Page images
PDF
EPUB

WELDHEN v. SCATTERGOOD-C. A. No. 2, 23rd March. APPEAL-SECURITY FOR COSTS-MARRIED WOMAN-SEPARATE ESTATE MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT, 1882, s. 1, SUB-SECTION 2. The question in this case was whether a married woman, who is an appellant, can be required to give security for the costs of her appeal if it is shewn that she has not the means of paving the costs if unsuccessful. Sub-section 2 of section 1 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, provides that a married woman shall be capable of suing and being sued, either in contract or tort, or otherwise, in all respects as if she were a feme sole, and any damages or costs recovered against her in any such action or proceeding shall be payable out of her separate property, and not otherwise." It was argued that the above words in inverted commas prevent the court from requiring a married woman to give security for costs. THE COURT OF APPEAL (COTTON and LINDLEY, L JJ.) held that there was no foundation for this argument, and required the appellant to give security.-COUNSEL, J. Cutler; J. Henderson. SOLICITORS, Pitman & Sons; F. J. & G. J. Braikenridge.

[ocr errors]

Re THE CHELSEA WATERWORKS CO.-Kay, J., 12th March. LANDS CLAUSES ACT, 1845 (8 & 9 VICT. c. 18), s. 69-LANDS TAKEN FROM CORPORATION WHO HAVE NO POWER TO SELL-PURCHASE-MONEY PAID INTO COURT-PAYMENT OUT-PERSONS ABSOLUTELY ENTITLED." The Metropolitan Board of Works, acting under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act, purchased compulsorily certain lands belonging to the Chelsea Waterworks Co. in fee, which were actually in use at the time for the purposes of the company; and another site for the water pipes was provided. The company was incorporated under an Act of 1852, which incorporated the Lands Clauses Act, and they had no power to sell other than superfluous land. The purchase-money was paid into court under section 69, and the company now petitioned that it might be paid out to them as being persons "absolutely entitled to such money" within the section. It was also argued that it ought not to have been paid into court. KAY, J., said that he could not follow The Caledonian Railway Co. v. The City of Glasgow Union Railway Co. (Sc. Sess. Cas., 3rd series, vol. 7, p. 1072), and must hold that it was right to pay the money into court. But it could not be applied according to any of the directions given in section 69, except that to pay to the persons absolutely entitled. The company were absolutely entitled, and the money must be paid out to them.-COUNSEL, J. Dixon; F. Pownall. SOLICITORS, Few & Co.; Solicitors to the Metropolitan Board of Works.

Re FLETCHER, SMITH v. FLETCHER-North, J., 17th March. WILL-CONSTRUCTION-POWER TO TRUSTEES TO EXPEND MONEY IN COMPLETING AND FURNISHING A HOUSE.

The question in this case was whether certain expenditure which the trustees of a will proposed to make was authorized by a power given to them by the will to expend money in the completion and furnishing of a mansion house. The testator was a domiciled Englishman, but he had an estate in Scotland called the L. Estate. He made an English will of his personalty; he also made a Scotch deed of disposition and settle ment of his Scotch real estate. By this instrument he settled the L. Estate on his son F., whom he constituted heir in entail. The testator had before his death commenced extensive alterations in the mansion house on the L. Estate, which were not completed at the time of his death. By a codicil to his English will he directed that, in case he should die before the mansion house which he was building on his L. Estate and the outbuildings, gardens, and grounds thereto should be completed, furnished, and planted respectively, his executors should pay to the trustees of his Scotch trust disposition and settlement such a sum not less than £5,000, nor more than £15,000, as such trustees in their absolute discretion should deem necessary or proper for the purpose, to be expended by them in or towards the completion, furnishing, and planting respectively of the said mansion house and the outbuildings, gardens, and grounds thereto. The Scotch trustees desired to apply the whole sum of £15,000 on certain proposed expenditure. As the executors of the English will were to a great extent the same persons as the Scotch trustees, they wished to have the decision of the court whether the proposed expenditure was authorized by the power. Among the items of the proposed expenditure was a large sum for the installation of apparatus for lighting the premises by electricity, a sum of £3,738 for garden houses, a sum of nearly £3,000 for plate, pictures, china, books, and other articles, and a sum of £1,000 for one picture, which had been already bought by the son F. himself.

NORTH, J., was of opinion that the expenditure of a proper amount on the installation of electric lighting apparatus was within the power, as was also the expenditure on garden houses and plate, pictures, and books such as the trustees considered necessary and proper. But he thought they were not justified in paying the £1,000 for the picture which the son had already bought. - COUNSEL, Napier Higgins, Q.C., and Methold; Finlay, Q.C., and Ingle Joyce. SOLICITORS, Gregory, Rowcliffes, & Co.

Re HURTER-North, J., 23rd March.

give security for the costs of the opponents. And it was ordered that, until the security was given, the applicant should not take any further proceedings in the matter against the opponents. The security was not given, and on the 15th of March the opponents gave notice of a motion for the 18th of March, before North, J., in court, that the applicant might be ordered to give the security within seven days, and that, in default of his doing so, his application might be dismissed with costs, without any

further order.

NORTH, J., held that the opponents were entitled to the preremptory order for which they asked. But he said that the application ought to have been made, not by motion in court, but by summons in chambers, and therefore he should only allow the opponents the costs of a summons.— COUNSEL, Cozens-Hardy, Q.C.; Ingpen. SOLICITOrs, Janson, Cobb, & Co.; E. Kennedy.

STANLEY v. MAYOR, ALDERMEN, AND CITIZENS OF THE CITY
OF NORWICH-Kekewich, J., 23rd March.
FREEMEN-CUSTOM-MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1835 (5 & 6 WILL. 4,
c. 76), s. 2.

