Page images


Result of the Examination.-Notes of the Week. didates for examination, but only 83 com- ting on Saturday the 23rd day of February pleted their testimonials of service and at- next, and will on the said 23rd day of February tended on the day of examination - Tuesday, next proceed in giving judgment in all causes

and matters then standing for judgment. the 22nd January

The Examiners were,-Master Turner, of the Court of Queen's Bench, Mr. Austen, Mr.

SATURDAY HALF-HOLIDAY. Coverdale, Mr. Lake, and Mr. Tooke.

We understand that, at the instance of the Of the above number 70 were passed and promoters of the Meeting of Bankers and Mer13 postponed

chants at Guildhall, the Council of the Incor. porated Law Society have asked the Judges to

receive a deputation on the subject of the proNOTES OF THE WEEK. posed closing of legal business at 2 o'clock on

Saturdays; and that Lord Campbell appointed QUEEN'S BENCH SITTINGS. Friday, the 1st February. We are not able at Lord Campbell said the cases which had not present to state the result. yet been argued were not of such number or weight as to induce the Court to appoint sittings SOLICITORS' COSTS IN EQUITY. in banco after term, a course which they would We learn that the Commissioners who were not scruple to adopt if necessary, but not appointed to inquire into the claims of soliciotherwise, as considerable inconvenience at-tors for an increase of their costs in Chancery tended such sittings. His Lordship then gave Lord Chancellor, and that his Lordship is en

proceedings, have made their report to the notice that on Saturday, the 23rd day of Feb., gaged in considering the suggested alterations. the Court will hold a sitting at half past 10, to give judgment in cases which have been already argued and stand over for judgment.



John Pitt Taylor, Esq., the Judge of the BUSINESS OF THE COURT OF QUEEN'S

Woolwich County Court, when taking his seat BENCH.

on the 26th January, remarked on the excesOn the 19th inst., Lord Campbell said that sive number of judgment summonses taken. in all cases in the Special Paper and Crown He said a class of persons who acted as agents Paper, if an application be made to the Court were very busy in hunting up the poor and upon a day previous to the day on which the taking out summonses without making incases ought to be argued, and sufficient ground quiry as to the means of the defendants. He for the postponement be laid before the Court, had made up his mind to put a stop to these they will be postponed accordingly; but other proceedings, and would commit no defendant wise the cases in those papers will be taken in to prison unless it was clearly proved that such their order. If one side only is present the defendant refused to pay, having the means to Court will hear that side ; and if neither side do so. The number of judgment summonses be present the case will be struck out. The taken out in that Court was six times in excess greatest inconvenience has arisen from appli- of the Lambeth Court, although the latter cations being made for the postponement of district contained double the population of cases during the day on which they ought to be Woolwich. These agents took out summonses argued. That is inconvenient to the Court as for the sake of their commission, but it was well as to the counsel who are to argue them. never intended that County Courts should be The Court will be most happy to accommodate made the instrument of oppression. gentlemen of the Bar, and if on a prior day an application be made for the postponement of any case the Court will be ready to listen to it;

LAW APPOINTMENTS. but, unless such application be made, the Court will in future uniformly and rigidly take confer the honour of Knighthood upon Mr.

The Queen has been graciously pleased to the cases in their order,-From The Times.

Baron Bramwell, one of the Barons of the

Court of Exchequer.

Mr. William Carpenter Rowe, Q.C., Chief This Court will, on Tuesday the 5th, Wed

Justice of Ceylon has had the honour of nesday the 6th, Thursday the 7th, Priday the knighthood conferred upon him. 8th, Saturday the 9th, Monday the 11th, Tues

Mr. Peter Benson Maxwell, Recorder of day the 12th, and Wednesday the 13th days of Prince of Wales' Island, has had the honour of February next hold Sittings, and will at such knighthood conferred upon him. Sittings proceed in disposing of the business Mr. Richard Bolton M'Causland, Recorder then pending in the Paper of New Trials and of Singapore, has had the honour of knighthood in the Special Paper, and will also hold a Sit- conferred upon him.

Superior Courts : Lord Justices.-7. C. Stuart.-Queen's Bench.

269 Mr. Matthew R. Sausse, Puisne Judge at Mr. William Dournan, Solicitor, has been Bombay, has had the honour of knighthood appointed Clerk of the Peace for Sudbury, in conferred upon him.

the room of Mr. William Dournan deceased.


Lee v.

Lord Chancellor.

a manager and shareholder, and the repreGoren. Jan. 19, 25, 1856. sentatives of deceased co-managers and sharePRIORITY OF UNREGISTERED DECREE TO

holders of an association for trading purposes SUBSEQUENT VESTING ORDER OF INSOL

in India, against the defendant, who was a VENT'S ESTATE.

shareholder, and the representatives of deThe defendant in a suit, in which a decree of a Mr. Hudson, who died in India, having

ceased shareholders, except the representatives was made, was declared an insolvent, and a vesting order on his assignees was made appointed the defendant his executor, who, subsequent thereto, but before it was regis, he had proved the will in India, and prayed

however, refused to administer here, although tered: Held, reversing the decision of for an account of the partnership assets and Vice-Chancellor Stuart, that under such for a contribution by the shareholders to disorder although not registered under the 1 & charge the liabilities. This motion was now 2 Vict. c, 110, the assignees were entitled made under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 44, for to priority over the plaintiff's in the suit.

an order on the defendant to represent Mr. This was an appeal from the decision of Hudson in the suit. Vice-Chancellor Stuart. It appeared that the C. M. Roupell in support; Rogers, contrà. plaintiffs had obtained a decree against a Mr. The Vice-Chancellor said, the order must be Holmes, but that before its registration on granted as asked. August 10, 1853, under the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, he became an insolvent, and that a vesting

Queen's Bench. order was made of all his real and personal estates in assignees, but this order had not been

Regina v. Churchwar. Jan. 23, 1856. registered. The Vice-Chancellor held that the ORDER OF REMOVAL.-WHERE CHILDREN plaintiffs were entitled in priority to the as

REMOVED WITHOUT MOTHER. signees, whereupon this appeal was presented. Three pauper children were residing with

Wigram and Toller for the respondents ; their mother, who was in extreme poverty Malins, Elmsley, G. Lake Russell and Hum- and unable to provide them with proper phreys for the appellants.

food and clothing, and was besides living

Cur. ad. vult. with another man by whom she had several The Lord Chancellor said, that before the children. The paupers' uncle relieved passing of the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110 no right ex- them several times, and ultimately, with the isted making the decrees of this Court available mother's consent, ootained an order for against real estate, and until the registration, their admission to the workhouse. An which was necessary under the Act, was ef- order for their removal to their place of fected it obtained no additional power

thereun- settlement without their mother was conder. The insolvent's estate, therefore, passed firmed, and held, that the 9 & 10 Vict. c. under the vesting order made before such registration, to the assignees, and the decision of 1 Which enacts, that “if in any suit or the Vice-Chancellor must be reversed.

other proceeding before the Court it shall ap

pear to the Court that any deceased person Vice-Chancellor Stuart.

who was interested in the matters in question Sutherland v. De Virenne, Jan. 25, 1856.

has no legal personal representative, it shall be

lawful for the Court either to proceed in the EQUITY JURISDICTION IMPROVEMENT Act. absence of any person representing the estate REPRESENTATIVE OF DECEASED PER- of such deceased person, or to appoint some

person to represent such estate for all the purIn a suit by a manager and shareholder, and poses of the suit or other proceeding, on such

the representatives of deceased co-managers notice to such person or persons, if any, as the and shareholders of an association for Court shall think fit, either specially or genetrading purposes in India, against the rally by public advertisements; and the order defendant, who was a shareholder, and the so made by the said Court, and any orders representatives of deceased shareholders, consequent thereon, shall bind the estate of except the representative of a Mr. H., who such deceased person in the same manner in died in India, and had appointed the de- every respect as if there had been a duly con. fendant his executor, who refused, however, stituted legal personal representative of such to administer here : An order was made deceased person, and such legal personal reunder the 15 & 16 Vict. C. 86, s. 44, presentative had been a party to the suit or for the defendant to represent Mr. H. proceeding, and had duly appeared and subtherein.

mitted his rights and interests to the protecIt appeared that this suit was instituted by tion of the Court."



270 Superior Courts: Queen's Bench.-Q. B. Practice Court.-Common Pleas.

66, s. 3 did not prevent such removal, al- acted in the office of burgesses, and the rule
though one was under the age of nurture, would be discharged, but without costs.
and the others 8 and 11 years old, inas-
much as they were not at the time residing

Court of Common pleas.
with their mother, and she had abandoned

Morgan, app.; Parry, resp.

