Page images
PDF
EPUB

in the

at

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

mine.

or

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

to the defendant's manager as being of the class the noon, in the year of our Lord one thousand | petty session to be holden on this day for this division he had mentioned. He argued that such men eight hundred and to show cause why an order (a) to show cause why such order should not be made were bona fide travellers within the meaning of should not be made upon you to contribute towards the

upon him: relief of the said bastard child.

And whereas the said the law, and entitled as such to demand refresh.

having been duly served Herein fail you not.

with the said summons

and appearing in pure ment from a publican, the refusal of the publican Given under our hands and seals this day of

suance thereof (c), and the said guardians having now rendering him liable to an indictment. This view in the year of our Lord one thousand eight applied to us, the justices in petty sessions assembled, of the matter was supported by the decision of hundred and at in the county (a) aforesaid. for an order upon the said , under The Bastardy Erle, C.J., in the case of Taylor, app., v. Hum

(L.S.) Laws Amendment Act 1873, and it being now proved phreys, resp. The learned counsel submitted that

(L.S.) to us, in the presence and hearing of the said (d) (a) or city, borough, or other place.

that the said child was, on the omnibus guards, drivers, and the like, were tra

day of

year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and lers by profession, and if they were to be refused

No. 3,

born a bastard of the body of the said and that necessary refreshment while pursuing what was

the said child did on or about the day of in in some respects a difficult and dangerous business

Recognisance on Adjournment of Hearing.

the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and

Recognisance in the common form with the following a great injustice would be done.

become and is now chargeable to the said union(a), condition :

and we having, in the presence and hearing of the said(d) Witnesses were then called who proved that of

Condition.

heard the evidence of such woman and such other the men seen by the policeman when he visited The condition of the within written recognisance is evidence as hath been produced, in support of the appli. the defendant's house two were drivers of omni. such, that if the said shall personally appear on cation, and having also heard all the evidence tendered by

tbe buses which had, shortly before, come into Man.

day of
of the clock in the

(c) the said and the evidence of the said noon, at chester from Bury and Pendleton ; one was a

before such justices of the peace for the

the mother of the said child, having been corrocounty (a) of as may then be there, to show cause guard, and the other two were drivers who had why in order should not be made upon him to con.

borated in some material particular by other evidence to

our satisfaction, do hereby adjudge the said to be travelled from Swinton. tribute towards the relief of a certain bastard child of

the putative father of the said bastard child; and do On the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. HEAD- single woman, which child has become charge also hereby order that the said do pay to the said LAM said there was no doubt that men of the able to the union(6), and of which child it is guardians, or to one of their officers, the sum of class referred to by Mr. Jordan were bona fide recognisance to be voir, or else to stand in fall force and

alleged that the said is the father, then the said ) towards the relief of the said child during such travellers, and entitled to refreshments at any

time as the said child shall continue or hereafter become virtue. time during Sunday; but it was necessary for

chargeable to the said union, (b) until the mother shall (a) or city, borough, or other place.

obtain an order or until such child shall attain the age public-house keepers to look very carefully after

(b) or the parish of

of

years (9), together with the sum of for the the men who accompanied the guards and drivers,

costs incurred in obtaining this order. for it might happen that they would bring in

No. 4.

Given under our hands and seals, at the session aforetheir friends who were not travellers at all.

said. Notice of such Recognisance to be given to the Defendant (and

(L.S.) Jordan said that it was the custom at his client's his Surety or Suretics).

(L.S.) honse to be very careful in that respect.

Take notice, that you, are bound in the sum

(a) or city, borough, or other place,
of
(and you,
in the sum of.

(b) or the parish of

and Mr. HEADLAM went on to say that there had

(c) Insert here, if the defendant do not appear, "six days

in the sum of been considerable difficulty about this question, sonally on the

,] that(c) appear per- at least before this day, as is now proved beiore us," or "the day of

at of the clock in game having been leit at his last place of abode six days at because men often obtained drink by falsely repre- the

noon at
before such justices of the peace

least before this day, as is now proved before us," and erase senting that they were travellers, and a publican for the county (a) of as shail then be there, to

the words in italics.

(d) Should the defendant not appear, erase the words in was liable to a penalty for refusing refreshment show cause why an order should not be made upon(c)

italice. to a bona fide traveller. In this case the summons

to contribute towards the relief of a certain bas.

(e) Shonld tne defendant appear by attorney or counsel. tard child of would be dismissed.

single woman, which child has be.

it will then then be only necessary to erase the word bye come chargeable to the union (b), and of which and add on behalf of ;" but should he not appear himself, child it is alleged that(c) are the father, as to or by attorney or counsel, then erase the words in italics.

Insert"-weekly" or otherwise as the justice may deterTHE BASTARDY LAWS AMENDMENT ACT which matter the hearing of the application of the

guardians of the said union(b) was adjourned to the
1873.
said time and place, and unless(d)

(0) Insert “thirteen” sixteen ” according as the

appear accord. We have received from the office of the Local ingly, the recognisance entered into by you, [and

justices may order. Government Board the following general order by

and
, 28 your suret
, will forth.

No. 7. which has been issued by the board, in pursuance with he levied on you (and him).

this

day of 18 of the authority conferred upon them by sect. 6

Information of an Officer of a Union or Parish on Dis. of the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act 1873 : (aor city, borough, or other place.

obedience to the Order made upon the putative Father. (6) or the parish of

The ipformation and complaint of of Whereas it is enacted by the Bastardy Laws (ci Insert you or the name of the alleged father, as the

to wit. ) in the county (a) of being an officer of Amendment Act 1873 that the Local Government case may require.

(d) Insert you or he.

the Union (b), taken upon oath (c) before me, one of Board may issue such new or altered forms of

Her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the proceedings in matters of bastardy as they shall

No. 5.

county (a) of

the (d).

day of in the year of deem necessary or expedient for giving effect to

Recognisance on Notice of Appeal.

our Lord one thousand eight hundred and who the provisions of that Act and of the Bastardy Recognisance in the common form, with the following saith, that by an order made under the authority of The Laws Amendment Act 1872 ; oondition :

Bastardy Laws Amendment Act 1873, at a petty session

holden in and for the division (a) of in the county(a) And whereas the Local Government Board, in

to wit.

} seama ceas by
of two of Her Majesty's justices

of on the

day of in the year of our Lord one pursuance of the authority so conferred upon of the peace in and for the county(a) of having

thousand eight hundred and by two of Her them, did, on the 4th Aug. last, issue certain jurisdiction in the nnion (b), assembled at a petty Majesty's justices of the peace activg for the said forms set forth in the schedules thereto annexed ;

sessiou holden in and for the division(a) of division (a) and having jurisdiction in the said union (b),

the

then and there assembled, one day of

of in the And whereas it is expedient that additional in the said county(a), at forms should be issued by the said Local Govern.

in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun. parish of in the county (a) of was adjudged dred and the said was adjudged to be the

to be the putative father of a bastard child, boru of the ment Board, as hereinafter mentioned : putative father of a certain bastard child, of which one

body of , single woman, which child has become Now therefore, we, the Local Government , singlo woman, had beeu delivered, and which had chargeable to the said union (b), and that in and by the Board, in pursuance of the authority aforesaid, become chargeable to the said union(b), and was ordered

said order it was ordered that the said should pay do hereby issue the additional forms set forth in to pay to the guardians of the said union(b) or to one of

to the guardians of the said union (b), or to one of their the schedule hereto annexed.

their officers, certain suins of money therein set forth officers, the sum of (e) towards the relief of the as contributions towards the relief of the said child :

said child during such time as the said child should SCHEDULES. And whereas the said hath given to the said guar

continue or thereafter become chargeable to the said No, 1. dians votice of his intention to appeal against the said

union (6), until such child should attain the age of (1) Application by the Guardians of a Union or Parish to which

order to the general quarter sessions of the peace to be years, together with the sum of for the costs a Bastard Child has become chargeable.

