

The venue may be changed into a county palatine; Cannot in because the court can send down the record there by neral be mittimus. Lord Ray. 1418. 1 Wils. 222. changed into a county pala

And if changed into a county palatine it is upon an tine. undertaking not to assign error for want of an original. 1 Taunt. 432. Gibson v. M' Bride, ib. 120. Cove v. Heaton.

S

Not to delay.

If venue be

It cannot be changed if it will delay trial, as to Bristol. (a) Str. 1180. Howorth v. Willett. Nor changed to a third county without consent. Ibid. 1216. Southhouse v. Boak.

Motion to change the venue from Bristol to the next laid in Bristol, adjacent county. Cur. The way is not to change the venue, but to try it in the next county. The Mayor, &c. of Bristol v.-. In ejectment, 1 Wils. 77.

it must be to try in next county.

In what cases it may be changed from a county at large, into a city and county.

The venue may not be changed from a county at large into a city and county, Barnes, 388.; but it has been changed from a county at large into London, ib. Salk. 670.; and it may be changed from one county and city into another county and city. Prac. Reg. C. P. 529.; but it cannot be changed into Hull, Canterbury, &c. because it is not known when an assize will be held there; nor into the city of Worcester or Gloucester, out of the county at large, because the assizes for the city and county at large are held at the same place: but the reporter says. all this is in the discretion of the court. Barnes, 490. But where the assizes are held twice a year, it is a matter of course to change the venue. R. M. 1654. s. 5.

Sergeants, barristers, attornies, &c.

AS TO PRIVILEGED PERSONS.

SERGEANTS at law, Barn. 484; barristers, 2 Show. 176. : attornies, Salk. 668.; or other officers of the court, suing as privileged persons, and laying the venue in Middlesex, have a right to retain it there, because their attendance is necessary at the courts at Westminster, Pilkington v. Hamlin, Say. 153. Salk. 668. But if the venue If they sue as be laid in any other county, as London, 2 Vent. 47. a common per- Salk. 668.; or if such a privileged person sue as a son by capias. common person (as by capias,) or en auter droit, as executor or administrator, or jointly with his wife or others, he has no such privilege. Barn. 479. 484.

If either of

them be defendants.

Reason.

And if either of these persons are defendants, they have no privilege to have the venue changed into Middlesex. Pope v. Redfern, 4 Burr. 2027. Yeardley v. Roe, 3 Term Rep. 573. 3 Mod. 280. Bisse v. Harcourt. in the C. P. And the reason is, that it is not necessary,

(a) There are no Lent assizes held at Bristol.

when defendant, to attend the trial in the country in person: but formerly this was otherwise. 2 Str. 1049. Wigley v. Morgan, one, &c. N. on R. M. 10 Geo. 2. Reg. 2.

It is said that a clerk of assize is on the same footing Clerk of assize. respecting the laying the venue when plaintiff, as an attorney. 2 Ld. Ray. 1253. Salk. 670.

&c.

That upon a cause removed by habeas corpus, out of On removal the courts of Canterbury, Southampton, Hull, Litch- from cities, field, or Poole, if the action be transitory, the venue must be laid in the county of Kent, Southampton, York, Stafford or Dorset, where the town and county lieth. R. M. 1654. s. 9.

WITHIN WHAT TIME THE VENUE MAY BE CHANGED.

after declara

Asplin v. tion delivered.

If the declaration be delivered so early in term, that If he has eight the defendant has eight days in that term, he cannot days in term move to change the venue the next term. Gray, 1 Str. 211. The plaintiff after the essoign day of the subsequent Plaintiff after term after appearance, shall not alter his own venue, essoign day of though he would pay costs or give imparlance. Mas. subsequent Livesey, 2 Lill. Pract. Reg. 778. Str. 211. 858. R. M. 10 Geo. 2. The defendant cannot move to change the venue in Appearance any action until his appearance be entered; nor after plea pleaded, Loft. Rep. 321. although declaration be tion. amended. Lil. 783. Tidd. 545. 3 Bos. & Pul. 12.

N. on

term after ap

pearance, not to alter venue.

must be enter ed before mo

But after issue joined in debt on bond, and the cause in After issue it the paper for the sittings after Easter term, on motion in was changed, in debt, witthat term, it was changed from London to Lincoln, on nesses for both the ground that the witnesses for both parties lived in parties living Lincolnshire, and that there was a serious defence intend- in Lincolned to be made; the defendant undertaking to give judg- shire, there ment of Trinity term, and not bring a writ of error. being a seri ous defence. The pleas were, non est factum, solvit post diem, and usury. Foster v. Taylor, 1 Term Rep. 781. But the court will not change the venue" because the witnesses "live in that county." Ibid.

That although the declaration be delivered seven days Venue, when before the last day of the next preceding term, or after changeable in yet before the plea, upon oath made, the venue may be tions. changed upon motion in the said transitory actions the

transitory ac◄