Jan. 16, 29,

1856. This was an appeal from an order of removal of three pauper children, two of whom REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.-SIGNATURE OF were of the ages of 11 and 8 and the other under the age of nurture, without their mother, Held, that the 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 35, which di. from the parish of St. Nicholas, Ipswich, to rects the overseers to deliver to the revising Coombe their place of settlement. It appeared barrister a list of voters signed by them, is that the childrens' mother was in extreme directory only, and not compulsory. poverty and unable to provide them with food An appeal was therefore allowed from the reand clothing, and was besides living with an- vising barrister of the borough of Cardigan, other man by whom she had had several chil- who had treated the list as invalid, where dren, and that their uncle found them in the it was not signed by a majority of the streets in a destitute state and relieved them overseers. several times, and ultimately, with their

This was an appeal from the decision of the mother's consent, he obtained an order for revising barrister for the borough of Cardigan, their admission into the workhouse where they rejecting the list of voters on the ground that it stayed for upwards of three months until their was not signed by a majority of the overseers removal now appealed against.

under the 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 13, which enacts, By the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, s. 3, it is enacted, that “the overseers of every such parish or that““ no child under the age of 16 years, whe- township shall, on or before the last day of ther legitimate or illegitimate, residing in any July in every year, make out or cause to be parish with his or her father or mother, step- made out, according to the Form numbered 3 father or stepmother, or reputed father, shall be in the Schedule B. to this Act annexed, an removed, nor shall any warrant for the removal alphabetical list of all persons who may be enof such child from such parish, in any case titled to vote in the election of a member or where such father, mother, stepfather, stepmo- members to serve in Parliament for such city ther, or reputed father, may not lawfully be re- or borough,” &c., "and the said overseers moved from such parish.”

shall sign such lists." Mills and Bulwer for the respondents ; By s. 35, it is enacted, that “the town clerk Dasent and Worlledge for the appellant. The Court said that the Statute did not pre- seers for the time being of every parish or

of every city or borough, and the several overvent the removal of the two children above the township therein,” “shall attend the first age of nurture, as when the order was made Court to be holden before every such barristhey were not residing with their mother who ter for every such city or borough,” “and the had abandoned them, and with respect to the said overseers, town clerks, &c., respectively, child under the age of nurture, it had been al- shall at the opening of the said Court, deliver ready separated from the mother. The order to the said barrister the several lists so made of removal would therefore be affirmed.

by them respectively as aforesaid.”

Bailey in support.
Queen's Bench Practice Court.

Cur. ad. vult.
Coram Mr. Justice Crompton)

The Court said, that the question was whe

ther, if the list which the overseers were reRegina v. Burgesses of Shrewsbury. Jan. 29, 1856.

quired by s. 35 to deliver to the revising bar

rister, were delivered but not signed, it was QUO WARRANTO ON BURGESSES.-U6URPA- valid or not. It was not disputed that a list

had been made out, and the question was, In order that a rule may go for a quo war- whether the enactment as to its being signed

ranto on burgesses, it should be shown was compulsory or directory; in the former primâ facie that they have usurped or acted case the list would be altogether void, but in in such office.

the latter it must be received although improThis was a rule nisi for a quo warranto on perly signed. The reason of the Legislature various burgesses of Shrewsbury on the ground for requiring the list to be signed was probably that they were not qualified to act, although on to give notice that it was the authentic list, and the burgess roll. It appeared that application if that were so, it might be proved by other had been made to the revision Court to strike evidence. The words of the Act were directory their names of the Roll, but the notice of ob- only, and the appeal would be allowed. jection having improperly described the parties, the names could not be removed. The defend.

Court of Erchequer. ants did not appear to oppose such application.

Kelsall v. Tyler and others. Jan. 23, 1856. Alexander showed cause against the rule; Welsby in support:


COVER AMOUNT OF POLICY.-REFERENCE The Court said, it had not been shown prima facie that the defendants had ever usurped or



Superior Courts : Exchequer.

