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 live costs. Plumbers' Company and another v. Corbet. INJUNCTION BEFORE HEARING ΤΟ RE- A motion was granted for an injunction to THIS was a motion for an injunction to restrain the defendant from erecting any buildings on the site of his house, whereby the free admission of light and air might be hindered or obstructed to the ancient lights of the house in the occupation of the plaintiff, Mr. Beale, as lessee of the other plaintiffs. Rolt and Jessel in support. W. M. James and Cole, contrà, offered the defendant's undertaking to abide by any order of the Court at the hearing as to abating the nuisance, if any, and citing Smith v. Elger, 3 Jur. 790. The Vice-Chancellor said, that the injunction would be granted, referring to Dawson v. Paren, 5 Hare, 415, as there seemed to be no doubt of the probability of damage to some of the windows of the plaintiff's house.1 ON CEASING FROM COHABITATION. A demurrer was allowed for want of consider- apart, and should in no way annoy or molest the other. It appeared that the plaintiff had threatened legal proceedings against the defendant, to recover compensation for the injury sustained by his violence, and that he had thereupon promised to do more for her than the law would compel him, and had accordingly made the agreement now in question. The defendant had ceased to pay the allowance in March, 1849, and had not paid to the trustee the specified portion of the compensation received from the railway company. The defendant demurred, on the ground of want of consideration to the bill, which had been thereupon filed to enforce a specific performance. Rolt and Martineau for the defendant in support of the demurrer; James and Bagshawe, jun., for the plaintiff, contrà. The Vice-Chancellor said, that an agreement to cease from cohabitation was no more a good consideration than an agreement to cease from the commission of any crime. And assuming that the relation of master and servant existed to the time of the agreement, and that the plaintiff had voluntarily quitted his service, the defendant had gained nothing thereby, and the agreement did not, besides, show on the face of it that the consideration of their living apart was in their mind. Then, in respect to the assault, there was nothing in the agreement about criminal proceedings, as the statement not to annoy or molest could not apply to an indictment, and the right of action of the plaintiff's husband could not be got rid of. The demurrer must therefore be allowed. Court of Queen's Bench. SLANDER. ACTION FOR WORDS SPOKEN OF Slanderous words were spoken of the plaintiff in respect of a trade he carried on as a grocer in 1840, but did not refer to the one he was at the present time carrying on, and which he had commenced in 1848: Held, that as the words were applicable to the plaintiff's general character as a 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 20s. 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 lived together as man and wife, but had agreed to separate and live apart from each other, and 1 See Sulton v. Montfort, 4 Sim. 559; Back 4. Stacy, 2 Russ. 121. The Court said, that the words were spoken of the plaintiff as a trader and his general character as such, and his character affected whatever business he might carry on. The rule would therefore be refused. 54 Superior Courts: Queen's Bench.-Q. B. P. Court.-Common Pleas. Ford v. Campbell. May 4, 1854. been obtained on the ground that Mr. Cooper ACTION ON BILL OF EXCHANGE GIVEN FOR had sat on the bench although an interested party, and had improperly interfered with the decision of the Court. DIFFERENCES ON TIME BARGAINS ON To an action by the indorsee against the ac- A RULE nisi was granted on April 20 last, to set aside the verdict for the defendant and for a new trial in this action, which was brought by the indorsee against the acceptor of a bill of exchange. The defendant pleaded that the bill had been accepted by him in respect of certain losses arising from time bargains with Messrs. Hill & Co., stockbrokers. It appeared that the bill was given in renewal of one given for the differences on the purchase of railway shares for the account, and which had been from time to time carried over until they amounted to the sum for which the bill was given. On the trial before Lord Campbell, C. J., at the Guildhall Sittings after Hilary Term last, the jury were directed that the time bargains were illegal, whereupon the defendant obtained a verdict. (See Hewitt v. Price, 4 Man. & G. 355; 5 Scott, N. R. 229. E. James showed cause against the rule, which was supported bp Bramwell. The Court made the rule absolute. Regina v. Justices of Middlesex. May, 10, 1854. ENCE OF MAGISTRATE WITNESS. Sir F. Thesiger and Bodkin showed cause against the rule, which was supported by Huddleston, citing Regina v. Justices of Suffolk, 21 Law J., N. S., Mag. Cas., 169. The Court said, that the question was, whether Mr. Cooper had interfered judicially so as to influence the decision come to. The fact was, that he only gave his evidence openly as a witness upon oath, and as a magistrate summoned to give evidence had taken his seat on the bench in the usual manner. The rule would be discharged, with costs. Queen's Bench Practice Court. Mitchell v. Hender. April 27, 1854. SINESS OF SURGEON.