Page images
PDF
EPUB

.

hour (such as eleven o'clock) on successive tracks would form usually a curved line; but the sudden change of an hour on the 1st April would introduce nothing more serious than a per saltum change in the graduation of two consecutive tracks. This change would accordingly be plainly and permanently shown on the dial; and Gnomon might thus have a clear advantage over his rival the clock, which might forget to make the change.'

The Royal Horticultural Society held their twenty-fourth annual Spring Flower Show in the Inner Temple Gardens on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday last, and, owing to the fine weather, the gardens were crowded on each day. On the first day the King and Queen visited the show in the morning, before the gates were open to the public. They were conducted by Sir Trevor Lawrence, President of the Royal Horticultural Society, and Mr. Justice Grantham, representing the Inner Temple. Many judges, Benchers, and members of the Bar were among the visitors, including Mr. Justice Bray, Mr. Justice Channell, Mr. Justice Scrutton, Sir Alfred Jelf, Sir Alfred Bosanquet, K.C., Sir Harry Poland, K.C., Mr. J. F. P. Rawlinson, K.C., M.P., and Master Bonner. The demand for space made by exhibitors continues to increase, and this year under canvas alone exceeded by 3000 square feet the demands of any previous show. The quality of the exhibits in general maintained the high excellence of recent years. The groups of roses emphasised the increasing importance of the rambling varieties. Of new plants perhaps the most notable was Davidia involucrata, from China, which is now flowering for the first time in this country in Messrs. Veitch's nurseries at Coombe Wood, Kingston.

[ocr errors]

The first chamber of the Tribunal of the Seine has given a decision in an unusual action of damages The Abbé Courson, curé of Noyers (Loiret), died on the 13th Dec. 1905 at the age of eighty-one years, and was buried civilly by his nephew and niece, without consultation with other members of the family. Upon the gravestone they placed the following inscription: Equality. Here lies citizen Courson, curé de Noyers, who died in his eighty-first year, 13th Dec. 1905. He had commanded his nephew and niece to inter him civilly, not wishing his body to be profaned by the grimaces (simagrées) of his former confrères. Regretted by his nephew and niece and his former beadle." The two brothers of the abbé brought an action against their nephew and niece. They alleged that the nephew and niece had acted in contempt of the religious sentiments of the deceased, and in a manner injurious to his memory, consequently they claimed 3000 francs (£120) as damages, and demanded that the inscription should be removed. After hearing Me. Reverdy for the brothers of the curé and Me. Coreil for the nephew and the niece, the tribunal decided in favour of the brothers Courson, and ordained that the inscription should be reduced to the name and date of death of the abbé, and awarded 1500 francs as damages. The court ordered the inscription to be amended within fifteen days, under a penalty of 20 frares a day for delay beyond the said fifteen days.

an

The Royal Commission on Public Records sat on Wednesday at Scotland House to hear evidence. Sir Frederick Pollock presided. The first witness was Mr. J. C. Ledlie, B.C.L, chief clerk to the Privy Council Office. He gave a list of the chief documents in the office, these including the council registers from 1598, Proclamations from 1558 to 1819, and Plantation Books. There were also lists of the convicts transported to penal settlements, and unbound papers. Twenty-two volumes of the council registers, dating from 1540 to 1598, had been edited and transferred to the Public Record Office, but the Treasury a few years ago refused a grant for the work to be concluded. All the records were described as being in a good state of preservation, and the council regieters were kept in a strong room. Asked whether applications to view the documents were numerous, Mr. Ledlie said they were not. Historical students from the United States formed a fairly large proportion. Mr. E., E. B. Boehmer, Superintendent of Registry, Home Office, said that there was immense quantity of public records at the Home Office. So bulky were the bundles into which they were tied that if they were placed end on end they would make a column two miles high, and, in addition, there were many books and loose papers. In 1830 some documents were taken from the Home Office to the old State Paper Office, and dealt with in a most irregular way. They were given by some irresponsible person to a certain gentleman. On his death in 1867 there was a sale of his possessions, and important State documents were found in egg-boxes. They were then handed over to the Home Office again. Mr. Boehmer said that the Home Office was very proud of its system of registration of official papers. It was copied all over the world, and this week three or four officials from different Government offices had been at the Home Office to study it. Mr. C. Atchley, I.S.O., and Mr. W. F. Westbrook, librarian and registrar respectively at the Colonial Office, gave evidence as to the documents in the department. Mr. Westbrook said that, apart from the many documents sent to the Public Record Office, there were about 1600 volumes of documents and three-quarters of a million unbound papers, amounting to another 3000 volumes, in the Colonial Office.

COUNTY COURTS, EQUITY, AND BANKRUPTCY CASES.-Published quarterly, price 4s., post free. Comprising the Decisions in Law and Equity, administered in the County Courts; the Appeals from the County Courts; the Judgments in Important Cases decided in the County Courts; and all the Cases in Bankruptcy in all the Courts.HORACE COXx, County Courts Chronicle" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C.-[ADVT.]

NOTES OF RECENT DECISIONS NOT YET REPORTED.

BY OUR REPORTERS IN THE SEVERAL COURTS

COURT OF APPEAL

Education Provided School-Injury to Child-Alleged Negligence of Teacher-Liability of Education Authority.-Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of Lawrance, J. on the further consideration of an action tried at Leeds Assizes with a special jury. The plaintiff, a girl of fourteen years of age, was a pupil at a public elementary school which was under the control of the defendant corporatio as the education authority. The statement of claim alleged that while the plaintiff was so in the school the defendant M. improperly and negligently, and in violation of her duties for safeguarding the plaintiff, sent the plaintiff to poke the fire and draw out the damper in the teacher's private room. The plaintiff obeyed, and in carrying out the order her clothes caught fire and she was burnt and injured. In an action brought by her against the teacher and the education authority claiming damages in respect of her injuries, the jury found a verdict in favour of the plaintiff with £300 damages. On further consideration Lawrance, J. held that the teacher was liable, but that as what was done by her was not an act for the purpose of carrying on the school in any way, but was entirely personal on the part of the teacher, the education authority were not liable for her act. The plaintiff appealed. Held, that the relation of the education authority to the teacher was that of master and servant, so that the principle Qui facit per alium facit per se, upon which the master was made responsible for the act or omission of his servant, was applicable, and, further, that the direction given by the teacher to the plaintiff was not outside the scope of her employment. Appeal allowed.

