Slike strani


F. Pollock, Jones, Serjt., and Wightman, for the defendant.



See the case of Morris v. Davies, ante, Vol. 3, pp. 215 and 427, and the authorities there referred to;

and also the report of the case of the Gardner Peerage, in the House of Lords.


In the vacation after Hilary Term, D. Pollock, Esq., Philip Courtenay, Esq., J. Blackburne, Esq., and W. H. Maule, Esq., were appointed his Majesty's counsel learned in the law.




ABUSING CHILDREN. of his own :- Held, that an action lay
See Rape.

against the sheriff by the administra

tor, in his representative capacity, for ACCESSARY.

this seizure. But, semble, that, if the

administrator had remained in possesIt is not essential that there should

sion for a very long time, it would have been any direct communication have been otherwise. Gaskell v.Marbetween an accessary before the fact


31 and the principal felon. It is enough

ADULTERY. if the accessary direct an intermediate agent to procure another to commit , In an action of crim. con., letters the felony, and it will be sufficient written by the wife to third persons, even if the accessary does not name

before she became acquainted with the person to be procured, but merely the defendant, and in which she mendirects the agent to employ some per

tioned her husband, are receivable in son. Rex v. Cooper,


evidence to shew the terms on which

they were with respect to affection. ACCOMPLICE. Willis v. Bernard,

342 See MANSLaughter, 4.

AGENT, A prisoner ought not to be convicted upon the evidence of any num

ber of accomplices, unconfirmed by
other testimony. Rex v. Noakes, 326


A. having printed a work, sold 300

copies to B., a bookseller, at 40s. a coAn intestate died in the month of py, binding himself not to sell to others, August: her next of kin took out let- in quires, under 488., and in single ters of administration in the same copies under 50s. a copy, until B.'s month, and went and lived in her 300 were sold, or his consent was obhouse till the month of November, tained. In his letter, which constiwhen the goods of the intestate in the tuted the agreement, he said to B. house were seized under a fieri facias “I do not expect you to sell under against the administrator for a debt 48s. and 50s., but do as you like."


When B. had sold a part of the 300

AMERICAN copies, he went into partnership with

See Alien. C., and transferred all his stock at the cost price. He also sold some

APOTHECARY. . copies at 458. and 468.-A., in con

A diploma of M.D. from the Unitravention of his agreement, sold under the stipulated prices; but, on

versity of St. Andrew's, in Scotland, is being threatened with proceedings by

no defence to an action for penalties

under the 55 Geo. 3, c.194, s. 20, for B., persuaded D., who had purchased the principal part, to consent to give having obtained a certificate from the

practising as an apothecary, without them back, if it would satisfy B.-D. had an interview with B., and told

Apothecaries' Company; and, semble, him this. D. said, that he under

that a similar diploma from an Engstood the arrangement was a settle

lish university would not be so. The ment of the difference, and that B.

Apothecaries' Company v. Collins,

519 went away from the interview perfectly satisfied :-Held, in an action

APPREHENSION. by B. against A. for a breach of the

See IMPRISONMENT. agreement, that neither the under

Magistrates have no authority to selling by B. nor the transfer of the

detain a person known to them, till stock to the partnership, were grounds some other person makes a charge of nonsuit; but that the arrangement against him. Before they detain a with D. was an answer to the action,

known person, they should have a if the jury thought it made an end of

charge actually made. Rex v. Birnie, the dispute between the parties. Held, also, that, on the question of damages,

ARSON. it might be considered whether B.'s own underselling had or had not con

See OUTHOUSE.—Lord CHIEF JUStributed to affect the price of the work

TICE TINDAL'S CHARGE, p. 265, n. in the market. Benning v. Dove, 427 1. If a person set fire to a stack, the

fire from which is likely to and which

does communicate to a barn, which ALIEN.

is thereby burnt, the person is in1. A. resided in Pennsylvania before dictable for burning the barn. Rex v. the declaration of American indepen- Cooper,

535 dence, and he had a son, B., born there 2. A prisoner tried at the assizes also before that period. In 1783, A. for arson, on Wednesday, the 20th of came to England, to get compensation March, was, on Monday the 18th, for losses as an American loyalist. In served at the prison with a notice to 1785, A. returned to Pennsylvania, produce a policy of insurance. The where he died.

[ocr errors]

was in

commission-day was Friday, the 15th, England. Semble, that both A. and and the prisoner's home was ten miles B. were American subjects, and that from the assize town:- Held, that A. became so by returning to Penn- the notice was served too late. Rexv. sylvania in 1785; and that a claim Ellicombe,

522 to lands could only (if at all) be made 3. Held, also, that the intent to dethrough them under the stat. 37 Geo. fraud an insurance office being charged 3, c. 97, s. 24. Doe d. Stansbury v. in the indictment, was not such notice Arkwright,

575 to the prisoner as would make a no2. What A. said in England as to tice to produce the policy unneceswhy he came, is evidence. Ibid. sary.



