« EelmineJätka »
Superior Courts : Queen's Bench.-Common Pleas.-Exchequer. The Court said, that the Attorney-General property to which she was entitled, without the ought to appear officially on the part of the concurrence of her husband, whom, it apCrown, and not for the defendants. The peared, she had left in Jamaica in the year ground for the rule was, that the Attorney- 1829, and had not heard from since 1840. General, on whose fiat the writ had issued, had Byles, S. L., in support. been imposed upon. Though there was, ac- The Court granted the application. cording to our criminal jurisprudence, no public prosecutor whose duty it was to appear
Court of Erchequer. in all cases on behalf of the Crown, in such a case as the present the Attorney-General
Clayton v. Percy. June 6, 1854. ought ex necessitate rei to appear in his of- INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT.-ATTACHMENTO ficial capacity. It was to be regretted that the The plaintiff had recovered a verdict in an defendants should be deprived of the highest action for the infringement of a patent, and assistance at the Bar, but in a case like the a Judge's order in the nature of an injuncpresent it was essentially necessary for the At- tion had been obtained and made a rule of torney-General to attend, not in his private Court and personally served on the defende capacity as an advocate, but to assist the Court ant : Upon his continuing the infringement, in the administration of justice and to see that a rule was made absolute
for an attachment. justice was done. As counsel, however, for This was a rule nisi granted on May 27 last, the defendants, it would be the duty of the for an attachment against the defendant, against Attorney-General, although it might be not per whom the plaintiff had recovered a verdict in fas et nefas, to use his utmost exertions to ob- an action for
the infringement of a patent. It tain the decision of the Court in their favour. appeared that an order in the nature of an inHe had also the power to enter a nolle prosequi, junction had been granted by Platt, B., and and his predecessor in office had been consult- had been made a rule of this Court and served ed on this very proceeding. The Attorney-General said, that under these tinued the infringement of the patent at his !
personally on the defendant, but that he concircumstances he would retire, and the case manufactory in Manchester. accordingly stood over to allow the parties an
Chance now moved on an affidavit of the opportunity of retaining other counsel.
service of the rule nisi to make the rule absoEdwin James and Hawkins appeared for the lute, upon the defendant not appearing to other side.
The Court made the rule absolute accordPlowden v. Campbell. June 15, 1854. ingly.' PLAINTIFF COMPANY.-SECURITY FOR COSTS.
Vasing v. Watson. June 12, 1854. Held, that the plaintiff in an action, who was ACTION in the civil service of the East India Com
REASONABLE CAUSE.--MALICE. pany, and resided in Bengal as a civil and Held, making absolute a rule for the new trial sessions Judge, was liable to give security of an action for maliciously and without for costs.
reasonable cause preferring a charge of This was a motion for a rule nisi to rescind felony against the plaintiff, that although an order made by Crompton, J., at Chambers,
the total want of reasonable cause is evion the plaintiff, to give security for costs in this dence from which a jury may infer malice, action. It appeared that he was in the civil
yet it must be an absolute absence to justify service of the East India Company, and re- them in finding malice; and that al whick sided in Bengal as a civil and sessions Judge. is necessary to justify a charge of felony
Hawkins in support, on the ground that the is a reasonable ground of suspicion, and not plaintiff
was engaged in the public service. such an amount of cause for suspicion as The Court said, that as in the present case
would insure a reasonable belief there would the domicile was changed, and there was only
be a conviction. a remote prospect of the plaintiff's return to this A RULE nisi had been granted for a new country, he must give security for costs, and trial of this action, which was brought against :he rule would accordingly be refused. the defendant for maliciously and without
reasonable cause preferring a éharge of felony Court of Common Pleas.
against the plaintiff. It appeared on the trial, In re Delany. June 14, 1854.
before Coleridge, J., at the last Northampton FINES AND RECOVERIES' ACT.
Assizes, that the plaintiff was a groom in the
stables of the Globe Inn, and had been charged WOMAN.-CONVEYANCE BY.
by the defendant with stealing two ducks, An application was granted for leave to a which were in an adjoining stable, but were af
married woman to execute a conveyance terwards found near the canal in a bag tied to a without the concurrence of her husband, brick resembling some in the Globe Irin stables
from whom she has not heard since 1840. It also appeared that there were burat poultry This was an application under the & 4 Wm. 4, c. 74, for leave to Mrs. Delany, a mar- 1 The attachment was on June 15 discharg, ried woman, to execute a conveyance of certain ed on payment of costs.
