Husband and Wife-1. Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, ss. 4, 5- "Convicted upon indictment of assault" -Throwing corrosive fluid-Order for separation.
Where a husband was convicted at assizes upon indictment of throwing a corrosive fluid on his wife with intent to burn, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding two months, an order, on the application of the wife, was made by the judge presiding at the trial under sections 4, 5 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 39), that she be no longer bound to cohabit with her husband.
65 J. P. 27. Manchester Assizes. Novem- ber 10, 1900. Reg. v. Knowles
Husband and Wife-2. Desertion-Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 39), s. 4.
Where a husband treated a wife with per-
sistent cruelty, but such cruelty did not cause the wife to leave him and live apart, the magistrate allowed the summons to be amended, charging the husband with deser- tion. The husband, in answer to the magis- trate, said that he would not maintain his wife away from home. The magistrate then found that the husband had been guilty of desertion.
Held, reversing the magistrate's decision, that there was no desertion.
Husband and Wife-3. Maintenance-Income of wife-Voluntary allowance to wife- Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act. 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 39), s. 5. Where a wife is in receipt of a voluntary allowance,
Held, that this ought to be taken into considera-
tion by the magistrates in determining what sum ought to be paid by the husband to the wife by way of maintenance.
65 J. P. 378. Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. May 18, 1901. Nott v. Nott
Inclosure Award. See HIGHWAYS, 1.
Indecent Behaviour. See VAGRANCY ACT.
Justice of the Peace-Bias-License to sell intoxicating liquors - Agreement between corporation and applicant- Member of corporation sitting as justice to confirm new license-Certiorari. The corporation of a borough purchased a fully licensed hotel for the purpose of carry- ing out a street improvement. They then entered into an agreement with a firm of brewers whereby the latter agreed that if they obtained a new license in another part of the borough they would pay 10,000l. to the corporation, who undertook, if such new license was granted, to close the hotel they had purchased and not to apply for a renewal of the license. Certain members of the corporation who had taken an active part in negotiating the agreement sat as justices upon the licensing committee, and at the confirming meeting when the new license was granted. An application was made for a certiorari to bring up the order of the confirming justices for the purpose of quashing it.
Held, reversing the decision of the Divisional Court, ante, p. 584, that there was a real likelihood that the justices, who were mem- bers of the corporation and who had negotiated the agreement would have a bias, and that they were therefore dis- qualified from sitting as justices upon the application for the new license.
Justice of the Peace-continued. Held also, that a writ of certiorari would lie to bring up the order of the confirming meeting for the purpose of quashing it. Reg. v. Stockport JJ., 60 J. P. 552, over- ruled.
Reg. v. Manchester JJ., [1899] 1 Q. B. 571 ; 63 J. P. 360, approved.
65 J. P. 584. King's Bench Division. April 22, May 8, 1901. Rex v. Sunderland JJ. 65 J. P. 598. Court of Appeal. June 4, 5, 1901. Rex v. Sunderland JJ.
Justices' Clerks-Borough without separate commission of the peace Whether justices can appoint clerk - Justices' Clerks Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 43), s. 5-Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 50), ss. 155, 159-Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), s. 84-Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), s. 22. The mayor (by virtue of section 159 of the
Municipal Corporations Act, 1882) and the immediate ex-mayor of a borough not having a separate commission of the peace are not entitled to appoint a justices' clerk, nor can they together with the county justices, nor can the county justices them- selves, appoint a clerk to act solely for matters arising within the borough. The county justices, including the mayor, can appoint a second salaried clerk under the Justices' Clerks Act, 1877, s. 5, if there is more than one place duly appointed in the petty sessional division for the sitting of the court. In such a case the fines and fees would be paid into the county fund, and the county council would pay the salary and incidental expenses. Section 159 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, has no application to boroughs without a separate commission of the peace.
65 J. P. 675. King's Bench Division. May 18, 1901. Mayor, &c., of Huntingdon and Others v. Huntingdon County Council
Lamp Post. See METROPOlis, 11.
