Page images
PDF
EPUB

Avon.

trustee for Mrs. Field for her separate use were CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. C. 35. how and by what means the deceased came by assigned to Luke Marler, who was to stand pos. Last Day of Claim, and to uchom Particulars to be sent. his or her death; and that the police magistrates Hessed of the same upon trust for Mrs. Field for BAKER (Caroline): Derwent-place, Birchfield-road. Aston have no jurisdiction whatever to direct or antho

Warwick, spinster. Dec. so; J. S. Canning, solicitor, 44, rise the production at an inquest of a prisoner life, for her separate use, and on her death for the

Waterloo-street, Birmingham. children of the marriage, and if there should be no BRISTOWE (Stephen , 21, Silver-street, Golden-square, Midcommitted to custody, under remand upon a children of the marriage, then upon trust for such

dlesex, cheesemonger. Dec. 20;, C. R. and i Cuff, soli- criminal charge. And we are, therefore, not

citors, 89, St. Martin's-lane, Charing-cross, Middlesex. person or persons as Mrs. Field should by deed or BURROWES (Isabella m.), 2. Eccleston-square, Middlesex, surprised to find that, in these respects, the de will appoint; and in default of appointment, for and of Calverden Lodge, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, widowcision of Re Reardon is confirmatory of our views. her next of kin. There were no children of the

Dec. 31; Walker and Martineau, solicitors, 18, King's-
road, Gray's Inn, Middlesex.

It was admitted as a matter of course that the marriage. Mr. Field died on the 15th June 1865, DREVER (John), Tudor Villa, Winson-green, near Birmingmagistrate did not possess this jurisdiction, how. and after his death the trustee in whose name the ham. Esq a retired surgeon in H.M.'s Madras army; ever convenient was the practice which, 80 shares were standing, by the direction of Mrs.

Dec. 20; E. W. Crosse, solicitor, 4, Bell-yard, Doctors'
Commons, London.

long as it was uncontroverted, assumed the exis. Field, transferred the shares into her name by & FELTON (Sarah), formerly of High-park House, Albert- tence of a power in aid of an ancient tribunal, deed of transfer, which was executed by Mrs.

road, Aston. park, near Birmingham, late of 2, Derwent and in furtherance of the ends of municipal and

place, Birchheld-road, Aston, widow. Dec. 30; Jno. S. Field and duly registered. Mrs. Field died in Jan. Canning, solicitor, 44, Waterloo-street, Birmingham.

of natural justice. By what procedure the re1872, without having made any other appointment Fox (Thos.), sen., Thurlton, Norfolk, shopkeeper, Dec. 6; versal of this practice was decreed, need not now of the shares, and intestate. The plaintiff, who

J. Copeman and Son, solicitors, Loddon, Norfolk.

FREER (John B.). Stra-ford-upon-Avon, Warwick, Esq. be said. By what illusory and needlessly aggres. was the next of kin of Mrs. Field, claimed to be

Dec. 13 ; H. o. and T. Hunt, solicitors, Stratford-upon. sive arguments the inspiration of the Crown was entitled to the shares, and one of the questions in the suit was whether the execution of the deed of GIBBS (JOB.), Ley's Farm, Lissington, Derby, farmer. propagated need not be recalled from the oblivion

Jan. 10; John Bamford, solicitor, Ashborne, Derbyshire.

which may happily overtake the echoes of a policetransfer by Mrs. Field operated as an appoint- HALE (Wm.), Ropley, Southampton, geoman. Dec. 24; office. But, if ever it should happen to be said that ment to herself of the shares.

Blackmore and Sons, solicitors, Alresford, Hants. coroners' findings should not be regarded because

HASLAM (Robert), Bolton, builder. Dec. 15; J. Gerrard, Sir R. Baggallay, Q.C. and Hadley for the solicitor, 21, Acres-field, Bolton.

coroners' juries have acquitted prisoners who were plaintiff.

HOKER (Bamuel), Waterhouses, near Ashton-under-Lyne, afterwards tried and convicted, it will be remem.

yeoman. Dec. 18; Rushton, Armitstead, and Co., soli. Southgate, Q.C., Alfred Smith, Fry, Q.C., and citors, Mealhouse-lane, Bolton le-Moors.

bered that human imperfection prevails beyond the W. P. Beale for the defendants.

Howe (James). Swindon. builder. Jan. 1; Kinneir and precincts of the coroner's court; that, but lately,
Tombs, solicitors, Swindon, Wilts.

a judge of our Court of Bankruptoy has had ocSir G. JESSEL held, that the execution of the HUTCHINSON (James), Bishop Auckland; Durham Enocer casion publicly to denounce that meddlesome deed of transfer operated as an appointment by and parish clerk., Jan, 10; Bowser and Ward, solicitors. officialism which would arrogate

to itself the come

. Mrs. Field to herself.

JONES (Hugh), Rumworth, Lancaster, brickmaker. Dec. duct of prosecutions that have failed, to say the Solicitors : Robinson and Preston ; Matthews

18, Armitstead and Co., solicitors,'1, Mealhouse-lane, least of it; and perhaps attention may be

Bolton-le-Moors. and Matthews.

KEENE (James),, Godney, Meare, Somerset, cattle dealer. directed to certain other inquisitions of office, in.

Nov.30; S. Hobbs, jun., solicitor, Wells, Somerset
Lewis (Lieut. Col.John), 27, Dorchester-place, Marylebone,

stituted by governmental departments, encroach.
Middlesex. Law and Co., solicitors, 10,' New.square, ing less constitutionally on the functions of the
Monday, Nov. 10.
Lincoln's-inn, Middlesex.

ordinary criminal administration of the land. For. LINE V. HALL.

NEWBERRY (Elizabeth). Poole Cottage, Randwick, Glouces- tunately, in Reardon's case the effort failed to

ter, spinster. Jan. 1; W. J. Fraser, solicitor, 78, Dean. Power of appointment-Appointment to object of the tas.9, late of Tottenham-road, Kingsland, Middle

street, Sobo, Middlesex.

secure his committal by the magistrate before the the power for life, with remainder to his son, not

coroner's inquisition, and equally failed the effort sex, gentleman, formerly a watchmaker. Jan. 1: H. an object of the power, in tail-Doctrine of cy Cowlard, solicitor, 14, Lincoln's-inn-fields, Middlesex.

to prevent his being present at the inquest. But we PARSONS (Jos.) Gloucester. innkeeper, près applicable.

Dec. 81; J. Wm. S. are bound to say that, when the matter came to GEORGE Kilworth, by his will, dated the 1st PONIATOWYKI (Joseph M. X. Francois Jean, Prince), 28,

Dix, solicitor, Exchange-buildings, Bristol.

be discussed before the Court of Queen's Bench, of Jan., 1805, gave and devised an estate at Ebury-street, Pimlico, Middlesex, formerly a senator of the attitude then adopted on behalf of the Crown Napton-on-Hill, in the county of Warwick, unto

the French Empire. Dec. 1; Lawrie, Keen, and Rogers, was irreproachable. "It was extremely expedient

solicitors, 24, Knight Rider-street, Doctors'-commons, his daughter Elizabeth, the wife of Esmy Edward London.

that the question involved should be presented for Hall, for;life, and after her decease to the said SMITH (Rev. Edward), formerly of Ashley, Cambridge, late judicial consideration ; the Crown did not oppose Esmy Edward Hall for his life, and on his decease

of 11, Queen's Parade. Bath. Jan. 1: H. Cowlard, soli- ex-officio, but, bowing to the discretion of the court,

citor, 14, Lincoln's inn-fields, Middlesex. he gave and devised the same to all or such one or SWYER (John), Cottage Farm. Lytchett Minster, Dorset,

submitted that, lest justice might possibly be more of the children or grandchildren of his said

farmer. Dec. 31; H. W. Dickinson, solicitor, Fish-street, frustrated, special circumstances should be shown daughter Elizabeth who should be living at the

Poole, Dorset.

in order to warrant the granting of the writ; at the time of her decease, in such shares and proportions

same time intimating that, in a proper case, the as the survivor of them, the said Esmy Edward

REPORTS OF SALES.

Crown would apply for the writ and save the Hall and his daughter Elizabeth should by deed

prisoner the expense of doing so. This line of in. or will appoint, and in default of appointment to

terposition was conceived in a most proper spirit,

Thursday, Nov. 6. all and overy the children of his daughter

and was quite what was to be expected under the

By Messrs. NEWBox and HARDING, at the Mart. Elizabeth in equal shares. Elizabeth Hall died in Soho.–Nos. 12 and 13, Macclesfield-street, freeehold-sold adviser. And we are sure that, acting in the

skilful and Isensible auspices of the learned law the year 1820, leaving the said Esmy Edward Hall for £1630. her surviving, a son Giles Kilworth Hall, and Bloomsbury.—No. 15, Gloucester-street, freehold-sold for same spirit, and acquiescing in the high authority three other children, but no grandchildren. Esmy Brunswick-mews.- Improved ground rents of £69 16s., term

of the decision in Re Reardon (a case which every Edward Hall made his will, dated the 18th March 21 years-sold for £610.

coroner should peruse and perpend), the Crown 1844, and thereby devised the said estate unto his Islington. - Nos. 31, 55, and 57, Canonbury-park North, will, in future, move for a writ of habeas corpus

term 35 years-sold for £1600. son, the said Giles Kilworth Hall, for life, with

to have any prisoner in attendance at a coroner's remainder to the first and other sons of the said

Friday, Nov. 7.

inquest, and so that he may there be examined as Giles Kilworth Hall, severally and successively,

By Messrs. VENTOM, BULL, and COOPER, at the Mart. a witness, wherever it happens that the prisoner

Life interest of a gentleman, aged 50 years, in £342 Three according to their respective seniorities in tail per Cents, and of one-sixth part of $1500 Consols; also a

and the coroner so desire, and that, in the opinion male. The question in the suit was whether, as the

policy for £700-sold for £510.

of the coroner and of the Crown, the presence of children of Giles Kilworth Hall were not objects

Tuesday, Nov. 11.

the prisoner would not tend to frustrate the ends of the power, the doctrine of cy près was applic. By Messrs. Debenham, Tewson, and Farmer, at the Mart. of justice. able, so as to give to Giles Kilworth Hall an Yorkshire, Melbourne. Rentcharge of:£0 per annum,

But there remains another question of much estate tail.

secured upon a freehold estate of 218 acres - sold for moment. Is the police regulation to continue, Fry, Q.C. and Batten for the plaintiff. Sussex, near West Grinstead.-The Woldringfold Estate,

under which prisoners are to be brought, in the comprising mansion and 271a. 3r. 2p., freehold--sold for

first instance, before the inferior court of the Rorburgh, Q.C., and Doughty, Speed, Field, and £12,700.

magistrate, instead of before the coroner's court William Barber for the defendants.

Wednesday, Nov, 12.

which, as Fitzgerald, J., in all reason declared

By Messrs. RURWORTH, ABBOTT, and Co., at the Mart. Sir G. JESSEL said this was the very case where Regent's-park.- No. 21, Sussex.place, with stabling, term

should have the prior conduct of the preliminary the doctrine of cy près should apply; the donee of 48 years-sold for £2600.

inquiry? One would suppose that the very conthe power had given to a child of an object of the

tention, that it is the office of an inquest to ascere power an estate tail, which the law would not

tain merely the cause of the death in question, allow. His Honour held that Giles Kilworth

MAGISTRATES' LAW, would suggest that that inquiry should be an. Hall took an estate tail.

swered before assuming that it was caused by homi. Solicitors : Peacock and Goddard ; Taylor,

cide and accusing a suspected person. But, as the

NOTES OF NEW DECISONS. Hoare and Taylor ; Rickards and Walker.

coroner's function is of a nature more extensive, HIGHWAY-NONUSER-Local Act.-A strip the propriety of bringing the suspected person

of land which has been declared by Act of Parlia- before him, in the first instance, rests upon other CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.

ment to be a public highway will not of necessity reasons. The bringing of the suspected person

become so until all the provisions of the Act for face to face with the victim may lead, from deLAST DAY OF PROOF.

making and creating it have been strictly complied meanour, to important suggestions of guilt or BULL (Henry W.), formerly of 12, Wilton-crescont, after-with. wards of 25, Ely-place, and late of 24, James-street,

Where commissioners, by their award innocence. And, if the person suspected can Buckingham-gate, Middlesex, gentleman. Dec. 6; J. C.

under a local Act, set out a public highway, but adduce substantial and satisfactory proof of Deverell, of the firm of Walters,

Young, and Co.. solicitors, 9, New-square. Lincoln's-inn, Middlesex. Dec. 26; M. R. and the proposed road always remained impassable was occasioned by natural or accidental causes;

no road was ever made in pursuance of the award, innocence, or that it appear that the death at twelve o'clock. Cann (Ralph), 1, Savage-gardens, London, and Waltham

to the public : Held, that the mere allotment of a it is surely well that the cost of an expensive stow, Essex: cork merchant. Dec. 6; B. F. Trench; piece of land by the commissioners was not suf. prosecution should be saved by his immediate solicitor, 51, Crutchedfriars, London, Dec. 15; V.C.M.. ficient to make it a public highway, and that all discharge, and that the imprisonment, harrassat twelve o'clock. DEACON (Grosvenor), 155, Stanhope-street, Mornington

the

regulations of the Act of Parliament must be ment, and tardiness of trial and redress which he crescent, Middlosex, gentleman. Dec. 1; E. Pope, soli complied with before it became such a highway as might otherwise have to endure, should be citor, 12, Gray's Inn-square, Middlesex. Dec. 15; V.C. B., was in the contemplation of the Legislature, and avoided ; instead of having the accused person at twelve o'clock. GOMN Mary), formerly of Goodwyns, East Cosham, South before the parish could be called upon to repair committed for trial by the magistrates, as in duty ampton. late of Granville House, Nelson-street, Ryde, it:

(Cubitt v. Maxse, 29 L. T. Rep. N. s. 244. bound, upon a mere prima facie case against him, Isle of Wight, widow. Dec. 8; F. 'Jackson, solicitor, 55, C. P.) Chancery-lane, Middlesex.

and made the victim of a subsebuent abortive HORN (John) Middleton-in-Teesdale, Durham, tailor and

prosecution. And it is of some further conse.

THE PRODUCTION OF PRISONERS AT draper. Dec, 5; William Robinson, solicitor, Darlington.

quence that persons whom the law presumes to Dec. 12, M.R., at eleven o'clock.

CORONERS' INQUESTS. RUSSELI. (John) Terhill House, Cheltenham, Esq, Dec. 8;

be innocent should not have increased difficulties C. J. Collins Prichard, solicitor, Bristol. Dec. 20, M. R.,

COMMENTING on the case of Re Reardon, the cast upon them in the way of disproving their at twelve o'clock. SPA THOUSE (Thos.) , Taitlands, Stainforth, Giggleswick, Writing upon the office of coroner (7 Ir. L. T. complications, should be avoided, which nebeats Irish Law Times and Solicitors' Journal says :- guilt, and that the expense, the

delay, and the York, gentleman, Settle, York. Jan. 13; , twelve o'clock. WESTBURY (Right"Hon: Richard Baron) Westbury

, Wilts, nounced, we, as lawyers, should decline to dilate corpus. The writ is a novelty in these cases, and late of 75, Gate, , 7. Harrison and Co.. solicitors, 19, Bedford Row, London: apon matters

so assured as that it is the proper it is difficult to forsee all its possible consequences: Jan, 21; M, R., at eleven o'clock.

function of the coroner's inquisition to ascertain But we can well conceive that expense, delay, and

£1975.

