« ZurückWeiter »
coach, a parcel directed to Messrs. Holme, under the necessity of directing proceedings Frampton, and Loftus, solicitors, New Inn, for the recovery of the amount. London, his agents, which contained an at- “That your Petitioner therefore signed, and tested copy (on stamps) of a deed relating to sent to his said agents, with a request to get it a Chancery suit, and tuco unsealed letters, a (or properly presented, a petition, dated the 5th pieces of paper folded up in the usual form of of June last, addressed to his Grace the Duke of letters,) addressed to his said agents, one of Richmond, his Majesty's Postmaster General, which was concerning such suit and another in which your Petitioner stated, amongst other Chancery suit, and the other related to some things, (as the fact was and is,) that at the Lanc business.
time of so sending such parcel he was ignorant, " That such parcel was, as your Petitioner of the illegality of sending letters in his parcels has been informed and believes, seized and to agents, on business, and that he had no in-; opened by or by the order of the Post Office tention whatever to defraud the revenue, and Authorities, and the contents detained to the that he believed the generality of country atpresent time, except the said copy of the deed, torneys were also ignorant of the illegality of which was, after great solicitation, delivered so sending letters; and that he therefore threw up some days afterwards.
himself on the mercy of his Grace, humbly *« That by a letter, dated the 31st of May hoping that such penalties would be remitted or last, from the Solicitor to the General Post mitigated, as to his Grace should seem meet; Office, he was informed, that so sending such and that he, as in duty bound, would ever letters was illegal, and that he had thereby in- pray, &c. curred penalties to the amount of 101, being " That your Petitioner afterwards received 5!. on each of the said letters; and that unless a letter from the General Post Office, of which he had any satisfactory explanation to offer, the following is a copy : his Grace the Postmaster General would be
“ General Post Office, 15th June, 1833. “ Sir,
“ Your explanation, as to the information a The following are copies of these letters laid against you for illegally sending letters (omitting some immaterial details):
from Taunton to London, otherwise than by · Lock v. Colman and another.
the Post, having been submitted to the Post
master General, I am commanded to inform Gentlemen,
you, that his Grace has felt it his duty to order “ The marriage articles of the 24th April,
April; proceedings to be commenced for recovering 1769, are now in London. I therefore send the penalties which have been incurred. you the attested copy, and will thank you to
“ I am, Sir, get it proved immediately before the Examiner,
“ Your obedient servant, to guard against the accident of the original
“M. B. Peacock, not being produced at the hearing.
“ Solicitor.” Carpenter and others v. Swift and others. “Mr. John Oxenham, Mr. Hancock and I intend coming to Lon
“ Taunton.” don to get the examination made out. Please “ That your Petitioner, without making any to let me know when it will be the most con- further application to the General Post Office venient time for yourselves and the counsel to for a remission of the said penalties, received a attend to the business.
letter therefrom, of which the following is a I am, Gentlemen,
copy, viz : Your obedient Servant,
“ General Post Ofice, 17th July, 1833. John OXENHAM. - Taunton, 30th May, 1833.
“ The Postmaster General having taken into Messrs. Holme, Frampton and Loftus,
further consideration all the circumstances reSols. New Inn, London.
lative to the information laid against you, for
illegally sending two letters from Taunton to Self v. Cozens.
London, otherwise than by the Post, I am comGentlemen,
manded to inform you, that his Grace has, in You will reply as you think best: but I wish this instance, leniently consented to a comto try the cause at the next Taunton Assizes.
*I promise, on paymeut of one penalty and costs,
the consent of the Court of King's Bench
being first obtained. I am, however, distinctly Self v. Willy and Stone.
to apprise you, that if the offence be repeated, Have you heard any thing further about this
his Grace will feel it his duty to enforce the business?
| full penalties imposed by law, on practices by I am, Gentlemen,
which the public revenue is so seriously deYour obedient Servant,
“I am, Sir, John OxENHAM.
“ Your obedient servant, Taunton, 30th May, 1833. Messrs. Holme and Co.,
“ M. B. PEACOCK, New Inn.
