April 24 Superior Courts : Q. B. Practice Court, --- Common I Regina Eyre Rule nisi for criminal information against clerk to magistrates of Hull for misconduct in office. -24.-Jackson v. Charing Cross Bridge Company-Rule nisi to set aside replications and demurrers-Cause to be shown in full Court. 25.Regina v. North Western - Railway Company Rule nisi for mandamus to defendants to construct bridge over street in conformity to their act. 15 ground, of misdirection of an action of trover to recover possession 201 conveyance of certain property to the plain tiff from the defendant, who had obtained it from one G. to secure an advance of to him, G. having received it from A. and A., builders, to whom it had been given by one J, the purchaser of two lots of the original parcel from the plaintiff, and to whom the deed had b been given upon an understanding to produce it to the plaintiff when required, holding that the whole borrowing was one transaction, and that G. had a right to transfer his lien, ngh 28.-Phillips v. Higgins-Rule nisi for ground of misdirection. The action was in THIS was a motion for a new trial on the attachment for non-payment of moneys pur-trover to recover possession of of around 29.—In re Price Rule nisi on attorneys at Kinsay, near O conveyance to the plaintiff, of a plot of for account. ty if both 25, 26.- Regina v. Garrett and others Sentence on prisoners, 28. In re Pattison and another Rule nisi on attorneys to pay over balances. suant to award. ༄༄ ་་} ' ཝཱ ཨཝཱ ཝཱ Oxford, from the defendant, who pleaded not guilty," not possessed, and a lien. It appeared that the plaintiff, having Common Pleas. WPT sold two parcels of the land to one James, deParacaguay v. London and North Western livered the deed to him on his giving an ac Railway Company. April 16, 1851 knowledgement of the receipt, and an undertaking to produce it to the plaintiff when NEW TRIAL.—VERDICT UNDER £20.required, but that James, who had employed A rule nisi was refused for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection of an action in which a verdict was given with 101. 10s. damages, although the judge who presided at the trial was not satisfied with the verdict. 21 Messrs. Arnold and Allan to build cottages on the land, being unable to pay them, had given them the deed as a security, and they borrowed money thereon from one Golding, who subsequently delivered it to the defendant to, secure an advance of 201, James had left the country, HUMFREY, Q. C., moved for a rule misi for the deed except to Golding, although the and the defendant had refused to deliver up a new trial on the ground of misdirection, in money he had lent was tendered. At the trial this action, which was brought by a coral-mer-before Mr. Justice Talfourd, at the last Assizes chant, to recover the value of certain coral for Oxford, the defendant obtained a verdict. beads which had been delivered by the plaintiff's clerk to a clerk of Pickford and Co., the the ground that Golding had no authority to Alexander, Q.C., and Pigott in support, on defendants agents, for delivery at Manchester, transfer his lien. It appeared that in moving the box at Camden Town to a railway truck it broke, and was consequently repaired by one of Pickford's porters, and that on its arrival at Manchester two rows of the beads were missing. At the trial at the last Nisi Prius Sittings in London, L. C. J. Jervis left it to the jury to say whether or not there had been any robbery committed, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict, with 10, 10s. dasupport, 16 Superior Courts: Common Pleas Exchequer,Exchequer Chamber.-Digest. 26.-Hunt v. Great Northern Railway Company Rule refused for prohibition to County Court Judge. vult. -- 24, 28.-Arden v. Goodacre Cur. ad. 28.-Abley v. Dale-Stand over. 28.-London Railway Company v. London and North Western Railway CompanyCur, ad. vult. Peacock, for the plaintiff; Willes, for the defendant, one of the trustees. Cur. ad. vult. The Court said, that as the creditors had not only forborne but absolutely given up all personal remedy against their debtor, the stipulation as to the division of the bonuses did not avoid the deed for usury, and a certificate in accordance with such judgment would therefore be made. April 23.-Toulmin and another v. Johnson -Rule refused for new trial on the ground of 29.-Doe dem. Hale and others v. Galvin- misdirection. Cur. ad. vult. Court of Exchequer. O'Brien v. Lord Kenyon. Nov. 13, 1850, -23.