Page images

Act, 1889, is to the Court of Appeal not to the Divisional Court.-An
Arbitration between the Portland Urban District Council and Tilly & Sons,

L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 98; 74 L.T. 703. (i.). C. A.-Death of Plaintiff in Action for Mandamus-Survival of Cause

of Action-0. xvii., rr. 1, 4.- Where a plaintiff died after commencing an action for a mandamus to enforce an alleged statutory duty, it was held that the cause of action survived and that the plaintiff's executors were properly added as plaintiffs.- Peebles v. Oswaldtuistle Urban

District Council, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 159 ; 74 L.T. 721. (ii.) C. A.Discovery-River Pollution Prevention Acts, 1876, 88. 3, 10, 11 ;

and 1893.-A defendant in an action for injunction is not privileged from giving discovery on the ground that it might subject him to a penalty if the penalty can be incurred only by disobeying the injunction if granted.The Derbyshire County Council v. The Mayor and

Aldermen of Derby, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 53 ; 74 L.T. 747. (iii.) C. A.-LibelInterrogatories as to Circulation of a Newspaper.- Where

it is admitted that the circulation of a newspaper which contained an alleged libel was considerable, interrogatories as to the number of copies circulated will not be allowed.-Whittaker v. The Scarborough

Post Newspaper Company, L.R. (1896) 2 Q.B. 148; 74 L.T. 553. (iv.) c. A.-Statute of Frauds-Pleading-0. xix., r. 15.-R. 15 requiring

the Statute of Frauds to be pleaded if it is relied on will be construed

strictly.-Odham Brothers v. Brunning, 74 L.T. 370. (v.) C. A.-Scotch Bank, Inspection of Books.—Under sect. 7 of the Act

the High Court can make an order for the inspection of the books of

a Scotch bank.-Kissam v. Link, L.R. (1896] 1 Q.B. 574; 74 L.T. 368. (vi.) H. L.-Procedure, Special Case Appeal-0. xxxiv., 7. 1.- Where a

special case raises only questions of fact an appeal is not allowed.

Burgess v. Morton, L.R. [1896] A.C. 136. (vii.) Ch. D.- Discovery of Documents from a Co-Defendant -0. xxxi., r. 12.

--- Discovery of documents will be granted under 0. xxxi., r. 12, to one defendant from a co-defendant when there is some right between them to be adjusted in the action.The Alcoy & Gandia Railway and

Harbour Co., Limited v. Greenhill, 74 L.T. 345. (viii.) C. A.-Costs in Action Paid to Solicitor-Judgment Reversed.—A

solicitor will not be required to repay costs which have been paid to him by the other side under a judgment of the Court of Appeal in favour of his client, although that judgment is reversed by the House

of Lords.-Hood-Barrs v. Heriot, L.R. (1896] 1 Q.B. 610; 74 L.T. 372. (ix.) Ch. D.Costs- Set-off-County Court Action-High, r. 14.

-The Court refused an action, made on the ground that the plaintiff was impecunious, to set-off against costs in a judgment which the defendant had obtained in the county court, costs which he had incurred in an unsuccessful motion for a certiorari to remove the action to the

High Court.-Hassell v. Stanley, L.R. [1896] 1 Ch. 607; 74 L.T. 375. (x.) Ch. D.-Practice-Title of Writ and of Statement of Claim-Adminis

tration.-Where a plaintiff is suing on an administration action on behalf of himself and all the creditors, the statement of claim must be so intituled.—Tottenham v. Tottenham ; in re Tottenham, L.R. (1896]

1 Ch. 628; 74 L.T. 376. (xi.) C. D.-CostsTaxationMinimum Fee-General Order under Solicitors

Remuneration Act, 1881, schd. 1, part 2, r. 5, schd. 1, part 1, r. 8.-A lessee obtained a lease for lives at a rental of 12s. ld., paying a fine of £12 ls. 8d. The lessor's solicitor charged £7 11s., and on application

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

sent in items amounting to a larger sum, writing below the total “say £7 11s.” The taxing-master held that under the above general orders, the solicitor was entitled to more than the sum claimed and allowed him the costs of taxation.-In re Hellard, L.R. [1896]2 Ch. 229;

74 L.T. 457. (i.) C. D.--Joinder of Causes of Action --Setting Aside Mortgage-Redemption

- Recovery of Land-Application to Strike out Statement of Claim0. xviii., r. 2; 0. lxx., 7. 2.--An application to set aside any proceeding for irregularity" under 0. l., r. 2, is not too late, though made after appearance (Mulkeson v. Doerks not followed). A claim to set aside a mortgage or to redeem it can be joined in the alternative with a claim for recovery of the land without leave under 0. xviii., r. 2.Hunt v.

