Page images
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Court of Appeal.
Little, Re, (91
Vincent v Vincent, 252

Critchley's Trust's, Re, 575
London Celluloid Co, Re, 10

Walbrook & Co, v Jones and Lewis, ICO Crookes, Re, 254
Adam Eyton (Limited), Re, 623

Lyon v Morris; Mutual Loan Fund Walker y General Mutual Investment Cunningham, Re, 111
Adams v Batley, 317
Association, Claimants, 493

Building Society, 703

Cuaning ham & Co, Re, 576
Allcard v Skinner, 634
Macalpin v Young, 409

Walsh y Darwen Paper Mills Co, 523 Curry, Re, Gibson v Way, 233
Apthorpe v Apthorpe, 461
Mallet v Hanley and Another, 141, 343
Watkins y Evans, 216

Cutler v North London Railway Co, Arbitration Between Secretary of Maple & Co v Earl of Shrewsbury, Weldhen v Scattergood, 348

Watson v Strickland & Sons, 675

State and Fletcher, Re, 200

Darlington Forge Co, Re, 217
Arden, Re, 675
Martin, Re; Land, Building, Invest Weldon v Neal, 691

Davies Bros., & Co. v Davies, 331 Arnott v Hayes, 676

ment, and Cottage Improvement Co Wenlock (Baroness) and Another v Duy v Sykes, Walker, & Co, 155 Avery's Patent, Re, 863, 613

v Martin, 232
River Dee Co, 441

Dickson v Murray, 493
Bankes v Small, 591, 624

Marrett, Re, Chalmers v Wingfield, Whitaker, Re, Christian v Whitaker, Direct Spanish Telegraph Company Bannatyne v Direct Spanish Tele 575


(Limited), Re, 142 graph Co, 76 Mills' Estate, Re, 41 White v Peto, 44

District Bank of London, Re, 427
Barangah Oil Refining Co, Re, 607 Mineral Water Bottle Exchange an! Whorwood, Re, Ogle v Lord Sher- Donnelly v Donnelly, 45
Barker v Purvis, 155

Trade Protection Society v Booth &
borne, 216

Dudley's, Countess of, and London and Barnetts, Hoares, & Co v South Lon Co, 703

Wickham, Re, Marony v Taylor, 363 North-Western Railway Co's Condon Tramway Co, 477

Morgan, Re, Owen v Morgan, 477 Williams v Peel River Land an! tract, Re, 317 Bernina, The, Armstrong and Others v Morgan v Hardy (Fothergill, third

Mineral Co, 60

E.C. Powder Co (Limited), Re, 443 Mills and Others, 216

party), 346

Willmott v London Celluloid Co Easton y London Joint Stock Bank, 812 Birmingham and District Land Co v Mowatt y Castle Steel and Ironworks

(Cimited), 93

Eden v Weardale Iron and Coal Co, London and North-Western Railway Co, 44

Wilson and Greene, Re, 27

302 Co, 109 Muffett, Re, Jones v Mason, 442

Elmonds v Blaina Farna 3es C.), 559
Biscoe v Jackson, 410
Mutrie v Binney, 394

Elwards v Stephens, 127
Blaiberg v Beckett, 9
Mysore Reefs Gold Mining Co, Re,

High Court.

Faloke v Scottish Imperial Insurance Blake v Mayor and Corporation of 10

Oo, 693
London, 492
Nathan, Newman, & Co, Re, 253
Adam Eyton (Limited), Re, 427

Fairlamb and others v Beaumont, 272

Adams' Trusts, Re, 631 Bolton v Natal Land and Colonization Naylor and Spendla, Re, 141

Fawcett v Urwin, 331

Ainslie's Trade-Mark, Re, 391
Co, 703
Newbigging v Adam, 155

Fenessy v Rabbits & Sons, 316
Boswell v Coaks, 811
New City Constitutional Club, Re,

Albert Palace Association, Re, 333, 373 Fleming v Fleming & Lemon, 95 Bray v Gardener, 231

Allen, Re, Simes v Simes, 410

Fletcher, Re, Smith v Fletcher, 318
Buckmaster v Buckmaster, 284
Newman & Co v Pinto & Sons, 558

Anglo-Montana Mining C) (Limi-ed), Flint Coal and Cannel Co (Limitel), Calvert v Thomas and Lloyd, 557 Newport (Monmouth) Slipway Oj v

Re, 427

Re, 183

Arnold, Re, 560
Campbell y Campbell, 378
Paynter, 45

1: Foliv Doxonshire Club, 692 Casebourne & Oo v Houston & Co Norman and Another v Ricketts, 124

Ashworth v Lord, 603

Fowler, Re, 77

Ashworth v Munn, 156 and Avery & Co, 659 North Central Wagon 0o v Man

Fox v Rothwell, 393 Challender v Royle, 676

chester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire

Attorney-General v Barry Dock and France, Re, France v Clark, 23 Clarke, Re, Coombe v Carter, 676 Railway Co, 124, 300 Railway Co, 201

Fraser v Province of Brescia Steim Clough, Re, Bradford Commercial North and South-Western Junction

v Mayor, &c, of Blackburn, 559 Tramways Co (Limited), 432 Joint-Stock Banking Co v Cure, 269 Railway Co V Brentford Union

Avery's Patent, Re, 202

French v Hope, 251
Coleman v Llewellyn, 75

Assessment Committee, 426
Bagley v Searle, 331

Fasee Vesta Co, v Bryant & May, 201 Collier v Chadwick, 27

Bailey v Sunderland Equitable Build. Gardiner, Re, Jones v Gardiner, 318 Official Receiver (as Trustee of Izon, a Commercial Bank of South Australia,

ing Society, 77

Gas Light and Coke Co v Herber: Bankrupt) v Tailby, 75 Re, 10

Baines v Geary, 363

Smith & Co, 12
Oppert v Beaumont, 216
Counsell v London and Westminster

Ball, Re, Slattery v Ball, 575

Gaulard and Gibbs' Patent, Re, 181
Oriental Bank Corporation, Re, 507 Balsam v Webb, 303
Loan and Discount Co, 702

Gee y Bell, 379
Owens College, Manchester v Overseers

Bankes y Small, 202
Cox, Patterson, & Co v Bruce & Co, 108 of the Poor of Chorlton-upon-Med- Barangah Oil Refinery Co, Re, 46

Gibbons' Trusts, Re, 677

Goodfellow v Prince, 201 Crears y Hunter, 612

lock, 200

Barton v North Staffordshire Railway, Goodman v Robinson, Brown, Janson, Crompton v Anglo-American Brush Palliser v Gurney, 643

461 Electric Light Corporation, 363

& Co, 127 Palmer v Mallett, 643

Beddington v Atlee, 268 Crosby, Re, Munns v Burn, 231

Gray, Re, Acason v Greenwood, 28 Parker, Re, and Beech's Contract, 252 Berens y Fellowes, 302 Crossley, Re, Munns v Burn, 347

Great Western Steamship Co (Limited), Peperno v Harmiston, 154 Crowther v Elgood, 252

Rest v Applegate, 812

Re, 61
Picker v London and County Banking
Croydon Union, Guardians of v Guar-

Bethell's Estate, Re, Bethell v Bethell, Gregson, Re, Christison v Bolam, 592
Co (Limited), 315

202 dians of Reigate Union, 507 Pike, Sons & Co v Ongley and Thorn

Gregson's Trusts, Re, 94

Biegel's (J. H.) Trade-Mark, Re, 478 Dadswell v Jacobs, 200

Grimmett's Trusts, Re, 269 ton 377 Davies Brothers & Co v Davies, 691

Birmingham and District Land Co v Guilbert-Martin v Kerr & Jubb, 62
Platt, Re, 607
Dawes v Fountaine, 231

London and North-Western Railway Hall v Comfort, 29
Price, Re, 201

Co, 94, 478
Dickson v Great Northern Railway Proctor v Bennis, 691

Hanley and Another v Mallett, 61

Blaine's Trust, Re, 126
Co, 123

Hargrave v Kettlewell, 110
Purkiss v Holland ; Cooper, Claimant,
Dyott v Nevill, 253

Blakey v Hall, 379

Harris, 6 (deceased), Re, Harris v 702

Bolton y Mills, 462
Easton v London Joint-Stock Bank, 76

Harris, 443
Purser v Worthing Local Board, 477

v Natal Land and Colonization Easy, Re, Ex parte Hill & Hymans, 702

Harris v Rothwell, 27
Queen v Tyne Boiler Works Co, 93

Co, 626
Eberles Hotels and Restaurant Co

Harrison, Re, Parry v Spencer, 126 Reeves v Fowle, 92

Bosville v Attorney-General, 593 (Limited) v Jonas and Brothers, 284

Harrison v Harrison, 319
Reg. (on the Prosecution of J. Pritch-
Eden v Weardale Iron and Coal Co, 183

Boswell v Coaks, 703

Hartley, Re, Stedman v Dunster, 303 ard) v the Mayor and Corporation of Boyd y Farrar, 659 Eden v Weardale Coal and Iron Co, 378

Harvey v Olliver, 644, 679
Bangor, 108

Brewster v Prior, 126, 443
Ellis y Stewart, 362

Hastings, Re, Hallett v Hastings, 60 Reg. v Judge of the Chelmsford

Bridge, Re, Franks v Worth, 553
Esdaile v City of London Union, 642

Hatchard v Mege, 395
County Court and Clarke, 426
Falcke v The Scottish Imperial - As- Reg. v Lord Penzance, 441

British Marine Association v MacInnes, Hayward v Lely, 317

Henderson, Re, Nouviou v Freeman, surance Co, 109 Reid v Explosives Co (Limited), 441

428 Furber v Cobb, 330

Briton Life Association, Re, 559
Reynolds v Coleman, 675

Broad-street Station Dwellings and Hendry, Re, Watson v Blakeney, 443 Gapp v Bond, 477

Richards y Jenkins, 300 Goldstrom v Tallerman, 60

Workshops Co, Re, 644

Hermann Loog (Limited), Re, 559, 704
Riddell v Earl of Strathmore, 183
Goring v Lloyd, 316

Buckland, Francis, Re (deceased), 201 Heron v Heron, 644
Robinson v Duke of Buccleuch and

Gowan v Wright, 141

Gold' Estate (Limited), | Hetherington's Trusts, Re, 95
Queensberry, 329

Re, 476
Grey, Re, Acason v Greenwood, 316

Hickie (James), Re (deceased), Hickie v Roe v Mutual Fund Loan Associati in Hall v Bromley, 442

