Page images

to one and the land to another by simultaneous conveyances, each pur. chaser being aware of the conveyance to the other, the purchaser of the land is not entitled to obstruct the lights of the house. -Allen v. Taylor,

L.R. 16 Ch. D. 355; 50 L.J. Ch. 178. Ecclesiastical Law :(iv.) C. P. Div.-Simony-31 Eliz., c. 6, s. 5.-Plaintiff who was patron and

incumbent of a living, by the leave of the bishop let the rectory house in order to recoup himself moneys expended in putting it in repair. Before the end of the lease he resigned and presented the defendant: Held that an agreement by defendant, at the time of presentation, to hand over to plaintiff any rent he might receive from the tenant of the house, was simoniacal and void, but that an agreement by defendant to pay for certain removable fixtures according to a valuation was not void.

Mosse v. Killick, 44 L.T. 149; 29 W.R. 522. (v.) C. A.-Writ de Contumace Capiendo -5 Eliz., c. 22, s. 3; 53 Geo. III.,

c. 127, 8.1; 12 & 13 Vict., c. 109, ss. 26, 27.-- Decision of Q.B. Div. (see Ecclesiastical Law iii., p. 54) reversed on the ground that the writ ought to have been brought into and opened in the Q.B. Div.; and that the omission to do so rendered an arrest under the writ illegal.-Dale's

Case, Enraghts Case, L.R. 6, Q.B.D. 376; 50 L.J. Q.B. 234; 43 L.T. 769. Election:(xii.) C. A.--Municipal Election--Petition-Returning Officer-Respondent

35 8. 36 Vict., cc. 33, 60.—The Mayor, at the time of nomination of can. didates for election to a municipal ward, declared the petitioner to be disqualified by reason of a mistake in his description on the burgess roll; and the other candidate was declared duly elected. On petition against the election: Held, reversing the decision of the C. P. Div. (50 L.J. C.P. 185), that the mayor ought not to be made a respondent.-Harmon

v. Park, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 323; 50 L.J. C.P. 227; 44 L.T. 81. (xiii.) Elect Pet.-Parliament- Bribery-Agent-Proof of Agency.Held that

the effect of indirect evidence was to show that A. was an agent of

respondent.-Collins v. Price, 44 L.T. 192. (xiv.) Elect Pet.---ParliamentCorrupt Practices, Agent.-An agent of re.

spondent gave a holiday to respondent's work people on the polling day and their wages were paid then as usual : Held that respondent's return was void for bribery by his agent. The funds of a political association were chiefly supplied to the secretary by the respondent, and they were spent in treating at meetings held to promote respondent's election : Held that the secretary was the agent of respondent.--Truscott v. Bevan, 44

L.T. 64. (xv.) Elect Pet.-Parliament- Bribery-Evidence-Production of Telegrams.

-Statements made after an election by an agent are not evidence against the candidate. An elector may not be asked his political opinions unless he has previously avowed them. The Post-office authorities may be

ordered to produce specified telegrams.—Tomline v. Tyler, 44 L.T. 187. (xvi.) Elect Pet.-Parliament-Bribery-Payment of Travelling Expenses.

Two out-voters were requested by letter to come and vote for a candidate, and they did so without any promise of payment of their expenses. After they had voted a sum equal to the first-class railway fare from the place whence they came and back was paid to them. They, in fact, travelled third-class : Held no evidence of corrupt payment.— Rigden v.

Passmore Edwards, 44 L.T. 192. (xvii.) Elect Pet.- Parliament-Bribery-Agency-Evidence.—The liability

of candidates for corrupt acts of members of political associations, and

what is sufficient evidence of bribery and agency, considered.—Spencer v.

Harrison, 44 L.T. 283. (xviii.) Elect Pet. Parliament-Bribery-Evidence-Witness -- Apprehen

sion.—The Court has no jurisdiction to apprehend persons who evade service of subpænas. Consideration of what evidence is admissible on

an election petition.Heywood v. Dodson, 44 L.T. 285. (xix.) Elect Pet.-Parliament-Bribery-Withrawal of Charges.-The Court

will not actively sanction the withdrawal of charges of corruption made

in an election petition.-Buxton v. Garfit, 44 L.T. 287. (xx.) Q. B. Div.-School Board-Corrupt Practices-Summary Conviction.

33 8 34 Vict., c. 75, s. 91.—Justices sitting at petty sessions have summary powers to deal with offences under sec. 91 of Elementary Education Act, for corrupt practices at school board elections.-— Regina v.

Gaunt, 50 L.J. M.C. 32 ; 43 L.T. 696; 29 W.R. 289. Evidence:(viii.) Ch. Div. F. J.- Against Interest-Course of Business.-A statement as

to receipts from an agent signed by a deceased principal is admissible as evidence of the rent paid for a particular property; but a rent-roll signed by a deceased solicitor who was paid to audit the accounts by testing the arithmetic, but not by examining vouchers, is not admissible

in evidence.- Vivian v. Moat, 44 L.T. 210; 29 W.R. 504. (ix.) C. A.-Deed-Stamp-33 & 34 Vict., c. 97, s. 17.-Decision of M. R.

(see Evidence iii., p. 16) affirmed.-Whiting to Loomes, 29 W.R. 435. (x.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Inconsistent Statement of Defendant-Recalling

Witness17 & 18 Vict., c. 125, s. 23.—Where defendant, who claimed to be owner of a mill,denied on cross-examination that he had ever stated that he was tenant only, plaintiff was allowed to call a witness to prove that defendant had so stated, though the same witness had been previously

examined.-Sykes v. Haig, 44 L.T. 57. Fraud :(i.) C. A.-Misrepresentation-Damages.—T. having applied to plaintiff for

a lease of certain premises, gave defendant as a reference, and defendant, in reply to express enquiries by plaintiff, stated that he knew T. to be in a good and responsible position. In fact defendant knew that T. had no means and had twice previously failed in business: Held that defendant was answerable to plaintiff in damages for this misrepresentation, T. having deserted the premises without paying his rent.--Leddell v.

McDougall, 29 W.R. 403. Highway (ix.) H. L.-Repair-Turnpike TrustCompensation for Damage-11 & 12

Vict., c. 63, s. 144.-Defendants agreed with the trustees of a turnpike road to repair and maintain the footway only of the road. They raised the level of the footway and thereby caused damage to property of the plaintiff : Held that this damage was the subject of compensation under sec. 144 of the Public Health Act, 1848.-Mayor of Accrington v. Nutter,

43 L.T. 710. (x.) C. P. Div.-Subsidence of Land-Raising of Road by Local Board

Owner of HousesCompensation-38 8. 39 Vict., c. 55, ss. 144, 308. Plaintiffs were owners of houses abutting on a highway which was vested in a local board acting under the Public Health Act, 1875, and having the powers and liabilities of surveyor of highways. In 1876 the surface of the highway and the land on which the houses were built subsided so that a part of the roadway became liable to be flooded so as to render

traffic impossible. The local board raised the roadway at this place, and plaintiffs raised their houses in proportion : Held that plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation from the board in respect of the cost of raising their houses. -Burgess v. Northwich Local Board, L.R. 6 Q.B.D.

264; 50 L.J. C.P. 219; 44 L.T. 154. Husband and Wife :(xviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Bequest to Wife of Solicitor-Will drawn by

Husband-Implied Trust-Reduction into Possession.- A testator left property to a married niece without any provision for securing it to her separate use, and appointed the niece's husband, who was his solicitor and who drew the will, his sole execator. The testator and the husband having both died : Held that the husband could not be declared a trustee for his wife of her share of the testator's estate, but that she had a right to so much of it as had not been reduced into possession by her husband by change of investment.-Wilson v. Birchall, 44 L.T. 243;

29 W.R. 461. (xix.) P. D. A. Div.-Divorce-Absence of Petitioner-Affidavit verifying

Petition.-Where petitioner in a suit for dissolution of marriage was engaged on military service abroad, where there was no person having authority to take affidavits, the Court allowed the petition to be verified

by the affidavit of his solicitor.Bruce v. Bruce, 29 W.R. 474. (xx.) P. D. A. Div.-Divorce-Desertion-Evidence of.-A husband left his

wife in possession of the family house, and subsequently, with her assent, visited his children there, but did not return to cohabitation with his wife, or hold any communication with her: Held no evidence of

desertion.Taylor v. Taylor, 44 L.T. 31. (xxi.) P. D. A. Div.-Divorce--New Trial.—After decree nisi for dissolution

of marriage had been pronounced a new trial was directed, and on the second trial the Court again pronounced a decree nisi. After the expiration of the term for moving for a new trial and more than six months after the first trial, the Court made the original decree absolute, without waiting till the expiration of six months from the date of the

second trial.--Sheffield v. Sheffield, 29 W.R. 523. (xxii.) C. A.-Divorce in Scotland.—The English Divorce Court will recognise

as valid the decree of a Scotch Court dissolving the marriage of domiciled Scotch persons, though married in England. -Harvey v. Farnie,

43 L.T. 737; 29 W.R. 409. (xxiii.) C. A.-Married Woman-Separate EstateDebt-Charge-Interim In.

junction.-A creditor cannot obtain an interim injunction to restrain a married woman from dealing with her separate estate pending the trial of an action to establish a charge against it. Decision of V.C.M. (L.R. 15 Ch. D. 371) reversed.- Robinson v. Pickering, 44 L.T. 165; 29

W.R. 385. (xxiv.) P. D. A. Div.-Nullity of Marriage-Decree Nisi— Respondents Motion

to make Absolute—36 8: 37 Vict., c. 31, s. 1.—The Court will not, upon the motion of the respondent, make absolute a decree nisi in a suit

for nullity of marriage.--Halpin v. Boddington, 44 L.T. 252; 29 W.R. 444. (xxv.) P. D. A. Div. - Protection Order-Discharge after Wife's death

Probate Action-Counter-claim.-It is competant for a husband, after the death of his wife, to apply to have a protection order discharged, on the ground that it was obtained fraudulently without his knowledge and he can make such application by way of counter-claim in an action for probate of his wife's will.-Mudge v. Adams, 44 L.T. 185; 29 W.R. 307.


(xxvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.- Settlement Joint-Tenancy Severance. — A

marriage settlement contained a covenant by the intended wife and husband to assign to trustees any personal estate which should, during the coverture, vest in her or in her husband in her right. At this time she was entitled, as joint-tenant with her sister, to personal property expectant on the death of B., who died during the coverture: Held that the joint-tenancy was severed by the marriage and the covenant to

assign.—Baillie v. Traherne, 50 L.J. Ch. 295 ; 44 L.T. 247. (xxvii.) Ch. Div. V.C.M.-Wife's Equity to Settlement-Waiver— Infant.

An infant married woman cannot waive her equity to a settlement.-
Shipway v. Ball, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 376; 50 L.J. Ch. 263; 44 L.T. 49; 29
W.R. 302.

Justice of Peace :(i.) Q. B. Div.-Disqualifying Interest, Urban Authority, Municipal Cor.

poration.-By a local Act the corporation of a borough was made the authority for the execution of the Act, with power to direct prosecutions for that purpose. An information for an offence under the Act having been preferred by an officer on behalf of the corporation, a summons was issued upon it by a justice who was also a member of the corporation, and it came on for hearing before justices not members of the corporation : Held that the summons was improperly issued, and could

not be heard.-Regina v. Gibbon, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 168 ; 29 W.R. 442. Landlord and Tenant:-(xiv.) Q. B. Div.-Bankruptcy of LesseeDisclaimer-Sub-Lessee.- When a

lessee sub-lets and afterwards becomes bankrupt, and his trustee disclaims, the lessor is entitled to eject the sub-tenant.-Smalley v. Harding,

L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 371. (xv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Covenant-Bterhouse.—A tenant covenanted not to

use a house as a public house, tavern, or beerhouse : Held that the selling beer to be consumed off the premises under a grocers license was

not a breach of the covenant.—Holt v. Collyer, 44 L.T. 214; 29 W.R. 502. (xvi.) C. A.-Lease-Collateral Agreement.-A railway company let premises,

through their agent, to defendant, on a weekly tenancy determinable by a week's notice on either side, and the agent gave defendant a memo. randum stating : “You may have the premises as per agreement until the company require to pull them down.” The company afterwards required the premises for their own occupation, but did not intend to pull them down, and gave defendant a week's notice to quit: Held that the company were entitled to recover possession, and that the memoran. dum gave defendant no equitable claim against them. The Cheshire Lines

Committee v. Lewis, 50 L.J. C.P. 121; 44 L.T. 293. (xvii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Yearly Tenant— Notice to QuitDisclaimer of Land.

lord's Title.-A tenant from year to year who disclaims or repudiates the existence of the relation of landlord and tenant between himself and his landlord, is not entitled to receive notice to quit before ejectment.

-Vivian v. Moat, 44 L.T. 210; 29 W.R. 504. Land Clauses Act:(vii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.--Interim Investment-Application of Dividends

Tenant for Life and Remaindermen.- A tenant for life of settled lands granted, under a power, repairing leases of the lands. The lands were afterwards taken by a railway company, and the money paid into Court and invested. The income from the purchase-money was in excess of the aggregate rental under the leases : Held that the tenant for life was

only entitled to so much of the income as was equal to the aggregate rental under the leases, and that the rest must be accumulated and applied as in Wootton's Estate (L.R. 1 Eq. 589 ; 35 L.J. Ch. 305).- Re

Wilkes's Estate, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 597; 50 L.J. Ch. 199. (viii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Payment out to Official Trustee of Charity Funds

- Re-investment-Costs.Where the purchase-moneys of lands belonging to a charity which have been taken compulsorily, have been transferred to the official trustee, the purchasers of the lands are not liable to pay the costs of re-investment.-Re Bishop Monk's Horfield Trust, 43 L.T.

793; 29 W.R. 462. (ix.) Ch. Div. V.C.M.-Re-investment— Redemption of Land Tax-Costs

Special Act.-A dock company's Act authorised re-investment of purchasemoney in the redemption of land tax, discharge of incumbrances, or otherwise in the purchase of lands and hereditaments, and directed that when purchase-moneys should be applied in the purchase of lands and hereditaments the Court might order the company to pay the costs : Held that the Court could order the company to pay the costs of reinvestment in the purchase of redeemed land tax.-Ex parte St. Kathe.

rine's Hospital, Regent's Park, 44 L.T. 52; 29 W.R. 495. (x.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Sale by Trustee - Appointment of Trustee as

Surveyor.-A trustee holding property upon trust for a married woman absolutely for her separate use, is a person enabled to sell and convey under the Lands Clauses Act, 1845. Trustees selling under sec. 7 of the Act appointed one of themselves to act as surveyor on their behalf to make the valuation required by sec. 9: Held that this was such an irregularity as to invalidate the proceedings.-Peters v. Lewes and East

Grinstead Rail. Co., 50 L.J. Ch. 172; 29 W.R. 422. Limitations, Statutes of:(v.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Tenants in Common --- Acknowledgment after

Statutory Period—3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 27, s. 34.—The title of A. and B., tenants in common of land, accrued in 1833. A. then took possession, and till 1864 never accounted to B. From 1864 to 1878 he accounted, and then he claimed to be entitled in severalty under 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 27, s. 34: Held that a. bad lost the benefit of the Statutes of Limitation by acknowledging B.'s title after the expiration of the period.-Sanders v. Sanders, 44 L.T. 171 ; 29 W.R. 413.


Lunacy: (iii.) C. A.-Allowance to Poor Relatives.-A widow had been in the habit,

before she became of unsound mind, of making allowances to certain poor relations out of her income. The Court ordered the allowances to be continued from the date when the lunatic was so found.-Re Mac.

kenzie, 43 L.T. 681. (iv.) C. A.- Death of Lunatic-Costs of Unheard Petition.—A lunatic having

died before the hearing of a petition to confirm the Master's report, the Court made no order on the petition, which was, in the absence of a legal personal representative of the lunatic, ordered to stand over with liberty to apply as to costs when the fund in Court came to be dealt with.— Re

Popham, 29 W.R. 403. (v.) C. A.-Partition--Sale-Conversion-Partition Act, 1868, s. 8.—Real

estate, to a share of which a lunatic was entitled, was sold under the decree in a partition action, and the proceeds paid into Court: Hell that the proceeds must be treated as realty on the death of the lunatic intestate.-Re Barker, 44 L.T. 23.


« PreviousContinue »