Page images



Brougham, had come to a decision on a particular substance whatever in that scheme? Was there agree, said that experience would be the best test case which involved the liability of a large num. any chance that the House as a body would vote in matters of this kind. Until experience, thereber of contributories. His decision was upon such reports, and overturn the decisions of fore, has decided, I think the best course will be ruled by Knight Bruce, V.C., a judge of con- the law lords ? Then it was recommended that to secure the attendance of five, though I dare say siderable eminence, acuteness, and ability, whose there should be peerages for life, in order to that other members of the court, who may not be enlogy I am not here to pronounce. The case secure a greater number of law lords in this under the same obligation to attend, as not receiving came here ou appeal before Lord Brougham, House. Earl Russell proposed that system, but salaries, will give their services, especially in im. sitting alone, with the usual two formal adjuncts, it did not find favour with your Lordships; at all portant cases. But in minor matters the atten. the lay figures by bis side. He affirmed the deci events, it was not adopted. The question, there. dance of three would be sufficient. Another sion of his relative, reversing that of Knight fore, is, how really to secure a court of appeal question arose in the evidence before the same Bruce, V.C. Afterwards a case thought to be which shall sit as a court, which shall be a real committee as to the mode in which the judgment of a similar character came before the same and not a sham court, which shall exercise juris. of the court should be given. The question was learned lord on appeal, with the same adjuncts- diction by its members sitting, not as a committee whether the judgment was to be that of the whole he was not Lord Chancellor at the time, but the of this House, to whom they are supposed to be body without saying who joined in the decision Lord Chancellor happened to be unwell--and be responsible, but to whom, in fact, they owe no or whether judgment should be given by each decided that case in a different way, the result responsibility whatever, which shall take upon judge. There was one important witness, who being that your Lordships were obliged to do that itself the whole responsibility, and sit, as other said that he thought experience would be the best which is of rare occurrence indeed--re-hear the courts do, throughout the whole legal year for the test in this matter also. I reserve the decision on two cases, or otherwise there would have been administration of justice. I will now tell your the point, for determination by the court in the two inconsistent decisions on the same sub. Lordships what I propose in order to provide an manner it shall think most fit. Well, then, the ject. Syitors, therefore, suffer from a real griev. effective remedy for the great evils of the present advantages of the system which I now propose

I am not saying that Lord Brougham system. I think the objects I have in view may are-first, the continuous sitting of the court from did anything here which he would not have best be carried out by constituting one great November to February, which will give three done sitting in Chancery, but imagine the effect Court of Appeal, which should comprise the juris- months additional in the year : secondly, the site which must be produced on the public mind diction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy ting, at least, for five days in the week. It is a by this decision in favour of a relative, fol. Council, and also of the House of Lords, and by question whether Saturday may not be devoted to lowed by an apparently contradictory decision in that means you would never have the possibility preparing judgments. A further important reanother case. I hesitated much in referring to of conflict between the decisions of two co-ordinate form will be effected by giving over to this samo this case till, on reading once more the report and courts. I propose that the court should be formed body the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of evidence, I found that Lord Brougham himself in two divisions, but not with such strictness that Chancery as it at present exists, and of the Exchecross-examined Mr. Malins about the caso, and the judges of one division cannot act in the other. quer Chamber. That will prevent the great evil asked, “ Are you not aware that Lord Cottenham The judges should have the power of migrating of two appeals, for I think it would be of essential sent me his written judgment in which he gave from one division to the other, the system of service to the suitor to have but one appeal instead the same opinion as I had arrived at?” The division being simply intended for convenience, of two. I have made inquiry, and I find that answer was to this effect," “ Yes, and that made and for the discharge of the ordinary business of cases of the most ordinary description cannot matters a great deal worse, for Lord Cottenham the court when circumstances might not require be lodged before your Lordships' House without gave that judgment without being present or that there should be a meeting of the full court. an expense of nearly £100. The actual fees of the having heard a syllable of the argument.” The My next proposal is that one division should con- House are only £23 or £24, but then the preparamode of administering justice here, therefore, is sist of all peers who have filled the office of Lord tion of the case is very costly, it being thought unsatisfactory. The committee to which I have Chancellor or any high judicial office for a specified necossary to print eighty copies, for no earthly referred recommended the appointment of two time either in Great Britain or Ireland. I would reason that I know, at a cost of some £60 or £70. Deputy Speakers, receiving £6000 a year each, also include in this division all peers who can be Now, a tenth of the sum that is now required to with the addition of a Scottish law lord. To that fairly designated as learned lords-there have been lodge the case would be much nearer the mark. recommendation we owe a very valuable adjunct some from time to time in this House-I mean Then this court, which will sit continuously, will here, to whose assistance I am constantly in- men who have actually practised as barristers for a take appeals from the colonies, from Scotland and debted in the hearing of appeals. But the report given number of years. There should likewise be a Ireland, and will decide onco for all, thus avoid. was not otherwise acted upon.- -Lord CHELMS power to place in this division all Privy Councillors ing all conflicting decisions. Your Lordships are LORD.-A Bill was) introduced and passed this who are capable of being appointed on the Judicial aware that you have now the most valuable assistHouse. — The LORD CHANCELLOR.-Then it was Committee of the Privy Council, if it should be ancə of a noble and learned lord from Scotland. defeated in the other. —-Lord CHELMSFORD.— thought fit. In the other division there shall be The Master of the Rolls and another noble and No, it was dropped. —The LORD CHANCELLOR. the members now forming the Judicial Committee learned judge are members of your Lordships' In either case the argument is strengthened. of the Privy Council, and others to be selected, House, but their cccupations in their respective The House of Commons have acquiesced in your and there will be this important provision for courts have made it impossible for either of them appellate jurisdiction for 200 years, and it cannot securing attendance, namely, that in cach division to hear appeals in your Lordships' House during now be in any way“ disputed. But they did not there should be not less than threw and not more the time I have occupied the position I have the acquiesce in it very willingly originally, and are than five who shall be paid £6000 a yenr: Such a honour to hold. I think your Lordships must feel not now disposed to assist you in extending it provision will, I think, secure the attendance of that it does not add to the strength of your posi. unless for some useful object and for some good those who would be bound at all times to attend tion or to the dignity of the House of Peers, that reason. The proposal for the payment out of the to the duties of the court. There is this further the highest function which can be assigned to any public purse of additional officers here would be provision, that noble lords who have filled the body whatever of men should be exercised in that met by some such suggestions as these :-“You Office of Lord Chancellor shall receive a payment perfunctory manner in which it has been exercised have a number of learned lords who receive certain for attendance in addition to their pension, which in your Lordships' House. No decision of the pensions. We do not say that, in return, they are shall raise their allowance to £6000 a year-those House of Lords for the last twenty-five years has obliged to attend in the court of appeal, nor do who are over seventy years of age will not be been a decision of more than five or seven of its We tako upon ourselves to interfere with your ar. expected to attend." (Hear, hear.) The Lord members. I do not wish your Lords hips to co 10 rangements. But while we shall be glad to assist Chancellor will be at the head of the court, and I to a hasty conclusion with regard to the resolution you in constructing a good court of appeal, we do propose that the three chiefs of the common law I am about to move. The subject is of grave imnot feel called upon to support the state of things courts, the two Chief Justices, and the Chief Baron, portance, and requires most careful consideration. which now exists." These were the arguments should be members of it. I further propose that the noble and learned Lord concluded by moving urged when I attempted to reserve to your Lord. a certain number of years' service should be the following resolution : "That it is expedient ships some power over appeals. I have not men required to entitle the members of the court to a that one Imperial Supreme Court of

