Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

Brown (Henry), Toxtath-park, and of Liverpool, ale and sons duly authorised for that purpose. The 22nd from Mr. Crisp to do so. It appeared that his porter merchant. Feb. 10; L. Houghton, solicitor, 32, Lord-street, Liverpoul.

section provides that for neglect of the rules and object in going out was to purchase a business at CATT Elijah), Woodbridge. Suffolk, dairyman. Jan. 20; general regulations the owner or agent shall be Maida-vale, which he succeeded in doing. When W. W. Welton, solicitor, Woodbridge.

liable to a penalty of £20. Held, that the owner he returned he told Mr. Crisp what he had done, DOCWBA Win. Stanford Rivers, Essex, farmer. Jan. 16; of a coal mine is not liable to a penalty for the and asked to be allowed to leave forth with. Mr,

J. 8. Pope, solicitor, Trinity-street, Colchester.
GARDNER Jas., 371, Oxford-street, Middlesex, naturalist. negligence of his servant in omitting to lock the Crisp refused to allow him to do so, but said he
May : J. Gonem solicitor, 29, South Molton-street, Ox- lamps under the above sections. When the words would let him go as soon as he could get another
ford-street, Middl-sex.
GOATSEY John . St. John's Villa, Brixton-roar!, Surrey, of a statute are equally applicable to penal or to assistant in his place. The defendant told him

gentleman Feb. 1: Withall and Cornpton, solicitors, 19, civil consequences, the court will construe the that he could not stay, as he had to take posses. Great George.stiect, Westminster. Middlesex.

statnte in favour of the latter : (Dickenson v. sion of the business the next night; but he GREES David B.), Brockhain-court, Reisate, Surrey, gentleman. Jan. 1; Jas. S. Eastes, corn merchant, Fletcher, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 540. C. P.)

offered to give up one month's salary to termi. Ashford, Kent.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT- HIGHWAY OR NO nate the engagement in lieu of a month's HART (John), 167, Hoxton-street, Hoxton, Middlesex,

DISPUTE How FAR notice. baker. Dec. 31; H. F. Wood, solicitor, 65, St. Paul's: HIGHWAY—NOTICE TO

Mr. Crisp declined that offer, and churchyard, London, E.C.

APPORTIONMENT CONCLUSIVE. Where the threatened proceedings against him if he left. HA LAN (Charles), Friday-street, Henley-on-Thames. Ox. expenses incurred by a local board in sewering, without the month's notice. He did leave with. ford, ironfounder, &c., agricultural implement maker,

Jan. 14; E. T. Barrett, 8, Finsbury-circus, London. levelling, &c., a street have been apportioned out that notice, and twice afterwards applied for HOPKINSON Ellen, Western Bank, Ashorer, Derby, under sect. 69 of the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 63, amongst the salary due to him from tbe 30th June to the widow. March 2; R. T. Gratton, solicitor, , Knifesmith.

the owners or occupiers of the premises fronting, 9th September, less £5 for one month's notice. gate, Cheeterteld. HORTON (John), otherwise Morgan (William), late a gunner adjoining, &c., an owner who has not given a The money was not paid, and on the 29th

in the 7th Battery 93rd Brigade of H. M.'s Royal Artillery, written notice of his intention to dispute the November Mr. Keall took out a summons in the May2; F. W. Seamun, solicitor, Wednesbury. LINE (W'm.), late of 36. Clissold-road, formerly known as

same within three months, as required by sect. 63 county court against Mr. Crisp for the amount, -7, Park-road, St. Mary, Stoke Newington, Middlesex, of 21 & 22 Vict. c. 98, may, notwithstanding this, and on the 10th December Mr. Crisp obtained this gentleman. Jan. 10; R. and W. B. Smith, solicitors, is dispute his liability to pay, on the ground that summons against the defendant. The county New-square, Lincoln's-inn, Middlesex.

the street is a highway. Seot. 63 of 21 & 22 Vict. court summons would not be heard until the 22nd MAKIN (Joseph), Monks Eleigh, Suffolk, farmer. Jan. 6; Robinson, Safford, and Griinwade, solicitors, Hadleigh, c. 98 makes the apportionment after three months instant. Mr. Crisp deposed that the custom was Suffolk,

binding and conclusive only as to the various a month's notice on either side, unless mutually MARQUES (Elizabeth C.), Twyford, near Reading, widow, Jan. 28: J. C. Wootton, 2, Finsbury-circus, London.

amounts settled by it, but not the question of arranged to waive all such rights; and Mr. Keall MERA Charlotte... Risal-crescent, Cheltenham, highway or no highway: (Hesketh v. The Local stated that either party could terminate the en. spinster; Jan 20; Ticehurst und Sons, solicitors, Esser- Board of Atherton, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 530. Q.B.) gagement at a moment's

notice on giving the other . MERCER (Rev. Win., Sheffield. Jan. 29 ; Burdekin and Co., LARCENY-INDICTMENT-CORPUS DELICTI.- side a month's wages. solicitors, Norfolk-street, Shefteld. Prosecutor bought a horse, and was entitled to the

Christmas took a legal objection to the summons MOORE (John), Pit-villa, St. John's-road, Carisbrook, Isle of Wight, gentleman. Feb. 1; J. A. Moore, Pit-villa, St. return of 103., chap money, out of the purchase under the third section of the Act, which said, John's-road, Newport, Isle of Wight. money. Prosecutor afterwards, on the same day,

Nothing in this Act shall apply to any contract PROPERTY PROTECTION SOCIETY: Jan, 2); Paul J. Bishop met the seller, the prisoner, and others, and asked of service other than a contract within the mean:

, Middlesex ROWBOTTOM Wm., late of 1, Elizabeth-mews, England-lane, the seller for the 108., but he said he had no ing of the enactments described in the first Heverstock hibl, and formerly of 21 and 4. Westmoreland change, and offered the prosecutor a sovereign, schedule to this

Act;" and there was nothing in , Marylebone, Middlesex, Robinson, solicitor, 63, Gresham House, Old Broad-street, who could not change it. The prosecutor asked that schedule which mentioned chemists' assisLondon.

whether any one present could give change. The tants. They did not come under the head of SNITER Elvine), otherwise known as Mrs. Becoschi), 5., prisoner said he could, but would not give it to artificer or labourer, but were in the position of , Islington,

13 and Williams, solicitors, Abchurch House, Sherborne- the seller of the horse, but would give it to the clerks to whom this Act did not apply. lane, London,

prosecutor, and produced two half-sovereigns. The Poland contended that although a skilled man, STEELE (John), formerly of Week-green, Froxfield, after.

prosecutor then offered a sovereign with one hand in the shop he was only an ordinary shopman, wards of Langstone, but la:e of Emsworth, all in the county of Southamntor, Esq. Feb. 16; Rivington aud to the prisoner, and held out the other hand for and as such he contended that the Act did apply Son, solicitors, ?, Fenchurch-buildings, London. E.C. the change. The prisoner took the sovereign and to him under the head “servant," although that TOMLINSON (Wm., 194, Essex-road, Islington. Middlesex, draper. Jan. 11: Phelps and Sidgwick, solicitors, s, Gre: put one half-sovereign only in the prosecutor's term did not apply to domestic servants and shain-strert, London.

hand, and slipped the other into the hand of the clerks. TORRIANO (Chas.J., late a lieut. in the 2nd Native Vete seller, who refused to give it to the prosecutor,

Sir THOMAS WHITE said he had given the ran Battalion in the Hon. East India Company's Service. April 4; Hensman and Nicholson, solicitors, 25, College

and ran off with it. Held, that the indictment greatest consideration to the case in consequence til, London, E.C.

rightly charged the prisoner with stealing a of its importance, and he had come to the conclu. Tupper Martin de Havilland); 13. Church-street, Stoke sovereign : (Reg. v. Twist, 29 L.T. Rep. N.S. 546. sion that there was no doubt the defendant did Newington,

; Wm. Blewitt, solicitor, 27, New Broad.treet, London, E.C. C. Cas. R.)

