« PreviousContinue »
offence under the Cotton Cloth Factories Act to reduce the fine fixed by sect. 13 of this Act. — Osborn v. Wood Brothers, L.R.  1 Q.B. 197; 76 L.T. 60.
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.  1 Q.B. 159.
C. A.—Decision of Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 45, v.) affirmed.—
Landlord and Tenant :- (iii.) Q. B. D.—Covenant by Tenant to Pay Duties, dec.—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, ochial, 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.  1 Q.B. 525; 76 L.T. 26.
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.  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.  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.  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
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.  1 Q.B. 326.
(ii.) Q. B. D.—Bye-law of County Council—Use of Obscene Language in House near Street—Annoyance—Local Government Act, 1888 (51 d. 52 Vict., c. 41), s. 16—Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 d 46 Vict., c. 50), s. 23. —A bye-law made by a county council, under sect. 16 of the Local Government Act, 1888, prohibiting 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.  1 Q.B. 248; 7.5 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.  1 Ch. 35; 75 L.T. 579.
(iv.) C. A. - Drainage – Statutory Duty–Non-feasance—Remedy—Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 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. The 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 Paving— Memorial 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.
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.  1 Ch. 123; 75 L.T. 577.
Q. B. D.—Alternative Remedy–Endowed Schools Act, 1869 (32 and 33 Vict. c. 56).—A scheme for the management of Christ's Hospital provides that any question as to validity of proceedings “shall be determined conclusively by the Charity Commissioners.” On an application to the Court for a mandamus to compel the Commissioners to decide whether a lady could be appointed an almoner. Held, that a mandamus ought not to issue, as there was an effectual remedy either under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, s. 28, or by action against the governors, and (by Wright, J.) that the question was not one affecting the validity of proceedings— R. v. Charity Commissioners of England and Wales, L.R.  1 Q.B. 407.
Master and Servant:
Q. B. D.—Injury to Workman—Employers Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44
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.  1 Q.B. 164; 75 L.T. 620.
Merchant Shipping :
) 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 held not to be a sale or letting of a passage within sect. 341, or to bring the contractor within sect. 342 as a passage broker; and the money received was held not to be for a passage in a ship within sect. 320.—Morriss v. Howden, L.R.  1 Q.B. 378; 76 L.T. 156.
- Metropolis :—
Q. B. D.—Public Health–Order of Sanitary Authority—Jurisdiction of Magistrate–Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 d. 55 Vict., c.76), s.37.— The only appeal from an order of a sanitary authority acting under sect. 37 of the Public Health Act, 1891, for the supply of further water closet accommodation to a house, is to the county council, and a magistrate at the hearing of a summons for non-compliance with the order, has no jurisdiction to enquire into the need for the accommodation ordered.—Vestry of St. John's, Hackney v. Hatton, L.R. 
1 Q.B. 210; 75 L.T. 686.
Q. B. D.—Building Notice—Erection of Seating—London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict., c. 213), s. 145.—Blocks of seating capable of being fitted temporarily to parts of the inside of a building were kept and used as occasion required by the Agricultural Hall Company. Held, that the seating was not a “structure or work,” and its replacement was not the beginning of such a structure or work within the meaning of sect. 145 of the Act.—Venner v. McDonell, L.R.  1 Q.B. 421; 76 L.T. 152.
Q. B. D.—Public Health (London) Act, 1891, s. 19, sub-s. 4–Bye-Laws.— A local authority with statutory powers to make bye-laws for “regulating the conduct of the business” of a “slaughterer of cattle,” made a bye-law providing that “An occupier of a slaughterhouse shall not slaughter, or permit to be slaughtered, any animal . . . . in any part of the premises except the slaughterhouse, and “shall not slaughter, or permit to be slaughtered, any animal within public view, or within the view of any other animal.” Held, that such bye-law was valid, and rendered a master liable for acts of his servants.— Collman v. Mills, L.R.  1 Q.B. 396; 75 L.T. 590.
C. D.—Party Structure—Notice by Adjoining Owner—London Building Act, 1894, s. 5, sub-s. 29; 8.90.—Where the plaintiff was in possession of land under an agreement that when he had erected buildings of a certain value he should be granted a lease, it was held that notice must be served upon him, under sect. 90 of the London Building Act, 1894, by an adjoining owner who desired to erect a party structure.—Lest v. Tharp, L.R.  1 Ch. 260; 76 L.T. 45.
. B. D.—County Council – Dangerous Structures—Delegation of Duties.—The London County Council can delegate to their architect the duties imposed upon them by the London Building Act, 1894 (Part IX.), as to dangerous structures.—London County Council v. Hobbis, 75 L.T. 686.
Q. B. D.—Street Musician–Order to Depart—27 d: 28 Vict., c. 55.—A householder ordering from the neighbourhood of his house a street musician, under sect. 1 of 27 & 28 Wict., c. 55, must state to him the reason for the order.—Shields v. Howard, L.R.  1 Q.B. 84.
C. A.—Sale—Surplus Proceeds in Hands of First Mortgage—Interest.— Where a first mortgagee retains on realisation more money than sufficient to satisfy his claim, he will, generally, be ordered to pay interest on the surplus to the second mortgagee. A second mortgagee was not deprived of this interest, though he had abstained for four years from enforcing his claim to the surplus money retained by the first mortgagee.—Eley v. Read, 76 L.T. 39.
(i.) C. D.–Contract for Sale of Lease, Goodwill and Furniture—Unpaid
Purchase-Money—Assignment and Mortgage not Executed—Receiver— A contract was entered into for the sale of the lease, goodwill and furniture of a private hotel, and a draft assignment of the lease and a mortgage to secure unpaid purchase-money were prepared, but not executed. Held, on motion in an action for specific performance, that a receiver and manager might be appointed to take possession of the premises with authority to carry on the business, but not to include any chattels other than those which would pass on an assignment of the lease.—Poole v. Downes, 76 L.T. 110.
C. D.—Vacant Land–Injunction—Public Health (London) Act, 1891, ss. 13, 35.—Both at common law and under the Public Health Act, local authorities in London have a right of action for an injunction to restrain a nuisance on vacant private land, but the Court may be unwilling to grant an injunction where the authorities have also special powers to abate the nuisance themselves.—Attorney-General v. Tod-Heatley and Brownrigg, 75 L.T. 452.
H. L.—Tramway—Obstruction of Street.—A tramway company in Scotland, with statutory powers of running, were held liable to an interdict to restrain them from so removing snow from their lines as to be a nuisance to the public, and were not excused on the ground that if the road authorities had not delayed to clear the streets through which the line ran, the nuisance would not have arisen.—0gston v. Aberdeen District Tramways Co., L.R.  A.C. 111; 75 L.T. 633.
(iv.) C. A.–Dangerous Condition of Premises—Injury—Liability of Land.
lord.–In the absence of a contract to repair, a landlord is not liable to a tenant's customers or guests for injuries caused by the dangerous condition of premises which he has let ; but if the condition of the premises is the cause of a public nuisance or of injury to adjoining premises, the landlord may be liable.—Lane v. Cox, 76 L.T. 135.
Patent :(vi) C. D.—Licence-Option to Purchase–Royalty when Option Exercised
Advertisement of Licensee Threatening Infringers—Defensive Statements Injuring Plaintiff—An agreement, giving a licensee of a patent the option of purchase up to a given date, subject to payment of a royalty if the option was not exercised, was held to free the licensee on purchase from royalty on the patent goods made by him between the dates of the licence and the exercise. An exclusive licensee with such an option has a sufficient interest in the patent to rebut a presumption of want of good faith in issuing advertisements threatening pro ceedings against infringers, though he may not be entitled to recover damages, and he can claim the protection of sect. 32 of the Patents, &c., Act, 1883. A plaintiff must prove express malice to entitle him to an injunction to restrain a person from making statements in defence of his own property, which are true in substance and in fact, though they be made for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff or his trade.—The Incandescent Gas Light Co. v. The New Incandescent (Sunlight Patent) Gas Lighting Co., Limited, 76 L.T. 47.