Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

(i.) C. C. R.-Obtaining Goods by False Pretences-Obtaining Credit by Fraud-Larceny-24 & 25 Vict., c. 96, s. 88—Debtors Act, 1869, s. 13.— A person cannot be convicted of the offence of obtaining goods by false pretences unless he has made some misrepresentation either by word or conduct. It is not sufficient for a conviction under sect. 88 of 24 & 25 Vict., c. 96, to show that the prisoner obtained goods from an intending vendor, not having the means to pay for them and intending to defraud the owner, but without making any representation either as to his ability or intention. Nor can there be a conviction for larceny as the owner intended to part with the property on the goods; but the prisoner may be convicted for obtaining credit by fraud under sect. 13 of the Debtors Act, 1869. A vendor who delivers goods on the terms that they are to be paid for immediately after they have been received gives credit to the purchaser.-Reg. v. William Jones, 77 L.T. 503.

Fixtures:-
:-

(ii.) C. A.-Collection of Stuffed Birds-Settled Mansion House-Movable Chattels in Fixed Cases-Annexation to Freehold.-Decision of Court of Appeal (22, 97, iv.) affirmed.-Viscount Hill v. Bullock, L.R. [1897] 2 Ch. 482; 77 L.T. 240.

Friendly Society:

(iii.) Q. B. D.-Alteration of Rules Rule giving power of AlterationSubsequent Alteration of Rules-Effect of on Members' Vested Rights.—A rule made by a friendly society under the power given by sect. 27 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1855, was to the effect that no new rule should be made or any rule altered except with the consent of a majority of members present at a general meeting. Held, that this rule continued in force notwithstanding the repeal in 1875 of the statute under which it was made, that it preserved to the society the right to alter their rules, and that members who joined the society when such rule was in force were bound by future alterations of the rules duly made thereunder.-Smith v. Galloway, 77 L.T. 469.

Highways:

(iv.) H. L.-Highways-Extraordinary Traffic-Person by whose Order Conducted-Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict., c. 77), s. 23.-Decision of Court of Appeal (22, 64, vi) affirmed. -Kent County Council v. Lord Gerard, L.R. [1897] A.C. 633; 77 L.T. 109.

(v.) Q. B. D.—Bicycle Riding on Highway at Night without Light—Power of Police Officer to Arrest Offender-Assault-Highway Act, 1835, ss. 78, 79-Local Government Act, 1888, s. 85.--A constable has no right to arrest a person riding a bicycle on the highway at night without a lighted lamp, as required by the regulations contained in sect. 85 of the Local Government Act, 1888. That section does not incorporate the power of arrest without warrant contained in sects. 78, 79, of the Highway Act, 1835. A constable, who forcibly stops a bicyclist for not having a light, is guilty of assault.-Hatton v. Treeby, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 452; 77 L.T. 309.

[ocr errors]

(vi.) Q. B. D.-Locomotive-"User on Highway-Locomotive Passing from one Locality to Another-Licence--Bye-Laws-Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, s. 32.-The owner of a locomotive passing along a highway from one locality to another, not having a licence from the county authority as provided by its bye-laws, is liable to be fined under

sect. 32 of the Highways and Locomotives Act, 1878, for "using" the highway without having such a licence.-London County Council v. Wood, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 482; 77 L.T. 312.

Husband and Wife:

(i.) H. L.-Judicial Separation-Legal

Cruelty-What ConstitutesUnfounded Abominable Charge.-Matrimonial conduct to amount to legal cruelty must be such as to have caused danger, or reasonable apprehension of danger to life. limb, or health, bodily or mental. Where a wife living apart from her husband persisted mala fide in making an unfounded abominable charge against the husband, it was held that this did not amount to legal cruelty sufficient to support a petition for judicial separation.- Russell v. Russell, L.R. [1897] A.C. 395; 77 L.T. 249. (ii.) C. A.-Separation Deed — Covenant not to Molest-Breach-Divorce Proceedings in Foreign Country. The mere taking of divorce proceedings in a foreign country without proof of intention to annoy, does not amount to molestation within the meaning of a covenant not to molest in a separation deed made between British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom. Decision of Court below (23, 8, i.) reversed. -Hunt v. Hunt, 77 L.T. 421.

