JOURNAL OF PROPERTY. A PRACTICAL COMMENTARY ON THE LAW OF CONTRACTS RELATING better opinion (see 2 Jarm. on Wills, 121, et seq.), though some gentlemen of eminence have expressed strong doubts upon the point. Now under the recent Will Act, 1 Vict. c. 26, a general devise of the testator's lands is made to include copyholds, unless a contrary intent shall appear by the will. (Sect. 26.) Another doubt arising upon the construction of the statute 55 Geo. 3 was, whether it would embrace an unadmitted heir-at-law; but the better opinion seems to be that it would have done so, because he is a complete tenant before admittance, against all persons except the lord, in respect of his fine. An unadmitted purchaser, having only an equitable interest, might, as already stated, have devised his interest without a surrender, even independently of the statute; but an unadmitted devisee could not have done so, the latter having, as we have already seen, no equitable title distinct from his incomplete legal title. (Wainwright v. Elwall, Madd.637.) Neither is he a copyhold tenant within the meaning of the Act, which therefore confers no more devising power upon him than he enjoyed previously. 1 12 Ves. 209), or of a brother or sister; so that it was of course excluded in favour of a nephew, niece, cousin, or more remote relations (Goodwyn v. Goodwyn, 1 Ves. 228; Strode v. Falkland (Lord), 2 Vern. 605; Gowan, 3 Bro. C. C. 169; Rogers v. Downs, 9 Mod. 292; Judd v. Pratt, 13 Ves. 168; 15 ib. 30), and still more so By WILLIAM HUGHES, Esq. Barrister-at-Law. of strangers or volunteers, as a devisee or legatee (Continued from page 94.) (Floyd v. Wallis, cited 5 East, 137); nor even in When equity would have supplied a surrender. favour of the wife and children, if the will con-In certain cases where a surrender was requisite tained a provision for them. (Ross v. Ross, 1 Eq. to give validity to the will, a court of equity, by Ca. Abr. 124, pl. 14; Lindopp v. Eborall, 3 Bro. analogy to the aid it affords in instances of a defec- C. C. 188; Tudor v. Anson, 2 Ves. sen. 582.) It tive execution of a power, would have supplied that was also decided in the House of Lords that a suromission: as in favour of a wife (Strode v. Falk-render would not even be supplied in the case of a land (Lord), 3 Cha. Rep. 187; Biscoe v. Cart-grandchild (Kettle v. Townsend, 1 Salk. 187; wright, Gilb. Eq. Rep. 121; Tollet. Tollet, 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 123); and, notwithstanding this 2 P. Wms. 489; Hawkins v. Leigh, 1 Atk. 388; decision was often disapproved of (Watts v. Bullas, Smith v. Baker, ib. 385; Taylor v. Taylor, ib. 1 P. Wms. 61; Freestone v. Rant, 1 P. Wms. 61 386; Roome v. Roome, 3 ib. 181; Goodwyn v. n. (t); Fursaker v. Robinson, 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. Goodwyn, 1 Ves. 228; Byas v. Byas, 2 ib. 164; pl. 9), and its authority even doubted (Hills v. Tudor v. Anson, ib. 582; Marston v. Gowan, Downton, 5 Ves. 563, Lord Eldon held that the 3 Bro. C. C. 170; Chapman v. Gibson, ib. 229; rule laid down by the House of Lords could not be Rumbold, v. Rumbold, 3 Ves. 65; Hills v. Down-reversed in a court of equity, but must remain till Alterations effected by the recent Will Act.ton, 5 Ves. 557; Church v. Mundy, 12 Ves. 429; altered by the House. At the same time, although The recent Will Act (1 Vict. c. 26, s. 3), after Fielding v. Winwood, 16 Ves. 90; Wat. Cop. he dismissed the bill, he refused to give costs; ob-enacting that all copyholders may devise without Fonbl. Eq. 38, 39), children (Smith v. Ashton, serving, it was impossible to do so where the plain- surrender, empowers unadmitted heirs or devisees 1 Cha. Cas. 263; Hardham v. Roberts, 1 Vern. tiffs had so much encouragement from dicta. to devise their copyhold estates. (Sec. 3.) The 132; 2 ib. 164; Kettle v. Townsend, 1 Salk. 187; (Perry v. Whitehead, 6 Ves. 544.) These ques- same fees and fine are, however, payable, as if the Bradley v. Bradley, 2 Vern. 163; Croft v. Lister, tions are, however, only applicable to the wills of surrenders and admissions had been all actually cited ib. 164; Bath and Montague's Case, 3 Cha. copyholders dying previously to the statute of made. (Sec. 4.) And all wills, or extracts of Cas. 106; Baker v. Jennings, 2 Freem. 234; Pope 55 Geo. 3, c. 192, already referred to, which dis- wills, of copyholds or customary freeholds, are rev. Garland, 3 Salk. 84; Strode v. Falkland (Lord), penses with the necessity of a surrender to the use quired to be entered on the court rolls. (Sec. 5.) 3 Cha. Rep. 187; Watts v. Bullas, 1 P. Wms. 60, of a will. And even as to wills made previously, if Distinction between copyhold and customary and n. (1); 2 ib; Bullock v. Bullock, 6 Vin. Cop. the possession has been long peaceably held-as, freeholds.-The chief distinction between customary M. (a), pl. 19; Burton v. Lloyd, ib. pl. 20; S. C. for forty years, for instance, a surrender will be freeholds and copyholds consists in the former being 3 P. Wms. 285 n. (a), S. C. 2 Bro. P.C. 281 presumed. (Wat. Cop. 144; Knight v. Adamson, holden according to the custom of the manor, and (by name Lloyd, App. Burton, Resp.); Weeks v.1 Freem. 106; Lydford v. Coward, 1 Vern. 195; not at the will of the lord, according to the custom Gore, 6 Vin. Cop. M. (a), pl. 24; Suffolk (Earl of Wilson v. Allen, I Jac. & Walk. 620.) of the manor. (Hughs v. Harrys, Cro. Car. 229; v. Howard, 2 P. Wms. 178; Tollet v. Tollet, ib. Operation of stat. 55 Geo 3, c. 192, on wills of Gale v. Noble, Carth. 422; Rogers v. Bradley, 489; Carter v. Carter, Mos. 370; Andrews v. copyholds.-The necessity of a surrender to the use 2 Ventr. 144; Hill v. Bolton, Lutw. 1171; CrouWaller, 6 Vin. Cop. W. (e), pl. 12; Hicken v. of a will was dispensed with by the statute of the ther v. Oldfield, ib. 125'; S.C. 1 Salk. 365; 6 Mod. Hicken, ib. M. (a), pl. 30; S.C. Ca. temp. Talb. 35; 55 Geo. 3, c. 192, by which it is enacted that 19; 11 ib. 53; 2 Lord Raym. 1225.) Lord Coke Hawkins v. Leigh, 1 Atk. 388; Macey v. Shurmer, devises of copyholds shall be good without surren- styles these customary freeholds as copyholds of ib. 389; Roome v. Roome, 3 ib. 181; Goring v. der to the use of a will. (Sec. 1.) It however frank tenure, which, he observes, " are most usual Nash, ib. 191; Banks v. Denshaw, ib. 585; Good- provides that the same duties and fees shall continue in ancient demesne; though sometimes," he adds, wyn v. Goodwyn, 1 Ves. 228; Byas v. Byas, 2 ib. payable as have been paid on surrenders. (Sec. 2.)" out of ancient demesne we meet with the like kind 164; Tudor v. Anson, ib. 582; Lindopp v. Ebor- The Act is not to render invalid any devise or dis- of copyholds; as in Northamptonshire there are all, 3 Bro. C. C. 188; Chapman v. Gibson, ib. position that would have been valid; nor to render tenants which hold by copy of court roll, and yet 229; Pike v. White, ib. 286; Rumbold v. Rum-valid such as would have been invalid if a surrender hold not at the will of the lord." (Co. Cop. s. 32; bold, 3 Ves. 65; Hills v. Downton, 5 ib. 563; had been made to the use of the will. (Sec. 3.) see also Kitch. Cop. 159; Scriv. 666.) This omisBlunt v. Clitherow, 10 Ves. 589; Garn v. Garn, This statute, it has been determined, supplies a sion to hold at the lord's will seems, however, ta 16 ib. 228; Pennington v. Pennington, 1 Ves. & surrender only in point of form, and therefore does form the chief distinction which now exists between Bea. 406; Sampson v. Sampson, ib. 337; Brad-not render copyholds devisable which were not so copyholds and customary freeholds, the latter of dick v. Mattock, 6 Madd. 361), or creditors (Chal- otherwise, or supply an Act necessary to give which, except when varied by custom, are subject lis v. Casburn, Pre. Cha. 407; S. C. Gilb. Eq. validity to the devise beyond the simple act of sur- to the general law of copyholds, although in some Rep. 96; 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 124; Pope v. Garland, render. Hence if a feme covert were incapable of instances they are by custom transferable by deed 3 Salk. 84; Strode v. Falkland (Lord), 3 Cha. devising her copyhold land except through the and admittance, and not by surrender. (Doe v. Rep. 187; Drake v. Robinson, 1 P. Wms. 443; medium of a surrender to will under the sanction Huntingdon, 4 East, 271; Bowin v. Rawlins, Harris v. Ingledew, 3 ib. 98; ib. n. (2); Hazle- and protection of the private examination by the 7 East, 409.) But by whatever mode of assurance wood v. Pope, ib. 322; Mallabar v. Mallabar, lord or steward as to her uncontrolled assent, the they may be transferred, the freehold will always Ca. temp. Talb. 78; Atty.