Page images


was that the manager, through whose default the accident arose, was not a fellow servant at all in the sense of the rule, but a representative of the respondents, to whom they had delegated their whole power, authority, and duty, in the management of the mine; or, as was said by Mr. Justice Mellor in Feltham v. England (L. Rep. 2 Q. B. 33; 36 L. J. 14, Q. B.), that he was an alter ego” of the owner, and therefore that the owner was liable. But the objection was overruled. It was clearly established, said Lord Chelmsford, by Feltham v. England and other cases, though it had been otherwise held in the Scotch courts, that there was no distinction as to the exemption of a common employer from liability to answer for an injury to one of his workmen from the negligence of another in the same employment, in consequence of their being workmen of different classes." Lord Colonsay says, “it is of no consequence that the position the person in default occupies in the srganisation, implies some special authority, duty, or charge.” Foremen, managers, all are fellow workmen in the sense of this rule. All are links in the same chain ; each is a fellow-workman of the other, from the highest to the lowest.

The rule, therefore, applying, Lord Cairns (Chancellor) defines very clearly the limits of the immunity and of the responsibility of the master.

As to the general rule which exempt him from liability, his Lordship adopts the words of Lord Cranworth just quoted from the Burtonshill Coal Company v. Reid. He proceeds thus: “ The master is not, and cannot be liable to his servant unless there He negligence on the part of the master, in that which he the master has contracted or undertaken with his servant to do. The master has not contracted or undertaken to execute in person the work connected with his business. .. But what the master is, in my opinion, bound to his servant to do in the even' of his not personally superintending and directing the work, is to select proper and competent persons to do so, and to furnish them with adequate materials and resources for the work. When he has done this he has, in my opinion, done all that he is bound to do. And if the persons so selected are guilty of negligence, this is not the negligence of the master. Negligence cannot exist if the master does his best to employ competent persons; he cannot warrant the competency of his servants.” To the same effect Lord Colonsay says, “There are duties incumbent on masters with reference to the safety of labourers in mines and factories, on the fulfilment of which the labourers are entitled to rely, and for the failure in which the master may be responsible. A total neglect to provide any system of ventilation for the mine may be of that character. Culpable neglect in supervision if the master takes the supervision bimself, or, when he devolves it on others; the heedless selection of unskilful or incompetent persons for the duty; or the failure to provide or supply the means of providing proper machinery and materials—may furnish grounds for liability; and there may be other duties, varying according to the nature of the employment, wherein, if the master fails, he may be responsible.

It appears, therefore, that as to persons, the owner is bound to provide competent persons, and if he does so he is not responsible. As to tacgle and machinery, it is not, it appears, sufficient to make him responsible that as a matter of fact they were not proper and sufficient, he is not bound personally to see that they are so; it is sufficient that he entrust a competent person with the duty of proriding it, and afford him the means of doing so properly and sufficiently; provided always that he does not, ils a matter of fact, know that it is defective, for in that case, he would be guilty of personal negligence, and would not be able to shelter himself behind his subordinate: (sec Mr. Justice Crompton in Ormonul v. Holland, quoted above.)

This is quite in accordance with what was said in Feltham v. England, when one argument was that there was evidence of personal negligence in the defendant in the construction of the piers by the faultiness of which the accident happened. The court said: We can find no evidence of personal negligence to fix the defendant, the master. There was no evidence that he had employed unskilful or incompetent persons to build the piers, or that he did know, or ought to have known, that they were insufficient for the use to which they were applied. He was a master of engines, and therefore in that sense an engineer, but not in the sense that he possessed special knowledge as to the strength or sufficiency of brickwork.”

These necessarily brief and incomplete remarks will suffice to give an idea of the ordinary liability which a mine owner in common with other employers of labour is under to his servants under circumstances such as are generally found in mining accidents. This liability is, of course, on the contract of service. But there is another ground of liability, quite irrespective of contract, which we think mine owners can be shown to be under-riz., liability to damages for the consequence of a breach of statutory duty. Under the present law owners have imposed on them certain statutory duties and penalties with regard to the management of mines with a view to the protection of their servants, and, as we have already stated, the proposed Act imposes upon them fresh ones.

It is rot unimportant to consider whether those statutory duties and penalties bring with them any, and if so, what, civil liability ? 'This question we propose to treat hereafter.

City, THURSDAY, APRIL 25. Tie threatened home and continental political disturbances which were thought by many persons to be looming in the distance a week ago, and which caused uneasiness and depression in these markets, have, at least for the moment, ceased to exercise any adverse effect. The sharp recorery of prices on the continental bourses last Friday told that the rumours so carefully concocted and circulated had been anthoritatively repudiated, and as regards the position of our own ministry there is apparently no immediate prospect of a change; while the tendency of public feeling in the Luited States favours the inference that the view of the “ indirect claims" qucs. tion taken by vur ministers is gaining ground in that country. The money question offers no point for comment, so that the existing state of affairs is at least favourable to the maintenance of the present level of values. At the same time it is clear that prices generally are high, and there is not much disposition shown by investors to buy, as it must be evident that on any mishap in two or three quarters where danger is not altogether out of the question, a good opportunity would be immediately presented for getting in at lower figures, and there is some evidence to show that the policy of waiting for events is being adopted by not a few.

The British Funds are } better than last Thursday's price; Metropolitan Three-and-a-Half per Cent.s, 1.

The American market shows no noteworthy movement beyond a rise of 2! in Erie Railway Shares, the greatest part of which has occurred to-day, following the rise to 67 at New York, and of in the United States Funded Loan.

The changes in the prices of British Railway Stocks are divided; but the principal movements are upwards, of which a rise of 24 in SouthEastern Deferred; of 17 in Midland on good traffic receipts ; and of 1 in Great Northern A. London and Brighton, and North British, may ba mentioned. In the other direction the principal fall is 1 per cent. in SouthEastern Ordivary, which occurred yesterday on the sudden diminution of the “ backwardation.” Grand Trunk of Canada and Great-Western of Canada have risen for the werk, and Lombardo A.

Apart from a decline of 1 in Paraguay stock, and also in the Egyptian Khedive Loan, foreign stocks show a general rise, although it is immaterial, except in the cases of Egyptian Seven per Ceits. of 1803, and Peruvian, which are to 1 per cent. higher for the week. Spanish stocks have been very flat on the Carlist rising, it being feared that the Govern. ment will not be able to subdue them without the expenditure of a consi. derable sum of money, which will be inconvenient if we may judge from the difficulties experienced in ‘renewing the Treasury bills. The prices have, howerer, partially recovered.

Two or threo American railway loans have been recently introdaced, besides a variety of other undertakings, the position of the money market being favourable.

In Miscellaneous Securities Native Guano has risen 1) for the week, and Phosphate Sewage ; but Indiarubber and Gutta Percha shares are ! tower.

The sum of £60,000 has been sent into the Bank this day, making an influx of £320,000 this week. The demand for discount has been light both at the Bank and in the open market, and the terms outside rule at 3, for first three months'

paper. The Stock Exchange settlement commenced yesterday, and will be finished to-morrow. The contango rates were as nearly as possible the same 45 upon the last occasion.

