PLEADING.

AND

DIS

Superior Courts : Queen's Bench.- Queen's Bench Practice Court.-Common Pleas. 81 Spain, or that there was anything criminal in decided was, that there might be sufficient on the nature of the transaction. The defendant the premises to countervail a half year's rent, must be taken to have entered into a contract although there was not to satisfy a year's rent, the nature of which he fully contemplated, and and there the affidavit stated that there was no the law of Spain was equally unknown to both sufficient distress to satisfy the arrears of rent: parties. The plea, therefore is insufficient, the in the present case the affidavit is so framed rule of law, which has not only been acted on that the objection taken in Doe v. Powell does for centuries, but is founded on good and sound not arise. reason, being, as stated by Lord Ellenborough Coleridge, J. I think you are within the in Atkinson v. Ritchie," that when the party by words of the act, and do not see that any mishis own contract creates a duty or charge on chief can arise, therefore you may take your himself, he is bound to make it good, if he may, rule. notwithstanding any accident by inevitable ne

Rule absolute. cessity, because he might have provided against it by his contract.

Common Pleas. Patteson, J. The defendant clearly does not come within the exception contained in the bill

Fearne v. Cockrane. Easter Term, 1847. of lading. The loss has not arisen from any

SATISFACTION act of God or the dangers of navigation. Then

CHARGE.-DEMURRER FOR DUPLICITY. it is said, the defendant has been prevented from completing his contract because the goods

Where to a count on a bill of exchange the de. were confiscated by a court of competent juris

fendant pleaded the delivery and acceptance diction in Spain, but it is not shown that there

by the plaintiff of his, the defendant's, own was any default on the part of the plaintiff, or

promissory note, payable on demand, for that he knew the goods were contraband. The

and on account of such bill of exchange and plaintiff did not request that the vessel should

the causes of action in respect thereof, and touch at Cadiz, that was a mere description of

then further alleged that the plaintiff afterthe route. Neither party, therefore, were ac

wards agreed to accept and did accept the quainted with the law of Spain, and the seizure

warrant of attorney to confess judgment of did not arise from the default of either plaintiff

a third party, in full discharge and satis. or defendant, and the case falls within the faction of the said promissory note, and of principle laid down in the case of Atkinson v.

all causes of action in respect thereof, and Ritchie.

of the causes of action in the said count on Wightman and Erle, J.'s, concurred.

the bill of exchange mentioned. Held, that Judgment for the plaintiff the plea only set up one defence by way of

satisfaction and discharge, and was not bad

for duplicity. Queen's Bench Practice Court.

AssumPSIT by the drawer against the acDoe dem. Farmery v. Roe. May 5. ceptor on three bills of exchange. Plea, that EJECTMENT.-AFFIDAVIT.

after the making and acceptance of the bill in On an application for judgment against the the first count mentioned, and after the same

casual ejector where proceedings have been became due and payable according to the tenor taken under 4 Geo. 4, c. 28, it does not and effect thereof, and before the commencerender the affidavit irregular to state, that a ment of the suit, to wit, on, &c., the defendant year's rent is due, if the affidavit also allege made his promissory note in writing, bearing that there is no sufficient distress on the date, &c., and thereby promised to pay to the premises to satisfy half a year's rent.

plaintiff or order, on demand, 1,0501., and then delivered the same to the plaintiff

, who then J. Browne moved for judgment against the took and received the same for and on account casual ejector, the proceedings being taken of the last-mentioned bill of exchange and the under 4 Geo. 2, c. 28, to recover possession of causes of action in respect thereof in the said certain premises for the nonpayment of rent, first count mentioned ; and that thereon and there being no sufficient distress on the premises afterwards and after the making and delivering to countervail the arrears of rent.

of the said promissory note in the plea menThe affidavit used in this case was regular in tioned and before the commencement of the all respects, except that it stated that one year's suit, to wit, on, &c., it was agreed by and berent was in arrear, and the Master objected to tween the plaintiff and defendant and Thomas draw up the rule on the ground that the case Earl of Dundonald, that the said Earl should came within the authority of Doe dem. Powell sign and seal, and as his act and deed deliver v. Roe, 9 Dowl. 548. It was · now contended to the plaintiff in full discharge and satisfacthat the objection taken in that case did not tion of the said promissory note in this plea apply in the present case, for here the affidavit mentioned, and of all causes of action in respect states that there is no sufficient distress to be thereof, and of the cause of action in the said found on the premises to countervail half a first count mentioned, a certain deed or instruyear's rent, which is all the statute requires. ment called a warrant of attorney to confess The principle on which Doe dem. Powell was judgment, bearing date, &c., in the form, &c.;

thereinafter mentioned; and that the plaintiff * 10 East, 530.