[ocr errors]

bude oferecer solicitos

, 85) before the decision now reported was procasioned by having to apply for the writ of habeas

a

complications, may indeed arise from the pro- feet, or such other price as might be fixed by the bound. Upon appeal by the plaintiff to the Ex. vision that, when the inquest has concluded Board of Trade. Subsequently meter index cards chequer Chamber, the majority of that court (eventuating, it may be, in acquittal), the prisoner were issued to the consumers, and among them to (Blackburn, Keating, Brett, Grove, and Archi. is unconditionally to be remitted back to custody the defendant, on which the price was stated to be bald, JJ., dissentientibus Quain and Honyman, and so detained. When traditional usage is 58. 5d. per 1000 feet. The defendant ceased to JJ.), affirmed the judgment of the majority of ousted and overriden by sudden reformations, consume gas at his house in respect of which he the court below, and upon the same grounds; without recourse to the Legislature, and some was charged before the commissioners appointed but Quain and Honyman, JJ., were of a contrary system has to be substituted forthwith as a by the Board of Trade had revised the price. In opinion, and held, with Kelly, C.B., that there temporary expedient, it is hardly possible to April they raised the maximum price of the gas to was a good contract for the 800 tons, and that, consider and provide for every contingency, and 6s. 3d., but beyond a printed notice to this effect therefore, the judgment below should be rea judicial imbroglio becomes only too possible. on the backs of the accounts, no notification was versod. Per curiam,“ Reply by return of post,' Certainly, the conflict of concurrent jurisdictions made to the consumers.

does not mean exclusively. reply by letter which has been brought about is attended with The learned counsel contended upon this state by return of post.” A reply by telegram, or extreme inconvenience, and may not improbably of facts, that the defendant was not liable to pay by verbal message, or by any means, not later lead to a failure of justice, if not to positive injus. more than 59. 5d. per 1000ft. To hold otherwise than a letter sent by post, would reach its tice to individuals; while, it is anything but would be to import into his contract a term un. destination, would equally satisfy the requiseemly and conducive to the due administration ascertained until after the contract had termi. sition. Two persons each in ignorance at the of justice that a public scandal should be created nated. The only contract binding upon the defen. time of what the other had done, write by the deliberate disregard of the coroner's autho- dant was that contained in the index card. If the letter to each other on the same day, the one rity, and the undisguised attempt to set abovo revision of the commissioners was to have a re- offering to buy a certain article at a certain price, it that of an inferior court, and to subject it to troactive effect, the greatest hardship would be and the other offering to sell the same article at the surveillance and half-contemptuous toleration inflicted upon consumers who could make no cer- the same price. The letters cross each other in of a police regime. What can be more grievously tain contracts, and he contended that the award the post. The majority of the court (Blackburn, detrimental to the interests of justice, than the of the commissioners could have no effect until Keating, Brett, Grove, and Archibald, JJ.) exreiterated verdicts of jury after jury, denouncing notified to the consumers.

pressed their strong opinion that such cross offers this system and its unhappy results in case after Mr. BRIDGE said that he should hold that the would not make a binding contract, and that the case? What more lamentable, than to find a

notice issued in December relative to the pos- offers in one of such letters could not amount to judicial personage-whose high office and func. sible increase in price by the Board of Trade was an acceptance of the offer contained in the other : tions are denoted by the fact that the Lord Chief binding, where no other contract had been en. (Tinn v. Hoffman and Co., 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. Justice himself is our supreme coroner--floated tered into. In the present case the index card had 271. Ex. Ch.) by & sub-constable, acting on his veritable or been issued subsequently to such notice, and that WINDING-UP-CONTRIBUTORY-TRANSFER OF sapposed instructions from the Castle, who refuses, constituted the only contract binding on the SHARES-ALLOWANCE FOR VALUE OF Goodas in the Marron case at Belfast, to receive the defendant. Had such cards not been issued, or WILL.-Application was made by the executors of corroner's warrant to bring up the suspected had they contained the notification which was

a deceased shareholder, who had been settled on person, until he obtains his superior officer's issued previously, he should have held that the the list of contributories of a company, that B., permission, and, that having been graciously defendant was liable to pay the increased price as who had formerly been a shareholder in the com. accorded, perfunctorily, deposits the warrant and from the 1st Jan. The company not being pany, but had executed a transfer of his shares in his pocket, and takes) it upon himself to represented by counsel, he would adjourn the

some time previous to the commencement of the pronounce a dead letter; while the jury append summons for a week, but intimated his opinion in winding-up, might be settled on the list of contrito their verdict a statement “that, owing to what order that the company might know how to act.

butories. B. was a director when he executed the they considered important evidence being deli.

transfer, the validity of which was disputed on berately kept back by the Crown authorities,

two grounds-first, that it was made in pursuance they refuse to find such & verdict as otherwise

of a fraudulent scheme to relieve B. and some of might be warranted in the case. May not this

COMPANY LAW.

his co-directors of their liability; and, secondly, state of things well recall the saying of Bentham,

that the provisions of the articles of association that it is even more important that justice should

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.

with respect to transfers had not been complied seem to be pare, than that it should be pure in VENDOR AND PURCHASER-CONTRACT TO DE-with. The deed of settlement required that upon reality? Were we not justified in our former LIVER IRON-ACTION FOR BREACH OF.-On the a transfer of shares the consent of the directors paper, as it were almost by anticipation, in 22nd Nov. 1871, the plaintiff wrote to the defen. should be obtained, that a certificate of consent saying, as we now emphatically repeat: “If a dauts, asking their lowest price for 800 tons of should be given, which was to be entered in the function is no longer of public utility, it surely iron delivered at P., at the rate of 200 tons per share register, and that a deed of covenant, to be does not mend matters to permit the function month, March, April, May, and June, 1872; to prepared under the direction of the directors, still to be exercised, but to render its exercise so which on the 24th Nov., the defendants replied, should be executed by the transferee. B. obtained obnoxious, and the consequences of its exercise so “We beg to offer you 800 tons at 69s. per ton the consent and certificate of the directors, but invidious, that, in the course of time, it may come delivered at P., and waiting your reply by return, M., the transferee, did not execute any deed of to be abated as a common nuisance. It may be remain," &c. The plaintiff did not reply by "re- covenant, the directors not having required him that, as the constable permits a delinquent to turn,” but on the 27th Nov. wrote to the defen. to do so; and no objections were made to the transproceed until he commits himself beyond yea or dants as follows, “Your price is high; if I made fer at two subsequent general meetings of the comnay, 90, the coroner is to be allowed to indulge in the quantity 1200 tons, delivery 200 tons a month pany. By a clause in the deed of settlement, it the discharge of his duties, ander watchful police for the first six months of next year, I suppose was provided that “if ever the losses of the supervision, until the time comes for direct in. you would make the price lower.” In answer company shall have absorbed, not only the whole tervention in order to supersede the office of to this the defendants, on the 28th Nov., of the fund called the reserve fund, but also 80 coroner altogether. But if the office is to be wrote as follows to the plaintiff, “In reply per cent. on the gross amount of the capital subsuperseded (we trust that it will not), is this, to yours of yesterday we are willing to make scribed for, the said company shall then be ipso too, only to be accomplished by waging a long you an offer of further 400 tons, 200 tons facto dissolved, and the board of directors for the condict of authority with officers who are endea- in Jan., 200 tons in Feb., at the same price time being shall within twenty.one days, or as vouring to perform, to the best of their ability,

we quoted you in ours of the 24th inst., soon after such losses being incurred as the board an onerous, delicate, and ill-paid public service ?” though the rate of freight will, doubtless, be possibly can, and they are hereby required to call

higher than that of the following months. Let us a special general meeting of the shareholders in

have your reply by return of post as to whether such manner as is hereinafter mentioned, and lay HAMMERSMITH POLICE COURT.

you accept our offers of, together, 1200 tons." a statement of the affairs of the company before (Before Mr. BRIDGE.)