The Directors of the East London Railway Company announce that they are prepared to receive applications for an issue of £100,000 perpetual five per cent. first preference stock of the company, being the first charge on the net receipts of the undertaking, after payment of the interest on the debenture capital of the company. The price of issue is 272 los. per £100 stock. It is stated that this issue constitutes the whole of the preference capital of the company, and takes precedence of the ordinary share capital, amounting to £1,400,000—the whole of which has been issued and called up-and is the first charge on the net profits of the undertaking after payment of interest on £556,600 deben. ture capital, and that the debenture stock recently issued is quoted at $115 The proceeds of the preference stock of £100,000 now to be issued, will be applied towards the construction of the fourth section, from Shadwell to Commercial-road, Whitechapel.road, and to the junction with the Great Easteru Railway at I'rom thence the company have run, ning powers for their traffic over the Great Eastern line to the central Broad-street station, adjoining the station of the North London Railway, and the intended station of the Metropolitan Railway. This section is also intended to be finished within two years. The market quotation is 2 to 2) premium.

The Letters of Allotment of the Welsh Freehold Coal and Iron Company have been posted to-day.

The latest quotations for British Funds are as follows: Consols, for money, 921 to 92): ditto 3rd May Account, 92 13.16ths to 92 15. 16ths; Heduceri, 91 to 91; New Three per Cents., 91 to 91? : Exchequer Bills, is to 8s. prem.; India Five per Cent. Stock, 110 to 1104 ; ditto Four per Center 102 to 103; ditto Enfaced Paper Four per Cent., 98% to 97; ditto Five and a Half per Cent., 105 to 109; Bank of England Stock. : 241 to 243; Metropolitan Three and a Half per Cent., 965 to 97; and French Kentes in this market, 511 to 517.

The last quotation for French Rentes received from Paris was 55f., market undecided.

In the market for American Securities, the United States 5-20 Bords of 1852 are marked 90 to 904, ; 10-40 Bonds, 89 to 89!; Atlantic and Great Western Bonds, 411 to 422 ; ditto Debentures, 51. to 52! ; Erie Railway Shares, 5.5 to 552; Illinois, 109 to 110; and United States Funded Loan 89 to 893

In the Railway Market the prices are:- -Caledonians, 1131 to 111; Great Eastern, 521 to 52); Great Northern, 135 to 136 ; ditto, ., 1555 to 156} ; Great Western, 110 to 1101; Lancashire and Yorkshire. 157 to 157}; London and Brighton, 82 to 8:24 ; London, Chatham, and Dover, 20% to 26. ; London and North-Western, 150 to 150. ; London and South-Western, 1001 to 107}; Manchester and Sheffield, 711 to 7: Metropolitan, 674 to 67; ditto District, 300 to 31.; Midland, 113 to 115.; North British,





631 to 64; North Eastern Consols, 1699 to 1704; South-Eastern, 104 to 1041; ditto deferred, 794 to 805; Grand Trunk of Canada, 202 to 20% ; Great Western of Canada, 214 to 210 ; Antwerp and Rotterdam, 18} to 19; Great Luxembourg, 18) to 19; and Lombardo Venetian, 18 to 181.

The Peruvian Loan of 1872 is quoted at í to špm.; and the Russian at 13 to 1š pm.

The prices of the principal Foreign Stocks are as follows: Argentine, 1868, 97 to 97}; do., 6 per cent., 1871, 92 to 93}; Brazilian, 5 per cent., 1865, 951 to 96; do., 5 per cent., 1871, 945 to 95); Egyptian, 7 per cent., 1868, 88 to 885: do., Viceroy Loan, 91 to 92 ; do., Khedive Mortgage Bonds 791 to 79; French Morgan 6 percent. Loan, 971 to 97}; do. National 5 per cent. 1871, 54 to 51 ; Greek 5 per cent., 22 to 23 ; Italian of 1861, 67 to 673; Mexican, 15. to 15%; Paraguay 8 per cent. Loan, .93 to 931; Peruvian, 5 per cent. 1865, 101 to 1013; do. 6 per cent. 1870, 81% to 81%; Russian 5 per cent. 1871, 90} to 91}; do. Nicolai Rail. Bonds, 76 to 77; Spanish, 291 to 30; ditto Quicksilver, 79% to 80% ;

[ocr errors]

do. 3 per cent., 1871, 294 to 291; Turkish, 5 per cent. 1865, 52; to 52% ; do. 6 per cent. 1865, 71 to 71%; do. 6 per cent. 1869, 60to 60%; and do. 6 per cent. 1871, 714 to 714

In the Telegraph Market, Anglo-American Stock is quoted at 116 to 118; Anglo-Mediterranean, 177 to 182; British Australian, 94 to 9}; British Indian Extension, 11 to 12; ditto Submarine, 10% to 11); Chinas, 81 to 9); Cubas, 74 to 8; Falmouths, 11 to 114; Great Northern, 15 to 15; Mar-' seilles, Algiers, and Malta, 8{ to 97; Mediterranean Extension, 51 to 61; Reuter's, 10 to 111; French Cables, 22 to 22} ; and West India and Panama, 64 to 6.

In miscellaneous shares the prices are as follows :-General Credit and Discount, 24 to 21 pm. ; International Finance, & dis. to } pm. ; Hooper's Telegraph Works, 2 to 24 pm. ; Hudson's Bay, iog to 103 ; India Rubber and Gutta Percha, 42 to 44; National Discount, 134 to 134; Telegraph Construction, 32 to 32}; Native Guano, 16 to 20 ; Phosphate Sawage, 31 to 33; New Sombrero Phosphate, 81 to 8%; and Phospho Guano, l1 to 117.

NOTES OF THE WEEK. were carried over to meet the annuities granted, had already been much astonished at the juris

to the wife and sister. The sister died in Oct. diction assumed by the Court of Bankruptcy HOUSE OF LORDS.

1870, and a petition was thereupon presented throughout the country, under sect. 72 of the Act

for a division of the fund set apart to answer of 1869, and it was necessary to be very careful Thursday, April 18.

her annuity. The question was raised upon about extending that jurisdiction. His Lordship WOTHERSPOON AND ANOTHER v. CURRIE. this petition, whether succession duty was pay. was not disposed to say whether the court had Trade markImitation Name of place of many. 1 of Ireland domiciled in Portugal, and he made the hands of the receiver, but here the receiver

able upon this fund. The testator was a native power to tax costs, while something remained in jacture. Tuis was an appeal from a judgment of James, whither he came shortly before his death for therefore right in holding that he had no juris

his will and died during a residence in London, had paid away everything. The registrar was L. J., reversing an order of Malins, V.C. The appellants had been for many years the manufac surgical advice. He had no property in the United diction to order taxation.

Lord Justice MELLISH was of the same opinion. turers at Glenfield of starch' which was described Kingdom, except the personal effects in his pos.

Appeal accordingly dismissed with costs. on their packets as “Glenfield Starch," and which session at the time of his death. His children had acquired a reputation under that name.

were domiciled in Portugal, but the executor and Solicitor for the appellant, Sydney.

