Page images

(i.) Ch. D.-Consent Order-Counsel's Authority-Mistake.—Where

counsel, being authorised by his client to consent to an order, by mistake agrees to terms which are not according to his client's intention, the client may withdraw his consent before the order is drawn up.-Lewis v.

Lewis, 63 L.T. 84. (ii.) Q. B. D.-Counsel— Right to be Heard by-Gas Companies Acts Amend.

ment Act, 1880, ss. 10, 12.-The chief gas examiner of the metropolitan district has a discretion as to whether he will or will not hear counsel upon an appeal to him by a gas company.--Reg. v. Williamson, 59 L.J.

Q.B. 493 ; 38 W.R. 769. (iii.) H. L.-Discovery-Privileged DocumentsInterrogatories.- Decision of

C. A. (see Vol. 15, p. 16, iii.) affirmed.—Morris v. Edwards, 63 L.T. 26. (iv.) P.D.- Divorce-Variation of Settlement-Service of Petition.—The Court

dispensed with service of a petition for variation of a marriage settle. ment in a case where both the respondent and the surviving trustee of the settlement were uncertificated bankrupts, and where notice of the application to dispense with service had been given to the Chief Official

Receiver in bankruptcy.-Snelling v. Snelling, 63 L.T. 263. (v.) P. D.-Judicial Separation-Custody of Child, Interim Order.-On

an ex parte application by a wife, a petitioner for a judicial separation, and on affidavit by her that she believed that her husband intended to remove the only child of the marriage out of the jurisdiction, the Court made an interim order, restraining him from removing the child.

-Harris v. Harris, 63 L.T. 262. (vi.) C. A.-Evidence-Admiralty ActionMatter of Nautical Skill.-In

Admiralty actions, when the Court is assisted by nautical assessors, evidence as to matters of nautical skill is not admissible; and hence, where in an action for damage to cargo the Judge found on the advice of his nautical assessors that all screw alleys, however well-made, may emit smells which may damage sensitive cargo, the Court of Appeal, being assisted by nautical assessors, refused to allow the shipowners to give evidence to shew that the particular screw alley in question did not emit any such smell, on the ground that it was a question of nautical

skill about which no evidence could be given.-The Assyrian, 69 L.T. 91. (vii.) Ch. D.-Ev parte InjunctionDissolution-Undertaking-Non-compli

ance.-The Court declined to hear an ex parte motion to dissolve an ex parte injunction. Plaintiff obtained an ex parte injunction on Saturday on condition of adding a party as plaintiff for the purpose of his counsel giving the usual undertaking as to damages. The writ was not amended till the following Tuesday, whilst a motion was being made to dissolve the injunction. The Court dissolved the injunction on the ground that plaintiff had not complied with the condition on which it was granted, whereby defendant had been with. out the protection of the undertaking as to damages.-Spanish General

Agency Corporation v. Spanish Corporation, 63 L.T. 161. (viii.) C. A.-Letters of Request.-An order for letters of request to issue to

a foreign court can only be made where it is sought to examine witnesses under the order, and there is no jurisdiction to make such an order where production of documents only is asked for.-Cape Copper Co. v.

Comptoir d'Escompte de Paris, 38 W.R. 763. (ix.) Ch. D.-Mandatory Injunction, Restoration of Fence.-In an action

to restrain the defendant, a person in a humble position in life, from permitting certain fences to remain broken down and removed, the Court ordered the defendant to restore and replace such fences, instead of making a negative order restraining him from permitting them to remain broken down and removed.-Bidwell v. Holden, 63 L.T. 104.

