« EelmineJätka »
who had been settled on the list of contributories Holker, Q.C., Udall, and Simmonds for the the 22nd June 1871, the trustees offered the said of the above company, for leave to appeal not. pliintiff.
Robert Bruce the sum of £5, stating that in withstanding the expiration of the time limited by Roxburgh, Q.C. and Ince for the defendant. exercise of the discretion vested in them, they the 124th section of the Act, which provides
Lord ROMILLY, without hearing the defendant, had determined to pay him that sum and no more, that rehearings and appeals from any order or said that the plaintiff's case entirely failed! ds and for the sum so covenanted to be paid to him, decision made or given in the winding-up of a
The question is, whether the defendant, in and to make no further or other payment. This company by any court having jurisdiction under attempting to sell refrigerators, is intentionally was a petition by the said Robert Bruce, that the the Act, may be had in the same manner, &c., in making the public believe he is selling Kent's whole of the said sum of 3001. might be ordered which appeals may be had from any order or de refrigerators. He does not use the name Kent, to be paid to him out of the personal estate of the cision of the same court in cases within its ordi: his place of business is not the
settlor. nary jurisdiction, “subject to this restriction, that or adjoining that of the plaintiff, nor in his
Southgate, Q.C. and Batten for the petitioner. no such rebearing or appeal shall be heard unless advertisements does he in any way attempt to
Rodwell for the trustees. notice of the same is given within three weeks imitate those of the plaintiff. The objection is con.
Sir R. Baggallay, Q.C. and Bagshawe for the perafter any order complained of has been made, in fined to the use of the words " the New Ventilated son in possession of the estate of the settlor. manner in which notices of appeal are ordinarily Refrigerator.” It is not denied that he is entitled Lord ROMILLY held that the petitioner was giren, according to the practice of the court to make ventilated refrigerators, and if so why entitled to the whole sum of 3001. He considered appealed from, unless such time is extended by may he not call them by that name? I know no that the discretion of the trustees was confined to the court of appeal.”
other word in the English language which he the time or times when the money was to be paid, Higgins, in support of the application, stated could use to express it. There is no evidence to and that having exercised such discretion by their that it was merely owing to an accidental slip that show that the defendant has attempted to mislead offer of the 22nd June 1871, it was at an end. The notice had not been given within the three weeks. the public, or done anything to induce the public expression “ without any deduction or abatement Graham Hastings, for the company.
to believe he is selling Kent's manufactures. No whatsoever," was entirely without meaning, unless Lord Justice JAMES granted the application on injunction therefore can be granted, and the bill the covenant was held to extend to the whole sum the terms of the applicant paying the costs; and must be dismissed with costs.
of 3001. ras understood to state that not only should Solicitors : John Fraser; S. H. Head.
Solicitors : Wedlake and Letts; R. H. Wilkins; notice of appeal be given, but the appeal should be
Few and Co. set down, within the three weeks. Solicitors, Argles and Rawlins.
Jan. 13 and 19.
Jan. 18 and 22.
LABOUCHERE v. DAWSON.
Will–Construction—Lapse of bequest-Intestacy. Injunction - Sale of goodwill— Depreciation of
JOHN SIDNEY SMITH, by his will dated the 5th (Before the LORDS JUSTICES.) Aug. 1867, gave all his property to trustees upon The defendant in this suit formerly carried on
goodwill by vendor. I CHABORD V. THE NEW RUSSIAN COMPANY trust to realise the same, and directed that the business in partnership with his brother, Ben. (LIMITED.) moneys so produced should constitute the fund jamin Dawson, as brewers, at Kirkstall
, under the Partnership agreement-Non-crecution by essential thereinafter designated as his general trust fund. style or firm of Benjamin Dawson and Co. Owing party-Claim by party to agreement. And he directed his trustees to appropriate onean appeal from a decision of the sixth part of his said general trust fund as a
to the death of Benjamin Dawson the business was Master of the Rolls. The hill alleged that the maintenance fund for his son, J. G. Smith, and sold by order of the court on the 12th June 1871, plaintiff in conjunction with Messrs. Zegowitz, that subject thereto his said general trust fund the goodwill of the brewery business theretofore
and purchased by the plaintiffs, the sale including Ivanoff
, and Hope, was in 1867. ocenpied in study should be held upon trust as to one moiety thereof carried on at the premises in Kirkstall, and the ing the mineral resonrces of Russin, with a view for his wife, and as to the other moiety in trust exclusive right to use the name of Benjamin Dawof developing them by mrans of companies. In as to three-fifth parts thereof for his daughters Feb. 1968, the parties took into their confidence Emilia Smith, Caroline Isabella Smith, and
son and Co. in connexion with the business of one Hughes, who had great experience in coal and Catherine Sarah Smith, each to take one-fifth part, brewers. In Dec. 1871, the defendants purchased iron works, and who agreed to join them in their and as to the remaining two-fifth parts thereof in
a brewery at Burton-on-Trent, and a motion was plans. In June 1863, an agreement was prepared trust for his son Alfred Smith. And the testator tion to restrain the defendant, his servants, and
now made on behalf of the plaintiff's for an injunc. to settle the interests of the parties. It was er. provided that if any of his said daughters should agents from soliciting orders from any of the cus, pressed to be made between Ivanoff, Hughes, Cha- die in his lifetime without leaving issue living, or bord, and Hope, and it was executed on the 15th in esse, at his death, the shares hereinbefore pro: Co., at the time of the sale, and from doing any.
tomers of the late firm of Benjamin Dawson and June, by all the parties except Ivanoff. It stated vided in the said general trust fund for, each thing to destroy the goodwill of the business that the parties in conjunction with Zegowitz had anughter so dying as aforesaid should not purchased by the plaintiffs. By the consent of all agreed to construct a certain line of railway in lapse, but should sink into and form part parties the motion was treated as the hearing of the south of Russia, to establish ironworks in the of the same general trust fund and main.
the cause. same place, and to work cortain coal mines be- tenance fund in the same manner as if the longing to Ivanoff; and that the parties had con. same share had never been so givon or pro.
The Solicitor-General (Jessel, Q. C.), Fry, Q.C., jointly submitted to the Russian Government a vided, and the name of the said son or daughter and W. F. Robinson, for the plaintiffs. request for a concession of the proposed railway, had accordingly been omitted in the gift and dis. Sir R. Baggallay, Q. C. and Marten for the and the agreement then settled how the profits position and trusts, thereinbefore contained of the defendant. were to be divided amongst the parties. Diffe. said general trust fund. The testator died on
Lord Romilly said that there was no doubt rences having arisen between the parties, Ivanoff the 14th Jan. 1871, his said daughter Catherine but that the defendant was entitled to set up the withdrew from the affair, and the bill alleged that it Sarah Smith having died in his lifetime a spinster. business, but the question is, whether he was was ultimately arranged that Hughes alone should The question to be decided was whether the share entitled personally to solicit the customers of the apply for the concession. Hughes, in Dec. 1868, ob of his said deceased daughter was disposed of by old firm. He may do so in any public manner-as tained a lease of certain collieries and in April the will, or whether the testator had died intestate by advertisements, or by circnlars addressed to 1869 he obtained a concession from the Russian
the public at large; but he was of opinion that the government of a line of railway and a promise of Sir R. Baggallay, Q.C., Fry, Q.C., Woodroffe, defendant could not solicit orders from the cusa large subsidy. Hughes then repudiated all con- Langworthy, and Kaye appeared.
