Page images

pose of compensating the officers of the former company, might be administered under the direction of the court, and also praying for an inquiry who were entitled to share in the fund. On the 24th Jan. 1871, Stuart, V.C., made a decree in the suit ordering the Great Eastern Railway Company to pay the fund into court, and declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to share in it, and directing an inquiry what other persons were entitled to share in it, and in what proportions. One Ayres, who was formerly the secretary of the Eastern Union Railway Company, was not made a party to the suit, and was not served with the decree, but on advertisements being issued for persons claiming to share in the fund to come in and prove their claims, Ayres made a claim, and asserted that Bruff was not entitled to any part of the fund. Finding that he could not raise this contention, as the decree made in the suit contained a declaration that Bruff was entitled to share in the fund, he wished to present a petition of re-hearing, but he found that he could not present such a petition as the decree had been already enrolled. Accordingly he now moved that the enrolment of the decree might be vacated in order that he might be in a position to present his petition of rehearing.

Greene, Q.C. and Bird, in support of the motion. Karslake, Q.C. and Locock Webb for the plaintiff. Smart, for the Great Eastern Railway Company. Lord Justice JAMES was of opinion that the application was right both in substance and in form. Ayres being entitled to share in the fund which the court had undertaken to distribute in the suit, was a quasi party to it. That being so he had a right to apply for a rehearing of the suit, but he was prevented from doing so by the fact that the decree was enrolled. The applicant was therefore entitled to have the enrolment vacated, so that he might proceed with his petition of rehearing.

Lord Justice MELLISH concurred. Solicitors for the applicant, Benham and Tindell.

Solicitor for the plaintiff, G. Walker.
Solicitor for the company, W. H. Shaw.

Jan. 25 and 27.

Ex parte HAWKES; Re KEELY.
Bill of sale-East India pension-Act of

THIS was an appeal from a decision of the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy affirming a decision of the registrar of the County Court of Cornwall. Hawker, on the 7th July 1871, obtained judgment against Keely for 491. 10s. 9d., and on the 11th he seized Keely's goods. On the 8th July 1871 Keely executed a bill of sale of his household furniture, goods, chattels, and effects at Forrabury and elsewhere in the county of Cornwall, to secure a sum of 500l. due to his bankers. On the 16th Sept. 1871, Keeley was adjudicated bankrupt. On an application by the bankers the registrar of the County Court granted an injunction to restrain Hawker, the judgment creditor, from selling the goods which he had seized, on the ground that Keely, by executing the bill of sale before the seizure of the goods, had committed an act of bankruptcy. It appeared that the bill of sale did not comprise all the bankrupt's property, as he had an East Indian army pension of 10s. 6d. a day, which was not assigned by the bill of sale, and on that and certain other grounds, Hawker appealed to the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, who affirmed the registrar's order. He now appealed from the order of the Chief Judge.

without a covenant by the lessees not to use the houses erected for the sale of meat. The two other suits were for specific performance of an agreement dated the 1st July 1869, and made between the corporation and the company, by which it was provided, amongst other things, that the company should not let certain land for building without inserting in the leases covenants against the use of the houses to be erected thereon for the sale of meat. The question was whether this agreement extended to the piece of land agreed to be let to Messrs. Sandon. The Master of the Rolls admitted parol evidence to explain the agreement, and held that it did not extend to the piece of land in question. The corporation appealed. Sir Richard Baggallay, Q. C., Swanston, Q. C., and A. E. Miller, Q. C., for the corporation. The Solicitor-General (Jessel, Q.C.), Sir Roundell Palmer, Q. C., and Fellowes, for the company. Southgate, Q. C. and E. Rodwell for Messrs. Sandon.

estate, and not a demand against the testator's estate in the hands of some other person. Solicitors: Chauntler, Crouch, and Spencer ; Lucas and Coe.

V. C. MALINS' COURT. Saturday, Jan. 27. Re GARNIER. Fund in court to credit of one found to be a lunatic in France-Application for payment by provisional committee of estate-Practice of court. PETITION for payment out of court of 9391. Consols, which represented the distributive share of Charles Garnier in the estate of his brother, Francis Garnier, who died intestate in 1863. The fund was paid into court by the administratrix in 1864. It appeared that in 1851 Charles Garnier, then residing in the canton of St. Germain-en-Laye, in France, became of unsound mind, and was placed in a maison de santé at Neuilly-sur-Seine, where he still remained. He had not yet been found a lunatic according to English law. In 1851 provisional committee of the estate of the lunatic was appointed by the civil tribunal of first instance at Versailles, and the petitioner was the present committee. According to French law, the provisional committee was liable for the maintenance of the lunatic; and, on the other hand, all the property of the lunatic was vested in him, and he was empowered to give valid receipts for the same. There was considerable personal property in England belonging to the lunatic, the dividends on which had been from time to time transmittee by the relatives of the lunatic to the committed and applied by him for his maintenance. 481. was now due to the committee for expenses incurred on account of the maintenance of the lunatic. There was no allegation that the lunatic was in need of any further comfort, and it was stated that the application for the payment out of the fund in court was made in order that the same might be invested in French Rentes. Glasse, QC. and Begg, for the petitioner. Cotton, Q.C. and Bevir, for the administratrix, opposed the application.

Lord Justice JAMES said that there was no latent ambiguity in the agreement, and that parola evidence was therefore not admissible. The agreement, according to its true construction, extended to the land in question. But as the corporation knew, in Sept. 1869, that Messrs. Sandon were building butchers' shops on the land, and took no steps to prevent their doing so till Jan. 1870, when they had expended a considerable sum on the buildings, they had been guilty of the clearest laches and acquiescence, and could not now enforce the restrictive covenant against Messrs. Sandon or against the railway company, who bona fide believed that the agreement did not extend to the land in question. On those grounds the appeal must be dismissed with costs as against the Messrs. Sandon, but without costs as to the other parties.

Lord Justice MELLISH concurred,
Solicitors, Burchells; Nelson.

Wednesday, Jan. 31.

(Before the LORDS JUSTICES.)

Practice-Appeal-Limit of amount.
THIS was an appeal motion from an order of the
Master of the Rolls. In Nov. 1861 Charles Henry
Edmands acted as solicitor for one Cross, in

proving a claim for 10001. in the winding-up of the above company. Edmands also acted as solicitor for a number of other claimants against the company. On the 24th June 1864, the chief clerk of the Master of the Rolls decided that 11. 15s. should be allowed as the costs of proof in the case of each admitted claim for a sum exceeding 107., the costs in each case to be added to the debt. The creditors received two dividends, but Cross did not pay the 17. 15s. to Edmands. Cross being about to receive a sum of over 5l. in respect of a third dividend, Edmands, in Aug. last, took out a summons before the Master of the Rolls, praying for a declaration that he had a lien for the 17. 158. on the dividend payable to Cross, and that the official manager might be ordered to pay that amount to Edmands out of the sum payable to Cross. The Master of the Rolls having refused the application, Edmands appealed from his decision.

