Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

of any violation of this act, complaint may be made by of the United Kingdom at a trial in another part, prosummons or on motion to the Court of Common Pleas, vides for the issuing of process by special order for that or any judge thereof*, who may direct necessary in- purpose, and also, if sufficient money has been tenquiries to be made by engineers, barristers, or others, dered for the expenses of coming, attending, and reand restrain the company, by writ of injunction or turning from the trial, for the punishment of the party interdict, from violating the act, and enforce obedience disobeying such process, (sects. 144); but the act is thereto by attachment of the directors, or some of them, not to affect the power of the Courts to issue a comor other person disobeying the writ, and direct pay- mission, or the admissibility of any evidence at any ment of a sum not exceeding 2001. for each day, after a trial, where such evidence is now receivable, on the day to be named in the order, that the company shall ground of any witness being beyond the jurisdiction of fail to obey the writ, and the money shall be payable the Court. (Sects. 5, 6). as the court or a judge may direct, to the party com- Stat. 17 & 18 Vict. c. 36, “an act for preventing frauds plaining, or into court to abide the ultimate deci- upon creditors by secret bills of sale of personal chatsion, or to the Queen. Costs may also be awarded. tels,” enacts, that every bill of sale of personal chattels (Sect. 3). A rehearing may be directed, and the order made after the passing of the act, (10th July, 1854), varied or rescinded. (Sect. 5).

and every schedule or inventory thereto, or a true copy For the purpose of obviating the effect of recent thereof, and of every attestation of the execution decisions, that railway companies may limit their liabi- thereof, shall, together with an affidavit of the time of lity as to animals and the like, even in cases of gross such bill being made or given, and a description of the negligence, (Carr v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire residence and occupation of the person making or Railway Company, 17 Jur., part 1, p. 379; 21 L. J., giving the same, and of the attesting witness to such Ex., 261; Chippendale v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire bill, be filed with the Clerk of the Docquets and Judg. Railway Company, 21 L. J., Q. B., 22; The Great ments' in the Queen's Bench within twenty-one days Northern Railway Company v. Morville, 16 Jur., part 1, after the making or giving such bill, (in like manner p. 528; Austin v. The Manchester Railway Company, 16 as a warrant of attorney in any personal action given by Jur., part 1, p. 763), it is enacted, that every such a trader* ), or it shall be void against assignees in bank company is to be liable for the loss of, or any injury ditors, and against execution creditors, so far as regards

ruptcy or insolvency, assignees for the benefit of credone to, horses or other animals, or to any goods, occa- the property in such goods which at or after the time sioned by the neglect or default of the company or its of such bankruptcy, &c., and after the expiration of the servants, notwithstanding any notice or condition con- said period of twenty-one days, shall be in the possestrary thereto, or in anywise limiting such liability, sion or apparent possession of the person making such every such notice, condition, or declaration being declared defeasance or condition or declaration of trust not

If to be void; but such conditions, with respect to the contained in it, such defeasance, &c. shall be taken, for receiving, forwarding, and delivering the said animals, the purposes of this act, to be part of the bill, and shall &c., may be made as shall be adjudged, by the court be written on the same paper or parchment before the or judge before whom any question relating thereto filing thereof, or the bill shall be void as if it had not shall be tried, to be just and reasonable; and no

been filed. (Sect. 2). The officer is to keep a book greater damages shall be recovered than as follow: – containing the particulars of each bill of sale so filed,

and any judge of the Court of Queen's Bench may For a horse, 501.; for any neat cattle, per head, order satisfaction to be entered upon any bill of sale, if 15l.; for any sheep or pigs, per head, 21., unless the it appears to him that the debt has been satisfied. person sending them declares them to be of higher (Sects. 3–6). The interpretation clause shews what value, in which case the company may charge a meanings are to be affixed to “ bill of sale” and “perreasonable per-centage in addition to the ordinary in the apparent possession" of the person making the

sonal chattels," and when the latter are to be deemed rate, and such per-centage is to be notified in the bill of sale. (Sect. 7). manner prescribed by the Carriers Act, 11 Geo. 4 & 1

