1815. WHITECHURCH HOLWORTHY. custom, any such property or interest in the timber growing upon the closes mentioned in the case to against which the plaintiff has been admitted to him and his heirs, as entitles him as lord of the manor of Elsworth, without the consent of the plaintiff, to enter upon the said closes, and cut down, to his own use and benefit, the timber growing thercon, leaving a sufficient quantity of the same for reasonable botes and estovers. Nov. 8th 1815. ELLENBOROUGH. S. LE BLANC. J. BAYLEY. H. DAMPIER. Thursday, The statute 43 G. 3. c. 153. s. 13. does not authorize the importation of Great Britain. OLIVERSON against LOUGHMAN. ASSUMPSIT on a policy of assurance on the ship Huron at and from Pensacola to Liverpool. Plea non assumpsit. At the trial before Lord Ellencotton wool into borough C. J. at the last London sittings, the case was that the ship was a Russian ship, and was navigated as a Russian, but belonged to the assured, and was captured on her voyage from Pensacola to Liverpool, with a cargo of cotton wool on board, laden at Pensacola. And it was objected for the Defendant that this importation was against the stat. 12 Car. 2. c. 18. (navigation act), and was not made legal by stat. 43 G.3. c. 153. s. 13. which empowers "any person to import into any port or place in Great Britain all sorts of wool, and to import into Ireland all sorts of barilla, &c. wool and cotton wool, from any country and in any ship navigated by foreign seamen." For if the statute had said all sorts of wool only, this might have included cotton wool as well as other, by reason of the generality of the words; but when in the next sentence it expressly names cotton wool, as well as all sorts of wool, that is the same thing as if the statute had said that all sorts of wool does not mean cotton wool, for otherwise the statute would be tautologous. And upon this objection the plaintiff was nonsuited. Park moved for a new trial, contending for a more general construction of the words all sorts of wool than that given to them at the trial. Lord ELLENBOROUGH C. J. I am very sorry for the result, because this appears to be a hard case; but we must abide by the language of the act of parliament, which has marked the distinction between the sorts of wool in general and cotton wool. LE BLANC J. The act's making the distinction in the very same clause affords a strong argument. Per Curiam, Rule refused. 1815. OLIVERSON against LOUGHMAN. DOE, on the Demise of KNIGHT, against Lady Thursday, SMYTHE. AT the trial of this ejectment before Heath J. at the last Warwickshire assizes, the tenant in possession did not appear to defend, but the defendant appeared to defend as landlady. It was proved that the tenant Nov. 9th. A third person cannot defend as landlord upon the trial of an ejectment, where it appears that the tenant in possession came in as tenant to lessor of plaintiff, and paid rent to him, under an agreement that has expired. in in possession came in under an agreement with the lessor of the plaintiff for a term of years, which was expired, and paid rent to him, and afterwards disclaimed. And the doubt was if the defendant, who had entered into the landlord's rule, could set up her title in defence to this ejectment. It was objected that inasmuch as the tenant could not dispute the title of his lessor, neither could any other in the character of his landlord be permitted to do it. And the learned Judge being of that opinion, directed a verdict for the plaintiff. Vaughan Serjt. moved for a new trial upon this point, and he said that supposing the objection to be well founded, yet it came too late; for this should have been made as an objection to the defendant's entering into the landlord's rule, or upon an application to the Court to discharge that rule. Lord ELLENBOROUGH C. J. Who shall be considered as landlord is a consequence to be deduced from the acts of the parties, and is not to be doled away at pleasure. BAYLEY J. The tenant should have given up the possession to Knight, and then the defendant, if she has title, might have maintained her ejectment. DAMPIER J. The tenant in possession paid rent to the lessor and then disclaimed. But he ought to give back the possession to the lessor, and after that the defendant may have her ejectment. It has been ruled often that neither the tenant, nor any one claiming by him, can controvert the landlord's title. He cannot put another person in possession, but must deliver up the premises to his own landlord. This, I believe, has been the rule for the last 25 years, and I remember was so laid down by Buller J. upon the western circuit. Per Curiam, Rule refused. 1815. DOE against Lady SMYTHE. JONES against Sir W. CLAYTON. Friday, If plaintiff declares against the sheriff for &c." CASE against the sheriff of Oxfordshire for a false re- whatsoever. a false return of nulla bona to a fi. fa. against the goods of R. and 7. S., and alleges that although R. and J. S. had and goods, &c. within his said bailiwick, &c. yet defendant," any &c.; this alle said At W. E. Taunton moved for a new trial, contending that for want of this proof neither of the above allegations was sustained by the evidence. But per Curiam. The first allegation is severable and not an entire allegation, the legal effect of it being, that gation is sustained, though plaintiff do not prove that R.S. had any goods; for it is severable that both or either of them had goods, &c. 1815. JONES against Sir W. CLAY ΤΟΝ. that R. and J. Stone, both or either of them, had goods, &c. The allegation in substance is, that there were goods on which the sheriff might have levied the debt and damages, and that he neglected to levy, &c. Rule refused. Saturday, Where, upon appeal against an order of removal, the appellants, in order to shew a settlement in a third parish, called the pauper to prove that he was bound apprentice by indenture to D. and served in the third parish, and then produced the indenture, but failing to prove the death of the subscribing witness, so as to entitle them to prove his other parties to the indenture, which evidence the Sessions re The KING against The Inhabitants of HAR RINGWORTH. THE Sessions for the county of Northampton confirmed an order of justices for the removal of W. Parr, his wife and child, from Gretton to Harringworth, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case: The birth-settlement of W. Parr having been proved to be in Harringworth, Harringworth, for the purpose of shewing that he had gained a subsequent settlement in Oakham by apprenticeship, called Parr, who stated that in 1790 he was bound apprentice by indenture to one Drake of Oakham, and duly served his time there with Drake. They then produced an indenture purport ing to be executed by Parr, by Parr's father and Drake, and to be attested by two witnesses, and called persons to prove the deaths of those witnesses, but failed in proving the death of one of them to the satisfaction of the Court, so as to entitle them to prove his hand-writing. Whereupon they tendered Parr as a witness to prove execution of the indenture, as well as that of his father, his own jected: Held that the Sessions did well, for the rule which requires the subscribing witness to be produced, or his absence accounted for, applies as well to settlement cases as others. and |