In this action, which was brought by four freemen of Norwich on behalf of themselves and the other freemen, the plaintiffs claimed as their private property some eighty acres of building land, called the Town Close, at Norwich. It formed part of land formerly belonging to the Prior of Norwich, which he had released to the "mayor, sheriffs, citizens, and commonalty" in pursuance of a compromise of a dispute about the respective rights of the priory and the city. In 1524 the corporation directed that no "foreign inhabitant" should put any beast to pasture on this land, but only "citizen inhabitants," and it appeared from the evidence that the rent of the land had, until a year or two since, been paid to the freemen. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that the property belonged to the corporation for the benefit of all the citizens and not to one particular class of them.

[ocr errors]

KEKEWICH, J., said there were many questions of interest in the case, but the main one was whether, having regard to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, s. 2, the property in question was the private property of one particular class of the inhabitants. The clause of the Act was in these terms :-" And whereas, in divers cities, towns, and boroughs, the common land and public stock of such cities, towns, and boroughs, and the rents and profits thereof, have been held and applied for the particular benefit of the citizens, freemen, and burgesses of the said cities, towns, and boroughs respectively, or of certain of them, or of the widows or kindred of them, or certain of them, and have not been applied to public purposes: be it therefore enacted: That every person who now is, or hereafter may be, an inhabitant of any borough, and also every person who has been admitted, or who now is, or hereafter may be, the wife or widow, or son or daughter, of any freeman or burgess, or who may have espoused, or may hereafter espouse, the daughter or widow of any freeman or burgess, or who may have been, or may hereafter be, bound an apprentice, shall have and enjoy and be entitled to acquire and enjoy the same share and benefit of the lands, tenements, hereditaments, and of the rents and profits therefor, and of the common lands and public stock of any borough or body corporate as fully and effectually, and for such time and in such manner as he or she, by any statute, charter, bye-law, or custom in force at the time of passing this Act, might or could have had, acquired, or enjoyed in case this Act had not been passed.' He should decide the case as if it had been brought the day after the passing of the Act. The question really reduced itself to this how had the property been held and enjoyed for the last 350 years? From the extracts produced from the documents of the Corporation, it was clear that, when there were receipts from the land, freemen, and freemen alone, were entitled to share them. It had been suggested that their enjoyment of these rents and profits was of grace, not of right, but the entries did not bear this out. At the time, then, of the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, the freemen were in the enjoyment of certain property, and their enjoyment, he thought, came under the word "custom" in section 2 of that Act, which, however, was not custom" in the strict legal sense, and that without reference to the origin and legality of the rights. Prestney v. Mayor and Corporation of Colchester and the Attorney-General (21 Ch. D. 111) seemed very much in. point, and he should follow it. There would be a declaration that the Corporation held the Town Close in trust for the freemen of the city of Norwich, and an account accordingly; also an inquiry as to who were the freemen entitled to the benefit of the declaration, and any question as to what constituted a freeman of Norwich could be determined under that inquiry. It would be open to the Attorney-General to apply for a scheme upon the footing of a charitable trust if he should be so advised.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

COUNSEL, Warmington, QC., Swinfen Eady, and Shearman; Barber, Q.C., Elton, Q.C., and W. Phipson Beale; Ingle-Joyce. SOLICITORS, C. F. Martelli, for J. Stanley, Norwich; Sharpe, Parkers, Pritchard, & Sharpe, for H. B. Miller, Norwich; Hare & Co.

In the Goods of PRICE-P. D. & A. Div., 22nd March. PROBATE-MARRIED WOMAN-LIMITED GRANT-GENERAL GRANT-MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT, 1882, ss. 1, 6, 7, 23. Judgment was given in this case on an application for a grant of proordinary form, limited to such personal estate as the deceased had a right to appoint or dispose of. The testatrix, a married woman, had, by her will, given all her real and personal property to the use of her daughter, Frances Amelia Price, absolutely, and had appointed Frederick Joseph

PRACTICE-SECURITY FOR COSTS-APPLICATION BY MOTION OR SUMMONS- bate of the will of a married woman in a general form, and not in the

COSTS.

The opponents of an application for the registration of a word as a trade-mark obtained in chambers, on the 24th of February, an order that the applicant, who was a foreigner residing out of the jurisdiction, should

Price, and the said Frances Amelia Price her executor and executrix. In support of the motion it was contended that since the passing of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, there was no ground for following the old form of limited grant. Section 1, sub-section 1, had rendered a married woman capable of acquiring, holding, and disposing, by will or otherwise, of any property as if she were a feme sole, and the power thus conferred was subject to no limitation. The provisions of sections 5, 6, and 23 were also referred to, and it was urged that the limited form of grant caused much inconvenience when stock had to be sold. The case stood over, in order to enable Butt, J., to consult the registrars of the division as to the practice. BUTT, J., now said that, while understanding the reasons for the form of grant hitherto followed in the case of the wills of married women, he had never been able to understand its necessity, but it appeared to him that, in the face of recent legislation, the old form ought not to be insisted upon, and since the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, had altered the position of a married woman with regard to her powers of holding and disposing of separate property, the probate might issue in the ordinary form. He added that the president of the division had expressed his approval of that course being followed.-COUNSEL, Houghton. SOLICITORS, Tatham & Son.

