Page images

Contract :

(i.) C. A.—Building Contract—Penalties—Delay caused by E.1:traa.—A building contract provided under penalties for the completion of specified work and any additional works by a fixed date. Additional work was ordered, and the contract was not fulfilled by the time named. Held, that independently of construction of the contract, the building owner had, by ordering extra work, rendered it impossible for the builder to complete by the date, and had deprived himself of the right to claim the penalty.—Dodd v. Churton, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 562; 76 L.T. 438.

(ii.) C. A.—Statute of I"rauds—lllemorandum in Writing—Letter and E1zvelope.—Where a posted letter on which a contract was founded did not shew the name of the party to whom it was addressed, the envelope was, on verbal evidence connecting the two, held to make with the letter one document suflicient to satisfy sect. 4 of the Statute of Frauds.—-Peerce v. Gardner, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 688; 76 L.T. 441.

(iii.) C, A, -Contract to Take Debentures is Contract to Lend Money—Breach— Re1nedy-Measure of Damages.--A contract to take debentures is a contract to lend money, and the remedy for breach is damages for actual loss, and only nominal damages can be recovered if no loss is pr0ved.—-South African Territories, Limited, v. Wallington, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 692; 76 L.T. 520.

Copyright :- —

(iv.) Q, B_—Unregistered Assignee—Acti0nfor Infringement—C0pyright Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict., c. 45), s. 24.-The assignee of a copyright must register himself as proprietor under sect. 24 of the Act of 1842 before he can maintain an action for infringernent.—-The Liverpool General

Brokers’ Association, Limited, v. The Commercial Press Telegram Bureaux,
L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 1 ; 76 L.T. 292.

[ocr errors]

(v.) C, _A_,—E.rccut1'on-—Sale of Goods Wrongfully C0nverted—Title—County Court Act, 1888 (51 cC' 52 Vict., c. 43), s. 156.—A purchase at a sale by a bailiff under sect. 156 of the County Court Act, 1888, confers a good title on the purchaser of goods the property of a claimant who does not give security or make a deposit as provided by that section.— Goodlock v. Cousins, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 558; 76 L.T. 313.

(vi.) Q. B. D.*Appeal—Security for Costs.—Where there is reasonable ground for appeal, the Court will not order security to be given for costs merely 011 the ground that the plaintifi has no visible means of paying tl1em.~Pritchett v. Poole, 76 L.T. 472.

(vii.) Q, B, 1)_—Practice—Vcnue—Connty Court Act, 1888, s. 74-—~Co'unty Court Rules, 1889, 0. v., 1'. 9a.—A plaintiff can of right bring an action in the county court of the district within which the defendant dwells or carries on business. But it is within the discretion of the Judge of the court of the district where the cause of action arose, to give or refuse leave to the plaintiff to sue there.— Reg. v. lurner (Judge) and Hodgson, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 445; 76 L.T. 556.

Easement :— (viii.) C. A,—Light— 0bstr'uction—-Derogation from Grant-—Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 ct 45 Vict., c. 41), s. 6, snb-ss. 2, 4.-—Vendors conveyed to the

plaintiff a new house, windows of which overlooked a vacant piece of ground the property of one of the vendors, described in the conveyance

and plan as “building land.” On this the owner built a house which interfered with access of light to the plaintiff’s windows. Held, that there was nothing 0n the plan and description to shew an intention to exclude the operation of sect. 6 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, and that the defendant was not entitled so to build on his land as to create an obstruction to the light which came to the windows of the plaintiff’s house at the time of the grant by the defendant. Swanborough v. Coventry, 9 Bing 305, is not displaced by the Birmingham, Dudley, and District Banking Co. 'v. Ross, and Myers v. Catterson.—Broomfield v. Williams, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 602; 76 L.T. 244.

(i.) H. L.-—Light and Air.-On some remarks of their Lordships on the decision of the Court of Appeal (see Vol. 21, p. 9 (iii.)) the parties came to terms, on which that judgment was varied by consent.—Chastey and Another v. Acland, L.R. [1897] A.C. 155 ; 76 L.T. 430.

(ii.) C. D.~—Obstruction of Photographer’: Lig/ht—Injunction.—A photographer, who had used his premises for less than twenty years, obtained an injunction to restrain the erection, or the keeping erected, a new building interfering with the access of light to his studio.—Lazarus v. The Artistic Photographic Co., Limited, 76 L.T. 457.

Factories :—

(iii.) Q. B. D.—Factory and Workshop Act, 1878 (41 ct‘ 42 Vict., c. 16), s. 51 —“ Open for Trafiic on Sunday ”—Persons of Jewish Religion.—A person of the Jewish religion employed a female of the same faith on a Sunday in a workshop which was open only for the receipt and despatch of goods of customers in pursuance of agreements previously made. Held, that the workshop was not “ open for traffic on Sunday” within the mleaning of sect. 51.—Goldstein v. Vaughan, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 549 ; 76 L. . 262.

