« EelmineJätka »
188 Order in Chan.-London Commissioners - Bankruptcy Bill. Norwich Borough Court. NEW ORDER IN CHANCERY. Campbell, Thomas Carington, 21, Essex St.,
Cocker, Alfred Richard, 23, Gower Street,
Bedford Square. WHEREAS it is proper that the accounts Depree, Charles Templer, 9, Laurence Lane, kept by the Accountant-General of this Court Cheapside, and 12, Bloomsbury Square. should be examined and compared in order to Dalston, Jonathan Norman, 161, Piccadilly. settle the same ; and whereas, it will require Sq., and of Lampton House near Hounslow.
Goode, Philip, 44, Howland Street, Fitzroy considerable time to perfect such examination,
Humphreys, John, 33, Spital Square. and it is necessary that a time should be ap- Howard, Jonathan, 141, Fenchurch St. pointed for closing the books of account of the Kelly, Edward Robert, Boswell Court, Linsaid Accountant-General for the purposes
coln's Inn. aforesaid, his Lordship doth order that the
Kingsford, James, 23, Essex St. Strand.
Marriott, Thomas Lechmere, 1, Lancaster books of the said Accountant-General be Place Strand. closed from and after Saturday the 19th day of Miller, Ingleby Thomas, jun., 78, King August next, to Saturday the 28th day of Oc- William Street, City. tober next inclusive, excepting upon the days and 7, St. Ann's Villas, Notting Hill.
Osborne, John Francis, 23, Red Lion Sq., and for the purposes hereinafter mentioned, in
Strangways, Thomas Hen., 11, King's Road, order to adjust the accounts of the suitors with Bedford Row, and 28, New Bread St. the books kept at the bank; and that during Surman, William Harry, 11, New Square. that time no draft for any money, except as
Wight, Thomas, 13, Russell Place, Fitzroy
Square. hereinafter provided, or certificate for any Watts, Thomas, 7, Old Jewry, City. effects under the care and direction of this Young, Wm. Samuel, 30, Parliament Street, Court be signed or delivered out by the said and 1, Vauxhall Bridge Road, Westminster. Accountant-General, or any stocks or annui ties accepted or transferred by him relating to
BANKRUPTCY BILL. the suitors of this Court. And that no purchase, sale, or transfer be made by the said
A New Bill has just been brought in by Accountant-General, unless the order, request,
the Lord Chancellor to regulate appointments
in the Court and amend the Law of Bank. or registrar's certificate be left at his office, on * or before Thursday the 10th day of August ruptcy. This measure has been rendered necesnext. And that no order for the payment of sary by the diminution of the business in the
Court. Vacancies which have occurred in the any money out of Court, which
be then in Court, be received at the Accountant-Ge
offices of Commissioners for the Birmingham neral's office after Saturday the 12th day of
and Bristol districts and of a Registrar for the August next. Provided, nevertheless, that the
Bristol district have not been filled up. The office of the said Accountant-General shall be
Bill authorises the Lord Chancellor to regulate
the establishment on the occurrence of future open on Monday the 16th, Tuesday the 17th, and Wednesday the 18th days of October
vacancies. The Bill also provides for disconnext, for the delivery out of any regular in- tinuing the appointment of brokers, and reguterest drafts which shall have become payable
lating the remuneration of Official Assignees. in respect of the October dividends, and of
The trader petitioning must show assets to the any other regular interest drafts which shall
amount of 1501., and the time for disputing the have become payable during the closing of the bankruptcy is extended from 21 days to two
months. office as aforesaid. June 30, 1854. CRANWORTH, C.
NORWICH BOROUGH COURT. LONDON COMMISSIONERS TO ADMINISTER OATHS IN CHANCERY.
It was this day (3rd July) ordered by her Majesty in Council, that within one month
after such order shall have been published in Booty, John Gillam, 1, Raymond Buildings. the London Gazette, the provisions of the ComBerkeley, Charles, 52, Lincoln's Inn Fields. mon Law Procedure Act, 1852, and the rules
Bedford, Henry, 1, Park Villas West, Re- made and to be made in pursuance theregent's Park.
of, except sections 97, 98, and 120 of the Bullock, Joseph Billingsley, 51, Lincoln's said Act, rules 57, 81 to 111 both incluInn Fields.
sive, 115 to 117 both inclusive, 123 to 134
Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor.-Rolls.