Burrows v Holley, 379

Colmer, 46 Hamill v Lilley, 362

(Limited), 623

Burton, Re, Burton v Burton, 660 Hill & Uo, Hill, 111
Rust v Victoria Graving Dock Co, 268 Callow v Young, 77, 269

Hilleary and Taylor, Re, 271
Harris v Roth well, 392

Capital Fire Insurance Association Hobson and Howes, Re, 254 Harsant v Blaine, Macdonald, & Co, Sailing Ship Garston Co v Hickie, Bor

(Limited), Re, 94

Hobbs, Re, Hobbs v Wade, 626 558 Harwood, Re, 442 "Sara,” The, Baker v Owners of Ship Carden v Albert Palace Association, Hollingwood Estate Co (Limited), Re,

"Sara," 574

Hastings, Re, Hallet v Hastings, 347
Helmore v Smith, 60
Schneider v Bond, 426

Carlyon, Re, Carlyon v Carlyon, 111 Holt & Co v Beagle and Others, 61
Hobson and Howes, Re, 478
Shaw y Smith and Peace, 154

Chalk, Webb, & Oo, v Tennant, 660 Hope v Croydon and Norwood TramHockey v Evans and Another, 231 Shearwood, Re, 124 Charles v Jones, 461

ways Co, 269 Hotchkin's Settled Estates, Re, 284

Sheppard y Scinde, Punjaub, and Chelsea Waterworks Co, Re, 349 Hotchkin's Settled Estates, Re, 234 Hughes y Little, 9

Delhi Railway Co, 591

Christchurch Inclosure Act, Re, 380 Hubbuck y Helms, 271 Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Rail

Sion College, Re, Ex parte Corporation Clarke, Re, Coombe v Carter, 302 Hughes, In the Goods of, 286 way. Co v Yorkshire and Derbyshire South Wales Mineral Railway Co v of London, 378 -- v Thornton, 201

Huggins v Jeffries, 28 Coal Co, 315

Coates to Parsons, Re, 110

Hurter, Re, 848
Hume, Re, 232, 363

Davies, 110
Cohen v Poland, 660

Ingham v Walker; Elwood, Claimant,
Hunt v Archer, 27
Spencer's Will, Re, 691


Coleman v Llewellyn, 28 Indus, The, 123

Strangways, Re, Hickley v Strang- Collinge's Settled Estates, Re, 644 Jackson and Woodburn's Contract, Re, Irwell v Eden, 362 ways, 76


Colonial Bank v Hepworth, 493
Knight v Coales, 507
Swanston, Re (an Infant), 427
Colyer v Ferguson, 142

Jackson & Co, v Napper; In re Kurtz v Spence, 692

Swindell and Another y Bulkeley and Commercial Bank of South Australia, Schmidt's Trade-mark, 156
Ladywell Mining Co v Brookes; Lady- Symonds v Symonds, 591
Another, 124

Re, 269

Jacob's Settlement Trusts, Re, 479 well Mining Co v Huggons, 393

Condon v Vollum, 575

Jarret v Hunter, 93
Lancashire Cotton Spinning Co, Re, Thomas v Quartermaine, 347
Thomas v Doughty, 300
Conolly v Conolly, 285

Jenkinson v Brandley Mining Co Ex parte Conelly, 460

Coppard, Re, Howlett v Hodson, 334 Jenks, Olaimant, 693
Lea v Facey, 642
Trade-Mark "Normal,” Re, 301
Cooke's Estate, Re, 395

Jones, Re, Greene v Gordon, 28
Lever v Goodwin, 492
Tussaud, Re, 703
Cookes v Cookes, 234

Jones v Evans, 11
Linwood y Andrews, 410
Van Duzer's Trade-Mark, Re; Re Coote v Ingram, 330

v Harris, 201
Leafe's Trade-Mark, 263
Courtney v Cole, 494

Johnson y Johnson, 235

son, 127

Keily v Stevens, 125

v Mayor of Liverpool, 318

Blair and Girling v Cordner, 560, 662 Robson, Ex parte, 128 Keswick Old Brewery Co (Limited), Reichel v Bishop of Oxford, 184

Boswell y Coaks, 509, 661

Shoreditch Election, Re, 30
Re, 10
Reeve v Fowle, 29

Brown y Great Western Railway Co,
Kewney v Attrill, 142
Rhodes, Re, Rhodes v Rhodes, 677

445 King v Chamberlayne, 679

Richardson, H. T. (Deceased), Re, Castle (G.), Re, 569
Knight, Re, Knight v Burgess, 285 Shuldham v Royal National Lifeboat Corsellis, Re, Lawton v Elwes, 256

Cases before the Vacation Knight, Re, Knight v Gardner, 644 Institution, 478

Cray.v Wray, 608
Lacon v Tyrell, 364

Richards, Re, Shenstone v Brock, 592 Curtis and Betts, Re, 578
Lambert, Re (deceased), 125
Riley to Streatfield, Re, 142

