Slike strani
PDF
ePub

ASSAULT.

1. One of the marshals of the city of London, whose duty it was, on the day of a public meeting in the Guildhall, to see that a passage was kept for the transit to their carriages of the members of the corporation and others, directed a person in the front of a crowd at the entrance to stand back, and, on being told by him that he could not for those behind him, struck him immediately on the face, saying that he would make him:Held, that in so doing the marshal exceeded his authority, and that he should have confined himself to the use of pressure, and should have waited a short time to afford an opportunity for removing the party in a more peaceable way. Imason v. Cope, 193

2. If one of two persons, fighting, unintentionally strikes a third, he is answerable in an action for an assault, and the absence of intention can only be urged in mitigation of damages. James v. Campbell,

ATTORNEY.

372

See EVIDENCE, 8, 18, 19. 1. A. brought an action for an attorney's bill against B., but only recovered a small sum for money lent, as there had been no bill delivered:Held, that A. might recover the amount of the attorney's bill in another action, brought after the bill was delivered, although this was a part of his demand in the first action; and that it was not necessary that he should have been nonsuited in the first action to entitle him to bring the second. Heming v. Wilton, 54

2. An attorney brought an action against the petitioning creditor, under a commission of bankrupt, for business done previous to the assignment: -Held, that, notwithstanding the 14th sect. of the bankrupt act (6 Geo. 4, c. 16), he might maintain the action without proof that his charges

had been allowed by the commissioners, according to the provisions of that section, as the whole was matter of investigation before the taxing officer. Fisher v. Filmer, 92

3. When two persons are in partnership as attornies, it is sufficient, under the statutes 3 Jac. 1, c. 7, and 2 Geo. 2, c. 23, if their bill for business done is signed in the name of the firm, without the Christian name of 94 either partner. Smith v. Brown,

4. An attorney in a cause is not answerable for the absence, neglect, or want of attention in the counsel engaged in it. Lowry v. Guilford, 234

5. Two persons in partnership as attornies may recover in a joint action, for business done in the Palace Court, although it appear that one of them only was a person entitled to practise in that court. Arden v. Tucker, 248 6. An attorney cannot be asked whether A. applied to him to draw a certain deed, nor whether A. asked his advice for a lawful or an unlawful purpose. Doe d. Shellard v. Harris,

592

7. The protection of communications made by a client to his attorney applies to all cases in which the relation of attorney and client subsists, and to all cases where the client applies to the attorney in his professional capacity. Ibid.

AUTHOR.

1. An author was engaged to write for a certain sum an article to appear among others in a work called "The Juvenile Library." Before he had completed his article, and before any portion of it was published, the work in which it was to appear was discontinued:-Held, that the publishers were not entitled to claim the completion of the article, that it might be published in a separate form for general readers, but were bound to pay the author a reasonable sum for the part which he had prepared. Held,

also, that such reasonable sum was recoverable on a quantum meruit in a common count for work and labour. Planche v. Colburn, 58

2. If A., being the author of a law book, sell the copyright to B., and B. publish a third edition of the work edited by another, but not stated to be so, and which purchasers were likely to suppose was edited by A., such edition having errors and mistakes in it calculated to injure the reputation of A. as an author:-Held, at Nisi Prius, that, for this, an action lies by A. against B. The question, whether an edition purports to have been edited by A. is a question for the Jury; but the question, whether the alleged errors and mistakes be so or not, and whether they are such as are calculated to injure the reputation of A. as an author, are questions for the Court. Archbold v. Sweet,

BAIL.

219

[blocks in formation]

gain. After he had introduced the purchaser, but before the matter was settled, he became bankrupt, and his assignees brought an action for the commission, which they afterwards. discontinued, and wrote to him, saying that they disclaimed all right to the money. A. upon this brought an action in his own name:- -Held, that he was not entitled to recover. Hillary v. Morris, 6

2. A bankrupt is not indictable on the stat. 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, s. 112, for concealing his books till after he has concluded his last examination. Rez v. Walters, 138

3. Parol evidence of any thing that a bankrupt says at the time of his last examination cannot be received, although it should appear that no part of what he said was taken down in writing. Ibid.

4. Whether, on such an indictment, the petitioning creditor is a competent witness to prove the petitioning creditor's debt-Quære. Ibid.

5. Where the bankruptcy of a party is stated in an allegation, in an indictment for a conspiracy, the assignment cannot be received as evidence in support of such allegation, unless it be proved by the subscribing witness. Rex v. Pope, 208

[blocks in formation]

who boarded and lodged in his house, a bill and a note, both at one time, for his score, part of which consisted of a demand for spirits, but not to the amount of either bill or note; money was also paid on account:-Held, in an action on the securities, that, although they were given at the same time, the plaintiff might recover on one of them, and also that he might apply the money paid in reduction of the demand for spirits, although such demand could not be recovered, in consequence of the act of 24 Geo. 2, c. 40. Crookshank v. Rose,

19

2. Where a bill is by the acceptor made payable at a particular place which is not his residence, proof of presentment at that place is not sufficient in an action against the drawer, without proof of the acceptor's handwriting. Sedgwick v. Jager,

199

3. Semble, that an indorsee for va lue, who receives part payment from the drawer of an accommodation bill, and takes a new bill to give time for the payment of the remainder, does not thereby discharge the acceptor, unless he was aware that the acceptance had been given for the drawer's accommodation. Rolfe v. Wyatt, 181 Whether, if he knew that fact, it would make any difference-Quære.