“ Solicitor.” (Copy)
“ John Oxenham, Esq., I “ Solicitor, Taunton.”
,Post Office Prosecutions. .“ That the reason for so sending such copy the understanding of the profession has uniof the said deed was, that your petitioner formly been, that it was lawful for country wanted to have it proved, without delay, be- attorneys to send letters to their agents in fore an Examiner of the Court of Chancery, in parcels with papers respecting law business, order to be given in evidence at the hearing of and the absence of any decided case to the the cause to which it related ; and the deten contrary throughout so many years, your Petion of such said copy in manner aforesaid, titioner humbly submits, is the best criterion was likely to have been the means of your for judging what the consent of mankind and Petitioner's losing the said cause, and his the law have been on the subject." client's incurring a great loss and expense.
« That your Petitioner, from his experience The Petitioner then stated the opinion of and information believes, that from time to Mr. Follett, and concluded with the following time, beyond the meinory of man, down to the prayer :time of such parcel being seized as aforesaid, | "Your Petitioner, therefore, prays that your attorneys and solicitors throughout the king- Honourable House will be pleased to take his dom have been in the habit of sending letters case into your consideration, and cause to be with papers in parcels, to their agents in Lon-instituted such measures for the relief of your don, on law and equity business, without being Petitioner, or otherwise, as to the wisdom of aware that it was illegal so to do.
your Honourable House shall seem meet." ..That the prohibition of so sending such letters in parcels, containing papers relating to l We subjoin the following statement of Mr. such business, is a great inconvenience to the Tooke, made subsequently to the discussion public, inasmuch as it is almost indispensably on the Petition. necessary that proper instructions should accompany such papers, instead of sending a separate letter by the post, otherwise it might In the report of the debate on presenting happen that business would be delayed, and the petition, a material passage in the quotacauses lost, to the total ruin of many individuals.
tion of Mr. Follett's opinion was omitted. “But your Petitioner begs leave most hum- Mr. Tooke observes: “that although there is bly to submit to your Honourable House, some amh
use, some ambiguity in the 8th section of 5 G. 4. whether or not the Post Office authorities have any legal power to seize and detain or to open c. 20, yet the Solicitor General distinctly alparcels, such a step being denied by many lowed, that according to his view of it, an open professional men. It must be obvious, that the letter solely relating to the matters contained exercise of such a power would be the means of revealing and exposing to the vulgar curio- in the parcel might be enclosed in it. Mr. sity of Post Office informers and others, wills, Follett, however, as will be observed by his deeds, mortgages, and documents, involving
in opinion, (which we inserted, p. 279,) thinks family secrets and important interests of the greatest consequence, which demand sacred that such single letter may advert to other secrecy. Your Petitioner also begs leave most matters ; and indeed, it would appear more humbly to submit to your Honourable House, whether or not the unsealed letters so sent in
than ordinarily severe, to restrict a correspon: the parcel by him as herein-before mentioned, dent from communicating to his friend any were or not liable to postage, as letters rela- mere matter of courtesy or of private or pubting to goods are exempt therefrom, and
| lic information; and this conceded, to draw stamped papers or parchments are goods according to the case of Bennett v. Clough and the line would be impossible. The fair and another, 1 B. & Ald. p. 461, where stamps are liberal inference would therefore be, to priconsidered goods, so as to exempt the letter which accompanied them from postage. It is
| vilege a single open letter, .containing direct also laid down in Tomlins' Law Dictionary, allusion to the contents of the parcel. It title. “Chattels,” that a lease for years may appears that Mr. Oxenham's contained two pass as “ goods.” It is said that 5 G. 4.c. 20. Š 8. only extends to the mentioning in the open letters, both addressed to his agents, letter the document sent, so as to exempt it and therefore virtually to be considered as from postage , but the act does not say that the lone. it being the practice of Messrs. Holme letter should relate to goods solely or alone, and as all penal acts must be construed strictly and Co., his agents, to recommend distinct in favour of the public, if the letter relates to letters to be addreseed to them, according goods at all, it shews that the evasion of post-la
nature 0 age was not contemplated, and it is submitted, ought, therefore, to suffice to exempt it. It business.” seems by the same section to have been the intention to exempt law proceedings from postage when sent in parcels, and it may be said that letters relating to such proceedings are within the meaning of the act; at any rate,
Superior Courts : K. B. Practice Court.-Equity Exehequer..? 833 SUPERIOR COURTS. - | the securities directed by the 1 G. 4. č. 87.
within the limited time. King's Bench Practice Court.
* On an application for a rule nisi, calling on
the tenant in possession to give his securities, INDORSEMENT OF PROCESS.-ATTORNEY. I and enter into the recognizances required by The rule of H.T. 2 W. 4, as to the indorse- the 1 G. 4. c. 87, it was sought to inake it ment on process of the amount of debt and part of the rule, that in case the tenant in poscosts demandeıl, applies to process issued session should fail to give those securities, and under the 2 & 3 W. 4. c. 39, against at- enter into those recognizances within the torneys.
limited time, the plaintiff should be at liberty On shewing cause against a rule nisi for
to sign judgment against the casual ejector.
| If this were not done, and the tenant in possetting aside the service of a summons, on the
session failed in his obedience to the ordinary ground of the amount of debt and costs demanded by the plaintiff not having been in
rule, it would be too late in the present term
to obtain leave to sign judgment against the dorsed, it was contended, first, that the words
casual ejector ; and thus the landlord would of the rule of H. T. 2 W. 4, which rule had
be delayed in bis remedy. been made applicable by the rule of M. T. 3|
Taunton, J.-I have enquired of the officers W. 4. to processes issued under the 2 & 3 W..
of the Court as to the practice on this subject; 4. c. 39, were only directory, and not compul
| and it appears, that such a condition is apsory: and secondly, that as the defendant was
pended to the rule now sought to be obtained. an attorney, he was not within the rule, as it had been held in Levellin v. Norton,a that
That practice may, in the present instance, be "a bill” against an attorney was not "pro
Rule granted. -- Doe v. Roe, T, T. 1833, cess,” within the meaning of that rule.
f K. B. P. C. Taunton, J. was of opinion that the rule of H. T. 2 W. 4. was compulsory; and that although a bill against an attorney was not
PAPER BOOKS.-ERROR.LACHES. “ process,” because it was in the nature of where the defendant in error may sign judga declaration, yet the summons, which was ment, in consequence of the laches of the clearly process, came within the rule, and it
plaintiff in error. was compulsory. If it were not held com
In this case, the plaintiff in error had not pulsory, it would be perfectly useless.
delivered his paper books in due time to the Tomkins v. Chilcote, T. T. June, K. B. P. C.
Judges, to whom, lay the rules of the Court, he was bound to deliver them. The defen
dant in error delivered them, as well as his EJECTMENT.-OUSTER.--WRIT OF POS
own. He now prayed judgment. SESSION.
Taunton, J.-By the rules of the Court, if
the plaintiff in error does not deliver his paper Where a fresh writ of habere facias posses-books within the time restricted by the rules sionem will be allowed.
of the Court, and the defendant in error does, On moving for a fresh writ of possession in he may be entitled to obtain judgment. this case, it was sworn by the person on whose Judgment for the defendant in error.-Best affidavit the motion was founded, that the de- v. Prior, E. T. 1833. K. B. P. C. ponent believed that persons combining with the defendant had, after the taking possession by the sheriff, and before possession of the Court of Equity Erchequer. premises was delivered to the lessor of the SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.---CONDITIONS OF . plaintiff, interfered, and prevented possession
SALE. from being delivered. Possession not having
When the conditions of sale appear to the been delivered, it was contended that the les
Court clear from any doubt, it will compel sor of the plaintiff was entitled to a fresh writ
specific performance, although the party of hab. fac. pos.
referring has conceived the meaning of Taunton, J., in granting the rule nisi, said,
the conditions to be very different from that it must clearly appear, that the parties turning the sheriff out of possession, were conspiring
put on them by the Court. with the defendant.