No reply was actually sent by return, but on the such meeting." By other clauses in the deed, the Wednesday, Nov. 12.

same day, the 28th Nov., the plaintiff wrote and directors were to make up to 31st Dec. in each THE GASLIGHT AND COKE COMPANY V. O'BRIEN. posted a letter to the defendants, ". You can enter year a full statement and account of the debts,

me 800 tons on the terms and conditions named in credits, and liabilities, and the profits, gains, and Tho City of London Gas Act 1868—Revision of your favour of the 24th inst., but I trust you will losses made or incurred by the company; and

price-Operation of award of Commissioners. enter the other 400 tons, making in all 1200 tons were to produce at every annual meeting a report In this case Major O'Brien was summoned for referred to in my last at 68s.” These two letters of the receipts and disbursements for the year arrears of gas rates amounting to £5 25. 98. made crossed each other in the course of post, and on preceding, and of the particulars and amount of ap of 2s. 6d. rent of meter, and 23. 9d. charge for the 29th Nov., the defendants replied to the the funds or property of the company, and of the cutting off the gas, the residue being for gas plaintiff's letter of the 28th, that they could not state and condition thereof. In 1858 the company supplied.

is book his order for 1200 tons at less than 698., was in an unsatisfactory state, and an accountant, F. 0. Crump (instructed by Bartholomew) and even that offer they could only leave on hand employed to investigate the affairs, reported to appeared for the defendant and first took objec- for reply by to-morrow before 12 o'clock.” The the directors that the losses had absorbed 80 por tion to the charge for cutting off the gas. The plaintiff did not reply within that time, and sub- cent. on the gross amount of the capital subscribed defendant had left his house and thereupon the sequently the defendants declined on that ground for. In the said report, the accountant made no company cut off the gas, for which they sought to to deliver any iron at all to him, whereupon he allowance for the value of the goodwill of the charge.

brought this action for breach of contract, con- company as a going concern. A special meeting The company's officer referred to a section of tending that, at all events, there was a binding was not callod, but the annual general meeting their Act giving power to the company to cut off contract for 800 tons. The majority of the Court occurred soon 'after the said report was made. gas fourteen days after default made in payment of Exchequer (Bramwell, Channell, and Pigott, At that meeting the said report was not subdaly demanded.

BB., Kelly, C.B., dissenting), gave judgment for mitted to the shareholders, and the accounts laid Mr. Bridge held that under that section there the defendants, on the ground that there was no before them did not show the true position of was clearly no power to charge for disconnecting contract to deliver the 800 tons, as the plaintiff the company. The shareholders were, however, the pipes of a consumer who had ceased to occupy did not accept tho defendants' offer of the 24th informed that the increased claims upon the comthe house.

Nov., his letter of tho 28th Nov. being too late for pany had so reduced the margin of profits that The charge for gas was then disputed, and the that purpose; and the defendants' offer of the the directors were unable to recommend the pay; company's officers based their claim on sects. 57 1200 tons was only open until noon on the 30th, ment of any dividend for the past year. Held and 66 of the City of London Gas Act 1868. The and was not accepted within that time. The de (per Lord Cairns and Lord Hatherley, affirming former section says that if in the month of Jan. fendants'

letter of the 28th Nov. was one offer of the judgment of Lord Chancellor Hatherley; 1871, or any subsequent year, application is made. 1200 tons, and not two separate offers of 800 and Lord Chelmsford and Lord Colonsay dissentientito the Board of Trade for a revision of the scale of 400 tons. Kelly, C.B., on the contrary, gave bus), first, that the transfer from B. to M. was illuminating power and price, commissioners shall judgment for the plaintiff, being of opinion that valid; and, secondly, that the accountant ought, be appointed; and by sect. 66 the commissioners the offers of the 800 and 400 tons in the defen- in his report, to have made an allowance for 50 appointed shall, after hearing the applicants, dants' letter of the 28th Nov. were distinct and the value of the goodwill, and that in the fiz an illuminating power and price, to take effect separate, and that the offer of the 800 tons in absence of such allowance, the proof of the occur. as on and from the 1st Jan. in the year of revision. thoir letter of the 24th Nov. had been kept open, rence of the contingency contemplated by the Notices had been issued by the

company early in and was acepted by the plaintif in his letter of deed of settlement, failed. Sect. 30 of 7 & 8 Vict. December

that the charge would be 58. 5d. per 1000' the 28th Nov., by which the defendants were c. 110, enacts that the discovery of any defect or

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

OF

BY

error in the appointment of a person acting, or Sir R. Baggallay, Q.C., Whitehorne, T. A. Roberts, a considerable creditor of the intestate for goods who may have acted, as a director, or that such and Charles Walker for debenture-holders, oppos- supplied, being unable to obtain payment of his person was disqualified, shall not invalidate acts ing the petitions.

debt from the plaintiff, sent round to some of the done by him either alone or jointly with other directors before such discovery. Per Lord Cairns. debentures.

Davey, for the trustees of a deed securing the weavers who had pieces in their possession, paid

them the debts for which they held the pieces as -That the error of the directors in being satisfied with the execution of the transfer by a person

Sir G. JESSEL made the usual order to wind. security, and they gave up the pieces to him, and becoming a director instead of requiring the exe

up the company, as no evidence was before these he endeavoured to sell or otherwise make cution of a deed, was such an error as was con

him as to what had been done since the last available for his debt, to the prejudice of the de. adjournment, and he must therefore

fendant and other bona fide cr ditors of the in. templated by the above section, and that all the that the respondents had neglected to avail

them- testate. Under these circumstances the plaintiff acts done by the directors before such discovery selves of the indulgence extended to them on the and the defendant, on the 2nd Oct.

1872, consulted were consequently valid and binding on the com. former occasion.

. , pany. The case having been decided after so

the proper course to be adopted to protect the estate much difference of opinion, and the parties having

Solicitors, H. W. Vallance ; Wilkinson and Son, for the benefit of the creditors, and the advice been to a great extent responsible for the irregu- Lewis, Munns and Longden.

given was that the plaintiff should take out letters larity and confusion that occurred, no order as to

of administration with as little delay as possible, costs was made. (Murray v. Bush, 29 L. T. Rep.

and that in the mean time money should be N. S. 217. H. of L.)

REAL PROPERTY AND

found by some friend to take the pieces out DEBENTURE PAYABLE TO BEARER-NEGOTIA.

of the hands of the weavers on payment of BILITY-PROMISSORY NOTE.-A debenture of a

CONVEYANCING.

the debts due to them, and thereby secure the limited company, registered under the Companies

surplus value of the pieces for the benefit of the Aot 1862, payable to bearer on a particular day

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.

estate, and the suggestion was made that the in the year 1872, with interest in the meantime,

MISSING WILL-PRESUMPTION OF REVOCA. I defendant should find the money for the purpose, but liable to be drawn” and paid off before TioN-EVIDENCE - DECLARATION OF TESTATOR: but he did not then agree to do so. The solicitors that time, was sold by the company to M. in May 1869, and stolen from him in July of the same

--A will

, which had remained in the custody of then received instructions from the plaintiff and the testator since the time of its execution, was

defendant to prepare the necessary documents fur year. Plaintiff, at the end of the year 1871, pur.

obtaining letters of administration. The dechased from one s, who had since absconded, pounded, and evidence of declaration was admitted fendant agreed

to be one of the surețies in the had been “

to show an intention to adhere to the will. On administration bond, and a Mr. Waterhouse was 1871, and demanded payment thereof from the the other side evidence was offered to show that named as the other. On the following day company; but the company, having received the testator did not intend to leave his property (3rd Oct., the plaintiff, defendant, and Waternotice from M. of the debenture having been in the manner in which it was disposed of by his house, called and executed the bond and other stolen from him, refused to pay it to the plain. will, and that he had destroyed it by burning it. necessary papers, and the grant of administration tiff, who brought an action against the company Held,

that such declarations were admissible, not 27th Oct., some delay having occurred in remit

was afterwards duly obtained, but not until the to recover the amount of it. It was found at the

as evidence of destruction, but of intention not ting the money required for payment of the stamp trial that the plaintiff had become the holder of the debenture for value, and without notice, and 9 L. T. Rep. N. S. 247. Prob.)

to adhere to the will: (Keen v. Keen and others, and official fees. On the 7th Oct. the defendant, that similar instruments had been treated as negotiable : Held, that the plaintiff could not

accompanied by the plaintiff, went round to several

SETTLED ESTATES-INTERIM INVESTMENT OF of the weavers who held pieces, upon which they recover. Even if the instrument had not been PURCHASE-MONEYS.-The purchase. money of land had liens, paid them the sums due to them, and ander seal it would not be a promissory note on

sold under the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates took from them the pieces they then held. The account of its liability to be drawn and paid off Act is cash under the control of the court for the

sum paid by the defendant amounted to £15 2s., before the t me mentioned ; and the custom of

purposes of investment under the General Order and the pieces taken by the defendantare the pieces treating such instruments as negotiable, being made in pursuance of 23 & 24 Vict. c. 38, s. 10. Re for the detention of which the action is brought

. recent, could not alter the general rule of law :

Thorold's Settled Estate (L. Rep. 14 Eq. 31), fol. Early in November 1872, an administration sum. (Crouch v. The Credit Foncier of England lowed; Re Boyd's Settled Estates (L. Rep. W. N., mons was taken out in Chancery by a creditor (Limited), 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 259. Q.B.)

1873, p. 113; 55 Law Times, 100), dissented from : for the administration of the intestate's estate. (Re Taddy's Devised Estates, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. This summons was served on the plaintiff. She 213. V.C. M.)

took it to her solicitors, Messrs. Dawson and ROLLS COURT.

PORTIONS-ADVANCEMENT-GIFT OF SHARE | Greaves, who appeared for her upon it; and on Saturday, Nov. 8.

RESIDUE WILL - SATISFACTION. - A the 11th Nov. the common decree for the adminis.

grandfather's will contained a trust term for tration of the intestate's personal estate was made. Re LONDON AND AUSTRALIAN AGENCY CORPO- Paising portions for his son's younger children, The usual advertisements were afterwards issued

RATION (LIMITED) ; Ex parte BLAKE, Cook, and provided that in case the son should at any for creditors, and under them the defendant made
AND CLAPHAM.

time during his life advance or pay any sum of a claim as creditor for £61 10s. 60. (which included Company, Voluntarywinding-up-Three petitions money to or for the use of any of his younger the £15 25. paid by him to the weavers), and

this -Liquidators--Supervision order. children, then, unless the contrary should be claim was duly allowed. The defendant having In August last Mr. Blake, a holder of twenty-five directed by him, any sum so advanced should be the pieces in his possession, Messrs. Dawson and shares in this corporation, presented a petition in full or part satisfaction of the portion to which Greaves, as solicitors of the plaintiff, by the for a compulsory winding up order. Two other the younger child would have been entitled under direction of the chief clerk, applied to the defen. petitions--one by Mr. Cook and one by Mr. Clap, the grandfather's will: Held (roversing the deci. dant to deliver the pieces to them for the par. ham-by much larger shareholders, were filed sion of the Master of the Rolls), that a gift by poses of the administration, offering to pay him about the same time praying for a supervision the son's will of a share of residue to one of his the money he had advanced to pay off the weavers order. Summonses to appoint liquidators were younger children was not a payment or advance with interest and costs. The sum actually offered adjourned in order to give the company time to ment within the meaning of the proviso: (Cooper (and which Messrs. Dawson and Greaves were hold mertivgs. Accordingly a very numerously- v. Cooper, 29 L. T. Rep. N.S. 321. Ch.)

ready to pay defendant) was £18, which was more attended meeting was held, when it was resolved to

than sufficient for those purposes. The defendant wind-up voluntarily, and to appoint the secretary,

refused to receive the money or to deliver the Mr. Latchmore, and Mr. Ford liquidators. At a subsequent meeting these resolutions were con.

COUNTY COURTS.

pieces. He insisted upon retaining them; his words were,

“He would not have the money ; he firmed. The petitions now coming on to be heard,

would stick to what he had got.” He was then Roxburgh, Q.C. and F. C. J. Millar, in support

BRADFORD COUNTY COURT.

asked whether he had the pieces in his possesof a compulsory winding up, contended that the

sion. appointment of liquidators was invalid, as having

Sept. 26 and 30.

He said he had sold some, not saying

how many or for how much, and the rest he taken place at the first meeting, and asked that

(Before W. T. S. DANIEL, Q.C., Judge.)

had, and they were worth £10 and £50. This any order to be made should be made on Blake's HARTLEY (Administratrix) v. Thompson. course of proceeding by the defendant having been petition as baving been the first advertised, though Administration-Transactions with adminis.

communicated to the chief clerk, Messrs. Dawson not the first presented.

trators.

and Greaves, as solicitors for the plaintiff, were Waller, Streeten, Southgate, Q.C. (Graham A transaction with a person entitled to adminis. directed to bring this action in the name of the Hastings with him), Fischer, Q.C. (Somers Lewis tration not validated after administration un. plaintiff. After being served with the summons with him), Langworthy and Law for other parties. less for the benefit of intestate's estate. After a

the defendant communicated with the plaintiff, Sir G. JESSEL made one order on the three decree in Chancery for the administration of and prevailed upon her to endeavour to stop this petitions for continuing the winding up under the

the intestate's estate, the administratriæ is not action by giving a notice to the registrar of this supervision of the court, and gave the costs of at liberty to ratify, or refuse to allow an action court that the action had been brought without the three petitions. The carriage of the order was

to be brought in her name to defeat the trans. | her authority, and he procured an attorney at given to Mr. Cook, though advertised after Mr. action : (see Williams on Exors. 391, and the Leeds to draw up a notice to that effect, and Blake's petition.

authorities there referred to.)

which the plaintiff signed, and this notice has been Solicitors : J. J. Darley ; Mercer and Mercer. Phillips; instructed by Dawson and Greares, Brad. put in evidence by the defendant, with some ford, for plaintiff.

correspondence which afterwards passed between

the attorney and Messrs. Dawson and Greaves

Robinson (Berry and Robinson), Bradford, for upon the subject. If the plaintiff had adhered Re WESTERN OF CANADA OIL, LANDS, AND defendant.

to the notice she was thus induced to sign, Works COMPANY (LIMITED).

His HONOUR.-This was an action of detinue she would through her ignorance have been Company--Adjournment of petitions to wind-up- for the illegal detention by the defendant of cer. led into committing a contempt of the Court No steps taken--Order made.

tain stuff pieces, the damages being laid at £50. of Chancery, for which she would have been The two petitivus in this matter now came on for the plaintiff is the administratrix of Joseph liable to be committed, and if not actually hearing, having been adjourned by the Lord Hartley, who died on the 13th Sept. 1872, intes- imprisoned, would have subjected herself to the Chancellor on the 4th August last, as reported in tate and insolvent. He was a stuff manufacturer payment of what to her would have been a large our issue of the 9th Angust, with a view to giving in a small way of business, and employed weavers sum for costs. The facts as stated by me havo the company an opportunity of inquiry or arrange- who wove his pieces at their own homes on been proved upon the evidence of the plaintiff and ment. It will be remembered that the petitions commission. The defendant was one of such Mr. Greaves, and the plaintiff, as far as she could, had been filed by debentare-holders in respect of weavers, and at the intestate's death was showed her willingness to acknowledge a right in interest due on their charges. It now appeared creditor' for work done as a weaver, for £40, the defendant to retain the pieces to cover his that nothing had in the mean time been done, or thereabouts. Several of the other weavers own debt. And on behalf of the defendant it was except sending to Canada a person who has not in the village were creditors for work done as urged that, as the defendant took possession of yet made any final report.

weavers, and bad woven pieces in their possession the pieces in question with the authority of the Bagshawe, Jackson, Q.C., and Locock Webb for which they claimed and were entitled to retain by plaintiff, although that transaction took place the petitioners.

way of lien as security for their debts. Shortly before the grant of administration, yet as such Hon. R. Butler supported the petitions. after the intestate's death, one Bently, who was grant was afterwards obtained, and before the

[ocr errors]

a

name.

as

somo

[ocr errors]

degree in the administration suit was made, the withdrawing from the case, and it was not for his NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT. transaction which would have been good at law if Honour to say whether he had thereby rendered

