Page images
PDF
EPUB

purpose of selling the firm's goods, and shall use his best endeavours to obtain new customers for the firm and to extend business, and shall devote the whole of his time during the usual business hours to the transaction of the business of the firm, and shall not in any manner directly or indirectly engage or employ himself in any other business or transact any business with or for any person or persons other than the firm during the continuance of this agreement." The only provision for determining the said agreement was by notice given by the plaintiffs, and there was no provision in the agreement for defendant determining his employment thereunder. Notwithstanding this fact the defendant wrote on the 1st of March, 1898, a letter in which he purported to resign his position as traveller. The plaintiffs, in reply, wrote to him refusing to accept his resignation, and pointing out that under the terms of the agreement there was no power for the defendant to terminate his employment, and upon it appearing that he had entered the employment of a rival firm, instituted the action on which the present motion was brought. ROMER, J., said that the question was whether the negative covenant in clause 3 was not too general for the court to enforce. His lordship pointed out that the word "business" in clause 3 could not be held limited by the context to a wine merchant's business. The court in effect was asked to order the defendant to work for plaintiffs by enforcing the terms of clause 3, and thereby compelling him to abstain wholly from other business, at any rate during all the usual business hours. He considered such a clause was unreasonable, and ought not to be enforced by the court. In Whitwood Chemical Co. v. Hardman (1891, 2 Ch. 416) the present Master of the Rolls stated that "cases where negative stipulations in contracts of service were enforced by the court ought not to be extended, and should be regarded as anomalies which it would be very dangerous to extend." In his lordship's opinion it would be such a dangerous extension to enforce so general a covenant as contained in clause 3 in the present case, as the negative stipulation extended to business of any kind, and was not confined to special services, as in Lumley v. Wagner (1 De G. M. & G. 604). He therefore refused the motion, but without costs.COUNSEL, H. E. Wright; S. O. Buckmaster. SOLICITORS, W. H. Southern; Goren & Tapp. [Reported by RALEGH B. PHILLPOTTS, Barrister-at-Law.]

Re RITSON. RITSON v. RITSON. Romer, J. April 22. PARTNERSHIP-DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEEDS BY A PARTNER TO SECURE OVERDRAFT OF FIRM-REAL ESTATE-DEVISE OF REAL ESTATE-PARTNERSHIP ASSETS SUFFICIENT-LOCKE KING'S ACT (17 & 18 VICT c. 113). Sun mons. A testator deposited title deeds of certain rent-charges belonging to him to secure the overdraft of the bank account of a partnership in which he and his brother were partners. By his will, dated 1897, the testator devised and bequeathed all his real and personal estate to trustees upon trust for his wife for life and on her death upon trust as to certain real estate, which included the real estate charged to the bank, for his son absolutely, and as to all the residue of his real and personal estate upon trust for his (the testator's) children equally. At the testator's death both his private account and the partnership account were largely overdrawn at the bank, but the assets of the partnership were more than sufficient to cover all their debts. The chief question raised by the summons was whether that part of the amount due from the partnership to the bankers, secured by the said memorandum, as was payable by the estate of the testator ought to be paid out of the real estate mentioned in the memorandum, or out of his share in the partnership assets. ROMER, J., said that in his opinion the memorandum of deposit only extended to partnership debts and not to the private overdraft of the testator, and that as the partnership assets were sufficient for payment of all debts of the partnership, the debt to the bank was payable thereout, and was not a charge on the real estate comprised in the memorandum.—COUNSEL, R. F. Norton; Christopher James. SOLICITORS, Speechly, Mumford, & Rodgers, for Hayton & Simpson, Cockermouth.

Reported by RALEGE B. PHILLPOTTS, Barrister at-Law.)

High Court-Queen's Bench Division. LEICESTER COUNTY COUNCIL v. LEICESTER ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE. Div. Court. 22nd April. POOR RATE-EXEMPTION-CROWN PURPOSES-PART OF POLICE PREMISES USED BY SUPERINTENDENT FOR RESIDence.

This was a special case stated under 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45, s. 11, after notice of appeal against a poor rate made on the chief constable's residence at Leicester. In 1867 the police premises, including the chief constable's residence, had been assessed to the Poor Rate of St. Martin's Parish, Leicester. The justices appealed, and the Court of Queen's Bench decided that the justices were not liable to poor rate for such premises Reg. v. St. Martin's, Leicester (2 Q. B. 493). In 1897 the rate in question was made, but was only in respect of the portions of the police buildings used exclusively for residential purposes, which consist in part of certain rooms occupied rent-free by the chief constable of the county in his official capacity. The question was whether this portion was occupied as Crown offices exclusively. The rest of the building is occupied for ordinary police purposes. On the 1st of April, 1889, by virtue of section 64 of the Local Government Act, 1889 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), the property passed from the justices and vested in the couuty council. If the report of the annual Government inspection is satisfactory, one-half of the cost of the pay and clothing for the preceding year is

chargeable on the "Exchequer Contribution Account" in substitution of the grant previously made by the Exchequer. Counsel for the appellants contended that no part of the buildings, the subject of the special case, should be rated since they formed part of the police offices, and were occupied for police purposes; and the following cases were cited: Reg. v. Stewart (8 E. & B. 360, 27 L. J. M. C. 81), Gambier v. Lydford (3 E. & B. 346, 23 L. J. M. C. 69), Martin v. West Derby Assessment Committee (11 Q. B. D. 145), and Reg. v. Lancashire Justices (27 L. J. M. C. 209). Counsel in support of the rate submitted that the old authorities referred to by the appellants did not apply since the ownership had been transferred from the justices to the county council. Where a building was used partly for Crown purposes and partly for administrative county purposes, it might be split up for rating purposes according to the purposes for which each portion of it was used: County Council of Middlesex v. Assessment Committee of St. George's Union (1897, 1 Q. B. 64), Worcestershire County Council v. Assessment Committee of St. Nicholas, Worcester (1897, 1 Q. B. 480), Greig v. University of Edinburgh (L. R. 1 H. L. 348). That portion occupied by the superintendent and his family was rateable.

