Page images

Candidates who passed their Examination, Trinity Term, 1837.



Attorneys to whom EXAMINATION,

Candidates Nomes. : articled.

Haydon, Sanuel. Jas. Zachary Turner. Trinity Term, 1837.


John Houseman. Hayes, Joseph. Charles Clarke.

Attorneys to whom Hearn, John Henry. William Hearne. Candidates' Names.

articled. Hillyard, Charles. Geo. Hillyard King. Allen, Francis Pitney John Gregson. Hodgson, William. William Trotter. Martin. Thos. Broadley Fooks.

George Worthington. Apedaile, Thos.Hutch- William Kell.

Thomas Airson the inson.

younger. Attwaters, Charles. Alfred King. Hotchkin, Spencer. Samuel Forster. Bacon, George Con- William Rodwell. Hore, Edward. Thomas Edw. Drake. stantine Edgar.

Hughes, Christopher. Henry Hughes. Barker, Chas. Edward. James Weston. Jones, John.

Hen. Lloyd Harries. Barlow, Fred. Wm. Matthew Hale. Laughton, Wm. East- Fred- Hawley Cart. Pratt.


wright. Barney, Henry Chads. John Barney. Langley, Wm. Henry. William Rosser.

William Richardson. Lees, Frederick. George Hopkinson the
Wm. Hen. Moberly.

younger. Bateman, Thomas. John Ellis Clowes. Llewellyn, Thos. Mor- Henry Mostyn. Bates, William

Hugh Watson Friend gan.

Abraham Stony. Lloyd, Edwin. William Preece.
Bell, John.

Matthew Trotter John-Lowe, Alfred Hurst. George Freeth.

Lyon, Thomas. Jasper Gibson.
Bellman, Henry. Matthew Rackham.

William Chisholme. Blacket, Hen. "Ralph. Jno.Southerden Burn. Mogg, William Rees. John Rees Mogg. Blakeney, John. William Chisholme. Mounsey, James. Robert Mounsey. Bourdillon, Stafford. James Bourdillon.

George Gill Mounsey. Bromfield, James. John Lee.

Neve, Wm. Tanner. Charles Willis.
Burges, Edward. John Slade.

Norton, Chas. Rich. George Dew.
Daniel Burges.

Henry Everet.
Burkinyoung, William Henry Brayley Wed. Ouvry, Frederick. Geo. H. King.


| Parker, Rob. Holme. Thomas Dixon. Cameron, Ewen Hen. Archibald Cameron. Parker, William. Edward Downes. Christian, Henry. Edınund Wilkinson. | Peacock, Rob. Wm. Mark Beauchamp PeaClabon, Jobo Moxon. John Clabon.

cock. Clark, Joseph Beet. Thos. Jas. Parke. Pearce, William the Alexander Poulden. Clark, Hen. M'Gregor. Edward Loss.

younger Collin, Henry. John Fiske.

Pike, Francis William. Frederick Turner. Cooke, Joseph. John Dudding. Pycroft, Jas. Wallis. Sam. Richardson RadCooper, William. Jos. Cooper Straford. Coulthard, Ralph. Wm. Johnson Hutch. Righy, William. George Thornbury. inson.

Joseph Righy. Coward, Chas. Leach. Jos. Wheatley.

William Hen. Morris. Wm. Fretwelí Hoyle. Robinson, Thos. Hills. Thomas Allan.

Henry Vickers. | Rogerson, Thomas. Samuel Lister Booth. Cruso, Francis. John Cruso.

Scriven, Thomas. William Scriven. Darke, Thomas. John Darke.

Sealy, Edw. Howard. William Forward. Dunster, Wm. Hile William Jones. Slocombe, William. Frederick Dewding. liard.

| Smithson, Rob. Edw. Robert Smithson. Foley, Wm. Walter Benjamin Bodenham. Square, Jos. Elliot. Edward Jago. Fooks, William. Thomas Fooks. Southwood, Walter. Charles Pitt Bartley. France, Wm. Barnard. George Spence. | Tarrant, Wm. Barnes. Peter Bruce Turner. John Young.

Taylor, Charles. George Stephenson. Francis, Charles. Daniel Ferard. Tetlew, John Richard, John Topham the Gardner, Geo. Harri. Thomas Harrison. the younger.

younger. son.

Thick, Charles the Rayner Winterbotham, Gardnor, Richard. William Rogers.

|_younger. Griffith, Rob. Bodvan. Hugh Roberts. Towle, Henry Neville. Samuel Payne. . Gunston, William Wil- James Hall.

Williain Collison. loughby.

William Housaian. Gwillim,' John the William Humfrys. Townsend, Geo. Bar. Edward Thomas Caryounger.


dale. Gylby, Worthington John Parker Gylby. | Turner, Frederick. Alexander Poulden. Thomas.

Ward, James.

Robert Edmeades. Hall, Joseph.

James Edward Norris. Walters, Roger Robert Maser. Hart, Richard. John Cribb Stephen. Wells, Arthur. Henry Wells, Hawker, Thomas. John Sargent.



Selections from Correspondence.- Superior Courts : Lord Chancellor.


Altorneys to vi hom the defendant was until lately in the King's Candidates' Names. ' ariicled. | Bench Prison thereon, having been discharged Westmoreland, Joseph Thomas Taylor. by the Insolvent Debtors' Court. Williamson.

Christopher Willis. As the sheriff, who was bound to notice Wharton, John Jane Thomas Woollcombe. | from what Court the hubcas, and from what Smith.

Court the execution in his office, had issued, Wilkinson, Frederick. Charles Brookfield. | delivered the defendant into a wrong custody, Williams, Edgar. John Williams. by which the plaintiff, if he desired it, was preWilson, John. William Spours. cluded from bringing the defendant up to the

Richard Willis. Court of Exchequer under the compulsory Wiltshire, Robert. Thomas Cuvelje. clause of the Lord's Act, is not the sheriff fixed Wix, Samuel

Jas. Alexander Simp- as for an escape, there being by his improper son.

return to the habeus and delivery of the defenWoolley, Wm. Staff. Thomas Vaudrey. dant into the marshall's custody, no cause in

Thomas Ditchburn, the Court of Exchequer?
Lawrence Desbo-

Worthington, John John Wilkes Unett.


Mark Kennaway.
York, George. Simuel leury Jebb.

Lord Chancellor's Court.



A stranger to a charity joined one of the LAW LECTURES.

trustees thereof in obtaining some of the

charity estate in exchange for land, the Can you inform me whether any lectures : joint property of the two : Held, that toas are now in the course of delivery at the Law information praying a general account of Institution, and if not, when ihey begin? the charity estate, and that the exchange What are the terms for attendance and have of the lands be set aside for the benefit of the students the use of the library belonging to the charity, a demurrer by the stranger for the institution? And are any law lectures now multifariousness could not be sustained. in progress at King's College or the London This was an appeal from an order of the Vice University College You will much oblige Chancellor, allowing a demurrer to an inforine by answering the above questions.

mation on the ground of multifariousness. A SUBSCRIBER.

The information prayed anong other things, [We believe the Lectures will be continued for an account of rents and profits of certain as usual in and afier Michaelmas, Hilary, and charity estates in Yorkshire, and for a refe. Easter Terms. Our correspondent should rence to the Master to report on a scheme for apply for particulars at the several offices of the better administration of the charity; and the institutions to which he refers. Ed.] also, that an exchange between some of the

defendants, of the charity lands for others, be

set aside. The charity property was the reNATURALIZATION ACTS.

sult of a bequest in the year 1692, for the en

dowment of almshouses, and the support of a Would any of your numerous correspondents school. There were two sets of funds and oblige me by informing me the estimated ex two sets of trustees, but some of the trustees pense of obtaining an act of Parliament for were trustees of both charities and in the naturalizing an alien, or inaking one a denizen course of time the funds got so inixed toby letters patent?

