Page images
PDF
EPUB

A portion of it should perhaps only raise a smile on the faces of men of business at the ignorance displayed, for all the world in the columus of the Times, but another part will raise other emotions.

First, as to the ignorance displayed. The writer sagely remarks that when he renewed a long lease he was required to insure the house. Of course he was. Every lessee is required to do so, unless the lessor prefers to insure himself, and to charge the premium paid as rent. The reasons for the requirement are too obvious for me to waste words in stating them. Then-increasing in wisdom-he goes on to say that the obligation on him to insure 66 was doubly unnecessary on account of the length of the lease, and the self-insuring multitude of the landlord's houses." Why, Sir, this is absolute nonsense. The chances that a house may be burnt down during a long term must be greater than that it will be burnt down during a short term, and how can a multitude of houses be selfinsuring !! Now, as to the part of the matter which is not laughable-the writer says that a certain office was prescribed in the lease, and proceeds to give as the reason for its being prescribed, "of course, because the landlord's solicitor had been bribed to put it in "-the context showing that he means bribed by the receipt of a commission from the insurance office. Did the writer never hear that some insurance offices are at least supposed to be sounder or more liberal in their treatment of claims than others, and could he not suppose it at least possible that a given office was preferred by the landlord or the solicitor on one or other of these grounds; or "would he be surprised to hear" that landlords are themselves sometimes directors of insurance offices, and do all they can to secure business to such offices; or-but why should I state, as I might, twenty other reasons (none of them having anything to do with the solicitor) why an office should be prescribed ? No; according to this writer, it must necessarily be the ever-wicked solicitor who has done the deed, and from the basest motives; and this calumny on the honourable profession to which I am proud to belong is put forth without stating a particle of proof of its truth. This I denounce as a shameful act, and it has stirred me to write this letter.

I should perhaps add that Sir Edmund Beckett is a stranger to me, and that I have no suspicion even who the solicitor mentioned in his letter may be. G. F. KING.

66, Cannon-street, E.C., April 11.

A PRINTER'S PROTEST. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-In your Cases of the Week, p. 371, In re Myer's Patent, the Master of the Rolls, referring to Mr. Wilson's book on the Judicature Acts, is reported to say, "The full stop is not in the Act, it must have been inserted by the printer." I am not the printer of Mr. Wilson's book, but, as a mild protest on behalf of a too-frequently-found-faultwith fraternity, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that in a Queen's Printers' copy of the Act, now before me, lines 5 and 6 of p. 114 are as follows-"Add to Indorsement :-And for an injunction."-with a full stop. H. W. B. April 15.

any

means, and that, apart from the question how far the wife was restricted by the terms of the separation deed to an allowance of £250 per annum, the inquiry, if carried out, must result in a much larger allowance to her than £250 per annum. The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and COTTON and LINDLEY, L.JJ.), held that the wife was not entitled to allowance beyond the £250. JESSEL, M.R., said that the question was at once novel and of great importance. The separation deed was executed and, in fact, had its whole origin in that adultery. At a subsequent period, after the husband had committed adultery with the knowledge of the wife, the husband renewed his illicit intercourse with the woman with whom he had before the separation deed committed adultery with the wife's knowledge, and the wife thereupon instituted the suit, and obtained the decree for judicial separation. She also in that suit claimed the right to the custody of the two youngest children and succeeded in obtaining a direction to that effect. Considering that the two youngest children were girls, and that the mother had not been to blame, it would have been impossible to have interfered to prevent her from bringing the suit. The husband, however, still remained liable under the deed for the maintenance of the two youngest children and for the allowance to the wife. In the meantime he had obtained an accession of fortune which seemed to have been an additional inducement for the wife's application for permanent alimony. This application was granted by the President in substance, for he held that she was entitled to apply for and obtain a larger holding, he had rightly exercised his discretion. Now, the contract contained sum than £250 per annum as alimony. The question was whether, in so in the separation deed could not be affected by the adultery of the husband or wife. The husband would remain liable to pay the allowance under his covenant whether he committed adultery or not. In cases of judicial separation the Legislature had not thought fit to give the same power to the court to deal with settlements as in the case of dissolution of marriage. There the court was empowered to vary not only post-nuptial but also ante-nuptial settlements, but in the case of a judicial separation only there was no such power. It was impossible, therefore, for the court to take upon itself to allot such alimony as might be just, as if it thought that a less amount than what was provided by the deed would be just, it could not reduce the amount, there being less one of the party had so acted as to disentitle himself, or herself, from no power to set aside the deed. The court could not, therefore, interfere, uarelying on the contract. The exercise of this discretion had been rested on the ground of public policy; but this was a very dangerous principle on which to proceed. Then it was said that if the wife was not allowed to apply for increased maintenance, it would be allowing the husband to commit adultery with impunity. But non-payment of money was not freedom from punishment. The husband and wife in this case were living separate, and it was im. possible to say that by his committing an act which did not affect her directly she had become entitled to receive a larger sum than by the separation deed was covenanted to be allowed to her. It might be said that the subsequent adultery of the husband rendered a return to cohabitation less probable, but persons who executed a separation deed were not presumed or supposed to be likely to return to cohabitation. It appeared to his lordship, therefore, that there had not been misconduct on the part of the husband of such deed. COTTON, L.J., and LINDLEY, L.J., concurred.-SOLICITORS, Gregory, a nature as to entitle the wife to set aside the provisions of the separation Rowcliffes, & Co.; W. & A. Ranken Ford.