THE COURT (WILLS and KENNEDY, JJ.) allowed the appeal. The question here was whether occupation of rooms by the chief constable and his family was an occupation of that particular part of the premises "for police purposes.' They thought it was. It was clear therefore that the rate had been improperly made in respect of that portion of the premises in question.-COUNSEL, E. W. Garrett and S Everard; Hugo Young and C. B. Marriott. SOLICITORS, Kingsford, Dorman, & Co., for Freer, Blunt, & Co., Leicester; Field, Roscoe, & Co., for Whetstone & Frost, Leicester. [Reported by ERSKINE REID, Barrister-at-Law.]

HORNER v. LEWIS. Div. Court. 21st April. MEDICAL PRACTITIONER-RIGHT OF ACTION-FEE FOR POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION AND ATTENDANCE AT INQUEST-PUBLIC HOSPITAL-MEDICAL OFFICER-CORONERS ACT, 1887 (50 & 51 VICT. c. 71), s. 22, PROVISO (2).

This was an appeal from the Brentwood County Court. The appellant was one of the honorary medical officers of the Children's and General Hospital for Leyton, Walthamstow, and Wanstead. On the 25th of August, 1897, the respondent, the coroner for South Essex, held an inquest on the body of a child named Harriett Palmer. The child had been a patient in the hospital, and the appellant had attended it during its illness. By order of the respondent he made a post-mortem examination of the body and attended the inquest and gave evidence respecting the death. The appellant sued the respondent for two guineas for making the post-mortem examination and for attending at the inquest. The county court judge dismissed the action on the ground that the appellant was precluded from recovering the fees by section 22, proviso (2), of the Coroners Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 71). Section 22 provides for the payment of fees to legally qualified medical practitioners for making post-mortem examinations and for attending to give evidence at inquests, with a proviso (2) that "Where an inquest is held on the body of a person who has died in a county or other lunatic asylum, or in a public hospital, infirmary, or other medical institution, or a building or place belonging thereto, or used for the reception of patients thereof, whether the same be supported by endowments or by voluntary subscriptions, the medical officer, whose duty it may have been to attend the deceased person as a medical officer of such institution as aforesaid, shall not be entitled to such fee or remuneration." The Children's and General Hospital was founded for the benefit of poor persons residing in Leyton, Walthamstow, and Wanstead. Patients from those districts were admitted by a governor's letter free of charge, while patients from neighbouring parishes might be admitted by governors' letters on a payment of not less than 5s. a week. Intending patients had to be certified by a doctor to be neither infectious nor incurable. The hospital was supported by public subscriptions and governed by a council and a committee. One medical officer was appointed from each parish who had charge of all the patients admitted from that parish. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the hospital was not a public institution, and that the appellant was not a medical officer of the hospital as he received no fee or reward for his services.

THE COURT (WILLS and KENNEDY, JJ.) held that the hospital was a public one and that appellant was none the less a medical officer because in section 22 was to be taken not to be confined to a strict legal duty, he received no payment for his services. They said that the word "duty" but was applicable to the duty of imperfect obligation attached to the appellant's acceptance of the position he held in the hospital.-COUNSEL, Marshall, Q.C., and Samuel Fleming; Macmorran, Q.C., and Braxton Hicks. SOLICITORS, Hempsons; Langhams.

[Reported by C. G. WILBRAHAM, Barrister-at-Law.] BLENKINSOP v. OGDEN & CO. Div. Court. 23rd April. FACTORY ACTS-FENCING MACHINERY-PERSON INJURED BY HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE-FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACT, 1878 (41 VICT. c. 16),

8. 82.

This was a special case stated by a metropolitan police magistrate. The respondents were the occupiers of a factory within the Factories and Workshops Acts, 1878 to 1895. An information and complaint was laid against them by the appellant, under section 82 of the Act of 1878, for having neglected to fence certain dangerous parts of their machinery, in consequence of which a boy in their employment suffered bodily injury. Section 81 of the Act of 1878 provides that if a factory or workshop is not kept in conformity with the Act the occupier shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £10, and section 82 provides as follows: "If any person is killed or suffers any bodily injury in consequence of the occupier of a

[ocr errors]

factory having neglected to fence any machinery required by or in pur.
suance of this Act to be securely fenced,
the occupier of the
factory or workshop shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £100, the
whole or any part of which may be applied for the benefit of the injured
person or his family, or otherwise as the Secretary of State determines.
The machinery at the point where the accident happened was
not properly fenced, but the accident was due to the boy's own negligence.
The magistrate thereupon dismissed the information. It was argued on
behalf of the respondents that the information was rightly dismissed,
because in order to substantiate the offence under section 82 it was
necessary to shew that the injury to the person employed was proximately
caused by the neglect of the respondents to fence the machinery, and that,
in the present case, the injury having been the result of the boy's own
negligence, it could not be said to have been "in consequence of" the
respondents' neglect.
THE COURT (GRANTHAM and KENNEDY, JJ.) remitted the case to the
magistrate.
GRANTHAM, J., said that the magistrate was wrong, because, though the
injury was attributable to the boy's own negligence, yet that did not
prevent it from being said to occur in consequence of the respondents'
neglect to fence. The object of the section was to inflict a more serious
fine in cases where injury had actually arisen.

KENNEDY, J., said that it would be wrong to read the words "in consequence of" in the section as if one were considering the rights of the parties in an action where one person sued another for damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the latter. The object of the Act was to ensure that the machinery in factories and workshops was safe. It was quite reasonable for the Legislature to say that where a person had been injured in a factory, the factory owner should be punished more severely, although the circumstances of the injury were such that the person injured could not have recovered damages in an action at law. It was suggested that this reading of the section would include the case where a person intentionally killed or injured himself in unfenced machinery, but such a person would not be one who "is killed or suffers bodily injury" within the weaning of the section. COUNSEL, Sutton; Ruegg, Q.C., and Foreman. SOLICITORS, Treasury Solicitor;

B. Webb.

[Reported by C. G. WILBRAHAM, Barrister-at-Law.]

