« PreviousContinue »
likely to fly out of the shuttle race often enough to satisfy a reasonable interpretation of the word “ dangerous,” must be securely
fenced.-Hindle v. Birtwistle, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 192; 76 L.T. 159. Franchise : (i.) Q. B. D.-- Borough Vote—Residents in Almshouses-Reform Act, 1832
(2 & 3 Will. IV., c. 45), s. 36.-An old endowment vested lands in the recipients, elected and removable by a town council of a charity for old, feeble and necessitous persons.
The beneficiaries received & weekly allowance, were bound by rules, resided within precincts in rooms of which they were the legal owners, and had always voted at Parliamentary elections. Held, that as the legal interest in the land of the charity was vested in the recipients of the charity, they were not disqualified from voting under sect. 36 of the Reform Act.—Cowen and Another v. The Town Clerk of Kingston-upon-Hull, L.R. (1897]
1 Q.B. 273; 75 L.T. 593. (ii.) Q. B. D.-Voters -- Objections – Lists Closed-Parliamentary and
Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict., c. 26), s. 28, sub-88. 9, 10, 11. -Sect. 28 (9), (10) & (11) do not affect the practice, which is a reasonable and convenient one, of separating the defended from the undefended objections to names in municipal and parliamentary voters' lists, and of fixing days for applications to be heard. (See also Vol. 22, p. 12, viii.)
— Reg. v. Soren and Overend, L.R.  1 Q.B. 188; 76 L.T. 161. Friendly Society : (iii.) C. A.-Expulsion of Member—Jurisdiction-Friendly Societies Acts,
1875 (38 & 39 Vict., c. 60), s. 22; 1895 (58 & 59 Vict., c. 26), s. 10.-A dispute as to the legality of the expulsion of a member of a friendly society is not one that must under the above sections of the Friendly Societies Acts be decided in the manner provided by the rules of the
society.--Palliser v. Dale, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 257; 76 L.T. 14. Gaming :(iv.) Q. B. D.-Payment of Bets in a Public House-Betting Act, 1853
(16 & 17 Vict., c. 119), ss. 1, 3.-Payment of bets is not “betting,” and neither the bookmaker who pays at the bar of a public house bets made elsewhere, nor the licensee who permits the payment, can be convicted under sect. 3 of the Betting Act.—Bradford Commissioner of
Police v. Dawson and Parker, L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. 307; 76 L.T. 54. Hackney Carriage :(v.) Q. B. D.-Refusal to Drive into Railway Station-London Hackney
Carriage Act, 1853, s. 17, sub-s. 2.-The driver of a hackney carriage may be required to drive to any place within the limits of the Act to which he can lawfully obtain access. The interior of a railway station is a “ place " within the meaning of sect. 17 of the Act.-E. p. Kippins,
L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 1; 75 L.T. 421. Highway:(vi.) C. A.-Person by whose Order Extraordinary Traffic has been conducted
-Highways and Locomotive (Amendment) Act, 1878, s. 23.- Decision of
76 L.T. 8. Husband and Wife :(vii.) P. D. – Desertion Neglect to Provide Cohabitation Summary
Jurisdiction (Married Woman) Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict., c. 39), s. 4.-
had never lived together under the same roof, it was held, that the cohabitation was sufficient to give justices jurisdiction to make an order against the husband, who had refused to receive the wife into the house where he lodged.-Bradshawe v. Bradshawe, L.R. (1897)
P. 24. (i.) Q. B. D.-Separation under Summary Jurisdiction (Married Woman)
Act, 1895, ss. 4 & 5)-Summons dismissed-Action in County Court for Costs.—A summons taken out by a married woman for separation on the ground of the husband's cruelty was dismissed, without order as to costs, and her solicitor brought an action in the County Court against the husband for the costs. Held, that neither the wife nor her solicitor could maintain such an action.—Cale v. James, L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. 418; 76 L.T. 119.
Innkeeper:(ii.) Q. B. D.-Liability to keep Guest.-As the obligation of an innkeeper
to receive a person as a guest only attaches where that person is a traveller, it was held, that no action would lie against the proprietor of an hotel for ejecting a guest who had remained for some months and refused to leave.—Lamond v. Richard, 75 L.T. 693.
Insurance : (iii.) C. A.–Fire–Subrogation-Rights of Insurers.—A lessee who was
bound to repair had insured the premises, although the lessor had covenanted to do so. A fire occurred, and the lessee received £100 on his policy. He did not make good the damage, and at the termination of the lease, the lessor commenced an action for breach of covenant to repair, which the lessee compromised by paying £140, and undertaking not to sue on the lessor's covenant to insure. The lessor had also received £100 from the insurance company in which he had insured the premises. Held, that the plaintiff company who had paid the defendant lessee were entitled to his rights under the lease, and could recover from him the £100 which he had given up.-West of England Fire Insurance Company y. Isaacs, L.R.  1 Q.B. 226;
75 L.T. 564. (iv.) C. A.--Claim under Policy Executed but Retained - Recital of Payment
of Premium-Non-puyment--Waiver.-A policy of insurance against burglary, which recited that a premium had been paid covering loss from 14th December was executed on 27th December, but retained by the insurers until the premium should be paid. On the 27th December a loss of goods insured took place. Held, that by the recital a condition for prepayment of premium was waived, and that the policy was a completed contract, under which the defendants were liable.-Roberts v. Security Co., Limited, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 111; 75 L.T. 531.
Joint Tenancy:(v.) C. D.-Severance by Marriage.--A joint tenancy in freeholds or lease
holds is not severed by the marriage of a female joint tenant, nor by the granting (in 1867) of a lease, or a sub-demise by her husband, and the other joint tenant where the rent was reserved to them jointly. -Palmer v. Rich, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 134; 75 L.T. 484.
Vict., c. 49), 88. 4 & 51—Cotton Cloth Factories Act, 1889 (52 & 53
offence under the Cotton Cloth Factories Act to reduce the fine fixed by sect. 13 of this Act. — Osborn v. Wood Brothers, L.R. (1897)
1 Q.B. 197 ; 76 L.T. 60. (i.) Q. B. D.-Sunday Observance Act, 1676 (29 Car. 2, c. 7), s. 1–Sunday
Observance Preservation Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict., c. 87), s. 1.--Where a chief constable gave a verbal consent to an information being laid against a person under the above Acts, and only after the summons was issued gave his consent in writing, it was held that a conviction
was bad.—Thorpe v. Priestnall, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 159. (ii.) C. A.-Decision of Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 45, v.) affirmed.
Jones v. German, 76 L.T. 136.
Landlord and Tenant:(iii.) Q. B. D.-Covenant by Tenant to Pay Duties, &c.—New Drains—Public
Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict., c. 76), ss. 4, 121.—Where a tenant covenanted to pay all duties and impositions, parliamentary, parochial, or otherwise, in respect of demised premises, it was held that the landlord could recover from him the amount expended on repairs to drains on the premises in compliance with a notice from the County Council under the Public Health Act.—Brett v. Rogers,
L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 525; 76 L.T. 26. (iv.) C. D.-Notice of Breach of Covenant-Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45
Vict., c. 41), s. 14.-A notice served by a lessor that the lessee had broken covenants to repair six houses and requiring him to repair and pay compensation was held to be insufficient to satisfy sect. 14, subsect. 1 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, as the notice ought to inform the tenant of the particular things of which the landlord complains.
Fletcher v. Nokes, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 271; 76 L.T. 107. Lease :(v.) H. L.-Pond with Stream Leading Thereto.—Two ponds " together
with the right to the water in the said ponds and in the streams leading thereto" were included in a demise. Held (the Lord Chancellor dissenting) not to include a spring which percolated the ground in no defined channel.—McNab v. Robertson and Others, L.R. (1897) A.C. 129; 75 L.T. 666.
Legal Tender:(vi.) C. D.—Tender of Cheque to Solicitor.—The tender of a cheque to the
solicitor of a mortgagee in payment of charges is not a good tender unless the solicitor has authority from his client to accept a cheque in payment.—Blumberg v. _The Life Interests and Reversionary Securities Corporation, Limited, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 171 ; 75 L.T. 627.
Libel:(vii.) H. L.- Excess of Privilege-Malice.—Decision of Court of Appeal (see
Vol. 20, p. 108, iii.) affirmed.-Nevile v. Fine Arts and General Publishing
Co., L.R. (1897] A.C. 68; 75 L.T. 606. Licensing :(viii.) Q. B. D.-Soldiers and Sailors—Claim to Sell Liquors without Licence.
56 Geo. III., c. 67, provides that certain soldiers and others or their wives and children may set up trades without molestation, any statute, &c., to the contrary notwithstanding. Held, that this does not exempt such persons from the general provisions of the licensing and other Acts, but merely from restrictions imposed by charters or local customs.-Killin v. Swatton, 76 L.T. 55.
(i.) Q. B. D.-Bond-fide Traveller-Sale of Intoxicating Liquor for
Consumption off Premises--Licensing Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict., c. 49), s. 10.-A licensed person is not authorised, under sect. 10, to sell during the time his premises are required to be closed, intoxicating liquors for consumption off the premises.-Mountfield v. Ward,
L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 326. Local Government:(ii.) Q. B.D.-Bye-law of County Council—Use of Obscene Language in House
near Street-Annoyance-Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict., c. 41), s. 16–Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict., c, 50), s. 23. -A bye-law made by a county council, under sect. 16 of the Local Government Act, 1888, frohibiting under penalty any person from using obscene language in any place near a street to the annoyance of anyone in such street, was held to be good. Held also that a man who had used obscene language in a room, the door of which opened into a public street, to the annoyance of persons in the street, ought to have been convicted under the bye-law.—Mantle v. Jordan, L.R. (1897]
1 Q.B. 248; 75 L.T. 552. (iii.) C. D.-Removal of Obstruction from Highway-Personal Influence
Alleged in Pleadings—Irrelevancy-Local Government Act, 1894 (56 and 57 Vict., c. 73), ss. 26, 46.-A statement of claim in an action against a local board to restrain the removal of posts which protected a footpath from vehicular traffic, alleged that a member of the board had used his influence for private interests. Held, that a local board acting under sect. 26, sub-sect. 6, of the Local Government Act is in the position of a private individual protecting his own property, and that as the real issue was whether the posts were an obstruction to the public right of way, the allegations ought to be struck out.-Murray
v. Epsom Local Board, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 35; 75 L.T. 579. (iv.) C. A.- Drainage Statutory Duty-Non-feasance—Remedy-Public
Health Act, 1875 (38 d 39 Vict., c. 55), ss. 15 & 299.—When an Act of Parliament creates a duty, and gives a special remedy in case of non-feasance of that duty, no action will lie at the suit of an individual. Therefore, though sect. 15 of the Public Health Act, 1875, requires a local authority to cause necessary sewers to be made in its district, an action for non-feasance will not lie against the authority where damage has been caused by overflow of an insufficient sewer. The only remedy of a person injured by the overflow is by complaint, under sect. 299, to the Local Government Board.—Robinson v. T'he Mayor of Workington,
75 L.T. 674. (v.) C. D.- Local Act-Agreement of Commissioners with Defendant,
Transfer to Corporation of Powers of Commissioners-Claim for PavingMemorial to Secretary of State-West Hartlepool Extension and Improvement Act, 1870.-The defendant, by agreement with a local authority, gave space for a road along a frontage. He was subsequently required by an order of the corporation, who succeeded the local authority, to drain and pave the road, and, on default, the work was done by the corporation, who took out a summons to have the expenditure declared a charge on his property. Held, that the corporation had, under its local Act, power to make the order, and that entry under the order was not trespass ; that the corporation were not compelled to go to arbitration, and therefore were entitled to sue (following Mayor of Folkestone v. Brooks, 69 L.T. 403  3 Ch. 22); that the agreement was not a defence to the action, but that having regard to sect. 349 of the local Act, a memorial could be presented to the Secretary of State for relief (following Walthamstow Local Board v. Staines, 65 L.T. 430).—The Mayor of West Hartlepool v. Robinson, 75 L.T. 677.
Lunatic :(i.) C. D.-Pauper Lunatic—Guardians-Authority to Deal with Lunatic's
Property-Lunacy Act, 1891, s. 299.-A receiver of a lunatic's estate who had been appointed with directions to pay the costs of guardians incurred while the lunatic was an inmate of the county asylum, brought an action for an injunction to restrain the guardians from enforcing an order which they had previously obtained from a magistrate, under sect. 299 of the Lunacy Act, to seize a sum of money belonging to the lunatic in the hands of a trustee. Held, that the injunction must be granted as the section did not make the guardians the authority for dealing with the property of a pauper
lunatic.-Winkle v. Bailey, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 123; 75 L.T. 577. Mandamus:(ii.) Q. B. D.- Alternative Remedy-Endowed Schools Act, 1869 (32 and
33 Vict., c. 56).—A scheme for the management of Christ's Hospital
1 Q.B. 407. Master and Servant:(iii.) Q. B. D.-Injury to Workman-Employers Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44
Vict., c. 42), s. 1, sub-s. 1.—Where a guard, put to protect persons from injury by a saw in a factory, was occasionally removed for convenience, and on its absence one of the workmen was injured, it was held, that the absence constituted a defect in the machinery within sect. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Employers Liability Act.-Tate v. Latham,
L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 502 ; 75 L.T. 694. (iv.) C. A.–Driver of Cart—Transgressing Orders—Damage.—The driver of
a tradesman's cart on its rounds was forbidden by his master to leave the vehicle, and a boy who accompanied him was forbidden to drive. The driver quitted the cart, and the boy drove, causing damage to another vehicle. Held, that the negligence of the driver in the course of his employment caused the damage, and that the master was liable.—Engelhardt v. Farrant & Co. and Lipton, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 240 ;
75 L.T. 617. Mayor's Court:(v.) C. A.–Jurisdiction-Prohibition.—The plaintiff preferred a bill of
complaint on the Equity side of the Lord Mayor's Court, for specific performance (or in the alternative damages) of a contract for a transfer of shares in a company registered in Scotland. Held, that as the action was not for damages for breach of contract, it was not within sect. 12 of 20 & 21 Vict., c. 157, and as the whole of the cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction, a writ of prohibition should be granted.-Bowler v. The Barberton Syndicate, Limited, L.R. (1897]
1 Q.B. 164; 75 L.T. 620. Merchant Shipping :(vi.) Q. B. D.-Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict., c. 60), ss. 320,
341, 342.-An agreement for a sum of money to place a person as a farm servant in Canada and to procure him a passage to Quebec was