« ElőzőTovább »
consequence, bal. Semble, the courts held under 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, are inferior courts. Levy v. Moylan, 3. For nonpayment.-Where a prisoner had been committed by order of the judge of a County Court for nonpayment of a sum adjudged against him, and he had obtained a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that the order was bad, as being made in the alternative to pay or go to prison, the court, on motion, ordered him to be discharged, proof being made of service of the rule upon the plaintiff in the suit and upon the officer of the court. Re Deos, 5.
The judge of a County Court mide an order on a defendant to pay a debt, adjudged against him, by instalments, "or" that he be committed to prison. The defendant made default, and thereupon a warrant was issued for his commitment: Held, that the defendant had a right to be heard in his defence before committal; and that an order for his imprisonment, on default of payment, embodied in an order to pay by instalments, was bad. Abdey v. Dale, 30. It is not necessary that the warrant for commitment of a defendant on default payment of a debt recovered in the County Court, should be issued immediately after the date of the judge's order for imprisonment. Where the order of comunitment in default payment was made on the 15th of April, but the warrant for arrest and imprisonment was not issued till the 9th of October following, the court Held, that in the absence of any rule of practice, limiting the period within which a warrant must issue, such lapse of time was not a sufficient ground for the discharge of a defaulting defendant who had so been arrested and imprisoned. Re O'Neill, 58.
Under ss. 38 and 39 of the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, it is competent to the Lords of the Treasury, in dealing with claims for compensation under those sections, to consider whether, under all the circumstances, the applicant is a loser or gainer by the statute, and if the latter, to refuse to grant any compensation. Therefore where an applicant had held the offices of registrar and crier in a court abolished by the statute, but became, by virtue of the statute, clerk of the County Court established under it, for which he was first paid by fees, and afterwards by fixed salary, and failed to show that he had, in fact, sustained any loss by the change: Held, that he was entitled to no compensation under s. 38 or s. 39 of the statute. Re James Wright, 1.
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION. By the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, s. 13 (County Courts Extension Act), it is provided that if the plaintiff shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court in which such action was brought, or to a judge at chambers upon summons, that the action was brought for a cause in which concurrent jurisdiction is given to the Superior Carts by the 128th section of the
previous County Courts Act (8 & 9 Vict. c. 95), or for which no plaint could have been entered in any such County Court, or that the said cause was removed from a County Court by certiorari, then and in any of such cases the court in which the said action is brought, or the said julge at chambers, may thereupon, by rule or order direct that the plaintiff shall receive his costs, and thereupon the plaintiff shall have the same judgment to recover his costs that he would have had if that act had not been passed: Held, that the word "may" in that section was permissive only, and not imperative, and that court or judge could exercise a discretion upon the case under the circumstances as brought before them. Jones v. Harrison,
The court will inflict a heavy fine, with order for immediate payment, upon a person who had imposed a forged subpoena upon an ignorant witness. Popham v. Greenwood, 286.
If goods delivered on "sale or return" be not returned within a reasonable time, or the return of them be rendered impossible by the act of the buyer, the contract of sale becomes complete, and an action for goods sold and delivered may be maintained by the seller against the buyer. Semble, Iley v. Frankenstein (8 Scott N. R. 839, is not law. Moss v. Sweet 29.
A person ordering a work to be issued periodically, is bound to take it until completed; and, if he decline to do so, the profit upon the numbers not taken may be recovered from him. Collins v. Briscoe, 154.
Where an action is brought in this court upon a judgment, in a Superior Court, this court will not allow costs to the plaintiff. Holmes v. Moss, 40. The plaintiff recovered a less sum than 20%. in an action ex contractu in one of the Superior Courts, and applied to a judge at chambers under the 13th section of the above act, who made an order for costs on the statement of the attorney's clerk, unsupported by affidavit. application to the court for a rule to rescind such order, it not appearing by the affidavits that any objection was made to the judge at chambers entertaining the case, the court refused the rule. Power v. Jones, 60.
