Page images

Chief rent

4 11


26 15 0
7 1 8

of tenants

voters, and may be designated by some distin the increased rent of 11. 8s. 6d. being occasioned

COURT OF EXCHEQUER. guishing addition in the list of voters for such by the bringing into the dwelling houses a supply

Friday, Nov. 3. part of a parish. of water, and such bringing in of water was a

PALMER AND OTHERS v. Fox. Edwards, for the appellant, contended that the convenience to the tenants, who were charged an effect of the two last mentioned enactments was

Action on covenant to pay money on request-Plea, increased rent in respect of it. The houses were to make it necessary for an objector to specify, managed by an agent, who was paid by commis.

a composition deed under Bankruptcy Act 1861, beyond what is required by 28 & 29 Vict. c. 36, sion, which I found to be necessary, and who ex

whereby the cause of action vested in trustees to what particular polling district he belongs, in pended during the year, between 31st July 1870

Proof of plea-Affidavit of execution by majority any case in which the parish to which he belongs and 31st July 1871, in repairs and otherwise, the

of creditors-Evidence in contradiction-Plain. has been divided into polling districts. The ob- following amounts, which I held to be necessary

tiffs inserting themselves in deed as creditors of jector ought to have added to the words “ town. expenses and proper to be deducted from the gross This was an action on a covenant for the payment

themselves- Vatidity of deed-Estoppel. ship of Spotland” the words “ Rochdale polling annual rental. district."

to the plaintiffs of 1501. upon request, which was No one appeared for the respondents.

Right of way

1 10 0 tried before Pigott, B., in Middlesex, when & The COURT (Willes, Keating, Brett, and Collier,


verdict was found for the plaintiffs, leave being

Commission J.J.) held the description sufficient and dismissed

reserved to the defendant to move for a new

Expended for laying on water for use the appeal. Appeal dismissed.

21 19 1

trial on the ground of misdirection. The ques. Attorneys for the appellant, Horne and Hunter.

tion turned on the third plea which alleged

61 17 3 the execution by the plaintiffs of a composition Saturday, Nov. 18.

which being deducted from the gross rent of deed under the Bankruptcy Act 1861, by which,

1431. 2s. 10d., left a net annual rental of 811. 58. 711., as the defendant alleged, the cause of action REGISTRATION APPEAL.

which sum being equally divided between the became vested in the trustees under that Frith v. THE OVERSEERS OF WIDDECOMBE-ON forty-eight tenants in common, did not leave 40s. deed. To prove the plea the defendant put in the THE Mon.

for each. Upon this the revising barrister dis. deed itself, and an affidavit of the plaintiffs, as County vote-Notice of claim for land occupied" allowed the votes of the forty-eight tenants in required by the Act upon registering the deed, -Claim as 121. occupier.

common. The question for the court was whether that the necessary majority in number and value, APPEAL from the decision of the revising barris. he was right in deducting the sum of 211. 19s. ld. &c., of the creditors had executed or become ter for the Northern Division of Devon. The ap- from the gross rental. If he was wrong in so bound by the deed, which the learned Baron held pellant, on the 25th Aug., sent in a claim to be doing, the votes of the forty eight tenants in to be good evidence of proof of the plea. To put on the list of voters for the division of the common were to be reinstated on the register. answer that evidence the plaintiffs called the county in respect of "land occupied.” He had a C. Boven for appellant.

attorney's clerk, who proved that the plaintiffs good claim as a 121. occupier. Separate lists are Pickering, Q.C. for the respondent.

had put themselves down in the schedule to the made in counties for the 12'. occupiers. It was The Court (Willes, Keating, and Brett, JJ.), deed as creditors to themselves, and so there objected that the notice of claim was bad, as it did thought the revising barrister was wrong, and re- was not, in fact, a proper and valid majority of not specify the particular list on which the claimant versed his decision.

creditors in value, &c., and thereupon the learned claimed to be put. The revising barrister was of

Decision reversed. Baron ruled that the verdict must be for the this opinion, and struck the claimant's name off Attorneys for appellant, R ckards and Walker. plaintiffs. the list. This was an appeal from that decision. Attorneys for respondent, Buxter, Rose, and

Aspland (by leave) now moved accordingly, G. Lewis, for appellant. Vorton.

and contended that the plaintiffs were estopped The respondent did not appear.

from setting up anything in opposition or contraThe COURT (Willes, Keating, Brett, and Collier,

Tuesay, Nov. 21.

diction to their own deed, and from alleging that JJ.) held the motice sufficient, and reversed the re

their own affidavit, filed in pursuance of the vising barrister's decision. Decision reversed.


statute with the registrar, was untrue There was

WADMORE v. DEAR. Attorneys for appellant, Coodle, Kingdon, and

no case closely analogous, for the reason that Cotton.

WADMORE. 2. THE OVERSEERS OF PUTNEY. generally debtors sought to uphold these deeds;

County vote-Equitable freehold interest-Shares but it was somewhat like recent cases, where it
Monday, Nov. 20.

in a bridge.
had been held that joint-stock companies' certifi

: TYSON v. LORD MAYOR OF LONDON. These two appeals from the revising barristers cates could not be derogated from in the hands of Notice to treat-Lands Clauses Act-Notice under for Middlesex and Mid Surrey, involving precisely persons who had taken and acted on them. special Act—11 & 12 Vict. c. cclxxx-Mandamus ther. It appeared that by an Act 12 Geo. 1. c. 36,

the same question, were taken and argued toge. BRAMWELL, B.-Ah! that is the point. Have to compel.

you acted on this deed ?] In consequence of it The plaintiff was tenant of a house to the Corpo- bridge across the Thames from Fulham to Put (Bramwell, B.-- That won't do. KELLY, C. Bir

the defendant was led to defend the action. commissioners were appointed for building a ration of London, by virtue of an agreement for a lease for three years from Midsummer 1867. The ney, after compensating the proprietors of the You cannot deny that the deed is vitiated.] It is corporation served the plaintiff, on Jan. 25, 1869, then existing ferries, and a pontage or toll was submitted that that is another point. If this deed

were what the plaintiffs by their public act in with a notice to treat, and also with a precept granted to and vested in the commissioners to be siguifying that they should require his premises applied as directed by the Act. By a subsequent registering it asserted it to be, the defendant for the Holborn Valley Improvements at six

Act of Geo. 2 for more effectually enabling the would have had a good answer to the action. The months from the date of such notice. On Feb. 19, commissioners to complete such work, they were deed was executed in 1868, and had been acted 1869, the plaintiff sent in the amount of his cldim, empowered to convey in perpetuity the tolls and on for several years ; nor could the defendant which, not being paid, he commenced an action for income of the said bridge or ferries to such per know that it was other than what the plaintiff's a mandamus to compel them to treat for the the bridge. The commissioners accordingly in in the Exehequer (14 L. T. Rep. N. S.596 ; 35. L. J.

sons as would undertake to erect and maintain had sworn it to be. He cited Pearson v. Pearson, assessment of compensation to him. The plaintiff would be entitled to have his damages assessed 1728 contracted with thirty persons, who sub. 172, Ex.; L. Rep. ì Ex. 308; 12 Jur. N. S. 589.) before a jury if his interest in his premises was

scribed the necessary funds and became the share. Tho COURT (Kelly, C. B., and Bramwell, Chan. greater than a yearly one, if not, it would be holders of the bridge, to build and maintain the nell, and Cleasby, BB.) refused to grant a rule. assessed by the city justices. The qnestion there. bridge, and compensate the proprietors of the The question, they said, turned on whether it was fore was, whether the data at which the six said ferries ; and afterwards, the bridge having a valid deed giving a right of action to the trusmonths notice was viven, was to be taken from been built, the commissioners in 1729, by a deed tees under it. It was clearly not such, and the date of the uutice, or from the termina. which recited the above Acts and their powers neither parly could sue on it. It was not a case

Rule refused. tion of the six months when he would have to thereunder, conveyed the said bridge and tolls, of estoppel at all. deliver up possession. The action had been and all such grounds adjacent and belonging Attorneys for defendant, Neal and Philpot, turned into a special case for the opinion of the by virtue of the said Acts, to certain trustees to the same as they had power to convey,

Doctors'-commons, E.C. court. W. G. Harrison, for the plaintiff. in fee, in trust to permit the said thirty share.