should accept and receive the same of and

82

Superior Courts : Common Pleas.-Chancery Sittings. from the said Earl in such full discharge and curity; the plea therefore shows, not two, but satisfaction as last aforesaid. The plea then only one mode of satisfaction. It is not necesalleged the subsequent execution of the war- sary to examine with any minuteness whether rant of attorney in full satisfaction and dis- the case of Price v. Price did or did not break charge of the said promissory note in the plea in upon Kearslake v. Morgan, but such cermentioned, and of all causes of action in the tainly appears not to have been the intention of said first count mentioned ; and that the plain- the Court of Exchequer. That case, however, tiff accepted and received the said warrant of is not consistent wich the case of Mercer v. attorney in such full satisfaction and discharge Cheese, but then the latter case appears not to of the said promissory note in that plea men- have been a decision of this court on the point, tioned, and of all causes of action in respect the counsel having thought it better to amend. thereof, and of the cause of action in the said Without going further into the question of first count mentioned. To this plea there was whether or not the cases of Pricev. Price and a demurrer on the ground of duplicity. Joinder Kearslake v. Morgan may not stand together, in demurrer.

it is sufficient to say that in this case there is T. Jones in support of the demurrer. The no duplicity. plea is double, inasmuch as either the promis- Coltman, J., concurred. sory note therein mentioned or the warrant of Cresswell

, J. All that the plea alleges with attorney would of itself have been a good de- respect to the note falls short of showing any fence. Kearslake v. Morgan, 5 T. R. 513, and satisfaction of the cause of action, and that Mercer v. Cheese, 4 M. & Gr. 804, are autho- being so, it would have been bad on general rities to show that the giving and acceptance of demurrer. It was necessary, therefore, to go a bill or note was a sufficient answer prima further, and accordingly, by the allegation as facie, and if so, then the subsequent allegation to the giving of the warrant of attorney, only of the delivery and acceptance of a warrant of one defence is set up, and although it is alleged attorney was clearly another and sufficient de- that the latter was given in satisfaction of the fence.

note, which is only a collateral security as well Channell, Sergeant, (Bevan with him). The as the present cause of action, yet the plea is note here was the note of the debtor himself, not on that account bad. payable on demand, and was not therefore Williams, J. The present is one of that even a suspension of the cause of action as was class of cases where a negotiable instrument the case in Keurslake v. Morgan, where the note given may amount to a quasi satisfaction, and given appears to have been that of a third the plea is not made bad for duplicity by its party. Then in Mercer v. Cheese, the court going on, as here, to allege that which turns only expressed a passing opinion, upon which the quasi satisfaction into an actual one. the plaintiff elected to amend; besides there whether the plea is argumentative or not it is the bill pleaded was made payable on a future not necessary to say, as that question is not day. The case too of Price v. Price, 16 Law raised by the demurrer. J., N. S., Exch. 99, seems to be at variance with

Judgment for the defendant. the opinion expressed in Mercer v. Cheese, and to be an authority in support of the present

CHANCERY SITTINGS. plea. The note here being payable on demand, is not even a suspension of the plaintiff's claim;

Lord Chaucellor. it is in fact stated in the plea merely as matter of inducement, and therefore cannot make the

Trinity Term, 1847. plea double. Steph. on Pl. 5th ed. 296. Jones was heard in reply, and cited in ad- Saturday May 22 { Appeal

. Motions and Apdition the case of Maillard v. Duke of Argyle,

(Petition-day) Cause, Lu6 M. & G. 40.

