« 이전계속 »
herself against the suit for divorce instituted by her husband, The LORDS affirmed the judgment of the Court below. Sir Charles Mordaunt, Baronet; the verdict adding that she Attorneys for the plaintiffs in error: Young, Maples, Teesdale, had been in that state of mental incapacity for nearly a year, & Nelson. namely from the 30th of April, 1869. Upon this verdict, the Attorneys for defendants in error : Johnson & Weatheralls. Judge Ordinary, Lord Penzance, made an order suspending all proceedings in the case “until Lady Mordaunt's recovery." Sir Charles thereupon appealed to the Full Court of Divorce,
June 30. insisting that her Ladyship's mental incapacity, even although CORK DISTILLERY COMPANY V. GREAT SOUTHERN AND permanent, ought not to bar, or impede, the redress for adultery
WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (IRELAND). awarded by the legislature. The Full Court pronounced against the appeal,-Chief Baron Kelly, however, dissenting (Law Rep. 2
Railway Company-Carrier-Consignor and Consignee of Goods. P. & M. pp. 103-119). As matter of course under these circum
This was a proceeding in error on a judgment of the Court of stances, Sir Charles Mordaunt brought the case before the House Exchequer Chamber in Ireland, which had reversed a judgment of Lords, having for his counsel at the Bar on the 1st of July, of the Court of Queen's Bench there. 1873.
The distillery company had sold 20 puncheons of whisky to The Solicitor-General (Sir George Jessel), Dr. Spinks. 0.C.. and Messrs. Stein & Co. of Limerick, and the whisky was to be Mr. Inderwick.
carried from Cork to Limerick by the railway company. The Dr. Deane, 0.C., Mr. H. Giffard, Q.C., and Mr. Searle, appeared following was the form of the sets of papers :-(They were for the respondent, Sir Thomas Moncreiffe. Baronet. Lady Mor- partly printed, and the blanks filled up in writing, and some of daunt's father, and her guardian ad litem.
the words were ranged in columns)-One was: “Delivered to The Common Law Judges who were present at the hearing
the Great Southern and Western Railway Co. in good order. did not deliver their opinions until the 15th of May in the Customs warehouse of One puncheon of whisky for present session,- when Chief Baron Kelly, speaking for him
Messrs. John Stein & Co. Limk. Station Limerick. self and his “ learned brothers Denman and Pollock," announced
Cork Distilleries Co. (Limited). The second was :-"Received that they disagreed with the judgment appealed from, and ad- from Cork Distilleries Co. Limited, in good order and condition, vised that it should be reversed. Mr Baron Martin, who had Puncheons, &c., of whisky. To be delivered in like good order retired from the Bench, was of the same opinion. But Mr. Jus- at the undermentioned stations, as follows: One puncheon. tice Keating and Mr. Justice Brett took the opposite view, and
For Mr. warehouse. Limerick Station." "All these supported the judgment of the Court below.
words being in separate columns, which were generally headed On the day appointed for the final judgment of the House,
with descriptive words. In a second line under each of these LORD CAELMSFORD and LORD HATHERLEY delivered their words were others : “and John Stein & Co. Limerick. Do”: opinions. Regretting that they had no longer the assistance of and this paper was signed “For Great Southern and Western Lord Colonsay, who had heard the case, they concurred in hold- Railway Co.” The third paper was in the following form :-"Cork, ing that a suit for divorce against a wife may be commenced and
19th day of February, 1869. From Thomas Henry Hewitt & Co. carried on notwithstanding her lunacy.
