Imágenes de páginas



The practice of dishorning cattle, if performed with due care and skill, and for the purpose of rendering them more profitable to farmers in the course of their trade, is not cruelty to the animals within the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 92, s. 2. Brady v. M Argle (14 L. R., Ir. 174) not followed. Callaghan v. Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 16 Cox, C. C. 101 ; 16 L. R., Ir. 325-C. P. D.


Evidence.]-F. was charged with causing a

sheep to be tortured. The only evidence was See EASEMENT.

that he conveyed nine sheep in a waggon, and one of them broke its leg on getting out of the waggon; the drover, on driving them to a pen at the market for sale, put the sheep with the broken leg along with the others, and they trampled on it :-Held, though the facts showed

carelessness, there was no evidence of causing the ANIMALS.

sheep to be tortured. Westbrook v. Field, 51 J.

P. 726-D.


Movement of Animals in Infected DistrictRailway Company. )-By an Order in Council of

the 23rd February, 1883, made in exercise of the I. CRUELTY TO.

powers given under the Contagious Diseases

(Animals) Act, 1878, 41 & 42 Vict. c. 74, it was Domestic Animals—Decoy Bird.]-Linnets

ordered that any local authority in England or caught, kept in captivity, and trained to act as introduction of foot and mouth disease into

Wales might, with the view of preventing the decoy birds, for the purpose of catching other birds, were treated with cruelty :-Held, that their district, make regulations for prohibiting they were "domestic animals" under the

or regulating the movement by land or water of

protection of 12 & 13 Vict. c. 92, ss. 2 and 29, as animals into their district from the district of amended by 17 & 18 Vict. C. 60, s. 3. Colam v. any other local authority, provided that any Pagett, 12 Q. B. D. 66 ; 53 L. J., M. C. 64; 32 regulation made by a local authority under the W. R. 289 ; 48 J, P. 263—D.

Order shall not restrict movement of animals by railway through the district of that local

authority ; and that if an animal is moved in Operation for Purpose of Improving Animal.] contravention of the Order, or of a regulation of -A person who, with reasonable care and skill, a local authority thereunder, the owner of the performs on an animal a painful operation, which animal, and the person for the time being in is customary, and is performed bonâ fide for the charge of the animal, and the person causing, purpose of benefiting the owner by increasing directing, or permitting the movement, and the the value of the animal, is not guilty of the person or company moving or conveying the offence of cruelly ill-treating, abusing, or animal, shall be deemed guilty of an offence torturing the animal, within the meaning of 12 against the Act of 1878. The local authority of & 13 Vict. c. 92, s. 2, even though the operation the county of Glamorgan made a regulation that is in fact unnecessary and useless. Lewis v. no animal may be moved into the district of Fermor, 18 Q. B. D. 532; 56 L, J., M. C. 45; the local authority,” except that fat animals, for 56 L. T. 236 ; 35 W. R. 378 ; 51 J. P. 371 ; 16 immediate slaughter, might be moved in from Cox, C. C. 176—D.

districts free from disease, subject to the follow

ing regulation : " Before any movement into Dishorning Cattle.)—Upon a summons the county district, or removal from the railway against the respondent, under 12 & 13 Vict. c. truck in the county district, takes place, the 92, s. 2, for dishorning cattle, evidence was given owner, consignee, or person in charge shall that the operation caused very great pain and deliver to the inspector of the local authority a suffering, and was inflicted for greater con- declaration under the act.” W. tendered fat venience in yard feeding, and because dishorned animals to the Great Western Railway Company, cattle would sell for about 21. a head more than in a district free from disease, for carriage into those with horns. The magistrate having the Glamorganshire district, but the Great Westreferred to this court the question whether the ern Railway Company refused to carry the said case was one of the class contemplated by the cattle unless furnished by W. with a 6 declarastatute :-Held, that the respondent did "cruelly tion under the act.”. In an action by W. against ill-treat, abuse, and torture" animals, within the the Great Western Railway Company to recover meaning of 12 & 13 Vict. c. 92, s. 2; and that damages and expenses incurred by him through the act could not be justified as being either breach of duty on the part of the defendant necessary or reasonable for the purposes of company :-Held, that, notwithstanding the general convenience, and that the respondent words of the regulation “or before removal ought to have been convicted. Brady v. from the railway truck in the county district M Argle, 14 L. R., Ir. 174; 15 Cox, C. C. 816--| takes place," the defendant company were Ex. D.

entitled to refuse to carry the said cattle withont a declaration, and committed no breach of Vict. c. 71, confers upon a magistrate power to duty in refusing so to do. Williams v. Great order delivery of goods, under the value of 151., Western Railicay, 52 L. T. 250 ; 49 J. P. 439 unlawfully detained within the limits of the -D.

