Page images


Wednesday, Jan. 31.

NEWBY V. VON OPPEN AND OTHERS. Service of writ-Foreign corporation Double domicile-Common Law Procedure Act 1852, ss. 16 & 17.

THIS was an appeal from a master's order at
chambers, which had been referred to the court
by a judge. Von Oppen and Colt's Fire Arms
Manufactory Company were joint defendants in
this action upon a contract made in London, the
said company being an American corporation not
incorporated in this country, but having a branch
place of business in Pall Mall managed by Von
Oppen, who however was authorised only to sell
the goods consigned to him, and not to enter into
executory contracts except upon approval of his
principals. Two copies of the writ had been
served at the branch office, one directed to Von
Oppen and the other to the company. Upon ap;
plication by the company the master had ordered
their name to be struck out of the writ and sub-
sequent proceedings, on the ground that the ser-
vice of the writ upon them was invalid.
Manisty, Q. C. and Philbrick showed cause
against a rule to rescind this order.
E. Clarke supported the rule.

Cur. adv. vult.

The COURT (Cockburn, C.J., Blackburn, Mellor, and Quain, JJ.) considered that the company had a domicile in this country as well as in America, and following the law laid down by Lord St. Leonards in The Carron Iron Company Proprietors v. Maclaren (5 H. of L. Cas. 416) refused to stop the proceedings against them at this stage.

Rule absolute.
Attorneys for plaintiff, Harper, Broad, and
Attorney for defendants, G. E. Thomas.

Tuesday, Jan. 23.

Detinue for deeds-Titie to-Voluntary settlement
-What passes by-Trust estate-Beneficial inte-
rest-Legal estate-Construction-Intention.
THIS was an action of detinue for deeds retained
by the defendant, relating to property near Ashton-
under-Lyne. One Robert Knott, by his will, in
1836, devised all his freehold and leasehold pro-
perty to his three sons, John, James, and Robert
Knott, upon trusts for the benefit of his widow
and children, and which trusts are still subsist-
ing, and he died in 1842. The son John, who sur-
vived his two brothers and co-trustees, died in-
testate in 1868, leaving his only son, Joseph Knott,
his heir-at-law, and having, a few days only before
his death, viz., on 13th Jan. 1868, executed a volun-
tary settlement of his property, whereby he con-
veyed "all his real and personal estate whatsoever
and wheresoever then vested in him," unto and to
the use of his son, the said Joseph Knott and
his son-in-law, William Sidebotham (the plain-
tiff), their heirs, executors, administrators, and
assigns, upon certain trusts therein mentioned.
Joseph Knott made his will, dated 5th May 1870,
and thereby gave, devised, and bequeathed all his
real and personal estate whatsoever and whereso-
ever unto and to the use of his wife, Elizabeth
Knott (the defendant), her heirs, executors, and ad-
ministrators absolutely, and appointed her sole
executrix of his will, and died on the 13th Nov.
1870. The defendant duly proved the said will as
sole executrix in July 1871. Up to the death
of the said Joseph Knott as last mentioned,
the plaintiff Sidebotham recognised the said
Joseph Knott as the trustee, and acted as his
agent in collecting the rents of the property, a
part of which he himself occupied as yearly
tenant, and he regularly paid over the rents of the
property quarterly to Joseph Knott, who divided
them every year amongst the parties entitled
under the will of the above-mentioned Robert
Knott. After Joseph Knott's death the plain-
tiff continued to pay over the said rents to
the defendant, the widow and residuary de-
visee of Joseph Knott, up to about the end
of May 1871, when he refused to account or
to pay over to her any further moneys, alleg-
ing himself to be the legal representative of
the said testator Robert Knott, and the trustee
of his property, and demanded from her the deeds,
wills, and papers relating to the title, and on her
refusing to give them up, the present action was
brought to recover them. The trial took place at
the Liverpool Summer Assizes 1871, before Kelly,
C.B. The question at issue being whether the
legal estate in the property devised by the original
testator Robert Knott to his three sons in
trust as aforesaid, passed to and is now vested in
the defendant as devisee under the will of her
husband, Joseph Knott, the heir at law of John
Knott the surviving trustee of Robert Knott's
will; or whether it passed to the plaintiff under

the settlement executed by John Knott, and is
now vested in the plaintiff as the surviving
trustee of that settlement. A verdict pro forma
was entered for the plaintiff, for 40s.; and a rule
was afterwards obtained to set that verdict aside
and enter it for the defendant, on the ground that
the legal estate in the property devised by the
will of Robert Knott is not in the plaintiff. And


Ambrose and R. H. Collins, for the plaintiff, showed cause, and

Holker, Q.C., and J. Edwards, for the defendants
in support were stopped.

The COURT (Kelly, C. B., and Cleasby, B.) were
of opinion that the legal estate in the property in
question did not pass to the plaintiff under the
settlement, for though the words of it were large
enough to pass it, yet, on looking at the whole
instrument and the surrounding circumstances,
and the intention of the parties as gathered there-
from, it was clear that the deed was not intended
to apply to trust estates, or to any property but
that in which the settlor John Knott, was benefi.
cially interested.
H. of L. 2 Dow. & Cl. 232) is identically in point,
Fausset v. Carpenter (in the
and the present case cannot be distinguished from


Rule absolute to enter a verdict for the
Attorneys for the plaintiff, Bower and Cotton,
46, Chancery-lane, W.C., agents for Gardner and
Horner, Manchester.

Attorneys for the defendant, Woodcock and
Ryland, 14, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C.; agents for
Clayton, Ashton-under-Lyne.

Jan. 23 and 25.

Landlord and tenant-Lessor and lessee-Equi-
table assignment by lessee-Payment of rent to
landlord by lessor-Implied indemnity by lessee
-Tenancy-Use and occupation.
THIS was an action to recover on an alleged
promise of indemnity, tried at Bristol at the last
summer assizes, before Willes, J. By the first
count of the declaration it was charged that
the plaintiff was tenant to one Lanyon of
certain premises, for the residue of a term of
fourteen years therein from Dec. 1858, and that
the defendant in consideration of the plaintiffs
giving up to him the possession of the residue of
the said term, promised the plaintiff to indemnify
him against the rent of the premises, and assign
ing for breach that the defendant did not in-
demnify the plaintiff. By the second count the
plaintiff charged that the defendant was tenant
to the plaintiff of certain premises at a rent of
£80 per annum, payable on the usual quarter days,
from 10th March 1869, and that two years' rent was
due and unpaid. And the third count was for use
and occupation, and for money paid, &c. The
defendant pleaded first to the first count, denying
the promise to indemnify; secondly to the second
count, a denial of the tenancy as alleged; and
thirdly to the residue of the declaration, never
indebted; and on these pleas issue was joined. It
was proved at the trial that the plaintiff was
tenant to Lanyon of a certain farm, from Dec.
1868, for a term of seven, fourteen, or twenty-one
years, at £80 a year rent, and that he occupied
the premises up to and until March 1869, when he
assigned, or professed to assign, the remainder of
his estate and interest in the premises to the de-
fendant, by an agreement in writing, but not
under seal, under which agreement the defendant
entered into the occupation of the premises.
The landlord declined to give his licence
to the assignment, such licence being requisite
under the terms of the plaintiff's lease, and
consequently no legal assignment was ever exe-
cuted between the parties. The defendant,
although he might have remained on in the occu-
pation of the premises, quitted the farm at
Michaelmas 1870, in conformity with a notice
which he had given to Lanyon of his intention so
to do, and the farm was unoccupied after that
date. In the succeeding March (1871) the plain-
tiff paid to Lanyon £40 for the six months rent of
the farm and premises from Michaelmas 1870.
The defendant, whom Lanyon never accepted as
his tenant, paid rent to Lanyon during the time
he was in occupation as for the plaintiff, and the
latter now sought to recover from the defendant
the £40 so paid by him to Lanyon as above-men-
tioned for the six months from Michaelmas 1870
to Lady-day 1871. A verdict was entered for the
plaintiff for £40, and leave was reserved to the de-
fendant to move to enter a verdict for him; and a
rule having been accordingly obtained in Michael.
mas term last to that effect.

