1 STANFORD LIBRARY A DIGEST OF CASES Reported during the year 1923. 2 ABATTOIR. Geelong Harbour Trust CommissionersAbattoirs-Slaughter of stock-Consent of municipality-Payment of dues.-See GEELONG HARBOUR TRUST. ABORIGINAL. Sale of liquor to-Liability of licenseesLiquor Act, 1912 No. 42, s. 49-Aborigines Protection Act, 1909 No. 25, s. 9, as amended by 1918 No. 7, s. 2 (iii). An information laid under the Aborigines Protection Act alleging that a licensee supplied liquor to a person having apparently a mixture of aboriginal blood, without any further allegation, was held to be good, although s. 49 of the Liquor Act of 1912 only makes it an offence to supply liquor to a person having apparently a mixture of aboriginal blood who is in receipt of rations or any other aid from the board, or is residing on a reserve. COLEMAN V. DODD, 23 S.R. 599; 40 W.N. 150. [New South Wales.] ACCIDENTAL DEATHS ACT (S.A.) Action under-Motor car collision.-See NEGLIGENCE, col. 314. ACCOUNT. Supreme Court (N.S.W.)-Equitable jurisdiction-Plaintiff entitled to indemnityClaim for accounts and injunction-Claim for delivery up of property-Breach of contractAction at law-Parties-Equity Act 1901 (N.S.W.) (No. 24 of 1901), s. 16-Common Law Procedure Act 1899 (N.S.W.) (No. 21 of 1899), s. 176.—The plaintiff, who carried on business in Australia as agent for the A A.A.D., 1923 1 company, which was a foreign company, in the course of carrying it on incurred on behalf of the A company certain debts for which he was personally responsible; and in respect of those debts he was entitled to an indemnity out of the assets of the business. The A company subsequently made an arrangement under which its business in Australia was to be carried on by another company, of which the defendant was the manager. The defendant thereupon entered into an agreement with the plaintiff under which the plaintiff handed over to the defendant the assets of the business upon the defendant agreeing to realize them and to pay the running expenses and undertaking not to hand over the proceeds of realisation to the A company until the plaintiff's claim against that company was settled. The defendant having handed over some of the assets to the A company, the plaintiff brought a suit in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in its equitable jurisdiction against the defendant, claiming accounts of the defendant's dealing with the assets, an order that the defendant hand over to the plaintiff any balance of money the proceeds of realisation of the assets, and any of the assets remaining in his hands, and pay to the plaintiff the balance found due to the plaintiff on the taking of the accounts, and also claiming an injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with the assets otherwise than in accordance with the plaintiff's directions. The Court made a decree as claimed. appeal to the High Court, held, by Knox, C.J., and Starke, J. (Higgins, J., dissenting), that in the suit as framed a decree was properly made for accounts and the injunction. Held, also, by Knox, C.J., Higgins and Starke, JJ., that, in the absence of the A company as a party to the suit, the Court had no jurisdiction to decree the handing over to the plaintiff of the balance of money the proceeds of the realisation and any of the assets remaining in the defendant's hands. Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Street, C.J. in Eq.) varied. DAVIS v. HUeber, 31 C.L.R. 583. [High Court.] On County Court-Action for account-Personal action-Power of Court.-See DISTRICT COURT. |