510 Superior Courts: V. C. Kindersley.-Queen's Bench.-Common Pleas. Vice-Chancellor Kindersley. Bennett v. Biddles. April 18, 1856. TRANSFER OF FUND IN COURT TO CREDIT OF ANOTHER SUIT.-PRACTICE. An application to transfer a fund in Court from the credit of a cause to another suit attached to another branch of the Court should be made to the Lord Chancellor or Lords Justices. IT appeared on these petitions in a suit to administer the estate of a deceased person that it was asked to transfer a portion of the fund from this suit to the suit of Bennett v. Jackson, which was attached to the Rolls' Court. R. R. Deane and Boyle for the several petitioners; H. F. Bristowe for the plaintiff. The Vice-Chancellor said, that the application of a transfer must be made either to the Lord Chancellor or the Lords Justices. Ccurt of Queen's Bench. MASTER AND SERVANT.-INJURIES OCCA- The defendant used to hire a carriage of W., whose servant was driver, but whilst with defendant wore his livery. On one occasion the driver asked the defendant if he wanted the carriage and obtained leave to take some of his relations to M. While returning the plaintiff's cab was injured and he brought this action: Held, discharging a rule to set aside the verdict for the defendant, that the defendant was not liable as the driver was not at the time his servant. THIS was a rule nisi to set aside the verdict for the defendant and enter it for the plaintiff in this action. It appeared, on the trial before Erle, J., that the defendant was in the habit of using a fly, in which the horse was hired of one Wise, whose servant was driver and when employed by the defendant wore his livery, and that one day the driver asked the defendant whether he wanted the carriage, and on his reply in the negative obtained leave to take the horse out for an airing and give his wife and sister a drive to Maidstone. Whilst returning home at night after so doing the driver came into collision with the plaintiff's cab and damaged it, and this action was brought to recover damages. Shee, S. L., and Phipson showed cause against the rule; M. Chambers and Prentice in support. The Court said, that the driver was the servant of Wise, and was only the defendant's servant when actually employed by him. The defendant did not employ the driver on the present occasion, although he made no objection to his using the carriage. The rule would therefore be discharged. Regina v. Fayle. April 19, 1856. POOR-RATE. LICENCE TO TAKE CLAY. — CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL OCCUPATION. Held, that a mere licence under a lease to enter on land and take clay, is not such an occupation as to render the lessee liable to be rated to the poor, where he has never entered under the licence, and the clay pits had not been worked for many years. IT appeared that in the year 1846, a lease was granted to the appellant of certain clay pits at Corfe Castle, Dorsetshire, under which he had a licence to enter upon the land and to take the clay, but he had never entered thereunder. This case was stated for the opinion of the Court, whether he had such an occupation as rendered him liable to be rated to the poor-rate. Bovill and Fooks for the respondents. The Court, without calling on Stone and Pole for the appellant, said, that there was neither an occupation of the pits in point of fact, as they had not been worked since 1829, nor a constructive occupation, as he had never entered under the licence, and he was therefore entitled to judgment. Court of Common Pleas. COST-BOOK MIN- STATUTE OF FRAUDS. Held, that shares in a mining company conducted on the cost-book principle are not an interest in land so as to render an agreement for their sale to be in writing under the 29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 4. THIS was a rule nisi to set aside the verdict for the plaintiff in this action which was brought against the defendant for not delivering certain shares the plaintiff had purchased in the Wheal Gustus mine, which was worked on the cost-book principle. Bovill and C. Pollock showed cause against the rule; Day and Leake in support on the ground that as there was no agreement in writing signed by the defendant and the shares were an interest in land, it could not be enforced under the 29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 4 (Statute of Frauds).' The Court said, that upon the authority of the case of Watson v. Spratley, 10 Exch. R. 222, which decided that such shares were not an interest in land, the rule would be discharged. Which enacts, that "no action shall be brought" "upon any contract or sale of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or any interest in or concerning them," "unless the agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorised." Brook v. Magnay (M. R.) East v. Lakeman (Excl.) Fastern Counties Railway Company, in re, exparte Sir Henry Peyton (V. C. S.) and Tilbury Junction Rail way Company, in re, exparte Cave (V. C. W.) 410 57 Edwards v. Hall (L. C.) 310 211 .. 510 411 99 $71 119 v. Martin (V.C.K.) Ellice v. Forsyth (V.C. W.) Entwistle v. Canon (V. C. K.) .. 59 Gibbons v. Taylor (M. R.) Brown v. Brown; Pickford v. Brown (V.C. W.) 491 Godsell, app.; Innoms, resp. 329 154 292 .. 391 .. 157 .. 451 80 .. 470 119 290 Great North of England and Yorkshire and Glasgow Junction Railway Company, in re, exparte Carrick and others (V.C. K.) Greaves v. Bishop (Excl.) .. 311 $8 .. 212 .. Guardiano v. Brown (Excl.) 370 172 231 .. 40 09 Hernaman and another v. Bowker (Exch.) 352 38 Herschfield v. Clark (Exch.) 332 250 Hewston v. Phillips (Excl.) 271 $71 Holmes, in re (Excl.) 312 119 $92 332 Chelsea Waterworks' Act, in re, exparte Trustees of Skeate's Charity (V. C. K.).. Cooper v. Jones (V.C.S.) Crabbe and another, exparte, in re Palmer .. Howard v. Kidd (V. C. S.) 492 Jinks v. Edwards (Exch.) 331 Johnston v. Diamond (Excl.) Kean v. Smallbone (C. P.) 350 Kelsall v. Tyler and others (Exch.) 514 NAMES OF CASES NOTED, CITED, AND DIGESTED IN VOLUME LI. .. 117 116 360 Saward v. M'Donnell, 19 Bear. 528 Thomson, in re, 24 Law J., N. S., Ch. 599 332 154 .. 154 .. 360 .. $31 .. 291 429 271- 487 .. 150 .. 150 Strachan's estate, in re, 9 Hare, 185 .. 350 .. 444 M'Gregor v. Bainbrigge, 7 Hare, 164 n. v. Tarte, 11 Exch. 82 .. Murray v. Earl of Stair, 2 B. & C. 82 ... Newton v. Bennett, 1 Bro. C. C. 155 G., .. 324 Thornbury v. Bevill, 1 Y. & C., Ch. 554 8 Thurgood, in re., 19 Beav. 541 330 252 117 Tregoning v. Attenborough, 7 Bingh. 755; 5 Vaughan v. Farrer, 2 Ves. S. 182 230 Vlierboom v. Chapman, 13 M. & W. 230 .. 342 Oddy v. Secker, 2 Smale & G. 193 698 385 8 Waters v. Waters, V. C. S., June 28, 1854.. 263 Watts v. Porter, 3 Ellis and B. 743 503 510 $11 .. 437 .. 202 .. 183 114 351 446 263 Ch. 625 Parker v. Serle, 6 Dowl. P. C. 334 .. .. Dowl. v. Maidstone, Lord, 24 Law J., N. S. Wylde, in re., 5 De G. M'N. & G. 25 |