DIVORCE

HARRISON v. HARRISON-P. D. and A. Div., 22nd March. VARIATION OF SETTLEMENTS PERMANENT MAINTENANCE

[ocr errors]

REVERSIONARY INTEREST-DUM SOLA ET CASTA CLAUSE - DIVORCE ACT, 1857 (20 & 21 VICT. c. 85), s. 32. Judgment was given in this suit on a petition for variation of settlements and for permanent maintenance after a decree dissolving the marriage on the ground of the husband's cruelty and adultery. It appeared from the registrar's report that the respondent had brought no property into settlement, and that the property brought into settlement comprised a sum of £1,000 invested on mortgage and producing about £40 per annum, and the petitioner's reversionary interest in one-fifth of a fund of £5,074 4s. 2d., after the death of a lady now about seventy-five years of age. The trusts of the settlement were for the petitioner for life, and after her death, in default of children, for such person or persons as the wife should by deed or will appoint, and, in default of appointment, as if she had died intestate and unmarried. There were no children of the marriage. The husband's income, derived from various stocks and shares, was about £400 per annum, and he had a reversionary interest in a fund of about £7,700 (producing an income of about £340 per annum) on the death of his uncle. The wife's present income out of the settled property was about £40 per annum, and on the falling in of her reversionary interest it would be increased by about the same sum. The registrar's report proposed that the respondent should pay to the petitioner a yearly sum of £110 during their joint lives and until the falling in of his reversion, after which he should pay an additional £100 per annum, his payments to be reduced by £40 whenever the petitioner's reversions should fall in. On the motion to confirm the registrar's report the respondent's counsel contended that the court could not take the respondent's reversionary interest into account, but could only deal with the state of things existing at the date of the decree. Application was also made to the court to direct the insertion of a dum sola et casta clause in the deed. The following authorities were referred to:-Fisher v. Fisher (2 S. & T. 410); Sydney v. Sidney (4 8. & T. 178); Gladstone v. Gladstone (24 W. R. 739, 1 P. D. 442); Hart v. Hart (30 W. R. 8, 18 Ch. D. 670); Medley v. Medley (30 W. R. 937, 7 P. D. 122).

BUTT, J., now said that he could not accede to the full extent to the respondent's contention that upon a petition for permanent maintenance the court had no power to deal with the reversionary interest belonging to the husband; but he should not be disposed to deal with it except under exceptional circumstances, as, for instance, if there were no other means of making provision for the wife. Under these circumstances he ordered the respondent to secure to the petitioner an annual payment of £130 during their joint lives, leaving the respondent's reversionary interest untouched. The dum sola et casta clause was an unusual one under the circumstances, and he declined to order it to be inserted in the deed.— COUNSEL, Bayford, Q.O., and Barnard; Inderwick, Q.C., and Searle. SOLICITORS, Hughes & Son; A. T. Cox.

[blocks in formation]

The question in this case was whether a bankrupt had, before his bankruptcy, given a valid equitable mortgage of certain real estate belonging to him. His mother was the tenant for life of a farm; the bankrupt and his elder brother were respectively entitled in reversion, expectant on the life estate of the mother, to one-fifth share of the farm. The bankrupt was the local manager of a branch of a banking company, the elder brother being the general manager of the company. The bankrupt had become indebted to the company, and he, in May, 1874, verbally promised the directors that he would give the company security for his debt. In September, 1881, the mother died, and the title deeds of the farm, which had been in her possession as tenant for life, came into the possession of the elder brother for the purpose of paying succession duty in respect of the property. He told the bankrupt that he had the deeds, and the bankrupt verbally directed him to hold them as to his one-fifth share of the property as security for the bank. After this the bankruptcy took

place, and the trustee in the bankruptcy claimed the bankrupt's one-fifth share of the rents of the property. The Divisional Court (Cave and Wills, JJ.) held (18 Q. B. D. 380) that no valid equitable mortgage had been created, and that the trustee was entitled. Cave, J., said that he was not aware of any case which went the length of holding that, where a third person already had possession of title deeds for another purpose, an oral communication by a part owner of the property to which the deeds related, purporting to make the third person a trustee of the deeds for a creditor, could create a good equitable mortgage in favour of that creditor. So to hold would be to repeal the Statute of Frauds so far as the creation of equitable mortgages was concerned.

THE COURT OF APPEAL (Lord ESHER, M.R., and BOWEN and FRY, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision. Lord ESHER, M. R., said that, there being nothing but a verbal promise by the bankrupt to give security, in order to take the case out of the Statute of Frauds it must be shewn that there had been part performance of the promise. The deeds were not handed by the bankrupt to his brother. When the direction was given by the bankrupt to hold the deeds from the bank nothing more was done with them, they were left in precisely the same position as before. The one brother said something and the other said something. Was that such a part performance of the original verbal promise as would take the case out of the statute? His lordship agreed with what Cave, J., had said. When a verbal promise had been given to do a thing, and nothing took place afterwards but the speaking of more words by the person who had given the Promise, when nothing was done in fact, the statute could not be satisfied. If goods were in the hands of a warehouseman, and the owner of them sold them and then directed the warehouseman to hold them thenceforth for the purchaser, and the warehouseman transferred the goods in his books into the name of the purchaser, an act would have been done which would exclude the Statute of Frauds. But in the present case nothing had taken place but a verbal communication, and that did not amount to a part performance of the original promise. BowEN, L J., said that the bank were bound to prove a part performance of something which there had been a promise to perform, and he could see nothing which amounted to a change of the legal rights of the parties. Nothing passed between the two brothers but conversation, and to hold that this was part performance of the promise would be to repeal the Statute of Frauds so far as it related to equitable mortgages. Daw v. Terrell (33 Beav. 218), which had been referred to, was entirely distinguishable. FRY, L.J, entirely concurred in the view that the mere words spoken by the bankrupt to his brother as to the custody of the deeds could not be said to have been a part performance of the verbal promise to give security.— COUNSEL, Everitt, Q.C., and Luck; Ambrose. Q.C., and J. Broughton Edge. SOLICITORS, Clarke, Rawlins, & Co.; Torr & Co.

CASES AFFECTING SOLICITORS. UNQUALIFIED PRACTITIONERS IN COUNTY COURTS-Croydon County Court, before Judge Lushington and Mr. J. E. Fox, Registrar, 16th March.

