« EelmineJätka »
ON LAND. EVIDENCE.
Superior Courts : V. C. Stuart.-V. C. Wood.- Queen's Bench.
505 The Vice-Chancellor granted the applica
The Vice-Chancellor said, that although the tion.
course might be very inconvenient, yet it could
not be held that what had taken place amount. Vice-Chancellar Stuart.
ed to a waiver by the defendants of their right
to demur within the time limited by the orders. Tucker v. Hernamann. March 8; April 21, If the motion had originated with them, it 1855.
might have been regarded as a step in the EXCEPTIONS TO CHIEF Clerk's CERTIFI- cause, but here they had in fact been brought CATE.-ABANDONED MOTION.COSTS.
into Court to defend themselves against an apCertain creditors in an administration suit plication by the defendant, and their having
gave notices of motion to vary the chief filed affidavits for such purpose, could not be
Court af Queen's Bench.
INDICTMENT UNDER GAME ACT.-TRESPASS It appeared that certain creditors had given notices of motion to vary the chief clerk's certificate in this administration suit, but that
An indictment under the 1 & 2 Wm. 4, c. 32, they had afterwards abandoned the same, and
$. 30, charged the appellant with committendered the plaintiff 40s. each for costs, under
ting a trespass by being in the day time an the order of August 5, 1818, which provides,
certain land, the property of B., in search that “if a party gives notice of motion and
of game. It appeared he was out in the does not move accordingly, he shall
, when no
highway, which was between B.'s property, affidavit is filed, pay to the other side 40s.
with a gun, and that his dog had run into
B.'s close, and started a pheasant, which costs, upon production of the notice of motion; but where an affidavit is filed by either party, the
the appellant shot at : Held, that the eviparty giving such notice of motion and pot mov
dence supported the conviction, which was ing, shall pay to the other side costs, to be taxed
affirmed. by the Master, unless the Court itself shall
On the trial of this indictment, charging the direct, upon the production of the notice of appellant with committing a trespass, by being motion, what sum shall be paid for costs.”
in the day time on certain land, the property of Bacon and Schomberg for the plaintiff, con George Bowyer, in search of game, it appeared 'tended, that he was entitled to taxed costs, as that he carried a gun and was walking along affidavits had been filed in support, and the the public highway with his dog, when the dog application was in the nature of exceptions. ran off the road into Mr. Bowyer's land, and Cairns for the creditors, contrà.
started a pheasant, which the appellant had Cur, ad. vult.
fired at in crossing the road. The Vice-Chancellor, after consulting the acted, that “if any person whatsoever shall
By the 1 & 2 Wm. 4, c. 32, s. 30, it is enother Judges said, that the plaintiff was en- commit any trespass by entering or being, in titled to his taxed costs of the several motions. the day time, upon any land in search or pur
suit of game," &c., " such person shall, on Vice-Chancellor uwood,
conviction thereof before a justice of the peace,
forfeit and pay such sum of money not exceedSheppard v. Oxenford. April 24, 1855.
ing 21., as to the justice shall seem meet, toDEMURRER TO BILL FOR WANT OF EQUITY, gether with the costs of the conviction.”
AFTER MOTION FOR INJUNCTION AND AF- Carrington and Lawrence in support of the FIDAVITS FILED.
conviction ; Dowdeswell for the appellant. On a motion for an injunction, the defendants The Court, after referring to the above secfiled affidavits in opposition : Held, that tion said, that the evidence was sufficient to they had not thereby waived their right to support the charge, as he was bodily on the demur to the bill for want of equity—such | land of Mr. Bowyer by being on the highproceeding not being a step in the cause on way, which clearly was his soil and freehold, their part.
notwithstanding the right of the public over it, This was a demurrer to this bill for want of he being the owner of the adjoining lands on equity, and which it appeared had been filed both sides, and the conviction was accordingly after a motion for an injunction had been affirmed. granted.
