Superior Courts: Queen's Bench Practice Court.- Common Pleas. 16 Queen's Bench Practice Court. fourteen days' notice. In almost all legal proceedings, the longest notice required is one of [Reported by E. H. WOOLRYCH, ESQ., Barrister at fourteen days, and the period of twenty-eight Law.] days' notice is obviously unreasonable and inconvenient. In R. v. Justices of Lancashire, 7 Where a rule of quarter sessions required the justices have a discretionary power to make B. & C. 691, Lord Tenterden said, that though twenty-eight clear days' notice of appeal, rules for the guidance of their practice, this fourteen days' notice only having been given, court will, for the purposes of justice, interfere the sessions refused to hear the appeal: to control that discretion. R. v. Justices of Held, that the rule of sessions was not so Monmouthshire, 3 D. P. C. 306; R. v. Justices unreasonable as to induce this court to in- of Wiltshire, 10 East. 404; R. v. Justices of terfere by mandamus. of Norfolk, 5 B. & Ad. 990; and R. v. Justices Staffordshire, 4 Ad. & Ell. 842; R. v. Justices of West Riding, 2 Q. B. 716, were also referred RESPITED APPEAL.-NOTICE.-MANDAMUS. to. Cur. adv. vult. judgment. His lordship, after having stated Wightman, J., on a subsequent day delivered this case is, whether a rule of sessions requirthe facts said, "The question to be decided in Townsend had obtained a rule nisi for a mandamus commanding the justices of Montgomeryshire to enter continuances and hear an appeal against an order for the removal of a pauper. The order was dated on the 18th December, 1843, and notice of the same was given on the 20th December. No notice of appeal being served, the order was executed on the 13th January, 1844. At the Easter sessions, which ing twenty-eight days' notice of trial of a were holden in the ensuing April, the appeal induce this court to interfere, and the result of was entered and respited, and on the 19th respited appeal is so clearly unreasonable as to June notice of appeal for the ensuing sessions the cases referred to in argument R. v. Justices on the 4th July. And grounds of appeal were Sessions are the only judges of their own pracserved upon the removing parish. One of the of Wilts, &c., is that the Court of Quarter rules of the Montgomeryshire sessions required tice, and this court will not interfere with the that notice of prosecuting adjourned appeals exercise of their discretion as long as their should be given twenty-eight clear days before rules are not contrary to reason. Now, conthe sessions; and further provided, that unless sidering that the rule which has been the subthe appellants should prosecute the appeal with ject of discussion in the present case, only apeffect at the next sessions, the order of removal plies to respited appeals, and that there was in should stand confirmed. sufficient to have given the required notice, I When the appeal between the two sessions, an interval amply fact in this case an interval of three months cannot regard such rule as an unreasonable one. That being so, the court cannot interfere, and the rule must be discharged. R. D. was called on, it was objected by the respondents, that inasmuch as there had been only fourteen days' notice of appeal, the above rule had not been complied with. It was contended, on behalf of the appellants, that the rule was unreasonable, and that fourteen days' notice was sufficient. The sessions being of opinion that the rule in question had not been complied with, confirmed the order of removal, with costs; whereupon the present rule was obtained. Bodkin showed cause.