[Smith v. Martin and the Mayor, &c., of Kingston-upon-Hull. Ct. of App.: Vaughan Williams, Fletcher Moulton, and Farwell, L.JJ. April 27, 28. and May 19.-Counsel: for the appellant, Tindul Atkinson, K.C. and W. H. Owen; for the respondents, Scott Fox, K.C. and J. A. Compston. Solicitors: for the appellant, Windybank, Samuell, and Lawrence, agents for Benno Pearlman, Hull; for the respondents, Sharpe, Pritchard, and Co., agents for H. A. Learoyd, Hull.]

Husband and Wife-Divorce-Variation of Marriage SettlementsPetition filed before Decree absolute-Time for answering-Matrimonial Causes Act 1859 (22 & 23 Vict. c. 61), 8. 5.-A husband having obtained a decree nisi for the dissolution of his marriage on the 16th Jan. 1911, he filed a petition on the 4th March 1911 for variation of the marriage settlements. On the 22nd March 1911 the petition was served on the wife. Her time for answering the petition. was extended by consent over the Easter Vacation. She applied to the registrar on the 21st April 1911 to extend the time for answering the petition until one month after the decree was made absolute. The registrar was of opinion that although no order could be made on the petition for variation of the marriage settlements until after the decree was made absolute, yet the preliminary inquiry before him could proceed, and he therefore extended the time by fourteen days. On appeal to Bargrave Deane, J., his Lordship varied the order of the registrar by directing the wife's answer to be filed by the 12th June 1911. The wife appealed to the Court of Appeal. Held, that the effect of sect. 5 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1859 was that the court had no jurisdiction to make any order on the petition until after decree had been made absolute, and the registrar, as an officer of the court, could not do what the court itself could not do-viz., make inquiries and report to the judge. Constantinidi v. Constantinidi and Lance (91 L. T. Rep. 273; (1934) P. 306) considered and explained. Appeal allowed.

[Clarke v. Clarke and Lindsay. Ct. of App.: Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Buckley and Kennedy, L.JJ. May 15.-Counsel: for the appellant, Barnard, K.C. and Buyford; for the respondent, Durley Grazebrook. Solicitors for the appellant, Bird and Bird; for the respondent, Alfred Jonas.]

Local Government-Electric Lighting-Statutory Undertakers-Erection of Standard in or under Streets - Part of Street not become repairable by the Local Authority-Overhead Main-Trespass-Mandatory Injunction-Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1815 (8 Vict. c. 18), s. 68-Electric Lighting Act 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 56). 88. 10, 13-Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 19), 8. 21. The plaintiff was the owner and at one time the occupier also of an hotel, which had been built by the plaintiff's predecessor in title on his own land, which abutted on C.-road. In building the hotel the frontage had been set back about 5ft. from C.-road, and the intervening strip in front of the hotel had been covered with pavement. The defendants, who were the local authority, obtained in 1901 a provisional order which was subsequently confirmed and under which they were required to lay down suitable and sufficient distributing mains for the purpose of a general supply of electrical energy throughout "streets and parts of streets," including C.-road. The defendants having obtained the sanction of the Board of Trade to the supply of electrical energy by means of overhead mains in C.-road, in the course of so doing ercoted a standard on the paved strip in front of the plaintiff's hotel without his consent. That paved strip was the property of the plaintiff, and had never been acquired by the local authority. It had become a highway by being dedicated by the plaintiff to

3

the use of the public, but it had never become a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large. The plaintiff, though under no legal liability to do so, had from time to time repaired the pave. ment. The plaintiff accordingly brought an action against the defendants claiming a mandatory infunction requiring them to remove the standard in question. It was decided by Warrington, J. (104 L. T. Rep. 335) that, as it Was necessary and incidental to the work to place the standard where it was, the defendants had power to do so, and the plaintiff was not entitled to restrain them from keeping the standard on the land, and that his only remedy was to btain compensation under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. His Lordship applied the decision in Escott v. Mayor of Newport (90 L. T. Rep. 348; (1904) 2 K. B. 369). The plaintiff appealed. Held, that it was not competent to the defendants to erect the standard in such part of the street as had not become repairable by them as the local authority; and that therefore there must be a mandatory injunction requiring them to remove the standard. Appeal allowed.

(

[Andrews v. Abertillery Urban District Council. Ct. of App.: Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Buckley and Kennedy, L.JJ. May 17 and 18. -Counsel: for the appellant, Macmorran, K.C., Clauson, K.C, and A. A. Bethune; for the respondents, Cave, K.C. and C. G. Church. Solicitors; for the appellant, Le Brasseur and Oakley, agents for A. E. Bowen, Pontypool; for the respondents, Church, Adams, and Prior, agents for A. H. Dolman, Abertillery.]

Practice Discovery-Interrogatories-Action for malicious Prosecution -Interrogatories by Plaintiff as to Information, Inquiries, and reasonable and probable Cause-Order XXXI., rr. 1, 2.-Appeal of the plaintiff from the order of Ridley, J. made at chambers. The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages from the defendants for malicious prosecution. The defendants had made a charge against the plaintiff of stealing gas, upon which the plaintiff had been arrested and committed for trial and subsequently acquitted. The plaintiff then brought this action for damages for malicious prosecution. By their statement of defence the defendants admitted that they had prosecuted the plaintiff, but denied that they had acted maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause. The plaintiff applied for leave to administer interrogatories for the examination of the defendante, two of which were as follows: "(4) What information (if any) had you that induced you to prosecute the plaintiff for stealing gas? What steps (if any) had you taken before commencing the said prosecution to ascertain whether the charge was true or not? What grounds (if any) had you for supposing that the plaintiff had committed the offence charged? Did you, before you commenced the said prosecution, take any and what precautione, or make any and what inquiries, as to the truth of the said charge, and what was the result of each such inquiry? (5) What are the facts and circumstances on which you rely as showing that you had reasonable and probable cause for the said prosecution?" Upon an appeal from the master, Ridley, J. at chambers made an order disallowing those two interrogatories. The plaintiff appealed. Held (die missing the appeal, Keunedy, L.J. dissenting), that the interrogatories in question were not admissible, and were properly disallowed.

