the Professor (who is so much a friend to legal edu

which they had endeavoured to maintain by shewing cause against the rule for the mandamus.

University, nor, indeed, any other besides the two | The Juvenile Offenders Bill was sent back to above enumerated. The whole provision for legal in- the Commons with some amendments by the struction may thus be considered as comprised in Costs of indictment.-As the Assizes are close at what is furnished by these two. One of these, insti- Lords, to which the former have refused their tuted for a very important purpose, the communica assent, and a conference is to be had upon hand, it would be well to remind any parties ention of instruction in the laws of the country, has them. The principal point of difference is gaged in indictments under the Highways Act, or turned out, notwithstanding the intentions of the this:-the Bill, as sent from the Commons, other statute empowering the judge to certify for founder, and the honourable and enlightened zeal of contained a provision empowering either costs, that it is always requisite to follow the statute to secure benefit from it. Thus, in Reg. v. Watford, cation that he has undertaken to lecture in the Tem- magistrate or prisoner to demand a jury. The 8 Law T. 136; 2 New Mag. Cas. 162, an order ple, this year, on Law), an almost entire failure. The Lords struck out this clause. The Commons for costs of a highway indictment was held bad, beother, the "Regius Professorship," does not appear consider that it ought to be retained as a safe- cause it did not specify the funds from which it was to have gone far to have supplied its place; and guard to the liberty of the public, and will not to be paid, but used the words "to be paid in such though Mr. Starkie seems to think that as far as the pass the Bill without it. The Lords are not manner as the Act directs." civil law course goes, the legal education at Cambridge is of use; that in that branch it is efficient; likely to persist. The Custody of Offenders that it cannot be put on better foundation," it must Bill is in peril of failing for the present Ses be remembered that it is a system conducted without sion, owing to the opposition and the pressure questions or examinations, and that with "the exer- of time. cises kept in the schools, the meetings, &c." it is the whole amount of legal education at present given within that university. It is needless to add that this neglect is equally perceptible in the faculty of arts. Not even an outline of the elements or history of jurisprudence follows or accompanies the mental or moral philosophy courses in the university.

REVIEW OF MAGISTRATES' CASES.
HILARY, EASTER, AND TRINITY TERMS.
(Continued from page 275.)

SETTLEMENT.

Excise information-Appeal.-The Excise Act, 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 53, presents a curious jumble as to the mode of appealing against a conviction under it, which has been somewhat disentangled by the recent decision of Reg. v. Gamble, 8 Law T. 391; 2 New Mag. Cas. 149. There is an express appeal given to the Quarter Sessions, but the Court is, in terms, empowered "to reverse or confirm, in the whole or in part, the judgment appealed against, and to give such new or different judgment as they, in their discretion in that behalf, shall think fit."

Tenement by keeping a cow. The case of Reg. v. Mendham, 2 New Mag. Cas. 70; 8 There is then a proviso that they may state the Law T. 385, needs merely to be stated as an ap-facts specially for the opinion and direction of the plication of an admitted principle to the par- Court of Exchequer. Another clause takes away ticular facts. The evidence offered to establish the right of certiorari from the defendant,-an tenement settlement by the keep of a cow, which enactment savouring much of that leaning towards must have been under such circumstances as to the Crown and its prerogative which once disgraced give the renter an interest in the land, was, that our judicial proceedings, (a) while that power is the cow was kept, in the pasture seasons, on the most unnecessarily preserved to the Crown. In

a

"Burlamaqui on Natural Law," is supposed to be pasture-lands of the farm, which were partly in the the principal case it was contended, upon an appeal

MISCELLANEOUS POINTS.