CASES OF LAST SITTINGS,
High Court-Queen's Bench Division.

CESSFORD v. DOVER HARBOUR BOARD. Wills, J. 1st April.
LANDLORD AND TENANT-NUISANCE-COVENANT FOR QUIET ENJOYMENT-
DEROGATION FROM GRANT-WORKS DONE UNDER STATUTORY POWERS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, who
were his landlords, to recover damages in respect of his hotel being
injuriously affected by works executed by the defendants on land adjoin-
ing the hotel. The plaintiff was proprietor and tenant of the Esplanade
Hotel, Dover. He held a portion of the hotel (No. 18) under a lease from
the defendants dated 1877 and the remaining portion (No. 17) under a
lease dated 1894. In 1892, under powers granted by an Act of Parliament
of 1891, the defendants began, and up to the date when this action was
brought continued, to construct a new deep water harbour at Dover, and
for that purpose they manufactured large concrete blocks upon the land
immediately adjoining the plaintiff's hotel. The plaintiff's claim was in
respect of the nuisance and loss of amenities caused by the work. He
complained of the following matters: (1) The noise, dust, and smoke
created by the apparatus for mixing the concrete, by the apparatus called
the Goliath by which blocks of concrete were moved from place to place,
and by the locomotives and steam engines and wagons employed; (2) the
noise created by the landing, by means of a steam crane, of materials
for making concrete; (3) the destruction of an attractive view;
(4) dust and noise made in the unloading, storing, and carting
of cement at a large shed erected by the defendants at the back of the
hotel; (5) destruction of amenities by the erection of the same shed. The
plaintiff's claim was for damages in respect of the premises as constituting
(1) a nuisance; (2) a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment; (3) a
derogation from the defendants' grant. It was contended on his behalf
that the statute did not override the defendants' contractual liability
towards the plaintiff as his landlords (Sanderson v. Mayor of Berwick-upon-
Tweed (13 Q B. D. 547) and Robinson v. Kilvert (4 Ch. D. 88)); and it
was pointed out that the statutory powers were permissive only and not
imperative. It was further contended that the defendants were liable
upon the ground that, in carrying out their statutory powers, they did
not employ the means least likely to cause injury to others. Upon this
point Gas Light and Coke Co. v. Vestry of St. Mary Abbotts (15 Q. B. D. 1)
and Metropolitan Asylums District v. Hill (6 App. Cas. 193) were cited. The
defendants relied upon their Act of Parliament which authorized the
works in question. It was contended that, with regard to the portion of
the hotel, No. 17, held under a lease dated 1894 the plaintiff had no right
of action since he took the premises with full knowledge of the inconveni-
ences to which he would be subjected; and with regard to the remaining
portion it was contended that if the plaintiff had any remedy it would be
by compensation under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and not by
action-Kirby v. School Board for Harrogate-no action being maintainable
unless the work done was in excess of the statutory powers or there was
negligence in the execution of it: Brand v. Hammersmith Railway Co. (L.

R. 4 H. L. 171) and London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Co. v.
Truman and Others (11 App. Cas. 45). The jury on the assumption that a
right of action existed gave a verdict for £800.
WILLS, J., gave judgment for the plaintiff in respect of item (4) of the
plaintiff's claim and assessed the proportion of damage due to that cause
at £200. He said, as to the other items of claim, that the works from which
they arose were a fair and reasonable exercise of the defendants' statutory
powers and that, consequently, in respect of those matters the plaintiff's
remedy was by compensation under the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, and not
by action; but as to the matters complained of in item (4) the action was
maintainable because the nuisance might be greatly mitigated by the
unloading, storing, &c., being carried on inside the shed built by the
defendants instead of outside. It lay on the defendants to shew that
what was done was a necessary, or at least reasonable, exercise of their
powers. The judgment proceeded as follows: "I must now deal with
one of Mr. Dickens' points. He argued that in respect of the nuisances
generally and in respect of the destruction of the amenities, the action
cannot be maintained, notwithstanding the local Acts of Parliament, on
the ground that the demise implies a covenant for quiet enjoyment,
which has been broken, and that the acts of the defendants
derogate from their grant. I do not think 80, however.
I cannot see why Acts of Parliament should not legalize acts
which would otherwise be actionable wrongs, because the particular form
of actionable wrong consists in a breach of contract either express or
implied. Were it otherwise, the result of an action such as this might
be an injunction which would stop the important public works authorized
by the Legislature. Neither does it seem to me to make any difference,
as to the question between action and compensation, whether the plain-
tiff's right accrued under leases granted before or after the Acts of
Parliament or either of them. The consideration upon which the decision
of this question turns is, Were the Acts complained of within the
statutory power?' If so, no matter when or how the plaintiff's rights
arose, it is a case for compensation, not action. As to a portion
of the plaintiff's hotel, No. 17, it is clear to me that no claim
on the ground of covenant for quiet enjoyment arising since 1894 can be
and the correspondence shews that he took it with full knowledge of the
maintained in any shape. The plaintiff took a new lease of No. 17 in 1894,
circumstances, and it is clear that, under the circumstances of this case,
either the nuisances are not a breach of the covenant or the lease does not
express the intention of the parties in this respect and ought to be re-
formed. This question, however, is rather academical than practical, as
there is nothing in the facts to which I have referred that, so far as I can
ɛee, interferes with the right of the plaintiff to obtain whatever compen-
sation he may be entitled to under the Lands Clauses Act."-COUNSEL,
Dickens, Q.C., and F. M. Abrahams; Lawson Walton, Q.C., and J. Eldon
Bankes. SOLICITORS, Michael Abrahams, Son, & Co.; Bower, Cotton, &
Bower.

[ocr errors]

[Reported by C. G. WILBRAHAM, Barrister-at-Law.]

SAUNDERS (Appellant) v. THORNEY (Respondent). Div. Court.
5th April.
LICENSING LAW-SUNDAY CLOSING-DELIVERY ON SUNDAY OF BEER ORDERED
ON SATURDAY-OPENING HOUSE FOR SALE DURING CLOSING HOURS-
SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT, 1881 (44 & 45 VICT. c. 61), ss. 1, 2-
LICENSING ACT, 1874 (37 & 38 VICT. c. 49), s. 9.

Case stated by justices of the peace sitting as a court of summary
jurisdiction at Aberdare, in the county of Glamorgan. An information
was laid under section 1 of the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act, 1881 (44 &
45 Vict. c. 61), by the respondent, who was a superintendent of police,
against the appellant for having on Sunday, the 14th day of November, 1897,
at the parish of Aberdare-he then being a person licensed for the sale
of beer by retail at his house and premises-unlawfully opened his house
for the sale of beer on the said Sunday. After hearing the evidence, the
justices convicted the appellant and fined him twenty shillings and costs
At the hearing the following facts were proved: The appellant is a beer-
house-keeper and holds a beerhouse licence under the Act 1 Will. 4, c. 64,
and the Acts amending the same, in respect of certain premises occupied by
him and authorizing him to sell by retail beer to be consumed on or off
the premises. On Sunday, the 14th of November, 1897, about 10 o'clock
at night, a girl was seen by a police-constable to come out of the
appellant's house by the front door, and upon going up to her the
constable found that she had two bottles of porter. He took her back to
the appellant's house and saw the appellant and asked why he had
supplied the porter. He said he had not done so. His wife, who was
present, said she had supplied the girl with the two bottles for a Mr.
Watkins, and there were ten more to come, as he had ordered and paid
for a dozen there yesterday. It was explained on behalf of the
appellant, which explanation was accepted as a fact by the justices,
that the said Mr. Watkins had ordered of the appellant's wife
and paid two shillings for a case of a dozen bottles of porter
on the Saturday evening which she, the appellant's wife, arranged tɔ
deliver at Watkins' house on the Saturday, but having met with an
accident by falling down and spraining her arm, she had forgotten to give
Watkins on the Sunday
instructions for the delivery of the porter.
night, finding that the porter had not been delivered as arranged, sent
over his servant, who was the girl stopped by the constable, to the appel-
lant's house and requested the appellant's wife to let him have two of
the bottles of porter. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that
under the circumstances aforesaid the appellant had not opened his
house for the sale of beer on the said Sunday within the meaning of
section 9 of the Licensing Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 49), which by section
2 of the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 61), applies to

premises closed under the last-named Act. The justices were of opinion that the sale of the porter was not complete until delivery, and that in delivering the two bottles on the Sunday the appellant opened his house for the sale of intoxicating liquors within the meaning of section 9 of the Licensing Act, 1874. The question of law for the opinion of the court was whether under the circumstances the justices were right in holding that intoxicating liquor having been ordered of the appellant and paid for during the time his licensed premises were allowed to be open, but delivered by him during the period during which his premises were required to be closed, constituted the offence of opening his house for the sale of beer during prohibited hours. The Sunday Closing (Wales) Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 61), provides, section 1: "In the Principality of Wales all premises in which intoxicating liquors are sold or exposed for fale by retail shall be closed during the whole of Sunday"; section 2: "The Licensing Acts, 1872-1874, shall apply in the case of any premises closed under this Act as if they had been closed under those Acts." The Licensing Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 49), provides, section 9: "Any person who, during the time at which premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors are directed to be closed by or in pursuance of this Act, sells or exposes for sale in such premises any intoxicating liquors, or opens or keeps open such premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors, shall for the first offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, and for any subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds."

THE COURT (Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, C.J., and CHANNELL, J.) upheld the decision of the magistrates, and dismissed the appeal.

a

Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, C.J.-In my judgment the magistrates were right in this case. I base my judgment first upon the exact facts of this case, and the decision in the view of the court is not a decision upon any facts except the exact facts of this case. The charge against the appeliant was based on section 9 of the Licensing Act, 1874, and the offence was committed in the Principality of Wales, in which there was in operation the Sunday Closing Act, 1881. The charge against the appellant was that on the day in question he had kept his premises open for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The facts were these. The magistra es believed the version of the matter given by the appellant's wife, that a person had ordered from her on the Saturday a dozen bottles of porter, but that owing to an accident this was not delivered on the Saturday at the time it ought to have been delivered. What was the legal effect of the transaction on the Sunday? The whole transaction was simply a contract on the part of the licensed victualler to sell a case of twelve bottles of porter; contract which would have been satisfied by the sale of any twelve bottles of porter. There was no appropriation of any specific goods, and the matter rested therefore entirely on contract and no property passed under or by virtue of that contract. Then on the Sunday the house was opened for the delivery of these two bottles of porter, in respect of which no property had passed to the purchaser. Is that or is it not evidence of an offence within section 9? In my judgment-not without some doubt-I think it was. I think the delivery on the Sunday was a material part in the carrying out and giving effect to the contract which was made on the Saturday, a contract under which no specific goods were appropriated. That seems to me to be the legal effect of what took place, and I arrive at the conclusion that there was sufficient to justify the magistrates in coming to the conclusion they did come_to, that the appellant had committed an offence within the section. It is perfectly clear that if publicans were to be allowed to say that although they delivered beer on the Sunday it was in pursuance of antecedent contracts made on the Saturday without any specific appropriation of the goods, it would open a very wide door to an evasion of what must have been the intention of the Legislature. CHANNELL, J.-I am of the same opinion. I think a person opens his premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors within the meaning of section 9 when he opens them for the carrying out of any material part of the transaction of sale.-COUNSEL, S. T. Evans; W. D. Benson. SOLICITORS, Bell, Brodrick, & Gray, for Linton & C. & W. Kenshole, Aberdare; Wrentmore & Son, for Lewis & Jones, Merthyr Tydfil.

