Page images
PDF
EPUB

As to many of the encroachments of the Bar to which the writer is directing attention. The DE. Ros (Right Hon. Wm. Lennox Lascelles Baron). May apon the privileges of solicitors, some of a direct best guarantee for the reform which is wanted

1; Grover and Humphreys, solicitors, 4, King's Benchand others of an indirect kind, the author has would be found in the public press taking up tho DIAS (Rebeoca), Berrow's-almshouses, Barrow's-buildings,

walk, Temple, London. been unable to discover, or at all events satisfac- question in the interests of the public; but unfor.

Devonshire-street, Mile-end, Middlesex, spinster. May torily to settle, their origin; yet sufficient is known tunately for the public, the editorship of lay as

20; G. and A. Lindo, solicitors, 12, King's Arms-yard.

Moorgate-street, London. of them to justify the belief that they have come well as legal journals is largely in the hands of Digby Charles W.), Studland Manor, Wareham, Dorset, from the deliberate action of the Government members of the higher branch of the Profession,

and 13, Eaton-square, Middlesex, Esq. July 15, Routh from time to time under the influence of the Bar, who, while they, and many others filling all kinds

and Stacey, solicitors, 14, Southampton-street, Blooms

bury, London, or else at the instigation of the Bar direct. of offices, cannot be designated lawyers, yet very DILLOW

(Thomas), High-street, Chingford, Essex, gentleAmongst these must be included the offices of properly stick to their cloth and the so-called man. June 1; F. W. J. Terry, solicitor, 27, GreshamAttorneys and Solicitors-General, posts now filled

street, London.

dignity, honour, and independence of the Bar," DOWSETT Frederick R.), Severn Lodge, Berkeley, GlouAs well in the colonies and our foreign dominions which let no one impugn, but as to which let all cester, contractors' agent. May 14; Wm. T. Elliott, 5. as at home, by members of the Bar. Although as admit that members of other professions can be

Verulam-buildings, Gray's-inn, London.

DUDLEY (John 0.), 6, Broad-street, Oxford, gentleman. to our colonies there is now no distinction between and are possessed of equal virtues.

June 1; R. S. Hawkins, solicitor, 7, Broad street, members of the Profession, each exercising every Let us pass from the subject of the exclusion of

Oxford. function of a lawyer, yet the monopoly of the attorneys

from a right of audience in the Superior | WEBY. Mary's formerly of Southsen, late of Fir Grore, English Bar is greatly felt and much complained Courts, a question more for the public than solici- June 15; W. and H. G. Best, solicitors, Southampton. of there, the practice being to pass over all tors, although essentially an encroachment upon

EVANS (Josiah), Heyes-within-Haydock, Lancaster, Esq.

May 16; Davies and Brook, solicitors, Market-place, competent colonial lawyers for the purpose of our rights, to a consideration of the so-called Warrington. supplying to English barristers having influence offices of “Solicitor to the Treasury," and similar EVEREST (Rev. Robert), formerly of Park-street, GrosvenorB responsible post such as judge, which, it may be, positions filled by members of the Bar in the

square, afterwards of 60, Cleveland-square, Hyde-park,

Middlesex, and late of Westwick House, Ascot, Berks. his want of capability rendered him unfit for at other public departments of the State.

May 17, Styan and Neilson, solicitors, 4, Stone-buildings, home. Compared with the origin of the office or

(To be continued.)

Lincoln's-inn, London. profession of attorney-at-law, the designation of

FELLOWES (John). Beeston Field, Beeston, Nottingham, Attorney-General is of somewhat recent date, and

banker. July 1 ; Enfield and Dowson, solicitors, Notting

ham, UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE was adopted, as also that of Solicitor-General

BANK OF ENGLAND,

FOWNES (Henry G.), formerly of Clifton, Gloucester, Inte of about the same time, by members of the Bar, Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the

Redcliffe-road, West Brompton, Middlesex, barrister-at

law. Jane 20; G. Carew, solicitor, 9, Lincoln's-inn-fields, possibly for the purpose of misleading the ignorant National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons

London. public of those times as to the duties of these respectively, whose names are prefixed to each in three FRENCH (Lieut.-Gen, Henry J.), 17, Belgrave-road, Pimmonths, unless other claimants sooner appear.)

lico, Middlesex, June 17; Carlisle and Odell, solicitors, public officers ; adopted, too, at a time when the

BREEZE (Jas.), Aylsham, Norfolk, clothier, £523 19s. 70. New common attorney” was utterly helpless to Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, Jas. Breeze. GARRAD (Mary), Rotchetts, near Brentwood, Essex, resist what some will call nominal encroachments,

CRESSWELL (Right. Hon. Sir Cresswell), Prince's gate, domestic servant. May 31 ; G. Lucas, solicitor, iS6, Stoke and when the expression “solicitor” was only in

Hyde-Park, Middlesex ; £6000 Three per Cent.

Annuities. Newington-road, Middlesex.

Claimant, said Right Hon. Sir C. Cresswell, knight. GOEz (Henry John A.), formerly of the Crystal Palace use to a limited extent, in relation to the business EATON (Rev. Thos.), Eastham; BRYANS (Rev. Francis), Hotel, Norwood, Surrey, late of Connaught House, of those tribunals now known as the Courts of

Backford; and GLEADOWE (Rev. Richard Wm.), Neston, Montpelier-road, Brighton, gentleman. May 11 ; R. and

all in Cheshire; £31 78. 7d. Three per Cent. annuities. A, Russell, solicitors, 59, Coleman-street, London, Chancery.

Claimants, said Rev. Thos Eaton, Rev. Francis Bryans, GREEN (Mary A.), 5, Paulton-square, Chelsea, Middle-cx, It will be complained that the writer does not and Rey, Richard W. Gleadowe.

spinster. June 1: F. Robinson, solicitor, 36, Jermyn

street, St. James's, Westminster, s.w. furnish some precise data as to the origin of the names Attorney, and Solicitor-General, which

HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN.

GREENWOOD (Thos.), Strawberry-hill, Pendleton, Manches

ter, cotton manufacturer. May 30; J. P. and J. T. Sutcliffe, would entail a large amount of research from Rose (Geo. Frederick), formerly of Pickett-street, Strand, solicitors, Hebden

Bridge. cheesemonger, late of 28, North Bank, St. John's Wood, sources not altogether dependable; hence the

GỰSTARD (Ralph), late of Heddon-on-the-Wall, Northum

Middlesex. Next of kin to come in by May 22, at the berland, farmer;. formerly of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, juthor is content to leave these names or desig

chambers of v.O. M.; June 2, at the said chambers at grocer. May 20; Allan and Daries, solicitors, 23, Graingernations to speak for themselves.

twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adju. street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
dicating upon such claims.

HALSTRD (Vice-Admiral Edward P.), formerly of 85, EburyAn encroachment of a far more substantial kind

street, Pimlico, Middlesex, late of Haslar Hospital, Gor is that which led to the exclusion of attorneys-at

APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK port. May 1, Currie and Williams, solicitors, s2, Lin-
WINDING-UP ACTS.

coln's-inn-fields, Middlesex.
law from the right of audience in the higher tri.
INTERNATIONAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY.-Creditors to send

HAMBLETON, Elizabeth Ann (and not Humbleton, es inaccubunals of the country. This is exhaustively dealt in by May 80 their names and addresses, and the particu

rately described in LAW TIMES April 11), No. 1, York-terwith in the works of Mr. Charley and Mr. Marshall lars of their claims and the names and addresses of

race, Nottingham-gate, Regent's-park, Middlesex, widow. before referred to, and needs no further comment

their solicitors (if any), to F. Maynard, 55, Old Broad

May 80; Mason and Withall, 18, Bedford-row; Ayerst, street, London. June 8, at the chambers of v.0. M., at

Francis, 2, Great College-street, Manchester. here, as it is admitted on all hands to be the fact, or two o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudi.

HARRIS (Hon. and Rev. Chas. A. Bishop), l'orquay. Juno at all events, such only can be inferred from the cating upon such claims.

1; Rev. H. O'Brien, Cordoagh, Cootehill, Ireland. TAHITI COTTON AND COFFEE PLANTATION COMPANY (LI.

HERROX (Maria), late of the Clock House, Beckenham, Statute of Carlisle, which, read by the light of the

MITED). - Petition for winding-up to be heard May 1,

Kent, formerly of Clarendon Lodge, Tulse-hill, Surrey. procedure of the time, says Mr. Marshall, points to before V.O. M.

spinster. June 24; Cowdell, Grundy, and Browne, solithe conclusion that in the 14th century attorneys

citors, 26, Budge-row, London.

