Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

"Anderson's Case." In col. 3, for "327," read " 525. 527.”

CORRIGENDA.

Page 110, note (b), for “Brown & L. 167,"read "Brown. & L. 253."

121 note (b), for "Brown. & L. 289," read "Brown. & L. 253."

126, line 6, for "p. 494," read "491," and note (a) for "404" read "484."
150, note (b), line 3 from bottom, for "presumptively" read "positively."

151, line 19, for "Rex," read " Reg."

151, first note (a), for " p. 427," read "85." The second note (a) should be (c), and the reference 3 C. & P. 427-8, and the second note (b) should be (d). 153, line 20, for "Whiteread," read "Whitebread."

153, line 21, for "pactise," read "practise."

155, line 3 from

Id. last line, for
156, line 14, for

bottom, for " Reg. v. Edwards," read "Rex v. Edwards.”
Rex v. Drury," read " Reg. v. Drury."

Rex v. Archer," read "Reg. v. Archer."

Id., for "Rex v. Jackson," read "Reg. v. Jackson."

234, note (a), for "54 Q. B.," read "4 Q. B."

279. The references to Blackst. Com. in note (g) should be transferred to the text line 2 from bottom after the word "to," and be followed by "and."

409, line 11 from bottom, for "p. 375," read “p. 325."

517, line 9 from bottom, for " Barclay v. Lewis," read " Barclay v. Lucas."
519, line 11 from bottom, ditto.

520, lines 3 and 5 from bottom, for "Lewis," read "Bruin."

728, note (e), for "1 M. & Rob. 118," read "1 M. & Rob. 116."

777, first line of head note, for "plaintiff,” read “defendant.”

794, add the following placitum to the case there reported.

4. Where justices dismiss an information on the ground that one of them is disqualified by interest from hearing it, they ought not to state a case under stat. 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43., as the remedy for the party complaining of their decision is by mandamus or rule under stat. 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44. s. 5. And insert in margin 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44. s. 5.

802, to head note add "pl. 4."

[blocks in formation]

1. An order of reference, with the enlargements of time for making the award endorsed on the order, may be made a rule of Court on an affidavit verifying the handwriting of the arbitrator to the indorsements, and there need not be an affidavit either by the arbitrator or by the attesting witness, if there was one, verifying the times when the enlargements were made.

2. On a motion to discharge a rule for making an order of reference with the enlargements of time indorsed thereon a rule of Court, the Court, under The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125. s. 46., ordered the arbitrator to appear before the Master to be examined as to the time when the enlargements were made.

Monday, January 16th.

Award. Enlargement of time. Making order of reference a rule of Court. Affidavit. Examination of arbitrator. Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125.

RULE, calling upon the defendant to shew cause ss. 26. 46.

why a rule obtained to make an order of reference

VOL. VI.

B

B. & S.

2

1865.

ROBERTS

V.

EVANS.

and the enlargements of time indorsed thereon a rule of Court, should not be discharged, on the ground that the affidavit on which it was moved did not verify the dates at which the enlargements of time for making the award had been made.

By a Judge's order, dated the 8th December, 1863, all matters in difference in this cause were referred to an arbitrator, an attorney and solicitor, who was to make and publish his award in writing on or before the 11th January then next ensuing, or on or before such further or ulterior day as he should from time to time appoint and signify in writing under his hand, to be endorsed on that order. The arbitrator made and published his award on the 5th February: and on the order of reference was an indorsement signed by him, dated the 9th January, 1864, extending the time for making the award till the 1st February next, and another dated the 1st February, extending the time till the 1st March next. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the award, and believing that the latter indorsement was not made until the 5th February, applied to the arbitrator to verify the award and the enlargements endorsed on the order of reference by the affidavit of one of his clerks or by his own; but he stated that none of his clerks saw him sign the award or the enlargements, and declined to make an affidavit himself. On the 30th March, the plaintiff, considering that without the arbitrator's affidavit he could not according to the practice of the Court properly make the order of reference a rule of Court so as to enable him to move to set aside the award and to remit the matters back for the reconsideration of the arbitrator, filed a bill in Chancery to enforce his claim against the defendant. Thereupon the defen

dant, desiring to make the order of reference together with the enlargements of time indorsed thereon a rule of Court for the purpose of enforcing the award, applied to the arbitrator to make an affidavit of the enlargements of time having been duly made, which he refused to do. On the 25th April the defendant obtained an order making the order of reference and the memorandums indorsed thereon a rule of Court, upon an affidavit verifying the handwriting of the arbitrator to those indorsements.

The present rule was obtained in Easter Term, 1864; and in Trinity Term was enlarged until Michaelmas Term, with an intimation that the arbitrator should be informed that the Court were of opinion that he ought to make the required affidavit. The arbitrator however still declined to make it.

In Michaelmas Term, November 10th, Mellish, on shewing cause, contended that the arbitrator had no right to refuse to give the required information, and the Court with consent of both parties made an order under The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. c.. 125. s. 46., that he should attend before the Master to be examined at the instance of the defendant, and enlarged the rule until this Term.

The arbitrator, on being examined before the Master in obedience to this order, swore that the enlargements were made on the days on which they respectively bore date.

Mellish and Julian Robins shewed cause.-According to the existing practice of the Court it was regular to make the order of reference a rule of Court on an affidavit verifying the handwriting of the arbitrator, with

1865.

ROBERTS

V.

EVANS.

1865.

ROBERTS

V.

EVANS.

out adding that the award was made in time. The rule
which required that on application for attachment
for not performing an award every step should be
verified has been relaxed. In Dickins v. Jarvis (a)
Bayley J. said, "Where a submission to arbitration
contains a power to enlarge the time for making
the award, and an enlargement of the time is made
a rule of Court, that is sufficient for the purpose of
obtaining an attachment, just as if the award had been
made within the time originally granted. . . . The
Court must have credit for not making it a rule of
Court without a sufficient affidavit." And that case was
approved of by Littledale J. in Re Smith and Reeves (b).
[Cockburn C. J. The party who obtained the present
rule had not the means of knowing when the enlarge-
ments of time were made.

reference is made a rule of
which is always ex parte.

Crompton J. An order of

Court by a side bar rule, Cockburn C. J. According

to the practice in this Court and of the Court of Exchequer, which has been inquired into by the Master, established since The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125. s. 26., nothing more is required than an affidavit in the form used in the present case.] [He was then stopped.]

Bovill and G. Shaw, in support of the rule.-The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125. s. 26., only dispenses with the necessity of calling the attesting witness to "any instrument to the validity of which attestation is not requisite"; and the modern practice adopted in the Master's office cannot vary the old practice of verifying each enlargement of the time (a) 5 B. & C. 528. 530. (b) 5 Dowl. 513. 516.

« PreviousContinue »