The University of Dublin, or "Trinity College, Dublin," modelled on the plan of Trinity College, Cambridge, does not present, as far as legal studies, &c. are in question, any very striking contrast to its prototype. In the undergraduate course a sort of feeble recognition is perceptible of the propriety of introducing into the course of studies for the general student some instruction on the elements of jurisprudence, by way of forming a sequel, it would seem, to the elementary study of mental philosophy and ethics. read; an antiquated work, but indicating, at least, parish of Mendham and partly in the adjoining that such study ought to hold a place in a course of parish, and in the winter seasons in the straw-yard; general education. For all practical purposes, how that the pauper put the cow where there was feed ever, it is totally inefficient: few examiners notice it; for her, but nothing was said, either by his master few students, in consequence, think of reading it. In or himself, as to the manner in which, or on what the University, as at Cambridge, are also two chairs particular land, the cow was to be fed. The Court of Law, one for "Civil," the other for "Feudal or held that this was not only insufficient to prove English Law," considered somewhat arbitrarily as such tenement, but was no evidence whatever. Had synonymous. Dr. Moore, a senior of the college, it amounted to any evidence, though weak in its effect, holds the first; Professor Longfield, Queen's Counsel, the second. Both foundations are of some the Court would not have interfered with the Sesstanding. Lectures are required to be given twice a sions, as their province is to determine facts. The week, at nine o'clock in the morning, during Term. distinction is, that a decision where there is no eviThe character of the instruction is very clearly indicated dence must be subject to review to ensure the adby the statute, and questioning examinations, after ministration of justice, but the Queen's Bench is explanations, and historical illustrations, are pre-not a Court for the purpose of having a case reheard. scribed. Professor Longfield endeavoured, "in a two years' course, to go through the body of the law, except that he never lectured on Criminal Law, not considering it worth calling the attention of students to it, from the absence of all fixed principles." These lectures were farther illustrated, in obedience to the charter, by means of historical references. Like other lectures, however, similarly left to the option of the students, the attendance, on an average out of a body of students exceeding 1,400, did not exceed seven. Barristers only, practically speaking, attend, yet the lectures are open to any person, whether of the University or not: no fees are taken; "if there were any fees there would be no attendance at all." The Chair of Civil Law is not more successful. The salary of Dr. Moore is 361. 18s. 5d. a year; his fees in the present year amounted to about 167. which is about the average, -a tolerable test also of the attendance on his lectures. The Professorship is, in fact, a perfect sinecure; but Dr. Moore is most willing it should be made effective, and is ready, for this purpose to cede it to another. The inefficiency is easy to be accounted for. The degrees in Law are mere formal honours; no examination, no previous attendance on lectures, are required. There is no faculty of Common Law, though there is one of Civil Law; but by an abuse of long standing, "a doctor's degree in Civil Law may be got by a person who could not tell even the meaning of Civil Law." The natural consequence follows: no object inducing attendance, the lectures are of course neglected. It may thus be said, in every point of view, that the university provides little legal education for the professional or unprofessional classes; and that what it does provide, is rendered nugatory by the circumstances with which

it is connected.

(To be continued.)

THE MAGISTRATE.

Summary.

by the defendant against a conviction upon one of three counts of an information, he having been acquitted upon the other three, and no appeal being entered on behalf of the Crown, that the Court of appeal would rehear the whole case, and convict the defendant upon the other counts, although he might be successful in his appeal. A case was stated by the learned Recorder of Leeds, for the opinion of the Court of Exchequer upon that point, he being doubtful whether he had any such power. The Court held that his doubt was well founded, and that the Court of Appeal can only decide upon that which is the subject of appeal. The interpretation contended for by the Crown would be manifestly unjust, for the counts upon which the prisoner was acquitted might refer to entirely different transMandamus. To the numerous illustrations of actions, and he would be wholly in the dark as to the distinction we have just referred to, may be the course the prosecutors would take until the apadded the case of Reg. v. The Justices of Flint-peal came on to be heard, and so be compelled to shire, 2 New Mag. Cas. 160; 8 Law T. 395. prepare his defence against charges once disposed There, at sessions, it was objected that the of, but liable to be repeated at the will of the pronotice of appeal, which was signed by the over-secutors, even without notice. A difficulty as to not pur- the practice also arose in this case, which, if it had seers of the township was bad, as porting to have been signed by a majority of the not been overruled, would have greatly favoured parish officers. The appellants gave evidence that the Crown. The certiorari having been taken away the township was one of several composing the from the defendant, it was objected that the case parish, and that each managed its own poor sepa- could not be brought up from the sessions, upon rately. The justices, however, decided against the affidavits; in other words, that the defendant could appellants, and the Court refused to issue a man-never reap any benefit from the proviso authorising damus to hear the appeal. The question, though a a case to be stated. The Court, however, held, that preliminary point, was a question simply of fact, and the course which had been adopted in the present therefore not to be re-opened. (See also suprà, 274.) case, and also in Reg. v. Woodrow, 2 New Mag. Discretion of Court-Second conviction.-In Cas. 1; 15 M. & W. was correct. Reg. v. Thomas, 8 Law T. ; 2 New Mag. Cas. 73, the Court of Queen's Bench were asked to compel the magistrates by mandamus to issue a warrant after a second conviction which had been obtained for the same offence, the defendant having been, after ten days' imprisonment, released from the sentence under the first conviction, as being illegal. The Lord Chief Justice administered a quick and dignified reproof to the spirit in which prosecutions respecting game and other similar offences are pressed. "This is very different from cases where the ordinary affairs of the world would not go on without our interference by mandamus: we cannot but see that the world may go on very well, though this person should not be committed to prison a second time,-not for having taken a second salmon, but for having taken one as to which he received some punishment the year before."

