« PreviousContinue »
technical omission in the writ. The writ was amended and a fresh summons taken out, when the leave to defend was made conditional on payment into Court of the sum claimed. Held, on appeal, that the Court had power to adjudicate upon the second summons.--Dombey and Son, Limited (in liquidation) v. Playfair Bros. and Others, L.R. 
1 Q.B. 368; 75 L.T. 676. (i.) C. A.-Suing in formâ pauperis-Affidavit-Case and Opinion Exhibits
Right to Inspect-0. xvi., rr. 23 & 24.-A defendant is not entitled to inspect the case and opinion of counsel which are made exhibits to the affidaxit of an applicant for leave to sue in formâ pauperis.—Sloane v.
The British Steamship Co., Limited, L.R. [1897) 1 Q.B. 185 ; 75 L.T.542. (ii.) C. D.-Third Party Procedure-0. xvi., r. 48.-On the ground that a
banking account into which trust funds had been paid was the partnership account of a firm of solicitors of which a deceased trustee had been a member, the defendant a co-trustee of the deceased, obtained leave, in an action for alleged breach of trust, to serve a third party notice on the surviving members of the firm. Held, that as the claim of the defendant was not for indeninity, for, whether the action against him succeeded or failed, he could if the firm was liable pursue his remedy against the surviving partners, the third party notice must be discharged.-Wynne v. Tempest, L.R.  1 Ch. 110;
75 L.T. 624. (iii.) H.L. —Statute of Frauds—Pleading - 0. xix., rr. 4, 15, 20.—The
respondents were printers of a newspaper, and the appellant was the publisher and also the managing director of a company who were the proprietors of the paper. An action in which the respondents were plaintiffs, was brought on a guarantee signed by the defendant, the present appellant which ran, “ If you will bring out the present number, I will repeat my guarantee to see you paid in full," and the question arose whether the document guaranteed payment for a single number, or for the amount due for printing this and other numbers. At the trial the plaintiff gave evidence, that the document was in substitution of a parol guarantee, previously given for the whole debt, and the defendants not having pleaded the Statute of Frauds (which would have been irrelevant to the Statement of Claim), were held not entitled to rely on the statute. Held, reversing the decision of the Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 22, iv.) that if the evidence was admissible, the defendant was not debarred from relying on the statute by the fact that he had not pleaded it.— Brunning v. Odhams Brothers, Limited,
75 L.T. 602. (iv.) C. A.-Payment into Court before Defence—Defence denying Liability
0. xxii., rr. 1, 4, 6, 7.-A defendant paid a sum into Court and served notice that it was sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim. A month afterwards the defendant delivered a defence denying liability, and the plaintiff joined issue. Held, that the defence and the joinder of issue should be struck out, and that the only question for the Court was damages.—Dumbleton v. Williams, Torrey, and Field, Limited,
76 L.T. 81. (v.) C. D.- Plaintif Improperly Joined—Action Discontinued—Jurisdiction
-Old Practice-0. xxvi., r. 1.-Solicitors of a company joined, without authority, the company with themselves as co-plaintiffs in an action and costs were incurred. On a notice of motion by the company to strike out its name, the solicitors gave notice to discontinue the action, and took the objection that as the action was gone, the Court had no jurisdiction. Held, that there being no rule on the point, the old practice in Chancery prevailed, and that the Court had jurisdiction to deal with the motion.-Gold Reefs of Western Australia v. Dawson, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 115; 75 L.T.575.
(i.) P. D.-Probate Suit - Judgment in absence of Plaintiff—Leave to Restore
Cause-0. xxxvi., r. 33.-Where judgment had been given in a probate suit at the hearing of which the plaintiff was by mistake not represented, leave was given to restore the cause, on the plaintiff paying, by a fixed day, the defendant's costs, as between solicitor and
client.–Cudworth v. Hayward, 75 L.T. 456. (ii.) C. D.-Evidence-Statements in Affidavit--Order to Examine Author
0. xxxvii., q 5. -Leave was given for the examination before an examiner, of a person alleged to have made to a deponent, statements set out in an affidavit filed on behalf of plaintiffs on a motion, the deposition to be taken in evidence as if it were an affidavit.—The Turner Pneumatic Tyre Co., Limited v. The Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co.,
Limited, 75 L.T. 651. (iii.) C. A.-Consolidation of Actions—0. xlix., r. 8.--At the instance of a
plaintiff as well as at that of a defendant causes or matters pending in the same Division, may under the Order be consolidated by direction of the Court, or a Judge.—Martin v. Martin and Co., L.R. (1897)
1 Q.B. 429; 76 L.T. 44. (iv.) C. D.—Costs--- Administration Action-Severance of Defence of Trustees—
Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict., c. 66), s. 49–0. lv., r. 1.-On an appeal against an order excluding an executor and trustee, who had severed the defence in an administration action from participation in one set of costs allowed, the Order was varied to the effect that the allowed costs should be apportioned by the taxing-master, but so only as to give costs to the excluded executor for work actually done by him. — In re Isaac; Cronbach v. Isaac, L.R.  1 Ch. 251 ;
75 L.T. 638. (v.) C. D.-Mortgage-Foreclosure-Form of Judgment. In taking account
in a foreclosure action where a receiver of rents and profits has been appointed, the mortgagee ought to be charged with any sum paid into Court by the receiver, with any sum in the receiver's hands at the date of the certificate and with such sum as the mortgagee shall submit to be charged with, in respect of rents and profits to come into the receiver's hands prior to the order for foreclosure absolute. Form in Seton's Judgments, 5th Edition, Vol. 3, p. 2142 (Addenda) varied.
Simmons v. Blandy, L.R.  1 Ch. 19; 75 L.T. 646. (vi.) C. D.-Ancient Lights - Separate Actions by Husband and Wife Owners
of Adjoining Houses—0. xvi., r. 1-0. xviii.-A husband and a wife. each of whom owned a house, brought separate actions against the same defendant for threatened interference with ancient lights. Held, that if it should be found that the wife was not entitled to her separate use, the taxing-master should disallow extra costs occasioned by bringing more than one action.--Heimbs v. Newcastle Co-operative
Society, 76 L.T. 109. (vii.) C. D.-Infant made Plaintiff without Authority-Costs - Liability of
Plaintiff's Solicitors.-An infant had been without authority joined as a plaintiff by solicitors who were unaware of his incapacity. Held, that the solicitors must pay the costs of the defendant, caused by the infant being made a plaintiff, and must also pay the costs of the application by summons taken out by the defendant. Fricker v. Van Gratten (see Vol. 22, p. 50, iii.) followed.-Geiliger v. Gibbs, L.R.
 1 Ch. 479 ; 76 L.T. iii. (viii.) P. D.- Divorce Suit-Sufficient Notice of Setting Down for Trial
Divorce Court Rules 44, 47.—A letter from the petitioner's solicitor to the respondent's solicitor, stating that he had set the cause down for
trial, was held to be a sufficient notice ; but as a decree bad been made in the absence of the respondent owing to his solicitor relying on a more formal notice, a new trial was ordered on the respondent's solicitor undertaking personally to pay the costs thrown away.-- Fluister v. Fluister and Hutton, L.R. (1897] P. 22.
Principal and Agent:(i.) Q. B.-Contract by Public Servant of Crown-Liability of Agent.-A
public servant acting for the Crown is not liable for breach of implied warranty of authority to enter into a contract. Collen v. Brown (8 E. and B. 647) considered.-Dunn V. Macdonald, L.R.  1 Q.B. 401.
Public Health : (ii.) C. D.-National School-Street-Charge on School - Enforcement by
Sale or Mortgage-School Sites Act, 1841 (4 and 5 Vict., c. 38), ss. 6, 7 and 15—Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict., c. 55), s. 257.—Where the expenses of paving a street on which a national school abutted had been declared to be a charge on the school, it was held, that the sum required could be raised by sale or mortgage of the premises, though the site was originally conveyed to trustees for “no other purpose whatever” than a school.—Hornsey District Council v. Smith, 75 L.T. 684.
(iii.) Q. B.-Liquids from Factory-Drains—Duty of Local Authority,
Mandamus—Public Health Act, 1875, ss. 15, 21, 299–Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict., c. 75), ss. 7, 10.—On the ground that no sufficient remedy was afforded by sect. 299 of the Public Health Act, 1875, a mandamus was granted to compel a local authority under sects. 15 and 21, to provide sewers to carry off liquids from a factory in the district. But a mandamus to compel the authority to give facilities, under sect. 7 of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, for carrying off the liquids by existing sewers was refused, on the ground that a sufficient remedy was provided in this case by sect. 10. (See also Vol. 22, p. 21, i.)- Peebles and Others v. Oswaldtwistle Urban
District County Council, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 384; 75 L.T. 689. (iv.) Q. B. D.-" Cowkeeper "-Dairyman- Public Health (London) Act,
1891 (54 & 55 Vict., c. 76), ss. 20, 141.-A person who keeps cows for the purpose of fattening calves and does not sell milk is not a dairyman within sect. 20, nor a cowkeeper within sect. 41 of the Public Health Act, and therefore does not require a licence from the London County Council. — Umfreville v. The London County Council, 75 L.T. 550.
Time—Railway Clauses Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict., c. 20), gs. 68 & 73.-
Western Railway, L.R.  1 Q.B. 300; 75 L.T. 539. (vi.) C. D.-Railway Companies Act, 1867, s. 4–Rights of Judgment Creditor
of Railway.—Where a railway company had made default on an obligation imposed by statute to repay to another railway company certain expenditure on a joint station, it was held that execution would not issue on a judgment against the defaulting company as the obligation was not a “contract” within the terms of sect. 4 of the Railway Companies Act, 1867.--In re Manchester and Milford Railway, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 276; 75 L.T. 416.