11, 16-18 *# 'ht. sin da slida 1
FOR PREFERRING INDICTMENT.
Superior Courts : Court of Exchequer.
151 bones in the fire used by the plaintiff. The railway, as he would not be disconnected until magistrate had dismissed the charge which the he was safely landed on the platform upon arm defendant preferred on the advice of a police- riving at his destination. The rule, therefore, man, whereupon this action was brought. The so far as sought to have the verdict entered for learned Judge directed the jury that there was the defendants on the ground that the accident a want of reasonable and probable cause, and was not a railway accident, would be disleft the question of malice to the jury, who charged. As to the other ground, it must be found for the plaintiff, with 201. damages. made absolute to reduce the damages, as the
Miller, S. L., and O'Brien showed cause plaintiff could not recover under the policy against the rule.
either for loss of time or profit. It was only inThe Court (without calling on Macaulay and cumbent on the defendants, in cases of acciField in support) said, that although the total dent short of death, to compensate the assured vant of reasonable cause was evidence from to the extent of his expenses, as well as for the which a jury might infer malice, yet it must be injury. an absolute absence to justify them in finding malice. All which was necessary to justify a Sauville v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue. charge of felony was a reasonable ground of
June 10, 13, 1854. suspicion, and not such an amount of cause of suspicion as would insure a reasonable belief STAMP ACT. — AD VALOREM DUTY ON POthere would be a conviction. In the present
LICY IN MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT. case there seemed to have been reasonable
Held, that the amount of a policy of insurance cause, and the fding of the jury had been
on the settlor's own life is not chargeable grounded on the want of such justification,
with the ad valorem duty of 5s. per cent. and the rule would therefore be made absolute.
under the 13 8. 14 Vict. c. 97.
By a marriage settlement the plaintiff transTheobald v. Railway Passengers’ Insurance ferred to trustees a policy of insurance for Company. June 2, 13, 1854.
4,0001. which he had effected on his own life
with the United Kingdom Life Assurance INSURANCE AGAINST RAILWAY ACCIDENTS. Office. The defendants had held that an ad -ACTION ON POLICY OF.
valorem duty of 58. per cent was payable under The plaintiff, whilst stepping out of a train the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 97, to that amount, where
on a railway for the purpose of continuing upon this case was stated for the opinion of his journey by another train, missed his the Court. footing, and was injured : Held, that this
The Schedule, tit. “ Settlement,” renders was a railway accident within the meaning chargeable to an ad valorem duty of 58. per
of an insurance by the defendants against cent. any deed or instrument, whether to- railway accidents.
luntary or gratuitous, or upon any good or vaHeld, also, that the plaintiff could not re- luable consideration other than a bona fide pe
cover under the policy either for loss of cuniary consideration, whereby any definite and time or profit, but only in respect of his certain principal sum or sums of money (whe
expenses and compensation for the injury. ther charged or chargeable on lands or other This was an action on a policy of insurance hereditaments or heritable subjects, or not, or effected by the plaintiff with the defendants, for to be laid out in the purchase of lands or other the payment of 1,000l. in case of death, and a hereditaments or heritable subjects or not), or proportionate sum for injuries while travelling any definite and certain share or shares in any by railway. The defendants pleaded, that the of the government or parliamentary stocks or accident, with which it appeared the plaintiff funds, or in the stocks and funds of the gohad met by missing his footing while stepping vernor and company of the Bank of England, out of a train for the purpose of continuing or of the Bank of Ireland, or of the East India his journey by another train, was not a railway Company, or of the South Sea Company, or of accident within the meaning of their insurance any other company or corporation, shall be tickets On the trial before Pollock, L. C. B., settled or agreed to be settled upon or for the at the Guildhall Sittings, the plaintiff obtained benefit of any person or persons, either in posa verdiet for 841. in respect of the accident, session or reversion, either absolutely, or for and 1001. for loss of time, subject to leave re- life or other partial interest, or in any other served to enter the verdict for the defendants, manner whatsoever." or to reduce the damages on the question, P. Francis for the plaintiff; Pigott for the whether the accident was one for which the defendants. defendants were liable, and whether, if they The Court said, that no duty was payable were, their liability extended to the loss of time under the words in the schedule, and that the consequent on the accident. A rule bad been plaintiff was entitled to judgment. accordingly obtained on April 24 last.
