« EelmineJätka »
THE LAW TIMES.
Nov. 25, 1871.)
tended, the proper tribunals to give relief in this winding-up, and suggested that ander seet. 91 of plaintiffs' wrappers ; the defendants to pay the
The Solicitor-General (Jessel, Q.C.), Sir Richard meetings of the policy holders to be held, in order Solicitors for the plaintiffs, Thomson and Son.
Friday, Nov. 17. the demurrers on behalf of the lords of the society's affairs.
Re BARRETT's ESTATE. Glasse, Q.C. and F. C. J. Millar, for the society, Construction of will-Absolute interest, or estate Sir Roundell Palmer, Q.C. and W. W. Karslake, opposed a compulsory winding-up. Such an order
for life. for the Attorney-General.
was irrevocable ; it would have the effect of trans. This was a petition for the payment out of court of Joshua Williams, Q.C., Speed, and W. R. Fisher, forming every policy into a claim; would destroy the sum of 4371., which had been paid in under the in support of the bill.
the goodwill of the business, and render it im- provisions of the Columbia Market and Approaches Lord Romilly said that the question whether possible to sell as a going concern ; and would in Act 1866, with which the Lands Clanses Consolithe fact that the land enclosed was within the effect prevent the court from applying sect. 22 of dation Act 1845 was incorporated. The title of forest rendered it necessary that persons having 33 & 34 Vict. c. 61. Provisional liquidators, how. the petitioners depended on the construction of a a right of common in the forest, but not being ever, in the nature of receivers, might be appointed devise contained in the will of William Barrett, tenants of the particular manor in which the land to protect the assets.
dated the 17th April 1841, which was as follows: was enclosed, should be consenting parties to the Lindley, for holders of policies to the amount of “I give, devise, and bequeath my freehold estate making of the enclosure, and the question how far 130,0001., took the same view. A winding-up order... at Burrows, in the parish of Hendon, unto such persons could enforce their alleged rights could be made after the business had been sold as my dear wife Elizabeth Barrett, for her own sole against the lords of the manor desiring to enclose a going concern.
use and benefit, and to be at her sole, separate, with the consent of the homage, were questions too
The VICE-CHANCELLOR intimated during the and entire disposal. I also give, devise, and important to be decided upon demurrer. As to the argument, that if any further petitions were pre- bequeath unto my beloved wife E. Barrett ... all question of jurisdiction, if the Forest Courts were
sented or bil!s filed he should make the parties and every other freehold or leasehold that I may not extinct, the Court of Chancery must at all pay the costs; and said that of the names sug. die possessed of . : . for and during the term of events have concurrent jurisdiction ; but the gested to him as provisional liquidators he ap. her natural life, and for her sole separate use, and question as to the Forest Courts could not be de proved of those of two actuaries, Messrs. Bunyon at her absolute and entire disposal.” The fee cided on demurrer. The demurrer on the ground and Pattison, and of Mr. Lowe, who was chairman simple in the land, of which the fund in question of multifariousness must be overruled, as the bill of the committee of the policy holders.
was the purchase-monoy, formed part of the tese asserted only one single right, that of common of Pearson, Q.C., Fooks, Q.C., Anderson, White- tator's residuary estate. E. Barrett died in 1855, pasture, though the defendants resisted that right horne, Jackson, Roupell, and others for other and the petitioners were the devisees under her ander various titles. But the demurrer for want parties.
will. If E. Barrett, under the above devise, took of parties was fatal. The bill prayed for the abate
The VICE-CHANCELLOR at the close of the a life interest in this property, together with an ment of enclosures, and this relief clearly could argument said, that at first he was under the im. absolute power of disposing of it after her death, not be granted in the absence of some of the par- pression that it would be equally beneficial for all the title of the petitioners was complete. If, on ties interested in maintaining the enclosures. parties that he should at once make a compulsory the other hand, È. Barrett took only a life interest, The demurrers must, therefore, be allowed with winding-up order. But the arguments of Mr. Millar there was an intestacy after her death as to this costs; but the plaintiffs should have leave to and Mr. Lindley had shown that there might be property, and the heir-at-law of William Barrett amend by adding the necessary parties.
some disadvantage in that course. He should, would be entitled. The petition came before Solicitors for the plaintiffs, Fawcett, Horne, and therefore, order the petitions to stand over, and Malins, V. C. on the 15th July 1870, when the Hunter, for Nelson, City solicitor.
should appoint provisional liquidators himself, court directed advertisements and inquiries to be Solicitors for the defendants, Lee, Collyer, Bris without referring their appointment to chambers. made for the heir-at-law. These advertisements tove, Withers, and Russell Budd and Son, Solicitors : John Tucker; G. L. P. Eyre, and Co.; and inquiries had been made, but without success; Botnamleys and Freeman; Tamplin and Taylor; Bacter, Rose, and Norton ; Rooks, Kenrick, and and an affidavit was filed stating that the heir-atMarkby, Wilde, and Burra ; The Solicitor to Her Harston.
law could not be found. The petition now came Mojesty's Public Works and Buildings.
before the court again. Nov. 14 and 15.
Alexanıler for the petitioners, contended, on the ABBOTT 1. THE BAKERS' AND CONFECTIONERS' authority of Leefe v. Saetingston (Freem. 176), V. C. MALINS' COURT.
TEA ASSOCIATION (LIMITED).
that E. Barrett, under the will, took a life interest July 10 and 25; Nov. 10 and 17.
Trade mark-Colourable imitation-Injunction. together with a power of absolute disposal over
This was a suit by the Licensed Victuallers' Tea the fee, and asked that the money might be paid Re THE EUROPEAN ASSURANCE SOCIETY; E.c | Association to restrain the defendants from sell. to the petitioners. parte GREENOUGH ; Ex parte HOLT.
ing tea in covers or wrappers made in imitation W. F. Robinson for the Baroness Burdett Contts, Life Assurance Company-Winding-up-Provi- of or so similar to their own as to deceive the offered no opposition.
sional liquidators-Life Assurance Companies public. The plaintiffs' business was established The VICE-CHANCELLOR, after referring to Lambe Act 1870. ss. 21, 22.
in Sept. 1867. In order to distinguish their packets v. Eames (23 L. T. Rep. N. S. 135), said that he These were two petitions presented under the of tea the plaintiffs devised a trade mark, which was of opinion, on the construction of the will Companies' Acts 1862 and 1867, and under the Life consisted of a Chinaman holding and offering the that Elizabeth Barrett took a life interest for her Assurance Companies Act 1870, for the compul- shield of the plaintiffs' association to a brewer's separate use, and a power of disposing of the fee sory winding-up of the European Assurance drayman, who in return presented a shield bearing absolutely. The petitioners were therefore entitled Society, by two shareholders in the society, one the word “Taeping ;” underneath was the motto to the money. of whom was a policy holder. In 1869, two peti. “ Dum vivo bibo," and over all were represented Solicitors : Farrer, Ourry, and Co.; William tions had been presented for the same pur three barrels. They had also adopted distinguish. Horsley. pose, and had been dismissed : (see 22 L. T. Rep. ing covers or wrappers for their tea, of a particular N. S. 785.) Since then the society had continued shape and colour, the black tea being sold in red
Saturday, Nov. 18. to carry on business and to receive premiums. It covers, and the green tea in green covers ; two Re THE EUROPEAN BANK (LIMITED); MASTERS' was alleged in the present petitions that the whole Chinese words or “chop marks” being printed on
CASE. of the current premium income was being applied the sides of the covers, and on the ends the Company-Transfer of shares to a man of straw in discharge of the existing liabilities of the word's “ To be kept clear of tobacco, lemons, -Bona fides-Misrepresentation. society ; that no provision was being made to oranges,
In 1870 the defendants | ADJOURNED summons on an application by the meet prospective liabilities; and further that in were formed into a limited company also for liquidator of the European Bank to rectify the list fact the society was insolvent, and unable to meet the purpose of selling tea. Their company was, of contributories by placing William Masters present claims. On the 10th July 1871, the peti. it was said, promoted by a person who had for- thereon instead of Robert Deering, as liable in tions came on to be heard before Malins, V.C., merly been in the employment of the plaintiffs' respect of 280 shares, On the 4th May 1866, who then expressed his opinion that a primâ facie company, and the wrappers and labels of their Masters, who was the holder of 280 shares in the case had been made out to his satisfaction, packets of tea, though in many respects different bank of the nominal value of 501.
