« EelmineJätka »
Attorneys to be Admitted.
To whom Articled, Assigned, 8c.
. . G. W. Wright, Sunderland Sparrow, William D. Lloyd, 6, Waverley-place, St.
John's-wood; anıl Derby . . . . J. B. Simpson, Derby Steward, Thomas, 15, Evereit-street, Russell-sq. ;' and Ipswich . .
'. C. Steward, Ipswich Stiffe, Francis William Everitt, 8, Clement's-inn; Percy-circus; and Bristol
. . . A. Cox, Bristol Stringer, Charles, West Bromwin Stringer, Charles, West Bromwich . . . G. Hinchliffe, West Bromwich ; G. F. Hinchliffe,
ditto Talbot, William Henry, 40, Stanhope-st., Hamp
stead-road ; and Terterden . . . . . J. Munn, Tenterden Thomas, Richard Aubrey, 14, Featherstone-bldgs.;
Surrey-street; Hall-street ; Greenhall . George Thomas, jun., Carmarthen Thurgood, Henry Jobn, Battle, Sussex. . . M. Lane, Braintree, Essex ; Robert Young, Battle Tindell, William Frederick, 7, Rockingham-row, East; and New Kent-road .
M. Cooper, High-street: G. Ade, ditto Walter, Charles, Kingston-upon-Thames . . J. Johnston, Chancery-lane ; W. Walter, sen,
Kingston Walter, James, Kingston-upon-Thames.
W. Walter, Kingston; and H. Chester, Newington
Hatton-garden; G. W. Whitaker, Heathcote-st;
gate-street; Brunswick-st.; and Dover-road . Peter W. Fry, Cheapside Wilkinson, Edward, 15, Margarel-st., Cavendisho
square; and Horbling . . . . . G. Wiles, Horbling Wilkinson, George, jun., 15, Everett-st., Russell
square ; and North Walsbam . . . G. Wilkinson, sen., North Walsham Williams, Ebenezer Robins, 40, Upper Cumming
street, Pentonville ; Claremont.square ; and R. Gillam, sen. Worcester ; 1.0.Jones, Liverpool; Edgbaston
. and R. Gillam, jun., Birmingham Withers, Jas. Tuck, Sherborne, Dorset; and Bristol H. W. Ravenscroft, Gray's-inn-square; and w,
Craven, Guildball-cbambers. Wright, Egerton Leigh, 37, Woburn-89. ; and Wi- R. Bloxham, New Boswell-court; R. Darlington, gan
Wigan; and T. T. Taylor, Wigan Wrigley, Barton, 5, Grove-terrace, Grove-road;
Bernard-street; and Liverpool . . . . J. Eden, Liverpool Wyatt, William, 12, Cavendisb-rd., Wandsworth.
road; and 21, Stratford-place, Camden-towa . N. Mason, 23, Red-lion-square
Added to the List pursuant to Judge's Orders.
: . J. J. Millard, Cordwainers'-hall, London
at the Rolls. APPLICATION TO BE RE-ADMITTED.
Easter Term, 1853.
Last day of Easter Term, 1853.
shire . . . . . . . . John Moss, Derby
Business of the Courts.-Notes of the Week.-Superior Courts : Court of Appeal. 231 BUSINESS OF THE COURTS OF had been engaged in it, that he believed it had CAANCERY.
been settled. The Lord Chief Baron said, that VICE-CHANCELLOR woon.
notice had not been given to the Judges' Notice was given on the 14th instant, that
clerks that the parties had come to an arrangewhen the parties desire any cause or claim set
of ment, so as to save their Lordships the trouble down for hearing may stand over, application of reading through the papers. It would be must be made to the Court for that purpose at but respectful to the Court that such an intithe latest on the day previous to its turn to be ination should be given as soon as possible, put into the paper, otherwise if called on it will be struck out and must be set down again at
and his Lordship trusted that in future cases the bottom of the list.
it would be done.
[It is probable that in the case in question NOTES OF THE WEEK. the arrangement had not been concluded in
time to give the Judges' clerks information so NOTICE TO THE JUDGES WHERE CASES IN
as to prevent the inconvenience to the Judges THE SPECIAL PAPER ARE SETTLED.
of uselessly perusing the papers.-Ed.] UPON a case being called on in the Court of Exchequer, it was stated by Mr. Hoggins, who
RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS
AND SHORT NOTES OF CASES.