B. W. R. gether, that it was difficult to ascertain which

part of the property belonged to the school, CHARGING IN EXECUTION.

and which to the almshouses. Another object

of the information was to ascertain this, and To the Editor of the Legal Observer.

also to recover back from Mr. Sheldon CraSir,

dock, and one of the trustees named Headlam, A. was taken in execution at the suit of B. certain parts of the lands of the charity, which upon an Exchequer writ, and remained in they were alleged to have taken improperly in custody of the sheriff until a habeas corpus cum exchange for lands of their own. This was causâ was sued out by the defendant's procure. done under the alleged authority of an act of ment in the Court of King's Bench. This was parliament, the lst and 2d G. 4, c. 92, which lodyed at the sheriff's office, without there gave trustees power to make exchanges of being, as is usual in such cases, a King's charity lands for the advantage of the charity. Bench writ to authorize a removal to the prison | The information charged that Headlam, as a of that Court. The sheriff, notwithstanding, trustee, colluded with Cradock and others to made his return to the King's Bench habeus, give these lands to himself and Cradock in and delivered the defendant into the tipstaff's exchange, for lands much inferior ; that a custody, upon the Exchequer uril only; and majority of the trustecs did not concur in lb;


Superior Courts : Lord Chancellor ; Vice Chancellor.


transfer, as the act required; and that the pre- formation prayed an account generally of the vious valuations were partial and unfair. "To charity funds, and that this exchange be set that information, Cradock put in a demurrer aside for the benefit of the charity. It was for multifariousness, which was allowed by the argued in support of the demurrer, that CraVice Chancellor, and the information was dis- dock was improperly mixed up in the suit, the missed, as against Cradock, with costs. object of which was the administration of the

Mr. Wigrum, Mr. G. Richards, and Mr. charity estates, and to get back from Headlam Smithe in support of the appeal.—The infor- that part which he appropriated to himself. mation was filed for the due administration of Now could that be done without making the charity. Cradock being in possession of Cradock a party? The object was to set aside some of the charity lands was a necessary the exchange in which Cradock was concerned party. It was charged that Headlam, a trus- with Headlam, and which was one transaction tee, colluded with Cradock to procure the fee common to both. It appeared to him to be simple of these lands. There was a clear case impossible to proceed successfully against against Headlam, and as Cradock mixed him. Headlam, without bringing Cradock before self up in the transaction with him, it was ne- the Court. Could the information be discessary to bring him before the Court in order inissed against a person who thus mixed himto obtain substantial justice and a due admi. self up with the trustee? Many cases might nistration of the charity. No universal rule arise, in which it would be possible and proper could be laid down as to what is a multifari. to separate them. The object was to admiousness” in pleadings; it was only to be nister the charity estate for which Headlam collected from the circumstances of each case ; I was accountable. It was said, that two suits and it depended generally on what the Court would be more convenient here. Suppose shoulıl think most convenient for obtaining Cradock was not mixed up with the general justice. Although there was some inconveni-prayer, could there be one suit for the general ence in making Cradock a party to this infor-account, and another for the particular tranination, it would be much more inconvenient saction ? The effect of this transaction was, to institute another suit against him. The to make Cradock liable as a trustee for the Court would not countenance two suits where benefit of the charity. He, the party who obthe objects of both would be attained in one jected to the suit, was the person who joined suit. They cited Salridge v. Hyde,a and the in the transaction sought to be set aside. Supobservations of his Lordship in the late case pose he was a trustee of one charity, and that of Campbell v. Mackayb.