(i.) C. A.—Through Booking—Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, s. 2–
Through booking over a route formed of more than one line of railway cannot be claimed of the railway commissioners as a matter of right under sect. 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854. The granting of an application for such a facility depends upon a consideration of the provisions of sect. 25 of the Act of 1888 as to through rates.—Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Railway v. The London and South Western Railway and The Great Western Railway, L.R.  1 Q.B. 33; 75 L.T. 401.
C. A.—Poor Rate–Joint Occupation for Crown Purposes and for Local
Q. B. D.—Distress Warrant—Poor Rate–Justices—Jurisdiction to Inquire into Beneficial Occupation. — Justices have jurisdiction to enquire whether a person against whom a distress warrant for recovery of the amount of a poor rate is applied for is really the person in occupation of the rated property.—Reg. v. Bagshawe and Others, 75 L.T. 513.
C. A.—Tithe Rent Charge—Rateable Value—Deductions.—In assessing rectorial tithe rent charge to the poor rate no deduction is made for liability for repairs to the parish church; and quarter sessions can only make an allowance for tenant's profits when it finds as a fact that the allowance for expenses is insufficient.—The Dean and Chapter of St. Asaph v. The Overseers of the Parish Llanrhaiadr yn Mochnant and the Assessment Committee of Llanfyllin Union, L.R.  1 Q.B. 511; 76 L.T. 42.
which prescribe a principle of assessment for “a line of railway” and “land used as a railway” different from that for “stations, buildings, and other hereditaments” the words “line of railway” include only the land on which the rails are laid and the connected works stand; and the words “land used as a railway” include the line and workson the land necessary for the use of the railway. Special assessment advantages given to a railway to be constructed under a particular Act do not extend to land acquired for the same purpose under later Acts.London and North Western Railway v. Llandudno Improvement Commissioners, L.R.  1 Q.B. 287; 75 L.T. 659.
ReVenue :(vi.) C.A.-Succession Duty–New Succession–Succession Duty Act, 1853
(54 & 55 Vict., c. 39), s. 82, sub-s, 1.—Decision of Court below (see Wol. 22, p. 52, iv.) affirmed.—Chicago Railway Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 75 L.T. 572.
c. 30), s. 6 (sub-8. 2) ; 8.7 (sub-s. 1), s, 8 (sub-s. 3 & 4), s. 9 (sub-s, 4 & 5) s. 14 (sub-8. 1)-By a revocable post nuptial settlement trustees were to hold a specified part of the trust fund upon certain trusts and the residue in trust for the settlors, his executors, &c. Held, that the
specified part was not an “incumbrance” within sect. 7 (1) of the Finance Act, and must bear a rateable proportion of the estate duty.— In re Meyrick; Meyrick v. Hargreaves, L.R.  1 Ch. 99; 75 L.T. 621.
C. A.—Stamp Duty—Licence to use Patent in One of the Colonies—
Q. B. D.—Election—Ballot Papers Marked with Crosses; or not Bearing Official Mark ; or not Cancelled.—Where, in a school board election, some of the voters had placed a cross on the ballot paper opposite to the names of the candidates for whom they desired to vote, instead of using figures to indicate the ratio in which they allotted votes, it was held, that one cross ought to count for one vote. Held, also, that ballot papers not bearing the official mark were properly rejected under sect. 2 of the Ballot Act, 1872, and that ballot papers which bore no mark of cancellation ought to be rejected.—Morris and Others v. Bevis and Others, L.R.  1 Q.B. 449; 76 L.T. 120.
Q. B. D.—“Removing from the Fishery.”—Sea Fisheries (Shell Fish) Regulation Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, c. 26), s. 1.-The taking of shell fish from their bed with the intention of taking them away is, even if they are not actually taken away, a removal within the bye-laws under Sect. 1 of the Fisheries Act of 1894.—Thomson v. Burns, 76 I.T. 58.
Sea Walls :— (vi.) Q. B. D.—Liability to Repair—Custom–Presumption of Legal Origin.—
A liability, asserted and submitted to for a long period, to keep in repair a sea wall, will be presumed to have had a legal origin unless the contrary is proved.—London and North-Western Railway v. Commissioners of Sewers of Fobbing Levels, 75 L.T. 629.
Settled Land:— (vii.) C. D.—Lease—Payment not as a Fine to Tenant for Life—Setting Aside
Lease—Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890.—A lease is void against trustees of the settlement if money not intended as a fine is paid by the lessee to the tenant for life on the granting of the lease.—Chandler v. Bradley, L.R.  1 Ch. 315; 75 L.T. 581.
C. A.—Settled Land Act, 1882, ss. 2 (sub-s. 1, 8), 38, 59, 60—Settled