, on which 151. had within the meaning of sect. 21 of the Life from those of the plaintiffs, resembled them in been then paid up, executed a transfer of these Assurance Companies' Act 1870. On the 25th form and colour. They had also a trade-mark, in shares to Deering. The consideration was expressed July 1871, the petitions came again before his which there were the figures of a Chinaman and a to be 5s., and Deering was described in the transHonour, who, being of opinion that the society drayman, while the labels were printed in similar fer as a “gentleman.” The transfer was passed had been proved to be insolvent, ordered the type. On the sides were two Chinese words or by the directors on the Sth May, and on the 9th a hearing of the petitions to stand over until Nov. chop marks,” and they also had the words, certificate of proprietorship in Deering's name 1871, to enable the society to see whether any “To be kept clear of tobacco," &c.
was issued to Masters' brokers, and was subsearrangement could be made under sect. 22 of the Cotton, Q. C. and Maidlow for the plaintiffs. quently handed by them to Masters. The bank Life Assurance Companies Act 1870. Meanwhile Glasse, Q.C. and Cottrell for the defendants. stopped payment on the 16th May ; on the 9th the society was to be at liberty to pay out of Cotton in reply.
June a winding-up order was made, and Deering's their assets, current expenses and annuities not The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that no doubt a name was placed on the list. A call was made by the exceeding 501.; and all premiums paid on policies person carefully examining the defendants' liquidator in Nov. 1867, but nothing was recovered were to be carried to a separate account. wrappers would perceive that they were different from Deering, who was a person of no means. Proposals had been made by the new York Life from those of the plaintiffs ; but the public did Masters was a meat salesman, and Deering was a Insurance Company, and also by the New York not carefully examine such things, and the ques journeyman butcher in Masters' employment, Equitable Assurance Company, to take over the tion was, were the two so much alike that a pur- who had married his daughter. The account they business of the European. The petitions now came chaser, looking at the wrappers in the way in gave of the transaction was that the transfer was before the court again.
which purchasers of tea usually did look at made in performance of a promise made by Masters Cotton, Q.C. and Higgins, for the petitioners, such things, was likely to be deceived into Deering (on the occasion of the latter's marasked that a winding-up order might be made. It thinking that he was buying the plaintiffs' tea riage) to give him some money; and inasmuch as was said that offers had been made to take over when he really was buying the defendants'? It the bank had paid a dividend of 71. per cent. on the business of the society; but even if there were was wholly immaterial whether he got a better the paid up capital in Feb. 1866, and as at the any scheme for this purpose, a winding-up order bargain or not. The rule of the court was that a time of the transfer the shares could have been would be necessary, (i), because no policy holder man who had adopted a distinguishing mark had sold in the market for 61. or 81. apiece, they concould be compelled to accede to any proposition as a right to be protected against any other person tended that it was really a transfer not of liability, to the transfer of the business to any other office ; adopting one sufficiently like it to mislead an un- but of valuable property. According to their evi(2) in order that the benefit might be obtained of wary public. He must hold that the case came dence, it was an out-and-out transfer of a perthose provisions of the Companies' Act 1862, which within the rule. There was a general resemblance fectly bond fide character. It was contended on Protect the assets of a company and stay proceed. sufficient to mislead, which he could not think the other hand by the liquidator that the transacings in any action or suit against the company. was the result of accident. He should therefore tion was a colorable one, to enable Masters to
Sir R. Palmer, Q.C. and Henderson, for the com- make the injunction perpetual, restraining the avoid loss should the bank fail, while retaining his mittee of policy holders, asked for a compulsory'defendants from any colourable imitation of the 'profit should the bank continue prosperous. The
description of Deering in the transfer as a “gentle of the previous agreement. There must be a the company, never having been sent him. On was fraudulent, as inducing the directors decree for the plaintiff with costs.
behalf of Messrs. Brown and Tucker it was con. to believe that they were accepting a man of sub- Solicitor for the plaintiff, J. Henry Johnson. tended that the agreement for the sale of the stance when, in reality, they were accepting a man Solicitor for the railway company, E. P. Cearns. Bristol to the Ports was ultra vires of both comof straw. The chief clerk refused the application.
panies, and that the allotment being part of a Glasse, Q.C. and Graham Hastings for the liqui.
Thursday, Nov. 16.
void agreement, was also void. dator.
CORCORAN v. WITT.
Amphlett Q. C. and Brooksbank were for the Cotton, Q.C.and Higgins for Masters.
official liquidators. Bradford for Deering. Practice-Motion ordered to stand over until hear.
Fry Q. C., Lindley, and Cracknall were for the The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that to enable the
ing-Dismissal of bill-Costs of motion.
respondents. court to arrive at the true nature of the trans. This suit was instituted for the dissolution of the
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that even if the
existed action it was necessary to look at the surrounding and the defendant. At an early stage of the suit amalgamation was bad, of which he was not at circumstances. It was said that Masters had pro- the plaintiff moved for a receiver. This applica- all clear, there was a complete and binding.com mised money to his son-in-law Deering on the tion was opposed by the defendant, and was
tract by these gentlemen that they would take occasion of the latter's marriage. But the former ordered to stand until the hearing of the cause,
shares. The offer had proceeded from the com. was a meat salesman of substantial means, while the latter was a journeyman butcher. He could upon the plaintiff and the defendant entering
into pany, and as soon as these gentlemen had accepted not believe that Masters intended to transfer out.
an agreement as to the partnership accounts, but that offer by filling up the form of application, and-out to Deering shares which had cost himself nothing was said as to the costs of the motion. there was a contract binding on them
shareholders. Their names must therefore be 40001., which were producing 3001. a year, and Subsequently the bill was dismissed for want of which could have been sold for 20001. at the time prosecution. The taxing master having allowed placed upon the list of contributories.