holden on

the
day of
next, for the

incurred in obtaining the said order :
Application of the guardiaus of the poor county(a) of

And this deponent further saith, that the said to wit. 5 of the union (a) in the county (b) of Now the condition of this recognisance is such, that

hath had due notice of the said order, and that the made before us, the undersigned two of Her if the above-named do appear at the general payments directed to be made by the said order have Majesty's justices of the peace acting for the petty quarter sessions of the peace to be holden at in

not been made according thereto by the said

and Sessional division (b) of in the county (b) of and for the county(a) of

on the

that there is now in arrear for the same the sum of and baving jurisdiction in the said union (u), in petty in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred

, being the amount of arrears of payments for sessions assembled, this day of in the year and and then and there try such appeal, and pay

weeks : of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and such costs as shall be by the said court awarded, then

And this informant therefore prays justice in the Who say that, on the day of in the year of this recognisance to be void.

premises. our Lord one thousand eight hundred and

Taken and acknowledged, this

day of

in the

Exhibited and sworn before me, the day and year first tain bastard child of single woman, became charge. year of our Lord one thonsand eight hundred and

above written, at in the county (a) of able to the said union (a), and allege that one of

at in the county(a) of

before me the (a) or city, borough, or other place. in the county (b) of is the father of such undersigned, one of Her Majesty's justices of the

(b) or the parish of child, and make application to us for a summons to be

(c) or affirmation. peace in and for the said county(a). served upon the said to appear before two justices

id) This must not be before the expiration of one calendar of the peace having jurisdiction in the said union (a),

(a) or city, borough, or other place.

month from the order. to show cause why an order should not be made upon

b) or the parish of

(e) Insert“ weekly," or otherwise, according to the terms

of the order. him to contribute towards the relief of such bastard

i Insert "thirteen"

No. 6. child.

sixteen,” according as the

justices may have ordered.
Exhibited before us the day and year first above Order for Contribution towards the Relief of a Bastard
written.

Child which has become chargeable to a l'nion or Parish.
(a) or of the parish of
At a petty session of Her Majesty's jus-

No. 8.
16) or city, borough, or other place.

tices of the peace for the county (a) of

Warrant of Apprehension for Disobedience to Order for Con. holden in and for the division (u) of

tributions by the putative Father towards the Reliej oj a
No. 2.
in the said county (a), at

on the
day of

Buslurd Child chargeable to a Union or Parish.
Simmons on Application by the Guardians of a Union or in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
Parish to which a Bustard Child has become chargeable.
before us Her Majesty's justices of the

}

to wit. To

of in the parish of in peace for the said county (a), having jurisdiction in the WHEREAs information and complaint have been made to wit. f the county (a) of

upion (b), in the county (a) of

upon oath (b) before me, one of Her Majesty's Justices Whereas application hath been made to us, the Whereas the guardians of the said union (b), did on of the Peace in and for the county (c) of

the under igned two of Her Majesty's justices of the

day of

in the year of our Lord one thou-day of in the year of our Lord one thousand the peice actiog for the petty sessional division (a) of sand eight hundred and make application to eight hundred and

of

in the in the county (u) of aud haring jurisdiction two of Her Majesty's justices of the peace acting for county (c) of an officer of the union (d) that in the union (b), in retty sessions assembled, by the petty sessional division (a) of in the county, by an order made under the authority of the statute in the guardians of the said union (b) for a summons to be (a) of and having jurisdiction in the said union (b), that behalf at the petty session holden in and for the served on you to appear before two justice of the peace for a summons to be served upon one of the parish division (c) of in the county (c) of having jurisdiction in the said union (b), to show cause of in the county (a) of to appear before two

day of

in the year of our Lord one thousand wly an order should not be made upon you to contri- justices of the peace having jurisdiction in the said eight hundred and by Her Majesty's Justices of bute towards the relief of a certain bastard child of union (b), to show cause why an order should not be the Peace in and for the said county (c) acting in and

single woman, which child has become ebargeable made upon the said to contribute towards the re- for the said division (c), and having jurisdiction in the to the said union (b), and of which child it is alleged lief of a certain bastard child of single woman, said union (d), then and there assembled, one

of that you are the father: which child did on or about the day of in the

in the parish of in the county (c) of These are therefore to require you to appear at the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and was adjudged to be the putative father of a certain petty session of Her Majesty's justices of the peace for become chargeable to the said union (b), and of which bastard child, born of the body of single woman, the county (?) of to be bolden in and for the child it is alleged that the said is the father, and which child had become chargeable to the said union (d),

division (a) of in the said county (a) at whereas the said last-mentioned justices thereupon and that in and by the said order it was ordered that the on the đay o.

of the clock in l issued their summons to the said to appear at a said should pay to the guardians of the said union (4)

on

day of

[ocr errors]

& cer

60

or

to wit.}

To (a)

.

by

on the

[ocr errors][merged small]

age of

, on the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

To (a)

[ocr errors]

on the

.

ot

or to one of their officers, the sum of (e) towards the names

of the justices before whom he is to appear ; but Metropolitan Police Force, or of the county, borough, or the relief of the said child during such time as the said should ho not find such security, insert the word “any." parish, according to circumstances. child should continue or thereatter become chargeable

(6) Should the party find security for his appearance on (6) or House of Correction,
to che said union (d), until such child should attain the
the reture of the warrant erase this paragraph.

(c) or city, borough, or other place.
(d) or affirmation.

(e) or the parish of. years ( 1 ), together with the sum of for the costs incurred in obtaining the said order :

No. 10.

(5) Insert "weekly" or otherwise according to the terms

of the order. And that the said had had due notice of the said Recognisance for Appearance at the Return of the Distress

(g) Insert "thirteen" or "sixteen,” according as the order, and that the payments direeted to be made by the

Warrant.

justices may have ordered. (h) or refuses. said order have not been made according thereto by the RECOGNISANCE in the common form, subject to the

(i) Not to exceed three calendar months. said and that there is now in arrear for the same

following condition. the sum of , being the amount of arrears of pay

above-bounden having to wit. } When apprehended uponna warrant issued

Given under our seal of office, this eighth day ments for weeks: These are, therefore, in Her Majesty's name, to com. under the hand and seal of one of her Majesty's

of January, in the year one thousand eight mand you, or some or one of you, forthwith to apprejustices of the peace in and for the county (a) of

hundred and seventy-four. hend the said and convey him before two of Her upon the information and complaint of an officer

JAMES STANSFELD, President. of the Majesty's Justices of the Peace in and for the said

union (b), for disobedience to an order

(SEAL.) county. (c) to answer the premises, and be dealt with

made in the petty session holden in and for the divi. according to law. sion (a) of in the county (a) of

H. FLEMING, Secretary. Given under my hand and seal, at in the

day of

in the year of our Lord one county (C) of this

day of in the

thousand eight hundred and , by two of her year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and

Majesty's justices of the peace having jurisdiction in REAL PROPERTY AND

the said union, then and there assembled, whereby he

L.S. (a) This should be addressed to the constables of the was adjudged to be the putative father of a bastard

CONVEYANCING. metropolitan police force, or of the county, borough, or child, born of the body of single woman, which parish, according to circumstances. child had become chargeable to the said union (b), and

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. (b) or affirmation.

whereby he was ordered to pay certain sums of money C) or city, borongh, or other place. as therein set forth; and having been brought before

WILL-CHILD EN VENTRE.- A testator by his id or the parish of e) Insert "weekly," or otherwise according to the terms

two of her Majesty's justices of the peace for will directed a fund to be set apart to answer an of the order.

the county (a) of by virtue of the said warrant, annuity for his wife, and after her death he Insert "thirteen" or "sixteen,” according as the

and having neglected (c) to make payment of the sums directed his trustees to hold the fund upon trust Justices may have ordered.

due from him under such order, together with the costs for the child or children of his married daughter,

attending such warrant, apprehension, and bringing up with a gift over in case there should be no such No. 9.