HOLLYER (Anna), Penzance, widow. May 11; Rodd and enjoyed a right of audience in the Superior Courts CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. Cornish, solicitors, Penzance. at" Westminster. It is certain that in those

LAST DAY OF PROOF.

HOLMES (Rachel), 17, Thornhill-square, Islington, Middle

sex, widow. May 25; Geo. Wm. Hussey, solicitor, 5. times attorneys could and did conduct the entire DURRAN (Thos.), King-street, Hammersmith, Middlesex,

wine merchant. May 20; T. A. Jones, solicitor, 40, Chan.

Knightrider-street, Doctors':commons, London. suit of the client, which Sir Sidney Waterlow cery-lane, Middlesex. June 10; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock.

HOLMES (Samuel), formerly of 3, Great Knightrider-street, and Mr Ayrton would again welcome at least, GUNTER (John), Colehill, Fulham, Middlesex, gentleman.

Doctors'-commons, London, and 23, Stonefield-street, BO the writer gathers from the last pub

May 19; F. Robinson, solicitor, Sa. Jermyn-street, $t.

Cloudesley-square. Islington; and late of 7, Staple-inn, James's, Middlesez, May 22; V.C.M., at twelve o'clock.

London, and 17, Thornhill-square, Islington, Middlesex, lished report of the Judicature Commissioners, KING (Sarah), Great Grimsby, Lincoln. May 16; Grange

solicitor. May 26; Geo. W. Hussey, solicitor, 5, Knight The opinion of Mr. Ayrton in favour of allowing And Wintringham, solicitors, Great Grimsby. May 20;

rider-street, Doctors'-commons. the public to have the opportunity--if they choose

M.R., at twelve o'clock.

JAMES (Thomas), 21, Threadneedle-street, and of Haven LYONS (Elizabeth), 10, Artillery-place, .City-road, and 128,

Green, Ealing, London, stockbroker. May 29; H. W.M. -of instructing one lawyer, and one only, to Alexandra-road, St. John's-wood, Middlesex, and of 14,

Jackson, solicitor, 25, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London, carry on a suit to its termination is evident from 16, and 18, Wilson street, Finsbury, Middlesex, May 25;

LARARD (Henry, 22, Clapham-road, Surrey, watchmaker. his observations on the establiment of Tri.

4. E. Sydney, solicitor, 44, Finsbury-circus, London.

May 80; F. Norton, solicitor, 10, Clifford's-inn, FleetJune 8; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock.

street, London. bunals of Commerce, in which he complains TAYLOR Harriet H.), late of Rockleaze, Westbury-upon

LIPSCOMBE (Samuel), 29, Marlborough-road, Chelsea, of the delay necessary "in order to have every

Trym, Gloucester. April 30; E. A. Harley, solicitor, St.

Middlesex, carpenter, May 12; T. H, T. Rogers, solicitor,

6, Dane's Inn, Strand, London.

Werburgh's-chambers, Small-street, Bristol. Mey 7; representation to the court, it may be said, V.C.M., at twelve o'clock.

MORTIBOY (Thos.), St. Helier'n-park-road, Southborough, filtered, and perhaps mystified, through a single, WADMAN (Peter), Leeds, four dealer. May 16; A. G.

Kent, gentleman. May 14; Wm. T. Elliott, 5, Verulataor even double, legal agency."

buildings, Gray's-inn, London.
Sir Sydney

Ditton, solicitor, 9, Ironmonger-lane, London. May 29;
M.R., at twelve o'clock.

MURGATROYD (Wm.), Horton Bank, Top Horton, Bradford, Waterlow on the same subject expresses him

gentleman. May 13; J. Green, solicitor, 2, Aldermanself in favour of Tribunals of Commerce, because

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VIOT. C. 35.

bury, Yorks,

Nunn John), 23, Euston-square, and 44, Lamb's Condait"suitors should be able to obtain a deci. Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent, street, Midolesex, gentleman. May 80; Hume, Bird, und sion more promptly, and much less expensively ALLEN (W.m.) Hamlet of Eaton, Norwich, gentleman. Bird, solicitors, 10, Great James-street, Bedford-row,

London. than in the Superior Courts, as now consti. ARMSWORTH (Elizabeth), 6A, Belvedere-road, Lambeth, O'MEARA (Bernard), formerly of the Island of St. Thomas tuted and regulated. The present system, too," Surrey, widow. May 18; G. W. Barnard, solicitor, 167, West Indies, lato of Southampton, inspector of inter he adds, “ frequently inflicts on the suitor a long BAILS (Richard), Tate of 'Rose-villa, Terrace-road. Cal.

colonial ships' accounts in the service of the Royal Mai

Steam Packet Company. June 15; Reep, Lane, and Co. pending, worrying law suit, the solicitors on either thorpe-road, Banbury, Oxford, formerly of 28, Cornhill, solicitors, 9, Bush-lane, Cannon-street, London. side pleading in their client's interests every Banbury, woollen draper and tailor. May 23; Wm. POOLE (Jane D.), The Ferns, Holmesdale-road, South Nor. technical point," and so on. These are the

Newman, solicitor, 24, Bucklersbury, Londen,

wood, Surrey, widow. May 23: A. F. and R. W. Tweedie, BARNES (Jas.), Ewood-bridge, near Haslingden, carrier. solicitors, 5, Lincoln's.inn-fields, London. opinions of laymen, which, though not correctly May 16, Samuel and s. Woodcock, solicitors, 9, Henry. RAINES (Robert), 5, Granville-terrace, Beverley-road, King. describing the actual working of the present BARNETT Tho. Wm.), 72, Fore-street, Limehouse, Middle

ston-upon-Hull, oil and tallow merchant. Junc 9: J.A.

Jackson and Son, solicitors, 22, Parliament-street, Hall. system, point to a feeling in the public mind that sex, surgeon. June 1; P. Johnston, solicitor, 85, Bed. RODER (Johann G.), late of Grand Ducal, Saxe Weimar, the present modus operandi of conducting an ford-row, London.

Germany, citizen and gentleman, and formerly Grand Action at law or a suit in Chancery is not suited to

BERRY (Arthur F.,

formerly of the Wheatsheaf, Edgware- Ducal Court musician. June 1; Wm. J. Myatt, solicitor,

road, Middlesex, licensed victualler, late of 217, Maida- 2, Abchurch-yard, Cannon-street, London. modern ideas upon the subject. It should perhaps vale, Middlesex, gentleman. May 10; Fielder and Sumner, ROSSITER (Chas.), Brookfield House, Cheltenham-road, be observed in passing that Sir Sydney sails wide solicitors, 14, Godliman-street, Doctors'-commons, Lon- Bristol, gentleman. June 1; Stanley and Wasbrough. of the mark when he complains of “ solicitors

don.

solicitors, 12, Royal Insurance buildings, Corn-str sot, Bass (Isaac A.), 107, Gower-street, Bedford-square, Middle- Bristol. pleading every technical point,” &c. It is the sex, umbrella manufacturer. July 11 Beyfus and Bey. SCHALCH (Major Andrew 0. Wm.), Woolwich, Kent. May expensive and now obsolete system of plead- Blus Bolicito m.). Sheffield, common brewer. May 21; J.

1; Grover and Humphreys, solicitors, 4, King's Bench ing, which, with counsel's fees and other disburse

walk, Temple, London. and G. E. Webster, solicitors, S, Hartshead, Sheffield. SEWARD (Henrietta S. C.), 20, Portsea-place, Middlesex, ments, so much increases a bill of costs, that soli. BROWN (Horace C.), Captain in the R. A. May 1; M. widow. June 1; J. Crowdy, solicitor, 17, Serjeant's-inn, citors complain of. If important cases can be

and T. Davidson, solicitors, 85, Spring-gardens, Lon- Fleet-street, London. dealt with in County Courts without pleadings, why BUDGEN (Capt. John), R.N., 123, Ball's-pond-road, Middle

SILSON (John), formerly of Bradford, late of Providence

Cottage, Boston Spa, T'adcaster, York, gentleman. Mas not so in the Superior Courts? It is to be hoped sex. June 10; Loxley and Morley, solicitors, 80, Cheap- 25; J. Green, solicitor, 2, Aldermanbury, Bradford. that the Judicature Act will give to this practice

side, London.

SNEYD (Rev. John), formerly of Ashcombe-park, Stafford, BUTCHER (Wm.), Five Oake, Broomhill, Sheffield, mer- late of Woodlands. June 7; Challinor and Co., solicitors the necessary quietus which the terms of the Act

chant. June 25 ; A Smith and Son, solicitors, 26, Castle- Stafford. promise.

street, Sheffield.