Friday, Nov. 17. Hon. A. Thesiger for the corporation.

holders to receive the said tolls and income, HEAD v. TATTERSALL AND ANOTHER. The Court (Willes, Keating, Brett, and Collier. and have the sole management thereof. The pro- Sale of a horse-Warranty-Conditions for return SJ.) were of opinion that reading the 121st section of sent appellants deduced their claim from these

of horse within certain time-Horse not answer. the Lands Clauses Act, with the City Improvement thirty persons, and were respectively the holders

ing warraniy-Action for breach of warranty-. Act (11 & 12 Vict. c. cclxxx.), s. 33, that the period of a share or part of a share, the sufficiency of the

Condition of horse at time of purchuse and of of time when the tenant's interest determined was noney value whereof was not in dispute. The

return-Difference between. upon notice being served upon him, and that the management of the property was vested in a com. This was an action brought by the plaintiff for plaintiff was entitled to have his damages assessed wittee of management, appointed annually by the the breach of warranty on the sale of a mare called by a jury. The Court ordered a mandamus to go. hitherto stated, it was held, in Tepper v. Nichols Minie, bought by the plaintiff at a sale by auction Juigment for plaintiff. (34 L. J. 61, C. P.), that the shareholders were not being that the mare had been "hunted with the

at the defendants' establishment, the warranty Attorney for defendants, Nelson.

entitled to a county vote in respect of their shares. Bicester and Duke of Grafton's hounds.” The

But, since the decision of that case, the Thames
Tuesday Nov. 21.

facts were
Navigation Act 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. o. 149) was

as follows: The plaintiff attended passed, by sub-sect. 6 of sect. 10 of which, the March last, and received one of their usual

& sale at Tattersall’s on Monday, the 13th BUCKLEY (app.) 1. WRIGLEY (resp.)

bridge and the lands thereunto belonging, and printed catalogues, describing the various, ani. County vote-What necessary expenses to be de. | the tolls, &c., were vested in the committee mals for sale on that day, and amongst them ducted from gross annual rentalExpense os time being subject to the trusts on which described in the catalogue as follows: " The fola of management, and their successors for the the mare in question, which was

one of a lot loying on water.

the same CONSOLIDATED appeal from the decision of the

were held at the passing of this lowing horses, which have been hunted with the

Act. It was contended, before the revising bar. Bicester and Duke of Grafton's hounds, the prorevising barrister for the southern division of the West Riding of Yorkshire. It appeared that the risters, that by this Act the shareholders were

“87. Minie, names of the appellant and of forty-six other entitled to an equitable freehold in the bridge perty of J. C. Dunbar, Esq.,” &c. persons were in the list of voters for the southern barristers in each case decided against the claim, the mare for 131. 10s., and paid the money and the land thereunto belonging. The revising by Longrange, dam by Harkaway, with good

. The plaintiff bid for and purchased division of the West Riding of Yorkshire for and this was an appeal against their decision. qualifications described as share of freehold houses and lands in the township," &c. The con.

E. G. Clarke for the appellants.

It appeared that after the pnrchase the plaintiff veyance of the property was in fee simple to the

M'Intyre for the respondents.

(the purchaser) became aware that the mare had

The Court (Willes, Keating, and Brett, JJ.) Duke of Grafton's hounds, yet he nevertheless sent appellant and another person in trust for them held that the shareholders were not entitled to his groom, an experienced horseman and rider, to

never been hunted with either the Bicester or the selves and the forty-six other persons in forty such an equitable freehold, but only

to a share in take her away from the defendants' stables... on eight equal undivided shares, as tenants in common.

the tolls. The gross annual rental up to June 1871 was

Decision offirmed,

her way home from the stables to the plaintiff's 1411. 148. 4d.; but for the year between 31st

Att ey for appellants, Evan re.

stables in Manchester-square, she took fright in July, 1870 and 31st July, 1871, it was 1431. 2s. 10d. Attorney for respondent, Gardiner.

South Audley-street, and, rushing forward, she ran



against a carriage which was in front of her, and the distance in a straight line, as a crow flies, the This was, however, given, and he went away passing on came against the splinter bar of another distance is seventy-five yards short of half a mile; after having been in possession a little while. carriage and cut her chest, and getting free from but that taking the centre of the road, that is, fol. The action was tried in the Salford Hundred what she got into Grosvenor-square, round which lowing the course a carriage would take, the dis. Court, the judge of which nonsuited the plaintiff. she galloped at a furious pace some five or six tance was nineteen yards over half a mile. At the å rule having been obtained to set aside the nontimes before the groom, who was on her (and who trial, before Martin, B., he expressed his opinion suit and for a new trial: was riding her with a gag spaffle," as recom- that the distance should be measured in a straight Herschell showed cause, and contended that the mended by the groom of the former owner), could line, or as the crow flies, and a verdict was accord plaintiff had no right to the goods, was not dam. stop her. Upon being pulled up the mare was ingly taken for the plaintiff with 5001. damages, nified by the seizure, and could not maintain the found to be much injured in the chest in con. the defendant having leave to move as to the action. sequence of her having came contact with the proper mode of admeasurement.

Heywood in support of rule. above-mentioned carriage, and the plaintiff re- Parry, Serjt. and F. Turner, showed cause, and The Court (Hannen and Lush, JJ.) held, that turned her the next day in accordance and com- contended that the true mode of admeasurement the plaintiff's right to the enjoyment of the goods pliance as he considered and contended with the was that by a straight line between the premises, was such as entitled him to sue, and that the printed conditions of sale at lattersall's, which or, as the crow Aies, and cited : Leigh v. Hind case, therefore, should have been left to the jury. says that, " Horses not answering the description (9 B. & C. 774), Alkyn v. Ward and Dennett

Rule absolute. must be returned before five o'clock on Wednes. (2 Star. N. P. 89), Stokes v. Grissell (23 L. J. 41, Attorneys for the plaintiff, Williams for T. W. day evening next, otherwise the purchaser shall be C. P.), Reg. v. Saffron Walden (9 Q. B. 76), Jewell v. Evans, Manchester. obliged to keep the lot with all faults.” The Stead (25 L. J. 294, Q. B.), Lake v. Butter (24 L. J. Attorneys for the defendant, Cunliffe and Co., defendants received her under protest, contending 273, Q. B.), Wing v. Earle (Cro. Eliz.), Dingman v. for Brown, Manchester. that she was rot then in the same condition as Walker (28 L. J. 867, Ch.). when she left the stables. It was admitted that Garth, Q.C. and A. L. Smith, for the defendant,

COURT OF PROBATE. the mare had never been hunted with either the argued that the true principle of admeasurement

Tuesday, Nov. 21. Bicester or the Duke of Grafton's hounds, and that was the distance a person would have to traverse the statement in the catalogue that she had been in going from the one house to the other, and that

(Before Lord PENZANCE.) was attributable to the mistake or inadvertence that is the principle which is uniformly adopted

In the Goods of FOSTER. of a clerk of the defendants. Upon the facts, at by the trade in such cases. They relied upon Leigh Will-Wife nominated executrix for life, and failing, the trial before Kelly, C. B. and a special jury, v. Hind (9 B. & C. 774).

her other executor nominated-On the death of at the sittings for Middlesex, after last Trinity The Court said the question involved was so

wife probate granted to substituted executors, Term, a verdict was found for the plaintiff for very important that the court would consider it s. an. Forster, late of Holme, Regent's-park, in

wife's . 431. 1s., the jury finding that the plaintiff had and give a written judgment. been induced by the description in the catalogue

Cur. adv. vult. the county of Middlesex, died 1st Dec. 1858, leav. to buy the horse, and that the accident had not Attorneys for the plaintiff, Stileman and Neate.

ing a will dated 24th July 1857, which concluded been occasioned by any fault or negligence or bad Attorneys for the defendant, Shum and Cross. thus: “I do hereby authorise my executrix and riding on the part of the plaintiff's groom, and

executors, hereinafter nominated, to continue any leave was reserved to the defendants to move

security or securities which I may die possessed to enter a verdict. A rule was accordingly ob- ACKFORD v. BARELLI AND ANOTHER.