D'Aragon, Ex parte, In the Matter of
Land, Building, Investment, and Cot- Roby Rob, 494

a Firm of Solicitors, 680

Ackerman-Lawrence v Bouvet, Ladutage Improvement Co v Martin. 217

bay, & Co, 734
Roberts, Re, Evans v Thomas, 558 Ebrard v Gassier, 30
Leamington Priors Gas Co, v Davis, 95 Rollason, Ré, Rollason v Rollason, 233 Eley. Re, 662, 812

Adams, Re, 717
Lea, Re, Lea v Cooke, 251
Royal Liver Friendly Society, Re, 269 Faulkner, Re, 661

Alliance Supply Stores (Limited), 796

Automatic Weighing Machine Co, Leigh v Leigh, 94

Tiplady v Royal Liver Friendly Ford v Incorporated Law Society, 450
Leslie v Cave, 11, 360

(Limited) v Knight, 705
Society, 575
Gale v Kite, 63

Berridge v Turner, 773
Lever & Co, v Goodwin Bros, 110 Ruddiman's Trusts, Re, 271, 331

Grey's Brewery Co, Re, 219

Bray v Gardner, 745 Loder, Re, 28

St Andrew's Hospital, Northampton, Guy y Churchill, 414 London and Provincial Electric Light v Shearsmith, 608

Harris, Powell, and Goodale, Re, 255, 365

Browne v La Trinidad (Limited), 796

Buffalo Bill's Wild West Co v Sanger, ing and Power Co (Limited), Re, St Botolph without Bishopsgate Parish Herbert, Re, 235

726, 734 Hale's Case, 10

Estate, Re, 350
Hester v Hester, 203

Cone v Rimell, 745
London and Yorkshire Bank (Limited), Savile v Couper, 679

Hettihewage Siman Appu v Queen's v Pritt, T. E., 607

De Bensaude v De Bensaude, 754 Schmidt's Trade-Mark, Re, 234

Advocate, Ceylon, 128

Doré v Pecorini, 726 London, Mayor and Corporation of, Ex Scott (otherwise Sebright) v Sebright, Hilleary and Taylor, Re, 495

Dove v Swindon, 784
parte. Re Zion College, 61

Holloway, Re, Young v Holloway, 463
Lloyd y Gordon, 286
Sedgwick y Hellier, 661

Emmanuel College v Chichester, 762 Lysaght, Re, Blythev Baumgartner, 233 Seyton, Re, Seyton v Satterthwaite, Kellock, T. c. & J. F. (Solicitors), Equestrian and Public Buildings Co Magnus y Queensland National Bank

(Limited), 784 270

Re, 479 691 Shafto v Bolckow, Vaughan, & Co and Litchfield v Jones, 693

Fassett, Re, Wells v Dearle, 799 Mallet v Hanly, 318 the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 302 London, Mayor, &c, of, Ex parte, Re

Field & Co,v The American Exhibition Manchester, Corporation of, v Hamp- Shaw v Gervan, 318

Metropolitan and District Railways (Limited), 745
Sheffield Waterworks Co, v Guardians

Act, 186

Firth, Re, Firth v Clarke, 781 Mandamus, In the Matter of an Appli of Sheffield Union, 271

Macdougall v Knight, 332

Forest Iron and Steel Co, (Limited v cation for a Rule for a, 29 Shepheard v Smith, 126 Munton v Lord Truro, 615

Barry Dock and Railway Co, 726 Marcus, Re, Marcus v Marcus, 645, 678 Shorthorn Dairy Co (Limited), v Hall, Osborne v Milman, 319

Grad jated County Schools Association Margary and Another v Robinson, 111 479

Park, Alfred (Solicitor), Re, Ex parte

(Limited), Re. 717 Marret, Re, Chalmers v Wingfield, 286 Simpson's Trusts, Re, 607.

Incorporated Law Society, 444

Hallett v The Marquis of Bristol, 731 Marshfield, Re, Marshfield v Hutch- Smeed, Deane, & Co (Limited', v A. Peace and Ellis, Re, 812

Hoare v Gray, 544 ings, 330 Cumberland, 659

Phillips, Ex parte. Ro Watson, 523 Howe Machine Co (Limited), The, 762 Medical Attendance Assurance Asgo- Smith, Re, Clements v Ward, 429 Postlethwaite, Re, Postlethwaite V

Inderwick, Re. Ex parte Hanson, 705 ciation, Re, 46 Smith, Re, Lord v Hayward, 508

Rickman, 441

Jay v Ladler, 744
Meller's Will, Re, 704
Smyth v Adams, 479
Pretty and Others y Fowke, 693

Jonas v Long, 717, 727
M. Melachrino & Co, v Melachrino Smythe v Smythe, 255

Pybus, W.M. (a Solicitor), Re, 480

Law (WF) and John Nicholls & Co, Egyptian Cigarette Co, 410 Somerset (Duke of), Re, Thynne v St Raven v Stevens & Sons. 63

Re, 717
Mills v Mills, 93

Maur, 233
Rawson, J. (a Solicitor), Re, 509

Longbottom v Woodhead, 796
Mineral Water Bottle Exchange and Somerset, ke, 659

Russell, Ex parte, Re Elderton, 235 Magnay, Re, Tipper v Tipper, 796 Trade Protection Societies (Limited) Soper v Arnold, 331

