12 In convictions it is ill for the witness to swear the defendant is guilty generally. The King v. Baker. 1 Str. 316. 13 Perjury being alleged in the indictment to have been committed in the time of the late king, and charged to be against the peace of the new king, is fatal, and renders the indictment insufficient, and a conviction therefore reversed in the House of Lords, and defendant discharged therefrom. Kex v. Lookup. 3 Burr. 1901.

14 Convietion on the stat. 5 G. 3, c. 14, for preservation of fish quashed, because it should appear thereon, that the fishing was without the consent of the owner. Rex v. Corden. 4 Burr. 2279.

45 Conviction affirmed after death of the party. The King v. Roberts. 2 Str. 937. 16 In convictions for non-payment of money the sum must be mentioned, or conviction will be quashed. The King v. Catherall. 2 Str. 900. 17 Apperance cures defects in summons, but it must appear in the conviction, that the justices are of the county where the offence was committed. The King v. Johnson. 1 Str. 261.

18 Conviction of journeymen woolcombers for conspiring to raise their wages quashed, because the evidence was not alleged to have been in the presence of the defendants, and because no judgment was stated in the said conviction. 2 Burrows,

1163.

19 The penalty on the gaming act

must be sued for after a conviction. The King v. Luckup. 2 Str. 1048. 20 Seller of deers skins may be convieted. The Queen v. Jennings. 1 Salk. 383.

21 On a conviction, witnesses swore that in a field, about a quarter of a mile from defendant's house, which they believed to be in his oceupation, they saw two of his servauts loading tea into a cart, which one of them swore was defendant's.

Another swore, that defendant said "it was unfortunate for him, that his servants had taken his cart and his horses without his knowledge." Defendant declared "he knew nothing of his servants having the tea,” but did not produce any evidence in proof thereof; nor that the duties chargeable on the tea had been paid or secured. And now, on shewing cause why conviction should not be quashed, so much of it as related to the penalty of treble the value of the tea was quashed; but the rest, as to condemnation of tea, cart and horses, adjudged good. Rex v. Hale. Cowp. 728.

22 The court, on deciding on the legality of a conviction, cannot take cognizance of any fact contained in the certiorari by which the conviction is removed. R. v. J. Liston. 5 Term Rep. 338.

23

And therefore they refused to quash a conviction on stat. 12 G. 2, c. 28, directing the penalty to be distributed according to that act, though it appeared in the certiorari that the conviction was made at one of the seven public offices established by stat. 32 G. 3, e. 53, which directs that all penalties levied by the justices under that act shall be paid to the receivers appointed by that act. 5 Term Rep.

338.

24 Qu. Even if that fact had appeared on the conviction, whether it would have been a legal objection to it? 5 Term Rep. 341. 25 The legislature did not intend by stat. 32 G. 3, e. 53, to alter the form of convictions; and until the conviction, the receiver cannot maintain an action for money had and received to recover the sum: per Buller, J. 5 Term Rep. 341. 26 An appeal against a conviction on stat. 24 G. 3, st. 2, c. 31, for not entering horses, &c., must be to the quarter sessions next after the conviction, and not after the execution. Prosser v. H 411.

1 Term Rep.

27 Errors in convictions before a ma- 2 gistrate. 4 Dallas. 266.

VIII. Surplusage in.

1 Surplusage will not vitiate a conviction. 4 Term Rep. 767.

4

2 If a conviction under stat. 31 G.
3, c. 21, s. 4, which enacts that all
convictions against that act may be 3
made out in the form or to the ef-
fect following," (giving the form)
contain all the substantial parts of
that prescribed, it is good, though
it also contain something more. R.
v. J. Jefferies. 4 Term Rep. 767.
3 Where an informer need not nega-
tive any of the exceptions in a stat-
ute, but negative some of them on-
ly, that part of the information will
be rejected as surplusage. 1 Term
Rep. 320.

4 If the convicting magistrate give a
proper date to the time of the con-
viction upon the face of it, and af-
terwards add an impossible date to
the time when he set his hand and
seal to the conviction (being before
the offence committed,) the latter
may be rejected as surplusage. R.
v. Picton. 2 East, 195.
5 An information founded on a penal
statute must negative the exceptions
in the enacting clause creating the
penalty, and also those contained
in a preceding section to which
the enacting clause refers in ex-
press terms. R. v. J. Pratten.
Term Rep. 559.

