defeat the action: Held, that he thereby recognized it as a valid instrument, and that when produced in pursuance of notice from the defendants, it might be read in evidence without calling the subscribing witness to prove the execution by the grantor of the lease. Doe on the demise of Tyndale and Others, v. Heming and Others, M.7 G. 4. Page 28 4. Replevin for taking plaintiff's corn in four closes. Avowry for rent arrear, stating that plaintiff held the closes in which, &c., at and under a certain yearly rent. Plea in bar, non tenuit modo et formá. It appeared in evidence that the tenant held the four closes mentioned in the declaration, and two others also, at the rent mentioned in the avowry : Held, that this evidence supported the avowry. Hargrave v. Shewin and Digby, M. 7 G. 4.

34

5. The vendor of a quantity of tin shipped the same on board a ship bound to Leghorn by the orders of the vendee. The captain, by his bill of lading, undertook to deliver the tin to an individual at Leghorn. The tin being heavy, was placed at the bottom of the hold, with other goods over it. The vendee having become bankrupt, the vendor required the captain to deliver up the tin, but did not tender the freight or offer to make any compensation to him for the trouble of unloading the vessel. The latter refused, alleging that he had signed a bill of lading to deliver the tin to another person: Held, that this was sufficient evidence of a conversion. Thompson and Others, v. Trail and Others, M. 7 G. 4. 36

6. Where A. had been tenant of certain premises, and upon his

7.

leaving them B. took possession: Held, that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it might be presumed that he came in as assignee of A., although he never paid rent, and that notice to quit was rightly given to B. Doe on the demise of Morris v. Williams, M.7 G. 4. Page 41 Where several felonies are so connected together as to form part of one entire transaction, evidence of them all may be given, in order to prove a party indicted guilty of one. The King v. Ellis, M.7 G. 4. 145 8. Where the master and part-owner of a vessel who carried a cargo from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Bilboa, and delivered it there to the consignees (he having signed bills of lading making the cargo deliverable to the consignors or their assigns, he or they paying freight for the same) and took a bill for the freight which was afterwards dishonoured, and an action commenced against the consignors for the freight: Held, that the jury were properly directed to find for the defendants, if they thought that the captain took the bill voluntarily and for his own convenience, and that the defendants were not bound to prove that an offer was made to pay in cash. Strong and Others v. Hart and Others, H. 7 & S G. 4. 160 9. Upon the trial of an action for maliciously indicting the plaintiff, without reasonable or probable cause, the plaintiff proved a case, which, in the opinion of the learned judge, shewed that there was no reasonable or probable cause for preferring the indictment. The defendant then called a witness to prove an additional fact, and that being proved, the learned Judge was of opinion, 3D 3 that

that there was reasonable and probable cause for preferring the indictment: Held, that there being no contradictory testimony as to that fact, and there being nothing in the demeanour of the witness who proved it to impeach his credit, the learned Judge was not bound to leave it to the jury to find the fact, but that he might act upon it as a fact proved, and nonsuit the plaintiff. Davis v. Hardy, H. 7 & 8 G.4. Page 225 10. Declaration in debt for rent stated a demise of a messuage, land and premises with the appurtenances. The proof was of a demise of a messuage and land, together with the furniture, utensils, and implements: Held, that as the rent issued out of the real property, and not out of the furniture, it was sufficient for the plaintiff to allege and prove a demise of the real property, and therefore there was no variance. Farewell v. Dickenson, H. 7 & 8 G. 4. 251 11. By an act of parliament a canal company were bound to repair the banks of the canal. In an action brought by the company against the owner of adjoining land for digging clay-pits upon his own land, and causing the plaintiffs' banks to give way, there was some evidence to shew that

the bank was not in good repair; but the learned judge directed the jury to find for the plaintiffs if they thought that the falling in of the bank was caused by the defendant's having dug clay-pits: Held, that the plaintiff's were not entitled to recover, unless at the time when the bank gave way it was in good repair, and that question not having been submitted to the jury, a new trial was granted. Staffordshire Canal Company v. Hallen, H. 78 G. 4.

317

12. Where the owner of two adjoining closes (A. and B.), separ ated by a fence and gate, which had always been repaired by the occupier of B., sold A. to the plaintiff, and two years afterwards sold B. to the defendant: Held, that the latter was not bound to repair the gate, unless he or his vendor had made some specific bargain with the plaintiff to that effect; and that the doing of occasional repairs was not evidence of such a bargain. Boyle v. Tamlyn, H. 7 & 8 G. 4. Page 329 13. A copy of an attorney's bill not

signed by the attorney, the ori ginal of which duly signed has been delivered to the defendant, is admissible in evidence without proof of notice to produce the original. Colling, Gent., one, &c. v. Treweek, H. 7 & 8 G. 4. $94 14. A surrender of a copyhold was duly made and presented by the homage but no entry of such surrender and presentment was made on the court rolls: Held, that such surrender and presentment might be proved by a draft of an entry produced from the muniments of the manor, and the parol testimony of the foreman of the homage jury who made such presentment. Doe dem. Priestley v. Calloway, E. 8 G.

484

15. A bill of exchange was drawn, payable at a particular place, and accepted payable there: Held, that this was a general accept ance within the meaning of the stat. 1 & 2 G. 4. c. 78., and that i was not necessary to prove presentment at that place. Fayle v. Bird, E.8 G. 4. 16. Plaintiff having deposited money in the hands of the defendant, received from him the following memorandum, "Mr. T. has left in my hands 2001." In an action to recover that money: Held,

531

that

that the memorandum was admissible in evidence without a stamp. Tompkins v. Ashby, E. 8 G. 4.