-Gen. v. Mott, 2 Eq. act will not supply a surrender unaccompanied with remain in the lord. Still, for all this, where they pass Ca. Abr. 234, pl. 23; Car v. Ellison, 3 Atk. 73; these formalities-this being a surrender in sub- by deed and admittance, they are considered as so Roome v. Roome, ib. 181; Ithall v. Beane, 1 Ves. stance intended to protect the acts of a married far partaking of a freehold nature as to fall within 215; Byas v. Byas, 2 Ves. 164; Tudor v. An- woman, which protection the Legislature did not the Statute of Frauds, and consequently could not, son, ib. 582; Coombes v. Gibson, 1 Bro. C. C. intend to deprive her of. (Doe dem. Nethercote v. previously to the statute 1 Vict. c. 26, have passed 273; Bixley v. Eley, 2 ib. 325; Lindopp v. Bartle, 5 Barn. & Ald. 492; S. C. 1 Dow. & Ry. by will, unless it was attested by three witnesses. Eborall, 3 ib. 188; Chapman v. Gibson, ib. 229, 81.) How far this statute would be operative upon (Hussey v. Grills, Amb. 299; Willan v. Lancasn. (1); Watts v. Bullas, 1 P. Wms. 60; Kentish a general devise of lands where the testator had both ter, 3 Russ. 108.) v. Kentish, 3 Bro. C. C. 257; Growcock v. Smith, freehold and copyhold property, seems to have been a 2 Cox, 397; Hills v. Downton, 5 Ves. 563; Kid-matter of some doubt. Before the statute, unsurrenney v. Cousmaker, 12 Ves. 136; Pennington v. dered copyholds would not have passed under a genePennington, 1 Ves. & B. 406); which equity is ral devise of lands, unless the testator had no freeholds equally applicable to lands of gavelkind and borough upon which the will could operate (Byas v. Byas, English tenure. (Bradley v Bradley, 2 Vern. 165; 2 Ves. sen. 164; Hawkins v. Leigh, 1 Atk. 387; Cooper v. Cooper, ib. 265; Byas v. Byas, 2 Ves. Smith v. Baker, ib. 385; Car v. Ellison, 3 ib. sen. 164.) The ground of this equitable interfe- 73; Lindopp v. Eborall, 3 Bro. C. C. 188; Tudor rence was a legal and moral obligation; and there- v. Anson, 2 Ves. sen. 582; Church v. Mundy, 12 fore equity would not have interfered in a capricious Ves. 426; S. C. 15 ib. 396; Milbourn v. Milbourn, or arbitrary manner, unless the necessity or justice ib. 400; Nicholls v. Butcher, 18 ib. 193; Hodgof the case demanded it, nor have assisted to disin-son v. Merest 9 Pri. 556; Pennington v. Penningherit the heir where it was equally consistent with ton, 1 Ves. & Bea. 406), and then only in favour of justice that he should have succeeded to the pro-wife, children, and creditors (as to which see ante). perty (Wat. Cop. 133; Gilb. Ten. 157, n (✯), 412) ; But surrendered copyholds would have passed under consequently, although the surrender would have been supplied in favour of the creditors, this case would only have extended to the amount of the debts, the heir having at least equal equity with the devisee, and therefore his legal right would have prevailed. (Compton v. Collinson, 2 Bro. C. C. 386; 3 ib. 171; Wat. Cop. 141; Scriv. Cop. 271.) Nor would a surrender have been supplied in favour of natural children (Tudor v. Anson, 2 Ves. 282; Holmes v. Coghill, Fearne, Posth. Works, 328; Crickett v. Dolby, 3 Ves. 12; Fursakerv. Robinson, such general devise. (Scott v. Alberry, Com. Rep. Ancient demesne.-Ancient demesne consists of those lands or manors as were held in socage of manors belonging to the Crown in the time of Edward the Confessor or William the Conqueror, and so appear by Domesday Book. (F. N. B. 14; 2 Black. Comm. 99; Kitch. 187, 190; Jentleman's case, 6 Co. 11, b.) There are said to be three sorts of tenants in ancient demesne,-1. Those who hold lands freely by grant of the king; 2. Those who hold of a manor which is ancient demesne, but not at the will of the lord, and who are in fact customary freeholders; and 3. Those who hold of a manor which is ancient demesne, but at the will of the lord, like ordinary copyholders. The two former could only be impleaded in their lords' courts by a writ of right close, and if otherwise impleaded they might have pleaded the tenure in abatement; but the third class of tenants, holding as copyholders at the will of the lord, were to sue by plaint in the lord's court. It was upon this writ of right close that fines and recoveries were formerly suffered of lands in ancient demesne; and a recovery suffered in a court of ancient demesne, according to the custom of the manor, was an effectual bar to the entail. A fine, indeed, might have been levied, or a recovery might have been suffered, in the Common Pleas ; but then, as the operation of those proceedings in the latter court would have rendered the land frankfree so long as they remained in force, to the prejudice of the lord, he was enabled to reverse the same by a writ of deceit. And now, by the Fine and Recovery Substitution Act (3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 74) fines and recoveries of lands in ancient demesne, when levied or suffered in a superior court may be reversed as to the lord by writs of deceit, but will remain good and valid as against the conusors thereof, and all persons claiming under them, as such fines and recoveries would have been if the same had not been so reversed by such writ of deceit. (Sec. 4). It next proceeds to enact that fines and recoveries of lands in ancient demesne, levied or suffered in the manor court, after other fines and recoveries suffered in any of the superior courts, shall be as valid as if the tenure had not been changed; and that in every other case where fines and recoveries, though levied or suffered in those courts whose jurisdiction may not extend to the lands comprised therein, shall not be invalid on that account. (Sec. 5.) And it further enacts, that in every case where the tenure of ancient demesnes has been suspended or destroyed by fine or recovery in a superior court, and the lord should not have reversed the same before the 1st of January, 1834, and should not, by any law in force on the 1st day of the then present session of parliament, be barred of his right to reverse the same, such lands, provided within the last twenty years immediately preceding the 1st of January, 1834, the right of the lord shall have been acknowledged or recognised, shall again become parcel of the manor and become subject to the same rents, heriots, and services, as they would have been subject to if such fine or recovery had not been levied or suffered; and that no writ of deceit for the reversal of any fine or common recovery should be brought after the 31st of December, 1833. (Sec. 6.) other than on the waste lands, may be compelled to give security for any surface damage he may do to the property. (Sec. 61.) But the Duke of Cornwall himself is not to be liable for any damage done by his lessees (sec. 66); nor is any compensation to be allowed for damage done to the waste or demesne lands. Claims of the duchy, how to be barred by Statutes of Limitation.