It is remarkable, that although this act contains proWill. 4, c. 687.

visions so materially affecting the rights of parties The proof of value, and of the amount of injury, taking bills of sale, and allows only twenty-one days is always to be on the party claiming compensation. future period was fixed for its coming into operation:

for registration from the execution or giving thereof, no No special contract between the company and any it thus took effect immediately from the time of its reparty respecting the receiving, forwarding, or deliver- ceiving the royal assent, (10th July, 1854), and in coning of animals, &c., shall be binding upon such party sequence of this, there are doubtless many instances in unless the same be signed by him, or by the person which parties, ignorant of the enactment, have failed to delivering the animals, &c. (Sect. 7).

register their bills of sale within the limited period. General rules for carrying the act into execution may be framed. (Sect. 4).

The Queen has been pleased to appoint Neville Stat. 17 & 18 Vict. c. 34, (Evidence), after reciting Court of the Province of New Brunswick, with rank

Parker, Esq., to be a Puisne Judge of the Supreme the inconvenience of the superior Courts not being able and precedence in the said Court next after the Chief to compel the attendance of witnesses resident in one part Justice; and Joseph Hensley, Esq., to be Attorney.

General, and Dennis O'Meara, Esq., to be Solicitor* This is the only mode of proceeding for a violation of the General, for the Island of Prince Edward. above enactments. Provision is also made for complaints in Ireland and Scotland. (Sect. 2).

* See 2 Arch. Prac., by Chitty, 862_866. † Nothing in the principal act contained is to affect the † It also provides in similar terms for bills of sale “made rights or liabilities of any company under the Carriers Act or given by any person under or in the execution of any prowith respect to articles of the descriptions therein mentioned. cess." (See sect. 1).

ENGLISH COPYRIGHT IN FOREIGN COMPO- room, was held not to destroy the right, (though now SITIONS.

the public representation of a play is by statute equivalent to publishing it as a book. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45,

s. 20). (From a Correspondent).

This right is not lost by publication. Publication in Our literary privateers seem to have very much mis- the lecture-room, or on the stage, did not destroy it; nor, taken the scope of the letters of mart recently issued in the case of letters, does the receiver take, with the by the House of Lords in Jefferys v. Boosey. Up to the right of property in the letter itself, a right to publish present moment the making prize of literary works of its contents; that remains with the writer. It is not foreigners first published in this country after the 1st lost by circulating manuscript copies, as in Paley's case; July, 1842, (when the stat. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, was nor even by selling such copies, as in White v. Geroch, passed), has not been sanctioned by a single decision (2.B.& Al.298). There is nothing in the act of selling of any Court, and it is not quite safe to assume either printed copies which should have a different effect. It that the 4th section of the Alien Act, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 66, is a mode of enjoying, and not an abandonment of the (cited below), is wholly inoperative, or that a con- property. The author gives the use of his work to the struction of the repealed Copyright Acts which is not public in a modified manner, and upon certain terms, tenable on any ground, whether of criticism, of prin- which cannot be varied without his consent, (see Aberciple, of common sense, of policy, or of authority, will nethy v. Hutchinson, 2 L. J., 0. S., Ch., 209), any more be imitated, to the further discredit of the Court of ulti- than (as was said in Tonson v. Collins) the borrower or mate appeal, when judgment is to be given according to purchaser of a key, admitting him to private grounds, the effect of the very differently worded statutes which can make other keys from that, and sell them. are now in force, and which were passed with the in- The early development of the law of copyright was tention of making essential alterations in the law. If impeded by many circumstances. In the infancy of the commonly-received explanation of Jefferys v. Boo- the art of printing, the profits of authorship were not sey—that it was decided with a view to the possible thought of; the value of the materials, and the labour renewal of the late abortive negotiations with the and skill employed in setting up the types of a book, United States for a copyright treaty, (a notion re- constituted the principal elements of its cost; and copyceiving some countenance from the ill-judged allusion right was first claimed by the printer, who sought to be to those negotiations made by Lord St. Leonards)—were protected from rival editions until his own was sold off. correct, there might be some reason for fearing a second This was secured, in individual cases, by exclusive decision of the same quality; but if we reject that libel license from the Crown, which assumed 'not only a on the sense and honour of the Court, and are content to right of censorship over the press, but also the sole use rank its late decision with Lord Lincoln's case, and other of the art of printing, pretending that it had been ininexplicable though unquestionable blunders, there may troduced into the realm at the expense of the Crown. be some hope that with a new case a better light may When the author's copy became valuable, protection break in, and shew the way to a sounder conclusion. was sought for it from the same source. The preroga

