Error.

By 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 70, s. 8, writs of error upon any judgment given by any of the superior courts, shall be made returnable only before the judges, or judges and barons as the case may be, of the other two courts in the Exchequer Chamber, any law or statute to the contrary notwithstanding; and the court of error, after errors are duly assigned and issue in error joined, shall, at such time as the judges shall appoint, either in term or vacation, review the proceedings, and give judgment as they shall be advised thereon; and such proceedings and judgment, as altered or affirmed, shall be entered on the original record, and such further proceedings as may be necessary thereon shall be awarded by the court in which the original record remains, from which judgment in error no writ of error shall lie or be had, except the same be made returnable in the high court of Parliament.]

This statute applies only to cases which are originally commenced in the court to which the writ of error is directed. Ricketts v. Lewis, 2 C. & J. 11; 2 Tyr. 15; Free v. Burgoyne, 6 B. & C. 538; 2 Bligh, N. S. 65; 1 Dow & Clark, 115.

A writ of error may be brought for error in fact in the same court as that in which judg ment was given, or in another court, except in the Exchequer Chamber, where a writ of error cannot be brought for error in fact. Binns v. Pratt, 1 Chit. 369.

But a wrong decision on an allegation of

Irwin v. Grey, 2 L. R., II. L. 20;

15 W. R. 593; 16 L. T., N. S. 184; 36 L. J., C. P. 148.

A writ of error founded upon 27 Eliz. c. 28, cannot be returned under 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 70, s. 8. Gurney v. Gordon, 2 C. & J.

11: 2 Tyr. 616.

Under 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 70, s. 8, error lies to the court of Exchequer Chamber on judgments given in the Queen's Bench, upon error from the Common Pleas of Lancaster. Nesbit v. Rishton, 9 A. & E. 426; 2

P. & D. 706.

Error on a judgment for the crown in a petition of right may be brought in the Exchequer Chamber, the crown being bound in this respect by 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 70, s. 8. De Bode v. Reg. (in error), 13 Q. B. 364; 14 Jur. 970.

Since 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 70, s. 8, a second writ of error does not lie from the Queen's Bench to the Exchequer Chamber, on the same judgment, even though, by such second writ, it is proposed to attack part of the judgment different from that on which the judgment of the court of error proceeded on the first argument. Holmes v. Newlands, 2 D., N. S. 716; 7 Jur. 397; 12 L. J., Q. B. 140 -B. C.-Williams.

The court of Exchequer Chamber has jurisdiction under 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 70, s. 8, to correct errors in judgments of the Queen's Bench in criminal cases. Wright v. Reg. (in error), 3 N. & M. 892; 1 A. & E.

434.

The House of Lords has jurisdiction to hear a writ of error brought by the attorneygeneral on behalf of the crown, from the Petty-bag office of the Court of Chancery, without carrying the writ of error first into the Exchequer Chamber. Rex v. Yarborough (Lord), 2 Bligh, N. S. 147; 1 Dow & Clark, 178; 5 Bing. 163. (See 12 & 13 Vict. c. 109.)

The Court of Queen's Bench is not a court of error or appeal from a manorial court. Reg. v. Old Hall (Manor), 3 Jur. 168-Q. B.

Error will lie to the King's Bench on a judgment of the Common Pleas, for error in fact. Custledine v. Mundy, 4 B. & A. 90; 1 N. & M. 635.

County courts; and other inferior courts.] --[By 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 108, no judgment of a county court, established by that act, shall be reversed by writ of error.]

A writ of error upon a judgment given in the sheriff's court, only lies to the court of hustings in London. Markwick v. London, 2 Bro. P. C. 409.

A writ of error from an inferior court may be quashed on motion. Forster v. Laidler, 6 D. & R. 174; 4 B. & C. 116.

On a writ of error it is sufficient that the judge below was a judge de facto in a court having a competent jurisdiction. Milward v. Thatcher, 2 T. R. 81, 87.

Writ lies; and how Error may be
waired or released.

