Page images
PDF
[ocr errors]

REPORTER.

VOLUME XXIV,

1879-80.

NOVEMBER 1, 1879, TO OCTOBER 30, 1880.

LONDON: 52, CAREY STREET, W.C.

1880.

YATES k ALEXANDER,
printers,

LONSDALE BUILDINGS, CHANCERY LANE, W.C. NAMES OP CASES DISCUSSED IN THIS VOLUME.

[ocr errors]

London (Corporation of) v Biggs, M. R. 671
Lowrey v Barker, C. A. 570
Massam v J. W. Thorley's. Cattle Food Co.,
C. A. 818

Matthiesen v London and County Bank,

C. P. D. 216 lliddloton v Simpson, C. P. D. 626 Murray v Milner, Ch. D. 102 National Mercantile Bank v Hampson,

Q. B. D. 607 Neale v Clarke, Ex. D. 210 Norrington, In re, Brindley v Partridge,

C.A. 686

Nottingham Guardians vToinkinson, C. P. D. 402

Nowell v Williams, 82

O'Mahoney v Burdett, H. L. 635

Osborne v Rowlett, M. R. 688 K '

"Parlement Beige," The, C. A. 607 *

Parry v Smith, C. P. D. 103.

Phillipps v London and South-Western Railway Co., C. A. 341

Porter v Drew, C. P. D. 619 •

Portman v Home Hospitals' Association, M. R. 102

Rainbow v Juggins, C. A. 792

Reed v Harvey, Q. B. D. 570

Reg. v Griffin, C. C. R. (Ir.) 112

Reg. v Hughes, C. C. B. 122
Renals v Cowlishaw, C. A. 45
Roussillon v Roussillon, Fry, J., 687
Rutherford, In re. Brown v Rutherford,
C. A.742

Saffron Walden Building Society v Raynor,
C. A.891

Simm v Anglo-American Telegraph Co., C. A. 453

Smee v Smee, Pr. D. 668

South-Eastern Railway Co. v Railway Commissioners, Q. B. D. 481

Spencer v Harrison, C. P. D. 831

8taples T Young, Ex. D. 210

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

Sykes v Beadon, C. A. 719

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

Thacker v Hardy, C. A. 268

Thorley's (J. W.) Cattle Food Co. v Massam, C A 818

Thomas v Williams, C. A. 818

Wilmott v Barton, Ch. D. 911

Wilson v Wallani, Ex. D. 663

Woodhouse v Walker, Q. B. D. 722

Worthington 4 Co., In re, C. A. 322

Yorkshire Banking Co. v Beatson, C. A. 606

Yorkshire Wagon Co. v Newport, Ac., Co., Q. B. D. 549

NAMES OP CASES REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME.

Cocxtt Corais.

Ashford Fira Engine Association v Richard-
son, 31
Barker v Heaton, 391
Bradburn v Haddon, 201
Dawson v Worth, 809
Dormer v Mott (Mayor's Court), 197
Dovenor v Hurst and Co., 711
Drake v Holmes, 230
Fawcett v Glosaop, 781
Foster v Bcntley, 130
Gee and Brook, Re, 512
Keighley, Re, 161
Leathlcy v Hodgson. 015

'1 Society v Hartley, 929

Pickcrsgill v Hastings, 633, 665
Rhodes v Taylor, 131
Salter v Brooks, 03
Tattersfleld, Re, 631
Wordsworth v Webster, 512

Election- Peiitio.vs.

Bewdley, 676
Evesham, 595
Hereford, 695
Knaresborough, 717
Nottingham, 075
Sandwich, 783
Towkesbury, 617
Wallingford, 616
Westbury, 670

QUARTER SESSIOSS."

Beg. v Latter, 711

Solicitous' Cases. Blake, Charles, In re, 314 Cavo, Re, 633 Davidson, In re, 236 Day, William, Be, 408, 627 Hoey, In re (Ir.), 768 Miller v Davies, 63 Pettingill, James, Ra. 350 Philp, W. R., In re, 655, 675 Reg. v Collette, 407 Robinson, Re, 691 Roche, C. M., In re, 190 Solicitor, A, In tho Matter of, 34, 61, 73, 129, 365, 611, 695,633, 711,747, 769

NOTES OF CASES OF THE WEEK.

