\ • < Microfiche Series (Monographs) J- ICIMH Collection de microfiches . (monographies) Csfisdlan Inalitut* for Hiatorlcal Mkrorvproduotiont / Inttltut Canadian da mio/oraprpductlona hiatoriquaa . I # TIM ImttHiM Km «m««<#«t4 to •»«•<«« Km I»mi mI^mI M^ a«Mt«M« ( afi k w4 h m^iHaMt •■•m^U^** vim*)! |y( a «<« po«MMa ^ M pt ocwfVf La«#««wH#aMl aaamplaira «m( mmi pmUMn fctfcliiipurfiHiia. «Hi p an* ant uMlAftaf mm rap*o4MM ou qui pawvant aal«af imm morflf MatMWI 4a(M la m4tlMi^ notMMta 4i ftlma«a mmM I wdH n^ •4 (i»i^ , I M Cl«) 4«. OMO mwfw (n«) 2M r*. Sllviy )t';'^^|-^A^C:.'^ Toronto Public Library. Reference Deportment tMit ioow MytT NOt •( fimvi OMT or rN» »oa« j/ui a .vju "\ •>'. ^"■4'Sr^.Tj[T~*Tf- '* v 4 ^ MMMlli WW '■^f #y ^t/ 1 CASES IJIMf I AftUUID AMU UllTIUUItNKU Iff THE COURT OF KINO'S BENCH AV roi^fi'Pi^.itc^AJM, MiCft4MlM49 rjHM IN Tilt f«VMII fBAA •» TIM MM* or «««<». I» k Nik M. Tm n«« WIM.IAM rAMrmu. ITAACf BOULrUM. •I • IK JOHN K ROIilNioM. M«« Ammm^ i*mm^ irr THOM/IH TjIYLOR, %. ' 'f tl YoM. ..; O ' 1104. ;•! •r , # « f % I ■ r. ' •.^ < •- ■■V ■1' :i^ r* ■'. u , I '»• . »v t f^.friv 'I ■rr /• I "> . 1 ■'.';/ (.„, ',.,, li ./ i.i .i/44 ro 'r;» !(,;, ff}^ /, jAir 5 i9» V'tv ■•'( lil -Ml.. .r. ■■/.•.;< 'I • ' > ' ,• ' f fj^^ . E U ih re tl] B( '.>- s ■!^ ■■ m . *' f-' %-■„.... •».'j« flJl 'III.. '.■.■5 'I f*^ CASES - AtOUEDAND^)r.Ti:ftMIIII:D FN Ttii: COURT OF KINO'S BENCJJ, YORK, ift. ^ SAUND1':RS ajf«iW/0.AYTKH. in2:i Kovambvr 9lli *HIS MOW fin action of (rover bronclit n-^*""' '*'"''*• gainst the ileputj ISIierifi ol the Home dis-i>«>nM.it «<>iun. trict. The eirciiinHtancei proved at the triauTnVot'UJI^ were, that the plaintia^ho hadBeverul ^Carb^"' "*'*'^ ogo been married to one Saunders, had upon his decease taken posHCHBion of his ellectH without proving a Will or taking out an^ let- ters of adrainiHtration, — she .was afterwards married to one EJrod then supposed to ()e an unmarried man, but who it was aAerwords con- jectured, had a wife living in the U. States ; no ' proof was however produced at the triol, of Elrod*s former marriage, or of his first wife being alive at the time of his marriage with the plaintifT. The plaintiflT cohabited with EI- rod for several years, and they continued in the possession of the property until it Was seized by the. defendant under an execution a- gainst Elrod. Upon this evidence the counsel •*% I ■',f. -/.' .71* • . i m L»4!gf* . # 0: ^f< f^m ■«rr *|^ _^', _^£ 'M" ..*«; CAtfU m MICItARtNAt Tnui 6 ^8^2 '**•' *^® pliintiflf permHtea ■ nonsuit at th« tri- awMm *'» ■"** "«^ laorcd* for « ryla to dhew caus« ;^ whj It ihould not be Mt uide. Sed per curi- am where a part/ roluntarily tufrers ,a nonsuit it cannot aacrwank be let aMde. M«te»t4»i4 N«vMnb«tdk, TULLY agatntt GRAHAM. Thi.«u«.u. BOULTON, Solkitar GeMud. moved for ILIt'^'uS;.*®*''® ^"^ withdraw the demurrer Bled inihia cITuTiuId.*^*""*' *"** '** P**^ **** general issue although ing iJlbiy'lhe plaiutifl* bad lost a triaL He contended •uiZff m.ythat i^lthough it was not the practice in Eng- l.«.io...uui,^„d U> allow a demurrer to be withdrawn after trial lost, the reason *did not applj her«. In England a party upon obtaining jiidgitient upon demurrer assessed his damages immedi- ateljr by writ of inquiry directed to the Sheriff, whereas,' in this country, he could only da it at the Assizes, the consec^uence of which was, that a plaintifl* would enforce bis judgment (if he obtained one) at as early a period by go- mg to trial as by arguing a demurrer. , That as the plaintiff would nol be preju- diced by the demurrer being withdrawn, die 4^. *; ,' :■*»-( ■^•-r^n&i;. ''^;;^ri^;f^^''^^^r^-':m^w,yf^. ■'i,fw^ \\t At th« tri. iih«w cau8« ^ed per curi* in^a iioMuit lie refuMtJ. KM. moved for > filed in this sue although e conteuded lice in £ng- ) withdrairn appljr herv. g judgment ;e8 immedJ- » the Sheri/r, Id onljr do- it r which was, judgment (if eriod by go- irrer. , •t be prejir- )drawn, (be '<. .'m • fa ^-^.^^^r" ^■L"*%^'^y^^ '?