of him before such justices, they have by warrant under Warrant of Distress against the putative Father of a their hands and seals, addressed to

", directed the child or children. By & codicil, the testator Busturd Child chargeable to a Union or Parish, sum so due, together with such costs, to be recovered directed that in case his daughter should be

by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the living at the expiration of five years from the to wit.

said and have made the said warrant returnable death of his wife, and should not then kave had WHEREAS information and complaint were, on the

day of
to them

two
day of

in the year of our Lord one thousand justices of the peace' acting for the county as any child or children, the gift over should then eight hundred and made upon oath (b) before of

at once take effect, as if his daughter were dead one of Her Majesty's justices of the peace in and

Now the condition of this recognisance is such, that without children. The daughter was enceinte of for the county (c) of by ot

in the

if the above-bounden do appear before the justices her first child at the expiration of five years after county (c) of an officer of the union (d),

unto whom the said warrant is made returnable on the the death of the testator's wife, and the child was that by an order made at the petty session holden in day so appointed for the return thereof, to abide the born within six months after the expiration of and for the division (c) of in the county (c)

further proceedings thereon, then the same shall have that period. Held (affirming the decision of of on the

day of in the year of our lord no effect, otherwise to remain in full force. one thousand eight hundred and by two of Her Taken and acknowledged the

day of

in

Wickens, V.C.), that the gift over did not take Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and effect: (Pearce v. Carrington, 29 L. T. Rep. N.S. county (c), acting in and for the said division (c), and

at in the county (a) of before me 706. L.JJ.). having jurisdiction in the said union (d), then and there the undersigned, one of her Majesty's justices of the

MORTGAGE BY ONE OF TWO TENANTS IN assembled, one of

in the parish of in the peace in and for the said county (a) of county (c) of was adjudged to be the putative

COMMON OF PROPERTY IN JOINT OCCUPATION

(a) or city, borongh, or other place. failer of a certain bastard child born of the body of (0) or the parish of (c) or refused,

CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE.-Two persons purchased , single woman, which child had become charge

a piece of land which was conveyed to them as able to the said union (d), and that in and by the said

No. 11.

tenants in common, subject to a joint power of order it was ordered that the said should pay to

Warrant of Commitment,

appointment in the two purchasers. They erected the guardirns of the said union (d), or to one of their

To (a) and to the keeper of the common officers, the sum of (c) towards the relief of the to wit.) gaol (6) at in the county (c) of

thereon premises for the purpose of a business said child during such time as the said child should WHEREAS information and complaint were, on the

which they carried on in partnership, and the continue or thereafter become chargeable to the said day of in the year of our Lord one thousand eight articles of partnership made the premises partunion (d), until such child should attain the age of hundred and made upon oath (d) before one pership property. In 1866 one of the partners

(j) years, together with the sum of for the of Her Majesty's justices of the peace for the county (c) mortgaged one undivided moiety of the premises costs incurred in obtaining the said order :

of by
in the county (c) of

, an officer

to the bankers of the firm to secure repayment of And that the said had had due notice of the said

of the union (e), that by an order made under the order, and that the payments directed to be made by Bastardy, Laws Amendment Actiti 0173) of the mette ship was dissolved. The other partner filed a bill

an advance made to him. In 1870 the partner. the said order had not been inade according thereto by session holden in and for the division (c) of in the faid , and that there was then in arrear for the

county (c) of

day of

in the year of against the bankers claiming priority over their same the sum of being the ainount of arrears for our Lord one thousand eight hundred and

by two of mortgage in respect of sums advanced by him to weeks' payments :

of Her Majesty's justices of the peace for the said his firm. The Vice-Chancellor being of opinion And whereas the said justice, by warrant under his county (c) acting in and for the said division (c) and hand and seal directed to commanded them, or havivg jurisdiction in the said union (e) then and there

that it was not proved that the bankers knew some or one of them, forthwith to apprehend the said assembled, one of in the parish of in the that the premises were in the joint occupation of

and to convey him before two of Her Majesty's county (c) of was adjudged to be the putative the two partners, decided against the plaintiff. justices of the peace for the said county (c), to answer

father of a bastard ebild borr, of the body of On the hearing of an appeal froin that decision, the premises, aud be dealt with according to law: single woman, which child had become chargeable to

one of the bankers was examined in court, and Whereupon the said being now brought before the said union (e); and that in and by the said order it admitted that they knew that the premises were 24, two of Her Majesty's justices of the peace for the

was ordered tbat the said should pay to the said county (c), to show cause why the same should dians of the said union (e) or to one of their officers, in the joint occupation of the plaintiff and his not be paid, bath not shown any cause why the same

the sum of (1) towards the relief of the said child partner for the purposes of their business. Held, should not be paid; and the same duly appearing to us

during such time as the said child should continue or that this knowledge brought the case within the upon outh to be due from the said under the said afterwards be chargeable to the said union (c), until doctrine of Daniels v. Davidson (16 Ves. 2 19), order, together with the further gum of for the such child should attain the age of years (9) toge.

that the bankers must be taken to have had costs attending such warrant, apprehension, and bring.

ther with the sum of for the costs incurred in obing up of him, tue said nevertheless neglects (9) to taining the said order:

notice of the plaintiff's interest, and that the make payment of the said sums due under the said

And that the said had had due notice of the said plaintiff's claim was therefore entitled to rank in order, and the said sums so due for such costs.

order, and that the payments directed to be made by priority to the banker's mortgage. Decision of These are therefore to require you forth with to make the said order had not been made according thereto by Wickens, V.C. accordingly reversed : (Cacander distress of the goods and chattels of the said

the said and that there was then in arrear for the v. Bulteel, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 710. L.JJ.) if within the space of days next after such dis.

same the sum of being the amount of arrears of tress, by you taken

SETTLEMENT-COVENANT TO SETTLE WIFE's the said

weeks. payments for

sums, together with the reasonable charges of taking and keep

And whereas the said justice, by warrant under his AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY. - In a marriage ing the said distress shall not be paid, that

hand aud seal, directed to commanded them, or settlement, a covenant by husband and wife to then yon do sell the said goods and chattels so

some or one of them, forth with to apprehend the said settle after-acquired property of the wife does not by you distrained, and out of the money arising by

and to convey him before two of Her Majesty's extend to property to which the wife becomes such sale thereof that you detain the said sums, and

justices of the peace in and for the said county (c) to also the reasonable charges of taking, keeping, and answer the premises, and be dealt with according to

entitled after the death of her husband, but only Selling the said distress, rendering the overplus (if any), law.

to property acquired during the coverture, on demand, unto the said and if no sufficient dis

Whereupon the said being now brought before although there be no words in the covenant tress can be found, that then you certify the same unto

us, two of her Majesty's justices of the peace for the restricting it to property acquired during the 11s or unto (1) two of Her Majesty's justices of said county (c) to show cause why the same should

coverture. Dickinson v. Dilluyn (L. Rep. 8 Eq. the peace acting for the county (c) of to the end

not be paid, hath not shown any cause why the same that such further proceedings may be had therein as to should not be paid; and the same duly appearing 516), and Carter v. Carter (21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 191; law doth appertain ; and we further order you to make upon oath (d) to be due from the said under

L. Rep. 8 Eq. 551), followed. Stevens v. Van return to this warrant, on the day of

Voorst (17 Beav. 305), overruled : (Re Elvarils, next,

the said order, together with the further sum of unto us or such justices as aforesaid.

for the costs attending such warrant, apprehension, and 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 712. L.JJ.). And whereas (i) the said

nevertheless neglects(h)
hath not giren sufficient
bringing up of him, the said

TRUST FUNDS – INVESTMENT — DISCRETION to make payment of the said surns due under the said security, by way of recognisance or otherwise, to our order, and the said sums so due for such costs:

OF TRUSTEES.-After an administration suit has sat intaction, for his appearance on the return of this var. rant, we do hereby further order you to detain the said

