« PreviousContinue »
grossly negligent they could have prevented the negotiation of the cheque after it was stolen: Held, on demorrer, a bad plea.- Patent
Safety Gun Cotton Co. v. Wilson, 49 L.J. C.P. 713. Defamation :(iii.) C. P. Div.-Slander — Inuendo.-If words are not in themselves
defamatory when taken in their primary sense, a plaintiff taking them in a secondary sense must show the existence of facts which would prove the inuendo contained in the secondary sense, and if he fails to do so the judge should direct the jury that the words are not defamatory.
Ruel v. Tatnell, 43 L.T. 507 ; 29 W.R. 172. Easement:(vi.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Prescription—Interruption-Action by Tenant at Will
-2 & 3 Will. IV., c. 71, s. 8.—The tenant at will of property under C. who was tenant for life, brought an action to restrain defendant from doing certain acts on the property, to which defendant pleaded that he had acquired an easement by prescription. C. became entitled on the death of the last tenant for life in 1879: Held that the commencement of the action was a resistance made by a person entitled to a reversion expectant on the determination of a term of life, within sec. 8 of the Prescription Act.–Laird v. Briggs, 43 L.T. 632; 29 W.R. 197.
Ecclesiastical Law:(iii.) Q. B. Div.-- Representation - Requisition Official Principal-Writ de
Contumace Capiendo45 Eliz., c. 22, s. 3; 53 Geo. III., c. 127, s. 1; 12 & 13 Vict., c. 109, ss. 26, 27; 37 & 38 Vict., c. 85.-In & London parish of which the Archbishop and the bishop of the diocese were joint patrons, a complaint of ecclesiastical offences was presented against the incumbent, under sec. 8 of the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874, and was duly transmitted to another bishop ander sec. 16, and he in pnrstance of sec. 9, required the judge of the Provincial Courts of Canterbury and York, who was ex officio Official Principal of the Canterbury Arches Court, to hear the matter at some place within the diocese, or in London or Westminster. The judge heard the matter at the place fixed by him, convicted the incumbent, admonished him, and on his disobedience, inhibited him for three months. The incumbent bad due notice of the proceedings but did not appear, The requisition, monition, and inhibition, followed the forms issned in June, 1875, in pursuance of the Act: Held that all the proceedings were regalar ; and that under sec. 7, of the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874, the judge of the Provincial Court of Canterbury executes the office of Official Principal of the Arches Court by force of that Act, and not subject to any canon, and that sec. 3 of 5 Eliz., c. 22, and sec. 1 of 53 Geo. III., c. 127, so far as it incorporates the former section, are repealed by secs. 26, 27 of 12 & 13 Vict., c. 109.—Ex parte Dale, Serjeant v. Dale, 43 L.T. 534.
Election :(viii.) C. P. Div.-Municipal Election-Nomination Paper-Mistake-38 X 39
Vict., c. 40, s. 1; 41 f. 42 Vict., c. 26, s. 41.- The number on the burgess roll of the burgess nominating a candidate at a municipal election was wrongly stated in the nomination paper : Held that the returning officer rightly allowed an objection taken thereto.-Gothard v. Clarke, 29 W.R.
102. (ix.) C. P. Div.-Parliament-County Vote-Claim-Proof of Notice-687
Vict., c. 18, ss. 37, 38.When the name of a person dnly qualified to
vote for a county as a £12 occapier has been omitted from the owner's list, and notice of claim to be inserted is given, and the person's name is included in the list of persons claiming to have their names inserted, the revising barrister is justified in refusing to allow the name to be inserted, and in refusing to state a case where no evidence has been given before him, that the notice was signed by or on behalf of the
claimant.- Re Sale, 43 L.T. 635. (x.) C. P. Div.-Parliament-County Vote-Lands occupied together with
House-2 S 3 Will. IV., c. 45, ss. 24, 25, 27.-The expressions " occupied together with” and “occupied therewith " in sec. 25 of 2 & 3 Will. IV., c. 45, mean that the land and house must not only be occupied at the same time, but also they must be used together, in one occupation.
