Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/768

was, in this case, of the same opinion. In Harrison's case it is stated, that he dug the clay upon the waste, and afterwards paid the lord for it. In the present case, Beraud rented the land, and by that rent paid for the clay. It was submitted, there could not be any substantial distinction made between the cases. Nor could there be a doubt, but that Beraud's mode of enjoying the land, was the purpose of a manufacture, and therefore that he must be clearly considered as a trader.

If then Beraud was to be considered as a trader, could the plaintiff's case on this special verdict be distinguished so, as to make him no trader? Upon the death of Beraud in 1768, the plaintiff took possession of the brick-ground: he purchased the stock; he carried on the trade in like manner; he made bricks for public sale; he lived with his father, and had in fact a joint occupation of the farm with the father, who was lessee, and who suffered the plaintiff to take the brick-ground solely. The father had no concern with the brick-ground, he was not liable to any of the son's debts on that account; and therefore the farm was as distinct from the brick-ground then, as when Beraud had it. The plaintiff had not any interest in the farm until 1780, when he renewed the lease; but from the year 1768, viz. upon Beraud's death, he was permitted by his father to come in the tenant's place, and to carry on the trade of brick making for sale, as Beraud had done for many years. The lease in 1780 was immaterial; if the plaintiff traded from 1768 until that time, it was sufficient; for during that period he occupied only the brick-ground, and made bricks for public sale, and sold them. The plaintiff acted as Beraud had done; Beraud rented the brick-ground, as a mode of buying the clay. Whether the plaintiff rented the clay, or had it by gift from his father, it made no dif-[552]-ference; it was therefore submitted, that he ought to be considered as a trader.

After hearing counsel on this writ of error, the following questions were put to the Judges: "1st, Whether the finding in this verdict was sufficient whereupon to give final judgment? 2d, If the finding was insufficient, what award ought to be made on such finding? 3d, Whether, if the finding was sufficient, the plaintiff in error appeared to be a trader within the true intent and meaning of the statutes concerning bankrupts?" And the Lord Chief Baron having delivered the unanimous opinion of the Judges present upon the 1st question in the negative; and upon the 2d question, that a writ of venire facias de novo ought to be awarded: it was thereupon ordered and adjudged, that the judgment given in the Court of King's Bench reversing a judgment given in the Court of Common Pleas should be reversed; and that the judgment given in the Court of Common Pleas should also be reversed; and that the special verdict given by the jury being insufficient, should be annulled, and that the Court of King's Bench should award a venire facias de novo, and proceed according to law.