process is headed “Information and Bill." (See the precedents below, pp. 286, 326.)

Specific Instances of English Informations.

Claims to Foreshore.

In A.-G. v. Richards (1785), 2 Anst. 603, it was held that an equity information would lie to abate a nuisance and purpresture on the foreshore in a harbour. So in A.-G. v. Burridge (1822), 10 Price, 350; and A.-G. v. Parmeter (1822), 10 Price, 378, the Court held that the Attorney-General in such a case might proceed by English information for the purpose of protecting either the jus privatum of the King from the purpresture or the jus publicum of the subject from the nuisance, and that the Court might decree the abatement of such nuisance. (See also R. v. Lord Grosvenor (1819), 2 Stark. N. P. 511.) Other reported instances are: A.-G. v. Farmen (1676), 2 Lev. 171; A.-G. v. Plymouth Corporation (1754), Wight. 134; Anon. (1795), Fowler, Exch. Pr. (ed. 2) I. 257; A.-G. v. Constable (1879), 4 Ex. D. 172; 48 L. J. Ex. 455; A.-G. v. Williamson (1889), 60 L. T. 930; A.-G. v. Emerson, [1891] A. C. 649; 61 L. J. Q. B. 79; A.-G. v. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation, [1899] 2 Q. B. 478; 68 L. J. Q. B. 1012. A precedent is printed below, p. 286.

As instances where the Crown has proceeded by ordinary information of intrusion may be cited A.-G. v. Jones (1863), 2 H. & C. 347; 33 L. J. Ex. 249; and A.-G. v. Portsmouth Corporation (1877), 25 W. R. 559. The Crown, as already observed, may also proceed in Chancery either with or without a relator, see A.-G. v. Johnson (1819), 2 Wils. Ch. 87; London Corporation v. A.-G. (1848), 1 H. L. C. 440; A.-G. v. Chambers (1854), 4 D. M. & G. 201; 23 L. J. Ch. 662; A.-G. v. Chamberlaine (1858), 4 K. & J. 292; A.-G. v. Hanmer (1858), 27 L. J. Ch. 837; A.-G. v. Tomline (1880), 14 Ch. D. 58; 49 L. J. Ch. 377. In the last-cited case the Secretary of State for War joined in the proceedings as plaintiff.

For the old practice as to the issue of a commission to find the Crown's title, see below, p. 238.

Claims to Other Lands and Minerals.

A.-G. v. Hallett (1847), 16 M. & W. 569; 16 L. J. Ex. 131, was an English information for an injunction to restrain the defendant from cutting down trees and underwood in a royal forest. In A.-G. v. Barker (1872), L. R. 7 Ex. 177; 41 L. J. Ex. 57, the Crown sought a declaration of its rights in a manor and of the custom of that manor with respect to compensation for surface damage, and an

injunction to restrain a certain action of trespass. A.-G. v. Reveley (1869), Karslake's Rep., was a claim by the Crown to certain land as waste of a manor. A.-G. v. Crofts (1708), 4 Bro. P. C. 136, was an information and bill for discovery of the consideration for a mortgage on an outlaw's estate and of what was due, and for a declaration that the Crown was entitled to redeem, if anything was due. A.-G. v. Sitwell (1835), 1 Y. & C. 559; 5 L. J. Ex. Eq. 86, was an information and bill by the Attorney-General and the Commissioners of Woods and Forests praying specific performance of an agreement, a declaration that the defendant was not entitled to have a certain advowson conveyed to him with a certain manor, and a decree that he should accept a conveyance of the manor without the advowson. A.-G. v. Lord Stawell (1785), 2 Anst. 592, was an information for an account of timber taken by the ranger of a royal forest, to which he alleged that he was entitled by grant. A.-G. v. Vincent (1724), Bunb. 192, was an English information and bill to discover copyhold lands, what timber had been cut, and what waste committed. In A.-G. v. Lambe (1838), 3 Y. & C. 162; 8 L. J. Ex. Eq. 23, the claim was for a declaration that the Duke of Cornwall was entitled to half of certain clay dug, and certain moneys received, by the defendant in respect of certain manorial wastes, and for discovery and an account. 4.-G. v. Lord Eardley (1820), 8 Price, 39, was an information for an account of the titheable matters taken by the defendants upon certain lands in their occupation. Informations have also been filed for recovery of possession of property on the termination of long leases, for the recovery of ancient rents, and in respect of the exercise of franchises. As to common law informations of intrusion with respect to land and minerals, see above, p. 177. Proceedings may also be taken in Chancery by the Crown for a similar purpose, as in A.-G. v. Mathias (1858), 4 K. & J. 579; 27 L. J. Ch. 761, where the Attorney-General prayed a declaration that the defendant had no right to grant certain gales, and an account of the quantities of stone worked, and of the money received, by the defendant; and in A.-G. v. Tomline (1877), 5 Ch. D. 750; 46 L. J. Ch. 654, which was an information by the Attorney-General and a bill by the Secretary of State for War and the Duke of Connaught praying an information to restrain the defendant from digging in and trespassing on certain land, and an account and payment of the profits made by him from the produce of such digging, and damages.

Formerly, the Crown used at times to issue a commission for the holding of an inquisition as to the title of the Crown to lands, in cases where the procedure by English information would have been equally available. The last reported instance of this seems to be R. v. Lord Yarborough (1828), 1 Dow & Cl. 178, a case as to foreshore.

