« EelmineJätka »
City of London Reform.-Law of Costs. stipendiary magistrates be extended to the cor- “ 26. That the Irish Society be dissolved ; poration of London.
that its trusts be declared by Act of Parliament; “5. That the Court of Aldermen be abo- and that new trustees be appointed by the Lord lished, and that its functions be transferred to Chancellor of Ireland. the common council.
“ 27. That the external boundaries of the “6. That the number of wards be reduced city remain unchanged ; but that the municipal to some number not less than 12, nor greater connexion between the corporation of London than 16; and that their area and population be, and a part of the borough of Southwark be as far as possible, made equal.
abolished. “7. That each ward return one aldermán “28. That the rest of the metropolis be diand five common councilmen to the common vided into districts, for municipal purposes. council; and that their qualification be that “ 29. That in the event of such division prescribed by the Municipal Corporations Act being made, a Metropolitan Board of Works for the larger class of boroughs ; namely the be created, composed of members deputed to it possession of real or personal estate of 1,0001., from the council of each metropolitan municipal or being rated on an annual value of at least 301. body, including the common council of the
“8. That the voters in the wardmote elec- city. tions be the occupiers of premises in the ward “ 30. That the coal duties now collected by rated to the amount of 101. per annum, without the corporation of London, so long as they reany additional qualification
main in force, be under the administration of “9. That the elections in common ball be this board; and that in case the coal duties abolished.
which expire in 1862 should not be renewed, “10. That the sheriffs be elected by the the 4d. duty now levied on behalf of the city common council.
should cease at the same time. “11. That the Lord Mayor's Court and the “31. That this board be empowered to levy Sheriff's Court be consolidated, and that an a rate, limited to a fixed poundage, for public appeal be given from such Court to one of the works of general metropolitan utility, over the Superior Courts at Westminster.
metropolitan district. “12. That the Court of Hustings be abo- “32. That no works be executed by this lished.
board unless the plans have been approved by “ 13. That the Court at St. Martin's-le- a committee of the Privy Council." Grand be abolished.
“ 14. That all regulations prohibiting persons not free of the city from carrying on any
LAW OF COSTS. trade, or using any handicraft within the city be abolished.
“15. That the metage of grain, fruit, and other measurable goods be no longer com- On the title being defective to an estate sold pulsory.
“ 16. That the fellowship of porters be dis- in a cause, held that the purchaser was ensolved; and that other privileges of porters be titled to payment out of the fund in Court of abolished.
his costs, charges, and expenses properly in“17. That the admission of brokers by the curred, occasioned by his bidding for and beCourt of Aldermen be abolished.
“18. That the street toll on carts not the coming the purchaser of the lot in question, property of freemen be abolished.
and also his costs of the reference as to title, 19. That the city police be incorporated and of all proceedings consequent thereon, inwith the metropolitan police.
cluding his costs of and occasioned by the “20. That the conservancy of the river Thames be transferred to a board consisting plaintiff's exceptions to the Master's report of the Lord Mayor, the First Lord of the Ado and the order thereon, and of the application miralty, the President of the Board of Trade, by the purchaser for his discharge and consethe Deputy Master of the Trinity House, and quent thereon. Lewis v. Lewis, 9 Law J., the First Commissioner of Woods. “21. That the exclusive privilege of the
N. S., Ch., 176, was cited. Perkins v. Ede, Company of Watermen and Lighterinen on the 16 Beav. 268. river Thames be abolished.
“22. That the accounts of the revenue and OF FRIVOLOUS SUIT BY PURCHASER AS TO expenditure of the corporation be consolidated.
FORM OF CONVEYANCE, “23. That the money and securities of the corporation be lodged in the Bank of England.
The only question in a suit by a purchaser “i 24. That the election of auditors be for specific performance was as to the form of amended.
the conveyance, the Master of the Rolls said, “25. That the provisions of the Municipal —“This is on both sides as idle a contest as I Corporation Acts, with respect to the mortgaging of lands, and the making of an annual re
ever knew brought into a Court of Justice. turn of revenue and expenditure to the Secre- As far as I have been able to understand the tary of State, be extended to the corporation of matter, no injury would have arisen to either London.