Bromwell and Phipson showed cause against Bearan y, M'Donnell and another. June 12, the rule, which was supported by Sir F.
13, 1854. Thesiger and Davison.
Cur, ad, vult.
ACTION TO RECOVER FORFEITED DEPOSIT The Court said, that the accident had taken place while the plaintiff was a traveller on the On the trial of an action for money had and
BY LUNATIC. EVIDENCE
Superior Courts : Court of Exchequer. received, and to which the defendants plead before any person having by law or by consent ed that the same was paid as a deposit on of parties authority to hear, receive, and exaa contract for the purchase of an estate mine evidence, the parties thereto and the perand had been forfeited, evidence was ad- sons in whose behalf any such suit, action, or mitted of acts by the plaintiff before and other proceeding may be brought or defended after the contract, showing that his lunacy shall, except as hereinafter excepted, be comwas of such a nature as to have been mani- petent and compellable to give evidence, either fest when the contract was made. The vivá voce or by deposition, according to the plaintiff obtained a verdict. A rule for a practice of the Court, on behalf of either or any new trial on the ground of the reception of of the parties to the said suit, action, or other such evidence was discharged.
proceeding;" but by s. 3, "nothing herein To this action for money had and received, contained shall render any person who in any the defendants pleaded that the money was criminal proceeding is charged with the compaid as a deposit on a contract for the purchase mission of any indictable offence or any offence of an estate, and had been forfeited. The plain- punishable on summary conviction, competent tiff replied that he was a lunatic at the time of or compellable to give evidence for or against entering into the contract, to which the defend himself or herself." ants rejoined that they had entered into the Watson and J. P. Wilde showed cause contract fairly and in good faith, and did not against the rule, which was supported by Shee, know at the time of its being made that the S.L., Best, and M‘Mahon. plaintiff was a lunatic. On the trial before
Cur, ad. vult. Wightman, J., at the last Hereford assizes, The Court (per Pollock, L. C. B., and Parke, evidence was admitted of acts by the plaintiff, B., dissentientibus Platt and Martin, BB.) before and after the contract, showing that his held, that the present was a criminal proceedlunacy was of such a 'nature as to have been ing within the proviso to the 14 & 15 Vict. c. manifest when the contract was made. The 99, and that the defendant was not a compeplaintiff obtained'a verdict, and this rule had tent witness. The rule would therefore fall to been granted on April 24 last for a new trial. the ground; but Alderson, B., who had not
Skinner showed cause against the rule, heard the arguments, suggested the point which was supported by Whateley, Gray, and should be re-argued before the 15 Judges. Phipson. The Court discharged the rule.
In re Stamp Duty on Potter's Deed. May 8;
June 14, 1854.
ANT ON HIS OWN BEHALF.
On the retirement from a firm of one of the tion to recover treble value of tobacco of
partners, the others covenanted to purwhich he had become possessed without pay
chase the stock-in-trade for 19,0001, and ment of duty, is entitled to be examined as
the good-will for 20,0001. : Held, that the a witness on his own behalf.
Commissioners of Inland Revenue had
rightly charged 2s. 6d. per cent. on the This was a rule nisi granted on April 20 19,0001., and 10s. per cent. on 20,0001., last, for a new trial of this information to re
under the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 97. cover treble value of tobacco of which the defendant became possessed without payment of
It appeared that on the retirement from a duty. On the trial before Pollock, L. C. B., firm of one of the partners, the others bad cothe defendant tendered himself as a witness on venanted to purchase the stock-in-trade for his own behalf, but had been rejected on the 19,000!. and the good will for 20,0001. The ground the proceeding was of a criminal nature.
Commissioners of Inland Revenue claimed By the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 85, s. 1, "No person under the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 97, a duty of 28. 6d. offered as a witness shall hereafter be excluded per cent. on the 19,0001., and 10s. on the by reason of incapacity from crime or interest 20,0001., and this case was stated under s. 15, from giving evidence, either in person or by
on the question, whether the value of the deposition according to the practice of the good-will in a business was " property” withCourt on the trial of any issue joined, or of in the Act. any matter or question, or on any inquiry aris
Phinn for the Crown, cited Caldwell v. Dawing in any suit, action, or proceeding, civil or son, 5 Exch. R. 1. criminal, in any Court, or before any judge,
Hindmarch and Webster for the parties, jury, sheriff
, coroner, magistrate, or officer contrà, referred to Lyburn v. Warrington, i having by law or by consent of parties autho- Stark. N. P. C. 162; Warren v. Howe, 2'B. rity to hear, receive, and examine evidence," & C. 281; Belcher v. Sikes, 6 B. & E. 234 ; with the exception of the actual parties; and Blandy v. Herbert, 9 B & C. 396. by the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 2, On the trial
Cur, ad. oult. of any issue joined, or of any matter or ques. Commissioners was payable.
The Court held that the duty claimed by the tion, or on any inquiry arising in any suit, or other proceeding in any Court of Justice, or
STAMP ACT-DUTY PAYABLE ON SALE OF
GOODWILL OF BUSINESS,
The Legal Observer,
SATURDAY, JULY 1, 1854.
INNS OF COURT AND CHANCERY present state of their respective Inns. We INQUIRY.
may also anticipate that the like inquiry
will be made of the larger Inns. The important Commission issued by According to the terms of the Commisher Majesty for inquiring into the arrange- sion, the object is to secure a sound educaments in the Inns of Court and Inns of tion to the students of the law, and the Chancery, for promoting the study of the Inns of Chancery will not fail to point out Law and Jurisprudence, and securing a that their members are for the most part sound education to the students” was noti- Attorneys and Solicitors of the Superior fied in the Gazette of the 5th May. The Courts, and, --whatever amendments or imCommissioners are Vice-Chancellor Sir Wm. provements are proposed to be effected in Page Wood, Mr. Justice Coleridge, the regard to students for the Bar,-to urge that Right Hon. Mr. Napier, the Attorney- due provision should be made for the stuGeneral, the Solicitor-General, Sir T. Ers- dents of the other branch of the Profession: kine Perry, Mr. Lefevre, Mr. Keating, Now, it is important to observe, that Q. C., Mr. Greenwood, Mr. James Stewart, long before the recent “revival of learning" and Mr. Germain Lavie.
(so to speak) in the Inns of Court,-before It appears that the Commissioners lost they appointed a Council of Education and no time in writing to the five Inns of Chan- instituted Lectures and Examinations,—the cery, requesting their assistance in the in- attorneys and solicitors, many of them bequiry by communicating a statement of the longing to the Inns of Chancery, founded existing arrangements for promoting the an institution in the centre of the five Inns study of the Law, so far as the several Inns of Chancery, namely, between Bernard's of Chancery had made or concurred in any Inn, Staple Inn, and Clifford's Inn on the such arrangements. Connected with this east of Chancery Lane, and New Inn and branch of their inquiry, the Commissioners Clement's Inn on the west of that locality. particularly requested information as to the There, nearly 100,0001, has been laid out Lectures or Examinations provided in those on land, buildings, books, &c.; and there Inns, the existence or non-existence of a for upwards of 20 years Lectures have been Library, and the regulations in respect of delivered and Examinations taken place. In admission to such Lectures or Library. fact, more than half of the 10,000 attorneys
It is probably well known to all our and solicitors now practising in England readers that there are no Lectures, nor and Wales, have been examined at the Hall Examinations, nor Libraries in any of the in Chancery Lane. Ims of Chancery, and we presume that It cannot, therefore, be said, that ar thoagh the Commissioners were also fully rangements for the study of the law and aware of the fact, they required an official securing a sound education have been neg. statement of it from the heads of those lected in the second branch of the Profesancient houses. No doubt, the proper an- sion. It may be admitted, that the large swers have been returned, and we under- expenditure which has taken place, came stand that the Commissioners have recently not from the coffers of the Inns of Chanrequested the attendance of some of the cery ; but from the pockets of the indiPrincipals to give explanations on the vidual members of those societies and their
VOL. XLVIII. No. 1,373.
354 Inns of Court and Chancery Inquiry - Divorce and Matrimonial Causes' Bill. brethren. It is manifest, however, that a large and substantial house has just been
extensive Library, more efficient erected, comprising many sets of chambers. courses of Lectures, and a better Examina- So in Clement's Inn there are several new tion, have been secured by those united buildings, and extensive repairs have been exertions in the Incorporated Law Society affected in others. In both the latter Inns, than could have been effected in the sepa- new gateways and carriage-ways have been rate Halls of the Inns of Chancery. constructed, and various other alterations
In considering this subject, it should be made. In Clifford's Inn, a few years ago, borne in mind that formerly the attorneys one of the largest houses was rebuilt
, and and solicitors were required to belong either it is probable that further buildings or to an Inn of Court or an Inn of Chancery, costly repairs will soon be requiredog but that for many years past they have been We are not aware, therefore, that any excluded from the larger Inns. It is there- expectation can be entertained of the grant fore highly to their credit that by their per- of any surplus funds from the Inns of sonal exertions, and out of their own funds, Chancery for the purpose of legal Eduthey have formed an association for the cation ; 'but if there were any, we can better acquisition of legal knowledge and readily conjecture a legitimate mode of apthe general improvement of their Profes- plying such surplus, by increasing the num. sion.
ber of Lectures at the Incorporated Law The members of the Inns of Chancery, Society, or otherwise contributing to the practical and judicious men as they are, improvement of the Profession. will have regard to the general welfare of events, we feel assured, that due attention their body, and will not only protect the will be paid to the claims of the attorneys interests of their respective Societies, but and solicitors. make inquiry into the three quasi defunct Societies, - Furnival's Inn, Thavies' Inn, DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL and Lyon's Inn. If we are not misin.
CAUSES BILL. formed, the ground-rent of Furnival's Inn, amounting to several hundreds a year, is This Bill proposes to enact as follows: received by Lincoln's Inn,-no doubt in That from and after a day to be named by sacred trust to be applied for the behoof of her Majesty by order in Council, not sooner that section of the legal community to than Jan. 1, 1855, all jurisdiction now vested which the old Inn belonged. Moreover,
any Ecclesiastical Court in respect of diwe have heard that whilst the immediate vorces a mensá et thoro, suits of nullity of mar. ground-rent-say 5001. a year-is thus re- riage, of jactitation of marriage, for restitution ceived, the builder's lease will expire in less ters matrimonial, shall cease ; (s. 1).
of conjugal rights, and all jurisdiction in matthan 40 years, and the whole improved After such day the Court of Chancery shall rent will then devolve on Lincoln's Inn have power to determine matters matrimonial, upon trusts, which will of course be duly and to make decrees of nullity of marriage, of inquired into.
divorce a mensá et thoro, for alimony, and for
but Of Thavies Inn and Lyon's Inn we have restitution of conjugal rights ; not at present received any similar informa-l be entertained for jactitation of marriage ;
(s. 2). tion; but we take it for granted that the Commissioners, whose powers are equally Court of Chancery shall proceed on principles
In suits for obtaining such decrees, the extensive over both classes of Inns, will call and rules, as nearly as may be, conformable the proper parties before them and ascer- to those on which the Ecclesiastical Courts tain the authority on which leases have have acted; (8.3). "T: been granted, the duration of the term, Proceedings under this Act may be institated and such other particulars as they may be either by bill or claim, in the same manner as warranted in requiring.
other proceedings in the Court of Chancěry, Taking a walk round these "old Hostels,” every bill or claim seeking a deeree of nullity
» subject to any orders; provided that, with we observe that several of them are still in of marriage bor of divorce a mensa et thoro, the a dilapidated state and require extensive re- plaintiff shall filo an affidavit; stating his or her pairs or rebuilding. Many parts of the belief as to the truth of the facts alleged, and have indeed of late years been rebuilt, and denying collusion with the defendant; (s. 4). many alterations and improvements effected. Decrees and orders to be made by the Court Thus in Staple Inn several thousand pounds of Chancery shall be enforced in the same mitst have been laid out on the handsome manner as other orders and decrees of the edifice occupied by the Taxing Masters of
Court; (995). 16 the Court of Chancery. In New Inn a order of any Ecclesiastical Court shall have
Wherever before such day any decree or
no suit shall