Scales v Moseley, 496

Matthews y The Maror and Corporaand J. Cox v Booth & Co, 626 Stanley y Mayor, Aldermen, and Citi- Scarlett, Re, 46°

tion of Sheffield, 773 Montagu v Land Corporation of Eng. zens of the City of Norwich, 343 Solicitor, In the matter of a, 63

Middlesex Manufacturing Co (Limited) land, 269 Stewart v West Derby Burial Board, Staniar v Evans, 157

784 Moore v Moore, Chadwick, & Griffiths,

Sykes, Re (Deceased). 185

Municipal Corporations Act, 1892, and
Stokes v Stokes, 77
Wadsworth, Re, Rhodes y Sugden, 30

the Election of Revising Assessors v Morton, 110 Strick v Swansea Tin Plate Co, 660 Ward y Marshall, 429

for the Borough of Higham Ferrers, Morgan, Re, Owen v Morgan, 462 Tacon V National Standard Land Whitehead v Hall, 445

772 Murray v Stephenson, 508

Mortgage Co, 217
Wray, Aaron, Re, 495, 577

Munson v Odiam; Munson v Jordan ;
Neal v Barrett, 428
Tapscott v Tapscott, 61

Munson v Donald, 705
Neath Harbour Smelting and Rolling Thomas v Exeter Flying Post Co, 385

Pedder v Eiloart, 705
Works (Limited), Re, 427
Thompson, In the Goods of, 181

Plake v Hall, 744, 796
Newbegin (deceased), Re, 660
Tomkinson v South-Eastern Railway

Bankruptcy Cases. Preston v Etherington; Etheriogton New Hollingbourne Paper Mills Co, Co, 461

v Etherington, 717 Re, 703 Toogood's Trusts, Re, 493

Betts, Re, Ex parte Board of Trade, 462 Shingleton Ice Co (Limited), Re, Bett Newport (Mon) Slipway Co (Limited', Toomer, Re, Hughes v Bennett, 678

Ball, Ex parte, Re Hutchinson, 235 v Shingleton Ice Co (Limited), 703 v Paynter, 11 Towgood v Pirie & Sons, 251 Bluck, Ex parte, Re Bluck, 681

Ship Edderside, Re, Bell and Others V Nixon, Edward, Re, 94 Troitzsch v Rees, 645

Bischoffsheim, Ex parte, Re Aylmer, Edderside Ship Owning Co (Limited), North Brazilian Sugar Factories (Lim- Trufort, Re, Trafford v Blanc, 661


744 ited), Re, 125 Tucker, Re, Boucbier v Gordon, 270

Board of Trade, Ex parte, Re Brunner, Taunton v Falla, 762, 772 Northumberland, Duke of, v Bowman Tunnel Mining Co, Re, 443


Thompson v The Mayor and Corpora479 Turner, In the Goods of, 112

Re Stainton, 577

tion of Stratford-upon-Avon, 772 Oakey & Sons y Dalton, 591 Union Bank of London v Kent and

Broderick, Ex parte, Re Beetham, 349 Timson v Wilson, 745 O'Kelly v Callaghan, 269

Others, 677

Brown, Ex parte, Re M'Henry, 576 Tucker y Prior, 784
Olley v Fisher, 95
United Telephone Co, v Walker, 155

Burgess, Ex parte. Re Burgess, 593 West of England Paper Mills Oo Ongley v Chatham Local Board, 576 Unwin y Buck, 379

Carr, Ex parte, Re Carr, 96

(Limited), Re, 714 Oriental Bank Corporation, Re, 363, 493 Veale & Co, v Automatic Boiler Feeder

Dever, Ex parte, Re Suse, 286

Wood's Ships' Woodite Protection Co Outlay Assurance Association, Re, 233 (Limited), 364

Feast, Ex parte, Re Feast, 286

(Limited), Re, 726 Oxford Building and Investment Vernon v Hallam, 111

Foreman, Ex parte, Re Hann, 203
Society, Re, 46
Walker v Clarke, 232

Gibson, Ex parte, Re Lamb, 217
Parkinson, Re, In the Matter of a Walker v General Mutual Investment Godfrey, Ex parte, Re Lazarus, 395
Prosecution by the Treasury, Reg. v Building Society, 626

Grepe, Ex parte, Re Grepe, 396

Judges' Chambers.
Gershon, 365
Wallasy Local Board v Gracey, 528

Kearsley, Ex parte, Re Genese, 78
Partington, Re, Partington v Allen, 704 Ward, Lock, & Co v Scott, 91

Langworthy, Re, Ex parte Lang- Elkington v Fraser, 381
Fashley v Chapman, 679
Ward v Dudley, 442

worthy, 693
Payne, Re, Rea v Ashmeail, 317
Warden, Re, Browett v Warden, 234

Lindsey, Ex parte, Re Bates, 560
Pearce, Ré, McLean v Smith, 285 Watson, Re, Carlton v Carlton, 608

Lovering & Co, Ex parte, Re Aysh-
Penny v Hanson, 318
Webster v Southey, 478
ford, 508

County Courts.
Pereira, Re, 560
Weston v Levy, 364

Nelson, Ex parte, Re Hockaday, 203
Petre (Lord), Re, Lord Petre v Petre, Whiteley v Barley, 364

Norton, Ex parte, Re Mapsel, 577

Blackwell v Great Eastern Land and
Whistler and Richardson, Re, 559
OMcia] Receiver, Ex parte, Re Gould, Lowe, Walter, Re, 797