The court will not allow the attorney for a defendant on a judgment summons his costs because the plaintiff did not appear. Radcliffe v. Caseley, 66. Circumstances under which the court allowed the costs of plaintiff's attorney. The court has not yet determined whether or not to allow the costs of attorney in all cases above 51. Collier v. Pints, 68. In an action of debt in a Superior Court, the defendant paid into court the sum of 12. 11s. 3d, and the plaintiff took out that sum in satisfaction of his claim,
and entered a nolle prosequi as to the residue of the causes of action: Held, that the 13th section of the County Courts Extension Act, which gives power to a judge to make an order for the plaintiff to have his costs in certain cases does not apply; but that the plaintiff is in such a case entitled to his costs under Reg. Gen. Trin. Term. 1 Vict. Joncs v. Power, 90.
A plaintiff obtaining judgment upon demurrer in an action of covenant, and recovering less than 201. damages upon a writ of inquiry, is not entitled to costs. Quare, whether he would be entitled to costs, if the judge before whom the writ of inquiry was executed, had certified that the action was a fit action to be tried in a Superior Court. Prew v. Squire,
Attorney's costs were refused in an undefended case where he had sued without first demanding payment by letter. Collins v. Potter, 203.
Of setting aside judgment, 6.
It is the duty of counsel to inform the court of the authorities upon questions argued before it. Knowles v. Robillard, 19. Where counsel appeared and succeeded in the suit, the court refused to allow costs either of counsel or attorney, upon its appearing that the plaintiff had never consulted an attorney, and had seen no other professional person than one who called himself a collector of debts. Green v. Breecher, 233.
Where credit has been given to a son of full age living with his mother, he alone is liable, although the mother may have requested the attendance of the plaintiff upon her son during his sickness. Collyer v. Pinto, 97.
A landlord cannot justify the breaking open the outer door of a stable to distrain for rent in arrear. Brown v. Glenn, 30. The plaintiff had sent books of his to the premises of the defendant's tenant, who was a bookseller and bookbinder; some of the books were to be sold, others to be bound: Semble, both classes of books Munster were privileged from distress. v. Johns, 35.
EDITORS. Claims of, for wages, 19.
A gentleman resident in the neighbourhood of a borough during an election ordered a supper for certain voters on behalf of one of the candidates: Held, that he and not
the candidate was liable for the amount thereof. Held also, that as the order was given before the teste of the writ of election it was not an illegal contract. Mann v. Driffield, 317.
What is a decision on a question of, 310.
of the goods being claimed as the property of another. Ilopkins v. Jones, 69.
A house and estate agent is not entitled to his commission on the letting of a house which he had been employed to let, if it is, in fact, let by another person, and not by himself. Knight v. Dawson, 98.
Where a grocer has sold goods on credit, and emigrated, having previously executed a power of attorney, for his attorney to sue his debtors, it will not be sufficient for such attorney to prove, at the hearing, a sale and delivery of goods to the defendant's wife, on credit, unless the witness can also identify the particuar items in the account. Padgham v. Barton, 13. In an action for a libel the defendant pro
posed to prove the handwriting on a certain envelope to be the plaintiff's, by showing that the defendant's name was written with a "t," and he proposed further to put in evidence certain letters written by the plaintiff where he spelt the defendant's name with a "t," in order thereby to show that the plaintiff was in the habit of so spelling the defendant's name. The judge at the trial rejected such evidence. On a motion for a new trial, on the ground of the improper rejection of evidence: Held, that the evidence was admissible. Brooks v. Tichbourne, 32.
The court will not, except under very special circumstances, permit the plaintiff to prove his case by the evidence of the defendant alone. Davenport v. Williams, 66. An erasure or interlineation appearing upon the face of a deed is to be presumed, unless the contrary be shown to have been made at the time of the execution of the deed. A judge may therefore leave it as a question for the jury, whether the erasure or interlineation took place before the execution, although there is no other evidence on that subject than the deed itself. Doe v. Cattamore, 141.
Of jurisdiction, 227.
The wearing apparel and implements of trade of a debtor to the value of 5l. are protected from seizure under an execution issued out of a County Court, by sect. 96 of the County Courts Act; but if the landlord gives to the bailiff a written notice claiming arrears of rent under sect. 107, the bailiff may distrain such wearing apparel or implements of trade to satisfy the rent. Woodcock v. Pritchard, 253.
In trespass for false imprisonment, the defendant pleaded that W. T. recovered a judgment against plaintiff; that the plaintiff was summoned before an inferior court (8 & 9 Vict. c. 127, s. 1), when an order was made for payment by instalments: that plaintiff made default, which, being proved before the said court, the judge duly and according to the form of the statute, and at the request of the defendant, the attorney of W. T. acting upon his retainer, ordered the plaintiff to be committed to prison for forty days; that the defendant, as such attorney, delivered the warrant to an officer to be executed, who arrested the plaintiff and detained him in prison. Replication, that the said judge did not order that the plaintiff should be committed modo et forma: Held, reversing the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, that the traverse in the replication put in issue the fact of the making of the order of committal only, and not its validity. Quaere, whether, although the plaintiff below was entitled to his discharge on habeas corpus, he can sue under the circumstances in trespass for an erroneous order of the judge. But if he can, the attorney of the party is liable for ordering the warrant of the judge to be put in execution. Kinning v. Buchanan, 254.
What may be charged by attorney, 119. For execution, 69.
A. having found bank notes in B.'s house, left them with B. to keep for the owner. Three years had elapsed, and no claimant appearing, A. brought on action against B. for the recovery of the notes he had so found: Held, that he was not entitled to recover them, B. being the proper repository for notes found in his house. Bridges v. Hawkesworth, 18.
FRIENDLY SOCIETY. Jurisdiction as to, 43.
Money lent to a person playing at whist for the purpose of paying his losses, may be recovered in an action for money lent. Allen v. Griffith, 234.
HIGH BAILIFF. The high bailiff's fee for execution is payable if he goes to the premises, even although he is unable to levy by reason
HUSBAND AND WIFE.
A. was a baker, B. his wife, who lived with him, let apartments, and received the money. Having saved money by so doing, she, without A.'s knowledge, bought shares in a building society: she afterwards sold out the shares and gave the proceeds to C.: Hell, that A. might recover such proceeds from C. in an action for money had and received. Armstrong v. Parkinson, 282.
Liability to.-An insolvent, after obtaining his final order, is liable for any delt omitted from the schedule. Quære, where a debt is not entered in the schedule at exactly the proper amount, can the court amend after final order under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 96, s. 30? Davey v. Bailey, 287.
An assignment purporting to be for the benefit of creditors is not valid against an execution creditor, 1st. When there is the absence of notoriety in the transaction, as no advertisement of change of possession or notice. 2nd. If no inventory be taken, so as to enable the very goods to be ascertained. 3rd. When the trustee is a friend of the debtor, and the latter has been left in undisturbed possession of the property. Cowan v. Vivian, 69.
The requirement of rule 39, that four clear days' notice should be given of particulars of claim, is not fulfilled by the mere production to the bailiff of a mortgage deed under which the claimant asserts his title to the property seized. Hunt v. Steadman, 97.
Where a judge of a County Court refuses to hear an application upon an erroneous supposition that some preliminary requirement has not been complied with, this court will interfere by mandamus to compel him to hear. Judgment having been obtained against a defendant in an action in the County Court, execution issued, and certain property was seized thereunder. Hereupon a claim was made by A. and B. that such goods were theirs, and the form of their grounds of claim was "that the said two horses, two collars, and two bridles were assigned to us by an indenture, dated the 28th day May, 1850, and made between," &c. (stating the parties.) Upon an objection taken at the trial that this statement was not a compliance with Rule 39, the judge held the objection to be good, and refused to hear the claim. Upon an application to this court for a mandamus to the judge to hear the claim: Held, that the statement of the ground of claim was sufficient, and the mandamus was ordered to go on. Ex parte Harper, 115. Circumstances under which a voluntary settlement made by a trader being indebted at the time will be held to be
frandulent and void as against creditors. Wood v. Tinsley, 156.
Where a married woman, living with auother man and calling herself by his name, is in possession of goods of her husband, they cannot be taken in execution for a debt contracted by the adulterer. Semble, that if they were purchased after she had quitted her husband, and had never been in his possession, they might be taken. Hunt v. Bright, 156.
Rule nisi for a mandamus to a County Court judge, requiring him to hear an interpleader summons, where the summons had been dismissed for alleged insufficiency of particulars of claim. Heslop v. MacGeorge, 310. Claim of rent by landlord, 268.
Where a trespass took place in July, and arising out of it an assault was committed in August, there are two distinct causes of action, and cannot be joined in the same plaint. In such case the court will require the plaintiff to elect on which he will proceed. Robinson v. Evans, 264.