-The court of quarter sessions are the judges of their own practice, and this court will not interfere unless the rules by which it is governed are clearly contrary to reason. The present rule is reasonable and convenient. It relates to respited appeals only, in which case it is fit that longer notice should be given. In R. v. Justices of Monmouthshire, 3 D. P. C. 306, where the practice of the sessions required fourteen days' notice, if an adjourned appeal, and an appeal was dismissed for want of such notice, the court refused to interfere; and it is there said that the justices alone are to decide what notice shall be required. Besides, here the order of respite itself directed that it should be served twentyeight days before the sessions. Townsend and Pashley, in support of the rule. This rule is unreasonable, and this court will restrain the sessions from giving effect to it. The legislature have, in the 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, given a statutory declaration of what shall be deemed a reasonable notice, by requiring R. v. Justices of Montgomeryshire, Q.B.P.C. T. T., 1845. Where there are several tenants, the notice at This being done, the rule may go. Rule absolute accordingly. 1845. PRACTICE.-ISSUABLE PLEAS. After obtaining an order for particulars of set-off, it is too late to sign judgment on the ground that the pleas delivered are not issuable, the defendant being under terms. issuably, delivered several pleas, one being a THE defendant, being under terms to plead Superior Courts: Exchequer.-Chancery Sittings. 17 complicated plea of set-off. The plaintiff ob- from the other. Sykes and others v. Haigh, 2 tained an order for particulars of the alleged Scott, 193. And an attachment for a nonset-off, and afterwards signed judgment, treat-payment of costs cannot be supported by a demand of the costs by a third ing the pleas delivered as a nullity. authorized person Clark v. by the attorney to receive them. Dignum, 3 M. & W. 319. Byles, Serjeant, on a former day, obtained a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be set aside for irregularity. Channell, Serjeant, showed cause. He cited Ford v. Bernard, 6 Bing. 534, and Trott v. Smith, 9 M. & W. 795. [Maule, J.-By obtaining the order for particulars of the defendant's set-off, you elected to treat the thing delivered as a plea.] We were entitled to the information sought, in order to be in a condition to lay instructions before counsel. Tindal, C. J. The particulars of set-off would not enable you to see whether or not the pleas are issuable. Maule, J. The attorney must be presumed to know whether or not the pleas are issuable. Rule absolute. Scott v. Weston. T. T., 1845. Exchequer. Willis in support of the rule referred to Price v. Hayman, 4 M. & W. 8. Pollock, C. B. There is no foundation whatever for the rule, and it must be discharged with costs. In re Whalley, Exchequer, Trinity Term, 22 May, 1845. [Reported by A. P. HURLSTONE, Esq., Barrister-at- Saturday Law.] BILL OF COSTS.-ATTORNEY.-ATTACH MENT.-CONTEMPT. Where a bill of costs is ordered to be deliver- On the last day of Easter Term, Willis had obtained a rule nisi for an attachment against an attorney for a contempt in not delivering a bill of costs pursuant to a judge's order. The order directed that the bill should be delivered to the parties or their attorney. Carrington showed cause, and objected in the first instance that the rule was one which the court would not entertain on the last day of term. He cited Archbold's Prac. 1268. Pollock, C. B. The master reports that the court does rot usually grant a rule of this nature on the last day of term, but that that is no ground for discharging it: quod non debet fieri, factum valet. . 13 14 15 Appeal Motions. (Petition-day) Unopposed only and Appeals. Appeals. 17 18 19 21 (Petition-day) Unopposed only and Appeals. Appeals. 25 Appeal Motions. Master of the Rolls. . Nov. 3 Motions. 4 5 6 7 10 S Petitions-The unopposed first. Pleas, Demurrers, Causes, Petitions-The unopposed first. Pleas, Demurrers, Causes, 13 Motions 14) Pleas, Demurrers, Causes, 18 • 19 20 21 22 1 first. Pleas, Demurrers, Causes, Motions. Pleas, Demurrers, Causes, Further Directions, and 25 Motions. Carrington then objected that there had not been a sufficient demand of the bill of costs to bring the attorney into contempt. His affidavit Thursday stated that the demand was not made by the Friday parties entitled to the bill or their attorney, but Saturday by his clerk or agent. Such a demand was Monday clearly insufficient. Er parte Fortescue, 2 Tuesday Dow. P. C. 448, decided that in order to bring a party into contempt for non-delivery of a bond pursuant to a rule of court, the demand of it must be made by one of the parties men- Thursday tioned in the rule as entitled to receive it. Friday Where an award directs a bond to be delivered Saturday to the plaintiffs, a demand by one will not Monday suffice in the absence of a power of attorney! Tuesday Wednesday 15 17 24 Wednesday 4 Petition-day. 5 24 { Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, and Further Directions. 