Appeal be es. tioned one great difficulty in connection with this pension, but in other respects that they should tablished which shall sit continuously for the hear. court. You are a final court of appeal in all hold their appointments on the same footing as ing of all matters now heard by way of appeal matters coming from England, Scotland and the judges of the common law courts hold theirs. betore the House or before the Judicial Committee Ireland. But you have no jurisdiction whatever By this means we should get rid of the difficulty, of the Privy Council, and that the appellate jurisover the colonies. Now, a number of our colonies and, to a certain extent, I may say the degra- diction of this House be transferred to such are regulated by purely English law. In mer. dation, of persons attending the highest court Supreme Court of Appeal.”—Lord CAIRNS.


cases, cases involving the title of appeal, half as volunteers, in matters in My Lords, I am very glad my noble and learned of land, and so on, precisely the same law exists which they have not the slightest concern, and in friend does not propose to ask your Lordships there as that which governs us. That being

so, it which they do not take the smallest interest. Ito - night to come to any decision whatever is perfectly possible for the Privy Council to come should now wish to say a few words with respect upon the very important question which he has to a decision upon matters of plain English law to the amount of authority, not altogether in. brought to our notice. With a view to the disat variance with your conclusion upon the iden- considerable, with which I have been supported cussion hereafter of the resolution of my noble tical point here. Thus from the separation in these views. I very much desired, had it been and learned friend I suppose it will be more into two bodies of the appellate jurisdiction you feasible or possible, from a feeling for which I regular if I should move the adjournment of the run not an inconsiderable risk of having two con. have been upbraided as being slow, wanting in debate. The very large proposition which my flicting decisions which cannot be set right. I say my duty, and so on, to retain as far as could be noble and learned friend has made requires most that practically you do not and never have exer. the system

which at present exists, by means of careful and dispassionate consideration. I am cised this jurisdiction since the Bishop of London's a report to the Judicial Committee of your Lord. sure I need not say for myself and every one of case; you have renounced it. At present, by acci. ships' House, in the manner I have already de. your Lordskips that the question of appellate dent, you are able to form a small committee of scribed. I found, however, that it was doubtful jurisdiction is one upon which there should be no about four, sometimes five members, to hear cases whether this could be done, and almost everybody personal prejudice on the part of this House. which this House does not hear at all. The robe I consulted disapproved the idea. My noble and Hear.) Speaking for my noble friends I may say of dignity with which you have attempted to learned friend has moved for the communications further-that I think if ever there was a question invest that committee has conferred no dignity at made to me on the subject by the Lord Chief on which we are bound to make a covenant, as it all, because you are obliged to confer the same Justice, Mr. Justice

Lush, and the Master of the were, with

our own personal inclinations, it is the robe of dignity on the lay figures who take part Rolls. The Lord Chief Justice strongly recom- question of appellate jurisdiction. But having in the sitting without credit either to themselves mended the formation of a real bona fide court said that much, I must state that I did not or the House, Further, you have entangled your and payments of £6000 a year, in accordance with altogether follow my noble and learned friend in working body in the folds of this robe. You have the report of the committee of 1855. The reason the course of his argument. Nothing, as it seems prevented them from sitting for three months in I have introduced the clause requiring not less to me, can be more improper than to examine into the year, or for more than four days in a week. than three and not more than five, who should be the early history of this jurisdiction. It has been I think I have not been over hasty in attempting paid for attendance, is this. There was consider. as completely settled as the jurisdiction of any to overthrow existing institutions. There was å able difference of opinion on the subject among other court in the country, and it has been scheme recommended by some witnesses-that of the witnesses before the committee of 1855. oxercised for better or for worse for a very long having a committee of peers who should report to Several expressed the opinion

that three ought period of time. Not one of the witnesses examined the House at large in the same way as the Judicial always to be the number; many thought three before the committee advocated a transfer of that Committee reports to the Sovereign. That was not sufficient, and held that there ought to be jurisdiction from this House, with the exception all very well in appearance, but was there any five ; and others, with whom I am inclined to of Malins, V.C.; and the reason he gave was

cantile cases,


[ocr errors]



one of

this, that it was absolutely necessary that the satisfactorily, until it was known whether the could not be any difficulty in arriving at some apHouse should sit for the convenience of suitors

new tribunal wa, one to which it might conscien. proximation which would enable to get them at the during the whole of the legal year. Other reasons tiously and with a sense of duty yield up its actual amount of the income. If his motion were urged against the exercise of appellate jurisdic- functions. (Hear, hear.) He had hoped to hear | agreed to, he earnestly hoped that the returns tion by your Lordships' House are that there are an explanation of the proposed scheme, for the would be laid on the table on an early means of securing the attendance of an ade two things could not be considered separately. Earl GRANVILLE said there was no objection to quate quorum of a particular class of peers, and He would therefore move that the debate be ad. the production of the return. -The motion was that it is a jurisdiction which entails great ex. journed, and be the order of the day in immediate agreed to. pense. The committee in their report, which I priority to the second reading of the Bill consti. hope your Lordships will consider very carefully, tuting the Supreme Court of Appeal. If his noble did not arrive at any decision on this matter. We and learned friend would lay his Bill on the table,

HOUSE OF COMMONS. are too much in the habit of thinking that this is the House would be ready to consider it; and if

Monday, April 15. merely an English question. I venture to say the proposed tribunal were satisfactory to the that the interests of England in this matter of the whole empire, and entitled to unqualified ap

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS appellate. jurisdiction of this House and of the proval, their Lordships might, as honest men, Privy Council are very much less than those of part with their jurisdiction, but till then they resumed the consideration of clause 3, which deals

The House went into committee on this Bill and the other parts of the empire. If this House were could not do so.- -Lord CAIRNS also thought an to take

only appeals from England, three or four adjournment would be convenient. He hoped his with offences in respect of nomination papers, weeks would dispose of them. But this House noble and learned friend on the woolsack would ballot-papers, and ballot boxes. Considerable hears also appeals from Scotland and Ireland. We give the House an assurance that the debate should discussion took place on the penal clauses in the have got some indication of the opinion of Scot. not be resumed till the second reading of his Bill,

Bill, land on the point. The Scotch witnesses examined and that sufficient time, say a fortnight, should

Displaying ballot-papers after voting. before the committee were unanimously in elapse between the printing of the Bill and the

Mr. LEATHAM rose to move, at page 3, line 32, favour of the retention of the appellate juris. second reading. The LORD CHANCELLOR had after “ voted,” the insertion of the words " and diction of this House. Lord Aberdeen made intended to have the Bill printed and not to ask no voter shall, after marking his vote on his ballotan observation which is entitled to great weight. for a second reading of it until a result had been paper, wilfully display such paper in such manner He remarked that, according to the Act of arrived at on this resolution. He doubted whether as to make known to any person the name of the Union, there should under no circumstances be an it would be in order to adjourn the debate to a day candidate for or against whom he has so marked appeal from Scotland to any court in Westminster depending on some other day not yet named, and his vote.” The principle of that amendment had Hall. Now, if you create a court holding its sit- he would propose, after laying the Bill on the been so amply discussed on previous occasions tings in London, and dealing with cases as our table to-morrow and naming a time for the second that he would best consult the convenience of the courts deal with them, will not a feeling arise reading, to fix the resumption of this debate for committee by moving the insertion of those words in Scotland that appeals are brought to a court the previous day.- Lord WESTBURY had been without further comment. (Hear, hear.'—Lord which will be looked on as nothing more than one anxious to expedite the production of the Bill, and CLAUD HAMILTON asked whether it was intended of the courts in Westminster Hall?. Again, with he was not without hope that if it at all answered by the amendment to make it a statutory offence regard to Ireland, there is a provision in the Act the promise held out, the House might be able to for a short-sighted voter to ask a confidential of Union that appeals and writs of error shall lie deliberate upon it and upon this resolution in time friend whether he had marked his ballot-paper to the House of Lords. Great excitement pre- for the Bill to be sent down to the other rightly.—Mr. GOLDNEY said that a great number vailed in Ireland during last century on this House and so to become law this session. This, of persons, especially when the new system was question. It was settled by the Act of Union; however, depended on the prompt production first introduced, would be ignorant of the proper but if Irish appeals are brought to what may be of the Bill.- The LORD CHANCELLOR had mo le in which they sbould mark their ballot papers, termed an English court, considerable discussion the same object in view as his noble and and, without intending to disclose the secrecy and perhaps dissatisfaction may arise. My noble learned friend, and he had already stated of their vote, they would hold up their papers and learned friend wishes for only one appeal, but that he should submit the Bill to the House to. and ask the returning officer, is it possible in the case of Scotland, Ireland, and morrow night. The introduction of the measure his clerks, Is this the proper way of the colonies, all of which have an intermediate in that shape on the present occasion was greatly voting?", Yet that would render them liable appeal at home, that their cases should be brought influenced by something which fell on the first to punishment. Instead of giving their votes from the primary judges to the proposed final night of the session from a noble lord who said he freely and independently, such penalties would court? Considering that ninety - nine appeals should be glad to see a transfer of jurisdiction deter half the electors from voting at all. —Mr. never go further than the intermediate court for made, provided a proper Bill was brought in. In

VERNON HARCOURT thought they ought to have everyone which comes to the court of final appeal, moving the resolution before introducing the Bill, some explanation why that amendment, about that is absolutely impracticable. I understand, he had stated that he would lay the Bill on their which he felt considerable difficulty, was not indeed, that it is proposed to abolish an inter: Lordships' table to-morrow. They might fix the originally included in the Bill. He understood mediate appeal in England, but to retain it for adjourned debate on the resolution for a day before that they were to allow a person to conceal his Scotland, Ireland, and the colonies. At present they took the second reading. —The Duke of

vote if he desired to do so. (Cheers from the Op. the colonies, by their very constitution as colonies, RICHMOND suggested that the adjourned debate position.) He thought that that was a very just have an appeal to the Queen in Council, which is on the resolution should be fixed for the same and proper object; and that was in the Bill as it disposed of on the advice of the Judicial Committee, evening as the second reading of the Bill. He did stood at first. The Bill also provided very proand I believe they are satisfied with that tribunal, not see any advantage that would be gained by perly for another thing, yiz , that persons who which stands extremely high with them. (Hear, taking the adjourned debate on one night

and the interfered with that concealment which the voter hear.) My noble and learned fried may think second reading on another. The LORD CHAN- desired should be punished. That was the fourth it a sham and a form for Her Majesty CELLOR was understood to assent to this sugges. clause as it now stood ; but his hon. friend (Mr. to pronounce judgment upon the advice of the tion, and the motion for the adjournment of the Leatham) proposed to introduce an entirely new Privy Council, but the colonists take pride in the debate was then agreed to.

thing, viz., to make it a crime on the part of a fact that they derive their law, not from

person openly to declare his vote. (Cheers from the English court, but from the actual Order of the

Opposition.) That was

this Bill at Sovereign in Council, and to do away with this Viscount MIDLETON rose to move for a return present. Ho understood that it was in some would destroy one of the links which most closely of the salaries and emoluments received by clerks former Bill, but was afterwards omitted. It was bind them to us. This, indeed, is a very much of the peace in England and Wales, distinguishing a totally distinct thing from what they had yet larger question than the tone of my noble and between sums paid by the county treasurer and considered. He was willing to give every protec. learned friend's speech would indicate when he sums received in the shape of fees on an average tion to the man who wished to conceal his vote ; speaks as if it was quite at our option whether we of three years. At present there was no unifor- but he was not prepared to say that under any retain this jurisdiction or not. Is the jurisdiction mity in the mode of remunerating clerks of the circumstances it was a crime for a man to say of th: Jucicial Committee to be abolished without peace. In some counties they were paid parily how he voted, unless he did it with a corrupt any consultation with the colonies, and without by salaries and partly by fees; in others--and ho intention, and to further some corrupt bargain. their having an opportunity of offering an opinion thought wisely—the whole Fee Fund had been If his hon. friend the member for Hudders, upon it? That would be one of the strongest commuted, and specific salaries were assigned to field, instead of the word

' wilfully," would measures ever taken in this country. Until I see clerks of the peace. Some difficulty had arisen insert the words “ with corrupt intent,” before the Bill I will not say a word on the constitution in more than one county in carrying out such an "display his vote," he should be satisfied with of the proposed court. As far as I understand, arrangement where the clerks of the peace wero the amendment, because that, as being part all the legal peers, with a number of other per- not fully consenting parties to it. He thought and parcel of an act of bribery, ought to be sons, the description of whom was only faintly the general progress of public feeling had been punished. They did not object to a man saying, indicated, and all the chiefs of all the courts, are against the payment of any officials through the “I vote for Mr. So-and-So,'' because that might to form one large committee. Whether that would medium of fees. A Bill had been brought in this not be true. (A laugh.) They proposed to treat be a satisfactory course I will not now discuss, session to remunerate the Attorney-General and his saying that which might be false as venial, but though I think every objection to the present the Solicitor-General by means of a salary and his saying that which was true was to be made a system could easily be remedied in the way pointed not by fees; and a measure had also been intro- misdemeanour. (Laughter and cheers.) Suppo. out by the committee. In the proposed court it duced to remunerate clerks of petty sessions in sing an elector for Bradford not only called ont would be impossible for the head of it to be other the same mode. In the county with which he was “Forster for ever" (a laugh), but showed his than the Lord Chancellor. Indeed, I do not sup- connected that reform had becu effected some years paper with Forster upon it, it would be very hard pose my noble and learned friend would propose ago; they paid all their clerks of petty sessions to send that man to prison. Why, they would in any other arrangement. It seems to me, how. by salary, and the result of that experiment had that way fill the gaols of the West Riding. (Hear, ever, that for the Lord Chancellor to sit in such been eminently satisfactory both to the county hear.) That seemed to him to be entirely wrong. a court after the jurisdiction of this House is and to those gentlemen themselves. He wished to He therefore desired to substitute the words abolished would involve a change, not only in the see some principle of that kind applied also to * with corrupt intent” for “ wilfully” because constitution of this House, but in the office of clerks of the peace; but before any sound basis in a case of bribery the showing of the ballotLord Chancellor. That might be viewed with of legislation could be laid it was necessary to paper would be part of the evidence of a satisfaction in some quarters, but it is impossible ascertain what their present remuneration was. corrupt transaction. He might be told that that such an officer should be changed from year to The only part of his motion with respect to which his suggestion would not meet a case of inyear. While offering these observations, I can he anticipated any difficulty was as regarded a timidation. A person might threaten, if the assure my noble and learned friend that I am return of the fees. He had heard it argued in voter did not show him his paper, to take away anxious to consider every part of his plan, and I quarter sessions that it would be unfair to make his lease or his house, or to turn him out of his trust your Lordships will arrive at a decision any alteration in the salaries of clerks of the employment. How was it now proposed to reach which will be satisfactory and beneficial to the because the fees were not received actually that? Why, by saying to the voter that if he did country. —Lord WESTBURY did not intend to from sources connected with the county, but from not show his paper he should go to prison. That enter on the discussion of so large a question, for Her Majesty's Treasury. Even in cases where was not a very comfortable position in which to it was impossible to express an opinion whether appointments to clerkships of the peace had been put the unfortunate voter. the House ought to part with the judicial autho. very recent indeed, if there was any difficulty in not show his paper he would lose his lease or his city which it possessed, and probably exercised I making out a triennial valuation of fees, there situation ; and if he did show it he would go to





(A laugh.) If he did

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

prison. (Hear, hear.). What would the man do SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, Fox (Chas.), Dundle, Northampton, farmer and grazier. if placed in that awkward dilemma? Why, he

May 9; Rooks and Co., solicitors, 16, King-street, Cheap

side. É.C. wonld inevitably be deterred from voting at all


GREEN (Thos.), Rumworth, Dean, Lancaster. May 13; J. (Hear, hear.). Surely they did not want to WILL-CONSTRUCTION-GIFT TO “ A. AND HER

Greenhalgh, solicitor, Acrestield, Bolton. May 27; M. R., add to the burdens of the unhappy elector ChildREN”—LIFE ESTATE WITH REMAINDER

at eleven o'clock.

