LONDON-continued.

ment Acts, so far as they related to the public
health of the parish, being informed by the sani-
tary inspector that a nuisance existed upon cer-
tain premises endangering the health of the
inhabitants, directed the inspector to serve notice
upon the owner of the premises under the said
Acts requiring him to abate the nuisance, and in
default to take proceedings. The inspector, in
pursuance of such direction, served the required
notice, and, upon the owner failing to comply
with it, laid an information against him for
penalties under the said Acts, and a summons
was issued. After the issue of the summons and
before the hearing of the information, the vestry
by resolution approved the acts of the committee
in causing the notice to be served and the infor-
mation to be laid :-

Held, that the approval of the vestry, although
given after the service of the notice and the issue
of the summons, was sufficient, and that the
owner was liable to be convicted. FIRTH V.
STAINES
Div. Ct. 70

2. Sewer-Nuisance-Jurisdiction of Jus-
tices-Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55
Vict. c. 76), 8. 2, sub-s. 1 (b).

By the Public Health (London) Act, 1891,
s. 2, sub-s. 1 (b), for the purposes of the Act, any
watercourse or drain, so foul, or in such a state,
as to be a nuisance or injurious or dangerous to
health, is a nuisance liable to be dealt with sum-
marily under the Act:-

Held, that this provision does not apply to
public sewers, and therefore justices have no
jurisdiction to make a summary order on the
London County Council in respect of a main
sewer, vested in the council, and forming part of
the main drainage system of London. FULHAM
VESTRY. LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL Div. Ct. 76

MARINE INSURANCE

-

188

93, 135, 311, 456
See INSURANCE, MARINE. 1—4.

MASTER AND SERVANT-continued.
exercise jurisdiction where the amount claimed
exceeds 101.

On October 22 the respondents agreed to em-
ploy the appellant, and he agreed to serve them,
for fifty-two weeks, at specified weekly wages.
On November 16 the appellant left his work, and
did not return.

On December 16 the respondents took proceed-
ings, under the Act, in a court of summary juris-
diction, against the appellant, and recovered 107.
damages for his absence from November 16 to 28.
Afterwards the respondents took further pro-
ceedings, in the same court, to recover another
10l. for the appellant's absence from November 30
to December 12.

On a case stated :-

Held, that the jurisdiction of the Court, being
limited to 107., was exhausted by the judgment
in the first case, and therefore the respondents
were not entitled to recover in the second case.
JAMES V. EVANS & Co.
Div. Ct. 180
Employers' Liability Act-Notice of injury
See COUNTY COURT. 2.

6
MEDICAL PRACTITIONER-Dentist-Right to
be Registered Qualification - Articled Pupil
at passing of Act-Dentists Act, 1878 (41 & 42
Vict. c. 33), 88. 6 (c), 7, 37.

By s. 6 (c) of the Dentists Act, 1878, any
person at the passing of the Act bonâ fide en-
gaged in the practice of dentistry is entitled to
be registered under the Act. By the proviso in
s. 7 a person shall not be registered as having
been at the passing of the Act engaged in the
practice of dentistry unless, before August 1,
1879, he makes a declaration in the form in the
schedule to the Act, or to the like effect. The
form declares that the applicant was bonâ fide
engaged in the practice of dentistry at the date
of the passing of the Act. By s. 37 a person who
has been articled as a pupil shall, if his articles
expire before January 1, 1880, be entitled to be
registered as though he had been in bonâ fide
practice before the passing of the Act.

tract of tenancy"

See LANDLORD AND TENANT. 1.

475

See REVENUE. 2.
MARRIED WOMAN-Separation-Covenant not
to molest-Divorce proceedings in foreign
547
country

See HUSBAND AND WIFE.
MASTER AND SERVANT-Remedies-Jurisdic-
tion of Justices-Proceedings against Servant—
Continuous Breach of Contract-Further Proceed-
ings-Employers and Workmen Act, 1875 (38 & 39
Vict. c. 90), s. 4.

By the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875,
s. 4, a dispute between an employer and a work-
man may be determined by a court of summary
jurisdiction, provided that the Court shall not

declaration required by s. 7:-

Held, affirming the judgment of the Queen's
Bench Division, [1897] 1 Q. B. 764, that the pro-
viso in s. 7 applies to persons whose qualification
is given by s. 37, and that, therefore, the appli-
cant, not having made the declaration, was not
entitled to be registered. REG. v. MEDICAL
COUNCIL
C. A. 203
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894
See SHIP. 3.

