Page images
PDF

grossly negligent they could have prevented the negotiation of the cheque after it was stolen: Held, on demurrer, a bad plea.-—Patent Safety Gun Cotton 00. v. Wilson, 49 L.J. C.P. 713.

Defamation :

(iii.) 0. P, Div,—Slander— Inuendo.—If words are not in themselves defamatory when taken in their primary sense, a plaintifl 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 dei'amatory.— Rucl v. Tainell, 4-3 L.T. 507; 29 W.R. 172.

[ocr errors]

(vi.) Ch. Div. F. J'.—Prescr-iption—Interruption-—Action by Tenant at Will —2 &' 3 Will. I V., c. 71, s. 8.—The tenant at will of property under 0. 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, 4-3 L.T. 632; 29 W.R. 197.

[ocr errors][merged small]

(iii.) Q. B, Div,—Represeniata'on/—Requisiti0n—Ofiicial Pr1Zncz'pal—Wn't do Cont-umace Capiendo—5 Eli:., c. 22, s. 3; 63 Gen. II[., c. 127, 8. 1; 12 &‘ 13 Vict., 0. 109, ss. 26, 27; 87 4}‘ 38 Vict., c. 85.—In a London parish of which the Archbishop and the bishop of the diocese were joint patrons, a complaint of ecclesiastical ofiences was presented against the incumbent, under sec. 8 of the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874, and was duly transmitted to another bishop under sec. 16, and he in pursuance of sec. 9, required the judge of the Provincial Courts of Canterbury and York, who was e.v ojficio Ofiicial 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 had due notice of the proceedings but did not appear. The requisition, monition, and inhibition, followed the forms issued in June, 1875, in pursuance of the Act: Held that all the proceedings were regular; and that under sec. 7, of the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874, the judge of the Provincial Court of Canterbury executes the office of Oflicial Principal of the Arches Court by force of that Act, and not subject to any canon, and that sec. 8 of 5 Eliz., c. 22, and sec. 1 of 63 Geo. III., c. 127, so far as it incorporates the former section, are repealed by secs. 26, 27 of 12 81 13 Vict., c. 109.—.Ea7 parte Dale, Scrjeant v. Dale, 43 L.T. 684.

[graphic]

Election :—

(viii.) C. P, Div.—-Municipal Election-—Nomi'nation Paper—Mistake—88 (Y 89 Vict., c. 40, s. 1; 41 §‘ 42 Vict., c. 26, s. 4l.—'l‘he 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 oflicer rightly allowed an objection taken thcreto.—Gotharul v. Clarke, 29 W.R. 102.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

vote for a county as a £12 occupier 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.

[ocr errors]

same time, but also they must be used together, in one occupation.— Sanders v. Searson, 4-3 L.T. -138.

C. P. D]'.V.—Parliament-Election Petili0n— Withdra1val——31 5" 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 member, petitioner and respondent must make a positive affidavit that they have not been parties to any corrupt arrangement, and must deny to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, that any such arrangement has been made by their agents; and the agents must also deny the

existence Of any such arrangement.—J0hnson v. Rankin; Issac v. Seeley, L.R. 5 C.P.D. 553.

[ocr errors]

Pririlege.—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 ina criminal case, on the ground of privilege:-Regina v. Downer, 4-3 L.T. 4-45.

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

Q. B. Div.—Repair-—Eecessi're Weight—E::traordinary ]a‘.vpenscs—41 is’ 4-3 Vict., c. 77, s. 23.—Appellant carried on a large traflic 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 traific was arecognized business of the district : Held that he could not he ordered to contribute to the repairs of the, road under see. 23 ‘of 41. & 42 Vict., c. 97.—-Wellington v. Hookins, 48 L.T. 597 ; 29 W.R. 152.

C. P, I)i,\7_—T:-anuvay—Use by Unlicensed Pe¢s0ns—-33 §" 34 Vict., c. 78, s. 64.-.--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, 187O.—C0ttam. v. Guest, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 70.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

C. A_—Ag/ent for Wile before Ma/rriage—-Action Aga.inst—T‘rust 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. Kingsmam, 29 W.R. 207.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Fraude.—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 BBttlBmBnt.—Virel‘ v. Viret, 50 L.J. Ch. 69; 48 L.T. 493.

C. A_—-Bill Imlorsed by Married W0ma.n—Scparale Estate-Judgment Against.—-ln an action against a husband and wife on a bill of exchange indorsed by the wife, it appeared that, at the time cf 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 thatjudgment 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.

[ocr errors]

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.

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

company is not liable to pay interest on the policy moneys due 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; 4-9 L.J. Ch. 769; 48 L.T. 229.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Let in Flnts.—Where a landlord lets a house in flats, and the diflerent 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 bursting of the waterpipe, in the absence of want of reasonable care and skill in fitting up and maintaining the pipes.—-Amierson v. Oppenheimer, L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 602; 49 L.J. Q.B. 708.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

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 defendant overloaded a floor with flour 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 pre|nises.—Man,clvester Bomlecl lVa1‘eh0use Co. v. Carr, L.R. 5 O.P.D. 507; 49 L.J. C.P. 809; 4,3 L.T. 476.

[ocr errors]

Ch. Div, V. C. H,—-Lease—_C0venant 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 00., 50 L.J. Ch. 77; 4-3 L.T. 531 ; 29 W.R. 192.

[ocr errors]

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 =—

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

C. A..—-C0mpensation-—Inquisilion--Cerli0ra.ri—Delu.y.—On an application 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 adopted 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. Shewarcl, 49 L.J. Q.B. 716.

Ch. Div. F. l—Compulsory Sa.le—Failure to make Title-—Payment into Cou/rl.—Plaintifis contracted to sell land to defendants, but failed to make any title to a small part of the land. Defendants paid the pur. chase-money into Court, having first deducted certain sums in respect of accommodation works in accordance with the contract, and executed a deed-poll under sec. 77 of Lands Clauses Act, 1845, purporting to vest the land in themselves : Held that plaintifis were not owners of the strip of land within sees. 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. 378.

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

(iv.) Ch. Div. V. C. MI.--Concealed Fraud—Intestacy—3 .5’ 4 Will. IV., 0. 27, s. 26; 23 §’ 24 Vict., c. 38, s. 13.—P]aintifi 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 plaintifi’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 d1 24 Vict., c. 38, s. 13.-—Willis v. Earl Howe, 50 L.J. Ch. 4-; 43 L.T. 375; 29 W.R. 70.

[ocr errors]

(i.) C. A.-—Fore1'gn Attaahment—Plea of Custom.—The allegations in a plea of the custom of foreign attachment that the serjeant-at-arms had 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 Lumatids Pr0perty—Raseruation of Minerals—16 §' 17 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. 16 Ch. D. 316; 29 W.R. 222.

Master and Servant :

(i.) C. A.—Wages—-Fo1'feit'u/re for Leavhzg without Notice—'Weekl-y Hiring-—38 §‘ 39 Vict., c. 90, 8. 1l.—Plaintifi, 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 leavingwithout giving afortnight's notice should forfeit all wages then due. Plaintifi left on a Wednesday withontgiviug notice, and applied on the Saturday for the price of her work done up to Wednesday. The employer claimed to retain this under the rules : Held that the hiring of plaintifi ‘was not a weekly hiring, and that she was protected from the forfeiture by see. 11 of Employers and Workmens Act, 1875.— Warbu/rion v. Hayworth, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 1; 43 L.T. 4-61; 29 W.R. 81.

(ii.) 0. P. DiV.—lVo1-kman-—SuhContra.ct—38 §‘ 89 Vict., c. 90, ss. 8, 10.Appellaut was employed by respondents as a potter-’s printer, and by the trade onstomit 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, 4-3 L.T. 608; 29 W.R. 24-2.

Metropolitan Management :

(iii.) B. Div,—Dangerous S!ruclure—Parly Wall—Acljoim'ng Ownerl8 §’ 19 Vict., c. 122, s. 73.-—The appellant pulled down his house, 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

« PreviousContinue »