-Ridgway v. Lord Strafford-Cur. ad. vult. 24. Graham and others v. NewnhamRule nisi to set aside verdict for plaintiffs and enter a nonsuit, or for new trial. 25.-Roe v. Birkenhead, Lancashire and Cheshire Railway Company-Rule nisi on leave reserved to enter nonsuit, on the ground of DEED OF TRUST FOR BENEFIT OF CREDIT- ESTATES.-USURY. 26.-Turner v. Shepherdson-Rule refused 26.-Haslop v. Baker and others-Rule nisi on leave reserved to enter verdict for plaintiff. 26.-Thoms v. Taylor-Rule nisi to set aside verdict for the plaintiff. A deed of trust for the benefit of creditors for new trial. 26. Seaman v. Gurney-Rule refused on leave reserved to increase damages to 4007. 24, 28. Attorney-General v. London Dock Company-Rule nisi to enter verdict for defendants on 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th counts of information, or for new trial. - 29.-Bearcroft v. George-Rule nisi on defendant for taxation of plaintiff's costs. 29.-Locke v. Baker-Rule refused on leave reserved to set aside verdict for plaintiff and enter it for defendant. Court of Exchequer Chamber. April 26. Regina v. Hill-Stand over. 26.- Regina v. Davis Conviction THIS was a special case directed by the late Vice-Chancellor Wigram for the opinion of this Court, whether a deed of trust executed by the late Sir John Osborne, was void for usury, whereby it was agreed that he should pay his creditors interest at the rate of 5 per cent. on their respective debts, and insure his life for the payment of the principal, the payment of which being deferred until after his decease, and he charged his real estates, of which he was tenant for life, with payment of the premiums of insurance and interest. It was also agreed that in consideration of his creditors not proceeding against his person, they should be quashed. entitled at his death to the bonuses declared quashed. 26.-Regina v. Poyser-Conviction af firmed. Regina v. Mayor, &c., of Lichdue on the several policies effected by him on field-Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench Analytical Digest of Cases: House of Lords. circumstance that a person has been made a party to a suit in the Court below, if improperly so made, will not entitle him to appeal to this House against a decree made in that suit. Rochfort v. Battersby, 2 H. of L. 389. BANKRUFt. DIGNITIES, CREATION OF. Course of descent.-Presumptive evidence. In a claim to an ancient Scotch dignity, if no patent or other instrument of creation can be produced, it may be presumed that the dignity was created by patent or charter, limiting it in the manner in which it has been actually enAction for breach of agreement for hiring.joyed. And if that enjoyment be shown to A. entered into an agreement with B. and C. have been confined to heirs male, in exclusion to serve them for seven years, at fixed wages, of nearer heirs female, the dignity must be at the rate of three guineas weekly, "the party held to be a male honour, always descendible making default to pay to the other the sum of to the heirs male of the body of the first 5001. by way or in nature of specific da- grantee. Crawford and Lindsay Peerages, 2 mages." A. was dismissed; he became bank- H. of L. 534. rupt, and after the bankruptcy brought an action of assumpsit on the agreement, to which the defendant pleaded his bankruptcy. Held, that this plea was an answer to the action, for that the right of action in respect of this breach of the agreement passed to his assignees Beckham v. Drake, 2 H. of L. 579. See Evidence, 1. CHARITY COMMISSIONERS FOR IRELAND. EVIDENCE. 1. Bankruptcy of testamentary trustee, not put in issue.-Where the fact of bankruptcy of a testamentary trustee of a charity is not put in issue by the bill seeking to remove such trustee, evidence of it is not admissible at the hearing of the cause. Archbold v. Commissioners of Charitable Beguests for Ireland, 2 H. of L. 440. 2. Ancient documents of public character.Peerage.-Contemporaneous history.-Ancient documents of a public character, brought from the proper repository, are, in the absence of patents or parliamentary records, admissible as evidence of the creation and existence of peerages. And, semble, that, by the law of Scotland, contemporaneous history is admissible for the same purpose. Crawford and Lindsay Peerages, 2 H. of L. 534. Powers.-Jurisdiction.-Removal of testamentary trustee.