(i.) C. A. & Q. B. D.-Official Referee-Power to set aside Findings

JudgmentR.S.C., 1883, 7. xxxvi., r. 52.—Where an official referee has ordered judgment to be entered for one party, and it has been entered accordingly, the Court has power, not only to set aside the findings of the referee, but also to enter judgment for the other party.- Clark v. Sonnenschein, L.R. 25 Q.B.D. 226 & 464 ; 59 L.J.Q.B. 461 ; 62 L.T. 880;

38 W.R. 717 & 743. (ii.) Ch. D.-PartiesRepresentation— ForeclosureR.S.C., 1883, 0. xvi.,

r. 9.-In a foreclosure action an order had been made authorising two of a large class of persons, all having the same interest in the equity of redemption, to defend the action on behalf of and for the benefit of the others. Held, that a foreclosure order could not be made unlegs all the parties interested in the equity of redemption were parties to

the action.-Griffith v. Pound, 59 L.J. Ch. 522. (iii.) Ch. D.-Parties-Trade Mark-Infringement.-H. agreed to consign

his wine for sale in the United Kingdom exclusively to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sued to restrain the defendants from using a colourable imitation of H.'s trade mark. Held, that the plaintiffs had no interest in the trade mark, and could not maintain the action. Leave given to amend by making the owner of the trade mark plaintiff.-Richards and

Co. v. Butcher & Robinson, 62 L.T. 867. (iv.) Ch.D.-Patent- Petition for Revocation Transfer--R.S.C., 1883, 0.xlix,

r. 3.—The Chancery Division will order a transfer of a petition for the revocation of a patent to the Queen's Bench Division to be heard by the Judge at the same time as an action for damages before a Judge and jury arising out of the same subject matter.-In re Edge's Patent,

38 W.R. 698. (v.) Ch. D.-Petition-Sale- Minerals-Confirmation of Sales Act, 1862.

Petition by trustees with an absolute power of sale for the sanction of the Court to the sale of minerals apart from the surface. The beneficiaries, who were all infants, were not parties. The Court made the order without directing service on the beneficiaries.-In re

Wadsworth's Trust, 63 L.T. 217. (vi.) P.D. - Probate-Interest, Legitimacy.-In a probate suit, where the

real question in dispute was the defendant's legitimacy, the plaintiff moved to strike out the statement of defence. Held, that the matter was too serious to be decided on motion.-In the goods of Harrington,

63 L.T. 238. (vii.) P.D.—Queen's Proctor-Costs.—Where a husband had paid into Court

money to meet his wife costs of a divorce suit, the decree nisi in which had been rescinded on the intervention of the Queen's Proctor, on the ground of collusion, the Court ordered the money to be paid out to the Queen's Proctor in part payment of his costs.—Butler v. Butler,

L.R. 15 P.D. 161. (vjii.) Ch. D.--Service- Company-Service on SolicitorsCompanies Act,

1862, ss. 35, 62.-Motion to rectify the register of members of a company. The notice of motion was served on the company's solicitors, who accepted service on behalf of the company in the usual way. At the hearing the company did not appear. Held, that the service was not sufficient, and that no order could be made until the company itself had been served at its registered office, or until it appeared.-In re The

Denver United Breweries Co., 63 L.T. 96. (ix.) Ch. D.-Third Party Procedure-Originating Summons--R.S.C., 1883,

0. xvi., r. 48 ; 0. lv., rr. 3, 4, 5, 6.—The third party rules are not intended to apply to the procedure directed for originating summonses,

and the relief to be obtained thereby, and the Court has no power to give a defendant to an originating summons leave to issue a third-party

notice.-A.-G. v. Woodall, 63 L.T. 100. (i.) C. A.-Venue-Convenience.—Where the Judge of the Probate

Division had changed the venue of a probate case from the assizes to Middlesex, on the ground that it could not conveniently bə heard at the assizes, the Court of Appeal, on consultation with the Judge appointed to preside at the assizes in question, found that the Judge of the Probate Division had been under a misapprehension in supposing that it could not conveniently be heard there, and ordered

that it should be so heard.— Jackson v. Braithwaite, 63 L.T. 231. (ii.) Ch. D.-Writ-Service--Partnership-Dissolution-Foreign Partner.

ship.-For the purposes of service under Ord. 9, r. 6, and Ord. 16, r. 14, a partnership which has been dissolved before the commencement of the action without the plaintiff's knowledge, must be treated as still subsisting. Service on one partner when within the jurisdiction effected under either branch of Ord. 9, r. 6, is good service on all the partners, although the partnership is a foreign one and all the partners reside and are domiciled out of the jurisdiction.-Shepherd v. Hirsch & Co.,