Jan. 23.-A. Charles (with him was H. T. Cole,
Q.C.) for the plaintiff, showed cause against, and
Lopes, Q.C. for the defendant, supported it.

Cur. adv. vult.

Jan. 25-The COURT (Bramwell, Martin, and
Pigott, BB.) now gave judgment, making the de-

fendant's rule absolute, being of opinion that there was no implied promise to indemnify the plaintiff arising from the relation between the parties, and certainly not after the time when the defendant ceased to occupy; and further there was clearly no relation of landlord and tenant between the parties, and no tenancy between the plaintiff and defendant. The case failed both on the question of indemnity and on the question of tenancy. Rule absolute to enter the verdict for the defendant.

Attorneys for the plaintiff, Gregory. Rowcliffe, Rowcliffe, and Rawle, 1, Bedford-row, W.C., Attorney for the defendant, Bolton.

[blocks in formation]

Master and servant-Machinery in motion.
Dangerous employment-Duty to fence-Factory
Act (5 & 6 Vict. c. 15), sect. 21-Contributory

THIS was an action by the plaintiff, the widow and
administratrix of one Samuel Britton, and was
brought by her, under Lord Campbell's Act, to
recover pecuniary compensation for the loss
inflicted on her and her child by the death of her
husband through an accident occurring to him
whilst employed at the defendants' factory, by
reason of the defendants neglecting to fence certain
machinery close to which the deceased was at
work, by reason whereof he became entangled in
the said machinery and was killed. The declara-
tion contained two counts, which charged, in
substance, that the defendants, being occupiers of
a cotton factory, and the owners of certain
machinery therein, did not safely and securely
fence the said machinery, in compliance with
the provisions of the Factory Acts of 1844
and 1856 in the declaration mentioned, and
that there was in particular a steam engine,
the flywheel and spurwheel of which were not
sufficiently guarded and fenced, and also a wheel
race not otherwise secured and not fenced close
to its edge, within the meaning of the said
statutes; that the said Samuel Britton was em-
ployed by the defendants to place himself close to
the edge of the said wheelrace in order to lubri-
cate the bearings of the said fly and spurwheels
of the engine, the defendants knowing and the
said S. Britton being ignorant of, the unsafe and
insufficiently fenced condition of the same ma-
chinery; and by reason of the defendant's negli-
gence as aforesaid the said Samuel Britton was
caught up and whirled about by certain parts of
the said steam engine and greatly injured, and
afterwards died of his said injuries; whereby, &c.,
the defendants pleaded first Not Guilty, and, in
addition, several other pleas to the following
effect: Denying the deceased's ignorance and the
defendants' knowledge of the things alleged in
the said count; that he, being of sound mind and
above twenty-one years of age, voluntarily un-
dertook the employment with knowledge of the
danger in consideration of an increased rate
of wages; that the parts of the machinery and
engine alleged not to be securely fenced, were
not such as the Factory Acts required to be so
fenced, or near to which young children, young
persons, or women were liable to pass, &c.; and
that the said S. Britton knew the said steam
engine and machinery were not securely fenced,
and by his own negligence caused himself to be
caught up, &c. Issue was joined on all the pleas.
It was proved at the trial before Brett, J. and a
special jury at the last summer assizes at Bristol,
that the deceased was employed to grease the
bearings between the flywheel and the spur or cog-
wheel of the steam engine in the defendants' engine
house. The bearing on which the shaft revolves is
fixed on a plate in the division wall, and there was
an opening in the wall (called the "wall box")
for the purpose of holding it. The thickness of
the wall is 2ft. 3in., and the wall box, on which the
deceased had to sit in order to grease the bearings,
was 5ft. long by 4ft. high, and the access to it was
by creeping between the spokes of the flywheel
when the engine was at rest. The flywheel (15ft.
in diameter) was on his left hand, revolving in the
wheelrace in the engine house, at fifty-seven
revolutions per minute, ordinarily, and the spur or
cogwheel on his right hand revolving in another
room of the factory, the space between the two
wheels being 2ft. 10 in. Although the wheelrace
was fenced on its outer side it was not fenced
along the inner edge, by which the deceased sat
to do his work. He had been five days only in the
defendant's service at the time of the accident.
The jury found no contributory negligence in the
defendant's undertaking the work, or in his
manner of doing it, and gave a verdict for the
plaintiff for £200. By the 21st section of the
7 & 8 Vict. c. 15, it is enacted that
wheelrace not otherwise secured shall be fenced
close to the edge of the wheelrace, and the said
protection to each part shall not be removed


while the parts required to be fenced are in motion." A rule having been obtained pursuant to leave to enter the verdict for the defendants, on the grounds (amongst others) that the inside edge of the wheelrace did not require to be fenced under the Factory Acts, and that the deceased voluntarily undertook the employment with knowledge

of the attendant risk.

H. T. Cole, Q.C. (with him A. Charles) for the plaintiff shewed cause

Kingdon, Q.C. and Pinder for the defendants, contra.

The COURT (Bramwell, Channell and Pigott, BB.) gave judgment discharging the rule, and were of opinion, first, that there was a clear breach of statutory duty on the part of the defendants in not fencing the edge of the wheel race where the deceased was placed to work; secondly, the danger was not so obvious as that the deceased must necessarily have known, and voluntarily encountered it; but, if it were so, that alone would not enable the court to say there was no evidence for the jury, who found there was no contributory negligence in the deceased, a verdict which concluded the case on that point, and with which the court saw no ground for disagreeing.

Rule discharged.

Attorneys for the plaintiff, Gregory, Rowcliffe, Howcliffe, and Rawle, Bedford-row, W.C., agents for Benson and Elletson, Bristol.

Attorneys for the defendants, Merediths, Roberts and Mills, 8, New-square, Lincoln's-inn. W.C., agents for Ward, Vassall, Parr and Osborne, Bristol.

Friday, Feb. 2.

ARROWSMITH. CHANDLER. Action against British subject out of jurisdiction -"Cause of action" in England-Application

to set writ aside-C. L. P. Act 1852, s. 18Undertaking to confine proof to cause of action in England.

Herschell, for the defendant, had obtained a rule calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the writ of summons in this case, and all subsequent proecedings thereon, should not be set aside, on the ground that the cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction. Both parties were British subjects. The defendant carried on business both in France and England. In France, at Paris, and three other large towns, and in England, in London. The contract dated 28th Dec. 1866, was written in French, and made in France. By it the plaintiff was to be employed as manager of the defendant's business (employé interessé was the French term) at a salary of 9000 francs a year, payable monthly, and a commission of 10 per cent. on the balance of the profits to be taken at the end of each year. In Oct. 1870, owing to the exigencies of the war in France, the defendant came to London; and the plaintiff came with him, and from Oct. 1870 to June 1871, was occupied in London in the defendant's service, when they both returned to France, the plaintiff continuing on there in the service till November last, when he was dismissed. He now commenced this action against the defendant for breach of contract in non-payment of wages, and for wrongful dismissal, and by his affidavits used at chambers, when the matter came before Hannen, J., it was sworn that a cause of action arose in London consisting of salary due to the defendant in relation to his services rendered in London and still remaining unpaid. Hannen, J. had, after taking time to consider, declined to make an order, setting aside an order of the master giving leave to proceed, being of opinion that a cause of action arose within the jurisdiction. Sect. 18 of the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 enacts that it shall be lawful for the court or judge upon being satisfied by affidavit that there is a cause of action, which arose within the jurisdiction, or in

meant the whole cause of action. Authorities were divided, and the court had to say which was right. Inconveniences might be adduced either way, but this was a French contract, and better understood there than here.