*' -^ •|. «l<. '«« ■^•'»i ..f Iff Tim VOOHTVI tVAH «» <1M. It. coort would allow it; for he contended that* prejudice did not mean thai the plaintiff would be depHred of any aifranlage he had obtained of preventing a defendani's making to good a defence,, but that a plaintiff would not obtiiin the fruits of his judgment at so eaily a peri^. ll*oAutcTt contra. — Contended that it was quite contrary to the practice to withdraw a demurrer after a trial lost*. H hat if this demurrer which was merely filed for delay, were argued the plaintiff would have a judg- ment in hb favour* and would only have to assess his damages at the Assizes, whereas, it this procedure were allowed, a plaintiff mi|;ht sustaiiii' serious injury by absence pf wit- nessess occasioned by the defendant's filing a Vivolous demurre^ merely for the purposes of llBftiy^-<8ed. N P^ Curiam. 7% demurrer may be vnihdrawn *pon payment of eotU and pUading iisuabhf. . % m^ k <~M 1913 ■(•iiwl OraiMM Il«»{»l»!l OftSER against STICKLER. MoTtmbcrlOlli 30UliT0Nt Solicitor General, moved for a Th« motion for a nile joisi for a new trial in this cause thougliniutt b* ma^ ' T within lb* «rt« four daja of tb* tcm w c c Mi iBli MM trial, L th btfora Ihcopiratlon of lb* nila for JudgmMMt • JiU, ■y J^^ m: m \-'' ifxpiration of the rule for judgment, and that the eoglisb rule in that retpoct had not been itrictljr adh^rod tarr» that he had not been able to make the motion earlier, not hariii|; received hii brielf • JoRU contra. — It m not in the breast of the court to allow motioiH for new trials to be ma|Je after the four days have oipired-^tlie English practice has been diloptod b/ rule of this court. Ciiicr Justice^— The rule for moving for uc^ trials has been considered as extending to the first four days on which the court actual- 1/ sat« but the practice has latel)r become more rigid. Per Cnriam* Rule refu$etl • - MTERSON againit M»KAY. twfZi ^ APTfcR a jndgment and ex. VUioM of tiM 5lft Om 2d, alllioagh ui cxacution may Iuit* i«(««il agaiiMt lb* ^onds mad cfaiMab iq tiM iMUKb of Um A^nrinhtrnor. ud «. t0Bam tf atiU* ItoiMi haalMta * -^' ' < -Ji ''^^^.^*■<. a?.- ->■» • J>A in* iDceiii«nt of that it hap for a^5 IrH I of the rule rule in that lercxl tarr» ! the motion rentt of tho J'ialfl to be [pireil->«tlie d bjr ruleof moving for i extending ourt actual- ly become re/u$etL ion against deceased, u«(l afaiiMt th* ' ifti^^^' . ^^IH' ^' Ml tHB rotmrii^flAR or oao. if. «llfl'i>#lam of dulNi'bona, the plaintiff* iaaued a seire Aibtas and%r the proviiiont of Ath (ieo. Id againft the defendant his heir, to shew cause why execution should not issue a((ainat the landti ahd tenements to which he had become entitled, as heir to the deceased. To this scire facian, the defendant demurred gcneral- \j — Besilton, Solicitor Ganeral, in support of the demurrer. There is no instance which I can-find of a scire facian ha/ing issued in this case either In tlie coloniser in Rnglaiid ; it might, indeed be convenient to the parties but can only be authorized by an act of the le^is. lature, this court as the matter now stands, have no authorilj to issue it ; there are only two cases in which a scire facias can' issuei where a judgment has not been proceeded upon within the time prescribed by law, which raises a presumption that it may have been satisfied; or where the p^rty to the original action is deceased to revive the judgment against his representatives; neither of which is the casehere, if this writ could be support- ed it would be to place two distinct defend- ants upon the same record, there would be two distinct judgments operating at the same time, one against the good^ arid. chattels in the possession of the Administrator, and the •ther against the lands and tenements of the 1823 'lUy. «H )' ■4 1 t ■ vA'.,_' . tW 1 --^jt^ m'i \ ■■ 1 .yi iiM*irrMfcV^ t^^- ^* |: ^, * I i-/ -p f^ ■ MACABfticT, contra.— The application p( gene- ral principles to particular casea ia not al.w^t atrictly correct, at in this case. The aigti- Dient that bfcauite no scire facias has issfied 1 in a ictse of this sort, and therefore cannot, iS' iue, is insuflicient ; it perhaps would not btvf) been necessary to resort to this remedy, unless this court had determined ihat no aotion would lie against tlie heir under the ttntute lor the simple contract debts of the ancestor, and I conceive that the intention of the. statute should be effected in one way or other. , Tb« 'I in asu pi« •"H'-'s-"*^^" ■— ,j£^ --^ ~ '^■Wt^ ■.!