« 이전계속 »
The work of the society consists in making grants of money there were consequently no grandchildren or remoter issue capatowards the establishment of elementary schools, and they re- ble of taking under the power of appointment. quire the insertion in the trust-deed of every school aided by The suit was instituted to obtain relief in respect to a breach them & clause declaring that the school shall always be “in of trust by which a portion of the 16,0001. fund had been diverted union with and conducted according to the principles and in from its proper investment, and a question incidentally arose as furtherance of the ends and designs” of the society, and it is one to the operation of the appointment of the 35001. of the terms of union that “ the children are to be instructed in The plaintiffs, who were Mrs. Swete's only son and another the Holy Scriptures and in the liturgy and catechism of the person, contended that the 35001. should be considered as apEstablished Church.”
pointed out of the 50001. fund, over which Mrs. Swete had a In the year 1867 the Society in conjunction with another power of appointment extending beyond children, while the first society and with other persons established a church school in defendant on the record, who was liable for the breach of trust, the parish of Emanuel, Camberwell, and the usual trust-deed and claimed to be entitled to be indemnified in respect thereof was executed, which however made no provision for the possi- out of so much of the 35001, as formed part of the 16,0001., conbility of the alienation of the school by the managers.
tended that the appointment was in any event in excess of the In the year 1870, the Elementary Education Act of that year power, and that the 3500%, must be attributed to the two funds was passed. It provided, amongst other things, by the 23rd proportionately. section, for the transfer to School Boards formed under the Act Glasse, Q.C., and H. A. Giffard, for the plaintiffs. of existing elementary schools, subject to certain consents, and Higgins, Q.C., and Tremlett, for the first defendant on the in particular that when there was any instrument declaring the record, who was one of the trustees of the 16,0001, fund. trasts of a school containing provisions for alienation in any R. W. E. Forster, for Miss Swete, took no part in the argument. mar.ner, or subject to any consent, any arrangements for transfor Ingle Joyce, for the other trustee. to a school board should be made by the persons in the manner | THE VICE-CHANCELLOR held that he could not attribute to the and with the consent so provided. In schools so transferred | testatrix the intention to appoint the 35001, out of the 50001. the teaching of any religious catechism or religious formulary fund exclusively, and it must be paid rateably out of both funds, distinctive of any particular denomination was by the Act pro- and that Miss Swete took a life interest only in the 35001.; and hibited.
subject thereto it remained unappointed, and did not pass to The school so established at Camberwell having been trans- the son under the residuary gift. It was therefore equally diviferred by the managers to the School Board of London without sible between the son and the daughter, but as to so much of it the consent of the National Society, this suit was instituted seek- as was attributable to the 16,0001., the hotchpot clause applied, ing to set aside the transfer as illegal and improper.
and he could not take it without bringing his appointed share Cotton, Q.C., and Kekewich, for the plaintiffs.
into account. Glasse, Q.C., Speed, and Parke, for the London School Board. | Solicitors: Bower & Cotton; Woodrooffe & Plaskitt ; Gregory,
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR held, upon the construction of the Rowcliffes, & Rawle.
PEARSON v. HELLIWELL. their objections was by appearing before the Educational De
Will— Construction- Annuity-Charge on Corpus. partment of the Privy Council.
A testator, after giving two annuities of 351. each to his mother Solicitors: G, A. Crawley, Arnold, & Green; Gedge, Kirby, & and his wife, added the words, “and I charge the same annuities Millett.
respectively upon all and singular my leasehold messuages, dwelling-houses or tenements situate in Sheffield aforesaid, hereinafter
by me given and bequeathed.” V.-O. M. SWETE V. TINDAL.