Rolt and Baggallay, for the plaintiff, took a Regina v. Shrewsbury and Hereford Railway preliminary objection on the ground that the defendants, by filing affidavits on the hearing
Company. April 23, 1855. of the motion against the injunction, had sub- TAXATION mitted to the equity of the bill, and waived their right to demur. Daniel and Toller, contrà.
Where, on the taxation before the clerk of the
OF COSTS OF APPEAL TO SESSIONS AGAINST RATE BY CLERK OF THE PEACE.-WAIVER.
of the peace.
Superior Courts: Queen's Bench.—Common Pleas. peace of the costs of an appeal to the Ses- of Lord Mansfield, in Rex v. Wilkes, 4 Burr. sions against a rate by a railway com- 2,551.' pany, they had attended by their managing The Court said, that it was quite irrespectire clerk: Held, that they could not take an of the merits of the case whether the place was objection, on the ground of the reference beyond or within the jurisdiction, and the for taxation to the clerk of the peace being parties had the opportunity on the trial of improper.
taking the technical objection, but had not This was a motion for a rule nisi to quash done so. The jury had found the defendants the order made by the Herefordshire Sessions, guilty of the offence, and it would be highly allowing the costs of an appeal against a rate prejudicial to the interests of justice to grant by the above railway company. It appeared
the present application. But irrespective of that the costs were taxed by the clerk of the the merits of this particular case, this Court peace, and that the company's managing clerk the Attorney-General, where he had to exer
had no jurisdiction to review the decision of had attended the taxation.
Scotland in support, on the ground that the cise, and had exercised, his discretion in a taxation was improperly celegated to the clerk judicial or quasi judicial office. If the At
torney-General had altogether refused to hear The Court said, that the company, by at the application, this Court would grant a mantending the taxation, were prevented from
damus to compel such hearing, and if he had taking the objection, whether it was good or
misconducted himself he was liable to be pronot, and the rule would therefore be refused.
ceeded against in the proper quarter. As to the dictum cited, Lord Mansfield had himself
said Sir James Burrows' reports were not alRegina v. Newton and others. April 23, 1855. ways accurate, and it was very doubtful whe
ther it bad been uttered by Lord Mansfield.
MISDE- The rule would therefore be refused.
Court of Commou Pleas.
Bennett v. Oriental and Peninsular Steam Naapplication for his fiat for a writ of error
vigation Company. April 21, 1855. on an indictment for a misdemeanor, where BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.-NON-SIGNATURE OF
it appears he has exercised his discretion. Where the Attorney-General refuses to hear
Where a bill of exceptions was not signed in the application altogether, a mandamus will consequence of the Judge being unable lo be granted to compel such hearing.
attend and settle it as intended, and ke A technical objection to an indictment, on the
afterwards was unable through ill health to ground that the offence charged to be with
undertake the matter : Held, that the ar. in the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal
rangement having failed through the fault Court, was not within such jurisdiction,
of none of the parties, a rule would be made overruled, where it had not been taken at
absolute for a new trial. the trial.
It appeared in this action that it had been Semble, the dictum of Lord Mansfield in Rex arranged for the defendants to be at liberty to v. Wilkes, 4 Burr. 2551, that “ in a mis
tender bill of exceptions after a motion for demeanor, if there be probable cause, it a new trial on the ground of misdirection had ought not to be denied this Court would been disposed of, and that upon the rule oborder the Attorney-General to grant his tained accordingly being discharged a bill of fiat,” is incorrectly reported.
exceptions as settled by counsel was sent to
Lord Truro, who presided at the trial, to seal, This was a motion for a rule nisi on the but that not approving of the form of the erAttorney-General to grant his fiat for a writ of ceptions, his lordship had stated his intention error on this indictment at the Central Crimi- to settle them. The matter had not been atnal Court charging the defendants with wound- tended to in consequence of his lordship's ing with intent, &c., and on which they were numerous engagements, and it appeared his found guilty of unlawfully wounding. The state of health now prevented his being application to the Attorney-General for his fiat troubled with the matter. had been made on the ground that the indict- Petersdorff now moved for a new trial; ment charged the offence to have been com- Prentice showed cause in the first instance.' mitted in the parish of Lambeth within the The Court said, that as the arrangement had jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, failed without fault on either side, it must be whereas it was in the parish of Croydon and treated as inoperative, and the rule voald beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The therefore be made absolate for a new trial. Attorney-General refused to grant his fiat, inasmuch as the error assigned alleged a fact in
In a misdemeanor, if there be probable contradiction of the record.
cause, it ought not to be denied; this Court H.J. Hodgson, in support, urged that the writ would order the Attorney-General to grant his of error was ex debito justitie, citing the dictum fiat.”