Solicitor for the official liquidator, A. Pulbrook. of the transfer. There must have been an under the costs of the motion as costs in the cause,
Solicitors for the respondents, T. White and standing that if the company went wrong Deering back to the taxing master to review his tax. the plaintiffs applied that it might be referred
Sons. was to bear the loss, and if the company went ation in respect of the costs of the motion, Re THE BRITISH COLUMBIA, AND VANCOUVER right Masters was to have the benefit. Further, which he contended were wrongly allowed. On by describing Deering in the transfer as a gentle the part of the plaintiff it was contended that
ISLAND SPAR, LUMBER, AND Saw MILL Coxman," Masters had deceived the directors ; no
PANY (LIMITED) (STAMP's CLAIM). weight, therefore, could be attached to the fact the motion for a receiver was substantially sucthat the directors had accepted Deering. Masters' cessful, having regard to the terms of the agree. Company – Winding.up - Manager — Remunera. ment entered into by the defendant, and that
tion of-Net profits. name must be placed on the list, and he must pay therefore, following the rule laid down by Sir John EDWARD Stamp was appointed manager of the the costs.
Leach, V. C., in a memorandum (1 Sim. & St. 357), above named company's affairs in British Solicitors : Argles and Rawlins ; Rooks, Kenrick, the defendant's costs of the motion were not costs Columbia, and by the agreement entered into beand Harston. in the cause.
tween him and the company, Stamp was to reAmphlett, Q.C. and C. A. Holmes were for the ceive a salary of 6001. per annum, and a moiety of V. C. BACON'S COURT. the plaintiff.
the net profits on all sums realised on contracts Nov. 15 and 17.
Kay, Q. C. and Nalder for the defendant. made with any European Government or firm, and
to a commission of 51. per cent. upon the company's KEMP V. THE GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY
receiver having been unsuccessful, the costs of net profits on all contracts other than those with COMPANY.
that motion must be costs in the cause. The pre- any European Government or firm, “such sums of Railway Company, Agreement to take land- sent application must be dismissed with costs. money to be paid out of the said net profits when
Notice to treat under Lands Clauses Act- Solicitors for the plaintiff, Clowes, Hickley, and realised,” if such commission were less than 4001.
per annum, the company were to make up the This was a suit to restrain the company from Solicitors for the defendant, W. and J. Flower amount of the commission to that sum. The comcontinuing in possession of certain lands belonging and Nussey.
pany being unsuccessful, was ordered to be woundto the plaintiff until the amount of the purchase.
up, and Stamp claimed to be entitled to & money should be ascertained by arbitration under
Nov. 16 and 18.
moiety of the profits on each particular conthe provisions of the Lands Clauses Act 1845. Re THE UNITED PORTS AND GENERAL INSURANCE attributable to each contract, such as freight and
tract, deducting only the particular expenses By an Act passed in June 1862 the company COMPANY (BROWN AND TUCKER'S CASES.) were empowered to take land for the purposes Company-Amalgamation - Ultra vires—Share the subject of the contracts. On the other hand,
necessary disbursements on account of the cargoes, of their line, but the compulsory powers for
holders-Notice of allotment. the purchase of land were not to be exercised This was an application on behalf of the official
the liquidators contended that the meaning of after the expiration of three years, and the liquidator of the above named company that the
“net profits” was that portion of profits which works thereby authorised were to be completed within five years from the passing of the Act. settled upon the list of contributories to the comnames of Messrs. Brown and Tucker might be the expenses of management, &c., had been
was divisible among the shareholders after a? By an agreement dated the 4th Sept. 1863, and
deducted. made between the owners of the land in ques. respectively allotted to them in the United Ports pany, in respect of the shares which had been
Fry, Q.C. appeared for the claimant. tion and the company, the company agreed to
Kay, Q.C. and Jackson were for the official purchase certain lands at the price of 2000!..
, United Ports Company an agreement was entered
liquidators. and to erect and maintain a station on certain into with the Bristol Marine Insurance Company | Mr. Stamp was entitled to a moiety of the profits
The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that lands not included in the above agreement, and (Limited), in which company Messrs. Brown and thac one acre of ground shall be considered as covered by the sum of 20001. for the site and Company agreed to purchase the business and deducting any of the expenses incidental to the Tucker were shareholders, whereby the Ports
on each contract, deducting only such expenses as
were necessary on account of the cargoes, but not purposes of such station, and if the company goodwill of the Bristol Company, part of the conshall require more than one, acre of ground sideration for such sale being that the share management of the company. for the site or purposes of the said station. holders in the Bristol Company were to receive
Solicitors for the official liquidators, Bischof, any additional ground for any purpose beyond that specified in the said schedule paid up in the Ports Company to that which an equal number of shares of 11. each, fully Bompas, and Bischoff.
Solicitors for the claimant, Roberts and Simpson. hereto they shall pay for the same, at the they held in the Bristol company. The Bristol rate of 1001. per acre.” The agreement was to be supplemental to and not in substitution of the 21. being paid up; the Ports Company was, on was a limited company, with shares of 2010 each,
V. C. WICKENS' COURT. Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, and any the other hand, unlimited, although the shares
Nov. 14 and 15. Jifferences touching the premises were to be rewere nominally only 1l. each. The following form
ORCHARD V. LAKE. ferred to arbitration. On the 26th May 1865 the of application for shares was sent by the Ports Bill to set aside a deed.-Confirmation—Bill discompany served on the plaintiffs a notice under the Company and filled up by, among others, Messrs.
missed. Lands Clauses Consolidation Act to treat for the Brown and Tucker respectively : _"Shareholder's This suit was instituted for the purpose of setpurchase of certain lands, amounting to 3a. Or. 1p. form of application for exchange of shares from ting aside a mortgage deed executed in Oct. 1818 which included the one acre mentioned in the the Bristol Marine Insurance Company (Limited), in favour of Messrs. John Lake and Henry Lake, agreement for the purposes of the station. In May to the United Ports and General Insurance solicitors, of Lincoln's-inn, of a reversionary in1867 the company entered into possession of the lands mentioned in the notice to treat, and also of Company, in accordance with the agreement terest in trust funds in court, in the suit of Rowley
for amalgamation entered into between the V. Adams. The plaintiff and his brother and three certain other lands not mentioned in the notice, two companies duly approved at shareholders sisters had by that deed joined in mortgaging but they neither paid the purchase-money into the meetings: To the Directors of the United Ports their reversionary interests. Their mother was bank, nor gave a bond as required by the Lands and General Insurance Company. Gentlemen, I tenant for life. The mortgage deed was expressed Clauses Act. A correspondence ensued, as to request you will allot me shares in the above. to be made in consideration of a cash advance of what the company intended doing with so large a piece of land, and also as to the purchase-money. and I agree to accept the same, and I hereby admitted by the answer that about half of that
named company of ll. each, fully paid up, 5501. made to the plaintiff's father, whereas it was In the course of this correspondence Mr. Porter, authorise and empower you io insert my name who it was alleged was the company's agent, in the register of shareholders of the
sum was retained by Messrs. Lake on account of
antecedent debts of the father due to them. The wrote to the plaintiff, that the are prepared to refer the compensation for the pany for the number of shares allotted to father was at the date of the transaction in. whole of the extra land taken to arbitration me, and I accept the same, pursuant to the volved in difficulties, and in May, 1849, he beunder the Lands Clauses Act, as you suggest.'
agreement with the Bristol Marine Insurance Com. came bankrupt. The deed was impeached on The plaintiff and the company accordingly pany Limited), and I further hereby declare that I the ground of the misstatement of the consideraappointed two gentlemen arbitrators, but the accept the same in full discharge of all claims and tion in the deed of the fact that Messrs. Lake were coinpany subsequently refused to proceed with the demands, subject, nevertheless, to the cash pay. the nortgagors' solicitors, and that the mortgaarbitration, alleging that, under the agreement of able 'on the shares held in the Bristol Marine In. influence of the father over the plaintiff, who had
ment, as per agreoment, of 10s. per share, return. gors had no independent advice, and of the parental the 4th Sept. 1863, they were entitled to any quantity of the plaintiff's land that they might form
of application was a letter from the manager surance Company (Limited).” Accompanying this then only nine months attained the age of twenty
one. John Lake and Henry Lake were now dead. The require at the price of 1001. per acre.
of the Ports Company, in which he said “In tenant for life having died on the 12th May, 1868, Kay, Q. C. and Lawson, for the plaintiff.
carrying out this amalgamation this company re- the personal representatives of Messrs. Lake preLittle, Q. C. and C. H. Turner, were for the quests you to sign the annexed form of application sented a petition praying for a division of the fund company.
for shares . . . and return the same immediately and payment of their charge. The plaintiff had The Vice-CHANCELLOR said that upon the face in the accompanying envelope." Notice of allot- appeared on this petition, and had confined his of the agreement it was clear that the company ment and share certificates had been sent to Mr. objection to asking the court to direct an account wera intended only to acquire a small quantity of Brown, who had also voted at subsequent meet of the mortgage. That account was directed on land, and not such a quantity as they had taken ings, but Mr. Tucker disputed the fact of any the 18th July 1868, and in the course of it the possession of, besides which the notice to treat notice of allotment having been given him, and his plaintiff having found that he would be bound by under the Lands Clauses Act was a distinct waivor'share certificates were still in the possession of the statement of the construction in his deed, on
the 30th April 1869 filed the bill in this suit to set the Vice-Chancellor. The case now came before tiff had paid calls amounting to 9701. Symons aside the deed.
the 'court on the hearing, and the question prin- died in Aug. 1870, intestate. The defendants were Dickinson, Q.C. and Colt for the plaintiffs. cipally argued was whether the defendant was his legal personal representatives. This bill was
karslake, Q.C. and B. B. Rogers for the defen. bound by notice of the covenant. From the filod in April 1871, praying for a declaration that dants.
evidence it appeared that when he had taken the estate of Symons was liable for the amount of Sturges for other parties.
the contract from the agent of the society, he had the calls, and for accounts. To this bill the defen. The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that he was clearly acted without the intervention of a solicitor and dants pleaded as above. of opinion that the deed which it was sought to had abstained from making any inquiry as to the Greene, Q. C. and Maidlaw for the plea. set aside was voidable. The plaintiff at the time title deed. The invalidity of the covenant was Dickinson, Q. C. and E. Cutler, for the plaintiff he executed it was a young man, twenty-one and also insisted on.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said the question raised nine months, and not beyond his father's control. Karslake, Q.C. and Ayrton for the plaintiff. was whether the composition deed barred the It was said that his elder brother executed it at Greene, Q.C. and Townsend for the defendant. plaintiff's claim. After examining the cases and the same time; but that was no protection. It was The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that on the ques. the clauses of the Act of 1861, he had come to the said that he had legal advice, because his elder tion of validity of the covenant he was bound by conclusion that it had not done so, and the plea brother was a lawyer ; but that was not that sort the opinion of the Lords Justices that the cove- must therefore be overruled. The costs would be of protection which the court required. Then the nant was good ; nor had he any doubt in his own costs in the cause. defendants contended that the plaintiff was barred mind, though he did not think it necessary for Solicitors, J. and R. Gole ; H. J. Godden. by the lapse of time, but the reversion only fell in him to say so, that their decision was right. It in 1868, and no objection therefore could be taken had been contended, however, that the defendant on the score of lapse of time. But in July 1868, a had not had notice of the covenant; but as he had
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. petition was presented which impeached the very chosen to take his contract without inquiry, he
Thursday, Nov. 16. deed. The plaintiff was served with it and ap- must be held to be affected with notice. He
REG. v. JUSTICES OF FLINTSHIRE. peared on it. The parties were then at arm's should make a decree in the terms of the Afiliation order- Quashed on appeal — Subse. length, and yet the plaintiff on that solemn oppor. | prayer of the bill ; but, on the whole, espe. quent application for new summons--Res judi. tunity made no objection to the deed. It might be cially as there had been no application for the cata. that he preferred his chance of the account, but interim injunction, he did not consider it a case Rule calling on justices to show cause why a however that might be, he (the Vice-Chancellor) for directing an inquiry as to damages. Nor mandamus should not issue commanding them to must hold that he had by his deliberately abstain. should he direct the injunction to be framed adjudicate upon an affiliation summons issued by ing from taking the objection, confirmed that deed, so as to stop the defendant from supplying ang Louisa Jackson against William Smith, the alleged and the bill must be dismissed without costs. beer or ale he might happen to have in stock. father of her bastard child. It appeared that the Solicitors, W. W. Orchard; Lake and Co. The injunction would prevent him from adding to child was born in Jan. 1871. The mother obtained
it, and on that point would be perpetual. There an order, adjudging Smith to be the putative
was one other point upon which he wished to father, on the 9th Feb. He appealed to quarter Thursday, Nov. 16.
make a suggestion in the interest of both parties. sessions. At the hearing on appeal his counsel ALLSOP v. WHEATCROFT.
It had been stated that the former judgment submitted at the close of the respondent's case Contract-Breach of— Restraint on trade-Motion would be brought before the House of Lords by that there was no corroborative evidence. The for injunction.
way of appeal. His present decision would, of justices were of that opinion, and quashed the This was a motion for an injunction to restrain course, also be the subject of an appeal to the order. The woman again applied to justices in the defendant from selling Burton beer at certain House of Lords, and he would suggest that to save petty sessions for a new affiliation summons places near Chesterfield, other than the Burton save expense of two separate appeals both parties against Smith, but the justices considered the beer brewed and supplied by the plaintiffs. The should agree to combine the appeal from both matter to be res judicata' by the decision of the defendant in 1866 signed an agreement to become decisions in one case.
court of quarter sessions, and declined to enterfor two years the agent of the plaintiffs for Ches. Solicitors, Senior, Attree, and Johnson ; Henry tain the application. terfield and the neighbourhood, and to sell their beer Smith.
The Attorney-General (Sir John D. Coleridge, only, at a certain salary. After the expiration of
Q.C.) and M'Intyre showed cause. the two years the agency was discontinued, and it
Friday, Nov. 17.
Merewether in support of the rule. was contended that the terms of the agreement Re CRAMER AND Co. ; Ex parte SANGSTER. The Court (Blackburn, Mellor, Lush, and still bound the defendant, who left the plaintiff's Company - Supervisory liquidation - Additional Hannen, JJ.) held, that the adjudication of the employment in April last, and had become the
quarter sessions was a final decision upon the agent of another firm for the sale of their beer. Dickinson, Q. C. and Montague Cookson, for the company, which was formed for the purpose of car: These were two petitions in reference to the above merits of the case, which operated as a bar, and
that, therefore, the justices acting in petty ipotion. W. Pearson, for the defendant, contended that Co., music publishers, &c., in Regent-street. On application: rying on the bu-iness of Cramer, Wood, Beale, and sessions were right in refusing the subsequent
Rile discharged. the agreement was obtained under such circum. the 9th Aug. 1871 it was resolved, at a meeting of
Attorneys for the appellant, Blakeley and Bes. stances as that the conrt would not enforce it. shareholders, that
wick. Assuming that it had been properly obtained, wound-up voluntarily, and on the 25th of the
the company should
Attorneys for the respondent, Meredith and Co. it was void at law, as being a restraint on trade.
same month another meeting took place, at which The two years stipnlated for had long since ex. the resolution was confirmed, and a Mr. Peach
Friday, Nov. 17. pired: moreover, the plaintiffs had, by com.
WILSON 4. NEWBERRY. was appointed liquidator. The first of the present mencing an action at law to recover damages, petitions prayed that the winding-up might be Clippings from yew trees-- Duty to keep on one's barred themselves from seeking a remedy in equ ty under the supervision of the court. The second Demurrer to a declaration. Declaration alleged
own lanıl. The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that the point that a compulsory or supervisory order might be raised in reference to the new contract had not made ; that Mr. Peach might be removed from his that defendant was possessed of certain yew trees; been determined by any decision, and as it was an important one, he would not decide it then, but liquidators, or that one independent person might poisonous to horses, &c., whereupon it became and
on certain lands in his occupation, the clippings of office of liquidator, or in the alternative for two which trees were, to defendant's knowledge, would order the motion to stand over until the be appointed alone. hearing of the cause.
Greene, Q.C. and Dryden ; Dickinson, Q.C. and
was defendant's duty to take due and proper care Richardson and Small, Burton-upon-Trent; Burt, Hinde Palmer, Q.C. and Robinson appeared for horses of his neighbours might be enabled to eat Solicitors: F. J. and G. T. Brackenbridge, for Jackson; Karslake, Q. C and Napier' Higgins; to prevent said clippings from being put or placed
on land belonging to any other person, where the Stevenson, and Cave, for G. E. Gee, Chesterfield.
the various parties.
them; yet defendant, disregarding his duty in CATT v. TOURLE.
make an order which, perhaps, in its entirety, was Land sold for erection of public-house-Brewer's without precedent and which might not be whereby the horses of the plaintiff, being on land warranted by the Act of Parliament, viz., to
where they lawfully might be, were enabled Breach of covenant- Notice-Injunction. covenant for exclusive right to supply beer-continue the winding-up under the supervision of / to eat said clippings, and did eat of the same, and
were thereby poisoned and killed, &c. This case, which was originally argued before the court, and to appoint an additional liquidator Stuart, V.C., on demurrer, was now brought before to act with Mr. Peach. Order accordingly.
Herschell in support of the demurrer. the court on the hearing. The facts were shortly Kimber and Ellis; 'Vallance and Vallance; Cook held the declaration bad ; the only duty alleged
Solicitors : Nash, Fielil, and Layton ; Pead;
Quain, Q.C. (with him A. L. Smith) contra.
The COURT (Mellor, Lush, and Hannen, JJ.) these : The plaintiff, a brewer at Brighton, had sold a piece of land, for the erection of an inn or public son, Wainwright, and Pennington.
being one that did not result from the premises. house, to the trustees of the Conservative Land
Judgment for defendant. Society. The conveyance contained a covenant that
Monday, Nov. 20.
Attorneys for defendant, Phelps and Sidgwick. the plaintiff, his heirs, or assigns should have the
HOLMES v. SYMONS. exclusive right of supplying the house, when Plea-Composition-deed-Winding.up.
JOYCE v. KENNARD. erected, with beer, ale, or porter. The land | The question in this case whether a Insurance-Proportionate liability of underwriters society subsequently entered into a contract to composition deed executed under the Bankruptcy SPECIAL case. Plaintiffs, lightermen, effected sell the land in question to the defendant who was Act 1861 was a good plea against the defen. insurance for the purpose of insuring one of their members and was a brewer. When dant's liability for calls under a liquidation. themselves against losses in the way of their the house was built the defendant supplied it The facts were shortly as follows: The Con. business. The policy was in the ordinary with
his own ale and beer, and, on being applied tract Corporation, prior to Dec. 1863, allotted form of a Lloyd's policy, but concluded thus : to by the plaintiff, refused to be bound by the to the plaintiff and to a Mr. R. White, ten “ To cover and include all losses, damages, covenant, and continued as before to supply shares each. In accordance with instructions and accidents, amounting to 201. or upwards, beer and ale of his own. The plaintiff then the brokers of these two gentlemen sold the shares on each craft, to goods carried by Messrs. Joyce filed his bill for an injunction and for damages. tn Frederick Symons for the settling day, 20th and Son, as lightermen, or delivered to them The principal question, on the demurrer, was as to Feb. 1864 for 2001., but the contract for sale was to be water-borne, either in their own or other the validity at law, of the covenant. It was argued by agreement carried over to 29th Feb. 1864, and craft, and for which losses, damages, and accidents that there being no covenant on the brewer's part the same thing was done to the 15th and 30th days they may be liable to the owners or others to supply the defendant with beer, the covenant of March 1864. On the last date a transfer was interested." The policy subscribed by was bad for want of mutuality; that, on the executed by the plaintiff and White, and they different underwriters to the amount of 20001., the grounds of public policy it was void as an un. received the purchase moneys. Symons was liability of each underwriter not to exceed the reasonable restraint on trade, and, again, that as and always, according to the custom of the ex. amount of his subscription. Defendant underwrote there was no covenant on the plaintiff's part that change, remained liable on the shares, though he for 1001. A loss of goods on board a barge of the the beer when supplied should be good, the effect neglected to execute the transfers. In April 1866, plaintiffs having happened for which plaintiffs had to of enforcing the covenant would be injurious the Contract Corporation was ordered to be wound pay to the owners of the goods 11001., the total to the public health. Stuart, V.C., however, held up, and the plaintiff's and White's names were value of the goods in the barge, being 29001., the covenant to be valid, and overruled the de. placed on the list of contributories. On the 11th plaintiffs claimed from defendant 551. as his pro
The defendant thereupon appealed to July 1866, Symons executed a deed of inspector. portion of the loss actually sustained. Defendant the Lords Justices, who upheld the decision of ship under the Bankruptcy Act 1861. The plain.' contended that he was liable to pay only such a
proportion of the loss actually sustained, as the circumstances capable of possessing. such an Field, Q.C. (with him Herschel), argued for the sum cf 1001., for which he subscribed, bore to the animus revertendi as would give rise to a construc- appellant. whole value of all the goods on board all the tive residence during the periods of absence above Manisty, Q.C. (with him Cave), for the responplaintiff's crafts, which were covered by the set forth. But it was argued that the pauper, not dents. policy, i.e., to 20,0001., in which case his liability having before May 1870 had any abode of her own The COURT were of opinion that as there was would be only 61.
or place of residence in the union to which she had no evidence of the dedication to the public of Quain, Q. C. (A. L. Smith with him), for the a right to return, had not resided there within the more than the highway itself, the magistrates had plaintiffs.
meaning of the Acts creating and defining irre- misinterpreted the Highway Acts, and they Sir G. Honyman, Q.C. (Watkin Williams with movability, and could not have such animus rever- quashed the conviction. him) for the defendant. tenili thither.
Judgment for appellant. The Court (Mellor, Lush, and Hannen, JJ.) Maule, Q.C. and Waddy for the respondents. Attorneys for appellant, Pattison, Wigg, and Co. held that the policy was not to be considered as a Campbell Foster for the appellants.
Attorney for respondents, J. L. Tomlin for J. P. marine policy, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the amount claimed from the defendant. find as a fact whether, upon the occasions of the
The Court sent the case back to the justices to Tomlin, Richmond, Yorkshire.
Monday, Nov. 20.
MALLOCK v. BULLOCK.
to return which the pauper must have in order to
law against person in possession of lands--Dis
closure of title. GAINSBOROUGH UNION (apps.) v. Welch (resp.) Binney, for Powells, Knaresborough.
Attorneys for appellants, Paterson, Snow, and
M'Intyre moved for a rule calling on the defen. The Parochial Assessment Act, 1836 (6 & 7 Will. 4.
dant in an action of trover brought to recover Attorney for respondents, John Scott. c. 96), s. 1-Erpenses necessary to command rent
title-deeds to show cause why he should not --Drainage rate under local Act-Taxes payable
answer interrogatories as to particulars of the by lanıllord.
The MUTUAL TONTINE WESTMINSTER CHAM- deeds in question. The plaintiff, heir-at-law of SPECIAL case granted by justices at quarter ses- BERS ASSOCIATION (LIMITED) (apps.) v. THE his brother deceased, claimed to be entitled to sions, upon appeal from special sessions con- ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE OF ST. GEORGE's certain freehold estates, of which the latter died cerning a poor rate. By the Everton Drain- UNION (resps.)
seised, and of which the widow of the deceased age Act 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. cliv.), s. 58 Separate rating of rooms in a house--Structural
was in possession. He brought an action of power is given to a commissioner “to assess,
severance-Control of outer door.
trover to recover title deeds held by the widow, tax, and charge upon the owners or proprie- SPECIAL case granted by the Court of General As before bringing ojectment, and applied to Martin, tors for the time being of the lands and grounds sessment Sessions of the Metropolis, under the B. at chambers, to allow interrogatories to be adspecified . such sums of money as he shall Valuation (Metropolis) Act 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 67) ministered, one of which was as follows : “ Have find to be necessary; not exceeding in the s. 40. Appellants are owners of seven adjacent blocks you in your
possession and control any and what whole the total amount set forth ;” and by sect. of buildings called the “ Westminster Chambers,
title deeds or muniments of title relating to the 62, “the tenant or occupier of any lands and which contain in all 117 sets or suites of rooms.
house at Little Over, in the county of Derby, grounds, embanked and drained, or intended to Each set had been assessed in the valuation list which your late hnsband occupied at the time of be embanked and drained, by virtue of this Act, by the respondents as a separate hereditament. his death. If yea, describe them by dates or is hereby authorised and required to pay such To this the appellants objected, and the Court of parties, or otherwise sufficient for their identificasum and sums of money, not exceeding half a
General Assessment Sessions directed the valua- tion.” The learned judge refused to allow the year's accruing rent, as shall be assessed, taxed, tion list to be altered according to their objection,
interrogatory. or charged upon the owner or proprietor of any and a valuation of each of the seven blocks to be
The COURT (Cockburn, C. J., Mellor, Lush, and such lands and grounds in his occupation, and to inserted instead of the 117 sets of rooms. They Hannen, JJ.) held that the proper course for the deduct the same out of his rent then due or accru: granted, however, a case for the opinion of this plaintiff to pursue was to bring ejectment for the ing due ; and every tenant or occupier who shall court as to whether they were right in so deciding. I estate claimed by him; that he could not, by suing make such payment shall be acquitted and dis. Each block of buildings has an entrance, and is
for the title deeds and administering interroga charged for so much money as the sum he shall so divided into two ranges by an internal staircase. I tories respecting them, evade the rule of law that pay shall amount unto, as if the same had been The buildings are structurally divided into 117 a person seeking to recover lands in an action of actually paid unto the person to whom his rent different suites or sets of rooms, which are quite ejectment cannot compel the detendant in posseswas due and payable.” The lands occupied by the distinct from each other. The outer or street
sion to disclose his title; and that, therefore, the respondents were rated under this Act in the door to each block of building is kept locked at interrogatories were rightly disallowed. annual sum of 291. 58., which was paid by the night, and a porter, who is hired by the appellants,
Attorneys for the plaintiff, Williamson, Hill, owner, the Duke of Portland. The assessment resides in a distinct set of rooms in the basement of and Co. committee made no allowance for this drainage each block of buildings, and has a key of and access rate in the assessment of the respondent to the to the rooms in such building for the purpose of
Tuesday Nov. 21. poor rate. Upon appeal, the justices at petty a general superintendence, and as the servant of
LOCKWOOD v. JENKINSON. sessions decided that the respondent was entitled the occupiers respectively by whom he is in some Bankruptcy Act 1861--Deed of composition assi:into a deduction of this sum from his rent in the
cases employed in and paid for looking after the ing property and right to sue-Deed of re-as. computation of the net annual value of his lands.
signment by trustees — Subsequent power of Upon appeal to the quarter sessions, the decision Poland for the appellants, contended that the debtor to sue. of the justices at petty sessions was upheld, test for the separate rating of the rooms in a house Cross demurrers to a plea, a replication, and a resubject to a case for the opinion of this court. was the control of the landlord over the front joinder. Action for money due from defendant to Cave and Mellor argued for the respondent, that door ; that in this case the appellants through the plaintiff
. Plea setting out a deed under the Bankthe cost of this drainage, although paid by the porter reserved that control, and therefore there ruptcy Act 1861, by which plaintiff covenanted to landlord, was an expense necessary to maintain ought to be only seven assessments in the valua- pay his creditors 16s. in the pound, and for the land in a state to command the rent within the tion list.
security assigned all his property and debts to Parochial Assessment Act 1836, s. 1.
Manisty, Q.C., and Streeten, for the respondents, trustees. There was a clause enabling the trustees Lawrance and Horace Smith, for the appellants, were not heard.
to re-assign the property to plaintiff upon pay. contended that this was not an expense ejusdem The COURT (Cockburn, C.J., Blackburn and ment of the composition. The plea averred that generis with repairs and insurance, of which the Mellor, JJ.), reversed the decision of the Court of all things were done necessary to render the deed above section expressly provides for the deduction. General Assessment Sessions, upholding that of valid under sect. 192 of the Act, and to assign all They cited Reg v. Vange (3 Q. B. 242), Reg. v. Hall the Assessment Committee of St. George's Union, plaintiff's debts to the trustees.' Replication setDare (5 B. & S. 785), Reg. v. Adams (4 B. & Ad 61), the respondents.
ting out a deed made in 1870, by which the plain. and Reg. v. Sherford (L. Rep. 2 Q. B. 503).
Judgment for respondents. tiff's trustees re-assigned the property to plaintiff The COURT (blackburn and Mellor, JJ.) were of Attorney for appellants, Burchells.
according to the clause of the previons deed which opinion that this deduction ought to have been Attorneys for respondents, Capron, Dalton, and was recited in this. It also recited payment of made. Hitchins.
the composition to all the creditors except one, who Judgment for respon lent.
was a party to the deel, and who accepted bills of Attorneys for appellants, Thos. H. and A. R. Easton (app.) v. RICHMOND HIGHWAY Board exchange in satisfaction. The replication averred Ouman.
plaintiff's right upon the strength of this deed to Attorneys for respondents, C. and J. Allen and Highway Act 1864 (27 f 28 Vict. c. 101), s. 51– sue for this debt. Rejoinder, that the deed set Son, for Newton and Jones, East Retford.