-The Statutes of Limitation were for the most part considered inapplicable to the lands and possessions of the duchy of Cornwall, to remedy which the above-mentioned stat. of 7 & 8 Vict. enacts, that the claims of the Duke of Cornwall shall generally be barred at the end of sixty years (sec. 71); that his claims shall not be kept alive by putting a manor in charge of which the land shall be part (sec. 72); that his claims to mines shall be barred by the possession of the land and exclusively working the mines for sixty years (sec. 73), or by the absolute possession of the land, independently of the Duke of Cornwall, for 100 years. (Sec. 74.) But time, as to reversions, is not to begin to run till they fall into possession (sec. 76); nor to hereditaments which have been granted for limited estates, until such estates fail. (Sec. 77.) Neither will this Act bar the Duke as to the property comprised in the award (sec. 81); nor affect the privilege of tinners (sec. 84); nor extend to the royalties, liberties, offices, &c. let in convention; nor to navigable rivers, estuaries, branches of the sea or seashore (sec. 86); nor affect the Act of 2 & 3 Wm. 4, c. 100, for shortening the time required in claims of modus decimandi, &c. (Sec. 87.) (To be continued.) ascertain what lands and tenements in the several manors mentioned in the schedules annexed to the said Act, were held as conventionary tenements, and the boundaries, identity, and situation of all such tenements, for the period therein set forth. (Secs. 2 to 31.) And directs the commissioners, when they shall have made all such inquiries, to make an award in writing under their hands, and to annex to such award a map or maps, and thereby to distinguish, specify, and determine what lands and tenements had been holden as conventionary tenements within the said several manors respectively for the last sixty years. (Sec. 31.) And such award is declared to be binding and conclusive on the Duke of Cornwall, and all persons whomsoever. (Sec. 40.) And all and singular the tenements therein determined to be conventionary are made of freehold tenure, and to be for ever thenceforth held of the Duke of Cornwall in free and common socage of the manor of which the same tenements had theretofore been held; charged, however, with the payment to the Duke of Cornwall, as lord of such manors respectively, of all arrears of rents, fines, acknowledgments, heriots, fees, payments, or services, and of such annual sum as should be directed to be payable thereout respectively, and that the Duke of Cornwall should have the same remedies for recovering the same as for rent reserved on a demise. (Sec. 41.) The Act does not, however, confirm conventionary tenements first granted within sixty years (42); still it provides that where such grants have been made, if it shall appear to the Duke of Cornwall that the circumstances under which such grant has been made are such as would reasonably and fairly entitle the person in possession, by virtue of such grant, to compensation for the loss of his beneficial interest in respect thereof, then it should be lawful SALE OF AN ESTATE IN WORCESTERSHIRE.for the Duke of Cornwall to grant or demise such Mr. W. W. Simpson, of London, brought to auction conventionary tenement to such person for such on Tuesday, the 18th inst. at the Angel Ion, Perterm, estate, or interest, and subject to such rent, Evesham, in this county. The large room was com. shore, an estate situate at Birlingham, in the Vale of Customary Lands of the Duchy of Cornwall.- reservations, conditions, and agreements, as to the pletely filled with a most respectable and opulent asBefore I take leave of this part of my subject, it said Duke of Cornwall shall seem to be just and sembly, and after an appropriate address from the will be proper to make a few remarks upon some reasonable in reference to such circumstances as auctioneer, a very spirited competition ensued, and important alterations that have been made in the aforesaid; but so, nevertheless, that all tenements so the estate was knocked down at the sum of 17,000. customary lands of the ancient Duchy of Cornwall, granted or demised shall continue and be part and to Mr. William Fowler, land agent and surveyor, of by the recent statute, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 105. These parcel of the demesne lands of the manor within Birmingham, and the agent on this occasion for lands are holden of certain manors, termed asses- which the same are situate, and shall be held of the Robert Woodward, esq. of Liverpool, who was the sionable manors, of which the Duke of Cornwall is the lord, under a charter granted by King Edward sioners are also empowered to award lands in com-perty:-It consists of a farm-house, called Birling. same manor accordingly. (Sec. 43.) The commis purchaser. To form an adequate idea of the amount realised, we add the following description of the prothe Third. The estates of the tenants are styled pensation of common of pasture, or of turbary. ham Hall, agricultural buildings, four tenements, and conventionary tenements, and were held under (Sec. 44.) And immediately after the said award, 196 acres of arable, meadow, and pasture land, tithegrants made and renewed at the assession courts, every conventionary tenement which should there- rent-charge free, the timber to be valued; also the once in seven years, upon surrender and admittance upon become holden in free and common socage, tithe rent-charges of other land commuted at of the tenant being considered to be held as cus- should stand limited and settled to such uses, upon 141. 129. 3d. per annum. The rent-charges and 66 tomary estates of inheritance, with a perpetual right such trusts, and such powers, provisoes, and of renewal. Latterly, however, disputes arose be- ments, as should most nearly correspond with the tween the officers of the Duchy and the conven- interests, uses, and trusts, which, before the making tionary tenants with respect to the minerals, which of such award, were, according to the custom of the although undoubtedly the property of the Duke of said manor, subsisting, or capable of taking effect Cornwall, his right to enter on the tenements for in such conventionary tenement; but so, neverthethe purpose of working any mines was disputed; less, that (subject and without prejudice to such and in consequence of these misunderstandings, and estates, interests, uses, powers, provisoes, and it seems, also, some differences respecting the boun- agreements, as shall be then subsisting and capadaries, no assessionable courts were held subse- ble of taking effect) every such tenement, and quently to the year 1833. At last, commissioners every estate and interest therein, should, at all times were appointed, to ascertain the rights of the differ-after the making of the said award, descend, devolve, ent parties; and, to carry out this important object, be conveyed and assured, according to and in every the Act now under consideration was framed. This respect subject to the laws according to which other Act (7 & 8 Vict. c. 105) recites first the facts just be- tenements holden in free and common socage defore alluded to, and that it was expedient that the scend, devolve, are conveyed and assured, and subestates of the tenants in the conventionary tene-ject; and that every such freehold tenement, and ments should be converted into freehold, on the every estate and interest therein, should be subject terms and conditions thereinafter mentioned; and and liable to all claims and demands, if any, to that the rights of the Duke of Cornwall, and all which the conventionary tenement out of which the other persons, in respect of the mines, minerals, same was converted was subject or liable, immestone, and substrata of the said conventionary te-diately before such conversion, other than claims nements, should be established and regulated, which and demands by the Duke of Cornwall, as lord of could not be effected without the aid and authority the manor of which the same is held. (Sec. 46.) of Parliament. It then proceeds to confirm the es- The Act afterwards enacts, that all mines and metates of the conventionary tenements, granted at the tallic minerals under the conventionary lands are to last assession courts for the manors mentioned in belong to the Duke of Cornwall (secs. 53, 54), who the first schedule annexed to the Act, and which, if is thereby empowered to enter and work them, duly renewed, would have been held as such con- making compensation for the damage to the surface, ventionary tenements, continuously for sixty years and for use of stone and water (sec. 55); which or more, before the 1st of May, 1844, and for the compensation, in case of dispute, is to be settled by same estates and interests as the same would have two justices, or by the vice-warden, at the option of been held, if the grants thereof had been duly re- the party liable. (Secs. 56, 57.) But where such newed; but subject, nevertheless, to the accustomed entry is to be made for the purpose of working fines for renewal, heriots, rents, payments, fees, mines of any but the waste lands, the Duke of Cornand services; and subject to all existing rights of wall is directed to give one calendar month's prethe Duke of Cornwall, and his lessees, and other vious notice in writing of such intended entry to persons claiming under him, with respect to mines, the occupier of such lands. (Sec. 60.) And all minerals, stone, and substrata. (Sec. 1.) It next lessees or other persons (other than the Duke of The sum stated as the Dividend means so much declared is proceeds to appoint commissioners to inquire and Cornwall), who shall intend to enter as aforesaid, agree acres of the estate are held under the Dean and Chapter of Westminster for 21 years from Lady-day, Clemens, the highly-respected tenant on the estate, 1846. The remaining 130 acres are freehold. Mr. holds under a tenancy from year to year at a reat of 450l. per annum, in addition to the land-tax of 187. 16s. 11d. THE MONEY MARKET. Long Annuities... .... Sat. Mon. Tues. 871 871 871 871 881 85 86 861 86 87 398 Frid. Three per Cents. Consols Russian ................ FOREIGN. Spanish Five per Cents.. Mexican.. Deferred Dutch Two-and-a-Half per Cents... 81 87 9 9 9 1903 240 242 2d 1p 109 : 191 189 190 192 241 1 2 25 par par 221 : :☎ : * : : 22 221 22 332 33 34 58 58 58 58 5 , :: 0 : : : : 882 881 84 83 84 83 82 912 THE GAZETTES. 93 AMOUNT OF DIVIDENDS DECLARED. the Pound. The Assignees, when chosen, follow this statement. ent. y him; and R. v. Dunn, 2 Moo. C. C. 297, is ex- it would be shaking the very foundations of the law if, ressly in point. R. v. Perkin, 7 Q. B. 165, favours after such a decision, we were to hold that this mode e same view; and the principles stated in Arundel of statement is not allowable. The second objection White, 14 East, 218, and the case in the note is, that there was no sufficient proof of the trial of that page, are applicable here. The second the former action, because the postea stated only a jection is, that the party is stated only to have verdict upon one issue; but the postea is the memovorn "as he thought;" and a passage from the randum of the result endorsed upon the record. The Inst. p. 166, was cited in support of it; but that record therefore was produced, and the record shews nnot be understood as applying to cases where the that there were two issues which came on to be tried; ry find that the defendant absolutely knew a fact and because the sheriff makes an incorrect return, hich he swore that he thought did not exist; or if that only one was tried (which could not well be), does apply to such a case, it is not law. (R. v. that cannot prevent the defendant from being conedley, 1 Leach's C. C. 347,) Here, at all events, victed of perjury. Then as to the other two points e defendant swore absolutely that in the presence of which go to the nature of the false statement, ribble he did not write the words. The third objec- I think that it would be in the highest degree danger. on is, that the postea proved the trial of one issue ous if we should suffer any doubt to be entertained ly; whereas the indictment alleged that divers is- for a moment, that any person may be convicted of es came on to be tried and were tried; but it is perjury, if he falsely states that he thinks that to be, lite immaterial whether they were tried, and the which he knows not to be, or that he thinks that cord proves that more than one issue came on to be which, in fact, he does not think. There may be more ied. The jury must have been sworn to try the difficulty in making out such a case; but if the sues; and the neglect of the sheriff to make a proper evidence does make it out, we cannot hesitate in turn cannot render the defendant less liable to be saying that the crime of perjury is committed. Nor nvicted of perjury. The perjury was committed the does this militate with what must be understood to oment the false words came from his mouth. Lastly, be the meaning of Lord Coke in the passage cited, is said that whether the words were written in the that if the matter sounds in opinion altogether so esence of Dibble or not, is not shewn to be material; that an honest opinion or belief may be expressed it the materiality is averred, and the rest is matter quite consistently with its turning out to be incorrect, evidence. (R. v. Dowling, 5 T. R. 318.) If it perjury cannot be assigned upon statements of that ay be material, no objection arises upon the indict nature. Lastly, as to the materiality of the fact that the words were written in the presence of Dibble cerSir F. Thesiger and Gray, contrà.-1. Great preci- tainly the material thing as to the issue raised was, on is necessary in stating the authority by which whether the words were written at all by the defende oath is administered (R. v. Lincoln, Russ. & Ry. ant; but then in the course of an inquiry of this 21), and here, therefore, the trial should have been sort, there is no fact so unimportant, that it may not leged to have taken place before the secondary, as become material as a link in the chain of proof; and e fact was; for by the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 42, ss. 17 in this view I think that the circumstance of Dibble's 18, the deputy of the sheriff is treated as an in- presence was material in this case; and that the ependent officer, and is authorised to grant certifi- evidence supports the allegation of materiality conites under his hand as a judge at Nisi Prius. R. v. tained in the indictment. Mr. Gray says, there was erkin was the case of a coroner, and was decided a misdirection, if the Court should think that the pon the stat. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 83, which expressly statement was not one upon which perjury could be rovided that the acts of the deputy should be re-assigned; and certainly, although the rule was arded as the acts of the coroner. No such words moved in arrest of judgment only, we should not exre to be found in the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 42; and it clude that question; but the question is the same, ould be very dangerous to allow the acts of any whether treated as a misdirection or a ground for erson who might assume to be deputy to be stated arresting the judgment. I think that it is neither s the acts of the sheriff, because such a person might the one nor the other; and that we should do great ave no authority whatever to administer an oath. mischief, and damage more than it already is damaged hat appears to have been the case in R. v. Dunn, 1 by the difficulties which surround it, this security ar. & K. 730, for the person who presided as deputy against perjury, if we were to hold out the possibility f the sheriff is called the sheriff's assessor-and the of a doubt being entertained upon either. heriff has no power to appoint an assessor. He has The other judges concurring, ower to appoint a deputy, who is called the underheriff, and in London (it must perhaps be taken) the econdary (though no proof was given of the secondary's uthority). (Bacon's Abr. Sheriff, H. pp. 184, 188; e also cited Pippet v. Hearne, 5 B. & Ald. 634.) ndly, the evidence set out is not of that positive nd absolute character, upon which perjury can be ssigned. 3 Inst. 166, is precisely in point. In R. . Pedley, the question did not come directly before he Court, and there the swearing was that he elieved,-which is stronger than that he thought. at all events the assignment is not sufficient if it merely negatives the belief,-it ought to allege that The witness knew the contrary to be true. This ob. ection applies to the first statement set out in the dictment; and the second statement is removed, ecause there was nothing at the trial to shew that it was at all material whether the words were written y the defendant in the presence of Dibble. Lastly, The allegation that certain issues came on to be tried, nd were tried, was not proved; the postea was The only admissible evidence of it, and that shewed The trial of one issue only; and the false statement -f the defendant might have been material nly to the issue, which was not tried. (R. v. Page, 2 Esp. 650.) This rule is only moved narrest of judgment, but as the learned judge told The jury that the defendant might be convicted of erjury upon a statement as to his belief or his houghts, the Court will direct a new trial if they hould consider that a misdirection. Rule discharged. Monday, May 24. HILTON V. Lord GRANVILLE. Prerogative-Change of venue. The Crown has no prerogative right to change the venue in a local action where it comes in, on the ground of being interested in the questions raised by the defendant. The Attorney General has the general right of reply on behalf of the Crown when a motion is made in which it is directly interested, as a question of prerogative. Godson, Q. C. moved to set aside a rule which had issued upon the suggestion of the AttorneyGeneral, that the writ of venire facias should issue into the county of Middlesex instead of Stafford, where the venue is laid. The trial at bar is fixed for June 21, and the Attorney-General has no right to change the venue. This is a local action, and the Crown only comes in as interested in the defence. (Attorney General v. Churchill, 8 M. & W. 171.) Lord DENMAN, C. J.-Is there any stress laid upon the distinction between the Crown being plaintiff, and coming in as interested for the defence.] No; but no authority can be found in favour of the present claim. pre The Attorney-General and T. F. Ellis shewed cause in the first instance.-There are two questions raised here; first, whether, if the Crown had been plaintiff, this rule could have been obtained; and, secondly, if it is permissible where the Crown comes in, as here, as interested in the defence. The Attorney-General Lord DENMAN, C.J.-The first objection in arrest of v. Churchill, 8 M. & W. does not apply; that was an udgment is, that the tribunal before which the case information for intrusion-which is in substance a f Wilde v. Flersheim was tried, may not have had real action. The judgment is of ouster and amoreat uthority to administer an oath; that rests upon the manus. This is a mere personal action for damages ossibility that the deputy of the sheriff may not have for wrongful working of mines, and does not ad such authority; but I think that we are bound to touch the right to the land or to the minerals. ake notice of the sheriff's power to appoint a deputy, It is said to be without precedent, but the Crown nd that the secondary in the city of London is the deputy cannot directly be defendant; and if the of the sheriff. It is clear that the deputy is appointed rogative of hearing the trial at bar is admitted o act on behalf and in the name of the sheriff, and in the present case, so must the other ordinary hat he so acts throughout the duties, which he per-prerogative rights. This is a case where the deorms for the sheriff. I do not say that it is neces- fendant could have prayed the aid of the Crown. sary always to state his acts as the acts of the sheriff, The statement of Parke, B. confining the prerogabut it does not follow from that, that the statement of the person who tries a case under a writ of trial ought to be according to the fact. This holding is warranted by the decision in the Court of Common Pleas, and the case from Durham (R. v. Dunn), which was much argued before my brother Wight man there, who received a strong impression upon the subject, was decided by a large majority of the judges in accordance with the same principle. I think that tive to personal actions for recovery of debts or damages to the person, is too narrow. The action may be technically local, but it is tort, and damages rather than title is the substantial question. The present mode of proceeding is the only one that could be pursued; for if the Crown has the right, the Court will not interfere, but leave it to the discretion of the Crown officers. Godson, Q.C. Stammers, and Browne, contrà.-It] is admitted that no authority or precedent can be found for this rule. It must therefore fail, according to the principle laid down in Attorney-General v. Churchill, 8 M. & W. 191, that questions of prerogative are to be determined by authority, viz. precedent, and decisions and dicta of judges and text writers. In all the books there is no mention of this prerogative right, where the Crown is merely interested in the result (Com. Dig. Prerog. Shepherd's Abridgement, Part 3, p. 87; Year Book, 14 Edw. 4, p. 5.) Prerogative will not be extended now. There would be great hardship in such a proceeding, and prerogative is not to be injurious to the subject (Finch's Law, 84, 85.) The trial at bar may be a recognised branch of the prerogative, but the present is not. In Rowe v. Brenton, 8 B. & C. 737, the change was by the consent of the parties. Here it would be especially hard upon the parties, because a view is essential, and no view is possible if the jury are summoned from Middlesex. [Lord DENMAN, C.J.-Is that so?] It is submitted that the sheriff could have no power to take the jury out of the county. The reason for a trial at bar is for the better examination of the questions. (See the writ in Fitzherbert Nat. Brev.) The Attorney-General claimed the right of reply. Godson objected. Lord DENMAN, C.J.-That is an undoubted prerogative. in The Attorney-General.-The objection as to view would apply in every instance. Intrusion is two-fold, personam and in rem. (Friend v. The Duke of Richmond, Hardres, 460.) The present is merely a personal action. Lord DENMAN, C.J.-The case has been argued at much greater length than I should have thought possible after the full examination of the question in the Attorney-General v. Lord Churchill. It appears to me that even if that case does not already decide that such prerogative does not exist, we shall act upon the general principle there laid down, and decide against the application. It is properly stated that questions of this kind must be decided by authority, and here not a single authority has been cited, either decision, dictum, or text-book. The text writers there mentioned are such text writers of old times who have obtained authority by being supposed to contain the record of the law of the previous periods, not mere text writers, as in that very case the AttorneyGeneral v. Parsons was expressly overruled, because decided upon the inapplicable quotation from Savile, in my brother Manning's Treatise on Exchequer Practice. The rule must therefore be discharged. I may mention that the right to reply was denied in a case that occurred in 1841, but it was unnecessary to have it discussed, as the Court were satisfied without hearing the reply. The rest of the Court concurred. Rule discharged. The Attorney-General then applied for a rule nisi to change the venui upon affidavits. Rule nisi. Tuesday, May 25. WALLINGTON v. LAMBERT. Liability of provisional committee-man. Assumpsit for work and labour by a surveyor against the defendant, as a member of the provisional committee of the Great Welsh Junction Railway. The work had been done between the 7th of July and the 23rd of August, 1845, the orders having been given by the secretary at the beginning of July. Before that time the defendant had consented to become a member of the provisional committee, and his name, amongst others, was mentioned to the plaintiff when the orders were given. In the month of September, the defendant acted as chairman at one of the meetings of the committee, but had not attended on any other occasion. The learned judge (Erle, J.) who tried the case told the jury that the mere fact of consenting to become a provisional committee-man was no evidence of liability; but that in this case the evidence went a little further: that he could not withdraw from their consideration the attendance at the subsequent meeting, but that in his opinion it amounted almost to nothing. Verdict for the defendant. Chambers, Q. C. now moved for a new trial on the ground of misdirection. The attendance upon one occasion is just as important in reference to the question of liability as the attendance upon twenty; it equally removes the effect of the decisions in Reynell v. Lewis and Wyld v. Hopkins, 15 M. & W. 517, that mere consent to become a committee man without acting is no evidence of liability. This case comes within Barnett v. Lambert, 15 M. & W. 489, which is not overruled by Reynell v. Lewis and Wyld v. Hopkins. [ERLE, J.-In Barnett v. Lambert, part of the debt accrued after the attendance; here the attendance was after all the goods had been supplied. The point is, how far the attendance has a retrospective effect.] The liability does not accrue when a meeting is first attended, but when the character of committee-man is first assumed. It is the assumption of that character which authorises the officer of the company to pledge the credit of the member. This is distinctly laid down in Barnett v. Lambert. [ERLE, J.-The judgment there, is certainly at conflict with MEETING FOR ALLOWANCE OF CERTIFICATES. Gazette, May 25. -Steele, J. and Hands, H. jewellers, Oxford, May 17. Ward, G. baker, Maids Morton, June 17, at elevenWaud, W. tailor, Beccles, May 29, at eleven.-Woodly, J. G. currier, Flint-st. and Richmond-place, East-st. Wa worth, and Cumberland-place, Old Kent-road, June 3, eleven. Brace, E. H. and Allen, J. warehousemen, Mitre-court, Milk-st. June 15, at one, div.-Capps, T. toy dealer, Lynn, June 17, at half-past twelve, aud.-Clarke, Č. draper, GosPETITIONS TO BE HEARD IN THE COUNTRY. well-rd. and Cranbourn-st. June 15, at half-past one, div.Coleman, W. W. provision merchant, Hill, Southampton, Hull.-Baker. H. baker, Alphington, June 3, at one, Exeter. Addison, H. wheelwright, South Ferriby, June 2, at eleven, June 15, at one, div.-Greig, R. and Rawlings, W. timber -Bescoby, H. miller, Lincoln, June 2, at ten, Hull-Brand, merchants, Maiden-lane, King's Cross, June 16, at one, J. saddler, Leake, June 18, at eleven, Nottingham.-Bryant, div.-Grossmith, W. baker, Portsmouth, June 16, at eleven, Anderson, J. and M'Nicoll, J. saw-mill proprietors, Liver- W. in no occupation, Bishops Hull, June 2, at eleven, aud.-Hazard and Beaumont, tailors, Deptford, June 15, at pool, May 19. Debts paid by M'Nicoll.-Andrew, J. and Exeter.-Dutton, C. lace purler, Nottingham, May 28, at twelve, aud.-Jennings, W. maltster, Bungay, June 5, at Schofield, J. cotton spinners, Stayley, May 19. Debts paid eleven, Nottingham.-Elliscott, A. out of business, Hather twelve (by order of the Court of Review), last exam.- by Schofield.-Arthur, B. and Oliver, W. oil warehousemen, leigh, June 3, at one, Exeter.-Evans, N. joiner, Mac Johnson, W. builder, Hampstead, June 16, at eleven, aud. Skinner-st. and Blossom-st. Spitalfields, May 11.-Bell, J. clesfield, June 4, at twelve, Manchester.-Flavel, D. beer. -Messenger, G. draper, Uxbridge, June 17, at half-past and C. A. grocers, Great Baddow, May 15.-Brown, W. seller, Sedgley, May 27, at eleven, Birmingham.-Genever, one, div.-Smith, E. cheesemonger, Brentwood, June 4, at Durrans, G. and Naylor, J. cotton warp dyers, Pudsey, so E. W. clerk, Birmingham, May 25, at eleven, Birmingham eleven (adj. March 27), last exam.-Stevens, T. W. G. far as regards Naylor, May 17. Debts paid by the remaining Goddard, T. out of business, Nottingham, May 28, at hackney master, Bampton, June 4, at one (adj. March 27), partners.- Catchpool, J. and Prentice, S. printers, St. John's- eleven, Nottingham.-Greenwell, R. butcher, Leicester, last exam.-Teil and Ronald, merchants, Old Jewry-cham-sq. May 21. Debts paid by Catchpool.-Dearden, J. May 28, at eleven, Nottingham.-Groves, T. bootmaker, bers, June 16, at half-past eleven, aud. M'Naught, W. and Newsome, Ć. cotton spinners, Rochdale, Yeovill, June 2, at eleven, Exeter.--Hemensley, S. widow, MEETINGS FOR ALLOWANCE OF CERTIFICATES. March 25.-Dyson, T. and B. grocers, Manchester, May 18. Walsall, May 27, at half-past ten, Birmingham.-Hodgson, Beal, T. H. grocer, Wingham, June 16, at half-past Debts paid by B. Dyson.-Folthorp, R. and Cunning, R. H. T. occupying a public house, June 2, at twelve, Manchester. twelve.-Claridge, F. wine merchant, Southampton-row, booksellers, Brighton, March 31.-Harrison, R. and Brit--Maskelyne, J. N. ale dealer, Cheltenham, June 8, at June 15, at twelve.-Law, J. coal merchant, Faversham, ten, W. G. P. wholesale perfumers, Bulstrode-st. Cavendish- eleven, Bristol.-Parson, J. hair-dresser, Leicester, May 28, June 16, at eleven.-Musgrove, R. woollen draper, Birming- sq. May 19. Debts paid by Britten.-Holdsworth, G. and at eleven, Birmingham.-Puntun, H. bailiff, Llangathan, ham, June 17, at two. Milnes, J. cloth dressers, Huddersfield, May 14. Debts paid June 11, at eleven, Bristol. by Holdsworth.-Hunter, W. and G. C. colliers, Dronfield. Feb. 25. Debts paid by W. Hunter.-Jackson, H. M. Lester, E. and Keys, W. hosiers, Commercial-rd. May 15. May 18. Debts paid by Birkinshaw.-Kendall, J. and Lee, J. F. manufacturers of railway carriage iron work, Darlaston, May 6.-Moore, S. W. and Lill, W. lace manufacturers, Nottingham, May 17. Debts paid by Moore.-Mortimer, J. and Wright, A. stationers, Harrow-rd. May 20.-Peet, J. and P. and Potter, T. stock brokers, Nottingham. May 15. -Stoney, E. and Howgate, J. F. brewers, Huddersfield, May 13.-Wrangham, W. and Hardy, G. wine merchants, New Malton, March 8. Meetings in the Country. Gazette, May 21. MEETINGS AT BASINGH ALL-STREET. Maclean, H. C. clerk, Albion-st. Wandsworth-rd. June 11, Edis, J. clerk, Crescent-pl. Bridge-st. June 11, at one Anley, J. milliner, Exeter, June 16, at eleven, Exeter Johnson, H. and Birkinshaw, H. ale merchants, Leeds, at one.-Wray, W. L. lieutenant on half-pay, June 15, at aud.-Austen, J. draper, Devonport, June 15, at eleven, Exeter. Insolvents Petitioning the Courts of Bankruptcy. Baker, C. grocer, Lyng, June 1, at eleven.-Freeman, W. arising out of the insolvent's interest in the Taw Vale Rail From the Gazette of Friday, May 28. Logsdon, L. coach builder, Barnet.-Prosser, J. goldsmith, Piccadilly.-Poland, J. furrier, Ludgate-hill.-London and Birmingham Extension and Northampton, Daventry, Leas mington, and Warwick Railway Company, Old Jeary, chambers.-Bridge, W. upholsterer, Folkestone.-Cor, H. B. licensed victualler, Coventry.-Hardwick, T. grocer, Dun. stable, Bedfordshire.-Thwaite, E. machine maker, Oldham, -Rollason, G. T. glass dealer, Birmingham.—Jefferies, J. draper, Kingswood-mill, Gloucestershire.- Kay, C. mant. facturer, Wakefield.-Winn, J. joiner, Branham, Yorkshire. Welsh, J. tailor, Carlisle. ADVERTISEMENTS. CHURCH HURCH of ENGLAND LIFE and FIRE ASSURANCE INSTITUTION, Lothbury, London. Empowered by Special Act of Parliament, 4 & 5 Vict. e. §1. SUBSCRIBED CAPITAL, ONE MILLION. (A List of the Proprietors enrolled in the High Court of Chancery.) FIRE. The Premiums for Assurance against Fire are charged at the usual moderate rates, with a reduction of 16. per Cent. on the RESIDENCES AND FURNITURE OF CLERGYMEN. PETITIONS TO BE HEARD IN THE COUNTRY. Bateman, J. bootmaker, Devonport, May 26, at eleven, Exeter.-Bradley, T. blacksmith, Bingley, June 1, at ten, Leeds.-Calvert, G. joiner, Mould-green, Yorkshire, May LIFE. This Institution adopts both the Mutual and Pro25, at ten, Leeds.-Charnock, G. joiner, Birkenhead, May prietary systems of Life Assurance. Persons assured accord. 25, at twelve, Liverpool.-Davis, W. clerk, South Cerney, ing to the Mutual Scale are entitled to four-fifths of the June 1, at one, Bristol.-Ellis, J. cloth manufacturer, Dews-profits of this branch, whilst those assured according to the bury, June 1, at ten, Leeds.-Evans, J. W. appraiser, Chel- Proprietary Scale are charged the lowest possible rate of preAnderton, T. miller and farmer, Sare-hill-mill, Yardley, tenham, June 1, at half-past eleven, Bristol-Grundy, H. mium consistent with security to the establishment. Both Worcestershire, June 19, at twelve, to aud. and June 22, at currier, Ashby-de-la-Zouch, May 28, at eleven, Nottingham, are fully protected by the large subscribed capital of the twelve, div.-Anley, J. milliner, Exeter, June 17, at one, Holliday, F. innkeeper, Cheltenham, May 29, at one, Bris- Company. Exeter, div.-Bate, T., W. H., and Hellings, J. brewers, tol.-Jordan, E. innkeeper, Kidderminster, May 27, at Rugeley, Staffordshire, June 19, at eleven, Birmingham, aud. eleven, Birmingham.-Jukes, B. fire iron maker, Birmingand div.-Bentley, A. ironfounder, Bury, June 10, at eleven, ham, May 26, at eleven, Birmingham.-Marsh, J. pork Manchester (adj. May 10), lastexam.-Bury, P. calico printer, butcher, Bath, June 1, at twelve, Bristol.-Mildren, J. Machester, June 7, at one, Manchester, prf. of debt.-Hunt, farmer, Paul, Cornwall, June 2, at eleven, Exeter.-Morris, R. butcher, Newark-upon-Trent, May 28, at eleven, NotJ. merchant, and commission agent, Manchester, June 17, at twelve, Manchester, aud. and June 18, at twelve, div. tingham.