not come within the Masters and Servants Act, WALLER John and Jemiina), 103, Whitechapel.road, Mid

and he must therefore dismiss the summons ; at dlesex, licensed victualler. Jan. 15; Tanqueray, Wil.

the same time he had no doubt that the defendant laume, and Hanbury, solicitors, 34, New Broad-street, THE MASTERS AND SERVANTS ACT, London, At the Guildhall Police Court on Wednesday in

had acted very improperly to his master. last week, Mr. Holmes Keall, a chemist and

Poland said he would ask that the judgment of druggist, of Maida-vale, was summoned by Mr. the court might be respited for a week to give COMPANY LAW

James Crisp, of No. 4, Cheapside, chemist and him time to consult his client as to whether he

druggist, his former employer, for breach of con. would ask for a case for the superior court, so as NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.

tract, under the Masters and Servants Act. to obtain a definition as to who really was a serWINDING-UP-VOID AMALGAMATION-REPAY. Poland appeared for the complainant.

vart under the Masters and Servants Act. MENT OF MONEY PAID FOR VOID SHARES- H. N. Christmas for the deiendant.--Mr. Keall Sir THOMAS WHITE said it was a most impor. INTEREST.-A. was the holder of twenty-five had been an assistant to Mr. Crisp for about two tant question, and he would give every facility for shares in the L. bank, which in 1864 entered into years on the usual terms of a month’s notice, his taking the opinion of a superior court. He would, an agreement for amalgamation with the H. bank, salary being £60 per annum with board and lodg. therefore, adjo the case for a week, and if the under which it was agreed that shares in the H. / ing. On the 9th Sept. the defendant asked leave plaintiff decided not have a case stated the sum. bank should be allotted at £6 premium to such to go out for a short time, and received permission mons would be dismissed. shareholders of the I. bank as elected to accept them. A. did so elect, and had allotted to him twenty-five shares in the H. bank, in respect of which he was credited with £125 for his old shares,

BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS. and he paid £150 in cash. Subsequently the

What notice of
Borough,
When holden.

Recorder. amalgamation was attempted to be set aside as

Clerk of the Peace.

appeal to be given.
ultra vires, and the suit was compromised, but
previously to that A.'s shares had been duly for- Bath

Monday, Jan. 5
T. W. Saunders, Esq. 14 days

J. Tavlor.
Bedford

Monday, Jan. 5 feited for non-payment of calls. Both banks were

J. T. Abdy, Esq., LL.D... 14 days

M. Whyley.
Berwick-on-Tweed Friday, Jan. 2
W. T. Greenhow, Esq...... 5 days

S. Sanderson. wound-up, and the liquidators of the H. bank

Birmingham Monday, Dec. 29
A. R. Adams, Esq.,Q.C....

T. R. T. Hodgson. brought an action against A. to recover pay- Bolton

Tuesday, Jan. 6.
S. Pope, Esq., Q.C.

10 days

J. Gordon. ment of the calls, which resulted in a de. Bridgnorth

Friday, Dec. 26
W. Cope, Esq.

14 days

W. D. Batte. cision in A.'s favour. On a summons taken Bridgwater

Tuesday, Jan. 6.
P. H. Edlin, Esq., Q.C.... 14 days

J. Trevor out by A. against the liquidators of the H. bank

Brighton
Wednesday, Jan. 7 J. Locke, Esq. Q.C., M.P.

2 days

E. Evershed.
Canterbury
Wednesday, Jan. 8 G. Francis, Esq.

Statutory

H. T. Sankey. to enforce repayment to him of the above two

Carmarthen
Monday, Jan. 5
B. T. Williams, Esq.........

10 days

J. H. Barker. sums, with interest. Held (affirming the decision

Chester
Friday, Jan. 2
H. Lloyd, Esq.

J. Walker. of Lord Justice James, sitting for Wickens, V.C.), Chichester

Tuesday, Jan. 6..
J. J. Johnson, Esq., Q.C. | 10 days

E. Titchener. that the judgment in the action was conclusive, Colchester

Thursday, Jan. 1
F. A. Philbrick, Esq. 8 days

J. S. Barnes,

Wednesday, Dec. 31.. and that A. was entitled to be repaid the 2150, Dartmouth

A. W. Beetham, Esq.

10 days

W. Smith, Deal with interest at £5 per cent. from the date of the

Friday, Jan. 2
R. J. Biron, Esq.

2 days

E. Drew.
Derby
Tuesday, Jan. 6.
G. Boden, Esq., Q.C.

J. Gadsby. summons, but that his claim to the £125 could not

Devonport
Thursday, Jan. 8
H. T. Cole, Esq., Q.C....... 10 days

G. H. E. Rundle. be sustained : (Alison's case, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. Doncaster

Friday, Jan, 2
E. J. Meynell, Esq.

10 days

E. Nicholson. 524, L. JJ.)

Dover
Monday, Dec. 29
Sir W. H. Bodkin, Knt.... 2 days

G. W. Ledger.
Faversham
Monday, Jan. 5
G. E. Dering, Esq..

F. F. Giraud.
Gloucester
Tuesday, Jan. 13
C.S. Whitmore, Esq., Q.C

7 days .....

F. W. Jones.
MAGISTRATES' LAW.
Great Yarmouth... Monday, Jan. 5

Simms Reeve, Esq.

10 days

I. Preston, jun.
Hastings
Friday, Jan. 16
R. H. Hurst, Esq., M.P.

14 days

G. Meadows.
Hythe
Saturday, Jan. 3
R. J. Biron, Esq.

8 days

W. S. Smith. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. King's Lynn... Thursday, Jan, 15. D. Brown, Esq., Q.C.

T. G. Archer. EVIDENCE — CERTIFIED BIRTH-REGISTERED

Kingston-on- Hull Thursday, Jan. 8

S. Warren, Esq., Q.C....... Statutory. R. Champney.

Leeds
COPY.-An instrument purporting to be a copy

Thursday, Jan. 1
J. B. Maule, Esq., Q.C. 10 days

C. Bulmer.
Leicester
Monday, Jan, 5
C. G. Merewether, Esq.... 8 days

R. Toller. of an entry in the Register Book of Births, and to

Liverpool
Thursday, Jan. 8
J. B. Aspinall, Esq., Q.C. Statutory.

P. Wright. be signed by the officer in whose custody the Margate

Wednesday, Dec. 31... F.J. Smith, Esq.

H. T. Sankey. Register Book is stated therein to be, is admis. New Windsor Monday, Jan. 12

A. M. Skinner, Esq., Q.C.

10 days .....

H. Darvill, sible in evidence on its mere production under the Northampton Friday, Jan. 9

J. H. Brewer, Esq.

10 days

C. Hughes. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, 6. 14: (Reg. y. Weaver, 29

Portemouth
Friday, Jan. 9
Mr. Serjeant Cox.

J. Howard.
Rochester
Friday, Jan. 2...
F. Barrow, Esq......

8 days L. T. Rep. N. S. 544. C. Cas. R.)

W. W. Hayward.
Sandwich
Thursday, Jan. 1
R. J. Biron, Esq...

T. L. Surrage. MINES REGULATION-OWNER NOT RESPON. | Scarborough Monday, Jan. 2

A. W. Simpson, Esq.

10 days

J. J. P. Moody. SIBLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF SERVANTS. - - The Shrewsbury Monday, Jan. 5

W. F. F. Bonghey, Esq.... 14 days

R. Clarke.
Monday, Jan, 12
T. Gupner, Esq......

14 days 23 & 24 Vict. c. 151, s. 10, and rule 3, provides Southampton

E. Coxwell.
Tewkesbury
Friday, Jan. 2.
J. Fallon, Esq.....

Statutory. that whenever safety lamps are required to be

F. J. Brown,
Walsall
Wednesday, Dec. 31..... W.J. Neale, Esq..

10 days used in collieries or coal mines they shall be first

S. Wilkinson,
Wenlock.
Saturday, Jan, 3
T. S. Pritchard, Esq. 14 days

E. B. Potts, examined and securely locked by a person or per- Worcester ............

Thursday, Jan, 8 | F. T, Streeter, Esq.

