Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

United Law Clerks' Society. Annual Report.

165 The next branch of the Society's expenditure amounted to 7811. 68. 70.; the difference has consists of relief afforded to its members for been carried to the Society's investments, which life when permanently disabled through age or have been increased from 15,8071. 138. 1d. on other infirmity. At the last anniversary there the 20th of May, 1853, to 16,81811 los. 3d. on were four members thus afflicted - there are the 20th of May, 1854. The Committee have nor five-:hree receire in veekly payınents always kept in mind the necessity of husband311. 48. a year, and the other two 361. 88. ing and increasing this capital, so apparent These payments require an annual expendi- when it is remembered that if the number of ture of 1661. $$. Not one of these five su: superannuated 'members were only increased perannuated members is disabled hy old threefold, or two per cent., the whole interest age. Disease of the mind is the cause in each would be consumed in paying their weekly alcas: three are afflicted with entire loss of in- lowances. These investments are made with tellect.

the Commissioners for the Reduction of the The last branch of expenditure out of the National Debt, and the Committee regret to general fund consists of an allowance of 501. state that a considerable reduction of interest on the death of every member, and one-hall has lately taken place on funds invested with that sum on the death of a member's wife them. should he survive her. The Committee have The Casual or Benevolent Fund is formed the pleasure of stating that out of 524 mem by the donations of the Profession and a subbers not one death occurred during the past scription from every member. This fund is year, and only one amongst the members' employed in assisting with small gifts of money, wives. When the age of the Society, the not exceeding 51., all law clerks, whether memnumber of members, their occupation, and bers or not, their widows and families, when general position are remembered, this fact must suffering from distress not thre result of misbe considered a very gratifying one. In meet- conduct. The chief participants in this fund ing claims which arose before the commence- are non-members and their widows, and the ment of the present year and the claim already widows and orphan children of members. Bementioned, 1751. have been expended, making a fore any relief is granted, the applicant's chatotal of 4,6171. 10s. paid on account of death racter and circumstances are carefully investialone.

gated, and if the case be found one deserving The Committee gratefully acknowledge the of relief it immediately receives it,-if undeaccession of several new Donors since the last serving none is afforded. During the year, 55 Anniversary, and especially the receipt of a applications have been received ; 39 were those third donation of thirty guineas from the of deserving persons, and relieved accordingly; Benchers of Lincoln's Inn, making a sum of the rest could not be entertained, being in. 90 guineas contributed to the funds by that eligible from various causes. Out of the same learned society. The Committee have also to fund several small loans have been granted to report the bequest of a legacy of_1001. by the members who needed temporary pecuniary aslate Mr. Nicholson, of Furnival's Inn, but it is sistance. The power to grant these loans works a contingent one, and cannot be receivable for beneficially, they are of service to the memsome years.

bers and of advantage to the Society-conIn testimony of the opinion entertained by siderably lessening the number of claimants on the Profession of the usefulness of the Society, the Sickness Fund. Very many members reand also of their willingness to help those who gard the Superannuation Fund as the great obhelp themselves, it inay be mentioned that a ject of their contributions, and in illness prefer firm of large practice, having witnessed the receiving assistance by way of loan to declaring distressed condition of the family of one of on the Sickness Fund, because it would, to their clerks, who had made no provision for esome extent, lessen the amount of the Society's time of affliction, determined that the assist- savings, on the interest of which they believe ance afforded by them in future should be con- the Society must ultimately rely for the payfined to those clerks who were members of ment of the relief afforded to its aged and inthis Society, which resulted in most of the firm members. These loans are made without clerks becoming so, --seven joined the Society interest or charge of any kind. The relief in one evening immediately afterwards. ? afforded out of this fund during the year has

The Committee report with pleasure that, amounted to 3811., and its total expenditure potwithstanding the loss of members hy emi- has reached the sum of 4,8721. 168. gration, removal from the Profession, and The balance in hand of the Casual Fund in other causes, the number on the 20th day of April, 1853, amounted to 601. 108. 5d. The May last, was 529, whose contributions during receipts of the year have been 3601. 138. ld. the year exceeded 1,1001.

and the expenditure 38 11. 178., leaving in hand The Committee are happy to say, that after a balance of 391. 6s. 6d. only.posti aab discharging every claim, they have been able The Committee hope that their report of the to make some addition to the Society's invest-Society's operations during the past year will ments. On the 4th April, 1853, the General prove satisfactory to the donors and members Benefit Fund amounted to 15,5601. 88; since the claims of the latter have all been promptly then 2,0151. 38. 78. have been received. T'he and fully satisfied, and some provision has year's expenditare, including subscriptions re- been made for the heavier claims of future turned to members who have gone abroad, has years. The Committee return to the Profesa