Encroachment within 15ft. of centre-Dedication out in the replication was not made under any of of sides to the public.
the Bankruptcy Acts, and had not received the CASE stated by justices at petty sessions. The sanction of the Court of Bankruptcy. KNARESBOROUGH UNION (apps.) v. PATELEY appellant had been convicted under 27 & 28 BRIDGE UNION (resps.)
Baylis, for plaintiff, contended that the object Vict. c. 101, s. 51, of encroaching upon a highway of the first deed was the composition to the creOrder of removal--Status of irremovability, within the respondents' district by building a stone ditors, and that the assignment was only by way Animus revertendi.
wall within 15ft. of the centre thereof. The appel- of security. The debtor continued to have an APPEAL against an order of removal from the lant was lord of the manor in which the highway equitable right to his property, and upon the fulrespondents' to the appellants' union. The quarter was situate, and owner of the village green through filment of the object of the deed and the execution sessions for the West Riding of Yorkshire con- which it passed, and also of the property around. of the second deed, the right to the surplus of his firmed the order. The appellants opposed the The metalled road across this green was 8ft. wide, property and to sue for his debts became reorder, on the ground that the pauper, Alice Slinger, and there was no difference between the grass vested in him. It was said that this assignment ! had obtained a status of irremovability, in the which camne np to both sides of this metalled bore an analogy to the case of a mortgage. respondents' union. On the 22nd June 1868 the road, and that of the whole green, which extended Field, Q.C. (with him Kemplay), for defendant, pauper came, with some of her furniture, to the about 100 yards each side of the road. The appel. argued from the 197th section of the Bankruptcy house of her brother-in-law, in the respondents' lant had built a wall each side of the highway at Act 1861, and from the same section of the Bank. union. Her furniture was stowed in an empty a distance of 4ft from the edge of the metalled ruptcy Consolidation Act 1849, that this revestroom, and she was entertained gratuitously. She road; the walls were therefore about 16ft. ment required the sanction of the Court of Bank. remained there, with the exception of short inter- apart. It was contended by the appellant that ruptcy. vals, in which she paid visits to relations and there was nothing in the Highway Acts to prevent Baylis, in reply, maintained that the provision friends, until the 1st May 1870, when she took a his building on his own land within 15ft of the to re-convey in the first deed did away with that cottage in the respondents' union, and removed centre of the highway, providing that he did not necessity. her furniture to it. On the the 20th June 1870 she build upon the highway or boundaries thereof ; The Court (Cockburn, C.J., Mellor, Lush, and became chargeable to the respondents' union. It and that as there had been no dedication to the Hannen, JJ.), held that the plaintiff had no right was not contended on behalf of the respondents, public of any more of the green than the road, he to sue in his own name. The assignment of his that the pauper had not actually lived sufficiently had not encroached on the highway or the sides debts by the first deed took effect only under the long in their union to give her a status of irre. thereof. The justices however convicted the Bankruptcy Acts, and it was absolute and indefea. | movability by construction, if she were under the appellant.
sible except by the provisions of those Acts. The
second deed not being by force of any statute the
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
the vote of Davis and others who did not apre-assignment failed to vest the right to sue for
Decision offirmed. his debts in the plaintiff.
Friday, Nov. 17.
Attorney for appellant, Wragg.
Attorneys for respondent, Wyatt, Hoskins, and Attorneys for plaintiff, Lever and Son, for Thos.
BENDLE v. WATSON.
Parliamentary election-Misdescription in fourth
Nov. 17 and 18.
on account of a freehold house and shop, situate Wrong party made appellant-Jurisdiction of the Liability of underwriters. in and numbered 4, England-street, Carlisle. The
court. SPECIAL case stated by an arbitrator.
street had been 'lately newly numbered, and the APPEAL from the revising barrister for the city
Action against underwriters upon a policy of assur
appellant's house was now known by the name of and borough of Chester. The appellant gave ance of cochineal on the voyage from the Cana- house was wrongly numbered, the appellant had a being retained on the list of voters. It was con
No. 9, England-street, Carlisle. Except that the respondent notice of objection to his (respondent) ries to London. This and other policies of the right to have his name returned upon the list of tended before the revising barrister that the same kind were entered into by the plaintiff voters. The revising barrister expunged the ap, notice was bad, and the revising barrister was of in London on cargoes,
of the shipping of which he plicant's name from the list of voters on account this opinion. He, however, went on to examine was advised; no ship was named when the policies of the number of the house being wrongly stated, were made, but plaintiff declared the assurance to and he declined to amend, as he considered that and finding the claim a bad one, he struck the
the respondent's claim as if the notice was good, be on a particular ship, when he was informed of he had no power to do so, or, if he had, that he respondent's name off the list of voters. The its sailing. These are known by the name of should be exercising such power wrongly. floating policies. On the 9th Dec. 1863 plaintiff
question for the decision of the court was as to the received bills of lading of large quantities of
Sharp for appellant.
validity of the notice of objection--the court to cochineal on board the ship Azorian, and informa
J. H. Fawcett for respondent.
reinstate the respondent's name if it should hold tion that if there were further quantities to for- JJ.) held that this was a case in which the revising
The COURT (Willes, Keating, Brett, and Collier, the notice of objection good. ward, they would go by the Candida. On the barrister not only had power to have amended, the appellant.
H. Giffard, Q.C. (Horatio Lloyd with him) for same day an anonymous letter was received at but that he ought to have amended, as it was not Lloyd's, in which it was stated that this cargo of
H. James, Q.C. (M’Intyre with him) for the alleged cochineal in the Candida was really barley, but only in the local description; and they re
an error in the description of the qualification, respondent. that the intention was to lose the vessel in order
The COURT (Willes, Keating, Brett, and Collier, versed his decision.
Decision reversed. that the underwriter should pay, and that the
JJ.) held, that it had no jurisdiction to entertain shippers were ruined and desired to save them
Attorneys for appellant, Carter and Bell. the appeal, as the decision was already in the selves. A notice of this letter was affixed to Attorneys for respondent, Gray, Johnstone, and appellant's favour.
Appeal dismissed. a board at Lloyd's, but in point of fact the defenMouncey.
Cunliffe and Beaumont, for Churton, Chester, dant never observed the notice or saw the letter.
for appellant. On the 11th Dec. 1863, plaintiff entered into other
TOWNSEND V. THE OVERSEERS OF THE POOR Milne and Co., for Thos. Brown, Chester, for policies, and among them that now in dispute.
