« PreviousContinue »
NAMES OF CASES DISCUSSED IN THIS VOLUME.
Abbiss v Burney, C. A. 717
Grange, In re, Cooper v Todd, Ch, D.774 Arthur, Re, Arthur v Wynne, M. R. 7
Holland, In re, O. Ā.774 Ashworth y Munn, C.A.7
Holroyde, In re, M. R. 754 Blenkhorn v Penrose, Ch. D. 236
Hoole v Smith, Ch. D. 754 Carrard v Meek, C. P. D. 236
Jones v Rimmer, C. A. 236 Clay and Tetley, Re, C. A. 45
Knowles, Re, Roose y Chalk, V. C. M. 7 Cope, In re, Cope v Cope, M. R. 113
Methuen and Blore's Contract, In re, M. R. Darrell v Tibbitts, C. A. 113
739 Ermett, In re, Emmett v Emmett, Ch. D. Mudge v Adams, Pr. D. 313
| Roose, In re, Evans v Williamson, M, R. 313
Rudow v Great Britain Mutual Life Assu.
rance Company, C. A. 753
In re, Ex parte Perkins, Ch. D. 793
Ch. D. 793
NAMES OF CASES REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME.
| Nash and Lienard, Ex parte, Re The Earl of 1
Huddersfield Corporation and Chamber of
Commerce v Great Northern Railway Co.,
James v Taff Vale Railway Co., 683
Richardson v Great Northern Railway Co.,
Tharsis Sulphur and Copper Co. (Limited) v
London and North-Western Railway Co.z. Stuart, Ex parte, Re Hargrave, 51
Barker v Stone, 319
Edmunds, Re, 680
Fildes, Re, 758
Gilbert v Terry, 546
Hunt, E., Re, 722
Incorporated Law Society v Shaw, 563:
- v Waterlow, 563
Kisch, Re, 32
Merriman, Re, 119
Murphy, Re, 220
Pook, Re, 562
Shearman, Re, 409
Solicitor, Á, In re, 31, 121, 158, 394, 612, 897
Tedder, Re, 220
Webb v Carew, 121
NOTES OF CASES OF THE WEEK.
Adams v Army and Navy Hotel,
| Bennett, Ex parte, 278 Albion Life Assurance Society, Ín re, 28, 779 | Bergmann v Macmillan, 354 Allard, Ex parte, 277
Best, Ex parte, 775 Alma Spinning Company, Re, 49
Bethlehem and Bridewell Hospitals, Gover. Ames' Settlement, In re, 875
nors of. v Ironmongers' Company, 429 Anglo-French Union Bank, In re, 758
Bingham v Sheffield Waterworks, 819 Anglo-Universal Bank v Eaton, 796
Birchall, In re, 30 v Tramways and General Works Cor Bird v Harris, 117 'pany, 794
Birmingham and Lichfield Junction Rail. Arkwright y Newbold, 333
way Company, In re, 587 Armitage, Ex parte, 389
Blakey, Ex parte, 94
Blythe, Ex parte, 298
don, Chatham, and Dover Railways Joint ciation, 886 * Committee, 621
Brescia (Province of) Steam Tramway Augustinis v Nerinckx, 49
Company, In re, 794" Austin v Bird, 777
Breton, In re, Breton v Woolven, 430 Bacon, Ex parte, 407
Breull, Ex parte, 135 Bainbrigge v Browne, 561
Briggs v George, 743 Banner, Ex parte, 448
v Massey, 743 Barber's Settled Estates, In re, 679
British Dynamite Company v Krebs, 316 Barker, In re, 238
British Seamless Paper Box Company, In Barkshire y Grubb, 641
re, 419 Barrow, Ex parte, 696
Brooks, Ex parte, 47 Bashford v Chaplin, 742
- V Watson, 603 Beckett v Attwood, 525
Brown's Trusts, In re, 542 Beddall v Maitland, 335, 372
Brown, Bailey, and Dixon, In re, 779 Beevers, Ex parte, 740
Brown v Sewell, 135 Belgravian Ice Company, Re, 862
Browne, Ex parte, 153 Benbow v Low, 29
Bruce v Bruce and Laing, 373 Benecke v Craddock, 317
Buckley, Ex parte, 278
Burden, Ex parte, 370
v Stubbs, 31
Asylum District, 831
Ex parte, 47
v Ellis, 117
Cunliffe v Newton, 721
v Snowdon, 450 Emden v Carte, 560 Emmanuel, Ex parte, 389 Enraght, In re, 217 Evans, Ex parte, 409 Evans y Digby, 929 Eyton v Mold, Overseers of, 50 Farina's Trade Mark, Re, 297 Farr v Hennis, 278 Farrant v Austin, 610 Farrar, In re, 371 Fenncott, Re, Fenncott v Proudfoot, 392, 489 Findlay, Ex parte, 523 Firth House Paper Mills Company, Re, 156 Fisher v Hall, Barnsley, and West Riding
Junction Railway and Dock Company, 36. Fitzgerald v Fitzgerald, 525 Flagstaff Silver Mining Company of Utah
(Limited), Re, 11 Fletcher v Hudson, 776 Forder, Ex parte, 720 Forrest v Burrowes, 742 Fowler, In re, 335
y Murray, 561 Fowlers v Walkers, 525 Freme v Clement, 210 Fuller, Ex parte, 280 Futcher v Futcher, 778 Gathercole v Smith, 334 General Iron Screw Collier Co., In re, 875 Glover y Giles, 451 Goodman's Trusts, In re, 470 Gosman, In re, 659 Gothenburg Commercial Grange v White, 544 Great Australian Mining Company, Re, 507 Great Britain Mutual Life Assurance Society,
In re, 30, 94 Great Eastern Railway Company v East
London Railway Company, 95, 427 Great Western Railway Company v Water
ford and Limerick Railway Company, 217,
297 Great Wheal Polgooth Mining Company, In
re, 757, 874 Greaves, Re, Bray v Tofield, 757 Green, In re, 470 Grundy, Kershaw, & Co., Re, 408 Guebert y Moir, 392 Gurrington Slate Quarries, Re, 430 Habeas Corpus, Re, An Application for, 809 Halifax Joint Stock Banking Company v
Sowerby Bridge Town Hall Company, 450 Hall, Ex parte, 257 Hamilton v Chaine ; Morgan, claimant, 355 Hampshire Co-operative Milk Company
(Limited), In re, 117 Harlock v Ashbury, 6-10 Harrison, Ex parte, 677 -v Cornwall Mineral Railway Company,
v Barnard's Inn, 779
Holland, In re, 333
v Pilley, 863
v Pearson, 834 London and Suburban Building Company v
v Ovenden, 354
886 McMahon v Field, 354 Madras Irrigation and Canal Company, In
re, 742 Manning, In re, Pendrey v King, 472 Mapleson, Ex parte, 775 March v Swinburne, 822 Markham v Markham, 10 Marsden v Graham, 678 Mathewes, Ex parte, 315 Mellish v Rose, 392 Merchant Banking Company, Ex parte, 295 Metropolitan District Railway Company, In
re, 660 -' (The), and Cotton's Trustees, In re, 157 Middlesborough, Redcar, &c., Permanent
Benefit Building Society, Re, 809 Mitchell v Chapman, 450 Molloy v Kilby, 317 Money v Money, 471 Monk v Monk, 314 Mudge v Adams, 258 Nash v Eads, 95 Nassau Tea Company (Limited), Re, 525 National Mercantile Bank, Ex parte, 73 National Provincial Bank of England, Es
parte, 279, 448 Newdick v Gibbons, 850 Newitt, Ex parte, 256 Newton, Ex parte, 136 Nobel's Explosives Company v Jones, 506 Normanton Iron and Steel Company, In re,
239 Northern Counties' Bank, Re, 874 Northern Counties' Fire Insurance Co., Re,
136 Nottage v Aitken, 834 Oceanic Steam Navigation Company v
Sutherberry, 73 Oldrieve v Knowles, 450 Palmer, Ex parte, 585
v Locke, 677
Robinson v Pickering, 316
McMillan, 809 Ruddock, Re, Ruddock v Redgrave, 587 Rudow y Great Britain Mutual Life Assur.
ance Society, 488 Ruel v Tatnell, 74 Ruston v Tobin, 862 “St. Petersburg," The, 720 Saldanha v Andrews, 219 Salt v Cooper, 74, 165 Sanders v Searson, 50 Sayer, In re, 660 Seear'v Lawson, 116 Sephton v Quillian, 757 Sharpe, In re, 697 Sheard, Ex parte, 72, 116 Sherbrook, Ex parte, 73 Silver Valley Mining Company, In re, 757,
794 slack v Midland Railway Company, 74 Slade v Hulme, 778 Smith y Lucas, 587 Smyth, In re, 333 Snow v Bolton, 157 Snowdon, Ex parte, 391 Solicitor (A', In re, 862, 897 Sotheran v Dening, 317 South Kensington Co-operative Stores, In
v Pede, 508
v Patent Lionite Manufacturing Com.
v Howe, 507
- v Leamington College (Limited), 30
and Landau's Contract, Willmott v Barber, 659 Willoughby D'Eresby (Baroness), Ex parte,
353 Winter, Ex parte, 333 Witham v Vane, 524 Withernsea Brick Works, In re, 135 Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Banking
Company v Bond, 240 Wood v Swann, 134 Working Men's Mutual Society, Re, 885, 897 Worth, Re, 297 Wye Railway Company v Hawes, 74 Wye Valley Railway Company v Hawes, 163 Yarmouth and Gorleston Tramways, Re, 794 Yeatman, Ex parte, 116 Young, Ex parte, 543 --v Dolman, 18
the high qualifications which all allow him to possess. LONDON, NOVEMBER 5, 1880.
But, although some circumstances have made the public justly suspicious of the value of ton advanced age on the
judicial bench, there is no reason to think that the CONTENTS,
powers of the learned judge are in any serious degree
impaired by his having reached a period of life exceeded CORREXT TOPICS....
by that of several of his colleagues who are still vigorous PARLIAMENTARY TRAINS .......
and active. The wide and exact knowledge of the Lord BICYCLE LAW THE YEAR'S SOLICITORS' CASES ......
Justice on many branches of law, and his great familiar. RECEXT DECISIONS ..........................
ity with practice-always exercised under the guidance of BEVIEWS ................... GENERAL CORESPOXDEXCE.....
a clear and vigorous common sense and a steady purpose, CASES OF THE WEEK
not only to further the interests of justice, but to carry LEGAL APPOINIILEXIS .....
out in their spirit the provisions of the new system will COMPANIES ........... OBITCARY ....................................
add to the Court of Appeal a member almost too valuable SOCIETIES ..........
to be spared in the Divisional Court from which he is LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL ..................... CREDITORS CLIXS
removed. In the appointment of Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS NEW ORDERS ...
as his successor, we are glad to recognize one who, by COUNTY COPRIS ..
his constant advocacy of law reform, stands pledged to LEGAL NEWS..... CorrT PAPERS .. ..
give to the Judicature Act and Rules fair and full operaLOxdos GAZETTES, &c., &c. .......
tion—a qualification which we think of even greater im.
portance than the familiarity with mercantile law which CASES REPORTED IN THE WEEKLY REPORTER.
Mr. WILLIAMS is on all hands allowed to possess.
THE FORM OF THE INFORMATION in the forthcoming
State prosecution in Ireland has been looked for with Lazarus v. Andrade (C.P.Div.).
some interest. All the counts appear to charge offences Moore v. Dickson (Ch.Div. V.C.M.) ................. Pearks v. Moseley and others (H.L.)...
which are included in the ordinary definition of a conPrison Commissioners v. The Corporation of Liverpoo
spiracy, while the last one, which charges a seditious con. West T. Downman (App.) ......................
spiracy, with other persons unknown, to cause and create discontent and disaffection amongst the subjects of the Queen, and to excite and promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of her Majesty's subjects, falls distinctly within Mr. Justice STEPHEN'S
definitions of a seditious conspiracy (Digest of Criminal IT IS UNDERSTOOD that the Lord Chancellor will lend Law, art. 93) as an agreement with one or more perhis assistance in the Court of Appeal, when necessary,
sons“ to do any act for the furtherance of any seditious until the sittings of the House of Lords commence, on
intention common to both or all of them,” and his the 16th inst.
definition of a seditions intention, as an intention " to raise discontent or disaffection among her Majesty's sub
jects, or to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS, having sat three days different classes of such subjects." It will be observed that with the Court of Appeal, will this day (Satu rday) take all thecounts in the information are for misdemeanors. The Leis motions of this week, and on Monday next will hear
law officers of the Crown have probably framed the inthe petitions which would otherwise have been in the formation in this manner, partly with the view of obtainpaper for this day.
ing a trial by a special jury, and partly to diminish the | trouble likely to arise from challenges to the jury, since
the right of peremptory challenge (i.e., challenge withTHE OFFICIALS of the Chancery Division who undertook out cause) does not exist in cases of misdemeanors, althe vacation work hare not had a very easy time of it, if | though it is usual to allow any reasonable number of we may judge from the number of orders made. The objections of this kind to be made by both the prosocu. Vacation Judges have made about 280 orders in court, tion and the defence. and the orders made in the chambers of the chancery judges were as near as possible 590, making a total of about 870. In 1879 the total was 850, and in THE CORRESPONDENCE which has appeared in our 1878, 820. The vacation is a very different matter columins during the last few weeks affords an indication now from what it was ten years ago, when only one of the extraordinary interest which is felt in the next chancery vacation judge was available, and all the provincial meeting of the Incorporated Law Society. orders made were two or three score in number at most. We ventured some time ago to suggest that more profit
able use might be made of these meetings if fewer
subjects were introduced; if only questions of immeTHE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS just made had been already diate practical importance were discussed, and were distoo much anticipated by public opinion and rumour to cussed at greater length; and, above all, if men whose cause any sense of novelty. In the case of Lord Justice judgment and knowledge command respect could be Lusy, a somewhat advanced age is the only drawback to prevailed on to open their lips more frequently. The