Costs. We have frequently noticed the endeavours of the Court of Queen's Bench to lessen

POOR RATE.

Publication.-The Court of Exchequer have put a judicial construction upon the meaning of the word "doors" in 7 Wm. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 45, s. 2, which requires notice of the poor-rate to be "affixed previously to divine service on or near to the doors of all the churches and chapels" within the parish. In Ormerod v. Chadwicke, 8 Law T. 343; 2 New Mag. Cas. 55, it was decided to mean the most usual door of the church or chapel where divine service is performed, and not to refer to dissenting places of worship, or to buildings once used as churches, and possibly still legally capable of being used as such, but not so used in fact. There are several cases as to rating, which may be more conveniently considered together when those on which judgments have been recently given are reported. E. W.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.-RAPID ADJUDI

THE Quarter Sessions just completed were parish litigation; and a few decisions such as Reg. CATION.-A great number of cases were disposed of v. The Justices of London, 16 L J. 173 M. C.; 2 during the morning with the usual rapidity exercised everywhere remarkable for a decrease of ap- New Mag. Cas. 74, would go far to prevent frivolous by the learned Common Serjeant, and several pripeals arising out of the Poor-law, and an in- points being persisted in, even should they be made soners were placed at the bar, tried, convicted, and crease of crime: the former a proof of grow successfully at sessions. There, the Court ordered sentenced almost in the same breath with the reading ing prudence in parishes, and of the expectation certain churchwardens and overseers to pay the costs entertained that the Law of Settlement will of a mandamus which had become necessary in connext year be remodelled, if not repealed; the sequence of a frivolous but successful objection other, the invariable consequence of poverty. having been made at sessions on their behalf, and

of the charge against them.-Daily News.

(a) It is within the memory of some members of the Protwo guineas each when they found for the Crown, and only fession, that in excise prosecutions the jurymen received one if they found for the defendant.

deceased, and it only remains upon this subject to avowry for the taking of the same distress to be made identity of the deceased, which is required by the

By the 37th section of the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 42, Forasmuch as by the order of the common law the it is enacted, "That it shall be lawful for the execuexecutors or administrators of tenants in fee-sim- tors or administrators of any lessor or landlord to ple, tenants in fee-tail, and tenants for term of lives, distrain upon the lands demised for any term or at of rents-service, rents-charges, rents-secks, and fee- will for the arrearages of rent due to such lessor or farms, have no remedy to recover such arrearages of landlord in his lifetime, in like manner as such the said rents or fee-farms as were due unto their lessor or landlord might have done in his lifetime." testa tors in their lives, nor yet the heirs of such tesBy the Act of Parliament before referred to, any tator, nor any person having the reversion of his ther enacted, "That such arrearages may be dis- a misdemeanour, and may be prosecuted as he would By the 38th section of the same statute it is fur-person making a false declaration is declared guilty of estate after his decease, may distrain or have any lawful action to levy any such arrearages of rents trained for after the end or determination of such have been in the case of perjury committed before the or fee-farms due unto him in his life as is aforesaid; term or lease, at will, in the same manner as passing of the Act. by reason whereof the tenants of the demean of such if such term or lease had not been ended or lands, tenements, or hereditaments, out of the which determined; provided that such distress be made such rents were due and payable, who of right ought within the space of six calendar months after the

Chancery by a disinterested person of known character and respectability who has compared a copy of the entry with the register. The magistrate must state the county where declared.

Inventory.-According to the modern practice, neither the executor nor administrator in general cases exhibits any inventory whatsoever, unless he be cited for that purpose in the Spiritual Court at the instance of a party interested; but still he is compellable to exhibit an inventory at the prayer of any person having an interest, or even the appearance of an interest. (Phillips v. Bignell, 1 Phillim. 241; Gale v. Luttrell, 2 Add. 236.)

CHAPTER VII.-FUNERAL EXPENSES.