When his Honour took his seat Mr. J. Appleby asked leave to make a statement. He stated that that morning he had four or five cases put into his hands on behalf of poor persons who were unable to pay a solici tor's fees, but on appearing before the registrar that morning he had conduct cases. refused to hear him, and had stated that agents could not be permitted to He should like to have information on this subject, because this would be a very great loss to them. The registrar said his opinion was, and he had been confirmed by the Treasury, that it was illegal and improper for persons not duly qualified to appear in the county courts "for fee or reward.' He had communicated with Mr. Nicol, and he had the authority of the Treasury for refusing to hear unqualified persons. Section 10 of the County Courts Act, 1856, provided that those who might be heard were persons duly qualified to appear, and that persons defending should be duly anthorized, and the view Mr. Nicol took was that a person was not duly authorized who was acting in contravention of an Act of Parliament.

[ocr errors]

His HONOUR remarked that it was the custom in the Croydon and other county courts to allow suitors to appear by agents, and it was a thing which could not be altered without great consideration. He quite saw that there were conflicting interests in the matter.

The REGISTRAR said the reason he had for investigating this was that grave irregularities, with which Mr. Appleby was in no way concerned, had taken place with reference to the actions of "agents."

Mr. APPLEBY: Of course this will be a great loss to me and to others. His HONOUR: It is not your interests so much as the interests of the suitors I am considering. He said it was an important question, because in all the courts persons called debt collectors, who, no doubt, were paid, were constantly appearing, and he supposed it was to the convenience of suitors that they fhould appear, and he did not know that he should be justified in excluding them. He would give his decision next court day, but he did not think he should be able to exclude them.

SOLICITOR STRUCK OFF THE ROLLS. 21st March-John Devereux PUGH (Wrexham).

On Friday last Mr. Justice Kay granted an injunction to prevent a defendant from removing a plaintiff out of the jurisdiction of the court.

ACCOMMODATION FOR PRISONERS AWAITING
TRIAL.

THE report of the committee appointed last year "to inquire into the
present accommodation for prisoners in court-houses and other places
while awaiting trial at assizes and sessions, and to report what alterations
they may consider desirable in the existing arrangements," has recently
appeared. The committee deal in detail with the existing accommodation
in about 200 of the court-house lock-ups. They say that "in some order
and decency are attempted to be enforced by the presence of an officer
among the prisoners; in others no officer could be expected to endure the
atmosphere in which the prisoners have to spend their time; and the
worst evils of that promiscuous association, against which it has been a
primary object of modern prison discipline to guard, must be encountered
for hours, and even days together, by children, women, and men who
may be, and some of whom are, innocent. In some places where separa-
tion is effected it is by means which appear to be capable of amounting
to positive torture. Men and women are, in many such places of deten-
tion, bolted for many consecutive hours, sometimes for many consecutive
days, into boxes or cupboards measuring, in some instances, as little as
2ft. 4in. by 2ft. lin. (Gloucester, where prisoners have been' confined in
these boxes six days running), and even 2ft. 6in. by 1ft. 9in. in one
instance (Bodmin). This practice is more common than might be sup-
posed, as the following specimens will shew:-Central Criminal Court,
boxes, 2ft. 6in. by 3ft.; Surrey Sessions, 3ft. 10in. by 2ft. 2in.; Clerken-
well Sessions, 4ft. by 2ft. 9in.; Devizes, 2ft. 4in. by 2ft. 6in.; Salisbury,
3ft. by 2ft. 6in.; Marlborough, 2ft. by 2ft. 4in.; Gloucester, 2ft. lin. by
2ft. 4in.; Lewes, 2ft. 6in. by 3ft.; and Bodmin, 2ft. 6in. by 1ft. 9in.
"When it is considered that a great many of such cells are all but dark,
that for their inmates there is no possibility of distraction of any kind,
that some are close and overheated by hot-water pipes or gas burners,
while in others the temperature in winter is often as low as 40 to 45
degrees, with damp and unprotected stone floors, it is not using the language
of exaggeration to say that such a method of confinement may inflict great
suffering, both of body and mind, and that its wholesale adoption savours
little of the humanity which is extended to convicted criminals. In some
of such places there are either no seats at all (Newcastle-under-Lyme), or
seats of brick (Dorchester), or of stone (Lancaster). In very many
instances the rooms or cells are without any means of procuring warmth;
in many others, the only method of warming is by burning the gas jet,
without which the inmates would be in partial or total darkness; and, as
it is rather the exception than the rule to find adequate ventilation, the
state of the atmosphere at the close of the day must necessarily be foul
and unwholesome. In some cases the offices of nature, if performed at
all, must be performed in the presence from two to eight or ten specta-

tors."

The committee say:-"It will be necessary as things stand, and in any case desirable, to work through the local authorities, and as far as possible with them, and it is very satisfactory to observe the number of instances in which the representations of the Prison Commissioners have been favourably received and acted upon by the authorities. In some instances, however, a different spirit has prevailed, and it is obvious that such of the lccal authorities as have been so far forgetful of their duties as to have allowed such things as have been pointed out to pass must need

some effectual pressure from without."

The committee then enumerate the matters to be amended. These are, shortly, separation; increased space; proper warmth and ventilation; and decent sanitary accommodation. With regard to warmth the committee say: "Many of the places of confinement in question are liable to fall to 40deg. or 45deg., or even lower in very cold weather. The persons confined in them can generally take no exercise of any kind. They are, as a rule, poorly clad, and not particularly well fed. It offends any due sense of fair play to keep a person under conditions which must benumb his faculties, paralyze his energies, and make him physically miserable, and then, after some hours of this treatment, to call upon him at a moment's notice to struggle for his liberty, perhaps for many years, against and in the presence of persons who are, generally speaking, at all events

warm."

