« EelmineJätka »
Held, per Willes, Keating, and Collier, JJ. (dis. North Western.-A dividend at the rate of 6 per possession until he received an order from the sentiente, Brett, J.), that the revising barrister cent. per annum.
creditor's attorney to withdraw; whereupon he was right in allowing the vote, although it was FINANCE, CREDIT, AND DISCOUNT COMPANIES. withdrew. In defence to an action for a false unnecessary to strike out the word “dwelling.” New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency.- A return by the execution creditor, the sheriff proved Per Brett, J., that the 3rd section of the Repre- dividend at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, that the only goods which the debtor appeared to sentation of the People Act has given a new and a bonus of 2) per cent.
have been assigned by a valid bill of sale, and that qualification, and that, as the error was in the New Zealand Trust and Loan.-Interim dividend no damage had occurred to the plaintiff in conse. nature of the qualification, the revising barrister declared at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum. quence of the return : Held, that the verdict was ought not to have amended: (Townsend v. The
properly entered for the defendant: (Stimson v. Overseers of Marylebone, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 749. C. P.) British and Foreign Marine Insurance. A Farnham, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 747. Q. B.)
PRACTICE-VESTING ORDER-PETITION FORfurther dividend of 4s., together with a bonus of Title--TRUSTEE Act 1850 (13 & 14 VICT. C. 60), Ss., making a distribution of 20 per cent. for the
S. 43.--When a purchaser presented a petition for ESTATE AND INVESTMENT year. JOURNAL
British Nation Life Assurance Association. At a vesting order inţituled in the cause only the a meeting of the shareholders it was resolved to petition was ordered to be amended by intituling
it under the Trustee Act 1850: (Gough v. Bage, STOCK AND SHARE MARKETS.
wind-up the company voluntarily, and Mr. Arthur 25 L. T. Rep. V.S. 738. V.C. B.)
SETTLEMENT-TRUST FOR WIFE IN DEFAULT The following are the fluctuations of the week. liquidators.
OF CHILDREN_DEATH OF HUSBAND--POSSIBI. ENGLISH FUNDS. Fri. Sat. Mon. Tues Wed. Thu. dend is 183. per share, or 60 per cent. on the
Vorwich Union Fire Office.-The annual divi.
LITY OF POSTHUMOUS CHILDREN-APPLICATION
PREMATURE.-A fund in court was settled upon a Bank of England Stock 212 capital originally paid up.
married woman absolutely in default of issue. 32 Cent, Red. Ann... 92) 9292 92 92 92
The woman gave birth to a stillborn child on the 33 Cent. Cons. Aun .. 92! 92
92, 925 924 New 21 72 Ceut. Ann...
Anglo-American Telegraph. A dividend of 1st June, 1871, and her husband died on the Do. 3) • C. Jan. 1894, 973
31. 3s. 41l. per cent., being at the rate of 10 per 12th of the same month. There was no other New 3Cent. Ann.
issue. On an application by the woman on the 5 Cent. Annuities
British and Foreign Tramways.- Interim divi. 9th Dec. following, thar the fund be paid to 5 Cents. + Jan. 1873 Ann. 30 years dend, 2s. 6d. per share.
her: Held, that the application was premature. еxр. April 5, 1885
British Shipowners.-A dividend at the rate of (Attorney-General v. Clement,. 25 L. T. Rep. N.S. Do, exp. Jan, 5, 1880 71 per cent. per annum.
739. V.C. B.) Do. exp. July 1880 .. 1
Channel Tunnel (Limited.)-Capital 30,0001., COSTS-TAXATION-COUNSEL'S FEES.- Where Red Sea Tele. Ann. 1908
privately subscribed. The purpose is to make a the junior counsel who drew the pleadings in a Consols, for Acc....... 92 92 924 92
92: trial shaft on the English side of the Straits of suit has been called within the bar before the India 5 Cent. for Acc. Do.5 7 Ceut. July 1886 111
111 111 111111
Dover, about half a mile beyond low water mark, hearing of the cause, the fees of three connsel will India Stock, July 1880
with the view of proving the practicability of tun- be allowed on a taxation of costs as between party India Stock, 1874
nelling under the Channel. The completion of and party, in a case where the magnitude of the India 5 7? Cent.
this work will furnish data for calculating the suit is such that according to the ordinary practice India 4 13 C. Oct. 1888 106 106 106 106 105
cost of continuing the driftway from each shore to of litigants, it was proper to give a retainer to a India 5 P Cent. 1870 India Bonds (10001.)... 30s.a 30s.a 30s.a 30x.a 30s.a 30s.a be subscribed for that purpose. The committee of Cousens, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 713. Chan.).
a junction in mid-Channel, and capital will then Queen's Counsel in the first instance : (Cousens v. Do. (under 10001.) .. 308,a 308.a 308.11 308.a 308, 308.a Ex. Bills, 10001.
98.a 98, 9x a 98.a 9s, a 9s a management are Lord Richard Grosvenor (chair. DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS.-In applying the Do. 5001,
9s.a 96.6 9s,a Os.a 94.0 93.12 man), Captain Beaumont, M.P., Sir E. Buckley, rule of the court that he who discovers at all must 1001. and 2001. 9s.a 98.a 98 a 98.a 98.0 98.0 M.P., Mr. Thomas Brassey, M.P., Admiral George discover fully, the materiality or immateriality of Metropolitan Board of
Elliot, Messrs. Blount (Paris), Buddicom, Hawes, the discovery is not, in ordinary cases, very accu. Works 3) HC. Stock. 97 97 971.973 Michael Chevalier, and Paulin Talabot. The rately weighed, but the court will weigh it in cases a Premium.
engineers are Messrs. John Hawkshaw, Thomé de where, under pretence of getting discovery, for
Gamond, James Brunlees, and William Low. the purposes of a suit, a discovery might REPORTS OF SALES.
John Crossley and Sons.-15 per cent. dividend. be prejudicial to him, while the plaintiff's case [NOTE. - The reports of the Estate Exchange are officially Peel River Land and Mineral.- A dividend at might fail at the hearing, and in cases where supplied in the following list. Auctioneers whose names the rate of 2 per cent. per annum.
the discovery can only be material for some are registered there will oblige by reports of their own
consequential purpose if the plaintiff should sucsales.)
ceed. In a suit by a firm of merchants who ex. Thir#lol, Jon. IS.
SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. ported certain goods against another firm who By Messrs. TCRBER, Puce, and Frrer, at the Mart. Bedford.rox. No. 20, John-treet, freehold--sold for 11757.
exported similar goods, to restrain the defendants Absolute reversion to 202 1. Ts. sl.; Conrolidated Bank
from using or placing on their goods certain trade Annuities, 31. 12. fl.; London Dock Stock, 7101. 12. id.
NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.
marks, to the use of which the bill alleged that in St. Katharine Dock Stock, thirteen Rexent's Canal shares, three Bristol Dock shores, 417. jx. Debenture
WILL-SUBSTITUTED EXECUTORS.--A testator the plaintiffs were exclusively entitled, the defen. Waterlo-bridve Company; and a jud:rment debt for 45541.. by his will appointed my wife my sole execu- dants by their answer denied that the paintiffs on death o! a lady aged 6-sold for 113:301.
trix, and in default of her, I nominate and appoint were entitled to the exclusive use of the marks in By Messrs. HARDS. VAUGHAN, and LEIFCHILD. as my executors, &c.," A. B. and C. D. The wife question. An order was made against the defenUpper Lewisham-road, No. 23, Wickham-terrace, term 80 years-sold for 857.
took out probate, and at her death the court hela dants for production of documents, in pursuance Blackheath. A len chold ground&ent of 277. 08.6.1., amply that A. B. and C. D. were the substituted execu. ) of which the defendants made an affidavit of docusecured-sold for 3007.
tors of the husband, and granted probate to them ments, sealing up certain portions of the docuGreenwich. No. 22, George-street, freehold-sold for 2951.
of his estate in preference to the wife's executors : ments, which portions they swore did not contain By Messrs. NEWBOX and HARDING. Islington. No., Popbarn-terrace, copphold-sold for 5051.