Page 541 17. In assumpsit brought to recover a sum of money, the defendant pleaded the statute of limitations, and upon that issue was joined. At the trial the plaintiff proved the following acknowledgement by the defendant within six years: "I cannot pay the debt at present, but I will pay it as soon as I can:" Held, that this was not sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict, no proof being given of the defendant's ability Tanner v. Smart, E. 603

to pay. 8 G. 4.

EXCISE OFFICER. See ACTION, 2.

FELONY.

See EVIDENCE, 7.

FENCE.

Where the owner of two adjoining closes, (A. & B.) separated by a fence and gate, which had always been repaired by the occupier of B., sold A. to the plaintiff, and two years afterwards sold B. to the defendant: Held, that the latter was not bound to repair the gate, unless he or his vendor had made some specific bargain with the plaintiff to that effect; and that the doing of occasional repairs was not evidence of such bargain. Boyle v. Tamlyn, H. 7 & 8 G. 4.

FERRY.

329

The owner of a ferry demised it to A. by parol at a certain annual rent. The latter, at the end of a few weeks, finding it unprofitable, proposed to become the servant of the former as boatman, and to account to him for all money re

ceived from passengers, upon being allowed fixed daily wages. This was assented to by the owner of the ferry, and A. became his servant, and received the stipulated wages: Held, that there was a surrender of A.'s interest in the ferry by act and operation of law.

In an action on the case for the disturbance of a ferry, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove that he was in possession of the ferry at the time when the cause of action arose. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to allege in his declaration, or to prove at the trial, the payment of any specified sum for passage money.

Neglect of duty on the part of the owner of the ferry is no answer to the action, although the crown may, on that ground, repeal the grant by scire facias or quo war

760 FRAUDS, STATUTE OF.

May. B. stipulated that the hay should not be cut until it was paid for: Held, that this was a contract for an immediate, and not a future sale, and that the property in the hay passed by it immediately to the vendee, and that the same having been subsequently destroyed by fire, the loss fell upon him. Tarling v. Baxter, H. 7 & 8 G.4. Page 360 2. A. having in his warehouse a quantity of sugar, in bulk, more than sufficient to fill twenty hogsheads, agreed to sell twenty hogsheads to B., but there was no note in writing of the contract sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. Four hogsheads were delivered to and accepted by B. A. filled up and appropriated to B. sixteen other hogsheads, and informed him that they were ready, and desired him to take them away. B. said he would take them as soon as he could: Held, that the appropriation hav. ing been made by A., and assented to by B., the property in the sixteen hogsheads thereby passed to the latter, and that their value might be recovered by A. under a count for goods bargained and sold. Rohde and Others v. Thwaites, H.7 & 8 G.4.

388

3. A. sent to B., on the 25th of January, an invoice of five pockets of hops, and delivered the hops to a carrier to be conveyed to B. In the invoice A. was described as the seller, and B. as the purchaser of the hops. B. afterwards wrote to A. as fol lows: "The hops I bought of A. on the 23d of January are not yet arrived. I received the invoice: the last were longer on the road than they ought to have been; however, if they do not arrive in a few days, I must get some elsewhere:" Held, that

tax," should be issuing out of the lands to be inclosed, and other lands in the parish, and be paid to the rector in lieu of all great and small tithes, &c.: Held, that this corn-rent was not liable to be assessed to the relief of the poor. Mitchell, Clerk, v. Fordham, H. 7 & 8 G. 4. Page 274

INDICTMENT.

See HIGHWAY. NUISANCE. In an indictment for making a false affidavit, it is sufficient to state that the defendant came before A. B. and took his corporal oath (A. B. having power to administer an oath), without setting out the nature of A. B.'s authority.

When perjury is assigned upon several parts of an affidavit, those parts may be set out in the indictment as if continuous, although they are in fact separated by the introduction of other matter. The King v. Callanan, M. 7 G. 4.

INQUISITION.

102

See CORONER. A coroner's inquest omitted to state the place where the death happened, or where the body was found; the names of the jurors were not inserted in the body of the inquisition, and it was subscribed by them with the initials only of their christian names: Held, that these were defects in substance, and could not by amended, and the inquisition was quashed.

The inquisition found that the death was occasioned by a coach and horses, the property of A. and B. and Co.: Held, that this finding could not be altered upon affidavits that the property was in A. and B. alone. The King v. Evett, H. 7 & 8 G. 4.

247

INSOLVENT ACT.

See WARRANT OF ATTORNEY, 1. Where a party is arrested for a debt from which he has been discharged under the insolvent act, and gives bail, the Court will order the bail-bond to be delivered up to be cancelled. Norton, Gent., one &c. v. Moseley, M. 7 G.4. Page 106

INSURANCE.

Where in assumpsit on a policy of insurance on goods by a certain ship, it was proved that she sailed on the voyage insured with the goods on board, and never arrived at her port of destination, and that a few days after her departure, a report was heard at the place whence she sailed, that the ship had foundered at sea, but that the crew were saved: Held, that this was sufficient prima facie evidence of a loss by perils of the sea, and that the plaintiff was not bound to call any of the crew, or to shew that he was unable to procure their attendance. Koster v. Reed, Bart. and Another, M.7 G. 4.

19

JOINT STOCK COMPANY. By the deed of settlement of a joint stock company, it was provided that the directors of the company, should without notice or summons meet together at their office once in every week, on and at such day and hour as they should from time to time agree upon, and also at such other times as they should from time to time be convened in manner thereinafter mentioned or adjourned to, and that three directors should be a board. By another clause, any three directors were empowered at any time.

to