LLOYD Martha), Moelgarnedd, Merioneth, widow. May 3; who was intmidated, but rather to punish the OVER.-A testator gave all his property to his

Rooks and Co., solicitors, 149, King-street, Cheapside, E.C. person who intimidated him; and they ought wife for the use and benefit of herself and of his

May 24; V.C. W., at 12 o'clock. to make it a misdemeanour for any person children.” Held (reversing the decision of Malins,

MocLson (Wm.), Sheffield, gentleman. May 12; Geo. E.

Webster, solicitor, Sheffield. May 27; M. R., at 11 o'clock. to use undue influence to induce another to V.C.) that the property passed to the widow and

REBDECK (Benjamin), 16, Wellington-street, Bethnal-green. display his paper. In that case the act of dis- children as joint tenants : (Newill v. Newill, 26

Middlesex, May 21 ; Randall and Sons, solicitors, 9, Toker.

house-yard. May 25, V.C. W., at 12 o'clock. playing his paper would be part of the evidence L. T. Rep. N. S. 175. Chan.)

SCHWEITZER (Theodore R.), 36, Highbury-grove, Middlesex, to prove that some other person exercised undue CHARITABLE GIFT—INSUFFICIENT DESCRIP

and 37, Threadneedle-street, E.C., May 7; C. Chatteris, influence towards him. But if the voter was

Gresham-buildings, Basinghall-street, E.C., May 21; V.C. TION-LATENT AMBIGUITY-PAROL EVIDENCE. B., at 12 o'clock. neither corrupted nor intimidated, and merely

-Testator bequeathed £1000 to the Victoria showed his paper to somebody in a fit of en. Hospital. There was no hospital strictly anwer;

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. C. 35. thusiasm, partly political and partly physical, ing this description, and the legacy was claimed Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. which sometimes happened at elections, to send by (1) The City of London Hospital for Diseases BARNETT (Robert), Esq., Meopham-court, Kent. July 20; the man to prison for three months under those of the Chest, which was situate at Victoria-park,

Thos. Cheesinan, solicitor, Gravesend. circumstances was a thing to which he could and (2) The Victoria Hospital for Sick Children,

BRISTOW (John), 10, St. Michael's-road, Stockwell, Surrey. not assent. There seemed to be a growing pas. which was situate in Chelsea. It appeared that

and the Metropolitan Meat Market, E.C., butter sales

June 21; Eagleton and Mason, solicitors, 84, sion for the creation of misdemeanours. (Cheers the testator had subscribed to the former, and

Newgate-street, E.C. from the opposition.) The moment they got hold taken an interest in it, and that he sometimes

DAVISON (Sarah), Loughborough, Leicester, confectioner.

May 18; W. H. Toone, solicitor, Loughborough. of something which they did not like, they called it the Victoria Hospital.” It was alleged Gos: Susanna), 14, Park-crescent, Brighton. June 1; C. R. determined to send everybody to prison who did

, , . on the other hand that the Victoria Hospital for it. An eminent draughtsman had said to him that Sick Children was the only one publicly known as

GREEN (Eliza R., Marquis of Granby Public House, Castle

street, Oxford-street, W., licensed victualler. May 20; they were now manufacturing misdemeanours at “The Victoria Hospital,” and it appeared that

Hunter and Co., solicitors, New-square, Lincoln's-inn. the rate of about 500 per annum, and creating letters so directed were always forwarded there

HALFPENNY (Frederick J.), High-street, Bromsgrove, Wormore of them in a year than had formerly been by the Post-office. Held, that the description in

cester, auctioneer, accountant, &c.; June 17; John Holy

oake, solicitor, Droitwich. created in centuries. (Laughter.) There was the will was not sufficiently complete to exclude

LISH (Robert), Handon Hold, near Chester-le-street, Duronly one defence against that legislation, and that parol evidence; and the court holding it to be

ham, engineer, June 15; F. Taylor, solicitor, 19, Old

Burlington-street, W. was that juries and magistrates were more reasonable than the House of Commons, and declined to in Victoria-park, ordered it to be paid accordingly : clear that the money was intended for the hospital PAYNE (Serjeant Wm., 26, Brunswick-square: W.C., and

Serjeant's-inn, E.C. May 31; Vandercom and Co., solici. take any notice of the misdemeanours they (Briscoe's Trusts, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 149. V.C.M.)

tors, 2, Bush-lane, E.C.

Powis (John), Esq., Pall Mall, Middlesex.. April 21; Combe manufactured. (Laughter.) Did anybody believe

PRACTICE-8 VICT. c. 18, s. 78—PAYMENT OF and Wainright, solicitors, 9, Staple Inn. that if any voter without corruption or intimidation DIVIDENDS ORDERED TO TRUSTEES — PAYMENT

PRITCILARD Edw.), 37, King.street, Snow-hill, E.C., tobacco went into a polling booth and said “ Here is my

manuľucturer. June 24; Eagleton and Mason, solicitors, OF CORPUS OUT OF COURT REFUSED.-Testator 81, New zate-street, E.C. ballot-paper,” any Judge or jury would be found so

devised real estate to trustees on trust for B. for Rose (William), Thames Lawn, Great Marlow, Bucks, tyrannical and absurd as to send him to prison ? | life, and after his death on trust for sale, the

solicitor. June 21; Eagleton and Mason, solicitors, 81, (Hear, hear.) They had better confine their penal proceeds to be divided among B.'s children as

Newgate-street, E.C.

STABLE Frederick A.), Gympie, colony of Queensland, legislation to acts which the moral sense of the and when they should attain twenty-four, with

miner. Nov. 16; Garrard and James, solicitors, 13, Suffolkcountry would condemn. If they carried it further maintenance and advancement clauses. During

street, Pall Mall East, S.W. by sweeping provisions of that kind, public opinion B.'s life a railway company took part of the real would not support them. (Hear, hear.) He estate, and paid the purchase money, amount.

REPORTS OF SALES. begged, therefore, to move the omission from the ing to £590, into court.

Thursday, April 1.

B. died, leaving six By Messrs. NEWBOX and HARDING, at the Mart. amendment of the word “

wilfully;' in order to children, of whom four had attained twenty-four, South Hackney-Handley-road, Providence Villa, term 70 substitute “ with corrupt intent.” Mr. W. and two were infants. Shortly after B.'s death,

years-sold for £230. E. FORSTER said: In preparing the Bill of this the trustees sold the rest of the property, and

Hoxton-No. 114, Murray-street, term 70 years--sold for £360. Session he took up the measure that was re-paid their distributive shares (amounting to

No. 115. adjoining-sold for £175,

By Messrs. PRICE and CLARK. jected by the House of Lords, he did not find | £727 zpiece) to the four eldest children.

Hackney-road-Ground-rent of £21 per annum, well secured,

On a the provision in it, but he thought for a time petition being presented relating to the fund in

term 31 years--sold for 283.

