« PreviousContinue »
B. gave him notice that she claimed the goods, but the auctioneer put them up for sale and returned those not sold to A. : Held that the autioneer was liable to B. for value both of the goods sold and those returned to A.—D¢u-is v. Arfingstull, 4-9 L.J. Ch. 609.
C. P. DiV.—Judgment Debtor—Com-milment——Means of Poyment32 5/‘ 33 Vict., c. 62.—An application was made under the Debtor’s Act, 1869, to commit defendant to prison for default in payment of an instalment‘ of £10, on an aifidavit that defendant lived in a large and well-furnished house, and was living in the stile of a gentleman of means, and always appeared to have money at his command. Defendant swore that he had no money, and that the eifects in the house belonged to his wife: Held that the order for committal was rightly made.Harper v. Scrimgeour, L.R. 5 C.P.D. 366.
C. .A..—Promissory N0tc—Payment- of Interest—Stafule of Limitations.Held that in the absence of rebutting evidence a promissory note twenty years old will be presumed to have been paid ; and that payment of interest on the note is evidence of a demand for payment of the note.— Brown v. Ruther_fo'rd, L.R,. 14 Ch. D. 687; 49 L.J. Ch. 654-; 43 L.T. 105.
Ch. Div. F. J.—Lil>el-—Injunctim1—Trial by Judge—32 Geo. III., 0. 60. —-An injunction may be granted to restrain the publication of a libel calculated to injure a man in his trade, without proof of actual damage. Fox's Act applies only to informations, and not to actions, for libel.Thomas v. Williams, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 864:; 49 L.J. Ch. 605; 43 L.T. 91; 28 W.R. 983.
C. A.—Libel—Inuendo—Qu.est|'on for Jury.—Where words taken in their primary sense are not libellous, in order to prove a libel depending on an iuuendo there must be evidence of facts which would reasonably make them defamatory in their secondary sense, known both to the person who indicted the libel and to those to whom it was published.-Oapita.l and Counties Bank v. Henty, 28 W.R. 851.
Ch. Div. F. J'.—Air—Impliezl Covenant.—Damages were given in respect of an obstruction of access of air to a slaughter-house which had been used for upwards of thirty years, on the ground of an implied covenant.—-Hall v. Lichfield Brewery Co., 49 L.J. Ch. 655.
the damages caused by the obstruction of ancient lights did not exceed £7, a mandatory injunction was refused.—Webster v. Whewall, 42 L.T. 868.
C. A.-—L1'ghl— Prescripli0n—Building Pulled Do1u1t.—Where a building containing ancient lights has been pulled down, the Court, if satisfied that the owner will rebuild, will grant an injunction against a substantial
interference with the easement.—Ecclesia.stical Commissioners v. Kine, 4-9 L.J. Ch. 529.
Ch. Div. V. C. B,—Light—Prescripli0n—New Windows.—-Where new windows have been substituted for ancient lights, accurate evidence of the position of the ancient lights and of their coincidence with the new
windows must be produced in order to obtain an injunction against obstruction.—Fo1blers v. Walker, 49 L.J. Ch. 598.
(v.) Ch. Div. F. J_—Right of Wuy—Access to Roa.d—Um~ea,sonable Inter.
ference—Damages.—A builder had three ways of access to a building site, but used only one, and so as to interfere with the access of
customers to plaiutifE’s shop: Held that such user by the builder was wrongful, and that, as the building operations had come to an end pending the action, the plaintifi was entitled to damages to the extent
of the injury inflicted both before and after the commencement of the action.—Fritz v. Hobson, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 542.
tati0ns—-3 J" 4 Will. IV., 0. 27, s. 29; 3 6/‘ 4 Vict., 0. 113, s. 60.— Vhen land annexed to a deanery becomes vested in the Ecclesiastical Com. missioners by virtue of 3 & 4 Vict., c. 113, s. 50, they have the same time within which to enforce their claim to the property that the dean would have had under sec. 29 of 3 & 4' Will. IV., c. 27.—Ecclesiasticel Oommissioners v. Rowe, L.R. 5 App. 736.
H.I|.—Ecclesiu.stical Ofl'ence-0'0mmission—Mandamus—3 Q‘ 4 Vict., c. 86. s. 3.—A bishop having refused to issue a commission to inquire into a charge made against the rector of a parish in his diocese under 3 St 4 Vict., c. 86, s. 3, on the grounds of the rector's age and high character, the opposition of the majority of his parishioners to the inquiry, and the usually abortive nature of such proceedings: Held that the bishop had a discretion vested in him as to issuing a commission or not. Mandamus to conilplel him to proceed refused.—Julius v. Bishop of Oxford, 49 L.J. Q.B. 5 .
C. P. DiV.—Parlfl1ment—Borough Vote—Notice of Objection—Amendment—41 Q‘ 42 Vict., c. 26, s. 28.——ln a notice of objection to a person on the list of voters for a borough, the objector described himself as “ on the list of voters for the parish of W.,” omitting the word “ parliamentary:" Held that this was a mistake which the revising barrister ought to correct.—James v. Howamth, 28 W.R. 928.
C. P. I)iV.—Paa-lia.me1tt—C'o1irity Vote— Equitable Ssim'n—T1-ust for Sala 30 &' 31 Vict., c. 102, s. 6.——The share of a cestui-qui-trust in property devised in trust for sale and division amongst the cestuis-quetrustent, where the sale has been postponed by parol agreement amongst them, is not such an estate as to entitle the cestui-que-trust to a vote under sec. 5 of 30 & 31Vict., c. 102.—Spenser v. Harrison, 28 W.R. 985.
The power to change the place of trial of an election petition under the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, can be exercised only by the Court, and not by the election judge.—Re Tewkeebury Election Petition, 49 L.J. C.P. 685.
C. P. DiV.—Parliament—Election Petiti0n—Interrogatories—3l. §r‘ 32 Vict., c. 125, as. 2, 26.—The Court has no power to order interrogatories to be delivered to 'a respondent to a parliamentary election petition under the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.—Re Wallingfomt Elect/ion Petition, Wells v. Wren, 49 L.J. C.P. 681.
Reliaf—41 1}‘ 42 Vict., c. 26, s. 28 (7).—Tl1e provisions of sec. 28 sub. sec. 7, of 41 and 42 Vict., c. 26, do not apply to cases of temporary incapacity to vote at any particular election, such as incapacity caused by the receipt of parochial relief.--Ha/yward v. Scott, 28 W.R. 988.
a member of a school board cannot be sustained under the Corrupt Practices (Municipal) Act, l872.——Re West Bromwich School Board, 49 L.J. C.P. 64:1.
(i.) P. D. A. Div.-—A_flirmation in Lieu of 0ath—-Foreign Su.bject—17 §" 18 Vict., c. 125, s. 20.—The Court refused to receive as evidence the affirmation of a German subject made in Germany before a British viceconsul, though it was alleged that, by the law Of Germany, all voluntary oaths are illegal.—In the Goods of Prince Henry of Reuss-Kostritz, 4-9 L.J. P.D.A. 67.
(iii.) Ch. Div. M. R.—Deed—Stamp—33 §" 34 Vict., c. 97, s. 17.—A mortgage stamped with a deed stamp, but not with the proper ad vu.lorem stamp, cannot be received in evidence, though tendered only as proof of the devolution of the legal estate.—Whiting to Loom/es, L.R. 14 Ch_. D. 822; 49 L.J. Ch. 617; 43 L.T. 83.
(iv.) Ch. Div, M. R.—Privilege -Professional Comm/unications--P-ursuivant. —A pursuivant of the College of Arms, though necessarily employed for the purpose of protesting against a baronet’s pedigree being recorded by the college, is not entitled to claim privilege when called as a witnsss for cross.examinatiom—Slade v. Tucker, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 824; 49 L.J. Ch. 644-; 4-3 L.T. 4-9.
(v.) H. L_--Public Docunwnt.—Facts stated 1'-n.—The report of a Committee appointed by a foreign government to inquire into the fitness of A. to to hold a certain ofiice: Held that statements therein could not be produced as evidence of A.’s birthplace and age.—SturZa v. Ersccia, L.R. 5 App. 623; 43 L.T. 209.
(vi.) C. P. DiV.—Wit-ness-—Proof of Previous C'onoiction-17 9? 18 Vict., c. 125, s. 25.—A party to a cause who gives evidence in support of his case may be cross-examined as to whether he has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanour, and, if he denies or declines to answer, the opposite party may prove the conviction under sec. 25 of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, though the fact be irrelevant to the matter at issue in the cause.—Wa#d v. Sinfwld, 49 L.J. C.P. 696.
(i.) C. P. Div. — Royal Gra.nt.~— Inference —-Claim by Inhabita-nts.— Plaintiffs, in an action of trespass for disturbance of their several oyster fishery in a tidal navigable river, established a primd facie title to the soil of the river and the fishery : Held that a claim by defendants to a right to fish at certain times in the river as inhabitants of ancient tenements in a. borough could onlybe supported on the presumption of a lost royal grant incorporating them, and that such presumption could not be entertained as it would be antagonistic to the plaintifis’ rights; and that a general right to the defendants as subjects of the realm was inconsistent with the plaintiffs‘ rights.—Mayor of Sa-Hash v. Goodman, 49 L.J. C.P. 565 ; 42 L.T. 872.
(i.) C, A,_——P1-erogative of Crown—-Removing Shingle.—-The Crown has a prerogative and duty to defend the realm from inundations of the sea, and therefore the Court will restrain the removal of shingle forming a natural barrier against the sea.-—-Attorney-General v. Tomline, 42 L.T. 880; 28 W.R. 870. '
Friendly Society :
a trade union is an illegal association, and there is nothing in that Act
which enables a Court of justice to enforce the agreements of members among themselves.—Riyby v. Connol, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 482.
(ii.) Ch, Div. F. J.——Tra.des' Un.ian—lllegul Association——34 §" 35 Vict., c. 31, s. 4.—Held that an action by the head establishment of a trade union against a branch, for an injunction to restrain the latter from dividing the funds in their possession, would not lie.—Duke v. Littleboy,
(i,) B. DiV.—Improvem.ent—Street Diversi0n—10 3" ll Vict., 0. 34, s. 66. —The Commissioners under the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, s. 66, have no power to divert a highway by widening it and altering its course so as to close a part of the old highway ; street, in that section, is used in its popular acceptation of a line of buildings, and does not include a highway generally.—-Regina v. Platte, 43 L.T. 159; 28 W.R. 915.
(ii.) Q, B. Div,—Projution over or upon Pavement—Local Act-—Construclion.-—A local aot provided that no projection should be made in front of any building over or upon the pavement of any street : Held that this included only such projections as would be an obstruction to foot passengers.—-Goldstraw v. Duckworth, 49 L.J. 11.0. 78.
(iv.) C. P. DiV.—Repair of Footway—App0rtionrnent -38 (Y 39 Vict., c. 55, s. l50.—Au urban authority repaired the footway on the south side of a street, and apportioned the whole cost among the owners and occupiers of premises on that side: Held that the apportionment was right.-— lVakefield Swnatory Authority v. Mander, 28 W.R. 922.
(v.) C, P. Div_—Street Ezxpenses—Apportionment-38 Q‘ 89 Vict., c. 55, ss. 150, 257.—-An apportionment of street expenses, under sec. 150 of the Public Health Act, 1875, not disputed within three months from notice of it to the owner of the premises in respect of which the expenses were incurred, is binding and oouolusive.—-Shanklin Local Board v. Miller, 49 L.J. C.P. 512.
Husband and Wife : —
(i.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.—-Assignment of Leaseholds to lVife.—A husband about to leave England executed an assignment by deed to his wife of a leasehold house, to hold unto her, her executors, administrators, and assigns, as her separate estate. No trustee was appointed: Held that the deed operated as a valid declaration of trust. —Foa: v. Hawks, 49
Husband and Wife—Pleluling.-—In an action against a husband and wife. married since the Married Woman’s Property Act, 1874, for a debt contracted by the wife before marriage, it is not necessary to allege that the husband has received assets of the wife,—ill:1,lth.ews v. Wli-illle, 43 L.T. 114-.
P, D_ A. Div_—Div0rce—Decrw Nisi—Re-Man-iage before Decree nuule Absolute.—A wife having obtained a decree nisi for dissolution of her marriage, and being under the impression that it had been made absolute, went through the ceremony of marriage with another man. She afterwards found that the decree had never been made absolute: Held that she was entitled to have it made absolnte.—Wickham v. Wick-ham, 49 L.J. P.D.A. 70.
with another woman in 1877 with whom he still continued to live; she filled a petition for divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty but withdrew it at the hearing, and three years afterwards filed a petition grounded on adultery and deserticn. Respondent had not contributed towards her support since he left her: Held that she was entitled to a decree.—-Knapp v. Knapp, 4-9 L.J. P.D.A. 69,
P, D, A, Div;-Diuorce-—Varialion of Sattlemenl—41 Vict., c. 19.—— Held that the provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878, applied to the case where a decree nisi for dissolution was obtained before, and was made absolute after the passing of the Act.—-.1-nsdell v. Ansdell, 49 LJ. P.D.A. 57; 43 LT. 224,.
C. A.—Liability for Necessaries—Evpress Prohibition to Pledge Credit.-
Will—C'ansideralion.—It is competent for a married woman to give a. valid charge on property which she expects to become entitled to under the will of a person living at the time she makes the charge, which will take eifect on her becoming entitled to the property charged : and the advancing money to pay olf debts of her husband is a suflicient consideration to support the transaction.—-Flower v. Buller, 4-3 L.T 948.
c. 74, s. 9l.—()n an application for an order under 3 & 4: Will. IV‘I c. 74, s, 91, dispensing with the concurrence of a husband in the execution of a deed by his wife on the ground that they were living apart, and the husband, by reason of intemperate habits, was not in a fit mental state to execute the dead, the Court required medical evidence of the husband's state of mind, and evidence of his refusal to concur, and directed notice of the application to be served on him.—Re Clara's Will, 49 L.J. C.P. 557.
Ch. Div. V. C. B.—-Separate Estate—-Debts and Funeral E.vpsn8es——Statute of Limitations.-—Moneys advanced by a stranger for the support of a married woman, living separate from her husband, are debts binding her separate estate, and are not barred by the Statute of Limitations.—Hudgson v. Williamson, 28 W.R. 944.
Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Separate Estate—Resl1-aint on Anticipaiim1.—A general engagement of a married woman who has separate estate, made on the credit of such estate, binds all property belonging to her