LEASE.

See LANDLORD AND TENANT, 31, 34 note.

LEGACY.

See WILLS, 643, 644 note.

LETTERS.

See AGREEMENTS, 341, 347 note.

title to the mortgaged land for the
first time in the mortgagee; so that an
action, brought within twenty years
next after the order of foreclosure, by
the mortgagee to recover possession of
such land, was held, since the Judica-
ture Act, 1873, to be not barred by
the Statutes of Limitations (3 & 4
Wm. 4, c. 27, and 1 Vict. c. 28),
although more than twenty years had
elapsed since the legal estate in the
land had been conveyed to the mort-
gagee, and since the last payment of
principal or interest secured by the
mortgage. Heath v. Pugh.

660

MASTER AND SERVANT.

1. A weaver, a woman subject to the pro-
visions of the Factory Acts, was em-
ployed at a mill in which amongst the
rules were rule 15, that no person shall
leave his or her work without giving
fourteen days' previous notice, such no-
tice to be given on a Saturday, and
rule 16, that any person leaving with-
cut giving such notice "shall forfeit
all wages then due, or earned, or un-
paid.' She was paid by the piece, and
all work done was booked up at three
o'clock on the Wednesday afternoon in
cach week, and paid for on the follow-
ing Saturday, all work booked after
three o'clock on the Wednesday after-
noon being carried forward to the fol-
lowing week. She left the mill before
three o'clock on a Wednesday after-
noon without giving the required no-
tice, having previously carried in and
had booked certain work which she
had completed. On the following Sat-
urday she applied for the wages due at
the time she left and when she had
completed her work, but payment was
refused on the ground that the same
were forfeited by rules 15 and 16. No
claim was, however, made for damage
sustained by the employer.

The 11th section of the Employers
and Workmen Act, 1875, enacts that
"in the case of a child, young person,
or woman, subject to the provisions of
the Factory Acts, any forfeiture on the
ground of absence or leaving work
shall not be deducted from or set off
against a claim for wages or other sum
due for work done before such absence
or leaving work, except to the amount
of the damage, if any, which the em-
ployer may have sustained by reason of
such absence or leaving work":

Held, that the above facts did not
show a weekly hiring at weekly wages,
but showed that the price for the work
done and booked when the weaver left
on the Wednesday was then earned and
due, though not then payable, and that
the same would have been forfeited by
rules 15 and 16, but that as there was
no damage and the weaver was a woman
subject to the Factory Acts she was
protected by the said 11th section, and
could not be deprived of what she had
so earned. Warburton v. Heyworth.

487

2. By the Employers and Workmen Act,
1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 90), s. 4, “a dis-

3.

4.

pute under this act between an em-
ployer and a workman may be heard
and determined by a court of summary
jurisdiction, and such court, for the pur-
poses of this act, shall be deemed to be
a court of civil jurisdiction" limited to
£10. By s. 10, "In this act the expres
sion workman,' means any per-

son who, being a laborer, servant
in husbandry, journeyman, artificer,
handicraftsman, miner, or otherwise en-
gaged in manual labor, . . . has en-
tered into or works under a contract
with an employer, whether the contract
a contract of service or a con-
tract personally to execute any work
or labor."

be ...

The expression "court of summary
jurisdiction" means (inter alia) a stipen-
diary magistrate:

Held, that a potter's printer, under a
contract with his employers to do work
in which he was assisted by "trans-
ferrers" whom he himself engaged and
paid, was a " workman" within the act,
and liable in proceedings before a
magistrate to pay damages for a breach
of his contract with his employers,
caused by his transferrers' refusal to do
the work, although he was ready and
willing to do it. Grainger v. Aynsley.

555

1. The plaintiff, by mistake, paid to the
defendants, who were owners of the
tithes of a parish, tithe rent-charge in
respect of lands not in his occupation.
The plaintiff did not discover the mis-
take until the two years limited by 6
& 7 Wm. 4, c. 71, for the recovery of a
tithe rent-charge had expired and the
defendants had lost their remedy for
the arrears against the lands actually
chargeable:

Held, that there was no duty cast on
the plaintiff in relation to the defend-
ants which made his delay in discover-
ing the mistake laches on his part;
and that he was entitled to recover
back the amount paid as money paid
under a mistake of fact. Durrant V.
Ecclesiastical, etc.
588, 590 note.

MORTGAGE.

See CHATTEL MORTGAGE.
LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF, 660.

MOTIVE.

See TRESPASS, 384.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

1. A structure within the metropolis hav-
ing been surveyed by the Board of
Works under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 122,
ss. 69, 73, an order was made by a
magistrate for the owner to take down
or otherwise secure the party walls.
Upon his default the board themselves
executed the works and took out a
summons against the owner for the ex-
penses incurred:

2.

Held, first, that upon the hearing of
such summons the owner could not ob-
ject to his being made liable for ex-
penses actually incurred, by merely
showing that they included items
which were in excess of the market
price of labor and materials at the date
of the execution of the works.
Sec-
ondly, that he could not require that
the other owners of the party walls
should be summoned in order that the
expenses might be distributed among
them. Debenham v. Metropolitan, etc.