Court of Appeal.
ministration suit, whereby he had declared
certain legacies were payable to such only of Anon. Jan. 15, 1853.
the testator's children as were in esse at the NOTICE OF REPLICATION.-SERVICE OF. time of his death, and that a posthumous child WHERE DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS UNKNOWN. was not therefore entitled. Held, that notice of replication, where an ap Shebbeare, in support, referred to Order 1,
pearance has been entered by a plaintiff for which directs, that "no appeal from any decree, a defendant whose residence is not known, order, or dismission, or any re-hearing of the should be served at the last known place of case on which such decree, order, or dismisabode of such defendant and be advertised / sion is founded, shall be allowed, unless the in the London Gazette and in the two same is set down for hearing, and the requisite local papers.
notice thereof duly served, within five years In this case an appearance had been entered
d from the date of any such decree, order, or by a plaintiff under the 29th Order of May,
dismission respectively,” and to the 6th Order, 1845, for a defendant whose residence was un
which provides, that “the Lord Chancellor,
either sitting alone, or with the Lords Justices, Renshaw applied for the direction of the
or either of them, shall be at liberty, where it Court in reference to the service of notice or
shall appear to him, under the peculiar circumthe replication.
stances of the case, to be just and expedient, to The Court said, that the notice should be enlarge ne per
enlarge the periods hereinbefore appointed for served at the last known place of abode of the a re-hearing, or an appeal, or for an enroldefendant, and be advertised in the London
ment." Gazette and the two local newspapers.
The Court said, that the discretion could not be properly excised without some formal state
ment of the facts by which they could be Storrs v. Benbow. Jan. 18, 1853. . placed fully before the Court, and that the APPEAL AFTER EXPIRATION OF FIVE proper mode was to pro
proper mode was to proceed by petition upon YEARS.--LEAVE.-PRACTICE.'
notice served on the infant. Held, that the order under Order 6 of
of Jan. 11.-Holles v. Kindersley-Case trans
Ion August 7 last, for leave to present an fer
ferred to paper of Vice-Chancellor Wood. appeal from a decree, although more than
- 12.-In re Fussell-Stand over, the five years have elapsed as limited by Order 1, is to be obtained on petition veri- lOrder for appointment of new trustees.
1 - 12. - In re Northampton Charities fying the special grounds for such order,
- 14.-In re Cumming-Time within which and upon service of notice thereof.
traverse of commission to be tried enlarged for This was an application under the 6th six months. Order of August 7 last, for leave to set down – 15.-In re Midland Union Railway Comfor hearing an appeal from a declaratory order pany, exparte Pearson's executors - Appeal from of Sir John Leach, made in 1833, in this ad- Vice-Chancellor Stuart dismissed, with costs.
Superior Courts: Lords Justices.- Rolls.-V. C. Kindersley. Jan. 15.- Rawlins v. Daglish and others- swer had been put in in which they stated Appeal dismissed from Vice-Chancellor Stuart. were no longer such officers.
= 17, 18.-Edlestone v. Collins-Cur. ad. Walford, contrà. vult.
The Vice-Chancellor said, as it did not ap- 18.- In re Dover and Deal Railway pear that these documents would have been in Company, exparte Mowatt and another- Part the exclusive possession of the defendants, heard.
even if they had continued in office, the motion
must be refused with costs. Lords Bustices. Jan. 12.-In re Vale of Neath and South
Brooks v. Levy. Jan. 15, 18, 1853. Wales Brewery Company, exparte Wood — JURISDICTION OF EQUITY IMPROVEMENT Appeal allowed from Vice-Chancellor Stuart. I ACT. — EVIDENCE IN COLONIES.-VERI.