SOMERVILLE (Henry), _30, New Bond-street, Middlesex, The writer has stepped aside to consider for a

CALDECOTT (Celia), Wibtoft, Leicester, widow. June 24; merchant. May 10; J. H. Somerville, surgeon, Bloxwich,
E. Harris, solicitor, Rugby.

near Walsall, Staffs. moment the latest expressed views of laymen on CARTER (James), formerly of Thornhill-road, Islington, SPEAKMAN (John), Pennington, Leigh, Lancaster, colliery the subject of the“ double legal agency” question,

late of St. Paul's-road, Canonbury, Middlesex, gentle- proprietor. June 24; Marsh, Buckton, and Jeans, sol. not so much because he himself may incline to the

man. May 12; Depree, Austen, and Justsum, solicitors, citors, Warrington,
S, Church-court, Old Jewry, London.

STEVENS (Martha), Broadlands, St. John's, Ryde, Isle of opinion that solicitors should have restored to CHAFY (Wm. W.), Bowes House, Ongar, Essex, and 3, Wight, widow. July 1; H. A. Dowse, solicitor, 6, New them their former right of audience in the Supe

Brunswick-terrace, Brighton, Esq. June 1; Currie and Inn, Strand, Middlesex. rior Courts, as because there is an undoubted

Williams, solicitors, 82, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London. STIRLING (Edwd., otherwise Edwd. Hamilton), Stirling
COLE (James), Gateliff, Godshill, Isle of Wight,

yeoman. Castle, Mont au Prêter, Island of Jersey, Esq. June 1: feeling on the part of the public that to pay one June 18: J. A. Mew,

solicitor, Newport, Isle of Wight. W. and J. Flower and Nursey, solicitors, 1, Great Winlawyer in one matter is quite enough; and there

COONEY (Edmond), 13, Gower-street, Bedford-square, Mid- chester-street-buildings, London.

dlesex, gentleman. May 11; Beyfus and Beyfus, solici. STOCKS (John, Moor Grange, Beeford, York, gentleman is a close relation between is subject and that

tors, 69, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London.

June 10; Foster and Co., solicitors, Great Driffield.

738 ;

sold for £375,

[ocr errors]

-od for £140.

TEEVAN (Michael), formerly of 22, Kensington-crescent,

PATENT LAW.

the answer to this inquiry turns altogether upoz late of 2, Stanhope-terrace, Gloucester-road, South Kensington, Middle sex, Esq. May 26; Ward. Mills, and (By C. HIGGINS, Esq., M.A., F.C.S., Barrister-at-Law.) what a, b, and c are, how they contribute to the Witham, solicitors, 1, Gray's-inn-square, Middlesex.

object of the invention, and what relation they VEXERS (Rebecca), 99, Albert-road, Norbiton, Surrey,

bear

to each other. Cases may possibly be suggested widow. May 21; Wordsworth, Blake, and Co., solicitors,

INFRINGEMENT.

where the use of b and c might not be an intringSonth Sea House, Threadneedle-street, London, WHITE (Eliza), 28, Woburn-square. Middlesex, widow.

(Continued from p. 378.)

ment of the patent. But more easily cases may Jnne 8; Norton and Co., solicitors, 6, Victoria-street, De la Rue v. Dickenson. 1857.-In an action be put where the use of b and c would be an Westminster. WHITEHEAD (Wm.), formerly of Queen's Hotel, Alfreton

for the infringement of a patent, the question of infringement of the patent. Whether in this road, Nottingham, licensed victualler, afterwards of 28, infringement is for the jury and not for the judge, case it was so or not would depend upon the facts Forest-road, fate of Buttery-terrace, Nottingham, gentle: although there be no question with respect to of the case, and may be more a question of fact man. June 1: Towle and Gilbert, solicitors, 17, Low Pavement, Nottingham.

whether the defendant has or has not used the for the jury than of law for a court of appeal WINDER (John), formerly of Wavertree, Lancaster, late of particular machine or process which is alleged to But the facts are not before us; and we think the Ulverston, gentleman, May 7; G. Remington, solicitor, Ulverston.

be an infringement. Campbell, C.J., in deliver court below was right in deciding that the use of WRIGHT (John), Barnsley, York, rent collector, July 1; | ing the judgment of the court, said: “ There may a subordinate part of a combination might be az Dibb and Raley, Folicitors, Barnsley,

well be a case where the judge may and ought to infringement of the patent if the part so used WRIGAT (Simeon), Manor Farm, East Acton, Middlesex, farmer. July 31; Charles Rogers and Son, solicitors, 7,

take upon himself to say that the plaintiff had was new (by which we understand new in itself Westminster-chambers, Victoria-street, Westminster. offered no evidence to be left to the jury to prove or in its effects, not merely in its application) and

infringement, as if there were a patent for a material.” (8 Ell. & B. 1004.)

chemical composition, and the evidence was that REPORTS OF SALES.

Thomas v. Foxwell. 1859.-Evidence may be the defendant had constructed and used a machine admitted of an infringement by an imitation of a

for combing wool. But, if the evidence has a material part of a general combination, notwithThursday, April 16.

tendency to show that the defendant has used standing the disclaimer of the mechanical parta By Messrs. WINSTANLEY and HORWOOD, at the Mart. Kingston-on-Thames.-A freehold house, with shop-sold result as specified by the plaintiff, and scientific and although there be no separate and specific

substantially the same means, to obtain the same separately, of which the combination consists, Buckhurst Hill.-Residence called Fern Bank, and 29. Or. witnesses have sworn that the defendant actually claim in respect of the part imitated, while there 28p., copy hold-old for £1100. By Messrs. NEWBON and HARDING, at the Mart. has used such means, the question becomes one

are separate and distinct claims in respect of Barnsbury.–No. 10, Brunswick-street, term 45 years-sold of fact, or of fact mixed with law, which the judge other subordinate combinations. (5 Jur. N.S. 39.)

is bound to submit to the jury.(7 EN. & Bl. Can berwell. No. 17, De Crespigny-park, term 76 years

Walton v. Lavater. 1860.-The importation and sold for £560.

3 Jur. N. S. 841.) Hackney.-No. 4, Sheldon Villas, term 88 years-gold for Bovill

v. Keyworth. 1857.–A patent obtained sale of a patented article is evidence of an in£235, Hackney.--Warwick Lodge, term 71 years-sold for £950. for a new combination of a blast and an exhaust fringement. Erle, C.J., in delivering his judg

ment, said: “The next point contended for is, in connection with a mill

, in which only

the lower that there has been no infringement by the defenTudor House-sold for 1660. Nos % and 5, Sheldon Villas, term 88 years-sold for £525. stone rotates, is infringed by the use of the same Dalston.-No. 21, Acacia Villas, term 78 years-sold for combination in connestion with a mill in which sale, moreover, being only a sale

of articles im

dant, because he had only sold the articles, the Aldersgate-street.--Nos. 17, 18, and 19, Edmund-place, term

the

upper stone rotates. Campbell, C.J., in deli- ported from abroad. I have heard the arguments 5 years-sold for kant

vering the judgment of the court, said: "Sap of the learned counsel on hoth sides, derived from No. 103, London Wall, term 9 years-old for L180. Uppar Thames-street.- Nos. 12 to 1o, College Hill, term posing the patent to be for a combination, con

the original statute, which uses the words 'workI year-old f r €72.

sisting of several parts, for one process, we are King's Cross.-No. 6, Manchester-street, term 30 years-- of opinion that the defendants are liable in this ing and making,' and from the form of the expres

sion in the letters patent prohibiting the making, Cripplegate.- A fee farm rent of £2 per annum-sold for

action for having used a material part of the using, or putting in practice the invention, and

process, which was new, for the same purpose as By Messrs. HARDS. VAUGHAN, and JENKINSON, at the Mart. that mentioned in the specification, although they to make, use, exercise, and vend.'

the words granting to the patentee the privilege Lewisham, South End.-Freehold house and cottages-sold

All these for e1110

did not at the same time use all the parts of the words are capable of some of the constructions Dorking.-Five freehold cottages-sold for £140.

process as specified.” (7 EN. & B. 725.) Calex.onian-road.--Nos. 52 and 53, Gifford-street, terrn 75 years--sold for £800.

