Page images

Held, per Willes, Keating, and Collier, JJ. (dissentiente, Brett, J.), that the revising barrister was right in allowing the vote, although it was unnecessary to strike out the word "dwelling." Per Brett, J., that the 3rd section of the Representation of the People Act has given a new qualification, and that, as the error was in the nature of the qualification, the revising barrister ought not to have amended: (Townsend v. The Overseers of Marylebone, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 749. C. P.)

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Cent. Ann.

Cents. Jan. 1873

Ann. 30 years exp. April 5, 1885

Do. exp. Jan. 5, 1880'

Do. exp. July 1880

Red Sea Tele. Ann. 1908.

Consols, for Acc....

India 5 Cent. for Acc.



[blocks in formation]

Do. 5 Cent. July 1880 111 111 111 111 India Stock, July 1880

India Stock, 187+

India 5


921 924

North Western.-A dividend at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum. FINANCE, CREDIT, AND DISCOUNT COMPANIES. New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency.-A dividend at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, and a bonus of 24 per cent.

New Zealand Trust and Loan.-Interim dividend declared at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum.


British and Foreign Marine Insurance.-A further dividend of 4s., together with a bonus of Ss., making a distribution of 20 per cent. for the


British Nation Life Assurance Association.-At a meeting of the shareholders it was resolved to wind-up the company voluntarily, and Mr. Arthur Cooper and Mr. George Whiffin were appointed liquidators.

Norwich Union Fire Office.-The annual dividend is 18s. per share, or 60 per cent. on the capital originally paid up.

MISCELLANEOUS COMPANIES. Anglo-American Telegraph. A dividend of 31. 3s. 4d. per cent., being at the rate of 10 per 921 cent. per annum.

India 4 C. Oct. 1888 106 106 106 106 106 103 India 5 Cent. 1870

British and Foreign Tramways.-Interim dividend, 2s. 6d. per share.

British Shipowners.-A dividend at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum.

Channel Tunnel (Limited.)-Capital 30,000l., privately subscribed. The purpose is to make a 92 trial shaft on the English side of the Straits of Dover, about half a mile beyond low water mark, with the view of proving the practicability of tunnelling under the Channel. The completion of this work will furnish data for calculating the cost of continuing the driftway from each shore to be subscribed for that purpose. The committee of a junction in mid-Channel, and capital will then management are Lord Richard Grosvenor (chairman), Captain Beaumont, M.P., Sir E. Buckley, M.P., Mr. Thomas Brassey, M.P., Admiral George Elliot, Messrs. Blount (Paris), Buddicom, Hawes, Michael Chevalier, and Paulin Talabot. The engineers are Messrs. John Hawkshaw, Thomé de Gamond, James Brunlees, and William Low.

India Bonds (10001.)... 30s.a 30s.a 30s.a 304.a 30s.a 30s.a

30s.a 30s.a 30s.a 30s.a 30s.a 308.a 98.a 98.a 9s a 9s.a 9s.a 9s.a

98.a 98.a 9s.a 98.a 98.a 98.a

Do. (under 10001.) Ex. Bills, 10001. Do. 5001. Do. 1001, and 2001. 9s.a 9s.a 9s a 9s.a 98.a 98.a Metropolitan Board of Works 3C. Stock.

97 971 974 971

[blocks in formation]

By Messrs. FURBER, PRICE, and FrEDER, at the Mart. Bedford-row. No. 20, John-street, freehoid-sold for 11757. Absolute reversion to 202 l. 78. 8d.; Consolidated Bank Annuities, 25137, 18. Gd.; London Dock Stock, 7107. 12s. 6d. in St. Katharine Dock Stock, thirteen Regent's Canal shares, three Bristol Dock shares. 4317. 5.; Debenture Waterloo-bridge Company; and a judgment debt for 4550. on death of a lady aged 6)-sold for 15:07.

By Messrs. HARDS, VAUGHAN, and LEIFCHILD. Upper Lewisham-road, No. 23, Wickham-terrace, term 80 years-sold for 8051. Blackheath. A leasehold ground-rent of 277. 08. Gd., amply

secured-sold for 3007. Greenwich. No. 22, George-street, freehold-sold for 2957. By Messrs. NEWBON and HARDING. Islington. No. 2, Popham-terrace, copyhold-sold for 5057. No. 53, Englefield-road, term 69 years-sold for 400. Caledonian-road. No. 7, Offord-road, term 69 years-sold for 3957.

No. 9, Market-street, term 82 years-sold for 3507.
Mildmay-park. No. 24, Wolsey-road, term 78 years-sold for


Dalston. No. 14, Marion-villas, term 77 years-sold for 2507. Tuesday, Jan. 23.

By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER, at the Mart. City of London. Nos. 27 and 28, Milk-street, freehold, containing an area of 1780ft.-sold for 86501. Camberwell, High street. Dwelling-house and shop and two residences, area 14,166ft. freehold-sold for 32507.

PUBLIC COMPANIES. RAILWAY COMPANIES. Pernambuco Railway.-Notice is given that debentures falling due on the 31st July next will be paid off on that day, and all interest will cease, unless holders notify their intention to renew. BANKS.

Bank of Egypt.-A dividend at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, with a bonus of 11. 10s., free of income tax, making, together with the interim dividend, 19 per cent. for the year.

Birmingham and Midland.-A dividend of 51. per share, payable on the 14th Feb. Bombay New Bank.-Interim dividends, 5 per cent. per annum.

Central of London.-Dividend at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum.

Consolidated.-A dividend at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum.

London Joint Stock.-A dividend at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum, and a bonus of 17. per share, declared for the six months.

London and Westminster.-A dividend at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, and by way of further dividend out of the profits, a bonus of 6 per cent.

Metropolitan.-A dividend at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum.

Munster.-A dividend at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum.

National.-A dividend at the rate of 9 per cent. per annum, or 27s. per share, for the past half-year.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. WILL-SUBSTITUTED EXECUTORS.-A testator by his will appointed my wife my sole executrix, and in default of her, I nominate and appoint as my executors, &c.," A. B. and C. D. The wife took out probate, and at her death the court held that A. B. and C. D. were the substituted executors of the husband, and granted probate to them of his estate in preference to the wife's executors: (In the Goods of Foster, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 763. Prob. Ct.)

TESTAMENTARY SUIT-ADMINISTRATION TO A NOMINEE OF BOTH PARTIES REFUSED.-Except under very special circumstances, the court, as a general rule, will refuse to make a grant of administration to the nominee of the next of kin, who has himself no interest, even though all the next of kin may consent: (Teague and Ashdown v. Wharton and another, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 764. Prob. Ct.)

LEGACY TO MARRIED WOMAN-HUSBAND AND WIFE DIED IN LIFETIME OF TESTATORADMINISTRATION TO WIFE GRANTED TO HER SON-1 VICT. c. 26, s. 33.-A legatee, a married father. Her husband survived her, but also died woman, died in the lifetime of the testator, her before the father. He did not administer to his wife's estate, but left a will, of which one executor was still alive. The court granted administration to the son of the deceased legatee limited to the property bequeathed to her by her father: (In the Goods of Mary Courcell, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 763. Prob. Ct.)

PRACTICE-ADMINISTRATION SUIT-VARYING DECREE-23RD GENERAL ORDER, RULE 21.Where further proceedings in an administration suit became necessary, the court allowed a decree to be varied by inserting a direction that any of the parties be at liberty to apply: (Warman v. Zeal, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 739. V.C. B.)


INSUFFICIENCY OF SPECIAL JURORS-REFUSAL TO PRAY A TALES-COSTS.- Defendant obtained an order for a special jury, but when the trial on sufficient special jurors were not present, and neither party prayed a tales. When the trial came on a second time, defendant obtained a verdict. The practice of the court under such circumstances is to allow the costs of the first trial to the successful party on the second: (Holmes v. Albright, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 747. Q. B.) SHERIFF-FALSE RETURN-ESTOPPEL-DAMAGE TO EXECUTION CREDITOR.-A sheriff re

turned to a writ of fi. fa. that he had seized the goods of the execution debtor, and kept them safe in his

possession until he received an order from the creditor's attorney to withdraw; whereupon he withdrew. In defence to an action for a false return by the execution creditor, the sheriff proved that the only goods which the debtor appeared to have been assigned by a valid bill of sale, and that no damage had occurred to the plaintiff in conse quence of the return: Held, that the verdict was properly entered for the defendant: (Stimson v. Farnham, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 747. Q. B.)


TITLE TRUSTEE ACT 1850 (13 & 14 VICT. c. 60), s. 43.-When a purchaser presented a petition for a vesting order intituled in the cause only the petition was ordered to be amended by intituling it under the Trustee Act 1850: (Gough v. Bage, 25 L. T. Rep. N.S. 738. V.C. B.)

SETTLEMENT-TRUST FOR WIFE IN DEFAULT OF CHILDREN-DEATH OF HUSBAND-POSSIBI LITY OF POSTHUMOUS CHILDREN-APPLICATION PREMATURE.-A fund in court was settled upon a married woman absolutely in default of issue. The woman gave birth to a stillborn child on the 1st June, 1871, and her husband died on the 12th of the same month. There was no other issue. On an application by the woman on the 9th Dec. following, that the fund be paid to her Held, that the application was premature. (Attorney-General v. Clement,. 25 L. T. Rep. N.S. 739. V.C. B.)

COSTS-TAXATION-COUNSEL'S FEES.-Where the junior counsel who drew the pleadings in a suit has been called within the bar before the hearing of the cause, the fees of three counsel will be allowed on a taxation of costs as between party and party, in a case where the magnitude of the suit is such that according to the ordinary practice of litigants, it was proper to give a retainer to a Cousens, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 713. Chan.) Queen's Counsel in the first instance: (Cousens v.

DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS.-In applying the rule of the court that he who discovers at all must discover fully, the materiality or immateriality of the discovery is not, in ordinary cases, very accurately weighed, but the court will weigh it in cases where, under pretence of getting discovery for the purposes of a suit, a discovery might be prejudicial to him, while the plaintiff's case might fail at the hearing, and in cases where the discovery can only be material for some consequential purpose if the plaintiff should succeed. In a suit by a firm of merchants who exported certain goods against another firm who exported similar goods, to restrain the defendants from using or placing on their goods certain trade marks, to the use of which the bill alleged that the plaintiffs were exclusively entitled, the defendants by their answer denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to the exclusive use of the marks in question. An order was made against the defendants for production of documents, in pursuance of which the defendants made an affidavit of documents, sealing up certain portions of the documents, which portions they swore did not contain anything relating directly or indirectly to the matters in question in the suit: Held (reversing the decision of the Vice-Chancellor (Wickens) of the County Palatine), that the defendants were not bound to unseal the names of their customers, or the prices paid or received by them for goods, or the names of the writers of letters received by them, or of the persons to whom letters were sent by them, except in the case of letters received from or sent to a former partner of the defendants: Held also (affirming the Vice-Chancellor's decision) that the defendants were bound to unseal the names of the places to which the goods were exported by them: (Carver v. Piuto Leite, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 722. Chan.)

ROLLS COURT. Jan. 11 and 15.

Re JOSEPH BEST (a Solicitor). THIS was an application by way of motion to the Master of the Rolls by Mr. Joseph Best, of Manchester, a solicitor, formerly practising at Liver pool, to rescind an order made by his Lordship in July 1869, suspending Mr. Best from practice for ten years, on the ground of alleged irregularities in reference to the transfer of a mortgage security for 8001. and the application of moneys received in connection therewith. The petition against Mr. Best was presented in June 1869 by the Liverpool Incorporated Law Society, at the instance of a lady named Ormandy, the administratrix of a deceased client of Mr. Best, and of her solicitor, who had caused Mr. Best's several bills of costs and his claims against the deceased for money lent, amounting to upwards of $59, to be taxed and disputed. Litigation between the parties had been pending since 1867. When the petition came on for hearing in 1869 Mr. Best applied for time to answer, alleging that owing to the absence of vouchers and documents indispensable to his defence which were temporarily out of his reach, he was not then prepared to meet the charges made against him, although he asserted that such charges were utterly groundless. The petition,

however, was pressed, and an order was made suspending Mr. Best from practice.

Jan. 11.-Locock Webb, on behalf of Mr. Best, moved to rescind such suspending order. Charles Hall, counsel for the Liverpool Incorporated Law Society, contra.

Lord ROMILLY desired to read the several affidavits filed before giving judgment.

Jan. 15.-Lord ROMILLY (addressing Locock Webb) said: I think you have made out your case. I am satisfied there was a great deal of blundering and mistake about the whole matter. The alleged false statement about the mortgage, in my opinion, comes to nothing, and with reference to the question about the concealment of the 1911., the two points upon which I particularly relied, in my opinion, it is clearly shown that that was no part of the case at all, and therefore the question does not arise. I am very sorry such an unfortunate result should have happened, but I am bound to say, in my opinion, Mr. Best is entirely acquitted of anything affecting his character with reference to this transaction, I am very sorry I should have been induced, upon what I thought was my duty two years and a half ago, to come to the conclusion that I was bound to suspend him. I think it was owing very much to Mr. Best not having himself brought the case fully before the court at that time, because, if he had done so, I certainly should not have made the order. However, I shall now discharge that order, but I shall discharge it simpliciter, because I am satisfied that all parties before me have acted bona fide in the matter, and if there be any fund which could pay costs it would be the Suitors' Fund. The order of suspension will be discharged.

Solicitor for Mr. Best, F. T. Dubois, King-street, Cheapside.

Solicitors for the Liverpool Incorporated Law Society, Field and Co., Lincoln's-inn-fields.

Tuesday, Jan. 23.

RE AN ATTORNEY. Garth, Q.C. and Murray moved for a rule calling up n an attorney to answer the matter of an affidavit. The circumstances had only lately come before the Incorporated Law Society, which accounts for the delay that had taken place. It appeared that the attorney had not taken out his certificate since 1869, but on his making application and giving the necessary notice to renew his certificate, the following information had been obtained by the society: In 1863 he ontered into a deel of composition with his creditors, appointing his brother-in-law trustee, and from his affidavit it appeared that the deed was fraudulent, the whole of the debts except one being fictitious. Since 1869 there had been a split between the parties, which caused the information to be sent to the Law Society. It also appeared that since 1869 the attorney had resided in Paris, where he had carried on a mock auction of the most flagrant character. In a letter to the brother-in-law the attorney stated that he was carrying on the business of auctioneer, but as it could not be carried on as such in Paris, the course adopted was to have supposed sales of goods (purchased for the purpose), and of estates under liquidation at enormous sacrifices. His modus operandi he described was to take a shop in a leading thoroughfare in Paris, placard largely, take out the windows of the shop, fill it well with merchandise, and have one or two ruffians outside to kick up a row, and attract customers. It was, he said, one of the most paying games he could have started, for with 60. he had been able to make 31. a day, and, if properly organised, 1001. a day might be made. Scotch shawls, worth 10s. each, he sold for 30s., and that by making great sacrifices. (Laughter.) Sheffield, Birmingham, and Manchester goods, sold equally well, aud with equally good profits. COCKBURN, C.J., said it would be curious to see how the brother-in-law answered that letter -whether he denounced the writer then as now. However, enough had been said to call upon the attorney for an answer.

