Page images

Oct. 29, 18SI.


[blocks in formation]



[blocks in formation]


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
Seal v Claridge, C. A. 754
Silkstone and Dodworth Coal and Iron Co.,

In re, Ex parte Perkins, Ch. D. 793
South Kensington Co-operative Stores, In re,.

Ch. D. 793
Sullivan v Metcalfe, C. A. 216
Thomas v Patent Lionite Co., C. A. 793


Barker, Ex parte, Re Rogers, 373
Barnett, Yoss, & Co., Re, 452
Basnett, Ex parte, 780
Bear, Re, 60%
Beart, Ex parte, Re Mitchell, 51
Boulden, Re, 318, 472
Brown, Éx parte, Re Inns, 219
Butcher, Re, 75
Byrne, Re, 157
Cape, Ex parte, Re Bridge, 509
Challis, Re, 240
Clarke, Re, Ex parte The Trustee, 545
Cotton, Re, 299
Davis, Re, 12, 118
Dummere, Re, 394
Ferris, Re, 612
Findlay, Ex parte, Re Collie, 430
Foreman, Ex parte, Ro Roberts, 289
Gotobed, Re, 250
Harness, Ex parte, 280
Harris, Re, 356
Jacobs, Re, 318
Kraft, Re, 137
Lindsay, Éx parte, 641
Lloyd, Re, 96
Locke, Ex parte, Re Pennington, 119
Lord, Ex parte, Re Cliff, 298
Lovering, Ex parte, Re Simons, 51
Miller, Ex parte, 679

| Nash and Lienard, Ex parte, Re The Earl of 1

Perth, 97
Nevill, Ex parte, Re Upton, 157

Huddersfield Corporation and Chamber of
Nobbs, Re, 319

Commerce v Great Northern Railway Co.,

&c., 795
Planque, Re, 118
Rauhaut, Re, 157

James v Taff Vale Railway Co., 683
Shubrook, Ex parte, Re Elford, 75, 96

Richardson v Great Northern Railway Co.,

Slattery, Re, 393
Spain, Ex parte, 526

Tharsis Sulphur and Copper Co. (Limited) v
Stevens, Re, 642

London and North-Western Railway Co.z. Stuart, Ex parte, Re Hargrave, 51

Tilley, Ex parte, Re Weld, 393

Vale, Ex parte, Re Bannister, 561

Barker v Stone, 319
Vendrell, Ex parte, Re Ramos and Vendrell,

Edmunds, Re, 680

Fildes, Re, 758
Warner, Re, 562
West, Ex parte, Re Salisbury, 451

Gilbert v Terry, 546
Williams, Ex parte, 281

Hunt, E., Re, 722
- L., Re, 680

Incorporated Law Society v Shaw, 563:

- v Waterlow, 563

Kisch, Re, 32
Fyfe v Committee of Lancaster Agricultural Mason v Aird, 526
Society, 16

Merriman, Re, 119
Gott v Sutcliffe, 203

Murphy, Re, 220
Lawrence v Simpson, 203

Pook, Re, 562
Laycock v Tweedale, 172

Shearman, Re, 409
Pattimore v Parker, 477

Solicitor, Á, In re, 31, 121, 158, 394, 612, 897
Salisbury, Corporation of, v Davis, 437 Talley, Re, 510
Sampson y Marshman, 204

Tedder, Re, 220
Thompson, Re, 202

Webb v Carew, 121

[ocr errors]


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
Ashton v Sherrock, 95

Blythe, Ex parte, 298
Aslatt v Southampton, Corporation of, 49 Bostock v Pearson, 257
Attorney-General v South-Eastern and Lon. Bowden v Universities Co-operative Asso-

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
Burrowes v Forrest, 742
Bywater v Clarke, 471
Cape Breton Company, In re, 779
Carter, In re, 372

v Stubbs, 31
Cartwright, Ex parte, 428
Caruncho y Stephenson, 929
Cavander's Trusts, In re, 239
Cercle Restaurant de Castiglione v Lavery,

Challinor, Ex parte, 116
Chambers v Managers of the Metropolitan

Asylum District, 831
Chandler v Pocock, 296
Chapman, Ex parte, 677
Charing Cross Advance and Deposit Bank,

Ex parte, 47
Charlton v Charlton, 239
Chatterton v Watney, 428
Chaston v Seago, 610
Clay and Tetley, In re, 11
Cockburn v Edwards, 756

v Ellis, 117
Coltman v Coltman, 779
Conacher v Conacher, 109
Conybeare v Lewis, 334, 721
Cooper, In the Goods of, 336
Costa Rica (Republic of) v Strousberg, 29
Couldery v Bartrum, 95
(rawcour v Salter, 525
Crouch v Jay, 855

[ocr errors]

Cunliffe v Newton, 721
Dale, In re, 217, 257
Dann, Ex parte, 370
Davies v Midland Railway Company, 778
Davidson v Kimpton, 6 10
Dawkins v Antrobus, 257
Day y Finch, 354
Debenham v Mellon, 93
De La Warr (Earl) v Miles, 391
De Mora v Concha, 239
Dennett v Bull, 943
Dent v London Tramways Company, 49
Dicks v Yates, 560
Dickson Poynder y Cook, 758
Dronfield Silkstone Coal Co., In re, 155
Druiff v Wood, 913
Duncan y North and South Wales Bank, 93
Durrant v Stoner, 610
Eager v Furnival, 429
Eames v Hacon, 660
Earp v Devonshire, Duke of, 279
East and West India Dock Co., Ex parte, 677
Edison Telephone Company of London, Re,

Edwick v Hawkes, 587
Ellis y Robbins, 507

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,

Harvey, Re, Harvey v Lambert, 822

v Barnard's Inn, 779
Harvie v Farnie, 154
Hastings v Hurley, 354
Hawkes v Holland, 767
Hayward, Ex parte, 606
Head v Willey, 913
Henley v Bates, 560
Heathcote, In the Goods of, 298
Heatley v Newton, 778
Hendricks v Montagu, 279
Hipkins y Hildick, 525
Hodges v Laing, 929

Holland, In re, 333
Holmes Marine Life Protection Association

v Pilley, 863
Holroyde and Smith, Re, 210
Holt, In re, 93
Hoole v Smith, 451
Horrex, Re, 297
Hudson v Remington, 849
Hutchinson v Hutchinson, 822
Hutton v Brown, 697
Hyam v Terry, 371
Ind v Kayler, 929
Ireland, In re, 391
Jaques, In re, 678
Jones, Ex parte, 658
Kelsey v Dodd, 334
Kirkham v Peel, 48
Knapmann v Wreford, 550
Lacey, Ex parte, 134
Ladbury, Ex parte, 585
Laird v Briggs, 316, 741
“Libra." The, 741
Lister, Ex parte, 542

v Pearson, 834 London and Suburban Building Company v

Field, 257
Long y Brown, 279

v Ovenden, 354
Lyon y Tweddell, 559
McHenry v Lewis, 777
McLaren, Ex parte, 296
Maclas y Carta Para Gold Mining Company,

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
Parker v Wells, 697
Parrott's Trusts. In re, 758
Partridge v Baylis, 544
Pascoe v Richards, 258
Patching v Barnett, 660
Patman v Harland and Benne
Payne v Jacobs, 834, 850
Pelham Publishing Company, Re, 429
Peters v Lewes and East Grinstead Railway

Company, 678
Pike v Fitzgibbon, 407
Pillers, Ex parte, 524
Pillgrem v Pillgrem, 507
Piper, In re, 9-13
Plating Company v Farquharson, 406
Post v Marsh, 117
Pronger y Freeman, 863
Punnett, Ex parte, 72
Rawson v Patton, 560
Rayner v Preston, 448
Redgrave v Hurd, 372
Rees, Re, Rees v George, 258
Richards v Cullerne, 741
Richardson, Re, Richardson v Pilliner, 4
Ridgway v Ridgway, 508
Robertson v Robertson, 741

Robinson v Pickering, 316
Ross v Baker, 794
Rosser v Pontypridd and Caerphilly Railway

Company, 392
Roxburghe (Duke of) v Cox, 542
Royal Exchange Shipping Company V

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

re, 430
Spencer v Duckworth, 743
Sperling v Rochfort, 48
Spicer, Re, Spicer v Spicer, 514
Stanbank, In re, 116
Standard' Discount Corporation (Limited),

Re, 136
Streetern, Ex parte, 720
Stubbins, Ex parte, 427
Stuckey y Warton, 560
Suffell”v Bank of England, 720
Tatton, Ex parte, 523
Taylor, Re, Taylor v Taylor, 525

v Pede, 508
Tennant v Ellis, 50
Terrell v Oppert, 834
Thomas v Hounsell, 641

v Patent Lionite Manufacturing Com.
pany, 428
Thorndon v Tell, 679
Thorney's Trusts, In re, 678
Tolmin v Underhay, 660
Underhay v Smith, 199
Union Bank of Kingston-upon-Hull. Re. 371
Universities Co-operative Association, Be,

Vale, Ex parte, 776
Vargues v Royal London Panorama, 850
Varney 'v North Metropolitan Tramways

Co., 913
Walter v Head, 742, 757

v Howe, 507
Walters y Walters, 514
Walton, Ex parte, 585
Warner v Mosses, 29
Watson v Cave, 278, 315

- v Leamington College (Limited), 30
Webber, Re, 796
Whateley, Milward, and Company, In re,
Wheal Elizabeth Company, Re, 701, 809
Wheeler v Le Marchant, 427
White y Jones, 297
Whiting v Loomes, 334
Whitmore v Farley, 542
Wicks, Ex parte, 407
Wigton (Vicar of), Ex parte, 778
Williams, Ex parte, 91, 775
-- v Briscoe, 603

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

[ocr errors]


71 it

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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.
Clay and Tetley, In re (App.) ............
Gr an, In re (Ch.Div. V.O.M.)....
Grar v. Siggers (Ch.Div. V.C.M.) ..

THE FORM OF THE INFORMATION in the forthcoming
Halsey v. Brotherhood (Ch.Div. M.R.) ...........
Harnett v. Vise (App.) ......

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


« PreviousContinue »