H. T. 1849. case (a), before Burton, J., it was held that the amendment might Common Pleas. be general.-[DOHERTY, C. J. Can change of venue be called an amendment?]-We have, by our notice, asked for leave to change the venue, and it is not necessary to assign special grounds: Browne v. Lambert (b); Nesbitt v. Barrett (c). EVANS บ. FIGGIS. Mockler, for the defendant, resisted the motion, and said that Aungier v. English (d), and the case of The Administrators of King v. Sharry, reported in the note to that case, showed that the practice in the Queen's Bench and Common Pleas now was, to require the assignment of special grounds for changing the venue. DOHERTY, C. J. The plaintiff is entitled to amend generally on payment of costs; but he goes further and asks to change the venue. We do not think that a matter of course, or according to the practice of this Court. He lays no ground whatever for changing the venue. We wish to adhere to the ruling of this Court in Aungier v. English, and that of the Court of Queen's Bench, as reported in the note to that case. The plaintiff having sought by his notice two things, one of which he has obtained, but not the other, the defendant was justified in coming here to resist this motion; and accordingly the plaintiff must pay the costs. (a) 3 Ir. Law Rep. 216. (b) 4 Law Rec. O. S. 266. (d) 7 Ir. Law Rep. 226. H. T. 1849. WILDRIDGE v. CLARKE. Jan. 30. for breach of covenant by obstructing the tenants of plaintiff in the enjoyment of an easement, COVENANT. The breaches complained of were frequent obstruc- In an action tions, during a long period of years, of the ingress, regress and egress of the tenants of the plaintiff into, through and out of a lane or passage. The notice of motion demanded that proceedings should be stayed until plaintiff furnished a full bill of particulars, setting forth the several breaches and times (either in days or weeks) when committed, the names of the tenants obstructed, and the mode obstruction adopted. the plaintiff was required to furnish a of bill of parti culars of the obstructions, the times of their occur rence, the O'Leary, for the defendant, now moved the above notice, and names of the mentioned Scarlett v. The Corporation of Dublin (a). Hobart, for the plaintiff, said that the case cited was one of indebitatus assumpsit. In an action on the case for injuries to a water course, a bill of particulars has been refused, a special ground not having been laid for it: Burke v. Gogarty (b). [DOHERTY, C. J. That was in 1826; the case mentioned by Mr. O'Leary was in 1833.]-The practice has been changed since. [BALL, J. Yes, the change has been, that the Courts are even far more liberal in granting bills of particulars.-JACKSON, J. With respect to Burke v. Gogarty, it should be recollected that in actions for obstructing a water course the counts themselves must be very special in stating the injury done, and are nearly tantamount to bills of particulars.]-In an action of covenant by the assignee of a lease for non-payment of rent and non-repair, the Court refused to compel the plaintiff to give particulars, Coleridge, J., observing, that the plaintiff did not seem to know more (a) 1 Law Rec. N. S. 205. (b) Batty, 218. tenants obstructed, and the mode of obstruction. Common Pleas. WILDRIDGE บ. H. T. 1849. than the defendant: Sowter v. Hitchcock (a).-[Doherty, C. J. Principle and reason are against you. I know no case sufficiently strong to prevent the Court from making a precedent in favour of granting particulars in such cases as this.]—In Brooke v. Chitty (b), also an action of covenant, particulars were refused. It will be impossible for us to give such particulars as have been demanded. CLARKE. DOHERTY, C. J. I am a little surprised that you do not perceive that Brooke v. Chitty has not the slightest resemblance to the present case. If it be impossible for the plaintiff to give particulars such as required, the sooner he abandons his action the better. The modern and more wholesome practice has been, to require plaintiffs to specify their demands more fully and frequently than was usual some years ago. This seems to be a very proper case for a bill of particulars. Motion granted. (a) 5 Dowl. Prac. C. 724. (b) 3 Chit. Gen. Prac. 614, n. INDEX. ABATEMENT. See PLEA IN ABATEMENT. ACCOUNT STATED. 1. After the dissolution of a partner- 461 2. Held also, that this account was at ACKNOWLEDGMENT. ACT OF PARLIAMENT. STATUTES. ACTION. See The respective titles. AFFIDAVIT. See SCIRE FACIAS, 3. 1. Where the only affidavit of the service 2. 51 A conviction under the statute 10 G. 4, 3. The rule that the Crown neither pays or receives costs, does not apply to cases in which, either on its part or on that of the opposite party, a favour is sought from the Court; ex. gr., on a motion by the defendant, in a suit by the Crown, for leave to amend some of many pleas, to all of which a demurrer had been allowed, the Court permitted him to do so, only however on the terms of paying the costs attendant upon the demurrer to all, and the costs of the motion. Ibid 4. It is irregular to sue in the names of two public officers of a banking company; but the Court will, even after appearance, amend the writ by striking out the name of one of the public officers. Q. B. Grimshaw and another v. Bowden 399 5. Where a plaintiff unnecessarily makes profert of an indenture, and the defendant craves oyer, the Court will not on motion set the rule for oyer aside, but will allow the declaration to be amended on payment of costs. Harvey v. Doherty Q. B. 460 J. B. S. was apprenticed to an attorney who was in partnership with the respondent, the covenants of the indentures being to serve the partnership, and the apprentice fee being paid by |