Rule groated.

Friday, Jan. 5.

(Before Mr. Justice HANNEN.) Re JONES.


Practice-Taxation of costs. An order for taration under 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 37. counot be made in respect of an attorney's bill of costs relating to work done solely in relation to the election of a school board, and not in any of the courts of common law. This was an application to set aside an order for the taxation of an attorney's bill of costs made by Master Templar.

Mr. Jones, an attorney, clerk to the Llanelly Union, had made an account in the form of an attorney's bill of costs of his expenses in connection with the election of a school board for one of the parishes in the Union, pursuant to an

Order in Council under the Elementary Education

Act 1871.

When the application was made to the master for an order to tax the bill in question, it was opposed by Mr. Jones on the ground that the business to which the bill of costs related was not done by him in his character of an attorney, nor was it transacted in a court of common law. The Master, however, made the usual order for taxation.

G. B. Al en, instructed by Messrs. G. L. P. Eyre and Co., on behalf of Mr. Jones, now applied for the order for taxation to be set aside. Berkeley and Calcott, on behalf of the School Board, supported the order for taxation.

HANNEN, J., held that the Act (6 & 7 Vict. c. 73), s. 37, only authorised an order for taxation to be made where the business to which the bill of costs related was done by an attorney in one of the courts of common law, and that the order for taxation must be set aside.


Axox (Jas.), Pepper-street, Chester, gentleman. Feb. 22; Geo. Tibbits, solicitor, Chester. Feb. 29; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock.

CRAIG (Jane G.), Priory, Leamington, Warwick. Feb. 17; Harrison and Co., solicitors, 19, Bedford-row, W.C. March 1; V.C. M.. at twelve o'clock. MORCOM (Wm.), Townend-house, Pietermaritzburg, Port Natal, South Africa. Feb. 16; T. Hayter, solicitor, 6, Raymond-buildings, Gray's-inn, England. Feb. 22; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. UPCOTT (Wm. B.), Wolverhampton, newspaper proprietor. Feb. 16; H. Kitson, solicitor, Wolverhampton." March 8; M. R., at eleven o'clock. FINNEY (Robert), 16, Bishopsgate Without, E.C.. licensed victualler. Feb. 7; Wild and Co., solicitors, 10, Ironmonger-lane, Cheapside, E.U. Feb. 19; V.C. W., at one o'clock.

FENDALL (Henrietta), Seaton, Devon, Feb. 19; T. C. Mills, solicitor, S. New-square, Lincoln's-inn, W.C. March 4; M. R., at eleven o'clock.

PALGRAVE Chas. F.), Bedford, chemist and druggist. Feb. 14; Cox and Sons, solicitors, 4, Cloak-lane, E.C. Feb. 25; M. R., at cleven o'clock.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. ESAIN (Alexander), Esq., Clifton, near Bristol, professor of music. Feb. 3; W. Acland, 37, Lansdowne-crescent, Notting-hill, W.

WILLS (John C.). Hatherleigh, Devon, gentleman. March

have his name removed from the list of contributories. Held (affirming the decision of the Master of the Rolls), that the letter authorising the liquidator to sue in his name did not constitute a withdrawal of B.'s repudiation of the shares, having been signed by him under the impression that it would not subject him to any liability; and that he was entitled to have his name removed from the list, inasmuch as, if it remained there, he would be liable to be sued for an indemnity against calls by his transferor, who was on'list B.: (Baker's Case, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 727. L.JJ.)



NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. WILL-SHARE IN LEASEHOLD BELONGING TO PARTNERSHIP-BEQUEST BY ONE PARTNER TO ANOTHER.-F., who was a partner in a firm of solicitors, which consisted of himself and L., and whose business was carried on in leasehold premises of which F. and L. were joint tenants, by his will bequeathed to his partner, L., all his share of the leasehold premises in which his business was carried on, and all his share of the office furniture, books, and other office cr household effects therein, for his own absolute use and benefit. After F.'s death the assets of the partnership proved to be insufficient for the payment of the partnership debts, though F.'s private estate was amply solvent: Held (reversing a decision of Stuart, V.C.), that the share of the leasehold premises belonging to F., being subject to the payment of the partnership debts, nothing passed to L. under the above gift. (Farquhar v. Hadden, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S., 717. L.JJ.)

LEASE FOR LIVES OF ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY-LUNATIC-TENANT FOR LIFE-SALE BYTRUSTEES.-A lease of land granted by an ecclesiastical corporation for lives was vested by the will of the lessee in trustees, upon certain trusts. The trustees had no power of sale. The tenant for life was a lunatic not so found by inquisition. One of the lives for which the lease was granted having dropped, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners refused to renew the lease, but offered to purchase it, and an agreement for purchase was entered into subTALBOT (Richard), IS, Gower-place, Enston-square, Middle-ject to the approval of the court. A petition was sex, afterwards Australia, July 5; Lewis and Co., soliciWRIGHT (Benjamin), Esq., 1. Spencer-park, Wandsworth, Surrey. March 23; F. and T. Smith, solicitors, 15, Furnival's-inn, E.C. COOPER William). Ezq., High Littleton-honse, High Little

25; J. Pearse, solicitor, Hatherleigh.

COTTON (Edmund), 20, Catheart-road, West Brompton, Middlesex, gentleman, March 1; A. S. Edmunds, solicitor, 11, St, Bride's-avenue, Fleet-street, E.C.

tors, S. Old Jewry, E.C.

then presented asking the approval by the court of the proposed sale, under the provisions of sect. 38 of the stat. 23 & 21 Vict. c. 124. Held, that the order could be made in Chancery, and that there was no necessity for entitling the petition in ton. Somerset. Marca 1; Thomas and Hollams, solicitors, lunacy: (Re Cheshire, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 721.

Chancery-lane, E.C.





NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. INSURANCE-CORROBORATION OF POLICYINCEPTION OF RISK-POLICY ON FREIGHTwho acts as director of a company must be considered as having applied for, and having con- GOODS NOT ON BOARD.-A ship was chartered to tracted to accept, that number of shares which carry a cargo from Liverpool to Lagos on the constitutes the minimum qualification for a direc-west coast of Africa, there discharge and reload tor. H. was advertised in the prospectus of a com- another cargo for the United Kingdom, in conpany as a director, and attended a meeting of sideration of a lump sum by way of freight, payable half before sailing from Liverpool, half on directors at which an allotment committee was appointed, who afterwards allotted to H. fifty delivery of the homeward cargo. The plaintiff, shares, which was fixed by the articles of associa the shipowner, effected an insurance on freight tion as the minimum qualification for a director."at and from Lagos," and the policy contained a H. subsequently signed a cheque on the company's clause whereby the defendants, the insurance Held, that although H. company, agreed that the insurance "shall combankers as a director. had made no express application for shares, he mence upon freight and goods or merchandise was liable as a contributory in respect of fifty aforesaid from the loading of the said goods or shares: (Harward's Case, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. merchandise aforesaid from the loading of the 690. V. C. M.) said goods or merchandise on board the said ship or vessel at as above." The ship was lost before she had shipped any of her homeward cargo: Held, that this clause precluded the plaintiff from recovering against the underwriters, although the freight was chartered freight: (Beckett v. The West of England Marine Insurance Company, 25 L. T. Rep. N.S. 739. Q. B.)



