LUNATIC.

Where a tradesman supplied a person with goods suited to his station, and afterwards, by an inquisition. taken under a commission of lunacy, that person was found to have been lunatic before and at the time when the goods were ordered and supplied: Held, that this was not a sufficient defence to an action for the price of the goods, the tradesman at the time when he received the orders and supplied the articles not having any reason to suppose that the defendant was a lunatic. Baxter and Another v. The Earl of Portsmouth, H. 6 & 7 G.4. Page 170

The king granted to A. that he, his heirs and assigns, should have and hold a market in a place therein described, and within certain specified limits there, for the buying and selling of all kinds of vegetables, fruits, flowers, roots, and herbs. The grantee of the market had, for his own profit, permitted part of the space, within the limits described, to be used for other purposes than those specified in the grant. The remaining part of the space, within which the market was to be held by the

terms of the grant, became insufficient for the public accommodation, and there was not, on ordinary occasions, space within the market for carts and waggons resorting thither with vegetables, &c. Held, that the lord of the market could not maintain an action against an individual for selling vegetables in the neighbourhood of his market, and thereby depriving him of toll, even at a time when there was room in the market, without shewing that, on the day when the sale took place, he gave notice to the seller that there was room within the market. Prince and Another v. Lewis and Another, E. 7 G. 4.

MARRIAGE.

Page 363

A. was lessee of premises for a term of twenty-one years, which would

In

expire at Michaelmas 1809. December 1799, A. took a further lease of the same premises for sixty years, to commence from Michaelmas 1809. The lessor died in December 1800, and devised the premises in question to A., the lessee, for his life. By lease and release, A. in 1806 conveyed his life estate to B. Held, that A.'s interest in the lease of 1799, which was to commence in 1809, was not merged in his estate for life. Doe dem. Rawlings and Others v. Walker and Others, H. 6 & 7 G. 4.

Page 111

NOTICE OF APPEAL.

See APPEAL.

OVERSEER.

See APPEAL, 2.

OUTLAWRY.

Where, in error, to reverse an outlawry, the error assigned was, that before and at the time of awarding and issuing the exigi facias, the plaintiff in error was beyond seas; and defendant pleaded, that before the awarding and issuing of the exigi facias, plaintiff in error of his fraud and covin, and in order to defeat defendant of the means of recovering his just debt, and for the purpose of avoiding the said outlawry, voluntarily left the realm of England, and of such his fraud and covin voluntarily remained in parts beyond the seas until after the outlawry, whereupon issue was joined and found for the defandant: Held, that the plea was not an answer to the assignment of error, and that judgment of reversal of the outlawry should be entered for the plaintiff in error non obstante veredicto. Bryan v. Wagstaff (in error), E. 7 G. 4.

314

A

OVERSEERS.

pauper, being casually in the parish of A., met with an accident which disabled her, and which required immediate medical assistance. The constable of that parish improperly removed her to her own (which was the adjoining) parish, and sent for the surgeon of that parish to attend her: Held, that it was the duty of the parish officers of A. to have taken the pauper to the nearest convenient house in A., and to have provided medical attendance there, and that they could not, by improperly removing her to another parish, relieve themselves from the liability which the law had, in the first instance, cast upon them, and that they were therefore liable to pay the surgeon's bill. Tomlinson v. Bentall and Another, T. 7 G. 4. Page 738

PARDON.

See COPYHOlder.

PARTNERSHIP.

1. An attorney entered into a written contract, whereby he agreed to take into partnership in the business of an attorney, a person who had not at that time been admitted; no time was expressly fixed for the commencement of the partnership: Held, that no time being expressly appointed, the partnership commenced from the date of the agreement. Williams v. Jones, H. 6 & 7 G. 4. A., B., and C. were in partnership in trade. A. retired from the firm, and notice of that fact was given to D., a creditor of the firm, and that B. and C. continued the business, and assumed the funds, and charged themselves with the

2.

108

debts

debts of the partnership. The balance due to D. was transferred to his credit by the new firm, and D. was informed of this transfer, and assented to it. He afterwards drew upon the new firm for a part of this balance, and they accepted and paid his bills. The new firm having become insolvent, it was held, that C. continued liable for the debt due to D. from the old firm. David v. Ellice, H. 6 & 7 G. 4. Page 196 3. Where A., the keeper of a coach office and a part owner in several coaches, made a contract with B. for the carriage of parcels, which he was in the habit of sending from that office to various places: Held, that this bound the owners of all the coaches in which A. was a part owner, and as well those who became partners after the making of the contract, as those who were so before. Helsby und Others v. Mears and Others, E. 7 G. 4.