189 both inclusive, 173 and 175 and except such | year, shall apply to the Court of Record of the parts of the said Act as relate to special juries, I city of Norwich and county of the said city, terms, and pleadings between the both day of called the Guildhall Court.- From the London August and the 24th day of October in any Gazette of 4th July.
RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS,
of being an accomplice in certain bank for. Morritt v. Walton. July 1, 1854.
R. Palmer, Welford, and Roxburgh in supENTERING APPEARANCE WHERE MORE THAN THREE DEFENDANTS.
Selwyn, on behalf of the Incorporated Law
Society, took a preliminary objection, on the Held, that the 5th Order of October 23, 1853, ground that almost all the points raised by the
which directs that solicitors are entitled to petition had been before the Court of Queen's charge and be allowed 6s. 8d. for entering Bench on two separate occasions,' when the an appearance for every additional number whole question was fully gone into and argued, of defendants not exceeding three, where and that if there were any new facts or fresh there are more than three defendants, ap. evidence adduced, the application should be plies to suits originating by bill as well as made to the Court of Queen's Bench, citing by summons at Chambers.
exparte Wetherell, 2 De G. M‘N. & G. 359. By the 5th Order of October 23, 1853, under The Master of the Rolls said, that the obthe Masters’ Abolition Act, 15 & 16 Vict. jection was an insuperable one which could not c. 80, “Solicitors are entitled to charge and be got over, and which he felt when he first be allowed for entering the appearance for one read the petition. The practice of this Court or more defendants, if not exceeding three, had always been to require, upon the applica68. 8d.,” and “if exceeding three, for every tion to be restored to the roll of solicitors that additional number not exceeding three an ad- the application should be made first to one of ditional sum of 68. 8d.” It appeared that in the Common Law Courts ; and no instance this supplemental bill there were sixteen de- was to be found of a person who had been refendants, and that the solicitor had entered stored to the roll of solicitors without having one appearance for the whole, and that on the previously been restored to the roll of one of taxation of costs the Taxing Master refused to the Common Law Courts. The Court was now allow more than 68. 8d. on the ground that the asked to depart from this rule which it had orders only referred to proceedings originating adopted, and in a case where two applications by summons in Chambers.
had been made to the Court of Queen's Bench, Smythe now applied for the direction of the and been refused by that Court. The words of Court on the question.
the Lord Chief Justice saying, “This is our final The Lord Chancellor said, that 6s. 8d. ought decision," could not certainly be understood to to be allowed for every three appearances in mean that this was a case in which, under no the same manner as on claims.
circumstances could the matter be brought again before that Court for their consideration.
If those words were so treated, it was clear that, Master of the Rolls.
assuming the judgment of this Court to be in Ia re William Henry Barber. July 1, 1854. favour of Mr. Barber, the same observation SOLICITOR.—PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RE- dered. It was attempted to be brought before
would apply upon new matter to be consiNEW CERTIFICATE.-JURISDICTION.
this Court, upon the allegation of fresh eviThe application of an attorney for leave to dence of a very material and important charac
renew his certificate had been refused by ter, which was not before the Court of Queen's the Court of Queen's Bench : Held, that Bench. The judgment upon that evidence the Master of the Rolls will not entertain might or might not have any force or weight a similar application on the merits, ale with the Court of Queen's Bench, but it was though upon fresh evidence.
obvious that it ought not to have any weight This was a petition under the 6 & 7 Vict. c. with that Court otherwise than they should 73, s. 25, on behalf of Mr. William Henry think the evidence was fairly entitled to proBarber for an order that the Registrar of Attor. duce. There was not the slightest doubt that neys and Solicitors should grant a certificate both the Court of Queen's Bench and the that Mr. Barber was a solicitor of this Court, other Courts in Westminster Hall would reand entitled to take out from the Commis- consider the case of Mr. Barber, if it were sioners of Inland Revenue a stamped certifi- brought before them upon evidence which was cate authorising him to practise as a solicitor not before them upon the occasion of the preof this Court. It appeared that Mr. Barber vious decisions. The present application was was admitted on the roll in Easter Term, 1836, and had taken out his certificate of practice July 6, 1850 (reported ante, vol. 40, p. until December, 1843, when he ceased to renew 218), and June 4, 1851 (reported ante, vol. 42, the same upon his apprehension on a charge p. 101).