ASSAULT. 1. One of the marshals of the city of London, whose duty it was, on the day of a public meeting in the Guildball, to see that a passage was kept for the transit to their carriages of the members of the corporation and others, directed a person in the front of a crowd at the entrance to stand back, and, on being told by him that he could not for those behind him, struck him immediately on the face, saying that he would make him: Held, that in so doing the marshal exceeded his authority, and that he should have confined himself to the use of pressure, and should have waited a short time to afford an opportunity for removing the party in a more peaceable way. Imason v. Cope, 193

2. If one of two persons, fighting, unintentionally strikes a third, he is answerable in an action for an assault, and the absence of intention can only be urged in mitigation of damages. James v. Campbell,


had been allowed by the commissioners, according to the provisions of that section, as the whole was matter of investigation before the taxing officer. Fisher v. Filmer,

92 3. When two persons are in partnership as attornies, it is sufficient, under the statutes 3 Jac. 1, c. 7, and 2 Geo. 2, c. 23, if their bill for business done is signed in the name of the firm, without the Christian name of either partner. Smith v. Brown, 94

4. An attorney in a cause is not answerable for the absence, reglect, or want of attention in the counsel engaged in it. Lowryv. Guilford, 234

5. Two persons in partnership as attornies may recover in a joint action, for business done in the Palace Court, although it appear that one of them only was a person entitled to practise in that court. Arden v. Tucker, 248

6. An attorney cannot be asked whether A. applied to him to draw a certain deed, nor whether A. asked his advice for a lawful or an unlawful purpose. Doe d. Shellard v. Harris,

592 7. The protection of communications made by a client to his attorney applies to all cases in which the relation of attorney and client subsists, and to all cases where the client applies to the attorney in his professional capacity.

Ibid. AUTHOR. 1. An author was engaged to write for a certain sum an article to appear among others in a work called " The Juvenile Library.” Before he had completed his article, and before any portion of it was published, the work in which it was to appear was discontinued :-Held, that the publishers were not entitled to claim the completion of the article, that it might be published in a separate form for general readers, but were bound to pay the author a reasonable sum for the part which he had prepared. Held,

ATTORNEY. See EvideNCE, 8, 18, 19. 1. A. brought an action for an at. torney's bill against B., but only recovered a small sum for money lent, as there had been no bill delivered:Held, that A. might recover the amount of the attorney's bill in another action, brought after the bill was delivered, although this was a part of his demand in the first action; and that it was not necessary that he should have been nonsuited in the first action to entitle him to bring the second. Heming v.Wilton,

54 2. An attorney brought an action against the petitioning creditor, under a commission of bankrupt, for business done previous to the assignment: —Held, that, notwithstanding the 14th sect. of the bankrupt act (6 Geo. 4, c. 16), he might maintain the action without proof that his charges


the money.

also, that such reasonable sum was recoverable on a quantum meruit in a common count for work and labour. Planche v. Colburn,

2. If A., being the author of a law book, sell the copyright to B., and B. publish a third edition of the work edited by another, but not stated to be so, and which purchasers were likely to suppose was edited by A., such edition having errors and mistakes in it calculated to injure the reputation of A. as an author:--Held, at Nisi Prius, that, for this, an action lies by A. against B. The question, whether an edition purports to have been edited by A. is a question for the Jury; but the question, whether the alleged errors and mistakes be so or not, and whether they are such as are calculated to injure the reputation of A. as an author, are questions for the Court. Archbold v. Sweet, 219

gain. After he had introduced the purchaser, but before the matter was settled, he became bankrupt, and his assignees brought an action for the commission, which they afterwards discontinued, and wrote to him, saying that they disclaimed all right to

A. upon this brought an action in his own name:- Held, that he was not entitled to recover. Hil. lary v. Morris,

6 2. A bankrupt is not indictable on the stat. 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, s. 112, for concealing his books till after he has concluded his last examination. Rez v. Walters,

138 3. Parol evidence of any thing that a bankrupt says at the time of his last examination cannot be received, although it should appear that no part of wbat he said was taken down in writing

Ibid. 4. Whether, on such an indictment, the petitioning creditor is a competent witness to prove the petitioning creditor's debt-Quære. Ibid.

5. Where the bankruptcy of a party is stated in an allegation, in an indictment for a conspiracy, the assignment cannot be received as evi. dence in support of such allegation, unless it be proved by the subscribing witness. Rex v. Pope,




1. One of the bail was called as a witness for the defendant and objected to; but on a sum equal to double the amount sworn to being deposited with the marshal of the L. C. B., Lordship struck the witness's name out of the bail piece, and he was examined. Pearcy v. Fleming, 503

2. In an action against the sheriff for refusing to take bail, it is no answer to the action that the party arrested did not tender a bail bond. The sheriff is to prepare the bond. But, semble, that he is entitled to be paid for so doing by the party arrested. Millne v, Sir M. Wood,


BIGAMY. On an indictment against a man for bigamy, it appeared that, for the purpose

of concealment, the second wife was married by a name by which she had never been known:-Held, that this was no answer to the charge, although, if the first marriage had taken place under such circumstances, that would have -been thereby rendered void. Rex v. Penson,


See ConcordAT.—EVIDENCE, 8.-


1. A. was entitled to commission for introducing to a tradesman a purchaser for his business, which was to be paid on the completion of the bar


-WITNESS, 3. 1. A publican took from a person,

« PrejšnjaNaprej »