they were exempt. Then looking at the body of the Act, we shall see that the Legislature thought its object was to exempt from tolls;- it is an affirming, not a repealing enactment. The Legislature, in 5 & 6 W. 4. c. 18., were not thinking of 3 G. 4. c. 126. s. 18. at all; but if they were, there are no words to shew that the exemption in the former Act was intended to be taken away. MELLOR J. I am of the same opinion. I was rather struck at first with the suggestion of my brother Hayes arising out of the recital to stat. 5 & 6 W. 4. c. 18., and also from the expression in stat. 3 G. 4. c. 126. s. 28., that the implements there spoken of must be understood as implements used for loading or unloading manure. But, on looking carefully at that section, I am satisfied that my brothers are right in the construction they have put upon it, and that any other would be a strained one. Then there is no real ground for contending that the second Act by implication repeals the first. When we look at sect. 3 of the latter in connexion with the title of the statute we shall see that it was passed in consequence of disputes having arisen on the meaning of other statutes as well as the 3 G. 4. c. 126.; and that the object of the Legislature was to increase the exemptions from toll rather than to narrow them. Judgment for the appellant. 1863. RICHENS V. WIGGINS. END OF EASTER TERM. VOL. III. 3 R B. & S. INDEX. ABANDONMENT. See Insurance, Marine, V. ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE. See Nuisance, III. VI. ACCEPTOR. See Bill of Exchange, III. IV. V. ACCIDENTAL DESTRUCTION. ACCOMMODATION WORKS. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. See Pleading, II. ACTION. Where an action is brought upon a For nuisance. See Nuisance, I. II. V. Against shareholders. See Company, Second. On the trial of an action for libel On administration bond. See Probate reply, elected to be nonsuited. The Act. plaintiff then brought an action in this Against justice. See Rate, Church. On was the same as in the first action. 964 ADJUDICATION, ORAL. 22d he took out a summons to stay proceedings in the action until the plaintiff had paid the costs of the first action and given security for the costs of the second. On the 24th the Judge indorsed the summons "No order, without prejudice to any application to the Court." On the 30th a rule in similar terms was obtained and served upon the plaintiff's attorney. In the meantime the defendant had pleaded, his plea being the same justification, and, issue being joined, the plaintiff, on the 28th, gave notice of trial, and delivered briefs to counsel before the service of the rule. When the plaintiff commenced the first action he was bankrupt, and his discharge had been suspended for one year from the 13th May, 1862, with protection for one month. The Court, in the exercise of its discretion, made the rule absolute for staying proceedings; but discharged so much of it as related to security for costs. Prowse v. Loxdale, 896. ADJUDICATION, ORAL. See Bastardy Order, I. ADMINISTRATION BOND. See Probate Act. ADMISSIBILITY. See Evidence. ADMISSION. See Copyhold. AGE OF NURTURE. See Pauper, Removal of, I. AGENT, LONDON. See Justice of the Peace, II. AGREEMENT. See Contract. AIDING AND ABETTING. AIDING AND ABETTING. See Master and Servant, II. AIDING OR ASSISTING. See Cruelty to Animals, I. AMENDMENT. See Court, County, II. Parish. ANIMALS. See Cruelty to. APPEAL TO QUARTER SES SIONS. See Bastardy Order, I. III. APPORTIONMENT. See Public Health Act, II. III. IV. APPRENTICESHIP. See Evidence, Secondary, II. Pauper, Settlement of, by estate. ARBITRATION. See Company, Railway, II. ARREST. See Garnishee. ARTICLES, DEFAMATION OF. See Defamation of Articles. ARTIFICER. See Master and Servant, I. ASSAULT. See Justice of the Peace, Jurisdiction of, II. ASSIGNEES OF BANKRUPT. ASSIGNEES OF BANKRUPT. See Bankruptcy, II. VI. VII. ASSIGNMENT TO CREDITOR. See Probate Act. ASSURANCE. See Insurance. ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF. See Municipal Corporations. AVERAGE. See Insurance, Marine, VIII. AVERMENT, DESCRIPTIVE. See Warranty, IV. V. BAIL. See Garnishee. BANKRUPTCY. I. Where an act of bankruptcy, under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 134. s. 72., takes place after an execution issued against the party and a seizure of his goods, but before a sale takes place under it, the execution is not put an end to by 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106. s. 133. Edwards and another v. Scarsbrook, 280. II. After issue had been joined and notice of trial given in an action on a bill of exchange, the defendant obtained a Judge's order for a commission to examine witnesses abroad, on payment into Court of a portion of the plaintiff's claim. The money was paid in accordingly, but the commission was not acted on. The defendant having subsequently become bankrupt, and his assignees appointed, the plaintiff obtained leave to proceed with the action, which was tried, and, the defendant not appearing, a verdict was given for the plaintiff: held, that the plaintiff was entitled to the money which had been paid into Court, and that he was not deprived of this right by The Bankrupt Act, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106. s. 184. Murray and another v. Arnold, 287. III. Semble, that the plaintiff was not in the position of a creditor "having security for his debt" within that section dubitante Blackburn J. Id. IV. After the passing of the statute 24 & 25 Vict. c. 134., to amend the law of bankruptcy and insolvency, a person resident within the jurisdiction of the B. District Court of Bankruptcy, being in gaol at C. out of that district, petitioned in formâ pauperis under sect. 98 for adjudication of bankruptcy against himself, his debts exceeding 300l. The Judge of the County Court at C. (called for distinction the Gaol County Court) adjudicated him bankrupt, and made an order under sect. 94 to transfer the proceedings to the County Court of S., the district in which he had resided for six calendar months before filing his petition (called for distinction the Home County Court.) The Judge of that Court having refused to adjudicate, as the debts of the bankrupt exceeded 300l.: held that he was right, as that Court had no jurisdiction. Ex parte Coombs, a Bankrupt, 296. V. Quære, whether the petition ought to have been presented to the District Court of Bankruptcy at B.: and, if not, what proceedings ought to have been taken after the adjudication in bankruptcy by the Gaol County Court? Id. VI. The Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106., enacts, in its 129th section, that "no distress for rent made and levied after an act of bankruptcy upon the goods or effects of any bankrupt, whether before or after the issuing of the fiat or the filing of the petition for adjudication of bankruptcy, shall be available for more than one year's rent accrued prior to the date of the fiat or the day of the filing of such petition:" Held that, in order to bring a case within this enactment, the act of bankruptcy must be one to which the title of the assignees could relate. Paull und another, Assignees, &c., v. Best, 537. |