Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

(i.) Q. B. D.-Abandoned Mine-Obligation to Fence-Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict., c. 77), s. 13 (2), s. 41–Derbyshire Mining Customs and Mineral Courts Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict., c. 163).—A mine had been abandoned for 30 years, and all trace of the last workers was lost. Held, that the mine reverted to the owner of the soil, who was liable to fence under sect. 13 of the Act of 1872.-Duke of Devonshire v. Stokes, 76 L.T. 424.

Mistake:

(ii.) C. D.-Consent Order-Set Aside-Evidence of Counsel.-An order expressed to be by consent was set aside on the ground of mistake, though it had been construed by two Courts.—Wilding v. Sanderson, 76 L.T. 346.

Mortgage :

(iii.) C. D.-Equitable Mortgage-Vesting Declaration-Legal MortgageNotice. A person who purchased a freehold in 1883 sold it, and later repurchased it, taking a conveyance free from incumbrance. He then deposited as equitable mortgage with a bank the conveyance of 1883, suppressing all mention of subsequent dealings with the estate, and by the memorandum of deposit he declared himself a trustee for the bank, and gave to the bank power to appoint new trustees and to vest in them the estate. He then borrowed money from a relative and executed a legal mortgage to him of the whole estate, "subject to the deposit with the bank and to the memorandum accompanying the same. Held, that the vesting declaration was effectual to pass the legal estate to new trustees appointed by the bank.-London and County Banking Co., Limited, v. Goddard, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 642; 76 L.T. 277.

[ocr errors]

(iv.) H. L.-Power of Sale to one of several Mortgagors. Decision of Court of Appeal (see Vol. 22, p. 169 (vi.)) affirmed.-Kennedy v. De Trafford and Dodson, L.R. [1897] A.C. 180; 76 L.T. 427.

National School:

(v.) C. A.—Trustees-Street Paving-Sale or Mortgage--Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict., c. 55), ss. 4, 257; School Sites Act, 1841 (4 & 5 Vict., c. 38), ss. 6, 7, 15.-Though trustees of a national school, the site of which was conveyed under the Act of 1841, are liable for metalling a road on which their premises abut, the charge cannot be enforced by sale or mortgage of the premises free from the trusts. Decision of Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 19 (iv.)) varied.—Hornsey District Council v. Smith, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 843; 76 L.T. 431.

Nuisance :—

(vi.) C. A.—Vacant Land-Injunction-Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict., c. 76), ss. 13, 35, 138.-On appeal from the decision of the Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 70 (ii.)) the Court of Appeal declared the Attorney-General entitled to an injunction, and gave liberty to apply.-Attorney-General v. Tod-Heatly and Brownrigg, 76 L.T. 174; L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 560.

Patent:

(vii.) C. A.—Action for Infringement Threats-Claim for Injunction—Patents, etc., Act, 1883 (46 d 47 Vict., c. 57), s. 32.-Plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants for infringement of a patent, and after

wards published a statement to that effect. Held, that as the plaintiffs were prosecuting the action, an injunction would not, having regard to the proviso at the end of sect. 32 of the Patents Act of 1883, be granted to restrain the publication.-The Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co., Limited, v. The New Seddon Pneumatic Tyre or Self-closing Tube Co., Limited, 76 L.T. 405.

(i.) C. A.-English Patent-Infringement-Goods made Abroad-Sent by Post to England. Decision of Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 71 (iii.)) reversed; Rigby, L.J., dissenting.—Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v. Johnson & Co., and the Basle Chemical Works Bindschedler, 76 L.T. 434.

Poor Law:

(ii.) C. A.-Settlement-Residence-Patient in Hospital-The Poor Removal Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Vict., c. 66), s. 1; Divided Parishes Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict., c. 61), s. 34.-Three consecutive years "irremovable" residence is, by sect. 34 of the Divided Parishes Act, necessary to acquire a settlement by residence in a parish; and by the provisions of sect. 1 of the Poor Removal Act, 1846, there is not such a residence if the person for whom the settlement is claimed has been an in-patient of a hospital in any one of the years. Dorchester Union v. Weymouth Union (16 Q. B. D. 31; 54 L.T. 52) followed.-St. Olave's Union v. Canterbury Union, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 682; 76 L.T. 517.

Practice :

(iii.) C. A.-Money Paid into Court--Communication to Jury-Validity of r. 22, 0. xxii.-R. 22 of O. xxii. is a valid rule, and no communication as to money paid into Court should be made to the jury until after verdict. Williams v. Goose, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 471; 76 L.T. 143. (iv.) C. A. -Costs-Order as to, by Judge in Chambers-Power of Judge at Trial to Vary.-Where Judge in Chambers has ordered that costs of an application under O. xvi., shall be costs, in the cause, a Judge at the trial cannot vary this order.-Koosen v. Rose, 76 L.T. 145.

(v.) P. D.-Administration with Will Annexed-Minors-Guardian-Form of Order-Probate Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict., c. 77), s. 73.—A grant of administration with will annexed was made under sect. 73 to a guardian of minors "until one of the minors comes of age and applies."-In the Goods of Fredk. G. Lilley, deceased, 76 L.T. 164.

(vi.) P. D.-Probate-Defence Delivered-Application to add another Defendant -Order Costs.-A plaintiff, who had every means of knowing before action the proper defendants, was required, on obtaining leave to join another defendant after the statement of defence was delivered, to pay all the defendants' costs thrown away by the non-joinder.-Coke v. French, 76 L.T. 163.

(vii.) P. D.-Administration-Revocation of Grant-Administrator ordered to file Accounts.—Where, on the discovery of a will, a grant of administration was revoked and probate granted, the administrator was ordered to furnish an account shewing how he had disposed of the estate. Jenkins v. Jenkins, 76 L.T. 164.

(viii.) C D.-Motion for Final Judgment against one Defendant-O. xxvii., r. 12. Where one of several defendants admits the plaintiff's claim, it is not necessary, if the cause of action is severable, to serve the other defendants with notice of motion for final judgment against him.— Macmillan v. Australasian Territories, Limited, and Others, 76 L.T. 182.

(i.) P. D.—Divorce-Wife's Costs.-Where, in a husband's petition for divorce, the wife made counter-charges but did not go into the witnessbox, and a rule nisi was granted, the usual order for the wife's costs was refused, on the ground that the solicitor for the wife had not investigated the reasonableness of the grounds put forward by her as a defence.-Walker v. Walker and Lawson, 76 L.T. 234.

(ii.) P. D.-Divorce-Wife's Costs.—Where a husband on a petition by him for divorce had been ordered to pay costs incurred by the wife's solicitor and without paying them had obtained leave to proceed in formâ pauperis, it was ordered that proceedings be stayed till he satisfied the order. Joseph v. Joseph and Burnhill, 76 L.T. 236.

(iii.) C. D.-Discovery-Lien of Former Solicitor-Claim for Negligence.—▲ defendant in answer to a summons for discovery and production alleged that the documents were in possession of a former solicitor whose lien he was unwilling to discharge as he had a claim against him for negligence. Held, according to Rodick v. Gandell (12 Beav. 325) and Vale v. Oppert (5 Ch. Div. 569) that this did not release the defendant from the obligation to produce them, but that the Court would take care that he should not be subject to oppression.-Lewis v. Powell, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 678; 76 L.T. 282.

(iv.) H. L.-Costs in Action Paid to Solicitor-Judgment Reversed—Liability to Repay. Decision of Court of Appeal (see Vol. 22, p. 22 (viii.), HoodBarrs v. Heriot) affirmed; Fitzmaurice v. Jordan, 32 L. Rep. Ir. 112 not followed.-Hood-Barrs v. Croosman, L.R. [1897] A.C. 172; 76 L.T. 297.

(v.) H. L.-Costs-Married Women-Restraint on Anticipation-AppealMarried Woman's Property Act, 1893, s. 2.-The words of sect. 2 "in any action or proceeding instituted" refer to litigation initiated by a married woman, and not to an appeal from a judgment in an action brought against her, and the provision as to costs in that section do not apply to such an appeal.—Hood-Barrs v. Heriot (2nd Appeal), L.R. [1897] A.C. 177; 76 L.T. 299.