In 1868, the defendant commenced manufacturing at

three out of four trustees of the will were English- Solicitors for the respondent, Stocken and Jupp. Glenfield, starch, which was male up in packets, men, residing in England. Lord Romilly, on the labelled “ Royal Palace Starch, Currie and Co., L. T. Rep. N. S. 480 ; L. Rep. 1 Ch. 1), held, that authority of Wallace v. Attorney-General (13

Ex parte WILSON; Re DOUGLAS. Staroh Manufacturers, Glenfield.” The word " Glenfield" was printed in large and con: apart to answer the annuity: (24 L. T. Rep. N. S. This was an appeal from a decision of the judge no succession duty was payable on the sum set Bonkruptcy Act 1861, s. 152--Double proof-Dis.

tinct estates-Sole trader trading under tuo firms. spicuous letters, and several persons had bought the respondent's starch as " Glenfield starch.''

176.) The respondent denied all franculent intention in

The Solicitor-General and W. W. Karslake for of the Liverpool County Court. William Douglas the Crown.

was a sole trader carying on business at Liverpool selecting Glenfield as the place of manufacture, and alleged that he selected Glenfield because

The respondents did not appear.

under the firm of Douglas and Co., and at Bahia, The Lord CHANCELLOR, Lord CHELMSFORD, Co. In July and Aug. 1869, bills of exchange for

in Brazil, under the firm of Douglas, Latham, and there was a spring of water there particularly suitable for use in the manufacture of starch; the decision appealed from. The circumstances in Lord WESTBURY, and Lord COLONSAY now reversed

sums amounting to about £2000 were drawn by that the word “Glenfield" on the packets was used as a more advertisement; and that his starch this case differed from those in Wallace v. At. Douglas, Latham, and Co. upon and accepted by had acquired a reputation quite independent of torney-General. The fund here was really a Co. of Manchester. On the 14th Dec. 1869, Douglas

Douglas and Co. in favour of Messrs. Beatty and its being made at Glenfield. Valins, V.C. granted British fund, and succession duty must be paid executed in favour of his creditors a deed of an injunction on the ground that the respondent upon it. was using the name of Glenfield," so as to bene. Solicitor for the appellant, Solicitor to the In. assignment, which was registered under the Bank.

ruptcy Act 1861. The assets of Douglas in Brazil fit by the reputation acquired by the appellants for and Revenue. their starch : (22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 200). This

Solicitors for the respondents, Walker and Marcourts, by the law of which country the creditors

were thereupon administered by the Brazilian injunction was dissolved by James, L.J., who tineau.

of the Brazil firm were entitled to be paid considered that the respondent was entitled to act

out of the assets in that countryin priority as he had done: (-3 L. T. Rep. N. S. 413).


to the other creditors of Douglas. Beatty Sir R. Palmer, Q.C. and Fischer for the appel.

(Before the LORDS JUSTICES.)

and Co., having thus obtained £285 out of the lants.

Thursday, April 18.

Brazil assets, in part payment of the bills, Cotton, Q.C. and Freeling for the respondent.

claimed also to prove on the bills against the The Lord CHANCELLOR, Lord CHELMSFORD,

Ex parte LYONS; Re LYONS.

assets in this country on the ground that there and Lord WESTBURY now reversed with costs thé Liquidation by arrangement Composition-were two distinct contracts within the meaning judgment appealed from, on the grounds that the

Trustee and receiver-Bill of charges--Taxation of the 152nd section of the Bankruptcy Act 1861, appellants had acquired a right to the name

--Jurisdiction of Court of Bankruptcy-Bank- and that the fact of the two firms being, in “Glenfield” as a trade mark for their starch, and

ruptcy Act 1869, s. 72.

whole, composed of the same individuals," did that the respondent, in choosing Glenfield as his This was an appeal from a decision of Mr. not prevent proof and receipt of dividend in place of manufacture, acted with the design of Registrar Spring- Rice, sitting as Chief Judge in respect of such distinct contracts against the getting a colourable excuse to ze that, name on his petition for liquidation by arrangement, and The judge of the County Court having allowed the

Bankruptcy. On the 5th May 1871 Lyons filed estates respectively liable upon such contracts. his labels, and so to make a profit from the repu. tation gained for "Glenfield Starch” by the appel-receiver. On the 9th June a general meeting of

on the 9th of that month Brett was appointed claim, the trustees of the deed appealed. lants.

Swanston, Q.C. and Bagley, for the appellants. Solicitors for the appellants, Willoughby and the creditors was held at which they agreed to ac- De Ger, Q.C. and Robertson Griffiths, for the Cox.

cept a composition of 7s. 6d. in the pound, and respondents. Solicitors for the respondent, Roberts and Simp. On the 2nd Aug. Brett sent in to the debtor his were not two distinct estates, but only one estate

Prett was appointed trustee in the liquidation. Lord Justice JAMES said that in this case there

bill of charges amounting to £108 6s. 7d., and of one person carrying on business in two counMonday, April 22.

required that security should be given to him for tries. The 152nd section only applied where

the payment of it before he parted with certain there were two separate and distinet estates to ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. CAMPBELL AND OTHERS. promissory notes which had been handed to him be wound-up. It was of the essence of that section Will-Succession duty 16 4 17 Vict. c. 51, s. 5 -- for payment of the composition. Accordingly the that there should be two distinct estates. Here, Bequest upon trust- Annuity--Foreign domicil. debtor gave him a bill of sale on his stock in trade, however, there was only one estate, which, if it This was an appeal from a judgment of Lord &c., to secure payment of the amount. The bill had been all in England, would have been distriRomilly, M.R., in a suit for the administra- of sale recited the liquidation proceedings, and butable amongst all the creditors. A distinct tion of the estate of William Callanane, of that the sum of £108 6s. 6d. was due to Brett in portion of the assets had been administered by Oporto. By his will he gave his residuary respect of his bill of charges. Subsequently Brett ihe Brazilian courts, and the respondents could estate to trustees on trust to invest in Three paid the composition to all the creditors in accor- not prove against the assets in this country with. per Cent. Consols, and to pay out of the dividends dance with the resolution of the 9th June. On the out bringing into account what they had received annuities to the testator's wife and sister; and 16th March last the debtor moved the Court of in Brazil. he authorised and directed the trustees to Bankruptcy that Brett might be ordered to bring Lord Justice MELLISH was of the same opinion. set apart such an amount of Consols out of in his bill of charges for taxation, and to deliver This was a case in which the same estate was the residuary estate as they should think up the bill of sale to be cancelled. Mr. Registrar being distributed, partly in Brazil and partly in fit for payment of the said annuities, such appro. Spring-Rice having held that as it was a case of England, and the Brazilian law gave a preference priations, when made, to exonerate the rest of the composition the court had no jurisdiction to deal to certain creditors over the assets in Brazil. personal estate therefrom ; and he directed that, with the matter, the debtor appealed from his Those creditors must bring into account what as and when the annuities should determine, the decision.

they had received there before being allowed to amount set apart in respect of each annuity Swanston, Q.C., and Robertson Griffiths for the prove against the assets in this country. The should revert to and become part of the residuary appellant.

order of the County Court judge must, therefore, estate; and, subject as aforesaid, he gave the Without calling upon De Ger, Q.C. and Finlay be discharged. whole of the residuary estate in truet for his chil. Knight, who appeared for the trustee.

