Union of Benefices Act.-Kingston-upon-Hull Borough Court.

new Churches, and the said Commissioners or the transfer of surplus revenues, or as to shall institute inquiry, and, if they see fit, may any part or parts of any scheine relating therepropose a scheme for the union of such bene- to; and if within such period of two months fices and for the other purposes of this Act; and her Majesty's said Commissioners shall and may for the purposes of this Act exercise such powers and privileges as they now exercise or claim to exercise for the purchase of sites, the erection of new churches, and other objects within the commission of the said Commissioners, to the full extent as such powers and privileges are now exercised or claimed to be exercised by the said Commissioners.

tice in the said parishes, a copy or copies of such KINGSTON-UPON-HULL BOROUGH

scheme, and shall deliver copies of the same to the bishop of the diocese, and to the patrons, ministers, churchwardens, overseers, and vestry clerks of the benefices proposed to be united, together with a notice to any person or persons interested, that they or any of them may within two months show cause to the said Commis- that within one month after such order shall sioners against the proposed union of benefices, have been made and published in the London

96

Hull Borough Court.-Notes of the Week.-Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor. Gazette, all the provisions of the "Summary the members of the Hull Mechanics' Institute, Procedure on Bills of Exchange Act, 1855," on "Labour-its Rights, Difficulties, Dignity, shall apply to the Court of Record of the and Consolations."

borough of Kingston-upon-Hull.

And her Majesty was further pleased to direct that the forms given in Schedules A. and B. to the said Act annexed, may and shall be so altered as to make the same applicable to the said Court of Record, and the Judge and deputy Judge thereof, instead of her Majesty's Superior Courts at Westminster, and the Judges thereof; and that the costs mentioned in the first section of the said Act shall be fixed by the registrar of the said Court of Record, subject to the approval of the Judge thereof, and that the Judge of the said Court, or any deputy or assistant Judge thereof, shall and may, as to the said Court, exercise all the powers given by the said Act to any Judge or Judges of the Superior Courts at Westminster, in or by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and fourth sections thereof.-From the London Gazette of 23rd Nov.

NOTES OF THE WEEK.

MR. WARREN'S LECTURE.

On the 3rd January next, Mr. Warren, Q. C., the Recorder of Hull, will read a paper before

LAW APPOINTMENTS.

The Right Hon. Matthew Talbot Brines, Barrister-at-Law, has been appointed Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the room of the Earl of Harrowby. The right hon. gentleman is to have a seat in the Cabinet.

T. W. Saunders, Esq., Bartister-at-Law, has been appointed Recorder of Dartmouth, in the room of C. D. Bevan, Esq.

A. Littledale, Esq., has been appointed an additional Judge of Behar and Patna in the East Indies.-Civil Service Gazette.

Mr. John Goldsmith was, on the 23rd Nov., admitted a Proctor of the High Court of Admiralty.

C. Dacies Bevan, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, has been appointed Recorder of Penzance, in the room of R. P. Collier, Esq., M.P., resigned.

SOLICITORS ELECTED AS MAYORS.

Portsmouth.-Mr. G. C. Stigant (re-elected).
Beverley.-Mr. H. E. Silvester.
Doncaster.-Mr. W. E. Smith.
Chichester.-Mr. E. W. Johnson (for the se-
cond time).

Arundel.-Mr. F. Cooper.

Newport, Isle of Wight.-Mr. J. B. Hearn.
Sunderland.-Mr. A. J. Moore (re-elected).
Welshpool.-Mr. W. Yearsley.

Evesham.-Mr. H. Workman (re-elected).

RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS.

Lord Chancellor.

Stanger v. Nelson. Nov. 24, 26, 1855. WILL. CONSTRUCTION.-" COUSINS.'

LIMITED TO FIRST COUSINS.

Held, varying the decision of Vice-Chancellor Stuart, that the word "cousins" in a will was limited to first cousins only, and not to cousins generally, where the practical effect of the latter construction would be to let in nearly 150 instead of 21 claimants to

the gift.

It

The Lord Chancellor said, the question was entirely untouched by any previous decision, the only guide was the probability of the testator's meaning under the circuinstances. must be inferred that the testator meant something reasonable and capable of being carried into execution without much difficulty. The only way to give a practical solution to the difficulty was by limiting the meaning to first cousins; and besides the common meaning of the word "cousin" was to denote the child of an uncle or aunt. For the same practical reason the word "relations" had been limited to next of kin. The appeal would therefore be varied in this respect. The costs of all parties to came out of the fund.

THIS was an appeal from the decision of Vice-Chancellor Stuart (reported ante, vol. 50, p. 232). The testator, by his will dated in 1847, gave a sum of money to trustees upon trust to divide the same among his cousins who should be living at his death in equal shares. It appeared that there were 21 first cousins, and nearly 150 more remote relations. In re Stanton Iron Company. The Vice-Chancellor having decided that the bequest was not limited to first cousins only, but extended to cousins generally, this appeal was presented.

Bacon, Malins, Faber, and Batten for the several parties.

Master of the Rolls.

Nov. 26, 1855. WINDING-UP ACT.--PETITION TO WIND UP COMPANY CARRIED ON BY TRUSTEES UNDER CREDITORS' DEED.

Upon partners carrying on the business of ironmongers becoming embarrassed, a cre

Superior Courts: Rolls.-V. C. Kindersley.-V. C. Wood.

ditors' deed was executed, whereby certain trustees were to carry on the business under the title of the Stanton Iron Company, first for the benefit of the creditors and after their claims were satisfied, for the partners. The company proved unsuccessful, and it was sought to wind the concern up, under the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 45, on the ground that the trustees were the directors and the creditors contributories. The petition was dismissed with costs.

THIS was a petition under the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 45, to wind up the above company, which was formed under the following circumstances. It appeared that the Messrs. Smith carried on the business of ironmongers at Derby, and that on their becoming embarrassed, a creditors' deed was executed, under which trustees were appointed to carry on the concern under the above company, first for the benefit of the creditors and after their claims were discharged then for the partners. The company, however, proved unsuccessful. This petition was now presented under the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 45, to wind up the company, on the ground that the trustees were directors and the creditors contributories.

The Master of the Rolls said, that the motion could not be entertained, and disrnissed the petition with costs.

In re Jackson's Trusts. Nov. 26, 1855. HUSBAND

AND WIFE.- WHERE SCOTCH SETTLEMENT.-PAYMENT TO WIFE WHERE

HUSBAND BANKRUPT.

It appeared upon the marriage of two parties in Scotland, a Scotch settlement was executed, and that the husband subsequently became bankrupt: Held, on petition for the payment of a sum of money out of Court, to which the wife was entitled, that the assignees were not entitled.

THIS was a petition for the payment out of Court of a sum of money, to which Mrs. Duncan, a married woman, was entitled; and it appeared that on her marriage with Mr. Duncan in Scotland, a Scotch settlement was executed, and that her husband subsequently became bankrupt. The question was now raised on behalf of the husband's assignees, whether they were not entitled.

R. Palmer and Hemming in support; Roupell, Lloyd, Giffard, and Rudall for other parties.

The Master of the Rolls granted the as prayed.

Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.

order

In re Chislett. Nov. 26, 1855. PAYMENT OF MONEY OUT OF COURT.-EVIDENCE OF AGE. INFORMALITY OF CERTIFICATE.

On this petition for the payment out of Court of a fund on the party entitled thereto at

97

taining 21, it appeared that the certificate of baptism was headed in the year 1833, whereas in the certificate itself the party was stated to have been born on May 2, 1834, and there was no proper signature thereto Held, that the proper evidence must be produced before the order could be drawn up.

Court of a fund to which a young lady was enTHIS was a petition for the payment out of that the certificate of baptism which was adtitled on attaining the age of 21. It appeared duced as evidence of her age was headed in the year 1833, whereas in the body she was stated to be born on May 2, 1831, and also that there was no proper signature thereto whereupon the registrar had objected to draw up the order which had been obtained. Sheffield in support.

evidence must be produced before the order The Vice-Chancellor said, that the proper could be drawn up.

Vice-Chancellor Wood.

Ogilby v. Gregory. Nov. 21, 1855.
EQUITY JURISDICTION IMPROVEMENT ACT.

-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEPONENTS TO
AFFIDAVITS RESIDENT IN THE COUNTRY.

Held, that the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 38,
which subjects witnesses by affidavit to oral
cross-examination and bound to attend be-
fore the examiner, does not impose any ob-
ligations as to their attendance beyond what
was the old practice in respect to witnesses
served with a subpoena ad test.; and there-
fore does not compel a deponent living in
the country to attend before the examiner
in London to be cross-examined, where he
shows sufficient excuse by affidavit for his
non-attendance. Under such circumstances,
a special examiner must be appointed.
THIS was an application, on behalf of four
witnesses who resided at Liverpool and else-
where, and had made affidavits in this suit, to
be exempted from coming to London for the
purpose of being cross-examined under the 15
& 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 38.1

Which provides, that "any witness who has made an affidavit filed by any party to a cause shall be subject to oral cross-examination within such time after the time fixed for closing the evidence as shall be prescribed in that behalf by any order of the Lord Chancellor, by or before an examiner, in the same manner as if the evidence given by him in his affidavit had been given by him orally before the examiner, and after such cross-examination may be re-examined orally by or on the part and such witness shall be bound to attend beof the party by whom such affidavit was filed; fore such examiner to be so cross-examined and re-examined, upon receiving due and proper notice, and payment of his reasonable expenses, in like manner as if he had been

98

Superior Courts: V. C. Wood.-Queen's Bench.