The Patent Bottle Envelope Company v. Sey. which have been contended for ; but it appears te

me that the main purpose of the patent is to give Nos. "h, 30, and 34, Nailour-street, term 77 years-sold for

mour. 1858.-The plaintiff obtained a patent for the profit to the patentee, and that the main mode

“improvements in the manufacture of cases or Barnsbury.-Nos. 30 and 84, Wellington-rond, term 70 years envelopes for covering bottles," and in the speci- patented article ; and it seems to me that with

of defeating that purpose would be by selling the Nos. 3 to 10. Hides.street, term 83 years-old for £1250.

fication the invention was stated to consist " in out proof of the making of the article by the Nos. 11 to 16. Hid's street, term 85 years--sold for £1000. an arrangement of apparatus by which lengths of infringer, evidence that he sold the patented Holloway.-No, 28, Hornsey-road, term 68 years-suli for rash, straw, or other suitable material, may be article for profit would be good evidence upon Elthum, High-street.-Three freehold houses-sold for readily tied together, so as to form cases or which a jury might find thit he had infringed Nos 1, 2, and 3, Park View-cottages, freehold-sold for packed.” it then proceeded : “For this purpose not being liable, because the articles were

With respect to the defendant Thirty-six shares in the Eltham Gas Company-sold for I take equal lengths of rush, straw, or other imported from abroad, I should say that, even By Messrs. DEBEXHAN, TEWSON, and FARMER, at the Mart. Hyde-park.- No. 11, Gloucester-square, with stabiing, term within a ring or cap, which I then place over the if it was a simple case of importation, without 62 years-old for £6700. neck end of a mould or mandril, corresponding in any

proof of knowledge of the article being Friday, April 17.

patented, or of the infringement, it would be By Messrs. Nonton, Tuist, WATXEY, and Co., at the Mart.

form to the bottle for which the case or cover is sufficient evidence of infringement that the de Soho sa nare. -No.11, Greek-street, freehold-sold for £1720: intended. The mould is fixed to a frame,”. &c. fendant had imported and sold.” Keating, J.Stoke Newingto--gret n.--A freehold house, with garden- The defendant made bottle envelopes out of simi18 for £50.

What we have to see is, whether there has been Brixton-road.-No. 145 and improved ground rents of £60

lar materials somewhat differently applied, placing such a use of the article as would constitute an per annum, term 25 yea 8-od for £550.

them upon a model of a bottle, or mandril, and infringement within the meaning of the statute. Nos. 10, 12, 14, and 16, Vassol-road, term 23 years-sold for fastening the material in a manner somewhat like And it seems to me that the selling an article and Portman-square.--Improved ground rents of £75 per annum,

the plaintiff's method. Held, that the use of the converting it into money is about the most term 14 years -sold for £20.

mandril, which was admitted to have been long effectual use that can well be made of it.” (29 Chelsea.--No. 11, Moor Park-road, term 77 years-sold for commonly used for producing given forms

L. J., N. S., C. P., 275; 8 C. B., N. S., 162; 6 Jur. Wednesday, April 22.

pliable materials, and the application of which to Posers Hannes Alemas, and JENKIN ON, at the Mart. work previously untried materials or to produce N. S., 1251 ; 3 L, T. Rep. N. S. 272.) Tohago.--The Hope Estate, containing

Hills v. The Liverpool United Gaslight Con new forms, was held not to be sthe subject of a soli tor £1900.

By Megers FLEURET and Son, at the London Tavern. patent, was not an infringement of the plaintif's pany: 1863.-4 patent was granted for an in-
Erith. -The lease and goodwill of the Royal Alfred Wine
Vaults, term 90 years--sold for £1940.

patent. Willes, J., in delivering the judgment of vention for the purification of gas by means of By Messrs EDWIN Fox and BOESFIELD, at the Mart. the court, said: "The infringement of any part precipitated or hydrated oxides of iron. The Cavendish equare.-No. 11, Harley-street, term 17 years- of a patent process is actionable, if that part is specífication was held to include such precipi.

sold for £1700. Wandsworth. -- Freehold ground rent of £6 138. 4d. per

of itself new and useful, so as that it might be tated or hydrated oxides only as were obtained

the subject matter of a patent, and is used by the by artificial means. The use of a natural subWangs worth.- High-street, copyhold premises-sold for infringer to effect the object, or part of the

object; fated oxide of iron, so long as it was used in ita Tottenham-court-road.–No. 1, Percy-street, copyhold-sola proposed by the patentee.” (5 C. B., N. S., 164; | native condition, was held not to be an infringe for £1140.

5 Jur. N. S. 174.) By Mr. E. W. RICHARDSON, at the Mart.

Higgs v. Godwin. 1858.—The invention for ment of the patent; but upon this substance Brixton-road.-No. 31, Holland-street, torm 22 years-sold

which the patent was granted was

“ treating

being re-oxidized or renovated in the manner Kennington.--Bolton-street, a plot of land--old for £90. chemically the collected contents of sewers and described in the specification, or in any other New Beckhamores. 9, 11, and 12, Nelson-square, term 66 drains in cities, towns, and villages, so that the manner, it was brought into the condition of Battersea.- Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Newcomen-road, term 85 years same may be applicable to agricultural and other being one of the plaintiff's patented purifying

useful purposes."

In the specification the materials, that is, a hydrated or precipitated Nos. 3 and 4, Magdala-terrace, freehold-sold for £1080. Clapham.- Nos. 1 to , Cairns-road, freehold-sold for the animal and vegetable matter contained in the restrain the use of the substance as renovated

patentee said : "for the purpose of precipitating oxide artificially obtained, and an injunction to Nos, 5 and 4, same road, freehold-sold for £630.

was granted. (32 L. J., N.S., Ch., 28.) Notting-hill - Nos. 10, 11, and 12, St. James's-place, term 78 commonly termed ‘slacked lime.'”. The patentee for a combination, a person who takes a new and sewage water, I prefer to employ hydrate of lime,

Lister y. Eastwood. 1861.-Whore a patent is Rörvood.--Nos. 1, 2, and S, Grandacre-terrace, term 88 claimed the precipitation of animal and vege: material part of the combination, but does not South Penge.--Nos. 1 and 2, Cambridge-villas, term 93 years -sold for 1620.

the chemical agent hereinbefore deseribed.” apply it to a similar or analogous purpose to that No. 1, Oxford villas, same term-old for £905. Held, that the defendant, by using the patented infringe the patent. (9L. T. Rep. N. s. 766.)

to which it was applied in the patent, does not No. 4, Cambridge-road, term 87 years-sold for £310. New-cross.--Nos. I to 3, Osborn-terrace, term 77 years-sold

process, not with the object of making a saleable
mercantile article, but merely to purify the

Thomas v. Hunt. 1861-A licence to A. to water, did not infringe the plaintiff's patent. his vendees to vend it without the consent of the

manufacture a patent article is an authority to MR. CHILD, solicitor, has been returning officer (27 L.J., N.S., Q. B., 421; 5 Jur. N. S. 97.) of Hackney for thirty-five years in that borough Lister v. Leather. 1853.—A valid patent for an patentee. (17 C. B., N. S., 183). and in the old borough of the Tower Hamlete. entire combination for a process gives protection Since the election his appointment has been can. to each part thereof that is now and material for celled.

that process, without any express claim of par. THE Maidstone Journal announces the death Mr. W. T. CHARLEY, M. P., has given notice ticular parts, and notwithstanding that parts of of Major C. W. Bannister, who has for more than that on the seconå reading of the Attorneys' and the combination are old. Affirmed in the Exche-thirteen years held the post of Governor of the Solicitors' Bill in the House of Commons, he quer Chamber. Williams, J., in delivering the County Prison, Maidstone. Previously to enshall move that it be referred to & Select judgment of that ccurt, said: “ It was argued tering npon the governorship of the Maidstone Committee, we thoroughly approve of this course before us, on behalf of the appellants, that, if a gaol, Major Bannister had acted as deputjie and hope it will be adopted, for the measure is patent be taken out for a combination of' a, b, governor at the convict prison, Dartmouth, and crude, and in its present form is likely to produce and c, it could not be infringed by using a com. had seen service in India as captain of the 2nd

anges not contemplated by the fran of it. bination of b and c only. We are of opinion that Light Infantry (Bombay).

of

for €155.