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

Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London, and China, L.R. [1897]

[ocr errors]

Gaming :—

(vi.) Q. B. D.—“Place” for Purposes of Betting-—Betting Act, 1853 (16 ti" 17 Vict., c. 19), ss. 1 and 3.—At a horse race a bookmaker stationed himself in an unenclosed place and made bets. Held, that he was using a “ place ” for the purpose of betting within the meaning of sect. 3 of the Betting Act, 1853.—McInany v. Hildreth, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 600; 76 L.T. 463.

[ocr errors]

(i.) C, A,—Money lent for Deposit at Boring Match.—An action cannot be

maintained for the recovery of money lent to be deposited with a stakeholder on conditions of repayment depending upon the result of a boxing match.—Carney v. Plimmer, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 634 ; 76 L.T. 374.

[ocr errors]

lllalrimonial Causes Acts, 1857 (20 (E21 Vict., c. 8-5), ss. 27 and 21; 1858 (21 03' 22 Vict., c. 108) s. l1—Divorce Court Rules, 1865, rr. 2, 4, 6.— The Court will, according to the circumstances of each particular case, exercise the discretion conferred by sect. 28 of the Act to give leave to a petitioner for a divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery, to proceed without naming a co-respondent. Jones v. Jones (see Vol. 22, p. I1‘1T(ii.)) disapproved.—Saundera v. Saumierx, L.R. [1897] P. 89; 76 . . 330.

(iii.) C. A_.—Deed of Separation-Judicial Separation— Alimony and Main

[ocr errors]

tenance—Agreement set up in Bar—.lIatrimonial Causes Acts, 1857, ss. 32, 34, 35 ; 1859, s. 4; 1866, s. 1.—On a dissolution of marriage or a judicial separation, the Court may grant maintenance, and may order alimony agreed to in a prior deed of separation to be increased, notwithstanding a covenant by the wife not to sue for an increased allowance. Decision of Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 62 (ii.)) afiirmed. Gandy v. Gandy (30 Ch. Div. 57; 53 L.T. 306) considered.— Bishop v. Bishop; Judkins v. Judkins, L.R. [1897] P. 138; 76 L.T. 169 and 409.

Q. B,—-Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, 8. 11—
Appeal.—-The only mode in which a decision on an application for an
order under the Act can be questioned is by appeal to the Probate,
Divorce and Admiralty Division under sect. 11 of the Act.—Ma11ders v.
Manders, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 474.

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

Income to which Husband had no legal right.—The facts on which alimony pendente lite has been fixed are those in which permanent maintenance should be determined. The Court granted permanent maintenance out of an allowance made voluntarily to the respondent by a relative.—Bonsor v. Bonsor, L.R. [1897] P. 77 ; 76 L.T. 168.

P, D,—Divorce—Suit of Wi e for Judicial Separation—Counter Charge of Adultery—Leave to Intervene Refused to Alleged Adulterer.—Where, in a petition by a wife for judicial separation, the husband countercharged adultery, but asked for no relief, leave was refused to the alleged adulterer to intervene and defend. — Farrell v. Farrell, 76 L.T. 167.

P. D. —Divorce—Variation of Settlement.—Where a wife had obtained a decree absolute for dissolution of marriage, an ante-nuptial settlement of the husband’s property was varied so to give her more than one-third of the income of the settled property, and after his death more than one-half, and the limitation of the settlement dum sola virerit was not imposed.-—Bashall v. Bashall, 76 L.T. 165.

Queen's Proctor-23 d1‘ 24 Vict., c. 144, s. 7-36 Vict., c. 31.——In an undefended suit by a husband for nullity of marriage, on an intimation from the Queen’s Proctor that he did not intend to intervene at the initial stage of the proceedings, the case was set down for hearing after the undefended causes in the supplemental list had been disposed 0f.—M. v. M., otherwise A., 76 L.T. 172.

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

(ii.) Q, B_—-Insurance 0] a Debenture—P0stponement oj Payment by Resolution of Debenture H0lders—Liability of Insurer-.—The defendants insured the payment at maturity of “ any principal sum due under” a debenture held by the plaintiff on condition that he did not consent to any modification of his rights. A subsequent meeting of debenture holders, which the plaintifl did not attend, passed a resolution assenting to postponement of payment. Held, that as the date of maturity, mentioned in the debenture, was past, the plaintifi was entitled to recover on his policy, the defendants succeeding to his rights.—Finla.y v. The Mexican Investment Corporation, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 517; 76 L.T. 257.

Interpleader :—

(iii.) Q, B,—Levy—Liability for Sherifi"s Fees.—An execution creditor unsuccessful in an interpleader issue is liable for the sherifi’s fees.~Blaker v. Seager and Others, 76 L.T. 392.

