PARISH SETTLEMENTS. The LAW of SHIPPING, as it relates to the Building, Registry, Sale, Transfer, and Mortgage of BRITISH SHIPS, including the Registry and Trading of Ships built in India, with an Appendix, 1, of Statutes, with the Indian Act, No. X. of 1841, and the Proclamation of the Governor-General of India in Council; and 2, of Forms and Precedents, &c. By JAMES JOHN WILKINSON, Esq., of Gray's Inn, Author of "The Law relating to the Public Funds," &c. "This book, which supplies a want much felt in the Profession, ought to find a place in the Library of every Mercantile Lawyer."-Abbott on Shipping, by Mr. Serjeant Shee, 7th edit., p. 5. In 8vo., price 17. 10s. boards, PRINCIPLES of the LAWS of ENGLAND in the various Departments; and also the PRACTICE of the SUPERIOR COURTS, in the form of QUESTION and ANSWER, for the assistance of ARTICLED CLERKS in preparing for Examination, and incidentally for the use of Practitioners. By RICHARD SARGENT, Solicitor. Second Edition, revised and much enlarged. Part II, containing CHANCERY, BANKRUPTCY, and CRIMINAL LAW, with a copious Index, price 16s., boards, may be had separately by the Purchasers of Part I. Thomas Blenkarn, Law Bookseller, 19, Chancery-lane. A SUPPLEMENT to the Second Edition of a PRACTI CAL TREATISE on the LAW of PATENTS, COPYRIGHT, and DESIGNS. By RICHARD GODSON, M. A., Q.C., M.P. The work may be had complete with the Supplement, price 17. 18. boards. W. Benning & Co., Law Booksellers, 43, Fleet-street. LAW BOOKS AND OFFICE FURNITURE, Mr. HODGSON will SELL by AUCTION, at his Great Room, 192, Fleet-street, (Corner of Chancery-lane), on TUESDAY next, June 25th, and following Day, at half-past 12, TRIA LONDON, EDINBURGH, and DUBLIN LIFE AS SURANCE COMPANY, 3, Charlotte-row, Mansion-house, and 55, Chancery-lane, London. Trustees K. KINGSFORD, Esq.; B. IFILL, Esq.; J. BIDDEN, Esq. THIS IS THE ONLY COMPANY who give to the assured, on the me tual principle, the whole of the mutual accumulations, and also guarantee the sums assured. THIS IS THE ONLY COMPANY who are bound by their deed of Constitution not to dispute any Policy, unless they can prove that it was ob tained by fraudulent misrepresentations; and numerous cases, particu larly a late decision in the Court of Exchequer, have shewn how worthless may be a Policy obtained from the most influential office which is unrestrained by this equitable principle. THIS IS THE ONLY COMPANY who bind themselves to pay the sums in the Policies, although the debts for which they were effected shall have been liquidated before the claims arise. THIS IS ALMOST THE ONLY COMPANY who grant in favour of Creditors whole world Policies, whereby the debt is secured, although the debtor should go beyond the limits of Europe. COMMISSION.-The solicitor who transacts an assurance with this Company is held to be the agent of the Policy during its currency, and such receives Commission upon all future premiums, by whomsoever they may be paid. ALEXANDER ROBERTSON, Manager. PALMER, FRANCE, & PALMER, Solicitors to the Company. THE VALUABLE LAW LIBRARY of JOHN STONEJ LIMBIRD, STATIONER and ENGRAVER, engraves Esq., deceased, removed from Lincoln's Inn. Also the BRARIES of two BARRISTERS, retired from the Profession, includ ing Irish Statutes at Large, 1310 to 1800: Corpus Juris Civilis; Gothofredi; Howell's State Trials; Law Journal, 1823 to 1844; Bacon's and Viner's Abridgments; Series of the Reports in Law and Equity, complete to the present Time; Modern Treatises and Books of Practice. The OFFICE FURNITURE comprises Mahogany Library and Breakfast Tables, Capital Ranges of Bookshelves, Writing-desk, Chairs, &c. To be viewed, and Catalogues had. Visiting Cards in the best manner. Name with crest, 5. 6d. name only, 2s. 6d. per 100; best superfine Cards, 2s. 6d. ; superfine letter paper, from 8s. the ream; note paper, from 4s. the ream. A great variety of Stationery and Envelope Cases, Ladies' Companions, Travelling Writ ing-desks, Dressing-stands, Albums, Scrap-books, Portfolios, and Blot ting-books, Ink-stands, Gold and Silver ever-pointed Pencil-cases, & Bibles and Prayers in plain and elegant bindings. Every article in Stetionery of the best quality and lowest price, at LIMBIRD'S, No. 14, STRAND, facing Catherine-street. TWO VALUABLE LAW LIBRARIES of 600 Vols. of a BARRISTER MANIFOLD WRITERS made by H. DIXON are the and CONVEYANCER, removed from Chambers in Chancery-lane and Lincoln's-inn-fields, with Office and Library Fittings, Iron Chests, &c.; also an excellent miscellaneous Library of 2600 Vols. By order of the Executors of the late Mrs. BARTLETT. Temple Church Pulpit, Paintings, &c. MR. HAMMOND will SELL by AUCTION at the Rolls Sale Rooms, 28, Chancery-lane, on THURSDAY, June 27th, and following Days, at 12 o'Clock, a large Quantity of important Professional Property, including two fine Series of Equity and Common Law Reports, Statutes, Digests, Abridgments, and general Works of Reference and Practice, many with MS. Notes, in excellent condition. 11 feet 6 hinged Library Bookcase, and other Effects. To be viewed, and Catalogues had, at the Estate Agency Offices, 28, Chancery-lane, and 30, Bell-yard. CITY OF LONDON FASHIONABLE TAILORING ESTABLISHMENT, 52, KING WILLIAM-STREET, LONDON BRIDGE.-Messrs. BURCH & LUCAS, Tailors, &c., late J. ALBERT, respectfully invite Gentlemen and Families to view one of the largest and best-assorted stocks in London, of superfine Cloth, Cassimere, and Waistcoatings of the most novel designs, Cachmerettes for Summer Coats, &c., for the present season. The style of cut and make of every garment are guaranteed equal to the first and most expensive Houses at the West-end, and for cash payment a saving of 401. per cent. will be effected, and will be found to the wearer much cheaper than the inferior garments made up by puffing slopsellers and hosiers, at prices to astonish and delude the public, which description of goods are entirely excluded from this Establishment. 52, King William-street, City. Established 1818. SCIENTIFIC APPLICATION OF HEAT. "On the veracity of a gentleman on whose word we can rely, we have great pleasure in confirming the reported excellence of the economical cooking apparatus invented by Messrs. Burbidge and Healy, of Fleet-street. Our friend states that he has been more or less acquainted with the constructions hitherto adopted for the past twenty years, but that he has never found any other cooking apparatus to answer so completely. He has one of these in constant use, and it is without a fault. The advantages are, great economy, (it costs only about 4d. a day in fuel), cleanliness, ease in cleaning the flues, no surface heat to annoy the kitchen, and a perfect cure for a smoky chimney. With all these excellences, there is an oven always hot, an open fire for roasting, a hot plate for all the other operations of cookery, and a fountain of boiling water day or night. Science appears to have been completely successful in perfecting this invention."-From the Patriot. To be seen in daily use at BURBIDGE & HEALY'S, 130, Fleet-street. best cheap and portable Copying Machines and Letter Writers ever invented, and are much used by Attornies, Clergymen, Engineers, Merchants, and Bankers, and all others requiring copies of their letters, as from two to ten can be produced at the same time. The Copying Book can be bound to contain 1000 Letters, with an Alphabet. Price from 10s. upwards. Manufactory, No. 194, Strand, near Temple Bar N.B.-A new-invented Portfolio, or Self-bound Book, is made by H. D., to file The Jurist, Law Times, Legal Chronicle, and every kind of Periodical and Paper. To Solicitors, Bankers, and all who wish to secure their Writings against Fraud. STEPHENS' RECORD WRITING FLUID.-This writ ing fluid has been examined at the Royal Institution of Great Bri tain, by one of the first Chemists of this Country. There is no article which combines so effectually the power of resisting chemical agents, washing, damp, friction, and time. It has more of the character of printing ink made fluid, than of common writing ink. its basis being carbon, it is indestructible, except by fire. It dries with a gloss, and follows every movement of the pen with the greatest facility. As it flows more freely than common ink, it requires, for fine writing, a finely pointed pen. For records, it realises what has long been hoped for-namely, a durability equal to printing. Broad-nibbed pens, for full large writing, will not be required to the same extent for this article. It has no action whatever upon steel pens. Carbon, not being a soluble matter, has a tendency slowly to subside; the necessity of occasionally shaking the inkholder is therefore apparent. The inkholders contrived by me are best adapted for the use of this article. N. B.-This ink writes more agreeably after it has been a day or two in use. It is also admirably calculated for rapid writing. HENRY STEPHENS, 54, Stamford-street, Blackfriars-road, and sold by all Booksellers and Stationers. Orders for THE JURIST given to any Newsman, or letter (postpaid) sent to the Office, No. 3, CHANCERY-LANE, or to V. and R STEVENS & G. S. NORTON, (Successors to J. & W. T. Clarke, late of Portugal Street), 26 and 39, BELL-YARD, will insure its punctual de livery in London, or its being forwarded on the evening of publication, through the medium of the Post Office, to the Country. Printed by WALTER M'DOWALL, PRINTER, residing at No., Pemberton Row, Gough Square, in Parish of St. Bride, in the City of London, at his Printing Office, situate No. 5, Pemberton Row aforesaid; and Published at No. 3, CHANCERY LANE, in the Parish of St. Dunstan in the West, in the City of London, by HENRY SWEET, LAW BOOKSELLER and PUBLISHER, residing at No. 11, John Street, Bedford Row, in the County of Middlesex. Saturday, June 22, 1844. The following are the Names of the Gentlemen who favour THE JURIST with Reports of Cases argued and decided in the several Courts of Law and Equity: THE approach of the Quarter Sessions reminds us, that the leading article of our present Number may be usefully occupied with a notice of some of the poor-law cases which have been decided during the last two terms. The Profession must, before this, have learned, that the lapse of a few months may make considerable changes in this branch of the law, and the case which was confidently relied upon in the Spring may be found a treacherous guide in the Summer. Many of our readers have, no doubt, read the reports of these cases; but, to those who have not done so, our article will, we hope, afford some useful information; and, even to those who have, will be scarcely less useful in refreshing their memory. The first case we notice is Reg. v. The Justices of Kesteven, (13 Law Jour., M. C., 78; 8 Jur. 445). In Reg. v. The Justices of Carnarvonshire, (2 Q. B. Rep. 325), the sessions, being of opinion that the statement of grounds of appeal was not sufficiently explicit, refused to hear the appellants, and confirmed the order. An application was made for a mandamus, commanding the justices to enter continuances, and hear the appeal, which was granted, on the ground that it was settled law, that, where the sessions, upon a preliminary objection, refuse to hear an appeal, the court will interfere. In Reg. v. The Juslices of the West Riding, (Id. 331), it was objected, at the trial of an appeal, on behalf of the appellants, that the examinations contained no legal evidence of the setlement of the paupers; and the sessions, being of that opinion, and having refused to hear evidence, and discharged the order, the court granted a mandamus, commanding them to hear the appeal. In Reg. v. The Justices of Kesteven, an order was made in September, 1843, upon examinations setting out a settlement by an apprenticeship, in 1828, for six years, of William WelVOL. VIII. Y bourne to one John Green, in the parish of Great Ponton, and a statement of his sleeping the last night of the apprenticeship in Great Ponton. Amongst other grounds of appeal, the second ground stated, that William Welbourne, after his service with John Green for part of the term of the apprenticeship, with the consent of his master, to wit, from May or June, 1833, to the end of the same term, served one Samuel Nowell, of Grosvenor-wharf, Pimlico, in the county of Middlesex, builder, under the said indenture, in the said examinations respectively mentioned, in the parish of Harlaxton, in the said parts of Kesteven, in the said county of Lincoln, and inhabited and resided therein more than forty days during such service, being then single and unmarried, and without child or children. At the hearing of the appeal at the October Sessions, 1843, the respondents proceeded to prove their case, and, after stating that a forty days' residence in the appellant parish was admitted by the appellants, and, therefore, a primâ facie case for the respondents was shewn, which it was for the appellants to get rid of, then objected, that the appellants were not entitled to be heard upon the above ground of appeal, and to shew that the settlement under the indenture was in Harlaxton; because the statement of the grounds of appeal did not set forth the particular house in Harlaxton in which William Welbourne resided during the time he served under the indenture in the parish of Harlaxton, and did not specify or particularise the house by the name of the landlord, or in any other manner. The justices determined that the statement of the grounds of appeal was insufficient in particularity for the above reasons, and that they could not receive any evidence in support of such alleged settlement; and they therefore confirmed the order of removal, subject to a case for the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench. The case being reserved in such a manner that the opinion of the court would not pauper) and her four children (naming them) are now chargeable to the said parish of A." The Court of Queen's Bench, upon a case reserved, have held that this statement of chargeability is not sufficient. The examination states a conclusion of law, instead of the evidence from which such a conclusion is to be drawn. very often used in examinations, especially before the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 57, s. 17, which has provided an easier and better mode of proving it by the certificate of the board of guardians. But, in future, our readers who may be concerned in drawing up examinations will remember, that the fact of relief must be expressly stated. There is another class of cases, of not quite so recent date, which it is important that our readers who prac tise at the sessions should bear in mind. They relate to the mode in which a case should be stated for the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench. In Reg. v. The Inhabitants of West Houghton, (13 Law Journ., M. C., 41 ; ante, p. 106), an order was confirmed, subject to a case for the opinion of the court, whether a notice of appeal was sufficient; and if the court should be of opinion that it was, the case was to go back to the sessions to be reheard, and Lord Denman said, "We do not wish to encourage the practice of asking questions of this court, with a view to a rehearing of the case by the sessions." And, in Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Stoke be conclusive of the appeal, and the court having declared its intention not to enter upon or decide such cases, an application was made for a mandamus; in answer to which it was contended, that the decision of the sessions was not upon a preliminary point, but was a hearing, and upon the merits, according to the recent decision of R. v. The Inhabitants of Charlbury and Wal-We believe this mode of stating chargeability has been cott, (3 Q. B. Rep. 386, 13 Law Jour., M. C., 19, 7 Jur. 1083), the principle of which we discussed in our leading article of December 23, 1843. The judgment of the court will best be told in Lord Denman's own words. After observing that the discussion of the case furnished one ground for satisfaction, which was, that it must now be taken to be generally known that the Court of Queen's Bench will not entertain a case in such a stage of it as that their decision may merely operate to put the court below in motion, he proceeds to say, "But this discussion also obliges us to come to conclusions not so satisfactory, as it compels us to overrule two decided cases; namely, R. v. The Justices of Carnarvonshire, and R. v. The Justices of the West Riding. In the first it was certainly contended, that a writ of mandamus could not issue under such circumstances as the present; but in the second, though the writ issued, the court might have been partly misled by the way in which it seemed to have been agreed that the matter should come before the court. In those cases the court took upon themselves to say, not that the sessions had done wrong in not giving due consi-upon-Trent, (Ib.; ante, 34), where the case was rederation to the evidence, but that they had come to a wrong conclusion upon it. The language used by the court in the Carnarvonshire case shews how the mistake was made, viz. that, as the sessions upon a preliminary objection had refused to hear the appeal, a writ of mandamus should go. But if their decision proceeded upon a matter of fact over which they had cognisance, we are bound by their decision as regards a writ of mandamus. If the question be a matter of practice of the sessions involving a point of law, the court may interfere in this way and see if the sessions have fettered themselves improperly; but upon a matter of fact we are bound by their decision. This is a matter of fact. I wish to abide by several decisions, that the sessions are to decide upon the sufficiency of grounds of appeal. As to their particularity, such sufficiency depends upon many circumstances, of which the sessions alone can judge. We are not now laying down this rule for the first time. As, therefore, we are of opinion that the cases referred to were not rightly decided, we are bound so to say, and discharge this rule." This case is, there fore, important, not only as it states the rule which the court will follow in granting a mandamus to the sessions, but it also confirms the law laid down in former cases as to what is a decision by the sessions upon the served in the same manner, his Lordship said, “The case must, therefore, go back to the sessions, though! think this is an improper practice. The sessions should decide provisionally both ways, leaving the event to depend on the judgment of the court." Therefore, where a preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of an appeal, and the sessions decide in favour of it, if they grant a case, they ought, notwithstanding their decision, to proceed to hear the appeal, and decide provisionally upon it. We shall only briefly notice one more case, reported in our last Number, Reg. v. The Justices of Denbighshire, (p. 537), in which a superse deas of an order had been served upon the appellants, and on a subsequent day a sum of 21. was tendered for their expenses and refused. At the ensuing sessions the appellants, as is now usual, moved to enter an ap peal for the purpose of procuring their reasonable expenses, but the court refused to entertain the appeal, on the ground, that, if entered and tried, and the order quashed, the appellants would not get more costs than had been tendered, by reason of a rule of practice, that the sum of 30s. only, as and for costs and expenses, should be allowed in appeals against orders of removal tried in the said court. The Court of Queen's Bench granted a mandamus to hear and determine the appeal, saying that the sessions ought to exercise a judgment Another important case among the recent decisions as to the amount of the costs to be awarded, and adding, is Reg. v. The Inhabitants of High Bickington, (13 Law that it would be proper to allow the appellant parish to Journ., M. C., 74; ante, p. 377), where the pauper, in recover all the costs which they had incurred. We her examination, stated, "I and my said children are have thought the above cases deserving of particular inhabitants of the said parish of A., and are chargeable notice, as having reference to matters of frequent octo the said parish of A.;" and the relieving officer currence at the sessions, and if we are the means of stated, "I am one of the relieving officers of the Barn-making them any the better known, the purpose staple Union, and administer the relief ordered for the this article will be answered. paupers of the said parish of A. The said A. F. (the merits. of Review. Supplement to Petersdorff's Abridgment of the Common Law, as altered and established by the recent Statutes, Rules of Court, and modern Decisions; comprising a full Abstract of all the Cases argued and determined in the Courts of Common Law, and on Appeal, with the Rules of Court, from M. T., 1824, to M. T., 1840, inclusive, and the Statutes during the same Period, with connecting and illustrative References to the earlier Authorities, and explanatory Notes. In Five Volumes. By CHARLES PETERSDORFF, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. [Stevens & Norton, Bell Yard.] We are happy to find that Mr. Petersdorff has now brought his labours to a conclusion, by the completion of his Supplement to the Abridgment of the Common Law. The number of years which had elapsed since the publication of the former work rendered a supplement indispensably necessary; and the mode in which it has been produced by the author must be satisfactory to the Profession. The cases, rules of court, and statutes affecting them, down to Michaelmas Term inclusive, are well arranged, in conformity with the plan of the larger work, and under corresponding heads. An equal facility in finding any particular subject is presented in both. To those, therefore, who possess the Abridgment, the value of the work is greatly increased by the Supplement, without any diminution in the facility of reference. To those who have not the Abridgment, the advantage is presented, that it may be used as an independent work, for each head has a short introduction connecting the old with the new law. So that the possession of the Supplement by no means imposes the necessity of procuring the Abridgment, in order to render the contents of the former available. To both classes of persons, therefore, this work of Mr. Petersdorff must be considered as an exceedingly valuable production. One advantage we cannot avoid remarking to be presented by the mode of executing this work, which is, that the SUMMER CIRCUITS, 1844. CIRCUITS OF THE JUDGES. (Mr. Justice MAULE will remain in Town). MIDLAND. OXFORD. NORTHERN. HOME. NORFOLK. Ld. Denman L.C.J.Tindal LCB Pollock B. Parke WESTERN. N. WALES. S. WALES. J. Coleridge B. Alderson J. Patteson J. Williams J. Wightman B. Rolfe Friday.... Saturday.. Monday Tuesday Court Papers. CAUSE LISTS.-SITTINGS AFTER TRINITY Court of Chancery. The following abbreviations have been adopted to abridge the space the Cause Papers would otherwise have occupied:-4. Abated-Adj. Adjourned-A. T. After Term-Ap. Appeal-C. D. Cause Day-C. Costs-D. Demurrer-E. Exceptions-F. D. Further Directions-M. Motion-P. C. Pro Confesso-Pl. Plea-Ptn. Petition-R. Re-hearing-S. O. Stand Over-Sh. Short. Before the LORD CHANCELLOR. Forbes v. Peacock (Ap) Crosley v. Derby Gas Co. (Ap) (Ap) Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of England. Pleas, Demurrers, Causes, and FurthER DIRECTIONS. Davis v. Chanter (4 causes) Martin v. Maugham Ditto v. Burchley Ditto v. May (supp. bill) v. Richards v. Wood To fix a day Creed v. Taylor June 22 Bazelgette v. Kirlew (FD, C) Montague v. Kenworthy Rainbow v. Lamb Carter v. Jefferry (F D, C) Carmichael v. Hughes (FD, C) Shackel v. Marlborough Norderling v. Hay (F D, Ptn) June 22 Fussell v. Hooper (F D, Ptn) Ditto v. Moreland (by ord.). Bonner v. Hatch (F D, C) June 22 Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE. CAUSES, FURTHER DIRECTIONS, AND EXCEPTIONS. Collins v. Squance (object. for | Hammond v. Maule want of parties) To fix a day Milner v. Heywood Proudfoot v. Hume To fix a Aitkin v. Haram Ditto v. Johnsson day King v. Plant Sutherland v. Cooke (F D, pt. Tickner v. Apted heard) SO Att.-Gen. v. Goulding (Ptn) Dodsworth v. Kin-1 (At req. Bridgett v. Haines (F D, C) niard Green v. Green Ditto v. Ditto Alcock v. Cartlege Davies v. Bugby Thomas v. Blackman Thomas v. Bulkeley of deft.) M. T. (F D, C) Ditto v. Haddock Cronk v. Marquis Camden Ditto v. Potter (FD, C)} Avigdor v. Salomons Whiting v. Whiting Charlton v. Sadler (E) Cort v. Winder (F D, C) Oldfield v. Tartt (F D, C) Buddle v. Marsh Before the Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM. CAUSES, FURTHER DIRECTIONS, AND EXCEPTIONS. Broad (pauper) v. Robinson | Williams v. Griffiths Next term Barnett v. Deane To fix a day Neeld v. Duke of Beaufort Attorney-Gen. v. Flint Vincent v. Bishop of Sodor Cusse v. Collins Courtenay v. Williams (E) defendant's request) Goldsworthy v. Crossley Ditto v. Johnson (FD, C) Russ v. Morrell Wade v. Vernon Couper. Richardson (FD, C) Ditto v. Ditto (At deft. req.} Attorney-Gen. v. Croom Attorney-Gen. v. Chipper' Button v. Penlington June 22 Bayley v. Rees (F D, C) Ditto v. Ditto (E) Musgrave v. Musgrave (F D) Walker v. Cross Eastham v. Chadwick June 22 Garlick v. Lock Farr v. Watts (F D, C) Hanbury v. Kilburn Grey v. Elliott Hele v. Ogle |