...page 653

ing as to the price, which had been agreed at 19,000l. No formal contract was signed until the 30th July. The claim of the partnership was originally 28,000l., and was made under several heads, including "value of leasehold premises' and " goodwill." The chief clerk, in taking the account, apportioned the 19,000l. amongst the different heads in proportion to the amounts claimed, and gave the executors of J. a share in the value of the leaseholds and the goodwill so ascertained. Held, that this method of valuation was correct, and J.'s executors were entitled to a share in the value of the leasehold premises so found, but that they were not entitled to any share in the value of the goodwill. (Hunter v. Dowling.)... Partner's separate judgment debt Procedure against partnership property-Foreign firm having branch establishment in England.-The court has jurisdiction to make an order, under sect. 23 of the Partnership Act 1890, in the case of a foreign partnership firm having a branch place of business in this country. (Brown, Janson, and Co. v. Hutchinson and Co.) Practice-Action for dissolution-Parties-Persons nominated to succeed to shares in the partnership business at a certain age.-Several persons carried on business in partnership under articles which provided for the nomination of a son to succeed to the partner's share in the business, but such son was to succeed only on attaining twenty-one, and signing such deed as therein mentioned. Several of the partners appointed a son, but no son had yet attained twenty-one. All the partners save one brought an action against the remaining partner for dissolution. Held, that no immediate trust in favour of his son was created by the articles, and that the sons need not be made parties to the action. (Ehrmann v. Ehrmann.) ... 17

PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS. Patent-Action for infringement-Patent held invalid-Petition for revocation-Estoppel.-D., a patentee, having brought an action against P. for infringement, the patent was declared invalid on the ground that one claim had been anticipated. P. afterwards presented a petition for the revocation of the patent. Held, that, on the hearing of the petition, D. was not estopped by the decision in the action from contending that the patent was valid, as a petition to revoke a patent, by whomsoever presented, is a petition on behalf of the public, and is not personal to the petitioner. (Re Deeley's Patent.)

Practice-Costs-Action for infringement Submission of plaintiff at trial to have action dismissed with costs-Defendant's particulars of objections-No opportunity of proof affordedReasonable and proper"-Certificate.-Where in an action for infringement of a patent the plaintiff at the trial before the evidence is gone into submits to have his case dismissed with costs, the court will not grant to the defendant a certificate that the particulars of objections filed by him in support of his case are reasonable and proper on the ground that it has no evidence on which to act, and consequently he will not be entitled to the costs of preparing them. (Mandleberg v. Morley.)

Prolongation-Expiration of foreign patents. --In considering a petition for the prolongation of a patent in this country the fact that several foreign patents in respect of the same invention have already expired, and that the English patent is the only one surviving, though not an insuperable objection to a prolongation, is one which the Judicial Committee will consider as a serious obstacle to granting a prolongation, unless very strong grounds for doing so are shown. (Re Carl Pieper's Patent.) ... Trade mark-" Mazawattee."-A firm of tea merchants registered the word "Mazawattee" by itself and in combination as a trade mark for blended teas sold by them, and more recently for coffee also.

437

702

106

782

ence

An application was made by a person aggrieved to strike it off the register of trade marks. Romer, J. found on the evidence that no such word as "Mazawattee" was known at the time it was composed, to any class in this country; and that it was meaningless, as a whole, alike to Englishmen, Hindoos, and Cingalese, though it might have an Eastern sound. Held, that the word was an invented word, and neither geographical nor descriptive, having no referto the character or quality of the goods to which it was applied or the locality from which they came, and was not calculated to deceive, or suggest that such goods were the produce of a particular estate in Ceylon; and that accordingly there was no ground for removing it from the register. (Re Densham and Sons' Trade Mark.) page 148, 614 Trade name-Imitation of goods-True description of goods-Injunction.-A maker of goods may sell them under a name which is a substantially true description of them, although goods have been originally made and sold previously under the same name by another maker for so long a time that goods sold under that name, without more, are taken in the market to have been made by the original maker of them. (Reddaway v. Banham.) 73 PLEDGOR AND PLEDGEE.