(In the Goods of Foster, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 763. anything relating directly or indirectly to the No..13, Englefield-road, term 0 years-sold for 1001.
Prob. Ct.) Caledonian-road. No. 7, Offord-road, term 69 years-sold
matters in question in the suit: Held (reversing,
TESTAMENTARY SUIT-ADMINISTRATION TO A the decision of the Vice-Chancellor (Wickens) of No.9, Market-street, term 2 years--sold for 3301.
NOMINEE OF BOTH PARTIES REFUSED.- Except the County Palatine), that the defendants were Moldmay-park. No. 24, Wolsey-road, term
78 years--sold for under very special circumstances, the court, as not bound to unseal the names of their customers, Dalston, No. 14, Marion-villas, term 77 years-sold for 2301.
general rule, will refuse to make a grant of ad- or the prices paid or received by them for goods, Thexlay, Jan. 93.
ministration to the nominee of the next of kin, or the names of the writers of letters received by By Messrs. DEBEXHAM, TEWSon, and FARMER, at the Mart. who has himself no interest, even though all the them, or of the persons to whom letters were sent City of London. Nos. 37 and 28 Milk-street, freehold, con. next of kin may consent: (Teague and Ashdoin by them, except in the case of letters received
taining an area of 1720ft.-sold for 301. Camberwel, High street. Dwelling-house and shop and two
v. Wharton and another, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 764. from or sent to a former partner of the defen. residences, area 14,160ft. freehold-sold for 32301. Prob. Ct.)
dants : Held also (affirming the Vice-Chancellor's LEGACY TO MARRIED WOMAN-HUSBAND AND decigion) that the defendants were bound to unseal PUBLIC COMPANIES.
IN LIFETIME OF TESTATOR-- the names of the places to which the goods were RAILWAY COMPANIES.
ADMINISTRATION TO WIFE GRANTED TO HER exported by them : (Carver v. Piuto Leite, 25 L. T. Pernambuco Railway.-Notice is given that de woman, died in the lifetime of the testator, her
Son-1 Vict. c. 26, s. 33.-A legatee, a married Rep. N. S. 7:22. Chan.) bentures falling due on the 31st July next will be father. Her husband survived her, but also died paid off on that day, and all interest will cease, before the father.
He did not administer to his
Jan. 11 and 15.
Re JOSEPH BEsT (a Solicitor). Bank of Egypt.- A dividend at the rate of 10 per to the son of the deceased legatee limited to the This was an application by way of motion to the cent. per
annum, with a bonus of 11. 103., free of property bequeathed to her by her father : (In the Master of the Rolls by Mr. Joseph Best, of Manincome tax, making, together with the interim Goods of Mary Courcell, 25 L. T. Rep. X. S. 763. chester, a solicitor, formerly practising at Liver. dividend, 19 per cent. for the year. Prob. Ct.)
pool, to rescind an order made by his Lordship in Birmingham ond Midland.-A dividend of 51. PRACTICE-ADMINISTRATION SUIT-VAPYING ! July 1869, suspending Mr. Best from practice for per share, payable on the 14th Feb.
DECREE-23RD GENERAL ORDER, Rule 21.- ten years, on the ground of alleged irregularities Bombay New Bank.- Interim dividends, 5 per Where further proceedings in an administration in reference to the transfer of a mortgage security cent. per annum.
suit became necessary, the court allowed a decree for 8001. and the application of mouers received in Central of London.--Dividend at the rate of 6 to be varied by inserting a direction that any of connection therewith. The petition against Mr; per cent. per annum.
the parties be at liberty to apply : (Warman v. Best was presented in June 1909 by the Liverpool Consolidated.--A dividend at the rate of 7 per Zeal, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 739. V.C. B.)
Incorporated Law Society, at the instance of a cent. per annum.
INSUFFICIENCY OF SPECIAL JURORS-REFUSAL lady named Ormandy, the administratrix of a London Joint Stock.-A dividend at the rate of TO PRAY A Tales-Costs.- Defendant obtained deceased client of Mr.' Best, and of her solicitor, 12) per cent. per annum, and a bonus of 11. per an order for a special jury, but when the trial who had caused Mr. Best's several bills of costs share, declared for the six months. London and Westminster.-A dividend at the sent, and neither party prayed a tales. When the lent, amonnting to upwards of 8391., to be taxed
on sufficient special jurors were not pre- and his claims against the deceased for money rate of 6 per cent. per annum, and by way of trial came on a second time, defendant obtained a and disputed. Litigation between the parties had further dividend out of the profits, a bonus of verdict. The practice of the court under such been pending since 1867. When the petition came 6 per cent.
circumstances is to allow the costs of the first on for hearing in 1869 Mr. Best applied for time to Metropolitan.-A dividend at the rate of 6 per trial to the successful party on the second : answer, alleging that owing to the absence of cent. per annum.
(Unlmes v. Allright, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S.747. Q. B.) vouchers and documents indispensable to his Munster.-A dividend at the rate of 10 per cent. SHERIFF-FALSE RETURNESTOPPEL-DAN- defenco which were temporarily ont of his reach, per annum.
AGE TO EXECUTION CREDITOR.-A sheriff re. he was not then prepared to meet the charges made National.-A dividend at the rate of 9 per cent. turned to a writ of ji. fa. that he had seized the goods again-t him, although he asserted that such per annum, or 278. per share, for the past half-year. I of the execution debtor, and kept them safe in his charges were utterly groundless. The petition,
however, was pressed, and an order was made Order in Council under the Elementary Education have his name removed from the list of contribususpending Mr. Best from practice. Act 1871.
tories. Held (affirming the decision of the Master Jan. 11.- Locock Webb, on behalf of Mr. Best, When the application was made to the master of the Rolls), that the letter authorising the liqui. moved to rescind such suspending order.
for an order to tax the bill in question, it was dator to sue in his name did not constitute a with. Charles Hall, counsel for the Liverpool Incorpo. opposed by Mr. Jones on the ground that the drawal of B.'s repudiation of the sharos, having rated Law Society, contra.
business to which the bill of costs related was not been signed by him uuder the impression that it Lord Rouilly desired to read the several affi. done by him in his character of an attorney, nor would not subject him to any liability; and that davits filed before giving judgment.
was it transacted in a court of common law. he was entitled to have his name reinoved from Jan. 15.- Lord ROMILLY (addressing Locock The Master, however, made the usual order for the list, inasmuch as, if it remained there, he would Webb) said : I think you have made out your case. taxation.
be liable to be sued for an indemnity against calls I am satisfied there was a great deal of blundering G. B. Al en, instructed by Messrs. G. L. P. Eyre by his transferor, who was onlist B.: (Buker's Case, and mistake about the whole matter. The alleged and Co., on behalf of Mr. Jones, now applied for 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 727. L.JJ.) false statement about the mortgage, in my opinion, the order for taxation to be set aside. comes to nothing, and with reference to the ques- Berkeley and Calcott, on behalf of the School tion about the concealment of the 1911., the two Board, supported the order for taxation.
REAL PROPERTY AND points upon which I particularly relied, in my HANNEN, J., held that the Act (6 & 7 Vict. opinion, it is clearly shown that that was no part c. 73), s. 37, only authorised an order for taxation
CONVEYANCING. of the case at all, and therefore the question does to be made where the business to which the bill of not arise. I am very sorry such an unfortunate costs related was done by an attorney in one of
NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. result shonld have happened, but I am bound to the courts of common law, and that the order for WILL-SHARE IN LEASEHOLD BELONGING TO say, in my opinion, Mr. Best is entirely acquitted taxation must be set aside.