Watercourse Distillery. One Puncheon of Whisky. Addressed The decree appealed from was therefore reversed, and the to Seymours Castoms Warehouse, au
to Seymours' Customs' Warehouse at Limerick. For J. Stein & cause was remitted back to the Court below, with directions to
Co." In addition to these papers there was the Customs' permit, proceed accordingly.
and the usual bond given to the Customs, to secure payment of Appellant's Solicitor: Benjamin Hunt.
the duty. The Customs' warehouse, and the Seymour's Customs' Respondent's Solicitors : Benbow & Saltwell.
warehouse (both being places under the control of the Customs' department) were at a distance of about half a mile from the
railway station. The spirits were not carried to either of these June 26.
warehouses, but were demanded and received by Stein & Co. at GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. May.
the railway station itself, they having paid the carriage at the
moment. In consequence of this the delivery at the Customs' Railway—“ Superfluous Land."
warehouse and the payment of the duty being incomplete, the In consequence of a notice given on the 11th of March, 1846. Customs proceeded against the Cork Distilleries Co. and obtained under the provisions of the Great Western Railway Act, the 13601. from that company in respect of duty. The distillery directors of the railway became possessed of a field before then company thereon brought this action against the railway comthe property of the respondent, and under a similar notice of pany for an undue delivery of the spirits, contending that on the the 5th of November, 1846, they obtained possession of another terms of the various documents, and on the practice of delivery field up to that time the property of the respondent. In each of goods in general, the railway company was bound to deliver of the notices it was stated that the land was required for the the spirits at the Customs' warehouse, when Stein & Co. could purposes of the railway. Upon a portion of the land a station not have obtained possession of them without first paying the and other works were erected; upon another portion cbalk and duty. The Court of Queen's Bench had taken this view of the other "spoil," excavated from some neighbouring land, were matter, but this judgment was reversed in the Court of Exthrown upon it. This latter portion had since been used for chequer Chamber, and judgment given for the railway company, garden ground, and the company received rent for it as such. This appeal in error was then brought. May contended that so much of the land as was used for such a The judges were summoned, and Mr. Justice MELLOR, Mr. purpose was “superfluous land" within the meaning of the 127th Justice BRETT, Mr. Justice QUAIN, Mr. Justice GROVE, Mr. section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and that, Baron CLEASBY, and Mr. Baron AMPALETT attended. being an adjoining owner, he was entitled to claim the same Sir J. B. Karslake, Q.C., Mr. Cohen, Q.C., and Mr. Wood Hill, under the provisions of that section. The directors resisted appeared for the distilleries company. his claim. The Court of Queen's Bench (Law Rep. 7 Q. B. 364) Mr. Joseph Brown, Q.C., and Mr. Gerald Fitzgibbon, Q.C. (of gave judgment in favour of May, and that judgment was the Irish Bar), were for the railway compay. affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber (Law Rep. 8 Q. B. 26). This The question put to the judges was, whether, under the cirproceeding in error was then brought.
cumstances of the case, the railway company was liable to the Mr. Munisty, Q.C., Mr. Thesiger, Q.C., and Mr. J. C. Mathew, I distillery company for having delivered the spirits to Stein at were for the company.
the railway station. Mr. H. T. Cole, Q.C., and Mr. Francis Pinder, appeared for the The judges retired to consider the question, and on their redefendant in error.
turn answered it in the negative, on the ground that the circum
stances made out that the contract for the carriage of the spirits THE LORD JUSTICE JAMES said the case was not distinguishable was a contract between the carriers and the consignee (Stein) from Ex purte Wutkins. The custom of the trade extended to alone.
goods in a bonded warehouse, whether it was the warehouse of THE LORDS adopted this view of the case, and affirmed the the vendors or of a stranger. No person engaged in the trade judgment of the Exchequer Chamber.
would conclude merely from the fact that the goods remained in Attorneys for the plaintiffs in error: Dawes & Son.
a bonded warehouse in the name of the vendors, that they were Attorneys for the defendants in error: Young, Jackson, & Co, on that account his property. The purchasers, therefore, were
entitled to the whisky.