■■'% 'm^iSfkA oontrMl or i l«w (berf I CAM* CfJIO iV||il| W*uck ilof4ow«/» « the beuffi. ureliai* Uuit e court, G«ii -if-'./ '. ion pf geiw- • not al,ir^t . The argu- A hat isifird re cannot, ii- jI:-lx •^1?^ IMJ Wfql^iaaum bj iB^ implication rreataa a Miimciaut privity betwaen the partien— tha jjjjjjl pfOMcdiuf ia^^aaalogoualoUiatitiEoff- 'jj* laud agaiiiat th« Mr upon jiid|piilita rf€^ farad agaaiMl lip auf^aatofk In lit ilalQta r«al property b liable to tk^mJ0fh contract debts, in like man. Bar ii^ laal aalalM are by Uie law of Enr , laiatHrilli 1a ^ satia&ctlon of debts due by Medbky, and are subject to tlic like rctne- dttaa» flMitiilof* >^ debt* by •prcialty. tnd |ft«1 in no other wty. Tb<»jr ire liablt to aim- ^J^^ pit conlrart driila during the li^ of tlie •«4ii« if w« hud Aulhoritf to inakn umr of il« but M It M 1 thuik tiM 011I7 rMMdjr m in # . Ciimf JvtticB^— Bj lb« law of Eii|[;l«nd« in £iif ittiid the •dminiiitrtttor ia cofMidcfrail M baviug MMtt M loii( M any colonial land* raumin unaold. In tin* provitica tha aiaco- tiofw whicii iaauad uiidar tha Britiah 10111118 want •loiice affaiiMt tlie landt, at wall an the paraonal propartjr, but a pratincial •(atat ttah sUtuto » well an Um iaU(a4a(«! f mIsikI*, by Ih b« incla- I liitliould ^t tb« goods, for 1 tbiok hehff* would ~ii*#^ff vf. •tr«l(ir of Ml WiImOiUi m tiM p«r> •on l« mort to for |ni|«i««I oI • d«M •■ Im Imm |MM0«lilB •! itMi gtMMJa^ uuWm «b«r« lb« fmk b kcvii ^ •^•cNoiiMA. II Imm bmn dotofWHilNl iImI lofida ronnM b4» aokl in an actton sKuiiMi iImi adtuuiistnilor, aiid y«i 1 do MM M« why 111* \mHf iIkmiUI b« drivvfi lO • ■•«oim1 action. '1 tirM dillicullio* luniitti a •(rt)iif[ iiMtucffmrnC to AotMi log ialalivo |iro. vlakwi, but ai UK tb« acin* laria* do«^ not •pptar to ma to ba a ramady withiu our |K)W. J^trCnH^, Judgmmt/of d^tmkmt. I«l4»l«|4 THE KING 0^mftrt PHELPS. W^fiWMpitl WH AN inquiaition in this caaa had hf»«>n feumf "n>^ ■• !»• agaiiiat Epaphma L. Pli«l|ia in farour of thrJl"'tl.M^ Crown, tuider th« proriaiona of th«? provin «^"^ "^ **• cial 8(atttta, M G«a 3d. (or daclarinff c*r aT^ILti tain peraona tharriii deacrihed aliena andj^"*»* nri.!*.'** Ti.*"?? T^ ** *• ••"•^ <^ Mii»«|Q««il MiitiH*, SiMltr (Ph^lp >kmI i^ffW'^ •Kttin*! h«r hiiab«twl fJ|Mplmiii l^ivfl pfi TIm r««(inl # fc wh »M of TfliUlf T^rm, Ittt. tlalod. tlMi« 14 hM k**!! AkM hf tff ini|tii«Himi imtrntrd. Ser, •! «h« Tuwfiilllp «f f in lh«» dMtrict at Ni«Kar«, on ffl« *if)lh «i«7 nf Januarjr in thm A9lh jr«ar, Im. CoMmflliMhi •f th« l«l« King, 4e lo ••• «|iiir«« 4(o^bjr lb« onlb of Williafii N«lklt •ikJ utlMffft (IIm J«#3^) Phrl|Mi in th« cominuMiun namcin«( nimI, W» •bt^eomplaiiw tKat iIhi bf coUmr ot Iht pr««ii«M b ^y,Qm\j r«it<| and dMqtMM, •fMl P^oitHii^ UmU tiM eooMBlniiNi tnd iii« qukilioii i9» Mrt (Milclciil iti Uw «imI to which mIm hM iM MCMtil/ nor k bound by lh« bw of th« bnd lo ftfwwtr. for pl#« Miiih, thai on th« 3A(h dajr oTOctob^if in lh« /••r 1784, the graml rivtr in (be Mid diatrtcl oT ^^^ .*** te**** P">»'n«« o^ Uppor Carmdt, ^Ibttitottd •hd fomrd |hiH oftho Provinc* •rQiMb«>r, thai th« Mohawb IndiaiHi, tTad othem oftheiU oatioiM of Nofth American Indiana b«tfi| o«i th« aanM* daj» |ic« mai long before, Um faiibfal awl atlachiNl aUi«a of lilt late Ormyom Majcitj, King Ooorgo tbo Ihird^nd «t|M|ciaU/ in tbt war |ben lalo- . •/ bofore that (inio carried an between Ilia ••id laU Mi^ettjr and t^ United Sa(«t ©T •AoifrMJi, bji %«tfAl |uid prcMore of ^F F ''■ ' '1^' ''k '''I . i I L./yL1sai:!A *' },i- n . . ': ■ f •*••" If rmAiUi'W 1823 miiehinir, the •oaA fndbnt wwCfobUgilid* 'l^l*' vrithdimw froji ikm MUtoawli^^lidl poiF f essioiM withiii tiM mmI SUtoi, mmI bit mM Ute Gmciou* Mi^mtjr, in coiisirU.Caiuu of Quebec, lueheCi Ac IMS TW y?^ ■■^R s Lord Phelps his heirs executors, administrators '.4 ^■■ ^i.' f n If < •iSi B9»m0 or HitMAiiitti 1819 Mid MtigiM, Aix tUt oaHain ItmI ke. (lafli ,g2^;|^ MMioned in the inqowiliwi) TO HouiHw^ jgjMi iiSb Ibr the term ofMO 7«M«, /W , ami ihff diMrm 6on of htr 1^ $«dd bj the leid I'^iphrai, the! it to My, ia tvwl lor the parpoee of providing for eiid DNiiiileltt* log the laid woomui end the leid thrae ioliili dren according to the cueton of the iehli|i'|(\ 'f uationi — ATerments that the leaee mentiiao. ^ ed in the inquiMtion and the Indentura laet ■et forth, ere one and the tame ; andthat the traTerser is the woman PMOtiboed iii lh« Ift^ denture, and that the land nentioncd in the Indenture ii the tame wilh that mentioned hi the inquitition, — ^That the traverser oo the drtt dajr of June, in the 53d year ^c. and aU 80 on the day of the outlawry of the said £• paphrus Lord Phelps, and aleo at thetinle^ taking the said inquisition, was and slill is faj yirtue of said Indentare, poaseised of the iMues and profits of the parcels and tracts of land in said inquisition mentioned, to witt itc. and all and singular which things, Ac. TIm traverse concludes irith a Ivrayer for jadgment, fhat the hands ofonr said US^ the King be thence amoved, and that tbe traverser to her posseMibn, together with the issues and profits therein in the ih^an .t* • xij^-'. 3^ 0. ■,-» ■«-' br •y. la three teHHi .heeeidfif^'-i e mentiMi. '^ iQture bet i^thel the Ikilhalft. tiled in Ibei intiooed m wroo the ^c. end el. theeeidE. thetkne^ AeliUiehf led of the endtrecte ed, to wit« hinge, &c. |irejer for Mid JUifi L thet th» ther with the duian ■■/ ■'i .€m * llMfecveived be reetored. The Solicitor oolhepeiioCthecrowmdemwred ^^f^ fcvetee jeoereHy, ee not heing iilfc "H*^ I trevetee _ oeat in Ww (o ewMre the hendft of the Loi4,the King from the poeeeei ien of tbi| lenenente eforeeeid, end prajed judgpteot end tbet the tenementi* 4cc in the bendt end ponoMion of the eeid Lord the lUtig t:-%t' foviToir, Solicitor Generel, in eupport ot the demujrrerr^The treverae in tbje caM ie inauffident. It acta out that the traveraer ^.nn Indian wonan and that there is a cue. tein among thelndkaa, to beatow bnda in 0w manner atated, end that Brant aukde iuch iiifloiiveyanoe for her benefit* butitabewe m goe^ titl» in bioi* or the Indiana to do ie. By tli^ trarener*a own ihewing, ahe nja » leeeigiier h^ oonaequently no mo^B enr tided to hold labda than a frenchmaia,or ti!f ndier foreigner; for die Indiana arc 'i||iid:l7tlie comB|on.liiwi>,v'''"':V'^"' V, ■■W^ma if the' title were goodvit only con- t^ed a chattel intereat which a man oaii* AOt hold in truat for faia wife. v ^ -w, ; ;, S|u»Qldtli8 lioqiiititioiiJiftTe been ill foiuidf 'V '^' ■■m • ■ . - » . ' 'WV ' 1 * — L" > ' 1. . ^ f- JF ^ \. . . .-. ,,J ^^^^W ii^iiSlL:^ '^l. ,r,f C*' *: ■'^t^t : ^ix I'A, '<*. .#•1 %f. •ftW-if'. *;■■■*■'■ ■y^i^ "np ■*^W^""'^ •■^'•IftB^ '■••unfip hb ekum under the lutme deed neiUMr c«n inr pugn ft for deiecte, «iid therafore d^ftctf ih title under thoM dMds (if each the ra >f») cumot bf e^t ap by l^ orvw^.' *" , ■*•'»•■ ■ \ ■■ , • ■. ,.^ ■■■':/■..■■ .., -y^z ^^ lie fetthdation of Um titte from tSfMr^l HalduiMuid b erideotl/ a ti««kj, |um1 m Mdi tti^ b^ Nk:ogiii««d bj li^ ci^iiit^i^«^ ' ^ .,.«»/.iia>^«^4^. IbdiH- ;■',.... ^>^ !^'iiiMe ia this country, it j|>)|%l>|i4 nai ^^aafttttfiai b« ixmld TIm ■uppotition thi^ tho indiMM ara not sah^tct «t6tbo law* of thaeountiy, it aiiMird) futf fraka nuiohao aatha f ranch lojaUalt wlw •ilM IMM ■Ibff tha Tranch reirdliiliif ^ eiMmUioB, Mid, tU( he did not know {^iITJt^": w^ ^ eiact copj, if might fuj m word orlSI^T^iil? tW*. Upon thit eridence, the judge who tri^'^TTJIS •d the CMMe, direcleJ a verdict ibr the de-Sr'Et*k V Ifftd^t upon the groendfthet the exigencj oi»JJ» ^ • \thip itetute had not been complied witli. On •«< *»^ •'••4s* %^mtr day, in thit tern, Baldwin had ob-ili'te J!^ tMQMi a mle to shew oauM why a new trial STJI^tlSd 4M|M not be granted on the ground of mi..'a;tS;^.J: directioa in the judge who tried the caww,J^ SS^ bat themle had been discharged —he con- t#iid«d thm the evidence was sufficient to ': proff tht notice, that if there was any defect iQl|,^t should be shewn by the ir. Solicitor general, and RoLrH, on the other side, had argued, that, though if the ■m. I M Off^ S C. 44 0L 1. ^: ^■ ' :.: »i t .