Maass v. Gas Light and Coke Company Limited. Ct. of App. : Cozens. Hardy, M.R., Vaughan Williams, Fletcher Moulton, Farwell, Buckley, and Kennedy, L.JJ. April 1, 3, and May 19.-Counsel: for the appellant, Sir F. Low, K.C. and P. B. Morle; for the respondents, Travers Humphreys and Rowsell. Solicitors; for the appellant, John Spurling; for the respondente, C. O. Humphreys and "Son.] Revenue-Income Tax-Lards vested in Trustees for Charitable Purposes-Rents and Profits frcm-Occupation-Allowances-Income Tax Act 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 35), 88. 61, No. VI., 62.-The applicants were a limited company not trading for profit, having for their objects the provision of accommodation for the British and Foreign Unitarian Association and the Sunday School Association, and the promotion of the objects of those associations-namely, the diffusion of the principles of Unitarian Christianity and the promotion of Sunday school education. The applicants owned the freehold of a building known as Essex Hall, and were assessed for income tax in respect thereof, under sched. A of the Income Tax Act 1842, on the annual value. The building was used by the above-named associations, but two rooms in it were, when not required by them, let for public meetings and similar purposes, the amounts received from such lettings going in reduction of the larger rents which the applicants would have had to demand from the two associations. The income of the applicants was expended on the maintenance of the premises, and the income and expenditure practically balanced each other. It was admitted that the hall was vested in the applicants as trustees for a charitable purpose. The Special Commissioners of Income Tax refused to grant to the applicants an allowance of the income tax paid in respect of the above-mentioned assessment, on the ground that for the purposes of income tax they must be deemed to occupy the building, and that no legal exemption existed in favour of trustees for charitable purposes as to income tax paid in respect of premises occupied by them. A rule nisi for a mandamus to the commissioners commanding them under sect. 62 of the Income Tax Act 1842 to grant the allowance under sched. A, sect. 61, No. VI., and to give a certifi cate thereof, together with an order for payment of the same, was obtained on the ground that the applicants did not occupy the premises, and that, even if they did, there were rents and profits within the meaning of sect. 61 both realised in money and not so realised. By sect. 61 of the Income Tax Act 1842, No. VI., allow. ances are to be made "on the rents and profits of lands, tenements,

hereditaments, or heritages belonging to any hospital, publis school, or almshouse, or vested in trustees for charitable purposes, so far as the same are applied to charitable purposes." By sect, 62, where any allowance is made under sect. 61, the commissioners for special purposes shall give a certificate thereof. together with an order for payment of the same. On cause shown against the rule nisi, it was decided by Lord Alverstone, C.J. and Hamilton, J. (dissentiente, Avory, J.) (104 L. T. Rep. 31), that the applicants were entitled to the allowance even although they were in occupa. tion of the property. The commissioners appealed. Held, that the exemption in question applied only to a case where charity trustees, or a charitable incorporation, let their property to a tenant and received rents and profits in respect of such letting. Maughan v. Trustees of the Free Church of Scotland (30 Sc. L. Rep. 666) followed. Appeal allowed.

[Rex v. Special Commissioners of Income Tax; Ex parte Essex Hall. Ct. of App.: Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Buckley and Kennedy, L.JJ. May 1 and 18.-Counsel: for the appellants, Sir Rufus Isaacs (A.-G) and W. Finlay; for the respondents, Danckwerts. K.C. and Montgomery. Solicitors: for the appellants, Solicitor of Inland Revenue; for the respondents, W. S. Sharpe.]

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE-CHANCERY DIVISION. Company Reduction of Capital-Publication of Reasons-Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69), s. 55-Form of Memorandum.-Petition for reduction of capital. A brewery company by special resolutions resolved "that the capital of the company b reduced from £2,820,000, divided into 180,000 preference shares £10 each and 10,200 ordinary shares of £100 each, to £730,200 divided into 180,000 preference shares of £4 each and 10,200 ordinary shares of £1 each." The petition stated that paid-up capital of the company to the extent of £2,500,000 and upwards had been lost or was unrepresented by available assets. The affidavit of the chairman filed in support of the petition asserted that the company had from time to time expended large sums in acquiring licensed properties beyond those acquired by it on its formation, and had made loans upon the security of licensed premises to large amounts in addition to those taken over by it from the vendors to the company, and that during the last ten years the market value of licensed premises had very considerably diminished by various causes, and more especially by additional burdens imposed upon the trade, culminating in the imposition of the new licence duties under the Finance (1909-10) Act 1910. It appeared that the additional direct taxation imposed on the company since its incorporation in 1896 amounted to nearly £70,000 per annum. It was proposed in accordance with seot. 55 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908 to publish a short memorandum similar to that advertised in the Times in the case of Re Truman, Hanbury, Buxton, and Co. Limited (103 L. T. Rep. 553: (1910) 2 Ch. 498). The learned judge sanctioned the proposed reduction of capital, but said he thought the words "culminating in the imposition of the new licence duties under the Finance (1909-10) Act 1910" had better be omitted from the memorandum; the form would be settled by the registrar. [Re Barclay, Perkins, and Co. (Limited and Reduced). Ch. Div.: Neville, J. May 23-Counsel: Cave, K.C. and A. F. Whinney. Solicitors: Marson and Toulmin.]