Worsfold, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 224; 74 L.T. 456. (ii.) C. D.-Originating Summons - Breach of Trust-0. lv., r. 3.--In an

action commenced by originating summons, inquiries were directed which comprised an investigation into a breach of trust, and an order was made for a common account of personal estate. Held, that the inquiry as directed went too far, and if it had been objected to at the time would not have been proceeded with; and that the taking of the account required vivâ voce evidence, further application should be

made.--In re Stuart; Smith v. Stuart, 74 L.T. 546. (iii.) P. D.--Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895—Appeals

Notes of Evidence and of Grounds of Decision-Costs.—The Divisional Court will not interfere in questions of fact unless the Court of Summary Jurisdiction was wrong in its conclusion. In administering the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, care must be taken not to interfere too much in matrimonial life. Magistrates' clerks should take notes of evidence and should shew upon what grounds of fact or or law the decisions were based. The costs of a proper note

ought to be allowed.Harling v. Harling, 74 L.T. 559. (iv.) H. L.- PartiesJoinder of DefendantsR.S.C. 1883, 0. xvi., 1. 4.

(See Vol. 21, p. 44, iv.) Affirmed.-Sadler v. Great Western Railway Co.,

74 L.T. 561. (v.) C. A.-Proceedings under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, ss. 3 and

10. –Where proceedings had been commenced under Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, in a county court for an order requiring a corporation to abstain from causing sewage to flow into a stream, it was held that the proceedings were not of a criminal or penal nature, and that complainants might interrogate the corporation.-In re The County Council of Derbyshire and the Mayor, &c., of the Borough of

Derby, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 297. (vi.) P. C.--Insurance-Condition in Policy- Non-Suit.-A plaintiff was

held to have been rightly non-suited for not having complied with a condition in a policy to give full particulars within a given time of a fire loss, when his own evidence shewed that he could have done so.

Hiddle v. National Fire Insurance Co. of New Zealand, L.R. [1896] A.C.372. (vii.) C. A.-Bankruptcy-Appeal from Receiving Order-Security for Costs

Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, *. 131.- The fact that a respondent's out-ofpocket costs on a debtor's appeal from a receiving order will exceed £20 is not a ground for increasing the amount of deposit required from the debtor under rule 131.—In re Phillips ; e.p. The Treboeth Brick Co.,

L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 122. (viii.) C. A.-MortgageAttornment-Power to Enter— Tenancy at Will

0. xiv.--In an action by a mortgagee to recover possession under a deed which contained an attornment clause with a power to determine wilfully obstructing within the meaning of sect. 116 of the Public Health Act and was liable to the penalty imposed by the section.-Borrow v. Howland, 74 L.T. 787.

the tenancy without notice, it was held that the claim was founded on the determination of a tenancy at will and not on forfeiture, and that the writ could be specially endorsed.- Kemp v. Lester, L.R (1896) 2 Q.B. 162.

Principal and Agent:(i.) C. A.-Receiver appointed by Trustees for Debenture HoldersOrder to

Wind-up Company-Goods ordered by Agent subsequently-Liability of Trustees.—Trustees for debenture holders in possession of the property of a company were held liable, as undisclosed principals, for goods supplied, after a winding-up order, to an agent appointed by them under powers of a deed, who was to be “the agent of the company who alone should be liable for his acts." (Dissentiente, Rigby, L.J.)Gaskell and Another v. Gosling and Another, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 669 ; 74 L.T. 674.