Fry, Q.C. and Caldecott, for Edmands.
Roxburgh, Q.C. and Gardiner, for the official


Lord Justice JAMES.-Unless I am otherwise ordered, by the House of Lords or some other Kay, Q.C. and Bagley, for the appellant. De Gex, Q.C. and Robertson Griffiths, for the competent court, I will not hear an appeal for a


Lord Justice MELLISH said that the bill of sale substantially comprised all the debtor's property, as it was settled by Gibson v. The East India Company (5 Bing. N. Cas. 262), that such a pension as that held by the bankrupt is not assignable. The bill of sale was therefore an act of bankruptcy.

Lord Justice JAMES concurred.

Appeal accordingly dismissed with costs. Solicitors for the appellants, Clark, Woodcock,

and Rylands.

Solicitors for the respondent, J. Elliott Fox.

Jan. 23, 24, and 27.



Contract-Specific performance - Latent ambiguity-Parol evidence-Laches-Acquiescence. THESE were three appeals from decisions of the Master of the Rolls. The first suit was instituted to restrain Messrs. Sandon from using for the sale of meat certain shops erected by them on a piece of land on the north side of Charterhouse-street, which the Metropolitan Railway Company had agreed to let to them, and to restrain the company from granting a lease of the land in question to them

sum of 35s.

Solicitors: Edmands and Mayhew.

ROLLS COURT. Jan. 20 and 29.

Re HASELFOOT'S ESTATE (CHAUNTLER'S CLAIM). Mortgagee and representatives of mortgagor Right to tack-Set-off.

A FIRM of solicitors having a mortgage on a
policy of insurance on the life of the mortgagor,
on his death received from the insurance company
the amount due on the policy, and, after satisfying
the mortgage debt, claimed to be entitled to retain
out of the balance the amount of their bill of costs
The executors of the
against the mortgagor.
mortgagor contended that they were entitled to
receive the whole of the balance, and as his estate
was insufficient to pay his debts in full that the
mortgagees could only participate with the other
simple contract creditors, pro rata, in regard to
the amount due to them for costs.

Southgate, Q. C. for the mortgagees.
Hemming for the executors.

Lord ROMILLY said that the mortgagees were entitled to retain the amount of their bill of costs out of the balance in their hands; that it was not a case of set-off, but a demand against themselves, they having in their hands a part of the testator's

The VICE-CHANCELLOR said there was no doubt that the committee had vested in him the whole property of the lunatic, and was entitled to make the present application. But the question cise in the matter. In the case of property belong. arose whether the court had any discretion to exering to an English lunatic, the practice of the court having jurisdiction in lunacy was not to pay out the whole fund to the committee, but only so much as was necessary for the maintenance of the lunatic. Under the Trustee Relief Act the court

had the same discretion as the Lord Chancellor

exercised in lunacy. He should therefore order
payment out of the fund of the expenses properly
incurred by the petitioner on account of the
residue of the capital would be retained in court,
lunatic, and of the costs of the petition. The
and the dividends paid to the petitioner.
Solicitors: G. and P. Eyre and Co.; T. J. Hor-

Jan. 19, 23, and 27.

Will-Wife of legatee attesting witness-Effect of
codicil confirming will.
HANNAH ANDERSON, by her will dated the 10th
Dec. 1868, after revoking all former wills and
making certain specific bequests, gave, devised and
bequeathed all the rest and residue of her estate
and effects unto and to the use of her son, George
Anderson, and Henry Letts, upon trust to sell

and convert the same, and divide the proceeds among her five younger children, among them being her son George, but not making any disposition in favour of, or mentioning the name of the plaintiff, who was her eldest son. To this will Hannah Anderson, the wife of the testatrix's son George, was an attesting witness. The testa trix made a codicil to her will dated the 22nd

Jan. 1869, by which, after directing her executors to allow to her son, Thomas an ex. tended time for the payment of what might be owing to her estate from him, she "confirmed her said will in other respects." This codicil was duly executed in the presence of two witnesses. Probate of the will and codicil was granted to George Anderson as executor. The plaintiff, by his bill alleged that in consequence of Hannah Anderson being an attesting witness of thewill, all such interest as George Anderson would have taken under the will was forfeited, and that the testatrix must be held to have died intestate as to so much of his estate as George Anderson would have taken, according to the tenor of the will, if his wife had not been one of the attesting wit

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Friday, Jan. 26.


Promissory note to secure balance at bank-Com-
SPECIAL case. The Gelynog Llanhirt Colliery
Company (Limited) having overdrawn their
account at their bankers, four of the directors
of the company made a joint and several pro-
missory note for 20001. drawn upon Captain
Strong, who was the manager of the bank and
also a director of the company. This note was
made for the accommodation of the company and
for the purpose of being transferred to the
bank as a security for any balance which might
be due from the company to the bank and was en-
dorsed by Captain Strong to the bank. On the 20th
July 1866 an order was made for winding-up
the company. The bank carried in their claim,
which was admitted, for the sum of 3656l. 9s. Id.,
and upon this amount a dividend of 10517. 5s. 4d.
became payable. The bank having recovered from
Mr. Seckham, one of the makers of the note,
20671. 18. 8d., Mr. Seckham applied for leave to
enter a claim for that amount in the winding-up,
and that the debt for which the bank had proved
might be reduced by that amount. The question
submitted to the court was whether the bank was
entitled to prove for and retain the dividend on
the whole 36561. 9s. 9d., and at the same time to
retain the whole of the sum recovered on the
note until they should receive 20s. in the pound,
or whether Seckham was entitled to the dividend
on the 20671. 1s. 8d.

Amphlett, Q. C. and Benjamin (of the Common
Law Bar) were for the plaintiff.
Kay, Q. C. and R. E. Turner (of the Common
Law Bar) for the defendant.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR held that Seckham was entitled to the dividend, deducting so much therefrom as would make up the proportion which the bank would have received upon the residue of their debt if Seckham's debt had been expunged. Solicitors for the bank, Stevens, Wilkinson, and


Solicitors for the defendant, Taylor, Mason, and Taylor.

Saturday, Jan. 27.
Criminal lunatic-Settlement to avoid forfeiture—

[blocks in formation]

Thursday, Jan. 25.
Will-Construction-Specific bequest.
THE question in this case turned upon the con-

struction of the will of Lord F. Paulet. The will
was dated in Aug. 1866, and by it the testator
after providing for certain annuities and legacies,
and bequeathing such of the household goods and
other things which were in his house at the time
of his decease (always excepting any moneys,
securities for money, muniments, manuscripts,
papers, writings, and articles, specifically be-
queathed), bequeathed to his brother, the Marquis
of Winchester, for his own use absolutely, his
sword, decorations, and other "effects," which
should be in his chambers in the Albany, or else-
where (except in the house before referred to),
but saving out of this bequest all muniments,
money, and securities for money. And he left the
residue of his estate in trust for his brother for
life, with remainders over. The testator died in
Jan. 1871. At the time of his death he was
possessed of some Great Eastern Railway Stock,
the certificates of which were in his chambers in
the Albany, and the question was whether it
belonged to the Marquis, as part of the property
specifically bequeathed to him.

