Page images





Superior Courts : Common Pleas.-Eschequer.

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. pigs within a reasonable time, and also that the Where the affidavits did not establish that. pigs were received subject to a contract that

the defendant carried on business in the the defendants should not be liable for their district, although stating him to be rated carriage by any particular train or in time for end to have his name on the counting- any particular market, and it appeared that house, a rule nisi to set aside an order for when the pigs were booked a paper containing the plaintiff's costs under the 15 & 16 such terms was given, and a nonsuit was thereVict. c. 54, s. 4, was discharged.

upon directed. This was a rule nisi obtained on April 28

Mellor showed cause against the rule, which last to set aside an order of Cresswell, J., was supported by Miller, S. L., and Hayes. 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

In re Bernays. April 28, 1854.
jurisdiction of the Southwark County Court.
Lush showed cause against the rule, citing

Regina v. Inhabitants of Saffron Walden, 9
Q. B.76 ; Leigh v. Hind, 9 B. & C. 774; and

HUSBAND'S CONCURRENCE. on the ground that the affidavits did not allege A motion was granted for leave to a married the defendant carried on any business at Stan- woman to convey under the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, gate Mills.

c. 74, without the concurrence of her husHon. G. Denman, in support, contended the band, where he had gone to South America affidavits were sufficient as they stated the de- in 1946, and not since been heard of. fendant to be rated and to have his name on This was motion under the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, the counting-house there.

c. 74, for leave to a married woman to convey The Court said, that, without giving any without the concurrence of her husband, where opinion as to bow the 20 miles were to be he had gone to South America in the year 1846, measured, the rule must be discharged upon and had not since been heard of. the ground that the affidavits did not establish Collier in support. that the defendant carried on any business in The Court granted the application. the district of the County Court. Hughes v. Great Western Railway Company.

In re Anon. May 10, 1854.
May 2, 1854.



c. 74, to a married woman to convey a rent In an action against the defendants as com

charge without the concurrence of her husmon carriers to recover damages for the

band, where they had been living apart by non-delivery of pigs within a reasonable

mutual consent since January, 1840. time, it appeured that the person

who This was an application under the 3 & 4 bonked them received at the time a paper Wm. 4, c. 74, for leave to a married woman, containing a contract that the defendants who had been living apart from her husband should not be liable for their carriage by by mutual consent since January, 1840, to conany particular train or in time for any vey a rent charge without his concurrence. particular market. A rule was discharged The Court granted the application. to set aside the nonsuit which had thereupon been directed.

Court of Erchequer. A ROLE nisi had been obtained on April 19 last, to set aside the nonsuit and for a new

Allum v. Bowthwaite. May 5, 1854. trial in this action, which was brought to re- NEW TRIAL WHERE VERDICT UNDER 201., cover from the defendants as common carriers for the non-delivery within a reasonable time A rule was made absolute for a new trial, of 20 pigs. It appeared on the trial before

notwithstanding the damages were under Jervis, C. J., at Warwick, that the pigs were 201., where the presiding Judge was disa delivered at the Southall station, on the de- satisfied with the verdict, and the conduct fendants' line, on a Tuesday night, for delivery 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 ofta boy in the opinion of trvo 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

Cur, ad, vult. damages for wrongfully seizing and detaining

The Court said, that although the drawer had the plaintiff's cow as damage feasant,, whereas forwarded secret instructions to his agent, he it was on the high road and not on the de- must be held to have intrusted his agent with the fendant's land. On the trial before Platt, B., power of dealing with the bill in whatever way the plaintiff obtained a verdict with 102. dan he pleased, and was therefore liable as regarded mages, on the evidence of the plaintiff's cow- the whole world, when his draft was negotiated. boy that the animal was in the road, whereas It was therefore a foreign bill, and the rule the defendant swore it was on his land. It must be refused. appeared that some of the jury had, while the trial was pending, expressed themselves in Thomas v. Russell.. April. 25.; May 1, 1854. favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Thomas, S.L., and Griffits showed cause against the rule on the ground the damages On the trial of an action to recover damages were under 20li, and that the question of cre- for an assault, with a count to recover cerdibility was one for the jury.