(vi.) C. A.-Jurisdiction of Master-Compensation under Lands Clauses Act -Regulation of Railways Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict., c. 119), s. 41Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict., c. 66), s. 16—O. liv., r. 12.-A master has jurisdiction to hear an application made under sect. 41 of the Railways Act, 1868, for the trial in the High Court of a question of compensation. In re Donisthorpe's Claim and the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Co., L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 671; 76 L.T. 371. (vii.) C. A.-Discovery-Documents Referred to in Affidavit—0. xxxi., rr. 15, 16, 17, 18.—A Judge in Chambers has jurisdiction to order inspection of correspondence referred to in an unfiled affidavit of an arbitrator prepared in opposition to a motion to set aside his award.—In re An Arbitration between Fenner and Lord, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B.667; 76 L.T. 376. (viii.) C. A.-Appeal-" Criminal Cause or Matter"-Judicature Act, 1873, s. 47. Where the Divisional Court had quashed the conviction, under a local Act, of a corporation, for supplying gas of deficient illuminating power, it was held that no appeal would lie, as the judgment of the Divisional Court was in a "criminal cause or matter" within the meaning of sect. 47 of the Judicature Act, 1873.-The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Southport v. The Birkdale Urban District Council, 76 L.T. 318.

(ix.) Q. B. D.—Mandamus-Vaccination Acts, 1867, 1871, 1874—General Orders of Local Government Board under those Acts (October 31st, 1874) —Public Health (London) Act, 1891.—To maintain an application for mandamus the prosecutor must have a specific legal right to enforce

the performance of the duty left unperformed. A district board of works have no legal right to require guardians of the poor to perform duties imposed by the Vaccination Act.-Reg. v. Guardians of the Lewisham Union, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 498; 76 L.T. 324.

(i.) Q. R. D.—Bankruptcy-Receiving Order on Appeal—Date.—A receiving order granted on appeal is dated as if made on the date of the application to the Court below. In re Raatz; e. p. Carlihan, 76 L.T. 330. (ii.) C. A.-Jurisdiction-Order Stayed by Supplemental Order. There is jurisdiction in the Court, on further facts being brought to its knowledge, to make a supplemental order staying, until antecedent directions are complied with, the operation of a previous order. Where a trustee has not complied with a direction to pay money into Court, an order made for payment to him of costs may be stayed by a supplemental order till he has complied with the neglected direction.-In re Scowby; Scowby v. Scowby, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 741; 76 L.T. 363.

(iii.) C. A.—Discovery—Inspection of Books in Use-Sealing or Covering up Parts. Where under an order for inspection of defendant's books, the plaintiff objected to any parts not under seal being kept from his examination, it was held that the defendant might be at liberty to refer to and cover up from time to time, without sealing, such parts as he could state on oath were not material to the action.--Graham v. Sutton & Co., L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 761; 76 L.T. 369.

(iv.) C. D.-Administrator Pendente Lite-Proceedings against-Court of Probate Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict., c. 77), s. 70.—An administrator pendente lite is an administrator for all purposes except for the distribution of residue, and therefore can be sued by a creditor of the deceased.-In re Toleman; Westward v. Booker, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 866; 76 L.T. 381. (v.) C. D.—Taxation-Mortgagee of Client-Joint Application. Where a mortgagee of a client joined, on the requisition of the Court, with the client in an application for taxation of a bill of costs the Court held that an order could not issue unless he joined the client also in a submission to pay what might be found due.—In re Battams and Hutchinson, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 699; 76 L.T. 385.

(vi.) C. D.-Receiver--Cost of Security.-A receiver or receiver and manager finds security at his own cost if appointed at a salary, but if appointed without remuneration the cost of finding his security is allowed out of assets. Harris v. Sleep, 76 L.T. 458.