■"'». fii ^j. jfe t r> ■-^'^:X\r:^ rnt-"-l h 1 \ h% if i '>#■ ^0 — .JWItL '11 UBS fM^nirHirBfiiiw^NnHpv'^^B. "^■pfStS plaintid* might p«r(iapt hmf giv«u Hv4 IlK ^ ^^ tviaciicc of iu coolenlti /tt ■• no ttieli a;^ t*f Nilw not toMMt to umw9t Ibt «ti«iiMBpl 7 llkoie fiHMt p»rttOTl*ff^ f«qiii*4 17 iW iil tote, the Mitura of Um Miioo, or (ii« Mi^«iaQtwfff«a the * •. ■JL* .f )■ ■^.■^•' ,■1, ^"t V: s 1 ^ UlB tlatate i Aatfl^iftt'to^vto- • prMumptiod to infer th»t tbo tt^fAm ^ w|0iii«orroetdl|«rthowilMNMwholMifffovr •d the lenrioe, h»d tw^ro H «•• • Woo copf , ^m^j 'rom the •employ (mt eipiMi#i upoa : httoroM-exei^Wtion, «pid the oorv etped- •% (II It 1»w lA the powf r of Uie pkloliv to lliew the aefiMsta, If any, bjr itt ptoilliclliiii { ■ ihejr thereibre directed ,^, l^t'^f ^' ■ I' ". ■ •"*■■ ■ "' ■ . / .. r " . ^ \,0M *■> ^^l. is ^'#;g!?A%^j r^^^lpP^^fi^' -^vr>- ftl*^iiirf Ht 'T* |- *i^;jJ* y-« -»...-. ».» f' ..V> M^ iq ^0f4«f«(l to l||t ddriMlMit, uiMler«i •< i" Tkk cttiM* ha<1 b««n broaght into coorTit *• S? ^ Ibe MsiMv ibr the Wmlem dutrirt, %nd •vi*tl JklTlZft ■.J ,r .. #iif !r^ **rif . t'Mm.\ #. ''I ,'»W«k, IF tMlwMo tp9e^ Wil and b«il (• dW SiMriC :i iT' I Cniw itiiTica.^ co^finUir UmI if p-jMiij ,«^ Ji||«4 in Pftfon, iiii OlMMM (Hin( k>^lkm tUto4.t#(b9 bviMfilof Uiis.ttottit«. Uwr the pUbtUT trnd tudicieia jimUAoii I . y »< i»rflM»f s' . MINT08H WHITE, n^t^ ♦^'' ,-4' 4 4^ :*ii#ifci# *v«M»'>«Mh» Made an application for coati for tfte da- liMi 4« «.f«iidaoi oo4||r the prorinotal atatuta. 49 Q* S ^'^"^ilrb. 4, but it waa notilated \n Ihe aflidavit !• froand the applica|ioiii that the defendaiit waa afffitf4 witbo}i| rf«M»i)MiMf|^ o^ «•■*• 'i^J •*..• ' • ^^;.tt..i->ttJv ^ t-MA • t ^ . * f- — ■ _.. — — * '-— f- ^ K Bm ^M iHi i^ ^Mk i^: * • ,i_ •'ji ZZl .*% «flitt MiiiliTMteweJitffii^ jl tits ftr Omt fliacMra Dl^irM, for il#6imitH| iW pUUiUCin hi» iNMintM of • ^rug|i«l, v«fX)«r»JtCMSN of d«fiu&*Uoci w«>« Mlifefiictonl/ provtl.^"'— y* 'j y Ito \ # fM-< j^ factory ptt M'^H/^ dtclalnlion, tmm that (h« plAitiitiret«rci»«MHii«», 014) Ml <^ pUraiMt, wlikh it • f try amnni buti^ ^o tl^# • iiM«r« dmggiat, who onijr mIU ^« «rtiole In Mi rud« uocooipoutHlod «uit«. An agH)- liMcan in EngUuid not ooly compomida ia«. 44*clnW, but prtwcribM thmm, mad thouU th«r««lbr« b« • p«raoti of ifcUl, to IniQf^ mbott r«puU(ion would e«ll ft||ip|irii ^u^ ?ier damaget, Ouui to dafiuM thai of aiMra ?«oder. ^j. -^ -i^f^^^m^4:-v^'>^^ Mt, ii*»lPM^ iliiawlf of (hrtc (radM or |m>f«iaiotit, ijro of which hat ita individual oManing, 6lil'tt mmmmm >Mi4^ ij l-Bi» ««i jilr fiiii=^ -^t^i*Aj| 'flf ' J. J# » - -^^\ w#U in «K« Miku ^ •U«aM', M ki gl>M t» » UofW on th« im^ it *nHl ilMrl/ piiii||ll||| t^ iriiit* lilt lb« piMritiir kitfl t ^tufit^ ifetti aiid'M 16 dtatioctlon* ftrritinc (itom thm ^MlltM In Um d^laraltod, two at* tjno^ niaioiii. ITbi plcAdtng (ti«^ |«m4!nil mom with a jiMtific«liK i^<^ th<*y are mat- Uf of itihetAiioP, the rtrj giai of the action, (b« way to aacertain wheUier an allefation ^^ oMUffriai or not, k to ftrih^ it out of tba 44N:laralioO| aod ohtorVe whether it hu iti Nil Cawr Jvimni fAii«ntf^# CAMfMix f.) JdMM k a tpcfiiiWMl diitinct meaning to -|ibt lim apelliMfy m well ai to that of 1 .-^ f -.«' It} -'■ .» •■■■ •/ . «?* « , ■ . 4 , ■ ^" ■^■lii ~V — r^^^^^^^^H »i . "■* «•' I y'*."*/ ^:-i ;i • I .■.H"- ,:*" U" IM! ^^"W*^ ^°^ wh«ce tecmfl ofart ara in qae«> J**-?^ tioh, reference oaj be had to ^' \^ri-, , BoTLTOW I. I do not eoomder that thefi^ jf aiifficieiit evideoce to topport the allege* lion qf the plaintifl* heing an . apothecaiy* which I thiok ■ a aioo qoa oon. ■f ■\. ■■*, ■'■■^^:S y VomakmlUk L*0^ t to fUMM\ dama|;ietforloMofierficeb]r jlteaciittettmi te^MblLof the plaintilTi doM^hter, liod tried hefetv ■^"""ithe Chief Justice ii ^ M0m lb^ - — ^ ^..? KlSV^— ^ and « veidict for ttiM^yprf^ J«jjJ5 "ThefiMSti of serrice ta0liii&^^ J**'^**were proved, and thalttfte pla^^if^f T^/^^^fh^td bomeAchUfitp flooi.teMt«^the part of thedeieBdantil wa'^SfaTthe witinesg (the Bon-iOr'^ir FV. .