Karslake, Q.C., W. W. Karslake, George Murray,
and Chester, appeared for the various parties.
did not pass under the specific bequest to the
The VICE-CHANCELLOR decided that the stock

Solicitor for all parties, Alexander Hemsley.

Monday, Jan. 29.

Mortgagor and mortgagee-Mortgage by executor
-Mortgagee's title.
THIS suit was instituted on behalf of children
who were interested under the will of their mother
in certain renewable leaseholds. The facts were
these: Mrs. Elkes by her will, dated 20th July
1849, gave all her property to her husband in
trust, after paying her funeral and testamentary
expenses, and retaining a legacy of 500l. to himself,
to get in and invest the proceeds, and hold them
in effect for her children who should attain twenty-
one, or, being daughters, marry. She died in
Sept. 1819 leaving six children, of whom one died
afterwards under twenty-one. Her husband was
named executor in the will, and administration
with the will annexed was granted to him in Oct.
1849. Mrs. Elkes was, at her death, entitled for
her separate use to a lease from the Dean and
Chapter of St. Paul's of some land at Edmonton.
The lease was from Michaelmas 1842, and was for
twenty-one years renewable by custom on the
payment of a fine. When Mrs. Elkes died the
legal estate was outstanding, but, on the 19th
Nov. 1849 Mr. Elkes got it assigned to him,
and a fortnight afterwards surrendered it, and
in consideration of that had a new lease
granted to him personally from Michaelmas 1849.
On the 25th May 1854 Mr. Elkes mortgaged the
leasehold to the defendant Rylance for 150%. The
mortgage was by assignment, and there was a
power of sale. Exactly six months afterwards
he charged the property with a further sum of
501. and in July 1855 with another 50l. The prin-
cipal question in the case was as to the title of
the defendant under these two mortgages. The
plaintiffs contended that he got nothing beyond a
title to such beneficial interest as Mr. Elkes had
in the property. The defendant, on the other
whether Elkes had any interest in the property or

death resided rent free in No. 62.

Greene, Q.C., Bristowe, Q.C., Hemming, Hubert Smith, Rodwell, and Shebbeare appeared for the different parties.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR held that the testatrix's brother was entitled to the house No. 62, Guild. hall-street, and made a declaration accordingly. Solicitors: Hensman and Nicholson, for Par tridge and Greene; Rickards and Walker, for G. R. Pye.

Wednesday, Jan. 24.

SIMPSON (app.) v. WELLS (resp.)
Obstruction under Highway Act 1831-Statute
THIS was a special case stated by justices of
Lincolnshire at Petty Sessions. The appellant
was convicted under sect. 72 of 5 & 6 Will. 4 c. 50,
for obstructing a public way by placing a stall
thereon, and was fined 1s. The 9th May, upon which
the alleged obstruction took place, was the day
for holding the annual statute sessions at Winter-
ton, for hiring servants; and it was proved on
behalf of the appellant that they had been so held
for fifty years, that it was the custom to erect
stalls on the highway in the manner adopted, and
that there was plenty of space left on the highway
for the public to pass. It was contended that
these sessions were a fair or market, and that the
defence being a bona fide claim of right, the justices
had no jurisdiction.

Cave for the appellant.

did not appear.
The respondent, the superintendent of police,
Cur. adv. vult.
The COURT (Blackburn and Quain, JJ.) con-
sidered that no such custom as that alleged could be
established, and upheld the conviction.
Judgment for respondent.
Attorneys for appellant, Scott and Co.

WILLIAMS (app.) v. LEAR (resp.) Conviction for taking excessive toll-Taxed cart -Excise licence.

THIS was a special case stated by justices of
Devon, at petty sessions. The appellant, the
lessee and collector of tolls at the Alphington turn-
pike gate, was convicted of demanding and taking
of the respondent a toll of 6d. for a butcher's cart
drawn by one horse, and having a single shifting
seat and two wheels. By a local Act of 1852,
and by a subsequent resolution of the turnpike
trustees, 44d. is the toll for every horse drawing
any gig or chair, or such like carriage with a
single seat only, and with two wheels only; and
6d. is the toll for every horse drawing any cart or
chair, or other such like carriage with double
seats, or any phaeton, caravan, or taxed cart. The
respondent had taken out an excise licence for
his vehicle, but the justices considered that it was
not a taxed cart within the meaning of the local
Act, and was subject therefore only to the less
toll as a carriage with a single seat and two

Lopes, Q. C. for the appellant.
No one appeared for the respondent.

Cur, adv. vult. The COURT (Lush and Hannen, JJ.) held that the words "taxed cart" must have the meaning which they had at the time of passing the local Act, viz., a cart which paid a particular tax and had the owner's name upon it. The respondent's butcher's cart was not such a taxed cart.

THIS was a petition for the payment of money out of court under the following circumstances: In 1857 the defendant, Andrew Gill, quarrelled with a man and stabbed him. For this offence he was tried and found not guilty, on the ground of insanity, and was ordered to be imprisoned during Her Majesty's pleasure. Andrew Gill, while awaiting his trial in prison, executed two deeds, the one relating to his real property, which he conveyed to his brother Robert Gill, in trust for himself (Andrew) for life, with remainder to his said brother Robert in fee, the other relating to his personal estate, which he assigned absolutely to his said brother. Robert Gill died in 1867, and a suit hand, maintained that he had an absolute title DUDLEY UNION (apps.) v. WOLVERHAMPTON

having been instituted for the administration of his real and personal estate, it was ordered that the amount of the personal estate which he held under the assignment from his brother, Andrew Gill, be paid into court. The petitioners, who were the parties entitled to the money under the will of Robert Gill, now applied to have the same divided among them. This application was opposed by the guardian ad litem of Andrew Gill, on the ground that at the time of executing the deeds, Andrew Gill was of unsound mind, and that it was a voluntary settlement executed to avoid a forfeiture in case he had been found guilty, which event not having happened the deeds ought to be set aside.

Kay, Q.C. and Freeling appeared for the petitioners.

Smart for the guardian ad litem of Andrew Gill.

W. W. Karslake, F. Webb, and Badcock for other parties interested.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that at the time of executing the deeds Andrew Gill was insane; that the only motive he had in executing them was to prevent a forfeiture in case of conviction which had not occurred, and that the deeds being yoluntary and executed under a mis.

[blocks in formation]

Judgment for respondent. Attorneys for appellant, Griffith and Brownlow, for Toby, Exeter.

Thursday. Jan. 25.

UNION (resps.)