66

(vii.) Q. B. D.--Employers Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict., c. 42), s. 4County Court Rules, 1889, O. x., rr. 10, 18.-In an action under the Employers Liability Act, 1880, a defence that the notice required by sect. 4 of that Act had not been given, is a statutory defence" within O. x., r. 18, of the county court rules, 1889, and, therefore, cannot be raised unless five days' notice has been filed in accordance with r. 10 of O. x.-Conroy v. Peacock, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 6; 76 L.T. 465. (viii.) Q. B. D. - Judgment and Finding of Official Referee - Appeal — 0. xxxix., rr. 3 and 4―0. xl., r. 6.-In an appeal from the decision of an official referee a new trial was asked for. Held, that the case came within rr. 3 and 4 of O. xxxix., and that the application was out of time. Forrest v. Todd, 76 L.T. 500.

Principal and Agent:

(ix.) C. A. Liability of Agent a Servant of Crown.-A public servant of the Crown making, in that capacity, a contract, is not personally liable on the contract, or for breach of warranty to make it.-Dunn v. Macdonald, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 555; 76 L.T. 444.

Public Health :

(i.) C. D.-Urban District Council-Drainage-Surface Water-Right to Discharge into Stream-Public Health Act, 1875, ss. 15, 17, 308.-A local authority made drains intercepting from the sewers the surface water of roads, and carrying it into a stream, the property of the plaintiff, which was the natural outlet for it. Held, that the authority had the right to so drain the roads, provided they observed the restrictions of sect. 17; that sand or silt is not filthy water within the meaning of that section; and that the plaintiff's remedy, if he had suffered damage, was to seek compensation under sect. 308.-Durrant v. The Branksome Urban District Council, 76 L.T. 486.

(ii.) C. A.-Liquids from Factory-Drains-Local Authority--MandamusPublic Health Act, 1875, ss. 15, 21, 299.-On the ground that an exclusive remedy is provided by sect. 299 of the Public Health Act, a mandamus cannot be granted to compel a local authority to provide, under sects. 15 and 21 of the same Act, sewers to carry off liquids from a factory in the district. Decision of Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 75 (iii.) ) reversed. Robinson v. Mayor of Workington (see Vol. 22, p. 67 (iv.) ) followed. Peebles v. The Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 625; 76 L.T. 315.

Railway :

(iii.) Q. B. D.-Articles Deposited in Cloak Room-Liability for Damage.— A notice on the ticket given to the depositor of articles in the cloak room of a railway, that "the Company will not be responsible for any package exceeding the value of £10," means that such an article is taken in at the owner's risk, and that the company has no responsibility for loss or damage to the article.-Pratt v. South-Eastern Railway Co., L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 718; 76 L.T. 465.

Rating:

(iv.) Q. B. D.-Valuation List-Notice of Objection to Rateable Value onlyUnion Assessment Committee Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict., c. 103), 88. 18, 19— Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, ss. 11, 32.-Where a ratepayer has given notice of objection to the rateable value, but not to the gross value of his hereditament, the assessment committee has no jurisdiction, without the consent of the overseer, to entertain an objection to the gross.-Reg. v. London (Justices of), L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 433. (v.) C.A.—Poor Rate-County Buildings Used Partly for Crown Purposes.— Portions of a county building which are used partly for Crown purposes and partly for County purposes are rateable to the relief of the poor (see also Vol. 22, p. 25 (vi.) ).—The County Council of Worcestershire v. The Assessment Committee of the Worcester Union, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 480; 76 L.T. 138.

(vi.) Q. B. D.-Lighting and Watching Act, 1883 (3 & 4 Wm. IV., c. 90), s. 33-Brickfield-Property other than Land.-On a brickfield were engines, engine houses, and other accessories of brickmaking, and a foreman's cottage. Held, that the land was the principal and the building the accessory, and taken as a whole, ought to be rated as land, but that if separately assessed, the foreman's house, and possibly some other structures, could be rated as a building.-Overseers of the Poor for the Parish of Crayford and the District Council for Crayford v. D. & C. Rutter, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 650; 76 L.T. 392.

Records :

(vii.) Consistory Court of London.- Public Records - CustodyDisposal.-The Consistorial Court of London has the custody of

« PreviousContinue »