By Mr H. E. MAPSH, at Guildhall Tavern. that it was included. He discovered, however, I court, the court declined to order the fund to be

Kensington - Nos. 9 and 11, Palace-place, frechuld-sold for that it had been overlooked a few days after transferred to the trustees, but ordered it to be the Bill was introduced. But after all the carried over in moieties to the separate accounts

Nos. 10 and 12-sold for £:300.

Nos. 13 and 14--sold for £35. real point was whether the provision here of the infants, the dividends to be paid to the

Oxford-street--10. 13, Newman-street, the lease of, term 30 should be included or not (hear), and he

years--sold for £180. trustees for maintenance : (Re Reaston's Estate,

Tuesday, April 9, must differ from the hon. and learned mem26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 148. V.C. M.)

By Messrs. GADSDEX, Ellis, and Co., at the Sun Hotel, ber for Oxford. The Government never intended

Hitchin. that there should be a penalty on a man who

Herte, Ickleford and Pirton, rentcharge of £21 per annum, said how he would vote.

secnred on land-sold for £130.
What he had always

A ditto of 27 13s. 9d.-sold for £150. said was that one of the principles of the ballot

Monday, Apri: 15.

Thursday, April 11. was that there should be a secret vote, and that


By Messrs. FURBER, PRICE, an I FURBER, at the Mart. the voter should not be able to prove how he had This was an application to reinstate an attorney

Hadley.common, the freehold residence known as Hadley

Lorige, with stabling, &c., and il acres-sold for t7000. voted. (Hear, hear.) Then came this provision, under these circumstances :-In 1870 the Master

Somer's-town, Unicorn-yard, dwelling house and range of which would not take effect unless the voter posi- of the Rolls had ordered him to be suspended for

stabling term 25 years, also Nos 31 and 35, Ossulton-street,

terin 74 years--sold for 6930. tively proved to an agent how he had voted." He some supposed misconduct, and this Court, upon

Regent's-park, Nos. 6 and 7, Little Charles-street, term 14 could not accept the substitution of the words

pears-sold for . * with corrupt intent” for “ wilfully," and his being informed of the fact, followed his Lordship's

By Messrs. C. C. and T. MOORE. hon. friend himself had acknowledged that example. The attorney on neither occasion had

BCw, Tredegar-road, Woodhouse-cottage, freehold-sold for they would not meet the case of intimida: appeared to meet the charge against him, but he

old Ford, No. 131, Usher-road, North, freehold-sold for tion. After some further discussion the the Rolls that his former decision was erroneous, had recently done so, and satisfied the Master of


Gra resend, a freehold ground-rent of £10 per annum--sold committee divided on the question that the word “ wilfully,” in Mr. Leatham's amendment, with many expressions of regret, observing that upon which his Lordship had rescinded his order,

Bromley, a ditto of £20 per annum, short reversion-sold for should stand. After the division the tellers ad.


A ditto of 16 Gs.-sold for £130. vanced to the table, and Lord Bury, one of them, it was the fault of the attorney in not having met informed the chairman that the tellers could not

No. 147, Grundy-street, freehold--sold for L920. the charges against him earlier.

No. 119, adjoining-sold for £180. agree as to the numbers.--The CHAIRMAN there to the court to rescind their order for his suspenWillis, on behalf of the attorney, now applied

Wednesday, April 17.

By Messrs. Edwin Fox and BOUSFIELD, at the Mart. upon decided that another division must be taken.

Surbiton.--Newton-house, Sutherland-houseGloucester- The committee then proceeded to divide again. sion, and

house, and No. 2, Surbiton-crescent, term 79 years-sold The numbers were--Ayes, 166; noes, 167; majority acted on the decision of the Master of the Rolls

COCKBURN, C. J. said that, of course, having for £17110.

Siarch-sreen.-Xo. 2 to 6, Askew-place, the Princess Vicfor Mr. V. Harcourt's amendment, 1. The an

toria Tavern, No. 1, la, to 7, Victoria-road, term 37 yearsnouncement of the numbers was received with loud follow his example in reinstating him.

in suspending the attorney, they should equally sold for £110.

Acton.-A freehold ground-rent of £8 per annum-sold for shouts of cheering from the Opposition benches.

Rule nisi.

4155. The CHAIRMAN then put the question that

South Lambeth.--Nos. 7 and 8, Devonshire-road, freehold

sold for 600 each. the words “ with corrupt intent,” moved by Mr.

UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE No. 9, adjoining-sold for £560. V. Harcourt, be inserted instead of the word “ wil.


No. 10-pold for 6534). fully,” struck out; upon which--Mr. W. E. (Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the

Stockwell.-No. 35 and 40, Binfield-road, term 69 years-sold FORSTER moved that the chairman report pro- National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons No. 12, adjoining-sold for C610. gress, amid cheers and laughter. --The House respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three No. , same road, and No. 14, Lansdowne-road-sold for

months, unless other claimants sooner appear.] resumed.

ACKLAND George), Swithin's lane, E.C., merchant, and No. 11, Lansdowne-road-sold for £3so.

ALLEN (John William, Curlisle-street, Soho, Middlesex, No. 10, adjoining-sold for £634.

£:3 S. 10d. Three per cent Annuities., Balham-hill.-Devonshire-road, detached residence, term 54 THE Marquis of Hartington's Bill to repeal the Claimant, said John William Allan,

years-sold for £1020. Party Processions (Ireland) Act has been printed.

A ditto, same term--sold for £160.

New-road. --Four houses, term 54 years, and ground-rent of It consists of only one clause enacting that the CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. (20) per annum--sold for £10. Act in question be repealed. A Bill introduced by


Hampstead.-No. 1, la, to 4, Church-place, freehold-sold Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen and Mr. Baxter pro

Douglas William), jun., Chilton-lodge, Fnlham, Middlesex Bedford-square.--No. 59, Gower-street, term 10 years-sold poses to continue the appointment and jurisdic. house acent. April? White and Co., solicitors 12. Great for £130. tion of the commissioners for the sale of encum

Marlborough-street, Middlesex, May 1; V.C. W., at one Norwood - Spring-cottage, and the adjoining house, term 12

o'clock. bered estates in the West Indies. Two Bills

years-sold for 300. brought down from the Lords, have also been printed ; an Act to amend the Law of Burials in England and Wales, and an Act to amend the

MAGISTRATES' LAW. Life Assurance Companies' Acts 1870 and 1871.


[ocr errors]


for £210,

for £600),

for 12:0.

[blocks in formation]

MR. WALTER PHILLIMORE, the son of the Dean of Arches, has been appointed to the Chancellor. ship of the Diocese of Lincoln, vacated by the resignation of Sir Travers Twiss.


Saturday, April 20
Friday, April 26
Wednesday, May

Hon. E. C. Leigh
W. J. Neale, Esq.........
J. Catterall, Esq.