Before we consider the differences between the exist- tive was then stronger than the law. These patents to ing and the repealed statutes it will be useful to shew individuals, the privileges of the Stationers' Company, that the late decision, though binding and irreversible (which was established in the reign of Philip & Mary as regards all cases of the same kind which are go- as a kind of literary inquisition), and the several acts verned by the repealed statutes, is (unless it be rested for licensing printed books, (the last of which expired on an accidental objection to the plaintiff's title, which in 1694), hindered the free application of the common Lord St. Leonards relied on) wholly unsound and con- i law to this species of property; and the usurpations of trary to principle and authority, and therefore not to the prerogative were scarcely abated before the combe followed in any case depending on the existing sta- mon-law right was abolished, in respect of published tutes. In doing this we shall avail ourselves of an works, by the stat. 8 Ann. c. 19; but its existence article which appeared in The JURIST (vol. 14, part 2, up to the passing of that act is clearly established. p. 46) shortly after the decision in Boosey v. Purday, The exclusive licenses granted to individuals were al(13 Jur., part 1, p. 918):

ways understood to be an exercise of the Crown's right The common-law right of an author and his re- of censorship, founded in each case on the author's presentatives to restrain others from selling copies of title to his copy. They were never classed with the his unpublished works has always been recognised, and monopolies prohibited by the statute of James I. The still subsists. Thus, in The Duke of Queensberry v. inherent right of an author and his assigns to his copy, Shebbeare, (2 Eden, 329), the publication of Lord independently of royal grant, is assumed in all the Clarendon's History of the Reign of Charles the Se acts of Parliament and ordinances for the regulation of cond was restrained on the application of his executors, printing which preceded the statute of Anne. Thus, who had the MS., then nearly a century old. Other in the Licensing Act of the 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 33, s. 6, authorities

to the same effect are Webb v. Rose, (cited it is enacted, that no one shall print any book “which 4 Burr. 2330; 3 Swanst. 674); Pope v. Curll, (2 Atk. any person, by force or virtue of any letters-patent 342); Macklin v. Richardson, (Amb. 694); Thompson v. granted as aforesaid, or (where the same is not granted Stanhope, (Id. 737); Southey v. Sherwood, (2 Mer. 436); by any letters-patent) by force or virtue of any entry Pritchard v. Gee, (2 Swanst. 425); Paley's case, (cited thereof duly made in the register-book of the said 2 V. & B.23); Perceval v. Phipps, (2 V. & B. 19); Mor- Company of Stationers, or in the register-book of either ris v. Kelly, (í J. & W. 481); and Abernethy v. Hutchin- of the universities respectively, has, or shall have, the son, (2 L. J., 0. S., Ch., 209). In Prince Albert v. right, privilege, authority, or allowance solely to print, Strange, (1 Mac. & G. 43), Lord Cottenham said, “ The without the consent of the owner of such book.” Now, property of an author or composer of any work, whe- registry with the Stationers' Company conferred nó ther of literature, art, or science, in such work, unpub- property, but was merely a condition precedent to the lished, and kept for his private use or pleasure, cannot liberty of publishing at all; and it was expressly held be disputed after the many decisions in which that that this statute gave no new right, but only the new right has been affirmed or assumed.” That this right is remedy of an action of debt. (The Stationers Company a species of property, and not a mere right to privacy, v. Parker, Skin. 233). The preamble to the stat. 8 is shewn by Paley's case, and by Macklin v. Richardson Ann. c. 15, is to the same effect :-“Whereas printers, and Abernethy v. Hutchinson, where the publication of booksellers, and other persons have of late frequently the work in a parish, on the stage, or in the lecture. taken the liberty of printing, reprinting, and publish

