Page images


pose of compensating the officers of the former com. without a covenant by the lessees not to use the estate, and not a demand against the testator's pany, might be administered under the direction houses erected for the sale of meat. The two estate in the hands of some other person. of the court, and also praying for an inquiry who other suits were for specific performance of an Solicitors: Chauntler, Crouch, and Spencer ; were entitled to share in the fund. On the 24th agreement dated the 1st July 1869, and made Lucas and Coe. Jan. 1871, Stuart, V.C., made a decree in the suit between the corporation and the company, by ordering the Great Eastern Railway Company to which it was provided, amongst other things, that

V. C. MALINS' COURT. pay the fund into court, and declaring that the the company should not let certain land for buildplaintiff was entitled to share in it, and directing ing, without inserting in the leases covenants

Saturday, Jan. 27. an inquiry what other persons were entitled to against the use of the houses to be erected thereon

Re GARNIER. share in it, and in what proportions. One Ayres, for the sale of meat. The question was whether Fund in court to credit of one found to be a lunatic who was formerly the secretary of the Eastern this agreement extended to the piece of land in France-Application for payment by pro. Union Railway Company, was not made a party agreed to be let to Messrs. Sandon. The Master visional committee of estate-Practice of court. to the suit, and was not served with the decree, of the Rolls admitted parol evidence to explain PETITION for payment out of court of 9391. Con. but on advertisements being issued for persons the agreement, and held that it did not extend to sols, which represented the distributive share of claiming to share in the fund to come in and prove the piece of land in question. The corporation Charles Garnier in the estate of his brother, their claims, Ayres made a claim, and asserted appealed.

Francis Garnier, who died intestate in 1863. The that Bruff was not entitled to any part of the Sir Richard Baggallay, Q. C., Swanston, Q. C., fund was paid into court by the administratrix in fund. Finding that he could not raise this con- and A. E. Miller, Q.C., for the corporation. 1864. It appeared that in 1851 Charles Garnier, tention, as the decree made in the suit contained a The Solicitor-General (Jessel, Q.T.), Sir Roundell then residing in the canton of St. Germain-en-Laye, declaration that Bruff was entitled to share in the Palmer, Q.C., and Fellowes, for the company. in France, became of unsound mind, and was fund, be wished to present a petition of re-hearing, Southgate, Q.C. and E. Rodwell for Messrs. placed in a maison de santé at Neuilly-sur-Seine, but he found that he could not present such a Sandon.

where he still remained. He had not yet been petition as the decree had been already enrolled. Lord Justice JAMES said that there was no found a lunatic according to English law. In 1851 Accordingly he now moved that the enrolment of latent ambiguity in the agreement, and that parola provisional committee of the estate of the lunatic the decree might be vacated in order that he might evidence was therefore not admissible.


was appointed by the civil tribunal of first in. be in a position to present his petition of re- agreement, according to its true construction, stance at Versailles, and the petitioner was the hearing.

extended to the land in question. But as the present committee. According to French law, the Greene, Q.C. and Bird, in support of the motion. corporation knew, in Sept. 1869, that Messrs. provisional committee was liable for the mainKarslake, Q.C. and Locock Webb for the plaintiff. Sandon were building butchers' shops on the land, tenance of the lunatic; and, on the other hand, Smart, for the Great Eastern Railway Company. and took no steps to prevent their doing so till all the property of the lunatic was vested in him, Lord Justice JAMES was of opinion that the Jan. 1870, when they had expended a considerable and he was empowered to give valid receipts for application was right both in substance and in sum on the buildings, they had been guilty of the the same. There was considerable personal proform. Ayres being entitled to share in the fund clearest laches and acquiescence, and could not perty in England belonging to the lunatic, the which the court had undertaken to distribute in now enforce the restrictive covenant against dividends on which had been from time to time the suit, was a quasi party to it. That being so Messrs. Sandon or against the railway company, transmittee by the relatives of the lunatic to the he had a right to apply for a rehearing of the suit, who bona fide believed that the agreement did not committed and applied by him for his maintenance. but he was prevented from doing so by the fact extend to the land in question. On those grounds 481. was now due to the committee for expenses that the decree was enrolled. The applicant was the appeal must be dismissed with costs as against incurred on account of the maintenance of the therefore entitled to have the enrolment vacated, the Messrs. Sandon, but without costs as to the lunatic. There was no allegation that the lunatic so that he might proceed with his petition of reother parties.

was in need of any fu:ther comfort, and it was heariug.

Lord Justice MELLISH concurred.

stated that the application for the payment out Lord Justice MELLISH concurred. Solicitors, Burchells; Nelson,

of the fund in court was made in order that the Solicitors for the applicant, Benham and Tin.

same might be invested in French Rentes. dell. Solicitor for the plaintiff, G. Walker.

Wednesday, Jan. 31.

Glosse, Q C. and Begg, for the petitioner. Solicitor for the company, W. H. Shaw.

(Before the LORDS JUSTICES.)

Cotton, Q.C. and Bevir, for the administratrix,


doubt that the committee had vested in him the Jan. 25 and 27.

Practice-Appeal-Limit of amount. whole property of the lunatic, and was entitled to
Ex parte HAWKES ; Re KEELY.
Bill of sale-East India pension---Act of

This was an appeal motion from an order of the make the present application. But the question
Master of the Rolls. In Nov. 1861 Charles Henry

arose whether the court had any discretion to exer-
This was an appeal from a decision of the Chief Edmands acted as solicitor for one Cross, in cise in the matter. In the case of property belong.
Judge in Bankruptcy affirming a decision of the proving a claim for 10001. in the winding-up of the ing to an English lunatic, the practice of the

above registrar of the County Court of Cornwall.

company: Edmands also acted as solicitor court having jurisdiction in lunacy was not to pay

out the whole fund to the committee, but only so Hawker, on the 7th Julv 1871, obtained judgment for a number of other claimants against the comagainst Keely for 491. 108. 91., and on the lith he pany., On the 24th June 1864, the chief clerk of much as was necessary for the maintenance of the seized Keely's goods.

the Master of the Rolls decided that 11. 155. / lunatic. Under the Trustee Relief Act the court On the Sth July 1871 should be allowed as the costs of proof in the case had the same discretion as the Lord Chancellor Keely executed a bill of sale of his household of each admitted claim for a sum exceeding 101., exercised in lunacy: He should therefore order furniture, goods, chattels, and effects at Forra. the costs in each case to be added to the debt! payment out of the fund of the expenses properly to secure a sum of 5001. due to his bankers. On did not pay the 11. 15s. to Edmands. Cross being residue of the capital would be retained in court, bury and elsewhere in the county of Cornwall, The creditors received two dividends, but Cross incurred by the petitioner on account of the

lunatic, and of the costs of the petition. The the 16th Sept. 1871, Keeley was adjudicated bank. | about to receive a sum of over 51. in respect of a rupt. On an application by the bankers the registrar third dividend, Edmands, in Aug. last, took out a

and the dividends paid to the petitioner. of the County Court grantedaninjunction to restrain summons before the Master of the Rolls, praying

Solicitors : G. and P. Eyre and Co.; T. J. Hor. Hawker, the judgment creditor, from selling the for a declaration that he had a lien for the 11. 158.

wood. goods which he had seized, on the ground that

on the dividend payable to Cross, and that the Keely, by executing the bill of sale before the official manager might be ordered to pay that

V.C. BACON'S COURT. seizure of the goods, had committed an act of amount to Edmands out of the sum payable to

Jan. 19, 23, and 27. bankruptcy. It appeared that the bill of sale did Cross. The Master of the Rolls having refused

ANDERSON V. ANDERSON, not comprise all the bankrupt’s property, as he the application, Edmands appealed from his Will-Wife of legatee attesting witnessEfect of had an East Indian army pension of 10s. 6d. a

decision. day, which was not assigned by the bill of sale,

codicil confirming will. Fry, Q.C. and Caldecott, for Edmands. and on that and certain other grounds, Hawker

HANNAH ANDERSON, by her will dated the 10th

Roxburgh, Q.C. and Gardiner, for the official Dec. 1868, after revoking all former wills and appealed to the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, who

manager. affirmed the registrar's order. He now appealed

making certain specific bequests, gave, devised and

Lord Justice JAMES.-Unless I am otherwise bequeathed all the rest and residue of her estate from the order of the Chief Judge.

ordered, by the House of Lords or some other and effects unto and to the use of her son, George Kay, Q.C. and Bagley, for the appellant.