Solicitors for the appellants, Phelps and Sidy. dren equally. The testator died in Sept. 1853, Lord Justice JAMES said that this was in sub- wick, for Sale, Shipman, and Sedlon, Manchester. and the present suit was instituted in 1863 ; and stance an attempt to set aside a deed, which had Solicitors for the respondents, Le Richi and Son, by orders made in the suit two sums of Consols / no connection with the liquidation. The world for Cobbelt, Wheeler, anu Cobbitt, Janchuster.


April 18 and 19.

TIMEs, Notes of the Weck, Feb. 24.) The cause the rate of £3 per share. It turned out that th> HAIGI 4. KAYE. now came on to be heard.

defendant was at that time the real vendor of tue

The Solicitor-General (Sir G. Jessel, Q.C.), sharos, he having bonght them nuder an agree. Parol trust-Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), Amphlett, Q.C. and Pontifex, for the relators. ment not fully for £? por share, and s. 7-Negal transaction--Pleading.

Sir Rounde!l Palmer, Q.C., Kay, Q.C., and the plaintiff now filed his bill praying that he This was an appeal from a decision of the Master Smart, for the defendants.

might be declared entitled to 2:4 shares at the of the Rolls. By an indenture dated the 8th Dec. Lord Justice MELLish said that it was perfectly price of £2 per share, and that the defendant 1860, the plaintiff conveyed certain real estate to settled law that the mero fact that a representa might be directed to repay the sum of £261, or the defendant, who was his brother-in-law, the tion had been made by the company in their that the transaction might be set aside. It ap. conveyance being expresed to be made in con. deposited plans, did not in any way bind the com- peared that the plaintiff was not no v possessed sideration of £850. 'l'he plaintiff gave the defen- pany, except so far as the plans were incorporated of all the shares, he having transferred à certain dant the money to pay for the property in order in their Act. The whole case against the company number to other parties to give it the semblance of a real sale, but it was depended upon the 13th and 14th sections of the Fry, Q.C. and lioolrote for the plaintiff. understood that the defendant should hold the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act. But the Sir R. Baggallay, Q.C. and shebucare for the property in . trust for the plaintiff, and should universal rule was that if any contradiction ex. defendant. pay the rents and profits to him. The defendant isted between the provisions of the general Act Lord ROMILLY held that he could not compel having after some years refused to pay the rents and those of the special Act, the provisions of the the defendant to sell at £? per share or any other or to reconvey the property, the plaintiff insti. special Act must prevail. In his Lordship's price, but that the whole triinsaction might have tuted the present suit to compel him to do so.

opinion, the provisions of the 13th and 14th sec. been set aside had the plaintiff been in a position The defendant, in his answer, stated that the con. tions of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act to returu the shares, but as the plaintiff by part. veyance was executed for the purpose of avoiding were expressly varied by the provisions of the ing with some of the shares had precluded him. the loss of the property in the event of a certain special Acts in this case. The 8th section of the self from obtaining the relief prayed for, he should suit being decided against the plaintiff. It was Act of 1864 enabled the company to stop up Sun. dismiss the bill, but without costs, the suit having urged on behalf of the defendant that as the street, and to appropriate the site of it for their | been occasioned by the inisconduct of the defen. conveyance was executed with the intention of station, and the powers given by that section were i dant.

Solicitors : kimber and Ellis, A. P. Herritt. defrauding a third party, the plaintiff could not expressly continued by the 38th section of the obtain relief in equity, and that the alleged trust Act of 1870. The information must, therefore, was void by the 7th section of the Statute of be dismissed with costs.

Friday, April 19.
Frauds, as it was not manifested or proved by any
Lord JUSTICE JAMES was of the same opinion.

HAYES 1. QATLEY. writing. The Master of the Rolls having ordered He should have wished to hold the compary bonnd the defendant to reconvey the property, the defen. by the representation made in their deposited Liability of trustees-Transfer of fund to executor dant appealed. plans, but it was quite settled that he could not

of donee of power of amointment.

By a settlement dated the 11th Dec. 1838, a sum Sir Richard Baggallay, Q.C. and Charles Hall, do so. for the appellant.

Solicitor for the relators, A. J. Boylis.

of £10,000 was vested in trustees in trust for Mrs. Without calling upon

Solicitor for the defendants, W. H. Shau. Stubbs for life, with remainder to her husband Fry, Q.C. and T.C. Wright, who appeared for the

for life, with remainder as Mrs. Stubbs should by respondent,

deed or will appoint. By her will she appointed

ROLLS COURT. Lord Justice JAMES said that the defendant

£5000 to her husband absolutely, directed various vaguely alleged in his answer that the conveyance

March 18 and April 17.

legacies to be paid out of the trust fund, and bewas executed in order to defraud a third person. To


queathed the residue to her busband, and ap. make such a defence valid, the immorality or ille.

pointed hiin sole executor. Mr. Stubbs proved

Voluntary settlement--13 Eliz. c. 5. gality of the transaction mnst be plainly stated. This was a suit by a creditor to set aside the dis. £10,000 to him as such executor, to £5000 of

the will, and the trustees handed over the whole and a defendant who wished to avail himself of positions made by his debtor of his property. which he was entitled absolutely. He subse. such a defence must stato the illegality in clear James Clark was, in the month of June 1868, in- quently retransferred £3000 into the names of the terms. The defendant in this case not having debted to the plaintiffs in the sum of £350 3s. 10d., trustees without their knowledge, and the trusts done so, that objection to the snit failed. As to and also indebted to other creditors. At that relating thereto had been administered by the the objection that the trust was void under the time he was the owner of three steam threshing court. He became insolvent and died, and this Statute of Frauds, that statute was never intended | Inachines of the value of abont £200 each. He suit was instituted by one of the legatees under to give relief to a person who had been party to a was also possessed of a sum of £300 in a bank, and Mrs. Stubbs's will, to make the representatives of fraud. The decision of the Master of the Rolls a sum of £200 on a note of land, and was entitled the trustees of the settleinent liable for £2000, mast, therefore, he affirmed.

to a sum of £350 secured by mortgage. Except a Lord Justice MELLISh was of the same opinion. few articles of household furniture he had no other

the balance of the trust fund. Solicitors for the appellant, Gregory, Ronclities, property to meet the demands of his creditors.

Sir R. Baygallary, Q. C. and Ir. R. Fisher, for the and Rawle.

plaintiff. On the 13th June 1868 he entered into three several Solicitors for the rospondent, Edvaris, Layton, agreements with his three sons respectively by

Southga'e, Q. C. and Phear, for the defendants. and Jaques. which he gave a threshing machine to cach son in the trustees were discharged on payment of the

Lord ROMILLY-I am clearly of opinion that consideration of three several annuities of £20 £10,000 to Mr. Stubbs. When the sum of £3000 Monday, April 22. each, but it was alleged that he remained in pos.

was re-transferred, the trusts as to that som ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. GREAT EASTERN session of the machines, and continued to use and

arose, and they have been administered in this RAILWAY COMPANY.

employ them for the purposes of his business. court. I must, therefore, dismiss the bill with Railway company-Railways Clouses Consolida: from the bank and distributed the same among About the same time he drew the sum of £300

costs. tion Act, ss. 13 & 14–Special Act-Power to his children, and by an indenture of the 12th Nov. lium Potts.