of, for any term in their discretion not exceeding tained by H. James, Q.C. on the part of the defen: Agreement to pay money in consideration of for trusts aforesaid in this my will contained. And I

five years from my death, notwithstanding any dants, in the present term, to set aside the verdict bearance to take legal proceedings-Absence of nominate and appoint my said wife sole executrix for the plaintiff, and to enter a verdict for the

legal right to take such proceedings. defendants, on the ground

that the sale of the This was a rule obtained on the part of the de- of this my will, and in default of her I nominate mare was not under the warranty, and that the fendants to enter a nonsuit pursuant to leave re

and appoint the said John Knowles and R. Forster mare could not be returned in the same condition served. The action was brought upon a contract to be the executors of this my.will.” Probate of as at the time of sale ; or to enter the verdict for entered into under the following circumstances :

the will was granted to the wife, Maria Isabella nominal damages ;, or for a new trial on the The two defendants were sons of the father of the Forster on 27th Dec. 1858, and she died 25th May ground that the plaintiff was only, entitled to plaintiff by a former wife, the plaintiff being his 1871, leaving a will duly executed, of which she recover nominal damages, and not the price paid second wife and his widow. The former wife had appointed the said John Knowles and R. Forster, by him, and against that rule. Denman, Q. C. and E. C. Willoughby now

been living separate from her husband for many together with Topman Moreley, Benjamin Haigh showed cause; and

years prior to her death, and (as the plainti# Allen, Christopher Procter, and John Rae Campbell, 1. James, Q. C. and H. R. Graham supported it. alleged

the plaintiff

, believing

her husband to be the executors. The question at is-ue was whether The COURT (Kelly, C. B... Bramwell and she was her husband's niece. She had a famliy of personal representatives of the deceased S. H.

a widower, married him. It also appeared that the executors of Maria Isabella Forster were the Clearby BB.) gave judgment in favour of the three children by him, and they, together with Forster, or whether John Knowles and R. Forster plaintiff, discharging the defendants' rule.

Rule discharged.

the two defendants, lived together as one family. were not entitled to probate of his will as substi. Attorneys for the plaintiff, Willoughby and Cox, (the former wife having been dead some years), At the death of her husband, who died intestate tuted executors, Maria Isabella Forster failing

howsoever. 13, Clifford's-inn, E.C. she claimed a share of his property, whereupon

Dr. Swabey, on behalf of the two substituted Attorneys for the defendants, Markby and Tarry, the defendants entered into the following agree executors named, moved that probate be granted 57, Coleman-street, E.C.

ment in writing with her: “In consideration of to them with the consent of the wife's executors. your abstaining from making and forbearing to

The COURT held that the executorship was Saturday, Nov. 18.

make any claim against our late father's estate, given to the wife for her life, and, failing her, to we hereby respectively undertake to pay you over issue as if she had been rominated executrix for

the other two executors, and directed probate to MONFLET V. COLE.

one-third part of the net value and proceeds of Covenant not to carry on a trade within a certain the estate up to the time of his decease.”


Having distanceThe principle of admeasurement. refused to fulfil this contract, the present action

Solicitors, Tatham and Procter. This was a rule calling upon the plaintiff to show was brought. In her evidence, she stated that cause why a verdict should not be entered for the she honestly believed that she had the claim that

THWAITES v. TIBBITS. defendant upon the ground that upon a true con. she made ; and the jury stated that they believed Testamentary suit - Aministrator pendent lite struction of the defendant's covenant he is entitled her evidence throughout.

refused on security being given to the amount of to have the verdict entered for him, subject to the Manisty, Q. C. and Joyce showed cause, and con

the plaintiff's interest. award of the arbitrator agreed on between the tended that there was a good consideration for the The plaintiff in this case propounded a will of the parties , the court to determine the principle upon agreement, there being no frand, and the plaintif late Mrs. Thwaites

, under

which he took a legacy which the arbitrator is to proceed, otherwise a honestly believing that her claim was just. They of 10,0001. The value of the estate bequeathed by Ferdict to be entered for the plaintiff for 5001. The cited Callisher v. Bischofscheim (L. Rep. 5 Q. B. the late Mrs. Thwaites was between 400,0001. and declaration stated that by a certain deed dated 449).

500,0001., and it had formed the subject of a the 10th Feb. 1871, betweeu the plaintiff and de- Dr. Kenealey, Q, C. and Macrae Moir, in support previous suit, in which a subsequent will had been fendant, after reciting that the defendant had of the rule, argued that the agreement was void, pronounced against as the result of a compromise ontracted with the plaintiff for the sale to him of the leasehold premises and goodwill

of the busi- plaintiff had no pretence of any legal claim. They behalf of the petitioner for the appointment of an as being wholly without consideration, for that the to which the present plaintiff was not a party.

Ballantine, Serjt. (Bayford with him) moved on ness of a licensed victualler carried on by the cited Comyn's Dig; art., Action on the Case ; administrator pendente lite. defendant, called the Lord Holland public-house, Edwards v. Ball (il M. & W. 641), Greenleaf v. the defendant covenanted with the plaintiff that Barker (Cro. Eliz. 194), Jones v. Ashburner (4

The Attorney-General, (Sir J. D. Coleridge) (Dr. in case the defendant should take, keep, or be in East, 461), Wade v. Simeon (2 c. B., N. S., 548), Tristram with him) objected. The defendants any way concerned in the trade or business of a Burn v. Tucker (4 Taunt. 117), Longridge v. Dor.

were willing to give security in any way to cover licensed public-house, beershop, or place for the ville (5 B. & Ald. 117), The Duke de Cadaval v.

the plaintiff's legacy. sale of wines or spirits within the distance of one- Collins

(4 Ad. & Ell 858), Graham v. Johnson, 38 think of appointing an administrator pendente lite

The Court. The court certainly would not half of a mile of the said premises, so called the L. J. 374, Ch.)

Cur adv. vult. Lord Holland, that he, the defendant, should

in a case like this, where there have been previous repay to the plaintiff the sum of 5001., as liqui

proceedings, and where the only person interested dated damages. The declaration then alleged that


in this suit can have ample security for the amount the defendant broke his agreement, and kept a

Wednesday, Nov. 22.

of his legacy. place and was concerned in the trade and busi.


Motion refused, on condition that the defendant Dess of a licensed public house within the distance Excessive distress-Right to sue for-Property in

give security for the amount of the plaintiff's of one-half of a mile of the said premises. The

goods-Husband and wife.

legacy with interest in such manner as may be defendant pleaded that he did not keep, and was Action for excessive distress and for money had

satisfactory to the registrar. Dot concerned in the trade and business of a and received by the defendant to the use of the licensed public-house within the distance of one plaintiff. Pleas : Not guilty by statute 11 Geo. 2, COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL half of a mile of the said premises called c. 19, s. 21. Issue. The plaintiff occupied a house

CAUSES. the Lord Holland. It appeared that shortly as tenant to the defendant. He became in arrear

Tuesday, Nov. 21. after the defendant sold to the plaintiff the with his rent, whereupon the latter distrained premises and goodwill of the Lord Holland, goods on the premises, which were the property

(Before Lord PENZANCE, J.O.) he took and kept a public-house called the of the plaintiff's wife, vested in trustees for her

LEWIS v. LEWIS. Duke of Cambridge, which house was alleged use under a deed of 'assignment. The plaintiff, Judicial separation-Permanent alimony-Appli. by the plaintiff to be within the distance of half a. his wife, and one of the trustees lived together. cation for increase-Substituted service-Order mile from the Lord Holland. The actual distance The sum claimed by the landlord was double the for payment of arrears. bad been measured, and it appeared that taking amount of rent really due, and goods to a far In this case the wife had obtained a decree of the nearest walking distance, that is, cutting off greater value were seized by the bailiff, who de- judicial separation from her husband, and permacomers, the distance between the two houses was clined to withdraw until a guarantee was given to nent alimony had been allotted. The husband, twenty-five yards short of half a mile ; that taking him for payment of the whole sum demanded. who was a captain in a regiment stationed in



[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]





[ocr errors]

20.a 20s.a


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

... ...