NEW ORDERS, &c.

If the property is personalty (other than leasehold), the plaintiff should be appointed receiver limiting the amount to be received to the amount of his judgment debt and costs of obtaining the order, not exceeding £4.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE-CHANCERY DIVISON.
ORDER OF COURT.

Thursday, the 24th day of March, 1887. Whereas, from the present state of the business before Mr. Justice Chitty, Mr. Justice North, Mr. Justice Stirling, and Mr. Justice Kekewich respectively, it is expedient that a portion of the causes assigned to Mr. Justice Chitty, Mr. Justice North, and Mr. Justice Stirling should for the purpose only of hearing or of trial be transferred to Mr. Justice Kekewich. Now I, the Right Honourable Hardinge Stanley, Baron Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, do hereby order that the several causes set forth in the schedules hereto be accordingly transferred from the said Mr. Justice Chitty, Mr. Justice North, and Mr. Justice Stirling to Mr. Justice Kekewich, for the purpose only of hearing or of trial, and be marked in the cause books accordingly. And this order is to be drawn up by the registrar and set up in the several offices of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice.

FIRST SCHEDULE.

From Mr. Justice CHITTY (Witness Actions).
Tristam v Eld 1886 T 253 Dec 17
Randall v Evans 1886 R 879 Dec 20
In re Moone, decd, Moone v Moone 1886 M 1499 Dec 21
Condy & Mitchell, ld, v Taylor & Co, ld 1886 C 3824 Dec 23
Meston v Kelday 1886 M 325 Dec 24
In re M A Taylor, decd, Turpin v Pain 1886 T 1458 Jan 5
Ellis v Workman 1886 E 6811 Jan 5
Punchard v Imperial Continental Water Corporation, ld
Birmingham and District Land Co, ld, v L & N W Ry Co

Jan 6

Jan 7

Jan 13

1885 P 2767

1886 B 571

Earl of Darnley v London, Chatham, and Dover Ry Co 1886 D 821
Ford, Rathbone, & Co v Aspdin 1886 F 431 Jan 8
Young v Berriman 1886 Y 220 Jan 20
Patents Investment Co, ld, v Crompton 1886 P 2372 Jan 20
In re C Moreton, otherwise Coppen, decd, Moreten v Coppen 1886 M

Pile v Simons 1886 P 1923 Jan 22

1681 Jan 24

Clay v Bracken 1886 C 3145 Jan 28
Baroness Wenlock v River Dee Co, ld 1886 W 1293 Jan 31
Duck ▾ Hengh 1886 D 1900 Jan 31
Phillips v Phillips 1886 P 1795 Feb 3
Hawkins v King 1886 H 4170 Feb 4
Pickford v Pickford 1886 P 1241 Feb 4
Taylor v Faulkner 1886 T 1631 Feb 10

Gas Light and Coke Co v South Met Gas Co 1886 G 1980 Feb 12
In re J McQuinn, decd, Hill v Buckley 1885 M 3792 Feb 14
Higgens v Maber 1886 H 4163 Feb 14

Franke v Vert 1886 F 1909 Feb 16
Baxter v Harfield & Co 1885 B 5102 Feb 16
Edwards ▾ Jones 1886 E 1001 Feb 19
Parsons v Saffory 1886 P 1198 Feb 22
Haymes ▾ Leach, Leach v Haymes 1886 H 4245 Feb 22

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Before Mr. Justice NORTH (Witness Actions).
Taylor v Graham 1885 T 1,748 March 18
Fox v Denton 1885 F 1,793 March 20
Croft v Rickmansworth Highway Board 1885 C 3,190 March 22
Bowman v Hopper 1885 B 3,595 June 19
Chatteris v Isacson 1886 C 143 Nov 18
Hawkins v Hawkins 1886 H 3,368 Nov 19
Stobbs ▾ Kelsey 1882 S 4,971 Nov 25

In re W. Farrow, Moore v Farrow 1886 F 1,176 Nov 25
Bunting ▾ Mulkerntors 1885 B 2,335 Nov 30

In re Fletcher, Barnett v Fletcher 1883 B 712 Dec 1
Wood v Aylward 1886 W 2,471 Dec 2
Topham v Booth 1886 T 893 Dec 4

APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER BY WAY OF EQUITABLE Lodge v Poole 1886 L 641 Dec 4

EXECUTION.

The following departmental directions, dated the 19th of March, have been issued to the Summons and Order Department (Q. B. Div.) as to orders appointing a receiver by way of equitable execution.

I. In all cases where the judgment for debt and costs is for more than
£50 and less than £100, a direction is to be added to the order that
"The total amount to be allowed for the costs of the
Receiver (including his poundage, the costs of obtaining the
appointment, of completing the security, passing his accounts,
and obtaining his discharge), shall not exceed 10 per cent. of
the amount for which the judgment is signed."
II. Where the judgment (for debt and costs) is for a sum less than £50,
then,
If the property is freehold or leasehold, the plaintiff should
be made (by the order) answerable for the receiver, but no
further security need be required, and the receiver should not
act without the leave of the court or a judge.