Solicitors : Wilkins, Blyth, and Marsland; Wil. block up streets-Deposited plans.

1868 he assigned the sum of £350, secured by This was a bill and information at the relation of mortgage, to trustees in trust for himself the commissioners of sewers of the city of London, for life, with remainder to his children.

April 20 and 22.

In who were also plaintiffs in the suit, for the pur. April 1869 the plaintiffs obtained a judgment WillConstruction--Division among children per

Re Nott's TRUSTS. pose of restraining the Great Eastern Railway against James Clark for the amount of their Company from stopping up or interfering with the debt, and subsequently issued execution, which Sarah Nort, by her will dated the 10th July

stirpes or per capita. public traffic through Sun-street, one of the great realised £16, the only goods upon which thoroughfares from east to west, in the city of execution could be levied being the articles of to her brother, Samuel Copsey, for life, gave and

1853, after giving the interest of certain property London. By their Act of 1864, the company were household furnitore. The plaintiffs then filed their bequenthed the interest of the same property, from empowered to make a railway, commencing at bill, praying that it might be declared that the and immediately after his decease, unto her two Liverpool-street, which was to the south of Sun. gifts by James Clark to his children and the as- nieces, Sarah Chatters and Elizabeth Freeborn, street, and terminating at Commercial-street, signment of the mortgage to the trustees were during the term of their natural lives, and from which was to the north of Sun-street. According severally fraudulent and void as against his and after their decease, she gave and bequeathed to the deposited plans, the level of Sun-street was

creditors. to be unaltered, and the railway was to cross it on

the property to the children of the said Sarah

Southgate Q. C. and Begg, for the plaintiffs. an arch 35ft. wide and 16ft. high. By the 8th

Chatters, and likewise to the children of the said section of the Act the company were empowered defendants.

Fischer Q. Č., Martineaul, and Cutler, for the Elizabeth Freeborn, to be divided between them, to “stop up and cause to be discontinued as public highways all streets and highways within dispositions of the property had been arranged by Chatters, should have his equal share with

Lord Romilly held that as it appearea that the Copsey, the natural son of her niece Sarah

share and share alike, her will being that Samuel the arca thereinbefore described as the site of the the children, they could not benefit by them, and the other children. Samuel Copsey, the tenant intended station, and may appropriate the site of that the annuities of £20 were not sufficient con. such streets and highways to the purposes of such sideration to allow the transactions to stand, and died leaving six children, and subsequently Eliza

for life, died on the 28th Sept. 1855, Sarah Chatters station.” Sun-street was within this area. In declared that the gifts and assignment must be beth Freeborn leaving ten children. The question 1870 the company, who had done nothing under set aside. the Act of 1864, obtained another Act, enabling Solicitors : Stretton ; White and Sons ; W. G. property was divisible among the children of

to be decided on this petition was whether the them to alter the level of the intended works, and Brighter. to make thom below the level of the ground

Sarah Chatters and Elizabeth Freeborn per stirpes instend of above. The deposited plans showed

March 22 and April 18.

or per capita. that the railway was to pass 18ft. below Sun.

Dauney for the petitioners.

KIMBER V. BARBER. street instead of above it. The 38th section of

Shebbeare for the respondents. this Act provided that nothing in the Act Principal and agent-Agent both vendor and puli Chatters one moiety of the property became divi.

Lord ROMILLY held that on the death of Sarah should repeal or affect any of the provisions of

chaser-Suit to set aside transaction. the Act of 1864 contained

in the 8th and following the plaintiff in this suit sought relief in respect siblo among her six children, and that the dividends sections so far as they were applicable and capable of 264 shares in the Colonisation Insurance Cor. on the other moiety were payable to Elizabeth of being carried into effect consistently with the poration, which he had instructed the defendant to Freeborn for the remainder of her life, and on her alterations by this Act authorised to be made in purchase for him. At an interview between the death the principal was divisible among her ten the works. The company, being about to stop up plaintiff and defendant it was arranged that the children. Sun-street, and to build a station on part of the defendant should endeavour to purchase on behalf Solicitors : D. E. Forbes; Watson and Sons. site of it, the present suit was instituted to re.

of the plaintiff certain shares in the company at strain them from doing so. Bacon, V.C., granted the price of £2 per share. At a subsequent inter- SHEARMAN ", BRITISH EMPIRE MUTUAL an injunction till the hearing of the cause : (See view the defendant stated to the plaintiff that he

ASSURANCE COMPANY. 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 867.) From this order the was unable to procure shares at that price, but Mortgagee of policy of assurance-Bankruptcy of company appealed, and it was then arranged that, that he could obtain 264 shares at £3 per share,

mortgagor— Payment of premiums by mortgagor as the Vice-Chancellor had based his decision on and the plaintiff authorised him to purchase them -Lien on policy. the merits of the case, the Lords Justices should at that price, and accordingly 264 shares were THOMAS POCKNALL, on the 20th Oct. 1863, de. take the hearing in the first instance : (See Law' transferred to the plaintiff, for which he paid at posited two policies, effected on his own life, with

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

the plaintiff, by way of equituhl mortgage tu | 1860 to 1871, when the European became in. | railway company, were allowed to build their secure the repayment of a sum of 1301., and, sub. solvent. He now presented his petition, with premises so as to stop np Littlo Conduit-place. sequently, a further advanch of 1001. Was made by a view to making the India Coinpany liable. The plaintiffs claimed the right to turn their the plaintiff to Thuin is Pocknall on the same It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that waggons, &c., as incident to their right, in common security. Thomas Pocknall was adjudicated bank. the case was governed by the Family Endowment with the public, of using Little Condnit-place as a rupt on the 21st Oct. 1805, and on the 30th of the Society (21 L. T. Rop. N. S. 775), and that the public highway, and they now moved for an in. same month the plaintiff, it the request of Thos. petitioner had not relinquished his hold upon the junction to restrain thu detondants from interPocknall, paid the premium which was then due coinpany by accepting his annuity from the society. iering with thut right. on one of the policies, and the other polivy was It was contended on behalf of the company that Amphlett, Q.C. and Bagshawe were for the shortly afterwards surrendered to the assurance the company was discharged, inasmuch as the plaintiffs. company, and the surrender value received by the deed of settlement gave the diroctors power to Kay Q.C. and Osler for the defendants. plaintiti, ho having written to Thomas Pocknall hand over the policy holders of the company to The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the that he would not pay any further premiums on any other office; and that at all events Col. Dyke railway company had a right to stop up and either policy, but shnld surrender them to the was bound by acquiescence, having first objected appropriate the street, and therefore refused to office. Froin Oct. 1865, until July 1870, when to the transfer of the business, and then accepted grant the injunction. 'Thomas Pocknall died, having by his will ap. his annuity from the European.

