Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

mon-law Courts. In the course of the argument it was party to the fraud. An affidavit by the plaintiff's atcontended by the defendant's counsel, that the rules by torney, that the question tended to criminate his client, which the system of discovery in equity was governed was held to furnish no answer to the application. In the did not strictly apply to the new system; that such course of the argument it was contended that the right rules were applicable to a state of things when the to deliver interrogatories was confined to cases where a parties to a suit were not examinable at law; that as discovery might have been obtained in a court of equity; they could now be examined in the witness-box, there but Mr. Baron Parke said, “ The language of the 51st was no reason why equitable rules should be applied section" (which is the one in question)

is much more to their written examination. The general language extensive in its signification, and has no such limitation of the section was referred to—“any matter upon which as that contended for. The 50th section, which emdiscovery may be sought”-and it was contrasted with powers the Court to order the production of docusect. 6 of the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, relating to the inspec- ments, says that it shall be done upon the affidavit of tion of documents, which allowed such inspection in the party applying for the document, 'to the producall cases in which “a discovery might have been ob- tion of which he is entitled for the purpose of distained by filing a bill, or any other proceeding, in a covery, or otherwise.' And the 51st section says that court of equity.” The term“ discovery,” it was argued, the party may be interrogated upon any matter as to was not to be taken in a technical sense, nor to be which discovery may be sought.' It does not say that construed with reference to its meaning in equity, but the power is limited to cases in which a bill of disthat it meant“ information.” A larger power was given covery will lie.” Mr. Baron Alderson added—The than had hitherto existed, but the leave of the Court proceeding is analogous to that of the examination of a was required as a check against the abuse of it. It witness at the trial. It seems to me that the same rules was therefore urged, that although in equity the right should be followed. . . . . The system introduced by this of a party to discovery was limited to the evidence statute is an improvement upon the method of proceeding necessary to sustain his own case, to the exclusion of by bill of discovery.It will be observed with satisfacthat by which the case of his opponent exclusively tion, that if the Court of Exchequer has put a somemight be sustained, (Wig. Disc. 4, 265, 2nd ed.; Story's what narrow construction upon the statute, so far as it Eq. Jur., ss. 14, 97), yet under the new practice each relates to equitable defences, (The Mines Royal Soof the contending parties should be allowed to learn, ciety v. Magnay, 10 Exch. 489), they have sought to before trial, in what manner and by what evidence give a liberal interpretation to the “ discovery” clauses, his adversary proposed to establish his own case. The and rather to mould and adapt them to the commonCourt, however, gave no opinion upon these points. law system of examination of witnesses, than to incum

Next came Osborn v. The London Dock Company, ber them with the rules and doctrines incident to the (10 Exch. 698), decided in last Hilary Term, in which bill of discovery in Chancery. a very important question was raised, namely, whether We shall conclude our observations by briefly calling a witness, objecting to a question upon the ground of attention to the last case upon the subject, (Thöl v. its tendency to criminate him, is bound to satisfy the Leask, 10 Exch. 704), in which the Court (H. T., Court that such will be its effect, or whether he is 1855) decided, first, that the rule for the delivery of the himself the sole judge of its effect*. Mr. Baron Parke interrogatories is a rule nisi merely in the first insaid that the weight of the authorities seemed to be in stance; and, secondly, allowed the plaintiff to interrofavour of the rule which requires the witness to satisfy gate the defendant, who had bought goods for him the Court that such will be the effect of the question; (according to the bought note) “ as from a principal,” but without determining this point, the learned judges whether he acted in the transaction as principal or decided that at all events the objection must come from agent; and if as agent, to name the principal*. the witness himself, and not from his attorneyt. The action was to recover certain pipes of wine; the de

NOTES OF THE WEEK. fendants by their pleas denied that they were the property of the plaintiff, and sought by their interro

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—May 15. gatories (150 in number) to shew that fraudulent

STATUTE-LAW COMMISSION. practices had been resorted to, whereby other wines

Mr. L. King asked whether it was intended to ask belonging to third parties had been substituted for for a vote of supply this year for the Statute-law Comthose which had been deposited with the defendants mission; and if so, when the estimate would be laid by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff himself was a upon the table; or whether it was intended to issue

money for the purposes of the commission without the * See upon this point Best Ev. 162, 2nd ed.; Ph. Ev. 488, previous sanction of Parliament? 10th ed.; Tayl. Ev., s. 1071; Fisher v. Ronalds, (12 C. B. 762); Short v. Mercier, (3 Mac. & G. 205); and Garbett's case, * The interrogatories were the following :(1 Den. C.C. 236).