The COURT (Martin, Bramwell, and Cleasby, BB.), were of opinion that the rule should be discharged, but that the plaintiff should, as in Diamond v. Sutton (9 L. T. Rep. N. S. 800; L. Rep. 1 Ex. 430) undertake to confine himself strictly to the cause of action arising within the jurisdiction-namely, the non-payment of the monthly salary during the service in London.

Rule discharged, the plaintiff undertaking accordingly.

Attorneys for the plaintiff, Denton, Hall, and Barker, 15, Gray's-inn-square, W.C. Attorneys for the defendant, Reed, Phelps, and Sidgwick, 3, Gresham-street, E.C.



HOUSE OF LORDS. Tuesday, Feb. 6.


Earl STANHOPE.-I beg to give notice that on Thursday next I shall move for certain papers relating to the appointment of Sir R. P. Collier, and solution: "That the House has seen with regret that on Thursday following I shall submit this rethe course taken by Her Majesty's Government in carrying out the provisions of the Act of last session relative to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and is of opinion that the elevation of Sir Robert Collier to the bench of the Court of

Common Pleas for the purpose of giving only a colourable qualification to be a paid member of the Judicial Committee, and his immediate transfer to the Judicial Committee accordingly, were acts at variance with the spirit and intention of the statute, and of evil example in the exercise of judicial patronage" (hear, hear).

[blocks in formation]

Sir D. WEDDERBURN gave notice that on that day three weeks he should call the attention of the house to the difficulties which existed under the discussion in this house of the special affairs the present system of obtaining opportunities for of Scotland, and that he would move for a select committee to consider the subject.

THE MANAGEMENT OF DOCKYARDS. Mr. GOURLEY gave notice that on the 19th March he should move for a select committee to inquire into the existing management of dockyards, survey of ships, &c.


Lord C. HAMILTON gave notice that, on the 13th inst., he should call the attention of the house to the treatment of the Dungannon bench of magistrates by the Irish government, and move for copies of correspondence with reference to the charges against them.

PUBLIC PROSECUTORS. Mr. WALPOLE gave notice of his intention to

[blocks in formation]

THE GAME LAWS. Mr. HARDCASTLE gave notice that he should tomorrow bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to game.


Mr. CHARLEY gave notice that to-morrow he should bring in a Bill for the better protection of infant life.


Mr. S. CAVE gave notice that to-morrow he should bring in a Bill to authorise the appointment of commissioners for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting upon the causes of the failure of the Albert and European Life Assurance Com panies, and of the companies which have been merged in such companies, with power to examine directors, officers, whether permanent or occa sional, and all persons acting, whether as agents or otherwise, in negotiations for the amalgamation or transfer of other companies with or to the Albert or European Assurance Companies.


Mr. WHITE gave notice for Mr. P. A. Taylor, who was absent, that that hon. gentleman would bring in a Bill for the abolition of the game laws.


Mr. R. A. CROSS.-I beg to give notice that on the 16th inst. I shall call the attention of the House to the recent appointment of Sir Robert Collier, and shall move a resolution thereupon. (Opposition cheers.)


Mr. PIM gave notice, for Mr. Heron, that the hon. gentleman would bring in a Bill to diminish the expense and delay in obtaining local and personal Acts relating to Ireland.


Sir G. JENKINSON gave notice that he should move, as an amendment to the motion of which Mr. Gilpin had given notice, for a select committee to consider the report of the Royal comtained a recommendation that the present law of mission of 1866 on capital punishment, which con

murder should be altered.


Mr. G. GREGORY gave notice that on the 16th he should bring in a Bill to discontinue the Middlesex registry of deeds and other matters affecting the settlement of land in Middlesex.


Mr. SAMUELSON gave notice of his intention to move the reappointment of the select committee o. last session on patents for inventions.

ARBITRATION FOR TRADES' UNIONS. THE following is a copy of a Bill drawn up by Mr. Rupert Kettle:

"A Bill to extend the application of the Act to consolidate and amend the laws relative to the arbitration of disputes between masters and workmen.

"Whereas it is desirable to extend the provisions of an Act passed in the reign of His Majesty King George IV., intituled 'An Act to consolidate and amend the Laws relative to the Arbitration of Disputes between Masters and Workmen,' so as to make the same applicable to modern modes of settling such disputes by boards of arbitration: Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and ment assembled, and by authority of the same, as follows:

respect of the breach of a contract made within bring in a Bill to provide for the appointment of Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parlia

the jurisdiction," &c., to empower the plaintiff to proceed in the action as therein mentioned.

Day, for the plaintiff, showed cause.-Though made abroad, one breach of the contract was the non-payment of the monthly salary in London. The Court of Queen's Bench in Allhusen v. Mal. garejo (18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 323; L: Rep. 3 Q. B. 342; 37 L. J. 169, Q. B.), following Sichel v. Borch in this court (9 L. T. Rep. N. S. 637; 2 H. & C. 954; 33 L. J. 179, Ex.), held that "cause of action" meant the whole cause of action. But in Jackson v. Spittal (22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 755);

public prosecntors.


Mr. GILPIN gave notice that on Friday next he should bring in a Bill for the abolition of the punishment of death.


Mr. LOPES gave notice that Sir M. Lopes (who was absent) would on the 27th bring forward a motion with regard to local taxation.


Mr. GREGORY gave notice that on the 16th inst.

1. Interpretation.—(a) In this Act the words 'the Act,' shall mean the statute of 5 Geo. 4, cap. 96. (b) The word 'board,' shall mean any board of arbitration described in the next following section, which shall have under its rules power to determine any dispate of which it may have cog nizance. (c) The word decision,' shall mean any final decision, in writing, of any dispute in manner prescribed by the rules of the board, whether the same be by recording a vote of the board on a

[ocr errors]

L. Rep. 5 C. P. 542; 39 L. J. 321. C. P.) the Court he should bring in a Bill to facilitate the proof of resolution of a meeting, or by the written judg

of Common Pleas declined to follow those cases. Lastly, this court in Durham v. Spence (23 L. T. Rep. N. S. 500; L. Rep. 6 Ex. 46; 40 L. J. 3, Ex.) were divided, Martin and Pigott, BB., following Jackson v. Spittal in the Common Pleas, and Kelly, C.B., agreeing with the other cases. It is sub mitted that Jackson v. Spittal was right, and that there was a cause of action within the jurisdiction here.

Herschell, for the defendant, contra.-On a true construction of the statute, cause of action"

[ocr errors]

titles in the conveyance of estates.


Mr. W. FOWLER gave notice that on Tuesday next he would bring in a bili to repeal the Contagious Diseases Acts 1856 and 1869.

CENTRAL SCHOOL OF LEGAL EDUCATION. Sir R. PALMER gave notice that on the 1st March, on going into committee of supply, he should submit to the House resolutions in favour of a general central school of legal education.

ment, in the nature of an award of any chairman

or umpire.

board shall be formed for the purpose of settling any disputes between masters and workmen in any trade, or between masters and workmen carrying on business in any district, then, whatever may be the constitution or form of procedure of such board, and whether or not the same shall purport to have cognizance of both present and future disputes, or cognizance of disputes relative

"2. Act to extend to all boards.-Whenever a

to the terms of any contract about to be entered into, or to the construction of any existing contract, or to the breach of any contract, such board shall have all the powers conferred by this Act, and also such powers contained in the Act as are hereinafter mentioned.

