« PreviousContinue »
(i.) Q. B. D.-Sale of Intoxicating Liquor to Drunken Person by Barman
Liability-Licensing Act, 1872, s. 13.-The licensee of a public-house is guilty under sect. 13 of the Licensing Act if, in his absence and contrary to his standing instructions, his servant supplies intoxicating liquor to a drunken person.—The Commissioners of Police v. Cartman,
L.R.  1 Q.B. 655 ; 74 L.T. 726. Limitations :(ii.) C. A. – Rent-Charge Non-payment Extinguishment Statute of
Limitations, 3 & 4 WVm. IV., c. 27, ss. 1, 2, 34.-A rent-charge is a
“rent" within the Statute.-Jones v. Withers, 74 L.T. 572. Local Government:(iii.) C. A.-District Council--Refusal to Approve Plans for new Buildings
Public Health Act, 1875.-A district council was held not entitled to disapprove of plans of houses in new streets on the ground that they did not shew into what sewer the house drains were to communicate; and on the requirement that the street and outfall sewers should be constructed at the expense of the house owners.---Reg. v. Tynemouth
Rural District Council, L.R.  2 Q.B. 219 ; 75 L.T. 86. (iv.) C. A.--Street-paving Expenses-- Apportionment--- Arbitration--Enforcing
Award-Public Health Act, 1875, ss. 150, 180 (sub-s. 14) --- Arbitration Act, 1889, ss. 12, 24.-An award of an arbitrator under sect. 150 of the Public Health Act, 1875, cannot be enforced under sect. 12 of the
Arbitration Act, 1889.-The Willesden Local Board v. Wright, 75 L.T. 13. (v.) C. A.-" Single Private Drain”—Public Health Act, 1875, 8. 41
Amendment Act, 1890, s. 19.--A private drain connecting houses of several owners with a public sewer was held to be within sect. 19 of the Public Health Act, 1890, rendering the owners liable under sect. 41 of the Public Health Act, 1875, for a nuisance in the drain.-The
Mayor of Eastbourne v. Bradford, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 205 ; 74 L.T. 763. (vi.) C. A.-Bye-Law-Coal in Vehicle—Request to Weigh—Weights and
Measures Act, 1889, s. 28.—A bye-law made by the corporation of Blackburn under sect. 28 of the Act, to the effect that every person in charge of any vehicle carrying coal for sale in quantities not exceeding two hundredweight, should re-weigh the coal at the request of the purchaser or of anyone on his behalf, or of an inspector of weights and measures, or of a constable, was held to be unreasonable and bad.
Alty v. Farrell, L.R.  1 Q.B. 636 ; 74 L.T. 492. (vii.) Q. B. D.-Obstruction on Highway-Removal—Public Health Act, 1875,
s. 149–Local Government Act, 1894, s. 26.--Encroachments upon a highway may be removed by the urban district council without first proceeding summarily or by indictment against the person causing the obstruction.-Reynolds v. The Urban District Council of Presteign,
L.R.  1 Q.B. 604; 74 L.T. 422. (viii.) H. L.-Public Conveniences Below the Surface of a Street—Public
Health Act, 1875, s. 149–-Tunbridge Wells Improvement Act, 1890, ss. 4, 93.-Where a street is vested in an urban authority by the Public Health Act, the authority has only such property in the soil as is necessary for the maintenance of the highway, and have no right to make public conveniences below the surface.- Mayor of Tunbridge
Wells v. Baird and Others, 74 L.T. 385. (ix.) Q. B. D.-Differences Between District Councils -- Mode of Adjustment
Local Government Act, 1888, ss. 57, 59 (4 and 6), 62 (2).-Sect. 62 (2) of the Local Government Act, 1888, provides for the settlement by arbitration of differences between district councils “if no other mode
of determining such difference is provided by this Act.”
The only other mode is by terms of the order issued by a county council under sect. 57 of the Act.-An Arbitration Between the Sowerby Urban District Council and the Mytholmroyd Urban District Council, 74 L.T. 313.
