APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



Jli 



never hung over the plaintifF; for 

 the schedule was never read in the 

 parish church, forty days after 

 which, upon a significavit to the 

 Court of Chancery, a writ de ex- 

 com. cap. may be obtained, the 

 issuing of which it would have 

 been competent to the plaintiff to 

 have opposed there, or he might 

 have moved to quash it in the 

 Court of King's Bench, where it 

 is returnable, upon the ground of 

 the nullity of the sentence. It had 

 been contended by Mr. Park, that 

 the affirmation of the Court of Ap- 

 peal at York revised the sentence. 

 This Mr. Abbott denied ; but if it 

 did, that was the action of others, 

 and not of the defendants. The 

 plaintiff was all this while contu- 

 macious. The question of the 

 nullity of the sentence was never 

 brought before the mind of the 

 Court at York, where a common 

 lawyer presided ; and when it was 

 before the delegates, the sentence 

 was reversed, as well on account 

 of the insufficiency of interest in 

 the respondents, as on the ground 

 of the appellant's not being com- 

 pellable to administer : and the 

 Court did not give the appellant 

 costs. The appeal to the delegates 

 was on account of the error of the 

 court of York, and were the de- 

 fendants to answer for the errms 

 of others ? 



Lord EUenborough charged the 

 jury, that the plaintiff had, by 

 the void sentence of the defend- 

 ants, been placed in a situation 

 from which he could not be re- 

 lieved without incurring all the ex- 

 pense for which he now sought 

 reparation in damages. It was 

 necessary for him to appeal to the 

 court at York for absolution from 

 the sentence of excommunication ; 

 but with atuch abtwlution he did 



not obtain an absolute discharge 

 from the original citation and suit, 

 which he oui;ht to have obtained. 

 If the court of York had put him 

 in statu quo, had completely re- 

 lieved him, he needed not have 

 gone further : a suitor was not 

 bound to tell the Court it was in 

 error : it was rather his duty to 

 receive the law from the Court. 

 The plaintiff was, therefore, en- 

 titled to recover his costs of appeal 

 to the delegates. It was true, 

 that if the writ de excom. cap. had 

 been issued, the Court of King's 

 Bench would have relieved the 

 plaintiff in one second : but who 

 was to sue the writ } Not the 

 plaintiff a^^ainst himself. Malice 

 was not imputed; but the plain- 

 tiff was seven months under a sen- 

 tence of excommunication not 

 published. 



The jury gave the plaintiff 

 264/. 13*. lid. 



Court of King's Bench, Wednesday, 

 June I. 

 Special Jury. 

 The King against Dixon. 

 This was an indictment against 

 a baker residing in Copthall Court 

 and Finch Lane, on behalf of 

 whom a London Jury assessed the 

 damages at one shilling of a tres- 

 pass, against an incompetent in- 

 quest, for seizing bread, one of 

 the loaves of which was twelve 

 ounces deficient in weight ; and 

 the present indictment charged the 

 defendant with the offence at 

 common law of selling unwhole- 

 some bread. The indictment 

 charged, that the defendant being 

 intrusted to provide the Royal 

 Military Asylum at Chelsea with 

 good and wholesome bread under 

 a contract, which he had en- 