for a

ing books and other writings without the consent of invention, which is a mere conception of a mode of the authors or proprietors of such books and writings, action, that may, and generally does, occur indepento their very great detriment,” &c.; language clearly dently to many minds, so that it would be impossible referring to the invasion of an existing right, though to distinguish between piracy and re-invention, the at that time the Licensing Acts had expired, and the same considerations of expediency which are the notion and practice of obtaining a privilege of mono- grounds for giving protection in either case, and upon poly by royal grant were exploded." Indeed, the title which the institution of property in general is founded, of the Crown itself to what were called prerogative supply a reason for limiting the rights of the inventor copies (such as law books, the translation of the Bible, more strictly than those of the author. Copyright almanacks, &c.) was always founded on the expense be- merely prevents others from making a pecuniary profit stowed by the Crown, directly or indirectly, on the of the particular work, and in no way limits the use compilation of those works. Again: in the enacting of the ideas contained in it, or restrains others in the part of the statute of Anne, the copyright in books exercise of their own abilities; for two authors cannot Then already printed was secured to the authors, if write the same book, though two men may invent the they had not transferred their copies, or to their as- same machine. A patent not only secures to the insignees, for twenty-one years, “and no longer.” There ventor the use of his invention, but prevents another, could be no assignees if there were no property to as- who may arrive at the same result by his own ingesign. The copyright in books then “already composed, nuity, from turning it to account. To give a perpetual and not printed and published, or that should thereafter monopoly to the one who happens first to perceive and be composed,” is secured to the authors and their as put in practice that which in the natural progress of signees for the term of fourteen years from the day of the arts is sure to occur to many, would be to fetter the first publishing the same, “and no longer.” The and not to encourage improvement. leaving of a longer term to works already published The right of an alien author to protection for his than was allowed to future works, shews that the act copies by the common law does not appear to have was understood to be restrictive of an existing right. been expressly decided; but it is a necessary conseThe original bill was intended to give better protection quence of the rules of law with respect to aliens. to the common-law perpetual copyright.

With some exceptions as to land, founded on feudal Before the ultimate decision in Donaldson v. Beckett and political reasons, an alien, whether resident here (2 Bro. P. C. 129; 4 Burr. 2303) it was held in several or abroad, has the same rights in respect of property cases that the statute merely gave additional remedies and contracts as a natural-born subject would have

rm, leaving the author to his right at commor under the same circumstances. It was resolved in law after that term had expired. (Tonson v. Walker, Calvin's case (7 Rep. 17) that “ an alien friend may by 3 Swanst. 673, and the cases there cited; Millar v. the common law have, acquire, and get, within the Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303). In Tonson v. Collins, cited in realm, by gift, trade, or other lawful means, any treaMillar v.