tain oysters, it appeared the defendant Skinner in support on the ground that

claimed as lessee of certain oyster beds, and perjury, was implied to the defendant by the

had given the plaintiff in charge for felony, verdict, and that prejudice. existed in the but which was dismissed : Held, that the minds of the jury, and also that the boy was record of a conviction of other parties for not to be believed on oath.

stealing from the same oyster beds was not The Court (per Pollock, L. C.B., and Parke

receivable in evidence on the issue of the and Platt, BB., dissentiente Martin, B.) said,

defendant having acted bonâ fide and har. that the rule would be made absolute for a new

ing reasonably believed he had the exclusive trial, notwithstanding the damages were under

right to the fishery: 201., not with reference to the question as to

This was a motion for a rule nisi for a new loss of character, but on the ground that the

trial of this action which was brought to represiding Judge was dissatisfied with the verdict, and that there had been disclosed con

cover damages for an assault, and with a count duct on the part of some of the jury which to recover certain oysters. It appeared on the showed a prejudice against the defendant, and trial before Platt, B., at the last Liverpool besides that it was shown by the opinion of assizes, that the plaintiff was an oyster dredger two people that the boy upon whose evidence the

exclusive right of fishery under a lease from

at Beaumaris, and that the defendant claimed the verdict passed was not worthy of belief.

the Bishop of Bangor. On the plaintiff having

carried the oysters to Liverpool, the defendant Baker v. Steen April 22;: May 1, 1864, seized the oysters and preferred a charge of

felony against the plaintiff before the borough

magistrates, who dismissed the charge, whereIn an 'action by the indorsee against the ac- rejected on the trial of the record of a convic

upon this action was brought. Evidence was ceptor of a bill of exchange, it appeared to tion under the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, before have been sent from the continent drawn in Lord Campbell, C. J., at the Carnarvon sumblank, to an agent, with particular instruc-mer assizes, of certain persons for stealing from tions as to its application, but which the the oyster bed in question, which was tendered agent disregarded, and obtained the defend- to show that the defendant had acted bonâ fide ant's acceptance thereto on his private ac. and had reasonable ground for believing that count : Held, that the bill was a foreign he had the exclusive right of fishery. and not an inland one, and might be sued Watson in support. on without a stampa

Cur, ad. vult. This was a motion for a rule nisi for a new The Court said, that as a mere document the trial of this action, which was brought on a bill record of the conviction could have no effect of exchange by the indorsee against the ac- on the bona fides of the defendant's conduct or ceptor. It appeared on the trial before Pollock, belief, although proof of the knowledge of the L. C. B., that the bill had been sent from the facts, on which the conviction proceeded, might continent drawn in blank, to an agent in this have been given in evidence with that object. country, with special instructions to fill up and The rule would therefore be refused. negotiate the same on his behalf with reference to certain consignments, but that the agent had



The Legal Observer,



SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1854.

TAXES ON THE ADMINISTRATION analogies to which we never yet heard a sucOF JUSTICE.

cessful reply.

Above 11 years since, in our 26th Vo

lume, while remarking on the proposed If it could ever be possible to feel confi- constitution of Local Courts, we observed dent 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 discharghave 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 ascer- a State vessel which happened to be on that tainment and enforcement of that law the distant sea and recaptured his ship, but knowledge of which is a necessity to all, would actually go to the heavy expense of and the obedience to which is a security to sending out such a vessel to effect the reall.

capture, 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.


