Page images
PDF
EPUB

FOR

purpose of selling the firm's goods, and shall use his best endeavours to chargeable on the "Exchequer Contribution Account” in substitution of obtain new customers for the firm and to extend business, and shall the grant previously made by the Exchequer. Counsel for the appellants devote the whole of his time during the usual business hours to the trans- contended that no part of the buildings, the subject of the special case, action of the business of the firm, and sball not in any manner directly or should be rated since they formed part of the police offices, and were indirectly engage or employ himself in any other business or transact occupied for police purposes; and the following cases were cited: Reg. v. any business with or for any person or persons other than the firm Stewart (8 E. & B. 360, 27 L. J. M. C. 81), Gambier v. Lydford (3 E. & B. during the continuance of this agreement." The only provision for 346, 23 L. J. M. C. 69), Martin v. West Derby Assessment Committee (11 determining the said agreement was by notice given by the plaintiffs, and Q. B. D. 145), and Reg. v. Lancashire Justices (27 L. J. M. C. 209). Counsel there was no provision in the agreement for defendant determining hic in support of the rate submitted that the old authorities referred to by the employment thereunder. Notwithstanding this fact the defendant wrote appellants did not apply since the ownership had been transferred from on the 1st of March, 1898, a letter in which he purported to resign his the justices to the county council. Where a building was used partly position as traveller. The plaintiffs, in reply, wrote to him refusiog to for Crown purposes and partly for administrative county purposes, it might accept his resignation, and pointing out that under the terms of the be split up for rating purposes according to the purposes for which each agreement there was no power for the defendant to terminate his employ- portion of it was used : County Council of Middlesex v. Assessment Committee ment, and upon it appearing that he had entered the employment of a of St. George's Union (1897, 1 Q. B. 64), Worcestershire County Council v. rival firm, instituted the action on which the present motion was Assessment Committee of St. Nicholas, Worcester (1897, 1 Q. B. 480), Greig v. brought.

University of Edinburgh (L. R. 1 H. L. 348). That portion occupied by the ROMER, J., said that the question was whether the negative covenant in superintendent and bis family was rateable. clause 3 was not too general for the court to enforce. His lordship The Court (Wills and KENNEDY, JJ.) allowed the appeal. The ques. pointed out that the word “business" in clause 3 could not be held tion here was whether occupation of rooms by the chief constable and his limited by the context to a wine merchant's business. Tbe court in effect family was an occupation of that particular part of the premises " for was asked to order the defendant to work for plaintiffs by enforcing the police purposes.” They thought it was. It was clear therefore that the terms of clause 3, and thereby compelling him to abstain wholly from rate had been improperly made in respect of that portion of the premises other business, at any rate during all the usual business hours. He in question.-COUNSEL, E. W. Garrett and S. Everard; Hugo Young and considered such a clause was unreasonable, and ought not to be enforced C. B. Marriott. SOLICITORS, Kingsford, Dorman, g Co., for Freer, Blunt, $ by the court. In Whitwood Chemical Co. v. Hardman (1891, 2 Ch. 416) the Co., Leicester; Field, Roscoe, 8: Co., for Whetstone f Frost, Leicester. present Master of the Rolls stated that "cases where negative stipulations

[Reported by ERSKINE REID, Barrister-at-Law.] in contracts of service were enforced by the court ought not to be extended, and should be regarded as anomalies which it would be very dangerous to

HORNER v. LEWIS. Div. Court. 21st April. extend." In his lordship's opinion it would be such a dangerous ex. MEDICAL PRACTITIONER-Right OF ACTION-FEE

Post-MORTEM tension to enforce so general a covenant as contained in clause 3 in the EXAMINATION AND ATTENDANCE AT INQUEST-PUBLIC HOSPITAL-MEDICAL present case, as the negative stipulation extended to business of any kind,

OFFICER-CORONERS Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 71), s. 22, and was not confined to special services, as in Lumley v. Wagner (1 De G. PROVISO (2). M. & G. 604). He therefore refused the motion, but without costs.COUNSEL, H. E. Wright; S. 0. Buckmaster. Solicitors, W. H. Southern ;

This was an appeal from the Brentwood County Court. The appellant Goreng Tapp.

was one of the honorary medical officers of the Children's and General [Reported by RALEGA B. PAILLPOTTS, Barrister-at-Law.]

Hospital for Leyton, Walthamstow, and Wanstead. On the 25th of

August, 1897, the respondent, the coroner for South Essex, held an Re RITSON. RITSON v. RITSON. Romer, J. April 22.

inquest on the body of a child named Harriett Palmer. The child had

been a patient in the hospital, and the appellant had attended it during PARTNERSHIP-DEPOSIT OF_TITLE DEEDS BY A PARTNER TO SECURE OVER- its illness. By order of the respondent he made a post-mortem examination

DRAFT OF FIRM—Real Estate—DEVISE OF REAL ESTATE_PARTNERSHIP of the body and attended the inquest and gave evidence respecting the ASSETS SUFFICIENT-LOCKE KING's ACT (17 & 18 VICT c. 113).

death. The appellant sued the respondent for two guineas for making Sun mons. A testator deposited title deeds of certain rent-charges the post-mortem examination and for attending at the inquest. The county belovging to him to secure the overdraft of the bank account of a partner- court judge dismissed the action on the ground that the appellant was ship in which he and his brother were partners. By his will, dated 1897, precluded from recovering the fees by section 22, proviso (2), of the the testator devised and bequeathed all his real and rsonal estate to Coroners Act, 1887 (50 -& 51 Vict. c. 71). Section 22 provides for the trustees upon trust for his wife for life and on her death upon trust as to payment of fees to legally qualified medical practitioners for making certain real estate, which included the real estate charged to the bank, for post-mortem examinations and for attending to give evidence at inquests, his son absolutely, and as to all the residue of his real and personal estate with a proviso (2) that “Where an inquest is held on the body of a upon trust for his (the testator's) children equally. At the testator's person who has died in a county or other lunatic asylum, or in a public death both his private account and the partnership account were largely hospital, infirmary, or other medical institution, or a building or place overdrawn at the bank, but the assets of the partnership were more than belonging thereto, or used for the reception of patients thereof, whether sufficient to cover all their debts. The chief question raised by the sum the same be supported by endowments or by voluntary subscriptions, the mons was whether that part of the amount due from the partnership to medical officer, whose duty it may have been to attend the deceased the bankers, secured by the said memorandum, as was payable by the person as a medical officer of such institution as aforesaid, shall not be estate of the testator ought to be paid out of the real estate mentioned in entitled to such fee or remuneration." The Children's and General the memorandum, or out of his share in the partnership assets.

