1858. BUSBY V. CHESTER FIELD Waterworks Company. and this was the only question the justices were called upon to decide. The respondents, in support of their information and the form of their proceedings before the justices, referred to The Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 (a), sects. 35, 44 and 85; The Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (b), sect. 145; and The Chesterfield Waterworks and Gas Light Company's Act, 1855 (c), sects. 12, 31, 33 and 34. The case then stated: "We decided against the appellant, and made an order against him for payment of the sum of 5s. claimed by the respondents, and the costs incurred before us. And the ground of our determination was, that we considered that the respondents had made out their case, and that, under The Chesterfield Waterworks and Gas Light Company's Act, 1855, a supply of water for domestic purposes did not include a supply of water for any horses or washing any carriages.” The appellant thereupon appealed. Pashley, for the appellant. The question is whether, under sect. 31 of stat. 18 & 19 Vict. c. xxix., the use of the water for the horse and for cleaning the carriage is "domestic use." Use of water for animals kept for the purposes of trade would not fall within the words: but water used, as this is, for the ordinary purposes of the family, does. It might as well be objected that the water drunk by a coachman living in the stable did not. In Bailey's New Universal Etymological English Dictionary (London, 1764), Domestical or Domestic is defined as "1. Of or pertaining to a private household, not (b) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20. (c) Antè, p. 177, note (a). (a) 10 & 11 Vict. c. 17. relating to the public." "2. Intestine, relating to one's own country, in opposition to what is foreign." "3. Private, done at home, not open." "4. Inhabiting the house, tame, not wild." That clearly comprehends the use which is now in question. Macnamara, contrà. "Domestic use" means an use by the family for the consumption and cleanliness of those resident in the house. Sect. 12 of the local Act incorporates The Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 17.), of which sect. 35 enacts that "the undertakers shall provide and keep in the pipes to be laid down by them a supply of pure and wholesome water, sufficient for the domestic use of all the inhabitants of the town" &c. who "shall be entitled to demand a supply, and shall be willing to pay water rate." But it cannot be supposed that the provision for wholesome water extends .to the water used for washing a carriage. By sect. 31 of the local Act the assessment is to be for the house only, and does not include stables: and sect. 34 has a separate provision as to water supplied for "other than domestic purposes." The anxiety of the Legislature to distinguish the different uses appears from the special provisions as to baths and waterclosets, in sects. 31, 32. In Webster's Dictionary "Domestic" is defined, in the first place, as "Belonging to the house, or home; pertaining to one's place of residence, and to the family:" and none of the subsequent definitions apply to such a case as this. Pashley, in reply. This user of water does belong to the house or home, and does pertain to the place of residence. (He was then stopped by the Court.) 1858. BUSBY V. CHESTER FIELD Waterworks 1858. BUSBY V. CHESTER FIELD Waterworks Lord CAMPBELL C. J. I answer the question which is raised in the affirmative. The horse and carriage were for private use, and were kept on the premises : that being so, the water used for them was applied to domestic use. If that be not so, I do not see how we are to distinguish between a horse so kept and a dog or cat. The horse and carriage are kept for the use of the occupier of the house, for his health and enjoyment, in an outhouse belonging to his premises. The water Company need be under no apprehension of being losers: they ought to have a fair remuneration for the supply which they impart, and will look to the sum at which the party supplied is rated. If there be separate rates on a house and stable there will be distinct charges: and, when the whole are rated together, they will charge the aggregate for domestic use. (WIGHTMAN J. was absent.) CROMPTON J. The only question is whether domestic use does not include water used in this way in the stable. The stable is part of the house: I cannot see why water taken for use in the stable is not water taken for domestic use. ERLE J. I cannot find in the Act anything which defines what domestic use is. The horse and carriage are for the use of the family. If the rateable value of the premises is properly fixed the Company will receive the proper sum: if not, they are entitled to have the rate properly made. Appeal allowed. 1857. April 30th. The PRINCE OF WALES Life and Educational Friday, ACTION against the defendant, duly appointed manager of The Athenæum Life Assurance Society, under The Joint Stock Companies Winding-up Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 45.). The first count charged that, before the granting the policies after mentioned, The Athenæum Life Assurance Society was established and united for the purpose (amongst others) of granting policies of assurance on the lives of parties desiring to insure in the said Society: and, being so established, the said Society, for the purpose of inducing parties more readily to insure in their said Society, caused numerous prospectuses, notices and advertisements to be issued, printed and distributed, informing the public of their readiness to grant such The deed of settlement of a life assurance pletely regisSociety, com tered under stat. 7 & 8 Vict. vided, by the 20th section of the deed, that the comme be affixed to any policies except by the order of three directors, signed by them and by th by the mana ger, and, by sect. 28, that every policy should be given under the hands of not less than three of the directors and sealed with the common seal. By sect. 101, the books containing the proceedings of the general meetings and of the board of directors were to be open to the inspection of shareholders. A policy was executed, sealed with the common seal, and signed by three directors, one of whom was manager; but there was no previous order made as required by the 20th section. The Company, in discussions with the assured, treated the policy as effective. Held: that they could not repudiate their liability on the policy, upon the ground that the execution was not authorized. Two life assurance Companies, P. and A., were in the habit of reassuring to each other in respect of policies granted to third persons by the reassured. By the course of business, as any premium became due from one Company to the other, the Company entitled to the premium gave to the Company owing it a receipt for the amount: on periodical settlements of account between P. and A. the premiums due on each side were taken into account, the balance struck, and paid by the party against whom it stood. No other payments passed between P. and A. A premium being due from P. to A., A. gave P. a receipt for the amount. At this time 4. was indebted to P.: the amount of the premium went into the account in the usual course of business; and, at the next settlement, a balance was due from, and paid by, A. to P. Held: that the premium was paid at the time when the receipt was given. 1858. PRINCE OF Company v. policies as aforesaid, and that, to insure the payment of the sums insured by such policies, whenever the said policies should become payable, they, the said Athenæum Life Assurance Society, had and were possessed of a HARDING. capital stock of 100,000, out of which such policies, when granted by the said Society, might, on becoming payable, be paid. That, before the making by the said Athenæum Life Assurance Society of the policy hereinafter next mentioned to have been made and granted by them, plaintiffs had, by a like policy of assurance made and granted by them, plaintiffs, numbered 1302, and bearing date (to wit) 20th day of August 1854, assured the sum of 70001. on the life of one Richard Paul Hase Jodrell, then of &c. Of all which the said Athenæum Life Assurance Society had notice. That afterwards, to wit on 20th August 1854, one John Hornby, as the agent and for and on behalf of plaintiffs, proposed to effect an assurance with the said Athenæum Life Assurance Society in the sum of 6500l., upon and for the whole continuance of the life of the said R. P. H. Jodrell. And afterwards, to wit 20th August 1854, by a certain instrument or policy of assurance then made and signed by three directors of the said Athenæum Life Assurance Society, and sealed with the common seal of the said Society, after reciting that the said J. Hornby, as secretary for and on behalf of plaintiffs, and thereinafter called the assured, had proposed to effect an assurance with the said Athenæum Life Assurance Society in the said sum of 65007. upon and for the whole continuance of the life of the said R. P. H. Jodrell; and that the said John Hornby (as such agent for plaintiffs as aforesaid) had paid to the said Society the sum of 3087. 15s. as a |