F Pollock, Jones, Serjt., and W-ziem ir fendant. and also the mper é o te the Garou Penzi of Lords. PR: MOTIONS 24 Term, D. PA Fire. Ex 1833. COPE บ. F. Pollock, Jones, Serjt., and Wightman, for the de- See the case of Morris v. Davies, and also the report of the case of PROMOTIONS. IN the vacation after Hilary Term, D. Pollock, Esq., When B. had sold a part of the 300 copies, he went into partnership with C., and transferred all his stock at the cost price. He also sold some copies at 45s. and 46s.-A., in contravention of his agreement, sold under the stipulated prices; but, on being threatened with proceedings by B., persuaded D., who had purchased the principal part, to consent to give them back, if it would satisfy B.-D. had an interview with B., and told him this. D. said, that he understood the arrangement was a settlement of the difference, and that B. went away from the interview perfectly satisfied:-Held, in an action by B. against A. for a breach of the agreement, that neither the underselling by B. nor the transfer of the stock to the partnership, were grounds of nonsuit; but that the arrangement with D. was an answer to the action, if the jury thought it made an end of the dispute between the parties. Held, also, that, on the question of damages, it might be considered whether B.'s own underselling had or had not contributed to affect the price of the work in the market. Benning v. Dove, 427 ALIEN. 1. A. resided in Pennsylvania before the declaration of American independence, and he had a son, B., born there also before that period. In 1783, A. came to England, to get compensation for losses as an American loyalist. In 1785, A. returned to Pennsylvania, where he died. B. never was in England. Semble, that both A. and B. were American subjects, and that A. became so by returning to Pennsylvania in 1785; and that a claim to lands could only (if at all) be made through them under the stat. 37 Geo. 3, c. 97, s. 24. Doe d. Stansbury v. Arkwright, 575 2. What A. said in England as to why he came, is evidence. Ibid. See OUTHOUSE.-LORD CHIEF JUSTICE TINDAL'S CHARGE, p. 265, n. 1. If a person set fire to a stack, the fire from which is likely to and which does communicate to a barn, which is thereby burnt, the person is indictable for burning the barn. Rex v. Cooper, 535 2. A prisoner tried at the assizes for arson, on Wednesday, the 20th of March, was, on Monday the 18th, served at the prison with a notice to produce a policy of insurance. The commission-day was Friday, the 15th, and the prisoner's home was ten miles from the assize town:-Held, that the notice was served too late. Rex v. Ellicombe, 522 3. Held, also, that the intent to defraud an insurance office being charged in the indictment, was not such notice to the prisoner as would make a notice to produce the policy unneces |