A PARTNERSHIP-BEQUEST BY ONE PARTNER of anything affecting his character with reference
TO ANOTHER.-F., who was a partner in a firm of to this transaction, I am very sorry I should have
CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. solicitors, which consisted of himself and L., and been induced, upon what I thought was my duty
LAST DAY OF Proor.
whose business was carried on in leasehold pretwo years and a half ago, to come to the conclusion that I was bound to suspend him. I think it was
Axox (Jas.), Pepper.street, Chester, gentleman. Feb. 29 : mises of which F. and L. were joint tenants, by
Geo. Tibbits, solicitor, Chester. Feb. 29; V.C. B., at his will bequeathed to his partner, L., all his owing very much to Mr. Best not having himself twelve o'clock.
share of the leasehold premises in which his busi. brought the case fully before the court at that CRAIG (Jane G., Priory, Leamington. Warwick. Feb. 17; time, because, if he had done so, I certainly should
Harrison and Co., solicitors, 19, Bedford-row, W.C. March
ness was carried on, and all his shars of the office 1; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.
furniture, books, and other office cr household not have made the order. However, I shall now MORCOM (Wm.), Townend house, Pietermaritzburg, Port | effects therein, for his own absolute use and discharge that order, but I shall discharge it
Natal, South Africa. Feb. 16; T. Hayier, solicitor. ,
Raymond buildings, Gray's-inn, England. Feb. ); V.C. benefit. After F.'s death the assets of the partsimpliciter, because I am satisfied that all parties M., at twelve o'clock.
nership proved to be insufficient for the payment before me have acted bona fide in the matter, and Uromit Wm. B.), Wolrerhampton, newspaper proprietor: of the partnership debts, though F.'s private if there be any fund which could pay costs it
Feb. 16; H. Kitson, solicitor, Wolverhampton.' March 8; would be the Suitors' Fund. The order of sus.
M. R., at eleven o'clock,
estate was amply solvent: Held (reversing a FIXNET (Robert), 174, Bishopsgate Without, E.C., licensed decision of Stuart, V.C.), that the share of the pension will be discharged.
victualer. Feb. 7:' Wind und Co.: solicitors, 19. Iron: leasehold premises belonging to F., being subject Solicitor for Mr. Best, F.T. Dubois, King-street,
monser-lane, Cheapside, E.C. Feb. 19; V.C. W.; at one
to the payinent of the partnership debts, nothing Cheapside.
FENDALL (Henrietta). Seaton, Peron, Teb, 19, T. C: passed to L. under the above gift. (Farquhar v. Solicitors for the Liverpool Incorporated Law Mills, solicitor, S. New square, Lincoln'R-inn, W.C. March Society, Field and Co., Lincoln's-inn-fields.
4; M. R., at eleven o'clock.
Haddei, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S., 717. L.JJ.) PALGRAVE Chas. F.), Bedforil, chemint and drurgist.
LEASE POI LIVES OF ECCLESIASTICAL PRO. 14; Cox nud Sons, solicitors, 4, Cloak-lane, E.C. Feb. 25; PERTY-LUNATIC-TENANT FOR LIFE-SALE BY
M. R., ut cleren o'clock.
TRUSTEES.- A lease of luud granted by an ecclesi.
astical corporation for lives was vested by the will
of the lessee in trustees, upon certain trusts. The Orrth, Q.C. and
trustees had no power of sale. The tenant for life Murray moved for a rule | Esain (Alexander), Exo!, Clifton, near Bristol, professor of calling up in an attorney to answer the matter
music. Feb. 3 ; W. Acland, 57, Lan-downe-crescent, Not
was a lunatic not so found by inquisition. One tiny-hill, W.
of the lives for which the lease tras granted having of an affidarit. The circumstances had only lately Wills (John C.). Hatherleigh. Deron, gentleman. March dropped, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners refused come before the Incorporated Law Society, which
21; J. Pears, solicitor, Ilatherleish.
to renew the lease, but offered to purchase it, and accounts for the delay that had taken place. It dlesex, ventleman, March 1; A. S. Eelmunds, solicitor, appeared that the attorney had not taken out his
an agreement for purchase was entered into sub
11, St. Bride's arenne, Fleet-street, C.C. certificate since 1869, but on his making appli. TALBOT Richards, Is. Gover-place, Enston-square, Middlo. ject to the approval of the court. A petition was
sex, afterwards Australia. July ); Luwis and Co., solici. then presented asking the approval by the court cation and giving the necessary notice to renew tors, S, Old Jewry, E.C. his certificate,
of the proposer sale, under the provisions of sect. the following information hail War ( Benjamin, Esl., 1. Suneoripork, Wandsworth, been ohtiine by the soc'ety: In 1863 he en.
Surrer. March 2; F. and T. Smith, soiicitors, 13, Fur.
SS of the stut. 23 & 24 Vict.c. 121. Held, that the valinn, E.C.
order could be made in Chancery, and that there tered into a deed of composition with his COPER William). 0. High Littleton-house, High Little. creditors, appointing his brother-in-law trnstee, tou. Somerset. Marca 1; Thomas and Hollana, solicitors, Lunacy: (Re Cheshire, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 721.
no necessity for entitling the petition in and from his affidavit it appeared that the
L.JJ.) deed was fraudulent, the whole of the debts except one being fictitious. Since 1869 there had been a split between the parties, which caused
MARITIME LAW. the information to be sent to the Law Society. It also appeared that since 1869 the attorney had
NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.
NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. resided in Paris, where he had carried on a mock
UNQUALIFIED PERSON ACTING AS DIRECTOR auction of tho most flagrant character. In a
INSURANCE - CORROBORATION OF POLICY--IMPLIED AGREEMENT TO QUALIFY.-A man
INCEPTION OF RISK-POLICY ON FREIGHTletter to the brother-in-law the attorney stated who acts as director of a company must be con. that he was carrying on the business of
sidered as having applied for, and having con. GOODS NOT ON BOARD.-A ship was chartered to anctioneer, but as it could not be carried on as
tracted to accept, that number of shares which carry a cargo from Liverpool to Lagos on the such in Paris, the course sdopted was to have constitutes the minimum qualification for a direc- west coast of Africa, thero discharge and reload supposed sales of goods (purchased for the pur
tor. H. was advertised in the prospectus of a com- another cargo for the United Kingdom, in conpose), and of estates under liquidation at enormous
a director, and attended a meeting of sideration of a lump sum by way of froight, paysacrifices. His molus operandi he described directors at which an allotment committee was able half before sailing from Liverpool, half on was to take a shop in a leading thoroughfare in appointed, who afterwards allotted to H. fifty delivery of the homeward cargo. The plaintiff, Paris, placard largely, take out the windows of shares, which was fixed by the articles of associa: the shipowner, effected an insurance on freight
"at and from Lagos," and the policy contained a the shop, fill it well with merchandise, and have tion as the minimum qualification for a director. one or two ruffians outside to kick up a row, and H. subsequently signed a cheque on the company's clanse whereby the defendants, the insurance attract enstomers. It was, he said, one of the bankers as a director. Held, that although H. company, agreed that the insurance “ shall commost paying games he could have started, for with
had made no express application for shares, he mence upon freight and goods or merchandise 60. he had been able to make 31. a day, and, if was liable as a contributory in respect of fifty aforesaid from the loading of the said goods or properly organised, 1001. a day might be made.
shares : (Harvard's Case, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. merchandise aforesaid from the loading of the Scotch shawls, worth 10s. each, he sold for 30s.,
690. V. C. M.)
said goods or merchandise on board the said ship
CONTRIBUTORY INFANT TRANSFEREC and that by making great sacrifices, (Laughter.) LIQUIDATION ON COMING OF AGE-SUDSEQUENT she had shipped any of her homeward cargom:
or vessel at as above.” The ship was lost before Sheffeld, Birmingham, and Manchester goods, sold equally well, aud with cqnally good profits.
