Page images
PDF
EPUB

(xviii.) C. P. Div.-Tender— Refusal.-Money payable as a composition in

respect of costs due to a solicitor was tendered to a clerk in his office, who said that the solicitor was out and that he had no instructions, and refused the money: Held that the tender was good.-Finch v. Boning,

L.R. 4 C.P.D. 143 ; 40 L.T. 484. Defamation:(vi.) P. C.-Libel-Representation in Course of Business.Held, that an

insurance society were not liable for damages to plaintiff, a master mariner, because they had refused to insure a ship if he was employed by the owner, they having acted on information, which they might reasonably believe to be true, that plaintiff was addicted to intemperance.

--Hamon v. Falle, L.R. 4 App. 247. Easement:(viii.) C. A.-Access of Air-Nuisance-Obstruction.-Plaintiff and defendant

occupied adjoining houses. For more than 20 years plaintiff had enjoyed the access of air to the chimneys of his house. Defendant took down his house and rebuilt it to a greater height, thereby causing plaintiff's chimneys to smoke: Held that no action would lie against defendant.—Bryant v. Lefever, L.R. 4 C.P.D. 172; 48 L.J. C.P. 380;

40 L.T. 579; 27 W.R. 612. (ix.) H. L.-Right of Way-Inclosure—8 % 9 Vict., c. 118, ss. 16, 68.

Decision of Court of Appeal (see Easemont iii., p. 14) affirmed.-

Turner v. Crush, L.R. 4 App. 221 ; 40 L.T. 661; 27 W.R. 553. (x.) C. A.-Right of Way-Obstruction-Mandatory Injunction.—Where, in

spite of notice of plaintiff's claim to a right of way, defendant built over and obstructed it, a mandatory injunction was granted.-Krehl v. Burrell,

L.R. 11 Ch. D. 146 ; 40 L.T. 637. (xi.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Riparian Owner-Use of Water.Held that a

railway company, whose line crossed a stream, was entitled to take a reasonable quantity of water from it for the company's purposes.-Earl

of Sandwich v. G. N. Rail. Co., L.R. 10 Ch. D. 707; 27 W.R. 616. Ecclesiastical Law :(vii.) Arc. Faculty Chancel-Screen. --- A confirmatory faculty granted,

authorizing the retention in a church of a chancel.screen, but directing that gates to it should be removed; and a faculty was also issued for the removal of steps under a communion table, and a wooden screen separating a transept from the rest of the Church.--Bradford v. Fry,

L.R. 4 P.D. 93. (viii.) Consist. Ct.-Faculty-Chancel-Screen.-In these cases it was directed

that no gates should be placed in the chancel-screens authorised to be erected.—Re St. Augustine, Haggerstone ; Vicar of Annunciation, Chisle.

hurst v. Purishioners of do., L.R. 4 P.D. 111. (ix.) Consist. Ct.-Faculty--Erection of Mortuary in Churchyard.-Held

that the Court had power to grant a faculty for the erection of a mor. tuary in a churchyard which had been closed for burials under an Order in Council.--Hansard v. Parishioners of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, L.R. 4 P.D. 46.

Election :(vii.) C. P. Div.-Municipal Election-Infringement of Secrecy—35 & 36

Vict., c. 33, s. 4.-A personating agent, during a municipal election, left his part of the burgess roll, in which he had marked the names of the voters who had obtained ballot papers, in the committee room of his candidate, but it was not shown that anyone looked into the roll or

obtained any information from it: Held that he could not be convicted under sec. 4 of the Ballot Act, 1872.-Stananaught v. Hazeldine, 48 L.J.

M.C. 89; 40 L.T. 589; 27 W.R. 620. Evidence:(ix.) Ch. Div. F.J.-Admissions.-Where plaintiff had not himself given

evidence in an action, defendant was allowed to put in letters by plaintiff to a third person, containing admissions which had not been pleaded.

Stewart v. Gladstone, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 626. (x.) P. D. A. Div.-Privilege-Divorce Action.—On the intervention of

the Queen's Proctor in a divorce action, counsel on his behalf proposed to ask the petitioner's solicitor in a former trial, whether the petitioner had not confessed to him that he had been guilty of a matrimonial offence : Held that the question was inadmissible.--Branford v. Branford,

L.R. 4 P.D. 72; 40 L.T. 659; 27 W.R. 691. Friendly Society :(i.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Bank Appointed Treasurer—38 & 39 Vict., c. 60,

s. 15 (7).—The committee of management of a friendly society appointed as treasurer to the society a bank, incorporated under the Companies Acts. On the bank being wound up: Held that the society had no preferential right ander sec. 15, sub-sec. 7, of the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, in respect of moneys received by the Bank as treasurers of the society.-Ex parte Swansea Friendly Society, Re West of England and

South Wales Bank, 40 L.T. 551 ; 27 W.R. 596. Highway: (v.) Q. B. Div.-Disused Toll. House-3 Geo. IV., c. 126, s. 118; 4 Geo. IV.,

c. 95, s. 57.--Where a toll-house had' ceased to be used as such since 1867, but was used as a dwelling-house for a man employed on the road : Held that an adjoining owner was entitled to call on the trustees of the road to remove the house.—Regina v. The Greenlaw Turnpike

Trustees, 48 L.J. Q.B. 409; 40 L.T. 555; 27 W.R. 800. (vi.) Q. B. Div.-Diversion - Justice's Certificate-5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 50,

ss. 85, 91.-Where justices certify that a new road will be more com. modious than the one for which it is to be substituted, it must appear on the face of the certificate that they have arrived at that conclusion

from their own personal inspection.-Regina v. Wallace, 40 L.T. 518. (vii.) C. P. Div.-Locomotive—28 & 29 Vict., c. 83, s. 3; 41 & 42 Vict.,

c. 77, s. 9.--Held that sec. 3 of 28 & 29 Vict., c. 83, as amended by 41 & 42 Vict., c. 77, s. 9, was duly complied with, where the person preceding the locomotive ou foot was leading a horse and cart of his own.

Davis v. Browne, 48 L.J. M.C. 92; 40 L.T. 557. (viii.) C. P. Div.-Obstruction—5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 50, s. 72.-Held that a

surveyor of highways who, in repairing a road, placed stones on it and allowed them to remain there at night insufficiently fenced and lighted, was properly convicted under sec. 72 of the Highway Act.--Fearnley v.

Ormsby, L.R. 4 C.P.D. 136. (ix.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Overhanging Trees-Owner-5 8 6 Will. IV., c. 50,

8. 65.—The word "owner,” in sec. 65 of the Highways Act, means the person in actual occupation.- Woodard v. Bellericay Highway Board,

L.R. 11 Ch. D. 214; 27 W.R. 593. (x.) C. A.-Repair-Turnpike Trust-11 & 12 Vict., c. 63, s. 144.—Decision

of Q. B. Div. (see Highway ii., p. 15) reversed.-Nutter v. Accrington Local Board, L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 375.

(xi.) Ex. Div.-Turnpike Trust-Tolls-Omission to Demand.--A Tarnpike

Act, passed in 1815, provided that no toll should be demanded of the inhabitants of the town of S. at any toll-gate to be erected in the town. A toll-gate which then stood in the town had been removed to a place without the town; but subsequently new houses had been built along the road on which the toll.gate was : Held that the question whether the gate was within the town or not at any particular time was a question of fact for the determination of the magistrates on a complaint before them for unlawfully demanding a toll; and that the omission to demand a toll for forty years established no right to exemption.- Deurds

v. Goldsmith, 40 L.T. 328. Husband and Wife :(xxviii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Chose in Action - Reduction into Possession. The

receipt by an agent, appointed by husband and wife, of money forming part of an intestate's estate of which the wife is administratrix, is a reduction into possession by the husband of wife's share of the money.

Dardier v. Chapman, L.R. 11 Ch. D. 442 ; 40 L.T. 649. (xxix.) P. D. A. Div.-Divorce-Dismissal of former PetitionEstoppel.-

A petition by a husband for dissolution of marriage on the ground of his wife's adultery was dismissed on his application and on his paying the costs of respondent and co-respondent: Held that this did not estop him from relying upon the same acts of adultery in support of a second

petition.Hall v. Hall, 40 L.T. 525; 27 W.R. 664. (xxx.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Separate EstateJudgment against-Costs.-In an

action against a married woman and her husband, judgment was given charging property vested in her or in any other person in trust for her with the payment of the debt and costs, and directing inquiries as to her separate estate: and on inquiry it appeared that she was entitled for her separate use to an annuity vested in a trustee : Held, that the debt with interest at 4 per cent. and costs when taxed, must be declared a charge on the annuity without prejudice to the claims of the trastec, and that plaintiff must pay the husband's costs and add them to his

debt.- Collett v. Dickinson, 40 L.T. 394. (xxxi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Separation Deed-Custody of Children-Breach of

Covenant.--In an action by a husband to enforce the covenants in a deed of separation which provided that the wife should have the custody of a daughter, the wife alleged that plaintiff had broken the covenants in the deed, and she asked for judicial separation : Held, that the deed was a bar to the wife's claim for judicial separation, that the agreement by the wife to live separately from her husband might be enforced by the husband, and that the circumstance of an order having been made by the Court, on the application of the daughter by plaintiff as next friend, giving the custody of the daughter to the plaintiff did not con. stitute a breach of the covenant in the deed. Injunction granted restraining the wife from taking proceedings to compel the husband to

cohabit with her.- Besant v. Wood, 40 L.T. 445. (xxxii.) C. A.-Separation Deed-Custody of Children--36 & 37 Vict., c. 12,

s. 2.-By a deed of separation between a husband and wife it was agreed that wife should have the custody of an infant daughter. A petition was presented by the husband on his own behalf and as best friend of the infant, for an order that the infant might be given up to his custody on the grounds that the wife held and propogated atheistic opinions and had published a book of an immoral character: Held, that the infant must be given up to the father.-Re Besant, 48 L.J. Ch. 497 ;

40 L.T. 469; 27 W.R. 741. (xxxiii.) C. A.-Wife's Equity to Settlement-Life Interest.– Decision of

V.C.M. (see Husband and Wife vii., p. 15) affirmed.— Taunton v. Morris, 48 L.J. Ch. 408; 27 W.R. 718.

(xxxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Wife's Equity to Settlement-Pending Admin

istration.-In an administration action, on petition by married wom absolutely entitled to a share in the residue : after decree and before further consideration the Court made an order enforcing the wife's equity to a settlement, though her share had not then been ascertained.

-Robinson v. Robinson, 48 L.J. Ch. 507; 27 W.R. 781. Isle of Man, Law of:(i) P. C.-Rights of Crown.- The crown is not entittled to the clay and

sand in the customary estates of inheritance in the Isle of Man.

Attorney-General v. Mylchreest, L.R. 4 App. 294. Justice of Peace :(i.) Q. B. Div.-Disqualifying Interest-Prosecution for Nuisance-38 8

39 Vict., c. 55, s. 258.-A town council being the urban sanitary authority, instituted a prosecution before Justices for a nuisance. Tro of the Justices who convicted were town councillors and had voted at the meeting when the prosecution was resolved on : Held that the Justices were interested parties and that the conviction was bad.

Regina v. Milledge, L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 332; 27 W.R. 659. Landlord and Tenant:(xxii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Agreement for Lease-Statute of Frauds.-A

letter containing an offer of a lease not signed in writing by the sender, but written on paper with his name and address printed at the top of the sheet so as to show that the sender recognises it as his own name, is a sufficient contract within the Statute of Frauds to charge the sender.

Torret v. Cripps, 27 W.R. 706. (xxiii.) C. A.-Agreement for Lease— Uncertain Term-Specific Performance.

Held, varying the decision of V. C. B. (see Landlord and Tenant x, p. 55), that plaintiff was entitled only to a lease for the residue of the term less one day if he should so long live.—Kusel v. Watson, L.R. 11

Ch.D. 129; 49 L.J. Ch. 413; 27 W.R. 714. (xxiv.) C. P. Div.-Distress Conversion Rescue - Auctioneer.-Plaintiff

sent his bailiff with a written authority to distrain for money due to him by a tenant, which he was entitled to distrain for. The bailiff showed this authority to defendant, an auctioneer, who was on the premises, and made an inventory and valuation. The tenant and defendant then pro. ceeded to sell the goods on the premises in disregard of the distress : Held that plaintiff could maintain an action for rescue against defendant.

-Iredale v. Kendall, 40 L.T. 362. (xxv.) C. P. Div.-Lease of Sporting Rights-Covenant to keep down Rabbits.

--Plaintiff granted a lease of sporting rights to defendant which con. tained a covenant that the latter should, during the term, keep down the rabbits on the estate, so that no appreciable damage should be done to the crops : at that time, and at date of action, R. was tenant of the estate : plaintiff was not under any liability to compensate R. for damage to crops from rabbits. In an action by plaintiff for breach of the covenant : Held that he could only recover nominal damages.-West v.

Houghton, 40 L.T. 364; 27 W.R. 678. Lands Clauses Act:(vi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Married Women's Separate Estate-Election

Payment Out to Husband.---Purchase-moneys of real estate, to which a married woman was absolutely entitled, having been paid into Court under sec. 69, of the Lands Clauses Act, 1815, on petition by her and her husband for payment out to the latter, and ou her separate examination, an order was made for payment out to the husband.-Re Robins's Estate, 27 W.R. 705.

(vii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Re-investmentErection of Buildings.-Part of a

fund in Court, the proceeds of sale of glebe lands taken by a railway company, was ordered to be paid to the rector towards recouping past outlay in the erection of buildings on the glebe, on evidence that they formed a permanent and valuable improvement.-E. parte Rector of

Holywell-cum-Needingworth, 27 W.R. 707. (viii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Superfluous Lands-Land over Tunnel.-A railway

company cannot grant building rights over, or sell as superfluous land, the surface over a tunnel, unless their Act contains special provisions in

that behalf.-Re Metropolitan District Rail. Co. and Cosh, 40 L.T. 482. Lunacy: (v.) Ch. Div. F.J.-Lunatic Defendant-Service of Writ.-In an action for

specific performance, when one of the parties had become a lunatic, so found by inquisition, but no committee had been appointed, the Court directed service of the writ upon the keeper of the asylum at which the lunatic was, or upon the person with whom she was residing. ---Than v.

Smith, 27 W.R. 617. (vi.) C. A.-Principal and Agent-Luuacy of Principal.-Where a principal

holds out an agent as having authority to contract for him, and after. wards becomes lunatic, he is liable on contracts made by the agent after the lunacy with a person without knowledge of the lunacy.-Drew v.

Nunn, 40 LT. 671. Market: (iii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Rival Market-Sales by Auction.-An auctioneer

advertised sales by auction every Monday near a place where there was a market every Thursday: Held that he was setting up a rival market, and injunction granted to restrain him from selling.-Elwes v. Payne,

27 W.R. 704. Master and Servant:(v.) C. P. Div.-Injury to Servant-Carrier-Tort.—Plaintiff's servant

took a ticket and travelled by the L. Railway, all the employés and rolling stock of which were: supplied by the G. E. Railway Company, and was injured in consequence of an accident, caused by the negligence of the G. E. Company's signalman : Held that an action would lie by plaintiff for loss of services.— Berringer v. G. E. Rail. Co., L.R. 4 C.P.D.

163; 48 L.J. C.P. 400; 27 W.R. 681. Metropolitan Management:(v.) Q. B. Div.-District Rate—18 & 19 Vict., c. 120, ss. 158, 159.-Held

that a precept to overseers, under ss. 158, 159, of Metropolitan Management Act, 1855, for the levy of a rate, which required the rate to be levied, as regards certain classes of lands, in the proportion of onefourth part only of the net annual value of such lands, was good, although the classes of lands mentioned did not lie together, but were scattered through the parish.—London & Brighton Rail. Co. v. Guardians of Lewisham, L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 389; 48 L.J. M.C. 116; 40 L.T. 716 ; 27

W.R. 783. (vi.) Ex. Div.-Metropolitan Asylum District --Small Pox HospitalNuisance

-30 & 31 Vict., c. 6.-The owners of land adjoining the Hampstead Small Pox Hospital brought an action against the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District for damages for injuries sustained in con. sequence of the erection of the hospital, and the jury found that the hospital was a nuisance, occasioning damage to plaintiffs, and that, assuming the defendants were legally entitled to erect and carry on the hospital, they had not done so with proper care and skill : Held that

« PreviousContinue »