Anderson, and Henry Letts, upon trust to sell De Gex, Q.C. and Robertson Griffiths, for the competent court, I will not hear an appeal for a

sum of 35s. respondents.

and convert the same, and divide the proceeds Solicitors : Edmands and Mayhew. Lord Justice MELLISH said that the bill of sale

among her five younger children, among them substantially comprised all the debtor's property,

being her son George, but not making any dispo

sition in favour of, or mentioning the name of the as it was settled by Gibson v. The East India

ROLLS COURT. Company (5 Bing. N. Cas. 262), that such a pen.

plaintiff, who was her eldest son. To this will sion as that held by the bankrupt is not assign

Jan. 20 and 29.

Hannah Anderson, the wife of the testatrix's son able. The bill of sale was therefore an act of Re HASELFOOT's EsTATE (CHAUNTLER'S CLAIM). George, was an attesting witness. The testa bankruptcy.

trix made a codicil to her will dated the 22nd Mortgagee and representatives of mortgagor Jan. 1869, by which, after directing her exeLord Justice JAMES concurred.

Right to tack-Set-ojf.

cutors to allow to her son, Thomas an ex. Appeal accordingly dismissed with costs.

A FIRM of solicitors having a mortgage on a tended time for the payment of what might Solicitors for the appellants, Clark, Woodcock, policy of insurance on the life of the mortgagor, be owing

to her estate from him, sho" confirmed and Rylands.

on his death received from the insurance company her said will in other respects.” This codicil was Solicitors for the respondent, J. Elliott Fox.

the amount due on the policy, and, after satisfying duly executed in the presence of two witnesses.

the mortgage debt, claimed to be entitled to retain Probate of the will and codicil was granted to Jan. 23, 24, and 27.

out of the balance the amount of their bill of costs George Anderson as executor. The plaintiff, by The Mayor of London V. SANDON ; THE SAME against the mortgagor. The executors of the his bill alleged that in consequence of Hannab 1. THE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY COMPANY; mortgagor contended that they were entitled to Anderson being an attesting witness of thewill, THE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY COMPANY v.

receive the whole of the balance, and as his estate all such interest as George Anderson would have THE MAYOR OF LONDON.

was insufficient to pay his debts in full that the taken under the will was forfeited, and that the Contract - Specific performance - Latent ambi. mortgagees could only participate with the other testatrix must be held to have died'intestate as to guity- Parol evidence-Laches-Acquiescence.

simple contract creditors, pro rata, in regard to so much of his estate as George Anderson would These were three appeals from decisions of the the amount due to them for costs.

have taken, according to the tenor of the will, if Master of the Rolls. The first suit was instituted Southgate, Q. C. for the mortgagees.

his wife had not been one of the attesting wit. to restrain Messrs. Sandon from using for the sale Hemming for the executors.

The defendant, George Anderson, con. of meat certain shops erected by them on a piece of Lord ROMILLY said that the mortgagees were tended that the will and codicil together formed land on the north side of Charterhouse-street, which entitled to retain the amount of their bill of costs but one testamentary instrument, and that the the Metropolitan Railway Company had agreed out of the balance in their hands; that it was not codicil having been duly executed and attested, to let to them, and to restrain the company from a case of set-off, but a demand against themselves, had the effect of rendering the gift in the will granting a lease of the land in question to them they having in their hands a part of the testator's valid.


[ocr errors]

Fry, Q.C. and Key were for the plaintiff. apprehension as to their object, the application of other in Guildhall-street, and her brother at her Willcock, Q.C. and F. T. White for the de. the petitioners must be refused.

death resided rent free in No. 62. fendants.

Solicitors: William Moon; William Smith and Greene, Q.C., Bristowe, Q.C., Hemming, Hubert The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the Co.

Smith, Rodwell, and Shebbeare appeared for the codicil had the effect of republishing the will and

different parties. V.C. WICKENS' COURT.

The Vice-CHANCELLOR held that the testatrix's making it a new and original disposition by the testatrix, in January 1869, of the estate which she

Thursday, Jan. 25.

brother was entitled to the house No. 62, Guild. had dealt with by the will in December 1868,


hall-street, and made a declaration accordingly. and that the whole contents of the will were

Solicitors : Hensman and Nicholson, for Par.

Will-Construction--Specific bequest. incorporated in the codicil. Bill dismissed with The question in this case turned upon the con: Pye.

tridge and Greene; Rickards and Walker, for G. R. costs.

struction of the will of Lord F. Panlet. The will Solicitor for the plaintiff,'G. R. Longden.

was dated in Aug. 1866, and by it the testator Solicitor for the defendant, J. Letts.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. after providing for certain annuities and legacies, and bequeathing such of the household goods and

Wednesday, Jan. 24. other things which were in his house at the time SIMPSON (app.) v. WELLS (resp.) Friday, Jan. 26.

of his decease (always excepting any moneys, Obstruction under Highway Act 1831-Statute GRAY V. SECKHAM. securities for money, muniments, manuscripts,

fair-Custom. Promissory note to secure balance at bank-Com- papers, writings, and articles, specifically be. This was a special case stated by justices of pany--Winding-up-Surety.

queathed), bequeathed to his brother, the Marquis Lincolnshire at Petty Sessions. The appellant SPECIAL case: - The Gelynog Llanhirt Colliery of Winchester, for his own use absolutely, his

was convicted under sect. 72 of 5 & 6 Will. 4 c. 50, Company (Limited) having overdrawn their sword, decorations, and other effects," which for obstructing a public way by placing a stall account at their bankers, four of the directors should be in his chambers in the Albany, or else thereon, and was fined ls. The 9th May, upon which of the company made a joint and several pro

where (except in the house before referred to), the alleged obstruction took place, was the day miesory note for 20001. drawn upon Captain but saving out of this bequest all muniments, for holding the annual statute sessions at Winter

. Strong, who was the manager of the bank and

money, and securities for money. And he left the ton, for hiring servants; and it was proved on also a director of the company. This note was

residue of his estate in trust for his brother for behalf of the appellant that they had been so held made for the accommodation of the company and life, with remainders over. Tho testator died in for fifty years, that it was the custom to erect for the purpose of being transferred to the Jan. 1871. At the time of his death he was

stalls on the highway in the manner adopted, and bank as a security for aný balance which might possessed of some Great Eastern Railway Stock, that there was plenty of space left on the highway be due from the company to the bank and was en

the certificates of which were in his chambers in for the public to pass. It was contended that dorsed by Captain Strong to the bank. On the 20th the Albany, and the question was whether it there sessions were a fair or market, and that the July 1866 an order was made for winding-up belonged to the Marquis, as part of the property defence being a bonâ fide claim

of right, the justices the company. The bank carried in their claim, specifically bequeathed to him.

had no jurisdiction. which was admitted, for the sum of 36561, 9s. 9d; and Chester, appeared for the various parties.

Karsloke, Q.C., W.W. Karslake, George Murray, Cave for tbe appellant. and upon this amount a dividend of 10511, 5s. 4d.

The respondent, the superintendent of police, became payable. The bank having recovered from The VICE-CHANCELLOR decided that the stock did not appear.

