Imágenes de páginas

him, and afterwards a deed is executed and a fine levied, person, who has a reversionary interest in stock standwith the view of putting an end to the settlement and ing in the names of trustees, bequeaths the same to of barring such charge, but without having that effect, another person, and appoints one of the trustees her and, by the second deed, another charge to the same executor, and the legatee made a general assignment of amount is created in favour of the lady, who takes a his estate and effects to the other trustee for the beneless beneficial interest, in other respects, under the se-fit of his creditors, of which no notice is given to the cond deed than under the first, and such second charge executor, who had not assented to the bequest, and the appears, upon the face of the deed, to have been in- legatee afterwards assigns the stock by way of morttended to be a substitute for the charge created by the gage, of which notice is given to the executor, the last first deed; both charges will, nevertheless, be establish- assignee has the priority ; because notice to the executor ed: the first, because it was never barred; and the se- is necessary where the bequest has not been assented to cond, because the wife, especially after the lapse of by him, and constructive notice to the trustees alone, by very many years since the execution of the deed, means of the actual information of the one who is the cannot be deprived of the charge which she had stipu- first assignee, is not sufficient, at least where the other lated for by the second deed, merely because her husband trustee who is also executor, had no actual information of did not take the proper means to extinguish the first the first assignment in any way. Nor did the pendency of charge. Farr v. Sheriffe and Dykes v. Farr, 15 Law J. a suit for carrying into effect the trusts of the first as89–V. C. W.

signment constitute notice of the assignment of the Signing a Consent to an Exchange under a Mistake.]

stock in question, if there was no specific claim made in Where a proprietor of land in a parish about to be in

that suit to the legacy in question. Holt v. Derell, 4 closed under an act of Parliament, signs a consent to

Hare, 446; 15 Law J. 14. exchange certain pieces of ground belonging to him, designated therein by numbers corresponding to the

Notice-See Mortgage.numbers by which the same are distinguished in a map and terrier used for the purposes of the inclosure

PARTNERSHIP. and previously inspected by his agent, and the commissioner thereupon allots those pieces of ground in ex

Payment of Interest by surviving Partners, one of change, and such exchange is approved of by the agent

whom is the Executor of the deceased Partner-Statute of of the proprietor, and the allottee of one of them is let 1.Limitations. Where money is deposited with a bankinto possession, and begins to exercise acts of owner

| ing firm, and one of the partners dies, and appoints an

other of the partners his executor, subsequent payments ship, with the consent of the agent; the proprietor has no right to repudiate the consent so signed by him and / of interest by the bank, even under its original name or the exchange made in consequence thereof, and to ask

style, are not to be deemed payments by the executor for an injunction to restrain the commissioner from

of the deceased partner in his character of executor, making his award accordingly, upon the ground, that,

and will not keep alive the debt as against the real or before the consent was drawn up, he (the proprietor)

personal estate of the deceased partner, so as to prevent had instructed his agent not to permit the exchange

the Statute of Limitations from barring the same as of that piece of ground except for other land of the like

against such estate. Way v. Bassett, 15 Law J. l

V.C. W. nature; and that he, (the proprietor), on signing such consent, concluded that it did not comprise that piece of

PERPETUITY. ground, when, in reality, it did comprise it, and the same was allotted in exchange for land of a different

Power to cut down Timber until there should be a Ten nature: the restriction imposed on the agent not havingnant in Tail of full Age, and to invest the Proceeds in been communicated by him to the commissioner. For | Land.]—Where an estate is devised in strict settlement, the proprietor must be the sufferer by the neglect of his and the will, after restraining each tenant for life from agent, and by his own negligence in not inquiring what | cutting timber and underwood, except for repairs, deproperty was designated by the numbers in the consent clares that it shall be lawful for the executors, at any before signing it. And, in such case, if the proprietor

time, until some person entitled in possession to an esbrings an action of ejectment for the piece of ground in

tate tail or some greater estate shall attain the age of question, he may be restrained, by an injunction, from

twenty-one years, to enter and cut timber and underproceeding with it. Duke of Beaufort v. Neeld, 12 Cl.

wood, and directs them from time to time, with the & Fin. 248.

consent and approbation of the persons entitled to the See “ Legacy.

rents and profits of the estate, to invest the residue of

the proceeds arising from such timber and underwood, MORTGAGE.

