THE LAW JOURNAL REPORTS FOR THE YEAR 1838: COMPRISING REPORTS OF CASES IN THE COURTS OF Equity, and Bankruptcy, Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, FROM MICHAELMAS TERM, 1837, TO TRINITY TERM, 1838, EDITED BY MONTAGU CHAMBERS, OF LINCOLN'S INN, ESQ. BARRISTER-AT-LAW. VOL. XVI. NEW SERIES-VOL. VII. PART II. CASES AT COMMON LAW. LONDON: Printed by James Holmes, 4, Took's Court, Chancery Lane. PUBLISHED BY E. B. INCE, 5, QUALITY COURT, CHANCERY LANE. MDCCCXXXVIII. CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE Court of Queen's Bench. MICHAELMAS TERM, 1 VICTORIA. Practice.-Bail Court, Judgment in. Where a Judge has given a judgment in the bail court, it will not be reviewed in banc after the term has elapsed in which it has been pronounced. In this case there had been a trial before the sheriff of Northamptonshire, in March 1836, when the plaintiff recovered a verdict, subject to a motion for a nonsuit, on the ground, that the plaintiff's particulars did not enable him to give the evidence in the cause which he required. In the ensuing term, a rule was obtained before Littledale, J., in the bail court, for entering a nonsuit, which was argued in the same court, before Coleridge, J., in Trinity term, and made absolute. After that term, applications were made to two Judges at chambers, on behalf of the plaintiff, to stay the proceedings, but they refused to interfere. In Michaelmas term, Coleridge, J., in the bail court, was applied to, to allow the plaintiff to move the full Court to review his judgment, when he stated, that under the circumstances the plaintiff might NEW SERIES, VII.—Q.B. have liberty to apply to the full Court, if they thought proper to entertain the application. Accordingly, in that term Wightman obtained from the full Court a rule nisi, to open the former rule, and that the plaintiff should be allowed to shew cause against the rule for entering a nonsuit. Sir W. W. Follett and Butt now shewed cause, and contended, that the judgment in the bail court was conclusive. Even the Judge sitting in that court, had no power to direct a reviewal of his judgment in the full Court. [LORD DENMAN, C.J.-In the same term it might be done, because nothing is complete until the term is over.] Here, however, the term had expired. The King v. the Sheriff of Devon (1) is in point. Rossett v. Hartley (2), also, may be referred to. The Attorney General (amicus Curiæ,) observed, that it had been laid down by the Court, that they had a discretionary power, and would rehear a case if they deemed it proper. (1) 2 Ad. & El. 296; s. c. 5 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) K.B. 49, n. (2) 5 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) K.B. 49. B |