Q. B.] BAWDEN v. Bawden. [Div. ending March 1860 new surveyors were appointed, I therefore that we ought to disallow the disbursement and the balance of 2051. 5s. 14d. was omitted in of the said sum of 205l. 5s. 14d., so entered in the acthe accounts for those three years and undischarged. counts for the year ending 25th March 1861. It was The surveyors for the year commencing March argued on behalf of the apps. that this was a legal dis.. 1860 paid that balance out of moneys received bursement, the balances ending at the close of the years by them, and entered such payment in their ending respectively 25th March 1856 and 25th March 1857, having been duly found owing to the then outgoing surveyors and certified by the justices as above mentioned, and not been discharged as they might have been by their successors, and the same having been incurred for the purposes of repairing and keeping in repair the highways of the said township. accounts: Feld, that they were not justified in doing so, and that the justices were right in disallowing that payment in their accounts. Case stated under the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43. At a special sessions of the peace for the highways within the division of Agbrigg, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, holden at Wakefield on the 1st April 1861, and thence by adjournment on the 15th of the same month, pursuant to 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50, the apps. the two surveyors of the highways of the township of Flockton, in the said division, for the year then last past, laid their accounts of moneys received and disbursed by them as such surveyors as aforesaid before us, the undersigned justices of the peace of the said riding, acting withitn the said division, then and there present. The resps., who are inhabitants contributing to the highway rates of the said township, thereupon made complaint to us against the said accounts, and the application of the moneys so received by the apps. as surveyors as aforesaid. And we heard the complaint, as required by law, and examined the apps. on oath, and ordered that the sum of 2051. 5s. 14d., one of the items of disbursement included in the accounts, should be disallowed, and we -caused a memorandum to be made upon the face of the accounts, and the apps. being dissatisfied with our -determination, we hereby state and sign the following Received from rates £391 9 1 371 9 1 These accounts were laid before us, the justices, on the 15th April 1861, and were verified on oath, but the sum of 2057. 58. 14d. was disallowed, subject to one of the Supreme Courts being of opinion that the payment of the said sum was a legal payment in the year ending 25th March 1861. It was argued before us on behalf of the complainants (the now resps.), that it was not legal for the said surveyors of the year ending 25th March 1861, to di-charge out of moneys coming to their hands by virtue of their office in that year any debt or balance overpaid in respect of the year ending 25th March 1857, and We, however, being of opinion that the disbursement of the said sum by the apps. as aforesaid, was not a legal disbursement in the year ending 25th March 1861, gave our determination against the apps. in the manner before stated. The question of law arising on the above statement, therefore, is whether or not it was lawful for the apps. to discharge as before mentioned the said sum of 2057. 58. 14d., the balance overpaid as aforesaid, in respect of the year ending 25th March 1857, out of the moneys received by them in the year of office ending 25th March 1861. The opinion of the Court of Q.B. is asked upon the said question of law, whether or not we were right in our determination as aforesaid, and as to what should be further done or ordered in the premises. JOHN BARFF. T. FOLJAMBE. West for the resps.-This case was granted upon the authority of Townsend v. Reed, 30 L. J. 223, M. C. The magistrates felt it impossible to make this allowance, the amount having been in arrear so long, and not having appeared in the accounts of the three years preceding 1860. In Waddington v. The Guardians of the City of London Union, 28 L. J. 113, M. C., it was held that a retrospective poor-rate for the payment of past debts could not be made. See also Durrant v. Boys, 6 T. R. 580, per Lord Kenyon, C. J.; 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50, s. 44. The ratepayers now may be totally different persons. Maule for the apps.-The amount was purposely kept out of the accounts during the three years after 1857 by the new surveyors, and the apps. ought not to suffer on that account. [CROMPTON, J.-You must show us that the magistrates were bound to allow the payment.] WIGHTMAN, J.