OF PURCHASER UNDER DECREE WHERE
Points in Equity Practice.-Chancery Returns to Parliament.-- Trinity Term Exam. 51 party by having the conveyance in one form TRINITY TERM EXAMINATION. or the other." His Honour therefore declined to give costs on either side, although the plain- The Examiners appointed for the examinatiff was entitled to a decree to have the con- tion of persons applying to be admitted Attorveyance in the form he asked. Clark v. May, half-past nine in the forenoon, at the Hall of
have appointed Tuesday, the 6th June, at 16 Bear. 273.
the Incorporated Law Society, in Chancery
Lane, to take the examination. POINTS IN EQUITY PRACTICE. The Articles of Clerkship and Assignment, if
any, with answers to the questions as to APPEAL PROM DECREE. — INTERLOCUTORY due service, according to the regulations ap
proved by the Judges, must be left at the Law *** WHERE a decree has been made, and an Society on or before Wednesday, the 31st
instant at the Law Society. appeal is brought long after the decree, the Court always leans against the appeal, and
Where the articles have not expired, but will this principle applies in my opinion much expire during the Term, the Candidate may be
examined conditionally; but the articles must more strongly to the case of an interlocutory be left within the first seven days of Term, and application." Per Turner, L. J., in Great answers up to that time. If part of the Term Western Railway Company v. Oxford, Wor- has been served with a Barrister, Special cester, and Wolverhampton Railway Company, questions must be obtained from them, as to
Pleader, or London Agent, answers to the 3 De G., M'N. & G. 363.
the time served with each respectively.
A Paper of Questions will be delivered to JURISDICTION ON PETITION BY TRUSTEES
each Candidate, containing questions to be OP DISSOLVED FRIENDLY SOCIETY FOR
answered in writing, classed under the several TRANSFER OP FUND.
heads of–1. Preliminary. 2. Common and
Statute Law, and Practice of the Courts. 3. A sum of money was standing in the joint Conveyancing. 4. Equity, and Practice of the names of the three trustees of a friendly so- Courts. 5. Bankruptcy, and Practice of the ciety established under the 10 Geo. 4, c. 56;
Courts. 6. Criminal Law, and Proceedings
before Justices of the Peace. 4 & 5 Wm. 4, c. 40; and 9 & 10 Vict. c. 27. The society was dissolved as directed by those
Each Candidate is required to answer all Statutes, but one of the trustees refused to join to answer in three of the other heads of in
the Preliminary Questions (No. 1); and also with the two others to withdraw the fund for quiry, viz. : - Common Law, Conveyancing, and distribution among the members. On a pe- Equity. tition for the appointment, under the 15 & 16 The Examiners will continue the practice of Geo. 4, c. 56, s. 15, of a person to transfer, proposing questions in Bankruptcy and in on behalf and in the name of the dissentient Criminal Law and Proceedings before Justices of trustee, the fund to the two other trustees, the the Peace in order that Candidates who may Vice-Chancellor Wood held he had no juris- have the advantage of answering such quer
have given their attention to those subjects, may diction, and that the application must be by tions, and having the correctness of their ansuit in the usual way. In re Eclipse Mutual swers in those departments taken into consiBenefit Association, 1 Kay, xxx.
deration in summing up the merit of their General Examination.
Under the new Rules of Hilary Term, 1853, CHANCERY RETURNS TO PAR
it is provided that every person who shall have LIAMENT.
given notice of Examination and Admission, and “who shall not have attended to be ex
amined, or not have passed the Examination, The number of causes in the High Court of or not have been admitted, may within one Chancery, whether commenced by bill or claim, week after the end of the Term for which such in which the evidence was taken orally, be Notices were given, renew the Notices for Extween the 1st November, 1852, and 1st No amination or Admission for the then next envember, 1853, was 96.
suing Term, and so from time to time as he And the number of causes, whether com- shall think proper;" but shall not be admitted menced by bill or claim, in which any witness until the last day of the 'Term, unless otherwise or party was examined therein under the 15 & ordered.' 16 Vict. č. 86, 8. 39, before the Court when such causes were heard, for the same period, i This rule has been made in order to avoid was 12.
the practice of giving double notices.
