« PreviousContinue »
Innkeeper:(i.) C. A.—Liability to Keep Guest.—Decision of Q. B. D. (see Vol. 22,
p. 65_(ii.)) affirmed.-Lamond v. Richard, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 541 ; 76 L.T. 141.
Insurance :(ii.) Q. B.-Insurance of a Debenture—Postponement of Payment by Resolu
tion of Debenture Holders—Liability of Insurer.—The defendants insured the payment at maturity of “any principal sum due under” a debenture held by the plaintiff on condition that he did not consent to any modification of his rights. A subsequent meeting of debenture holders, which the plaintiff did not attend, passed a resolution assenting to postponement of payment. Held, that as the date of maturity, mentioned in the debenture, was past, the plaintiff was entitled to recover on his policy, the defendants succeeding to his rights.—Finlay v. The Mexican Investment Corporation, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 517; 76 L.T. 257.
Interpleader:(iii.) Q. B.-Levy-Liability for Sheriff's Fees.--An execution creditor
unsuccessful in an interpleader issue is liable for the sheriff's fees.Blaker v. Seager and Others, 76 L.T. 392.
Landlord and Tenant :(iv.) C. A.-Covenant by Landlord to Pay Water Rate-Water Supplied for
Trade Purposes—Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, 8. 3—New River Company's Act, 1852, ss. 35, 38, 40.-A covenant by the lessor to pay the water rate assessed in respect of the leased premises was held not to apply to the charge for water supplied to the lessee for trade purposes under agreement between him and the water company.
Floyd v. Lyons & Co., Limited, L.R.  1 Ch. 633 ; 76 L.T. 251. (v.) C. A.-Lease of Hotel-Covenant to Sell Wines of Lessor Only-Covenant
Running with Land- Benefit of Proviso-Ownership of Lessor's Business Severed from Reversion.--A covenant in an hotel lease that the lessee will sell only wines supplied by the lessor his successors and assigns runs with the land without mention of the assigns of the lessee; and these assigns can claim the benefit of a proviso that so long as the covenant is observed there shall be an abatement of the rent, notwithstanding that the ownership of the lessor's business as a wine merchant is severed from the ownership of the reversion.-White v. The Southend Hotel Co., Limited, L.R.  1 Ch. 767; 76 L.T. 273.
Licensing :(vi.) Q. B, D.-Transfer of Licence—Protection Order-Alehouse Acts, 1828,
8. 4; 1842, s. 1; Licensing Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict., c. 94), s. 3.—A person licensed to sell intoxicating liquor can continue to do so the licensed premises, although a magistrate has at his request granted a temporary authority or protection to_another person.-Andrews V. Denton,
L.R. (1897] 2 Q.B. 37 ; 76 L.T. 423. (vii.) Q. B. D.-Power of Constable to Enter Licensed Premises, Licensing
Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict., c. 49), 8. 16.—A constable is not empowered by sect. 16 to enter on licensed premises unless there is evidence by which
he may reasonably conclude that an offence against the Licensing Acts is being committed.—Duncan v. Dowding and Others, L.R. (1897]
1 Q.B. 575 ; 76 L.T. 294. (i.) Q. B. D.--" Found Drunk on Licensed Premises ”—Licensing Act, 1872,
s. 12.-A person, not an inmate of the house, “ found drunk on licensed premises” during closing hours is liable to conviction under sect. 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872.--Reg. v. Pelly and Another (Justices), L.R. (1897] 2 Q.B. 33; 76 L.T. 467.
Limitations:(ii.) C. D.-Inspectorship Deed - Separate Estate-Whether Trust Express or
Constructive--Statute of Limitations.—Where a creditor of a partnership firm, which had executed a deed of inspection in 1833, claimed a fund standing to the credit of the personal representative of the last surviving partner, it was held on the construction of the deed that no express trust of separate estate had been created, and, therefore, that the claim was barred by the Statute of Limitations.- - Trevor v. Hutchins, 76 L.T. 183.
Local Government:(iii.) C. D.-Water Supply—Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict.,
c. 41), s. 57— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict., c. 55), ss. 51, 52. -The extension of existing water mains of an urban authority is not a construction of water works within the meaning of sect. 52 of the Public Health Act. Cleveland Water Co. v. Redcar Local Board followed.—Corporation of Huddersfield v. Raventhorpe Urban District
Council, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 652 ; 76 L.T. 377. (iv.) Q. B. D.-Borough Funds— Chief Constable respondent in Licensing
Appeals-- Power to pay Costs -- Municipal Corporation Act, 1882, s. 140.-
Lunatic :(v.) Q. B. D.-Lunacy Commissioners — Discretion-Certificate that Person
detained may be Discharged-Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict., c. 5), s. 49. -The lunacy commissioners have, under sect. 49, discretion to refuse to discharge a person detained as of unsound mind, though two doctors gave a certificate that he may be safely discharged. Reg. v.
The Lunacy Commissioners, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 630 ; 76 L.T. 353. (vi.) C. D.-Foreigner found Lunatic Abroad—Fund in Court Transferred.
Where there were funds in Court in the name of a foreigner found lunatic abroad the Court ordered the transfer of the fund to the proper official of the State in which the lunatic was domiciled. In r. Barlow's will (57 L.T. 95; 36 Ch. D. 287) distinguished.-In r. De Linden ; in re Sparrier ; De Heyn v. Garland, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 453 ; 76 L.T. 180.
Malicious Representation :(vii.) Q. B.-Wilful Act—Physical Pain—Cause of Action.—Where in con
sequence of a false and malicious statement by the defendant to a wife that her husband had been seriously injured, she suffered a dangerous
illness and her husband was put to expense thereby, it was held that the defendant had wilfully done an act calculated to cause physical harm and that an action would lie.—Wilkinson and Wife v. Downton,
L.R. (1897] 2 Q.B. 57; 76 L.T. 493. Mandamus :(i.) Q. B. D.- Consent under 8. 13 of London Building Act, 1894
(57 & 58 Vict., c. 213).—The Court will not grant a mandamus to the London County Council to hear and determine an application for consent under sect. 13 after a building has been erected contrary to the London Building Act, 1894.-Reg. v. London County Council,
76 L.T. 472. Married Woman :(ii.) C. D.-Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict., c. 75), ss. 5
and 19—Contingent interest under Will subsequent to Act--Addition of Separate use by the Act.-By a will made subsequently to the Married Women's Property Act, a fund was left to trustees of a marriage settlement to be held for a married woman on the trusts of the settlement, under which property was settled to her separate use without power of anticipation, and in the event of her husband surviving her, as she should appoint and in default to her next-of-kin. Held, that the incident of separate use was added by sect. 5 of the Act, and that she could appoint her contingent interest under the will. --In re Williams ; Williams v. Grant, 76 L.T. 150.
ster and Servant:(iii.) C. A.-Injury to Workman-Defect in Condition of Machinery
Employers Liability Act, 1880, s. 1, sub-s. 1.-Decision of Court below
(see Vol. 22, p. 68 (iii.)) affirmed.--Tate v. Latham & Sons, 76 L.T. 336. Metropolis :(iv.) C. A.-Drainage-Repairs-Metropolis Management Act, 1862 (25 and
25 Vict., c. 102), s. 112.-The “Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers" referred to in sect. 112 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1862, are those constituted by 11 & 12 Vict., c. 112.-Appleyard v. The Vestry of
Lambeth, 76 L.T. 442. (v.) Q. B. D.—Delegation of Powers by Vestry to Committee-Metropolis
Management Act, 1855, ss. 58, 82, 85; Amendment Act, 1862, s. 64-Public Health Act (London), 1891, s. 3.-A summons for non-compliance with a notice under the Public Health Act, taken out by order of a committee appointed by a vestry, was dismissed by the magistrate on the ground that the vestry had not approved under sect. 58 of the action of the committee until after service of the notice. Held, that approval need not be given before service of the notice.-Firth v.
Staines L.R.  2 Q.B. 70; 76 L.T. 496. (vi.) Q. B. D.-" New Street”—Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19
Vict., c. 20), s. 105; Amendment Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict., c. 102), 88. 77 and 112.--A private road, which had existed before the Highway Act, and had not been altered, had on one side a public footpath, and on the other the backs of houses permanently cut off from access to it by a fence let into the soil. The local authority proposed to pave the road under sect. 105 of the Act of 1855, and claimed contribution from the owner of the road under sect. 77 of the Act of 1862. Held, that the road was not a "new street” within the meaning of sect. 105, and therefore, though there was evidence to shew that the owner was a frontager, he was not liable to contribute.-Arter v. The Vestry of Hammersmith, L.R.  1 Q.B. 646; 76 L.T. 390.
Mines :(i.) Q. B. D.-Abandoned Mine-Obligation to Fence--Metalliferous Mines
Regulation Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict., c. 77), s. 13 (2), s. 41—Derbyshire Mining Customs and Mineral Courts Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict., c. 163).—A mine had been abandoned for 30 years, and all trace of the last workers was lost. Held, that the mine reverted to the owner of the soil, who was liable to fence under sect. 13 of the Act of 1872.-Duke of Devonshire v. Stokes, 76 L.T. 424.
Mistake:(ii.) C. D.-Consent Order-Set Aside—Evidence of Counsel.—An order
expressed to be by consent was set aside on the ground of mistake, though it had been construed by two Courts.—Wilding v. Sanderson, 76 L.T. 346.
Mortgage :(iii.) C. D.-Equitable Mortgage-Vesting Declaration-Legal Mortgage
Notice.—A person who purchased a freehold in 1883 sold it, and later repurchased it, taking a conveyance free from incumbrance. He then deposited as equitable mortgage with a bank the conveyance of 1883, suppressing all mention of subsequent dealings with the estate, and by the memorandum of deposit he declared himself a trustee for the bank, and gave to the bank power to appoint new trustees and to vest in them the estate. He then borrowed money from a relative and executed a legal mortgage to him of the whole estate, “subject to the deposit with the bank and to the memorandum accompanying the same.” Held, that the vesting declaration was effectual to pass the legal estate to new trustees appointed by the bank.-London and County Banking Co., Limited, v. Goddard, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 642;
76 L.T. 277. (iv.) H. L-Power of Sale to one of several Mortgagors.—Decision of Court
of Appeal (see Vol. 22, p. 169 (vi.)) affirmed.—Kennedy v. De Trafford and Dodson, L.R.  A.C. 180 ; 76 L.T. 427.
National School:(v.) C. A.–Trustees-Street Paving—Sale or Mortgage--Public Health Act,
1875 (38 & 39 Vict., c. 55), ss. 4, 257; School Sites Act, 1841 (4 & 5 Vict., c. 38), ss. 6, 7, 15.—Though trustees of a national school, the site of which was conveyed under the Act of 1841, are liable for metalling a road on which their premises abut, the charge cannot be enforced by sale or mortgage of the premises free from the trusts. Decision of Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 19 (iv.) ) varied.-Hornsey District Council v. Smith, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 843 ; 76 L.T. 431.
Nuisance :(vi.) C. A.-Vacant Land—Injunction—Public Health (London) Act, 1891
(54 & 55 Vict., c. 76), ss. 13, 35, 138.—On appeal from the decision of the Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 70 (ii.)) the Court of Appeal declared the Attorney-General entitled to an injunction, and gave liberty to apply.--Attorney-General v. Tod-Heatly and Brownrigg, 76 L.T. 174; L.R.  1 Ch. 560.
Patent: (vii.) C. A.--Action for Infringement-Threats—Claim for Injunction-Patents,
etc., Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict., c. 57), s. 32.—Plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants for infringement of a patent, and after
wards published a statement to that effect. Held, that as the plaintiffs were prosecuting the action, an injunction would not, having regard to the proviso at the end of sect. 32 of the Patents Act of 1883, be granted to restrain the publication.—The Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co., Limited, v. The New Seddon Pneumatic Tyre or Self-closing Tube Co., Limited,
76 L.T. 405. (i.) C. A.-English Patent--Infringement-Goods made Abroad-Sent by
Post to England.—Decision of Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 71 (iii.)) reversed ; Rigby, L.J., dissenting.–Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v. Johnson & Co., and the Basle Chemical Works Bindschedler, 76 L.T. 434.
Poor Law: (ii.) C. A. -Settlement—Residence-Patient in Hospital—The Poor Removal
Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Vict., c. 66), s. 1; Divided Parishes Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict., c. 61), s. 34.—Three consecutive years “irremovable” residence is, by sect. 34 of the Divided Parishes Act, necessary to acquire a settlement by residence in a parish; and by the provisions of sect. 1 of the Poor Removal Act, 1846, there is not such a residence if the person for whom the settlement is claimed has been an in-patient of a hospital in any one of the years. Dorchester Union v. Weymouth Union (16 Q. B. D. 31; 54 L.T. 52) followed.-St. Olave's Union v. Canterbury Union, L.R.  1 Q.B. 682 ; 76 L.T. 517.
Practice : (iii.) C. A.-Money Paid into Court-Communication to Jury-Validity of
r. 22, 0. xxii.-R. 22 of 0. xxii. is a valid rule, and no communication as to money paid into Court_should be made to the jury until after
verdict.-Williams v. Goose, L.R.  1 Q.B. 471; 76 L.T. 143. (iv.) C. A. -Costs—Order as to, by Judge in Chambers—Power of Judge at
Trial to Vary.--Where Judge in Chambers has ordered that costs of an application under 0. xvi., shall be costs, in the cause, a Judge at the
trial cannot vary this order.-- Koosen v. Rose, 76 L.T. 145. (v.) P. D.-Administration with Will Annexed—Minors—Guardian-Form of
Order--Probate Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict., c. 77), s. 73.-A grant of administration with will annexed was made under sect. 73 to a guardian of minors “ until one of the minors comes of age and
applies.”—In the Goods of Fredk. G. Lilley, deceased, 76 L.T. 164. (vi.) P.D.-Probate—Defence Delivered—Application to add another Defendant
-Order—Costs.-A plaintiff, who had every means of knowing before action the proper defendants, was required, on obtaining leave to join another defendant after the statement of defence was delivered, to pay all the defendants' costs thrown away by the non-joinder.—Coke v.
French, 76 L.T. 163. (vii.) P. D.-Administration-Revocation of Grant-Administrator ordered to
file Accounts.—Where, on the discovery of a will, a grant of administration was revoked and probate granted, the administrator was ordered to furnish an account shewing how he had disposed of the
estate.—Jenkins v. Jenkins, 76 L.T. 164. (viii.) C D.-Motion for Final Judgment against one Defendant–0. xxvii.,
r. 12.—Where one of several defendants admits the plaintiff's claim, it is not necessary, if the cause of action is severable, to serve the other defendants with notice of motion for final judgment against him.Macmillan v. Australasian Territories, Limited, and Others, 76 L.T. 182.