« PreviousContinue »
Riparian Rights :(i.) C. A.-River Bed – Alteration-Adjoining Lands—Accretion.- 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 Excuse"
Post Ofice (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 - Bonâ
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 tradesmen. 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 bona 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-Exemption-Jurisdiction of Justices—Customs 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
generally received the purchase money direct, it was held (reversing the judgment of the Court below—see Vol. 20, p. 54, iv.–Lord Morris dissenting), that the foreign merchant did not exercise his trade within the United Kingdom, so as to bring him within sched. D. of the Income Tax Act, 1852.-Grainger & Son v. Gough, L.R.  A.C. 325; 74 L.T. 435.
Scotch Law:(i.) H. L.-Portions to Children. The rule of English law against double
portions to children is not applicable to Scotland.—Johnstonev. Haviland, L.R.  A.C. 95.
Settled Land :(ii.) C. D.-Power to Trustees to purchase particular Land-Settled Land
Act, 1882, s. 33.-A power to trustees to purchase certain land at the request of the life tenant renders personal property in their hands “ liable” to be so laid out within the meaning of sect. 33 of the Act.In re_ Hill's Settled Estates ; Hill v. Pilcher, L.R.  1 Ch. 962; 74 L.T. 460.
(iii.) C. D.-Tenant for Life Lunatic-Annuity to Remainderman Overpaid
Claim for Return by Representative of Life Tenant.-By orders in lunacy an annuity was ordered to be paid out of settled estate to a remainderman for a limited period. The annuity was continued in error beyond the period and the remainderman mortgaged his estate. Held, that the personal representative of the life tenant was entitled to retain the overpayments with interest, notwithstanding the
mortgage.—In re Langham ; Otway v. Langham, 74 L.T. 611. (iv.) C. D.-Jointure-Portions.-A power of jointuring does not cover the
creation of a rent charge in favour of the wife during the life of the husband. But a power conferred on the husband to charge the settled estate with portions for the children and with interest thereon by way of maintenance, may enable him to charge the estate, with payment to himself as guardian of the children of interest on their expectant portions.—In re De Hoghton ; De Hoghton v. De Hoghton, L.R. (1896]
2 Ch. 385; 74 L.T. 613. (v.) C. D.-Will—Incumbered and Unincumbered—Estates Devised as
whole-Tenant for Life and Remainderman.—Where a testator devised incumbered and unincumbered estates as a whole to a tenant for life who mortgaged his interest to an insurance company who foreclosed, the company were held not to be entitled to give up the incumbered portions which were profitless, but to be bound to apply the income of the whole to paying off the interest of the mortgages on the incumbered parts.- Frewen v. The Law Life Assurance Co., L.R.  2 Ch. 511 ; 75 L.T. 17.
Settlement:(vi.) Ch. D.-Mortgage for a Term--Premature Repayment with a Forfeit
Rights of Tenant for Life and Remainderman to Accretion. The trustees of a fund, which was settled on a person for life with remainder in fee to others, invested it on mortgage with a covenant that it should remain undisturbed for a fixed period. By agreement it was redeemed before the period had expired on payment of a forfeit of one year's interest, in addition to the interest accrued due. Held, that the additional sum was capital and belonged to the remaindermen. -In re Searancke ; Simonds v. Huntington, 74 L.T. 339.
(i.) P. D.-Variation of Settlement-Extinguishment of Divorced Parents'
Interest-Acceleration of Infant's Interest.—The Court on the ground that as infant's interest would be thereby accelerated, extinguished the interest on a marriage settlement of a husband from whom the wife had obtained a divorce with custody of the only child, notwithstanding that there was a power to her in such circumstances to raise a sum which would nearly exhaust the value of the entire estate.-Creagh v.
Creagh, 74 L.T. 437. (ii.) C. D.-Determinable Life Interest-Settlor Subsequently Bankrupt
Forfeiture.—By a marriage settlement the settlor assigned property to trustees upon trust to pay to him until he should die, become bankrupt or assign or incumber the income, or do anything whereby any part of it would become payable to any other person. He became bankrupt after the sole surviving trustee had advanced to him part of the trust funds on a covenant to repay and indemnify. After the bankruptcy the trustee was compelled to make good the trust fund. On a question arising, it was held that the settlor's life interest had not determined previously to his bankruptcy.-In re Brewer's Settlement ; Morton v. Blackmore,
L.R.  2 Ch. 503; 75 L.T. 177. Ship :(iii.) C. A.-Collision-Raising Wreck-Expenses of Harbour Board and
Conservators—Basis of Calculation-Damages in Nature of Demurrage.The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board who were also the Conservancy Commissioners of the Mersey, were held entitled to recover as part of their damages the cost price of raising a lightship and a dredger, their property, which had been sunk in the harbour of Liverpool by the negligence of the defendants, and it was also held that interest on the original cost to the Board of their plant employed in the work was to form part of this cost price. But no allowance was made to them for the loss of use of the dredger while it was disabled. The rule laid down in the case of The Harrington followed.—The Emerald; The
Greta Holme, L.R.  P. 192 ; 74 L.T. 645. (iv.) Q. B. D.- Charter Party—“Safe Port”—Evidence of Custom.—By a
charter party a ship was to discharge all her cargo at one port to be named by the charterers, which was to be a safe port where she could enter dock safely and lie afloat at all times. The ship was ordered to discharge at Gloucester, but being of too great a draught to proceed thither, discharged all her cargo at the nearest safe point. Held, that the port named was not "safe" within the meaning of the charter party, and that evidence of custom of similar ships to lighten before proceeding to Gloucester was inadmissible.- Reynolds & Co. v.
Tomlinson and Another, L.R.  1 Q.B. 586 ; 74 L.T. 591. (v.) C. A.---Marine Insurance-Perils of the Sea-Judgment in Salvage
Suit--Evidence. At the request of the master of a steam-vessel which had consumed nearly all its coal, but which could have proceeded under sail, towage was rendered to the incapacitated steamer. Salvage services were subsequently recovered. Held, that there had not been a loss by perils of the sea within the meaning of a time policy of insurance ; and that a judgment against a shipowner for salvage award is not evidence of loss by perils of the sea.-Ballantyne & Co. v.
Mackinnon, 75 L.T. 95. (vi.) C. A.-Collision-Compulsory Pilotage--London District-Merchant
Shipping Acts, 1854, s. 379 (3); 1894, s. 625 (3)—Privy Council Order, Dec. 21st, 1871.-A British ship, loaded at Cardiff for the River Plate, and on the return voyage landed cattle in London, and took the rest of the cargo to Rotterdam. Held, that she was within the terms of sect. 625, sub-sect. 3, of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as trading from a
port in the London district to a port in Europe north and east of Brest, and, therefore, was exempt from compulsory pilotage.—The Rutland,
75 L.T. 48. (i.) P. D.-Shipwrecked Passengers-Forwarding by other Vessels—Salvage
-Agency of Master.-- Where at the request of the master of a stranded vessel the passengers were conveyed to their destination by other vessels, it was held that the life salvors had no claim against the owners of the stranded vessel, who were not under any obligation to forward the passengers to their destination after the ship was disabled, and that the master made the request as the agent of the passengers.—The
Mariposa, 75 L.T. 54. (ii.) Q. B. D. & C. A.-Light Dues—Horses and Cattle on Deck
Measurement—Merchant Shipping Act, 1876, s. 23.—Horses and cattle carried on deck come within the words “other goods” in the 23rd sect. of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1876, and from vessels arriving in port so freighted the Trinity House are entitled to light dues calculated on the rectangular space occupied by the animals.Richmond Hill Steamship Co. v. Corporation of Trinity House, L.R. (1896]
1 Q.B. 493 ; 2 Q.B. 134; 74 L.T. 380 and 75 L.T. 8. (iii.) P. D.-Practice-Separate Salvors—Joinder of 'Claims-0. xvi., r. 1.
The practice of the Admiralty Court permits several salvors to join their claims in one action.—The Maréchal Suchet, L.R. (1896] P. 233 ;
74 L.T. 789. (iv.) P. D.-Wages-Master's Lien-Mortgagee in Possession. A master's
lien for wages does not take priority of a mortgage debt the payment
of which he has personally guaranteed.—The Bangor Castle, 74 L.T. 768. (v.) P. D. & C. A..- Marine Insurance“at and from ”– Vessel Lost before
Arrival at Loading Port.-An insurance was effected on freight "at and from ”any port on the west coast of South America. The policy was "to cover the freight from the time of the engagement of the goods, or after a shipping order has been issued, by the agent or his broker." While on her way to load at a port within the terms of the policy, the ship was lost by perils insured against. Held, that the engagement clause must be construed, subject to the “at and from clause,” and as the vessel had not arrived at a loading port, the risk had never attached.—The Copernicus ; Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate_Steam Navigation Co. 7. Holmes, L.R. (1896] P. 154, 237 ;
74 L.T. 431, 757. (vi.) P. D. & C. A.-Collision- Bye-Laws of Harbour of Newport, 1894,
Arts. 12 & 13– Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, Art. 16.— Although an inward bound steamer had committed a breach of the bye-laws of the harbour of Newport in failing to enter the harbour as directed by Art. 13, it was held that this had not contributed to a collision which took place with an outward bound steamer, and that the latter was alone to blame. — The Winstanley, 74 L.T. 132
and 75 L.T. 133. (vii.) H. L.--Charter Purty-Duty of Charterer to be Ready with Cargo.
A charterer is not bound in all cases to be ready with cargo to meet the possibility of an opportunity occurring for a ship to load out of her
turn.--Little v. Sterenson & Co., L.R. (1896] A.C. 108; 74 L.T. 529. (viii.) Q. B.-Marine Insurance-Life Salvage.--The crew, but no part
of cargo, were rescued from a vessel which was insured in a shipowners' Protection Association against such risks as were not capable of being assured against by the usual form of Lloyd's policy, and the owner had to pay a sum of money to the life salvors. Held, that simple life salvage is not covered by the ordinary Lloyd's policy of
insurance, and that plaintiff could recover against the Protection Association.- Nourse v. The Liverpool Sailing Ship Owners' Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, Limited, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 16;
74 L.T. 317, 543. (i.) Q. B. D.-Bill of Lading --Contraband of War-Restraint of Princes
Duty of Master of Ship.-By the terms of a bill of lading explosives contraband of war were to be delivered at Yokohama or as near thereto as the vessel could safely get having regard to the restraint of rulers, princes and people; but if the master considered the port of discharge unsafe by reason of war the goods were to be landed at the nearest safe and convenient port and thereupon the ship’s responsibility was to cease. The vessel arrived at Hong Kong during the war between China and Japan, and being, while carrying a contraband cargo, in peril of capture by Chinese warships the master landed the goods and proceeded on his voyage. Held, that the well founded fear of eizure was a restraint within the terms of the bill of lading; that under the circumstances Hong Kong was the nearest safe and convenient port; and that landing the goods there was a proper discharge of the master's duty.- Nobels Explosives Co., Limited v. Jenkins & Co., L.R.  2 Q.B. 326 ; 75 L.T. 163.
Solicitor :(ii.) C. D.-Evidence-Statement by one Party to Solicitor of other Party
Privilege.- Statements made by one party in a joint undertaking to the solicitor of the other party in an interview, had at the latter's request,
were held to be privileged.- Rochefoucauld v. Boustead, 74 L.T. 783. (iii.) 8, L.- Company, Costs of Private Act—General and Separate Capital.
- Decision of C. A. (see Vol. 20, p. 90, vii.) affirmed.-Nichols v. North
Metroj olitan Railway and Canal Co., 74 L.Í. 744. (iv.) C. D. & C. A.--Costs— Common o,der to Tax-- Set-off-Counsel's fees.
-Under a common order to tax the solicitor must give credit for all such sums received by him in his capacity of solicitor or agent of his client, as he is legally or equitably liable to pay over to his client and against which, if sued by the client, he would set-off his costs. But against a bill of costs, for which a member of the bar is liable as a client, the solicitor cannot be required to set-off fees which he has received on behalf of the client acting as counsel in another matter.In re Le Brasseur und Oakley; e. p. Terrell, L.R.  2 Ch. 487 ;
74 L.J. 526, 717. (v.) Ch. D.-Fund in Court-Payment out on Fraudulent Petition
Unauthorised use of Name of Firm of Solicitors -- Condonation by one Partner-Liability of Both.-A sum of money was obtained from the Paymaster-General by means of a fraudulent petition, to which the name of a firm of solicitors had, without their knowledge, been attached. One of the partners was subsequently informed that the firm's name had been used in a merely formal business, and without making any enquiry into the nature of the business, accepted a cheque for fees which he handed to his partner, who paid it to the firm's account. Held, that both partners were jointly and severally liable for all loss which occurred to the misappropriated fund from the date when the one partner condoned the misuse of the firm's name.
- Marsh v. Joseph, 74 L.T. 412. (vi.) Ch. D.-Solicitors Act, 1843, 83. 37, 41--Solicitors Remuneration Act,
1881, s. 8—Delivery of Bill-- Cash Account-Payment–Taxation. The delivery of a cash account without items is not equivalent to the delivery of a bill of costs, and the Court has power to order the delivery of a bill whether or not there has been payment, even though it