tomers of the old firm, either by private letter or nection with Chabord and Hope, and started the Lord ROMILLY said: The testator has divided personally, or by traveller or agent; that the New Russian Company to carry on tho projected a certain portion of his property into fifths and principle of equity must prevail, that he cannot undertakings. Chabord accordingly filed his bill, given them to individual persons, and not to a act so as to depreciate the property sold. There praying for a declaration that he was entitled to class; and has directed that in the event of any must, therefore, be an injunction to restrain the share in the profits to be derived from the lease of of his daughters dying in his lifetime without defendant from applying to any customer of the the collieries, and from the concession and sub. issue, her share should fall into the general trust firm of Benjamin Dawson and Co. prior to the sidy granted by the Russian government. The fund as if her name was omitted from the will. 12th June 1871, either privately by letter, or perMaster of the Rolls having dismissed the bill with I am opinion that this one-fifth is undisposed sonally, or by partner, agent, or traveller, asking costs, the plaintiff appealed.
of by the will, and must go as if there was an in- that person to continue to deal with him, the Sir Richard Baggallay, Q.C., Roxburgh, Q.C., testacy.
defendant, or, not to deal with the plaintiffs. As Tilliers, and Bush Cooper (of the Common Law Solicitors : Robinson and Preston.
the point has not been previously decided, the Bar), for the plaintiff.
injunction will be granted without costs. The Solicitor-General (Jessel, Q.C.) and Everitt,
Solicitors : Nash, Field, and Layton ; Paterson, for Hugbes.
Jan. 13 and 19.
Snow, and Burney.
PALMER V. NEWELL.
Friday, Jan. 19. - Their LORDSHIPS were of opinion that Ivanoff 3001.- Trustees' discretion Limited to time of
ARMITAGE v. ARMITAGE. was an essential party to the agreement of June payment.
Power of appointment-Invalid exercise. 1868, and that, as he did not execute it, the whole A SETTLEMENT contained a covenant by the arrangement came to nothing. The bill was confined settlor that his heirs, executors or administrators, TESTATOR, having a power to appoint certain proto the agreement of June 1868, and did not allege should, at such time after the day of his decease, perty to all and every or such one or more exclu. that any other agreement had been substituted for or after the day on which the petitioner, Robert sively of the other or others of his child or it on its coming to ncthing. Their Lordships Bruce, should attain the age of 21 years, which children, or remoter issue born in lawful wedlock, were therefore of opinion that the Master of the ever should last happen, as his trustees, or the in such proportions, manner, and form, as he Rolls was right in dismissing the bill.
survivor of them, in their or his uncontrollable should by any deed or deeds, or hy his last will Aprcal accordingly dismissed with costs. discretion, should think fit, and either in one sum
and testament, or by any codicil, direct or appoint, Solicitor for the appellant, A. C. Hope.
or from time to time in various sums, pay unto made his will, and thereby directed the trustees Solicitor for the respondents, Thomas Clark. the said Robert Bruce, or for his use or benefit, to hold the said estates upon trust, so long as his
any sum not exceeding in the whole 3001, without said wife should remain alive and be unmarried, ROLLS COURT.
any deduction or abatement whatsoever. The to receive the rents and profits of the said pre
settlement contained a recital that the settlor was mises, and to pay over the fourth part thereof to Wednesday, Jan. 17.
desirous of securing the payment after his de such one of his said children as his said wife KENT V. STORES. cease of the several annuities, and the gross sum
should elect to reside with, and to pay and apply Trade mark-Use of the words, " The new venti. thereinafter respectively specified, to the several the residue of the said rents and profits to or for lated refrigerator.”
persons thereinafter named, the said sum of 3001. the benefit of all his said children. The question THE plaintiff, the manufacturer of Kent's new being the only gross sum therein mentioned. It that now came before the court for decision was patent ventilatedice safes and refrigerators, filed his was stated that the covenant as originally drawn whether the direction as to the fourth part of the bill to restrain the defendant from using the name was for the absolute payment of 3001., and that it rents and profits was a valid exercise of the of The New Ventilated Refrigerator. The plaintiff had been altered, it being doubtful whether the power, did not claim the exclusive right of manufact ng estate would be able to pay this sum. The debtor
Sir R. Baggallay, Q.C., Southgate, Q.C., Macke. Fentilated refrigerators, but objected to the defen. died on Dec. 20, 1851, and Robert Bruce attained son, Q.C., Buchanan, and F.C. J. Millar appeared. dant describing his refrigerators as ventilated. the age of twenty.one years prior to 1853. On Lord ROMILLY held it was clearly not an exer.
as to it.
cise of the power. The right to elect was given The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that if the defen- books of the company, although it was never to the mother and not to the child, and amounted dants believed in the validity of their patent, their entered in the share register of the company. to a power of appointment given to the mother. circular was in good faith; but if they had not Amphlett, Q.C. and Brooksbank were for the
Solicitors: Lever and Son; Jones, Blaxland, that belief their circular bordered upon fraud. official liquidator. and Son.
Their conduct in not bringing the action certainly Kay, Q.C. and Graham Hastings for Mr. Adams. gave the impression that they had no such belief.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the V.C. MALINS' COURT.
There was not any primâ facie presumption in directors having allotted the shares to Mr. Adams,
favour of a patent; and the defendants must not, they could not, even if they had attempted it, Friday, Jan, 19.
because they had the colourable protection of a cancel that allotment. Mr. Adams must, there. Robins v. GOLDINGHAM ; Re SUCKLING. patent, issue circulars which destroyed the plain. fore, be settled as a contributory in respect of Solicitor and client-Lien for costs—Solicitor tiff's trade. Refusing to undertake to bring an
fifty shares. discharged by himself-Production of papers action to try the validity of the patent, the defen
Solicitor for the official liquidator, Pulbrook. relating to pending litigation.
dants must be restrained from issuing circulars, Solicitors for Mr. Adams, Argles and Rawlins. Motion to compel Suckling, the former soli. in the terms of the motion. citor for the plaintiffs in the suit, to deliver op Solicitors, Ingle, Cooper, and Holmes ; Burton,
Jan. 23 and 24. the papers to the present solicitors, upon the Yates, and Hart. undertaking of the latter to hold them subject to
GOMPERTZ v. KENSIT. Suckling's lien, and to return them to him within
Valielity of marriage-Imperfect signatures in twelve days after prosecuting the suit to a con.
V.C. BACON'S COURT.
marriage register-4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 22. clusion. The bill was filed on the 17th Dec. 1870,
FORD V. FORTER.
This was a question as to the validity of a mar. by a married lady, and one of the trustees of her
Jan. 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18.
riage raised under the following circumstances, settlement, to restrain the seizure, urder a dis. Tralle mark-Svit to restrain infringement oj– By the will of Sarah Broadhurst, shares in a water. tress, of farming stock and other property comprised in the settlement. Answers were put in
works company were vested in a trustee in trust and evidence filed, and on the 7th July 1871, This suit was instituted to restrain the defendant for Adelaide de Grenier for life, with remainder to Suckling obtained an order referring the suit and from infringing what the plaintiff alleged to be Georgiana Adelaide Harvey (spinster) for life
with remainder to her children. The testatrix all further proceedings therein to the judge of the his trade mark, by using the word “Eureka” with died in 1841. On the 5th July 1811, Georgiana Worcester County Court. Being unable to obtain reference to shirts. In 1819 the plaintiff invented
Adelaide Harvey married William Frederick immediate payment of the costs incurred, Suckling a shirt of a particular shape which he called “The
Lewis Gompertz, and there was issue of the refused to proceed further in the matter, and Eureka Shirt,” by which name it was known among marriage, one child only, Amy Georgiana, who, in wrote a letter, suggesting that his name should the trade. This description of shirt was also 1866, married Stephen Spring. By the settlement be removed from the record as the plaintiff's manufactured and sold by several persons , (in: executed on the latter marriage, the reversionary solicitor. On the 16th Aug. Suckling delivered his cluding the defendant) as the “Eureka shirt,” of interest of Amy Georgiana Gompertz in the said bill of costs to the trustee, who refused to pay which fact the plaintiff was aware, as was shown shares was a-signed to W. F. L. Gompertz and the bill out of his own pocket, on the ground by (among other evidence) his bill heads and the Oliver Murphy as trustees of the settlement
. that he was only interested in the suit as a
covers of his shirt boxes, on which it was stated Geogiana Adelaide Gompertz died soon after her trustee, and that an undertaking had been given that no other shirts sold in the plaintiff's name daughter's marriage, and Adelaide de Grenier that he was not to be liable for costs. On the were genuine except such as were stamped on
died in 1869. The trustees of the settlement 13th Oct. Suckling commenced an action against the band of the collars “ R. Ford's Eureka Shirts."
then applied to Henry Kensit (the executor the trustee for the costs, and on the 6th Dec. he Subsequently to the passing of the Merchandise of the trustee of Sarah Broadhurst's will) to instituted bankrnptcy proceedings against him Marks Act 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 88), the plaintiff trunsfer the shares to them. He declined to do in the Birmingham County Court. On the 9th placed the words “trade mark” on either side of
on the ground that doubts were enter. Dec., the plaintiffs obtained an order appoint. the figure which contained the words “R. Ford's ing as their solicitors in the suit Messrs. Wilkins, Eureka Shirt.” In 1857 the plaintiff, on his bill. tained of the validity of the marriage of W. F. L. Blyth, and Marsland, who applied to Suckling for heads and otherwise, stated that he was the sled for the execution of the trusts of the will
Gompertz and his wife; and a bill was accordingly the papers, undertaking at the same time to hold patentee of these shirts although he had never ob- and a declaration as to who was now entitled to them subject to his lien. Suckling, however, re
tained any patent relating to them. The defen- the shares. W.F. L. Gompertz had signed the fused to deliver them up on the ground that his dant manufactured shirts of this particular shape marriage register as “ Frederick Gompertz," and retainer was disputed ; alleging further that the which he called “Eureka Shirts."
G. A. Harvey had signed as “ Adelaide Harvey." papers would be required for the purpose of the Little, Q.C. and Caldecott were for the plaintiff. The names appeared in the same form in the action at law and the bankruptcy proceedings. Kay, Q.C. and H. Giffarel were for the defendant. register of banins, but there was no evidence as to Glasse, Q.C. and Locock Webb in support of the
The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the the names in which the banns had been published. motion.
plaintiff was not entitled to the exclusive use of Addresses were appended to the names in the Cotton, Q.C. and Everitt for Suckling.
the word Eureka” as applied to shirts, and that marriage register, which Kensit alleged to be The Vice-CHANCELLOR said that it was clear in consequence of his acquiescence in the use of false. Under these circumstances Kensit subthat Suckling had discharged himself as the plain that name by several manufacturers and by the mitted that the marriage was null and void within tiff's solicitor; and having done so, he could not trade generally, and of his own wilful misrepre: 4 Geo. 4 c. 76, s. 22., Gompertz stated that he had be allowed to stop the litigation by withholdingsentation by advertising himself as patentee of given the order for the barins (the marriage being the papers. There must be an order in the terms these shirts, there was no ground to sustain the a clandestine one), and alleged that the other of the motion, with an undertaking by the plain. suit, which must therefore be dismissed with Christian names had been omitted for brevity's tiffs to give Suckling access to the papers for the costs.
sake. He contended that as the marriage had been purpose of the action ; and the costs of the motion
Solicitors for the plaintiff, Edmands and May. recognised by every one for such a length of time, must be paid by Suckling. hew.
no doubt could now be raised as to its validity. Solicitors : Wilkins, Blyth, and Marsland ; Solicitors for the defendant, Reed, Phelps, and Kay, Q.C. and Roberts for Gompertz. Miller and Miller. Sidgwick.
Amphlett, Q.C. and Russell for Kensit.
Woodroffe for Oliver Murphy.
Jan. 18 and 20.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that to render a
marriage void under 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 22, it was Alleged patent--Circulars threatening proceedings for infringement-Refusal to bring action to try Company-Amalgamation Application for shares Mrs. Gompertz did knowingly or wilfully concur
INSURANCE COMPANY; Adam's Case.
necessary to show that both parties were cognisant
of the fraud. Here there was no evidence that validity - Injunction restraining circulars. PLAINTIFF, a lamp merchant carrying on busi.
--Repudiation of shares-Share register-Core in the undue publication of banns. No question, ness in London, purchased in Sept. 1871 a stock
therefore, could be raised under the Act as to the of lamp burners, manufactured according to an This was an application on behalf of the official validity of the marriage, and the plaintiff was invention patented in the United States in 1859, liquidator to settle dr. Adams on the list of con entitled to the relief prayed. and advertised his purchase in a newspaper called tributories, in respect of fifty shares held by him Solicitors : Lercis and Leucis; J. A. Parry; the Grocer. The defendants, lamp merchants at in the above-named company. Mr. Adams had George Kensit, Birmingham, had in 1865 taken out a patent in been a shareholder and director of the Bristol England for improvements in lamps burning Marine Insurance Company, the business of which
Tuesday, Jan. 23. paraffin oil; and, on seeing plaintiff's advertise was, in 1869, transferred to the United Ports ment, they applied through their solicitors to the Company. Part of the consideration for the
IMRAY V. IMEsox. plaintiff for one of the American lamp burners, transfer was, that each shareholder in the Construction of will-Conuitionalget orer—" Or” for the purpose, as they stated, of having formal Brstol Company should receive the same num.
real as “and." proof on which to found legal proceedings against ber of shares in the United Ports Company. TESTATOR by his will gare certain real and perhim, for an infringement of their patent. On the as he had held in the Bristol Company. In April sonal property to trustees in trust for his son 3rd Oct. 1871 the plaintiff forwarded one of his 1869, Mr. Adams received a form of application John for life, and after his death for his children lamp burners to the defendants, and wrote to say for shares in the United Ports Company, which he in equal shares; but if his son Johu should die that he hoped an action would be commenced at filled in and returned to the manager of the com- under twenty-one without leaving lawsul issue once. No action was brought, but the defendants pany, requesting to have fiity shares allotted to living at his decease, the testator directed the issued a circular to the lanp trade, stating that him, and authorising the cirectors to place his property to be in trust for his other children in on the discovery of the public sale of any lamp name upon the register of shareholders. These equal shares. And after further gifts the testator burners made in infringement of their patent, shares were allotted to Mr. Adams on the 22nd April give the residue of his property in trust for his they would at once proceed by injunction against 1869, but notice thereof was not given to him until four sons, Matthew, Thomas, Jolm, and Chris. the offender, and would also sue for damages. after the 15th May, on which day he wrote to the topher, but in case no child of his should live to The plaintiff pressed the defendants to take legal manager of the United Ports Company, with attain twenty-one, or if none of them should leave proceedings, but without effect, and on the 14th drawing his application for shares. A corre. lawful issue at his or her death or respective Dec. 1871 the plaintiff filed his bill praying for an spondence thereupon ensuei with respect to Mr. deaths, then the testator gave the residne to injunction to restrain the defendants from pub. Adams's right to withdraw, and on the 14th Aug. certain other persons. In 1801 testator dieu, Lishing the above circular, or circulating any notice 1849 the company's solicitors wrote to Mr. Adams's leaving one daughter, Jane, and the four sons representing that the sale or use of the lamp solicitor, stating that a resolution had been passed named in his will surviving. All the testator's burners offered for sale by the plaintiff was an by the directors, cancelling the allotment of children attained twenty-one. John, who attained infringement of any patent of the defendants, or shares to Mr. Adams. There was, however, 'no twenty-one in 1864 died withoutissue in 1563, having calculated by the threat of legal proceelings to entry in the minute book of any such resulution, given all his real and personal estate to his wife deter dealers or the public from purchasing or using and one of the directors who was present at the Helena, whom he appointed his excentrix. In a the sail lamp burners. A motion was now made meeting when the resolution was alleged to have special case stated for the opinion of the court, for an interlocutory ininnction in the above terms. been passed, denied that it had been passed. At the questions were (1) whether under the above
Glasse, Q. C., T. Aston, and Ingle Joyce in sup- the time of the allotment to Mr. Adanis. the com- circumstances the property of which trusts were port of the motion.
