« 上一頁繼續 »
says that he did not at the time therein mentioned, or at any Defence to
action for other time, supply the aforesaid persons with medical advice practising for reward as therein alleged, or otherwise.
as a medi
cal man 4. In further answer to the same paragraphs, the defendant without says that he did not at the times therein mentioned, or at any having a
qualifica. other time or times, supply the aforesaid persons with medicines tion. of his own selection for reward as therein alleged, or otherwise.
5. In further answer to the same paragraphs, the defendant says that if he did supply the said persons with medicines of his own selection for reward or otherwise, (which he denies,) he did so in using, exercising, and carrying on the trade or business of a chemist and druggist in such manner as the same trade or business was used, exercised, and carried on by chemists or druggists before the passing of the 55 Geo. 3, c. 194.
6. Before the passing of the 55 Geo. 3, c. 194, it was usual and customary for chemists and druggists, in using, exercising, and carrying on the trade or business of a chemist and druggist, to prepare, compound, and supply medicines of their own selection in their own shops for the cure of simple complaints ; and the defendant says that if he had any dealings with the aforesaid persons (which he denies), he did no more than prepare, compound, and supply to them in his own shop medicines of his own selection for the cure of simple complaints in accordance with the use and custom aforesaid, and not otherwise.
7. The defendant denies that his conduct towards the aforesaid persons, or any of them, is correctly set out in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs of the statement of claim, and says that he has not by his conduct towards the aforesaid persons acted or practised as an apothecary within the meaning of the 20th section of the statute, and the defendant denies that he is liable to a penalty of £20 under the provisions of the said statute.
Action for a Penalty for Bribery. 1. The plaintiff is a —, &c. The defendant is, &c.
2. On the 1st of November, 1877, an election was held in the borough of for choosing a member to serve in Parlia
Action for bribery at an election.
an election. behalf.
Action for ment for the said borough, pursuant to the statutes in that bribery at
3. The defendant at the said election gave money to one G. K., then being a voter at the said election, in order to induce him to vote for one William K., one of the candidates for the representation of the said borough —, at the said election, contrary to the statute 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102.
4. The defendant thereby became liable to forfeit the sum of £100 to the plaintiff, who sues the defendant for the said sum in this action pursuant to the said statute.
The plaintiff claims £100.
Statement of Defence. 1. The defendant denies the allegations in the 3rd paragraph of the statement of claim.
2. The defendant admits that while the said election was pending he gave money to the said G. K., but denies that he gave such money to induce him to vote for the said William K., or any other candidate at the said election.
Principal and Surety.
See Bills of Exchange.
Recovery of Land (a).
1. The plaintiffs are the trustees elected under and in pur- By public suance of an Act of Parliament, 36 Geo. 3, c. 101, intituled trustees to
recover posan Act for dividing, allotting, inclosing, draining, embanking, session of
(a) Before the Judicature Acts and Rules came into force there were Pleadings no pleadings in actions for the recovery of land, houses, &c. Since then, in actions however, the plaintiff (not the claimant as formerly) must, under Order for the reXIX. r. 4, state the grounds on which he seeks to recover the land, &c., covery of either with or without mesne profits, as in other actions. This action, land now however presents an exception to other actions in this respect, that no
necessary. other cause of action can be joined with it, except claims for mesne profits and arrears of rent in respect of the premises claimed, and damages for breach of any contract “ under which the same or any part thereof are held.” (See Order XVII. r. 2.) The word contract, though usually applied to simple contracts, is no doubt used here in its strictly legal sense, and would include covenants.
Formerly it was necessary for a claimant in ejectment to show a legal A person title. This seems to have been changed by the 24th section of the having a . Judicature Act of 1873, which enables equitable owners to sue in any merely common law division. And by sect. 25 it is expressly provided that equitable a mortgagor entitled to the possession of land may sue for the recovery title may thereof in his own name, if the mortgagee have not given notice of his now sue for intention to enter into possession or receipt of the rents and profits the rethereof.
On the other hand, inasmuch as there were formerly no pleadings in land. the action of ejectment, it was impossible for a defendant to avail himself
Equitable of the provisions of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, allowing defences equitable defences at law. This is evidently altered by the Judicature Acts, under which pleadings have been introduced into it, and also by the provision of the Judicature Act, 1873 (sect. 24, sub-sect. 2), that equit.
pleaded. able defences may be pleaded as in a Court of Equity before the passing of the Act.
Formerly, the corresponding action of ejectment could only have been The action brought in the county within which the premises were situate, unless, may now be under the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, the Court or a judge tried ordered it to be tried elsewhere. Now, however, that local venues have wherever been abolished by the Judicature Acts (see Order XXXVI. r. 1), it is the plaintiff clear that the action may be tried wherever the plaintiff proposes to try selects. it, unless the Court orders it to be tried elsewhere; and if no county or place is named, it is to be tried in Middlesex.
The general law, however, applicable to such actions is not altered, and it is therefore necessary to give a summary of it.
One or other of the following persons is the plaintiff in an action for the recovery of land, namely, landlords, heirs-at-law, devisees, mortgagees, executors and administrators, trustees of bankrupts, and parsons.
Landlords.}-In actions for recovery of land brought by landlords Landlord against tenants they are in general not required to prove their own title, not bound but merely the demise and its expiration, and tenants cannot in general to prove his dispute the lessor's title or that of his assignee. (Cuthbertson v. Irring, title as 29 L. J. Ex. 485, Ex. Ch.) The assignee or sub-tenant of the lessce is against a equally estopped. (London f N. W. Rail. Co. v. West, L. R. 12 C. P. tenant. 553.) The doctrine of estoppel applies in the case of encroachments made
By public and improving the open and common fields, ings, meadows, pastrustees to
tures, and other commonable lands and waste grounds within recover possession of the several townships of M., W., B., and P. in the county of L. foreshores. Landlord by a tenant on land adjoining belonging to a stranger, and then held by not bound the tenant as part and parcel of the demised premises. (Lisburn, Earl to prove
of, v. Daries, L. R. 1 C. P. 259. See also Whitmore v. Humphries, L. R. his title as 1 C. P. 1.) But if a defect of lessor's title appears in the lease, the tenant against a is not estopped from showing the defect. (Saunders v. Merryweather. tenant. 35 L. J. Ex. 115.) What is a
Proof of tenancy, anil termination thereof. ]— Tenancy at will arises tenancy at
where a person has been let into possession pending a treaty for a purwill.
chase or lease (Right v. Beard, 13 East, 210), or under a void or imperfect lease or conveyance, or where, having been tenant for a term which
has expired, he continues in possession negotiating for a new one. In How it this case the tenancy is determined by either a formal demand of posarises and session or by any act inconsistent with a tenancy at will, such as granthow ended. ing a lease to another to commence at once, and giving him possession
(1/allis v. Delmar. 29 L. J. Ex. 276), or an entry by the landlord and an
exercise of ownership by him. (Turner v. Bennett, 9 M. & W. 643.) A yearly A tenancy from year to year is shown, in the absence of other evidence. tenancy, by payment and receipt of yearly rent. If a person having a lease void how created by statute, or an agreement for a lease, enter into possession and pays and how rent at so much a year, this makes him a tenant from year to year, or terminated. such terms of the void lease or of the agreement as are not inconsistent
with such a holding. (See notes Doe d. Rigge v. Bell, 2 Sm. L. Cas. 7th
Tenant, 11th ed. 300—323.
Longer tenancies are generally created by lease or agreement. Leases tenancies for over three years must be by deed under the joint effect of the Statute for years
of Frauds and the 8 & 9 Vic. c. 106. For full information as to the creacreated. tion, &c., of tenancies, see Woodfall's Landlord and Tenant, 11th ed. 116.