Return of pledge to pledgor for specific purposeProperty-Law of Scotland (Conflict of Law)Transaction in which law of England is to prevail.Where a movable fund situated in Scotland admittedly belongs to one or other of two domiciled Englishmen, the question to which of them it belongs is one of English law, and ought to be so treated by the courts in Scotland. Where a pledgee gives possession of the pledge to the pledgor for a specific purpose, such as for a sale on behalf of the pledgee, the property does not revert to the pledgor, so as to give his creditors a claim on it. There is no distinction in this respect between the law of Scotland and the law of England. It makes no difference if the pledgor delivers the goods so intrusted to him for sale in performance of a contract made prior to the pledge. (North-Western Bank v. Poynter and others.)

...

POOR LAW.

93

Costs-Taxation-Quarter sessions-Practice-Commencement of proceedings-Poor Law (Payment of Debts) Act 1859.-An appeal to quarter sessions by the present appellants against an assessment to the poor rate having been allowed with costs, the appellants applied io the clerk of the peace to tax the costs within the three months limited by sects. 1 and 4 of the Poor Law (Payment of Debts) Act 1859, but took no further steps to enforce payment of the amount till the period of three months limited by the Act had expired. Held, that the application to tax was not a commencement of proceedings before a competent authority" within the meaning of the Act, and that the guardians were not liable to pay the taxed costs. (Midland Railway Company v. Guardians of Edmonton Union.) ... 206, 811 Debt incurred by guardians-Limitation of time for payment-Judgment debt.-By 22 & 23 Vict. c. 49 a debt due from the guardians of any parish shall be paid within three months after the expiration of the poor law half-year in which it shall have been incurred or become due, and not afterwards. Held, that upon the expiration of three months after the expiration of the poor law half-year in which a judgment had been pronounced in the House of Lords, the appellants could not enforce against the respondents, who were guardians of a parish, a claim under the judgment for the payment to them by the respondents of the costs of the appeal. (The Guardians of the Poor of West Ham Union, apps,, v. The Guardians of the Poor of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, resps.) ...

317

Settlement-Residence in parish_by_ wife-Constructive residence by husband.-In March 1888 a seaman, who afterwards became a pauper lunatic, took lodgings for himself and his wife at S., in the county of London, and remained there for some days, when he went on a voyage. After he left London his wife remained at S. for a few days, and she then went into domestic service for some months and afterwards removed, in Nov. 1888, to a parish in the appellant union, where she remained until the 10th Aug. 1889, when she removed to another place in the same parish. The husband, on his return from sea, on the 1st Oct. 1889, resided with his wife at her new address until the 10th Feb. 1890, when he again went on another voyage, and on his return in March 1891 he again resided with his wife at the same address. He was absent on voyages in 1891 and 1892, and during the intervals he resided with his wife until the 3rd Sept. 1892, when they both removed to Poplar, in the county of London. The husband did not personally reside in the appellant union before the 1st Oct. 1889 nor after the 3rd Sept. 1892, but his wife personally resided therein continuously from the 12th Nov. 1888 until the 3rd Sept. 1892. Held, that, as it did not appear that the wife went to reside in the appellant union by her husband's direction, or with his knowledge or approval, the residence of the wife was not, under the circumstances, the constructive residence of the husband, and that therefore the husband had not acquired a legal settlement in the appellant union by reason of a three years' residence therein prior to the 3rd Sept. 1882. (The Guardians of the West Ham Union, apps., v. The Guardians of the Cardiff Union, resps.) ... ...page 497

POOR RATE.

Rateable value - Public-house - Evidence as to takings of business - Admissibility- Parochial Assessment Act 1836.-The occupier of a publichouse in South Shields appealed to quarter sessions against a poor rate upon the ground that he was over-assessed. The Court refused to allow the assessment committee to cross-examine, or to adduce evidence, as to the takings of the business carried on upon the premises. Held, that the takings of the business could not be inquired into for the purpose of ascertaining the annual value of the public-house, and that the evidence was rightly rejected. (Dodds, app., v. The Assessment Committee of the South Shields Union, resps.) ... 355, 645

...

PORT AND HARBOUR. Unsafe berth-Injury to vessel-Negligence of harbour-master-Liability of port and harbour authority.-By a private Act of Parliament the defendants were appointed as guardians of the port and harbour of Wisbech, with prescriptive rights to receive tolls to be applied to improving the harbour and port, and provision was made for the appointment of one or more harbour-masters for regulating the placing and mooring of vessels, and for preventing and removing obstructions. A later Act gave the defendants the same rights over a channel called the New Cut, which had been constructed partly for better drainage and partly in place of the old channel forming part of the port and harbour, and was vested in commissioners. A vessel was berthed in the New Cut, under the direction of the defendants' harbourmaster, and sustained damage to her bottom owing to the unfit state of the berth. In an action brought by the shipowners against the harbour authority: Held, that the defendants were liable for the damage arising from the neglected state of the channel. (The Burlington.) ... .602, 890

PRACTICE.

Attachment-Contempt of court-Notice of motion -Service of order and affidavit-Omission to state indorsement of order.-On a motion for a writ

of attachment for contempt in failing to comply with an order of the court, it appeared that the affidavit served with the notice of motion did not state that the order was duly indorsed with the memorandum in accordance with Order XLI., r. 5. Held, that the notice of motion was irregular, there being an omission of a material particular, and that the application must be refused. (The Stockton Football Company Limited v. Gaston.) ...page 490 Attachment - Solicitor Order for payment in character of solicitor-Costs of taxation-Debtors Act 1869.-On the 6th May 1892 an order was made for the taxation of a bill of costs delivered by W., and payment by him within four days of any amount due from him, and the costs of the appli cation and taxation was reserved. On the 29th July 1892 the taxing master certified that there was due from the solicitor 201. 17s. 5d. On the 8th Aug. 1892 an order was made that the costs of the taxation and of that order should be taxed and paid by the solicitor when so taxed. Nothing having been done for twelve months, notice to proceed was served on the solicitor on the 16th April 1894. On the 1st Feb. 1895 the taxing master certified the costs directed to be taxed by the order of the 8th Aug. 1892 at 251. 12s. 2d. The client now moved for leave to issue a writ of attachment in respect of both sums. Held, that both sums were moneys which the solicitor had been ordered to pay in his character of an officer of the court within the fourth exception of the Debtors Act 1869, and that the writ might issue. (Re W. (a Solicitor.) ... 679 Consent order-Order drawn up, completed, and acted upon-Common mistake of fact-Setting aside order-Fraud not alleged-Fixtures. (The Huddersfield Banking Company Limited v. Henry Lister and Son Limited.) Costs-Contract or tort.-An action brought against a railway company to recover damages for personal injuries caused to the plaintiff, whilst riding lawfully and with the knowledge of the company in one of their carriages, by the negligence of a servant of the defendants in omitting to do that which he ought to have done, is an action founded on tort within sect. 116 of the County Courts Act 1888. (Kelly v. The Metropolitan Railway Company.)

Married woman - Defendant in action Separate estate-Restraint on anticipation-Unsuccessful counter-claim - Costs of opposite party" Action or proceeding instituted.". The words action or proceeding instituted" in sect. 2 of the Married Women's Property Act 1893 include a counter-claim brought by a married woman in an action in which she is the defendant, and the court has jurisdiction, in the case of such a counter-claim being dismissed with costs, to order payment of the plaintiff's costs on the counter-claim, and on the unsuccessful interlocutory proceedings taken by the defendant in the prosecution of her counter-claim, out of property of the defendant which was subject to a restraint on anticipation, notwithstanding that some of such interlocutory proceedings had been dismissed simply with costs against the defendant, the order dismissing them not mentioning anything about restraint on anticipation. (HoodBarrs v. Cathcart.)

Court established for trial of commercial causes -Power to dispense with technical rules of evidence-Transfer of action commenced in Chancery Division-Case involving complicated commercial transactions.-The court established for the trial of commercial causes has no more power to dispense with the technical rules of evidence or to depart from the administration of the law in the ordinary way than any other court or judge. The technical rules of evidence can only be dispensed with in those cases in which such dispensation has been authorised by the Judicature Act 1891 and the Rules of Court made thereunder. Circumstances in which the court will order an action commenced in the Chancery Division to be transferred to the