Superior Courts: Rolls.-V. C. Kindersley.
to rehear the case which was before the Court | appoint, in trust for her daughters. In Nov., of Queen's Bench. - It was not an appeal, be- 1829, and after her husband's death, she made cause it was not upon the same evidence; but a codicil, whereby she confirmed all wills she to rehear it would produce very serious incon- had theretofore made. It appeared that in the veniences and the observations which Mr. will made during her coverture was included Selwyn read from the judgment of Lord Cran- certain property to which the power of apa worth applied to cases of this description. It pointment did not extend, and the question would be a very serious inconvenience that now raised was, whether it passed under the one Court should be allowed to decide upon a codicil. matter which had been tried before another Roupell, Lloyd, R. Palmer, Smythe, Fleming, Court, or that when one Court had pronounced Shee, Hanson, Roche, appeared for the several its decision that the same case should be parties. brought again before another Court upon either The Master of the Rolls said, that the codicil the same or additional materials, in order to could not be held to confirm the bequests in try to get a different decision upon the subject. the will, which were invalid, and that there was It was true this existed in the case of a writ of therefore an intestacy as to the portion not in. habeas corpus, but the inconveniences which cluded in the power of appointment. might arise in that case had been very obvious in various instances, although it must be ad- Vice Chancellor kindersley. mitted that the liberty of the subject afforded some exception. But even in Chancery the
Jenkyns v. Robertson. June 10, 1854. great inconveniences, arising from attempts to PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.--EFFECT OF DEget the decision of one Court at variance with
CREDITORS' the decision of another Court, had been expe. rienced. His Honour said he had felt from
The decree against the estate of the surety to the first an inclination to view this case as fa- a bond included as a specialty creditor, vourably and as leniently as he could, and had
G. N., who after such decree sued the prinbeen impressed with the circumstance of a free
cipal debtor, and arranged to take a judgpardon having been granted by the Crown to
ment for payment by instalments, but withthis gentleman, but it was not possible for this
out the knowledge of the surety: Held, Court, even if the case had not been heard be
that the estate of the surety was neverthefore any Court at all, and the application bad less not discharged. been made here in the first instance, to have interfered, unless an application had been made
In this creditors' suit it appeared that the to one of the Common Law Courts, to allow decree included Mr. George Nicholson as a him to take out his certificate-that in sub- specialty creditor against the estate of the tesstance being perfectly analogous to the case of tator Mr. James Robertson ae surety in a bond, restoring him to the roll, because, although the and that after such decree Mr. Nicholson had form of application was different, the applica- brought an action against the principal debtor, tion and the evidence were of the same charac- and had arranged to take a judgment for payter. This applied still more strongly in a case ment of the debt by instalments, but without where the application had been previously re
the knowledge of the surety. The question fused by one of the Common Law Courts, and was raised whether this did not discharge the the objection, therefore, must be allowed to
surety. prevail. The petition would accordingly stand
Speed and Greene appeared for the several over, and Mr. Barber be allowed to make such parties. application as he might think fit.
The Vice-Chancellor said, that the creditor
had by the decree established his right against Du Hourmelin v. Sheldon. July 3, 1854.
the estate of the surety, who was no longer
liable as surety but under the decree, and the MARRIED WOMAN, - CODICIL CONFIRMING proceedings against the principal debtor was
INOPERATIVE DEVISE IN WILL, EFFECT in the nature of executing such decree, and OF.
would not operate to discharge the surety. A married woman, by a will, devised property
over which she had a power of appointment,
Welch v. Cole. June 30, 1854. power did not extend: Held, that a codicil, TRUSTEES' EXTENSION ACT, 1852. — VESTalthough executed after the death of her
- SALE, UNDER DECREE, husband, and confirming her previous wills, did not give effect to the inoperaride devise An order was made under the 15 &. 16 Vict. of the property over which the testalrix had c. 55, s. I, desting the legal estate in cer. no power of appointment.
tain property sold under a decree in the The testatris, Mrs. Elizabeth Sheldon, by purchasers where the defendants (the denher will, dated in 1824, in pursuance of a tes
dors) had passively refused to carry out tamentary power of appointment, devised cer
the decree by executing a conveyance, but tain leasehold and copyhold lands, held under
held that the order could not be made so the dean and canons of Worcester, and also
as to bar dower. all other hereditaments she had any power to This was a petition under the 15 & 16
LIFE. PAYMENT OF DIVI-
Superior Courts : V. C. Kindersley.- V.C. Stuart.-7. C. Wood.- Queen's Bench. 191 Vict. c. 55, s. 1,' for an order vesting the legal Wigram, for the Archbishop, in support of estate in certain property sold under a decree this petition, for the investment of the purchase. in the purchasers. It appeared that the de- money, and payment into Court to the account fendants (the vendors) had not appeared at the of the railway company and the Archbishop, hearing and had passively refused to carry out and for payment to the Archbishop of such the decree and execute a conveyance.
portion of ihe dividends as might equal the Kinglake, in support, asked that the vesting reserved rent, and for the re-investment of the order might be so as to bar dower.
residue, with liberty to the Archbishop to apply, The Vice-Chancellor, in making the order upon the expiration of the leases and when the with the exception of so much as related to fines became payable. barring the dower, said, that although it was Bovill for the railway company. usual in copyeyances to provide against dower, The Vice-Chancellor made the order as yet in taking under a vesting order only such prayed. estate and interest passed as the party originally holding possessed, and there was nothing
Wice-Chancellor Wood. bere to show that dower had ever been barred.
In re Holdsworth's Trusts. July 1, 1854. Bice-Chancellor Stuart. In re Wimbledon and Croydon Railway Act, 1853, erparte Archbishop of Canterbury.
An order was made on the petition of the June 30, 1854,
tenant for life of a fund in Court for pay
ment of the dividends thereon to her for LONGING TO SEE.-ORDER ON PETITION life, without inquiry, although it was sug. OF ARCHBISHOP FOR INVESTMENT, &c., gested by the trustees that the petitioner Upon certain land belonging to the see of Can- was a professed nun, and resident at a conterbury being taken by a railway company,
vent in Dublin. and which was let on leases renewable
upon This was a petition on behalf of the tenant, payment of a fine, an order was made on for life of a fund in Court for payment of the the petition of the Archbishop for the in- dividends thereon to her for life. vestment of the purchase-money, and pay- Amphlett in support, ment into Court to the account of the rail. Baggallay, for the trustees, submitted wheway company and the Archbishop, and for ther further evidence should not be required, payment of a portion of the dividends equal as the petitioner was a professed nun residing to the reserved rent to the Archbishop, with in a convent at Dublin. leate to apply on the fines being payable at The Vice-Chancellor said, that the solicitor the expiration of the leases.
presenting the petition would be presumed to It appeared that the above railway company
have proper authority, as he did so on his own had taken under their Act, certain land belong-responsibility, and made the order as asked ing to the see of Canterbury, and let on leases, without an inquiry. renewable upon payment of a fine.
Court of Queen's Bench. 1 Which enacts, that “when any decree or order shall have been made by any Court of
Pindar v. Barr. June 19, 30, 1854. Equity directing the sale of any lands for any CHURCH DISCIPLINE ACT.-SUSPENSION OF purpose whatever, every person seised or possessed of such land, or ejititled to a contingent right therein, being a party to the suit or proceeding in which such decree or order shall
The vicar of a parish was suspended under'
the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 86, and the stipendiary have been made, and bound thereby, or being
curate nominated to do the duty had apotherwise bound by such decree or order, shall be deemed to be so seised or possessed or en
painted the plaintiff to the office of parish
clerk which hud become vacant during such the ineaning, the Trustee Act, 1850; and in
suspension. Held, that the plaintiff was every such case it shall be lawful for the Court
duly appointed under the 91st canon by of Chancery, if the said Court shall think it ex
“the minister for the time being," and was
entitled to recover the fees received by the pedient for the purpose of carrying such sale into effect, to make an order vesting such lands
defendant, who had obtained his appointor any part thereof, for such estate as the Court hument from the suspended vicar. Jito shall think fit, beither in any purchaser or in
This was a rule nisi, obtained on April 24 such other person as the Court shall direct; last, to set aside a nonsuit and enter the verand every such order shall have the same dict for the plaintiff in this action, wbich was effeet as if such person so seised or possessed brought to recover the amount of certain fees or entitled had been free from all disability, due to the parish clerk of the parish of North and had duly executed all proper conveyances Ftodingham, Yorkshire East Riding, and reand assignments of such lands for such es. ceived by the defendant. It appeared that on tate."
the suspension of the vicar, the Rev. Mr.
