Abbildungen der Seite

case for specific performance? Can he do so before Laud on the English Constitution have been renere judgment has been obtained in the action? What even in the present day, and with a greater impuniti effect will the claim for a mandamus have upon costs,

than attended Laud's exertions, by such measures a where the other claim falls within the county court

the Church wardens Election Bill, the device of the

present Bishop of London, some of the greatest of Eng jurisdiction?

fish judges-Chief Justices Hale and Holt, and Lon As to the awarding the peremptory writ, the Courts Hardwicke-held, that of common right the choosing will doubtless exercise a discretion in the matter analo- church wardens belonged to the parishioners, thoogt gous to that exercised in equity, and will not therefore (in some parishes) the incumbent had got the power of award it where the injury may be fully compensated

electing one church warden by custom; that the claim

of the minister to occupy the chair at vestry meetings for in damages, or where specific performance would

as well as to be head of the parish, is illegal, Lord be unduly oppressive.

Hardwicke saying, “I do not find any resolution, oi In the absence of rules and forms on this subject, we even opinion, to give the vicar a right of presiding, may suggest the following indorsement on the writ There is, indeed, a notion that he has a right to preside and copy :

but that has taken its rise from special* vestries. ... “Take notice, that the said A. B. intends (also] to

We must resort to the common right, which is in the

| whole assembly, where all are [that is, before the claim a writ of mandamus commanding the defendant

people were robbed of their common-law right by to [accept from the plaintiff a lease of a house for Sturges Bourne's Act] upon an equal foot.” (Stough twenty-one years, at the rent of 50l. per annum, pur- ton v. Reynolds, Lee, T. Hardw. 276; Str. 1046). And suant to the defendant's agreement with the plaintiff, Lee, J., saying, “The parson, perhaps, has a right d dated the day of — , A.D. 1854.]”

sitting (as a member of vestry) from his freehold in the The declaration may, it is submitted, be as follows:

| church; but I do not think that can any way give him

a greater right or authority than any of the otha “[Venue], to wit.-A. B., by C.D. his attorney, sues

members of the assembly." (Per Lee, J., Fort. 172). E. F. For that by a certain agreement, made between Beginning with the Year Books, in which there an the plaintiff and the defendant, it was agreed that the several cases of the highest interest and value relating plaintiff should grant to the defendant, and that the to parish government, but not one which affirms the defendant should accept, a lease of a house for twenty

right of the priest or minister to assume the headship

of the parish, or to preside at parish meetings, or even one years, from the day of , A. D. 1854, at the

to be considered an integral part of the parish, bat yearly rent of 50l.; and it thereupon became the duty where, on the contrary, all these modern assumption of the defendant to accept the said lease; and the plain- are distinctly negatived, Mr. Toulmin Smith proceeds to tiff says that he has performed all things on his part to shew that neither the canons nor the statutes, nor even be performed, and that at the time of the commence

the ecclesiastical writers themselves, give any counter ment of this suit he was, and still is, personally inte

nance to these pretensions. Finally, he examines with

great minuteness the case of Wilson v. M Math, (1819) rested in the fulfilment of the said duty by the defend- and shews that that case is not law, but that the judg: ant, and that the defendant has refused to fulfil the ment given by the Ecclesiastical Court in that cas same, although the plaintiff demanded such fulfilment cannot fail to recall a passage in Ayliffe's Parergon, a reasonable time before the commencement of this (p. 186), where he speaks of some who “sit as judges suit, and that the plaintiff has sustained damage by

in our ecclesiastical courts, and determine law-suits

without any knowledge of the law." reason of the defendant's non-fulfilment of such duty;

One characteristic feature of this work is the consis and the plaintiff claims a writ of mandamus com

tency with which the relative importance of the commanding the defendant to fulfil the said duty by accept mon and statute law is throughout developed and ing the said lease from the plaintiff.”

insisted on, as well as the ignorance of the common law now often exhibited by the Legislature.

