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 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 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 Sykes v Beadon, C. A. 719 Taylor v McKeand & Co., C. P. D. 607 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 ELECTION PETITIONS. Bewdley, 676 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 QUARTER SESSIONS. SOLICITORS' CASES. 365, 541, 695, 633, 711, 747, 709 NOTES OF CASES OF CASES OF THE WEEK. Abbott, Es parte, 762 Collins v Welch, 67 Conybeare v Lewis, 250 Cooper, In re, 273 v Whittingham, 610 Artistic Colour Printing Company (Limited), Blyth, In re, 212 Corbett, Es parte, 345 Costa Rica, The Republic of, v Strousberg, 761 Cowderay v Brooks, 406 Cox v Willoughby, 290 Crawford v Toogood, 67 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 Dallas v Bagholt, 127 D'Angibau, In re, 422, 705 -- 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 Canadian Land, &c., Davies v Goodman, 109, 405 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 De Bergue v De Bergue, 28 Dence v Mason, 66, 106 De Oleaga v West Cumberland Iron and Steel Co., 28 Diamond Fuel Co., In re, 106 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 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 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 East Pant Du Lead Mining Co, In re, 859 Leigh v Patten, 555 Roberts, 848 Robertson v Bellew, 859 Robins v Maclean, 465 Rogers, Ex parte, 704 Rokeby, Lord, v Elliot, 144 Rolls v St. George's Vestry, 213, 629 Ross v Semple, 818 Rotherham's Trade Mark, In re, 538 Roussillon v Roussillon, 329 London and County Banking Co. v Ratcliffe, Rowe, Re; Clifton v Wilson, 745 Ewen, Ex parte, 107 420 Rowney v Alder, 807 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 Longden v Sheffield Deposit Bank, 013 Savage, Re, 764 Sawyer v Sawyer, 836 Seear v Lawson, 743 Secretary of State for War v Chubb, 671 Shirehampton Gas Co., Re, 161 Shirreff (deceased), In re ; Keighley v Shir. Fri h House Paper Mills Co. (Limited), Re, McStephens v Carnegie, 385 reff, 109 Sidebotham, Ex parte, 564 Simpson, Davies, & Sons' Application, In re, 625 Fyfe, Re, 464 Marsden y Sambell, 316, 707 " Sir Robert Peel," The, 744 Skerne Ironworks Co., Re, 161 Slade v Tucker, 506 Smith, In re, 66 v Anderson, 726 107 Massam v J. W. Thorley's Cattle Food Co., v Davy, 308 Ginesi v Cooper, 365 505 v Robinson, 47 Snell, Ex parte, 521 Spicer v Margate, Mayor of, 821 Solicitor, A, In re, 365 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 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 Tafst v Whinney, 234 Taylor v Grange, 651 Guardian and General Insurance Co. Moir v Paddon, 900 Thomas v Williams, 539 Thompson, In re, 464 v Wilding, 484 Tilney v Stansfield, 508 Mullins v Treasurer for County of Surrey,320 Tonkinson v Cartledge, 727 Tottenham Local Board v Rowell, 74 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 Waller v Tanqueray, 465 Ward, Ex parte, 743 v Eyre, 537 - v Ward, 523 Watson v Gray, 381 Wayne's Merthyr Co. v Powell's Duffryn 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 Wedderburn v Pickering, 126 Wegmann v Corcoran, 46 Werner v Beyer, 860 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 White, Ex parte, 240 Whitmore v Farley, 691 Wilkinson v Blenkinsop, 405 Williams v Daniel, 745 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 Willmott v Barber, 072 Wilson v Lord Bury, 781 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 Woodgate v Watson, 47 Woods, In re, 233 Worms v De Valdor, 271, 653 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 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. |