[ocr errors]
[graphic]

166

Notes of the Week.-Superior Courts : Lords Justices.-7. C. Kindersley. sion their sincere thanks for the kind support not sit again in their own Court before the the Society has received during a period of 22 6.h July, on which day they intend to bear years, that support, among other advantages Motions, and on the day following Petitions in has given a more liberal character to its benefits, and placed them within the reach of many

Lunacy. who could not otherwise have obtained them it also enables the Society to afford assistance

LAW PROMOTIONS. to those who are not members and to their families, and the Committee respectfully hope

The Queen has been pleased to give orders that those benefits may never be in any way for the appointment of William H. Draper, curtailed by the withdrawal of that support Esq., one of the Puisne Judges of Canada West, which has been the main cause of the Society's to be an Ordinary Member of the Civil Di. favourable progress and of its present flourishing condition.

vision of the Third Class, or Companions, of

the most honourable Order of the Baths From Freemasons' Tavern, June 22, 1854.

the London Gazetle of June 23. NOTES OF THE WEEK.

The Queen has been pleased to appoint the SITTINGS OF LORD JUSTICES. Right Honourable John Hatchell, one of the The Lords Justices having to attend at the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, will Bequests for Ireland.

[ocr errors]

RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS.

NOTICE OF.

TEES UNDER POWER.

Lords Justices.

The Vice-Chancellor said, that by the new Chaffers v. Baker. June 15, 1854.

practice cestuis que trustent need not be served

with notice of a motion like the present, as the MOTION TO TAKE BILL PRO CONFE880. trustees represented them. In accordance with

the decision of Vice-Chancellor Wigram in An order was made to take a bill pro confesso Bartlett v. Bartlett, 4 Hare, 631, the sums

under Order 79 of May 8, 1845, although of stock must be transferred into Court, but the notice of motion named a day in Term no order would be made as to the sums of not specially set apart for motions. money, which were subject to be dealt with This was a motion by direction of Vice- under the will, Chancellor Kindersley to take this bill pro confesso under order 79 of May 8, 1845. It ap. Wellesley v. Mornington. June 27,,1854. peared that in the notice of motion a day in Term bad been named which was not specially

INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN SALE BY TRUSset apart for motions. C. Purton Cooper in support.

An injunction was refused to restrain the The Lords Justices said, that a motion could sale under a power of certain estates held be made on any day in Term, although it was in trust to pay off incumbrances and annot the practice to hear motions which were nuities, on the ground that the trustees opposed except on the days specially appointed. were not competent to conduct the sale, one The order would therefore be made as asked. being a bankrupt and the other of an ad

vanced age, where no intention to misapply Wice-Chancellor Kindersley.

the proceeds was suggested. Marryatt v. Marryatt. June 26, 1854.

This was a motion for an injunction to re

strain the sale under a power of certain estates, PAYMENT INTO COURT OF STOCK BY TRUS- which were held by two trustees in trust to pay TEES IN ADMINISTRATION SUIT.

off incumbrances and certain annuities. It apAn order was made on motion in an admini- peared that one of the trustees was bankrupt

stration suit by the executor of a residuary and the other was 90 years of age, and that
legatee against the trustees of the testator's Lord Mornington and Lord Wellesley, who
will to transfer into Court certain stock, had the power of sappointing new trustees,
although, certain other parties interested could not agree. !!! Ny
were not before the Court.

Rolt and Freeling for Lady Mornington, an This was a motion for the payment into annuitant, in support, on the ground that the Court of certain moneys and stock by the trus- present trustees were not fit persons to contees of the will of the testatory: Mr. Joseph duct the sale.

99 din Marryatt, in this suit for the administration of Baily and Selwyn for Lord Wellesley; his estate, and which was instituted by the Druce for Lord Mornington, contrà. executor of a residuary, legatee. 10

The Vice-Chancellor said, that' as there was Baily and Batten in supports Glasse and no suggestion of any intention to misapply the Hetherington, contrà, on the ground that the proceeds, or that the sale was improper, the inother parties interested were not before the junction must be refused. Court.

BY

COURT NUNC PRO

COUNTY PALATINE
TUNC.

Superior Courts : V. C. Stuart-7. C. Wood.-Queen's Bench.

