100 Local, Personal, and Private Acts.—Barristers Called.—Notes of the Week. Exchanges to be made of the Family Estates, in the Isle of Wight and elsewhere in the county of Southampton, of John Brown Willis Fleming, Esquire, and for other purposes, and of which the Short Title is "Fleming's Estate Act, 1852." 20. An act to enable the Infant Tenants in Tail of the Estates in the county of York subject to the Will of Thomas Thornhill, of Fixby in the said county, Esquire, deceased, to grant building and other leases of parts of the said Estates, and to sell or exchange the same, and for other purposes. 21. An act for appointing and incorporating Trustees for the management of the Boys' and Girls' Hospitals of Aberdeen as one Institution, and for vesting the Estates and Revenues thereof in such Trustees, and for better managing such Estates and Revenues, and for other purposes connected therewith. PRIVATE ACT, NOT PRINTED. 22. An act to dissolve the Marriage of Septimus Moore Hawkins, Esquire, with Harriette Lavinia Hawkins his now wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other purposes. BARRISTERS CALLED. Michaelmas Term, 1852. LINCOLN'S INN. Nov. 17. Richard Darrell Darrell, Esq. Frederick Boyd Marson, Esq. Arthur Benson Dickson, Esq. Joseph Adderley Chichele Helm, Esq. John Rowe Kelley Ralph, Esq. INNER TEMPLE. Nov. 17. John Paxton Norman, Esq., M.A. Charles Joseph Thrupp, Esq., M.A. John Copley Wray, Esq. Francis James Roughton, Esq. George Alfred Lawrence, Esq., B.A. Edward Bousfield Dawson, Esq. Francis Newman Rogers, Esq., B.A. Donat John Hoste O'Brien, Esq., B.A. Henry Francis Shebbeare, Esq., B.A. MIDDLE TEMPLE. George Thornton Hamilton, Esq. Joseph Graham, Esq. William Robert Wilkinson, Esq. GRAY'S INN. Edward Bullen, Esq., M.A. NOTES OF THE WEEK. LAW PROMOTION. THE Queen has been pleased to direct letters patent to be passed under the Great Seal, granting the dignity of a Knight of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, unto Charles Robert Mitchell Jackson, Esq., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Bombay.-From the London Gazette of 3rd Dec. RESULT OF THE EXAMINATION. At the examination of the Candidates for admission on the Roll last Term, 117 had left their testimonials and were entitled to be examined. Of these 108 were passed, two did not attend, and seven were postponed their answers not being deemed sufficient to warrant a certificate of fitness and capacity to act as attorneys and solicitors. It will be observed by the Questions, which we published on the 27th November, that the Examiners carefully avoided any points regarding the Law or Practice recently abolished or altered, or the new enactments and rules and orders now in force. We presume that next Term it may be expected that the alterations Notes of the Week.-Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor.-Lords Justices. which have been effected, or some of them, will be included in the Examination. RECORDERSHIPS. C. S. Whitmore, Esq., the Recorder of Lichfield, has relinquished that appointment and accepted the Recordership of Gloucester; and H. W. Cripps, Esq., of the Oxford Circuit, has been appointed in his place. NEW MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT. William Johnson Fox, Esq., for Oldham, in the room of John Duncuft, Esq., deceased. Jame Henry Porteus Oakes, Esq., for Bury St Edmunds, in the room of John Stuart, Esq., who has accepted the office of ViceChancellor. The Honourable Adolphus Frederick Charles William Vane, commonly called Lord Adolphus Frederick Charles William Vane, for the city of Durham, in the room of Thomas Colpitts Granger, Esq., deceased. 101 The Honourable Montague Bertie, commonly called Lord Norreys, for Abingdon, in the room of Lieutenant-General James Caulfield, deceased. George Hammond Whalley, Esq., for Peterborough, in the room of the Hon. Richard Watson, deceased, [We intend in the present, as we did in the last Session, to give the names of new Members, in order that the attorneys and solicitors may remind them of their undoubted claim for relief against the Certificate Duty.] SOLICITORS ELECTED AS MAYORS. Birmingham.-Mr. Henry Hawkes. [See the former List, p. 52, ante.] RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS, Lord Chancellor. Myers v. Perigal. Dec. 1, 1852. CHARITABLE BEQUEST. -JOINT-STOCK charities, and the case now came on upon that certificate. Elmsley, Faber, and Renshaw, for the respondents; Teed, Q. C., Wetherell, and Craig, for the appellants. Held, (reversing the decision of the late ViceThe Lord Chancellor said, the shares were Chancellor of England, and confirming the held for the purposes of profit and investment certificate of the Court of Common Pleas in trade, and could not be considered as peron issue directed by Lord Chancellor manently or substantially invested in land, and Truro), that shares in a joint-stock bank were similar to shares in a dock company. were not within the Statute of Mortmain, The appeal would therefore be allowed, the although their property consisted of free- costs to come out of the residuary estate. hold and copyhold estates and mortgages for terms of years, inasmuch as such investments were only for the purposes of profit, and were not permanent. Dec. 1.-Kekewich v. Marker-Stand over. 1.-Stump v. Gaby-Order to set down application for second re-hearing. Lords Justices. 1852. AFFIDAVIT OF DEBT. ATTESTATION OF THIS was an appeal from the decision of the late Vice-Chancellor of England (reported 16 Sim. 533). It appeared that the testator had, In re Carne and another, exparte Bird. Dec. 6, by his will dated in June, 1844, bequeathed to trustees in trust for certain charities, his residuary personal estate, which on reference to the Master was found to consist inter alia of 600 shares in the Durham and Northumberland District Bank, whose property consisted, amongst other things, of freehold and copyhold hereditaments, and money due on mortgage of freehold, copyhold, and leasehold hereditaments, but by the company's deed of settlement it was declared, that the shares should be considered as personalty. The Vice-Chancellor having held that the shares were chattels real and within the Statute of Mortmain, this appeal was presented. On the hearing before Lord Chancellor Truro, on 15th November, 1851, an issue had been directed to the Court of Common Pleas, who certified, on May 6 last, in favour of the Held, confirming the decision of Mr. Commissioner Stevenson, that an affidavit of debt was sufficient under s. 243 of the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, which was sworn before a justice of the peace of New York, and was attested by a notary of that town, showing that the person administering the oath was a magistrate and duly qualified to administer the same, and that it was unnecessary that the notary should be present when the oath was taken. In this appeal from the decision of Mr. Commissioner Stevenson, admitting a claim against the estate, a question arose, whether the affidavit in support of the debt was suffi 102 Superior Courts: Lords Justices.-Rolls.-V. C. Turner. cient under the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 243,' and which was sworn before Mr. O'Connor, a justice of the peace of New York, and was attested by a notary of New York, showing that the justice before whom the oath was taken was a magistrate of the city, and duly qualified to take oaths. nees of Mr. Brickdale, for payment of the dividends on certain shares held by him, in the Camerton Colliery Company. It appeared that the shares were for a time unproductive, the first dividend being declared in 1831, and that Mr. Brickdale became bankrupt in 1819, but the plaintiffs had not applied for payment of the dividends. The defendants had, in 1831, entered in their books a sum of 507., as carried Bacon and Eddis, for the assignees, contended the notary's attestation should have stated he was present when the oath was ad-over to the account of the proprietor of the ministered. Hugh Hill and Eddis for other parties. The Lords Justices held, that the evidence was sufficient, and dismissed the appeal accordingly. Dec. 2.-In re Hewitson-Stand over. 2.- In re Lord Dinorben-Order for payment out of Court of moneys paid in by committee on production of letters of administration to lunatic. 3.- Foley v. Smith Direction as to hearing of exceptions to Master's report and further directions. - 1, 4. — Brenan v. Preston - Injunction granted, with leave to apply. 2, 3, 4.- Corporation of Liverpool v. Chorley Waterworks' Company—Cur. ad. vult. 4.-Lee v. Busk-Appeal from the Master of the Rolls dismissed, with costs. - 7.-Exparte Evans, in re Wass-Appeal allowed from Mr. Commissioner Evans, BANKRUPT SHAREHOLDER IN COLLIERY COMPANY. share late Brickdale's, and also in 1838 a similar sum, and in 1849, a resolution that the dividends in respect thereof should be carried to a separate account, and be dealt with as the proprietors should afterwards determine. R. Palmer and Kinglake for the plaintiffs; Roupell and Baggallay for the defendants, contrà, on the ground that the claim was barred by the Statute of Limitations. The Master of the Rolls said, that as the defendants had treated the share as an existing one by the entries in their books in 1831, 1838, and 1849, they could not maintain their defence, and an order was therefore made for payment of the dividends, but not of the profits thereon. - 2.-Beale v. Symonds-Cur. ad. vult. Injunction Metcalfe v. Breese 3. granted. 3.-Clark v. May-Decree for specific performance of agreement, without costs. 3, 4.-Morris v. Gaultier and anotherInjunction granted and receiver appointed. 6.-Maclaren v. Stainton and othersMotion refused to dissolve injunction. FOR 7.-M'Donnell v. Hesilrige-Judgment It appeared that the assignees of a shareholder in a colliery company had not applied, after his bankruptcy in 1819, for the dividends declared in 1831 and subsequently, but the company had made entries in their books, whereby they acknowledged the shares to be existing shares: Held, that they could not maintain their defence of the Statute of Limitations to a claim on behalf of the assignees for payment of the dividends, and an order was therefore made for their payment, but without the profits thereon. THIS claim was filed on behalf of the assig Held, that the affidavit of title in support of In this petition for the payment of the dividends of the purchase-money for lands taken by the above railway company under the 18 Vict. c. 18, on behalf of the tenant for life, the affidavit as to her title was sworn by the solicitor. Superior Courts: V. C. Turner.-V. C. Kindersley.-V. C. Stuart.—Queen's Bench. 103 Vice-Chancellor Kindersley. Dec. 1.-In re Galway and Ennis Junction Railway Company-Appeal allowed from Master's order for call. 2.-In re Dover and Deal Railway Company, exparte Mowatt-Motion refused to discharge order for call. 3.-In re Creed's Trust Compromise agreed to. Vice-Chancellor Stuart. Shipton v. Rawlins. Dec. 7, 1852. MARRIED WOMAN. BREACH OF TRUST. LIABILITY OF SEPARATE ESTATE. Held, that the separate estate of a married woman was liable for her breach of trust as trustee and executrix, in allowing certain premises held under church leases, to fall out of repair, and for omitting to renew, in accordance with the trusts of the will, and that her husband was liable in respect of so much as occurred during coverture, and that the co-trustees were likewise personally liable. of THIS suit was instituted for the purpose charging the separate estate of Mrs. Sentence, the wife of a defendant, for her breach of trust as trustee and executrix, under a will, and also to render her husband and co-trustees personally liable for the same. It appeared the breach complained of was, their having allowed certain premises held under church leases to fall out of repair, and also omitted to renew, in compli In re Atkinson's Trust. Nov. 19, 1852. LEGATEE.—EVIDENCE OF DEATH.-ADMI-ance with the trusts of the will whereby they NISTRATION TO ESTATE. A reference had been directed to the Master as to the time of the death of a legatee under the will of a testator who died in May, 1830, and he reported his death in 1830, but that there was no evidence whether it took place before or after the testator's death: Held, under these circumstances, that administration to his estate must be taken out. It appeared upon the reference to the Master in this case as to the time of death of Thomas Atkinson, a legatee under the will of the testator, who died in May, 1830, that there was evidence of his having taken a passage for Montreal in 1830 on board a ship, which had foundered and all the passengers had been lost. But the Master reported that it was uncertain whether this took place or not before May in that year. A question had arisen, whether it was necessary to take out administration to his estate. acted. The property now sought to be charged had been appointed, under a power, among the defendants. Follett and Hare for the plaintiffs; Wigram, Malins, Lewin, Lonsdale, and Batten, for the defendants. The Vice-Chancellor said, that her separate estate was liable, and the husband in respect of so much of the breach which took place during her coverture, and also the co-trustees. law. 6.-Slater v. Oldknow-Issue directed at 6.-Exparte Incumbent, &c. of Bromp C. P. Cooper and Tripp now applied for pay-ton, in re Kensington Charities-Stand over. ment of the money. The Vice-Chancellor said, that as there were no materials on which to decide whether the legatee died before or after the month of May, letters of administration must be taken out to his estate. Court of Queen's Bench. Regina v. Ashton. Nov. 25, 1852. LICENSING ACT.-CONVICTION OF PUBLI CAN FOR PERMITTING UNLAWFUL GAME IN HIS HOUSE. 104 Superior Courts: Queen's Bench - Common Pleas Rule absolute for a certiorari to remove a conviction by magistrates of a publican for knowingly suffering a certain unlawful game, to wit, the game of dominoes, to be played in his house, contrary to the 9 Geo. 4, c. 61, and the tenor of his licence. Whateley showed cause against this rule, which had been obtained for a certiorari to remove a conviction before the magistrates of West Bromwich of Richard Ashton, a publican, for knowingly suffering a certain unlawful game, to wit, the game of dominoes, to be played in his house, contrary to the statute (9 G. 4, c. 61), and the tenor of his licence, and whereby he had forfeited the sum of 51. The Court (without calling on Archbold in support of the rule), said, that as there was no authority cited to show the game of dominoes was an unlawful game, the conviction was insufficient, and the rule must be made absolute. Exchequer.-Exchequer Chamber. Chew v. Holroyd. Nov. 25, 1852. COUNTY COURTS' ACT, TION. PORTION OF -TITLE IN QUES- In an action by the plaintiff, who was the owner of a cottage, against the defendant for breaking and entering two apartments and removing his furniture therefrom, it appeared a question was raised, as to whether the plaintiff had let the whole or only a part of the cottage to the defendant : Held, that as the plaintiff's title to a portion of the house for the time being came in question, the County Court had not jurisdiction under the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 58, and a rule was made absolute for a prohibition. THIS was a rule nisi granted on Nov. 4 last, for a prohibition on the Judge of the Cheshire County Court against further proDec. 1.-Morris v. Wilde-Order for new ceeding in this plaint which was brought to trial of County Court plaint on the ground of recover damages for breaking and entering the misdirection. plaintiff's two apartments and removing his 1.-Fearnley v. Great Northern Railway | furniture therefrom. An objection was taken Company-Stand over for re-statement of case. 1. Rook v. Midland Railway Company -Appeal dismissed from County Court. - - 1. Rawling v. Pontifex - Decision of County Court affirmed. TAXES, Held, affirming the decision of the revising barrister, that the appellant was not entitled to be registered as a voter, in respect of property for which he had not paid the house tax (payable before Jan. 5) until July 30, although there had been no demand thereof by the collector. Kinglake, S. L., and Keane, appeared in support of this appeal, from the decision of Mr. Macqueen, the revising barrister, for rejecting the claim of the appellant, in respect of property in the parish of St. Clement's Danes, upon the the ground that he had not paid the house tax, which was payable before Jan. 5, until July 30. It appeared it had not been demanded by the collector. They referred to 2 Wm. 4, c. 45, s. 27; 43 Geo. 3, c. 99, ss. 1, 3, 12; 43 Geo. 3, c. 161, s. 23; 48 Geo. 3, c. 141, 8, 1, rule 3, class 3. Wordsworth, for the respondent, was not called on. The Court said, that the Reform Act required the taxes, which were due, to be paid without demand, in order to entitle a householder to his franchise, although they could not be enforced without such demand, and the decision was accordingly affirmed, with costs. to the jurisdiction of the Court under the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 58, on the ground that the title of the plaintiff, who was the owner of the cottage, to the apartments came in question, and that he had let the whole to the defendant. Hugh Hill and Wheeler showed cause against the rule; Cowling and Cole, in support, were not called on. The Court said, that as the plaintiff's title for the time being to a portion of the cottage came in question, the County Court had not jurisdiction, and the rule was accordingly made absolute. Court of Exchequer Chamber. BUR Held, affirming the decision of the Court of Exchequer, that a churchwarden was liable for penalties under s. 48 of the 5 & 6 Wm. 4, c. 76, for neglecting to sign the burgessroll under s. 15, which was delivered to the town clerk. THIS was an action to recover penalties under the 5 & 6 Wm. 4, c. 76, s. 48, against the churchwarden of the borough of Harwich for not having signed the burgess-roll which was delivered to the town clerk in accordance with the provisions of s. 15. The Court of Exchequer having decided in favour of the plaintiff, the churchwarden brought this writ of error against their decision. Shee, S. L., in support; Lush, contrà. Dec, 2.-Rivington v. Cannon—Cúr. ad, vult. |