Wednesday, Nov. 3. it had been completed after the grant, would be himself liable for costs. The horse belonged to his validated by relation, and Williams on Executors, client, and was at livery at the Royal Hotel in his

Ex parte RINGROSE; Re GIBSON. p. 391 16th edit.), was relied on as an authority for It was not in Mr. Manle's possession, but Bill of sale-Stock in trade purchased since the that proposition; but on examination it will be Mr. Maule was authorised to sell it, and had an

bill-Liquidation, seen that the cases there referred to are excep. interest in it. That being so, he presamed that Tuis case raised some important points in contional instances and do not support the defendant's it was hardly necessary for Mr Marshall to see

nection with the subject of bills of sile. It apcontention. And in the same work the cases of the fifteen witnesses, as no doubt he know what peared from the affidavits filed in the case, that Doe v. Glenn

(1 Ad. & Ell. 49) and Morgan v. his case was before he seized the horse. The Mr. John F. Gibson, draper, of Long Buckby, in Thomas (8 Ex. 302) are cited, which show that horse was in another man's stables, and he subconsideration of £120 advanced to him by Mr. the relation exists only in those cases in which the mitted under all circumstances he was not entitled John Ringrose, of the same place, assigned by bill act done is for the benefit of the estate, or there be to costs. He further submitted that the examina

of sale to the latter gentleman, in May 1872, all fraud; as where a man takes goods as executor tion of the witnesses was premature, especially the stock in trade and furniture which to him were de son tort, sells them, receives the purchase seeing that he had not subpænaed the witnesses for the

repayment of the said sum.

or thereafter should be on his premises, as security money, then takes out administration and brings out of the district.

There was a an action to recover the very goods he has sold Marshall submitted that it rested with an at-power given to Ringrose to take peaceable possesand been paid for. Here the estate was benefited torney to consult his own convenience in what sion of the property after default made by Gibson only to the extent of the money paid by the order he saw his witnesses, especially in a case

in payment on demand. On the 4th August in defendant to redeem the pieces from the weaver's, which might involve some annoyance to the this year Ringrose demanded payment of the £120 and that money the defendant has been offered witnesses themselves.

to be made on the 8th. Gibson did not pay, before action brought and he refused it, insisting His Honour had no doubt he had the power house, and told him he intended to realise

and on the 9th Ringrose went to Gibson's upon retaining the pieces for his whole debt, to allow costs in a case of interpleader, as well as thus doing the very wrong which he complained other actions. He thought for this purpose the his security. On Gibson's representations, bow. of when done by Bently, and thus making his 174th rule made summonses in interpleader cases

ever, Ringrose consented to wait until the detention a wrongful act as to the whole. There operate exactly as sommonses in ordinary cases.

11th to see if Gibson could find a person being evidence that the value of the pieces he now He therefore thought that the notice of abandon.

to purchase the goods privately, 80 to has is between £40 and £50, and the defendant ment not having been given within five days, the enable him to repay Ringrose. No purchaser not having given any evidence as to how many execution creditor was entitled to costs. With being found, on the ilth Ringrose said he should pieces he sold or what he received for them, I regard to the point Mr. Gabb stated that it was

at once realise his security. There w: 8 am justified as against the defendant as a wrong. necessary he should ascertain what witnesses were

conflict of testimony as to what passed at the doer in treating the value of the whole of the material, it would be very inconvenient for latter interview: but it appeared that early ou pieces detained by him as £50, and judgment will him to do so. He thought the much more con.

the morning of the 12th Gibson went to North. be entered against him for that sam, with costs. venient

course was to leave it to the Registrar, ampton after sending a letter to Ringnose to in; Although the defendant refused the offer to pay and if either party was dissatisfied the matter form him of the fact. Ringrose at once instructed him his advances, he may still have a claim in might then come before him by way of appeal sell the goods. North proceeded to Gibson's house

Mr. North, an anctioneer, to take possession and equity to be repaid that sum, which claim he may and if it should be considered necessary, he should bring forward in the administration, but over that be glad to confirm the ruling of the Registrar.

at ten in the morning of that day, and, finding I have no jurisdiction or control. If, however, the Costs to follow, as in ordinary cases.

the house locked, was unable to seize the proplaintiff is authorised and consents to make the

perty. At two p.m. Gibson filed his petition for dedaction now, and the amount can be agreed

liquidation of his affairs ; a receiver was at once upon, the judgment may be reduced accordingly,

WILLIAMS v. CHESSHYRE.

appointed, and at about six p.m. the receiver and the judgment may be still further reduced, if

took possession, and was immediately followed by

Liability of attorney for expenses of witness. the defendant

will give up the pieces he now holds In this case the plaintiff is a road-maker, and the North, who also put in a man on behalf of Ringand their value can be agreed upon, such value defendant a solicitor. The action was brought to trade then on the premises had been purchased

rose. It appeared that nearly all the stock in being the amount of the further deduction, but

£ unless these matters are consented to, the judg: in which he alleged Mr. Chesshyre required his since the execution of the abil. ife-salet ment will be entered for £50 and costs; and the

Hensman (Norfolk circuit), instructed by Leake, defendant will take such further steps elsewhere

attendance.
Stroud, who appeared for the plaintiff, stated order that the furniture and the proceeds of the

of Long Buckby, now asked the court for an as he may be advised. If the Judicature Act that the case arose out of an interesting law. stock in trade, which had been since sold, were now in operation I could give complete suit, in which his friend was concerned for Mr. should be given 'up to Mr. Ringrose. He argued relief, but at present I have only the jurisdiction J. B. Ferryman, who was summoned before the of a Court of Common Law. magistrates at the instance of the town commis- could not be assigned, yet that there was

that although at law goods not in existence pioners, for not paying the demand made upon sufficient "new act” on the part of Gibson to show

him for the making of certain roads in Naupton. | his intention that the after acquired goods should CHELTENHAM COUNTY COURT.

crescent. His friend carried the case to a suc-
Friday, Nov. 1.
cessful issue, and before the case came on at the

pass to Ringrose, but if not, such goods, as soon (Before C. SUMMER, Esq., Judge.)

as they came on to the premises, passed to him police-court be employed the plaintiff., Ches in equity. That being so, were they the goods of MORSE V. SOLOMON.

shure : " Mr. Ferryman emploved him."] Well, another person in the possession, order, and dispo. Williams's case was that Mr. Chesshyre employed sition of the bankrupt,

with the consent of the true Costs in interpleadler--Application. F. Marshall applied for costs in this case. His him, and that he told Mr. Chesshyre he had several Honour would remember that a short time ago he said, "You go along and see this road, and I will 12th August, but at ten a.m. Ringrose had done

owner at the commencement of the bankruptcy ? men at work at Prestbury, hat Mr. Chesshyne The bankruptcy commenced at two p.in. on the committed a young gentleman named Maule for a

pay you what is fair and reasonable.” Upon that all that was lawful and reasonable in trying to term for non-payment of a judgment debt. It his friend took Williams to the locus in quo, and having come to Mr. Solomon's knowledge that there he made his investigation, and afterwards

take possession. He therefore did not consent to Mr. Maule had an interest in a horse, the animal attended before the magistrates, and he (Stroud)

Gibson's possession. was seized instead of executing the warrant of believed that Williams was one of the chief means

Shoosmith, on behalf of the trustee for the commitment, but Mr. Morse subsequently claimed whereby his friend obtained his triumph at the creditors, opposed the application, and contended it as his, and under circumstances that led him police court. For that Williams had made his that Ringrose had not done all he could to get (Marshall) to believe it was nothing less than charge of two guineas, and his Hononr would say

possession. He had allowed Gibson to remain in a conspiracy between two or three who were con- whether it was reasonable. The other question have seized on the 8th of August. As to the after

possession until the last moment. He ought to cerned in it to make out the horse to be his pro

was whether Mr. Chesshyre was liable. perty, and not Maule's. He had had a great deal

The plaintiff was sworn, and bore ont this state. acqnired goods, Gibson had not consented to their of trouble in getting ap the case, and had examined ment. He created laughter by stating that the passing to Ringrose. The property in them therefifteen witnesses, several of whom he subpænaed, reason Mr. Cheeshyre would not pay him was

fore remained with Gibson. Numerous cases were and it was only within the last three days that