Ede v Watson 1885 E 446 Dec 6
Paget v Ethcuit Paget v Ellis 1886 P 1,318 Dec 7
Elliot v Steel 1885 E 592 Dec 11
Cooke, Sons, & Co. v The New River Co. 1886 C 2,392 Dec 13
Todd v Herring 1886 T 1,427 Dec 13
Furber v Best 1886 F 1,123 Dec 14
Noakes v Room 1886 N 911 Dec 14
Sahler v Füchs 1886 S 4,665 Dec 15
Caswell v Hunton 1886 C 3,797 Dec 20
Mears v Bull 1886 M 2,336 Dec 20
Rowe v School Board for London 1886 R 1,884 Dec 31
Nicholls v Kimpton 1886 N 1,444 Jan 5
Bailey v Bailey 1886 B 3,401 Jan 5
Marshall v Cox 1886 M 2,872 Jan 6
Rudder v Booth 1886 R 871 Jan 6
Tennant, Widow, v Lord Claud Hamilton 1885 T 1,936 Jan 8
Buttery v London & N W Ry Co 1885 B 2,759 Jan 11
Woolf ▾ Wonacott 1886 W 2,344 Jan 11

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Richards v Deane 1886 R 353 Nov 10

Branchi ▾ Bennett 1886 B 1757 Nov 15

Morgan & Co, ld, v E S Windover & Co, ld 1886 M 1220 Nov 16
Eady v Eady 1886 E 698 Nov 17

Gardener v Vicat & ors 1886 G 808 Nov 18
Fisher v Holland 1885 F 759 Dec 1

Russell v Geere 1886 R 450 Dec 6

In re Rust, Bull v Rust 1886 R 1802 Dec 14
Prior v Moore 1886 P 2,346 Dec 14
Newen v Owen 1886 N 677 Dec 17
Ferris, Townsend, & Co. v Weston 1886 F 925
In re Trueman, Bradley v Turnbull 1886 T 521
In re Trueman, Bradley v Turnbull 1886 T 522
Smith v School Board for Prescott 1886 S 1,252
American Braided Wire Co. v Thomson & Co. 1886
Foster v Holland 1886 F 1,180 Jan 5
School Board for London v Blum 1884 L 2,914
Elborough v Tester 1886 E 763 Jan 15
In re Childe Harold Head, Head v Head 1886 H 3,356 Jan 17

Dec 17
Dec 20
Dec 20
Dec 30
A 1,136 Jan 5
Jan 14

HALSBURY, C.

this court, and those present who watch the administration of justice, my high opinion of the manner in which Mr. Brandon always discharged the duties of the office he had undertaken, and our very great regret that we should be deprived of his services." Mr. Glyn expressed the profound feeling of regret with which the members of the bar had received the intelligence

Mr. GUILDFORD WILLIAM DALE RICHARDSON, Solicitor, of 13, Pall Mall, died on the 21st ult. Mr. Richardson was the eldest son of Mr. Guildford Barker Richardson, of Blackheath, and was born in 1847. He was educated at Blackheath School, and he was formerly scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated as tenth wrangler in 1870. He was admitted a solicitor in 1876.

Mr. ROBERT BRUCE RUSSELL, barrister, died on the 18th inst., from pneumonia. Mr. Russell was the second son of Mr. James Russell, Q.C., and was born in 1845. He was educated at Magdalen College, Oxford. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1871, and he practised on the Midland Circuit and at the Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, and Derbyshire Sessions. Mr. Russell was an examiner of the High Court. He had had considerable experience as a law reporter. He was formerly one of the staff of the Weekly Reporter, and rather more than a year ago he was placed on the staff of the Law Reports.

Mr. WILLIAM BRICE, solicitor, late town clerk of Bristol, died suddenly on the 14th inst., in his seventy-fifth year. Mr. Brice was born in 1812. He was admitted a solicitor about the year 1834, and for many years he conducted an extensive practice at Bristol, in partnership with the late Mr. Daniel Burges. He was clerk to the city magistrates from 1849 till 1874, when, on the death of Mr. Burges, he succeeded to the town clerkship. He resigned the latter office and retired from practice about seven years ago. Mr. Brice was a magistrate for Gloucestershire. He was unmarried He was buried at Clifton on the 19th inst.

Mr. WILLIAM THURGOOD, solicitor, of Saffron Walden, Essex, who died at Littlehampton on the 12th inst., in the seventy-third year of his age, was the eldest son of the late Mr. Robert Driver Thurgood, conveyancer, of Saffron Walden. He was born at Saffron Waldon in the year 1815. He was educated at Mill Hill, and was admitted a solicitor in 1835. He was appointed in 1836 clerk to the magistrates at Saffron Walden, and on the death of his father received the position of clerk to the guardians, which appointment he held until the end of 1885, when he retired from business. He married in 1839 Charlotte, second daughter of the late Mr. Michael Lane, solicitor, of Braintree, Essex, by whom he has left four sons. His remains were interred at Littlehampton on the 15th inst.

LEGAL NEWS.

OBITUARY.

The Hon. RICHARD DENMAN, barrister, died at his residence, Westergate, Sussex, on the 19th inst., in his seventy-fourth year. Mr. Denman was the third son of the first Lord Denman, and elder brother of Mr. Justice Denman. He was born in 1814, and he was educated at Eton and at Trinity College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Term, 1838, and he formerly practised on the Northern Circuit. In 1840 he was appointed by his father, when Lord Chief Justice of England, to the office of clerk of assize on the Home Circuit, and he had since 1876 acted in the same capacity on the South-Eastern Circuit. Mr. Denman was heir-presumptive to the Barony of Denman. He was a magistrate for the county of Sussex. He was married in 1840 to the daughter of Mr. Hugh Jones, of Lark Hill, Lancashire, and he leaves four sons and one daughter. His only surviving son, Mr. Thomas Hugh Anderson Denman, was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Michaelmas Term, 1881, and is a member of the Northern Circuit.

