Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Cornwall.-The Queen v. the Inhabitants of

Erchequer of Pleas. Mylor.

PEREMPTORY PAPER. 'Middleser.—The Queen v. The Inbabitants of

For Trinity Term, 1847, St. Clement Danes.

Cheshire --The Queen v. The Inhabitants of To be called on the first day of the Term, after the Dukinfield.

motions, and to be proceeded with the next day, if Lancashire.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of necessary, before the motions. Leeds, Yorkshire.

Rule Nisi. Middleser.-- The Queen v. William Belton. 27th April 1847. - Burnside v. Dayrell – Mr. Middlesex.--The Queen v. Charles Saffrey, Crowder. -Mr. Martin, Middlesex.-The Queen v. Morris Myers.

6th May, 1847.-M'Intosh v. Midland Counties Bucks.—The Queen v. The Churchwardens of Railway Company-Mr. Martin, Mr. Macaulay. parish of Ashe, Hants.

29th April, 1847.-Sleddon and another, assigMiddlesex.- The Queen v, The Inhabitants of nees, &c. 8. Dixon, P, 0., &c.—Mr. Martin, Mr. Hammersmith.

Burnie, Cheshire.—The Queen v. Joseph Thompson. 4th May, 1847.- Barker v. Teague-Mr. Martin, Liverpool. - The Queen v. Joseph Thompson. Mr. Serjeant Clarke.

Cheshire.—The Queen v. The Inhabitants of 4th May, 1847,--Hassell v. Wilde-Mr. Hum. Macclesfield.

frey, Mr. Willes. Staffordshire. - The Queen v. Jolin Keen.

7th April, 1847.-Corner v. Ward and othersCarnarvonshire. —The Queen v. The Inbabitants Mr. Humfrey. of Holywell, Flintshire.

4th May, 1847.-Marks v. Ridgway—Mr. Miller, Cornwall.– The Queen v. Henry Nicholls. Mr. Pashley.

Worcestershire.—The Queen v. The Commission- 4th May, 1847.-Ferguson and another v. Bates ers for improving, &c. the Town of Dudley. -- Mr. Cowling, Mr. Jloggios. Monmouthshire.– The Queen v. Thos. Turk.

1st May, 1847.-Oates v. Moore and anotherLancashire.—The Queen v. James Lord.

Mr. Addison, Mr. Hill. Wilts.- The Queen . The Inhabitants of St. 23rd April, 1847.—Bayley and another v. BuckThomas, New Sarum,

land and others—Mr. Robinson, Mr. Martin. London.-The Queen v. Charles Wright and an. 23rd April, 1847,- Bayley and another, execu. other.

tors, &c. 7. Buckland and others-Mr. Robinson, Esser, - John Keen, plaintiff in error, v. The Mr. Martin. Queen, defendant in error.

26th April, 1847.- Hanby v. Farrell, jan.Lindscy.—The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Con- Mr. Temple, Nr. Atherton. ingsby.

4th May, 1847.-Re Lewis, exparte Collette West Riding, Yorkshire.-The Queen v. The In. Mr. Petersdorff, Mr. Miller. habitants of Carlton.

29th April, 1847.-Hibberd v. Knight, Esq.West Riding, Yorkshire.-The Queen v. The In- Mr. M. Smith, Mr. Crowder. habitants of Addingham.

26th April, 1847,-Parsons ». Banfield-Mr. Wilts.– The Queen v. Tbe Inhabitants of Colerne. James, Mr. Willes.

Middlesex.–The Queen v. Reuben Hunt and 29th April, 1847.-- Phelps v. Jones - Mr. others.

Rickards. Devonshire.—The Queen v. Tbe Inhabitants of 3rd May, 1847.-Bonell v. Pugb-Mr. Willes, East Stonehouse.

Mr. Pashley. West Riding, Yorkshire.—The Queen, v. The In- 22nd April, 1847,- Sherratt v. Parkes - Mr. habitants of Gomersal.

Gray, Mr. Hawkins. Leicestershire. - The Queen v. The Rev. Edward 26th April, 1847.- Roche v. Champein-Mr. Butterworth Shaw, clk.

