Images de page
PDF
ePub

stating he had no other in his possession: defendant applied for a further order on affidavit, stating his belief that the liquidator had further docu. ments in his possession: Held that defendant was not entitled to further order. Welsh Steam Coal ollieries v. Gaskell, 36 L.T. 353.

(ccxxvii.) Ex. Div.-Discovery-Ord. 31, r. 12.-Where Judge in Chambers refused to grant order for discovery without affidavit tracing some documents into defendant's hands, the Court refused to interfere.Johnson v. Smith, 36 L.T. 741; 25 W.R. 539.

(ccxxviii.) C. P. Div.-Discovery -Interrogatories-Ord. 31, r. 1.-Interrogatories will not be allowed after close of pleadings unless the delay is explained.-Ellis v. Ambler, 36 L.T. 410; 25 W.R. 557.

(ccxxix.) C. P. Div.-Discovery-Interrogatory-Objections to Answer.-No appeal will be allowed from order of Judge at Chambers as to sufficiency of any answers to interrogatories which have not been specifically objected to.-Church v. Perry, 36 L.T. 513.

(ccxxx.) C. P. Div. -Discovery-Interrogatories-Objections-Ord. 31, r. 6.— Plaintiff sued defendants as mau and wife, and interrogated whether they were married, and also indirectly so as to elicit information on the point: the interrogatory as to the marriage was struck out: Held that defendants need not answer the other interrogatories on the point.Smith v. Berg, 36 L.T. 471.

(ccxxxi.) Q. B. Div.-Discovery— Interrogatory-Tendency to Criminate.—In action for libel defendant was interrogated if the words constituting the libel had not been written or circulated by him, or with his knowledge, authority, or consent: Held that the rule heretofore prevalent in equity must prevail, and the interrogatory be struck out.-Atherley v. Harvey, 36 L.T. 551; 25 W.R. 727.

(ccxxxii.) C. A.-Discovery-Privilege-Medical Report.-Where plaintiff in an action for injuries sustained by defendants' negligence was examined under a Judge's order by medical men on behalf of defendants: inspec. tion by plaintiff of their reports was refused.-Friend v. London, Chatham, and Dover Rail. Co., 36 L.T. 729; 25 W.R. 735.

(ccxxxiii.) C. P. Div.-Discovery-Privilege-Surveyor's Report-Ord. 31, 211. -Held, in an action for improper construction of steam tug, that reports of plainti 's surveyors were liable to inspection.—Martin v. Butchard, 36 L.T. 732.

(ccxxxiv.) C. A.-Discovery-Prior Issue-Ord. 31, r. 19.—In an administration action, a horse dealer claimed a sum as due on balance of account, in respect of sale and purchase of horses for testator: the executrix asked for discovery of names of purchasers and prices given by them for horses: Held that evidence was admissible of alleged custom of horse-dealers to act as principals not agents, and that executrix was not entitled to discovery till the question as to the existence of the custom was determined. -Re Leigh, Sherard's Claim, 25 W.R. 783.

(ccxxxv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-District Registry—Administration Action.Where in an administration action an order is made for taking accounts and inquiries in a district registry and for sale of real estate, the sale will take place in Chambers unless otherwise specially ordered.McDonald v. Foster, 25 W.R. 602.

(ccxxxvi.) C. A.-On appeal the Court treated the question as one of discretion of the Judge, and allowed his decision to stand.-McDonald v. Foster, 25 W.R. 687.

(ccxxxvii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-District Registry.-Funds apportioned by district registrar can be paid into Court on an affidavit made subsequent to registrar's report verifying the amounts: costs will not generally be

directed to be taxed by district registrar.-Day v. Whittaker, 36 L.T. 683; 25 W.R. 767.

(ccxxxviii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Examiner, 15 & 16 Vict., c. 86, s. 31.—An examiner's office is not a public court, and he has no discretion to allow any person to be present except the parties and their counsel, solicitors, or agents.-Re Western of Canada Oii Lands and Works Co., 25 W.R. 787. (ccxxxix.) C. A.-Exception to Record. The Judge directed the jury to find in favour of a will, and ordered an exception to his ruling to be annexed to the record, there being no record: Held that notice of appeal must be given.-Cheese v. Lovejoy, L.R. 2 P.D. 161.

(ccxl.) C. P. Div.-Interlocutory Order-Custody of Property.-In action for return of goods left by plaintiff's agent to defendants who detained them against a debt of agent to them: Court made order, under Ord. 52, r. 3, for delivery of goods to officer of the Court to abide event of action. -Velati v. Braham, 46 L.J. C.P. 415.