Ibid.

4. The traveller of a tradesman in London called on his employer's debtor in the country, and, being unable to obtain cash, consented, at the request of the debtor, to take an acceptance for the amount, and wrote the whole form of a bill except the name of the drawer, and sent it up to his employer, telling the debtor that he did not think it would be satisfactory. The employer kept the bill, but did not put his name to it as drawer. The traveller had no authority to sign bills, but was in the habit of sending them up without a drawer's name, to prevent risk by loss:-Held, that these facts did not amount to proof of the

[blocks in formation]

6. It was proved, in an action against the indorser of a bill of exchange, that, two months after it was due, it was produced to him, and inquiries were made as to the drawer and acceptor; upon which he said, that if the holder would take 10s. in the pound, he would secure it :-Held, sufficient to dispense with proof of notice of dishonour. Dixon v. Elliott, 437

7. A bill of exchange for twentyfive seventeen shillings and three pence, is a bill of exchange for twenty-five pounds seventeen shillings and three pence, and may be declared on as such. Phipps v. Tanner,

488

8. A. procured a banking company to advance 1007. on a bill of exchange for 300l., A. giving the company his guarantie for the amount so advanced, but having no other interest in the bill:-Held, that A. might recover the whole amount of the bill in an action against the acceptor, and not merely the amount for which he gave his guarantie. Reid v. Furnival,

499

[blocks in formation]

who could not write:-Held, that if there was no other plea besides non est factum, the defendant's counsel could not ask whether the bond was read over to the defendant before he signed it, nor what was the transaction respecting which it was given. Cranbrook v. Dadd, 402

BRIBERY.

See TREATING.

1. Two of the electors of a borough went to a banker there, and said, they wished to draw checks upon the bank. The banker promised to honour any checks they might draw. The checks drawn were signed by one only, but

the account in the banker's books was opened in the joint names:-Held, that they might maintain a joint action against the candidate in whose interest they were, if he adopted the payments made. Bremridge v. Campbell, 186

2. Semble, that, where the same sum is given to every voter coming from the same place to an election, for his travelling expenses, it is bribery; and it is not the less so, though all the candidates agree in the payment of the same amount. But it is for the jury to say, in an action by an agent of the candidate to recover the amount from his principal, whether the money was bona fide paid for expenses, and expenses only. Ibid.

BUILDING ACT.

The building act, 14 Geo. 3, c. 78, s. 100, limits actions to be brought within three months. A. had begun to build a party wall, partly on the soil of B., more than three months before the action, but had not completed it till within that time:-Held, that B. might recover for such part of the trespass as was committed within the time limited; but that, if nothing had been done within the three

[blocks in formation]

plaintiff undertaking not to enforce it for a certain time. Doe d. Packer v. Hilliard, 132

CHARITABLE INSTITUTION. 1. A member of a committee of management, taking an active part in the concerns of a charitable institution supported by voluntary contributions, is liable for goods furnished by a tradesman for the use of the institution, although it appear that such tradesman did not furnish them on any contract with the committee, but having at first furnished goods on the credit of an individual, who, previously to the formation of a committee, had the sole management, continued to send them in afterwards on orders

given, as before, by the servants of the institution, without any inquiry as to who was liable to pay him. Glenester v. Hunter,

62

2. If a builder do work at an intended hospital on the order of the physician and surgeon, they being announced to deliver lectures there, and being members of the provisional committee, such builder is not bound to look solely to the funds of the hospital for payment, but may sue the persons who gave the orders, unless he was distinctly informed that the dealing was to be on the terms of looking for payment to the funds of the hospital only. Pink v. Scudamore,

CLERK.

See PARISH CLERK.

CLOTH TRADE.

71

Semble, that there is not any custom in the cloth trade, by which a tailor, who receives cloth from a clothier which he does not approve, is bound to pay for it, if, when sent back, it does not reach the seller, unless he shews that he has delivered it to the seller's order in writing. Davies v. Halton, 69

COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION.

See TIME.

COMPOSITION.

1. A., being a creditor of B., had executed a composition deed, in which it was stipulated that the debt should be paid at 6s. in the pound, by promissory notes. After executing this deed, A. obtained payment from B. in full:-Held, that B. could not recover back the difference between the full amount and 6s. in the pound, without proving that the composition notes had been paid, or giving some evidence that would be equivalent to such proof. Ward v. Bird,

229

2. A. advanced 100l. to B. on the

joint and several promissory note of B. and C., the latter at that time owing A. 657. on his own account. C. failed, and, at a meeting of his creditors, A. and others entered into a resolution that C. should assign certain property for the benefit of his creditors; and that his creditors should give him a release. A., at the meeting, stated his debt to be 657., and he afterwards received a dividend on that sum; subsequently to this B. failed: -Held, that A. could not then sue C. on the promissory note. Seager v. Billington,

CONCORDAT.

456

Where parties have become bankrupt in France, but have been reinstated in their affairs by a concordat; it is not necessary in an action brought by them for money due to them before their bankruptcy, to prove that they have performed their part of the concordat, but they should shew that the action is brought with the assent of the commissioners named therein. Orr v. Browne, 414

CONFESSION.

1. On the trial of a prisoner, who

« PrejšnjaNaprej »