July 7. He subsequently provided that if the surplus rents and profits Power of Appointment- Excessive Exercise-Appointees not Objects of his leasehold premises should be insufficient to pay both - Residuary Gift.
annuities in full, that given to his wife should abate in favour
of his mother. He disposed of his estate subject to the annuiBy a deed of the 1st of July, 1865, a sum of 16,0001. was vested
ties. in trustees upon trust for Mrs. C. S. Swete, then Miss Carring
The mother was dead, and the proceeds of the leasehold estate, ton for life, and after her death upon trust for all and every or
or which had been sold under the decree in the suit (which was for such one or more exclusively of any other or others of the
for administration of the testator's estate), were insufficient to children of Mrs. Swete as she should by deed or will appoint,
provide for the annuity to the widow in full. and in default of appointment for the children equally, and the
Dunning (Glasse, Q.C., with him), for the plaintiff, the widow. deed contained a hotchpot clause for the case of a partial ap
Ince, and A. Whitaker, for the other parties interested. pointment.
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR held that the annuity was well charged By a deed of the 11th of November, 1845, a sum of 50001. was
on the corpus of the estate. vested in trustees upon similar trusts, except that the power of Solicitors: Pattison. Wigo, do Co.: Doule Edwards. appointment included grandchildren and remoter issue born in the lifetime of Mrs. Swete, and it contained no hotchpot clause.
Mrs. Swete died on the 15th of November, 1871, having by her will, dated the 11th of September, 1871, after referring
V.-C. B. generally to these deeds, appointed all such real or personal
ASTON v. WOOD.
July 6. estate as she might have power to appoint or otherwise dispose Will— Construction--Legacies-Gift of Residue of a Fund after of, and all her estate and interest, to trustees upon trusts as tol failure of Gift of Specific Portion--Renunciation of onerous 35002, for her daughter Miss Swete for life for her separate use, Legacy. without power of anticipation, and after her death leaving law- Thomas Wood, who died on the 15th of December, 1870, by fal issue, for her children as therein mentioned, and if she died his will dated the 15th of November, 1870, gave (amongst a without leaving lawful issue she directed that the fund should number of other legacies personal and charitable) to trustees be held on trust for her son, who was her only other child, to for the purpose of that bequest only, a sum of 10,0001. and other whom also she made a general residuary bequest.
moneys which he had invested in the funds, upon trust to invest At Mrs. Swete's death her daughter was still unmarried, and such portion thereof upon mortgage of freehold security, in their names, as they should deem sufficient to pay certain per- In December, 1866, Messrs. Adamson & Co., who were shipsonal annuities for life, and charitable annuities in perpetuity. owners and brokers in London, entered into a freight contract He then gave and bequeathed, after the death of Lucy Aston, a with the promoters of the company by which they undertook to life annuitant of 1501., to the trustees of the Mount Zion Chapel ship iron and plant to Brazil for the intended company at certain and schools at the Lye," the sum of 1001. in perpetuity for the rates, it being stipulated that Adamson & Co. should subscribe use and benefit of the said schools, and payable out of the fund for or place 500 shares in the company. set aside: of the sum of 10,0001. and Government funds afore- Mr. Adamson was induced to become a director, there being a said, to provide for the above-mentioned annuities.” He con- clause in the articles of the association enabling directors to enter tinued: "I give and bequeath unto the said James Wood Aston, into contracts with their company. The requisite number of for his own absolute use and benefit, all the rest, residue, and shares was subscribed for, and 81. per share paid upon them; remainder of the said sum of 10,0001, and of the money invested and in July, 1867, the contract was formally adopted by the in the Government funds as aforesaid, after investing such por- company. tion thereof as shall be necessary for payment of the above- The contract, so far as the rate of freight was concerned, mentioned sums and annuities as aforesaid." The testator also turned out beneficially for the contractors, who were enabled to bequeathed as follows: "I give and bequeath all my shares in make a sub-contract for getting the work done at two-thirds of the Cambrian Testing Company, and all that debt or sum of the price they were to receive, 400 of the shares for which money owing to me by Messrs. Savin & Co., also all moneys due Adamson & Co. were responsible, being taken by the sub-conto me from the Hereford and Brecon Railway Company, together tractors as part of the arrangement. with the securities I hold for the same, also the shares in the In June, 1869, the company was in difficulties, and were Flintshire Oil Company, also all my shares in the Staffordshire anxious for a modification of the contract, and to get the work Testing Company, unto my nephew the said George Swinford done at a cheaper rate. After some negotiation, a resolation Wood, and my niece Mary Ann, the wife of Sir Thomas Gibbons was passed on the 8th of June, 1869, in effect annulling the Frost, in equal shares and proportions."