Alleged misconduct of.-Upon the facts, as -stated and answered, the court acquits Mr. Amos of the charge of corrupt and oppressive conduct in the discharge of his duties. The court regrets that more frequent sittings of the County Court are not holden, so as to prevent so great an accumulation of business in one day. Reg. v. Amos, 169. Commitment for insulting, 3. Should not be called as a witness, 229.
JUDGE AT CHAMBERS. Jurisdiction of, 282.
A debtor had been summoned by his creditor to the County Court for a debt due, the debtor did not appear, the creditor did, and proved his claim, whereupon the judge ordered the amount to be paid by the latter forthwith to the clerk of the court, at his office, between ten and four o'clock. At five o'clock on the same day, the amount not having been paid, a levy was made, upon an execution issued on such order. Held, that the order to pay was a judgment; it required no previous service or other notice of it to be given, and the amount not having been paid forthwith, the execution and levy were perfectly regular. Ely v. Moule, 7. In an action on a judgment in superior court, plaintiff can only recover the amount inserted in the judgment, and is not entitled to costs of a fi. fa. issued, but not executed. Taylforth v. Barrington, 44.
JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Circumstances under which the court will
commit an attorney for nonpayment of debt and costs, according to the order of the court. Evans v. Jones, 43. Under 8 & 9 Vict. c. 127, s. 1, enacting that a debtor against whom a judgment has been obtained may be summoned before any one of certain inferior courts, and that if he appears to have the means of paying by instalments, and shall not pay at such times as the court shall order, the judge may commit him for any time not exceeding forty days. Held, affirming the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, and the judgments of Patteson and Coleridge JJ., that a summons to show cause why the debtor should not be committed is necessary previous to the committal. Erle, J., and Martin, B., dissentientibus. Buchanan v. Kinning, 254.
This court will not entertain a judgment summons, where the parties had not observed the order of the court, but had made arrangements between themselves, differing in terms from such order. Ayres v. White, 264.
Hearing an attorney on, 233.
The County Court has no jurisdiction in the recovery of tithe rent-charges. Where several actions had been brought in a case of disputed jurisdiction, the costs of the defendants were allowed, because one action only should have been first brought, in order to try the right. Harrison v. Berry, 12.
A pawnbroker took a diamond ring in pledge for a sum advanced. Afterwards the pin was redeemed by another person, who stated that he had lost the duplicate, and gave an accurate description of the pin, and it was accordingly delivered to him by the pawnbroker, as directed by the 16th section of 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 99. Afterwards the plaintiff called to redeem it, producing the ticket. The question having been already investigated and adjudicated by justices under the provisions of the same statute: Held, that this court had no jurisdiction. Cooper v. Russell, 15.
The arbitrators of a burial society are not
entitled to order the fund to be paid to the next-of-kin, instead of the widow, because they considered the latter to be an immoral character, and the money so paid may be recovered in this court. Jones v. Watson, 43.
Trover may be maintained in the County Courts. Where the holder of an article has received notice from a party alleging himself to be the owner, not to part with it, and afterwards, upon demand made by another person, refuses to do so, such refusal is not a conversion. Crafts v. Hawkridge, 42.
A prohibition being applied for to the Court of Chancery to restrain a judge of a County Court from carrying into execution a judgment obtained therein concerning the title to land, and the judges of the Common Law Courts being all (except the judge at chambers, who has no jurisdiction in such a case) on circuit: Held, that this court has jurisdiction to issue a prohibition to the County Court judge out of the Petty Bag Office, and a prohibition
was in this case accordingly issued. Wright v. Cattell, 57.
The jurisdiction of the court is not omitted
by the payment into court under protest of the debt and costs. Smith v. Thurston 66.
A corporation, being entitled to receive harbour dues from shipping, is liable in damages for injury done to a ship by reason of an obstruction permitted by them in such harbour. James v. Mayor fc. of Penzance, 67.
