.1824.

The KING v.

he might otherwise have been by the practice of the Court. On the following day the plaintiff's attorney demanded a plea, and the defendant not having justified his bail on the 30th June, the plaintiff proceeded by attachment against the sheriff. The ground urged for setting aside the attachment MIDDLESEX. was, that the plaintiff's demand of plea was a waiver of the justification.

Reader shewed cause, and contended that the plaintiff's proceedings were perfectly regular. A demand of plea is no waiver of justification under the circumstances of this case. The plaintiff would not be in the same situation that he might otherwise have been by the practice of the Court, if he had not demanded his plea on the 29th. He demanded a plea de bene esse, in the expectation that the defendant would justify his bail on the 30th, and having failed so to do, the sheriff was liable to an attachment.

Chitty, in support of the rule. The plaintiff, by demanding a plea, admits that the defendant is in Court, and in a condition to plead, and therefore the justification of bail is waived. Barnes, 92. and Imp. 266.

PER CURIAM. The condition of giving further time to the defendant to justify his bail is, that the plaintiff shall not in the meantime be in a worse situation than he would have been had the bail justified in due time. His demanding a plea, therefore, is no waiver of the justification. If it were, the giving further time would be a mere trap to obtain an advantage, to which the defendant could not have been entitled.

Rule discharged.

The

SHERIFF of

1824.

GENERAL RULES.

AFFIDAVITS.

TRINITY TERM, FIFTH GEO. IV. 1824.

IT IS
IS ORDERED, that no affidavit shall hereafter be
used in support of a motion for a new trial in any case,
whether criminal or civil, unless such affidavit shall have
been made before the expiration of the first four days of
the Term following the trial, if the cause be tried in vaca-
tion;
and before the expiration of the first four days after
the return of the distringas, if the cause be tried in Term,
without the special permission of the Court for that pur-
pose.

SPECIAL JURIES.

IT IS ORDERED, that in all cases where a rule for a special jury shall have been obtained for the trial of any cause in the county of Middlesex, and notice for summoning the same shall be given, such notice, together with the distringas, shall be left at the office of the sheriff of the said county before seven o'clock in the evening next but one before the day on which such jury shall be required to attend, unless such jury shall be required to attend on a Monday, and then before seven in the evening of the preceding Friday; and that all notices of countermand for summoning special juries shall be left at the said office before twelve o'clock at noon of the day immediately preceding the day for which the jury was to have been summoned.

END OF TRINITY TERM.

INDEX TO THE CASES

ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN

TRINITY TERM,

IN

THE FIFTH YEAR OF GEORGE IV. 1824.

VOL. IV. PART III.

AUSTIN v. Debnam (Malicious Arrest)

Blake v. Attersoll (Annuity, enrollment of, when required)
Burwood v. Felton (Assignees of bankrupt not liable for Costs

of commission prior to their appointment)

Clementi v. Walker (Copyright-Books printed abroad not pro-

Page
- 653

549

621

- 598

tected by the copyright acts of this country)

Doe v. Selby (Devise)

Dyer v. Pearson (Principal and Agent)

Exparte, Davey (Attorney-Notice of admission)

Gorgier v. Mieville (Trover does not lie for Prussian Bonds) - 641
Hannam v. Mockett (No action will lie for disturbing a Rookery)

Kenworthy v. Schofield (Sales by Auction are within the Sta-
tute of Frauds-What a sufficient memorandam in writing,
to take a case out thereof)

Long v. Greville (Paying money into Court; effect of, as to

defendant's liability)

May v. Brown (Libel-Slander-Pleading)

a

518

- 556

- 632

- 670

Mills v. Funnell (Pleading-Remittitur-Debt for Brighton

Coal Duties)

O'Brien v. Saxon (Plea of Bankruptcy to an action for suing

out a malicious commission, how pleadable)

Peers v. Sampson (Bailee-Pleading-Evidence)

- 561

- 579

- 636

Rex v. Ampthill (Settlement by tenement-Chargeability—

59 G. S. c. 50., construction of)

v. Apethorpe (Settlement by hiring and service)

v. Brewers' Company (Mandamus to admit heir
copyhold tenement)

v. Catesby (Parish certificate-Evidence)

447

- 487

to a

- 492

434

v. Cawston (Hearing apppeal-Sessions practice-Costs) 445
u. Cooke (How peerage must be pleaded)

592

v. Knaptoft (Evidence of adjudged settlement—when bind-

ing upon third parishes)

· 469

v. Mary le Bone, St. (Settlement by apprenticeship)

- 475

v. Nicholas, St., Leicester (A bastard born in an extra-
parochial place, does not acquire its mother's settlement) - 462
v. Sheard (Overseer's accounts, appeal against; what is
sufficient notice of)

v. Woolpit (Settlement by estate)

Richards v. Peake (Trespass-Pleading-Evidence)

Richardson v. Capes (Custom to grind at lord's mill, when sus-

- 480

572

v. Walker (Custom to grind at an ancient mill, when

Sidaway v. Hay (Scotch sequestration, effect of)
Skinner v. Buckee (Overseers, liability of, under stat. 55 G. 3.

498

- 658

Stanway v. Hislop (Venue in an action on an award, not

Thompson v. Macirone (Statute of frauds, construction of—

Bail, when discharged)

- 619

Thornton v. Illingworth (Plea of infancy is not defeated by
proof of a promise made at full age, but after action
brought)

Williams v. Morland (Running water; how a right thereto

may be acquired-Pleading)

-

Wright v. Backhouse (Right of action, when it may be divested
-Excessive distress)

Page

545

583

- 539

N. B. The remainder of the cases decided in Trinity Term, and
Sittings after, will be published in a few days, the whole being
too bulky for one Part, which, together with a copious Index
and Table of Cases, will complete the fourth volume of these
Reports.