^%*'"'^ " J* -iff..' "-iK* n %•■•' « t 4» iiHk IT. irmWtM (to bit m«nfa|«, slf pt wkli anotlicr I ^i yd(i% am in one bed, and the two daugh- r"* ' ttf» of (be ptaltilMT in Miother bed in the •fe««t i|pw raomi (a two bedded room.) That he had lain in bed with both the daughters pre- rwrn to hii marriage — thfl(t the indecencies wlkich took place between plaintiff • daogh- ril^anddelbndantf were notorions to the (or ^ uilf^that they were laying, in erery comer ofthebooMtobettombledorer. That the mother had been informed of the indecencies which took place'bctween her daoghter and tb^ deiendantf but did not discountenance jiMNii^that the plaintiff had iilso been in- toMA of tbein, and though he reprobated the d«lpBdaiii*t conduct g^atlj, he took no maaof Id preTcnt it TW Cwir JvsTica observed at the trial^ t1i|ii yipr d ict and grant a ntfw trial ; il^ now AoBwfbs, Attorney general, shewed %. « . ..V' » 1^ ^ ' / ift >1 n J M4 ■1 UK ,1 '«.' - - tp d. ^ '■'. r ,; &:>.. * V > ''^■r 3«yi iib "'^ '\ .^".«^^t.; r^* M- •..(■ fM i6 »**. •>•*+■ ills 'a», T<»i# fatYfj^ioo aUPBi fcr a>» iJfB^ a I«g«l one. Tlie damtfii in tkit MM c*ft V MM4#^«M^« ^ coiiBid9r«4 M ootiifMM Vf&it.; Vbkh id<>n. w»dd wlr»^ UMinierfeffiiceofthecoqrt, m USd down ii^ ftU the Kuthorttici. In « case of crim coii (betvireeii which and th« preMut th«r« to no esMntial djl&r«nc«), tboogb ih« imI ii^fwy WM merely bonunal, a jurj gave £ dvOOO d»- Thit ne«, wjueb ui pp mtocni«f ous to 10^ mtoralt of a Countty, baa bMoi^e too prev»- l«nt,' an4 thoa|^b JMmnt^ tbou^gvtf)^ Uie conduct of their dlnlghtdr*, liow |reat ui opening mmf hi iMde Ibr i6rd|jiWflutt^^^ other aia«» bj cdiirta intbifM|^/Mi thif # »ii iioaiiag0^«m# the a«%te g^r#|Sfi« % tlia.b0«i|lflK^i^a^ ^liMa liAn 411 ibHf or gnittf of dailjio^ of tlM^ im&Uj, to ifhtoiiiM priv jT—lhese circq uill li p i l' ip fev -Mi b«M ' considered by the juiy, afi4^^ ceive they were wrong in i^K, tion. , . , * . ^ ri iiif I I M " 11* *»iM<4<»**ii*»» #•« - .Vi viT. «& >*' J m- i' fiouLTOM, Solicitor General, mmI iomti, ^23 conUm. ActioDf ol Uu» nature are iuppcrt- j^^— . ed 00 the ground of bjury to the parent** m*'^ ieelingt i but where aoch trantactiont take ' place aader hi« own ejre, his conduct it much wome than weak or tilljr if he does not pre- vent them. Jf a lather opens a door for mis- behafiour he cannot saj where it is to stop, mod he shall not afterwards come and say to a jury, 1 have bj mj own foil/ brought this Inconvenience on mjseli; and now 1 come to you for damages. If thw jurj have not acted upon vicious, they havft,acted upon erron- eous feelings ; they mustliave supposed thejr were to punish the errolr of the defendant, whether the &ther had received any injurj to h^HfllAga.fr tiot In thD cas^ of Smith WlMtlb thii coart, a new trial was grant. Mj^ioinst iMilJpMfktifl had jp^teitted her lipilttlftlay optM a «»ed With ttiedefcQ- iiili il'eatfe III its general cirt^ bj .Ao means iiOitittligyy calling for anew trial '^«4:.. V>.-,v- /^ :l.^^ .[■m oiifo&ilf vpm paiftimi of tottt, X * * ■■-..+ •»*,• • r^ :r%,- 'BJp «AfM w. Minuna^ *' '^ ittts •f|:,.v. V '.'■•^.i^f^^^itte'-, » ' ,.. s TaMMtio* TMit'wat ari action oraMuaiMit .w. «ui upon w^f'M •«.ck»owi.continiifd ontil the rear 1819*^ %r 4, 'i^i,M •dCOMmt bjr . SZ"*«.itt« .'*^ "*® defendant bi^ writlMa .16 the jce«iitti»tkji»>'^tiff acknowledging an account and apo- .1. tuTdlhU^o^^og for the neglect of pa7nMiit<~ihat th^ S* .Lr"i^«f«»^wa^ing nAir the plaintiTa 9U»^ •JM^v^^j^luestediibaccoartt, uponwhich MiefrfW 6-- *- - iflrcalM hidTin, and read over •» j^s^tM !::t„Sa;'* ^" "• ^''^ pretence <»f the ml|MW« (fel- ijru-Mj.iiofbr>--^ listened a^entiirieljr tai^M 4ue.4 i. eouft, » vle |io objection. Thai «^^jy||» com^ wwi ih.»^^enc«ment of the suit, the lame witiMM co- Si.^ rS »»*»** •"Account out rf the ^ly ntiffi hooi^ f nr •woreb readov4 he alio I a* €oqi| ver to i minatioi which b and pro< that rei the plaii ed him ( ■ ■■'■%),' ■ ■ ■ fioVLl m^r par •flijt aside orto^ha^ itopn»pe trittor, wAp hu n«#'0Ai that the eanoteii to»upp<^ ii\g ah I nooly|li^ tob«4l» iiiidant, •¥ i V -. -•ti^. .1 ,"* .■'< ':4 at the iCap- ith«r« Adet- t and d the Ittll0 4004 and com*. •CO- ^ .(:?''