38 W.R. 745. (iii.) Q. B. D.-Writ-Renewal-Writ Issued before Judicature Act

R.S.C., 1883, 0. viii., r. 1.-A writ issued before the Judicature Act,
1875, came into operation cannot be renewed without the leave required
by Ord. 8, r. 1.-Hume v. Somerton, L.R. 25 Q.B.D. 239; 59 L.J.Q.B. 420 ;
62 L.T. 828; 38 W.R. 748.
See Patent, p. 16, iv.

Prescription :(iv.) C. A.--Copyhold-Profit à Prendre-Fishing-User-Enfranchisement

-Prescription Act, ss. 1, 4.- Decision of Ch. D. (see Vol. 15, p. 92, iv.) affirmed.—Tilbury v. Silva, 63 L.T. 141.

Principal and Agent:(v.) Ch. D.-Action against Agent— Parties.-Action against the Agent

General of a Colonial Government by the equitable assignees of persons who had entered into a contract with the Government, claiming relief in respect of a sum which the plaintiffs alleged had been received by the defendant from the Government as trustee for the plaintiffs, and afterwards in breach of trust repaid by him to the Government. The money had been deposited in the personal name of the defendant, and the plaintiffs contended that he was therefore personally liable for it. The Government was not made a party to the action. Held, that the defendant was only an agent, and could not constitute himself a trustee against his principals; and that the question could not therefore be tried in the absence of the Government, the plaintiff's case being that there was a trust which the Government could not intercept.-Wright

v. Mills, 63 L.T. 186. (vi.) Q. B. D.-Bribery of Agent-Remedies of Principal.- Where an agent

is bribed to induce his principal to pay a price for goods bought from the briber which is above the market price, the principal has two distinct causes of action. He may sue the agent for the amount of the bribes received by him, and he may also sue the agent and the briber, either jointly or severally, for damages for the loss occasioned by their joint fraud. In an action against the briber the defendant is not

entitled to rely apon an agreement between the principal and his agent, the effect of which is to discharge the agent from his liabilities.Mayor, &c., of Salford v. Lever, L.R. 25 Q.B.D. 384 ; 59 L.J. Q.B. 483 ; 38 W.R. 771.

Railway :-
(i.) Ch. D.-Debentures-Gross Receipts—Working Expenses-Hire of

Rolling Stock-Railway Companies Act, 1867, s. 4.-A railway company,
under the powers of their special Act, constituted a certain loop line a
separate undertaking, with a separate capital in guaranteed and deben-
ture stocks. The company were to work the loop line; the dividends
on the separate capital being guaranteed by the tolls arising from the
company's general traffic over it; the company was to pay a daily sum on
account of such tolls to trustees for the guaranteed and debenture stock.
holders; and all sums so payable were to be payable out of, and
charged upon, the " gross receipts" arising from the traffic passing
over both the loop line and any other line of the company. A judgment
creditor of the company, for a debt due ander an agreement for the
hire of rolling stock, obtained the appointment of a receiver and
manager. Held (1) that the instalments due under the hiring agree-
ment came within the words “ working expenses and proper outgoings
in sect. 4 of the Act ; (2) that the trustees were not entitled to the
tolls arising from traffic over the loop line until dae provision had been
made for the working expenses and proper outgoings; (3) that the
receiver must be at liberty to pay the instalments due in respect of the
rolling stock out of the receipts of the company as they came into his

hands.-In re Eastern & Midlands Ry., 63 L.T. 181. (ii.) Railway Commission.-Division of RatesPrivate Branch Railway

Person Interested.”—T., the owner of a private railway communi. cating with the defendants' line, collected and loaded goods on trucks and handed over such trucks to the defendants at the junction of her railway with their line; and also received from the defendants, at such junction, traffic for delivery at the other end of her line. Held, that T. was "a person interested ” within sect. 14 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, and was entitled to an order requiring the defendants to distinguish the rates in such books as they were by statute compelled

to keep.- Tomlinson v. L. & N.W.R., 63 L.T. 86. (iii.) Ch. D.-Receiver— Unpaid Capital— Execution.—The appointment of

a receiver of the undertaking of a railway company under sect. 4 of the Railway Companies Act, 1867, does not affect the right of a judg. ment creditor to issue execution against unpaid capital under sect. 36 of the Companies Act, 1845. Such unpaid capital is not receivable by the receiver. Where H., a receiver appointed as aforesaid, held shares on which it was alleged that moneys still remained due, and a judgment creditor gave notice of an application for leave to issue execution against him to the extent of such moneys, held, that such proceeding was not a contempt of Court.-In re West Lancashire Ry. Co., 63 L.T. 56.

(iv.) C. A.-Income Tax---Annuities Payable Out of Profits - Assessment of

Profits.---Decision of Q. B. D. (see Vol. 15, p. 94, v.) affirmed.-
Gresham Life Assurance Society v. Styles, L.R. 25 Q.B.D. 351 ;

38 W.R. 696. (v.) H. L.-Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885–Exemptions.– Decision

of C. A. (see Vol. 13, p. 133, ii.) affirmed.--Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Forrest, 63 L.T. 36.

Sale of Coals:(i.) Q. B. D.—Weight-False Statement by Servant of Seller-Liability.

To support a conviction under sect. 29 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, there must be a false representation as to the weight of coals sold by the seller of them, and the seller is not liable for a false representation made by his servant.—Roberts v. Woodward, L.R. 25 Q.B.D. 412; 63 L.T. 200; 38 W.R. 770.

Scotch Law:(ii.) H. L.-Succession-Period of Vesting-Acceleration.—X., who died in

1865, left his whole property on trust to pay an annuity to his widow and accumulate the residue of the income till her death, the property and accumulations being then disposed of in favour of his children, with a provision for the lapse of the shares of any of the children who should predecease “the term of payment of their provisions without leaving issue.” The widow repudiated her testamentary provision. The period allowed for accumulation expired in 1886, the widow still surviving. Held, that the period of distribution was not accelerated by the widow's repudiation, and that the beneficiaries could not be ascertained till her death.-Muirhead v. Muirhead, L.R.15 App. Cas. 289.

Settled Land :(iii.) C. A.-Capital Money-Application of-Improvement Charge-Bonus to

Lender.- Where a tenant for life of settled lands has created a termin. able rent charge in pursuance of any Act of Parliament for the purpose of repaying money borrowed for improvements, the trustees of the settlement may, in applying capital money to the expenses of redeeming such rent charge, include in such expenses a bonus to the lender for taking repayment before the proper time. In re Lord Egmont's Settled

Estates, 38 W.R. 762. (iv.) Ch. D.-Sale of Heirlooms.- Application by the tenant for life for the

sanction of the Court to a proposed sale, for the sum of £55,000, of three pictures, part of a collection of 279 pictures, settled as heirlooms. The application was supported by the tenant-for-life's eldest son, who was of age, and the next tenant-for-life, but was opposed by the sole trustee of the settlement, and by the brother and some collateral relations of the tenant-for-life. Held, that the evidence shewed that the price was a good one, and one which might not be obtained in the future, and that under the circamstances of the case the sanction of the Court ought to be granted. - In re Earl of Radnor's Settled Estates, 63 L.T. 191.

Ship :(v.) Q. B. D.—Bill of Lading-Liability of Shipowner-Exemption.- A bill

of lading exempted the shipowner from liability for damage to cargo arising from: "Negligence or default of pilot, master, mariners, engineers, or other persons in the service of the ship, whether in navigating the ship or otherwise, loss or damage arising from rain, storage or contact with other goods being excepted, and the ship not being liable for any consequence of the causes herein excepted, however caused or originated.” The plaintiff's goods, after being placed on board, were injured by reason of persons, for whose acts the shipowner was responsible, negligently exposing them to rain and to contact with other wet goods. Held, that the words " or otherwise" referred to

« PreviousContinue »