WHEREAS the plaintiff, before and at the time of the commencement of this suit, and of the committing of the grievance by the defendant as hereinafter next mentioned, was lawfully possessed of a certain vessel, to wit, of the value of £4000, then lawfully being in the river Thames, and the defendant was also then possessed of a certain other vessel, then in the river aforesaid, and then had the care, direction, and management of the same. Yet the defendant, not regarding his duty in that behalf whilst the said vessel of the plaintiff so was in the said river, heretofore and before the commencement of this suit, to wit, on the 1st day of December, in the year of our Lord 1844, took so little and such bad care of his said vessel, in the direction and management of the same, that the same, by and through the carelessness, misdirection, and mismanagement of the defendant, and his mariners and servants, in that behalf then with great force and violence ran foul of and struck against the said vessel of the plaintiff, and thereby then greatly broke, damaged, and injured the same, and thereby divers goods and chattels, to wit, 100 bales of cotton and 50 bags of sugar of the plaintiff, to wit, of the value £1500, then being on board of the said vessel of the plaintiff, then became, and were, greatly wetted, damaged and spoiled; and also, by reason of the premises, the plaintiff hath been forced and obliged to pay, lay out, and expend, and hath necessarily paid, laid out, and expended a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of £400, in and about the repairing the said damage so done to the said vessel as aforesaid, and also, by means of the premises, the plaintiff lost and was deprived of the use of his said vessel for a long space of time, to wit, for the space of two calendar months, and thereby lost, and was deprived of all the profits and advantages which during that time he might, and also otherwise would have derived and acquired for the use of the said vessel, to the damage of the plaintiff of £3000, and thereupon he brings suit, &c.

3. For leaving open an Aperture in the Defendant's Cellar, whereby the Plaintiff, in passing along the footpath, fell into the aperture, and broke his leg.

IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH.

The 15th day of June, in the year of our Lord 1845.

Lancashire (Southern Division), to wit.-Thomas Moody (the plaintiff in this suit), by Frederick Jones, his attorney, complains of William White (the defendant in this suit), who has been summoned to answer the said plaintiff, in an action of trespass on the case. For that WHEREAS the defendant, before, and at the time of the commencement of this suit, and of the injury and damage occurring, as hereinafter mentioned, was the possessor and occupier of a certain messuage, vault, cellar, and premises, with the appurtenances, situate in the town of Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, and near to a certain common and public footway there, and in which vault and cellar there was a certain hole or aperture opening into the said public footway. Yet the defendant, well knowing the premises, whilst he was so the possessor and occupier of the said messuage, vault, cellar, and premises, with the appurtenances, and whilst there was such hole as aforesaid, heretofore, to wit, on the first day of May, in the year of our Lord 1845, wrongfully and unjustly, and contrary to his duty in that behalf, permitted the said hole to be, and continue, and the same was then so badly, insufficiently, and defectively covered, that, by means of the premises, and for want of a proper and sufficient covering to the said hole, the plaintiff, who was then lawfully passing in and along the said footway, then slipped and fell into the said hole, and thereby the left leg of the plaintiff was then fractured and broken, and greatly damaged; and the plaintiff became and was sick, sore, lame, and disordered, and so remained and continued for a long time, to wit, thence hitherto, during all which time the plaintiff thereby suffered and underwent great pain, and was prevented from attending to and transacting his necessary and lawful affairs and business, by him during that time to be performed and transacted; and was also, by means of the premises, forced and obliged to pay, lay out, and expend, and

did pay, lay out, and expend a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of £60, in and about the endeavouring to be healed and cured of the wounds, lameness, sickness, and disorder so occasioned as aforesaid, to the plaintiff's damage of £200, and thereupon he brings suit, &c.

III.-TROVER.

For a Balloon.

IN THE COMMON PLEAS.

The 1st day of June, in the year of our Lord 1845. Staffordshire, to wit.-Emanuel Clifton (the plaintiff in this suit), by Titus Trueman, his attorney, complains of William Waller (the defendant in this suit), who has been summoned to answer the plaintiff in an action of trover. For that whereas the plaintiff heretofore, to wit, on the 17th day of January, in the year of our Lord, 1845, was lawfully possessed, as of his own property, of a certain balloon of great value, to wit, of the value of £500, and being so possessed thereof, the plaintiff afterwards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, casually lost the same out of his possession, and the same afterwards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, came to the possession of the defendant by finding; yet the defendant, well knowing the said balloon to be the property of the plaintiff, and of right to belong and appertain to him, but contriving and fraudulently intending to deceive and defraud the plaintiff, hath not as yet delivered the said balloon to the plaintiff (although often requested so to do); and afterwards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, converted and disposed of the same to his the defendant's own use, to the damage of the plaintiff of £200, and therefore he brings suit, &c.