DEALING WITH THE SHARES.-In Oct. 1865, B., Held, that this clauso precluded the plaintiff from COCKBURN, C.J., said it would be curious to
an infant of the age of nineteen years, executed a recovering against the underwritors, although the see how the brother-in-law answered that letter transfer to him of shares in a company, at the freight was chartered freight: (Beckett v. The
West of England Marine Insurance Company, whether he denounced the writer then as now. request of his employer, who was a friend of the Hoveror, enough had been said to call upon the real purchaser of the shares. In April 1866, the 25 L. T. Rep. N.S. 7:39. Q. B.) attorrey for an answer.
company was ordered to be wound up. On the INSURANCE-CONCEALDIENT OF A MATERIAL 30th Sept. 1867, B. attained twenty-one. On the 5th FACT-LLOYD'S RULE-HALF-TIME SURVEY
Dec. 1867 he was served with notice of a sunnions Loss OX CLASS.--By Lloyd's rule, a vessel classed JUDGES' CHAMBERS.
to settle him on the list of contribntories, which Al for seven years must undergo a half-time Friday, Jan, 5.
notice he forwarded to his employer, as he had survey, signified when undergone by the letters (Before Mr. Justico HANNEN.)
also done a potico of a call previonsly received by “H. T.” endorsed on the Lloyd's register. If
him. On the 11th Jan. 1868, he received notice of such survey is refused by the owner, the vessel Re Jonce.
another call, and on the same day wrote to the is struck off the register. Such refusal is not Practice Taxation of costs.
liquidator, repudiating the shares. The liquidator necessarily (Cockburn, C.J., dissentiente) a mate4 order for taration under 647 Vict. c. 73, s. 37. then, in Feb. 1868, took out a summons to remove rial fact which need be communicated to an uncriinnt le monde in respect of an ottorney's bill B.'s name from the list of contributories, and snb. derwriter of Lloyd'x, who subscribes a policy on of costs relating to cork: Jone solely in relation stitute the name of the transferor. This npplica., such a vessel after the refusal (the letters “H. T.” to the election of a school board, and not in any tion having been refused in chambers, the sum- not being the rezister), but before tho vessel of the courts of common law,
mons was adjourned into court, but afterwards was struck off the register. The materiality of THS was an application to set aside an order for allowed to drop, and no steps were taken to the fact is question for the jury. Semble, that the taxation of an attorney's bill of costs made by enforce the call against B. In April 1871, B., in the initialling of a slip is so far the completion of Master Templar.
consideration of the liquidator not enforcing the a contract of insurance that an underwriter is Mr. Jones, an attorney, clerk to the Llanelly call (which was one for the whole amount remain only bound by his knowledge of facts existing at Union, had nade an account in the form of an ing payable on the shares) against him, signed a that time, and not ly knowledge withir his power attorney's bill of costs of his expenses in con letter authorising the liquidator to use his name betireen that time and the execution of the policy: nection rith the election of a school board for ' in proceedings against the real purchaser of the 1 (Gandy v. The Arieloide Marine Insurance Comone of the parishes in the Union, pursuant to an shares. In June 1871, B. took out a summons to pany, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 712. Q. B.)
bankrupt, who had not obtained an order of dis- of the debtor, should pocket the money resulting
charge, received a sum of 2001. as compensation from that security, and leave the sureties to go to NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.
for the loss of a situation, and thereout paid s. the wall. He should, therefore, make an order LIVERPOOL STOCK EXCHANGE-COUPSE OF six months' rent of the house in advance : Held for them to be recouped the money actually paid BUSINESS-ACTION FOR COMMISSION—Trans. (affirming the order of tho Chief Judge in Bank out of pocket. FER NOTE-DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUM Re- ruptcy discharging an order of the County Court Bill giren by debtor and discounted— Fraudulent AND_SUM TRANSFERRED-INTERPRE-judge that S. could not be ordered to refund the
preference. TATION OF TRANSFER DEED.-The defendant sum thus received to the trustee of the bank.
A motion was then made on behalf of the having instructed the plaintiff to purchase cortain rupt's estate : (Ex parte Dewhirst ; Re Vaulohe, 25 trustee for an order that Mr. Francis Mason of railway shares on the Liverpool Stock Exchange, L. T. Rep. X. S. 731. Chan.)
Worthing, should pay over to the trustee the sum received a transfer note on the settling day for BANKRUPTCY ACT 1809, s. 6, SUB-SECT. 3-Act of 1351. 19s. being the proceeds of the discount of the purpose of transferring his shares to the OF BANKRUPTCY “ OTHERWISE ABSENTING
a bill of exchange delivered to Mr. Mason by the purchaser. It is the custom on the Liverpool | HIMSELF”-FAILURE TO AN APPOINT. debtor on the 7th June 1871, under the following Stock Exchange for the original seller to transfer MENT TO BRING MONEY TO CREDITOR-INTENT circumstances. his shares not to the immediate purchaser, but to TO DELAY-ONUS or ProOF.-On the 6th Nov. a
It appeared that the debtor had received from some sub-purchaser who may have purchased trader promised his creditor that he would bring the father of one of his pupils a bank draft on the from some person other than the original pur- him the money for a dishonoured bill before threo Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London, and chaser ; and it frequently happens that the sum o'clock that day; he broke that promise and also China, for 1681. at three months' date, in payment in the transfer note is different to the sum which two similar promises for the two following days. of an account for tuition. The debtor had handed the original seller is to receive. To avoid difficulty, On the 9th Nov, judgment was signed by default ! this draft to Mason, who was employed as one of at the foot of the transfer note it is stated that in an action at the suit of the trader's father-in: | the masters on the 7th June 187i. The bill was the consideration money differs from that which law, with a writ in which he had been served taken by Mason to his bankers, who, afterwards the first seller is to receive owing to the sub-sale some days before he made the appointments
on the 14th June discounted it and passed the by the original buyer, but that the note is so with his creditor, and his furniture and stock-in. amount less discount to Mason's account. Mason regulated to fulfil the provisions of the Stamp trado wero seized in execution. The trader ad. had handed to the debtor 301. of the amount. Act (55 Geo. 3, c. 184)." The defendant refused duced evidence that ho had tried to borrow money The debtor at the time he handed the bill to accordingly to sign the transfer because it stated to meet the bill on the 6th Nov., and stated that Mason was deeply in debt owing some 20001., inthat he had received a sum which was untrue. he failed to keep his appointment with his credi- cluding a large amount to Mason himself-he had Held, that the defendant was bound to sign the tor only because he had not obtained the money :
a bill of sale over the whole of his furniture and transfer deed ; that the foot note was to be read Held, that under the circumstances the failure to effects, and the creditor was in possession as was as part of the tranfer, and was sufficiently ex. keep the appointment with his creditor did not also one or more sheriff's officers. plicit. Semble, that a custom to sign for a con- constitute an act of bankruptcy under the 3rd sideration different from that stated in the doeu sub-sect. of the 6th section of the Bankruptcy and 126th sections on the 9th June 1871, and on
The debtor filed his petition under the 125th of transfer would be bad : (Case v. McClellan, 25 Act 1869. But, semble, that the failure to keep the 24th June liquidation was resolved npon and L. T. Rep. N. S. 753. C. P.)
such an appointment at the house of a creditor is STATUTE OF FRAUDS (29 CAR. 2, c. 3), s. 4– primâ facie evidence of intent to defeat or delay affidavit in which he had stated that he had handed
a trustee appointed. The debtor had made an PROMISE TO ANSWER FOR DEBT OR Derault one's creditors, and that the onus lies upon the the bill to Mason for the purpose of getting it OF ANOTHER - LIABILITY OF THIRD Person debtor of proving that he had no such intent, in cashed at his own bankers, and that Mason had ASSUMED BUT NOT ACTUALLY EXISTING.–Plain the absence of which proof the failure to keep arranged to do so that the debtor might draw upon tiff was employed by a local board of health to such an appointment wonld constitute an act of it from time to time, as he wanted the money for construct a main sewer, and shortly before its bankruptay; (Ex parte Meyer ; Re Stephany, 25 home purposes, and that the balance should completion the board gave notice (pursuant to 11 L. T. Rep. N.S. 733. Chan.)
remain at Mason's bankers, and the debtor was to & 12 Vict. c. 63, s. 69) to the occupiers of the ad
draw the same as he wanted it to carry on his joining houses to connect their drainage with the
school. Mason had been examined before the main sewer within twenty-one days, or the board
BRIGHTON COUNTY COURT. would do so at their expense.
registrar, and had denied the statement of the After the main
(Before W. FURNER, Esq., Judge.) sewer was completed, and before the expiration
debtor, stating that the bill had been handed to of the twenty-one days, plaintiff was leaving with
Friday, Jan. 13.
him by the debtor in part payment of his debt his carts and men, when he was asked by defen.