Justices:

(iii.) Q. B. D.—Disqualification-Bias -Interest-Prosecution by Council of Incorporated Law Society - Ordinary Member of Society sitting as Magistrate-Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1874, s. 12.-An ordinary member of the Incorporated Law Society is not, as such, disqualified from adjudicating as a magistrate upon a summons under the Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1874, against a person for falsely pretending to be a solicitor. Such circumstances do not shew a probability of bias on the part of the magistrate, either as having a pecuniary interest in the proceedings or as prosecutor, for ordinary members of the Society have no voice in the institution of proceedings, which rests entirely with the Council.-Reg. v. Burton and Another, Justices; e. p. Young, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 468; 77 L.T. 364.

(iv). Q. B. D.-Vaccination Act, 1867-Costs of Order-Imprisonment in Default of Payment-Summary Jurisdiction Acts, 1849, s. 18; 1879, s. 6.-An order made by justices on summons under sect. 31 of the Vaccination Act, 1867, directing a person to have his child vaccinated within a certain time, and that he should pay the costs of the order, and on failure to do so that there should be distress, with imprisonment in default of distress, is good under sect. 18 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848. This section is not repealed by sect. 6 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, except so far as it gives jurisdiction to enforce orders for payment of money by distress and imprisonment.-Reg. v. Burrows and Another, Justices; e. p. Wilson, 77 L.T. 338.

Landlord and Tenant:

(v.) C. A.-Market Garden - Contract of Tenancy - Yearly Tenancy Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, s. 61-Market Gardener's Compensation Act, 1895, ss. 1, 4.-A written agreement whereby the landlord let, and the tenant hired, a piece of market garden ground, at the rent of £6, payable quarterly on the four usual quarterly days for payment of rent in every year, with a proviso that the tenancy might be determined by either party giving to the other three calendar months notice to quit on any day of the year, was held to be a letting from year to year and a "contract of tenancy" within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1893, and the Market Gardener's Compensation Act, 1895.-King v. Eversfield, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 475; 77 L.T. 195.

(i.) Q. B. D.-Compensation for Improvements-Notice-Determination of Tenancy Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, s. 7.-Where an agricultural holding consisted of buildings and land, which were to be given up at different times, the tenant gave the statutory notice to claim compensation two months before the buildings were to be given up, but was out of time with regard to the land. Held, that the tenure of the buildings did not constitute a holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, and that the notice was bad. In re Paul; e. p. The Earl of Portarlington, 61 L.T. 835 dist.-Morley v. Carter, 77 L.T. 337.

Licensing Acts:

[ocr errors]

(ii.) H. L.-Meeting of Licensing Justices-Not a Court of Summary Jurisdiction Appeal from Decision Power to Give Costs Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, s. 31, sub-s. 5.-Justices at a licensing meeting are not a Court of Summary Jurisdiction; a refusal to renew a licence is not a "conviction or order;" and on appeal to Quarter Sessions against their decision the latter Court has no power to give costs under sect. 31, sub-sect. (5) of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879. Per Lord Herschell. - Persons objecting to the grant of a licence are not parties to the proceedings on the application.—Boulter v. Justices of Kent, L.R. [1897] A.C. 556; 77 L.T. 288.

(iii.) Q. B. D.-Closing Hour-Theatre-Exemption-Licensing Act, 1872, 8. 72 — Licensing Act, 1874, s. 3.-The exemption contained in sect. 72 of the Licensing Act, 1872, in favour of (4) theatre proprietors, only means that such proprietors need not obtain a justices' license, but is to be read as subject to the provisions in the Licensing Act, 1874, sect. 3, as to the hours of closing.-Gallagher v. Rudd, 77 L.T. 367.

Local Government:

(iv.) Q. B. D.—Power of Rural Sanitary Authority to make Bye-Laws— Cesspools in Connection with Buildings-Old Buildings-Public Health Act, 1875, s. 157-Public Health Act Amendment Act, 1890, s. 23.—A bye-law of a sanitary authority, providing that every person who should construct a cesspool in connection with a building should construct it at a distance of fifty feet at least from a dwelling-house, held not to be unreasonable, merely because it was impossible to construct a cesspool at the prescribed distance. The power of a rural sanitary authority under sect. 157 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and sect. 23 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890, to make bye-laws as to cesspools connected with buildings, extends to old buildings existing before making the bye-laws as well as to new buildings. -Simmons v. Malling Rural District Council, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 433; 77 L.T. 341.

(v.) Q. B. D.- Tithe Map- Custody-Order of County Council-Power of Justices to Enforce-Tithe Act, 1860, s. 28-Local Government Act, 1894, 8. 17 (8).-A county council made an order, under sect. 17 (8) of the Local Government Act, 1894, that a tithe apportionment and map of a certain parish should be placed in such custody as the parish council should direct. The rector of the parish, in whose custody they were, declined to comply with the order. Held, that justices had power, under sect. 28 of the Tithe Act, 1860, to make an order that these documents should be moved from the custody of the rector and deposited in that of the parish council.—Lewis (appellant) v. Poole (respondent), 77 L.T. 369.

(vi.) C. A.-Urban Authority-Contract Under Seal-Alterations not Under Seal-Agreement not Under Seal to Compromise Claims-Public Health Act, 1875, ss. 173, 174.- Under a contract made by an urban authority

with a contractor, and sealed with the common seal of the authority pursuant to sects. 173, 174 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and containing the usual clause empowering the engineer to make alterations, these may be made without requiring the sanction of the common seal of the authority. An agreement between an urban authority and a contractor compromising all claims by him against the authority is not a contract within sect. 173 necessary for carrying the Act into execution and need not be sealed with the common seal of the authority.-Williams v. Barmouth Urban District Council, 77 L.T. 383. (i.) Q. B. D.-London County Council-Betterment-Valuation-Licensed Premises Takings and Payments-Tying Covenants-London County Council (Tower Bridge Southern Approach) Act, 1895, s. 36.-In valuing properties under the betterment clauses of the London County Council (Tower Bridge Southern Approach) Act, 1895, the valuer was to assess (1) the site, (2) the site and buildings, (3) the separate value of the owner and every lessee having a term of not less than 21 years to run at the date of the valuation excluding any trade interest. In making such valuation with regard to licensed premises it was held that as to (1) neither takings nor payments, nor the tying covenants were elements to be considered; as to (2), that the rule was the same as to takings and payments when considering the site and buildings, but as to the tying covenant the valuation must be the same whether the cost be considered or not, as it would only affect the apportionment between lessor and lessee; and as to (3), the fact that the house is tied ought to be considered.—In re An Arbitration between London County Council and City of London Brewery Company, 77 L.T. 463.

(ii.) C. A.--“ Streets”—Charge for Paving, Sewering, and Metalling—Trespass -Arbitration-West Hartlepool Extension and Improvement Act, 1870.In 1878 commissioners under a local Act, the material provisions of which were substantially the same as those of the Public Health Act, 1875, entered into an agreement with defendant by which he was, on completion of certain roads, to throw 18 feet of his land into them so as to increase the width to 36 feet (which was done) but not to make the roads. In 1887 the powers of the Commissioners passed to the plaintiffs' corporation. In 1892 the corporation ordered the defendant to sewer, drain, level, flag, and metal the 18 feet width not on his land so far as his premises abutted thereon. The defendant had sewered and paved the 18 feet of his own land and declined to comply with the order, whereupon the corporation did the work and sought to make the expense chargeable on his property. Held, that half of each of the roads was a "street" within the meaning of the Act, and that the corporation were entitled to sewer and pave it compulsorily at the expense of the adjoining owners in case they refused to comply with a proper notice to do it; that the notice was good, and entry under the order on lands was justifiable and not an act of trespass. The defendant not contending that there was any wrong apportionment there arose no question for an arbitrator to decide. Sandgate District Board v. Keene [1892] 1 Q.B. 831 considered.-Mayor, &c., of West Hartlepool v. Robinson, 77 L.T. 387. (iii.) C. D.-Sewering-Satisfaction of Local Authority-Frontages-Expenses -Public Health Act, 1875, s. 150.-The mere existence of private sewers does not constitute a sewering of the street as a whole under the Public Health Act, 1875; still less a sewering "to the satisfaction of the local authority" within sect. 150 of the Act.-Handsworth Local Board v. Taylor, L.R. [1897] 2 Ch. 442, n.

(iv.) C. D.-Sewering-Private Sewers—“ Satisfaction" of Local Authority— Notice to Frontagers — Insufficient Service - Recovery of ExpensesArbitration-Finality of Award.-The existence of sewers under a street

[ocr errors]

for the independent drainage of particular houses and the fact that the street is vested in the local authority are not sufficent to shew that the street has been sewered as a whole-still less that it has been sewered to the satisfaction of the urban authority" within sect. 150 of the Public Health Act, 1875, when notices to sewer have been given by them and proceedings taken under that section. Notice under sect. 150 to frontagers must be served on all the frontagers, but where the question of the apportioned expenses of sewering has been referred to arbitration objections as to insufficiency of notice must be taken before the arbitrators, and it is too late to take them in an action to enforce the award.-Handsworth Urban District Council v. Derrington, L.R. [1897] 2 Ch. 438.

(i.) Q. B. D.-Borough Rates Costs of Quarter and Petty SessionsPopulation under 10,000-Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, s. 169Local Government Act, 1888, ss. 35, 38, 68, 84.-Where the population of a borough does not exceed 10,000, the expenses of borough quarter sessions, including salaries of recorder and clerk of the peace, must be borne by the borough and not by the county council. The salary of the clerk to the borough justices must be paid by the county council.The Mayor, &c. of Thetford v. The Norfolk County Council, 77 L.T. 498.

Lunacy :

(ii.) L. J. J. in Lun.-Appointment of Committee of Property out of Jurisdiction-Security.-In the case of a lunatic (a widow), so found by inquisition, with property situate abroad, the Court appointed her eldest son resident abroad and her daughter resident in England joint committees of her estate, accepting as sufficient security the bond of the committees and of their brothers and sisters, without requiring them to justify, and authorising the committees to sell or concur in selling the estate.—In re Hopper (a Lunatic), 77 L.T. 154.

Mandamus:

(iii.) Q. B. D.-Service of Summonses-Procedure-London_ Building Act, 1894, s. 188 (1)—Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, s. 1.-The procedure for service, under sect. 188 (1) of the London Building Act, 1894, is only available where, after ordinary enquiry, the person cannot be found or identified. Otherwise, the summons should be served according to sect. 1 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848.—Reg. v. Mead; e. p. London County Council, 77 L.T. 462.

Marine Insurance :

(iv.) Q. B. D.--Policy-Damaged Cotton

[ocr errors]

Deck " -Concealment.Instructions were given to a broker to re-insure a cargo of damaged cotton "on deck" to the amount of £7,500. The broker did not inform the underwriter that the cotton was damaged. Held, that the instructions being to insure such a quantity" on deck" shewed that it was damaged cotton and under the circumstances there was no concealment. There was no duty on the broker to say that the cotton was damaged. The British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co., Limited, v. Sturge, 77 L.T. 208.

(v.) H. L.-Loss of Freight-Exception-" Claim Consequent on Loss of Time" -Loss of Time Arising from Peril of the Sea.--Decision of Court of Appeal (22, 45, iv.) affirmed.-Bensaude and Others v. The Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Company, Limited, L.R. [1897] A.C. 609; 77 L.T. 282.

« PreviousContinue »