Mr. WOODTHORPE BRANDON, assistant-judge of the Mayor's Court, died at his residence, Mill Hill, Barnes, on the 17th inst., from paralysis, in his seventy-fifth year. Mr. Brandon was the second son of Mr. Henry Brandon (his mother having been the sister of Mr. Henry Woodthorpe, formerly Town Clerk of London), and was born in 1813. He was educated at St. Paul's School. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1851, having held the office of deputyregistrar of the Mayor's Court since 1832. In 1859 he was appointed registrar of the court, and in 1874 he became assistant-judge. Mr. Brandon was the author of treatises on The Practice of the Lord Mayor's Court and on Foreign Attachment. He actively discharged all his judicial duties till about a fortnight before his death. Mr. Brandon was married to the daughter of Mr. John Michael, of Wandsworth, and he leaves four children. He was buried at the Barnes Cemetery on the 21st inst. In the Mayor's Court, on the day of Mr. Brandon's death, the Recorder said:- Gentlemen, I am very sorry to have to inform you that since I have taken my seat I have received the sad news of the death of the assistant-judge, Mr. Woodthorpe Brandon, after a very short illness. Having known him for a great many years, and he having been connected with the administration of justice in this court, every body will agree that by his premature removal we have all suffered a very severe loss. He was perfectly familiar with the practice of the court, and during the last twelve or fourteen years of his life he was the assistant-judge, and tried causes here. The Corporation have lost a very efficient and able officer, and those who knew him have lost a very excellent and intelligent friend, and the public will deplore the loss of a faithful and diligent public servant. can only express, in the name of the practitioners of

APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. JOHN TANKkerville GoldnEY, a Puisne Judge of the Colony of British Guiana, has been appointed a Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements. Mr. Justice Goldney is the youngest son of Sir Gabriel Goldney, Bart., and was born in 1846, and he was educated at Harrow, and at Trinity College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Easter Term, 1869. He formerly practised on the Northern Circuit. He was Attorney-General of the Leeward Islands from 1880 till 1883, when he was appointed a Puisne Judge of the Colony of British Guiana.

Mr. WILLIAM ANTHONY MUSGRAVE SHERIFF, a Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements, has been appointed a Puisne Judge of the Colony of British Guiana. Mr. Justice Sheriff is the youngest son of Mr. James Watson Sheriff, of Antigua. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, 1867. He was Attorney-General of Grenada from 1872 till 1880, when he became Attorney-General of the Bahamas, and he was appointed a Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements in 1885.

Mr. FREDERICK PIPER BADDELEY, solicitor, of 60, Leadenhall-street, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Cobbett), of Manchester, has been appointed by the High Sheriff of Mr. WILLIAM COBBETT, solicitor (of the firm of Cobbett, Wheeler, & Staffordshire (Mr. George Fox) to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Cobbett was admitted a solicitor in 1868.

Mr. JOHN HENRY ROBINSON, solicitor, of East Retford, has been appointed by the High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire (Mr. Benjamin Huntsman) to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Robinson was admitted a solicitor in 1882.

Mr. CLAUD HERBERT LISLE, solicitor, of Audlem, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. JOSEPH STEPHENSON LAWSON, solicitor (of the firm of Bulmer & Lawson), of Leeds and Horsforth, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. EDWARD LLEWELLYN GWILLIM, solicitor (of the firm of Merrimans & Gwillim), of Marlborough, has been elected Town Clerk of that borough, on the resignation of his partner, Mr. Robert William Merriman, who is also Clerk of the Peace for Wiltshire. Mr. Gwillim was admitted

a solicitor in 1876.

Mr. ADOLPHUS EDGAR CHURCH, solicitor, of Colchester, has been elected Clerk of the Peace for that borough, in succession to the late Mr. John Stuck Barnes. Mr. Church is the second son of Mr. John Heary Church. solicitor, of Colchester. He was admitted a solicitor in 1855, and he is coroner for the borough of Colchester, and for the Soken District of Essex.

Mr. WILLIAM PRICE HUGHES, Solicitor (of the firm of Hughes & Price), of Worcester, has been appointed by the High Sheriff of Worcestershire (Mr. William Edward Everitt) to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Hughes is also under- sheriff for the city of Worcester. He was admitted a solicitor in 1859.

Mr. EDWARD LEADBITTER, Solicitor (of the firm of Leadbitter & Hammond), of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, has been appointed by the High Sheriff of Northumberland (Mr. Ralph Atkinson) to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Leadbitter was admitted a solicitor in 1860.

LOYAL PRIDE OF THE VALLEY LODGE INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ALFREDS, MERTHYR UNITY, Cwmfrwdore Inn, Cwmfrwdore, nr Pontnewynydd, Pontypool, Monmouth. March 14

UNION BURIAL SOCIETY, Well and Bucket, Bethnal Green rd. March 12
London Gazette.-TUESDAY. March 22.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

ABERCORRIS SLATE AND SLAB CO., LIMITED.- Creditors are required, on or before
April 19, to send their names and addresses, and particulars of their debts or
claims, to Edgar Ashworth Harvey, 18, St. Dunstan's hill. Tuesday, May 3, at
11, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon debts and claims
BOYTHORPE COLLIERY CO., LIMITED.-By an order made by Stirling, J., dated
March 12, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Church & Co, Bed-
ford row, solors for petners

DEAN & CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented March 19, directed to be heard before Stiring. J., on April 2. Torr & Co, Bedford row, agents for Simpson. Leeds, solor for petners

Mr. JOHN BASELEY TOOKE HALES, solicitor and notary (of the firm of Hansell & Hales), of Norwich, has been appointed by the High Sheriff of Norfolk (Sir Alfred Jodrell), to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Hales was admitted a solicitor in 1874. He is deputy- THOMAS WEBB & SONS, LIMITED. By an order made by Chitty. J.. dated March registrar of the Archdeaconry of Norwich.

14, it was ordered that the above be wound up. Field & Co., Lincoln's inn fields, agents for Barlow & Co. Birmingham, solors for petners

VICTORIA GRAVING DOCK Co., LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented March 21, directed to be heard before North, J., on April 2. Gedge & Co, Old Palace yard, petners in person UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY.