14 days
10 days

J. Terkington,
S. Wilkinson.
T. Heald.

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

REAL PROPERTY AND directors of an inchoate company do not constitute damage to goods, &c., and several claims are made CONVEYANCING.

an association which can be wound-up under the or apprehended in respect of such liability, then 199th section of the Companies Act 1862 : (Re it shall be lawful for the High Court of Chancery

Imperial Anglo-German Bank, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. to entertain proceedings at the suit of any owner NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. 229. L.JJ.)

for the purpose of determining the amount of such CHARITABLE GIFT-INACCURATE DESCRIPTION

liability, and for the distribution of such amount OF THE OBJECT-ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRINSIC

rateably amongst the several claimants, with EVIDENCE.-A testatrix, by her will, gave a legacy


power for any such court to stop all actions and to “ the treasurer for the time being of the fund

suits pending in any other court in relation to the for the relief of the widows and orphans of the

same subject matter. By the 24 Vict. c. 10 (The clergy of the diocese of Worcester.” At the date


Admiralty Court Act 1861), s. 13, it is enacted of the will there was no society accurately answer- PRINCIPAL AND AGENT-BROKER-CONTRACT that “whenever any ship or vessel, or the proing this description, but there was a society which -USAGE OF MARKET.-Plaintiffs, tallow brokers ceeds thereof, are under arrest of the High had formerly fulfilled that office ior the whole in London, were commissioned by defendant at Court of Admiralty, the said court shall have diocese, but had lately been restricted, both in its different times in April, to buy two several lots, the same powers as are conferred upon the name and in its operations, to the archdeaconry of one of fifty and the other of 200, tons of tallow, for High Court of Chancery in England by the Worcester. To this society the testatrix and her June delivery. On receiving the order for fifty ninth part of The Merchant Shipping Act parents had subscribed both before and after it tons plaintiffs bought 150 tons of S., intending to 1854.” The plaintiff took a ticket of the London changed its name and restricted its operations. appropriate fifty out of these to defendant, and and South-Western Railway Company, to be con. There was also a similar society, to which the the remaining 100 to another order which plain. veyed by them from London to Guernsey, and testatrix had not been a subscriber, in the arch- tiffs had received from another person. On re- when on his journey in the company's vessel, the deaconry of Coventry, which formed part of the ceiving defendant's second order for 200 tons, Normandy, between Southampton and Guernsey, diocese of Worcester: Held (reversing the deci. plaintiffs bought 200 tons of R. and 150 of the a collision took place between this vessel and a sion of Malins, V.C.), that the evidence as to the bove-mentioned S., intending to appropriate to de- vessel called the Mary, in consequence of which subscriptions by the testatrix, which was admis. fendart fifty out of such 200 tons, and the whole of the plaintiff lost his luggage, and the Normandy sible, proved that she intended to benefit the the 150 tons. On each occasion plaintiffs sent to sank to the bottom of the sea. Cross-suits were Worcester society, and that that society was, defendant bought notes in the usual form, signed then instituted in the Court of Admiralty by the therefore, entitled to the whole legacy : (ie Kilo by them as brokers. In these notes the sellers' owners of both the Normandy and Mary, each vert's Trusts, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 221. L.JJ.)

were not disclosed. They also at the alleging negligence; and an action was comWILL-SHARE OF RESIDUE-INTESTACY.-A

same time sent to the persons of whom they had menced in this court (Exchequer) by the present testator gave the residue of his real and personal bought, sold notes in wbich the buyer's name was plaintiff against the defendants, as owners of the estate to trustees upon trust to convert the same,

not disclosed. These bought and sold notes Normandy, and other actions by other passengers and pay two-fourths of the proceeds to A. and M., exactly corresponded with each other, except as were also commenced against them for losses susand to stand possessed of the two remaining fourth to quantity. In the month of May, before the tained by the collision. The owners of the Nor. parts upon trust to invest the same, and to stand time arrived for delivery of the tallow, s. mandy, in their proceedings in the Court of possessed thereof when invested, and of the in: failed ; thereupon, plaintiffs and S., having many Admiralty, undertook that if the court should find come thereof in trust as to one moiety for the transactions together outstanding for the sale and the Normandy solely to blame, or find both the benefit of J. and her children ; and as to the other purchase of tallow, balanced and settled an ac- Normandy and the Mary to blame for the collimoiety in trust for the benefit of E. and her chil. count thereof, wherein the quantity of tallow sold sion, they would in the other actions admit liabi. dren. And he declared that in the event of either was set-off against thu quantity of tallos pur: lity to such plaintiffs as might prove their title to or both J. and E. dying without issue, the share chased, whereby it appeared that plaintiffs had sue, and they prayed the court to pronounce or shares of either so dying should sink into and sold to S. more than they had bought of him that the plaintiffs, if liable, were not liable to an form part of his residuary estate, and be paid and When the day for delivery of the tallow to defend aggregate amount exceeding £15 per ton of the divided accordingly, but so that the husband of ant arrived, plaintiffs having thus no tallow to aggregate tonnage of the Normandy, and that they the one so dying should take no share therein as

receive from S., tendered other 250 tons of tallow might be at liberty to pay into court that sum with representing his wife. J. died, after the testator,

to the defendant. It was not disputed that the interest, and that all further proceedings in the without issue, and leaving a husband surviving tallow thus tendered was of the quality described said actions should be stayed, &c. Thereupon her: Held, that there was an intestacy as to her in the contract, but defendant, having by this the Court of Admiralty, after hearing the counsel share: (Re Beviss's Trusts, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 239. time discovered what had taken place, refused of the parties in the suits in that court, ordered V.C. W.)

to accept it. Plaintiff's accordingly sold the that all actions should be stayed, the owners of 250 tons of tallow, as against defendant, and the Normandy undertaking to admit liability in bronght this action to recover the difference in all such actions, as soon as the court should have

price. A custom was proved to exist in the Lone pronounced for the damages proceeded for in the COMPANY LAW.

don tallow trade for brokers, when they receive suit before it. The decree pronounced by the

an order from a principal for the purchase of court stated that the court had jurisdiction to NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.

tallow, to make a contract or contracts in their entertain the cause, and that the owners of the

own names, without disclosing their principals, Normandy were entitled to limited liability, acWINDING-UP-REGISTRATION OF MORTGAGE and either to make such contracts for the specific cording to the provisions of the Merchant Ship. -COMPANIES ACT 1862, 8. 43.-Sect. 43 of the quantity of tallow so ordered, or to include such ping Act 1854 and the Merchant Shipping, Act Companies Act 1862, does not invalidate a charge order with others they may have received in a con- | 1862, and that it answerable, they were only so not entered in the register of mortgages, which tract for the entire quantity, or in any quantities in damages to an amount not exceeding £6376, limited companies under the Act are required to at their convenience, at the same time exchanging being at the rate of £15 for each ton of the keep; but where a solicitor receives à charge bought and sold notes with the selling brokers, as registered tonnage, and the owners were ordered from a company and fails to have it entered in the above described in the present case, and passing to pay into court that sum, together with interest. register, he will not be allowed to claim the bene- to their principals a bought note for the specific The court also decreed the Normandy to have fit of the charge, even though he be not the habi: quantity ordered by them as above described in been solely to blame for the collision. The de tual solicitor of the company, but only employed this case ; and that when a broker purchases in fendants accordingly paid into court the said by them in the matter in respect of which he his own name he is personally bound by the conreceives the charge. Decision of the Master of tract, and that on the usual settling days the this court having applied for a rule to prohibit

sum of £6376. The plaintiff in the action in the Rolls affirmed: (Re Patent Bread Machinery brokers balance between themselves thè pur- the Court of Admiralty from further proceed: Company, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 228. James, L.J.) chases and sales so made, and make or receive ing in the suit, and from further pro