-

-

-

-

-

327

PRACTICE-continued.
jurisdiction in the exercise of his discretion to
order that the items referred to in the objections
should be referred to a taxing-master of the
Supreme Court for retaxation. STEVENS v. GRIFFIN
C. A. 368
2. Discovery-Action for Forfeiture of
Lease-Affidavit of Documents-Interrogatories-
Order XXXI., rr. 1, 2, 12.

In an action to enforce a forfeiture of a lease
for breach of covenant the Court will not grant
discovery of documents or leave to administer
interrogatories for the purpose of establishing the
forfeiture.

Pye v. Butterfield, (1864) 5 B. & S. 829, ap-
proved of.

Seaward v. Dennington, (1896) 44 W. R. 696,
overruled. MEXBOROUGH (EARL OF) v. WHITWOOD
URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL

-

C. A. 111

3. Discovery Documents Action by
Shareholder of Company-Allegation of Con-
spiracy to Defraud Company - Company made
Defendants-Obligation on Company to make
Discovery of Documents-Objection by Defendant
that Discovery may tend to Criminate him-Objec-
tion must be taken on Oath-Order XXXI., r. 12.
An action was brought by a shareholder in a
company, on behalf of himself and other the
shareholders of the company, against the directors
and another defendant alleging a conspiracy to
defraud the company, and that they had been
defrauded thereby, and claiming damages to be
paid to the company. The company were made
defendants:-

Held, that the company were an "other party"
to the action within the meaning of Order XXXI.,
r. 12, and could be called on to make discovery
of documents :-

Held, also, that an objection by a defendant
that the discovery of documents may tend to
criminate him can only be taken to the production
of the documents alleged to have that effect, and
not to the order for discovery, and must be taken
upon oath. SPOKES v. GROSVENOR AND WEST END
RAILWAY TERMINUS HOTEL COMPANY C. A. 124
Discovery Information-Production
of Documents-Right of the Crown-Ownership of
Foreshore and Bed of River-Crown Suits, &c.,
Act, 1865 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 104), 88. 13, 14, 15, 16
-Rules of Court for Regulating the Procedure
and Practice in Suits by English information
(Easter Term, 1866), rr. 4 (1), 5 (5).

4.

-

By information in the Queen's Bench Division
(Queen's Remembrancer's side) against a corpora-
tion, the Attorney-General on behalf of the Crown
claimed a declaration that the foreshore and bed
of a river within certain limits belonged to the
Crown. The defendants by their answer claimed
to be owners of the same foreshore and bed, within
the limits of a port and including the part claimed
by the Crown, and to be also conservators of the
river; and they set out a list of documents re-
lating to the part claimed by the Crown, and
alleged that they had no other relevant documents.
The Crown did not except to the answer within
the time limited by the Rules of Easter Term,
1866-

Held, that the Crown had the same right of
discovery against the corporation as a subject had

PRACTICE-continued.

against a subject in an ordinary action, and that
the omission to except to the answer was no bar
to such right:

And held further, that the Crown was entitled
to discovery not only of the documents relating
to the parts of the river claimed by the informa-
tion, but also of anything which might tend to
shew that the defendants were not absolute
owners of the foreshore and bed of the river to
the extent which they claimed to be, including
all their acts of ownership as conservators or
otherwise, and the documents relating thereto.

2.

The principles of Attorney-General v. Corpora-
tion of London, (1850) 2 Mac. & G. 247, and
Attorney-General v. Emerson, (1882) 10 Q. B. D.
191, applied. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . NEWCASTLE-
UPON-TYNE CORPORATION
5. Discovery Inspection Documents
forming part of Defendants' Case only-Affidavit
conclusive.

-

C. A. 384

In an action for an alleged misrepresentation
in the prospectus of a company the statement
complained of was that 12,500 persons had en-
rolled themselves as annual subscribers to the
company. In an affidavit of documents the de-
fendants stated that they had in their possession
12,500 applications by persons wishing to be
enrolled as annual subscribers to the company,
but that they objected to produce them on the
ground that they were part of the evidence sup-
porting the defendants' case, and did not support
or tend to support the plaintiff's case, and con-
tained nothing impeaching the case of the defend-
ants:-

Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to
inspection of the applications. FRANKENSTEIN V.
GAVIN'S HOUSE-TO-HOUSE CYCLE CLEANING AND
INSURANCE COMPANY
C. A. 62

6. Discovery-Inspection of Documents—
Libel in Newspaper- Original Manuscript-Dis-
cretion-Order XXXI., r. 18.

In an action against the proprietors of a news-
paper for a libel published therein the defendants,
who had admitted the publication of the libel and
pleaded an apology and payment into court, stated
in an affidavit of documents made by them that
they had in their possession a manuscript which
they objected to produce on the ground that it
was the original contribution to them, and that
which was published by them as admitted in their

defence:-

Held, that an order ought not to be made for
inspection by the plaintiff of the manuscript.
Hennessy v. Wright, (1888) 24 Q. B. D. 445,
followed.

Bustros v. White, (1876) 1 Q. B. D. 423, con-
C. A. 188
sidered. HOPE v. BRASH

7. Interpleader-Goods seized in Execu-
tion-Order for Sale-Application of Proceeds of
Sale-" In such manner and upon such terms as
may be just "-Rules of Supreme Court, Order LVII.,

r. 12.

By Order LVII., r. 12, "When goods or chattels
have been seized in execution by a sheriff or
other officer charged with the execution of process
of the High Court, and any claimant alleges that
he is entitled, under a bill of sale or otherwise,
to the goods or chattels by way of security for

PRACTICE-continued.

debt, the Court or a judge may order the sale of
the whole or a part thereof, and direct the appli-
cation of the proceeds of the sale in such manner
and upon such terms as may be just."

A sheriff seized goods in execution under a
judgment of the High Court. The goods were
claimed by the grantee of a bill of sale, as security
for a debt due to him from the judgment debtor.
The debt was payable, with interest at a high
rate per cent., by instalments extending over a
period of several months, the greater part of
which had not expired. The sheriff interpleaded,
and a judge at chambers, on the application of
the judgment creditor, under Order LVII., r. 12,
ordered the sale of the goods, and the payment to

the claimant of the balance of his debt with
interest at the agreed rate, but only up to the
time of such payment. On appeal:-

Held, by Lord Esher M.R. and A. L.
Smith L.J., Rigby L.J. dissenting, that the
power of the judge to make an order as to the
application of the proceeds of the sale upon such
terms as may be just was not limited by the
practice of the Courts of Equity in suits for
redemption, that the judge had power to make
the order, and that the order was just. FORSTER
v. CLOWSER

8..

-

C. A. 362

Writ Special Indorsement on
Recovery of Land and Mesne Profits-Time to
which Mesne Profits can be given-Order III., r. 6
-Order XIV., r. 1-Common Law Procedure Act,
1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 76), s. 214.

The plaintiff's issued a writ indorsed with a
claim for possession of hereditaments at S., of
which particulars were given, with a statement
that the defendant had been tenant to the plain-
tiffs, and that his tenancy had expired by notice
on a given day, and the plaintiffs claimed
"possession and 801. for mesne profits." They
then applied under Order XIV., r. 1, for liberty to
sign final judgment for possession and the 801.
claimed for mesne profits.
By affidavit in
support of the application, the 801. was claimed
as double value for six months on account of the
defendant having refused to deliver up possession.
On the hearing of the application Kennedy J.
gave liberty to the plaintiffs to sign final judg-
ment for possession, "and for mesne profits to be
calculated up to the date of the plaintiffs obtaining
possession":-

2.

242

RACECOURSE-Inclosure on-" Place" used for
betting
See GAMING.
RAILWAY-Penalty for not substituting Road for
Road interfered with-Road belonging to Different
Owners-Railways Clauses Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict.
c. 20), 88. 53, 54.

By s. 54 of the Railways Clauses Act, 1845,
sufficient road for any road obstructed by them
a railway company who neglect to substitute a
in the exercise of their powers are liable to a
penalty, which in the case of a private road is to
be paid " to the owner thereof" :-

Held, that the section is applicable to a case
road is owned by one person and part by another.
in which part of the width of the obstructed

entire penalty to every person who owns any part
Semble, that the company are liable for the

See LIBEL. 1.

High bailiff-Fees

See COUNTY COURT. 1.

C. A. 66

-

159

429

PREMIUM-Liability for--Broker-Custom 93
See INSURANCE, MARINE. 4.

of the obstructed road. LLEWELLYN v. VALE OF
GLAMORGAN RAILWAY COMPANY
Wright J. 239
RATE-Water-Annual value-Assessment 209
See WATERWORKS.

148

PROPERTY LIMITATION ACT, 1837-
Possession adverse to mortgagor
See LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF.
RECEIVING ORDER-Arrears of alimony accrued

due before-Proof -

See BANKRUPTCY. 5.

RECOGNIZANCE- Forfeited

439

Amercement-