-Oakley, W. tailor, Walsall, May 26, at eleven, Longfield, G. tailor and wollen draper, Westbromwich, Birmingham.-Paine, W. out of business, Cheltenham, Staffordshire, June 19, at twelve, Birmingham, aud, and June 1, at twelve, Bristol.-Porter, J. tailor, Rugeley, May June 22, at twelve, div.-Notwill, J, grocer and baker, Fal- 29, at eleven, Birmingham.-Rattenbury, T. G. farmer, Lamerton, May 27, at twelve, Exeter. Roden, J. butty BR mouth, June 16, at eleven, Exeter, aud. and June 17, at one, div.-Parratt, H. coach builder, Bristol, June 17, at eleven, collier, Sledmore, May 25, at eleven, Birmingham.-Rosser, Bristol, aud.-Phillips, J. Hague, W. and S. cotton spinners, T. grocer, Llanelly, May 27, at eleven, Bristol.-Saville, W. Manchester, June 16, at twelve, Manchester, first div.-beer-house keeper, Bradford, June 1, at ten, Leeds.-Scofield, Prust, J. tanner, June 16, at eleven, Exeter, to aud. and E. out of employ, Loughborough, May 28, at eleven, NotJune 17, at one, div. tingham.-Tamlyn, R. W. chymist, Wolverhampton, May 26, at eleven, Birmingham.-Ward, J. fishmonger, Cheltenham, June 1, at half-past twelve, Bristol. MEETINGS FOR ALLOWANCE OF CERTIFICATES. Edmond and Co. merchants, Liverpool and Bombay, June 17, at one, Manchester, as to M'Kim.-Philpot, E. timber dealer, Ludlow, June 19, at eleven, Birmingham.-Reader, T. miller, Foleshill, June 17, at eleven, Birmingham.Townley, W. cotton spinner, Blackburn, June 17, at twelve, Manchester. Partnerships Dissolved. PETITIONS TO BE HEARD AT BASINGHALL- Gazette, May 21. information for effecting Assurances, may be obtained on WM. EMMENS, Secretary, Half the amount only of the annual premium required during the first five years, the remaining half premiums being paid out of the profits, which, after five years, will be annually divided among the Assured. PROPRIETARY BRANCH. The lowest rates consistent with security to the Assured, An increasing scale of premiums peculiarly adapted to ing Loans or Debts. cases where assurances are effected for the purpose of secur half the amount of premium for seven years, to be then Half-credit rates of Premium, whereby credit is given for paid off, or remain a charge upon the policy at the option of the holder. Annual Premiums required for an Assurance of 1001. for the EXTRACTS FROM THE TABLES. MUTUAL ASSURANCE BRANCH. PROPRIETARY eleven.-Bagwell, G. tailor, Tonbridge-wells, June 5, at Adam, W. E. painter, Felix-pl. Liverpool-rd. June 17, at twelve.-Ball, W. contractor, Grove-mews, Great James-st. June 10, at eleven.-Barker, R. plumber, Houndsditch, June 17, at twelve.-Barnes, T. cooper, Stoke, June 17, at Birks, G. and S. joiners, Great Crosby, May 14. Debts eleven.-Barnefield, R. shopman, James-st. Oxford-st. June paid by Samuel Birke.-Briggs, J. and Sculthorpe, W. at- 5, at half-past eleven.-Beales, I. coal dealer, Fleet-lane, torneys, Leicester, May 12.-Clark, C., F. A., and H. lead June 5, at twelve.-Belcham, S. carpenter, Barking, June merchants, Hammersmith, May 4.-Clark, H. M'Niell, W. 10, at twelve.-Blackmore, R. clerk, Birmingham, and Holand Johnson, W. F. lamp manufacturers, St. Martin's-lane, land-st. Brixton, June 10, at eleven.-Collier, E. H. civil so far as regards Clark, May 14. Debts paid by the remain-engineer, Goldsworthy-terrace, Lower-rd. Rotherhithe, June ing partners.-Collins, J. and Critchley, W. R. vinegar 3, at eleven.-Cooper, C. victualler, Buckland, June 10, at makers, Liverpool, May 14. Debts paid by Critchley.- eleven.-Cooper, R. smith, Gillingham, June 3, at eleven.Corns, G. and Deakin, A. printers, Birmingham, May 15. Crowson, W. hair dresser, Cambridge, June 5, at twelve.Debts paid by Deakin.-Gould, H. and Makant, S. general Day, W. J. printer, Manley-pl. Kennington, June 3, at commission agents, Manchester, May 14. Debts paid by eleven.-Eales, C. J. print mounter, Oxford-market, June 3, Gould.-Hinchlif, S. and Bywater, J. engravers, Manches- at eleven.-Ellingham, G. plait bleacher, Luton June 17 ter, May 14. Debts paid by Bywater.-Horden, J. and P. at twelve.-Fisk, F. beer-house keeper, Ipswich, June 17, at mercers, Stamford, May 12.-Howitt, W. Saunders, J. and twelve.-Griffiths, W. coach maker, Newbury, June 3, at eleTurrell, E. proprietors of the People's Journal, so far as re-ven.-Jarvis, R. W. tailor, Stimond's-row, Holloway-road, Age. mium first mium after Age. mium first mium after gards Howitt, May 17. Debts paid by the remaining part-June 5, at half-past eleven.-Lester, W. butcher, Goswell-st. ners.-Inglesent, T. and Wolstenholme, W. brick makers, Salford, March 25.-Jenkinson, T. and Brown, H. coal proprietors, Pemberton, May 13.-Keene, R. and G. millers, Foleshill, March 25.-Knowles, S. Brunskill, S. and Norman, J. E. brewers, Exeter, April 21, 1846.-M'Ewen, A. and Lancaster, W. engineers, Manchester, May 7.-Parratt, C. and Jolly, J. meat salesmen, Leadenhall-market, May 15.-Paton, D. and Roberts, E. M. cotton brokers, Liverpool, May 17. Debts paid by Paton.-Phillips, E. H. and Wearing, S. B. drapers, Bristol, May 14.-Reece, R. and G. surgeons, Cardiff, March 9.-Serle, S. and Carrington, J. brick manufacturers, Weston-super-Mare, May 11. June 10, at eleven.-Tugwell, J. messenger, Maidenhead- COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April 23, and May 8. The Coal Act, 1 Vict. c. 101, is an Act for the pro- ad on an account stated. 46 this Act, by any cart, waggon, or other carriage, sent Act all signature by the meter is abolished, and "Mr. A. B. [here insert the name of the buyer.] The first four special grounds were overruled by the Court. Plea.-And for a further plea the defendant says at the goods in the said first count mentioned were ivers quantities of coals. And that the said quanties of coals were respectively delivered by the aintiffs to the defendant after sixty days after the issing of a certain Act of Parliament made and passed the first year of the reign of her present Majesty, tituled "An Act to continue for seven years an Act "E. F. [here insert the name of the carr Regulating the Vend and Delivery of Coals in man in words at full length.]" ondon and Westminster, and in certain Parts of the The plea is founded on the supposition that when jacent Counties;" to wit, on the first day of June, there is a contract for the sale and delivery of coals, 43, and on diver s other days and times between that any minute failing in the formalities required by the ay and the 1st of June, 1844, and before the com- statute will defeat an action for the price. The encement of this suit. That each of the said statutes which prevent actions being brought are of antities of coal so delivered by the plaintiffs to the several descriptions. Some expressly prohibit an ac- Dowling, Serjt. contrà.-As to the last objection, fendant as afore said, on the days and times afore- tion upon a contract, unless certain forms have been the words, "any part of such quantities" must be aid, at the respective times of the sales and of the complied with; others are framed for the purposes of taken to mean such quantities as have been mentioned aid deliveries thereof to defendant as aforesaid, revenue or public policy, and do not expressly avoid in the previous part of the plea. Such will refer to espectively exceeded in weight 560 lbs. ; and that the transaction between the vendor and purchaser; and the quantities before mentioned, and which are alach of the same quantities of coals were respectively others, being enacted for the benefit of the purchaser, leged to have been each more than 560 lbs. On the delivered as aforesaid by the plaintiffs to the de- have been held impliedly to vitiate the contract, un- point of substance, he quoted Tyson v. Thomas, endant, within the city of London, and in divers, to less the Act is strictly complied with. It must be i M'L. & Y. 119; Brown v. Duncan, 10 B. & C. 93. -it, two carts and two waggons: and the defendant contended by the other side that the present Act is He was then stopped by the Court. urther says, that the plaintiffs were the sellers of among the latter class. This whole subject was much Unthank, in reply, cited Carvick v. Blagrove, 1 ach and every of the said quantities of the said coals discussed in Swan v. Blair, 3 Cl. & Finn. 610, where, B. & C. 531. Cur. adv. vult. delivered to defendants as aforesaid, and the plain-in giving judgment, Lord Brougham says: "If, for JUDGMENT. ffs being so the sellers of the said quantities did not the purpose of protecting the revenue, any thing is May 15.