Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/440

be remitted, to the end execution might be had thereupon, as if no such writ of error had been brought into the House. (Jour. v. 21. p. 91.)

Then it was proposed, "That the plaintiff should be ordered to pay to the defendant the sum of 5l. for his costs, by reason of the delay of the execution of the said judgment." And it being also proposed, "That he should pay 30l. coats;" and a question being stated on the first proposition, and a debate ensuing thereon; the question was put, "Whether the word [five] should stand part of the question?" And being resolved in the affirmative; it was ordered, that the plaintiff should pay to the defendant the sum of 5l. for his costs, by reason of the delay of the execution of the said judgment.

The Lord Kingston brought his ejectment against the defendant in the name of James Holborne, for the recovery of certain lands in Ireland, and inter alia, of 1000 acres of mountain; [72] and on the trial, a challenge was made by the defendant to the array of the pannel, because the sheriff did not return a knight. as by the law of Ireland he ought to do, in all cases where a peer of that kingdom is plaintiff. To this challenge the nominal plaintiff demurred, insisting, that the Lord Kingston was not plaintiff in the cause; but on arguing this demurrer, the Judges over-ruled the challenge, and affirmed the array; whereupon the trial went on, and a verdict was given against the defendant.

To reverse this judgment, the defendant brought a writ of error in the Exchequer Chamber of Ireland, where the judgment was reversed; because a knight was not named in the pannel of the jury, and because an ejectment did not lie for mountain land.

Whereupon the plaintiff brought a writ of error in Parliament, for reversing this judgment of reversal; insisting (T. Reeve, R. Raymond), that it appeared by the record, that a peer of the realm was not plaintiff or defendant in the cause, and therefore it was not necessary that a knight should be named in the pannel; nor could the sheriff know by the writ of venire (which was his authority for impannelling the jury) that a peer was lessor of the plaintiff, or any way concerned in interest. And that in Ireland, mountain was deemed a distinct species of land, as well as meadow, pasture, or bog; for which reason, the Court of King's Bench in England had lately, on great consideration, adjudged, that an ejectment did lie in Ireland for so many acres of mountain.

For the defendant it was urged (E. Northey, T. Lutwyche), that the judgment of reversal was well given; because it was a known rule of law, that in every action brought by or against a peer, there must be a knight returned on the jury; and that the challenges in such cases for want of a knight, had been often known to prevail, whether made by the peer, or by any party to the suit.

But, after hearing counsel on this writ of error, and the opinion of the Judges present, in relation to some points of law to them proposed, having been delivered; it was ordered and adjudged, that the judgment of reversal given in the Exchequer Chamber should be reversed; and the former judgment affirmed. (Jour, vol. 21. p. 209.)