The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-19 00:00:00

The case came before the Court now upon demurrer.

Mr. Sergeant COLERIDGE, on behalf of the plaintiff,
submitted that all was done which the Act, either in
law or equity, required. The party bad gone before the
magistrates within the period that was limited, and made
the necessary affidavit. He then within the tilt ee months
necessary for bringing the action, sued out a writ to
recover compensation, which was fixed at 1,0001. Pend-
ing that action, the party whose name was Trevell died,
leaving the plaintiff his executrix. The defendants
pleaded not guilty, and also a plea to which the plaintiff
had demurred, and upon that demurrer several questions
arose. That plea was no answer in law to the plaintiff's
right to sue, for although it might be true that the
plaintiff had not brought her action within the three
months, yet the real party—the deceased—of whom she
was the representative, had sued out the writ within the
three months, but could not prosecute it in consequence
of his death. The first question was, as to what was
done before the Magistrates. The 3d sec. of the 7th and
Bth Geo. IV. chap. 31, required the party to go before
a Magistrate and make oath of the names of any of the
off:nders if known ; that he bad done, by stating that he
knew none of them. That was objected to by the de-
fendants, as not in conformity with the Act ; but the
Learned C iunsel contended, on the authority of several
cases, that the Act, which was to amend former Acts,
was to be construed liberally towards the party injured,
and that the declaration in that respect was good. An-
other point arose on the 2d section of the Act. It was
there stated that the party damnified should have full
compensation from the district, hundred, &c. The
plaintiff certainly was not within the strict words of the
statute, but in equity the compensation should be full and
complete, and not confined to the mere building, but to
furniture, fixtures, &c. It had been so decided in
several cases. In many of the former statutes the com-
pensation was limited, that was, it was rather penal than
remediable, but the last Act took away many of the
cases of remedy, and at the same time extended it in
others; so it had been several times decided, and it had
been held that, by the late Act, the party was entitled
to ample compensation. The next point was, whether
the plaintiff was entitled to recover, she being only the
representative of the party injured, the Act of Parliament
not containing the words "executor or executors." That,
certainly, was an omissio❑ in the Act, but it had
always been held that the executor stood in the stead of
the party himself, for the injury to the testator was an
injury to the representatives. Upon all the points the
Learned Counsel contended that the declaration was good
i❑ law, and therefore that judgment must be entered
upon the demurrer for the plaintiff.
Counsel for the defendant having replied, and contended
that the declaration was bad in law,
The COURT consulted together, when

Mr. Justice J. PARKE observed, that it did not appear
on the face of the declaration that the action had abated
by the death of the testator. He intimated the opinion
of the Court, that, in consequence of that fact and some
others, it would be better to withdraw the declaration and
amend it.

This course was assented to on the part of Mr. Sergeant
COLERIDGE.

BAIL COURT.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE on taking his seat in this
Court, requested that any of the Counsel who bad motions
to make which involved any points upon the new rules of
practice would make them in full Court, in order that
satisfactory decisions might be had upon them, otherwise,
what was done by one Judge in one term might be over-
ruled in the following term, and that would lead to great
additional expense and much confusion in the practice.