NA MES OF CASES
REPORTED IN VOLUME XLIX.
ration of (M.K.)
, Peacock (ž. R.) :
PAGE in re, gent, one, &c. (Q. B.).. 347 Evans v. Robinson (Exch.).
284 Acaster v. Anderson (M.K.) .. 263 Ewart v. Williams (V. C. K.)
150 Alcenius v. Nigren (C.P.)
208 Farebrother and others v. Welchman (V.C. K.) 305 v:s)
.. 187 Fenton's Trust, in re, exparte London and Alison, in re (Exch.)
North-Western Rail. Company (V.C. W.) 388 Allen v. Williams (v.c.s.) 114 Forbes v. Smith (Exch.)
307 Andrew v. Andrew (V.C.S.).. 407 Fozard's Trust, in re (L. J.)
405 Andrews v. Morgan (V.C.S.) 188 Fudge v. Pitt (V.C.S.)
155 Anon (M. R.) 347 Gibson v. Sturge (Exch.)
268 Astbury, app. ; Henderson, resp.
(c. P.) 97
113 Attorney-General v, Great Yarmouth, Corpo- Gittens v. Symes (C. P).
366 Goatley v. Emmott (C. P.) . Ä): 58 Gore v. Bowser (V.C.S.)
245 Augier v. May (V.C. W.) 465 Goss' Estate, in re (V.c.s.)..
151 Baileys' settlement, in re (v.C.K.)
.. 187 Green, exparte, in re Cameron's Coalbrook Baker v. Bradley (V.C.S.)
427 Steam Coal and Swansea and Loughor RailBanks v. Davies (V.C. K.) 244 way Company (L.J.)
225 v. Powell (V.C.K.) 58 Greenwood, in re' (Q. B. P.C.)
328 Barford v. Barford (V.C.S.) 168 Griffenhoof v. Danbus (Q. B.)..
79 Bartlett v. Salmon (V.C. W.) 408 Griffiths v. Teeching (C.P.).
40 Bazalgette v. Lowe (V.C.W.) 448 Gurney v. Gurney (1.C.K.)
447 Beavan v. Earl of Oxford (V.C.S.)
39, 168 Bebb v. Bunny (V.C.W.) .. 207 Halsey v. West (V.C.K.)
326 Beeching v. Lloyd (V.C.K.) 484 Hammerton v. Milnes (V. c. S.)
38 Begnill v. Rose (V.C.K.) 78 Hatwill r. Rimell (V.C.S.)
326 Bennett v. Oriental and Peninsular Steam Na- Hamilton v. Bell and others (Excl.)
80 vigation ). 506 Harris's Patent, in re (L.C.).
484 Bewlay v. Great Northern Railway Company Haggitt v. Stiff (V.C. K.), (L. J.) 150, 187 (Q. B.)
96 Hawkins' Hospital, Chatham, exparte Go. Bewley v. Nickels;
226 (V. c. W.)