Lunacy :(i.) C. A.–Jurisdiction - British Subject Detained as Lunatic Abroad
“ Not so Found by Inquisition "-Management of Estate—Lunacy Act, 1890, s. 116, sub-s. 1 (c) 2.-An order for the management of the estate of a lunatic will not be made unless the lunatic is so found by inquisition or is resident within the jurisdiction.—In re Florence Louise
Watkins (a person of unsound mind), L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 336 ; 74 L.T.505. (ii.) Nisi Prius.—Lunatic's Business Carried on by Committee-Personal
Liability ?-A committee appointed by the Court to carry on the business of a lunatic is in a different position from that of a manager and receiver. The committee has no personal liability for credit
given to the firm.--Isaacs v. Chinery, 74 L.T. 320. Marriage Settlement:(iii.) C. A.- Divorce—Variation of Settlement-Death of Petitioner-Juris
diction—Matrimonial Causes Acts, 1859, s. 5, and 1878, s. 3.-On obtaining a decree absolute for dissolution of her marriage a husband, in terms of an arrangement with his divorced wife, filed a petition to vary the marriage settlement. Before any further step had been taken he died. Held, that the Court had no jurisdiction to make the order to vary on the application of the executor.—Thomson v. Thomson, 74 L.T. 801.
Married Woman :(iv.) Ch. D. & C. A.-Separate Estate - Restraint on Anticipation--Con
veyancing Act, 1881, s. 39.—The Court refused the application of a married woman to be relieved of a restraint on anticipation in order to pay off a debt contracted with a money_lender. -Pollard's Settle
ment, L.R.  1 Ch. 901 ; 2 Ch. 552; 74 L.T. 374; 75 L.T. 116. (v.) C. A.-Costs in Probate Action-Restraint on Anticipation—Caveat is
Proceeding ” within Married Woman's Property Act, 1893, s. 2. -Decision of Probate Division (see Vol. 21, p. 79, i.) affirmed.
Moran v. Place, L.R. (1896] P. 214; 74 L.T. 661. (vi.) H. L.-Separate Estate—Restraint on Anticipation-Liability of Income.
-Income from property of a married woman subject to a restraint on anticipation can be taken in execution as soon as it is accrued due. Decision of C. A. reversed.-Hood-Barrs v. Heriot, L.R. (1896] A.C. 174;
74 L.T. 353. (vii.) C. A.-Separate Estate subject to Restraint-Liability of Arrears
Accruing due since Judgment—Married Women's Property Act, 1882, ss. 1 and 19.—A judgment against a married woman with separate estate subject to restraint on anticipation cannot be enforced against arrears of income which have become due since the judgment. Hood-Barrs v. Heriot (see above) explained.-Whiteley V. Edwards, L.R. 
2 Q.B. 48; 74 L.T. 720. Mayor's Court: (viii.) C. A. Practice-Mayor's Court-Time for Appealing - The Mayor's
Court of London Procedure Act, 1857, s. 8, 0.59, r. 16.— The High Court has no jurisdiction to extend the time for giving notice of appeal in the Mayor's Court.—Kirby v. The North British and Mercantile Insurance Co., Limited, L.R.  2 Q.B. 99; 74 L.T. 723.
Metropolis :(i.) Q. B. D.-London Building Act, 1894, 88. 54 (3); 59; 75; 77 (3).
One portion of a wall may be a party wall, and another portion an external wall only, not subject to the requirements of the London Building Act, 1894, affecting party walls.- Drury v. The Army and
Navy Auxiliary Stores, L.R.  2 Q.B. 271; 74 L.T. 621. (ii.) Q. B. D. -Nuisance Order-Costs-County Court-Summary Jurisdic.
