Parliament the word "may" is always so used, and, in some instances, is accompanied by the word "shall." Mr. Bellamy said, that Lord Tenterden, C. J., had granted certificates immediately after the passing of the act. Mr. Justice PATTESON.-I entertain no doubt about it. Certificate granted. Russell, Serjt., and R. V. Richards, for the plaintiff. Greaves, for the defendant. [Attornies-A. Flint, and Johnson & W.] By the statute 1 W. 4, c. 7, s. 2, which was passed on the 11th of March, 1831, it is enacted, "That, in all actions brought in either of the said Courts, by whatever form of process the same may be commenced, it shall be lawful for the Judge before whom any issue joined in such action shall be to be tried, in case the plaintiff or demandant therein shall become nonsuit, or a verdict shall be given for the plaintiff or demandant, defendant or tenant, to certify under his hand, on the back of the record, at any time before the end of the sittings or assizes, that in his opinion execution ought to issue in such action forthwith, or at some day to be named in such certificate, and subject, or not, to any condition or qualification, and in case of a verdict for the plaintiff, then either for the whole or for any part of the sum found by such verdict; in all which cases a rule for judgment may be given, costs taxed, and judgment signed forthwith, and execution may be issued forthwith, or afterwards, according to the terms of such certificate, on any day in vacation or term; and the postea, with such certificate as a part thereof, shall and may be entered of record as of the day on which the judgment shall be signed, although the writ of distringas juratores or habeas corpora juratorum may not be returnable until after such day : Provided always, that it shall be lawful for the party entitled to such judgment to postpone the signing thereof.” 1831. July 1st. Persons who cohabit as man and wife, after a marriage de facto, supposed by both to be a good marriage ter the mar WELLS v. FLETCHER. ASSUMPSIT to recover a sum of 147., for work and labour as a haymaker. For the purpose of shewing that the plaintiff was a person in a superior station of life to that of a labourer, and in law, may, af- that, at the time of the work and labour in question, he did not look for payment for what he did, a female witness was called on the part of the defendant. On her examination on the voire dire, by F. Pollock, for the plaintiff, she said that she had been married to the plaintiff, at St. Pancras Church, by banns. riage is found to be a nullity, give in evidence, in a Court of justice, state ments made by each other during the cohabitation. Sir J. Scarlett, for the defendant, asked her, whether she had not since been divorced. F. Pollock, objected, that, after proof of a marriage de facto, a woman could not, on the voire dire, shew that she was unmarried; as, without the sentence of divorce, it was impossible to tell, whether the divorce was a vinculo matrimonii, or only a mensa et thoro. Sir J. Scarlett,-On the voire dire, a witness, who has disqualified himself by his statements, is at liberty to set himself right by his statements, without the production of any documents. The witness said, that she was married to a person named Duke; but, not seeing him for thirty years, she thought he was dead, and therefore married the plaintiff; but she afterwards found that Duke was still living. PATTESON, J.-There was no occasion for any divorce in this case; the second marriage is a mere nullity. Whatever doubt there may be as to the question-" Were you divorced?" unquestionably, in this view of the case, the marriage is got rid of. I should be inclined to think, that the other question might be put, but there is no doubt that this may. The witness was then examined, and was proceeding to state something which the plaintiff had said while she was living with him. F. Pollock, objected, that what occurred while they were living together as man and wife was protected, and could not be received against the plaintiff. PATTESON, J.-I think, now the connection is dissolved, it may be given in evidence. The evidence was then received, and a ver- F. Pollock and R. V. Richards, for the plaintiff. Sir J. Scarlett and Wallinger, for the defendant. [Attornies-W. S. Paterson, and J. H. Webber.] See the cases of Batthews v. Galindo, Vol. 3 of these Reports, p. 238, S. C. 1 M. & P. 565, and Hawk- 1831. WELLS บ. FLETCHER. CLENDON v. DINNEFORD. THE first count of the declaration stated, in substance, that the plaintiff was paying his addresses to a certain July 1st. A., who was paying his addresses to a lady, lost her letters and two memo randum books containing remarks of his own; B. found them, and kept them, on the ground that the books contained matter injurious to him, and also shewed them to others: A. sent a person to demand them of B., who, at first, refused to give them up at all; but, before the person left, said he would not give them to him, but would to C. or D. C. went, and B. offered to give him the letters and one book, which C., after consulting with A., accepted, saying that he made a sacrifice to obtain the letters:-Held, that there was a conversion of the whole; but the verdict was only for nominal damages. 1831. CLENDON บ. DINNEFORD. lady, and lost certain letters written to him by her, which came to the defendant's possession, who shewed them to other persons, and converted them to his own use; in consequence of which conduct on the part of the defendant, the match was broken off. The second count was nearly similar. The third count was a count in trover for certain letters and memorandum books. There was a count for a libel in a letter written to the father of the lady in question; and also several counts for words uttered to various persons, the lady's father not being one. These words were not actionable in themselves; and the only special damage stated in the declaration was, the breaking off of the match with the lady. Plea-Not guilty. The plaintiff and defendant were both, up to the month of July, 1830, assistants to a gentleman named Tebbs, a chemist and druggist, carrying on business in Bond Street. At that time the plaintiff quitted, and went down to his parents, who resided at Deal, in Kent. For some time previously, the plaintiff and defendant had not been upon very good terms, each being desirous of obtaining the business of their employer, who was about to retire. Two or three days after the plaintiff had left, the defendant told Mr. Tebbs that he had found some letters and memorandum books, which the plaintiff had left behind him, in which he had written abusive things of him (Mr. Tebbs). The defendant held the papers, &c., in his hand, and wished Mr. Tebbs to look at them; but he declined. The defendant said he should keep them, as they were of some consequence to his character. The letters were those of a young lady residing at Deal, to whom the plaintiff had been for some time paying his addresses; and the books, which were two in number, contained copies of his answers to them, and other observations. The defendant shewed them to several other persons besides Mr. Tebbs. In the month of September, 1830, a person named Hannah, went to the defendant, by the plaintiff's authority, and demanded the letters and the two memorandum books. The defendant at first refused to deliver them at all; but, as Mr. Hannah was leaving, he said that he would not deliver them to him; but, if either Mr. Fenton or Mr. Chitty would call, he would deliver them up. In consequence of this, Mr. Chitty, who was the plaintiff's brotherin-law, went, and the defendant offered to deliver up the lady's letters and one of the books, saying, that he should keep the other book for his own justification, as it contained observations injurious to him. Mr. Chitty said that he could not take a part only, without consulting the plaintiff. He did accordingly consult the plaintiff, who authorized him to receive the part offered, as he thought it right to make some sacrifice to obtain the lady's letters. The letters and one book were therefore delivered up to Mr. Chitty's order. It appeared that the defendant said in his conversation with Mr. Hannah, that he should write to the friends of the young lady at Deal, and would "take devilish good care to break off the connection in that quarter." The lady's father was called as a witness for the plaintiff, and stated, that, while the plaintiff was paying his addresses to his daughter, he received several anonymous letters in July and August; and, about the 14th of September, he received a letter signed with the defendant's name; after which he admitted that he broke off the connection, but denied that the contents of the letter influenced him in his conduct. He added, that he came to London, and had a conversation with the defendant, who spoke as a man who had been injured by the plaintiff; but he stated, that the conversation had no direct influence upon his mind, so as to induce him to break off the match, though it did induce him to hasten the communication of his resolution, which had been previously formed. It appeared, that he did not call upon the plaintiff for any explanation; but, on the contrary, when the plaintiff called upon him, refused to tell him anything that had taken place. 1831. CLENDON V. DINNEFORD. |