Page images
PDF
EPUB

' Journal

,

[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]

Oct. 30, 1880.

[blocks in formation]

NAMES OF CASES DISCUSSED IN THIS VOLUME.

Arnold, In re, C. A. 685

London (Corporation of) v Riggs, M. R. 671 Reg. v Hughes, C. C. R. 122 Attorney-General v Dowling, Ex. D. 628 Lowrey v Barker, C. A, 570

Renals v Cowlishaw, C. A. 45 Attwood v Sellar, C. A. 552

Massam v J. W. Thorley's Cattle Food Co., Roussillon v Roussillon, Fry, J., 587 Ballard > Marsden, Fry, J., 741

C. A. 818

Rutherford, In re, Brown v Rutherford, Briggs v Briggs, Pr. D. 793

Matthiesen v London and County Bank, C. A. 742 Camberwell, &c., Building Society v Hollo C.P. D. 216

Saffron Walden Building Society v Raynor, way, M. R. 207 Middleton v Simpson, C. P. D. 626

C. A. 884
Cruse v Smith, C. A. 121
Murray v Miloer, Ch. D. 402

Simm v Anglo-American Telegraph Co., Cummins Fletcher, C. A. 720

National Mercantile Bank v Hampson, C. A. 458 Davis v Goodman, C. P. D. 246

Q. B. D. 607

Smeo v Smee, Pr. D. 668
Godfrey v Harben, V.C. H. 41
Nealo v Clarke, Ex. D. 210

South-Eastern Railway Co. v Railway Com. Grant, Ex parte, C. A. 669

Norrington, . In re, Brindley v Partridge, missioners, Q. B. D. 481 Hallett's Estate, In re, A. 723, 305

C. A. 636

Spencer v Harrison, C. P. D. Harnett v Vise, C. A. 791

Nottingham Guardians v Tomkinson, C.P.D. Staples v Young, Ex. D. 210 Harvey v Farnie, Pr. D. 793

402

Stocker v Planet Building Society, C. A. 81, 83 Harvey's Estate, In re, V.C. H. 703 Nowell v Williams, 82

[graphic]

Sykes v Beadon, C. A. 719
Hawkesley v Bradshaw, C. A. 646
O'Mahoney v Burdett, H. L. 535

Taylor v McKeand & Co., C. P. D. 607
Hodgson Williamson, V. C. B. 817
Osborne v Rowlett, M. R. 588

Thacker v Hardy, C. A. 268 Household Fire Insurance Co. v Grant, C. A. Parlement Belge," The, C. A, 607

Thorloy's (J. W.) Cattle Food Co. v Massam, 42, 63 Parry v Smith, C. P. D. 103.

C. A. 818 Irvine v Watson, Q. B. D. 501

Phillipps v London and South-Western Rail. Thomas Williams, C. A. 818 Jackson to Oakshott, V. C. H. 759

way Co., C. A. 311

Wilmott v Barton, Ch. D. 911 Jay, Ex parte, In re Harrison, C. A. 704 Porter v Drew, C. P. D. 619

Wilson v Wallani, Ex. D. 563 Labouchere v Earl of Wharncliffe, M. R. 101 Portman v Home Hospitals' Association, Woodhouse v Walker, Q. B. D. 722 Lawrie v Lees, C. A. 759

M. R. 102

Worthington & Co., In re, C. A, 322 lax v Corporation of Darlington, C. A. 305 Rainbow v Juggins, C. A. 792

Yorkshire Banking Co. v Beatson, C. A. 606 Leggott v Barrett, C. A. 833 Reed v Harvey, Q. B. D. 570

Yorkshire Wagon Co. v Newport, &c., Co., London and South-Western Bank v Went. Reg. v Griffin, C. c. R. (Ir.) 142

Q. B, D, 549 wortb, Q. B. D. 502

1

NAMES OF CASES REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME.

COUNTY COURTS.