WINDING-UP-PRACTICE-INCHOATE FOREIGN deliveries to or from their principals as the case ceeding to enforce and issue any injunction COMPANY-PROVISIONAL DIRECTORS.-In April may be, or if their principals refuse to accept or to restrain the plaintiff from prosecuting 1871 a prospectus was published of a company to deliver, then to sell or buy against them, as the his action in this court, the court directed him to be called the Imperial Anglo-German Bank, the case may be, and charge them with the loss, if declare in prohibition, whic he accordingly did, head office to be in Berlin, with a branch in any, or if delivery is not required on either side, and the foregoing facts having been set out in the London. The prospectus published the names of then any difference which may arise from a rise or declaration and the defendant's plea, the plaintiff the secretary and of twelve directors, five of whom fall in the market, is paid by the one to the other. demurred to such plea. Held, first, that a probi were resident in Berlin and seven (some of whom This custom was unknown to defendant. The bition would lie from this court to the Court of were Germans) in England. It stated that by the whole of the transactions and dealings in the Admiralty; secondly, That as neither the vessel provisions of the German law, under which the present case were carried on in accordance with nor the proceeds thereof was or were under arrest company was to be incorporated, applicants for this custom. Held (per Kelly, C.B., Channell, B., of the Court of Admiralty, as enacted by sect. 13 shares could not be made liable before the incor- and Blackburn, J.), that defendant was bound by of the 24 Vict. c. 10, the Court of Admiralty poration of the company, and that their money the custom, and that plaintiffs were entitled to had no jurisdiction. Per Kelly, C.B.-That had must therefore be returned in full if the under- recover; per Mellor and Hannen, JJ., and Cleasby, an equivalent for the ship been brought into court, taking should not be proceeded with. It further B., that the custom did not bind defendant, and that would have given the Court of Admiralty stated that a moiety of the shares had been sub- that plaintiffs wero not entitled to recover: jurisdiction, but that a payment into court of £15 scribed for in Germany, and 10 per cent. paid (Mollett and another v. Robinson, 26 L. T. Rep. per ton could not be taken as an equivalent for thereon (which was required by the German law N. S. 207. Ex. Ch.)

the value of the ship. Also that the admission of before the incorporation of a company), and it

liability should be an absolute and not a invited subscriptions for the remaining moiety.

admission. Per Martin, B.- That the suit of On the 20th March a large order for adver

limited liability should be a simple one of itself

, tisements was given at the temporary London


and that the plaintiff in the present action skould office of the inchoate company to R., an adver.

have been a party to it. Quære, Whether the tising agent, by the secretary, in the presence of

Court of Admiralty had any jurisdiction over such the principal promoter of the company. The


a cause of action : (Jones v. The London and remaining moiety of the shares was allotted in ADMIRALTY Court-PROHIBITION TO-C01. South-Western Railway Company, 26 L. T. Rep. England, and 10 per cent. paid thereon. But it LISION-ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE.-A prohibi. | N. S. 187. Ex.) having turned out subsequently that the first tion will lie to the Court of Admiralty from any moiety of the shares had not, in fact, been sub. one of the Superior Courts at Westminster : scribed for in Germany, nor the requisite per. (Smith v. Brown, 40 L. J. 214, Q. B.; 24 L. T. Rep.

CACA'OINE. centage paid thereon, the company was never N. S. 808, approved of.) By sect. 504 of the

Journal says :-By a new process to which the nibs are incorporated. Upon 'a petition by R., stating Merchant Shipping Act 1853 (17 & 18 Vict.c. 104), subjected, the principal part of the oil is effectually these facts, and praying that the Imperial Anglo. no owner of any sea-going ship, or share therein, removed ;' a thin bererage, well adapted for after 2001 German Bank might be wound-up by the court : is to be liable for dainage or loss to any goods, &c., or evening use, as a substitute for tea, being the result. Held (reversing the decision of Malins, V.C.), that on board such ship to an extent beyond the value

The flavour of Caca'oine will, in addition, be a great the Imperial Anglo-German Bank, not having been of his ship and the freight. By sect. 514 (part 9)

attraction to all.” – Eacb packet or tin is labelled, incorporated, never came into existence, and could it is enacted that in cases where any liability has

“JAMES EPPS & Co., Homeopathic Chemists, London.

Also makers of Epps's Milky Caca'oine (Caca'oine and not be wound-up. Semble, that the provisional' been incurred by any owner in respect of loss or Condensed Milk.)

[ocr errors]



- The Food

[ocr errors]


take care of their own animals when straying, to Rhyl to make inquiry, and he found the goods

except in the case of animals which reach a level at the railway station there. It was alleged by ABERDARE COUNTY COURT.

crossing, when it is the duty of the company to the station master at Rhyl that the con.ignor's

protect the line and keep off estrays. But there place of business, though in the town of Rhyl (Before T. FALCONER, Esq., Judge.) is a third case as respects sidings, not unlike the was three quarters of a mile from the station, and DAVID v. THE TAFF VALE RAILWAY COMPANY. present. This is the case of Marfell v. South a quarter of a mile beyond the radius of the Where there is no statutory obliyation, the owner

Wales Railway Company (36 L. T. 631, July 1860). company's delivery, but that a notice in writing of a tramway held to be under no obligation to There the plaintiff's horse had turned from a tram. had been posted to the consignee on the evening fence off estrays.

road to the railway, and was killed by an engine. of the 9th, informing him of the arrival of the Beddoe for the plaintiff.

The railway and the tramway ran in parallel lines | goods. The consignee was called at the trial on Stephens, of Cardiff, for the defendants.

very near to each other on the land of the company. behalf of the defendant to prove that he had His Honour said :—The plaintiff sues for £20, The plaintiff was using the horses and the trucks by searched for that notice, and could not find it. the value of a cow killed on the Taff Vale Rail the permission of the defendants for certain tolls, This was for the purpose of admitting parol evi. way on the 25th Oct. last. The plaintiff had three that is, money to be paid to them by him for such dence of the contents of the notice, but the consignee cows grazing in a field three-quarters of a mile

use. A fence had been placed between the railway went much beyond this, and proved that he had from the place where the accident occurred. One and the tramroad, and in the line of fence was a never seen the notice nor heard of it. As a pro. of these cows had calved some six weeks before it gate which had been opened and left open by the bable way of accounting for its not having reached was killed by being run over by a train. It got servants of the company, and through this the hands of the consignee, it was stated that he out of the field in which it was placed, respecting opening the horses swerved from fear on to the was just at that time changing his residence. It the fences of which we have no information, then railroad. The court differed, but found for the appeared that the plaintiffs, immediately, and came into the town, and (wandered into - Pitt- plaintiff. Williams, J. very clearly stated the without delay, preferred a claim against the comstreet,” which is a miserable rough road leading ground of liability. “It was, he said,“ part pany for the full value of the goods, and refused to the Powell Duffryn Colliery—the main part of the constitution of the tramroad of the to receive them back though tendered to them by of which roads leads, on the right, to the defendants (which the plaintiff

, together with the the company, in whose custody they have since colliery. Leaving this main road and going on a rest of the public, were invited by the defen ants remained. The above are shortly facts of the few yards, we come to a railway siding, un

to use on the payment of toll) that some swing case, and upon these facts it was argued on behalf fenced, forming a long segment of a circle, joining gates should be placed across it at the point where of the defendants—First, that the plaintiffs were the main railway at each of its ends. Between it approached the railway, in order to scclude the not the proper parties to sue, but that the action this siding and the railway fence gate there is, to tramway from the railway, and prevent the peril. should have been brought by the consignee ; the right, a tip which comes close along the siding ous position in which horses would be placed secondly, that the plaintiffs were debarred from rails, and to the left is a space sufficient, after we who were drawing tram waggons on the siding maintaining their action, because they had entered cross the siding railway, for a cart to go to the road when they approached that point-if there into a special contract to be bound by a certain level crossing of the main line. This level crossing, were an open communication between the tram- special condition, under which, amongst others, with gates, seems to be for the accommodation of road and the railway. In order to make the the defendants alleged they had undertaken to a house and premises on the other side of the gates available for this purpose they ought to be carry the goods. This condition was printed on main line ; for on the other side of the main line kept shut, except when the transit of tramway the back of the receiving note given by the comis a tip on the right, which is almost precipitous waggons, going along the line, required that they pany on delivery to them of the goods to be to the river ; and, on the left, are fenced premises should be temporarily opened. The tramroad carried, and which condition I ruled must be taken of the house, which almost reach the bank of the being thus constituted, everyone who uses it has to have been within the knowledge of the plaintiffs, river, and there seems to be no public way beyond. a right, on payment of toll, to expect, and a duty and which was to this effect : “ That no claim for Going back over the main line to the railway thereupon arises on the part of the company, that loss or damage for which they may be liable will siding where I have represented its being crossed as owners of the tramroad and recipients of the be allowed unless the same be made within three to reach the gates of the main line, the siding con. toll, they shall employ ordinary care and diligence days after delivery of the goods, such delivery to tinues, for very many yards before its junction in the management of the gates, in order that they be considered complete when notice of arrival is with the main line, almost parallel with the main may afford that security which they are ostensibly sent to the consignee, or, if the goods be carted line. Crossing the siding, before its junction with intended to afford to those who are using the by the company, when they are unloaded at the the main line, is a gate. This siding is a feeder to tramroad.” The distinction between that case door of the consignee's place of abode or busithe main line. The cow being on the main line and the one before me is very obvious. The rail. ness;" thirdly, that if the court should be of was killed by a 5.20 a.m. train, the driver of which way company were the owners of the tramway and opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled to judg. stopped at the lodge of the gatekeeper and said that received tolls for its use, and the action was ment in their favour, they should only recover something was the matter. On sending back to brought by those who were lawfully using the nominal damages ; fourthly, that there had been ascertain what occurred, the cow was found on the tramway. Here the cow was an estray, and there no wrongful conversion on the part of the company. ground. The inspector, Mr. Lloyd, tracked the was a trespass, and the owners of the tramway are The first point was scarcely insisted upon. Clearly animal to the gatepost on the siding, which I have not the defendants; but whosoever might be de- the plaintiffs were the proper parties to sue. The mentioned, and, according to her track, she had come fendants it would be necessary to show a statutory second point was a more important one, and from the street. The property adjoining the rail. obligation to fence off estrays from that part of demanded more consideration. Since the passing way belongs to the Powell Duifryn Company. Mr. the tramway along which the cow passed on to the of the Railway Traffic Act of 1854, whenever Lloyd states that the Powell Duffryn Company railway where it was unfortunately destroyed. special conditions of carriage are pleaded by a rail. keep the siding gate in repair, and that it is their This has not been shown, and there is no obliga. way company to exempt them from liability it is, gate. Morgan, who is stationed at the crossing, tion otherwise to fence off an estray from the under the 7th section of the Act, the duty of the looks after the gate and shuts it, and he some


Nonsuit. judge before whom such may be pleaded to detertimes puts a bar across it; precautions wbich are

mine in each individual case whether the condi. obviously necessary for the protection of carriages


tions are just and reasonable. He is to take all passing along the main line. With the gate on

the circumstances of the case into consideration, the level cros sing we have nothing to do. There

Friday, March 1.

and decide accordingly. That being so, I have is no doubt these gates were shut and that the (Beforo H. S. HAWTHORNE, Esq., Deputy.Judge.) given this matter my best consideration, and I cow did not pass through either of these gates- M'LELLAN AND SON v. LONDON AND NORTH

think that the above condition could not justly or at least, there is no probability to justify a doubt


reasonably be enforced against the plaintiff's on these two points, nor is any doubt suggested. Now let us turn to two well known decisions. In

Liability of carriers-ConditionsRailway and

claim. To do so would be to require of them to the case of Fawcett v. York and West Midland

Cunal Traffic Act-Undue delay.

have done that which they could not possibly have

done, and on that ground alone I think the giving Railway Company (20 L. J. 222), it was held that The following was the judgment given in this effect to the conditions would be unjust and unthe company were bound to keep the gate at level

reasonable. They preferred their claim as soon as crossings closed against all persons or cattle upon In this case, which was heard by me sitting as they became aware of the company's default. The a highway, whether lawfully there or not. In that Deputy.Judge on 9th Feb., the plaintiffs sued the power conferred upon the judge by the 7th section case tbe plaintiff's horses were lawfully in his London and North-Western Railway Company for of the Act was expressly given for the purpose of field, the fences of which were sufficient for all damages for undue delay in the delivery of a keeping in check the tendency of railway com. ordinary purposes; but it was found, notwith. certain truss or package of goods, and for a panies to save themselves from liability, by standing this, that the horses had jumped the wrongful conversion of the same. The case on imposing conditions exceptionally in their own fence, and got through two or three fields into the behalf of the defendants was very fully and ably favour upon those who intrusted them with the road, and thence through a gate on to the rail. argued by the learned gentleman by whom they carriage of their goods-a one-sided policy to which way. It was held that under the words of the were represented, and a number of authorities they were rather prone, and which enabled them statute the company were bound to keep the gate were referred to bearing upon the points which successfully to resist a series of just claims, shut, whether the horses were lawfully on the road were raised on their behalf; and as some of those culminating in the case of Carr v. Lancashire and or not. This, let it be observed, was the case of a points were of considerable importance, and had | Yorkshire Railway Compang, the observations gate on a level crossing; and the watching of such been the subject of much discussion in the Supe. upon which and preceding cases of like kind by gate is provided for by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, s. 68. In rior Courts, I deferred giving judgment till I the judges, would seem to have moved the Legis. the instance of defective fencing it is otherwise, should fully consider the case. This I have now lature to interpose for the protection of the just that is where the animals are straying, and get on done, and am of opinion that my judgment should interests of those who had to avail themselves of the line through defect of a company's fences, i. e., be for the plaintiffs. The goods (the deten. the goods-carrying services of railway companies, not through omissions of duty at level crossings. tion of which was the subject of the action) and the present seems to be exactly a case for Thus, in the case of the Manchester and Shefield were delivered to the railway company at which the Act provides a remedy. On behalf of Railway Company v. Wallis (23 L. J. 85, Ç. P.), it Chester at an early hour on Thursday, the the company, the case of Lewis v. Great Western was held that though the owner of horses lawfully 5th Sept. last, to be forwarded to Rhyl. It was Railway Company (29 L. T. Rep. 425, Ex.) was passing or driven along a highway may be con. alleged on the part of the plaintiffs that they cited, in which it was held, that a condition that sidered as an occupier of it, and entitled to recover should have been delivered at Rhyl on the evening no claim for loss of goods should be allowed after a compensation from a railway company whose land of the same day, but it was admitted on all hands seven days from delivery” was just and reasonadjoins the highway, if through a defect in the fence, that they ought to have reached Rhyl on Friday able ; but the circumstances of that case were between the land of the occupier and the railroad, morning. They did not, however, in point of fact, widely different from those of the present. There occasioned by the negligence of the company's arrive at Rhyl till Monday, the 9th, and the result the goods had been delivered to the plaintiff him. servants, his cattle get on the line and are injured, was that the person to whom the goods were con- self several days before the stipulated period of yet, if an injury happens to horses when straying signed, ordered a supply of similar goods from seven days had elapsed, and the judges before on the highway to the railway through a defective another quarter. The plaintiffs had no intimation whom the case was argued seem to have based fence, the company are not liable ; for the owner of the of the goods till they received their decisions upon the ground that it was of cattle so straying is not, in law, the occupier of a communication from their customer at Rhyl, reasonable that railway companies should require the highway, and consequently, as against him, complaining that the goods hadnot been sent, and to be informed of partial loss of goods, or injury there is no obligation to maintain the fence. These informing them of the order for similar goods to goods, within a short time after the goods had two cases are, in their application, very clearly which had been given elsewhere. Upon this the passed from their possession, in order that they illustrative of the law. Owners of animals must plaintiffs immediately sent one of their travellers 'might take immediate steps to ascertain whether


« EelmineJätka »