Larceny Act, 1861. See CRIMINAL LAW, 1, 2, 3, 5, 17, 18.
Licensing Acts-1. Tenant convicted of per-
mitting betting--New tenant--Application for license under section 14 of the Ale- house Act, 1828-Supervision by owners.
Licensing Acts-continued.
65 J. P. 73. County of London Quarter Sessions. January 4, 1901. Bone and Truman, Hanbury Buxton, and Company, Limited v. Finsbury JJ.
Licensing Acts-2. Application to renew restricted license-Restriction evaded by licensee-Refusal by licensing justices to renew-Legality of endorsement of restriction on beer license.
An occupier of premises having been granted an off license" to sell beer, wine, and spirits, with the condition endorsed on the license that the beer should be sold in bottles and casks only, he, nevertheless, erected a beer engine and sold draught beer. That fact having been brought to the notice of the licensing justices they refused to renew the license on the ground that he had evaded the conditions upon which the license was granted. The court of quarter sessions expressed the opinion that the action of the licensing justices was legal, and dismissed the appeal with regard to the beer license, but allowed the renewal of the wine and spirit license.
65 J. P. 296. London Quarter Sessions. April 12, 1901. Tait v. Newington JJ.
Licensing Acts-3. "Beer off license
Application to transfer-Objection by former tenant-Refusal by justices- Insufficient means of applicant—Appeal. A former tenant of "beer off license" pre- mises having lost money in the business objected to the transfer of the license to a new tenant, and the licensing justices re- fused the application. Appeal to court of quarter sessions allowed.
65 J. P. 297. London Quarter Sessions. April 12, 1901. Hills & Others v. Newington JJ.
Licensing Acts-4. Conditions - Legality- Licensing Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 94), s. 48 (1).
▲ restaurant was attached to a hall used for theatrical and other entertainments. The licensing justices were willing to renew a license for the restaurant for the sale on and off the premises of intoxicating liquors on the following conditions, viz. :-(1) The buffet was only to be used when entertain- ments were going on, or as a bonâ fide restaurant; (2) ladies were not to be served
Licensing Acts-5. Application for new license- Failure to serve notices-Ad- journment beyond September-Jurisdic- tion of justices-Certiorari-Application by persons interested-Alehouse Act, 1828 (9 Geo. IV. c. 61), s. 3-Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 27), s. 11-Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1870 (33 & 31 Vict. c. 29), s. 11-Licensing Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 94), s. 42. The applicant for a new license failed to serve in time the notice on the superintendent of police. The justices adjourned the meet- ing to a day in October so as to enable the notice to be served, and granted the license on that day. A firm of brewers, the owners of licensed houses in the neighbourhood, applied for a writ of certiorari to quash the grant of the license.
Held, that the justices had no power to order
an adjournment beyond the month of Septem- ber; and, further, that residents and pro- prietors of licensed houses in the neighbour- hood were entitled to apply for a certiorari as persons having an interest in the matter. 65 J. P. 452. King's Bench Division. April 20, 1901. Rex v. Groom ...
licensed before the 10th of August, 1872 -Lapse of license for two days in 1886 — Annual value - Licensing Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 94), s. 45.
A beerhouse was licensed before the passing of the Licensing Act, 1872. In 1886, owing to change in tenancy, there was a lapse of the license for two days.
Held, that an objection to the renewal of the
license on the ground that the house was not of sufficient value under the Licensing Act 1872, could not be sustained.
65 J. P. 583. King's Bench Division. May 7, 1901. Igoe v. Shann
Licensing Acts. See INN; JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.
Life Assurance-Life annuities-Grant of annuities to customers becoming widows -Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870 (33 & 31 Vict. c. 61), ss. 2, 3.
The appellants were tea merchants, who, in order to advertise and extend their busi- ness, had since 1897 offered to pay an annuity to customers who had become widows, so long as they remained widows, provided that they had made consecutive purchases of tea for a certain time before the death of their husbands.