freight contract held by Adamson & Co., and instead thereof By an order of the Master of the Rolls, dated the 18th of adopting the sub-contract made by Adamson & Co., who were to July, 1871, upon a special case, it was declared that all the be compensated for giving up their original contract by a parcharitable legacies payable out of the fund directed to be laid ment of 12,0001. in manner following:- The 150 shares standing out upon freehold mortgage security were void.
in the names of Adamson, Ronaldson, & Wescott to be credited The chief clerk had found that there was no company called with 18001., thereby making the same fully paid-up; by an the Flintshire Oil Company; but that the testator had shares in acceptance for 2001., payable at Bahia 60 days after sight; and a company called the North Wales Coal Oil Company, Limited, by delivering to Adamson and Ronaldson fully paid-up shares of the works of which were in Flintshire. Calls were either pay- the value of 10,0001., as and according to the expenditure on the able or about to be made on these shares.
works of the company, past and future, of one quarter of a million. The questions on further consideration were, firstly, whether An agreement carrying out the terms of this resolution was exethe perpetual charitable annuities fell into the residue of the cuted on the 23rd of June, and a copy of the agreement was 10,0001, or into the general residue; and, secondly, whether the registered on the 24th of June, 1869, in conformity with 8. 25 of calls must be paid by the legatees of the five last-mentioned the Companies Act, 1867. properties, or whether they could reject the Oil Company's shares On the 20th of August, 1869, a petition was presented for and keep the rest.
winding up the company, and on the 27th of January, 1870, the Kay, Q.C., and Speed, for the plaintiff, James Wood Aston. petition having stood over from time to time, a winding-up order Eddis, Q.C., and G. 0. Edwards, for the widow,
was made. Jackson, Q.C., and Hemming, for George S. Wood and Sir The official liquidator, by his summons, impeached the arT. G. and Lady Frost.
rangement of June, 1869 (by which the 150 shares were credited Macnaghten, for a trustee of one of the funds.
with 18001., thereby making them fully paid-up), on the ground Little, Q.C., and Whitehorne, for a legatee.
that the cancellation of the original contract was made at a time Speed, in reply, on the second point.
when the company was practically insolvent, and that the arTHE VICE-CHANCELLOR held that the plaintiff was entitled rangement was a mere device for the purpose of relieving to the whole of the 10,0001. subject to the valid annuities; and Adamson & Co. from liability on their 150 shares, and was that the calls were payable out of the testator's estate.
carried out by a mala fide exercise of the powers of the directors. Solicitors: Tucker de Lake; Mackeson, Taylor, & Arnold; | H, M. Jackson, Q.C., and Ingle Joyce, for the official liquidator Chester, Urquhart, & Co; Iliffe, Russell, & Iliffe.
Swanston, Q.C., and Cracknall, for Adamson, Ronaldson, and Wescott.
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the transaction had V.-C. B.
I been carried out in good faith, without any concealment or mis. In re PARAGUAS8U STEAM TRAMWAY COMPANY.
representation, at a time when, although the funds and affairs of
the company were certainly not flourishing, there was no intenADAMSON'S CASE.
tion that the business should not be continued ; and that the Company-Payment on Shares- Companies Act, 1867, s. 25.
effect of the arrangement was to discharge Messrs. Adamson, as Adjourned summons on behalf of the official liquidator, for the part of the compensation payable to them for giving up their purpose of making Messrs. Adamson, Ronaldson, and Wescott original contract, from further liability on their 150 sbares. The liable as contributories for 18001., being an alleged balance of 121. company got the benefit of being relieved from a very burdenper share in respect of 150 shares standing against their names in some contract, and of getting the necessary work done on cheaper the books of the company.
terms, and there was nothing unlawful or unreasonable in the It was admitted that 81. per share had been paid on these stipulated application by Adamson & Co. of part of the comshares, and the question was whether there had been a valid pensation made to them in payment of the balance due on their payment in full of the remaining 122. per share, in accordance shares. The case could not be distinguished from Ferrao's Case with the entry of the shares in the books as fully paid-up (Law Rep. 9 Ch.355), and there was nothing to prevent these gentleshares.
men from applying part of their compensation money in payment The company was formed in January, 1867, for the purpose of of the amount for which they were liable Having therefore, purchasing and working a concession for the construction of a with that which was their own money, paid up all calls on their steam tramway in Brazil, with a capital of 1,500,0001. in 75,000 shares, they had effectually released themselves from all further shares of 201. each.
liability in respect thereof. The summons must be dismissed.
and Adamson & Co. would be allowed their costs out of the bequeathing to the persons named pecuniary legacies amounting estate.
to 43701., said: "After payment of all the above-cited legacies, Solicitors: Wansey & Bowen ; Rowland Miller.
I will and bequeath to my sister Caroline Jeremy Luno half of the sum remaining undisposed of, and to my niece Edith Gals
worthy the remaining half of the same sum." The testatrix then V.-C. H. WATSON v. Row.
July 2. gave as remembrances of herself certain articles of jewellery and Administration Suit-Two Trustees Defendants-Joint Retainer to other things to some relatives named, and said: “And the whole
Solicitors-Death of One Trustee who was indebted to the Estate of the remainder of my personal effects and property of whatsoand insolvent-Costs - Surviving Trustee entitled to be paid all ever nature, excepting any sum of money which may remain the Costs of the Suit.
after payment of all the above-mentioned legacies, I leave to
my”-here there was a blank in the will, and then she apThis was a suit against two trustees for the administration of their testator's estate.
pointed an executor, who filed this bill for the administration The defendants, Row and Woodman, gave a written retainer to a firm
40; of the estate. The testatrix was at her death possessed of
of solicitors requiring and money at her bankers, and on mortgage, and entitled to certain authorizing them to act for them in the suit. The words
funds. severally and jointly were not used, nor either of them. The
Dickinson, Q.C., and Millar, for the plaintiff, and Karslake, Q.C., defendant Woodman, who had died insolvent, had been certified
and Cozens-Hardy, for one of the next of kin in the same inteto be indebted to the testator's estate, and certain costs, in addi
rest, sabmitted that “the sum remaining undisposed of” could tion to both defendants' costs of the suit, had been incurred in
include nothing but the cash actually belonging to the testatrix. taking the account of Woodman's debt. On the further con
Morgan, Q.C., and Shebbeare, for the defendant Edith Galssideration of the cause it was asked that a direction should be
worthy, submitted that she was entitled to one-half of every. given to the taxing master to make a distinction between the thing
thing belonging to the testatrix which came under the popular defendants' costs of the suit, or to separate the defendant Woodman's costs of the suit from the costs of the defendant Row, in
term “money," whether on mortgage or in the funds, or due to
her. order that such costs might be set off against the debt due from
Greene, Q.C., and Tidswell, for Mrs. Luno, were not called Woodman to the estate. Karslake, Q.C., and Kekewich, for the plaintiff, submitted that
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the residue of if Woodman had been the sole defendant he would not have got any costs until his debt had been paid, and therefore the costs
money of every description and character-money secured by of the defendants ought to be separated, and Woodman's share la
bond or mortgage, and debentures and other stocks or funds of them not be paid to his solicitors, but be retained as a set-off
applicable to the payment of legacies, passed to the two legatees against the debt due. The defendant Row was liable to the
in moieties under the bequests to them, and made an order
accordingly. solicitors for all the costs of the defendants in the suit.
Solicitors: Samuel Potter ; Worthington Evans; J. Galsworthy. Methold, for an infant in the same interest.
Eddis, Q.C., and C. T. Simpson, for the defendant Row, contended that the costs could not be separated. As between Row and the solicitors he was no doubt liable for the whole of the V.-C. H.
STELFOX v. STELFOX.
