Page images
PDF
EPUB

(i.) Q. B. D.-Bond-fide Traveller-Sale of Intoxicating Liquor for Consumption off Premises--Licensing Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict., c. 49), s. 10.-A licensed person is not authorised, under sect. 10, to sell during the time his premises are required to be closed, intoxicating liquors for consumption off the premises.-Mountfield v. Ward, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 326.

Local Government:-

(ii.) Q. B. D.-Bye-law of County Council-Use of Obscene Language in House near Street-Annoyance-Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict., c. 41), s. 16-Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict., c. 50), s. 23. -A bye-law made by a county council, under sect. 16 of the Local Government Act, 1888, prohibiting under penalty any person from using obscene language in any place near a street to the annoyance of anyone in such street, was held to be good. Held also that a man who had used obscene language in a room, the door of which opened into a public street, to the annoyance of persons in the street, ought to have been convicted under the bye-law.-Mantle v. Jordan, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 248; 75 L.T. 552.

(iii.) C. D.-Removal of Obstruction from Highway-Personal Influence Alleged in Pleadings-Irrelevancy-Local Government Act, 1894 (56 and 57 Vict., c. 73), ss. 26, 46.—A statement of claim in an action against a local board to restrain the removal of posts which protected a footpath from vehicular traffic, alleged that a member of the board had used his influence for private interests. Held, that a local board acting under sect. 26, sub-sect. 6, of the Local Government Act is in the position of a private individual protecting his own property, and that as the real issue was whether the posts were an obstruction to the public right of way, the allegations ought to be struck out.-Murray v. Epsom Local Board, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 35; 75 L.T. 579. (iv.) C. A.— Drainage

- Statutory Duty-Non-feasance-Remedy-Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict., c. 55), ss. 15 & 299.-When an Act of Parliament creates a duty, and gives a special remedy in case of non-feasance of that duty, no action will lie at the suit of an individual. Therefore, though sect. 15 of the Public Health Act, 1875, requires a local authority to cause necessary sewers to be made in its district, an action for non-feasance will not lie against the authority where damage has been caused by overflow of an insufficient sewer. The only remedy of a person injured by the overflow is by complaint, under sect. 299, to the Local Government Board.-Robinson v. The Mayor of Workington, 75 L.T. 674.

(v.) C. D.-Local Act-Agreement of Commissioners with DefendantTransfer to Corporation of Powers of Commissioners-Claim for PavingMemorial to Secretary of State-West Hartlepool Extension and Improvement Act, 1870.-The defendant, by agreement with a local authority, gave space for a road along a frontage. He was subsequently required by an order of the corporation, who succeeded the local authority, to drain and pave the road, and, on default, the work was done by the corporation, who took out a summons to have the expenditure declared a charge on his property. Held, that the corporation had, under its local Act, power to make the order, and that entry under the order was not trespass; that the corporation were not compelled to go to arbitration, and therefore were entitled to sue (following Mayor of Folkestone v. Brooks, 69 L.T. 403 [1893] 3 Ch. 22); that the agreement was not a defence to the action, but that having regard to sect. 349 of the local Act, a memorial could be presented to the Secretary of State for relief (following Walthamstow Local Board v. Staines, 65 L.T. 430).—The Mayor of West Hartlepool v. Robinson, 75 L.T. 677.

Lunatic:

(i.) C. D.-Pauper Lunatic-Guardians—Authority to Deal with Lunatic's Property Lunacy Act, 1891, s. 299.-A receiver of a lunatic's estate who had been appointed with directions to pay the costs of guardians incurred while the lunatic was an inmate of the county asylum, brought an action for an injunction to restrain the guardians from enforcing an order which they had previously obtained from a magistrate, under sect. 299 of the Lunacy Act, to seize a sum of money belonging to the lunatic in the hands of a trustee. Held, that the injunction must be granted as the section did not make the guardians the authority for dealing with the property of a pauper lunatic.-Winkle v. Bailey, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 123; 75 L.T. 577.

