Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Chichester

HURRELL, MARY, Bocking, Essex. March 15. ton. Brrintree

Raper and Freeland,

Veley and CunningGREEN HALGH, HANDEL, Heywood, Lancaster, Tailor. Jan 29. Todd, Heywood

HARGREAVES, JOSEPH, Much Wymondly, Hertford, Esq. March 25. Wade and Andrews, Hitchin

MARGITSON, JOHN, Ditchingham House, Norfolk, Esq. Jan 30. Hartcup and Sons, Bungay

MEDWIN, PILFORD, Horsham, Sussex, Gent. Feb 5. Strangways, Theobald's rd

MERYON, EDWARD, Clarges st, Middlesex, M.D. Feb 15. Gedge and Co, Olc Palace yard

MITCHELL, JAMES, Hockley, Birmingham, Licensed Victualler. Feb 16. Pointon, Birmingham

MOSES, JOHN, Copley, Durham, Miner. Feb 1. Parker, North Bondgate

RAWES, ROBERT, Plumgarths, Kendal, Farmer. Feb 19. Thomson and Wilson, Kendal

SLAUGHTER, MIHILL, Binfield rd, Stockwell, Secretary. Feb 10. Ashurst and Co, Old Jewry

SMITH, WILLIAM CANNON, St Albans, Gent. Jan 17. Wells, St Albans SQUANCE, CHARLES, East Stonehouse, Devon, Pensioned Porter. Feb 15. Heath, Devonport

TINDAL, ACTON, Aylesbury, Clerk of the Peace. March 1. Davenport, Oxford

VICKERS, JOSEPH, New Sheldon, Durham, Miller. Feb 1. Parker, North Bondgate, Bishop Auckland

[Gazette, Jan. 4.]

COUNTY COURTS.

SALISBURY.

(Before Mr. Serjeant TINDAL ATKINSON, Judge.)
Dec. 6.-Re Thompson's Bankruptcy.

Order and disposition-Goods intrusted to bankrupt as bailee-
Consent of bailor.

His HONOUR, who had reserved judgment in this case at the last court, said :-This is an application by Henry George Thompson, the son of the bankrupt, asking for an order by the court directing that the trustee, Walter Friere Marreco, should deliver to the applicant the several goods and chattels consisting of articles of household furniture specified in an inventory annexed to an affidavit in support of the motion. The facts of the case are few and simple. The bankrupt, George Thompson, carried on, up to the 14th of August last, the business of an innekeper at Salisbury, and on that day was adjudicated a bankrupt. It is alleged, and not denied, inasmuch as the facts stated in the joint affidavit of the father and the son must be taken as adImitted, that the son, who is claiming this furniture, on giving up the business of an innkeeper at Salisbury, two years since, removed the whole of his furniture to his father's house, upon an agreement that, with the exception of a sofa and a bed for which there was not room in the apartments selected, the furniture was to be stored by the bankrupt, on a payment of £5 a year, two years of which have been paid. Any consent to the bankrupt having the use or control of the furniture or knowledge of its being used is denied by the son, but, as a fact, the whole of the furniture was found by the person put in charge by the trustee of the inn to form part of the ordinary effects of the bankrupt, and had been so used by him in the conduct of his business, and no doubt to third persons, customers, and creditors, it would present the appearance of being his own. So far indeed had the bankrupt dealt with the furniture as his own that he gave a bill of sale to a creditor which covered these as well as other articles. Upon these facts I am called upon to say whether the furniture claimed in this case falls within the provisions of the 5th sub-section of section 15 of the Act of 1869, which enacts, "All goods and chattels being at the commencement of the bankruptcy in the possession, order, or disposition of the bankrupt, being a trader, by the consent and permission of the true owner of which goods and chattels

owner or

the bankrupt is the reputed owner, or of which he has taken upon himself the sale or disposition as owner, form part of the assets of the bankrupt." In the case of Ex parte Dorman, Re Lake (21 W. R. 94), it was held that, according to the true construction of this sub-section, it is confined to cases where the bankrupt is in the sole possession of goods, as the sole reputed owner. It appears to me, on the facts, difficult to see where such sole possession or sole ownership could arise, unless there is gross fraud in the alleged fact that a separate room was taken and paid for by the son in order that his goods should be kept distinct from those of his father. No such sole possession or sole ownership could, as it appears to me, exist. In order to render goods in the possession, order, or disposition of a bankrupt, two things are required-first, they must be in his possession under such circumstances as to make him the reputed owner of the goods; and, secondly, they must have been left in his possession through some impropriety or laches of the true owner, under circumstances calculated to enable the bankrupt to obtain a false credit by inducing the world to look at him as the true owner (Hamilton v. Bell, 10 Ex. 545). In the present case, in the absence of fraud, and fraud is not alleged, it must be assumed that the applicant is the true owner, and that the furniture claimed was 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 nature of warehouse rent; that being so, it is difficult to say that the furniture in question was placed in the bankrupt's possession under circumstances which, in the eyes of the world, would make him the reputed owner, any more than when a man takes an unfurnished apartment at a rent, can be and places his goods in it, the landlord said to be the reputed the sole postenant's sessor of his furniture. In my view of 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 trespass, nor can I see any impropriety or laches on the part of the true owner here which enabled the bankrupt to obtain a 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 which they were stored, the true owner was absent in London, and had no knowledge until after the bankruptcy of the fact of the removal, and any consent to such removal is positively denied by him. The cases show that if the possession by the bankrupt 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 Carlon, Re Birks, 4 D. & C. 120; Ex parte Bell, 1 De G. 577). In Collins v. Forbes (3 T. R. 316), it was held that when the bankrupt is in possession of the goods of another, bona fide with the consent of the other at the time of the bankruptcy, for a specific purpose beyond which he has not the right of disposition or alteration, such permission does not entitle the trustee to recover the value of the goods. If subsequent doubt had not been thrown upon this authority, it would be decisive of the present case; but it is still unquestioned law that a carpenter receiving timber to convert into a wagon, or a tailor to whom cloth is delivered to be made into clothes, have neither of them such a possession of the timber or the cloth as will constitute him reputed owner of it (Rex v. Egginton, 1 T. R. 370; Moore v. Barthopp, 1 B. & C.). Nor can there be any reputed ownership of securities held for a specific purpose (Belcher v. Campbell, 8 Q. B. 1). On the same ground, goods sent on approval do not pass under the order and disposition clause until, either expressly or by implication, such approval has been given (Smith v. Hudson, 6 B. & S. 431, per Blackburn, J.). I have arrived at the conclusion, after carefully reviewing the various authorities, that there never was any consent given by the son that the bankrupt should have the order and disposition of this furniture, and that in fact it never came into his (the bankrupt's) possession otherwise than by a wrongful act on his part, and that with the exception of the sofa and the bed, which it is admitted were placed by the consent of the applicant in the hands of the bankrupt without restriction, the rest of the furniture must be given up by the trustee to the claimant in the case. There being no estate, there will be no order as to costs.

Nodder, for the bankrupt. Powning, for the trustee.

BRADFORD.

Oct. 19.-Gott v. Sutcliffe.

In this case, Messrs. Wm. & Samuel Gott, Bradford were the plaintiffs in proceedings taken by them under the garnishee clauses of the County Courts Acts, by which they sought to attach certain assets in the hands of Lister, Sutcliffe, belonging to the estate of William Sutcliffe, deceased, who died in February last. At the date of his death, William Sutcliffe was indebted to Messrs. Gott in the sum of £30 13s. 8d. Letters of administration to his personal estate were granted to his widow, Annie Sutcliffe, in April last. On the 8th of July, Messrs. Gott sued Mrs. Sutcliffe, as administratrix, for the amount of their debt, and they recovered judgment by default, and under that judgment they levied an execution, by which they realized £5. They afterwards found that Lister Sutcliffe had in his hands certain debts due to the deceased's estate, and they thereupon took garnishee proceedings in August last for the purpose of attaching those debts with the view of satisfying the balance of their debt and costs. The case had been before the court on three occasions.

