Imágenes de páginas


LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF—continued. N.E. Rg. Co. (4 Ch. D. 845, 47 L. J. Cli, 20, 36 Equity of redemption barred by-Mortgage L. T. 174) observed upon.

of copyholds—Proceeds of sale. Concealment of the fraud alleged is always a

See MORTGAGE. 29. question of fact, and must be averred in the

Fiduciary relation-Solicitor and client. pleading, if relied on as a ground of equitable

See SOLICITOR. 19. relief against the Statute of Limitations. BARBER

Misfeasance by promoter-Claim by liquiv. HOUSTON AND ROOPER

14 L. R. Ir. 273

dator-Notice to directors. 8. Personal ActionsPartnership-Claim

See COMPANY-PROMOTER. 1. against Firm of Solicitors for Damages for mis- Possessory title under. appropriating sums entrusted to firmInterest,

See VENDOR AND PURCHASER. 24. I'roof against Estate of deceased Partner.] BARBER

Subsidence, injury from—Cause of action. V. MACKRELL W. N. 1883, p. 184 (C.A.)

See SUPPORT. 2. 9. Realty-Annuity charged on Land LINE OF BUILDING—Metropolis Management and the Rents thereof-Right first accrued in 1851

Acts. -Claim first made in 1881-Statute of Limita

See METROPOLIS. 2, 3. tions (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27), 8. 1-- Real Property LIQUIDATION—Bankruptcy. Limitation Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 57), 88. 1,

See BANKRUPTCY-LIQUIDATION. 9, 10.] By an indenture executed in 1833, real estate was conveyed to trustees and their heirs

- Company upon trust as to one moiety that immediately

See COMPANY-WINDING-UP. after the death of M. C. they should out of the LIQUIDATOR. moiety and the rents and profits thereof pay unto

See COMPANY-LIQUIDATOR. J. M., and to his heirs and assigns, or permit him or them to receive it, an annuity of £8 half- LOAN-Agreement by banker for—Breachyearly. M. C. died in 1857. No payment was


See BANKER. 2. ever made in respect of the annuity, and the annuitant first made a claim in 1884. The Chief LOAN SOCIETY-Association of more than 20 Clerk had certified that he was entitled to a

members—Acquisition of gain. perpetual annuity.

See COMPANY- UNREGISTERED COMPANY. On summons to vary the certificate :—Held,

3. by Kay, J., that, by sect. 1 of the Act 37 & 38 LOCAL GOVERNMENT—Bye-Law-ValidityVict. c. 57, no proceeding to recover any “rent,” Playing concertina in streetsReasonable cause which, inasınuch as by sect. 9 the Act must be Justice of the Peace construed with the 3 & 4 Will. 4, C. 27, meant Municipal Corporations Act, 1835 (5 & 6 Will. 4, c.

Disqualifying Interest by the interpretation clause of that Act, any 76), s. 90.] A bye-law made by the corporation annuity charged upon land, could be taken after of T. under the powers conferred by the above twelve years from the time when the right first section provided that “ accrued, therefore if there had not been any sound or play upon any musical instrument or

every person who shall trust, those twelve years having elapsed, none of the past instalments of the annuity could be sing or make any noise ... in any street, or near

house ..., after having been required by any recovered, and that the effect of sect. 10 of the householder resident in such street ..., or by any 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57, was that no payment of the police constable, to desist ..., either on account annuity which became due before the application of any illness of any inmate of such house, or was made was recoverable, the remedy being only for any reasonable cause ... " &c. G. a the same as if there had not been any trust. tain" in the “Salvation Army," was convicted

capHUGHES v. COLES [53 L. J. Ch. 1047, 61 L. T. 226, 33 W. R. 21 by Justices of the Peace under the bye-law for

playing a concertina on a Sunday morning, 10. RealtyTitle Rent Charge—3 & 4 surrounded by a large crowd, after a police conWill. 4, c. 27, 88. 1,2-1 & 2 Vict. c. 109 (Ireland).j stable had required him to desist, telling him at The Commissioners of Church Temporalities in the same time that he had reasonable cause for Ireland filed a bill in 1877 for the recovery of so doing, as several complaints bad been made tithe rent charge, in respect of which there had by the inhabitants. Peld, by Stephen and been no payment or acknowledgment in writing Mathew, JJ., that the bye-law was reasonable. for the then previous 20 years :-Held, on appeal, and that whether

these was or was not a reason

was for the Justices to decide. that tithe rent charge is neither “tithes

The Justices who convicted G. had previously land,” but “rent,” within ss. 1 & 2 of 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27.

attended a meeting convened by the superinHeld, further (diss. Palles, C.B.), that the tithe tendent, at which a summons against G. was rent charge so being "rent" was barred by non

applied for, and refused :—Held, that, even had payment and non-acknowledgment in writing for they discussed the facts of the case at the 20 years, and that, even if it were " composition

» meeting, this would not disqualify them from within s. 1, still the Plaintiffs, not being trans- afterwards dealing with the matter Reg. (GAY)

v. PUWELL ferees of the immunity from the Act which, as to

51 L. T. 92, 48 J. P. 740 composition rent charges, was enjoyed by spiri. 2. Bye-Law-Public PeaceDisturbance tual co

brations sole, could not recover. COM-of-Salvation Army-Singing and playing in MISSIONERS OF CHURCH TEMPORALITIES v. GRANT public streets. On information against the Appel

[11 L. R. Ir. 430 (C.A.) lants charging them with having disturbed the

[ocr errors]



LOCAL GOVERNMENT-continued. public peace by singing and shouting, and by under the mortgage, and in Mar. 1884 demanded playing a cornet contrary to the Hastings Local from the B. overseers payment of the amount Act (2 Wm. 4, s. xci.), s. 61, which renders any due from the parish since Jan. 1879, up to which person who shall “ make, excite, or join in, any date the parish had duly contributed in accordbrawl, or otherwise disturb the public peace ance with the Act. The demand not having been liable to conviction and fine, it was proved that complied with, application was now made for a on a Sunday shortly before 11 A.M., the Appel- mandamus to compel the overseers to levy a rate lants, members of the “Salvation Army,” headed in order to pay the arrears. Held, by Day ard a crowd which had assembled, and led it through Smith, JJ., that the obligation imposed upon the the streets singing hymns, shouting "alleluia,” B. parish was to pay their proportion of the debt and blowing loudly, and in a discordant manner, annually, and the eff-ct of granting the mandaon the cornet, to their meeting-house. The mus would be to enforce the levy of retrospective members of the “army” did not exceed fourteen rates, and that the rule must therefore be disor fifteen, but the crowd ultimately numbered charged. REG. v. BEDLINGTON OVERSEERS 400 or 500. The justices having found as a fact

[48 J. P. 486 that the Appellants had disturbed the public

Local Improvement Act-Sewage-Pollupeace within the statute, and having convicted

tion of stream. them; Held, by Coleridge, C.J., and Cave, J.,

See NUISANCE. 4. that there was no evidence of the offence charged, and that the conviction was wrong. BEATY v.

Metropolis. GLENISTER 51 L. T. 304, W. N. 1884, p. 93

See METROPOLIS. 3. Fencing-Liability to fence Lands

Penalty—Remission Office, interested in

contract. abutting on highway.] The 71st section of the Rotherham Borough extension and sewerage Act,

See PENALTY. 1879, enacts, “ if the corporation are of opinion

Public Health Acts. that danger to the public is likely to ensue by

See PUBLIC HEALTH Acts. reason of lands abutting on streets not being Towns Improvement Act—“Street." fenced, the owner of any such land shall, when

See Towns IMPROVEMENT ACTS. required by the corporation, and to their satisfaction, sufficiently fence off the land from the LODGER--Lodger's Goods Protection Act, 1871.

See LANDLORD AND TENANT. 21–23. street, and shall afterwards keep such fence in good repair to the satisfaction of the corporation,

LONDON. and if he fails so to fence or repair as aforesaid

See METROPOLIS. within fourteen days after notice for that purpose LORD CAMPBELL'S ACT. given to him by the corporation, the corporation

See DAMAGES. 6-8. may fence or repair, as the case may be, and Action in rem under, against Foreign Ship. charge him with the expenses of so doing, and

See JURISDICTION. 4. recover the same as expenses under the 150th section of the Public Health Act, 1875.”

LUGGAGE — Loss — Connecting Carriers— LiaHeld, by Day and Smith, JJ., that this

bility. provision did not apply to fences on a highway,

See CARRIER. 5. but only to new streets where there are no fences, · Passenger's–Delivery-Custody of Porter. and where the corporation is of opinion that there

See RAILWAY COMPANY. 5. should be fences to protect the public from LUNATIC—Contract by Insane Person who is danger. ROTHERHAM (MAYOR OF) v. FULLERTON

apparently Sine - Burden of Proof. [50 L. T. 364

FAY v. BURDITT 42 Amer R. 142 (U.S.) 4. RatesRetrospective Rates Parish

2. Inquisition-Alleged LunaticOrder separated from Local Government District

for Inquiry before Judge of the High CourtStatutory apportionment of debt charged on 'Lunacy Regulation Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 86), special District RatesOverseers required to levy s. 4–8 & 9° Vict. c. 109, 8. 19.) When an issue is rates for raising annual instalments—Mandamus directed by an order in Lunacy to try the question to levy arrears.] At a date when the parish of of the insanity of an alleged lunatic before a B. was by a provisional order separated from the Judge of the High Court of Justice under Local Government District of M., the special the Lunacy Regulation Act, 1862, s. 4, it is not district rates of that district were mortgaged for necessary to commence the proceedings by a the unexpired period of 23 years to secure re- writ of summons, the order for the issue being payment of a debt previously incurred by the sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Judge. Re M. District Local Board. By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 39, G. G. SCOTT 27 Ch. D. 116, 32 W. R. 801 (C.A.) the provisional order was confirmed, and the amount apportioned which the B. parish should

3. Maintenance— Legacy to Lunatic not contribute towards the payment of such debt, so found-Application of Income for Maintenance. and it was provided that the parish overseers of Re WHITHAM, POTTER Ö. Whithảm W. N. 1884, B., should raise the annual instalments required

[p. 141 to pay off the sum that the B. parish was to 4. Maintenance~Pauper Lunatic-E.ccontribute in the name, and as part of the rates pense of Maintenance Right of Poor Law levied within such parish for the relief of the Guardians to recover against Estate of Lunatic poor. In July, 1883, the M. Board paid off the after his Death - Lunatic Asylums Act, 1853 last instalment of principal and interest due 1 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 97), 88. 94, 104.] A pauper


LUNATIC- continued.

LUNATIC—continued. lunatic having died seised of a small amount of 8. - Property- Mortgage - Payment off o). real estate :

-Form of Order-Ademption.] The proper form Held, by Bacon, V.C., that the amount of sums of order for the payment off of a mortgage on a paid by guardians of the union to which the pauper portion of a lunatic's property is to pay off the was chargeable (though not in the union in which mortgage without prejudice to the question he died), in respect of his maintenance at a how the mortgage debt is to be ultimately lunatic asylum, was a debt recoverable in a borne; the property not to be conveyed to creditors' action against bis personal and real the lunatic, but the mortgage to be kept on foot representatives, though no steps to recover pay- by transferring it to the committee to be dealt ment of expenses incurred in respect of such with as the Court may direct. Re Leeming (3 D. maintenance were taken by the guardians in the G. F. & J. 43, 3 L. T. 686) followed. Re MELLY pauper's lifetime. Re WEBSTER. GUARDIANS OF (53 L. J. Ch. 248, 49 L. T. 429, 31 W. R. 898 DERBY UNION V. SHARRAT 27 Ch. D. 710,

[(C.A.) 51 L. T. 319

9. Property Mortgage Transfer of, 5. Maintenance Property of Small vested in LunaticNo person able to take ReconAmount-Petition for Application of Income- veyance-Sale to pay Costs— Trustee Act, 1850 Opposition by alleged Lunatic - Jurisdicton (13 & 14 Vict. c. 60), 88. 3, 20Lunacy Regulation Lunacy Regulation Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 86), Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 70), s. 116.j Alunatic s. 12–General Orders in Lunacy, Nov. 1862, rr. was entitled to a mortgage of freeholds made 7. 8— Lunacy Orders, 1883, rr. 61, 62.] The under a power contained in a settlement, but had power given to the Lord Chancellor by s. 12 of no property available for payment of the costs of the Lunacy Regulation Act, 1862 (extended by the inquiry as to his lunacy. The trustee of the 8. 3 of the Lunacy Regulation Amendment Aci, settlement was dead, and there was no one to 1882), to make an order for the application of whom the mortgaged property could be recovered the property of a person of unsound mind for his as trustee, but a person had been found who was maintenance or benefit, when the property is willing to accept a transfer. Held, that this below a specified amount, without directing any could be done by ordering the lunatic's interest inquiry under a commission of lunacy, ought not, in the mortgaged property to be sold under s. 116 even if the jurisdiction extends to cases in which of the Lunacy Regulation Act, 1853, to pay the the alleged lunatic appears and denies un- costs of the inquiry. soundness of mind, to be exercised in such cases. Quære, whether the matter could be dealt with Re LEES 26 Ch. D. 496, 53 L. J. Ch. 1022, under the Trustee Act, 1850. Re BROWN (JOHN) [50 L. T. 489, 32 W. R. 1005 (C.A.)

(50 L. T. 373 (C.A.) 6. Property-Allowance-Lunatic tenant

10. Property-Stock, Transfer of-Proof for lifeAllowance to collateral tenant in tail in of declaration of Lunacy by Scotch Court Order remainder Increase of allowance.] The tenant of Scotch Court appointing curator bonis—Lunacy for life of certain estates was an incurable lunatic, Regulation Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 70), s. 141.j a bachelor, and 64 years old. There being a

The Court of Session in Scotland made an order large surplus income left after providing for his appointing a curator bonis to a person on a petimaintenance, the Court in 1882 niąde an allow- tion alleging his insanity, and supported by ance of £500 per ann. to his nephew, the tenant affidavits proving insanity. It was shewn thrt in tail in remainder, upon the terms of the curators were appointed in Scotland for causes nephew charging the estate with the repayment besides that of insanity. Held; that it was of the sums received in respect of such allowance, sufficiently proved that the person had been and the Court consenting, as protector of the declared a lunatic by the Court of Session within settlement,to the entail being barred to secure the the above section. Re TARRATT 51 L. T. 310, allowance (see Re Sparrow : 20 Ch. D. 320, 51

[32 W. R. 909, W. N. 1884, p. 167 (C.A.) L. J. Ch. 497, 46 L. T. 785, 30 W. R. 373). The 11. Suit to perpetuate Testimony-Illenephew since then married and had a son who gitimacy-Rule of Court, 1883, Order xxxvII., r. would, if he survived his father, take as tenant in 35.] A lunatic who had several children was tail in remainder. The nephew's income was divorced from his wife on the ground of the wife's £800 (including the above allowance of £500):- adultery. One of the wife's children born before Held, by Baggallay and Lindley, L.JJ.; Cotton, the divorce was alleged to be illegitimate, and L J., dissenting, that the allowance ought to be the committee presented a petition that proceedincreased to £700; the additional £200 being ings might be taken to perpetuate the testimony secured in the same manner as the £500. Re of the illegitimacy :-Held, that the proper course BERIDGE

50 L. T. 653 (C.A.) to pursue was for the Court to make a settlement

of some of the lunatic's property on his children, 7. Property-Bankrupt- Leave to Com- and for the legitimate children to raise thé mittee to file Declaration of Insolvency-Bank- 1 question of the right of the alleged illegitimate ruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict

. c. 52), 88. 4.(f), child to participate, and then to bring an action 148.] Where it appears to be for the benefit of a

to perpetuate the testimony. Re STOER lunatic that he should be made bankrupt, the Court will give leave to the Committee in the

[9 P. D. 120, 51 L. T. 141, 32 W. R. 1005 (C.A.) name of the lunatic to file a declaration of insol. Compulsory purchase of land of. vency, or to present a bankruptcy petition under

See LANDS CLAUSES Act. 17. the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 4 (f). Re JAMES

Insanity as an excuse for crime, [12 Q. B. D. 332, 53 L. J. Q. B. 575, 50 L. T. 471

See CRIMINAL LAW, 21, 22.



MALICIOUS PROSECUTION-continued. · Not so found-Guardian ad litem.

whether the Defendants had taken reasonable See PRACTICE- CHAMBERS. 9.

care to inform themselves of the true state of the Property-Allowance out of, for permanent case, and whether they honestly believed the case alimony.

which they laid before the magistrates; the jury See PRACTICE-DIVORCE. 2.

having answered these questions in the affirmaTenant for life— Sale or lease by-Notice.

tive the judge entered the judgment for the

Defendants : Held, that the direction to the jury See SETTLED LAND ACT. 17.

was correct, that upon the facts and the findings Trustee-New trustee.

of the jury, the Defendants had reasonable and See TRUSTEE ACTS. 2, 3.

probable cause for prosecuting the Plaintiff, and Witness.

that the judge had rightly entered the judgment See EVIDENCE. 11.

for the Defendants. ABRATH V. NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY Co. 11 Q. B. D. 440, 62 L. J. Q. B. [620, 49 L. T. 618, 32 W. R. 50, 47 J. P.

[692 (C.A.) M.

2. Reasonable and Probable Cause

Malicious presentation of Petition for winding up MACHINERY_“Defect in condition” of. a Company.] E., a shareholder in the plaintiff See MASTER AND SERVANT. 3, 4. company, sent his shares to a broker for sale,

with a signed transfer. The brokers informed MAGISTRATES.

him that they could not sell the shares, but did See JUSTICES.

not return the transfer. About 10 days afterMAINTENANCE-Clause for, in legacy-Vesting. wards, E., thinking he was still a shareholder, See WILL-CONSTRUCTION. 58.

presented a petition to wind up the company, on Infant.

the ground of fraud in its formation. The petiSee INFANT. 6-10.

tion was advertised in the usual manner. Before

serving it, E. found that his shares had been sold Lunatic.

and the transfer registered, whereupon he withSee LUNATIC. 3–5.

drew his petition, and it was dismissed with costs. Pauper-Married woman- -Relief.

The company having brought an action against E. See POOR LAW. 3.

for maliciously and without reasonable and probPower to appoint fund for.

able cause presenting the petition, the judge See POWER. 1.

asked the jury whether the Defendant, at the MALICIOUS PROSECUTION — Reasonable and time he presented the petition, honestly believed Probable Cause-Burden of Proof-Direction to he was a shareholder, but did not ask them the burden of proof as to all the issues arising and Manisty, JJ., that he should

have left the Jury.] In an action for malicious prosecution whether the Defendant had taken reasonable care

to inform himself of the fact :-Held, by Denman Plaintiff proves that he was innocent of the charge latter question to the jury, and that there must be laid against him, and although the judge in order

a new trial. QUARTZ HILL CONSOLIDATED GOLD to enable himself to determine the issue of reason

MINING Co. v. EYRE (No. 2)

50 L. T. 274 able and probable cause, leaves subsidiary ques- MANAGER. tions of fact to the jury, nevertheless the onus of

See PRACTICE-RECEIVER. proving the existence of such facts as tend to

Special-Refusal of receiver to appoint. establish the want of reasonable and probable

See BANKRUPTCY_OFFICIAL RECEIVER. cause on the part of the Defendant, rests upon the Plaintiff.- Decision of the Queen's

Bench MANDAMUS-Servants of the Crown-CommisDivision (11 Q. B. D. 79, 52 L. J. Q. B. 352) sioners of Inland Revenue— Return of Probate reversed.—The Plaintiff, a surgeon, had attended Duty5 & 6 Vict. c. 79, 8. 23.] Sect. 23 of 5 & 6 one M. for bodily injuries alleged to have Vict. c. 79, provides for the return by the Combeen sustained in a collision upon the Defend- missioners of Stamps and Taxes of probate duty ants' railway M. brought an action againts the on proof by oath and proper vouchers to their Defendants, which was compromised by the De- satisfaction of the payment of debts of the defendants paying a large sum for damages and ceased, whereby the amount of probate duty paycosts. Subsequently the directors of the Defend- able on the estate is reduced below the amount ants’ company, having received certain informa- which has been paid. By a subsequent Act the tion, caused the statements of certain persons to Commissioners of Inland Revenue are substituted be taken by a solicitor; these statements tended for the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes. On to shew that the injuries of which M. complained an application by an administrator for a mandawere not caused at the collision, but were pro- mus to the commissioners to pay to the applicant duced wilfully by the Plaintiff, with the consent the amount of duty overpaid by him, on the of M., for the purpose of defrauding the Defend- ground that he had supplied evidence of overants. These statements were laid before counsel, payment and had no other legal remedy:-Held, who advised that there was good ground for pro- that the mandamus ought not to issue, for the secuting the Plaintiff and M. for conspiracy. The statute created no duty between the commissioners Defendants accordingly prosecuted the plaintiff, and the applicant, whose remedy, if the decision but he was acquitted. In an action for malicious of the commissioners could be reviewed, was by prosecution, the judge directed the jury to find petition of right. Rex v. Lords Commissioners of


MARKET-continued. the Treasury (4 A. & E. 286) disapproved of. Re ents' tenants wished to sell in the Respondents' NATHAN. REG. v. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND | market there would be no room for them; and REVENUE 12 Q. B. D. 461, 53 L. J. Q. B. 229, that the Respondents' market infringed the pro

[51 L. T. 46, 32 W. R. 543 (C.A.) visions of certain Paving Acts :-Commissioners of sewers

Held, attirming the decision of the Court of Expense of re

Appeal (25 Ch. D. 511, 53 L. J. Ch. 371, 49 L. T. pairing sea-wall. See SEWERS.

717, 32 W. R. 341), that the charter of Ed

ward III. had, at the most, the force of a private Copyholds—Admission— Escheat - Result

or personal statute, and concerned the corporation ing trust,

of London only and not the general public; that See COPYHOLDS. 2.

the consent of the corporation was to be presumed Pleading-Return of unconditional com to the letters patent of Charles II. ; that the

pliance—Plea traversing return. letters patent of Charles II. conferred a valid See PRACTICE-MANDAMUS.

right of market; that the company's depôt was To justices.

in fact a rival market, and a disturbance of the See JUSTICES. 4, 7–9.

Respondents' right of market, and entitled the To justices to issue warrants—Poor rate Respondents to an injunction to restrain the comMetropolis Valuation Act.

pany from using their depôt in the above manner See METROPOLIS. 13.

or so as to interfere with the Respondents' rights; To levy arrears of rates Retrospective rates, and that even if the company had proved that See LOCAL GOVERNMENT. 4.

there was not sufficient accommodation in the To police magistrate to state a case-Paving been infringed, those circumstances would have

Respondents' market, or that the Paving Acts had new street."

afforded no answer to the action for an injunction. See METROPOLIS. 8.

GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY Co. v. GOLDSMID MANOR—Rights Reservation of minerals

[9 App. Cas. 927, 33 W. R. 81 (H. L., E. Support—Damage to surface.

2. Market Franchise-Grant by Crown of See INCLOSURE.

right to hold market on land not belonging to GranMANSION HOUSE-Sale of.

tee-Holding markets on days not named in Grant See SETTLED LAND ACT. 16.

-Prescription.] A market franchise can be MANSLAUGHTER-Physician-Gross ignorance granted by the Crown over land not belonging to of.

the grantee, but such franchise cannot be exerSee CRIMINAL LAW. 29.

cised against the will of the owner of the land. MARINE INSURANCE.

Where the grant specifies certain days on which

the market is to be held, no length of user will See INSURANCE, MARINE.

entitle the grantee to hold markets on other days. MARITIME LAW.

A grant of a right to hold a market “in or See INSURANCE, MARINE ;

a certain place is not a grant by metes or PRACTICE-ADMIRALTY ;

bounds. Per Brett, M.R., “such a market may SHIP.

extend as far as reasonable convenience from MARITIME LIEN-Vice-Admiralty jurisdiction time to time requires, provided that the market -Necessaries.

overflows honestly." See SHIP-MARITIME LIEN.

Judgment of Stephen, J., reversed. ATTOR

33 W. R. 93 (C.A.) MARKET — Disturbance - Charter, Force of — NEY-GENERAL v. HORNER

3. Waiver of Statutory RightsAccommodation pro

Sale by outsider to shopkeeper within vided by Lord of Market.]

A charter of 1st limitsDelivery in pursuance of order.] B., a Edward III. made by the King“ with the assent farmer, living outside the T. market, was in the of the prelates, earls, barons, and all the commons habit of supplying a greengrocer in the market of our realm 'assembled in our present Parlia- with vegetables, in pursuance of orders, payment ment,” granted to the citizens of the city of being made monthly :-Held, by Mathew and London certain privileges, and among them that Day, JJ., that B. was liable to pay the tolls for no market within seven miles round about the selling marketable goods. TORQUAY MARKET Co. city shall be granted by us or our heirs to any

v. BURRIDGE: SAME v. MIDDLETON 48 J. P. 71 one.” By letters patent in the 34th Charles II., Approaches to-District Board of Worksreciting an inquisition founded on a writ of ad

Posts on footways. quod damnum, the King granted to the Respond

See METROPOLIS. 4. ents' predecessor in title the right of holding Loss of—Remoteness of damage-Shipmarkets on Thursday and Saturday in every

Collision. week in Spital Square, within the seven miles.

See DAMAGES. 9. User of the market was proved since 1723. The Overt-Sale of stolen sheep in—Passing of appellant company set up a depôt or row of stalls

property. at their terminus within 300 yards of Spital

See SALE OF GOODs. 6. Square, and let them to dealers for the

purpose of selling fruit and vegetables brought up by their MARSHALLING Charitable and pecuniary railway, and justified their depôt on the ground

legacies. that the Respondents' market was very crowded,

See EXECUTOR-ADMINISTRATION. 6. that it was difficult for dealers to get stalls there, Securities—Fraudulent pledge by firm. and that if any persons other than the Respond



« AnteriorContinuar »