Building Co, 561
Petty v Daniel, 77
Wickham, Re, Marony v Taylor, 255

Phillips, Re, 254
Wicks v Wicks, 2 7

Re Morritt, 143

McHardy v Liptrott, 561 v Andrews, 217 Wigram v Fryer, 508

, Re Reed, Bowen, & Co, 494 Watkinson, Ex parte, Re Wilson, 578 Phipps v Jackson, 286 Wilcock, Re, 269

Paterson, Ex parte, Re Rathbone, 627
Phosphor Bronze Co, v Gospel Oak Williams, Re, Jones y Williams, 678

Payne, Re, Ex parte Castle Mail
Wire Co, 11
Williams' Trusts, Re, 626

Packets Co, 62
Pierce v Williams; Jones, Claimant, 29 Williamson v Farnell, 330

Rawlings, Ex parte, Re Cleaver, 218

Criminal Law Cases.
Pike v Ongley, 365
Winter v Baker, 429

Saville, Ex parte, Re Saville, 680
Pilsen Joel and General Electric Light York, Re (deceased), Atkinson

Sayer, Ex parte, Re Mansel, 680

Evans v London and North-Western Co, Re, 126 Powell, 394 Taylor, Ex parte, Re Goldsmid, 96

and Great Western Railway Cos, 333 Pommery v Apthorpe, 143 Yorkshire Railway Co, v Mullan, 379 Thornber, Ex parte, Re Barlow, 156

Reg v Gibson, 332 Portishead Warehouse Co, v Bristol Ystalyfera Gas Co, Re, 270

Tidswell, Ex parte, Re Tidswell, 577

v Gunnel, 128 and Portishead Pier Railway Co, 364

Todd, Ex parte, Re Ashcroft, 491

v Juby, 128 Postmaster-General y Green, 645

v Riley, 333 Powell Bennett (Deceased), Re, 677 Prater, H. (Deceased), RA, 660

Solicitors' Cases. Price, In the Goods of, 348

Election Cases. Purret and Green v Duke of Bedford, Allen, Re, 78, 185 112

Arch v Bentinck, 319

Assize Cases.
Reg. v Judge of City of London Court, Bakewell v Cornish, 79
Appleby, Re, 396

Hythe, In the Matter of a Municipal Guardians of the Thornbury Union v 95

Election in the Borough of, 366

Greenfield and Others, 690

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







Re .........


762 705



[merged small][ocr errors]


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

adjudications, schemes or compositions; and fees are added for the CASES REPORTED THIS WEEK.

official receiver acting as interim receiver, and for the official In the Solicitors' Journal. The Mysore Reefs Gold Mining

receiver supervising a special manager, or the carrying on of a Co., Re

10 debtor's business. The provisions of the direction as to stamps Blaiberg v. Beckett ........ Commercial Bank of South Aus

The Newport (Mon.) Shipway, &c., affixed to the former order are now altered and amplified by a

Co. (Lim.) v. Paynter
tralia, Re

separate order.
Hughes v. Little....................,

9 In the Weekly Reporter. Jones v. Evans


Cadman v. Cadman
Keswick Old Brewery Co. (Lim.), Guardians of Sheppey v. Overseers

TIE LAMENTED DEATH of Lord MONKSWELL will not render neces-
of Elmley

15 sary any further judicial appointments. It is upon the death of Leslie v, Cave ......

11 Hubbard, Ex parte. In re Hardwick 2 | two paid members of the Judicial Committee, not upon the death of London and Provincial Electric Lewis v. Ramsdale Lighting and Power Co. (Lim.),

one, that such appointments may be made. The Judicial ComReg. v. Inhabitants of SouthRe; Hale's Case ...

mittee Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 91), provided for the appoint10

Phosphor Bronze Co. v. Gospel Reg. v. Justices of General Assess-

ment of four paid members of the Judicial Committee of the Oak, &c., Wire Co.

ment Sessions

12 Privy Council.

The power to appoint successors was limited
The Gas Light and Coke Co. v. Tillett, In re. Field v. Lydall...... 6 to two years after the passing of the Act; but the Appellate
Herbert Smith & Co. .....
12 Vincent v. Vincent

? Jurisdiction Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 59), s. 14, provides
The London Celluloid Co, Re ......
10 Whittingstall v. Grover......

that, whenever any two of these paid judges shall have died or resigned, her Majesty may successively appoint a third and

fourth Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, to serve in the House LONDON, OCTOBER 30, 1886.

of Lords as official peers and salaried judges to reinforce the two “Lords of Appeal in Ordinary," who, under the Appellate

Jurisdiction Act, sit in the House of Lords. The four paid memCURRENT TOPICS.

bers of the Judicial Committee originally appointed were Lord MR. ROBERT SEPPINGS GODFREY has been appointed a Registrar of Peacock. The first double vacancy was created in 1881 by the

MoxKSWELL, Sir M. SMITH, Sir JAMES COLVILE, and Sir BARNES the Supreme Court, to act in the Chancery Division, in succession retirement of Sir M. Suitu subsequent to the death of Sir JAMES to Mr. FARRER, resigned.

