Page images
PDF
EPUB

Dant that the lease was still subsist- seized under warrants of execution of
ing, and not to an implied covenant a county court, and being in the pos-
that the three lives were still in ex- session of the bailiff, the prisoner,
istence. Coates v. Collins.

47 with intent to deprive the bailiff, as

he supposed, of his authority, and so
defeat the execution, forcibly took

the warrants from him :--
CREDITOR OF ESTATE,

Held, that the prisoner was not

guilty of larceny; but that he was
See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, guilty of taking the warrants for a

468 fraudulent purpose within the mean-

ing of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, . 30. Re-
gina v. Bailey,

394
CRIMINAL LAW.

7. Where two prisoners are indicted

and tried together, one is not a com.
1. The prosecutris in an indictment petent witness for the other. Re-
for an indecent assault, which on the gina v. Payne.

396
facts alleged amounted, in substance,
to an attempt at rape, was asked in 8. The prosecutor and prisoner were
cross-examination whether she had out at night in separate punts, on a
not previously had connection with a creek, in pursuit of wild fowl. The
man other than the prisoner, and de- prisoner, who was jealous of any one
nied it :-

going there to shoot, and had threa-
Held, that she could not be contra- tened to fire at birds notwithstanding
dicted. Reg.v. Holmes, 226, note, 230 other persons might be between him

and them, discharged his gun from a
2. A building, in 24 & 25 Vict. 97, s. 6, distance of twenty-five yards towards
is not necessarily a finished structure. the punt in which the prosecutor lay

paddling. At that moment the pro-
3. An unfinished house, of which the secutor's punt slewed round, and the

walls were built and finished, the prosecutor was struck by some of the
roof on and finished, a considerable shot and seriously wounded, where.
part of the flooring laid, and the in- upon the prisoner rendered him help,
ternal walls and ceilings prepared assuring him that the injury was an
ready for plastering, held, to be a accidental result of the slewing round
building within the meaning of the of the punt. The night was light
section. Regina v. Manning. 230 and the boat visible fifty yards off.

No birds were in view. The two,
4. The prisoner, being pressed for pay- men had always been on good terms,

ment of a debt, obtained further time and the gun was fired apparently
to pay, by giving, as security, an I. O. with the intention of frightening the
U., purporting to be signed by him- prosecutor away rather than that of
self and another, the signature of the hurting him. The prisoner was in-
latter being forged by the prisoner:- dicted for the felony of wounding
Held, that the instrument was an

with intent to do grievous bodily
“undertaking for the payment of harm; but the jury, under 14 & 15
money” within the meaning of 24 & Vict. c. 19, s. 5, found him guilty of
25 Vict. c. 98, s. 23. Regina v. Cham- the misdeamenour of unlawfully
bers.

233 wounding :-

Held, that "unlawful wounding"
5. Two prisoners were indicted, under within the meaning of that section

24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, s. 3, for feloniously must be " malicious;" and that there
setting fire to a shop “ of and belong- was proof of malice, which justified
ing
to” one of the prisoners :-

the conviction of.the prisoner. Reg-
Held, that the averment of pro- ina v. Ward. 403, and note, 403
perty in the prisoner was an immate-
rial averment, which need not be
proved ; and that an intent to injure
another person as owner might be

CUSTOM.
proved in support of the indictment.
Regina v. Newboult.

391 When evidence of admissible and when
not.

41, note
6. The prisoner's goods having been See AGENT, 32, 335, 651.

[blocks in formation]

When creates charge upon real estate,
gives a fee.

211

See WILL,

DIRECTORS.

1. Directors of a company issuing a

prospectus are bound to disclose every
material fact; and if they do not they
will be held liable to indemnify any
person who takes shares from the
company on the faith of the pros-
pectus against any loss which may be
occasioned to him by reason of such
concealment, even although they may
have believed that the concealment
will be beneficial to the persons in-
duced to take shares.

2. The Defendants in a suit to restrain

infringement of trade-marks having
sealed up certain parts of entries and
letters admitted to relate to tho
matters in question in the cause, were
ordered by the Duchy Court of Lan-
caster to unseal the names of custo-
tomers, and of places, and the prices,
forming parts of such entries, and to
unseal the portions of letters and
copies of letters which contained the
names of the writers and of the per.
sons to whom the letters which were
copied were sent, and the places to
and from which the letters were sent,
and the description of the marks to be
placed, or which had been placed, on
the goods referred to in such letters:-

Held, on appeal, that the Defend.
ants ought not to be compelled to dis-
close the names of customers, or the
names of persons to or from whom
letters were sent or received, or any
prices, inasmuch as such discovery
might be used in a manner prejudi
cial to the Defendants in their trade,
and was not likely to assist the Plaint
iffs in making out their case at the
hearing ; but that the order of the
Vice Chancellor was in other respects
right. Carver v. Pinto Leite. 450

2. A fact which, if disclosed would have

so discredited the company as to pre-
vent its formation, is a material fact
within the meaning of the foregoing

proposition.
3. The estate of a deceased director is

liable in equity in respect of such in-
demnity to the same extent as the
director would have been if living.

DISTANCE

held that this subsequent adultery

restored to the wife her right to have
Measured as

crow flies" instead of by the marriage dissolved on the ground
highways.

177, 191, note. of the previous incestuous adultery.

3. Condoned incestuous adultery is re-

vived by subsequent adultery not in-
DISTRESS.

cestuous. Newsome v. Newsome.

241 and note, 249
See LANDLORD AND TENANT, 26.

DIVORCE.

1. The husband petitioned the Court

E.
for a dissolution of his marriage, by
reason of his wife's adultery. In her
answer the wife denied such adultery

EASEMENT.
and made counter charges against the
petitioner, of adultery and cruelty,

See TRESPASS, 51.
which he denied, and directions were
given as to the mode of trial of the
facts in issue. The petitioner then
moved for leave to withdraw the pe-

ELECTION
tition on payment of the wife's costs.
A few days before the motion was

See AGREEMENT, 658.
made, the respondent filed a petition
for alimony:

Held, that, if a wife use due dili-
gence in claiming alimony, the
husband will not be allowed to with-

ENGINEER.
draw his petition until he has paid How far clause for decision by binding,
the alimony allotted to her up to the
time of the withdrawal; but that if

532, note
the wife delay to present her petition
up to the last moment, so that the
husband has not had time to answer
it, the Court will not refuse to allow

ENTITLED.
him to withdraw, until he has filed
an answer to such petition, and paid Sometimes in sense of “entitled to pos-
what the Court may allot upon it. session,"

691
Twisleton v. Troisleton.

260

2. A wife knowing that her husband,

had been guilty of incestuous adul-
tery with her sister, signed an agree-

ESTATES IN TAIL.
ment that she would forgive him, and
would not take proceedings against

See WILL, 555.
him on account of such incestuous
adultery, in consideration of his re-
tirement from a then subsisting part-
nership in business with her father

ESTOPPEL.
and brother. It was further agreed
that they should not live together,

See SHERIFF, 60.
but that they should see each other
from time to time. The agreement
also contained this clause: “The
agreement or contract binds me (the
wife) only so long as you remain

EVIDENCE.
true to me in love and duty." After
the date of the agreement the hus- See CORPORATION, 98.
band was guilty of adultery, but not CRIMINAL LAW, 226, 230, note, 260.
of incestuous adultery. The Court WILL, 249, 260, note.

[blocks in formation]

See CORPORATION, 323.

FOREIGN SUIT.

See FORMER SUIT, 724,

FORGERY.

2. The executris of a testator kept an

executorship account with a bank, and having a power, under the will, to mortgage the real estate in aid of the personalty, she deposited with the bank the title-deeds of part of the testator's real estate as security for the balance. The account was considerably overdrawn by the executrix, and

the moneys to a great extent misapplied, but without the bank having notice of the misapplication. The security having proved insufficient to pay the balance, the bank applied to prove as creditors against the testator's estate for the difference :

Held (reversing the decision of Bacon, V.C.), that they were not entitled to prove ; for that a person cannot, by contract with an executor, acquire a right to prove as a creditor against the estate, though the executor has power to give him a lien on specific assets. Farhall v. Farhall.

468

See CRIMINAL LAW, 233.

FORMER SUIT.

3. If a legacy be in the first instance pay

able out of the personalty if that be insufficient out of the realty, the latter cannot be charged if the representative have wasted sufficient to pay the legacy. Richardson v. Mor. ton.

611

See DIRECTORS, 567.

TRUST, 538.
WILL, 240.

