MAY (Thos.), Basingstoke, Southampton, brewer. Sept. 12: at noon. at noon. MASCALL (Francis). 2, Elsinore Villas. Park-road, Twicken of noon. ORCHARD (Wm.), V Chief Justice presided in the Nisi Prius Court, and took his seat punctually, at 10 o'clock. HOME CIRCUIT. : 10701 KIA) Guildford, Aug. 9. The business of the assizes began to-day before Mr. Justice Blackburn in the in the Civil Court. The calendar was, as usual Crown Court, and before Lord Chief Justice Bovill in this county, rather heavy in character in proportion to the number of the cases. Ont of 23 prisoners 1 was charged with murder 2 with manor a similar offence, and 2 with bigamy. The in Manchester. Nov. 12; V solicitors, 67, King-street, RAVEY (Frank). 4, Conduit street, and 26, Pembridge-cresent, slaughter, 3 with felonious wounding, 2 with rape PARE (William H.), Esq., Mortlake Surrey Oct. 15: noon. noon. on se simt contains the names of 119 cansos, out of N.W. Oct. 9; Wilde and Co, solicitors, 21, College-hill, E.C. independent minister. Oct. 7 Eade and Co., Solicitors, 41, (Rev. Wm.), Elworth-street, Sandbach, Chester, 1 Brown-street, Manchester.ois gadw enojungred SCHOLEY (Wm. S), Esq. Fremantle Lodge. Messrs. Freshfields, Solicitors, 5, Bank-buildings, E. Oct.1; SIMPSON (Mary A. 224, Great College-street, Camden-town, of street, t Sept. 17: Shepheard and Son, solicitors, 78. Coleman-moil TĮ IŠ ndw¶ v ml ko nego odt al but 38 are marked for special juries. In the which, however, 10 are marked as undefended; course of the day many undefended causes were disposed of, and several canses were tried, no E.C. TOWNSEND (Elizabeth), Duchess of Kent Tavern, Prebend. WILKINSON (John S.), Esq., Repton, Derby. Sept. 5; E. Humphreys, of the firm Grover and Humphreys, solicitors, 4, King's Bench-walk, Temple, E,C. Nov. 4; V.O. M., at WRIGLEY (Betty), Oldham. Lancaster. Aug. 27; R. H. Harwar, of the firm of Litler and Harwar, solicitors, Old-it ham, Oct. 29; M. R., in the forenoon. evod gild of 1921861 & 39019 OF 119712 310 819704 verlang as allot szłej of rawng ditw „digomx2 1 CREDITORS UNDER £2 & 23 VICT. C. 35. BULL (Benjamin), Wynand-house, Marshgate, Richmond, and 71. Red Lion-street, Clerkenwell, E.C., currier. Sept. COURT OF CHANCERY.-In a Chancery suit at the Rolls Chambers, the chief clerk (Mr. Church) made an order that 10,0007. be invested in the Funds, instead of being paid into court, in order to carry interest; otherwise the money would have been unproductive during the long vacation. THE JURY SYSTEM.-On Monday, at the Sheriffs' Court, Red Lion-square, a special jury was summoned to assess the amount of compensation in the case of Tufnell and others v. The Tottenham and Hampstead Junction Railway. STAFFORD (Joseph), New Mills. Derby, cotton band manu- kept waiting nearly two hours. Neither of the Only three special jurors answered, and they were facturer, Oct. 1: W. Warburton, solicitor, 43, Princess-legal representatives attending would pray a tales EDGAR (Wm.), Piccadilly, W., and Eagle House, Claphamcommon, Surrey. Sept. 29; Davidsons and Co., solicitors, 6; J. Yarde, Solicitor, 4, Brunswick-square. W.C. street, Manchester. Nov. 2; M.R., at noon. 70, Basinghall-street, E.C. FORSTER (Josiah), Tottenham, Middlesex, gentleman. Sept. GREAVES (Richard), Esq., The Cliffs, Warwick. Oct. 1; T. Bristol. HUDSON (John), Esq., Castle Acre-lodge, Norfolk, Dec. 1; COLBECK (Isaac) Kenton, Northumberland, farmer. Dec.1; in order to fill up the jury to twelve, neither would 1 THE BENCH AND THE BAR. NORFOLK CIRCUIT bin um innt Norwich, Aug. 8.-The business of the assize at J. G. Joel, solicitor, 24, Market-street, Newcastle-upon- KENDALL (Henry), Great Winchester-street, E. C., and 28. LLOYD (Jas.), Esq., Showell-green, Yardley, Worcester. LOE (Thos. B.), Gray's-inn, W.C., and Bushey, Hertford, Croydon, Surrey. Sept. 6; Lawrence and Co., solicitors, 14, Old Jewry, E.C. MAPAS (Alexander, T. E.), Swanswich, Bath. Aug. 25; R. Comyn, solicitor, 31, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C. MILWARD (John), Esq., 9. Scansdale-terrace, Kensington, Middlesex. Oct. 10: E. and F. Bannister and Co., solicitors, 13. John-street, Bedford-row. W.C. MITFORD (Admiral Robert), Mitford Castle, Northumberland and Hunmanby Hall, York. Sept. 12: Chester and Sons, solicitors, 1, Great Winchester-street-buildings, E.C. MOUAT (Louis C.), Great Malvern, Worcester. Sept. 30: Cunliffe and Beaumont, solicitors, 43, Chancery-lane, W.C. WESTERN CIRCUIT. Wells, Aug. 6.-Baron Martin opened the commission for holding the assize for the county of Somerset in this city yesterday. This morning the business of the assize commenced, Baron Martin presiding in the Crown Court, and Mr. Justice Willes sitting at Nisi Prius. There were 45 prisoners for trial, and there were 5 Nisi Prius cases. Mr. Justice Willes disposed of all the Nisi Prius causes in two or three hours. NORTH AND SOUTH WALES CIRCUIT. Chester, Aug. 6.-The commission for this city Justice Hannen. The calendar is unusually light, was opened at half-past five this evening by Mr. there being only 11 cases. In one 9 persons are charged with a riot at Hoole, in this county. The civil side is also light; 6 notices for special juries have been received, but up to the present time only 3 have been entered. Lambeth Police-court it was announced that REVISING BARRISTERS.