Abbott, Ex parte, 764
Andrews v Andrews, 67
Argles and Rawlins, In re, 234
Arkwright v Newbold, 630
Artistic Colour Printing Company (Limited),
In re. 411

Armitage v Elworthy, 20

Arnold v Arnold, 481

Ashworth v Munn, 701

Anken v Woodbcad, 315

Attorney-Gcueral v Birmingham, Borough of, 727

v Leeds, Mayor of, 639

v Tomline, 251, 381, 610

v Weguelin, 309

Austin v Mead, 69

Automatic Button Company, In re, 136
Avoland, Lord, v Lucas, 67
Baghott v Norman, 290
Bagshaw, Ex parte, 125
Baker v Baker, 111, 070

v Sebright, 66

Banco de Portugal, Ex parte, 325

v Waddcll, 102

Bane and others, In tho Matter of, 127
BaUanl v Shutt, 707

Banque Franco-Egyptienno v Lutscher, 89
Barker v Hemming, 779
Barrow-in-Furness and Northern Counties

Land, Ac., Co., In re, 42)
Baylev, Ex parte, 728
Bcal, Ex parte, 521
Beancy v Elliott, 690
Berkeley v Standard Discount Co., 29
Bewley v Atkinson, 125

Bishop, Ex parte, 632, 726
Blackmoro v Edwards, 67
Blcnkiosop, Re, 105
Blight v Hartmill, 235
Blyth, In re, 212
Bolckow 4 Co. v Keeble, 47
Boyes v Cook, 381
Bozward v Stallard, 762
Bragenton v Yates, 500, 711
Bright, In re, 108
Brown v Lomas, 538

v Rutherford, 672

Button v Woolwich Mutual Building Society, 48

Bunting v Sargent, 47
Burton, Ex parte, 46
Butters, Ex parte, 183
Buxton, Ex parte, 743

Camberwell Building Society v Holloway, 89
Canadian Land, &c, Company, In re, 271
Canadian Land Reclaiming, &c., Society, In

ro, 622 Carlyon v Haywood, 807 Carr v Metropolitan Board of Works, 239 "Cartsburn," The, 249 Cave v Cavo, 606, 612

Chapman v Midland Railway Company, 328 Chepstow Steam-boat Carrying Company

(Limited), In re, 869 Chorlton v Dickie, 89 Christio v Nobb, 485 v Sanaberg, 763

City and Comity Investment Company, In ro, 83

"City of Manchester," The, SOS

Collins v Welch, 67
Conybeare v Lewis, 250
Cooper, In re, 273

v Whittingham, 610

Corbett, Ex parte, 315

Costa Rica, The Republic of, V Strousberg, 761

Cowdcray v Brooks, 106
Cox v Willoughby, 290
Crawford v Toogood, 67
Cross v Lyon, 290
Cruse v Smith, 28
Cummins v Fletcher, 610
Cusel v Bashford, 89
Dallas v Bagholt, 127
D'Angibau, In re, 422, 705

In re; Andrews v Andrews, 67

Davcy, In re, and tho Railway Passengers'

Assurance Company, 328 Davios v Goodman, 109, 405

, Ex parte, 307

v Artinstall 523

Davis v Davis, 272

v Davis, 317

Dawson v Clever, 701

De Berguo v Do Bergue, 28

De Chatonvillo, Ex parte, 689

Denco v Mason, 68, 100

De Oloaga v West Cumberland Iron ami

Steel Co., 28
Diamond Fuel Co., In re, 106
Dicks v Brooks, 212
Dix v Groom, 309
Dodso v Brown, 103
Dodsou v Martin, 672

Dorsett, In re, 706

Do*nes v Hughes and Co. (Limited), 663

Dronfleld Silkstone Coal Co. (Limited), In

re, 465

Drover v Beyer, 66, 88

Ducey, Ex parte, 23.1

Duko 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, 317, 364

Economic Benefit Building Society (Official

Liquidator of), v Swift, 638

Edwards v Bingham, 80

Ellen v Slack, 280

Emma Silver Mining Co. v Grant, 763

Esdaile v Visser, 211

Evans, Ex parto, 87, 233

Ewen, Ex parte, 107

Exhibition, 1851, Commissioners of, v Royal

Horticultural Society, Oil, 673

Faircloth, In ro, 136

Falk, Ex parte, 654

Fane v Fane, 89

Fardon's Vinegar Co, Ex parte, 505

Famey v Farney, 607

Financial Corporation (Limited), In re, 523

Flower v Duller, 739, 746

Fowler v Murray, 127

Freeman v Freshwater, 820
Fri h House Paper Mills Co. (Limited), He,
690

Fritz v Hobson, 306, 690
Frodsham v Frodsham, 762
Fyfe, Ro, 404
Gai.dy v Reddaway, 808
Giiskin v Balls, 126
Gathercole v Smith, 030
General Meat Supply Association v Bouffler,
107

Ginesi v Cooper, 365

Gledhill v Hunter, 365

Godden v Coraten, 128

Good, Ex parte, 403

Goodwin, Ro (deceased); Harris v George,

141

Goodwin v Venning, 690

Gothard v Clark, 507

Grant, Ex parte, 308

Greaves v Tofield, 622

Green v Sevin, 145

Greener, Ex parte, 763

Greenough v Littler, 272

Griffin, Ex parte, 364

Griffiths, In ro; Tate v Rolls, 761

Grugin v Grope, 88

Guardian Fire and Life Assuranco Co. v

Guardian and General Insurance Co.

(Limited), 671

Hall, Ex parte, 340

Hallett, In re, 288

Harding v Williams, 441

Hardingham v Rowan, 309

Harnett v Vise, 701

Harris, Re; Jackson v Governors of Queen

Anno's Bounty, 728

Hart v Hawthorn, 309

Hartridge v Hartridgo, 405

Harvey (otherwise Farnic) v Farnie, 607

Hawkins v Hawkins, 250

Hawksley v Bradshuw, 127

Hayes v Booth, 652

Hedley v Bates, 218

Henderson v Ray, 071

Henford's Trusts, In rc, 48

Hemming, Ex parte, 100

Herring v Erie Railway Co., 69o
Hewett v Hansel, 486
Hill v Kirkwood, 3119
Hull Central Drapery Co., In rc, 780
Hull and County Bank, In re, 106
Hyam v Terry, 808
Jackson, Ex parte, 670 v Wood, 383

Jacobs v Browse Island Guano Co. (Lim-
ited), 820

Jacobson v St. Pancras Vestry, 234

Jenkins v Morris, 422

Jewell, Ex parte, 107

Jewett v McHenry, 60

John Harvey Yacht, Ac., Co., Re, 80*

Johnson, Re; Shearman v Robinson, 723

Johnson v Egan, 672

Jones v Baxter, 638

v Jones, 109

v Rimmer, 689

Jupps v Pritchard, 84H

Kelly v Byles, 288

■' Khodivc," The, 40

Kilner, Ex parte, 87

Kinloch v Secretary of State for India, 161

Kinsman v Jackson, 271, 600

Kirkham v Peel, 7011

Labouehere v Wharncliffe, 103

Lacey v Hill, 234

Lamplough v Beedzler, 672

Langley, Ex parte, 65

Lawrence's Trusts, In re, 807

Lawrie v Lees, 464

Learoyd, Ex parte, 233

Leavitt v Williams, 707

Leggott v Barrett, 761

Leigh v Patten, 555

Lcvick's Trusts, Re, 144

Levy v Lovell, 304

Lightfoot, Re, 807

Linney v Wood, 273

Lloyds v Harjier 260, 272

Logg, In re, 125

Lomnx's Arbitration, In re, 385
London, Mayor of, v Riggs, 327
London and County Banking Co. v Ratcliffe,
•120

London Joint Stock Bank v London, Cor-
poration of, 4G3

London and Suburban Building Co.
(Limited) v Field, 485

Long v Crossley, 162

Longden v Sheffield Deposit Bank, 913

Lovesoy v Smith, 691

Lucas v Cooke, 328

McCulloch, Ex parto, 652

McKenzio v Yabsley, 807

Macquaid v Robson, 212

McStephens v Carnegie, 385

Madick v Marks, 010

Marris v Ingram, 141

March v Martin, 484

Marsden v Sambcll, 346, 707

Martano v Mann, 605

Mash v Eads, 127

Mason, Ex parte, 384, 421

v Brentini, 743

Massam v J. W. Thorley's Cattlo Food Co.,
505

Max v Hains, 807
Megson v Hlndlo, 689
Mcllor, In rc, 260
Metcalfe's Estate, Ho, 20
Metropolitan Asylums District Board v Hill,
680

Metropolitan Bank, In re, 537 v Hieron, 770

Metropolitan Board of Works v Hammer-
smith Bridge Co., 272
Mid-Cornwall Colliery Co. (Limited), 835
Middlesborough Assembly Rooms Co., In re,
405

Millard v Burroughs, 127,102

Mills v Jennings, 236

Mitchell v Henry, 522, 680

Moir v Paddon, 000

Molloy v Kilby, 610

Morris, Re, 600

Morton and Hallett, In re, 555

Mullins v Treasurer for County of Surrey,328

Mundy v Asprey, 213

Mutual Society, In re, 46

Mycock v Beatson, 101

National Mercantile Bank, Ex parte, 504

—— v Hampson, 328

Nelson, Ex parte, 364

v Dahl, 120

Nevill v Snelling, 781

Newbiggin Gas Co. v Armstrong, 120

Nowent Coal and Iron Co, In re, 027

Nicholson, Ex parte, 404

Norrington, In re, 143

North Buckley Colliery and Fire Brick Co.

(Limited), 835

Northern Counties of England Fire IiiBUr-

ance Co , 127

Nurse v Dumford, 8S

Orr Ewing v Johnstone, 07, 232

Osborne v Rowlett, 271

Palmer v Locke, 744

v Neal, 820

I'annell v Nnnn, 727

Parncll, Ex parte, 125

Phillips v Llanover, 144

Piercy v Young, 144

Pike v Fitz-Gibbon, 623

Pitt v Jones, 651

Pooley v Whetham. 744, 876

Prince Henry LXIV. of Reuse Kortritz, In

the Goods of, 273, 200

Probyn, Ex parte, 344

Pntman v Home Hospitals Association, 108

ftuihvny Accident Mutual Assurance Co., In

re, 3B5

Raines v Raines, 727

Riiinforth, In rc, 100

Knnby, Ex parte, 600

Kawlms, In ro, 481

Kuynor v Preston, 485

Real and Personal Advance Co. V McCarthy,
347

Rees v Metropolitan Board of Works, 465
Reg. v Reed, Sir Charles, 761

• v Wiltshire Justices, 014

Renshaw v Renshaw, 212

Richards v Peilo Tin Plate Company, 900

Richardson Re ; Richardson v Richards, 611

Rigby v Connol, 327

Roberts, In re, 364

Roberts', David, Estate, Re; Silverton v

Roberts, 848

Robertson v Bellew, 850

Robins v Maclean, 465

Rogers, Ex parte, 704

Rokeby, Lord, v Elliot, 144

Rolls v St. George's Vestry, 213, 620

Ross V Semple, 848

Rotherham's Trade Mark, In re, 538

Roussillon v Roussillon, 320

Rowc, Re; Clifton v Wilson, 745

Rowney v Alder, 807

Royal Baking Powder Co., In re, 384

Russell v Russell, 280

Ruston v Loader, 808

Saffron Waldeu Building Society v Rayner,
484

Savage, Rc, "Gl

Sawyer v Sawyer, 830

Seear v Lawson, 713

Secretary of State for War v Chubb, 071

Shirehampton Gas Co., Re, 161

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

reft, 100
Sidebotham, Ex parte, 651
Simpson, Davies, & Sons' Application, Iu rc,

625

"Sir Robert Peel," The, 744
Skerne Ironworks Co., Re, 101
Slade v Tucker, 506
Smith, In re, 66

V Anderson, 726

v Davy, 308

v Robinson, 47

Snell, Ex parte, 521
Spicer v Margate, Mayor of, 821
Solicitor, A, In re, 365
Standish v Taylor, 300
Stapleford Collieries Co., In re, 537
Steel v Dixon, 631

Steggles (deceased), Rc; Steggles v Haslam,
212

Stein v Stephen, 231

Stewart and Brother, In re, 273

Stewart v Stewart, 663, 672

Sundalc Banking Co., In re, 761

Swansea, Corporation of, v Quick, 163

Svmnions, Ex parte, 600

Tufft v Whinney, 231

Taylor v Grange, 661

Thomas v Williams, 530

Thompson, In re, 464

v Wilding, 484

Tilney v Stansfield, 606

Tonkinson v Cartledge, 727

Tottenham Local Board v Rowell, 741

Trotter v Maclean, 145

Union Bank of Kingston-upon-Hnll, Re, 31(1

Union Bank of London v Manby, 20

Von Heyden v Neustadt, 385

Waller v Tanqueray, 465

Ward, Ex parte, 713

v Eyre, 637

v Ward, 623

Watson v Gray, 381

Wayne's Mcrthyr Co. v Powell's DufTryu
Steam Coal Co., 780

Webster v British Empire Mutual Life As-
surance Co., 213, 630

v Chattcrton 100

v Whewall, 707

Weddorburn v Pickering, 126

Wegmann v Corcoran, 40

Werner v Beyer, 860

Westminster Association (Limited) v Up«

ward, 690

Wheal Unity Wood Mining Co., In re, 537

Wheeler v Owen, 441

White, Ex parte, 219

Whitmore v Farley, 691

Wilkinson v Blenkinsop, 405

W'illiams v Daniel, 745

v Tenby, Mayor of, 162

Willis v Leamington, Mayor of, 859
Willmott v Barbor, 072
Wilson v Lord Bury, 761

v Emmerson, 328

Wise v Piper, 213

Witham v Vane, 612

Woodgate v Wntson, 47

Woods, In re, 233

Worms V De Valdor, 271, 0."1

Worthington & Co.,'In rc; Ex parte Bass, 320

Yeatman v Snow, 572

Yorkshire Wagon Co. v Newport, ic, Cool

Co., 386, 510

SOLICITORS' JOUMAL.

[merged small][merged small][subsumed][graphic][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Thi Act for the formation of the Central Office of the Supreme Court came into operation on Tuesday last, but hitherto no change has been made in the arrangements of the legal offices. Everything is kept in abeyance until the issue of the rules, which are to be made by the judges under the Act. The scope of these rules is so extensive that extreme care is essential to prevent confusion, and it is not surprising that considerable time should bo required for their preparation. We hear that they are is progress, but no date has yet been specified for their

The Inconvenience we pointed out some months ago (23 Solicitors' Journal, 693) in connection with the purchase of Judicature stamps, has recently beeu aggravated by an edict of the Inland Revenue Commissioners abolishing the commission formerly allowed to law stationers and others licensed to sell stamps. The majority of these persons have now given up keeping stamps for sale except as a matter of convenience to their regular customers. Practically, therefore, there is no place but the single room in the Royal Courts of Justice, and Somerset House, at which practitioners can obtain Judicature stamps. It is hardly necessary to point out the waste of time and annoyance caused to the profession by the change; and, moreover, the position in the Royal Courts of Justice of the stamp room is very ill-contrived. For instance, in setting down a cause in the Chancery Cause Books the solicitor finds these books in a room at one end of the building, and has to go to the other end of the building and down stairs into the basement, before he can obtain the necessary stamp. The same inconvenience, considerably aggravated, applies in the case of solicitors doing business in the aerial offices of the Chancery Taxing Masters, and in this latter case the solicitor does not necessarily know beforehand the amount of the requisite stamps.

Mr. Watxln Williams, Q.O., in a letter published in the Times this week, roundly accuses the recent Copyright Commissioners (among whom were such distinguished lawyers as Mr. Justice Stephen and Mr. Herschell, Q.C.) of having misinterpreted the Copyright Act, 1862, with reference to photographic copyright. He contends that the copyright in photographic portraits does not belong to the sitter unless the sitter expressly stipulates for the purchase of the negative. He says, "The issne in each case is brought back to this simple question of fact, whether, when the original photograph was ordered and the price agreed 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 question is not that which he states, but whether the negative has been, in the words of section 1 of the Act, "made or executed for or on behalf of any other person [than the photographer] for a good and valuable consideration;" and if it has beon so made or executed the Act vests the copyright in that person and not in the photographer, although the photographer may still remain the owner of the negative. If this is not so, to what conceivable case do the words to which we have referred relate? Do they relate, as Mr. Watkin Williams

« PreviousContinue »