IV.-REPLEVIN.

IN THE EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.

The 21st day of April, in the year of our Lord 1845,

in Easter Term, in the 8th year of the reign of Queen Victoria.

Sussex, to wit.-Charles Dupper (the defendant in this suit) was summoned to answer Archibald Brudenall (the plaintiff in this suit), of a plea, wherefore he took the cattle of the said plaintiff,

and unjustly detained the same against sureties* and pledges, until, &c.; and thereupon the said plaintiff, by Henry Blunt, his attorney, complains: FOR THAT the said defendant heretofore, to wit, on the 1st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1845, at Lewes, in the county of Sussex, in a certain place there called t Chalkey Hill, took the cattle, to wit, one gelding, of the said plaintiff, of great value, to wit of the value of £50, and unjustly detained the same, against sureties and pledges, until, &c. : wherefore the said plaintiff saith that he is injured, and hath sustained damage to the value of £100, and therefore he brings his suit, &c.

No. VI.

COURSE OF PLEADING IN AN ACTION AT LAW.

I.--DECLARATION IN COVENANT.

On an Indenture of Lease for not repairing.

IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH.

The 1st day of June, in the year of our Lord 1845. Middlesex, to wit. A. B. (the plaintiff in this suit), by E. F. his attorney [or, in his own proper person], complains of C. D. (the defendant in this suit), who has been summoned to answer the said plaintiff in an action of covenant: For that whereas heretofore, to wit, on the 10th day of March, in the year of our Lord 1837, by a certain indenture then made between the said plaintiff of the one part and the said defendant of the other part (one part of which

"Sureties" means here " gages" per Holt, C.J., and Treby, C. J., in Blackett v. Crissop, 1 Lord Ray, 278. This form of declaring against "Sureties and Pledges" has been preserved to this day, from the old principle that the lord was entitled to keep the distress until the tenant offered gages and pledges; and if, notwithstanding this offer, the distress were still retained, the tenant was obliged to resort to the Replevin, in which he complained against the lord, for the detention against gages and pledges. Evans v. Brander, 2 Wm. Bl. 548.

+ See Pollen v. Bradley, 2 Moore & P. 78.

said indenture, sealed with the seal of the said defendant, the said plaintiff now brings here into court, the date whereof is the day and year aforesaid), the said plaintiff, for the consideration therein mentioned, did demise, lease, set, and to farm let unto the said defendant a certain messuage, or tenement, and other premises, in the said indenture particularly specified, to hold the same, with the appurtenances, to the said defendant, his executors, administrators, and assigns, from the twenty-fifth day of March then next ensuing the date of the said indenture, for and during, and unto the full end and term of seven years from thence next ensuing, and fully to be complete and ended, at a certain rent payable by the said defendant to the said plaintiff, as in the said indenture is mentioned. And the said defendant, for himself, his executors, administrators, and assigns, did thereby covenant, promise, and agree, to and with the said plaintiff, his heirs and assigns (amongst other things), that he, the said defendant, his executors, administrators, and assigns, should and would, at all times during the continuance of the said demise, at his and their own cost and charges, support, uphold, maintain, and keep the said messuage, or tenement and premises in good and tenantable repair, order, and condition; and the same messuage, or tenement and premises, and every part thereof, should and would leave in such good repair, order, and condition, at the end, or other sooner determination of the said term, as by the said indenture, reference being thereunto had, will, among other things, fully appear. By virtue of which said indenture, the said defendant afterwards, to wit, on the twentyfifth day of March, in the year aforesaid, entered into the said premises, with the appurtenances, and became and was possessed thereof, and so continued until the end of the said term. And although the said plaintiff hath always, from the time of the making of the said indenture, hitherto done, performed, and fulfilled all things in the said indenture contained on his part to be performed and fulfilled, yet the plaintiff saith, that the said defendant did not, during the continuance of the said demise, support, uphold, maintain, and keep the said messauge, or tenement and premises, in good and tenantable repair, order, and condition, and leave the same in such repair, order, and condition,