«'y >, -It 9 iPIWiW# ViAK nr otCKi IT* ''HH' »' iP^'.,' ,1 ^n:( ^ <•-* •wor«h« believed to correnpond with that 1823 ftad over jn the prince of the defendant i 7~ he alio recollected one item for two pouodi | jff aa coQiposiog a part of the account read ^ ver to the defeudent. Upon hie croM-euh minatiop heiaid, that hebelieved the account which he- copied from the plaintiflT^a book j and produced In court, corresponded with j that re«d over to the defendant, becanie the plaintiff* had^told him so, and he belter* ed him to be an honest maii ■ ■■■■■H,- ■ ■ ■ .■ : ■ -.,■ ..,■■■ . ■ . BovLtoir, Solicitor General, had in the for- mer part of the term» obtained a rule nisi to sejt asi^e the verdict and to enter a nonsuit, or p^Hi^w^ a iifw shewed cause : lit contended thattheeride^ioe appearing upon the judg- es notes, mis pro^rlj received and sufficient to suppQillbe Verdict, a letter acknowledg- 4Q|g ah accoimi, «ii ^count read over and. no ob|^ti<]Ai lalNi, efeug tacit acknowledge. ittgti r . ^y eiC!Poiint produced iniM>urt, sworn to bejlUiliiiuM that read over to the de- fendenl, to Ui« best of a wHnessei belief ' ^ Z%^ jijjf^ ^m Jy*- <:'l n.. * **>^ ►, *. ^ ■« ' '* ■■^■^t • ^ 's» i' ^ % f J ''."¥ £*,. .^f / m memMmum turn ^ '^♦»r \ -w -'.:■(• Th^ Ant qdeftion It whetbir ittilAr fl^e wiuieM sbottid have been ftUbwyir^ pro- dnoe thin account, I coatend tbit iillfeOQld not, fth acrofiiii or memoranda^^an oolt b^ prodaeed to Mtbt tlie OMiiiory of a witoMf, Nil ^l^iannol l>e |>erniitted t^ produdtj^' aoedlititthatheiiiajr awnr hk beliorea U to be true, because another parso^ totd bin so, moi^ particularly the plati^liflr in thfMid-* tM; it «^uld be rcrceimg phiofin iactop- on the ptaintiOPb oarn ip^ dii^v Uia witofia could onl/ remember an item of two pottiidi, wbich doea not at all prwre;tii« tntCli 6f any of Cbe other items, be ^hovAdJuawt be«n abte Wi4e^^ tha account rM ot%r Witt llM^ one proved, or should have •4<>m iftili#|;Mi^ ticuiar it<»m8. Tha admisfii|l>n of e?idenc« of this sort, which is mere hearsa/, and lhai| ' Iroiii the plaintiff; arould somect e^eirj p^f^ aonin the countrjr, to the grcCttiaiira'iida aijl impbaitions; in this case thie plJsiii^Uflrinlgw „ ha?a added! ne«r items or altered '^ mxii^ after the acoottat was hMd>ver* Upon thlil^ evidence, #hlch I contend [shoiild nbl liav^ been admitted, the ptainti^T has obCaload if verdicl which ha Dould n^t hav* ^btoined without. The aocounl ah^d hftvv bM^ ta^ ' ..^: A ^%.i. ^1^. r •% -5—^ "1- -^ M.. ^^ ff. ^^ . .-•!.! * ' *ii^..m •*ri ♦;•»," .'.-^ '■■'■I ■ 'ij' .•If' k i, ^* • -J, ;li' -# i^iiyi,«iimWiiM^fiiiim^ lust tocififMh ttb oMUorTi bathe wm allowed to • rind it, mtnly iifion the puniUT** aMenkm .i^* th«l it wMoorreot, hit ofiiBiba of whoM ho- noety aM%t jm> tridenoe «t all. Tlie incon- ▼enioobo, diffictilUet and hardihipe ofproT- bg accoonU by perMiw who hare no clerkt, haf4 bota nnpid, but Uiey have it in their power to take notoa or mesioramlaiiM, and it woald be a mach greater hardship upon tho Goontrjr and mor« proJac(iveofrrAwd,if ac coanti were allowed to bo proved by thia •ortorendeoce. V; ;tt ' ■-'^'.- '"■V : , ^;-^, ■>;>:•:; ;.,.''^: ;;;■•,, \ h/'^y^ - . . PovLTov, lliftic«^«-Thire ii no poeiliTo proof in thie case of the delivery of the gooda eiKept to^the vidoe of two powdk I fMI^. bo Mfiy that merely being present al the hearini^ of an account, without acqoi> episeace, ahoald be considered aa proof of the Heine contained in it I dare say we all coiimd«r'th«^pl«intiir as ail honest man, hot it appeavi to ipe, that in this case the nec«8- •aiy evidilM^ it wanting, that Hiere isi^ot the eliiifateel testimony of the delivery of the t*<^ «4J^ ^▼«KUct ^sannot be sni^ .t.'i- 1^ ■»•'».■■•*': |( 0MUteiA| ioitice^this is an actioh for goods loM and delivered, the mm sought to ^r. Ail '' i A ^X M ^'SL u. »M. TSl iu' r «4..'X r4 TT^ ■*w». rtcorerrd p mmU btrt MTerll diet ought to be iupported bjr proper evi> 4«nce, ifnot, • new tml thoukl be granted. Af to he«r»aj evid«iMe no One woald km ltiiWruk«a to rcccire it than rajMlf, and if I Uiougbt this verdict depended apoa such, I liquid lio t y>B»ideir ^^it i»tgl^l0 aUiid. but I tMm^^Tfii^gtiiimim^ degree upon it, what hma been coutiderea aa luch in not aoi if it were it would be of' the verj worst kind af coining frwn the plaintiiThimseli^ bat I attribute to it a diflbr* ent character. There ia e? idence uncon- troTerted of a subiitting account, of a •ab- eiftjng debt, no lew than a. letter, aclino«r» lodging it, apd an apology ibr4elaj of pay* ment; this is followed i>jr the evidence of Kellar. that about two jears ago he heard the defendant ask the plaintiff for his m» ' count, that plaintilTtook hjim into his heuae and read over his account, to whioh the do* feadant listened atteotivelj and made no obiectioo, nor did it appear thai he did make anjr afterwards, until the action wav bnMi^ht 1 do not consider that silence ii always a mark of consent, but I think that in this casei under these circaniltipqes, it W*** ' '• :■' ,V ■■■ \'. •'-■•' ---^JZ *.» IV^^.^-. ' .'■ . » r. • , .' ■ _ J . 7 ■ ;■ ': . ^^ ■ f Ihit W«li thf bHI 6f imttu^ulara ; ll., „.,.^^ ^ •gtrrif b ih« ••!«• M'th« accoiim in '"^^ tlV'pUiiitiir*! tMmk; h« tayt he ha« no dotlbt iMrt it i^ •ii convinc- •d from the plaintifT'i character that tfie account waa the some with that reod to tlie defendant, that be did not bmilate to give it aa bis belief upon oath ; thera waa abo *n itam for^wo poundu which ha identified M bdng in the account raad over to the defendairt, aa wHI as in that produced in cpoft This evidence waa left to the Jury, «d I conaider that justice baa been done batweaa the parties. / ..>/»j(- ^ CHnir Jwrica.^fa this case there waa foil eridence of transactions between the PVties , upon application for payment, apo- lolfiea nr^ire made for delaj, the defendant went mto plaintiff's house and beard the account read over, and I think hU silence, i» fome lort, admitted the account; a lomr /" ^ ^ it.: M*^ V. 1" >,l '* ^ '4 ■•■. ■ ■■"f-'i '*h< !i-/:^i '\ • "^. /^P* . IIM .1 'i^f« JINU*^^^^'*"* in whoy f t u w im Om »o* sB ^eoam wm r««4, oopiM m Account qM of ^^ Um pUiiiUr* bpok, wh^ Im ? •rily U- l^pps (a be Om fanit. ,i,|IM undftr dl ibiHj l«Alotb« JiMNtPld Wilis Judi* who tried tbe GiM W^lliiii»ii0lrfii ,tlyt Ai f rtba ikm M i |( M '.. i^% ^'■» ♦i^** ^ /* • I < c •• iii, •» ■ •■ ^ ,»»,- «;. .|;;. },:ikAiN]to'»-_' 'Itt lit— In tbe '. cee -.' wi» of! id— Wh ■ ■'■'' , ,JM:t* lorn up i 1 ■ ■.-1JHfc.aili... uTi 4|ii«^,tj^ *m. .•#*''»Ii* ^ '■■■ . ■*..■#■■ ■•!»«^ PUBLrSHED THtS TEBM. » " I ■%• •C^ .. ■•^.-f] Sijbii^ i » ** ■ "■f, '^ III *» ■ W- 94-4t i9«ii «i Mar ^ ii^ iMf inf 1litfMiff«r % Ili« AAf.ftiuHh yww of OiK>. X Tht cUrk of the crown thall uaum mi •ttrtci thumftoni coftlaio- ing ttM mmm •(Om p^rmm «iti«J «« b < «^ ^Umn^ ami aeMrttNtig lb« (ami loa.i I to iav9 lM»«fi in tili pwiim i oa, 4»r to whidi bo bad • iUf« lal^i to forfaiti|f% in orUar thai Mjf f«iMii bariiig Ailain BMf lrar«r»« (li« taiU |iK|uiiitia 4a oonfuM ja«lgiii«*iit, or U|>ofi ■minwiM, •nl«w Um miii« Iim through th« ifil«nr«ii4ioKo l«M than eight ilaya tnclmlr^ •hall inlerretM b«tw««n the teate and return of aU meant pro- herea(\er to be iticd out in any penona||^ to hm henceforth iiiatituteil ia thiiCoti% 9lb«»Tit iMitriirto whom tny nfrotlon^r^rvMieaa hi the nature of an eiecotion,«hatl be directition or pro* eeet, the amount of hit feea le?iNl hjr virtue there- of^ and ahall apedfj hi the nargiii the particular AT ^. ' .A'. ^ - ■'''-ifi^' « ?"■ ;^^ '.i.'.^^^^-;^-^'-' 1^^" .^.'^^- r : ■ ^i^'. b ' ,.-y k^- ■■■■t''l^'- I. si. rv» ■#Si I^WIlllgi Or ■•riMllr wIMb iNH^Hr Jo thii court, ^ffcndtfiu abtil piMd wiiyiJB^ * } flftyt «ft«r conaion ImU and dwIttnlMo iliallhAM "^^ieen fil«d aiid Ihv^ dfMiidtd. ^ lltb—Erery Attonley not reiidtlit io Che Home dit- ; tnct, f hall enter in dphabeticd oid«r, in a boek to be kept for that pnrpote bj the clerk of Iba Crown, hianamoand place of aboda, and abo it . «n opposite colomn, the naoM of tome pnMStiting Attorney, retident in the toWii^of York, as 1^ jjneeiit, who maj be serred with notices* .*- %s, and all other papers (not required to be peiw •onal)} and if anj Attorney shall naglaet so toti^ ler his name, with that of his agent as belbra JMntiooed, fixing up the notice, summons, or other paper in the crown office, shall be deemed good- service. ■*= 1 I *♦' .%. 1 \ <9' •^ /"«. ; . , . t ^ <. * X ■■ - ■■ • g -. f _ '■■ • ■•^ "V' - \ , ■. ^- ■. - '■' ■ .' ' 1