declaration as to the form in which he should be sworn, so as to bind his conscience, he was not properly sworn. They cited Rex v. Gillon (a), Dr. Cooke's case(b), and Rex. v. Channens(c).
Sir Thomas Staples, for the crown, admitted the facts as above stated, but contended that the juror had been properly sworn. He cited 2 Hale, P. C., 296, and relied upon the statute 1 & 2 Vict. c. 105, passed since the decision of Dr. Cooke's case, and of Rex v. Gillon.
The learned judge pronounced sentence of death upon the prisoner; and he examined the juror, who declared that he had been sworn in the manner which was binding upon his conscience. His Lordship respited execution of the sentence until the opinion of the Judges could be obtained, as to whether the conviction was good.
THE JUDGES (dissentiente Richards, B.) held that the conviction was good.
(a) 1 Cr. & Dix, Abr. N. C. 323.
(b) 1 Cr. & Dix, C. C. 187.
On November 11, 1841, Bushe, C. J., having previously resigned, Edward Pennefather, Esq., took his seat in the Court of Queen's Bench, as Lord Chief Justice. At the same time Joseph Devonsher Jackson, Esq., Q.C., was appointed Solicitor-General, in the room of Edward Pennefather, Esq.
In the vacation after Michaelmas Term, 1841, Johnson, J. resigned his seat on the Bench of the Court of Common Pleas, and Foster, B. took his place. The Right Honorable Thomas Lefroy, Q.C., was appointed a Baron of the Exchequer, in the room of Foster, B.
By articles of agreement, W. L. granted
to M. D. certain premises for three
lives, and the life of the survivor,
or 31 years from the 25th of March,
1826, whichever should last longest,
"to have and to hold unto the said
M. D., his executors, administrators
and assigns, from the said 25th of
March," with a clause for executing
a regular lease with covenants at the
desire of either party. Held, that
these words being insufficient to
pass a legal estate of freehold, the
agreement must, in that respect, be
deemed executory; but that it cre-
ated an estate for a term of 31 years,
commencing from the 25th of March,
1826, with power for either party
to have a lease executed for three
lives, with a concurrent term of 31
years, commencing from the 25th
of March, 1826. Jones dem. Leader
v. Duggan,
3 A special bailiff, nominated by the
plaintiff, and appointed by the she-
riff, to sell goods by auction under
a civil bill decree, is not required
to take out an auctioneer's license,
or to procure the assistance of a
licensed auctioneer: whether the 6
& 7 Wm. 4, c. 75, s. 46, be re-
pealed by the 1 Vic. c. 43, s. 3, or
not. Quære, whether it is so re-
pealed? Regina v. Martin,
Where three commissioners were ap-
pointed under an enclosure act for
the purpose of making awards, with
a power, in case of the death of one,
for the survivors to elect a succes-
sor, and a proviso that the acts of
any two of them should be valid;
held, that this meant
any two of
the three," and that an award signed
by two after the death of the third
(no successor being appointed,) was
invalid, although there was evidence.
that the third had assented to the
terms of it. Jones dem. Burrowes
v. Lynam,
131
1. When a judgment has been obtained
against the public officers of a
banking company, and it is sought
to charge persons who were members
of the company at the time of the
judgment, and still continue so,
upon such judgment, under the 6
G. 4, s. 18, the proper mode of
proceeding is by scire facias against
those persons; and the order for
such writ will be absolute in the
first instance. May v. Hodges, 129.
The Act of 7 G. 4, c. 46, is a pub-
lic Act, and the 9th section of it
relates to actions brought in Ireland
as well as in England: and the
public officer of an English Com-
pany can consequently sue in Ireland
for debts due to the Company, and
need not set out the Act in the de-
claration. Wright v. Murphy,
BOND.
Judgment may be entered, at the suit
of a succeeding treasurer, on a bond
and warrant of attorney given to
"A. B., treasurer of, &c. and his
successors," under the 6 & 7 Wm.
4, c. 116, s. 148.
The warrant of attorney contained a
release of errors, and set out the
bond and condition. Quære, whether
it was a case for the suggestion of
breaches, under the 9 W. 3, c. 10,
s. 8? Westropp v. Mc. Eligott, 211
(And see Green v. Shiel, and Lane v.
Montgomery, in notis, 214, 217.)
The 79th section of the 7 & 8 G. 4,
c. 53, does not prevent a writ of
certiorari from being issued at the
|