Berry appeared in support of the proceedings taken by Messrs. Gott, and

He was

Greaves, for the garnishee debtor, Mr. Lister Sutcliffe. His HONOUR, in giving his judgment, said that this was the first case in which he had had to consider the rights of a garnishee creditor to have a garnishee order made which was to attach all the assets of a deceased person. aware that it had been the practice of that court, and of all other courts, to issue default summonses without reference to the question of whether or not the debt was one due from the defendant himself or from the defendant in a representative character. He was satisfied that the power given by the Act of 1875 to issue default summonses was intended to be limited to cases in which the debt was due from the defendant in his individual character. One reason for that opinion was that there was a class of debts in respect of which a default summons could not be issued except by leave, and the question whether leave was granted depended upon whether the goods were supplied to the debtor in the coarse of his trade. Another class of debts required inquiry as to whether a debtor occupied a certain position-whether he was a servant or a minor. None of those could apply, it seemed to him, to a deceased person. Default summonses were issued frequently; and, if the defendants against whom they were issued did not appear to object to 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 served, and by not objecting to the summons on the ground that it was issued against him in a representative character, a defendant might be taken to submit to such judgment as the plaintiff could obtain upon that summons. The rule pro

vided that where a defendant served with a default summons did not appear at the hearing, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of course. But there was a difficultyand to his mind it justified the view which he tookin reference to judgment recovered upon a default summons, in applying it to a judgment against a defendant in a representative character. The only judgment in a default summons was against an individual. He could conceive many cases in which the judgment creditor would prefer to sue an administratrix-calling her administratrix, and making it appear by her description that he was suing her in her representative character, and taking the chance of her not appearing, so that he might be able to get judgment against her individually. There might be cases in which a person should be the representative of an insolvent estate, and yet be perfectly solvent himself, and in which, the judgment being against the individual personally, the ereditor of the estate found it to his benefit to know that he was suing a solvent representative, and took the chance of the representative not coming forward to resist the default Sammons, or to set up any special defence he might have -such as his not having received sufficient assets, or his having administered the assets he had received. The creditor of the deceased person adopted that form of procedure for bis own benefit, and he must take the consequences of it. The consequence of taking the summons in that form, and the judgment founded upon that form, was that he established his right to a personal debt against the icdividual. There were many cases in which it would be greatly

to the advantage of the creditor to sue in that form, because if he did so, and did not get payment from the person against whom he had recovered judgment, he could issue a garnishee summons against any person who owed a debt to that person in his individual capacity. Suppose that the person against whom the judgment was obtained filed a petition for liquidation. He would then be entitled under that liquidation to priority, as a secured creditor, over all the other individual creditors in the administration of the assets. But in the case of any such liquidation proceedings, the fund in the hands of the garnishee debtor would not be assets of the administrator, and would not have passed to the trustee in the liquidation, because they would have to be used for the benefit of the creditors of the deceased intestate. He was anxious to proceed accurately in this case as far as he could, because he should like practitioners to understand what were the principles upon which he considered garnishee orders ought to proceed. He did not think that any such debt should be made the subject of a default summons, but if it was so made, then the only judgment that could issue upon that, however the debtor was described, would be one against the debtor in an individual capacity, and it appeared to him that the creditor deprived himself of the right to treat as a fund applicable to the payment of his debt any debt due to the administrator in the due course of the administration of the estate. He was very sorry indeed sincerely sorry-that in such a jurisdiction as that, which was novel, and required to be exercised with great care and discretion, and which involved great responsibility, there was no appeal from the decision that a county court judge might come to. Unfortunately, there was no appeal whatever, and if he had been satisfied that Messrs. Gott were right, he should have had no hesitation in giving them what he considered they were entitled to. Being, however, of a contrary opinion, he felt that if he made the order he would be placing the garnishee debtor in a most perilous position. There was no decision to guide him on the subject, but, without fearing to make the order, which he would have made if he had felt that Messrs. Gott were entitled to it, he felt that the order ought not to be made. It was some satisfaction to him to feel that, if the contention of Mr. Berry was correct-that the plaintiffs would be secured creditors of the estate of the deceased-such security could be made available for their benefit in the administration suit which had been commenced.

The summons was then dismissed, with costs.

MANCHESTER.

(Before J. A. RUSSELL, Esq., Q.C., Judge.)

Jan. 1.-Lawrence v. Simpson.

Mr. Thomas George Lawrence sued Mr. James Simpson, head bailiff of the Salford Hundred Court of Record, for recovery of £11 13s. 2d., as damages arising from the negligence of the defendant in executing a writ of fi. fa. which the plaintiff had obtained against a debtor named Edward Ashcroft.