-CONCURRENT JU- The defendunt carried on his business as a THIS was a motion under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 54, s. 4, for a rule nisi for the plaintiff's Costs in this action which was brought for Work done in a mine within the jurisdiction of the Launceston County Court, against the defendant who carried on his business as a On the hearing of an appeal from an order of removal, a magistrate attended as wit-surgeon, &c., at Callington, in the district of the Liskeard County Court. ness on behalf of the appellant parish, and sat on the bench with the Justices in the usual manner. The order was quashed upon his evidence: Held, that as it was not shown he had influenced the decision, and his sitting on the bench was according to the usual manner when a magistrate was summoned to give evidence, a rule nisi for a certiorari, on the ground of improper interference, to bring up the order of sessions must be discharged, with costs. Maynard for the plaintiff, in support, on the ground that the cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction of the County Court in which the defendant dwelt or carried on his business under the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 128, and that the Superior Court had therefore concurrent jurisdiction. THIS was a rule nisi granted on April 20 last for a certiorari to bring up an order of sessions quashing an order of removal of a pauper named Sarah Bailey from the parish of St. George, Middlesex, to the parish of Hornsey. It appeared that on the appeal from the order coming on for hearing, Mr. Cooper, one of the magistrates, and the owner of property in the appellant parish, had been examined on their behalf as to whether the pauper's husband was in his service at Hornsey for upwards of a twelvemonth, and that on his evidence the order was quashed. The rule had the first instance on the defendant's affidavit Collier, for the defendant, showed cause in that he was in the habit of daily attending patients at their houses in the district of the Launceston County Court. The Court said, that the defendant carried on his business in the same jurisdiction as the cause of action arose, and the rule was therefore refused. Court of Common Pleas. Quære, whether the distance of 20 miles,' Superior Courts: Common Pleas.-Exchequer. 55 which there must be between the respective at Birmingham, and that they did not arrive places of residence or carrying on business until the middle of Thursday, when the market of the plaintiff and defendant in order to was nearly over, and that they were damaged give the Superior Courts jurisdiction under by their long fast to the extent of about 151. the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 128, is to be cal-The defendants pleaded that they did carry the culated in a straight line or by the road. Where the affidavits did not establish that the defendant carried on business in the district, although stating him to be rated and to have his name on the countinghouse, a rule nisi to set aside an order for the plaintiff's costs under the 15 & 16 Viet. c. 54, s. 4, was discharged. pigs within a reasonable time, and also that the pigs were received subject to a contract that the defendants should not be liable for their carriage by any particular train or in time for any particular market, and it appeared that when the pigs were booked a paper containing such terms was given, and a nonsuit was thereupon directed. Mellor showed cause against the rule, which was supported by Miller, S. L., and Hayes. THIS was a rule nisi obtained on April 28 last to set aside an order of Cresswell, J., under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 54, s. 4, for the The Court said, that as the pigs were not replaintiff's costs in this action. It appeared ceived under the contract set out in the dethat the plaintiff's place of business was at claration, and the learned Judge was bound to Stangate Mills, Lambeth, and that the defend-direct the jury to find for the defendants on ant resided at Norbury Park, near London, that issue, the nonsuit could not be disturbed, which was at a distance of 19 miles only in a and the rule would be discharged. straight line, but above 20 by the road. The question