Tolls. Under their Act of Parliament, the Great Northern Railway Company were required to convey on their line the coals, &c., of other persons in the carriages of such persons at a certain rate; and they were also required to convey back the empty carriages at so much per mile for each. On a certain number of loaded carriages being presented to the company for conveyance along their line, they not only then demanded payment for the forward carriage, but also a sum for the back carriage; this latter sum being refused, the company declined to convey the goods, whereupon an action was brought in the County Court for damages, resulting from the non-conveyance of the said goods. Upon an objection taken at the trial, that this was a question of a right to toll, and, therefore, under the proviso of sect. 58 of the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, not within the jurisdiction of the County Court, the judge held that he had jurisdiction, and decided the cause of action in the plaintiff's favour. Upon a motion subsequently to this court for a prohibition: Held, that as the title to the toll was not denied, but only the time at which it was demandable and payable, which depended upon the construction to be put upon the act of Parliament, the judge of the County Court had jurisdiction, and the writ was refused. Hunt v. Great Northern Railway Company, 115. Same.-A railway company were required by their act to convey along their line goods and minerals in the carriages of other persons, and to provide at all times sufficient locomotive power to convey back the empty carriages, for which services they were empowered to charge for every carriage a maximum sum of four pencehalfpenny per mile. The plaintiff requested the company to convey several of his trucks laden with coal along a portion of their line, but the company first demanded a certain sum per mile for the returned empty carriages, which the plaintiff refused to pay, alleging they ought to be conveyed back free. Several trucks having been delayed in consequence of this dispute, the plaintiff brought a plaint in the County Court for damages accrued by reason of this conduct of the company; and, notwithstanding an objection to his jurisdiction, the judge tried the cause, giving judgment in the plaintiff's favour. On motion for a prohibition under 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 58, on the ground that a question of title to "tolls" was involved, and that, therefore, the County Court had no jurisdiction: Held, that title to "tolls," as meant in the County Court Act, was not here in question; and, therefore, as the judge had jurisdiction, prohibition would not lie. Hunt v. Great Northern Railway Company, 142.
Writ of Trial.-The 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42
s. 17, provides that in any action depending in any of the Superior Courts for any debt or demand not exceeding 201. the court or a judge, if satisfied that the trial will not involve any difficult question of fact or law, and such court or judge should think fit so to do, may order that the issue joined be tried before the sheriff of the county where the action is brought, or any judge of any Court of Record for the recovery of debt in such county. The County Court Act (9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 3) enacts that every court holden under that act shall be a Court of Record. Query, can an order be made directing a judge of the County Court to try such issue? Semble, by Pollock, C. B., and Alderson, B., it can; the County Court judge being a judge of a Court of Record, and within the meaning of the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42; by Parke and Platt, BB., it cannot; for although the County Court judge may be a judge of a Court of Record, yet such courts as the County Courts, established under the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, are not such courts as are within the meaning of the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42. Breese v. Owens, 146. Friendly Society.-The County Court has
not jurisdiction over an award made in pursuance of the Friendly Societi's Acts. Wilkinson v. Stewards of Thorn Friendly Society, 157.
Sect. 13 of 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, enabling the court or a judge to order that the plaintiff shall recover his costs upon showing that the cause was one for which no plaint could have been entered in a County Court, does not apply to every action of trespass to which the defendant has pleaded "Not possessed." In order to oust the jurisdiction of the County Court, the plaintiff must show that the title to the premises did, in fact, come in question, Lathom v. Spedding, 225. Where the plaintiff's account exceeded the limit of the County Court jurisdiction, and he sought to bring it within, by proving an agreement that cross accounts were to be set off between him and the defendant's testator (the defendant being sued as executor), and the judge of the County Court proceeded on that view of the case, and found for the plaintiff, but there being no evidence of any binding agreement to that effect, this court granted a prohibition to restrain all further proceedings in the County Court. Wilson
v. Franklin, 227. The 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 17, provides that in any action in any of the Superior Courts for a demand under 20%. the court, or a judge, may order that the issu joined be tried before the sheriff of the county where the action is brought, or any judge of any Court of Record for the recovery of debt in such county. The County Courts Act, sect. 3, enacts that every court holden under that act shall be a Court of Record. Held, that the County Courts established under 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, are not such courts as are contemplated by the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, and that, therefore, a writ of trial under that statute cannot be directed by a judge of a County Court established under 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95. Owens v. Breese, 228.
A judge at chambers has jurisdiction under the 13th section of 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, to order costs, notwithstanding an order
of reference, whereby the arbitrators had the same powers to certify as a judge. Sharp v. Everleigh, 282.
An overcharge made for impounding cattle can be recovered back by action in the County Court. Sandiland v. Walters,
Where the judge of a County Court, after having heard the facts of a case, nonsuits the plaintiff, on the ground that he has not jurisdiction, that is such a decision upon the facts that this court will not interfere by mandamus, even though the judge was wrong in his view of the law. Where a company is formed, and afterwards it is agreed that the purposes of the company shall be changed from their original objects, that will not entitle a dissentient member to recover back his deposits in an action. Milner v. Rhoden,
An action will not lie against an assessor of taxes to recover the amount of tax paid upon an assessment alleged to be illegal. Shillibeer v. Sinclair, 318.
Of judge at chambers, 200.
Claim of, for rent, 268.
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
On a rule for a prohibition to the judge of a County Court, on the ground that the title to the premises sought to be recovered came in question, it appeared that the defendants occupied the premises, under a written agreement with the owner, for the purchase of the premises for 1501., 88. per week having to be paid weekly until the purchase-money was paid, the 8s. weekly to go in liquidation of the purchase-money: Held, that the ordinary relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist, and that the County Court had no jurisdiction. Whitehouse v. Howells, 200. Claim for rent under execution, 253.
LITERATURE, LAW OF.
Lectures voluntarily supplied to a periodical, cannot be made the subject of a charge for reporting and supplying them, unless it be specially agreed between the contributor and proprietor, that they shall be paid for. Foote v. Wakley, 18. Where a gentleman had agreed to edit a journal at a certain sum per week, for a period of ten months, the agreement not to be determinable until after three months' notice by either party: Held, to be an agreement for ten months certain, subject to notice. The defendant having dismissed the plaintiff without such notice, and the plaintiff having every week tendered his services, and been rejected: Held, that he was entitled to the full salary for the entire ten months. Knowles v. Robillard, 19.
NOTICE OF ACTION.
A County Court judge, after a prohibition proceeded and committed the plaintiff to prison upon a judgment order for nonpayment of instalments of a judgment debt, whereupon the plaintiff brought an action against him for the false imprisonment, and in leaving the case to the jury, the judge told them that, if the defendant in trying the cause acted under a bona fide belief that his duty as judge made it incumbent on him to do so, notwithstanding the prohibition, the act done by him must be considered as done in pursuance of the County Court Act, and that he was entitled to notice of action; and left it to the jury to say whether the defendant reasonably believed that he was so bound to proceed, and told them that, if "reasonably," meant anything else than in good faith, it meant according to reason, and in contradistinction to acting capriciously: Held, that his direction was correct. Booth v. Clive, 141. When necessary before proceeding_under local acts in the County Courts. Poulton v. Oughton, 182.
Notice of action to the clerk and bailiffs of a County Court stated that the action would be brought in the Court of Common Pleas: Held, it would not support an action in the Court of Queen's Bench
The notice was for breaking plaintiff's house, and taking furniture therein withont expressly claiming the furniture as belonging to the plaintiff. Held, that it would not support an action for breaking the plaintiff's house and for taking her goods: Semble, the notice should state the special damage, if any, is to be claimed in the declaration: Semble, if execution issues from the County Court against the goods of A., and the goods of B. are taken, and his house is broken by mistake, the clerk and bailiffs are, under 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 138, entitled to notice of action. Estob v. Wright, 260.
Held, that a promise to pay for goods ordered by another is a nudum pactum, and cannot be enforced in law. Shellman v. Wilde, 289.
OFFICE. Compensation for loss of, 1.
Action against.-An officer of the County Court, acting under colour of a writ of execution out of such court, entered the premises of the plaintiff, and seized his goods. Upon an action brought in the Queen's Bench by the plaintiff against him, for trespass, the jury returned a verdict for 10, whereupon the plaintiff attended before the Master to tax his costs, who, upon an objection taken by the defendant, that under the 139th section of the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, the plaintiff was not entitled to costs, inasmuch as the plaintiff had not recovered a greater sum than 20., refused to tax. Upon a motion for a rule to compel the Master to tax, upon the ground that the case was within the 128th section: Held, that the case was within the 129th section, and that the Master was correct in refusing to tax the plaintiff's costs. Mann v. Buckerfield, 33.
Of commitment, 3, 6.
