The Law Times

riage, the court may make such order by way of provision for the wife as it thinks fit. It seems to me that the argument drawn from the specific words of the statute can apply only to the subject which the statute deals with-suits for dissolution, and that the power to order the husband to make provision for the wife after dissolution, has no relation to permanent alimony on a decree of judicial separation. By the language of the statute, the rules to guide the court in a matter of this sort, must be the practice of the Ecclesiastical Court. I have endeavoured to find out whether in the Ecclesiastical Court any such distinction had ever been made, but I find no trace of it. I have conferred with the registrars of the court, and they are unable to tell me of any such practice. Upon the whole, I see no reason or principle why the court should not exercise such a power. It is quite plain that the court is not functus officio when it has once made a decree in the case, because it is daily experience that the court increases or diminishes the alimony granted, according as the husband's faculties increase or diminish. If it has this power to increase or diminish, why should it not have power to make an order? It seems to me, therefore, that the husband must answer the petition on its merits.

LEGISLATION AND JURIS-
PRUDENCE,

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, June 19.

THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS BILL.

Mr.

a morning for its consideration; but as regarded
the financial part of the question, that was a
bona fide attempt on their part to relieve counties
and boroughs.--After some further conversation,
in which several hon. members took part, Mr.
BRUCE considered that the day had been usefully
occupied in the thorough ventilation of so im-
portant a subject. The Government had proposed
its amendments, and private members had also
produced amendments, all of which required care-
ful consideration. What he would suggest was,
that the Bill should be recommitted, and next
session he promised for it the early attention
of Government. Progress reported. Bill recom-
mitted.

Bill.

BASTARDY LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.

Mr. CHARLEY moved the second reading of the of the Bill was to provide more stringent means The hon. member explained that the object than at present existed for compelling seducers to maintain their illegitimate offspring. It also sought to increase the existing bastardy allowance. Half-a-crown a week was proved to be insufficient for an infant's support, and its insufficiency frequently led to infanticide. There were other subsidiary provisions intended to alter the bastardy law in favour of the seduced person and her offspring, and to make it generally in accordance with sound principles of public policy. -A brief discussion took place in which Mr. Lopes, Mr. Hurst, Mr. Cross, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Candlish, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Whitwell, and Mr. Liddell were the speakers. Bill read a second time. Committee, Friday, July 12.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT ABOLITION BILL.

Mr. BASS moved the second reading of this Bill.
The House divided-for the second reading, 34;
against, 136; majority, 102. The Bill was there-
fore thrown out.

REVIEW OF JUSTICES' DECISIONS BILL.
The Bill was read a third time and passed.

GAME LAWS.

On the motion of Mr. HUNT it was ordered that it be an instruction to the Select Committee on the Game Laws to inquire into the laws for the protection of deer in Scotland, with reference to their general bearing upon the interests of the community.

SOLICITORS' JOURNAL.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. PRACTICE - ANSWER FORMAL WORDS OMITTED.-Where, in an answer, the words in answer to the said bill we say as follows" had been accidentally omitted, the answer, notwithstanding such omission, was, on the application of the defendants, ordered to be filed: (Bowes v. Farrar, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 504. V.C. W.)

ON the order that the House do resolve itself into
committee on this Bill,--Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH
observed that the Bill was now in the hands of the
Government, and that numerous amendments were
proposed for consideration in committee. The
charge imposed upon the country would be at least
£50,000 a year, and probably would greatly ex-
ceed that amount. The Bill was so changed that
he doubted whether any time would be saved
by attempting to wade through the proposed
amendments before it was reprinted, and there-
fore he would suggest that it would be better
to go into committee pro forma, and postpone
any further action to a future day. -
WEST, who had given notice that he would
move that the House should resolve itself into
committee that day three months, said he was
now placed in a position of some embarrassment
through the course which the Government had
taken. He had received a list of the proposed
amendments of the Government, and he wished
the Attorney-General was in the House, that he
might tell him what he thought of them. Having
prepared himself with an argument against the
original Bill, he now found that that Bill had
ceased to exist. Scarcely a line of it was left.
The Government proposed that everything should CONSTRUCTION OF WILL-ANNUITY-PROVISO
be left in the hands of the Home Secretary, and a FOR CESSOR OF ANNUITY.-A testator directed
new cod eof laws would have to be prepared with his trustees to pay to his wife yearly during her
regard to "writs of error," " questions reserved,"
life £100, so long as his wife and son should live
"proceedings before justices," and so forth.- together; but if they should cease to reside to-
After considerable discussion, Mr. WINTER-gether, then he directed that the said payment
BOTHAM thought what had taken place would
afford material assistance in the further consider-
ation of the measure. As regarded the objection
that the amendments were only placed on the
paper last Friday, he begged to remark that the
Bill not being a Government one they were
obliged to consult the learned Recorder who
introduced it, and could not do so before his
return to England. The amendments were by
no means as extensive as had been repre-
sented. The main object was to reduce and
limit the scope of the Bill, partly by making it
optional, and partly by adopting the existing ma-
chinery. It was admitted that the clerks of the
justices had conducted prosecutions in a most
satisfactory manner. If they were to be em-
ployed as public prosecutors they must be paid
by salary, and not by fees, and hence the course
pursued by the Government in reference to that
point. If, as some contended, there was no need
for a public prosecutor, that was of course a
sufficient objection to the Bill of itself, without
reference to the amendments. (Hear, hear.) The
Government proposed that the whole system of
expenses should be under Government control,
and though a scale of charges would be laid
down, the expenses would be subject to taxation.
In the year 1848, under the old system, the
total cost of prosecutions paid for out of
the rates was £457,000, and in ten years
after the amount was reduced by taxation
down to 145,000l. Such was the effect of the

control exercised by the Treasury. Last year the total amount was about 150,000l. He protested against the use of the word "bribe" in reference o what the Government now proposed. Wishing as they did to relieve those who now complained of their burdens, it was natural that they should propose what they had done. If the Bill went into Committee pro forma and was reprinted, the Government could not pledge themselves to find

should cease. Held, that the annuity did not
cease upon the death of the son in the mother's
lifetime. (Sutcliffe v. Richardson, 26 L. T. Rep.
N. S. 495. V.C. B.)

VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT, 13 ELIZ. c. 5.-
Voluntary gifts, at the instance of the donees, of
the donor's property, declared void as against
creditors, even assuming that the donor had not
the primary intention of defeating his creditors:
Cornish v. Clarke, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 494. Rolls.

WILL-CONSTRUCTION-HOTCHPOT CLAUSE.

not to be allowed to the prejudice of the lien On demurrer: Held, that the relationship of trustee and cestui que trust did not exist between the plaintiff and his attorney; and that the socalled lien was but a claim to the equitable assistance of the court, which could not be raised against the statutory right of the defendant to set-off the cross debts owed by the plaintiff. (Mercer v. Graves, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 551. Q.B.)

MARRIED WOMAN'S WILL-EXECUTION BY VIRTUE OF A POWER.-A married woman made a will during coverture in exercise of a power, but appointed no executor. The will was dependent on events which never happened, and the legatees named in it predeceased the testatrix. The will being consequently inoperative, the court refused to grant probate of it: (Re Elizabeth Graham, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 529, Pro. Ct.)

SETTLEMENT RECITAL PROVISION FOR WIFE AND ISSUE OF MARRIAGE.-Where, in a marriage settlement, certain real estate, and a sum of Consols were assigned to trustees in trust to sell the real estate, and to pay the annual produce to the husband and wife for their lives. and after the death of the survivor in trust as the wife should appoint, and in default to pay the trust funds to her legal representative in a due course of administration ;" and the wife pre-deceased her husband: Held (affirming the decision of the Vice-Chancellor), that the husband, who had taken out letters of administration, was not entitled to the trust property, but that it belonged to the next of kin (Briggs v. Upton, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 485. Chan.)

STATUTORY DUTY TO SUPPLY WATER-EXEMP TION FROM LIABILITY-10 VICT. c. 17, s. 38; 16 & 17 VICT. C. CLXVI., SS. 62 AND 79.-Sect. 79 of the East London Waterworks Act 1853, provides that the company shall, at the request of an owner or occupier of any premises situate in or adjoining any street in which any main or service pipe of the company is or shall be laid, and who requires a supply of water, afford a supply of water. The plaintiff declared upon this section, and stated that he was such an owner and occupier, and that he requested and required a supply of water; but notwithstanding the fulfilment of all conditions the defendant wrongfully, improperly, and negligently made default in affording to the plaintiff the said supply, by reason whereof he was unable to extinguish a fire which destroyed his premises. The defendants pleaded that the said main or service pipe had a certain fire-plug properly placed in it, and that the said fire-plug was opened for the purpose of supplying water for extinguishing another fire, which was the cause of default. They also pleaded that they were prevented from affording the said Held, upon demurrer, that the former of these two supply of water from unavoidable cause or action: pleas was good, but that the latter was bad: (Campbell v. The East London Waterworks, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 475. Q.B.)

POSED TO BE

WILL NOT FORTHCOMING-EXECUTORS SUPIN POSSESSION-PROBATE ACT, SECT. 26.-At the death of a testator his will was not forthcoming, and it was supposed to be in the possession of his son, who was one of his execu tors. He was cited to bring it in, but took no notice of the citation. The court held that it had no power to order him to appear before the district registrar, but issued a subpoena on him, to compel his attendance in open court, to be examined as to his knowledge of the will: (Re W. Laws, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 530. Pro. Ct.)

WILL CONSTRUCTION - ABSOLUTE GIFTQUALIFICATION OF GIFT IN SUBSEQUENT PART OF WILL.-A testator directed the residue of his property to be divided into equal portions, and to be paid to as many of his children as should be living at the time of his decease, to be for ever at their disposal, with the following reservation only the equal share or portion which should fall to his eldest daughter, M., should remain in certain investments, and the proceeds or interest of such her equal portion should be applied for her sup port and maintenance during her life, and at her death the property thus bequeathed to her should be divided into equal portions among as many of his other children as might be living at the time of her decease. M. survived all the other children of the testator. Held (affirming the decision of Wickens, V.C.) that she took an absolute interest in her equal portion of the residue: (Bishop V. Wise, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 530. Ch.)

A testator directed his trustees to convert his real
and personal estate, and hold the proceeds in
trust for his wife during widowhood, and after-
wards for his children living at his wife's death
or second marriage, and the issue of any child
dying before that time; such objects to take as
tenants in common per stirpes. And he directed
that no child to whom he should have paid any
portion in his lifetime should participate in the
trust property without bringing the portion so
paid into hotchpot. One of the testator's daugh-
ters had married in his lifetime, and testator had
by deed covenanted to stand seised of freehold
property in trust for her in fee. The daughter
predeceased the testator, leaving several children.
Held, that the daughter's children would not on
the death or second marriage of testator's widow,
be compellable to bring into hotchpot the value PRACTICE-APPEAL TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS
of the freehold property: (Hewitt v. Jardine, 26-ENROLMENT OF DECREE-EXPIRATION OF FIVE
L. T. Rep. N. S. 546. V.C. B.)
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT-RELATION OF-LIEN-The person against whom a decree was made by
YEARS-ENLAGEMENT OF TIME OF ENROLMENT.
ON JUDGMENT-ORDER FOR COSTS IN IRELAND the Lords Justices was at the date of the decree
SET-OFF IN ACTION ON.-Declaration for the residing out of the jurisdiction, and suffering from
costs of a nonsuit in Ireland on an order having softening of the brain, of which disease he died
the legal effect of a judgment. Plea, a set-off of nearly three years after the date of the decree:
sums due upon judgments recovered against the Held, that these were not such "peculiar circum
plaintiff by the defendant. Equitable replication stances" as to render it "just and expedient" to
that the plaintiff was suing as a trustee for his enlarge the time for enrolment of the decree under
attorney, who had a lien on the order for costs, the 28th rule of the Gen. Ord. XXIII.: (Hooper v.
and for his benefit only, and that the set-off ought Gumm, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 537. Chan.).

JUNE 22, 1872.]

EXCEPTION TO BILL FOR SCANDAL-IMPERTINENCE.-The bill, after stating that the plaintiff was entitled under a contract to certain shares in a company which were under the control of the defendant, to be disposed of as he should think fit, contained an allegation that the defendant was in league with several perBons to deal with the shares and contrive operations on the Stock Exchange (popularly known as rigging the market") for the purpose of bringing the shares up to a fictitious value. The bill prayed for specific performance of the contract, for an injunction to restrain the defendant from parting with the shares until the plaintiff's claim was satisfied, and for a receiver of any shares then under the defendant's control: Held, upon an exception to the bill for scandal, that the allegation against the defendant was not pertinent to the relief sought by the bill, and must, therefore, be expunged as scandalous: (Rubery v. Grant, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 538. V.C. M.

PRACTICE-EJECTMENT-STAY OF PROCEEDINGS-NOTICE TO PROCEED UNDER SECT. 202 OF C. L. P. ACT 1852.-Plaintiff brought ejectment against L., as occupying tenant, to recover the T. estates. The guardian of J. T., an infant, who was landlord of the T. estates, defended in the name of L. The whole question at the time was as to the identity of the plaintiff with one R. T., who, it was alleged by the defendant, had been lost at sea many years before: it being conceded that if plaintiff were really R. T. he was entitled to recover. The hearing of the case lasted 103 days, when the jury, having heard the counsel for the defence and four of his witnesses, expressed an opinion so adverse to plaintiff that his counsel elected to be nonsuited. This action was brought against the trustees under a settlement to recover the D. estates. The same infant, J. T., was the cestuis que trust, and the trustees were defending in his behalf. The sole question in this case would be as to the identity of the plaintiff with R. T. This action was commenced on the same day as the action against L. As soon as the plaintiff had been nonsuited in the action against L., defendant served plaintiff with a twenty days' notice to proceed under sect. 202 of the C. L. P. Act 1852. Defendant now applied for a rule to stay the proceedings until payment by the plaintiff of the costs of the ejectment unsuccessfully brought against L. Held, that the defendants were entitled to the rule, and that the notice to proceed was no waiver of the right: (Tichborne v. Mostyn and another, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 554. C. P.)

UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE
BANK OF ENGLAND.

Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the
National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons
respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three
months, unless other claimants sooner appear.]

POTTER (Peter), Horsham, Sussex, shoemaker. £180 New Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, John Burstow, formerly the younger surviving executor of Peter Potter, deceased.

POYNDER (Walter Wm.), a minor; PoYNDER (Rev. Wm.). Southampton; and POYNDER (Thos. Henry Allan), Esq., Wrotham, Kent. £300 Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimants, said Walter Wm. Poynder, formerly a minor, now of age, and Thos. Henry Allen Poynder, the survivors.. WYNN (Sir Watkin Wm.), Bart., Wynnstay, Denbighshire, and SETON (Wm.), Esq.. Somers-place, Middlesex, sixteen dividends on the sum of £415 10s. 10d., New Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, said Sir Watkin Wm. WYNN, Bart., the survivor.

APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. VALENCIA SLATE SLAB COMPANY (Limited). Creditors to send in by July 14 their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to Harding and Co., 8, Old Jewry, E.C., the liquidators of the said company. WATLINGTON GAS COMPANY (Limited). Creditors to send in by July 10 their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to George V. Atkinson, Kingston-upon-Hull, the official liquidator of the said company. July 31, at eleven o'clock, at the chambers of the Master of the Rolls, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims.

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LAST DAY OF PROOF.

ABELL (William), Gloucester, gentleman. July 18; R. H.
Peacock, solicitor, 3, South-square, Gray's-inn, W.C.
July 27; M. R., at eleven o'clock.
BEE (Wm.), 49, Avenue B, West Smithfield, E.C., meat
July 10; C. Williams, solicitor, 31, Alfred-
salesman.
place, Bedford-square, W.C. July 24; M.R., at eleven
o'clock.
BIRD (Frances), Bute House, Hammersmith, Middlesex.
July 13; Mason and Withall, solicitors, 18, Bedford-row,
W.C. July 27; M.R., at eleven o'clock.

BLACK (WM. H., Hill-yard, Goodman's-fields, Middlesex.
July 24; S. Potter, solicitor, 30, King-street, Cheapside,
E.C. Aug. 7; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.
CALLANDER (Alexander B.), the Lombard Exchange, Lom-
bard-street, E C., commission agent. July 12: R. Wren,
solicitor, 32, Fenchurch-street, E.C. July 19; V.C. W.,
at one o'clock,

CALVERT (Jas. C.), Kenninghall, Norfolk, gentleman. June
25; L. Lane, solicitor, Kenninghall, Norfolk. July 16;
M. R. at eleven o'clock.

CAS (Elizabeth), Whixley, York. July 15; H. Cowling, solicitor, York. July 22; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. CLARKE (Ellen, Camberwell House, Camberwell, Surrey. July 8; Charles Steele, solicitor, Sleaford, Lincoln. July 15; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock.

COLE (George C.), Sevenoaks, Kent, solicitor. July 10; Abbott and Co., solicitors, New-inn, Strand, W.C. July 22; V.C. W., at ten o'clock.

THE LAW TIMES.

6; Wells and Co., solicitors, Bradford. July 19; V.C. W., COOPER (Samuel F.), Esq.. Bulwell Hall, Nottingham. July at twelve o'clock. DAVIS (Thomas), 13, Church-road, St. Leonard's-on Sea, Solicitor. July 6; J. Nickinson, solicitor, 51, Chancerylane, W.C. July 15; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. DOWBIGGIN (Capt. Edward T), 26, Park road, Regent'spark-road, N.W. July 20; Harrison and Co., solicitors, 19, Bedford-row, W.C. Aug. 1; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. DOWBIGGIN (Thomas), Abercorn place. St. John's-wood, N.W. July 20; Harrison and Co., solicitors, 19, Bedfordrow, W.C. Aug. 1; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. EARLE (Thos.), Kingston-upon-Hull, merchant. July 1: J. Urquhart, solicitor, 11, Staple-inn, Middlesex. July 16; M. R., at eleven o'clock.

EARLE Wm. J.), Kingston-upon-Hull. July 1; J. Urqu hart, solicitor, 11, Staple-inn, Middlesex. July 16; M. R., at eleven o'clock.

HASKINS (Elizabeth), Bitton, Gloucester. July 15; W. H.
Atchley, solicitor, Bristol. July 29; V.C. B., at twelve
o'clock.

HASKINS (Wm.) Bitton, Gloucester, grocer, July 15; Wm.
Janeway, solicitor, 38, Bedford-row, Middlesex. July 29,
V.C. B., at twelve o'clock.

HASKOLL (Rev. Jos.), The Rectory, East Barkwith, near
Wragley, Lincoln, clerk, July 8: Chapman and Co., 80-
licitors, 24, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C. V.C. W., July 22, at
twelve o'clock.

HEATH (Edw.), Tiverton, china and glass dealer, July 10;
W. Quick, solicitor, Tiverton, July 22. M. R. at twelve
o'clock.
JORDAN (Jas.), 14, Leamington-road-villas,, Paddington,
Middlesex, builder. July 17: F. Thompson, solicitors, 3,
Raymond-buildings, G.ay's-inn, W.C. July 23; V.C. M.,
at twelve o'clock.

KING (Geo.), The Rose Sands-end, Fulham, Middlesex,
licensed victualler. July 8: S. A. Kisch, solicitor, 11,
Wellington-street, Strand, W.C. July 22; M. R., at eleven

o'clock.

LEWIS (Gwynne O.), Esq., Lyttelton, New Zealand. July
11: J. M. Allen, solicitor, 1, John-street, Bedford-row,
Middlesex. July 18: V C. M., at twelve o'clock.
LOFTUS (Thos.), 2, Havelock-villas, Lansdowne-road, West
Croydon, Surrey, and 8, New-inn, Strand, W.C., gentle-
man. July 1; Drake and Son, solicitors, 3. Cloak-lane,
Cannon-street, E.C. July 25; V.C. W., at one o'clock.
LORD (Louisa. Cardiff Arms Hotel, Cardiff July 8; C.
Waldron, solicitor, Cardiff. July 18; V.C. W., at one
o'clock.

MITCHELL (Wm.), Petersfield, Hants, gentleman. June 27;
Jos. Soames, solicitor, Petersfield. July 11; V.C. W., at
one o'clock.
MORGAN (Wm.), Havre, France, merchant. July 10; J. C.
O'Meagher, solicitor, 2. Granby-row, Dublin, July; V.C.,
Four Courts, Dublin, at eleven o'clock.
PARKHURST (Jas. J.), 6, Cambridge-street, Broad-street,
Middlesex, china dealer. July 15; J. T. Campbell, soli-
citor, 17, Warwick-s' reet, Regent-street, W. July 20;
V.C. W., at twelve o'clock.

SMITHIES (Jos. J.), 216A, Upper Thames-street, E.C., glass,
lead, oil, and colour merchant. July 20: Woodbridge and
Sons, solicitors, 8, Clifford-inn, E.C. July 27; V.C. W., at
twelve o'clock.

STENHOUSE (Thos.), East India-avenue, Leadendall-street,
E C., and 58, Belsize-park-gardens, Middlesex, merchant.
July 25; T. Paine, solicitor, 47, Gresham-house, Old-
Broad-street, E.C. Aug. 6; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock.
STOBBARD (Wm.), Eastbourne, Darlington, Durham, gen-
tleman. July 14; Chas. Waistell, solicitor, Northallerton,
York. July 24; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.
WILSON (Louisa A.), Sandbach, Chester.

July 10; Bell and
Co., solicitors, 9, Bow Churchyard, Cheapside, E.C. July
24: V.C. W., at twelve o'clock.
WOOD (John, Esq., Woodlands, Durham. July 13; W.
Crossman, solicitor, 3, Kings-road, Bedford-row, W.C.
July 23; M. R., at twelve o'clock.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35.
ANDREWS (Eliza), 37, Gloucester-gardens, Bishop's road,
Paddington, Middlesex. July 20; G. E. Thomas, solici
tor, 31. St. James's-square, Pall Mall, S.W.
BALMER (Hannah). Garlands, near Carlisle. July 18: T. H.
Preston, solicitor, Kirkby Stephen, Westmoreland.
BARNES Robert), Esq. Oakley in-Fallowfield, Lancaster.
July 20: Charlewood and Co., solicitors, 5, Clarence-
street, Manchester.

BEECHEY (John), 111, Albion-road, Stoke Newington, Mid-
dlesex. July 11; Jenkinson and Co., solicitors, 1, Corbet-
court, Gracechurch-street, E.C.

BELL (Geo.), Church-street, Gateshead, Durham, gentleman. Aug. 31; W. H. D. Longstaffe, solicitor, 39, Churchst eet, Gateshead.

BROOKMAN (Jas.), Laburnum Cottage, Widcombe-hill, Bath
Aug. 10: Stone and Co., solicitors. 13, Queen-square, Bath
BURDIN (Sophia), 8, Palace-street, Pimlico, Mid lesex. July
31; J. H. Wrentmore, solicitor, 4, Chancery-lane, W.C.
BURROUGHES (Henry N., Esq., Burlingham Hall, Norfolk.
Aug. 1; J. D. Taylor and Son, solicitors, Old Bank-build-
ings, Norwich.

BURTON, (Ann), Hobart Town, Island of Tasmania. Dec.
31; Stephens and Langdale, solicitors, 30, Bedford-row,
London, W.C.
Aug. 17;
BUSHE, (Eliza), 51, Onslow-square, Middlesex.
Wenne and Son, solicitors, 46, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C.
CHATER (Robert), Esq., Addiscombe Lodge, U per Addis-
Aug. 1; Westall and
combe-road, Croydon, Surrey.
Roberts, solicitor, 7, Leadenhall-street, E.C.
COCKCROFT (Jas.) Waggon and Horses Inn, Shawforth,
Rochdale, publican and butcher. July 17; J. E. Craven,
solicitor, Strand, Todmorden.

COLES (Alfred, 3, Brunswick-terrace, Southampton, and
Bridge-street, Southampton, grocer and wine merchant.
Aug.1; Wm. Perkins, solicitor, Albion-place, Southampton
COOKE Caroline M.), Sole Cottage, Great Bookham, Surrey.
July 17; Parker and Co., solicitors, 18, St. Paul's-church-
yard, E.C.

CREMER Eliza), Castelnau-villas, Barnes, Surrey, July 11;
T. C. Archer, solicitor. 24, Laurence Pountney-lane, E.C.
DAINTREE (Simon A.), Fendrayton. Cambridge, gentleman.
Sept. 13; Greene and Co., solicitors, Huntingdon.
DARNBROUGH (Richard), sen.. Clitheroe. July 31; Robin-
son and Son, solicitors, Clitheroe Castle, near Clitheroe.
DAWES (Rev. Henry J.), M.A, Whittington College, High-
gate, Middlsex. Sept. 1; Essell and Co., solicitors, The
Precincts, Rochester.

DIXON (Wm. F.). Whitehaven, spirit merchant. July 29;
Brockbank and Helder, solicitors, 44, Duke-street, White-
haven.

DUGDALE (Jennet), Whalley-bridge-end, within Billington,
Lancaster. Aug. 12; Hall and Baldwin, solicitors,
Clitheroe.

FAYLE (Rev. Richard), Park-hill Villa, Torquay, clerk.
Aug. 20; Bevan and Daniell, solicitors. 40, Chancery-lane,
Middlesex.

FLAVEL Emma), Loughborough, Leicester. Oct. 1; W. J.
Woolley, solicitor, Loughborough.

FRIEND (John, Lovat Arms, Burdett-road, Limehouse,
licensed victualler. July 24; Hillearys and Tunstall,
solicitors, 5, Fenchurch-buildings, E.C.

GARDNER (Frederick', 2, Little Knight Rider-street, E.C, mantle maker. Aug. 1; Farrar and Farrar, solicitors, 12, Godliman-street Doctor's-commons, E.C.

HEATH (Thos.), Esq.. Myton Grange, near Warwick. Sept.
1: R. C. Heath, solicitor, Warwick.

HUTCHINGS (Naomi), Ebenezer House, Victoria-park-road,
Middlesex. June 24; Turner and Son, solicitors, 78,
Leadenhall-street, E,C.

Wooler, solicitor, Darlington.
JACKSON (Geo.). Esq., Northallerton, York. Aug. 1; 0. B.

JAMES (Wm. H.), High-street, Whitechapel, Middlesex,
butcher, Aug. 10; Clapham and Fitch, solicitors, 181
Bishopsgate Without, E.C.

JONES (Anne), Northover, Somerset, July 16; Young and
Co., solicitors, 12, Essex-street Strand, W.C.
KENNEDY (Thomas), 162, Pentonville-road, Middlesex,
musical instrument maker. July 15; Carlisle and Ordell,
solicitors, 8, New-square, Lincoln's-inn, W.C.

KING Chas.), Shepton Mallet, Somerset. July 1; Geo. M.
Makay, solicitor, Shepton Mallet.

KINGSTON (Rt. Hon. Robert), sixth Earl of Rockingham,
Roscommon, Ireland, and 119, Camden-road, Middlesex.
July 24; Bridges and Co., solicitors, 23, Red Lion-square,
W.C.

LYON (Morris), 22, Burton-crescent, Middlesex. Aug. 12;
J. L. Dale, solicitor, 8, Furnival's-inn W.C.
MAYHEW (Horace), Esq., 33, Addison-gardens, South Ken-
sington, Middlesex. Aug. 10; Lowther and Co., solicitors,
26, Fenchurch-street, E.C.

MAUGHAM (Thos.), Kirkby Stephen. Westmoreland, iron-
monger and whitesmith. July 6; T. H. Preston, solicitor,
Kirkby Stephen, Westmoreland.

MCCURDY (Eliza F.), 35, Brunswick-square, Brighton. July 20; Willoughby and Cox, solicitors, 13, Clifford's inn, E.C. MEIERHOFF (Otto), York-villa, Blyth-hill, Stansted-road, Forest-hill, Kent, gentleman. June 24; Turner and Son, solicitors, 78, Leadenhall-street, E.C.

MERCER (Jas.), Clitheroe, gentleman. July 31; Robinson
and Sons, solicitors. Clitheroe Castle, near Clitheroe.
MERCHER (John), sen., St. James's House, C.itheroe, cotton
spinner and manufacturer. July 31; Robinson and Sons,
Clitheroe Castle, near Clitheroe.

METCALFE (Jas.), Norton, near Malton, York, gentleman.
Aug. 20; England and Co., solicitors, 2, Quay-street-
chambers, Hull.
PHILIPPS (Edw. B.), Esq., 105, Onslow-square, Middlesex.
Aug. 14; Walters and Co., solicitors, 9, Lincoln's-inn
W.C.
PEARSON (Wm.), Nottingham, house agent and watch
manufacturer. July 31; Percy and Co., solicitors,
Wheelersgate, Nottingham.

PEARSON (Wm. K.) Prospect, Kirkby, Ireleth, Lancaster, gentleman. Aug. 1; Atkinson and Co., solicitors, White haven.

PERRY (Mary A.), Burslem, Staffs. July 12; Richard
Heaton, solicitor, Burslem.

POOKE (Frances), Rose Cottage, Red-hills, St. Thomas-the-
Apostle, Exeter. July 19; Nickinson and Co., solicitors,
51, Chancery-lane, Middlesex.

POOLE (Wm., 24, Wells-mews, Wells-street, Oxford-street,
W., livery stable keeper. July 30; Carlisle and Ordell,
solicitors, 8, New-square, Lincoln's-inn, W.C.
Acton, Middlesex, gentleman. June 24; Turner and Son,
PROSSER (Robert H), Glasbury House, Birkbeck-road,
solicitors, 78, Leadenhall-street, E.C.

PULLING (Wm.), Hereford, wine merchant. Aug. 1; T.
Llanwarne, solicitor, 8, St John-street, Hereford.
RAINE (Thos.), Telegraph Hall, near Durham, gentleman.
Aug. 13; T. Maddison, jun., 43, Sadler-street, Durham,
RAWLINSON (Geo.), The Stanhope Arms, Stanhope-street,
Middlesex, licensed victualler. July 15; Young and Co.,
solicitors, 2. Mildred's-court, Poultry, E.C.
RELPH (Betty), Ravenstonedale, Westmoreland. July 18;
T. H. Preston, solicitor, Kirkby S ephen, We-tmoreland.
RICKELLS (Wm.), Nettleton, Lincoln, farmer. July 2; Had-
delsey and Haddelsey, solicitors, Great Grimsby.
TAPREL (Ellen), 7, Westbourne-crescent, Hyde-park, Middle-
sex. July 15; Surr and Gribble, solicitors, 12, Abchurch.
lane, E,C.

TARDREW (Louisa), Annery House, Monkleigh, Devon-
Sept. 20; Burder and Dunning, so.icitors, 27, Parliament-
street, Westminster.

TASSIE (Bessie W., smetimes known as B. W. Lyons, 1207th Avenue, New York, U. S. Sept.; Deane and Co., solicitors, 14, South-square, Gray's-inn.

THOMPSON (Jas.), Nottingham, surgeon. Sept. 29; Parsons and Son, solicitors, Nottingham.

TODD (John D.), 147, Albany street, Regent's-park, N.W. ven leman, July 15; W. Heathfield, solicitor, 41, Lincoln'sinn-fields, W.C.

WILSON Jas.), Longwood, Huddersfield, flock dealer. Aug, 1; Hesp and Co., solicitors, Station-street, Huddersfield,

REPORTS OF SALES.

Thursday, June 6.

By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER, at the Mart. Holborn, Nos. 11 and 12, Dorrington-street, freehold-sold for £1510.

City, improved rental of £100 per annum, secured on 67, King William-street, term 41 years-sold for £1300.

Upper Holloway, No. 1, Bedford-terrace, with stabling, term 65 years-sold for £65. Regent's-park, No. 4, Lodge-place, term 40 years-sold for £460.

Hackney-road, No. 40, term 19 years-sold for £350.

By Messrs. NEWBON and HARDING. Clerkenwell, No. 6, Rydon-crescent, term 57 years-sold for

£565.

Kingsland, No. 118, High-street, leasehold-sold for £350. Barnsbury, No. 13A, Barnsbury-grove, term 66 years-sold for £0.

Commercial road East, No. 45, Mulberry-street, freeholdsold for £280.

By Mr. H. E. MARSH, at Guildhall Tavern. A ditto for £1000 on life aged 57 years-sold for £300. Policy for £3000 on a life, aged 53 years-sold for £1020. A ditto for £500 on life aged 53 years-sold for £220. A ditto for £1000 on same life-sold for £410. Reversion to one-fourth share of £30,000 on death of a lady aged 58 years-sold for £3:40.

Reversion to £3281 16s. 6d. Consols, on death of a lady aged

57 years-sold for £1180.

157 shares in the Eagle Insurance Company (£5 paid)-sold for £7 per share-£1099.

Four £5 shares in the Hammersmith Bridge Companysold for £126.

Four ditto-sold for £126 10s.

Reversion to £1289 78. 11d. India 5 per Cent., lives aged 60 and 62 years-sold for £500.

Friday, June 7.

By Mr. H. E. MURRELL, at the Mart. Clerkenwell, No. 37, Whiskin-street, term 16 years-sold for £200.

No. 17, Meredith-street, same term-sold for £240.
No. 18, adjoining-sold for £200.
Hoxton, No. 13, Pitfield-street, long leasehold-sold for £900.
No. 15,-sold for £1100.

Middlesex, Bromley, Nos. 1 and 2. Cambridge-place, and
No. 1, Burdett-street, term 90 years-sold for £855.

Tuesday, June 11.

By Messrs. FAREBROTHER CLARK and Co., at the Mart. Finchley New-road, No. 47, with stabling, freehold-sold for £1500.

Thursday, June 13.

By Messrs. NEWBON and HARDING, at the Mart.
Bow, No. 29, High-street, freehold-sold for £1680.
£570.
Enfield, Three copyhold houses in John's-place-sold for

Nos. 1 to 3, New-lane, freehold-sold for £305,
Nos. 4 and 5 adjoining-sold for £300.

Nos. 6 to 11-sold for £620.

Nos. 12 and 13-sold for €235.

Chase Side, a plot of land-sold for £120.

Nos. 1 to 5, Holly Bush-alley, freehold-sold for £560. De Beauvoir Town, No. 15, Buckingham-road, term 44 years -sold for £285.

No. 13 adjoining-sold for £290.

Hornsey, No. 4, Shakespear-road, term 80 years-sold for sides, no such encroachment shall be allowed

£190.

By Messrs. FAREBROTHER, CLARK, and Co., at the Mart. Berks, Warfield, two plots of land, containing 10a. Ir. 36p. By Messrs. BUTCHER and BOWLER, Lincolnshire, Deeping, the reversion to a house and 158.

£515.

2r. 26p., let at £15 per annum; life aged 74 years-sold for Reversion to a moiety of a house, cottages, and 3a. 2r. 16p., let at £26 per annum, same life-sold for £105.

By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER. West Brompton, Nos. 7 and 8, Edith-grove, term 54 yearsso! for £1060.

Elstree, a plot of land, Sa. 2r. 28p.-sold for £1125. Westminster, No. 75, Lillington-street, term 57 years-sold for £415,

No 77. aujoining-sold for £415.

No. 79-sold for £100.

No. 81-sold for £400.

No. 3-sold for £425.

No. 85, with stabling-sold for £625.

By Mr. DRIVER.

Middlesex, Ashford, an enclosure of, land, containing 14a. portion of the highway which crossed the village Or. p-sold for £1500.

A ditto of 2a. 2r. 16p.-sold for £480.

A ditt, containing 13a. Or. 39p.-sold for £1500.
Three parcels of land, containing 39a. 3r. 89p.-sold for £5000.

thereof

MAGISTRATES' LAW.

con

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. HIGHWAY-ENCROACHMENT UPON CENTRE OF-RIGHT OF OWNER OF THE SOIL.-The importance of keeping our public highways free from encroachments, is too obvious to be doubted, and thus it is, that in every highway Act of modern times, provisions have been inserted, having for their object the securing of this great public convenience. By the old Highway Act (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 56, s. 69), still in force, it is enacted that "if any person shall encroach by making, or causing to be made, any building, hedge, ditch, or other fence, on any carriage way or cart way within the distance of 15ft. from the centre thereof, every person so offending shall forfeit on conviction for every such offence, any sum not exceed ing 40s.," &c., and by the later statute of the 27 & 28 Vict, c. 101, s. 51, a similar provision, but more extensive in its operation, is enacted as follows:-"If any person shall encroach by making, or causing to be made, any building, or pit, or hedge, ditch, or other fence, or by placing any dung, compost, or other materials for dressing land, or any rubbish on the side or sides of any carriage or cartway within 15ft. of the centre he shall be subject, on viction for every such offence, to any sum not exceeding forty shillings, notwithstanding that the whole space of 15ft. from the centre of such carriage or cartway has not been maintained with stones or other materials used in forming highways," &c. In carrying out this provision considerable doubts seem to have been entertained as to the rights and liabilities of the owners of the soil. It is, of course, well understood that a highway merely constitutes an easement for the public, the absolute right to the soil itself still vesting in the original owner, who, so that he does not interfere with the surface, or in any way interfere with the convenient use of the road by the public, has all his rights as owner of the soil undiminished. The difficulties which have occasionally arisen here consisted in ascertaining what, in point of fact, has really constituted the road itself in any given case? In early times when travelling was comparatively rare, and before any organisation for the making and keeping of roads in repair existed, our highways consisted of mere tracks; and where those tracks were commonly adopted and used, were they wide or narrow, there the highway became established. Modern convenience has established the practice of making hard by suitable materials the central portions at least of all our common roads, and although the mode of travelling is chiefly confined to traversing such hard central portions, yet where at the sides there are portions of the ancient way still remaining in its original condition, such portions are nevertheless integral portions of the highway itself and as such equally under the protection of the statutes. A highway, if used as such, though but occasionally, is not the less a highway because some portions of it are better kept. Where, therefore, there is a roadway, with a strip or strips of land in an unmade condition running parallel with it on one or both sides, such strip or strips may or may not be a portion of the highway itself according to the circumstances of the user and original dedication. Now the 51st section of the 27 & 28 Vict. c. 101 (which, as being more comprehensive, supersedes the 69th section of the 5 & 6 Will 4, c. 50), prohibits, as we have seen, any encroachment on the side of any carriage-way within 15ft. of the centre, notwithstanding that the whole space of 15ft. from

ran

...

such centre has not been maintained with stones or exists of which a part only is metalled road, it is other materials used in forming highways; with a generally a question of fact how much between the proviso that where any such road is fenced on both fences is included in the highway? Prima facie the whole of it is highway, but this may be rewhereby such road shall be reduced in width butted by evidence, and the facts of this case to less than 30ft. between the fences on each seem to show that none but the metalled part of side. The governing words in this section being this green was highway. Now, at common law "encroach" and "encroachment," the questions encroachments on the highways, whether it was in all such cases are, first, has there been any gravelled or not, were unlawful and indictable. encroachment at all upon the highway? and The early statutes giving magistrates summary secondly, has it been made within 15ft. of the jurisdiction (13 Geo. 3 c. 78, and 5 & 6 Will. 4 c.50) where the road has a boundary of that kind. centre of the road, or 30ft. from fence to fence were restricted to metalled and gravelled parts. . The recent Act simply adopted the principle The recent case of Easton (app.) v. Richmond of the common law, and related to the whole highHighway Board (resps.) (25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 586), way, gravelled or not. But it did not go beyond is a most useful one as explanatory of the law the boundaries of the highway, and, therefore, the upon the subject. That was a case stated for the magistrates in this case were wrong. The Legis. opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench upon a con- lature had a right to take away people's rights viction by justices of the appellant of an offence without compensation, but it was not to be preunder the before-mentioned section of an encroach- sumed that they would have done so without clear ment upon a highway by building a wall within and express words to that effect. To have taken 15ft. of the centre of it. It appeared that any land which was no part of the highway would the appellant was lord of the manor of West have had this effect. The phrase 'on the Layton, the whole of the village of that name, and side or sides of the highway,' therefore, must be the green and the property around belonging to confined to those parts which belong to the him, and that before the alleged encroachment the highway." Mellor, J. also observes: "I think it was not the intention of the Legislature to take green was wholly uninclosed, the width of away any person's property; therefore, if on the the metalled road being 8ft., the grass coming sides of the carriage way there were any pieces of up to the metalled road, and there being no land not included in the highway, they are prodifference between that grass and the rest of the tected from the penalty of encroachment, but if green. The portion of the highway upon which they were pieces of land by the side of the highthe alleged encroachment was made was that which way, and forming part of that which had been across the village green. It further ap- dedicated to the public, the owner of the neigh peared that on the south side of the road bouring soil would have no right to build upon Crossing the green the ground sloped gradually them. Here, I agree that there is no evidence from the metalled road, and on the north side of dedication to the public, and I think the there was a hollow at about three feet distance magistrates have misinterpreted the Act." It is from the metalled road, but that neither the slope clear that the Legislature has not intended nor the hollow were of such a character as to pre- to interfere with the rights of the owners of land; vent carriages passing along or crossing the same and although it is desirable that highways should avoiding each other. if it were necessary to do so for the purpose of be of a convenient width, yet if they are not so, On the east side of the there is no power to remedy the evil by restrainvillage green, before entering the green, the road ing the owner of the adjacent soil not to deal was for a short distance inclosed between hedges, with his adjoining land in any way he thinks and the width of the inclosed part, including the proper. To give the justices jurisdiction under waste on either side, was 12ft. from hedge to this section two things must concur, first, there hedge. It further appeared that the appellant had must be an encroachment on what is actually lately inclosed the road across the village green the highway; and for this purpose the highway is by building a wall on each side of it; the wall not to be considered as the hard and metalled road was built at the foot of the said slope, on the alone, but includes such parts at the side thereof south side, and in the said hollow on the north as the public have been accustomed to use from side; and upon both the south and north sides time immemorial as a part of the highway, or which the wall was built upon the green, and about four have been dedicated to the public by the owner of feet from the metalled road; the width from wall the soil; secondly, that the encroachment must be to wall being 16ft. It was stated in the case that within 15ft. of the centre of the road, for although the village green had generally been depastured the encroachment may actually be upon the highby the tenants of the adjoining farms, and that way, yet if the highway be so wide that such the public had always been accustomed to ride and encroachment be not within these limits, the walk or take carts across the green, where justices have no summary jurisdiction, but the sufficiently level, without interruption, but that offender can be dealt with only by indictment for they had not exercised any other or greater a nuisance. In the case we have cited of Easton right of passage over the grass adjoining the v. Richmond Highway Board, the decision only metalled road than they had over the rest of goes to the extent of holding that the appellant, the said green, which was about five or six acres inasmuch as he had built the wall on his own land, in extent, and extended in width from 80yds. to and not upon any part of the highway, was not 100yds. on each side of the road. The question amenable to the summary jurisdiction of the submitted to the court was, whether upon the justices under the 51st section of the 27 & 28 Vict. facts stated the appellant was justified in building c. 101, it by no means affirms that in every aspect the walls in question, only leaving a width of 16ft. the conduct of the appellant was lawful and right. between wall and wall, or was bound to leave a It might well be, that he has encroached upon the space or roadway of the width of 30ft.? The case rights of the commoners, and that in erecting the wall was very fully argued, and in the result the court he has, by preventing the inhabitants of the village held that the appellant had not been guilty of any from obtaining convenient access to the road, encroachment within the meaning of the section. committed an indictable nuisance. These conBlackburn J., in his judgment says, "I think that siderations, however, do not arise in the case, the magistrates have here mistaken the meaning which is strictly confined to whether or not he had of the Act, but I consider that theirs is a very violated the provisions of the 51st section of the natural mistake to fall into. When a highway late Highway Act.

BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS. When holden.

Thursday, June 27 Friday, June 28... Friday, June 28.. Wednesday, July 24.. Friday, June 28 Monday, June 24 Wednesday, July 3 Wednesday, July 3 Wednesday, July 3 Tuesday, July 2.. Friday, July 12. Wednesday, June 26. Friday, July 5 Saturday, July 6 Friday, July! Monday, July 8. Monday, July 1 Tuesday, July 2.. Thursday, July 4 Thursday, July 4 Wednesday, July 3 Friday, June 28. Friday, July 5 Friday, July 5

Recorder.

What notice of appeal to be given.

Clerk of the Peace.

Monday, July 1

F. A. Philbrick, Esq. A. W. Beetham, Esq.. J. Deedes, Esq..... H. T. Cole, Esq., Q.C.... E. J. Meynell, Esq....... Sir W. H. Bodkin, Knt. G. Francis, Esq. C.S. Whitmore, Esq.,Q.C S. Warren, Esq., Q.C.... J. B. Maule, Esq., Q.C.. C. G. Merewether, Esq. T.C.S. Kynnersley, Esq. J. H. Brewer, Esq. Mr. Serjeant Cox F. Barrow, Esq.

8 days

J. S. Barnes.

10 days

W. Smith.

E. Drew.

10 days

G. H. E. Rundle.

10 days

E. Nicholson.

2 days

G. W. Ledger.

F. F. Giraud.

F. W. Jones.

C. Bulmer.

10 days

J. Howard.

8 days

10 days

Friday, June 28....

J. Fallon, Esq.

14 days

T. S. Pritchard, Esq.

14 days

Wednesday, July 24.........

J. Catterall, Esq.

Saturday, June 22.

7 days Statutory. 10 days 8 days

R. Champney, jun.

C. Hughes.

W. W. Hayward.
F. Hodding.

W. Winterbotham,
G. Potts.

T. Heald.

COMPANY LAW.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. CONTRIBUTORY-TRANSFER OF SHARES BY WRONG NUMBERS-RECTIFICATION OF REGIS TER.-The numbering of the shares in a company is simply directory for the purpose of enabling the company to trace the title to the shares, and the insertion of the wrong numbers in a transfer of shares does not render the transfer void, but it can be rectified by inserting the numbers of the shares really intended to be transferred. I. accepted a transfer of fifty shares, executing it in blank and the numbers of the shares were subsequently inserted. By mistake the numbers inserted were those of shares which did not belong to the transferor, who, however, was the owner of fifty shares in the company. Held, that the transfer passed fifty shares in the company to I., and that he was not entitled to have his name removed from the list of contributories: (Ind's Case, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 487. L.JJ.)

TRANSFER OF SHARES TO AN INFANT.-LIAOF JOBBER.-C., a jobber, agreed on the Stock Exchange with A.'s broker, B., to purchase certain shares belonging to A., and in accordance with the usage of the Stock Exchange C. passed to B. a ticket with the name of X. as the person to whom the shares were to be transferred. This name had been originally furnished by another broker, D., but was passed on by intermediate parties to C. A. executed the transfer, and the transfer and the share certificates were handed by B. to D., who thereupon paid for the shares. It was subsesequently discovered that X. was an infant, and the transfer not having been registered, A. became liable for calls. On a bill filed by A. against C. for an indemnity, held, that inasmuch as there was no allegation of fraud, and as C. had performed all that was incumbent on him by the rules and usage of the Stock Exchange, he was not liable to indemnify A. in respect of the shares : (Merry v. Nickulls, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 496. V.C. B.)

which was signed by J. in presence of C., was
appended as an exhibit to C's affidavit. Held,
that this statement was not admissible in evi-
dence, and that the only way to make it admis.
sible would have been to cross-examine J. upon it,
and even then it could have been used for the
purpose of discrediting him: (Hemming v. Mad-
dick, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 565, L. JJ.)
RAILWAY-AUTHORITY OF AN INSPECTOR TO
PLEDGE THE CREDIT OF THE COMPANY.-An
official in the employ of the defendants, styled an
inspector, whose duty it was to attend when and
where any accident occurred upon their railway,
and to look after sufferers thereby, visited two
men who were hurt in a collision on the defen-
dants' line, and had been removed to the
plaintiff's inn. On one of the sufferers inquiring
who would pay the people of the inn for taking
care of them, the inspector told him not to trouble
himself about it, adding, "We shall see that that
is all right." Relying on this answer, the land-
lady supplied the wants of the injured persons
until they were well enough to leave her house,
and she afterwards brought an action against the
company to recover payment for necessaries so
supplied. Held, that there was evidence to go to
the jury that the inspector had authority to pledge
the credit of the company for the relief of the
sufferers, and that he had rendered the defendants
liable: (Langan v. The Great Western Railway
Company, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 577. Q. B.)

MARITIME LAW.

necessaries have been supplied, is not entitled to claim priority over the material men, as he himself is personally liable to them for the necessaries supplied: Semble, that a master who is not part owner would not in such case be entitled to priority over a material man as he also would be liable for the necessaries supplied by his orders as agent for his owners. In a suit for master's wages and disbursements, certain material men appeared and filed an answer alleging that they had supplied at the order of the master, who was part owner, and that a balance was due to them in respect of those necessaries. On motion to reject the answer, it was Held, that the answer disclosed a good defence, and that the material men were entitled to priority: (The Jenny Lind, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 591. Adm. Ct.)

COUNTY COURTS.

DARTFORD COUNTY COURT. April 30 and May 28. (Before J. J. LONSDALE, Esq., Judge.) Partnership-Continuing partner-Right of debtor EDGAR v. ROBINS. to the firm to set-off separate debt of one partner against partnership claim.

C. R. Gibson for defendant.

This was an action brought by a continuing partner of a firm of coal merchants for coals supplied. It appeared that a former partner in the firm, who had retired, being indebted to the defendant, applied to him to take coals instead of money in satisfaction of his claim, and defendant had consented. The coals supplied were the property of the firm, and the surviving partner claimed their value, without allowing the debt due by the partner who had retired to the defendant, to be set-off. No set-off had been pleaded, and His HONOUR took time to consider whether he would grant an adjournment for the notice of setoff to be given. He subsequently delivered the following written judgment:

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. BOTTOMRY-AVERAGE STATEMENT-FOREIGN JUDGMENT.-A cargo belonging to a Greek owner, and shipped on board a Greek ship, was consigned to the appellant to be delivered at Malta. On the voyage bad weather was encountered, part of the cargo was jettisoned, and the ship arrived at Constantinople in a damaged state. The captain made WINDING-UP DEBTS BEARING INTEREST a protest before the Greek Consular Court there, It seems to be necessary, to enable a defendant AFTER WINDING-UP ORDER.-The rule that the and applied for a survey of the ship and cargo. to set-off, against a partnership debt, a separate winding-up order nullifies, as between the creditors The surveyors, appointed by the court, reported debt due to him from one of the partners on his of an insolvent company, all contracts for pay- and recommended a transshipment of the cargo, own account, that the partner whose debt is ment of interest, applies equally to a contract by and the appointment of a curator thereto. A sought to be made the subject of set-off was put the company to indemnify a third person against curator, whose agent was the respondent, was forward or was allowed to appear and act as the the payment of interest. H., as nominee and accordingly appointed by the court. The captain sole contracting party at the time the mutual trustee of the I. Company, took shares in the W. further petitioned for the appointment of average debts were incurred: (See Stacey v. Dell, 7 T. R. Company. The I. Company was wound-up; sub- staters. The average staters, appointed by the 361a). There is no pretence in this case for saysequently the W. Company sued H. for calls on court, decided as to the expenses to be put in par- ing that Mr. Hunter was so put forward or allowed the shares with interest, and recovered judgment ticular and general average, &c., and advised that to appear and act. I am, therefore, of opinion against him with costs. H. paid the sums de- | power should be given to the curator to contract that the defendant could not, if I adjourned the manded, and claimed to prove against the I. Com. a bottomry bond to pay freight, average expenses, case for the purpose, set-off Mr. Hunter's separate pany for the amount. The claim came before the &c., under hypothecation of the cargo. The deci- debt due to him against his debt due to the partVice-Chancellor in chambers, and was disallowed sion of the average staters was confirmed by the nership. But I think that the case stated for the as to the costs, but allowed as to the principal Greek Consul-General, who declared it to have defendant by Mr. Gibson, if proved, would amount and interest. On an appeal to the court by the the force of a thing adjudicated, and a bottomry to accord and satisfaction with Mr. Hunter, and liquidator of the I. Company against the allow-bond was ordered and given. On arrival of the would be a bar to Mr. Edgar from suing. I am of ance of interest, held, that the claim for interest cargo at Malta, the respondent refused to deliver this opinion, upon the authority of Wallace v. must be disallowed, without prejudice, however, the cargo without payment of the bottomry bond, Kelsall (7 M. & W. 264), where, to an action by to the claimant carrying in a new claim for the and the appellant at last paid under protest, and three partners for a joint demand, the defendant estimated value of his right to indemnify at the instituted proceedings in the courts at Malta: pleaded accord and satisfaction with one of the time of the winding-up. Warrant Finance Com. Held (on appeal from the Court of Appeal at partners by a payment in cash, and a set-off of a pany (L Rep 4 Ch. 643; 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 508) Malta) that it must be presumed that the Greek debt due from that one to the defendant, it was followed: (Hughes's Case, 26 L. T.Rep. N. S. 500. court rightly interpreted and applied the Greek held good without alleging any authority from the V.C. W.) law; that by that law the court had the power other two plaintiffs to make the settlement. This and duly exercised it of deciding that Constan- being so, and no plea of accord and satisfaction tinople should be considered as the port of desti- being necessary in the County Court, the defennation, and that the average should be adjusted dant can at once proceed to call his witnesses. at that port; that the bottomry bond was neces sary and valid, though made without communication with the owners of the cargo, or their agent; that the court had power to appoint the average staters, and that their decision gave authority to the curator to tranship the cargo and to contract the bottomry bond; and that this decision was rightly confirmed by the Greek Consul-General Dent v. Smith (20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 870) approved: (Messina v. Petrococchino, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 561. Priv. Co.)

TRUSTEE OF SHARES-RIGHT TO INDEMNITY FROM CESTUI QUE TRUST-IMPLIED AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY-PRACTICE.-A., at the request of B.'s agent, applied for and was allotted 250 shares of £10 each in a company, £1 per share to be paid on application, and £1 on allotment. B. furnished the application and allotment money, and it was understood that A. was to have no beneficial interest, but was to dispose of the shares as B. should direct. A., however, received twenty-five guineas as a consideration for his part in the transaction, and B. produced a written receipt in which this money was expressed to be paid to A. "in consideration of his taking risk of applying for 250 shares in S. and Co. (Limited), the application and allotment money only being paid thereon." A few days later B. directed A. to transfer the shares to X., to whom A. accordingly executed a transfer. The company, however, refused to accept X., and A. remained on the register until the winding-up of the company, when he was placed on the list of contributories. and compelled to pay a large amount for calls, A., having filed a bill against B. for an indemnity, subsequently entered into an arrangement with the liquidator, by which it was agreed that the latter should prosecute the suit at the expense of the company in his name. Held (affirming the decision of Malins, V.C.), that B. was bound to indemnify A. in respect of the shares. J., the agent who negotiated the transaction between A. and B., deposed by affidavit that there was an understanding that A. should be released from all responsibility in respect of the shares. C., the defendant's solicitor, in answer to this affidavit, deposed that he had taken down from J.'s own lips a statement that A. was to take all the risk of becoming a shareholder. This statement,

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT-EVIDENCE

PRACTICE.-The Court of Admiralty is extremely
reluctant to admit evidence at the hearing of
appeal from a County Court, but will do so under
special circumstances. By Rule 32 of the General
Orders for the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdic-
tion, it was intended that a shorthand writer, or
at least a reporter, should be employed in all
Admiralty causes in the County Courts, where
there is a probability of appeal, to take down the
evidence, so that the appellant might be in a
position to bring up at the hearing of the appeal a
transcript of the notes of evidence. The insuffi-
ciency of notes of evidence in the court below is
some ground for the admission of evidence at the
hearing of the appeal, but the fact that a reporter
has not been employed to take down the evidence
below must always be a circumstance to be in-
quired into when an appellant applies for leave to
produce evidence on appeal: (The Busy Bee,
26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 590. Adm. Ct.)

MASTER'S WAGES-NECESSARIES-PRIORITY
oF LIEN-PRACTICE.-A master of a foreign ship,
who is also part owner, and upon whose orders

GRAVESEND COUNTY COURT.
April 23 and May 21.
(Before J. J. LONSDALE, Esq., Judge.)
HALL V. PEPPER and Wife.

Covenant to keep in good repair-Reasonable use
and wearing-Continuing breach-Liability of
assignee.

Bewley for plaintiff.

Udall for defendants.

This was an action for breach of covenant by dilapidations and non-payment of ground rent. The facts are fully stated in the following written judgment:

His HONOUR-The plaintiff in this case is the assignee of a lease for ninety-one years of certain premises granted by one William Bentley to John Pink, and which lease will expire in the year 1891. The defendant, Eliza Pepper, is the assignee of an underlease of the same premises, granted by John Pink to one Joseph Gere, and which underlease expired on the 25th March last. The rent reserved by the underlease was £1 10s. a year, payable half-yearly on the 29th Sept. and the 25th March, and the same lease contained a covenant to keep in good repair the messuage or tenement thereinbefore covenanted to be erected (and which was afterwards erected) by Joseph Gere, and all other erections and buildings which might thereafter be erected and built on the piece of ground thereby demised, and the same being so well and sufficiently repaired at the end of the term thereby demised to yield up to John Pink or his assigns, together with "all the doors, locks, keys, &c., and

rea

all other things fixed, fastened, or belonging to the said messuage, or tenement and premises, whole, sound, and entire, reasonable use and wearing thereof only excepted." The action is brought to recover four years rent and damages for leaving the premises out of repair at the end of the term. As to the amount of rent claimed there is no dispute. As to the non-repair of the premises, it was contended by Mr. Udall, on behalf the de endants, that the exception of " sonable use and wearing" applied not only to the state of the premises at the time of their being yielded up at the end of the term, but also to the covenant for keeping them in repair; and that as Mr. Gould, the surveyor who examined the premises, could not say that the dilapidations he observed might not have existed prior to the 9th June 1868, the date of the assignment of the original lease to the plaintiff, and so that there had been anything more than reasonable use and wearing since, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Now, in the first place, I don't think the exception applies to the covenant to repair at all, and as regards the state in which the premises were to be delivered up, I am of opinion that it does not apply to the premises generally, but is confined to the" doors, locks, keys, &c., and other things fixed, fastened or belonging to the premises." In the second place, I do not think it signifies whether the dilapidations existed before or were occasioned after the assignment to the plaintiff of the original lease, because the covenant to keep in repair is a continuing covenant, although such a covenant has been broken and the premises are left out of repair at the time of the assignment, and came so out of repair to the hands of the assignee, yet if they remain so afterwards during the continuance of the term, the covenant is then broken again in the time of the assignee, there being a constant repetition of the breach so long as the acts to be done remain unperformed (See Addison on Contracts, p. 783, and authorities there cited). Coward v. Gregory (3) L. J. 1, C. P.), referred to by Mr. Udall, was the case of a covenant to put in repair, which it was held could only be broken once for all. Being against Mr. Udall upon these two points, it appears to me that judgment ought to be entered for the plaintiff, and the only question remaining for my consideration is for what amount. According to Mr. Mayne, in his Treatise on the Law of Damages, p. 135, where the action is brought upon the covenant to re air at the end of the term, the damages are such as will put the premises into the state of repair in which the tenant was bound to leave them. It was argued by Mr. Udall, upon the authority of Smith v. Peat (23 L. J. 84, Ex.), that the proper measure of damages for non-repairs of premises is the amount to which the saleable value of the reversion is injured by the non-repair of the premises, but in that case the defendant held under a lease which had several years to run. Taking Mr. Mayne's to be the proper measure of damages in a case like the present, what is the state of repairs in which the defendants were

his recommendation and at his request, I recently appointed the present registrar, who, I fully believe, will also perform his duties as registrar in the most satisfactory and honourable manner. In Mr. Barker I have lost a real friend, whom I greatly lament; and the whole neighbourhood has lost a very useful member of society. As captain of the rifle corps, as registrar cf this court, as a solicitor in highly respectable practice, as a man of most kindly feeling and gentlemanlike mind, as a neighbour, as a friend, and as a parent, he was greatly respected, esteemed, and beloved.

received part payment of the amount of the bills out of the assets of D. situate in Brazil, which, after D.'s failure, were administered there according to the Brazilian law, by which the creditors of the Brazil firm were entitled to be paid out of the assets in that country in priority to the other creditors of D. B. and Co. subsequently claimed to receive dividends on the entire amount of the bills out of the assets being administered in England under the deed of assignment. Held, that the 152nd section of the Bankruptcy Act 1861, did not apply, as there were not two distinct estates being administered in bank. ruptcy, but one estate, part of which was being administered in England and part in Brazil. Held, consequently (reversing the decision of a County Court judge), that B. and Co. were not entitled to receive any dividend out of the assets in England

until the other creditors had received a dividend

equal to that received by B. and Co. in Brazil: Ex parte Wilson; Re Douglas, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 489. Chan.)

Craig rose under considerable emotion, and said as the senior member of the Profession in that court, he wished to refer to the great loss they had sustained in the removal of his old and greatly respected friend Mr. Barker. He then referred to the deceased gentleman's character as registrar of that court, his large and extensive professional practice, his character as a citizen, the great service he had rendered to the volunteer movement in organising the 12th Shropshire Rifle Volunteer Corps, which, under his command, sent up a winner of the Queen's prize; and as an inhabitant of Wem, living and spending his money amongst his fellow-townsmen, and not, like some, (Before Mr. Registrar ROCHE, sitting as Chief getting long credit at home and spending his cash elsewhere. He said Mr. Barker took a deep interest in the welfare of the parish and the prosperity of the church. He was in every respect a IN a case which came before the court this mornlence, and kindly feeling for the poor. Having and Chalk appeared, it was stated that the exten high-minded Christian gentleman, of large benevo-ing, upon an application to continue an interim injunction, and in which Bagley, J. E. Palmer, thus discharged, very imperfectly, his duty to his deceased friend, he congratulated the court on sion of the injunction for a limited period, after having so worthy a successor as the present regis- the first meeting of creditors, would meet the

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. BANKRUPTCY-PROOF BY PARTNER AGAINST ESTATE OF FIRM-DISTINCT TRADES-DEBT IN RESPECT OF ADVANCES.-A partner in a bankrupt firm, who also carried on a distinct trade on his own account, claimed to prove against the estate of the firm in respect of cash advances. Malins, V.C., rejected the claim on the ground that the exception to the rule, that a partner in a bankrupt firm cannot prove in competition with the creditors of the firm, which is allowed where the debt is in

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. Tuesday, June 18.

Judge.) Duties of receivers.

views of the receiver.

The REGISTRAR objected to the expression "the views of the receiver." A receiver ought court-a stakeholder, in fact and could only act to have no views; he was merely the officer of the under the direction of the court. His Honour ceedings were daily increasing in consequence of regretted that the expenses of liquidation proreceivers acting upon their own views.

Chalk said the receiver in this case desired only to do his duty.

The REGISTRAR.-I do not question that; my remarks apply to liquidation proceedings generally.

The injunction was continued until the third day after the first meeting of creditors.

LEGAL NEWS.

THE death is announced of John Forrester, the elder of the two brothers so long connected with the administration of justice at the Mansion House, and whose names are associated with most century. It will be remembered that these officers of the great criminal delinquencies of the present retired from the public service a few years since on a pension awarded by the Court of Aldermen. suddenly on Tuesday last, having reached the age failing health for some little time, but died rather

bound to leave the premises in question? That respect of a distinct trade carried on by one of the The subject of the present notice had been of

must depend upon the age and class of the house at the time the covenant was entered into; and a tenant is not liable for what the natural operation of time effects, but he is bound by seasonable application of labour to keep the house, even as against the operation of time, as nearly as possible

in the same condition as when it was demised. In the present case the house was built after the date of the underlease to Gere, and therfore, subject to the operation of time, ought to have been kept and delivered up by the defendant in its original condition. Gould, however, told us that it had been neglected for a great many years; that no repairs had been done for a long time. He estimated the dilapidations at £32 17s., but said that it would take a much larger sum to put the premises in perfect repair. He had put the valuation so low on account of the house being an old wooden one. He did not tell us how far, in his opinion, the house being a wooden one had been deteriorated by the mere operation of time. It would not be safe, therefore, to go beyond his valuation. Judgment must be entered for the plaintiff for £38 178., being £6 rent and £32 17s. for dilapidations.

WEM COUNTY COURT.
Thursday, June 6.

(Before J. W. SMITH, Esq., Q, C., Judge.) Death of the Registrar. ON taking his seat on the bench, his HONOUR, alluding to the death of Mr. Barker, said: I desire to express my very great regret at the death of my friend Mr. Barker, of this town. On the untimely decease of his son, Mr. Walford Barker, then the reg strar of this court, I, unsolicited, re-appointed Mr. Barker, who had formerly been registrar, to fill the office a second time. I felt that no appointment could be more acceptable to the neighbourhood, or more satisfactory to myself. On his retirement, through failing health, and on

tained where the debt arose in respect of cash partners in the bankrupt firm, could not be susadvances. Rejection of the claim affirmed on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to bring the case within the exception in favour of a partner carrying on distinct trades: (Narraway

v. Beattie, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 492. Chan.) BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869, ss. 72, 126-LIQUIDATION BY ARRANGEMENT- JURISDICTION OF COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.-A debtor filed a petition for liquidation, and his creditors agreed to accept a composition. The receiver, who was also trustee of the estate, took possession of the debtor's property, and having realised it, sent in his bill of charges to the debtor, who gave him a bill of sale of his stock in trade to secure the amount, and by the same instrument entered into a covenant to pay the amount. The receiver having taken possession of the property comprised in the bill of sale, the debtor applied to the Court of Bankruptcy that the receiver might be ordered to bring in his bill of charges for taxation, to deliver up the property, and give an account of all moneys received by him, and to deliver up the bill of sale to be cancelled: Held (affirming the the decision of Mr. Registrar Spring Rice) that the Court of Bankruptcy had no jurisdiction to grant the application, as it was in substance an attempt to set aside the bill of sale: (Ex parte Lyons; re Lyons, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 491. Chan.) BANKRUPTCY ACT 1861, s. 152-DOUBLE PROOF DISTINCT ESTATES- SOLE TRADER TRADING UNDER Two FIRMS.-D. carried on business in England under the firm of D. and Co., and in Brazil under the firm of D., L., and Co., but he had no partner in either firm. In July and Aug. 1869, certain bills of exchange were drawn by D., L., and Co. upon, and accepted by, D. and Co, in favour of B. and Co. In Dec. 1869, D. (the bills having in the mean time been dishonoured) executed a deed of assignment to trustees for the benefit of his creditors, and the deed was registered under the Bankruptcy Act 1861. B. and Co.

of 80.

ALDERMAN AND SHERIFF SIR F. W. TRUS COTT, and Sheriff Sir John Bennett, have issued invitations to a large circle of friends, including the whole of the members of the corpora tion, to meet her Majesty's judges at a grand banquet on Thursday, the 27th inst., at FreeThe number of the invitamasons' Tavern. tions is thus much larger than usual, this being the first time the honour has been extended to the whole of the corporation.-City Press.

THE TICHBORNE CASE.-Sir J. D. Coleridge, writing to the editor of the Exeter Evening Express, says, "I shall be obliged to you if you will mention that there is no foundation whatever for the statement which I see copied into your paper of the 15th, that the Attorney-General has had another difference with his colleagues besides that arising out of the expenses of the trial. He desires to take legal proceedings to stop the Claimant's triumphal progress.' The subject of what is called the Claimant's progress has never been directly or indirectly alluded to either by my colleagues or myself; nor have any proceedings of any kind been so much as mentioned between us. The rest of the paragraph is written evidently upon very incomplete and entirely inaccurate information. But I have abstained, and shall abstain, from any attempts to correct statements of this kind, the value, or rather the worthlessness of which, will in due time appear. I correct this only because you repeat it to my constituents, and I should be glad they should know, that from the first I stated to those associated with me in the trial that, although officially responsible for the prosecution, I should not personally interfere with its conduct in court, a resolution, the propriety of which I see no reason to doubt."

ANOTHER SCENE IN THE IRish Court of CHAN

CERY APPEAL.-Another scene occurred on Tuesday in the Court of Chancery Appeal. The Court

« Anterior Continuar »

Libros

The Law Times, Volumen 53