the injunction to be diffolved. 1 Bro. Ch. Rep. 452 1785. Sherwood v. White. Vide alfo Acton v. Market, 2 Bro. Ch. Rep. 14.; and Culley v. Hickling, ibid. 182.; but it must be on affidavit. See alfo Weft v. Carnevall, Coghlan v. Requeneau, Potts v. Butter, and Mitchel v. Davis, in notis. S. P.

7. Affidavits filed to obtain an injunction to stay waste before answer, not allowed to be read upon motion to diffolve the injunction upon the coming in of the anfwer. 1 Bro. Ch. Rep. 589. May 1785. Robinfon v. Lord Byron. See alfo Strathmore v. Bowes, 2 Bro. Ch. Rep. yo. S. P.

8. Injunction that the validity of a patent might be tried at law; verdict for the patentee, fubject to the opinion of the court upon a cafes the court were equally divided: the patentee must bring another action; but the court will not interpofe any terms upon him, nor diffolve the injunction in the mean time. 3 Vef. jun. 140. June 1796. Bolton v. Bull.

9. On an injunction obtained, the court will not discharge the plaintiff out of cuftody, if taken on legal procefs; but where a party is taken after he has obtained an injunction, but before notice given of it, the detaining him after notice is no contempt. 1 Anfir. 35. May 32 G. 3. Willis v. Daniel.

tion.

10. A conditional confent to proceed at law waives an injunc1 Anfr. 62. Trin. 32 G. 3. Grant v. Priddell. 11. On exceptions over-ruled, the plaintiff cannot move to dif folve an injunction, unlefs he has obtained a prevous order nifi for that purpofe. 1 Anftr. 255. Trin. 33 G. 3. Dubarry, in Scaccario, otherwife in Chancery.

12. On a commiffion to examine witneffes in India not being returned in two years, the court will diffolve the injunction. 1 Auftr. 276. July 33 G. 3. Penny v. Edgar.

13. After an injunction on the original bill diffolved on the coming in of the anfwer, the plaintiff cannot have an injunction on the fupplemental bill, though fupported by affidavits, unlefs the defendant is in contempt. 2 Anfir. 555. 2 Anfir. 555. Eaft. 35 G. 3.

Gadd v. Worral.

14. After an injunction obtained, a demurrer to the prayer for injunction is allowed: yet the injunction cannot be diffolved without the previous order. 2 Anfir. 585. Trin. 35 G. 3. Hurft v. Thomas.

15. Where an anfwer is referred for impertinence, it is good ground for continuing the injunction. Ibid. 591.

16. Where an injunction is obtained for want of an answer, and an aufwer afterwards filed, but the defendant does not move to diffolve the injunction till two terms afterwards, and when the bill has been amended, yet the injunction may be diffolved by motion of courfe. 3 Anftr. 651. Mich. 36 G. 3. Patton v. Panton.

17. Where an injunction is obtained on the absence of one of the defendants abroad, on a motion to difcharge that order, the anfwer of the other defendant cannot be read. 3 Anstr. 935Trin. 37 G. 3. St. John v. Cargill and others.

(G) Of the Service of an Injunction.

UPON an injunction bill to ftay proceedings at law, the defendant living abroad, a motion that fervice of the fubpoena upon the attorney may be good fervice, requires an affidavit of merits. 4 Vef. jun. 359. Dec. 1798. Stephens v. Cine.

14Vin.436.

I.

Inns and Innkeepers.

THE defendant pleaded (to trover) that he was an innkeepers that the plaintiff owed him for the keep of his horse at different times more than its value, and therefore he detained and fold it held bad; for though he might detain he could not fell, except in London, by the custom; and he could only detain for what he had then fold to him; not for a former demand. Jones v. Pearle, 1 Stra. 556.

2. The landlord of livery ftables, diftrained for rent the coach of a stranger, ftanding at livery in the coach-house there; and after argument, in which it was infifted to be like cloth at a tailor's, or the horse of a guest at an inn, and fo protected, the avowant had judgment. Francis v. Wyatt, 3 Burr. 1498.

(A) Innuendo.

AN innuendo can only explain or apply precedent matter; it cannot add to or extend it. Rex v. Griepe, 1 Lord Raym.

256.

2. You are guilty (innuendo of the murder of D. D.) held after verdict a fufficient charge of murder, though the colloquium were only of the death. Peake v. Oldham, in error, 1 Corp. 276. And vide 2 Corp. 685.

3. The complaint of the defendant being that he was arrested in returning home after the hearing of a caufe, before he got to his own house in the parish of St. Martin in the Field, innuendo his houfe in the Haymarket in St. Martin's, &c. The innuendo is only a more particular defcription of the fame houfe, and good. Res v. Aylett, 1 T. R. 69.

[D] 14 Vin. 436.

[G] 14 Vin. 442.

4. The oath being that the defendant was arrested upon the fteps of his own door, an innuendo that it was the outer door is good. Ibid.

5. An action of flander upon feveral fets of words; verdict for the plaintiff upon the firft and fifth fets of words, damages 40s. The firft fet were thefe, That rogue John Tindall (meaning the plaintiff) that fet the house on fire (meaning the fummer-houfe that was burnt in the occupation of one Mr. Cotton), and if any body will give me charge of him I will carry him to New Prifon. The fifth fet of words were, John Tindall (meaning the plaintiff) fet the houfe on fire (meaning the fame houfe). It was moved in arreft of judgment, that the latter fet of words were not actionable, for that every count in a declaration is a fubftantive count, and the innuendo (meaning the fame house) fhall not relate to the fummer-houfe in the first fet of words. Per curiam. Although the latter fet of words be not of themselves actionable, yet they fhall have relation to the former fet, and we must take them to have been spoken maliciously, as the jury have found for the plaintiff. Tindall v. Moore. C. B. 2 Wilson, 114.

7Vin. 305 (B. a) Writ of Inquiry of Damages: in what Cafes

I.

awarded; and how it may be.

A WRIT of inquiry of damages is a mere inqueft of office to inform the confcience of the court; who, if they please, may themselves affefs the damages. And it is accordingly the practice in actions upon promiffory notes and bills of exchange to refer it to the Mafter to fee what is due for principal and intereft without executing a writ of inquiry; for the quantum of damages depending on figures may as well be afcertained before the Mafter as a jury. Shepherd v. Carter, 4 T. R. 275. Duproy and Johnfon, 7 T. R. 473. See alfo 1 H. Bl. 252. 529. 541. acc.

I

2. This practice, however, is confined to actions upon promif fory notes and bills of exchange, and therefore where the defendant had fuffered judgment by default in an action of affumpfit on a foreign judgment, the court refused to refer it to the Malter to fee what was due, and give leave to enter up final judgment, without executing a writ of inquiry; faying this was an attempt to carry the rule further than had yet been done, and as there was no inftance of the kind, they would not make a precedent for it. Mein v. Lord Maffarcene and Wife, 4 Term Rep. 493.

!

3. The court alfo refufed the application, in an action upon a bill of exchange, for 200l. Irish money, for a jury are the proper judges of the value of this money. Maunfel v. Lord Maffareene, 5 T. R. 87.

4. Where the first count in a declaration was on a bill of exchange, to which count there was a demurrer and judgment for the plaintiff, though there was a plea to the other counts on which iffue was joined, the court of king's bench referred it to the Mafter to fee what was due on the first count. Deperly v. Johnfon. H. 38 G. 3. 7 T. R. 473. Vide further, Neifen v. Sheridan, 8 T. R. 395. Ofborn v. Noad, Ibid. 648. Berthen v. Street, Ibid. 326, Byrom v. Johnson, Ibid. 410.

5. In an action against an overfeer of the poor, if there is a verdict for him and no damages affeffed, a writ of inquiry fhall iffue, Valentine v. Fawcett. T.8 G. 2. 2 Stra. 1021.

6. The want of a writ of inquiry is aided by the statute of jeofails; though it was infifted to be fuch a fault as cannot happen in the cafe of a verdict. Mallory v. Jennings. M. 4 G. 2. 2 Stra. 878. Iles v. Pitt, 2 Lord Raym. 1397. S. P.

7. After judgment by default in an action of debt on a judgment, the plaintiff may fue out a writ of inquiry. Blackmore v. Fleming. M. 38 G. 3. 7 Term Rep. 446.