an information was filed against him, could he Mr. Jacob and Mr. Bethell for the demur. object that, as he was trustee of part of the rer.-It would be the greatest hardship on a charity, he could not be mixed up in the geneperson to be made to answer a long bill and ral account? His Lordship referred to the information, to nineteen parts out of twenty observations of the Vice Chancellor in Campof which he was utterly a stranger. The de- bell v. Mackay, and to those made by himself cision of the Vice Chuncellor in Salvidge v. afterwards in the same case, when it came be. Hydec was overruled by Lord Eldon, and the fore him on appeal ; and to the decision of demurrer was allowed. The observations of Sir John Leach in Salvidge v. Hyde, in which, the Lord Chancellor in the case of Campbell v. although Lord Eldon did not go to the same Mackay, were in favour of this demurrer. extent as that learned Judge did, and although

The Lord Chancellor, having taken time to he reversed his decision and allowed the deconsider the question, now gave his judgment. murrer in that case, still his Lordship's obserAfter stating the allegations and charges in vation fully sustained the appeal in the present the information, his Lordship said the ques. case. On the authority of Lord Eldon, putting tion was, whether the information made such a case identical with this, in reversing the order a case against the defendant as called for an of Sir John Lench in Salvidge v. Hyde, his answer from him. The information stated Lordship had no hesitation in reversing the the acquisition of the property which forined | order made in the present case. the foundation of the charities, the funds for The demurrer was overruled on the usual the support of which were mixed together terms; and two months were given to Crawithout any specific appropriation to either dock to put in his answer. charity ; it then set out the names of the per-| Attorney General v. Crudock and others, Sitsons who are trustees, and stated that a piece tings at Lincoln's Inn, July 13, 18 and 19, of land, containing about eighty-five acres of 1837. the charity estates, were in the possession of Cradock, and that he, who was not a trustee, in the year 1832, together with the defendant

Vice Chancellor's Court. Headlam, who was a trustee, entered into a plan to procure from the other trustees the

TITLE. fee simple of that piece of the charity lands in exchange for other land which was the joint A purchaser of an estate having agreed to property of Cradock and Headlam. The in complete his purchase, if the vendor could

do certain acis, died intestate before the

acts required to better the title were done : a 5 Madd. 138.

Held, in a bill filed by the purchaser's heir 1 Mvl. & C. 603, see p. 618. © Jacob 151. at law, that on the vendor's doing what



Superior Courts: Vice Chancellor ; Rolls.

was agreed on, the purchase money should I was liable, not only to pay the bill, but the be paid out of the intestate's personal es- | costs of the suit to recover payment. tate.

George Gerard drew a bill of exchange on This was a bill filed by the heir at law of a William Hunter, dated Sept. 1834, at three person who contracted for the purchase of an month's date. Hunter accepted the bill; the estate, but who died intestate before the pur-drawer sent it to his banker's to be discounted ; chase was completed. The vendor, and the but the messenger lost it on his way. The widow and administratrix of the purchaser, messenger gave notice to the acceptor of the were the defendants, and the bill prayed a- loss, and when the bill became due, he offered gainst the former a specific performance of to make affidavit that it was lost. This affidavit, the contract; and against the latter, that the and a bond of indemnity against all future de. purchase money be paid out of the intestate's mands in respect of the bill, were tendered to personal estate, come to her hands as his ad. the acceptor, but he, after first saying that ministratrix. The only question in the cause he would pay the bill on receiving the indemwas whether the deceased had accepted the nity of two responsible persons, when that intitle ; and as to that a correspondence between demnity was offered, refused to pay. Gerard, the vendor and purchaser and their legal ad- the drawer, filed his bill stating the facts, and visers was read, from which it appeared that I praying a discovery and payment from Hunter, the purchaser was willing to perform his part with costs of the suit. of the contract, if the vendor would do certain | Mr. Barber for the plaintiff, read the proofs acts for bettering the title ; and the vendor of the loss of the bill, which happened by some agreed to do those acts.