COLVILE in 1880. Lord MONKSWELL is only the first of the second pair of paid Judicial Committee judges, and the practical union of

the House of Lords and Judicial Committee into one court, so far THE CONSOLIDATED Bankruptcy Rules were published towards as the personnel of judges obliged to sit is concerned, which it was the close of last week. They constitute a bulky volume of 200 the object of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act to bring about, will pages, and are, in the main, an incorporation of the Bankruptcy not be consummated until Sir BARNES PEACOCK should complete the Rules, 1883, and the rules subsequently made under the Bank- second double vacancy. ruptcy Act. We were enabled to point out in advance the only changes of any importance, in our articles, 30 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, pp. 781, 793. The Consolidated Rules came into operation on

TIE CONTROVERSY to which Lord MONKSWELL’s appointment gave Monday last, and although the alterations made in the previous rise, though dating so far back as 1871, will still be fresh in the rules are trifling, we think that the profession has some reason to minds of our readers. The Judicial Committee Act provided that the complain of the very short interval which elapsed between the publication of the rules and their coming into opera- been "judge of one of the superior courts."

person appointed should be “specially qualified” by being or having

Sir R. COLLIER sat a tion.

few days in the Court of Common Pleas for the mere purpose of

gaining a qualification, and the late Lord Chief Justice of England WE PUBLISH else where a new order, made on Monday last, strenuously and properly contended that this was an evasion of

Sir R. COLLIER, we may remark, sat long enough to as to fees and percentages in respect of proceedings under the deliver two reported judgments (see Townshend v. Marylebone Bankruptcy Act, 1883, in substitution for the order issued at Overseers (7 C. P. 143) and Ford v. Boon (16. 150), both of them the close of 1883. As soon as that order appeared we pointed registration cases. Singularly enough he seems never to have out the large increase in many of the charges upon the been made a serjeant. His name finds no place in the list of amount charged upon similar proceedings under the act of serjeants to be found in Pulling's “Order of the Coif,” at p. xvii., 1869.. Several of the fees to which we then drew particular though, curiously enough, we believe that he was described in the attention are now modified. Thus, the fee on applications for Gazette as serjeant. discharge is now reduced from £2 to £1 10s., which is to include the expense of Gazetting; and the ad valorem fee upon an application to the court to approve a scheme or composition has THE ANXIETY to obtain an allotment of shares in “Arthur been reduced to 28. 6d. on each £25 of estimated assets or Guinness, Son, & Co., Limited,” has led to much discussion amount of composition above £5,000. But the greatest change is in as to the duty of the directors in allotting the sbares among the portion of the scale relating to the celebrated £6 per cent. on the numerous applicants. It has been contended that the direcThe net assets realized or brought to credit by the official receiver. tors have no discretion in the matter, but are bound to allot the This fee is now to be estimated on a sliding scale, falling from £5 shares pro rata among all the applicants. The advocates of this per cent. on the first £1,000 to £1 when above £10,000; and it view appear to rest their contention on the notion that the is to be chargeable on the net assets after deducting sums paid to prospectus constitutes an offer of shares, which offer is accepted, secured creditors in respect of their securities. There is added and a contract constituted, by the application for shares. But, another sliding scale percentage on the amount distributed as in Re Richmond Hill Hotel Co., Pellatt's case (2 Ch. 527), dividend by the official receiver when acting as trustee under Lord Cairns said, “ that where an individual applies for shares


in a company, there being no obligation to let him have any, by granting a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The there must be a response by the company, otherwise there is no question as to how far justices of the peace are justified in refusing contract.” The prospectus is, in fact, nothing more than an in- to consider whether a discretion ought to be exercised in a particuvitation for offers to take shares (see Spencer v. Harding, 5 C. P. lar way upon the ground that they conscientiously believe that to 561). It appears to be forgotten that a discretion as to allotment exercise it in that way, though according to law, would be upof shares is almost always expressly vested in the directors by the desirable, appears to be conclusively answered by Reg. v. Boteler articles of association of a company. The articles of “ Arthur (12 W. R. 466), in which justices were compelled to issue a Guinness, Son, & Co." provide (article 7 (2)) that, “ The distress warrant in a case in which they had declined to do so on authorized share capital of the company and forfeited or the ground that the statute (2 & 3 Vict. c. 84) empowering them surrendered shares) may be issued by the board to such persons, to act was unjust, COCKBURN, C.J., pointing out that the justices

The at such times, and on such terms, as to discount or otherwise, and had no business to enter into any such consideration. for such purposes of the company, as they see fit.”

particular question arising upon the construction of the Licensing Acts, which is not quite so clear, has two branches, that connected with the refusal of (1) the general licence, to which Sir W.