(D. a) Inquiry of. Writ quafhed or fuperfeded;
or fuperfeded; Vin. 310.
for what, and when. And Notice; in what Cases;
when; and how.

I. UPON executing the inquiry, the plaintiff was surprised with
a defence, and not prepared to prove his whole demand;
and the court fet it afide on payment of costs, the damages being
too small. Hall v. Stone. E. 8 G. 1. 1 Stra. 515. Markham
v. Middleton, 2 Ibid. S. S.

2. But the court will not fet it afide in an action for a tort, on
the ground of fmallnefs of damages. An action was brought for
thefe words fpoken of the plaintiff as a wine-merchant." You
"are a rogue, villain, and rafcal, and fell by fhort measure ;" and
the jury gave twenty fhillings damages. And though it was
thought a hard cafe, yet the court faid it has always been denied
to set aside a verdict, for smallness of damages, and therefore denied
it. Quare tamen, why is it not within the reafon for fetting afide
a verdict for exceffive damages, Hayward v. Newton, 2 Stra.
949. And vide Burges v. Nightingal, Barnes' Notes, 230.

3. But where the fmallness of damages arifes from a mistake in the law, either in the judge, or in the jury, the court will fet it afide. On a contract for ftock between the plaintiff and J. S., they each depofit 200/. in the hands of the defendant, and 7. S., not performing his agreement, the plaintiff fues for the depofit, and had judgment on demurrer, and took out a writ of inquiry and proved his cafe; but the jury, on a notion that the defend

ant could not pay out the money without confent of both parties, gave one penny damages; which was now fet afide, the court faying, that the rule of not fetting afide verdicts for the fmallness of the damages did not extend to this cafe, where the jury mistook in point of law: and the Chief Justice said he knew no reafon why the court fhould not interpofe in the other cafe. ford v. Eades. 1 Stra. 425.

Wood

4. The plaintiff, after the interlocutory judgment and awarding the writ of inquiry, became a bankrupt, and afterwards the inquiry is executed in his name; it was moved to fet this afide, on the ground that by the bankruptcy the property vested in the affignees, who fhould have fued out a feire facias, and the writ of inquiry have been executed in their names. But the court difcharged the rule. Bibbins v. Mantel, 1 Wilf. 358.

5. Judgment on a writ of inquiry was fet afide; it appearing that the under-fheriff, who had returned the jury, was attorney for the plaintiff in the action. Baylis v. Lucas, 1 Corp. 112.

6. Where part of the jury on a writ of inquiry was compofed of perfons then in prifon for debt, it was held a fufficient reafon to fet afide the execution of a writ of inquiry. Stainton v. Beadle, 4 T. R. 472.

7. The interlocutory judgment was figned in Trinity term 1737, and in August 1738 a writ of inquiry was executed upon eight days' notice; which was fet afide as irregular, and held that where a term's notice of trial is required, there must at the fame diftance of time be the like notice of executing a writ of inquiry. Peyton v. Burdus, 2 Stra. 1100.

8. And a term's notice must be given in all cafes where the proceedings have been delayed, except by injunction out of Chancery, for four terms. Rule, Mich. Term, 4 Ann.

9. On notice to execute a writ of inquiry at a certain hour, the party is not reftricted to the exact time contained in the notice, for the fheriff may have prior bufinefs, which may last beyond the hour. 1 Dougl. 198.

10. If notice of inquiry to be executed at a particular hour and place be continued, the notice of continuance need not exprefs any hour or place. Jones v. Chune, one, &c. Ib. 39 G. 3. 1 Bof.

& Pull. 363.

11. The notice was to execute a writ of inquiry by ten o'clock, and there being no defence made, the court set it afide for uncertainty. Ifon v. Fowen, 2 Stra. 1142.

12. But notice to execute at ten, being certain, is good. Laft v. Denny, Barnes, 302.

13. The ufual way is to give notice that the inquiry will be executed between two certain hours of a particular day, on or before the return of the writ. Arnold v. Squire, Sayer Rep. 181.

14. There must be the fame notice of executing a feire fieri inquiry, as a common inquiry. Stead v. Lateward, 1 Stra. 622. 15. The notice of inquiry, if the defendant have appeared and his attorney be known, thould be delivered to fuch attorney. But

if