« НазадПродовжити »
Liverpool Company v. Atkinson 509
241 Macfadzen v, Olivant
Mason, Lickbarrow o.
507 Mortlike, Inhabitants of, Rex d. 397
Doe d. Gill o. Pearson
d. Strickland v. Spence
- v. Trussell
Dorrien, Beutinek o.
Fisher, Perry s.
George, Dne d.o. Jesson
Hadheld, Rushforth o.
Jall v. Motincaus
Hanson o. Meyer
Harpley, Liverpool Co. v.
Harmari, Cocks v.
Harrison r. Parker
Harvey u. Cooke
Harvey, Woollon v.
Hentree o. Bronnley
Hillon v. Shepherd
Hodgson v. Gluver
hopes v. dider
Hopkins o. Lloyd
Hughes v. Hughes
200 Rushforth v. Hadfield
Saint John Maddermarket, in Nor: Parker, Durbishire .
wich, &c, Rex on
189 S., Harrison o. 154 Salvin v.: James
571 Parr o. Anderson 202 Samuel o. Judin
333 Pearson, Doc d. Gill o. 173 Sayer, Cooke v.
388 Perry o. Fisher 549 Scurfield v. Gowland
941 Phillips, Prescotty 213 Scutt, Altree v.
470 Phillips, Rexo. 464 Shaw, Bealey p.
208 Powell, Rex v.
136 Shepherd, Hilton v: Prescott v. Phillips 913 Siffken u. Wray
371 Price, Rex o. 323 Skone, Rex v,
514 -0. Woodburne 433 Smith, Doe o,
530 Prigmore o. Bradley 914 Smith, Martin o.
555 Purser, English o. 395 Sodergren v. Flight
012 Southerton, Rex v.
120 Spence, Strickland, Doe d. 0.
123 Stable Dixon
166 Regula Generalis
Stanway, Lord Northwick v. - 50 Les v. Badcock
560 Rex o. Bedford Level Corporation Swinton, Willoughby v.
336 Sydebotham, Lawrence v. 49 v. Bembridge and Powell 136 v. Broughton
87 o. Coggan
431 0. Johnson, Justice 583 Tewkesbury, Bailiffs of, o. Diston v, Leeds, Duke of 432
438 Moors 419 Thornton, Newson n.
17 0. Mortlake, Inhabitants of 397 Throgmorton d. Woadby v. Whelpdale v. Munton 590
123 0. Neild 417 Topham, Capp o.
392 o. Phillips 464 Toulmin, Walsh v.
541 323 Tower v. Cameron
413 0. Reynell 315 Trussell, Doe v.
505 v. Ryder 587 Tummer v. Oddie
202 0. Russell
427 o. Saint John Maddermarket, in Norwich, Churchwardens, &c.
Vaughan, Le Mesurier ..
523 v. Southerton'
126 v. Woodward
133 Reynell, Rex v.
315 Roach Wadham
289 Roe d. Earl of Berkeley v. Archbishop Wadham, Roach o.
289 of York 88 Wadsworth, Crosby v.
802 Roe v. Clayton 628 Walker, Jolly v.
206 Russell, Rex v. 427 Walsh v. Toulmin
PAGE Waterhouse, Close v. 523 Woodburne, Price to
433 Waters, Lewis d. Ormond v. 336 Woodward, Rex v.
133 Waits, Cowell v. 405 Wootton o. Harvey
75 Welsh 8. Ireland 613 Wray, Siff'ken v.
371 Whelpdals, Throgmortond. Woadby v.
123 Whitehead v. Vaughan
523 Wild v. Griffin
114 York, Archbishop of, Roc d, Earl of Wilkins, Fletcher e. 283 Berkeley v.
86 Willoughby v. Swinton
In the Forty-fifth Year of the Reign of George III.
Is the course of this Term, Sir BEAUMONT HOTHA,
knt. one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer,
resigned his office; and was succeeded by Sir Tuomas Manners Sutton, Knt. his Majesty's
Solicitor General, who was thereupon called Serjeant; and gave rings with this motto, Hic anes dici
pater atque Princeps. Vicary Gibes, Esq. one of the King's Counsel, and
who was also Chief Justice of Chester, and Attorney General to his Royal Higlmess the Prince of Wales, resigned his two last - mentioned Oflices, and was appointed Solicitor General to his Majesty, and was
knighted. ROBERT Dallas, Esq. one of the King's Counsel,
was appointed Chief Justice of Chesícr. WILLIAM ADA, Esq. who was before Solicitor Ge
neral to the Prince of Wales, succeeded Mr. Gibbs,
as his Royal Highness's Attorney General; and JOSEPH JEKYLL, Esq. was appointed Solicitor Gene
ral to the Prince; and afterwards, one of his Majesty's Counsel, learned in the Law'.
1. B. prisoo
ji the discre
Court ou apo
out upon such
llilary Term, 45 Geo. III. The granting of da v-rules to WHEREAS, by a Rule made in Easter Term, in the 30th prisoners io the
Geo. 3, it was, amongst otber things, Ordered, “That during term, is no prisoner in the King's Bench Prison, or within the rules tion of the
thereof, should have, or be entitled to have, day-rules above
three days in each term." plicalion, the
And by another rule, Michaelsam is helore mas, 37 Geo. 3, it was further Ordered, " That, notwithE. 30 lievers standing the said thereby in part recited rule, if any person but prisoners
in the King's Bench Prison should thereafter state, by affiday-rules must return al or he- davit, any special cause, to the satistaction of this court, fore 9 o'clock
for having an additional day-rule or day rules beyond those in the evening.
allowed by the aforesaid rule, such additional rule or rules should be granted accordingly for any day or days ensuing such application.” It is hereby Ordered, That so much of the said first-mentioned rule as is above recited, and that the whole of the said last-mentioned rule, be repealed and discharged; but that nothing herein contained sball extend to repeal or discharge so inuch of the said first-mentioned rule as requires That every prisoner, having a day-rule, shall return within the walls or rules of the said prison at or before nine o'clock in the evening of the day for which such rule shall be granted.
By tlie Court. 
Thursday, Jan. 24.
DAN BISIHIRE and Another against PARKER, of the dishoce The plaintiffs declared upon a
JE plaintifis declared upon a special agreement by the neur of a bill of
defendant, to guarantee the payment of certain goods, the accepter in which, on the faith of such guarance, they sold and delia London, was sent by the post to the holder in Manchester, where the letier was delivered out hetween 8 and yo'clock in the morning, and the post went out for Liverpool, where the drawer lived, be. iween 12 at noon and 1 ; and the holder did not send notice to the drawer by the post, either of the same day or the next; but sent it in leiler by a privale persill on the latier day, who did not deliver it to the drawer vill two hours after the post delivery, and only about one hour before the post left Liverpool for London, wherchy the drewer was so agi aled, ihat he could not write in time for that day's post to London, -held, that at all events the holder Hid made the bill his owo by bis laches; for whether reasonable netice be a question of law or of fact, or whether the general rule of law require norite of the dishonour of a bill to be sent to a party living at another place by the next post afier it is received (by which must be un. dersionu the best practicable post, in point of time and distance); and whether four hours betxeen the coming in and going out of the post be a sufficient interval, io point of practical convenience, to receive the notice and to prepare a letter of advice to the drawer. At all events, the holder ought to have written by the post of ihe next day after notice received by lim; and cught not to have delayed the receipt of notice by the drawer unul after the arrival of the next post, by scading the letter by a private band.