Practice Judgment by Consent-Undertaking by Defendant CorporationWilful Disobedience-Writ of Sequestration-Order XLII., r. 31. D. brought an action against the R. Granite Quarries Company for an injunction to restrain them from carrying on blasting operations at their quarries in Wales so as to cause nuisance and danger to himself and others, who resided at an adjoining house. At the trial judgment was entered by consent, the defendants agreeing not to carry on blasting operations so as to discharge fragments of rook on the plaintiff's land, including half of the river adjoining such land, but this was not to be taken as an admission by the defendants that any such fragments had already been so discharged. In May 1911] D. alleged that the defendants during the previous four months had on several occasions broken their undertaking and that large portions of rock had been discharged on to his land ; he therefore applied by motion for a writ of sequestration. Order XLII, r. 31, provides: "Any judgment or order against a corporation wilfully disobeyed may, by leave of the court or a judge, be enforced by sequestration against the corporate property, or by attachment against the directors or other officers thereof, or by writ of sequestration against their property." For the defendants it was argued that the court ought not to allow a writ of sequestration to issue for a breach of a negative as opposed to a positive undertaking, and that if any breach had in fact been committed by the company it was unintentional. Stancombe v. Trowbridge Urban District Council (102 L. T. Rep. 647; (1910) 2 Ch. 190) was cited in favour of the plaintiff. Held, that there had been a breach of the undertaking in question, although unintentional; that if there was any recurrence of the offence a writ of sequestration would issue; and that the company must pay the costs of the motion as between solicitor and client.

[Davis v. Rhayader Granite Quarries Limited. Ch. Div.: Neville, J. May 19.-Counsel: Jenkins, K.C. and Bryan Farrer; Butcher, K.C. and Church. Solicitors: A. and H. White; Taylor, Rowley, and Co Practice-Receiver-Jurisdiction-Action for Appointment of-Appl`c tion in Chancery Division-Application for Letters of Administration pending in Probate Division-Discretion.-W. W. shortly before his death, which happened suddenly on the 4th May 1911, being at the time indebted to the plaintiffs, had drawn two cheques in favour

L

of the defendant F. W. She, it was alleged, presented them on the 5th May 1911 at the banks upon which they were drawn without informing the cashiers of the fact of W. W.'s death, took out the money, and placed a sum of over £300, part of it at the B. Bank, on the 6th May in her maiden name. She also instructed solicitors to obtain in her name administration in the Probate Division to the estate of W. W. The plaintiffs by their writ in the action, tested the 15th May 1911 as amended on the 17th May 1911, claimed on behalf of themselves and all other creditors of W. W. administration, if and when letters of administration should have been obtained of his estate, an infunction restraining the defendant from parting with any part of W. W.'s estate, and the appointment of a receiver of his estate pending the grant of letters of administration. The defendant was sued as the person entitled to take out administration and as having acted in respect of the estate, and from and after the grant as personal representative. On the 12th May 1911 a writ in the King's Bench Division had been issued on behalf of a German company, creditors of W. W., against the defendant F. W. and the B. Bank, and an interim injunction had been granted, which had been continued by Ridley, J., against the defendants parting with the moneys obtained by W. W. from the plaintiffs. On the 17th May 1911 the plaintiffs moved in the Chancery Division for the appointment of a receiver of the personal estate of the deceased W. W., and a preliminary objection was raised that an action for protection of the estate until probate and without administering the estate was irregular and demurrable (Rawlings v. Lambert, 1 Johns. & Hem. 58), and leave was granted to amend the writ. On the motion being renewed on the writ as amended: Held, after referring to Re Green; Green v. Knight (98 L. T. Jour. 568; (1895) W. N. 69) and Re Parker; Dearing v. Brooks (54 L. J. 64, Ch.), that the present practice was in an action claiming the appointment of a receiver pending proceedings for grant of adminietration in the Probate Division to make such appointment, and the technical objection must be overruled; also that on the mer te, the claims of the husband's estate being paramount, the creditors were entitled to the money in question and the appointment of a receiver.

Soli

[Walters Non-Inflammable Celllolite Limited v. Wenge. Ch. Div.: Eve, J. May 19.-Counsel: Ward Coldridge; H. E. Wright. citors; Osborn and Osborn; E. W. L. U. Peters.] Will-Administration-Pawnbroker-Pledge of Personally by one of twɔ Executors and Trustees-Executor functus officio.-By his will M. S. appointed J. D. S. and A. A. S. his executora and trustees and bequeathed to them his residuary (personal estate upon trusts for Fale and conversion and for division as therein mentioned. M. S. died in 1878, and his executors paid his debts and funeral and testamentary expenses within the year; but the estate was not completely wound-up, and was the subject of administration proceedings in 1910. Certain articles of plate comprised in the residuary personalty were not sold, but were kept in the possession of A. A. S. by arrangement between the executors. In 1892 A. A. S., without the knowledge of J. D. S., pawned these articles to G. A. and Son, and used the proceeds to pay a debt of his own to J. D. S. The pledgees took the articles in good faith and without notice, and in the ordinary way of business. In 1907 A. A. S. died, and a new trustee was appointed; and shortly after. wards J. D. S. for the first time discovered that the articles had been pawned. The pledgees proposed to sell the articles, and J. D. S. and his co-trustee brought an action for an injunction to restain the pled gees from dealing with the articles, for a declaration that the pledgees had no title to the articles, and for return of the_articles to the plaintiffs. Held, following Re Whistler (57 L. T. Rep. 77; 35 Ch. Div. 561) and Re Venn and Furze's Contract (70 L. T. Rep. 312; (1894) 2 Ch. 101), that A. A. S., as one of two executors, had authority by himself, at any distance of time from the testator's death, to pledge the personal estate of the testator, and that therefore the action must be dismissed.

[Solomon v. George Attenborough and Son. Ch. Div. Joyce, J. May, 10. 11, and 20.- Counsel: Cozens-Hardy; Hughes, KC. and Cann. Solicitors: Cox and Lajone; Stanley J. Attenborough.]

KING'S BENCH DIVISION.

Adulteration of Food-Milk-Purchase of Sample-Sample procured "in Course of Delivery"--Offence-Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment Act 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 30), 8. 3.-Case stated by justices for the county of Middlesex, sitting at Tottenham. An information was preferred by the appellant, an inspector of weights ard measures, under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875 and the Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment Act 1879, against the respondent, for that the appellant on the 23rd Nov. 1910 did procure at the place of delivery a sample of milk in course of delivery by the respondent, the seller, to one E. B., the purchaser, in pursuance of a contract for sale to the said E. B., such purchaser of such milk, and that the same was sold by the respondent contrary to the provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. The justices acquitted the respondent of the offence. On the day in question, in pursuance of a verbal contract of sale, the respondent, being then in sight of the appellant, who was standing in the same street, delivered to E. B., at the doorstep of her house in Tottenham, a certain quantity of liquid purporting to be pure milk from one cow. The liquid was poured by the respondent from a certain can into a jug belonging to E. B., who, having paid for the milk, at once re-entered her house, with the jug in her hand, and shut the door. The appellant, who had witnessed the transaction from the street, immediately asked the respondent to

be served with milk from the same can as that from which E. B. had been served, whereupon the respondent stated that the can contained diluted milk. Thereupon the appellant immediately went to the house of E. B. and knocked at the door, which was opened by E. B., who had a jug of liquid in her hand, and the appellant obtained from her the liquid which the respondent had sold to her as milk, and the appellant thereupon purchased a pint of diluted milk from the can from which E. B. had been served. A portion of each was analysed and the two samples were found to be of identical composition, and each sample contained 30 per cent. of added water. Not much time had elapsed between the delivery of the liquid to E. B. and the procuring of it by the appellant, and E. B. stated in the presence of the respondent that she had held the jug in her hand from the time when she received the liquid into it from the respondent till the appellant came to her door, and that she had not in any way tampered or interfered with the contents of the jug, and the justices were satis fied that the contents were in fact in exactly the same condition when obtained by the appellant as when delivered by the respondent to E. B. Sect. 3 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment Act 1879 provides that any inspector may procure at the place of delivery any sample of any milk in course of delivery to the purchaser or consignee in pursuance of any contract for the sale to such purchaser or consignee of such milk," and may have the same analysed, and so on. The appellant affirmed and the respondent denied that the sample was procured "in course of delivery within sect. 3, and the justices were of opinion that the sample was not obtained by the appellant "in course of delivery" within the meaning of the section, but that the delivery had been completed before the sample was obtained, and they dismissed the information. Held (Lord Alverstone, C.J. dissenting), that as there was evidence upon which the justices could find that the delivery was complete before the sample had been taken, their decision ought to stand.

66

was

[Helliwell (app.) v. Haskins (resp.). K. B. Div.: Lord Alverstone, C.J., Pickford and Lush, JJ. May 17.-Counsel: Eustace Hills; P. B. Morle. Solicitors: E. S. Freeland; Avery, Son, and Fairbairn.] Adulteration of Food-Milk-Warranty-Information for giving false Warranty Limited Company-Liability of Company for OffenceSale of Food and Drugs Act 1875, 8. 25-Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899, 8. 20 (6).-Case stated by the metropolitan police magistrate at the South-Western Police.court. An information preferred by the appellant against the respondents, for that they on the 26th Sept. 1910 in respect of an article of food-to wit, milksold by them to one J. J. did give to him a false warranty in writing. The magistrate dismissed the information. The respondents were a limited company incorporated under the Companies Acts, and carried on business as wholesale milk contractors. On the 26th Sept. 1910 an agent for the appellant bought a pint of milk from one J. J., who was taking the milk round in a churn on a barrow and was then selling the same to customers. The agent handed the milk to the appellant, who had the same analysed, when it was certified to contain 7.5 per cent. of extraneous water, and 92.5 per cent. of milk of genuine composition, but of the poorest quality in non-fatty solids. An information was laid against J. J. under sect. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875. J. J. then gave notice in writing. in accordance with sect. 20 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899, of his intention to rely as a defence, pursuant to sect. 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875, upon a written warranty dated the 30th Sept. 1909 and given by the respondents. The summons against J. J. was dismissed upon the ground that he had proved that he had purchased the milk with a written warranty. An information was thereupon laid against the respondents. The milk from which the sample was taken was supplied to J.J. under a contract in writing, and the contract contained a warranty that the milk should be pure and unskimmed. The warranty was false, and the respondents' servants, who supplied the milk, had not reason to believe that the statements and descriptions contained in the warranty were true. For the appellant it was contended that the respondents had committed an offence within sect. 20 (6) of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899, upon the ground that the warranty was false, and that the respondents had not proved that when they gave the warranty they had reason to believe that the statements or descriptions contained therein were true. For the respondents it was contended that no offence had been committed within the meaning of the section, upon the ground that the exempting clause making an innocent belief a defence implied that the offence could only be committed by a defendant who is capable of mens rea, and a corporation, not being so capable, could not, therefore, commit the offence. The magistrate stated that. although he would have convicted if the respondents' servants had been principals, yet he was of opinion that as the exempting clause of the section implied that the offence could only be committed by a person who was capable of "believing," and as a corporation, having no mind, could not exercise that faculty, it was not liable under the section. The respondents did not appear. Held, that the magistrate had taken a wrong view of the section, and that the company could be convicted thereunder. Appeal allowed and case remitted.