Probate :(ii.) P. D.- Chain of Executorship-Missing Executor to whom Power

ReservedDeath of Acting Executor -Citation.-A grant of adminig. tration de bonis non was refused where one executor to whom power had been reserved had not been heard of for 14 years and the other to whom probate had been granted had died before he had fully administered, as the chain of executorship could be continued in the executor of the deceased executor, and citation could be effected on the missing_executor by advertisement.-In the goods of Reid,

L.R. [1896] P. 129; 74 L.T. 462. (iii.) P. D.-Foreign Will--Probate of Copy.-A German having personal

property in England died domiciled in Wurtemberg where his will was proved, his wife being the equivalent of executrix. By the local law the custodian of the will is forbidden to let it leave his custody. Held that probate of a copy of the will might be granted. In the goods of

Von Linden, L.R. [1896] P. 148. (iv.) P. D.-Presumption of Death-Filing Letter.--The Court granted an

application for probate and for leave to depose to death of testator on presumptive evidence, subject to the filing of a letter from an insurance company, in which the testator had insured his life, stating that they would not interfere in the proceedings.In the goods of Saul,

L.R. [1896] P. 151. Promissory Note :(v.) Q. B. D.-Unnecessary Provisions in Document Described as Promissory

Note-Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, s. 83, sub-s. 3.—Where a document contained a clause that “no time given to, or security taken from, or composition or arrangements entered into with either party hereto, shall prejudice the rights of the holder to proceed against any other party,” it was held that it was not a promissory note and could not be

sued on as one.Kirkwood v. Smith, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 582; 74 L.T. 423. Public Health:(vi.) C. A.-House Refuse-Refusal to Permit RemovalPenalty--Public

Health (London) Act, 1891, ss. 16, 30, 31, 116.— The London County Council made a bye-law that the sanitary authority should remove the refuse of houses in their district once a week. A householder refused to admit the men sent to perform the duty. Held, that he was guilty

of "

Railway (i.) R. & C. C.-Carriage of GoodsDuty of Company to Disintegrate

Charges-Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, s. 33, sub-s. 3.—Sect. 33, sub-sect. 3 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, requires a railway company to distinguish in an account rendered the charge for conveyance from terminal charges whether the total claim exceeds or falls below the maximum authorised for conveyance alone; but if it falls below, it is sufficient for the company to state formally that no part of the claim is for terminals.- New Union Mill Co. v. Great

Western Railway Co., 74 L.T. 791. (ii.) R. & C. C.-Increase of Rute-CartageJurisdiction of Railway

CommissionersRailway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, s. 1, sub-s. 1.--The Railway Commissioners have jurisdiction to determine a complaint against a railway company of the unreasonableness of an increase in its rates or charge for cartage since the last day of 1892.The Mansion House Association on Railway Traffic v. London and North-Western

Railway Co., L.R. (1896] 1 Q.B. 273; 74 L.T. 463. (iii.) C. A.-Level Crossing-Obligation to Build BridgeRailway Clauses

Consolidation Act, 1845, ss. 46, 61.—The Railway Clauses Act does not impose on a railway company whose line crosses a public footpath the obligation to carry the path over the line or the line over the path by means of a bridge.Reg. v. Bexley Heath Railway Co., L.R. [1896]

2 Q.B. 74; 74 L.T. 540. (iv.) Q. B. D.-Accommodation Works-Fence Constructed more than Five

Years after Opening of Railway - Railway Clauses Act, 1845, ss. 68, 73. —Where damage had arisen through the defective state of a fence erected by a railway company more than five years after the opening of the railway, it was held that sect. 73 of the Railway Clauses Act did not relieve the company from the obligation to keep the fence in repair.- Dixon v. Great Western Railway Co., L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 333.

Rating: (v.) H. L.-Poor Rate-Appeal to Quarter SessionsAssessment Committee

as Respondents-- Consent of Guardians Necessary-Union Assessment Committee Amendment Act, 1864, s. 2.-If an assessment committee appear as respondents in an appeal to quarter sessions against a rate they will not be entitled to costs unless they have previously obtained the consent of the guardians to their appearing. ---Assessment Committee

of West Ham Union v. London County Council and Others, 75 L.T. 1. (vi.) Q. B. D.-Poor RateJoint Occupation for Crown Purposes and for

Local PurposesRatability.- Buildings occupied jointly for purposes of a county council and for Crown purposes are ratable in so far as they are not occupied for purposes of the Crown.--County Council of Middlesex v. Assessment Committee of St. George's Union, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 143; 75 L.T. 153.

Rent Charge : (vii.) Q. B. D.-Ecclesiastical AugmentationRent Charge Greater than

Annual Value.- Where a rent charge has been granted in augmentation of a curacy under 1 and 2 William IV., c. 45, the owner of the land is liable for the full amount of the charge, even if it should exceed the annual value of the land.—Pertwee v. Townsend, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 129; 75 L.T. 104.


Riparian Rights: (i.) C. A.River Bed Alteration-Adjoining LandsAccretion.-- A portion

of the bed of a river, which becomes dry during part of the year, does not by accretion become the property of the adjoining riparian owner.

-Hindson v. Ashby, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch.1; 74 L.T. 327. Revenue:(ii.) Q. B. D.-Postage Stamps-Possession of Die - Lawful E.ccuse"

Post Office (Protection) Act, 1884, 8. 7.—The respondent, whose bona fides was admitted, had in his possession, for purposes of illustration, a die capable of making a representation of a current colonial postage stamp. Held, that he had no * lawful excuse," and was liable to the penalty imposed by sect. 7 of the Post Office (Protection) Act, 1884. Dickens v.

Gill, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 310; 75 L.T. 32. (iii.) Q. B. D.-Income Tax-Colliery-Contributions to Strike Compensation

Fund-Income Tax Act, 1842, s. 100, sch. D.-The Court disallowed a claim of colliery owners in income tax returns to deduct from profits the average excess of their contributions to a strike indemnity fund over the amounts received by them as indemnities.— The Rhymney

Iron Co., Limited v. Fowler, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 79. (iv.) Q. B. D.-Excise Licence- Secretary to Watch Club-Liability - Bona

fide Traveller Revenue Act, 1867, ss. 1, 3, 17.–The respondents were secretaries of provincial “watch clubs," the members of which paid a weekly sum, and in consideration the successful drawer at a periodical ballot received a watch from the proprietors who were London trades

Held, that the respondents came within sect. 17 of the Revenue Act, 1867, as persons who “solicit, take, or receive any order” for excisable articles without a licence, and did not come within the exemption as bonâ fide travellers.-Killick v. Graham ; Linton v.

Burchell, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 196; 75 L.T. 29. (v.) Q. B. D.-Stamp Duty on * Annuity or Sum Periodically Payable"

Stamp Act, 1891, Schedule.—By an agreement terminable by three months' notice the manager of an hotel was to receive all the profits on paying a weekly sum to the proprietor. Held, that the “sum periodically payable" within the terms of the Stamp Act was the sum payable for one week only.-Clifford and Another v. Commissioners

of Inland Revenue, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 187; 74 L.T. 699. (vi.) Q. B. D.- Stamp Duty-Licence to Use Patent in one of the Colonies

Stamp Act, 1891, s. 59, sub-s. 1, sch. 1.-A share of a patent and of a licence to use the patent in New South Wales was held to be an interest on property within the meaning of sect. 59, sub-sect. 1, of the Act.— The Smelting Company of Australia v. The Commissioners of Inland

Revenue, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 179; 74 L.T. 694. (vii.) C. A.--Dog Licence-ExemptionJurisdiction of JusticesCustoms and

Inland Revenue Act, 1878, s. 22—Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, s. 16.

- The granting of a certificate of exemption to the owner of a dog is within the discretion of the commissioners, and the justices have no jurisdiction to review their decision. The refusal to take out a dog licence is not an offence of a trifling nature within sect. 16 of Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879.- Phillips v. Evans, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 305 ;

74 L.T. 314. (viii.) H. L.-Income Tax-—Trade exercised within the United Kingdom

Assessment through Agent-Income Tax Acts, 1853, sch. D. ; 1842, s. 41. Where orders were obtained within the United Kingdom by an agent there resident for a merchant in France who shipped the goods thence at the purchaser's risk, issued the invoices in his own name, and

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »