Page images
PDF
EPUB

(viii.) Q. B. Div.-- Rales-Railway.-A partial exemption from payment of

borough improvement rates conferred by a Local Act, is not affected by subsequent Public Acts unless such intention is expressed or implied

therein.-Regina v. London N. W. Rail. Co., 25 W.R. 59. New South Wales, Law of :(i.) P. C.-Land Act, 1861--Crown Grant.-A grant under the Crown Lands

Alienation Act, 1861, may be made to an infant.-O'Shunissy v. Joachim,

L.R. 1, App. 82; L.J. 45, P.O. 43; 31 L.T. 265 ; 24 W.R. 791. New Zealand, Law of: (i.) P. C.-Waste Lands Act, 1865.-Held that under the law of New Zealand

& purchaser of waste lands who bad entered his application before the price was raised by order of the Governor in Council, had not a vested right to have the land allotted at the lower price.-Bell v. Receiver of Land Revenue of Southland, L.R. 1, App. 707 ; L.J. 45, P.C. 47; 34 L.T.

629. Nuisanco:(v.) Ex. Div.-Conviction--Abatement- Prohibition.-On 11th March, 1871,

justices made order of abatement under Nuisances Removal Act, 1855, 8. 12, on E. to cease from sending forth black smoke from a chimney: on 14th March, 1874, a further order was made under the same section for discontinuance and prohibition of nuisance ; E. was, on evidence regarding emission of smoke one day, convicted of disobedience to both orders : Held that one of the convictions must be quashed.--Barnes v. Edleston,

L.R. 1, Ex. 67 ; L.J. 45, M.C. 162 ; 34 L.T. 497. (vi.) App. Div. Ct.-Public Seuers.-Two separate drains of the Company

discharged into public sewer liquid impregnated with muriatic acid and sulphur respeotively; the combination produced sulphuretted hydrogen, the escape of which was injurious to public health: Held that a nuisance within 18 and 19 Vict., c. 121, s. 8, had been created by act of the Company, and that complaint of the same might be made by the Corporation, though they had not properly trapped and flushed the sewer as required by Local Act. --St. Helen's Chemical Co. v. Corporation of St.

Helen's, L.R. 1, Ex. D. 196 ; L.J. 45, M.C. 150; 34 L.T. 397. (vii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Information-Injunction-Corporation.- The

Attorney-General may take proceedings in cases of public nuisance at relation of any person whether or not resident near or interested in the property where the nuisance exists, algo held that public corporate bodies making no profits are liable for nuisance.-Att.-Gen. 6. Mayor, fc., of

Basingstoke, L.J, 45, Ch. 726 ; 24 W.R. 816. Partition:i.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Sale-- Affidavit-31 & 32 Vict. c. 40, 8. 4,-Where

plaintiff asked for and defendant consented to a sale, no defence having been delivered : Held that the statement of claim must be verified by

affidavit.- Senior v. Hereford, 25 W.R. 223. Partnership :(ii.) Oh. Div. M. R.-Loan or partnership" Contract in writing," 28 & 29

Vict. c. 86- Construction of contract.-A. & Co. obtained an advance from
B. under an agreement which was embodied in a draft deed never executed
providing that loan should be secured by covenant of members of the
firm and repaid at end of partnership term, and that B. might inspect
books, &c., and receive a proportion of yearly profits; the firm also
obtained an advance from C. under a similar agreement which was
executed: Held that B. was not protected by any “contract in writing,"
within Bovill's Act, and that, on the construction of the agreements, the
relation of partnership, not of debtor and creditor, had been established
between the firm and B. & C.-Pooley v. Driver, 25 W.R. 182.

[graphic]

Patent:(vi.) H. L.-Combination.- The invention of a new and beneficial combination

and application of old machinery may be protected by patent.-Harrison

V. Anderston Foundry Co. L.R. 1 App. 574. (vii.) C. A.–Foreign Patent.-English letters patent granted for a foreign

invention after a foreign patent has been obtained, are to be taken as granted on the day of the date, not at the time of sealing: decision of M.R., see Patent (i.), affirmed.- Holste v. Robinson, L.R. 4, Ch. D. 9;

L.J. 46, Ch. 1; 35 L.T. 457. (viii.) Ch. Div. V.C. B.-Infringement-Injunction.—Plaintiffs were patentees

of an invention for stopping bottles of aerated waters : defendapt subsequently took out a patent for an invention which attained precisely the same result by slightly different means : Held, upon the facts of the case, that the defendants' invention was a colourable imitation ard infringement of plaintiffs' patent, and injunction granted.-Barrett v. Vernon,

35 L.T. 755. (ix.) C. A.-InfringementInterim Injunotion.—Where defendant had recently

commenced his trade, and it appeared that plaintiff had a strong case, and that the usual practice of the Court in ordering defendant to keep account of profits, could effectually compensate plaintiff if successful : Held that an interim injunction might be granted, on plaintiff's under

taking as to damages.--Plimpton v. Spiller, 35 L.T. 656 ; 25 W.R. 152. (x.) C. A.-Infringement-Prior User.- Where defendant pleads prior user he

canuot be ordered to furnish further particulars as to such user than aro required by Patent Law Amendment Act (15 & 16 Vict., c. 83), s. 41.

Flower v. Lloyd, L.J. 45, Ch. 746; 35 L.T. 454; 25 W.R. 17. (xi.) H. L.-Infringement - Manufacture for Crown.- Defendants, in executing

Government contract for manufacture of rifles, infringed plaintiff's patent for breach-action, and lock : Held that defendants were not exempt as agents or servants of Crown from liability in respect of the infringement. --Dixon v. London Small Arms Co., L.R. 1, App. 632 ; 35 L.T. 559;

25 W.R. 142. (xii.) Q. B. Div.- Licence- Ambiguity-Evidence of Intention.-Plaintiff by deed

granted to defendant license to use a patent for breach-loading rifles, on payment of a royalty for every rifle manufactured under the license; at the time of the execution of the deed the exemption of the Crown from royalties was supposed to extend to Government Contractors, but, on decision of Dixon v. London Snall Arms Co., plaintiff sought to recover royalties for rifles manufactured for the Government; the jury found that such was not defendant's intention to the knowledge of plaintiff: Held that on the construction of the deed there was a latent anbiguity admitting extrinsic evidence of intention, and that plaintiff could not

recover.-Roden v. London Small Arms Co , 35 L.T. 505. (xiii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Specification.-Omission of part of provisional from

final specification, is notice of abandonment of such part which any one is at liberty to work and obtain patent for.- Stones v. Todd, L.R. 4,

Cb. D, 58; L.J. 46, Ch. 32; 35 L.T. 660; 25 W.R. 38. Poor Law:(ii.) Q. B. Div.-Lunatic- Maintenance. A retrospective order may be made

for payment of maintenance of a pauper lunatic for more than one vear. Finch v. Guardians of York Union, L.R. 2, Q.B.D. 15; 35 L.T. 708 ;

25 W.R. 42. (iv.) App. Div. Ct.-Ra'eability - Lead Mine.--37 & 38 Vict. c. 54.- A Company

held under a lease comprising land and works in Union A., and a mine and works in Union B. : the ore being crushed and washed was taken by a tramway to a smelting-house, half a mile distant in Union A., and held under the same lease : Held that all the crushing, washing, and smelting works were within the Rating Act, 1874, s. 7, and that a dednotion must be made in respect of gross dues in respect of pre:nises in Union A., to obtain rateable value of mine iu Union B.-Snailbeach Mine Co. v. Forden

Guardians, 35 L.T. 514. (v.) C. A.-Rateability-Moorings.-Held that the grantees of certain per

manent moorings constructed and used by them subject to regulations of the Thames Conservancy, had exclusive occupation thereof, and were

liable to pay rates.-Cory v. Bristow, L.J. 15, M.C. 145; 33 L.T. 024. (vi.) 2. B. Div.-- Rateability - Railway.-Appellants' line ran through a

district in which there were other competing lines ; their gains in the parish of I. part of the district did not cover expenses : Held that appellants were rightly rated on basis of enhanced value by traffic on other parts of the line.-London and N. R. Rail. Co. v. Churchwardens of

Irthlingboro', 35 L.T. 327. (vii.) Q. B. Div.-Rateability-Sporting Rights-Reservation-37 & 38 Vict.,

č. 54. -A. granted lease of land, excepting all manner of game, &c., with liberty of hunting, fowling, and fishing during the term : Held that the sporting rights were severed from the occupation, and rateable.-Rogers v. St. German's Union, 35 L.T. 332.

Practice : (lxxii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Account.-An accounting party cannot refuse to be

sworn on ground of insufficient notice of points of examination, but he may on such ground refuse to answer.-Meyrick v. James, L.J. 46,

Ch. 38. (lxxüi.) C. A.-Appeal-Divorce Suit.-Appeal from order of a single judge in

a divorce suit refusing new trial lies to the Full Divisional Court whose

decision is final.-Westhead v. Westhead and Gordon, 25 W.R. 85. (lxxiv.) C. A.-.4 ppeal-Evidence--Costs-Ord. 58, r. 12.—The Court of Appeal

'in this case acted on its own view of conflicting evidence, and reversed the decision of the Conrt below on a question of fact; fresh evidence to correct this apprehension, arising from double signification of a word, is admissible at any stage of the proceedings : costs of transcribing and printing, but not of taking, shorthand notes of evidence in Court below allowed.-Bigsby v. Dickinson, L.R. 4, Ch. D. 24 ; 35 L.T. 679; 25 W.R.