was whether the case was within the jurisdiction of the Southwark County Court. Lush showed cause against the rule, citing Regina v. Inhabitants of Saffron Walden, 9 QB. 76; Leigh v. Hind, 9 B. & C. 774; and on the ground that the affidavits did not allege the defendant carried on any business at Stangate Mills. Hon. G. Denman, in support, contended the affidavits were sufficient as they stated the defendant to be rated and to have his name on the counting-house there. The Court said, that, without giving any opinion as to how the 20 miles were to be measured, the rule must be discharged upon the ground that the affidavits did not establish that the defendant carried on any business in the district of the County Court. Hughes v. Great Western Railway Company. RAILWAY COMPANY.-ACTION AGAINST AS CONTRACT.NONSUIT. SPECIAL In an action against the defendants as common carriers to recover damages for the non-delivery of pigs within a reasonable time, it appeared that the person who booked them received at the time a paper containing a contract that the defendants should not be liable for their carriage by any particular train or in time for any particular market. A rule was discharged to set aside the nonsuit which had thereupon been directed. A RULE nisi had been obtained on April 19 last, to set aside the nonsuit and for a new trial in this action, which was brought to recover from the defendants as common carriers for the non-delivery within a reasonable time of 20 pigs. It appeared on the trial before Jervis, C.J., at Warwick, that the pigs were delivered at the Southall station, on the defendants' line, on a Tuesday night, for delivery In re Bernays. April 28, 1854. ANCE BY HUSBAND'S CONCURRENCE. In re Anon. May 10, 1854. Leave was granted under the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, Court of Exchequer. Allum v. Bowthwaite. May 5, 1854. NEW TRIAL WHERE VERDICT UNDER 201., WHEN GRANTED. A rule was made absolute for a new trial, notwithstanding the damages were under 201., where the presiding Judge was dissatisfied with the verdict, and the conduct of some of the jury showed a prejudice Superior Courts: Court of Exchequer. against the defendant, and also where the obtained the defendant's acceptance thereto on evidence on which the verdict passed was his own private account. The learned Judge in direct opposition to that of the defend- having; on the trial, overruled an objection that ant, and was of a boy in the opinion of two the bill could not be sued on here for want of persons not to be believed on oath (per stamp, by reason of its being an inland and Pollock, L. C. B., and Parke and Platt, not a foreign bill, this motion was made on the BB.; dissentiente Martin, B.) ground of misdirection, for a new trial. Chambers in support. THIS was a rule nisi granted on January 31 last, for a new trial of this action to recover damages for wrongfully seizing and detaining the plaintiff's cow as damage feasant,, whereas it was on the high road and not on the defendant's land. On the trial before Platt, B., the plaintiff obtained a verdict with 101. damages, on the evidence of the plaintiff's cowboy that the animal was in the road, whereas the defendant swore it was on his land. It appeared that some of the jury had, while the trial was pending, expressed themselves in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Thomas, S. L., and Griffits showed cause against the rule on the ground the damages were under 20., and that the question of cre dibility was one for the jury. Skinner in support on the ground that perjury was implied to the defendant by the verdict, and that prejudice existed in the minds of the jury, and also that the boy was not to be believed on oath. The Court (per Pollock, L. C. B., and Parke and Platt, BB., dissentiente Martin, B.) said, that the rule would be made absolute for a new trial, notwithstanding the damages were under 20., not with reference to the question as to loss of character, but on the ground that the presiding Judge was dissatisfied with the verdict, and that there had been disclosed conduct on the part of some of the jury which showed a prejudice against the defendant, and besides that it was shown by the opinion of two people that the boy upon, whose evidence the verdict passed was not, worthy of belief. Baker v. Steen. April 22; May 1, 1854, BILL OF EXCHANGE DRAWN IN BLANK. STAMP. In an action by the indorsee against the acceptor of a bill of exchange, it appeared to have been sent from the continent drawn in blank, to an agent, with particular instructions as to its application, but which the agent disregarded, and obtained the defendant's acceptance thereto on his private account: Held, that the bill was a foreign and not an inland one, and might be sued on without a stamp. THIS