Summer Circuits of the Fudges-Barristers Called.-Correspondence. Saturday, July 22, Lincoln and City. Tuesday, Aug. 1, Warwick. 145 Edward George Augustus Harcourt Moores Esq., B.A. Alfred Bailey, Esq., M.A.' William Alexander Dobie, Esq., B.A. NORTH WALES. Martin, B. Wednesday, July 19, Newtown. Friday, July 28, Beaumaris. BARRISTERS CALLED. Trinity Term, 1854. LINCOLN'S INN.-June 9. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. A. engages to marry the illegitimate daughter of B., on condition that in the settlement, to be made before their marriage, there should be contained a covenant on the part of the reputed father, tenant in tail in possession of real estate, to bar the entail and re-settle it to his own use during his life, with remainder to his daughter in fee. Deeds are prepared and engrossed in accordance with this stipulation, and ready for Jonathan George Norton Darby, Esq., B.A. signature, when the father suddenly died hav William Wykes Ladell, Esq. ing only executed the marriage settlement. A. 146 Correspondence.-London Commissioners.-Professional Lists. refuses in consequence to perform his engagement. Can the daughter, agreeably to the legal maxim "Lex neminem cogit ad impossibilia," the act of God having prevented the performance of the condition, bring an action against A. successfully to recover damages for breach of promise? IGNOTUS. Bonner, John George, 15, London Street,' Fenchurch Street. Boodle, John, 16, Upper Montague Street. Cole, Charles Nicholas, 4, Adelphi Terrace. ACKOWLEDGMENTS OF DEEDS BY MARRIED City. WOMEN.-LEASES. It is commonly said, emphatically, that, since the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 74, and as the result of the clauses therein relating to married women, every deed (with the one exception of that of protector) must be acknowledged by the wife. Quære is this so in the case of a lease made in conformity with the Statute 32 Hen. 8, c. 27? Does not section 78 of the former Act reserve to the wife her power of concurring in such lease by sealing same, without more? I fear it arises from a degree of confusion in my own mind, but I cannot clearly gather the exact import of the concluding clause of sect. 3 (32 Hen. 8), taken in connexion with the reservation of rent to husband and wife required by the former part of this section. I have looked into Tomlin's Law Dictionary, Bacon's Abridgment, Newman's Conveyancing, and Woodfall's Landlord and Tenant, but cannot satisfy myself, on authority, as to the mode of taking a surrender of such a lease, whether it may be done at all, and if so, whether to wife or husband and wife? I should feel obliged if some of your readers would enlighten me by their remarks. LEGALIS. COUNTY COURT. 66 MY AUNT'S CASE." "SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE." A defendant having alleged his inability to pay the plaintiff's demand the plaintiff admitted it, but maintained that though the defendant himself could not pay, he had an aunt who could; and the Judge being of this opinion, made an order against the aunt. This is said to be a leading County Court authority, and is commonly cited as My Aunt's Case."Crosgate's case (8 Rep. 66), a Dialogue in ye Shades on Special Pleading Reform, p. v., printed by Bult, 25, New Quebec Street, Portman Square. 1854. For private circulation only. 66 L. Hill, Henry, 1, Bury Court, St. Mary Axe. Lindo, Nethaneel, 17, King's Arms Yard, Rackham, Willoughby Breare Still, 46, Sismey, Thomas, 11, Serjeants' Inn. ney Walls, William Albert, 6, Bloomsbury Square. Wedlake, Henry Brayley, 10, King's Bench Walk. Wingate, Geo. Theodore, 9, Copthall Court LIST OF LONDON COMMISSIONERS dlesborough, Attorneys and Solicitors. May TO ADMINISTER OATHS IN CHANCERY. Appleby, Saml, 6, Harpur Street, Red Lion Square. Allen, Chas. Pettitt, 17, Carlisle Street, Soho Square. Blake, Charles, 22, College Hill. 26. Truwhitt, Charles, and Henry Morton Ody, 51, Lincoln's Inn Fields, Attorneys and Solicitors. May 26. Watson, James Otley, and George Webster Liverpool, Attorneys and Solicitors. June 6. Wilding, Richard, and John Fisher, Black burn, Attorneys and Solicitors. June 6. Wordsworth, Henry, and Thomas Dunn Burton, Edwd. Frederick, 7, Chancery Lane. 32, Threadneedle Street, and the South Se Professional Lists.-Notes of the Week.-Superior Courts: Court of Chancery. House, Threadneedle Street, Attorneys, Solicitors, and Conveyancers. June 9. COUNTRY COMMISSIONERS TO ADMINISTER Appointed under the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 78, with Burt, William Curtis, Reigate. May 30. 1471 Winterbotham, John Brend, jun., Chelten-T ham. June 16. PERPETUAL COMMISSIONERS. Appointed under the Fines and Recoveries' Act, with dates when gazetted. Plaskitt, William, Gainsborough, in and for the parts of Lindsey, in the county of Lincoln. June 13. Welchman, Robert Frederick, Southam, in and for the county of Warwick. May 23. NOTES OF THE WEEK. NEW MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT. Abel Smith, jun., for the County of Hertford, in the room of Thomas Plumer Halsey, Esq., deceased. RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS. Court of Chancery. (Coram Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices.) WILL.CONSTRUCTION.-ANNUITY.- The testator, by his will, gave to Mrs. M. an annuity to such issue of the body of Mr THE testator, John Winch, by his will, Cur. ad. vult. The Court said, that in accordance with the decision of Lord Chancellor Thurlow in Knight v. Ellis, 2 Bro. C. C. 569, the annuity must be considered as personalty, and the interest therein of Mrs. Naylor limited to her life. Such being the case, and the word "issue" being treated as a word of purchase and not of limitation, the children and grandchildren 148 Superior Courts: Court of Chancery.-V. C. Kindersley.—Queen's Bench. living at the death of Mrs. Naylor were entitled to the annuity during their lives, and not to the annuity fund, and the order of the Court below would be varied in that respect. - (Coram Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices.) WILL. CONSTRUCTION.-DISCHARGE OF Where a testator, by his will, empowered his THIS was an appeal from the decision of ViceChancellor Kindersley (reported 1 Drewry, 488). The testator, by his will, dated in August, 1833, after appointing his wife sole executrix, bequeathed to her all his personal property, to her own use, and he directed her out of the rents or arrears of rent due at his death to pay his debts, &c. He then gave an estate to his nephew, John Pollock, subject to an annuity of 40%. to his, the testator's wife, and after appointing certain persons his trustees, he gave to them all his estate at Sowerby Row, in the parish of Castle Sowerby, and his estate at Longlands, in the parish of St. Mary Without, with power to let the same, until all his nephews and nieces should be of the age of 21. He also gave to his sister 107. a year to be paid to her for life, the other part of the rents to pay his just debts, in the event of any bonds or notes standing against him at the time of his death; and he directed that after the youngest of his nephews and nieces should be of age, the estates should be sold by his trustees to the best advantage, and the price thereof go equally share and share alike amongst all his nephews and nieces, except the two named, and that, should his sister be living, then his trustees should secure her 207. a year during her life, and after her decease to be divided as above. No wood was to be cut or sold but what might be wanted for necessary repairs of the build ings which the testator left to the discretion of his trustees. The Vice-Chancellor having held that the widow was put to her election in respect of her right of dower in the Sowerby and Longlands' estates, this appeal was presented. Swanston and Bagshawe in support; Glasse and Murray, contrà; Willcock and Bovill for other parties. The Court said, that it was evidently the testator's intention to discharge the realty from the wife's dower, which was evidenced by the powers given to the trustees of cutting timber, of granting leases, and of sale, and the appeal, would therefore be dismissed. a settlement does not attach in respect of a reversionary interest to which she is entitled under a will, although her husband has been bankrupt, and an injunction was refused to restrain him from dealing with the same. THIS was a claim on behalf of a married woman to obtain the settlement of a reversionary interest in certain stock to which she was entitled under the will of a Mr. George Slack, in the event of his daughter dying without issue. It appeared that her husband had been twice bankrupt. An injunction was asked for in the alternative to restrain the husband from dealing with the reversion. A. J. Lewis, in support, referred to Ellis v. Ellis, 1 Vin. Abr. 475. Amphlett for the assignees, contrà. The Vice-Chancellor said, that although the inclination of the Court was to assist and protect the wife, yet in accordance with the decision of Osborn v. Morgan, 9 Hare, 432, 4 (cited by Darling, amicus curia), the declaration could not be made in respect of the reversionary property. Court of Queen's Bench. Meyers v. Tills. June 6, 1854. COUNTY COURT APPEAL. TROVER. EVI- It appeared, on the trial of a plaint in the THIS was an appeal from the decision of the Judge of the Rutland County Court, directing a nonsuit in this plaint, to recover possession of certain goods which were stolen from the plaintiff and found in the defendant's possession. It appeared that on the plaintiff making a demand, the defendant had replied he should take advice, but had afterwards delivered them up to another party. The question was, whether such delivery amounted to a conversion. Hayes for the plaintiff'; T. Campbell Foster for the defendant, on the ground there was only a qualified refusal, and that an appeal would not lie. The Court said, that the question, whether the facts amounted to a conversion, was one of law, for which an appeal would lie, and that as the defendant had given the goods up to a wrong party after a demand by the plaintiff, who was found by the case to be the owner, there was a conversion, and the nonsuit must be set aside with costs. Superior Courts: Queen's Bench. Held, that a steam tug is not within the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. lxxv., s. 37, which imposes a penalty on any person, not being a freeman of the Watermen's Company, navigating any wherry, lighter, "or other craft," on the riter Thames for hire. THIS was a case for the opinion of this Court on an appeal to the Sessions from a conviction under the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. lxxv,, s. 37, against the defendant for navigating a steam tug on the river Thames both beyond and within the limits of the Act, in taking a merchant ship into one of the docks. It appeared that the defendant was neither a freeman of the company nor an apprentice to a freeman. M. Chambers and Ballantine in support of the conviction; Sir F. Thesiger and Milward, contrà, Tisdell v. Combe, 3 New. & P. 29, was cited. The Court said, that although the words " or other craft" might be so used as to include a steam tug, yet as this Act established a monopoly, and besides imposed a penalty, it should be construed strictly. These words must be ejusdem generis with the preceding words "wherry" and "lighter," and did not include a steam tug. The case cited at bar, and which decided that a steam tug was a craft within s. 57, did not apply, as that section was not to give a monopoly or impose penalty, but power to make regulations for the safety of the public. The conviction would, therefore, be quashed. a Jackson v. Henderson. June 7, 1854. RIGHT OF LESSEE TO MANUFACTURE TINPLATES UNDER LICENCE TO CARRY ON IRON MANUFACTORY. 149 question for the jury, and a rule for a new trial was refused. THIS was a rule nisi to set aside the verdict for the defendant and for a new trial. It appeared that the defendant occupied certain works in Cumberland, under a lease from the plaintiff, which contained a licence authorising him to carry on an iron manufacture on the premises, that since 1849 he had used them for the manufacture of iron plates, which were afterwards tinned, and that the number of chimneys had been consequently much increased. On the trial, the jury found, upon the question being left to them, that the works formed substantially an iron manufactory. Pashley, Udall, and Lloyd showed cause against tht rule, which was supported by Edward James and Brett. The Court said, that the question had been properly left to the jury, and the rule was accordingly discharged. Dress v. Savage. June 7, 8, 1854. RULE NISI TO ENTER NONSUIT.-OBTAINING On a rule nisi to set aside the verdict for the THIS was a rule nisi obtained on April 19 last, pursuant to leave reserved to set aside the verdict for the plaintiff and enter a nonsuit in this action of ejectment to recover possession of certain premises upon the expiration of an agreement for a lease for three years. It was contended that the defendant was a yearly tenant, and could not be ejected without notice. The Court struck out the case, upon its appearing when it was called on that the Judge's notes had not been obtained. It appeared that the defendant occupied certain premises under a lease, which contained' a licence authorising his carrying on an iron manufactory, but that he had used the premises for the manufacture of iron plates, which were afterwards tinned on the pre- Regina v. Alleyne and others. June 14, 1854. mises. The jury, in an action by the lessor, had found the works were substantially an iron manufactory: Held, that it was a The rule was afterwards discharged on the application of Lush, who had been instructed to show cause. 1 Which enacts, that "if any person, not being a freeman of the said company, or an apprentice to a freeman, or to the widow of a freeman of the said company (except as hereinafter is mentioned), shall at any time act as a waterman or lighterman, or ply, or work, or navigate, or cause to be worked or navigated, any wherry, lighter, or other craft, upon the said river, from or to any place or places, or ship or vessel, within the limits of this act, for hire or gain (except as hereinafter is mentioned) every such person shall forfeit and pay for every such offence any sum not exceeding 10/." ATTORNEY-GENERAL. RULE TO QUASH WRIT OF ERROR IN PROSECUTION. -- OFFICER OF THE CROWN. Semble, that it is not open to the Attorney General to appear for the defendants to show against a rule to quash a writ of error upon the judgment in a prosecution on the ground that it had been sued out with a view to a compromise. THIS was a rule nisi to quash the writ of error upon the judgment in this prosecution, on the ground that it had been sued out with a view to a compromise. The Attorney-General, Temple, and Huddleston, for the defendants, appeared to show cause. |