504

PAVEMENT COMMISSONERS. See BANKRUPT, 6, 7.

PAYMENT.

1. A., on the 18th of March 1824, paid into the Totness country bank a quantity of notes of a bank at Dartmouth to bear interest from that day. The Totness bankers sent the notes early on the following morning to the Dartmouth bank. Upon the receipt of them there, the latter, according to their usual course of dealing with the Totness bankers, gave them credit in account for the amount of the notes. The course of business between the two banks was, that if the Totness bank received notes of the Dartmouth bank in the course of the day, they sent the

notes on the following morning to the Dartmouth bank, If the Dartmouth bank received notes of the Totness bank, they, at the close of the business of the day, sent them to the Totness bank. If the balance of the day was in favour of either bank, the amount was paid by a bill upon their respective agents in London. The Dartmouth bank continued to pay their notes until the evening of the 19th: Held, that as between A. and the Totness bankers, the taking of credit in account for the amount of the Dartmouth notes was equivalent to payment to the Totness bankers, and, therefore, that A. was entitled to recover the amount from them. Gillard v. Wise, H. 6 & 7 G. 4.

Page 134 2. A. being indebted to B., the latter agreed to accept the amount by instalments, C. undertaking to guarantee the payment of them. On the day after the first instalment became due, C. remitted to B. the amount partly in bills not then due, and partly in bank notes. B. wrote, acknowledging the receipt of the bills and notes, and said, they should be placed to A.'s account: Held, that although he was not bound to accept the remittance so made, yet having done so, he had thereby waived all objection to the time when it was sent, or the manner in which it was made up, and that he could not afterwards maintain an action against A. upon the ground of his having failed to pay the first instalment. Shipton and Another v. B. Casson, E. 7 G. 4.

The

PENAL ACTION.

378

3 G. 4. c. 126. s. 65. enacts, "That no trustee of any turnpike road shall have any share or interest in, or be in any manner di

rectly

every such offence forfeit 100%." Sect. 143. enacts, "That if the penalty shall exceed the sum of 201., it shall be recoverable by action of debt in any of the superior courts, and the plaintiff, if he recover in any such action, shall have full costs, provided that there shall not be more than one recovery for the same offence, and that twentyone days' notice be given to the party offending previous to the commencement of such action, and that the same be commenced within three calendar months after the offence for which such action is brought shall have been committed." One A. had contracted with the trustees of a turnpike road to make certain improve. ments on the road, and he agreed to perform the same for a specific sum. One of the trustees afterwards agreed with A. to let him his horses and cart at the rate of 5s. per day; and he did so let them; and they were used on that part of the road which was agreed to be improved by A.: Held, that the trustee was liable to the penalty imposed by section 65. of the act.

In the notice of action, it was not stated that the defendant, at the time when he let his cart and horses to hire, was a trustee acting in execution of the act: Held, that the notice was therefore bad.

Held, also, that a party omitting to give the notice required by the act of parliament was barred, not merely of his right to recover the costs of his action, but of his right of action altogether. Towsey v. White, H. 6 & 7 G. 4. Page 125 3. The statute of limitations is a bar to an action of trover, commenced more than six years after the conversion, although the plaintiff did not know of the conversion until

within that period, the defendant not having practised any fraud in order to prevent the plaintiff from obtaining that knowledge at an earlier period.

The declaration was filed generally, as of Michaelmas term: Held, that the defendant might give evidence of the time when it was actually filed, in order to support the allegation in his plea, "that the cause of action did not accrue within six years next before the exhibiting of the plaintiff's bill." Granger v. George, H. 6 & 7 G. 4. Page 149 Where a commission of bankrupt issued against a person then in custody at the suit of the petitioning creditor. and who afterwards applied to the Court of King's Bench, and obtained his discharge under the 49 G. 3. c. 121. s. 14., on the ground that he had become bankrupt, and that his detaining creditor had proved under the commission: Held, that he could not, in an action against the assignees, dispute the validity of the commission. Watson v. Wace, H.

153

6 & 7 G. 4. Where a tradesman supplied a person with goods suited to his station, and afterwards, by an inquisition taken under a commission of lunacy, that person was found to have been lunatic before and at the time when the goods were ordered and supplied: Held, that this was not a sufficient defence to an action for the price of the goods, the tradesman at the time when he received the orders and supplied the articles not having any reason to suppose that the defendant was a lunatic. Baxter and Another v. The Earl of Portsmouth, H. 6 & 7 G. 4. 170

The first publisher of a libellous or immoral work cannot maintain

an