WRIGHT V. INSHAW. 1842. [ 805] [ 806 ] be a joint and several note, by two as sureties and one as principal. Then the defendant, who is one of the sureties, requires this alteration to be made. Until he signed, the note was not complete; consequently, the addition was made before the note was complete. The case of Knill v. Williams is a good authority to show that this is a material alteration; and there it is clear that the alteration. was made after the instrument was a complete note. The defendant in this case might not perhaps have signed the note unless the alteration had been made. It is quite clear that the note had not been completed at the time when the alteration was made, and, therefore, no new stamp was requisite. The present rule must, consequently, be discharged. EX PARTE WILTON (1). (1 Dowling, N. S. 805–807.) Rule discharged. Where parties attending a reference for taxation before the Master left the office at the conclusion of the reference for the day, and one of those parties, who, during the reference, had insulted the other, then, on the steps of the Master's office, assaulted the latter; the Court refused to grant an attachment against the party committing the assault. THESIGER moved for a rule to show cause why a writ of attachment should not issue against a person named McCleod, for a contempt of this Court. The facts were these. In consequence of the decision of the Court in the case of Wilton v. Chambers, a reference to the Master was directed to inquire into certain accounts of Mr. Wilton; accordingly, on the 20th of April, an appointment was made to proceed with the inquiry on the 23rd; the object of that meeting was, that Mr. Wilton should vouch the payment of counsel's fees and other disbursements. Mr. Wilton accordingly attended, and was met by Mr. McCleod, who appeared on the other side; throughout the inquiry, the latter used very insulting language towards Mr. Wilton. Among other things, he stated that he would swear anything, and that the LORD CHANCELLOR had said that he would not believe him. To this Mr. Wilton said, "That is false, *and if you repeat the statement I will tell you it is a lie." After the inquiry had ended, both parties left the office. On reaching the upper step of the steps leading from the Master's office, Mr. McCleod came up to Mr. Wilton, and asked him to retract what he had said. This was refused, on this, McCleod (1) In re Johnson (1887) 20 Q. B. Div. 68, 57 L. J. Q. B. 1. struck Mr. Wilton a violent blow on the face, which knocked off his spectacles, and while he was stooping down to pick them up, he kicked Mr. Wilton very violently on the back of the head; this, it was submitted, was a contempt of the officer of the Court, near whose office the assault was committed. It was similar to the case of O'Gorman Mahon, where an assault was committed by that person outside the Court, and, therefore, not in its immediate presence; and yet the Court treated the assault as a contempt, and committed the offender. So here, the assault was not committed in the presence of the Master, but was committed immediately outside his office, must be considered as a contempt of that officer. Cur. ad vult. Ex parte WILTON. COLERIDGE, J.: As I did not recollect any case that could be considered in point, I desired to pause before I granted the rule, because, although no Court ought to shrink from the assertion of those privileges, or the exercise of those powers with which the law has invested it in trust for the public, and to enable it better to discharge its duty to the public, yet every Court, however high, ought to proceed with great caution in the use of summary power, and should hesitate in making a precedent which may be abused, even where there may be much seeming reason and convenience in the exercise of it in the particular instance. I understand this application to be made in respect of the assault committed on the steps of the Master's office, and at the instance of the party assaulted. I rely upon no distinction between the steps of the office and the interior of the office, or the actual presence of the *Master himself. The business, however, before the Master had been concluded, and he makes no application to the Court. I think, therefore, if at the prayer of the party injured, I were now to interfere summarily as for a contempt, I should proceed beyond any well considered and sustainable case in our books. I use these qualifications advisedly, for several may be found in the Digests, and Abridgements upon which no Court would, I think, now be willing to act. In refusing the rule, I must not be thought to neglect the due protection of the officers of the Court, or to under-rate their importance. If any misconduct takes place before a Master, which he finds to impede him in the effective and orderly discharge of his duties, he would, I presume, refused to proceed, and report the matter to the Court, [ *807 ] Ex parte WILTON. who would not be slow to protect him, or to indemnify the injured party at the expense of the offender, and prevent, by due punishment, the recurrence of such misconduct. Nor do I prevent the aggrieved party in this case from proceeding to the punishment of the offender by indictment, or (it may be under the circumstances) by application for leave to file a criminal information; he may bring the case before the ordinary tribunal, where it will be dealt with according to what may ultimately appear to be the justice of the case. Rule refused. Iv J INDEX. ACCOUNT-Error-Partnership-Account settled with representa- And see Pritt v. Clay 131 160 ANNUITY Release-Money not paid-Fraud of agent - Double - ARBITRATION-1. Award - No final determination Action of Pearson v. Archbold 2. 659 Finding that plaintiff "has no cause of action". 3. Costs Taxation of costs as between solicitor and client - 4. Death of party before award-Clause in submission to prevent . 526 . 837 6. Enlargement of time-Time enlarged "until" a particular ATTACHMENT. See Contempt of Court. BANKER—1. Fraudulent sale of customer's stock by partner-Pro- 95 2. Stoppage of payment Bank merely kept open for purpose of And see Bill of Exchange, 1. BANKRUPTCY-1. Act of Partnership-Deed of assignment-Deed 541 2. Action by bankrupt for tort-Trespass-Entering dwelling- 575 BANKRUPTCY—3. Assignees, What passes to—Action of trespass— 4. Composition deed - Private agreement by debtor with . 667 5. Fraudulent preference-Previous composition with creditors- 326 6. Property of bankrupt-Sale of goods-Secured creditor- 785 BILL OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTE-1. Cancel- 3. 292 2. Forged bill-Bill purporting to be drawn and indorsed by new bill. v. Parr Proof of presentment 780 6. 7. 401 Delay-Informal notice sent to agent of holder 633 8. Promissory note-Joint and several note - Alteration - 9. 848 10. Inland or foreign bill-Admission of evidence. See Evidence, 3. CARRIER-Duty to carry safely and deliver-Non-delivery within CHARGING ORDER-Stock. See Execution, 1. - 395 CHARITY AND CHARITABLE TRUST 1. Lease-Husbandry And see Att.-Gen. v. Foord. 2. Municipal corporation-Fund raised by public subscription 57 |