-The magistrates were not wrong in disallowing this payment. From 1857 to 1861 this debt was never entered in the surveyors' accounts at all, and it is too much to say that the present inhabitants of the different parishes are liable to pay this, of which they may have had no idea at all. CROMPTON, J. concurred. Order confirmed. DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL Dec. 24 and Jan. 14. Petition for dissolution—Wife resp.-Lunatic. The court refused to allow a husband to proceed with a petition against his wife (who was a lunatic) for the dissolution of their marriage on the ground of adultery, alleged to have been committed by her previous to her lunacy. This was a petition filed by the husband, for the dissolution of the marriage on the ground of his wife's bigamy and adultery. The petitioner was residing at Camborne, in the county of Cornwall. The resp. separated from him shortly after their marriage, and went to America, Div.] Ex parte THE PROVISIONAL ASSIGNEE, &c., re BAXTER-Re BoswALL. where she contracted, as was alleged, a bigamous marriage with a man of the name of John Ward, with whom she cohabited. She afterwards returned to this country, and becoming a lunatic, and her husband refusing to support her, became chargeable to the parish of Camborne and an inmate of the union workhouse at Redruth. She was now confined in the county lunatic asylum at Bodmin. The citation and petition had been served upon her at the Redruth union workhouse in the presence of the master. No appearance had been entered on her behalf. Dr. Wambey moved the court to appoint a curator or guardian ad litem to the resp. to protect her interests in the suit. The circumstances were peculiar, and he admitted that he could find no precedent for the application. In the Ecclesiastical Courts a suit for nullity of marriage had been allowed to be instituted by the committee of a lunatic under the direction of the Court of Ch. (Portsmouth V. Portsmouth, by his committee, 1 Hagg. 355); and suit for a a divorce by the committee of lunatic husband, on the ground of the wife's adultery: (Parnell v. Parnell, 2 Consist. 169.) In Barham v. Barham, 1 Consist. 5, the court had appointed a curator ad litem to enable a minor wife to sue her husband for a divorce. There was also the well-known case of Beauraine v. Beauraine, 1 Consist. 498, in which Lord Stowell appointed a father curator ad litem for his minor son, who was sued by his for a divorce. By the analogy of these cases, he submitted that it was competent to the court to appoint a curator ad litem for the wife. Notices of the motion had been served upon the brother and sister of the resp., who were her nearest relatives, and also on the overseers of the parish of Camborne. were Dr. Tristram appeared for the overseers of the parish of Camborne. He was unable to cite any additional cases bearing on the question. The overseers desirous, if the court allowed the suit to proceed, that the assistant overseer of the parish of Camborne (whose office was a permanent one) should be appointed curator ad litem for the wife. Her nearest relations declined to interfere on her behalf. It was clear that she should have some one to watch over her interests during the progress of the suit. The parish of Camborne, as she was chargeable on it, was interested in the result of the suit, and he submitted that a parish officer was the most proper person, under the circumstances, to be appointed guardian. CRESSWELL, J. O.-This case is very different from one where a lunatic is the petitioner. The motion raises a most important question, and I shall not decide it without further consideration and inquiry. I very much doubt whether I can allow the petition to proceed. Cur. adv. vult. Jan. 14.-CRESSWELL, J.O.-The petitioner in this case is the husband, who prays for a dissolution of his marriage on the ground of his wife's bigamy and adultery. The resp. is proved by affidavit to be a lunatic. The question is, whether the petitioner should be allowed to proceed under the circumstances. It will be a hard case upon the petitioner, if he is not allowed to do so. But it will also be a hard case upon the resp., who is not able to take part in the proceedings if he is allowed. I have made inquiry if there had been any case in the Ecclesiastical Courts under similar circumstances, which could be an authority for me in giving my decision. I am told by Dr. Bayford that there was one which he himself argued in the Court of Arches. It is not reported; but he recollects that the court decided that a suit for divorce à mensâ et thoro could not be maintained against a lunatic. I cannot allow the petitioner to proceed in the present suit. [BANK. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. Reported by A. A. DORIA and D. C. MACEAE, Esqrs, Barristers-at-Law. Jan. 7 and March 4. (Before Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD.) 