“1. Whether the defendant entered into the contract in the † The objection also, it seems, should be raised by the declaration as principal or agent? affidavit in answer to the interrogatories, as a "just cause" for 2. If as agent, for whom, and by what authority ? not answering such as tend to criminate, and is not a ground 3. If there are any entries in the defendant's books shew. for disallowing the interrogatories in the first instance. See ing who was the principal in that transaction, and if he has Forshaw v. Lewis, (10 Exch. 712), where it was held to be no any entry in his contract-book to that effect ? answer to an application, under sect. 50, for the discovery of “ 4. If any money paid to him in respect of the contract documents, that they were such as the party was privileged in the declaration has been paid over to such principal, and from producing ; but it was said, that if that were so, the fact when, and how ? may be shewn in the affidavit to be made in obedience to the “5. If he has any entry in his pass-book, or other book or rule.

books, shewing such payment ?"

Mr. Wilson said there would be a vote proposed for of appointment is necessary. He is removeable at the this year, which would be found in class 7. No money discretion of the Lord Chancellor or Chancellor of the would be issued in the meantime, except on the vote of Duchy respectively. On his appointment he is bound last year, or for expenses already incurred.

to give security for such sum and in such manner as LAW OF MORTMAIN.

the Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury shall Mr. Atherton moved for leave to bring in a bill to order, for the due performance of his office, and for the amend the laws relating to mortmain. He did not due accounting for and payment of all monies received propose to interfere with that chief principle of mort- by him by virtue of his office, or which he may become main which referred to the vesting of lands in corpo- liable to pay for any misbehaviour in his office. rate bodies. His bill was mainly intended to amend Disqualification.].-When appointed, the clerk is not the stat. 9 Geo. 2, c. 36, relative to the appropria- permitted to be directly or indirectly concerned as tion of land to charitable purposes. With regard to attorney or agent for any party in any proceeding in those conveyances of land that were upon full valuable the court. consideration, he proposed to do away with all the re- Appointment of Deputy.]-Where the clerk, by illstrictions that now existed, with the exception of that ness or unavoidable absence, is prevented from acting which required inrolment in Chancery within six in his office, he may, with the approval of the judge, months. The other class of conveyances for charitable or in case of inability of the clerk, the judge may appurposes were those in which the donor made a volun- point a person qualified to be appointed clerk of the tary disposal of property without any valuable consi- court to act as deputy, but he is liable to be removed deration. In conveyances of this description, he pro- at the clerk's pleasure. When the clerk appoints a deposed to retain certain restrictions, including inrolment puty, the reason of such appointment must be entered in Chancery; and he also proposed a clause, the object on the minutes of the court in which he acts. of which was to extend the provisions of what was

Duties.]—The clerk, besides attending the sitting of known by the name of Peto's Act. The honourable each court, is bound to issue all summonses, warrants, and learned member then moved for leave to bring in precepts, and writs of execution, and register all orders a bill. After a few words from Mr. Malins in favour of the an account of all court fees and fines payable or paid

and judgments of the court; to take charge of and keep motion, leave was given to bring in the bill.

into court, and of all monies paid into and out of court; JUSTICE OF THE PEACE QUALIFICATIONS. and to enter an account of all such fees, fines, and Mr. Colville moved for leave to bring in bill to monies in a book belonging to the court, to be kept by amend the laws relating to the qualification of justices him for that purpose, and to submit his accounts to be of the peace. At present no gentleman could qualify audited and settled by the treasurer. In protection unless he was possessed of real property of the value of cases he is the official assignee of the insolvent estate. 1001. a year. The alteration which he proposed was, A variety of other duties in matters of detail, necessary that persons who were possessed of personal property to the convenient conduct of the court and the clerk's to the extent of 3001. a year should likewise be quali- office, are required by the Rules of Practice to be perfied to act as justices of the peace.—Leave given. formed by him.

Remuneration.]-His remuneration on the first estaFIRST REPORT OF THE COUNTY COURTS blishment of the courts was, and still generally is, by COMMISSION.

certain fees appointed to be taken upon the proceed

ings in court. A power was, however, reserved to the (Continued from p. 182).