LIQUIDATION ON COMING OF AGE-SUBSEQUENT DEALING WITH THE SHARES.-In Oct. 1865, B., an infant of the age of nineteen years, executed a transfer to him of shares in a company, at the request of his employer, who was a friend of the real purchaser of the shares. In April 1866, the company was ordered to be wound-up. On the 30th Sept. 1867, B. attained twenty-one. On the 5th Dec. 1867 he was served with notice of a summons to settle him on the list of contributories, which notice he forwarded to his employer, as he had also done a notice of a call previously received by him. On the 11th Jan. 1868, he received notice of another call, and on the same day wrote to the liquidator, repudiating the shares. The liquidator then, in Feb. 1868, took out a summons to remove B.'s name from the list of contributories, and sub. stitute the name of the transferor. This application having been refused in chambers, the summons was adjourned into court, but afterwards allowed to drop, and no steps were taken to enforce the call against B. In April 1871, B., in consideration of the liquidator not enforcing the call (which was one for the whole amount remain. ing payable on the shares) against him, signed a letter authorising the liquidator to use his name in proceedings against the real purchaser of the shares. In June 1871, B. took out a summons to

[ocr errors]

INSURANCE-CONCEALMENT OF A MATERIAL FACT-LLOYD'S RULE-HALF TIME SURVEYLoss oF CLASS.-By Lloyd's rule, a vessel classed A 1 for seven years must undergo a half-time survey, signified when undergone by the letters "H. T." endorsed on the Lloyd's register. If such survey is refused by the owner, the vessel is struck off the register. Such refusal is not necessarily (Cockburn, C.J., dissentiente) a material fact which need be communicated to an underwriter of Lloyd's, who subscribes a policy on such a vessel after the refusal (the letters "H. T." not being in the register), but before the vessel was struck off the register. The materiality of the fact is a question for the jury. Semble, that the initialling of a slip is so far the completion of a contract of insurance that an underwriter is only bound by his knowledge of facts existing at that time, and not by knowledge withir his power between that time and the execution of the policy: (Gandy v. The Adelaide Marine Insurance Company, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 742. Q. B.)


NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. LIVERPOOL STOCK EXCHANGE-COURSE OF BUSINESS-ACTION FOR COMMISSION-TRANSFER NOTE-DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUM RECEIVED AND SUM TRANSFERRED-INTERPRETATION OF TRANSFER DEED.-The defendant having instructed the plaintiff to purchase certain railway shares on the Liverpool Stock Exchange, received a transfer note on the settling day for the purpose of transferring his shares to the purchaser. It is the custom on the Liverpool Stock Exchange for the original seller to transfer his shares not to the immediate purchaser, but to some sub-purchaser who may have purchased from some person other than the original pur. chaser; and it frequently happens that the sum in the transfer note is different to the sum which the original seller is to receive. To avoid difficulty, at the foot of the transfer note it is stated that the consideration money differs from that which the first seller is to receive owing to the sub-sale by the original buyer, but that the note is so regulated to fulfil the provisions of the Stamp Act (55 Geo. 3, c. 184). The defendant refused accordingly to sign the transfer because it stated that he had received a sum which was untrue. Held, that the defendant was bound to sign the transfer deed; that the foot note was to be read as part of the tranfer, and was sufficiently explicit. Semble, that a custom to sign for a consideration different from that stated in the deed of transfer would be bad: (Case v. McClellan, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 753. C. P.)

STATUTE OF FRAUDS (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. 4— PROMISE TO ANSWER FOR DEBT OR DEFAULT OF ANOTHER LIABILITY OF THIRD PERSON ASSUMED BUT NOT ACTUALLY EXISTING.-Plain tiff was employed by a local board of health to construct a main sewer, and shortly before its completion the board gave notice (pursuant to 11 & 12 Vict. c. 63, s. 69) to the occupiers of the adjoining houses to connect their drainage with the main sewer within twenty-one days, or the board would do so at their expense. After the main sewer was completed, and before the expiration of the twenty-one days, plaintiff was leaving with his carts and men, when he was asked by defendant, chairman of the board, what objection be had to making the connections. Plaintiff said, "I have none, if you or the board will order the work, or become responsible for the payment," to which defendant replied, "Go on and do the work, and I will see you paid ;" whereupon plaintiff did the work under the superintendence of the surveyor of the board, and sent his account for the work to the board, who refused payment on the ground that they had not ordered it. Plaintiff having subsequently brought an action against the defendant for the amount: Held, that there was evidence on which a jury might find the existence of a primary liability on the part of the defendant, and not merely a liability to answer for the actual or supposed debt or default of another person, and therefore that his promise did not come within the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds. Per Willes, J.-Where the promise is made to answer for the debt or default of a third person, and there is no actual, but only a supposed, liability on the part of that third person, the promise is equally void, whether it be in writing or not. But where the promise is made in respect of a future contemplated liability on the part of a third person, such a promise is within the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds: Mountstephen v. Lakeman, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 755. Ex. Ch.)


NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869, s. 37-JoINT AND SEVERAL PROMISSORY NOTE-DISTINCT CONTRACTS-JOINT AND SEPARATE ESTATE-RIGHT OF PROOF-DOUBLE PROOF.-The repayment of a loan was secured by a joint and several promissory note, signed by a firm, and by individual members of the firm. Held (affirming the decision of Mr. Registrar Pepys, sitting as Chief Judge in Bankruptcy), that under the 37th section of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, the lender was entitled to prove against and receive dividends from, both the joint estate of the firm and the separate estates of the individual members of it: (Ex parte Honey; Re Jeffery, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 728 Chan.)

BANKRUPTCY — MONEY ACQUIRED DURING BANKRUPTCY-PAYMENT OUT OF SUCH MONEY BY BANKRUPT BEFORE ORDER OF DISCHARGERIGHT OF TRUSTEE TO RECOVER-BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869, ss. 15, 17.-S. became tenant from year to year of a house which a bankrupt had hitherto occupied on a similar tenancy, and bought the bankrupt's furniture. He then let the house furnished to the bankrupt at a rent of 51. per week, it being agreed that the bankrupt should pay six months' rent in advance, if required to do so. The

bankrupt, who had not obtained an order of dis-
charge, received a sum of 2001. as compensation
for the loss of a situation, and thereout paid S.
six months' rent of the house in advance: Held
(affirming the order of the Chief Judge in Bank-
ruptcy discharging an order of the County Court
judge that S. could not be ordered to refund the
sum thus received to the trustee of the bank.
rupt's estate: (Ex parte Dewhirst; Re Vaulohe, 25
L. T. Rep. N. S. 731. Chan.)

BANKRUPTCY Act 18C9, s. 6, sub-SECT. 3—ACT
TO DELAY-ONUS OF PROOF.-On the 6th Nov. a
trader promised his creditor that he would bring
him the money for a dishonoured bill before three
o'clock that day; he broke that promise and also
two similar promises for the two following days.
On the 9th Nov, judgment was signed by default
in an action at the suit of the trader's father-in
law, with a writ in which he had been served
some days before he made the appointments
with his creditor, and his furniture and stock-in-
trade were seized in execution. The trader ad-
duced evidence that he had tried to borrow money
to meet the bill on the 6th Nov., and stated that
he failed to keep his appointment with his credi-
tor only because he had not obtained the money:
Held, that under the circumstances the failure to
keep the appointment with his creditor did not
constitute an act of bankruptcy under the 3rd
sub-sect. of the 6th section of the Bankruptcy
Act 1869. But, semble, that the failure to keep
such an appointment at the house of a creditor is
primâ facie evidence of intent to defeat or delay
one's creditors, and that the onus lies upon the
debtor of proving that he had no such intent, in
the absence of which proof the failure to keep
such an appointment would constitute an act of
bankruptcy: (Ex parte Meyer; Re Stephany, 25
L. T. Rep. N.S. 733. Chan.)

