Page images

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

Woodgate, Rochester
COXWELL, EDWARD, Southampton, Gent. March 1. Bassett and Co,

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,

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

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.



spec case

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.



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

Nov. 5.-Sampson v. Marshman.

For Argument.
This was an action brought against the lady superinten-

London, Harris v Truman, Han- York, Jackson v Lovell
bury, & Co
Field, J

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

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

Williams, J

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.

Manisty, a

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



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
The Queen v Rev HM Fletcher James Brown against the G W
In re Darlow & anr

Ry Co

In re Angus & ors

Corrupt Practices at Parliamentary Elections (The Ato

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
Married Women's Property (Mr. Palmer).

Naval Discipline Act, 1866, Amendment (Mr. Trevelyan). |

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.

Grove, J

Bristol, Adams v The Severn & Chatham & Dover Ry Co
Canal Carrying, &c, Co, limd

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,

Lindley, J

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,
In the matter of a Solicitor

Enlarged to first day of Hilary Sittings, 1881,
In the matter of Burt, Bolton & Co and Pokorney, Fielder & Co

Enlarged to first day of Hilary Sittings, 1881,
In the matter of a Solicitor

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.

Special Cases (to be heard before two or more judges).

Demurrers (to be heard before one judge).
Vason v Elmslie & Co

Batthany v Bouch & ors Vosse v Killick

Widdecomb y Westwood Haddon y Crawley


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
Richardson y Saunders

Dibsdale v Pryke
Preece v Morgan

H.M.'s Principal Secretary of Kino v Pilbrow
State for War y Horsman

James Watt and Co v Mersey
Lander v Railway Passengers' Steel and Iron Co
Assurance Co


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 Judgment.
London, Barton v Ommaney Sir H Hawkins

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

LC Baron
Norwich, Lombe v Cooper and Co, limd

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

Chapman, sastande

veyor, govor. &c. v London


Bankruptcy Appeals.
In re Musgrave

Ex parte Hoare & Co
In re Garrud

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

[blocks in formation]


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)

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »