1817. IN THE COMMON PLEAS, GUILDHALL. against a cer tificated con ROTHERY V. HOWARD. In an action THIS was an action on the case against the defendant, who was a certificated conveyancer, for negligence and fraud in the conduct of the plaintiff's business, in negotiating an annuity. veyancer for negligence in managing the purchase of an annuity for the plaintiff; a witness for the plaintiff. The plaintiff and another were the purchasers of an annuity, in the treaty for which the defendant joint purchaser had been employed upon their joint retainer, and is a competent towards the expences of which they contributed equal sums. The annuity was granted to the purchasers as tenants in common, and it was contended that the defendant had been guilty of misconduct in transacting this business, the lands being already incumbered and affording a very inadequate security for the payment of the annuity. The joint purchaser was called as a witness to prove the negligence on the part of the defendant. An objection having been raised to his competency on the score of interest. BURROUGH, J., was of opinion that he was a competent witness. The record in the present action could never be used as evidence for him, and 1817. although he was tenant in common of the annuity ROTHERY with the plaintiff, each having advanced a moiety of the consideration money, their interests were essentially distinct. The plaintiff was afterwards nonsuited upon the merits. Best, Serjt., and Denman, for the plaintiff. V. HOWARD. YORK LENT ASSIZES. NEWSAM V. CARR. THIS was an action on the case for maliciously In an action for and without probable cause, procuring the maliciously plaintiff to be arrested on a warrant upon a charge plaintiff to be procuring the of felony. arrested on a charge of lar The warrant itself had been lost, and the plain- ciny, the detiff's counsel were about to give parol evidence fendant cannot of it. Scarlett for the defendant, objected that it was necessary for them previously to prove the information, since that was the best evidence to shew who caused the warrant to be issued, F 3 Hullock, give evidence to shew that the plaintiff's character was suspicious, and that his house searched on had been former occasions. 1817. NEWSAM Hullock, Serjt., contended that it was no more necessary to prove the information in this case, than it would be to prove the judgment where the CARR. fieri facias had been lost. V. WOOD, B., over-ruled the objection; it did not appear that any information had been taken. In the course of the trial one of the witnesses was asked, whether he had not searched the plaintiff's house upon a former occasion, and whether he was not a person of suspicious character. Upon objection taken to this question Scarlett contended that it was a proper one, the character of the party was in question, and in actions for slander, such questions were usually put, and it was material to put such questions in an action of this nature, since the issue was whether there was not probable cause for the arrest; but WOOD, B., over-ruled the objection; in actions for slander, such evidence was admissible, for the purpose of mitigating the damages, and not to bar the action, and that in this case such evidence would afford no proof of probable cause to justify the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages 201 Hullock, Serjt., Maude, and Tindal, for the plaintiff. Scarlett and Wailes for the defendant. GARR and Another v. FLETCHER. 1817. c. f. the deM. P. was the owner of the fence is, that locus in quo, THIS was an action of trespass, for breaking In trespass and entering the plaintiff's close, and pulling down a garden wall, &c. Plea the General Issue. One ground of defence was, that Mary Pickles was the owner of the locus in quo, and that the and that the defendant entered and pulled down the wall by defendant enher authority. It was admitted that this defence tered by the might be entered into, under the plea of the Gene- M. P, a declaral Issue. direction of ration by M.P. made subse quent to the of is inadmis It was proposed to give in evidence the subsequent declarations of Mary Pickles, to shew act complained that she had authorized the acts of the defendant, sible. these it was contended were evidence on the principle that omnis ratihabitio retro trahitur et mandato priori æquiparatur. Her declarations were, it was urged, admissible because she took the trespass upon herself; but WOOD, B., was of opinion that her declarations were not admissible. Suppose an action had been commenced immediately, could she by her declaration have defeated that action? she clearly could not. She ought to have been called as a witness. The plaintiff's afterwards had a verdict. Scarlett and Littledale for the plaintiffs. F 4 A. lends money THIS was an action of assumpsit for money to B. and re ceives a gun as a security lent, &c. The plaintiff relied upon an admission by the for the repay defendant, that the sum of 157. had been advanced to him by the plaintiff. ment, A. may recover the amount without first returning the gun. In defence it was contended, that the sum in question had been advanced by the plaintiff, who was a pawnbroker, upon the pledging of a gun, and that the sum which had been charged by way of interest for the loan, and which the plaintiff might legally take as a pawnbroker, exceeded the ordinary rate of interest; and that if the sum in question was to be considered as advanced by the plaintiff |