Landlord and Tenant :—

(iv.) C, A_—Covenant by Landlord to Pay Water Rnte—Water Supplied for Trade Purp0ses—Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, s. 3—New River Company’s Act, 1852, ss. 35, 38, 40.—A covenant by the lessor to pay the water rate assessed in respect of the leased premises was held not to apply to the charge for water supplied to the lessee for trade purposes under agreement between him and the water company.— Floyd v. Lyons ¢£' Co., Limited, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 633; 76 L.T. 251.

(v.) C. _A_—Lease of Hotel— Covenant to Sell Wines of Lessor 0nly—Covena.nt Running with Land—Bene_fit of Pr0'viso-—0wnership of Lessor’s Business Severed from Reversion.—A covenant in an hotel lease that the lessee will sell only wines supplied by the lessor his successors and assigns runs with the land without mention of the assigns of the lessee ; and these assigns can claim the benefit of a proviso that so long as the covenant is observed there shall be an abatement of the rent, notwithstanding that the ownership of the 1essor’s business as a wine merchant is severed from the ownership of the reversion.—White v. The Southend Hotel Co., Limited, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 767; 76 L.T. 273.

Licensing :—

(vi.) Q, B, D_—.’l’ra1zsfer of Licence-Protection Order—Alehouse Acts, 1828, a. 4; 1842, s. 1; Licensing Act, 1872 (35 di' 36 Vict., c. 94), s. 3.—A person licensed to sell intoxicating liquor can continue to do so on the licensed premises, although a magistrate has at his request granted a temporary

authority or protection to another person.—/lndrews v. Denton, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 37; 76 L.T. 423.

(vii.) Q. B. D.—P0wer of Constable to Enter Licensed Premises— Licensing Act, 1874 (37 £38 Vict., c. 49), s. 16.—A constable is not empowered by sect. 16 to enter on licensed premises unless there is evidence by which he may reasonably conclude that an offence against the Licensing Acts is being committed.—Duncan v. Dowding and Others, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 575; 76 L.T. 294.

(i-) Q. B. D.—“ Found Drunk on Licensed Premises ”—Licensing Act, 1872, s. 12.—A person, not an inmate of the house, “ found drunk on licensed premises ” during closing hours is liable to conviction under sect. 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872.—Rc_q. v. Pelly and Another (Justices), L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 33; 76 L.T. 467.

Limitations :

(ii.) C, D_—Inspectorship Dced~Separate Estate—Whether Trust Express or Constructive—Statute of Li mi tations.—Where a creditor of a partnership firm, which had executed a deed of inspection in 1833, claimed a fund standing to the credit of the personal representative of the last surviving partner, it was held on the construction of the deed that no express trust of separate estate had been created, and, therefore, that

the claim was barred by the Statute of Limitations:-Trevor v. Hutchins, 76 L.T. 183.

Local Government :—

(iii.) C, D,—Water Supply—Local Government Act, I888 (51 ii" 52 Viet., c. 41), s. 57—.Public Health Act, 1875 (38 J.‘ 39 Viet., c. 55), ss. 51, 52. —The extension of existing water mains of an urban authority is not a construction of water works within the meaning of sect. 52 of the Public Health Act. Cleveland Water Co. '0. Redcar Local Board followed.—C0rporation of Huddersfield v. Raventhorpe Urban District Council, L.R. [1897] 1 Oh. 652 ; 76 L.T. 377.

(iv.) Q. B. D,-—Borough Funds-—Chief Constable respondent in Licensing Appeals—Power to pay Costs -Municipal Corporation Act, 1882, s. 140.A watch committee refused to allow the chief constable to act as respondent in licensing appeals to quarter sessions, but the borough Council gave him authority to do so and passed a resolution that his costs be paid. Held, that there was no right to use the borough funds for this purpose under the circumstances.—Atty.-Genl. and the Newcastle Breweries, Limited, v. The Mayor, d'c., of Tynemouth, 76 L.T. 566.

[ocr errors]

(v.) Q, B, D_—Lunacy Commissioners—Discretion—Certyicate that Person detained may be Discharged—Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 ct‘ 54 Viet., c. 5), s. 49. —The lunacy commissioners have, under sect. 49, discretion to refuse to discharge a person detained as of unsound mind, though two doctors gave a certificate that he may be safely discharged.—Reg. v. The Lunacy Commissioners, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 630; 76 L.T. 353.

(vi.) C, ]),—Foreigner found Lunatic Abroad—Fund in Court Transferred.Where there were funds in Court in the name of a foreigner found lunatic abroad the Court ordered the transfer of the fund to the proper official of the State in which the lunatic was domiciled. In r. Barlow’s will (57 L.T. 95; 36 Ch. D. 287) distinguished.—In r. De Linden; in re Sparrier ; De Heyn v. Garland, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 453; 76 L.T. 180.

Malicious Representation :—

(vii.) Q. B.-—Wilful Act—-Physical Pain—Cause of Action.—Where in consequence of a false and malicious statement by the defendant to a wife that her husband had been seriously injured, she suffered a dangerous

« PreviousContinue »