Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/464

in the declaration that the prosecution was determined, from whence a proper judgment could be intended. That it did not appear upon the record that the verdict, upon which the judgment in the present action was founded, was given in any court competent to receive it; or if it was, that the Court of Common Pleas had any legal conusance of such verdict, as a foundation for that judgment; nor did it appear that any record of such verdict, was ever certified in Bank by the Chief Justice, or even taken before him at nisi prius.

On the other side it was said (A. Piggott, G. Wood), that the declaration, whereon that judgment was given, contained every allegation on the part of the defendant in error, necessary to support an action for a malicious prosecution, viz. First, that the plaintiff in error falsely, maliciously, and without any reasonable or probable cause caused the defendant in error to be indicted before a court of oyer and terminer for perjury, which indictment was removed into his Majesty's Court of King's Bench, and afterwards tried at the sittings at nisi prius. That the said prosecution was legally determined, not only by the acquittal of the defendant in error, by the jury who tried the indictment, but also by the subsequent final judgment of the Court of King's Bench thereon, that the defendant in error should depart thence without day in that behalf.

After hearing counsel upon this writ of error, and also upon two other writs of error brought by the present plaintiff in error, against John Green and George Malin, it was ordered by consent of all parties, that the assignment of errors upon the said several writs of error should be withdrawn; and that the defendant in error should forthwith enter a non-pros upon the first-mentioned writ of error without costs; and also, that the defendants in the two last-mentioned writs of error, should forthwith enter a non-pros on the said writs of error, upon payment by the plaintiff of 25l. costs, upon each of the said write of error, to the defendants, and that the record should be remitted, &c. (MS. Jour. sub anno 1788, p. 717.)

By an act of parliament, passed in 1694, the manor of Clifton, in the county of Bucks, to which the advowson of the church of Clifton is appendant, was settled on Dame Elizabeth Hobart, the respondent's mother, for life; with remainder to the respondent in tail, with divers remainders over, subject to the payment of 2450l. and interest, to Sir William Rawlinson; for securing which payment, the said manor, &c. was thereby vested in Sir William for 1000 years, but to be void on payment of the principal money and interest, on the 25th of March 1695; with power for him to sell a competent part of the premises, if the money should not be paid at that time.

The mortgage-money was not paid at the time limited by the act; and the appellant, being desirous of purchasing the next presentation to the church of Clifton, employed Mr. Serjeant Selby, and one Mr. Kendall, to negotiate that purchase; who, having agreed with Lady Hobart and Sir William Rawlinson, for 100 guineas as the price; they, by deed, dated the 29th of October 1699, in consideration of that sum paid to Lady Hobart, granted the next presentation to Mr. Serjeant Selby and Mr. Kendall, who were thereby expressly empowered to present, whenever