MODE OF TRIAL-RIGHT OF DEFENDANT TO JURY-CHANCERY ACTION— Chambers, before the Court of Appeal on the 19th inst., a question arose as DISCRETION OF JUDGE-APPEAL-ORD, 36, RR. 3, 26.-In a case of Hunt v. to the right of a defendant to have an action tried before a judge and jury. The action was brought by a landlord against the executors (who were also devisees of real estate) of a deceased tenant of a farm, to recover some rent, and also claiming damages for the alleged improper cultivation of the farm. The plaintiff claimed payment by the defendants of what should be found due to him, and that, in case the defendants should not admit assets of the testator, his real and personal estate might be administered. The action DEED-purported to be brought by the plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other the rent claimed into court, and admitted assets of the testator to answer the the creditors of the testator. The defendants afterwards paid the amount of rest of the plaintiff's demand. The plaintiff gave notice of trial by a judge without a jury; the defendants gave notice that they desired to have the the defendants' notice, the trial should take place before himself without a action tried by a judge and jury. Bacon, V.C., ordered that, notwithstanding jury, on the ground that the defendants had shown no sufficient reason why and COTTON and LINDLEY, L.JJ.) reversed this decision. the action should be tried with a jury. The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., said that under the rules either party was entitled to have the action tried by JESSEL, M.R., defendant a right to a trial before a judge and jury, and rule 26 said that, in a jury, unless some reason to the contrary was shown. Rule 3 gave tho the court might direct a trial without a jury of any question or issue of fact, any cause which would formerly have been brought in the Court of Chancery, "it it shall appear desirable," which meant, if some reason was shown for depriving the party of his right to a trial by jury. The next question was under discretion of the judge of first instance. It must be a plain and clear case. what circumstances the Court of Appeal would interfere with the exercise of the As a general rule, the Court of Appeal could not interfere; there must be some special reason for doing so. His lordship was satisfied that in Ruston v. Tobin (27 W. R. 588, L. R. 10 Ch. D. 558), the late Lord Justice James did not intend to say, as he was reported to have said, that in no case would the Court of Appeal interfere. That would have been inconsistent with what he had said in the previous case of Golding v. Wharton Salt Works (24 W. R. 423, L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 374). Moreover, in Ruston v. Tobin he said that if the judge were to say that he exercised his discretion in a particular way because he held a certain opinion on a matter of law, and the Court of Appeal con

CASES OF THE WEEK. HUSBAND AND WIFE—JUDICIAL SEPARATION-PRIOR SEPARATION ALIMONY-JURISDICTION OF COURT.—In a case of Gandy v. Gandy, before the Court of Appeal on the 18th inst., a question arose as to the jurisdic. tion of the Divorce Division to order alimony to be paid to a wife who had obtained a judicial separation from her husband in a case where a separation deed had been previously executed by which the husband had covenanted to pay an annual allowance to the wife. The hushand and wife were married in 1854, and in 1879, differences having arisen, a separation deed was executed by which the husband, after agreeing to pay all the expenses of the maintenance and education of two younger daughters, covenanted to pay to the trustees for the benefit of the wife an allowance of £250 per annum, and the trustees entered in a covenant with the husband that the wife would not at any time commence or prosecute any suit or other proceeding for the purpose of compelling the husband to allow her any support, maintenance, or alimony except the above-mentioned £250 per annum. On the 30th of July, 1881, on the petition of the wife, a decree for judicial separation on the ground of the husband's adultery was made by the Divorce Division. The wife subsequently applied for an order that the husband's means should be ascertained by the registrar for the purpose of fixing the permanent alimony to which she would be entitled. This application was opposed by the husband, on the ground that the provisions of the separation deed precluded the allowance to the wife of any larger amount than the £250 which he had covenanted to pay and had paid her by way of permanent maintenance. Hannen, P., was of opinion that, notwithstanding this deed, the court had power to allot alimony to the wife, and directed that she should be at liberty to file the petition for permanent alimony. It was admitted that the husband had considerable

sidered that he was wrong in that opinion, it would interfere. It appeared to the Master of the Rolls that Bacon, V.C., had, in the present case, exercised his discretion in consequence of his opinion upon a point of law, in which opinion the Master of the Rolls thought he was wrong. He proceeded on the ground that no reason had been shown why the action should be tried by a jury, whereas under the rules it was for the party who said that there should not be a trial by jury to show a reason for it. The discretion of the judge had been exercised on a ground not well founded in law, and, therefore, the rule that the Court of Appeal would not readily interfere with the judge's exercise of his discretion did not apply. But his lordship was, by no means, prepared to say that the mere fact that the judge had exercised his discretion, without giving any reasons for it, would be a sufficient ground for the Court of Appeal not to interfere. The present action must, therefore, be tried by a jury, and, that being so, the practice now was to transfer the action altogether to the Queen's Bench Division, when there was nothing remaining in the nature of a chancery action. In the present case, the executors having admitted assets, there was only a question of damages left to be tried. There were several reasons for this practice. It was more convenient to the solicitors, there were many points of practice in jury cases with which the common law masters were more in the habit of dealing than the chief clerks and registrars in the Chancery Division, and the common law masters more familiar with the taxation of costs in such cases than the chancery taxing masters. The action would, therefore, be transferred to the Queen's Bench Division, but it would be better to strike out the words "on behalf of himself and the other creditors," because, now that the executors had admitted assets, the plaintiff could only get judgment for payment of his own debt, and to preface the order with a declaration that the defendants, having admitted a sets, were personally liable to the plaintiff. COTTON, L.J., said that rule 3 gave the party a right to have the action tried by a jury, subject to the provisions of rule 26, which applied when the action would formerly have been properly instituted in the Court of Chancery. And, in order that the judge should exercise his discretion to direct that the action should be tried without a jury, some reason must be shown which rendered it so desirable that it should be tried in that way as to afford a ground for depriving the party of the right otherwise given to him to have it tried with a jury. But the Court of Appeal would be very slow to interfere with the exercise of the discretion of the judge, unless he had exercised his discretion on a wrong ground of law. In the present case the Vice-Chancellor had no doubt exercised a discretion, but not the discretion given to him by the rule. LINDLEY, L.J., said that the Vice-Chancellor had exercised his discretion on an erroneous view as to the party upon whom the burden of proof lay. The defendants had, under rule 3, a right to a jury, unless it should appear desirable that the action should not be tried by a jury. This was an erroneous exercise of the judge's discretion which the Court of Appeal ought to review.-SOLICITORS, Monckton, Long, & Co.; Rooks & Co.