i pony had no proper share register. Mr. Adaus declared in favour of John ? his chillren fell Cotton, Q. C. and Lawson for the defendants. name, however, appeared in the several allotmont into the residue and passed by the residuary gift;
and if so (2), whether the interest taken by the held that the respondent ought to have proceeded and had thereby committed an illegal act, also testator's three surviving sons and the widow of by way of arbitration under clause 84, and not by that defendant was justified in stopping the user his deceased son under the residuary gift was way of summary conviction under clause 90. at the fountain head, for the plaintiff, by exeegabsolute and indefeasible.
Judgment for appellant. sive user, had forfeited all his former right to the Eddis, Q.C. and Langworthy for the widow of Attorneys for appellant, Swann and Co.
enjoyment the stream. A verdict having been the testator's son John.
Attorneys for respondent, Scott and Co.
found for the plaintiff, with leave reserved for the Kay, Q.C. for testator's sons, Matthew, Thomas,
defendant to move on the above grounds, and Christopher.
H. T. Cole, Q. C., Lopes, Q. c., and Pinder Ramadge for testator's daughter Jame.
Tuesday, Jan. 23.
showed cause. Macnaghten for the persons entitled under the
HAYMEN V. GOVER.
Kingilon, Q. C., Montague Bere, Q.C., and Mor. gift over of the residue.
Guarantee to accept bills-Mutual mistake
timer, in support of the rule, contended that the The VICE-CHANCELLOR held that the property
Principal and agent. fell into the residue, and passed by the residuary This was a special case upon an action for plaintiffs having exceeded any right to which they
were entitled, had thereby caused a suspension of gift, and that the interest which passed under breach of contract of guarantee.
such right. such residuary gift was absolute and indefeasible. brickmakers, trading under the name of the
The COURT (Willes, Byles, Brett, and Grove, Solicitors : Tucker, New, and Langdale ; Payne. Medway Gault Brick
Company. Defendant is an JJ.) were of opinion that the defendant was only attorney, who had entered into a building agree. entitled to stop the plaintiff's excessive user of
ment with a builder named Hatten. The contract the water by ordinary means, and by the least COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
was signed by the defendant and one Ashenden, injurious mode in his power'; they considered
plaintiffs' agent—" As agent for and on behalf that he was not entitled to remove the weir, as Saturday, Jan. 20.
of the Medway Gault Brick Company, I hereby that was an excess which would only be justified BUCKHURST (app.) v. THE GUARDIANS OF agree to supply Mr. Hatten, of Sutton, or such by there being no other remedy. CHATHAM (resps.). other person to whom this contract may be trans.
Rule discharged. Case stated by sessions—Certiorari-Appeal from ferred, with 200,000 patent gault bricks, at 308.
Attorneys for plaintiffs Whittakers and Woolguardians-Appointment of officers. per thousand; also 200,000 wire cuts, at 38s. per bert, for Riccard and Son, South Molton. This was an appeal upon a special case stated by thousand, to be delivered alongside at Deadmen's
Attorney for defendants, Thos. Sismey, for the quarter sessions of the county of Kent. The Dock in such quantities and at such times as he Pearse and Crosse, South Molton. appellant had been appointed collector of rates in or they may require, but to be taken within four the borough of Chatham, and the respondents had months from the date hereof. Month's account, reduced his salary. He complained, and they and bill at five months; the due performance of
COURT OF EXCHEQUER. deprived him of his office. He appealed to quarter this contract by Mr. Hatten and any subse. sessions against his dismissal, and judgment was quent transferee being guaranteed by Mr. Gover."
MONFLET V. COLE. then given for the respondents, subject to this The defendant set up a double defence. First, Upon a covenant not to carry on a trade within a The local Act 42 Geo. 3, c. lvi., sect. 15, that he guaranteed only Hatten's acceptance of
certain distance, such distance is to be measured gives power to the guardians, or to any nine of these bills, which had been given ; secondly, on not according to the ordinary mode of access, but them, to appoint officers and to revoke appoint- equitable grounds, that both Ashenden and he had
by a straight line upon a horizontal plane, or as ments, ten days' notice having first been given to mutually intended and mistaken the effect of the
the crow flies. all the guardians. Sect. 16 empowers the guar. guarantee to relate only to Hatten's acceptance, Upon a former day in Michaelmas Term cause dians to make bye-laws, rules, orders, and regula. and not his payment of the bills. The plaintiffs had
was shown against a rule obtained by the defen. tions, which, and all other acts, orders, and always understood the guarantee to be absolute dant, calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why proceedings of the said guardians shall be entered for payment.
a verdict should not be entered for him upon the in a book. It is enacted by sect. 17 “that no James, Q.C. (with Philbrick) for plaintiffs.
ground that upon a true construction of his cove. such bye-law, rule, order, regulation, act, or pro
J. C. Mathew for defendant.
nant he was entitled to have it entered for him, ceeding shall be repealed or revoked unless by a The Court (Cockburn, C.J., Blackburn, Mellor, subject to the award of the arbitration agreed majority of a greater number of the guardians and Quain, JJ.) interpreted the guarantee to refer
on between the parties, the court to determine present at some subsequent meeting than were to payment of the bills, and held that, under the the principle upon which such arbitrator is present at the doing or making thereof." Sect. circumstances, the equitable defence was invalid.
to proceed. It appeared by the declaration that 54 provides that anyone aggrieved by anything
Julgment for plaintiffs.
by a certain deed dated the 10th Feb. 1871 done by order of the guardians may apply for Attorneys for plaintiffs, Nash, Field, and between the plaintiff and the defendant, after relief to the guardians, and may appeal to quarter Layton.
reciting that the defendant had contracted sessions, and the determination of the justices Attorneys for defendant, Roche and Gover.
with the plaintiff for the sale to him of the leaseshall be final and conclusive. By sect. 58 no
hold premises and goodwill of the business of a order shall be removed by certiorarı or any other
licensed victualier, carried on by the defendant, writ or process whatever into any court of record.
MAY v. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COM. called the Lord Holland public house, the defenThe appellant was elected at a meeting of twenty
dant covenanted with the plaintiff that in case the six guardians, and dismissed at a meeting of ten. Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, s. 127— defendant should take, keep, or be in any way
Manisty, Q. C. and F. J. Smith, for the respon- Superfluous lands not required for the purposes concerned in the trade or business of a licensed dents.
of the Act.
public-house, beershop, or place for the sale of Prentice, Q.C. and Barrow for the appellant. This was a special case stated upon an action of wines or spirits within the distance of one-half of The COURT (Blackburn and Quain, JJ.) held ejectment. Plaintiff claimed land adjoining land
a mile of the said premises so called the Lord that the quarter sessions had power, under the of his own and the defendants' railway, which had Holland, that he, the
defendant, should pay to the Act, to state this special case, and that the revo- been compulsorily acquired by them for purposes plaintiff the sum of 5007. as liquidated damages. cation of the appellant's appointment was valid. of their Act of Parliament. The Act under which The declaration then alleged that the defendant
Fredgment for respondents. the land was acquired received the royal assent broke his agreement, and kept a place, and was Attorneys for appellant, Sandys and Knott, for on 30th June 1845, and five years was the time concerned in the trade and business of a licensed W. W. Hayward, Rochester.
limited for the completion of the works. The public house, within the distance of one-half of a Attorneys for respondents, Nickinson, Prall, land had been used to deposit chalk and spoil mile of the said premises. The defendant pleaded and Vickinson, for Prall and Son, Rochester. which had been taken from a neighbouring cut- that he did not keep and was not concerned in the
ting, but from soon after the passing of the Act trade and business of a licensed public-houso Dixon (app.) v. COCKETT (resp.)
until the present time, it had been let as gar- within the distance of one-half of a mile of the
dens. Sect. 127 of the Lands Clauses Consoli. said premises called the Lord Holland. From the Evidence oj tolls-Jurisdiction oj justices on dation Act 1845, provides with respect to lands facts proved that the trial, it appeared, ithat
matters of title. This was an appeal upon a case stated by justices under the provisions of this or the special Act or acquired by the promoters of the undertaking shortly after the defendant sold to the plaintifl
the premises and goodwill of The Lord Holland of Lincoloshire. The appellant, who was collector of the tolls of Dunham Bridge, had de
any Act incorporated therewith, but which shall he took and kept a public-house called The Duko manded and taken from the respondent id. upon the promoters are to sell withiin ten years from plaintiff to be within the distance of one half of
not be required for the purposes thereof,” that of Cambridge, which house was alleged by the his passing over the bridge on foot, the respon; the time limited for the completion of the works; tance had been measured, and it appeared that
à from The actual dis. dent having on the same day previously passed
“and in default thereof, all such perfluous over and paid the toll. The justices had convicted lands remaining unsold at the expiration of such taking the nearest walking distance, that is, the appellant upon a summons and fined him 6d. and costs, but by the case stated reserved to this period shall thereupon vest in and become the cutting off corners, the distance between the two court the questions (1), whether they had juris property, of the owners of the land adjoining houses was 25 yards, short of half a mile; that,
taking the distance in a straight line, as the crow diction, the appellant claiming the toll as a matter of right; (2) whether the appellant was entitled
Pinder (with Cole, Q.C.), argued for the plain flies, the distance was 75 yards short of half a tiff.
mile ; but that taking the centre of the road, that to the toll. By the local Act(il Geo. 4, c. lxvi.), the 69th clause provides the maximum tolls to be
Manisty, Q.C. (with Raymond) for the defen- is, following the course a carriage would take, the
distance was 19 yards over half a mile. Martin, dants. charged for carriages, horses, cattle, and foot passengers, ld. being the toll for every foot pas.
The Court considered that it was not sufficient B., at the trial expressed his opinion that the disa senger. The 70th clause provides that horses
to exempt the defendants from forfeiture that at tance should be measured in a straight line, or as and cattle may repass without payment, if toll required this land for the purposes thereof. some period since the passing of their Act they had the crow flies, and a verdict was accordingly' taken
for the plaintiff with 5001, damages, leave being has been paid the same day. Clause 84 gives a
reserved to the defendant to move for this rule.
Judgment for plaintiff. justice power to hear and settle disputes respect
Parry, Serjt. and F. Turner showed cause and ing tolls, to determine the amount of the toll dis
Attorneys for plaintiff, Johnson and Wetherall.
cited Leigh v. Hin (9 B. & C.774): Atkym v. Ward puted, and to award costs and charges to be levied
Attorneys for defendants, Maples and Co.
(2 Star. N. P. 83, 89); Stokes v. Grissell (23 L. J. 41, by distress. Clause 80 gives the bridge com
C. P.); Reg. v. Saffron Walden (9 Q. B. 76); Jeuell pany incorporated by the Act power to alter the
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
v. Stead (25 L. J. 294, Q. B.); Lake v. Butter (24 tolls by resolution. Clause 90 empowers justices
L. J. 273, Q. B.); Wing v. Earle (Cro. Eliz.); to convict summarily for demanding and taking
HILL 2. Cock; LORD POLTIMORE v. Cock.
Dingman v. Walker (28 L. J. 867, Ch.) unauthorized tolls. From 1830 to the present Excessive user of easement-Right to prevent- Garth, Q.C. and A. L. Smithi appeared in sup. time neither the bridge company nor their lessees
Least injurious mode to be used.
port of the rule, and relied upon Leigh v. Hind had ever demanded a second toll the same day The question in these casos being the same, one (9 B. & C. 774), which had been acted upon ever from a foot passenger, but the company had never action being by the tenant and the other by the since and was considered as laying down the rule, formally passed an exemption to that effect. reversioner, the court heard the arguments as on that the distance by the ordinary mode of access is Care for the appellant. one rule.
that which is to be considered. Cur, adv. vult. J. W. Nellor for the respondent.
The action was brought against the defendant, The Court being divided in opinion, Clensby, B. The Court (Blackburn, Lush, and Quain, JJ.), a miller, for destroying an ancient weir, whereby held that the distance should be considered in con. considered that the practice of forty years was the plaintiff lost the enjoyment and user of the nexion with the subject matter, and should be some evidence that the company had exempted water as heretofore. The defence was that the measured upon the principle of the ground to be foot passengers from second payments, but they plaintiff had irrigated beyond his right to do so,'travelled over and not as the crow fies, and,
therefore, that the rule should be made absolute. to Ireland and visit the mills there, and to give | supply of which the usual quantity of coals had been Martin and Channell, BB, held that the distance directions to the subordinate manager there. The taken on board, had to be kept constantly at work should be measured as by a line drawn upon a mill in question was one of a number of mills to pump the ship and to keep her afloat, the horizontal plane; and they also considered that belonging to the plaintiff company, and was under tempestuous weather having caused her to spring the question had been concluded by authority. the management of a local manager, a Mr. Ham, several leaks. The coals becoming exhausted it
Rule discharged. who carried on the business of the mill, subject to became necessary, in the master's opinion, not Attorneys for the plaintiff, Stileman and Neate. the direction of the London board. The mill was only to purchase a further supply of coals on the Attorneys for the defendant, Shum and Cross. a flax-mill. Early in 1867 a policy for 10001. on voyage, but also to cut up a quantity of spare
the mill was effected with the defendants' com spars which were stored on board, in order to
pang. On the 19th Oct. 1867 the mill was acci- furnish fuel to keep the donkey engine at work Thursday, Jan. 11.
dentally destroyed by fire. Notice of the fire pumping the ship, and eventually and by those WARD V. MARTIN.
was given by Mr. Ham, the local manager, means, the vessel arrived in England with her Mortgagor and mortgagee-Equity of redemption to the head office of the plaintiffs' company cargo safe and undamaged. The question involved
-Right to redeem-Mortgagor (a bastard) dying in London, and on the 24th Oct. Watson, the in the case was whether the cost of these spars intestate and without heirs-Claim of mort managing director in London of the plaintiffs' and of certain repairs of the engine, was or was gagor's administratrix to redeem under sect. 219 company, gave notice, by letter, of the fire to the nt the subject of general average to which the of Common Law Procedure Act 1852–Mortgagee's defendants. On the 26th Oct. the defendants' aufendants were bound to contributo. claim to hold the estate-Escheat. surveyor went from London to Ballina and sur.
