taken by the Defendant.

But the statutes of 8 Ann.

and 11 G. 2. apply only to the case of a removal of goods after rent is in arrear; and the decision of Eyre C.J. has never been overruled.

Platt was heard in support of the rule.

1835.

RAND

V.

VAUGHAN.

Cur. adv. vult.

TINDAL C. J. (after stating the pleadings and finding of the jury, as antè, page 767.) said, This case comes before us on a motion to enter a verdict for the Defendant Duffield, non obstante veredicto. The motion would The motion would per- 676 haps have been more correct in point of form, if it had 4. been a motion to arrest the judgment for the Plaintiff, on the ground that enough still remains upon the Defendant's special plea confessed by the Plaintiff's replication, to bar the Plaintiff's demand: for we are not aware that any instance can be produced where the defendant, after an issue which he has taken has been found against him, has been allowed to have judgment entered in his own favour, non obstante. But we think there is no ground whatever for the motion in the one form or the other. The short question raised by the pleadings is, whether the statute applies to cases where the tenant removes his goods fraudulently and clandestinely before the rent becomes due; and we are of opinion that such case is not provided for by the statute. By the common law, the distress for rent was necessarily made upon some part of the demised premises, otherwise the tenant might rescue the distress, or bring an action of trespass. And it was only in case the landlord coming to distrain saw the cattle on the premises, and the tenant to prevent the distress drove them off the premises, that the landlord could justify freshly following and distraining them. And the statutes 8 Ann. c. 14. s. 2. and 11 G. 2. appear to have been passed with the view of

1835.

RAND

V.

VAUGHAN.

removing such difficulty in the way of the landlord's remedy in the case of a fraudulent or clandestine removal of the tenant's goods off the premises. For it expressly empowers the landlord "to take and seize such goods, wherever the same shall be found, as a distress for the said arrear of rent; and the same to sell and otherwise dispose of in such manner as if the said goods had been actually distrained by such landlord in and upon such premises for such arrears of rent." It is the place, therefore, not the time of the distress, to which the statute intends to apply the remedy: and, indeed, it is obvious, that if the construction contended for by the Defendant is adopted, as the landlord may, after five days next after the distress, sell the goods and pay himself the rent, he might do so in many cases before the rent became due, which never could have been intended. Looking to the intention of the act therefore, and the great uncertainty which would arise if a removal of the goods at any time before the rent became due would be sufficient to let in the provisions of the act; for if at any time, how long before, would be the question; we think the present distress was illegal. We therefore think the law to have been correctly laid down by Eyre C. J., in Watson v. Main (a), upon which Lord Ellenborough appeared to have doubted only, but to have expressed no opinion, in 3 Campb. 136.

(a) 3 Esp. N. P. 15.

Rule discharged.

END OF EASTER TERM.

MEMORANDA.

On the 23d of April, the Great Seal was put in Commission. The Commissioners appointed were the Right Honourable Sir C. C. Pepys, Master of the Rolls, the Right Honourable Sir L. Shadwell, Vice-Chancellor, and the Right Honourable Sir J. B. Bosanquet, one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas.

Robert Alexander and Thomas Starkie, of Lincoln's Inn, Esquires, having, in the vacation preceding this Term, been appointed His Majesty's Counsel learned in the law, were, on the first day of Term, called within the bar, and took their seats accordingly.