Bovill, Mr. Miller. Middlesex.—The Queen v. The Commissioners of 29th April, 1847,-Grant, a pauper, v. Mackenzie, Stamps and Taxes.

sued, &c.—Mr. Billing, Mr. Humfrey. Westmoreland. The Queen v. Martin Irving, 27th April, 1847.-Grant, a pauper,v. Mackenzie, Esq. (de Henry Anderson.)

sued, &c.—Mr. Billing, Mr. Humfrey. Westmoreland. - The Queen v. Martin Irving, 26th April, 1847.-Everest and others v. Clark Esq. (de Timothy Robinson.)

Mr. Burnie, Mr. Brown. Middleser.- The Queen v. The Inbabitants of St. 1st May, 1847.-Grieve and another v. Denman Pancras, (settlement of Parsons.)

-Mr. Maynard, Mr. Lusb. Middleser.—The Queen v. The Inhabitants of St.

SPECIAL CASES.
Pancras, (settlement of Taylor.),

For Judgment.
Surrey. - The Queen v. The London and South
Western Railway Company.

Hammond v. Peacock, by order of Mr. Baron

Alderson. West Riding, Yorkshire.—The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Monk Bretton.

Harris v. Wall, by order of Nisi Prius. Lancaster.—The Queen v. Jobn Armitage.

(Heard 3rd May, 1847.) Essex.- The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Witham.

For Argument. Surrey.-The Queen ". The Inhabitants of St. Doe d. Knight v. Chaffey, jun, and another, Mary, Whitechapel, Middlesex.

by order of Nisi Prius. Cornwall.—The Queen v. Richard William Riley. (25th Jan, 1847, part heard, case to be amended.)

IVest Riding, Yorkshire.— The Queen o. The Sanderson v. Dobson, by order of the Master of Churchwardens and Inhabitants of Longwood. the Rolls.

Devonshire.-The Queen v. William Warren and Doe d. Hutchinson v. Whittome, by order of Mr. others, Feoffees of Ottery St. Mary Charities. Baron Alderson.

England. The Queen v. James Chadwick, de- Newnham v. Coles, clk.-by order of Nisi Prius. fendant in Error on prosecution of Ann Fisher, Wilson v. Eden, Bt., and others, by order of the Londm.-The Queen r. Richard Dunn.

Master of the Rolls. Cambridge.—The Queen v. The Inbabitants of Hall v. Lack, by order of Nisi Prius. hwell, Herts.

87

[ocr errors]

NEW TRIAL PAPER.

Common Law Cause Lists. : Doe d. Adames e. Bridger, by order of Nisi Prius. Perrall and others v. Jones and another.

Baddeley, clk. 7. Gingell, by order of Baron Carle v. Oliver. Parke.

Price and another, executors, v. Woodhouse and Doe d. Burton v. Wbite, by order of Nisi Prius. another. Dos d. Knight v. Spencer, Ditto.

Kemp v. Nash, (sued with Hutton aod another.) Harries v. Hooper,

Ditto.

Kemp v. Hutton and another, (sued with Nash.) Lee . Stone and others, by order of V. C. Knight Bryant c. Babbett. Bruce.

Bates v. Townley and another. Taylor o. Dawson, Esq., by order of Nisi Prius. Kirkwood and another v. Musgrave.

Salkeld, clk. v. Johnstone and others, by order of Brown and another o. Whiteway and others. the Lord Cbancellor.

Gravatt v. Ward,
Galloway and another o. Cole, by order of Nisi Collins v. Ozanne and others.
Prius.

Dorrington v. Carter.
Nicholson, elk, v. Richmond, by award.

Ricketts and others v. Phillips. Ramsbottom v. Duckworth and another, by rule Craig v. Levy, (in error.) of court.

Parker, executor, v. Harrison, Marsh v. Davies and others, by order of Nisi Prius. Eyre r. Waterhouse. · South Eastern Railway Company v. Pickford and Earl of Lindsey v. Capper and others. others, by order of Baron Alderson.

Brine v. Bazalgette. Tobin, Knt, e. Simpson, exors., &c., by order of Pratt v. Pratt and others. Justice Erle.

Austen y. Kolle. Morgan, admix., &c., v. Jeffreys, by order of llewes v. Angell. Justice Erle.

Wanibersie and another v. Phillips and another. Molton and wise, admix., &c., v. Camroux, sec. Sedman v. Walker, Esq., and Stephenson. &c., special verdict.

Sadler and others v. Jobnson,
Belcher and others, assignees, &c., v. Bellamy Davis (qui tam) v. Arden.
and another, exors., &c.,by order of Baron Alderson.
DEMURRERS.

For Trinity Term, 1847.
Trinity Term, 1847.

For Judginent.
For Judgment.

Moved Michael mas Term, 1846.
Duncan 1. Benson.

Berks, Mr. Justice Maule.- Owen v. De Beau(Heard 5th May, 1847.)

voir-Whateley. Chamberland v. The Chester and Birkenhead

(Heard 10th Feb. 1847.) Railway Company. (Heard 8th May 1847.)

Liverpool, Mr. Justice Cresswell. Sleddon and

another, assignees, &c. v. Dixon, P. O.-Mr.Martin. For Argument.

(Heard 13th Feb. 1847.)
Griffiths v. Pike.
(To stand over until special case settled.)

Mwed Hilary Term, 1847.
Washbourne 0. Burrows.

Middleser, Lord Chief Baron.-Biggs v. Laurie
Bromage and another v. Lloyd and another, and another--Mr. Humfrey.
Duke, knt. and others v. Dive,

(Heard 6th May, 1847.) Galsworthy 2. Strutt.

For Argument.
Good and another v. Burton.

Moved Hilary Term, 1847.
Shaw v. Glascott, sued, &c.
Sidebottom v. The Commissioners of the Glossop

London, Lord Chief Baron.-Clark v. Newsam and Reservoirs.

Edwards—Sir F. Thesiger.
Judson v. Bowden.

London, Lord Chief Baron. - M.Cowliffe v. Co

burn - Mr Crowder.
Hill and others v. The Taff Vale Railway Co.
Matchett ». Moore.

London, Lord Chief Baron.-Hooper and another Gross v. Wolff.

v. Treffry-Mr. Crowder. Hall ». Lack.

London, Lord Chief Baron.—Goldicutt, on affidaCook v. Moylan.

vits, v. Beugin-Mr. Cockburn. Duke, Kat., and others v. Castello,

London, Lord Chief Baron.-Vollans v. FletcherLansdale v. Clarke and another.

Mr. Martin,
Ramuz o. Crowe.

London, Lord Chief Baron. Lamert v. Heath-
Carter v. Wormald.

Mr. Martin. Powles and others v. Saepz.

London, Lord Chief Baron. — Richardson v. ČarBerdoe v. Spittle.

michael, Bt.~Mr. Martin. Daniels v. Whitby.

London, Lord Chief Baron.-Simmonds v. Muntz Duke, Kt., and others v. Forbes.

and others—Mr. Humfrey. Grout 7. Enthoven, sued, &c.

London, Lord Chief Baron.-Molton and wife v.

Camroux-Mr. Gurney.
Spindler and wife v. Grellett.
Worthington 3. Wanklyn.

London, Lord Chief Baron.—Wolley v. SteinitzGraham and others, assignees, t. Allsopp.

Mr. Cleasby. Jarris v. Dircks.

London, Lord Chief Baron.-Barnard v. Colls

Mr. Bramwell.
Galles, administratrix, 2. Milne.
Hart, Bowlby.

London, Lord Chief Baron.-Harnett v. Bates Alder and another, assignees, &c., v. Newman Mr. Bramwell. and anotber.

London, Lord Chief Baron.-Eager, on affidavits,

v. Grimwood-Mr. Prentice. Higgs . Mortimer, Roper v. Hanson,

Derby.-Britt, on affidavits,v. Pashleys and others Ramsden 7. The Manchester South Junction and -Mr. Whitehurst. Altrincbam Railway Company.

Moved after the 4th day of Hiliary Term, 1847, Hasluck 7. The Eastern Counties Railway Co.

Middleser, Lord Chief Baron.-Dyer v. Green Clark 7. Sherwood.

Mr. Watson,

[ocr errors][merged small]

Common Law Cause Lists.-Editor's Letter Box.

[ocr errors]

Middleser, Lord Chief Buron.-Caley v. Jobnson Liverpool, Mr. Baron Rolfe. - Broadbent and
-Serjeant Wilkins.

others v. Fernley and another-Mr. Martin.
Middlesex, Lord Chief Baron.-Boulton v. Mills Liverpool, Mr. Baron Rolfe.- Whitwell v. Harri-
Mr. Crowder.

son—Mr. Watson.
Middleser, Mr. Baron Rolfe.-Fesenmeyer v. Ad- Oxford, Mr. Serjeant Gaselee.-Winterbourne v.
cock-Mr. Watson.

Wagner-Mr. Alexander.
Middleser, Mr. Buron Rolfe. Semple the younger Worcester, Mr. Serjeant Gaselee.-Harris and an-
v. Fink.-Mr. Miller.

other v Grissell and another-Sir F. Kelly.
Moved Easter Term, 1847.

Stafford, Mr. Justice Maule.-Stagg v. The Earl

of Miltown-Mr. Serjeant Talfourd.
Middleser, Lord Chief Buron.- Wakley v. Cooke. Gloucester, Mr. Justice Maule. - Christy and
Mr. Cockburn.

others v. Powell and others—Mr. Whateley for de.
Middleser, Lord Chief Baron. Pictor v. Taft, fendant Pidgeon.
(sued as Taff)-Mr, Martin.

Gloucester, Mr. Justice Maule. Chandler v.
Middlesex, Lord Chief Baron. – Hitchcock, ad- Morse-Mr. Godson.
ministrator, &c. v. Beavan-Mr. Martin.

Gloucester, Mr. Justice Maule.-Balme ». D'Eg.
Middleser, Lord Chief Buron.-Dunn, Esq. v. Cox ville--Mr. Keating:
and others-Mr. Martin.

Lewes, Lord Chief Justice Wilde.-Napper v. Nap-
Middleser, Lord Chief Buron.-Collins v. Bradley per--Serjeant Channell.
- Mr. Watson.

Lewes, Lord Chief Justice Wilde.---Biddle, execu-
Middleser, Lord Chief Baron.-Casse v. Cockburn tor, &c., v. Biddle.--Serjeant Shee.
and another-Mr. Humfrey.

Kingston, Lord Denman.-Cooper, Esq., P.O. v.
Middleser, Lord Chief Baron.-Sturm and another Wicks-Serjeant Channell,
7. Jeffree and another-Mr. Humfrey,

Kingston, Lord Denman.-Hooper and another r.
Middleser, Lord Chief Baron.—Goldchede v. Swan Williams—Serjeant Channell.
-Mr. Serjeant Jones.

Kingston, Lord Denman.-Boileau ». Rudlin-
Middleser, Lord Chief Buron.-Barker v. Bradley Sergeant Shee.
-Mr. Hoggins.

Kingston, Lord Denman.-Wood v. Cooke-Mr.
Middlesex, Lord Chief Buron.-Wainman v. Kyn- Chambers.
man-Mr. Lush.

Kingston, Lord Denman.-Robinson v. HarmanLondon, Lord Chief Baron.—Mason v. Owen and Mr. Chambers, others—Mr. Attorney-General.

Kingston, Lord Denman.--Newry and Euniskillen London, Lord Chief Baron.-Ralli v. Denistoun Railway Company v. Edmonds— $Ir. Bramwell, and others--Mr. Attorney-General.

Chester, Mr. Justice Coltman. --Bates v. Townley
London, Lord Chief Baron.-Boyd and another v. and another—Mr. Welsby.
Mangles and others--Mr. Attorney-General.

Chester, Mr. Justice Coltman.-Bates v. Townley
London, Lord Chief Baron.-Clark v. Chaplin- and another-Mr. Townshend.
Sir F. Thesiger.

Cardigun, Mr. Justice Wightmun.-Doe d. Lewis
London, Lord Chief Baron.-Entwisle and another v. Lewis-Mr. Benson.
v. Dent and others — Sir F. Kelly.

Winchester, Mr. Justice Cresswell.—Newlya 7.
London, Lord Chief Baron.- Hesletine v. Siggers Shadwell-Mr. Cockburn.
--Mr. Crowder.

Dorset, Mr. Justice Cresswell.--Saint r. Cox-
London, Lord Chief Buron.–Ollive v. Booker- Mr. Cockburn.
Mr. Crowder.

Taunton, Mr. Justice Williams.-Wait and an.
London, Lord Chief Baron.–Ollive v. Booker- other v. Baker--Ar. Crowder.
Mr. Watson,

Taunton, Mr. Justice Williams. - Wait and an-
London, Lord Chief Baron.-Green and otbers, other v. Baker.-Mr. Butt.
assignees, v. Laurie, Knt., and others-Mr. Martin.
London, Lord Chief Baron.–Vivian v. Mowatt-

Moved after the 4th day of Easter Terin, 1847.
Mr. Martin.

Middleser,- Mr. Baron Alderson. Wilkins . London, Lord Chief Barun - Alexander and an Grant--Mr. Crowder. other v. Booker-Mr. Watson.

London, Mr. Baron Alders.m.-Chapman é. London, Lord Chief Buron.-Barber, on affidavits, Geiger.--Mr. Bramwell. v. Grace-Mr, Whitehurst.

London, Lord Chief Baron.- Pell v. Jones-Serjeant Allen.

THE EDITOR'S LETTER BOX.
London, Lord Chief Buron.-Phillips and another
v. Fisher-Mr. James.
Cambridge, Lord Chief Baron.—Soutbee v. Denny Fearon and Gosling, of No. 1, Gray's Inn

We are requested by Messrs. N. Stevens,
-Mr. Andrews.

Norwich, Lord Chief Buron.--Massey, executor, Square, to state that an error is made in the &c.; 0. Johnson and another, executors, &c.—Mr. Law List just issued, in describing Mr. Thomas Andrews.

Brook Bridges Stevens, of 23, Bolton Street, Warwick, Mr. Baron Purke.--Neville v. Roderick Piccadilly, and of Tamworth, as a member of -Mr. Humfrey.

their firm, with which he is not in any way Warwick, Mr. Baron Parke.—Wallis ». Swin- connected. bourne-Mr. Waddington. York, Mr. Baron Ålderson.—Perkins v. Bradley head-note. For "

Errata.--Hughes v. Williams, vol. 34, p. 35,

the court refused to strike and another-Mr. Martin,

Liverpool, Mr. Buron 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 Rolje. - Cooke v. Blake-out, will lead to its entire extinction," read Mr. Knowles.

" this has been rested upon principles, which, Liverpool, Mr. Buron Rolfe.—Caine v. Horsfall- if fully carried out, would lead to the entire ex. Mr. Martin.

tinction of the right itself.”

The Legal Observer,

DIGEST, AND JOURNAL OF JURISPRUDENCE,

SATURDAY, MAY 29, 1817.

." Quod magis ad nos
Pertinet, et nescire malum est, agitamus.”

HORAT.

PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT should be postponed to a niore fitting RELATING TO TIIE 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 Agriculturul 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 inconnected with government, we by urgent and pressing necessity do not may notice Lord Denman's Bill for amendcommand very general attention, and that ing the Law relating to Threatening measures introduced a short time since, Letters, Mr. Masterman's City Small Debts with great pomp and pretension, have now Courts Bill, and Sir John Pakington's Bill been thrown aside or indefinitely post- for the Speedy Trial and Punishment of poned. Indeed, some doubt may be enter- Juvenile Offenders. All these measures tained whether any one of the bills in pro- loiter in their progress, and, with many gress, in which the legal profession are pe- others not enumerated, will probably be culiarly interested, will be persevered in. abandoned long before the ensuing month It is unnecessary to add, that this ought to is run out. As already intimated, we canbe looked upon rather as matter of con- not suppose that any serious intention is gratulation than of regret. Perlaps hasty now entertained of meddling, during the and ill.considered legislation is never bene- present session, with what the Lord Chanficial to the community: it is peculiarly cellor a few weeks ago described as “that injurious when applied to legal subjects. most difficult and complicated subject, the

In the present tone and temper of the Law relating to Bankruptcy and Insolvency." 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

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 proceedinore 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 com. session 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 prosession may be transferred for the accomplishment of every reasonable to, or at all events shared by, some respon- object, amply sufficient.” sible body in whom the intelligence and inAuence now scattered, and therefore un

RAILWAY LAW. availing, may be concentrated and rendered powerful. It is hoped that the association, to whose establishment and objects we di

ACTIONS BY ALLOTTEES. rected attention in a recent number, a 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 corer 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 in- upon which the reported determinations formed on this subject, and if possible, proceeded are not of a character so univertheir disposition as regards it inquired into, sally applicable, as to enable us to state if not ascertained, before they go to the 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

NEWSPAPER Ante, p. 41.

« AnteriorContinuar »