- 12.-In re Dover, Deal, and Cinque Ports / FICATION. Railway Company, exparte Mowatt - Stand Held, that the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 22, is not over.
retrospective in its operation as to the seri. - 12, 13. -- Attorney-General v. Sheffield
fication of certificates, &c., in the colonies. Gas Consumers' Company ; Sheffield United
An order, however, having been made on peGaslight Company v. Same- Part heard.
tition for the payment of money out of Court - 14.- Peacock v. Stockford-Cur. ad. vult.
to the petitioners, who resided in Australia - 14.- In re Tratt, exparte James and and were entitled thereto on attaining 21, another-Part heard.
upon certificates of their birth extracted
from the Jewish synagogue and verified beMaster of the Rolls.
fore two Justices of the colony before the
Act came into effect, the Court intimated Jan. 12.-Barley and others v. Wyche-In such decision would not be disturbed. junction granted.
| This was a petition for payment out of - 13.-In re British and American Steam
Steam Court of a sum of money to the petitioners Navigation Company, exparte Myers-Name who resided in Australia, and to which they removed from list of contributories.
were entitled on attaining the age of 21. This - 14.-Attorney-General v. Hall -- Lease fact was proved by thě certificates of birth set aside.
copied from the Jewish synagogue at Sydney, – 14. — Attorney-General v. Smythies —
and verified by the seal of two Justices of the Order on petition for apportionment of income. colony. A question had been raised, whether
- 15.-In re King's College Hospital Act, these certificates were sufficient, as they were 1851, exparte Jay--Order on petition for pay- verified before the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, came ment of arrears of rent to petitioner.
into operation. - 15.- Mathews v. Nichols-Order for pay
for payal Cairns, in support, referred to s. 22, which ment by defendant of trust money into Courtenacts. that “ali pleas, answers, disclaimers, and for appointment of new trustees.
examinations, affidavits, declarations, affirma- 15.–Ball v. Newman--Decree for specific tions, and attestations of honour in causes or performance of contract with costs.
matters depending in the High Court of Chan. - 17, 18.-York and North Midland Rail
cery" "shall and may be sworn and taken" way Company v. Hudson-Part heard.
“in any colony, island, plantation, or place under the dominion of her Majesty in foreign
parts, before any Judge, Court, notary public, Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.
or person lawfully authorised to administer Penny v. Goode. Jan. 14, 1853. oaths," "and the Judges and other officers
of the said Court of Chancery shall take judiPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.-EXCLUSIVE cial notice of the seal or signature, as the case POSSESSION IN DEFENDANTS.-OFFICERS
may be, of any such Court, Judge, notary OF COMPANY,
public, person, consul, or vice-consul, attached, On motion for the production of documents appended, or subscribed to any such pleas,”
admitted by the answer of the treasurers &c. and trustees of an insurance company to The Vice-Chancellor, on the hearing, said, be in their possession, it did not appear that the statute was retrospective in operation, that they were entitled to the exclusive pos- and that the evidence was sufficient; but now session thereof, and by their further answer stated, that, after conferring with the other they had now ceased to be officers : Held, Judges, it must be considered the Act was not dismissing the motion with costs, that the retrospective, but as leave had been given to
plaintiff was not entitled to production. receive the affidavits, that decision would not T. H. Terrell appeared in support of this
is be disturbed,, but the case must not be drawn motion for the production of documents ad."
dinto a precedent. mitted by the defendants in their first answer to be in their possession. It appeared that at ! Sweeting v. Sweeting. Jan. 18, 1853. that time they were treasurers and trustees of LEGACY DUTY ON SUM APPOINTED UNDER the Westminster Fire Office, but a second an- POWER IN WILL BY WAY OF JOINTURE,
Superior Courts : V. C. Kindersley.- V. C. Stuart.-V. C. Wood. 233 AND IN BAR OF DOWER. - ATTORNEY- under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 39.1 PublicaGENERAL's costs.
tion had passed, and the cause been set down A testator by his will gave to his son a power |
Bazaloette and J. Hinde Palmer for the deto appoint an annuity by way of rent-charge on real estate, in favour of any wife he l'
fendants, contrà. should marry, by way of jointure and in
| The Vice-Chancellor said, the 39th section lieu of dower. The son appointed by deed conferred no authority on the Court to make a sum of 4001., and on his death a suit was
the order asked, and the motion must therefore instituted to administer his estate: Held,
| be refused with costs. that a legacy duty of 10 per cent. was payable, and that the costs of the Attorney-1 Jan. 12.-Somerville v. Jamieson- Leave to General claiming the same must be paid by file special claim. the legatee.
- 12, 13, 14.- Fooks v. London and South MR. SWEETING, by his will, gave to his
Western Railway Company-Cur, ad. vult.