Government to pay the clerk by an annual salary, not

exceeding 7001. Out of the fees which the clerks are III.—JUDGES, OFFICERS, AND ADVOCATES. authorised to take they are bound to pay their assistant Judge-(Continued).

clerks. The above power of the Government has been Holding Courts.).—The judge is required to hold a exercised in fifteen districts, where the clerk had only court in each district at least once in every month, or been appointed to one court, and the annual salary at such other interval as one of the Secretaries of State appointed to each is 6001., with one exception, where shall order. Of the monthly court he must give at least the salary is 5001. The salaries of the necessary asthree months' notice; but he may hold additional courts sistant clerks are also paid by the Government in those without such notice. He is not permitted to hold more

cases. Where one clerk has been appointed to several than one court in any one day. No vacation is allowed to courts, and in some instances the number of them is the judge except the time elapsing between the monthly local attorney in each district to act as assistant clerk

twelve, he usually makes an arrangement with some thirteen courts on his circuit, this period is necessarily rally the remuneration

of the latter, the amount being short. Number of Judges.]-The number of existing judges clerk. In some thinly-populated districts the share of

matter of agreement between the principal and assistant is sixty.

the fees which the assistant clerk receives does not exClerk.

ceed 101. per annum. To each court at least one clerk is appointed, but in Distinction between Deputy and Assistant Clerks.]many cases one person has been appointed clerk to It may be convenient here to point out the distinction several courts. For the future, however, no clerk can between a deputy clerk and assistant clerk. A deputy be appointed to more than one court, unless no local clerk must have the same qualification (that of being attorney will accept the office, or the Chancellor shall an attorney of a superior court) as a principal clerk; otherwise direct. Each clerk hereafter to be appointed he can only be appointed in certain emergencies, and must be resident in the district for which he is appointed. with the sanction of the judge. An assistant clerk

Qualification.]-The qualification of a person pro- need not be so qualified," (though he generally is), posed to be clerk is, that he shall be an attorney of one and he may be appointed without the sanction of the of her Majesty's superior courts of common law. judge. The former, by virtue of his appointment, can

Appointment-Hou removeableSecurity.]–He is ap- act in court, and perform all the duties of the principal pointed by the judge of the court, subject to the ap- clerk; the latter cannot act in court, and can only proval of the Lord Chancellor or the Chancellor of the perform such duties as the principal clerk prescribes. Duchy of Lancaster respectively. No particular form

(To be continued).

[ocr errors]

24

21 } Pleurther Directions, and Exceptions.

{

26 Appeals.

.....

{

11{,

[ocr errors]

{

Court Papers.

Before Vice-Chancellor Sir RICHARD T. KINDERSLEY, at

Lincoln's Inn.
EQUITY SITTINGS, TRINITY TERM, 1855. Tuesday May 22 Motions and General Paper.

Wednesday

Pleas, , Court of Chancery.

Thursday Before the LORD CHANCELLOR, at Lincoln's Inn.

Friday

25 Petitions (unopposed first).

Saturday Tuesday.... May 22 Appeal Motions and Appeals.

26 Short Causes, Short Claims, & Causes. Wednesday 23 Petitions and Appeals.

Monday...... 28

Further Directions, and Exceptions. Thursday

24 Friday

29 Motions and General Paper. 25

Tuesday.

Wednesday Saturday

30 Pleas, Demurrers, Causes, Claims,

Thursday 31 > Further Directions, and Exceptions. Monday..

28 Tuesday. 29 Appeal Motions and Appeals.

Friday: June 1 Petitions (unopposed first). Wednesday

2 Short Causes, Short Claims, & Causes. 307

Saturday Thursday 31

Monday..

S Pleas, Demurrers, Causes, Claims,

4 Friday June 1 > Appeals.

Further Directions, and Exceptions. Saturday

5 Motions and General Paper. 2

Tuesday.. Monday.. 4

Wednesday 6 Pleas, Demurrers, Causes, Claims, Tuesday 5 Appeal Motions and Appeals.

Thursday

7) Further Directions, and Exceptions. Wednesday 6

Friday

8Petitions (unopposed first). Thursday

Saturday

9 Short Causes, Short Claims, & Causes. 7 Friday ...

8
8 Appeals.

Monday...

Further Directions, and Exceptions. Saturday Monday... 11 Petitions and Appeals.

Tuesday....... 12 Motions and General Paper. Tuesday........ 12 Appeal Motions and Appeals.

N. B.-Petitions will be heard on Petition-days only. Notice.- Such days as his Lordship is engaged in hearing Appeals in the House of Lords excepted.

Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. STUART, at Lincoln's Inn.

Tuesday .... May 22 Motions.
Before the LORDS JUSTICES, at Lincoln's Inn. Wednesday

l Tuesday .... May 22 Appeal Motions and Appeals. Thursday

24 Claims, and Further Directions. Wednesday

Friday

25 Petitions and General Paper. Thursday 24

Saturday

26

Short Causes and Claims, and General
Friday
Petitions in Lunacy and Bankruptcy,

Paper.
25
and Appeal Petitions.