THE LORD JUSTICE MELLISH was of the same epinion,
In re WHITE. L. JJ. In re ORIENTAL INLAND STEAM COMPANY. July 1. Bankruptcy-Joint and separate Estate-Partner proving against Winding-up-Execution on Goods out of Jurisdiction.
separate Estate of Co-partner. In this case the Vice-Chancellor Malins had ordered the Soinde. This was an appeal from a decision of Mr. Registrar Pepys Railway Company to pay to the official liquidator of the Oriental sitting as Chief Judge in Bankruptcy. Inland Steam Company a large sum of money, the product of an In this matter which has been repeatedly before the Courts of execution on a judgment in Bombay (as noted ante, p. 84). Bankruptcy and Chancery (see Ex parte Morley, Law Rep. 8 Ch. The Scinde Railway Company appealed.
214, 1026, Morley v. White, Law Rep. 8 Ch. 731), a claim was J. Pearson, Q.C., and Morten, Q.C., for the appellants.
made by the receiver in the Chancery suit to prove on behalf of Glasse, Q.C., and Whitehorne, for the respondents.
the separate estate of W. White, deceased, against the separate THEIR LORDSHIPS dismissed the appeal with costs.
estate of his son W. T. White in bankruptcy for a sum of Solicitors: Tilleard, Godden, & Holme; Hollams, Son, & Coward. | 19651.
W. T. White was partner with his father during his life, and was his acting executor. After his father's death he carried on
the business, and employed in it the rents of certain houses L. JJ. CARNEGIE v. CARNEGIE.
which belonged to the private estate of his father. Husband and Wife-Separate Estate,
It was on account of these rents that the receiver claimed to This was an appeal by the defendant Carnegie from a decision prove against his separate estate. The registrar refused the of Vice-Chancellor Hall (ante, p. 94).
claim, being of opinion that it came within the rule that a Lindley, Q.O., and Waller, Q.C., for the appellant.
partner could not prove against the estate of his co-partner till Dickinson, Q.C., Jackson, Q.C., and Ince, for the plaintiff, and all the partnership debts had been paid in full. Serrell, for the Baron de Billing, were not called upon.
The receiver appealed from this decision. THEIR LORDSHIPS dismissed the appeal with costs.
Hemming, for the appellant. Solicitors: J. Lott; Deane, Chubb, & Co.
De Gex, 6.C., Winslow, Q.C., and Finlay Knight, for the trustee of W. T. White's estate.
THE LORD JUSTICE JAMEs said that the claim in this case
was for a devastavit committed by the executor, who had made L. JJ. Ex parte Vaux.
July 3. use of the testator's assets in his own business. Such a case did In re COUBTON.
pot come within the rule referred to, although it might happen Order and Disposition-Reputed Ownership-Bonded Warehouse. that the executor had been partner with his testator. All the This was an appeal from a decision of the Chief Judge in
debt was incurred since the testator's death, when the partner
ship was at an end. Bankruptcy. Couston & Co., who were wine and spirit merchants at Liver
THE LORD JUSTICE MELLISH concurred. pool, on the 9th of January, 1872, sold to Vaux & Co. at Sun
Solicitors : Tyas & Huntington; W. Bristov).
July 6. The whisky was allowed to remain in Muir's warehouse in the name of the vendors. On the 26th of February, 1872, Couston
Securities for Bills of Exchange--Doctrine of Ex parte Waring& Co. filed their petition for liquidation, and a trustee was
Unaccepted Bills. appointed. On the 28th of February a delivery order was | This was an appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor Bacon sent by Couston & Co. to Vaux & Co., who claimed the whisky (ante, p. 70). The facts are stated in the previous note. from Muir.
The plaintiffs relied on the principle of Ex parte Waring (19 On the other hand, the trustee in the liquidation claimed the Ves. 235), and claimed that the drafts which had been sent to whisky as having been at the date of the petition in the reputed cover the bills, which they held, were applicable towards payownership of the vendors with the consent of the purchasers. ment of the bills. The Vice-Chancellor having decided in favour
The Chief Judge took this view, and ordered the whisky to of the plaintiff the trustee of the estate of Ashton, on whom be given up to the trustee.
the bills had been drawn, but who had refused to accept them, Vaux & Co. appealed from this decision.
appealed. Herschell, Q.0., and Wheeler, for the appellants, relied upon De Gex, Q.C., and Winslow, Q.C., for the appellant. Es parte Watkins (Law Rep. 8 Ch. 520).
Kay, Q.C., and H. A. Giffard, for the plaintilf. Milward, Q.C., and W. Potter, for the trustee, distinguished Bardswell, for the trustee of the estate of Ryder & Co., the the present case from the case cited, where the goods were in drawers of the bills. the vendor's own bonded warehouse, whereas in the present case THE LORDS JUSTICES were of opinion that the principle of Ex they were in the warehouse of a third party, in the order and parte Waring only applied where there were equities to adjust disposition of the vendors.
between the estates of parties who have become insolvent, and
the adjustment operated for the benefit of a third party. Here | The Vice-Chancellor Malins held that Ann Cole was meant, as Ashton never accepted the bills, and was not liable on them; noted ante, p. 99, and the holders of the bills had not therefore a double right of THE LORDS JUSTICES affirmed the decision. proof against the two estates. There were, therefore, no equities Ince, for the appellant. to adjust between the two estates. Ex parte Waring could not J. Pearson, Q.C., and Oswald, for the respondent. apply in cases where there was no double right of proof. The Solicitors : Doyle & Edwards ; Wood, Street, & Hayter. bill must be dismissed against both the defendants.
Solicitors: Phelps & Sidgwick, for Sale, Shipman, & Seddon, Manchester; Clarke, Woodcock, & Ryland, for Brooks, Marshall, I d Brooks, Manchester ; Chester, Urquhart, & Co., for Laces, M. R. In re MEWBURN'S SETTLED ESTATES. Jane 22. Banner, & Co., Liverpool.
Practice-Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act— Petition
Service out of Jurisdiction,
Proctor applied for leave to serve a petition, which had been L. JJ. Mayor, &c., OF HASTINGS v. IvALL. July 7. I presented in this matter under the Leases and Sales of Settled Security for Costs-Appeal.
Estates Act, upon a respondent out of tho jurisdiction, citing ' In this case the Vice-Chancellor Malins had made a decree in
Shurmer v. Hodge (Weekly Notes, 1866, p. 304). favour of the plaintiffs (as noted ante, p. 132), and the defendant
THE MASTER OF THE ROLES held that as this was not a prohad appealed.
ceeding in a suit he had no power to grant the application. Glasse, Q.C., and Ellis, now asked that the defendant might be ordered to give security for the costs of the appeal, on the ground that he was unable to pay any costs, and was a merely nominal defendant, the suit being in fact that of a person named Moreing.
June 26. Cotton, Q.C., and Hemming, opposed.
Will-Gift of Shares in Bank-Words " My estate and effects in THEIR LORDSHIPS said tbat if there was no precedent they City of London”- Balance at Bankers-Locality of Bank, would make one, and ordered security to be given. Solicitors : Lydall ; Walker & Martineau.
Testatrix, by her will, bequeathed her shares in the London and County Bank to the persons therein mentioned, and the residue of her money, estate, and effects, to Sophia Rhodes.
By a codicil the testatrix devised and bequeathed her estate L, JJ. REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA v. IMPERIAL BANK. July 8 and interest in certain freehold houses in the city of London
and “all and every other my estate and effects in the city of Affidavit of Documents-Dismissal of Bill— Time,
London " to John McLachlan. The bill in this case was filed on the 6th of December, 1871, The testatrix was entitled to twenty shares in the London and and under it the sum of 40001. had been paid into Court. The County Bank, the head office of which is in the city of London; Vice-Chancellor Malins, on the 31st of May, 1873, made an and had also at the time of her death a balance at her bankers, order, on an application of one of the defendants, for an affidavit Messrs. Praeds in Fleet Street, also in the city of London. of documents, as reported Law Rep. 16 Eq. 179. Affidavits were | The question arose whether the said sbares and the balance at filed, which were insufficient, and on the 23rd of April, 1874, the her bankers respectively passed under the will, or whether they Vice-Chancellor Malins made an order dismissing the bill unless passed under the gift in the codicil, as being part of her estate a sufficient affidavit was filed before the 12th of July. The plain- and effects in the city of London. tiffs, on the 2nd of July, moved to discharge the order, but the Fischer, Q.C., and Whitehorne, for the legatee under the Vice-Chancellor Malins refused to hear the motion, thinking it a codicil. proper case for the Court of Appeal. The application was now Southgate, Q.C., Lemon, Maclean, and Cookson, for other made to the Court of Appeal.
parties. Glasse, Q.C, and B. B. Rogers, for the plaintiffs, said that there | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLs beld that the bank sbares passed were great difficulties in getting a proper affidavit from Liberia, under the bequest in the will, and that the balance at Praeds' and the plaintiffs were willing to submit to terms, but not to have bank. being a debt due from the bankers personally, was not the bill dismissed.
affected by the locality of the bank, and did not pass under the Higgins, Q.C., and Langley, for the defendant.
gift in the codicil, but to the residuary legatee under the will. B. B. Rogers, in reply.
Solicitors : Winter, Williams, & Co.; F.J.&G.J. Braikenridge THEIR LORDSHIPB said that a suit could not be allowed to gol & Co. on indefinitely when a plaintiff did not comply with the orders of the Court. This matter had been repeatedly before the ViceChancellor, and he had thought fit to order the bill to be dismissed unless a proper affidavit was filed before the 12th of July. I M. R.
BELLOT v. LITTLER.
July 4. Their Lordships understood that a mail was expected from Li-| Will-Trust for Investment in Purchase of Lands adjoining to or beria, and on that ground alone would extend the time to the convenient or desirable to be held with Settled Estates-Purchase 28th of July. The plaintiffs must, however, pay the costs of the of Mines and Minerals apart from Surface. applications, which their Lordships would fix, subject to taxation, Iohn Wright hy his will dated the 8th of May. 1858. directed at 751. Solicitor: E. Smith; Flux & Co.
his trustees to invest certain funds in the purchase of manors, lands, and hereditaments situate in the county of Chester, adjoining to or convenient or desirable to be held with the heredi
taments by his will devised in strict settlement, for any estate L. JJ. MATTHEW8 v. FREEMAN.
Jules or estates of inheritance in fee simple. The suit was instituted Will— Uncertainty of Legater.
for administration of the trusts of the will.
It was proposed to invest part of the fund in the purchase of The question in this case was whether a testator, by the words the fee simple of the mines and minerals under eighty-two acres “my servant Susanna Cole,” meant his servant Ann Cole, or a of land, seventy-five of which formed part of the settled estate, former servant, Susanna Matthews, formerly Susapna Cole. and the rest immediately adjoined it; and an application to ling.
sanction the purchase now came before the Court on an ad- and had only tendered the rent after notice had been given that journed summons.
the gale would be granted to another person, he could not now Methold, for the plaintiffs.
claim relief, and the petition must be dismissed with costs. Chitty, Q.C., for the defendant.
Solicitors : Ewbank & Partington; H, Watson ; Jones & Star-
July 1. cm
1. Cross-examination of Witness-Appointment of Special Examiner Petition of Right— Free Miners-Grant of Gale— Non-payment of
in Persia. Rent-Right of Crown to re-enter. This was & petition of right presented to the Crown praying,
In this case the plaintiff was desirous of cross-examining some
8 of the defendant's witnesses who were resident at Teheran in that a declaration of the forfeiture of a gale might be set aside P
10 Persia. The defendant proposed that Mr. Talour Thomson, the under the following circumstances : - 19 August, 2004, a. gale" | British Minister at Teheran, should be appointed special exor licence to work a colliery, called the Alexandra Colliery, in
aminer for the purpose of taking the cross-examination. To the Forest of Dean, was granted to John Brain, a free miner of
this the plaintiff objected on the ground that the witnesses were the forest, for a term of five years, a rent of 2d. per ton upon all
attached to the British embassy, and were to a certain extent coal brought out being reserved, with a proviso that if less than
dependent upon Mr. Thomson, and one of them was a personal 24,000 tons should be worked in any year there should still be
attendant upon him. It appeared, however, that attempts had paid a minimum rent of 2001, per annum. The colliery was never
been made to find some other properly qualified person to act as worked, but the rent of 2001. per annum was paid up to the year
special examiner, but without success. The telegraph officers 1869, when upon application by J. Brain to the depaty gaveller
were the only resident Englishmen who could be applied to, and of the forest a new term of five years was granted to him. From that time no rent had been paid by J. Brain, and in consequence
they were not permitted by the telegraph company to take such
a duty upon themselves. thereof frequent applications were made to him for payment,
Glasse, Q.C., and Davey, for the defendant, now applied to the until on the 17th of July, 1871, the deputy gaveller declared
Court to sanction the appointment of Mr. Thomson. the gale to be forfeited, and on the 21st of July he took possession of the forfeited gale. On the following day an application stating that an examination before Mr. Thomson could not in
J. Pearson, Q.C., and W. Karslake, opposed the application, was made to the deputy gaveller for a grant of the Alexandra
the opinion of the plaintiff be conducted satisfactorily, owing to Colliery hy Benjamin Gwilliam, who was also a free miner of the
his position in relation to the witnesses, although they had no forest. On the 24th of May, 1872, the deputy gaveller caused a
personal objection against Mr. Thomson. They urged therefore notice to be advertised in the Forester, a newspaper circulating
that the witnesses ought to be brought to this country for in the district, that he intended to grant the gale to B. Gwilliam.
examination. On the day before the grant would have been so made, J. Brain,
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR said that as the amount in dispute in who had up to that time acquiesced in the forfeiture of the gale,
this cause did not exceed 13001., and as it was stated upon good tendered the arrears of rent, with interest thereon, to the deputy
grounds that the witnesses could not be brought here for less gaveller, and protested against the grant being made to Gwilliam.
10001., it would be a denial of justice to refuse a special examiner. The deputy gaveller, however, refused to accept the tender, but
It appeared that no other efficient person could be applied to, and deferred any fresh grant of the gale. This petition of right was
he could see no objection to the appointment of Mr. Thomson, then presented by J. Brain to set aside the declaration of forfei
whose character and position as the representative of this ture, and to restrain the grant of the gale to Gwilliam.
country at Teheran was a guarantee that he was properly Cotton, Q.C., and Bevir, in support of the petition, submitted
qualified to fulfil the office of examiner. He should therefore that the Crown had no power either under the grant of the gale
accede to the application. or under the Acts of Parliament regulating the management of
Solicitors: Finch, Jennings, & Finch; Willoughby & Cox. the forest, to forfeit a gale for non-payment of rent. There were ample provisions made for obtaining payment of rent in arrear, but no power of re-entry on non-payment. But even if the
July 3. Crown had power of forfeiting the grant, still the Court of Equity
In re DUCHESS OF CLEVELAND'S SETTLED ESTATES. would relieve the suppliants in a case of this kind, where they had already paid five years' rent at 2001. per annum, and were
Settled Estates Act (19 & 20 Vict. c. 120), s. 26. now ready to pay up the rent in arrear.
By the will of the Dowager Duchess of Cleveland, dated the The Attorney-General (Sir R. Baggallay), Glasse, Q.C., and W. 25th of June, 1860, the mansion-house called Newton House and Kursluke, for the Crown, contended that the grant of a gale was park and garden held therewith was settled to the use of Harry a licence to work upon certain conditions, one of which was the Vane Russell (deceased) for life, and then to his first and other payment of rent, and on breach of that condition the Crown had sons in tail, and on failure of such issue to the petitioner Robert & right of re-entry.
Russell for life, with remainder to his first and other sons in tail, Walter Renshaw, for B. Gwilliam.
and on failure of such issue to W. N. Russell for life, and then THE VICE-CHANCELLOR said the first question was whether to his first and other sons in tail, and on failure of such issue to the Crown had the right to re-enter and resume possession on John Russell (deceased), with remainder to his first and other non-payment of rent, and the second was whether if they had sons in tail, and on failure of such issue to the testatrix's own that right, the Court ought to grant relief against the forfeiture. right heirs for ever. And the will contained a proviso that His opinion was that the grant of the gale was a grant upon during the infancy of any tenant for life or in tail the trustees certain conditions, one of which was that rent should be paid, should keep up and maintain in a perfect state of repair and and upon non-performance of that condition there was a power condition the mansion-house and the park, garden, and pleasure of re-entry. He was also of opinion that under the Acts of Par-grounds belonging thereto, and effect such improvements as liament and the rules sanctioned by those Acts, there was a might be necessary, but it was her express desire that neither right of re-entry upon non-performance of the conditions, one of they nor any tenant for life should let her said mansion-house. which was payment of rent. Then as to whether the Court The testatrix died in January, 1861. Harry Vane Russell ought to interfere to relieve against the forfeiture, he considered died without having been married, and the petitioner Robert that as the suppliant had not filed his petition within six Russell, the second tenant for life, attained 21 in 1869, and had months, but had acquiesced for so long a time in the forfeiture, ever since been in possession of the mansion-house. W. N. Russell had one son living, and John Russell died in 1863 leaving property and to the affairs of the company, and to mortgage, one son. It was believed that the father of the petitioner was charge, or otherwise incumber all or any part of his freehold the heir-at-law of the testatrix at the time of her death, but and leasehold estate, stocks, shares, and effects in England, and strict proof of such heirship could not be produced.
to lease the same for any term of years, and absolutely to sell all The petition, which was presented under the Settled Estates his said estates. In August, Charles Bowles, being considerably Act, stated that Newton House was a very extensive mansion, in debt, went to America, and had not since returned. At and it required a large income to reside in it. The peti- the end of October, 1872, Charles Bowles being then indebted tioner had not sufficient means to reside in and keep up the to the National Agency Company in the sum of 19351., the direcmansion-house in an efficient state of repair, and he now asked tors of the company required W. H. Frith to execute a mortgage the sanction of the Court to its being let for seven years to a to them of the house in the Strand on behalf of Bowles, who was gentleman with whom a provisional contract had been entered then in America, and in pursuance thereof the mortgage was into.
executed. On the 9th of November, 1872, the company stopped Glasse, Q.C., and Cookson, in support of the petition, stated payment, and was ordered to be wound up on the 9th of January, that it was a most desirable thing both for the petitioner and 1873, when J. W. Sully was appointed liquidator of the company. the other persons entitled after him that the mansion-house On the 10th of December, 1872, Charles Bowles was adjudicated should be let; and the next tenant for life fully approved of this a bankrupt upon certain acts committed by him, the first of application.
which was in August, 1872, and John Young was appointed trusTHE VICE-CHANCELLOR said he should be glad to make this tee of his property. On the 22nd of March, 1873, the mortgaged order, as it was evidently for the benefit of the parties and of the premises were sold by the trustees of the Liberator Building estate, but in the face of the 26th section of the Settled Estates Society for 36001., and after paying their debt and costs, they Act, it was not in his power to do so, there being an express paid the balance, amounting to 5051. 9s. 1d. into Court. direction in the will that the mansion-house should not be let This petition was presented by the liquidator of the National by any tenant for life. He must therefore refuse the application. Agency Company, praying that the said sum of 5051. 9s. ld. Solicitors : Parkin & Pagden.
might be paid out to him.
The petition was opposed by John Young, the trustee of
Charles Bowles under the bankruptcy, who claimed to be entitled V.-C. M. In re DUKE OF NORFOLK's ESTATES. July 3.
to the money.
Cotton, Q.C., and Cozens-Hardy, for the petitioner. Railway Company-Costs of paying Money into Court.
Higgins, Q.C., and Simmonds, for John Young; and In this case the Brighton Railway Company had taken a piece Whitehorne, for the Liberator Building Society. of land for the purpose of their line, which the Duke of Norfolk! THE VICE-CHANCELLOR said it was clear, from the adjudication claimed as belonging to him. Another person, however, named in bankruptcy, that the first act of bankruptcy committed by Bridger, also put in a claim to the land, and the result was that Bowles was in August, 1872, when he went to America in order the railway company were obliged to pay the money into Court. to defeat his creditors. This was before the mortgage was exeThe adverse claimants had now settled their dispute, and a peti-cuted to the National Agency Company, and they must be taken tion was presented by the Duke of Norfolk for payment of the to have known the embarrassed and insolvent position of Bowles money to him, and a question was raised whether the company at the time it was executed. It was very doubtful whether this was to pay the costs of the application.
was a bona fide transaction, but, at all events, the circumstances Kekewich, for the petitioner, urged that there was no such
rendered it very improper; and in His Honour's opinion the " wilful refusal ” to convey in this case as would bring it within
security was invalid, and the petition must be dismissed, with the 80th section of the Lands Clauses Act, 8 Vict. c. 18, and the costs. Court had no power to refuse the costs to the petitioner.
Solicitors: Woolacott & Leonard; R. Jones & Co.; Pattison & Speed, for the railway company, submitted that the necessity Russell. for paying the money into Court arose entirely from the claim of Bridger, who had now withdrawn his claim, and the company ought not to be saddled with the costs of the dispute between V.-C. M.
Down v. YEARLEY.
Jaly 4 the two claimants.
Practice-Signature of Affidavits. TTE VICE-CHANCELLOR said the costs had in fact been occasioned by the railway company. If they had not disturbed the
Griffith Smith made an application to the Court to direct an possession of the Duke of Norfolk by taking the land, the claim affidavit to be filed, which had been objected to as informal by of Bridger would never have been made. The company must
Edward Grubb, one of the record and writ clerks. The alleged therefore pay the costs.
informality was this, that the witness, Elizabeth Down, had Solicitors : Few & Co.; Baxter & Co.
signed her name at the side of the affidavit instead of immediately underneath and above the jurat. He referred to • Daniell's Ch. Pr.,' 2nd ed., p. 1442, where it is stated " that the
party swearing the affidavit must subscribe his christian and V.-C. M. In re BOWLES'S MORTGAGE.
July 3. surname on the left hand thereof. Tho jurat is written on the Mortgage executed while in insolvent circumstances.--Mortgagee right."
affected with Notice of Insolvency-Invalidity of Mortyage. I The VICE-CHANCELLOR directed the affidavit to be filed. This was a petition stating that on the 6th of January, 1872, Solicitor: J. Cover. Charles Bowles, who was then the promoter of the Joint National Agency Company, and the chairman of the board of directors,
S; V.-O M.
· July 6. took an assignment of a lease for fifty-seven years of a messuage and premises numbered 446, in the Strand, at a rental of 4007. On
NATIONAL SOCIETY V. SCHOOL BOARD OF LONDON. the 18th of January he mortgaged this lease to the trustees of the
ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. ENGLISH. Liberator Benefit Building Society, as a security for 30001., with
School Board— Elementary Education Act, 1870— Transfer of power of sale. He then let the house and premises to the Joint
School-Consent to Alienation. National Agency for four years, at 10001. per annum. On the The plaintiffs were the National Society for promoting the 20th of January, 1872, Charles Bowles gave a power of attorney Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church to W. H. Frith, the secretary of the National Agency Company, throughout England and Wales, and were incorporated by that enabling him to act on his behalf in all matters relating to his name by royal charter, dated the 23rd of May, 1817.