And whereas it appears to us, upon the admission of been instituted the discretion given to the trustees

the said anul kep him in safe custody until the said return can

that no sufficient distress can be had upon of the will as to the investment of the trust funds le coueniantly made, and then bring him before us or such

his goods and chattels for the recovery of the said is subject to the control of the court; and the justices as aforesaid. several sums :

court will not allow any investment to be made Given under our hands and seals, at

These are therefore to command you the said in the

unless it is satisfied of the propriety of it: (Bethell to convey the said to the said common gnol (b) at county (c) of

this
day
of
in
and these are also to command you, the said keeper

v. Abraham, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 715. M.R.). the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred

of the said common gaol, (b) to receive the said WILL-LEGAL PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVEand

into the said cominon gaol 10), there to remain without NEXT OF Kix.-A fund was settled upon a mar. (L.s.)

bail or mainprise for the term of (i) unless such ried woman for life, with remainder to her husband

(L.s.) sum and costs, together with the costs and charges for life, with remainder to her children, with a This should be addressed to the constables of the metropolitan police forcr, or of the county, borough, or

attending the commitment and conveying of the said Darixl, according to circumstances.

to the said common guol (b), and of the person remainder, in default of children, to the perbior atlirmation.

employed to convey him thither, amounting to the son or persons who should happen to be her (c) or city, borough, or other place.

further sum of be sooner paid and satisfied. legal personal representative or representatives at door the parish of

Given under our hands and seals, at Insert * weekıy." or otherwise according to the terms

in the the time of her death. Held, that " legal per. of the order.

county (c) of this

day of

in the sonal representative or representatives” meant Inser "thirteen” or “sixteen,” according as the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and

next of kin according to the Statute of DistribuJeastiers may have ordered.

(L.8.)

tions : (Robinson v. Evans, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 715. i ur refuses.

(L.S.) 14. It the party give security for his appearance, insert (a) This should be a idressed to the constables of the 'J.R.)

on the

, and

[ocr errors]

:

66

.

ANNUITY GRANTED AND TENANT FOR LIFE-credited as paid up, should be issued in lieu of David Henry Wilson, Esq., M.A. LL.M., Cam. APPORTIONMENT-ARREARS-ENTRY.-In order every two of the B. shares. And these resolu. bridge ; Tonman Mosley, Esq., B.A., Oxford ; to obtain a right to recover the arrears of an annuity, tions, the result of which was on the whole to James Bucknell Broadmead, Esq., B.A., Cam. or of an apportioned part of it, upon tho death of a increase the uncalled capital of the company, were bridge; Thomas Parkin, Esq., M.A., Cambridge ; tenant for life who has granted it during his life, duly registered with the registrar of joint-stock William Sheepshanks, Esq., B.A., Cambridge ; with a power of entry, the right of entry must have compaies. T., who at that time was the holder Harmer Steele, Esq., B.A., Cambridge; William been actually exercised ; and a petition claiming of ten B shares, exchanged them for five new Hurle Harrison, Esq., M.A., Oxford ; Henry against the estate of the tenant for life payment shares of £10 each, with £5 per share credited as Brockholes Thomas, Esq., M.A., Cambridge ; of the arrears, and an apportioned part from the paid up, and in the following August he sold Henry Pearson Banks, Esq., B.A., Cambridge ; date of the death, was, in the absence of such these shares, but his name was by neglect still Charles John Darling, Esq. ; Thomas Colpitts entry, dismissed : (Ex parte Watkins, 29 L. T. Rep. left in one of the books of the company as the Granger, Esq. ; Walter Henry Macnamara, Esq.; N. S. 721. M.R.)

holder of the ten B shares. In 1873, the com. Thomas Arthur Nash, Esq. ; Arthur A. Stewart WILL-LEASEHOLDS-CONTRARY INTENTION. pady having been ordered to be wound-u), the Reid, Esq., B.A., Cambridge; Henry Denman -A testator, by will made in 1861, devised all his liquidator sought to place T. on the list of con. Macaulay, Esq., Lieut. R.Ň. ; and Raj Kissen “messuages, lands, and hereditamonts in the tributories in respect of the ten shares : Held, Sen, Esq., B.A., Calcutia. county of Middlesex, and all other lands and here that the cancellation of the B shares, and the GRAYS-INN.-James Mulligan, M.A., Queen's ditaments in England belonging to him,”. to the issue of new shares with diminished liability in University, Ireland, certificate of honour Michael. use of his eldest son G. for life, with remainder to lieu thereof, was valid, thore having been no mala mas Term, 1872; exhibitioner Trinity Term, 1873; his issue in tail malo . with an ultimate ro. fides in the transaction, and that the fact of T.'s Lee prizeman 1873, of Annaclone, county Down, mainder to his own right heirs. He also be name having been left on the books by mistako or Ireland, Esq., Thomas Joseph Greenfield, of Bath queathed “all his money, securities for money, noglect, would not render him liable as a contri- House, Lewisham, Kent, Esq., Benjamin Lewis goods, chattels, and personal estate,” to trustees tory. Decision of the Vice-Chancellor of the Mosely, LL.B., of the London University. The upon trusts corresponding with the trusts of "the Palatine Court of the Duchy of Lancaster Hon. Arthur Romilly, B.A., Trinity College, Camhereditaments thereinbefore devised in strict set. affirmed: (Teasdale's case, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 707. bridge, fourth son of the Right Hon. Lord Romilly, tlement,” but so that the same “should not vest L. JJ.)

lately the Master of the Rolls, and one of the absolutely in any person thereby made tenant in WINDING-UP-PRACTICE.—There is no juris. masters of the bench of this society. tail by purchase, unless such person should attain diction to depart from the terms of the General twenty-one. As to the devised realty, the will Orders, and therefore where a winding-up peti. contained a power of sale, empowering the trustees tion had been advertised in the matter of the to invest the sale moneys in the purchase of free. Companies Act 1862, and not also of that of 1867,

COUNTY COURTS. holds or leaseholds "convenient to be held there. as directed by the 1st rule of the Gen. Order, with." The will also contained a bequest of March 1868, it was ordered to be re-advertised : BIRMINGHAM COUNTY COURT. chattels and heirlooms in strict settlement. The (Re Marezzo Marble Company, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S.

Thursday, Jan. 22. testator, both as to any leaseholds to be purchased 720. M. R.) under the power, and as to the chattels, repeated RAILWAY-PETITION-TRANSFER TO CREDIT

(Before H. W. COLE, Q.C. Judge.) the above provisions as to their not vesting in any OF CAUSE.-When money has been paid into court

LOVERIDGE V. MAGLEY. infant tenant in tail. The testator, at the time of by a railway company, and invested in stock

Liability of a minor. his death, was possessed of both freehold and standing to the proper account ex parte the This was an action brought by Mr. George leasehold estates in the county of Middlesex. company, but the stock has been subsequently Loveridge, silversmith and jeweller, Birmingham, Held, that the leaseholds did not pass under the transferred to the credit of a cause to a separate against a workman named Hagloy, to recover devise of real estate, by virtue of the 26th section account of a person interested for life, the com. the son of £19 18. 3d., money overdrawn on of 1 Vict. c. 26, as there was sufficient indication pany will not have to pay any costs subsequent to account of work unfinished. of a contrary intention appearing on the face of such transfer, as, for instance, the costs of a Piercy Wilkinson appeared for the plaintiff. the will ; but passed under the residuary bequest : petition for payment out to parties absolutely Burton for the defendant.—The defendant had (Prescott v. Barker, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 727. V.C.M.) entitled : (Fisher v. Fisher, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. pleaded infancy. WILL-GIFT TO ILLEGITIMATE CHILD.-Tes. 720. M. R.)