(Before W. FURNER, Esq., Judge.)
Friday, Jan. 13.

Liquidation-Rights of sureties.
THIS was an application by the trustee for the
direction of the court under sect. 20 of the Bank-
ruptcy Act 1869, under the following circum.
stances:-It appears that the debtor, who was a
schoolmaster at Bognor, had borrowed on the 10th
Sept. 1869, from the North British and Mercantile
Insurance Company 4001., and had insured his life
in the same office for 8001, the policy being
mortgaged to the company to secure the loan.
Mr. Wilson and Mr. White joined in the mortgage
as sureties for the purposes of guaranteeing the
principal, interest, and premiums, and it was
stipulated that the principal should be paid on
the 10th March 1870, but if an instalment of
principal amounting to 50l. should be paid on
the 10th March and 10th Sept. the loan should
continue for three years. The loan was not paid
on the 10th March 1870, but the sureties had, on
the application of the company, paid two sums
amounting to 351. 8s. 7d., and 611. 16s., repre-
senting the premiums due on the 10th Sept. 1870,
and a fine for renewal, also one of the instalments
of 501., and arrears of interest. The petition for
liquidation was filed on the 9th June 1871, and
the creditors having resolved on liquidation, the
trustee was appointed on the 24th June 1871.
The trustee paid the premium on the policy due
the 10th Sept. 1871. The debtor died on the 3rd
Nov. 1871, and the trustee having given to the
insurance company satisfactory proof of death,
applied for payment of the amount due under the
policy less the amount due to the company
thereon. The sureties then gave notice to the
company, requesting the company to deduct the
sums of 351. 8s. 7d., and 61. 163. from the balance
of the 800l. policy, and to pay the same to the
sureties. By an order of the court in pursuance of
the 80th section, the proceedings under the liquida-
tion had been continued as if the debtor was alive.
J. Seymour Salaman (of London) appeared on
behalf of the trustee, and after stating the above
facts, which were embodied in an affidavit of the
trustee, and were admitted by the company and
the sureties, referred to 19 & 20 Vict. c. 97, s. 5:
(Mayhew v. Crickett, 2 Swans. 185; Wade v. Coope,
2 Sim. 155; Heyman v. Dubois, 25 L. T. Rep.
N. S. 558.)

Holtham, solicitor (of Brighton), appeared for
the North British and Mercantile Insurance

Baker, solicitor (of London) appeared for the sureties.

His HONOUR said it appeared to him only reasonable, when the sureties covenanted to pay off the mortgage with interest, and had been compelled to pay certain sums, that they should be recouped out of the insurance money. When the debtor had had the benefit of that security, it would be monstrous that the trustee, in the place

of the debtor, should pocket the money resulting from that security, and leave the sureties to go to the wall. He should, therefore, make an order for them to be recouped the money actually paid out of pocket.

Bill given by debtor and discounted-Fraudulent preference.

A motion was then made on behalf of the trustee for an order that Mr. Francis Mason of Worthing, should pay over to the trustee the sum of 135. 19s. being the proceeds of the discount of a bill of exchange delivered to Mr. Mason by the debtor on the 7th June 1871, under the following circumstances.

It appeared that the debtor had received from the father of one of his pupils a bank draft on the Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London, and China, for 1681. at three months' date, in payment of an account for tuition. The debtor had handed this draft to Mason, who was employed as one of the masters on the 7th June 1871. The bill was taken by Mason to his bankers, who, afterwards on the 14th June discounted it and passed the amount less discount to Mason's account. Mason had handed to the debtor 301. of the amount. The debtor at the time he handed the bill to Mason was deeply in debt owing some 2000, including a large amount to Mason himself-he had a bill of sale over the whole of his furniture and effects, and the creditor was in possession as was also one or more sheriff's officers.

The debtor filed his petition under the 125th and 126th sections on the 9th June 1871, and on the 24th June liquidation was resolved upon and a trustee appointed. The debtor had made an affidavit in which he had stated that he had handed the bill to Mason for the purpose of getting it cashed at his own bankers, and that Mason had arranged to do so that the debtor might draw upon it from time to time, as he wanted the money for home purposes, and that the balance should remain at Mason's bankers, and the debtor was to draw the same as he wanted it to carry on his school. Mason had been examined before the registrar, and had denied the statement of the debtor, stating that the bill had been handed to him by the debtor in part payment of his debt and in fulfilment of a previous promise made to him by the debtor that he would hand him this bill when it arrived from India.

Mason had proved under the liquidation for over 7001.

The case had been before the court on two previous occasions, and it had been adjourned for the attendance of the debtor, who was unable to attend on account of serious illness, and he died in November.

Salaman now moved on the above facts, and urged that the trustee was entitled to the money, whether the court believed the statement of the debtor or of Mason, if the former, then Mason was only the agent of the debtor, and could not hold the proceeds of the bill as against the trustee; if the latter then the circumstances amounted to a case of fraudulent preference under the 92nd section, as the payment was voluntary and with out pressure, and must have been made with a view of giving the creditor a preference over the other creditors.

Gutteridge (of Brighton), appeared for Mason. His HONOUR said he had no hesitation in coming to a conclusion, because Mason was perfectly acquainted with Rosenberg's position, and knew that he was contemplating bankruptcy. There was no doubt that the bill was placed in Mason's hands, as the agent of Rosenberg, to be applied to Rosenberg's use. He received 30% of it at the time, and the discount, 21. 1s., reduced the amount to 135l. 19s., which must be paid over to the trustees.

Tuesday, Jan. 9.

(Before J. T. ABDY, Esq., Judge.)
Bankruptcy-Contempt of court-Failure to pay
composition Summary jurisdiction of court-
Notice to debtor-Ex parte applications.
AT the last court, Woodard, of Billericay, made
an application for the committal of Mr. J. Rem-
ington, late a butcher of Springfield, for contempt
of court in not obeying an order to pay to Mr.
G. B. Hilliard a claim due upon a composition
arranged between the debtor and his creditors, of
whom Mr. Hilliard was one, and who had obtained
an order of the court for payment. The order was
granted, but was suspended, on the debtor pro-
mising to pay into court within a week the sum
of 50l. to cover Mr. Hilliard's claim and Mr.
Woodard's costs, and in the event of Mr. Duffield
failing in an appeal which he had power to make,
if he chose, as to whether the court could entertain
Mr. Woodard's application, made on behalf of a
single creditor. That sum had been duly paid,
and now Woodard made a similar application
on behalf of Mr. F. Marriage, farmer, of Spring-
field, a further application in regard to Mr. Hil-

liard's claim, and also an application on behalf of me. With regard to your proceedings here toM. J. M. Wood, farmer, of Terling.

W. W. Duffield again supported the debtor. Woodard first made the application of Mr. Wood, that an order might issue from the court directing the debtor to pay forthwith to Mr. Wood the amount of his composition as a creditor, in accordance with the resolution passed at the meeting of creditors to accept 5s. in the pound from Mr. Remington.

Duffield urged that his client had received no notice of this application; and further submitted that the order ought not to be made until he had addressed the court in defence of his client. Woodard replied that this was an ex parte application, and therefore it was not necessary that the debtor should receive notice. It was an application which could be made before the registrar, if the court were not sitting, and Mr. Duffield had no locus standi entitling him to address the court upon it. The time for any discussion upon the matter would be when he made application for the debtor to be committed, if he failed to comply with the order of the court.

Duffield quoted an authority in support of his contention that the court had not power to enforce the order "in a summary manner," without giving the debtor an opportunity of showing whether he had any satisfactory reason for not having paid the composition. Unfortunately they were dealing with a form of procedure upon which no case had yet ever been decided by the Superior Court, for though the courts had previously gone to the extent of issuing an order, they had never heard anything further upon it, and consequently no case had ever been decided.

day, up to the order for payment, you have pursued
the course of the court above.

His HONOUR was inclined to direct that an
order should be made for a committal in Mr.
Marriage's case. This had been a voluntary
arrangement between the debtor and his creditors,
who had acted upon his statement, the bona fides
of which they believed in, and if his statement
was not bona fide then he misled them. The ap-
pointment of a trustee, however, would have
saved a great deal of trouble and expense to the
creditors. But having neglected to appoint a
trustee they were not to be deprived of their rights,
which were that they were entitled to receive a
pro rata share of the sum the debtor said
he was able to pay. Mr. Hilliard had already
obtained a judgment for his rights, and the court
could not turn in favour of one creditor and
against another, but Mr. Marriage was equally
entitled to an order with Mr. Hilliard. He should
graut the order upon the ground that the compo-
sition deed, made upon the bona fides, or the pre-
tended bona fides of the debtor, ought to be

Woodard said he had no desire that the debtor should go to prison, and if he would pay another 50l. into court he would waive the order of committal.

His HONOUR then formally gave his decision in each case thus: Ex parte Wood-That Mr. Wood's composition be paid forthwith; Re Marriage That an order of committal for contempt be issued, with costs to be taxed by the registrar; Re Hilliard-That an order be made for payment of his composition, out of the 50l. paid into court, The Registrar (Mr. Gepp) directed his Honour's with taxed costs of the order for committal at 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 setlast court, and the present order of payment; the had power to grant Mr. Woodard's order with re-off to be referred to the registrar; and the ference to Mr. Wood's claim "in a summary balance out of the 50l. to be returned to the manner." debtor.

Duffield contended that the interpretation put upon the passage was to the contrary effect, but His HONOUR intimated that he should grant this application.

Woodard proceeded to prefer his application on behalf of Mr. Marriage, who was a creditor to the amount of 811. 10s. The advocate recapitulated the circumstances out of which the composition was accepted. The debtor, according to his statement before the creditors, had nearly 400l. to pay his debts with, which would have allowed 6s. 8d. in the pound, but the creditors agreed to take 5s. in the pound. Mr. Marriage had not received a farthing, and the debtor had not made any overtures to the creditors, implying that he had made a wrong calculation, and was only able to pay a smaller sum. It was not necessary to examine the debtor again, as he was examined at the last court, but he asked for an order to commit him for contempt of court in not obeying the order to pay Mr. Marriage his composition.

Duffield.-No. It is entirely in the discretion of the court, upon knowing the whole of the facts, to enforce the composition or not. But the 400l. Mr. Woodard has mentioned is only an estimate, and everybody knows nobody better than Mr. Woodard-that when a statement of this kind is filed the man always estimates his estate at as much as it is worth.

Woodard.-Sometimes at only one-half. Duffield.-Where fraud is intended it is put down at one-half. It was not the intention of the Legislature to enforce a payment of this kind beyond the means at the man's disposal. He was to have the opportunity of showing that he was not able to pay what he thought at first he might be able to pay, precisely in the same way as the court dealt with a judgment summons.

His HONOUR pointed out a distinction between the two cases.

Duffield.-Does your Honour mean to say it would be your duty to commit the man to prison perpetually, at the suit of say 100 creditors, extending over six or seven years, who could show that although he honestly believed at the time that his estate would pay the composition, that estate subsequently fell to the ground, and the court would not be justified in refusing the appli

cation for an order?

His HONOUR.-I should be inclined to say yes. And the only effect would be that debtors would be more cautious in entering into compositions than they are now inclined to be.

The REGISTRAR.-It is perfectly true this case has not been decided, but this court is only now pursuing the course taken in the Bankruptcy Court in London.

Duffield.-How can that be, when the Court of Bankruptcy in London say they have never had an application for a committal to prison ?

His HONOUR said he had not the slightest objection to take upon himself the responsibility of deciding. He should at the same time like to see a case properly raised, but could not call upon either of the gentlemen before him to bear the burden of raising it.

The REGISTRAR.-Mr. Duffield misunderstood

Wednesday, Jan. 17.

(Before EDMOND BEALES, Esq,, Judge.)

Landlord's power to distrain-Bankruptcy Act,
1869, sect. 34.

Where a landlord recovered judgment for amonnt
due for rent, and levied execution, which was
subsequently superseded by an act of bankruptcy:
Held that by obtaining his judgment, and issuing
an execution which proved fruitless, he did not
thereby lose his claim for one year's rent under
sect. 34 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869.
THIS was an application by Page Wallis, the
landlord of certain premises occupied by the
bankrupt, to recover from the trustee in the
bankruptcy, the sum of 50l., being the amount of
one year's rent. The facts were admitted on both
sides, and were briefly as follows.-The landlord
had obtained a judgment in the Court of Pleas for
the borough of Cambridge for upwards of 60l. for
rent due from the bankrupt. A writ of fi. ja. was
issued, and the officer of the Borough Court took
possession of the bankrupt's property under it,
and by arrangement with Mr. Cole no sale actually
took place pending negotiations. These latter
proving unsuccessful, Mr. Cole filed his petition,
and was adjudicated a bankrupt on the 6th Dec.
The trustee took possession of his goods, and the
officer in possession under the writ of fi. fa.
withdrew. Subsequently Mr. Page Wallis put in
a distress for one year's rent. under the 34th sect.
of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, but the trustee
refused to pay the amount claimed, and by consent
of the parties the sum of 501. was kept in hand
by the trustee, and the question as to the trustee's
liability reserved for the opinion of his Honour.

exactly in point; but I submit that the point is so clear that it was never the subject of a case. If my learned friend's argument is correct, a landlord might go to the expense of a judgment, and then levy a distress. The law points out a simple remedy, and if a person risks an action and judg. ment, it is his own fault if he fails. In this very case it was the delay of the execution creditor that made the execution fruitless.

His HONOUR.-That may be so; but still he is a loser, and can he be deprived of one year's rent, expressly given to him by the 34th section? J. W. Cooper-We contend that he abandoned his original rights, and must stand or fall by his rights as execution creditor.

His HONOUR thought the point one fully worthy of being brought before the court; but on the face of the authorities quoted by Mr. Cockerell, and taking into account the obvious intention of the Legislature that the landlord should be protected to the extent of one year's rent, he thought the claim must be allowed. He therefore ordered accordingly with costs.

Order on the trustee to pay the landlord 50l. and the costs of the application.

Friday, Jan. 12.

Limited dedication of right of way-Mis-user of
(Before M. FORTESCUE, Esq., Judge.)
THIS action was brought to recover damages for
easement of way by person exercising right.
that the defendant in exercising a right of way
through a yard, known as the Town Place at
Trenarrett, in Altarnun, the soil whereof, and the
gate at the entrance of which belonged to the
colts of the plaintiff escaped from the said Town
plaintiff, wrongfully and negligently allowed such
entrance gate to remain open, whereby certain
Place and were impounded.

Peter (Launcesto.) was for the plaintiff.
Bridgman (Tavistock) for the defendant.

It appeared that the land on both sides of the Town Place belonged to the plaintiff; and several aged and other witnesses proved acts of ownership of the Town Place, and that the gate at the entrance had always, within memory, stood in its present position at the entrance, and had been repaired and kept up by plaintiff and his ancestors. The defendant and others had a right of way through the gate and across the Town Place by only a right of way according to plaintiff's way of access to property of his adjoining, but contention. Defendant, in respect of his adjoining property claimed to have a right to use the entrance gate and the Town Place as he pleased, but in common with the plaintiff.

On the occasion in question defendant had driven some of his own cattle through the gate but had omitted to close it after passing through. The gate remained open for a considerable time, so that colts of the plaintiff which had been in his Town Place had escaped, got on to the highway and been impounded.

gate was an ancient gate, and the right of way
The argument for the plaintiff was that as the
through the plaintiff's Town Place must be taken
to have been dedicated subject to the partial and
temporary obstruction caused by the gate, the
defendant was bound so to use his easement as
not to injure plaintiff's rights. An entire removal
of the gate would have been as justifiable as the
act of allowing the gate to remain open for an
unreasonable time; but such a removal was only
to be justified by proof on the part of defendant
that the gate was a nuisance, as an illegal obstruc-
tion, and might therefore be abated.
of ancient stiles would be in point. Those exer-
cising their right of way would not be able to

remove such stiles.

The case

For the defence it was argued that, as the defen. dant was entitled to have access to property of his through the Town Place, and claimed equal rights with plaintiff in the Town Place, he was entitled to use the gate as he pleased.

Cockerell appeared for the landlord-the claimant, and argued that the execution having proved fruitless, the landlord did not lose his His HONOUR gave judgment for the plaintiff. right to distrain. In support of his contention he It had been established to his satisfaction that relied upon the fact, that taking a security, such the plaintiff owned the property on each side of as a bill or note, did not take away the right to the gate, and that he had a prescriptive right to distrain. Nor did the judgment, for the landlord's have the gate in its present position. The act of rights were superior to all judgments. In support the defendant in allowing the gate to remain open of this view, he quoted the cases of Davis V. for an unreasonable time was therefore unjustiGwyde (2 A. & E.), and Drake v. Mitchell (3 East); fiable. In the present instance he should give, J. W. Cooper, on behalf of the trustee, submitted as nominal damages, the sum of 1s., and certify that the landlord, having chosen his remedy of an for costs as in cases where title is in question. If action and judgment, could not fall back upon the defendant persisted, it would be necessary to his original right to distrain. A judgment reco-inflict such damages as would prevent him. vered was clearly distinguishable from taking a collateral security, such as a bill or note, and it was superior to the right to distrain, for it would operate for twenty years, whereas the right to distrain would be lost sooner. And further, it would be giving the landlord two remedies for the same cause, which was not allowed.

His HONOUR.-But, Mr. Cooper, can you quote any case which overrules those quoted by Mr. Cockerell, where it is held that a judgment unproductive is no bar to subsequent proceedings.

J. W. Cooper.-There is no case, as far as I know,

(See hereon Fisher v. Prowse, 6 L. T. Rep. N. S.; and Mercer v. Woodgate, a recent case.)

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT. (Before Mr. Serjt. WHEELER, Judge.) PRITCHARD v. HUNTINGTON AND ANOTHER. Liability of landord-Statutory obligation to dis infect-Cause of action for neglect thereof. Copeman for the plaintiff. Grocott for the defendants.

The defendants were the owners of a house an

shop in Liverpool. They used for the purposes of their business of flour dealers the shop and a room behind, letting off to a resident tenant the remainder of the premises. The premises thus let had no front entrance save by means of the shop and the room behind, the right of passage through which when the shop was open formed part of the demise to the tenant. There was an independent entrance at the back, of which the tenant had the exclusive use. The defendants were in the habit, one or other of them, of visiting the shop for business purposes daily, and they had, of course, a shopman on the premises throughout each day. This shopman was taken ill in the early part of April last, and on the 14th was obliged to absent himself from business in consequence, and his illness turned out to be smallpox. He was succeeded in his duties by another shopman, who was in like manner obliged to leave from illness in four days after the first man had left. This illness proved also to be smallpox. The Public Health Act (29 & 30 Vict. c. 90, s. 39) imposes a penalty upon every person knowingly letting a house, room, or part of a house in which any person suffering from a dangerous infectious disorder has been, without having the premises disinfected to the satisfaction of a qualified medical practitioner and certified by him. In this instance the premises were not disinfected, nor any precautions taken to prevent the infection extending. The tenant of the house at the time the smallpox broke out was a person of the name of Bradley, and being anxious to get away from the place in consequence of the illness of the shopmen and its cause, he opened a negotiation with the plaintiff to succeed him in his tenancy; but he carefully concealed the fact that there had been smallpox there. Bradley was not authorised to conclude an arrangement with the plaintiff, and he therefore referred him to Mr. Horn the defendants' agent. At the time communication was open between the plaintiff and Mr. Horn, both Mr. Horn and the defendants knew that the two shopmen had been necessarily removed from the premises in consequence of their having been seized with smallpox; but no intimation of the fact was given to the plaintiff, and the premises were let to him by Mr. Horn, by the direction and with the knowledge of the defendants, and he was allowed to enter into the occupation in entire ignorance that he was taking his family into the midst of infection. The consequence was that, a few days after he took possession he was attacked by smallpox, and was unable to work for nearly six weeks. The case for the plaintiff was, that the defendants having knowingly let the premises to him after there had been smallpox without previouly disinfecting the same, and the plaintiff having contracted the disease in consequence, a right of action existed for the injury he had sustained. The defendants, however, contended in the first place that the case was not proved; and further, that if it was, there was no liability on their part, either by common law or statute to compensate the plaintiff.

His HONOUR in giving judgment said :- It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of this case; for if the contention before me be well founded, the position of a tenant in great towns like Liverpool and in crowded districts is one of vast peril and difficulty. But I do not concur in the view which the defendants, through their attorney, suggest as to the law of the matter. I am satisfied that a right of action does exist, and it is most righteous that it should. It is needless to travel beyond the statute into the question of common law liability, though upon that point I should be prepared to state my opinion if it were necessary, because I think that the imposition by statute of a penalty for the doing of a particular act amounts to a statutable prohibition of that act, and makes it illegal. And if by reason of such illegal act injury arises to an individual, I think that the party injured has his personal remedy by action for the private wrong, and that without reference to the statutable penalty which is intended to meet the public offence, I need only refer, in corroboration of this view, to the wellknown case of Couch v. Steel (3 Ell. & Bl. 403), and to the more recent case of Atkinson v. New castle and Gateshead Waterworks Company (6 L. Rep. Ex. 404). The legal objections failing, there remains only the question whether the plaintiff has proved his case, and the conclusion at which I have arrived is that he has, He is therefore entitled to my verdict for the full amount which he claims, with costs.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT. Monday, Jan. 22. (Before Deputy-Recorder CHAMBERS and a Jury.) DRISCOLL V. BALDWIN. Ferocious dog-Action for a bite-Plaintiff the servant of the defendant-Scienter. IN this case the declaration alleged that the defendants unlawfully kept a dog of a fierce and mischievous nature, well knowing that the dog was of a fierce and mischievous nature, and

that the said dog, whilst the defendant so kept the same, attacked and bit the plaintiff; with allegations of damage.

It appeared that the dog in question was a bullterrier, admittedly kept for fighting purposes, i.c., fighting other dogs. It was kept on the premises of the defendant with other dogs, and the plaintiff was the groom who attended to the horses. On a day in Aug. 1871, according to the plaintiff's evidence, he was instructed by the defendant to take the dog down to the water. This he did controlling it by a chain and collar. Arriving at the water the plaintiff loosed the dog which flew at him and bit him in the arm.

J. Cook was counsel for the plaintiff, and
F. O. Crump for the defendant.

The plaintiff's proved merely that the defendant knew the dog to be a bull-terrier, that he kept it for fighting purposes, and had it always chained up.

At the close of the plaintiff's case the counsel for the defendant submitted that there was no case. In the first place it had not been proved that the defendant knew that the dog would bite mankind; and the fact that it was kept to fight other dogs and therefore ferocious towards its own species was not enough to make the defendant liable. Secondly, the plaintiff knew the danger of the service, he knew that the dog was savage, and with that knowledge undertook to water him. He was bound to use more than ordinary care, and the master was certainly not liable.

The learned Deputy Recorder refused to stop the case. Evidence was then called for the defence, and it was denied that instructions had been given to the plaintiff to water the dog. Several workmen on defendant's premises also swore that they frequently caressed the dog, and it had never attempted to bite them. A veterinary surgeon who had examined it after the accident stated that it was in a healthy condition, and no more ferocious than bull-terriers usually are.

Crump addressed the jury, and submitted that if they took the view that the plaintiff was rised to water the dog he was acting in a service for which he was paid, and the dangers of which he knew. If, on the other hand, he was a volunteer, acting beyond the scope of his employment, the defendant was clearly not liable. Cook replied.

the fifteen guineas for the inventory was intended to cover all the plaintiff's charges.

On the 22nd inst. Crump moved for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence, and contended, as matter of law, first, that the defendant was bound by the terms of the receipt, which expressed for what the fifteen guineas were paid, and there being no plea of pay ment it could be no answer to the action; and, secondly, that even if it had been payment the continued employment of the plaintiff subse quently, and revocation of his authority before he had obtained a purchaser, entitled him, having incurred expense, to some remuneration. The COURT granted a rule nisi. Attorneys for plaintiff, Brook and Chapman. Attorneys for the defendant, Ravenscroft and Hills.

A COMPLIMENTARY farewell dinner to Francis
Ellis M'Taggart, Esq., who for eleven years has
been the judge of the County Court of Northamp
tonshire and district, was given by the solicitors
practising on his circuit on Thursday evening, Jan.
18, at the George Hotel, Northampton. The chair
was occupied by Mr. J. Hensman, who was sup-
ported on the right by Francis Ellis M'Taggart,
Esq., and on the left by R. Harrington, Esq,; the
vice-chair was occupied by Mr. J. Jeffery.

After some preliminary toasts,

The Chairman said it devolved upon him, as the oldest practitioner, to propose to them the health of his Honour, Mr. McTaggart. (Loud applause.) They were called together that day to celebrate in the person of the judge one of the greatest improvements in the laws of England, or of any other country, which had ever been known. Need he refer, in the presence of his learned brethren, to the state of the law thirty years ago; or state, but for the benefit of the visitors who were present on that occasion, that the great reformers of the law had been the lawyers. (Hear, hear) The Chairman then touched upon the great imautho-provements which had been effected since the great Chancellor of James the First set his stamp and seal upon the law of England, and alluded to the changes which had been effected by the bankruptcy law since he commenced his career in the legal profession. But when they came to the forms of procedure on the administration of jus tice, they recognised in his Honour a man who had greatly helped to carry out a wonderful alter ation in the laws of England, for of all the matter connected with the procedure of the courts the Act for establishing County Courts had been the best. With respect to the Northampton Court, he was able to say his Honour had travelled in his circuit about 10,000 miles a year, and he (the chair. man) complained of him as being a conspirator against the laws of his country. (Laugater.) The amount of the plaints in the Northampton County Court, during the last ten years had been 72.0001, and judgments had been given for 28,000. of the 23,000 cases which had come before him there had only been one appeal from his judgment, and that an unsuccessful one; and of those cases twelve only had been tried by jury. He charged his Honour with conspiracy, for he had actually practically abolished trial by jury, and abolished plause.) Need he say more of a man who could it by force of justice and reason. (Loud ap

The learned DEPUTY-RECORDER directed the jury that if they considered that the defendant knew the dog to be ferocious, and instructed the plaintiff to water it, he was liable for the act of the dog if the plaintiff had done nothing to irritate it, and bring the damage upon himself. He did not agree with the learned counsel for the defendant, that the facts that the breed of the dog and purpose for which it was kept were notorious, dogs was no part of the regular employment of affected the question, as attending to dangerous the plaintiff as groom to a merchant, as in this


The jury considered, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff; damages 401.

to enter the verdict for the defendant on two Crump applied for leave to move the court above grounds, first, that there was insufficient proof of the defendant's servant, he could not under the scienter; and secondly, that as the plaintiff was circumstances recover.

After some argument, the learned Judge refused


Counsel intimated that he should appeal. Attorney for the defendant, Wragg.

Jan. 20 and 22.

GILBERT v. HINCHLIFF. Auctioneer's commission-Agreement for sum certain on sale of house-Revocation of authorityQuantum meruit.

THE plaintiff in this case, an auctioneer and house agent, sued the defendant for commission on halfyear's rental and premium on sale, which was not completed, of a house at Maida-hill. The original agreement was that for selling the house and furniture for a given sum the plaintiff should receive 1001. He advertised extensively, and an offer to purchase was made, the agreement eventually come to being that the purchaser should become the tenant of the house for six months, paying a quarter's rent in advance, and depositing 100l. to secure the due performance of the contract. The purchase was not completed, and the 1007, was forfeited. Some months subsequently the defendant took the matter out of plaintiff's hands, and sold it by other means for a less sum than the limit given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had received fifteen guineas for an inventory, for which he had given a receipt. He now sought to recover commission at 5 per cent. as above stated. F. O. Crump was counsel for the plaintiff. Laley Smith appeared for the defendant. After hearing the evidence of the defendant the jury stopped the case, expressing the opinion that

(loud applause) and who could bring home abolish one of the grand bulwarks of freedomspeedy justice to the house of every Englishman? He knew of nothing which Lord Bacon had said upon judical trial which would not apply to his Honour, Mr. McTaggart. Lord Bacon said a judge should be grave and patient. Had not his Honour been patient? (Hear, hear.) He had he (the chairman) was sure been most patient, most kind, most considerate. (Applauso) Considera tion was the great quality which made the judge. His Honour had been most considerate in his treatment to the junior members of the profession. If one of them wanted a kind and helping hand, that helping hand Mr. McTaggart had always offered-thear, hear)-and that was not the least that was due to him. In the presence, however, of his Honour he would abstain from further epithets of praise and laudation, because merit was always modest; but this he would say, that although the ermine of the judge did not cover his Honour's breast, beneath his official robes there beat a heart warm and strong with the greatest principles-justice and truth. (Loud and prolonged applause.)

Mr. Ellis M Taggart, who was received with renewed applaus, said, in thanking them most heartily and gratefully for the kindly spirit which had prompted them to ask him to be their guest that evening, and for the cordial and generous welcome which they had given him, he was but repeating at the best those thanks which some few weeks ago a similar proof of kindness called forth: thanks for the sympathy and good will which for nearly eleven years he had never failed to meet with from all connected with that circuit, and of

« EelmineJätka »