-By the act 7 & 8 Vict. c. 97, the power of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and bequests for Ireland to sue for the recovery of such donations and bequests, is expressly limited to cases where they are withheld, concealed, or misapplied; and the same, when recovered by the Commissioners, are to be, by themselves, applied to charitable uses, according to the donor's intention. And, 3. Ancient patent without seal with verified although they obtain the sanction of the Attor- attestation.-An ancient patent without the ney-General to their suit, as required by the seal, but with the attestation thereof duly verisaid act, they must maintain it according to fied, is admissible evidence in a claim to a the power of suing thereby given to them, and peerage. Crawford and Lindsay Peerages, 2 are not entitled to the general jurisdiction H. of L. 534. which the Court exercises in suits instituted by the Attorney-General. A decree, therefore, made at the suit of the Commissioners, first, removing a testamentary trustee of a charity, on the grounds of his bankruptcy and residence abroad, but without proof of any improper withholding, or concealment, or misapplication of the trust property; and, secondly, directing the appointment of another trustee in his place, is wholly wrong. Archbold v. Commissioners of Charitable Bequests for Ireland, 2 H. of L. 440. 4. Printed copies of records.-Printed copies of records rejected, the originals being accessible. Crawford and Lindsay Peerages, 2 H, of L. 547. 5. Patent without seal or any record thereof. A patent, without a seal or any record of it, admitted, on proof of the attestation. Craw ford and Lindsay Peerages, 2 H. of L. 550. 6. Statements in writing by deceased person. -Without view to claim of peerage.-Statements in writing by a deceased person of facts within his knowledge relating to the state of his family, without a view to a suit or claim of peerage, are admissible in proof of pedigree. H. of L. Crawford and Lindsay Peerages, 559. See Dignities. CHARITY, TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEE of. Bankruptcy and occasional residence abroad. -Removal from trusts-Semble, that neither bankruptcy, nor occasional residence abroad, disqualifies a testamentary trustee, to whom the testator has, unconditionally, confided a Allegation not proved.-Grounds for decree. large personal discretion in the administration What relief to be granted.-If a bill alleges of the trusts, together with power to appoint a fraud, which is not proved, and also alreceiver of the rents of the trust estate. Arch- leges other matters, which, being proved, are bold v. Commissioners of Charitable Bequests grounds for a decree, the proper course is to for Ireland, 2 H, of L. 440, Per Wilde, L. C. J., Parke, B., Maule, Wightman, Cresswell, Erle, and Williams, JJ.; dissentibus, Rolfe and Platt, BB. dismiss so much of the bill as is not proved, and to give so much relief, under the circumstances, as the plaintiff may be entitled to. Archbold v. Commissioners of Charitable Be quests of Ireland, 2 H. of L, 440, 18 Analytical Digest of Cases House of Lords. ivory pusymon FREIGHT. Andang boda | fact that that the expenses of repair ultimately Receipt of, by obligee of bottomry bond. prove to be greater than the value of the ship, Receipt by shipowner. The receipt of freight will not be sufficient to show that he acted be-by the obligee of a bottomry bond is, in law, a yond the scope of his authority, or to entitle receipt of it by the shipowner whose Master the owner in an action on a policy on freight, has given that bond in discharge of expenses to recover as for a total loss. Benson v. Chưpincurred in the necessary repairs of the ship. man, 2 H. of L. 695. Benson v. Chapman, 2 H. of L. 696. K -See Ship. sind das Punta 001 grad of bINSOLVENTS MISC. Cases cited in the judgment. Heath v. Chad. & M. 633,299ĪJA VA 2. Parties to foreclosure suit.-W. R. was the owner in the fee of certain estates in Ireland, which, on his marriage with E., he charged with an annuity by way of jointure. W. R. had issue a son, W. H. R., and died. For some years the annuity fell into arrear. The widow (under the terms of the settlement) entered into possession of the estates, and received the ren's. W. H. R. became insolvent, and the assignments, usual under an insolvency, were executed. W. H. R. afterwards mortgaged to B. his interest in the estates, without giving notice to the mortgages of his previous insolvency. He gave, as further se curity, a bond and warrant of attorney, it being thereby provided that B., on redemption of the mortgage, should re-convey the lands and sign satisfaction on any judgment which might have been entered up on the warrant of attorney. The mortgage was duly registered, and therefore, under the Irish acts, took priority over the assignments, which had not been registered. A bill for foreclosure or redemption was filed by B., the mortgagee, who made the jointress, the insolvent, and the assignees, parties thereto. The Court decreed the jointure to be the first charge on the estates, and the mortgage to come next, and directed accounts to be taken accordingly. The assignees did not appeal against this decree. The insolvent presented an appeal against it. 1 Held, that he ought not to have been made a party to the suit, and therefore had no title to appeal against the deeree, Rochfort v. Battersby, 2 H. of L. 388. bib INSURANCE. 110 $ 551 1. Election of Master to repair.-Expenses greater than ship's value-Authority of Master. -Total loss.Where, in case of damage to a ship, the Master elects to repair it, the mere { 2. \Master electing to repair ship binds owner. -Special verdict.-Abandonment.-The owner of a ship insured ship and freight. On leaving Pernambuco in June, 1839, the ship struck on a rock, and put back. After a survey, repairs were begun. They were continued for a long period, and the expense of them much exceeded the value of the ship and freight. The Master, not being able to procure money in any other manner, was compelled to borrow on a bottomry bond, charging ship, freight, and cargo. On the 30th of December, 1839, the owner, in London, on being shown a letter addressed to the agents of the lenders on bottomry, in which the great expenses of the repairs were stated, gave notice of abandonment to the underwriters on ship and on freight. The ship arrived, and the freight was duly paid to the holders of the bottomry bond, under an order of the Court of Admiralty. The shipowner sued the underwriters on freight as for a total loss. The jury found, on a special verdict, that the plaintiff had acted bona fide without laches, and as a prudent owner of the ship and freight, if uninsured, would act. Held, that in this case, which was one of constructive total loss, the master might have abandoned at Pernambuco, but that having there elected to repair, he must be treated for that purpose as the agent of the owner, whose acts bound the owner. Held, also, that as the special verdict did not find that the owner, if on the spot, would not have repaired the ship, the Court could not infer that he would not have done so. Benson v. Chapman, 2 H. of L., 696. JOINT STOCK COMPANY. 1. Forms to be complied with by transferee of shares.-Avoidance of contract. By the deed of co-partnership of a Joint Stock Company, certain forms were to be observed by any transferee of shares, before he could become a member of the company. A. purchased shares, and executed some of the acts required to constitute him a member of the company, but left one of these acts unexecuted: Held, that the execution of these acts was a duty cast on the purchaser for the benefit of the company, and that his non-execution of one of them, did not enable him, as respected the company, to retire from his contract. Burnes v. Pennell, 2 H. of L. 497. 2. Fraudulent representations.—Authority of law agent A Joint Stock Marine Insurance Company had declared dividends, which, as it afterwards appeared, were not warranted by the real condition of the company. The law-agent of the company, who was also a member of it, when applied to for information, mentioned Analytical Digest of Cases House of Lords, these dividends as proofs of the flourishing state of the company. The person to whom he so mentioned them became afterwards a pur chaser of shares, morat en bys 19 lished prospectus of a railway company provi sionally registered, and, in answer to a letter from the secretary, informing him that the committee of management had apportioned 100 Held, that he could not relieve himself from shares in the company to each provisional com his contract on account of these representa mittee-man, and desiring to be informed whether tions. bad to il he would take them; he wrote a letter, saying, Held, also, that the law-agent of the company "I accept the 100 shares allotted me," The was not its agent to bind it in such matters; secretary afterwards sent him a letter of allotnor could he bind it as a partner, for a Jointment "not transferable," stating that the comStock Company is not like an ordinary partner-mittee of management had allotted to him 100 ship, bound by the acts of any individual shares, and requesting him to pay the deposits member of it. Burnes v. Pennell, 2. of L. thereon into one of the company's banks on or dt has coms before a certain day, or the allotment would 3. Liability of directors' publishing false be null and void. Upaid no deposits, and statements of affairs-If the directors of a did no other act in connection with the com Joint-Stock Company agree to publish false pany. The undertaking, having failed for want statements of the affairs of the company, under er of capital, was abandoned. such circumstances as show a fraudulent inten tion to deceive, they are not only civilly liable to those whom they have deceived and injured, but may be criminally prosecuted and punished. Burnes v, Pennell, 2 H. of L, 497 JOINT STOCK COMPANIES WINDING-UP 4979 ACTS. Held, that the first two letters formed a complete contract, exclusive of the third; and that W. was a contributory within the Winding-up Acts, 1848 and 1849 Hutton v. Upfill, 2 H. of 1 674.297 81 See Joint Stock Company. RECORD IN ALLEGATION. I S 1. Provisional committee Contributory. 1. Commission to try prisoners for high The mere fact of a person being a member of treason.-Affirmative allegation of authority,+ the provisional committee of a Joint Stock An allegation upon a record that three Company does not make him liable as a con- judges executed a commission in relation to tributory" within the Winding-up, Acts. Norris Cottle, 2 H. of L. 647. 2. Provisional committee. Acceptance of shares.— Contributory. If a person whose name is on the provisional committee of a Joint Stock Company provisionally registered, "accept" shares in the company, although he does not pay the deposits, he is a contributory within the Winding-up Act. Hutton ve Upfill, 2 H. of L, 674 qadin ..* See Provisional Committee, P the trials of prisoners, to try whom that commission was issued, is an affirmative allegation of their authority to perform that duty, and is not rendered uncertain by a subsequent statement that the commission was directed to them and others. O'Brien v. Reginam, 2 H. of L 465. See evidence, 4. ΠΙ tai ed et forsythONT WELSCOTCH APPEALS Ceny todtiva Judgment of Lord Ordinary and decree of Court Two actions arising out of same cause. PEERAGE CASE. 97 A of Sessions. Two actions were brought in Fad Jou fiery, su ! Scotland, both arising out of the same cause. "Admission of Attorney-General not binding on subsequent committee.-An admission by the They were conjoined. The Lord Ordinary proAttorney-General in a peerage case is not bind-nounced a judgment, which, in point of form, ing on a subsequent committee. Crawford applied to one only, but which in substance and Lindsay Peerages, 2 II. of L. 554d against to the Court of Session, which made a affected both. This judgment was appealed See Evidence, 2, fel, s lo que jur decree, disposing, in form as well as substance, THE PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE-MANJISHSS of both actions: Held, that a decree, so made, Not accepting or applying for shares, or was correct. Burnes v. Pennell, 2 A. of L. attending committee meeting.-C. consented to 197.1 90 10 od of suntmej odt have his name inserted in the list of provisional SCOTCH DIGNITY+ hun otet29 committee-men of a proposed railway company, Before the union-Re-grant by new patent which was provisionally registered; and the An ancient Scotch diguity might, before the name was accordingly inserted and advertised; union, be conveyed by the possessor, together he did not accept or apply for shares, or attend with the territory thereto annexed, to another any meeting of the committee. The undertak- branch of the family, or even to a stranger, ing was afterwards abandoned,oo id with the King's authority or it might be reHeld, that C. incurred no liability to contri- signed to the King, to be re-granted by a new bute towards payment of the debts of the com- patent, with different destinations and with its pany, and was not a contributory within old precedency. Crawford and Lindsay Peerthe Winding-up Act, 1648 and 1849, Norris ages, 2 H. of L. 534.4 9121 Cottle, 2 H. of In 647. baranggo ebrequin esansund --qing of 12. What constitutes an acceptance of shares. ☛Contributory, “U's name, was on the list of 1. Duly of master in case of damage. It is the provisional committee contained in a pub, the duty of a master, in case of damage to the |