Taylor, the Court of Queen's Bench, and sure or goods personal whatsoever, as well as any Engafterwards the Court of Exchequer Chamber, were lishman, and may maintain any action for the same; prepared to decide unanimously to that effect, but the for if they should be disabled to acquire and maintain case was dismissed on the ground of suspected collusion. these things, it were in effect to deny unto them trade Those cases were overruled by the House of Lords in and traffic, which is the life of every island.” (See Donaldson v. Beckett, as it seems on the satisfactory Dy. 2 b; Cro. Car. 8; 2 Taunt. 37; Bac. Ab., “Alien," ground that the words “and no longer,” in the statute D.; Com. Dig., " Alien,” C. 5). So completely are all of Anne, cut down the perpetuity of the common-law the personal rights of an alien, not involving the posright, in cases within the statute, to the period therein session of land, or the exercise of constitutional privispecified. The ground of that decision can only be sur- leges, recognised by our law, that an alien resident mised; but as seven of the eleven judges who were con- abroad may maintain an action_for the slander of sulted, and also Lord Mansfield, who did not speak, his reputation in this country: Tuerloote v. Morison, were of opinion that at the comnion law copyright was (Yelv. 198; Bulst. 134); Pisani v. Lawson, (8 Scott, not destroyed by publication, it is plain that Donald- 182), in which last case the doctrine was rested upon son v. Beckett did not overrule the prior decisions as to general considerations of justice, and not on the expethe effect of publication. Of the four judges who spoke diency of encouraging commerce. This maxim of the the other way, one (Eyre, B.) thought that an author common law has been confirmed by a declaration in had not the sole right of printing even before publica- the recent Alien Act, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 66, s. 4, (stated betion; and two (Perrott, B., and Adams, B.) thought, low). An alien author was therefore clearly entitled by that though he had that right, he could not bring an the common law to the same protection of his property action against a person printing from his manuscript, in his unpublished compositions as a native, and the unless the copy was obtained by fraud or violence act of publishing or procuring the publication of the errors so obvious as greatly to lessen the weight of the work here could not be an abandonment of that right opinions with which they were associated.

in the one case more than in the other. It seems to us The objection so strenuously urged by Mr. Justice that the right might have been carried further; for as Yates and others, against including copyright in that publication here is not an abandonment of the copy, notion of property which comprises such incorporeal publication abroad, whether by a British subject or by rights as advowsons, tolls, and franchises, seems absurd a stranger, cannot be so, unless that interpretation is enough. It was also beside the question, which was put upon it by the local law, in which case it might not as to the proper denomination of the right, but perhaps be thought to defeat the right everywhere. whether it existed by the common law in a book But see Beard v. Egerton, (3 C. B. 97). Subject, howprinted, as it certainly did in a book merely written, ever, to the effect of any local law, it seems to be clear and whether it existed independently of the statute, that by the common law an author, whether native or as it certainly did by virtue of it. The common law alien, and whether he first published here or abroad, recognises other rights than those of property, and has had a perpetual copyright in his works. a scope as unlimited as that of the Legislature itself, The question remains, whether this right has been

It was also urged that literary compositions ought taken away by the Legislature in the case of an alien. to stand on the same footing as inventions in manu- The provisions of the Copyright Acts must be as extenfactures; but not to insist on the marked distinction sively applicable as the common law which they superbetween a literary work, which has an unmistakeable seded, unless their operation is limited by express words individuality both in itself and in its origin, and an or necessary implication. The stat. 8 Ann. c. 19, after giring protection for twenty-one years to books then In Clementi v. Walker (2 B. & Cr. 861) a piece of already printed, confers on the author of a book or music had been published at Paris in June, 1814, with books“ already composed, and not printed and pub- the sanction of the composer, who in the September lished, or that shall hereafter be composed,” a copyright following, being in England, verbally sold the work to for fourteen years from the day of the first publishing the plaintiffs, who published here in the same month. the same. Here the word "composed” is evidently In 1818 the defendant published without the plaintiffs? used merely for the purpose of distinguishing the class authority. In 1822 the composer executed a formal of future books from that of existing copyrights, which assignment, in writing, to the plaintiffs. It was held, are secured for a longer term; and it cannot be taken that, the parol assignment being ineffectual, there was to refer to compositions in this country exclusively, no publication here, either by the author or by his although in Clementi v. Walker (2 B. & Cr. 861) the assignee, before the year 1822, and that the work, words "printed and published" appear to have been having in the meantime been fairly published by read with that limitation. In the stat. 12 Geo. 2, c. 36, third party, became publici juris. The Court was of "for prohibiting the importation of books reprinted opinion that the statutes contemplated books printed abroad, and first composed or written and printed in as well as published here, and that no protection was Great Britain,” the conjunctive “and” certainly makes intended to be given where the author prints and pubthe fact of composition in this country essential to bring lishes abroad only, without ever publishing here, or a book within the protection of that act; but any ar- without publishing within a reasonable time after the gument founded on that expression is displaced by the publication abroad, and before any other person has language of the stat. 41 Geo. 3, c. 107, " for the fur- fairly published on his own account. Whether the ther encouragement of learning," &c., where the words act of publishing abroad made the work at once pubare, (sect. 7), “ first composed, written, or printed and lici juris it was not necessary to decide. In that case published in any part of the United Kingdom.” the Court assumed, that if the author had first pub

There was nothing, then, in the repealed acts to lished here he would have been entitled to protecplace aliens upon a less advantageous footing than na- tion; so that, as far as it goes, it favours the alien's tural-born subjects in respect to copyright. Either claim. Bayley, J., said, “The case, therefore, is rethey gave to an alien the same copyright which they duced to this--whether an author, who first publishes gave to a subject, or they did not apply to him at all, abroad, and, instead of using due diligence to publish and left him his common-law right. An expression here, forbears to publish until some other, fairly and in the first International Copyright Act, 1 & 2 Vict. without blame, publishes here, can insist upon his pric. 59, s. 1, has been supposed to sanction a different vilege.” What privilege, if he could not have a copyconstruction of the repealed acts. That act authorised right under any circumstances? Again: “The different the Crown, by order in Council, to direct that the statutes which give protection to authors do not give authors of books which should be published in any it as to all books, but as to printed books only.” I'his foreign country, to be therein specified, should have observation is the key to the whole of the judgment; the sole liberty of printing and reprinting such books and, if it had been well considered in Boosey v. Purday, within the British dominions, for such term as her might have led to a different conclusion. Majesty should direct,“ not exceeding the term which

(To be continued). authors, being British subjects, are now by law entitled to in respect to books first published within the United THE COMMON-LAW PROCEDURE ACT, 1854. Kingdom.” If this means anything adverse to the rights of foreigners, it must mean that an alien cannot acquire a copyright even by publishing during a tem- [We give this Stalute out of its numerical order on account porary residence here--a proposition expressly repu

of its importance to the Profession.] diated by the noble Lords who delivered judgment in

CAP. CXXV. the late case. The widest inference that can be drawn An Act for the further Amendment of the Process, Practice, from it is, that it was thought there might be a doubt and Mode of Pleading in and enlarging the Jurisdiction of as to the rights of aliens. The object was to furnish a the Superior Courts of Common Law at Westminster, and precise measure of the term to be granted—not to risk of the Superior Courts of Common Law of the Counties the efficacy of the enactment on the correctness of a

Palatine of Lancaster and Durham. reference purporting to embrace every case, but to

[12th August, 1854.] select an instance which should be free from doubt. Sect. 1. Judge may, by Consent, try Questions of Fact. If the expression suggests a doubt as to aliens, it leaves 2. Two Judges may sit at same Time for Trial of the question open, whether aliens, if not within the

Causes pending in the same Court. Copyright Acts, may have a perpetual copyright by the

3. Power to Court or Judge to direct Arbitration before common law. That the intention was not to refer to

Trial. every possible case of copyright is also plain from the

4. Special Case may be stated, and Question of Fact

tried. reference to first publication here, coupled with the

5. Arbitrator may state special Case. enactment in the 14th section of the same act, “ that the

6. Power to Judge to direct Arbitration at Time of author of any book to be, after the passing of this act,

Trial, when Issues of Fact left to his Decision. first published out of her Majesty's dominions, shall have

7. Proceedings before and Power of such Arbitrator. no copyright therein within her Majesty's dominions, 8. Power to send back to Arbitrator. otherwise than such (if any) as he may become entitled 9. Application to set aside the Award. to under this act:" an enactment not declaratory of an 10. Enforcing of Awards within Period for setting them existing law, but confined to publication subsequent to

aside. its passing, and implying that, under the prior law,

11. If Action commenced by one Party after all have first publication here was not essential, although, as we

agreed to Arbitration, Court or Judge may stay shall see, prompt publication was. A further inference

Proceedings. from that enactment is, that foreign authors first pub

12. On Failure of Parties or Arbitrators, Judge may lishing here would still be entitled to copyright.

appoint single Arbitrator or Umpire. The conclusion which we have drawn from general

13. When Reference is to tuo Arbitrators, and one considerations is well supported by authority. That

Party fail to appoint, other Party may appoint

Arbitrator to act alone. an alien author, temporarily residing in this country, 14. Two Arbitrators may appoint Umpire. and first publishing here, is entitled to protection, was 15. Award to be made in three months, unless Parties or assumed in Bach v. Longman, (Cowp. 623).

Court enlarge Time.

16. Rule to deliver Possession of Land pursuant to 74. The Court may order the Act to be done at the Ex. Award to be enforced as a Judgment in Eject

pense of the Defendant. ment..

75. Prerogative Writ of Mandamus preserved. 17. Agreement or Submission in Writing may be made 76. Proceedings for Prerogative Writ of Mandamus deRule of Court, unless a contrary Intention appear.

celerated. 18. Speeches to the Jury.

77. Proceedings on Prerogative Writ of Mandamus. 19. Power to adjourn Trial,

78. Specific Delivery of Chatlels. 20. Affirmation instead of Oath in certain Cases.

79. Claim of Writ of Injunction. 21. Persons making a false Affirmation to be subject to 80. Form of Writ of Summons and Indorsement thereon. the same Punishment as for Perjury.

81. Form of Proceedings and of Judgment. 22. How far a Party may discredit his own Witness. 82. Writ of Injunction may be applied for at any Stage 23. Proof of contradictory Statements of adverse Wit

of the Cause. ness.

83. Equitable Defence may be pleaded. 24. Cross-examination as to previous Statements in 84. Equitable Defence after Judgment. Writing.

85. Equitable Replication. 25. Proof of previous Conviction of a Witness may be 86. Court or Judge may strike out equitable Plea or given.

Replication. 26. Attesting Witness need not be called, except in cer- 87. Actions on lost Instruments. tain Cases.

88. Jurisdiction under Shipowners Act, 53 Geo. 3, c. 159. 27. Comparison of disputed Writing.

89. False Evidence. 28. Provision for stamping Documents at the Trial.

90. Execution to fix Bail. 29. Officer of the Court to receive the Duty and Penalty. 91, Scire Facias on Judgment of Assets in Futuro. 13 8. 14 Vict. c. 97.

92. To compel Continuance or Abandonment of Action 30. No Document under this Act to require a Stamp.

in case of Death. 31. No new Trial for ruling as to Stamp.

93. Claimant in second Ejectment for same Premises 32. Error may be brought on a special Case.

against same Defendant may be ordered to give 33. Grounds to be stated in Rule Nisi for new Trial.

Security for Costs. 34. If Rule Nisi refused, Party may appeal.

94. As to Writs of Execution issued before 24th Octo35. Appeal upon Rule discharged or absolute.

ber, 1852. 36. Courts of Error to be Courts of Appeal.

95. Courts may appoint Sittings. 37. Notice of Appeal.

96. Amendments. 38. Bail.

97. General Rules may be made by the Judges. 39. Form of Appeal.

98. New Forms of Writs and other Proceedings. 40. Rule Nisi granted on Appeal, how disposed of.

99. Interpretation of Terms. 41. Judgment Court of Appeal.

100. Provisions relating to Superior Courts to apply to 42. Powers of Court of Appeal as to Costs and otherwise.

Court of Common Pleas at Lancaster and Court 43. Error upon Award of Trial de novo.

of Pleas at Durham. 44. Payment of Costs upon new Trial on Matter of 101. Provisions as to Masters of Superior Courts to Fact.

apply to Prothonotaries of Palatinate Courts. 45. Affidavits on new Matter.

102. Court of Queen's Bench to be the Court of Appeal 46. Power to Court or Judge to direct oral Examinations

from Palatinate Courts. of Witnesses.

103. Enactments in Sects. 19 to 32 to apply to every 47. Proceedings before and upon such Examination.

Civil Court of Judicature in England and Ireland. 1 Will. 4, c. 22.

104. Commencement of Act. 48. Examination of Person who refuses to make an 105. Her Majesty may direct all or Part of this Act to Affidavit.

extend to any Court of Record. 49. Proceedings upon Order for Examination.

106. Short Title of Act. 50. Discovery of Documents.

107. Act not to extend to Ireland or Scotland. 51. Power to deliver written Interrogatories to opposite Party.

Be it enacted &c. as follows:52. Affidavits by Party proposing to interrogate, and

Sect. 1. The parties to any cause may, by consent in writing, his Attorney.

signed by them or their attornies, as the case may be, leave the 53. Oral Examination of Parties, when to be allowed. decision of any issue of fact to the court, provided that the 54. Proceedings upon such Rule or Order.

court, upon a rule to shew cause, or a judge on summons, 55. Depositions upon such Examinations to be returned shall, in their or his discretion, think fit to allow such trial; to the Master's Office. 1 Will. 4, c. 22.

or provided the judges of the superior courts of law at West56. Examiner may make special Report to the Court.

minster shall, in pursuance of the power hereinafter given to 57. Costs of Rule and Examination to be in the Discre- them, make any general rule or order dispensing with such tion of the Court.

allowance, either in all cases or in any particular class or 58. Inspection by Jury, of Parties, or Witnesses.

classes of cases to be defined in such rule or order; and suck 59. Rule or Order for summoning Jury.

issue of fact may thereupon be tried and determined, and da. 60. Examination of Judgment Debtor as to Debts due mages assessed where necessary, in open court, either in term to him.

or vacation, by any judge who might otherwise bave presided 61. Judge may order an Attachment of Debts.

at the trial thereof by jury, either with or without the assist62. Order for Attachment to bind Debts.

ance of any other judge or judges of the same court, or in63. Proceedings to levy Amount due from Garnishee to cluded in the same commission at the assizes ; and the verdict Judgment Debtor.

of such judge or judges shall be of the same effect as the ver64. Judge may allow Judgment Creditor to sue Gar- dict of a jury, save that it shall not be questioned upon the nishee.

ground of being against the weight of evidence; and the pro65. Garnishee discharged.

ceedings upon and after such trial, as to the power of the court 66. Attachment Book to be kept by the Masters of each or judge, the evidence, and otherwise, shall be the same as in Court.

the case of trial by jury. 67. Costs of Application.

2. It shall be lawful for any one of the judges of any of the 68. Action for Mandamus to enforce the Performance of superior courts at Westminster, at the request of the Lord Duties.

Chief Justice or Lord Chief Baron, to try the causes entered 69. Declaration in Action for Mandamus.

for trial at Nisi Prius in Westminster and London in either of 70. Proceedings upon Claim for Mandamus.

the courts, on the same days on which the said Lord Chief Jus71. Judgment and Execution.

tice or Lord Chief Baron, or any other judge of the same court, 72. Form of peremptory Writ.

shall be sitting to try causes at those places respectively, or 73. Effect of Writ of Mandamus, and Proceedings to at either of them, so that the trial of two causes may be proenforce it.

ceeded with at the same time; and all jurors, witnesses, and

« ZurückWeiter »