Funeral expenses, according to the degree and quality of the deceased, are to be allowed out of the goods of the deceased before any debt or duty what soever (3 Inst. 202), even though the debt be due to the Crown. (See Rex v. Wade, 5 Price, 627.) As against creditors.-As against creditors the executor or administrator is not justified in incurring, on account of the funeral, a greater expense than is absolutely necessary. In Stag v. Punter, 3 Atk. 119, Lord Hardwicke, upon exceptions to a Master's report for not allowing 607. for the testator's funeral, said: "At law, where a person dies insolvent, the rule is, that no more shall be allowed for a funeral than is necessary; at first only 40s. then 51. and at last 107. I have often thought it a hard rule, even at law, as an executor is obliged to bury his testator before he can possibly know whether his assets are sufficient to pay his debts. But this Court is not bound down by such strict rules, especially where a testator leaves great sums in legacies, which is a reasonable ground for an executor to believe the estate is solvent. As this is the case here, I am of opinion that 607. is not too much for the funeral expenses, especially as the testator had directed his corpse should be buried at a church thirty miles from the place of his death; and, besides, there is still another estate to be sold, so that it is not clear that there will be any deficiency."

Where the deceased person had been a captain in the army, and at the time of his death was on halfpay, 797. for his funeral was held to be too large a sum as against a creditor. (Hancock v. Pedmore, 1 Barn. & Adol. 260.) Mr. Justice Bayley, in delivering the judgment of the Court in that case, observed that 101. might perhaps at the present day be less than what should reasonably be allowed for a person of condition, and he intimated that in the case of that testator 201. was a reasonable sum

as against a creditor.

In Bissett v. Antrobus (4 Sim. 512) Sir L. Shadwell, V. C. refused to allow 2,2101. for the funeral expenses of a deceased nobleman, whose personal estate was at his death believed to be solvent, but ultimately, from unforeseen circumstances proved to be insolvent; and his Honour referred it to the Master to enquire what sum ought to be allowed.

In Brice v. Wilson, 3 Nev. & M. 512, Patteson,
J. said, "It has been decided by several cases that
an executor is liable, upon an implied promise at
common law, to pay reasonable expenses for the
funeral of his testator, where no other person is
liable upon an express contract, although he does
not give orders for it but there is no case which
goes the length of deciding that if the funeral be
ordered by another person, to whom credit is given,
the executor is liable."

Whether plene administravit is a good plea to
an action brought against an executor for funeral
expenses, does not appear to have been decided.
(But see Hayter v. Moat, 2 Mees. & Wels. 56.)
As, however, the maintenance of the action is de-
pendent upon the defendant's being an executor
with assets, it should seem that he may shew under
the general issue that the testator left no assets.
In Corner v. Shaw, 3 Mees & Wels. 350, it was
held that the law implies a contract on the part of
an executor who has assets, personally, and not in
his representative character.
(To be continued.)

COUNTY COURTS.

COUNTRY BOOKSELLERS are informed that all the
Forms prescribed by the Rules, as well as the Special
Forms required by Practitioners and Suitors in the
COUNTY COURTS, as drawn by Counsel, may be
had at the LAW TIMES Office, 29, Essex-street, in
any quantities. A liberal allowance to the trade.
BOOKSELLERS in the Country are informed, that all
the BOOKS and FORMS required by COMMITTEES,
AGENTS, and RETURNING OFFICERS, at the
coming GENERAL ELECTION, may be had imme-
diately at the LAW TIMES Office, 29, Essex-street,
Strand; a list of which will be found in another
column, or will be sent to every applicant. A liberal
allowance made to the Country Stationer taking a
large supply. Orders should be sent immediately, to
prevent disappointment.

DISTRICT IN WHICH THE CAUSE OF
ACTION AROSE.