Judgments generally.]—[By 6 & 7 Vict., c. 67, a writ of error lies on judgment after demurrer on a writ of mandamus.

By 15 & 16 Vict. c. 76, s. 27, no proceeding in error shall lie on final judgment, signed for want of appearance, where writ of summons is specially indorsed.]

Error lies on a judgment of nonsuit. Box v. Bennett, 1 H. Bl. 432. S. P., Hitchins v. Hollingsworth, 7 Moore P. C. C. 228.

But where a plaintiff brought a writ of error on a nonsuit, the court refused to stay execution, at least, unless some real error was pointed out by the plaintiff or his counsel; and an affidavit of the plaintiff's attorney, that he was advised that there was real error, was not sufficient. Evans v. Sweet, 9 Moore, 609; 2 Bing. 326.

The opinion of a judge, directing the plaintiff to be nonsuited, cannot be questioned on a writ of error, as it does not appear on the record. Doe d. Tolson v. Fisher, 2 Bligh, N. S. 9.

Error from an inferior court of record. The record stated that the plaintiff, being called to hear the verdict, came not, whereupon judgment of nonsuit was entered. Tacked to the record was a bill of exceptions, which set out the evidence given at the trial, the contention of the plaintiff's counsel that there was evidence to go to the jury, and the ruling of the judge that there was none, and that the judge then nonsuited the plaintiff, whereupon the plaintiff's counsel excepted:—Held, that the plaintiff could not maintain error on the bill of exceptions, after having submitted to be nonsuited. Secus, if the record had shown that the plaintiff appeared when called, and the judge without his consent nonsuited him, though appearing. Cossar v. Reed, 17 Q. B. 540.

Error will not lie upon an interlocutory judgment. Samuel v. Judin, 6 East, 333; 1

N. R. 43.

It is not a cause of error to enter a judg ment of misericordia in a qui tam action for a penalty. Humble v. Bland, 6 T. R. 255.

Nor that the plaintiff is adjudged to be in misericordiâ instead of the defendant. Pullin v. Stokes, 2 H. Bl. 312.

Error does not lie for the misfinding of a verdict by a jury; but in such a case the proper remedy is by application to the court in which the action is brought for a new trial. Salt v. Doe, 3 Bro. P. C. 515.

The court in which an action was brought gave final judgment; a court of error reversed or varied that judgment, though the form in which this was done in the court of error was not that of a final judgment:-Held, that error would lie to the House of Lords. M⚫Mahon v. Leonard, 5 II. L. Cas. 931.

Where a writ of error was brought on a judgment upon demurrer to pleas, which went to the whole cause of action, certain is

sues of fact remaining undisposed of; the court of error quashed the writ. Tolson v. Kaye, 7 Scott, N. R. 222; 6 M. & G. 536.

But where judgment had been given for a defendant on an argument on demurrer, and the plaintiff brought a writ of error, the court ordered issues in fact which were upon the record to be struck out, with liberty to replace them, in order that the judgment of the court of error might be obtained before they were tried, by consent of the defendant. Beckham v. Knight, 7 D. P. C. 409; 7 Scott, 346. S. P.. Carden v. General Cemetery Company, 7 Scott, 348; 7 D. P. C. 425; 2 Arn. 18.

Although interlocutory rules for payment of money or costs have, by power of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 18, the effect of judgments in the superior courts of common law, they form no part of the record, so as to be examinable in a court of error. Newton v. Boodle, 6 C. B. 532; 12 Jur. 1088; 18 L. J., C. P. 72.

The provisions of the Common Law Procedure Act of 1852, relating to the abolition of wrats of error, do not apply to judgments of out lawry in civil suits. Arding v. Holmer or Bonner, 1 H. & N. 85; 2 Jur., N. S. 763; 25 L. J., Exch. 231. S. P., Solomon v. Graham, 2 Jur., N. S. 859; 6 El. & Bl. 309.

Nor to an information in the nature of a quo warranto. Reg. v. Seale, 1 Jur., N. S. 593; 24 L. J., Q. B. 221; 5 El. & Bl. 1.