H. James, Q.C. (with him was Cohen), for the This was a case raising a curious question. One Ham the plaintiffs’ munager there, at 9401. It
veyed the premises, and adjusted the loss, with plaintiff. Martin, deceased, had in his lifetime mortgaged having come to the knowledge of the plaintiffs for the defendants.
Pollock, Q.C. (O. Lodge was with him) contra, an estate in fee to the plaintiff. Martin was illegi that å Mr. Evans, the agent of the landlord of
Cur, adı, vult. timate, and upon his death intestate, the defendant; the mills
of which the plaintiffs were the lessees, following judgments were now delivered.
Jan. 17.—The COURT, differing in opinion, the his widow, as administratrix of his estate, took had been placing himself in communication with out a summons, under sect. 219 of the Common their manager, Ham, therefore the plaintiffs,
by that under the circumstances the costs and ex.
KELLY, C.B. and BRAMWELL, B., were of opinion Law Procedure Act 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 76) their solicitor, on the 31st October, wrote to Mr. penses in question were geferal average expenses offering to pay the full principal and interest Ham expressing their surprise at his having commoneys due on the mortgage, and all costs, and pleted arrangements with the insurance company called on to contribute.
to which the owner of the cargo might justly be Pigott, B. made an order therein directing that, on
without first communicating with the plaintiffs' payment of such principal, interest, and costs, the board. The defendants, it appeared, had an agent were of a different opinion, and thought that the
MARTIN, and CLEASBY, B.B., on the contrary, mortgagee should reconvey the estate. A rule at Ballina, a Mr. McAndrew, and he, representing defendants ought not to be called upon to con: was then obtained by the plaintiff, the mortgagee, the defendants' company, and notwithstanding the tribute towards the payment of the losses and calling on the defendant, the administratrix of the last-mentioned letter, agreed with Ham that the expenses incurred by the shipowner in this case, deceased mortgagor, to show cause why that insurance company should pay the amount of the and which the plaintiff, by his contract, was order of Pigott, B. should not be rescinded. loss, which had been assessed on their behalf at bound to bear himself. The facts were peculiar. Martin, the mort. 9401., by a bill at three days in favour of Ham and gagor, died intestate, without issue, and, Evans, the latter being the agent of the landlord, judgment, and there was, thereupon,
Cleasby, B., as the junior baron, with drew his being illegitimate, he accordingly left no heir which' bill was paid into the National Bank at at law. The defendant, the widow, took out Ballina jointly by Ham and Evans, in their joint
Judgment for the plaintiff. letters of administration, and offered to redeem
Attorneys for the plaintiff, Westall and Roberts, the mortgage as above mentioned. This the
names. The money still remains in the Ballina 7, Leadenhall-street, E.C.
Bank, the Court of Chancery having intervened to plaintiff, the mortgagee, refused to accede to, protect the defendants' company when
the question and Walton, 30, Great Winchester-street, E.C.
Attorneys for the defendants, Waltons, Bubb, and claimed to hold the estate (which of course, of payment was raised, and whether they might not on the mortgagor's death, without heir, have to pay the same sum twice over. The queses cheated to the Crown) free from any claim on
Friday, Jan. 19. the part of the mortgagor and his representatives. the defendants to Ham, the local manager of the tion in the present case is whether a payment by
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. BARKER. The Crown on the application of the mortgagor's plaintiffs' mills, and this person (Evans), is such a Injunction to restrain an action of trespass until widow had renounced all claim on the estate as
the questions involved in such action, and against her. It did not appear at the hearing of payment as entitles them to plead payment in the summons before Pigott, B., whether the the defendants on the plea of payment, with leave
answer to the action. A verdict was directed for others connected therewith, have been disposeil mortgage were in fee or for a term of years; the
of by an information by English Bill on the equity property was very small, barely enough in fact to 9401., on the ground that the payment to Ham and The Solicitor - General (Jessel, Q.C.) (...
to move to enter a verdict for the plaintiffs for side of the court. pay the mortgage and other debts. Kingdon, Q. C. and Bucknill showed cause on
Evans was no payment to the plaintiffs, and a Karslake with him) moved on the equity side the part of the defendant, and contended that the rule to that effect having been obtained,
of this court for an injunction to restrain the order was most equitable under the circumstances. Manisty, Q.C. Aspinall, Q.C. and R. G. Wil. defendant until further hearing from prose[CLEASBY, B.-What right had the defendant to liams, for the defendants, showed cause against cuting an action of trespass commenced on
the 5th June last against two persons, Kennedy redeem ? CHANNELL, B. — But for the 219th it, and section of the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 D. Seymour, Q.C., Day, and Lewers, for the and Turner, who were tenants under the Crown
of certain lands in the manor of Muchland, there would have been no right to redeem at law plaintiffs, contra, argued in support of it. at all.] It had been decided in equity that a mere The Court (Kelly, C.B., Martin, Channell, and ferred to the full court by Cleasby, B., sitting
in Lancashire. This application had been redry equity of redemption on a mortgage in fee Cleasby, BB.), with great reluctance, came to the at chambers. It appears that the Queen was does not escheat to the Crown, but vests in the conclusion that the rule must be made absolute to lady of the manor of Muchland in Lanca.
such was mortgagee subject to the mortgagor's debts; but enter the verdict for the plaintiffs. There was not a shire, and as otherwise in the case of a mortgage for a term of particle of evidence that Ham was a general agent; minerals
lying thereunder, and had,
as it was
entitled years. The administratrix might have filed a bill and, if he were so, yet a payment to him as such alleged, a right to search for them, making for administration, and have compelled a full must be made in the ordinary way. It might posaccount from the mortgagee. The administratrix sibly be different had the payment to him been in compensation to the tenants according to the as primarily responsible for debts should have cash; but it was not so. It was most important fendant, was one of the tenants of the manor, and
custom of the manor. Barker, the present de. the right to realize the estate, pay the debts, and that persons in his position should be kept within Kennedy and Turner were lessees for the Crown of take the little surplus, if any: (Beale v. Simons, the strict line of duty attaching to their office. 16 Beav. 416 ; Fisher on Mortgages, p. 309.)
the mines and minerals under the lands held by
Rule absolute. Manisty, Q.C. and H. T. Atkinson, contra, in Attorney for the plaintiffs, W. Eley, 27, New entered the land occupied by Barker and pro
Barker, and who, in pursuance of their lease, support of this rule, argued that the adminis. Broad-street. tratrix had no right to redeem the estate, which belonged to the mortgagoe, burdened with the Anstie and Co., 57, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, agents for brought an action of trespass in this court, the Attorneys for the defendants, Vizard, Crowder, ceeded to bore for the
minerals, for which act one
Hodgson, who was in possession under Barker, mortgagor's debts : (Catley v. Sampson, 33 Beav. R. L. Williams, Liverpool. 571.) He referred also to sect. 220 of the Com.