Notes of the Week.-Superior Courts: V. C. Kindersley.-7.C. Wood.
their proper position in the proposed University INQUIRY INTO THE INNS OF COURT AND of the Law, CHANCERY
We shall take an early opportunity of advertThe Commissioners are directed to inquire ing to their former state, and considering the into the arrangements in the Inns of Court and improvements which may be effected for the Inns of Chancery, for promoting the Study of benefit of the larger branch of the Profession. the Law and Jurisprudence, and securing a sound education to the students. It appears
SCOTCH LAW APPOINTMENTS. that they have already commenced their labours The Queen has been pleased to nominate by sending a circular to the Principal of each and appoint John Deas, Esq., one of the Lords Inn of Chancery, requesting a statement of the of Session, to be one of the Lords of Justiciary existing arrangements, for promoting the study in Scotland, in the room of Henry Cockburn, of the Law, and particularly as to any lectures, Esq., deceased. examinations, or library; and the regulations
The Queen has been pleased to grant the in respect to the admission thereto.
place of one of the Lords of Session in ScotAs the members of these Inns of Chancery land to Charles Neaves, Esq., Advocate, in the are almost entirely attorneys and solicitors, we room of Henry Cockburn, Esq., deceased. presume they will claim the ancient rights and From the London Gazette of May 16.
RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT FOR
PURCHASE OF LEASE.-OBJECTION AS TO
Vice-Chancellor Ulood. In re Turner's Estate, exparte Oxford and
Darlington v. Hamilton. April 25, 1854. Rugby Railway Company. May 10, 1854. RAILWAY COMPANY,-PAYMENT OF PURCHASE-MONEY OUT OF COURT.-COSTS.
Where, on a sale of the lease of a house subOn a petition for payment of the purchase
ject to a condition that the purchaser money out of Court of land contracted for
should not insist on the production of the in the testator's lifetime with a railway
lessor's title, it appeared on the delivery of company, but which he had notwithstand
the abstract that it was held on an under. ing charged with payment of certain le
lease, and that the original lease included gacies subject to a mortgage thereon: Held,
other property and was liable to forfeiture that the railway company were not liable
on the breach of covenants by the holders to the costs of the appearance of the lega- thereof in respect of such other property : tees, but only to those of the petitioners and
Held, that as such covenants could not be of the mortgagees—the legatees' costs to
apportioned, the title was not one which a be paid by the petitioners.
purchaser could be compelled to accept, and This was a petition for the payment out of a hill for the specific performance of the Court of the purchase-money of certain lands contract was dismissed, with costs. taken for the purposes of the above railway, By the conditions of sale of the lease of and which had been paid into the bank under a house in Upper Albany Street, Regent's the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, s. 76, upon the mort- Park, the purchaser was precluded from ingagees thereon refusing to take a partial sisting upon the production of the lessor's payment. It appeared that the owner had died title. It appeared, however, from the abstract after entering into the contract with the com- that the house was held on an under-lease, and pany, and had charged the estate with payment that the original lease included other property of certain legacies subject to the mortgage. besides the house in question, and was liable
Browell, in support, contended that the to forfeiture by breaches of covenant in respect company were liable to the costs of the lega- of other portions of the property comprised tees who had been served with the petition, as therein by the several holders. The defendant the purchase-money was of the nature of accordingly refused to complete, whereupon realty, citing In re Horner's Trust, 5 De G. & this bill was filed for a specific performance.
Grenside in support, on the ground that the Stevens for the railway company, contrà; covenants, as well as the rent had been appor Hawkins for the mortgagees; Bathurst for the tioned among the several properties. legatees.
The Vice-Chancellor (without calling on The Vice-Chancellor said, that as the sale Rolt and Selwyn for the defendant) said, that was by a tenant in fee, the money was not it did not appear the covenants, upon the realty, and that the company were only liable breach of which the lease would be forfeited, to the costs of the petitioners and of the mort- were capable of being apportioned, and the gagees—the costs of the legatees to be paid by doctrine of notice in the case of the purchase the petitioners.
of a lease did not apply. The title was not one which a purchaser could be compelled to
HEARING TO RE
Superior Courts: V.C. Wood.- Queen's Bench.