after payment of debts and legacies, in the purchase of

lands, to be settled to the same uses as the estate deLiability in respect of Shares in a Banking Company | vised; the power, whether it be imperative or permisafter Payment of the Mortgage Debt and Requisition to sive only, is voiá, as a whole ; because timber stands re-transfer the Shares.]— Where shares in a banking

upon the same footing as the annual rents and profits company are transferred by way of mortgage, and after

of an estate in regard to the rule against accumulation wards the debt is paid off, and the mortgagor and mort- beyond a certain period and the rights of a tenant in gagee apply to the directors of the company to have the

tail; and if such a trust as that above mentioned were shares re-transferred, the mortgagee becomes a trustee

sustained, it would derogate from the rights of each infor the mortgagor from that time, and, as such, entitled

fant tenant in tail, and there might be an accumulation to an indemnity in equity from his cestui que trust in

for ages, inasmuch as the event of there being a tenant in respect of calls on other payments required to be made tail of the age of twenty-one might not happen for hunduring the interval between the requisition to re-transfer dreds of vea

dreds of years, perhaps never. And not only is the the shares and the actual re-transfer thereof. Phene v. I power void as a whole, but it cannot be apportioned so Gillon, 15 Law J. 65–V. C. W. In this case it was

as to be supported so far as it does not transgress the agreed that the mortgagee should not be liable for any limits allowed by law. Ferrand v. Wilson, 4 Hare, calls or other payments in respect of the shares; but 344, and 15 Law J. 41, abstracted from the latter rethe decision does not appear to have been in any way

in any way port. grounded on that circumstance.

Although in this case the learned judge held that Priority of subsequent Mortgagee of Stock over Assign- the power could not be apportioned, yet he said that he ment for the Benefit of Creditors-Notice.]-Where a l had the strongest impression, that, if the mind of the

Bickford .. Bickfor

testator be, that successive acts shall be done from year Wrightson v. Macauley (Ap) | Cooper v. Pitcher (Ap) to year, commencing with the year after his death, and Gompertz 0. Gompertz (3 Salkeld v. Johnson (on eq. re.) if each of these acts be complete in itself, (as felling, causes, Ap)

Booth o. Creswicke (Ap) timber, and converting the proceeds into land upon the Morris v. Howse la Forbes ». Leeming (Ap) uses of a settlement), and if each act is an exact fulfil- | Horseman v. Abbey Sap Andrews v. Lockwood (Ap) ment, as far as it goes, of the intention of the testator,

he intention of the testator Thomas v. Blackman (Ap) Stocker o. Dawson (4 ca., Ap) both as to the thing done and the parties to be benefited

Bonds o. Slyman (Ap) Sharp o. Day (2 Ap) May 27 by it, there is no ground why the court should not sustain such a power, as long as the exercise of it, deter

Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND. mined by events as they stand at the death of the tes PLEAS, DEMURRERS, CAUSES, AND FURTHER DIRECTIONS: tator, will not be affected by the law against perpetui- Mainwaring v. Dickenson (E | Andrew v. Moore (F D, C) ties, and should not hold the power void only for the L as to answer)

Wait v. Horton (FD, C) excess. But he did not venture to act upon that opin- Bell v. Earl of Mexborough Montague v. Cator (F D, C) ion, as, by so doing, he considered that he should be L (D)

Groom v. Stinton (4 causes) contravening the language of other cases, particularly Sanders v. Kelsey (D)

Elliott v. Elliott that of Waro v. Polhill, 17 Ves. 267. Ib., 16 Law J., Colombine v. Chichester (2D) Ford ». Wastall 50, 51.

Moore ». Mitchell (2 D) Corbett o. Limbrick (F D, C)


Att.-Gen. 0. Earl of Devon SeeRemoteness."

| (part heard) May 25 Baxter v. Abbott (F D, C)

Johnson o. Forrester (F D) Woods o. Woods (5 causes) PORTIONS.

Henderson o. Eason (E, FD, Webb v. Gowar Right of the owner of Land charged with Portions to Ptn)

Bagshaw v. Macneil have them raised before they are payable. ]-Where real Terry'o. Wacher

De Beauvoir v. De Beauvoir estate is limited for a term of years, upon trust, out of Simpson o. Holt (F D, C) (F D, C) the rents, or by mortgage or sale, to raise a certain sum | Garrod v. Moor

Beale v. Warder (rehearing) varying in amount according to the number of the Smale o. Bickford 1 Turner v. Simcock (F D, C) children, and to be paid at a certain age or on marri

Booth v. Lightfoot (FD, C) age, with interest at 5l. per cent. in the meantime for

Peacock v. Kernot

Waugh o. Waugh their maintenance, the eldest son is not entitled to

Morrison v. Watkins

Tufnel v. Drever

Wright v. Barnewell (E,FD Ludlow v. Guilleband (F D, C) have the portions raised and invested, and his estate

Greenway o. Buchanan Parris o. Loosmore (2 causes) discharged, before any of the portions are payable;

Walton o. Morritt

Hurst v. Kemp because younger children ought not to be deprived of

Dobson v. Lyle (F D, C) Ashton v. Higginbottom (2 c.) the security of the land, or be obliged to take the

Parker o. Hawkes (E) Bourne v. Hassell (2 causes) lower rate of interest in the funds. And, for the same Davison v. Bagley

Maitland v. Rodger (2 causes) reason, the eldest son is not entitled to have the portion Penny v. Turner

Howell 0. Saer (2 causes) of the youngest child raised and invested, when the Giffard v. Withington

Teague o. Woodfall portions of the elder children are payable, but before Daniel v. Hill

Att.-Gen. v. East India Co. the portion of the youngest is payable. Sheppard v. Insole v. Featherstonbaugh Plowden o. Thorpe Wilson, 4 Hare, 392.

Lane v. Durant (E, F D) Warne v. Golding (This Part to be concluded next week).

Pocock v. Johnson

White o. Thorndell
Cope o. Lewis

Major v. Major
Evans v. Hunter

Pinkey v. Remmett
Court Papers.

Attorney-Gen. o. Trevanion Bailey v. Fardell (F D, C)
Stert v. Cooke

East India Co. v. Coopers' Co.

Blundell v. Gladstone (4 caus. Baker o. Bayldon EQUITY CAUSE LISTS, TRINITY TERM, 1846. | FD

De Visme o. Graham (2 caus.)

Hodgkinsonv. Barrow (FD,C) | Hollings v. Kirkby (3 causes) ** The following abbreviations have been adopted to

Colbourn o. Coling

Sh abridge the space the Cause Papers would otherwise have occupied: - A. Abated-Adj. Adjourned-A. T. After Term-Ap.

Langton . Langton (2 caus.) Roberts v. Cardell (E)

Gowar v. Bennett (FD) Cook v. Tinney
Appeal-C. D. Cause Day-C. Costs-D. Demurrer-E. Ex-
ceptions-F. D. Further Directions—M. Motion--P. C. Pro

Hickson 0. Smith (at deft. Baker v. Walton

De Sola v. Mesnard
Confesso-Pl. Plea-Ptn. Petition-R. Re-hearing—S. O.

Palmer v. Pattison (F D, C) Campbell v. London and Stand Over-Sh. Short.

Minter v. Wraith (FD, C) Brighton Railway Co. Court of Chancery.

Mason v. Wakeman (E) Whitsed o. Jackson (F D, C) Before the LORD CHANCELLOR.

Hemming v. Spiers (!) Langston v. Manby Sh

Chambers v. Waters (É) Stephens v. Green (2 causes) APPEALS.

Lord Beresford v. Archbishop Jessop v. Jessop
Strickland o. Strick-7 (Ap) | Mitford v. Reynolds (E) | By of Armagh (F D, C) MDermot v. Wilcox (2 cau.)
Day Johnson o. Ditto (FD) ) ord. Smith v. Robinson

Flight v. Bushby
Ditto o. Boynton ? to be Thwaites v. Foreman (Ap) Foster v. Vernon (F D, C) Blair v. Bromley
Ditto o. Strickland Jfixed. Watts v. Lord Eglinton (Ap) Johnstone v. Lumb (F D, C) Burt v. Burnham
Vandeleur v. Blagrave (Ap) To Curson v. Belworthy (Ap) Vale v. Sherwood (7 causes, F Robertson v. Lockie
fix a day
Watson o. Parker (Ap)


Nicholson v. Locke (2 causes) Coore o. Lowndes (Ap) To fix | Dietrichson v. Cabburn (Ap) Haffenden v. Wood (E) Warwick v. Richardson (E)'

Bellamy o. Sabine (Ap) Branscomb o. Branscombe (F | Morgan o. Kingdon (F ), C) Minor 7. Minor (2 Ap)) To Att.-Gen. o. Malkin (Cause by ID, C)

Marshall v. Marshall (F D, C) Ditto v. Ditto (Suppl. fix a order)

Stammers v. Halliby (3 ca.) Dolland v. Reed suit) day Johnson v. Child (Ap)


Lewis v. Hinton (F D, C) Dalton o. Hayter (Ap) To fix Kidd v. North (Ap)

Ditto v. Battye (by order) Duncombe o. Levy
Dord o. Wightwick (Ap) | Gray v. Gray (3 causes, É D) | Wilson v. Williams
Att.-General o. Masters and Molesworth 0. Howard (Ap) Dorville v. Wolff (F D, C) Dell v. Dell
Wardens, &c. of the City of Carmichael o. Carmichael (Ap) | Richards v. Patterson (FD,C) | Burnett o. Mackenby

Bristol (Ap) To fix a day Hawkes v. Howell (Ap) Roach v. Downer (F D, C Sh Robotham v. Amphlett (E)
Younghusband 0. Gisborne Heming v. Swinnerton (Ap) Beatson v. Beatson

Poole v. Troughton Sh (Ap, part heard) Trail v. Bull (Ap)

Woodman v. Madgen (F D, C) Fraser v. Jones Whitworth v. Gangan (Ap) Youde v. Jones (Ap)

Att.-Gen. v. Pearson (E,FD) Brown v. Colven Sh Bush o. Shipman (Ap) Lawrence v. Bowle (Cause by Cradock v. Piper (F), C) sh Halford o. Staines Black v. Chaytor (Ap)


| Dawson v. Chappell (F D, C) | Ripin v. Dolman

a day

a day



Goldsmid v. Drewe (F D, C) Fauldnig v. Newborn

A. J. Hope o. Hope

Jackson o. Jackson
Pepper v. Deeker
Ditto v. Shiriff
H. J. Hope v. Hope

Jackson v. Jackson
Richardson o. Horton

r(FD, Jackson o. Jackson
Before the Vice-Chancellor Knight BRUCE.

| Attorney-Gen. o. Maclean Ditto v. Taylor


Wedderburn v. Wedder-(E) Curry v. Curry (Pl) Brent v. Brown Att.-Gen. v. Bedingfield T.T. | Wedderburn o. Colvill

CD Dodsworth o. Lord Kinnaird Chaplin v. Garvick /

Hele v. Bexley 1(E) SO to file Douglas v. Colvill (at deft, req.) Mich. T. Ditto v. Chambers

Ditto o. Ditto > Supp. Bill | Hodginson v. Wyatt (E, FD, Ditto v. Ditto Mich. T. | Hamond v. Swayne (F D, C) Campbell v. Crook (E)

Taylor v. Taylor May 23 Morehouse v. Newton Augerand v. Parry (pt. heard) Clark v. Chuck
Middleton v. Wolff
Sowden v. Marriott

Hodgkinson v. Cooper (E, Bagshaw o. Parker
Rowe v. Hardey May 22 Collis v. Collis

part heard)

Bagshaw v. Parker Hanwell v. Denton (F D, C) Denman v. Mead

Hedges 9. Harper (F D, C) Staunton v. Scott Caton v. Rideout July 17 Ditto v. Harding §

Lockhart o. Hardy

Staunton v. Power }(FD,C) Att.-Gen. v. Mayor, &c. of Ulph v. Darlington

Thomas v. Hardy

Brown v. Staunton Newcastle-upon-Tyne Haigh o. Dixon (F D, C) Newman r. Hardy

| Whitcher v. Penley (F D, C) Boilean v. Rudlin May 22 Richards v. Haynes

Hardy v. Lockhart

Meire o. Williams
Hawthorne v. James (FD, C) | Jones v. Jones

Lockhart v. Arundell ( c) Best o. Davis (E)
May 22
Fuller v. Fuller
Lockhart v. Lee

Bather v. Kearsley
Wykes v. Higginson (F D, C) Roper v. Yallop

Lockhart 1. Hardy

Bather o. Frasers
Thomas v. Floud (E)
Hales v. Plowden
Lockhart v. Crouch

Meyer v. Montriou (E, FD,
Ditto v. Ditto (FDC) Hales v. Darell (5 cau. FD, C) Churchman v. Capon (F D,C) C)
Topham v. Buxton
Scott v. Fenning

Mich. Term

Jones v. Humphreys (FD,C) Attorney-Gen. v. Harvey Langdon v. James

Richardson v. Horton

Att.-Gen. o. Heron (F D, C) Mounsey v. Mitchell Attorney-Gen, v. Pearson Richardson v. Taylor

De Morlaincourt v. Hales (F Smith v. Webster (F D, C) Attorney-Gen. v. Berry Richardson v. Derby

D, C)
Davies v. Salisbury
Ireland v. Cox (F D, C) Sh Woodcock v. Tarbuck

Wood v. Pattison
Morley v. Bridges

Helliwell v. Briggs (2 causes) | Kinder v. Lord Ash- let Wood o. Black (FDC) Baker v. Smith Hanbury v. Ward


Wood v. Davy J Ditto o. Baker

Querrill v. Binnimore (F D, Kinder v. Pennell Lacey v. Ingle


Barnes v. Hastings S O to file
Goodrick v. Exall

Lashman v. Lashman (F D, C) interrogatories
Malins v. Price
Butcher v. Rich (F D, C)

Attorney-Gen. v. Roose Todd v. Wilson
Oldfield v. Tartt (F D, C) Caledonian In. Co. v. Gibb Harris v. Farwell (One point | Page v. Horne

only) 1st CD

Ryall v. Hannam
Before the Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.

Hargrane v. Hargrane

Smurfitt v. Bigge Causes, Further DIRECTIONS, AND EXCEPTIONS.

Sanderson v. Dobson

Woolard v. Hill Sh

Att.-Gen. v. Evans 1 1st CD Attorney-Gen. v. Bedingfield Hole v. Pearse Bailey o. Lambert

Att.-Gen. v. Davies / after T. (Hammond's Charity) Phillips v. Meinertzhagen To Flight v. Marriatt

Dowden v. Hook 1 fix a day

Attorney-Gen. v. Bedingfield Lowes v. Lowes (F D, C)

}1st CD Dowden v. Dowden

(Yerker's Charity) Beadman v. Beadman (F D) York v. Pole

Martin v. Sedgwick 1

Pennell o. Cliffe
Ditto v. Collins
Martin o. Cole

Hedges v. Harper
Ward v. Key After term Bower v. Scott

Wilson v. Sir William Edon Hedges v. Harper
Lancaster v. Jackson
Western v. Wood (E, 2 sets)
Wilson v. John Edon

Carr v. Heuderson (E) Thomas v. Reynolds (E) SO Teschemaker v. Eccles

Brown v. Bullpitt

Bate v. Governor and Co. of Preston v. Wilson May 22 Sayers v. Lacon (E)

Stone v. Stone

the Bank of England Stinton v. Avern Ditto v. Ditto (FD)

Madgwick v. Madgwick (F D, | Dashwood o. Coffin
Gibson v. Ings
Edye v. Hunter

Coffin v. Coffin
Sharland v. Mildon

Jackson v. Pickering (F DI Garth v. Maclean

Hutchinson v. Ditto (2 ca.) S Shafto v. Shafto

Joynson v. Twigg
Rodgers v. Nowell (part hd.) | White v. Van Sandau /

Court of Queen's Bench.
Ditto v. Hedges Š

Cotterell v. Homer May 23 Mellon v. Stanley (F D) REMAINING UNDETERMINED AT THE END OF THE SIT.
Fyson v. Adams May 22 Ditto v. Ditto (cause) }

Allen v. Knight (part heard) | Walker v. Sharpe
Sweeting v. Hellard (F D, C)

May 22

Lincoln-Saffery v. Wray Ward v. Ward Burch v. Western (E) Lond.- Lowe o. Penn

Salop-Stokes o. Boycott Ditto v. Whitmore Harrison v. Harrison (FD,C) EasteR TERM, 1845.

Monmth.-Williams v. Stiven Alsager v. Miller sh

Glamorgan-Doe d. Simpson

Chester—Doe d. Reg. v. Abp.
Lashbury v. Perks
Harrison v. Harrison Sh

v. John

of York (part hd.) Paterson v. Wilson May 22 Clark v. Appleton Lana

Tried during Easter Term, pieton Ç(FD. C) | Devon-Barratt v. Oliver

Devon_Barratt » Olive
Ditto v. Belcher
Ditto v. Clark (FD, 9)


Doe d. Molesworth
Lander v. Kendall
M'Mahon v. Burchell (F D,

0. Sleeman (part

| Midd.--Hopkins r. RichardJones v. Thomas C)



Somer.-Lambert v. Lyddon TRINITY TERM, 1845. Rolls Court.

Northum.-- Bolam v. Shaw Midd.-Rich v. Dix

Durham-Ray v. Thompson Lond.-Curling ». Shepherd

Reg. v. Gt. North

, Sheringham v. Collins Earl Nelson v. Lord Bridford Tristram v. Roberts (D, part

of England Rail.

,, Day t. Edwards heard)

way Co. Hulkes v. Beauclerk (Cause)

Sedgwick v. Hammon Ryves v. Duke of Wellington


Hansell v. Hutton Bainbridge o. Baddeley (D)'

York-Doe d. Ld. Downe v.

Tried duriny Trinity Term, (D) Att.-Gen. o. Ironmongers’Co. | M Clelland v. Cotesworth (D) ||


Thompson (F D, C)

Midd.-Paull o. Simpson Salmon v. Anderson (D)

Ld. Visct. Downe o. Fordyce v. Bridges (Cause)

, Same

Mitchell o. King Lancaster v. Evors'? (FD,

Phillips v. Broadley

MICHAELMAS TERM, 1845. Lancaster v. Morley ŚC) Walton v. Potter Mich. Term

Petch v. Lyon

Midd.-Wimberley r. Hunt Lindgren v. Lindgren (F D, C) | A. J. B. Hope o. Hope

James o. Brook

1 Baker u. Drew


May 23



Midd.—Reg. v. Thornton | Tried during Hilary Term, Nind o. Parry

Smith u. Ball
Reg. o. Gompertz

Ranger u. Parry

Munden o. Duke of Brunswick Gibbons o. Hunter Midd.—Lovelock o. Franklyn Loome v. Oldfield

*Doe d. Hawksworth 0.
Goode v. Cochrane
Herbert v. Booth & ors.

Ford v. Beech

Newton v. Boodle

Parnell v. Jones
Midd. - Pembertono. Vaughan
Jacobs o. Dawes

Same v. Rowe and Norman Mitchell o. Johnson
Lond.-Buisson o. Staunton
, Thompson v. Pettit
Fielding v. Daniels

Levy o. Webb
Browne v. Harnor

Vincent v. Dore

*Cobb v. Allan & an. Lond.-Curtis v. Pugh , Welsh & an. o. Reed

Hutt v. Morrell
Murrieta o. Oldfield

De Freiso. Littlewood
Williams o. Chambers


Follett v. M'Andrew
Eadon v. Branscomb

Nicholls 0. Stretton
Stafford-Skerratt v. Christie

Tucker v. Clarkson
Blagg v. Gibson

Wrightup v. Greenacre
Reg. o. Parker
» Biddlestone v.Burdett

| Andrewes v. Lord Lyndhurst Gosling v. Veley & an.
Esser-Rogers v. Kennay
Kent-Doe d. Jacobs v. Phil.
Nicoll v. Orgill

Wakefield & an, v. Brown , Doe d. Goody v. Carter

O'Neill v. Bundle

Barley v. Walford
Surrey-Gillett o. Bullivant
Sussex-Standon v. Chrismas

*Doe d. Renow v. Ashley Harrold v. Whitaker
Youell o. Cross

Kine v. Evershed

Lynill & an. v. Challender Pollitt v. Forest & ors.
Archer o. Smyth
Surrey-Pemberton v. Colls

*Scadding v. Lorant

Cardwell & ors. v. Holgate
Doe d. Pennington

Samuel o. Green

Bull & an. v. Taylor & ors. Giles o. Giles
Durham-Hills v. Mesnard
v. Barrell

Ray v. Hirst
York-Mountain o. Groves

| Gatty o. Field
Northamp-Suttonv.Maquire 10
Cardiff—Taylor o. Clay & an.
, Worth o. Gresham

ENLARGED RULES ,,· Doed. Lord v. Kings.

Liverpool-Doe d. Haywood
0. Tinsley

Carmarth - Protheroe v.Jones
Chester-Joinson o. Oldfield

Those marked thus * are to be heard in the Bail Court. , Chambers v. Thomas

Davis v. Falk

First Day.

| *Lane v. Horlock Doe d. Groves v. , Same v. Same

Raworth o. King

*Doe d. Body v. Cox Groves 1 Same v. Same

Miles v. Williams

Wilton v. Chambers Cardigan-Doe d. Jenkins v. Glamorgan-Doe d. Richards

Same v. Same *Doe d. Davies v. Roe

v. Evans Davies

*In re Darby & ors.

Same v. Same Brecon - Mayberyv. Mansfield » Doe d. Bennett

Same o. Same *In re Wilson & ors.

0. Harry York-Smith o. Smith

*Rose v. The Port Talbot Co. Carmarth.-Thomas o. Frede.

Trix & Wife v. Thorne , Marshall v. Powell

Boosey o. Davidson

Reg. o. Gardiner ,

ricks Spence o. Meynell

*Doe d. Pennington v. Taniere Same v. Same

Reg. v. The Inhabitants of , Doe d. Norton o.


Lincoln-Chapman v. Rawson | Reg. 8. Pemberton

Stafford - Whitmore o. Leak Reg. v. Sharp
Bainbridge v. Bourne

Third Day.
Wilkinson 0.. Hay-
Hereford_Evans v. Horniatt | Reg. v. The Justices of Devon

*Ex parte Overton, in re Peers
Glo'ster-Garbett v. Adams | Reg. v. Bluck, Clerk

Bowen v. Minter Same v. Same ... Doe d. Dyke v. Dyke Reg. v. The Dean and Chapter

*Thomas v. Jacobs & ors.

of Chester
Bainbridge v. Lax
Somerset-Parnell v. Smith

Reg. v. Sanders
Durham-Smith v. Hopper
Devon-Woolmer v. Toby

Reg. v. The Bishop of Chester
*Reg. 0. The Recorder of

Reg. o. Baron de Bode
Reed v. Same

Hinde v. Raine

Fifth Day.
Deron-Doe d. Earl of Egre.

Reg. o. The Justices of Gla.
Willoughby v. Willoughby
mont o. Sydenham

Stokoe & an. o. Winship

morganshire. Mayor of Exeter v. Brooks o. Bockett

Second Day.

Monday, June 1, by consent.
Same v. Same
Harvey & an.

Page 0. Hatchett

*Reg. o. The Justices of Ely , Damereliv. Protheroe Belcher o. Gummow *Dovell v. Jeve

(two cases) , Schank v. Sweetland

Rogers v. Brenton Cornwall-Marshall o. Hicks

Doe d. Earl of Egremont v.
Som'set-Doed. Earl of Egre-

mont v. Williams
Musgrove v. Emerson

For Wednesday, May 27.
Bristol - Addison v. Gibson

Cocker o. Musgrove
May v. Burdett

Middlesex .... Reg. v. Inhabitants of Mile End, Old Town. HILARY TERM, 1846.

Yorkshire .... -
Hope v. Harman

-Inhabitants of Northowram. Midd. - Page o. Hatchett Reg. v. Corporation of Man.

Devonshire ... - Inhabitants of Newton Ferrars. Hunter o. Caldwell

Surrey | chester

Churchwardens of St. Mary, Lambeth. Doe d. Tebbutt & ors. Dobson v. Blackmore

Leicestershire.. Inhabitants of Radcliffe Culey. 1. Brent & ors. Doe d. Earl of Egremont o.

Lincolnshire .. - Trustees of the river Welland. Lond.-Whyte v. Burnby Courtenay

Hampshire.... - Inhabitants of Molesworth. Bond & an. v. Nurse Doe d. Dayman v. Moore

Devonshire ...

Inhabitants of Holne. Turner o. Ambler Tanner v. Moore

Essex........ - Inhabitants of Saffron Walden. Reg. v. Kensington | Inkseep v. Harper

Buckinghamsh. - Churchwardens of Aylesbury with


Middlesex .... Inhabitants of St. Giles in the Fields. SPECIAL CASES AND DEMURRERS

Surrey .......

For TRINITY Term, 1846.

Middlesex .... - Inhabitants of St. Clement's Danes.

Staffordshire .. - Pratt. Tbose marked thus * are Special cases—the rest are demurrers.

Northumberland - Newcastle and Carlisle Railway Co. FOR ARGUMENT. Sharp v. Watts

Middlesex .... Inhabitants of St. Anne, Westminster. *Dale o. Pollard & ors. (stands Whitaker v. Richards Worcestershire Birmingham & Gloucester Railw. Co. orer till judgment given in Frost o. Lloyd & an.

Devonshire ... Griffin. Gosling v. Veley & an.) Wilkinson v. Gaston (restored) New Sarum ..

Inhabitants of St. Martin. Stephenson v. Newman (stands *Westley o. Kromheim & ors. Middlesex .... Hamilton v. Reg. (in error).

over till case in Exchequer Chamberlain v. Hammond Same ........ Reg. v. London, Westminster, and Vauxhall
Chamber is decided)
Scadding v. Eyles

Iron Steamboat Co.
Dolby o. Rimington
Knight v. Gaunt

Northumberland - Inhabitants of Walbottle.
*Pennell & ors. 0. Rhodes Chamberlain v. Hammond Middlesex .... - Inhabitants of Watford, Herts.
Springett o. Morrell
Lawton v. Hickman

Buckinghamsh. - Inhabitants of Little Marlow. *Robinson o. Hawksford Sharpe v. Bluck, Clerk Surrey .......

Inhabitants of Crondall. *Flanders o. Bunbury Bryant & an. v. Holmes | Cornwall .....

Inhabitants of Mylor.


Tuesday ...

England...... Reg. v. Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes.
Middlesex .... - Inhabits. of St. Paul, Covent Garden.

Court of Orchequer.
London ...... Wright o. Reg. (in error).
Reg. v. Churchwardens of Anderson.

Cumberland ., Churchwards. of Holme St. Cuthbert.
Middlesex .... - Westbrook.


Nisi Prius. Carnarvonshire - Churchwardens, &c. of Bangor. Middlesex ....

, May 22 { Peremptory Paper 1 - Inhabitants of St. Anne, Westminster.


2 after Motions Same .......

- Same (settlement of George Wood). Saturday...... 23 Do. before Motions Worcestershire - Inhabitants of St. Peter, Droitwich. | Monday ......

Midd. Ist Sitting London ......

- Bateman. Devonshire ... -Inhabitants of East Stonehouse. Wednesday 27 Special Paper Same........

- Inhabitants of Widecomb in the Moor. Thursday .... 28 Circuits chosen Essex........ South-eastern Railway Company. Friday ......


London 1st Sitting Ely ......... Inhabitants of Mendham, Suffolk. Saturday ..... 30 Crown Cases Lancashire.... - Inhabitants of Blackburn.

Monday.. June 1 Special Paper Midd. 2nd Sitting rvonshire - Churchwardens of Bangor (orders).

Tuesday...... 2 Errors
Kent ........

Wednesday .. 3 Special Paper
For Saturday, June 6.

Thursday .... 4
Friday ......

London 2nd Sitting Buckinghamsh. Reg. o. Great Western Railway Company. Saturday......

Ditto by adjournt. Same ........ Same.

Monday ...... Special Paper Midd. 3rd Sitting
Tuesday ......
Wednesday.... 10

Thursday .... 11
Court of Common Pleas.

EASTER TERM, 1846. | Kent.-Elston v. Gascoyne
Midd.-Gamble v. Kurtz Surrey.-Gibbons v. Alison NEW TRIAL PAPER FOR TRINITY TERM, 1846.
, Cranwell o. Cooper
Essex.-Doe d. Baileyo. Foster

FOR JODGMENT. | Maid.-Doe d. Stace t. Lond.—Siggers o. Paynter 1

Piggott 0. Eastern

1 1

Boydell o. Harkness
Counties Railway Moved Mich. Term, 1845.

Smith o. Jeffryes Beds.Coulthas o. Bowes


Bristol-Kynaston v. Davis
Gally v. Round

1 Somerset.-Doed. Harrison o.

Jackson o. Smithson

Mooed Hilary Term, 1846.
Hampson York.-Tempest v. Kilner


Midd.-Thornett v. Haines
Doe d. Gaisford v. 1. Bowlby v. Bell

Winch.-Pratt o. Betts
Liverp.-Tootal v. Johnstone FOR ARGUMENT. Salisb.-Mayor of Poole v.
Moved Mich. Term, 1845.


Northamp.--Ashby o. Bates ENLARGED RULES.

Midd.-Bennett o. Smith Derby Middleton o. Lester

Moved Hilary Term, 1846. Warwick-Tart o. Darby To 1st Day.

To 2nd Day,
Woolley o. Smith

Geach v. Ingall
Lond.-Lamert o. Heath
Tolson v. The Bishop of Car.


„ Ackerman o. Ehrens

Huntingdon č. Gd.

Junction Railway peiger


Moved Mich. Term, 1843. | York-Naylor 0. Scorah DEMURRER PAPER.

Staff.--Foley o. Botfield

, Booth v. Millns

Whalley o. Davison Wednesday, May 27. Pammell v. Mil

Rogers v. Richards Benham o. Earl of Mornington

Moved after the 4th day of Liverp.- Pilkington o. Scott

Hilary Term, 1846.
Ablett o. Clarke

Jowett o. Spencer
Easton o. Peploe
Stevens o. Desborough Midd.-Masters v. Abitbol

Unwin v. Horner Smith o. Shirley Smart v. Sandars

Habn v. Dalton Guyard v. Sutton Toomer o. Gingell Moved Easter Term, 1846.

Ormerod o. Chad Turner v. Browne Wightman v. Green Midd.-Daniels o. Fielding

wick Tinniswood v. Pattison Boyson o. Gibson

Grant o. Maddox

Ramsbottom €. Tuckwell o. Morris Pownall v. Newark

Harris v. Colley

Duckworth Carr v. Maude Williams o. Capper

Beamish v. Owens

Fletcher o. Marshall Dormay o. Borradaile Sieveking v. Dutton

Wotton v. Fructuozo

Marsden 9. New Fitzgerald o. Lane Mills v. Acres Lond.-Goldicutt v. Beagin

marsh Coates v. Jones Barry v. Newsham

Fenwick v. Boyd

Carnarv.-Jones o. Carter Reynolds o. Fenton Doe d. Phillips v. Rollings

Jones o. Foster Messent v. Reynolds


Owen o. Mann Doe d. Blomfield v. Eyre

Friday, May 29.
Lond.---Fenwick v. Boyd

Jones o, Mann
Hutton v. Thompson
Tibalds o. Wanless

Laurie v. Douglass

Hughes v. Mann Joll v. Stewart Thompson o. Lack

Law v. Thompson

Griffiths v. Mann Thatcher v. England Brown v. Mallett

Walstallo. Spottis Beaumar.--Hughes o. Hughes Hayward o. Bennett | Pawson v. Hurrell


Chester-Pott v. Clegg Filby v. Hodgson

Stanway v. Nickson Hills v. Crosland

Kearsley v. Cole CUR. ADV. VULT.

Engleheart o. Moore

Chamberlaine o.The Patteson v. Holland, (to stand | Cooper v. Shepherd

Staff.--Bickley v. Boydell

Chester and Birover till the sci. fa. in Q. Gibbs v. Flight

Shrews.-Bradley v. Tonge

kenhead Rail. Co. B. is determined) Pryce •. Belcher

, Garbett 0. Yarbo- | Swansea-Morris o. Barnes Doe d. Woodhall d. Woodhall Roberts v. Gruneisen


Chester-Seller o. Jones Benson v. Chapman Rich v. Basterfield

Heref.-Wheeler v. Dallewy Moved after the 4th day of Beard o. Egerton Gamble v. Kurtz Monm.-Mason v. Jenkins

Easter Term, 1846. Doe d. Atkinson v. Fawcett

Aylesbury-Tarry . Newman Midd.-Swift o. Hawkins
Maid.-Barnett 7. Harries | Lond.-Cooper o. Falkner

« AnteriorContinuar »