Monday..... 28
Saturday 26

Claims, and Further Directions. Monday.

Tuesday... 29 Motions and General Paper. Tuesday: 29 Appeal Motions and Appeals. Wednesday 30Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Wednesday 30

Thursday 31 ) Claims, and Further Directions. Thursday ...

Friday June 1 Petitions and General Paper.

Short Causes and Claims, and General and Appeal Petitions.

Paper. Saturday 21

Monday......

Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Monday...

Claims, and Further Directions. Tuesday.. 5 Appeal Motions and Appeals.

Tuesday.. 5 Motions and General Paper. Wednesday 6

Wednesday 6 Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Thursday

Thursday 7) Claims, and Further Directions.
Petitions in Lunacy and Bankruptcy, Friday

8 Petitions and General Paper.
8
and Appeal Petitions.

Saturday

9

Short Causes and Claims, and General Saturday

Paper. Monday 11

Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Tuesday. 12 Appeal Motions and Appeals.

Claims, and Further Directions.

Tuesday........ 12 Motions.
Before the Right Hon. the MASTER OF THE ROLLs, at
Chancery-lane.

Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood, at Lincoln's Inn. Tuesday .... May 22 Motions.

Tuesday .... May 22 Motions and General Paper. Wednesday 23 General Petition-day.

Wednesday 23 Thursday 24

Thursday

24

Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Friday 25 Pleas, Demurrers, Causes, Claims, Friday

Claims, and Further Directions.

25 Saturday 26 Further Directions, and Exceptions..

26 Monday..

s Petitions, Short Causes and Claims,

Saturday 28

and General Paper. Tuesday.. 29 Motions.

Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Wednesday 30

Monday...... 28

Claims, and Further Directions. Thursday

31

Pleas, Demurrers, Causes, Claims, Tuesday.. 29 Motions and General Paper.
Friday ...... June 1
Further Directions, and Exceptions.

Wednesday 30
Saturday
2

Thursday

Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes,

31 Monday... 4)

Friday June 1

Claims, and Further Directions. Tuesday,

5 Motions, Wednesday

Petitions, Short Causes and Claims,

Saturday 6

and General Paper. Thursday 7 Pleas, Demurrers, Causes, Claims,

Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Friday 8 Further Directions, and Exceptions. Monday ......

Claims, and Further Directions. Saturday 9

Tuesday... 5 Motions and General Paper. Monday.. 11 General Petition-day.

Wednesday

6 Tuesday.. 12 Motions.

Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Thursday

7

Claims, and Further Directions. N.B.-Short Causes, Short Claims, Consent Causes, Un- Friday. opposed Petitions, and Claims every Saturday. The Unop

Petitions, Short Causes and Claims,

Saturday posed Petitions to be taken first.

and General Paper. Notice.-Consent Petitions must be presented, and copies

Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes,

Monday. left with the Secretary, on or before the Thursday preceding

11

Claims, and Further Directions. the Saturday on which it is intended they should be heard. Tuesday..... 12 Motions and General Paper.

{
28 } Appeals.
31 } Appeals.

Friday ..... June 1 { Petitions preal protein and Bankruptcy, Saturday

4} Appeals.
9} Appeals

.

Friday

i } Appeals.

Monday........ 11{

[ocr errors]

2

4

8

9

}

EQUITY CAUSE LISTS, TRINITY TERM, 1855. Johnson v. Cobb (F D, C) Surman v. Goodlake (M for

Reed v. Lockwood (CI)

decree) *** The following abbreviations have been adopted to Cooper v. Cooper (M for de. Lyon o. Lyon (M for decree) abridge the space the Cause Papers would otherwise have occu.

cree) pied: -A. Abated--Adj. Adjourned-A. T. After Term-Ap. Penhall v. Allen (Further con

Thompson 0. Drew (Further

consideration) Appeal-C. D. Cause Day-Cl. Claim-C. Costs—D. De.

sideration)

Ross v. De Havilland (M for murrer-E. Exceptions-F. D. Further Directions-M. Mo.

decree) tion-P. C. Pro Confesso-Pl. Plea— Ptn. Petition-R. Re- Summerfield r. Prichard (Fur.

ther consideration)

Eckersley o. Lea (Further conhearing-S. O. Stand Over-Sh. Short.

Duerden o. Lancaster (Cause) sideration, from chambers) Court of Chancery.

