« EelmineJätka »
COUNTY COURT. - EXTERING SUGGESTION. LIABILITY OF EXECUTORS TO
Superior Courts : Q. B Practice Court. under these circumstances. Pursuant to 5 Reg. 1
Common Picas. Gen. H T. 6 W. 4, he had, previous to Trinity Middlesex terin last, delivered the usual notices required by the rule at the Master's Office, expressing costs.--3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42. his intention to be admitted in the present
In an affidavit produced in support of a rule for term. He had also giver his term's notice,
enteriny a suggestion on the record to deprive the pụrsuant to 4 Reg. Gen. H. T. W. 4, of his
plaintiff of costs, less than 40s. having been reintention to be examined in the present term. corered, il was sworn that the defendant from and The sudden illness of his sister at his place of since the commencement of the suit had resided residence (Derby), prevented his coming up within the jurisdictim of the County Court, to this term either for the purpose of examination which he was linble to be warnell and summimed: or admission. The object of the present ap
Held, that a sufficient prima facie case was made plication was to extend the effect of the no- out, on which to call upon the plaintiff for an tices already given, so as to enable him to be
answer ; and that an objection that it was not examined and admitted in the next (Hilary)
sworn that the cause of action arose within the
jurisdiction f the County Court, coulil not be term. It might be doubtel whether the ap.
maintained. plication was necessary, as whenever be applied
It is no answer to such an application, that the to be examined or admitted, he must be
plaintiff sues as executris since the 3 & 4 W. 4, considered as having complied with the rule.
c. 42. There could, however, be no objection to the Petersdorff shewed cause against a rule olipresent application.
tained on behalf of the defendant for entering Littledulo, J -As the examination does not a suggestion on the record 10 deprive the take place until within the last ten days of the plaintiff of bis costs in this action, 408. only term, there is abundance of time for the appli. having been recovered on the trial of the cation to be repeated, if the illness of the ap- cause, for which the defendant was liable to plicant's sister should continue iinminently be summoned and warned to the Middlesex dangerous. At present there is no reason County Court. He took a preliminary objecsuggested for supposing that thie illness of the tion to the aslidavit on which the rule had been sister will last so long as to render it iinpos-obtainerl, that it contained no sufficient allesible for the applicant to come up to town for gation to slew that the defendant was liable to the purpose of being examined and admitted, be summoned to the County Court, as it was
The rule nust not be infringed or departed suggested. The only statement was, that the from without soine reason of a very strong defendant at the commenceinent of the suit, kind. That does not at present appear to be and since that time, hart been and still was the case.
liable to be summoned and warned to the Application refused.-Ex parte James, M. Court of Requests for the county, being resiT. 1839. Q. B. P. C.
dent within the limits to which its provisions extended ; that there was nothing in this to shew that the cause of artion had so arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court, as to ren
der the defendant liabile to be summoned. The An acrislenta' omnission of the notice to the law
case was analagous to one in which the party Suciety of the intention to be examined may be would have been obliged to declare in the ercused on application to the Court, where the County Court, that the cause of action arose due notices have been given at the Master's within its jurisdiction, and that fact inust be Office.
distinctly shewn. The etfect of the motion on Bingh'ım applied for leave that a gentleman which the rule was obtained, would be to dewho was an articled clerk might be examined prive this Court of a certain power which it previous to his admission. under these peculiar had been supposed to have possessed, but in circumstances. He had filed the required no- order to do so, it lay on the defendant to make
his case clearly. tice pursuant to the 6th rule of Hilary Term, 6 William 4, previous to the last terin ; but
Tindal, C. J.-It is a question upon whom by some misunderstanding of what the Judge's the onus lies; whether upon the defendant to clerk said, he did not give the term's notice of establish his case distinctly, or upon the plainhis intention to apply to be examined required tiff to rebut the suggestion made, and the by rule 4 of the same terin, at the hall of the prima ficie case which is made out. Law Society, in Chancery-lane. Under these Petersdorf urged that as the defendant was circumstances, it was hoped, that, as all the seeking to interfere with the ordinary course substantial advantages resulting from the rule of justice, it was for him to make out his case had been secured by the steps actually taken distinctly; but that he had not done so. He by the applicant, the Court would be of opinion bad stated only one of two essential facts, his that his notice might now be received at the residence in Middlesex, but he bad omitted to Law Society as within due time.
say any thing about the place where the cause Liltledale, J. (after consulting Mr. Hill), of action had arisen. granted the application.