Cur. adv. vult. Mr. Seckham, one of the makers of the note,

did not pass under the specific bequest to the The Court (Plackburn and Quain, JJ.) con20671. 1s. 8d., Mr. Seckham applied for leave to Marquis.

sidered that no such custom as that alleged could be enter a claim for that amount in the winding-up,

Solicitor for all parties, Alexander Hemsley. established, and upheld the conviction. and that the debt for which the bank had proved

Judgment for respondent. might be reduced by that amount. The question submitted to the court was whether the bank was

Monday, Jan. 29.

Attorneys for appellant, Scott and Co. entitled to prove for and retain the dividend on

JACUBS v. RYLANCE. the whole 36561. 9s. 9d., and at the same time to Mortgagor and mortgagee- Mortgage by executor

WILLIAMS (app.) v. LEAR (resp.) retain the whole of the sum recovered on the

--Mortgagee's title.

Conviction for taking excessive toll-Tared cart note until they should receive 20s. in the pound, This suit was instituted on behalf of children

--Excise licence. or whether Seckham was entitled to the dividend who were interested under the will of their mother This was a special case stated by justices of on the 20671. ls. 8d.

in certain renewable leaseholds. The facts were Devon, at petty sessions. The appellant, the Amphlett, Q. C. and Benjamin (of the Common these: Mrs. Elkes by her will, dated 20th July lessee and collector of tolls at the Alphington turnLaw Bar) were for the plaintiff.

1819, gave all her property to her husband in pike gate, was convicted of demanding and taking Kou, Q. C. and R. E. Turner (of the Common trust, after paying her funeral and testamentary of the respondent a toll of 6d. for a butcher's cart Law Bar) for the defendant.

expenses, and retaining a legacy of 5001. to himself, drawn by one horse, and having a single shifting The VICE-CHANCELLOR held that Seckham was to get in and invest the proceeds, and hold them seat and two wheels. By a local Act of 1852, entitled to the dividend, deducting so much there. in effect for her children who should attain twenty- and by a subsequent resolution of the turnpike from as would make up the proportion which the one, or, being daughters, marry. She died in trustees, 41d. is the toll for every horse drawing bank would have received upon the residue of Sept. 1819 leaving six children, of whom one died any gig or chair, or such like carriage with a their debt if Seckham's debt had been expunged.

afterwards under twenty-one. Her husband was single seat only, and with two wheels only: and Solicitors for the bank, Stevens, Wilkinson, and named executor in the will, and administration 6.l. is the toll for every horse drawing any cart or Harries.

with the will annexed was granted to him in Oct. chair, or other such like carriage with double Solicitors for the defendant, Taylor, Mason, and 1849. Mrs. Elkes was, at her death, entitled for seats, or any phaeton, caravan, or taxed cart. The Taylor.

her separate use to a lease from the Dean and respondent had taken out an excise licence for

Chapter of St. Paul's of some land at Edmonton. his vehicle, but the justices considered that it was Saturday, Jan. 27.

The lease was from Michaelmas 1842, and was for not a taxed cart within the meaning of the local

twenty-one years renewable by custom on the Act, and was subject therefore only to the less MANNING V. GILL.

payment of a fine. When Mrs. Elkes died the toll as a carriage with a single seat and to Criminal lunatic-Settlement to avoid forfeiture- legal estate was outstanding, but, on the 19th wheels. Inoperative.

Nov. 1849 Mr. Elkes got it assigned to him, Lopes, Q. C. for the appellant.
This was a petition for the payment of money out and a fortnight afterwards surrendered it, and No one appeared for the respondent.

new lease of court under the following circumstances? In in consideration of that had

Cur, aull, muli,

The COURT (Lush and Hannen, JJ.) held that 1857 the defendant, Andrew Gill, quarrelled with granted to him personally from Michaelmas 1849. a man and stabbed him. For this offence he was

On the 25th May 1854 Mr. Elkes mortgaged the the words “ taxed cart” must have the meaning tried and found not guilty, on the ground of leasehold to the defendant Rylauce for 1501. The which they had at the time of passing the local insanity, and was ordered to be imprisoned during mortgage was by assignment, and there was a Act, viz., à cart which paid a particular tax and Her Majesty's pleasure. Andrew Gill, while power of sale. Exactly six months afterwards had the owner's name upon it. The respondent's awaiting his trial in prison, executed two deeds,

he charged the property with a further sum of butcher's cart was not such a taxed cart. the one relating to his real property, which he 501. and in July 1855 with another 501. The prin.

Judgment for respondent, .conveyed to his brother Robert Gill, in trust for cipal question in the case was as to the title of Attornoys for appellant, Griffith and Broicnloru, himself (Andrew) for life, with remainder to his

the defendant under these two mortgages. The for Toby, Exeter. said brother Robert in fee, the other relating

to his plaintiffs contended that he got nothing beyond a personal estate, which he assigned absolutely to his title to such beneficial interest as Mr. Elkes had

Thursday. Jan. 25. said brother. Robert Gill died in 1867, and a suit hand, maintained that he had an absolute title DUDLEY UNION (apps.) v. WOLVERHAMPTON

in the property. The defendant, on the other having been instituted for the administration of

UNION (resps.) his real and personal estate, it was ordered that whether Elkes had any interest in the property or the amount of the personal estate which he held not.

Union extending into several jurisdictions-Court under the assignment from his brother, Andrew

Greene, Q.C. and Charles Hall for the plaintiffs. of appeal from oriler of removal - Poor Law Gill, be paid into court. The petitioners, who

Osborne Morgan, Q.C., and Holmes, for the Amendment Act 1867 (30 f. 31 Vict. c. 100) were the parties entitled to the money under the defendant.

sec. 27. will of Robert Gill, now applied to have the same

Ince and Welby King for other parties.

This was a rule nisi, calling upon the justices of divided among them. This application was op- dant was entitled to whatever beneficial interest why a writ of maudamus should not issue to com:

The VICE-CHANCELLOR decided that the defen. Staffordshire and the respondents to show cause posed by the guardian ad litem of Andrew Gill, on the ground that at the time of executing the deeds, in the property Mr. Elkes could assign, but to pel the justices to hear an appeal from an order of Andrew Gill was of unsound mind, and that it absolute as against Mr. Elkes.

no more; and that the title of the plaintiffs was removal from the respondents' to the appellants' was a voluntary settlement executed to avoid a

union, made by two justices of the borough of forfeiture in case he had been found guilty, which

Decree accord ngly. Wolverhampton. The court of quarter sessions event not having happened the doeds ought to be

Solicitors: Edwards, Layton and Jaques; of the county of Stafford had refused to hear the set aside. Stuart and Massey.

appeal on the ground that it ought to have been kay, Q.C. and Freeling appeared for the peti.

made to the borough sessions of Wolverhampion. tioners.

Tuesday, Jan. 30.

The respondents' union extends over the whole Smart for the guardian ad litem of Andrew


of the borough of Wolverhampton, and also over Gill.

the township of Bilston, no part of which town. W. W. Karslake, F. Webb, and Badcock for In this case the trustees of the will of a Miss repondents' union is in the county of Stafford.

WillConstruction -Specific devise. ship is within the said borough. The whole of the other parties interested.

Jewers sought the decision of the court upon the The paupers ordered to be removed were in the The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that at construction of the following devise : “I give to township of Bilston, and the order of removal was the time of executing the deeds Andrew Gill was my brother Frederick Jewers, my house in Guild.made in the borough of Wolverhampton by two insane ; that the only motive he had in executing hall.street, Bury St. Edmunds, for his nse during of the borough justices. The appellants appealed them was to prevent a forfeiture in case of con- his life, my trustees keeping the same insured I against the order to Stafford county quarter ses. viction which had not occurred, and that the against fire andin tenantable repair.” The testa- sions. The Poor Law Amendment Act 1867. sect. 27, deeds being yoluntary and executed under a mis. trix had two houses, viz., 62 and 63 adjoining each provides that where a union extends into several



[ocr errors]



distinct jurisdictions, every matter, act, charge, duty imposed by statute which could be enforced | quashing the rule ; but, further, that it was an or complaint by which the guardians thereof are by inandamus.

