« PreviousContinue »
ANDREWS, Ann, Otley, York. Feb 4. Cranswick, Leeds
the bankrupt is the reputed owner, or of which he has taken ANDREWS, THOMAS, Wednesbury, Staffordshire, Builder. Feb 26.
upon himself the sale or disposition as owner, form part of Duignan and Co, Walsall BAKER, JOSEPH, Harrow-on.the-Hill, Farmer. Feb 1. Dommett,
the assets of the bankrupt." In the case of Ex parte Dorman, Gresham st
Re Lake (21 W. R. 94), it was held that, according to the BENTLEY, JAMES, Cheshunt, Herts, J.P. Feb 15. Gedge, Old Palace
true construction of this sub-section, it is confined to cases yard BEST, Rev THOMAS, Redrice, Andover. Jan 31. Dimond and Son,
where the bankrupt is in the sole possession of goods, Cavendish sq
as the sole reputed owner. It appears to me, on the CADDEL, RICHARD BOGHURST, Chatham. Feb 28. Reworth and facts, difficult to see where such sole possession or sole
ownership could arise, unless there is gross fraud in the Southampton
alleged fact that a separate room was taken and paid for by FUSSELL, JAMES FLOWER, Bristol, Solicitor. March 1. Fussell and the son in order that his goods should be kept distinct from Co, Bristol
those of his father. No such sole possession or sole ownerGAD), Henry, Chichester, Gent. Feb 6. Raper and Freeland, Chichester
ship could, as it appears to me, exist. In order to render HURRELL, MARY, Bocking, Essex. March 15. Veley and Cunning goods in the possession, order, or disposition of a bankrupt, ton. Brrintree
two things are required-first, they must be in his possesGREEN HALGI, HANDEL, Heywood, Lancaster, Tailor. Jan 29. Todd,
sion under such circumstances as to make him the reHeywood HARGREAVES, JOSEPH, Much Wymondly, Hertford, Esq. March 25.
puted owner of the goods; and, secondly, they must have Wade and Andrews, Hitchin
been left in his possession through some impropriety or Margitson, John, Ditchingham House, Norfolk, Esq. Jan 30.
laches of the true owner, under circumstances calculated to Hartcup and Sons, Bungay MBDWIN, PILFORD, Horsham, Sussex, Gent. Feb 5. Strangways,
enable the bankrupt to obtain a false credit by inducing the Theobald's rd
world to look at him as the true owner (Hamilton v. Bell, MEBYON, EDWARD, Clarges st, Middlesex, M.D. Feb 15. Gedge 10 Ex. 545). In the present case, in the absence of fraud, and
and Co, Ole Palace yard MITCHELL, JAMES, Hockley, Birmingham, Licensed Victualler. Feb
fraud is not alleged, it must be assumed that the applicant 16. Pointon, Birmingham
is the true owner, and that the furniture claimed was Moses, Joan, Copley, Durham, Miner. Feb 1. Parker, North placed by him in a room specially set apart for his use,
and for which he was to pay the sum of £5 a year in the and Wilson, Kendal
nature of warehouse rent; that being so, it is difficult to SLAUGHTER, MIHILL, Binfield rd, Stockwell, Secretary. Feb 10. say that the furniture in question was placed in the bankAshurst and Co, Old Jewry
rupt's possession under circumstances which, in the eyes of SMITH, WILLIAM Cannon, St Albans, Gent. Jan 17. Wells, St Albans SQUANCE, CHARLES, East Stonehouse, Devon, Pensioned Porter. Feb
the world, would make him the reputed owner, any more 15. Heath, Devonport
than when a man takes an unfurnished apartment at a rent, TINDAL, Acton, Aylesbury, Clerk of the Peace. March 1. Daven. and places his goods in it, the landlord can be
port, Oxford Vickers, JOSEPI, New Sheldon, Durham, Miller. Feb 1. Parker,
said to be the reputed owner or the sole posNorth Bondgaté, Bishop Auckland
sessor of his tenant's furniture. In my view of [Gazette, Jan. 4.] the facts of this case the dealing with the son's
property in his absence by the father was a wrongful act which might have rendered him liable to an action for tres
pass, nor can I see any impropriety or laches on the part of COUNTY COURTS.
the true owner here which enabled the bankrupt to obtain & false credit by inducing the world to look at him as the true
owner. At the time the goods were taken from the room in SALISBURY.
wbich they were stored, the true owner was absent in London, (Before Mr. Serjeant TINDAL ATKINSON, Judge.) and had no knowledge until after the bankruptcy of the fact Dec. 6.- Re Thompson's Bankruptcy.
of the removal, and any consent to such removal is positively Order and disposition-Goods intrusted to bankrupt as bailee
denied by him. The cages show that if the possession by the Consent of bailor.
