Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 6.djvu/138

 112 s. vi. AUG. n, woo. NOTES AND QUERIES. EXTENT OF ST. MARTIN'S PARISH (9th S. v. 397, 479 ; vi. 36, 70).—The case of Fabrigas v. Mostyn was tried before Mr. Justice Gould in the Court of Common Pleas in Guildhall, London, on 13 July, 1773, and the reason why it came to be tried there was because the plaintiff in his declaration stated that the defendant made an assault upon him, &c., " at Minorca, (to wit) at London aforesaid, in the Parish of St. Mary-le-Bow, in the Ward of Cheap." The plaintiff got a verdict, with 3,000i. damages and 901. costs. The 'State Trials,' vol. xx. p. 82, contains a full report. The case came before the full court in November and December, 1773, and created much interest; and the public naturally had their attention specially called to the reason why an action fora wrong done out of England came to be tried in London. The plaintiff might have laid the venue in Middlesex, and then the declaration might have run : " At Minorca, (to wit)in the parish of St. Martin's- in-the-Fields, in the county of Middlesex." If that had been done the trial would have taken place at Westminster before a jury of Middlesex, instead of in the City of London before a jury of that city. It will be noticed that Horace Walpole's letter was written on 4 February, 1774, and it seems to me but reasonable to infer that the passage in his letter quoted by H. T. B. arose out of the case of Fabrigas v. Mostyn. I may say, by the way, that Mostyn was a Lieutenant-Geueral and Governor of Minorca. This case also came before the Court of Queen's Bench in 1774 and 1775, and Lord Mansfield expressly says that the plaintiff " might have stated i't [that is, the assault and the banishment from Minorca to Carthagena in Spain] to have been done in the County of Middlesex" ('State Trials,' xx. 227); and he adds, at page 236, that "in sea-batteries the plaintiff often lays the injury to have been done in Middlesex, and then proves it to be done a thousand leagues distant on the other side of the Atlantic." The legal fiction is explained by Lord Mansfield in nis judgment (see pp. 231 - 8). Horace Walpole seems to have thought that by a legal fiction St. Martin's-in-the-Fields may be for some purposes considered to be " in Asia." It is, however, the other way round. An assault and false imprisonment in Asia may be described under a videlicet as done in England. Lord Mansfield says, at page 234, " You shall set out the description truly, and then give a venue only for form for trial; videlicet in the County of Middlesex or any other County you please." The report in the 'State Trials' is well worth reading with all the antiquated pleadings, and it will be noticed that the tacts had to be proved without examining either the plaintiff or defendant, as in the great case of Bardell v. Pickwick. Parties to suits were not made competent witnesses in the superior courts until November, 1851. May I venture mildly to reprove H T. B. for incorrectly stating the year in which the letter was written, and for not giving the day and month, and also for not giving the volume and page? This is what Charles Reade would call "sloppy inaccuracy." Queries and replies should be both accurate and precise. HARRY BODKIN POLAND. Inner Temple. MAJOR ANDRE'S HOUSE AT BATH (9th S. vi. 46).—As it is specially desirable to have all the information given in 'N. & Q.' correct, perhaps you will allow mo to point out an error in MR. HIBGAME'S letter. We are there told that Andre" was "shot by order of Washington." I had occasion to point out in 6th S. x. 25 a similar error in the Nouvelle Biographie Universelle, where he is stated to have been "fusile comme espion." His last earnest request was for that soldier's form of death, instead of the gibbet to which he was consigned. W. T. LYNN. Blackheath. " INUNDATE " (9th S. v. 395, 497 ; vi. 52).— I have not hitherto taken part in this con- troversy, but am tempted to reply to some remarks made at the last reference. DR. R. M. SPENCE objects to inundate, demonstrate, on the ground tnat they are not so near the original Latin as iniindate, demonstrate. I venture to differ. The Latin forms had each two accents, a primary and a secondary ; they came into our language originally as inundate, demonstrate; of the alternative modern pronunciations, inundate, demonstrate, best represent this obsolete one, because in them the sole change is that the secondary stress has become primary, and vice versd, whereas inundate, demonstrate, can only stand for Latin inundatum, demdnstratum. There is a class of adjectives ending in -ose, as adipose, anhelose, aperose, with respect to which there is much diversity among orthoepists in relation to placing the prin- cipal accent. Worcester says : " In respect to most of these words, the primary and secondary accents are so nearly equal that it is of little importance whether the prin- cipal accent is placed on the last or on the first syllable." Until comparatively recent times the pronunciation of words ending in -ate was probably parallel, and although I