Rule discharged. irregularity only, and might be waived. So far, affected, or in which they have any interest, shall, Attorneys for plaintiffs, Ridsdale and Craddock, therefore, as it affected P. the rule would be for the purpose of jurisdiction, be deemed to arise for Birchall, Wilson, and Hulton, Preston. quashed, but with regard to W. it would stand, or exist equally throughout the Union.

Attorney for defendants, the Solicitor to the and Mr. Lopes would be allowed to show cause. Matthere's, Q.C. and Jels, for the respondents, Treasury.

Attorney for King, G. Parsons. showed canse.

Attorney for W., J. P. Watkins, Bristol. Porell, Q.C. and Bosanquet, for the appellants, THE JUSTICES OF THE WEST RIDING OF YORK. supported the rule.

The Court (Cockburn, C.J., Blackburn, Mellor, This was a similar rule to the last, for the same

BYRNE v. GUANO CONSIGNMENT COMPANY. and Lush, JJ.), considered that the Legislature, purpose. The parties were represented by the

Freight-Jurisdiction of Mayor's Court. by sect. 27 of the Act of 1867, must have intended that the appellants' jurisdiction in cases of orders cided together. same counsel, and the cases were argued and de- ACTION for freight on a charter-party brought in

the Mayor's Court of the City of London. Rule of removal should be the same as that under

Attorney for plaintiffs, G. Badham, for Marsden, for a prohibition on the ground that the cause of which the orders were originally made ; and that Wakefield.

action did not arise within the jurisdiction. The in conseqnence, this appeal ought to have been

Attorney for defendants, the Solicitor to the voyage was from the Chincha Islands to the Southbrought before the Wolverhampton borough ses. Treasury.

ampton Docks. sions, and not before the Stafford connty sessions.

Cohen showed cause, and contended, first, that Rule discharged.

Tuesday, Jan. 30.

freight was due in respect of delivery only, and Attorneys for appellants. S. W. Johnson, for


not for carriage ; secondly, that by custom such Brooke, Robinson, and Co., Dudley. Attorneys for respondents, Neal and Philpot, Diversion of a highway-Widening of old road court : (Mayor of London v. Cox, L. Rep. 2 H. L.

actions were within the jurisdiction of the Mayor's for H. Langman, Wolverhampton.

Consent of owner--Certiorari.

239.) This was a rule obtained for a certiorari to bring

Shiress Will for the defendants. up orders made and documents deposited in reSaturday, Jan. 27. spect of a diversion of a highway. The enrolment held, first, that the whole cause of action did not

The COURT (Willes, Byles, Brett, and Grove, JJ.) of the certificate had been opposed at qnarter arise within the jurisdiction : and, secondly, such Re MARY ANN TURNER.

sessions under the provisions of the General Habeas Corpus-Mother's right over children- Highway Act 1835 (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50), s. 88, but tion beyond its limits.

a custom could not give an inferior court jurisdic

Rule absolute. Forfeited guardianship.

it was found that notice of appeal to the surveyor Day moved for a writ of habeas corpus to bring had not been given in proper time, and the persons Rawlins, i, East India-avenue.

Attorneys for the plaintiff, Flux, Argles, and up the body of Mary Ann Turner, aged about who considered themselves aggrieved now at.

Attorneys for the defendants, H. P. Sharp. thirteen, who is at present in a Protestant refuge tempted to set aside the order of sessions as for homeless children. The motion was made on being bad on the face of it, and therefore beyond behalf of the child's mother, who is now dying of the jurisdiction of the justices. The objections

Wednesday, Jan. 31. consumption at the Marylebone workhouse. The were (1) that the alleged new highway was merely RICHARDS V. GELLATLEY AND OTHERS, father, who was a Protestant, died when the child a widening of an old road; (2) that the consent of

Practice-Inspection. was about two years old ; the mother had the the owner was not stated in the certificate of

Murphy moved to vary an order of Cleasby, B. child baptised according to her own religion, that justices; (3) that the form of consent differed at chambers, allowing inspection of certain docuof a Roman Catholic. The mother had been an from that given in the schedule, and was bad ments and letters in the custody of the defendants, habitual drunkard except during the time she had because the persons giving it were described as, “except letters of other passengers, and letters of spent in different workhouses. In July last, a dis. and claiming to be owners of the land adjoining, captains and owners subsequent to the 21st Dec., trict visitor, having found that the child was neg. and because the substituted road to which the without prejudice to application to the court lected and starved, sent her, with the mother's consent referred was described as “through or in respect of letters of other passengers." The consent, to the institution in which she now is. adjoining our said land."

motion was to vary the order by striking out the After five months, the mother alleged, by affidavit, Ficld, Q.C. and Thesiger for the respondents, words in inverted commas. The action was that she desired to remove the child from Protes. the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum, near brought on a promise that a certain ship was in tant influence, and to have her brought up in her Caterham, who had diverted the road, showed a fit state, &c., whereby plaintiff was induced to own religion, an opportunity having been found to

become a passenger on the same, and afterwards, place her in a Roman Catholic institution. Bram- Denman, Q.C. and Clarke, for the appellants, owing to the bad state of the ship, was obliged to well, B., at chambers, had refused the applica- supported the rule.

disembark on the 21st Dec. (the day mentioned in tion.

The Court (Cockburn, C.J., Mellor and Lush, the order), and lost the benefit of the money he The COURT (Blackburn, Mellor, and Lush, JJ.), J. J.), considered that the preliminary formalities had paid for his passage; the second count was considered that, under the circumstances, the required by the 84th and 85th sections had been for fraudulent misrepresentation as to the state of were not bound to interfere. Rule refiiseil. substantially complied with.

the ship, whereby, &c. The plaintiff had interAttorneys for applicant, Tucker, New, and

Rue dischargeit. rogated the defendants, and the defendants in Langdale.

Attorneys for appellants, Horne and Hunter.

their answers admitted having received a number
Attorneys for respondents, Nicholson and of letters subsequently to Dec. 21, from pas
Jan. 27 and 29.

sengers in the ship (other than the plaintiff), and THE JUSTICES OF LANCASHIRE V. THE LORDS

from the captain and owners of the ship. It was OF THE TREASURY.

Wednesday, Jan. 31.

alleged that other passengers besides the plaintiff

Re AN ATTORNEY. Mandamus—Cost of prosecutions-Statutory obli- Attachment-Attorney, Abolition of imprison. unfit state, and that defendants had settled with

had been compelled to leave the ship owing to its gation of Lords of the Treasury-29 g 30 Vict.

ment for debt. c.39–34 & 35 Vict. c. 89.

some of them. The defendants also represented

F. O. Crump moved for a rule for an attachment themselves as being merely the agents of the Manisty, Q.C. had obtained a rule, nisi on against an attorney for non-payment of a sum of owners, and it was suggested that the letters behalf of the justices of Lancashire, calling upon money ordered to be paid by an order of a master from the owners would show truly what was the the Lords of the Treasury to show cause why a which had been made a rule of court. The applica- relation between them and the defendants. writ of mandamus should not isssue to compel tion had been refused on the previous day, on the The Court (Willes, Byles, Brett and Grove, them to pay certain costs of prosecutions which ground that a fi. fa. might issue on the rule. A JJ.) refused tho rule.

Rule refused. had been paid by the treasurer of the county of further affidavit was now produced, which stated Lancaster upon taxation.

Attorneys for plaintiff, Eyre & Co. that the sheriff had already several writs against The Appropriation Act (34 & 35 Vict. c. $9) the attorney, and must return nulla bona, therecontains a grant, not more than a certain sum, for fore the rule for attachment was again moved.

