« PreviousContinue »
districts was assigned to a church called the church St. B., built under the provi- RECOGNIZANCES IN CRIMINAL sions of those Acts at S., and was called
CASES. the district parish of St. B., S. A rate was made in form "for and towards the See Statute of Frauds, I. repairs of the district parish church of Si. B., S.," but in fact for other neces
REGISTRAR. sary expences also, such as lighting and washing, and stationery for registers, &c. See Superintendent Registrar. Upon a rule for a prohibition, held, that the expences for which the rate was made were legal. Id.
REGULA GENERALIS. III. By a local Act the vestry of the H. 2 W. 4. r. 93. See Costs, II. parish of C. were empowered to make rates, among other things, for the main- H. 25 Vict., p. 60. tenance of the church, and an appeal to the Quarter Sessions was given against REMOVAL, ORDER OF. any rate. By an amending Act every rate was to be enforced by summons
I. Stat. 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66. 8.4., by which before two justices, and if the person “ no warrant shall be granted for the summoned should not prove to the jus- removal of any person becoming chargetices that he was not chargeable with or
able in respect of relief made necessary liable to pay such rate, he should payit. A by sickness, unless the justices granting person in that parish who was summoned the warrant shall state in such warrant for non-payment of church rate proposed that they are satisfied that the sickness to give evidence to shew that the rate will produce permanent disability," aphad not been duly made, which evidence plies only to the case of sickness of the the justices declined to hear. Held, that person removed. The Queen v. The In the justices had no jurisdiction to inquire habitants of St. George, Middleser, 317. into the validity of the rate, and therefore had no power to state a case for a
II. Therefore where a man, in consesuperior Court under stat. 20 & 21 Vict. Children in the respondent parish, and
quence of sickness, left his wife and c. 43. 8. 2. Ex parte May, 426.
went into an hospital in another, and his IV. A person summoned before jus- the respondent parish, it was held that
wife and children became chargeable to tices for non-payment of a church rate an order for their removal to the parish contended that the summons should be dismissed on the grounds that the rate
of his settlement need not state that the was wrongly described in the summons would produce permanent disability.
justices were satisfied that the sickness and that the rate was illegally made.
Id. These grounds of objection having been argued, and the magistrates being about III. By stat. 4 & 5 W. 4. c. 76. s. 79., to deliberate, he gave notice that he dis- no pauper shall be removed under any puted the validity of the rate and his order of removal until
twenty-one days fiability to pay it ; and thereupon the after a notice of chargeability, accomjustices decided that their jurisdiction panied by a copy of the order and of the was taken away by the third proviso to examination, shall have been sent “ by: sect
. 7 of stat. 53 G. 3. c. 127. This post or otherwise,” by the overseers of Court refused a rule on the justices to the parish obtaining the order, to the make an order for payment of the rate. overseers of the parish to whom the Ex parte Mannering, gc., 431.
order is directed. Held that, admitting
that the delivery of those documents in REASONABLE AND PROBABLE the ordinary manner would be service of CAUSE, WANT OF. an order or process within stat. 29
Car. 2. c. 7. 8. 6., the transmission of See Slander, II.
them by post under sect. 79 of stat. 4 & 5
W. 4. c. 76., where, by the ordinary | not exceeding 201., there is no appeal course of post, they reached on Sunday , against the order. The Queen v. Higginthe hands of the overseers of the parish son, &c., 471. to whom the order was directed, was not void by stat. 29 Car. 2. c. 7. 8. 6.
RENT. The Queen y. The Inhabitants of Leo. minster, 391.
See Building Society. Lease.
Charge, Tithe. See District Parish. IV. An order for the removal of a pauper and his family from the parish of Ě. to the parish of C. was made on
REPAIR. the 18th August, 1860, and notice of See Commissioners of Sewers. Church chargeability, accompanied by a copy of the order and a statement of the grounds
Rate, I. II. thereof, including the particulars of the settlement relied on, were sent on the
REPLICATION. 30th August, and a copy of the deposi. tions upon which the order was made
See Pleading, I. were delivered on the 19th September. On the 1st of October notice of appeal
RESEALING. to the next Quarter Sessions for the county of S. was given. Those Sessions
See Summons, Writ of. were held for the Eastern division of that county on the 15th October, at A., and for the Western division, 'within REVOCATION OF AUTHORITY. which the respondent parish was situated, on the 18th October, at B. The
See Authority, Revocation of. appellants did not, at any time on or before the day and year last aforesaid, SCOTCH BANKRUPTCY. send or deliver to the respondents any statement in writing or otherwise of the I. The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act, grounds of the appeal. By the custom 1856, 19 & 20 Vict. c. 79. s. 47, enacts and practice of those Sessions, eight days that a warrant granting protection shall notice of appeal was required. The
protect the debtor from arrest in Great appellants applied to the Sessions at B. Britain and Ireland, and Her Majesty's to receive and enter the appeal, and to other dominions, for civil debt conrespite it to the next Quarter Sessions tracted previous to the sequestration ; as matter of right, and without shewing but such warrant sball not be of any any reason for the delay: held, that effect against the execution of a warrant they had a right to do so, as they had of apprehension in meditatione fugæ or not been guilty of any laches in giving ad factum præstandum, or for any critheir notice of appeal: per Crompton minal act: Held, that the exception ex, and Mellor JJ., dissentiente Blackburn tended to like process in England and J. The Queen v. The Justices of Sussex, Ireland and other parts of the Queen's 664,
dominions. Dutton v. Halley, 748. Suspension of
Il. The defendant being about to Upon an application, under stat. 35 leave this country for New Zealand was G. 3. c. 101. s. 2., for a warrant of dis- arrested on a capias under stat. 1 & 2 tress to levy the charges incurred by Vict. c. 110. s. 3. The plaintiff had the suspension of an order of removal, proved his debt in Scotland; and a warthe justice cannot inquire into the merits rant of protection had been granted to of the order directing payment, but is the defendant for a limited period, which bound to enforce it by issuing his war- had not elapsed when he was arrested : rant. And this holds even where, by held, that the defendant was not entitled reason of the amount ordered to be paid to be discharged. Id.
III. The plaintiff sued as trustee of the estate and effects of a bankrupt in Scotland, under a sequestration in that coun
SESSIONS. try; for money received for the use of the plaintiff as trustee after the bank.
See Quarter Sessions. ruptcy, and for interest due from the defendant to the plaintiff as trustee after
SET-OFF. the bankruptcy. The defendant pleaded that, before he had notice of the bank
Semble, that set-off is matter of proruptcy, and before the sequestration, he cedure, and, as such, determinable bg
the lex fori. MacFarlane v. Norris, gave credit to the bankrupt by becoming
783. the indorsee and holder bona fide, with in the meaning of the Scotch law, of a bill
See Costs, II. IV., and Truck Act. of exchange drawn by M. & Co. upon the bankrupt for the sum &c., and accepted by the bankrupt, which bill became pay. SETTLEMENT, ORDER OF. able after the bankruptcy, and “which credit so given was a credit of a na
See Pauper Lunatic. ture likely to end in a debt from the bankrupt to the defendant, and the amount of the said acceptance was, at the
SEWERS. time of the commencement of this suit, and still is, due to the defendant, and,
See Commissioners of Sewers. together with interest thereon, equals the plaintiff's claim : and the bankrupt gave
SICKNESS. credit to the defendant by consigning goods to him for sale for the said bank
See Removal, Order of, I. II. rupt, and upon the terms that the proceeds should be remitted and paid to the bankrupt in Scotland : and that the money
SIGNING JURY LISTS. sought to be recovered by the plaintiff is
See Churchwarden, II. the proceeds of and money arising from the sale of the said goods under and according to the terms of the said consign
SLANDER. ment, and which said consignment was of a nature likely to end in a debt from
I. A coroner, holding an inquest on 8 the defendant to the bankrupt: and the dead body, is not liable to an action for defendant says that he is ready and will words falsely and maliciously spoken by ing, and hereby offers, to set off the him in his address to the jury. Thomas amount so due to him, the defendant, as v. Churlon, 475. indorsee and holder of the said bill of exchange as aforesaid, against the claim of had been spoken
by him maliciously, and
II. Quære, per Cockburn C. J., if they the plaintiff in respect of the matter without reasonable and probable cause ? herein pleaded to, and that, by the law of Scotland, he is entitled so to do, and such set-off forms an answer to the plaintiff's claim :" held, that the plea was good.
SOCIETY. MacFarlane v. Norris, 783.
See Building Society.
I. A., at the request of B.,
entered into recognizances for the appearance of B.'s daughter at the Central Criminal
SUNDAY, Court, to which she had been committed See Removal, Order of, III. Railway to take her trial, on a charge of misdemeanor ; and B., in consideration
Company, II. thereof, agreed to indemnify A. against all liability, and from all costs, damages
SUPERINTENDENT REand expences in respect to the same.
GISTRAR. B.'s daughter not having appeared according to the recognizances, they were I. Under stat. 6 & 7 W. 4. c. 86. s. 7. estreated, whereby A. was obliged to the clerk to the board of guardians of a pay the amount, and incurred other ex- union created under stat. 4 & 5 W. 4. pences : held, that this was a special c. 76. has no right to be Superintendent promise to answer for the debt, default Registrar except in the case of the first or miscarriages of another person, within appointment after stat. 6 & 7 W. 4. c. 86. the Statute of Frauds, 29 Car. 2. c. 3. coming into operation ; and on any sub8. 4., and, as such, could not be sued on sequent vacancy the power of appointwithout an agreement or memorandum ment is in the board of guardians. The or note in writing. Cripps v. Hartnoll, - Queen v. Acason, 795. 697.
II. W. A., who was clerk to the board II. Quære, whether, in order to bring of guardians of a union, created under a case within sect. 4 of the Statute of stat. 4 & 5 W. 4. c. 76., and was also Frauds, 29 Car. 2. c. 3., the debt or de Superintendent Registrar appointed by fault must be towards the promisee? Id. the Registrar General, under stat. 7
W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 22., died on January Of Limitations.
4th, 1861. On the 17th January, the
defendant was appointed Superintendent The last day for resealing a writ of On the 14th February, the relator was
Registrar by the board of guardians. summons, so as to save the Statute of appointed clerk to the board of guarLimitations, expired on Saturday the dians. Upon information in the nature 28th December, within the Christmas of quo warranto, Held, that the deholidays. A party who attended at the fendant was duly appointed Superinoffice on that day for the purpose
tendent Registrar. Id. it shut, and the officer having refused to reseal the writ on the following Monday, the 30th, the Court refused to order TENANCY AT WILL. him to do it afterwards, nunc pro tunc. Evans v. Jones, 45.
See Building Society.
Of Mortmain. See Devise.
TIME FOR APPEALING.
SUMMONS, WRIT OF. The last day for resealing a writ of summons, so as to save the Statute of Limitations, expired on Saturday the 28th December, within the Christmas holidays. A party who attended at the office on that day for the purpose found it shut, and the officer having refused to reseal the writ on the following Monday, the 30th, the Court refused to order him to do it afterwards, nunc pro nunc. Evans v. Joncs, 45.
TITHE RENT CHARGE.
See District Parish.
See Public Health Act, I.
UNREASONABLE. to make stocking heels at 7d. a dozen. The plaintiff was to find the labour, and Condition. See Railway Company, I. to work on the defendants' premises, using their frame. The settlements were Delay. See Railway Company, II. weekly. The amount due for the plaintiff's work was first ascertained; then fiom the sum coming to him were de
VARIANCE. ducted the following charges: (1.) Frame rent, for the use of the frame with which
An information under the 4 G. 4. C. he worked, at 1s. 9d. per week. (2.) 34. s. 3. described the defendant as havMachine rent, at 4d. per week. (3.) ing contracted to serve “T. B. and his For standing room in the defendants' partners.” At the hearing it appeared factory, at 3d. per week. (4.) Winding that the contract of service was between the yarn, at ld. per week. (5.) Fines the defendant and “T. B., on behalf of for irregular attendance, at 4 d. a quar- himself and his partners, constituting ter of a day for time of absence. (6.) The R. M. & H. Coal Company (LimitGas for lighting the defendants' factory, ed): " held that this variance, if it were at 4d. per week. (7.) Fire for heating one, was cured by the 11 & 12 Vict. c. the defendants' factory. The amount 43. s. I. of work performed by the plaintiff during respondent, 49.
Whittle, appellant, Frankland, the time he was in the defendants'employ varied from time to time according to the state of trade, the plaintiff being some.
WAGES. times employed for a greater and sometimes for a smaller number of hours in See Master and Serrant, I. III., and
Truck Act. the day ; but the charges, with the exception of the fines, were fixed and uniform, and were made whatever the
WANT. amount of earnings. In an action to recover wages alleged to be due, the of reasonable and probable cause. See defendants pleaded Never indebted, and
Slander. a set-off, consisting of the above charges. Held, per Pollock C. B., Bramwell B. and Byles J. (affirming the judgment of
WAREHOUSE. the Court of Queen's Bench, which was founded upon the authority of Chawner
See Gunpowder. v. Cummings, 8 Q. B. 311), Williams, Willes and Keating JJ. dissentientibus, that a contract to pay the plaintiff's
WARRANT wages, subject to the above deductions, was not a contract to pay part of such