1. A., an Englishman domiciled in France, entered into a contract in France with B., a Frenchman, for car. rying out jointly certain mercantile undertakings. In the course of the transactions large sums of money came into the hands of C. and D., fő reign merchants in business in Lon don. A. filed a bill against B., C., and D., alleging that, under the contract with B., he was entitled to participate in the profits of the undertaking, and praying for an account from C. and D., of the money in their hands, and that they might be restrained from hand. ing it over to B. The Defendants moved to stay all further proceedings in the suit pending certain proceed. ings in the French Courts instituted by A. against B., in which a construction would be put upon the French contract:

Held, that there being portions of the relief sought, as to which the Defendants were bound to answer, the motion, which was in the nature of a demurrer, could not be sustained, and must be refused with costs. Wilson v. Ferrand.

724

F.

FALSE RETURN.

Sce SHERIFF, 60

FRAUD,

for the work; but only to a promise

that if the plaintiff would do the
See DIRECTORS, 567.

work on the credit of the board, the
INSURANCE, MARINE, 120, 328. defendant would pay if the board did
SALE, 140, 148, note.

not, and that this was a promise to be
STOCKHOLDERS, 567, 611, note. answerable for the debt of another
STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU, 148.

person within s. 4 of the Statute of
TRUSTEE, 460.

Frauds, and not being in writing
could not be enforced. On appeal :-

The Court of Exchequer Chamber
reversed the judgment, on the ground

that there was evidence on which
FRAUDS, STATUTE OF.

the jury might have found that the

defendant agreed to be primarily
1. The plaintiff had been employed to liable. Mountstephen v. Lakeman. 68

construct & main sewer by a local
board of health, of which the defend- 4. When promise is collateral and when
ant was chairman. When the sewer not.

note, 78
was nearly completed the board gave The plaintiff, on the 11th of Janu-
notice, under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 63, s. ary, 1871, bought of the defendant a
69, to the occupiers of the adjoining parcel of wool worth more than 101.,
houses, to connect their drainage “the whole to be cleared in about
within twenty-one days, or the board twenty-one days." A memorandum
would do the work at their expense. of the terms of the bargain was
Before the twenty-one days had ex- handed by the plaintiff to the de-
pired, the plaintiff, having completed fendant. On the 8th of February the
the sewer, was about to leave the defendant wrote: “ It is now twenty-
place with his carts, &c., when the eight days since you and I had a deal
defendant sent after him, and the for my wool, which was for you to
following conversation took place. have taken all away in twenty-one
The defendant said, “ What objection days from the time you bought it.
have you to making the connec- I do not consider it business to put it
tions ?" The plaintiff replied," I have off like this; therefore I shall consi-
none, if you or the board will order der the deal off, as you have not
the work, or become responsible for completed your part of the contract.”
the payment.” The defendant re- The plaintiff had, in fact, completed
plied, “Go on and do the work, and I his part on the true construction of
will see you paid.” The plaintiff ac- the contract. On the 9th of Febru.
cordingly did the work under the ary, in answer to the plaintiff's re-
superintendence of the surveyor of quest to see a copy of the contract
the board ; and sent in the account to contained in the memorandum of the
the board debiting them with the 11th of January, defendant wrote in
amount. The board refused payment these terms, inclosing a copy : "I
on the ground that they had not autho- beg to enclose copy of your letter of
rized the order; and after more than the 11th of January:"-
two years, the account being still un- Held, that the letter of the 9th of
paid, the plaintiff made a claim and February, with its inclosure, taken in
brought an action against the de- connection with that of the 8th, consti.
fendant.

tuted an unambiguous recognition of

the existence of the contract and of
2. The above evidence having been its terms; and that there was there-

given by the plaintiff, the defendant fore a sufficient memorandum in
denied that any conversation of the writing signed by the defendant to
kind deposed to ever took place; the satisfy the Statute of Frauds, 8. 17.
jury found that it did take place, and Buxton v. Rust.

135
à verdict passed for the plaintiff,
leave being reserved to enter a non- 5. A bill for specific performance alle-
suit.

ged a verbal agreement for the lease

of a house by the Plaintiff to the De-
3. The Court of Queen's Bench made fendant for seven years from Michael.

the rule absolute to enter a nonsuit, mas, 1870, followed, first, by a letter
on the ground that the conversation from the Defendant to the Plaintiff,
did not amount to an undertaking of which did not state when the term
the defendant to be primarily liable was to commence, and, secondly, by

« PreviousContinue »