THE district in which the defendant dwells or
carries on his business, is generally the district
in which the action is to be brought; but by leave
of the Court the plaintiff may have a summons to
issue from the court of the district in which the
cause of action arose. In Watson v. Lonsdale,
which came before the judge of the County Court
of Appleby on the 4th of June last, the question
was, where the cause of action arose, which was to
determine the district in which the summons might
be issued. It appears that in that case the
plaintiff, who is a currier at Appleby, had received
orders for goods from the defendant at Carlisle, and
the goods were accordingly sent by the plaintiff
from Appleby by a common carrier.
The judge
thought the cause of action did not arise in the
district of Appleby, and refused to grant a sum-
mons. It does not appear, from a report of that
case, whether the carrier had been named or not by
the defendant, so as to become his agent to receive
the goods, nor do the terms of the order for the
goods appear; but it is probable, from the decision
of the judge, that no property in the goods had
passed to the defendant by the delivery to the car-
rier, as the carrier was not his agent, and the de-
fendant had an option to accept or refuse the goods
after they had reached him at Carlisle. The case
of Coates and Another v. Chaplin and Another,
3 Q. B. 483, is a strong authority for shewing that
delivery to a carrier is not a delivery to the person
to whom the carrier is to take the goods, unless the
goods so to be carried be the property of such per-
son, or he has, by his acts or otherwise, appointed
the carrier to be his agent to receive. There, the
traveller of Morrison and Co. of London, ordered
goods of the plaintiff, a manufacturer at Paisley.
No order was given as to sending the goods, and
the plaintiff gave them to defendant, a carrier, di-
rected to Messrs. Morrison. The goods having been
lost on the transit, by defendant's negligence, it
was held that the property continued in the plain-
tiff, and that the action was maintainable, therefore,
by him against the defendant.

THE Treasury has just issued an elaborate series of forms of the books of account to be kept by the treasurers. As these officers are The place where the cause of action arose is not so few, and the manner of their account-keep- merely where the contract was entered into, or the ing interests nobody besides, we deem it un-injury given, but where the breach of that contract necessary to occupy the columns of the LAW happened, if the action be on contract; or where TIMES with the new forms. Mr. CHILTON, the damage resulting from the injury occurred, if Q. C. has received the appointment of Judge the action be on tort. To illustrate this by a few of the Greenwich District Court in the place of familiar examples: In the case of goods sold and D. LEAHY, Esq. deceased. The fate of the delivered or work done, the place where the contract was completed by the goods being there sold Bankruptcy Bill is yet undecided; but whether and delivered, or by the work being there done, or not it becomes law during this session, it is would be the place where the cause of action would certain that the jurisdiction in country insol- arise, if nothing be said as to the time and place of vency will be transferred to the County Courts. payment. If a place were named for the payment, On the propriety of that all are agreed, and that place would be where the cause of action would some are for giving to them Bankruptcy also. arise, whether it be the place where the vendor so It is stated by those who are likely to know, completed the contract on his part or not. If no that it is seriously contemplated to extend the place, but only time, be named, the cause of action jurisdiction of the County Courts to 50l. They would not accrue until that time had arrived; but are working so much to the public satisfaction, the place where the contract had been so completed that they will certainly occasion vast changes on the vendor's part, would be the place where the in the administration of the law. When the cause of action would be deemed to arise. In WatAs against legatees, &c.-As against legatees, convenience of admitting the parties as wit-son v. Lonsdale, above referred to, the goods had larger sum for these expenses will of course be al-nesses is daily proved in the County Courts, not been sold and delivered at Appleby, but had only been sent from Appleby, and until they had lowed than as against creditors; but still the exe public opinion will not much longer endure reached the defendant or his agents, they could cutor or administrator is not justified in incurring the repeated failure of justice that results from not be considered as sold and delivered to him. such expenses as are extravagant. (See Stackpoole their exclusion in the superior courts. When The place where they might so reach would be the ▼. Stackpoole, 4 Dow. P. C. 227.) it is found that in the County Courts nine- place where the cause of action in respect of them tenths of the suitors prefer the opinion of an would arise. intelligent Judge, to the chances of a jury selected for their incomes, and not for their intelligence, a similar option will be asked for in the superior courts. When it is seen that justice can be satisfactorily administered without the quirks, and quibbles, and prolixities, and absurdities of pleadings, it will be difficult to prevent a revolution in the system that prevails

From these cases it will be seen that no exact sum can be mentioned for the guidance of executors; but the amount to be allowed for these expenses must vary according to the condition in life of the testator and other circumstances.

or next of kin, where there are sufficient assets, a

In Offley v. Offley (Prec. Chan. 261) 6007. laid out upon the funeral was allowed by the Court, as the testator was a person of great estate and reputation in his county, and was buried there.

Funeral expenses are to be deducted out of the whole goods, both by the civil law and by the laws of this realm (Swinb. pt. 3, s. 16, pl. 3); and therefore where a freeman of London dies intestate, these expenses must be paid out of the whole per

sonal estate.

Where the child of a freeman of London dies

after the father, the expenses of the child's funeral should be paid out of the child's orphanage share. (Coomes v. Elling, 3 Atk. 678.)

at Westminster. We are on the eve of greater
changes of the law than any we have seen, and
the Lawyers should only take care to exercise
such control over them that they may share
the benefits that will accrue to the public.
But their course must be to aid and control,
and not to content themselves with mere op-
position, by which they do not avert the mis-
chief, while they throw away the means of
modifying it.

