« PreviousContinue »
to B. a farm of 284 acres, and stock of 700 sheep: defendants entered into a bond as sureties to secure the return of an equal number of sheep by B. at the end of the tenancy : subsequently plaintifi and B. agreed that a field of seven acres should be surrendered to plaintiff : Held that defendants were discharged from their liability.-—Holme v. Brunskill, L.R. 3 Q.B.D 495; 47 L.J. Q.B. 610; 88 L.T. 838.
The oflicer of a company believing that the retention of money by one of its agents amounted to felony directed his arrest: friends of the agent ofiered to deposit a sum of money as security for any deficiency : and afterwards the company was advised that the acts of the agent did not amount to felony. and the directions for his arrest were withdrawn: in a subsequent interview with the ofiicer, the offer of the aizent’s friends was accepted without telling them of the withdrawal of the directions for arrest, and the money was deposited with trustees : Held that the concealment of the change of circumstances from the snreties was improper and the money must be returned.—Davies v. London §r' Provincial Marine Insurance Co., 26 W.R. 7 94.
P. D. A. DiV.—C'osts~Married Woman.-»—Iu an action for probate tried by a jury, in which verdict was for pla.intifi': Held that a married woman defendant having general personal estale might be condemned in costs.—M0rris v. Freeman, L.R. 3 P.D. 65.
been justifiably opposed, and it appeared that there was no personalty, the Court ordered the costs of defendant to be paid rateably out of the real estate.—Smith v. Hopi.'1"nso'n, 47 L.J. P.D.A. 40; 26 W.R. 884-.
P, D, A, D1'_v,—Incnrporation—Attestation on Third Page.—A will written on a sheet of paper had the attestation clause on the third page and the words “ turn over,” and on the fourth page a clause dated the day of execution of the will, and signed by the testator; at the time of witnessing the witnesses saw writing on the fourth page : Held that the writing on the fourth page could not be included in probate.-—~In the Goods of Dea/rle, 47 L.J. P.D.A. 45; 39 L.T. 93.
P, D_ A, Div.——-Incorpo-ration— Writing on Dijferemt Pags.—'l‘estatrix made a testamentary disposition on the first three pages of a sheet of paper, signed, but not attested. Subsequently she duly executed a testamentary disposition (not referring to the former one) on the fourth page: Held that the contents of the first three pages were not incorporated in her wi]l.—In the Goods of Tovey, 47 L.J. P.D.A. 63.
(v.) C. A.—Ma1-riled, Woman —- Separate Estate —.Turisdiction. ~— Before
granting probate of the will of a 'married woman, though it is only necessary for the Court to be satisfied that testatril had a power, or separate estate, it should decide to what elfects the probate is to extend unless the matter can be more conveniently determined elsewhere.—In the Goods of Thu/rp, Tha/qr v. Macdonald, 38 L.T. 867.
(vi.) P. D. A. DiV,—Two Wills—Compromise.—By consent of parties the
Court will grant probate to two testamentary instruments if not inconsistent with one another.—Robi1|son v. Clamke, 89 L.T. 43.
Public Health :—
C. P. DiV.—Buildin_q—-B;/e.Laws~Publicalio1v—-11 §/‘ 12 Vict., c. 63; 2l §‘ Z2 Vict., c. 98; 10 .§" ll Vict., c. 34.-—-Bye-laws were made by commissioners under powers conferred by the Public Health Acts, 181-l8 and
1858, and the Towns Improvement Act, 1847, providing that notice should be given to the surveyor of any new building intended tobe erected: the bye-laws were published in accordance with the requirements of the Public Health Acts, but not with those of the Towns Improvement Act: Held that the bye-laws had been sulficiently published, but that the term “ building " did not apply to a brick.kiln and structure for storing tools erected for temporary purposes.—Fielding v. Rhyl Commissioners, 26 W.R. 891.
to grant a rule for a quo wan-ram-to, applied for by a former officer of a local board, on the ground that his dismissal from office was illegal, as it appeared that if re-instated, he might legally be dismissed immediately. —E.c purte Richards, 47 L.J. Q.B. 498.
c. 63, s. 85; 38 39 Vict., c. 55, s. 178.—A local board within the Public Health Act, 1848, and urban authority within the Public Health Act, 1875, verbally directed their surveyor to prepare plans for new ofiioes : Held. that, as the value of the contract exceeded £50, it could not be enforced against the local board, and that part performance made no
difference in this respect ——Hunt v. Wimbledon Local Board, 47 L.J. C.P. 540; 39 L.T. 35; 26 W.B.. 880.
local board, which was both a highway and a sewer authority, engaged a D
contractor to lay down a sewer, who was to be responsible for damage arising from the execution of the works, and to maintain the road in repair for three months from completion of contract: after the expiration of the three months, the road gave way in one place owing to defective filling up‘uf the trench, and in consequence plaintiifs horse was injured: Held that the local board was liable: a notice of action which claimed for damage caused by non-fea-sauce: Held sufiicient,
Queensland, Law of :—(i P. C.——Crown Lands Alienation Act, 1868.—Sl3ction 46 of this Act enacts
that an applicant for lands must make a declaration that hc lives in Queensland : Held that “ lives " must be taken in its popular meaning as denoting more than a transient presence in the colony, though not necessarily un intention to create a new domicile; and that a misrepresentation in the declaration avoided the whole contract.-—1"isher v. Tully, 47 L.J. P.C. 59.
Residence.—-'l‘he provision in sec. 8 of this Act that all questions shall be decided by the commissioner, who shall give judgment in open court, applies to questions relating to the forfeiture of lands. and requires a hearing in open court: where a selector makes an additional selection under sec. 55, he is not required to continue to reside on his first selection.—Srm'th v. The Queen, 47 L.J. P.C. 51.
Railway :— (i.) Ex, Div. — Carrier — Alternative Rates. — When a railway company
charges alternative rates for the conveyance of cattle, the lower being at owner’s risk, if the higher rate is within the Parliamentary limit it is a priori reasonable, though the difiereuce between the rates may be so
erected a house with windows overlooking the line ; and the company erected a hoarding before the windows to prevent the owner from acquiring a prescriptive right to light and air: Held that the company had no right to prevent the acquisition of such an easement.—Nm-ton v. L. <§' N. W. Rail. 00., 39 L.T. 25.
H. L.—Tiends—Repetili01t—P':'escr'ipl'i0n.—F0rty years after heritors, who had never paid any stipend,’ had sold their land and left the parish, a claim for repetition of tiends was brought against them : Held that the right to recoupment was barred by lapse of time.—-Dcwidson v. Sinclair,
Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Sale Genemll/y.—The Court ordered a sale generally on a petition under the Act, either by auction or private contract, subject to a reserve price to be settled at chambers, the trustees to bring the proceeds into C0urt.——Re Adam's Settled Estates, 38 L.T. 877.
Settlement :— (i,) Ch. DiV. V. C. B.—Constructi0n—Gi_fL Over-.—Property was settled
on trust to apply the income for the maintenance of two children till the younger should attain twenty-one, and then to pay the income to them, their heirs and assigns, in equal shares : provided that if either of them should die without leaving issue, his share of the income was given over: one of the children attained twenty-one, and died leaving issue: Held that he took an estate in fee simple as his share.— Olivamt v. Wright, 47 L J. Ch. 664.
(ii.) C. A.— Post-Nuptial Settlame-nt—Anti-Nuptiul Ag1'eement—I'njant—
Ram:/i.cation.—An infant before marriage promised that he would give his
intended wife when he came of age seven houses : he subsequently came of age and married, and some years after settled nine houses on i115 wife for life, remainder to himself for life, remainder to his wife in fee : Held that this was not a ratification of the anti-nuptial agreement, and
(iii.) C. A.—Satisfaction——Will-—Parol Evidence.—T. covenanted to settle £2,000 consols in trust as Mrs. W. should appoint, in default to her separate use for life, remainder to her husband for life, remainder to the children of the marriage, and, if no children, remainder to husband : T. subsequently performed the covenant as to £1,000, and by his will gave £2300 for Mrs. W.‘s separate use for life without power of antici. pation and then for her children: Held that this was not a. satisfacu_on of the covenant: parol evidence is admissible to rebut but not to raise
. the presumption of sa.tisfaction.—Tussaud v. Tussaud, 26 W.R. 874-.
(iv.) C. A.—-Tena/nt in Ta.il—Disenfailing Deed—P'rotector—3 J‘ 4 Wzll. 4., c. 74, s. 22.—Where the equity of redemption of a. freehold estate was vested in trustees in trust for a married woman for separate use for life remainder to B. in tail: Hc7cZ that the owner of the prior estate in the
23rd section of the Fines and Recoveries Act was the married woman.Re Dudson’s Contract, L.R. 8 Ch. D. 628; 47 L.J. Ch. 632.
(v.) Ch. Div. V. C. M:.——Voluntary Settleme'nt——De:claratio1t of T'rust.— B. by a deed poll, after reciting his intention to settle certain property on his wife, settled, assigned, and transferred to her, as though she were a single woman, the property : Held that the deed operated as a declaration of trust.—Ba,d¢lcley v. Bad<l0le1 , 38 L.T. 906; 26 W.R. 850.
the authority of the owners, he must show an urgent necessity for the
sale and inability to communicate with the owners.—Acatos v. Burns, L.R. 3 Ex. D. 282; 47 L.J. Ex. 566.
(ii.) C, _A_,——Authori!y of Shi]'0's Husba/nd—Pledging F-r01'_qht.—B., port owner of a ship, who had mortgaged his share, and who was also acting as ships husband, assigned to plaintiff the freight payable by the charterers in respect of a voyage then unfinished: before the end of the voyage, the other owners of the ship and R.'s mortgagee appointed another ship's husband, who gave the charterers notice not to pay the freight to plaintifi: Held that R. had no power to assign the whole freight, and that the mortgagee had effectually interfered so as to entitle himself to R.’s share of the freight as against R. and the plaintifl.—Bsynon v. Godclen, L.R. 3 Ex. D. 263; 39 L.T. 82.
(iii.) C. A.—BilZ of La/d'ing—Charter-par!y—Demurrage.—'l‘he defendants, consignees of part of cargo, were prevented from landing their goods within the time allowed through the delay of other consignees: the charter-party allowed fourteen days for loading and unloading, “and ten days on demurrage at £35 per day : ” the bills of lading contained the words, “ paying freight for the same goods and all other oonditirns as per charter-party :” Held that defendants were liable for demurrage. ——P0rieus v. Wainey, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 534; 47 L.J. Q B. 643.
the payment by the shipowuer to charterer of despatch money at 10s.
per hour on any time saved in loading —a%i unloading : Held that dispatch
C. A.—Cnllis1'nn—Cross1'ng Sh1'ps—Nam'gation of Thames.-—When one steamer on the Thames was steering parallel to the shore, and the other obliquely across the stream: Held that they were crossing vessels, and under rule 29 of Rules for Navigation of Thames, 1872, the one which had the other on her starboard was bound to keep out of the way.—1’he Oteuno, L.R. 3 P.D. 60.
P. D, A, Div,—Compulsnry Pilolage.—A vessel in charge of a pilot, whom the muster was compelled to take, and who was engaged to take her into dock, was brought to anchor, being prevented by the weather from docking, and drove into collision with another vessel: Held that she was under the carge of the pilot.—The Princeton, -L7 L.J. P.D.A. 38.
Q. B. DiV.—~Demurra.ge—Contract to Deliver dwring Specified Months. —Defeudants contracted to buy from plaintifi from 5,000 to 6,000 tons of ore to be delivered at C. during the months of June, July, August, and September: Held that the contract could not be read as if equal monthly instalments were iutended.—Calami'nus v. Dou-lais Ore Co., -1-7 L.J. Q.B. 575.
P. D. A, Div,—-Fm-e1'gn Shi_p—Jurs'sdictian.—In an action of co. ownership by a foreigner against a foreign vessel, the representative of the State to which the vessel belonged refused to interfere: on appli
cation of another foreigner, who appeared under protest, the action was dismissed with costs.—Ths Agincou/rt, 47 L.J. P.[).A. 37.
stranded in the course of a voyage to L., the shipowner sent over persons to undertake salvage operations, and the whole cargo was saved and brought to L., and the freight earned: the shipowner incurred considerable trouble and expense in getting the cargo to L , identifying and distributing it, and in the general average statement a remuneration to him was charged for arranging for salvage operations and distributing the cargo : Held the charge was improper.—-Schuster v. Fletcher, 4-7 L.J. Q.B. 530.
C. A.—Insuru.nce——Covtsfructive Total L0ss—Not1'ce of Aha/ndonme1il.—— Plaintifi received at Singapore on Feb. 7th, reports of damage sustained by his vessel from which he determined to treat the loss as a constructive total loss: the vessel was sold on Feb. 23rd, and reports forwarded to co-owner at Z., which reached the underwriters on March 11th: Held that plaintiff was not excused from giving notice of abandonment to the underwriters, that no proper notice was given, and therefore he could not recover on his policy.-—Ka.lt¢mbu.ch v.
C. A.—Inswrance— Partial Loss— Repairs.—A shipowner efiected a policy on aship which sustained damage at sea, and salvage expenses were incurred : the owner refused to abandon, and the ship was repaired : Held that the measure of damages was to be ascertained by the cost of repairs less one-third new for old, though the underwriters would in fact be liable for more than a total loss, with benefit of salvage; and that they were liable for a proportion of salvage expenses beyond the amount of the insura.nco.——L0hre v. Aitchison, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 558; 47 L.J. Q.B. 534; 38 L.T. 802; 26 W.R. 780.
C, A,——Insu'ra.ncc—Seaworthiness-—Onus of Pro0f.——In an action on a voyage policy, the question whether the circumstances are suflicient to raise a preumption that the ship was not seaworthy at the commencement of the risk, and to throw the onus of proving her so, on the owner, is a question of fact for the jury.— Pickup v. Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co., L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 594.