CONTEMPT OF COURT-FRIENDLY SOCIETY-DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS IN DEFIANCE OF INJUNCTION-COMMITMENT-PART REPAYMENT-RELEASE OF PRISONERS. In the case of Avery v. Andrews, before North, J., on the 18th inst., an application was made for the release of certain persons who had been committed to prison for contempt of court. It appeared that in October last the head office of the Order of Oddfellows brought an action against the trus tees of their Redditch Lodge to restrain them from distributing a sum of £2,000 amongst the members of the lodge, in contravention of the rules of the society, and, by an arrangement between the parties to the action, an injunction was granted by the court. The defendants in the present action having been subsequently appointed new trustees to the lodge, together with one Mogg, an abettor, distributed the £2,000 in defiance of the injunction of the court, and were, on February 10 last, ordered by Kay, J., sitting for Chitty, J., to be committed to prison. It was now stated on behalf of the prisoners that a sum of £1,500 and a fund for costs had been subscribed by the members of the lodge and the friends of the prisoners, in satisfaction of the sum of £2,000 and the costs incurred by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff, however, being in the position of trustees, were unwilling to support the application to release the prisoners unless the whole £2,000 was refunded. NORTHI, J., said that the prisoners had been sufficiently punished by an imprisonment of upwards of two months. To keep them in prison would be to "put the screw on " the friends of the prisoners in the interests of the plaintiffs. His lordship then made an order for the release of the prisoners upon payment to a deposit account of £172 to meet costs taxed as between party and party; and if the costs, when taxed, should exceed £172, which his lordship did not think was likely, upon the personal undertaking of the prisoners to pay the excese. SOLICITORS, Rixons, for E. C. Browning, Redditch; Worthington Evans.

CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY REGISTRARS.
(Before Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY, acting as Chief Judge.)
April 5.-Ex parte Cawley, Re Cawley.

The statement of affairs filed by debtors in liquidation showed assets sufficient to pay a composition of 15s. in the pouud, but at a meeting held under section 28 a statutory majority of the creditors passed resolutions accepting 5s. in the pound.

Held, that, under the circumstances, dissenting creditors were entitled to examine the debtors and the trustee, and an application to confirm the resolutions stood adjourned for that purpose.

This was an application by the trustee, under proceedings for liquidation by arrangement with creditors instituted by S. & R. Cawley, builders, to confirm the resolutions passed under section 28 in the following terms:That the trustee be, and is hereby, authorized to sell and re-convey the

estate to the debtors for such a sum as will, after payment of all costs and expenses, pay a dividend or composition of 5s. in the pound to the creditors on their respective debts, by two instalments-viz., 2s. 6d. in the pound within seven days from the confirmation of this resolution by the court, and 2s. 6d. in the pound twelve months after the date of the said confirmationsuch last-mentioned instalment of dividend or composition to be secured by bills of exchange or promissory notes of the debtors payable at the time aforesaid.

To grant the debtors their discharge upon payment of the first-mentioned instalment or dividend, together with all costs and charges, including the costs of the trustee of and incidental to these proceedings; also to release the trustee, and to close the liquidation as and from the 24th day of Marcb, 1882. The statement of affairs filed by the debtors returned debts amounting to £1,575, with assets £1,137, consisting of the equities of redemption of property in mortgage. Marshall (solicitor), in support of the application.

T. Lee Roberts, for opposing creditors.-The scheme is not for the benefit of the creditors, but for the benefit of the debtors only. The assets are shown to be sufficient for payment of a dividend of 15. in the pound, otherwise the statement of affairs is illusory to the knowledge of those who prepared it. The court is to exercise a judicial discretion in these cases, and to decide whether the scheme is for the benefit of the creditors: Ex parte Merchant Banking Company, Re Durham (29 W. R. 363, L. R. 16 Ch. D. 623), which is upon all fours with the present case; Ex parte Page, Re Page (24 W. R. 502, L. R. 2 Ch. D. 323). The opposing creditors ask that they may have an opportunity of examining the debtors and the trustee.

Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY said that, although the opposing creditors did not seem to have attended the meeting at which the resolutions were passed, still the balance-sheet and the resolutions themselves showed, prima facie, a state of things which the creditors very naturally desired to bring to the knowledge of the court. The debtors, according to the accounts, were entitled to these equities, which appeared to be worth sufficient to produce 15s. in the pound, and the resolutions provided for the acceptance of a composition of 2s. 6d. in the pound payable within seven days, and 2s. 6d. in twelve months; and they also provided for the release of the trustee, and the close of the liquidation. Having regard to the terms of the resolutions, he thought the opposing creditors were entitled to have an opportunity of examining the debtors and the trustee, and he would adjourn the application for that purpose. Solicitors for the opposing creditors, J. Tickle.

SOLICITORS' CASES.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-CHANCERY DIVISION.

(Before HALL, V.C.)

April 18.-Little v. Kingswood and Parkhurst Colliery Company and Dyer. In this action an application was made for an injunction to restrain the employment by the defendants of a particular solicitor in an action by the plaintiff against the defendants. The plaintiff's case was that he had employed a Mr. Dyer as his solicitor in a former action against the company, in which the company set up a certain counter-claim. The result of this action was that, under Mr. Dyer's advice, the plaintiff accepted certain of the company's debentures in discharge of his claim against them. The plaintiff subsequently ceased to employ Mr. Dyer as his solicitor, and afterwards brought a second action against the company to enforce his debentures, in which action the company intended to set up the old counter-claim, and employed Mr. Dyer as their solicitor. The plaintiff alleged that, in acting for him, Mr. Dyer had acquired confidential information, the disclosure of which would seriously prejudice the plaintiff in bis action to enforce his debentures, and he therefore claimed to be entitled to an injunction restraining the employ. acquired by him when acting for the plaintiff. It appeared that Mr. Dyer ment of Mr. Dyer, and the communication by him of any information was not the regular solicitor of the company, although he had been employed by them in that capacity, and that when the plaintiff originally employed him he purposely put to him the question whether he would have any difficulty in acting for him, and received an assurance to the contrary. W. Pearson, Q.C., and E. W. Byrne, appeared for the plaintiff; Graham Hastings, Q.C., and E. Ford, for the defendants. said that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief asked by him. Mr. Dyer, in HALL, V.C., after observing that cases of this kind were fortunately rare, accepting employment by the plaintiff, must have been aware that the communications which would be made to him were conâdential, and could not complain that by reason of his having accepted them he was shut out from being employed on some subsequent business by some other persons, as, for instance, this company. Nor would the company be prejudiced by being prevented from employing him, for the world was large enough, and there were enough solicitors in it ready and willing to accept retainers. With reference to the argument which had been addressed to him, that the rule that a solicitor ought to be restrained from acting for the adversary of his client was confined to the case where the solicitor had discharged himself, and did not apply where he had been discharged by the client, his lordship thought that the principle was the broader one, that the solicitor should not act contrary to his duty, and that it was essential to the interests of mankind that the jurisdiction should be extended to a case such as the present. He therefore granted an injunction in conformity with the application of the plaintiff.—Times.

Mr. R. S. Mitford, late private secretary to Sir William Harcourt, has been appointed to a commissionership of prisons,

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. WILLIAM BOWEN ROWLANDS, Q.C., has been elected a Bencher of Gray's-inn.

Mr. FRANCIS Savage Reilly, Q. C., Counsel to the Speaker of the House of Commons, has been created a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, in recognition of his legal services to the Colonial and Foreign Departments. Sir F. Reilly is the son of the late Mr. James Miles Reilly, of the Irish bar, and was born in 1825. He is a graduate of Trinity College, Dublin. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Term, 1851, and he has practised as an equity and parliamentary draftsman and as a conveyancer. He is a member of the Statute Law Commission, and has drafted many important Government Bille. He was assessor to the Marquis of Salisbury and Lord Cairns in the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Arbitration, to Lord Cairns in the Albert Life Assurance Arbitration, and to Lords Westbury and Romilly in the European Life Assurance Arbitration, which (after Lord Romilly's death) he completed as arbitrator. Sir F. Reilly was appointed Counsel to the Speaker a few weeks ago, and was also created a Queen's Counsel.

Mr. RICHARD URRY, solicitor (of the firm of Urry & Thirkill), of Ryde and Ventnor, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, pre.
sented April 12, directed to be heard before Chitty, J.. on April 22. Shephard, College
st, solicitor for the petitioner
[Gazette, Apr. 14.]
STANDARD BANK OF LONDON, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Apr 15,
directed to be heard before Hall, V.C., on Apr 28. Norton, Queen st, Cheapside,
solicitor for the petitioner
[Gazette, Apr. 18.]

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.

BOXFORD BENEFIT SOCIETY, Boxford, Berks. Apr 8
STAUNCH BRITONS' BENEFIT SOCIETY, Kenton Arms, Kenton rd, South Hackney. Apr 12
[Gazette, Apr. 18.]

LEGISLATION OF THE WEEK.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

April 17.-Bills Read a Second Time.

PRIVATE BILLS.-Abbotsbury Railway; Bristol Port and Channel Dock;
Fulwood and Whittingham Water; King's College, London; London (City)
Court; Rotherham and Bawtry Railway; Sawley, Harrington, and Shard-
low (Cavendish) Bridges; South Essex Water.
Electric Lighting.

Bills Read a Third Time.

PRIVATE BILLS.-Birkenhead Borough; Llangammarch and Neath_and Mr. ALEXANDER ASHER, Q.C., M.P., Solicitor-General for Scotland, has Brecon Junction Railway; London Riverside Fishmarket; Rhymney Railbeen appointed a Deputy-Lieutenant for the County of Edinburgh. way; South Metropolitan Gas.

Mr. GEORGE DOE, solicitor, has been elected Clerk to the Torrington Board of Guardians, Asessment Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority. Mr. Doe has been for several years town clerk of Torrington, and vestry clerk of that parish. He was admitted a solicitor in 1843.

Mr. MATTHEW WRIGHTON WEBB, solicitor, of Barbican-chambers, Barbican, has been unanimously elected Solicitor to the Parish of St. Botolph, Aldersgate, in succession to his father, the late Mr. Matthew Webb. Mr. Webb, junior, was admitted a solicitor in 1876. He is honorary solicitor to the City of London Provident Dispensary.

Mr. ALFRED ERNEST FERNS, solicitor, of Stockport, has been appointed Deputy-Coroner for the Stockport Division of Cheshire. Mr. Ferns was admitted a solicitor in 1875.

Mr. JOSEPH HARKNESS TICKELL, barrister, has been appointed DeputyClerk of Assize and Clerk of Arraigns on the Western Circuit, in succession

to the late Mr. Thomas Chambre. Mr. Tickell was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Easter Term, 1873. He is a member of the Western Circuit, and has also practised at the Central Criminal Court, and at the Middlesex, Hampshire, Winchester, Portsmouth, Southampton and Poole Sessions. He has been for several years clerk of indictments for the same circuit.

Mr. WILLIAM CHARLES CRIPPS, solicitor, of Tunbridge Wells, has been appointed Solicitor to the Tunbridge Wells Licensed Victuallers' Association. Mr. Cripps was admitted a solicitor in 1877.

Mr. JOHN BASELEY TOOKE HALES, solicitor, of Norwich, has been appointed Registrar of the Aylsham County Court (Circuit No. 32), in succession to Mr. William Henry Scott, deceased. Mr. Hales was admitted a solicitor in 1874.

Mr. JOSIAH SADLER EMPSON, solicitor, of North Walsham, has been appointed Clerk to the Felmingham United District School Board, in succession to Mr. William Henry Scott, deceased. Mr. Empson was admitted a solicitor in 1869. He is also clerk to the North Walsham Local Board, and cl rk to the magistrates and the Commissioners of Taxes for the divisions of Tanstead and Hopping.

Mr. THOMAS MEIRES PERCIVAL, solicitor, of Northampton and Towcester, has been appointed Clerk to the County Magistrates at the latter place, in succession to his partner, the late Mr. Richard Howes. Mr. Percival was admitted a solicitor in 1872.

Mr. SAMUEL GEORGE JOHNSON, solicitor, of Nottingham, has been elected Clerk of the Peace for that borough. Mr. Johnson is also town clerk of Nottingham. He was admitted a solicitor in 1854.

DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS.

EDWARD PHILIPS CHARLEWOOD and FRANK ASPDEN, Manchester, solicitors. July 1, 1881.

JOHN BATTYE and JOHN RICHARD HOLMES (Battye & Holmes), Birstal, Yorks, solicitors. March 31. [Gazette, April 18.]

COMPANIES.

WINDING-UP NOTICES.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

BOGNOR RESIDENCES AND HOTEL COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented April 6, directed to be heard before Bacon, V.C., on April 22. Cridge and Bell, Bishopsgate st within, solicitors for the petitioner

GREAT SOUTHERN MYSORE GOLD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by

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

Giles v Williams app of plt M R-June 14 (part heard Dec 10 by Lords
Festing v Ellery app of deft M R-Aug 5
Justices Baggallay, Lush, and Lindley)

Harris v Fleming app of plt VCH-Dec 8 (Security ordered)

Harris v Fleming app of deft W Morton V CH-Dec 8 (Security ordered)
In re The United Shepherd's Wheal Rose, limd app of petitioner Speller Chitty,
J-Dec 23 (S. O. May 4)

Williams v Preston app of deft Mary W Elliott MR-Feb 21

In re Clagett, decd Fordham v Clagett app of Sydney A Wyllie Kay,
Feb 22 (S. O. May 1)

J

In re The Potteries, Shrewsbury and North Wales Ry Co app of L H Elkington
and ors Kay, J-Feb 25 (S. O. May 15)

Henty v Wrey app of plt. Henty v Wrey app of deft Henry Smith Kay, J
-Feb 28 (S. Ó. Apr 25)

In re Liverpool and London Guarantee and Accident Insurance Co limd and Co's
Acts app of Official Liquidator Kay, J-Feb 28

In re J B Palmer's Appln and Trade Marks Registration Act, 1875 app of W B
Bryant and ors Chitty, J-Mar 2

Chitty, J., dated April 3, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Beall and May y Thomson app of plt VC B-Mar 8

Co, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioner

In re Oak Pits Colliery Co lind and Co's Acts app of Official Liquidator Kay' Thomas v Connell and Co app of plt from judgt of Baron Pollock at trial Nov 30 J-Mar 8

Nordon v Nordon

app of Mauria Nordon Kay, J-Mar 10

In re Brown, decd

Tyas v Brown app of deft Fry, J-Mar 11

Bostock v Fearson

Tyrell v Henville, clerk app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Lopes at trial Dec 1 Davenport v Kendrick app of deft from judgt of Justices Field and Cave upon report of official referee-Dec 1

app of deft in person from VC of County Palatine of Lan- Neilson v James app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Stephen at trial-Dec 2

caster Mar 11
In re Searle, decd
In re Ovey, decd
-Mar 13
In re Angrove, a Solicitor app of J C St Aubyn Angrove Chitty, J-Mar 14
Hurst v Hurst app of A M Hurst Fry, J-Mar 14

Killick v Seyfang app of plts Fry, J-Mar 11
Broadbent v Barrow app of Broadbent, wife and ors Fry, J

New London and Brazilian Bank limd v Brocklebank Brocklebank v The New
London and Brazilian Bank limd app of defts in original action Mar 16
Mayor, &c of Manchester v Lyons app of Mayor, &c of Manchester from V C of
County Palatine of Lancaster Mar 17

In re London and Staffordshire Fire Assurance Co limd and Co's Acts app of Wm Sturdy VC B-Mar 21

In re Brown, Bayley and Dixon limd and Co's Acts app of West Yorkshire Iron and Coal Co, limd Fry, J-Mar 22

Collins v Ray app of plts M R-Mar 22

The Yorkshire Ry and Wagon Co v Maclure app of plt Co The Yorkshire Ry and Wagon Co v Maclure app of deft Maclure The Yorkshire Ry and Wagon Co v Maclure app of deft J S Virtue Kay, J-Mar 23

Gibb v The Great Southern Mysore Gold Co app of defts Kay, J-Mar 23
In re Sparling, decd Sparling v Jones app of plts Chitty, J-Mar 23
In re Owen, decd Jones v Owen app of plt and anr Manisty, J-Mar 23

In re Cottrell, decd Woods v Cottrell app of plts and anr Manisty, J-Var 28
In re H W Parker app of H W Parker Chitty, J-Mar 28
Corbett v Bowers app of defts V C B-Mar 28

In re J Girdlestone app of JY Fynn VC B-Mar 28
Paul v Paul app of plt Fry, J-Mar 29

Smith v Day app of deft Francis Day V C B-Mar 29

Berry v Gaukroger app of plts M R-Apr 4

In re Kirk, decd Kirk v Kirk app of plts Fry, J-Apr 12

Kirk v Todd app of plts VC H-Apr 12

Kirby v Kirby app of Lawrence Kirby VC M-Apr 12

Davies v Jones app of deft Kay, J-Apr 13

In re New Callao limd app of New Callao limd Chitty, J-Apr 13

From Orders made on Interlocutory Motions in the Chancery Division.

1881.

London and County Banking Co v Wilkinson app of deft from judgt of Mr. Justice Williams at trial at Westminster-Dec 9

Brown v Great Western Ry Co app of defts from jadgt of Justices Field and
North-Dec 14

Simson v Moon, Bower & Co app of defts from Mr Justice Denman, Baron
Huddleston and Sir H Hawkins, directing entry of judgt for plt-Dec 17
Boby v Davenport app of defts from judgt of Baron Pollock at trial-Deo 17
Watson & Co. v Moss Bay Hematite Iron and Steel Co, liud app of plts from
judgt of non-suit by L C J at trial-Dec 22

Cory & Sons v Burr app of plts from judgt of Justices Field and Cave on special
case-Dec 24
Clack v Wood app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice North at trial-Dec 31

1882.