(ccxli.) Q. B. Div.-Interpleader-Claimant Barred-Action by Sheriff-A claimant, who has been barred, cannot set up the grounds of his claim in an action by the sheriff for recovery of price of goods on which sheriff had levied, and which he had sold.-Williams v. Richardson, 36 L.T. 505 (ccxlii.) C. A.-Leave to Sign Judgment-Ord. 14, r. 1.-A corporation suing on a specially endorsed writ, cannot obtain leave to sign judgment on affidavit by its secretary.-Bank of Montreal v. Cameron, 46 L.J. Ch. 425; 36 L.T. 415; 25 W.R. 593.

(ccxliii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Motion for Judgment—Ord. 19, r. 6.—Notice of motion for judgment need not be delivered between the parties where defendant has not appeared and the writ has been properly filed.— Williams v. Cardwell, 25 W.R. 646.

(ccxliv.) C. A.-Motion for Judgment-Ord. 40, r. 4.-Notice must be given of motion to Court of Appeal to set aside judgment entered at trial before jury and to enter judgment.-Jones v. Davis, 36 L.T. 415.

(ccxlv.) C. A.-Motion for Judgment-Discretion-Ord. 40, r. 11.-In action to enforce an equitable mortgage defendant admitted mortgage but alleged that it was part of agreement that there should be no legal mortgage nor payment of principal or interest for a year from the advance: V. C. H. refused motion of plaintiff for foreclosure order on admissions in defence: Held that C.A. would not interfere with his discretion. Mellor v. Sidebottom, L.R. 5 Ch. 343.

(ccxlvi.) Ex. Div.-New Trial-Fresh Evidence.-New trial will not be granted on discovery of fresh evidence unless there is a reasonable probability that its production would have resulted in a different verdict.Anderson v. Titmas, 36 L.T. 711.

(ccxlvii.) Ex. Div.-New Trial-Time-Ord. 39, r. 6.-Time for application for new trial on ground of misdirection runs from discharge of jury.Shaw v. Hope, 25 W.R. 729.

(ccxlviii.) C. A.--Parties-Joinder-Ord. 16, r. 3; Ord. 17, r. 1.-Statement of claim alleged that defendants had trespassed on land let to plaintiff by W. defence set up grant of right of way prior to plaintiff's lease: Held that plaintiff was entitled to amend by joining W. as defendant and claiming alternative relief against him for breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment. Child v. Stenning, 36 L.T. 426; 25 W.R. 519. (ccxlix.) C. A.-Parties—Joinder-Ord. 16, r. 7.-" Question" means merely issue but subject-matter of the action: Defendant cannot obtain ex parte order to add third person as defendant.-Horwell v. London General Omnibus Co., 36 L.T. 637; 25 W.R. 512, 610.

not

(ccl.) C. P. Div.-Parties-Joinder-Ord. 16, rr. 17, 18.-A person added as defendant is not entitled to join as co-defendant a person against whom he has himself a claim.-Walker v. Balfour, 25 W.R. 511.

(ccli.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Petition-Service—Official—Solicitor.—Service on official solicitor in cases within Chancery Pay Office list and regulations of 1st February, 1877, may be dispensed with when petitioner's title is clear.-Re Stanhope, 25 W.R. 601.

(cclii.) Ch. Div. F. J.—Pleading—Amendment—Ord. 19, r. 22.-Statement of defence contained general denial of fact consistent with several issues. and an allegation raising specifically one issue: Held that such issue was alone open to defendant at trial and leave to ameud refused.— Byrd v. Nunn, 25 W.R. 749.

(ccliii.) Q. B. Div.—Pleading—Counter-claim.-When defendant makes a counter-claim and joins a third party as defendant thereto, the third party cannot make a counter-claim against defendant so joining him.— Street v. Gover, 36 L.T. 766; 25 W.R. 750.

(ccliv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Pleading-Counter-claim-Ord. 19, rr. 3, 10.—In a pleading containing defence and counter-claim the facts relied on as supporting the counter-claim must be clearly distinguished and specifically stated to be relied on.-Crowe v. Barnicott, 25 W.R. 789.

(celv.) P. D. A. Div.-Preliminary Acts-Collision-Ord. 19, r. 30.-In action for damage by collision by owners of cargo against owners of ship in which cargo was carried: Held that preliminary acts need not be delivered.-The John Boyne, 25 W.R. 756.

(celvi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Reference-Inquiry as to Damages. In action for specific performance, inquiry as to damages, necessitating examination of witnesses, was referred to official referee.-Stafford v. Coxon, 25 W.R. 788.

(celvii.) C. P. Div.-Service of Writ―Jurisdiction.-The Court has no juris. diction over acts done by foreigners on high seas below low water mark and cannot order service on foreigner residing abroad of writ in respect of cause of action arising at sea though within the three-mile limit. Harris v. Owners of Franconia, L.R. 2 C.P.D. 173; 46 L.J. C.P. 363. (celviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Service out of Jurisdiction-Company.-Court has jurisdiction to order service of summons under Companies' Act, 1862, ss. 100, 165, upon respondents out of the jurisdiction.-Re British Imperial Corporation, 25 W.R. 583.

(celix.) C. A.-Transfer of Action—Ord. 51, r. 2.-W. gave notice to G. to rescind contract for purchase of land on ground of G.'s delay: G. delivered counter-claim for specific performance: Held that there was a question of equity to be tried, that Chan. Div. alone had machinery for giving relief to G., if successful, and that the action must be transferred to Chan. Div.-Holloway v. York, L.R. 2 Ex. D. 333; 25 W.R. 627.

(cclx.) Ch. Div.-Trial by Jury-Ord. 36, rr. 3, 26.-In an action for a man. datory injunction for removal of an alleged obstruction of plaintiff's lights: Held that defendant was entitled to have issues of fact tried by a jury.-Bordier v. Russell, L.R. 5 Ch. Div. 512; 25 W.R. 801.

(cclxi.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.—Writ—Indorsement.—In creditor's action for administration of intestate's real and personal estate the writ must be endorsed with claim by plaintiff " on behalf of himself and all the other creditors."-Fryer v. Royle, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 540; 36 L.T. 441; 25 W.R. 528. (cclxii.) C. P. Div.-Writ-Interpleader.-Pending hearing of interpleader summons in chambers, plaintiff issued writ of summons and defendant undertook to appear: Held that writ was properly issued.-Hooke v. Ind, 36 L.T. 467.

M

Principal and Agent:(xii.) Q. B. Div.-Auctioneer-Liability-Conditions of Sale.-A purchaser at a sale by auction delayed in clearing his goods beyond the time prescribed, and the goods having been misdelivered sued the auctioneers: Held that on the face of the catalogue and conditions the defendants had personally contracted with plaintiff to deliver the goods, and that the condition as to clearing the lot within three days was not a condition precedent. Woolfe v. Horne, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 355; 36 L.T. 705; 25 W.R. 728.

(xiii.) C. A.-Broker-Marine Insurance--Sub-agent-Lien.-An insurance broker employed as sub-agent by another broker to effect marine policies has the same rights of lien as if directly employed by principal.—Fisher v. Smith, 25 W.R. 719.

[ocr errors]

(xiv.) C. P. Div.--Commission.—A. employed B. to sell a ship on commission to be paid on sale to any person "led to make such offer in consequence of B.'s publication; on sale to purchaser who did not see, but merely heard of B.'s publication: Held that B. was entitled to commission.— Bayley v. Chadwick, 36 L.T. 740. (xv.) C. A.-Foreign Government · - Bonds Jurisdiction. Plaintiff was holder of Peruvian Government bonds, pledging specially the proceeds of sale of guano: defendants as agents of the Government received part of the guano: Held that the bonds were not legally enforceable by an English court and that defendants as agents of a foreign Government, could not be sued.-Twycross v. Dreyfus, 36 L.T. 752.

Probate:

(xx.) P. D. A. Div.- Foreigner-Lex Loci.-A Frenchman naturalized in England executed a will and codicils disposing of his property in England, and also a holograph will disposing of his property in France aud referring to his English will, and died at Paris: it being shown that by French law the will of a British subject made in English form is valid, the Court granted probate of the English will and codicils.—In the goods of Lacroix, L.R. 2 P.D. 97.

Public Health :

(ix.) C. A. - Drainage Board Committee. Decision of C.P. Div., Public

Health (v.), p. 106, affirmed.-Cook v. Ward, 25 W.R. 593.

(x.) C. P. Div.—Exposure of Infected Person.-A surgeon sent a fever patient to the hospital with a certificate, telling him to walk in the middle of the road and speak to no one: owing to informality of certificate patient returned to surgeon, who next day accompanied him to chairman of local board for order of admission, and thence to the hospital: Held that magistrates rightly refused to convict surgeon of wilfully exposing an infected person in a public street.-Tunbridge Local Board v. Bishopp, L.R. 2 C.P.D. 187.

Railway :

(xxvii.) C. P. Div.—Carrier-Loss of Goods-Liability.—Plaintiffs consigned goods by defendants' line to one Farmer: they were addressed in error to the order of Jeeves, who refused to accept them: one Jarvis then claimed them, and they were delivered to him by the station master without further enquiry: the consignment note relieved defendants from liability except for "wilful misconduct": Held that plaintiff was entitled to recover damages from defendants for misdelivery of the goods.— Hoare v. Gt. West. Rail. Co., 25 W.R. 631.

(xxviii.) C. A.—Carriers—Passengers' Luggage-Cloak Room-Conditions on Ticket. Decision of C.P. Div., Railway (vi.), p. 31, reversed, and new trial granted.-Parker v. S. E. Rail. Co., 36 L.T. 540; 25 W.R. 561.

(xxix.) C. A.- Negligence — Overcrowding Full Compartment.-A passenger endeavouring to prevent persons from getting into an already full compartment was injured by the porter slamming the door: Held that there was sufficient evidence of negligence for jury to entitle passenger to recover damages.-Jackson v. Metropolitan Rail. Co., L.R. 2 C.P.D. 125; 46 L.J. C.P. 376; 36 L.T. 485; 25 W.R. 661.

(xxx.) Q. B. Div.—Negligence-Train Overlapping Platform.—Where a passenger was injured by getting out of a carriage at a station of which the platform was too short for the train: Held upon the facts of the case that there was not sufficient evidence of negligence for the jury.—Owen v. G. W. Rail. Co., 46 L.J. Q.B. 486.

(xxxi.) Q. B. Div. Passenger-Bye-law.-A bye-law imposed on passenger not producing his ticket the liability to pay the fare from place whence the train originally started: Held that there must be a demand of the specific amount of the fare to entitle the company to recover.-Brown v. Gt. Eastern Rail. Co., L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 406; 36 L.T. 767; 25 W.R. 792. (xxxii.) Ex. Div.-Undue Preference-17 & 18 Vict., c. 31.-Plaintiff's manu. factory was situate 12 miles from a seaport S. on the defendants' line from S. to L.: in order to compete with se a carriers defendants charged other manufacturers living within six miles of S. at a less rate per ton for carriage of goods than they charged plaintiff: Held that this was undue preference.—Budd v. London and North-Western Rail. Co., 36 L.T. 802; 25 W.R. 752.

River:

(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Navigation-Obstruction.-Plaintiff owned a wharf adjoining defendant's wharf, and also a collier, the length of which was greater than the frontage of his wharf: defendant moved a raft in front of his wharf so as to prevent the collier from coming alongside plaintiff's wharf Held that the raft was an illegal obstruction to the navigation of the river -Original Hartlepool Collieries Co. v. Gibb, 36 L.T. 433. Revenue:

(ix.) Q. B. Div.-Land Tax.-Where an established usage was proved whereby a property was assessed as part of a particular parish: Held that such assessment must be maintained on a new assessment affirmed by the Commissioners at variance with the usage must be set aside.Regina v. Land Tax Commissioners, 36 L.T. 374.

(x.) C. A.-Land Tax-Hospital-38 Geo. 3, c. 5.--Decision of Q. B. Div., Revenue (vii.), p. 107, reversed.—Rabbits v. Cox, 36 L.T. 453; 25 W.R. 594.

(xi.) Ex. Div.-Stamp Duty-Medicine-52 Geo. 3, c. 150-3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 97.-Defendant sold powders composed of carbonate of soda, carbonic acid, gas, and chlorate of potash which he advertised as beneficial for disorders: Held that they were liable to duty.-Atty.-Gen. v. Lamplough, 25 W.R. 753.

School Board:

(ii.) Q. B. Div.-Neglect to Send Child to School-Form of Summons.--A summons for habitual neglect of parent to send child to school must be taken out under Elementary Education Act, 1876, s. 11, and cannot be granted under the bye-laws of the School Board.-Re Murphy, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 397; 46 L.J.M.C. 193; 36 L.T. 698; 36 L.T. 468; 25 W.R. 536

Scotland, Law of:

(vii.) H. L.-Bankruptcy-Set-off.-Indorser of a bill of exchange on bank. ruptcy of acceptor may set-off amount paid by him in respect of the bill against a debt to acceptor's estate without reference to prior indorser.— McKinnon v. Armstrong, 36 L.T. 482.

M 2

« PrécédentContinuer »