Nash appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and
Fleming, for the defendant.

The writ was issued on Friday, the 13th of August last, but was not executed until mid-day on the Tuesday following, when it was found that the debtor had made a deed of assignment of his goods to other creditors, such deed being dated the day previously. The evidence for the defence showed that in consequence of the holidays of the court being close at hand when the writ was issued there was great pressure of business, the assistant bailiffs being unable to execute the writs as soon as they generally did, owing to the large number placed in their hands. If special instructions had been given at the time the writ was sent to the head bailiff, that it was necessary or desirable to execute it at once, that would have been done, but no such instructions were given. The writ was, therefore, taken in its ordinary course, and given to an assistant bailiff, named Samuel Murray, for execution on Saturday afternoon. Murray served a number of writs in Rochdale, Heywood, and Bury on the Monday following, but was unable to execute the writ in question; he accordingly gave it the following morning to another assistant bailiff, named Burton, who, when he went the same day to serve the writ, found some one in possession under the deed of assignment.

His HONOUR held that the writ had, considering the circumstances of the case, not been delayed for an unusual length of time, and gave judgment for the defendant, with costs.

BRIGHTON.

(Before A. MARTINEAU, Esq., Judge.)

Nov. 5.-Sampson v. Marshman.

This was an action brought against the lady superintendent of the Brighton Female Convalescent Home, to recover damages, laid at £50. The plaintiff was a London clerk, whose wife was admitted to the Home and was afterwards attacked by scarlet fever. The action was based on the ground of the alleged negligence of defendant in introducing Mrs. Sampson into a room in the Home too soon after another person had been taken ill of scarlet fever, by which, it was contended, Mrs. Sampson became infected by that disease and had since suffered much pain and organic debility. It was explained that persons were admitted to the Home by small payments, and it was urged that, however small and inadequate the payments were, it did not absolve defendant from the necessity of warning Mrs. Sampson of the danger she was running.

His HONOUR, in giving judgment, held that it was not proved that plaintiff's wife had caught the fever at the Home. The institution was of a charitable character, and being so, a charge against it should be fully proved if made, and he was not satisfied on that point. Precautions had been taken to disinfect the place, and though it was their bounden duty to give a truthful answer if questioned, he did not think it incumbent on lodging-house keepers, and others like defendant, to volunteer information as to there having been fever in their house, supposing, of course, that proper precautions had been taken. He gave a verdict for defendant, with costs.

COURT PAPERS.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
HILARY SITTINGS, 1881.
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.
NEW TRIAL PAPER.
For Argument.

Field, J

London, Harris v Truman, Han- York, Jackson v Lovell
bury, & Co
Bowen, J
London, Bunnett & Co v Potter & Warwick, Ford v Osborne & anr
Sons
Field, J
Field, J
London, Whiting v Martin
Middlesex, Lords Commrs of the
Bowen, J Admlty v Temperley & ors
London, Dickenson v Norris
Bowen, J
Field, J Middlesex, Corbett v Woolloton
Surrey, Shilton v White & anr
Williams, J
The late L C Justice London, Foreign & Col Govern-
Liverpool, Wappers v Imperial ment Trust Co, limd, v Peirson
Marine Insurance Co
The late LC Justice
Baggallay, LJ Middlesex, Pinder v Patrick
Leeds, Wheater & anr v Gray
Williams, J
Bowen, J Middlesex, Hayes v Cordingley
Dorset, The Queen v Inhabitants
Williams, J
of Dorset
Ld Coleridge Middlesex, Percival v Hughes
York, Feldman v Margeson
Manisty, J
Bowen, J London, Craven v Norman
Lincoln, Bunting, jun, v Morley
Williams, J
Field, J London, Brown v Rolt & Co
Shearburn v Salter
Williams, J
Off Ref, G M Dowdeswell, Esq
York, Jackson & anr v Lovell

Bowen, J

[blocks in formation]

LEGISLATION OF THE WEEK

HOUSE OF LORDS.

JAN. 7.-BILLS READ A FIRST TIME.

Judicial Committee (Lord Chancellor).

Burials Act (Removal of Doubts) (Lord Chancellor).

JAN. 10.-BILLS READ A SECOND TIME. Burials Act (Removal of Doubts). Judicial Committee.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

JAN. 7.-BILLS READ A FIRST TIME. Corrupt Practices at Parliamentary Elections (The Attorney General).

Ballot Act (Continuance and Amendment) (Sir C. Dilke). [Upwards of sixty Bills introduced by private members were also read a first time].

JAN. 11.-BILLS READ A FIRST TIME. Married Women's Property (Mr. Palmer). Naval Discipline Act, 1866, Amendment (Mr. Trevelyan). Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Mr. Stevenson). Care and Treatment of Lunatics (Mr. Dillwyn.)

On Wednesday last, says the Times reporter, Lord Coleridge, on taking his seat, was asked to put off one or two cases in which Mr. Murphy, Q.C., who is on circuit as a commissioner of assize, is engaged as counsel, and he at once acceded to the application, and said that any case under similar circumstances would be put off, and might be deemed to be so put off, on notice to the associate.

It may be mentioned that there was a great improvement noticed in the cause list, from which all the cases postponed were left out, so that the list only contained the causes ready for trial, and, therefore, it now represents what is the real work to be done. Even as thus reduced, however, the cause list contained the names of 734 causes. Many of these have already been appointed for particular days up to the 21st of February. It is clear, therefore, that sittings at Nisi Prius will be held continuously during the assizes, except on the two days a week when the Divisional Court sits in Banc.

In re Ingram v Mayor, &c, of Leeds

spec case

[blocks in formation]

Bristol, Adams y The Severn & Chatham & Dover Ry Co
Canal Carrying, &c, Co, limd
Lord Coleridge
Lord Coleridge Middlesex, Hancock v Baker &
Gloucester, Whitehouse v London Sons
Lopes, J
& N Western Ry Co and Gt Middlesex, Hancock v Baker &
Western Ry Co
Sons
Fry, J
Lopes, J
London, Young v Sonora Co & (Motion for judgment)
Lord Coleridge Middlesex, Pearce, Lever & Co v
Middlesex, Simmons v Marsden, The Lombard Building Society
jun
Lord Coleridge
Middlesex, McLay & Co v Perry
Lopes, J
(On affidavit)
& Co
Lopes, J London, Frost v Fownes & ors
Middlesex, Thornhill v London,
Lindley, J

ors

[blocks in formation]

anr

ors

Middlesex, Green v Stewart and London, Akerblom v Price and
Huddleston, B
Co
Pollock, B
To be heard before three judges.
Middlesex, Cummings v Gt N Ry Warwick, Coleman v L and N W
Co
Huddleston, B Ry Co
Huddleston, B
Mildlesex, 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
Stephen, J Gloucester, Butler v Storer
London, Grant v Holland
Fry, J
Stephen, J Warwick, Vickers ▾ 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
LC Baron Union Accidental Assurance
Norwich, Lombe v Cooper and Co, limd
Fry, J
LC Baron Lewes, Ball v Beardsley
Middlesex, Hyman and anr v Nye
LC Baron
Sir H Hawkins Leeds, Smith v Woodhead
Gloucester, Clarke, trustee, &c v
Stephen, J
Walker
Fry, J Liverpool, Cooke v Sheard
Maidstone, Hutton v Vale
Manisty, J
LC Baron London, Dale and anr v Wakefield
Sir H Hawkins

[ocr errors]

and Sons

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

To be argued before three Judges
Surrey, South Eastern Ry Co v
Chwdns of Lambeth
Cardigan, Aberystwith, Atten-
borough v Hughes
Monmouth, Lloyd v Overseers &c
of Llandogo
Yorkshire, Bridlington, York,
Palin v Harrison
Lancashire, Simpkin▼ Robinson
Liverpool, Marcus v London and
N W Ry Co

Devon, East Stonehouse, Pooley v
Sampson

London, Kellock and Co v Pro-
prietors of Butler's Wharf
London, Same v Cox, Patterson
and Co

London, Rachman and anr v
Brasch and anr
Northampton, Towcester, Lock-
ton v Wrighton

Surrey, Hare v Chwdns, &c, of
Putney

London, Drysdale v Jones and

anr

London, Aston v Hurly
Sussex, East Grinstead, Hyder v
London Brighton and South
Coast Ry Co

REVENUE

Att-Gen v Mitchell and Gibbon cause on English information and answer Att-Gen v Noyes cause on English infmtn and

answer

PAPER.

[blocks in formation]

Att-Gen (informant) and the
Mayor, &c, of Kingston-upon-
Hull and Thomas Spurr v Sir
EXCEPTIONS TO ANSWERS OF DEFENDANTS.
Att-Gen (informant) and the Met The British India Steam Nvgtn
Ry Co and John Bell (defts) Co, limd, and the Commrs of
cause by English information Inland Revenue
Att-Gen (informant) and the Met
Dis Ry Co and George Hop-
wood (defts)

case on appl from adjctn of Commrs under the Stamp Act, 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 Dodson, surveyor, &c, v Walker

and Maude Keen, surveyor, &c, v Farlow The Homer Hill Colliery Co, limd, v Leech, surveyor, &c The Gt Western Ry Co v Musgrave, surveyor, &c Rolfe, surveyor, &c, v Hyde and Co

The Aberdare Rhondda Coal Co, &c, lima, v Newman, surveyor, &c Chapman, surveyor, &c, v Royal Bank of Scotland Mersey Docks and Harbour Bd v Lucas, surveyor, &c Martin, surveyor, &c, v Trustees of Congl Memorial Hall Dodson, surveyor, &c, v London and N W Ry Co Improved Industrial Dwellings Co v Last, surveyor, &c

FROM THE In re Musgrave In re Garrud In re Alven In re Leyman In re Packman

In re Ward

Station) v Rolfe, surveyor, &c Same (County Hall) v Same Stoker v Abbott, surveyor, &c Whitwell, surveyor, &c, v Munby Justices, &c, of County of War

wick v Thrift, surveyor, &c Jeans, surveyor, &c, v E Crawshay and W Crawshay Caird, surveyor, &c, v Worthem City Bank v Last, surveyor, &c Sun Fire Office Co v Same Jowett, surveyor, &c,v Moss (for Justices of Lancashire Midland Ry Co v Blake, surveyor, &c

Last, surveyor, &c, v London
Assurance Corporation
Bowers, surveyor, &c, v Justices
of Peace for Co of Cumberland
Pacey, surveyor, &c, v Horsley
London and N W Ry Co v Mus-
grave, surveyor, &c
Cottell, Inspector of Taxes, v
Justices of Co of Monmouth

COURT OF APPEAL.
Bankruptcy Appeals.

LONDON BANKRUPTCY COURT.

Ex parte Hoare & Co

Ex parte Newitt and anr

Ex parte Hall and anr

Ex parte The Trustee

Ex parte London and County
Banking Company

Ex parte Bennett

[blocks in formation]

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 are 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.

55 QB Roberts (C A Jenkins) v The Boston Guardian Newspaper Co, limd (Wright and P) SJ

56 Ex Griffin (G M Cooke) v England (B Hope)

58 Ex Webb (E R Phillips) v Iles (Taylor and Hales) without jury 58 QB Rutty (T M Cridge) v Nicholson (Nash and F)

59 CP Clement (Digby and T) v Stanley (AT Cox)

60 CP Birkett (C Harris) v Aumon and anr (Flux S and Co(

62 Ex

63 Ex

64 Ex

65 Ex

61 CP Foster (Button, Grove and Co) v Edwards (Singleton and T) Elvin and Son (W T Ricketts) v Braid, Junr (J H Jonas) Newman (Same) v Bockett (Bockett and Son) Barnard (J Emanuel and Co) v Fowler (Guscotte and Co) Aylmer (Same) v Evans (J V Musgrave) without jury 66 Ex Ryan (J Mason) v Braid and anr (J Nicholls) 67 QB Murray (W W King) v Wood (Wontner and Sons) SJ 68 CP Parsons (Sheffield and Sons) v Graves (W J Foster) 69 QB Ash (Culpeper and Co) v Lee (R Charles)

70 Ex Cockx (TW Buckler) v Gaber (Thompson and W)

71 CP Clark (S A Tucker) v Hitchins (J E Coxwell)

72 Ex Cross (J Welman) v Kealey (In person)

73 QB Horton (Guscotte, W and D) v Goody (A Leslie) SJ

74 QB Pinch (J Cotton) v Gorman (W H Armstrong)

75 QB Jacobs (Same) v Smith and Gale (O G Harman)

76 QB Williams (T D Dutton) v Monico and anr (Rooper and W)

SJ

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Miller (A C Lewis) v Milman and anr (Hare and F) SJ Tillman (R K Bartlett) v Barnes (W A Crump and Son) Bird (W Evans) v Knowles (W S Fox)

1 CP Kent (Wilkinson and D) v Benjamin (J A Waring) 2 Ex Pepperell (G M Cooke) v Simpkin, Marshall & Co (Day & C) 3 Ex Briggs (Wyatt and B) v Jenkinson (Berry and B) 4 CP

86 Ex

Moore, trustee of Webster (Emmet and Son) v Woolley (Stollard and W) SJ

87 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)

88 QB

City of London Discount Corporation, limd (W H Boberts) v Beall (In person)

Burley and anr (F W Snell and G) v Lingham Bros (Ullithorne and Co)

6 QB Tippins (G Crafter) v Budden (Stollard and W)

80 Ex

7 Ex Parkes (T W Goldring) v London and St Katherine Docks Co (W M Hacon)

90 CP

91 Q B

8 QB

Redmond (Wontner ard Sons) v Gamble (Lewis and L) 9 Ex Belli (PA Hanrott) v Lane (Foss and Legg) SJ

92 CP

93 Ex

Allen (Rollit and Sons) v Massey and Wife (Parkers) SJ
Barber (Cronin and R) v Benton and anr (Dubois and R)
Bennett (Lewis and L v Leah (Kent and K)
Allen (Wilkinson and D) v Rendle (Dubois and R) SJ
Bradley (R C Green) v Lea (E Pooley)

10 Ex 11 Q B 12 CP 13 CP Ford, trustee, &c (G LP Eyre & Co) v Hastings (S S Seal) 13* QB Goldschmidt and anr (J R Macarthur) v Ecclesiastical Commrs and crs (White, B and W; Few and Co; Willoughby and W) SJ

Martin (W B Brook) v Dunn (A T Hewitt) without jury Brewis (C O Humphreys and Son) v Stacpoole (S Scott) SJ Flower and ors (Flower and N) v Palmer and anr (Hubbard, Son and R)

91 CP

Lord Ashburton and anr (White, B and W) v Great Western Ry Co (R R Nelson) SJ

95 CP 96 CP 97 Ex

98 Ex

14 Q B

Sandeman (Harrison, B and H) v Harrison and ors (W Rawlins)

15 Ex

Sharkey (Scott 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 II) v The Countess of Perth (WH Smith)

Grimstone, admr, &c (Paterson; Son and B) v in
per son)

99 QB Joseph (G Robins) v Geen (W Beck)

100 QB Pope (Collins and W) v The Wanzer Sewing Machine Co, limd (Lyne and H)

101 QB Pocock (Merriman and P) v Howcroft and Watkins (Taylor, H and T)

Michell (Simpson and P) v Rowland (J B Churchill)
Russell (T W Baldwin) v Bull and ors (Stocken and J)
Sherren (F G Gorton) v South Eastern Ry Co (WR Stevens)
SJ

102 CP

20 QB Angell and anr (Layton, Son and L) v Truefit (West, K A and Co) SJ

103 C P 104 QB 105 CP

21 CP Carr, Gomm and anr (Still and Son) v Short and ors (W Beck)

Marshall (Field, S and Co) v Morrison (Le Riche and Son)
Ladd (J Chapman and B) v Burt and ors (Wild, B and W)
Fulwood (Nash and F) v Hickey (J and E Scott)
Sprowl (J J Watts) v Waterlow and Son, limd (Lousada
and E)

22 CP Anglo-Ameen Cattle Co (Pawle, F and C) v Wood (Watson, Sons and R) SJ

23 Ex Hughes (R Wilson) v Bond (Brownlow and H)

21 Ex Lewis (E I Sidney and Son) v Reynolds (Curtis and B) 25 QB Knight (W and AR Ford) v Yates and Co (G Thompson) SJ 26 CP AE Ball, Trustee of Loe (Finnis and W) v Warwick (N White)

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, C and Co) SJ 109 QB Neveux (M Abrahams and Co) v Argles (Argles and Co) 110 CP Blake (Biggenden) v Hayer (Angell and Co)

111 CP Bastendorf (J E Lickfold) v Parkess (Hopwood and Sons) 112 QB Diamond (Underwood, Sons, and P) v London and N W Ry Co (R F Roberts) SJ

113 C P 114 Q B

27 Ex

28 Ex

29 CP

30 Ex

Webster (Bordman and Co) v Martin and anr (W Morley)
Dixon (JT Moss) v Met Board of Works (R Ward) SJ
Jackson and ors (Hedges and B) v Fletcher and ors (Walker
B and Co; W W Wynne; Vanderpump and Co)
Bader (Morten & C) v Martin (A W Hurrell)

Brewer (Woodbridge and Sons) v Chichester (C A Jenkins) Sargent ( N Mason) v Abbotts and ors (Layton, Son, and L)

[blocks in formation]

31 CP White (HE Toovey) v Burton (Stoneham and L) 32 Q B Middleton (J B Lodge) v Marshall and aur (W C Stoker) without jury

117 Ex 118 Ex 119 CP

Sowerbutts (Chappell and G) v Parkes (Jones)
Candler (Austen, De Gex and Co) v Mantland (J S Fowler)
Francis (W Arnold) v Forsdick (Wills and R)
Jacobs (J Cotton) v Central Bank of London (R Voss)
Tremaro (Nye and G) v London General Omnibus Co
(Harries, W and R) SJ

33 Ex Worthington (Dean, Chubb and Co) v Sudell (P Goode) 31 CP Toovey (He E Toovey) v Farquharson (E M Hore) 35 QB Vreones (F W Denny) v Bratzali (G F Bell)

[blocks in formation]

36 Ex Brosnan (Harting and Son) v Bignold (G É Carpenter) SJ 37 CP Shaw (S Francis) v Deardon (Micklethwait and Co) 38 QB Daws (B Hutchinson) v Lond Gen Omnibus Co, ld (Harries, W and R) SJ

Wilson (Freeman and W) v Cornu and anr (Cronin and R)
Colbert (Lewis and L) v Powell (W T Boydell)
Robertson (W O Reader) v Great Northern Ry Co (Nelson,
B and N) SJ

123 Q B

124 Q B

39 QB Plummer (Same) v Same (Same) SJ

40 QB Carter (Same) Burton (L Hand)

41 Q B Sherrin (Same) v Carle (J H Child)

42 Ex Burton (C Turner) v Davids (W Beck)

Morris an dors (Day and C) v Budden and anr (Prior, B, C and A)

Potter (Sympson, W andT) v Cotton and ors (Tweedie and Co; Marsden and W) SJ

43 QB Smith (E A Swan) v Hankey (Abbott, J and Co)

44 QB Blades (W H Marshall) v Saichwell and anr (T O Dear)

45 Ex Hawkins (Parkins, Land O) v Ewer (Harper, B and B) 46 CP Rowney (Wild, B and W) v King (W A Downing)

47 Q B Tibbitt and anr (Wright and L) v Edwards (H H Hughes) 48 QB Martin (C Butcher) v Cox (Rutter and Son) SJ 49 Ex Foote (Learoyd, L'and P) v Baker (Venn and W) 50 CP Wilkins (G H Finch) v Tullidge (R Chandler)

125 QB

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 (H C

Godfray)

127 QB Over (Gedge and Co) v Heywood (Druce, Sons and J) SJ 128 CP Shubrook (F Taylor) v Tufnell (Holmes and Son) SJ 129 Ex Evison (Taylor and J) v Shepherd and anr (R Wood) 130 CP Bonney (Woodbridge and Sons) v Henwood (S Roberts) 131 QB Price (Brundrett, R and G) v Lefevre (W and AR Ford)

SJ

Holness (J T Moss) v Borough Wharves and Warehouses Co limd (Starkey and Co)

[blocks in formation]

Marriage (G C Lea) v Pilley (H Morris)

52 Ex Breadalbane (R S Taylor, Son and H) v Foakes (N Bennett) 53 Ex Same (Same) v Same (Same) 2nd action

134 CP

54 QB Chidley (C O Newman) v Bennett (Barton and P)

Koen (A S H Jones) v Bates (T Allingham) SJ 135 Ex Stiles (Lewin and Co) v Williams (Hicks and A) 136 QB Taylor (Denton, H & T) v Upton (Morten and C)

« PreviousContinue »