703

551

427

...page 850

court established for the trial of commercial causes considered. (Baerlein and Co. v. The Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London, and China.) Discovery and inspection of documents-Books of account of rival traders-Application to produce after fully answering interrogatories.-Where the parties to an action are rivals in trade and interrogatories are administered by the one to the other of them, if the court or a judge is satisfied that such interrogatories have been fully and sufficiently answered, and that it would be oppressive and vexatious to compel production of books of account, no order for that purpose will be made. (The Attorney-General v. The North Metropolitan Tramways Company.)... Dismissing action for want of prosecution-Order for new trial-Action not set down for trialMotion in Court of Appeal to dismiss.-When the Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial of an action, an application to dismiss the action for want of prosecution must be made at chambers, and not to the Court of Appeal. (Robarts v. French.) Equitable execution-Appointment of a receiverEx parte application-Jurisdiction.-A receiver may be appointed, by way of equitable execution, upon an ex parte application, where the circumstances are exceptional. (Minter v. Kent, Sussex, and General Land Society.) Evidence-Affidavit-Filing-Duty of solicitor to cause every affidavit to be filed.-Under rules 10 and 15 of Order XXXVIII. it is the imperative duty of the solicitor of any party to any proceedings to cause to be filed every affidavit sworn and used in the course of such proceedings. (Taylor v. Gates.) ... Interim injunction-Appeal.-A divisional court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a judge at chambers refusing to grant an interim injunction. (M'Harg v. Universal Stock Exchange Limited.)

...

...

Interrogatories - Matters done by bankers and solicitors of testator-Duty of executor to inquire -Sufficiency of answers. Where a man is interrogated about acts done in the presence of persons employed by him their knowledge is his knowledge, and he is bound to make inquiry of them in order to answer, and this rule applies in respect of bankers and solicitors, as well as in respect of servants and agents; but, Held, that it was not within the duties of an executor to make inquiry as to who were the bankers and solicitors of his testator, and how his testator had dealt with certain trust funds alleged to have been improperly received by him twenty years previously to his death. (Alliott v. Smith)

Relevancy The legitimate use of interrogatories is to obtain from the party interrogated admissions of facts which it is necessary for the party interrogating to prove to establish his case; and no interrogatory ought to be allowed unless strictly relevant to the point at issne in the action. An action was brought by the trustee in bankruptcy of A., asking for a declaration that a piece of land, purchased by A. and the defendant in 1873, belonged to them as partners. The defendant denied that the property was acquired by them as partners, and alleged they were merely co-owners. The plaintiff then served the defendant with interrogatories, in which he asked for a list of properties in which A. and the defendant were jointly interested in, prior and subsequent to Jan. 1873; the terms and conditions on which they were purchased; in what proportion the purchase money was found in each instance; how and when they were disposed of, and in what proportions the purchase money was divided: how the rents and profits were divided; and what written agreements were entered into between them with reference to the purchase, management, or sale of the properties. Held, that these interrogatories must be disallowed, as the answers with reference to the

340

147

186

436

602

789

...page 172

other properties were not strictly relevant to the point in issue, which was the terms on which the property in question in the action was purchased. (Kennedy v. Dodson). Mode of trial-Action assigned to Chancery Division - Partnership - Allegations of frand. In an action for dissolution of partnership the plaintiffs by their statement of claim made numerous charges of a serious nature affecting the character of the defendant, including charges of fraud, maintenance, and perjury. The defendant selected five of the most serious of these charges, and applied to the court, asking that issues should be directed to be tried before a judge and a special jury. Held, that the real issue in the action was whether the defendant had been guilty of such conduct as to render a dissolution of the partnership necessary, and therefore that, even if the defendant should succeed on all such issues, it would not necessarily follow that the partnership ought not to be dissolved; and that the application must accordingly be refused. (Ehrmann v. Ehrmann.) 352, 548 Particulars-Libel-Justification-Discovery and inspection of documents-Limitation. - Where the defence to an action for libel is justification, and particulars are delivered by the defendants of the matters on which they rely in support of their plea of justification, until some order is made for further particulars the effect of delivering the particulars is to narrow the matters in question in the action to the particulars so delivered; and the defendants' right to have discovery and inspection of the plaintiffs' documents is limited to those matters which are relevant to the questions in issue as cut down by the particulars. Where a party to an action makes an affidavit of documents which he admits relate to the matters in question in the action and some of the contents of those documents he desires to protect from discovery, he is bound to take upon himself the responsibility of stating on oath which parts do and which do not relate to the matters in question. (The Yorkshire Provident Life Assurance Company Limited v. Gilbert and Rivington Limited and the "Review" Newspaper Company.)...

415

Petition-Summons-Costs-Order LV., r. 2 (1).— A petition was presented by a trustee and some of the beneficiaries under a will for payment out of court of part of a sum of over 1000l. paid into court by the railway company, and transfer of the balance to the credit of a partition action in which an order had been made declaring the rights of the parties interested. Held, that the case fell within the provisions of Order LV., r. 2 (1), and the railway company must pay the costs, such costs not to be greater than those properly incurred on a summons adjourned to a judge in chambers and attended by counsel. (Re Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company; Slater v. Slater.) 627

Transfer of stock Trustee neglecting or refusing-Request in writing-Expiration of twenty-eight days-Statutory jurisdiction-Vesting order-Costs.-Upon petition for a vesting order under the Trustee Act 1893, s. 35 (1) (ii.) (d), against a trustee who refused to transfer stock, it was objected that the court had no jurisdiction to make the order, as the petition was presented before the expiration of the twenty-eight days required by the section to elapse after notice to the respondent trustee. Kekewich, J. allowed the objection, but gave leave to re-present and reserve the petition. The petition having subsequently been heard, Kekewich, J. made the order as asked, and directed the trustee to pay the costs of the application, except those consequent on the re-presentation and re-service of the petition: (72 L. T. Rep. 416.) On appeal: Held, that the court had jurisdiction to make the order. (Re Knox's Trusts.) 416, 761 Service out of the jurisdiction-AdministrationNotice of order made upon originating summons

...

...page 440

Person interested as one of next of kin resident abroad. The court has no power to give leave to serve an interested person residing out of the jurisdiction with notice of an order made upon an originating summons taken out for the administration of an estate in which such person is interested, so as to bring the case within rule 40 of Order XVI. of the Rules of Court 1883, and make the proceedings binding on such person; but notice of the order may be given to such person without any leave from the court, and if, after notice has been given, he does not choose to appear, the court may, after proof that such notice has been given, proceed with the administration of the estate in his absence. (Re Cliff; Edwards v. Brown.) Summonses at chambers-Reference to the Court-Appeal. In matters of practice and procedure a judge at chambers has now no power to refer a summons to the Divisional Court. Such summons cannot be referred to the Court of Appeal, but the proper practice is that the judge at chambers should either make or refuse an order, giving leave to appeal, if necessary. (Hood-Barrs v. Cathcart.)... Third-party notice served on co-defendant-Application to set aside.-When a third-party notice is issued against and served upon a co-defendant, an application to set aside the notice cannot be made, and the question whether it was properly issued or not must be raised when an application for directions is made. (Baxter v. France and others.)

...

a

Third-party procedure-Refusal of directions by judge Effect of refusal-Discretion. A defendant to an action served a third-party notice upon a co-defendant, and afterwards took out a summons for directions upon which the judge at chambers refused to make any order. Held, that the making of an order for directions was a matter of discretion. Held also, that the effect of the refusal of an order was to dismiss the person sought to be made a third party from being a third party, leaving him as he was before, simply a defendant in the action. Held also, that, as all the disputes between the defendants, in respect of the subject-matter of the action, could not be finally settled under the third-party notice, the judge exercised his discretion rightly in refusing an order. Held also, that, as the question whether the defendant was entitled to any indemnity from his co-defendant depended upon the true construction of a complicated Act of Parliament, the judge at chambers was justified in refusing to give any order for directions. (Baxter v. France and others, No. 2.)

Writ Originating summons - Foreclosure proceedings by debenture - holder to enforce his security.-A foreclosure order can be made at the instance of debenture-holders on an originating summons, and a writ is not necessary in order to enable the court to make such an order. (Oldrey v. Union Works Limited.)

Service out of jurisdiction-Amended writForm of indorsement - Evidence in supportOrder XI., r. 1 (g), r. 4; Order II., r. 5, App. A., Form 5, Order LXX., r. 1.-A. brought an action against B. alone for specific performance of an agreement made between A. of the one part and B., C., and D. of the other part, under which A. claimed to be entitled to one-half the share of B. in an estate in Ceylon, which had been purchased by B., C., and D. in partnership, and to personal remedies for money advanced. B. took out a summons for leave to serve a third-party notice on C., filing affidavits that he had assigned to C. all his interest in the Ceylon estate, subject to any claims of A. under the agreement, and that C. had indemnified him against all such claims. Upon the hearing of this summons an order was made, on the suggestion of the judge, giving A. leave to amend his writ by adding C., who was residing in Ceylon, as a defendant, and to serve him out of the jurisdiction. This order was made

184

146

183

627

on the materials afforded by the statement of claim and the affidavits of B.; no affidavit was filed by the plaintiff that there was a good cause of action, or that C. was a British subject. The writ was amended and served on C. but was not indorsed with the special indorsement required by Order II., r. 5, and the forms thereby prescribed for writs to be served out of the jurisdiction. C. now moved to discharge the order on the ground that the evidence required by Order XI., r. 4, had not been given, and that the writ served was not properly indorsed. On the merits of the case he objected that, as against C., the action was simply for the recovery of land in Ceylon, and ought to have been brought here. Held, on the merits, that A. had a clear right of action against B. in the first instance, and having brought such action was entitled to serve his writ on any necessary party abroad, and on the technical objections (1) that, on the principles laid down in Fowler v. Barstow (45 T. T. Rep. 603; 20 Ch. Div. 240), the omission of the statement that there is a good cause of action is immaterial where, as here, the court can ascertain from the materials before it that there is such a cause; (2) that the amended writ ought to have been indorsed in the same way that an original writ for service out of the jurisdiction is required to be indorsed by Order II., r. 5, but the omission was not a ground for discharging the order when it was clear that the defendant had not been injured by the omission. (Dickson v. Law and Davidson.) Writ-Service out of the jurisdiction-Application to set aside service-Application to be made at chambers.-When an order, giving leave to serve a writ upon a defendant out of the jurisdiction, has been made at chambers upon an ex parte application, an application to set aside that order and the service of the writ thereunder, must be made at chambers, and not to the Divisional Court or Court of Appeal. (Black v. Dawson.)

...page 680

525

Special indorsement- Mortgage debt-Receiver.-In an action to recover a debt due under a mortgage deed, the writ of summons may be specially indorsed, although the mortgagee has appointed a receiver of the income of the mortgaged property in accordance with the powers granted by the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881, and although the receiver has received moneys and paid money therefrom to the mortgagee in respect of the principal or interest. If a summons for judgment under Order XIV. be then taken out, and a bonâ fide dispute arise as to the sums received by the receiver and the balance of debt due from the defendant, the defendant ought to have leave to defend. (Lynde v. Waithman.) ... 857 Writ specially indorsed Omission of material averment-Amendment after summons for judgment-Amendment without leave.-In an action on a cheque, the indorsement on the writ contained no averment of notice of dishonour, but was in other respects a good special indorsement. Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to amend without leave by adding an averment of notice of dishonour. Held also, that the court had power, after the defect in the indorsement had been amended, to order judgment for the plaintiff upon a summons under Order XIV. which had been taken out before the amendment had been made. (Roberts v. Plant.)

...

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. Power to agent to borrow up to a certain limitBorrowing by agent in excess of powersLiability of principal.-Where a principal intrusts his agent with securities, and empowers him to raise money upon them to a limited amount, less than the value of the securities, and the agent in fraud of his principal pledges the securities with a bona fide lender, who has no notice or knowledge of the limitation of his powers, for an amount in excess of the sum authorised by the principal, and appropriates the balance to his own use, the principal cannot redeem the securities without

181

PROBATE DUTY. Liability-Business carried on in England and Australia. A testator carried on business in partnership in England under the style of " F. and Sons," and in Victoria under the style of "F. and Co.' The partners were the same in both businesses, and were domiciled and resident in England. All the goods sold in Victoria were purchased by them in Europe, and were paid for by money remitted from Victoria. The books in Victoria were kept separate from the books in England, balancesheets were made up in Victoria, and profits remitted to the partners in England. Held (affirming the judgment of the court below), that the business of F. and Co. was situate in Victoria, and that the interest of the testator in it was liable to probate duty in Victoria. (Beaver v. The Master in Equity of the Supreme Court.)

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS.

...

Drain or sewer-" Single private drain."-Sect. 134 of the Carlisle Corporation Act 1887 provides that, "In cases where two or more houses or premises are connected with a single private drain, which conveys their drainage into a public sewer, the corporation shall have all the powers conferred by sect. 41 of the Public Health Act 1875." The Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1890 gives similar powers. The respondent was the owner of a house which, together with adjoining houses (belonging to different owners), was drained by a common drain or sewer, which discharged into an admittedly public sewer. Held, that such drain was a sewer and not a single private drain, and was vested in the local authority. (Hill, app., v. Hair, resp.) Nuisance-Effluvia from manufactory-Summary conviction without previous notice to abate.-The appellant was summarily convicted under sect. 21 of the Public Health (London) Act 1891, on a complaint by the sanitary authority that premises on which he carried on the business of a brickmaker in the process of brickburning caused effluvia and were a nuisance and dangerous to health. Held, that it was not a condition precedent to such conviction that a notice under sect. 4 should have been served upon the appellant requiring him to abate the nuisance; such a notice is only required in the case of the particular nuisance enumerated in sect. 2. (Bird v. Vestry of St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington.) "Sewer'