Union extending into several jurisdictions-Court of appeal from order of removal-Poor Law Amendment Act 1867 (30 31 Vict. c. 106)

sec. 27. THIS was a rule nisi, calling upon the justices of Staffordshire and the respondents to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to com. pel the justices to hear an appeal from an order of removal from the respondents' to the appellants union, made by two justices of the borough of Wolverhampton. The court of quarter sessions of the county of Stafford had refused to hear the appeal on the ground that it ought to have been made to the borough sessions of Wolverhampton. The respondents' union extends over the whole of the borough of Wolverhampton, and also over the township of Bilston, no part of which townrepondents' union is in the county of Stafford. ship is within the said borough. The whole of the The paupers ordered to be removed were in the township of Bilston, and the order of removal was made in the borough of Wolverhampton by two of the borough justices. The appellants appealed against the order to Stafford county quarter ses sions. The Poor Law Amendment Act 1867, sect. 27, provides that where a union extends into several

distinct jurisdictions, every matter, act, charge, or complaint by which the guardians thereof are affected, or in which they have any interest, shall, for the purpose of jurisdiction, be deemed to arise or exist equally throughout the Union.

Matthews, Q.C. and Jelf, for the respondents, showed cause.

Porrell, Q.C. and Bosanquet, for the appellants, supported the rule.

The COURT (Cockburn, C.J., Blackburn, Mellor, and Lush, JJ.), considered that the Legislature. by sect. 27 of the Act of 1867, must have intended that the appellants' jurisdiction in cases of orders of removal should be the same as that under which the orders were originally made; and that in consequence, this appeal ought to have been brought before the Wolverhampton borough sessions, and not before the Stafford county sessions. Rule discharged.

Attorneys for appellants. S. W. Johnson, for
Brooke, Robinson, and Co., Dudley.
Attorneys for respondents, Neal and Philpot,
for H. Langman, Wolverhampton.

Saturday, Jan. 27.

Habeas Corpus-Mother's right over children—

Forfeited guardianship.

Day moved for a writ of habeas corpus to bring up the body of Mary Ann Turner, aged about thirteen, who is at present in a Protestant refuge for homeless children. The motion was made on behalf of the child's mother, who is now dying of consumption at the Marylebone workhouse. The father, who was a Protestant, died when the child was about two years old; the mother had the child baptised according to her own religion, that of a Roman Catholic. The mother had been an habitual drunkard except during the time she had spent in different workhouses. In July last, a district visitor, having found that the child was neglected and starved, sent her, with the mother's consent, to the institution in which she now is. After five months, the mother alleged, by affidavit, that she desired to remove the child from Protestant influence, and to have her brought up in her own religion, an opportunity having been found to place her in a Roman Catholic institution. Bramwell, B., at chambers, had refused the applica


The COURT (Blackburn, Mellor, and Lush, JJ.), considered that, under the circumstances, the were not bound to interfere. Rule refused. Attorneys for applicant, Tucker, New, and Langdale.

Jan. 27 and 29.


Mandamus-Cost of prosecutions-Statutory obli-
gation of Lords of the Treasury-29 & 30 Vict.
c. 39-34 & 35 Vict. c. 89.
Manisty, Q.C. had obtained a rule nisi on
behalf of the justices of Lancashire, calling upon
the Lords of the Treasury to show cause why a
writ of mandamus should not isssue to compel
them to pay certain costs of prosecutions which
had been paid by the treasurer of the county of
Lancaster upon taxation.

The Appropriation Act (31 & 35 Vict. c. 89) contains a grant, not more than a certain sum, for criminal prosecutions. The Exchequer Act (29 & 30 Viet. c. 39), compels treasurers of counties and boroughs to pay out of the funds at their command certain costs for prosecutions, as taxed by the officers of assizes and sessions; and directs that the costs formerly payable out of the county and borough rates be paid by the Treasury. The costs, concerning which this application was made, had been accordingly paid by the treasurer of the county of Lancaster; and the board of examiners, appointed by resolution of the House of Commons for that purpose, had re-taxed them, and a considerable reduction from the amount claimed by the said treasurer had been handed over by the Lords of the Treasury.

The Solicitor-General, Brown, Q.C, and Archibald, for the Lords of the Treasury, showed cause, and contended that a mandamus could not be granted on the grounds, first, that the Lords of the Treasury were servants of the Crown; secondly, that the Acts of Parliament merely limited the purposes to which the particular sums granted should be appropriated, and did not lay any statutory obligation upon individuals to pay these sums; and, thirdly, that the Legislature intended the Treasury officers to exercise a discretion in the manner and amount of payment. Manisty, Q.C. and Gorst, for the Justices of Lancashire, supported the rule, and relied upon the words of the Acts referred to as imposing an obligation which gave the court authority to exercise its mandatory jurisdiction.

The COURT (Cockburn, C.J., Blackburn, Mellor, and Lush, JJ.), although strongly of opinion that the Lords of the Treasury ought to pay the whole of the costs claimed, considered there was no

[merged small][ocr errors]

duty imposed by statute which could be enforced
by mandamus.
Rule discharged.
Attorneys for plaintiffs, Ridsdale and Craddock,
for Birchall, Wilson, and Hulton, Preston.
Attorney for defendants, the Solicitor to the



THIS was a similar rule to the last, for the same
The parties were represented by the
same counsel, and the cases were argued and de-
cided together.

Attorney for plaintiffs, G. Badham, for Marsden,

Attorney for defendants, the Solicitor to the

Tuesday, Jan. 30.


quashing the rule; but, further, that it was an irregularity only, and might be waived. So far, therefore, as it affected P. the rule would be quashed, but with regard to W. it would stand, and Mr. Lopes would be allowed to show cause. Attorney for King, G. Parsons.

Attorney for W., J. P. Watkins, Bristol.

BYRNE v. GUANO CONSIGNMENT COMPANY. Freight-Jurisdiction of Mayor's Court. ACTION for freight on a charter-party brought in the Mayor's Court of the City of London. Rule for a prohibition on the ground that the cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction. The voyage was from the Chincha Islands to the Southampton Docks.


Shiress Will for the defendants.

The COURT (Willes, Byles, Brett, and Grove, JJ.) held, first, that the whole cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction; and, secondly, such a custom could not give an inferior court jurisdiction beyond its limits. Rule absolute. Attorneys for the plaintiff, Flux, Argles, and Rawlins, I, East India-avenue.

Cohen showed cause, and contended, first, that freight was due in respect of delivery only, and not for carriage; secondly, that by custom such actions were within the jurisdiction of the Mayor's Diversion of a highway-Widening of old road-court: (Mayor of London v. Cox, L. Rep. 2 H. L. Consent of owner-Certiorari. THIS was a rule obtained for a certiorari to bring up orders made and documents deposited in respect of a diversion of a highway. The enrolment of the certificate had been opposed at quarter sessions under the provisions of the General Highway Act 1835 (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50), s. 88, but it was found that notice of appeal to the surveyor had not been given in proper time, and the persons who considered themselves aggrieved now attempted to set aside the order of sessions as being bad on the face of it, and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the justices. The objections were (1) that the alleged new highway was merely a widening of an old road; (2) that the consent of the owner was not stated in the certificate of justices; (3) that the form of consent differed from that given in the schedule, and was bad because the persons giving it were described "as, and claiming to be owners of the land adjoining,' and because the substituted road to which the consent referred was described as "through or adjoining our said land."

Field, Q.C. and Thesiger for the respondents, the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum, near Caterham, who had diverted the road, showed


Denman, Q.C. and Clarke, for the appellants, supported the rule.