Borman v. Parkinson (Cause) Hill o. Tollitt (Further cons.)
Before the LORD CHANCELLOR.

Chadwick v. Truman (Cause) Ashby o. Wallis (C1)
APPEALS.

De Maltzalm v. Hammersley Hanbury v. Hussey (2) (FD,

C)

(M for decree) Maynell v. Surtees

Rogers v. Rogers
Meynell v. Surtees
Broughton v. Broughton (6)
Robinson v. Webb (Further Parr v. Jackson (CI)

Hartopp o. Hartopp (M for

consideration) Tench v. Cheese (5) Full Ct. Villebois o. Villebois

decree) Pennell 6. Smith

De Sorban o. Bland (M for
.

Full Ct.
Š

decree) Meek v. Ridler

Mildmay v. Ranken (Further Hooper v. Cook (Cause) consideration, from chamb.)

Devaynes o. Robinson (M for Whitham 0. Gill (Further con. Before the LORDS JUStices.

decree)

sideration) APPEALS.

Newcastle, Shields, and Sun. Markham v. Ivatt (M for dec.) Lake v. Brutton After Term Earl Mansfield o. Ogle (6) Not

derland Union Joint-stock Rogers v. Collingwood (CI) Rooth v. Tomlin.

before the 4th day of Apps.

Banking Co. o. Gledston Charrite v. Henniker (M for son (2) 3rd day of Robinson 0. Anderson

(Cause)

decree) Rooth v. Tomlin- Appeals Houghton o. Lees

Courtier v. Oram (3) (Further Shelford v. Kane (Cause) son (2) Turner v. Letts

consideration)

Berens v. Berens (Cause) Stanger o. Wilkins Not before Scott v. Scott

Att.-Gen. v. St. Cross Hospi- Evans o. Evans (Canse) the 4th day of Appeals Bullock v. Bennett

tal (Further consideration)

Wedderburn v. Wedderburn Lomax v. Ripley 15 O until Pound v. Vickers

Att.-Gen. v. Corporation of

(5) (E, F D, C) Rayne v. Ripley s after Term Perry v. Walker (2)

Ilchester (M for decree)

Wedderburn v. Wedderburn Lancashire Assurance Co. v. Desborough v. Harris

Att.-Gen. v. Blizard (M for (5) (E, F D, C)
Reddish
Minet o. Leman

decree)

Wedderburn o. Wedderburn Collinge v. Knight (4) Not be Paddon o. Richardson Att.-Gen. v. Corporation of (5) (E) fore the 4th day of Appeals Paddon r. Pease

Pevensey (Cause)

Beck v. Beck (M for decree) Ware o. Watson (2) Not before

CAUSE,

Proctor o. Durham (Cause) Smith v. Cheshire (Cause) the 4th day of Appeals Walker v. Walker (M for de. Hutt v. Lantour (Further con- Att.-Gen. v. Ward (2) (E, F Yeates v. Roberts

cree, Ptn).
sideration)

D, C)

Harryman o. Collins (2) (Fur. Watkins v. Hindmarsh (M for Before the Right Hon. the MASTER OF THE ROLLS.

ther consideration)

decree) Sh

Grove o. Laxton (M for dec.) Morris o. James (M for dec.) Causes, &c.

Smith v. Armstrong (Further Higgins v. Edmonds (CI) Sharpe o. Cosserat (Cause) Smith v. Bakes (Cause)

consideration)

Long o. Marsh (Further con. Fry 0. Noble (M for decree) Bayldon o. Milner (M for de. Benham v. Robertson (M for

sideration) Aspland v. Watte (Cause) cree)

decree)

Pinckney v. Tanner (5) (F D, Lane v. Jackson (Cause) Henry v. Thornton (Cause) Fifield v. Atkins (Cause)

C) Bullivant v. Pope (Cause) Mountain v. Sowden (Cause) Acaster v. Anderson (M for Re Mackenzie's) (Further Wray v. Modworth (M for de. Philpott 7. President and Go. decree)

Estate

consideracree) of St. George's Mills v. Drewitt (Cause)

Mackenzie o.

tion, from Monypenny v. Baker (Cause) Hospital (M for decree) Arnott o. Tyrrell (Sp. case)

Hemming chambers) Scott r. Robarts (Cause) Smith v. Smith (M for decree) Moody o. Payne (2) (FD,'C) Rodwell 0. Land (Cause) Drax v. Burton (À for decree) Daniel o. Fussell (M for dec.) Sudlow v. Dutch Rhenish Dolman v. Nokes (Cause) June 1

Earl of Craven v. Ure (M for Railway Co. (M for decree) Newton o. Kosh (M for dec.) Gouldin v. Howell (Cause) decree)

Costekerov. Batchelor (4) (F Simmons v. Rose (Further Clark v. Fenwick (Cause) Hope o. Liddell (Cause) D, C)

consideration) Lancaster o. Darlington (Cau.) Liddell v. Norton (M' for Morris v. Moss (M for dec.)