10 days .............

R, T, Rea.

14 days

10 days

REAL PROPERTY AND would be required, and we should have to create has put too much on, and we cannot get a CONVEYANCING.

not only a new office but a new official. But if draught.” Witness knew the coal well. It was the duties are purely ministerial, as I think they Welsh coal, and was known by the company's

can be made, then the clerk of the union, as a servants as “blind coal.” If the fire-box were LAND TRANSFER.

resident official of great intelligence, already choked, there could, in fact, be no draught, but In a paper read on the 18th inst. before the Sta-employed in those analogous duties to which I he could not say that the fire-box was choked on tistical Society of Dublin, Professor Donnell says: have referred, is marked out as the proper person this occasion. The coal was burnt regularly on "If existing machinery can be adopted, and with to have charge of the local registry. The duties the company's main line, and any quantity of slight moditication, to the purposes of land transfer, would not be very serious, for some time at least, steam could be got out of it, if it were burnt one of the practical difficulties in the way of the as the plan of registry I propose is voluntary: properly. The engines on the main line, howintroduction of a new system, viz., the expense, The waste of great machinery on first efforts is of ever, generally had larger fire-boxes than those will be obviated. We have seen how important is all things to be deprecated. Humble instrumen of the engines on the Aylesbury and Cheddington an accurate survey as the basis of any improved tality befits small beginnings. If the scheme branch. system of registration, and how Lord Romilly's succeeds, larger results will bring with them im. Templar urged that there was no cause of scheme of 1850 never got into working order proved instruments; if it fails, little has been action. The contract was one between the plain. because it necessitated the preparation of special lost, and we can begin again on a more elaborate tiff and the company, and had no reference whatmaps by the Ordnance Survey at a considerable plan.”

ever to the cattle. The company simply underexpense. The registration commissioners of 1857

took to carry the plaintiff within a reasonable say that a uniform map furnishes the best means

time, and they did carry him. They knew nothing of identifying the property, and the clearest mode

COUNTY COURTS.

of the cattle which he might have had to sell at of indexing correctly the registered title to it.”

Luton. Moreover, they relied on the notice Well, in the General Valuation Office, we have a

AYLESBURY COUNTY COURT.

printed on their time-bills, that they would not map ready prepared, and with references to the

guarantee the arrival and departure of the trains rate books, wbich would equally suit our system

Wednesday, Dec. 18.

at the times specified, nor would they be responof local land transfer. This map is annually re- (Before J. WHIGHAM, Esq., Judge.) sible for loss or inconvenience caused by delay vised in accordance with the changes of occupa- ADAMS V. LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAIL- The ticket was issued subject to those conditions tion and ownership which have taken place since

WAY COMPANY.

Clarke here interposed with the statement that the last under penalty to make out and deliver to the Railway unpunctuality --Unreasonable delay attention should be paid, as far as was practicable, clerk of the union before the 15th Nov. in each

of choked.

to ensure punctuality. year, a list of all tenements and rateable heredi. In this case Mr. W. Adams, farmer and cattle

Templar, continuing his address, quoted the taments in his district requiring revision. Any dealer, of Bushey Leys, Ellesborough, sued the well-know.case Hurst . The Great Western Rail ratepayer may hand in a similar list. The reviser London and North Western Railway Company, of valuation, an official of the valuation office, for £15, damages sustained by him by reason I way Company, and read the whole of the judgfurnished with these lists by the clerk of the the company having neglected to convey him from ment given. The essence of the case he continued,

was whether the delay was reasonable and unanion, proceeds to the spot, and marks upon the Aylesbury to Luton, on the 20th Oct. last, in avoidable. He then cited other cases, and argued maps the changes caused by alteration of farm accordance with the contract entered into by them for the reduction of damages. boundaries, consequent upon consolidation or with the plaintiff, in consequence of the train from

His HONOUR said he thought that the delay in subdivision of holdings. Changes in the names of Aylesbury to Luton having been delayed beyond this case had been unreasonable, and that it might occupiers and lessors are also recorded. We a reasonable time, whereby the

plaintiff was pre- have been avoided. He did not think that, on shall best describe the nature of this work in the vented from attending to his business, and sus.

the evidence, the present was a case for a nonwords of J. Ball Greene, Esq., the commissioner tained great damage and inconvenience.

suit; nevertheless, he considered that it would of valuation, in his evidence before the O'Connor Clarke, of Wycombe, appeared for the plaintiff. be his duty to reduce very considerably the Don's committee on the Tenement Valuation of Templar, of this circuit, for the defendants. amount claimed for damages. He believed that Ireland :

:- Every tenement in Ireland, from the The case was as follows: On the 20th Oct. last there had been culpable negligence on the part largest farm to the most minute, is laid down on the plaintiff took a ticket at the Aylesbury station of the stoker, who had choked the fire-box. The our map (the Ordnance Map) and corrected an- of the London and North Western Railway, for excuse was that the coal was a kind to which the nually. Then we have a schedule corresponding Luton, intending to go by the train which was stoker was not accustomed; but it had been with the map of owners and occupiers, the area, advertised in the company's time bill to leave shown that the coal was so well-known on the value of the land, and the value of the buildings. Aylesbury shortly before seven

o'clock in the line that there was a recognised name for itThe boundaries of every tenement are laid down morning, and arrive in Luton at 9.28. Ho did not, blind coal”-and if it had been properly and numbered to correspond with the terrier. As however, as the judge elicited, state to the book used there would have been no want of steam, soon as a man gets worn out we give it to the ing clerk that he was going to any fair, or that he and consequently, no delay. The negligence draughts man to make another map. The old map wished to get there by any particular time, but of the stoker, and, partly, also of the driver, in is kept among the records to show the changes. took the ticket in the ordinary way. The train allowing the fire-box to be choked, was the cause Every change of boundary is compared by one of went very slowly as far as Marston Gate, where it of delay. If the coal had been unknown the fault our officers on the ground with the map. Every pulled up for fifty-five minutes. On arriving at would have lain with the company for putting into new fence that forms a farm boundary is accu. Cheddington the train by which he ought to have the hands of their men coal which was slow of rately measured on the map. We give tracinge, gone on to Luton had left. The station master ignition, and of the qualities of which the men copies, and certificates of valuation to any person told the plaintiff to go to an inn and try were not informed or aware, but the coal was well requiring them at the actual expense :' (QQ. 508. to get a horse to drive to Leighton or known on the company's line, and it was the 523).

Laton. And he did so, but failed to get a duty of the driver and the stoker to see that the How accurately this work is done, and how horse. He then asked the station master to fire was fed moderately, reasonably, and carefully. satisfactory it is, appears from some other obser- telegraph to Luton, asking somebody to sell It might be true that on the occasion in question vations of vir. Greene before the same committee : his cattle for him, but the station master the day was heavy and unfavourable to a good -If there is a dispute between landlord and declined to undertake any responsibility about draught, but the driver and the stoker, by their tenant, one of them will write to say that the the matter. He went on to Luton by the experience, ought to have anticipated and proquantity is wrong, and that he cannot make it next train, and arrived at his destination at half. vided for that. The delay, then, was occasioned out, and will ask us to send a tracing and a copy past eleven. By this time the fair, which was by neglect on the part of the company's officers. of the valuation. We send it, and it generally held on that day, was nearly over, and the plain. If the delay had been in consequence of “the act settles the question :' (Q. 526).

tiff lost the sale of thirty lean beasts which he of God," or occasioned by any circumstance or "This revision has been in operation since the had sent by road to the fair on the previous day. | accident over which the company's servants had first issue of the tenement valuation in each He had to bring back the cattle in like manner by no control, then there would have been no case county or city. The first county completed was road to Ellesborough, at a cost of £2 10s.; and for the plaintiff, and a nonsuit would have Carlow, in 1853, and the last, Armagh, in 1865. the expenses of two men, who were with them, followed. But here the company were, according The cost of this revision was, at first, paid by each were about £1. He had also paid 3s. 4d. for his to the terms of their time-bill, under the condi. county by presentment until 1860, since then the ticket, and, moreover, he had to keep the cattle tions which operated as in the case of any public government have undertaken payment of one-half for a week to recruit, because they were footsore. carrier. They undertook to forward the passenger of the cost. Objections have, however, been The plaintiff and his solicitor wrote to the com- with reasonable despatch, and if the neglect of taken on behalf of the Treasury, to this payment, pany, asking for compensation, but their reply their servants prevented the journey being accomas, except for income-tax rating, the revision is a was that the ticket was issued to the plaintiff plished with reasonable dispatch, the company matter of local, not of imperial, concern.

subject to the conditions on the company's time were responsible. In this case, then, the com"Additional work would require to be done by bills, namely—that although the times of arrival pany being responsible, the only remaining questhe reviser in making tracings of maps for the and departure were stated thereon, the company tion was with regard to the amount of damages. purpose of the registry; and as the revision is, did not guarantee that the trains would arrive Inasmuch as the plaintiff did not tell the booking. except for assessment of income tax, of purely and depart at the times stated, nor would they clerk that he wanted to get to Luton at a certain local concern, the cost of the revision would fairly be responsible for any loss or inconvenience occa- time (either thereby giving the company an be payable out of local rates; and thus the sioned by the delay of the trains. On behalf of opportunity of refusing to incur the risk, or of Treasury would be relieved of a payment to which, the plaintiff, evidence was called to show that the demanding an increased fare in respect of the risk even at present, the objections are, to a large delay, on the part of the defendants, was unrea. if they chose to incur it), he was not entitled to extent, well founded.

sonable, and might have been prevented by ordi. the expenses of driving his beasts to Luton and “On more general grounds, the proposal to make nary care.

back, to recover according to his estimate, for the the union the centre of local administration falls The engine-driver, on examination, said that loss of his market, his loss of sale, and possibly of in with a growing tendency of the times. To the the reason ot the delay at Marston.gate was that profit; nevertheless he was entitled to inore than proper functions of the union officials—the admi. a new kind of coal was used for the first time that merely nominal damages. He lost a journey to nistration of the law-have been added those of morning; that they could not get sufficient Luton and back; he lost a whole day; he lost the sanitation, and the preparation of lists of voters | draught to ensure combustion, and consequently value of his fare; and was put to considerable inand jurors. The latter work, discharged by the were short of steam. Moreover, the day was convenience, and no doubt to some expense. He clerk of the union and the rate collectors, neces- foggy and dull, which lessened the draught. He was, therefore, clearly entitled to, say, 40s. sarily involves a knowledge of the ownership and had sent in his report of the delay, and had been damagee. the owners of lands in the union; and the employ- fined 10s. The coal had been used only once Templar asked for leave to appeal. ment of these officials, in connexion with the land since the day on which the delay occurred,

Clarke protested against it. It was very hard to registry, would consequently form a decided check Mr. John Henry Miller, innkeeper, of Aylesbury, appeal against a plaintiff who had got a verdict upon fraudulent transfers.

who had been a driver on the North-Western for only 40s. That sum wonld not cover the fees. " Who should be the local registrar ? This must Company's main line for fourteen years, said that

The JUDGE said that all the court fees out of depend on the nature of the registry, and the he was in the train on the morning that the delay pocket, with the usual other costs, would be duties which the officer would have to discharge. Occurred. He went to see what was the matter, allowed. He did not like to saddle the plaintiff If those duties are at all of a judicial or semi. and the driver said, “We have got a new kind of with a law-suit; and suggested that Mr. Templar judicial character, obviously a trained lawyer' coal, and my man has filled the fire-box up. He should next court day apply again, if before then

[ocr errors]

the company had not changed their mind as to The plaintiff assenting, proceeded to state that evidence as to the state of the line at Kimberley, the expediency of appealing,

the second loss of time of which he complained but in cross-examination admitted that a portion Templar, however, pressed his application, and occurred on the 11th of the same month, when of it was out of gauge, caused by the trucks, in His HONOUR acceded to it.

he had arranged for leaving Walsingham by the coming off the metals, slightly forcing it from its train published to start at 7.11 a.m., and to arrive exact position.

at Norwich at 9 a.m.; but that train did not run William Smith, driver of the goods train at NORWICH COUNTY COURT. at all.

Kimberley on the 12th Nov., also ascribed the (Before W. H. COOKE, Esq., Q.C., Judge.) His HONOUR.-Did not run at all ?

trucks getting off the siding there as purely acci. WATSON V. THE GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY

The plaintiff said it did not. The train stated dental, such as no foresight could have prevented,

leave Walsingham at 9.21 a.m., and to reach and which could not be accounted for. COMPANY.

Norwich at 11.25 a.m., did not arrive from Wells This being the defendants' case, Railway company-Unpunctuality-Negligence, until after 12 noon on the day in question, by The plaintiff, on the invitation of the court,

Liability-Plaintiff acting as deputy registrar which he was detained at Walsingham three hours. briefly commented on the whole facts, contending of the County Court district,

The consequence was that he did not get to Nor. that the published time tables of a railway com. This was a most important action, involving as wich until 1.42 p.m. He expected to reach Ho. pany were a promise that the trains would run; it did the twofold question of the liability of a mersfield, where he had some business, at 38p.m.; and that if they did not, the company was liable railway company for loss of time occasioned in but when he found the train did not run, he took for the breach of faith. With reference to the consequence of want of punctuality in running í a horse and trap from Norwich, at which he episode of the 11th Nov., his complaint was their trains as advertised, and the right of a gen. arrived back again to take the last train to Wal. that the defendants were guilty of negligence in tleman who frequently represents the registrar singham; but as he had to see some people in not being able to run a train from Wells, which to sue for damages in a court in the district. Norwich, that was impossible, and he remained was a terminal station, from the fact that they had The plaintiff, Mr. George Anthony Watson, there all night, but for which he made no charge no second engine there, which they ought to have is a solicitor residing at Walsingham, but for expenses. He charged, however, £1 ls. for had. He had only to say in conclusion, that he is commonly believed to be a partner in the horse hire from Norwich to Homersfield; and as would not havo minded much if he had been legal firm of Kent, Watson, and Watson, of a professional man, he claimed £2 2s. for loss of but delayed once in a week; but seeing that this Fakenham. During a somewhat protracted ab. time, which he did not think would be considered occurred no fewer than three times in one week, sence from illness of Mr. George Watson, registrar too much. On the following day, he took u ticket he submitted that he had sustained such special of this court, his son, Mr. G. A. Watson, has for from Norwich to Fakenbam by the 12 noon train ; and substantial damage as entitled him to the a considerable period almost invariably occupied but on arriving at Kimberley it was found that judgment of the court. his seat at the public sitting of the court, which two or three trucks in a goods train had blocked Moore followed, per contra, arguing that all the has led to a wide-spread impression that he was the main line, and there was a detention of two evidence went to show that the delays in question the regularly-appointed deputy-registrar. From hours till another train came from Dereham to were ascribable to pure accident, and therefore the moment it became known that Mr. Watson

carry the passengers forward. For this he claimed that the company could not be held liable. had resolved upon taking proceedings against the £1 Is. for loss of time. This was his third com- His HONOUR gaid that the case was a most im. defendants in a court where his presence is so plaint; and with regard to it he would add portant one-so important, indeed, that he should familiar, an unusual degree of anxiety was mani. that he made a personal examination of the line like to give a decision in it which might be looked fested as to how a case so singular in all respects at Kimberley, where he found the metals in a upon as a precedent-not only for the Great would be dealt with by the learned judge ; and dilapidated condition.

Eastern Railway, but for every railway in the the interest was intensified on its oozing out that In cross-examination, the plaintiff said that he kingdom. As at present advised, he was against an application was likely to be made for having used his season ticket from Walsingham to Faken. the defendants on both points which had been the case transferred to a court out of the district. ham on the 11th Nov., and that he did not take a raised by their advocate, in which he contended

Watson (whose claim was for £4 43.) conducted through ticket at Fakenham to Homersfield, but that the delays could not have been helped, and his own case ; and, instead of occupying his ac. only a ticket to Norwich. He had read the con- that damages could not be recovered for loss of customed chair below his Honour, took his seat ditions prefixed to the company's tables, which time. He was disposed to think that there was at the solicitors' table.

state that all that can be done will be done to negligence, gross negligence, in having only one E. Moore (from the office of W. Shaw, the soli- secure punctuality in the

departure and arrival of engine at a place like Wells, the terminal station citor to the company), appeared for the defendants. the trains, but that these are not guaranteed. for two lines of railway. There was nothing to

On the usual proclamation by the high bailiff, He was neither an architect nor an engineer, but take a railway company out of the law of respon.

Moore rose to move the court under sect. 20 of he had no hesitation in saying that the rails at sibility which attached to the mode of travelling 19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, which is as follows : " If an Kimberley were in bad condition when he saw in the old coaching days, by which, if one horse action be brought by an officer of a County Court them on the 12th Nov.

broke down, the proprietor of the coach ought to in the court of which he is an officer, except in the This was the plaintiff's case.

be in a position immediately to supply its place case of the registrar suing as official assignee, the Moore, for the defendants, said that his answer with another, or be held liable for the delay. judge shall, at the request of the defendant, order to the action was that the train did not run from With regard to the contention that the plaintiff that the venue be changed, and that the cause be Wells on the morning of the 11th Nov. in con- could not recover for loss of time, he (his Honour) sent for hearing to the court of some convenient sequence of an accident which could not by any was ready to admit that had the plaintiff been a district of which he is not the judge; and the possibility have been foreseen; that a railway traveller for pleasure, he could not have recovered, registrar of the first-mentioned court shall forth. company was not liable for an accident unless it but he hardly thought this could apply to a prc with transmit by post to the registrar of such was shown to have taken place through gross fessional man, the nature of whose business called last-mentioned court a certified copy of the crder negligence ; that under no circumstances could him to different places. However, he should carefor changing the venue as entered in the minute the plaintiff recover damages for loss of time; and fully weigh the whole facts before giving his book ; and the judge of such last-mentioned court that he had adduced no evidence to show that the judgment and if either side could submit any, shall appoint a day for the hearing, notice whereof non-departure of the train on the morning in ques- thing fresh to him bearing upon the points which shall be sent by post or otherwise by the registrar tion was not a pure accident.

had been raised, he would be glad to rereire it. of such last-mentioned court to both parties." His HONOUR esked what could be greater neg. If, when he gave his judgment, it was considered Moore was proceeding to say that he understood ligence than a train which was advertised to run on either side of a nature which it was desirable that the plaintiff was deputy-registrar of the court and did not run ?

to have reviewed in the court above, he would not when

Moore submitted that it rested upon the plain. bo indisposed, on proper cause shown, to grant a His HONOUR remarked that he (Mr. Moore) tiff to prove that it could have been run.

case; for, as he had previously observed, the understood what was not the fact. The plaintiff His Honour was of a different opinion, and points which had been raised were of the greatest occasionally acts for his father for about the space thought the onus probandi lay upon the defen- importance alike to railway companies themselves, of two hours once a month. There was only one dants.

and the whole travelling community. deputy-registrar in his entire district. It was Moore essayed to fortify his contention by

Judgment reserved. perhaps unfortunate to have an invalid registrar; quoting several decisions in railway districts; but but there could be no depuputy-registrar who was as this failed to convince his Honour that the not legally appointed by him (his Honour) in plaintiff had no case, he proceeded to call evidence

READING COUNTY COURT. writing, and certified by the Lord Chancellor, as to the cause of the non-running of the train

Wednesday, Dec. 17. which the plaintiff was not-only acting as he did from Wells on the morning of the 11th Nov., from month to month when his father did not and the delays arising out of this. The first wit

(Before H. J. STONOR, Esq., Judge.)

PRENTIS v. MORTIMORE. Moore asked that a note might be taken of his John Phillips, who said that he was the driver Agreement between solicitor and client-Set-ofapplication, which, however, was refused. He of the train which was appointed to start from Bill of costs in liquidation to be tared by then begged his Honour's attention to the fact | Wells at 7 a.m., on the day alluded to, but which registrar, although liquidation fell throughthat the plaintiff's claim was for loss of time, did not run in consequence of the bursting of a

5 B. R. 1871. owing to delay of trains on the defendants' rail. tube in the boiler about a quarter of an hour His Honour now delivered judgment as follows: way, and he contended at the outset that no such previously. It was a pure accident, such as no In these two actions brought by the same plaintiff action could be maintained.

care could have prevented. In other respects, against the same defendant, the facts and circum. His Honour observed that that could be seen the engine was in good order. There was no stances are nearly identical, although the causes after the plaintiff had stated his case, when Mr. other engine at Wells to take on the train, which of actiou are certainly distinct. The plaintiffi, a Moore would have an opportunity of cross-exami: could not be started until an engine arrived from grocer in Reading, being

in difficulties, instructed nation. However, he might remark that the Norwich. He had been twenty-three years in the the defendant, a solicitor in London, to appear plaintifs particulars contained three separate defendants' service. The engine spoken of was and defend several actions brought against him charges of complaint for loss of time, for which he taken by himself out of the factory at Stratford at the end of last year and beginning of the had put down a lump sum of £4 48.; and he new in 1862.

present year, and during that period and up to wished to know how much the plaintiff claimed Thomas Stevenson, district superintendent at April last, paid defendant's clerk large sums of for each.

Norwich, narrated the steps which were had re- money, amounting, as the plaintiff deposes, to The plaintiff said that the first paragraph in his course to by him on receiving information by £60 or £70; but as the defendant's clerk deposes particulars referred to the 6th Nov., when he was telegraph of the bursting of the tube, so as to to less than £50, on account of instalments and à passenger from Fakenham to Norwich. The prevent inconvenience to the public. The engine costs payable to the plaintiff in such actions, and time-table for that month announced a train to which took the train from Wells was the one the charges and expenses of the defendant Morti. leave Fakenham at 5.55 p.m., and to arrive at which left Norwich at 7 a.m.

more in defending such actions for the present Norwich at 7.30 p.m.; but it did not reach its William Ward, sub-inspector of permanent way plaintiff. No account of such payments to the destination until 9.30 p.m.; two hours later than on the Great Eastern Railway, said that he was defendant's clerk was kept by the defendant or it would have done. For this detention, however, at Kimberley station immediately after the trucks his clerk, but vouchers for about £35, paid in vari

; he would only claim the nominal damages of 6d. went off the siding on the 12th Nov. He exa. ons soms for instalments and costs, were produced

His Honour suggested whether it would not mined the metals, and found them in very good by the defendant's clerk, and the defendant's be better to strike out the first item altogether, condition, observing neither defect in the road or clerk further deposed that he had sent several and confine their attention to the second and third rail. The main line was cleared about 2.35 p.m. other vouchers to the plaintiff, and that except itoms.

Samuel Long, platelayer, gave corroborative about £2 or £3 for incidental expenses of journeys,

come.

ness was

never

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

sum

messages, &c., the whole of the money advanced mentioned, which, although it had never been COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY. by tha plaintiff was applied in payment of in. delivered, he had a right to do, according to the

Tuesday, Dec. 16. stalments and costs. The plaintiff denies that case of Brown v. Tibbits (11 C.B., N. S., 855); but he ever received any vouchers from the defen. as he had delivered no bill of costs, neither had

(Before the LORD CHANCELLOR and the LORDS dant, and saw the vouchers produced he delivered any particulars of his set-off within

JUSTICES.) in court previously to such production. It is the time required by the County Courts Acts, and

Re MOTION; MAULE v. Davis. quite clear that the defendant was guilty of consequently there was a verdict for the plaintiff

, Partnership-Sale of bankrupt's property-Bank. gross neglect in permitting his clerk to receive and the set-off was disallowed. Under the cir.

ruptcy Act 1869, s. 72-Jurisdiction. moneys from the defendant without keeping cumstances, however, I allowed a new trial, with This appeal occupied the whole of yesterday, and proper accounts and giving proper receipts, liberty to plead the set-off, on payment of costs this morning the judgment of the court was de. and although it is perhaps not absolutely by defendant, and on his bringing the money into

livered. necessary for me to express an opinion on this court, and after hearing it, I am still of opinion part of the case, I think that it will be convenient that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, and that Chief Judge in Bankruptcy on the 28th July last.

