General Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

1st class.-Bills for inclosing, draining or improving lands;

Making or altering a burial ground;
Building, enlarging, repairing or maintain-
ing a church or chapel;

Paving, Lighting, Watching, cleansing, or
inproving cities or towns;
Erecting, improving, repairing, maintaining
or regulating town halls, market-places or
markets.

Constituting any local court.

The payment of any stipendary magistrate, or other public officer;

Bills relating to poor rates, or the maintenance or employment of the poor. 2d class.-Bills for making, varying, extending or enlarging any public works, such as bridges, turnpike roads, cuts, canals, reservoirs, aqueducts, waterworks, navigations, tunnels, archways, railways, piers, ports, harbours, ferries and docks. 3d class. Bills relating to county rates, gaols or houses of correction, or for confirming or prolonging the term of letters patent, or bills to continue or amend any former act passed for any of the purposes included in this or the two preceding classes, where no extension of time or power to take land is required.

273

of abode in the United Kingdom, or, in their absence, to their agents respectively, and that such applications shall be made on or before the 31st day of December, in the year imediately preceding that in which the application

for a bill is intended to be made; and that separate lists be made of the names of such owners, lessees and occupiers, distinguishing which of them have assented, dissented, or are neuter in respect thereto.

V. Further orders with regard to bills of the 1st class.

That notices shall also be affixed to the church-doors of every parish to which they specially relate, for three successive Sundays, in the said months of October and November, or either of them.

VI. Further orders with regard to bills of the 2nd Class.

1st. That all notices shall contain the names of the parishes and townships from, in, through, and into which, any such public work is intended to be made, varied, extended or enlarged, and shall state the time and place of deposit of the plans, sections or books of reference.

2d. That duplicate plans on a scale of not less than four inches to a mile, exhibiting thereon the height of the several embankments, and the depth of the several cuttings respectively on a scale specified thereon (see fig 1) with sections as hereinafter described, be deposited for public inspection at the office of the clerk of the peace for every county, riding, or division in England or Ireland, and in the office of the principal sheriff clerk of every county in Scotland, in or through which such public work is proposed to be made, varied, extended or enlarged, on or before the 30th day of November, (and in the case of bills reII. That such notices shall be published in lating to railways on or before the 1st day of three successive weeks in the month of Octo- March) immediately preceeding the session of ber and November, or either of them, (and in parliament in which such application is intenthe case of railway bills, twice in the month of ded to be made; which plans shall describe February and twice in the month of March), the line or situation of the whole of such public immediately preceeding the session of parlia-work, and the lands in or through which it is ment in which application for the bill to which such notices relate is intended to be made, in the London, Edinburgh, or Dublin Gazette, and in some one and the same newspaper of the county in which the city, town or lands to which such bill relates, shall be situate; or if there is no newspaper published therein, then in the newspaper of some county adjoining or near thereto.

III. That if it be the intention of the parties applying for leave to bring in any bill, to levy any tolls, rates, or duties, or to increase or alter any existing tolls, rates or duties the noti ces shall specify such intention.

IV. That before any application is made to the house for a bill by which any lands or houses are intended to be taken, application in writing be made to the owners or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees, and occupiers, either by delivering the same to such owners or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees, and occupiers, personally, or by sending the same by the post to their usual place

to be made, varied, extended or enlarged, or through which every comnunication to or from such public work shall be made, together with a book of reference containing the names of the owners or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees, and occupiers of such lands respectively.

3d. That each section shall be drawn to the same horizontal scale as the plan, and to a vertical scale of not less than one inch to every 100 feet, and shall show the surface of the ground marked on a plan, and a datum horizontal line, which shall be the sa me throughout the whole length of the railway or any branch thereof respectively, and shall be referred to some fixed point (stated in writing on the section), near either of the termini. Line D D. Fig. 2.)

See

4th. That where it is the intention of the parties to apply for powers to make any lateral deviation from the line of any proposed public work, all lands included within the limits of such deviation shall be marked upon the plan,

General Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

and that in all cases, an additional plan of any | and place of abode of every subscriber; his building, yard, court-yard or land within the signature to the amount of his subscription; curtilage of any building, or of any ground and the name of the party witnessing such cultivated as a garden, either on the original signature, and the date of the same respectively; line or included within the limits of the said and that it be proved to the satisfaction of the deviation, shall be laid down upon a scale of not committee on petitions, that a sum equal to less than a quarter of an inch to every 100 ft. one tenth part of the amount subscribed be (see Fig. 3.) paid up and deposited in the Bank of England, or invested in some government security in the names of the chief clerk of the house of commons for the time being and of any two persons named by the promoters of the bill, the said sum or securities so to remain until the bill has either passed or been rejected by

8th. That an estimate of the expense be made and signed by the person making the same, and that a subscription be entered into under a contract made as hereinafter described to three fourths the amount of the estimate, provided that in all cases where any public work is to be made out of the funds in the hands of directors, trustees, or commissioners, as the case may be, of any existing public work, a declaration to that effect, under the [The Standing Orders given at pp. 244, 256, common seal of the company, or under the ante, and there described as " Proposed Standhand of some authorised officer of such direc-ing Orders," have been confirmed, along with tors, trustees or commissioners, may be substitued in lieu of such subscription contract. 9th. That all subscription contracts shall contain the christian and surnames, description

Selections from Correspondence.-Superior Courts: King's Bench.

NATURALIZATION ACTS.

To the Editor of The Legal Observer.
Sir,

In reply to the inquiries of your correspondent B. W. R., I believe the expense of an act to naturalize an alien is about 500 guineas ;and of obtaining letters of denization about 401.

Letters of denization are obtained from the Home Office, where your correspondent can learn what testimonials are required. When they are approved of, Letters will then be made out, provided there are sufficient names, as the letters comprise seven individuals, and if there should happen not to be that number when the testimonials are approved of, no Letters will be made out until the number is made up, the expense of each individual being 401. The letters are, however, considered retroG. H. spective.

PRACTICE AT THE JUDGES' CHAMBERS.

Sir,

It has always hitherto been the practice of the Vacation Judge to make no distinction in hearing the summonses which came before him, by a Judge of whatever Court the sumFor instance, an mons might be granted. Exchequer Judge took the summonses in the King's Bench and Common Pleas in equal order with those in his own Court: and this was just and proper, for a Vacation Judge stays in town for the equal convenience of suitors in all the Courts, and as a sort of delegate of the other Judges.

SUPERIOR COURTS.

King's Bench.

[Before the Four Judges.]

LIBEL.

275

A defendant in an action of libel, if he wishes to prove the publication by the plaintiff of other libels, by which he was provoked to libel the plaintiff, must prove such publication by producing a copy of those libels, and must shew that they came to his knowledge previous to the publication of the libel by him upon the plaintiff. The 38 G. 3, c. 78, will not enable him to prove publication by the mere production of the copy delivered at the Stamp Office. That statute does not enable him, as it does a plaintiff, informant, or prosecutor, to dis pense with the common law proof in such

cases.

the

The plaintiff

This was an action of libel. was Mr. Alaric Watts. the defendant the publisher of Fraser's Magazine. Plea, not guilty. The cause was tried before Lord Denman, and the defence set up was, that the plaintiff had in different newspapers published libels of and concerning the defendant. Some evidence was offered by the defendant of libels alleged to have been published upon him by the plaintiff. This evidence was offered in mitigation of damages. The newspapers and other publi cations referred to were, The United Service Journal, The Alfred, and The Old England. A copy of The United Service Journal was produced from the British Museum, where it had been deposited from the Stamp Office, and the title of the paper corresponded with the title of the paper mentioned in the affidavit filed at the Stamp Office, which was also produced. The 38 G. 3, c. 78, was relied on as shewing that such evidence of publication was admissible. The second section of that statute enacts that an affidavit shall be filed by the publisher; and the 11th section declares, "That it shall not be necessary after any such affidavit, &c. shall have been produced in evidence against the persons who made and signed the same according to the provisions of this act, and after such paper as aforesaid shall be produced in evidence, entitled in the same manner as the newspaper mentioned in The only reason for this procedure that I such affidavit is entitled, and the names of can conjecture is, to induce attorneys to ob- the printer and publisher, and the place of tain summonses from the Vacation Judge, and printing, shall be the same as the names of thus draw the fees into the pockets of his the printer and publisher and place of printing clerks. I trust the evil only requires noticing mentioned in such affidavit for the plaintiff, informant, or prosecutor, or person seeking in your periodical to effect a remedy. to recover any penalties given by this act, to [We think the reason assigned by our Cor-prove that the newspaper to which such trial respondent for the practice complained of, relates was purchased at any house, &c. becannot be the true one, for we believe that all longing to or occupied by the defendants, or the fees are accounted for and paid to the where the same is usually published or sold." Treasury. We have to acknowledge the re- It was objected, that this statute had been ceipt of another letter on the subject of this passed for a special purpose, and that the defendant did not come within any of the four grievance. ED.] classes of persons mentioned in it, he not being either" a plaintiff, informant, or prose

Now, however, a different practice prevails: the Clerks of the present Vacation Judge, refuse to admit a matter in the Exchequer or Common Pleas to come before his Lordship, until those in his own Court (the King's Bench) are disposed of. I attended this morning for the purpose of obtaining a number from the attending Judge's clerks, on a summous granted in the Exchequer; and was told by them they could not give me a number, but I must wait till all the other summonses were disposed of.

VINDEX.

276

Superior Courts: King's Bench.

cutor, or person seeking to recover any penalties given by the act," and consequently not being entitled to give in evidence papers which could only be admissible under its particular provisions. Lord Denman adopted this objection, and rejected the evidence. A verdict was given for the plaintiff, and a rule was afterwards obtained to set it aside and have a new trial, on the ground that the evidence ought to have been received.

sioners would, under the 17th section of the act, be guilty of a breach of duty if at any time within two years they were not to be able to produce these papers for that purpose. Rex v. Hart and White a shews that the depositing of the newspaper at the Stamp Office is not only evidence of the act of the publi cation of the newspaper by the parties named, but is also evidence of its publication in the county where the printing of it is described to be, and this, too, in a case of a criminal information. Baldwin v. Elphinstone b shews that in a case like the present the Court will make many intendments to forward the ends of justice. The official copy is complete evidence against the printer and the proprietor for all purposes whatever. It is therefore totally unnecessary to prove that this particular paper met the eye of the plaintiff.

The Attorney General, Sir F. Pollock, and Mr. Barstow, shewed cause. The operation of the act must be strictly limited to those persons who are clearly within its provisions. The defendant is not so, and therefore cannot take advantage of it. The provisions of the statute are an exception to the common law, and cannot therefore be extended beyond the limits assigned by the words of the statute itself. Every separate publication of a news- Lord Denman, C. J., now delivered judg paper is a separate publication of a libel, and ment. In this case a motion had been made must therefore be strictly proved; and it ought for a new trial on the ground of the rejection also be proved to have come to the knowledge of evidence, and cause has since been shewn of the defendant, for otherwise the pretence of against the rule. In considering the points provocation cannot be made out. There was argued, the Court is bound to look at the nature no evidence whatever on this last point. If of the evidence tendered, and the object for the particular copy produced from the British which it was tendered. That object was to Museum had been written by the plaintiff, and shew that the defendant had published the deposited by him in the Stamp Office, it would libels, which were the subject of this action, not have been evidence receivable in mitiga- upon the plaintiff, in consequence of the great tion of damages, for want of proof that it had provocation he had received by the previous been seen by the defendant, and for want of publication of other libels upon him by the proof therefore that it was the moving cause plaintiff. To make out this defence it was of the libel of which the plaintiff complained. necessary that some proof should be given that The Court here cannot supply that want of the libels thus said to have provoked the deproof by a presumption of the sort required in fendant had in fact come to the knowledge of the present case. the defendant, and had been issued with the Mr. Erle, in support of the rule.-The pub- knowledge of the party who was said to have lication proved here was a publication in a published them. If there was a total absence newspaper of which the plaintiff was shewn to of proof on this point, the defendant could not be the registered proprietor. The plaintiff avail himself of the existence of these libels must be taken to know the contents of the for the purpose for which they were offered at newspaper he published. The general purpose the trial. But that matter alone will not decide of this act is the furtherance of justice in any the present application, for an objection was proceeding whatever, and its operation is not taken at the trial, before the defendant came to confined to cases where the party seeking its this point of the defence, that the paper deaid is a plaintiff, informant, or prosecutor. posited at the stamp office could not, under the To limit its operation in the manner now pro- special circumstances of this case be admitted posed would be to defeat the general object as proof of publication, so as to raise the deof the legislature. The object of the act was, fence that the libels therein contained had in that an authorised copy of the paper should at other copies of the paper been generally cirall times be evidence against the party pub-culated, and must have come to the knowledge lishing it. No one ever thought of confining the application of the statute to the particular copy seen by the party libelled in it. If a party saw a paper containing a libel on him, he would have a right of action against the party publishing it, and might prove the publication by shewing a corresponding paper to have been published by delivery at the Stamp Office, yet he himself would not have seen the Stamp Office copy. Surely if, instead of bringing an action, he sought to shew the publication of that libel by way of excuse for something which he had himself done, he ought to be equally at liberty to do so by the production of the official copy. The depositing of the paper at Somerset House is a publication for the purpose of evidence. The Commis

of the defendant; and I held that that objec tion was fatal, for that for this purpose the publication of one copy alone was not sufficient, unless that very copy was proved to have come to the knowledge of the defendant. We are of opinion that that holding was perfectly right, and that brings us to the question whether the printing of one newspaper, which is in the nature of a thing meant for public circulation, we can infer that others were in fact issued, and met the eye of an ordinary reader. We think that we cannot draw that inference, for however in point of fact it may appear to us to be a matter free from doubt

a 10 East, 95.

b 2 Sir W. Black. 1037.

Superior Courts: King's Bench; King's Bench Practice Court.

hat no person ever published one single copy of a newspaper, it is clear that the Court cannot act even upon a reasonable presumption alone, but must have some proof furnished on which to guide itself in the admission of evidence. We cannot presume that a duplicate of the paper was published, but must have proof of the fact. The case of Baldwin v. Elphinstone, is an authority which was rather pressed upon us in the argument. The Court of Error there made several intendments in order to support the judgment of the Court below. The sending of the copy to the compositor was there said to be a proof of the publication, and upon that we are asked to make a presumption in this case that there was a general publication here. We do not think, however, that we are at liberty here to make any such inference. We do not feel that that case is an authority upon which we can safely act, and the rule for a new trial must therefore be discharged. Rule discharged.-Watts v. Fraser, T. T. 1837. K. B. F. J.

277

actment could only receive its effect at the time of the action brought, still that when this provision had been declared by the legislature to be law, the Court was bound to give effect to it as soon as it had so become law. Cases were cited in support of this doctrine, but they were cases upon statutes where particular words compelled the Court to give the statutes a retrospective operation; but there are not any such words in this statute, and we cannot therefore apply those cases in the present instance. And we are also of opinion as a general rule that the law existing at the time the contract on which the action is brought is entered into, must be the law administered with reference to that contract, and not any law passed after the making of that contract, unless the legislature expressly requires and compels the Courts to administer the subsequently created law, between the litigating parties. In this particular instance we regret the conclusion to which this rule leads us, but we have no alternative. The rule for a nonsuit

must therefore be made absolute.

Hitchcock v. Way, T. T. 1837. K. B. F. J.

King's Bench Practice Court.

TRIAL BEFORE SHERIFF.—VERDICT UNDER 40s.-COSTS.

When on a trial before the sheriff, the plain

tiff has recovered less than 40s., the Court cannot deprive him of his costs.

BILL.-GAMING. -5 & 6 W. 4 c. 41. The 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 41, has not a retrospective operation. As a general rule, the law existing at the time at which a contract is made, must be the law administered in any action brought on that contract. If a statute relating to the subject-matter of that contract is passed after the contract made, the Court will not apply the pro-depriving the plaintiff of costs, he having reArmstrong had obtained a rule nisi for visions of that statute to the contract, unless covered less than 40s. The action was tried the words of the statute expressly required before the undersheriff of Cumberland, and that it should be so applied. the declaration was for money lent, and on an account stated; and the defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations, and a set off. The

Lord Denman delivered judgment in this case, which had been argued some time before. The points are sufficiently stated in the judg-plaintiff recovered a verdict for 17. 13s. 9d. ment to render a reference to the arguments unnecessary. This was an action in which the plaintiff sought to recover the amount of a bill of exchange, of which he was the indorsee and of which the defendant was the acceptor. The bill was drawn by one Beavan, on the defendant, who pleaded that he had accepted the bill for money lost at play to Beavan. The plaintiff in answer to this defence, set up the statute of 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 41. The note was given, and the action was likewise brought, before that statute was passed. The provision relied on is in the first section of the statute, and is in these terms, that "every note, bill &c., which if this act had not been passed would have been absolutely void, shall be deemed to have been made, drawn, accepted, given, or executed for an illegal consideration, and the said several acts shall have the same force and effect which they would respectively have had, if instead of providing that such note should be void, they had provided that it should be deemed to have been executed for an illegal consideration." For the plaintiff it was argued, that though under the circumstances of this case, this en

W. H. Watson shewed cause, and contended that the Court had no power to deprive a plaintiff of his costs, except under the statute of 43 Eliz. c. 6, s. 2. That empowered only the Judges and justices before whom any action should be pursued, and the Judges of this Court, therefore, could not interfere. It had been held in Wardroper v. Richardson, 1 Ad. & El. 75; 3 N. & M. 839, S. C.; and Claridge v. Smith, 4 D. P. C. 583, that the judge of an inferior Court to whom a cause was sent for trial, could not certify under the 43 Eliz. c. 6, s. 2, and in order that the present application might succeed, recourse must be had to some supposed jurisdiction of the Court, independent of the act, a jurisdiction however, which from the passing of the act, and from numerous applications which had been made under it on behalf of defendants, it was clear did not exist. The Court would not be disposed to grant an application for which there was no precedent.

a Sir W. Blackst. 1037.

Armstrong was prepared to admit that the undersheriff had no power, but contended that the Court had a general superintendence over all causes brought in it, and therefore would have authority over the costs in them. Cur, adv. vult.