Mr. JOHN STOKELL DODDS, Attorney-General of Tasmania, has been appointed a Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of that Colony. Mr. Justice Dodds was born in 1848, and he was called to the bar in Tasmania in 1872. He is a representative of Tasmania at the present Colonial BRIGHTON DISTRICT TRAMWAYS Co.-Stirling, J., has fixed Thursday, March 31,

Conference

at 12, at his chambers, for appointment of official liquidator FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.

March 16

Mr. JOHN STEWART LAURIE, solicitor (of the firm of Roberts & Laurie), RENEWED PARWICH FEMALE FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Schoolroom, Parwich, Derby. of Beaumaris and Llangefni, has been appointed by the High Sheriff of of Anglesey (Sir Robert William Bulkeley) to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Laurie was admitted a solicitor in 1882. His partner, Mr. John Rice Roberts, is town clerk of Beamauris.

Mr. WILLIAM ALEXANDER BAILLIE HAMILTON, barrister, has been appointed to act as secretary to the Colonial Conference. Mr. Hamilton is the eldest son of the late Admiral William Alexander Baillie Hamilton. He was born in 1844, and he was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1872. He has been for many years a clerk in the Colonial Office. He was private secretary to Mr. James Lowther when Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he is now private secretary to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Mr. J. G. DALZELL, solicitor, of 12, Clement's-inn, has been appointed a Commissioner for Affidavits.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

WINDING UP NOTICES.

London Gazette.-FRIDAY, March 18.

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

Mr. Justice CHITTY.

Mr. King

Ward

King

Ward

King

Ward

Mr. Justice KEKEWICH. Mr. Koe Jackson Koe Jackson Koe Jackson

BRITISH MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented March 14, directed to be heard before North, J., on Saturday, March 26. Hayne, Finsbury sq, solor for petners

CLARIDGE'S HOTEL, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented March 16, directed to be heard before Stirling, J., on March 26. Cutler & Co, King st, St James's, solors for petner

ST. HELEN'S COAL AND CLAY CO., LIMITED.-The judge has, by an order dated March 2, appointed Thomas Stephen Evans, 6, Bucklersbury, official liquidator

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.

CONSERVATIVE RELIEF SOCIETY OF THE PARISH OF BIRSTAL, Shoulder of Mutton Inn, Gomorsal, York, March 14

[blocks in formation]

CROCKER, JAMES, Field pl, Clerkenwell, Cabmaster. April 15. Clarke v Crocker,
Chitty, J. Martin, London Wall
GRUNDY, THOMAS, Grange, Lancaster, Geut. April 20. Grundy v Grundy,
Chitty, J. Mellor, Oldham
TALBOTT, HENRY JOHN, Stanningfield Hall, Suffolk, Farmer. April 16. King
v Chick, North, J. Crossfield & Co, Hackney rd

London Gazette.-TUESDAY, March 22.

BETTS. WILLIAM, Diss, Norfolk. April 19. Bockett v Campbell, Chitty, J. BOWEY, ANN' ROCHESTER, Seaham Harbour, Durham, Innkeeper. April 21. Woolley, Chancery lane

Scott v Bowey, North, J. Wetherell, Sunderland

HERDMAN, THOMAS, Simonburn, Northumberland, Cartwright. April 20. Herd-
man v Herdman, Chitty, J. Baty, jun. Hexham
TAYLOR, MARY ANN, Romford, Essex. April 21. Turpin v Pain, Chitty, J. Hunt,
St Swithin's lane

NOTICES TO CREDITORS UNDER TRUSTEES RELIEF ACT, for insertion in the London Gazette or any newspaper, should be sent to Harrison and Sons, Publishers London Gazette, 45, St. Martin's-lane, W.C. The Gazette is published every Tuesday and Friday.-[ADVT.]

UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 35.

LAST DAY OF CLAIM.
London Gazette.-FRIDAY, March 11.

ANDREW, ALFRED, Northampton, Solicitor. April 1. Andrew & Smith, North-
ampton
ARTHUR, REAR-ADMIRAL WILLIAM, O.B., Virginia Water, Surrey. April 21.
Langham & Son, Eastbourne

ASHWORTH. MARY ANNE, Belfield Mill, nr Rochdale. April 8. Jacksons & Godby,
Rochdale

BARLOW, FRANCIS, Montagu sq. Esq. April 12. Bowlings & Co, Essex st

BRAITHWAITE, THOMAS, Delaney st, Camden Town, Barrister at Law. April 18" Beddoe, Hereford

BUCKMASTER, SARAH, Piccadilly. April 1. Rogers & Co, Victoria st, Westminster BUNKAR, THOMAS, Plymouth, Gent. April 19. Gidley & Son, Plymouth

COLEY, HENRY FRANCIS, Cheltenham, Esq. May 1. Ticehurst & Sons, Cheltenham

COSIER, ROBERT ARNOLD, Grosvenor st, Esq. April 10. Baker & Co, Lincoln's inn fields

DAVIDSON, ROBERT. Wardie, Edinburgh, Sub Accountant. April 30. Lyne & Holman, Gt Winchester st

EAST, ELIZABETH, Bessom st, New Cross. April 17. Ruddle, Greenwich rd
FLOWERS, THOMAS, Beachampton, Bucks, Farmer. March 31. Langdon,
Buckingham

GLOSSOP, CAROLINE, Martin st, Sheffield. April 23. Vickers & Co, Sheffield
HOPE, HANNAH, Fulshaw, Chester. May 4. Lawson, Manchester

HARTLEY, JOSEPH, Barrow in Furness. April 20. Morgan & Nalder, Barrow in
Furne-s

HEADLAM, WILLIAM, West Hartlepool, Gent. April 20. Fryer, West Hartlepool HAMMOND, MATTHEW, Salford, Licensed Victualler. April 16. Slater & Co,

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »