- 108

Statistics of the County Courts.—Result of Trinity Term Examination.

State might contribute its proportion, and the 8.
suitors their fair proportion, to the maintenance
of such Courts. He agreed with his noble and
learned friend, that if any inequality with re-
gard to fees existed, it was most unjust that 9.
such inequality should exist in the case of the
County Courts, for he entirely concurred in the
eulogium which the noble and learned lord had 10.
passed upon those Courts, and in the belief
that the benefit they had conferred upon the
community could not be exaggerated.
proceedings of the County Courts had been
the means of suggesting, and would, he hoped,
continue to be the means of suggesting im-
provements in the Superior Courts, and he
trusted that the two systems might mutually
act and re-act upon each other.

The 11,

STATISTICS OF THE COUNTY
COURTS.

13.

The total amount of moneys received to the
credit of the suitors, was
£603,346
And the amount paid out.
602,098

The number of causes tried with the assist-
ance of a jury, is 863, in 444 of which the
party requiring a jury obtained a verdict.
The number of executions issued by the
clerk of the Court against the goods of de-
fendants, is 63,286.

12. The number of judgment summonses issued was 47,704, of which 24,589 were heard by the Court.

The number of warrants of commitment issued by the clerk of the Court was 12,399, under which 5,416 persons were actually taken to prison.

The number of appeals entered under the 13 & 14 Vict c. 61, from 1st January to 31st December, 1853, both inclusive, was 25, and 11

ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY RETURN OF were pending on 1st January, 1853; of which

12 were confirmed, 7 were reversed, 10 were dropped, and the other 7 remain undecided.

The number of plaints entered by consent of parties under the 13 & 14 Vict. c, 61, s. 17, from 1st January to 31st December, 1853, both inclusive, was 34, of which 23 were tried.

The total amount received by the treasurers on account of the general fund for the same £39,402 41,020

2. Number of plaints tried, or in which judg-period, was

ment was entered:

Above 201., and not exceeding 50l.
Not exceeding 201.

5,276

249,458

254,734

3. The number of days that the 60 Courts have sat, is 8,615.1

4. The total amount of moneys for which plaints were entered, is ... £1,410,958 5. The total amount of moneys for which judgment has been obtained, exclusive of costs, £707,551

is

And the amount of such costs, including expenses of witnesses, counsel, and attorneys, is

And the payments

RESULT OF THE TRINITY TERM
EXAMINATION.

THIS Examination took place as usual, on Tuesday last, the 6th June. The Master, Sir F. Dwarris, addressed the Candidates on the nature of their professional duties, remarking that the services of the lawyer were indispensable in every step of a man's life :-in his contract on entering a profession; the settlement on his marriage; his purchase of or leasing a house; in forming a partnership; in making 6. The amount of moneys paid into Court, in his will. He called their attention to the digsatisfaction of debts sued for, without pro- nity of the Profession on which they were enceeding to judgment, is . . £107,854 tering, which would confer honour on all whose 7. The total of the Judges' Fund and officers' conduct was marked by integrity and a dilifees, is

Which consists of Judges' £

174,083

£881,634

£216,277 |

37,241

Gross total amount of fees received £253,518

This would make an average for each Court of 143 days, or 24 weeks, in the course of the year.

gent discharge of their duties. After much kind advice and encouragement, he concluded by admonishing them not hastily to bring up their answers to the questions, but to consider well the points they involved.

Several of the Candidates, who, having lodged their testimonials, were entitled to attend, were absent. The number was only 87, one of whom withdrew during the Examination, 11 were postponed, and 75 passed.

2

Notes of the Week.-Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor.-Rolls.

NOTES OF THE WEEK.

QUEEN'S BENCH SITTINGS.

LAW APPOINTMENTS.

109.

The Queen has been pleased to appoint William G. B. Shepstone, Esq., to be Civil THIS Court will, on Monday, the 19th day of division of Queenstown, Cape of Good Hope. Commissioner and Resident Magistrate for the June inst., and five following days, hold sittings, and will at such sittings proceed in dis--From the London Gazette of 6th June. posing of the cases then remaining in the Mr. James Eldridge, Solicitor, has been apSpecial, Crown, and New Trial Papers, and will pointed Town Clerk of Newport, Isle of Wight, also, on Friday, the 30th day of June instant, in the room of Mr. John Henry Hearn, rehold a sitting, and will at such sitting only give judgment in cases previously argued.

EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS SITTINGS.

This Court will, on the 16th, 17th, and also on the 21st and seven following days of June inst. (Sundays excepted), hold sittings, and will at such sittings proceed in disposing of the business then pending in the New Trial and Special Papers.

signed.

ADMISSION OF SOLICITORS.

The Master of the Rolls has appointed Thursday, the 15th of June instant, at the Rolls Court, Chancery Lane, at four in the afternoon, for swearing Solicitors.

Every person desirous of being sworn on the above day must leave his Common Law Admission or his Certificate of Practice for the current year at the Secretary's Office, Rolls Yard, Chancery Lane, on or before Wednesday, the 14th inst.

RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS.

Lord Chancellor.

Regina v. Eastern Archipelago Company.

June 3, 1954.

ORDER FOR CANCELLING LETTERS PATENT.

-DRAWING UP.-PRACTICE.

Held, that the order for the cancelling of letters patent of incorporation consequent upon judgment for the Crown on a sci. fa. is to be drawn up by the Clerk to the Petty Bag, and not by the Registrar.

Follett applied for the direction of the Court on the officer refusing to file the affidavit.

Taylor for the suitors' fund.

The Lord Chancellor said, that he had alJustice Turner concurred, and Lord Justice ready expressed an opinion, in which Lord Bruce, although not exactly concurring, exaffidavits was not confined to the respective pressed no distinct dissent, that the taking places of business in the limited sense contendTHIS was an application for the direction of ed for, but meant within the distance of 10 the Court in reference to whether the order miles. The affidavits taken in the manner in consequent on the decision in the Exchequer question must be received. Chamber on the sci. fa. to repeal the letters patent of incorporation of the above company, for the cancelling thereof, was to be drawn up by the Clerk to the Petty Bag or by the Registrar.

J. V. Prior in support.

The Lord Chancellor said, that the order should be drawn up by the Clerk of the Petty Bag.

Hill v. Tollett. June 3, 1854. CHANCERY OATHS' ACT.-POWER OF COMMISSIONERS AS TO PLACE OF ADMINISTERING OATH.

The oath to an affidavit in Chancery was administered by a Commissioner under the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 78, at the AccountantGeneral's Office, and which was neither the place of residence or business of the deponent nor of the Commissioner: Held, that the affidavit must be filed.

In this case it appeared that Mr. Keith Barnes, one of the London Commissioners for administering Oaths in Chancery under the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 78, had taken the affidavit in the Accountant-General's Office of the Court, and the question now raised was whether it could be received.

Master of the Rolls.
Francis v. Brooking. June 3, 1854.
HUSBAND AND WIFE. EQUITY то
TLEMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST
WHERE HUSBAND INSOLVENT.

SET

The wife of an insolvent was entitled to a reversionary interest in 470l. to her separate use, which the assignees sold for 351.: Upon its falling in, an order was made for its payment into Court, and the dividends to be paid to the wife for life to her separate

use.

It appeared in this suit that the husband of the plaintiff had become insolvent, and that his assignees had sold the reversionary interest in a sum of 450l. to which she was entitled in her own right, to the defendant for 351. The property had now fallen into possession, and the plaintiff now asked for a settlement of the whole fund. It appeared she had three children who were nearly altogether dependent on her.

Follett and Nichols for the plaintiff; R. Palmer and Karslake for the defendant.

The Master of the Rolls said, that the reversion must be paid into Court and be invested,

110

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

and the interest be paid to the plaintiff for life the first mortgagee, whose decree it was, con

to her separate use, with liberty to the parties interested to apply on her decease.

Vice-Chancellor Stuart.

Laslett v. Cliffe. June 6, 1854.

EQUITY JURISDICTION IMPROVEMENT ACT.
-DECREE FOR SALE AFTER FOROCLOSURE
DECREE.

In a foreclosure suit by a first mortgagee, a
decree was made for a foreclosure, but
without the mortgagor's consent. On the
petition of the mortgagor, and with the
concurrence of the first mortgagee, a sale
was directed under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86,
s. 48, upon payment into Court of a sum of
money by way of security for the debt and
costs of the purchaser of the subsequent
incumbrances.

cured in the present petition. A decree for a sale would therefore be made a sum of 1,000l. to be paid into Court by way of security for the debt and costs of Mr. Jones.

Court of Queen's Bench.

Regina (exparte Coates) v. Vivian. June 3,

1854.

HABEAS CORPUS.-ATTACHMENT FOR CON-
TEMPT.-RETURN.

A habeas corpus had issued against a school-
master, who detained a boy until the ex-
penses of his and his brother's maintenance
were paid. The boy was then sent to Lon-
don under the special care of the railway
guard to the mother: A motion to make
absolute a rule for an attachment was re-
fused for contempt-the affidavit to be
used on the return.

THIS was a petition, on behalf of the mortIt appeared that a habeas corpus had been gagor, for the sale of certain real estates, under granted in this case to bring up the body of a the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 48,' and for payment of the amount due to the plaintiff in this boy at school, who was detained there by the defendant upon the ground that the expenses suit, and in which a decree for a foreclosure had been made in June, 1853. It appeared of his and his brother's education had not been paid. The boy had been since sent up to Lonthat the plaintiff was first mortgagee, and consented to a sale, and that the subsequent in- don by railway, under the special care of the cumbrances had been purchased since the de-guard, and addressed to his mother. This cree by a Mr. Jones.

Malins and Hallett for the mortgagor in support; Bacon and G. Lake Russell for Mr. Jones, contrà, cited Girdlestone v. Lavender, 9 Hare, liii.; Wayn v. Lewis, 22 Law J., N. S., Chanc. 1051.

The Vice-Chancellor said, the question was, whether the Court had power to direct a sale after a decree for foreclosure. In the cases cited the decision was only that in the particular instances a sale was refused. It appeared that the foreclosure decree had been made ex

1 Which enacts, that "it shall be lawful for the Court, in any suit for the foreclosure of the equity of redemption in any mortgaged property, upon the request of the mortgagee, or of any subsequent incumbrancer, or of the mortgagor or any person claiming under them respectively, to direct a sale of such property instead of a foreclosure of such equity of redemption, on such terms as the Court may think fit to direct, and if the Court shall so think fit, without previously determining the priorities of incumbrances, or giving the usual or any time to redeem; provided that if such request shall be made by any such subsequent incumbrancer, or by the mortgagor, or by any person claiming under them respectively, the Court shall not direct any such sale without the consent of the mortgagee or the persons claiming under him, unless the party making such request shall deposit in Court a reasonable sum of money, to be fixed by the Court, for the purpose of securing the performance of such terms as the Court may think fit to impose on the party making such request." pressly without the mortgagor's consent, and

motion was therefore made to make absolute a

rule for an attachment for the contempt.
Huddleston in support.

The Court said, that the application must be refused, the affidavit to be used on the return to the habeas corpus.

Regina v. Day. June 3, 1854.

CORONER, ELECTION OF.-RIGHT TO VOTE
IN RESPECT OF EQUITABLE ESTATE.-
QUO WARRANTO.

A coroner had been elected after a poll by a
majority of votes, which arose from the
votes of certain parties claiming a freehold
by reason of the right of pasture over the
waste land: Held, on special case, that
under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 92, s. 9, repealing
the 58 Geo. 3, c. 95, the right to vote was
to be according to the right to vote for
knights of the shire, which must be a legal
estate, and on a quo warranto judgment was
given for the Crown.

THIS was a rule nisi for a quo warranto on the coroner of the district of Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, to which office he had been elected in June, 1852, upon a majority of votes of certain persons exercising a right of pasturage over lands at Boxmoor, which had been purchased in the reign of Queen Elizabeth for the benefit of the inhabitants of the district. By the local Act passed in the 49 Geo. 3, the land was vested in trustees for the use of the inbabitants.

By the 7 & 8 Vict. c, 92, s. 9 (which repealed the 58 Geo. 3, c. 95), it is enacted" that every person to be so elected shall be chosen by a majority of such persons residing within such district as shall at the time of such election be

Superior Courts: Queen's Bench.-Common Pleas.

111.

duly qualified to vote at the elections of coro-mainders, and then followed a general proviso ners for the said county;" and s. 13 required that in case of the death of both of the sons the voter to swear he was a freeholder of the without leaving lawful issue, then the estates county. The facts now came on in the form should go to the testator's daughter, the plainof a special case. tiff's wife. It appeared that both the sons died without issue, and the defendants claimed under a devise from the survivor.

T. Campbell Foster for the relator; Bramwell and Lush for the defendant.

The Court said, that the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 92, re-established the common law, and that the right to vote was to be according to the right to vote for knights of the shire, which must be a legal estate, and not, as was the case here, a merely equitable interest, and there must be judgment for the Crown.

Court of Common Pleas.

Smith v. Eldridge. June 3, 1854.

USE AND OCCUPATION.-PROVISO IN LEASE
AS TO TIME FOR COMMENCEMENT OF
RENT.

By the terms of a lease for seven years which had been executed, the rent was not to commence until certain alterations and repairs were completed, but the defendant occupied although they were not so completed: Held, that he was liable in an action to recover a reasonable sum for use and occupation. THIS was a motion, pursuant to leave reserved, for a rule nisi to enter a nonsuit in this action for the use and occupation of a house. It appeared that by the terms of the lease for seven years which had been executed, the rent was not to commence until certain alterations and repairs were completed, and that the defendant had entered and occupied the premises, but had left in consequence of the alterations, &c., not having been done. On the trial before Williams J., the plaintiff obtained a verdict.

Kerr in support.

The Court said that the plaintiff was not precluded by the agreement from recovering a reasonable sum in respect of the occupation which the defendant had chosen to have, although the alterations were not made, and the rule would be refused.

Bamford v. Chadwick. June 3, 1854.

WILL.-CONSTRUCTION.-DEVISE.-ESTATE
TAIL.

An estate was devised to the testator's son and his heirs for ever with a gift over on the death of such son without leaving issue. Another estate was devised similarly to another son, with cross remainders, and with a general proviso that in case of the death of both without leaving issue, the estates should go to the testator's daughter: Held, on special case, that the sons took an estate tail, and that the defendants, who were devisees of the survivor, were entitled. THE testator by his will devised an estate to his son and his heirs for ever, with a gift over on his death, if such son died without leaving lawful issue, and there was a similar devise to another son of a second estate, with cross-re

H. Hill and Cowling for the plaintiff; Channell, S. L., and Mellish, for the defendants.

The Court said, that the sons took an estate tail, and that judgment must be for the defendants.

Barnard v. Denney. June 3, 4, 1854. LORD CAMPBELL'S ACT.-ACTION FOR COMPENSATION ON DEATH.-MISDIRECTION.

The defendant had left his horse and cart in the care of a boy who stood on the causeway about three feet above the road, and who was therefore unable to hold the horse which ran away and came into collision with the chaise of the deceased, who was thereby killed: Held, that the question of carelessness on the part of the boy was properly left to the jury, and a motion was refused for a new trial of an action to recover compensation under Lord Campbell's Act, on a verdict for the plaintiff.

THIS was a motion for a new trial of this action to recover compensation under Lord Campbell's Act (9 & 10 Vict. c. 93), on the death of the deceased by reason of the defendant's horse running away with his cart and coming into collision with the deceased's chaise. It appeared on the trial before Williams, J., that the defendant had left the horse and cart in the care of a boy who stood on the causeway about three feet above the road, and that the boy could not hold the horse, and the question of carelessness on the part of the boy was left to the jury, who found for the plaintiff.

Byles, S. L., in support, on the ground of misdirection and that the verdict was against

evidence.

The Court said, that the rule must be refused.

Wilkin v. Reed. June 4, 1854. ACTION FOR DAMAGES ON MISAPPROPRIATION BY CLERK.-CHARACTER.-AMENDMENT OF DECLARATION.

In an action by the plaintiff to recover damages for the misappropriation of money by a clerk, in reference to whose character the plaintiff had applied to the defendant. the declaration alleged that the defendant had concealed the fact of the clerk having been dismissed for acting dishonestly, and represented that the principal reason was the coming into operation of the Common Law Procedure Act. The evidence showed that a misappropriation of money had been condoned, and that the excuse for dismissal was as mentioned, and the judge refused to amend the declaration by stating the clerk to have been guilty of dishonesty: On

112

Superior Courts: Common Pleas.-Crown Cases Reserved.

verdict for defendant, held that the amendment was rightly refused.

THIS was a rule nisi to set aside the verdict for the defendant, and for a new trial of this action. It appeared on the trial before Maule, J., that the plaintiff had applied to the defendant in reference to the character of a clerk and that the defendant was alleged in the declaration in this action to recover damages for the misappropriation of money, to have concealed from the plaintiff the fact of the clerk's dismissal for acting dishonestly, and represented that the principal reason was the alteration of the business consequent on the passing of the Common Law Procedure Act. It appeared that although the clerk had misappropriated a small sum of money the offence had been overlooked, and that the dismissal was for the reason stated. It was therefore proposed to amend the declaration by stating the clerk had been guilty of dishonesty, but the amendment was refused.

Watson and Lush showed cause against the rule, which was supported by Crouch.

The Court said that the amendment was rightly refused, and the rule was accordingly discharged.

Crown Cases Reserved.

property, yet if she commit adultery, and then steal the goods with the adulterer, he is guilty of felony, as she then determined her quality of wife, and was no longer recognised as having any property in the goods.

THIS was an indictment against the prisoner for stealing 22 sovereigns from the prosecutor, whose wife, it appeared, had taken them from his bedroom without authority, and given them to the prisoner, upon whose person they were the found. On the trial, before Tulfourd, J., prisoner was found guilty, but judgment was respited, for the opinion of the Court to be taken whether the delivery of the husband's goods by the wife to the prisoner with the knowledge by him that she took them without her husband's authority, was sufficient to support the conviction.

No counsel appeared.

The Court said, the general rule was that the wife could not be found guilty of larceny for stealing her husband's goods. But if she took away and converted to her own use his goods, it was no larceny, since they were one person. This was, however, subject to the qualification that if she committed adultery, and then stole the goods with the adulterer, she then determined her quality of wife, and was no longer recognised as having any property in the goods, and the prisoner assisting her in stealing them was guilty of felony: Dalton, c. 157. The con

Regina v. Pratt. June 3, 1854.
INDICTMENT FOR STEALING AGAINST DEBT-
OR ASSIGNING FOR BENEFIT OF CREDI-viction would therefore be affirmed.

TORS.-CONTINUING POSSESSION.

The owner of certain laths had assigned all his property to trustees for the benefit of his creditors, but he remained in possession. On an indictment for stealing such laths, the jury found that the prisoner had removed them after the execution of the deed and with intent to defraud the parties beneficially interested, and not as agent for the trustees. The conviction was quashed on the objection that the possession of the property had never been changed.

Ir appeared that the prisoner had been the owner of certain laths and had assigned all his property to trustees for the benefit of his creditors, but remained in possession and carried on the business for the trustees. The jury had found, on an indictment for stealing laths by removing them, that he had removed them after the execution of the deed, and with intent to defraud the parties beneficially interested, and not as agent for the trustees. The prisoner was convicted.

Bittleston for the prisoner on the ground the possession of the property had never changed; W. J. Willis for the prosecution.

The Court said, the conviction must be quashed.

Regina v. Featherstone. June 3, 1854. CONVICTION OF PARTY ASSISTING WIFE TO

STEAL FROM HUSBAND.-LARCENY.

Held, that although a wife cannot be found guilty of larceny for stealing her husband's

Regina v. Larkin. June 3, 1854. INDICTMENT. — AMENDMENT AFTER VER

DICT.-NEW INDICTMENT.

In an indictment for stealing goods, the property of A. B., the second count charged the receipt of the property knowing it to be stolen, but by mistake the prosecutor's name, instead of the prisoner's, was used: Held, quashing a conviction, that the quarter sessions could not amend after verdict by substituting the prisoner's for the prosecutor's name, but that a fresh indictment against the prisoner might be preferred.

In this indictment for stealing a quantity of beef, the property of Abraham Brooksbank, the prisoner had been found guilty on the second count for receiving the property, knowing it to be stolen, and on the prisoner's counsel moving in arrest of judgment on the ground of the mistake in inserting the prosecutor's name in such count instead of the prisoner's, the Court of quarter sessions amended the indict

ment.