Wilkinson said that was a plea which covered a tator married, in 1864, his second wife, by whom

great quantity of charges, but there were certain he had already two illegitimate children, but

exceptions, and he thought his Honour would be having no children surviving of his former mar. THE BENCH AND THE BAR. of opinion that this was one in which the defen. riage. By his will, executed shortly after his

dan: had rendered himself personally liable. In second marriage, he gave all his property to his

CALLS TO THE BAR.

March 1872 the defendant went to Mr. Loveridge wife for life, with liberty to " direct the disposal of the property amongst our children by will,” The undermentioned gentlemen were called to and offered himself to do certain work in the trade

of jeweller. Mr. Loveridge accepted hiin under and should she make no will the property to be to the degree of barrister-at-law on Monday certain conditions.

In answer to questions put to divided

last :equally between my children by her.” Testator died in 1872, leaving his widow and the

him by Mr. Loveridge, he stated that he was

LINCOLN'S-INN.-William Henry Gurney Salter, two children surviving him, but having had no Esq., University of London ; James Sutherland twenty-two years of age, and had been in the

employment of other persons, mentioning their other children by her. The testator had treated Cotton, Esq., B.A.,:Oxford, Fellow of Queen's names and the length of time he had been em. the children as his own. Held, that

the illegiti. College; Francis William Buxton, Esq., M.A., ployed. It was agreed that Hagley should serve mate children were the objects of the power: B.A., Oxford, Charles Carteret Edwards, Esq.; Cambridge; Stephen Ashlock Bennett, Esq.,

as a journeyman for Mr. Loveridge for a weekly (Dorin v. Dorin, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 731. V.C.M.) Charles Frederick Lumb, Esq., B.A. and LL.M., 1872 to Octobor of the same year, when there was

sum of 30s. He did so serve until from March MARRIED WOMAN-EXECUTION OF CONVEY: Cambridge ; Henry Charles Roper, Esq., B.A. ANCE BY – HUSBAND'S DESERTION - LIVING

a further agreement come to between them, APART.–Where a woman having been deserted Christopher Robert Leighton, Esq., B.A., Cam. He worked on these conditions until March 1873,

Oxford; Charles Crawley, Esq., B.A., Cambridge; whereby the defendant was to go on piece work. by her husband has been living apart from him bridge ; Arthur Yates, Esq., University of Lon when he complained to Mr. Loveridge that he was for upwards of two years, and has maintained don ; John Gaskell Walker Sykes, Esq., LL.B., ill, and said that he wanted to go into the country herself and her children without any assistance London ; William Cowell Davies, Esq., B.A., Camfrom him during that time, the court will, al. bridge ; 'Walter Augustus Borradaile, Esq., B.A.,

to recruit his health. At that time a statement though the husband and wife are in communication Cambridge ; Arthur Clement Eddis, Esq., B.A., ment it appeared that the defendant had over,

was drawn up between them, and from that state. with each other, grant an order to dispense with Cambridge; Harold Thomas, Esq:; Charoo drawn on account of piecework the sum of the concurrence of the husband in the exocution of Chunder Dutt, Esq., B.A. and B.L., Calcutta Uni | £22 65. 20. The plaintiff alleged that the excuse a conveyance by the wife of some property to which versity; Joseph Gundry Alexander, Esq., Uni- of ill.health was she is entitled apart from him, he having refused versity of London ; Samuel Stephens,

Esq. ; few days of the defendant leaving him, he on

a fabrication, for within & when applied to for the purpose to concur : (Ex Joseph John Frost Hale, Esq., St. John's College, tered into another person's employment Before parte Sutcliffe, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 747. C. P.) Cambridge ; Forbes Ernest Hallett, Esq. ; Edward this, the defendant had told Mr. Loveridge

LEGACY AND PROBATE DUTY-DIRECTION BY Carter, Esq., M.A., Cambridgo; Johnston Watson, that he had a chance of a better situation Will to SELL PROPERTY.-Where real property Esq., M.A., Aberdeen;, John Tweedie, Esq., in the coloured gold trade, and that when his is by will expressly directed to be sold, and the University of Edinburgh and of hor Majesty's health was restored he should be able to pay produce and the testator's personalty all are to Indian Civil Service ;, Henry Charles Creighton the balance duo. constitute one fund applicable to the purposes of Wood, Esq.; Alfred Nundy, Esq., University of before the magistrates, and the defendant was

The

was brought the will, the land, though unsold, and though, in Calcutta ; and Fendall Currie, Esq., of her ordered to return to his work ; but by an agreeconsequence of the happening of certain events, Majesty's Indian Service.

ment between the parties the defendant gave it might, for the purposes of devolution, go to the MIDDLE TEMPLE.-Thos. Chrysostom O'Mara, a promissory note for the amount due, and en. heir, is nevertheless, for fiscal purposes, to be treated as personal property. Williamson v. The Skilbeck Wood, Esq., of Christ Church, Oxford; had been made, which reduced the amount to the

Esq., of the University of London, B.A.; John gaged to pay £l per month. Some payments Lord Alvocate (10 Clk. & Fin. 1) followed : (At.

William Harmood Cochran, Esq., of Exeter torrey-General V. Lomas, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 749. College, Oxford, B.A.; Oliver Beevor, Esq. ;

sum now sought to be recovered. Ex.)

After the examination of the plaintiff and of &
Christopher Cavanagh, Esq., of the University of witness who had frequently heard the defendant

London, B.A.; Isaac Cowley Lambert, Esq., of say he was twenty-two years old,
COMPANY LAW.

Trinity College, Cambridge, B.A.; John de Soyres, Burton submitted that the defendant was not
Esq., of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge; liable, as the contract was not beneficial to the

Frederick James Ladbury, Esq., of St. John's infant, which it was clearly laid down it must be NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. College, Cambridge, B.A.; Keyes O'Clery, Esq, before the plaintiff could recover. CONTRIBUTORY-CANCELLATION OF SHARES- of Trinity College, Dublin; Thomas Edward

After hearing Wilkinson on the other side, ALTERATION OF ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION.-In Crispe, Esq.; William Jameson Soulsby, Esq.,

His HONOUR quoted several cases bearing on 1865 the capital of a company consisted of 2000 Associate of King's College, London, Ernest the question, and said it was quite clear that if shares of £10 each, one moiety of which (herein. Clifford, Esq,;. Evan Evans Francis Griffiths, upon the settling of the amount due between the after called the A shares) were fully paid, while Esq.,

of the University

of London; John Robert parties there had been a balance due to the infant, on the other moiety (hereinafter called the B son Shedden Miller, Esq., of Edinbargh Uni- the infant could have recovered. He had done shares) only £2 10s. was paid up. In February versity, M.A. ; Henry Vansittart, Esq.

the work, and could recover from the master upon of that year two resolutions were duly passed, INNER TEMPLE.-James William Wilson, Esq.; the contract the wagos due to him. What the and confirmed at extraordinary general meetings the Hon. William Ashharnham, B.A., Cambridge ; court had to consider was whether, under circumof the company, whereby it was provided that James Murray Bannerman, Esq., B.A., Oxford; stances like these, the plaintiff could recover the all the A shares should be cancelled, and that two Charles Topham Naylor, Esq., B.A., LL.B., Cam. balance of the money the defendant had received, new shares of £10 each, with £5 per share cre. bridge ; John Walter Buchanan Riddell, Esq., and whether, in point of fact, the agreement was dited as paid up, should be issued in lieu of each B.A., Oxford ; Christopher Rawlinson, Esq., B.A., a beneficial one to the defendant. The object of A share: and that all the B shares should also be Cambridge ; Samuel Henry Romilly, Esq., B.A., the defendant in entering into the agreement was cancelled, and that one share of £10., with £5' Cambridge, Tom Hart, Esq., B.A., Cambridge; to earn his own subsistence, and under that agree

case

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ment he actually did earn in the first instance the instrument was admissible, notwithstanding Mrs. Potter represented her husband, and gave 308. a week, which for a youth of that age, seemed the objection that had been raised. The case was her evidence with obvious candour, freedom from to be very good wages. Then, from October to then discussed upon the general facts, but it was hesitation, and undoubted honesty. March 1873, he drew between £50 and £60. He eventually adjourned.

In reply to the learned judge, she said that she could not but consider it was a very beneficial

was not aware of the reasons which had induced agreement for the infant. He might in time do

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT.

the defendant to leave his wife, nor where he went better, and he appeared to have done so. It seemed to him that the defendant was bound by

Thursday, Jan. 20.

to; but while he was away Mrs. Hilling made the

remark that she must not allow herself to get the contract, which was a beneficial one at the (Before J. F. COLLIER, Esq., Judge.)

into debt more than she was able to get out of, time it was made, and he should find a verdict for

THE ERMINIA FOSCOLA.

for she had no husband to pay it. His Honour the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.

Necessaries.

inquired of Mrs. Potter whether she did not think H. D. Warr, instructed by Bateson and Co., that this was an intimation to her that she must appeared for the plaintiffs.

not look to the defendant to be answerable for any CARLESS v. WATHEN.

The facts of the case may be gathered from goods supplied to his wife, and whether in fact

the judgment: His Honour.—This is an un. the defendant himself had not cautioned her Agreement-Stamp-Sufficiency. An action was brought by Mr. George Carless, Foscola and her owners for necessaries. The credit ? Mrs. Potter acknowledged that on one

defended suit against the Italian barqae Erminia against letting Mrs. Hilling have anything on paper.box manufacturer, Regent-street, against facts, as they appear from the evidence, are occasion the defendant requested her not to serve Mr. William Wathon, landlord of the Queen's these : The vessel

sailed from Akyab to Falmouth his wife with any goods, but he was drunk at the Arms, Bradford-street, to recover £50 deposit on the sale of the defendant's licensed house and last. The captain applied to Messrs. Fox and Co. for orders, arrived at the latter port on 3rd Oct. time.

His HONOUR.–But even if he was drunk, did business.

for £15, stating through their Italian clork that it not look as if he knew was he was about ? Rosher (instructed by Crouther Davies) appeared the money was wanted for necessaries for the

Mrs. Potter replied that she did not think he for the plaintiff.

ship. Tho money was advanced and laid out in did, for he was so drunk that his violence to his Parry for the defendant. this way-viz., £3 for provisions, and the re

wife made her interfere between them. She added last the plaintiff, being desirous of entering into shipped at Akyab for the first port in England, the amount now sued for, but his father would Rosher in opening the case, stated that in June mainder in paying

the wages of a seaman who had that a son of the defendant's would have settled business, as a licensed victualler, instructed Mr. John Binns, of the Plough and Harrow inn High. charged at Falmouth. Messrs. Fox now

seek to
and who claimed his discharge, and was dis not allow him.

In resisting the claim, the defendant said that gate, to negotiate with the defendant for the

recover this £15 in the present suit. There is not only had he cautioned Mrs. Potter against purchase of the Queen's Arms.

On the 12th of ample authority to show that money advanced trusting his wife, bnt he had distinctly forbidden the same month an agreement was signed for the for, and bona fide laid out in necessaries, differs her from dealing at the plaintiff's shop at all. sale of the property, and the sum of £250 was paid in no respect from

necessarios themselves. The The reason why he left his wife was to go after as a deposit. Mr. Seal and Mr. James Lowe, of only question is, whether in the present case work; but while absent he used to send her as Temple-street, auctioneers and valuers, were employed to make an inventory and valuation of the the definition of necessaries. I have no doubt what the money was expended on comes within much money as he could spare.

His Honour having expressed a desire to hear property, which valuation was to be completed about the provisions—I think it is clear that they what Mrs. Hilling had to say in the matter, she and the purchase effected by the 1st July. The

were necessaries. The case of the wages of the stepped into the witness box, and admitted it contention on behalf of the plaintiff was that the defendant had impeded the valuers in their work,

seaman presents more difficulty, and is, I believe, was quite true that Mrs. Potter had let her have

novel. The definition of necessaries in the older goods during her husband's absence, for two years so that the valuation was not completed by the

cases has received a wider interpretation in the of which he never sent her any money whatever. date specified. Rosher contended that the plaintiff recent case of The Riga (L. Rep. 4 Ad. & Ecc. It was also true that her husband had forbidden had done his best to complete the purchase, and

p. 516), Sir Robert Phillimore in that case her to deal with the plaintiff; but Mrs. Potter that the defendant had no claim whatever in law adopted the doctrine laid down by Lord Tenterden had always been so kind to her that she wished to or equity to keep possession of the £50. The in Webster v. Seekamp (4 B. & Ald. 352), viz., that put as much as she could in her way, in the hope learned counsel then called Mr. Lowe and Mr. Soul, the auctioneers, and a son of Mr. Lowe, to which a vessel is engaged, whatever the owner of "whatever is fit and proper for the service in that it would one day or other be paid for.

His HONOUR observed that there were two prove that the agreement had been duly signed. that vessel as a prudent man would have ordered, reasons why the defendaut could not be held liable Their evidence was contradictory as to the time if present at the time, comes within the meaning in the action. The first was, that he had cautioned when the date was afiixed on the stamp, and it did of the term

necessaries,' as applied to those re- Mrs. Potter not to trust his wife ; and the second not appear certain whether the date kad been pairs done or things provided for the ship by was, that he had expressly forbidden his wife to written at the same time as the signatures or at order of the master, for which the owners are deal at the plaintiff's. In the leading case on the some subsequent period.

liable.” The seaman's wages were not repairs dono subject as decided in the Court of Common Pleas, Upon this point Parry took a legal objection,

or things provided, but I think the same reason. Lord Chief Justice Erle, who delivered the judg. and urged that the document could not be received ing may be applied to them, and I am of opinion ment, laid it down that a husband had a right to as evidence, as the date had not been inserted on

that the owner, if on no other ground, on the be master in his own house ; and that where a the stamp at the proper time. He submitted that ground of prudence would, if present, have paid husband had forbidden his wife to deal with a no satisfactory proof had been laid before them to them, for if he had not his ship would have been tradesman, the creditor could not recover. Mr. show when the date was affixed, and who had liable to arrest. The same consideration ope. Justice Byles was of a different opinion, and inserted it.

rates in inquiring whether or not they come thought a tradesman who supplied necessaries to After Rosher had replied to the arguments of within the meaning of the word necessaries. a wife had a right to recover unless he knew that Parry,

The primary and obvious meaning of a necessary her husband had prohibited her from dealing with His Honour said: This case involvos a ques. is something without which the ship would be him; but the other judges concurred with Lord tion of considerable importance. A document had unable to continue her voyage. The seaman is Chief Justice Erle in the ruling that it was not been tendered to him as an agreement, and the entitled to his wages, and he is entitled to insti. necessary, in order to free the husband from lia. objection taken to it was that it could not be re

tute a suit and arrest the ship unless they are bility, that the creditor should know that he had ceived, because it had not been duly stamped. It paid. The captain is not bound, I think, to wait forbidden his wife to deal with him. Upon the appeared that the agreement had an adhesive

to see if the ship is arrested ; on the contrary, he authority of the decision referred to, he must hold stamp affixed to it, on or across which were the is bound to fulfil his contract, the probable alter that the defendant was not liable, and that judgsignatures of the defendant and of John Binns, native being the arrest of the ship, and he swears ment, therefore, must be entered in his favour. as the agent of the plaintiff. At the foot of the that without the £15 he had not enough to pay stamp was written, “ June 12th, ’73.". The ques. the wages. I have come to the conclusion that tion was whether, under the recent Stamp Act, they were under these circumstances necessaries.

SWANSEA COUNTY COURT. that instrument was properly stamped. The Although, as far as I can discover, there is no statute enacted that the instrument was not to

(Before T. FALCONER, Esq., Judge.) case in the books exactly like the present, still be deemed duly signed unless the person or

GEORGE SHADRICK AND J. H. Burgess v. there are two which I think may be quoted as persons required by law to cancel it did so by fortifying my opinion. The case of Robinson v.

CHARLES PEEK, ABERDARE. writing on or across the stamp his name or the Lyall (7° Price 592), in which the plaintiff, a ship Sale of goods17th section of Statute of Fraudsname and initials his firm Ön the document chandler at Portsmouth, brought an action

Post office card addressed to seller of potatoes, produced they had the name of both parties to the against the owners of a vessel for money advanced but no name of the sellers or vendors in the contract written upon the stamp. The section further required that the true date should be mouth being the port of discharging, and it was to the captain to pay seamen's wages, Ports.

written memorandum, and no reference to the

written memorandum on the post office card. given so that the stamp might be effectually can. held that he could recover on the ground that the

The 17th section held not to have been complied celled and rendered incapable of being used for money was necessary for the use of the ship, and

with. Parliament was to protect the Government from in which money advanced

for the payment of sea- defendant: any other instrument. The object of the Act of the case of the Henry Reid (32 L. T. Rep. 166), Plews for the plaintiff, and Phillips for the being defrauded of the stamp duties, and for men's wages was allowed to be recovered in the

The plaintiff sues for £21

8s. 11d. that purpose it required that the effectual cancel-Admiralty Court; but it is only right to state

His Honour said : Mr. W. Siderfin, living at by writing the name or names of the parties that he was extending the law, and that this case sample. lation of the stamp should be made, not merely that, in deciding the latter, Dr. Lushington said Neath, sold to the plaintiff certain potatoes by

The defendant boiled them and tried across the stamp only, but that the date also should be written upon it. But the Legislature, for that decision seems to have been that the case was not to constitute a precedent. One ground them before his purchase. Siderfin wrote out a

memorandum of sale on these terms :-"April anticipating the frequent occurrence of mistakes

was unopposed. In that respect, at any rate, it 25th, 1873. Charles Peek takes ten tons of potain the cancelling of the stamp without any intent is a precedent for this one. For the foregoing toes, and will send sacks next week, price to defraud, provided an alternative expressed thus : unless it is proved that the date appearing recover the sum claimed in this suit with costs. reasons I hold that Messrs. Fox are entitled to £5 78. 6d. a ton, on the rail at Swansea ;” and it

was signed by the defendant, “C. Peek.” There on tha instrument is affixed at the proper time.”

is no name of the seller in the book, or on the Sapposing the stamp was not duly cancelled,

memorandum thus signed. There was put in then the persons whose duty it was to see to the

NORFOLK COUNTY COURT.

evidence a post office card addressed to“ Messrs. cancellation were liable to forfeit the sum of £10.

Tuesday, Jan. 13.

Burgess, Shaddrick, and Co., Shipbrokers, Swan. The only question, therefore, that he had to consider (Before J. WORLLEDGE, Esq., Judge.)

The post mark is dated, " Aberdare, May was not whether the date had been affixed at the

POTTER v. HILLING.

7th, 1876.” The card is endorsed—“From C. proper time, but whether the person whose duty Husband and wife living apartRevocation of Peek, Aberdare. Dear Sirs, I could do nothing it was to cancel the stamp had done so by writing

wife's authority.

with your potatoes at the price your agent told the date apon it. The evidence was clear that the John WM. POTTER, shopkeeper, Pulham Market, me, for I am overstocked, and the market so much stamp had been affixed at the proper time, though sued Noah Hilling, labourer, a person residing in down." The defendant did not sent sacks, and it was not proved that the cancellation of it was the same place, for the recovery of £1 9s. 7d. for they were obtained for him by Siderfin from the effected at the same time. Whether it was so or necessaries supplied to his wife at various times Sack Loan Society. Notice was given to him that not be should give no opinion, but he raled that during three years in which they lived separate. if he did not tako the potatoes they would be re

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

sea.

over

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

a

sold, and that the defendant would be sued. or memorandum, or instrument in writing, so as actively exerted himself in the interest of the They were re-sold at £4 103. a ton. The railway to make it part of a special contract contained in creditors; and it was unreasonable that a per. freight was 58. a ton. The carriage and demur- that letter, the letter must either set out the son who had neglected his own duty should rage came to £7 38. 6d., and the hire of writing referred to, or so clearly and definitely now come here and complain of the zeal of his backs to 10s. I come to the conclusion that refer to the writing, that by force of the reference co-trustee. The creditors had omitted to appoint though these potatoes were small they were the writing itself becomes part of the instrument.” a committee of inspection; the trustee had no marketable, and that their quality was good, And it is in the interests of trade that such should power to appoint à solicitor to the estate, but and that if they were not so it was observable be the rule. Equivocal words do not express was bound in case of emergency to apply to the that the objections on the post card only relate to definite terms. Attempt to define that which is court for instructions. This Mr. Evans had done. the price, and state that the market was set equivocal, and the interests of both parties may Upon being served with an interpleader summons down, and that he (the defendant) was

be held in suspense to the end of a protracted he was at the trouble of going over to Birmingham stocked.” The single question really is, whether contest. The two papers, in all cases, must be to consult with his co-trustee; but failing to meet or not there is sufficient evidence of the contract connected by definite internal expressions. Do with him, and the case being urgent, he made under the Statute of Frauds ? It is remarkable the expressions on the post card refer to any affidavit of the facts to the court, which therehow many cases arise of ordinary contracts made writing, or even any contract? I cannot come to upon appointed Mr. Leech the solicitor to the by trade agents on the sale of goods in which the this conclusion.

trustees. rules of evidence required by the Statute of

Judgment for the defendant.

His HONOUR Overruled both objections, holding Frauds are neglected, though in order to enforce

that although Mr. Winn had not in writing, and the remembrance of them on this circuit I have

according to the very proper requirement of the on account of Sir Leoline Jenkins, the founder of BANKRUPTCY LAW.

court, signified his acceptance of the appointment, the Grammar School at Cowbridge, being one of

he had virtually and practically accepted it. Act. the supposed authors of the statute, constantly

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

ing was the best test of his acceptance, and it was called it “The Glamorganshire Statute.” No man ought to call himself a commercial traveller, or to

Friday, Jan. 23.

admitted that he had acted as trustee. He must

therefore hold that he was duly appointed. Dr. be a commercial agent, who cannot write down the (Before Mr. Registrar Pepys, sitting as Chief Evans had urged that the action of one trustee necessary particulars of a written contract. There

Judge.)

did not bind the other; but he must at once say shouid be stated the name of the seller ; the name

Re WEHNER.

that the course adopted by Mr. Samuel Evans was of the person who buys; the description or name Balance in hands of bankers-Claim of vendors in all respects right and proper, and that he would of the goods sold; the quantity of what is sold, of goods pledged by agent of vendee with the have failed in his duty if he had not applied to the and the price ; adding any special terms of pay- bank-Costs of the bank on application by trus-court for instructions. The interim appointment ment, or any special terms of delivery; and the tee of bankrupt agent for payment over of the of Mr. Leech was perfectly valid, and the only purchaser or person charged must sign the balance.

question for Dr. Evans to address himself to was memorandum. If the seller is to be sued on the This was an application by the trustee for an whether that appointment should be confirmed contract, and to be thaus charged, he must have order for the payment to him of a balance of and continued. signed it. Failing a written memorandum on the £300 held by the bank on the hypothecation of Dr. Evans then said that on behalf of Mr. Winn sale of the goods, wares, or merchandise, for the certain securities by the bankrupt. A parcel of he altogether opposed the appointment of Mr. price of £10 sterling, the contract is not to be woollen goods had been consigned through the Leech. That gentleman was the debtor's solicitor, allowed to be good, except the buyer accept part bankrupt to a firm in Bombay, and he had accepted and he could not, therefore, do justice to the inte. of the goods so sold and actually receives the

a draft of the consignors against them. samo, or gives something in earnest to bind the thereupon drew upon the consignees in Bombay, mingham creditors, had throughout opposed his

He rests of the creditors. Mr. Winn, and other Bir. bargain, or in part payment. These are the rules and pledged that draft, with bill of lading of the appointment; they did so now, and preferred that of the celebrated 17th section of the Statute of woollen goods, with the London and Delhi Bank. Mr. James, of Birmingham, should act for them. Frauds, which ought to be taught to the children The draft was not accepted by the Bombay house, of every tradesman when they are at school, and the bankrupt failed before his acceptance of Winn's antipathy to Mr. Leech, and his great

Hextall said he was at a loss to understand Mr. and to be taught in our common schools with the draft of the consignors became due. The out being put down as something so remark. bank realised, and on the account current between Dr. Evans was totally incorrect, for Mr. Winn, in

fondness for Mr. James. The statement made by able as to be charged for as an extra. Now | the bank and the bankrupt there appeared a it is to be remembered that all sales of goods 'balance of $300. The consignors of the woollen

a letter written to his co-trustee three days after above £10, and at this time all sales of goods | goods and the trustee both claimed this amount. the meeting of creditors, said, “I have this morn. under the price of £10 could, and, in the latter The bank did not pay the money into court.

ing received a letter from Mr. Leech, copy of which case, can still be made by mere word of mouth, at common law. The object of the statute was to the trustoe.

Horace Davey and F. O. Crump appeared for I inclose. I think it would be wise for you to

endeavour to get the £132 out of the hands of the prevent fraud, and to check affirmations of con

Bagley for the consignors; and Daniel Jones for sheriff as soon as possible, and I am glad to see tracts which might otherwise be erroneous or the bank,

that Mr. Leech has already given him notice to false. They were not made to favour fraud or to Bagley abandoned the claim of the consignors the matter sleep.” He did not let it sleep, bat

pay the money over. Be good enough not to let assist contracting parties to avoid engagements, on the trustee agreeing not to ask for costs. when the evidence required by the statute can be Jones, for the bank, asked for their costs as

laying the case before the court, Mr. Leech was obtained through either party to the contract. between attorney and client. Although mere

appointed to conduct it, and it would be most Therefore it has been held that the written con stakeholders, he contended that the bank bad a

unfair now to oust him at the caprice of a small tract need not be in one piece of paper, and that right to constitute themselves trustees, and section of the creditors. what is omitted in one paper may be supplied by although they had not paid the money into court,

His HONOUR said that not the shadow of a sug. another, provided they can be connected in their they were, nevertheless, entitled to costs as gestion had been thrown out that the steps taken reference to the same contract, or to the parties to trustees would be.

by Mr. Leech had been improper or prejudicial to the contract. The note or writing, however, must

For the trustee it was urged that this proceed the interests of the creditors. It was not for him be signed by the party who is charged. This has ing was similar to an interpleader at common law, to conjecture the motives which now animated been done in the present memorandum, so far as the defendant is chargeable, namely, it was signed between party and party. and that the bank could not claim costs except as Mr. Wynn; certainly, his letter which had been

read was conclusive evidence that he had not only by “Charles Peek.' “But the authorities have equally established that the name, or a sufficient made his order accordingly.

The learned REGISTRAR adopted this view, and not opposed the appointment of Mr. Leech, but

that he had expressly approved of it. His present description of the other party, is indispensable,

opposition was manifestly an afterthought, and, because without it no contract is shown, inasmuch

if he was only anxious for the best interests of as the stipulation or promise of one does not bind

DERBY COUNTY COURT.

the creditors, he was at a loss to understand him otherwise than to the person to whom the

Saturday, Jan. 17.

why he opposed Mr. Leech's appointment. No promise was made, and until that person's name is shown it is impossible to say that the writing

(Before G. ROSSELL, Esq., Judge.)

reason whatever had been adduced why he should

adopt the extremely harsh course of removing contains a memorandum of the bargain :" (Ben

Re W. HOLLAND (in Liquidation).

Mr. Leech from his position as solicitor to the jamin on Sales, p. 169, 2nd edit.) The memo. The appointment of creditor's solicitor. trustees, and in his judgment any opposition to randum signed by Peek is not sufficient. There THREE applications came before the court in this him was ill-founded and groundless. The appointis no name of the seller or vendor of the goods matter—first, to confirm an interim appointment ment would, therefore, be confirmed and conmentioned. Does the post card sufficiently supply of Mr. Samuel Leech as solicitor to the trustees ; tinued. this defect? The card very properly is not secondly, for an order directing the sheriff to pay Hextall then said that on behalf of Mr. Leech addressed to Siderfin, the agent who sold the to Holland's trustees a sum of £132, which had he had fought the matter on principle, and be potatoes, but to the plaintiffs, by name, for whom been received from the debtor under an execution cause insinuations such as had been thrown out Siderfin negotiated the sale. The latest case on levied shortly before he filed his petition; and, should be at once repelled. At the same time, this subject is that of Buxton v. Rust, L. Rep. 1, lastly, to restrain the sheriff from proceeding having fought and won, he might now add that, Ex. 279; 41 L. J. 173; 27 L. T. Rep. 210. The further in an interpleader summons issued at his from a conversation he had just had with Mr. memorandum in that case was binding on the instance in London.

Harrison, he felt warranted in stating that the plaintiff, for he had signed it, but it was not

Upon the first being called upon,

appointment itself was to Mr. Leech a matter of binding on the defendant, for he had not signed Dr. Evans, instructed by Winn, took a prelimi- perfect indifference, and that having carried his it. Then came a correspondence, ending with a nary objection to all that had been done, on the point, he would now give place to some other letter from the defendant in reply to a request ground that the application upon which Mr. Leech gentleman who might be selected. The details from the plaintiff to have a copy of the contract had been temporarily appointed was defective, were purely for Mr. Leech to arrange, and must which had been given to him (the defendant) on

inasmuch as it was made by Mr. Evans only. Mr. be settled by him upon his returu. All that was the 11th Jan. 1871. The defendant, on the 9th Evans was but half a trustee, and Mr. Winn was cared for was that the creditors' property should Feb., replied—“I beg to inclose a copy of your the other half ; they must act jointly, and as they not be squandered in costs, which would be the letter of the 11th Jan. 1871.". This copy of the had not done so, the appointment of Mr. Leech result if a solicitor from a distance was retained letter, containing the terms of the contract, was was invalid, and all he had done was void.

in the case. sent in the defendant's handwriting, and was Hextall, who appeared in the absence of Mr. His HONOUR said the feeling of antagonism signed by him. Though the defendant did sign Leech, said that as a matter of fact, and so far as which had been needlessly imported into this case this copy of the contract, he did not sign it with a general practice was concerned, Mr. Evans was was most objectionable and painful. Contests view to give to it validity so as to charge himself. the sole trustee, Mr. Winn never having taken up created friction, friction created delay, and delay Byles, Brett, and Blackburn, JJ., considered that his appointment. A form had been sent to him created expense. Mr. Leech was fully justified in it had that effect. Willes, J., argued that the for signature, but he had not had the courtesy repelling the insinuations which had been made, terms of the other letters sufficiently referred to to acknowledge it, and Mr. Hextall and to which no one who knew him would give a contract to connect them with the written con. contended, he had no locus standi. His Honour credence; and, having successfully done this, tract signed by the plaintiff only, on the 11th Jan. / would find, upon referring to the file of pro. the intimation given by Mr. Hextall was wise, 1871. Lord Westbury, in Peek v. North Stafford. ceedings, that what he stated was correct. graceful, and liberal, and was just what he should shire Railway Company (10 H. of L. 472,569), “ In On the other hand, Mr. Evans had very properly have expected from MIr. Leech had he himself order to embody in the letter any other document' signed his acceptance of the appointment, and had boon present.

[ocr errors]

:

now,

« EelmineJätka »