writ also asking for an injunction to restrain the mon Law Procedure Act, 1852.
defendants. The present injunction was sought
Wednesday, Jan. 17. The Court (Kelly, C.B., Channell and Cleasby,
for, inasmuch as an information by English bill BB.) were of opinion there was clearly no power
HARRISON V. THE BANK OF AUSTRALASIA. had been filed on the equity side of this court, for to make the order in question under the statute, Ship and shipping - General average Donkey
the purpose of ascertaining the rights of the but suggested that the case should stand over for engine--Supply of fuel to keep same at work- Crown and the tenants, and it was argued that as a fortnight, for an arrangement, if possible, be. Pumping the ship—Costs of-By whom to be the action of trespass will not settle the entire tween the parties.
question, which alone can be satisfactorily disStonds orer accordingly, This was an action by the plaintiff, a shipowner posed of by the information, the injunction should Attorneys for the plaintiff, Sowten, agent for at Liverpool, and owner of the ship Champion of be granted to stay the proceedings at law until Sherwood, Wellingborough. the Seas, against the defendants, who carry on
the entire question had been determined in Attorneys for the defendant, Mead and Daubeny, business at Melbourne, and have also an office in equity. 2, King's Bench-walk, Temple, agents for Beed. London, and it was brought to recover 951, 8s. 10d.,
Manisty, Q.C, and Herschell showed cauze. ham, Kilbolton, Hunts. the amount of general average adjusted upon a
The Solicitor-General, in reply. cargo from Melbourne to London. The action
The Court (Kelly, C.B., Channell, and Cleasby, Saturday, Jan. 13. came on to be tried before Kelly, C.B., and a
BB.) were of opinion that as other questions THE BALLINA MILLS COMPANYI (LIMITED) v. special jury of the City of London, at Guildhall,
were involved in the information by English THE ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
at the sittings after Trinity Term, 1869, and bill besides those in the action of trespass,
resulted in a verdict for Principal and agent – Payment to agent and the damages in the declaration, subject to a
the plaintiff for and which it was of importance should be
settled, it was right that the action should be another person jointly-No discharge of the per. special case, which was argued more than a
stayed, in order that the whole subject should be son paying.
year ago, and was re-argued, by order of dealt with by the court sitting in its equity This was an action to recover 9401, on a policy of the court in Trinity Term last. The vessel
Injunction granted. fire insurance, tried before Kelly, C.B., at the sailed from Melbourne with a cargo of general to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests,
Solicitor for the Crown, Horace Watson, solicitor London sittings after Trinity Term last. The merchandise, amongst which were several boxes of defendants pleaded payment, and the question gold belonging to the defendant. She was tight
Solicitors for the defendant, Cunliffe and Beau. turned on that plea. A verdict for the defendants staunch, and sufficiently manned, and furnished
mont. was directed, with leave to move to enter the with every necessary for the voyage, and was in verdict for the plaintiffs. The facts, shortly every respect seaworthy. On the voyage to
Saturday, Jan. 20. stated, were, that the plaintiffs were an English England she met with exceptionally rough weather Dyte v. THE ST. Pancras BOARD OF GUARDIANS, company, having offices in London, which was and severe gales, and in consequence thereof, a Boord of guardians-Appointment by, of medical, governed by a board of directors, and a managing donkey engine, with which she was fitted for the director whose occasional duty it was to go over' ordinary working purposes of the ship, and for the
officer to infirmary-Appointment not under seal - Necessity of seal to validity of contract-Corpo
ration- Erecuted and executory consideration, to the defendants to move to enter a nonsaiting the court fonnd the issues for the husband, Difference between.
if the court should be of opinion that there was and being of opinion that the wife's story was This was an action by the plaintiff, a medical no evidence of negligence to go to the jury. trumped up, refused to make the ordinary order man, to recover 1371. 6s., the amount of a quarter's From the facts proved upon the trial it appeared that the wife's costs for the hearing, for which salary at the rate of 4001. a year, and also an that the plaintiff, who is a solicitor, practising at security had been given in the registry, should be equivalent for apartments and rations claimed by Luton, on the 29th Dec. 1870 took a return railway paid to her. The wife appealel to the full court, and him in lieu of notice, on account of his alleged | ticket at the Midland railway station at Luton, for Searle now argued that the court was bound by illegal dismissal by the defendants from his post Ampthill, to wbich place he proceeded accordingly. the practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts, by of medical officer of the Highgate Infirmary under lle came back to the Ampthill station at about which a wife was entitled to her costs, if neces. the following circumstances :-In Dec. 1869 the 3.35, in order to return to Luton by the train which sary de die in diem, and that the Rule 158, under plaintiff was a candidate for the then vacant post, was advertised to leave there at 3.48. It was a which the Judge Ordinary had acted, was ultra and on the 5th Dec. 1869 the infirmary committee cold frosty day. As he was smoking a cigar and vires. passed the following resolution :-“Resolved, that walking along the platforın he suddenly fell, the The FULL COURT held that the Judge Ordinary it be recommended to the guardians at their meet: effect of which was that he dislocated his right had full discretion under the rule, and contirmed ing this afternoon to appoint Mr. Dyte medical shoulder and sustained other injuries. Upon being his order, disallowing the wife's costs. officer for three months, and that he devote his whole assisted up, he looked to see what was the cause of Proctor for petitioner, Crosse. time during such period at and for a sum of 1001., his fall, when he discovered that it aroso from board and rations." This resolution and appoint- some ice which had been allowed to form on the ment was approved by the board, and on the 9th platform. It was supposed that the ice was
Tuesday, Jan. 23. Dec. the plaintiff received a letter from Mr. formed from water which had escaped from a pipe
(Before Lord PENZANCE, J.O.) Filder, the clerk to the board, announcing to erected to convey water from the roof of the station DODSON 1. DODSON AND BARBER. him his appointment, and sending him a copy to a receptable below the platform, but as to this Dissolution suit-Coneonation-New charges of of the above resolution, and adding that the there was no positive evidence. The ice, however,
adultery. appointment would probably take effect only had evidently arisen from water which had escaped This was a husband's suit for dissolution on the from the date of the day on which the plaintiff from somewhere and crossed the platform for a ground of his wife's adultery with the co-respon. should enter on his duties, which he was subse distance of more than half a yard, and was nearly dent. The wife in her answer pleaded condonaquently informed he wae expected to do on tho an inch in thickness. No evidence was adduced tion. 7th Jan. 1870, from which day he fulfilled his by the defendants. A rale nisi having been duties up to the 25th March, when the three obtained,
Searle, for the husband, now moved for leare to
amend his petition by adding new charges of months expired, and when he received 1001. salary O'Malley, Q C. and Metcalfe showed cause. adultery committed since the filing of the petition, for that period of service. His appointment was Bulwer, Q.C. and Merewether in support of tho by which the original adultery would be revived. sanctioned by the Poor Law Board on the express rule. condition that it was to cease upon the infirinary
Bennet and Finney, for the respondent and coThe Court was of opinion that there was respondent, objected. being handed over to the Central London Lock evidence of negligence to go to the jury.
The Court--The best course will be to file a Asylum district. The plaintiff continued on after
Rule discharged the 25th March, nothing being said or done till
supplemental petition embodying the new charges,
Attorneys for the plaintiff, Lewis, Minns and Co. and the two petitions can be tried together. the 6th April, when a resolution was passed at Attorneys for the defendants, Beale, Marigold Solicitor for the petitioner, Sturt. an infirmary committee meeting that “the medical and Co.
Solicitors for the respondent, Lake and Co. cfficer," and other officers and servants therein mentioned, " whose engagements expired at Lady
Solicitor for the co-respondent, lbbott.
COURT OF PROBATE. Day, should be employed monthly at the several salaries assigned to them by the guardians.” On
Tuesday, Jan. 23.
COURT OF ADMIRALTY. the 24th May, at an infirmary committee meet
(Before Lord PenzANCE.)
Tuesday, Jan. 23. ing, notice in writing was served the
In the Goods of RUDDY.
THE EMPRESS. plaintiff by the chairman of the committee, Will-Surviving executor out of the country informing him of the termination of his appoint.
Jurisdiction-Salvage of vessel under 10001. value
Limited administration with will annexed ment on the 24th June next, sich notice being
- Merchant Shipping Amendment Act 1892, s. 49 granteil to a residuary legatee-33 Geo. 3, c. 87– served in conformity with a resolution of the 21 f. 22 Vict. c. 86.
- County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act Board of Guardians of the 6th May previously; Thomas Ruddy died in 1850, leaving a will, of This was a cause of salvage instituted on behalf
1868, s. 9. but the service was accompanied by the distinct which his wife Mary Ruddy, Thomas Hudson, and of certain fishermen of Whitburn against the verbal statement of the chairman that "it was Richard Rowland, were appointed executors. steam-tug Empress, which had been deserted by merely a formal notice intended to relieve the St. Rosland renounced ; and the will was proved by her crew. After the arrest of the vessel she was Pancras Board from liability for salaries, &c., Mrs. Ruddy and Hudson. Mrs. Ruddy died in beyond 24th June, when it was expected the infir 1959, and Hudson left this country in 1855, under appraised, under an order of the court, at the sum mary would be transferred to the central board, circumstances which made it improbable that he
Ciarkson moved to dismiss the suit, on the and, if it were not then transferred, the notice would ever return. Thomas Ruddy's estate was would go for nothing.” On the 23rd June the entitled to a share in the residuary estate of James äid not exceed 10001., the Court of Admiralty had
ground that as the value of the property salved plaintiff was informed his successor had been ap. Ruddy, and on the death of the tenant for life pointed, who would enter on his duties next day. in 1871, a suit was instituted in Chancery for the
no jurisdiction by the Merchant Shipping Amend.
ment Act 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 63), s. 49, which The plaintiff then left, under protest, on the 24th administration of James Ruddy's estate. It be. June, being paid another 1001. for services up to
gave all jurisdiction in salvage cases where the that date. The other officers referred to above, presentative of Thomas Ruddy other than the value of the property salved was under 10001. to and who had also received like notices, remained absent Hudson.
justices. on until the transfer of the infirmary to the central Searle now moved under the 38 Geo. 3, .. 87 County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1863
Phillimore, for the salvors, contended that the board at Michaelmas 1870. The action was tried and the amending Act 21 & 22 Vict. c. 86, for a (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), sect. 9, revived the original before Pigott, B., at London Sittings after Trinity grant of administration with the will annexed to jurisdiction in all salvage suits, and that any suit term last, and the plaintiff was nonsuited, with Mary Rapley, one of Thomas Ruddy's residuary which could be instituted in a County Court under leave to move ; and a rule was accordingly obtained legatees. to enter a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum The Court made the grant, limited to the that Act (viz. under 10001. value), could also be claimed, on the ground that the contract engaging representation in the Chancery suit, and the
instituted in the Admiralty Court, subject, of on cantinuing the plaintiff as medical officer was receipt of such moneys as the Court of Chancery course, to the risk of condemnation in costs under Falid, though not under the seal of the defendants ; should hold the estate of Thomas Ruddy is that it was a contract to serve till the infirmary entitled to.
The Court held that it had jurisdiction, but was handed over to the central board, or till the
that the question whether it was a proper cause
Solicitor, P.W. Lovett. plaintiff had three months' notice; and that he
to be tried in this court, was a question to be de. had had no legal notice to leave, and did not
cided when the facts were before the court. waive notice, &c.
Monday, Jan. 22. H. James, Q.C. and Beasley for the defendants
In the Goods of MARY HAMER. showed cause against, and Will—No attestation clause-Attesting witnesses
ELECTION LAW. M. Chambers, Q,C. and Nasmyth for the plaintiff refused to make the usual affidavit-Subpana supported the above rule. issued to compel their attendance in court under
NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. The COURT (Martin, Channell, and Pigott, BB.) the 24th section of the Probate Court Act.
PRACTICE-NOTICE OF OBJECTION-MISTAKE Fere of opinion the rule should be discharged. MARY ANNE HAMER, late of Credenhill, in the IN PLACE OF ABOVE OF OBJECTOR.-A notice of The board of guardians were not a trading cor: county of Hereford, spinster, died 17th Sept. 1871, objection pursuant to the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 7, poration, and the contract was not valid for want leaving a will bearing date 6th Sept. 1871. It was schedule A, No. 5, signed by the objector, with the of a seal, there being a difference in that respect duly executed and attested, but it contained no address of his former place of abode, is insufficient, between executed and executory considerations, attestation clause. An aflidavit of due execution although his residence is so near the former that Rule discharged. was therefore required from the attesting wit. it stands upon part of the garden belonging to
the former residence : (Caver v. Roberts, 25 L. T. Attorney for the plaintiff, W. Venn, 3, New Inn, nesses, but this they both refused to make. Strand. Bayford, on behalf of the executors, moved the Rep. 751. C. P.)
BOROUGH FRANCHISE-DESCRIPTION OF QUALAttorneys for the defendants, Cunliffe and court to issue, under the 24th section of the Pro. Beaumont, 43. Chancery-lane, agents for W. D. bate Act, a subpoena to compel the attendance of 1FICATION-DWELLING-HOUSE.-Under the deCooper, 81, Guildford-street.
the witnesses to give evidence as to the execution scription " dwelling house," a qualification as for it of the will.
house may be proved under 2 Will. 4, c. 45, or an The Court made the order as prayed.
occupation of a dwelling-house under the Repre. Tuesday, Jan. 23.
Attorneys: Sharpe, Parkers, Pritchard, and sentation of the People Act. A person claimed a
vote for the borough of M., who occupied a house
as joint tonant with another, the value of such SHEPHEP) V. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY. COURT OF DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL house being much more than enough for a qualifi. Keyligence from permitting ice to form upon the
cation under the Reform Act 1832. The nature of platform of a railway station, ichereby a pas.
Thursday, Jan. 19.
the qualification was described in the list as "a .
dwelling-house." He was thus entitled to a vote This was an action brought by the plaintiff against (Before the Full Court, Lord PenzANCE, J.O., and under the Reform Act, but not under the Roprethe defendants to recover damages for an injury
MELLOR and BRETT, JJ.)
sentation of the People Act. He was accor lingly gastained by him in consequence of the alleged
JONES V. JONES.
objected to, on the gronnd that a description of negligence of the defendants. The cause was tried Matrimonial suit - Wife's costs disalloved - the nature of a qualification “dwo'ling.house" at the last assizes for Bedfordshire, before Cock. 158 and 159 of new Rules and Orılers-Praclice. under the Representation of the People Act could barn, C.J., then a verdict was returned for the This was a wire's suit for judicial separation on not confer a vote under the Reforin Act. The plaintiff with 1501. damagos ; leave being reserved the ground of her husband's adultery. At the hear. I revising barrister struck out the word "dwelling."