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 82-Insolvent-Commitment of, after discharge. If an insolvent debtor, upon notice from the provisional assignee, refuse or do not convey to the latter property to which he has become entitled since he obtained his discharge, the court will exercise the powers given to it by the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 88, and commit him to prison. Dowse, on behalf of the provisional assignee of the Insolvent Debtors Court, moved, pursuant to the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 88, for a rule for the insolvent to show cause why he should not be committed to custody for a contempt, in not conveying to the provisional assignee, pursuant to notice, eight cottages in Yorkshire, to which he had become entitled under a deed dated the 3rd Dec. 1857. By the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 88, when an insolvent shall, after his discharge, become entitled to property which cannot be taken in execution, the assignee may apply to the court for the insolvent to be taken and committed to custody, when he shall have refused to assign or transfer such property to the assignee to satisfy the judgment signed on the warrant of attorney executed by the insolvent on his discharge. The insolvent petitioned the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, and was discharged at York on the 19th Nov. 1855. Shortly before that time he assigned to his brother Benjamin Baxter eight cottages, situate at Idle, in Yorkshire, in consideration of a small advance of money made to him at the time. 1857 Benjamin Baxter re-assigned the cottages to the insolvent, subject to the repayment of the moneys due to him. The provisional assignee gave notice to the insolvent, requiring him to convey these cottages to him for the benefit of his creditors generally, but the insolvent declining to do so, this application became necessary. In Dec. Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD granted a rule nisi upon the insolvent to show cause. March 4.-Dowse now applied to have the rule made absolute, and, no cause being shown, the rule was made absolute accordingly. Tuesday, March 4. Rule absolute. his Last examination and discharge. The bankrupt, who was adjudicated on the 9th Dec. 1861, upon own petition, was clerk and manager to Messrs. Stirling, Newall and Co., of No. 130, Strand, wire rope manufacturers. In the autumn of last year Messrs. Glass and Elliott, of Cannon-street, in the city of London, electric telegraph cable and patent wire rope manufacturers, commenced an action against the bankrupt in the Court of C. P. for damages, in consequence of the bankrupt having maliciously, as was alleged, driven a nail through a submarine telegraph cable they were about laying down, whereby they sustained considerable loss. The bankrupt pleaded to the action, but the jury having found him guilty, the damages were assessed at. BANK.] Re REV. PREBENDARY TATE. [BANK. "W. DOMMETT, "FRANCIS TATE. 3875l. 1s. 10d. Judgment was signed on the 21st | no further proceedings be taken in bankruptcy.-Dated Jan. 1862 for that amount, and 553l. 19s. 2d. for the 8th day of February 1862. costs, making a total of 44297. 18. for which sum Messrs. Glass and Elliott had proved against his estate. The bankrupt then moved for a new trial, but this was refused. Linklater (solicitor) appeared for the bankrupt. Lawrance (solicitor), for Messrs. Glass and Son, asked that the bankrupt's order of discharge might be wholly refused. His conduct towards those gentlemen had been most disgraceful, and of a nature that ought to be severely dealt with by the court, which was to have regard to the bankrupt's conduct as well before as after the adjudication. He referred to the 159th section of the Bankruptcy Act 1861. Such conduct as the bankrupt was guilty of was punishable by the provisions of the Consolidation Act 1849, the provisions of which, although to some extent repealed by the late Act, were not to be affected by such repeal in regard to proceedings pending, or any right or penalty that had arisen or been incurred, or that might arise or be incurred in respect of any transaction, act, matter, or thing done or existing prior to or at the commencement of the Act: (sect. 230.) The bankrupt had, by defending the action brought against him, incurred a debt to his clients which he had no reasonable prospect of being able to pay. He also referred to the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 78, and sects. 112 and 123 of the Consolidation Act 1849. Linklater in reply.-The adjudication being under the Bankruptcy Act 1861, the sections of the earlier Acts referred to did not apply. Whatever might have been the bankrupt's conduct he had committed no offence under the late Act. The action against him was for damages and not for debt, and therefore not within the 159th section. Mr. Commissioner EVANS.