Notes of the Week.-Superior Courts: Lords Justices.

LAW APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. Underwood French and Mr. Alton Francis Owen were, on the 16th April, admitted as Proctors of the Arches' Court, by virtue of rescripts from his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Mr. John Marriott Davenport, Solicitor, of Oxford, has been appointed Secretary to the Bishop of that city, in the room of Mr. John Burder, deceased.

It is said Professor Machonocie has resigned the Chair of Civil Law in the University of Glasgow, and that Sheriff Skene (Lanarkshire) has received the appointment of the Crown to that office, and that William Steele, Esq., Writer, will be the successor of Sheriff Skene. -North British Daily Mail.

Mr. Wilfred Tate has been appointed Assistant Clerk at Bow Street Police Office.Observer.

LAW PRIZE BY SOLICITORS OF EDINBURGH. The Society of Solicitors before the Supreme Courts having liberally offered to the Students of the Scottish Law Class a prize of the value of ten guineas for the best essay on the law of stoppage in transitu, this prize has been adjudged to Mr. William J. Easton, of Perthshire. The Straton prize for the best essay on the law of mandate or agency was awarded to Mr. Robert Mailer, of Perthshire; and the prize for the best written answers to questions dictated in the class room was awarded to Mr. John Stirling Henry, of Kirriemuir.

STAMPS ON BANKERS' DRAFTS.

A BILL has been introduced for granting stamp duties on all drafts or orders for the payment of money to the bearer on demand,

503

and thus abolishing the former exemption from stamp duties on such drafts or orders within 15 miles of the place where the same are issued. It does not appear that the penny stamp will operate as a receipt stamp.

INCREASE OF INCOME TAX.

It is now proposed to increase the Income Tax at the rate of an additional 2d. in the pound, to be calculated from the 5th April last. Incomes above 150l. will then be charged, if the Bill should pass, at 1s. 4d. for every 20s., or 6l. 13s. 4d. per cent.

PRINTING COMMON LAW PLEADINGS.

The Court of Exchequer being occupied on the 25th with Cases out of the Special Paper, involving technical matter, Mr. Baron Martin suggested, that it would be a great improvement if the paper books delivered to the Judges were to be lithographed or printed, as the proceedings in Chancery now were. According to the present practice, each attorney, in a case set down for argument, delivers in two copies of the case or pleadings, called Paper Books, and which, by being differently paged, caused infinite trouble to the Bench in their attempt to follow the quotations of counsel.-From the Morning Post.

504

Superior Courts: Lords Justices.-Rolls.-V. C. Kindersley.

the operation of the Statute of Limitations to deal with the property, although such prounder the 9 Geo. 4, c. 14, s. 1: On ap- duction was not ancillary to other relief. But peal, held insufficient, and the order of the as it appeared the title of Lord Huntingtower Court below was varied accordingly, and to the first and second estates was not clear, an account was directed. his mortgagee was not entitled to a production; and in respect of the other, production had not been refused, and the plaintiff must pay the costs up to the hearing.

THIS was an appeal from the decision of Vice-Chancellor Stuart (reported p. 245, ante.) It appeared that the testator having had various dealings with a Mr. Robinson in respect of building transactions, had in September, 1845, signed the following memorandum :-" It is agreed that Mr. Robinson, in his general account, shall give credit to Dr. Hughes for 1741., being for bricks delivered to the trustees of Park Place Chapel, Toxteth Park, in 1834." The Vice-Chancellor having allowed exceptions to the Master's report that this memorandun! was insufficient to prevent the operation of the Statute of Limitations, this appeal was presented.

By the 9 Geo. 4, c. 14, s. 1, it is enacted, that "in actions of debt, or upon the case grounded upon any simple contract, no acknowledgment or promise by words only shall be deemed sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract, whereby to take any case out of the operation of the said enactments, or either of them, or to deprive any party of the benefit thereof, unless such acknowledgment or promise shall be made or contained by or in some writing, to be signed by the party chargeable thereby."

Amphlett and Rose in support of the appeal; Wigram and C. Hall, contrà.