167 Vice-Chancellor Stuart.

of certain lands at Wimbledon as a security for Freeland v. Stansfield. April 25; June 27, 4,0001. which was advanced in March, 1863, 1854.

but the plaintiff complained of the application PARTNERSHIP. — DISSOLUTION BANK- of certain portions of this amount in respect of

RUPTCY. - RETURN OF PART OP PRE- costs and interest. The defendant had brought MIUM.

an action to recover the 1l. per cent. due on the A partnership for seven years between the 15,0001. for the first year, and the plaintiff filed

plaintiff and the defendant as general prac. his bill for an injunction to stay such action
titioners in medicine, in consideration of and the sale of the mortgaged estate, and for an
9001, was dissolved by the bankruptcy of account and a declaration that the agreement
the defendant : Held, that the plaintif was was void under the Usury Acts.
entitled, in taking the accounts of the part.

Moxon now moved for the injunction; Roll, Bership, to be crediţed with a portion of the J. Williams, and Cairns, contrå. premium proportionate to the period of the The Vice-Chancellor said, that the injunction term unexpired.

must be refused, with costs. It appeared that the plaintiff had, by deed dated Jan. 1, 1850, entered into partnership

Court of Queen's Bench. with Mr., Edward Leech as general practi- Exparte Done. June 5, 1854. tioners in medicine at Chichester, for a period ARTICLES OF CLERKSHIP.-ENROLMENT IN of seven years, paying a consideration of 9001., and

that they had continued to carry on the business until June, 1851, when Mr. Leech Articles of clerkship were duly registered in became bankrupt. This bill was thereupon this Court, but not in the Lancaster County filed against his assignees to recover a propor. Palatine Court. A motion was granted tionate part of the premium as on a failure of for leave to enrol them nunc pro tunc in consideration, and for an account and a re- the Palatine Court, and that the service ceiver.

should reckon from their date, in order to Wigram and G. M. Giffard for the plaintiff'; the clerk's admission in the Palatine Court. Malins and H. Stevens for the defendants. The Vice-Chancellor said, that as there was 86, s. 3, for an order directing the Prothono

This was a motion under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. a failure of consideration, the plaintiff was en- tary of the Court of Common Pleas at Lan. titled to have a portion of the premium re-caster to enrol nunc pro tunc the articles of turned proportionate to the period of the part- clerkship of the above John Done, jun., dated nership which was unexpired at the time of the June 3, 1847,

whereby he became bound to bankruptcy, and in taking the accounts would Mr. Charles Gibson, of Manchester, an attorbe allowed out of the assets credit for the same. ney, for the term of five years, and that the

service under such contract should be diWice-Chancellor Umhoot.

rected to commence and be computed from Daniel y. Fussell. June 27, 1854. their execution, with a view to his admisINJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN

sion in the Court of Common Pleas of POWER IN MORTGAGE.

Lancaster, notwithstanding he had omitted USURY.

to register the same in the County Palatine The defendant agreed to lend the plaintiff a Court. Notice of this application had been

sum of 15,0001. within three years, in cer- given to the Incorporated Law Society, who lain sums as thereby provided, and the did not oppose. The articles had been regisplaintiff agreed to pay i per cent. on the gistered with the proper officer in this Court whole 15,0001. From the date of the agree on June 7, 1847, pursuant to the 6 & 7 Vict. ment to the expiration of the three years, s. 73, and it appeared they were not registered whatever sum should be advanced, and 41. in the Court of Common Pleas at Lancaster, per cent. on the sums advanced. A sum of because the applicant believed that it was only 4,0001. was advanced on the security of a necessary the articles should be registered in mortgages of land with a power of sale :

London. Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to

Woollett in support. an injunction to restrain an action brought The Court granted the motion. + to recover the first year's per. centage of 1 per cent., nor to restrain a sale under the Regina (exparte Piddlesden) v. Overseers of power on the ground the agreement was void

3 Withyham, Sussex June 8, 1854.. under the Statutes of Usury. :' |

MANDAMUS.--CERTIFICATE OF OVERSEERS By a deed, dated in February, 1853, the de- 10 s'aUNDER 13 & 4 VICT. 0. 616 1P fendant agreed to lend to the plaintiff the sum

- A rule was made absolute on the overseers of of 15,0007, within three years, in certain sums a parish to inquire and certify under the 3 as therein provided, and the plaintiff agreed to 44 Vict.c. 61, s. 5, whether the applicant pay 2 per cent. on the whole 15,000l. from the 3 was sole occupier of a house of the yearly date of the agreement to the expiration of the vale of 10l. for the purpose of obtaining a three years, whatever sum should be advanced,

license to keep a beer-shop. and 41. per cent. on the sums advanced. The This was a rule nisi obtained on May 26 plaintiff gave a mortgage with a power of sale last, for a mandamus on the overseers of

SALE UNDER
STATUTES OF

ACTION FOR

BEER-SHOP WITHOUT NOTICE.
STRUCTION OF AGREEMENT.

