SCANTLEBURY, APPELLANT v. THE MAYOR OF APPEAL PPEAL case stated by the Police Magistrate in Petty Sessions at Tarnagulla, on the hearing of a plaint for rates. The rate sued for had been struck on the 26th October, 1866; a previous rate had been struck on the 16th November, 1865; and the two rates together amounted to more than 28. in the pound of the net annual value of the property. But only one rate was struck in each of the calendar years 1865 and 1866; and each of those rates separately was under 2s. in the pound of the net annual value. It was contended for the Defendant that if two rates were struck within twelve calendar months of each other, and the two together exceeded 28. in the pound, they were bad under the "Municipal Corporations Act 1863" (e). The magistrate overruled the objection, and decided for the complainants, but stated this case. Wood for the Appellant. Fellows for the Respondents. The COURT held that the " one year" of the Act, No. 184, sec. 183, reckons from the 1st January to the 31st December in each calendar year, and that the magistrate was right. (e) No. 184, sec. 183. Appeal dismissed. 1866. July 6. A company's call is made when the resolution is passed for it, not when the call is payable. Therefore where a company's rules provided that "no call or calls shall ex ceed the sum of one pound per share, and there shall be an interval of one month between the making of any calls;" and two calls had been made at but with an interval of a month between the HODGSON, APPELLANT, v. THE FERMOY APPEAL REGISTERED, RESPONDENTS. PPEAL case signed under the "Justices of the Peace Statute 1865" (f), by the Police Magistrate in Petty Sessions at Melbourne. The Fermoy Company sued Hodgson before the magistrate for calls, due from him as a shareholder. The particulars of demand were as follows:: At the hearing the minute-book of the directors was one meeting, produced, and in it "entry appeared of the making of the "calls sued for more than one call having been made at one 'meeting, but with an interval of one month between the "time such calls were payable." It was objected, among other objections, "that the last call sought to be recovered was illegally made, inasmuch as it and the previous call were made at one meeting, though they were to be paid "at the interval of one month between each payment." time for payment of the calls: Held, that there had been a contravention of the rules. The registered rule of the company as to "calls" was as follows: : "37. That any meeting of the directors, at which a quorum shall be present, shall have power to make such call or calls upon the share (f) No. 267, sec. 150. "holders in respect of all moneys unpaid on their shares as they shall "from time to time think proper. Provided always that no call or "calls shall exceed the sum of one pound per share, and there shall "be an interval of one month between the making of any calls, and the aggregate amount of the calls hereafter to be made on any share "shall not under any circumstances amount to more than ten pounds 66 per share." The magistrate held "that the matter hereinbefore "stated afforded no ground of answer or defence to the "said complaint," overruling all the objections, without saying how he found the facts or how he interpreted the law. He made an order against the Defendant for payment of "the sum of £64 Os. 6d." The Defendant appealed, and the magistrate stated this case, asking "whether the said determination was erroneous in point "of law." Wood for the Appellant. Fellows for the Respondent. The authorities cited were-Ambergate Company v. Mitchell (g), Regina v. Londonderry and Coleraine Railway Company (h), Newry and Enniskillen Company v. Edmonds (), London and North-Western Railway Company v. Michael (k), and In re Haford Lead Mining Company Limited (1). The COURT held that calls are made when the resolution is passed, not when the calls are payable; and, therefore, that the two calls mentioned in the particulars of demand as due on the 14th April and 14th May, had been made in contravention of the 37th clause of the company's rules. But as it was doubtful whether two calls made at the same time, although made by two separate and inde (g) 6 Ry. Cas., 238. (h) 13 Q.B., 998. 2 Ex., 118. (k) 6 Ry. Cas., 497. 1866. HODGSON v. pendent resolutions, could be severed, and as the Court could not see which sum had been duly called and which not; or tell on what basis of fact or law the magistrate GOLD-MINING had determined, it was resolved to remit the case with the COMPANY. statement of the Court's opinion. No costs were given. THE FERMOY Case remitted accordingly. END OF TRINITY TERM. THE REGINA v. J. G. BEANEY [SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL SITTINGS (m).] HE Prisoner had been committed by the Coroner of Melbourne for trial for the wilful murder of Mary Lewis, and liberated on bail by order of a Judge. Dawson (with him Aspinall and Wrixon) applied, without affidavit, to the Court for an order that the body of Mary Lewis might be exhumed for the purpose of further investigation. He had no direct authority, but relied on the Anatomical Act" (n), and Bac. Ab., Coroners G. The , Crown had been applied to, but had taken the view that the exhumation without authority would be a misdemeanor, and that the consent of the Crown would not make it less [Williams, J.-Ought you not to move to quash the coroner's inquisition?] I wish to put it on the same footing as if I were asking the Court to exercise its discretion in ordering a witness to produce a document. 80. HIS HONOR felt grave doubts; would consider the application, and it might be mentioned again next day. 1866. April 16, 17. On the appli- · cation of coun sel for J.G.B., committed to take his trial for the murder of M. L., a Judge of the Supreme Court made an order permitting exhu mation of the body of M. L. from its grave in the Mel bourne cemetery, for the purpose of anatomical investigation by appointed by surgeons the Crown and the prisoner. WILLIAMS, J.-I will grant the application for the exhumation of the body of Mary Lewis. The power to make the order rests only in the Supreme Court; and for the ends of justice, I will order that the body may be exhumed on twenty-four hours' notice to the Crown. The order to be directed to an inspector of police. (m) Coram Williams, J. The reporters are indebted to H. F. Gurner, Esq., Crown Solicitor, for a note of this application. W. W. & A'B. VOL. III.-LAW. (n) 2 & 3 Gul. IV., c. lxxv., sec. 13; adopted by No. 156; repealed and re-enacted by the "Medical Practitioners Statute 1865" (No. 262). G April 17. |