Reasonable time is a queftion of law.
Sheibell v. Fairbain, E. 39 Geo. 3.
1. If a compofition for tithes be made by
A. as proprietor, and he leafe them to
B. whofe intereft is afterwards put an
alteration is
end to by A. before any
made in the compofition, A. cannot
determine it without fix months no-
tice. Wyburd v. Tuck, T. 39 Geo. 3.
458
e. If A. execute a leafe of tithes to B.
on a day fubfequent to their feverance,
but previous to their being carried
away by the landholder, B. cannot
maintain an action on the 2 & 3 Ed.6.
c. 13. as the right to the tithe vested
in A. immediately on feverance.ib. ib.
3. Qu. Whether if one only of two joint
tenants execute an affignment of a
leafe of tithes, the perfon claiming un-
der that lease can fupport an action
for not fetting them out? Wyburd v.
Tuck, T. 39 G.3.
458
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.co.kr/books/content?id=L1YDAAAAQAAJ&hl=ko&output=html_text&pg=PT5&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:HARVARD32044109597054&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U2RmCTHHS131poUTobPAAL5lv5opQ&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=77,893,455,620)
TRADING ILLEGAL,
See ILLEGAL CONTRACT, No. 5.
INSURANCE, No. 10.
PRIZE, NO. I.
TREATING ACT.
1. It being contrary to the 7 & 8 Will. 3.
candidate to furnish provi-
C.4. for a
fions to any voter, after the tefte. of
the writ, an innkeeper cannot recover
againft a candidate for provifions fo
furnithed at his requeft. Ribbans v.
Page 264
Crickett, E. 38 Geo. 3.
See PRACTICE, No. 1, 2. 16, 17, 18. 40
TROVER,
See BANKRUPTCY, No. 1. 9.
written after fignature of the note,
for a pint of rum per day, and it was
held no variance. Baptifte v. Cobbold,
E. 37 Geo. 3.
Page 7
2. The Court will not fet afide proceed-
ings for irregularity where the Plain-
tiff fues out a quare claufum fregit
against two, and declares against one
only. Spencer v. Scott, E. 37 Geo. 3.
3. In cafes of procefs not bailable, the
writ may be against feveral Defen-
dants, and the declaration against one
only. Stables and Another v. Ashley
and Others, E. 37 Geo. 3.
4. In cafes of bailable procefs it is other-
wile. ib.
ib.
5. Arreft by the name of "Wefton;"
declaration de bene effe against "Wa-
fon," fued by the name of " Weflon;'
and held regular. Symmers v. Wafon,
M. 38 Geo. 3.
6. Evidence of a houfe fituate in the
parith of M. will fupport an averment
of a houfe at S.; S. being extra-paro-
chial, and both places ufually going by
the name of S. Burbige v. Jacques,
E. 38 Geo. 3.
225
7. If a procefs be ferved in the name of
one Plaintiff, and a declaration be de-
livered in the name of two, it is bad.
Rogers v. Jenkins, H. 39 Geo. 3. 383
VENDITIONI EXPONAS.
The Court refufed to grant an attach-
ment against the Sheriff, because he
had returned to a writ of venditioni
exponas that part of the goods levied
remained in his hands for want of
purchafers. Leader v. Danvers, M.
39 Geo.3.1
3. The Court will not change the venue
in an action on a deed to the county
where it was executed on the ground
of the Defendant's witneffes refiding
there, if from the pleadings it does not
appear neceffary to produce many wit
neffes from that county unlefs a quef
tion fhould be raised of which a fair
trial cannot be expected there. Watt
v. Daniel, E. 39 Geo. 3. Page 425
VERDICT,
See NEW TRIAL.
PRACTICE, No. 43.
Where a general verdict has been given
on two counts, one of which is bad,
and it appears by the Judge's notes
that the Jury calculated the damages
on evidence applicable to the good
count only, the Court will amend the
verdict entering it on that count,
though evidence was given applicable
to the bad count alfo. Williams,
Executor, &c. v. Breedon, M. 39 Geo.3.
1. A. being a banker in the country
difcounts bills at four months for B.
and takes the whole intereft for the
time they have to run; B. on being
afked how he will have the money,
directs part to be carried to his ac-
count, part to be paid in cath and
part by bills in London, fome at three,
fome at feven, and fome at thirty days
fight: and held not to be an ufurious
tranfaction, fo as to induce the Court
to grant a new trial, fince the furplus
of intereft taken by A. might be re-
ferable to the expences of remittance.
Sir B. Hammett, Knt. and Others v.
Sir W. Yea, Bart. M. 38 Geo.3. 144
2. Secùs, if fuch mode of remittance had
ib.
been made a term of the loan, ib.
3. The Court fet afide a warrant of at-
torney and judgment given to fecure
a loan which was fworn to be ufurious
in order to bring the question of ufury
Before a jury, but refused to order a bill of exchange to be delivered up which had been given to procure the Defendant's releafe out of execution
attorney. Jeyes, One, &c. v. Booth, M. 38 Geo.3. Page 97
on the judgment. Edmondfon v. Pop- See PROHIBITION, No. 1, 2, 3, 4.
WARRANT OF ATTORNEY,
See COMMON RECOVERY, No.2.4.
USURY, No.3.
If a Defendant in cuftody being about to execute a warrant of attorney to confefs judgment be informed that it must be done in the prefence of an attorney on his part, and thereupon produce a perfon as fuch, in whofe prefence he executes the warrant of attorney, the Court will not fet afide the proceedings thereon, because the perfon fo produced by the Defendant was not an
|