Common Law, Admiralty, &c. DEMURRER. See INSOLVENT ACT. PRACTICE. PLEADING. CONDITION PRECEDENT. 1. Borough Vote-Notice of Claim — Amendment — 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, ss. 38, 40.] Where the description in the notice of claim given to the overseers, under section 38 of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, of the situation of the premises in respect of which a borough vote is claimed, is not strictly accurate, but is, in the opinion of the revising barrister, sufficient to give notice for what premises the claim really is, it is his duty, not to amend the claim, but to proceed as if the claim had been strictly accurate in its description. Eaden v. Cooper, 517. 2. Freehold Interest.] A case stated that the respondent, being minister of a congregation, occupied premises worth more than 40s. per annum, under the trusts of a deed, one of which trusts was "to permit the minister for the time being to reside in the premises rent free," and that the evidence of the respondent's appointment was his own statement that it was for life. The legal estate was in the trustees: Held, that there being no appeal upon questions of evidence, the case disclosed an equitable estate for life in the respondent, entitling him to a vote. Burton v. Brooks, 483. 3. Practice on hearing Appeals.] Where no counsel appears for the respondent, the Common Law, Admiralty, &c. counsel for the appellant will be heard, upon proving service of the notice of appeal. Pownal v. Hood, 489. 4. Vote of Persons employed in collecting Customs Occasional Employment — TideWaiter 22 Geo. 3, c. 41, s. 1.] By the 22 Geo. 3, c. 41, s. 1, "No commissioner, &c., or other officer or person whatsoever concerned or employed in the charging, collecting, levying, or managing the customs, or any branch thereof," is to have a vote. An "extra-glut tide-waiter" is a person whose name is on a list, confirmed by the commissioners of customs, of persons ready to act as occasional tide-waiters in boarding vessels for the purpose of watching the cargoes to be examined by the proper officer of the customs, and liable to be called on to act whenever there may be occasion. He is paid by the job, and makes the declaration required by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 85, s. 10, once for all upon his appointment, which declaration is made by all the officers of the customs: Held, that such a person is "an officer or person employed in the collecting the customs," and is not entitled to a vote. Ib. 5. Borough Vote- Building - Continuous Structure Occupation-2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 27.] The premises in respect of which a vote for a borough was claimed, under 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 27, consisted of a two-stalled stable, built of brick, with another brick building annexed, but of a lower elevation, and to which also a wooden building was annexed, in three compartments, each of which, as well as the two brick buildings, had an opening into the same yard; but there was no internal communication. All three were occupied together under the same landlord, and used by the claimant for a wheelwright's business: : Held, that this was "a building" within the meaning of the statute. Pownall v. Dawson, 492. 6. Mortgagor in Possession — Building Society-Payments in Reduction of Mortgage Debt Annual Value of Estate 8 Hen. 6, c. 7-6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 74.] The claimant, a member of a building society, purchased land of the yearly value of 61. and mortgaged it to the trustees of the society for the amount of the purchase-money, which they had advanced to him. He was also a holder of three shares in the society. By the rules of the society he was bound to pay 1s. 6d. weekly for each share (117. 148. per annum.) And by the mortgage, which was in accordance with the rules of the society, power was reserved to the trustees, on neglect or refusal to observe any of the regulations, &c. to sell the premises, &c., and receive the rents. By the mortgage a sum equal to 51. per cent. as premium for prior advances was to be and was secured; and the sum fixed to be paid for incidental expenses was 6s. per annum, which was also secured. Of the 117. 14s. per annum, 27. 16s. was appropriated to the payment of interest on the money still due upon the mortgage, and for incidental expenses, and the remainder was taken in part discharge of the mortgage debt, and a receipt given from time to time: Held, that the whole 117. 14s. must be deducted from the annual value of the estate, and, therefore, that the claimant had not an estate of the value of forty shillings by the year, within the meaning of the 8 Hen. 6, c. 7, and the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 74, and was not entitled to a vote for a knight of the shire. Beamish v. Overseers of Stoke, 485. Common Law, Admiralty, &c. ERROR. See PLEADING. EVIDENCE. 1. Entry against Interest, Effect of] In support of the right of the Earl of L. to a fishery in the Solway Frith, the defendants put in evidence the following entry in the book of a former receiver of rents of the Earl of L.'s estate : — "Received of T. II. the respective shares due from three proprietors, (T. H. being one) of the raise net set in the Solway Frith in D., in the year 1733.” Dictum, the entry is evidence not only of rent having been paid by T. H., but also by the two other proprietors. Percival v. Nanson, 538. 