demnified against loss. If there be a distinction between severing in pleading and pleading jointly, the latter shows the defendant determined to stand on his own ground of defence, thus differing this case from Hughes v. Chitty.
BAYLEY B.-The master states to us that if several defendants in trespass join in pleading, and one has a verdict, the general practice is to allow only 40s. unless costs are separately incurred; and that if several defendants sever in pleading, and one has a verdict, 5l. is the limit of the costs allowed him, excepting separate costs as before. In the King's Bench 57. only is allowed in such a case. But there is great weight in the observations of Mr. Hayes, and we will inquire into the practice. If there has been an invariable course we are bound by it, but if otherwise, we shall enforce whatever appears to be the justice of the case under the statute.
Afterwards, in Michaelmas term,
BAYLEY B. delivered the judgment of the Court.The judges are of opinion that this defendant is entitled to the aliquot portion of costs of the other defendants, as well as to his own separate costs, he satisfying the taxing officers that he has not been indemnified by the other defendants.
(a) See Cox v. Thomason, ante, 411.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER,
Michaelmas Term, 2 Will. 4.
IS ORDERED, That henceforth the costs of proceedings upon writs of error from the Court of Exchequer to this court be taxed and allowed by the master of the Court of Exchequer.
JOHN WILLIAMS, Esq. and C. C. Pepys, Esq. having resigned their offices of Attorney and Solicitor General to Her Majesty, Mr. Serjeant Taddy and Mr. Serjeant Merewether were appointed in their
ABATEMENT, PLEADING IN.
A declaration in assumpsit in a coun-
try cause, was delivered after
post hour on a Saturday night.
A plea in abatement was after-
wards delivered within the time
fixed by the practice, stating that
the promises, if any such were
made, were made by the defendant
jointly with one J. W. The affi-
davit verifying the plea had been
sworn several days before the de-
claration was delivered, in order
to prevent the loss of a plea in
abatement. Interlocutory judg-
ment having been signed as for want
of a plea, the court held it regular,
but, under the circumstances at-
tending the delivery of the decla-
ration, set it aside on payment of
costs and affidavit of merits.
An affidavit to hold to bail, which
states a sum above 201. to be due
from defendant to plaintiff as in-
dorsee of a bill of exchange, need
not state the amount of the bill,
but it must state by whom the bill
was indorsed to the plaintiff.
Lewis v. Gompertz, H. 1832. 317
An affidavit to hold to bail "for
money paid, laid out and expended
to and for the use of the defend-
ant," is bad, for not stating that
the money paid, &c. was so paid,
&c. "at the request" of the de-
fendant. Marshall v. Dawson, H.
315
The residence of a deponent in an
affidavit to hold to bail is properly
stated as "clerk to S. A. and
J. I. I. of Chiswell-street, in the
county of Middlesex, stable-keep-
er," without more particularly
describing the residence. Alexan-
der v. Milton, E. 1832.
495
Affidavit to hold to bail was made
by a clerk to Lewis Joseph John
Noel, and stated a debt due from
defendant to said John Noel.
quo minus stated the plaintiff to be
Lewis Joseph John Nocl. The court
refused to suffer a sum paid into
court in lieu of bail to be paid out
to defendant on filing common bail.
Noel v. Williams, E. 1832. 388
Where a defendant had been ar-
rested on an affidavit to hold to
bail founded upon three promis-
sory notes, which was defective as
to two of them, but was good as
to the third, for a bailable amount,
the defendant was nevertheless
discharged on filing common bail.
Kirk v. Almond, H. 1832.
An affidavit to hold to bail by payee
against the maker of a note, must
state when it was payable, or that
it is due at a day past and yet is
unpaid.
The plaintiff's affidavit of debt was
in the character of an executor,
but the process was general and
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.at/books/content?id=z3MDAAAAQAAJ&hl=de&output=html_text&pg=PA764&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:UOM39015063559812&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U0Ymt4KM_QMip-Hed2tm0ar4YD0Wg&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=529,230,400,494)
ARBITRATION and AWARD.
See EXTENT IN AID.
Indebitatus assumpsit for a debt of
50l. Plea, that differences having
arisen between plaintiff and de-
fendant touching the said claim,
the matter in difference was re-
ferred, and an award was made
by which 137. only was directed
to be paid by plaintiff to defend-
ant, without averring the perform-
ance of the award by payment of
that sum. Plea held bad on de-
murrer, being no answer to the
action for a debt, such debt and
its amount being all that was re-
ferred, and the award being for
payment of money, and not for
performance of any collateral act.
Allen v. Milner, M. 1831. 113
Three actions between the same par-
ties were brought in the Exche-
quer and one in K. B. They were
referred to the same arbitrator, on
the terms that the order of refer-
ence should be made a rule of the
K. B. or Exchequer, and the ori-
ginal order was made a rule of
court in K. B. The arbitrator
awarded distinct sums to the plain-
tiff in each action: Held, that the
|