Page images

Lunatic :

[ocr errors]

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.


[ocr errors]

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:

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Q. B. D.—Injury to Workman—Employers Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44
Wict., 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.
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 :

[ocr errors]

) 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 :—

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

Q. B. D.—Public Health–Order of Sanitary Authority—Jurisdiction of Magistrate–Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 d. 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.

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.

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.

C. D.—Party Structure—Notice by Adjoining Owner—London Building Act, 1894, s. 5, sub-s. 29; 8.90.—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.

. 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. Hobbis, 75 L.T. 686.

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

[ocr errors]


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 FurnitureUnpaid

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 LandInjunctionPublic 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 injurction where the authorities have also special powers to abate the nuisance themselves.-Attorney-General v.

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 PremisesInjury-Liability of Land.

lord. 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.- ArticlesBrewery-Death of one Partner-Purchase by Survivor

-GoodwillTied Houses.—Decision of Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 20, ii.) affirmed.—Page v. Ratlife, 76 L.T. 63.

Patent:(vi.) C. D.- Licence-Option to PurchaseRoyalty when Option Exercised

Advertisement of Licensee Threatening InfringersDefensive 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 unremunera

tive to him.-In re Hopkinson's Patent, 75 L.T. 462. (ii.) C. D.-Variation between SpecificationsRights of Patentee.--A pro

visional 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 GuardiansRepayment before fixed Date

Poor Law Loans Act, 1871 (34 Vict., c. 11), 8. 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 CourtDate from

which time runsPoor Law (Payment of Debts) Act, 1859, s. 1.-Costs of an appeal which guardians are ordered to pay are not a "debt" within sect. the Poor La 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 Hospital9 & 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,


1896, but during the months of May, June, and July, 1895, had been a patient in a hospital outside the parish, it was held that he had not acquired a status of irremovability in the parish of residence within the terms of the Divided Parishes Act, 1876.–St. Olave's Union v. Canterbury Union, L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. 438; 76 L.T. 88.

Poor Rate :(i.) Q. B. D.-Lighthouse-Dues. Dues received on account of a light

house do not come under consideration in assessing its rateable value. -Commissioners of Port of Lancaster v. Overseers of Poor of Barrow-inFurness, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 166.

Practice :(ii.) C. D. Solicitor Costs Administration Action - Person Liable

Solicitors Remuneration Act, 1881--General Order, s. 7.-Solicitors to a testator, who were also solicitors to his executor, delivered a bill of costs to the person having the conduct of an action for the administration of the deceased's estate. The taxing-master's certificate was not made out for some time, and the solicitors claimed interest. Held, that the person liable under sect. 7 of the General Order was not the person having the conduct of the action, but the executor; and no demand having been made upon him, the solicitors were not entitled to interest.-In re McMardo; Penfield v. McMardo, L.R. (1897)

1 Ch. 119; 75 L.T. 576. (iii.) P. D.-Collision--Writ against Foreign CorporationService on Agents'

Manager-0. ix., r. 8.- Where a foreign corporation paid a commission and annual allowance to an agent who rented offices in London, the service of a writ upon the agent's manager was held not to be service upon the corporation within the meaning of 0. ix., r. 8.

—The Princesse Clémentine, L.R. (1897] P. 18; 75 L.T. 695. (iv.) C. D.-Service Out of Jurisdiction-Power of County Court and of High

Court0. xi., r. 2.-A county court action had been transferred to the High Court on the ground that the value of the estate concerned exceeded the county court limit. Service on the defendant, resident in Scotland, had been directed under 0. li., r. 23, of the C.C. rules ; and the defendant had answered interrogatories before the transfer. Held, that under the rule in question service out of the jurisdiction could in the circumstances of the present case be ordered by a county court; though under like circumstances these would be under the Supreme Court rules, 0. xi., r. 2, a restriction on the High Court to "have regard to the comparative cost and convenience of proceedings in England” when there was a concurrent remedy in Scotland. And that as it would be unfair for a plaintiff to obtain an advantage by bringing an action in a wrong Court, the defendant should have an opportunity, there having been no waiver, to give evidence that the High Court has no jurisdiction without considering the question of cost and convenience.-Wood v. Middleton, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 151;

75 L.T. 480. (v.) C. A.-Judgment under 0. xiv.-Appeal from Chambers is to Court of

Appeal.-An appeal against an order of a judge in chambers giving leave to extend final judgment under 0. xiv., r. 1, must be brought in the Court of Appeal, as it is a “matter of practice and procedure within sect. 1, sub-sect. 4, of the Judicature Act, 1894.-Cannon

Brewery Co. v. Gilbey, 75 L.T. 407. (vi.) C. A.0. xiv., r. 2-Summons for JudgmentDismissal on Technical

Objection-Second SummonsRes Judicata.--Unconditional leave to defend was given on a summons under 0. xiv. in consequence of a


« PreviousContinue »