Cairns in support; Shapter, contrà.

The Vice-Chancellor said, that the act did not contemplate subjecting witnesses to the inconvenience of leaving their homes and which they were not compelled to do under the old practice; but that it was necessary that there should be an affidavit to dispense with such attendance.

Court of Queen's Bench.

Andrews v. Elliot. Nov. 6, 1855. COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACT, 1854. TRIAL BY CONSENT WITHOUT JURY.

The trial of an action took place at the Assizes by consent, before a Queen's Counsel named in the Commission, without a jury, under the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 1, but it appeared that the preliminaries, as required by the section, of a consent in writing, or a rule or Judge's order, had not been complied with:

Held, that no objection could be taken on this ground in order to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.

The Court said, that the general jurisdiction to try had been given by the Legislature, and the consent did not operate to give it, and it was not competent to either party to object that certain preliminaries were omitted, as the conduct of both showed they had acquiesced. The rule would therefore be refused.

Curran v. Elphinstone. Nov. 15, 1855. COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACT, 1854. ATTACHMENT FOR NOT FILING ANSWERS

TO INTERROGATORIES.

Held, that an attachment will not issue for not filing answers to interrogatories exhibited, under the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 51, where they have been filed before the motion for a rule, although after the time limited for their being filed.

THIS was a motion for a rule nisi for an attachment against the plaintiff, for neglecting to file answers to interrogatories delivered under This was a motion for a rule risi to set the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 51, within the time limited. It appeared that further time had aside the verdict, and for a new trial of this action, which took place at the last Surrey As-been obtained, which expired on August 22 sizes, before Bramwell, Q. C., who sat as Com-last, and that the answers were not filed until November 1. missioner, without a jury, under the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 1.' It appeared that the trial was so taken by the agreement of the parties,

Stammers in support.

The Court said, that as the answers were filed before the application for an attachment

was made, the motion must be refused.

23, 1855.

duly served with a writ of subpoena ad testificandum before such examiner; and the expenses attending such cross-examination and Regina v. Maidenhead Board of Health. Nov. re-examination shall be paid by the parties respectively, in like manner as if the witnesses so to be cross-examined were the witness of the party cross-examining, and shall be deemed costs in the cause of such parties respectively, unless the Court shall think fit otherwise to direct."

Which enacts, that "the parties to any cause may, by consent in writing to be signed by them or their attorney, as the case may be, leave the decision of any issue of fact to the Court, provided that the Court, upon a rule to show cause, or a Judge on summons, shall in their or his discretion think fit to allow such trial; or provided the Judges of the Superior Courts of Law at Westminster, shall in pursuance of the powers hereinafter given to them make any general rule or order dispensing with such allowance, either in all cases or in any particular class or classes of cases to be defined in such rule or order; and such issue of fact may thereupon be tried and determined, and damages assessed where necessary, in open Court, either in Term or Vacation, by any Judge who might otherwise have presided at the trial thereof by jury, either with or without the assistance of any other Judge or Judges of the same Court or included in the same commission at the Assizes; and the verdict of such Judge or Judges shall be of the same effect as the verdict of a jury, save that it shall not be

HEALTH OF TOWNS' ACT.-FORMATION OF
SEWERS.
OF
LOCAL BOARD.

MANDAMUS.

REFUSAL

Before a rule on a local board of health will be granted to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding them to make such sewers as may be necessary for effectually draining the town as required by the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 63, s. 45, it must be shown that the board had refused to consider what ought to be done.

THIS was a motion for a rule nisi for a mandamus on the Local Board of Health of Maidenhead, commanding them to make such sewers as might be necessary for draining the town, under the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 63, s. 45, which enacts, that "the local board of health shall from time to time repair the sewers vested in them by this Act, and shall cause to be made such sewers as shall be necessary for effectually draining their district for the purposes of this Act."

quashed upon the ground of being against the weight of evidence; and the proceedings upon and after such trial, as to the power of the Court or Judge, the evidence, and otherwise, shall be the same as in the case of tria! by jury."

Superior Courts: Queen's Bench.-Q. B. P. Court.-Common Pleas.—Exchequer.

It appeared that rates had been levied, and plans obtained for the drainage, although no steps had been taken to carry the same into operation.

Bramwell in support.

The Court said, as it did not appear on the affidavits that the board had refused to consider what ought to be done, the rule must be refused.

Queen's Bench Practice Court.
(Coram Crompton, J.)

Pohl v.
Young. Nov. 22, 23, 1855.
COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACT, 1854.-
LEAVE TO EXHIBIT INTERROGATORIES

TO PLAINTIFF RESIDING ABROAD.

In an action by a foreigner residing at
Dantzic, on a contract relating to the
supply of timber held, that interrogatories
might be exhibited to him, under the 17
18 Vict. c. 125, s. 51.

:

THIS was a rule nisi for leave to the defendant to exhibit interrogatories under the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 51, for the examination of the plaintiff, who was a foreigner, residing at Dantzic. It appeared that the action was brought on a contract relating to the supply of timber, and it was sought to ascertain whether the contract had not been rescinded by the parties whom, it was contended, he had employed as agents in this country.

Rowley showed cause against the rule, which was supported by Garth.

Cur. ad. vult. The Court said, that Erle, J. (before whom the rule was argued), did not require any further argument, and that the rule would accordingly be made absolute.

99

15 & 16 Vict. c. 76, s. 20, which Act is incorporated by the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 67, s. 7, with the latter Act, to direct the amendment of the indorsement on a writ and copy issued thereunder; and it was ordered that the service should stand good, and that the plaintiff should pay the costs of the application.

THIS was a motion for a rule nisi to set aside all proceedings in this action under the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 67, on a promissory note, upon the ground that the indorsement of the writ did not show the name of the maker.

Wordsworth, in support, referred to s. 1, which enacts, that from and after October 24, 1855, all actions upon bills of exchange or promissory notes commenced within six months after the same shall have become due and payform contained in Schedule A. to this Act anable may be by writ of summons in the special nexed, and indorsed as therein mentioned;" and to the indorsement in the Schedule:princi- pal and interest], or "The plaintiff claims [ pounds pounds balance of principal and interest, due to him as the payee [or indorsee] of a bill of exchange or promissory note, of which the following is a copy:-[Here copy bill of exchange or promissory note, and all indorsements upon it]."

66

first instance, and cited s. 7, which enacts that Hawkins showed cause against the rule in the dure Act, 1852, and the Common Law Procethe provisions of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, and all rules made under or by virtue of either of the said Acts, shall, so far as the same are or may be made applicable, extend and apply to all proceedings to be had or taken under this Act;" and to the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 76, s. 20, which enacts that "if the plaintiff or his attorney shall omit to insert in or indorse on any writ or copy thereof any of the matters required by this Act to be inserted therein or indorsed thereon, such writ or copy thereof shall not on that account be held void, but it OF EXmay be set aside as irregular, or amendCHANGE ACT, 1855. AMENDMENT Or ed, upon application to be made to the Court

Court of Common Pleas.
Knight v. Pocock. Nov. 6, 1855.

SUMMARY PROCEDURE ON BILLS

INDORSEMENT ON WRIT.

Held, that the Court has power, under the

Which enacts, that "in all causes in any of the Superior Courts, by order of the Court

out of which the same shall issue or to a Judge; and such amendment may be made, upon any application to set aside the writ, upon such terms as to the Court or Judge may seein fit."

The Court said, that there was power to or a Judge, the plaintiff may, with the declara- amend the writ and copy under the Common tion, and the defendant may with the plea, or Law Procedure Act, and directed the amendeither of them by leave of the Court or a Judgement accordingly-the service to stand good, may at any other time, deliver to the opposite and costs to be paid by the plaintiff.

party or his attorney (provided such party, if not a body corporate, would be liable to be called and examined as a witness upon such matter) interrogatories in writing upon any matter as to which discovery may be sought, and require such party, or in the case of a body corporate, any of the officers of such body corporate, within 10 days, to answer the questions in writing by affidavit, to be sworn and filed in the ordinary way.”

Court of Exchequer.

East v. Lakeman. Nov. 10, 1855.

SUMMARY PROCEDURE ON BILLS OF EX-
CHANGE ACT, 1855.- APPLICATION FOR
LEAVE TO APPEAR AND DEFEND.

Held, that the application by a defendant for
leave to appear to and defend an action on