271 A policy of insurance was effected with an in- appeared that the advances made exhausted

stitution which was enrolled under the 10 the fund, but he, notwithstanding, brought
Geo. 4, c. 56, and on the death of the in- this plaint, under the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s.
sured his administrator sued the represen- 65, to recover the legacy, abandoning the
tatives of the society to recover its amount : excess : Held, that the case was one of a
Held, that he was entitled to recover, and complicated trust and not within the juris.
that the provision of s. 27 and of the so- diction of the County Court, and a rule for
ciety's rule providing for disputes between a prohibition was made absolute.
it and its members being referred to arbi- This was a motion for a rule nisi, for a pro-
tration or being decided by justices did not hibition against the Judge of the Liverpool

apply. Quære, whether such a society is a friendly a plaint which was brought by the plaintiff,

County Court, against further proceedings in society or authorised to issue such policies. under the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 65. It apThis was a special case for the opinion of peared that the testator had given certain fur. the Court. It appeared that a person had ef- niture, &c., to the defendant, his executor, in fected an insurance on his own life with an in- trust to sell and invest 1001., together with the stitution, which had been enrolled under the 10 interest thereon until the plaintiff should attain Geo. 4, c. 56, and that on his death the plaintiff his majority, when the same was to be paid, but as his administrator brought this action to re- with power to advance the whole or a portion, cover the amount thereof.

as might be deemed advisable. It also apBy s. 27 of the Act it is enacted, that "pro- peared that the plaintiff's mother was at the vision shall be made by one or more of the rules time a pauper, and that the defendant had ad. of every such society, to be confirmed as re- vanced moneys for his support and benefit quired by this Act, specifying whether a refe- until the fund was exhausted, but on his atrence of every matter in dispute between any taining the age of 21 he, notwithstanding, such society, or any person acting under them, brought this plaint, abandoning the excess. and any individual member thereof, or person

Aspland showed cause, in the first instance claiming on account of any member, shall be citing Spears v. Wilson, 6 Exch. 833; Milward made to such of His Majesty's Justices of the in support, referred to In re Fuller, 2 Ellis & peace as may act in and for the county in which B. 573. such society may be formed, or to arbitrators

The Court said, there was a difference beto be appointed in manner hereinafter directed.” tween a legacy in the hands of an executor and And one of the rules of the society made there. of both an executor and trustee, and that the under provided for the reference to arbitrators County Court had no jurisdiction. The rule of every matter in dispute between the institu- for a prohibition was therefore made absolute. tion and any member or any person claiming on account of any member. Watson and Tomlinson for the plaintiff'; H. Mann v. General Steam Navigation Company. .

Jan. 27, 28, 1856. Hill and Kemplay for the defendants, the representatives of the society.

The Court said, that the business conducted by the defendants was of an ordinary life insurance society and was not warranted by the In an action against steamboat carriers for Friendly Societies' Acts. The word "insur. damages caused by the delay in the delivery ances " in the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 27 only meant in- of a package containing a number of smaller surances whereby benefits were secured to parcels, the defendants paid a sum into members or their wives and families in case Court sufficient to cover the same, and conof sickness and not ordinary insurances. Nor tested the claim for damage by reason of was the present claim a dispute with, or a the loss of two customers on account of claim on account of, a member, as it was made such delay: Held, making absolute a rule by the plaintiff on his own account Besides, to set aside the verdict for the plaintif for it was very doubtful whether the society was the latter damage, that such damage was under the circumstances a friendly society or not such a direct or probable result of authorised to issue life policies. The plaintiff delay for which an action could be mainwas therefore entitled to judgment.


This was an action to recover damages for Hewston v. Phillips. Jan. 26, 1856.

the non-delivery within due time of a package

containing a number of smaller parcels, which COUNTY COURT ACT.-COMPLICATED TRUST. - JURISDICTION.- PROHIBITION.

1 Which enacts, that "the jurisdiction of the A testator appointed the defendant his exe- County Court under this Act shall extend to

cutor, and gave him certain furniture, &c., the recovery of any demand, not exceeding the in trust, to sell and to incest 1001., together sum of 201., which is the whole or part of the with the interest thereon, until the defend- unliquidated balance of a partnership account, ant should me of age, when the same was or the amount or part of the amount of a disto be paid, but with power of advancing tributive share under an intestacy, or of any the whole or any portion if desirable. Il legacy under a will."








Superior Courts : Exchequer.-Crown Cases Reserved. was sent by the plaintiff by one of the defend- ceased was the defendants' servant and not ant's ships to Glasgow, and also for the loss of Moss's, who was only their servant and not a two customers in consequence of such delay. sub-contractor. The action could not therefore The defendants paid money into Court in re- be maintained. spect of the first damage, but contested the other, and on the trial before Wightman, J., the

Crown Cases Reserbed. jury found this sum sufficient, and assessed the damages for the loss of custom at 15l.,

Regina v, Moah. Jan. 26, 1856. with leave to move.

INDICTMENT AGAINST INLAND Edwin James and Hawkins showed cause COLLECTOR FOR STEALING MONEY REagainst the rule which had been accordingly obtained; Montagu Chambers in support. The prisoner was collector of inland revenue

The Court said, that the loss of the cus- for a country district, and it was his duty tomers in consequence of the delay of the to account for and pay over the same to the parcels was not such a direct or probable re. surveyor on his coming round. It appeared sult for which the plaintiff was entitled to that the surveyor came and showed that the recover, and the rule would therefore be made prisoner had received a sum of upwards of absolute.

5,0001. and asked if he was prepared to pay

it, upon which the prisoner said he was not, Wiggett v. Fox and another. Jan. 28, 1856. and on the surveyor stating the receipt of LORD CAMPBELL'S ACT.

300l. for excise duties a few days before, he took out about 3001. and said it was all he

had. It appeared the prisoner had speculaCONTRACTOR. The defendants accepted the contract of cer

ted and lost the remainder. On his contain works, and employed M. by piecework

viction before Cresswell, J., upon an indict.

ment under the 2 Wm. 4, c. 4 for stealing for part of the contract, who engaged the deceased of whom the plaintif" was the

the 5,000l. : Held, that he had been prowidow and administratrix) as one of the

perly convieted. labourers. He was, however, paid by the

This was an indictment against the prisoner defendants, who also paid M. a weekly who was employed in the collection of inland salary. Upon his death by an accident revenue in Cheshire, for having received in the caused by one of the defendants' servants, service of the Crown a sum of 5,000l. and held that that the plaintiff could not re- stolen the same. It appeared, on the trial becover, under the 9 f. 10 Vict. c. 93, da- fore Cresswell, J., that it was the prisoner's mages against the defendants.

duty to receive the amounts and to account This was an action by the widow and ad

for and pay over the same on the surveyor callministratrix under the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93, to and showing the receipt by the prisoner of

ing for that purpose, and that on his so calling recover damages on her husband's death. It 5,2141. and inquiring whether he was prepared appeared that the defendants had accepted the to pay the same, the prisoner had replied in contract for the building of the water towers at the negative, and on being reminded that he the Sydenham Crystal Palace, and that they had received and not paid 3001. for excise duhad engaged by piecework, a person named ties a few days previously, he took out about Moss, to do part of the work, but they paid 3001. and said it was all he had, and that he him a salary of 6s, a day. He employed the had spent the remainder in unfortunate speculaplaintiff's husband as a labourer, and while tions. working he was killed by an iron runner falling on his head, and which was dropped by one of was no evidence of the receipt and misappro

Ballantine, for the prisoner, contended there the defendants' servants. The deceased was paid by the week by the defendants. On the priation of any particular sum, so as to support trial before Wightman, J.

, the plaintiff obtained an indictment under the 2 Wm. 4, c. 4. a verdict, and this rule nisi was thereupon prosecution) affirmed the conviction.

The Court (without calling on Welsby for the obtained.

C. Pollock showed cause.

The Court (without calling on Channell, S.L., In the case of Streatfield v. Streatfield and Prentice in support) said, that where per- (L. C.), ante, p. 170, the marginal note states sons were employed for a common object and that the decision of the Vice-Chancellor Stuart had an opportunity of seeing what danger (which was the subject of the appeal) was with there was, the law cast on them the duty of reference to the real estate. It appears that the guarding against it by quitting their work or question related only to the personal estate. getting the danger removed. If a person em- There was no dispute between the parties as ployed a servant, and used reasonable care in to the real estate, but solely whether the plainobtaining careful servants, he was free from tiff took an absolute interest in the personal liability arising from an injury by one to the estate, or whether there was a contingent beother, although if he knowingly allowed a ne- quest over to the testator's brother of the pergligent servant to remain in his employ, the sonalty, as well as a contingent remainder in cas ght be different. He there was, how the real estate. ever, no imputation of the kind, and the de

« EelmineJätka »