India, had since the decree obtained his promotion sent of the other judges of the court. The order his credit by Roberts; in fact, he made the pay. from the rank of captain to that of major.

was bad, because it shut out the party from a ments out of his own money. In the year 1869, Poulter, for the wife, now applied for an increase defence which was material.

Roberts was discharged from all liability under in the permanent alimony corresponding with the Searle for the petitioner, was not called on, and the bond, and he took possession of the property increase in his pay. Notice of the application has The Full Court held, nem. diss., that the Judge not for the purpose of indemnifying himself been given to the husband's attorney who acted Ordinary had power to make rules and orders against claims under the bond, but in order to for him in the suit.

alone, both under the original statute of 1857, and satisfy the amounts owing upon the notes of hand. Lord PENZANCE, J.O.--I do not think the court the amending Act of 1860. They also confirmed Upon no ground of law, equity, or cominon sense, can make an order of this kind behind a man's the order made by the Judge Ordinary directing can Roberts hold this property against the other back. It is not as if the suit were going the answer to be taken off the file unless it were creditors.

Appeal dismissed with costs. on, and this were alimony pendente lite. The sait so amended as to show that it was meant to be a Solicitors for the appellant, Field, Roscoe, and being concluded there may be no communication final answer.

Co. between the attorney and the respondent. You

Solicitor for the respondent, Jackson. had better serve some of his relations with notice.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. Poulter also applied for an order on the husband

Monday, Nov. 20. to pay the arrears of alimony amounting to 6301.


ESTATE AND INVESTMENT Lord PENZANCE, J.0.-You have an order on

Bill of sale on indemnity-How dischargedhim to pay the alimony. What more can you


Liobility of surety. have ?

This was an appeal from a decision of the Judge Poulter.-If there were an order of court on

STOCK AND SHARE MARKETS. of the County Court of Birmingham, directing him to pay the arrears, specifying the amount, the Mr. Roberts, the appellant to deliver to the

The following are the fluctuations of the week. India Office would recognise it, and take steps to

trustee of the bankrupt's estate certain stock in compel him to pay.

ENGLISI FUNDS. Fri. Sat. Mon. Tues Wed. Thu. trade of which he had taken possession under a Lord PENZANCE, J.O.-If it is of any use there bill of sale. The facts which were admitted on Bank of England Stock 237 239

237 238) 2381 may be a further order on him to pay the both sides were as follows: In December, 1866, 37 Cent. Red. Ann.... 914 913 911 91 914


93) 93 the bankrupt entered into an agreement with 3,7? Cent. Cons. Aun..

93 936 WILSON 1. WILSON AND STOWELL. the executors of Mr. Strange, a jeweller, for

New 21 P Cent. Ann...
Do. do. Jan. 1891.

76 Matrimonial suit-Alimony pendente lite-Com- the purchase of the stock in trade of the

Do. 3} * c. Jan. 1894 mission to examine witness in Scotland, Wife's deceased at the sum of 12761., to be paid New 3 Cent. Ann. ... 91) 913 914 91) costs.

by half-yearly instalments, and the appellant 57'cents. 7 Jan. 1873 THIS was a husband's petition for dissolution, entered into a bond jointly with the bankrupt to Anuuities April 5, 1885

104 and the wife had presented a petition for alimony. secure the punctnal payment of these instalments. Do. exp. Jan. 1880 Inderwick, on her behalf, now moved for a com- In order to secure himself against loss he might

Metropolitan Board of
Works 3) 7 c. Stock.

mission to examine witnesses in Scotland, and for sustain on account of the bond, the appellant took Corporation of London
an order on the husband to produce his books ; an assignment of all the above mentioned stock in 4 per c. Bonds.........
before the commissioner.
trade, which, by virtue of the above mentioned ar- Rad Sea Tele. Ann. 1908

18: Searle, contra.-This is the first time such a rangement,; became vested in the bankrupt. These Consols, for Acc.... 937

933 9393 commission has been asked for in a matter of facts were recited in the bill of sale, which also

India 5 P Ceut. for Acc.

Do. 5 7 Cent. July alimony. contained a covenant by the bankrupt to pay the

112, 112, 112 113 112, 1124 Lord' PENZANCE.—The court, in these matters instalments as they became due ; and a proviso to India Stock, 1874 always considers what would be the least expense the effect that if the instalments were regularly paid India 4 # C. Oct. 1888 103

103 1033 103 103 1032 to the husband, and it certainly would be less the deed should become void, but in case of default, Tudia Steck, 5 # Cent. expense to him to have these witnesses examined then that Roberts should be at liberty to tako

Jan. 7, 1870 in Scotland than to bring them up to this court. possession of the property comprised in the deed.

India Bonds (10001.).

! The commission may go.

Do. (under 10001.)
When the time arrived for the payment of the Ex. Bills, 10001..

38.a 58.a 3r a 6s.u Inulerwick asked that, in accordance with the first instalment, the bankrupt was unable to meet


5001, usual practice when a commission was granted, the demand, and applied to Roberts to assist him.


1001, and 2001. the wife might have a certain sum secured to her Roberts accordingly paid the required amount to

3 #c.

6s, a for the costs of the commission. the bankrupt’s credit at his banker's. This trans

India Enfaced Paper Scarle, contra.- The costs ought to abide the action was repeated with regard to the other

5 # Cent. July 1500

Do. Jan. 1872 .... event. If the husband's answer to the petition instalments as they respectively fell due. Upon for alimony turned out to be correct, he ought not each one of these advances being made by Roberts,

a Premium. to be called on to pay the costs of an unnecessary the barkrupt gave him a promissory note payable inquiry. on demand (not negotiable) to secure the amount

REPORTS OF SALES. Lord PENZANCE, J.0.-The court has never been so advanced, together with interest at the (NOTE. - The reports of the Estate Exchange are officially

supplied in the following list. Auctioneers whose names accustomed to make an order on the husband rate of 6 per cent. When the case came be- ore registered there will oblige by reports of their own to furnish the wife with costs for an intermediate fore the court Roberts stated that he had to

sales.) inquiry into alimony. ply the same rate of interest to his bankers

Thursday, Yor. 16. Newman, Dale, and Stretton for petitioner. for the money which he borrowed from them

By Mr. BEADELS, at the Mart. Crosse for respondent.

for the purpose of lending it to the bankrupt. Exsex, near Witham. An estate, known as ** Latness," with

In July 1871 Roberts became dissatisfied with the residence, homestead, and 5a. Sr. 18p.-sola for jul. AUSTIN V. AUSTIN. bankrupt's mode of conducting his business, and

By Messrs. FAREBROTHER, LYE, and WHEELER. Judicial separation-New charge of cruelty. took possession of his stock-in-trade, &c., under Hyde-park. No. 54, Connaught-square, terin 32 years-sold

for 22001. This was a wife's petition for a judicial separa- the bill of sale. Five days afterwards the bank.

By Messrs. C. C. and T. MOORE. tion on the ground of cruelty. The citation was rupt presented a petition for liquidation, which, Bow. No. 11, High-street, copyhuld --sold for 3701. served Nov. 23, 1870, and the husband's answer having fallen through, an adjudication of bank

No. 16, adjoining, and Nos. 1 and 2, Baker's-alloy, copyhold

sold for 4001. denying the cruelty was filed Jan. 12, 1871. The ruptcy followed. The trustee thereupon claimed

Friday, Nov. 17. case was set down for trial at the sittings after last the property seized under the bill of sale, and, By Messrs. Morrow, TRIST, WATNEY, and Co., at the Mart. term, but was then postponed at the instance of having brought the matter before the court, ob | Essex, Southend. A freehold ground-rent of 0 0l. per the wife, and it stood for trial at the present tained the order, which was the subject of the

annum, amply secured upon the Cliff Town Estate---sold

for 16,6001. sittings. present appeal.

By Messrs. RUSHWORTH, ABBOTT, and Co. Inderwick now moved to add two new charges De Gex, Q. C. and Day appeared for the appel. Hyde-park, No. oid, Lowndes-sure, with stabling in

Harriet-news, term 57 years-sold for 92001. of cruelty.

lant.-The only question was whether the bankrupt No. 61a, Harriet-mews, stabling, same terin-sold for 8101. Searle, contra. had any right to complain of the seizure made by

Tuesday, Ver. 21. Lord PENZANCE, J. O.-It would be opening the Roberts. The only ground upon which he could

By Messrs. DUVER, at the Mart. door to a very bad practice if I were to allow these have sustained a bill for an injunction to restrain Bucks, Chesham. The Churteridre Estate, of 297a. Ir. 18p.,

with farmhouse . charges to be added now. Cruelty is a thing which the appellant from seizing was that he had ful. A plot of freehold land, containing la. Ir. p.-sold for 3201. must be within the wife's knowledge from the filled his covenant by indemnifying Roberts, or A ditto, containing 20a, (r. 217.-sold for 7611. commencement, and she ought to state once for that Roberts had not made these advances upon

A liitto, containing liva. Sr. rp.-sold for 621.

Great Wissenden. Hobbs-billwood, containing 50a, Ir. Sp. all what are her complaints against the husband the faith of the bill of sale. In the present case including timber-sold for 11307. in this respect. Motion refused. the payments, though nominally made by the

Wednesday, Nor. 2. bankrupt, were really made by Roberts, and

By Messrs. Epwix Fox and BorSFIELD. (Before the Full Court, Lord PENZANCE, J.O., these were covered by the bill of sale, and formed

Clapham-roal. Nos. 18 and 20, Bintield-road, term 70 years

-sold for 3107, each. BRAMWELL and PIGOTT, BB.)

the consideration of that deed, payments which Brixton, Millbrook-road. Percy House, term 51 years-sold WILSON v. WILSON AND STOWELL. were not covered thereby. They cited Vaughan v.

fur 5.10). Volidity of new rules and orders, Power of Judge Leslie (2 Ba.& Be. 509), Curtis y. Rush (2 V. & B.; Longhborough-park-villas. No. 17, terin 52 years-sold for

Ordinary to make rules-Absolute oppearance- Little, Q. C., and Reed, for the respondent, con-
Plea io jurisdiction-Practice.

tended that the bill of sale was absolutely void at A prospectus of the Bilbao Iron Ore Company This was a petition by the husband for a dissolu- law, that the notes accepted by Roberts consti- (Limited) has been issued. Its capital is 500,0001. tion of his marriage, on the ground of his wite's tuted a new security; and that by accepting the in 10,000 shares of 501. each. 21. to be paid adultery with the co-respondent. The respondent new security Roberts abandoned the old. More on application and 81. on allotment. 51. in six entered an absolute appearance to the citation, over the default upon which the bill of sale months ; 51. in nine months ; 51. in twelve months. and afterwards filed an answer praying for' the was to come into operation had never taken place. It has been formed for the purpose of acquiring dismissal by reason of the court having no juris. They cited Chitty on Contracts 677-8; Jarman on the concessions from the Spanish Government, diction, the domicil of the parties being Scotch, Mortgages, vol. 4, PP. 529, 534.

held by Sir John Brown and William Fowler, and the marriage and adultery also being Scotch. De Ger in reply.

Esq., of the extensive and valuable iron mines Searle, for the petitioner, moved to strike the The CHIEF JUDGE recapitulated the facts of the known as the Mines of Galdames (called La answer off the file, on the ground that, by rule 22, case, and said : In point of law this is as plain Escarpada), La Cenefa, Berango, Moruecos, and a party desiring to object to the jurisdiction must a case as can be. This bill of sale was given for El Cerrillo, near Bilbao, all in the province of appear under protest, and is not at liberty to no other purpose than to protect Roberts against Biscay, and for working the same, and for making do so after entering an absolute appearance. claims which might be made against him as surety and working railways in connection therewith, The Court, after hearing Dr. Spinks, Q.C. and by the executors of Stronge. Is that bill satisfied and for other purposes as set forth in the memoInderwick contra, made an order to take the Beyond all question it is. The money is re- randum of association. The mines of the Bilbao answer off the file unless within a fortnight the ceived by the person against whose claim that district have been worked from time immemorial, respondent amended it by pleading to the merits. bill of sale was to insure the appellant

, and are celebrated for their purity and richness, yield Against this order the respondent appealed. that being so the bill of sale is absolutely ing from 50 to 60 per cent. of metallic iron, and

Dr. Sprinks.Q.C. and Inderwick on her behalf, now satisfied at law. The sums paid by the bankrupt the analysis of the ores proves they are the nearest contended that the Judge Ordinary had exceeded in discharge of the instalments as they fell due, approach in composition to the hematites of Cumis powers in making this order without the con- were paid by the money which had been placed to 'berland.


Nov. 26, 1871.]



[ocr errors]

Dec. ), at two

SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, given him a receipt for the balance in full dis. CHAMPION (Graham), Stafford-street, and 15, Dover-street,

Middlesex, dairyman, Dec. 20; Capron and Co., solicitors,

Savile-place, New Burlington-street, W.
By the affidavits of Harding and others, the DARBISHIRE (Samuel D.), Esq., Pendyffryn, Carnarvon.

Dec. 31; Darbishire and Barker, solicitors, 26, George
following facts were deposed to : That Harding

street, Manchester. was totally unacquainted with business habits, ELSTER Derrick J.), 5, John-street, Adelphi, W.C. and 36. YENT OF.--A Frenchman who had taken up his residence in England in 1833, and continued to and unable to write his own name, and that he Camomile-street, E.C., merchant and commission agent.

Dec. 18; J. E. Carter, solicitor, 6s, Austin-friars, E.C. was unaware of the nature of the discharge given Games (Jno. ;, West Grinstead. Sussex.gentleman. Dec. 30; reside there until his death in 1868, was held to have acquired an English domicile, although in to Mr. Davies. The giving of the receipt in full

R. Edmunds, solicitor, Worthing, Sussex. 1861 he refused to become a naturalised British discharge was also denied. Mr. Davies' affidavits, Glover (James s.), Kingston upon - Hull, gentleman.

Dec. 15; Roberts and Leak, solicitors, 16, Bowlalley-lane, on the other hand, especially stated that the subject, as he was unwilling to lose his status as

Hull. a French citizen : (Brunel v. Brunel, 25 L. T. Rep. whole matter had been settled, and that no bill of GORHAM (Ruth), Uxbridge-common, Middlesex, Dec. 31: N. S. 378. V.C. B.) costs, was, or ever had been, in existence.

Clutton and Haines, solicitors, 10, Serjeant's-inn, Fleet

street, E.C.
Pritchard, in support of the summons, having HEPBURN Augustus P.), Long-lane, Bermondsey, and 5,

stated the facts, contended that no agreement Grove-road, Clapham-park, Surrey. tanner and leather
whatever could preclude a client from his right to

factor. Dec. 31; Sheffield and Sons, solicitors, 52, Lime

street, E.C. see his attorney's bill, it had been repeatedly IulAcu(Henrietta), 47, Hope-street, Liverpool. Dec. 7; Fict. c. 77, s. 73.-In the absence of special circumstances the court declined to make a joint decided that all agreements made between these Brydges and Mellersh, solicitors, Public Offices, Chel

tenham. grant to parties entitled in distribution and the parties to receive a fixed sum for costs were

MALLALIEU (William), Ockbrook, near Derby. Dec.31 ; John nominee of the next of kin, who was an old lady and frand. The recent Attorneys' Act did not OAKELEY Edward), Esq., Charles-street, St. James som illegal, and likely to cause both dissatisfaction

Taylor, solicitor. Bakewell, Derby, of eighty-one, and unable to attend to business : affect the matter in question.

square, Dec. 23; F, solicitor, 40 (In the Goods of P. Richardson, 25 L. T. Rep.

Bedford-row, W.C. N. S. 384. Prob. Ct.) A. B. Carpenter opposed the summons. He PEDLEY (Thos. H.), Esq., Wilbury Rocks, Eastbourne,

Sussex. Dec. 30: Hathaway and Andrews, solicitors, 12, admitted that in many instances an agreement by PRACTICE-BILL AND INFORMATION-SPECIAL

Bedford-row, W.C. an attorney to accept a fixed sum for costs from Purce James E. c.), Bombay, East Indies, Master Atten. ORDER TO AMEND-AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF.

dant and Conservator of the Port of Bombay. Dec. 31; -Although the Consolidation Order ix., by rules 14 his client was illegal, but this description of agree

Hedizes and Stedman, solicitors, 9, Red Lion-square, and 16, requires that a special order to amend ment was valid, it having been entered into sub.

Bloomsbury, London, W. shall not be granted unless upon affidavit of the sequently to the settlement of the action. He Shirley (Edwin), pakenclough-hall

, Heathylle, Aistonfield,

Statis, farmer and merchant. Jan. 1; Hacker and Allen. plaintiff and his solicitor that the amendments cited Re Whitcombe (8 Beav. 140), where Lord

, Leek have been

approved by counsel, and are not in Langdale held that the agreement was valid, swollentowi..ce Darlington, banker's clerk. Feb. 2; W. tended for vexation or delay, and not by the soli. although it ought to be looked upon with jealousy;

Walker, solicitor, 18, Lendal, York.

SUGG (Hubert H.), Sheffield, attorney-at-law and solicitor. citor alone, unless the plaintiff is unable to join also Re Newman (30 Beav. 196), in which case

Dec. 11; G. E. Gee, solicitor, -. therein, the rule does not apply to the case of he depended upon the dictum of Sir John Romilly TARNELL' (Ratcliffe, Wallabadah, New Sonth Wales. information and bill, in respect of which such (Master of the Rolls) who decided that there was

Dec, 30; W. Moon, solicitor, 15, Licoln's-inn,

London, W.C. special order may be’ obtained on the affidavit of a vast distinction between an agreement to accept Tixdate Thompson), Scalby Mill, Scalby, York, miller. the solicitor alone, where the proposed amend. a fixed sum for attorney's charges, when made

Dec. 29; Drawbridge and Rowtree, solicitors, 71, New

borough-street, Scarborough. ments have been approved and signed by the At- after the proceedings, to those cases where it had

John's-wood, N.W. Dec. 30; Bell and Co., solicitors, 9, torney-General: (The Attorney-General v. The been entered into previously, or while the action TWEDDELL (Hubbersty, M., Esq. 35, Abbey-road, St. Castleford Local Board of Health, 25 L. T. Rep. 608), where it was decided that the settlement of a was pending; also Stedman v. Collett (17 Beav.

Bow-churchyard, E.C. N. S. 371. M.R.)

ULLATHORNE (Ann H.), 39, Kensington-park-gardens, Mid. solicitor's bill by the client for


fixed sum is
OF FATHER valid, and will not be disputed by the court, when

Dec. 25; Richardson and Sadler, solicitors, 28,


Watts (Henry), Anerley, Surrey, gentleman. Dec. 31; DELAY IN SEEKING RELIEF. -A son, when at it has been entered into fairly and with proper

Bridges and Co., solicitors, 23, ked Lion-square, W.C.

Wilson (Wm. H.), Esq., 6, Victoria-street, Westminster, the age of twenty-one, and while residing with his knowledge on both sides.

and Chapel House, Battersea, Surrey. Dec. 17; Baker father, made a settlement in favour of his father,

Master JOHNSON referred to Philby v. Harle and Co., Solicitor, 6, Victoria-street, Westminster. who was at the time in receipt of a comparatively (29 L. J. 370, C. P.) for the consideration of which

HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. case the summons was adjourned until Nov. 10. skall income, whereas the son was in afluent circunstancka. Fourteen years afterwards the son Philby v. Harle was an action by the attorney to Coulson (George), 20. Marlborongh-road, Peckham, Surrey,

bill discounter, heir-at-lar and next of kin to come in by filed a bill to set aside the settlement on the recover a sum agreed to be paid him by his client Deo. 15, at the chambers of V.C. W.

o'clock, 'at the said chambers, is the time appointed for ground of his youth, inexperience in business, before it became due.

hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. Nov. 10.—Master JOHNSON said he thought Fant of proper advice, and undue influence on the part of his father at the time of its execution : Harding had a right to see his attorney's bill,

The following extraordinary advertisement apHeld, that, upon the evidence, no proper ground he considered the dicta in the last cited authority had been shown to induce the court to set aside went to show that a client was in all cases entitled pears in the Manchester Guardian of the 21st.

nst. : the settlement, and that, in any case, the delay to a bill of costs; but he based his order more parti.

al: legal business at one tenth the usual charges, is Frick the court interferes to set aside family appeared to him, to be almost precisely in point. 17, Exeter-street, Devonshire-street, Ardwick. in filing the bill was fatal. The principles upon cularly upon Tanner v, Lea (5 Scott Rep. 237), which LAW:--The address of a popular Attorney, transacting arrangements stated : (Turner v. Collins, 25 L. T. The court had there ordered the delivery of the Pep. N, S. 374. V.C. M.)

bill, although an ascertained sum had been received
for costs after the settlement of the action. It

CENCE: A testator appointed a personal guardian would be afterwards open to argument, as to
of his illegitimate children, to whom he bequeathed whether the bill so delivered should be taxed or


He therefore made an order for the delivery a bond debt, and the guardian became possessed not, of the bond, but took no steps to enforce it, and

of the bill.

Order made. BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY- WINDING-UPthe debt became irrecoverable.

PRACTICE – BORROWING POWERS ADVANCED Shortly after Fards the wards were made acquainted with the

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. MEMBERS.—The court will not make an order to

LAST DAY OF PROOF. existence of the bond, but took no steps against BERRYMAN (Mary C. Tomar-terrace, Stoke, near Devon: the petition of advanced members, contrary to the

wind-up a benefit building society compulsorily on the guardian in respect of it. On the death of the port. Dec. 233: E. O. Gard, solicitor, 6, St. Aubyn-street, guardian, thirty-eight years afterwards, they filed

Devonport. Jan. 10; V.C. M, at twelve o'clock.

wishes of the majority of the creditors and the con

(Sarah, Queen - street, Wrexham, a bill against his executors to recover from his

Denbigh: tributories, unless a plain injustice will be done Dec. 14; J. C. (ren, solicitor, Wrexham.

Dec. 20; estate the amount of the bond debt and interest. V.C, M. at twelve o'clock.

to the petitioners by refusing the order. The trus. On demurrer to the bill, held, that the plaintiff's POSTER Mariani The Holme, Regent'a-park, NW: Dec. tees of a benefit building society under 6 & 7 Will. 4,

12; Uptons Co., solicitors20, Austinfriars, E.C. were barred by their acquiescence: (Sleeman v. 20. V.C. W., at ten o'clock.

c. 32, were by the rules authorised from time to Wilson, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 408. V.C. B.)

FOWLER Walter M., St. Michael's-alley, Cornhill, E.C. time, as might be necessary for the purposes of COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER-CAUSE TRIED

and Redclytfe-road, West Brompton, Middlesex, stock and the society, to borrow money, for which they

share broker. Dec. 11; E. W. Walker, solicitor, Founder's THE ASSIZES BEFORE WHAT COURT A Hall, St. Swithin's-lane, E.C. Dec. 21, V.C. w., at twelve might give their own personal security, and they MOTION TO NEW TRIAL

were to be indemnified out of the first funds of 4 & 5 WILL. 4, c. 62, s. 26.—When an action is

GEDDES (Geo.), Esq., Lambkin-hill, St. Mary, in the Island the society which should be received. The society

of Jamaica. Feb. 10, 1572; Oliver and Sons, solicitors, 61, bronght in the Court of Common Pleas of Carry street, Lincoln's-iun, Middlesex, Feb. 21; M.R., at

owed about 19,0001. to 105 depositors, most of whom Lancaster, and tried at the assizes, a rule for

eleven o'clock,

were not members. There was also 43001. due HARROP (Jas.), Dukinfield, Chester, pawnbroker. Dec. 7; a new trial, &c., must be made in the Court of Wm. Marshall, solicitor, Ashton-underLyne.

Dec. 13 ;

to the society's bankers, and there were a few Westminster of which the judge who tried such

V.C, M., at 12 o'clock.

other debts which brought up the total of canze is a member. Where, therefore, such an

JONES (Hugh), Esq., Bryngwyn-hall, Flint. Dee. 30; Bar- debts to about 25,0001. The assets were estimated

nardand Harris, solicitors, Gresham-buildings, Basinghallaction was tried before Kelly, C.B., and a non- street, E.C. Jan, 15; V.C. W. at twelve o'clock.

as worth 24,5001. There were fifty-five advanced sait was entered, this court refused to enter- PINER Henry: Gerard's cross, Chalfort, St. Peter, Bucks, and twenty-four unadvanced members. The

farmer, brickmaker, and potter. tain a motion to set aside the nonsuit and for a

Dec. z7; E. Mirams, 2 society became involved in difficulties, principally

New-inn, Strand, W.C. Jan. 12; V.C. W., at twelve by reason of a number of notices to withdraw new trial : (Cox 2. Sillen, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 425. Q. B.)

SANDGROVE (Wm. H. P.1, Eldon.street, Moorfields, Middle | deposits having been given. The directors resex, cabinet manufacturer. Dec. 9, Tanqueray ang Co.. ported that the business must be closed, and pro

solicitors, si, New Broad-street, E.C. Jau, 12; V.C. M., posed an amalgamation with another society of a JUDGES' CHAMBERS.

at 12 o'clock

STEVENS (James), Hoy Hotel, Margate, Kent, licensed similar nature. This proposition was approved Nov. 8 and 10.

victualler. Jan. 1, 1572 A. H. Boys, solicitor, Margale. by seventy-seven of the depositors, and at a (Before Master JOHNSON.)

V.C. W., twelve o'clock.

Wood Robert B.), Buxton, Derby, Lieut.-Gen. in Her meeting of the members, at which forty-four Re HARDING.

Majesty's Army: Dec. &; Ellis and Ellis, solicitors, members were present, the proposition was apAttorney and client-CostsAgreement to take a 16. Spring-gardens, Westininster. Dec. 13; M. R., at

Four advanced

proved, two only dissenting.

eleven o'clock, fired sum after the conclusion of the action, YEOWELL Jas.). 1, George-street, Berwick-street, Go!den. members, one of whom was in arrear in making the Sunnons for delivery of bill.

square, Middlesex, baker. Dec. 13: New bon and Co., repayments dne from him, petitioned to have the Held, that ait agreement mode between an attorney

Solicitors, I; Wardrobe wlace: Doctors'-commons, E.C. society wound-up compulsorily, alleging, that it

Jan. ; , at o'clock. and client to accept a fixed sum for costs, although

could not pay its debts, that it would be just and

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT, c. 35. entered into subsequently to the conclusion of

equitable to inake a winding-up order, and that

Last day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent,
the action, did not preclude the client from his
BEATHE (Jas. H.), South-bank, Surbiton, Surrey, civil en-

there had been an erroneous division of alleged right to a bill of costs.

sineer: Jan. 13; J. Rose, solicitor, 11. Salisbury-street, profits among the members. After the petition This was a summons by Harding, the plaintiff in Strand, W.C.

was presented the bankers released the petitioners a recent action in one of the Superior Courts, call.

BESTLEY (Robert Thomas), Esq., Buschhouse, Isleworth,

Middlesex. Jan. 1; Watkins and Co., solicitors, 11, Sack: from their debt, as did nearly the whole of the ing on a Mr. Davies, his attorney, for the delivery ville-street, W.

depositors, and the trustees of the society covenof his bill of costs. It appeared that the action | BEZANT (Wm.; 7. Whittington-terrace, Highgate-hill, anted to indemnify the petitioners from the re

Islington, Middlesex, pawnbroker. Dec. 21; Thompson just alladed to had been compromised, and subse.

and Edwards, solicitors. 7, Doughty-street, Mecklenburxh. maing debts: Held (reversing a decision of quently the plaintiff had agreed with Mr. Davies square, Middlesex

Wickens, V.C.), that no winding-up order ought for a fixed sum to be received by the latter for

Brow Thos.), 63, Cadogan-place. Sloane-street, Niiddlesex, to be made : Held, also, that the rule authorising

gentleman. Jan. 31; J. M'Mullen, solicitor, 3), Bloolis- the borrowing of money was bad, and that the doctor's bills, attorney's charges, &c., and had bury-square, W.C.






[ocr errors]


society could not be sued for the sums due to the


could hardly have held that such words ought to depositors : (Re the Professional, fc., Building

have put the defendant upon inquiry since they Society, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 397. L. JJ.)

are frequently used when there is no partnership. POOR LAW-SETTLEMENT-PARISH NOT MAIN


I decide this case on the authority of Ramazottiv. TAINING ITS POOR-AssOCIATION OF TOWNSHIPS

LOCAL CUSTOM OF BANKERS-BILL OF Ex. Bowring (29. L. J. 30, C. P.), Jemenza v. Brinsley FOR RATING PURPOSES.—The ecclesiastical parish CHANGE-PROVISIONAL PAYMENT-ACCOUNTS- (34 L. J. 161, C. P.), De Mantort v. Saunders (1 of Old Swinford never maintained its own poor; MISTAKE-CORRECTION OF ERRORS AT DAY END.

B. & Ad. 398). The conclusion of fact at which but the township of Upper Swinford, within the - The plaintiffs,

customers of defendants’ Branch I arive is, that Newell permitted Coling to appear said parish, and three other townships also therein, Bank of England at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, paid in as sole trader, that Whitley was induced to believe, from time immemorial associated together under to the defendants a bill of exchange accepted by and

did believe him to be a sole trader, and consethe designation of the “ parish of Old Swinford,” H., which the defendants discounted, placing the quently the right of set-off attaches. jointly appointed overseers, and made rates for amount, less discount, to the credit of the plain

Verdict for defendant. the relief of their poor. The four townships, how, tiffs in their bouks. On the morning of the day ever, disjointed, pursuant to a mandamus directed the bill fell due the defendants' clerk took it to the to one of them in 1842, and separate overseers banking house kept by L. and Co., where it was

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT. have since been regularly appointed, and separate payable, for the purpose of ascertaining, according

Frilay, Nov. 17. rates made for each. The township of Upper to the practice among the bankers at Newcastle, Swinford now forms part of Stourbridge Union, whether it was in order for payment and would be

(Before John GILMORE, Esq., Deputy-Judge.) which comprises the parishes and places of Stour. paid. Upon presentation, the bill was, in accord

THE UNION. bridge, Old Swinford, &c. . A. was born about the ance with the above-mentioned practico, marked by | Demurrage- Payment of town dues—Mersey docks year 1804 in the township. of Upper Swinford. L. and Co. for payment, and a credit note was given

and harbour dues. The wife and children of his son, paupers, were indicating that it, with other moneys, was in order CAPTAIN DOOLITTLE, master of the coasting entitled to derive a settlement from the birth for payment and would be paid. At 2 p.m. the schooner Union, brought an admiralty suit against settlement of A., and were therefore adjudged by defendants' clerk took all the cheques drawn on Mr. William Broomham, merchant, of Liverpool, an order of justices to be legally settled in the L. and Co. the bank of the latter, together with to recover 381. 188. 10d. for demurrage, for parish of old Swinford, and to be removable to the said credit note, which was admitted into the detention of the vessel. the Stourbridge Union: Held, in consequence total amount, and a cheque upon the Branch Bank Gully instructed by Masters and Fletcher), solely of the decisions in Reg. v. The Inhabitants of England was handed by L. and Co. to the clerk appeared for the plaintiff. of Tipton (3 Q. B. 215), Reg. v. The Inhabitants of for the balano due to the defendants. The New. Segar (instructed by T. and T. Martin) for the Hunnington (5 Q. B. 273), and successive similar castle banks close to the public at 3 p.m., but defendant. cases, that as there had been a change in the the defendants' bank keeps open until 4 p.m. for It was stated that the plaintiff's vessel bronght chargeable area wherein the birth settlement of the other bankers only to attend there during a cargo of coal to Liverpool ; that it was contracted A. lay, by the separation of the united townships, those hours for the purpose of having the day's that the cargo should be received by the defendant the paupers had no legal settlement there, and accounts between them and the Branch Bank in. when the vessel got into a berth; that for the that the order was bad : (Guardians of Stourbridge vestigated, and of rectifying any mistakes and defendant's own convenience he did not do this, Union v. Guardians of Droituich Union, 25 L. T. errors of any kind that may have arisen in the and that, therefore, the demurrage claimed arose. Rep. N. S. 411, Q. B.)

course of the day, and of finding and stating It was stated that 211. 138. 61. had been paid into final balances between them. All mistakes and court as a tender ; but beyond that amount the

errors made in the course of the day are defendant was not liable, as the delay was the MARITIME LAW.

subject to correction during that investigation. result of the plaintiff's laches. A question arose At 3.30 p.m. on the day in question, L. and Co. in the case involving the sum of 158. 4d., which

discovered that H. had stopped payment. They had been paid by the captain for town dues, and NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.

sent to the defendants, declared that the bill which he sought to recover, but which was con. LIEN – PRIORITY SHIP'S AGENT SHIP. had been paid by error, and requested them to tested by the defendant on principle.

- WAGES REPAIRS - MERCANTILE take it back. This the latter did under protest, During the discussion of this point Segar said ACCOUNT.-The master of a ship has a maritime reserving their rights. The amount of the bill had he could not find in any of th: Acts of the Mersey lien on her for his wages and disbursements, and then been placed to the debit of L. and Co, in the Docks and Harbour Board power to enforce the his claim takes priority over all other claims, save banking account kept by them at the branch payment of town dues. claims for salvage and damage by collision. A bank. The defendants afterwards treated the bill

His HONOUR said he scarcely thought this ship's agent was appointed by the master on his as dishonoured, and passed the amount thereof to could be so, for it would affect the collection of arrival at B. He had no previous knowledge the debit of the plaintiffs' account. On a special a large amount of the revenue of the port of of either master or owner, but made no inquiries case, -Held, that as the defendants failed to show

Liverpool. as to how he was to be repaid his advances for that the giving of the cheque by L, and Co. for the

Mr. Registrar Hime: About 100,0001. a year. necessaries. He allowed the vessel to be placed in bill of exchange was a mere provisional transacthe hands of a shipwright to be repaired, and tion subject to rectification at the end of the day,

Gully said that under the Mersey Docks and when her value was by this means increased, the plaintiff was entitled to have credit with the Harbour Act 1857, the town dues were transferred caused her to be arrested: Held, that he was not defendants for the amount of the bill: (Pollard and to the Dock Board. The 32nd section of that Act entitled to be paid his claim in priority to the another v. The Bank of England, 25 L. T. Rep. said that “all such powers, rights, and privileges shipwright. Where there are several claimants N. S. 415. Q. B.)

of imposing or collecting any of the dues, herein.

before called town dues and anchorage dues, as against the proceeds of a vessel in the registry, and she has been sold at the suit of one, the costs

are now vested in, or have been lawfully exercised of such sale will be paid before all claims, as such

by, the Corporation of Liverpool, shall from Jan.

COUNTY COURTS. sale was for the benefit of all: (The Panthea,

1858, be transferred and vested in the board." 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 389. Adm.)

His Honour held that the plaintiff was entitled PRACTICE-Costs-BAIL-RE-ARREST OF SHIP

BLOOMSBURY COUNTY COURT. to 111. 58. 41. demurrage, including the 15s. 4d. -ADMIRALTY CONTRACT.-Where a suit has been (Before G. L. RUSSELL, Esq., Judge.)

town dnes, beyond the amount paid into court. instituted for an estimated amount to cover

NEWELL AND COLING v. WHITLEY. damages and costs, and the damages recovered and the costs taxed are a larger sum than the bail given, of private debt against partnership debt

BANKRUPTCY LAW. and there has been no carelessness on the part of

allowable when there has been no sufficient the plaintiffs, the court will issue a writ under the

publication of the partnership. Admiralty Court Act 1861, ss. 22 and 15, for the Williams (Solicitor) for the plaintiffs.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. Dodd (barrister, instructed by Taylor, Kings. re-arrest of the ship to satisfy the costs, and will


MENT OF MEETING OF CREDITORS-RESOLUTION, direct such writ to the marshall for execution. road) for the defendant. The fact that generally the amount in which a

The facts, and cases cited, sufficiently appear VALIDITY OF-VOTING-SIGNING BY CREDITORS suit is instituted is laid to cover probable damages from the written judgment of the Court given -REGISTRATION.—A resolution to adjourn a and costs is simply a matter of convenience : (The below.

meeting of creditors under a petition for liquidaFreedom, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 392. Adm. Ct.)

This is an action for wine sold, the defendant tion by arrangement, in order to be valid must BRITISH VESSEL IN UNITED STATES Court, against the price of certain wine, for which this and must be signed by the proper majority

of the has given notice of his intention to prove a set-off (like any other resolution) be reduced into writing, WAGES-PROTEST OF British CONSUL-VOYAGE action is brought. Prior to the delivery of the creditors who have proved their debts, and are NOT ENDED-JURISDICTION.-A crew shipped in wine, Coling was indebted to Whitley, on account present at the meeting. It is not necessary that a British vessel for a voyage" from Liverpool to of goods supplied to him by Whitley, to a larger the creditors who dissent from the resolution Bombay and any ports and places in the Indian, amount than the value of the wine. This private should evidence their dissent by any writing, as Pacific, and Atlantic Oceans, and China and debt of Coling's, to Whitley, is now sought to be the resolution cannot be carried unless it is signed Eastern seas, thence to a port for orders, and to used as a set off against the partner's claim for by the proper majority in value of assenting the Continent, if required, and back to a port of wine supplied by them to Whitley. The order for creditors. À creditor who does not wish to take final discharge in the United Kingdom, term not the wine was in writing and was directed to any part in the voting, must withdraw his to exceed three years.” On arriving at Boston on Coling alone. Whitley ordered this wine because proof as provided by rule 273: At a meet. the return voyage, the crew claimed their wages he could not obtain from Coling payment in ing of creditors, under a petition for liquida. as per schedule, and brought a suit in the United money; there was no agreement that the wine tion by arrangement, a resolution to adjourn States Court. The British acting consul protested should be in payment of Coling's private debt, the meeting for a week was proposed, and was de. against the jurisdiction, on the ground that the which distinguishes this case from a somewhat clared by the chairman to be carried. The voyage was not ended, and that by English law doubtful case of Mallace v. Kelsall, 7 M. and W. adjourned meeting was held, and the creditors British seamen are not permitted to sue in foreign 264, cited in argument. No invoice was sent with then passed a resolution in favour of liquidation ports unless discharged there, or so illtreated as the wine, but a delivery note was sent with the by arrangement. The resolution for adjournment to be put in fear of their lives. Held, that words “Coling and Co." printed upon it; this was reduced into writing, and was signed by cer. although the couat might doubt the validity of ticket was signed by the defendant's servant and tain creditors present at the original meeting, who the ship’s articles, it could not, in the absence of then at once handed back to the carman who professed to be a majority of those present. They special circumstances, entertain the suit against brought the wine, the defendant never saw it. were, in fact, not a majority in value of those prethe protest of the British consul: (The Becher dass There is a rule of law that a partnership debt sent. The County Court judge held that the reso; Ambaidass, 25 L. T. Rep. N.S. Un. St. Adın.)

cannot be set off against a private debt. But lution to adjourn was invalid, and that it could there is also a rule that the right of a principal, not be registered, and that all the subsequent pro

who keeps in the background, to intervene and ceedings were also invalid. The Chief Judge in Master Park, of the Common Pleas, died on claim the benefit of the contract, is subject to the bankruptcy directed the resolution to adjourn to Tuesday night, aged 70.

condition that the other party to the contract is be registered. On appeal, the decision of the Mr, Francis Snowden, of the Western Circuit, not prejudiced thereby. If the delivery note had Chief Judge was reversed, and that of the County has been appointed Senior Magistrate of the even been an invoice, sent to the defendant him. Court judge affirmed : (Ex varte Orile ; re Horsley, Strait Settlements.

self, with the words “and Co.” upon it I think I' 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 400. Ch.)

« EelmineJätka »