Sanders v. Searson, 43 L.T. 438. (xi.) C.P. Div.-Parliament -Election Petition-Withdrawal-31 8.32 Vict.,
c. 125, s. 36.-On an application under sec. 36 of Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, for leave to withdraw a petition against the return of a mem. ber, petitioner and respondent must make a positive affidavit that they have not been parties to any corrapt arrangement, and must deny to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, that any such arrange. ment has been made by their agents; and the agents must also deny the existence of any such arrangement. - Johnson v. Rankin ; Issac v. Seeley,
L.R. 5 C.P.D. 553. Evidence :(vii.) C. C. R.--Criminal Prosecution-Solicitor and Client-Instructions
Privilege.-In order to make a client criminally responsible for a letter written by his solicitor, it must be shown that the letter was written in pursuance of the instructions of the client; and such letter is not inad. missible in a criminal case, on the ground of privilege. -Regina y. Downer,
43 L.T. 445. Highway :(vi.) C. A.-Locomotive-- Nuisance-Liability--28 & 29 Vict., c. 83.-A
person who, without negligence, uses a locomotive engine on roads, is liable for injuries caused to property of others by such user.- Powell v.
Fall, L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 597 ; 43 L.T. 562. (vii.) Q. B. Div.- Repair-Excessive Weight-Extraordinary Eopenses—41
$ 42 Vict., c. 77, s. 23.-Appellant carried on a large traffic in stones on a highway from his quarry, which caused the repair of the highway to be more expensive than in an agricultural district. The stone traffic was a recognized business of the district: Held that he could not be ordered to contribute to the repairs of the, road under sec. 23 of 41 & 42 Vict.,
c. 97.— Wallington v. Hookins, 43 L.T. 597 ; 29 W.R. 152. (viii.) C. P. Div.-Tramway-Use by Unlicensed Persons-33 & 34 Vict.,
c. 78, s. 54.–An omnibus proprietor attached to his omnibus a lever with arms, having a small revolving disk, which the driver could let into the groove of the tram-rail, at the side of each fore-wheel, when on the tramway, thus operating as a flange at the point of contact of the wheels with the rail: Held that this was within the prohibition contained in
sec. 54 of the Tramways Act, 1870.-Cottam v. Guest, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 70. Husband and Wife :(xiii.) C. A.-Agent for Wife before Marriage-Action Against — Trust Pro.
perty.-A married woman sued defendant, whom she had appointed her agent before her marriage, in respect of property to which she was entitled before marriage in part absolutely and in part as trustee : Held.
that she could recover in respect of the trust property only.- Kingsman
v. Kingsman, 29 W.R. 207. (xiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-- Agreement to settle Wife's Property-Statute of
Frauds.-A gentleman the day before his marriage wrote to the lady's solicitor, that in the event of his marrying her before the settlements were ready, he agreed to her fortune being settled on herself, " subject of course, to certain conditions, chiefly relating to myself and the children of the marriage (if any):" Held that the marriage must be presumed to have taken place on the faith of the agreement contained in the letter, and that there must be the usual reference to chambers to
approve a proper settlement.–Viret v. Viret, 50 L.J. Ch. 69; 43 L.T. 493. (xv.) C. A.-Bill Indorsed by Married Woman-Separate Estate--Judgment
Against.--In an action against a husband and wife on a bill of exchange indorsed by the wife, it appenred that, at the time of her indorsing it, she was entitled to a life interest in property for her separate use, but over which she and her husband had a power of appointment. After action brought, but before issue joined, the husband and wife appointed the wife's separate estate to her for her separate use without power of anticipation: Held that judgment could not be given against the husband and wife personally, nor against the wife's separate estate.--Barber v.
Gregson, 49 L.J. Ex. 731 ; 43 L.T. 428. (xvi.) P. D. A. Div.-Divorce-Lunatic-Petition by Committee. It is com.
petent for the committee of a lanatic husband to file a petition on his behalf for a dissolution of marriage on the ground of his wife's adultery.
- Baker v. Baker, L.R. 6 P.D. 12; 49 L.J. P.D.A. 83. (xvii.) H. L.-Liability for Necessaries - Express Prohibition to Pledge Credit.
- Decision of Court of Appeal (see Husband and Wife vi., p. 18) affirmed. -Debenham v. Mellon, 29 W.R. 141.