2. Per Pollock, C. B. If an entry is admissible as being against the interest of the party making it, it carries with it the whole statement. But if the entry is made merely in the course of a man's duty, it does not go beyond those matters which it was his duty to enter. Ib. 3. Of Judge.] Evidence of a judge of a county court is not admissible to contradict the minutes of proceedings in such court, or a copy of them. Dews v. Ryley, 469. Of Leave and License.] Of Fraud.] See LANDLORD AND TENANT. See DECEIT. DEBT. CALLS. INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS. ELECTION. PAUPER. 1. J. T., the grandfather of the plaintiff, under a deed of September, 1790, was tenant for life of a moiety of certain estates called C., with remainder to his wife for life, with remainder to his first and other sons successively in tail male, with remainder to his daughters as tenants in common in tail general, with remainder to the settlor in fec. J. T. had issue several children; J. C. T., his eldest son, and the father of the plaintiff, becoming of age in 1815. In the same year J. T., his wife, and J. C. T. joined in suffering a common recovery, and by indentures of lease and release of the 17th and 18th of March, 1815, J. T., his wife, and J. C. T. being parties to the release, after reciting that J. T., his wife, and J. C. T. were desirous of declaring the uses of the said recovery, and that J. T. was desirous of settling his estate in fee to the uses thereinafter declared, it was witnessed that for effecting such intent and purpose, and for divers other good and valuable considerations, and for a nominal consideration therein expressed, the uses of the said recovery should enure to the use of the said J. C. T. and his heirs during the life of J. T., remainder to J. T.'s wife for life, remainder to J. C. T. for life, remainder to his first and other sons in tail male, remainder to J. T.'s younger son E. T. T. for life, and to his first and other sons in tail male, remainder to J. T.'s daughter M. T. for life and to her first and other sons in tail male, with several other remainders to unborn children, and the ultimate remainder to J. T. in fee. J. T. was a trader subject to the bankrupt laws, and the said recovery and lease and release were made with the intent on his part to defraud his creditors, but J. C. T. was not in any way privy to such intent. In June, 1815, J. T. was duly declared a bankrupt, and, by an indenture of the 11th of July, 1816, a conveyance of all his estate was made to the assignees in bankruptcy. In July, 1819, at the suit of the assignees, the Court of Chancery directed an issue at law to try the validity of the recovery and the deeds of March, 1815, and the jury found that they were fraudulent and void as against the creditors of J. T. A decree to the same effect was subsequently made, and possession ordered to be given to the assignees; and in March, 1821, it was further decreed that the deed should be delivered up to be cancelled, which was done. In 1821, the assignees sold the estate to J. C. T. for 30,000l., and a recovery was thereupon suffered, and, by indentures of lease and release in 1823, the uses of such recovery were declared. Before 1843, J. T. and his wife died, and in April, 1849, J. C. T., for a large sum of money, sold and conveyed the estate in question to the defendant in fee: Held, first, that the recovery and deeds of the 17th and 18th of March, 1815, were clearly fraudulent and void within the 13 Eliz. c. 5, as against J. T.'s creditors, and that no interest in J. T.'s estates ever passed to J. C. T. under them. Tarleton v. Liddell, 360. 2. Secondly, that the 4th section of the 13 Eliz. c. 5, had not the effect of making the recovery in 1815, though fraudulent as against the creditors of J. T., valid as respected the uses declared in the same deeds by J. C. T. of his own previous estates in remainder; although the recovery was still to be treated as unreversed, and subsisting as a recovery. Ib. 3. Thirdly, that the deeds of the 17th and 18th of March, 1815, could not be considered as still subsisting and valid as to the uses declared to J. C. T. for life, with remainder to his son, the plaintiff, in tail male; but that all the uses thereby declared were void, and thereupon the recovery by construction of law enured to the use of J. T. for life and to J. C. T. in fee. Ib. 4. Fourthly, that, supposing the deeds were not altogether void, and that J. C. T. became tenant for life under the uses declared by them, with remainder to the plaintiff in tail Common Law, Admiralty, &c. male, still, as no consideration for his suffering the recovery ever existed, such uses must be considered voluntary. Ib. 5. Fifthly, that the sale and conveyance in 1849 to the defendant for valuable consider. ation was to be considered as making void the uses in the voluntary deed of the 18th of March, 1815, under the 27 Eliz. c. 4, and the recovery as thereupon enuring to give J. C. T. a remainder in fee, after the death of J. T. and his wife, which passed to the defendant; and, therefore, either on the ground of the deed of the 18th of March, 1815, being wholly vitiated by the fraud of J. T., or its being voluntary as to the uses declared by J. C. T., the plaintiff had not any interest in the moiety of the estates in question. Ib. Discharge out of Custody-Revesting of Property in Insolvent.] Declaration against the defendant as maker of a promissory note, payable to F. J., and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. Plea, that after the making of the note, and before the indorsement |