Metropolitan Police District, to the owner :-By an Order of Council made under the Con. Held, that the term “goods” includes a dog, and tagious Diseases. (Animals) Act, 1878, if an that a magistrate can entertain an application animal is moved in contravention of the regula- for delivery up of a dog alleged to be unlawfully tions of any local authority, the person “ causing, detained. Reg. v. Slade, 21 Q. B. D. 433; 57 directing, or permitting” the movement shall be L. J., M. C. 120 ; 59 L. T. 640 ; 37 W. R. 141 ; deemed guilty of an offence against the act. 52 J. P. 599 ; 16 Cox, C. C. 496—D. The local authority of the county of Dorset having by regulations prohibited the movement Liability of Owner for Injuries.]—The plaintiff of animals into their district except under speci- was engaged in digging a hole in a garden of a fied conditions, animals were consigned to a place house adjoining that of the defendant T. The within the district, with through bills from Cork gardens were separated from one another and viâ Bristol and a specified route. The appellants the adjacent gardens by low walls. A, dog were no parties to the contract with the con- belonging to the defendant T., which had been signor, but in furtherance of the scheme of taken out by the other defendant s., in returning carriage carried the animals on their railway sprang over the wall, under which the plaintiff over a portion of the route to a point outside the was working, and falling into the hole injured county of Dorset, whence they were subsequently the plaintiff :-Held, that as the dog was not carried into that county by another company: shewn to be mischievous to the knowledge of Held, that the appellants were liable to be con- the owner, the plaintiff had no cause of action victed of an offence against the act as persons against either of the defendants, either for tres"causing, directing, or permitting" the move. pass or breach of duty. Sanders v. Teape, 51 ment of the animals within the meaning of the L. T. 263 ; 48 J. P. 757-D. Order of Council; and that the justices of the county of Dorset had jurisdiction to convict. Evidence-Dog Worrying Sheep. ]-L.'s Vidland Railway v. Freeman, 12 Q. B. D. 629; dog was seen with another dog on a Welsh 53 L. J., M, c. 79; 32 W. R. 830; 48 J. P. mountain worrying two lambs. The same day 660—D.

the shepherd found near the place four lambs

dead, and next day ten more. L. being sumNotice of Action to Constable—Local Venue.]– moned for damage under 28 & 29 Vict. c. 60 :Section 19 of 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 41, by which, in Held, that the evidence was sufficient to justify all actions for anything done in pursuance of the justices in ordering L. to pay part of the that act, the venue is to be local, and the value of the whole loss. Lewis v. Jones, 49 J.P. defendant is to receive notice of action, applies 198—D. only to such acts as a constable might at the date of the statute have been called upon to perform; therefore the section does not apply in the case of a constable acting under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878. Bryzor v. Russell, 14 Q. B. D. 720; 54 L. J., Q. B.

ANNUITY. 141; 52 L. T. 208 ; 33 W. P. 34; 49 J. P. 293 -C. A.

Under Rent-charges.)-See RENT-CHARGE. Slaughtering diseased Animals — Compensa- Under Wills.]-Sec WILL. tion. ) - By the 42nd section of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c.

Valuation — Insufficient Funds -- Arrears.] 7t), it is provided that every local authority By a separation deed provision was made for shall

, from time to time, appoint so many in the payment of an annuity by the husband to spectors and other officers as they think necessary trustees for the wife. Upon the husband's death for the execution and enforcement of this act, children of the marriage claimed to be entitled and shall assign to those inspectors and officers under the same deed to a large amount in the Euch duties and salaries or allowances, and may funds held by the trustees; such funds were, delegate to any of them such authorities and however, insufficient to satisfy their claims and discretion as to the local authority may seem fit, also to answer the annuity, besides paying off and may at any time revoke any appointment so arrears. Upon an originating summons, taken made. The local authority failed to appoint an out to decide (inter alia) the mode in which the inspector, and disease having broken out amongst available funds should be apportioned between the plaintiff's cattle, some of them died. The the widow and the children :-Held, that, for Local authority did not slaughter any of the the purpose of such apportionment, the amount plaintiff's catile, nor did they pay bim any of the arrears of the annuity to the date of the compensation :-Held, that the plaintiff could hearing of the summons must be added to the not maintain an action for damages nor for a value of the annuity at the same date ascertained peremptory mandamus. Mulcahy v. Kilmac. according to the table of values of Government thomas Guardians, 18 L. R., Ir. 200—Q. B. D. annuities, and that the fund must be divided