-WILDE, C. J. now delivered judgment; eliver, or cause to be delivered, to the defendant, forbidden to be done under a penalty, this does not and after stating the pleadings as above set out, proe, the defendant, being the purchaser of each and necessarily make void the thing done, or prevent a ceeded-The main and principal question in this case, very of the said quantities of coals, or to bis, the right of action arising out of it." [WILDE, C. J. and which arises on the demurrer, is, whether efendant's, agent or agents, or servant or servants, referred to Cannon v. Bryce, 3 B. & A. 179, and the plaintiff is, by the matter set forth in the plea, nmediately on the arrival of the said carts and wag-Armstrong v. Lewis, 2 C. & M. 274.] Wetherel v. precluded from claiming the price of the coals delions in which each of such quantities of coals were Jones, 3 B. & Ad. 221, is strongly in favour of the vered by him to the defendant, by reason of his hayespectively sent, and before any part of such quan- plaintiff. There Lord Tenterden says: "Where the ing omitted, previous to such delivery of the coals, ties of coals were unloaded, a paper or ticket with consideration and the matter to be performed are to deliver to the defendant, or some one on his ach of such quantities of coals, nor with any or both legal, we are not aware that the plaintiff has behalf, the ticket referred to in the statute, stating ther of them, according to the form in schedule A ever been precluded from recovering by an infringe the quantity and description of coals about to be de> the said Act annexed, respectively signed by plain- ment of the law not contemplated by the contract, livered. And that question depends on the construcffs, the sellers of the said quantities of coals, with in the performance of something to be done on his tion and effect of the statute before mentioned. The heir names in words at full length, according to the part." That was an excise case; but the distinction declaration is not framed upon a special contract, rm and effect of the said statute, but wholly neg- which was formerly taken between excise cases and but on a promise implied by law from the sale and cted so to do, contrary to the said statute. That the others is very doubtful, and has been shaken by the delivery of the coals; and the question therefore is, efendant, at the time of the said sales, and of the case of Brown v. Duncan, 10 B. & C. 93, as is re- regard being had to the statute referred to, and the id deliveries of the said coals to him as aforesaid, marked by Parke, B. in Cope v. Rowlands, 2 M. & omission to deliver a ticket in the form prescribed as not a seller or dealer in coals, nor did he, the de- W. 153. Redmond v. Smith, 7 M. & G. is a strong therein, whether the law will imply a promise to pay for ndant, purchase the said coals, or any part thereof, case in favour of the plaintiff. It was then decided the coals so delivered under such circumstances. The :the coal market. Verification. that an infringement of the Act 5 & 6 Wm. 4, c. 19, statutes which have given rise to the question of the Special demurrer.-That the declaration states passed for the protection of seamen, and by which the right to recover the price of goods by sellers or venveral distinct sales and deliveries of coals, and that plaintiff had subjected himself to a penalty, did not dors who have not complied with the terms of such le plea alleges that the contract on each of the sales render a voyage illegal, and therefore an action on the statute (or the precise claues of the statute) are, one ad deliveries is illegal and void, because the policy of insurance might be maintained. Smith v. class having for its object the raising and protection aintiffs did not, immediately on the arrival of the Mawhood, 14 M. & W. 452, is to the same effect. of the revenue, and the other class of the statutes id carts, and before any of the said quantities were All the cases where the contract has been held void being directed for the protection of buyers and connloaded, deliver a ticket; and it is consistent with are distinguishable. In Law v. Hodson, 11 East, 300, sumers of the article to which the statute related, e plea, that upon the second and subsequent de-a fraud upon the buyer was contemplated at the very or to some object of public policy. The present veries the plaintiffs did deliver a ticket; and there- time of making the contract. The contract was for case arises upon the statute included within the latter re the plea being bad in part, is bad altogether. the sale of specific bricks, and would imply that they class. The statute which governs the present case hat the plea is uncertain, as it does not appear were of the legal size, whereas they were smaller than is the 1 Vict. c. 101, continued by the 8 and hether the defendant means that no ticket was de- the legal size. But it is not pretended here that any 9 Vict. c. 101, and which is intituled "An Act to vered, or that an informal one was delivered, but ad- fraud was practised or attempted. Forster v. Taylor, continue for Seven Years an Act for Regulating the its by inference that a ticket was delivered, but 5 B. & Ad. 887, was an action for the price of Vending and Delivery of Coals in London and Westat it was informal because not signed by the plain- butter, which was not packed in casks branded minster, and in certain Parts of the adjacent Counffs with their names in full length. And that the according to law, and therefore the fault affected ties." There had been some previous statutes passed ct does not require such a ticket as in the plea men- the very substance of the contract, and that relating to the same object, for different periods, one oned; and that it does not appear that defendants is the ground upon which Lord Ellenborough of which is the statute 47 Geo. 3, c. 68. These rests his judgment. He says, "The subject-matter statutes have varied somewhat from each other with of the contract is in such a state, for want of the regard to the means by which the same general object casks being properly marked, that the sale of it was was sought to be obtained; but the legal effect of the prohibited by Act of Parliament." That cannot be condition to be complied with, and the requirements said of the coals in the present case. Little v. Poole, prescribed in these statutes respectively, must be the 9 B. & C. 192, which is the case which will be most same. It is obvious that from the contents of the strongly relied on by the other side, is distinguishable. statute, its provisions were directed to the purposes That was decided under the old Coal Act, the forma- before mentioned-namely, to protect the buyers of lities required by which were much more important coals from fraud, in repect of quantity and quality; than those required by the present Act. By that two and the delivery of tickets is required as part of those tickets were required-one signed by the principal means thought necessary for the attainment of that land meter, and countersigned by the labouring object. That such was the object of the statute meter; the other, called the vendor's ticket, signed referred to was defined in Little v. Poole, 9 B. & C. by the vendor and the labouring meter, By the pre-192. The class of statutes enacted simply for the ver returned the coals. Joinder in demurrer. Besides the special grounds, the plaintiffs relied pon a matter of substance, that the omission to dever a ticket did not avoid the contract. Unthank, in support of the demurrer.-The Act in uestion is 1 & 2 Vict. c. 101 (local and personal delared public), which continues the previous Act, 1 & Wm. 4, c. 76, s. 47, except as it is thereby altered. y section 2 of this latter Act, so much of the preious Act as directs the ticket to be sent with the oals is repealed, and by sec. 3 it is enacted, "That with any quantity of coals exceeding 560 lbs. deliered from and after sixty days after the passing of |