into the time when it was stamped, in cases where a stamping within a limited period is required by statute.—A memorandum indorsed upon an instrument, purporting to be an acknowledgment by the commissioners of stamps of the payment of a penalty, is not evidence.-The King v. Inhabitants of Preston, 3 N. & M. 31.

2. (Agreement stamp.) An agreement to indemnify A. from all costs, charges, damages, or expenses which he may incur as bail for B., the arrest of B. being for more than £20, though the costs &c. incurred do not amount to that sum, requires an agreement stamp.-Wrigley v. Smith, 3 N. & M. 181.

3. (On bond.—Annuity Act.) The condition of a bond (after reciting that M., the obligee, had contracted with B., the obligor, for the sale to him, B., of a messuage and premises, in consideration, among other things, of an annuity of £150, to be paid to M. during her life by B., by four quarterly payments in the year; and that on the contract for such sale it was agreed, that for better securing the payment of such annuity, B. should execute that bond,) was for the payment of the said annuity at the times &c. The bond was stamped with a £1 : 15s. deed stamp: Held, that it was properly stamped, and did not require inrolment under the Annuity Act; and that if such inrolment had been necessary, the want of it could not have been taken advantage of under the plea of non est factum. (2 B. & B. 702; 9 B. & C. 396; 3 B. & Ad. 602.)—Mestayer v. Biggs, 1 C. M. & R. 110.

4. (Fresh stamp on re-execution.) The defendant executed a release to a witness in the usual manner, and gave it to his attorney. At the trial it appeared that another witness must be released: his name was accordingly introduced into the release, and the defendant re-executed it before it had been delivered to either witness: Held, that this re-execution did not make a fresh stamp necessary. (5 M. & S. 223; 2 B. & C. 88; 1 C. & M. 721.)-Spicer v. Burgess, 1 C. M. & R. 129.

STATUTE.

1. (Proof of.) Where an act of parliament for conducting a private company is declared to be a public act, and required to be judicially noticed as such without being specially pleaded, it is unnecessary at a trial to prove it by an examined copy of the original. (1 M. & M. 421.)--Beaumont v. Mountain, 10 Bing. 404; Woodward v. Cotton, 1 C. M. & R. 44. 2. (Construction of local act.) A local act provided that no ditch should be arched over &c. without the consent of the trustees under the act, under a penalty of £50: Held, that a surveyor, who, after a sewer had been commenced, directed it to be continued, without the trustees' consent, had incurred the penalty.-Woodward v. Cotton, 1 C. M. & R. 44.

STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU.

Notwithstanding an indorsement of the bill of lading by the vendee to a party who advances money on the security of it, an equitable right of

(quasi) stoppage in transitu remains in the unpaid vendor, subject to the indorsee's right to be repaid his advances. And the vendor has an equity to call upon such indorsee to repay himself out of other property of the vendee in his hands: if, instead of doing so, he apply for that purpose the proceeds of the goods so equitably stopped in transitu, the vendor will have a lien upon the vendee's interest in such other property. (6 East, 21, n.; 7 T. R. 445; Bell's Commentaries, b. 2, pt. 2, c. 1, art. 3: 1 Atk. 245; 8 Ves. 381; 2 Atk. 444.)-In re Westzynthius, 2 N. & M. 644.

SUBPOENA

A subpæna duces tecum, without being ad testificandum also, is valid, and the party is bound to obey it by producing the document, and is not thereby made a witness.-Evans v. Moseley, 2 D. P. C, 364.

TITHES. See BENEFICE.

TOLL.

(Exemption from, for persons travelling less than 100 yards on road.) Certain roads were placed by local acts under the direction of trustees for amending, improving, and repairing the same, and they were empowered to erect toll-gates on the said roads and receive toll there; but there was a certain portion on one of the roads which they were prohibited from repairing or improving, or erecting toll-gates on: Held, that a person travelling along the last-mentioned road for more than 100 yards, including the excepted part, but less than 100 yards if that part were excluded, was not exempted from toll by 3 Geo. 4, c. 126, s. 32. (Bussey v. Storey, 4 B. & Ad. 98.)—Pope v. Langworthy, 5 B. & Ad. 464; 1 N. & M. 647. TRESPASS.

1. (Possession necessary to justify.) A party who hired a steam boat for a pleasure excursion, during which the owner's captain and crew navigated the vessel, was held not to have such a possession as to justify him in forcibly turning out a stranger whom the captain had permitted to come on board. (2 Marsh. 339; 4 M. & S. 288; 8 Taunt. 293.)- Dean v. Hogg, 10 Bing. 345.

2. (Pleadings in.) Declaration for trespasses in close A. Plea, that A. is part of a waste called B., over which defendant had common appurtenant by prescription. Replication, that A. had been inclosed and severed from the waste, and held adversely to the commoners for twenty years: Held, that this replication was maintained by proof that part of A. had been inclosed twenty years, and part not, and that the trespasses were committed in both parts. (1 B. & C. 156; 2 B. & C. 918) [Overruling the dictum of the Court in Hawke v. Bacon, 2 Taunt. 156.]-Tapley v. Wainwright, 5 B. & Adol. 395; 2 N. & M. 697.

3. (Pleadings in trespass to the person-Game Act.) Trespass against two for assaulting plaintiff and tearing his clothes. The fourth plea stated that before the committing the trespasses, plaintiff was found by defendant H. on the lands of S., in search of game, without the license and against

the will of S., and that plaintiff had in his possession a hare, which appeared to have been recently killed: whereupon defendant H., as the servant and by command of S., demanded the hare, which plaintiff refused to deliver: that afterwards, and just before committing the trespasses, defendant H. demanded the hare; and because the plaintiff then and there refused to deliver it, the defendants, as such servants and by such command, in order to take it for the use of S., seized the plaintiff, and took the hare from him, according to the statute (1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 32, s. 36): Held bad, as not sufficiently showing when the second demand was made, or that it was made on S.'s land.

The fifth plea stated, that just before the trespasses the plaintiff had in his possession a dead hare belonging to S., without his leave and license; wherefore defendants, as his servants and by his command, demanded the same from the plaintiff, which he refused to deliver, whereupon defendants, as such servants &c., seized him &c. (as before): Held bad, for not stating that defendants molliter manus imposuerunt in order to take the game, and that because plaintiff resisted, they necessarily committed the trespasses complained of, doing as little damage and using as little violence as they could on that occasion.—Wisdom v. Hodson, 3 Moo. & Sc. 811. 4. (Pleadings in.) First count, for taking away "goods, chattels and effects;" second, for tearing away and severing" fixtures and effects." Pleas, the general issue, and a special plea to the first count, stating the tenancy of plaintiff to one of the defendants at a certain rent, which being in arrear, they distrained the "goods and chattels" in that count mentioned. Replication, similiter to the general issue, and non tenuit to the special plea. The jury found the tenancy as pleaded: Held, that on the issue taken in the replication, the trespasses laid in the first count were (after verdict) covered by the special plea, though some of the articles taken were fixtures. Held also, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the damage done to his house by severing the fixtures from it, but not for the value of them.-Twigg v. Potts, 3 Tyrw. 969; 1 C. M. & R. 89.

TURNPIKE.

(Appeal-Adjudication of Sessions.) The adjudication of the quarter sessions, upon an appeal relating to an act done in pursuance of a local turnpike act, is final, and no mandamus lies to require that court to rehear such appeal. (4 Geo. 4, c. 95, s. 87.)-The King v. Justices of West Riding of Yorkshire, 3 N. & M. 86.

And see MANDAMUS.

UNIFORMITY OF PROCESS ACT.-See ATTORNEY, 12; BAIL, 11; PRACTICE, 7, 19, 20, 21; PROCESS, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12.

VENDOR AND PURCHASER.

1. Where a vendor omits to make out a good title within the stipulated time, and the purchaser dies, his executor may sue for damages incurred by loss of interest on the deposit-money, and the expense of investigating

the title. (1 M. & S. 355; 1 Ventr. 175; 2 B. & B. 102.)-Ornie v. Broughton, 10 Bing. 533.

2 (Title to leasehold property.) The vendor of a leasehold interest is bound to show the lessor's title to demise, unless it be otherwise stipulated in the contract of sale. Nor will an agreement to dispense with the proof of the lessor's title be implied from the circumstances of the term's being nearly expired, the small value of the property, and the absence of any premium. (9 Price, 488; R. & M. 417; 10 B. & C. 261.)—Souter v. Drake, 3 N. & M. 40.

3. (Conditions of Sale.—Title.) On a sale by auction of leasehold property, one of the conditions of sale was, that the vendor should not be obliged to produce the lessor's title. The vendor having discovered aliunde certain defects in the lessor's title: Held, that notwithstanding the above condition, he was entitled to insist on those defects. (10 B. & C. 249.)Shepherd v. Keatley, 1 C. M. & R. 117.

And see FRAUDS, STATUTE OF, 2.

VENUE.

1. The venue will not be changed in an action on a written but unstamped agreement.-Slack v. Chew, 3 Tyrw. 810.

2. (Affidavit to change, by whom made.) It is not of itself a sufficient objection to an affidavit for changing the venue, that it is made by the attorney in the cause, and not by the defendant: But semble, that if the defendant is in the country, it ought to be made by him.-Biddell v. Smith, 2 D. P. C. 219.

3. (When changed.) In an action on a bill of exchange, the defendant is too late to change the venue after an order for time on the usual terms, and an undertaking to try at the sittings, although it is sworn that all the witnesses reside in the county to which it is sought to move the venue.Haythorn v. Bush, 2 D. P. C. 240.

4. (Changing venue in action on deed.) In an action on a deed, the venue may be changed under special circumstances, though an undertaking to try at the sittings has been given; and an affidavit showing by circumstances a good defence on the merits was held equivalent to a positive affidavit that there was such a defence.-Johnson v. Berrisford, 2 C. & M. 222; S. C. nomine John on v. Nevison, 2 D. P. C. 260.

5. (In covenant.) In an action of covenant on a farm lease, the Court refused to change the venue before issue joined. (3 B. & C. 552.)—Maude v. Sessions, 1 C. M. & R. 86.

And see PLEADING, 1.

WARRANT OF ATTORNEY.

(Entering up judgment on.) An affidavit by the plaintiff's attorney that the debt is unpaid, is sufficient to warrant a motion to enter up judgment on an old warrant of attorney, the attorney swearing that he had been em

ployed in managing the money, and receiving and paying over the interest.-Ashman v. Bowdler, 2 C. & M. 212.

And see HUSBAND AND WIFE, 1; INSOLVENT, 1; PRISONER, 2.

WITNESS.

1. (Incompetency from interest.) In an action against executors for a debt of the testator, an annuitant under the will is not disqualified by interest from being a witness for the defendant. (6 Esp. N. P. C. 34; 1 M. & M. 345.)—Nowell v. Davies, 5 B. & Adol. 368; 2 N. & M. 745.

2. Where a person called only to produce a document is sworn as a witness by mistake, and a question is put to him which he does not answer, the

opposite party is not entitled to cross-examine him. (1 Esp. 357.)— Rush v. Smith, 1 C. M. & R. 94.

3. (Competency.) The statute 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 26, does not operate to give competency to a witness disqualified by a pecuniary interest in the verdict; as a drawer of an accommodation bill when called for the acceptor; a workman who dug a cellar, by the improper digging of which an adjoining wall is injured, the owner of which sues the workman's employer; or the servant of a carrier sued for that servant's negligence. -Burgess v. Cuttill, 6 C. & P. 282; Mitchell v. Hunt, ib. 350; Harrington v. Caswall, ib. 351.

4. (Examination on commission under 1 Will. 4, c. 22.) A witness for the defendant was examined on a commission under this statute: on his crossexamination a paper signed by him was produced to him, and part of his cross-examination and re-examination related to it and was founded on it: this paper was annexed to his deposition : Held, that the paper was not to be read at the trial as part of the witness's cross-examination, but that if the plaintiff's counsel wished it to be read before the cross-examination was read, it must be put in as his evidence, so as to entitle the defendant's counsel to observe upon it in a special reply.—Stephens v. Foster, 6 C. & P.

289.

And see Costs, 10, 17; Subpœna.

WORK AND LABOUR.

(Evidence in reduction of damages, in action for.) In an action on a special contract for work done under the contract, and for work, labour, and materials generally, the defendant may give in evidence that the work has been done improperly, and not agreeably to the contract, and the plaintiff in such case will be entitled only to recover (on the general count) the real amount of the work done and materials supplied.-Chapel v. Hickes, 2 C. & M. 214.

WRIT OF ERROR.-See COGNOVIT, 2.

WRIT OF TRIAL ACT,

1. The act 3 & 4 Will. 4, č. 42, s. 17, authorizing the sheriff to try issues where the debt or demand does not exceed £20, applies only to debts

A