Re HESI:Y ROSENBERG.
and in fulfilment of a previous promise made to
him by the debtor that he would hand him this dant, chairman of the board, what objection le
Liquidation --Rights of surcties.
bill when it arrived from India. had to making the connections. Plaintiff said, This was an application by the trustee for the Mason had proved under the liquidation for over
I have none, if you or the board will order the direction of the court under sect. 20 of the Bank- 7001. work, or become responsible for the payment,” ruptcy Act 1869, under the following circum. The case had been before the court on tro to which defendant replied, "Go on and do the stances :-It appears that the debtor, who was a previous occasions, and it had been adjourned for work, and I will see you paid ;” whereupon plain. schoolmaster at Bognor, had borrowed on the 10th the attendance of the debtor, who was unable to tiff did the work under the 'superintendence of Sept. 1869, from the North British and Mercantile attend on account of serious illness, and he died the surveyor of the board, and sent his account Insurance Company 4001., and had insured his life in November. for the work to the board, who refused payment in the same office for 8001., the policy being Salaman now moved on the above facts, and on the ground that they had not ordered it. mortgaged to the company to secure the loan. urged that the trustee was entitled to the money, Plaintiff
having subsequently brought an action Mr. Wilson and Mr. White joined in the mortgage whether the court believed the statement of the against the defendant for the amount : Held, that as suretics for the purposes of guaranteeing the debtor or of Mason, if the former, then Mason there was evidence on which a jury might find principal, interest, and premiums, and it was was only the agent of the debtor, and could not the existence of a primary liability on the part stipulated that the principal should bo paid on of the defendant, and not merely a liability to
hold the proceeds of the bill as against the trustee; the 10th March 1870, but if an instalment of if the latter then the circumstances amounted to answer for the actual or supposed debt or default principal amounting to 501. should be paid on of another person, and therefore that his pro- the 10th March and 10th Sept. the loan should section, as the payment was voluntary and with:
a case of fraudulent preference under the 2nd mise did not come within the 4th section of the continue for three yenrs. The loan was not paid out pressure, and must have been made with a Statute of Frauds. Per Willes, J. - Where the on the 10th March 1870, but the sureties had, on view of giving the creditor a preference over the promise is made to answer for the debt or de the application of the company, paid two sums other creditors. fault of a third person, and there is no actual, amounting to 35l. 8s. 7d., and 611. 163., reprebut only a supposed, liability on the part of that senting the premiums due on the 10th Sept. 1870,
Gutteridge (of Brighton), appeared for Mason.
His HONOUR said he had no hesitation in third person, the promise is equally void, whether and a fine for renewal, also one of the instalments coming to a conclusion, because Mason was per it be in writing or not. But where the promise is of 501., and
arrears of interest. The petition for fectly acquainted with Rosenberg's position, and made in respect of a future contemplated liability liquidation was filed on the 9th June 1871, and knew that he was contemplating bankruptcy: on the part of a third person, such a promise is the creditors having resolved on liquidation, the There was no doubt that the bill was placed in within the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds : trustee was appointed on the 24th Juno 1871. Mason's hands, as the agent of Rosenberg, to be Mountstephen v. Lakeman, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 755. The trustee paid the premium on the policy due applied to Rosenberg's use.
He received 301. of Ex. Ch.)
the 10th Sept. 1871. The debtor died on the 3rd it at the time, and the discount, 21. 1s., reduced
Nov. 1871, and the trustee having given to the the amount to 1351. 198., which must be paid over
insurance company satisfactory proof of death, to the trustees.
policy less the amount due to the company
thereon. The sureties then gave notice to the CHELMSFORD COUNTY COURT. BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869, s. 37-JOINT AND company, requesting the company to deduct the SEVERAL PROMISSORY NOTE-DISTINCT CON.
Tuesday, Jan. 9. sums of 351, 88. 7d., and 611. 16s. from the balanco TRACTS-JOINT AND SEPARATE ESTATE-Right of the 8001. policy, and to pay the same to the
(Before J. T. ABDY, Esq., Judge.) OF PROOF- DOUBLE PROOF.—The repayment of sureties. By an order of the court in pursuance of
Re REMINGTON. a loan was secured by a joint and several pro- the 80th section, the proceedings under the liquida- Bankruptcy-Contempt of court-Failure to pay missory note, signed by a firm, and by individual tion had been continued as if the debtor was alive. composition-Summary jurisdiction of couit menibers of the firm. Hell (affirming the decision J. Seymour Salaman (of London) appeared on Notice to debtor-Ex parte applications. of Dr. Registrar Pepyx, sitting as Chief Judge behalf of the trustee, and after stating the above At the last court, Woodard, of Billericay, made in Bankruptcy), that under the 37th section of the facts, which were embodied in an affidavit of the an application for the committal of Mr. J. RemBankruptey Act 1960, the lender was entitled to trustee, and were admitted by the company and ington, late a butcher of Springfield, for contempt provo agninst and receive dividends from, both the sureties, referred to 19 & 20 Vict. c. 97, s. 5: ) of court in not obeying an order to pay to Mr. the joint estate of the firm and the reparate (Mayhew v. Crickett, 2 Swans. 185 ; Waile v. Coope, G. B. Hilliard a claim due upon a
composition estates of the individual members of it': (Ex 2 Sim. 155; Heyman v. Dubois, 23 L. T. Rep. arranged between the debtor and his creditors, of parte Honey; Re Jetjery, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 728 N. S. 558.)
whom Mr. Hilliard was one, and who had obtained Chan.)
Holtham, solicitor (of Brighton), appeared for an order of the court for payment. The order was BANKRUPTCY — MONEY ACQUIRED DURING the North British and Mercantile Insurance granted, but was suspended, on the debtor proBANKRUPTCY-PAYMENT OUT OF SUCH MONEY Company.
mising to pay into court within a week the sum BY BANKRUPT BEFORE ORDER OF DISCHARGE- Baker, solicitor (of London) appeared for the of 501. to cover Mr. Hilliard's claim and Mr; RIGHT OF TRUSTEE TO RECOVER-BANKRUPTCY sureties.