Solicitors for the plaintiff's, Lee, Pembrrtor, and pointed his wife his exocutrix, the premiums on Glasse, Q.C. aud Graham Hastings for the peti. | Reeres. the second policy were paid by Thomas Pocknall, tioner.

Solicitors for the defen lants, Field and C'). but the policy remained in the hands of the plain- H. J. Jackson for the directors of the India and titt. The policy money was now clained by the London Company. plaintiff, and by the executrix of Thomas Pocknall. Pearson, Q.C. and George Murray for the liqui.

Tuesday, April 23. Metholil for the plaintiff. dators of the European Society.

HEWITT 2. JARDINE. E. B. Cooper for Mrs. Pocknall.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR held that the deed of Lord ROUILLY held that the plaintiff was en.

Construction of will - Hotchpot cause. settlement did not yive the directors of the India titled to the benefit of the policy, on repaying the Company power to hand over the creditors of the David Jardine, by his will datod in 1362, gavo amount of the premiums paid since the bankruptcy company to another office against their

will; and real and personal property to trustees upo: trust of Thomas Pocknall. Solicitors: T. Sismey; Hope.

that thera had been no sneh acquiescence on the for sale and conversion, and directed that the propart of Col. Dyke as deprived him of his right to

ceeds after the death or second marriage of his claim his annuity from the company. A winding. wife should be in trust for his chill or children up order was accordingly made.

living at that time, and the issue theu livius of V. C. MALINS' COURT. Solicitors, Dangerficil, and Fraser; Uplon, his child or childreu dying before that peric.d.

tenants in common

such objects to take as
Thursday, April 18.
Johnson, Upton, and Budd.

according to the stocks, and he directed that Re THE EUROPEAN ASSURANCE SOCIETY.

his real estate should be cousidered as conConipany-Motion to stay winding-up proceedings

verted from his death, and he declared that penuling Bill in Parliament. Companies Act


no chiid to whom or to whose husband he 1862, s. 89.

April 17 and 19.

should have paid any portion in his lifetime, should This was a motion by the liquiilators of the


participate in his paid trust property, without British Nation Life Assurance Association to stay Mulual Insurance Society-Policy-Jortgage of bringing the portion so paid in the testatur's life. all proceedings in the winding-up of the European

time into hotchpot. One of the testator's Assurance Society rending a Bill which had been

This suit was instituted to recover the money

daughters married in his lifetime, and shortly of the European by arbitration. The Bill had been lost. The ship had been insured in a mutual nanted that he would stand seised of a freehold introduced into Parliament for settling the x ffairs due on a policy of insurance on a ship which has before her inarriage, the testator by doed covepassed a committee of the House of Commons.

Glasse, Q.C. and F. C. J. Millar, for the motion, able mortgagee by deposit of the policy. By the daughter, her heirs and assigns for ever. The contended that as in all probability the Bill would rules of the society, which were incorporated in several infaut Children. A suit having been in. insurance society, and the plaintitf sned as equit. dwelling house and premises to the use of his said

testator's daughter predecesed him, leaving ultimately pass both Houses of Parliament, it was unnecessary for the present to proceed in the

the policy, it was provided that if the ship should stituted for the administration of the testator's winding-up, and that the court lund jurisdiction at aug time bo mortgaged the policy should be estate, a question was raised :14 to the effect of under s. 89' of the Companies Act 1882, to make you tuless the mortgage became personally the hotchpot clause with regard to the children of

liable to pay the premium, or the mortgagor paid a the deceased danghter. the order. The Solicitor - General, Pearson, Q.C. and G. that all disputes shouid be settled by arbitration of the sons of the testator. quarter's premium in advance : it was also provided

Seanston Q. C. and Ellis, for the widow and one Murray, for the Enropean, opposed the motion, The defendants by their answer alleged that the and contended that the court had no juriulietion owner of the ship ut the time of obtaining the

Kay Q.C. and Methold, for the daughter's to make such an orier except upon proof, which was

children. wanting in the present case, that it was expedient stating that the ship was metalled in 1867 whereas policy hail made a inaterial inis representation by

Horton Smith, for the trustees. that the winding-ap proceedings should be stayed. she was metalled in 1865, and only overhauled and

The VICE-CHANCELLOR held that the children The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that he could not new metal put, where required in 1867, and that

of the testator's daughter who should be living at assume that the Bill would become law. The court the matters in dispute ought to be referred to

the decease or second marriage of the testator's had power, under the 89th section, to stay the arbitration. From the ship's registry it appeared i widow, could not be compellel to bring into hotch

a the power in the present case would be attended with this defence was not raised by the pleadings, and hotehpot clause could not be extended to as to

include the issue of a child of the testator. great mischief, because it would prevent the liqui.

was only set up at the bar..
Kay, Q.C. and A. G. Marten were for the plain.

Solicitors : De Jersey and Micklem; Johnson and dators from getting in the assets. The motion tiff.

Master. must be refused, with costs. Solicitors : Mercer and Hercer; Lewis, Munns,

Svanston, Q.C. and A. E. Miller, Q.C. for the defendants.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BESCH and Longden. The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the

evidence as to the plaintiff being a mortgagee of
April 19 and 20.

Saturday, April 20.
the ship, must be rejected, as the objection was not
Re THE INDIA AND LONDON LIFE ASSURANCE raised by the pleadings, that there was no such


material misrepresentation as would vitiate the Wilfully trespassing-Premises connected with a Annuity granted by life assurance company--policy, and that the arbitration clause did not

railway station-3 & 4 Vict. c. 97, s. 16. Amalgamation of companies Novation – Ac. refer to a dispute upon a legal point like tho The respondent, a cab-driver, had been charged quiescence. question at issue. There would, therefore, be an

under 3 & 4 Vict. c. 97, s. 16, before one of the This was a petition presented for winding-up the inquiry as to what was due to the plaintiff in aldermen of the City of London, npon the informaabove company under the following circum- respect of the policy.

tion of the appellant, the inspector of police of the stances : In Oct. 1854, Col. Dyke purchased from Solicitors for the plaintiff, Thomas and Hollams. Great Eastern Railway Company, for that he unthe company for £1000 an annuity of £276,

Solicitors for the defendants, Stocken and Jupp. lawfully and wilfully did trespass upon certain payable during his own life ; and this annuity he

premises connected with the Fenchurch-street received from the company regularly down to 1860.

Railway Station. The magistrate formd, in the It was then discovered that the company had

April 19, 20, and 23.

special case stated under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, that incurred a loss amounting to more than one-tenth


the respondent refused to move away his cab from of its nominal capital; and in accordance with Railway company-Right to stop up streets, a place, for the use of which, as a cabstand, certhe deed of settlement the Jirectors made arrange

Special injury.

tain other cabdrivers paid the railway company ments for the dissolution of the company. On the The Metropolitan Railway Company were, by a 43. a week each: that this place presented the 21st Feb. 1860, an agreement was entered into special Act passed in 1861, empowered to stop up appearance of a public street, was opposite cerbetween the India and London Life Assurance certain streets and passages therein named, in- tain shops, and although stated to belong to, was Company and the European Assurance Society, cluding Little Conduit-place, and to appropriate not proved to be the private property of, the comfor the transfer of the business of the former and use such streets and passages, or parts pany. He also found that the respondent was to the latter. On the 4th April and the 14th thereof, so stopped up, for the purposes of their not wilfully trespassing, and dismissed the inforMay 1860, meetings of the shareholders of the railways and works. By a subsequent Act they ination. India Company were held, at which the agree. were empowered to grant building leases of super. Giffard, Q.C. (with him Marriott), for the ap. ment for the transfer of the business to the Euro. Auous lands. The company took the whole of pellant, argued that the respondent ought to have pean was confirmed, and a resolution passed Little Conduit-place, and pulled down the houses been convicted, or the magistrate should have for the dissolution of the company. Col. Dyke thereon, and on the northern part thereof built a held that his jurisdiction was ousted upon a claim objected to being transferred to the European station, whereby they blocked up that end of of right. Society, and insisted that the India Company were Little Conduit-place, and at the southern end Brown, Q.C., contra, contended that as he conbound either to repurchase his annuity or to set they erected a hoarding with a gate opening into sidered the respondent was not wilfully trespass. apart, in the name of trustees, a specific sum of Conduit-place. The plaintiffs were builders, ing, the magistrate was justified in dismissing the money to answer the annuity. This, however, was carrying on business in premises exactly opposite summons, and that he found in effect that the refused by the directors of the India Company, the southern end of Little Conduit-place, and they place was not part of the premises connected with and an offer was made to Col. Dyke that a new alleged that they and their predecessors in title the station. policy of the European should be issued to him, or had, since 1850, made use of the facilities afforded The Court (Blackburn, Hannen, and Quain, that an indorsement of the liability of the Euro. by Little Conduit-place to turn their waggons JJ.), held that notwithstanding the case of Jones pean to pay the annuity should be made upon his and to bring in and out of their premises ladders v. Taylor (1 E. & E. 20), the appellant might have existing policy. Neither of these courses was and long building materials, which they would be been wilfully trespassing, although he honestly actually taken, but Col. Dyke_continued to unable to do, and thereby sustain special damage, believed he had a right to keep his cab standing at receive his annuity from the European from if the defendants, who were the lessees of the I this place; and that if he claimed a right the ma


[ocr errors]

gistrate onght to have stayed his hand, and not docks, but not in the service of the defendants, ground of cruelty should not be allowed to stand. disinissed the information.

to do the necessary work, and he, Ovens, employed If Mrs. Godrich chooses to take that view of the Case remitted for further statement of facts. other men. To effect the object of raising the matter, and to take her stand on the issue of Attorney for appellant, W. H. Shaw.

Pallas, four barges were sunk, and by means of cruelty, she ought to have a rule to show cause Attorneys for respondent, Lewis and Lewis. chains and other appliances, the barges were why it should not stand. But if she is minded to

raised together with the Pallas. Upon being so try the issue of adultery over again, I see nothing Reg. v. Sr. IVES UNION.

raised, it was necessary that the barges and for it but to put the case down again in its Order of removal. Status of imemovability- river Thames, and for that purpose a tug belong: vessel should be towed out of the dock into the entirety.

Webster, for Mrs. Godrich, asked that the order Break of residence. This was a case reserved by the Middlesex Quar- their

servants as muster of such tug, was engaged respondent should not pay the costs of all the

ing to the defendants, and managed by one of should also be for a rule to show cause why the ter Sessions, which court had confirmed an order of removal of a pauper from the parish of St. by Reeves of the defendants. The tug was at proceedings. Matthew,, to the union of St. Ives, barges, there being on each barge two men, all, the form prayed for.

tached by ropes or chains to each of the four The Court ordered the rule to be drawn up in in the counties of Huntingdon and Cambridge. however, being under the directions of the master The only question was whether the pauper's of the tug. Check ropes were attached to each status of irremovability in the parish of St. Matthew had been destroyed by her absenco froin barge, one end being held by men at the pier, and the parish for six days. The pauper, an old took all the barges into the lock. One of the other by the men on the barges. The tug

SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, woman of seventy, had lived twenty-eight years in the piermen suggested that the rope of this parish, parts of the time in the workhouse of the barges in which the plaintiff was, should

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. She obtained employment for six weeks in the be shifted from one side to the other; this was

TRUSTEE Act 1850 - RETIRING TRUSTEE parish, but found herself too old to go on with done, but as the tug went forward too rapidly the

APPOINTMENT OF CONTINUING TRUSTEES IN her work. She went for a holiday to stay with barge was forced against the knuckle of the dock, TEES.- A testator by his will appointed three

PLACE OF CONTINUING AND RETIRING TRUS. her son and another person out of the parish, but they were too poor to entertain her, and she whereby it was forced up, whereupon one of the

trustees. It contained no power to appoint new came back after six days to the St. Matthew the other man, the plaintiff, in doing so, injured vided that upon any appointment of new trustees,

men jumped ashore and escaped unhurt, but trustees, rerying upon the statutory power, but pro. workhouse: the guardians of that parish obtained her removal to St. Ives, her place of legal settle-hisleg, which was the injury complained of in the the number might be increased or reduced. One

action. ment.

of the trustees being desirous of retiring, and no Poland argued for the parish of St. Matthew contended : First, that the plaintiff could not re- petition of the cestui que trust, an order was

Huddleston, Q.C., now moved accordingly, and

person being willing to take his place, upon the that, the pauper having no place of residence to which to return, her departure from the parish defendants, being under the commund and direc

cover, inasmuch as he was acting as servant of the made appointing the two continuing trustees to be was a break of residence, according to Reg v.

trustees of the will in the place of the threo tions of the master of the tug, and was engaged, trustees : (Re Stokes's Trusts, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. Glossop Union (L. Rep. 1 Q. B. 227). Metcalf, who appeared for the union of St. Ives, | defendants: Wiggett v. Fox (11 Ex. 832) ; Abra.

therefore, in one common employment with the 181. Rolls.) was not heard.

PRACTICE - TRUSTEE - POWER OF APPOINT. The Court followed the case of The Guill ford lam v. Reynolds (5) Hur, & Nor. 103, 147); Morgan MENT—" INCAPABLE TO ACT”-TRUSTEE GONE Union v. The St. Oluve Union (25 L. T. Rep. N. S. iQ. B. 145) ; secondly, that evidence was impro- The court has power under the 32nd section of the

v. The Vale of Neath Railway Company (L. Rep. | TO RESIDE ABROAD_TRUSTEE ACT 1850, s. 32.803), in which they had modified the decision of Reg. v. Glossop Union, and held that this was not perly admitted of a statement made by the com.

Trustee Act 1850, to appoint a new trustce in place such a break of residence as to destroy the ferred to the surgeon by the secretary of the tion. In a power to appoint new trustees in the pany's surgeon to the plaintiff upon his being re

of one who has gone to reside out of the jurisdic. pauper's status of irremovability.

Orilers quashed.

company; thirdly, misdirection in not leaving it place of trustees " dying, disclaiming, or desiring Attorneys for appellants, Neal and Philpot.

to the jury, whether or not, as the plaintiff saw to be discharged, or refusing, declining, or beAttorney for respondent, W. J. Houard.

that the tug was going too fast, and it was within coming incapable to act :” semble, that incapacity
calling distance of the plaintiff he ought not to
have called out to the master of the tug to have trustee who has gone to reside permanently abroad

to act means personal incapacity, and that a COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. leseened the speed.

is not " incapable to act” within the meaning of Wednesday, April 24.

The Court refused a rule, holding that the the power : (Re Bignolil's Settlement Trusts, (26 SHARP 0, POWELL.

plaintiff was not the servant of or in the common L. T. Rep. N. S. 176. Chan.) Negligence-Public nuisance-Ice on the highway employment of the defendants; that, under the MORTGAGEES OF TESTATOR BALANCE IN - Remoteness of clamage.

circumstances, the evidence was admissible, and HAND - PRIVATE DEBT RIGHT TO TACK.ACTION brought to recover damages sustained by that there was no r i-direction. Rule refused. Mortgagees of a policy of insurance, on the death the defendant wrongfully causing a van to be

Attorney for the defendants, W. 01. Hacon. of the mortgagor, received the money from the washed in a public highway, whereby large quan

insurance office, and, after satisfying their mort. tities of water coilected and became frozen, and

gage debt, claimed to retain the balance on ac

COURT OF DIVORCE. the plaintiff's horse stepping upon the ice fell down

count of a private debt due to them from the and was injured. It was proved that after the

April 16 and 23.

deceased mortgagor: Held, that they were entitled van had been washed, the water used for the pur

(Before Lord PENZANCE, J.O.)

to retain the amount of their debt out of the pose rar down the road and found its way into


balance in their hands: (le Hase'foot's Estate the gutter from whence it ran to the grating of

26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 146. Rolls.). Matrimonial suit-adultery and cruelly-Jury the sewer; but the sewer being stopped up the


agreeil on issile of cruelty, and disagreeil os to water again overflowed upon the road, and became


adultery-Jotion for new trial as to adulterfrozen ; when the plaintiff's horse having stepped


Rule to show cause why the verdict as to cruelty NOTICE. – When the mortgagee has notice of an upon the ice fell down and was injured.

should not stand. Keating, J., at the trial, nonsuited the plaintiff This was a wifo's suit for a dissoultion of her prior to the execution of the mortgage deed, the

act of bankruptcy committed by the mortgagor on the ground that the action was too remote, re

marriage on the ground of her husband's adultery, serving leave to the plaintiff to move to enter a coupled with cruelty. The case was tried before title of the trustee prevails. An assignment by verdict for him if the court should be of opinion the court by a common jury, and the jury, after partners of all the partnership property, by way that the action was maintainable.

of mortgage, to secure a past debt, is an act of Henry James, QC. (Lunyon with him), showed being locked up for some time, founel a verdict for bankruptcy. This case came before the court on canse against the rule, adiritting that although unable to agree on the issue of adultery.

the petitioner on the issue of cruelty, and were appeal and cross appeal from the decision of the the defendant was acting illegally in washing the

judge of the County Court of Sunderland : (Ec van in the public street, yet, that as the water

Webster moved (April 16) for a new trial of the parte Greener, le J. Douglas and Company; Ex had flowed back into its normal course, the defenissues on which the jury had not agreed.

parte Snowball, Re Same, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 295;

Cur. adv. vult. clant was exonerated from further liability.

Bank). Metcalfe in supporto of the rule.

April 23.—Lord PENZANCE, J.0. said, the Court ARTICLED CLERK-FORM OF BiydixG-TWO The Court (Bovill, C.J., Keating, and Grove, took time to consider what order it ought to make MASTERS.--Articles whereby a clerk is bound to JJ.) were of opinion that the action was not main. in relation to the circumstances which took place more than one partner of a firm of attorneys are tainable, neither was it incumbent upon the de- at the time. The jury was absent for some hours, valid, and may be enrolled under 6 di 7 Vict. c. 73. fendant to investigate the course of the water and after an order had been given that they 8. 8: (Re Holland, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 289. Bail.) after it had returned to the public kennel, and should be discharged, they came into court and INTERROGATORIES EJECTMENT-LANDLORD they refused the rule accordingly.

said that though they had made up their minds on AND TENANT - ESTOPPEL - EXPIRATION OF Rule refused.

the question of cruelty, they could not agree ou LANDLORD'S TITLE.--The court will not grant an Attorney for plaintiff, Holines.

the question of adultery. Thereupon the registrar order for interrogatories to enable a tenant, with. Attorneys for defendant, dills and Lockyer.

took note of the circumstance that they were holding possession of demised premises after the agreed to find a verdict on the issue of cruelty, determination of the tenancy, to defend an actica

but could not agree on the other issue. The of ejectment brought by his landlord, by interroCOURT OF EXCHEQUER.

petitioner then applied for a trial of gatin' the plaintiff for the purpose of proving that OVENS V. THE LONDON AND ST. KATHERINE's the issues on which the jury had not been the interest of the latter iras leasehold, and has DOCK COMPANY.

able. to agree. Notice was given of this to also expired : (Wallen and others v. Forest and Vegligence Servant Common employment, the respondent, but he did not appear. At others, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 290. Bail.)

Jisreception of cridence-Contributory negli. common law, a verdict could not have been taken PRACTICE-PARTITION ACT 1808 (31 & 32 VICT. gence-Misdirection.

in that form-a jury must either agreo or dis- c. 40).-The court refused to allow money proThis was an action to recover damages for in- agree-they cannot give a verdict which would con- duced by a sale under the Partition Act 1868, juries sustained by the negligence of the defen- stitute a verdict at common luw, upon a portion which had been paid into court, to be paid out to dants. The cause was tried before Kelly, C. B., of the matter only. The same course has been trustees, where some of the persons were married at the sittings in Middlesex, after last 'l'erm, when followed in this court subject to this exception, women : (Aston v. Meredith, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. the damages were assessed by consent at £300, that in one or two cases where there had been sub. 281. V.C. B.) leave being reserved to the defendants to move to mitted to the jury subordinate questions of such SOLICITOR AND CLIENT-FAMILY SUIT-Pro. enter a verdict for themselves, or for a nonsuit. a character that it was not necessary for them to

“ PRESERVED "-CHARGE FOR COSTA The rule was moved also for a new trial

, on the decide at all, a verdict has been allowed to stand 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, s. 28.–An infant plaintif ground of the improper aduission of evidence, on the main matter, the jury being discharged on who on attaining majority adopts a suit instituted und for misdirection. It appeared that the subordinate part. In the present case, the on his behalf during his minority, puts himself vessel named the Pullas having been sunk in st. application is to grant a new trinl on the second in the same position with regard to costs, and in katherine's dock, a person of the name of Reeves part of the issue. That is quite contrary to anything other respects, as if he had been an adult and was employed by the owner to raise her. Reeves that has taken place in this court. It seems to ine had originated the proceedings. A suit was insti. engaged the plaintiff, who it appears was a person thai there should be a rule to show cause why, on tuted on behalf of an infant plaintiff, by his next contmually emploged in various duties about the the jury being discharged, the verdict on the friend, for the purpose of obtaining the appoint



[ocr errors]
« EelmineJätka »