Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE

Misa

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

LONDON: 52, CAREY STREET, W.C.

1880.

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, O. A. 45

Attwood v Sellar, C.A. 562

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 y Hollo C. P. D. 216

Saffron Walden Building Society v Raynor,

way, M. R. 207

Middleton v Simpson, C. P. D. 626

C. A. 894

Cruse v Smith, C. A. 121
Murray y Miloer, Oh. D. 402

Simm v Anglo-American Telegraph Co.,
Cummins v 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 y Harben, V.C. H. 41

Neale 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, C. A. 723, 305

C. A. 686

Spencer v Harrison, C. P. D. 831

Harnett - Vise, C. A, 791

Nottingham Guardians v Tomkinson, C.P.D. Staples Young. Ex. D. 210

Harvey Farnie, Pr. D. 793

402

Stocker v Planet Building Society, C. A.81, 83

Harrey's Estate, In re, V. C. H. 703

Nowell y Williams, 82

Sykes v Beadon, C. A. 719

Hawkesley y Bradshaw, C.A. 616

O'Mahoney y Burdert. H. L. 535

Taylor v McKeand & Co., C. P. D. 607

Hodgson y 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.

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 y Williams, C. A. 818

Jackson to Oakshott, V. C. H. 759

way Co., C. A. 341

Wilmott v Barton, Ch. D. 911

Jay, Ex parte, In re Harrison, C. A. 701 Porter v Drew, C. P. D. 619

Wilson v Wallani, Ex. D. 563

Labonchere 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

[blocks in formation]

NOTES OF CASES OF THE WEEK.

Abbott, Ex parte, 762

| Bishop, Ex parte, 652, 726
Andrews v Andrews, 67

Blackmore v Edwards, 67
Argles and Rawlins, In re, 234

Blenkiasop, Re, 405

Arkwright v Newbold, 630

Blight v Hartnoll, 235

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

In re, H1

Bolckow & Co. v Keeble, 47

Armitage y Elworthy, 20

Boyes y Cook, 386

Arnold v Arnold, 481

Bozward v Stallard, 702

Ashworth v Munn, 704

Brayenton v Yates, 506, 744

Asken v Woodhead, 345

Bright, In re, 108

Attorney-General v Birmingham, Borough Brown v Lomas, 538

of, 727

v Rutherford, 572

- Leeds, Mayor of, 639

Button v Woolwich Mutual Building Society,

- Tomline, 251, 381, 610

49

v Wegruelin, 309

Bunting v Sargent, 47
Austin v Mead, 69

Burton, Ex parte, 46
Automatic Button Company, In re, 486

Butters, Ex parte, 483
Aveland, Lord, v Lucas, 67

Buxton, Ex parte, 743
Baghott v Norman, 290

Camberwell Building Society v Holloway, 89
Bagshaw, Ex parte, 125

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

Baker v Baker, 441, 670

Canadian Land Reclaiming, &c., Society, In

- Sebright, 66

re, 522

Banco de Portugal, Ex parte, 325

Carlyon v Haywood, 807

v Waddell, 402

Carr v Metropolitan Board of Works, 299

Bane and others, In the Matter of, 127 Cartsburn," The, 249

Ballard v Shutt, 707

Cave v Cave, 606, 612

Banque Franco-Egyptienne v Lutscher, 89 Chapman v Midland Railway Company, 328
Barker v Hemming, 779

Chepstow Steam-boat Carrying Company
Barrow-in-Furness and Northern Counties (Limited), In re, 859
Land, &c., Co., In re, 421

Chorlton v Dickie, 89

Bayley, Ex parte, 726

Christie v Nobb, 485

Beal, Ex parte, 521

- Sanaberg, 763

Beaney v Elliott, 590

City and County Investment Company, In

Berkeley v Standard Discount Co., 20

| re, 88

Bewley v Atkinson, 125

| "City of Manchester,” The, 505

Dorsett, In re, 706

Downes v Hughes and Co. (Limited), 663

Dronfield Silkstone Coal Co. (Limited), In

re, 465

Drover v Beyer, 66, 88

Ducey, Ex parte, 233

Duke v Littleboy, 728
Dunkirk Colliery Co. v Lever, 161
Early, Ex parte, 124
East Pant Du Lead Mining Co, In re, 859
Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England v

Kino, 347, 364
Economic Benefit Building Society (Official

Liquidator of), v Swift, 538

Edwards v Bingham, 89

Ellen v Slack, 290

Emma Silver Mining Co. v Grant, 763

Esdaile v Visser, 211

Evans, Ex parte, 87, 233

Ewen, Ex parte, 107

Exhibition, 1851, Commissioners of, v Royal

Horticultural Society, 611, 673

Faircloth, In re, 126

Falk, Ex parte, 554

Fane v Fane, 89

Fardon's Vinegar Co, Ex parte, 505

Farney v Farney, 507

Financial Corporation (Limited), In re, 523

Flower v Buller, 739, 745

Fowler v Murray, 127

Freeman v Freshwater, 820
Fri h House Paper Mills Co. (Limited), Re,

690
Fritz v Hobson, 366, 590
Frodsham v Frodsham, 762
Fyfe, Re, 464
Gandy v Reddaway, 808
Gaskin v Balls, 126
Gathercole v Smith, 630
General Meat Supply Association v Bouffler,

107

Ginesi v Cooper, 365

Gledhill v Hunter, 365

Godden v Corsten, 128

Good, Ex parte, 403

Goodwin, Re (deceased); Harris v George,

144

Goodwin v Venning, 690

Gothard v Clark, 507

Grant, Ex parte, 308

Greaves v Tofield, 522

Green v Sevin, 145

Greener, Ex parte, 763

Greenough v Littler, 272

Griffin, Ex parte, 364

Griffiths, In re; Tate v Rolls, 764

Grugin v Grepe, 88

Guardian Fire and Life Assurance Co. V

Guardian and General Insurance Co.

(Limited), 671

Hall, Ex parte, 346
Hallett, In re, 288
Harding y Williams, 441
Hardingham v Rowan, 309
Harnett v Vise, 761
Harris, Re: Jackson y Governors of Queen

Anne's Bounty, 729

Hart v Hawthorn, 300

Hartridge v Hartridge, 405

Harvey (otherwise Farnie) v Farnie, 507

Hawkins y Hawkins, 250

Hawksley v Bradshaw, 127

Hayes v Booth, 652

Hedley v Bates, 218

Henderson v Ray, 671

Henford's Trusts, In re, 46

Hemming, Ex parte, 106

Herring v Erie Railway C

Hewett v Mansel, 485

Hill v Kirkwood, 300

Hull Central Drapery Co., In re, 780

Hull and County Bank, In re, 106

Hyam y Terry, 808

Jackson, Ex parte, 670

v Wood, 383

Jacobs v Browse Island Guaro Co. (Lim.

ited), 820

Jacobson v St. Pancras Vestry, 234

Jenkins v Morris, 422

Jeweil, Ex parte, 107

Jewett v McHenry, 66

John Harvey Yacht, &c., Co., Re, 807

Johnson, Re; Shearman v Robinson, 728

Johnson v Egan, 572

Jones v Baxter, 538

v Jones, 109

-- v Rimmer, 589

Jupps v Pritchard, 818

Kelly v Byles, 288

“Khedive," The, 46

Kilner, Ex parte, 87

Kinloch v Secretary of State for India, 461

Kinsman y Jackson, 271, 506

Kirkham y Peel, 706

Labouchere v Wharncliffe, 108

Rees v Metropolitan Board of Works, 465

Lacey v Hill, 234

Reg. v Reed, Sir Charles, 761

Lamplough v Beedzler, 672

v Wiltshire Justices, 914

Langley, Ex parte, 65

Renshaw v Renshaw, 212

Lawrence's Trusts, In re, 807

Richards v Peilo Tin Plate Company, 000
Lawrie v Lees, 464

Richardson Re; Richardson v Richards, 611

Learoyd, Ex parte, 233

Rigby v Connol, 327

Leavitt v Williams, 707

Roberts, In re, 364

Leggott v Barrett, 761

Roberts', David, Estate, Re; Silverton V

Leigh v Patten, 555

Roberts, 848

Levick's Trusts, Re, 144

Robertson v Bellew, 859

Levy v Lovell, 364

Robins v Maclean, 465

Lightfoot, Re, 807

Rogers, Ex parte, 704

Linney v Wood, 273

Rokeby, Lord, v Elliot, 144

Lloyds v Harper 250, 272

Rolls v St. George's Vestry, 213, 629

Logg, In re, 125

Ross v Semple, 818

Lomax's Arbitration, In re, 385

Rotherham's Trade Mark, In re, 538

London, Mayor of, v Riggs, 327

Roussillon v Roussillon, 329
London and County Banking Co. v Ratcliffe, Rowe, Re; Clifton v Wilson, 745
420

Rowney v Alder, 807

London Joint Stock Bank v London, Cor. Royal Baking Powder Co., In re, 381

poration of, 463

Russell v Russell, 289

London and Suburban Building Co. Ruston v Loader, 808

(Limited) v Field, 485

Saffron Walden Building Society v Rayner,

Long v Crossley, 162

484

Longden v Sheffield Deposit Bank, 913

Savage, Re, 764
Lovesey v Smith, 691

Sawyer v Sawyer, 836
Lucas v Cooke, 328

Seear y Lawson, 743
McCulloch, Ex parte, 652

Secretary of State for War y Chubb, 671
McKenzie v Yabsley, 807

Shirehampton Gas Co., Re, 161
Macquaid v Robson, 212

Shirreff (deceased), In re ; Keighley v Shir.

McStephens v Carnegie, 385

refr, 109

Madick v Marks, 610

Sidebotham, Ex parte, 554

Marris y Ingram, 144

Simpson, Davies, & Sons' Application, In re,

March v Martin, 484

625

Marsden v Sambell, 316, 707

“Sir Robert Peel," The, 744

Martano v Mann, 505

Skerne Ironworks Co., Re, 161

Mash v Eads, 127

Slade v Tucker, 506

Mason, Ex parte, 384, 421

Smith, In re, 66
-- v Brentini, 743

- V Anderson, 726

Massam v J. W. Thorley's Cattle Food Co., - v Davy, 308

505

- v Robinson, 47

Max v Hains, 807

Snell, Ex parte, 521

Megson v Hindle, 689

Spicer v Margato, Mayor of, 821

Mellor, In re, 250

Solicitor, A, In re, 365

Metcalfe's Estate, Re, 20

Standish v Taylor, 309

Metropolitan Asylums District Board v Hill, Stapleford Collieries Co., In re, 537

580

Steel v Dixon, 631

Metropolitan Bank, In re, 537

Steggles (deceased), Re; Steggles v Haslam,
- v Hieron, 779

212
Metropolitan Board of Works v Hammer. Stein v Stephen, 234
smith Bridge Co., 272

Stewart and Brother, In re, 273

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

Middlesborough Assembly Rooms Co., In re, Sundale Banking Co., In re, 761
405

Swansea, Corporation of, v Quick, 163
Millard v Burroughs, 127, 162

Symmons, Ex parte, 609
Mills v Jennings, 236

Tafft y Whinney, 236

Mitchell v Henry, 522, 689

Taylor v Grange, 651

Moir y Paddon, 900

Thomas v Williams, 539

Molloy v Kilby, 610

Thompson, In re, 464

Morris, Re, 690

- V Wilding, 484
Morton and Hallett, In re, 555

Tilney v Stansfield, 506

Mullins v Treasurer for County of Surrey,339 Tonkinson y Cartledge, 727

Mundy v Asprey, 213

Tottenham Local Board v Rowell, 744

Mutual Society, In re, 46

Trotter y Maclean, 145

Mycock v Beatson, 161

Union Bank of Kingston-upon-Hull, Re, 316

National Mercantile Bank, Ex parte, 504 Union Bank of London v Manby, 29

v Hampson, 328

Von Heyden v Neustadt, 385

Nelson, Ex parté, 364

Waller v Tanqueray, 465

- v Dahl, 126

Ward, Ex parte, 743

Nevill v Snelling, 781

--- v Eyre, 537

Newbiggin Gas Co. V Armstrong, 126

- v Ward, 523

Newent Coal and Iron Co, In re, 927

Watson v Gray, 381

Nicholson, Ex parte, 404

Wayne's Merthyr Co. v Powell's Duffryn

Norrington, In re, 143

Steam Coal Co., 780

North Buckley Colliery and Fire Brick Co. Webster v British Empire Mutual Life As.

(Limited), 835

surance Co., 213, 630

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

v Whewall, 707

Nurse v Durnford, 88

Wedderburn v Pickering, 120

Orr Ewing v Johnstone, 67, 232

Wegmann v Corcoran, 46

Osborne v Rowlett, 271

Werner v Beyer, 860

Palmer v Locke, 744

Westminster Association (Limited) v tp.

- v Neal, 820

ward, 690

Pannell y Nunn, 727

Wheal Unity Wood Mining Co., In re, 537

Parnell, Ex parte, 125

Wheeler y Owen, 441

Phillips v Llanover, 144

White, Ex parte, 249
Piercy v Young, 144

Whitmore v Farley, 691
Pike v Fitz-Gibbon, 523

Wilkinson v Blenkinsop, 405

Pitt v Jones, 651

Williamg v Daniel, 745

Pooley y Whetham, 74, 876

- Tenby, Mayor of, 162

Prince Henry LXIV. of Reuss Kortritz, In! | Willis v Leamington, Mayor of, 859
the Goods of, 273, 299

Willmott v Barber, 072

Probyn, Ex parte, 344

Wilson y Lord Bury, 781

Putman v Home Hospitals Association, 108 - V Emmerson, 328

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

re, 365

Witham v Vane, 612

Raines v Raines, 727

Woodgate v Watson, 47

Rainforth, In re, 106

Woods, In re, 233

Ranby, Ex parte, 600

Worms v De Valdor, 271, 653

Rawlins, In re, 484

Worthington & Co., In re; Ex partc Bass, 326

Raynor v Preston, 480

Yeatman v Snow, 572

Real and Personal Advance Co. v McCarthy, Yorkshire Wagon Co. v Newport, &c., Coal

Co., 386, 549

317

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 practi-
Mr. 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 neces-

LONDON 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 re-

cent 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 por-

forwarded 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

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 »