- 15, 17.-Rodgers v. Nowill-Motion reson power to appoint as a rent-charge on his real estate an annuity to the wife such son:
fused, without costs, to commit for breach of should marry, by way of jointure and in satis
injunction. faction of dower. The son appointed to her a
1 – 18.—Colombine v. Penhall ; Penhall v. rent-charge of 4001. by deed, and upon his
Miller-Part heard. death a question was raised whether the gift was subject to legacy duty, under the 45 Geo.
Vice-Chancellor wood. 3, c. 28, s. 4. W. M. James for the Crown, referred to
Forbes v. Forbes. Jan. 11, 15, 1853. Attorney-General v. Lord Henniker, 21 Law J., FURTHER EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. N. S. Exch. 293.
FORM OF ORDER FOR. Follett and Kinglake for the wife, cited At- Motion refused to discharge an order which torney-General v. Pickard, 3 M. & W. 552; 6
had been obtained by the plaintiff to exaM. & W. 348.
mine witnesses in Scotland, on the ground The Vice-Chancellor said, that although that it omitted to restrict the examination there was in effect a condition annexed to the to witnesses who had not been already exagift, that the wife should release her right of mined in the matter. dower, yet it amounted to a gift of a legacy This was a motion to discharge an order within the Act, and as it was for the benefit of which
which had been obtained by the plaintiff in the wife was chargeable with the duty of 10 perth
10 per this suit to examine witnesses in Scotland. cept.,--the costs of the Attorney-General to be
Rolt and Beales in support, on the ground paid by the legatee.
the order should have restricted the examina.
tion to witnesses who had not already been Jan. 12.- Esparte Incumbent of St. John's, examined in reference to the same matters. Holloway, in re Dickenson's Trustees-Report Anderson and A. J. Lewis, contrà. approving of charity scheme confirmed.
The Vice-Chancellor, after inquiring as to - 13.-Murray' v. Bogue-Injunction re- the practice in respect of the form of order in fused.
such cases, said that the order for the further - 15, 17.--In re Banwen Iron Company examination of witnesses was as of course Motion refused, with costs, to review Master's without any restrictive words, and refused the decision as to compromise.
motion accordingly—the costs to be costs in - 17.-In re Kincaid's Estate--Order for the cause. settlement of fund on wife where husband insolvent.
Braine v. Braine. Jan. 13, 1853.
INJUNCTION BILL. — STAMPED WITH ADVice-Chancellor Stuart.
HESIVE STAMPS. May v. Biggenden and another. Jan. 12, 1853, Clerk of Records and Writs directed to reEXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT VIVA VOCE
ceive an injunction bill with eight half-a. AT HEARING. – SUBPEXA. — JURISDIC
crown adhesive stamps affired, where there TIOX.
was insufficient time to take it to the Stamp Held, that the Court has not power under the
I 'Which enacts, that “upon the hearing of 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 39, to make an order for leave to the plaintiff to issue a
"Iany cause depending in the said Court, whether subpena on a defendant to appear on the lit shall see fit so to do, may require the pro
commenced by bill or by claim, the Court, if hearing, for the purpose of being examined duction and oral examination before itself, of orally.
any witness or party in the cause, and may diW. D. Lewis appeared in support of this rect the costs of and attending the production motion, for an order for leave to the plaintiff to and examination of such witness or party, to issue a subpæna ad test, on one of the defend- be paid by such of the parties to the suit or in ants to appear to give evidence on the hearing, such manner as it may think fit."
Superior Courts : V. C. Wood.- Queen's Bench. Office to have the ordinary ll. s'amp im-1 Jan. 13.—Deaville v. Deaville-Decree for pressed.
payment of debt out of testator's assets. Bazaloette applied for the direction of thel - 14.- Blake v. Cox-Bill dismissed, with Court on the Clerk of Records and Writs to costs. affix eight adhesive stamps of the value of half - 15.–Boys v. Bradly-Cur. ad. vult. a-crown each, to a bill for an injunction which
- 17.-Nichols v. Hawkes-Decree for spehad been engrossed on unstamped parchment, cific performance. there not being time to have the ordinary stamp) – 17.-Clancy v. Hill-Decree for plaintiff. affixed at the Stamp Cffice.