53 accept, and the bill would be dismissed, with it was mutually agreed that they should so livo costs.
apart, and should in no way annoy or molest
the other. It appeared that the plaintiff had Plumbers' Company and another v. Corbet. threatened legal proceedings against the deApril 27, 1854.
fendant, to recover compensation for the imjury INJUNCTION BEFORE
sustained by his violence, and that he had
thereupon promised to do more for her than STRAIN INTERFERENCE BY
the law would compel him, and had accordingly WITH ANCIENT LIGHTS.
made the agreement now in question. The A motion was granted for an injunction to defendant had ceased to pay the allowance in
restrain a defendant from erecting any March, 1849, and had not paid to the trustee building on the site of his house, whereby the specified portion of the compensation rethe free admission of light and air might ceived from the railway company. The defendbe hindered or oostrucled to the ancient ant demurred, on the ground of want of conlights of the house in the plaintiff's occu- sideration to the bill, which had been thereupon pation, and although the defendant offered filed to enforce a specific perforinance. an undertaking to abide by any order of Rolt and Martineau for the defendant in the Court at the hearing as to the abate- support of the demurrer ; James and Bagshawe, ment of the nuisance, if any.
jun., for the plaintiff, contrà. This was a motion for an injunction to re
The Vice-Chancellor said, that an agreement strain the defendant from erecting any build- to cease from cohabitation was no more a good ings on the site of his
house, whereby the free consideration than an agreement to cease from admission of light and air might be bindered the commission of any crime. And assuming or obstructed to the ancient lights of the house that the relation of master and servant existed in the occupation of the plaintiff, Mr. Beale, to the time of the agreement, and that the as lessee of the other plaintiffs.
plaintiff had voluntarily quitted his service, the Role and Jessel in support.
defendant had gained nothing therehy, and the W. M. James and Cole, contrà, offered the agreement did not, besides, show on the face of defendant's undertaking to abide by any order it that the consideration of their living apart was of the Court at the hearing as to abating the in their mind. Then, in respect to the assault, nuisance, if any, and citing Smith v. Elger, 3 there was nothing in the agreement about
criminal proceedings, as the statement not to The Vice-Chancellor said, that the injunc- annoy or molest could not apply to an indicttion would be granted, referring to Dawson v. ment, and the right of action of the plaintiff's Paren, 5 Hare, 415, as there seemed to be no husband could not be got rid of. The demurrer doubt of the probability of damage to some of must therefore be allowed. the windows of the plaintiff's house.?
Court of Queen's Bench. Lancaster v. Carter. May 2, 1854.
Wadsworth v. Bentley. April 24, 1854. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF
SLANDER. —ACTION FOR WORDS SPOKEN OF
TRADER IN RESPECT OF FORMER TRADE. WANT OF CONSIDERATION.-DEMURRER,
Slanderous words were spoken of the plaintiff
in respect of a trade he carried on as a A demurrer was allowed for want of consideration to a bill filed to enforce the specific
grocer in 1840, but did not refer to the one
he was at the present time carrying on, performance of an agreement entered into
and which he had commenced in 1848 : with the plaintiff by the defendant, to make
Held, that as the words were applicable certain allowances on ceasing from co
to the plaintiff's general character as a habitation.
trader, an action was maintainable, and a This was a bill for the specific performance rule to enter a nonsuit was refused. of an agreement entered into by the defendant
This was a motion for a rule nisi to enter a to pay to a trustee for the plaintiff, who was nonsuit in this action, which was brought to separated from her husband, and lived with the recover damages for slanderous words spoken defendant as housekeeper, a sum of 258. per by the defendant of the plaintiff in respect of week, so long as she should be under medical his trade. It appeared on the trial before treatment from the effects of the defendant's Cresswell, J., at the last York Assizes, that violence, and 208. per week afterwards, until the words in question referred to the trade he had received compensation for certain land which the plaintiff carried on in the year 1840 taken by the Great Northern Railway Company, as a grocer, and not to his present trade, when he agreed to pay one-sixth part thereof which he had commenced in 1848. to the trustee for the plaintiff. The agreement Watson, Q.C., in support. recited that the defendant and plaintiff had The Court said, that the words were spoken lived together as man and wife, but had agreed of the plaintiff as a trader and his general chato separate and live apart from each other, and racter as such, and his character affected what
The rule See Sullon v. Montfort, 4 Sim. 559; Back would therefore be refused. Stacy, 2 Russ. 121.
ever business he might carry on.
DIFFERENCES ON TIME
RISDICTION OF SUPERIOR COURTS.-COSTS.
Superior Courts: Queen's Bench.-Q. B. P. Court.-Common Pleas.
been obtained on the ground that Mr. Cooper ACTION ON bill of exchange GIVEN POR had sat on the bench although an interested
party, and had improperly interfered with the decision of the Court.