-sold for £3.

years--sold for eieso.

for 1600.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

any

ELECTION LAW.

egister would give approximately all the required Clerk of the Crown himself, or the hands of one nformation.

his clerks. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

DENMAN, J., agreed that the marked register McIntyre, Q.C. (with him Chandos Leigh and Saturday, April 18.

hould be produced, but also thought that inspec- c. Bowen), in support of the rule, referred to afli

tion of the rejected ballot papers and counterioils davits which stated that office hours were by no (Before BRETT, GROVE, and DENMAN, JI.) should not be allowed in the present case. The means strictly kept during the general election, STOWE v. JOLIFFE.

vord "required” meant not only wanted, but that the person who received the letter and gave Parliamentary Election - Ballot papers and reasonably necessary, and the court should be a receipt had authority to do so, and that in the register-Inspection.

atisfied by affidavit on that point before granting ordinary course & writ received in the evening This was an application arising out of the Peters. inspection. The court had the power to make would be returned as of that day. It was argued field election petition, which was moved as a rule

he order asked for, but this was not a case in that the return was really made when the returnfor a mandamus to the clerk of the Crown, but which it should be exercised.

ing officer posted with the endorsed copy to some which on the argument took the form of a rule

person who was anthorised to receive it." nisi, calling on the respondent to show cause why

Lord COLERIDGE said that the statute required the marked register of voters, the counterfoils of

Monday, April 20.

that a petition should be presented “within the ballot papers, and the backs of the rejected HURDLE AND ANOTHER v. WARING.

twenty-one days after the return has been made ballot papers should not be shown to the peti.

to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery," and it

Election petition-Return of writ-Time. tioners.

seemed to him that the true meaning of this was CHS case came on upon cause being shown that the return was to be made in such a sense W. G. Harrison (with him Couch) showed cause gainst a rule to have the petition taken off the that the Clerk of the Crown could act upon it, and against the rule.- The marked register would give ile, upon the ground that it had not been pre- that the return was not completed until it had approximately all the information required by the sented in time. The Poole election took place on reached the authority who was capable of acting petitioners, and they would have been entitled to 3rd Feb. last, and some time before noon on the upon it. Whilst arriving at this conclusion, howsee it had it not been inclosed in the same sealed following day the returning officer endorsed upon ever, he must admit that the question was one packet with the counterfoils, which should not be the writ that Mr. Charles Waring was duly which was by no means free from difficulty. shown. The required order, if made, would inter: elected, and he also delivered the document to the

Rule discharged. fere with the secrecy of the ballot, and, even if Postmaster, addressed to the Clerk of the Crown the court had power to grant it, should not be in Chancery. The duty imposed by statute was made without strong grounds shown on affidavit. that the returning officer should forthwith MAGISTRATES' LAW.

J. O. Griffits (with him Lumley Smith) sup- transmit the writ and return through the Postported the rule. The court had clearly power to office to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. make the order, and inspection of the marked The writ was in a registered letter, and it DEMURRER-PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT 1863, s. 13 register should be granted as a matter of right. It arrived at the office of the Clerk of the Crown -GOVERNING BODY-POWER TO DISMISS HEAD would, however, only show who received ballot soon after eight in the evening, with five MASTER.- The Public Schools Act 1868, which papers, and in order to discover who actually voted, other registered letters, which referred to other applies to (amongst other schools) Rugby School, it would be necessary to have the desired inspec. elections. The ordinary office hours were from by sect. 13 enacts that the head master of every tion of the rejected ballot papers with the sequence ten to two. The person who received the letters school to which this Act applies, shall be apnumber upon them and the counterfoils corre. was Kate Phipps, a woman who was in the employ pointed by and hold his office at the pleasure of sponding with them. This would not show how of Mrs. T. Lovegrove, the housekeeper. Mrs. he new governing body.” The plaintiff was anyone had voted, but would merely disclose the Lovegrove herself was appointed by the Lord appointed head master of the school in Nov. 1869, fact that certain ck ctors had given votes, which Great Chamberlain, and was not a servant of the by the then existing governing body. In Dec. could then be attacked on the scrutiny. If the Clerk of the Crown. Kate Phipps gave the 1873, the new governing body (which had been inspection were refused, a great number of useless ordinary receipt for these letters, but the Poole duly constituted in Dec. 1871, under the poweru witnesses would have to be in attendance on

return did not reach the hand of any clerk in the of the Act of 1868) passed a resolution that speculation, and unnecessary expense would be office until the 5th. The entry in the office book " upon a review of the administration of the incurred. The majority at the election was only was first that the return was received on the 4th; school” from the time when they came into office nine.

but this date was afterwards struck through and the to the then present time, they were of opinion that The court differed in opinion.

5th inserted, and the 5th was the date transmitted the plaintiff was not" a fit and proper person to BRETT, J. thought the petitioners were entitled to the House of Commons. The Corrupt Prac. be head master, and dismissed him accordingly:" to the limited inspection asked for. In ordinary tices at Elections Act said that any petition Held (on demurrer to a bill by the plaintiff praying cases both parties were entitled to see against a return must be presented within twenty- for a declaration that, under the circumstances in document in which they had such an interest one days after the return, and if the return now the bill stated, the above resolution was invalid), as to make it useful in the case litigated. In in question was to be taken as having been made that, under the above section, the new governing petitions, therefore, were it not for the Ballot on the 4th the petition was too late, whilst if the body had power to dismiss the plaintiff without Act, parties would be entitled to inspection of return was on the 5th the then petition was in notice, and without assigning any reason ; and any document at the earliest possible time. The 1 time.

that, as they had exercised their power of disBallot Ac' however, was passed for the purpose Giffard. Q.C. (with him Harrison), contended missal fairly and honestly, not corruptly, nor for of maintaining the most complete secrecy as to that Kate Phipps was only an animated letter-box, the purpose of effecting some collateral object, how any man voted, and had incidentally thrown whose duty was simply to receive the letter and their decision was not liable to be controlled by difficulties in the way of petitioners. It was, place it on the table, and that the return was not the court : (Hayman y. The Governing Buły oj however, for the public advantage that all facili. made until the writ had reached the hands of the Rugby School, 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 217. V.C. M.) ties for inspection consistent with the spirit of the Act should be given, as the public, as well as parties and constituencies, were highly interested

BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS. in the prevention of bribery and in seeing that no avoidable difficulties were thrown in the way of Borough.

When holden,

Recorder, bona fide litigation. Acting on that principle, he

appeal to be given. thought that all reasonable facilities for inspec. Levonport. Friday, July 10 H. T. Cole, Esq., Q.C........

10 days

G. H. E. Rundle. tion should be given consistent with the secrecy Folkestone.

Tuesday, April 28...... James J. Lonsdale, Esq...... 8 days

R. T. Brockman. of the ballot. He did not think under the Aet Newcastle-on-Tyne

W. D. Seymur, Esq., Q.C.. 14 days

John Clayton. that the marked register and the counterfoils Sudbury.

Wednesday, April 29. Thomas H. Naylor, Esq. 14 days.

Robert Ransom, should have been sealed in one packet, but as Wigan.

Wednesday, April 29. Joseph Catterall, Esq.

Thomas Heald. they were he thought the packet should be opened and inspection given of the marked register. As to the rest of the order, he thought the packet of

MARITIME LAW.

EFFECT OF RIVER BYELAWS-DUTY IN Fog.rejected ballot papers should also be opened and

In an appeal to the High Court of Admiralty from the backs of them shown to the petitioners to NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.

a County Court where there is a conflict between show the sequence number. This alone, however, NAVIGABLE RIVER-OBSTRUCTION. - Where the transcript of the notes of evidence and judgwithout the counterfoils would not show whose the owner of a wharf abutting on & navigable ment taken by a shorthand writer in the ro n'y vote had been rejected, therefore the counterfoils river drove piles into the bed of the river, and Court under the County Court Rules No. 32, and corresponding to the rejected ballot papers should thus caused an obstruction which diminished by the County Court judge's own notes, the version also be inspected. Such an inspection would not three feet the navigable breadth of the river in given by the County Court judge must be acce; ted show how any one ha i voted, but would facilitate the front of the wharf, such navigable breadth as binding, and if the County Court judge alters the case and diminish expense. Unless the most having been sixty feet prior to the erection of the the shorthand writer's notes so as to corre-pond perverse ingenuity was displayed it would give no obstruction : Held (affirming the decision of the with his own version, the Court of Admiralty will one the opportunity of discovering how anyone Master of the Rolls) that this was a substantial order the alterations so made to be carried into had voted. He thought that justice required that interference with the free navigation of the river, effect in the printed copies

of the appendix. Byethe information should be given.

and that it ought to be restrained by injunction: laws made by a local authority governing the GROVE, J., agreed that inspection of the marked (Attorney-General v. Terry, 30 L.T. Řep. N. S. 215. navigation of a river are to be taken as eviince register should be given, but with some doubt, as 1.C. & L. JJ.)

