JUDGMENT (NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO).

See JUDGMENT (ARREST OF), 1.

1. It is not a ground for arresting a judgment non obstante veredicto, that a plea, on which a verdict has been found in favour of the defendant, alleges money to have been paid into Court pursuant to 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 21, before declaration. Edwards v. Price, 487

2. To debt for goods sold, the defendant pleaded the Westminster Court of Requests Act. After plea, and before trial, that act was repealed by another, which contained no provision respecting actions then pending. A verdict having been found for the defendant:-Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment non obstante veredicto. Warne v. Beresford, 157

3. In debt against the acceptor of a bill of exchange, defendant pleaded payment into Court of a certain sum, and that he was not indebted beyond that amount, pursuant to the form given by 17 Reg. Gen. H. T. 4 Will. 4, (Pleading Rules); the plaintiff took issue on the allegation that no more was due; the defendant had a verdict: -Held, that, although the plea might have been bad on special demurrer, as contrary to the rules of H. T. 4 Will. 4, with respect to such actions, yet that the plaintiff, having taken issue on the amount really due, he could not avail himself of the objection non obstante veredicto. Finleyson v. M'Kenzie,

71

JUDGMENT (NUNC PRO TUNC).

1. Judgment cannot be entered nunc pro tunc pursuant to 3 Reg. Gen. H. T. 4 Will. 4, (Pleading Rules), except where the delay arises from the act of the Court. Vaughan v. Wilson,

210

2. The plaintiff obtained an order, by consent, to enter up judgment on

4. A Judge's order having been obtained on the 3rd May, to amend a declaration, the defendant is too late in coming to the Court on the 10th June, in Trinity Term, to set aside the order. Baden v. Flight, 177

5. Where a defendant was taken in execution on a test. ca. sa. in July, 1833, it is too late for him to object that there was no indorsement on the

writ of his residence, pursuant to H. T. 2 & 3 Geo. 4, K. B., on the first day of H. T. 1838, although he swears that he was not aware of the defect until a short time before the application, as he was bound to be aware of the defect as soon as he was aware of the proceeding in which the defect Esdaile v. Davis, 465

arose.

LOCAL ACTION. See VENUE.

LOCAL COURT.

The plaintiff, an apothecary, attended defendant's danghter, who did not reside with him, and his bill for such attendance amounted to 187. 19s. 6d. The plaintiff also attended defendant's servant, and had delivered for such attendance a distinct bill, amounting to 17. Os. 6d. The plaintiff sued out a writ, indorsed 187. 19s. 6d.; but, when he declared, inserted in his particulars his other claim of 11. Os. 6d. The defendant paid this latter amount into court, which the plaintiff took out in satisfaction. The defendant resided within the limits of a local court for the recovery of debts to the amount of 40s. :— Held, that, as the plaintiff had misled the defendant by the indorsement, he was not entitled to costs. Thompson v. Gill,

LORDS' ACT.

See PRISONER, 1.

155

In order to bring up a defendant under the compulsory clauses of the Lords' Act, the twenty days' notice must have expired before the first day of the term in which it is sought to bring him up. Ralph v. Jacobs, 279

LUNATIC.

See ATTORNEY (CLERK OF)- DISTRINGAS, 2—EJECTMENT, 16.

MAGISTRATE.

See TRESPASS, 1.

MAKER.

See AFFIDAVIT (OF DEBT), 9-Reg. GEN. p. 647.

MANDAMUS.

1. Where a rule for a mandamus

1. The defendant obtained, and served an order for particulars, which operated as a stay of proceedings. He afterwards demanded a declaration, and, at the foot of the same paper, gave notice of his abandonment of the order :-Held, that judg ment of non pros., for want of a declaration, was irregular. Wickens v. Cox, 693

2. A plaintiff, who obtains an order for amending his writ, is not obliged to draw it up; and if he gives notice of abandoning the order and the writ, and the defendant afterwards appears, a judgment of non pros., for not declaring, is irregular. Solly v. Richard

3. To a declaration in debt, alleging 621. to be due, for horse-meat, &c., the defendant pleaded, 1st, as to all the monies in the declaration mentioned, except as to 10l. 13s. nunquam indebitatus; 2ndly, as to 101. 13s., payment; 3rdly, as to 10l. 13s., payment of that sum into court.

The plaintiff did not reply to the first two pleas, but replied to the third, accepting the money paid into court in full satisfaction and discharge of the whole debt. The defendant signed judgment of non pros. for want of a replication to the first two pleas: -Held, on motion to set it aside, that the judgment was regular. Emmett v. Standen,

NUISANCE. See PLEA, 12.

591

2. Assumpsit for money had and received to the use of the plaintiffs commenced in 1827, and a declaration and particulars of demand delivered, but no further step taken until 1836, when a term's notice was given, and a plea demanded and delivered, the Court subsequently allowed the particulars to be amended, it appearing that the defendant had been in a confidential situation in the employment of the plaintiffs, and that their first particulars were framed on an account delivered by him, which was subsequently found to be incorrect. Staples v. Holdsworth,

715

3. In the particulars of objection delivered under the New Patent Act, the substantial objections must be stated in distinct and intelligible language, and the particulars must not