Page images
PDF
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

NOTES OF CASES OF THE WEEK.

Cunliffe v Newton, 721

Dale, In re, 217, 257

Bann, Ex parte, 370

Davies v Midland Railway Company, 778

Davidson v Kimpton, 040

Dawkins v Antrobus, 267

Day v Finch, 354

Debenham v Mellon, 03

De La Warr (Earl) v Miles, 391

Do Mora v Concha, 239

Dennett v Bull, 943

Dent v London Tramways Company, 40

Dicks y Yates, 500

Dickson-Poynder v Cook, 75S

Dronfleld Silkstone Coal Co., In re, 155

Druiff v Wood, 943

Duncan v North and Booth Wales Bank, 93

Dnrrant v Stoner, 640

Eager v Furnival, -420

Barnes r Hacon, 660

Earp v Devonshire, Duke of, 279

East and West India Dock Co., Ex parte, G77

Edison Telephone Company of Loudon, Re,

240

Edwick v Hawkes, 587

Ellis v Robbins, 507

■ v Snowdon, 450

Emden v Carte, 560

Emmanuel, Ex parte, 389

Enraght, In re, 217

Evans, Ex parte, 408

Evans v Digby, 029

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, Ro, 166
Fisher v Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding

Junction Railway and Dock Company, 363

Fitzgerald v Fitzgerald, 626

Flagstaff Silver Mining Company of Utah

(Limited), Ro, 11

Fletcher v Hudson, 776

Forder, Ex parte, 720

Forrest v Burrowes, 742

Fowler, In re, 335

v Murray, 501

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 v Giles, 451

Goodman's Trusts, In re, 470

Gosman, In re, 659

Gothenburg Commercial Company, In re, 217

Grange v White, 544

Great Australian Mining Company, Rc, 507

Great Britain Mutual Life Assurance Society,

In re, 30, 91

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, Rc, Bray v Tofield, 757

Green, In re, 470

Grundy, Kershaw, & Co., Re, 403
Gucbert v Moir, 392
Gurrington Slate Quarries, Re, 430
Habeas Corpus, Re, An Application for, 809
Halifax Joint Stock Banking Company v

Sowerby Bridgo Town Hall Company, 450

Hall, Ex parte, 257

Hamilton v Chain©; Morgan, claimant, 365
Hampshire Co-ojjerativo Milk Company

(Limited), In re, 117

Horlock v Ashbury, 640

Harrison, Ex parte, 677 v Cornwall Mineral Railway Company,

659

Harvey, Re, Harvey v Lambert, 822

v Barnard's Inn, 779

Harvic v Earnie, 15-1

: Hastings v Hurley, 354

Hawkes v Holland, 757

Havwnrd, Ex parte, 686

Head v Willev, 943

Henley v Bates, 560

Heatlicote, In the Goods of, 288

Heatley v Newton, 778

Hendricks v Montagu, 270

Hipkins v 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

Horrox, Re, 297

Hudson v Remington, 849

Hutchinson v Hutchinson, 823

Hutton v Brown, 697

Hyam v Terry, 371

I ml v Kayler, 929

Ireland, In re, 391

Jaques, In re, 078

Jones, Ex parte, 658

Kelsey v Uodd, 331

Kirkham v Peel, 48

Knapmann v Wreford, 559

Lacey, Ex parte, 134

Ladburv, Ex parte, 585

Laird v' Brings, 310, 741

"Libra " The, 741

Lister, Ex parte, 542 v Pearson, 834

London and Suburban Building Company v

Field, 257

Long v Brown, 279

v Ovenden, 354

Lyon v Tweddell, 550

McHenry v Lewis, 777

McLaren, Ex parte, 296

Maclay v Carta Para Gold Mining Company,

886

McMahon v Field, 354

Madras Irrigation and Canal Company, In

ro, 742

Manning, In re, Pcndrey v King, 472

M apleson. Ex parte, 775

March v Swinburne, fc22

Markbam v Markham, 10

Marsden v Graham, 678

Mathewes, Ex parte, 316

Mellish v Rose, 392

Merchant Banking Company, Ex parte, 295

Metropolitan District Railway Company, In

ro, 600

(The), and Cotton's Trustees, In re, 157

Middlesborough, Redcar, &c.f Permanent

Benefit Building Society, Re, 809

Mitchell v Chapman, 450

Molloy v KUby, 317

Money v Money, 471

Monk v Monk, 314

Mudge v Adams, 258

Nash v Eads, 96

Nassau Tea Company (Limited), Re, 625

National Mercantile Bank, Ex parte, 73

National Provincial Bank of England, Ex

parte, 279, 418

Newdick v Gibbons, 860

Newitt, Ex parte, 266

Newton, Ex parte, 134

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, 150

Palmer, Ex parte, 5s5

v Locke, 677

Parker v Wells, 697

Parrott's Trusts. In ro, 758

Partridge v Baylis, 544

Pascoe v Richards, 258

Patching v Barnctt, 000

Potman v Harland and Bennett, 543

Payne v Jacobs, 834, 850

Pelham Publishing Com^

Peters v Lewes and East

Company, 678

Pike v Fitzgibbon, 407

Pillers, Ex parte, 524

Pillgrem v Pillgrem, 607

Piper, In re, 913

Plating Company v Farquharson, 406

Post v Marsh, 117

Pronger v Freeman, 863

Punuett, Ex parte, 72

Rawson v Patton, 500

Rayner v Preston, 448

Redgrave v Hurd, 372

Reet*, Re, Rees v George, 268

Richards v Cullerne, 741

Richardson, Re, Richardson v Pilliner, 489

Ridgway v Ridgway, 608

Robertson v Robertson, 741

[ocr errors]

Robinson v Pickering, 316

Ross v Baker, 794

Rosser v Pontypridd and Caerphilly Railway

Company, 392

Roxburgh© (Duke of) v Cox, 542

Royal Exchange Shipping Company V

McMillan, 809

Ruddock, Re, Ruddock v Redgrave, 587
Rudowv Great Britain Mutual Life ."

ance Society, 488

Rue! v Tatnell, 74

Ruston V Tobin, 862

M St. Petersburg," The, 720

Saldanha v Andrews, 219

Salt v Cooper, 74,156

Sanders v Searson, 60

Sayer, In re, 600

Seear v Lawson, 116

Sephton v Quillian, 767

Sharpe, In ro, 697

Sheard, Ex parte, 72, 116

Sherbronk, Ex parte, 73

Silver Valley Mining Company, In re, 767,

794

Slack v Midland Railway Company, 74

Slad© v Hulme, 778

Smith v 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, la

ro, 430

Spencer v Duckworth, 743

Sperling v Rochfort, 48

Spicer, Re, Spicer v Spicer, 544

Stan bank, In re, 116

Standard Discount Corporation' (Limited),

Re, 136

Streetern, Ex parte, 720

Stubbing, Ex parte, 427

Stuckcy v Warton, 500

Suffell v Bank of England, 720

Tatton, Ex parte, 523

Taylor, Re, Taylor v Taylor, 625

v Pede, 508

Tennant v Ellis, 60

Terrell v Oppert, 834

Thomas v Hounsell, 041

■ v Patent Lionito Manufacturing Com-

pany, 428

Thorndon v Tell, 679

Uhorney's Trusts, In re, 678

Tolmin v Underhay, 660

Underhay v Smith, 199

Union Bank of Kingston-upon-Hull, Ro, 371

Universities Co-operative Association, Bo*

929

Vale, Ex parte, 776

Vargues v Royal London Panorama, 850

Varney v North Metropolitan Tramways

Co., 943

Walter v Head, 742, 757

v Howe, 607

Walters v Walters, 644

Walton, Ex parte, 5s>

Warner v Mosses, 29

Watson v Cave, 278, 315

v Leamington College (Limited), 30

Webber, Re, 791

Whatclcy, Milward, and Company, In re,

Wheal Elisabeth Company, Re, 791, 809

Wheeler v Le Marchant, 427

White v Jones, 297

Whiting v Loomes, 331

Whitmoro v Farley, 512

Wicks, Kx parte, 407

Wigton (Vicar of), Ex parte, 778

Williams, Ex parte, 91, 775

v Briscoe, 603

and Landau's Contract, Re, 875

Willmott v Barlier, 650

Willoughby D'Eresby (Baroness), Ex partej

353

Winter, Ex parte, 333

Witham v Vane, 524

Withernsea Brick Works, In rc, 135

Wolvorhampton and Staffoi^hire Banking

Company v Bond, 240

Wood v Swaun, 134

Working Men's Mutual Society, Ro, 885, 897

Worth, Re, 297

Wye Railway Company v Hawos, 74

Wye Valley Railway Company v Hawes,153

Yarmouth and Gorleston Tramways, Ro, 794

Yeatman, Ex parte, 116

Y'oung, Ex parte, 043

V Dolman, 18

VOL. XXV.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The Officials of tbe Chancery Division wbo undertook
the vacation Work have not hud a very easy time of it, if
we may judge frvno. the number of orders made. The
Vacation Judges have made about 280 orders in court,
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
1878, 820. The vacation is a very different matter
now from what it was ten years ago, when only one
chancery vacation judge was available, aud all the
orders made were two or three score iu number at most.

The Judicial Appointments just made had been already
too much anticipated by public opinion and rumour to
cause any sense of novelty. Iu the case of Lord Justice
Lcsh, a somewhat advanced age is the only drawback to

the high qualifications which all allow him to possess.
But, although some circumstances have made the public
justly suspicious of the value of too advanced age on the
judicial bench, there is no reason to think that the
powers of the learned judge are iu any serious degree
impaired by his having reached a period of life exceeded

by that of several of his colleagues who are still vigorous

aud active. The wide aud exact knowledge of the Lord

Justice on many branches of law, and his great familiar-

ity with practice—always exercised under the guidance of

a clear and vigorous common sense aud a steady purpose,

not only to further the interests of justice, but to carry

out in their spirit the provisions of the new system—will

add to the Court of Appeal a member almost too valuable

to be spared in the Divisional Court from whioh he is

removed. In the appointment of Mr. Watxln Williams

as his successor, we are glad to recognize one who, by
his constant advocacy of law reform, stands pledged to
give to the Judicature Act and Rules fair and full opera-
tion—a qualification which we think of even greater im-
portance than the familiarity with mercantile law which

Mr. Williams is on all hands allowed to possess.

The Form Op The Information in the forthcoming

State prosecution in Ireland has been looked for with

some interest. All the counts appear to charge offences

which are included in the ordinary definition of a con-

spiracy, while the last one, which charges a seditious con*

spiracy, with other persons unknown, to cause aud create

discontent and disaffection amongst the subjects of the

Queen, and to excite aud 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
Law, art. 93) as an agreement with one or more per-
sons " to do any act for the furtherance of any seditious
intention common to both or all of them," and his
definition of a seditious intention, as an iutentiou " to
raise discontent or disaffection among her Majesty's sub-
jects, or to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between
different classes of such subjects." It will be observed that
all the counts in theinformatiouare for misdemeanors. The
law officers of the Crown have probably framed the in-
formation in this manner, partly with the view of obtain-
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 with-
out oause) does not exist in cases of misdemeanors, al-
though it is usual to allow auy reasonable number of
objections of this kind to be made by both the prosecu-
tion aud the defence.

The Correspondence which has appeared in our
columns during the last few weeks affords an indication
of the extraordinary interest which is felt in the next
provincial meeting of the Incorporated Law Society.
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 imme-
diate practical importance were discussed, und were dis-
cussed at greater length; and, above all, if men whose
judgment and knowledge command respect could be
prevailed on to open their lips more frequently. The

« PreviousContinue »