White and Another v Irving
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1836 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 697
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 5 Dowl. P. C. 289; 2 Gale, 230; 6 L. J. Ex. 15.
white and another v. ikying. Exch. of Pleas. 1836.-An affidavit to hold to bail, not intitled in any court, but sworn in Scotland before a commissioner, who states himself to be a commissioner by virtue of a commission from the Courts of Common Pleas and Exchequer, is sufficient. ! : [S. C. 5 Dowl. P. C. 289; 2 Gale, 230; 6 L. J. Ex, 15.] In this case Petersdorff applied for the defendant's discharge out of custody, on the ground of a defect in the affidavit to hold to bail. The affidavit was not entitled in any court, and was sworn in Scotland before a commissioner who stated himself to be so, by virtue of a commission to take affidavits from the Courts of Common Pleas and Exchequer. [Parke, B. Is not that sufficient T] It does not appear in what court the affidavit is intended to be used, and it would be doubtful whether an indictment for perjury could be sustained. lord abinger, C. B. It would be quite sufficient to allege that the party made (c) 2 B. A Ad. 411. See ChUterbw.k v. Coombs, 5 B. & Ad. 400; Howard v. Groom, 4 Dowl. P. C. 21. COX V. SALMON 2M. &W. 128. Che affidavit, intending to use it for the purpose of instituting proceeding* against the defendant. Motion refused, (a)
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 698
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 2 Gale, 226; 6 L. J. Ex. 23.
Cox v. salmon. Exch. of Pleas. 1836.-The demand of costs on the Master's allocator by the attorney in the cause, they being costs in the cause, is sufficient whereon to ground an attachment. [S. C. 2 Gale, 226; 6 L. J. Ex. 23.] Shee moved for an attachment for non-payment of costs pursuant to the Master's allocatur : the only question was, whether the coats had been properly demanded. [128] The attorney in the cause had demanded them, but the Master had not directed that they should be paid to him. The officer had some doubt whether this was a sufficient demand. [Parke, B. Are they costs in the cause?] Yes. [Parke, B. Then they are to be paid to the attorney in the cause. It is quite sufficient.] Per Curiam. Rule granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v Wood
...[1896] 1 Ch. 762; on appeal, [1897] A.C. 180; [1895–9] All E.R. Rep. 408, applied. (3) Nepean v. Doe d. KnightENR(1837), 2 M. & W. 894; 150 E.R. 697. (4) Paradise Beach & Transp. Co. Ltd. v. Price-Robinson, [1968] A.C. 1072; [1968] 1 All E.R. 530, applied. Legislation construed: Limitation ......
-
Burdekin, Public Officer, Company, v Potter and Others
...who was not stated to be a commissioner of that Court. The other Barons concurred. Rule refused, (a) (a) See White v. Irving, 2 M. & W. 127 ; Duly v. Multon, 6 Dowl. P. C. 192. English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 6 EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS. Burdekin, Public Officer &c. and Potter and Others S. C.......
-
Creal v Dickson
...OF PLEAS. CREAL and DICKSON Carmichael v. Owens 6 Law Rec. 2d ser. 139. White v. IrvingENR 2 Mees. & Wels. 127. Lessee Fry v. King Smith & Bat. 86. AFFIDAVIT TO HOLD TO BAIL — JURAT — PRACTICE. TRINITY TERM, SECOND VICTORIA. 375 twenty years ; but the act of the court, in granting merely a ......