Hospital was founded for the benefit of poor persons residing in Leyton,

Patients from those districts were ROMER, J., said that in his opinion the memorandum of deposit only Walthamstow, and Wanstead. extended to partnersbip debts and not to the private overdraft of the admitted by a governor's letter free of charge, while patients from neigh. testator, and that as the partnership assets were sufficient for payment bouring parishes might be admitted by governors' letters on a payment of of all debts of the partnership, the debt to the bank was payable not less than 58. a week. Intending patients had to be certified by a memorandum.-COUNSEL, R. F. Norton ; Christopher James. SOLICITORS, medical officer was appointed from each parish who had charge of all the thereout, and was not a charge on the real estate comprised in the doctor to be neither infectious nor incurable. The hospital was supported

by public subscriptions and governed by a council and a committee. One Speechly, Mumford, & Rodgers, for Hayton g Simpson, Cockermouth. Reported by RALEGI B. PAILLPOTTS, Barrister at-Law.)

patients admitted from that parish. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the hospital was not a public institution, and that the appellant was not a medical officer of the hospital as he received no fee or reward for his services.

THE COURT (Wills and KENNEDY, JJ.) held that the hospital was a High Court-Queen's Bench Division. public one and that appellant was none the less a medical officer because

he received no payment for his services. They said that the word “duty" LEICESTER COUNTY COUNCIL V. LEICESTER ASSESSMENT COM. in section 22 was to be taken not to be confined to a strict legal duty, MITTEE. Div. Court. 22nd April.

but was applicable to the duty of imperfect obligation attached to the Poor Rare-EXEMPTION_Crown PURPOSES-PART OF POLICE PREMISES appellant's acceptance of the position he held in the hospital.--COUNSEL, USED BY SUPERINTENDENT FOR RESIDENCE.

Marshall, Q.O., and Samuel Fleming ; Macmorran, Q.C., and Braxton Hicks.

SOLICITORS, Hempsons ; Langhams. This was a special case stated under 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45, s. 11, after notice of appeal against a poor rate made on the chief constable's resi.

[Reported by C. G. WILBRAHAM, Barrister-at-Law.) dence at Leicester. In 1867 the police premises, including the chief con BLENKINSOP v. OGDEN & Co. Div. Court. 23rd April. stable's residence, had been assessed to the Poor Rate of St. Martin's Parish, Leicester. The justices appealed, and the Court of Queen's FACTORY Acts--FENCING MACHINERY-PERSON INJURED BY His Own Bench decided that the justices were not liable to poor rate for such

NEGLIGENCE-FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS Act, 1878 (41 Vict. c. 16), premises : Reg. v. St. Martin's, Leicester (2 Q. B. 493). In 1897 the rate in question was made, but was only in respect of the portions of the police This was a special case stated by a metropolitan police magistrate. The buildirgs used exclusively for residential purposes, which consist in part respondents were occupiers of a factory within the Factories and of certain rooms occupied rent-free by the chief constable of the county Workshops Acts, 1878 to 1895. An information and complaint was laid in his official capacity. The question was whether this portion was against them by the appellant, under section 82 of the Act of 1878, for occupied as Crown offices exclusively. The rest of the building is having neglected to fence certain dangerous parts of their machinery, in occupied for ordinary police purposes. On the 1st of April, 1889, by consequence of which a boy in their employment suffered bodily injury. virtue of section 64 of the Local Government Act, 1889 (51 & 52 Vict. c. Section 81 of the Act of 1878 provides that if a factory or workshop is not 41), the property passed from the justices and vested in the couuty kept in conformity with the Act the occupier shall be liable to a fine not council. If the report of the annual Government inspection is satisfactory, exceeding £10, and section 82 provides as follows: "If any person is one-half of the cost of the pay and clothing for the preceding year is killed or suffers any bodily injury in consequence of the occupier of a

8. 82.

factory having neglected to fence any machinery required by or in pur. R. 4 H. L. 171) and London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Co. v. suance of this Act to be securely fenced, the occupier of the Truman and Others (11 App. Cas. 45). The jury on the assumption that a factory or workshop shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £100, the right of action existed gave a verdict for £800. whole or any part of which may be applied for the benefit of the injured WILLS, J., gave judgment for the plaintiff in respect of item (4) of the person or bis family, or otherwise as the Secretary of State determines. plaintiff's claim and assessed the proportion of damage due to that cause

The machinery at the point where the accident happened was ' at £200. He said, as to the other items of claim, that the works from which not properly fenced, but the accident was due to the boy's own negligence. they aro:e were a fair and reasonable exercise of the defendants' statutory The magistrate thereupon dismissed the information. It was argued on powers and that, consequently, in respect of those matters the plaintiff's behalf of the respondents that the information was rightly dismissed, i remedy was by compensation under the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, and not because in order to substantiate the offence under section 82 it was by action; but as to the matters complained of in item (4) the action was necessary to shew that the injury to the pereon employed was proximately naintainable because the nuisance might be greatly mitigated by the caused by the neglect of the respondents to fence the machinery, and that, uuloading, storing, &c., being carried on inside the shed built by the in the present case, the injury having been the result of the boy's own defendants instead of outside. It lay on the defendants to shew that negligence, it could not be said to have been “in consequence of” the what was done was a necessary, or at least reasonable, exercise of their respondents' neglect.

powers. The judgment proceeded as follows: “I must now deal with The Court (GRANTHAN and KENNEDY, JJ.) remitted the case to the one of Mr. Dickens' points. He argued that in respect of the nuisances magistrate.

generally and in respect of the destruction of the amenities, the action GRANTHAM, J., said that the magistrate was wrong, because, though the cannot be maintained, notwithstanding the local Acts of Parliament, on injury was attributable to the boy's own negligence, yet that did not the ground that the demise implies a covenant for quiet enjoyment, prevent it from being said to occur in consequence of the respondents' which has been broken, and that the acts of the defendants neglect to fence. The object of the section was to inflict a more serious derogate from their grant. I do not think 80, however. fine in cases where injury had actually arisen.

I cannot see why Acts of Parliament should not legalize acts KENNEDY, J., said that it would be wrong to read the words“ in conse

which would otherwise be actionable wrongs, because the particular form quence of” in the section as if one were considering the rights of the of actionable wrong, consists in a breach of contract either express or parties in an action where one person sued another for damages for implied. Were it otherwise, the result of an action such as this might injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the latter. The be an injunction which would stop the important public works authorized object of the Act was to ensure that the machinery in factories and by the Legislature. Neither does it seem to me to make any difference, workshops was safe. It was quite reasonable for the Legislature to say

as to the question between action and compensation, whether the plainthat where a person had been injured in a factory, the factory owner

tiff's right accrued under leases granted before or after the Acts of should be punished more severely, although the circumstances of the Parliament or either of them. The consideration upon which the decision injury were such that the person injured could not have recovered damages of this question turns is, “Were the Acts complained of within the in an action at law. It was suggested that this reading of the section statutory power?' If so, no matter when or how the plaintiff's rights would include the case where a person intentionally killed or injured arose, it is a case for compensation, not action. As to & portion himself in unfenced machinery, but such a person would not be one who of the plaintiff's hotel, No. 17, it is clear to me that no claim “is killed or suffers bodily injury” within the weaning of the section. on the ground of covenant for quiet enjoyment arising since 1894 can be COUNSEL, Sutton ; Ruegg, Q.C., and Foreman. SOLICITORS, Treasury Solicitor ; maintained in any shape. The plaintiff took a new lease of No. 17 in 1894, B. Webb.

and the correspondence shews that he took it with full knowledge of the Reported by C. G. WILBRAHAM, Barrister-at-Law.]

circumstances, and it is clear that, under the circumstances of this case, either the nuisances are not a breach of the covenant or the lease does not express the intention of the parties in this respect and ought to be reformed. This question, however, is rather academical than practical, as

there is nothing in the facts to which I have referred that, so far as I can CASES OF LAST SITTINGS, eee, interferes with the right of the plaintiff to obtain whatever compen

Eation he may be entitled to under the Lands Clauses Act."-COUNSEL,

Dickens, Q.C., and F. M. Abrahams ; Lawson Walton, Q.O., and J. Eldon High Court-Queen's Bench Division.

Bankes. SOLICITORS, Michael Abrahains, Son, g Co.; Bower, Cotton, $

Bower. CESSFORD v. DOVER HARBOUR BOARD. Wills, J. 1st April.

[Reported by C. G. WILBRAHAM, Barrister-at-Law.] LANDLORD AND TENANT-NUISANCR-COVENANT FOR QUIET ENJOYMENTDEROGATION FROM GRANT-WORKS DONE UNDER STATUTORY POWBRS.

SAUNDERS (Appellant) ». THORNEY (Respondent). Div. Court. This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, who

5th April were his landlords, to recover damages in respect of his hotel being LICENSING LAW-SUNDAY CLOSING-DELIVERY ON SUNDAY or Beer ORDERED injuriously affected by works executed by the defendants on land adjoin ON SATURDAY-OPENING HOUSE FOR SALE DURING CLOSING HOURS ing the hotel. The plaintiff was proprietor and tenant of the Esplanade SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 61), ss. 1, 2Hotel, Dover. He held a portion of the hotel (No. 18) under a lease from

LICENSING ACT, 1874 (37 & 38 VICT. C. 49), s. 9. the defendants dated 1877 and the remaining portion (No. 17) under a lease dated 1894. In 1892, under powers granted by an act of Parliament

Case stated by justices of the peace sitting as a court of summary of 1891, the defendants began, and up to the date when this action was jurisdiction at Aberdare, in the county of Glamorgan. An information brought continued, to construct a new deep water harbour at Dover, and

was laid under section 1 of the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act, 1881 (44 & for that purpose they manufactured large concrete blocks upon the land 45 Vict. c. 61), by the respondent, who was a superintendent of police, immediately adjoining the plaintiff's hotel. The plaintiff's claim was in against the appellant for having on Sunday, the 14th day of November, 1897, respect of the nuisance and loss of amenities caused by the work. He at the parish of Aberdare-ho then being a person licensed for the sale complained of the following matters : (1) The noise, dust, and smoke of beer by retail at his house and premises-unlawfully opened his house created by the apparatus for mixing the concrete, by the apparatus called for the sale of beer on the said Sunday. After hearing the evidence, the the Goliath by which blocks of concrete were moved from place to place, justices convicted the appellant and fined him twenty shillings and costs and by the locomotives and steam engines and wagons employed; (2) the At the hearing the following facts were proved : The appellant is a beernoise created by the landing, by means of a steam crane, of materials house-keeper and holds a beerhouse licence under the Act 1 Will. 4, c. 64, for making concrete; (3) the destruction of an attractive view;

and the Acts amending the same, in respect of certain premises occupied by (4) dust and noise made in the unloading, storing, and carting him and authorizing him to sell by retail beer to be consumed on or off of cement at a large shed erected by the defendants at the back of the the premises. On Sunday, the 14th of November, 1897, about 10 o'clock hotel; (5) destruction of amenities by the erection of the same shed. The at night, a girl was seen by a police-constable to come out of the plaintiff's claim was for damages in respect of the premises as constituting appellant's house by the front door, and upon going up to her the (1) a nuisance; (2) a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment; (3) a

constable found that she had two bottles of porter. He took her back to derogation from the defendants' grant. It was contended on his behalt the appellant's house and saw the appellant and asked why he had that the statute did not override the defendants' contractual liability supplied the porter. He said he had not done so. His wife, who was towards the plaintiff as bis landlords (Sanderson v. Mayor of Berwick-upon- present, said she had supplied the girl with the two bottles for a Mr. Tweed (13 Q. B. D. 547) and Robinson v. Kilvert (4 ch. Ď. 88)); and it Watkins, and there were ten more to come, as he had ordered and paid was pointed out that the statutory powers were permissive only and not for a dozen there yesterday. It was explained on behalf of the imperative. It was further contended that the defendants were liable appellant, which explanation was accepted as a fact by the justices, upon the ground that, in carrying out their statutory powers, they did that the said Mr. Watkins had ordered of the appellant's wife not employ the means least likely to cause injury to others. Upon this and paid two shillings for case of a dozen bottles of porter point Gas Light and Coke Co. v. Vestry of St. itary Abbotts (15 Q. B. D. 1) on the Saturday evening which she, the appellant's wife, arranged to and Metropolitan Asylums District v. Hii (6 App. Cas. 193) were cited. The deliver at Watkins' house on the Saturday, but having met with an defendants relied upon their Act of Parliament which authorized the accident by falling down and spraining her arm, she had forgutten to give works in question. It was contended that, with regard to the portion of instructions for the delivery of the porter. Watkins on the Sunday the hotel, No. 17, beld under a lease dated 1894 the plaintiff had no right night, finding that the porter had not been delivered as arranged, sent of action since he took the premises with full knowledge of the inconveni

over his servant, who was the girl stopped by the constable, to the appel. ences to which he would be subjected; and with regard to the remaining lant's house and requested the appellant's wife to let him have two of portion it was contended that if the plaintiff had any remedy it would be the bottles of porter. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that by compensation under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and not by under the circumstances aforesaid the appellant had not opened his action-Kirby v. School Board for Harrogate-no action being maintainable house for the sale of beer on the said Sunday within the meaning of unless the work done was in excess of the statutory powers or there was section 9 of the Licensing Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 49), which by sectiou negligence in the execution of it: Brand v. Hammersmith Railway Co. (L. 2 of the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 61), applies to

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

case

premises closed under the last-named Act. The justices were of opinion hill. March 31. So far as regards the said William Linsey Teather, that the sale of the porter was not complete until delivery, and that in who retires from the firm. delivering the two bottles on the Sunday the appellant opened his house

Chas. W. Wright, C. PERCY CHARLESWORTH, RICHARD Wilson, and for the sale of intoxicating liquors within the meaning of section 9 of the Geo. K. CHARLESWORTH, solicitors (Wright, Charlesworths, & Wilson, and Licensing Act, 1874. The question of law for the opinion of the court Charlesworth & Co.), Skipton and settle. So far as Charles William was whether under the circumstances the justices were right in holding Wright is concerned.

[Gazette, April 22. that intoxicating liquor having been ordered of the appellant and paid for during the time his licensed premises were allowed to be open, but

GENERAL. delivered by him during the period during which his premises were required to be closed, constituted the offence of opening his house for the Lord Justice Williams has been absent from the Appeal Court for some sale of beer during prohibited hours. The Sunday Closing (Wales) Act, days in consequence of the serious illness of his son, Mr. Roland Vaughan 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 61), provides, section 1: "In the Principality of Williams. Wales all premises in which intoxicating liquors are sold or exposed for cale by retail shall be closed during the whole of Sunday''; section 2: eighteen are English and three are Scotch appeals, there being none from

The list of the House of Lords consists of twenty-one cases, of which “ The Licensing Acts, 1872-1874, shall apply in the case of any premises closed under this Act as if they bad been closed under those Acts." The Ireland. There are also nine cases awaiting judgment. Licensing Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 49), provides, section 9 : Any It is stated that 100 Chancery witness actions are now in course of person who, during the time at which premises for the sale of intoxicating transfer to Mr. Justice Byrne for hearing, of which 40 are from the list of liquors are directed to be closed by or in pursuance of this Act, selis or Mr. Justice North, and 30 each from Mr. Justice Stirling and Mr. Justice exposes for sale in such premises any intoxicating liquors, or opens or Romer. keeps open such premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors,

Mr. Justice Wright will preside at the last of the series of law lectures shall for the first offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, given under the auspices the Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association, and for any subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding twenty which will take place in the Lecture Room, Gray's-inn, on Tuesday evenpounds."

ing next, when Mr. H. Reed, Q.O., will deliver an address on the subject The Court (Lord RUSSELL OF Killowen, C.J., and CHANNELL, J.) of “ Bills of Sale." upheld the decision of the magistrates, and dismissed the appeal.

The Times says that to show the increasing number of actions entered Lord RUSSELL OF KillowEN, C.J.-In my judgment the magistrates in the Commercial List, it may be mentioned that Mr. Justice Mathew were right in this case.. I base my judgment first upon the exact facts of had fifty-four summonses relating to these cases before him for hearing this case, and the decision in the view of the court is not a decision upon on Saturday last, eighteen of which were marked to be attended by any facts except the exact facts of this case. The charge against the counsel. The learned judge disposed of all of them except three or four, appeliant was based on section 9 of the Licensing Act, 1874, and the which were adjourned. offence was committed in the Principality of Wales, in which there was in operation the Sunday Closing Act, 1881. The charge against the Law Courts until the beginning of next week, as he is prolonging his

Mr. Justice Hawkins, says the Times, is not expected to return to the appellant was that on the day in question he had kept his premises open Eater holiday in consequence of having to forego the ensuing, Whitsun for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The facts were there. The magis- vacation. tra'es believed the version of the matter given by the appellant's wife, that Circuit for the Summer Assizes at the end of May next, he will con

As the learned judge will have to start on the South-Eastern a person had ordered from her on the Saturday a dozen bottles of porter, requently be sitting during the Whitsun holidays. but that owing to an accident this was not delivered on the Saturday at the time it ought to have been delivered. What was the

Sir Henry Fowler was, says the Pall Mall Gazette, suddenly seized with lezal effect of the transaction on the Sunday ? The whole | illness in the House of Commons on the 21st inst. In the midst of a transaction was simply a contract on the part of the licensed speech on the Budget he abruptly stopped, sat down on the Front victualler to sell of twelve bottles of porter ;

a Opposition Bench, and drew his hand across his forehead. The faintness contract wbich would have been satisfied by the sale of any happily passed off in a few moments, and Sir Henry was able to conclude twelve bottles of porter. There was no appropriation of any his remarks. specific goods, and the matter rested therefore entirely on contract

On Saturday last, says the Daily Telegraph, on the screen board in the and no property passed under or by virtue of that contract. Then on the halls of the four Inns of Court there appeared the names of forty-two Sunday the house was opened for the delivery of these two bottles of gentlemen desirous of being called to the Bar in the present Easter Term. porter, in respect of which no property had passed to the purchaser. Is This is a smaller number than usual, and it is a singular fact that that or is it not evidence of an offence within section 9? In my judg- barristers to the number of four only, and one solicitor, send up their ment-not without some doubt-I think it was. I think the delivery on

sons to follow the profession of the law in its bigher branch. An African the Sunday was a material part in the carrying out and giving effect to king and an Austrian barcn supply a son apiece. Lincoln's-inn is the contract which was made on the Saturday, a contract under which no exceptional in “calling" seven vatives of India. The Inner Temple specific goods were appropriated. That seems to me to be the legal effect heads the list with 17, Lincoln's-inn counts 14, the Middle Temple 7, and of what took place, and I arrive at the conclusion that there was sufficient Gray's-inn a modest 4. to justify the magistrates in coming to the conclusion they did come to, that the appellant had committed an offence within the section. It is begins the Easter sittings with a list of no less than 685 cases. Many of

A solicitor writes to the Times pointing out that “ the Chancery Division perfectly clear that if publicans were to be allowed to say that although these have already been set down to be heard for the last six months, and tbey delivered beer on the Sunday it was in pursuance of antecedent contracts made on the Saturday without any specifio appropriation of many of them will not be heard for another twelve. This is a perfect the goods, it would open a very wide door to an evasion of what must scandal and reproach to the administration of justice. Forty years ago, have been the intention of the Legislature.

when there were only two equity judges_to do the work—the ViceCHANNELL, J.-I am of the same opinion. I think a person opens his the former and 80 before the latter were thought sufficient warrant for

Chancellor of England and the Master of the Rolls-105 cases pending before premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors within the meaning of section 9 when he opens them for the carrying out of any material part of the appointing two more Vice-Chancellors. Now there are 137 before each judge transaction of sale.-COUNSEL, S. 1. Evans ; W. D. Benson, SOLICITORS, and then. This is a most ridiculous remedy for the evil. To keep down

on the average, and yet the only relief is to call in a Divorce judge now Bell, Brodrick, f Gray, for Linton f. C. & W. Kenshole, Aberdare; Wrentmore of Son, for Lewis & Jones, Merthyr Tydal.

arrears properly there ought to be at least four more equity judges. All

this delay only heaps up expense, worry, anxiety, and vexation, and locks [Reported by Sir SHERSTON BAKER, Bart., Barrister-at-Law.]

up millions of unemployed capital.”

The Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Law sat on Tuesday to consider the Solicitors (Ireland) Bill. On Clause 6, which

declares that no person shall act as solicitor unless admitted and enrolled, LEGAL NEWS.

the Solicitor-General for Ireland moved an amendment providing that a

clerk or officer appointed for that purpose might act for the solicitor for APPOINTMENTS.

any Government department in any petty sessions court. The amendment

wag agreed to, and the clause as amended was added to the Bill. Mr. Mr. WALTER HENRY MACNAMARA, barrister, has been appointed an Greene moved an amendment to clause 16 permitting bona fide clerks to Assistant Master of the Queen's Bench Division. Mr. Macnamara also solicitors for seven years to be admitted after three years' service. He holds the office of Registrar to tho Railway and Canal Commission.

proposed that the seven should be altered to ten, in order to bring the Mr. Edmund ROBERTSON, Q.C., M.P., of the Northern Circuit, and Mr. provision into conformity with Engiish practice. The amendment was H. Y. STANGER, Q.C., of the Midland Circuit, have been elected Benchers rejected. A good deal of discussion took place on the clauses dealing of the Honourable Society of Lincoln's-inn, in succession to the late Sir with the procedure relating to striking off the roll. Serjeant Hemphili Frank Lockwood, Q.C., and the late Mr. F. W. Gibbs, Q.C., O.B. proposed an amendment empowering the disciplinary committee of the Mr. Louis A. Kershaw, Q.C., has received the honour of Knighthood the purpose of inquiry or application made to them under the Act. With

Incorporated Law Society to require the attendance of witnesses” for on his appointment to the office of Chief Justice of the High Court at out this power, he said, the inquiry would in many instances be abortive. Allahabad.

Mr. T. M. Healy thought it highly undesirable to give this power in a

country where there was great jealousy of the erection of new courts. CHANGES IN PARTNERSHIPS.

Why was the bar not to have this power? The amendment was negaD198OLUTIONS.

tived. Mr. T. M. Healy congratulated his countrymen on having thus

escaped the setting-up in their midst by wily English solicitors of a little JABEZ MODIARMID, WILLIAM LINSEY TEATHER, and FREDERICK WILLIAM inquisitorial court which would afterwards be transferred to this conntry. Hill, solicitors (McDiarmid, Teather, & Hill), 5, Newman's-court, Corn- | The Bill as amended was ordered to be reported to the House

Mr. Justice

NORTI.

Mr. Justice
STIRLING.

No. 2.

2 ......... 3

5 6 7

Beal
Leach
Beal

ROMER.

Farmer

Rolt

2 3 4 5 6 7

Farmer

Rolt

Rolt

Harding v Pooley app of dft from judgt of Justices Wright and Kennedy,

dated Nov 3, 1897 Dec 1 COURT PAPERS.

Clarkson v Button app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Ridley, da ted SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.

Nov 26, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Dec 1

Wiesener v Levison app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Darling, dated
ROTA OF REGISTRARS IN ATTENDANCE ON

Nov 10, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Dec 3
Dato.
APPEAL COURT

Attorney-Gen (Informant) + O M Strange (Revenue) app of informant

from judgt of Justices Vaughan Williams and Kennedy, dated Aug 12, Monday, May ............

Mr. Beal

Mr. Jackson Mr. Pugh
Tuesday

1897 Dec 6
Leach
Carrington

Lavie
Wednesday

Jackson

Pugb Hall v Mildren app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Channell, dated Nov Thursday

Carrington

Lavie

12, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Dec 6 Friday

Jackson

Pugh
Saturday

Stange & Co v Lowitz app of dit from judgt of Mr Justice Ridley, dated
Leach
Carrington

Lavie

Nov 24, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex (security ordered)
Mr. Justice Mr. Justice

Mr. Justice Dec 8
KEKEWICH.

BYRNE. E J Phillips v The School Board for London (Crown Side) app of plt Monday, May

Mr. King

Mr. Godfrey Mr. Pemberton from judgt of Justices Wright and Kennedy, dated Oct 27, 1897 Dec 9 Tuesday

Ward

R K Cockerton v The School Board for London (Crown Side) app of plt Wednesday....................

King
Godfrey

Pemberton
Thursday

Ward

from judgt of Justices Wright and Kennedy, dated Oct 27, 1897 Dec 9 Friday

King
Godfrey

Pemberton Sea Insurance Co, ld & anor v Blogg app of dit from judgt of Mr Justice
Saturday ......................
Farmer

Ward

Mathew, dated Nov 5, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Dec 10
Mackinnon v Clark app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Kennedy, dated

Dec 2, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Dec 11
COURT OF APPEAL,

Belmarco v The London Hanseatic Bank, ld app of dfts from judgt of
EASTER SITTINGS, 1898.

Mr Justice Mathew, dated Nov 29, 1897, at trial without a jury Dec 14

Groves ~ Wimborne app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Grantham, (Continued from p. 437.)

dated Dec 3, 1897, at trial without a jury, Cardiff Dec 14 Hallett v Hallett app of dft G Hallett from order of Mr Justice Gorell Schneker, Walford, & Co v Glanville & ors app of plts from judgt of Mr Barnes (sitting, &c.), dated Feb 9, 1898

Justice Bigham, dated Dec 3, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex

Dec 17 Wright v Long app of plt from order of Mr Justice Gorell Barnes (sitting, &c.), dated Feb 4, 1898 (order not perfected) March 7

Major v Storey app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Darling, dated Dec In re R P Jones In re G A E P Jones Billington v Bygott app of 10, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Dec 18

plt from order of Mr Justice Byrne, dated Dec 11, 1897 March 8 The Pontefract Park Trustees (Applts) v The Assessment Committee of In re The Registered Trade Mark, No. 70,078, by Wright, Crossley, &

the Pontefract Union (Rspts) (Crown Side) app of applts from judgt of Co. and the Patents, Designs, &c. Acts app of The Royal Baking Justices Wright & Kennedy, dated Nov 26, 1897 Dec 20 Powder Co. from order of Mr Justice Romer, dated March 4, 1898 J. Hartley & ors (Applts) v The Assessment Committee of the Pontefract (order_not perfected) March 9

Union (Respts) (Crown Side) app of applts from judgt of Justices Clark v E Sharp & Co app of plt from order of Mr. Justice Byrne, dated Wright & Kennedy, dated Nov 26, 1897 Dec 20 Feb 15, 1898 March 11

Warren v Moore app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Hawkins, dated Ecroyd y Coulthard app of John Leach & aur from order of Mr Justice Dec 14, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Dec 23 North, dated March 23, 1898 March 16

The West London Syndicate ld (applts) v The Commrs of Inland Revenue In re Perkins Poyser v Beyfus app of dfts from order of Mr Justice (rspts) (Revenue) app of applts from jdgt of Justices Grantham and North, dated Feb 23, 1898 (order not perfected) March 18

Channell, dated Dez 15, 1897 Dec 30 In re Woods & Lewis & V & P Act, 1874 app of Barnet-Lewis from The National Telephone Co 1d (applts) v The Commrs of Inland Revenue order of Mr Justice Romer, dated March 4, 1898 March 18

(røpts) (Revenue) app of applts from jdgt of Justices Grantham and In re The Truffault Cycle & Tube Manufacturing Co ld and Iu re Com Channell, dated Dec 14, 1897 Des 30

panies Acts, 1862 to 1890 app of company from order of Mr Justice Byme, dated March 16, 1898 (order not perfected) March 23

1898. In re The Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890 & In re Baxters ld app of Woolf v Hamilton app of pltf from. jdgt of Mr Justice Darling, dated Baxters ld from order of Mr Justice Wright, dated March 2, 1898

Dec 21, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex_Jau 4 March 24

Andrews v Lubbock app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Channell, dated Brabourne v Anglo-Austrian Print & Publishing Cold Dobell v Same Dec 18, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Jan 4

app of Nunn & Popham from order of Mr Justice Wright, dated March Part's Banking Co, id v Yates app of aft from judgt of Mr Justice Bruce, 16, 1898 (order not perfected) March 26

dated Dec 15, 1897, at trial without a jury, Liverpool Jan 6 Ward » Mayor, &c of Boro' of Portsmouth app of plt from order of R H Buckley & Sons, Id v N Buckley & Sons app of dfts from judgt of

Mr Justice Byrne, dated March 25, 1898 (order not perfected) Mr. Justice Bruce, dated Dec 20, 1897, at trial, &c, Salford Jan 11 March 28

The Salt Union, id v The North Staffordshire Ry Co (Railway and Canal In re The Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890, and In re The General Phos

Commission) app of applts from judgt of Mr Justice Wright, The phate Corpn ld app of The Mortgage Insce Corpn ld from order of Right Hon Sir F Peel, and The Right Hon Viscount Cobham, dated Mr Justice Wright, dated March 23, 1898 (order not perfected) Dec 17, 1897 Jan 12 March 28

Walton Churchill app of plt from judgt of Mr. Justice Bigham, dated Osmond's ld v Balmoral Cycle Co app of dfts from order of Mr Justice

Dec 13, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Jan 12 Kennedy (for Mr Justice Nortb), dated March 29, 1898 (order not per- Trent Cycle Co, id v Davis app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Phillifected) April 2

more, dated Dec 20, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Jan 12 In re The Inverell Diamond Field ld & Co's Acts, 1862 to 1890 app of Boyd, id v Wilkinson app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Channell,

the Honduras Government Banking & Trading Co ld from order of Mr Justice North, dated April 1, 1898 (order not perfected) April 5

dated Nov 5, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Jan 19 Attorney-Gen v Siddall app of deft from order of Mr Justice Kekewich, Mayor, &c of the Boro’ of Thetford v County Council of Norfolk app of

plt from judgt of Mr. Justice Wills, dated Dec 12, 1897, at trial dated January 21, 1898 April 5 Manchester, Sheffield, & Lincolnshire Ry Co v Anderson, app of deft W Bartlett Ý Ý Mears & M A Box (trading, &c, as M'A Box & Co

without a jury and cross notice of respts, dated March 18, 1898 Jan 21 from order of Mr. Justice Byrne, dated March 24, 1898 (order not

(Crown Side) app of plt from judgt of Justices Day & Lawrance, dated perfected) April 6

Jan 19, 1898 Jan 27 Day v Challis app of plts from order of Mr Justice Byrne, dated April w Bartlett v W A Pearson & M A Box (trading, &c, as M A Box & Co) 1, 1898 (order not perfected) April 6

(Crown side) app of plt from judgt of Justices Day & Lawrance, dated In re The City Assets Cold & Clarkson & V & P Act, 1874 app of the City Assets Co from order of Mr Justice Stirling, dated March 14, 1898 Stirling Cycle Works v Bowden & ors

Jan 19, 1898 Jan 27 (order not perfected) April 6

app. of plt from judgt of Mr

Justice Kennedy, dated Jan 18, 1898, at a trial without a jury, MiddleBence v Shearman app of deft TShearman ( from order of Mr Justice

sex Jan 28 Kekowich, dated Feb 11, 1898 April 7 In re White Pennell v Franklin app of deft from order of Mr Justice

Pettick Bros (respts) v The County Council of Dorset (applts) (Crown side) Kekewich, dated Jan 13, 1898 April 7

app of applts from judgt of Justices Day & Lawrance, dated Jan 14,

1898 Jan 28 FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

New London Credit Syndicate ld v Neale & ors app of plts from judgt of

of Mr Justice Darling, dated Jan 15, 1898, at å trial without a jury, For Herring.

Middlesex Feb 3 (Final List.)

The Queen v London County Council (Crown side) app of Commrs from

judgt of Justices Day & Lawrance, dated Jan 11, 1898 Feb 3 1897.

Walker v Tafft app of dft from judgt of the Lord Chief Justice, dated Oxley (an infant) < Wilks & ors app of dfts from judgt of Mr Justice Dec 18, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 4 Darling, dated Nov 15, 1897, at trial with common jury, Middlesex The Attorney-General y The Right Hon Earl Grey (Revenue) Nov 29

from judgt of Justices Grantham & Channell, dated Dec 13, 1897 Lyons v Showell's Brewery Cold app of plt from judgt of Mr Feb 5

Justice Mathew, dated Nov 22, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Syer v Alder app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Channell, dated Jan Dec 1

21, 1898, at a trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 5

app of dft

Cole v Essex & anr app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Mathew, dated Bue y Bywater app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Day, dated March Jan 24, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 8.

22, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex March 30 Simcoe v Pethick (Crown Side) app of aft from judgt of Justices Day & Stanley v Mumford app of aft from judgt of Mr Justice Day, dated Lawrance, dated Jan 14, 1898 Feb 9

March 21, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex March 31
Dymock v Showell's Brewery Cold & anr app of dfts from judgt of Mr McGuffie v Burleigh app of dft from judgt of Mr. Justice Bruca, dated

Justice Kennedy, dated Jan 12, 1898, at trial without a jury, Liverpool March 24, 1898, Middlesex (jury diecharged) March 31
Feb 9

Foster v Simpson app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Bigham, dated The London & Universal Bank Id (in liquidation) v_Sabow & Cu app of March 31, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex March 31 dfts from judgt of Mr Justice Mathew, dated Jan 12, 1898, at trial Greenwood v Francis app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Day, dated without a jury, Middlesex Feb 11

March 18, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex March 31 A C Watson v JH Holmes (Crown Side) app of plt from judgt of Hall v Cox app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Lawrance, dated March Justices Grantham and Channell, dated Dec 17, 1897 Feb 11

23, 1898, West Riding, York April 2 CE Reynolds, &c (next friend) v H L Holloway (Crown Side) app of Thomson & anr v Elwards app of applts from judgt of Mr Justice

plt from judgt of Justices Day & Lawrance, dated Jan 18, 1898 Grantham, dated March 22, 1898, at trial without a jury, MiddleFeb 11

sex April 4 The City of London Brewery Co ld, applts v The Commrs of Inland Miller y Harding app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Grantham, dated

Revenue, respts (Revenue) app of applts from judgt of Justices Gran March 31, 1898 April5 tham and Channell, dated Dec 14, 1897 Feb 12

Turner v Bowles Bowles v Turner & anr (by counter-claim) app of E & Bonner & anr v Tottenbam & Edmonton Permanent Investment Building C A Turner from judgt of Mr Justice Channell, dated Feb 1, 1898, at

Soc app of plts from judgt of Mr Justice Ohannell, dated Feb 7, 1898, trial without a jury, Middlesex April 5 at trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 12

Field SS Cold v Burr app of plts from judgt of Mr Justice Bigham, Crane v Bevan (Sheppard, 3rd party) app of dit from jdgt of Mr

dated March 22, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex April 5 Justice Channell, dated Feb 9, 1895, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Newby v Eckersley app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Luwrance, dated Feb 15

March 25, 1898, and common jury, Leeds April 5 Bennett (wife, &c) v Slater & aur app of plt from jdgt of Mr Justice A Jones (wife of E J Jones), plt v The Barking Urban District Council, Matthew, dated Jau 26, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex dfts (Crown Side) app of plt from judgt of Justices Wright and Feb 15

Darling, dated March 17, 1898 April 5 Brown v Sharpington app of dft from jdgt of Mr Justice Channell, dated The Southwark & Vauxhall Water Co, appls v The Hampton Urban Jan 25, 1895, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 17

District Council, respts (Crown Side) app of respts from judgt of Taylor & anr v Geary app of deft from jdgt of Mr Justice Ridley, dated Justices Wright & Darling, dated March 18, 1898 April.5 Feb 8, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 18

The Queen on the Prosecution of RB Moore v M T Shore (Crown Side) Boaler v Wertheimer, Lea, & Co app of ptf fin person from jdgt of The

app of prosecutors from judgt of Justices Wright & Darling, dated Lord Chief Justice, 'dated Feb 1, 1898, at trial with special jury, Middle- Webster v Barnett & Son app of asts from judgt of The Lord Chief

March 25, 1898 April 6 sex (security ordered) Feb 22 Rolls v Prell & Ors app of dfts from jdgt of Mr Justice Mathew, dated

Justice, dated March 24, 1898, at trial without a jury, Birmingham Feb 16, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 23

April 6 Tregillus v Spillers & Bakers ld app of plt from jdgt of Mr Justice The Insce Co of North America v The North China Insce Co app of plts Darling, dated Feb 10, 1898, at trial with special jury, Winchester Porter Mulholland app of dit from judgt of Mr Justice Darling, dated

from judgt of Mr Justice Bigham, dated March 31, 1898 April 6 Feb 23 Pash & or3 v Keays app of dft from jdgt of Mr Justice Wright, dated

March 23, 1898, at trial with common jury, Middlesex April 6 Feb 1, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 28

Finch v Woodrow app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Wills, dated Way v Young app of dft from jdgt of Mr Justice Bigbam, dated Feb 22,

March 28, 1898, at trial with common jury, Middlesex April 7 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex March 2

Fleming & Galbraith v L'Esperance Assce Co app of dfts from judgt of Shipway Broadwood app of dft from jdgt of Mr Justice Day, dated Mr Justice Kennedy, dated Feb 18, 1898, at a trial without a jury, Feb 10, 1898, Worcester March 2

Middlesex April 7
Ford v Chichester app of plt from judgt of Mr. Justice Mathew, dated

Jan 21, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex March 7
Martin v Martin & Co & org Martin v Martin & Co (consolidated) app

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
of F Trischler from judgt of Mr Justice Channell, dated Feb 15, 1898,
at trial without a jury, Middlesex (security ordered) March 8

CHANCERY DIVISION. Neale v Neale app of plt from judgt of Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams,

EASTER SITTINGS, 1898. dated

21, 1897, at trial without a jury, Birmingham March 10 Hunter v Tebay app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Bruce, dated Dec

(Continued from p. 438.) 7, 1897, at trial with special jury, Lancaster, and cross notice of deft, dated March 10, 1898 March 11

Before Mr. Justice NORTH.

23,111 of 1893, and Patents, &c, Watkins (trustee, &c) v Lindsay & Co app of plt from judgt of Mr

Causes for Trial (with witnesses). Acts pto entered in Witness Justice Wright, dated Feb 24, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex In re Buckett Aldridge v Buckett List March 12

act

Shaw v Holland act Palmer & Co Id v Muir app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Bigham, Simmance w sugg & Co, ld act Kerfoot v Godlonton act dated March 3, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex March 16

Darby v London Agency, id act In re Graydon's Patents, No 18,007 Martin & anr v Raffety app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Wright, Delannoy The Hostabuch Copper of 1893 & No 16,927 of 1894 pta dated March 5, 1898, at tiial without a jury, Middlesex March 16 Syndicate, ld act

entered in Witness List House & Land Investment Trust ld & org v Estcourt app of plts from

Edison United Phonograph Co, &c, Smith v Bridgwater act judgt of Mr Justice Wills, dated March 4, 1898, at trial without a jury, Keates ✓ Keates act & counter

ld v Roberts act

Blair v Fuller's ld act Middlesex March 17

A Lawes ld v Goodchild act

claim Pneumatic Tyre Co id v Leicester Pneumatic Tyre Co

South African Republic v La Com.

app of defts from judgt of Mr Justice Kennedy, dated March 5, 1898, at trial Duhamel et Cie v Cunningham Egg

Reynolds v Biltcliffe act

pagnie Franco-Belge du Chemin without a jury March 17

de fer du Nord, &c act Owners of the Wool Cargo lately on board the SS "Waikato". New Ellis v Churly act

Fruit Co act

Zumbeck v Bradford act Zealand Shipping Co ld app of dfts from judgt of Mr Justice Bigham, Goode Bridgwater & Cu

Stedman v Carpenter act & mfi

act T P Lee & Co ld v T P Lee act dated March 4, 1898, at trial without jury, Middlesex March 18

Banister v Landon act

Paine v Clements act Lower Rhine & Wurthenburg Ingce Assoc v Sedgwick app of plts from Burr v Sir J Pitman & Sons ld act Weymss v Knollys act &mfj judgt of Mr Justice Kennedy, dated Feb 11, 1898, at trial without jury, without pleadings

In re Elliott Milnes v Hare act Middlesex March 18

Holford v Blaiberg act (pleadings T E Brinsmead & Sons ld v Lomas The Valveless Gas Engine Syndicate ldv Day app of plts from judgt of to be delivered)

act & mij Mr Justice Bigham, dated March 1, 1898 March 19

Davis v White Cliffs Opal Mines ld Kemp v Lowenfeld act Roberts & ors v Thomas & ors app of dfts from judgt of Mr Justice act

Pankhurst v Reed act Wright, dated March 12, 1898 March 22

White Cliffs Opal Mines Id v Davis Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Coldy Foxwell & ord v Van Grutten app of plts from judgt of Mr Justice

act (transferred from Q B Divi Wedge Pneumatic Tyre Co ld Bigham, dated March 17, 1898 March 24

sion)

act Winton (in forma pauperis) v Price app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Inskip v Horwood act

Bolton v Hall ach Darling, dated March 9, 1898 March 25

Leigh v Baron de L'Isle act

Collis v Gray act Chapman v Harding Bros app of dfts from judgt of Mr Justice Darling, Poney v Hordern act & mfj Smith v Sharp act dated Feb 24, 1898 March 25

The London Property Investment Cox v Manuelle act Seaton v Keats & ors app of A Batley, a dft, from judgt of Mr Justice Co ld v Shinalnicoff act

Tanton v Bull act Day, dated March 16, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex In re Waymouth Waymouth v Urban District Council of Chiswick March 28

Waymouth act

v Arnold (J Whitaker 3rd party) Duxbury v Sandiford (Crown Side) app of det from judgt of Justices Willis v Aste act

act Wright & Darling, dated March 18, 1898 March 30

The Improved Electric Glo Lamp Irvine v Irvine & Co ld act The Venezuela Central Ry Co, Id v The Construction Investment Co, la Co v The Edison and Swan Mordecai v Crown act app of afts from judgt of Mr Justice Wright, dated March 8, 1898, at United Electric Light Cold act Rogs v Caseley act trial without a jury, Middlesex March 30°

In re Joel & Fantas' Patent, No ! In re Strickland Skarfe v Strick

« PreviousContinue »