In an action in formâ pauperis, the plaintiff, in 1854, recovered a verdict, with damages. Upon taxation, the master refused to allow fees to her counsel or remuneration to her

attorney, and such refusal was confirmed by the court:Held, upon an application by the plaintiff for the entry of a suggestion upon the roll, for the purpose of having the judgment considered by a court of error, that this was not a case in which the court of error could interfere, and that no such suggestion ought to be entered. Dooley v. Great Northern Railway Company, 6 Jur., Ñ. S. 145; 29 L. J., Q. B. 83; 2 El. & El. 576.

Error is confined to judgments, or to something analogous to judgments, and does not lie upon decisions on motions. Scott v. Bennett, 5 L. R., H. L. Cas. 234; 5 Ir. R., C. L. 375; 20 W. R. 686.

However desirous the court may be of enabling the parties to take the opinion of a court of error, it will not give judgment against its own opinion, because there is no other mode of raising the question on the record. Ricketts v. Noble, 7 D. & L. 104; 18 1. J., Exch. 408; 4 Exch. 260.

Feigned issues.]-On a feigned issue, directed by the court, to try the existence of certain customs, the plaintiff had a verdict, subject to the opinion of the court on a special case, the question being whether the customs, as stated in the declaration, had been sufficiently proved at the trial. The court having given judgment for the plaintiff, error was brought, on the ground that the customs were not legal customs. The court of Exchequer Chamber quashed the writ on

the ground that error did not lie on a feigned issue. Snook v. Mattock, 5 A. & E. 239.

No writ of error lies upon a judgment of a superior court upon a feigned issue under 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 71, s. 46 (Tithe Commutation Act). Thorpe v. Plowden, 2 Exch. 387; 17 L. J., Exch. 235.

Nor will it lie upon a judgment entered up under sect. 7 of the Interpleader Act, 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 58, on a feigned issue directed under that act, such judgment not being similar to an ordinary judgment in an action. King v. Simmonds, 1 H. L. Cas. 754; 12 Jur. 903; S. C., 7 Q. B. 289; 9 Jur. 761; 14 L. J., Q. B. 248, affirmed.

But an appeal in error lies under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 126, s. 34, to the court of Exchequer Chamber to review the decision of the court below, on a rule obtained on the trial of an interpleader issue to enter a verdict, pursuant to leave reserved at the trial. Withers v. Parker, 28 L. J., Exch. 383; 4 H. & N. 810 -Exch. Cham.

Special cases.]-[By 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, C. L. P. Act of 1854, s. 32, error may be brought upon a judgment upon a special case, in the same manner as upon a judgment upon a special verdict, unless the parties agree to the contrary, and the proceedings for bringing a special case before the court of error shall, as nearly as may be, be the same as in the case of a special verdict, and the court of error shall either affirm the judgment, or give the same judgment as ought to have been given in the court in which it was originally decided, the said court of error being required to draw any inferences of fact from the facts stated in such special case which the court where it was originally decided ought to have done.]

Error lies on a special case, notwithstanding judgment of nolle prosequi is directed to be entered up by the court. Llewellyn v. Swansea Canal Navigation Company, 2 H. & N. 516, n.

So error will lie on a judgment in a special case stated on an interpleader issue. Gumm v. Tyrie, 6 B. & S. 298; 34 L. J., Q. B. 124.

In an action for a rate under a local act, a case was stated for the opinion of the Queen's Bench, it being agreed that the case was to be dealt with as if granted by the quarter sessions upon appeal against the rate. Judgment having been given by the Queen's Bench, laying down the principles upon which the amount of the rate was to be determined-Held, not a case in which error could be brought under the above provision, and the court quashed the proceedings in error. Howell v. London Dock Company, 6 Jur., N. S. 676; 8 W. R. 562-Exch. Cham.

Where an action is referred by an order of nisi prius to an arbitrator, who, at the request of the parties, states his award as to part, in the form of a special case for the opinion of one of the superior courts, and judgment is entered according to the opinion of the court, such judgment is not one upon which, as provided for by the above section,