Pope v The Wanzer Sewing Machine Co, limd app of plts from judgt of Me Justice Stephen at trial-Jan 3

The Ironmongers' Co, London v Stephens app of defts from judgt of Mr Justi ce Stephen at trial-Jan 6

Van Nierop and Sons v Henderson app of plt from part of judgt of Justices Field and Cave on special case stated in action-Jan 9

Rooth v The Midland Ry Co app of plt from judgment of Mr Justice Steph n at trial Jan 10

Allen v Johnstone app of pltf from judgt of Baron Pollock on fur con Jan 11 Webber v Lee app of pltf from judgt of Mr. Justice Bowen at trial Jan 12 Bain and Co v Wrightson Bain and Co v Wrightson (con acts) app of pltfs from judgt of Mr Justice Lopes at trial without jury Jan 13

Heiron v The Metrop Bank, limd app of plif from judgt of Lord Chief Justice at trial in London Jan 14

Smitherman v South Eastern Ry Co app of defts from judgt of Baron Pollock at trial Jan 18

Cruikshank and Co (Owners of Roxellana) v Rodgers and Co app of defts from judgt of the Lord Chief Justice on fur con Jan 20

Lynch v Godwin app of deft from judgt of the Lord Chief Justice at trial without a jury Jan 25

Bobbett v South Eastern Ry Co app of pltf from judgt of Mr Justice Denman at trial Jan 26

In re Liberia Coffee Co, limd app of Co M R-Aug 9 (S O Nov 16) In re Horner's Petition of Right app of CP Slagg Chitty, J-Dec 8 (to be in Mersey Steel and Iron Co, limd v Naylor, Benzon and Co app of defts from judgt the paper as an appeal from the Master of Rolls by order) of the Lord Chief Justice at trial without a jary Jan 31 Mitchell v Walker app of defts Chitty, J-Dec 24

1882.

(Security ordered)

[blocks in formation]

In re Charles M Roche, gentn. one &c app of Mr Roche from order of Lord Coleridge, L C J, and Mr. Justice Grove-April 27 1881. Fleming v The Mayor &c of Manchester argument of rule nisi for new trial granted by Court of Appeal on application of deft (set down with final appls by order)

Fleming v The Mayor &c of Manchester app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Stephen at trial-May 26

The Board of Works of the Hackney District v The Great Eastern Ry Co
(QB Crown side) app of Hackney Board from judgt of Lord Coleridge, LC J,
and Mr Justice Manisty on app from Inferior Court June 25
Suffell Governor and Co of the Bank of England app of defts from judgt
of Lord Coleridge, L C J, at trial in London July 11

Berlin Phosphate Sewage and Manure Co limd v Combe and anr app of defts
from judgt of Mr Justice Denman at trial in London July 21
Reffell v Fowell app of pltf from judgt of Lord Coleridge, L C J, at trial at
Kingston July 25

The Prison Commissioners v Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex app of deft from
judgment of Lord Coleridge, L C J, at trial at Westminster July 26
Saxby and anr v Gloucester Wagon Co, limd app of plts from judgt of Lord Cole-
ridge L C J, and Justices Manisty, Field, and Bowen upon findings and report
of official referee July 30

Gantes Bros. & Co v Leyland & Co and ors app of dfts from judgt of Mr Justice
Field, directing non-suit with costs Oct 12
Quilter v Mapleson app of dit from judgt of Lord Coleridge, LC J, at West-
minster without a jury Oct 24

Shaw y Earl of Jersey app of plt from ord of Justices Lopes and Stephen on sp
c June 23 (Placed at end of printed List for Michaelmas sittings by order)
Burke v Rooney app of dft from judgt of Justices Field and North on sp c
Nov 9

North Staffordshire Ry Co v Peake app of plts from judgt of Mr Justice Williams Nov 11

at trial

Ships Gaetano and Maria McAndrew and Co v Owners of Gaetano and Maria the Cargo and Freight appl of pltffs from judgt of Sir R J Phillimore (without assessors) Nov 23

Zuccani v Sinclair, Moorhead and Co app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Stephen

on fur con at Westminster Nov 29

Jenkins v Jones app of plt from judgt of Baron Pollock on fur con Nov 29

Meyers v Brown app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice North at trial Feb 1 Willett v Woolloton app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Lopes on fur con Feb 1

Davison v Donaldson app of pltf from judgt of Mr Justice Mathew at trial without a jury Feb 3

Byrne v Cooper app of pltf from judgt of Mr Justice Denman at trial without a jury Feb 7

Maspons y Hermano v Mildred, Goyenecke & Co app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Manisty at trial with jury Feb 7

trial

Feb 15

Couchman v Greener app of pit from judgt of Baron Pollock at trial Feb 11
Bourke v Tufnell app of plt from judgt of Baron Huddleston at trial Feb 14
Riley v North Staffordshire Ry Co app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Lopes at
Cato v Thompson app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Lopes at trial Fb 18
Flower v Sadler Sadler v Flower (original action and counter claim) app of deft
(Security ordered)
W J Sadler from judgt of Mr Justice Denman at trial Feb 20
Taylor and anr v Howarth app of plt Bamford from judgt of Baron Pollock at
trial Feb 20

The Panteg Steel Works and Engineering Co, limd v Wrightson app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Lopes at trial Feb 23

Titterton v Cooper app of deft from judgt of Baron Huddleston at trial Feb 24 Davidson v Hellivell and ors app of defts from judgt of Mr Justice Mathew at trial Feb 27

28

Cowgill v Saxton and anr app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Cave at trial Feb Allum v Dickenson app of plt from Justices Mathew and Cave directing entry of judgt for deft ou special case Mar 2

Fenner v Smith app of defts from Baron Pollock and Justices Manisty and Stephen giving judgt to plt Mar 4

Stent v Harrison app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Manisty at trial Mar 7 Edwards v Shearman app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Lopes at trial Mar 8 (Security offered)

Blaiberg v London and Westminster Loan and Discount Co app of plt from judge of Mr Justice Lopes at trial Mar 8

Ship Mac JN McAdam, Owner of Mac v Petts and ors, Master and Crew of Saucy Polly app of plt from judgt of Sir R J Phillimore (without Assessors) Mar 9

Storry v Honywood app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Grove at trial Mar 9 Beckett & Co v Addyman app of deft fron judgt of Mr Justice Field on demr

Mar 9

Lancaster v South Eastern Ry Co app of plt from juigt of the Lord Chief Justice on fur conson Mar 15

Murphy v Harris app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Williams at trial Mar 18 Guardians of Mansfield Union, in Counties of Derby and Nottingham v Wright app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Williams at trial Mar 20 Griffin v Seelie app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Field at trial Mar 21 Méléogue v Treeby app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Denman at trial Mar 23 (Security ordered)

In re Geo Thos Condy (a Solicitor struck off Roll) app of G T Condy in person, from Justices Grove and Lindley, refusing applica for restoration Mar 25 Ship Guy Mannering Owners of Wiston Hall v Owners of Guy Mannering app of defts from judgt of Sir R J Phillimore (without assessors) March 27 Jackson v Fletcher app of deft Fletcher from part of judgt of Mr Justice Cave at trial as to costs of third parties March 28

Cooke v Winby app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Manisty at trial March 30 Mackley and Co v Sewell and ors app of plt from Baron Pollock and Mr Justice Manisty setting aside yerdict and judgt March 31

Marshall and ors v Schofield and Co app of defts from judgt of Mr Justice Chitty at trial April 3

Chartered and Mercantile Bank of India, London and China v Netherlands India Steam Navigation Co, limd app of defts from judgt of Baron Pollock and Justices Manisty and Stephen April 4

On appeal from the Lord Mayor's Court of London Davies v Baxter app of deft from Assistant Judge, W Brandon, Esq, allowing demurrer to deft's pleas and counter-claim April 4

Simpson and anr (trading as John Simpson and Co) v Tamar and Kit Hill Granite Co, limd app of plts from judgt of Mr Justice Chitty on fc April 5 In Surrey County Court holden at Southwark Eaton, an infant, by next friend, v Western and ors app of plt from Justices Mathew and Cave, setting aside judgt and directing entry for defts April 5

Alan v United Kingdom Electric Telegraph Co, Imd Christopher v The Same
Co app of plts from judgt of Mr Justice Mauisty at trial April 5

Wilden v White app of plt from Justices Manisty and Stephen setting aside
verdict and judgt-action tried by Mr Justice Lopes April
Bucknall and Sons v Hunter and Co app of defts from judgt of Mr Justice
Hawkins at trial April 8

From Orders made on Interlocutory Motions in the Queen's Bench Division. 1881.

Ccoper v Breffit argument of rule nisi granted on appln of plt by Court of Appeal

Jan 18

Cooper v Breffit app of defts from order of Baron Pollock and Mr Justice Manisty for new trial-action tried in London by Mr Justice Mathew

Thompson v Farrer argument of rule nisi for new trial granted by Court of
Appeal-action tried by Lord Chief Justice Nov 24

Eaton v Higginson app of defts from rule nisi discharged by Mr Jus ice Denman,
Baron Huddleston, and Sir H Hawkins-action tried at Liverpool by Lord Chief
Justice Dec 15
1882.

Percival v Hughes app of deft from rule nisi discharged by Lord Chief Justice and Justices Manisty and Bowen Jan 2

The Queen on Prosecution of the Treasury v Borough of Maidenhead app of defts from judgt of Lord Chief Justice, Baron Pollock, and Mr Justice Manisty on mandamus subject to special case Jan 30

Ship Signet Richardson v Ross app of defts from Sir R J Phillimore refusing commission Feb 11 (S Oill Apr 26)

Madras Ry Co v Coverdale app of pltfs from Justices Mathew and Cave refusing order to make and file further and better answer to interrogatories Merch Ï (S O sine die by order)

Worley v Dobbin app of pltf from Mr Justice Lopes directing on issue entry of verdict for deft Mar 3

Phillimore v Smith and anr app of pltf in person from order of Justices Mathew and Cave allowing demr March 4

Weston and anr v Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District app of defts from order of Justices Mathew and Cave allowing demr of pltfs to statement of defence March 8

Taylor v Hodkinson app of deft from rule nisi discharged by Justices Mathew and Cave action tried by Mr Justice Lopes in Middlesex March 8 Ware v Crispin app of deft from rule nisi discharged by Justices Mathew and Cave-action tried by Mr Justice Stephen at Westminster Mar 9 Rudeforth v Willett app of deft Willett from order of Baron Pollock and Justices Manisty and Stephen for new trial-action tried by Baron Pollock at Westminster Mar 14

Turner v Bridgett (C H Wright, trustee in liquidation) app of trustee from Justices Mathew and Cave refusing on application of sheriff to make interpleader order Mar 16 (S O pending judgt on preliminary objection)

Tobitt v Henry app of defts from rule nisi discharged by Baron Pollock and Jus. tices Manisty and Stephen Mar 16

Jordan v The New River Co app of plt from rule nisi discharged by Baron
Pollock and Justices Manisty and Stephen Mar 17 (Security ordered)
Babbage v Coulburn app of plt from rule nisi discharged by Baron Huddleston
and Mr Justice Field-action tried by F Bayley, Esq, Westminster County
Court Mar 18

Iry and Co v Steeves Bros and Co
Mr Justice Manisty for new trial
Smitherman v South-Eastern Ry Co
Justices Mathew and Cave Mar 20
Abouloff v Oppenheimer app of plt from order of Justices Mathew and Cave over-
ruling demurrer to paragraph 14 of statement of defence Mar 21

app of plts from order of Baron Pollock and Mar 18 (S O till after circuit)

app of defts from rule nisi discharged by

Blanchard v King app of deft from rule nisi discharged by Justices Mathew and Cave actn tried by Lord Justice Cotton March 21

Watkins and Co v Manders app of deft from rule nisi discharged by Justices Mathew and Cave March 24

Boylan v Jackson app of deft from Justices Mathew and Stephen refusing writ of prohibition and new trial March 25

Barnett v Kirkwood app of deft from order of Justices Mathew and Cave for new trial actn tried at Warwick by Mr Justice Hawkins March 25 Scott v Sampson app of deft from rule nisi discharged by Justices Mathew and Cave actn tried at Westminster by Lord Chief Justice March 25 The Blaina Iron and Tin Plate Co, limd v Garbutt, Blumer and Co app of defts from Baron Huddleston and Mr Justice Field refusing to give directions as to mode of trial under ord 16 r 21 March 27 (not before April 26 by order) Hiscock v Emerson app of pltf from Justices Manisty and Stephen refusing conditional liberty to defend or sign final judgt March 28 Friend, Iredale and Co v McIlwraith and Co app of defts from Justices Mathew and Cave refusing to set aside verdict and judgt for pltf March 28 Travers and Son v Tomlinson and Co app of defts from rule nisi discharged by Baron Pollock and Mr Justice Manisty actn tried at Guildhall by Mr Justice Mathew March 29

Cook v Winby app of p't from rule nisi discharged by Justices Mathew and Cave -action tried by Mr Justice Manisty in Middlesex March 29

Prudential Assurance Co, limd, v Western Provident Association and anr app of plts from rule nisi discharged by Baron Pollock and Mr Justice Manisty-action tried by Mr Justice Field April 30 Miller v Pilling app of plt from order of Mr. Justice Field on m fj on report of official referee March 31

Hurst v Bushell app of plts from judgt of Mr Justice Field on interpleader issue April 1

Snith v Keal app of plt from rule nisi discharged by Baron Pollock and Justices
Manisty and Stephen-action tried by Baron Pollock April 3
Angas v Bannister app of plt from rale nisi discharged by Baron Poliook and
Mr Justice Manisty-action tried by Lord Chief Justice April 3
Allcock and ors, trustees, &c, v Moorhouse app of plts fron rule nisi discharged
by Justices Mathew and Cave-action tried by Baron Pollock April 3
Adams v Severn and Canal Carrying Shipping and Steam Towing Co, limd ap>
of deft from rule nisi discharged by Justices Mathew and Cave-action tried by
Mr Justice Bowen April 3

Brownson v Henshaw app of plt from rule nisi discharged by Justices Mathew and Cave-action tried by Baron Pollock April 5

Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co app of defts from Mr Justice Field and Baron Huddleston refusing reference as to damages April 6

FROM PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION. For Hearing.

Appeals from Orders made on Interlocutory Motions.

Admiralty. 1881.

[blocks in formation]

Ships Mathilde and Dwina Owners of Dwina v Owners of Mathilde Owners of Mathilde v Owners of Dwina (consolidated actions) app of Owners of Dwina from judgt of Sir R J Phillimore with assessors-Jan 16

Ship Elysia Jenkins and ors v Owners of Elysia app of defts from judgt of Sir RJ Phillimore with assessors-Jan 18

Ships Tredegar and Cosarea Owners of Cosarea v Owners of Tredegar Tredegar Steam Shipping Co v Owners of Cosarea (consolidated actions) app of Owners of Tredegar from judgt of Sir R J Phillimore with assessors-Feb 7 Ship Sportsman Wilkins v Owners of Sportsman app of pltff from judgt of Sir RJ Phillimore (with assessors) Feb 13 Ship Hector (con actns) Owners of Augustus v Owners of Hector and freight app of defts from judgt of Sir R J Phillimore (with assessors) April 1

N.B.-The Admiralty appeals will be taken with the Queen's Bench Appeals at Westminster. The assessor cases on special days to be appointed by the court. The non-assessor cases will come into the list for hearing in the order of date of setting down. The Probate and Divorce Appeals will be taken with the Chancery Appeals at Lincoln's Inn.

FROM THE LONDON BANKRUPTCY COURT.

[blocks in formation]

Works act, wits

Tankard v Alexander act, wits
Noel v Tyler act, wits

Green v Société Générale de Paris aet,
wits

In ie Taylor, decd Jones v Edwards Williams v Dollar act, wits act, wits

Thomas v Foster act, wits

Rausome v Graham act, wits pt hd

In re Williams Williams v Stratton act

Samuel v Bluck act

Finch v Gouteire fur con

In re Whittaker Whittaker v Whittaker act, wits

Willan v Gt Northern Ry Co act, wits
Whitaker v Pearce act, wits
Dawton v Walker motn for judgt

Causes transferred from Mr. Justice
Chitty by order dated Feb. 7, 1882.
Maynard v Marks act, wits
In re Speight Speight v Gaunt act &
motn for judgt, wits
Chawner v McLean act, wits
Charles v Jones motn for judgt
Brown v McCowan act
Jones v Blow act, wits
Jackson v Winnifrith act, wits
Camp v Conder act, wits

Rowland v Meakin act, wits
Merritt v Johnstone act, wits
Alcock v Banner motn for judgt
Blaiberg v Eyles act, wita
Blaiberg v Eyles act, wits
In re Cooper Godwin v Berridge mota
for judgt

Bennett v Whiteley act, wits
Halsey v Marcussen act, wits
Adams v Army and Navy Hotel Co,
limd act, wits

Syer v Mulkern act
Sampson v Webb act

In re Burton, Boulton v Jones act, wits
Godfrey v Foreshen act, wits
Davies v Davies act

V

Heuschel Heuschel act & m f judgt
Livett v Foster act, wits
Tebb v Quick act

Meakin v Rowland act, wits

In re Nicholle, Nicholls v Nicholls fur

con

Stamford, &c, Ry v Lindridge Colliery Co fur con

« PreviousContinue »