The appeal was from an order made by the and proper for me to say that on the balance of the defendant is not entitled to the claim which This order was made upon the application

of the evidence before me, I am of opinion that the he has made as a set-off in that action, as I think Messrs. Davis and Wigginton, the present asplaintiff advanced at least £65 to the defendant's the same was released by him on obtaining the signees in bankruptcy of Mr. George Motion, who clerk, and that the discrepancy between their promissory note, and further that it was pre. evidence on this point may possibly be accounted viously satisfied substantially, if not fully, by the

was formerly in partnership with Messrs. John for by, a particular sum of £18, which the payments made on account to his clerk. The Hay and E. N. Briggs in the distillery business of plaintiff positively swore to have paid to the plaintiff subsequently brought the second action declared void a sale made in 1869 by Mr. Staunton,

Grimble and Co., in Albany-street, and the order defendant's clerk under special circumstances, to recover £42 10s., the balance of the promissory the then assignee of the bankrupt's estate, of the and which the defendant's clerk did not venture note of £50, £10 cash and £2 10s, interest on the bankrupt's interest in the business to his partners, positively to deny, although he stated that he note (after deducting the £20 sued for in the first Messrs. Hay and Briggs, for £13,025., on the believed he had never received it. At the end of action on the undertaking) as money had and re- ground that the sale was improperly made and at March in the present year, according to the ceived by defendant to the use of the plaintiff,

an undervalue. The sale was made under an defendant's evidence, the defendant advised the and the defendant has pleaded as a set-off his un. plaintiff to present a petition for liquidation and taxed bill of costs in the liquidation, amounting afterwards sanctioned by an order of the Court of

agreement dated the 15th April 1869, and was free himself from his liabilities, and thereupon the to £38 8s. 9d., and also a further set-off of plaintiff asked the defendant if he could do it for £14

178. 9d., the unsatisfied balance of his bill of Chancery on the 15th July 1869, made in two

partnership suits of Hay v. Motion and Motion v. £50, but ultimately offered and promised to pay costs for defending the actions already men.

Hay, in which a decree had been made on the 30th the defendant £60"for the expenses of liquidation, tioned, after deducting the £20 due on his under of April 1864, for the dissolution

of the partner. viz,: £10 in cash, and £50 by a promissory note taking and claimed in the first action. On the ship, and the sale of the whole business as a of Mr. F. Halliday, dated the 25th March 1870, grounds which I have already mentioned, and for the above amount, with interest at £5 per particularly the view which I tako of the real going concern. After the sale of the bankrupt's cent. per month, payable on demand. On the 9th agreement between the parties, I disallow the the whole business to Mr. George Maule. The

interest to his partners, they sold and assigned of April, the defendant filed the petition for second item of the set-off, but I allow, the first order of the Chief Judge declared this sale also to liquidation by the plaintiff in this court, and on item of the bill of costs in liquidation, subject to sory note of £50 from the plaintiff, but only upon the registrar of this court in bankruptcy, under decree in the partnership suits, and gavo Mr. the same day the defendant obtained the promis- taxation by the proper officer, whom I think to be be void, and directed the whole business to be sold

as a going concern, as originally provided by the his, the defendant's, varying his agreement as to the fifth rule of the Bankruptcy. Rules 1871: Maule liberty to bid at the sale. The sale was the costs of the liquidation and undertaking to There will be a verdict for the plaintiff in the first afterwards advertised to be held on the 19th inst. carry him through for £40 instead of £60; and action for £20 with costs, on the higher scale, The suit of Maule v. Davis was instituted by Mr. the defendant, on cross-examination, stated that payable in fourteen days, and there will be a he did so because he would never have obtained verdict for the plaintiff in the second action for Messrs. Davis and Wittington, and was, by special

Maule in Vice-Chancellor Bacon's Court against the promissory note without. The defendant then £42 103., subject to the defendant's set-off of leave, heard originally before the Court of Appeal. signed the following memorandum :-“Received £38 8s. 90., or so much as the proper taxing By the bill Maule expressed his readiness to of Mr. Thomas Prentis

a promissory note of Mr. officer may have found or may find to be due, have it declared that the sale of the bankrupt's Frank Halliday for £50, and I undertake in the with costs according to the amount ultimately interest in the business was not binding on his event of the said note being duly paid to return recovered by the plaintiff, payable in a month; estate, but Mr. Maule songht to have it also to Mr. Prentis the

£20 thereout. costs of application for new trial to be included. (Signed) T. H. MORTIMORE, 9th April 1873.” The plaintiff and defendant agreed that the business, or on the bankrupt's interest in it, for

declared that he is entitled to a charge on the The £10 cash had previously been paid to the costs of liquidation should be taxed by the regis- the £13,625, which he advanced to Hay and Briggs defendant but no mention of it was made in this trar, without prejudice to the defendant's right to to enable them to pay for the bankrupt's interest, memorandum ; and in the petition for liquidation appeal in both actions.

which they purchased. the promissory note for £50 was returned as part of the debtor's estate, but no mention was made

Swanston, Q.C. and Sterling were for Mr.

Maule. of the £10 paid to the defendant, nor of the £20

BANKRUPTCY LAW. agreed to be repaid by him, which I regret to say

J. W. Chitty and Romer appeared for the has very much the appearance of a fraud upon

assignees. the plaintiff's creditors, but may have happened

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that in their through inadvertence, and I trust that such was PARTNERSHIP-SEPARATE ESTATE-PROFITS Lordships' opinion the respondents had failed to the case. So far the plaintiff and defendant are OF SEPARATE ESTATE SET TO PROFIT AND Loss prove any such fraudulent scheme as they &nbstantially agreed, exc.pt that the plaintiff ACCOUNT-JOINT ESTATE.-C. and M., who car. alleged on the part of the bankrupt's partners to states that no other sum than £40 was ever men. ried on business as ship chandlers, each applied in obtain his share in the business at an under tioned as the costs of the liquidation. The plain. his own name for certain shares in a shipowners' value. Nothing which occurred before the agreetiff and defendant are further agreed that pre- company. Each paid the application and allotment of the 15th April 1869, appeared to require riously to the filing of the petition a cunversation ment money on the shares allotted to him, and the or to warrant the inference of a fraudulent pur. took place between them as to the costs of de- shares were registered in the names of the part pose. The provisious of that agree nent were fending the action at the beginning of the year. ners severally. Each partner drew upon the prima facie fair and proper, and upon the iwhole The defendant deposes that it merely amounted partnership funds for the payment of calls upon evidence their Lordships did not doubt that Mr. to this, that such costs should be put into the the shares, and the amounts so drawn were de- Staunton and his solicitor, in entering into the list of debts at a lump sum of £25. The plaintiff bited in the books of the firm to the individual agreement, acted with an honest purpose. The deposes that nothing was said to this effect and partners, and opposite to these entries in the objection to this agreement, which was mainly that he never read the list of creditors, but that books of the firm each partner signed his relied on by the Chief Judge, was founded upon previously to filing the petition, and handing over initials in red ink. The dividends on the shares the construction of sect. 137 of the Bankruptcy the promissory note, and taking the defendant's were, however, carried to the profit and loss Act of 1861, which gives the assignees of a bank. undertaking to repay the £20, he said to the de- account of the firm. The holding of ships or rupt power, with the sanction of the court, to sell fendant " I suppose we are square up to this shares in shipowning companies formed no part by private contract the bankrupt's book debts time," and the defendant said, in reply, of the business of the firm, but it appeared that and the goodwill of his trade or business. Their tainly.” Upon this part of the transaction, I the partners had purchased the shares under the Lordships thought that section did not apply to think, on the balance of evidence before me, that impression that the possession of them would be a sale by the assigneo of a bankrupt's share in the real agreement between the parties must be the means of introducing custom and business to the goodwill of the business, and his interest held to have come to this : That if the liquidation the partnership. C. became bankrupt and M. in the book debts of a dissolved partnership, was carried oat the defendant was to limit his claimed the shares standing in C.'s name, as especially in the case of a sale to the bank claim to £25 against the estate and look to obtain joint estate of the firm : Held (reversing the de- rupt's partners, who were generally the most his costs of the liquidation, not exceeding £40, cision of the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, that the advantageous purchasers of his interest. Nor did out of the £50 promissory note returned as an entries in the books of the firm amounted to a their Lordships think that there was any force in asset, but if the liquidation fell through he was statement in writing signed by the partner that the objection founded upon the existence of the to limit his claim against the plaintiff to such the shares were to be separate and not joint estate, previous order of the Court of Chancery for the last-mentioned costs not exceeding £40, payable and that the mode of dealing with the dividend sale of the whole business as a going concern. out of the promissory note for £50. In the latter was not contradictory, of that statement, inas. Notwithstanding that order, the Court of Chancery case the defendant would also have had to repay much as the effect of it was the same as if the had power to give effect to the agreement, and the £20 according to his undertaking, but in the partners (who each held an equal number of the that which would be no objection to the agree. former case it is difficult to say what the parties shares) had been separately credited with the ment in the court which made the original order, contemplated, as £10 part of the balance or sum dividends : (Ex parte Bolland; re Clint, 29 L. T. could be no objection to it in another court. But, of £20 would have passed to the trustee in liqui. Rep. N. S. 525. Chan.)

though their Lordships were satisfied that no case dation, and the remaining £10 ought certainly ANTENUPTIAL SETTLEMENT BY A TRADER- of fraud had been made out by the respondents, also to have been paid to such trustee, and both COVENANT TO SETTLE ALL AFTER ACQUIRED they were by no means satisfied that there had would have been divisible amongst the creditors. PROPERTY HUSBAND-BANKRUPTCY-In. not been material error in the mode in which the The £50 promissory note, together with £2 108. VALIDITY OF COVENANT. A covenant in an ante. value of the bankrupt's interest bad been ascer. for interest, was duly paid to the defendant by the nuptial settlement by the husband to settle upon tained. They were relieved from any difficulty as drawer. The petition for liquidation fell through such trusts as the trustees should require all the to this part of the case by the submission of the for want of a sufficient number of creditors at the real and personal estate of or to which he should appellant to pay, in addition to what he had first meeting, when no resolution was proposed nor become possessed or entitled during the coverture, already paid for the bankrupt's interest, such som any adjournment moved. The plaintiff then is void as against his trustee in bankruptcy as as, upon inquiry, might prove requisite to make up brought his action in this court to recover back being against public policy, and an attempt to the full value of the bankrupt's interest. Their the £20 on the andertaking. The defendant withdraw the whole of his property from the just Lordships did not think that the whole sale onght pleaded as a set-off the amount of a bill of costs claims of his creditors

: (Ex parte Bolland; re to be set aside, upon the ground of error, in the (+34 17s. 9d.) for defending the actions already 'Clint, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 543. Bank.)

absence of fraud, but an inquiry would be directed

[ocr errors]

cer

[ocr errors]

OF

a

to be made by one of the registrars in bankruptcy Sampson and Alsop, solicitors, appeared for the on by them without endorsement, but with a as to what additional sum ought to be paid by parties concerned.

guarantee of payment at maturity to the Agra and Mr. Maule for the bankrupt's interest. His Lord- The Registrar said the first question before him Masterman's Bank, to be held by them as secuship said it was his duty to add that if their was the consideration of the objections to the rity, they allowing Barneds to draw upon them in Lordships had agreed with the Chief Judge in his proofs of debt. The first referred to was marked separate bills for £50,000. This sum of £50,000, view of the facts of the case they would have been "objected to" on the ground of the bill of ex. less discount and charges, passed to the credit of unable to concur in the propriety of his decision change given to the creditor not having been pro. Messrs. Fernie Brothers and Co. at Barned's, and that it was competent to the Court of Bankruptcy duced at the meeting.

was drawn out by them. On the 8th March, the to work out the original decree of the Court of Sampson now produced the bill, and the regis. day on which the first batch of bills was drawn, Chancery in the partnership suits. With the trar held it sufficient to cure the defect of its Messrs. Fernie Brothers and Co. gave to Barned's interpretation put by the Chief Judge upon sect. non-production at the meeting. The next objec. Banking Company a guarantee in the following 72 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, their Lordships tion taken was to the right of the liquidator to terms :could not agree. That section gave to the Court | vote at the meeting.

48, Brown's-buildings, Exchange, of Bankruptcy very large powers to decide all Sampson contended that the Joint Stock Com.

Liverpool, 6th March, 1806. questions necessary for the proper administration panies Act only conferred power upon a liquida

TO BARNED'S BANKING COMPANY (LIMITED). of a bankrupt's estate ; but it did not enable the tor to prove and rank for dividend, and that in payment of the undermentioned drafts the same as if

Gentlemen,-We hereby guarantee to you the due Assignees to draw within the jurisdiction of the the absence of any authority the liquidator could they came endorsed by us :Court of Bankruptcy the owners of property which not vote. Assuming he could vote, he had no W. H. Daunt and Co.,'on M'Ewen Bryson, and Co., was not vested in the assignees, and who were not power to accept a composition. The debtor's £5000 at six months' date, dated 6th March. originally subject to the jurisdiction in bankruptcy, petition was for either composition or liquidation;

W. H. Daunt and Co., on M'Ewen, Bryson, and Co., and still less did it enable the Court of Bank- and, as the liquidator could not accept the former,

£5000 at six months' date, dated 6th March.

W. H. Daunt and Co., on M'Ewen, Bryson, and Co., ruptcy to work out a decree for the dissolution of he had no right to vote for the latter, as one of £5000 at six months' date, dated 6th March. a partnership previously made by the Court of the principles of the Act was that all creditors W. H. Daunt and Co., on M'Ewen, Bryson, and Co., Chancery. No doubt the Court of Bankruptcy should be on an equality.

£5000 at six months' date, dated 6th March, would be able to compel a purchaser to reconvey Alsop argued that by the 80th section of the All due 9th September next.-We are, gentlemen, property of a bankrupt which he had fraudulently Bankruptcy Act 1869, a company might vote

your obedient servants, FERNIE BROS, & CO. acquired, and a prior order of the Court of Chan. by an agent duly authorised, and in the pre. On the 9th April, Messrs. Fernie Brothers and cery made by consent would not stand in the way sent instance the company, although in liqui. Co, gave Barned's Banking Company a further of this being done; but in such a case as the dation, did, by virtue of one of the sections letter of guarantee in the following terms :present, where the purchase money had been of the Joint-Stock Companies Act, continue in

Liverpool, 9th April, 1866. already paid and distributed among the creditors, existence for the purpose of winding-up, and the TO BARNED'S BANKING COMPANY (LIMITED). who had received 20s, in the pound, such an order liquidator became its agent for that purpose, and Gentlemen,-In reference to the operation of the would only be made upon the ordinary equitable as such agent had a right to vote. The registrar advance of £50,000 in the acceptances of the

Agra and terms of refunding the purchase money, and assented to the latter argument, and held that deposits of certain bills of exchange drawn at six

Masterman Bank at three months' date against assignees in bankruptcy were as much bound as the liquidator, as the agent of the company, was months' date by Messrs. W. H. Daunt and Co., as any other plaintiffs to return the purchase money entitled to vote.

