Page images
PDF
EPUB

though H. did not know it, shied and kicked, so that I. foll out, was kicked, and died in consequence: the jury found that the van was left there unreasonably and negligently, and that H.'s death was caused by the van standing there and the vice of the horse combined: Held that H.'s executors were entitled to a verdict under Lord Campbell's

Act.— Harris v. Mobbs, L.R. 3 Ex. D. 268. (ii.) Q. B. Div.-Repair-Turnpike Trust—11 & 12 Vict., c. 63, s. 144;

21 & 22 Vict., c. 98, s. 41.-Section 41 of the Local Government Act, 1858, does not empower a local board to take upon themselves the repair or alteration of a longitudinal section of a turnpike road: no damages done by a local board in repairing a turnpike road under that section can . be the subject of arbitration under the Public Health Act, 1848.--Nutter

V. Accrington Local Board, 47 L.J. Q.B. 521. Husband and Wife :(i.) C. A.-Divorce--Costs of Suit.-Where a suit has been properly insti.

tuted by a wife for a divorce on the. ground of adultery and cruelty, the husband is liable to her solicitor for fair and reasonable costs as between solicitor and client, incurred in the suit, though such costs have been disallowed on the party and party taxation.Ottaway v. Hamilton,

38 L.T. 925; 26 W.R. 783. (ii.) P. D. A. Div.-Divorci-Collusion. If by agreement between the

parties to a divorce sait, material facts which might have been adduced in support of a counter-charge against the petitioner are withheld from the Court, although such facts might not have established the countercharge, such agreement will amount to collusion.--Hunt v. Hunt, 39

L.T. 45. (ii.) P. D. A. Div.-Divorce-- Maintenance-20 d. 21 Vict., c. 85, s. 32.

The Court has power to make an order for the maintenance of a wife after decree absolute has been pronounced. --Bradley v. Bradley, L.R. 3

P.D. 47; 47 L.J.P.D.A. 53; 26 W.R. 831. (iv.) P. D. A. Div.-Divorce-Foreign Subject-20 S 21 Vict., c. 85, s. 27.

-The Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery and desertion in England against a foreign subject resident in England as a consular officer of his own country: and his having formerly presented a petition for dissolution in the same Court, which was abandoned, does not constitute a submission to the jurisdiction.----Niboyet v. Niboyet, L.R. 3 P.D. 52; 47 L...

P.D.A. 49. (v.) P. D. A. Div.-Divorce-Settlement-Variution.--The fact that pro.

ceedings are pending in the Chancery Div. for administering the trusts of a settlement is no answer to a petition for variation of its provisions ; nor will a delay of five years after divorce disentitle the petitioner to relief: the Court ordered the income of settled property to be paid to the wife and children, although in the settlement an absolute discre. tionary power was given to the trustees to dispose of the income for benefit of husband, wife, and children, in the event of the husband's bankruptcy, which had taken place.—Marsh v. Marsh 47 L.J. P.D.A. 34 ;

39 L.T. 107. (vi.) P. D. A. Div.-Dicorce-Settlement-Variation-Decree NisiInjunc.

tion.-A husband having obtained a decree nisi for divorce, gave instructions to his solicitor to file a petition for the variation of an alleged post-nuptial settlement, under which the respondent had possessed herself of £3,000 with which she bonght a house : it appearing that she was about to dispose of the house, the Court granted an injunction

restraining her from doing so.-Noakes v. Noakes, 39 L.T. 47. (vii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M. - Equity to Settlement-Life Interest.—The Court

has power to give the wife an equity to a settlement of the whole of a life interest as against the assignee in insolvency of the husband.

Taunton v. Morris, 47 L.J. Ch. 721. (viii.) P. D. A. Div.-Judicial Separation-Custody of Children-Judicial

separation having been decreed on wife's petition, husband and wife were both at time of marriage Roman Catholics, but husband had since become Protestant, and children bad been placed at a Protestant school. The Court committed the custody of the children to the mistress of the school with leave for buth parents to have full access to them.-D'Alton

v. D'Alton, 47 L.J. P.D.A. 59. (ix.) P. D. A. Div.-Nullity of Marriage. - Non-Consummation.-Wilful

wrongful refusal of marital intercourse is not in itself sufficient to justify the Court in declaring a marriage null by reason of impotence.

S. y. A., L.R. 3 P.D. 72. (x.) P. D. A. Div.-Nullity of Marriage-Residence in Scotland for 21

days—19 & 20 Vict., c. 96, s. 1.-Two persons domiciled in England left London on the 30th June and arrived in Edinburgh the next morning, where they were married on the 21st July, having been in Scotland during the interval : on evidence being given that the Scotch law required a residence of 21 whole days iu the country to render a marriage valid, decree of nullity of marriage was pronounced.-Lawford v. Davies,

47 L.J. P.D.A. 38; 39 L.T. 111. (xi.) P. D. A. Div.-RestitutionCompromise.—A wife who agrees to

stay proceedings in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights on certain terms, will be bound by the agreement.-Stanes v. Stanes, L.R. 3 P.D. 42;

39 L.T. 46. (xii.) P. D. A. Div.- Restitution-Foreign Domicil-Service-20 & 21

Vict., c. 85, s. 42.—The Court has no power to order service out of the jurisdiction of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, and the wife of a man not domiciled in England cannot maintain a suit for restitution if her husband has left the jurisdiction before the commencement of

proceedings.- Firebrace v. Firebrace, 47 L J. P.D.A. 41; 39 L.T. 94. (xiii.) Q. B. Div.-Separation Deed-Necessaries.-A husband and wife had

executed a separation deed, whereby the income of property settled on the wife at the marriage, and a small allowance from the husband, was secured for the support of the wife and her children, and the wife covenanted that she would not apply for further assistance : Held that the wife could not pledge the husband's credit for necessaries, even though the income secured to her should prove insufficient for her

support.- Eastland v. Burchell, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 432 ; 47 L.J. Q.B. 500. (xiv.) C. A.-Wife's Chose in Action-- Reduction into Possession.—A. sold his

wife's share in an intestate's estate to B., a solicitor, who conducted a sait for the administration thereof : the executors of A., who predeceased his wife, instituted a suit to set aside the sale on the ground of conceal. ment by B. of the true value of the share: Held that the wife's chose in action had been reduced into possession by A., and that the right to avoid the sale survived to his executors.-Widgery v. Tepper, 47 L.J. Ch. 550.

India, Law of:-(i.) P. C.-Powers of Legislature-Indian High Courts Act, 1861-Act XXII.

of 1869.-Act XXII. of 1869 of India is not inconsistent with 24 & 25 Vict., c. 104, or with the Charter of the High Court, and is within the legislative powers of the Governor-General in Council.—Regina v. Burah, L.R. 3 App. 889.

Innkeeper's Lien:(i.) C. A.-Guests GoodsWrongful Conversion.-B. bought horses and

carriages of plaintiff and took them to defendant's inn, where he was entertained for a long time: he never paid for the horses and carriages, and absconded owing defendant his bill, and leaving the horses and carriages with him: subsequently, he re-assigned the horses and carriages to plaintiff; but defendant refused to give them ap till B.'s bill was paid, and afterwards sold the horses : Held that defendant had a general lien on the horses and carriages for the whole of B.'s bill; but that the sale of the horses was a wrongful conversion, for which the plaintiff could maintain an action, and that the measure of damages was

the value of the horses.-Mulliner v. Florence, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 484. Insurance > (i.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Life Assurance-Assignment-Payment into Court.

An assurance company is not a trustee but a debtor, and is not justified in paying policy-monies into Court under the Trustee Relief Act. —

Matthew v. Northern Assurance Company, 47 L.J. Ch. 562. Landlord and Tenant: (i.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Agreement for LeaseStatute of Frauds.-A memo

random of agreement for a lease was signed by both parties but did not state when the lease was to commence : Held that the agreement was valid within the Statute of Frauds, and that the term commenced from

the date of the memorandum.-Jaques v. Millar, 47 L.J. Ch. 544. (ii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Agreement for Lease--Mistake-Quiet Enjoy.

ment.-A. agreed to take an anderlease for whatever term B. held. By mistake the underlease was made for seven years longer than that B. held, and nearly at the end of B.'s term his executors discovered the mistake and told A. that he must give up possession at the end of B.'s term; whereupon A. procured a fresh lease from the landlord at an increased rent : Held that A. could not recover damages on that account, and that there had been no breach of the covenant in the underlease for quiet enjoy.

ment.- Besley v. Besley, 38 L.T. 844. (ii.) H. L.-Lease---Covenant-Alteration of Property by Lessee.-A lease of

premises described as stores for a term of which 900 years was unex. pired, contained a covenant to "preserve, support, maintain, and keep the premises and all improvements in good repair :" Held that the reversioner was not entitled to an injunction to restrain the lessee from converting the premises into dwelling-houses, it appearing that the security for the rent would be thereby increased.-Doherty v. Allman,

L.R. 3 App. 709. (iv.) C. A.-Lease-Covenant-Quiet Enjoyment.—When, after granting a

lease of premises for a special purpose, an Act has been passed which renders it illegal to use the premises for that purpose, the refusal to permit them to be so used is not a breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment, and a covenant to keep the premises in proper repair and condition for the special purpose, relates only to the physical condition, and does not impose on the lessor any obligation to put them in a condition to be used for the special parpose in accordance with the Act.—Newly v. Sharpe,

47 L.J. Ch. 617. (v.) C. P. Div.-Lease-Covenant to Pay RatesDrainage Expenses

38 X 39 Vict., c. 55.-A covenant to pay rent without deduction except land and property tax, and to pay all rates, taxes, and charges imposed during the term on the premises or in respect thereof: Held not to make lessee liable for expenses of drainage incurred by landlord in consequence of a requisition under the Public Health Act to abate a puisance.--Rawlins v. Biggs, L.R. 3 C.P.D. 368; 47 L.J.C.P. 487.

B

(vi.) Q. B. Div.-Lease Covenant not to use as Beer-shop.-A lease

contained a covenant by the lessee not to allow the premises to be used as a beer-shop: Held that the selling beer by retail to be consumed off the premises was a breach of the covenant.---Bishop of St. Albans v.

Battersby, 47 L.J. Q.B. 571. (vii.) H. L.-Lease-Iron Mine-Poor Rate - 37 & 38 Vict., c. 54, s. 8.--The

lease of an iron mine, made before the passing of the Rating Act, 1874, contained a covenant by the lessee to pay all manner of taxes, rates, assessments, charges, and impositions then or thereafter during the con. tinuance of the lease to be imposed upon the premises, landlord's pro. perty tax excepted : Held that the lessee had not specifically contracted to pay the whole of the poor-rate on the mine in the event of the abolition of its exemption within the meaning of 37 & 38 Vict., c. 54,

s. 8.--Chaloner v. Bolckow, 47 L.J. C.P. 562. (viii.) C. P. Div.-Notice to Quit-Quarter Day.--A six month's notice to

determine a yearly tenancy commencing on one of the usual quarter days, means a notice from one such quarter-day to the next but one

following.-Morgan v. Davies, 39 L.T. 60; 26 W.R. 816. (ix.) C. P. Div.-Notice to Quit-Six Months— Yearly Tenancy -38 & 39

Vict., c. 92, s. 51.-A yearly tenancy which by express agreement of the parties is determinable on six months notice to quit, is not within s. 51 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875.-Wilkinson v. Calvert, L.R. 3

C.P.D. 360; 38 L.T. 813; 26 W.R. 829. Lands Clauses Act:(i.) Q. B. Div.- Arbitration—38 f39 Vict., c. 55, s. 179.—Where lands

are taken compulsorily under sections 175-178 of the Public Health Act, 1875, the proceedings for assessing compensation are wholly governed by the Lands Clauses Acts.--- Regina v. Master Smith, Ex parte Rayner,

L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 444; 26 W.R. 812. (ii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-InvestmentMetropolitan Stock-34 8 35 Vict.,

c. 47, s. 15.—Purchase-money paid into Court under the Lands Clauses Act ordered to be invested in Metropolitan Consolidated Stock.--Re

Readhead's Trusts, 39 L.T. 60. (iii.) C. 4.- Part of House or other Building.--Held, that premises consisting

of a house and shop, with a manufactory at the back, adjoining to a cottage, which was used as a store-room, constituted one house within section 92 of the Act, and that a company, having given notice to treat as to the cottage, might be compelled to take the whole premises.

Richards v. Swansea Improvements Co., 38 L.T. 833. Licensed House:(i.) Q. B. Div.-Gaming--Game of Skill–35 36 Vict., c. 94, s. 37.—The

fact that a game played for money is a game of skill does not prevent the playing constituting gaming within s. 17, s-s. 1 of 35 & 36 Vic., c. 94.

- Bew v. Harston, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 454; 26 W.R. 915. (ii.) Q. B. Div.-Selling Beer without License- Penalty---Imprisonment

35 & 36 Vict., c. 94.-The justices cannot order imprisonment in default of payment of a penalty under 35 & 36 Vict., c. 94, s. 51, s-s. 2, unless there

has been first an order for a distress.---Re Brown, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 545. Lord Mayor's Court:(i.) C. A.- Jurisdiction-Counter Claim-Judicature Act, 1873, s. 90.

Where an action has been brought in an inferior Court, and a counterclaim is set up which is beyond its jurisdiction, the Court has power to deal with the counter-claim to the extent of the amount of the plaintiff's claim only.-Davis v. Flagstaff Silver Mining Company, 47 L.J. C.P. 503.

Lunacy:(i.) C. A.-Pauper-Maintenance. The Court has no jurisdiction, on the

death of a pauper lunatic, to interfere with the right of his administrator by ordering payment of the expenses of his maintenance out of a fund in Court to which he had been entitled.--Re Marman's Trusts, 38 L.T. 797.

Market:(i.) C. A.-Immemorial Custom.-Held that plaintiffs having shown a title

to a Saturday market, a right to compel butchers to close their shops on Saturday and sell only in the market, or else to make payments in place of stallage might legally exist as incident to the market, and that there was sufficient evidence of enjoyment to establish such right.—Mayor

of Penryn v. Best, L.R. 3 Ex. D. 292; 38 L.T. 805. Master and Servant:(i.) Q. B. Div.-Dismissal— Proceedings in County Court-Res judicata

38 & 39 Vict., c. 90, ss. 3, 4.- Appellant having been discharged by respondeuts for neglect of work, and they having refused to pay wages in lieu of notice, he took proceedings in the County Court against them and recovered : Held that respondents were not precluded from preferring a claim before justices against appellant for damaging materials.

-Hindley v. Haslam, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 481. Metropolitan Management:(i.) Q. B. Div.-Construction of SewerApportionment-25 & 26 Vict.,

c. 102, s. 53.—Where a sewer had been constructed, in 1868, and no apportionment of the costs of construction among the owners of houses in the street was made till 1876: Held that the apportionment was valid.

---Bradley v. Greenwich Board of Works, 38 L.T. 819. (ii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Party-wall -- Undermining-18 & 19 l'ict., c. 122.

Defendant dug beneath and undermined the wall which separated his own premises from those adjoining for the purpose of making altera. tions: notice was served on the adjoining owner, under the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855, and a sui veyor appointed on each side, but they had not appointed a third surveyor: Held that defendant was acting within his rights as tenant in common of the wall and as adjoining owner under the Act, but that he should have waited till the appointment of the third surveyor, and must therefore pay the costs of a motion for injunction.-Standard Bank of British South Africa v. Stokes, 47 L.J.

Ch. 554. (ii.) C. A.--Vestryman-Qualification.—Defendant occupied premises jointly

with his father: a rate was made on the father only: defendant asked to have his name put on the rate, which was not done : afterwards he was nominated as vestryman, was declared elected and sat and voted, and subsequently was entered on the rate-book and paid the rate : Held that he was not qualified and liable to penalty.-Goodhew v. Williams, L.R. 3 C.P.D. 382.

Mines :(i.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Agreement - Construction --- Winning -- Expenses

Profits.-M. granted to T. a license to work mines under an estate, and first to repay himself out of the profits, the expenses incurred in the winning of the coal only, and then to pay M. a certain proportion of the profits : Held that "winning" meant only the performance of all conditions necessary to the continuous working of the coal, and no expenses incurred afterwards were winning expenses : that interest of 4 per cent. should be allowed on the winning expenses, and that the profits arising

« PreviousContinue »