-There does not appear to be any authority bearing upon this case. As it seems to me these gentlemen had no debt at the time they brought their action against the bankrupt. They had a claim only which was subsequently converted into a debt, and in respect of which they have proved against his estate. Under these circumstances I do not think the case comes within the 159th section of the Bankruptcy Act 1861. If the bankrupt have been guilty of fraud he may be indicted for that, but as no indictment has been preferred I cannot take cognisance of the objections which have been urged. Order of discharge granted. Thursday, March 6. (Before Mr. Commissioner ANDREWS.) Re REV. PREBENDARY TATE (a Bankrupt). Sect. 93-Amendment of statement of liabilities filed by bankrupt― Jurisdiction of commissioner over resolutions passed by creditors under sect. 110. Where a bankrupt has omitted creditors from his account without any purpose to deceive or defraud, the court will allow the statement to be amended by the insertion of the names so omitted. Circumstances under which such an amendment will or will not be permitted. Grounds on which the court will reject the resolution of creditors under sect. 110. In this case the adjudication of bankruptcy was made on the 18th Jan. last. The first sitting, under sect. 109, was held on the 8th Feb., when the bankrupt made a proposal, and the creditors, represented by letter of attorney given to the bankrupt's solicitors, resolved to accept it. The following is a copy of the proposal, and resolution accepting it: (Witness) "In the matter of Francis Tate, &c." A meeting of the creditors of the above-named bankrupt, of which ten days' notice was given in the London Gazette, having this day been held before the registrar, and the following proposal having been made by or on behalf of the bankrupt, namely, to appropriate the annual sum of 500. by equal half-yearly payments out of his tithe rentcharges towards satisfaction of the debts due to his creditors; and it appearing to us, the undersigned, being the majority in value of the creditors present, that such offer ought to be accepted, it was resolved, that this meeting be adjourned for fourteen days, in order that notice of such resolution may be given to every creditor by the official assignee." The sitting was then adjourned under sect. 110, to 22nd Feb., when the following resolution was passed: "We the undersigned, being the majority in number representing three-fourths in value of the creditors present, resolve that the proposal made by the said bankrupt on the eighth day of Feb. 1862 ought to be accepted, and that the proceedings in bankruptcy be suspended, that the estate and effects of the bankrapt shall be wound-up and administered in manner following (that is to say), &c. (amongst other things. that Mr. Dommett should be appointed receiver of the tithe rentcharges, and pay 500l. a-year to the official assignee," &c.) Several creditors, who were represented by Pitts and Bond, solicitors, voted against the resolution, which,. however, was carried by the relations of the bankrupt, who were the largest creditors in amount, and by a great number of creditors whose debts were of small amount, many of them having been paid a portion of their debts by one of the solicitors of the bankrupt, after they had signed their declarations of proof, but before they gave their letters of attorney to the solicitors of the bankrupt. Pills (solicitor) objected to the receipt of these proofs and letters of attorney; also, that the resolutions passed at the second sitting were illegal, as they went beyond the mere adoption of the resolution passed at the first sitting, and contained additional matter; also, that the resolution accepting the 500%. a-year, as proposed by the bankrupt, was unjust and inequitable, and not fit to be binding and conclusive on the creditors, because the bankrupt was prohibited by 13 Eliz. c. 20, from charging his benefice, and that as this 500l. a-year was proposed to be secured out of the tithe-commutation rentcharge, the deed for that purpose would be void; and on those grounds he asked the commissioner to reject the resolution passed by the creditors, under the power conferred on him by the proviso at the end of sect. 136. The sitting was adjourned that the commissioner might consider his judgment, which he now delivered. The COMMISSIONER said he had communicated, as he said he should do, with Mr. Commissioner Holroyd, and he had referred him to the report of Re Moore, 5 L. T. Rep. N. S. 806, as correct. From that it appeared that the bankrupt had omitted 1751., balance of a debt of 2001., which he said he had not entered in his statement of debts, as he considered it a gift. Application was made to amend, but Mr. Commissioner Holroyd held the omission to be fatal and dismissed the petition. The sum omitted, he said, was one-third of the whole of the debts, and the bankrupt "I, the aforesaid bankrupt, do hereby propose to could hardly have imagined the 2007. to have been appropriate the annual sum of 5001. by equal half-given him because he had paid 257. on account. The yearly payments, out of my tithe rentcharges, towards commissioner informed him that he did not determine satisfaction of the debts due to my creditors, and that the case on the ground of fraud, but on the ground of Pe Lot post 616 BANK.] wilful omission. Re REV. PREBENDARY TATE. authority, Re Barwick, 5 L. T. Rep. N.S. 238, in which Mr. Commissioner Evans allowed the statement to be corrected. Pitts said circumstances had arisen since the last meeting which led him to ask that the petition should not be dismissed, because it would be allowing the bankrupt to take advantage of his own wrong. [BANK. Now there was only one other | retained it; surely, if that were so, it would produce an effect very contrary to what the bankruptcy law desired to bring about. Under these circumstances, no doubt, if not compelled to dismiss the petition and adjudication, he ought to retain them. He had come to the conclusion not without doubt, that he had the power to do so. His decision, however, must not have the effect of making other parties careless in the preparThe COMMISSIONER replied that Mr. Pitts need notation of their statements. He must be satisfied that trouble. He had thoroughly considered the points, and every care had been taken to make the statements had formed his opinion upon them, not without anxiety, correct, and that bankrupts at the time of filing difficulty and doubt. The first question was, whether believed them to be so. Even then, if the bankrupt he could consent to the application made on the part was the only person likely to benefit by retaining the of the bankrupt by Mr. Dommett, to allow the original petition, he should be indisposed to retain it; but if statement of debts and liabilities filed by the bankrupt the general body of creditors would benefit by retainto be amended. It would be recollected when the ing the petition and might be injured by its dismissal. motion was made by Mr. Pitts to be allowed an inspec- it would be more in accordance with the general spirit tion of the documents and proceedings, and to have and intention of the bankruptcy law to retain it. copies of the same, he (the Commissioner) called For these reasons he made the order for amendment attention to the fact that the statement appeared in the present case. Reserving the question of his to be defective in form. That led to Mr. Dom- power to do this, he considered it would save exmett's asking leave to file an amended statement. pense if he allowed the creditors to proceed. Several On Saturday week, on reading and comparing that objections had been raised by Mr. Pitts, such as the statement, there appeared inaccuracies in some of absence of notice to the creditors omitted from the the debts, and several omissions. On the pre-first statement. Considering all these, he thought vious Thursday by Mr. Dommett, and also by the creditors had not been in a situation to come to bankrupt in evidence, much of the apparent difficulties a valid resolution, which, being subject to these were explained away. Still there remained the omissions. The question was, whether those omissions under the circumstances of the case were fatal; whether under the 93rd section and the 4th general order he ought to dismiss the petition. If the omissions had arisen throngh fraud, or gross neglect, or had been made wilfully, he must have dismissed the petition, whatever other circumstances there were in the case which might induce him not to do so. After hearing the statement of the bankrupt and his attorney, he was of opinion that the omissions were neither fraudulent, wilful, nor through gross carelessness. Nay, more-great pains appeared to have been taken to make the original statement correct; and the bankrupt believed it to be true and accurate when he filed it. There were not many authorities under the new Act; and but one bore on this case-that of Re Barwick. Though the amendment allowed in that case was far less than those now sought to be made, it showed that Mr. Commissioner Evans did not hold that the clause and order should be rigidly and inflexibly adhered to. His Honour said he thought it hard that when, perhaps, pains had been taken to make the statement accurate, a bankrupt should not be allowed the possibility of making a correction. Even the most particular and regular person might forget some of his debts-might not be able to remember them all of himself; how then could they expect more of a person whose affairs were in disorder, and who was on the verge of bankruptcy? The next question-and Mr. Pitts would see that he had given his attention to the point he had alluded to-was, whether the interests of others beside the bankrupt would be vitally affected. If so, was the court bound to dismiss the petition? Here great expense had been gone to; and whether on that account or for other reasons, no creditor had applied to have the petition dismissed; on the other hand, it was now found that some creditors asked it to be retained. Indeed, it was obvious, from what had taken place, that it was against their interest that the petition should be dismissed. He thought this an important element in this objections, it was imperative should not be confirmed by the court. The objection that none of those not named in the original statement had notice was fatal. In the second place, the creditors at the first meeting should have resolved that the proceedings in bankruptcy should be suspended. In the next place, it was essential that the creditors at the adjourned meeting should have decided how the estate was to be wound-up and administered. He did not think that the powers Mr. Gidley held enabled him to do that. In the fourth place, the proposition that 500l. a-year should be paid to the official assignee to distribute, was making use of this court for the purpose of winding-up the estate after the proceedings had been taken out of it; so that they would get the services of the official assignee without paying him the fees to which by law he was entitled, not for himself but the State. If they made him a trustee for the creditors, he would have all the responsibility and liability of such trusteeship thrown on him without his consent and against his will. This was no light matter, for if these proceedings were stayed and the proposal accepted and made binding, the case would in all probability last the whole lifetime of Mr. Tate. Again, Mr. Pitts had said there would be great difficulty in securing this 500l. a-year, and the living could not be legally charged if the proceedings were removed out of bankruptcy. It might be said, on the other hand, that the living might be sequestrated by any particular creditor, but a resolution by the majority would be binding on all, even if these proceedings were suspended. He was disposed to think that, under sect. 110, if a proper majority of creditors chose in a legal manner to accept the first proposition, they had a right to do so, and to suspend the proceedings in bankruptcy. Unless there was some fraud or some injustice to some particular class of creditors, the majority in number, representing three-fourths in value, could put themselves in the place of the whole body of creditors, and accept any proposal of the bankrupt, however prejudicial to their interests, so long as they acted without fraud and without putting the minority of the creditors in a worse condition than themselves. Having come to the conclusion that the resolution of the creditors at the first meeting was not valid, he should expressly refuse to confirm it, and appoint a meeting for last examination and discharge. That would be put on the file with the other proceedings, so that parties would knew what course to take. With reference to Mr. CHAN.] Re TURNER-Re CHERRY'S SETTLED ESTATES. [CHAN. Pitt's objection to some of the proofs, he thought they which his Honour ordered the Commissioners of might be admitted, but he wished it to be distinctly under-Works to pay the costs, charges and expenses incistood that statements of accounts, annexed to declara-dent to obtaining an order for the transfer out of court tions of debt, should be much more full and explicit; of moneys which had been paid in under one of the and the nature of all securities should be properly public Acts relating to works which the commissioners stated according to the general orders. He should were authorised to execute in the metropolis. advise the registrar to reject all proofs where this was not done. OXFORD COUNTY COURT. (Before J. B. PARRY, Esq., Q.C., Judge.) Jurisdiction of County Court-Debts above 300l. Kilby (solicitor) directed the judge's attention to the fact of the debts being above 300l.; and, after referring to sects. 88, 94, 98, 99 and 101, of the Bankruptcy Act 1861, submitted that the County Court had no jurisdiction. Thompson (solicitor), for the bankrupt, contended that sects. 98 and 99 clearly gave jurisdiction to the County Court, and that that court alone had jurisdiction in cases in formâ pauperis. He also referred to the General Orders of 12th Oct. 1861 for regulating the practice and procedure of the County Courts, and the form of petition, affidavit, and adjudication therein; and stated, that, in the General Orders for regulating the practice in the Court of Bankruptey, there is a total absence of forms applicable to petitions in formâ pauperis. The COURT decided that it had jurisdiction. Equity Courts. COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY. Saturday, Feb. 15. (Before the LORD CHANCELLOR (Westbury). Re CHERRY'S SETTLED ESTATES. Lands Clauses Consolidation Act-Special Acts In the construction of the new street from Spitalfields to Shoreditch, the commissioners had occasion to take some settled property belonging to a gentleman of the name of Cherry, and which he had devised by his will upon trusts, under which, in the result, one of the petitioners, Mr. Benjamin Newman Cherry, was tenant in tail. At the time when the land was taken, which was in the year 1851, the tenant in tail was an infant, and, accordingly, under the provisions of the Act, the purchase-money of the property in question, amounting to the sum of 578%, was paid into court, and was laid out, under the order of the court, in the purchase of Three per Cent. stock, to the account of "the settled estates of Benjamin Cherry." and the profit to accrue due was ordered to be paid to the tenant for life during his life, or until further order. That was done, and subsequently the tenant in tail became of age, and a deed was executed by which the entail was cut off, and he became absolutely entitled to the fund. Then the petition on which the order now appealed from was made was presented to the Vice-Chancellor, praying for the absolute transfer to him, as entitled absolutely of the sum of stock then representing the purchase-money of that property, and that the commissioners might pay the costs. The Act of Parliament under which the land was taken, viz. the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 34, after reciting the Acts which relate to the coal duties in the City of London, which constitute the public funds out of which the improvements are made, and then reciting the Act of 3 & 4 Vict. c. 87, which authorised certain improvements, and amongst others a new street from the London Docks to Spitalfields Church, goes on to say: "And in the Act now in recital were contained divers powers and provisions for enabling the said Commissioners of her Majesty's Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works and Buildings, to construct the several streets therein mentioned, and to purchase the necessary land value of such land or hereditaments, and for the payand other hereditaments, and for ascertaining the ment of the purchase-money for the same and otherwise." Then it proceeds to recite, that the commissioners whom the Queen had appointed "to inquire into and consider the most effectual means of improving the metropolis, and of providing increased facilities of communication within the same, did by their Costs of payment out of court. report," dated 23rd April 1845, which was laid before The Commissioners of Woods and Forests, under a Parliament, "humbly recommend to her Majesty that, special Act passed subsequently to the Lands Clauses out of any moneys to be thereafter raised as a fund for Consolidation Act, took certain houses, the purchase- metropolitan improvements, provision should be made money for which, by reason of the disability of the for the completion of a line of street from Spitalfields owner, was paid into court. By a special Act, Church to the station of the Eastern Counties Railway passed previously to the Lands Clauses Consolida-in Shoreditch, in continuation of the new street and tion Act, which was incorporated with the Act under improvement now in progress of formation by the said which the commissioners acted, they were liable to commissioners, under the authority of the said last pay a limited class of costs. The parties entitled to recited Act," and that the Queen had approved of that the purchase-money petitioned for it to be paid out recommendation; "and it is expedient, in accordance of court, and that the commissioners might be therewith, that the Commissioners of her Majesty's ordered to pay the costs of the application. Kin-Woods, &c., should be empowered to form and open dersley, V. C. held, that the Lands Clauses Con- (in continuation of the street from the London Docks solidation Act was incorporated with the 9 & 10 to Spitalfields Church hereinbefore mentioned) a new Vict. c. 34, under which the commissioners acted, street and thoroughfare," which the Act proceeds to and there being no repugnance between that Act and define, "and for the purpose of providing a fund to the clauses of the former special Act imported into enable the said commissioners of, &c., to effect the objects it, the commissioners were liable to pay the costs of aforesaid, it is expedient that the said commissioners the application. should be authorised to raise out of or to charge the said funds and duties, by the said recited Act of the 8th and 9th years of her present Majesty made applicable to the improvement of the metropolis as hereinbefore mentioned, with a sum or sums not exceeding in On appeal the decision was reversed. This was an appeal by the Commissioners of her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings against an order of Kindersley, V.C., dated the 22nd Nov. 1861, by |