« EelmineJätka »
270 Superior Courts: Queen's Bench.-Q. B. Practice Court.-Common Pleas.
66, s. 3 did not prevent such removal, als 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, inasmuch as they were not at the time residing
Court of Common Pleas. with their mother, and she had abandoned, them.
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 LIST OF VOTERS BY OVERSEERS. under the age of nurture, without their mother, Held, that the 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 35, which difrom 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-I 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. of every city or borough, and the several over
The Court said that the Statute did not pre-seers for the time being of every parish or vent the removal of the two children above the township therein,” “ shall attend the first
te of nurture, as when the order was made Court to be holden before every such barris. they 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.
Cur. ad. vult.
The Court said, that the question was wheRegina v. Burgesses of Shrewsbury. Jan. 29,1
20 ther, if the list which the overseers were re
quired by s. 35 to deliver to the revising bar1856.
rister, were delivered but not signed, it was QUO WARRANTO ON BURGESSES.—U6URPA
valid or not. It was not disputed that a list TION OF OFFICE.
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, althoughi 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. Tuler and others. Jan. 23. 1856.
Alexander showed cause against the rule; Welsby in support.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' ACT.-ACTION TO REThe Court said, it had not been shown prima
COVER AMOUNT OF POLICY.-REFERENCE
TO ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES. facie that the defendants had ever usurped or ! TO A
Superior Courts: Exchequer. 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 arbitration or being decided by justices did not hibition against the Judge of the Liverpool
This was a motion for a rule nisi, for a proapply. 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 þe, 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 in- CUSTOM. surance 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 plaintiff 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 main. was therefore entitled to judgment.
ACTION AGAINST CARRIERS. -DAMAGES
tained. This was an action to recover damages for
the non-delivery within due time of a package Hewston v. Phillips. Jan. 26, 1856.
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 come of age, when the same 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. it legacy under a will.”
FOR DELAY OF PARCEL AND LOSS OF
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 REVENUE Edwin James and Hawkins showed cause COLLECTOR FOR STEALING MONEY REagainst the rule which had been accordingly CEIVED. 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. - ACTION BY AD
300l. for excise duties a few days before, he
took out about 3001. and said it was all he MINISTRATRIX OF SERVANT AGAINST
had. It appeared the prisoner had specula. CONTRACTOR.
ted and lost the remainder. On his conThe defendants accepted the contract of cer
viction before Cresswell, J., upon an indict. tain works, and employed M. by piecework
ment under the 2 Wm. 4, c. 4 for stealing for part of the contract, who engaged the
the 5,0001. : Held, that he had been prodeceased of whom the plaintifwas the widow 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 5,0001. and held that that the plaintiff could not re
stolen the same. It appeared, on the trial becover, under the 9 8. 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
ing for that purpose, and that on his so calling recover damages on her husband's death.
and showing the receipt by the prisoner of It
5,2141. and inquiring whether he was prepared appeared that the defendants had accepted the
ne to pay the same, the prisoner had replied in contract for the building of the water towers at the the Sydenham Crystal Palace, and that they had received and not paid 3001. for excise du
the negative, and on being reminded that he had 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 plaintiff's husband as a labourer, and while
had spent the remainder in unfortunate speculaworking he was killed by an iron runner falling on his head, and which was dropped by one of
Ballantine, for the prisoner, contended there
was no evidence of the receipt and misapprothe defendants' servants. The deceased was
priation of any particular sum, so as to support paid by the week by the defendants. On the
an indictment under the 2 Wm. 4, c. 4. trial before Wightman, J., the plaintiff obtained 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 case might be different. Here there was, how- the real estate. ever, no imputation of the kind, and the de
The Legal Observer, ,
"Still attorneyed at your service." - Shakespeare,
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1856.
SUMMARY OF LAW BILLS IN That seven or more persons may subPARLIAMENT.
scribe a memorandum of association and
form themselves into an incorporated comThe Government have lost no time in pany, with or without limited liability ; but bringing forward several important and not more than 20 shall associate, having beneficial measures for the consideration of gain for its object, unless registered under Parliament. In the foremost class we may this Act, or by Act or Charter. place the Law of Partnership-amendment The memorandum of association is to Bill, and the Joint-Stock Companies Bill. contain, These propositions are of great importance
1. The name of the company ; both to the Public and the Profession. In 2. Its objects; a subsequent article we have set forth the 3. The liability, limited or not; principal statements and explanations of 4. Amount of capital ; Mr. Lowe, who ably introduced the Bills, 5. Number of shares and amount of fully detailing the grounds on which these each share ; and measures are supported by the Govern- 6. The word " limited” is to be the last ment.
word in the name of the company. Great satisfaction was expressed in favour The company is to keep a register 1 of of the general principles of the proposed shareholders, with names and addresses; Acts by Mr. Collier, Mr. Malins, Lord amount paid by each ; when entered as a Goderich, Mr. Cardwell, and Mr. J. G. shareholder; and when ceased. Phillimore. It appears highly probable, We come next to the Leases and Sales of subject to the consideration of the provi- Settled Estates Bill, to which we referred sions in detail, that the Bills will be speedily at the opening of the Session. It has been passed.
deemed useful to set forth the clauses of The Bill relating to the general Law of this Bill fully, and we have appended a few Partnership is very concise :-it merely notes relating to alterations effected in the proposes to enact that the advance of capi- Bill of last Session, but which have been tal to be used in trade or undertaking (not disregarded in the reprint. The clause being that of a banker) upon a contract that preventing persons who had applied to Parthe lender shall receive a share of the pro- liament for extended powers from the adfits, shall not of itself render the person vantages of this Act, can scarcely be demaking the advance liable to third persons fended on any just principle; but we ceras a partner.
tainly think that tenants for life, or other Again, that no contract for the remunera- persons entitled to the rents of estates, which tion of a servant or agent by a share of the may be sold under this proposed Act, ought profits shall, of itself, render such servant or agent responsible as a partner.
1 Should not this Register be kept in some The Joint-Stock Companies Bill
, after public office of convenient access, instead of exempting bankers and insurance Compa- the company's own office ? nies from its provisions, proposes
* See p. 279, posl. No. 1,457.
Law of Partnership, Limited Liability and Joint-Stock Companies. to be better provided for than they are in | liability. But it was clear, from the terms of the present Bill.
the Act itself, that it contained a temporary The Government Bill relating to the abo- element, and on that account, if on no other, lition of Tolls and the adjustment of Dues the measure of last Session must be considered on Shipping, will, we presume, receive the the whole
subject was under the thorough re
one of a temporary nature. In the mean time, sanction of the House. Our shipping inte view of the Government. The questions they rest should be reliered of all possible bur- had now to consider were two- how the printhens and by every possible means encou- ciple of limited liability could be applied to raged. The prosperity of the country private partnerships, and how the law relargely depends on the wise and efficient specting joint-stock companies could be support of this branch of our national re- amended and improved. Two Bills, one relatsources and prosperity.
ing to private partnerships and the other to
joint-stock companies, were therefore prepared. So far regarding the measures of Govern
He should now proceed to explain, in the ment. We come now to other proposed first place, how the law stood with regard to amendments of the law.
private partnerships. They were very little inMr. Craufurd's proposed extension of the terfered with by the law of England, and they powers of the Courts of England to enforce were left very much as they stood at common by execution the judgments of the Courts law. The great grievance complained of was of Ireland and Scotland, and of the latter not the want of limited liability, strictly so Courts to enforce those of England, and called—that was to say, the want of a power each other, seems a necessary measure. with that creditor that he should not be liable
in a partner, known to a creditor, to contract The grounds of opposition do not appear to beyond a certain amount. It was rather the be satisfactory, and we hope the learned converse of that case which was the subject of member will persevere in his object. complaint-namely, that the dormant partner
The subject of the Ecclesiastical Courts, in a concern should be made liable, not merely it will be observed, is taken up by Mr. for the capital he embarked in it, but to the erCollier, instead of the Solicitor-General.
tent of his entire property upon which the creMr. Collier proposes to divide the Testa
ditor had never given any credit at all. That
the nature of the particular grievance, and mentary Jurisdiction of Doctors' Commons the question was how they should deal with it. between the Superior Courts of Common But there was another question arising out Law and the County Courts,-according of the present state of the law as affecting pri(we presume) to the amount in question. vate partnerships which had also to be consiBut where is the machinery in these Courts dered. The House was aware that by an Act to work the business thus proposed to be recently passed the usury laws were repealed, transferred ? 3
but when that Act passed there was probably Mr. Napier proposes to establish a de- not a single person who
thought of its effect on partment of Public Justice :—in other laws, however, completely altered the position
private partnerships. The repeal of the usury words, to create a Minister of Justice, with of persons lending money to partnerships. It competent officers to watch over the admi- was the opinion of Baron Bramweli, who was nistration of justice ;---to prepare Bills for well acquainted with the principles of political Parliainent on behalf of the Government, economy, and still better, he would take leare and to examine all other Bills ;—and gene- to say, with the law of the land, as appeared rally to superintend their progress. This from his evidence before the Mercantile Law
Committee, that it was perfectly competent for is an “object deroutly to be wished.”
a person to lend money to a partnership, re
serving as much as 50 per cent. by way of LAW OF PARTNERSHIP,
penalty, with an agreement that it was not to be LIMITED LIABILITY, AND JOINT- enforced if he was paid a rateable share of proSTOCK COMPANIES.
fits of the concern for the loan. That view was also taken by Lord Eldon in exparte Hamper'
It followed froin that it was at the present time On the 1st February Mr. Loue moved reso- ship, and to receive part of the profits by way
possible to lend money to a private partnerlutions on which to found Bills for altering of interest on the loan. It was not the inten. and amending the law of partnership, and for tion of her Majesty's Government to narrow or incorporating and regulating joint-stock com- to limit the power which persons now possessed panies and other associations. During the last to enter into these contracts. The point of Session an Act had been passed through Par. view adopted by the Government was to take liament for the purpose of enabling joint-stock things as they stood, and, if anything, to encompanies to enjoy the advantages of limited large rather than to narrow the powers already
3 It has since been announced that the Go existing. It being the present state of the law vernment intend to introduce a Bill on this
117 Ves. 404. subject.
DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.