25 Motions and Ditto. Vice-Chancellor TWigram. Monday.. Nov. 3 Motions and Causes. Tuesday Pleas, Demrs., Exceptions, Thursday tions. Unopposed Petitions, Short Saturday. Monday Pleas, Demurrers, Excep- Tuesday Dirs. Motions. (Petition-day) Unopposed Friday and Causes. Pleas, Demurrers, Excep Saturday (Petition-day) Pleas, Demurs., Exons, Causes, and Fur. Dirs. 5) Pleas, Demurrers, Exons., Further Directions, and Causes. 6 10 • 11 Dirs. 19 Wednesday Thursday Thursday tions, Causes, and Fur. Monday (Petition-day) Unopposed Petitions, Short Causes AT LINCOLN'S INN. Nov. 1 Bankrupt Petitions. AT WESTMINSTER. Monday Nov. 3 Tuesday Wednesday Motions and Causes. Petitions and Causes. Short Causes and Causes. 13 Motions and Ditto. and {(Petition-day) Petitions and Short Causes and Causes. 20 Motions and Causes. Short Causes, Petitions, (unopposed first,) and Causes. Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Further Dirs, and Causes. Motions and Ditto. (Petition-day) Pleas, De murrers, Exons., Causes, and Fur. Dirs. Short Causes, Petitions, (unopposed first,) and Causes. Pleas, Demurrers, Excep tions, Further Directions, and Causes. Motions and Ditto. (Petition day) Pleas, Demrs. Exons, Further Directions and Causes. Short Causes, Petitions, (unopposed first,) and Causes. Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Further Directions, and Causes. 25 Motions and Ditto. Stand over, James v. James. Hilary Term, Hope v. Hope, Same v. Same, Same v. Same. Till mentioned, Richardson v. Horton, Same v. S (Petition-day) Petitions and Same. 22 Short Causes and Causes. S. O. to file suppl. bill, Gibson v. Nicol, Same v. Alsager. Common Law Sittings. Earl of Dundonald v. Norris. Part heard, Davenport v. Charlesworth, Charlesworth v. Manners, rehearing. S. O. Short, Parker v. Parker. S. O. part heard, Lethridge v. Chetwoode, and petition. Lord Nelson . Lord Bridport, fur. dirs. and costs. Hilary term, part heard, Augerand v. Parry. Atkinson v. Bartrum. Part heard, Lane v. Hardwick, Same v. Goodyear. Price v. Price, fur. dirs. and costs. Thomas v. Davies. Budd v. Flowerdew, fur. dirs., costs, and petition. Bradstock v. Whatley; Same v. Lediard. Pelly v. Wathan, Same v. Lewis, Same v. Same. Stocken v. Dawson, Same v. Same, Same v. Belcher, Same v. Wallace, exceptions, fur. dirs. and costs. Barker v. Bailey, fur. dirs. and costs. Butterworth v. Harvey, fur. dirs, and costs. Weekes v. Dodson, Same v. Same, Grover v. Lord Nelson v. Nelson, fur. dirs. and costs. costs. Cross v. Kennington, Same v. Same, fur. dirs. and costs. Snow v. Tilby. Blake v. Blake. Barker v. Wallis. 19 COMMON LAW SITTINGS. Michaelmas Term, 1845. Queen's Bench. MIDDLESEX. 1st Sitting (at Eleven), Tuesday tend at the Nov. 4 And every day until the Jury are desired to at 2nd Sitting (at Eleven.), Saturday Nov. 8 And every day until the Jury are desired to attend at the 3rd Sitting (At past Nine), Saturday For Undefended Causes. LONDON. Monday (At Twelve) Nov. 22 Nov. 24 Sittings for Undefended and such Defended Causes as produce no satisfactory affidavit of Merits. In Term in Middlesex. On the first day of each Sitting, the Undefended Remanets and New Passingham v. Sherborn, Same . Same, Same v. Causes with proper notice will be called on first; 20 Common Law Cause Lists.