"3. How contract of submission shall be made. -Every master who agrees to be bound by the decision of any board shall affix and keep affixed in some conspicuous part of his place of business, where the same can be read by his workmen, a printed copy of the rules of such board, and shall also deliver a printed copy thereof to each of his workmen; and every workman who agrees in like manner to be bound shall accept a printed copy of the rules so delivered; and every employer so affixing, and every workman so receiving a copy of such rules, shall in all things be bound thereby.

"4. Attendance of persons and production of documents.-Where a summons is issued and served upon any person according to the rules of any board, to attend before such board and give evidence; or to give evidence and also to produce any books or documents in his possession, and the person so served wilfully omits to appear at the time and place mentioned in the summons, or, then and there, to produce the books or documents mentioned in such summons; or if any person being present at the sitting of any board shall refuse, when required, in accordance with the rules of such board, to give evidence or to produce any books or documents, then in his possession, then, and in either of the above cases, the person so omitting or refusing shall be a witness in default within the meaning of sect. 9 of the Act; and, thereupon, any justice of the peace acting in the petty sessional district where such person shall so have omitted or refused to attend or to give evidence, or to produce books or documents, shall have and exercise all the jurisdiction conferred upon justices by sect. 9 of the Act; and the person who shall have so omitted or refused shall be subject to the penalties therein mentioned. If any person objects to the inspection of any book or document by the board, because so doing would unnecessarily expose his trade, then the board shall appoint some independent person to extract from such book or document, in a form not to lead to such exposure, such information as may be required by the board; and such books and documents shall be then produced and delivered, in the presence of the person producing the same, to the person so appointed.

"5. Decisions and their enforcement.-Every decision shall be in writing, and where it orders the payment of money it shall state the sum, and by whom, to whom, and when the same shall be paid; and when the decision orders anything to be done, or not to be done, then it shall further order what sum shall be paid, and by whom, and to whom, and when, as liquidated damages if such decision is not complied with; and every decision so made shall be an award within the meaning of sci. 24 of the Act, and be enforced accordingly.

"6. Exemption from operation of penal statutes.-No member of any board, nor any person bound by the proceedings thereof, shall be liable to any penalty or punishment under any Act relating to inasters and servants for any breach of contract of which such board might under its rules take cognizance.

7. Boards to use public buildings.-With the consent of the rating authority, and subject to proper regulations, any board may hold meetings in any building maintained out of public rates, upon paying the expenses of lighting, warming, and cleaning such buildings when so used.

"8. Parts of the Act to be incorporated herewith.-Sects. 9, 17, 24, 25, 26, 27 (with form in schedule there referred to), 28, 29, 30, 33, and 31 of the Act shall be incorporated with this Act, and construed therewith as though the same had been hereby re-enacted.

9. The acceptance of this Act by boards to be voluntary.-This Act shall not be in force in relation to any board, or the proceedings thereof, until the whole or some part hereof shall be accepted by such board. And any board may accept the whole or any part of this Act; and only such parts as are so accepted shall, in relation to such board, be in force. And when any board shall ac cept the whole or any part of this Act, such board shall so state in its rules, in the following form (or some form to like effect)-viz., 'This board has accepted the Trades' Arbitration Act 1871;' or, if part only be accepted, then, this board has accepted sections (here state sections accepted) of the Trades' Arbitration Act 1871.' Provided that it shall not be competent to any board to accept sect. 32 of the Act only.

10. Not to apply to proceedings for conciliation. -The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any proceedings taken for the purpose of settling any dispute by conciliation only; and where no power is given to any board to determine any dispute, in case the parties thereto cannot mutually agree, any proceedings to promote such mutual

[ocr errors]

agreement shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed proceedings for conciliation. "11. Short title.-The Act shall be cited as "The Trades Arbitration Act 1871.' "Clauses in the Act of 5 Geo. 4, c. 96, proposed to be incorporated in the 'Trades' Arbitration Act 1872':"Sect. 9. Power to summon witnesses, and to compel them to attend and to give evidence, under pain of imprisonment.

"Sect. 17. Power for married women to lodge complaint in name of husband, and for children under age in the name of parents or guardians. "Sect. 24. Performance of award may be enforced by distress, and, failing that, the party refusing may be imprisoned.

[ocr errors]

Sect. 25. Where consequences of distress ruinous, or especially injurious to defaulter or his family, warrant may be withheld and defaulter committed. "Sect. 26. On payment of sum awarded, with costs, party imprisoned to be discharged. Sect. 27. Form of commitment. "Sect. 28. No appeal by writ of certiorari. "Sect. 29. No proceedings under Act to be bad for want of form.

"Sect. 30. Fees to be paid as under :-Summons, 2d.; oath, 3d.; entering order, 4d; warrant, 6d. "Sects 33 and 34. As to limiting actions against arbitrators," &c.

[ocr errors]


annual rental of £103 4s. Sd., and each of the forty-eight claimants was then entitled to be put on the register as a 40s. freeholder; but if the expense of laying on the water was also deducted, there remained a net annual rental of only £81 5s. 7d., which did not give a 40s. freehold to each of the forty-eight claimants. The revising barrister held that the expense of laying on the water was a necessary expense and proper to be deducted from the gross annual rental, and consequently disallowed the votes. Held, that the revising barrister was wrong: (Buckley v. Wrigley, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 835. C. P.)

COUNTY FRANCHISE-FREEHOLD FOR LIFE40s. FREEHOLD-BYE-LAWS OF A CORPORATION -POOR BURGESS.-A corporation, being possessed. of certain lands, made a bye-law that they should be occupied by poor and necessitous burgesses at a rent to be fixed and named by the corporation at their pleasure. The bye-law provided that only such persons were poor and necessitous burgesses as were declared so by a majority of the council of the borough. The claimant, who claimed to be entitled to a vote as a 40s. freeholder, had been declared a poor and necessitous burgess, and had been allotted one acre at a rent of 3s. per annum until further notice: Held, that the claimant had no freehold or equitable interest sufficient to entitle him to a vote; that the estate was held at the will of the council, and at the most his interest was not greater than that of a tenant from year to year: (Fernie v. Scott, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 836. C. P.)



STOCK AND SHARE MARKETS. The following are the fluctuations of the week ENGLISH FUNDS. Fri. Sat. Mon, Tues Wed, Thu. 245 243 244 244 Cent. Red. Ann.... 92 92 924 92 921 912 Cent. Cons. Aun 921 92 New 24 Cent. Ann Do. 3 C. Jau. 1894 New 3 Cent. Ann.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. NOTICE OF CLAIM POWER TO AMEND DESCRIPTION.-B. being entitled to be registered in respect of the occupation of a house in E. of the clear yearly value of not less than 10, served upon the overseers a notice of claim in the form given by the 6 Vict. c. 18, Schedule B, No. 6, in the third column of which the "nature of qualification was stated to be "House." E. is a city and county of itself, having reserved rights of Bank of England Stock 245 voting as freeholders and freemen under 2 Will. 4, c. 45, and therefore persons possessing freehold property are entitled to vote for the city, and the overseers of the parish make out two lists, one of persons entitled to vote as occupiers, the other of persons entitled by virtue of other rights except as freemen: Held, that the notice was sufficient, or, if not sufficient, that the revising barrister had power to amend: (Ford v. Boon, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 830. C.P.)

COUNTY FRANCHISE-£12 OCCUPIER-NOTICE OF CLAIM. The appellant claimed before the revising barrister to have his name inserted in the list of £12 occupiers for the parish of W. It was proved that on the 25th Aug. he sent to the overseers of W. a notice of claim in the following terms: "To the overseers, &c. I hereby give you notice that I claim to be inserted in the list of voters for the division of East Devonshire, and that the particulars of my place of abode and qualification are stated in the columns below. Dated the 25th Aug. 1871. (Signed) F. H. Firth." The nature of his qualification was described in the third colum below as "land as occupier." The appellant was entitled to be put on the list in respect of land occupied by him of the value of more than £50 a year. The revising barrister held the notice insufficient, as it was sent in too late to enable the appellant to claim to be put on the list of £50 occupiers, and that a notice of claim to be put on the list of £12 occupiers onght to show on its face that it was a claim to be put on that list, and not a claim to be placed on the register sent in too late. Held, that the notice was sufficient as a notice of claim to be placed on the list of £12 occupiers: (Firth v. The Overseers of Widdicombe-on-the-Moor, 35 L. T. Rep. N. S. 833. C. P.)

