HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr1001 and id is 1 raw text is: TERM. MICHa. 6 GEO. II. 1732
ACHERLEY AND VERNON. How far a Court of Equity can grant a
perpetual injunction.
Canc.-Upon a bill brought to have a perpetual injunction, the defendant pleaded
to the jurisdiction of the Court against granting such injunctions. But it was said,
that there have been several instances, in which such injunctions have been granted.
The first was in the case of The Earl of Bath and Shering, and was done by order of
the House of Lords upon an appeal. Another was between Leighton and Leighton.
Accordingly Lord Chancellor put off the consideration, whether it should so be done
in the present case, till the hearing of the cause.
LAMB AND CHAPMAN. Vide ante, 168.
The Attorney-General came now and said, that he had no intentions to argue this
case at present, but only to offer some reasons to the Court, why the state of the case
should be something altered. He said, as the case was drawn up, it was expresly
stated, that the goods in question were not bought by way of merchandize. He did
agree, that if it was the intent of the jury to find the fact according to those very
words, the plaintiff must have his judgment. For those are the words of the Statute
of 12 Car. 2, 4, that such goods only that are brought in by way of merchandize,
shall pay (213] duty; and all the subsequent statutes, that have laid duties upon
foreign goods, have been construed to have relation to that. But he observed, that
it was not necessary, that the goods in question should have been bought with an
intention to be sold again to make them to be within the meaning of the Statute of
Car. Goods bought by way of merchandize. And of that opinion was the Court of
Common Pleas unanimously in the case of Pourkney and Bower; though indeed they
differed in the principal point before them, which was, whether wreek'd goods should
pay duty; Lord Chief Justice Treby was of opinion, that they should; the other
Judges of the contrary one. And he said, he apprehended it to be clear, that furniture
bought abroad must pay duty, though it was never bought with an intent to be sold
again. Now he submitted it, that the jury might very possibly mean in the present
case nothing more, than that the goods in question were not bought with an intent to
be sold again. And if so he desired that the state of the case might be altered in that
manner. The Chief Justice said, that he understood the meaning of the jury to be to
find the fact exactly according to the words, which they had stated it in; and there-
fore the case could not be altered. Accordingly judgment was given for the plaintiff.
THROGMORTON AND NORTON. What shall not be said to be a sufficient
countermand of a notice of trial.
Mr. Strange moved for the Court's direction of the Master to tax costs for want of
a good countermand of notice of trial. The rule of the Court in this point, he said,
he apprehended, was, that two days countermand is requisite in a town cause, four
days in a country cause. This action was an ejectment that was to be tried at
Warwick; and the assise day was the 19th of August last; but the countermand was
only given on the 16th. Accordingly the Court directed the Master to allow the
defendant his costs for want of a sufficient countermand.
THE KING AND PALMER. Construction upon the Statute of 2 Geo. 2,
relating to arrests.
Upon complaint of Mr. Budgel against the defendant, who was a bailiff, for
refusing to carry him to the house which he appointed, and for not reading the clause
in the Statute of 2 Geo. 2, when he arrested him; the Court ordered the defendant
to pay Mr. Budgel 51. for his damages, together with his costs; and likewise com-
mitted him for the contempt.
456
2 BAR N. K. B. 213.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr1001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)