We are by no means unqualified admirers of the Review.

wisdom of Coke; yet he was not quite so great a fool

as Bentham and some of his echoes represent him as The Parish: its Obligations and Powers; its Officers

being. In the preface to the fourth part of his report, and their Duties; with Illustrations of the Practical Coke says that the artist in law-making should set Working of this Institution in all Secular Affairs.

himself" to know the several kinds of the municipal By TOULMIN SMITH, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn, Barrister- laws of his own proper nation, for the innovation of at-Law. 12mo., pp. 624.


change of some laws is most dangerous, and there is les

peril in the alteration of others—to understand that (Continued from p. 401).

the true sense and sentence of the laws now standing i There is probably no part of this book which dis- and how far forth former laws have made provision is plays more learning and ability than the chapter (chap. the case that falleth into question." vi) on " the position of the parson or minister in respect The truth of the proposition which we have marked to the affairs of the parish.” Mr. Toulmin Smith shews, in italics we hardly think that any man, lawyer or by a minute and searching examination of the autho- non-lawyer, parliament man or non-parliament man, rities, the illegality of the attempt to assume the par- minister or minister's man, will be hardy enough ti son or minister to be head of the parish and president dispute. Another proposition, which may be open to of all parish meetings. He shews that parishes are a more controversy, at least as to its exact limits, is that secular, not an ecclesiastical, division, and “ were insti- a large proportion of the modern statute law is made tuted for the ease and benefit of the people, and not of without a competent knowledge, on the part of the the parson.” (Per Holt, C. J., 3 Salk. 85). He ex- I framers of such law, “ how far forth former laws have poses the illegal attempts of Laud and others to render made provision in the case that falleth into question." the body of the clergy a mere sort of state police, and the flagrant ignorance or contempt of the laws of Eng * The Select Vestries Act, howerer, (59 Geo. 3, c. 12 land exhibited on various occasions by the Ecclesiastical expressly directs the majority to choose a chairman, thoughts Courts. He shews, that notwithstanding the attacks of minister is one of the select vestry.

lere are statutes passed every session of Parliament, lawyers at least may no longer have any excuse for ding a yearly increase to that huge, confused, contra- being ignorant of its provisions. etory mass, of which no candid man even pretends to In speaking of a bill introduced into Parliament in low the contents, some of them creating a vast ma- the session of 1854 by Mr. Evelyn, the member for inery of functionaries, under the pretext of providing West Surrey, declaratory of the power that has always medies for cases which the laws already in existence, been inherent in parish vestries to take measures for all d which had been in existence for hundreds of years, things that are for the common good, Mr. Toulmin id made ample provision for.

Smith has thus characterised the spirit and tone of its Under such a system, is it surprising that the law official opponent:ould be uncertain, that it should be absolutely un- “The official opponent of this bill shewed himself nown even to lawyers, or that more doubts should not only ignorant of, or resolved to treat with conise upon the statute than upon the common law? tempt, common-law and constitutional principle, but le have on a former occasion cited Bacon's opinion even ignorant who those are that attend and have this effect. Coke's opinion agrees with it. He says, ' votes at vestries. He insulted the common sense of Preface to 2 Rep.), " The greatest questions arise, not his hearers and the public by talking of this bill pon any of the rules of the common law, but often- "giving powers to “paupers,' and by ridiculing the idea mes upon acts of Parliament overladen with pro- of vestry-appointed bodies having a corporate capacity. isoes and additions, and many times on a sudden Though Under-Secretary of State, he must be preenned or concocted by men of none or very little sumed to have been altogether unaware of the existudgment in law.” And also, “ If acts of Parliament ence, or ignorant of the provisions, as already stated, fere after the old fashion penned, and by such only as of the Highway Act, the Lighting and Watching. erfectly knew what the common law was before the Act, Gilbert's Poor-law Act, the Burial Act of 1852, laking of any act of Parliament concerning that mat, and many others, as well as even of the simplest rules ar, as also how far forth former statutes had provided of law as to the choice of churchwardens. He atemedy for former mischiefs and defects discovered by tempted, moreover, to represent that a committee apxperience, then should very few questions in law arise, pointed to do a specific work only, subject to rules to nd the learned should not so often and so much perplex be laid down by vestry, and which committee cannot heir heads to make atonement and peace, by construc- raise or spend a penny without the express consent of ion of law, between insensible and disagreeing words, the vestry, has arbitrary powers. At the prospect entences, and provisoes, as they now do.

of such powers he professed to look with horror. Moreover, in our own time we find, even in official Let the Board of Health, or any other body of irreawyers, ignorance of the real nature and extent of the sponsible functionaries, arbitrarily order and tax-he ommon law of England as great as that of those who does but burn with zeal to enlarge their powers in re content to accept Bentham's witticism* as a vera- 'that way. But for any parish to think of doing anyious picture of the customs, the free and natural growth "thing for itself, and of itself paying for it as it thinks of the experience during many ages — more than a right—this, indeed, is not to be endured.” (P. 222). housand years—of the most free and most practically sagacious race of men recorded in history. What has Prussia, what has France, what has Belgium got froin

Court Papers. her code, that they who live under the common law of England should exchange their common law, with all EQUITY SITTINGS, MICHAELMAS TERM, its defects, for a code manufactured even by the hands

1854. of such a philosopher as Bentham, after such models,

Court of Chancery. or after others floating in the philosophic mind? Let it be a lesson of humility to the philosophic mind to Before the LORD CHANCELLOR, at Westminster. reflect, that the principle of representative govern- Thursday.... Nov. 2 Appeal Motions and Appeals. ment, for want of which all the ancient experiments in

At Lincoln's Inn. government were failures, after escaping the inventive Friday

3 Petitions and Appeals. faculty of the greatest philosophers of antiquity, was Saturday discovered by a rude but practically sagacious baron of Monday..

Appeals. the dark ages. And there are many other parts of the Tuesday common law of England which, though a man of wit,


9 Appeal Motions and Appeals. like Bentham, might see some ridiculous points in Thursday

Friday ... them, contain pieces of intellectual machinery sur

Saturday passing in practical ingenuity the mightiest achieve

Monday.. 13 > Appeals. ments of a Plato's or a Newton's thought. Laud and


14 Strafford entertained an intense hatred for the common Wednesday 15 law. They were never tired of abusing it, and they Thursday 16 Appeal Motions and Appeals. While it existed, neither ecclesiastical nor Friday

177 civil tyranny could have uncontrolled dominion in Saturday 18 England. I'here are men in the present day with Monday.

Appeals. intentions as hostile to the common law, and for some- Tuesday.. what similar reasons, as Laud and Strafford, and whose Wednesday pernicious designs demand as vigilant an attention from Thursday those who are opposed to all such designs.


24 Petitions and Appeals.

25 Appeal Motions and Appeals. For all these reasons, it appears to be of the first Saturday importance, that, by such means as have been indicated

Before the LORDS JUStices, at Westminster. in former articles, the common law should, without further loss of time, be put into such a shape, that Thursday.... Nov. 2 Appeal Motions.

At Lincoln's Inn. *"When a man has a dog to teach, he falls upon him and beats him; the animal takes note in his own mind of the

Friday { Appeces anatibankrupteetitions in Lucircumstances in which he has been beaten, and the intimation Saturday thus received becomes, in the mind of the dog, a rule of the Monday.. common law." (Bentham's Rationale of Judicial Evidence, Tuesday.


Appeals. vol. 2, p. 475).


7 8

10 11

had cause.

20 21 22 23



[ocr errors]

Friday .....


.. 14



Thursday ...... 9 Appeal Motions and Appeals. | Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. STUART, at Westminster.

10 Petitions in Lunacy and Bankruptcy, Thursday.... Nov. 2 Motions. Friday ...... " and Appeal l'etitions.

Al Lincoln's Inn. Saturday ....... 11

3 Petitions and General Paper. Monday........ 13 Appeals.

Saturday ... 4 Short Causes, Short Claims, & Causes. Tuesday...

Monday.... Wednesday ..

| Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes,

Tuesday....... Thursday ....... 16 Appeal Motions and Appeals.

s Claims, and Further Directions.

8 Petitions in Lunacy and Bankruptcy, Wednesday ..... Friday ........ "

9 Motions and General Paper. and Appeal Petitions.


Friday ....... Saturday ..... 187)

10 Petitions and General Paper.

Saturday ..... 11 Short Causes, Short Claims, & Causes. Monday ........ Tuesday...... 21 > Appeals.


Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes,

Tuesday.... Wednesday ...


5 Claims, and Further Directions. Thursday .... os Petitions in Lumacy and Bankruptcy,

Thursday 16° Motions and General Paper. Friday ......... and Appeal Petitions.

17 Petitions and General Paper.

Saturday .....
Appeal Motions.

15 Saturday ....... 23

Short Causes, Short Claims, & Causes.

21 | Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Before the Right Hon. the MASTER OF TILE Rolls, at Wednesday 22 Claims, and Further Directions. Westminster.

Thursday ...
Friday .....

2+ Petitions and General Paper. Thursday.... Nov. 2 Moticas.

Saturday ... 25 Motions.
At Chancery-lane.
Friday ......... 3 Petitions in General Paper.

Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood, at Westminster.
Saturday ....... 4)
Monday... 6 | Pleas. Demurrers. Causes. Claims. | Thursday.... Nov. 2 Motions.
7? Further Directions, and Exceptions.

Al Lincoln's Inn. Wednesday

S Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Thursday 9 Motions.

Friday .........

" Claims, and Further Directions. Friday ... 107

w Petitions, Short Causes and Claims, Saturdey ..

11 |
Pleas, Demurrers, Causes, Claims,

* Land General Paper.
Monday... 13!
Further Directions, and Exceptions.

Monday........ 6 Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Tuesday..


& ? Wednesday

Claims, and Further Directions. ..

Wednesday 15 Thursday 16 Motions.


o Motions and General Paper. Friday

w Friday .........

Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Saturday.

1 Claims, and Further Directions. Monday... 20 | Pleas, Demurrers, Causes, Claims,

u Petitions, Short Causes and Claims, Tuesday.. 21 Further Directions, and Exceptions.

Saturday .....

"1 and General Paper. Wednesciay


Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Thursday ....... 23

Tuesday...... Friday ......... 24

Claims, and Further Directions, Petitions in General Paper.

Wednesday ... Saturday ....... 25 Motions.

Thursday ....

16' Motions and General Paper. N.B.-Short Causes, Short Clai:ns, Consent Causes, Un. | Friday

Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes,

" Claims, aod Further Directions. oppose i Petitions, and Claims, every Saturday at the sitting

10 Petitions, Short Causes and Claims, of the Court.

Saturday .....

l and General Paper. Notice.-Consent Petitions must be presented, and copies

Monday...... left with the Secretary, on or before the Thursday preceding

Tuesday.... the Saturday on which it is intended they should be heard.

6. Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Wednesday ...

s Claims, and Further Directions. Thursday ..

Friday ..... 24
Before Vice-Chancellor Sir RICHARD T. KINDERSLEY, at

Saturday ....... 25 Motions.
Thursday.... Nov. 2 Motions.
At Lincoln's Inn.


1854. Friday ......... 3 Petitions (unopposed first). Saturday ....... 4 Short Causes, Short Claims, & Causes. *** The following abbreviations have been adopted to Monday......

abridge the space the Cause Papers would otherwise have occu. | Plens, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Tuesılay....

pied:-A. Abated-Adj. Adjourned-A. T. After Term-4. & Wednesday Claims, and Further Directions.

Appeal-C. D. Cause Day-Cl. Claim-C. Costs-D. De. Thursday .. 9° Motions.

murrer--E. Exceptions-É. D. Further Directions-M. MoFriday ......... 10 Petitions (unopposed first).

tion-P. C. Pro Confesso-Pl. Plea—Pin. Petition-R. Re: Saturday ....... 11 Short Causes, Short Claims, & Causes. hearing--S. 0. Stand Over--Sh. Short. Monday........ ů | Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes,

Court of Chancery.
Wednesday .....
171 Claims, and Further Directions.

Before the Lord ChaxcELLOR.
Thursday ...... 16 Motions.

Friday .........
17 l'etitions (uncpposed first).

Neale o. Farrer.
Saturday ....... 18 Short Causes, Short Clainis, & Causes.
Monday........ 20

Tuesday........ 21 | Pleas, Demurrers, Esceptions, Causes,


| Sherwood v. Vincent Wednesday ..... 22 ? Claims, and Further Directions.

Evans v. Evans I (Part Butterfield v. Rayner Thursday ....... 23

Evans v. Saunders ) heard) | Lenis v. Clowes Friday ......... 24 Short Causes, Short Claims, & Causes.

Ware v. Earl of Egmont Lainson o. Lainson Saturday ....... 25 Motions.

Attorney-Gen. r. Clapham | Attorney-Gen. 0. Mayor of N. B.-Unopposed Petitions, not exceeding ten, at ibe Moss v. Bainbrigge

Beverley sitting of the Court, every day except Seal-days.

Duncan v. Canman

Hart r. Clarke



[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Eseter •. Mayor, &c. of Reikhart Lock bialy}

Sahet e : Klement.}

Rumball v: Peachy }(FD,C)

Hoyes vuit aubrey }(F D, C)

Rudge r. Winnalli () (D,C) Gough v. Lewis }(Cause)

octor o. Cooper Davies v. Harrison (Rehear.) Stretton v. Ashmall (Cause) Moodie v. Bannister (Cause)

Stables o. Thwaites (Cause) Campbell v. Lord Stafford (M Exeter Reilly v. Lockbart Mackley o. Smith (CI)

for decree) hnson c. Webster

Forrest v. Bowen (Cause) Rogers v. Hooper (Cause) zonby o. Rawson Arnold v. Coape

Bennett o. Locking (M for de. Foster v. Bulmer (Further ids o. Williams Barrow v. Williams


consideration) bson o. Goldsmid

Fearnhead v. Bullivant Gossip v. Wright (Cause) Henderson v. Cook (Cause) mfret o. Perring Goldsmith v. Russell

Crosse v. Robinson (CI) Tennant v. Parker (Cause) ine r. Reynolds Wiles v. Gresham

Darwell v. Roper (M for dec.) Williamson v. Wotton (CI). hrodor v. Schrodor Underwood v. Wing

Wallace v. Blackwell (Cause) | Wardle v. Marsden (M for de. mpson v. Sadd

Attorney-Gen. v. Alford Augin o. Eastern Union Rail. cree) ichards v. Curlewis Hawkins v. Gathercole

way Co. (M for decree) Bean v. Dawson (M for dec.) oss t. Bainbrigge Baker v. Read

Att.-Gen. o. Vansittart (Cau.) Rumball r. Poole ichardson v. Mann

Fisher v. Baldwin (Cause)
Blake v. Gregson (Cause) Williams v. Hughes (Cause)
Coombs v. Mansfield

Greene v. Norton (4) (F D, C) Before the Right Hon. the Master Of The Rolls.

. arl r. Ferris (D) Rabbeth o. Squire (Further Lukey v. Higgs (CI)

ther consideration) CAUSES, &c. consideration)

Sutcliffe v. Crosse (M for dec.) Elder v. Maclean (3) (E, FD, filson r. Harley (Cause, part Dean v. Thwaite (M for dec.) Birley v. Owen (CI)

C) heard) Mich. T.

Williams v. Hayward (CI) Clements v. Pulman (Cause) Barton o. Dixon (7) (F D, C) ord Brougham v. Lord W. Mair o. Topham (Further con. Yeates v. Roberts (M for dec.) Mott v. Jollye (Cause) Powlett (Special case) sideration)

Colvin v. Lord (Cause) Kent v. Porter (Cause) arker v. Bloxam (M for dec.) Baxendale v. Seale(M for dec.) Maybery v. Brooking (Reh.) otesworth v. Armstrong (M Bunting v. Marriott (Further Upton i. Forster (Cause)

. Hoyes for decree)


Welton o. Cracknell (M for Greenwood o. Taylor (5) (E, ield v. Moore (M for decree) Douthwaite v. Spensley (Fur- decree)

F D, C) mith o. Brown (Cause)

Thompson v. Jones (Cause)

Hitcbman v. Stewart y cons.) earley r. Kearley (CI)

(. ray o. Haig (E, 2 sets, Tuer v. Turner (Further con.) Summers o. Summers (CI) Trail v. Stewart aig o. Gray FD, C) Langman v. Heard (Further Other v. Iveson (M for decree) Evans v. Kinsey (Cause) le Trafford o. Tempest (Cau.) consideration)

Shrapnell v. Shrapnell (F D, arrington o. Fenn (Cause) Lewis v. Morris (Further con.

Kearns v. Doyle }(Cause)

C) yddon v. Harrison (M for sideration)

Gosling v. Gosling (CI) Bowles v. Field (Cause) decree)

Morten v. Bradbury (M for Houlding v. Cross (Sp. case) Garner v. Moore (Cause) apel v. Shrapnel (M for dec.) decree)

Gurney v. Gurney (CT) Bignell v. Rose (Special case) wynne r. Gell (Cause) Cunningham 6. Willoughby Tawtrop v. Craven (Sp. case) Boughen v. Farrer (Sp. case) wynne v. Clutton (Cause) (CI)

Thornber v. Wilson (Cause) Ramsden v. Hirst (M for dec.) entley v. Oldfield (Sp. case) Hindle v. Nicholson (4) (FD, Twining v. Twining I (F D, De Lisle v. Sidney (I for de. tt.-Gen. o. Peacock (M for C)

Twining v. Holmes > c) cree) decree)

Penhall v. Allen (Further con. Torkington v. Bryant (M for Harley v. Moon (Further con. i eston v. Harrison (Cause) sideration)


sideration) leek r. Ridler (Canse) Stanton v. Gent (Further con- Creed v. Corner (M for dec.) Monro v. Proctor (F D, C) Valmesley v. Foxhall (Cause) sideration)

Tomson o. Judge (Cause) Poore v. Cullen (Further con. ailey o. Hughes (Cause) Price v. Jackson (M for dec.) Pennell v. Hume (Cause) sideration) ankreen v. Vandervin (M for Ridgway v. Clare (E) Newman v. Stone (CI) Rogers v. Dicks (M for dec.) decree)

Greenslade v. Dare (Cause) loyd v. Cocker (M for dec.) Barry v. Barry (Further con.)

Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. STUART. reen v. Dunn (M for decree) | Williams v. Cliff (CI) Wyler . Blackwell (M for dec.) Amson v. Harris (Further con.

Pleas, DEMURRERS, Causes, &c. lammond o. Hammond (Sp. sideration)

White v. Self (CI)

Lancellat v. Ballachy (M for case)

Crowe v. Crisford (Further Williams v. Williams (E, FD, decree) libson v. Seagrim (M for dec.) consideration)


Field v. Cary (Cause) Vhitfield v. Bowyer (M for Kebble v. Samms (3) (F D, C) Tottenham v. Emmett (Cause Paul v. Cockeram (Cause) Vhitfield v. Sturgis } decree) Hardman o. Earle (Cause) at request of defendant) Wedge v. Earl of Aylesford lele v. Bexley (0) (É D, C) Webster v. White (M for dec.) Smith v. Farr (8) (F D, C, (Canse) leaumont v. Marquis of Salis. Calley v. Richards (F D, C) Ptn)

Drew v. Drew (M for decree) bury (Cause)

Hood v. Clapham (M for dec.) Lucas v. Farr (M for dec.) Barfoard v. Barford (CI) astle o. Castle (Further con.) Stranger v. Wilkin (M for de Morison o. Morison (12) (É, Houghton v. Lees (Cause) are o. Cave (M for decree) cree)


Archbell v. Chadwick (CI) Vesthall v. Bannister (Further Spittle r. Luckcock (M for Chapman v. Great Northern Goode v. Hollier (Cause) consideration) decree)

Railway Co. (F D, C) Jones v. Humphreys (Cause) yam v. Byam (Cause) Worraker v. Smith (M for de. Fremont v. Hoffman (Cause) Macgregor v. Hughes (Cause) lowell o. Kightley (CI)


Morgan o. Mason (Cause) Williams v. Earl of Abingdon leeds v. Wood (M for decree) | Gregg v. Coates (CI). Hammerton v. Milnes (M for (M for decree)


Marshall v. Marshall (Further

Meynell 0. Surtees (2) (Cause) consideration) Before Vice-Chancellor Sir RICHARD T. KINDERSLEY.

Russell v. Lievesley (Cause) Hart v. Tulk (5) (F D, C) lill o. Great Northern Rail. | Corporation of Basingstoke v. Watson o. Powell (M for dec.) Stamp v. Edmonds (Cause) way Co. (D)

Bolton (Cause)

Thompson d. Clarke (M for | Raby . Ridehalgh (5) (FurCauses, &c. Abberley v. Sherwin (Cause) decree)

ther consideration) Tormer v. Phillips (Cl, part Bridger v. Blake

Offen o. Beeve (E, F D, C) Maitland v. Baker (Sp. case) heard)

Timms 0. Watson (Further Reany v. Heathcote (CI) Synch o. Grant (F D, C, Attenborough Edwards consideration)

Toft v. Stephenson (Further lynch o. Grant ) part heard) (Cause)

Edwards o. Cocker (CI) Graham v. Reevesconsid.) ord o. Colvin (Cause) 2nd Bush v. Peterson (Cause) Calf v. Rolfe (M for decree) Baker v. Bradley (Cause) CD

Gillingham o. Baker (Cause) Goold v. Playsted (Cause) Strong v. Strong (F D, C) f'ay o. Way (Cause)

Stobart o. Todd (Cause) Edmed v. Aspden (M for de. Fisk v. Wiggin (Cause) arron o. Barron (M for dec.) Phillips v. Powell (M for dec.) cree)

Cooper v. Cooper (Further tches 0. Etches ('M for dec.) Thompson o. Beasley (CI) Hoddell o. Watkins (Cause) consideration) dartin o. Simpson (Cause) Deweli v. Tufnell (Cause) Butlin v. Groom (Cause) Adams v. Andrews (Cause)


Bridger ø. Blake } (Canse)

Lea v: Goordy }(Subsequent

Whitbread v. Lyall (M for de- Edwards v. Tate (3) (FD, C) | Poole v. Poole (M for decree) | Hollingsworth o. Woodhead cree) Smyth o. Burd (CI)

Penfold v. Crossland (Cl) (Cause) Hichens v. Kelly (Cause) Munk v. Cole (F D, C) Shaw v. Neale (Cause) Pullen v. Fairthorne (M for Jones v. Fox (M for decree) Salter v. Adey (Cause) Powell v. South Wales Rail. decree) Williams v. Hodgson (M for Davey o. Harrison (2) (FD,C) way Co. (E, F D, C) Rogers o. Rogers (Cause) decree)

Johnson v. Bennett (F D, C) Gibbons v. Gibbons (2) (FD, Powell v. Griffiths (2) (FD, C) Paxton v. Newton (CI) Lomax o. Ripley (2) (Cause) C)

Caledonian Railway Co. . Cole o. Eaton (Further cons.) Lee v. Browne (F D, C) Re Irvine (Fur. cons. Woodrow (Cause) Woodgate v. Archer Burton Henbrough o. Atkinson (M Irvine v. Irwine ) from cham.) Hills o. Busby (Further cons.) Woodgate v. Archer Burton for decree)

Harford v. Lloyd (Cause) Thorp o. Thorp (Cause) (E, F D, C) Bethell v. Stocks (Cause) Jones v. Jones (2) (Further Hilbert 0. Balchin (Further Herring o. Miles (Cause) Wheatley v. Purser (Further consideration)

consideration) Baker 0. Hardley (2) (Further consideration)

Southam v. Breakwell (M for | Lane v. Niblett (Further conconsideration) Wickenden v. Rayson (Further decree)

sideration) Hart o. Stride (Further cons.) consideration)

Winch v. Winch (Further con- Hepburn o. Palmer (3) (Fu. Booth v. Marsden (Further Goff o. Walters (M for decree) sideration)

ther consideration) consideration)

Arkell o. Henly (Cause) Broughton v. Broughton (6) Lea v. Cook

Jefferies o. Mitchell (Cause) Henly v. Henly (Cause) (E)

Spearman v. Harting (CI) Bell v. Whitbourn (M for de. Capell o. Hyatt (Cause) Gore v. Bowser (3) (E, F D, Brierly v. Furnival (M for de- cree)

Davies o. Hallett (M for dec.) C)


Hardy v. Guyler (F D, C) Sh Nickels v. Hancock (M for
Austin v. Rickwood (CI) decree)

Wigan o. Rowland (Further Bewley v. Nikels (M for dec.)
Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.


Bensley v. Riches M for dec.) Pleas, DEMURRERS, &c. Sands o. Handley (CI). Derrick v. Derrick (F D, C) Hames o. Hollier (Cause). Humphrey o. Stevens (E to Mills v. Birch (M for decree) answer)

Ramage v. Biddulph (Cause) South Wales Railway Co. v.

Baker o. Armitage (M for deWylkes (D) cree)

COMMON-LAW SITTINGS, IN AND AFTER South Wales Railway Co. v. Scott v. Boutley (M for decree)

Tredwell (D)

Thompson v. Wedlake (Cause)
Goold o. Tanner (Pl)
Alderson o. Dalton (Cause)

Court of Queen's Bench.
Eversfield v. Tisdell (M for

In Term.
Causes, &c.

Walters o. Northern Coal Co. Lawrie v. Bankes (M for dec.)


London. (Cause)

Watson 0. Freeman (M for 1st sitting .. Friday .. Nov. 3 Bankart v. Grafton (E)


2nd sitting.. Wednesday.. 15 1st sitting, Monday, Nov. 13 Spickernell v. Hotham (E, F Woodhouse v. Herrick (Spe. 3rd sitting.. Thursday 23 | 2nd sitting, Monday .... 20 D, C) After Term

cial case)

For undefended causes only.
Wilkinson v. Harvey (Cause) Wale o. Rackstraw (Cause)
Vince o. Walsh (Cause) Allport v. Stephens (Cause)

After Term.
Crewdson v. Milne (M for de. Cropper v. Babb (Cause) Monday .... ..... Nov. 27 Saturday

Dec. 9 cree) Chappell v. Atkinson (M for

The Court will sit at ten o'clock every day. Read 0. Prest (Cause)

decree) Taubman o. Hall (Cause) Bullock v. Bennett (Sp. case)

The causes in the list for each of the above sitting days in Incorporated Society for pro- Garington v. Barker (M for term, if not disposed of on those days, will be tried by ad. moting the Building of decree)

journment on the days following each of such sitting days. Churches, &c. v. Coles Waugh v. Waddell (Cause) (Cause)

Horsfield v. Ashton (F D, C) Lancashire Insurance Co. v. Att.-Gen. v. Queen Eliza

Court of Common Pleas. Reddish (Cause)

beth's College (Cause) Greenwood 0. Verdon (Special Partridge v. Ives (M for dec.)

In Term. case)

Williams v. Williams (CI)
Hillman v. Westwood (Special Lady Glamis v. Cumberland

Noo. 9 Monday

Nor. 13 case)


16 | Monday

Crosley v. Harwood (6) (FD, Symes o. Magnay (M for dec.)
Watson v. Cleaver (M for dec.)

After Term. . (.

Monday ..... ..... Nov. 27 | Saturday .... ... Dec. 9 Gilman o. Tucker (Sp. case) Lee o. Head (Special case) The Court will sit during and after term at ten o'clock. Malden o. Maine (Cause) Warick o. Richards (Cause) The causes in the list for each of the above sitting days in Tee o. Ferris (Cause)

Wilkes v. Swann (CI)
Capel o. Westminster. Im - Desborough v. Harris (Cause) ment on the days following each of such sitting days.

term, if not disposed of on those days, will be tried by adjournprovement Commissioners Wynne v. Ogilvie (M for dec.) (Cause)

Phipps v. Kelson (CI) Grégory v. Taylor (Cause) Pilkington v. Belton (M for Hawkins v. Batchelor (M for decree)

Erchequer of Pleas. decree)

Jebb v. Tugwell (M for dec.) Brett v. Lethbridge (Sp. case) Elam o. Stead (M for decree)

In Term.
Hamson o. Olivo (M for dec.) Coates v. Lloyd (M for decree)

Graham v. Guthrie (Cause) Brady v. Morgan (M for dec.) 1st sitting, Friday ... Nov. 3
After Term

Wilkin v. Nainby (F D, C) 2nd sitting, Wednesday 15 1st sitting, Monday, Nov. 13 Gray v. Smith (2) (Cause) Beere v. Beere (Cause) 3rd sitting, Thursday .... 23 | 2nd sitting, Monday. ... 20 After Term

Turnley v. Biron (M for dec.) Pearce v. Beanland (M for James v. Harding (M for dec.)

After Term. decree) Maddock v. Aked (M for dec.) | Monday

Nov. 27 | Saturday .....

..... Dec. 9 Law v. London Indisputable Robinson v. Anderson (Cause) Life Policy Co. (M for dec.) Leppington v. Hunter (M for

The Court will sit during and after term at ten o'clock. Band v. Randle (Čause) decree) Sh

The Court will sit in Middlesex, at Nisi Prius, in term, by Attenborough v. Attenborough Goodlad v. Burnett (Further adjournment from day to day, until the causes entered for the (CI)


respective Middlesex Sittings are disposed of,



Bassano V. Bassano (sp. case) Bryan v: Gartey} (Cause)


« ZurückWeiter »