Mandamus:—

(ii.) Q. B. D.-Alternative Remedy-Endowed Schools Act, 1869 (32 and 33 Vict., c. 56).-A scheme for the management of Christ's Hospital provides that any question as to validity of proceedings "shall be determined conclusively by the Charity Commissioners." On an application to the Court for a mandamus to compel the Commissioners to decide whether a lady could be appointed an almoner. Held, that a mandamus ought not to issue, as there was an effectual remedy either under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, s. 28, or by action against the governors, and (by Wright, J.) that the question was not one affecting the validity of proceedings.— R. v. Charity Commissioners of England and Wales, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 407.

Master and Servant:

(iii.) Q. B. D.—Injury to Workman—Employers Liability Act, 1880 (43 ₫ 44 Vict., c. 42), s. 1, sub-s. 1.—Where a guard, put to protect persons from injury by a saw in a factory, was occasionally removed for convenience, and on its absence one of the workmen was injured, it was held, that the absence constituted a defect in the machinery within sect. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Employers Liability Act.-Tate v. Latham, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 502; 75 L.T. 694.

(iv.) C. A.—Driver of Cart-Transgressing Orders-Damage. The driver of a tradesman's cart on its rounds was forbidden by his master to leave the vehicle, and a boy who accompanied him was forbidden to drive. The driver quitted the cart, and the boy drove, causing damage to another vehicle. Held, that the negligence of the driver in the course of his employment caused the damage, and that the master was liable.-Engelhardt v. Farrant & Co. and Lipton, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 240 ; 75 L.T. 617.

Mayor's Court:

(v.) C. A.-Jurisdiction-Prohibition. The plaintiff preferred a bill of complaint on the Equity side of the Lord Mayor's Court, for specific performance (or in the alternative damages) of a contract for a transfer of shares in a company registered in Scotland. Held, that as the action was not for damages for breach of contract, it was not within sect. 12 of 20 & 21 Vict., c. 157, and as the whole of the cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction, a writ of prohibition should be granted.-Bowler v. The Barberton Syndicate, Limited, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 164; 75 L.T. 620.

Merchant Shipping:-

(vi.) Q. B. D.-Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict., c. 60), ss. 320, 341, 342.-An agreement for a sum of money to place a person as a farm servant in Canada and to procure him a passage to Quebec was

held not to be a sale or letting of a passage within sect. 341, or to bring the contractor within sect. 342 as a passage broker; and the money received was held not to be for a passage in a ship within sect. 320.-Morriss v. Howden, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 378; 76 L.T. 156.

Metropolis:—

(i) Q. B. D.-Public Health-Order of Sanitary Authority-Jurisdiction of Magistrate-Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict., c. 76), s. 37.— The only appeal from an order of a sanitary authority acting under sect. 37 of the Public Health Act, 1891, for the supply of further water closet accommodation to a house, is to the county council, and a magistrate at the hearing of a summons for non-compliance with the order, has no jurisdiction to enquire into the need for the accommodation ordered.-Vestry of St. John's, Hackney v. Hatton, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 210; 75 L.T. 686.

(ii.) Q. B. D.-Building Notice-Erection of Seating-London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict., c. 213), s. 145.-Blocks of seating capable of being fitted temporarily to parts of the inside of a building were kept and used as occasion required by the Agricultural Hall Company. Held, that the seating was not a "structure or work," and its replacement was not the beginning of such a structure or work within the meaning of sect. 145 of the Act.-Venner v. McDonell, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 421; 76 L.T. 152.

66

[ocr errors]

(iii.) Q. B. D.-Public Health (London) Act, 1891, s. 19, sub-s. 4-Bye-Laws.— A local authority with statutory powers to make bye-laws for "regulating the conduct of the business" of a slaughterer of cattle," made a bye-law providing that "An occupier of a slaughterhouse shall not slaughter, or permit to be slaughtered, any animal in any part of the premises except the slaughterhouse, and "shall not slaughter, or permit to be slaughtered, any animal within public view, or within the view of any other animal." Held, that such bye-law was valid, and rendered a master liable for acts of his servants.Collman v. Mills, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 396; 75 L.T. 590.