6

5

6

7

Justices of the peace cannot fine a man for killing rabbits in a private warren. Rex v. Faites. 1 L. Raymond, 151.

Oath made de veritate præmissorum, sufficient in convictions. Execution may go ou affirmance of convictions by levari, fieri facias, or capias ad satisfaciendum. The King & Queen v. Franklin. 1 Salk. 369. On conviction affirmed in B. R. execution shall be by levari facias to the sheriff- -Where the law gives a distress for a public benefit, the officer may sell. King v. Speed. 1 Salk. 379. 1 L. Raymond, 583.

summary convictions it is sufficient to describe this offence in the words of the statute. Ib. 1 L. Raym

583.

Witness indicted for perjury, no reason for postponing judgment against the person convicted. The King v. Haydon. 3 Burr. 1387. ↑ Black. 404.

selling gin.

2 Str. 1120.

The King v. Crofts.

Where there is a conviction the court will not discharge on the warrant of commitment, without having the conviction before them. And they cannot set fine on a conviction by justices of peace, if omitted. The King v. Edwardum Elwell. 2 Str. 794.

1

demanding it on the terms preseribed by law. Marbury v. Madison. 1 Cranch, 160.

COPYHOLD.

I. Custom essential to. II. Fines on admission. III. Forfeiture of. IV. Surrender, Effect of. V. Timber.

VI. What shall pass, &c.

I Custom essential to.

A custom for a feme covert to surrender her copyhold lands without the assent of her husband, is bad. Stevens on Demise of Wise v. Tyrrel. 2 Wils. 1.

2 The tenant in copyholds is in by admittance only, according to the quality of his estate in his true right; and the lord, through his steward, is merely an instrument of custom, to convey that right. Anox. Lofft, 390.

Custom in King's Swinsford, that estates are intailable, and can be barred by recovery only, but found that surrender was also good, the Court agreed, the custom might be both ways, but that surrender was the most natural. Anon. Ibid.

3

Custom in a manor to grant lands by copy to two or three persons for their lives, habend' successive, &c. Grant to A. habend' to him, during the lives of A. B. and C. is warranted by the custom. Smartle v. Penhallow. 1 Salk. 183. 2 L. Raym. 994. 3 Salk 181.

4 Custom to bar the intail of copyhold by surrender, may subsist concurrently with a custom to bar by recovery, though the instances are much less frequent. Doe v. Truby. 2 Black. 944.

of it. Salisbury ex dem. Hurd. Cowp. 481.

Cooke v.

6 Whatever may pass by deed without surrender, though it be necessary to enrol the deed is no copyhold; likewise whatever may pass by surrender, secundem consuetudinem manerii, without saying, ad voluntatem domini, is no copyhold. Page v. Smith. 3 Salk. 100.

Copyhold estates are liable to special occupancy. Doe, on the Demise of Lempriere, v. Martin. 2 Black. 1148.

8 Custom to bar entails of copyhold by recovery or surrender, good. Everell v. Smalley. 1 Wils. 26. 2 Str.

1197.

Copyhold must be pleaded to be such time out of mind, and cannot be created in time of memory. Roe, on Demise of Newman, v. Newman. 2 Wils. 125.

10 Custom is the very essence of a copyhold; and if the custom be silent, the common law must regulate the course of descent. Denn d. Goodwin and others v. Spray. 1 T Rep. 474.

11 A copyhold cannot be created by operation of law, but must have been demised and demisable by copy time out of mind. Revell v. Joddrell. 2 Term Rep. 415 and 705.

12

If there be a custom within a manor for a lord to grant parcels of the waste by copy of court roll, the premises granted in that mode are well described as copyhold premises, though the date of the grant be modern. Lord Northwick v. Stanway. 3 Bos. & Pull. 316.

13 A lord of the manor cannot seize a

copyhold estate as forfeited pro defectu tenentis, without a custom. Roe d. Turrant v. Hellier. 3 Term Rep. 162.

14 Therefore, where, on the death of a copyholder of inheritance, the lord, after three proclamations for the heir to come in, seized the estate into his hands, and afterwards granted it in fee to another, the court considered it as an absolute

seizure, and consequently irregular, there being no custom to warrant it; and being irregular as an absolute seizure, it could not afterwards be set up by the lord as a seizure quousque. 3 Term Rep. 162.

15 Under a grant by copy of courtroll of a reversionary estate to A. (who had before a life estate in the premises) habendem to him for the lives of B. and C., his grandsons, during the life of either of them longest living, successively, according to the custom, &c. reserving a heriot and 6s. rent; A. alone takes the legal estate in reversion, and not the cestuy que vies; there being no custom to enable them to take; although they were stated to be admitted tenants in reversion.

And though in consideration of the fine paid by the grandfather, the lord suffered the first in succession of the cestuy que vies to enter as tenant upon the death of his grandfather, and received the 6s. rent from him till his death; yet he not dying seized of the legal estate, his wid ow could not claim her free bench according to the custom.

Nor did such receipt of rent from the cestuy que vie constitute a tenancy from year to year, so as to entitle his widow to notice to quit, the rent not being received as between landlord and tenant, but attributable to another consideration. Right d. The Dean and Chapter of Wells v. Bawden. 3 East, 260.

16 Devisees of a copyhold holding as tenants in common have several estates to which they must be severally admitted; and for which several services are due to the lord; and several heriots on the death of each tenant and the multiplication of heriots and fees on admission still continues, notwithstanding the reunion of the same land afterwards in one person; the estates or interests in the land once divided in severalty continuing several. Attree v. Scutt. 6 East, 476.

17 There can be no general occupan

of a copyhold, because the freehold is always in the lord; and the statutes 29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 12, and 14 G. 2, c. 20, s. 9, appropriating estates pur autre vie where there is no special occupant, do not extend to copyholds, and one who was admitted tenant upon a claim as administrator de bonis non to the the grantee of a copyhold pur autre vie, having no title in such character, cannot recover in ejectment by virtue of such admission as upon a new and substantive grant of the lord. Zouch dem. Forse v. Forse. 7 East, 186.

48 One may hold the prima tonsura of land as copyhold, and another may have the soil and every other beneficial enjoyment of it as freehold. And ancient admissions of the copyholder, and those under whom he claims the land by the description of tres aeras prati" may be construed only to carry the prima tonsura, if in fact they have enjoyed no more under such admissions, while another has had the after-crop, and has cut the trees and fences, scoured the ditches, repaired the fences, and kept the drains; though the copyholder may have paid all rates and taxes, which was in his own wrong. Stammers v. Dixon. 7 East, 200.

19 Where the tenants of a manor, formerly belonging to a monastery, holding by border service, and the defence of Tynemouth Castle, under copy of court roll, and whose estates passed by surrender and admittance, shewed in evidence by surrenders as far back as they existed in writing; by admissions from the 17th Eliz. to the 14th Car. 1; by exchequer decrees between the lords and tenants in the times of Eliz. and Jac. 1; and by an inquisition of the jury at the court-baron of the lord in the 2d of Jac. 2; that they were copyholders of inheritance, with fines certain, holding according to the custom of husbandry of the manor, (or according to the custom of

the manor generally) without stating them to hold at the will of the lord: admitting this evidence to outweigh proof of minister's accounts in the 30th and 31st Hen. 8; a grant of the manor from the crown in the 9th Car. 1, including these estates under the name of tenements of husbandry; subsequent mesne conveyances reserving the coal-mines, &c. in certain districts; and admissions from 1663 to 1777. (including admissions of the several tenants to the estate immediately in question,) in all which they were stated to hold at the will of the lord, as well as according to the custom of husbandry of the manor, &c. yet as there was evidence for more than a century past that the lord had leased the coal and limestone under the copyhold lands in different parts of the manor, and had received rent for the same; and that the lessees of the lord, and not the tenants, had taken the coal and limestone; held that such acts of ownership explained the nature of the tenure according to the custom of husbandry of the manor, &c. and shewed, in aid of the other evidence, that the freehold was in the lord and not in the tenants. And at any rate the evidence preponderating so much in favour of the lord, the court would not disturb a verdict given for him. Brown v. Rawlins. East, 409.

7

20 Where three lives in a copy are to take successive, and a father, the sole purchaser, puts in the lives of himself and two sons, in general the sons shall take beneficially, unless it appear by any concurrent act of the father that he did not so intend it; as by taking at the same court a licence from the lord to himself and his mother (who had her free bench) to lease for 70 years. In which case, if the father afterwards lease by way of mortgage pursuant to such licence, and there be a custom in the manor for the first taker to dispose of the estate as against the