Money Claims.

There have been numerous cases where the Crown has proceeded by English information or English information and bill for discovery and an account and payment, in cases of money alleged to be due to it. There have been modern instances of such proceedings to recover the property of an extinct corporation, against railway companies for passenger duty, against a defaulting registrar of a County Court, against a defaulting military officer, against bankers in respect of moneys of the Crown standing to an account at their bank, and against a contractor alleged to owe money to the Crown under commercial contracts. See the precedents below, pp. 310 sqq. In the passenger duty cases, if the Crown has desired an account of the duty alleged to be payable, the procedure by English information has been adopted, as in Great Western Rail. Co. v. A.-G. (1866), L. R. 1 H. L. 1; 35 L. J. Ex. 123; and A.-G. v. Metropolitan District Rail. Co. (1880), 5 Ex. D. 218. So in other cases of unpaid duties, where an account was desired, as in A.-G. v. Daly (1833), Hay. & Jon. 379, and A.-G. v. Conroy (1838), 2 Jones, 791. A.-G. v. Evans (1862), 5 L. T. 760, was an information for arrears of fee farm rents. In A.-G. v. Cresner (1710), Park. 279, an English information was brought to discover what stock in hand of pepper the defendant had, and to recover duty upon it. Equity informations have also been utilised in suitable cases for the purpose of obtaining an account and payment of death duties from executors or administrators, as in 4.-G. v. Rowe (1862), 1 H. & C. 31; 31 L. J. Ex. 314; A.-G. v. Brackenbury (1863), 1 H. & C. 782; 32 L. J. Ex. 108; A.-G. v. Countess Blucher de Wahlstatt (1864), 3 H. & C. 374; 34 L. J. Ex. 29, and A.-G. v. Duke of Richmond, Gordon and Lennox (No. 2), [1907] 2 K. B. 940; 96 L. J. K. B. 1049. The procedure for an account and payment by writ sued out by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under ss. 54-64 of the Crown Suits, &c. Act, 1865, has been dealt with above, p. 186.

Of the nature of English informations were the informations for discovery and an account brought against army agents under 45 Geo. III. c. 58 (repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 63)), as in A.-G. v. Ross (1820), 8 Price, 190; A.-G. v. Brooksbank (1827), 1 Y. & J. 439; 2 Y. & J. 37; and Deare v. A.-G. (1831), 2 Dow & Cl. 377. In such a case apparently no Statute of Limitations would assist the defendant. (Brummell v. M’Pherson (1828), 5 Russ. 263; 7 L. J. Ch. 1.)

As to the general liability to account to the Crown, see Earl of Devonshire's Case (1607), 11 Rep. 89 a, and above, p. 144. For bills

filed in the Exchequer against the Attorney-General by public accountants who were dissatisfied with the determination of the Board which had audited their accounts, see above, p. 160.

The Crown, if it chooses, can proceed in Chancery for an account in such cases. (A.-G. v. Edmunds (1868), L. R. 6 Eq. 381; 37

L. J. Ch. 706.)

Proceedings under the Marriage Acts.

The Marriage Act, 1823 (4 Geo. IV. c. 76), s. 23, provides for the filing of an English information by the Attorney-General in the Exchequer on the relation of a parent or guardian for forfeiture of an estate accruing to a party by a valid marriage between minors obtained by fraud. It also provides, however, that such forfeiture may be enforced by similar proceedings in Chancery, and this is the method which has usually been adopted. These provisions are extended by the Marriage and Registration Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Vict. c. 119), s. 19, and the Foreign Marriage Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 23), s. 14. See below, p. 475, where the sections are referred to in greater detail.

CHAPTER II.

PRACTICE IN PROCEEDINGS IN EQUITY ON THE REVENUE SIDE OF THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION.

General Observations.

THE practice on English informations is governed by Part II. of the Crown Suits, &c. Act, 1865 (p. 692), and the Rules of 1866 (p. 808), made under sect. 28 of that Act. That section was repealed by the Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 59), but sect. 4 of that Act preserves these Rules. The power to make rules for the procedure by English information is now, by sect. 5 of the last-named Act and the Judicature Acts, vested in the Rule Committee.

The Committee have not annulled the Rules of 1866, but, by Ord. LXVIII. rr. 2 and 2A, Ord. II. r. 8, and Ords. XXVIII., XXXIV., XXXVIII., LII., LVIII., LXIV., LXV., LXVI., and LXX. are applied, so far as applicable, to all proceedings on the Revenue side of the King's Bench Division. A full summary of the procedure is now to be found in Vol. II. of the Annual Practice.

The reader is also referred to the older editions of Daniell's Chancery Practice, published when the Chancery Orders, from which the Rules of 1866 were largely drawn, were still in force. A general discussion of the equitable jurisdiction of the Exchequer will be found in Wall v. A.-G. (1823), 11 Price, 643, and the observations on that case at p. 710.

It is now proposed to deal with the details of this special practice, leaving the general prerogative of the Crown in points of procedure to be dealt with in Book VI. of this work.

Abatement.

See "Nolle Prosequi," "Revivor," and the provisions of Rule 7 (17) for making a decree effective against the representatives of a deceased defendant and persons claiming under him. See also above, p. 212.

It is provided by 1 Ann. c. 2 (st. 1, c. 8, Ruff.), s. 5, that no writ, process, or proceedings in or issuing out of any Court of equity shall

C.P.

R