With respect to actions of tort, there are few cases, if any, with the exception of slander (and that is not within the jurisdiction of these Courts), where the injury and the damage resulting from the same are not closely connected, so that the injury and damage have occurred at the same place; and therefore the place where the injury has been place where the cause of action arose. inflicted will generally suffice to determine the

YORKSHIRE.

Halifax, Wednesday, June 9.
(Before JAMES STANSFELD, Esq.

245 plaints entered for trial; 19 in special cause paper. Holroyde appeared in 5 cases; Ingram in 3; others for himself; Rudd and Kenny in 1; Wavell Mitchell (for Higham, of Brighouse) in 1, and in 9 in 9. Three cases in which attorneys were engaged were adjourned to next court, and the following was the only case of interest that occurred during the day. The Court rose at eight o'clock in the evening.

DYER . HOWE.
Special defence-Discharge under Insolvent Act-
Protection order.
Wavell, for plaintiff; Norris (for Ingram), for de-
fendant.

Contract for 21. 3s. 6d. for goods sold and delivered. Defendant had pleaded specially that he had been duly discharged under an Act for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors.

Wavell contended that the defendant, by his notice of special defence, had admitted plaintiff's claim, and must commence by proving his discharge.

Norris produced the final order under the hand and seal of a commissioner of the Leeds District Bankruptcy Court, and claimed a verdict for defendant.

Wavell then referred to a decision in one of the superior courts, and contended that the final order produced had been obtained under the provisions of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 97. It was only a protection against process issuing against the person of the defendant, and there being no clause in that Act whereby such final order could be pleaded as a bar to any action brought to recover a scheduled debt, it could not now be taken as operating as a protection against the goods of the defendant. The case of Toomer v. Gingell, 7 Law T. 230, was cited.

His HONOUR decided accordingly, and gave a

verdict for the amount claimed.

Verdict for plaintiff.

MARSDEN v. SUTCLIFFE.

arose in the district of this court, and refused the ap-
plication.

[Sed quære.-A delivery to a common carrier, by
the vendor, is a delivery to the vendee, and that whe-
ther the particular carrier is named by the vendee or
not; and no cause of action could arise until the
completion of the contract by delivery. And would
not the vendor have a right of action for the price of
the goods immediately on such delivery ?-RE-
PORTER.]

CAMBRIDGESHIRE.

Cambridge, Monday, May 21.
(Before J. COLLYER, Esq.)
PARKER . HALL.
Special defence-Set-off-Statute of Limitations.
Action for rent, and for goods sold and delivered,
amounting to 17. 10s.
Defence, Statute of Limitations to the whole, and

set-off.

Ind, on behalf of defendant, stated, that in this
case the plaintiff had pleaded the present demand as
a set-off in the case of Hall v. Parker, and which set-
off was disallowed; and contended, on the authority
of Hennell v. Fairland, 3 Esp. 104, and Estmure v.
Haws or Laws, 5 Bing. N. C. 444, that where a de-

fendant pleads a set-off, which he has not been able
to support, and a verdict has been obtained against
him, and he afterwards brings an action to recover
the amount of such alleged set-off, the defendant may
plead such judgment as a bar to the action.

The JUDGE.-The only difficulty I find in this case
is, that you have pleaded the Statute of Limitations
to the whole of the demand; thus admitting the
plaintiff's demand, but relying on the statute as a
defence. The plaintiff must fail on the two first items,
they being above six years, but he must have a ver-
dict for the balance. As to the set-off, your client

sent plaintiff.

Judgment for plaintiff for 10s.

WORCESTERSHIRE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES. GOLDING V. ROWLAND. SIR,-At a Court holden on Wednesday the 23rd of June last, at Oxford, this case was heard which involved the question of suits pending in the superior courts, and the judge J. B. Parry, esq. Q.C. made an order, of which the following is a copy :

"Golding v. Rowland,

"The plaintiff electing to abandon his suit now de. pending against the said defendant in the Court of Exchequer at Westminster, and agreeing to pay the said defendant on demand his costs of that suit when duly taxed by the proper officer of the said Court of Exchequer, is ordered that the said defendant do pay to the said plaintiff the sum of 61. 128. the amount of his demand in this suit, together with his costs of this suit, amounting to the further sum of 21. 3s. 1d. on the 19th day of July, now next en suing."