Woodard's costs, and in the event of Mr. Duffield Act 1869, 88. 15, 17.-S. became tenant from year His Honour said it appeared to him only ren failing in an appeal which he had power to make, to year of a house which a bankrupt had hitherto sonable, when the sareties covenanted to pay off if he chose, as to whether the court could entertain occupied on a similar tenancy, and bought the the mortgage with interest, and had been com. Mr. Woodard's application, made on behalf of a bankrupt's furniture. He then let the house fur. pelled to pay certain sums, that they should be single creditor. That sum had been duly paid, nished to the bankrupt at a rent of 51. per week, recouped out of the insurance money. When the , and now Woodard made a similar application it being agreed that the bankrupt should pay six debtor had had the benefit of that security, it on behalf of Mr. F. Marriage, farmer, of Spring months' rent in advance, if roquired to do so. The' would be monstrous that the trustee, in the place field, a further application in regard to Mr. Hilliard's claim, and also an application on behalf of me. With regard to your proceedings here to exactly in point; but I submit that the point is so M. J. J. Wood, farmer, of Terling.
day, up to the order for payment, you have pursued clear that it was never the subject of a case. If 11. W. Duthield again supported the debtor. the course of the court above.
my learned friend's argument is correct, a land. Woodard first made the application of Mr. His Honour was inclined to direct that an lord might go to the expense of a judgment, and Wood, that an order might issue from the court order should be made for a committal in Mr. then levy a distress. The law points out a simple directing the debtor to pay forth with to Mr. Wood Marriage's case. This had been a voluntary remedy, and if a person risks an action and judg. the amount of his composition as a creditor, in arrangement between the debtor and his creditors, ment, it is his own fault if he fails. In this very accordance with the resolution passed at the who had acted upon his statement, the bona fides case it was the delay of the execution creditor that meeting of creditors to accept 55. in the pound of which they believed in, and if his statement made the execution fruitless. from Mr. Remington.
was not bona fide then he misled them. The ap. His HONOUR.-That may be so; but still he is Duffield urged that his client had received no pointment of a trustee, however, would have a loser, and can he be deprived of one year's rent, notice of this application; and further submitted saved a great deal of trouble and expense to the expressly given to him by the 34th section ? that the order ought not to be made until he had creditors. But having neglected to appoint a J. W. Cooper-We contend that he abandoned addressed the court in defence of his client. trustee they were not to be deprived of their rights, his original rights, and must stand or fall by his
Woolard replied that this was an ex parte which were that they were entitled to receive a rights as execution creditor. application, and therefore it was not necessary pro rata share of the sum the debtor said His Honour thought the point one fully worthy that the debtor should receive notice. It was an he was able to pay. Mr. Hilliard had already of being brought before the court; but on the face application which could be made before the regis. obtained a judgment for his rights, and the court of the authorities quoted by Mr. Cockerell, and trar, if the court were not sitting, and Mr. Duffield could not turn in favour of one creditor and taking into account the obvious intention of the had no locus standi entitling him to address the against another, but Mr. Marriage was equally Legislature that the landlord should bo protected court upon it. The time for any discussion upon entitled to an order with Mr. Hilliard. He should to the extent of one year's rent, he thought the the matter would be when he made application for graut the order upon the ground that the compo. claim must be allowed. He therefore ordered the debtor to be committed, if he failed to comply sition deed, made upon the bona fides, or the pre- accordingly with costs. with the order of the court.
tended bona fides of the debtor, ought to be Order on the trustee to pay the landlord 501. Dufield quoted an authority in support of his enforced.
and the costs of the application. contention that the court had not power to enforce Woodard said he had no desire that the debtor the order "in a summary manner," without giving should go to prison, and if he would pay another
LAUNCESTON COUNTY COURT. the debtor an opportnnity of showing whether he 501. into court he would waive the order of com
Friday, Jan. 12. had any satisfactory reason for not having paid mittal. the composition. Unfortunately they were deal- His Honour then formally gave his decision in Limited dedication of right of way-Mis-user of
(Before M. FORTESCUE, Esq., Judge.) ing with a form of procedure upon which no case each case thus : Ex parte Wood-That Mr. Wood's had yet ever been decided by the Superior Court, composition be paid forthwith; Re Marriage - Tuis action was brought to recover damages for
casement of way by person exercising right. for though the courts had previously gone to the That an order of committal for contempt be that the defendant in exercising a right of way extent of issuing an order, they had never heard issued, with costs to be taxed by the registrar; through a yard, known as the Town Place at anything further upon it, and consequently no case Re Hilliard- That an order be made for payment Trenarrett, in Altarnun, the soil whereof, and the had ever been decided.
of his composition, out of the 501. paid into court, The Registrar (Mr. Gepp) directed his Honour's with taxed costs of the order for committal at the gate at the entrance of which belonged to the attention to the forms of procedure as to the case before the court, from which his Honour said he amount of Mr. Hilliard's composition and the set- colts of the plaintiff escaped from the said Town last court, and the present order of payment; the plaintiff
, wrongfully and negligently allowed such
entrance gate to remain open, whereby certain had power to grant Mr. Woodard's order with re. off to be referred to the registrar; and the Place and were impounded. ference to Mr. Wood's claim “in a summary balance out of the 501. to be returned to the
Peter (Launcesto.) was for the plaintiff. manner."
debtor. Dufeld contended that the interpretation put
Bridgman (Tavistock) for the defendant.
It appeared that the land on both sides of the upon the passage was to the contrary effect, but His Honour intimated that he should grant
Town Place belonged to the plaintiff ; and several this application.
aged and other witnesses proved acts of ownerWoodord proceeded to prefer his application on
CAMBRIDGE COUNTY COURTS. ship of the Town Place, and that the gate at the behalf of Mr. Marriage, who was a creditor to the
Wednesday, Jan. 17.
entrance had always, within memory, stood in its amount of 811. 108. The advocate recapitulated
present position at the entrance, and had been
(Before EDMOND BEALES, ESQ,, Judge.) the circumstances out of which the composition
repaired and kept up by plaintiff and his ancestors. Re COLE.
The defendant and others had a right of way Fas accepted. The ebtor, according to his state- Landlord's power to distrain-Bankruptcy Act, through the gate and across the Town Place by ment before the creditors, had nearly 4001. to pay
1869, sect, 34, his debts with, which would have allowed 6s. 8d. Where a landlord recovered judgment for amonnt way of access to property of his adjoining, but
only a right of way according to plaintiff's in the pound, but the creditors agreed to take 5s. due for rent, and levied execution, which was contention. Defendant, in respect of his adjoin. in the pound. Mr. Marriage had not received a subsequently superseded by an act of bankruptcy: ing property claimed to have a right to use the farthing, and the debtor had not made any over. Held that by obtaining his judgment, and issuing entrance gate and the Town Place as he pleased, tures to the creditors, implying that he had made an execution which proved fruitless, he did not but in common with the plaintiff. a wrong calculation, and was only able to pay a thereby lose his claim for one year's rent under
On the occasion in question defendant had driven It was not necessary to examine the sect. 34 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869.
some of his own cattle through the gate but had debtor again, as he was examined at the last This was an application by Page Wallis, the omitted to close it after passing through. The court, but he asked for an order to commit him landlord of certain premises occupied by the gate remained open for a considerable time, so for contempt of court in not obeying the order to bankrupt, to recover from the trustee in the that colts of the plaintiff which had been in pay Mr. Marriage his composition. Dutfield.—No. It is entirely in the discretion of one year's rent. The facts were admitted on both his Town Place had escaped, got on to the high
way and been impounded. the court, upon knowing the whole of the facts, to sides, and were briefly as follows. The landlord enforce the composition or not. But the 4001. Mr. had obtained a judgment in the Court of Pleas for gate was an ancient gate, and the right of way
The argument for the plaintiff was that as the Woodard has mentioned is only an estimate, and the borough of Cambridge for upwards of 601.
for through the plaintiff's Town Place must be taken everybody knows nobody better than Mr. rent due from the
bankrupt. A writ of fi. ja, was to have been dedicated subject to the partial and Woodard—that when a statement of this kind is issued, and the officer of the Borough Court took temporary obstruction caused by the gate, the filed the man always estimates his estate at as possession of the bankrupt's property, under it, defendant was bound so to use his easement as much as it is worth,
and by arrangement with Mr. Cole no sale actually not to injure plaintiff's rights. An entire removal Woodard.- Sometimes at only one-half. took place pending negotiations. These latter of the gate would have been as justifiable as the Du field.- Where fraud is intended it is put proving unsuccessful, Mr. Cole filed his petition, act of allowing the gate to remain open for an down at one-half. It was not the intention of the and was adjudicated a bankrupt on the 6th Dec. unreasonable time ; but such a removal was only Legislature to enforce a payment of this kind The trustee took possession of his goods, and the to be justified by proof on the part of defendant beyond the means at the man's disposal. He was officer in possession under the writ of fi. fa. that the gate was a nuisance, as an illegal obstructo have the opportunity of showing that he was withdrew. Subsequently Mr. Page Wallis put in tion, and might therefore be abated. The case not able to pay what he thought at first he might a distress for one year's rent, under the 34th sect. of ancient stiles would be in point. Those exer. be able to pay, precisely in the same way as the of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, but the trustee cising their right of way would not be able to court dealt with a judgment summons. refused to pay the amount claimed, and by consent
remove such stiles. His Honour pointed out a distinction between of the parties the sum of 501. was kept in hand For the defence it was argued that, as the defen.
by the trustee, and the question as to the trustee's dant was entitled to have access to property of Duffield.-Does your Honour mean to say it liability reserved for the opinion of his Honour. his through the Town Place, and claimed equal Fould be your duty to commit the man to prison Cockerell appeared for the landlord—the rights with plaintiff in the Town Place, he was perpetually, at the suit of say 100 creditors, ex. claimant, and argued that the execution having entitled to use the gate as he pleased. tending over six or seven years, who could show proved fruitless, the landlord did not lose his
His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff. that although he honestly believed at the time right to distrain. In support of his contention he It had been established to his satisfaction that that his estate would pay the composition, that relied upon the fact that taking a security, such the plaintiff owned the property on each side of estate subsequently fell to the ground, and the as a bill or note, did not take away the right to the gate, and that he had a prescriptive right to court rould not be justified in refusing the appli. distrain. Nor did the judgment, for the landlord's have the gate in its present position. The act of cation for an order?
rights were superior to all judgments. In support the defendant in allowing the gate to remain open His HONOUR.-I should be inclined to say yes. of this view, he quoted the cases of Davis vi for an unreasonable time was therefore unjusti. And the only effect would be that debtors would Guyde (2 A. & E.), and Drake v. Mitchell (3 East), fiable.
In the present instance he should give, be more cautious in entering into compositions J. W. Cooper, on behalf of the trustee, submitted
as nominal damages, the sum of 1s., and certify than they are now inclined to be.
that the landlord, having chosen his remedy of an for costs as in cases where title is in question. If The REGISTRAR.-It is perfectly true this case action and judgment, could not fall back npon the defendant persisted, it would be necessary to has not been decided, but this court is only now his original right to distrain. A judgment reco
inflict such damages as would prevent him. pursuing the course taken in the Bankruptcy vered was clearly distinguishable from taking a (See hereon Fisher v. Prowse, 6 L. T. Rep. N. S.; Court in London.
collateral security, such as a bill or note, and it and Mercer v. Woodgate, a recent case.) Duffield.-How can that be, when the Court of was superior to the right to distrain, for it would Bankruptcy in London say they have never had an operate for twenty years, whereas the right to application for a committal to prison distrain would be lost sooner. And further, it
LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT. His Honour said he had not the slightest ob. would be giving the landlord two remedies for the (Before Mr. Serjt. WHEELER, Judge.) jection to take upon himself the responsibility of same cause, which was not allowed.
PRITCHARD V. HUNTINGTON AND ANOTHER. deciding. He should at the same time like to see His HONOUR.- But, Mr. Cooper, can you quote Liability of landord-Statutory obligation to disa case properly raised, but could not call upon any case which overrules those quoted by infect-Cause of action for neglect thereof. either of the gentlemen before him to bear the Mr. Cockerell, where it is held that a judgment Copeman for the plaintiff. burlen of raising it.
unproductive is no bar to subsequent proceedings. Grocott for the defendants. The REGISTRAR.-Mr. Duffield misunderstood J. W. Cooper. There is no case, as far as I know, The defendants were the owners of a house an
the two cases.
shop in Liverpool. They used for the purposes of that the said dog, whilst the defendant so kept the fifteen guineas for the inventory was intended their business of flour dealers the shop and a room the same, attacked and bit the plaintiff; with to cover all the plaintiff's charges. behind, letting off to a resident tenant the re- allegations of damage.
On the 22nd inst. Crump moved for a new trial, mainder of the premises. The premises thus let It appeared that the dog in question was a bull. on the ground that the verdict was against the had no front entrance save by means of the shop terrier, admittedly kept for fighting purposes, i.e., evidence, and contended, as matter of law, first
, and the room behind, the right of passage throngh fighting other dogs. It was kept on the premises that the defendant was bound by the terins of the which when the shop was open formed part of the of the defendant with other dogs, and the plaintiff receipt, which expressed for what the fifteen demise to the tenaut. There was an independent was the groom who attended to the horses. On guineas were paid, and there being no plea of pay entrance at the back, of which the tenant had tho a day in Aug. 1871, according to the plaintiff's ment it could be no answer to the action; and, exclusive use. The defendants were in the habit, evidence, he was instructed by the defendant to secondly, that even if it had been payment the one or other of them, of visiting the shop for take the dog down to the water. This he did con- continued employment of the plaintiff subse. business purposes daily, and they had, of course, trolling it by a chain and collar. Arriving at the qnently, and revocation of his authority before he a shopman on the premises thronghont each day? water the plaintiff loosed the dog which flew at had obtained a purchaser, entitled him, having This shopman was taken ill in the early part of him and bit him in the arm.
incurred expense, to some remuneration. April last, and on the 14th was obliged to absent J. Cook was counsel for the plaintiff, and
The Court granted a rule nisi. himself from business in consequence, and his F. 0. Cruemp for the defendant.
Attorneys for plaintiff, Brook anii Chapinan. illness turned out to be smallpox. He was
The plaintiff's proved merely that the defendant Attorneys for the defendant, Ravenscroji and succeeded in his duties by another shopman, knew the dog to be a bull-terrier, that he kept it Hills. who was in like manner obliged to leave from for fighting purposes, and had it always chained illness in four days after the first man had left. up.
COMPLIMENTARY FAREWELL DINNER TO This illness proved also to be smallpox. The At the close of the plaintiff's case the counsel FRANCIS ELLIS MÄTAGGART, ESQ. Public Health Act (29 & 30 Vict. c. 90, s. 39) for the defendant submitted that there was no A COMPLIMENTARY farewell dinner to Francis imposes a penalty upon every person knowingly case. In the first place it had not been proved Ellis M'Taggart, Esq., who for eleven years has letting a house, room, or part of a house in which that the defendant knew that the dog would bite been the judge of the County Court of Northamp. any person suffering from a dangerous infectious mankind ; and the fact that it was kept to fight tonskire and district, was given by the solicitors disorder has been, without having the premises other dogs and therefore ferocious towards its practising on his circuit on Thursday evening, Jan. disinfected to the satisfaction of a qualified medical own species was not enough to make the defen. | 18, at the George Hotel, Northampton. The chair practitioner and certified by him. In this instance | dant liable. Secondly, the plaintiff knew the was occupied by Mr. J. Hensman, who was supthe premises were not disinfected, nor any pre- danger of the service, he knew that the dog was ported on the right by Francis Ellis M'Taggart, cautions taken to prevent the infection extending. savage, and with that knowledge undertook to Esq., and on the left by R. Harrington, Esq, ; the The tenant of the house at the time the small. water him. He was bound to use more than ordi. vice-chair was occupied by Mr. J. Jeffery. pox broke out was a person of the name of nary care, and the master was certainly not After some preliminary toasts, Bradley, and being anxious to get away from the liable.
The Chairinan said it devolved upon him, as the place in consequence of the illness of the shopmen i The learned Deputy Recorder refused to stop oldest practitioner, to propose to them the health and its cause, he opened a negotiation with the the case.
of his Honour, Mr. McTaggart. (Loud applause.) plaintiff to succeed him in his tenancy ; but Evidence was then called for the defence, and it They were called together that day to celebrate he carefully concealed the fact that thero had was denied that instructions had been given to in the person of the judge one of the greatest been smallpox there. Bradley was not autho. , the plaintiff to water the dog. Several workmen improvements in the laws of England, or of any rised to conclude arrangement with the on defendant's premises also swore that they fre other country, which had ever been known. Veed plaintiff, and he therefore referred him to Mr. quently caressed the dog, and it had never he refer, in the presence of his learnod brethren, Horn the defendants' agent. At the time com. attempted to bite them. A veterinary surgeon to the state of the law thirty years ago; or state, munication was open between the plaintiff and who had exainined it after the accident stated that but for the benefit of the visitors who were preMr. Horn, both Mr. Horn and the defendants it was in a healthy condition, and no more fero- sent on that occasion, that the great roformers knew that the two slopmen had been necessarily cious than bull-terriers usually are.
of the law had been the lawyers. (Hear, hear ) removed from the premises in consequence of their Crump addressed the jury, and submitted that The Chairman thien touched upon the great im. having been seized with smallpox; but no intima- if they took the view that the plaintiff was antho. provements which had been effected since thu tion of the fact was given to the plaintiff, and the rised to water the dog he was acting in a service great Chancellor of James the First eet his stamp premises were let to him by Mr. Horn, by the for which he was paid, and the dangers of which and seal upon the law of England, and alluded to direction and with the kuowledge of the defendants, he knew. If, on the other hand, he was a volun. the changes which had been effected by the bank. and he was allowed to enter into the occupation teer, acting beyond the scope of his employment, ruptcy law since he commenced his career in the in entire ignorance that he was taking his family the defendant was clearly not liable.
legal profession. But when they came to the into ihe midst of infection. The consequence was
forms of procedure on the administration of jus. that, a few days after he took possession he was The learned DEPUTY-RECORDER directed the tice, they recognised in his Honour a man who attacked by smallpor, and was unable to work for jury that if they considered that the defendant had greatly helped to carry out a wonderful alternearly six weeks. The case for the plaintiff was, knew the dog to be ferocious, and instructed the ation in the laws of England, for of all the matter that the defendants having knowingly let thó plaintiff to water
it, he was liable for the act of connected with the procedure of the courts the premises to him after there had been smallpox the dog if the plaintif had done nothing to irritate Act for establishing County Courts had been the without previouly disinfecting the same, and the it, and bring the damage upon himself. He did best. With respect to the Northampton Court plaintiff having contracted the disease in con
not agree with the learned counsel for the defen- he was able to say his Honour had travelled in his sequence, a right of action existed for the in-dant, that the facts that the breed of the dog and circuit about 10,000 miles a year, and he (the chair jury he had sustained. The defendants, however, purpose for which it was kept were notorious, man) complained of him as being a conspirator contended in the first vlace that the case was atceted the question, as attending to dangerous against the laws of his country. (Laugater. The not proved; and further, that if it was, there dogs wus no part of the regular employment of amount of the plaints in the Northampton County was no liability on their part, either by com- the plaintiff as groom to a merchaut, as in this Court, during tho last ten years had been 72,60 mon law or statute to compensate the plaintiff.
and judgments had been given for 25,000? Of His HONOUR in giving judgment said :-- It The jury considered, and returned a verdict for the 25,000 cases which had come before hin there is scarcely possible to exaggerate the import- the plaintiff; damages 101.
had only been one appeal froin his judgment, and ance of this case ; for if the contention before me ! Crump applied for leave to move the court above twelve only had been tried 'by jury. He charged
that an unsuccessful one; and of those cases be well founded, the position of a tenant in great to enter the verdict for the defendant on two one of vast periland dithienlty. But I do not concur towns liko Liverpool and in crowded districts is frounds, first, that there was insufficient proof of his Honour with conspiracy, for he had actually in the view which the defendants, through their the defendant's servant, ho could not under the pauze.) Need lie say more of a man who could scienter; and secondly, that as the plaintiff was
practicnlly abolished trial by jury, and abolished
it by force of justice and reason. (Loud ap: attorney, suggest as to the law of the matter. I circumstances recover. am satisfied that a right of action does exist, and it is most righteous that it should. It is needless After some argument, the learned Judge refused abolish one of the grand hulwarks of freel mleave.
(loud applause) and who could bring home to travel beyond the statute into the question of common law liability, though upon that point I
Counsel intimated that he should appeal.
speedy justice to the house of every Englis'ıman:
He knew of nothing which Lord Bacon had said should be prepared to state my opinion if it were
Attorney for the defendant, Iliang.
upon judical trial which would not apply to his necessary, because I think that the imposition by
Honour, Mr. McTaggart. Lord Bacon said . statute of a penalty for the doing of a particular
Jan. 20 and 22.
jndge should be grave and patient. Had not his act amounts to a statutable prohibition of that act, and makes it illegal. Ani if by reason of such
GILEERT v. HINCHLIFF.
Honour been patient? (Hear, hear.) He had ne
(the chairman) was suro been most patient, most illegal act injury arises to an individual, I think Avctioneer's commission-- Agreement for sum cer. kind, most considerate. (Applauso) Considerathat the party injured has his personal remedy tuin on sale of house–Revocation oj authority- tion was the great quality which made the judges by action for the private wrong, and that without Quantum merit.
His Honour had been most considerate in huis reference to the statutable penalty which is in. The plaintiff in this case, an anctioneer and house treatment to the junior inembers of th: pro; tened to meet the public offence, I need only agent, sued the defendant for commission on half- fession. If one of them winted a kid and refer, in corroboration of this view, to the well. year's rental and premium on sale, which was not helping hand, that helping hand Mr. McTagart known case of Couch v. Sieci (3 Ell. & Bl. 403), i completed, of a house at Maida-hill. The original hul alw.ys offered-hear, hear) -and that was and to the more recent case of Atkinson v. New agreement was that for selling the house and fur. not the least that was due to him. In the precastle and Gateshead. Waterworks Company (6 niture for a given sum the plaintiff should receive sence, however, of his Honour ho would abstuin L. Rep. Ex. 404). The legal objections failing, 1001. He advertised extensively, and an offer to from further epithets of praise and laudation, there remains only the question whether the purchase was made, the agreement eventually because merit iras always modest; but this he plaintiff has proved his case, and the con come to being that the purchaser should becoine would say, that although the ermine of the judge clusion at which I have arrived is that he has.. the tenant of the house for six months, paving a did not cover his Honour's breast, beneath his He is therefore entitled to my verdict for the full quarter's rent in advance, and depositing 1001. to official robes there beat a heart warm and strong amount which he claims, with costs.
secure the due performance of the contract. The with the greatest principles-justice and truth.
purchase was not completed, and the 1001. wils (Loud and prolonged applanse.) LORD MAYOR'S COURT.
forfeited. Some months subsequently the defen. Mr. Ellis M-Taggirt, who was received with
dant took the matter out of plaintiff's hands, and renewed applaus”, said, in thanking them most Monday, Jan. 22.
sold it by other means for a less sum than the heartily ani gratefully for the kindly spirit which (Before Deputy-Recoriler CHAMBERS and a Jury.) limit given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had re. had prompted them to ask him to be their guest DRISCOLI . BALDWIN.
ceirca fifteen guincas for an inventory, for which that evening, and for the coriial and gueroas Ferocious dog-Actin for a bite---Plaintiff the he hari given a receipt. He new sought to recover welcome which they had given him, he was but servant of the defendant-Scienter. commission at 5 per cent. as above stated.
repeating at the best thoso thanks which some few In this case the declaration alleged that the 1.0. Crump was counsel for the plaintiff. weeks ago a similar proof of kindness called forth: defendants unlawfully kept a dog of a fierce Limiley Snith appeared for the defendant. thanks for the sympathy and good will wirich for and mischicrons nature, well knowing that the After hearing the evidence of the defendant the nearly eleven years he lai nerer failed to mæt dog was of a fierce and mischievuus huture, and jury stopped the case, expressing the opinion that with from all connectod with trat circuit, and of