152 Hammond, in re, ex parte Hammond (L. J.) 244 Bloor v. Huston (c. P.)
244 Rold v. Hutchinson (M. R.) 446 Harris v. Willis (C.P.)
268 Boyse v. Colclough V.C.W.) 225 Hatch v. Hatch (M. R.)
405 Breed v. Caffell (V.C. W.) 327 Henniker v. Chaffey (M. R.).
465 Brewer v. Jones (Exch.) 408 Hill v. Swift (Exch.)
246 Brian v. Twigg (V.C.K.) 134 Hilman v. Westwood (V.c. w.)
207 Broadwood and others v. Granara (Exch.) 116 Hinde v. Poole (V.C. W.)
328 Bruton, exparte Perpetual Curate of (ü.C.K.) 225 Hislop v. Wickham (V.C.K.
465 Buckley v. Cook (V.C. W)
59 Hodges, ia re (L.C.) Burrowa v. Walls (L. C.)
385 Holsgrove v. Hedges (v.c. K.)
98 325 Hope v. Corporation of Gloucester (0.c.s.j s88 Cameron's Coalbrook Steam Coal and Swansea
Hope (L. C.).
19 and Lougbor Railway Company, in re, Houlding v. Cross (V. C.K.)
406 parte Green (L.J.) 225 Huggett, app.; Lewis, resp. (C.P.)
97 Carter v. Smith, in re (Q. B.).. 283 Hughes v. Ellis (M. R.)
426 Chaffers v. Baker (L. J.)
v.c.S.) 245, 503 Chelsea Waterworks' Company, in re (Excb.) 247 Hutchinson v. Marker (Q.B.)
485 Christchurch, Oxford, exparte Dean, &c. of Ince v. Robinson (V.C.S.)
485 (V.C.K.) 150 Jefferies v. Mitcbell (M. R.)
304 Christie v. Cameron (V.c. w.j 188 Jenkins v. Betham (C.P.).
284 Coombs v. Baker (V.C. W.)
167 Cooper v. Mellersh (V.C.S.).
167 Croft v. Lumley; exparte Lord Ward (Q. B.) 306 Johnson v. Clark (V.C.W.)
265 Cuckfield Burial Board, in re (M. R.) 206 Lake v. Currie (V.C.K.)
367 Davenport Education Fund, in re (L. C.) 446 Leble and Carrell, in re Arbitration between Davey v. Bennet(V.C. W.)
(Q. B. P. C.)
S06 Davis v. Chanter (V.C.K.) 387 Leverson v. Shaw (C. P.)
40 Davies v. Earl of Dysart ($1. R)
504 Littledale, exparte, in re Pearse (Court of Ch.) 365 Devon United Niging Co., in re (v.c. w) 368 London and North Western Railway Company Dewlay v. Younghusband (Q. B.)
368 v. Sharp (Exch.) Digby, in re (Bank.)
448 London and North Western Railway
Company Drayson v. Andrews (Exch.)
97 exparte, in re Fenton's Trust (V.C.W.) .. 388 Dunster's Trust, in re (V.C.W.) 347 Long, exparte (Q.B.) ..
60 Earle v. Ferris (M. R.)
167 Lord and Copper Miners' Company,
in Ar Edwards v. Hodges (C. P.)
bitration between (V.C.W.)
95 Emerson v. Mathew and wife (V.C. W.) .. 306 'Lovell v. Galloway (M. R.)
.. 224 .. 114
Calendar to feesdale (v.c.K.)
NAMES OF CASES REPORTED IN VOLUME XLIX.
PAGE Ludlam, in re (L. C.) 586 Reay's estate, in re (V.C.K.)
587 ". ) 386) Richardson v. Rusbridger (M. R.)
386 Mackenzie v. Sligo and Shannon Railway Ripley v. Tiplady (M, R.)
346 Company (Q. B.) 38 Rogers v. Hunt (Exch.)
· 136 Manser v. Dix (v. c. w.) 428 Ronalds, in re (L. J.)..
.. 503 Mansfield, Earl of, v. Ogle (v.c.s.) 326 Roper v. Harrison (V.C.W.)
20 Martin v. Forster (V: C. K.) 206 Ross v. Greene (Exch.)
S48 v. Heming (Excb.) 80 Russell v. Tapping (V.C. K.)
. 504 Mathison v. Clark (V.C. K.) 37 Rye's Trust, in re (V.C.K.)..