514

The chief constable of a borough hav-
ing, by the direction of borough magis-
trates, laid an information against a
person for conspiracy, an action for
malicious prosecution was brought by
such person against him and a verdict
recovered for £200 :

Held, that it was not competent to
the town council to order payment of
the chief constable's costs out of the
borough fund or rate under 5 & 6 Wm.
4, c. 76, s. 82. Queen v. Mayor, etc.
526, 529 note.

See OFFICERS, 407.

3. The defendant was possessed of a trac-
tion engine, which was propelled by
steam power.
Whilst it was being
driven by the defendant's servants
along a highway, some sparks escap-
ing from it set fire to a stack of hay
of the plaintiffs standing on a neighbor-
ing farm. The engine was constructed
in conformity with the Locomotive
Acts, 1861, 1865; at the time of the
accident it was being driven at a
proper pace, and the defendant's ser-
vants were guilty of no negligence in
the management of it:

Held, that the defendant was liable
to compensate the plaintiffs for the in-
jury done to the stack, upon the ground,
that the engine being a dangerous ma-
chine, an action was maintainable at
common law, and the Locomotive Acts
did not restrict the liability of the de-
fendant. Powell v. Fall.

476

4. The plaintiff hired from the defendant,
a job-master, for a specified journey, a
carriage, a pair of horses, and a driver.
During the journey a bolt in the un-
der part of the carriage broke, the
splinter-bar became displaced, the
horses started off, the carriage was up-
set, and the plaintiff injured. In an
action against the defendant for neg-
ligence, the jury were directed that, if
in their opinion the defendant took all
reasonable care to provide a fit and
proper carriage, their verdict ought to

be for him. The jury found a verdict
for the defendant, and in particular that
the carriage was reasonably fit for the
purpose for which it was hired, and that
the defect in the bolt could not have
been discovered by the defendant by
ordinary care and attention:

Held, that the direction was wrong,
for that it was the duty of the defend-
ant to supply a carriage as fit for the
purpose for which it was hired as care
and skill could render it, and the evi-
dence was not such as to show that the
breakage of the bolt was, in the proper
sense of the word, an accident not pre-
ventible by any care or skill, or to
warrant the finding of the jury that
the carriage was reasonably fit for the
purpose for which it was hired. Hy-
man v. Nye.

See ACCIDENT, 530.

769, 775 note.

CRIMINAL LAW, 503, 506 note.
LANDLORD AND TENANT, 480, 487 note.
WATER AND WATERCOURSES, 645.

NEW TRIAL.

See DAMAGES, 177.

NUISANCE.

1. The 116th and 117th sections of the
Public Health Act, 1875, give power
to a medical officer of health or in-
spector of nuisances, to seize meat, &c.,
exposed for sale or deposited in any
place for the purpose of sale, or of pre-
paration for sale, and intended for the
food of man, which may appear to him
to be diseased or unsound, and carry
it before a justice, who, if it appears to
him to be diseased or unsound, is to
condemn the same and order it to be
destroyed. The person to whom such
meat, &c., belongs, is also rendered by
section 117 liable to a penalty:

Held, that meat might be taken be-
fore a justice under the above sections,
and condemned without any summons
or notice to the person to whom it
belonged, and that such person hav-
ing been subsequently to the destruc-
tion of the meat summoned and con-
victed of an offence under the above

may have failed to apply to the
guardians under s. 10, to pay the fees,
and refused to obtain a remission of
them under 33 & 34 Vict. c. 75, s. 17.
Richardson v. Saunders.
645

PENALTY.

1. An information was laid against the
respondent for using a cart on the
highway without having his name
painted thereon, as required by 5 & 6
Wm. 4, c. 50, s. 76. The cart was a
light spring cart with two wheels used
by the respondent in his business as an
agricultural implement maker, in which
he frequently carried agricultural im-
plements to market, and drove his
family about from place to place, and
for which he paid duty under 32 & 33
Vict. c. 14, s. 18. The magistrates
dismissed the information:

2. The plaintiffs lent money to S. upon
his bond, under which the principal
was to be paid in five years by instal-
ments, in case the debtor should so
long live; the instalments being calcu-
lated so as to cover the principal of
the loan; interest thereon; the ex-
penses of negotiating it, and a margin
representing a premium for the in-
surance of the debtor's life. The con-
dition of the bond made it void; first,
if the instalments were regularly paid
till the expiration of the five years or
till the death of the debtor, whichever
should first happen; secondly, if all
the instalments which would have be-
come payable at the expiration of the
five years, if the debtor lived so long,
were at any time paid up, the balance
of instalments being at once payable
on the failure of any single instalment.

The defendant as surety executed the
bond, and default having been made in
payment of one instalment, the plain-
tiffs brought an action claiming the
entire balance of unpaid instalments:

Held, by Bowen, J., that the amount
claimed was a penalty, and could not
be recovered; and that the defendant