Held, that the appellants were a company carry. ing on the business of life assurance within the Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870, and as they had not fulfilled the conditions imposed by that Act on life assurance com- panies they were liable to a penalty. 65 J. P. 487.
King's Bench Division. May 1, 1901. Nelson and Company v. Board of Trade Light Locomotive. See HIGHWAYS, 5.
Local Government-1. County council— Byelaw-Street betting-Byelaw made applicable to rural districts-Validity- Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), s. 16-Municipal Corpora- tions Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 50), s. 23. A byelaw made by a county council against betting in the streets provided that “No person shall frequent and use any street or other public place, on behalf either of him- self or of any other person, for the purpose of bookmaking, or betting, or wagering, or agreeing to bet or wager with any person or paying or receiving or settling bets." Objec tion having been taken to this byelaw that, although held by the Court of Appeal in Thomas v. Sutters, [1900] 1 Ch. 10; 63 J.P. 724, to be valid when made by the London County Council as applicable to London, it was not valid when made by a county council as applicable to rural districts. Held, that the byelaw was within the power of the county council to make, and was valid when made applicable to rural districts as well as to town districts.
Thomas v. Sutters (supra) followed.
65 J. P. 232. Queen's Bench Division. November 15, 1900. Hickey v. Hay
Local Government-2. Factory-Ventilation -Dust-Injury to workers-Evidence- Factory and Workshop Act, 1878 (41 Vict. c. 16), s. 36.
The respondents were summoned for that they, being occupiers of a factory where dust was generated and inhaled by the workers to an injurious extent, failed to provide, use, and maintain a fan or other mechanical means for preventing such inhalation within a reasonable time after due notice had been given by the appellants. Held, that it was unnecessary to prove by evidence that any worker had sustained actual injury, but that it was enough to show that dust was generated to such an extent that its tendency was necessarily injurious to the health of the workers in course of time.
65 J. P. 261. Queen's Bench Division. January 22, 1901. Hoare v. Ritchie and Son
Local Government-3. Hackney carriage-
Covering up number when taken out on special order-Contravention of byelaw- Town Police Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 89), s. 38.
A byelaw made by a corporation under the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, after pro- viding that all hackney carriages should have numbers painted on them, further pro- vided that the plates bearing such numbers should be at all times “distinctly and plainly visible and legible, and that the owner should not wilfully or negligently cause or suffer any such plate or number to be in any way or by any means concealed from public view." The proprietor of a hackney carriage sent a hackney carriage in obedi- ence to a special order to convey a passenger to the station, and while on such journey the number was concealed. Held, that a "hackney carriage" within the meaning of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 89), s. 38, is a carriage which is in fact used from time to time for the purpose of standing or plying for hire and the words “used in standing or plying for hire" in that section are not limited to the period of time during which a carriage is actually standing or plying for hire in
65 J. P. 423. King's Bench Division. April 19, 1901. Hawkins v. Edwards
Local Government-4. Dwelling-houses- "Inhabited building"-Houses voluntarily closed for habitation-Closing order- Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 70), ss. 29, 32 (2). Certain dwelling-houses had been voluntarily closed by the owner for all purposes of human habitation.
Held, that nevertheless a closing order could be made in respect of such dwelling-houses under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 70), s. 32 (2). 65 J. P. 453. King's Bench Division. April 23, 1901. Robertson v. King
Local Government-5. New street-Name -Name put up by local authority-Ob- jection by owner-Removal of name by owner-Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 34), s. 64. The appellant was the owner of a building estate and submitted plans of the estate to the local authority, a street thereon being marked Midhurst-avenue, and he put up the name on a board at one end of the street. The local authority, the respon- dents, decided to change the name to Collingwood-avenue, and affixed a board with that name to a house belonging to the appellant at the end of the street. The owner objected and caused the name to be painted over and obliterated.
Held, that the appellant was properly con- victed under the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 34). 8. 64.
65 J. P. 600. King's Bench Division. May 8, 1901. Collins v. Hornsey Urban Dis- trict Council...
Local Government Acts. See JUSTICES'
Lodging House. See POOR RATE, 5; PUB- LIC HEALTH (LONDON), 2.
London Building Act. See METROPOLIS, 6, 8, 9, 10.
London (City of) Sewers Act, 1848. See PUBLIC HEALTH, 9.
Lottery.-Sale of chances-"Spot" compe- tition in newspaper-Lottery Act, 1823 (4 Geo. IV. c. 60), s. 41.
An announcement was made in the Sun, an evening newspaper, sold at a half-penny, the property of a limited company, that for a certain period in certain issues of the newspaper spots of varying size and shape would be printed in various parts of the issues. It was also stated that on a certain day an announcement would appear in the paper showing the exact configuration of certain spots which were to be declared to be winning spots, and that the person who had cut out from the various issues of the paper and sent to the office of the paper a portion of the newspaper containing the facsimile of what had been declared to be the winning spot would receive a prize. It was also announced that the prizes differed for different spots. The winning spots were arbitrarily selected by the proprietors of the newspaper, and the winning of the prizes depended wholly upon chance. The appel- lant, the printer and publisher of the news- paper, was summoned under the Lottery Act (4 Geo. IV. c. 60) for unlawfully pub- lishing a proposal and scheme for the sale of chances as a lottery, namely, the pro- posal and scheme called "Spots," and was convicted under the section as a rogue and vagabond.
Held, that the appellant was properly con- victed under the statute.
65 J. P. 742. King's Bench Division. June 7, 1901. Hall v. Mac William
Lunatic. See POOR LAW, 2.
Machinery. See POOR RATE, 4.
Mandamus. See SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACTS.
Market-Disturbance- Statutory market-
Statutory remedy-Justice of the peace -Summary Jurisdiction-Jurisdiction of High Court to grant injunction. Where a statute enacts, either by way of new
creation or by way of restatement of an ancient right, a right of property, the court has jurisdiction to protect that right; and the mere fact that the statute provides a particular remedy for the infringement of the right, does not, in the absence of express provision to that effect, exclude the jurisdic- tion of the court.
Master and Servant-1. Factory and work- shop-Rules-Breach of good order and decorum-Singing and dancing during dinner hour in the factory-Damage or loss to employer - Specification of offence-Breach of rules-Fine-Truck Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 44), s. 1 (1) (b) (c).
A rule was posted up in the respondent's fac- tory to the following effect :-" All workers shall observe good order and decorum while in the factory, and shall not do any thing which may interfere with the proper and orderly conduct of the business thereof or of any department thereof, and shall in all respects obey the lawful commands of the general manager, forewoman or super- intendent of their respective departments. A fine of 6d. or less at the discretion of the manager shall be paid by such worker who shall be guilty of any infringement of this rule." An employee in the respondents' factory was fined 2d. under this rule for taking part in singing and dancing in the factory during the dinner hour, the em- ployees being allowed to remain in the factory during that time. It was admitted the rules applied to the dinner hour, and the justices found as a fact that such con- duct, by raising dust, was likely to cause damage or loss to the employer. Held that the rule sufficiently specified the offence, and that the fine was legally imposed.
65 J. P. 629. King's Bench Division. May 9, 1901. Squire v. Bayer and Company
Master and Servant-2. Factory and work- shop-Shop-Finished article—“ Adapt- ing for sale"-Factory and Workshop Act, 1878 (41 Vict. c. 16), s. 93. The appellants were wholesale and retail manu- facturers and sellers of sweetmeats and confectionery with a factory and various retail shops. The ground and first floor of one of the shops was used as a tea shop and for the sale of sweetmeats and decorated hampers and boxes filled with
« EelmineJätka » |