-Letter Box. The Court will sit at ten o'clock in the forenoon on each of the days in Term, and at half-past nine precisely on each of the days after Term. The causes in the list for each of the above sitting days in Term, if not disposed of on those days, will be tried by adjournment on the days following each of such sitting days. On Thurday the 27th Nov., in London, no causes will be tried, but the court will adjourn to a future day. 17 18 Wednesday.. Nov. 26 | Thursday Nov.27 (To adjourn only.) The Court will sit in Middlesex, at Nisi Prius in Term, by adjournment, from day to day, until the causes entered for the respective Middlesex sittings are disposed of. The Court will sit, during and after Term, at ten o'clock. COMMON LAW CAUSE LISTS. Michaelmas Term, 1845. Queen's Bench. d. Jacobs v. Phillips and others. Kent.-Bracegirdle v. Peacock and another; Doe Surrey.-The Queen v. Sewell. Glamorgan.-Burgess v. Taff Vale Company. Tried during Michaelmas Term, 1844. Middlesex.-Hill v. Stratford; Wood v. Williams and another; Stinton v. Bloxham and another; Hope v. Harman and others; Davis v. Curling. London.-Henzell v. Hocking and another; Bingley v. Young; Hayne v. Rhodes and others; Daniel and another v. Pedding; Thompson v. Thorn and others; Nutt v. Abrahams; Lowe v. Penn. Tried during Hilary Term, 1845. Middlesex.-Edden v. Brown; Hill and another v. Kendall; Parnell v. Smith and another; Same v. Same. THE EDITOR'S LETTER-BOX. IN commencing our new volume, we have not deemed it advisable to adopt the suggestion made by two or three correspondents with regard to a new series. Our old and continuing friends require no change, and for the convenience of new subscribers we shall make the two volumes of each year as complete in themselves as possible. The Fourth Part of the Analytical Quarterly Digest will be published the week after next, and complete the volume for this year. The future parts will be incorporated with the Legal Observer at the earliest convenient New Trials remaining undetermined at the end periods,-arranged in the several departments of Easter Term, 1845. Michaelmas Term, 1843. Middlesex.-Rogers v. Brenton. Hilary Term, 1844. London.-Gillett v. Whitmarsh and others. Middlesex.-Gladman v. Plumer. Michaelmas Term, 1844. Middlesex. -Bennett v. Duncan; De Medina v. Grove and others; Same v. Same; The Queen v. Baron de Bode, ; Same v. Waller. London. Exley v. Tassell; Bodmer v. Butterworth and another. Cornwall.-Richards v. Symons. Norfolk.-Corporation of Thetford v. Tyler. Oxford.-Exeter College v. Butler and others. and another. York. The Queen v. Rd. Cleasby; Lockwood v. Wood; Musgrove v. Emerson. Durham.-Wilson . Anderson. Westmoreland.-Webster v. Wilson. Liverpool.-The Queen v. Corporation of Manchester; Wharton v. Wright; The Queen v. Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company. Essex. Doe d. Copland and others v. Burrell; Doe d. Cozens v. Cozens. of Common Law, Equity, Bankruptcy, Criminal Law, Ecclesiastical Law, and appeals to the House of Lords and Judicial Committee. We are obliged to a correspondent for his remarks on the case of Smith v. Dickenson, 30 L. O. 472, and venture to hope that the effect of the remark as to Mr. Justice Coleridge's dictum will be to induce circumspection and not to mislead. We concur with our cor tion for the whole amount found by the verdict, respondent that a certificate for speedy execuin general and unrestricted terms, like that of Mr. Baron Parke in Smith v. Dickenson, “includes everything;" but where the certificate dict, (which is frequently the case where the is for a part only of the sum found by the ververdict is for a large amount,) then we apprehend, that according to Mr. Justice Coleridge's suggestion, the costs should be taxed and judgment signed in the same manner as if the execution should issue only for a part, accordcertificate was for the whole amount, but that ing to the terms of the certificate. Some interesting Legal Biographies are in preparation. We are obliged to a subscriber at Portsmouth. The fees of clerks of assize, &c., abolished by the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 114, are the fees See the clause, verbatim, p. 417 of the last of clerks appointed after the passing of that act. volume. |