In the case of Carter v. Tagg, reported in No. 212 of the LAW TIMES, p. 62, I understand that no appearance had been entered in the Borough Court, and that therefore the action was considered to be virtually abandoned. I am Sir, yours, &c. JOHN CREWS DUDLEY.

Oxford, July 1, 1847.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES.

SIR,-In the several decisions and discussions on the 63rd section of the Small Debts Act, I have not observed that any reference has been made to the following words in the interpretation clause:

Every word importing the singular number shall, where necessary to give full effect to the enactments herein contained, be understood to mean several persons or things, as well as one person or thing." Under this clause, I contended at the last County Court holden at this city, that I was entitled to read

Landlord and tenant-Tenant's liabilities. Brook, for plaintiff; Wavell, for defendant. Tort for 101. 10s. the value of a quantity of manure recovered the full amount yesterday against the pre- the words "cause of action" as " causes of actions," belonging to plaintiff, and taken away by defendant from the farm and premises lately occupied by defendant under plaintiff; and for 41. for dilapidations to the gates and fences of the farm; and also for 31. 4s. for costs of certain proceedings in the County Court by plaintiff against defendant to recover possession of farm, which were to be paid by plaintiff in the event of defendant's leaving the manure and repairing the gates and fences, and not otherwise.

Wavell objected to summons, that the form of action was wrong; it ought to have been contract, and not tort, according to the three distinct statements in the particulars.

Brook replied, that he conceived tort was right, as the tenant had entered after his term had expired. His HONOUR would not decide the question now, but would take time to consider. He did not think it of sufficient weight, however, to stop the case.

It afterwards appearing, from the evidence of plaintiff's witnesses, that the whole of the manure was removed during the defendant's tenancy,

Brook admitted that, under those circumstances, he could not support the plaintiff's case.

Plaintiff accordingly nonsuited.

Stokesley, Friday, June 25.
(Before ROBERT WHARTON, Esq.)
BROWN, Clerk v. FISHER.

Jurisdiction-A stipend or modus charged upon land
is excluded from the jurisdiction.
Hick, for the plaintiff, who is the incumbent of
a parish in the district. From the terrier that was
produced it was shewn that the incumbent was paid
by stipend or modus charged on land, belonging to
several freeholders in the parish, and apportioned on
them according to their respective properties. The
defendant is one of the freeholders. The summons
was issued as for a stipend, and it was contended on
the part of the plaintiff that a stipend being simply a
money payment, was a debt recoverable in this Court.
The learned JUDGE, however, (after hearing the
defendant, and reading the terrier,) held, that the
payment being a charge upon land, was consequently
an incorporeal hereditament, and therefore involved a
matter of title to real property, and he had no juris
diction; therefore that the plaintiff must necessarily
be

Shipston-on-Stour, Friday, June 4.
(Before F. TROTTER, Esq.)
GREENHILL v. DAVIES.

Practice-Special defence-Costs of notice thereof,
when cause withdrawn.

Action for goods sold and delivered.

and that the clause would then embrace all the causes of action which the plaintiff had at the time of levying his plaint, which could be sued for in one action, supposing they did not in the whole amount to more than 201.; that is, of the same nature. His Honour, however, decided against me. There were seven quarters' rent, of 107. each, due from the defendant to the plaintiff, and the action was to recover 201.-two of such quarters.

The defendant gave notice of the Statute of Limita-cision; my objection was, that the Court had no tions as special defence. When he delivered the notice the clerk charged 1s. 1d. fees for the same. The plaintiff, on receiving the notice, withdrew the cause. Travers, of Campden, for defendant, applied for the above fees on the ground that the withdrawal of the his Honour stated that as the case was not before cause was equivalent to judgment of non pros.; but him, he conceived he had no power to order payment

of same by the plaintiff.

Travers then called his Honour's attention to the 88th section of the Act, and to the hardship that would be inflicted on the defendant if the plaintiff could not be compelled to pay these costs.

His HONOUR made a minute of the case, and mised to give his opinion at the next Court.

I am, however, by no means satisfied with the dejurisdiction unless the plaintiff abandoned his ulterior demand of 501.; and in the event of proceedings being taken to recover any part of this latter sum I shall apply for a writ of prohibition, on the ground that the judgment for the recovery of the two quar the causes of action which the plaintiff then had ters' rent is a discharge of all demands in respect of against the defendant for rent at the time of the commencement of the action in which such judgment was I am, Sir, yours, &c. given. JOHN SHERWOOD.