CON

168

Superior Courts: Queen's Bench.-Eschequer. Withyham, Sussex, to sign'a certificate under and therefore, where it could be of consequence the 3'& 4 Vict. c. 61, that the applicant was or injury to the plaintiff. As to the other rethe sole occupier of a house of the yearly value plication, it stated facts showing the plaintiff's of 111., for the purpose of obtaining a licence departure from the ship was not what amounted to keep a beer-shop.

in law to a desertion, and the plaintiff was By s. 5'it is enacted, that "every overseer therefore entitled to judgment. of the poor who shall refuse to grant a certificate of the rating or assessment of any rated house and premises, when demanded, or of any

Mayhew v. Suttle. June 23, 25, 1854. person having claimed to be rated in respect

EJECTING PLAINTIFF FROM of any newly erected house not yet rated,” &c., “shall forfeit 201.

Foot showed cause against the rule, which The plaintif' was placed by the defendant, a was supported by Archbold.

brewer, in charge of a public-house, under The Court said, that the rule would be made un agreement that he should enter and carry absolute on the overseers to inquire and certify on the business on the same terms as those if the applicant was duly qualified.

on which the previous occupier carried it

on, with a proviso for the determination of Edwards v. Trevelly. June 23, 1854.

the agreement upon

month's notice, and

the plaintiff' agreed to take all his beer from ACTION BY SEAMAN FOR WAGES. -DESER

the defendant at a certain price, and not to TION.-REPLICATION.

part with the occupation without the deThe replication to an action by a seaman to fendant's consent, and also to deliver up

recover wages due, and to which the de- possession on the determination of the fendant pleaded the forfeiture of such agreement : Held, that the plaintiff was wages, under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 112, s. 9, only a servant of the defendant, and had for descrtion, alleged that the captain had no interest in the premises, and could not flogged him with unnecessary and unreason- recover in an action against the defendant able cruelty and severity, and a refusal to for breaking and entering into the house, desist therefrom on request, and that hav- although he was ejected without notice. ing reasonable grounds to believe it would

This was an action to recover damages from be continued, he had left the ship: Held, the defendant for breaking into and entering good, and that the plaintiff's departure the house of the plaintiff

, who had been placed from the ship did not amount to a desertion. by the defendant, a brewer at Bury St. EdA further replication, stating that the munds, in charge of a public-house at Ipswich, plaintiff was an African negro, and a threat

upon the terms contained in an agreement by the captain to sell him, was held bad, dated Sept. 21, 1852, whereby the defendant where it did not show that the place at agreed that the plaintiff should enter into and which the desertion took place was one upon the premises and carry on the business where the threat could be carried into on the same terms as those on which the preeffect.

vious occupier carried it on, with a proviso for This was an action to recover the amount of the determination of the agreement upon a wages due to the plaintiff, as a seaman, to month's notice, and the plaintiff agreed to take which the defendant pleaded the forfeiture of all his beer at a certain price (which was cal. such wages, under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 112, s. 9, culated at a price more than usual) from the for desertion. The plaintiff replied, that while defendant, and not to part with the occupation on board the ship the captain had flogged him of the premises without the defendant's conwith unnecessary and unreasonable cruelty and sent, and also to deliver up the premises to the severity, that he had requested the captain on defendant on the determination of the agree. the arrival at San Francisco to desist therefrom, ment by a month's notice. The defendant had but that the captain had refused, and that hav- ejected the plaintiff without notice. ing reasonable grounds to believe the flogging Field appeared in support of a demurrer to would be continued, he had, in order to escape the plaintiff's surrejoinder; D. D. Keane, therefrom, left the ship. He further replied, contrà. that he was an African negro, that negroes

Cur. ad. vult. were bought and sold in divers of the United The Court said, that the plaintiff could only States of America, that the captain had threat- be regarded under the agreement as a servant, ened to sell him as a slave, that San Francisco and had therefore no interest in the premises was situated in one of such States, and that as against the defendant, who was accordingly having reasonable ground to believe that, on entitled to judgment. arriving at San Francisco, the captain would

Th

ANAN carry his threat into execution, he had left the

Court of Grehequer. pi?," ship to avoid being so sold.

Willes appeared in support of a demurrer to Stevens v. Midland Railway Company and Lauthese replications; Prentice, contrà.

der. : June 22, 1854. The Court said, that the second replication ACTION AGAINST RAILWAY COMPANY FOR was insufficient, in not showing the place where

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.-LÍABILITY OF the threat was to take effect was a slave State,

SERVANT.

[ocr errors]

169

a

Superior Courts : Court of Exchequer. Held, that a railway company is not liable in fendant, upon his opening an account with the

an action to recover damages for a malicious National and Provincial Bank of England. It prosecution of a plaintif, on the charge of appeared that the bank had issued a writ feloniously receiving stolen goods. against the plaintiff, upon the defendant beThe superintendent was also made a defend-coming their debtor, and going to reside else

ant, and there was evidence of the presence where, and judgment passed by default, under of express malice and the want of reason- which the plaintiff paid 501. as his share of the able and probable cause for the charge guarantee, and 23), odd for costs. On the made: Held, that he was liable, although trial before Williams, J., at the last Beaumaris he was the servant of the railway com- assizes, the bank officer proved that the depany.

fendant had been frequently requested to reThis was an action against the above rail- duce his account, the plaintiff obtained a verway, company and their superintendent at

dict subject to this motion. Derby, to recover damages for a malicious

M'Intyre and Cocon showed cause against prosecution of the plaintif on the charge of the rule, which was supported by Morgan having feloniously received a tarpaulin which

Lloyd. had been stolen from them. On the trial be there had been a demand by the bank before

The Court said, that the question whether fore Mr. Russell Gurney, Q.C., at the last Gloucester Assizes, the plaintiff obtained

they sued the surety was one for the jury, who verdict with 1001. damages, and this rule had had rightly found that the request to reduce been obtained on April 22 last, to enter it for the account amounted to a demand of payment. the defendants or for a new trial, on the ground As, however, the plaintiff was bound to have of misdirection, the only question left to the satisfied his obligations to the bank at once, jury being, whether there was malice and want and would not have had to pay the costs of the of reasonable and probable cause, and that the judgment and execution, the damages must be superintendent acted as the servant of the rail- reduced by their amount, but he was entitled way company.

to the costs of the writ, as until it issued he Whateley and Gray showed cause against his guarantee. The rule would be absolute to

was in ignorance of the amount to be paid on the rule, which was supported by Keating, reduce the damages. Huddleston, and Powell.

The Court said, that the rule must be abso. lute to enter the verdict for the railway com- Kirby v. Simpson. June 3, 26, 1854. pany, on the ground that as a corporation they could not be actuated by a malicious motive, and also that there was no evidence to connect them with the affair. The rule as to Lauder would be made absolute, as there was abundant Held, that an action cannot be maintained evidence of the presence of express malice and against a magistrate for committing the the want of reasonable and probable cause for plaintiff to prison on a charge under the the charge.

Masters and Servants' Act (26 Geo. 2, c.

14), without first quashing the commitment. Pierce v. Williams. June 23, 1854.

Held, also, that inasmuch as the trespass was

caused by the defendant in his capacity of ACTION

magistrate and in the execution of his ON GUARANTEE TO RECOVER PAYMENTS

office, the defendant was entitled to notice THEREUNDER-COSTS.

of action under the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44, The plaintiff with another person became and a rule was discharged to set aside a surety for the defendant on his opening an nonsuit, where such notice had not been account with a bank, and it appeared that given. the bank oficer had frequently requested This was a rule nisi obtained on April 20 the defendant to reduce his account : Held, last, to set aside the nonsuit and for a new trial that the request was a sufficient demand on of this action, which was brought by the plainthe principal to support an action against tiff, as next friend of his son, to recover dathe surety on default. The plaintif on being sued suffered judgment son and giving him into custody, and for ma

mages from the defendant for assaulting his to go by default : held, that he was only liciously instigating his master to prefer a entitled to recover from the defendant charge against him under the 26 Geo. 2, c. 14 The costs of the writ, and not of the judg- (the Masters and Servants' Act), under which ment and execution, and a rule was made he was convicted, committed to Beverley gaol absolute to reduce the damages by their for three weeks, and whipped, It appeared amount, in an action to recover from the that the plaintiff's son was in the service of a defendant the payments made by the plain- person, and had accidentally killed one of the tiff under the guarantee,

defendant's ducks, and that the defendant had This was a rule nisi to enter a nonsuit or to dismissed the boy with a reprimand, on his reduce the damages in this action, which was stating his belief the duck was a wild one, but brought by the plaintiff, who had become had, about a week afterwards, proceeded under surety with another person in 1001. for the de- the above Statute on his master bringing the

ACTION AGAINST MAGISTRATEQUASHING

ORDER OF COMMITMENT. NOTICE OF
ACTION,

BY PRINCIPAL AGAINST SURETY

« EelmineJätka »