was a motion for a rule nisi for a new trial of this action, which was brought on a bill of exchange by the indorsee against the acceptor. It appeared on the trial before Pollock, L. C. B., that the bill had been sent from the continent drawn in blank, to an agent in this country, with special instructions to fill up and negotiate the same on his behalf with reference to certain consignments, but that the agent had | Cur, ad. vult. The Court said, that although the drawer had forwarded secret instructions to his agent, he must be held to have intrusted his agent with the power of dealing with the bill in whatever way he pleased, and was therefore liable as regarded the whole world, when his draft was negotiated. It was therefore a foreign bill, and the rule must be refused. Thomas v. Russell. April 25; May 1, 1854. ACTION FOR ASSAULT.-EVIDENCE OF BONA On the trial of an action to recover damages THIS was a motion for a rule nisi for a new trial of this action which was brought to re- Cur. ad. vult. The Court said, that as a mere document the record of the conviction could have no effect on the bona fides of the defendant's conduct or belief, although proof of the knowledge of the facts, on which the conviction proceeded, might have been given in evidence with that object. The rule would therefore be refused. The Legal Observer, AND SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1854. TAXES ON THE ADMINISTRATION analogies to which we never yet heard a suc OF JUSTICE. cessful reply. Above 11 years since, in our 26th Volume, while remarking on the proposed If it could ever be possible to feel confi- constitution of Local Courts, we observeddent that a real Law Reform was about "It will be said that the fees of Courts to be adopted it would be now, for Lord must vary according to the tribunal, and Brougham has energetically taken up a that the establishment of Local Courts matter of Law Reform which is one, not of would be beneficial to the poor, because the doubtful expediency, but of unquestionable Court fees there would be smaller than in justice. The noble and learned lord has the Superior Courts, called the Courts of declared his intention to urge on the Legis- Westminster Hall. This is an observation lature the abolition of all official fees now that has been so often made, and the fallacy, payable by the unfortunate suitors. Under the folly involved in it so often acted upon, such circumstances, we have no doubt that, that we are justified in assuming it to be but for the Czar's ambitious wickedness, made now. And our answer, plain, simple, this great reform would be effected at once. direct, and unequivocal, is, that Court fees The Chancellor of the Exchequer may, ought not to exist. We have long enterhowever, step in and say that the public tained and often expressed our opinion on necessities will allow of no subtraction of this point." income, nor of any increase of expense. If In our 35th Volume, in an article on he should do so, we fear that this real act "Taxes on the Administration of Justice," of justice will be delayed until the great we said-"By what right is it that the enemy of all that is good in Europe shall State requires a man to pay it for discharg have been overcome. In the meantime, we ing this its first and most imperative duty? desire to aid as much as possible the efforts So far as the protection of the subject when of Lord Brougham, and in doing so we feel abroad is concerned, it makes no such claim no small satisfaction in referring to our past upon his purse-why should it do so in the labours in the same cause-labours which case of his protection at home? If his we may reasonably assume not to have been ship was captured by a pirate in some diswithout their effect in producing what now tant sea, the Government would not only seems to be an almost universal opinion. not charge him the pay and pensions of We have always insisted that the individual officers and crew, and the wear and tear of suitor ought not to be taxed for the ascertainment and enforcement of that law the knowledge of which is a necessity to all, and the obedience to which is a security to all. a State vessel which happened to be on that distant sea and recaptured his ship, but would actually go to the heavy expense of sending out such a vessel to effect the recapture, or at least to punish the pirates The principle of the proposed reform is who had robbed him. Why should the clear beyond all doubt, and we shall here State do this without charge to the merreproduce two or three short extracts from chant, and yet charge with heavy expense former articles, wherein we earnestly recom- the same merchant, who, to get back his mended that principle, and gave illustrative property from a private wrong-doer at VOL. XLVIII. No. 1,368. E |