in the proportion borne by the total so arrived

at to the full amount claimed by the children, III. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF Delres v. Newington, 52 L. T. 512—Pearson, J.

OWNER. Detention of Dog-Order for Delivery-Metropolitan Police Magistrate. ]-Section 40 of 2 & 3


by the defendants for a stay of the order pending APPEAL.

their appeal to the House of Lords; the applica

tion was granted on their undertaking to present I. TO THE HOUSE OF LORD3.

the appeal within a week and to duly prosecute

it, and that the deeds should be deposited in II, TO THE COURT OF APPEAL.

court upon oath, on the ground that if the

defendants produced their deeds, the appeal III, TO THE DIVISIONAL COURT.

would be seless. Emmerson v. Ind, 55 L. J.

Ch. 903 ; 55 L. T. 422 ; 34 W. R. 778—C. A. IV, FROM THE JUDGE IN CHAMBERS.

The practice as to staying execution pending V. FROM MASTER TO THE JUDGE,

an appeal from the Court of Appeal to the

House of Lords in actions in the Queen's Bench VI, FOR COSTS.-See Costs.

Division of the High Court applies to Admiralty

actions. The fact that bail has been given in an VII, BANKRUPTCY APPEALS. See BANK. Admiralty action in rem is not a special ground RUPTCY.

for staying execution pending an appeal from

the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords. VIII, ADMIRALTY APPEALS.-Sec SHIPPING. The Annot Lyle, 11 P. D. 114 ; 55 L. J., P. 62;

55 L. T. 576 ; 34 W. R. 647; 6 Asp. M. C, 50 IX. DIVORCE APPEALS.-See HUSBAND AND C. A. WIFE,

Application, where to be made. ]-An X. TO PRIVY COUNCIL.-See COLONY,

application for a stay of execution pending an XI. FROM COUNTY COURTS. — See COUNTY appeal to the House of Lords from the Court COURT.

of Appeal ought in all cases to be made to

the Court of Appeal. Hamill v. Lilley, 19 XII. BILL REVIEW. See PRACTICE Q. B. D. 83 ; 56 L. J., Q. B. 337 ; 56 L. T. 620; (JURISDICTION).

35 W, R. 437-C, A, XIII, SEPARATION ORDER OF JUSTICES.-See Security for Costs of Foreign Respondent.) HUSBAND AND WIFE,

— The amount paid into court by a foreign plain

tiff as security for costs will not, after he has XIV. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD, See succeeded in his action, be ordered to remain HEALTH,

in court pending an appeal by the defendant,

Hamill v. Lilley, 56 L, T, 620_C.A.

Bankruptcy of Appellant-Effect of.]—Where Time for – Matrimonial Cause.)—Since the an appeal involves a question of the appellant's Judicature Act of 1881, an appeal to the House status, the House of Lords will allow it to be of Lords in a matrimonial" cause (where an proceeded with notwithstanding the bankruptcy appeal lies) can only be from a decision of the of the appellant. G. v, M., 10 App. Cas. 171Court of Appeal ; and such an appeal must be H. L. (Sc.). brought within one month after the decision appealed against is pronounced by the Court of Appeal in Formâ Pauperis-Public RightAppeal, if the House of Lords is then sitting, or Subscriptions.]— Upon a petition for leave to if not, within fourteen days after the House of prosecute an appeal in formâ pauperis, it apLords next sits. Cleaver v. Clearer, 9 App. Cas. peared that the petitioner sought as one of the 631-H. L. (E.)

public to establish a right of fishing in a tidal

river adjoining land belonging to the defender, Petition not Lodged within a Year.]—and that subscriptions had been collected to The House of Lords refused to enlarge the time assist the petitioner in the litigation :-Held, for presenting an appeal provided by Standing that in the circumstances the application could Order No. 1, which is to the effect that no not be granted. Bowie v. Ailsa (Marquis), petition of appeal shall be received unless the 13 App. Cas. 371 ; 68 L. J., P. C.7; 60 L. T. same be lodged within one year from the date of 162-H. L. (Sc.) the last decree, order, judgment or interlocutor appealed from. Phillips v. Homfray, 11 App. Findings of Court of Session-How far concluCas. 466–H. L. (E.).

sive.]-The House of Lords is bound by the facts

found by the Court of Session, and cannot look Stay of Proceedings pending Appeal-Special at the evidence adduced by either party in that Grounds.] – Execution for costs pending an court. McLean y, Clydesdale Banking Co., 9 appeal from the Court of Appeal to the House App. Cas. 95–H, L. (Sc.). of Lords will not be stayed, unless evidence be adduced to show that the respondent to the

Judicial Notice of Law of any part of the appeal will be unable to repay the amount United Kingdom.]—It is not competent for the levied by execution, if the appellant be successful House of Lords to divest themselves of their before the House of Lords. Barker v. Lavery, judicial knowledge of the law of any part of the 14 Q. B. D. 769; 54 L. J., Q. B. 241 ; 33 W. Ř. United Kingdom, though the point may arise in 770-C, A.

an appeal from another part of the United King

dom, and may not have been argued in the court The defendants in an action had been ordered below. The appellant, a domiciled Irish woman, by the Court of Appeal to produce certain being an infant without legal guardian, married documents : an application was thereupon made in Ireland, before the passing of the Infants'

Settlement Act (18 & 19 Vict. c. 43), a domiciled to repay Costs on Reversal of Judgment.]—An Scotchman, An ante-nuptial settlement was action being dismissed at the hearing with costs, executed. After the death of her husband she a sum of money which had been paid into court commenced the present action in the Scotch | as security for the defendants' costs was ordered courts to set aside the settlement. No evidence to be paid out to the solicitors for the defendants was given as to the capacity of an infant to exe- in part payment of the defendants' costs. The cate a binding contract by the law of Ireland : judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeal, -Held, that the point being raised in the and the costs ordered to be paid by the defenpleadings, the House must take judicial notice dants. The plaintiffs asked for an order against that by the law of Ireland the settlement was the defendants' solicitors for repayment by not binding on the appellant, without regard to them -Held, that the court had no jurisdiction whether any, or what, evidence of the law of on the appeal to order the defendants' solicitors Ireland, as a matter of fact, had been given in to refund the money, the solicitors not being the court below ; and further, that the validity present. Nor, semble, could such an order have of the settlement was not affected by the fact been made if they had been served with notice that at the time of its execution both parties of the application. Lydney and Wigpool Iron contemplated a Scottish domicile during their Ore Co. v. Bird, 33 Ch. D. 85; 55 L, T, 558; married life. Cooper v. Cooper, 13 App. Cas. 34 W. R. 749—C. A. 88 ; 59 L. T. 1-H. L. (Sc.).

To enter Judgment instead of ordering New Costs—Point not raised below. ]-Where an Trial.)-On the appeal from the order of a appeal succeeds upon a point not raised in the divisional court, upon an application for a new court below, the appellant will not get costs. trial, the Court of Appeal has power, under Ib.

Ord. LVIII, r. 4, if all the facts are before the

court, to give judgment for the party in whose II. TO THE COURT OF APPEAL.

favour the verdict ought to have been given,

instead of directing a new trial. Millar v. 1, Jurisdiction.

Toulmin, 17 Q. B. D, 603 ; 55 L. J., Q. B. 445 ;

34 W. R. 695-C. A, 2. In what Cascs Appeal lies. a, Criminal Cause or Matter.

Quære, whether on appeal from an order b. In Interpleader Proceedings,

of a divisional court upon an application for a c. On Cases Stated.

new trial on the ground of the verdict being d. In other Matters,

against the weight of evidence, the Court of 3. Parties to Appeal.

Appeal has power to give judgment for the 4. Time within which Appeal must be brought.

appellants instead of directing a new trial. a. In what cases.

Millar v. Toulmin (17 Q. B. D. 603) doubted, b. From what Period Time runs.

Toulmin v. Millar, 12 App. Cas. 746 ; 57 L. J., c. Extension of Time.

Q. B. 301 ; 58 L, T. 96.-H, L. (E.). 5. Notice of Appeal.

Patent - Certificate - Particulars of Objec. 6. Security for Costs. 7. Staying Proceedings pending Appeal.

tion. ]—In an action for infringement of a 8. Eridence on Appeal.

patent, the defendant disputed its validity, 9. Hearing of the Appeal.

delivered particulars of objections, stating the 10. Costs of the Appeal,

grounds, and adduced evidence in support thereof. At the trial judgment was given in

favour of the plaintiff, and the validity of the 1, JURISDICTION,

patent was upheld. On appeal this judgment

was reversed and the patent was declared inTo Strike Solicitor off Rolls not by way of valid. The defendant, the successful appellant, Appeal.]—On the hearing of an appeal from a applied to the Court of Appeal for a certificate decision in the County Palatine Court, the at- under s. 29, sub-s. (6) of the Patents Act, 1883, tention of the Court of Appeal was called to the that the particulars of objection delivered by evidence given by a solicitor in the court below, him were reasonable and proper :-Held, that from which it appeared that he had been guilty the Court of Appeal, having power to make of gross misconduct in his character of solicitor such order as ought to have been made in the with regard to a mortgage on which a question first instance, had power to grant—and under arose in the action. The Court of Appeal directed the circumstances of the case, would grantthe official solicitor to take proceedings against such certificate. Cole v. Saqui, 10 Ch. D. 132 ; him. The official solicitor moved the court for 58 L. J. Ch. 237 ; 59 L. T. 877 ; 37 W. R. 109 an order calling on the solicitor to explain his -C. A. conduct or that he should be struck off the roll. The solicitor took no notice of the application :

2. IN WHAT CASES APPEAL LIES, -Held, that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the application ; but, having regard to the

a. Criminal Cause or Matter. circumstances of the case, and that the solicitor had not taken out a certificate for several years, Property obtained by False Pretences-Power the court did not order him to be struck off the to order Restitution.]—By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, roll, or suspend him, but granted an injunction s. 100, if any person guilty (inter alia) of obtainrestraining him from renewing his certificate ing any property by false pretences is convicted without the leave of the court. Whitehead, In thereof, in such case the property shall be rere, 28 Ch. D. 614; 54 L, J., Ch. 796 ; 52 L. T. stored to the owner or his representative, and in 703; 33 W. R. 601-C. A.

every such case the court before whom any such,

person shall be tried shall have power to order To order Solicitors of successful Party below the restitution thereof in a summary manner.


The Queen's Bench Division having discharged such refusal. Brosnan, Ex parte, 22 L. R., Ir.
a rule for a certiorari to remove an order for 334-C. A.
restitution made under the above section :-
Held, that the order of the Queen's Bench

Certiorari—Indictment.]—No appeal lies to
Division was a judgment “in a criminal cause the Court of Appeal from the refusal of the
or matter" within s. 47 of the Judicature Act, Queen's Bench Division to grant a certiorari
1873, and that there was no appeal to the Court to

an indictment to the Central
of Appeal. Reg. v. Central Criminal Court Criminal Court under 19 & 20 Vict. c. 16.
Justices, 18 Q. B. D. 314 ; 56 L. J., M. C. 25 ;| Reg. v. Rudge, 16 Q. B. D. 459; 55 L. J., M. C.
56 L. T. 352 ; 35 W. R. 243; 51 J. P. 229; 16 112; 53 L. T. 851 ; 34 W. R. 207 ; 50 J. P. 755
Cox, C. C. 196—C. A.

-C. A.

Bail.]- A prisoner applied for bail to a
Habeas Corpus.] An order of the Queen's divisional court of the Queen's Bench Division
Bench Division, refusing to grant a writ of but was refused; he then appealed to the Court
habeas corpus ad subjiciendum was not a judg- of Appeal :-Held, that the decision of the divi.
ment in a criminal cause or matter, and there- sional court was a judgment of the High Court
fore an appeal from the order was competent. in a criminal matter, and therefore that the
Keller, In re, 22 L. R., Ir. 158—C. A.

Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to entertain

the appeal. Reg. v. Foote, 10 Q. B. D. 378 ; 52
Extradition Proceedings.]—The Queen's L. J., Q. B. 528; 48 L. T. 394 ; 31 W. R. 490; 48
Bench Division having refused an application J. P. 36 ; 15 Cox, C. C. 240—C. A.
for a writ of habeas corpus made on behalf of a
person who had been committed to prison under Special Case—Non-repair of Highway.]-See
s. 10 of the Extradition Act, 1870, as a fugitive Loughborough Highway Board v. Curzon, post,
criminal accused of an extradition crime :

-col. 26.
Held, that the decision of the Queen's Bench
Division was given in a “criminal cause or

Information by Attorney-General — Parlia-
matter" within the meaning of s. 47 of the mentary Oaths Act, 1866.]Upon the trial of an
Judicature Act, 1873, and therefore that no information at the suit of the Attorney-General
appeal would lie to the Court of Appeal. against a member of the House of Commons for
Woodhall, Ex parte, or Woodall, In re, 20 voting without having taken the oath of allegi.
Q. B. D. 832 ; 57 L. J., M. C. 71 ; 59 L. T. ance within the meaning of the Parliamentary
841; 36 W. R. 655 ; 52 J. P. 581-C. A.

Oaths Act, 1866, as amended by the Promissory

Oaths Act, 1868, judgment was given for the
Whether the Court of Appeal has any juris-

Crown, and the Divisional Court refused to grant
diction to entertain an appeal from the refusal tion and misreception of evidence. On applica-

a rule for a new trial, on the ground of misdirec-
of a divisional court to issue a writ of habeas tion by the defondant to the Court of Appeal :
corpus, on the application of a person who has Held, that the Court of Appeal had power to
been arrested for an alleged extradition crime, hear the application and to grant a new trial in
quære. Reg. v. Weil, 9 Q. B. D. 701; 53. L.J., such a case. By Brett, M.R., and Lindley, L.J.,
M. C. 74 ; 47 L. T. 630 ; 31 W. R. 60; 15 Cox, Cotton, L.J., doubting, an information at the
C. C. 189—C, A.

suit of the Attorney-General to recover penalties

under s. 5 of the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866,
Order striking Solicitor off the Rolls. ]-When from a member of Parliament for voting without
the High Court makes an order orderin a solicitor having taken the oath of allegiance required by
to be struck off the rolls for misconduct, it does that statute, as amended by the Promissory Oaths
so in exercise of a disciplinary jurisdiction over Act, 1868, is not a “criminal cause or matter"
its own officers, and not of a jurisdiction in any within the meaning of the Supreme Court of
criminal cause or matter within the meaning Judicature Act, s. 47, and an appeal may be
of s. 47 of the Judicature Act, 1873, and there- brought from any order or judgment therein of
fore an appeal lies from such order to the Court the High Court to the Court of Appeal :-By
of Appeal. Hardwick, In re, 12 Q. B. D. 148; Brett, M.R., on the ground that the information
53 L. J., Q. B. 64 ; 49 L. T. 584 ; 32 W. R. 191 is in its nature a civil proceeding, and, therefore,
-C. A.

that an appeal lies under the Supreme Court of

Judicature Act, 1873, s. 19 :-By Lindley, L.J.,
Refusal of Justices to state Case. )---Under the on the ground that even although the informa-
Judicature Act, 1877, there is no appeal to the tion may be to some extent of a criminal nature,
Court of Appeal in a criminal case, except for nevertheless before the passing of the Supreme
error on the record. B. was convicted at Petty Court of Judicature Acts, 1873, 1875, an appeal
Sessions before a court of summary jurisdiction, would have lain under the Crown Suits Act,
and sentenced to one month's imprisonment. 1865 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 104), ss. 31, 34, 35, from a
He applied to the magistrates to state a case decision of the Court of Exchequer to the Court
for the opinion of the court. Upon their of Exchequer Chamber, and that the Supreme
refusal to do so he applied for a rule, calling Court of Judicature Acts, 1873, 1875, do not take
upon the justices to show cause why such case away any right of appeal existing before the
sbould not be stated. The court refused to passing of those statutes.-Semble, by Brett,
make the order, and B. appealed to the Court M.R., that even if the information could be re-
of Appeal Held, that the refusal of the garded as a criminal proceeding, nevertheless an
Queen's Bench Division to make the order appeal would lie, for by the Supreme Court of
applied for was a judgment in a criminal Judicature Act, 1873, s. 47, the right of appeal
cause or matter within the meaning of section is taken away only in the case of indictments, of
50 of the Act; and that the Court of Appeal criminal informations for indictable misde-
bad no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from meanors filed in the Queen's Bench Division, and

« AnteriorContinuar »