VICAR.-RIGHT OF APPOINTING PARISH
Superior Courts: Queen's Bench.-Common Pleas.-Exchequer Chamber. Drake, under the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 4, s. 86 (the Court of Erchequer Chamber. Church Discipline Act), the Archbishop of Great Northern Railway Company v. Harrison. York appointed the Rev. Mr. Keeling to do the duty of the parish as stipendiary curate,
June 17 ; July 3, 1854. and that a vacancy having occurred by death RAILWAY ACCIDENT.-EVIDENCE ON ISSUE in the office of parish clerk, the defendant had WHETHER PLAINTIFF BELOW LAWFULLY obtained his nomination to the office by Mr. IN RAILWAY CARRIAGE.-PASS TICKETS. Drake, while the plaintiff was appointed by
The defendant in error, a reporter to the Mr. Keeling. On the trial before Cresswell, J.,
Bell's Life in London newspaper, was at the last York Assizes, a nonsuit was di.
proceeding to country races with a pass rected.
ticket made out in the name of the editor, H. Hill showed cause against the rule on
and stated to be not transferable, and that the ground that the power of appointment devolved on the ordinary.
if transferred the party using it would be
liable to the penalties incurred by a pasAtherton and Unthank, in support, referred to the 91st canon, which directs, that “ no
senger travelling without paying his fare.
There was evidence that the defendant in parish clerk upon any vacation shall be chosen within the city of London, or else
error and other persons had previously
travelled with similar tickets, and that the where within the province of Canterbury, but
parties whose names were thereon were perby the parson or vicar, or where there is no
sonally known to the railway officials : parson or vicar by the minister of that place
Held, overruling exceptions to the ruling for the time being.”
of Martin, B., that there was evidence for
Cur. ad. vult. The Court said, that Mr. Keeling was to be
the jury upon the issue whether the defend
ant in error was lawfully in the railway considered as the minister for the time being
carriage, in an action to recover compenwithin the words of the canon, and could there
sation for injuries. fore make a valid appointment of clerk. As to the objection that a valid appointment could This was a bill of exceptions to the ruling not be made during the suspension of the of Martin, B., on the trial of this action, which rector or vicar, it could not be taken by a was brought to recover damages from the stranger, and the plaintiff was entitled to above railway company for injuries sustained judgment, and the rule was accordingly made by Mr. Harrison in consequence of an acciabsolute.
dent on their line. It appeared that he was a
reporter to the Bells Life in London newsCourt of Common Pleas.
paper, and was proceeding to the Lincolnshire
races with a pass ticket made out in the name Begg v. Forbes. June 2, 1854. of the editor and stated to be not transferable, VENUE, CHANGING AFTER ISSUE JOINED.- and that if transferred the party using it would AFFIDAVIT.
be liable to pay the penalty incurred by a pasAn affidavit to change the venue from Middle- senger who travelled without paying his fare. sex to London, after issue joined, was held The plaintiffs in error pleaded that the
defendsufficient, which was made by the defendant's ant in error was unlawfully in the carriage, and attorney, and stated that the action was
the learned Baron holding that there was evibrought for an alleged breach of duty by dence for the jury, left the question whether he the defendants as plaintiff's agents in the was lawfully there to the jury, who found for sale of indigo, which took place in the city the defendant in error. of London, and that in his judgment and
Bramwell for the plaintiffs in error ; Prentice belief the cause ought to be tried by a jury for the defendant in error. of merchants in London.
Cur. ad. vult. This was a rule nisi to rescind the order of
The Court said, that the defendant in error
bona fide going the journey for the news. Crowder, J., at Chambers, changing venue after issue joined in this action, from Middlesex to paper and had availed himself of the pass
ticket, which he showed to the guard, and was London, upon an affidavit by the defendant's attorney, that the action was brought for an dence that the defendant in error and other
put into the railway carriage. There was evialleged breach of duty by the defendants as the plaintiff's agents in the sale of a quantity tickets, and that the parties whose names were
persons had previously travelled with similar of indigo, and which sale took place in the city on the tickets were personally known to the of London, and that in the judgment and belief of the deponent the cause ought to be railway officials. The words on the ticket were
not so conclusive as to make these other cirtried by a jury of merchants in London. Byles, S. L., showed cause ; Cooke in sup- the jury as to the practice in using the tickets,
cumstances immaterial, which was evidence for port. The Court said, that this was not the com- ent. The plaintiff below was not therefore a
and which use was known to the superintend. mon affidavit, but was sufficient to justify the trespasser, and the exceptions must be overorder, and the rule was discharged without