Chichester, July 2, 1847. P. S. If any objection is made that a cause of pro-action is not included in the word "thing," I beg to refer to Dr. Webster's definition of this word in his dictionary of the English language.

common carrier, without any specific directions by PROMOTIONS, APPOINTMENTS,

the defendant how they were to be forwarded,
Held, that the cause of action arose in the district
where plaintiff resided and the goods were delivered
to the carrier.

It appeared that the defendant Richards, living at Bodmin, in Cornwall, had ordered of plaintiff's traveller certain goods, and directed that they were to be sent by a carrier from Bristol, whom he named. In the course of the case the question of jurisdiction Nonsuited. was brought under the notice of his Honour, who, in (Notwithstanding the decision, however, the defend-delivering judgment, said— ant immediately paid the amount claimed rather than It had been held that where a tradesman ordered incur the expense of a trial in the Ecclesiastical goods, and directed them to be delivered to a carrier, Court.)

WESTMORELAND.
Appleby, Friday, June 4.
(Before J. H. INGHAM, Esq.)
WATSON v. LONSDALE.
Jurisdiction-Cause of action.

even though he did not name the particular carrier, such a delivery operated as a delivery to the tradesman; and from the moment they were in the possession of the carrier, they were in law in the possession of the tradesman, and were at his risk. It was on that ground that the Court had issued its summonses against parties residing at a distance, though the Plaintiff, in person, applied for leave to issue a order might be given in Bodmin or any other distant summons out of this court against the defendant, who place; yet, if such order were accompanied by a diresided within the jurisdiction of the Carlisle Court.rection to deliver the goods to a carrier at Bristol, Plaintiff, who is a currier, carrying on business at that would be a delivery to the defendants, and Appleby, travels to solicit orders, and took an order bring the case within the jurisdiction of the Court. from the defendant, at Carlisle, for a quantity of lea- His Honour, therefore, on the case being proved, ther, which was afterwards forwarded from Appleby ordered the defendant to pay the amount due. by a common carrier, addressed to the defendant.

His HONOUR did not think that the cause of action

ETC.

[Clerks of the Peace for Counties, Cities, and Boroughs will oblige by regularly forwarding the names and addresses of all new Magistrates who may qualify.]

The Queen has been graciously pleased to appoint Charles Frederick Engström, esq. to be her Majesty's Consul at Gottenburgh.

Jacob Mitchell, as Consul at Jamaica for the King The Queen has been pleased to approve of Mr. of the Mosquito Territory.

The Queen has been pleased to appoint William Scrope Ayrton, of the Middle Temple, London, esq. barrister-at-law, to be one of the Commissioners of the Court of Bankruptcy to act in the prosecution of Fiats in Bankruptcy in the country.

The Lord Chancellor has appointed Charles Bennett Roche, of Daventry, in the county of Northamp ton, gent. to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery.

NEW MAGISTRATE-CINQUE-PORTS.-The Lord

Chancellor has added the name of Edward Darby, of
Deal, esq. to the commission of the peace for the
Liberties of the Cinque Ports.

MARYLEBONE POLICE COURT.-It is finally decided that Mr. Broughton, the magistrate at Worship-street, is to succeed the late Mr. Rawlinson, at Marylebone Police Court, and Mr. Hammell will go to Worship-street, in the room of Mr. Broughton.Globe.

BANQUET AT GRAY'S-INN.-On Thursday week the benchers of the Honourable Society of Gray's-inn gave a sumptuous entertainment in their old hall to the benchers of the other inns of court. The number

that sat down to dinner amounted to eighty-six, including Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, the ViceChancellor of England, Sir E. Sugden, the Right Hon. C. Wynn, the Right Hon. Sir E. Ryan, the Hon. Sir R. Comyn, and the Attorney and SolicitorGeneral. The Right Hon. Sir H. Jenner Fust, Treasurer of Gray's Inn, presided on the occasion, being supported on his right by Lord Brougham and on his left by Lord Campbell. The dinner was of the most recherché quality, and the wines and dessert of the choicest description. After the Queen's health had been proposed and drunk with the greatest loyalty, the health of Sir H. Jenner Fust was proposed by Lord Brougham in a eulogistic speech, in which he thanked him in the name of himself and the other guests for the splendid repast that had been provided for them. Sir H. Jenner Fust then returned thanks, and the company shortly after separated.

Londonderry, City and County of, at Londonderry, Satur- SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING THE AMEND- [This is part of a complete list now being extracted for the day, 31st