Monday

natic and Bankrupt PeWilde, C. J. It appears from the plea that

titions. the promissory note was given for and on ac- Tuesday

25 count of the debt, payable on demand, and Wednesday

S therefore in point of law it was of no greater Thursday

Appeal Motions and Apeffect than the original liability between the parties. It appears also on the face of the Friday pleadings that the note remained in the hands Saturday

31 Appeals. of the plaintiff , for the plea alleges that the Monday

Tuesday

June 1 warraạt of attorney was given in satisfaction of

Wednesday it, which would not be the case if it had been

Appeal Motions and Apo outstanding in the hands of another. The only Thursday

peals. mode therefore by which satisfaction is shown

(Petition - day,) Unopposed is by the warrant of attorney, alleged in the Friday

Petitions, and Appeals, : plea to have been given in satisfaction of the Saturday note and also of the cause of action in the first Monday count mentioned. The note at the highest ap

Tuesday

8 Appeals. pears to be in the nature of a collateral security, Wednesday and the warrant of attorney was a satisfaction Thursday of the cause of action and the collateral se- Friday {

(Petition-day) mopposed Petitions and Appeals.

AT WESTMINSTER.

24

.

27 { peals

.

.

28
29

.

.

.

9 10

832

.

.

.

• 25

26

.

.

.

29

.

.

.

Chancery Sittings.- Common Law Sittings. Saturday

Appeal Motions and Ap- Monday 24 ) Pleas, Demurrers, Excep12 peals. Tuesday:

tions, Causes, and Fur. .-N. B.-Such days as his Lordship is occupied in Wednesday

ther Directions. the House of Lords excepted. .

Thursday

27 Motions and ditto.

Pleas, Demurrers, ExcepMaster of the Rolls.

Friday

28 tions, Causes, and FurSee page 64, ante.

ther Directions.

Short Causes, Petitions, Vice-Chancellor of England. Saturday

(unopposed first,) and Saturday

Causes.
May 22 Motions.
Monday
24 (Petition-day)

Monday

31 ( Pleas, Demurrers, Excepo,

Tuesday June 1 tions, Causes, and Further Tuesday

| Pleas, Demurrers, Excep: Wednesday 25

2 | Directions. Wednesday

tions, Causes, and Fur-
26
ther Directions.

Thursday

3 Motions and ditto. Thursday 27 Alotions.

Pleas, Demurrers, ExcepFriday

tions, Causes, and FurFriday 28 Short Causes and Causes.

ther Directions. Saturday

29 Monday Pleas, Demurrers, Excep

Short Causes, Petitions 31

5 Tuesday tions, Causes, and Fur- Saturday

(unopposed first,) and June 1 Wednesday ther Directions.

causes. 2 Thursday

Monday 3 Motions.

Tuesday

(Petition-day) Pleas, De

8 (Petition-day) Petitions, Wednesday

murrers, Exons., Causes, Friday:

9

and Further Directions. Short Causes, & Causes. Thursday

10 Saturday 5

Short Causes, Petitions, Monday Pleas, Demurrers, Excep- Friday

11 (unopposed, first,) and Tuesday tions, Causes, and Fur.

Causes.
Wednesday
Dirs.

Saturday,

12 Motions and Causes, Thursday

10 Friday

Petitions,
(Petition-day)
Short Causes and Causes.

COMMON LAW SITTINGS.
Saturday 12 Motions.

Queen's Bench.
Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce.

In and after Trinity Term, 1847.
Saturday

May 22 Motions and Causes.
Monday
24

In Term.
Causes.
1st Sitting, Wednesday :

May 26
Pleas, Demurrers, Excep.

And two following days at Eleven o'clock. Tuesday 25 tions, Causes, and Fur

2nd Sitting, Saturday : ther Directions.

May 29

And subsequent days at Eleven o'clock.
Wednesday

and
Bankrupt Petitions
26
3rd Sitting, Thursday

June 10
Ditto.
Thursday 27 Motions and Causes.

At ; past Nine o'clock precisely, for Undefended

Causes only.
Pleas, Demurrers, Excep-
Friday:

28 tions, Causes, and Fur- A list of such remanets as appear fit to be tried
ther Directions.

in Term will be printed immediately, but on the Saturday

29 Short Causes and Ditto. statement of either side that a cause is too long to be Monday

Pleas, Demurrers, Excep- tried in Term, it will be withdrawn from such list, 31 June 1

tions, Causes, and Fur- provided the other side bave two days' notice of the ther Directions.

application at the Narshal's to postpone, and do not Wednesday

Bankrupt Petitions, and oppose the application on good grounds--the usual
Ditto.

number of completed and new causes will be put Thursday 3 Motions and Causes.

into the list day by day in their usual order.
Sitting after Term, Monday.

June 14 Friday.

(Petition-day) Petitions and

Causes.
Saturday

5 Short Causes and Causes.'
Pleas, Demurrers, Excep-

In Term.
Monday

7 Tuesday tions, Causes, and Fur- Sitting at 10 o'clock on Friday

June 11 ther Directions.

For Undefended Causes and such as the Judge Wednesday

Bankrupt Petitions and considers fit to be taken.
. 9
Ditto.

After Term.
(Pleas, Demurrers, Excep.

June 15 Thursday 10. tions, Causes, and Fur- Tuesday

(To adjourn.)
ther Directions.
Friday:

(Petition-day) Petitions and
11
Ditto.

Common Pleas.
Saturday
12 Short Causes and Motions.

In Term.
Vice-Chancellor Udligram.
Wednesday May 26 | Friday

May 28
Wednesday
June 2 | Friday

June 4 Saturday May 22 Motions and Causes.

84

LONDON,

.

{Nis

{
June 1 { Banca dieser and site preus, Barston.

2

.

Common Law Sittings.Common Law Cause Lists.
After Term.

London. - Simpson v. Margitson and others.
MIDDLESEX.

Same. Monday. • . June 14 | Tuesday June 15 Montgomery.--Middleton v. Bedward and another,

-Welsby. The Court will sit at ten o'clock in the forenoon

Carnarvon. Davies, a pauper, v. Williams on each of the days in Term, and at half-past nine

Townshend. precisely on each of the days after Term. :

Chester.- Joynson v. Garfitt-Welsby. The causes in the list for each of the above

Notts.—Pott and another 7. Flather-Wildman, days in Term, if not disposed of on those days, will

Leicester.-Hassell v. Heming-Humfrey. be tried by adjournment on the days following each

York.-Lockwood v. Wood-W.H. Watson. of such sitting days.

Liverpool. — M'Ewin v. Wood, the younger, and On Tuesday the 15th June, in London, no

others-Knowles. causes will be tried, but the court will adjourn to a

Liverpool. — Hobson and others, assignees, &c. future day.

v. Garner.-Same,

Kent.- Nunn v. Jackson-Serjeant Chandell.
Erchequer.

Kent.--Absolon v. Marks. Peacock.
Sittings in Trinity Term, 1847.

Esser.-Constable v. Martin.-Serjeant Channell. Saturday, May 22

Surrey.-Carruthers v. West.-Charnock.
Banc. Peremptory Paper
{
arter Motions.

Norwich.—Burton v. Scott-O'Malley,

Norwich-Linford, a pauper, u. Fitzroy-Same. Monday 24 Ditto, before Moțions.

Carmarthen.Bowen v. Owen and another-W. Tuesday

Nisi Prius, Middlesex 1st H. Watson.
25
Sitting.

Devon, Harrison v. Bankart-Crowder.
Thursday 27 Banc, Crown cases.

Cornwall.—Stevens v. Jeacocke -Cockburn.
Banc, Demurrers.

Nisi

Wills.-Robins v. Fennell and others-Crowder. Friday.

Somerset.
Prius, London 1st Sit.
28

- The Queen v. Chorley — Serjeant ting.

Kinglake. Monday .31 Banc, Special Cases.

Tried during Michaelmas Term, 1846.

Middleser. - Greville v. Stultz and others
Tuesday
Middlesex 2nd Sitting.

Hilary Term, 1847.
Wednesday
Demurrers.

Middleser.-Richardson v. Berkeley-Knowles. Banc, Special Cases.- Nisi Middlesex,Coales v. Simmonds-Serjeant Shee. Friday

Prius, London 2nd Sit- Middleser.-Normansel v. Croft-W. H. Watson, ting.

Middleser. Doe d. Sumner v. Nash-Peacock, Banc, Crown Cases.-Nisi Middleser.- The Queen v. Long, Esq.-Humfrey. Saturday Prius, Ditto by adjourn.

Middleser.-Same v. Watson-Sir F. Thesiger.

Middleser.-Same v. Button and others-Serjeant Monday 7 Banc, Demurrers.

Allen,
Tuesday
s Nisi Prius, Middlesex 3rd

Middleser.-Mountain v. Wilmot-Crowder.
Middleser.-Blundell v. Drummond-Bramwell.

Middleser.-Jones and another v. Blunt and others

-Sir F. Thesiger.
COMMON LAW CAUSE LISTS.

Middleser.-Gent v. Cutts.Willes.
Queen's Bench.

London.—Thamo v. Boast-Serjeant Shee.
London - Penniall v. Harbone-Knowles.

London.-Spinks v. Bardell-Serjeant Wilkins. Remaining undetermined at the end of Easter

London.-Sims v. Henderson-Barston.
Term, 1847.

London.-Henderson v. Henderson-Same.

London.-Mitchell v. Moore.-Cockburn.
Easter Term, 1846.
York.-Worth v. Gresham and another--Dun-

Tried during Hilary Term, 1847. das.

Middleser.- Flower v. Rosser. - Wordsworth. (Stands over for Judgment in a similar case in

Easter Term, 1847. error.)

Middlesex— Tbe Queen v. Mary Nixon-Serjeant Liverpool.-Doe d. Hayward v. Tinslay – Cromp

C.C. Jones.

London.-Curling ». Young and others - Hum(Stands for arrangement.)

frey. Carmarthen. Thomas, Esq. v. Fredericks, Esq.

London.—Newton and another v. Belcher-Crow. E. V. Williams.

der. Carmarthen.-Same v. Same-Cbilton.

London.-Burrows and another v. Gabriel and

others-Same. Trinity Term, 1846. London. - Nicholls v. Atherstone-W. H. Wat

Kent.-- Lilley, a pauper, v. Elwin-Serjeant Sbee.

Surrey. Parratt v. Newte – Serjeant C. C.

Jones. London The Queen v. Schlesinger. - Sir F.

Bedford. Doe d. Crawley v. Gutteridge Thesiger.

O'Malley.
Michaelmas Term, 1846.

Suffolk.–Pye v. Mumford-Andrews. Middleser.-Gurney the elder v. Gurney and an- Norfolk. Angerstein v. Caius College, Cam. other-Sir F. Thesiger.

bridge-O'Malley. Middleser.—Collett v. Curling-W, H. Watson, Lincoln. — Huntley v. Russell and another

London. Boyd v. Royal Exchange Assurance Whitehurst. Company-Serjeant Shee.

Warwick.Bower v. Wood-Same. (Part heard.)

Luncaster.–Turner and another v. Hartley – Mar. London-Herring v. Meteyard.—W.H. Watson. tin.

.

ment.

.

.

sitting.

NEW TRIALS.

ton.

son,

case.

Common Law Cause Lists.

85 Durham. Wren v. Heslop and another Tribe.-Bailey v. Harris, dem. Knowles.

Ashley.--Sayer v. Dufaur, dom. Durham.-Wright v. Gibson-Same.

Dufaur.-Harvey v. Sayer, dem. City, York.- Nicol v. Alison - Same.

Ashley.-Groves v. Barnett and another, dem. York.- Pollock, the younger v. Stables-Baines. Everest and Co.- King v. Marman and others, York.-Kilner and another v. Preston-Same. dem. York.-Lee and others v. Dawson-Same. Johnson and Co. — Hall v. Bainbridge, special Liverpool.-Walker v. Mellor and another-W.case. H. Watson.

Lawrenceand Co.- Bartlett ». Chamberlain, dem. Liverpool.-Yates v. Fenton-Knowles.

Philpot.—Morrell v. Biddle, special case. Flint.-M.Killock v. Cooke-Townshend.

Butt. - The Right Hon. H. Hobhouse v. James, Chester.-Sutton v. Swanwick and another-Chile special case. ton.

Husband and W.-Jones ». Sawkins, dem. Worcester.-Cheshire v. Hair-Godson.

Lewis.-Nathan v. Lazarus, dem. Hereford.—Doe d. Huck, a pauper, v. Rimall and Angell.–Angell v. Harrison and others, dem, otbers-Same.

Fyson and C. Phillips v. Curling, special Gloucester.-Parratt v. Lambert-Same.

Somerset.- Robertson and another 1. Norris Pemberton.-Mills v. Blackall, dem. Crowder.

Brook.-Hodgson v. Lee, dem. Somerset.- The Queen v. Inhabitants of Tything, Bigg and Co.-Jones, executors, &c, v. Meares, East Mark-Cockburn.

executors, &c., special case. Somerset.—The Queen v. Inbabitants of Tything P. and C. Rogers.—Banks v. Newton, error. Moore-Same.

Fluder.-Meares v. Prangley, dem.
Tried during Easter Term, 1847.

Wright.--Filliter v. Phippard, arrest of judgment.

Husband and W.--Reeves and another v. Pedlar Middleser.-Levi v. Irwin-Charnock.

and another, dem.

Same.-Barber v. Lemon, dem.
SPECIAL CASES AND DEMURRERS.

Rushbury:-Hulls v. Lea, dem.
Trinity Term, 1847.

Stretton,-Lock v. Neale, dem.
Hugbes and Co.- Berkley v. Kemp, dem.

White.-Doe d. Lord v. Kingsbury, special case. Whitmore and Co.-Morris, Bt., v. Duke of Mortimer.-Newbatt v. Salmond and others, dem. Beaufort, dem.

Gregory and Co.-The Cork and Brandon Rail(Stands over hy consent.)

way Company v. Cazenove, dem.
Gabriel and N.-Godden v. Watts, dem.
Fyson and C.-Clayton v. Hozier, dem.

Queen's Bench.-Crown Paper.
Dean and Son.-Minshall, sen., v. Roberts, dem.
Williamson and H.-Robson vy. Oliver and ano-

Trinity Term, 1847.
ther, dem.
Alger.- Doe d. Harris and others v. Taylor,

For Thursday 27th May. special case.

Surrey.- The Queen v. The Churchwardens of Walker and Co.- Doe d. Biddulph and others St. George the Martyr, Southwark, (de Bethlehem v. Poole, special case.

Hospital.) Yallop.–Bownes v. Marsb, N.O.V., from N. T. Surrey.-The Queen v. The Church wardens, of paper.

St. George the Martyr, Southwark, (de Bridewell Rickards and W.-Wood v. Mytton, Arrest of and St. Thomas's Hospital.) Judgment, fiom N, T. paper.

Bucks—The Queen o. The Great Western Rail. Fletcher and R.Barker v. Jervis, dem. way Company.

Hugbes and Co.- Berkeley v. De Vear, sued, Bucks. — The Queen v. The Great Western Rail&c. dem.

way Company. Sandour.-Churchwardens, &c., of St. Nicholas, Klonmouthshire.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants Deptford, c. Sketchley, special case.

of Hartbury, in Gloucestershire. Roy and Co.-Hale v. Riviere, dem.

Warwick-The Queen v. Thomas Collins, Ravenscroft.-Parker v. Gill, dem.

Worcestershire.-The Queen x. The Inbabitants of Raw,-"liloot v. Batson, dem.

Halesowen, Kempster.-Hall v. Edmonds, dem.

Lancashire. The Queen 1. The Overseers of Parker. - Ellis and others, assignees, &c., v.

Oldham Union. Russell and others, special verdict.

Yorkshire.- The Queen v. The Justices of the Morpheit.- Plumer v. Robertson, dem.

West Riding, (pros. of Churchwardens of LiverCodd.-Lamond and others v. Erlam, dem. pool.) J. Lesis.-Lewis v. Harris, dem.

Somerselshire.-The Queen v. William Richardson, Briggs and Son.-Howard v. Clarkson, dem.

London. The Queen v. Archibald Douglas, Esq. Flower.- Flower v. Newton, dem.

Birmingham.-The Queen v. Tbomas Phillips Same.-Same o. Macdonald, dem.

and another, Justices, &c. Elmslie and P.-Connop and another, executors, Gloucestershire.—The Queen v. Tbe Inhabitants &e. 2. Levy, den.

of Alderley, Depton-Williams v. Want, dem.

Wigan.—The Queen v. Thomas Grimshaw. Williamson.-Hilton v. Whitehead, special case. Carnarvonshire.— The Queen v. The Inhabitants Hawkins and Co. Maldonu. Fyson, special of Rhoscolyn, in Anglesey.

Esser.- The Queen o. The Inbabitants of Shalford. case. Atkinson.-Webster v. Watts, dem.

Surrey.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of St. Same.--Ambridge 0. Sylvester, dem.

Giles-in-the-Fields, Middlesex, Wire and Co.--Hills v. Croll, dem.

Middleser.--The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Joboson and Co.-Clarkson v. Glover, dem. St. George, Bloomsbury.

Barker and B.- Vigers v. Dean and Chapter of West Riding, Yorkshire.-The Queen v. The InSt. Pauls and others, deta.