Page images
PDF
EPUB

1832.

The KING gainst PINNEY.

been criminal neglect, to find the defendant guilty; if not, to acquit him.

PARKE J. and TAUNTON J. declined adding any ob

servation.

The jury acquitted the defendant. (a)

Counsel for the crown, the Attorney and SolicitorGeneral, Wilde Serjt., Coleridge Serjt., Shepherd and Wightman. For the defendant, Sir James Scarlett, Campbell, Ludlow Serjt., and Follett.

(a) With respect to the power of one or more justices in suppressing riots, see Burn's Justice, Riot, VI. VII., (26th ed.) and the books there cited, particularly Hawk. P. C. book i. c. 65. As to the authority of private persons to act in suppressing a riot or affray, whether as assistants to the justices or peace-officers, or of their own accord, if necessary, see Popham's Rep. 121., 2 Inst. 52., Foster's P.C. 309., 1 East's P.C. 297. 304., Burn's Justice, Riot, IV.

"If there be a riot or breach of the peace in the presence of one or more justices, they may arrest the rioters themselves, or command any officers or others by word of mouth, without warrant, to arrest them, and they may, by virtue thereof, flagrante crimine, arrest them in the absence of the justice, by the true meaning of the statute of 34 E. 3. c. l. and 15 H. 4. c. 7. quod vide adjudged, 14 H. 7. c. 9. s. 10." Hale's P.C. Part II. c. 13. p. 114. The case referred to is Sir Thomas Green's, particularly the judgment of Fineur C. J. And see, as to this case, Lambard's Eirenarcha, b. 2. c. 5. p. 185-7.

As to the power and duty of private persons witnessing a felony, to endeavour to prevent it, and apprehend the felon, and the penalty incurred by neglecting to do so, see, among other authorities, Hale's P. C. Part I. pp. 587, 588., Part II. pp. 75, 76. Handcock v. Baker, 2 B. & P. 260. Hawk. P. 6. book ii. c. 12. v. 19. Burn's Justice, Arrest, III. 5.

The law on several of the above subjects, and on the employment of the military in cases of disturbances, is very fully discussed by Lord Mansfield and Lord Thurlow, in the debates arising out of the riots in 1780. Parliamentary History, vol. xxi. pp. 694. 736. See also the opinion of Mr. Law, Burn's Justice, Riot, II. note (a), 23d edition.

1832.

IN the report of Prescott v. Boucher, antè, p. 849., the following case should have been noticed, but was accidentally omitted:

JONES against JONES.

Tuesday,
June 5th.

REPLEVIN. Avowry by the defendant, as executor, Same point as

in Prescott v. Boucher, antè,

for arrears of rent due to the testator in his lifetime. Plea in bar, that the testator, being seised in fee, p. 849. had demised to the plaintiff for years. General demurrer and joinder. On this case coming on for argument,

Corbett, in support of the demurrer, said that the point was precisely similar to that in Prescott v. Boucher, which was argued in Easter term and now stood for judgment.

J. Jervis, contrà, observed that Crockerell v. Owerell, Cases temp. Holt, 417., had not been cited in the argument in Prescott v. Boucher.

Lord TENTERDEN C. J. All that can be urged on one side or the other may be found in Mr. Williams's book on the Law of Executors, where all the authorities on this point are collected and the law very ably stated. The judgment in this case must abide the event of Prescott v. Boucher.

The plaintiff afterwards had judgment.

Cur. adv. vult.

1832.

MEMORANDA.

In the course of this term, Mr. Serjt. Taddy and Mr. Serjt. Merewether took their seats within the bar, having been appointed Attorney and Solicitor General to the Queen, vice John Williams and C. C. Pepys Esquires, who resigned.

END OF TRINITY TERM.

AN

INDEX

TO THE

PRINCIPAL MATTERS.

ACCEPTANCE BY PROCURA-
TION.

See BILL OF EXCHANGE, 3.

ACCEPTOR.

See BILL OF EXCHANGE, 1, 2.

ACCOMMODATION.
See BILL OF EXCHANGE, 1.

ACCORD AND SATISFAC-
TION.

See ANNUITY, 3.

ACCOUNT STATED.
See PLEADING, 12.

AC ETIAM CLAUSE.
See PRACTICE, 5.

ACTION ON THE CASE.

See CORPORATION.

1. The proprietor of lands contigu-
ous to a stream, may, as soon as

he is injured by the diversion of
the water from its natural course,
maintain an action against the
party so diverting it; and it is no
answer to the action, that the de-
fendant first appropriated the
water to his own use, unless he
has had twenty years undisturbed
enjoyment of it in the altered
course. Mason v. Hill and Others,
H. 2 W. 4.
Page 304
2. The possessor of a house which
is not ancient cannot maintain an
action against the owner of ad-
joining land for digging away that
land, so that the house falls in;
and therefore where a declaration
stated that A. was lawfully pos-
sessed of a dwelling house, adjoin-
ing to a dwelling house of B.,
and that B. dug into the soil and
foundation of the last-mentioned
house so negligently, and so near
to the plaintiff's house, that the
wall of the latter house gave way;
on demurrer to so much of the
declaration as alleged the digging
so near, &c. the defendant had
judgment. But if it had appeared
that the plaintiff's house was
ancient; or if the complaint had
been that the digging occasioned
a falling in of soil of the plaintiff,

to

[blocks in formation]

See EXECUTOR, 4.

ADVERSE POSSESSION. See EVIDENCE, 10. 11, 15.

AFFIDAVIT TO HOLD TO BAIL.

See PRACTICE, 3.

AGREEMENT. See ANNUITY, 3.

AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION.

See RATE, 1.

ALE-HOUSE LICENCE. See APPEAL, 3.

ALIENATION.

A grammar school was founded and endowed by virtue of letters patent, which ordained that the school should be altogether of the patronage and disposition of the founder, and his heirs, by whom the schoolmasters and guardians should be nominated for ever: Held that such right of nomination might lawfully be aliened. The Attorney General v. The

See BILL OF EXCHANGE, 5.

AMENDS.

See TRESPASS, 5.

ANNUITY.

1. The grant of an annuity in consideration of government stock transferred from the grantee to the grantor, need not be registered under the statute 17 G. 3. c. 26. At least the want of a memorial is no objection, if it be not shewn, by the party seeking to set aside the annuity, that the transfer was only a colour for an advance of money, to be raised by sale of the stock. E. 2 W. 4. 602 2. A. being indebted to B., it was agreed between them that, in lieu of payment, A. should, by bond, secure the payment of an annuity to B.'s widow, after his decease, during the joint lives of A. and the widow. B. died in 1825, and in 1828 A. executed an annuity deed pursuant to the agreement: Held, that the deed did not require enrolment under the statute 53 G. 3. c. 141. Frost v. Frost, E. 2 W. 4. 612 3. A. and B., brothers, were principal and surety in an annuity bond. By an agreement afterwards executed between them and a third brother, for the settlement of their affairs and the determination of their mutual claims, an apportionment of property and of debts was made among the three, and the annuity bond was declared to be B.'s (the surety's) debt:

Held, that this agreement (whether

« PreviousContinue »