Mr. because he wonld not swear there was only lin. of quoted during the argument. Gabb, Mr. Morse's attorney, had sent him a note stone on the road when there were 3in. Mr

His Honour said tbe case was one of consaying he disclaimed the horse. He therefore Chessbyre said, “ You come, and whatever you it had lasted a long time its nature fully justified

siderable importance and difficulty, and although asked his Honour to order costs as in an ordinary charge I will pay yon.” case.

that fact. He was of opinion, however, after

Chesshyre, the defendant, was sworn, and was not a case in which his Honour ought to order to for Mr. Ferryman, who was a gentleman of trade and furniture on the premises at the comGabb, on behalf of Mr. Morse, submitted that it stated that he was concerned in the case referred carefully considering the arguments, that Ring

rose was entitled to the whole of the stock in costs, the circumstances being somewhat pecu- fortune. Before the case came on he recommenliar. ded Mr. Ferryman to have a road.maker to

mencement of the bankruptcy, and made an order The Registrar explained to his Honour the cir- examine the roads, and accordingly Mr. Ferry.

accordingly. cumstances under which the action was brought. man himself went to Mark Williams, and they The horse was seized by Mr. Solomon, and Mr. went together to the road. He wrote to Williams

READING COUNTY COURT. Morse paid the amount into court, under protest, and told him that Mr. Ferryman would pay him

Thursday, Oct. 23. in order to recover possession of it, and then what was right, but a charge of two guineas was brought the present action, which he had since absurd. He said he would advise Mr. Ferryman

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

WILSON V. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMto pay what was reasonable, but he (Ches. Marshall said the action was withdrawn last shyre) never promised to pay him personally, Tuesday, after all the work had been done.

Mr. Ferryman was a gentleman of fortune and Carriage of goods-Personal luggage. Gabb then submitted whether his Honour had able to pay his own witnesses, and was quite The plaintiff in this case is a horse dealer living power to order costs. The money, which Mr. willing to pay any reasonable charge.

in Reading, and the action was brought to recover Morse had paid to redeem the horse had been paid into court, and then they had withdrawn the case, tion as to the liability of an attorney to pay a

His Honour, with regard to the general ques. £14, the value of some horso clothing belonging

to the plaintiff which the defendants lost at and had given notice they had withdrawn it. It witness's expenses, said he was not liable unlegg Chester, in course of conveyance from Reading to Was a case in which Mr. Marshall's client ought to he made himself so. He did not like to decide the Holyhead, on the way to Dablin. think himself very fortunate if he got the money case simply on the ground that the plaintiff was Gledhill appeared for the plaintiff. The defen. at all, and if it had gone on, there was some doubt bound to make it out, and had left it in doubt. dants were represented by Mr. Mason, from their what the result would have been.

He thought he ought to take the bolder course, Paddington ottice. His HONOUR.-So Mr. Marshall says.

and say the defence was made out. He did think Gledhill stated that the plaintiff was from timo Gabb, resuming, said at all events the matter that Williams believed he was emploved for Mr. to time going to Ireland to purchase horses, and was arranged, and there was no object in bringing Ferryman; but he could not see why he preferred in the winter time he took with him

sets of horse it into court. There were, he submitted, no rules Mr. Chesshyre's credit to the principal's in the clothing, which he put upon the horses he, pur. to enable his Honour to order costs as in an matter.

chased. He had taken them as passengers' lug. ordinary action. The plaintiff had the power of Judgment for the defendant, with costs. gage. On 30th Sept. 1872 plaintiff took a third

PAVY.

[ocr errors]

class ticket to Dublin, seeing the horse clothing daughter Anno until after the death of Anne, the R. Wilson, a draper in Warrington, filed a petition put into the van at Reading and at Chester, widow of the testator. This interest, intended in this court, with a view to a liquidation of his where, in the removal from one train to another, for the benefit of the daughter, is not to take affairs by arrangement or composition. His the clothing was lost. Plaintiff looked for it in effect until the death of the mother. The interest creditors resolved to nroceed by liquidation ; the the Holyhead train and missed it. The nature of is not that of a fixed sum as a principal sum of usual steps were taken, and Lewis Voisey was passengers' laggage was decided in the case of money, the payment of which was delayed, but of appointed trustee 20th Aug. 1873, bat on proceed. McCrow v. The Great Western Railway Company. rents divisiblo at an uncertain time from the ing to realise the property of the debtor he found The facts were not disputed. No objection was farms, and these rents were not of a certain one John Edwin Jones had already taken possesraised to the quantity, and the defendants had amount. The rents were to be paid as they might sion of the household furniture and stock-in-trade notice that it was horse clothing.

accrue during the two years after the death of the by virtue of a bill of sale purporting to have been Mr. Mason contended that by 5 & 6 Will. 4, mother. The claim of the plaintiff seems to be given to him by the debtor on the 19th April to Great Western Railway Act, a passenger could founded on the authority of the case of Wright secure the sum of £355 and interest, and that he only take with him 40lb. weight of articles of v. Wilkin (31 L. J. Q. B.; 6 L. T. Rep. 221), had sold or caused to be sold nearly the whole of personal clothing, and the company were not where there was a bequest of numerous legacies the household and trade effects of the debtor. answerable for merchandise or anything else. He to various persons of certain definite sums of Whereupon a summons was taken out calling argued that this horse-clothing was merchandise. money, giving an immediate interest to the upon the said John Edwin Jones to show cause

His HONOUR: I don't think it is creditable for legatees in such specified sums of money, and the why the said bill of sale should not be declared the company to take such a course. It is right testator devised to the defendant in the action cer- void and ordered to be given up and cancelled, that it should be generally known that nothing is tain real and copyhold estates, and the residue of and why the said John Edwin Jones should not be safe on the Great Western Railway except articles her personal estate on the express condition that called upon to account to the trustee for all the of personal clothing. If a gentleman, say a bar- within twelve months he should discharge and property of the debtor which had come to the hands rister, takes books, or another gentleman a gun, made chargeable her real and personal estate, said bill of sale or otherwise ne The sociedader.

pay the legacies, and the testatrix charged and of the said J. E. Jones or his agents under the the . Gledhill : I take it that this Act must have been with the payment of the legacies. The court for hearing before me on the 23rd Oct., Mr. repealed; a first-class passenger is now allowed held that the devise was not a condition working Smyley, of Manchester, representing the trustee, 1121b., a second-class passenger 701b., and a a forfeiture on its non-performance, but a trust. and Mr. Kirby, of Liverpool, the claimant under third-class passenger 561b.

But these facts materially differ from the case the bill of sale. When the bill of sale was proHis HONOUR.-I will adjourn the case, if

before me. you

Here no interest was intended to duced, it purported to have been given for an like, to look into the law.

pass until the determination of the life estate existing debt of £350 and a further advance of Gledhill.-Will your Honour go into the facts There is no bequest of a sum certain, the payment £5 only, and to assign everything in the shop and of the case ? It has been adjourned two courts of which was delayed. The legatee died during dwelling-house (except a trifling amount of book from no fault of plaintiff's, and the facts are not the existence of the life estate of the testator's debts, books of account, and wearing apparel), disputed ; so as to avoid the necessity of his wife, and it appears to me that under the autho- unless the sum of £355 and interest should be coming here again.

rity of the case of Pavlett v. Pavlett and others, paid instantly on demand in writing. Mr. Kirby The plaintiff was then examined by Gledhill. in dealing with real estate there has existed no admitted that such a bill of sale would no doubt He said : I took a ticket on 30th Sept, 1872, to interest transmissible to the executors of Ann amount to an act of bankruptcy under ordinary go to Dublin, with four bets of horse-clothing, Morgan, the daughter of the testator.

circumstances, but in this case he contended it rolled up in the ordinary way, I gave them to the

The plaint was thereforo dismissed. could not be so considered, inasmuch as the bil} porter, and saw them labelled to North Wall, Dub.

of sale was in effect taken in exchange for a lin. I had been in the habit of travelling by de

security of greater value, viz., & promissory note, fendants' line to Dublin for two or three years. I

BANKRUPTCY LAW.

signed both by Wilson and his mother, who is always take horse-clothing in the winter time. I

quite able to pay, and which Jones gave up when have not been refused to be allowed to take COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY. the bill of sale was given ; and even then Mr. them as luggage, nor has the weight been

Friday, Nov. 7.