Pickersgill v Hastings, 633, 665

Rhodes v Taylor, 131 Ashford Fire Engine Association y Richard-Salter v Brooks, 93

Tattersfield, Re, 634 son, 34 Barker v Heaton, 391

Wordsworth y Webster, 542
Bradburn v Haddon, 294

ELECTION PETITIONS.
Dawson v Worth, 809
Dormer v Mott (Mayor's Court), 197

Bewdley, 676
Dovenor v Hurst and Co., 711

Evesham, 695 Drake v Holmes, 236

Hereford, 595 Fawcett v Glossop, 784

Knaresborough, 747 Foster v Bentley, 130

Nottingham, 675 Gee and Brook, Re, 542

Sandwich, 783 Keighley, Re, 151

Tewkesbury, 617 Leathley v Hodgson, 315

Wallingford, 616
Pharmaceutical Society v Hartley, 920 Westbury, 676

QUARTER SESSIONS.
Reg. v Latter, 711

SOLICITORS' CASES.
Blake, Charles, In re, 314
Cavo, Re, 633
Davidson, In re, 236
Day, William, Re, 408, 627
Hoey, In re (Ir.), 768
Miller v Davies, 53
Pettingill, James, Re. 350
Philp, W. R., In re, 655, 673
Reg. v Collette, 407
Robinson, Re, 594
Roche, C. M., In re, 490
Solicitor, A, In the Matter of, 34, 54, 73, 129,

365, 541, 695, 633, 711, 747, 709

NOTES OF CASES

OF CASES OF THE WEEK.

Abbott, Es parte, 762
Bishop, Ex parte, 652, 726

Collins v Welch, 67
Andrews v Andrews, 67
Blackmore v Edwards, 67

Conybeare v Lewis, 250
Argles and Rawlins, In re, 234
Blenkinsop, Re, 405

Cooper, In re, 273
Arkwright v Newbold, 630
Blight v Hartnoll, 235

v Whittingham, 610 Artistic Colour Printing Company (Limited), Blyth, In re, 212

Corbett, Es parte, 345
In re, 441
Bolckow & Co. v Keeble, 47

Costa Rica, The Republic of, v Strousberg,
Armitage v Elworthy, 29
Boyes v Cook, 38+

761
Arnold v Arnold, 481
Bozward v Stallard, 702

Cowderay v Brooks, 406
Ashworth v Munn, 704
Bragenton y Yates, 506, 744

Cox v Willoughby, 290
Asken y Woodbead, 345
Bright, In re, 108

Crawford v Toogood, 67
Attorney-General v Birmingham, Borough Brown v Lomas, 538

Cross v Lyon, 290 of, 727 - v Rutherford, 572

Cruse v Smith, 28 v Leeds, Mayor of, 639

Button v Woolwich Mutual Building Society, Cummins v Fletcher, 610 Tomline, 251, 381, 610 48

Cusel v Bashford, 89
v Weguelin, 309
Bunting v Sargent, 47

Dallas v Bagholt, 127
Austin v Mead, 69
Burton, Ex parte, 46

D'Angibau, In re, 422, 705
Automatic Button Company, In re, 436 Butters, Ex parte, 483

-- In re; Andrews v Andrews, 67 Aveland, Lord, v Lucas, 67 Buxton, Ex parte, 743

Davey, In re, and the Railway Passengers' Baghott v Norman, 290

Camberwell Building Society v Holloway, 89 Assurance Company, 328
Bagshaw, Ex parte, 125

Canadian Land, &c.,
Company, In re, 271

Davies v Goodman, 109, 405
Baker v Baker, 141, 670

Canadian Land Reclaiming, &c., Society, In Ex parte, 307 v Sebright, 66 re, 522

v Artinstall 523 Banco de Portugal, Ex parte, 325 Carlyon v Haywood, 807

Davis v Davis, 272 v Waddell, 402 Carr v Metropolitan Board of Works, 299

v Davis, 347 Bane and others, In the Matter of, 127 “ Cartsburn,” The, 249

Dawson v Clever, 764
Ballard v Shutt, 707
Cave v Cave, 606, 612

De Bergue v De Bergue, 28
Banque Franco-Egyptienne v Lutscher, 89 Chapman v Midland Railway Company, 328 De Chatonville, Ex parte, 589
Barter v Hemming, 779
Chepstow Steam-boat Carrying Company