Lawson's more recent declarations apply; and (2) the occasional THE "

in the memorandum of association of licence, out of the refusal of which the controversy originally “ Arthur Guinness, Son, & Co., Limited” (perhaps owing to the sprung. As to the general licence, this, by section 1 of the decision in Guinness v. Land Corporation of Ireland, 22 Ch. D. Licensing Act, 1828, is granted to such persons as the justices in 349), certainly does not err on the side of restriction. There are the execution of the powers of that Act, “and in the exercise of no fewer than fifteen “objects" specified, in addition to the usual their discretion, deem fit and proper."' It is clear from Reg. v. general clause at the close of the specification. They include Walsall Justices (3 C. L. R. 100) that every applicant for a power to “ act as bankers"; to " undertake, subscribe to, or other licence is entitled to a hearing, and that to refuse a licence merely wise aid undertakings for purposes of opening out trade or making in pursuance of a general resolution to grant no more licences is so experiments or investigations in connection with any of the objects far illegal that a mandamus will issue to compel the justices to of the company, or any class or department of its business, directly hear and determine the application at another meeting, but or indirectly” ; and a cla use, the like of which we have not seen

so long as each applicant has a formal hearing, the reasons before, which provides that one of the objects of the company of the bench for refusing the general licence appear to be shall be :-"To provide for the welfare of persons in the employ; quite immaterial in point of law. As to the occasional licence, ment of the company, or formerly engaged in any business acquired the words of the statutes (25 Vict. c. 22, s. 13, and 26 & 27 by the company, and the wives, widows, and families of such Vict. c. 33, e. 20) are different, and are bare of judicial interprepersons, by grants of money, pensions, or other payments, and by tation. By these enactments "it shall be lawful for the Comproviding or subscribing towards schools and places of recreation missioners of Inland Revenue, whenever they shall think it or otherwise, and hospitals, dispensaries, medical and other attend conducive to public convenience, comfort, and order, and with ance, and other assistance as the company shall think fit, and to the consent in writing of a justice of the peace usually acting form, subscribe to, or otherwise aid benevolent, religious, scientific at the petty sessions for the petty sessional division within national, or other institutions or objects which shall have any moral which the place of sale is situate,” to authorize an excise or other claims to support or aid by the company by reason of the officer to grant an occasional licence authorizing the holder to locality of its operations or otherwise.”

sell upon other than licensed premises, and “upon the occasion of any public dinner or ball " to sell liquors“ during such

hours, before or after sunrise or sunset, as shall be allowed and THE RETIREMENT of Mr. ANDERSON, Q.C., from the office of specified in that behalf in the consent ” to be given by the justice Official Referee seems to render it open to the authorities to recon- for the granting of such occasional licence. In this case the Inland sider the number of the Official Referees. By section 83 of the Judi- Revenue authorities take the initiative, and the justice of the cature Act, 1883, it is provided that “there shall be attached to the peace has first a veto, and secondly, in the case of a dinner or ball, Supreme Court permanent officers called official referees, for the trial the power of extending a special privilege. In either case the of such questions as shall, under the provisions of this Act, be directed functions of the justice of the peace appear to be ministerial rather to be tried by such referees. The number and the qualification of the than judicial, and it may be doubted whether, even if the most persons to be so appointed from time to time, and the tenure of their anti-liquor reasons were avowed by the non-consenting justice, a offices, shall be determined by the Lord Chancellor, with the con- rehearing could be forced from him, or a selection of ball and dinner currence of the presidents of the divisions of the High Court, or a hours could be enjoined upon him by any legal proceedings whatmajority of them (of which majority the Lord Chief Justice of ever. England shall be one) and with the sanction of the Treasury”; and by section 84 “all officers assigned to perform duties with

THE RECENT CASE before the Liverpool magistrates, in which the respect to the Supreme Court generally”—which term appears to include official referees—" shall be appointed by the Lord Chan- without any provision for maintenance, were ordered to contribute

sons of a woman, divorced on the ground of her adultery and cellor." When the Act of 1873 came into force there were established five divisions of the High Court, but on the occasion vision of 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 7, that'" the father and grandfather, and

to the support of their mother, has drawn attention to the proof the merger of the Common Pleas and Exchequer Divisions into the mother and grandmother, and the children of every poor, old, the Queen's Bench Division under Order in Council of December, blind, lame, and impotent person, or other poor person not able 1880, it was provided that the Lord Chief Justice of England to work, being of a sufficient ability, shall at their own charges should exercise all the powers formerly exercised by the presid- relieve and maintain every such poor person.” The Liverpool ents of the merged divisions. The number and qualification of bench do not seem to have agreed with Serjeant SELLON’s remark (4 the official referees, therefore, seems to rest with the Lord East. 79) that the obligation to maintain imposed by the statute is Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and the President of the Probate, &c., Division, with the sanction of the Treasury, while the expressed an opinion that the case was a hard one for the sons,

founded on the law of nature," and they are reported to have appointment is to be made by the Lord Chancellor.

probably because the mother had not bestowed on them the usual

maternal attention and oversight, and had by her own act forfeited SIR WILFRID Lawson tells “the whole body of brewers,” through to be remembered, on the other hand, that the statutory obligation

the right to support by the father, who is still living. But it is the columns of he l'imes, that he "sees no reason whatever to alter is mutual, and that if the cases had been reversed, and the his practice in dealing with applications for licences ; that practice “impotent persons had been the children, the mother, if “ of being to refuse them all, unless evidence is laid before him which a sufficient ability,” would have had to contribute to the support convinces him that by granting them he should be benefiting the of children who might have cast her off. A case of even greater public, whose servant he is, and not the servant of the brewers," hardship came before the court in R. v. Munden (1 Stra. 190), and we are probably entitled to assume that no evidence would con. where an order had been made by justices to compel a husband to vince Sir WILFRID Lawson that he would be benefiting the public support his wife's mother. This iniquitous order was reversed

« PreviousContinue »