June 23, 24, 1871, and Jan. 31, 1872. criminal prosecutions. The Exchequer Act (29 & 30 The COURT (Blackburn and Quain, JJ.) said NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (apps.) v. Vict. c. 39), compels treasurers of counties and that an attachment would not be granted, especi- RICHARDSON AND ANOTHER (resps.) boroughs to pay out of the funds at their com ally on the last day of term, for non-payment of mand certain costs for prosecutions, as taxed by moneys, now that imprisonment for debt was

Railway-Dogs-Common carriers-Bailees for

hire-Liability for loss. the officers of assizes and sessions; and directs abolished; but the attention of the court being This was an appeal from the decision of the that the costs formerly payable out of the county drawn to the fact that an attorney might


County Court judge for Westmoreland. The reand borough rates be paid by the Treasury. The imprisoned under the Debtors' Act for non-pay; spondents (plaintiffs below) were the owners of a costs, concerning which this application was made, had been accordingly paid by the treasurer they would leave the applicant to his remedy on a

ment under an order of court. The

Court said greyhound, which was sent by them to a station

on the defendants' line for the purpose of being of the county of Lancaster ; and the board of examiners, appointed by resolution of the House

oonveyed by the railway. The fare was paid, but

Attorneys, Few and Co. of Commons for that purpose, had re-taxed them,

no ticket was given, and no special contract

entered into. The dog was given in charge of the and a considerable reduction from the amount claimed by the said treasurer had been handed


guard of the train and conveyed some distance on over by the Lords of the Treasury.

Tuesday, Jan. 30.

its journey. It was then taken out and kept waitThe Solicitor General, Brown, Q.C, and Archi. Ex parte KING AND WIFE; Re P. AND W.

ing at a station, until some other train came up. bald, for the Lords of the Treasury, showed cause,


While at the station it was fastened to a pump, and contended that a mandamus could not be Afidavit-Omission of "additionof deponent, but, getting frightened, it managed to slip its granted on the grounds, first, that the Lords of


collar and ran away down the line, where it got the Treasury were servants of the Crown; secondly, This was a rule to show cause why P. and W., run over by a train. In a conspicuous part of the that the Acts of Parliament merely limited the attorneys, should not be struck off the rolls. The station 2 notice

was posted up stating that the purposes to which the particular sums granted affidavit on which the rule was moved omitted to collector was not authorised to enter into con

tracts for the conveyance of dogs, except in a parshould be appropriated, and did not lay any statu. state the "addition” of the deponent.

ticular way, which had not been followed here. tory obligation upon individuals to pay these Prideaux,

Q.C. for P., and suns; and, thirdly, that the Legislature intended Lopes, Q.C. for W., showed cause against the The County Court judge gave judgment against the Treasury officers to exercise a discretion in rule.

the company, damages 501., and this was an appeal the manner and amount of payment.

against that decision. Prideaux objected that no addition” or mys.

June 23 and 24.-Shield for the appellants. Manisły, Q.C. and Gorst, for the Justices of tery” being given, the affidavit was irregular and Lancashire, supported the rule, and relied upon the rule ought to be quashed.

Kemp for the respondents.

Cur. adv. vult. the words of the Acts referred to as imposing an Lopes, Q.C. desired, on behalf of his client W., obligation which gave the court authority to exer- to waive the irregularity and be allowed to show Jan. 31.-WILLES J. gave the judgment of the cise ite mandatory jurisdiction.

court (Willes, Keating, and M. Smith, JJ.) in The Court (Cockburn, C.J., Blackburn, Mellor, The COURT (Willes, Byles, Brett, and Grove, favour of the appellants, on the ground that the and Lush, JJ.), although strongly of inion that JJ.), held, on the authority of Cobbett v. Oldfield railway company were not common carriers of the Lords of the Treasury ought to pay the whole (16 M. & W. 469), that the omission of the "addi dogs, and that under the circumstances they were of the costs claimed, considered there was no tion" was an irregularity, and was ground for nothing more than bailees for hire, so as to be

ca. sa.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

liable only in the event of negligence, of which Martin, B., not without some doubt), made the were lent to a legatee who was executor under a there was no evidence.

rule absolute to enter the verdict for the defen- previous codicil, to read. On their return the Judgment for the appellants without costs. dant on the ground that a brewer who sold his own sixth codicil was missing. An affidavit was Attorneys for appellants, Hutchinson and Lucas, manufactures only was not a “merchant in the read from a gentleman who had seen the codicil, Darlington.

common and ordinary sense of that term, and so and who deposed that it was in the handwriting Attorneys for respondents, Kynaston and did not come within the description in the bond, of of the deceased. It was signed by the testator Gasquet. an "ale, porter, or spirit merchant.”

and two other persons, but he could not remember

Rule absolute. whose the names were.

Attorney for the plaintiff, Jones, Colchester. Inderwick moved that a draft of the sixth
May 22, 1871 and Jan. 22, 1872.

Attorneys for the defendants, Kingsford and codicil be admitted to probate along with the will

Dorman, 23, Essex-street, Strand, W.C., agents and the other codicils.
for Turner, Deane, and Elwes, Colchester,

The COURT.-The court has never admitted Landlord and tenant-Order of County Court

to probate a document, as to the execution of Delivery of possession under County Court

which it has no kind of evidence. You may take Amendñent Act (19 & 20 Vict. c. 108), ss. 50, 51

Saturday, Jan. 27.

probate of the will and the five codieils. -Trespass - Justification of under the Act, JAMES v. THE SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY

Attorneys: Sympson and Warner, Parties to suit-Estoppel.

COMPANY. This was an action of trespass which was tried Court of AdmiraltyInjunction by to stay action before Martin, B.and a special jury at the last spring at common law-Prohibition by this court to

In the Goods of PuRSSGLOVE. assizes for the county of Cumberland, 1871. The facts were shortly these : The defendant who This was a rule calling upon the London and South

stay proceedings upon such injunction.

Will-The executor and residuary legatee signed claimed to be the landlord of a person named Western Railway Company to show cause why

the vill after the testatrix and before attesting

witnesses--Probate granted. Usher in respect of the premises in question, an

they should not be prohibited from further pro: Mary PURSSGLOVE, late of Birmingham, in the outhouse or shed attached to and belonging to a ceeding in a certain suit in the High Court of county of Warwick, died 20th Dec. 1870, left a will public-house called the Red Lion, at Grassmere, had Admiralty called the Normandy to the injury of which was executed in the following form: sometime previously issued a summons against the plaintiff, and why they should not be proUsher in the County Court under the County hibited from further proceeding to enforce or

Mary Purssglove X Court Amendment Act (19 & 20 Vict. c. 108), issue any injunction to restrain the said plaintiff

Edward Valentine Smith, executor. sect. 50, in which proceedings he recovered judg: from prosecuting a certain action in this court

Witnesses, Henry Sermon, Daniel Mason. ment, and thereupon obtained possession of the between the said plaintiff and the said defendants died Jan. 2, 1871, without having proved the will,

E. V. Smith, who was also residuary legatee, premises under and by virtue of the warrant of the County Court. The plaintiff in the present without the jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdic.

on the ground that such suit and proceedings are and action was in possession of the premises at the tion. It appeared that the plaintiff on a day in of Mary Purssglove be granted to David William

C. A. Middleton now moved that probate of the will time as tenant to Usher, the defendant in these May last took a ticket in London by the defen- Hind, the executor of E. V. Smith. He cited In proceedings, but was no party to them in any way, dants' line of railway to Guernsey. Having the Goods of Sharman (38 L. J. 47, P. & M.; and the present action was now brought by him arrived safely at Southampton, he proceeded on against the defendant for retaining possession of board one of the defendant's steamboats called Smith, by signing as executor, did not lose his

20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 683) as an authority, that the premises which he claimed to do under the

the Normandy to go the remainder of his journey interest. County Court warrant above-mentioned. The

to Guernsey. Whilst on its voyage the vessel learned Baron, at the trial, was of opinion that

The Court made the grant. came into collision with a vessel called the the proceedings in the County Court and under Mary, whereby the Normandy was so much in.

Attorneys, Burton, Yeates, and Hart, the warrant had operated to change the legal pos jured that she shortly sank, the passengers being session, and that the present plaintiff Hudson was

In the Goods of J. N. LANGHAM. concluded thereby, and, therefore, he held that the saved, but all the goods, including those of the present action of trespass was not maintainable plaintiff going down with her. The plaintiff there by the plaintiff, whom he accordingly nonsuited. upon brought an action against the defendants for Intestacy-Next of kin minors- A stranger in

blood elected guardian without citing one of the A rule having been subsequently obtained on his the value of his goods. At the same time, the defendants brought an action in the Admiralty

parent's next of kin who was resident abroad. behalf to set that nonsạit aside, and for a new trial Court against the owners of the Mory, and the STEPHEN NAT LANGHAM, late of the Cambrian on the ground of misdirection in the learned latter brought an action against the present de- Stores, 12, Castle-street, Leicester-square: in the judge's so ruling. May 22. ---Holker, Q.C. and Campbell Foster, for fendants, cach alleging the

negligence of the other. county of Middlesex, licensed victualler, died Sept. the plaintiff, showed cause against it, and

The Court of Admiralty ultimately held that it 1, 1871, a widower, and intestate, leaving Alice and Quain, Q.C. and Trevelyan, for the defendant, that, the defendants instituted a suit in the Court his only next of kin. Both children were minors,

was the Normandy which was to blame. Upon Elizabeth, his natural and lawful children, and contra, supported it. The Court (Martin, Bramwell, and Pigott, section of the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104 (Merchant Ship and on the mother's side their only next of kin of Admiralty, under the provisions of the 514th being of the respective ages of 16 and 12 years.

On the father's side there were no next of kin, BB.) took time to consider its judgment, and now Jan. 22.- Their Lordships delivered judgment Court of Admiralty thereupon issued an injuuc. ping Act 1861), for limiting their liability, and the

were two uncles and two aunts, of whom three seriatim, Channel and Pigott

, BB, being of tion restraining the plaintiff from proceeding in had duly renounced their rights to the adminisabsolute for a new trial ; but Martin, B., retaining junction that the present rule was obtained. opinion that the plaintif's rule should be made his present action, and it was to set asido such in- tration of the deceased's estate, and to the guar;

dianship of the minors. The fourth, an uncle named the opinion he entertained at the trial, thought it should be discharged.

Wm. Watson, had left this country in 1869 for the Rule absolute.

Sir J. Karsloke, Q.C. and C. Wood showed cause. Attorneys for the plaintiff, Westall and Roberts, of the rule. Manisty, Q.C. and W. G. Harrison in support purpose of taking up his residence in the State of

Nevada, in the United States of America. In. 7, Leadenhall-street, E.C., agents for Moser, Arnold, and Moser, Ambleside.

The Court were of opinion that the Court of quries had been made to ascertain his present Attorney for the defendant, H. S. Willett, 14, Admiralty had no jnrisdiction to grant any such residence, and nothing was now known of him.

The minors duly elected George Langham, 2 Gray’s-inn-square, W.C., agent for R. F. Thompson: injunction, and made absolute the present rule.

Rule absolute.

stranger in blood, to be their guardian for the Attorneys for the plaintiff, Brooksbank and purposes of administration to the estate of the

Mondoy, Jan. 22.

deceased, and the court was now moved to make Attorneys for the defendants, L. Crombie.

a grant of administration to him as guardian. JOSSELYN v. PARSONS.

The value of the estate was about 1001. Action on bond—Ale or porter merchant"

Shearman, for the appellant, cited In the goods Brewer-Distinction between-Constrvction.


of Hagger (3 Sw. & Tr. 67 ; 8 L. T. Rep. N. S. 470), This waş an action to recover the penalty on a

Tuesday, Jan. 30.

In the goods of Widger (3 Curt. 55), In the goods bond given by the defendant to the plaintiff under

of Augustus J. Hay (L. Rep. 1 P. & D. 57; 13 the circumstances hereinafter mentioned, and

(Before Lord PENZANCE.)

L. T. Rep. N. S. 335). which was tried at the last summer assizes at

In the Goods of SHEPHERD,

The COURT-In this case there are several next Ipswich, before Byles, J. The defendant, who Intestacy-Two of the next of kin abroad-Joint of kin of the minors who have had an opportunity had been a traveller to the plaintiff, who was an grant to attorneys nominated by them for the of coming forward to represent them. They don't “ale, porter, and spirit merchant," at Colchester, purpose refused- Practice.

find it necessary to do so. The only one who had, upon entering into the plaintiff's service in JOHN SHEPHERD, late of Lymm, in the county of has been left out is residing abroad ; and under that capacity, executed a bond to the plaintiff, by Chester, died 16th Nov. 1871, intestate, and a these circumstances the court may permit the which he became bound, amongst other things, bachelor, without any parent or brother or sister minors to elect a guardian as they have done. that he would not within twelve months after surviving him. His next of kin were John Shep. The rest follows as a matter of course. ceasing to be in the plaintiff's service travel herd Douglas, of Calcutta, Margaret Taylor Dew Attorneys, Allen and Son. for any “ ale, porter, or spirit merchant' Douglass, and Elizabeth Hutton, of New York, within twenty-five miles of Colchester. Having his lawful nephew and nieces. Mr. Douglas had quitted the plaintiff's employment, the defen- nominated Mr. T. S. Dods, of Manchester, his dant immediately afterwards entered the ser. attorney, and Mrs. Hutton had nominated Mr. J.

ELECTION LAW. vice of a brewer at Colchester as a traveller, and W. Stuart, of Manchester, to be her attorney, for in that capacity he went about soliciting orders the purpose of taking the grant of administra

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. for the brower within the distance limited by the tion; and,

ELECTION LAW-COUNTY-DESCRIPTION OF bond, and thereupon the plaintiff brought this Bayford now moved that a joint grant of admin. QUALIFICATION-ERRONEOUS NUMBER OF HOUSE action to recover the penalty. The learned judge istration be made to these two gentlemen. -Right TO AMEND.—Where the description of thought that a brewer, who only sold the The Court held there was nothing in the cir- the property of a voter is erroneous, the revising goods which he had himself manufactured, cumstances of the case to take it out of the barrister has power to amend under 6 & 7 Vict. did not come within the words of the bond as an general rule, and refused to make a joint grant. c. 18, s. 40, as an “insufficient description of the ale, porter, or spirit merchant," and that the Proctor, Ayrton.

property." The claimant's qualification for a bond was not, therefore, forfeited. A verdict, how.

county vote was described as a 'freehold house ever, was entered for the plaintiff for nominal

In the Goods of WILSON.

and shop," No. 4, English-street, Carlisle. After damages, and leave was reserved to the defen. Lost codicil-Evidence as to its being seen, but his name had been so put on the register, the dant to move to enter the verdict for him. A rule no evidence as to its execution-Probate re-local authorities altered the number of this bonse to that effect was accordingly subsequently ob- fused.

to 9. There was another No. 4, English-street. tained, and now

Thomas Wilson, late of Titchfield in the county 'Ih, claimant's vote was objected to and dis. O'Malley, Q.C.(with him was Mayd) appeared to of Hants, died leaving a will and six codicils, the allowed by the barrister, as he considered he had show cause against it, and

last of which was executed shortly before his no power to amend. Held, that the barrister had Bulwer, Q.C. and Graham, for the plaintiff, death, and merely contained an alteration in the power to amend. Per Brett, J., that the barrister contra, supported it.

appointment of executors. The will and codicils not only had power, but was bound to amend : The Court (Martin, Bramwell, and Pigott, BB.; were produced and read over at the funeral, and '(Bendle v. Watson, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 806. C. P.)


[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

ELECTION LAW - County VOTE-RATEABLE York-road, Nos. 6. 7, and 8, and 'Nos. 1 to 5, Pleasant-grove, of his commission. The proceeds of the sale were

freehold-sold for £1360. VALUE OF OCCUPATION UNDER SEVERAL LANDNewington, No, 12:3, High-street, freehold-sold for 11120.

lodged with the army agents on the same day, but LORDS.-An occupation of several pieces of land A freehold ground rent of Ls, amply secured-sold for £225. the amount, after deducting regimental debts, did ander different landlords, none of which pieces are

Walworth. A freehold ground rent of £1,105. per annum, not become payable to the officer till the following

on East-2320. sufficiently rated to confer a vote for the county, Sale No. 7.-Walworth, No. 12. Orb-street, Nos. 1 to 6, Bed. morning. At half-past five p.m. on the 7th Dec., bat which are in the aggregate of sufficient value, ford-street, term 18 years-sold for L600.

after business hours, one of the incumbrancers makes a good qualification for a county vote under Nos 7 to 10, Bedford Street, and Nos. 1 to Bedford-court; left at the office of the army agents a written

term 18 years, and an improved ground rent of £15 per notice of his charge. On the opening of the office the 6th section of the Representation of the People annum--sold for £550. Act; and the fact that the tenants hold under Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14, Nursery-row, term 18 at nine o'clock on the following morning, several different landlords is no objection. Gailsby v.

years-sold for 2 130.

Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18a, 19a, 20, and 21, same row and term-sold other incumbrancers served the army agents with Burrow, 7 M. & G. 21, distinguished: (Huckle v. for £350.

notices of their charges. Held (reversing the Piper, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 809. C. P.)

An improved ground-rent of £75 per annum, amply secured, decision of the Master of the Rolls), that the notice ÉLECTION LAW-COUNTY FranCHISE-SUB.

term 10 years-old for £100.

The above properties were sold under an order of the Court left on the evening of the 7th Dec. must be taken LESSEE-TERM ORIGINALLY EXCEEDING SIXTY of Chancery, in the important suit, Pennington v. Dalbiac. to have been served simultaneously with the other YEARS.-A sub-lessee of a term which, when

The biddings throughout were spirited, and the prices notices, as it was not really received by the army

realised were most satisfactory. originally created was for more than sixty years,

agents until the following morning. Papillon v. and of the clear yearly value of 51. over and above

Brunton (2 L. T. Rep. N. S. 326 ; 5 H. & N. 518) all rents and charges payable out of the same, is WE have received a volume entitled The Key to distinguished. Held also, that, as all the notices entitled to vote for members of Parliament for the the London Money Market, by Mr. Arthur Crump must be taken to have been served simultaneously, county. Semble, the 5th section of the Represen. (London, Longmans and Co.), which furnishes us the incumbrancers were entitled to rank according tation of the People Act 1867, does not create a with a complete history of the important circum- to the dates of their charges. One of the charges new franchise, but lowers the value of the old one: stances which have affected the money market extended to further advances. Hold, that the (Chariton v. Overseers of Stretford, 25 L. T. Rep. and the Bank of England returns from 1792 to rule in Hopkinson v. Rolt (5 L. T. Rep. N. S. 90 ; N. S. 810. C. P.)

1871 inclusive. This is prefaced by short but 9 H. of L. Cas. 514) applied, and that the incum. ELECTION LAW -- NOTICE OF OBJECTION

masterly essays on such subjects as The Economy brancer holding that charge was entitled to tack PRACTICE.-A notice of objection, which named of Capital, Deposits, Circulation and Bullion, on to it all further advances made by him without the "third column" as that on which the objec. showing that the author has not chosen a title for notice of any prior charges, but that he was not tion is grounded, and which stated that the his work to which it cannot fairly aspire. Mr. entitled to tack on a charge bought up from objection related to the nature of the voter's Crump seems to have felt

the pulse of the money another incumbrancer : (Calisher v. Forbes, 25 interest in the qualifying property, is sufficient market with the skill of an experienced physician, L. T. Rep. N. S. 772. Chan.) within the 6th section of 28 Vict. c. 36, to enable and the plan of his work will enable those whom WILL-CONSTRUCTION-POWER TO DEDUCT the objector to prove that a voter whose qualifica- the subject he treats of concerns, and there are FROM LEGACY MONEYS OWING BY THE LEGATEE tion was a “freehold benefice," in a borough, few whom it does not concern, to keep themselves to OTHER LEGATEES UNDER THE WILL.-A was entitled to a borough vote, and therefore not posted up in the fluctuations of the market, and testator, by his will, gave his residuary estate to entitled to vote for the county under 2 Will. 4, thus to make comparisons for practical purposes trustees upon trust to sell and invest and to pay c. 45, s. 24 : (Simey v. Dixon, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. between the present and the spast. The work is the annual income to his wife for her life, and 811. C. P.)

unique, and most probably will meet with con- after her death to stand possessed of one-sixth siderable success.

part of the proceeds of sale upon trust to invest and

to permit his daughter M. to enjoy the annual ESTATE AND INVESTMENT

income for her life, for her separate use with re. JOURNAL.

mainder to her children in equal shares. And the SOLICITORS' JOURNAL.

testator directed his trustees to deduct from her

share the sum of 2001., which he had advanced to STOCK AND SHARE MARKETS.


her; and also that if, at the period of distribution, The following are the fluctuations of the week : PRACTICE-SALE OF MORTGAGED PRORERTY-M. should be indebted to any of her brothers or

PURCHASER'S RIGHT TO DELIVERY OF TITLE sisters in respect of advances made to her, his ENGLISH FUNDS, Fri. Sat. Mon, Tues Wed. Thu, DEEDS.- A purchaser who, in a suit to realise a trustees should be empowered to deduct all or Bank of England Stock 242 212 213

mortgage security, has paid the purchase money any of such debts or advances from her share,

23 21 33 Cent, Red. Ann.... 9.2) 92; 923

9:29 929 of the mortgaged property into court, is entitled, and to pay the same to the brother or sister to 3 Cent. Cons. Aan 92

92 923 92

92: before its distribution, to the delivery of the title whom the same might be owing. Held, that this New 21 P Cent. Ann...

deeds : (Fowler v. Scott, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 781. power of deduction extended to advances, although Do. 3} P C. Jan. 1891 V.C. W.)

barred by the Statute of Limitations, but did not New 3Cent. Ann. 92 92

9:23 92 921

PRACTICE-PARTITION-SALE AT THE REQUEST extend to interest on the advances, it being the 5 Cent. Annuities 5 Cents. Jan. 1873

OF INFANTS-PARTITION ACT 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. testator's intention to treat advances by M.'s Ann. 30 years esp

c. 40.)- In a partition suit instituted on behalf of brothers and sisters in the same way as the ad. April 5, 1885

10 infants entitled to property as tenants in common, vance by himself: (Poole v. Poole, 25 L. T. Rep. Do. exp. Jan, 5, 1850

for a sale of the property : the court made the N. S. 771. Chan.) Do. exp. July 1880

order asked for, bit directed it to be drawn up
El Sea Tele. Ann, 1908
Cousols, for Acc.... 925

92% 92/ 928
both under the old practice of selling to pay costs

UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE India 5 Cent. for Acc. and under the powers of the Partition Act of

BANK OF ENGLAND. Do.5 P Cent. July 1880 111 1114 iii 1103 1868 : (France v. France, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 785. (Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the India Stock, July 1880 V. C. W.)

National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons India Stock, 1874


WILL-POWER OF APPOINTMENT-DEATH OF respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three India 5 7 Cent.

months, unless other claimants sooner appear.) APPOINTEE IN LIFE OF APPOINTOR-RESIDUARY WALKER Henry Fowler Vincent Louis), Vale place, NorthIndia 47 C. Oct. 1888 1051 105105) 205. 106 1058 India 5 P Cent. 1870

BEQUESTS-NEXT OF Kin.-A testatrix having a fleet, Kent, gentleman. 107 1. Reduced Three per Cent. India Bonds (10001.)... 30% a 303.a 30s.a 303,a 30s.a life interest in, and a general power of appoint.

Annuities. Claimant, Harriet Susan Barnut Lemming

(wife of Henry Lemming). Do. (under 10001.) .. 303,a 30s.a 30s,a 30s,a ment over, the residuary estate of her late hus. Ex. Bills, 10001. 68.4 68.a 6.a 68.2 6s.a band, by her will appointed an executor ; and after

APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK 5001. 68.a 6s.a 6s,a 6s, a 6s.a directing payment of her debts and giving certain

WINDING-UP ACTS. Do. 1001. and 2001.63.a 63.a 63.a 6s. 68.a Metropolitan Board of legacies, bequeathed the residue of her estate to GLYNCOXWG COAL COMPANY LIMITED).--Creditors to send in

by Feb. 15, their names and addresses, and the particulars Works 3 C. Stock. 97 971 97 97) 971 four persons (direct) to be divided equally between

of their claims, and the names and addresses of their soli. them. Two of the persons died in the lifetime of citors, if any, to R. Smith, 6, Victoria-sireet, Westminister, a Premium.

Feb. , at the testatrix : Held, that her husband's next of

the official liquidator of the said company.

eleven o'clock, at the chambers of the M.R., is the time ap. kin were entitled to the shares of the persons who pointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. REPORTS OF SALES.

had died : (Re Davies' Trust, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. ROYAL NAVAL, MILITARY, AND EAST INDIA COMPANY LIFE [NOTE. - The reports of the Estate Exchange are officially 785. V.C. W.)

ASSURANCE SOCIETY.-- Petition for winding-up to be heard

Feb. 9, before V.C.M. supplied in the following list. Auctioneers whose names

PRESUMPTION OF DEATH - LEGACY TO are registered there will oblige by reports of their own Class.-A testator died in 1847, having by his CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. Bales.) will given 10001. to the children of his brother W.,

LAST DAY OF PROOF. Thursday, Jan. 23. living at his death, to be divided between them Ans (Francis), Redwick, Almondsbury, Gloucester, yeoman.

Feb. 10; Geo. D. Crossman, solicitor, Thornbury, GlouBy Messrs. ChxXOCK, GALSWORTHY, and Co., at the Mart. equally by his executrix within twelve months

cester. Feb. 19; V.C. W., at one o'clock. Westminster, Victoria-street. The freehold property known after bis death, and the said sum to be raised by BURGESS (Jno., Green Dragon, St. Andrew's-lill, Doctor's as the Grosvenor Mansions-sold for £19,5110).

Commons, E.C., licensed victualler. Feb. 15, J. B. Sinith, Marylebone. No. 21, Saville-street, term 17 years-sold for the executrix out of certain property in which he

soliciter, 2, Church-court, Clement's-lane, E.C. March 7; gave her a life interest. The testator's brother

V.C, B., at No. 14, Upper Marylebone-street, terin 27 years-sold for W. had five children, one of whom was last heard CADDICK (Isaac), Wednesbury Oak, Sedgler, Stafford, Nos, 12 and 13, Upper Ogle-street, term 30 years-sold for of in Feb. 1845. In 1848 the executrix paid their

malt-ter. March 9; A. Caddick, solicitor, West Bromwich.

March ; V.C.W. at twelve o'clock. shares to the four other children. In 1851 she CHAMPION 'Percival), St. Clement's House, Clement's-lane. The Brandon Estate, Sale No. 5- Pennington v. Dalhiac.- was found lunatic, and the master by his report, E.C., and Withdean, near Brighton, underwriter and in. Walworth. No. 235. East-street, freehold, and a freehold found that one-fifth part of the 10001, remained

surance broker. March !; Wm. Royle, folicitor, 40, Great fr: unil-rent of 18 lns, 60.-sold for 6300).

Maribor ush-street. Middlesex. Shurch 4; V.C.W., at 10.255, East-street, frechold-sold for 23:35.

unpaid, and that it was believed to belong to a twelve o'clock. No. 211, East-street, and a freehold ground-rent of £10 per child of W., who had not been heard of since the

FARMER (Henry G.), Haren Farm, Firbeck, York, former; annum--sold for £105.

Feb. 12; s. hayes, solicitor, Gainsborough. Feb. 19. Fregold ground-rent of eso per annum, amply secured, and testator's death, or, if he were dead, to the other

V.C.M. at twelve o'clock. a lot of builcung land-sold for €20

children of W. In 1871 the other four children FELTHAN Jas.), The Walls, Hampton-court, Middlesex, $0.91, Brandon-street, freehold-sold for £160.

gentlerran, March 12; II. H. Lawrence, solicitor, 3, Berlo York strret, and the Walworth Temperance Hall, interest to them out of fund in court to the Kexsand Robert. w.) Es, s7. Porchester-terrace, Mia presented a petition for payment of the 2001. and

ford square, W.C. March 26; V. C. W. at twelve o'clok. for No, 19, 20, 22, and 21, York-street, freehold-sold for 930. account of the lunatic: Held, that they were dlesex, March 11; Culletie auci Collette, solicitors, :, A freehold ground-rent of Lt los., well secured-sold for 22:30.

Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C. March 22; V. C. M. at twelve Sale No.6.-Bethnal-green, a freehold ground-rent of 221 per entitled to be paid the 2001., inasmuch as there

o'clock. annuin, amply secured-sold for $110.

was no evidence that there was a fifth child of W. LASTILET (Wm. H.), Hanway-street, Oxford-street, W., A ditto of ulis. per annum-sold for C280. A ditto of £14 per annuin-sold for 6:20. living at the testator's death ; but that they were clerk in Holy Orders. Feb. 2; J. P. Poncione, jun.,

solicitor, 5, Ravinond-buildings, Gray's-inn-roud,' w.c. A litto of 13 per annum--sold for £270. only entitled to six years' arrears of interest on

Feb. 19; V.C. W. at two o'clock. A ditto of 9 per annum-sold for $79.

the 2001. : (Re Walker, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 775. LEO Anton, 13. St. Peter's-street, Islington-steen. MiddleKing's-croas, York-road. A freehold ground-rent of £20 per Chan.)

sex. Feh. ; II. C. Barker, solicitor, St. Michael's House, sunum, amply secured-sold for 0020.

Cornhill, E.C. March 15; V.C. W. at twelve o'clock. A ditto of i per annum-sold for £1.


THE ARMY — EQUITABLE LEVY (Isanc;; Raven-row, whitechapel, Middlesex. Feb. Pleasant-store. A dwelling-house, with stabling, &c., free. CHARGE-PRIORITY-NOTICE-SALE

OF COM- .: J. Smith, solicitor, 19), White Lion-street, Nortonbold-sold for £705. A freehold property adjoining the above, comprising cattleMISSION-ARMY AGENT-NOTICE LEFT AFTER

Folgate, E, March 11: V.C. w., at twelve o'clock.

THOMSON (Jas.), South Norwood, Surrey, metal broker. yards and ontbuildings-sold for £1:3).

BUSINESS HOURS.-An officer in the army, who March 11; J. H. James, solicitor, oy. Lincolu's-inn-tields, After holri unatch manufaciory, with cottage, near the above had created several charges on the proceeds of W.C. March 16; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock. A freehold ground-rent of £S 123. per annum, amply secured sale of his commission, was gazetted on the 7th

WHITTINGHAM (Jane P.), Barnsbury-street, Middlesex.

Feb. 19; Sheffield and Sons, solicitors, 52, Lime-siree, Dec. as having retired from his regiment by sale E.C. March 1; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]





[ocr errors]

-sold for 1273.

« EelmineJätka »