OF ST. MARYLEBONE.
respondent. He never mentioned to the underwriters his infor: Joint-tenant — Representation of People Act . mation that probably the subject of his insurance
Saturday, Nov. 18. would be shipped in the Candida, nor did he men- JAMES BLACKMAN had occupied the premises, in
FORD (app.) v. Boon (resp.) tion the said anonymous letter, which, however, respect of which his name had been inserted by Registration Notice of claim-Description of he had seen, but boni fide disbelieved. He sutse. the overseers, jointly with another person for more
nature of qualification as “house”-Power of quently declared this policy to be on the cargo by than twelve calendar months. previous to the
revising barrister to amend. the Candida, and in consequence of disasters sus31st July 1871. He had paid all poor rates and
CONSOLIDATED appeal from the revising barrister tained by that ship on her voyage, a large quantity assessed taxes, and had resided for six months, for the city and county of Exeter. It was proved of cochineal ou board was jettisoned.
previous to the 31st July, within the borough of that the respondent duly sent in to the overseers Pollock, Q. C. (with him F. M. White), for the Marylebone. The value of his premises was of the parish in Exeter, in which he resided, a plaintiff, argued that this was not such a conceal. sufficient to entitle him to the franchise after the notice of claim to be put on the list of voters, in ment on the plaintiff's part as to vitiate the whole amount had been divided among the joint which he described the nature of his qualification policy. occupiers. The overseers make only one list of
house,” and the overseers duly published a Hüayman, Q. C. (with him J. C. Mathew) ap- persons entitled to vote, which includes those list in which the respondent's name appeared, the peared for the defendant, but was not heard. both under the Act of 2 Will. 4, c. 45, and also
nature of his qualification being there described The COURT, without expressing an opinion about under the Representation of People Act 1867.
as “house.” The respondent duly proved his the effect of concealing the fact of the said The list described Blackman's qualification as
claim as a 101. householder. Exeter is a city anonymous letter, held that the plaintiff's reti.
“ a dwelling-house ;' the house in fact being and county, having reserved rights of voting cence, concerning his information of the probable a shop with rooms above. It was objected as freeholders and freemen, and therefore the shipment of cochineal in the Candila, was suffi- that as the qualification was described as a
overseers of each parish make out two lists-one cient to vitiate the policy.
“dwelling house,” Blackman's title could only be of occupiers, the other of persons entitled to vote Judgment for defendant.
under the 3rd section of the Representation of the by virtue of other rights except as freemen, Attorneys for plaintiff, Hillyer and Fenwick.
People Act, and that as that section provided that which, after being revised, are amalgamated into Attorneys for defendant, Waltons, Bubb, and no man should be entitled to be registered as a
one list. It was contended that the claimant had Talioni.
yoter by reason of his being a joint occupier of any insufficiently described his claim, as the word dwelling house, he was not entitled to a vote. The
house did not express any qualification, and Wednesday, Nov. 22.
revising barrister substituted house for dwelling the claimant did not indicate the list in which he EVANS V. SUMMERS. house, and retained the name.
claimed to have his name inserted. It was further Racing-Forfeitlist-Disqualification–Finality of
Gorst for appellant.
contended that the revising barrister had no power The Court (Willes, Keating, and Collier, JJ., to amend the notice of claim by inserting the decision of racing committee. This was an action to recover the amount of dissentiente, Brett, J.) held, that as Blackman would words " occupation of" before the word "house. stakes won by plaintiff at certain races run last have been entitled to a vote under the old Act, and On the other side it was urged that the notice of year at Petherton, near Taunton, but which de considering that the Representation of the People claim was sufficient, and that the revising barrister fendant refused to pay him
on the ground that the Act was passed to enlarge the franchise, that the had power to amend the list of claimants if necesracing committee had decided that plaintiff was revising barrister was right in altering the word
sary. The revising barrister held (1) that the disqualified, his name being in the forfeit list in
form of the notice was sufficient; (2) that he was respect of an unpaid forfeit incurred in 1859. By
Per BRETT:- That as the error was in the nature justified, under the circumstances, in amending the local rules and the Newmarket rules, which of the qualification, that the revising barrister the notice of claim ; (3) that if he had the power were incorporated in them, no person whose name ought not to have altered the list.
of amendment, under 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 40, he ought,
Decision affirmed. appeared in the forfeit list is entitled to run until
under the circumstances, to use it. This was an the forfeit is paid ; all objections are to be
Attorney for appellant, A. Beddall.
appeal from that decision. made before the succeeding race, and in writing to
kingdon, Q. C. for the appellant. the committee, except charges of fraud; the de
Lopes, Q. C. for the respondent, was not heard. cision of the committee to be final. In the present
CALVER v. ROBERTS.
The Court (Willes, Keating, Brett, and Collier, case the objection to plaintiff's right to get the Objector-Mistake in place of abode-Change of JJ.) held that the notice was sufficient; that the stakes was not made till two days after the race,
revising barrister had power to amend it, and that when it was referred to the committee, who de- The appellant had objected to the vote of one he was right in doing so. cided against the plaintiff. Plaintiff did not, Davis. In the notices of objection the appellant Attorney for appellant, J. E. Fox, for H. and before the committee, rely on the fact that the had described himself as of Pembroke-road, Wal. B. Ford, Exeter. objection was not made till too late. The case thamstow. Until August 1871 the appellant had was tried before Blackburn, J., without a jury, lived in the above house, which had a large garden CHORLTON (app.) v. THE OVERSEERS OF TONGE who ordered a verdict to be entered for plaintiff, running down at the back. At the back of the
(resps.) with leave to defendant to move. A rule nisi garden the appellant had built another house, Notice of objection-Description of list on which having been obtained,
which was known as Grosvenor-park-terrace, and ohjector's nanu to be found -Division of parish Parry, Serjt. and Lanyon now showed cause in which he had lived since August. He had let into separate polling districts. against the rule, and argued that the committee his house to a tenant, who was in occupation of CONSOLIDATED appeal from the decision of the had no jurisdiction, the objection to plaintiff's the house at time of his signing the notices of revising barrister for East Lancashire. The appelright not having been made within the specified objection. Davis, to whose vote the appellant lant was objected to, the person objecting signing time.
had objected, did not appear and defend, and it his notice, as S. S., “Quarry-hill, on the register James, Q.C. and Thesizer, in support of the was objected that the appellant's objection was of voters for the township of Spotland.” It was rule, contended that the committee had jurisdic- bad, inasmuch as his place of abode was wrongly objected that this notice of objection (though in tion, and the objection as to time was not taken stated. The revising barrister allowed the vote, the form given in Schedule A. of 28 & 29 Vict. before them.
considering, on the authority of Melbourne v. c. 36), was insufficient, inasmuch as the town. The Court (Cockburn, C. J., Blackburn and Greenfield (7 C. B., N. S., 1; 1 L. T. Rep. N. S.93) ship of Spotland had been divided, under sect. Mellor, JJ.), held that the plaintiff was not that the place of the abode of the appellant was 34 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, into different entitled to recover, on the ground that his appear insufficient.
polling districts, for each of which, by the same ance before the committee and entering into the E. Clarke, for appellant, cited Knowles v. Brook- section, a separate list was made. Further, by merits of the question, without at all relying on ing (2 C. B. 226).
sect. 22 of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 58, where any parish the objection as to time, amounted to a waiver of Shield for respondent.
forms part of more than one polling district, the that objection.
Rule absolute. The Court (Willes, Keating, Brett, and Collier, part of such parish in each polling district shall be Attorney for plaintiff, Horwood.
JJ.) considered that revising barrister had deemed to be a separate parish for the purposes of Attorneys for defendant, Brackenbridge and Son. 'rightly exercised his judgment in not striking off the revision of voters and the lists and register of