Husband o. Elyard (Cause) June 1

decree)

Thornton o. Hoyes (Cause) Thompson v. Barber (F D, C) Armstrong %. Armstrong (M Webster v. Bean (Cause) Lewis o. Rattenbury (Further Davies v. Dunkin (Cause) for decree) Bean v. Webster (Cause) consideration)

Lyne o. Lyne (Cause) Orrett v. Corser (M for dec.) Lowe v. Cresswell (Cause) James v. James (M for decree) Verriez o. Symes (Cause) Lord Kensington v. Bouverie Hall v. Clive (Cause) Morten v. Bradbury (Further Alston o. Hughes (Cause) (Further consideration) Fell v. Norman (M for decree) consideration)

Eedde v. Cartwright (Further Marryat v. Marryat (M for Bourne v. Shaw (Cause) Churchman v. Capon (2) (F consideration) decree) Tweddell o. Rogerson (M for D, C)

Re John Bennett) (Further Pennell v. Miller (Cause) decree)

Gerard v. Butler (CI)

Matthewman '0.

cons. from Price v. Hamblet (2) (Cause) Fitzgerald v. Morgan (Cause) Pye Smith o. Ibbotson (M for Stratton chambers) Parkins v. Lees (Cau.) June 9 | Ogden v. Ogden (Cause) decree)

Timmis o. Sutton (CI) Thompson v. Armitage (Cau.) | Clements v. Hall (M for dec.) Sporle v. Whyman (M for de Cowlishaw v. Hardy (Canse) Jennings v. Christopher (Ca.) Rotton o. Barron (Cause) cree)

Bunny o. Cannon (M for dec.) Ferraby v. Commercial Credit Sanders v. Weirr (Cause) Hodgson v. Coates (Cause) Frearn v. Dowling (M for dec.)

Mutual Assurance Society Bunny v. Hopkinson (Cause) Wood v. Stones (Cause) Att.-Gen. 0. Corporation of (Cause)

Goodfellow 0. Rider (M for Douglas v. Andrews (7) (F D, Totness (2) (F D, C) Littlejohnso. Household (Ca.) decree)

C)

Clarke v. Bailey (ci).
May 28

Marryat v. Marryat (Cause)
Bankart v. Kirkhouse (M for Richardson o. Heald (Cause)
decree)
Chodwick 0. Vickerman (M

Before Vice-Chancellor Sir RICHARD T. KINDERSLEY. Worthington o. Davenport (M for decree)

CAUSES, &c. for decree)

Ross v. Ross (M for decree) Gough v. Lewis (Cause, pt. | Tennant v. Parker (Cause) Rackham v. Gilbert (Cause) Williams v. Close (Cause) Gough v. Lewis I heard) Rumball 0. Poole (2) (FD, C) Morgan v. Thomas (Cause) Roberts v. Goldney (Cause) Lord o. Colvin (Cause) Williams v. Hughes (Cause) Clapham v. Manby (M for de Phillips v. Lewis (Further Colvin v. Lord Cause) Green o. Norton (4) (F D,C) cree)

consideration)

Rogers v. Hooper (Cause) Barron v. Barron (M for dec.)

vernors

}

on summons

Elder o. Maclean (3) (E, FD, Neely v. Lyall (Further cons.) | Acklam v. Acklam (M for de- | Shaw v. Fisher (F D, C)
C, Pon)
Bennett o. Powell (Cause) cree)

Climenson v. Hardy (2) (F D,
Kent v. Potter (Cause) Leonard v. Shackles (F D, C) Cooke o. Cooke (M for decree) C)
Greenwood o. Taylor (5) (E, Alcock v. Kempson (3) (F D, Richmond v. Hutchinson (M Carwen o. Alexander (Furthe-
FD, C)
C)
for decree)

consideration) Thompson o. Jeres (Cause) Church v. Marryat (Cause) Ward v. Bassett (5) (E, FD, French o. French (Cause) Hitchman o. Stewart (2) (Fur- Deacon v. Colquhoun (Further C)

Douglas v. Douglas (17) (FD, ther consideration)

consideration)
Jones v. Rose (F D, C)

C)
Evans o. Kinsey (Cause) Johnson 0. Tucker (Further Reeves v. Povoas (M for de- Emson v. Wilson (Cause)
Bowles o. Field (Cause)

consideration)

cree)

Marshall o. Bentley (Cause) Garner o. Moore (Cause) Wayne v. Lewis (2) (E, F D, Arbuckle v. Butler (Cause) Abbott 0. Abbott (Further Boughen u. Farrer (Sp. case) C)

Timms v. Watson (Further consideration) Ramsden o. Hirst (Ň for dec.) Barrett r. White (3) (FD, C) consideration)

Streatfield v. Streatfield (FurHarley o. Moon (Further con. Jervoise v. Jervoise (Cause) Dowley v. Munday (Cause) Sh ther consideration) sideration)

Coupland v. Coupland (M for Beames v. Smith (2) (Further Fisher o. More (3) (Cause) Monro o. Proctor (F D, C) decree)

consideration)

Fisher v. Hewitt (3) (Cause) Lacon d. Allen (Cause) Jenkyn v. Vaughan (Cause)

(Furth. cons. Gibson v. Bush (CI)

In re Canning Berry v. Charnock (M for de Goodall 0. Skerratt (Further

Anderson o. Milward (Further

Wallis v. Bell cree) consideration)

from chamb.) consideration) Dolman o. Curling (Cause) Andrews v. Pugh (Cause) Baker o. Cleeve (M for decree) Dawbney v. Smith (CI) Ashcroft o. Powell (3) (Cause) Paulet v. Jackson (2) (FD, C) Eads v. Williams (Further Fisher v. Bowden (M for dec.) Patch 0. Graves (M for dec.) Clavering v. Ellison (Cause) consideration)

Taylor v. Taylor (Cause) Stephenson o. Popple (2) (Ca.) Jordan v. Frost (M for decrée) Clare v. Clare (3) (FD, C) Gardner o. Jones (M for dec.) Welch o. Coles (F D, C) Smith v. Foster (Cause) Crompton v. Huber (Further Jones 0. Morice (M for dec.) Dickenson o. Peacock (Fur- Taylor v. Taylor (M for dec.) consideration)

Booth v. Coulton (M for dec.) ther consideration)

Durning v. Mather (CI) Sh Smith o. Angier (Further con- Plumley v. Plumley (FD, C) Smith o. Banbury (F D, C, Garner 9. Moore (Subsequent sideration)

Clarke v. Goddard (Cause) Ptn)

FD, C)

Iveson v. Hansley (F D, C) Sumner v. Strachan (Further Attorney-Gen. o. Drapers Co. Newman . Cook (CI) Rhodes v. Rhodes (2) (FDC) consideration) (Cause)

Byam v. Wellum (2) (Cause) Lambkin v. Cook (CI) Att.-Gen. v. Alford (Further Dresser 0. Hoare (M for dec.) Deeks v. Stanhope (4) (Cause) Plaisto v. Goodeve (Cause) consideration) Wiles o. Gresham (Further Bunny v. Turner (Cause) Blaker o. Harmer (Cause) Essex o. Learmouth (F D, C) consideration)

Beavers v. Beavers (F D, C) Bensusan o. Nehemias (2) (E, Scott o. Davis (F D, C) Banks o. Braithwaite (F D, C) Woodhouse o. Slater (CI) F D, C)

Tord v. Bryant (F D, C) Att.-Gen. o. Baines (F D, C) Ross v. Raven (Cause) Bennett v. Jones (M for dec.) Lee v. Green (M for decree) Pogson o. Burton (FD, C) Fallows o. Lowe(M for decree) Tardrew o. Howell (3) (F D, Parker o. Parker (M for dec.) Adlington 1. Chippendale Wilton v. Colvin (Special case) C)

Harding v. Harding (F D, C) (Further consideration) Melling v. Leak (CI)

Snow v. Dun (F D, C) Lees v. Clarke (Cause) Fletcher 1. Moore (Supplem. Harrison v. Guest (Cause) Field v. Cary (Further consi. Keedwell v. Cook (FD, C) cause) Hodson v. Buxton (Cause) deration)

Clark v. Clark (3) (F D, C) Weston t. Hobson (F D, C) Milnes 0. Aked (M for decree) Stronghill o. Gullever (CI) Thewles v. Farrer (M for dec.) Jones v. Lodge (4) (FD, C) Willoughby o. Sanders (M for Evered v. Hasted (Cause) Colyer o. Fooks (Cause) Carter v. Sanders (Further decree)

In re Hackett's ) (Further Hay v. Ker (Cause) consideration) Henderson v. Dodds (2) (M Estate

consid. on Teague o. Fisher (Cause) Eckford v. Roome (F D, C) for decree)

White o. Hackett summons) Hassell v. Booth (Cause) Shelley r. Clarke (FD, C) Att.-Gen. v. Sheppard (M for Morley v. Morley (3) (M for Smith v. Farr (9) (Further Fagge v. Sandys (M for dec.) decree)

decree)

consideration) Miller 6. Pridden (Further Fanshaw v. Walter (3) (F D, Reid v. Kenrick (Sp. case) Peacock v. Foster (M for dec.) consideration)

C)

Earl Fitzwilliam o. Price (M Gatty v. Croft (4) (F D, C) Whittingstall o. Field (Fur- Hallpike v. Rowden (2) (Ca.) for decree)

Stoddart o. Nelson (CI) ther consideration)

Lucas v. Lucas (10) (FD, c) Barker o. Price (Cause) Roderick v. Brandon (FD, C) Christ's Hospital o. Granger Durant v. Durant (2) (Further Barton o. Kingsbury (Further Pugh o. Mayor, &c. of Wey. (F D, C, Pun) consideration) consideration)

mouth (Cause).
Pattenden o. Hobson (2) (Fur- Langford o. Gillman (F D, C)
ther consideration)
Dempster o. Dempster (F D,

Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.
Earl of Haddington o. Crosse C)
(F D, C)
Forge v. Dodsworth (2) (Ca.)

Causes, &c.
Seabrook 0. Halden (F D, C) Thurnall v. Rayner (Cause) Tudway o. Jones (Plea) In Lindfield (Further
Smedley v. Potter }(Cause)

Lubbock o. Murphy (4) (Ca.) Manby v. Rewicke (D) Horton v. Lind. consid. on Shelton o. Potter Cotterill v. Cotterill (Cause) Guy v. Spice (D)

field

summons) Hope o. Hope (Special case) Baker o. Oliver (Further con- Ward v. Swift (6) (FD, C) I Cooper v. Cooper (Sp. case) Fryer o. Rogers (2) (Further sideration)

Ward o. Swift (2) (Sup.cau.) } Pickfordo. Brown (M for dec.) consideration)

Evans o. Evans (2) (F D, C) Turner v. Irlam (À for decree) Jossaume o. Wade (Further Olney u. Bates (Further con

consideration) sideration)

Darby v. Darby (Cause) consideration, M) SO Smith 0. Hurlbutt (Further Atherton v. Mather (CI) Fletcher v. Holland (M for Rooper v. Harrison (Cause) consideration) Elkington v. Aplin (2) (CI) decree).

Dewar v. Ellwood (Cause) Silliborne t. Newport (2)

Pulling o. Crawshaw (Cause) (Further consideration) Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. STUART.

Att.-Gen. v. Stephens (M for Rider v. Wood (Special case) decree)

Bond v. England (Sp. case) PLEAS, DEMURRERS, CAUSES, &c.

Howell ó. Price (Further con- Lloyd v. Holme (Special case) M'Intosh o. Great Western | Hunt v. Dorsett (M for dec.) sideration)

Last v. Goldsmith (F D, C). Railway Co. (Cause, pt.bd.) Twynam 0. Hudson (M for Parr v. Jewell (Cause) Dipple o. Smart (F D, C) Duke of Beaufort v. Glynn (D) decree)

Hillier v. Hayman (Cause) Rhodes v. Beart (F D, C) Goode o. Hollier (Cause) Twynam v. Hudson (M for Wyatt o. Haslewood (Cause) Smith v. Tite (F D, C) Ince o. Ince (Cause)

decree)

Forster o.

Waddington (Cau.) | Jeffery v. Jeffery (M for dec.) Parker v. Clarke (Cause) Campbell o. Hooper (Cause) Gwyon v. Gwyon (Cause, M Clark v. Gill (M for decree) Wilshire o. Norfolk Railway Simpson v. Chapman (Further for decree)

Lechmere o. Curtler (Sp. case) Co. (Cause)

consideration, M)

Shaw v. Farrer (Cause) Perry v. Turpin (Cause) Scales d. Maude (Cause) Kent o. Rodham (Cause)

Walker o.

Simpson (M for de- Balls v. Perry (M for decree) Rhodes o. Moxbay (F D, C) Pullen o. Morgan (Cause) cree)

Potter v. Jenkinson (Cause)

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »