« PreviousContinue »
false pretence under the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29; and upon the trial of such an indictrnent evidence is admissible of similar misrepresentations made to others about the same time, and of the possession of a considerable number of articles of the same kind.
Reg. v. BURGON.
False prelences — Misrepresentation that a house was built on land offered
as security. Where A. obtained money on the security of land by falsely representing that a house was built upon it:
Held, he was rightly convicted of obtaining money by false pretences.
Reg. v. GARDNER.
False pretences — Personation — Obtaining board. A. falsely represented himself to be the pay-master of the Duke of Wellington, and thereby obtained board and lodg. ing with the prosecutor.
Held, that he could not be convicted of obtaining specific articles of food by false pretences, because they were too remotely connected with the false representation.
Reg. v. Hodgson.
Forgery — Intent to defraud. To constitute the crime of forgery, there must be an intent to defraud some one, although by a recent statute the intent to defraud any particular individual need not be alleged. Therefore, where the prisoner altered a diploma of the College of Surgeons, by substituting one name for another, but without intending to wrong any one in particular:
Held, he could not be convicted of forgery.
Court of Appeal in Chancery. April 29, and May 7.
Molyneux v. Rowe.
Will — Construction – General words limited by conteat. A testator, by his will, appointed executors, and gave all his real and personal estate upon trusts for the benefit of
his granddaughter. By a codicil he gave and bequeathed to his servant " the whole of my estate, and all my household goods and furniture, linen, china, watches, and all other my personal property and effects that I may be possessed of at the time of my death, free from the control or interference of any person or persons whatsoever, for his absolute use and benefit, free from the legacy duty; such gift and bequest, however, I declare shall not prejudice any claim or demand he may have against me or my representatives for wages due to him from me;" and ratified his will in all other respects :
Held, (Turner, L. J., dissentiente,) that the gift in the codicil was only of the personal estate.
Rolls' Court. May 11 and 12.
Cox v. Parker.
Derise — Trustee entitled on failure of trust and of heirs. A testatrix devised real and personal estate in trust for her son, and if he should die under twenty-one years of age and without leaving issue, her trustee was to stand seized of the property in trust to sell, &c., and pay certain legacies, and subject thereto she bequeathed the residue to the children of P. and E., which should then be living. The testatrix's son died during her lifetime, unmarried. The testatrix left no heir or next of kin.
Held, that the trustee was absolutely entitled to the residuary estate.
Thomas v. Butt.
Will — Construction – Estate tail. A testator, after giving the whole of his property to his wife for life, devised “to my grandson, R. P., that house and garden, &c.; to my granddaughter, A. P., this house I now live in, with the garden and orchard adjoining;” and made in the same general clause several devises and bequests to his numerous other grandchildren by name. And added at the end of the bequests, " In case either of
at thumerousal claus
them die without issue, that portion to be divided among the survivors."
Held, (affirming the judgment below,) that this proviso governed all the devises and bequests, and that A. P. took an estate tail in the house, &c., devised to her.
Exchequer. June 5 and 7.
AIKEN V. SHORT.
Assumpsit — Money paid under mistake. A. borrowed 2001. of the defendant, and gave him a bond and an equitable charge on certain real estate; the plaintiffs purchased A.'s interest in the property, subject to the charge, and on application by the defendant, paid off the charge. It turned out that A.'s title was defective, so that neither his charge, nor his conveyance to the plaintiffs, were good.
Held, the plaintiffs had paid in their own wrong, not being in any manner bound to pay this debt, and could not recover back the 2001.
Bramwell, B., referred to Pritchard v. Hitchcock, 6 Scott, N. R. 351.
June 6. De Waal v. BRAUVE.
Alien enemy - Husband and wife. An English lady married to a Russian gentleman, but living apart from him and in England, made a contract before the war, in her own name, with the defendant, and during the war brought an action thereon in her own name. T'he defendant pleaded in abatement the nonjoinder of the husband. The plaintiff replied that the contract was made by her while separate, &c., within the realm, and that her husband was an alien enemy. The defendant demurred.
Held, that the replication only showed a present disqualification and not a civil death of the husband, and that the plaintiff could not maintain her action.
April 28, and May 31. Smitu v. REYNOLDS.
Insurance — Gambling policy — Profit on goods. Statute 19 Geo. 2, c. 37, § 1, renders void assurances on any British ship or on goods, &c., laden on board of any such ship, “ without further proof of interest than the policy.” Where such a policy was made on profits of goods:
Held, to be substantially a policy on goods, and therefore
Queen's Bench. May 30.
Ashurst v. BANK OF AUSTRALIA.
Promissory note — Transfer after maturity — Bankruptcy of indorser before
transfer. The defendants were the assignees of A., a bankrupt, and to an action by B., on a promissory note, indorsed to him by A., pleaded that the note was overdue and A. bankrupt at the time of the transfer.
Held, a good plea.
Rolls' Court. April 22, and May 5.
DRYSDALE v. PIGGOTT. Debtor and creditor — Insurance on debtor's life. A creditor insured his debtor's life, under agreement between them and a surety, that the first year's premium should be added to the debt; and the creditor paid the premiums for several years after the first, and the surety refused to repay him the second premium, and the debtor paid the debt, but did not repay the subsequent premiums, there being no evidence whether or not he had been requested to do so, and died, and the creditor received the insurance :
Held, that the plaintiff, who was the surety and also administrator of the debtor, could not recover the amount of the insurance from the creditor, for the latter could not be considered the agent of the debtor in keeping alive the policy.
Queen's Bench. June 5.
Marvin v. Wallis.
Statute of Frauds — Acceptance and receipt. A bargain for the purchase and sale of a horse was made orally, and the vendor (the plaintiff) then said to the ven
dee, that he wished to make some journeys, and the vendee lent him the horse; there was never any manual transfer of possession, but the horse remained with the plaintiff about two weeks, when he was sent to the defendant, who refused to receive him.
Held, there had been a sufficient receipt of the goods to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, as the character in which the plaintiff held the horse had changed from that of owner to that of bailee.
Common Bench. May 31.
HARMAN v. REEVE.
Statute of Frauds — Entire contract — Partly within the statute. Where a contract is entire, and the principal part is for the sale of goods above the value of 101., and the Statute of Frauds is not complied with, no action can be maintained on the contract.
It seems, that if the part not within the statute had been performed, the party may recover on an implied assumpsit the value of what he has performed.
May 27. Green v. KOPKE.
Principal and agent — Liability of agent for foreign principal. An agent for a foreign principal contracted by bought and sold notes for the shipment and delivery of goods by his principal, and signed as agent:
Held, he was not personally responsible.
Queen's Bench. June 9.
EDWARDS v. WAKEFIELD.
Practice — Interrogatories — Plaintiff's title. In an action of trover by assignees of a bankrupt, the defendants cannot file interrogatories to the plaintiffs calling upon them to show “what title they intend to set up to enable themselves to recover,” or “what act or acts of bankruptcy they intend to rely upon in support of their title as assignees. VOL. IX. — NO. IV.-NEW SERIES.