347 Maybew, exparte, in re Pennant and Craigwen Sadler v. Henlock (Q. B.)
246 Consolidated Lead Mining Co. (Court of Saffron Hill, exparte Overseers of, (Q. B.P.C.) 116 Ch.) .. 133 Saloway v. Strawbridge (V.C.W.)
S88 Meadows, exparte (Q. B.) ::
306 Savage v. Hutchinson (V.C.W.) 264, 447 Metropolitan Carriage Co., in re (V.C.W.) 38 Schofield, in re (V.C. K.) Midland Counties Railway Company v. Rice Scorah v. Bays (M. R.)
484 (V.C. W.)
20 Scott v. Bentley (V.C.W.) Miller v. Chapman (M. R.)
328 Moody v. Bannister (V.C.K.)
427 Sea Fire and Life Assurance Company, in re Moore v. Wolsey (Q. B.) 115 (L.C.)
283 Morgan v. Hatchell (M. R.) 149 Sheppard v. Oxeuford (V.c. i.)
505 Morrison v. Morrison (V.Ć.s.)
465 Sbroder v. Shroder (L.C.) Moss, in re (Q. B.)
59 Shuttleworth and Sons, in re (Bank.) 152 Morton v. Holt (Exch.) 348 Sinclair v. Wilson (M. R.)
446 Murray's Executors, exparte, in re Universal Smart v. Guardians of West Ham Union Salvage Company (L. J.) 57 (Exch.)
307 Nickels v. Hancock ; Bewley v. Nickels Smith v. Smith (V.c. K.) (V.C. W)
152 South Wales Railway Company and Picton's Oliver v. Sing (Q. B.) 39 Estate, in re (V.C.W.)
428 Osborn v. London Dock Company (Exch.) 284 South Wales Railway Company r. Wythes Other v. Iveson (V.C.K.)
149 Oulds v. Harrison (Esch.) 152 Spier v. Hiatt (M. R.).
465 Parkinson v. Chambers (V.C. W.)
135 Stanley and others v. Wrigley and others Pearce v. Blagrave (C. P.)
S05 Pearse, in re, exparte Littledale (Court of Ch.) 365 Steel v. Haddock (Esch.)
247 Pennant and Craigwen Consolidated Lead Steele v. Gordon (V.C.K.)
264 Mining Company, in re, exparte Mayhetr Stevens v. Hotham (V.C. W.)
466 (Court of Ch.) 133 Stiles ř. Shipton (V.C.K.)
360 Phillips v. Powell (V.C. K.) 58 Stocker's patent, in re (L.C.)
283 Picton's Estate, in re, and the South Wales Suitors' Fund, in re (L. C.)
245 Railway Company (V.C.W.)
428 Swan v. Dakins (C.P.) Port Philip Emigration Co. , in re (V.C.K.) 59 Thornhill v. Thornbill (L. C.), (L. J.)
294, 425 Price v. Hamleti (V.C.K.)
134 Tickner v. Smith and another (V.C.S.) Pritchard's Trust, in re (V.C.K.)
497 Tiverton Market Act, in re (M. R.) Queen v. Beeston (Cr. Ca. Res.)
60 Town v. Mead (C.P.) v. Brighton, Poor Law Guardians of, Truck v. Lamprell (M. R.) (Q.B.) 115 Tucker v. Hernamann (V.C.S.)
505 5. Bristol, Recorder of, (Q. B.) 96 | Turner v. Letts (M. R.)
426 v. De la Beche (Q. B.)
226 Universal Salvage Company, in re, exparte v. East Riding,, Yorkshire, Justices of, Murray's Executors (L.J.) (Q. B.) 226 Vaughan, in re Philip (Q. B.)
263 1. Gate Fulford, Yorkshire, Inbabitants Waltham v. Goodier (L.J.) .. of, (Q. B.P.C.) 368 Walton v. Borthwick (C. P.)
307 P. Hicks (Q. B.)
265 Ward, Lord, exparte; Croft v. Lumley v. Leapingwell (Q. B.)
.. 505 Wells v. Wells (L. C.)
588 Company (Q. B.) 505 Wilkins v. Smith (Q. B.)
188 v. Simpson (Cr. Ca. Res.)
60 Wood v. Grazebrook (V.C. wij v. South Wales Railway Company,
v. Scaith (V. C. W.)
S67 (Q. B.)
114 v. Tayler (V.C.K.) v. Stokes (Q.B.)
79 | Woodward v. Eastern Counties' Railway Comv. Tew (Cr. Ca. Res.)
428 v. Walsall, Justices of (Q.B.) 135 Worthington v. Wigginton (M. R.)
504 v. Warwickshire, Sberiff of, (Q. B.) .. 265 Wynch v. Grant (V. C. K.). Raby v. Ridehalgh (V.C.S.)
78 Yeates v. Roberts (V. C. K.) Read v. Prest (V.C. W.)
135 Zuccani v. Baxendale and others (c. P. 40
NOTED, CITED, AND DIGESTED IN VOLUME XLIX.
exparte, % Dowl. P. C. 110
348 Cape's executor, in re, 2 De G., M‘N. & G.562 134 Abbott, in re, 18 Beav. 393 496 Casse v. Wright, 14 C. B. 562
148 Aberdeen Railway Company v. Blaikie, 1 Champneys v. Buchan, 3 Drewry, 5
274 Macq. 461 487, 488 Charlton v. Knight, 12 Sim. 274
286 Ablett v. Edwards, 10 Sim. 562, n. 265 Charnley v. Grundy, 14 C. B. 608
148 Advocate-General v. Smith, 1 Macq. 760 468 Child, exparte, in re Fitzgerald, 2 Com. L. Rep. Anderson v. Fitzgerald, 4 H. of L. Cas. 484 99, 100
257 Andrews, in re, 17 Beav.510 ..
164 Chilton vi London and Croydön Railway cö. Annesley, in re; Vaughan v. Vanderstegen, (Exch.), Trin. Term 1848
130 2 Eq. Rep. 1257
257 Clark v. Glasgow Assurance Company, 1 Macq. Anon., 17 Beav. 475 234 660
227, 228 4 De G. & S. 547
480 Clarke, exparte, in re Metropolitan Carriage Aspdin v. Austin, 5 Q. B. 671.. 99 Company, 1 Kay & J. 22
336 Attorney-General v. Birmingham and Oxford Cohen v, Cunningham, 8 T. R. 128
37 Junction Railway Co., 4 De G. & S. 490 .. 480 Coleman v. Mellersb, 2 M‘N. & G.314
v. Lord Carrington, 6 Beav, Collins v. Shirley, 1 Russ. & M. 638.. 265 454 51 Colson v. Colson, 2 Atk. 246 ..
100 v. Magdalen College, Oxford, Colvill, app.; Wood, resp., 2 C. B. 210 97 18 Beay. 223.. 443 Cooper, exparte, 14 C. B. 663..
296 V. Mangles, 5 M. & W. 120. 468 Cope v. Rowlands, 2 M. & W. 149
203 -v. Sberborne Grammar School, Copeland v. Lewis, 2 Stark. N. P. 33.. 307 18 Beav. 256.. 443 Cornes v. Taylor, 10 Exch. R. 441
418 V. Simcox, 1 Exch. R. 749.. 468 Cradock v. Piper, 1 M'N. & G. 673. 151 v. York, Archbishop of, 17 Craig v. Duffus, 5 Bell, 308
468 Beav. 495 257 Crossley v. Parker, 1 Jac. & W. 460..
13 Attwood, exparte; Ayles v. Cox, 17 Beav.584 258 Daggett
, exparte, 1 L.M. & P.1; 9 C. B. 218 306 Ayles v. Cox; exparte Attwood, 17 Beav. 584 258 Dansey v. Richardson, 2 Com. Law Rep. 1467 150 Bailey, in re, 18 Beav. 415 458 Darby v. Darby, 18 Beav. 412
440 Baily v. Lambert, 5 Hare, 178 .. 367 | Davis v. Prout, 7 Beav. 288
167 Bainbrigge v. Blair, 1 Beav. 495
38 Dawson v. Dawson, 11 Jur. 984
176, 207 Balfour v. Watt, 8 Moore, P. C. 190.. 288 Dearden, exparte, 5 Exch. R. 740; 1 L.M. & Barnes v. Marshall, 21 Law J., N. S., Q. B. P.666; 9 C. B. 221, n.
306 388 307 Denn v. Slater, 5 T.R.535
99 Barrow, in re, 17 Beav. 547
.. 220 Dickson v. Dickson, 1 Macq.729 467, 488 Bartlett v. Harton, 17 Beav. 479
258 Dinning v. Henderson, 3 De G. & S. 702 : Barton v. Whitcomb, 23 Law J., N. S., Ch., Law J., N. S., Ch. 273
176, 207 523
168 Doe d. Mence v. Hadley, 17 Q.B. 577 73 Baskett v. Cafe, 4 De G. & S. 588 .. 480 Dorrett v. Meux, 15 C. B. 142
317 Bass, exparte, in re Stephen, 2 Phill. 562 182 Douthwaite v. Spensley, 18 Beav. 74.. 362 Beamish, app.; Overseers of Stoke, resp. 11 Dowdell v. Australian Royal Mail Steam NaC.B. 29 97 vigation Company, 3 Ellis & B. 902
93 Beckham v. Drake, 2 H. of L. Cas. 606
99 Dowling v. Hudson, 17 Beav. 248 Benn v. Stupart, Doug. 11
99 Dudgeon v. Thomson, 1 Macq.714, 724 Bensusan v. Nehemias, 4 De G. & S. 381 479
467, 468, 486, 487 Benthall, exparte, 6 M. & G. 722 ; 1 D. & L. Dunn v. Calcraft, 1 S. & S.55
326 747 ; 7 Scott, N. R. 407
377 Bentley v. Dawes, 10 Exch. R. 347 296 --v. Sayles, 5 Q. B. 685 ..
99 Berry v. Pratt, 1 B. & C. 276..
94 Duval v. Mount, 35 L.O. 260..
176, 207 Bettey v. Buck, 13 Jur. 368 307 East v. Twyford, 4 H. of L. Cas. 517
99, 100 Bingle, in re, 15 C. B. 449
459 Edinburgh, University of, v. Lord Provost of Bodmer's Patent, in re, 8 Moore, P. C. 282 288 Edinburgh, 1 Macq. 485
487, 488 Borradaile v. Nelson, 14 C. B. 655
Water Co. v. Hay, 1 Macq. 682 .. 228 Borrows v. Colquboun, 1 Macq. 691 .. .. 468 Edwards v. Griffith, 15 C. B. 397
459 Bougleux v. Swayne, 3 E. & B. 829..
v. Martyn, 17 Q. B. 693 Boulton v. Beard, 3 De G., M‘N. & G. 608 .. 19
v. Meyrick, 2 Hare, 60 Boyse v. Colclough, 1 Kay & J. 125
336 Elton v. Larkins, 5 Car. & P.386 -v. Rossborougb, 1 Kay & J. 125 336 Emery v. Bartlett, 2 Lord Raym. 1555 307 Bridger v. Penfold, 1 Kay & J. 28
362 Emmens v. Elderton, 4 H. of L. Cas. 624 Buckley v. Hann, 5 Exch. R. 43 307 Ewart v. Williams, 3 Drewry, 21
273 Burdon, exparte, in re Lawrence, 2 Smale & Eyre, in re, 10 Beav. 569 G. 367
.. 357 .. 442 .. 53
478 Farrar v. Lord Winterton, 4 Y. & C. 472 388 Campbell v. Allgood, 17 Beav. 623 .. 258 Fawcett v. Cash, 5 B. & Ad. 904
99 --v. Lang, 1 Macq. 451
467, 488 Fenn's Case, 22 Law J., N. S., Ch., 692 134 Cane v. Lord Allen, 2 Dow., 289
.. 442 | Fentum v. Pocock, 5 Taunt. 197