58 Taxes on the Administration of Justice.- Report of the Bankruptcy Commissioners. home, asks the assistance of a Court of Courts, are the severity of the penal proJustice ?"

visions of the Consolidation Act of 1849. And again, in another article in the They observe thatsame Volume, we remarked—“ Practically it would seem that the tribunals did not enumerated, such as losing, at any time, how

“ By the 201st section, certain offences are exist for the whole kingdom, but were ever remote, by any sort of gaining or wagercreated specially at the moment for the in- ing, in one day the sumn of 201., or losing withdividual suitor. He is in the situation in twelve months preceding the bankruptcy the of a man who should buy a carriage and sum of 2001., or losing within the like period horses, establish a place to keep them in, of twelve months the like sum of 2001. by any and servants to take care of them and to time bargain in Government or other stock, or drive them, but who should find himself parting with, concealing, destroying, altering, called to pay a fare every time he used them. mutilating, or falsifying books, papers, writings, In the case of the private individual, such a contemplation of bankruptcy, or with the

or securities after an act of bankruptcy, or in demand on his purse would probably make intent to defeat the object of the Bankrupt him give up the carriage and horses. But Law, or making false or fraudulent entries the subject cannot give up the Courts and with intent to defraud creditors, or concealing their Judges and officers. There they are, any property, or suffering a false debt to be and there the Government insists that they proved, and not disclosing it within one month

By the commisshall be. And why? Let us take the after the bankrupt knows it. most favourable answer that the Govern- against him, the bankrupt is precluded from

sion of any of these offences, if established ment can give to this question, and (putting obtaining the benefit of a certificate of conout of view all reasons of dignity, power, formity. Indeed, as the law now stands, a and patronage), suppose it to say,—the merchant who has carried on an extensive buCourts are maintained because no one can siness with prosperity and success, and is unforesee the time when he may need their aid, expectedly brought down to a state of insoland the Government must provide for even vency by a series of misfortunes which he the possible wants of every subject of the

could not anticipate, would be absolutely unCrown. Exactly so, and that is just the able, if he had lost 201. on a borse-race at any

antecedent period, to claim his certificate reason why no individual should pay fees during the rest of his life. Unless he could when his wants compel him to enter one of pay his debts in full, his incapacity of holding these Courts. The answer shows that they property would last for ever." are kept up for the whole community, not for the individual suitor. All the property

This provision of the Statute (which is in the kingdom which does not come into taken from the 130th section of the 6 Geo. litigation receives a value from that litiga 4, c. 16) is evidently too stringent, and the tion to which the rest is subjected. Mr. A., Commissioners think that the making the who never practically knew what a lawsuit validity of the certificate cognizable in other was, obtains all the benefit of one from the Courts in the cases therein mentioned is fact that Mr. 2. has been compelled to un- Court of Bankruptcy, subject to appeal,

also objectionable. The judgment of the dergo its troubles." These extracts show the principle on

should be conclusive on that question. which the proposed reform proceeds, and

The 256th section, as now drawn, is also, we make them with no little pleasure, as

in the Commissioners' opinion, unnecessarily

harsh and severe. evidence of the early and earnest interest we took in a subject which was at the “It enumerates certain offences which, if bottom of all real Law Reform, and the substantiated at the last examination, or at any neglect of which, up to this time, has been, adjournment thereof, would apparently oblige more than anything else, the cause of Law the Commissioner to refuse the bankrupt any Reform having been incomplete.

further protection, although by a preceding section (the 112th) he has clearly and indis

putably the power to grant it. Moreover, the REPORT OF THE BANKUPTCY 256th section includes among the enumerated COMMISSIONERS.

offences, not only acts which are obviously contrivances to defeat the objects of the Law of Bankrupts, but others also which have not necessarily an intent so fraudulent. We can

see no reason for diminishing the power which Amongst the causes, which the Com tion, of granting protection to the bankrupts

the Commissioner has, under the 112th sec. missioners state have produced the diminu- except so far as such power is controlled by tion in the business of the Bankruptcy any of the following recommendations.



Report of the Bankruptcy Commissioners.

59 “With respect to some of the cases pro- caused to be concealed, destroyed, altered, vided for in the 201st section-namely: after mutilated, or falsified, any of his books, an act of bankruptcy or in contemplation of papers, writings, securities, or any documents bankruptcy, destroying, altering, mutilating, relating to his trade, dealings, or estate ;or falsifying books; or making or being privy Or if the bankrupt shall, either after an to any false entries in any book of account with act of bankruptcy, or in contemplation of intent to defraud creditors ; or concealing any bankruptcy, or within two months next preproperty with the like intent; or suffering a ceding the filing of the petition for adjudicafalse debt to be proved, and not disclosing it tion of bankruptcy, and with the like intent, to his assignees within one month after the have been party or privy to the making of any bankrupt knows it,-in such cases we think it false or fraudulent entry in or omission from should be obligatory upon the Court to refuse any book of account or other document;the allowance of the certificate altogether, and “Or if the bankrupt shall, either after an act also thereupon to refuse protection.

of bankruptcy, or in contemplation of bank“With respect to some of the other cases ruptcy, or within two months next preceding provided for in the 201st and 256th sections, the filing of the petition for adjudication of Damely: losing hy gaming or wagering in one bankruptcy, and with the like intent, have conday 201., or 2001. within one year; or losing cealed any part of his property of the value of 2001. by stock jobbing; or any of the offences 201. or upwards ;mentioned as the fourth, fifth, and eighth of “Or if any person having proved a false those enumerated in the 256th section,--we debt under the bankruptcy, such bankrupt think it should be obligatory upon the Court being privy thereto, or, afterwards knowing to suspend the certificate for a period not ex. the same, shall not have disclosed the same to ceeding three years, nor less than one; and the his assignees within one month after such provision against stock jobbing should extend knowledge:to time bargains in shares in railway and other “Then and in such or any of such cases, public companies, and in foreign stock. the Court shall refuse to grant him a certifi

“With respect to the other offences enume- cate, and shall also refuse to grant him prorated in the 256th section, these as well as tection :other commercial delinquencies not enume

“And if the bankrupt shall, within one year rated should be dealt with by the Court under next preceding the filing of the petition for the discretionary power in the 198th section, adjudication of bankruptcy, have lost by any subject, of course, to the power of appeal.” sort of gaming or wagering in one day 201.,

or at any time within such year 2001. ;Under these circumstances the Commis

Or if the bankrupt shall, within one year sioners are unanimously of opinion, and ac- next preceding the filing of the petition for cordingly recommend, that the imperative adjudication of bankruptcy, have lost 2001. by part of the 256th section, as to refusing any contract for the purchase or sale of any protection in certain cases on the last exa- government, foreign, or other stock, or any mination, should be repealed ; while some

shares in any partnership, association, or comof the Commissioners, who differ from the pany, corporate or unincorporate, to which the foregoing espressions of opinion on this 1848,” applies, where such contract was not

Joint-Stock Companies' Winding-up Act, part of the subject, think that during the to be performed within one week after the interval between the adjudication of bank- contract, or where the stock or shares bought ruptcy and the allowance or refusal of the or sold were not actually transferred or decertificate, protection to the bankrupt should livered in pursuance of such contract ;always be given, in justice to himself as well Or if the bankrupt shall, at any time withas for the benefit of his creditors. His

in two months next preceding the filing of the personal services are then required for pre- dulently, in contemplation of bankruptcy, and

petition for adjudication of bankruptcy, frauparing his accounts, and for affording ex- not under pressure from any of his creditors, planation and co-operation in the manage- but with intent to diminish the sum to be diment of his affairs.

vided among his creditors, or to give an undue The Commissioners further recommend preference to any of his creditors, have paid that such parts of the 201st and 256th or satisfied any such creditor, wholly or in sections as they propose to retain, with part, or have made away with, mortgaged, or some alteration, should be incorporated in charged any part of his property, of what kind one section:

“Or if the bankrupt shall at any time after “So that if the bankrupt shall, either after the filing of the petition for adjudication of an act of bankruptcy, or in contemplation of bankruptcy, and with intent to diminish the bankruptcy, or within two months next pre- sum to be divided among his creditors, or to ceding the filing of the petition for adjudication give an undue preference to any of his credi. of bankruptcy, and with the intent to defeat tors, have concealed from the Court or his asthe object of the Law of Bankruptcy, or to de- signees any debt due to or from him, or have fraud his creditors, have parted with, concealed, concealed or made away with any part of his destroyed, altered, mutilated, or falsified, or property, of what kind soever ;


soever ;

« EelmineJätka »