of what it is the duty of vessels to do in the cir. it would necessitate opening the packet contain. CHARTER-PARTY-DEMURRAGE - EXCEPTION cumstances named therein, and although the mere ing the counterfoils as well. He thought such an -CIVIL COMMOTION.-Where a charterer by his breach of one or any of them

will not be suffie ent order could be made by the court, but could not charter-party undertakes to load a ship within reason for holding a ship to blame for a collision, have been made by a judge at chambers. With certain given lay days, “ accidents or causes yet if that breach occasions or contributes to the reference to the two other branches of inspection occurring beyond the control of the shippers or collision, the existence of the byelaw will afford asked, he differed from Erett, J., and thought no affreighters, which may prevent or delay her the best reason for holding the ship violating the case had been made out for inspection of the loading or discharging, including civil commotion, byelaw to be guilty of a breach of duty, and, conrejected ballot papers and counterfoils. The strikes, riots, stoppage of trains, &c., always sequently to blame for the collision. Were & question was, whether the court should make excepted,” or to pay demurrage, he cannot excuse byelaw regulating the navigation of a river presuch an order as a matter of course in cases of default in loading within the lay days by giving scribes the side of the river upon which a slip is scrutiny, and such a provision could have been evidence of general disturbance and cessation of to navigate going up or down the river, the made in two lines instead of the guarded sections work in the district about the time; but to exempt observance of this býelaw is doubly neces-ary which the Act contained. The Act did not intend himself from liability must show & disturbing during a fog, when vessels can only be made out even the Clerk of the Crown and his assistants to cause, actually preventing the loading

of the at short distances: and the breach of the byelaw see these papers without strong grounds. The particular ship : (The Village Belle, 30 L. T. Rep. cannot be excused by the plea that it was u-ual order required should not be made without strong N. S. 232. Adm.)

during foggy weather to navigace on the wrong grounds shown on oath, though he did not deny COLLISION--COUNTY COURT APPEAL-SHORT- side of the river in order to insure greater safety the power of the court to make it. The hardship HAND Writers' NOTES – CORRECTIONS for the vessel so doing : (The Raithwaite Haii, 30 of the case was very slight, as the marked I COUNTY COURT JUDGE-RIVER NAVIGATION- | L. T. Rep. N. S. 233. Adm.)

Wnat notice of

Clerk of the Peace.

BY

SPECIMENS OF A CODE OF MARINE him on condition of his agreeing to pay over the Must keep and duly render accounts of the INSURANCE LAW. proceeds of the shipment to a third party :

business of the agency ; By F. O. CRUMP, Barrister-at-Law.) Man v. Shiffner, 2 East, 523.

And select brokers and other sub-agents with (Continued from p. 382.)

pays premiums and delivers over the policies has and preserve the evidence, if his agency is for

A broker employing an agent to insure who proper vigilance and discretion ; AGENTS (OF UNDERWRITERS).

And give them proper instructions to collect no lien for the premiums on the policies so making an abandonment or adjusting or prosecutAppointment.

delivered : The appointment of agents to subscribe policies

Snook v. Davidson, 2 Camp. 218.

ing for a claim : should be formal.

Phillips, s. 1901.
NOTE.-The ordinary principle applies that a con-
A sub-agent being ordered by an agent whom

Discharging the Underwriter. tract made without authority may bind one who he knows to be such, and not owner, to effect a by his act or neglect has led third persons to policy on goods, has no lien on the policy for his claim of the assured, except by actual payment to

The underwriter is not discharged from the believe that an agent acting for him was duly general balance against the agent:

the agent : authorised.

Man v. Shiffner, 2 East, 523. In the absence of a formal appointment it is a

Russell v. Bangley, 4 B. & Ald. 395; Todd v. Reid, 4 A broker of an underwriter who pays losses on

B. & Ald. 210; Scott v. Irving, 1 B. & A. 605; question of evidence whether surrounding cir-policies for his principal, retaining the policies, Bartlett v. Pentland, 10 B. & C. 760; Ovington v. cumstances prove agency.

has a lien upon the salvages for his general Bell, 3 Camp. 237; Jell v. Pratt, 2 Stark. 67. Neal v. Ewing, 1 Esp. 61; Courteon v. Touse, 1 Camp. balance against the underwriters :

Under authority to an agent of the assured to 43; Brocklebank v. Sugrue, 5 Car. & P. 21; 1 M. & Ph., sect. 1923; Moody v. Webster, 3 Pick. Mass. 424 receive payment of a loss, or a return of premium, Rob. 102; 1 B. & Ad. 81 ; 2 Duer. 341 n, a.

(amounts allowed by a foreign state for captures he is not authorised to discharge the underwriter Extent and Execution of Powers.

of her subjects insured by the policies).

by merely crediting the loss or including such The purpose of the agency is to solicit applica

Loss and Revival.

credit in the settlement of his account with the tions for insurance, make surveys or examina- Lien is lost

underwriter : tions of the subjects proposed to be insured, By parting with possession of the policy.

Phillips, sect. 1883, subscribe or deliver policies, receive notice of By holder pledging the policy as his own.

The fact of the name of the underwriter having other insurances or of compliances with stipula- NOTE.-An assignment of a policy to keep for the been struck off the policy may discharge him if it tions on the part of the assured, receive premiums,

transferor, subject to his lien, is not a pledge be shown to have been done with the consent of adjust losses, and return of premium, and make

forfeiting the lien.

the assured :

McCombie v. Davies, 7 East, 52; Urquhart v. McIver, payments.

Bartlett v. Pentland, 10 B. & C. 760; Scott v. Irving, 4 Johns, N. Y. 103.

1 B. & Ad. 605; and other cases, sup. Phillips, sect. 1878. The authority must not be exceeded :

By taking a security payable in the future.

Hewison v. Guthrie, 2 Bing. N. C. 755; Cowell v. Baines v. Ewing, L. Rep. 1 Ex. 320.

Simpson, 16 Ves. 276. Authority to subscribe policies does not neces. The lien is revived :

COMPANY LAW. sarily authorise the agent to settle and pay On the policy again coming to the hands of the losses. Note.-It must depend wholly upon the custom of agent while his immediate employer is interested.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. Whitehead v. Vaughan, Cooke's B. L. 579. the place and the relation of the principal and NOTE.-Assignees having in the meantime become CONTRIBUTORY-TRANSFER OF SHARES-UNagent to each other in business and correspond

interested,

the lien for a general balance does not PAID CALLS-ACQUIESCENCE.-The 16th section euce: (Phillips, s. 1873.)

revive. It is, however, one circumstance tending to

of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1845,

Spring v. South Carolina Insurance Company, 8 show such authority.

Wheat. 268 ; see also Levi v. Barnard, 8 Taunt: entitled to transfer any shares, after any, call

which provides that "no shareholder shall bo Such authority is revoked by the bankruptcy

143; 2 J. B. Moore, 34 ; Sweeting v. Pearce, 9 C. Bon shall have been made in respect thereof, until he of the underwriter.

N. S., 534. Parker v. Smith, 16 East, 382.

SET-OFF.

shall have paid such call, por until he shall have An agent in a foreign port to communicate in. All premiums returned and all losses accruing paid all calls for the time being due on every formation to insurers respecting marine risks, on the policy may be retained and set-off un.il

a share held
by him," is intended

for the protection and advise them generally of matters affecting lien is satisfied.

of companies and not of their creditors; and if their interests, is not authorised to receive notice

Phillips, sect. 1909.

the directors of a company assent to a transfer of of abandonment so as to bind them :

The debts which can be set-off as between an shares on which calls are due, the property in tho Phillips, sect. 1875. agent and an underwriter must be mutual.

shares passes to the transferee, and the transferor In general the agent of the underwriters for

Wilson v. Creighton, 3 Dong. 132; Houston v. Robert

cannot be placed on the list of contributories in receiving applications is such for receiving notice

son. 4 Camp. 342; 6 Taunt. 648; Shee v. Clarkson, respect of the shares so transferred, though he

12 East, 507. of other insurances, incumbrances, &c., and as

Therefore, losses which are due by the under may be sped at law for the amount of the calls such his knowledge will affect them, and his acts writer to the assured cannot be set-off by the duo at the date of the transfer, Decision of broker against a claim for premiums payable to L. T. Rep. N.'s. 213. L.JJ.).

Malins, V.C., affirmed : (Littledale's case, 30 Phillips, sect. 1876. NOTE. -Under what circumstances the assured is

the underwriter. affected by the mistakes of the agent of the underNOTE.-A broker, however, having a lien on the

BILL BY ONE SHAREHOLDER ON BEHALF OF writers, see 2 Phillips, p. 527.

policy, may insist on an underwriter paying the ALL-RIGHT OF MINORITY.—The majority of the

logs on the latter demanding the premiums. shareholders in a company have no right to rise Lloyd's agents are bound by their printed Parker v. Beasley, 2 M. & S. 423; Davies v. Wilkinson, their votes in such a way as to compromise a suit instructions, and cannot make up or sign an 4 Bing. 573; Shee v. Clarkson, 12 East, 507; Wien- instituted for the benefit of the company, and to adjustment of a loss, or accept abandonment as holt v. Roberts, 2 Camp. 586. the representatives of the underwriters :

A broker acting del credere does not acquire for themselves as to the exclusion of the minority.

retain the benefits obtained by the compromise Arn, 4th edit., 177.

any additional right of set-off. AGENTS-LIEN AND SET-OFF. Goldschmidt v. Lyon, 4 Taunt. 534; Houston v. Bor

Where an attempt is made to do so by the majodenave, 6 Id. 451 ; Baker v. Langhorn, 4 Camp. 396; rity of the shareholders, a bill filed by one LIEN.

Peele v. Northcote, 7 Taunt. 478; Marnett v. L'or? shareholder on behalf of himself and the other Who entitled to. rester, 4 Taunt. 541.

shareholders to enforce the rights of the minority A lien on a policy may be acquired by :

The right of the agent to retain and set-off will be entertained. Demurrer for want of equity (a) Insurance agents and brokers.

sums received from underwriters on account of to such a bill overrulod. Decision of Bacon, V.C. (1) General agents.

any liability he may have assumed for the future confirmed: (Menier v. Hooper's Telegraph Works (c) Sub-agents.

for the principal, will depend on his having a lien 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 209. Ž.JJ.) For what.

on his policy for his commissions, or his having By (a) for commissions or premiums which made advances upon the credit of the policy. they have paid, or are responsible for, and their Godin v. London Assurance Company, 1 Burr. 489;

SHERIFFS COURT. general balance of insurance account against the Kinloch v. Craig, 3 Term 783 ; Hammond v. Barclay, KITE v. METROPOLITAN BOARD OF Works principal.

2 East, 227; Castling y, Aubert, 2 East, 325.

This was a compensation claim, tried before a By (b) for commissions and premiums and

Bankruptcy of the Underwriter.

jury, at Red Lion-square, on the 15th inst., in general balance of account against the principal In case of a broker being agent of both parties respect of a short leasehold house in High-street, when the insurance is effected in the course of to a policy, the underwriter on which becomes Shoreditch, required for the new street now the mercantile agency.

bankrupt, the underwriter is discharged from the forming from Oxford-street to Shoreditch. By (c) for commissions and premiums, and for claims of the assured for losses and returns of The Board of Works were represented by their general balance of account as against the premiums, and the broker, being debtor for pre- Hawkins, Q.C., and Philbrick, Q.C. and the agents who, as principals, instruct them if miums, is discharged therefor, so far as they claimant by Huddleston, Q.C.; Mr. George Fuller, without notice that they are agents.

have been passed and settled by the broker and of Fuller and Fuller, acted as surveyor for Mr. NOTE.-The latter clause of this last proposition has underwriter in account, previously to the act of Kite, instructed by Whitwell. been objected to as giving an agent power to bankruptcy of the latter.

The jury, after viewing the promises, returned pledge the goods of his principal, and Mr. So far as the premiums and losses have not been & verdict by consent for £1200, for the leasehold Phillips seems to think it unsound. (See sect. 1916, Arn. 4th edit. 196 et seq.

80 settled, they are not set-off, whether the and trade.

policies on which they accrue had been subscribed Observations.

or the losses known before the bankruptcy or TRAILL AND SON v. METROPOLITAN BOARD OF Usage or agreement, or the previous course of not:

WORKS. business between the parties, may give a right of Phillips, 8. 1927. Bet-off, where it otherwise would not exist :

This was another compensation claim, tried at Recovering back Money paid.

Red Lion-square, on the 17th and 18th. The Green v. Farmer, 4 Burr. 2214. NOTE.-Mr. Phillips says: “It is adjudged or im

In case of payment by the underwriter to the claimants are ship chandlers and sail makers, plied in some cases, that an insurance broker

has, agent of the assured through mistake, or for loss carrying on business at 43 and 44, High-street, by virtue of the general usage of the place, on & policy that is illegal as between the parties Wapping, of which premises they were lessees of he may effect for the principal, on account of his gality, the money may be recovered back, if de. The property was required for the widening of especially

in London, a right to retain any policy to it where the agent is not a party to the ille- the one moiety, and freeholders of the other. demands against him for previous advances and

manded in time : charges, in case of the principal having notice, or

High-street, Wapping. being bound to take notice of the usage: (Sect.

Phillips, s. 1927; Jameson v. Svainstone, 2 Camp. #awkins,'Q.c., and Philbrick, Q.C., appeared 1912, par. 2.)

546, n. ; Ed;ar v. Fowler, 3 East, 222; Buller v.

for the Board of Works; and the Hon. A. See James v. Rodgers, 15 M. & W. 375; Olivor v.

Harrison, Cowp. 565.

Thesiger, Q.C., and Robins, on behalf of the Smith, 5 Taunt, 56.

A policy being void by misrepresentation without claimants, under instructions from Lowless, A general agent with whom a policy is left has fraud, the underwriter cannot recover back from Nelson, Jones and Co. no lien upon it for money advanced independently the agent of the assured money which he had Mr. G. Fuller, of the firm of Fuller and Fuller, of the policy :

paid over to his principal in ignorance of the surveyors, gave evidence in support of the claim, Muir v. Fleming, Dowl. & Ry. N.C. 29. misrepresentation :

as did also Mr. Murrell, Mr. Farmer, and two An agent effecting a policy on goods to be

Holland v. Russell, 1 B. & S. 424.

architects; the Board's witnesses being Mr. shipped by a correspondent has a lien on the pro

Clifton, Mr. Horsey, and Mr. Trist. ceeds after a loss for his general balance against The agent must keep his principal advised of After the jury had heard the evidence on both the shipper, although the goods are consigned to the business of the agency;

Miscellaneous Duties.

sides

AND

Hawkins put the case before them as one in arise from delays or detention. The right to by the learned judga, with such great surprise and which they should give £2519 for the property, stop the trains at any station on the line, although indignation that I might, if I had acted on the im

£500 the amount agreed upon for the fixtures, and not marked as a stopping station, is reserved.” pulse of the moment, have been disposed to express £1500 as the outside for any supposed loss to which their advocate contended was incorporated as strongly as I felt it; but upon reflection Ideen trade-in all £4519.

with and formed part of their contract with the it more befitting what is due to and from me in The Hon. Mr. Thesiger followed on the other plaintiff--and so far I agree with him. But they the position which I have the honour to hold, to side.

do not and cannot by any such regulation divest att ibute these remarks either to some mistake or The jury, in the end, returned a verdict for themselves of their responsibility for negligence exaggeration in the report, or to some grave mis. £3500 for the premises under notice to treat, £500 or want of due diligence in the discharge of apprl hension of the real facts of the case and of for the fixturos, and £3000 for compulsory re- their duties towards those with whom they have the grounds of my decision. That there was great moval, making a total of £7000.

entered into the contract. The question is, there- misunderstanding as to one of the points on which fore, whether the defendants acted so negligently, it was thought proper to subject me to animada

or with such want of diligence in the matter, as version is most certain, for on the faith of a COUNTY COURTS.

to entitle the plaintiff to recover. I am of opinion statement that I allowed the company to appeal that they did. The only explanation of the delay only on condition that they paid the costs of the

which was attempted was that the rails were appeal, the learned judge thought proper to intiMACCLESFIELD COUNTY COURT. slippery and the gradient heavy. It was, how mate that I had exceeded my jurisdiction. Now, · Thursday, April 9.

ever, admitted that the train was not above the without discussing the question whether I should (Before J. St. J. YATES, Esq., Judge.)

usual weight, and that the engine was one which have exceeded my jurisdiction if I had imposed

was habitually used for this journey. But this is such a condition, the case being, by reason of the COOPER v. LONDON

NORTH-WESTERN by no means a satisfactory explanation of a delay small amount of damages claimed, one in which RAILWAY COMPANY.

of forty minutes in a journey which usually occu- the company could not have appealed without my Railway company-- Liability for want of punc. pies fourteen—that is to say, fifty-four minutes permission, the fact is I imposed no such condituality in arrival of trains-Damages.

were necessary for a distance usually traversed tion. The solicitor of the company himself A. Look a return ticket from B. to C. one line, and in fourteen; an excess not to be accounted for by stated openly at the last Haverhill Court, and in

then another from C.to D. by the defendants' line. mere greasiness of the rails, and, as there was no very frank and manly terms, that he was as much On returning from D. in the evening the train by accident to the machinery, either the engine was surprised as I could be at any such statement which he travelled was fifty minutes late in in itself of insufficient power, except when the having been made in the court above, as no such arriving at D., having lost that time in going rails were perfectly dry (which is not always the condition had been made by me. On this point, from D. to the terminus E. (whence the same case in that country), or the driver had allowed therefore, the offensive remarks in the court above train returned towards c. calling at D.)--a his steam to get too low. The latter appears to were wholly unjustified by anything that took distance usually travelled in fourteen minutes. me the probable reason, as the return journey place in my court; and hence I am the more In consequence of this delay, 4. lost the return being all downhill less steam would be required, inclined to suppose that there was in other train from C. to B., and had to put up for the and there would be twenty minutes at Buxton to respects some such misapprehension of the real night, getting home to B. next morning :

get it up to proper pressure. But whichever be facts of the case, and of the grounds of my deci. Held that the defendants were liable for negli- the case the defendants are, in my opinion, re. sion. These facts and grounds briefly were that

gence in not providing sufficient engine power sponsible to the plaintiff for the damages which furniture of which the company had undertaken or allowing the steam to get too low no satis- he has sustained by the delay, and I assess them the carriage was completely smashed in the trane factory explanation of the delay having been at 158., being the expense of staying all night at sit, and nothing but the fragments were delivered offered by them.

Macclesfield, and a fresh ticket to Congleton in to Mr Taylor, the consignee and plaintiff, and I THE facts of the case will appear from the judg- the morning.

held the company liable for the damage on the old ment.

The defendants asked for leave to appeal upon common law principle that they were insurers of His HONOUR said : In this case the plaintiff, the ground that the expense of staying all night the goods for their safe and secure delivery, Cooper, took a return ticket between Congleton and in Macclesfield was not recoverable. Leave was not wiih standing a special contract entered into Macclesfield by the North Staffordshire Railway, granted on that point.

by them with the consignee, exempting them in and thence a return ticket by the defendants' lines

consideration of their carrying the goods at & between Macclesfield and Chapel-en-le-Frith.

lower rate from all risk and responsibility, except Passengers from Macclesfield to Chapel-en-le- MR.JUSTICEBLACKBURN AND THE from any wilful act or default if proved.' I conFrith and Buxton change trains at Stockport,

JUDGE OF THE CAMBRIDGE COUNTY sidered that such a contract was null and void whence they are forwarded by the Manchester

COURT.

under the seventh section of the Railway and and Buxton line, which is worked by or belongs We extract from the Cambridge Independent Canal Traffic Act, by which it was enacted, as it to the defendants. The return journey is per. Press of 18th April the following full report of appeared to me in confirmation of the old formed in the same manner. The plaintiff arrived Judge Beales' reply to the remarks of Mr. Justice

common law principle that companies should at Chapel-en-le-Frith in due course, and having Blackburn, reported in this journal on Feb. 7: be liable for loss of or injury to animals spent the day, went to the railway station in His Honour, addressing the senior barrister or goods occasioned by the neglect or deproper time to travel by the train advertised in present, said : Mr. Cockerell,--I should be very fault of the company or its servants, notwith. the defendants' time bills to leave Chapel-en-le- ungrateful, as well as uncourteous, if I were to standing any notice, condition, or declaration Frith at 5.47 p.m. for Stockport, where it should allow the day to pass without publicly acknow- made and given by such company contrary arrive at 6.25 p.m. in time for him to catch the ledging the address you were kind enough to for- thereto, or in anywiso limiting such liability; and train leaving Stockport at 7.2 p.m., due in Mac- ward to me a few days ago, signed by thirty-three every such notice, condition, or declaration was elesfield at 7.45, being the last train by which he gentlemen, besides yourself, practising either as declared to be null and void, a proviso being could arrive in Congleton that night. This was barristers-at-law or attorneys and solicitors in added, that nothing therein should be construed to shown on the defendant's time bills. The train courts on my circuit, an address expressing pain prevent companies from making such conditions was fifty minutes late in leaving Chapel-en-le- and regret at a remark reported in the Law Times as should be adjudged by the court or judge, Frith. This delay arose as follows: The traffic of the 7th of February last, to have been made by before whom any question relating thereto should between Manchester and Buxton is worked by one Mr. Justice Blackburn in the Court of Queen's be tried, to be just and reasonable. It seemed to engine and one set of carriages, which perform Bench, as to my ruling in the case of Taylor v me, having regard to the interests and welfaro the journey backwards and forwards. At the The Great Eastern Railway Company, which of the public, that railway companies had gone Buxton end there is no spare engine. Chapel-en-came before that court on appeal from the Haver. too far in availing themselves of this proviso, that le- Frith is an intermediate station between Man. hill County Court, and expressing also the perfect they had availed themselves of it to an extent chester and Buxton, about five miles from the satisfaction of the gentlemen signing the address which with the additional contrivance of charging latter. The trains from Manchester go on from with my rulings generally which were involved in a lower carriage-rate, purported to exempt then Chapel-en-le-Frith to Buxton, where, in this the same ungracious remarks; and expressing altogether from that liability for loss or injury instance, twenty minutes were allowed for unload. further their high respect and esteem for my occasioned by the neglect or default of themselves ing and reloading the train, which then starts judicial conduct during the whole time I have or their servants, to which the Act expressly deback to Manchester. The journey from Chapel. been the judge of this circuit, and their full confi. clared and intended they should be liable, and to en-le-Frith to Buxton usually occupies fourteen dence in my "able and impartial administration" which they were liable at common law as insurers minutes, but on the occasion now under considera- of the law. It is impossible that anything could there being nothing in the Act limiting their lia. tion the down train lost ten minutes between have occurred more gratifying to my feelings, or bility any more than at common law to negligence Whaley Bridge and Chapel-en-le-Frith (four miles), which, under the circumstances, I could attach or default proved to be wilful, and it being besides, and forty minutes between Chapel-en-le-Frith and greater value, than this warm and spontaneous in almost all cases, quite out of the power of tho Buxton. The result was that it was fifty minutes expression of sympathy, esteem, and confidence customer to obtain or give proof of such wilful. late on arriving at Buxton, and fifty minutes late by so many of the gentlemen practising before ness. The case of Taylor v. "The Great Easteriz on leaving on the return journey. It further me, an expression 'I may regard as almost Company appeared to me a peculiarly proper ono appears that in consequence of this delay, the unanimous from my courts, as several gentlemen for having this, as it seemed to me, important plaintiff, on arriving at Stockport, found that the whose names are not attached to the address in question ocided by a Superior Court, as neglilast train to Congleton had left. After waiting consequence of the delay which would necessarily gence was not denied, and the defence was, that three hours at Stockport he caught a train which have arisen from sending it round to all the negligence of any degree, or to any extent, was took him as far as Macclesfield, where he arrived sixteen courts, or from their absence at the time immaterial, unless it could be proved to be wilful; at 10.48 p.m. and was compelled to remain all of its being sent to their court, or other accidental a defence which appeared to me to be not admis. night, going on to Congleton next morning, and circumstances, have personally expressed to me sible, within either the spirit or letter of the he now sues the company for damages for their regret at their not having had the oppor. Railway and Canal Traffic Act. Had my decision his detention and also for the expenses he was tunity of signing it, and their entire concurrence on this point, to which everything else in the pat to in stopping at the hotel in Macclesfield, with every word it contains. I profoundly and decision was merely subordinate, been reversed and the cost of his journey the next morning to from my inmost heart thank all for it. The after full discussion and argument, I should have Congleton. The defendants relied on the general address, with considerate delicacy, refrains from bowed with the utmost respect to the judgment of regulation set forth in their time tables, which is any discussion of the case reported on appeal in the Superior Court; but, so far as I can gather as follows :-“ Time Bills. The published train the Law Times; but I consider it my duty, both from the report, my decision was reversed, and in bills of this company are only intended to fix the to myself and to those who have presented and no very courteous terms, without the shadow of time at which passengers may be certain to concurred in this highly complimentary address, to an argument, or the least attempt of an argu. obtain their tickets for any journey from the make some remarks on that report. The address ex. ment controverting the grounds of my decision, as various stations, it being understood that the presses pain and regret at the particular remark here referred to, and relied on by me in the court trains shall not start before the appointed time. which is quoted as alleged in the report to have below, and without any reason whatever being Every attention will be paid to ensure punctuality, been made by Mr Justice Blackburn in reversing given for adjudging those grounds to be crroneous. as far as it is practicable ; but the directors give my decision. I am deeply sensible of this very However much I may regret this result of the notice that the company do not undertake that kindly feeling on my behalf, but I cannot but appeal which I allowed to be made, and however the trains shall start or arrive at the time add, and perhaps many will anticipate what I am indignant I may feel at the language reported to specified in the bills ; nor will they be accountable about to say, that I read that remark, and the have been used towards myself, I have the large for any loss, inconvenience, or injury, which may other anseemly remarks alleged to have been made a consolation of being countenanced in my views, as

« EelmineJätka »