66 Drain to two houses Different owners"-Adoption of Act of 1890 by a public authority.-Defendants (a local authority), having adopted Part III. of the Public Health Act 1890, served a notice on plaintiff to make good a defect in a drain. The drain was connected with the drain of an adjoining house, belonging to a different owner. Plaintiff completed the work, paid the expenses, and sued the defendants in the County Court to recover them. On appeal by defendants from the decision of the County Court judge: Held, that the public authority, not being compellable to do the work, there was no roquest by them to the plaintiff. The County Court judge was wrong in holding that the notice to the plaintiff was an express request to do the work for the defendants. (Selfe v. Hove Commissioners.) Street-Paving expenses-Apportionment.-A. was a frontager on B. street. The footways of such street were within sect. 150 of the Public Health Act 1875; the carriage-way was repairable by the inhabitants at large. The local authority, after notice, paved, &c., the whole street, and appor tioned the expenses upon the frontagers. A. did not dispute the apportionment, which became conclusive under sect. 257. The local authority took summary proceedings before justices to recover from A. his proportion of the expenses.

127

629

599

234

Held, that, the apportionment being within the jurisdiction of the local authority, although erroneous in including the carriage-way, could not be questioned in these proceedings, A.'s only remedy being by way of appeal to the Local Government Board (sect. 268). An apportionment which is erroneous in that it includes work which the authority could not legally order to be done is not a nullity. (The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Derby, apps., v. Grudgings, resp.) ...

...page 591

PUBLIC ROAD. Water-pipes-Compulsory powers. By sect. 23 of the Waterworks Clauses Act 1847, which was incorporated in their local Act, the appellants, as commissioners under the local Act, were empowered to " open and break up the soil and pavement of the several streets and bridges within the limits of the special Act, and may open and break up any sewers, drains, or tunnels within or under such streets and bridges, and lay down and place within the same limits pipes, conduits, servicepipes, and other works and engines and

for the purposes aforesaid remove and use all earth and materials in and under such streets and bridges, and do all such other acts which the undertakers shall from time to time deem necessary for supplying water to the inhabitants of the district included within the said limits." Sect. 29: "Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall authorise or empower the undertakers to lay down or place any pipe in any land not dedicated to public use without the consent of the owners and occupiers thereof." A public road within the limits was carried across the line of the respondent company on a girder bridge belonging to the respondents. There was not sufficient depth of earth on the bridge to receive waterpipe. Held, that the Act gave the appellants no authority to carry a water-pipe across the line by taking it through the stone abutments of the bridge, and slinging it from the girders under the bridge. (Corporation of Glasgow v. Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company.)...

.. 809

RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS. Complaint by association of traders-General increase of rates-Particulara.-An association of traders, though not aggrieved, can, under sect. 7 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1888, make a complaint under sect. 1 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, that a railway company has increased a rate or charge, and that it is unreasonable, although no person has complained or has been aggrieved. The Court of Appeal has a general power to award costs upon an appeal from the Railway and Canal Commission Court, notwithstanding the provisions of sect. 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1894. (The on Railway and Canal Traffic for the United Kingdom v. The Great Western Railway Company.)... 296. 523

Mansion House Association

RAILWAY COMPANY. Borrowing powers - Issue of debenture stockValidity-Priorities of debenture-holders.-The provision contained in sect. 24 of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1863, that "the holders of debenture stock shall not as among themselves be entitled to any preference or priority," applies only to priority as between the holders of a particular issue of debenture stock, and not as between holders of different issues. Where a railway company have power to borrow money on mortgage or bond, but no express authority to issue debenture stock, they can nevertheless do so by virtue of the provision of sect. 24 of the Railway Companies Act 1817, which authorises the creation of debenture stock. (Re The Mersey Railway Company.) Cheap excursion ticket-Condition on back of ticket -Passenger travelling beyond named stationForfeiture of ticket.-A condition printed on a

735