[Reported by Sir SHERSTON BAKER, Bart., Barrister-at-Law.]

LEGAL NEWS.

APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. WALTER HENRY MACNAMARA, barrister, has been appointed an Assistant Master of the Queen's Bench Division. Mr. Macnamara also holds the office of Registrar to the Railway and Canal Commission.

Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Q.C., M.P., of the Northern Circuit, and Mr. H. Y. STANGER, Q.C., of the Midland Circuit, have been elected Benchers of the Honourable Society of Lincoln's-inn, in succession to the late Sir Frank Lockwood, Q.C., and the late Mr. F. W. Gibbs, Q.C., C.B.

Mr. LOUIS A. KERSHAW, Q.C., has received the honour of Knighthood on his appointment to the office of Chief Justice of the High Court at

Allahabad,

CHANGES IN PARTNERSHIPS.
DISSOLUTIONS.

JABEZ MCDIARMID, WILLIAM LINSEY TEATHER, and FREDERICK WILLIAM HILL, solicitors (McDiarmid, Teather, & Hill), 5, Newman's-court, Corn

[blocks in formation]

The list of the House of Lords consists of twenty-one cases, of which eighteen are English and three are Scotch appeals, there being none from Ireland. There are also nine cases awaiting judgment.

It is stated that 100 Chancery witness actions are now in course of transfer to Mr. Justice Byrne for hearing, of which 40 are from the list of Mr. Justice North, and 30 each from Mr. Justice Stirling and Mr. Justice Romer.

Mr. Justice Wright will preside at the last of the series of law lectures given under the auspices the Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association, which will take place in the Lecture Room, Gray's-inn, on Tuesday evening next, when Mr. H. Reed, Q.C., will deliver an address on the subject of" Bills of Sale.”

The Times says that to show the increasing number of actions entered in the Commercial List, it may be mentioned that Mr. Justice Mathew had fifty-four summonses relating to these cases before him for hearing on Saturday last, eighteen of which were marked to be attended by counsel. The learned judge disposed of all of them except three or four, which were adjourned.

Mr. Justice Hawkins, says the Times, is not expected to return to the Eater holiday in consequence of having to forego the ensuing Whitsun Law Courts until the beginning of next week, as he is prolonging his vacation. As the learned judge will have to start on the South-Eastern Circuit for the Summer Assizes at the end of May next, he will consequently be sitting during the Whitsun holidays.

Sir Henry Fowler was, says the Pall Mall Gazette, suddenly seized with illness in the House of Commons on the 21st inst. In the midst of a speech on the Budget he abruptly stopped, sat down on the Front Opposition Bench, and drew his hand across his forehead. The faintness happily passed off in a few moments, and Sir Henry was able to conclude his remarks.

On Saturday last, says the Daily Telegraph, on the screen board in the halls of the four Inns of Court there appeared the names of forty-two gentlemen desirous of being called to the Bar in the present Easter Term. This is a smaller number than usual, and it is a singular fact that barristers to the number of four only, and one solicitor, send up their sons to follow the profession of the law in its higher branch. An African king and an Austrian barcn supply a son apiece. Lincoln's-inu is exceptional in "calling' seven natives of India. The Inner Temple heads the list with 17, Lincoln's-inn counts 14, the Middle Temple 7, and Gray's-inn a modest 4.

[ocr errors]

begins the Easter sittings with a list of no less than 685 cases. Many of A solicitor writes to the Times pointing out that "the Chancery Division these have already been set down to be heard for the last six months, and many of them will not be heard for another twelve. This is a perfect when there were only two equity judges to do the work-the Vicescandal and reproach to the administration of justice. Forty years ago, Chancellor of England and the Master of the Rolls-105 cases pending before the former and 80 before the latter were thought sufficient warrant for appointing two more Vice-Chancellors. Now there are 137 before each judge on the average, and yet the only relief is to call in a Divorce judge now and then. This is a most ridiculous remedy for the evil. To keep down arrears properly there ought to be at least four more equity judges. All this delay only heaps up expense, worry, anxiety, and vexation, and locks up millions of unemployed capital."

The Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Law sat on Tuesday to consider the Solicitors (Ireland) Bill. On Clause 6, which declares that no person shall act as solicitor unless admitted and enrolled, the Solicitor-General for Ireland moved an amendment providing that a clerk or officer appointed for that purpose might act for the solicitor for any Government department in any petty sessions court. The amendment was agreed to, and the clause as amended was added to the Bill. Mr. Greene moved an amendment to clause 16 permitting bonâ fide clerks to solicitors for seven years to be admitted after three years' service. He proposed that the seven should be altered to ten, in order to bring the provision into conformity with Engiish practice. The amendment was rejected. A good deal of discussion took place on the clauses dealing with the procedure relating to striking off the roll. Serjeant Hemphill proposed an amendment empowering the disciplinary committee of the the purpose of inquiry or application made to them under the Act. WithIncorporated Law Society to require the attendance of witnesses" for out this power, he said, the inquiry would in many instances be abortive. Mr. T. M. Healy thought it highly undesirable to give this power in a country where there was great jealousy of the erection of new courts. Why was the bar not to have this power? The amendment was negatived. Mr. T. M. Healy congratulated his countrymen on having thus escaped the setting-up in their midst by wily English solicitors of a little inquisitorial court which would afterwards be transferred to this conntry. The Bill as amended was ordered to be reported to the House

[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][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]

COURT OF APPEAL.

EASTER SITTINGS, 1898. (Continued from p. 437.)

Mr. Justice
STIRLING.

Mr. Pugh
Lavie
Pugh
Lavie
Pugh
Lavie

Mr. Justice
BYRNE.

Mr. Pemberton

Ward
Pemberton
Ward
Pemberton
Ward

Hallett v Hallett app of dft G Hallett from order of Mr Justice Gorell Barnes (sitting, &c.), dated Feb 9, 1898

Wright v Long app of plt from order of Mr Justice Gorell Barnes (sitting, &c.), dated Feb 4, 1898 (order not perfected) March 7 In re R P Jones In re G A EP Jones Billington v Bygott app of plt from order of Mr Justice Byrne, dated Dec 11, 1897 March 8 In re The Registered Trade Mark, No. 70,078, by Wright, Crossley, & Co. and the Patents, Designs, &c. Acts app of The Royal Baking Powder Co. from order of Mr Justice Romer, dated March 4, 1898 (order not perfected) March 9

Clark v E Sharp & Co app of plt from order of Mr. Justice Byrne, dated Feb 15, 1898 March 11

Ecroyd Coulthard app of John Leach & aur from order of Mr Justice North, dated March 23, 1898 March 16

In re Perkins Poyser v Beyfus app of dfts from order of Mr Justice North, dated Feb 23, 1898 (order not perfected) March 18

In re Woods & Lewis & V & P Act, 1874 app of Barnet-Lewis from order of Mr Justice Romer, dated March 4, 1898 March 18

In re The Truffault Cycle & Tube Manufacturing Co ld and In re Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890 app of company from order of Mr Justice Byrne, dated March 16, 1898 (order not perfected) March 23 In re The Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890 & In re Baxters ld app of Baxters ld from order of Mr Justice Wright, dated March 2, 1898 March 24

Brabourne v Anglo-Austrian Print & Publishing Cold Dobell v Same app of Nunn & Popham from order of Mr Justice Wright, dated March 16, 1898 (order not perfected) March 26 Ward v Mayor, &c of Boro' of Portsmouth

app of plt from order of Mr Justice Byrne, dated March 25, 1898 (order not perfected) March 28

In re The Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890, and In re The General Phosphate Corpn là app of The Mortgage Insce Corpn ld from order of Mr Justice Wright, dated March 23, 1898 (order not perfected) March 28

Osmond's ld v Balmoral Cycle Co app of dfts from order of Mr Justice Kennedy (for Mr Justice North), dated March 29, 1898 (order not perfected) April 2

of

In re The Inverell Diamond Field ld & Co's Acts, 1862 to 1890 app the Honduras Government Banking & Trading Co ld from order of Mr Justice North, dated April 1, 1898 (order not perfected) April 5

Attorney-Gen v Siddall app of deft from order of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated January 21, 1898 April 5

Manchester, Sheffield, & Lincolnshire Ry Co v Anderson app of deft from order of Mr. Justice Byrne, dated March 24, 1898 (order not perfected) April 6

Day v Challis app of plts from order of Mr Justice Byrne, dated April 1, 1898 (order not perfected) April 6

In re The City Assets Co ld & Clarkson & V & P Act, 1874 app of the City Assets Co from order of Mr Justice Stirling, dated March 14, 1898 (order not perfected) April 6

Bence v Shearman app of deft TShearman (from order of Mr Justice
Kekewich, dated Feb 11, 1898 April 7
In re White Pennell v Franklin
Kekewich, dated Jan 13, 1898

app of deft from order of Mr Justice
April 7

FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

[blocks in formation]

Harding v Pooley app of dft from judgt of Justices Wright and Kennedy, dated Nov 3, 1897 Dec 1

Clarkson v Button app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Ridley, dated Nov 26, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Dec 1

Wiesener v Levison app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Darling, dated Nov 10, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Dec 3 Attorney-Gen (Informant) v C M Strange (Revenue) app of informant from judgt of Justices Vaughan Williams and Kennedy, dated Aug 12, 1897 Dec 6

Hall v Mildren app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Channell, dated Nov 12, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Dec 6

Stange & Co v Lowitz app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Ridley, dated Nov 24, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex (security ordered)

Dec 8

EJ Phillips v The School Board for London (Crown Side) app of plt
from judgt of Justices Wright and Kennedy, dated Oct 27, 1897 Dec 9
R K Cockerton v The School Board for London (Crown Side) app of plt
from judgt of Justices Wright and Kennedy, dated Oct 27, 1897 Dec 9
Sea Insurance Co, ld & anor v Blogg app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice
Mathew, dated Nov 5, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Dec 10
Mackinnon v Clark app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Kennedy, dated
Dec 2, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Dec 11
Belmarco v The London Hanseatic Bank, ld app of dfts from judgt of
Mr Justice Mathew, dated Nov 29, 1897, at trial without a jury Dec 14
Groves v Wimborne app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Grantham,
dated Dec 3, 1897, at trial without a jury, Cardiff Dec 14
Schneker, Walford, & Co v Glanville & ors app of plts from judgt of Mr
Justice Bigham, dated Dec 3, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex
Dec 17

Major v Storey app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Darling, dated Dec
10, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Dec 18
The Pontefract Park Trustees (Applts) v The Assessment Committee of
the Pontefract Union (Rspts) (Crown Side) app of applts from judgt of
Justices Wright & Kennedy, dated Nov 26, 1897 Dec 20

J. Hartley & ors (Applts) v The Assessment Committee of the Pontefract Union (Respts) (Crown Side) app of applts from judgt of Justices Wright & Kennedy, dated Nov 26, 1897 Dec 20

Warren v Moore app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Hawkins, dated Dec 14, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Dec 23

The West London Syndicate ld (applts) v The Commrs of Inland Revenue (rspts) (Revenue) app of applts from jdgt of Justices Grantham and Channell, dated Dec 15, 1897 Dec 30

The National Telephone Co ld (applts) v The Commrs of Inland Revenue (rspts) (Revenue) app of applts from jdgt of Justices Grantham and Channell, dated Dec 14, 1897 Dec 30

1898.

Woolf v Hamilton app of pltf from jdgt of Mr Justice Darling, dated
Dec 21, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Jau 4
Andrews v Lubbock app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Channell, dated
Dec 18, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Jan 4
Parr's Banking Co, ld v Yates app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Bruce,
dated Dec 15, 1897, at trial without a jury, Liverpool Jan 6
R H Buckley & Sons, ld v N Buckley & Sons app of dfts from judgt of
Mr. Justice Bruce, dated Dec 20, 1897, at trial, &c, Salford Jan 11
The Salt Union, ld v The North Staffordshire Ry Co (Railway and Canal
Commission) app of applts from judgt of Mr Justice Wright, The
Right Hon Sir F Peel, and The Right Hon Viscount Cobham, dated
Dec 17, 1897 Jan 12

Walton v Churchill app of plt from judgt of Mr. Justice Bigham, dated
Dec 13, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Jan 12
Trent Cycle Co, ld v Davis app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Philli-
more, dated Dec 20, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Jan 12
Boyd, ld v Wilkinson app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Channell,
dated Nov 5, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Jan 19
Mayor, &c of the Boro' of Thetford v County Council of Norfolk app of
plt from judgt of Mr. Justice Wills, dated Dec 12, 1897, at trial
without a jury and cross notice of respts, dated March 18, 1898 Jan 21
W Bartlett v H Mears & M A Box (trading, &c, as M A Box & Co)
(Crown Side) app of plt from judgt of Justices Day & Lawrance, dated
Jan 19, 1898 Jan 27

W Bartlett v W A Pearson & M A Box (trading, &c, as M A Box & Co) (Crown side) app of plt from judgt of Justices Day & Lawrance, dated Jan 19, 1898 Jan 27

Stirling Cycle Works v Bowden & ors

app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Kennedy, dated Jan 18, 1898, at a trial without a jury, Middlesex Jan 28

Pettick Bros (respts) v The County Council of Dorset (applts) (Crown side) app of applts from judgt of Justices Day & Lawrance, dated Jan 14, 1898 Jan 28

New London Credit Syndicate ld v Neale & ors app of plts from judgt of of Mr Justice Darling, dated Jan 15, 1898, at a trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 3

The Queen v London County Council (Crown side) app of Commrs from judgt of Justices Day & Lawrance, dated Jan 11, 1898 Feb 3 Walker v Tafft app of dft from judgt of the Lord Chief Justice, dated Dec 18, 1897, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 4 The Attorney-General v The Right Hon Earl Grey (Revenue) app of dft from judgt of Justices Grantham & Channell, dated Dec 13, 1897 Feb 5

Syer v Alder app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Channell, dated Jan 21, 1898, at a trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 5

Cole v Essex & aur app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Mathew, dated
Jan 24, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 8.
Simcoe v Pethick (Crown Side) app of dft from judgt of Justices Day &
Lawrance, dated Jan 14, 1898 Feb 9

Dymock v Showell's Brewery Co ld & anr app of dfts from judgt of Mr
Justice Kennedy, dated Jan 12, 1898, at trial without a jury, Liverpool
Feb 9

The London & Universal Bank Id (in liquidation) v Sabow & Co app of dfts from judgt of Mr Justice Mathew, dated Jan 12, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 11

AC Watson vJ H Holmes (Crown Side) app of plt from judgt of
Justices Grantham and Channell, dated Dec 17, 1897 Feb 11
CE Reynolds, &c (next friend) v H L Holloway (Crown Side) app of
plt from judgt of Justices Day & Lawrance, dated Jan 18, 1898
Feb 11

The City of London Brewery Co ld, applts v The Commrs of Inland Revenue, respts (Revenue) app of applts from judgt of Justices Grantham and Channell, dated Dec 14, 1897 Feb 12

Bonner & anr v Tottenham & Edmonton Permanent Investment Building

Soc app of plts from judgt of Mr Justice Channell, dated Feb 7, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 12

Crane v Bevan (Sheppard, 3rd party) app of dft from jdgt of Mr Justice Channell, dated Feb 9, 1893, at trial without a jury, Middlesex

Feb 15

Bennett (wife, &c) v Slater & aur app of plt from jdgt of Mr Justice
Matthew, dated Jau 26, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex
Feb 15

Brown v Sharpington app of dft from jdgt of Mr Justice Chanuell, dated
Jan 25, 1895, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 17
Taylor & aur v Geary app of deft from jdgt of Mr Justice Ridley, dated
Feb 8, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 18

Boaler v Wertheimer, Lea, & Co app of ptf fin person from jdgt of The Lord Chief Justice, dated Feb 1, 1898, at trial with special jury, Middlesex (security ordered) Feb 22

Rolls v Prell & ors app of dfts from jdgt of Mr Justice Mathew, dated
Feb 16, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 23
Tregillus v Spillers & Bakers ld app of plt from jdgt of Mr Justice
Darling, dated Feb 10, 1898, at trial with special jury, Winchester

Feb 23

Pash & ora v Keays app of dft from jdgt of Mr Justice Wright, dated Feb 1, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Feb 28

Way v Young app of dft from jdgt of Mr Justice Bigham, dated Feb 22, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex March 2

Shipway v Broadwood app of dft from jdgt of Mr Justice Day, dated Feb 10, 1898, Worcester March 2

Ford v Chichester app of plt from judgt of Mr. Justice Mathew, dated Jan 21, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex March 7 Martin v Martin & Co & ors Martin v Martin & Co (consolidated) app of F Trischler from judgt of Mr Justice Channell, dated Feb 15, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex (security ordered) March 8 Neale v Neale app of plt from judgt of Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, dated 21, 1897, at trial without a jury, Birmingham March 10 Hunter v Tebay app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Bruce, dated Dec 7, 1897, at trial with special jury, Lancaster, and cross notice of deft, dated March 10, 1898 March 11

Watkins (trustee, &c) v Lindsay & Co app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Wright, dated Feb 24, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex

March 12

Palmer & Co ld v Muir app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Bigham, dated March 3, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex March 16 Martin & aur v Raffety app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Wright, dated March 5, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex March 16 House & Land Investment Trust ld & ors v Estcourt app of plts from judgt of Mr Justice Wills, dated March 4, 1898, at trial without a jury,

Middlesex March 17

app of defts

Pneumatic Tyre Co ld v Leicester Pneumatic Tyre Co from judgt of Mr Justice Kennedy, dated March 5, 1898, at trial without a jury March 17 Owners of the Wool Cargo lately on board the SS " Waikato" New Zealand Shipping Co ld app of dfts from judgt of Mr Justice Bigham, dated March 4, 1898, at trial without jury, Middlesex March 18 Lower Rhine & Wurthenburg Insce Assoc v Sedgwick app of plts from judgt of Mr Justice Kennedy, dated Feb 11, 1898, at trial without jury, Middlesex March 18

The Valveless Gas Engine Syndicate ld v Day app of plts from judgt of
Mr Justice Bigham, dated March 1, 1898 March 19

Roberts & ors v Thomas & ors app of dfts from judgt of Mr Justice
Wright, dated March 12, 1898 March 22
Foxwell & ors v Van Grutten

app of plts from judgt of Mr Justice

Bigham, dated March 17, 1898 March 24 Winton (in forma pauperis) v Price app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Darling, dated March 9, 1898 March 25

Chapman v Harding Bros app of dfts from judgt of Mr Justice Darling, dated Feb 24, 1898 March 25

Seaton v Keats & ors app of A Batley, a dft, from judgt of Mr Justice Day, dated March 16, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex

March 28

Duxbury v Sandiford (Crown Side) app of dft from judgt of Justices Wright & Darling, dated March 18, 1898 March 30

The Venezuela Central Ry Co, ld v The Construction Investment Co, ld app of dfts from judgt of Mr Justice Wright, dated March 8, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex March 30

Bue v Bywater app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Day, dated March
22, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex March 30
Stanley v Mumford app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Day, dated
March 21, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex March 31
McGuffie v Burleigh app of dft from judgt of Mr. Justice Bruce, dated
March 24, 1898, Middlesex (jury discharged) March 31
Foster v Simpson app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Bigham, dated
March 31, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex March 31
Greenwood v Francis app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Day, dated
March 18, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex March 31
Hall v Cox app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Lawrance, dated March
23, 1898, West Riding, York April 2
Thomson & aur v Elwards app of applts from judgt of Mr Justice
Grantham, dated March 22, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middle-
sex April 4

Miller v Harding app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Grantham, dated
March 31, 1898 April5
Turner v Bowles Bowles v Turner & anr (by counter-claim) app of E &
CA Turner from judgt of Mr Justice Channel!, dated Feb 1, 1898, at
Field SS Cold v Burr app of plts from judgt of Mr Justice Bigham,
trial without a jury, Middlesex April 5
dated March 22, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex April 5
Newby v Eckersley app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Lawrance, dated
March 25, 1898, and common jury, Leeds April 5

A Jones (wife of E J Jones), plt v The Barking Urban District Council, dfts (Crown Side) app of plt from judgt of Justices Wright and Darling, dated March 17, 1898 April 5

The Southwark & Vauxhall Water Co, appls v The Hampton Urban District Council, respts (Crown Side) app of respts from judgt of Justices Wright & Darling, dated March 18, 1898 April 5

The Queen on the Prosecution of R B Moore v M T Shore (Crown Side) app of prosecutors from judgt of Justices Wright & Darling, dated March 25, 1898 April 6

Webster v Barnett & Son app of dfts from judgt of The Lord Chief
Justice, dated March 24, 1898, at trial without a jury, Birmingham
April 6

The Insce Co of North America v The North China Insce Co app of plts
Porter v Mulholland app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Darling, dated
from judgt of Mr Justice Bigham, dated March 31, 1898 April 6
March 23, 1898, at trial with common jury, Middlesex April 6
Finch v Woodrow app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Wills, dated
March 28, 1898, at trial with common jury, Middlesex April 7
Fleming & Galbraith v L'Esperance Assce Co app of dfts from judgt of
Mr Justice Kennedy, dated Feb 18, 1898, at a trial without a jury,
Middlesex April 7

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

CHANCERY DIVISION.

EASTER SITTINGS, 1898.
(Continued from p. 438.)

[blocks in formation]

23,111 of 1895, and Patents, &c, Acts ptn entered in Witness List

Shaw v Holland act

Kerfoot v Godlonton act

In re Graydon's Patents, No 18,007
of 1893 & No 16,927 of 1894 ptn
entered in Witness List
Smith v Bridgwater act
Blair ▾ Fuller's ld act
A Lawes ld v Goodchild act
South African Republic v La Com.
pagnie Franco-Belge du Chemin
de fer du Nord, &c act
Zumbeck v Bradford act
Stedman v Carpenter act & m fj
TP Lee & Co id v T P Lee act
Paine v Clements act
Weymss v Knollys act & mfj
In re Elliott Milnes v Hare act
TE Brinsmead & Sons ld v Lomax
act & m fj

Kemp v Lowenfeld act
Pankhurst v Reed act
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co ld ▾
Wedge Pneumatic Tyre Co ld

act

Bolton v Hall act

Collis v Gray act
Smith v Sharp act
Cox v Manuelle act
Tanton v Bull act
Urban District Council of Chiswick
v Arnold (J Whitaker 3rd party)
act

Irvine v Irvine & Co ld act
Mordecai v Crown act
Ross v Caseley act

In re Strickland Skarfe v Strick

« PreviousContinue »