The bill was filed for specific performance Rule nisi granted. -Doe d. Thompson v.
of a contract of sale. The material points Mirehouse, T. T. 1833. K. B. P. C.
were these :-The manor and estate of Bosington were sold by auction to the defendant, for
the sum of 23,5001. One of the conditions of EJECTMENT.LANDLORD AND TENANT. sale was, that the purchaser should pay down In what cases the Court will make it part of the
to the auctioneer a deposit of 201. per cent. rule, that the pluintif shull be ai liberty to
on the purchase money, and sign an agreesign judgment against the casual ejector, if I went to pay the rema
the casuul eiertos ir ment to pay the remainder on or before the the tenant in possession does not enter into
| 10th of July next after the sale: the vendor to clear all outgoing expenses up to that time;
and the purchaser being, from that time, to be a 1 Dowl. Prac. Rep. 416.
| let into possession of the mansion and such of
Superior Courts : Equity Exchequer.-Notes of the Week.. the premises as were in hand; also to be en NOTES OF THE WEEK. titled to the rents of those that were let. If, from any cause, the purchase money should not be paid up on the day thus stated in the conditions, the purchaser was to pay interest,
Royal Assents. at the rate of 4 per cent., on the balance, in- The following Bills received the Royal cluding the amount of a valuation (under an Assent since our last Report: other condition), from that day till the day of final payment. The sixth condition of sale
Fines and Recoveries. stated that the estate was subject to a mort. gage of 60001.; but that the purchaser would Inheritance. not be obliged to pay the whole of the pur Inclosure Awards Titles. chase money immediately, inasmuch as the
Court of Chancery Regulation. estate would be sold subject to the mortgage
Chancery Offices, under 2 & 3 W. 4, c. money, the interest of which was paid by the vendor up to the then next Lady-day. At the time of the sale, the defendant, in company
Bankrupt Court Judges. with his solicitor, paid 4,7001., agreeably to Lunacy Commissioners. the conditions of sale, and had no objection to Assizes Removal. pay the other four-fifths also; but the ques. Uniformity of Process Act Amendment. tion now raised was, whether the mortgage Payment of Debts from Real Estate. money was exclusive of these sums, or was to
Notaries Public be included in them; that is, in the 23,5001.
Court of Exchequer. Mr. Sranston and Mr. Purvis contended, for the plaintiff, that the amount of the mort
Forgery of Stamps. gage was exclusive of that sum. .
Turnpike Road Returns. Mr. Twiss and Mr. Longley, contrà, for the Parish Apprentices. defendant..
Quakers' Affirmation. The Lord Chief Baron, in his judgment, Separatists' Affirmation. said, he entertained no doubt whatever res
Stage Carriages Act Amendment. pecting the construction of the conditions of
Metropolitan Police Amendment Act. sale. In pursuance of them, 20 per cent. in money was to be paid to the auctioneer, and
Lighting and Watching. the remaining four-fifths was to be paid by the 10th of July. After that it was stated that the estate was sold subject to a mortgage, and that It may be convenient to add collectively the purchaser would not be obliged to pay im- the Bills which previously received the mediately the whole of the purchase money. | Royal Assent : our readers will thus see at It was said that there was a difference in the
one view all the Acts of the present Session meaning of the third, and the sixth condition, because, in the former, the whole of the pura
" relating to the Alteration of the Law : chase money was to be paid by the 10th of Law Amendment. July ; but it was quite obvious, by the sixth Limitation of Actions. condition, that the purchaser was bound to
Privy Council Appeals. pay, the purchase money, together with the
Lunatic Commissions. sum that would be necessary to pay off the mortgage. The instrument was so clear that
Dramatic Literary Property. he could not entertain a doubt upon it. It
Stamp Duties. was not attempted to be shewn that there Sewers. would be any hardship in the present case. It Indemnity. had been suggested, by way of defence, that
Clandestine Outlawries. one party had misapprehended the interpreta Parochial Rates Exemption. tion of the instrument, or rather, put upon it
Metropolitan Police. a different interpretation; but as the Court thought the instrument was clear, and free
Dwelling House Robbery, from any ambiguity or doubt, it was not a ground for refusing a specific performance because one party put on the conditions of
Bills postponed sale a construction not warranted by the circumstances. He felt, therefore, he was bound
The following is a List of the Bills, which, to decree the specific performance of the con
" since our last Report, have been either withtract.
Penleaze v. Elmes, at the Sittings in Gray's drawn by their supporters, or thrown out Inn Hall, August 7th, 1833.
for the present:
Chancery Offices abolishing.
Answers to Queries.-Queries.
cution previous to signing judgment, inasmuch Parochial Registration,
as there was a special provision in the last menLaw of Libel.
tioned act of parliament, for the convenience Prisoners' Counsel.
of plaintiffs who wish to avail themselves of the
power given by the act, of obtaining speedy Justices of the Peace.
execution, by which they are enabled to teste
a writ of execution issued under that act, in The following Bills were previously with vacation. Your correspondent goes on and drawn, or thrown out:
says, “ There must evidently be some error in
this, as it is a thing that daily occurs on rules Local Jurisdictions.
to compute, when judgment is signed in vacaGeneral Register.
tion, and the writ of execution is tested on the • Imprisonment for Debt.
last day of the term.” This is not a proceedSuits at Common Law.
ing within the 1 W. 4. c. 7. Here there is no Curtesy.
certificate from the Judge for speedy execuPatents for Inventions.
tion necessary, therefore the old practice pre
vails of testing the writ of execution on the Letters Patent Expenses.
first or last day of the term, as the case may Tithes Commutation.
be; and there is no incongruity in such a proSheriffs' Expenses.
ceeding, because, as judgments signed in term, Dramatic Performances.
or as of a term, have relation to the first day Game Act Amendment.
of the term, the writ of execution, if tested on Parish Vestries.
the last day of the term, is regularly and con
sistently tested. Highways.
Permit me to suggest to your correspondent Jewish Civil Disabilities.
S. G S., the expediency of his attentively conLancaster
sidering acts of parliament, and their proviSuffolk Assizes Adjournment. sions, and also the decisions of the Judges Glamorgan j
thereupon, before he cavils at them. Burglary.
w.o. The notices of motions for the next Session to alter the Law, will be given in the
EVIDENCE. P. 303. next Number.
By 9 G. 4. c. 32. $ 4, where any offender hath been convicted of any misdemeanor, ex
cept perjury or subornation of perjury, and Of the numerous statutes relating to the heath
| hath endured the punishment to which he Law which have now passed, we shall give hath been adjudged, he shall not, after the an abstract, more or less in detail, according punishment so endured, be deemed to be, by to their importance; and all the leading reason of such misdemeanor, an incompetent Acts will find a place in our “ Commenta- witness in any Court or proceeding, civil or ries,” but the substance of each will appear
S. in the weekly numbers. We hope thus to accommodate all our readers.
PRISONER. DEED. P. 303. A deed executed by a prisoner in gaol on a charge of felony, is valid, and cannot be re
voked (without a power for that purpose ANSWERS TO QUERIES.
therein reserved) on non-conviction.
Common Law. v. Dunbar (p. 237), mentioned by your correspondent S. G. S., is perfectly regular. The PRIVILEGE OF PARLIAMENT.-SHERIFF. learned Judge did not rule “that a ca. sa. A. is returned member of parliament for the tested before judgment signed was, on that county of B. Can he, while in parliament, be account, irregular;" but that the ca. sa. in that called upon to fill the office of high-sheriff for case being so tested, was irregular. Your cor- the county?
G. M. R. respondent seems to forget that the ca. ca. was issued in pursuance of the act of 1 W. 4. c. 7, and that the Judge certified for speedy judg
PARTNERSHIP. ment. By the third section of that act it is A., B., and C., verbally agree to become directed that “every execution issued by vir- partners, on certain terms and conditions, for tue of this act, shall and may bear teste on the three years. Within the first year A. dies. Is day of issuing thereof." The plaintiff was, this a dissolution of the whole partnership? herefore, irregular in testing his writ of exe