89, 122. (lxxvC. A.Appeal-Time.- Where several claims are joined in one applica

tion, an appeal from & partial refusal must be brought within 21 days from the refusal, not from the perfecting of the order. - Trail v. Jackson,

L.R. 4 Ch. D. 7; L.J. 46, Ch. 16; 25 W.R. 36. Oxxvi.) C. A.-Appeal-Time-Ord. 58, rr. 8, 9, 15.-An appeal must be set

'down before day named for hearing in the notice of appeal: an appeal from a winding up order must be brought within three weeks of the order.

-Re National Funds Assurance Co., 35 L.T. 689 ; 25 W.R. 151, 158. Ixxvii.) S. A.-Appeal-Ord. 58, r. 15.-Special leave to appeal after time

expired will not be granted on ex parte application.-Evennett v. Lawrence,

25 W.R. 107 (sxvii) C. P. Div.- Appeal from Chambers-Time.-Ord. 54, r. 6.- This rule

is peremptory, so that there is no appeal from chambers after eight dla vs from decision, even thongh no Court has been sitting, unless the time is Warsed under Ord. 57, r. 6.-Crom v. Samuel, L.R. 2, C.P.D. 21;

L.J. 46, C.P. 1 ; 35 L.T. 423; 25 W.R. 45. (lxxix.) C. A.- Appeal from Chambers-Time.--Ord. 54, r. 6.--The motion by

way of appeal must be made within eight days of decision appealed from. tur v. Wullis, 35 L.T. 690.

[graphic]

(lxxx.) R. B. Div.- Appeal from JusticesJurisdiction.-An application under

(20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, s. 5, for rule to Justice to state case is properly made to Q. B. Div., not to App. Div. Ct.-Ex parte Longbottom, L.J. 45,

M.C. 163. (lxxxi.) Q. B. Div.- Appeal from Justices-Time.—The time for giving notice of

appeal under Public Health Act, 1875, s. 269 from order of justices rung from date of order, not of service of order.—Regina v. St. Alban's Sanitary

Authority, 35 L.T. 362. (lxxxii.) C. P. Div.- Attachment_Ord. 45, r. 2.-A notice to treat under

Lands Clauses Act, 1845, is not a “debt owing or accruing” which can

be attached.— Richardson v. Elmit, L.R. 2 O.P.D. 9. (lxxxiii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Attachment_Contempt of Court.-Any conduct

which renders it impossible for litigation to be carried on properly and fairly is in contempt of the Court before which such litigation is pending.

Republic of Costa Rica v. Erlanger, Ex parte Edwards, 25 W.R. 752. (lxxxiv.) C. A.-Attachment-Costs.-Held that a person committed for con

tempt and ordered to be released on payment of costs is not in prison for debt within Debtor's Act, 1869, nor entitled to be released until he has

paid such costs.- Re M., L.J. 46 Ch. 24. (lxxxv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Charging order_1 & 2 Vict, c. 119, 8. 14.

Stock of a company standing in trustee's name is not affected by charging order in respect of trustee's own debt.—Re Blakely Ordnance Co.

35 L.T. 617; 25 W.R. 111. (Lxxxvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Consent orderCounsel.--Held that defendant

having understood an order made in his presence, by consent of his counsel, the order would not be set aside.- Holt v. Jesse, L.R. 3, Ch. D.

177 ; 24 W.R. 879. (lxxxvii.) Ex. Div.-Costs - Application after Trial-Ord. 55.--Held affirming

decision of Ex.Div. (35 L.T. 671) that no order as to costs can be made on application made after the trial either to court or in chambers, even on fresh facts discovered since the trial except to Divisional Court.

Baker v. Oakes, 25 W.R. 220. (lxxxviii.) P. D. & A. Div.-Default of Pleading.-Ord. 29, r.2, as to entering

final judgment on default of pleading does not apply to Admiralty actions

in rem.The Sfactoria, 35 L.T. 431; 25 W.R. 62. (lxxxix.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Default of pleading.-On application for

dismissal for want of prosecution, under Ord. 19, r. 1, the court will be guided by the circumstances of the case.-Higginbotham v. Aynsley, L.R.

3 Ch.D. 288; 24 W.R. 782. (xc.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Discontinuance.Ord. 23.–Form of writ of

fi. fa. for recovery of defendant's costs where plaintiff has given notice of discontinuance.—Bolton v. Bolton, L.R. 3, Oh.D, 276; 35 L.T. 358; 24

W.R. 663. (xci.) Ch Div. V. C. H.-Discovery.- Plaintiff having ascertained that de

fendants had shipped goods bearing trade marks imitated from those of plaintiff, brought action against defendants for discovery of names of the consignors : demurrer on the ground that the defendants had not suffi. cient interest, but were in the position of mere witnesses in intended litigation against the consignors, was overruled.- Orr v. Diaper, L.R. 4

Ch. D. 92; L.J. 46, Ch. 41; 35 L.T. 468; 25 W.R. 23. (xcii.) Ex. Div.-Discovery- Attachment.--Ord. 31, r. 20, as to attachment for

disobedience of order for discovery does not apply to order for statement of names of partners nnder Ord. 16, r. 10, or for account under Ord. 15, r.

1.- Pike v. Keene, 35 L,T. 311 ; 24 W.R. 322. (xciii.) Ch. Div. V, C. B.-Discovery - InterrogatoriesSpecific performance.

-Iu action for specitic performance of agreement for sale it was stated that plaintiffs, the purchasers, were trustees. I d that interrogatories delivered by defendant as to the terms and nature of the trust must be struck out as irrelevant.--Mansfield v. Childerhouse, L.R. 4, Ch. D. 82;

L.J, 46, Ch. 30; 35 L.T. 590; 25 W.R. 68. (xciv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H-Discovery-Reference.- Where a roference is

directed application for discovery necessary for the purpose of the reference must be made to the judge, not to the official referee.-koucliffe v.

Leigh, L.J. 46, Ch. 60; 25 W.R. 57. (xcv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Hearing in Camera.- The Court has no power to try

any case in private, eren by consent, except cases relating to lunatics or Wards of Court, and cases in which the object wculd be defeated by public trial, and cases within Divorce Act (20 & 21 Vict. c. 85), s. 22.- Nagle

Gillman v. Christopher, L.J. 40, Ch. 60. (xcvi.) Ch. Diy, M. R.-Interlocutory Application, Costs.- Costs of applications

ordered to stand over on remand until trial, follow event of trial without

special directions.- Llodgas v. Ilodges, 25 W.R. 162. (xcvii.) Ch. Div. M. R.--Joinder of Causes of Action- Ord. 17.-A foreclosure

action is not an action for recovery of land within Ord. 17, r. 2.-Tawell

v. Slate Co., L.R. 3, Cb. D. 629. (xcviii.) C. P. Div.-Leave to sign Judgment.-Upon an application under

Ord. 14, r. 3, the Court has discretion to allow plaintiff to file affidavit in

reply to defendant's affidavit.-- Davis v. Spence, L.R. 1, C.P.D. 719. (xcix.) C. P. D.- Leave to Sign Judgment-Affidavit in Reply.--Ord. 14, r. 3.

--Where defendant shows canse by affidavit against an application for leave to enter final judgment, leave may be given to plaintiff' to file

affidavit in reply.-Davis v. Spence, 25 W.R. 229. (c.) C. A.-New Trial-Costs - Shorthand Notes.- Plaintiff having obtained

a verdict on two out of three issues, defendants on new trial obtained an entire verdict: Held that defendants were entitled under the circumstances to recover costs of first trial relating to issue found in their favour : the master having declined to allow costs of shortband notes, the Court refused to interfere with his discretion.-Marcus v. General Steam Navig.

Co., 35 L.T. 353. (ci.) Q B. Div.- New Trial-Evidence.--A new trial will not be granted for

premature admission of evideuce which becomes admissible in the conrse

of the trial.- Fuund v. Wallace, 35 L.T. 361. (cii,) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Parties-- Ord. 16, 7.2.--Alteration of parties will

not be ordered on ex parte application.-Tildesley v. Harper, L.R. 3

Cl. D. 277. (ciii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Parties-- Counter-claim-Ord. 16, rr. 17, 18.-A.

motion by a person not originally a party, but brought before the Court by counter-claim, to have the counter-claim excluded as against him, was under tho circumstances of the case dismissed with costs.--Dear v.

Sworder, 25 W.R. 12 1. (civ.) Ch. Diy. V. C. B.-Parties- Addition of representation of Heir-at-law

and Nect-of-kin.- Ord. 16, p. 9a.-- In a case where it was extremely difficult to ascertain the heir-at-law and next-of-kin of testator, the Court appointed persons to represent such heir-at-law and next-of-kin before determining the construction of the will. Re Peppitt's Estate, 25 W.R.

211.

(cv.) Ch. Div. M. R.- Pleading.--Ord. 19, r. 17.–The rule that every

allegation of fact not specifically or by necessary implication denied will be strictly enforced.-Thorp v. Holdsworth, L.R. 3 Ch.D. 637; 45

L.J.Ch. 406. (evi.) Ch Div. V. C. M.-PleadingAmendment.--One of several defendants

who had put in a joint statement of defence, sul sequently changed his

« PreviousContinue »