- 14, 18.-Bernasconi v. Atkinson - Judge The 6th Order of October 25. directs, that ment on construction of will. the fees specified in the second part of the - 18. — Oppenheim v. Henry - Judgment schedule shall be payable, and the same “ shall on further directions and costs. be collected, not in money, but by means of stamps denoting the amount of such fees, stamped or affixed, at the expense of the parties
Court af Qucen’s Bench. liable to pay the fees, on or to the vellum, Corcoran v. Gurney. Jan. 18, 1853. parchment, or paper on which the proceedings
ne procesaing VESSEL - STRANDING. — QUESTION WITHin respect whereof such fees are payable are
OUT PLEADINGS UNDER COMMON LAW written, printed, or which may be otherwise used
PROCEDURE ACT. in reference to such proceeding." The Vice-Chancellor granted the application.
Upon a case stated under the 15 8. 16 Vict.
c. 76, it appeared that a vessel was driven
by stress of weather to run out of her Duffield v. Sturgis. Jan. 14, 1853.
course and to take refuge in a tidal harbour JURISDICTION OF EQUITY IMPROVEMENT
to save the vessel and crew, and that ske ACT. — FILING REPLICATION. -- WHERE
made for the harbour at low water, and
grounded inside such harbour, and acas MOTION FOR DECRETAL ORDER.
unable to be got out for two months : Held, A motion was refused for a direction on the
that the facts showed a “stranding,” and Clerk of Records and Writs to file a repli
not a mere “taking the ground” in the cation where notice of motion for a decretal
ordinary course of navigation, and that the order had been given under the 15 8. 16
plaintiff was therefore entitled to recover Vict. c. 86, s. 26, and the 28th Order of
on the policy of insurance. August 7.
This was a case stated by consent without This was a motion for a direction on the
ection on the pleading under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 76, from
leading Record and Writs Clerk to file a replication in
which it appeared that the plaintiff's vessel was this case, where notice of motion for a decretal
obliged to go out of her course by stress of order had been given.
weather, and that the captain, in order to save By s. 26 of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, it is the vessel and the lives of the crew while off enacted, that “in suits in the said Court com- | Palay and dragging her anchor in a gale, bad menced by bill, where notice of motion for a run her into a tidal harbour at Sauson, near decree or decretal order shall not have been
Calais, in France, at low water. It appeared given, or, having been given, where a decree that the ordinary tides were insufficient to float or decretal order shall not have been made her in the harbour, and that a delay of two thereon, issue shall be joined by filing a repli- 1 months took place before she could be got out. cation in the form or to the effect of the repli- | The question was, whether this amounted to a cation now in use in the said Court; and stranding” within the meaning of the memowhere a defendant shall not have been re-randum of insurance, or a mere “taking the quired to answer and shall not have answered
ground" in the ordinary course of navigation. the plaintiff's bill, he shall be considered to 1° Bovill, for the plaintiff, contended the facts have traversed the case made by the bill.” And by the 28th Order of August 7 last, that the defendant, contrà.
constituted a stranding; Sir F. Thesiger, for “ where a defendant shall not have been re
ve been re. The Court said, it had been laid down by quired to answer and shall not have answered | Lord Tenterden, that where a vessel was in her the plaintiff's bill, so that under the 15 & 16 ordinary and usual course of navigation, upon Vict. c. 86, s. 26, he is to be considered as the natural ebb of the tide, so that after taking having traversed the case made by the bill, the ground she floated again with the ordinary issue is nevertheless to be joined by filing a ladvance of the tide, it was not a “stranding," replication in the form or to the effect of the
and by Tindal, C. J., that it was a “ strandreplication now in use.
ing,” where the taking the ground arose from Hare in support.
accidental circumstances. It was clear that if The Vice-Chancellor held, that the replica-l the vessel had been run on a bank outside the tion was unnecessary, and refused the motion. harbour she would have been stranded, and
could make no difference that she took the Jan. 12.-Brenan and others v. Preston and ground as soon as she got into the harbour, others—Part heard.
inasmuch as the peril arose from the entry - 12, 13.-Keyse v. Haydon-Decree for at a time when in ordinary cases it would not specific performance of contract.
have been proper such a course should be