4. The statute, establishing a par-
ticular company, provided that
"the whole of the said sum of
100,000l. shall be subscribed be-
fore any of the powers and pro-
visions given by the act shall be
put in force." The company made
a call on the shares before the
subscriptions were complete, and
commenced an action for the call
after they were so: Held, that
such action was not maintainable;
the completion of the subscription
list being necessary to enable the
company to make the call, as well
as to bring the action. Norwich
and Lowestoft Navigation Com-
pany v. Theobald,
Page 151
A precept to the sheriff, under
23 H. 8. c. 5. s. 3., to summon a
jury must direct him to summon
de corpore comitatus; a direction
to summon from a particular dis-
trict within the county is bad.
Birkett v. Crozier,
119
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
See DISTRESS, 5. EJECTMENT, 1.
NOTICE, SERvice of, 1.
1. A. being in possession under a
lease for years, underlet the pre-
mises from year to year to the de-
fendants, who knew the extent of
A.'s interest. The plaintiff after-
wards took a lease of the same pre-
mises, expectant on the determin-
ation of A.'s term; and the de-
fendants, after the determination
of A.'s term continued in pos-
session for a quarter of a year,
when they paid rent for that pe-
riod, and claimed to give up the
premises: Held, in an action for
use and occupation for a sub-
sequent period, that there was no
porting to be a report of a coro-
ner's inquest, evidence of the cor-
rectness of the report is admissible
under the general issue, in miti-
gation of damages; but no evi-
dence of the truth or falsehood of
the facts stated at the inquest is
admissible on either side. East v.
Chapman,
Page 46
2. A fair criticism on the works of a
professional artist, in the course of
his professional employment, is
not actionable, however mistaken
it may
be if it is unfair and in-
temperate, and written for the
purpose of injuring the party
criticised, it is actionable. Soane
v. Knight,
74
3. It is not libellous fairly and
honestly to criticise a painting pub-
licly exhibited, however strong the
terms of censure used may be.
Thompson v. Shackell,
4. In an action for a libel, which is
only libellous on a man in the ex-
ecution of his office, where the
plaintiff has stated, by way of in-
ducement, his due discharge of
his duties, the defendant cannot,
on the general issue, give evidence
of negligence in discharging them
in answer to that allegation. Dance
v. Robson,
294
5. In an indictment for libel, the
proprietor of the newspaper is
prima facie answerable for what
appears in it but the presump-
tion arising from proprietorship
may be rebutted and an exemp-
tion established. Rex v. Gutch,
433. 438.n.
6. In an action for a libel in pub-
lishing a hand-bill, offering a re-
ward for the recovery of certain
bills of exchange, and stating that
A. B. is suspected of having em-
bezzled them, it is a good defence,
on the general issue, that the hand-
bill was published solely with a
1. The plaintiff was arrested by the
indorsee of a bill of exchange, pur-
porting to be drawn on him, and
accepted by him. In fact, the ac-
ceptance was not his. This is not
sufficient to support an action for a
malicious arrest, the defendants
having acted under mistake with-
out malice. Spencer v. Jacob,
Page 180
2. An action for a malicious arrest
cannot be maintained where the
former cause was terminated by a
stet
processus by the consent of the
parties. Wilkinson v. Howel, 495
MARRIAGE.
See EVIDENCE, 43.
is no defence to an action on a
policy of insurance, that a misre-
presentation was made of the car-
go with which the ship was to sail
on a future day, although, in fact,
that representation induced the de-
fendant to sign the policy, unless
the misrepresentation was fraudu-
lently made. Flinn v. Tobin,
See BILLS OF EXCHANGE, 9.
An action for money paid to the use
of the defendant may be maintained
by a sheriff's officer who has paid the
debt and costs on an attachment
against the sheriff, bail above not
having been put in through the mis-
conduct of the defendant in impos-
ing insufficient bail on the sheriff,
and the defendant having promised
to indemnify the officer both be-
fore and after the payment: but the
officer cannot recover beyond the
debt. White v. Leroux, Page 347
1. If a party sending goods by a car-
rier has given no notice of the
value of the parcel, but has at-
tempted to disguise it, and has
done so to a degree sufficient to
trustees, and actually received by
the deputy; but which only came
into his hands by reason of an
irregular act of the trustees, which
the deputy had prevailed upon
them to commit.
Page 214
5. In an action for an injury to the
plaintiff's premises, in consequence
of the pulling down of the de-
fendant's house adjoining, the
plaintiff may recover damages for
any injury actually caused by the
negligence of the defendant, al-
though he has not himself used
those precautions which it was his
duty to adopt against such injury.
Walters v. Pfeil,
362
for a seizure, the notice of action
must be proved in the first instance
before any
other evidence is given.
Johnson v. Lord,
prevent the carrier from taking 1. In an action against excise officers
particular care of the parcel, yet
not sufficient effectually to conceal
its nature from the carrier's ser-
vants, he can maintain no action
against the carrier for the value if
the parcel be stolen by them in
consequence. Bradley v. Water-
house,
2. In an action for running down a
vessel, the plaintiff cannot recover
unless the injury is attributable en-
tirely to the fault of the defendants:
if he were partly in fault, but the
defendants with care might have
prevented the accident, he cannot
maintain his action. Vanderplank
v. Miller,
3. The clerk to a body of trustees,
who executes his office entirely by
a deputy appointed by himself, is
not responsible in damages for
losses occasioned by the negli-
gence or malversation of his de-
puty, if they were of such a nature
that they only became prejudicial
to the trustees through negligence
on their own part. Whitmore v.
Wilks,
4. Nor for money belonging to the
444
The plaintiffs slept at different
houses away from their places of
business, but a servant slept on
the premises of the latter. Quære,
whether the notice of action pro-
perly describes the plaintiffs as of
the place of business, the statute
requiring it to state their place
of abode? Johnson v. Lord,
1. An examined copy of a letter
containing notice of the disho-
nour of a bill of exchange which
is not produced, nor the subject-
matter of the action, is not ad-
missible without notice to produce
the letter sent. Lanauze v. Palmer,
2. In an action against the defendant
as a shareholder in a company, for
work done for the company, letters
addressed by the defendant to
one of the directors, and returned
to her by him, and mentioning her
shares, are not so necessarily con-
nected with the subject of the
trial as to render a notice served
on her attorney too late for her to
receive it before the trial, suffi-
cient to let in secondary evidence.
Vice v. Lady Anson,
97
3. Quære, whether it would be so in
any case, except when the de-
fendant is resident abroad? Ibid.
4. In an action against partners, on
a bill of exchange, where the de-
fence is that one partner, with the
knowledge of the plaintiff, ac-
cepted the bill in the partnership
firm for his private debt; other
bills of exchange, accepted by
that partner and paid by the
others, are not so necessarily con-
nected with the subject of the
trial, as to render a notice served
on the attorney of a defendant
too late for him to procure the
bills from the defendant himself
sufficient to let in secondary evi-
dence. Aflalo v. Fourdrinier,
NOTICE, SERVICE OF.
1. Service of a notice to quit on a
servant at the tenant's dwelling-
1. A man carrying on a noxious busi-
ness, in a place where it has been
long established, is indictable for a
nuisance if the mischief is increased
by the manner or extent in which
he carries it on; not otherwise,
although the business has increased
in amount. Rex v. Watts,
2. A reversioner may maintain an
action for a nuisance, which pro-
duces no present injury to his re-
version beyond that to the right,
and which may be removed before
the reversion comes into posses-
sion. Shadwell v. Hutchinson, 350
|