PARTICULARS. The summons stated that defendant was summoned to answer to a "claim, the particulars of which are hereunto annexed." The particulars annexed consisted of a coachmaker's bill for repairs of a carriage. It appeared, from the statement of plaintiff's attorney, that the action was intended to be for damages done by defendant's servants to the plaintiff's carriage by negligent driving: Held, that the summons and particulars were an insufficient statement of the cause of action. Maine v. Doubleday, 288. In action for assault, 201.
Liability of paving commissioners to an action for negligence in case of special damage. Last v. Long, 316.
Jurisdiction over, 15.
On account, 184.
An indictment for perjury averred that on, &c. in the Whitechapel County Court of Middlesex, holden at the court-house, in Osborne-street, Whitechapel, in the parish of, &c. in the county of Middlesex, before J. M. serjeant-at-law, then and there being judge of the said court, a certain action on contract, then pending in the said County Court, between A. L. suing as widow and executrix of H. L. plaintiff, and R. H. defendant, came on to be tried, and was then in due form of law tried and heard before the said J. M. &c. upon which trial the said A. L. &c. tendered herself as a witness on her own behalf, and was duly sworn, &c. before the said J. M. then and there being judge of the said court as aforesaid, and then and there having sufficient and competent authority to administer the said oath to her, &c.: Held, after verdict upon writ of error, first, that the court was sufficiently designated as a court held under stat. 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95; and, secondly, that although there was no express averment that the oath was administered in a judicial proceeding over which the court had jurisdiction, that averment was, by necessary intendment, involved in the allegation that the judge had sufficient authority to administer the said oath. Lavey v. The Queen, 258. In the County Courts, cases of, 3.
The following was the plaint in an action for damages by incautious driving, "For that, owing to the incautious, negligent, and unskilful driving of your servant in the month of November instant, at or near King's Cross, the above-named plaintiff hath sustained damage to the amount of 451. Held, that the cause of action was insufficiently stated. But liberty was given to amend, and an adjournment granted for that purpose, on payment of costs of the day. Avison v. Lynch, 20.
A plaint which omits to state the cause of action in a material point, cannot be assisted by the particulars of demand. In an action against an executor in his representative character, the plaint must describe him as such. Jarman v. Sparrow, 121.
Where the plaint was for goods sold and
delivered, and also for a tort, the court will allow the plaintiff to waive one of the
demands and proceed upon the other Brooker v. Smith, 157. Form of, 201.
PONTEFRACT HONOUR COURT. Certain cotton spinning machines were fixed by means of screws, some in wooden fastenings, and some fixed in stones with molten lead, and thereby fastened to the building. The machines were distrained for rent, and subsequently replevied : Held, that they were not a part of the freehold, but were properly distrainable. By 17 Geo. 3, c. 15, jurisdiction is given to the Court of P. for the recovery of debts up to 51., and in replevin. That jurisdiction is, by 2 & 3 Vict. c. 85, extended to 15%. That court was, by 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 5, abolished: Held, that the power of granting as well as hearing replevin was thereby taken away. Halliwell v. Eastwood, 144.
As to citing cases, 19.
On proof of illness of a party the court will adjourn the hearing on payment of costs of the day. Browne v. Harris, 19. The court will not permit a case to be reopened after it has been abandoned by the party. Anon, 66.
A fine of 10%. imposed upon a witness who had been subpoenaed for non-attendance. The proceeds of the fine ordered to be applied towards payment of the expenses incured by the plaintiff by reason of the witness's non-attendance. Harvey v. Goddard, 67.
It is wholly contrary to law, and the practice ought not to be allowed by the judges of the County Courts, for an attorney to practice in those courts as an advocate, taking briefs from other attorneys. Reg. v. Amos, 169.
The court will expect professional men, who attend to conduct a case, to come prepared with authorities, and not to cite them from memory. Cooke v. Rayner, 318. Of court on service of a rule to show cause against prohibition, 13.
In prohibition, 198.
In appeal, 197.
Instruction of counsel by attorney, 233.
Discharge of, 5.
Where a summons had been obtained from a judge in chambers to show cause why a prohibition should not issue against further proceedings in the County Court, and in the meanwhile proceedings to be stayed, and the case coming on for hearing in due course at the County Court: Held, that the proper course would be to adjourn the hearing until the first court after the time appointed for appearance to the summons, so as to give time for the decision of the Superior Court whether such prohibition should be granted or not. Stogdon v. Cooke, 13.