T'indol, C. J.-Perhaps the plaintiff can Application granted.-Ex parle Rorcland, shew that it did not arise in the county. M. T. 1839. Q. B. P. C.
Petersdorj cited Baylpy v. Chitty, 2 M. & W. 28.
Jumes, contrd, contended, ibat a prima facie case for the Court to act upon had been clearly
ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY.--EXAMINATION
Superior Courts : Common Pleas. -Q. B. Order of Business.- Sittings.-Cause Lists. 31
established, and that it was for the plaintiff to Wednesday 20 New Trial Paper. rebut the suggestion thrown out.
Thursday 21 Tindal, C. J.-The only onestion is on which Friday 22 The four last days of
23 side the proof of the affirinative lies. The form Saturday
Term-Motions. of the atlidavit is that suggested by the terins Monday
25 of the Middlesex Conrt of Requests Act, and I
The Court will sit in Banco on Tuesday, the think that the objection cannot be allowed to 26th November, and four following days, prevail
. The allegation is that the defendant when the Court will take the New Trial Paper was liable to be summoned in this cause of two days, and the Special Paper three days. action ; the answer is, that he was not so liable; but no such answer is given.
Petersdorff then proceeded to contend on the rule, that it must be discharged, because,
SITTINGS IN EQUITY. inasmuch as that no action was brought by the
Michaelmus Term, 1839. plaintiff in her capacity as executrix, she could not be made liable to costs on an application of
Orchcquer Cquity. the present nature. The only question which rould arise was whether the act of 3 & 4 W.4, Saturday .. Nov, 2 Petitions and Motions.
Pleas, Deinurrers, Excepc. 42, which reuders executors liable to costs in
5 tions, and Further Di. certain cases, could affect the case, but it was
rections. subinitied that it would not apply here. The effect of making this rule absolute would be to
8 Petitions and Motions. Friday
Pleas, Demurrers, Exattach a liability to costs to executors and
14 administrators, which bad never hitherto at
ceptions, and further tached to them under the statute of Glourester.
Directions. Hecited Hurris v. Lloyd, 4 M. & Sel. 171, and
19 Petitions and Motions.
Tuesday Wardruper v. Richardson, I Ad. & El. 75.
Pleas, Demurrers, Excep
22 tions, and Further Di. James, in support of the rnle, contended, Friday
rections. on the authority of Wuse v. Wyburid, 1 Doug.
23 Petitions and Motions. 246, that the rule must be inade absolute. Saturday The same argument was there used which had been brought forward in the present case, and appeared to have no weight with Lord
CAUSE LISTS. Mansfeld, by whoin the case was decided.
[Continued from p. 16.] The terms of the statuie were general, and
Quren's Bench.-Crown Paper. would include this case. Tindal, C. J.-The words of the statute of
Michaelmas Term, 1839. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42, s. 31, are general that in Staffordshire-The Queen v. Eli Kuight. every action by any executor, &c. in right of Essex - The Queen v. John Bunting, jun. any testator, &c. the said executor, unless the Carmarthenshire-The Queen v. Stephen Jones. Court should otherwise order, shall be liable Yorkshire-The Queen v. Inhabitants of Hudto pay the costs of the defendant, as if he dersfield were suing in his own right, and in a cause of Worcestershire – The Queen v. Justices of action accruing to hiinself. The rule must Workestershire. therefore be absolute.
Leicestershire-The Qucen v. Samuel Canner, Bosanguet, J.-The 'case cited of Wuse v.
jun Wyburd, is distinctly in point.
Staffordshire-The Queen v, the Inhabitants of Rule absolute.-Bishop v. Mursh, M. T. Burslein. 1839. C. P.
Cambridgeshire The Queen v. The luha
bitants of Fordhain.
Cornwall-The Queen v. Henry Crease. QUEEN's BENCH ORDER OF BUSINESS. Cumberland–The Queen v. Inhabitants of Michaelmous Term.
