« PreviousContinue »
capital unrepresented by available assets, and a petition for the reduction
(ii.) C. A.—Winding-up—Contrilailtory—Sce Vol. 16, p. 41, vii.—Hcld, that though C. might have rendered himself liable on the ground of fraud, yet the facts did not disclose such a contract on his part to take shares as to justify placing his executors on the list of contributories. Decision of Ch. D. reversed.—In re Brimnnia Fire Association ,Core-ntry’s Case, L.R.  1 Ch. 202 ; 60 L.J. Ch. 186; 6% L.T. 185; 39 W.R. 328.
(iii.) Ch. D.—Winding-u.p—Cont1'ibutory—Bala'nce Order—Acti0n for Calls —Merger—Companies Act, 1862, ss. 101, 102, 120.—-A balance order was made on a contributory, ordering him to pay the amount of calls made before the winding-up. The order could not be served, owing to tho contributory being out of the jurisdiction. Held, that the original obligation of the contributory to pay the calls was not merged in the balance order, and that an action for the amount of the calls was mnintainable.—lVeslmorelancZ Green and Blue Slate C0. v. Fcilden,
(iv.) Ch. D.—lVinding.up—Landlorcl—Hypothec—Sequ,estra.li0n—Companies Act, 1862, s. 163.—Helcl, that a sequestration issued without leave of the Court at the suit of a Scotch landlord to enforce his hypotheo was void. Leave granted to the landlord to proceed with the sequestration unless security was given for the current year’s rent, including u period previous to the winding-up, on terms of the landlord paying the costs of the m0tion.—In re lVanzer, Limited, L.R.  1 Ch. 305; 39 W.R. 343.
(v.) Ch. D.—lVind1'ng-'up—Sm-plus Assets--0rdinary and Preference Shareholders.—A company’s articles provided that the directors might set aside out of profits a reserve sum for specified purposes and contingencies in priority to dividends, and subject thereto, that the entire profits of each your should belong to the shareholders. Preference shares were issued under apower to increase capital. The undertaking was sold under an Act of Parliament at a price which left a surplus in excess of the liabilities and the paid-up capital. The sale was com. pleted during the currency of a financial year. Held (1), that the ordinary shareholders were entitled to the net profits of the current year (subject to paying an apportioned dividend to the preference
shareholders), including a balance carried forward from the last year, .
and a sum reserved for improvements, and not applied; that they were not entitled to reserve funds for insurance and depreciation; (3) nor to any inquiry as to the excess of the real value of the plant and works over the value as stated in the published accounts, or as to any application in the past accounts to capital purposes of sums which might have been divided as profits»-In re Brid;/ezcater Navigation Co., L.R.  1 Ch. 155.
Conflict of Laws :
(Yi.) Ch. D.—Scotch Judicial Process—Cha,rges—Notice—Prio1'ity.—The Q. company, domiciled in Queensland, issued debentures charging its unpaid capital. After such capital had been called up, but not paid,
the A. company commenced an action in Scotland against the Q. company, and arrested the calls on certain shares in the Q. company which were held in Scotland, the holders of such shares having no notice of the debentures. It was in evidence that the arrestment was equivalent to an assignment with notice to the debtor, and took priority over an earlier assignment without notice. Held, that the question of priority in respect of the calls so arrested must he determined by Scotch law, and that the A. company had priority.—In. re Queensland Mercantile and Agency Co., L.R.  1 Ch. 536.
Ch. D.—Dra.mat1'sing NoveZ.—A. published a drama, and afterwards a novel founded on it. C. published a drama which was dramatised directly from the novel, and not with the help of A.’s drama. Held, that A. having published his drama before the novel, no person had a rightto infringe the stage copyright in tho drama, even though the passages complained of were taken from the novel and not from the
drama, and that C. must be restrained from representing his drama.— Schlesinger v. Turner, 63 L.T. 764.
Ch. D.—D,ra.mat1'>1'ng Novel.—A. published a novel and afterwards published a dramatised version of it. B. published adramatised version of the novel, after the publication of A.’s version, B.'s version being made directly from the novel, and not with the help of A.’s version. Held, that A. having published the novel before the drama, any person had a right to dramatise the novel and represent the drama, and that B. could not be restrained from doing so.—-Schlesinger v. Bedford, 63 L.T. 762.
. B. D.—Dra.ma.— Infringement—PenaZties—Double Costs—Indenmity —3 §"4. - Will. IV., c. 15, s. 2—5 LY 6 Vict., c. 97, s. 2—R.S.C., 1883, O. xxii., r. 7.—Where the owner of the copyright of a play had sued for penalties in the High Court, and the defendant had paid the amount into Court, and the plaintiff had accepted that amount in satisfaction, held, that the plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the suit, although the amount recovered was under £10, either, per Wills, J., because he was, by the above-mentioned statutes, entitled to a full and reasonable indemnity as to costs, or, per Williams, I., because the Court had a discretion to allow such oosts.—Reeve v. Gibson, 64 L.T. 141.
District—Rcmcdy of Coroner—Cou'nty Coroners Act, 1860, s. 4-.—The period of five years, for which a coroner's salary is fixed, ends with the coroner's death, and his successor is entitled to have a new fixing of his salary, and to receive the salary so fixed for a period of five years from the time it is so fixed, although in the meantime his district is divided, and a new coroner appointed to part of it. The coroner's remedy for enforcing his rights with respect to the salary is the prerogative writ of mandamus to the county justices, and not an action against the justices or any number of them acting for the whole, claiming a declaration of his rights or a mandamus to enforce such rights.— Baxter v. London County Council, 63 L.T. 767.
Q. B. D.—Cmmty Court—Action Remitted from High O'ourt—Charga of S0licitors.—An action for £30 for work done was commenced in the High Court, and was remitted to a County Court, where the plaintifl obtained judgment for £30 and costs. Before the action was remitted
the plaintiff changed his solicitor. The registrar of the County Court refused to tax on the High Court scale the costs of the solicitor who acted for the plaintiff in the High Court. Held, that the solicitor was entitled to recover such costs against his client, as they did not come within sect. 48 of the County Courts Act, 1888, not being costs for work done in a County Court.—Boydell v. Millar, 39 W.R. 335.
Criminal Law :(i.) C. C. R,.—Fruuzl—-Prepa1ing False Evidence for an Arbitration.—The
defendant was tried and convicted on a count which stated, in substance, that having been appointed by the sellers of a cargo of wheat to take samples of the cargo to be used in case the quality of the cargo should be submitted to arbitration, he bad, with the intent of deceiving the arbitrator to be appointed, substituted other wheat for the samples which had been taken from the cargo, and had forwarded the false samples as if they were genuine samples taken from the cargo. Held, that the count stated an indictable offence at common law.—Reg. v. Vrcones, L.R.  1 Q.B. 360; 60 L.J. M.C. 62; 39 W.R. 365.
Q. B. D.-Ea.-ecution—VaZ1Jdity—Fraud.—The mortgagee in possession of property was induced by the fraud of her solicitor, and under the belief that she was signing a lease of the property, to execute a deed which falsely recited that the solicitor had agreed to pay her the amount due on the mortgage, and purported to assign to him the mortgage debt and securities for the same. Held, that the deed was void, as the mind of the mortgagee did not go with the deed, and she had not been guilty of negligence.—Fiwell v. Wright, 64 L.T. 85.
Ecclesiastical Law :—
Ch. D.—Sequestration—E.fl’cct of—Sequ.estratio'n. Act, 187l.—The rights and position of an incumbent after sequestration, except so far as they are interfered with by the express terms of the Sequestration Act, 1871, remain unaltered. A rector, therefore, after sequestration of his
C. A.—Pu.bZic Worship Regulation Act, 1874, ss. 8, 9—Represenlation— Sccond Representati'o'n.—See Vol. 16, p. 44, iv. Held, that the mandamus ought not to go, as the effect of the bishop’s answer to the representation was that he had considered all the circumstances of the case which he honestly thought material, and it had not been shewn that he had considered and acted on anything which was not a circumstance of the case.—Reg. v. Bishop of London (No. 2), 63 L.T. 819.
In the Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury.—lloly
not required for the purpose of giving light, are kept standing on the
visibletc the congregation. The singing of the hymn Agnus Dei immediately after the prayer of consecration is not an unlawful addition to the service. The making of the sign of the cross during the absolution and benediction is an addition to the ceremonies of the church,and is unlawful. Pouring the water and wine into the paten and chalice and drinking the some is not by itself a ceremony, and where such acts are done after the benediction, and not as part of the service, they are not unlawful.—Read v. Bishop of Lincoln, L.R.  P. 9.; 64 L.T. 149.
Ch. D.—Admissibility—Promissory Noto—Stamp—Sta.mp Act, 1870, s. 54.—A promissory note insufiiciently stamped cannot be admitted in
Q. B. D.—English and Foreign Warrants—Deseripti0n of O_fl'em:e— La1'cc'ny.—Iu proceedings under the Extradition Acts it is not necessary that the description of the ofieuce in the English warrant should correspond in terms with the description in the foreign warrant. It is sufiicient if evidence has been brought against the prisoner in a foreign country establishing a crime by the law of that country, and if the same facts establish a crime by English law. An attorney or agent who receives money from a client to invest when a suitable investment in found, both attorney and client in the meantime seeking
for such investment, has received the money for “ safe custody," and,
if he misappropriates it, is guilty of an ofience against the Larceny Act, 1861, sect. 76.—In re Bellencontre, 39 W.R. 381.
Friendly Society :
Q. B. D.—llIisappropriati0n by Qfiicer—Conriction under Statute--Bar to Action.—Friendly Societies Act, 1875, s. 16, sub.-s. 9.—The defendant, an ofiicer of n. friendly society, was charged with misappropriation of the society's moneys, and, an order for payment not having been complied with, was imprisoned. The directors of the society sued him for the amount which he ought to have paid. Held, that the plaintifis having availed themselves of their statutory remedy, and the defendant having been convicted and punished, the plaintifis’ remedy by action was barred.—Vci-non v. ll/atson, L.R.  1 Q.B. 400; 60 L.J. Q.B. 205.
Husband and Wife :
C. A.—Right to Custody of lVife's 1’erson.—The relation of husband and wife does not give the husband complete dominion over the wife's person, when unaccompanied by any circumstance of misconduct, or any approximate approach to misconduct on her part, which would entitle the husband to restrain her. Where s. wife has refused to comply with a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the husband, he is not entitled to seize her by force and keep her in confiuemcnt.—Reg. v. Jackson, 39 W.R. 407.
P. D.—1)ivorce—ll’ife’s Adulterg—Separalion. Order in Force against Husban(l.—1n an undefended divorce suit a decree nisi for divorce was granted on the ground of the wife's adultery in favour of a husband who had been previously convicted of an aggravated assault on the wife, and against whom a separation order and an order for an allowance had been made in consequence of such assault.—-Sergent v. Scrgent, 64 L.T. 230.
as to what amount of insult or ofiensive conduct on the part of a husband will, in the absence of physical violence, amount to cruelty. A wife petitioned for a divorce cn the ground of adultery and cruelty. She had been separated from her husband for twenty years, and the alleged cruelty was before the separation. She explained the delay by saying that she wished to wait till her son, the only child of the marriage, was grown up. Held, that the delay was unreasonable.— Beauclerk v. Beauclerk, 60 L.J. P. 20; 64 L.T. 35.
the wife’s petition, the custody of the children was given to the petitioner, and the respondent was ordered to allow her permanent maintenance. The petitioner took charge of one child, a girl, but allowed the respondent to retain the other, a boy. Subsequently, on proof that the petitioner was no longer a fit person to have charge of her daughter, and that the respondent, who had married again, was leading a respectable life, the Court made an order transferring the custody of the daughter to him, but refused to reduce the amount of the petitioner's maintenance.—Witt v. Witt, L.R.  P. 163; 64 L.T. 121.
vision was made for the maintenance of a wife found guilty of adultery without the insertion of a dam sola et casta clause, the provision being a bare allowance for her maintenanoe.—La1wler v. Lander, L.R.  P. 161 ; 64 L.T. 120; 39 W.R. 416.
P. D.—Restitution of Conjugal Rights—Non-Compliance with OrderSettZement—Matrimonial Causes Act, 1884, s. 45.—Where an order for restitution of conjugal rights is disobeyed by the wife, the Court may order her to make an annual payment to the husband, and to secure it by settlement, although her only property is settled on herself for life without power of anticipati0n.—1lIicheZl v. Michell, L.R.  P. 166;
64 L.T. 91.
Ch. D.—Gua.r(lianship.—-A Protestant married a Roman Catholic woman, and agreed that the children of the marriage should be educated as Roman Catholics. A daughter was born and baptised as a ltoman Catholic. The father died in 1886, and the mother in 1889. M., the mother’s cousin, a Protestant, had, with the mother’s consent, taken care of the child during nearly the whole time from the father's death until after the mother's death, when C., the mother's brother, took forcible possession of the child, and sent it out of the country. The ohild was brought back under Habcas Corpus proceedings, and C. applied to have himself, and certain Roman Catholics, strangers to the child, appointed guardians. M. opposed this, and proposed herself and the child's paternal uncle, a Protestant, as guardians. Held, that C.'s conduct in taking the child away shewed him to be an unfit guardian, and that the strangers ought not to ho appointed, unless the Court was 'constrained on religious grounds to appoint them. Held, also, that the Court was free to consult the best interests of the child, and that M. and the uncle ought to be appointed, with liberty to educate her as a Pr0tostant.—In re Violet Nev.'in, 64 L.T. 107.