88 Common Law Cause Lnsts.-Editor's Letter Box. Middlesex, Lord Chief Buron.-Caley v. Johnson Middlesex, Lord Chief Baron.-Boulton v. Mills Middlesex, Mr. Baron Rolfe.-Fesenmeyer v. Adcock-Mr. Watson. Middlesex, Mr. Baron Rolfe.-Semple the younger v. Pink.-Mr. Miller. Moved Easter Term, 1847. Middlesex, Lord Chief Baron.— Wakley v. Cooke. Mr. Cockburn. Middlesex, Lord Chief Baron. (sued as Taff)-Mr. Martin. Pictor v. Taft, Liverpool, Mr. Baron Rolfe.- Broadbent and others v. Fernley and another-Mr. Martin. Liverpool, Mr. Baron Rolfe.-Whitwell v. Harrison-Mr. Watson. Oxford, Mr. Serjeant Gaselee.-Winterbourne v. Wagner-Mr. Alexander. Worcester, Mr. Serjeant Gaselee.-Harris and another v Grissell and another-Sir F. Kelly. Stafford, Mr. Justice Maule.-Stagg v. The Earl of Miltown-Mr. Serjeant Talfourd. Gloucester, Mr. Justice Maule.-Christy and others v. Powell and others-Mr. Whateley for defendant Pidgeon. Gloucester, Mr. Justice Maule. Chandler v. Morse-Mr. Godson. Gloucester, Mr. Justice Maule.-Balme v. D'Eg Middlesex, Lord Chief Baron. Hitchcock, administrator, &c. v. Beavan-Mr. Martin. Middlesex, Lord Chief Buron.-Dunn, Esq. v. Coxville-Mr. Keating. and others-Mr. Martin. Middlesex, Lord Chief Buron.-Collins v. Bradley - Mr. Watson. Middlesex, Lord Chief Baron.-Casse v. Cockburn and another-Mr. Humfrey. Middlesex, Lord Chief Baron.-Sturm and another Middlesex, Lord Chief Baron.—Barker v. Bradley Middlesex, Lord Chief Baron.-Wainman v. Kynman-Mr. Lush. London, Lord Chief Baron.-Mason v. Owen and others-Mr. Attorney-General. London, Lord Chief Baron.-Ralli v. Denistoun and others-Mr. Attorney-General. London, Lord Chief Baron.-Boyd and another v. Mangles and others-Mr. Attorney-General. London, Lord Chief Baron.-Clark v. Chaplin Sir F. Thesiger. London, Lord Chief Baron.-Entwisle and another v. Dent and others-Sir F. Kelly. London, Lord Chief Baron.-Hesletine v. Siggers -Mr. Crowder. London, Lord Chief Buron.-Ollive v. BookerMr. Crowder. London, Lord Chief Baron.-Ollive v. BookerMr. Watson. London, Lord Chief Baron.-Green and others, assignees, v. Laurie, Knt., and others-Mr. Martin. London, Lord Chief Baron.-Vivian v. MowattMr. Martin. London, Lord Chief Baron-Alexander and another v. Booker-Mr. Watson. London, Lord Chief Baron.-Barber, on affidavits, v. Grace-Mr. Whitehurst. London, Lord Chief Baron.-Pell v. Jones-Serjeant Allen. London, Lord Chief Baron.-Phillips and another v. Fisher-Mr. James. Cambridge, Lord Chief Baron.—Soutbee v. Denny -Mr. Andrews. Warwick, Mr. Baron Parke.-Neville v. Roderick -Mr. Humfrey. Warwick, Mr. Baron Parke.-Wallis v. Swinbourne-Mr. Waddington. Lewes, Lord Chief Justice Wilde.-Napper v. Napper--Serjeant Channell. Lewes, Lord Chief Justice Wilde.-Biddle, executor, &c., v. Biddle.-Serjeant Shee. Kingston, Lord Denman.-Cooper, Esq., P.O. v. Wicks-Serjeant Channell. Kingston, Lord Denman.-Hooper and another t. Williams-Serjeant Channell. Kingston, Lord Denman.-Boileau. RudlinSergeant Shee. Kingston, Lord Denman.-Wood v. Cooke-Mr. Chambers. Kingston, Lord Denman.-Robinson v. HarmanMr. Chambers. Kingston, Lord Denman.-Newry and Enniskillen Railway Company v. Edmonds-Mr. Bramwell. Chester, Mr. Justice Coltman-Bates v. Townley and another-Mr. Welsby. Chester, Mr. Justice Coltman.-Bates v. Townley and another-Mr. Townshend. Cardigan, Mr. Justice Wightman.-Doe d. Lewis v. Lewis-Mr. Benson. Winchester, Mr. Justice Cresswell.-Newlyn v. Shadwell-Mr. Cockburn. Dorset, Mr. Justice Cresswell.--Saint v. CoxMr. Cockburn. Taunton, Mr. Justice Williams.-Wait and another v. Baker--Mr. Crowder. Taunton, Mr. Justice Williams.-Wait and another v. Baker.-Mr. Butt. Moved after the 4th day of Easter Term, 1847. Middlesex,-Mr. Baron Alderson.-Wilkins v. Grant-Mr. Crowder. London, Mr. Baron Alderson.-Chapman v. Geiger.-Mr. Bramwell. THE EDITOR'S LETTER BOX. WE are requested by Messrs. N. Stevens, Fearon and Gosling, of No. 1, Gray's Inn Square, to state that an error is made in the Law List just issued, in describing Mr. Thomas Brook Bridges Stevens, of 23, Bolton Street, Piccadilly, and of Tamworth, as a member of their firm, with which he is not in any way connected. Errata.-Hughes v. Williams, vol. 34, p. 35, York, Mr. Baron Alderson.-Perkins v. Bradley head-note. For "the court refused to strike and another-Mr. Martin. Liverpool, Mr. Baron Rolfe.-Bayliffe v. Butter-out a cause," read "consented." worth Mr. Knowles. Page 45, col. 2, line 61, for "if fully carried Liverpool, Mr. Baron Rolfe.-Cooke v. Blake-out, will lead to its entire extinction," read "this has been rested upon principles, which, Liverpool, Mr. Baron Rolfe.-Caine v. Horsfall-if fully carried out, would lead to the entire ex tinction of the right itself." Mr. Knowles. -Mr. Martin. The Legal Observer, DIGEST, AND JOURNAL OF JURISPRUDENCE, SATURDAY, MAY 29, 1847. "Quod magis ad xos Pertinet, et nescire malum est, agitamus." HORAT. PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT should be postponed to a more fitting RELATING TO THE LAW. season. The government, we understand, have notified their intention not further to THE business of the session begins to be unsettle the Law of Settlement at present. conducted, in both houses of parliament, in The important changes contemplated in a manner which indicates the universal the Law of Railways and the Law of consciousness of a speedy prorogation and Agricultural Tenant Right, we apprehend, an approaching dissolution. The members will also stand over. As to the Health of of the House of Commons are so anxious Towns Bill, which involved so many into avail themselves of the earliest oppor- terests, the noble lord by whom it was intunity of paying their personal respects to troduced has already modified his measure their constituents, that it requires some by restricting the operation to the country management to secure the continued at- corporate towns in England and Wales, tendance of forty members; and the Peers and in announcing this and other alteraappear to feel that sufficient occupation is tions, does not appear to display a deterafforded to them in discussing the measures mined intention to carry any portion of the transmitted from the lower house. Under bill during the present session. Of the such circumstances, it can scarcely be bills introduced by members of the legislamatter of surprise, that bills recommended ture unconnected with government, we by urgent and pressing necessity do not command very general attention, and that measures introduced a short time since, with great pomp and pretension, have now been thrown aside or indefinitely postponed. Indeed, some doubt may be entertained whether any one of the bills in progress, in which the legal profession are peculiarly interested, will be persevered in. It is unnecessary to add, that this ought to be looked upon rather as matter of congratulation than of regret. Perhaps hasty and ill-considered legislation is never beneficial to the community: it is peculiarly injurious when applied to legal subjects. may notice Lord Denman's Bill for amend- In the present tone and temper of the legislature, it would be vain to expect that In stating that a suspension of legislation any legal questions could be fully discussed on legal topics is generally expected and or deliberately considered. It is more de- desired, let us not be misunderstood as sirable, therefore, that even alterations suggesting any relaxation of the vigilance which are not of a questionable character, with which it behoves the profession to VOL. XXXIV. No. 1,003. F i Proceedings in Parliament Relating to the Law.—Railway Law. regard the proceedings of the legislature. hustings. Something may be done in this Sharp practice occasionally prevails in respect by every individual member of the parliament as well as elsewhere. The ex- profession who is canvassed for his vote or perience of the last seven years supplies influence. If such a course of proceedmore than one instance in which most im- ing were extensively and simultaneously portant and objectionable enactments have adopted, the result could not fail to be adbeen introduced, towards the close of a vantageously manifested when the state of session, when the pencils of the parlia- the profession comes to be submitted to mentary reporters have been worn short, parliament, which, as we have already inand the patience and attention of those who timated, it is intended it should be at an devote their attention to legislative mea- early period. sures had become exhausted. We earnestly In conclusion, we shall be excused for recommend, therefore, a continuous and adopting and repeating the sentiment so unceasing attention to the business of the well expressed in the address of the comsession until it is actually brought to a close. mittee of "the Metropolitan and ProvinWe anticipate that at no distant period the cial Law Association," where it is said,— unaided efforts of individuals in watching "Scattered and divided, the profession has the progress of measures in parliament been weak; combined, their power will be, affecting the profession may be transferred for the accomplishment of every reasonable to, or at all events shared by, some respon- object, amply sufficient." RAILWAY LAW. ACTIONS BY ALLOTTEES. sible body in whom the intelligence and influence now scattered, and therefore unavailing, may be concentrated and rendered powerful. It is hoped that the association, to whose establishment and objects we directed attention in a recent number, may As might have been expected, the earliest be made auxiliary to this, as well as to and most abundant crop of actions arising many other useful purposes. Every day's out of abortive railway schemes, consisted observation proves, how little is to be done of those in which persons who supplied in matters of a public nature without, and goods or labour in furtherance of a railway how much by, union and organization. project, sought to recover compensation The eve of a general election may not from one or more of those who were anbe an inappropriate period to remind our nounced to the world as constituting the readers, that every man owes something to managing body. These actions have been his profession. It is not necessary to re attended with results so varied and contracommend a disruption of political ties, or a dictory, as to throw some degree of disdisregard of private or local connections; credit on the system, and to suggest some -but it is not too much to expect that, in doubts as to the sufficiency of the machiweighing the relative merits of rival candi- nery, by which justice is administered at dates, those who have votes to give, or in- nisi prius. fluence to exercise, should consider how There is another class of cases, involving far those who look for their support are principles more complicated, and results capable of appreciating, and disposed to not less important, but which have yet promote the redress of professional griev- come under the consideration of the courts ances. So great a disinclination has there in only a few instances. We allude to been to agitate the questions in which the those cases in which parties have advanced profession are more especially interested, money, with the view of becoming propriethat it is extremely probable many, who tors in a railway scheme, and seek to reare now members of the legislature, and cover back their deposits upon the abansome who are about to become so, are yet donment of the project. We are not aware ignorant that solicitors, as such, have any that, as regards this particular description peculiar grounds of complaint. It is ex- of cases, there can be said to have been tremely desirable that the members of the any conflicting decisions; but the facts new House of Commons should be informed on this subject, and if possible, their disposition as regards it inquired into, if not ascertained, before they go to the upon which the reported determinations proceeded are not of a character so universally applicable, as to enable us to state that the law in regard to this class of cases is yet to be considered as settled. The first decision on this subject was that of Walstabb v. Spottiswoode, which Railway Law.-Actions by Allottees. 66 91 was decided in Trinity Term, 1816.b Intermined, will be found to be materially disthat case, the plaintiff deposited her money tinguishable from those involved in the deupon a letter of allotment, by which the cision of the Court of Common Pleas, in the provisional committee undertook that the more recent case of Wontner v. Shairp, in letter, with the bankers' receipt for the which judgment was pronounced on the last deposits, would be exchanged for scrip on day of Easter Term. In that case, the its production at the office of the company, plaintiff applied on the 25th of September, and on the execution of the parliamentary for thirty shares in a proposed undertaking, contract and subscribers' agreement. The called the Direct London and Exeter plaintiff made the deposit, and applied at Railway Company," in which the intended the company's office to have the letter and capital was announced to be three millions, receipt exchanged for scrip, and to execute to be raised in 120,000 shares. The thirty the necessary deeds; but she was ultimately shares applied for by the plaintiff were alinformed, that the directors had determined lotted to him, and at his request, the allotnot to issue any scrip, and that the depo- ment was afterwards increased to sixty sits, minus the expenses, would be re- shares, and the plaintiff was informed, by funded. It appeared, that although there a circular from the secretary, that the dehad been applications for as many as posit of 17. 78. 6d. per share was to be paid 400,000 shares, 70,000 only had been al- into the company's bankers before the 18th lotted, and the allottees had only paid de- of October. Previous to the day last menposits upon 4,000 shares. Under those tioned, the managing directors caused an circumstances, the plaintiff brought her advertisement to be inserted in the public action against the defendant, as one of the newspapers, announcing that the allotment managing committee, to recover back the of shares was completed; and on the 21st sum paid by way of deposit, and declared, of October, the plaintiff paid into the comin the first count of the declaration, for a pany's bankers the sum of 821. 10s., being breach of the special contract to deliver the deposit on sixty shares; and on the 4th scrip certificates; and secondly, upon the of November, executed the subscription count for money had and received to the contract, which contained, amongst other plaintiff's use. The defendant pleaded things, an authority to the managing direcnon-assumpsit. A verdict was taken for tors to defray all reasonable expenses which the plaintiff, with leave to move to enter a had been or might thereafter be incurred. nonsuit; and a rule having been obtained Ultimately, it turned out that the managing accordingly, the case was argued in the directors had only allotted 58,000 out of Court of Exchequer. The court did not 120,000 shares, and that the money paid give any opinion upon the special count, by the shareholders by way of deposit was but decided that the plaintiff was entitled expended, there not being enough to deposit to recover on the count for money had and in pursuance of the parliamentary orders. received, upon the authority of Nockells v. On the 15th of December, the plaintiff atCrosby (3 Barn & Cr. 814.) The principle tended a meeting of shareholders, at which upon which the judgment of the court ap- the number of shares allotted was stated, pears to have proceeded is, that no part- and a resolution, expressive of confidence nership had actually commenced, and that an application for shares and payment of deposits in a scheme which turns out to be abortive, amounts to nothing, as the allotment is not really a compliance with the application. The deposit, it was said, was paid for the special purposes of a concern which was abandoned, and therefore could not be applied to those purposes; and upon the committee of management, the sum these grounds, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to have back the whole sum paid by way of deposit, on the count for money had and received. The facts in Walstabb v. Spottiswoode, and the principles upon which it was de () Reported Leg. Obs., vol. 32, p. 180. in, and approval of, the conduct of the directors, was agreed to by the majority present, but dissented from by the plaintiff. Under those circumstances, the plaintiff sought, in an action for money had and received, and on an account stated, to recover back from the defendant, who was a provisional committeeman, and also one of paid by him as a deposit. The case was argued at great length, upon a rule to enter a nonsuit, or for a new trial, and the court, after taking time to consider, pronounced its judgment in favour of the plaintiff, mainly on the grounds that the application for shares and letter of allotment did not constitute a contract binding on the plaintiff, and that he paid his money upon a 92 Railway Law.-The Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association. fraudulent representation. The plaintiff There is another case, of Woolmer v. asked for sixty shares in a project which Toby, from the Western Circuit, bearing on was to have a capital of three millions, this question, and which our readers will raised by 120,000 shares; and the com- remember created a considerable sensation mittee professed to allot to him what he at the time it was tried. This case has asked for, but, in truth, allotted him a been argued in the Court of Queen's different thing-sixty shares in a project Bench, and now stands for iudgment. We in which there were only 58,000 shall take an early opportunity of calling shares allotted by the committee, al- attention to this judgment when prothough applications had been made by nounced, as there will then be the delibesolvent parties for the whole number rate opinion of the three common law of 120,000 shares. The advertisement courts on questions arising out of actions stating that the committee "had completed by allottees. the allotment of shares," must be taken to be addressed to all who were interested, and, amongst others, to the plaintiff, who had then in his possession the letter allotting him 60 shares. The jury were justified in finding that the statement contained in this letter was a material induce METROPOLITAN AND PROVIN- EXTENSION OF LAW SOCIETIES. THE Committee of management of this ment to the plaintiff to part with his money, association, in their address to the profesand as that statement was not well founded sion, strongly recommend the extension within the knowledge of the directors, it of local law societies in furtherance of might be considered as a fraudulent mis- the objects of the association. They exrepresentation. As to the plaintiff's at- hort every solicitor in the kingdom, who is tendance at the meeting of shareholders, not already a member, to join one of the he could not be considered thereby to present societies in his immediate district, have waived his right to recover back his and if there be none, to assist in founding deposits, or to have assented to any acts a society, in order that the whole profesof the directors. The court, therefore, sion may ultimately be comprehended in considered that the verdict taken for the one general association. plaintiff must stand. Looking over the list of provincial law In comparing the two cases particularly societies already established, we find there. referred to, it will be observed, that al- are no less than 16 counties in England, though in both cases the court held that and 10 in Wales, where no law society the plaintiff was not bound by the applica- is now in operation. It may, therefore, tion for shares followed by the allotment be useful to state the names of these and payment of deposits, in Walstabb v. counties; the principal places where it Spottiswoode, this conclusion was arrived may be most advantageous to establish at on the ground that the scheme was societies; and to point out the neighbourabortive, and "nothing whatever allotted," ing law societies which doubtless will be whilst in the case of Wontner v. Shairp the ready to assist in the proper constitution of same result appears to have been arrived such other societies as may be required." at on the principle, that the allottee had got their alphabetical order :We will first name the English counties in something different from what he asked, namely, an allotment of shares in a concern BEDFORDSHIRE. The principal towns at with a smaller amount of capital. Wontner one of which a society might be conveniently v. Shairp also differs materially from Wal- located, are Bedford and Woburn. The adstabb v. Spottiswoode, because the plaintiff joining societies hold their head quarters at in the first of these cases had executed the Northampton,-Secretary, Mr. George Abbey ; at Cambridge, Mr. Foster, jun. ; and at Aylessubscription-deed, which expressly autho- bury, Mr. Tindal. rised the appropriation of the money de posited to the payment of preliminary expenses-a circumstance which the Court of Common Pleas seems to have considered would have amounted to an answer to the action, if there had not been a fraudulent representation, under the influence of which the plaintiff was supposed to have parted with his money and also executed the available. deed. a BERKSHIRE. The principal towns at which society might be formed in this county are, Reading and Abingdon. The nearest adjoining societies are those at Oxford,-Mr. J. M. Davenport, Secretary; and at Aylesbury, Mr. Tindal. a See p. 41 ante. There are law libraries to some extent in different places, whose aid might be rendered |