[Chuter v. Freeth and Pocock Limited. K. B. Div.; Lord Alverstone, C.J., Pickford and Lush, JJ. May 18.-Counsel: Barrington Ward. Solicitor: Paul Caudwell.] Bread-Weights-Proper and sufficient-Bread Act 1836 (6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 37), 8. 7.-Case stated on an information preferred by the appellant under 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 37, s. 7, against the respondent for that he

on the 18th Nov. 1910 did unlawfully neglect to carry sufficient and correst weights when carrying out bread for sale or delivery. The appellant was an inspector of weights and measures for the county council of Surrey. The respondent was a servant in the employ of one W. B.. a baker, of K.-road, Leatherhead, and on the 18th Nov. 1910 at K.-road the respondent was carrying out bread for sale or delivery in a cart. The appellant stopped the respondent on the 18th Nov. 1910 and purchased a loaf, for which he paid 31. The appellant then requested the respondent to weigh the loaf. The respondent produced a beam scale and a 21b. weight. The appellant said to the respondent. "This is not a sufficient weight," and respondent replied, "This is all that was given me." The respondent then tried to weigh the loaf, but could not ascertain the exact weight of the loaf, but only that it did not weigh 21b. The appellant then weighed the loaf upon his own scale and found that it weighed less than 21b. The appellant then weighed several other loaves from the respondent's cart and found them all to be from 1 to 2oz. less than 2lb. The scale and weight were correct. On the part of the appellant it was contended that the respondent did not comply with the statute, as the purchaser was entitled to know the exact weight of the bread he was getting, and that the 21b. weight which the respondent was carrying was not sufficient without other weights to ascertain the exact weight of bread which was purchased. On the part of the respondent it was contended that as he only sent out in his cart balf-quartern loaves, which loaves were always reputed to weigh 2lb., and which he believed did weigh 21b., as they weighed 21b. 3oz. before being put into the oven, a weight of 21b. was sufficient as there were no other loaves in the cart, and that if a customer required a loaf to be weighed and it was found to be under 21b., the custom was to make up the weight by cutting off and supplying a piece from another loaf sufficient to make up the weight to 2lb., and that a bread knife was carried in the cart for this purpose, and that it was not customary and not obligatory on him to weigh a loaf unless asked to do so. The justices were of opinion that the respondent had complied with the statute, and dismissed the information. Held, that the justices were wrong, as the weights required were such weights as were proper to weigh the loaf carried and sold.

[Turner (app.) v. Holder (resp.). K. B. Div.: Lord Alverstone. C.J., Pickford and Lush, JJ. May 19.-Counsel: Cecil Whiteley. Solicitor: T. W. Weeding, Kingeton-on-Thames. The respondent did not appear.]

ustices-Summary Jurisdiction-Consecutive Sentences of Imprisonment -Jurisdiction of Justices to impose-Summary Jurisdiction Act 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 43), 8. 25.-Four rules nisi for certiorari directed to justices of St. Helens to show cause why four sentences passed by them upon the applicant should not be brought up and quashed. The applicant had been charged before justices sitting in petty sessions upon six several charges of obtaining money by false pretences. In each case he pleaded guilty, and under sect. 13 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 he was dealt with summarily in each case. He then received the following sentences. On the first charge he received six months' imprisonment; on the second six months, and on each of the remaining four sentences he received three months' imprisonment, all being consecutive and amounting to two years' imprisonment. The rules were obtained for the purpose of questioning the last four sentences. The provision which enables justices sitting in petty sessions to give a consecutive sentence is contained in sect. 25 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. o. 43), which enacts: "Where a justice or justices of the peace shall upon any such information or complaint as aforesaid adjudge the defendant to be imprisoned, and such defendant shall then be in prison undergoing imprisonment upon a conviction for any other offence, the warrant of commitment for such subsequent offence shall in every such case be forthwith delivered to the gaoler to whom the same shall be directed; and it shall be lawful for the justice or justices issuing the same. if he or they shall think fit. to award and order therein and thereby that the imprisonment for such subsequent offence shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which such defendant shall have been previously adjudged or sentenced." Upon the construction of this section it was held in a considered judgment by Cockburn, C..J., Blackburn and Lush, JJ., in Reg. v. Cuibush (16 L. T. Rep. 282; L. Rep. 2 Q. B. 379), that justices had power under sect. 25 to impose a second sentence of imprisonment to ake effect on the expiration of the previous sentence. It was now contended in opposition to the rules that that case was in authority for showing that the justices had power to award the subsequent sentences to take effect consecutively, as no distinction was there drawn between two offences and a greater number of offences, and that therefore, upon the construction of the section and the authority of Reg. v. Cutbush (ubi sup.), the justices had power to impose the consecutive sentences. In support of the rules it was contended that the justices had no jurisdiction to impose the four latter sentences, and perhaps had no power to impose the second sentence; that the section construed strictly limited the power of the justices to imposing two sentences, one to take effect on the expiration of the first, and that Reg. v. Cutbush (ubi sup.) was merely an authority for saying that one sentence might be followed by one other sentence, but was no authority for the proposition that subsequent sentences could be made to follow after the second. and that therefore the remaining four sentences were bad. Held, that the last four of the six sentences were ultra vires and therefore invalid, and

probably the second sentence also, but it was unnecessary to decide as to the second sentence, as Reg. v. Cutbush (ubi sup.) had decided that the justices had power to impose a second sentence in such a case, though that principle ought not to be extended. Rules absolute as to the four sentences.

[Rex v. Martin and another; Ex parte Smythe. K. B. Div.: Lord Alverstone, C.J.. Pickford and Lush, JJ. May 17.Counsel Rowlatt; Bodkin. Solicitors: Treasury Solicitor; Official Solicitor.]

:

Public Authority-Action against, in County Court-Notice of special Defence-Public Authorities Protection Act 1893-Plea of Statute of Limitation without specifying Act-Sufficiency of Plea-County Court Rules 1903 and 1904, Oider X., rr. 14, 18-Appeal from the decision of Deputy Judge Lush Wilson, sitting at the Torquay County Court. An action was brought by the plaintiff in the County Court against the corporation of T. to recover damages sustained by him in consequence of the death of his son owing to the alleged negligent treatment accorded to him in an isolation hospital provided by the defendants under statutory authority. The acts complained of occurred on the 13th May 1910, and the action was commenced on the 25th Feb. 1911. The defendants, who desired to rely upon the protection afforded them by the provisions of the Public Authorities Protection Act limiting the time within which an action must be commenced, gave notice of a special defence under Order X., r. 14, of the County Court Rules 1903. That rule provides that "Where a defendant intends to rely on the defence of any Statute of Limitations his statement shall be according to the form in the appendix." The form in the appendix is as follows: Take notice that the defendant intends at the hearing of this action to give in evidence and rely upon the following ground of defence, that the claim for which the defendant is summoned is barred by a Statute of Limitations." It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the notice of defence given by the defendants was bad, upon the ground that the Public Authorities Protection Act 1893 was not a Statute of Limitations, and consequently that the notice of defence to be given must be in accordance with rule 18 of Order X., which provides that "Where in any action the defendant relies on any statutory defence or on any defence of which he is required by the Act or any statute to give notice, he shall in his statement (except in the case provided by rule 14 of this order) set forth the year, chapter, and section of the statute or the short title thereof, and the particular matter on which he relies, or otherwise sufficiently indicate the nature of the defence upon which he relies." The learned deputy County Court judge held that the notice of defence was not sufficient and entertained the action. Held, that the learned deputy judge was wrong; that the Public Authorities Protection Act was a Statute of Limitations, and that the defence was sufficiently raised by the notice given by the defendants. Held, also, that in any event the defence upon which the defendants relied was sufficiently iudicated within the meaning of Order X, r. 18

[Gregory v. Corporation of Torquay. K. B. Div.: Pickford and Lush, JJ. May 12 and 20-Counsel: H. T. Waddy; Clavell Salter, K.C. and Perceval Clarke. Solicitors: Mann and Crimp, for Kitsons, Hutchings, Easterbrook, and Co., Torquay; Gribble and Co., for 1. W. H. Almy, Torquay.]

OUR LITERARY COLUMN.

LAW IN THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. THE legal section of the eleventh edition of this monumental work has been planned with greater fulness than in previous editions.

In many cases where there is a main article, with a number of subsidiary articles, the main article is confined to giving an historical account of the subject, and to setting out the fundamental branches of the topic to be discussed in separate articles. A good example of this treatment is the subject "International Law."

The explanation of the more usual legal terms by means of short dictionary articles has been employed for the first time in the eleventh edition. To explain a technical term in the course of a main article involves interruption of the argument. Hence these terms have in the past been left unexplained, to the great disadvantage of the student. This grave defect is remedied by the provision of numerous dictionary headings.

Another most interesting feature of the eleventh edition is the amount of space given to comparative legislation. The editor has had much help in this direction from Mr. Edward Manson, co-editor of the Journal of Comparative Legislation, Mr. Justice Wood Renton, M-. W. F. Craies, and Mr. J. A. Barratt of the New York Bar, while Professor P. Vinogradoff, Professor of Jurisprudence in the University of Oxford, has written an important article on "Comparative Jurisprudence."

The articles may be summarised under the following six headings: (1) Legal Systems, &c.; (2) International, Ecclesiastical Law, &c.; (3) Criminal Law, Evidence, Divorce, &c.; (4) Sorial and Labour Legislation; (5) Company Law, Bankruptcy, Landlord and Tenant, &c.; (6) Biographies.

1. Legal Systems.

In addition to the article by Professor Vinogradoff this group includes a History of English Law, by the late F. W. Maitland. This

article, which was originally contributed to the supplementary volumes of the last edition, was rewritten by Professor Maitland. Indeed, it was almost the last work upon which he was engaged. In his biography published a short time ago there is an interesting letter in which he speaks of being engaged on the article for the Britannica, and says that, being far away from his library, it was no easy task to write an article on such a subject. The completed article, however, is evidence of his wonderful scholarship.

The article Greek Law by Dr. J. E. Sandys, is a new feature, no such article having appeared in previous editions-indeed, there is hardly any full treatment of the subject in English. The article is a comprehensive summary of the evolution of Greek Law from the earliest times.

The article on Roman Law is by Professor Goudy; the famous ninth edition article by Professor James Muirhead was naturally the basis upon which he worked, and he has made use of the general structure of that article. He has, however, rewritten large portions of the article and has incorporated all the latest researches of German students.

The article on Indian Law is by Sir W. Markby, late Reader in Indian Law at Oxford University. It is a lengthy article (twelve and a half pages), and deals fully with Hindu Law and Mahommedan Law, as well as the law in force generally in India.

The article Brehon Laws by L. Ginnel', M.P, contains the latest information on the ancient laws of Ireland, The author mentions that since Sir Samuel Ferguson wrote his article cn this subject for the ninth edition, much research has been done on the subject, and that Ferguson's account is no longer accepted by scholars. Salic and other Barbaric Laws has been written by Professor Pfister of Paris.

Among miscellaneous articles in this group particular note may be made of Court Baron, Earl Marshal, Lord Great Chamberlain, three of a considerable number contributed by J. H. Round; Jury, by W. F. Craies; Act of Parliament, Sheriff, Statute, by Dr. J. Williams; Lord High Steward by L. W. Vernon Harcourt, the author of an authorative] work on the office; Legal Maxims and Patents of Precedence, by Justice Wood Renton, and Peerage by Geoffrey Ellis.

2. International, Ecclesiastical Law, &c.

International Law has been revolutionised since the appearance of the ninth edition, and every article in that edition has been entirely rewritten for the eleventh edition.

The principal contributors are Sir Thomas Barclay, who has written the article on International Law, and many of the subsidiary articles; Professor Westlake, who has written on Private International Law, Alien, Domicile, &c.; Mr. H. Crackenthorpe, K.C., who is responsible for the articles Arbitration, International, Alabama Arbitration, Bering Sea Arbitration, &c., Professor T. E. Holland, who has written the article on Treaties and W. Alison Phillips. who has contributed articles on Diplomacy, The Eastern Question, &c.