(iv.) C. D.-Party Structure-Notice by Adjoining Owner-London Building Act, 1894, s. 5, sub-s. 29; s. 90.-Where the plaintiff was in possession of land under an agreement that when he had erected buildings of a certain value he should be granted a lease, it was held that notice must be served upon him, under sect. 90 of the London Building Act, 1894, by an adjoining owner who desired to erect a party structure.—Lest v. Tharp, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 260; 76 L.T. 45.

(v.) Q. B. D.-County Council - Dangerous Structures-Delegation of Duties.-The London County Council can delegate to their architect the duties imposed upon them by the London Building Act, 1894 (Part IX.), as to dangerous structures.-London County Council v. Holbis, 75 L.T. 686.

(vi.) Q. B. D.—Street Musician-Order to Depart-27 & 28 Vict., c. 55.—A householder ordering from the neighbourhood of his house a street musician, under sect. 1 of 27 & 28 Vict., c. 55, must state to him the reason for the order.-Shields v. Howard, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 84.

Mortgage :

(vii.) C. A.-Sale-Surplus Proceeds in Hands of First Mortgage-Interest.—Where a first mortgagee retains on realisation more money than sufficient to satisfy his claim, he will, generally, be ordered to pay interest on the surplus to the second mortgagee. A second mortgagee was not deprived of this interest, though he had abstained for four years from enforcing his claim to the surplus money retained by the first mortgagee.-Eley v. Read, 76 L.T. 39.

(i.) C. D.-Contract for Sale of Lease, Goodwill and Furniture—Unpaid Purchase-Money-Assignment and Mortgage not Executed-Receiver.A contract was entered into for the sale of the lease, goodwill and furniture of a private hotel, and a draft assignment of the lease and a mortgage to secure unpaid purchase-money were prepared, but not executed. Held, on motion in an action for specific performance, that a receiver and manager might be appointed to take possession of the premises with authority to carry on the business, but not to include any chattels other than those which would pass on an assignment of the lease.-Poole v. Downes, 76 L.T. 110.

Nuisance :

(ii.) C. D.-Vacant Land-Injunction-Public Health (London) Act, 1891, ss. 13, 35.-Both at common law and under the Public Health Act, local authorities in London have a right of action for an injunction to restrain a nuisance on vacant private land, but the Court may be unwilling to grant an injunction where the authorities have also special powers to abate the nuisance themselves.—Attorney-General ▼. Tod-Heatley and Brownrigg, 75 L.T. 452.

(iii.) H. L.-Tramway-Obstruction of Street.-A tramway company in Scotland, with statutory powers of running, were held liable to an interdict to restrain them from so removing snow from their lines as to be a nuisance to the public, and were not excused on the ground that if the road authorities had not delayed to clear the streets through which the line ran, the nuisance would not have arisen.-Ogston v. Aberdeen District Tramways Co., L.R. [1897] A.C. 111; 75 L.T. 633. (iv.) C. A.-Dangerous Condition of Premises Injury-Liability of Landlord. In the absence of a contract to repair, a landlord is not liable to a tenant's customers or guests for injuries caused by the dangerous condition of premises which he has let; but if the condition of the premises is the cause of a public nuisance or of injury to adjoining premises, the landlord may be liable.-Lane v. Cox, 76 L.T. 135.

Partnership:

(v.) C. A.-Articles—Brewery-Death of one Partner—Purchase by Survivor -Goodwill-Tied Houses.-Decision of Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 20, ii.) affirmed.-Page v. Ratliffe, 76 L.T. 63.

Patent:

(vi.) C. D.- Licence-Option to Purchase-Royalty when Option ExercisedAdvertisement of Licensee Threatening Infringers-Defensive Statements Injuring Plaintiff.-An agreement, giving a licensee of a patent the option of purchase up to a given date, subject to payment of a royalty if the option was not exercised, was held to free the licensee on purchase from royalty on the patent goods made by him between the dates of the licence and the exercise. An exclusive licensee with such an option has a sufficient interest in the patent to rebut a presumption of want of good faith in issuing advertisements threatening pro ceedings against infringers, though he may not be entitled to recover damages, and he can claim the protection of sect. 32 of the Patents, &c., Act, 1883. A plaintiff must prove express malice to entitle him to an injunction to restrain a person from making statements in defence of his own property, which are true in substance and in fact, though they be made for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff or his trade.-The Incandescent Gas Light Co. v. The New Incandescent (Sunlight Patent) Gas Lighting Co., Limited, 76 L.T. 47.

(i.) P. C.-Patent-Assignee-Prolongation-Patents, &c., Act, 1883.-An assignee of a patent, which he has bought as a commercial venture, has no claim to prolongation, because the patent has been unremunerative to him. In re Hopkinson's Patent, 75 L.T. 462.

(ii.) C. D.-Variation between Specifications Rights of Patentee.--A provisional specification need not give more than a rough description of the invention, and need not describe details of its advantages or of the manner in which it is to be carried out. Where the invention consists of several parts, every part need not fulfil all the objects claimed, and advantages not expressly mentioned may apply to some of the parts. In the complete specification, the inventor may refer to the manner in which the invention can be applied to discoveries made by other persons since the date of the provisional specification. A patentee is entitled to the benefit of his invention if it is applied by other inventors to purposes not contemplated by him.-Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. East London Rubber Co., 75 L.T. 488.

(iii.) C. A.-English Patent-Infringement-Goods made abroad and sent through Local Agent to English Customer-Injunction.—Where goods infringing an English patent were made abroad, and handed by the manufacturers to a forwarding agent at the place of manufacture who sent them by post to a customer in England, and received payment through the post, the Court in an action by the owner of the English patent, granted an injunction restraining the foreign manufacturers or their agents from importing or bringing into or delivering in England, goods infringing the patent, or from selling or supplying, or assisting or taking any part in such importation or delivery.-Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v. Johnson & Co. and the Basle Chemical Works, Bindschedler, 76 L.T. 21.

Poor Law:

(iv.) C. D. & C. A.-Loans to Guardians-Repayment before fixed DatePoor Law Loans Act, 1871 (34 Vict., c. 11), s. 2.-Guardians of a poor law union had borrowed sums of money before the date of the Poor Law Loan Act, repayable in periods not exceeding thirty years by annual instalments which included interest as well as principal. The instrument securing the loan contained a stipulation that with the consent of the lenders the whole sum might be repaid before the stipulated period. The Poor Law Loan Act enables guardians to pay off loans before the stipulated period on obtaining an order from the Local Government Board, but the Act has a proviso that loans outstanding at the date of the passing of the Act should not be paid off without the consent of the lender. Held (dissentiente, Smith, L.J.), reversing the decision of the Court below, that the Guardians could not even with the sanction of the Local Government Board redeem the loan prior to the stipulated date without the consent of the lender. -The Guardians of the Poor of the West Derby Union v. The Metropolitan Life Assurance Society, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 335; 75 L.T. 412 and 76 L.T. 73.

(v.) C. A.-Guardians-Judgment for Costs in Supreme Court-Date from which time runs-Poor Law (Payment of Debts) Act, 1859, s. 1.-Costs of an appeal which guardians are ordered to pay are not a "debt" within sect. 1 of the Poor Law Act, 1859, till after taxation, and the time for payment runs from the date of allocatur.-Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway v. Guardians of Poor of Doncaster Union, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 117; 75 L.T. 472.

(vi.) Q. B. D.—Settlement by Residence-Absence in a Hospital—9 & 10 Vict., c. 66, s. 1-Divided Parishes Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict., c. 61), s. 34. — Where a man had resided in one parish from July, 1892, to April,

G

« PreviousContinue »