COUNTY FRANCHISE-FREEHOLD-DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES.-Appellant, and forty-seven other persons, claimed a county vote, describing their qualification as share of freehold houses and lands." The appellant and another person were the owners in fee simple of certain houses and lands in trust for themselves and the other forty. six claimants, in forty-eight equal undivided shares as tenants in common. The gross annual rental up to June 1871 was £141 14s. 44., but for the year between 31st July 1870, and 31st July 1871. it was £143 2s. 10d., the increased rent of £1 8s. 6d. being occasioned by the bringing into the dwelling-houses a supply of water, and such bringing in of water was found by the revising barrister a convenience to the tenants, who were charged an increased rent in respect of it, and such increased rent commenced in June 1871, when the water supply commenced. cost of laying on such water was £21 19s. 1d. There were certain outgoings in the shape of chief rents, right of way, and commissions to a rent collector, amounting to £39 18s. 2d. If only this last amount was deducted (and it was conceded that it was properly deducted) from the gross rental of £113 2s. 19d., there remained a net


[ocr errors]




5 Cent. Annuities Cents. Jan. 1873 Ann. 30 years April 5, 1885


Do. exp. Jau. 5, 1880 Do. exp. July 1880 ... Red Sea Tele. Ann. 1908, Consols, for Acc......


[ocr errors]

India 5 Ceut. for Acc.
Do. 5 Cent. July 1880 111
India Stock, July 1880
India Stock, 1874
India 5 Cent.
India 4 C. Oct. 1888 106







106 103 106 105 105

India 5 Cent. 1870
India Bonds (1000l.)... 30s.a 30s.a 30s,a 30s,a 25s.a 20s.a
Do. (under 1000l.).. 30s,a 30s,a 30s,a 30s.a
Ex. Bills, 10001.

Do. 5001.

5s. 5s.a 58.a 5s.a 5s.a 5s.a 25.a 2s.a 2s.a 28.a 28.a 28.a Do. 1001. and 2001. 2s.a' 2s.a 2s.a 2s.a 2s.a 28.a Metropolitan Board of

Works 34 C. Stock. 97 97 97 97


a Premium.


Belfast and Northern Counties.-Dividend on the ordinary shares at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum.

Bristol and Emeter.-Dividend at the rate of 61 per cent. per annum.

Lancashire and Yorkshire. The half-yearly dividend at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum.

Londonderry and Enniskillen.-Preference dividends, 5 per cent. on the A and B stocks, together with 14 per cent. on B arrears.

North Staffordshire.-Dividend at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum.


London and County.-Dividend of 6 per cent. for the half-year, together with a bonus of 3 per cent.

London and Provincial.-Dividend at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum.

York City and County.-Dividend of 10 per cent. and a bonus of 30s. per share, or 6 per cent. FINANCE, CREDIT, AND DISCOUNT COMPANIES. General Credit and Discount.-Dividend at the rate of 7 per cent. for the twelve months. Imperial Credit.-Dividend at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum for the half-year. Midland Land and Investment.-Dividend at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum.

Overend, Gurney, and Co. (Limited).-The liquidators aunounce that during the past year they have succeeded in realising sufficient to discharge the balance of the loan obtained in 1870, that the whole of the ascertained debts have been discharged with the exception of £4475 unclaimed, and that there remains only outstanding a contingent liability, the existence of which will not

interfere with a return being made to the share holders. The date when the liquidation will be completed cannot yet be given.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES. Home and Colonial Marine Insurance.-Dividend at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum. The General Mortgage and Securities Insurance Company (Limited) is announced. Capital £25,0000, in 50,000 shares of £5 each. This company is established for insuring to mortgagees, and other owners of moneys, stocks, or funds, charged by way of mortgage, or otherwise, upon real or personal property, life interests, reversions, or other partial interests therein, the due payment of their principal or interest, or both, notwithstanding the insufficiency of their securities, as to value or otherwise, as the case may be; thereby giving, in consideration of a moderate annual or other premium, a perfect security against any loss in the event of the mortgaged property not realising upon sale, by reason of the risk insured against, the amounts so charged thereon. The prospectus says: "Solicitors, trustees, guardians, and executors, will feel relieved from the responsibility attached to the investment of funds entrusted to their care, when they can have the guarantee of this company in addition to the security immediately offered, and consequently will resort to it." MISCELLANEOUS COMPANIES.

Australian Agricultural. - Interim dividend, 12s. 6d. per share.

Hooper's Telegraph Works.-Dividend of 7s. per share, or at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum. Phospho-Guano.-Dividend declared on the A capital for the half-year at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, and a dividend on the B capital at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum.

South Cleveland Ironworks (Limited).-Capital £200,000, in £20 shares. Owing to the death of Mr. William Watkin, the late proprietor, the buildings and property of the Esk Valley Iron Works, at Grosmont, near Whitby, will be acquired. The lease of the 400 acres, upon which there are stated to be not less than 10,000,000 tons of ironstone, has fifty-one years to run, and the vendors transfer the whole, and agree to erect two large blast furnaces, with all modern appliances, and to pay 8 per cent. interest during their construction, for the sum of £160,000. It is calculated that then the production will be 40,000 tons of pig per annum at a profit of £54,500. Westminster Palace Hotel.-Dividend at the rate of 1 per cent. per annum declared.

MINING COMPANY. Emma.-The third monthly interim dividend, at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum.



DEBTOR AND CREDITOR-PROMISSORY NOTEINDORSEMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT-LORD TENTERDEN'S ACT (9 GEO. 4, c. 14)-STATUTE OF LIMITATION. In 1846 B. advanced to L. 5001., on the security of a promissory note, payable to himself or his wife. B. died in 1863 without having required payment of the note, and no steps were taken in reference to it until 1866, when, on the application of B.'s widow, L. altered the date on the note from 1846 to 1866, and indorsed his name on the back. B.'s widow died in 1868, and L. in 1869. On a suit by the executor of B.'s widow and the derivative executor of B., against the executor of L. to enforce payment of the note. Held, that there had been a sufficient acknowledgment within Lord Tenterden's Act, and that the note was not barred by the Statute of Limitation: (Bourdine v. Greenwood, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 782. V.C. W.)

MORTGAGE PRIORITY-NOTICE.-A. and B., respectively the first and second mortgagees in fee of an estate, were induced through the fraud and misrepresentation of W., who acted as solicitor for them both, to execute to him a conveyance of the estate free from both the mortgage debts. The deed of conveyance was indorsed with receipts in the ordinary form for the mortgage moneys, signed by A. and B. respectively, though in reality no money was paid to A. or to B. W. then entered into possession of the estate, and acted as the owner, which he was reputed to be. Subsequently he executed an equitable mortgage of the estate, by covenant and deposit of the title deeds, to C., who had no notice that the prior mortgages to A. and B. had not been in fact paid off. W. continued to pay interest on the mortgage debts due to A. and B. until his death, when the fraud was discovered: Held (affirming the decision of Malins, V.C.) that C. was entitled to priority over A. and B.: (Hunter v. Walters; Darnell v. Hunter; Curling v. Walters, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 765. Chan.) PRACTICE

REVIVOR SUPPLEMENTAL BILL -ORIGINAL BILL OF REVIVOR-A bill to revive a suit which has become abated and defective by the marriage of one of the parties and the birth of children should be an original bill, in the nature

[ocr errors]


of a supplemental bill, bringing the facts stated in petition except under very special circumstances:
the new bill directly in issue against the new Austin v. Austin, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 856. Div.)
parties: (Hildzard v. Field, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. TRADE MARK SPURIOUS IMITATION
784. V.C. W.)
RATIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT-DELIBERATE bearing a spurious imitation of the plaintiff's
ACT OF SETTLOR-UNDUE INFLUENCE-PROFES- trade mark were shipped by foreign merchants to
SIONAL ADVICE-DELAY IN SEEKING RELIEF.- the London Docks, to the order of a London firm
A son, when at the age of twenty-one, and while who were not dealers in the goods in question, but
residing with his father, made a settlement in merely acted as forwarding agents. On a bill by
favour of his father, who was at the time in receipt the plaintiff to restrain the removal of the goods
of a comparatively small income, whereas the son from the dock with the spurious brand on them:
was in affluent circumstances. Fourteen years Held (affirming the decree of the Master of the
afterwards the son filed a bill to set aside the Rolls), that in such a case it was no defence to say
settlement on the ground of his youth, inexpe- that the defendants were merely carriers or
rience in business, want of proper advice, and consignees, but that, as it was proved they were
undue influence on the part of his father at the not guilty of participation in the fraud of the
time of its execution: Held, that the settlement foreign merchants, as they had given the plaintiffs
might have been set aside on the ground that the all information in their power, and had offered to
son had not had adequate protection, but for sub- erase the forged trade marks, the plaintiffs could
sequent delay in filing the bill. The delay how have thus obtained all they were entitled to.
ever did not affect the power in the settlement Appeal dismissed with costs:(Upmann v. Elkan,
given to the father to revoke the trusts of a part 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 813. Chan.)
of the property and to deal with it as he pleased.
That was an unreasonable power, and must be
struck out. The principles upon which the court
interferes to set aside family arrangements
stated: (Turner v. Collins, 25 L. T. Rep. Ñ. S. 779.
DAMAGE. Declaration alleged that defendant had
spoken of the female plaintiff that she had connec-
she was injured in her character and reputation,
tion with a certain man two years ago; whereby
became alienated from and deprived of the cohabi-
tation of her husband, lost and was deprived of the
companionship, and ceased to receive the hospi-
tality of divers friends, of whom her husband and
three other persons were named: Held, upon de-
murrer, that the declaration was good, the special
damage being sufficient to sustain the action:
(Davies and Wife v. Solomon, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S.
799. Q. B.)

WILL NOT FORTHCOMING-PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION DEPENDENT RELATIVE REVOCATION.-A testator executed his will at his solici tor's office, and took it away with him. It was never seen afterwards, and could not be found after his death in his repositories. He had made declarations inconsistent with his testamentary depositions shortly before his death, but the court held that he, being the last custodian of the will, revocation arose and was not rebutted. The court and it not being forthcoming, the presumption of will not apply the principle of dependent relative revocation except there is proof of the actual destruction of the instrument: (Homerton and another v. Hewett, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 854. Prob.)


INCREASE OF HUSBAND'S FACULTIES.-A wife, who had obtained an order for permanent alimony on a decree of judicial separation being proPAPER NOT PLAINLY TESTAMENTARY-BE-nounced, applied for an increase, on the ground QUEST IN PAST TENSE.-A testator commenced that the husband's faculties had increased. The his will thus: "I have given all that I have to husband being absent in India, notice of motion B. C. and her two sons" (minors), &c., and after was served on the solicitor who had acted for him bequeathing certain annuities appointed them his in the suit. The court held this notice to be inresiduary legatees. Under the signatures of him- sufficient, and declined to make the order. Appliself and the attesting witnesses were the names cation was also made for an order on the husband of two persons nominated trustees; Held, that to pay up the arrears of alimony, and, on the the paper was testamentary, but that the appoint- representation that the India Office would enforce ment of trustees did not come within the terms of it in some way on the husband, who was an officer Lord St. Leonards' Act, and that they were not in the Indian army, the court made the order as therefore executors according to the tenor: (In prayed: (Louis v. Louis, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 856. the Goods of W. Coles, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 852. Div. Ct.) Prob.)

NO WILL FORTHCOMING- - ADMINISTRATION WILL EXECUTED UNDER POWER OF APPOINTNEEDED TO PRESERVE THE ESTATE-NEXT OF MENT-SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE-REVOCATIONKIN ABROAD.-A deceased was supposed to have 1 VICT. c. 26, s. 18.-By a deed of settlement exe- made a will, appointing his cousin his executor, cuted between the deceased and her intended but at his death it could not be found. His husband, certain property was conveyed to trus- brother, the sole next of kin, had been absent in tees to pay the income to the deceased herself Australia for forty years, and a representative was band, then to him for life, if she should so appoint the debts, and to represent the deceased in a during her life, and if she pre-deceased her hus-urgently needed to carry on the business, to collect appoint, then it was to go to the issue of the colligenda to the deceased's cousin for the use and by will, but not otherwise, and if she did not so Chancery suit. The court made a grant ad marriage. The same day she made a will exercis- benefit of the next of kin, with special directions ing her power of appointment in favour of her in- to make certain payments: (In the Goods of tended husband: Held that the will came within Tepper, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 853. Prob. Ct.) voked by the subsequent marriage: (In the Goods the exception of the Wills Act, and was not reof Worthington, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 853. Prob.) MATRIMONIAL SUIT-WIFE'S COSTS REFUSED for judicial separation, the wife failed to establish -APPEAL-SECURITY FOR COSTS OF.-In a suit brought against her husband, and the court rea charge of incestuous adultery which she had fused to allow her the costs of the hearing, although security for them had been given in the registry. Subsequently, in chambers, an application was refused to cancel the bond given for rity for further costs to enable the wife to procosts, and the husband was ordered to find secusecute her appeal against the dismissal of her petition: (Jones v. Jones, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 856. Div.)

TAINED.-A testator left his residue in trust to
his two brothers for the benefit of any children
living at the time of his death, or born within due
time after, with a gift over to two brothers on the
failure of such trust being ascertained. There
was no child living at the time of the testator's
death, and it turned out that the widow was not
enceinte. One of the brothers died a fortnight
after the testator. The court held that the failure
of the first trust was ascertained at the death of
estate with the will annexed to the executors of
the testator, and granted administration of his
the deceased trustee, the survivor having re-
nounced: (In the Goods of Sidebottom, 25 L. T.
Rep. N. S. 855. Prob.)

REFUSED.-Cruelty is a matrimonial offence which
must essentially be within the wife's knowledge
when she files her petition, and the court, there-
fore, will not allow her to add new charges to her

WILL-LEGACY-FAILURE OF OBJECT OF GIFT - ABSOLUTE GIFT-SPECIAL CASE-NEWLYBORN INFANTS.-A testator, by his will, directed his trustees during the life of E. P., upon her request in writing, and after her death at their own discretion, to expend any sums of money out purchase of any commissions for, or in obtaining of his residuary estate not exceeding 65001., in the the promotion of, W. P. in the army. E. P. made a request in writing to the trustees to pay the whole sum of £6500 to W. P. The object of the gift had failed, in consequence of the abolition of entitled absolutely to the whole fund. The court purchase in the army. Held, that W. P. was will dispense with the presence of infants who have come into existence since a special case has been set down, where there are other persons in Flower, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 816. V.C. B.) the same interest who are represented: (Palmer v.

COVENANT NOT TO SET UP A TRADE WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE-MODE OF ADMEASUREMENT do an act within a certain distance of a given OF SUCH DISTANCE.-If a party covenants not to place, the proper mode of admeasurement is to draw a circle round such place of the radius of such distance; or, in other words, to measure the distance by a straight line upon a horizontal plane, or as the crow flies. The defendant covenanted with the plaintiff, to whom he had sold a publicof the keeper of a public-house "within the dishouse, that he would not engage in the business tance of mises :" Held (per Martin and Channell, B.B.), one half of a mile of the said prethat the distance should be measured upon the that the subject-matter of the covenant should be principle above stated. Held (per Cleasby, B.), considered, and that in this case the distance should be measured as a travelled distance from the one house to the other: (Moufflet v. Cole, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 839. Ex.)


[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 each in three months, unless other claimants sooner appear:]

ALSTON (Edward), Esq., Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford. 351. 168. Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, Samuel Alston.

LAMOND (Wm. Okey), Stock Exchange, E.C., gentleman. $77. 2. d. New Three per Cent., and 717. 15. 11d. Reduced Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, Cordelia Lamond, widow, administratrix of William O. Lamond, deceased.

WILLIAMS (Joshua), Esq., Lincoln's-inn. and WILLIAMS (Joshua Strange), Esq., of the same place. One dividend in the sum of 49817, 68, 5d. Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, said Joshua Williams.

WILLIAMS WI. Owen), Cochrane-terrace, St. John's-wood, N.W., gentleman, DAVIES (Fanny), West-place, John'srow, St. Luke's, widow, and DAVIES (Thos. Wm.), a minor. £51 38. 2d. Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, the said Fanny Davies, widow, the survivor.

APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. MILLWALL IRON WORKS, SHIPBUILDING, AND GRAVINGDOCKS COMPANY (LIMITED). Creditors to send in by Feb. 11, their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to J. Glegg, 8, Moorgate-street, E.C., the liquidator of the said company. Feb. 16, at twelve o'clock, at the chambers of V.C. M., is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims.


BORTEFEUR (Alexander), Esq., 45, Moscow-road, Bayswater, Middlesex. March 1; C. Few, solicitor, 2, Henriettastreet, Covent-garden, W.C. March 13; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock.

COCHRANE (Wm. M.), Nottingham. March 22: Ward and

Co., 1, Gray's-inn-square, Middlesex. April 16; V.C. W., at one o'clock.

COOPER Robert), 112, Spencer-street, Goswell-road, Middle

sex, cook. Feb. 20; R. B. Johnson, solicitor, 48, Bedfordrow, W.C. Feb. 27; M.R., at eleven o'clock.

FETCHER (Chas. B.), 18. Stratford-place, Camden-town, N.W.. gentleman. Feb. 28; G. J. Robinson, solicitor, 33, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C. March 9; M.K,, at eleven GOORD Wm. Fletching, Sussex, yeoman, Feb. 21; A. Hastie, solicitor, East Grinstead. Feb. 25; V.C. W., at




(Mary E.), 13. Sussex-square, Hydepark, W. Anglesey. March 16; M.R., at twelve o'clock.

March 1; Pritchard and Sons, solicitors, Lwydiarth, Esgol, GRAY (Owen), Fisherton House, near Salisbury. Feb. 20; R. Dawbarn, solicitor, Isle of Ely, Cambridge. March 2 V.C. M., at twelve o clock. HAMMILL, Lieut. Col. Thomas C.), Castle House, Snaresbrook, Essex. March 7; C. J. Dimond, solicitor, 10, Henrietta street, Cavendish-square, Middlesex. March 11; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. HAMILTON (Right Hon. Geo. A.), 65, Warwick-square, Middlesex, and Hampden-hall, Balbriggan, Dublin. Feb. 29: Fetherston and Son, solicitors, 21, Wellington Quay, Dublin. March 21; M. R. at his Chambers at Dublin at eleven o'clock.

MILLS (John Langham, Godstone, Surrey, yeoman. March 25; C. Carter Morrison, solicitor, Reigate. MOORE (John), 17, Ordnance-road, St. John's-wood. N.W., gentleman, March, 1: Pawle and Fearon, solicitors, 11, New-inn, Strand, W.C.

MORGAN (Edward L.), 1, Westhill, and the Rose and Crown, High-street. Wandsworth, Surrey, licensed victualler, March 21; H. M. Phillips, solicitor, 10, Old Jewry Chambers, E.C.

NICHOLL (Iltyd), Esq., The Ham, Glamorgan, March 5; G. W. Nicholl, The Ham, Glamorgan.

PLUMLEY (Robert). Chillery, Pevensey, Sussex, farmer. March 20; H. C. Sinnock, solicitor, Hailsham, Sussex. PORTER (Joseph), sen., Shenfield-hall, Essex, farmer. March 9; R. B. Postans, solicitor, Brentwood. RENNIE (William), Bristol-road, Edgbaston, Birmingham. gentleman, June1; Arnold and Son, solicitors, Birmingham.





RICHARDSON (Henry); Kingston upon Hull, gentleman. March 20 Lee and Thorney, solicitors, 10, Parliamentstreet, Hull.

SIMPSON (Alexander), Brokenrolds, Netherdale-by-Tariff, Banff, N.B., schoolmaster. March 1; Roberts and Simpson, solicitors, 62, Moorgate-street, E.C.

SMITH (Elizabeth, Burn, Brayton, York. April 1; A.
Bantoft, solicitor, Selby.
TAYLOR (Mary) Noah-hill, Romford, Essex. March 11;
Hillearys and Tunstall, solicitors, 5, Fenchurch-buildings,

WALLIS (Hester), 79, Church-terrace, Camberwell, Surrey. March 10; Boulton and Sons, solicitors, 21A, Northamptonsquare, Clerkenwell.

WILLIAMS (Wm.), 2, Montague-place, Friarstile-road, Richmond, Surrey, baker. Feb. 29; J. Godwin, solicitor, 11, North-buildings, Finsbury, E,C.

[blocks in formation]

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT UNIVERSITY Ex. HIBITIONS CONSTRUCTION.-A., by his will, in 1712, after bequeathing a certain portion of his property to trustees to provide annual exhibitions for scholars of Jesus College, Oxford, to be selected from the principality of Wales, and to be resident at the college, left the residue of his estate for the purchase of advowsons to be held by the exhibitioners, and to which the governing body of the college were to have the right of presentation. The exhibitions were provided for, and the residue of the estate had been applied by the governing body of the college in the purchase of livings which were held by former exhibitioners: Held, that the Endowed Schools Commissioners had, for the purposes of a scheme, power under the Endowed Schools Act 1869, to call upon the college to furnish information as to the endowment: (Re The Meyrut Fund, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 787. V.C. W.)

he remained until the 20th Jan. 1869, when he was again admitted into the respondents' workhouse. Held, that, independently of the exception by 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, s. 1, of time spent in a hospital, the pauper had a constructive residence in respondents' union during his temporary absence, although he had no specific lodging or house to return to, and therefore his status of irremovability was not destroyed, and an order for his removal to the place of his last legal settlement was bad: (Guildford Union v. St. Olave's Union, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 803. Q.B.)



Prisoner was charged with stealing a mare, the property of E. The evidence was that prosecutor, in the presence of the prisoner, agreed to buy of W. a mare for £5, and that W. assented to take a cheque for the £5. The prosecutor afterwards sent prisoner to W. with the cheque, and directions to take the mare to Bramshot Farm. On the next day prisoner sold a mare to S., which he said he had bought for £5. Before the magistrate he said he sold the mare to S., with the intention of giving the money to E., but that he

HAWKINS (Whitshed K.), Madras, East Indies, a major and brevet-colonel in H.M.'s Indian Force, Madras Presidency. to public use as a highway, parts with no other got drunk: Held, that that was sufficient evidence

March 11; Brooks and Co., solicitors, 7, Godliman-street, Doctors Commons, E.C. March 25; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock. LLEWELLIN (David), Holden-terrace, Buckingham Palace. road, Middlesex, gentleman. March': E. Hilder, solicitor, 36, Jermyn-street, St. James's, Middlesex. March 15; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. MATTHEWS (John), 11, Old Burlington-street, and 32, Savile. row, Middlesex, and Trinity-road, Upper Tooting, Surrey, jeant's-inn, Chancery-lane, E.C. March 11; V.C. M,, at Woollen draper. Feb. 27; G. F. Cooke, solicitor, 3. Ser

twelve o'clock.

PENNEY (WI. P.), Esq., Westbourne-villa, Finchley-road,

Middlesex. March 11: Johnson and Masters, solicitors,

19, Sonthampton-buildings, Chancery-lane, E.C. March 3; V.C. W., at noon. SPITTLE (John), West Bromwich, Staffs., coal master. Feb. W. H. Phillips, solicitor, Wolverhampton. March 8; M. R., at eleven o'clock. TINKLER Wm., Esq., Putney, Surrey. March 1: T. M. Cross, solicitor, 17, Carlisle-street, Soho-square, Middlesex. March 6; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock. March 5: R. Farley, WALL Jas.). Esq., Ashford, Kent. solicitor, Ashford. March 12; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. ALLAN (Thos., Buenos Ayres, South America, engineer. Castle-street, Liverpool.

RIGHT OF OWNER OF COMMON LAND DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC-ACCESS TO PROPERTY.The owner of land, who dedicates a portion of it right than a right of passage to the public over the land so dedicated, and may exercise all other rights of ownership not inconsistent therewith; and the appropriation made to and adopted by the public of a part of the street to one kind of passage, and of another part to another, does not which are not inconsistent with the right of deprive him of any rights, as owner of the land, passage by the public. The provisions of the Highway Act and the Metropolis Local Management Act, so far as they apply to roads or streets, are subordinate to the paramount rights reserved by the owner. Where, on a summons against the respondent under the Highway Act for doing damage to a highway, it appeared that the respondent, the owner, and occupier of premises adjoining a public highway, used the premises for the deposit of heavy machinery, which he conveyed to and from the premises across the flagged pave ment or footway in front of them, in trolleys or waggons which injured the pavement, and it was question could not be reasonably enjoyed without access across the footway, and that the rights of ownership and those of the public might be jointly exercised consistently with the general welfare, it was held that the magistrate was not bound to convict, and was justified in dismissing the summons: (The Vestry of St. Mary, Newington, v. Jacobs, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 800. Q. B.)

March 1. Peacock and Co., solicitors, 7, Union-court, found by the magistrate that the premises in

BAILEY (John H.), White Notley, Essex, clerk. March 9 R. B. Postans, solicitor, Brentwood, Essex.

BANNERMAN (Henry), Esq., Hunton-court, Hunton, Kent. Aug, 20; Monckton and Son, solicitors, 72, King-street,


CROSSLEY (John), Laurel-road, Fairfield, near Liverpool, spice merchant. April1; Keighley and Banning, solicitors, 20, Castle-street, Liverpool.


LARCENY STEALING GOODS OF A PARTNERSHIP-INDICTMENT.-An indictment framed upon the 31 & 32 Vict. c. 116, s. 1, alleged that B. was a member of a co-partnership consisting of B. and L., and that B., then being a member of the same, eleven bags of cotton waste, the property of the said co-partnership, feloniously did steal, &c., contrary to the statute: Held that the indictment was not bad for introducing the word "feloniand dealer in ay. March 1; J. W. Phillips, solicitor, ously:" (Reg. v. Butterworth, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 850. Cr. Cas. Res.

DESDY Walter C.), M.R.C.S., 25, Suffolk-street, Pall-Mall,
Middlesex. March 15; McLeod and Watney, solicitors, 16,
London-street, Fenchurch-street, E.C.
DIMMERY (Thos.), Wanswell, Berkeley, Gloucester, labourer.
March 21; B. Bonnor, solicitor, Gloucester.
FARMER (Thos.), Southgate, Edmonton, Middlesex, gentle-
man. April 2; Miles and Co., solicitors, Bank-street,
GRAHAM Mary, Erskine-street, Liverpool. April 2; J.
Quinn, solicitor, 22, Lord-street, Liverpool.
IBBOTSON (Frederick), Esq., Colbury Manor, Eling, South-
ampton. March 2; Stead and Co. solicitors, Romsey,
JENKINS (Thos.), Ivybush, Prendergast, Pembroke, farmer
JENKINSON (Rev. John S.), 21, Spencer-road, New Wands-
worth, Surrey.
March 1; Nicholl and Co., solicitors, 8,
Howard-street, Strand, W.C.
JONES (Anthony), Liverpool, wholesale grocer. April 1;
Keightley and Banning, solicitors, 20, Castle-street, Liver-
JONES (Lucy), Arley-house, Litherland, near Liverpool.
April 1; Keightley and Banning, solicitors, 20, Castle-street,
MALLINSON (George), Huddersfield, cloth merchant, Feb.
2: Brooke and Co., solicitors, New-street, Huddersfield.
MARTIN (Edward, Esq., Battle, Sussex. March 25; Horace
MONTEL (David), 12, Angel-court, Throgmorton-street, E.C.,
and Holly-bank, Hornsey-lane, Middlesex, stock and share
broker. March4; Hughes and Sons, solicitors, 12, Chapel-

Martin, Battle.

street, Bedford-row, W.C.

POOR LAW-REMOVAL-STATUS OF IRREMOVlived in the respondent's union before the 25th ABILITY-RESIDENCE IN A HOSPITAL.-A pauper March 1867 long enough to obtain a status of irremovability. On that day he was admitted into the respondents' workhouse, and he remained there until the 27th Aug. 1868, when he voluntarily took his discharge, and on the same day became an inmate of a hospital in another union. On the 31st Dec. 1868 he was discharged from the hospital, and took a lodging in the respondents' union, where

on which a jury might find that the mare sold to S. was the property of E.: (Reg. v. King, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 851. Cr. Cas. Res.)

EXPRESS PROVISION FOR SETTLEMENT OF DISSUMMARY JURISDICTION-CLAIM OF RIGHTPUTES. A private Act of Parliament, incorporresolution might diminish and alter, provided for ating a bridge company, and enabling them to take certain maximum toils, which the company by the settlement of disputed tolls by a justice, by way of arbitration. By a subsequent section, if any collector should demand or take a greater or authorised to do by virtue of the Act or resoluless toll from any person than he should be tions under it, or should demand or take a toll from a person exempt from the payment thereof, he was to forfeit a sum less than £5 upon an information before justices. The respondent, a foot passenger, paid the appellant, the collector of tolls, upon demand, a toll the second time the same day, and laid an information before justices against the appellant for demanding it. There was no exemption in the Act upon a passenger's crossing the bridge a second time in the same day; but it was admitted that from the passing of the Act, forty years before, until this demand, no passenger had ever paid under such circumstances. No resolution, however, was in existence. The justices convicted, notwithstanding the appellant's assertion of a bona fide claim of right. Held, upon a case stated by the justices, that as there was a particular provision in the Act for the settlement of such a dispute, the information of forty years' practice, although evidence of exonght to have been dismissed; also that the fact emption, was not conclusive: (Dixon v. Cockett, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 826. Q. B.)


POOR LAW-UNION EXTENDING INTO SEVERAL JURISDICTIONS-COURT OF APPEAL FROM ORDER OF REMOVAL.-By sect. 27 of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1867, "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: Held, that the appellate jurisdiction from an order of removal under this section is the same as that under which the order is made; and it does not depend upon the place from which the removal is ordered: (Dudley Union v. Wolverhampton Union, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 829. Q. B.)


« EelmineJätka »