The Lords Justices said, that the memorandum did not take the case out of the Statute, and varied the Vice-Chancellor's order accordingly, and directed accounts to be taken.

Rolls Court.

Davies v. Earl of Dysart. March 8; April 20, 1855.

PRODUCTION

OF DEEDS BY TENANT FOR
LIFE TO REMAINDER-MAN.

Held, that a party entitled to a vested in-'
terest in remainder can compel the tenant'
for life to produce the title-deeds to en-
able him to deal with the property, but
only where his title is clear-and although
such production is not ancillary to other
relief.

THIS bill was filed by the mortgagee from Lord Huntingtower, who claimed to be entitled in remainder, against the tenant for life, for the production of the title-deeds relating to the estates. It appeared that the defendant was tenant for life of three estates, and the production in respect of two was refused, on the ground that Lord Huntingtower was not

entitled.

R. Palmer and Jessel for the plaintiff; Lloyd and Tripp for the defendant.

The Master of the Rolls said, that a party entitled to a vested remainder might compel a production by the tenant for life, to enable bim

Worthington v. Wigginton. April 21, 1855.

ELECTION.-RECEIPT OF RENTS.-WILL.

A testator gave his wife a life interest in certain houses, and in a sum of consols which he had previously purchased in the a imes of her and himself. It appeared the wife had received the rents of the houses until her death: Held, that she had thereby elected to take under the will.

It appeared that the testator had transferred a sum of consols into the names of himself and his wife, and that by his will he afterwards gave certain houses and the consols, together with all money in the funds to his wife for life, then to his daughter for life, and if she died without children, to the plaintiff. It appeared that the wife had during her life received the rents of the houses, and the question now arose, upon exception to the Master's report, whether she had thereby elected to take under the will.

The Master of the Rolls said, that she had elected to take under the will, and the excep tion was therefore allowed.

Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.
Russell v. Tapping. April 23, 1855.

RE-ISSUE OF ORDER DISMISSING BILL FOR
WANT OF PROSECUTION, WHERE LOST.
An order obtained in May, 1846, to dismiss
a bill for want of prosecution, had been
drawn up and passed, but had not been
entered or prosecuted, in consequence of
there being no property available for costs
the plaintiff being out of the jurisdiction
and an outlaw, and having assigned all his
property: Upon the assignment being de
clared void, and the original order having
been lost, the Registrar was directed to re-
issue it from the note in his book.
THIS was a motion for a direction on the Re-
gistrar to re-issue an order obtained in May,
1846, dismissing this bill for want of prosecu-
tion, and which had been drawn up and passed al-
though not entered or prosecuted, there being
no property available for costs, in consequence
of the plaintiff being out of the jurisdiction
and an outlaw, and having assigned all has
property. The assignment had, however, been
recently declared void, and this motion was
made upon the order having been lost, and it
was proposed it should be re-drawn from the
note in the Registrar's book.

W. W. Cooper in support, cited Lawrence v.
Richmond, 1 Jac. & W. 241.

Superior Courts: V. C. Stuart.-V. C. Wood.-Queen's Bench.

The Vice-Chancellor granted the application.

Tucker v. Hernamann. March 8; April 21, If the motion had originated with them, it

EXCEPTIONS TO CHIEF CLERK'S CERTIFI-cause, but here they had in fact been brought

506

Superior Courts: Queen's Bench.-Common Pleas.

peace of the costs of an appeal to the Ses- of Lord Mansfield, in Rex v. Wilkes, 4 Burr. sions against a rate by a railway com- 2,551.' pany, they had attended by their managing clerk: Held, that they could not take an objection, on the ground of the reference for taxation to the clerk of the peace being improper.

THIS was a motion for a rule nisi to quash the order made by the Herefordshire Sessions, allowing the costs of an appeal against a rate by the above railway company. It appeared that the costs were taxed by the clerk of the peace, and that the company's managing clerk

had attended the taxation.

Scotland in support, on the ground that the taxation was improperly delegated to the clerk of the peace.

The Court said, that the company, by attending the taxation, were prevented from taking the objection, whether it was good or not, and the rule would therefore be refused.

Regina v. Newton and others. April 23, 1855.
ERROR FROM INDICTMENT FOR MISDE-
MEANOR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S FIAT.

-JURISDICTION.-MANDAMUS.

Held, that this Court will not interfere with the decision of the Attorney-General on an application for his fiat for a writ of error on an indictment for a misdemeanor, where it appears he has exercised his discretion. Where the Attorney-General refuses to hear the application altogether, a mandamus will be granted to compel such hearing.

A technical objection to an indictment, on the ground that the offence charged to be within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, was not within such jurisdiction, overruled, where it had not been taken at the trial.

Semble, the dictum of Lord Mansfield in Rex v. Wilkes, 4 Burr. 2551, that "in a misdemeanor, if there be probable cause, it ought not to be denied this Court would order the Attorney-General to grant his fiat," is incorrectly reported.

THIS was a motion for a rule nisi on the Attorney-General to grant his fiat for a writ of error on this indictment at the Central Criminal Court charging the defendants with wounding with intent, &c., and on which they were found guilty of unlawfully wounding. The application to the Attorney-General for his fiat had been made on the ground that the indictment charged the offence to have been committed in the parish of Lambeth within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, whereas it was in the parish of Croydon and beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The Attorney-General refused to grant his fiat, inasmuch as the error assigned alleged a fact in contradiction of the record.

H.J. Hodgson, in support, urged that the writ of error was ex debito justitiæ, citing the dictum

The Court said, that it was quite irrespective of the merits of the case whether the place was beyond or within the jurisdiction, and the parties had the opportunity on the trial of taking the technical objection, but had not done so. The jury had found the defendants guilty of the offence, and it would be highly prejudicial to the interests of justice to grant the present application. But irrespective of the merits of this particular case, this Court had no jurisdiction to review the decision of the Attorney-General, where he had to exercise, and had exercised, his discretion in a judicial or quasi judicial office. If the Attorney-General had altogether refused to hear the application, this Court would grant a mandamus to compel such hearing, and if he had misconducted himself he was liable to be proceeded against in the proper quarter. As to the dictum cited, Lord Mansfield had himself said Sir James Burrows' reports were not always accurate, and it was very doubtful whether it had been uttered by Lord Mansfield. The rule would therefore be refused.

Court of Common Pleas.
Bennett v. Oriental and Peninsular Steam Na-
vigation Company. April 21, 1855.
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. NON-SIGNATURE OF

JUDGE. NEW TRIAL.

Where a bill of exceptions was not signed in consequence of the Judge being unable to attend and settle it as intended, and he afterwards was unable through ill health to undertake the matter: Held, that the arrangement having failed through the fault of none of the parties, a rule would be made absolute for a new trial.

It appeared in this action that it had been arranged for the defendants to be at liberty to tender a bill of exceptions after a motion for a new trial on the ground of misdirection had been disposed of, and that upon the rule obtained accordingly being discharged a bill of exceptions as settled by counsel was sent to Lord Truro, who presided at the trial, to seal. but that not approving of the form of the exceptions, his lordship had stated his intention to settle them. The matter had not been attended to in consequence of his lordship's numerous engagements, and it appeared his state of health now prevented his being troubled with the matter.

Petersdorff now moved for a new trial; Prentice showed cause in the first instance.

The Court said, that as the arrangement had failed without fault on either side, it must be treated as inoperative, and the rule would therefore be made absolute for a new trial.

PAGE

.. 347 Evans v. Robinson (Excl.)
263 Ewart v. Williams (V. C. K.)
208 Farebrother and others v. Welchman (V. C. K.) 305
187 Fenton's Trust, in re, exparte London and
North-Western Rail. Company (V. C. W.) 388

way Company (L. J.)

58 Greenwood, in re (Q. B. P. C.)
168 Griffenhoof v. Danbus (Q. B.)..
.. 408 Griffiths v. Teeching (C. P.)
.. 448 Gurney v. Gurney (V. C. K.)
v. Womersley (Q. B.)

v. Paramore (L..J.); (V. C. S.) 245, 50S Chelsea Waterworks' Company, in re (Exch.) 247 Hutchinson v. Marker (Q.B.)

.. 347

.. 167

.. 306