Tenancies under leases or agreements are terminated by effluxion of time, notice in certain cases, and forfeiture for non-payment of rent or by breach of covenant or otherwise. In cases of forfeiture, the forfeiture must, in the case of an assignee of the reversion suing have accrued after the assignment, as the right of entry does not pass thereby. (Hunt , Bishop, 22 L. J. Ex. 337 ; and see ilunt y. Remnant, 23 L. J. Ex. 135, Ex. Ch.) Such a right, however, passes to the devisee of the reversion under 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 3, and therefore the same doctrine would not hold
in his case. Where If the landlord proceeds under the common law as opposed to the landlord statutory remedy mentioned in the next paragraph, he must prove and the proceeds statement of claim must show that all the ceremonies of the common law at com- have been strictly complied with, as the demand by the landlord or his mon law, agent of the precise rent payable to save a forfeiture on the exact day on strict which it became due, and payable at a proper place of payment, and at a
2. Under and by virtue of the said Act certain foreshores and By public banks of the River Trent, in the said county, and the right to recover pos
trustees to the possession thereof, became and are vested in the plaintiffs as session of
convenient hour before and at sunset. (1 Wms. Saund. 278, et seq. (16); compliance and see Barry v. Glocer, 10 Ir. C. L. R. 113, C. P.) Such formalities with all may, however, be dispensed with by express stipulation. (Phillips v. formalities Bridge, L. R. 9 C. P. 48.)
requisite. Under the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, s. 210, if half a year's rent is in arrear, and the landlord has a right by law to re-enter for
Statutory non-payment, he may, without any formal demand or re-entry, serve
remedy his writ (the manner is prescribed by the section), and if it
landlords the case of judgment by default, by affidavit or on the trial, that six months' rent was due before service, and that no sufficient distress was
to recover then to be found on the premises, and that the lessor had power to enter,
of their then he will be entitled to judgment and execution as if the rent had been formally demanded, and the landlord had re-entered. Proceedings property. under this section may, however, be stopped by the tenant tendering or paying into Court the rent and costs. (See sect. 212.)
It frequently becomes an important question whether a landlord does not by his conduct waive a forfeiture. There have been numerous decisions on this question, for which the reader is referred to Woodfall's Landlord and Tenant, 11th ed., 294. Taking proceedings in ejectment amounts to a final clection by the lessor to avail himself of the forfeiture. Hence the receipt of rent that would have accrued subse- What quent to the forfeiture would not be a waiver (Doe d. Vorecraft v. Veux, amounts to 1 C. & P. 316); nor a distress for such rent (Grimrood v. Moss, L. R. 7 a waiver of C. P. 360); nor the delivery particulars of breaches complaining of a right of non-payment of rent, together with other breaches. (Toleman v. Port- re-entry. bury, L. R. 6 Q. B. 245; aff. Ex. Ch. L. R. 7 Q. B. 341.)
As to relief from forfeiture, see 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, ss. 4, 6; and Common Law Procedure Act, 1860, ss. 1, 2, 4–11.
Suits by heirs-at-law.]-When the plaintiff in an action for the recovery of land is an heir-at-law, he must aver and be prepared to prove his descent through lawful marriage from the purchaser (as defined by Essential 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 106, s. 2), and that all intermediate heirs between him
averments self and the ancestor under whom he claims are dead without issue.
where heirIn such suits questions of births, marriages, deaths, and identity con- at-law is stantly come into controversy. It is not conceived to be within the plaintiff. scope of this work to dwell on these subjects, and in any suit of this kind recourse must by had to the several valuable works in which they will be found discussed.
Suits by devisees.]- A devisee, in order to establish his claim, must prove
1. That the testator was entitled in fee. 2. The regular execution of the will, or in certain cases the grant of Where de. probate under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77, s. 61.
visee is 3. The death of the testator ; and
plaintiff. 4. The determination of the estates (if any) limited prior to the limi
tation in his favour. In the case of copyholds
1. The seisin of the testator, of which his admittance and actual pos- Where desession would be the best evidence.
visee of 2. The surrender by him to the use of his will in the case of testators copyholds
dying before the 12th of July, 1815. But it is unnecessary in is plaintiff.
the case of persons dying after that date (55 Geo. 3, c. 192); 3. The will itself, of which probate under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77, will be