July 4. defendant's costs which had been incurred by them as trustees. Will-Construction-Gift of Personalty and all other Estate and The only question was whether the costs had been properly in- Effects-Real Estate, Conversion of_" Effects," meaning of. curred, and they submitted that the defendant Row's conduct James Stelfox, who died in December. 1817. by his will, in had been justifiable, and that no solicitor, considering the case, of Re Colquhoun, (5 D. M. & G. 35) would have acted upon his trustees' their heirs. &c. upon trust to receive the rents during
January, 1817, devised his lands, &c., called Pains, unto three separate retainer.
the life of his granddaughter Sarah Stelfox, and pay the same THE VICE-CHANCELLOR said he did not mean to give a until she should be 21 years of age, for her maintenance, educadecision which would be at variance with the decisions in
tion, and support, and after she should attain that age pay the Re Colquhoun and Harris v. Hamlyn (3 De G. & Sm. 470);
same to her for her separate use, and after her death to the use of but those cases did not govern the present, which was one of
all her children equally, to be divided between them as tenants in joint retainer and joint liability—a liability which the defendant
common, with a gift over in case she left no issue to the use of all Row, who was the survivor, had succeeded to, and it was con
the children of the testator's son James Stelfox equally as tenants tended that because his co-trustee had died indebted to the
in common. Sarah married and died without issue. James had six estate and insolvent, he was to be allowed only one-half of the
children. One of them, Joseph Plumbly Stelfox, who died in May, whole bill of costs for which he was liable to his solicitors in
1838, by will in July, 1837, gave and bequeathed to his wife, his respect of the basiness of the suit; and that he must pay the
two sons, and two other persons, their heirs, executors, &c., all his other half due to his solicitors out of his own pocket. That
farming stock and stock-in-trade as a farmer, household furni. appeared to him to be against the principle which the Court
ture, and all other his estate and effects whatsoever and wherebad always acted upon, and, therefore, he should allow the de
soever, and of what nature or kind soever, of which he should be fendant Row the whole of his costs, charges, and expenses
possessed, upon trust to permit his wife to have the use of his properly incurred in the suit, and for which he was liable to
stock-in-trade, furniture, and other effects for so long as she pay his solicitors. The costs which had been incurred on behalf
should carry on the business or until she should marry again ; of the defendant Woodman in reference to his separate liability
Ty but in case she should not be desirous of carrying on the busito the estate would not be paid to him until the debt due from
ness, in trust to sell the stock-in-trade, furniture, and other him had been made good, but the defendant Row would have
effects, to invest the proceeds and to pay the income to his wife his costs in reference to those inquiries.
for life or until marriage, and after her death or marriage to Solicitors : Gregory, Rowcliffes, & Rawle; Flux & Leadbitter.
divide the principal amongst his children. Joseph P. Stelfox left six children. His widow died in 1868. The property
“Pains” was, it was alleged, vested in several persons, and this V.-C. H. M CABE v. GALSWORTHY.
July 2. was a suit for partition or for a sale.
July 2. Will-Construction - Bequests of a “sum remaining undisposed
Davey, for the plaintiff. of”—Moneys on Mortgage and other Investments. I North, for defendants who claimed the property as realty. Esther J. M'Cabe, who died in March, 1873, by her will in Greene, Q.C., and Ring, for other defendants, were not called August, 1863, after directing payment of her debts, &c., and ( upon.
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR held that the real estate passed by the she could be got, and that plaintiff could have got her cheaper will of July, 1837. The testator after enumerating his estate but for the arrangement between the vendor and S. said, “and of what nature and kind soever," and he had pre-l Field, Q.C., and Lanyon, for plaintiff. viously said, “all other his estate and effects." Though the Sir J, B. Kurslake Q.C., A. L. Smith, and Arbuthnot, for defenword "effects” would not ordinarily include real estate, yet it dant. might looking at the context; and he considered that the dis- THE COURT (Cockburn, C.J., Blackburn and Archibald, JJ.) position in this case was sufficiently comprehensive to include held that the action would lie. everything which was given for the benefit of his widow for life. Attorneys for plaintiff: Crossly & Burn. The property had been converted into personalty and it must Attorneys for defendant: Shum, Crossman, & Crossman. go as a converted fund, and there must be a sale.
Solicitors: Cowdell, Grundy, & Brown, agents for Toy & Broadbent, Ashton-under-Lyne; Edwards, Layton, & Jaques,
BURNABY v. EARLE.
July 6. Bail Bond, Construction of—“ Determination of Cause in favour
of Plaintiff”— Notice of Appeal, effect of, on Judgment. Plaintiff having recovered a verdict for 5451. in an action against E., proceedings were stayed on E. giving security for the amount, and defendant entered into a bond with a condition that
if the determination of the action should be in favour of plaintiff, Q. B.
July 6. and E. and defendant, or one of them, should pay the 5451., the DIE ELBINGER, &o., COMPANY V. ARMSTRONG.
bond should be void. A rule was afterwards obtained on a point Contract, Breach of, for Non-delivery of Article to be manufactured reserved at the trial to set aside the verdict, but was afterwards - Measure of Damages.
discharged on the 14th of November, 1870. On the 15th of the The defendant in January, 1872, agreed to furnish plaintiffs
same month E. gave notice of appeal under s. 37 of the Common with 666 sets of wheels and axles, according to tracings, 100 of
Law Procedure Act, 1854, but no bail was put in under s. 38, which were to be delivered : 10 on the 15th of February, 10 on
nor any further steps taken by E down to the commencement of
the present action on the bond on the 9th of April, 1872. the lst of March, 20 on the 15th of March, 20 on the 1st of
Huddl-ston, Q.C., and Philbrick, Q.O., for the plaintiff, April, 40 on the 15th of April, to be delivered free on board at
Garth, Q.C., and Pearce, for the defendant. Hull, guarantee three years and three months from time of shipments. The plaintiffs were under a contract with a Russian
THE COURT (Cockburn, C.J., Blackburn, Lush, and Quain, JJ.)
held that the action against E. was determined in favour of the railway company to deliver them 1000 waggons, 500 on the 1st of May, 1872, and 500 on the 31st of May, 1873, and they were
plaintiff; for that notice of appeal, after the time for giving bail bound to pay two roubles per waggon for each day's delay in
on appeal has elapsed, has no effect on the judgment recovered, delivery. In the course of the negotiations between plaintiffs
and the defendant was therefore bound to pay the 5451.
Attorneys for plaintiff: Hughes & Co. and defendant, defendant was informed of this contract, but
Attorneys for defendant: F. & T. Smith & Sons. neither the precise day for the delivery nor the amount of the penalties was mentioned. Delay occurred in the delivery of the 100 sets of wheels; and the plaintiffs in consequence had to pay certain penalties, but the Russian company consented to Q. B.
TAYLOR v. GREENHALGH.
July 6 take one rouble a day, amounting in the whole to 1001.
Surveyor of Highways, Liability for improper State of Road. The plaintiffs having brought an action against the defendant
Defendant was surveyor of highways appointed by vestry. By for the delay, sought to recover as damages the 1001.
a resolution of the committee of management it was decided that W. Williams, Q.C., and Cohen, for plaintiffs.
a part of a road should be raised for about 150 yards, and defenSir H. James, Q.C., and Waddy, Q.C., for defendant. THE COURT (Cockburn, O.J., Blackburn, Lush, and Quain, JJ.)
dant was ordered to employ men to do it. He accordingly held that the plaintiffs were not untitled as damages, as a matter
!) contracted with G. to do the work at so much per yard, the
| vestry finding the materials. G. proceeded to do the work, of right, to the amount of penalties, but that the jury might
employing his own men. In the course of the work one half the reasonably have assessed the damages at that amount.
width of the road was raised first, and the other half left tempoAttorneys for plaintiffs : Hollams, Son, & Coward.
rarily about a foot lower. No fence or light was put up to warn Attorneys for defendant: Learoyd, Learoyd, & Peace.
persons using the road at night; and the plaintiff driving with horse and cart fell over and was injured.
The defendant had not personally interfered in doing the work,
Holker, S.G., and R. G. Williams, Q.C., for the plaintiff.
THE COURT (Blackburn, Mellor, and Quain, JJ.) held that the The plaintiff authorized defendant to negotiate for the pur- defendant was not liable for the injury to the plaintiff. chase of a particular ship on the basis of an offer of 90001., but Attorneys for plaintiff : Shaw & Tremellen. eventually the ship was purchased through defendant for 92501. Attorneys for defendant: Clarke, Woodcock, & Ryland, for T. A. Prior to the sale an arrangement had been made between the & J. Grundy, & Co., Manchester. vendor and a broker, S., that if S. could sell the ship for more than 85001. he might retain for himself the excess; and it was arranged between s. and defendant, without the knowledge or sanction of plaintiff, that defendant should receive from S. a Q.
MARWICH v. Codlin.
July 6. portion of such excess; and accordingly defendant received Ale-house-New Licence-Confirmation of Licence by Licensino 2251., part of the excess over 85001. On discovering this the
Committee-9 Geo. 4, c. 61–35 & 36 Vict. c. 94. plaintiff brought an action for money had and received to plain-! The question raised in this case was whether the licence tiff's use for the 2251.
granted to the respondent under 9 Geo. 4, c. 61, and the LicensIn addition to the above facts, the jury found that defendanting Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 94), for the sale of spirits for the was the agent of plaintiff to purchase the ship as cheaply as first time, at the licensing meeting in March, 1873, was a new licence requiring the confirmation of the licensing committee certificate from the master of the dock in which the vessel is under s. 37 of the Licensing Act, 1872.
lying, shewing that she is ready to commence loading ; and also It was contended for the respondent that it was not a new a certificate from the coal agent that she is to load at the High licence, because he held at that time a certificate and licence Level Station. No coal agent to be allowed to load more than under the Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869 and 1870, for the sale two flats at the cranes at the same time, nor to have more than of wine and beer to be consumed on the premises.
three vessels in the Bramley Moore or Wellington Docks (both April 25. Poland, for the appellant.
inclusive) loading and to load at the cranes at one time. "No Sleigh, for the respondent.
vessel to be entered into the application or berthing book before July 6. THE COURT (Cockburn, O.J., and Quain, J.) held she is in either the Bramley Moore or the Wellington Dock; each that the licence granted to the respondent was a new licence, vessel to be berthed in regular time as entered, if the specific and was not valid unless it had been confirmed by the licensing quantity of coal is at the Sandhill Station ; if not, the next vessel committee under s. 37 of the Licensing Act, 1872.
on turn having sufficient cargo ready to have the berth; any Attorneys for appellant: Pownall, Cross, & Knott.
vessel losing her turn in consequence of coal for her not being Attorney for respondent: Pawle & Fearon,
ready at the Sandhill Station to be considered first on turn when the coals are ready. Flats and vessels to follow the same order
as to turn for loading, whether entered for the cranes or the Q. B. CoRY υ. PATON.
shoot." The certificates were duly given, and the vessel would
have been loaded in proper time had it not been that the defendants Marine Insurance-Insurance by Broker subject to Ratification by
acted as their own coal agents, and that they had at the time Principal-Concealment of Facts material to Risk.
three ships loading in the dock, and ten other charters in their This was an action on a policy of insurance.
books, which had priority over the plaintiff. In consequence, The plaintiff wrote to P. & Co , insurance brokers, to effect an the plaintiff was not allowed to go into dock until the 5th of insurance on a cargo of coals, limiting the amount of premium March, a period of thirty days after she was ready to do so. to 30s. a ton. The brokers' clerk thereupon proceeded to Lloyd's The defendants contended that the words “to be loaded with and saw R., who was in the habit of underwriting for the defen- | the usual despatch of the port,"only apply to a delay in the process dant, and on R refusing to insure the cargo at less than 354. a ton, of loading when the vessel has arrived at her berth, and that agreed to give that amount of premium, whereupon R. initialed they had no reference to a detention outside the loading place, the slip subject to the ratification of the plaintiff.
though caused by the act or default of the obarterer; and they Between the time of initialing the slip and the signing of the further contended that the vessel could not be said to have been policy the plaintiff became aware of the loss of the ship, but ready to receive cargo so long as she lay outside the dock. failed to communicate that fact to the defendant. The case June 11. Aspinall, Q.C., and Bremner, for the plaintiff. came before the Court on demurrer (Law Rep. 7 Q. B. 304), but C, Russell, Q.C.. and Lufton, for the defendants. as the facts then stood on the record, the fact that the slip was July 6. THE COURT (Mellor, Lush, Quain, and Archibald, initialed subject to the ratification of the assured was not before JJ.) held that the engagement to load the vessel was absolute, the Court, and the Court in that case decided that the assured and admitted of no qualification, and that the plaintiff wes need not communicate to the underwriter facts material to the entitled to recover. risk insured against which came to his knowledge between the Attorneys for plaintiff': Bremner & Son, Liverpool. time of initialing the slip and of signing the policy. The only Attorneys for defendants : Venn & Son. question in the present case was, whether the fact appearing at the trial that the slip was initialed subject to ratification by the assured constituted a material difference from the fact as I 0. P.
DRINKWATER. PET.: DEARIN. RESP. June 22. appearing on the record when the former judgment was given. I May 5. Augh Shield, for the plaintiff.
Election Petition-Disqualification—Votes thrown away. H. Mutthews, O.C. and W. Williams. 0.0.. for the defendant. ' Case stated by an election judge raising the question whether
THE COURT (Cockburn. C.J.. Blackburn.' Quain, and Archi- a corrupt practice of which a candidate was guilty in the course bald, JJ) were of opinion that Hagedorn v. Oliverson (2 M. & S. of an election, and
M &s of an election, and of which his opponent gave notice to the 485), governed the present case, and gave judgment for the
electors, incapacitated the candidate for election, so that the plaintiff, leaving the defendant to take the case to a court of
court of votes afterwards given for him at the same election were thrown appeal.
away, and his opponent was entitled to be seated on petition. Attorney for plaintiffs: J. MacDiarmid.
Manisty, Q.C. (Leresche and Batten with him), for the petiAttorneys for defendant: Ingledew, Ince, & Greening, for Ingle
tioner. dew, Ince, & Vachell, Cardiff.
Karslake, Q.C. (Parry, Serjt., and Edwards with him) for the respondents.
THE COURT (Coleridge, C.J., Brett and Denman, JJ.) held
that there was no such disqualification as caused the votes to be Q. B. ASHCROFT v. CROW OROHARD COLLIERY. July 6. thrown away. Judgment for respondent. Ship and Shipping-Charterparty-Demurrage-Lay Days, Com-| Attorney for petitioner: J. Gurney.
mencement of —" Load in the usual and customary manner.” Attorneys for respondent: Phelps & Goddard.
. tops, and proceed to Belfast, and deliver the same as by bills of|.
MALCOLM, PET. ; INGRAM AND PARRY, RESPs. ladiog: to be loaded with the usual despatch of the port, and Election Petition-Corrupt Practices-Scrutiny-Striking off Votes discbarged 25 tons working days, or if longer detained, to be Case stated by an election judge raising the following quespaid 40s. per day demurrage.” The defendants engaged to load tions:-A candidate was found guilty of bribery, through his the vessel " on the above terms." By a memorandum at the agents, by the election judge under the following circumstances :foot, the vessel was to load in the Bramley Moore or Wellington The candidate, who had just declared himself and been accepted Docks, High Level Railway. By the dock regulations, which as candidate in the Liberal interest, having authorized a distriwere known to both parties, " no vessel is allowed to enter the bution of a large quantity of coal to the poor of a borough at the Bramley Moore or Wellington Docks to load coal from the high Christmas previous to the last dissolution of Parliament, his level station, except upon the production of a jerque note or a agent caused it to be delivered to a very large number of persons