follows:in such a case. With regard to the suit of Maule

Sampson then took exception to the claim of the .£20,000 on M‘Ewen, Bryson, and Co., due 9th Sept. v. Davis, their Lordships thought the plaintiff company in respect of interest, but the registrar

£30,000) on James Watson and Co., due 18th Sept. could not sustain it, and the bill must be dis- held that the debtor being a party to the promis. In consideration of your giving your guarantee to the missed with costs. Mr. Maule would, however, sory note, on which the company claimed, and the Agra, and Masterman Bank, for the transaction, we be entitled to receive his costs in the bankruptcy amount of interest to be paid being specifically of Messrs. M'Ewen, Bryson, and Co., and James Watson motion, so far as they had been increased by reason stated on the face of the document, he was liable and Co., to the same extent as though we were enof the charges of fraud, and he might set-off those for the amount claimed. The parties then came dorsers thereon.- We remain, gentlemen, yours faithcosts against the costs in the suit.

fully, to an agreement to nominate the liquidator as

FERNIE BROS. and Co. The LORDS JUSTICES concurred.

trustee, and tendered a resolution signed by the All the parties engaged in the transaction failed, creditors to that effect, but it was refused regis. and none of the bills were paid at maturity. Í

tration on the ground that it was not the resolu. am of opinion that there was good consideration LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT. tion passed at the meeting.

for both the guarantees. But by the language of Thursday, Dec. 4. A new meeting of creditors was ordered.

the guarantees, the liability of Fernie Brothers (Before Mr. Registrar Watson.)

and Co., is expressly limited to their liability as Re John ELLIS.

endorsers; all that they undertake to do is to Friday, Dec. 19.

place themselves with regard to Barneds in the Bankruptcy Act 1869-Liquidator's right lo prove and vote-Resolutions-Practice.

(Before J. F. COLLIER, Esq., Judge.)

same position as endorsers. If it had been in

tended that the guarantee should be one simply Held, that a liquidator of a joint stock company

Re FERNIE BROTHERS AND Co.

of due payment of the bills at maturity, it would being voluntarily wound-up is entitled to prove Bankruptcy Act 1861-Deed of inspectorship- have been easy to have so framed it, as was, in and vote at meetings of creditors. Bills of -Right of proof of debt-Guarantee-Bills of fact, done in the guarantee which Barned's gave exchange held by a creditor, but not produced at Exchange.

the Agra and Masterman's in respect of these meeting, should be produced on registration to A. entered into a guarantee to meet bills drawn by very bills. I cannot suppose that the managers cure objection to their non production at the B. and accepted by C. for £50,000 to the same of Barned's Bank were ignorant of the effect of meeting.

extent as if endorsed. The bank parted with the this limitation. They, therefore, knowing of the THIS was an application to register certain

bills, and they were discounted by A. without limitation and of its effect in the case of the first resolutions of creditors, whereby they deter- indorsement, and all the parties thereto failed. batch of bills, parted with the bills, after having mined to liquidate the affairs of the debtor, Held, that the bank which accepted the grorantee received the first guarantee, and in the case of the

arrangement, and to appoint Mr. Bolland having parted with the bills without indorsement second batch accepted a guarantee in the game trustee. The question at issue involved by A., deprived themselves of the right of proving terms, after having parted with the bills, in both important point of practice. It appeared that

against the estate of A. A.'s name not being on cases without endorsement. Nor is there, in my thë debtor was a shareholder in the County Pala- the bills, there was no right of proof against his opinion, anything extraordinary or unreasonable tine Loan Company, now in liquidation, and held estate. The true test of right of proof was this, in their so doing, or any reason to think that a twenty £10 shares. He became a director, and could the bank which accepted the guarantee full knowledge of the meaning and effect of the introduced many of his friends who were desirous have sued successfully on the guarantee

without limitation was not in their minds ; for if they had cf obtaining loans from the company, and in some having the bills in their hands ?

remained solvent, and the billa had not been paid cases he became guarantee for repayment of the This was an application for the admission of a at maturity, they would, in the natural course of loans. In respect of three such loans he was proof of debt for £50,000, against the estate of business, have again become the holders, they surety to the extent of £107, and on default of the debtors, shipowners in Liverpool, who exe- would have had to pay the Agra and Masterman's the original borrowers he became liable for prin cuted a deed of inspectorship in 1866. The facts Bank, and would then have been entitled to have cipal as well as interest, the latter computed at of the case are fully set forth in the judgment of their bills back-indeed, at any time by securing the rate of 216 per cent., and making £528. He the court.

the Agra and Masterman's, they could have again also borrowed on his own account £30, of which Wheeler and Bigham, instructed by Freshfields, made themselves the holders. In my opinion, by, he repaid £10, and the claim of the company in of London, supported the proof.

parting with the bills they deprived themselves of respect of this loan was £109 13s. 2d. He was

Gully, instructed by Hüll, Stone, and Fletcher, their remedy as holders, and, as a matter of fact, also liable on unpaid calls on his shares of £4 opposed.

the Agra and Masterman's Bank have proved as each, amounting to £80. At the first meeting of His Honour, in giving judgment, said: In this the holders against the estates of M Ewen, Bryson, his creditors trade debts were proved which case I am asked to allow the official liquidators of and Co., and James Watson and Co. The test is, amounted to £684, and a proof of debt was Barned's Banking Company to rank as creditors could Barneds have sued successfully on this tendered by the liquidator of the loan company against the estate of Messrs. Fernie Brothers guarantee without having the bills in their hands? for £1066. That proof was objected to by the and Co., for a sum of £50,000 under a certain I think not. I am therefore of opinion that they chairman, on the ground that the rate of interest letter of guarantee hereafter referred to. The have no claim to rank as creditors in respect of was exorbitant, and could not in equity be en. facts of the case are these. In the early part of the sum claimed under it. forced. The trade creditors thereupon resolved the year 1866, Messrs. Fernie Brothers and Co., to ignore the claim and liquidate the estate by of Liverpool ; Messrs. W. H. Daunt and Co., of result.

Gully asked that the costs should follow the arrangement, and appoint their own trustee. Liverpool; Messrs. M'Ewen, Bryson, and Co., of His HONOUR assented.

Alsop, for the liquidator, insisted upon his right Glasgow; and Messrs. James Watson and Co., of to vote, notwithstanding the objection to his Glasgow, desired to raise £50,000 for operations give notice of appeal, except for the purpose of

Wheeler said that as there was no necessity to proof. Sampson, for several of the trade creditors, made with Barned's Banking Company for the nothing to say until he had consulted with his

on the Stock Exchange. Arrangements were reducing the amount of deposit below £20, he had admitted the right of a creditor to whose proof advance of the money. Barned's bank, however, clients. objection had been raised to vote, but in this not being in a position to provide ready money to instance he submitted that a liquidator had no such an amount, entered into negotiations with such right in competition with the rest of the the Agra and Masterman's Bank in London,

LEGAL NEWS. creditors.

the ultimate result of which was that Alsop submitted that by virtue of the 95th the 6th March four bills of exchange for £5000 SOLICITOR ELECTED MAYOR. — Blackburn — and 133rd section of the Joint Stock Companies Act each, and on the 15th March six bills for John Pickop, Esq. the official liquidator had full power to vote, and £5000 each, were drawn by Messrs. W. H. Daunt THE BALDACCHINO CASE.-There will be no he accordingly signed a resolution to liquidate and Co., the first four on Messrs. M'Ewen, appeal in this case, recently decided by Dr. Trisand to appoint the liquidator trustee. Both those Bryson, and Co., and the last six on Messrs. tram, as to the erection of a baldacchino at St. resolutions were tendered for registration, and James Watson and Co. These bills were on or Barnabas, Pimlico. The Chancellor, it will be the matter came before the registrar on the ques. about the dates on which they were drawn paid recollected, held that such ornaments were unlawtion of registration.

into Barned's Bank, and were immediately passed' ful in the Church of England.

an

on

[ocr errors]
« EelmineJätka »