Yorkshire – The Queen v. Inhabitants of Court in Banc.
Whirly (Upper.) The Court will proceed with the business in Warwicksbire–The Queen y Benjamin Price. the following order :
Herts—The Queen v. Rev. W. Capel, Clerk. Friday, 8th Nov. New Trials nisi, remain- Middlesex-The Queen v. Commissioners of
ing to be moved, after which the Pe- Southainpion Estates.
Lincolnshire The Queen v. Inhabitants of Saturday Nov. 9 Crown Paper.
Wainfleet, All Saints. Monday 11 Peremptory Paper. Surrey—The Queen v. Ricbard Sterry and ano. Tuesday 12 Special Paper.
Sunderland, The Queen v. Walter FeatherWednesday .. 13 Crown Paper.
stonhaugh. Thursday 14 Peremptory Paper. Exeter-The Queen v. Edw. M'Gowan. Friday 15 Special l'aper.
Ditto-Same. Saturday 16 Crown Paper.
Staffordshire-The Queen v. Charles Dudley. Monday
18 New Trial Paper. Devonshire - The Queen v. luhabitants of Tuesday 19 Special Paper.
Cause Lists. - Sittings.- The Editor's Letter Box.
Caldecott v. Williams.
Harrison v. Preston.
Stott v. Stott.
Cuddon v. Cartwright.
Cox v. Hill.
Court of Review.
The General List of Petitions in Bankruptcy
at Westminster, in Michaelmas Term 1839. Greenwich Hospital v. Abott - stands over generally.
Saturday, 2nd Nov.- Motions only. Bridge v. Teed-stands over.
Adjourned Petitions. Farquharson v. Theobald-do. generally.
Wilson v. Carr. Gibson v. Butler-abated.
Appuch v. Ashley. v
Stocken v. Stocken. Same v. Davis
Caldecot v. Heath. Chigstone v. Simpson-stands over generally.
Illidge v. Partridge. Doyley v. Prew-stands over for further sup- New Petitions answered for Petition Day, plemental bill.
Nov. 2, 1839. Alsop v. Blair-ditto.
King v. Manning: Headlam v. Bojie. Lord Foley v. Burnand-abated.
Browne v. Cavenagh. Brocklehurst v. BrocHalford v. Halford, re-hearing—not to be in Stours v. Burghart. klehurst. the paper for re-bearing till order.
Batchellor v. Geach. Prescott v. Phillips. Payn v. Davis—stands over, with liberty to Young v. Gowen. Broome v. Marston. amnend.
Tarleton v. Tarleton. Montague v. Baloom. Compton v. Payn-ditto.
Rogers v. Batten. Clare v. Glover. Jones v. Taber, at defendant's request-to be Miller v. Miller. Ravenscroft v. Bees. heard before Baron Alderson, with excep- Glossop v. Turner. ley. tions.
Peerman v. Peerman. Hayward v. Hayward. Wood v. Wood-stands over to amend. Close v. Bridgwood. Shaw v. Kirkby Knight v. Marquis of Waterford-sittings after Lodge v. Atkinson. Solomon v. Solomon.
Price v. Price.
Nesbitt v. Mould. Haworth v. Bostock-original cause.
Bradbury v. Walden. Catchpole v. Rickaby. Same v. Hume-supplemental suit.
Smith v. Parker. Machell v. Machell. Dunn v. Dunn.
Snape v. Ransford.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
The following days have been appointed
for holding the Sessions for the Jurisdiction of
the Central Criminal Court for One Year. Daniel v. Bishop. Nuti v. Grizle.
1839. Ferrand v. Stott. Williams v. Davis.
Monday 25th November. Whittaker v. Whitta- Thomas v. Saunders.
Monday 16th December. ker. Fysh v. Cockle.
1840. Bellamy v. Vincent. Bainbrigge v. Blair.
Monday 6th January Turnbull v. Walton. Walsh v. Ball.
Monday 3d February. Hatch v. Ball, abated. Jones v. Morgan.
Monday 2d March. Parker v. Alcock, do. Jobson v. Devring.
Monday 6th April. Rowlandson v. Beek. Small v. Attwood.
Ilth May. Spencer v. Spencer. Lewis v. Adams.
Monday 15th June. Macdonald v. Dance. Bishop v. Peddle.
6th July. Att.-Gen. v. Ld. New- Hall v. Gregory,
Monday 17th August. borough. Watson v. Churchill.
Monday 14th September. Dawson v. Keith. Andrews v. Cross.
Monday 19th October. Benson v. Smith. Levy v. Berry.
John CLARK, Clerk of the said Court. Minerbi v. Brown. Luev v. Boulter. Peachey. Bell v. Fenton.
THE EDITOR'S LETTER BOX. Wetherill v. Bellwood
and Drisser v. Same
cause. Wetherill v. Weighill original and revived
The Quarterly Digest of all Cases reported Drisser v. Same
since the 1st August is now published. This Saine v. Wigglesworth
completes the volume for the year.
« A Constant Reader" is informed that each Bifield v. Whitehead.
course of lectures at the Law Institution is Chambers v. Birchman.
distinct in itself,-taking complete parts of Campbell v. Dickins-original suit. Same v. Appleford-supplemental suit on bill the subjects to which the Lectures relate.
The letter of J. B. W. has been received. and answer.
} originala ased revived
The Legal Observer.
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1839.
Quod magis ad nos
MEMOIR OF MR. JUSTICE VAUGHAN.
THE RECENT JUDICIAL CHANGES. town. There he had as his competitors
common men,- Sir Samuel Shepherd,
Mr. Serjeant Lens, the present Lords LyndThe changes on the Bench which we stated hurst and Wynford, Mr. Serjeant Pell, and in our last number as then in progress have others,-nevertheless, in due time, he came been now completed; but before we advert into full practice in both these eminent proto them, we wish to discharge a duty to fessional stations. We well remember the the memory of the learned Judge whose time when he might be considered the most death has caused the vacancy which has in repute of the three rows of coifs which just been filled up. Mr. Justice Vaughan were then to be found daily in the Common was no ordinary man; he filled a con- Pleas. A Tory in politics (although withspicuous place in the profession for many out any party bitterness), and with good years, and he has died universally regretted. friends at Court, it is not to be wondered at The memorials of his life, which have come that he came in for his share of professional to our hands, are but scanty. He was honours. In 1816 these fell thick on him. born in the year 1768, and, reckoning from In Hilary Vacation he was made Solicitor his call to the Bar, was the senior Judge General to Queen Charlotte ; in Easter Term on the Bench. He hardly belongs to the King's Serjeant; in Trinity Vacation Atoldest generation of lawyers, some of whom torney General to Queen Charlotte ; and he we have recently commemorated. Lord was certainly spoken of as likely to become Eldon and Lord Stowell's set must have a law officer of the King; but here he was ranked him only as a junior; and he leaves crossed in his path by another Serjeant of many eminent seniors still surviving, as heavier metal, - we mean the present Lord Sir Samuel Shepherd, Sir Wm. Alexander, Lyndhurst. He obtained therefore no higher Sir William Garrow, Lord Wynford, Mr. professional distinction at the Bar, but kept Const, and others. He was educated, we his ground as a successful leader in the believe, at Westminster School, but did Common Pleas. We happen to know that not go to either university, proceeding at in one year, about this time, he made no once to the study of his profession. He less a sum than nine thousand guineus. It was duly entered at Lincoln's Inn, and is, however, as all professional men know, was called in Trinity Term 1791, in the allowed to very few indeed to keep a same year in which Lord Abinger came to decided lead in any Court for a long series the Bar.
He chose the Common Law Bar of years; and it is very certain that Serand the Midland Circuit, where he soon jeant Wilde would make most men look made way, supported as he was, not only well to their laurels; and this eminent adby his talents, but by a good connection to vocate now began to rise to that place in give him ample opportunities of displaying the profession which he has ever since them. He speedily became a leader at ses
maintained. At any rate, promotion to sions, and his easy popular manners made the Bench, which but few erer decline, did him a very general favourite. Early in not come undesired, and in Hilary l'aca1799 he was made a Serjeant, and thus tion, 1827, he was appointed a Barion of rose into the lead on his own Circuit, and the Exchequer, on the resignation of baron to some business in the Common Pleas in Graham. In Easter Term, 1834, he was VOL. XIX.- NO. 558.
The recent Judicial Changes. - Changes in the Law transferred into the Court of Common the Court of Chancery is concerned. In Pleas, changing places with Mr. Justice the debate in the House of Lords in the (now Mr. Baron) Alderson, and at the last Session of Parliament, it will be resame time he was made a Privy Councillor. membered that both the Lord Chancellor He sat, therefore, more than twelve years and Lord Langdale seemed to incline to on the Bench, and although it cannot be the opinion that the Equity Exchequer said that he shewed any extraordinary learn- should be abolished, and that two new ing while there, yet he always discharged Judges should be appointed in the Court his duty with industry, patience, and ability of Chancery; while Lord Lyndhurst in the His manner at the Bar, which was some- House of Lords, and Mr. Freshfield in the what boisterous, was much softened on the House of Commons, thought that the Court Bench, and he ever shewed himself a kind should be improved but continued. It and finished gentleman-indeed, no man may be said that Sir R. Rolfe’s appointment was more generally liked and valued in will prejudice the free discusssion of the private life. He died suddenly, of a com- question, and perhaps it may; still, if it plaint of the heart, in September last, at were thought more beneficial to abolish the his country seat near Watford, aged 71. Equity Exchequer, he might be appointed to He was twice married; first, to the Honor- one of the new Courts, the Judge of which able Augusta St. John, second daughter of will probably be not inferior to a puisne baron the twelfth Baron St. John, by whom he of the Exchequer. We confess we watch left issue; and secondly, to the Dowager every point connected with the coming Lady St. John, the widow of the thirteenth reform in Chancery with much expectation, Baron St. John, who survives him. He as we think it behoves the present heads of was brother to Sir Henry Halford, who the law to bring forward, without loss of took that name, we believe, at the request time, a well considered plan for the remedy of a patient who left him an estate on that of the grievous state of the suitors in that condition. It is rather curious that his Court, to which we shall lose no opportugreat rival at the bar, the late Sir Albert nity of calling public attention. The SoliPell, married the Honorable Margaret St. citor General cannot be formally appointed, John, a younger daughter of the twelfth we conceive, except by a Cabinet, which Baron St. John.
meets on the 18th instant. Having now to the best of our ability, given an impartial account of this able and
CHANGES IN THE LAW excellent Judge, we will next proceed to
IN THE LAST SESSION OF PARLIAMENT. shew how his place has been supplied; and
No. XIII. as to this it will be found, that the judicial arrangement which we stated last week, has been carried into effect. The vacant seat in the Common Pleas has been filled
2 & 3 Vict., c. 38. up by Mr. Baron, now Mr. Justice Maule, We have recently laid before our readers and Sir Robert Monsey Rolfe has been the proposed alterations in private compromoted from the Solicitor Generalship to mittees of the House of Commons. We the seat in the Exchequer so vacated.
We think Mr. Justice Maule will prove an ac- of the last session for regulating the trial of
have now to call their attention to the act quisition in the Court of Common Pleas, Election Petitions. We gave a full account which has not been of late a very strong of the mode of trying them under the 9 G. 4, Court, which the Exchequer certainly is. Mr. Baron Rolfe will, we presume, be the volume. That act is suspended by the pre
c. 22, at the commencement of our fifteenth Equity Baron, although this business was sent act until the end of the second session liked both by the Chief Baron and Mr. Baron Alderson, the latter of whom espe- after the dissolution of this present parlia
of the first parliament which be called
may cially will not surrender it without regret, ment (s. 1); and the mode of trying the having recently given it great attention ; election petitions now pending, (s. 3), and and having, it is only justice to say, given all future election petitions is prescribed by much satisfaction to the suitors of the Equity Exchequer. Still the new Judge
the present act. will be found, if we mistake not, an acute
Every election petition is to be subscribed and pains-taking man; and we wish him right to vote at the election to which the same
by some person claiming therein to have had a all success. His appointment is of some shall relate, or to have had a right to be returned interest, so far as the proposed reform in
a See a report of this debate, 18 L. 0. a See Memoir of Sir A. Pell, 4 L. O. 408. 161-169.
THE ACT FOR THE TRIAL OF ELECTION