bankrunt of the goods of others is due to a fraud upon the
true owner, it cannot be said to be with his consent (Ex parte His HONOUR, who had reserved judgment in this case at
Carlon, Re Birks, 4 D. & C. 120; E.x parle Bell, i De G. the last court, said :--This is an application by Henry George
577). In Collins v. Forbes (3 T. R. 316), it was held that Thompson, the son of the bankrupt, asking for an order by
when the bankrupt is in possession of the goods of another, the court directing that the trustee, Walter Friere Marreco,
bona fide with the consent of the other at the time of the should deliver to the applicant the several goods and chattels
bankruptcy, for a specific purpose beyond which he has not consisting of articles of household furniture specified in an | the right of disposition or alteration, such permission does not inventory annexed to an affidavit in support of the mo
entitle the trustee to recover the value of the goods. If tion. The facts of the case are few and simple. The
subsequent doubt had not been thrown upon this authority, bankrupt, George Thompson, carried on, up to the 14th
it would be decisive of the present case; but it is still of August last, the business of an innekeper at Salisbury,
unquestioned law that & carpenter receiving timber to and on that day was adjudicated a bankrupt. It is alleged,
oonvert into a wagon, or a tailor to wbom cloth is deand not denied, inasmuch as the facts stated in the joint
livered to be made into clothes, have neither of them such affidavit of the father and the son must be taken as ad
a possession of the timber or the cloth as will constitute mitted, that the son, who is claiming this furniture, on
him reputed owner of it (Rex v. Egginton, 1 T. R. 370; giving up the business of an inpkeeper at Salisbury, two
Moore v. Barthopp, 1 B. & C.). Nor can there be any reyears since, removed the whole of bis furniture to his father's
puted ownership of securities held for a specifio purpose house, upon an agreement that, with the exception of a sofa
(Belcher v. Campbell, 8 Q. B. 1). On the same ground, and a bed for which there was not room in the apartments selected, the furniture was to be stored by the bankrapt,
goods sent on approval do not pass under the order and on a payment of £5 8 year, two years of which
disposition clause until, either expressly or by implication, have been paid. Any consent to the bankrupt having the
such approval has been given (Smith v. Hudson, 6 B. & S. use or control of the furniture or knowledge of its being used
431, per Blackburn, J.). I have arrived at the conclusion, is denied by the son, but, as a fact, the whole of the furniture
after carefully reviewing the various authorities, that there was found by the person put in charge by the trustee of the
never was any consent given by the son that the bankrupt inn to form part of the ordinary effects of the bankrupt, and
should have the order and disposition of this furniture, had been so ased by him in the conduct of his business, and
and that in fact it never came into his (the bankrupt's) no doubt to third persons, customers, and creditors, it would
| possession otherwise than by & wrongful act on his part,
po present the appearance of being his own. So far indeed had
and that with the exception of the sofa and the bed, which the bankrupt dealt with the furniture as his own that he
it is admitted were placed by the consent of the applicant gave a bill of sale to a creditor which covered these as well
| in the bands of the bankrupt without restriction, the rest as other articles. Upon these facts I am called upon to say
of the furniture must be given up by the trustee to the whether the furniture claimed in this case falls within the
claimant in the case. There being no estate, there will be provisions of the 5th sub-section of section 15 of the Act of no order as to costs. 1869, which enacts, “ All goods and chattels being at the
Nodder, for the bankrupt. commencement of the bankruptcy in the possession, order, or
Powning, for the trustee. disposition of the bankrupt, being a trader, by the consent and permission of the true owner of which goods and chattels
to the advantage of the creditor to sue in that form, because BRADFORD.
if he did so, and did not get payment from the person Oct. 19.-Gott v. Sutcliffe.
against whom he had recovered judgment, he could In this case. Messrs. Wm. & Samuel Gott. Bradford | issue a garnishee summons against any person who owed were the plaintiffs in proceedings taken by them under the a debt to that person in his individual capacity. Suppose garnishes clanses of the County Courts Acts, by which they
that the person against whom the judgment was obtained songht to attach certain assets in the hands of Lister. | filed a petition for liquidation. Ho would then be entitled Sutcliffe, belonging to the estate of William Sutcliffe, de under that liquidation to priority, as a secured creditor, over ceased. who died in February last. At the date of his all the other individual creditors in the administration of the death William Sutoliffe was indebted to Messrs. Gott in the
ers. Gott in the assets. But in the case of any such liquidation proceed. som of £30 135. 8d. Letters of administration to his per
ings, the fund in the hands of the garnishee debtor would sonil estate were granted to his widow, Annie Sutcliffe,
not be assets of the administrator, and would not have passed in April last. On the 8th of July, Messrs. Gott sued Mrs.
to the trustee in the liquidation, because they would have to Sutcliffe, as administratrix, for the amount of their debt, and
be used for the benefit of the creditors of the deceased intesthey recovered judgment by default, and under that judge tate. He was anxious to proceed accurately in this case as ment they levied an execution, by wliich they realized £5. far as he could, because he should like practitioners to underThey afterwards found that Lister Sutcliffe had in his hands
stand what were the principles upon which he considered -certain debts due to the deceased's estate, and they thereupon
garnishee orders ought to proceed. He did not think that took garnishee proceedings in August last for the purpose
any such debt should be made the subject of a default sum. of attaching those debts with the view of satisfying the balance mons, but if it was so made, then the only judgment that of their debt and costs. The case had been before the court
could issue upon that, however the debtor was described, on three occasions.
would be one against the debtor in an individual capacity, Berry appeared in support of the proceedings taken by
and it appeared to bim that the creditor deprived himself of Blessrs. Gott, and
the right to treat as a fund applicable to the payment of his Greaves, for the garnishee debtor, Mr. Lister Sutcliffe. debt any debt due to the administrator in the due course of His Honour, in giving his judgment, said that this was
the administration of the estate. He was very sorry the first case in which he had had to consider the rights of a
indeed --sincerely sorry-that in such & jurisdiction as garnishee creditor to have a garnishee order made which
that, which was novel, and required to be exercised with was to attach all the assets of a deceased person. He was great care and discretion, and which involved great aware that it had been the practice of that court, and of all responsibility, there was no appeal from the decision that other courts, to issue default summopses without reference | a county court judge might come to. Unfortunately, there to the question of whether or not the debt was one due was no appeal whatever, and it he had been satisfied that from the defendant himself or from the defendant in a re. Messrs. Gott were right, he should have had no hesitation presentative character. He was satisfied that the power in giving them what he considered they were entitled to. given by the Act of 1875 to issue default summonses was Being, however, of a contrary opinion, he felt that if he intended to be limited to cases in which the debt was due made the order he would be placing the garnishee debtor from the defendant in his individual character. One reason in a most perilous position. There was no decision to for that opinion was that there was a class of debts in respect guide him on the subject, but, without fearing to make the of which a default summons could not be issued except by order, which he would have made if he had felt that leave, and the question whether leave was granted depended Messrs. Gott were entitled to it, he felt that the order upon whether the goods were supplied to the debtor in the ooght not to be made. It was some satisfaction to him to coarse of his trade. Another class of debts required inquiry | feel that, if the contention of Mr. Berry was correct--that as to whether a debtor occupied a certain position whether the plaintiffs would be secured creditors of the estate of he was a servant or & minor. None of those could the deceased --such security could be made available for apply, it seemed to him, to a deceased person. Default their benefit in the administration suit which had been summonses were issued frequently; and, if the defendants commenced. against whom they were issued did not appear to object to the summons was then dismissed, with costs. the jurisdiction, he was not prepared to say that judgment creditors could be deprived of their judgment. He thought that by receiving the summons, which must be personally
MANCHESTER. served, and by not objecting to the summons on the ground that it was issued against him in a representative character,
(Before J. A. RUSSELL, Esq., Q.C., Judge.) a defendant might be taken to submit to such judgment as the
Jan. 1.-Lawrence v. Simpson. plaintiff could obtain upon that summons. The rule pro- Mr. Thomas George Luwrence sued Mr. James Simpson, Tided that where a defendant served with a default summons head bailiff of the Salford Hundred Court of Record, for did not appear at the hearing, the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of £11 13s. 2d., as damages arising from the judgment as a matter of course. But there was a difficulty negligence of the defendant in executing & writ of fi. fa. and to his mind it justified the view which he took which the plaintiff had obtained against a debtor named in reference to judgment recovered upon a default | Edward Ashcroft. summons, in applying it to a judgment against a defend Nash appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and ant in a representative character. The only judgment in a | Fleming, for the defendant. default summons was against an individual. He could con The writ was issued on Friday, the 13th of August last, but ceive many cases in which the judgment creditor would prefer was not execated until mid-day on the Tuesday following, when to sae an administratrix-calling her administratrix, and it was found that the debtor had made a deed of assignment making it appear by her description that he was suing of his goods to other creditors, such deed being dated the day her in her representative character, and taking the chance previously. The evidence for the defence showed that in conof her not appearing, so that he might be able to get judg. sequence of the holidays of the court being close at hand ment against ber individually. There might be cases in when the writ was issued there was great pressure of business, which a person should be the representative of an insolvent the assistant bailiffs being unable to execute the writs as €state, and yet be perfectly solvent himself, and in which, soon as they generally did, owing to the large number placed the judgment being against the individual personally, the in their hands. If special instructions had been given at the creditor of the estate found it to his benefit to know time the writ was sent to the head bailiff, that it was necesthat he was suing a solvent representative, and took the chance sary or desirable to execute it at once, that would have been of the representative not coming forward to resist the default done, but no such instructions were given. The writ was, saimmons, or to set up any special defence he might have therefore, taken in its ordinary course, and given to an - such as his not having received sufficient assets, or his assistant bailiff, named Samuel Murray, for execution on having administered the assets he had received. The Saturday afternoon. Murray served a number of writs in creditor of the deceased person adopted that form of pro- Ruchdale, Heywood, and Bury on the Monday following, cedure for bis own benefit, and he must take the con- but was unable to execute the writ in question; he accordsequences of it. The consequence of taking the summons in ingly gave it the following morning to another assistant that form, and the judgment founded upon that form, was bailiff, named Burton, who, wben he went the same day to that he established his right to a personal debt against the serve tbe writ, found some one in possession under the deed jedividual. There were many cases in which it would be greatly of assignment.
His Honour held that the writ had, considering the cir. cumstances of the case, not been delayed for an unusual
COURT PAPERS. length of time, and gave judgment for the defendant, with costs.
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
HILARY SITTINGS, 1881.
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.
NEW TRIAL PAPER.
London, Harris v Truman, Han- York, Jackson v Lovell
Bowen, J dent of the Brigbton Female Convalescent Home, to recover London, Bunnett & Co y Potter & Warwick, Ford v Osborne & anr damages, laid at £50. The plaintiff was a London clerk, Sons
Field, J whose wife was admitted to the Home and was afterwards
London, Whiting v Martin Middlesex, Lords Commrs of the
Bowen, J Admlty v Temperley & ors attacked by soarlet fever. The action was based on the London, Dickenson v Norris
Bowen, J ground of the alleged negligence of defendant in intro
Field, J Middlesex, Corbett v Woolloton ducirg Mrs. Sampson into a room in the Home too soon
Surrey, Shilton v White & anr
The late LC Justice London, Foreign & Col Governafter another person had been taken ill of scarlet fever, by
Liverpool, Wappers v Imperialment Trust Co, limd, v Peirson which, it was contended, Mrs. Sampson became infected by Marine Insurance Co
The late L O Justice that disease and had since suffered much pain and organic
Baggallay, LJ Middlesex, Pinder y Patrick Leeds, Wheater & anr v Gray
Williams, J debility. It was explained that persons were admitted to
Bowen, J Middlesex, Hayes y Cordingley the Home by emall payments, and it was urged that, how Dorset, The Queen v Inhabitants
Williams, J ever small and inadequate the payments were, it did not
of Dorset Ld Coleridge Middlesex, Percival y Hughes
York, Feldman v Margeson absolve defendant from the necessity of warning Mrs.
Bowen, J London, O raven v Norman Sampson of the danger she was running.
Lincoln, Bunting, jun, v Morley.
Williams, His HONOUR, in giving judgment, held that it was not
Field, J London, Brown v Rolt & Co Shearburn v Salter
Williams, J proved that plaintiff's wife bad caught the fever at the
Om Ref, GM Dowdeswell, Esq Home. The institution was of a charitable character, and York, Jackson & anr v Lovell being so, a obarge against it should be fully proved if made,
Bowen, J and he was not satisfied on that point. Precautions had
SPECIAL PAPER. been taken to disinfect the place, and though it was their Gt Western Ry Co v Sirhowy Ry Goffin v Donnelly
dem bounden duty to give a truthful answer if questioned, her
special case Cooling v Smart
dem did not think it incumbent on lodging-house keepers, and
Morris & ors v Budden & anr Young & Co v Mayor, &c, of
dem Royal Leamington Spa others like defendant, to volunteer information as to there
The Rhodes Bank Coffee Palace having been fever in their house, sopposing, of course, that Permanent Benefit Building Wing v Indermaur
dem proper precautions had been taken. He gave a verdict for
Society v The Union Bank of Lissner v Sarner & ors dem
dem Mayor, &c, of Rochdale v Justces defendant, with costs.
Vickers v Allen
dem of the Peace for the County of Harford v Cheney dem Lancaster
spec case Stallard v Toms & Co spec case Calf Hey Mill Co, limd, v AnderJones v Worlford dem son Bros
spec case Linten v Green
spec case Paghouse Mill Co, limd, v Same LEGISLATION OF THE WEEK Hurst v Johnson spec case
spec case Shankland & Co & anr v Bain Marsden & anr v Meadows, Saldem mon claimant
spec case HOUSE OF LORDS. In re Ingram v Mayor, &c, of Truefitt v Allen
dem JAN. 7.-BILLS READ A FIRST TIME.
spec case Judicial Committee (Lord Chancellor).
ENLARGED RULES AND ORDERS. Buriais Act (Removal of Doubts) (Lord Chancellor).
The Queen v RP Turner
The Queen v E Cockerham, Esq, JAN. 10.-BILLS READ A SECOND TIME.
The Queen v WTS Daniels, Esq, & anr, Js's & H Wood Barials Act (Removal of Doubts).
& A Tillotson & ors
The Queen v The Justices, &c, of
The Queen v WW West, Esq. W Ř Yorkshire Judicial Committee.
In re Lund & anr
In the Matter of an application of
In re Angus & ors
Rule standing for Judgment. torrey General).
The Queen v The Recorder of Birmingham Ballot Act (Continuance and Amendment) (Sir C. Dilke).
CROWN PAPER. (Upwards of sixty Bills introdaced by private members The Queen v Williamson
The Queen v The Hollingbonrne were also read a first time).
The Queen y Edgcome
Poor Law Union
The Queen v Brown
APPEALS FROM INFERIOR COURTS.
Bentley v Beckwith
Dyson v London & NW Ry Co Hudson v Arnold
Sotheron v Scott Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Mr. Stevenson). Dudley Gas Light Co v Warm- Go Western Ry v Churchwardens, Care and Treatment of Lapatios (Mr. Dillwyn.)
&c, of Ilminster & Assessment Neave v Coombes
Committee of Chard Union Coleman v Churchwdns, &c, of In re the Companies Act, 1862, 7, the Parish of Birmingham
& 1877, and of the Building So.
Gould & ors v Bacup Local Board cieties Acts, and In re Swansea On Wednesday last, says the Times reporter, Lord Cole Turnbull & ors v Appleton
Cambrian Benefit Building Soridge, on taking his seat, was asked to put off one or two
Ramsden v Yeates & anr
ciety Barnes v Harryman
Milsom v Challis cases in which Mr. Murphy, Q.C., who is on circuit as a
Guardians of Fulham Union v Torquay Market Co v Small commissioner of assize, is engaged as counsel, and he at once Guardians of Isle of Thanet acceded to the application, and said that any case under Union similar circumstances would be put off, and might be
COMMON PLEAS DIVISION. deemed to be 80 put off, on notice to the asso
REMANET PAPER. ciate. It may be mentioned that there was great
Michaelmas Sittings, 1879. improvement noticed in the cause list, from which all the
Middlesex, Nowell y Williams
Lord Coleridge pt hd cases postponed were left out, so that the list only contained
Easter Sittings, 1880. the causes ready for trial, and, therefore, it now represents
Manchester, Chapleo & Wife v and Smith & ors what is the real work to be done. Even as thus reduced, The Permanent Building Soc
Lord Coleridge however, the cause list contained the names of 734 causes.
To stand over until Appeal disposed of. Many of these have already been appointed for particular NEW TRIALS AND MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT days up to the 21st of February. It is clear, therefore, that
Michaelmas Sittings, 1880. sittings at Nisi Prius will be held continuously daring the
Exeter, Bulteel & anr v Curteis Winchester, Cooper v Ibberson
Lord Coleridge Cooper y Warriton assizes, except on the two days a week when the Divisional
Bodmin, Rowe v Reynolds & anr
Lord Coleridge Court sits in Banc.
Bristol, Adams v The Severn & Chatham & Dover Ry Co
Lord Coleridge Lord Coleridge Middlesex, Hancock y Baker & Gloucester, Whitehouse v London Sons
Lopes, J & N Western Ry Co and Gt Middlesex, Hancock v Baker & Western Ry Co Fry, J Sons
Lopes. J London, Young v Sonora Co & (Motion for judgment) ors
Lord Coleridge Middlesex, Pearce, Lever & Cov Middlesex, Simmons v Marsden, The Lombard Building Society jun Lord Coleridge
Lopes, J Middlesex, McLay & Co y Perry
On affidavit) & Co
Lopes, J London, Frost v Fownes & ors Middlesex, Thornhill v London,
PEREMPTORY PAPER. In the Matter of an Arbitration between Wythes & anr & Belinzaglu & ors
Enlarged to first day of Hilary Sittings, 1881. . Marshall v Bolckow, Vaughan & Co
Enlarged to first day of Hilary Sittings, 1881,
Enlarged to first day of Hilary Sittings, 1881,
Enlarged to first day of Hilary Sittings, 1881,
Enlarged generally and Master to report. In the matter of a Solicitor
Enlarged generally and Master to report. In the matter of Joseph Odell and in an action of Judge v Green
Enlarged generally and Master to report.
Demurrers (to be heard before one judge).
Batthany v Bouch & ors Vosse v Killick
Widdecomb y Westwood Haddon y Crawley
APPEALS FROM INFERIOR COURTS. Barber v Stone & anr
Hicks & Sons v Army and Navy Rowe v Harvey Dredge (clmt) Provi Goldsmith & anr v Gt Eastern Thorman v Dodds Bros & Co Ry Co
Waters v Martin Stevens & Sons v Woodward & Foljambe v Fullwood anr
Borton y Morris Mason v Goodacre
Cornell & Cornell v Fairlie
Dibsdale v Pryke
James Watt and Co v Mersey
CASES STANDING FOR JUDGMENT. Barton v Ommaney
in New Trial Paper Baron Pollock and Sir H. Hawkins, 12th June, 1880. James y Herron
Inferior court appl Baron Pollock and Justice Stephen, 7th Dec, 1880. APPEALS FROM INFERIOR COURTS.
For Judgment, Liverpool, Dillon v Herron
For Argument. Kent, Rochester, Pepper v Blaig
berg (pt hd) Middlesex, Bow, Nicholson and ors y Nicholson
Reinstated. Met Pol Dis, Murray v Davies
To be argued before three Judges Surrey, South Eastern Ry Co v London, Same v Ter Horst and Chwdns of Lambeth
Co Cardigan, Aberystwith, Atten. Middlesex, Bow, Vernede v borough y Hughes
Willsmer Monmouth, Lloyd v Overseers &c Carnarvonshire, Pwllheli, Morris of Llandogo
v Roberts Yorkshire, Bridlington, York, London, Rachman and anr v Palin v Harrison
Brasch and anr Lancashire, Simpkin v Robinson Northampton, Towcester, LockLiverpool, Marcus y London and ton v Wrighton NW Ry Co
Surrey, Hare v Chwdns, &c, of Devon, East Stonehouse, Pooley v Putney Sampson
London, Drysdale v Jones and London, Kellock and Co y Pro- anr
prietors of Butler's Wharf London, Aston v Hurly London, Same v Cox, Patterson Sussex, East Grinstead, Hyder v and Co
London Brighton and South
Coast Ry Co
REVENUE PAPER. Att-Gen v Mitchell and Gibbon FAT Clifford Constable an cause on English information Thos Constable
and answer Att-Gen (informant) and the
Humber Conservancy Commrs cause on English infmtn and and ors in Kingston-upon-Hull Att-Gen (informant) and the Att-Gen (informant) and the
Mayor, &e, of Kingston upon. Withernsea Pier Co, limd, v The Hull and Thomas Spurr v Sir Same
EXCEPTIONS TO ANSWERS OF DEFENDANTS. Att-Gen (informant) and the Met The British India Steam Nygtn Ry Co and John Bell (defts) Co, limd, and the Commrs of
cause by English information Inland Revenne Att-Gen (informant) and the Met case on appl from adjctn of
Dis Ry Co and George Hop- Commrs under the Stamp Act, wood (defts)
1870 cause by English information
CASES STATED PURSUANT TO 37 & 38 VICT. CAP. 16. Corporation of Reigate v Barber, Coomber, surveyor, &c, v Justices. Surveyor of Taxes
of County of Berks Erichsen (Copenhagen Telegrph) Justices of Oxfordshire (Police v Last, surveyor, &c
Station) v Rolfe, surveyor, & Dodson, surveyor, &c, v Walker Same (County Hall) y Same and Maude
Stoker v Abbott, surveyor, &c Keen, surveyor, &c, v Farlow Whitwell, surveyor, &c, v Munby The Homer Hill Colliery Co, Justices, &c, of County of War
limd, v Leech, surveyor, &c wick y Thrift, surveyor, &c The Gt Western Ry Co y Mus- Jeans, surveyor, &c, v E Crawgrave, surveyor, &c
shay and W Crawshay Rolfe, surveyor, &c, v Hyde and Caird, surveyor, &c, v Worthem Co
City Bank v Last, surveyor, &c The Aberdare Rhondda Coal Co, Sun Fire Office Co v Same
&c, limd, v Newman, surveyor, Jowett, surveyor, &c,v Moss (for &c
Justices of Lancashire Chapman, surveyor, &c, v Royal Midland Ry Co v Blake, surMersey Docks and Harbour Bd v Last, surveyor, &c, v London Lucas, surveyor, &c
Assurance Corporation Martin, surveyor, &c, v Trustees Bowers, surveyor, &c, v Justices of Congl Memorial Hall
of Peace for Co of Cumberland Dodson, surveyor, &c, v London Pacey, surveyor, &c, v Horsley and N W Ry Co
London and NW Ry Co v Mus. Improved Industrial Dwellings grave, surveyor, &c Co y Last, surveyor, &c
Cottell, Inspector of Taxes, v
Justices of Co of Monmouth
Att-Gen v Noyes lish infmtn and
Same informant) and
For argument Liverpool, Moscrop v Newbold & ors
Thesiger, LJ To be heard before three judges. London, Bonffler v Levy & anr
Pollock, B Ilth June, 1880, ordered to stand over till rule in Court of Appeal
argued. Middlesex, Green v Stewart and London, Akerblom v Price and Huddleston, B Co
Pollock, B To be heard before three judges. Hiddleses, Cummings v Gt N Ry Warwick, Coleman v L and N W Co Huddleston, B Ry Co
Huddleston, B Middlesex, Jaques v London London, Bowen v Lloyd Tram Co LC Baron
Stephen, J London, Piggott v Turner Shrewsbury, Hammond v L and
Stephen, J NW Ry Co J Brown, Esq, QC Middlesex, Hicks v Faulkner Leeds, Haigh v Jennings and anr Stephen, J
Stephen, J Middlesex, Digby v Whelply Chester, Edwards and Wife v The
Stephen, J Pembroke and Tenby Ry Co London. Caslake v Bywaters and
Baggallay, LJ Ons
Stephen, J Gloucester, Butler v Storer London, Grant v Holland
Fry, J Stephen, J Warwick, Vickers v Chatwood's Chelmsford, Griffin v Keates Patent Safe and Lock Co, limd LC Baron
Huddleston B Cambridge, Dobede v Fisher Stafford, Sheldon v The Imperial
rd, Sheliomtal Assurance
Fry, J Ors
LC Baron Lewes, Ball v Beardsley Middlesex, Hyman and anr v Nye
L Baron and Sons Sir Hawkins Leeds, Smith v Woodhead Gloncester, Clarke, trustee, &c v
Stephen, J Walker
Fry, J Liverpool, Cooke v Sheard Maidstone, Hutton y Vale
Manisty, J LC Baron London, Dale and anrv Wakefield
Sir H Hawkins DEMURRERS. National Provincial Bank of Permanent Building Society England v Harle and org
dem to claim dem to deft Harris's defence Simpson v Hartley dem to claim Garnes and Wife v Blake & Weall Oak Pitts Colliery Co, limd v City
dem to reply of Dublin Steam Packet Co Moss v Hadley
dem to defence and counter-clm dem to 3rd par of reply Jones v Simmons Hughes v Burgess and ors
dem to counter-claim dem to claim Hunter v Lever dem to claim Hodgson v Pryor and ors
Thorpe and ors y Bestwick dem to claim
dem to defence Humphreys y Griffiths
Fenwick and anr v Shaw dem to claim
dem to deft's set-off Heaton y The Albert Edward
veyor, govor. &c. v London
COURT OF APPEAL.
Ex parte Hoare & Co
Ex parte Newitt and anr In re Alven
Ex parte Hall and apr In re Leyman
Ex parte The Trustee In re Packman
Ex parte London and County
Banking Company In re Ward
Ex parte Bennett
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
MIDDLESEX.-HILARY SITTING, 1881. This list contains all 6ctions entered in Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions, in which notice of trial has been given, and also all actions in the Chancery Division, in which notice has been given of trial before a judge and jury ; up to and including 12th January, 1881.
The actions which have been entered but for various reasons are at present not ready for trial aro omitted from this list. Such of them as become ready during the present sitting will be inserted as nearly as possible in their original positions.
LIST OF ACTIONS FOR TRIAL. 1CP Kent (Wilkinson and D) v Beniamin (JA Waring) *2 Ex Pepperell (G M Cooke) y Simpkin, Marshall& Co (Day & C) 3 Ex Briggs (Wyatt and B) v Jenkinson (Berry and B) 4 CP Tasmanian Main Line Ry Co (Wilson B and C) v Clark and
ors (Blunt, T and Co; Burchells ; Hargrove and Co) SJ 5 Ex Ibbotson (Bordman) v Buckley and ors (Jukes and Co) 6 QB Tippins (G Crafter) v Budden (Stollard and W) 7 Ex Parkes (T W Goldring) v London and St Katherine Docks
Co (W M Hacon) 8QB Redmond (Wontner ar d Sons) v Gamble (Lewis and L)
9 Ex Belli (P A Hanrott) v Lane (Foss and Legg) SJ 10 Ex Martin (W B Brook) v Dunn (ATHewitt) without jury 11 OB Brewis (C o Humphreys and Son) v Stacpoole (S Scott) SJ 12 O P Flower and ors (Flower and N) v Palmer and anr (Hubbard,
Son and R) 13 CP Ford, trustee, &c (
GLP Eyre & Co) v Hastings (SS Seal) 13* QB Goldschmidt and anr (JR Macarthur) V Ecclesiastical
Commrs and crs (White, B and W; Few and Co; Wil.
loughoy and W) SJ .14 R B Sandeman (Harrison, B and H) v Harrison and ors (W
Rawlins) 15 Ex Sharkey (Ścott and Co) v Hudson (J Payne) 16 Ex Cowell (W H Hargrave) v Simpson (Wolferstan and Co 17 Ex Brill (G C Whitworth) v Brasch and anr (Finnis and W) 18 QB Stutchbury (R Chandler) v Anning (Keene, M and B) 19 Q B Gregory and Co (Lambert, Petch and H) v The Countess of
Perth (WH Smith) 20 Q B Angell and anr (Layton, Son and L) v Truefit (West, KA
and Co) SJ 21 CP Carr, Gomm and anr (Still and Son) v Short and ors (W
Beck) 22 C P Anglo-Amecn Cattle Co (Pawle, F and C) v Wood (Watson,
Sons and R) SJ 23 Ex Hughes (R Wilson) v Bond (Brownlow and H) 24 Ex Lewis (EI Sidney and Son) v Reynolds (Curtis and B) 25 Q B Knight (W and AR Ford) v Yates and Co (G Thompson) SJ 26 O P A E Ball, Trustee of Loe (Finnis and W) v Warwick (N
White) 27 Ex Webster' (Bordman and Co) v Martin and anr (W Morley) 28 Ex Dixon (J T Moss) v Met Board of Works (R Ward) SJ 29 C P Jackson and ors (Hedges and B) v Fletcher and ors (Walker
B and Co; WW Wynne ; Vanderpump and Co) 30 Ex Bader (Morten & C) v Martin (A W Hurrell) 31 CP White (H E Toovey) v Burton (Stoneham and L) 32 Q B Middleton (J B Lodge) v Marshall and anr (W C Stoker)
without jury 33 Ex Worthington (Dean, Chubb and Co) v Sudell (P Goo 34 CP Toovey (He E Toovey) v Farquharson (E M Hore) 35 Q B Vreones (FW Denny) v Bratzali (
GF Bell) 36 Ex Brosnan (Harting and Son) v Bignold (G E Carpenter) SJ 37 CP Shaw (S Francis) v Deardon (Micklethwait and Co) 38 Q B Daws (B Hutchinson) v Lond Gen Omnibus Co, Id (Harries,
W and R) SJ „39 Q B Plummer (Same) v Same (Same) SJ 40 QB Carter (Same) y Burton (L Hand) 41 Q B Sherrin (Same) v Carle (JH Child) 42 Ex Burton (C Turner) v Davids (W Beck) 43 QB Smith (E A Swan) v Hankey (Abbott, J and Co) : 44 Ó B Blades (W H Marshall) v Saichwell and anr (T O Dear) 45 Ex Hawkins (Parkins, Land 0) y Ewer (Harper, B and B) 46 CP Rowney (Wild, B and W) v King (W A Downing) 47 QB Tibbitt and anr (Wright and L) v Edwards (H H Hughes) 48 Q B Martin (C Butcher) v Cox (Rutter and Son) SJ 49 Ex Foote (Learoyd, Land P) v Baker (Venn and W) 50 CP Wilkins (G H Finch) v Tullidge (R Chandler) 51 Ex Aston (Crowder, A and V) v Pickford and Có (T Beard and
Sons) 52 Ex Breadalbane (R S Taylor, Son and H) v Foakes (N Bennett) 53 Ex Same (Same) v Same (Same) 2nd action 54 Q B Chidley (CO Newman) v Bennett (Barton and P)
55 Q B Roberts (C A Jenkins) v The Boston Guardian Newspaper
Co, limd (Wright and P SJ 56 Ex Griffin (GM Cooke) v England (B Hope) 58 Ex Webb (È R Phillips) v Iles (Taylor and Wales) without jury 58 Q B Rutty (T M Cridge) v Nicholson (Nash and F) 59 CP Clement (Digby and T) v Stanley (AT Cox) 60 CP Birkett (O Harris) v Aumon and anr (Flux S and Cod 61 CP Foster (Button, Grove and Co) v Edwards (Singleton and T) 62 Ex Elvin and Son (
WT Ricketts) v Braid, Junr (J H Jonas) 63 Ex Newman (Same) v Bockett (Bockett and Son) 64 Ex Barnard (J Emanuel and Co) v Fowler (Guscotte and Co) 65 Ex Aylmer (Same) v Evans (J V Musgrave) without jury 66 Ex Ryan (J Mason) v Braid and anr (J Nicholls) 67 Q B Murray (W W King) v Wood (Wontner and Sons) SJ 68 O P Parsons (Sheffield and Sons) v Graves (W J Foster 69 Q B Ash (Culpeper and Co) v Lee (R Charles) 70 Ex Cockx (T W Buckler) v Gaber (Thompson and W) 71 CP Clark (S A Tucker) y Hitchins (J E Coxwell) 72 Ex Cross (J Welman) v Kealey (In person) 73 Q B Horton (Guscotte, w and D) v Goody (Á Leslie) SJ 74 OB Pinch (J Cotton) v Gorman (W H Armstrong) 75 Q B Jacobs (Same) v Smith and Gale (0 G Harman) Q B Williams (T D Duttcn) v Monico and anr (Rooper and W)
SJ 77 Ex Dagnall and ors (Wyatt and B) v Molony (W L O'Neil) 78 Q B Smith and Wife (J Ë Coxwell) v North Met Tram Co (UC
Godfray) SJ 79 Ex Gifford and anr (Stopher and R) v Power (Chapman, T
and P) 80 Q B Robertson and anr (Ingram, H and I) v Taylor and ors
(Pawle, F and Co) SJ 81 CP Dawe and anr (Wright and L) v Graves (Blackford, R and
Co) 82 Q B Gibbins (C H Hodgson) v Macfarlane (RC Chapman)
without jury 83 Ex Miller (A C Lewis) v Milman and anr (Hare and F) SJ 84 Ex Tillman (R K Bartlett) v Barnes (W A Crump and Son) 85 Ex Bird (W Evans) v Knowles (WS Fox) 86 Ex Moore, trustee of Webster (Emmet and Son) y Woolley
(Stollard and W) SJ 87 Cp City of London Discount Corporation limd (
WT BA -- V oll Discount Corporation, limd (W H Boberts) 88 Q B Burley and anr (F W Snell and G) v Lingham Bros (Ulli.
thorne and Co) 80 Ex Allen (Rollit and Sons) v Massey and Wife (Parkers) SJ 90 C P Barber (Cronin and R) v Benton and anr (Dubois and R) 91 O B Bennett (Lewis and L) v Leah (Kent and K) 92 CP Allen (Wilkinson and D) v Rendle (Dubois and R) SJ 93 Ex Bradley (RO Green) v Lea (E Pooley) 94 C P Lord Ashburton and anr (White, B and W) v Great Western
Ry Co (RR Nelson) SJ 95 C P Michell (Simpson and P) v Rowland (J B Churchill) 96 C P Russell T W Baldwin) y Bull and ors (Stocken and J) 97 Ex Sherren (F G Gorton) v South Eastern Ry Co (WR stevens)
SJ 99 Ex Grimstone, admr, &c (Paterson; Son and B) y un
per son) 99 Q B Joseph (G Robins) v Geen (W Beck) 100 Q B Pope (Collins and W) v The Wanzer Sewing Machine Co,
limd (Lyne and H) 101 Q B Pocock (Merriman and P) v Howcroft and Watkins (Tay.
lor, I and T) 102 C P Marshall (Field, S and Co) v Morrison (Le Riche and Son) 103 CP Ladd (J Chapman and B) v Burt and ors (Wild, B and W) 104 OB Fulwood (Nash and F) v Hickey (J and E Scott) 105 CP Sprowl (J J Watts) v Waterlow and Son, limd (Lousada
and E) 106 Q B Dickinson (A R Steele) v Conron (Chappell, Son, and G) 107 CP Brown (W Maynard) v Sutton (J Attenborough) 108 CP Cooper (G Lockyer) 'v Pinn and anr (Shum, Cand Co) SJ 109 Q B Neveux (M Abrahams and Co) v Argles (Argles and Co) 110 O P Blake (Biggenden) v Hayer (Angell and Co) 111 O P Bastendorf (JE Lickfold) v Parkess (Hopwood and Sons) 112 Q B Diamond (Underwood, Sons, and P) v London and NW
Ry Co (RF Roberts) SJ 113 C P Brewer (Woodbridge and Sons) v Chichester (C A Jenkins) 114 Q B Sargent ( N Mason) v Abbotts and ors (Layton, Son, and
L) 115 QB Sowerbntts (Chappell and G) y Parkes (Jones) 116 Ex Candler (Aristen, De Gex and Co) v Mantland (J 117 Ex Francis (W Arnold) v Forsdick (Wills and R) 118 Ex Jacobs (J Cotton) v Central Bank of London (R 119 CP Tremaro (Nye and G) v London General Omnibus Co
(Harries, W and R) SJ 120 Ex Wilson (Freeman and w) v Cornu and anr (Cronin and R) 121 QB Colbert (Lewis and L) y Powell (W T Boydell) 122 Ex Robertson (W O Reader) v Great Northern Ry Co (Nelson,
Band N) SJ 123 Q B Potter (Sympson, Wand'T) v Cotton and ors (Tweedie and
Co: Marsden and W) SJ 124 Q B Morris an dors (Day and C) v Budden and anr (Prior, B, C
and A) 125 Q B Kreeft, Howard, & Co (Fry and H) v Jose Primm (Ellis, M
and Co) 126 Q B Colliss (Waller and Son) v London Tram Co limd (
HC Godfray) 127 Q B Over (Gedge and Co) v Heywood (Druce, Sons and J) SJ 128 OP Shubrook (F Taylor) y Tufnell (Holmes and Son) SJ 129 Ex Evison (Taylor and J) v Shepberd and anr (R Wood) 130 CP Bonney (Woodbridge and Sons) v Henwood ( Roberts) 131 Q B Price (Brundrett, R and G) v Lefevre (W and A R Ford)
SJ 132 Ex Holness (J T Moss) v Borough Wharves and Warehouses
Co limd (Starkey and Co) 133 C P Marriage (
GC Leal v Pilley (H Morris) 134 CP Koen (ASH Jones) v Bates (T Allingham) SJ 135 Ex Stiles (Lewin and Co) v Williams (Hicks and A) 136 Q B Taylor (Denton, H & T) v Upton (Morten and C)