pressed in a deed, without saying,

and also for other considerations," proof of any other consideration than the one expressed, is not admissible. Maigley v. Hauer. T Johns. Rep. 341.

If the consideration in a deed is not truly stated, the party must seek his relief in a court of chancery. Ibid.

CONSIGNOR AND CONSIGNEE..

1

2

3

4

Goods were shipped on board of a vessel, and consigned to the master, to be sold at Bordeaux. The master not being able to find a purchaser, left the goods at Bordeaux, and returned to Newyork. It was held, that having acted bona fide, he was not liable to the owner for the value of the goods. Lawler v. Keaquick. 1 Johns. Cas. 174.

Where a master of a vessel, signed a bill of lading to deliver four cases of goods to N. T. at Norfolk, who was a transcient person, and not resident at Norfolk, and the master on arriving at Norfolk, inquired for N. T. and not finding him delivered the goods to merchants there for N. 7., it was held, that the master, having, acted bona fide, and according to the usage of trade, was not liable to the consignor on the bill of lading. Mayell v. Potter. 2 Johns. Cas. 371.

Where a vessel, on her arrival in the port of Newyork, is ordered to perform quarantine, and the cargo is landed and stored at the quarantine ground, the shipper or consignee of the goods is bound to pay the expence of landing and storage. Rice v. Clendining and Adams. 3 Johns.

Cas. 183.

If goods be shipped for the account and risk of the consignee, he paying the freight, and it be so expressed in the bill of lading and invoice, a delivery to the carrier is considered as a delivery to the consignee, who alone can bring an action against

the carrier, in case they are not delivered; the property being vested in the consignee by the bill of lading. Potter v. Lansing. 1 Johns. Rep. 215.

CONSPIRACY.

1 In conspiracy the fact of conspiring need not be proved, but may be collected from other circumstances. King v. Parsons. 1 Black. 392. 2 One conspirator may be convicted after the other is dead. A verdict cannot be removed from the ses

verdict on which any judgment could be given. Ib.

CONSPIRATORS AND ABSEN

TEES.

1 The laws made against conspirators and absentees before the adoption of the constitution of the Commonwealth, are not repealed by the declaration of rights. M'Neil v. Bughi et al. 4 Mass. 282.

1227.

Conspiracy, though nothing be done in pursuance of it, is an offence, and that whether it is to be charged with an offence temporal or ecclesiastical. Confederacies one of the articles of Oyer and Terminer. The Queen v. Best & Another. Salk. 174. 2 L. Raym. 1167.

Conspiracy may be laid without any overt acts; and if one be convicted, judgment shall be given against him before the trial of the other. The King v. Kinnersley and Moore. 1 Str. 193.

5 It is conspiracy in husband, wife, and servants giving money separately to plaintiff's servants to spoil the materials of his trade. The King v. Cope and another. 1 Str.

2 A writ of possession was not necessary to complete a judgment in favour of the State under the laws against absentees. Ib.

If a judgment of confession urder

the absentee laws was rendered after the treaty had provided that no further confiscations should take place, such judgment is valid, unless reversed by writ of error. Ib.

CONSTABLE.

I. Election of, and who liable to

serve or not.

II. How punishable for neglect, &c. III. Other points relative to.

I. Election of, and who liable to serve

1

2

3

or not.

Sessions of the peace may appoint a constable. If a warrant be directed to a constable by name, he may execute it out of his precinct. Case of the Village of Charley. 1 Salk.

175.

Constable chosen at the leet bound to serve under a penalty; but that cannot be distrained for without ex

press custom. Fletcher v. Ingram 1 Salk. 175. 1 L. Raym. 69.

The sessions can only appoint con stables until the lord shall hold a court, and not for a year, or till others be chosen. The King v Davis and Gosling. 2 Str. 1050. 4 A corporation has no power common right to elect a constable

but it may by custom. An indietment for not serving the office of a constable on the election of the corporation must set forth the coporation's right to elect. The King v. Bernard. 1 L. Raym. 94.

5 Constable may be sworn in before a justice of the peace. The King v. Dr. Franchard. 2 Str. 1149. 6 Holden that the resiants of a leet are not excused from serving as constables to the hundred. Anon. Lofft, 418.

7 A statutable certificate of exemption from all ward offices does not exempt a person from serving the office of constable of a manor, which extends beyond the limits of a parish. Rex v. Darbyshire. 2 Burr. mond, 1182.

8 Naturalized foreigner not eligible into the office of constable. Rex v. De Mierre. 5 Burr. 2787.

9

1

An alderman of London is not compellable to serve the office of constable. The King v. Routledge. 2 Doug. 538.

II. How punishable for neglect, &c.

Constable indictable for neglecting duty required by common law or statute. Constable is the proper officer to the justices of peace. The Queen v. Wyatt. 1 Salk. 381. 2 L. Raym. 1189.

2

3

4

county of D. Blatcher v. Kemp, cited. 1 H. Black. 15, n.

Qu. Whether goods distrained in the parish of A., can be appraised by appraisers, sworn before the constable of the parish of B.; each parish being in the same hundred, but in different divisions; and each having different constables. 1 H. Black. 13.

A constable cannot serve an original writ in a real action. Hart v. Huckins. 5 Mass. 260.

In an action of trespass, for taking the plaintiff's goods, the de-. fendant justified as a constable, under an appointment of three justices, pursuant to the 6th section of the act (sess. 24. c, 78,) relative to duties and privileges of towns," of 27th March, 1801, and that he took the goods as constable, by virtue of an execution issued against the goods of the plaintiff. &c. It was held, that the appointment made by the justices was a judicial act; and being within their jurisdiction, was conclusive and valid, until set aside or quashed on certiorari; and could not be questioned in a collateral action. Wood v. Peake. 8 Johns. Rep. 69.

CONSTITUTIONS.

Act. Hudson & Wife v. Ash. Str. 167.

1

tion of the first article of the constitution of the United States, does not extend to the municipal regulations of the present States, which modify the process and proceedings relative to the recovery of debts, as establishing gaol liberties, &c. Holmes and another v. Lansing. 3 Johns. Cas. 73.

The power of naturalization is concurrent and not exclusive. 2 Dallas, 294.

The grant of original jurisdiction to the supreme court in certain cases, does not prevent the legislature from vesting a concurrent jurisdie

tion in the inferior courts. 2 Dal las, 297.

The effect of the provision, that full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, &c. of every other State, in relation to a judgment. 2 Dallas, 302, 3.

Analysis of the nature and obligation of a constitution of government. 2 Dallas, 307, 8, 9.

6 If a legislative act oppugns a constitutional principle, the former must give way, and be rejected on the score of repugnance. 2 Dallas,

307 to 316.

15 A citizen of the district of Colum bia is not a citizen of a State, with in the meaning of the constitution of the United States. Hepburn et al. v. Ellzey. 2 Cranch, 445,

2

CONSTRUCTION.

These words "between A. and B." in a deed are necessarily exelusive of A. and B. 1 Mass. 91.

2

3

5

137.

43 The courts of the United States are bound to take notice of the constitution. 1 Cranch, 178. 14 A contemporary exposition of the constitution, practiced and acquiesced under for a period of years, fixes its construction. Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299.

7

8

CONTEMPT OF COURT.

It is contempt to serve process on a defendant while attending the sittings in court. Dole v. Hawkins.

2 Str. 1094.

Defeating a rule of court by a stranger is a contempt. Sir James Butler's Case. 2 Salk. 596.

Refusing to give evidence to the Grand Jury, is a contempt finable. The King v. Lord Preston. 1 Salk. 278.

Challenging the array of a Special Jury on account of interest in the sheriff, no contempt. The King v. Johnson and another. 2 Str. 1000.

If a party enters into a rule, that the Master shall name 48 for a Speeial Jury, each party strike out 12, and the sheriff return the other 24, and the jury are struck and returned accordingly; it is a contempt in him to challenge the array, though he may the polls. And an attachment shall be granted against him for it. The King v. Burridge. 2 L. Raym. 1364. 2 Salk. 593.

Where there are faults on both sides, and the officer executing process has behaved unjustifiably as well as the parties who resisted him, the court generally will not grant extraordinary process of contempt. Gregory v. Onslow. Lofft, 35. Release by plaintiff is a contempt, he being merely a nominal party. Anon. 1 Salk. 260.

The writ and suit of an infant is subject only to the direction of the

prochein amy, and not of the infant;
and sheriff' fined and committed for
delivering infant's writ of appeal
to himself, it being a contempt. To-
ler's case.
1 Salk. 176. 1 L. Ray-

mond, 555. 9 It is a great contempt to circulate papers relative to the merits of a cause upon the eve of its trial, but not a sufficient ground to set aside a verdict, (though for the crown upon a criminal prosecution) unless the circulation can be fixed upon the prosecutor. It is a contempt in the jury to take any evidence with them upon retiring from the bar, without either the leave of the court or consent of the parties; but their verdict upon that account shall not be set aside unless the evidence made for that party only for whom they found. If the owner of the soil of a market covers the market place so completely with stalls, that the market people are obliged to use them, taking stallage is extortion; otherwise, where sufficient standing room is left. Where custom has ascertained the toll of a mill, taking more than the custom warrants is extortion. The actual taking, not the agreement to take, constitutes usury. Rex v. Burdett. 1 L. Raym. 148 2 Salk. 645. 10 The court held the party in contempt for filing a bill in chancery to set aside an award, after entering into rule of court of King's Bench to abide by it, discharged without any fine, rather than set а small one for so high an offence. The King v. Wheeler. 3 Burrows, 1256. 1 Black. 311.

11 The King's Bench never interposes in a contempt to the inferior jurisdiction of justices. The King v. Burchett. 1 Str. 567.

12 Ejectment is a process of the court, and the court will punish contempttous words on delivery of it. The King v. Unitt. 1 Str. 567.

14 Where a person brought a suit in the name of another, without his privity or consent, it was held to be a contempt of the court; and the nominal plaintiff being non-suited, an attachment was granted against the person who brought the suit, for the costs. Butterworth v. Stagg. 2 Johns. Cas. 291.

15 On a motion for an attachment for a contempt, the court will not make the rule absolute, if the party, on showing cause, disavow on oath, any intentional disrespect or contempt of the court. The People v. Few and others. 2 Johns. Rep. 290. 16 Where A. B. who was a master in chancery, was committed by the chancellor, and the order of commitment stated that A. B. while he was master, filed a bill to which he subscribed the name of C. D. one of the solicitors of the court, without his knowledge or consent, and prosecuted the cause, in his name, “contrary to the statute in such case made and provided, in willful violation of his duty as master, and in contempt of the authority of the court," and the said A. B. was ordered to be committed to gaol," for the said malpractice and contempt, there to remain until the further order of court; it was held that this was a legal and valid commitment for a contempt, even if the party might have been indicted for an offence against the statute, concerning counsellors, solicitors and attornevs. In the case of J. V. N. Yates. 4 Johns. Rep. 317.

17 But was this an indictable offence under the statute? Quere. Ib.

18

13 A by-stander in the court fined and imprisoned for disturbing it. 6 Term Rep. 530.

19

This court has no power to discharge a person committed by the court of chancery for a contempt; and it will presume that the proceedings of that court were legal ; and that the conviction for the contempt was on sufficient and legal evidence. Ib.

A commitment for a contempt, until the further order of the court;" is good. Ib.