The COURT (Cockburn, C.J., Mellor and Lush, J. J.), considered that the preliminary formalities required by the 84th and 85th sections had been substantially complied with.

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


Murphy moved to vary an order of Cleasby, B.
at chambers, allowing inspection of certain docu-
ments and letters in the custody of the defendants,
except letters of other passengers, and letters of
captains and owners subsequent to the 21st Dec.,
without prejudice to application to the court
in respect of letters of other passengers." The
motion was to vary the order by striking out the
words in inverted commas. The action was
brought on a promise that a certain ship was in
a fit state, &c., whereby plaintiff was induced to
become a passenger on the same, and afterwards,
owing to the bad state of the ship, was obliged to
disembark on the 21st Dec. (the day mentioned in
the order), and lost the benefit of the money he
had paid for his passage; the second count was
for fraudulent misrepresentation as to the state of
the ship, whereby, &c. The plaintiff had inter-
rogated the defendants, and the defendants in
their answers admitted having received a number
of letters subsequently to Dec. 21, from pas
sengers in the ship (other than the plaintiff), and
from the captain and owners of the ship. It was
alleged that other passengers besides the plaintiff
had been compelled to leave the ship owing to its
imprison-unfit state, and that defendants had settled with
some of them. The defendants also represented
themselves as being merely the agents of the
owners, and it was suggested that the letters
from the owners would show truly what was the
relation between them and the defendants.
The COURT (Willes, Byles, Brett and Grove,
JJ.) refused the rule.
Rule refused.
Attorneys for plaintiff, Eyre & Co.

Rule discharged.
Attorneys for appellants, Horne and Hunter.
Attorneys for respondents, Nicholson and

Wednesday, Jan. 31.

Attachment-Attorney-Abolition of
ment for debt.

F. O. Crump moved for a rule for an attachment
against an attorney for non-payment of a sum of
money ordered to be paid by an order of a master
which had been made a rule of court. The applica-
tion had been refused on the previous day, on the
ground that a fi. fa. might issue on the rule. A
further affidavit was now produced, which stated
that the sheriff had already several writs against
the attorney, and must return nulla bona, there-
fore the rule for attachment was again moved.

The COURT (Blackburn and Quain, JJ.) said that an attachment would not be granted, especially on the last day of term, for non-payment of moneys, now that imprisonment for debt was abolished; but the attention of the court being drawn to the fact that an attorney might still be imprisoned under the Debtors' Act for non-pay; ment under an order of court. The Court said they would leave the applicant to his remedy on a

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

June 23, 24, 1871, and Jan. 31, 1872. NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (apps.) v. RICHARDSON AND ANOTHER (resps.) Railway-Dogs-Common carriers-Bailees for hire-Liability for loss. THIS was an appeal from the decision of the County Court judge for Westmoreland. The respondents (plaintiffs below) were the owners of a greyhound, which was sent by them to a station on the defendants' line for the purpose of being conveyed by the railway. The fare was paid, but no ticket was given, and no special contract entered into. The dog was given in charge of the guard of the train and conveyed some distance on its journey. It was then taken out and kept waiting at a station, until some other train came up. While at the station it was fastened to a pump, but, getting frightened, it managed to slip its collar and ran away down the line, where it got run over by a train. In a conspicuous part of the station a notice was posted up stating that the collector was not authorised to enter into contracts for the conveyance of dogs, except in a particular way, which had not been followed here.

Lopes, Q.C. for W., showed cause against the The County Court judge gave judgment against the company, damages 501., and this was an appeal rule. against that decision. Prideaux objected that no June 23 and 24.-Shield for the appellants. tery" being given, the affidavit was irregular and Kemp for the respondents. the rule ought to be quashed. Cur. adv. vult. Jan. 31.-WILLES J. gave the judgment of the court (Willes, Keating, and M. Smith, JJ.) in favour of the appellants, on the ground that the railway company were not common carriers of dogs, and that under the circumstances they were nothing more than bailees for hire, so as to be

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

HUDSON v. Walker.
Landlord and tenant-Order of County Court-
Delivery of possession under County Court
Amendment Act (19 & 20 Vict. c. 108), ss. 50, 51
-Trespass-Justification of under the Act-
Parties to suit-Estoppel.

THIS was an action of trespass which was tried
before Martin, B. and a special jury at the last spring
assizes for the county of Cumberland, 1871. The
facts were shortly these: The defendant who
claimed to be the landlord of a person named
Usher in respect of the premises in question, an
outhouse or shed attached to and belonging to a
public-house called the Red Lion, at Grassmere, had
sometime previously issued a summons against
Usher in the County Court under the County
Court Amendment Act (19 & 20 Vict. c. 108),
sect. 50, in which proceedings he recovered judg
ment, and thereupon obtained possession of the
premises under and by virtue of the warrant of
the County Court. The plaintiff in the present
action was in possession of the premises at the
time as tenant to Usher, the defendant in these
proceedings, but was no party to them in any way,
and the present action was now brought by him
against the defendant for retaining possession of
the premises which he claimed to do under the
County Court warrant above mentioned. The
learned Baron, at the trial, was of opinion that
the proceedings in the County Court and under
the warrant had operated to change the legal pos-
session, and that the present plaintiff Hudson was
concluded thereby, and, therefore, he held that the
present action of trespass was not maintainable
by the plaintiff, whom he accordingly nonsuited.
A rule having been subsequently obtained on his
behalf to set that nonsuit aside, and for a new trial

on the ground of misdirection in the learned judge's so ruling.

May 22.-Holker, Q.C. and Campbell Foster, for the plaintiff, showed cause against it, and Quain, Q.C. and Trevelyan, for the defendant, contra, supported it.

The COURT (Martin, Branwell, and Pigott, BB.) took time to consider its judgment, and now Jan. 22.-Their Lordships delivered judgment seriatim, Channell and Pigott, BB., being of opinion that the plaintiff's rule should be made absolute for a new trial; but Martin, B., retaining the opinion he entertained at the trial, thought it should be discharged. Rule absolute.

Attorneys for the plaintiff, Westall and Roberts, 7, Leadenhall-street, E.C., agents for Moser, Arnold, and Moser, Ambleside.

Attorney for the defendant, H. S. Willett, 14, Gray's-inn-square, W.C., agent for R. F. Thompson.

| Martin, B., not without some doubt), made the
rule absolute to enter the verdict for the defen-
dant on the ground that a brewer who sold his own
manufactures only was not a "merchant" in the
common and ordinary sense of that term, and so
did not come within the description in the bond, of
an "ale, porter, or spirit merchant."

Monday, Jan. 22. JOSSELYN v. PARSONS. Action on bond-" Ale or porter merchant"— Brewer-Distinction between-Construction. THIS was an action to recover the penalty on a bond given by the defendant to the plaintiff under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned, and which was tried at the last summer assizes at Ipswich, before Byles, J. The defendant, who had been a traveller to the plaintiff, who was an "ale, porter, and spirit merchant," at Colchester, had, upon entering into the plaintiff's service in that capacity, executed a bond to the plaintiff, by which he became bound, amongst other things, that he would not within twelve months after ceasing to be in the plaintiff's service travel for any "ale. porter, or spirit merchant' within twenty-five miles of Colchester. Having quitted the plaintiff's employment, the defendant immediately afterwards entered the service of a brewer at Colchester as a traveller, and in that capacity he went about soliciting orders for the brewer within the distance limited by the bond, and thereupon the plaintiff brought this action to recover the penalty. The learned judge thought that a brewer, who only sold the goods which he had himself manufactured, did not come within the words of the bond as an "ale, porter, or spirit merchant," and that the bond was not, therefore, forfeited. A verdict, however, was entered for the plaintiff for nominal damages, and leave was reserved to the defendant to move to enter the verdict for him. A rule to that effect was accordingly subsequently obtained, and now

O'Malley, Q.C.(with him was Mayd) appeared to show cause against it, and Bulwer, Q.C. and Graham, for the plaintiff, contra, supported it.

The COURT (Martin, Bramwell, and Pigott, BB.;

Rule absolute.

Attorney for the plaintiff, Jones, Colchester.
Attorneys for the defendants, Kingsford and
Dorman, 23, Essex-street, Strand, W.C., agents
for Turner, Deane, and Elwes, Colchester.

Saturday, Jan. 27.


Court of Admiralty—Injunction by to stay action
at common law-Prohibition by this court to
THIS was a rule calling upon the London and South
stay proceedings upon such injunction.
Western Railway Company to show cause why
they should not be prohibited from further pro-
ceeding in a certain suit in the High Court of
Admiralty called the Normandy to the injury of
the plaintiff, and why they should not be pro-
hibited from further proceeding to enforce or
issue ary injunction to restrain the said plaintiff
from prosecuting a certain action in this court
between the said plaintiff and the said defendants
on the ground that such suit and proceedings are
without the jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdic-
tion. It appeared that the plaintiff on a day in
May last took a ticket in London by the defen-
dants' line of railway to Guernsey. Having
arrived safely at Southampton, he proceeded on
board one of the defendant's steamboats called
the Normandy to go the remainder of his journey
to Guernsey. Whilst on its voyage the vessel
came into collision with a vessel called the
Mary, whereby the Normandy was so much in-
jured that she shortly sank, the passengers being
saved, but all the goods, including those of the
plaintiff going down with her. The plaintiff there-
upon brought an action against the defendants for
the value of his goods. At the same time, the
defendants brought an action in the Admiralty
Court against the owners of the Mary, and the
latter brought an action against the present de-
fendants, each alleging the negligence of the other.
The Court of Admiralty ultimately held that it
was the Normandy which was to blame. Upon
that, the defendants instituted a suit in the Court
section of the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104 (Merchant Ship-
of Admiralty, under the provisions of the 514th
Court of Admiralty thereupon issued an injuuc-
ping Act 1861), for limiting their liability, and the
tion restraining the plaintiff from proceeding in
his present action, and it was to set aside such in-
junction that the present rule was obtained.

Sir J. Karslake, Q. C. and C. Wood showed cause.
of the rule.
Manisty, Q. C. and W. G. Harrison in support

The COURT were of opinion that the Court of
Admiralty had no jurisdiction to grant any such
injunction, and made absolute the present rule.
Attorneys for the plaintiff, Brooksbank and


Rule absolute.

Attorneys for the defendants, L. Crombie.

Tuesday, Jan. 30.
(Before Lord PENZANCE.)
In the Goods of SHEPHErd.
Intestacy-Two of the next of kin abroad-Joint
grant to attorneys nominated by them for the
purpose refused-Practice.
JOHN SHEPHERD, late of Lymm, in the county of
Chester, died 16th Nov. 1871, intestate, and a
bachelor, without any parent or brother or sister
surviving him. His next of kin were John Shep-
herd Douglas, of Calcutta, Margaret Taylor Dew
Douglass, and Elizabeth Hutton, of New York,
his lawful nephew and nieces. Mr. Douglas had
nominated Mr. T. S. Dods, of Manchester, his
attorney, and Mrs. Hutton had nominated Mr. J.
W. Stuart, of Manchester, to be her attorney, for
the purpose of taking the grant of administra-
tion; and

Bauford now moved that a joint grant of admin-
istration be made to these two gentlemen.

The COURT held there was nothing in the circumstances of the case to take it out of the general rule, and refused to make a joint grant. Proctor, Ayrton.

[blocks in formation]

were lent to a legatee who was executor under a
previous codicil, to read. On their return the
sixth codicil was missing.
An affidavit was
read from a gentleman who had seen the codicil,
and who deposed that it was in the handwriting
of the deceased. It was signed by the testator
and two other persons, but he could not remember
whose the names were.

Inderwick moved that a draft of the sixth codicil be admitted to probate along with the will and the other codicils.

The COURT.-The court has never admitted to probate a document, as to the execution of which it has no kind of evidence. You may take probate of the will and the five codieils. Attorneys: Sympson and Warner.

[blocks in formation]

In the Goods of J. N. LANGHAM.

Intestacy-Next of kin minors-A stranger in
blood elected guardian without citing one of the
parent's next of kin who was resident abroad.
STEPHEN NAT LANGHAM, late of the Cambrian
Stores, 12, Castle-street, Leicester-square, in the
county of Middlesex, licensed victualler, died Sept.
1, 1871, a widower, and intestate, leaving Alice and
his only next of kin. Both children were minors,
Elizabeth, his natural and lawful children, and
and on the mother's side their only next of kin
being of the respective ages of 16 and 12 years.
were two uncles and two aunts, of whom three
had duly renounced their rights to the adminis
dianship of the minors. The fourth, an uncle named
Wm. Watson, had left this country in 1869 for the
purpose of taking up his residence in the State of
Nevada, in the United States of America. In-
quries had been made to ascertain his present
residence, and nothing was now known of him.
The minors duly elected George Langham, a
stranger in blood, to be their guardian for the
purposes of administration to the estate of the
deceased, and the court was now moved to make
a grant of administration to him as guardian.
The value of the estate was about 100l.

On the father's side there were no next of kin,

tration of the deceased's estate, and to the guar

Shearman, for the appellant, cited In the goods of Hagger (3 Sw. & Tr. 67; 8 L. T. Rep. N. S. 470), In the goods of Widger (3 Curt. 55), In the goods of Augustus J. Hay (L. Rep. 1 P. & D. 57; 13 L. T. Rep. N. S. 335).

The COURT-In this case there are several next of kin of the minors who have had an opportunity of coming forward to represent them. They don't find it necessary to do so. The only one who has been left out is residing abroad; and under these circumstances the court may permit the minors to elect a guardian as they have done. The rest follows as a matter of course. Attorneys, Allen and Son.



ELECTION LAW-COUNTY-DESCRIPTION OF QUALIFICATION--ERRONEOUS NUMBER OF HOUSE -RIGHT TO AMEND.-Where the description of the property of a voter is erroneous, the revising barrister has power to amend under 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 40, as an "insufficient description of the property." The claimant's qualification for a county vote was described as a "freehold house and shop," No. 4, English-street, Carlisle. After his name had been so put on the register, the local authorities altered the number of this house to 9. There was another No. 4, English-street. The claimant's vote was objected to and disallowed by the barrister, as he considered he had no power to amend. Held, that the barrister had power to amend. Per Brett, J., that the barrister not only had power, but was bound to amend : (Bendle v. Watson, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 806. C. P.)

ELECTION LAW-COUNTY VOTE-RATEABLE VALUE OF OCCUPATION UNDER SEVERAL LANDLORDS.-An occupation of several pieces of land under different landlords, none of which pieces are sufficiently rated to confer a vote for the county, but which are in the aggregate of sufficient value, makes a good qualification for a county vote under the 6th section of the Representation of the People Act; and the fact that the tenants hold under different landlords is no objection. Gadsby v. Burrow, 7 M. & G. 21, distinguished: (Huckle v. Piper, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 809. C. P.)

ELECTION LAW-COUNTY FRANCHISE-SUBLESSEE-TERM ORIGINALLY EXCEEDING SIXTY YEARS. A sub-lessee of a term which, when originally created was for more than sixty years, and of the clear yearly value of 51. over and above all rents and charges payable out of the same, is entitled to vote for members of Parliament for the county. Semble, the 5th section of the Representation of the People Act 1867, does not create a new franchise, but lowers the value of the old one: (Charlton v. Overseers of Stretford, 25 L. T. Rep. | N. S. 810. C. P.)

ELECTION LAW - NOTICE OF OBJECTION PRACTICE.-A notice of objection, which named the "third column" as that on which the objection is grounded, and which stated that the objection related to the nature of the voter's interest in the qualifying property, is sufficient within the 6th section of 28 Vict. c. 36, to enable the objector to prove that a voter whose qualification was a "freehold benefice," in a borough, was entitled to a borough vote, and therefore not entitled to vote for the county under 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 24: (Simey v. Dixon, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 811. C. P.)

[blocks in formation]

India Stock, July 1880

India Stock, 1874

India 5 Cent.



924 92

111 1104

India 4 C. Oct. 1888 105 105 105 105 106 India 5 Cent. 1870

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

Do. (under 10001.).

Ex. Bills, 10001.

Do. 5001. Do. 1001. and 2001. Metropolitan Board of Works 3 C. Stock.

30s.a 30s.a 30s.a. 30s.a 30s.a

68.a 6s.a 6s.a 6s.a 6s.a 68.a 6s.a 6s.a 6s.a 6s.a 6s.a 6s.a 6s.a 6s.a 6s.a

971 97 97 97 97} a Premium.



[NOTE.-The reports of the Estate Exchange are officially supplied in the following list. Auctioneers whose names are registered there will oblige by reports of their own Bales.]

Thursday, Jan. 25.

[merged small][ocr errors]

as the Grosvenor Mansions-sold for £49,500. Marylebone. No. 21, Saville-street, term 47 years-sold for £1550. No. 14, Upper Marylebone-street, terin 27 years-sold for E300. Nos. 12 and 13, Upper Ogle-street, term 30 years-sold for The Brandon Estate, Sale No. 5-Pennington v. Dalbiac.Walworth. No. 255, East-street, freehold, and a freehold ground-rent of £8 158. 6d.-sold for £500. No. 255, East-street, freehold-sold for £35. No. 211, East-street, and a freehold ground-rent of £10 per annum-sold for £165. Freehold ground-rent of £30 per annum, amply secured, and a plot of building land-sold for £920 No. 91, Brandon-street, freehold--sold for £660.

No. 2, York-street, and the Walworth Temperance Hall,

[blocks in formation]

freehold-sold for £1560.

York-road, Nos. 6, 7, and 8, and Nos. 1 to 5, Pleasant-grove,
Newington, No. 123, High-street, freehold-sold for £1120.
A freehold ground rent of £s, amply secured-sold for £225.
Walworth. A freehold ground rent of £4 108. per annum,
secured on two houses in East-street-sold for £320.
Sale No. 7.-Walworth, No. 12, Orb-street, Nos. 1 to 6, Bed-

ford-street, term 18 years-sold for £600,"

annum-sold for £550.

years-sold for £450.

Nos. 7 to 10, Bedford-street, and Nos. 1 to 4, Bedford-court, term 18 years, and an improved ground rent of £15 per Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14, Nursery-row, term 18 Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, same row and term-sold An improved ground-rent of £75 per annum, amply secured, The above properties were sold under an order of the Court of Chancery, in the important suit, Pennington v. Dalbiac. The biddings throughout were spirited, and the prices realised were most satisfactory.

for £350.

term 10 years-sold for £100.

WE have received a volume entitled The Key to the London Money Market, by Mr. Arthur Crump (London, Longmans and Co.), which furnishes us with a complete history of the important circumstances which have affected the money market and the Bank of England returns from 1792 to 1871 inclusive. This is prefaced by short but masterly essays on such subjects as The Economy of Capital, Deposits, Circulation and Bullion, showing that the author has not chosen a title for his work to which it cannot fairly aspire. Mr. Crump seems to have felt the pulse of the money market with the skill of an experienced physician, and the plan of his work will enable those whom the subject he treats of concerns, and there are few whom it does not concern, to keep themselves posted up in the fluctuations of the market, and thus to make comparisons for practical purposes between the present and the past. The work is unique, and most probably will meet with considerable success.


NOTES OF NEW DE CISIONS. PRACTICE-SALE OF MORTGAGED PRORERTYPURCHASER'S RIGHT TO DELIVERY OF TITLE DEEDS.-A purchaser who, in a suit to realise a mortgage security, has paid the purchase money of the mortgaged property into court, is entitled, before its distribution, to the delivery of the title deeds: (Fowler v. Scott, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 784. V.C. W.)

PRACTICE-PARTITION-SALE AT THE REQUEST OF INFANTS-PARTITION ACT 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 40.)—In a partition suit instituted on behalf of infants entitled to property as tenants in common, for a sale of the property: the court made the order asked for, but directed it to be drawn up both under the old practice of selling to pay costs and under the powers of the Partition Act of 1868 (France v. France, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 785. V. C. W.)


WILL-POWER OF APPOINTMENT-DEATH OF APPOINTEE IN LIFE OF APPOINTOR-RESIDUARY BEQUESTS-NEXT OF KIN.-A testatrix having a life interest in, and a general power of appointment over, the residuary estate of her late husband, by her will appointed an executor; and after directing payment of her debts and giving certain legacies, bequeathed the residue of her estate to four persons (direct) to be divided equally between them. Two of the persons died in the lifetime of the testatrix: Held, that her husband's next of kin were entitled to the shares of the persons who had died: (Re Davies' Trust, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 785. V.C. W.) PRESUMPTION OF DEATH LEGACY TO A CLASS. A testator died in 1847, having by his will given 1000l. to the children of his brother W., living at his death, to be divided between them equally by his executrix within twelve months after his death, and the said sum to be raised by the executrix out of certain property in which he gave her a life interest. The testator's brother W. had five children, one of whom was last heard of in Feb. 1845. In 1848 the executrix paid their shares to the four other children. In 1851 she was found lunatic, and the master by his report, found that one-fifth part of the 1000l. remained unpaid, and that it was believed to belong to a child of W., who had not been heard of since the testator's death, or, if he were dead, to the other children of W. In 1871 the other four children

presented a petition for payment of the 2001. and interest to them out of fund in court to the account of the lunatic: Held, that they were entitled to be paid the 2001., inasmuch as there was no evidence that there was a fifth child of W. living at the testator's death; but that they were only entitled to six years' arrears of interest on the 2001. (Re Walker, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 775. Chan.)

A ditto of £25 per annum-sold for £580. COMMISSION IN THE ARMY-EQUITABLE Pleasant-grove. A dwelling-house, with stabling, &c., free- CHARGE-PRIORITY-NOTICE-SALE OF COMhold-sold for £705. MISSION-ARMY AGENT-NOTICE LEFT AFTER BUSINESS HOURS.-An officer in the army, who had created several charges on the proceeds of sale of his commission, was gazetted on the 7th Dec. as having retired from his regiment by sale

A freehold match manufactory, with cottage, near the above

-sold for £10.

A freehold ground-rent of £8 12s. per annum, amply secured -sold for £275.

of his commission. The proceeds of the sale were lodged with the army agents on the same day, but the amount, after deducting regimental debts, did not become payable to the officer till the following morning. At half-past five p.m. on the 7th Dec., after business hours, one of the incumbrancers left at the office of the army agents a written notice of his charge. On the opening of the office at nine o'clock on the following morning, several other incumbrancers served the army agents with notices of their charges. Held (reversing the decision of the Master of the Rolls), that the notice left on the evening of the 7th Dec. must be taken to have been served simultaneously with the other notices, as it was not really received by the army agents until the following morning. Papillon v. Brunton (2 L. T. Rep. N. S. 326; 5 H. & N. 518) distinguished. Held also, that, as all the notices must be taken to have been served simultaneously, the incumbrancers were entitled to rank according to the dates of their charges. One of the charges extended to further advances. Held, that the rule in Hopkinson v. Rolt (5 L. T. Rep. N. S. 90; 9 H. of L. Cas. 514) applied, and that the incumbrancer holding that charge was entitled to tack on to it all further advances made by him without notice of any prior charges, but that he was not entitled to tack on a charge bought up from another incumbrancer: (Calisher v. Forbes, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 772. Chan.)

WILL-CONSTRUCTION-POWER ΤΟ DEDUCT FROM LEGACY MONEYS OWING BY THE LEGATEE TO OTHER LEGATEES UNDER THE WILL.-A testator, by his will, gave his residuary estate to trustees upon trust to sell and invest and to pay the annual income to his wife for her life, and after her death to stand possessed of one-sixth part of the proceeds of sale upon trust to invest and to permit his daughter M. to enjoy the annual income for her life, for her separate use with remainder to her children in equal shares. And the testator directed his trustees to deduct from her share the sum of 2001., which he had advanced to her; and also that if, at the period of distribution, M. should be indebted to any of her brothers or sisters in respect of advances made to her, his trustees should be empowered to deduct all or any of such debts or advances from her share, and to pay the same to the brother or sister to whom the same might be owing. Held, that this power of deduction extended to advances, although barred by the Statute of Limitations, but did not extend to interest on the advances, it being the testator's intention to treat advances by M.'s brothers and sisters in the same way as the advance by himself: (Poole v. Poole, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 771. Chan.)

UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE BANK OF ENGLAND. [Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons respectively whose names are prefixed to ench in three months, unless other claimants sooner appear.] WALKER Henry Fowler Vincent Louis), Vale place, Northfleet, Kent, gentleman. 17. Reduced Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, Harriet Susan Barnet Lemming (wife of Henry Lemming).

APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. GLYNCONWG COAL COMPANY (LIMITED).-Creditors to send in by Feb. 15, their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to R, Smith, 6, Victoria-street, Westminister. Feb. 2, at the official liquidator of the said company. eleven o'clock, at the chambers of the M. R., is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. ROYAL NAVAL, MILITARY, AND EAST INDIA COMPANY LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Feb. 9, before V.C. M.

ANN (Francis), Redwick, Almondsbury, Gloucester, yeoman.
Feb. 10; Geo. D. Crossman, solicitor, Thornbury, Glou-
cester. Feb. 19; V.C. W., at one o'clock.

BURGESS (Jno.), Green Dragon, St. Andrew's-hill, Doctor's
Commons, E.C., licensed victualler. Feb. 15, J. B. Smith,
soliciter, 2, Church-court, Clement's-lane, E.C. March 7;
V.C. B., at
CADDICK (Isaac). Wednesbury Oak, Sedgley, Stafford,
maltster. March 9; A. Caddick, solicitor, West Bromwich.
March 23; V.C.W. at twelve o'clock.
CHAMPION (Percival), St. Clement's House, Clement's-lane,
E.C.. and Withdean, near Prighton, underwriter and in-
surance broker. March 1; Wm. Royle, solicitor, 40, Great
Mariborough-street. Middlesex. March 4; V.C.W., at
twelve o'clock.

FARMER (Henry G.), Haven Farm, Firbeck, York, farmer; Feb. 12; S. Hayes, solicitor, Gainsborough. Feb. 19. V.C.M. at twelve o'clock. FELTHAM Jas.), The Walls, Hampton-court, Middlesex, gentleman. March 12; II. H. Lawrence, solicitor, 3, Bedford square, W.C. March 26; V. C. W. at twelve o'clock. KENNARD Robert. W.) Esq., 37, Porchester-terrace, Middlesex. March 11; Collette and Collette, solicitors, 23, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C. March 22; V. C. M. at twelve LANGLEY (Wm. H., Hanway-street, Oxford-street, W., clerk in Holy Orders. Feb. 12; J. P. Poncione, jun., solicitor, 5, Raymond-buildings, Gray's-inn-road, W.c. Feb. 19: V. C. W. at two o'clock.


LEO Anton, 13. St. Peter's-street, Islington-green, Middle-
sex. Feb. 2; H. C. Barker, solicitor, St. Michael's House,
Cornhill, F.C. March 15; V.C. W. at twelve o'clock.
LEVY (Isaac, 5, Raven-row, Whitechapel, Middlesex. Feb.
28: J. Smith, solicitor, 19, White Lion-street, Norton-
Folgate, E. March 14; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock.
THOMSON (Jas.), South Norwood, Surrey, metal broker.
March 11; J. H. James, solicitor, 62, Lincoln's-inn-fields,
W.C. March 16; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock.
WHITTINGHAM (Jane P., Barnsbury-street, Middlesex.
Feb. 19; Sheffield and Sons, solicitors, 52, Lime-street.
E.C. March 1; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.

« EelmineJätka »