-Mr. W. John Ewins Hamilton Bromley have been appointed by the Bennett, Mr. J. Stratford Dugdale, and Mr. Chas. Lord Chief Baron the new revising barristers for Gibbons has been appointed an assistant revising the Midland Circuit. Mr. Henry Frederick barrister. One assistantship still remains to be filled.. To 1991fe 900 ngà THE LAW COURTS COMMISSION has held its last sitting and approved the new plan, and the building is to be begun forthwith. The chief conveniences for every court provided in the plan approved a year or two ago by the commission are,. general public, the witnesses, the attorneys and we are told, preserved in the final plan. The officers, the bar, the jury, and the judges, will each have their separate means of access to the courts. But no advantage will be gained by having a separate entrance for counsel and the public so long as the portions of the court allotted to each are separated by no more substantial partition than a bar of wood under the guardianship block of courts and the central hall will run north. of a not incorruptible usher or policeman. The and south instead of east and west as formerly proposed, the new arrangement enabling each of them to obtain sunshine at some time of the day.. Each court will be able to have light on its sidesas well as at the roof. They will be on the upper level, that of Carey-street, the central hall being on the level of the Strand. The block of offices will be placed parallel to and adjoining Bell-yard nd the courts.-Pall-Mall Gazette, a on vieram bise bee bareimini READINGS OF RECENT forms attached to the statute, one of which (A.) is referred to in the clause în question, and is in this form: M.-DEPOSITION OF WITNESSES. To wit. The examination of C. D., of and E. F., of of [farmer], [labourer], taken on oath this day in the year of our Lord at in the [county] aforesaid, before the undersigned [one] of , at Her follows &c., stating the deposition of the witness as nearly of each witness, but that it was enough if he In the case of Reg. v. Parker, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. Doncaster Permanent Benefit Building Society, 15 L. T. Rep. N. S. 270; L. Rep. 3 Eq. 158, relied upon: (Re The Victoria Permanent Benefit Building Society, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 777. V.C. M.) BASTARDY-PRACTICE — EVIDENCE — DUTIES OF JUSTICES.-Where in a summary proceeding before two justices one is not present until a part of the evidence has been given, the witness should be resworn and again give his evidence. It is not sufficient that the evidence already given should be read over; but it is only an irregularity which might be waived by the parties. An affiliation case was being heard before B. and C. After the woman had given her evidence D. came in, and the evidence taken was read to him in the hearing of the putative father and his attorney. The case then proceeded, the attorney addressing the bench and calling a witness. Before the adjudication B. left, and C. and D. signed the order. The putative father was held by his acquiescence to have waived the objection: (Reg. v. Jeffreys, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 786. Q. B.) MARKET TOLLS-SELLING GOODS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF TOLL IF SUBSEQUENT PAYMENT A CONDONATION. By the 30th Vict. c. xix. (local) The Exmouth Market Act 1867, of Exmouth, with power to take tolls, a penalty powers are given to erect a market for the town being imposed for selling certain goods within the limits of such market without having a licence or previously paid the toll. The respondent at nine o'clock in the morning sold certain marketable vegetables, he not having a licence, nor having previously paid the market tolls, and upon being required to pay the same, he refused. At seven o'clock in the evening of the same day he paid the toll, and was afterwards summoned for the offence of selling these goods without having a licence, or having paid the toll; and at the hearing, the justices being of toll the offence was condoned, they dismissed the opinion that by the subsequent payment of the information: Held, that the justices were wrong, and that the offence was one which could not be condoned: (Carter v. Parkhouse, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 788. Q. B.) ASSISTANT OVERSEER-SURETIES FOR-COLLECTOR OF POOR RATE-Order of POOR LAW BOARD.-In 1836, and prior to 26th Aug. 1839, the Poor Law Commissioners made an order directing the guardians of the M. union to appoint a collector of poor rates for the union; the order signature of the justice attached. The form, was THE LAW TIMES. cleared, and Mr. Hicks left. On the magistrate the magistrate in a similar manner. LAUG. 13, 1870. -- under the provisions of the 20 and 21 Vict. c. 81. Notwithstanding that the avowed objects are not immoral, still the publishers of such productions the injury to morality which must be their inevitand those who circulate them are responsible for able effect. No one can desire to see these wellguided persons, prosecuted for obscenity; and we a meaning but annoying, and, as we think, mishope, therefore, they will take Mr. Bruce's hint, and as "at this season of the year there are no veniently and immediately consigned," that they fires to which these offensive works can be conwill keep them at home.-Pall Mall Gazette. that the court was so inconvenient in its arrange sideration of those who advocate the total aboliMr. ELLISON said that it was much to be regretted of John Owen, the Denham murderer, to the conCAPITAL PUNISHMENT.-We commend the case ments. The order to close one door had been made because the privilege allowed to solicitors tion of capital punishment; and we invite them, and a few others was abused. As to the gentle-after carefully reading the accounts given in thes man being refused admission, that arose from his newspapers of his last hours, to say what punish-11 Ellison was willing to do everything to accomendeavouring to enter at a wrong door. Mr. ment it would be possible to substitute in the modate, and promised that the matter should be is, in the theory of those whose attention we case of criminals like this. attended to. In theory that are inviting every man is capable of being reformed; and the end of all punishment is refor mation. Looked at, however, as a hard practical matter, and in the light of common experience, hideous and unparalleled crime for which he suf-dr of reformation? Every act of his life-from the does anyone believe that John Owen was capable fered down to all the minor details of his conduct, da his brutal jesting about the hangman, his fierce scaffold-every act of his life showed that he was of his feigning to forget his victim's name on the repulsion of the chaplain, the ghastly flippancy and would ever be a mere wild beast from whom powerless to harm. In the presence of such cases society would never be safe till he was rendered as this all corrective theories disappear, and man-1 kind is brought face to face with the supreme law of self-preservation which justifies us in abolish-to ing John Owen as we would abolish a dangerous I beast or reptile. Pall Mall Gazette. the summons being withdrawn. moving the second reading of the Larceny (Adver- for the union of M. A. assented to the arrangement, and his appointment was confirmed by the Poor Law Board: Held, that this was a revocation and resignation of the office of assistant overseer within the meaning of 59 Geo. 3, c. 12, s. 7. Semble, the offices of assistant overseer and collector of poor rates are incompatible with each other, so that on the holder of the one being appointed to the other, the first office ceases. Semble (per Brett, J.), on appointment as assistant overseer, made under 59 Geo. 3, c. 12, s. 7, if without any words limiting the time for which the office is to be held, is a permanent appointment, and not an appointment for a year: (Guardians of the Malling Union v Graham, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 789. C. P.) LIABILITY OF A SHOPKEEPER FOR A DOG GETTING BEHIND HIS COUNTER AND POISON SET TO DESTROY RATS. The defendEATING ant, a confectioner, had a shop in which there a counter of the ordinary kind running from one side of the shop to the other, from behind which counter the customers were served by the defendant and his assistants, the space. behind the counter being used exclusively by the latter for that purpose, the space in front of it being the part of the shop reserved for the accommodation of the customers. The counter was hollow underneath and open on the inside of it, and the outer side of it towards the shop was boarded up from the floor to the level of port has just been presented to Parliament on IRISH MAGISTRATES.-A very interesting rethe top where the confectionery was placed, the certain allegations made by the magistrates of the whole length of it from one side of the shop fitness of Mr. Francis M'Keon to be on the roll of the county of Leitrim, touching the qualification and to the other, except a space of about five feet magistracy of the said county, by James Charles wide at the end farthest from the door of the Coffey, QC. Among other charges against Mr. shop. In the space beneath the counter, and M'Keon, it was alleged that he was weighmaster inside the boarding which separated it from at Drumshambo, that he weighed the butter on the outer part of the shop, the defendant market days with his own hands, and that he was placed some bread and cheese covered with a of no social position. From Mr. Coffey's report poison called "Battle's Vermin Destroyer," for there appears to be no doubt that Mr. M'Keon is the purpose of destroying rats and mice. The "weighmaster at Drumshambo," but there is no plaintiff's daughter and her governess went to ground whatever for accusing him of "weighing the shop to make some purchases, accompanied butter with his own hands." by a dog of the plaintiff, which, it appeared, had Coffey says, "utterly broke down. The charge, Mr. on previous occasions been with them in the seen Mr. M'Keon so engaged." In fact, no mortal was produced who in any single instance had ever No person shop, though there was no proof that the defen-eye has ever witnessed the maligned weighmaster dant or his assistants ever saw the dog there. at Drumshambo putting so much as a pat of butter While they were waiting in the shop to be served into the scales. As to his "social status," Mr. the dog, on the day in question, passed through Coffey finds himself "put in an exceedingly inthe opening at the end of the counter, and, get- vidious and unusual position in being called upon ting behind and underneath the counter, ate a portion of the poisoned bread and cheese, and As he truly remarks, in public estimation social to report and express an opinion on this subject." was thereby killed: Held, by the Court of position varies so much, and such various opinions Exchequer (Martin, Channell, and Cleasby, BB.), cation, custom, locality, and other considerations, exist upon it, resulting from thought, habit, eduthat the defendant was not liable in an action that it is difficult, if not impossible, to lay down at the plaintiff's suit for damages for the loss of any fixed rule upon the subject. Mr. M'Keon is, the dog. The defendant had a right to put the Mr. Coffey states, a shrewd, intelligent, and poison where he did for the purpose of destroy- straightforward man, with a high character for ing the rats and mice, and in doing it he did a integrity, respectability, prudence, and intellilawful thing for a lawful purpose, nor was he gence. It is difficult to understand what more bound to give notice of its being there to his can be wanted to qualify a man for the post of customers. The dog had no business to be magistrate. We should be only too glad if all our behind the counter; and, without saying it had magistrates possessed the same qualifications, and no right to be in the shop, yet, if the plaintiff or with their own hands, as they would then disshould be glad to hear of their weighing butter his servants chose to take it in with them, they were bound to look after it and prevent it getting be more inclined to impose heavy penalties on any cover some of the rascalities of our grocers, and into mischief: (Stansfeld v. Bolling, 22 L. T. Rep. offenders brought before them. Mr. Coffey reN. S. 799. Ex.) ports that there were no justifiable reasons offered or suggested upon the inquiry he has conducted to call upon the Lord Chancellor to adopt the severe from the commission of the peace. and extreme course of removing Mr. M'Keon WORSHIP-STREET POLICE COURT. For some time past gentlemen of the legal profession and others attending this court have complained very much of a new order of the magistrates directing that all persons unconnected with the court beyond mere chance business should enter at the door used by the public, and that another door, where by courtesy professional gentlemen had been allowed to enter, should be private to the officers of the court and the usual reporters. As the using of the public door necessitates a contact of the "profession" with a rough, unclean, and often unsavoury mob, and a struggle up a narrow passage, 8ft. wide, loud complaints have been the natural result. several days there have been frequent interruptions For to the business of the court, but the climax was reached, it is to be hoped, on Wednesday. During the progress of a case a great disturbance was heard at the door, and a voice demanding, as a solicitor, admission, which of the court refused, an officer as it was public door. The gentleman subsequently entered. not the Another disturbance, and another complaint by another solicitor followed shortly after. At the termination of the case Mr. Hicks, the last comer, made a formal complaint to the magistrate of the inconvenience of the court arrangements. In the course of his warm observations he used some language which Mr. Ellison refused to allow, and on its being persisted in, summarily adjourned the court and left the bench. The court was then DEATH OF SIR JOHN THWAITES.: 19T 1970 300 We have to record the somewhat sudden decease of Sir Metropolitan Board of Works, an event which ocJohn Thwaites, the well-known chairman of the curred at his residence, Meaburn-house, Putney, duration. He was about fifty-five or fifty-six early on Monday morning, from an attack of years of age, having been born at Meaburn, West-of English cholera and diarrhoea of only a few days'nt moreland, in 1815. He was the son of the late Mr. Christopher Thwaites, of Toddy Gill-hall, in the county of Westmoreland; his mother was Hannah, daughter of a Mr. John Smith. In early at Reagill, in his native county, he entered life, having received his education at a school business in London, and was for many years a in Oxford-street. While thus engaged, he was draper and woollen merchant in the Borough and frequently employed on boards of parochial committees in the metropolis, and about eighteen years ago was nominated as one of the members of the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers, in which he sat as the representative of Southwark. In Dec. 1855 he was chosen the first chairman of the newly-established Metropo litan Board of Works, which was facetiously christened at the time the "Senate of Sewers." intend most of the important improvements in the In that capacity it has fallen to his lot to super-10 metropolis; and it will be remembered that he streets, public buildings, and drainage of the received the honour of knighthood in 1865, as a compliment to his high and responsible office, upon the completion of the main drainage works, of and upon the subject of which Sir John Thwaites which Lord Palmerston was so strong an advocate,pl listen to reason or submit to the restraints of politan Drainage Question." One of the last apA USEFUL WARNING.-Those who will not Sketch of the History and Prospects of the Metro-in had then recently published a work, entitled, common propriety must expect finally to succumb pearances of Sir John Thwaites in public was on to law. We have more than once pointed out to the occasion of the recent opening of the Victoria the ladies and gentlemen who desire the repeal of Embankment, in executing which he had from the the Contagious Diseases Acts, that, setting aside first taken much interest. Sir John, who was a the question of the sanitary usefulness and moral magistrate and a deputy-lieutenant for Middlesex, value of those Acts, about which people might and also a magistrate for Surrey, was twice married agree to differ in a reasonable and Christian man--first, in 1836, to Harriott, daughter of Mr. William✨ and lawfulness of their modes of opposition, about 1861, to Eliza, daughter of Mr. Daniel Woodruffe, of ner, there was another question as to the decency Bardwell, of Uggeshall, Suffolk; and, secondly, in which there can be very little difference of opinion, Harwich, and widow of Mr. B. Carington, M.D. the unhappy objects of the Acts in order daughter. and ought to be none. To scatter money among He has left issue by his first wife three sons and at curative provisions, to maintain a permanent proto induce them to resist the law and to elude its paganda in order to excite the women to unlawful acts, and to the unrestricted spreading of disease, might be judicious and justifiable unlawful. from their point of view, but it was clearly two persons concerned in inciting women to We hope the recent conviction of resist the law will induce all those who have adopted this remarkably mischievous course to desist from it. society at the same time that the filthy pamphlets, It may be well to remind this speeches, and handbills which are being circulated entreated them to withdraw from household conon the subject, and which we have more than once sumption, have been'declared by Mr. Bruce to come MERCANTILE LAW. 66 Ard law regarding the stamp duties on bills of ex- matter of stamps on bills of exchange. From the 1st of R. SYMONDS AND SON. JOINT-STOCK ་ REAL PROPERTY LAWYER AND CONVEYANCER. COMPANIES' payment agreed to be made upon the death of any To kampaisung ano persons only from accident, or violence, or other JOURNALbuted tow to wise than from a natural cause, or as compensa But if fug end? Mit mondation for personal injury, or by way of indemnityi NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. podd be against loss or damage of or to any property, a RAILWAY-AMALGAMATION-RUNNING POWERS stamp duty of one penny.ub buraky a od uz -ACCOUNTS-ARBITRATION. By an Act passed in 1854 the S. and B. and S. and C. Railways were amalgamated with the G. W. Railway. The Act provided (inter alia) that the fares. rates, and charges which might be charged by the G. W. Railway Company in respect of all traffic passing partly on either of the two amalgamated lines, and partly on any other line of railway "belonging to" the G. W. Railway Company, should be rateably apportioned according to the number of miles which such traffic should have passed upon such railways respectively. By a subsequent Act the X. Railway was vested jointly in the L. and N. W. Railway and the G. W. Railway Companies, but for the separate and independent use thereof by each company: Held, that the X. Railway was' not a railway" belonging to" the G. W. Railway Company within the meaning of the Act of 1854. The Act of 1854 provided that in case the holders of S. and B. shares, or of S. and C. shares should differ with the G. W. Company with reference to any question arising under the Act and affecting the rights or interests of the holders of the shares, the differences should be referred to arbitration, and the decision of the arbitrators should be final. On a bill filed by holders of S. and C. shares, complaining of cer. tain deductions made from the S. and C. revenue account, owing to certain alleged improper charges upon traffic made in respect of the X. Railway: Held, that the jurisdiction of the Court over such matters was excluded by the arbitration clause in the Act of 1854: (Yool v. The Great Western Railway Company, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 781. V. C. J.) BORROWING POWERS-ASSIGNMENT OF FUTURE CALLS.-Directors were authorised by the rules to mortgage or charge all the estate and effects of a company. They agreed with a creditor who held their promissory note that in the event of certain funds being insufficient to meet it, they would make a call for the purpose. The company was afterwards ordered to be wound-up, and a call was made by the liquidator, which was claimed by the creditor under the agreement. It was held that the directors had no power to charge a future call: (Re Sankey Brook ·Coal Company, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 784. V.C. J.) WINDING-UP-PETITION.-A shareholder who has not paid up calls cannot petition to have the company wound up: (Re The European Assurance Company, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 785. V.C. J.) FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION IN A PROSPECTUS- CONCEALMENT. In an action for fraudulent misrepresentations in the prospectus of a joint stock company, the false statements alleged in the declaration were that half the first issue of shares had been subscribed for, and that certain persons were directors of the company. It was stated that the defendants, who were directors, thereby induced the plaintiff to apply for, and become the holder of shares. At the trial it was proved that both when the application by, and the allotment to, the plaintiff, took place, although half the first issue of shares had been applied for, the deposit had not been paid upon that number. And it was also proved that at the time of the plaintiff's application, the persons mentioned in the declaration were directors of the company, but that before the allotment of the shares to the plaintiff, these persons had, without his knowledge, retired: Held, that the judge misdirected the jury in saying that it was not material whether the deposit was paid on the whole of the shares applied for: Held, also, that the judge was right in refusing to amend the declaration, by adding a count for fraudulent concealment that it would have been sufficient to establish the declaration, if the alleged second misrepresentation had induced the plaintiff to become the holder of shares, and it was not necessary to prove that it had induced him to apply for them; but that the evidence failed to show any misrepresentation at all: (Bevan v. Adams, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 795. C. P.) POLICIES OF INSURANCE.-Under the new Act (33 & 34 Vict. c. 32) the duty on policies of insurance is reduced. On and after the 1st July 1870, it is provided, there shall be charged and paid upon and for every policy of insurance for any OH NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. MARINE SALE OF GOODS BY ORDER OF PRIZE COURT T-DEPOSITING VALUE OF IN COURT.-Plaintiff Tot home app effected an insurance with the defendants on goods, per the ship Dashing Wave, from Liver pool to Matamoras, against the usual perils, including "takings at sea, arrests, restraints and detainments of all kings, princes and people ;" and the policy contained a provision that, in insured, their factors, servants, and assigns, to case of misfortune, "it shall be lawful to the sue, labour, and travel for, in, and about the defence, safeguard, and recovery of the aforesaid subject-matter of this insurance, or any part thereof, without prejudice to this insurance, the charges whereof the said company will bear in proportion to the sum hereby insured; and it is expressly declared and agreed that the acts of the insurer or insured in recovering, saving, or preserving the property insured, shall not be considered a waiver or acceptance of abandonment." During the continuance of the risk the Dashing Wave was, on the 5th Nov. 1863, seized by a cruiser of the United States and carried into New Orleans, where a suit was immediately instituted by the captors in a prize court against the ship and cargo, for the purpose of having them adjudged a lawful prize. The plaintiffs intervened, and conducted the litigation with success, and the prize court, on the 16th 1864 gave judgment against the June captors, and decreed the restitution of the ship and cargo. On the 1st July the captors appealed; and on the 12th Sept. the plaintiffs, learning that the captors had appealed, sent to the defendants a formal notice of abandonment, which NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. WILL-MISTAKE IN NAME.-Where there is WILL-SPECIFIC DEVISE OF ESTATES ACCRUING ON SURVIVORSHIP LIFE INTEREST OF WIDOW.-A testator by his will devised to each of his three sons a part of his freehold lands, the terms of the devise in each case being similar, and to the following effect, viz., to such son for life, remainder to his children in fee, and in case he should die without issue then equally to the testator's other two sons in the same manner as the estates therein demised were limited to them respectively, subject, however, to the following proviso: "In case any or either of my said sons shall depart this life leaving a widow, then I give the hereditaments and premises so specifically devised to such one or more of them so dying unto his widow, and her assigns for and during the term of her natural life." Held, by Bovill, C. J. and Brett, J. (Byles, J., dissentiente), that the words of this proviso entitled the widows of the testator's deceased sons to life interests in the estates accruing to their respective husbands on survivorship, just as they took life interests in the estates first left particularly to their husbands: (Melson v. Giles and Wife, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 797. C. P.) the latter refused to receive. On the 7th Dec. BILL OF LADING-DELIVERY OF, AFTER GOODS LANDED ON SUFFERANCE WHARF.-Goods were shipped in India under a bill of lading made out in three parts, and the consignor drew against the goods on the consignee in England, and discounted the draft with a bank in India, with whom he deposited the bill of lading as security. The bank in India transmitted the drafts and the bill of lading in the ordinary course to their agents in London. The ship arrived in London on the 31st Jan., and on the 7th Feb. the goods were landed and deposited at a sufferance-wharf, and a stop was put upon them by the master to secure the freight. On the 4th March the consignee gave the bank in London a cheque for the amount due to them, and obtained from them the bill of lading, and on the same day the respondent, who was not aware that the ship had arrived, advanced 25004 to the consignee, and received from him two parts of the bill of lading and the invoice. On the 6th March the appellants, who were not aware of the advance by the respondent, advanced 15007. to the consignee, and received from him the third part of the bill of lading, and on the following day the consignee paid the freight and got the stop removed, upon which the appellants advanced 500. more. On the 11th March the appellants lodged their part of the bill of lading at the wharf, and on the 13th received warrants for the goods, which they subsequently sold. In an action by the respondent against the appellants in trover for the goods, and for money had and received, to recover the proceeds of the sale: Held (affirining the judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber), that the respondent was entitled to recover; for on the 4th March the bill of lading was a living unexhausted instrument, the contract of the shipowner to deliver possession not having then been completed while the goods remained subject to the lien for freight, and therefore the respondent obtained the property in the goods by the transfer to him of the bill of lading: (Burber . Meyerstein, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 808. H. of L.) COUNTY COURTS. VICE-CHANCELLOR STUART'S COURT. Saturday, July 23. HARES V. LEA. Plaint in County Court-Transfer of cause by County Court judge to Superior Court-Order by County Court judge directing the plaintiffs to pay costs discharged. The plaintiffs filed their plaint in the County Court to recover 160l. and interest from the estate of James Lea, deceased. There was no allegation in the plaint that the testator's estate did not exceed 500l. in value, and the evidence of the defendant proved that it exceeded that amount, and when the cause came on to be heard the County Court judge ordered the cause to be transferred to the Superior Court, and that the plaintiffs should pay to the defendant 251. 9s. for his costs of suit. Phear, for the plaintiffs, now moved that so much of the order as directed them to pay such costs should be discharged. Horsey opposed, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction, and that there could be no appeal in reference to costs only. The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the County Court judge had made a mistake, and discharged so much of the order as ordered the plaintiffs to pay costs, without prejudice to any order that might be made thereafter. Solicitors: Pownall, Son, Cross, and Knott, agents for Lucas, Wem, Salop; H. G. Field. CHESTER COUNTY COURT. Tuesday, July 26. (Before J. W. HARDEN, Esq., Judge, and a Special Jury.) Re HOLYWELL TIN PLATE COMPANY (Ratcliffe, Trustee) v. MARSDEN AND SAFFLEY. Bankruptcy Act 1869, ss. 72, 92-A bill of exchange, the joint asset of a partnership appropriated by one partner to pay his private debt-Fraud upon joint estate-Injunction-Liability of acceptors after notice not to pay bill, This was an issue directed by the court under the 72nd section of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, to try the validity of the trustee's title to a sum of 1250l., the amount of a bill of exchange drawn by the bankrupts before their bankruptcy upon the defendants for certain tin-plate goods, sold and delivered by the former to the latter. J. B. Torr, of the Northern Circuit (instructed by Cartwright, solicitor, Chester), appeared for the plaintiff and E. J. McIntyre, of the North Wales Circuit, (instructed by Ashton, solicitor, Wigan), was specially retained for the defendants. The case on behalf of the plaintiff was stated s follows: The plaintiff, Mr. Ratcliffe, of the Hawarden Iron Works, was appointed trustee under an adjudication in bankruptcy, dated the 12th Feb. 1870. The partners in the firm consisted of Henry Parker Evan Lloyd and John Hughes, who traded as The Holywell Tin-Plate Company, at Holywell, Flintshire. In the month of May 1869 Hughes and Lloyd were desirous of taking some one into partnership, and the result of some negotiations with Parker were that he was to bring 2000. into the concern. In August further capital was required, and in addition to the first agreement between the parties a memorandum was made on the 16th Aug., which stated that whatever the outlay might be over 31001. for putting the Holywell Tin Plate Works into complete order for the manufacture of 500 boxes of tin and terne plates weekly, it should be added to his (Parker's) share as capital in the concern, and from that day the additional expenditure was not to exceed 7501. Upon these conditions he agreed to advance an additional 10001. In the month of November, however, he wrote to his partners to say that they were indebted to him to the extent of 1001. for his services during the past six months; and afterwards, in December, he wrote to of tin and terne plates to Marsden and Saffley, of Hughes to say that he had disposed of 1449 boxes Liverpool, and had received their acceptance in payment for 12501, at four months. As both Hughes and Lloyd were ignorant of what their partner had been doing up to that time they wrote to protest against i On the 29th Dec. Parker, in reply, accused them of having wilfully ruined him, of having falsely represented the works to him, and after intimating elud d by stating that he had reimbursed himself his intention of declaring himself bankrupt, conwith the money he had received for the sale of the plates, for the loan he had made to them of 1000l., and 250l. for his services. The bill put in was in dorsed, "For the Holywell Tin Plate Company H. Parker." Early in the following year it was passed by Parker to Mr. Wyndham, a gentleman living near Nice, who never was a creditor of the firm. Before the bill became due the solicitor acting for the trustee in the bankruptcy applied for an injunction to restrain the defendants from meeting the bill, but they met it, and for the sake of discount some days before it became due. Hence these proceedings against them. The learned counsel argued that Parker had no title to the bill, having got the acceptance on behalf of the firm and endorsed it to himself, and then to Wyndham, that immediately he did so it became a fraudulent transfer, and was an act of bankruptcy in itself. It was a fraud against the other partners and their creditors. If Wyndham, who took the bill, never was a creditor of the firm, and had reasonable means of seeing that Parker was diverting the bill from the partnership purposes by receiving it in payment of Parker's private debt, then the law implied that Wyndham must know Parker had no right to apply it to the payment of a private debt. Therefore, if Wyndham's title was not valid in law, they came back to Marsden, who seeing this diversion of the bill from a partnership, paid it at his own peril. The learned counsel in conclusion cited Ex parte the Darlington Joint-Stock District Banking Company, re Riche, 11 L. T. Rep. N. S. 651, which came before the Lord Chancellor in 1865, where it was held that a partner had generally full authority to deal with the partnership property for partnership purposes, and if the business be such as ordinarily requires bills of exchange, he can, unless restrained by agreement, draw, endorse, and accept bills in his own name for partnership purposes, but if a person dealing with bills had reason to think what was done was for private purposes, an inquiry should be made for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of such partner's authority so to deal, or he might depend upon such an authority and rely upon circumstances sufficient to repel the presumption of fraud. If it could be shown that Parker had a right to use a partnership bill, or that there were circumstances sufficient to repel the presumption of fraud, the plaintiff would be out of court. The case of Leverson v. Lane, 7 L. T. Rep. N. S. 326, was also quoted, and the following evidence was then called: John Hughes, one of the bankrupts, said that in May 1869, articles of partnership were entered into between himself, Evan Lloyd, and Henry Parker, and the firm was styled the Holywell Tin Plate Company. Articles of agreement were drawn up, and afterwards Parker agreed to bring in an additional 10007. At a meeting of creditors on Feb. 28, 1870, Mr. Marsden being present, Mr. Tilt said he would not consent to the appointment of any trustee who would not try to get back the 1250l. which had been received by Parker. That sum would have enabled the firm to meet its liabilities. Parker had no authority to apply the bill to his own use. Cross-examined. Parker's cash enabled them to start the works, and Parker was managing partner. If he attended to the business he was to have 3001. a year as a minimum salary. Witness objected as soon as he knew that Parker was draw ing cheques in his own name. Evan Lloyd, another of the bankrupts, said Parker had no authority to use a bill of the company for the payment of any private debt of his own. William Brown Tilt remembered saying at the meeting of the creditors on Feb. 28 that he could consent, as proxy for his principals, to the appointment of any trustee who would not endeavour to get back the 12501. for the estate. Could not say that Mr. Marsden was then present. J.T. Cartwright, solicitor for the trustee, said at the meeting of creditors referred to, Mr. Marsden proved a debt of 81. 11s. against the joint estate. If he (Marsden) had not been stone deaf he must have heard Mr. Tilt say he would not vote for any man who would not prosecute the claim for 12501. Mr. Marsden was summoned to the court on March 8th to give an account of the transaction between himself and Parker, and witness then told the defendant that he must not pay the bill for 12501., and further that he (witness) would get an injunction to restrain Wyndham The defendant said he knew nothing about that; from receiving, and the defendant from paying it. he should meet the bill. On the 14th April, fourteen days before the bill became due, witness got an interim injunction, calling upon Wyndham and Marsden to appear on the 25th April, to show cause why it should not be made perpetual, when the bill and the letters read were impounded by his Honour. In respect to Wyndham he was written to, to Lyons and Monaco, but no reply came from him.-Cross-examined: Did not remember the judge (Mr. Vaughan Williams) saying on the last occasion that there was no ground for suspicion of collusion between Parker, Marsden, and Saffley and Wyndham; or that if he (the judge) were consulted, he should advise that the property be not wasted in legal proceedings. Mr. John Mason, managing clerk of last witness, and Mr. Thomas Price, generally corroborated the last witness. Mr. James Ratcliffe, the trustee, corroborated Mr. Tilt and the other witnesses as to what took place at the first meeting of creditors. Evidence was also called proving service of the interim injunction on defendants on 18th April, and posting the usual statutory notice of the appointment of trustee, and other documentary evidence having been read by the registrar of the court, the trus tee's case closed. McIntyre, for the defence, denied the statements of all the witnesses at the first meeting, and at examination on the 8th March, and urged that Parker had not fraudulently appropriated the bill, and if he had, his clients had not notice of it. He was known to defendants as the managing partner of the bankrupts, therefore upon seeing the bill indorsed by Parker, it was not such a fact as would raise in their minds any suspicions, and as he was instructed, it was a usual occurrence for acceptors of bills to discount their own paper, and throughout the transaction had acted perfectly bona fide. He called John Marsden, one of the defendants, he was in partnership with Thomas Saffley, and had carried on business in Liverpool for the last thirty years. He denied hearing any conversation such as was stated to have taken place at the first meeting of creditors, also that any notice had been given to him not to pay the bill. He received letters from Mr. Wyndham asking him to discount the bill as he was in want of money-paid no attention to the first letter-shortly after a Mr. Bryant called upon witness, and he then consented to discount the bill, that was on the 4th April; on the 16th he gave Bryant a cheque for 144., the bill would then have fourteen days to run. Mr. John Wheatley, of Liverpool, a creditor for a small amount, Mr. Thomas Williams and Mr. Thomas Price, both of Holywell, were called to prove they were present at the meeting on the 28th Feb., and heard no conversation between Mr. Ratcliffe and Mr. Tilt as to the bill for 1250l. On cross-examination Williams said that he could not understand much English, and Price that he did hear some conversation between Ratcliffe and Tilt about a trustee. Mr. David Edwards, a clerk from the North and South Wales Bank, Liverpool, produced a cheque given by defendant, which showed that the bill was not actually honoured till the 19th of the month, although, as the learned counsel for the plaintiff pointed out in his reply, it had all along been thought that it was met on the 16th, and an attempt was made on that day to serve the defendant with an injuction which was served on the 18th, when he said the bill had been paid. His HONOUR directed the jury that they had simply to decide whether the payment of the bill was a valid one, and it seemed to him the defendant must have known that the 12501, would be a source of contention between the joint creditors and Parker. As to what was alleged Mr. Vaughan Williams had said in his (Mr. Harden's) absence, one would hardly suppose he would pronounce a positive opinion upon a case of which he knew so little, and, if he did, it would not be binding upon them. Lastly, his Honour put these two questions before the jury-First, when Marsden and Saffley discounted their own bill, did they in fact know that Henry Parker was seeking to use partnership property for private purposes?. The jury answered-They did. Secondly, Ought the circumstances under which they were asked to anticipate the payment of their own bill, to have awakened the suspicion of commercial men that all was not as it should be as a commercial transaction, or as to make it imprudent to pay without further inquiry? The jury answered-They ought. His Honour said that the verdict would therefore be with costs in favour of the trustee, who could enforce the claim against the defendants; and they, if they liked, could prove against the separate estate of Henry Parker. The case occupied nearly five hours. |