Sir F. Thesiger and Bodkin showed cause To an action by the indorsee against the acceptor of a bill of exchange, the defendant Huddleston, citing Regina v. Justices of Suffolk,
against the rule, which was supported by pleaded that it was given in respect of cer. 21 Law J., N. s., Mag. Cas., 169. tain losses arising from time bargains in railway shures. The presiding Judge di- ther Mr. Cooper had interfered judicially so as
The Court said, that the question was, wherected the jury that the time bargains were to influence the decision come to. The fact illegal, and the defendant thereupon obtained a verdict: rule was made absolute
was, that he only gave his evidence openly as
a witness upon oath, and as a magistrate sumfor a new trial.
moned to give evidence had taken his seat on A RULE nisi was granted on April 20 last, the bench in the usual manner. The rule to set aside the verdict for the defendant and would be discharged, with costs. for a new trial in this action, which was brought by the indorsee against the acceptor Queen's Beuch Practice Court. of a bill of exchange. The defendant pleaded
(Coram Coleridge, J.) that the bill had been accepted by him in respect of certain losses arising from time bar
Mitchell v. Hender. April 27, 1834. gains with Messrs. Hill & Co., stockbrokers. County COURT Acts. — CARRYING ON BUIt appeared that the bill was given in renewal SINESS OF SURGEON-CONCURRENT JUof one given for the differences on the purchase of railway shares for the account, and The defendunt carried on his business as a which had been from time to time carried over
surgeon, &c., at C., in the district of the until they amounted to the sum for which the
Liskeard County Court, but he also atbill was given. On the trial before Lord
tended patients daily at their houses in the Campbell, C. J., at the Guildhall Sittings after district of the Launceston County Court Hilary Term last, the jury were directed that
Held, that he carried on business within the time bargains were illegal, whereupon the
the jurisdiction of the Launceston County defendant obtained a verdict. (See Hewitt v. Court under the 9 $ 10 Vict, c. 95, s Price, 4 Man. & G. 355 ; Scott, N. R. 229.
128, and a rule was refused under the 14 E. James showed cause against the rule, & 16 Vict. c. 54, s. 4, for the plaintiff' which was supported bp Bramwell.
costs in an action brought for work don The Court made the rule absolute.
in that district.
This was a motion under the 15 & 16 Vict Regina v. Justices of Middlesex. May, 10, 1854. c. 54, s. 4, for a rule nisi for the plaintiff? REMOVAL OF PAUPER.-Order of sessions costs in this action which was brought fa
work done in a mine within the jurisdiction a ENCE OF MAGISTRATE WITNESS.
the Launceston County Court, against the de On the hearing of an appeal from an order fendant who carried on his business as of removal, a magistrate attended as wit- surgeon, &c., at Callington, in the district
the Liskeard County Court. ness on behalf of the appellant parish, and sat on the bench with the Justices in the
Maynard for the plaintiff, in support, on th usual manner. The order was quashed within the jurisdiction of the County Court i
ground that the cause of action did not aris upon his evidence : Held, that as it wus which the defendant dwelt or carried on hi not shown he had influenced the decision, business under the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 121 and his sitting on the bench was according and that the Superior Court had therefore cor to the usual manner when a magistrate was summoned to give evidence, a rule nisi for
current jurisdiction. a certiorari, on the ground of improper in the first instance on the defendant's affidav
Collier, for the defendant, showed cause i terference, to bring up the order of sessions must be discharged, with costs.
that he was in the habit of daily attendin
patients at their houses in the district of th This was a rule nisi granted on April 20 Launceston County Court. last for a certiorari to bring up an order of The Court said, that the defendant carrid sessions quashing an order of removal of a on his business in the same jurisdiction as tl pauper named Sarah Bailey from the parish cause of action arose, and the rule was ther of St. George, Middlesex, to the parish of fore refused. Hornsey
It appeared that on the appeal from the order coming on for hearing, Mr.
Court of Common Plens. Cooper, one of the magistrates, and the owner of property in the appellant parish, had been
Stokes v. Grissell. May 10, 1854. examined on their behalf as to whether the COUNTY COURT. pauper's husband was in his service at Hornsey TION OF SUPERIOR COURTS, -DISTAN for upwards of a twelvemonth, and that on his OF 20 MILES.-CARRYING ON BUSINESS evidence the order was quashed. The rule had Quære, whether the distance of 20 mil