Kirby expressed Jones's readiness to surrender all complained of. I saw the luggage in the van

advantages under the bill of sale provided he at Reading. I asked the porter to remove the

(Before the LORD CHANCELLOR (Selborne) and could get back the promissory note he had given clothing at Chester into the Irish train. I found

MELLISH, L. J.)

up when the bill of sale was executed. The it was not removed into the Irish train, and

Ex parte COTE; Re DEVEZE.

answer to that is that in point of fact the goods “ blew" the porter up, and told the station master, Bankruptcy-Remittance on general account – have been sacrificed by a forced sale, and in point and he said he would telegragh for them, and I

Stoppage in transitu.

of law that this is not a question between Jones asked him to send them to Dyson's repository, THIS was an appeal from a decision of Mr. Regis. and Wilson, but between Jones and the creditors Dublin. I went to Balinasloe fair, which lasted à trar Murray, sitting as Chief Judge in Bankruptcy. of Wilson, who may have given him credit on the week. The horse clothing was not forwarded to the debtor, Deveze, carried on business as a strength of the very stock in trade and furniture Dublin. When I got back to Chester the station general merchant at London and at Lyons, his comprised in the bill of sale. Jones may not master said it was forwarded to Dublin. Then house at the latter place being managed by his have intended to take an unfair advantage of they asked me where they should send it to, and I father. The appellant Cote carried on business anyone, but the object of the bill of sale gave them my address. I have not seen it to this as a banker at Lyons. Deveze was in the habit of was manifestly to enable him to sweep everything time.

remitting to Cote bills drawn upon persons trading away, to the exclusion of all except himself who His HONOUR refused to allow Mr. Mason to in France and Italy, in exchange for which Cote might have given credit to Wilson; and if a man cross-examine the plaintiff, stating that the com. used to remit him bills drawn upon persons chooses to hold out another to the world as a man pany ought to be represented by a professional carrying on business in England. On the 11th of substance when in reality he is only a man of man.

Jan. 1873, Deveze wrote to Cote enclosing a bill straw, he must take the consequences. A conNo evidence was offered to dispute the facts, of that date, payable at three months, drawn veyance of a man's whole property to secure a and His Honour gave judgment for the plain. upon Messrs. Montagu, of Milan, for 26,732 lire past debt is fraudulent within the 2nd sub-section tiff for the full amount with costs, subject to 80 cents., and another bill on a French merchant of the 6th section of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, the question of law.

On the 14th Jan. Cote posted at Lyons a letter to and voidable as an act of bankruptcy, no matter

Deveze, enclosing certain bills on firms in London. what the consideration may have been : (Re Wood, SWANSEA COUNTY COURT.

At half.past five in the evening of the same day, L. Rep. 7 Ch. App. 302.) Mr. Kirby then contended

Cote received a letter from Deveze, the father, that as Jones had taken possession on the 21st Monday, Nov. 3.

stating that he had received a telegram from the July, and the debtor did not petition until the (Before T. FALCONER, Esq., Judge.)

London house as follows: "Montagu refuses to 25th, and no trustee was appointed until nearly & LEWIS AND WIFE v. WILLIAMS.

accept bills. Tell Cote to hold bills of Montagu, month after, Jones could not be ousted, inasmuch

and remit nothing." By the regulations of the Construction of will-Vesting of legacy:

as this is a proceeding in liquidation under sect. French post office, the sender of a letter can 125, and not a proceeding in bankruptcy under Arthur Williams, of the South Wales Circuit, reclaim it at any time before the departure of the sect. 6. The 4th sub-section of sect. 125 saye; instructed by Brown and Collins, appeared for the mail

. Cote accordingly on receiving Deveze's “ The liquidation by arrangement shall be deemed plaintiffs.

letter, sent a clerk to reclaim the letter enclosing to have commenced as from the date of the apHowell, Llanelly, for the defendant. His HONOUR gave the following judgment: In some mistake he had not complied with the rethe bills to Deveze of London, and as through pointment of the trustee," and there is no pro

vision as in bankruptcy that the title of the trustee this case I forced on the hearing at the last court, quirements of the post office, the letter was sent shall relate back to any act of bankruptcy. Citing and the result illustrates how easily the facts of a on and reached Deveze on the 16th Jan. On the Jones v. Harber (6 Q. B. 77), Lomax v. Buxtor case can be ascertained without the formality of 17th Jan. Deveze filed a liquidation petition, and (L. Rep. 6 C. P. 107), Ex parte Todhunter (L. Rep. pleadings. One David Williams, who died in 1855, the trustee subsequently obtained possession of 10 Eq. 425); but in the case of Ex parte Duignan, in his will dated the 24th May 1863, devised and the bills contained in the letter. The registrar re Bissell, decided by the judge of the County bequeathed to his wife Anne, à certain farm called having refused to order them to be returned to Court of Warwickshire, upheld by Bacon, C.J. Ffolsyrefel, and an annuity of £6 for the term of Cote, he appealed.

(L. Rep. 11 Eq. 604), and affirmed by Lord her natural life should she continue unmarried, De Gex Q.C. and Winslow for the appellant. Hatherley and the Lords Justices (L, Rep. 6 and he devised the same farm to the defendant, Davey and Finlay Knight, for the trustee. Ch. App. 605), it was held that the title of his grandson William Williams, and his heirs Their LORDSHIPS held that the appellant was after his wife's decease, on condition that the entitled to have the bills returned to him, inasmuch back in the same

the trustee appointed in liquidation relates

as the title of a first two years' rent should be paid to the tes. as he with the assent of the debtor intended and trustee under a bankruptcy, Mellish, L.J., in tator's daughter, Anne Morgan, widow, and sub- attempted to reclaim the letter containing the that case observed, “No doubt the words of ject to a sum of £14, to be paid annually to his bills, and it would be wrong to hold

that a mistake sub-sect. 4 do create some difficulty, but they son William, during his life, which was to com. menca two years after the defendant had posses. effect of making the property in the bills pass clearly makes the property vest in the trustee as in

as to the mode of reclaiming the letter had the cannot control the other part of the Act, which sion of the said farm. Anne, the wife of the contrary to the intention of both parties to the bankruptcy,” and James, L.J., said, “ There was testator, died in 1870, but Anne Morgan, the transaction, Appeal accordingly allowed. no bankruptcy here, but it seems to me clear that widow and the daughter of the testator, died two

the liquidation by arrangement is only different years before her mother-namely, in 1868. It is

in the machinery by which the same object is to alleged by the plaintiffs, who are the personal

WARRINGTON COUNTY COURT. be obtained ; and the creditors are not to be in & representatives of Anne Morgan, the daughter, that during two years next after the decease of

Tuesday, Nov. 11.

worse position because they prefer dealing with Anne Morgan, the testator's widow, the said farm

(Before J. W. HARDEN, Esq., Judge.)

the property themselves, instead of dealing with

it under the Court of Bankruptoy. The inten. was let for £50 a year, and it is prayed that it may

VOISEY V. JONES.

tion of the Act is that the same property shall be declared that the defendant is a trustee of this Liquidation-Bill of sale-Consideration-Money be given to the creditors in each case.

I, there. amount of the rents for the two years next after

advance and promissory note.

fore declare the bill of sale to be void as an act the decease of Anne Morgan, the daughter of the In reference to this case, which was heard at the of bankruptcy, and order that all moneys retestator, for the plaintiff, Sarah Anne Williams. last court day, his HONOUR now gave his decision ceived by the said E. J. Jones, or his agents by There is no interest given by the will to the in the following terms: On the 25th July 1873 Mr. 'virtue of the said bill of sale, be accounted for

manner

« EelmineJätka »