to the commissioners, and full answer make to the questions which might be put to him by virtue of the said commission, sufficiently pursued the terms of the oath to be taken by the bankrupt, and the 16th section of the stat. 5 Geo.,2, c. 30, as it must be intended that the questions which might be put by the commissioners would be legal questions.-And where the bankrupt was committed to Newgate under a Judge's warrant, granted on the certificate of the commissioners for not appearing to their summons, and afterwards brought before them by warrant, to make a disclosure of his estate, and he refused to be sworn and examined as to such estate: Held, that the commissioners might commit him under the 14th section of that statute; as when he was brought before them, the war. rant and authority of the Judge were at an end and determined. Nobes v. Mountain, E. 3 G. 4. Page 39 2. Where a master and part owner of a vessel consigned her to the defendants, who were ship-brokers, on the usual terms of commission, on which the ship's papers were handed over to them, and they made disbursements on his account; and he was afterwards arrested, and lay in prison more than two months, on which a commission of bankruptcy was issued against him, and the plain. tiffs were appointed his assignees; and whilst he was in prison, the defendants adjusted their account with him, and received the balance due to them on account of their disbursements, and at the same time delivered to him the ship's papers; Held, in an action brought by the assignees for the recovery of such balance, that they were not entitled to recover, as the defendants had a lien on the papers until their account was adjusted and paid; and that neither the bankrupt nor his assignees could have disposed of the vessel before the papers were given up. Thompson v. Beatson, H. 3 & 4 G. 4. Page 548 3. Where, on a commission of bankrupt being sued out against the plaintiff, he brought an action of trespass against the commissioners for false imprisonment, and was nonsuited, and they entered up judgment accordingly, and the commission was afterwards superseded, on which another was sued out, founded on the same act of bankruptcy as the first, under which the plaintiff obtained his certificate, and the defendants afterwards charged him in execution for the costs of the nonsuit:Held, that he was entitled to be discharged out of custody, as such costs were proveable under the second commission. Holding v. Impey, H. 3 & 4 G. 4. BILLS OF EXCHANGE. INSPECTION OF PAPERS, 2. 614 2. The copy of an original letter, giving notice of the dishonour of a bill of exchange, is admissible in evidence, without notice to produce such original letter; and it seems that there is no substantial distinction between a duplicate original, and a copy made at the time and authenticated on oath. Kine v. Beaumont, E. 3 G. 4. Page 112 3. Where the plaintiffs' traveller took a bill of exchange from the defendant, to whom it was previously indorsed, in payment for goods sold, which bill being of greater amount than the price of the goods, the traveller gave the defendant the difference in bills, who indorsed the bill to the plaintiffs in blank, and it was afterwards enclosed in a letter, addressed to them, and put into the post-office, but never received by them; and six months after it became due, they sued the defendant as the indorser of such bill;-Held, that the plaintiffs could not recover, without proof of its destruction or total loss; and that they were also precluded from recovering the value of the goods on counts for goods sold and delivered, as the defendant had given full value for the bill, and might still be compelled to pay its amount to a bona fide holder. Champion v. Terry, E. 3 G. 4. 130 4. An averment in a declaration on a bill of exchange, that when it became due and payable, according to the tenor and effect thereof, to wit, on the 31st March, 1822, it was duly presented for payment: -Held sufficient on a special demurrer, assigning for cause, that the 31st March was a Sunday, as it was enough to state that the bill was presented when it became payable according to its tenor, with VOL. VII. out mentioning any particular day. Bynner v. Russell, T. 3 G. 4. Page 267 5. Where the defendant being indebted to the plaintiffs on a bill of exchange which was dishonoured, gave another bill at a longer date, and also a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, in case the second bill should not be paid when due, and agreed to pay the expenses of executing the warrant of attorney; and the second bill was duly honoured, but those expenses were not paid, and the first bill was retained by the plaintiffs:— Held, that they could not sue the defendant on such original bill; and the Jury having found a general verdict for them in an action on the bill to the amount of such expenses, the Court ordered it to be entered on the common money counts, with a view to deprive the plaintiffs of their costs under the London Court of Requests Act: the sum claimed as the expenses of executing the warrant of attorney being under 51. Dillon v. Rimmer, M. 3 G. 4. 427 CODICIL. See EXECUTORS, 2. COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. COMMISSION. COMMISSIONERS. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, 1. COMMITMENT. COSTS. See AMENDMENT, 2. ATTORNEY, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13. BILLS OF EXCHANGE, 5. WARRANT OF Attorney,l. 1. By the Rochester Court of Re- entitled to enter a suggestion on motion to deprive the plaintiff of his costs, on the grounds-first, that he had reasonable cause for litigating his demand; secondly, that if the defendant intended to take advantage of 22 Geo. 3, it should have formed part of his defence at the trial; and lastly, that it fell within the exception contained in the 13th section of 48 Geo. 3, as being the balance of an account or demand originally exceeding 51. Harsant v. Larkin, E. 3 G. 4. Page 68 2. Where a defendant, on being arrested, paid the sheriff's officer the amount of the debt, and 107. for costs, under the statute 43 Geo. 3, c. 46, s. 2, which latter sum was more than sufficient to cover the costs incurred up to the return of the writ; and the undersheriff having omitted to pay over the amount to the plaintiff, after being requested so to do, in consequence of which, he proceeded further in the action, and incurred further costs;-Held, that the defendant was not liable to pay such costs. Clark v. Yates, E. 3 G. 4. 83 3. Where a declaration in case contained several special counts, imputing misfeazance to the defendant as an agent, and the two last were founded in trover, and contained allegations of special damage; but the plaintiff failed' in substantiating any of the special counts, and the jury found a verdiet for him generally on the counts in trover, thereby negativing the special damage alleged in those counts;-Held, first, that he was only entitled to the costs of those counts divested of the special allegations contained therein, and the expences of such witnesses only as were incurred to support the parts of those counts on which the verdict was taken :secondly, that a broker was not entitled to compensation for loss of time-thirdly, that the plaintiff was entitled to the allowance of a sum sworn to have been paid by him for the postage of foreign letters, as being solely applicable to the cause; but that he was entitled to the expenses of the production and translation of such letters only as were applicable to such parts of the counts in trover as related to the verdict.-Where foreign witnesses appear to be domiciled in this country, they are not entitled to the expences of their return home; and it seems that a witness is not entitled to his costs, unless they have been paid to him previously to taxation. Lopes v. De Tastet, E. 3 G. 4. Page 120 4. Where the plaintiff obtained a verdict subject to a reference, and the arbitrator awarded in favour of the plaintiff, but made a material mistake in his award, on which the plaintiff applied to the Court, that it might be referred back to the arbitrator to re-consider his award, but the defendant would not accede: on which the Court ordered the rule of reference to be discharged, and the verdict and award to be set aside; and the plaintiff having taken the cause down to a second trial, and again obtained a verdict :-Held, that he was entitled to the costs of both trials. Payne v. Bailey, E. 3 G. 4. 147 5. Where a declaration in trespass contained two counts, the first for assaulting the plaintiff and destroying a scraper affixed to his house; and the second for destroying the scraper; and the Jury found a general verdict for him, damages two shillings:-Held, that he was entitled to his full costs, and the 8. Where the plaintiff's attorney had been guilty of gross misconduct 2 towards the defendant, in consequence of which, the Prothonotary refused to allow the plaintiff any costs, the Court refused a rule for him to review his taxation, although the defendant had taken out a summons to stay proceedings in the action, on payment of debt and costs. Adams v. Staton, M. 3 G. 4. 365 9. Where a defendant, being indebted to the plaintiffs on a bill of exchange, which was dishonoured, gave another bill at a longer date; and also a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, in case the second bill should not be paid when due, and agreed to pay the expences of executing the warrant of attorney; and the second bill was duly honoured, but those expenses were not paid, and the first bill was retained by the plaintiffs :Held, that they could not sue the defendant on such original bill; and the Jury having found a general verdict for them in an action on the bill, to the amount of such expenses, the Court ordered it to be entered on the common money counts, with a view to deprive the plaintiffs of their costs, under the London Court of Requests Act ;— the sum claimed as the expences of executing the warrant of attorney being under 51, Dillon v. Rimmer. M. 3. G. 4. Page 427 10. Where the plaintiff was employed as a solicitor to carry on proceedings in Chancery, after which the defendant married one of the parties to the suit, and eventually received a proportionate part of the property in dispute, in right of his wife, under an order of that Court: -Held, that he was liable to pay the plaintiff a proportion of his bill of costs after taxation by the Master, although there had been no retainer of the plaintiff by the defendant, and although the bill had not been delivered to the latter, but to a co-defendant, who had suffered judgment by default. Gray, gent. v. Wainman, H. 3 & 467 4 G. 4. 11. Where an action of ejectment is |