In Ecclesiastical Law the outstanding articles are those on Canon Law by the Abbé Auguste Boudinhon and Mr. Justice Phillimore; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, a most authoritative article of some fourteen pages by Mr. Justice Phillimore on ecclesiastical jurisdiction not only in England, but in all Christian countries. Other articles to be noted are Archbishop, Archdeacon, Bishop, &c., by W. Alison Phillips.

3. Criminal Law, Evidence, Divorce, &c.

The articles on Criminal Law, and its subsidiary headings have been in the charge of Mr. W. F. Craies, the learned editor of Archbold's Criminal Pleadings. They have all been entirely rewritten for the eleventh edition. Mr. Craies has also contributed articles on other legal subjects with a fulness unknown outside of a legal encyclopædia. There may be specially noted his articles on Action, Appeal, Coste, Contempt of Court, Damages, Default, Gaming and Wagering, Indictment, Judgment, Breach of the Peace, Quarter Sessions, Reward, Sunday, Wager, Witness, &c. The article Evidence has been contributed by Sir C. P. Ilbert. That on Divorce is the revised article contributed by the Viscount St. Helier, formerly President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court, to the supplementary volumes. It has already become a classic as a succinct exposition of the subject.

Groups 4 and 5 contain articles which well illustrate the ideal which the Britannica has always kept before it, that of inviting-as contributors to its pages, those whose official positions or whose records entitle them to be considered as the pre-eminent experts on their subjects.

4. Social and Labour Legislation.

The articles on Building Societies and on Friendly Societies have been entirely revised by their author, Sir E. W. Brabrook, late Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. The article on the law relating to children has been entirely re-written by W. F. Craies and T. A. Ingram. The article on Commercial Treaties has been rewritten by Sir C. M. Kennedy, formerly head of the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office. The article on Labour Legislation is by Miss A. M. Anderson, the Principal Lady Inspector of Factories for the Home Office. The artioles on Arbitration and Conciliation in Labour Disputes, Strikes and Lock outs, and Trade Unions are by a high Government official. That on Commons is by Sir R. Hunter. There is also an article on Will, by Dr. James Williams; a complete new article on Succession, by Professor Vinogradoff; and subsidiary articles on Administrators and Executora, Advancement, Appoiutment, Powers of, Heirloom, Legacy, Intestacy, &c.

5. Company Law, Bankruptcy, Landlord and Tenant. This group includes articles on Bills of Exchange and Sale of Goods, by Sir M. D. Chalmers, late Permanent Secretary for the Home Department; on Company by Mr. E. Manson, who has also written the articles on Directors, Debentures and Stocks and Shares, thus covering the subject with a fulaees unknown outside a legal text-book. Sir F. Pollock has contributed the articles on Contract and on Tort. Land Registration is by Sir C. Fortescue-Brickdale, the Registrar of the Land Registry. Conveyancing by Mr. S. Wadsworth, joint author of Davidson's Precedents in Conveyancing. Admiralty Jurisdiction by Mr. Justice Phillimore. Affreightment by the late Mr. Justice Walton. Bankruptcy by Mr. J. Smith, C B., late Inspector-General in Bankruptcy. Those on Landlord and Tenant, and Patents by Mr. Justice Wood Renton.

6. Biographies.

In this section biographies of all the great jurists, as well as many minor biographies included for the first time, make it a very complete dictionary of biography.

LAW LIBRARY.

The Common Law of England. By W. BLAKE ODGERS, M.A., LL.D., K.C., and WALTER BLAKE ODGERS, Barrister-at-law. Two vols. Sweet and Maxwell. THIS work is described on the title-page as the tenth edition of the late Dr. Herbert Brown's Commentaries, the last having appeared fifteen years ago; but, in beginning the task of revision five years ago, Mr. Blake Odgers and his son found it had become so much out of date that very little of it could be used. The volumes before us, therefore, constitute practically a new treatise on a different plan, the principles being stated in large type followed by decisions in smaller type. After a very full and clearly written introduction discussing the main elements in popular language, we come to a comprehensive treatment of Crimes. Then follow sections on Torts, Contracts, Adjective Law, and the Law of Persons. In their chapter on Sources of the Law the authors truly say: "The amount of English law is something appalling. It is a megatherion of colossal bulk. At least twelve different systems of law are administered in the British Empire, only one of which has any pretence to a code." The book is furnished with an excellent index, and the convenience of the Profession has been carefully studied, without sacrificing in any way those qualities in a law book which appeal to the lay mind.

The Laws of England. By the Right Hon. the Earl of HALSBURY and other Lawyers. Vol. 16. Butterworth and Co.

THIS imposing work continues to make excellent progress. In the present volume we have Highways, Streets, and Bridges, by Mr. G. B. Hill; Husband and Wife, by Mr. Justice Bargrave Deane and Messrs. William Bowstead and William Rayden; while Sir Francis Gore, Solicitor to the Inland Revenue, deals with Income Tax. Reference is greatly facilitated by the copious and admirably planned table of contents and index. seventeenth volume is nearly due and will include Industrial, &c., Societies, Infants and Children, Inhabited House Duty, Injunction, Inns and Innkeepers, Insurance, and Interpleader.

The

Encyclopædia of the Laws of England. Edited by MAX A. ROBERTSON, Barrister-at-law. Second Annual Supplement. London: Sweet and Maxwell; Edinburgh: Wm. Green and Sons.

THIS is a temporary volume for use during 1911 on the lines of the main work. Reference is facilitated by giving the number of the volume at the top of each page and the number of the page opposite each entry. Apart from its main purpose it forms an excellent digest of statute and case law. All contemporary references are given, and there is a full index. Precedents of Wills, crowded out of vol. 14, are included here in their proper place.

The Law Relating to Hire and Hire-Purchase. By JAMES D. CASSELS, Barrister-at-law. Butterworth and Co.

IN the brief compass of a hundred clearly printed octavo pages Mr. Cassels has contrived to give a sufficient presentment of

« EelmineJätka »