Insurance: (iii.) C. A.--Life Insurance--Policy Moneys—Interest.-A life insurance
company is not liable to pay interest on the policy moneys dae on a policy of insurance from the date of proof of the death of the insured.Webster v.: British Empire Life Assurance Co., L.R. 15 Ch. D. 169; 49
L.J. Ch. 769 ; 43 L.T. 229. (iv.) C. A.-Insurance against Accident—Death by Drowning whilst in an
Epileptic Fit.- Decision of Ex. Div. (see Insurance ii., p. 19) affirmed.-
Landlord and Tenant:-(viii.) C. A.-Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment-Bursting of Water-pipe-House
Let in Flats.-Where a landlord lets å house in flats, and the different tenants pay their proportions of the water rate for the supply of the house, the landlord is not, under the covenant for quiet enjoyment, liable for damage caused to any tenant by the barsting of the water. pipe, in the absence of want of reasonable care and skill in fitting up and maintaining the pipes.- Anderson v. Oppenheimer, L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 602;
49 L.J. Q.B. 708. (ix.) C. A.-Covenant to Pay Rates and Taxes-Abating Nuisance-38 & 39
Vict., c. 55, 8. 104.-Decision of C.P. Div. (see Landlord and Tenan: v., p. 20) affirmed.- Budd v. Marshall, L.R. 5 O.P.D. 481 ; 50 L.J. C.P. 24;
29 W.R. 148. (x.) C. P. Div.--Covenant to Repair - Fall of Premises-Liability for Rent
and Damages.- Plaintiffs let to defendant a warehouse on the terms that
defendant was to keep the inside in good repair and deliver up at the end of the term, damage by fire, storm, or tempest, or other inevitable accident, and reasonable wear and tear excepted; plaintiffs to keep the roof, walls, and main timbers in good repair, the rent to be suspended in case of destruction by fire, storm, or tempest. Sub-lessees of defen. dant overloaded a floor with floor and in consequence the whole building fell: Held that defendant was liable for rent during the re-building by the plaintiffs, and for damages only to the extent of the cost of restoring the inside of the premises.—Manchester Bonded Warehouse Co. v. Carr,
L.R. 5 C.P.D. 507; 49 L.J. C.P. 809; 43 L.T. 476. (xi.) C. J. B.-Fixtures--Signboard of Inn.-There is no legal presumption
that the signboard of an inn is a landlord's fixture or attached to the
freehold.-Ex parte Sheen, Re Thomas, 43 L.T. 638; 29 W.R. 248. (xii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Lease-Covenant not to Assign without Consent.
A lease contained a covenant by the lessee not to assign without lessor's previous consent in writing, but such consent not to be unreason. ably withheld: Held that the proviso did not constitute a covenant by the lessor, but a qualification upon the lessee's covenant.--Sear v. House
Property and Investment Co., 50 L.J. Ch. 77; 43 L.T. 531 ; 29 W.R. 192. (xiii.) C. A.-Lease-Distress by Mortgagee of Reversion-Verbal Collateral
Agreement.-A mortgagee of premises, which had been let on a lease, gave notice to the lessee of his mortgage, and that interest thereon was in arrear, and directed the lessee to pay him the rent. The lessee then set up an alleged verbal agreement collateral to the lease with the mortgagor, that rent should not be paid till the landlord had executed certain repairs. The mortgagee distrained for rent, and the lessee sought to obtain an injunction to restrain him from holding or selling the goods distrained, and specific performance of the collateral agreement: Held that the injunction could not be granted, as the mortgagee was not
bound by the collateral agreement.-Carter v. Salmon, 43 L.T. 490. Lands Clauses Act:(v.) C. A.-Compensation-Inquisition----Certiorari-Delay.--On an appli.
cation for a certiorari to quash an inquisition before the sheriff as to the amount of compensation payable to a claimant under the Lands Clauses Act, on the ground of an improper mode of assessment having been adop. ted by the jury, the Court refused to grant the writ, as the applicant had allowed five months to expire without making any objection.
Regina v. Sheward, 49 L.J. Q.B. 716. (vi.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Compulsory Sale - Failure to make Title-- Payment
into Court.-Plaintiffs contracted to sell land to defendants, but failed to make any title to a small part of the land. Defendants paid the pur. cbase-money into Court, having first deducted certain sams in respect of accommodation works in accordance with the contract, and executed a deed-poll under sec. 77 of Lands Claases Act, 1845, purporting to vest the land in themselves : Held that plaintiffs were not owners of the strip of land within secs. 76 and 77, and that defendants could not acquire a title to the land under those sections.-Wells v. Chelmsford Local Board, L.R.
5 Ch. D. 108; 49 L.J. Ch. 827 ; 43 L.T. 878. Limitations, Statutes of :(iii.) Q. B. Div.-Action for Penalty-Counterfeit Hall Marks-Party Grieved
-7 88 Vict., c. 22; 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 42, s. 3.-In an action for penalties brought by the Goldsiniths' Company under sec. 3 of 7 & 8 Vict., c. 22, against defendant for having sold silver wares having a counterfeit mark, defendant pleaded, 3 & 4. Will. IV., c. 42, s. 3, that
plaintiff was a party grieved within the Act, and could not sne after two years: Held a good plea.- Robinson v. Curry, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 21 ; 50 L.J.
Q.B. 9; 43 L.T. 504. (iv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Concealed Fraud—Intestacy—3 & 4 Will. IV.,
c. 27, s. 26; 23 & 24 Vict., c. 38, s. 13.—Plaintiff brought an action to recover possession of real and personal estate which had belonged to M., who had died intestate eighty years ago, alleging that defendant's predecessor in title had, on M.'s death, fradulently represented himself to be heir-at-law and next-of-kin of M., whereas plaintiff's predecessor in title was, in fact, M.'s heir-at-law and next-of-kin: Held that, as to the real estate, the alleged fraud might have been discovered with reasonable diligence, and therefore the claim was barred by the Statutes of Limitation, and, as to the personal estate, it was barred by 23 & 24 Vict., c. 38, s. 13.-Willis v. Earl Howe, 50 L.J. Ch. 4; 43 L.T. 375; 29 W.R. 70.
Lord Mayor's Court:(i.) C. A.-Foreign Attachment—Plea of Custom.—The allegations in a
plea of the custom of foreign attachment that the serjeant-at-arms bad summoned defendant and certified that he had nothing within the city and cannot be found there, and that defendant had been called at four courts and made default, are material and must be proved.-- London
Joint-Stock Bank v. Mayor of London, L.R. 5 C.P.D. 494. Lunacy :(ii.) C. A.-Sale of Lunatic's Property— Reservation of Minerals—16 S
Vict., c. 70, s. 124.—The Court has power to make an exchange of the land of a lunatic without the minerals under it.- Re Dicconson, L.R. 15
Ch. D. 316; 29 W.R. 222. Master and Servant: (i.) C. A.-Wages-Forfeiture for Leaving without Notice-Weekly Hiring
38 & 39 Vict., c. 90, s. 11.—Plaintiff, a work-woman in a factory, was paid by the piece, the amount of work done being booked each Wednesday and paid on the following Saturday ; and the rules of the factory provided that any operative leaving without giving a fortnight's notice shonld forfeit all wages then due. Plaintiff left on a Wednesday without giving notice, and applied on the Saturday for the price of her work done up to Wed. nesday. The employer claimed to retain this under the rules : Held that the hiring of plaintiff was not a weekly hiring, and that she was protected from the forfeiture by sec. 11 of Employers and Workmens Act, 1875.
Warburton v. Hayworth, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 1; 43 L.T. 461; 29 W.R. 81. (ii.) C. P. Div.-Workman-Sub-Contract-38 X 39 Vict., c. 90, ss. 3, 10.
Appellant was employed by respondents as a potter's printer, and hy the trade custom it was his duty to find a person called a transferer to assist him. The transferers struck, and appellant's work was rendered useless: Held that, though he was willing to work, he was properly convicted of absenting himself from respondent's employment.-Grainger
v. Aynesley, 43 L.T. 608; 29 W.R. 242. Metropolitan Management:(iii.) Q. B. Div.-Dangerous Structure-Party Wall-Adjoining Owner
18 & 19 Vict., c. 122, s. 73.-The appellant pulled down his bouse, except two party walls, which separated it from the adjoining houses ; and the Metropolitan Board of Works served notices on him and the adjoining owners to take down, or make secure the party walls, and on their default, the Board did the necessary work, and summoned appellant for the