unaccountable accident. The like proof was Mr. Knight and Mr. Smithe, for the plain- offered to the defendant the moment after the tiff, submitted that the arrangement between loss was discovered. A bond of indemnity was the vendor and purchaser amounted to an ac- also offered. He read the proof of this offer ceptance of the title. The acts agreed to be also, and of the refusal of the defendant at last done were easily effected, and they would re-to pay the bill unless it could be produced. move all difficulty as to the title. . The latter | To sustain an action at law on the bill, it would agreement was not a distinct and independent be necessary to produce it; but the plaintiff agreement, but was in furtherance of the con- did all that was necessary to support his case tract to purchase.a

in a Court of Equity. Hansard v. Robinson.a Mr. Jacob and Mr. Hall, for the vendor, Mr. Bailey, for the defendant, admitted his said he was ready to convey on receiving the liability under the circumstances proved in the purchase money.

case, to pay the bill, and the only question Mr. Treslove and Mr. James Campbell, for was as to the costs of the suit. The only orthe administratrix, submitted the hardship of der the Court could make, was to refer the enforcing the performance of the contract question of the sufficiency of the indemnity to upon her, who, instead of deriving any benefit the Master, or to dismiss the bill against the from it, would have to apply all the intestate's defendant without costs, 'on bis undertakpersonal estate to make up the purchase ling to pay the amount of the bill, on having money. The purchaser could not have inten- an indemnity from two responsible persons. ded to apply all his property to the purchase He cited for the purposes of his argument, of this estate, without charging it with a pro- Teresey v. Geray,b and Macartney y. Gravision for his wife, or leaving some part of the ham.c purchase money or charge on it. This was a Mr. Barber in reply, distinguished this case case which required some restriction or con- from Teresey v. Geray, and said the other case dition to be annexed to the rule of equity. was in favour of the plaintiff; it was the con

His Honor the Vice Chancellor had no stant practice of the Bank of England, and doubt from the correspondence that the pur other banks to pay bills upon affidavit of the chaser had accepted the title, such as it was, loss, and an undertaking from two responsible when the acts agreed to be done should be householders to indemnify them against future performed. Hard as it was on the widow, he claims in respect of such bills. had only to decree payment of the purchase Lord Langdale, M. R.-The only question money out of the personal estate.

in the case is, as to the costs, for the defendant Fowell v. Fowell, Sittings at Lincoln's Inn, now admits his liability to pay the bill. The June 30th, 1837.

affidavit and the bond of indemnity that were offered, ought to have satisfied any reasonable

person that he was perfectly safe in paying a Rolls Court.

debt to which he had no objection but the LOST BILL OF EXCHANGE.-REFUSAL TO PAY

non production of the bill. The cases that

were cited for the defendant, were more -Costs.

against him rather than for bim, and as his An acceptor of a bill of erchange refused to refusal to pay appears to be rather vexatious,

pay, only because the bill was not produced ; the decree must be against him for the costs
although an affidavit of the loss of the bill of the suit, as well as the amount of the bill.
and an indemnily against any future claim
were offered: Held, that the acceptor

a 7 Barn. & C. 90. b 1 Ves., sen., 341. a Frazer v. Bennell, p. 195, ante.

c 2 Sim, 285 ; S. C. 2 Russ. & Myl. 353.


Superior Courts : King's Bench. The costs incurred before the suit to be paid been maliciously uttered with the view to inby the plaintiff himself.

jure the plaintiff in his good name and credit. Gerard v. Hunter, Sittings at the Rolls, In Sweetapple v. Jesse, Lord Denman says, July 3d, 1837.

“after a verdict for the plaintiff, the Court is bound to presume all inatters which it was

necessary for him to prove in support of his King's Bench.

declaration. The guilty setting fire to the [Before the Four Judges.]

premises was a matter necessary for the plain

tiff to prove, and it must be presumed, after SLANDER.-DECLARATION.

verdict, to have been proved by the plaintiff.

Mr. Arnold, on the same sile. In Shepherd A declaration in slander, where the words do on Slander, b is a passage to the effect that the not necessarily and of themselves impute imputation of burning a dwelling-house may a crime punishable by law, must distinct. be actionable, and an action is said to have ly allege such matter as shews that the been maintained for saying “thou didst burn words spoken were intended to impute such a dwelling-house,” or “thou didst burn a a crime ; and if such allegation is not dis- barn full of corn,” not stating that it was done tinctly made, the Court will not infer it, wilfully or feloniously. Burchum v. Nether. eren afler verdict.

sale,e and Coinyn's Digest, shew that slander This was an action of slander tried before will lie where words which appear to impute Mr. Baron Gurney, at the spring assizes for a crime are proved to have been uttered. In Chester in 1836. The declaration stated that Wilner v. Hold, e the words “thou hast killed some houses had been destroyed by Gre : that thy wife,” stated in the declaration as nuper the defendant knowing, &c. and intending to luxurem,” were held to mean that he had murinjure the plaintiff, spoke these words, “ thoudered her, although it was argued that there (ineaning the plaintiff) knows that thou set | might he a justifiable killiny. This case is fire to those buildings, and thou will never be stronger than that, for there can be no justieasy till thou hast told.” Plea, the general | fiable arson. In Slowe v. Holland, the words issue. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages 101.,

were “thou art knave and rascal : thou settest subject to a motion to enter a nonsuit on the upon me in the highway, and takest my purse ground that the words alleged did not impute and my money;" the objections taken here a crime punishable by law.

were taken there ; yet judgment for the plainMr. J. Jervis, in Easter Term 1836, moved tiff. In Peuke v. Oldam,8 which was a case accordingly. He referred to Sweetapple v.Jin error, the words “ you are guiltyinuendo Jesse, a where the words stated were that of the murder of A, B., were held after ver• young Sweetapple has set bis own premises dict a sufficient charge of murder, though the on fire,” and the judginent was arreeted on colloquium was only of death. The word the ground that wilfully setting his own pre-“guilty” there might make a difference. mises on fire was not, except under special

|[Lord Denman, C. J.-It is stated in the circumstances, a crime punishable by law.

| declaration that the words used there were Mr. J. Evans shewed cause. The case of meant to impute murder. That was a thing Suceetapple v. Jesse, as far as it goes, appears for the jury to decide; and they found to be an authority against the declaration, but that that was the crime intended to be there is this distinction between the two cases. imputed.] In Peike v. Oldam, Lord Mans. It was there stated that the plaintiff was in field said, “ where words from their general possession of the premises which were burnt. import appear to have been spoken to defame Here the premises did not appear to be the a party, the court ought not to be industrious plaintiff's, and setting fire to another's premises in putting a construction upon them, different must of necessity be unlawful. At all events, from what they commonly bear.” after verdict the Court will intend everything! Mr. J. Jervis, in support of the rule, was in favour of the verdict. If it can be made to stopped. appear that a crime is inputed, the Court, Lord Denman, C.J.-There is really nothing after verdict, will presume that it was so im- in it. We always presume after verdict, and puted. It is so here. [Lord Denman, CJ.- where there is a good ground of action, that Suppose he set fire to the premises by accident, what is necessary to be proved to support the and somebody else had been charged with the action has been proved ; but in this case there crime of having set fire to them wilfully, he is not enough stated to shew a good ground of would never be easy. Does your declaration action. We cannot presume that. alledge inore?] That is a possible state of Mr. Justice Lillledale concurred. things; but the Court must not suppose mere Mr. Justice Patieson — There is not in the possibilities in order to set aside a verdict.present declaration anything to help the verThe words alleged indicate that the defendant dict. In a very recent case in the Court of meant to make charge of something which had been matter of remorse with plaintiff, as

b Page 42. if it had been in itself criminal. The declara.

c Noy, 155. tion in the indictment strengthens this view

d Tit. Defamation, B. 2. of ihe matter, for it states the words to have

e Cro. Car. 489,

f 1 Bulstr. 112. a 5 Barn. & Ad. 27.

8 Cowp. 275.

« PreviousContinue »