tion Act, 1818, 8.11; Public Health (London) Act, 1891, ss. 11 and 117.--Sect. 11 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, which prescribes that complaints or information under the Act shall be laid within six months from the time when the matter of complaint arose, applies to county court actions under sect. 11 of the Public Health Act for recovery of costs of enforcing a nuisance order. The Vestry of
Hammersmith v. Lowenfeld, L.R.  2 Q.B. 278; 75 L.T. 182. Metropolis Management :(iii.) Q. B. D.- New Street with Houses on one side only–Paving New Foot
path where Houses built on other side-Appointment - Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855, s. 105.-At a time when a new street had houses upon the north side only, the cost of paving under sect. 105 of the Act was charged upon and paid by the owners of these houses. Subsequently houses were built and a footpath made on the south side. Held, that the local authority had no jurisdiction to compel further contribution from the owners on the north side. -White v. The Vestry
of the Parish of Fulham, 74 L.T. 425. (iv.) Q. B. D. & C. A.-Drainage _"Sercer ”—Metropolis Management
Act, 1855, ss. 68, 69, 74, 250- Amendment Act, 1862, 88. 47, 48.—The owner of a block of houses, without order from the vestry and without approval by the Board of Works, drained them by one pipe running into a sewer in another street. Held, that the pipe was a
sewer” notwithstanding sects. 69 and 250 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, and was to be repaired by the Vestry.- Reg. v. Vestry of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, L.R.  2 Q.B. 95 and 319 ; 74 L.T. 701 and 75 L.T. 60.
Mines : (v.) C. A.-Inspector of Mines—Authority to Agent to Lay Information
Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, ss. 33 and 35.-An inspector of mines can authorise an agent to lay information in a court of summary jurisdiction in the inspector's name for an offence under the Act.
Foster v. Fyfe and Another, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 104; 74 L.T. 784. Mortgage :(vi.) C. A.-Power of Sale to one of Several Mortgagors.- In a mortgage by
tenants in commor, the mortgagee may sell to one of the mortgagors, without notice to the others, for the amount of principal, interest and costs, and even though the purchaser was manager for his co
mortagors.—Kennedy v. De Trafford, L.R.  1 Ch. 762; 74 L.T. 599. (vii.) C. D,-Equitable Mortgage-Fraud — Priorities — Conveyancing Act,
1881, ss. 2, 54, 55.--A solicitor fraudulently procured a conveyance to himself of an equity of redemption by a trustee. The deed contained a receipt for purchase money though none was paid. The solicitor deposited the deed with his bankers, who had no notice of the fraud, as security for a loan. Held, that the deed was not void, though possibly voidable between the solicitor and the trustee; and that the bankers had priority over the trustee and the cestuis que trust.-Lloyd's Bank, Limited v. Bullock, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 192; 74 L.T. 687.
(i.) C. D.-Equitable Mortgage of Land within Yorkshire Registries Act,
1884, ss. 3, 7, 14-Subsequent Mortgage Registered first.–To secure an
74 L.T. 689. (ii.) C. A.-Consolidation.—The right to consolidate mortgages which a
united in title exists against the assignee of the equity of redemption of all the mortgages made before the unity of title.--Pledge v. White and Others, L.R. (1896] A.C. 187; 74 L.T. 323.
Municipal Corporation :(iii.) Q. B. D.--Bye-law against Street Betting—Municipal Corporation Act,
1882, s. 23.—A bye-law of the borough of Wolverhampton that “any person who shall frequent or use any street or other public place within the borough for the purpose of bookmaking or betting or wagering, or agreeing to bet or wager, with any person shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5," was held to be properly made under sect. 23 of the Act, and valid.—Burnett v. Berry, L.R.  1 Q.B. 641; 74 L.T. 494.
National Schools :(iv.) Ch. D.—Trustees are “ Owners ”—Contribution to Cost of Making up
Street-Public Health Act, 1875, ss. 4, 257 ; School Sites Act, 1841, s. 6.Trustees are owners " within sect. 4 of Public Health Act, 1875, of school premises conveyed to them under sect. 6 of School Sites Act, 1841, and costs of metalling a street may be made a charge on the school buildings.—Hornsey District Council v. Smith, L.R.  2 Ch. 254; 74 L.T. 415.
Negotiable Instruments:(v.) C. A.-Promissory Note “ on Demand”—Maturity-Renunciation-Bills
of Exchange Act, 1882, ss. 8 (4), 62 (1, 2), 83 (i), 89 (1, 2), 97 (2).—A promissory note payable on demand” matures as soon as it is made and delivered. The delivery up of a note to a devisee of the maker with the intention of renouncing it is not a renunciation either at law or in equity without writing. -Edwards v. Walters, L.R. 2 Ch. 157 ; 74 L.T. 396,
Nuisance : (vi.) C.D.-Exhibition—Cabs-Nuisance Injunction.- Where cabs assembled,
under police supervision, near the plaintiff's residence at night, for the conveyance of persons quitting an exhibition, the Court refused an injunction against the proprietors of the exhibition.-Germaine v. The
London Exhibitions, Limited, 75 L.T. 101. (vii.) Q. B. D.--Overcrowding-Misdescription in Summons and Order
Public Health (London) Act, 1891, s. 2.--On an order for abatement of a nuisance by overcrowding, a rule nisi for a certiorari was obtained
on the grounds that in the summons and the order the place where the overcrowding occurred was not described in the words of the Act as a “house,” and that the persons who were on the premises were not “inmates." Held, that the rule should be discharged.—Reg. v. Slade ; e. p. Robinson, 74 L.T. 656.
Partnership :(i.) C. D.—Foreign Firm Located Abroad-Administration of English
Estate of Deceased Partner-English Creditors-Conflict of Laws.—The rule of English law that a creditor of a firm can proceed against the surplus separate estate of a deceased partner without first exhausting the partnership assets, holds good as to a partner of a foreign firm who dies in England possessed of property here, even though the rule be contrary to the law of the State in which the firm is domiciled.
In re Doetsch; Matheson & Co. v. Ludwig, 75 L.T. 69. (ii.) Ch. D.- Articles of Partnership in Brewery—Death of one Partner
Purchase by Survivor-Goodwill—Tied Public-Houses.-A deed of partnership for a fixed period in a brewery provided that on the death of one partner the survivor should have the option of purchasing the property and effects at a valuation. After the fixed period had expired, the partnership was continued without any agreement. On the death of a partner the survivor exercised his option. Held, that the goodwill must be valued separately, except as to tied public-houses.Page v. Ratliffe, 74 L.T. 343.
Poor Law:(iii.) H. L.-Rating-Fine Art Society-Liability—6 & 7 Vict. c. 36, s. 1.
An art society for the benefit of subscribers only, each of whom obtains a valuable return for his subscription is not exempt from being rated within sect. 1 of the Parochial Assessments Act. Judgment of Court below (see Vol. 19, p. 17, vi.) reversed.—Overseers of the Savoy v.
Art Union of London, L.Á.  A.C. 296 ; 74 L.T. 497. (iv.) C.A.-Rating-Beneficial Occupation.—Decision of Divisional Court (see
Vol. 21, p. 16, iii.) reversed.-London County Council v. Churchwardens and Overseers of Lambeth, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 25; 74 L.T. 605.
Post Office :(v.) Q. B. D.-Railway Companies-Postal Parcels-Outward and Inward
Stations-Post Office (Parcels) Act, 1882.-" Inwards station " is that to which a post office receptacle is directed. “ Outwards station” is that at which the receptacle is delivered to the railway company.-Reg. v. London & North Western Railway, 74 L.T. 624.
Power: (vi.) C. A.-Appointment to First Wife-Then to Children - Appointment to
Second Wife Invalid.—Decision of Court below (see Vol. 21, p. 80, ii.) affirmed.-In re Hancock ; Malcolm v. Burford Hancock, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 173 ; 74 L.T. 658.
Practice :(vii.) Q. B. D.-Writ-Incorrect Description of Defendant-0. ii., r. 3.-A
defendant, who resided in Ireland, was incorrectly described in a writ which was served upon him in England as of a place in the county of Lancaster. Held, that the writ was good.— Smith v. Hammond, L.R. (1896] 1 Q.B. 571; 74 L.T. 590.