Dence v Mason, 66, 106
Barrow-in-Furness and Northern Counties (Limited), In re, 859

De Oleaga v West Cumberland Iron and
Land, &c., Co., In re, 421
Chorlton v Dickie, 89

Steel Co., 28
Bayley, Ex parte, 726
Christie v Nobb, 485

Diamond Fuel Co., In re, 106
Beal, Ex parte, 521
-- v Sanaberg, 763

Dicks v Brooks, 212 Beaney v Elliott, 590

City and County Investment Company, In Dix v Groom, 309 Berkeley v Standard Discount Co., 20

Dodge v Brown, 108 Bewley v Atkinson, 125 “ City of Manchester,” The, 505

Dodson v Martin, 572

ra, 88

Dorsett, In re, 706
Labouchere v Wharncliffe, 108

Rees v Metropolitan Board of Works, 165 Downes v Hughes and Co. (Limited), 663 Lacey v Hill, 234

Reg. v Reed, Sir Charles, 761 Dronfield Silkstone Coal Co. (Limited), In Lamplough v Beedzler, 672

v Wiltshire Justices, 914
re, 465
Langley, Ex parte, 65

Renshaw v Renshaw, 212
Drover v Beyer, 66, 88
Lawrence's Trusts, In re, 807

Richards v Peilo Tin Plate Company, 900
Ducey, Ex parte, 233
Lawrie v Lees, 464

Richardson Re; Richardson v Richards, 611
Duke v Littleboy, 728
Learoyd, Ex parte, 233

Rigby v Connol, 327
Dunkirk Colliery Co. v Lever, 161
Leavitt v Williams, 707

Roberts, In re, 364
Early, Ex parte, 124
Leggott v Barrett, 761

Roberts', David, Estate, Re ; Silverton v East Pant Du Lead Mining Co, In re, 859 Leigh v Patten, 555

Roberts, 848
Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England v Levick's Trusts, Re, 14

Robertson v Bellew, 859
Kino, 347, 364
Levy v Lovell, 364

Robins v Maclean, 465
Economic Benefit Building Society (Official Lightfoot, Re, 807

Rogers, Ex parte, 704
Liquidator of), v Swift, 638
Linney v Wood, 273

Rokeby, Lord, v Elliot, 144
Edwards v Bingham, 89
Lloyds v Harper 250, 272

Rolls v St. George's Vestry, 213, 629
Ellen v Slack, 290
Logg, In re, 125

Ross v Semple, 818
Emma Bilver Mining Co. v Grant, 763 Lomax's Arbitration, In re, 385

Rotherham's Trade Mark, In re, 538
Esdaile v Visser, 211
London, Mayor of, v Riggs, 327

Roussillon v Roussillon, 329
Evans, Ex parte, 87, 233

London and County Banking Co. v Ratcliffe, Rowe, Re; Clifton v Wilson, 745 Ewen, Ex parte, 107

420

Rowney v Alder, 807
Exhibition, 1851, Commissioners of, v Royal London Joint Stock Bank v London, Cor. | Royal Baking Powder Co., In re, 384
Horticultural Society, 611, 673

poration of, 463

Russell v Russell, 289 Faircloth, In re, 126

London and Suburban Building Co. Ruston v Loader, 80s Falk, Ex parte, 554

(Limited) v Field, 485

Saffron Walden Building Society v Rayner, Fane v Fane, 89

Long v Crossley, 162
Fardon's Vinegar Co, Ex parte, 505

Longden v Sheffield Deposit Bank, 013 Savage, Re, 764
Farney v Farney, 507
Lovesey v Smith, 691

Sawyer v Sawyer, 836
Financial Corporation (Limited), In re, 523 Lucas v Cooke, 328

Seear v Lawson, 743
Flower v Buller, 730, 745
McCulloch, Ex parte, 652

Secretary of State for War v Chubb, 671
Fowler v Murray, 127
McKenzie v Yabsley, 807

Shirehampton Gas Co., Re, 161
Freeman v Freshwater, 820
Macquaid v Robson, 212

Shirreff (deceased), In re ; Keighley v Shir. Fri h House Paper Mills Co. (Limited), Re, McStephens v Carnegie, 385

reff, 109
600
Madick v Marks, 610

Sidebotham, Ex parte, 564
Fritz v Hobson, 366, 590
Marris v Ingram, 146

Simpson, Davies, & Sons' Application, In re,
Frodsham v Frodsham, 762
March v Martin, 484

625 Fyfe, Re, 464 Marsden y Sambell, 316, 707

" Sir Robert Peel," The, 744
Gandy v Reddaway, 808
Martano v Mann, 505

Skerne Ironworks Co., Re, 161
Gaskin v Balls, 126
Mash v Eads, 127

Slade v Tucker, 506
Gathercole v Smith, 630
Mason, Ex parte, 384, 421

Smith, In re, 66
General Meat Supply Association v Bouffler, -- v Brentini, 713

v Anderson, 726 107

Massam v J. W. Thorley's Cattle Food Co., v Davy, 308 Ginesi v Cooper, 365 505

v Robinson, 47
Gledhill v Hunter, 365
Max v Hains, 807

Snell, Ex parte, 521
Godden v Corsten, 128
Megson v Hindle, 689

Spicer v Margate, Mayor of, 821
Good, Ex parte, 403
Mellor, In re, 250

Solicitor, A, In re, 365
Goodwin, Re (deceased); Harris v George, Metcalfe's Estate, Re, 20

Standish v Taylor, 309 14

Metropolitan Asylums District Board v Hill, Stapleford Collieries Co., In re, 637 Goodwin v Venning, 690

589

Steel v Dixon, 631
Gothard v Clark, 507
Metropolitan Bank, In re, 537

Steggles (deceased), Re; Steggles v Haslam, Grant, Ex parte, 308

v Hieron, 779

212 Greaves v Tofield, 522

Metropolitan Board of Works v Hammer. Stein v Stephen, 231 Green y Sevin, 145

smith Bridge Co., 272

Stewart and Brother, In re, 273 Greener, Ex parte, 763

Mid-Cornwall Colliery Co. (Limited), 835 Stewart v Stewart, 653, 672 Greenough v Littler, 272

Middlesborough Assembly Rooms Co., In re, Sundale Banking Co., In re, 761 Griffin, Ex parte, 364

405

Swansea, Corporation of, v Quick, 163 Griffiths, In re; Tate v Rolls, 764 Millard v Burroughs, 127, 162

Symmons, Ex parte, 609
Grugin v Grepe, 88
Mills v Jennings, 236

Tafst v Whinney, 234
Guardian Fire and Life Assurance Co. V Mitchell v Henry, 522, 689

Taylor v Grange, 651 Guardian and General Insurance Co. Moir v Paddon, 900

Thomas v Williams, 539
(Limited), 671
Molloy v Kilby, 610

Thompson, In re, 464
Hall, Ex parte, 3 16
Morris, Re, 690

v Wilding, 484
Hallett, In re, 288
Morton and Hallett, In re, 566

Tilney v Stansfield, 508
Harding v Williams, 141

Mullins v Treasurer for County of Surrey,320 Tonkinson v Cartledge, 727
Hardingham v Rowan, 309
Mundy v Asprey, 213

Tottenham Local Board v Rowell, 74
Harnett v Vise, 761
Mutual Society, In re, 46

Trotter v Maclean, 145 Harris, Re; Jackson v Governors of Queen Mycock v Beatson, 161

Union Bank of Kingston-upon-Hull, Re, 316 Anne's Bounty, 728

National Mercantile Bank, Ex parte, 501 Union Bank of London v Manby, 29 Hart v Hawthorn, 309

v Hampson, 328

Von Heyden v Neustadt, 385
Hartridge v Hartridge, 105
Nelson, Ex parte, 364

Waller v Tanqueray, 465
Harvey (otherwise Farnie) v Farnie, 507 -v Dahl, 126

Ward, Ex parte, 743
Hawkins v Hawkins, 250
Nevill v Snelling, 781

v Eyre, 537
Hawksley v Bradshaw, 127
Newbiggin Gas Co. v Armstrong, 126

- v Ward, 523
Hayes v Booth, 652
Nowent Coal and Iron Co, In re, 927

Watson v Gray, 381
Hedley v Bates, 218
Nicholson, Ex parte, 404

Wayne's Merthyr Co. v Powell's Duffryn
Henderson v Ray, 671
Norrington, In re, 143

Steam Coal Co., 780 Henford's Trusts, In re, 46

North Buckley Colliery and Fire Brick Co. Webster v British Empire Mutual Life As. Hemming, Ex parte, 106 (Limited), 835

surance Co., 213, 630 Herring v Erie Railway Co., 600

Northern Counties of England Fire Insur. v Chatterton 109 Hewett v Mansel, 485 ance Co , 127

v Whewall, 707
Hill v Kirkwood, 309
Nurse v Dúrnford, 88

Wedderburn v Pickering, 126
Hull Central Drapery Co., In re, 780
Orr Ewing v Johnstone, 67, 232

Wegmann v Corcoran, 46
Hull and County Bank, In re, 106
Osborne v Rowlett, 271

Werner v Beyer, 860
Hyam v Terry, 808
Palmer v Locke, 744

Westminster Association (Limited) v tp. Jackson, Ex parte, 670

- v Neal, 820

ward, 690 v Wood, 383 Pannell v Nunn, 727

Wheal Unity Wood Mining Co., In re, 537 Jacobs v Browse Island Guaro Co. (Lim. Parnell, Ex parte, 125

Wheeler v Owen, 441
ited), 820
Phillips v Llanover, 144

White, Ex parte, 240
Jacobson v St. Pancras Vestry, 234
Piercy v Young, 144

Whitmore v Farley, 691
Jenkins v Morris, 422
Pike v Fitz-Gibbon, 523

Wilkinson v Blenkinsop, 405
Jewell, Ex parte, 107
Pitt v Jones, 651

Williams v Daniel, 745
Jewett v McHenry, 66
Pooley v Whetham, 744, 876

v Tenby, Mayor of, 162 John Harvey Yacht, &c., Co., Re, 807

Prince Henry LXIV. of Reuss Kortritz, In Willis v Leamington, Mayor of, 859
Johnson, Re ; Shearman v Robinson, 728 the Goods of, 273, 299

Willmott v Barber, 072
Johnson v Egan, 572
Probyn, Ex parte, 344

Wilson v Lord Bury, 781
Jones v Baxter, 538

Puitman v Home Hospitals Association, 108 v Emmerson, 328 y Jones, 109

Railway Accident Mutual Assurance Co., In Wise v Piper, 213 - v Rimmer, 589

Witham v Vane, 612
Jupps v Pritchard, 818
Raines v Raines, 727

Woodgate v Watson, 47
Kelly v Byles, 288
Rainforth, In re, 106

Woods, In re, 233
“Khedive,” The, 46
Ranby, Ex parte, 600

Worms v De Valdor, 271, 653
Kilner, Ex parte, 87
Rawlins, In re, 484

Worthington & Co., In re; Ex partc Bass, 326 Kinloch v Secretary of State for India, 461 Raynor v Preston, 480

Yeatman v Snow, 572 Kinsman v Jackson, 271, 506

Real and Personal Advance Co. y McCarthy, Yorkshire Wagon Co. v Newport, &c., Coal Kirkham v Peel, 706 317

Co., 386, 519

re, 365

SOLICITORS

JOURNAL.

1
1

2
2
2

2 3 4 5 *6 6 6 7 15

THE INCONVENIENCE we pointed out some months ago LONDON, NOVEMBER 1, 1879.

(23 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 693) in connection with the purchase of Judicature stamps, has recently been aggra

vated by an edict of the Inland Revenue Commissioners CONTENTS.

abolishing the commission formerly allowed to law

stationers and others licensed to sell stamps. The JOURNAL

majority of these persons have now given up keeping CERBENT TOPICS :

stamps for sale except as a matter of convenience The Central Office of the Supreme Court Judicatore Stamps

to their regular customers. Practically, therefore, The Copyright in Photographs......

there is no place but the single room in the Royal Appointment of Receiver of Property in Jersey Vice-Chancellor Malins

Courts of Justice, and Somerset House, at which practiMr. Justice Fry's List ........................................... tioners can obtain Judicature stamps. It is hardly LEADERS :

necessary to point out the waste of time and annoyance The Cause-Lists in the Common Law Divisions......

caused to the profession by the change ; and, moreover, Solicitors' Cases of the Year .............. GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE.....................

the position in the Royal Courts of Justice of the stamp OBITTJEY.....

room is very ill-contrived. For instance, in setting APPOINTMENTS, ETC.......

down a cause in the Chancery Cause Books the solicitor COMPANIES

finds these books in a room at one end of the building, SOCIETIES.................................................

and has to go to the other end of the building and down COURT PAPERS ............................................

stairs into the basement, before he can obtain the necesLONDON GAZETTES, &c., &c.

sary stamp. The same inconvenience, considerably ag

gravated, applies in the case of solicitors doing business REPORTS.

in the aërial offices of the Chancery Taxing Masters, Aitchison and another v Lobre (H.L.)

and in this latter case the solicitor does not necessarily Allen Lloyd (App.) ....

know beforehand the amount of the requisite stamps. Davies y Games (Ch. Div. V.C.H.) Fairlie v Booses and another (H.L.). Griffin Allen (App.) Harris v Petberick (App.)... Johnson Crook (Ch.Div. M.R.)...

MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS, Q.C., in a letter published Phillips v South-Western Railway Company (App.) Renals v Cowlishaw (App.)

in the Times this week, roundly accuses the recent Copyright Commissioners (among whom were such

distinguished lawyers as Mr. Justice Stephen and Mr. An letters intended for publication in the Solicitors' Herschell, Q.C.) of having misinterpreted the Copyright

Journal" must be authenticated by the name of the Act, 1862, with reference to photographic copyright. writer. The Editor cannot undertake to return MSS. He contends that the copyright in photographic porforwarded to him.

traits does not belong to the sitter unless the sitter Subscribers can have their Volumes bound at the Office, expressly stipulates for the purchase of the negative. cloth, 23. 6d., half law calf, 58.

The issue in each case is brought back to this simple question of fact, whether, when the

2 8 16

3 10 11 12 10 9

He says,

66

original photograph was ordered and the price agreed CURRENT TOPICS.

upon, the bargain really extended to and included the negative of the photograph or merely the photograph

itself.” With great respect to Mr. Watkin Williams, The Act for the formation of the Central Office of the the question is not that which he states, but whether Supreme Court came into operation on Tuesday last, but the negative has been, in the words of section 1 hitherto no change has been made in the arrangements of of the Act, "made or executed for or on behalf the legal offices. Everything is kept in abeyance until the of any other person [than the photographer] for a issue of the rules, which are to be made by the judges good and valuable consideration;" and if it has been so under the Act. The scope of these rules is so extensive made or executed the Act vests the copyright in that extreme care is essential to prevent confusion, and that person and not in the photographer, although the it is not surprising that considerable time should be photographer may still remain the owner of the required for their preparation. We hear that they are negative. If this is not so, to what conceiv. in progress, but no date has yet been specified for their able case do the words to which we have referred

relate ? Do they relate, as Mr. Watkin Williams

issue.

« PreviousContinue »