Page images

(i.) P. D.-Divorce-Wife's Costs.-Where, in a husband's petition for

divorce, the wife made counter-charges but did not go into the witnessbox, and a rule nisi was granted, the usual order for the wife's costs was refused, on the ground that the solicitor for the wife had not investigated the reasonableness of the grounds put forward by her as

a defence.—Walker v. Walker and Lawson, 76 L.T. 234. (ii.) P. D.Divorce-Wife's Costs.-Where a husband on a petition by him

for divorce had been ordered to pay costs incurred by the wife's solicitor and without paying them had obtained leave to proceed in formâ pauperis, it was ordered that proceedings be stayed till he satisfied

the order.-Joseph v. Joseph and Burnhill, 76 L.T. 236. (iii.) C. D.-Discovery-Lien of Former Solicitor-Claim for Negligence.-A

defendant in answer to a summons for discovery and production alleged that the documents were in possession of a former solicitor whose lien he was unwilling to discharge as he had a claim against him for negligence. Held, according to Rodick v. Gandell (12 Beav. 325) and Vale v. Oppert (5 Ch. Div. 569) that this did not release the defendant from the obligation to produce them, but that the Court would take care that he should not be subject to oppression.—Lewis v.

Powell, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 678; 76 L.T. 282. (iv.) H. L.-Costs in Action Paid to Solicitor-Judgment Reversed-Liability

to Repay.Decision of Court of Appeal (see Vol. 22, p. 22 (viii.), HoodBarrs v. Heriot) affirmed; Fitzmaurice v. Jordan, 32 L. Rep. Ir. 112 not followed.Hood-Barrs v. Croosman, L.R. [1897) A.C. 172;

76 L.T. 297. (v.) H. L.-CostsMarried Women-Restraint on Anticipation-Appeal

Married Woman's Property Act, 1893, s. 2.--The words of sect. 2" in any action or proceeding instituted ” refer to litigation initiated by a married woman, and not to an appeal from a judgment in an action brought against her, and the provision as to costs in that section do not apply to such an appeal.-Hood-Barrs v. Heriot (2nd Appeal),

L.R. [1897] A.C. 177 ; 76 L.T. 299. (vi.) C. A.-Jurisdiction of Master-Compensation under Lands Clauses Act

-Regulation of Railways Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict., c. 119), s. 41– Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict., c. 66), s. 16–0. liv., r. 12.—A master has jurisdiction to hear an application made under sect. 41 of the Railways Act, 1868, for the trial in the High Court of a question of compensation.-In re Donisthorpe's Claim and the Manchester, Sheffield,

and Lincolnshire Railway Co., L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 671; 76 L.T. 371. (vii.) C, A.-DiscoveryDocuments Referred to in Affidavit0. xxxi., rr. 15,

16, 17, 18.-A Judge in Chambers has jurisdiction to order inspection of correspondence referred to in an unfiled affidavit of an arbitrator prepared in opposition to a motion to set aside his award.--In re An

Arbitration between Fenner and Lord, L.R. [1897]1 Q.B. 667; 76 L.T. 376. (viii.) C. A.-Appeal—" Criminal Cause or Matter—Judicature Act, 1873,

8. 47.—Where the Divisional Court had quashed the conviction, under a local Act, of a corporation, for supplying gas of deficient illuminating power, it was held that no appeal would lie, as the judgment of the Divisional Court was in a “criminal cause or matter" within the meaning of sect. 47 of the Judicature Act, 1873.The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Southport v. The Birkdale Urban District Council,

76 L.T. 318. (ix.) Q. B, D.-MandamusVaccination Acts, 1867, 1871, 1874General

Orders of Local Government Board under those Acts (October 31st, 1874) -Public Health (London) Act, 1891.–To maintain an application for mandamus the prosecutor must have a specific legal right to enforce

the performance of the duty left unperformed. A district board of works have no legal right to require guardians of the poor to perform duties imposed by the Vaccination Act.Reg. v. Guardians of the

Lewisham Union, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 498; 76 L.T. 324. (i.) Q. B. D.-Bankruptcy-Receiving Order on Appeal-Date.—A receiving

order granted on appeal is dated as if made on the date of the application to the Court below.-In re Raatz ; e. p. Carlihan,

76 L.T. 330. (ii.) C. A.-JurisdictionOrder Stayed by Supplemental Order.There is

jurisdiction in the Court, on further facts being brought to its knowledge, to make a supplemental order staying, until antecedent directions are complied with, the operation of a previous order. Where a trustee has not complied with a direction to pay money into Court, an order made for payment to him of costs may be stayed by a supplemental order till he has complied with the neglected direction.-In re

Scowby; Scouby v. Scowby, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 741 ; 76 L.T. 363. (iii.) C. A.-DiscoveryInspection of Books in UseSealing or Covering up

Parts.- Where under an order for inspection of defendant's books, the plaintiff objected to any parts not under seal being kept from his examination, it was held that the defendant might be at liberty to refer to and cover up from time to time, without sealing, such parts as he could state on oath were not material to the action.--Graham v.

Sutton & Co., L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 761 ; 76 L.T. 369. (iv.) C. D.-- Administrator Pendente Lite-Proceedings against- Court of

Probate Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict., c. 77), s. 70.—An administrator pendente lite is an administrator for all purposes except for the distribution of residue, and therefore can be sued by a creditor of the deceased.-In

re Toleman ; Westward v. Booker, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 866 ; 76 L.T. 381. (v.) C. D.-TaxationMortgagee of Client-Joint Application.—Where a

mortgagee of a client joined, on the requisition of the Court, with the client in an application for taxation of a bill of costs the Court held that an order could not issue unless he joined the client also in a submission to pay what might be found due.-In re Battams and Hutchinson,

L.R. (1897] i Ch. 699; 76 L.T. 385. (vi.) C. D.-Receiver-- Cost of Security. A receiver or receiver and manager

finds security at his own cost if appointed at a salary, but if appointed without remuneration the cost of finding his security is allowed out of

assets.-Harris v. Sleep, 76 L.T. 458. (vii.) Q. B. D.--Employers Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict., c. 42), s. 4–

County Court Rules, 1889, 0. x., rr. 10, 18.-In an action under the Employers Liability Act, 1880, a defence that the notice required by sect. 4 of that Act had not been given, is a statutory defence” within 0. X., r. 18, of the county court rules, 1889, and, therefore, cannot be raised unless five days' notice has been filed in accordance with r, 10 of 0. X.

-Conroy v. Peacock, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 6; 76 L.T. 465. (viii.) Q. B. D. Judgment and Finding of Official Referee Appeal

0. xxxix., rr. 3 and 4–0. xl., r. 6.-In an appeal from the decision of an official referee a new trial was asked for. Held, that the case came within rr. 3 and 4 of 0. xxxix., and that the application was out of time.-Forrest v. Todd, 76 L.T. 500.


Principal and Agent:(ix.) C. A.· Liability of Agent a Servant of Crown. A public servant of the

Crown making, in that capacity, a contract, is not personally liable on the contract, or for breach of warranty to make it.Dunn v. Macdonald, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 555 ; 76 L.T. 444.

Public Health :

C. D.-Urban District Council-Drainage--Surface Water-Right to Discharge into Stream-Public Health Act, 1875, ss. 15, 17, 308.-A local authority made drains intercepting from the sewers the surface water of roads, and carrying it into a stream, the property of the plaintiff, which was the natural outlet for it. Held, that the authority had the right to so drain the roads, provided they observed the restrictions of sect. 17 ; that sand or silt is not filthy water within the meaning of that section; and that the plaintiff's remedy, if he had suffered damage, was to seek compensation under sect. 308.—Durrant v. The

Branksome Urban District Council, 76 L.T. 486. (ii.) C. A.-Liquids from Factory-Drains— Local Authority--Mandamus,

Public Health Act, 1875, ss. 15, 21, 299.—On the ground that an exclusive remedy is provided by sect. 299 of the Public Health Act, a mandamus cannot be granted to compel a local authority to provide, under sects. 15 and 21 of the same Act, sewers to carry off liquids from a factory in the district. Decision of Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 75 (iii.)) reversed. Robinson v. Mayor of Workington (see Vol. 22, p. 67 (iv.) ) followed.-- Peebles v. The Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council, L.R. [1897)

1 Q.B. 625 ; 76 L.T. 315. Railway: (iii.) Q. B. D.-- Articles Deposited in Cloak Room-Liability for Damage.

A notice on the ticket given to the depositor of articles in the cloak room of a railway, that "the Company will not be responsible for any package exceeding the value of £10,” means that such an article is taken in at the owner's risk, and that the company has no responsibility for loss or damage to the article.Pratt v. South-Eastern

Railway Co., L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 718; 76 L.T. 465. Rating: (iv.) Q. B. D.-Valuation ListNotice of Objection to Rateable Value only

Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict., c. 103), 88. 18, 19—Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, ss. 11, 32.-Where a ratepayer has given notice of objection to the rateable value, but not to the gross value of his hereditament, the assessment committee has no jurisdiction, without the consent of the overseer, to entertain an objection to

the gross.-Reg. v. London (Justices of), L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 433. (v.) C.A.-Poor Rate-County Buildings Used Partly for Crown Purposes.

Portions of a county building which are used partly for Crown purposes and partly for County purposes are rateable to the relief of the poor (see also Vol. 22, p. 25 (vi.) ).--The County Council of Worcestershire v. The Assessment Committee of the Worcester Union, L.R. [1897]

1 Q.B. 480; 76 L.T. 138. (vi.) Q. B. D.-Lighting and Watching Act, 1883 (3 & 4 Wm. IV., c. 90),

s. 33BrickfieldProperty other than Land.-On a brickfield were engines, engine houses, and other accessories of brickmaking, and a foreman's cottage. Held, that the land was the principal and the building the accessory, and taken as a whole, ought to be rated as land, but that if separately assessed, the foreman's house, and possibly some other structures, could be rated as a building.–Overseers of the Poor for the Parish of Crayford and the District Council for Crayford v. D. & C. Rutter, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 650 ; 76 L.T. 392.

Records :(vii.) Consistory Court of London.- Public Records - Custody

Disposal.-The Consistorial Court of London has the custody of

[ocr errors]

documents relating to the see of London, and may, through the Chancellor of London, order their relinquishment to a foreign power. -The Log of the Mayflower, 76 L.T. 295.

Revenue:(i.) C. D.-Account Stamp Duty--Liability-Customs and Inland Revenue

Acts, 1881 (44 d: 45 Vict., c. 12), ss. 38 and 39 ; and 1889 (52 & 53 Vict., c. 7), s. 11.-Account stamp duty, in respect of property bestowed within twelve months of his death by a testator, is to be paid by the beneficiary who is required by sect. 39 of the Act of 1881 to render the account.-In re Foster ; Thomas v. Foster, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 484 ;

76 L.T. 228. (ii.) Q. B. D.-Estate Duty-Deduction for MortgagesAnnuitiesFinance

Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict., c. 30), 1, 2 (16), 7 (16) and 7.-By arrangement between an equitable life tenant and an equitable tenant in tail in remainder, certain mortgages were effected on the estate, and the life tenant granted out of his own interest thus arising, an annuity to the equitable tenant in tail. On the death of the life tenant, it was held, that the amount liable to estate duty was the principal value of the estate less the mortgages, but without allowing any deduction for the capitalised value of the annuity.-In re Estate Duty Payable on the

Death of the 2nd Earl Cowley, 76 L.T. 567. (iii.) Q. B. D.-Settlement Estate Duty-Contingent Settlement Finance Act,

1894, s. 5.--An absolute settlement of part of an estate, together with the contingent settlement of the residue, is, for the purposes of the Finance Act, a settlement of the whole estate, and a contingent settlement of part is a settlement within the meaning of sect. 5.--The Attorney-General v. Fairley and Others, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 698;

76 L.T. 526. (iv.) Q. B.D.-Stamp Duty-Bonds of Foreign Railway Signed in England-

Stamp Act, 1891, s. 82 (1), (b) (i., ii., iii.).—Bonds of a foreign railway expressed not to be valid, unless authenticated by the certificate of a trustee, were sent over for the English holders, and for convenience or safety were signed in London. Held, that such bonds were issued in England within the meaning of the Stamp Act, sect. 82, and liable to

duty.-Baring v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 76 L.T. 563. (v.) Q. B. D-Stamp Duty-Conveyance on Sale-Stamp Act, 1891, ss. 54,

55, 73 and 1st sched. A company resolved to amalgamate with another company and to exchange its shares for shares in the latter. Held, that an instrument by which a shareholder in the amalgamated company so exchanged its shares was a “conveyance on sale” within the meaning of sects. 54 and 55 (1) of the Stamp Act, and chargeable with ad valorem duty.--J. and P. Coates, Limited, v. Commissioners of

Inland Revenue, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 778; 76 L.T. 561. (vi.) Q. B. D.- Estate Duty-Finance Act, 1894, ss. 1, 2 (b), 21, sub-s. 1.

A wife, who died before the commencement of the Finance Act, appointed a trust fund under powers of her marriage settlement, and probate duty was paid on the fund less the value of her husband's life interest. The husband died after the commencement of the Finance Act. Held, that estate duty was chargeable only on that portion of the trust fund (viz., the value of his life interest) upon which probate duty had not been paid.—Attorney-General v. Dodington, L.R. [1897]

1 Q.B. 722 ; 76 L.T. 557. (vii.) C. D.- Succession Duty.Where under powers of marriage

settlement an appointment was made of so much of the settled fund as should be sufficient to raise a certain net sum, it was held, that as


the appointment was not of a pet sum, the appointee took subject to succession duty. Banks v. Braithwaite, 8 L.T. 80, applied.-In re

Saunders ; Saunders v. Gore, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 888; 76 L.T. 345. (i.) H. L.-Assignor of Policy of Insurance-Liability for Succession Duty

or Account Duty-Succession Duty Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict., c. 51), ss. 2 and 17-Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1889 (52 Vict., c. 7), s. 11. Seven years before his death a person assigned a policy on his own life to his daughter, who thereafter paid the premiums out of her own money. Held, that she was not liable to pay either succession duty or account duty on the amount received under the policy on the death of the insured.-Lord Advocate v. Robertson, 76 L.T. 125.

Scotch Law :(ii.) C. D.-Scotch Will-English Decree of General Power of Appointment.

The distribution of a fund passing under a general power of appointment created by a Scotch Will is regulated by Scotch law, though the power be exercised by the English Will of a domiciled Englishman.-In re Bald; Bald v. Bald, 76 L.T. 462.

Settled Land :(iii.) C. D.-JurisdictionRepairs in Nature of Salvage-CapitalSettled

Land Acts, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict., c. 38), s. 25; and 1890 (53 & 54 Vict., c. 69) s. 13, sub-s. 2.- The Settled Land Acts do not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to sanction, with the concurrence of a remainderman, expenditure, in the nature of salvage, of capital in the repair of farms on the estate of an infant tenant in tail in possession.-In re Hawker's

Settled Estates ; Duff v. Hawker, 76 L.T. 286. (iv.) C. D. & C. A.- Jurisdiction - Pulling Down and Rebuilding Houses.

- The Court has no jurisdiction to direct the expenditure of settled money in pulling down and rebuilding houses. Decision of Court below affirmed.-In re Montagu ; Derbyshire v. Montagu, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 685 and 2 Ch. 8; 76 L.T. 289 and 485.

Settlement:(v.) C. D.- Covenant to Settle After-acquired Property of Wife.—By a

marriage settlement it was covenanted that any property above a certain value which the wife became entitled to during coverture should be subject to the settlement. Under & will she became entitled to income for life for her sole and separate use with restraint on anticipation, and out of it she saved and invested sums which amounted to more than the value mentioned in the settlement. Held, that as the income which she received was not subject to the covenant in the settlement, the covenant did not govern investments from such income. Wallis v. Bendy (see Vol. 20, p. 55 (iii.)) not

followed.—Finley v. Darling, L.R. [1897) 1 Ch. 719 ; '76 L.T. 461. (vi.) C. D.-Sale of HeirloomsInvestmentConditions.-Land purchased

with the proceeds of heirloom chattels sold by the tenant for life was held not to be subject to charges to which other land, but not the settled chattels, was subject by the original settlement.-In re The Duke of Marlborough and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, L.R. (1897]

1 Ch. 712; 76 L.T. 388. (vii.) C. D.—Trust for Payment of DebtsDeath of Settlor-Deed Irrevocable.

-By a re-settlement of estates a father and son were made successive tenants for life with remainder in tail to an infant, subject to a trust for payment of the father's debts. The deed was made in 1867, and the creditors had no notice of it. Held, that on the death of the

« PreviousContinue »