You are on page 1of 970

(flnrtipll

Digitized

Kaui irlynnl Bjibrarg

by Microsoft

Cornell University Library

KD 691.M46
On

1920

the interpretation of statutes

3 1924 021

Digitized

652 189

by Microsoft

This

book was

cooperation

digitized

witli

by Microsoft Corporation

Cornell University Libraries, 2007.

You may use and print this copy in


for

your personal purposes, but

provide access to
for

it

in

limited quantity

may not distribute

or

(or modified or partial versions of it)

revenue-generating or other commercial purposes.

Digitized

by Microsoft

ON THE
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

BY THE LATE

Sir

^XWELL,

peter BENSON

CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE BTRAITB SETTLEMENTS,


AND LEGAL ADMINISTRATOR IN EGYPT, 1883-4,

'*

Benigniaa leges interpretandsB sunt, quo voluntas carum conaervetur.*'


Dig.

1, 3.

18

SIXTH EDITION

W. WYATT-PAINB,
OF THB INNEB TEMPLE AND NORTH EASTERN CIRCUIT, BARBISTER-AT-LAW.
ATTTHOK OF

"A COMMENTARY ON THE LAW

OF BAILMENTS," ETC., KTC.

EDITOR OF THE 4TH EDITION OF "MACQUEON'S LAW OF HUSBAND AND WIFE,*


THE 16th and 16TH EDITIOSS OP ''CHITTY ON CONTRACTS," AND TKE 3RD,
4lH, 5TH, AND 6TH EDITIONS OF "CLEITK AND LINDSELL ON TORTS.*'

LONDON
SWEET AND MAXWELL, LTD.,

3,

GHANOBEY LANE,

Xaw iPublfsbers
TORONTO

THE CAESWBLL

CO., LTD., 19,

DUNCAN STREET.

1920

Digitized

by Microsoft

....

1st Edition

2nd

Srd

*tli

5tt

1883

By

A. B.
J. A.

..

,,

F.

Digitized

1875

Kbkpe

1896

Theobald 1905

Stboud

by Microsoft

1912

PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.


The present

edition

is

an

at't'empt to

make one

of

the greatest authorities on the Interpretation of


To do
Statutes worthy of its classic reputation.
this something more was needed than the mere
addition of modern cases. It was essential that
the Statutes themselves should be considered in
order that the precise legal signification of the
words employed therein might be ascertained.
For though very many of the Acts of Parliament
discussed by the learned author have either fallen
into temporary or complete disuse, or have been expunged from the Statute Book, the principles of
Interpretation, slowly crystallised by generations
of eminent jurists, still constitute the canons by
which the construction and sense of Acts of Parliament are to be determined, and form no mean part
of the inheritance bequeathed to this generation by
the great lawyers of the past.
In the present edition, the Editor has endeavoured to retain the original style of the work in
spite of the fact that very many emendations in
the text were essential. Every living system of
jurisprudence is necessarily in a constant state of

Digitized

by Microsoft

IV

PEEFACB.

flux; the needs of each, generation are not those


Conof that which either precedes or follows it.
sequently in preparing a new edition of a work like

Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes two


seemed necessary ^first, to retain the
style of the original author, and second, to make
the work of real utility to the practitioner of the

essentials

present day.

How far the Editor has succeeded in combining


these desiderata it is for the reader of the present
edition to determine, although no trouble has been
spared in the attempt to make the book worthy of
its high reputation. Valuable assistance in the
preparation of the Index, Table of Statutes and
Table of Cases has been given to the Editor by his
friend,

Mr.

J.

and Northern

E. Macllraith, of the Middle Temple


Circuit, barrister-at-law.

W. WYATT-PAINE.
Inker TbmfiiB,
1920.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONTENTS.
FAGE

Table of Cases

Table of Statutes

CHAPTEE

ix

olv

I.

PBELIMINAEY SUBVET.
Sect.

I.

Iniaroductory

II. Literal construction

III.

...

....

External circumstances
Earlier and later Acts Analogous Acts.
Preamble Marginal notes Schedule

The context

rV. The context


V. The

title

Bules and orders

3
35
54

72

CHAPTEE

II.

TEEATMENT OF GENERAL WOBDS.


Sbct.

I.

Words understood according

II. Beneficial

to the subject-matter

construction

95

123

CHAPTEE

III.

EESTRICTION TO THE SPECIFIC OBJECT IN VIEW.

Presumption against

Consequences to be considered

any alteration of the law beyond the


of the Act
Mens rea in criminal law

specific object
.

1*

Digitized

by Microsoft

148

VI

CONTENTS.

OHAPTEE

IV.

EXTENSION OF THE LBTTEB TO PREVENT EVASION

OR ABUSE.
Sect.

II.

Construction to prevent abuse of powers

CHAPTER

PAGE

....

Construction to prevent evasion

I.

206

226

V.

RESTRICTION OF THE LANGUAGE TO BE IN HARMONY

WITH OTHER PRESUMPTIONS.


Sect.

I.

Presumptions against ousting established, and creating

new, jurisdictions
II.

The Crown not

affected

if

not

CHAPTER

named

....
....

235
244

VI.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.


Sect.

I.

Presumption

intending an excess

against

of juris-

255

diction
II.

III.

Presumption against a violation

How far

of international

law

statutes conferring rights affect foreigners

CHAPTER

262

273

VII.

CONSTRUCTION TO AVOID COLLISION WITH OTHER


PROVISIONS.
Sect.

I.

EepugnancyRepeal by

implication

volving, the negative


II.

Consistent affirmative Acts

III. Generalia specialibus

Acts

non derogant

IV. Implied repeal in penal Acts

Digitized

in,

or in-

.'..

......
....
.....
.

by Microsoft

280
296
313

329

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER

Vli

VIII.

CONSTRUCTION MOST AGEEEABLB TO JUSTICE AND REASON.


PAGE

Sect.

I.

Presumption against intending what

is

inoonveaient

or Tinreasonable
II.

339

Presumption against intending injustice or absurdity

III. Construction

against impairing obligations,

2.

1.

As regards procedure

CHAPTEE

356

or per-

own wrong
As regards vested

mitting advantage from one's


rV. Eetrospeetive operation

869

rights

B81

IX.

EXCEPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION.
Sect.

I.

II.

Modification of the language to meet the intention

Equitable construction

...

CHAPTER

406
447

X.

STRICT CONSTRUCTION.
Sect.

I.

II.

Construction of penal laws

462

Statutes encroaching on rights, or imposing burdens

By-laws

501

CHAPTER

XI.

SUBORDINATE PRINCIPLES;
Sect.

I.

II.

Effect of usage

531

Construction imposed by statutes

III. Construction of

Effect

words in bonam partem

multiplicity of words

^Of

common

V. Generic words following more specific

some

particular expressions

by Microsoft

sense

Digitized

of

variation of language

IV. Associated words understood in a

VI. Meaning of

541

553
571

583

603

vm

CONTENTS.

CHAPTEE

XII.

WHEN

INTENTIONS ATTEIBUTED TO THE LEGISLATUKB


It
Sect.

I.

BXPEESSES NONE.

Implied enactments

PAGE

Necessary incidents

and conse-

quences
II.

Implied powers and obligations

III.

Imperative or directory

IV.

Lex non
juri

cogit ad impossibUia

647

615

623

Cuilibet Ucet renuntiare


673

pro se introducto

CHAPTEE

XIII.

THE SAME SUBJECT.


'

Sect.

I.

II.

III.

INDEX

Contracts connected with illegal acts


Public and private remedies

Kepeal

688

RevivalConamencement

705

727

748

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

PAGE

Aaronson, Exp. (1878), 7 Oh. D. 713 47 L. J. Bank. 60 38


227
L. T. 243 26 W. R. 470
Abbott, Exp. (1880), 15 Ch. D. 447 50 L. J. Ch. 80 43 L. T.
31,223
417 29 W. R. 143
28 L. J. Ch. 110
V. Middleton (1858), 7 H. L. Cas. 68
5,99
115 R.R. 38
24 L. J. C. P. 158 1 Jur.
V. Rogers (1855), 16 C. B. 277
690,694
N. S. 804 100 R. R. 725
Abel V. Lee (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 365 40 L. J. C. P. 154 23
447
L. T. 844 19 W. R. 625
Aberdare v. Hammett (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 162 ; 44 L. J. M. C.
184
49; 32L. T. 20
Aberdeen R. Co. v. Blaikie (1854), 1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 461
698
2 Eq. R. 1281, H. L
Abergavenny (Marquis) v. Bp. of Llandaff (1888), 20 Q. B. D.
642
460 57 L. J. Q. B. 233 58 L. T. 812 36 W. R. 859
26
V. Brace (1872), L. R. 7 Ex. 145 ; 41 L, J. Ex. 120
321
L. T. 514 20 W. R. 462
Aberystwith Pier Co. v. Cooper (1865), 35 L. J. Q. B. 44 13
119
L. T.273; 14W. R. 28
Abley v. Dale (1851), 11 C. B. 378 2 L. M. & P. 443; 21
6
L. J. C. P. 104 16 Jur. 427
.
(1850), 10 C. B. 62 1 L. M. & P. 626 20 L. J. C. P.
644
33; 14 Jur. 1069; 87 R.R. 697
680
Abrahams . Dimmook, [1914] W. N. 449
Acebal v. Levy (1834), 10 Bing. 376 ; 4 M. & Scott 217 38 R. R.
273
469
..
637, 663
..
Achers v. Howard (1886), 55 L. J. Q. B. 273
..
13, 458
Adam v. Bristol Inhabitants (1834), 2 A. & E. 889
V. British and Foreign Steamship Co. (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B.
274,317
..
..
..
..
844
..
Adams v. Graham (1864), 33 L. J. Q. B. 71 10 Jur. N. S.
368
356 9 L. T. 606 12 W. R. 282
V. G. W. R. Co. (1861), 6 H. & N. 404 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 124
119
3 L. T. 631 ; 9 W. R. 254
;

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP OASES.

PAGE

297
..
(1853), 22 L. J. Q. B. 3 ; 17 Jur. 489
Aerated Bread Co. v. Gregg (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 355 ; 42
481,482
L. J. M. C. 117 ; 28 L. T. 816
619
Agricola, The (1843), 2
Rob. 10; 7 Jur. 157
A. 70 ; 52
Ahier v. Ahier (1885), 10 P. D. 110 ; 54 L. J. P. D.
677
L. T. 744 ; 33 W. R. 770
602
Ailesbury-B. PattiBon (1778), 1 Doug. 28
Akers V. Howard (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 739 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 273
637,663
54 L. T. 651 ; 34 W. R. 609 ; 50 J. P. 519
44
Alabama Arbitration (1872), London Gazette, Sep. 20, p. 4135

Adey

d.

Trinity

House

W.

Albon

V.

Pyke

(1842),

4 M.

&

& G.

421

2 Scott N. R. 241

11

239
681
Alderson 1). PaUiser (1901), 70 L. J. K. B. 935
Alexander, He, [1892] 1 Q. B. 216 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 677 ; 66 L. T.
97
133; 40W.B. 202; 9M.B. R. 13
1 Lut. Reg. Ca. 404 ; 15
V. Newman (1846), 2 C. B. 141
74
L. J. C. P. 134; 10 Jur. 313 ; 69 R. R. 398
267
D. Vaughan (1776), 1 Cowp. 409
401
Alexander Larsen, The (1841), 1 W. Rob. 288
Alina, The (1880), 5 Ex. D. 227 ; 49 L. J. P. D. & A. 40 ; 42
6, 34, 244
L. T. 517 ; 29 W. R. 94
AUcroft V. London (Bp.), [1891] A. C. 666 61 L. J. Q. B. 62 ;
432
65 L. T. 92 ; 55 J. P. 773
Allen V. Flicker (1839), 10 A. & E. 640 ; 9 L. J. Q. B. 42 4
283,545
P. & D. 735 ; 3 Jur. 1029
130
V. Gold Reefs Synd., [1900] 1 Ch. 656 ; 69 L. J. Ch 266
474
V. Small, [1904] 2 L R. 705, Ir
V. Thompson (1870), L. R. 5 Q. B. 336 ; 39 L. J. M. C.
490
102; 22L. T. 472; 18W. R. 1196
AUiance Bank of Simla v. Carey (1880), 5 C. P. D. 429 ; 49
278
L. J. C. P. 781 ; 29 W. R. 306 ; 44 J. P. 735
AUkins V. Jupe (1877), L.R. 2 C. P. D.'375 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 824 ;
11
36L. T. 851
Allsopp V. Day (1862), 7 H. & N. 457 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 105 ; 8 Jur.
212
N. S. 41 ; 5 L. T. 320
Alma Spinning Co., Be (1881), 16 Ch. D. 681 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 167 ;
202
43 L. T. 620 ; 29 W. R. 133
..
..
Alresford v. Scott (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 210 50 L. J. M. C. 103
45L. T. 73; 29W.R. 741; 45J.P. 619
621
Alton Wood's Case (1600), 1 Rep. 47
282
Altrrncham Union Assesst. Com. v. Cheshire Lines Com. (1885),
15 Q. B. D. 597 ; 50 J. P. 85 ..
529
Amalia, The (1863), 1 Moo. P. C. N. S. 471 ; B. & L. 151
9 Jur. N. S. 1111 ; 12 W. R. 24 8 L. T. 679 ; 32 L. J. P. M.
&A. 191
257,272,277
Ambergate Ry. Co. v. Midland Ry. Co. (1853), 2 El. '& Bl. 793 ;
23L.J.Q. B. 17; 18Jur. 243..

307
Ambler v. Bradford Corporation, [1902] 2 Ch. 594
..
75
..
Amedie, The (1810), 1 Acton, 240
266
American Fur Co. v. U. 8. (1829), 2 Peters 367
464
L. J. C. P. 266

."

Digitized

by Microsoft

. .

TABLE OP CASES.

XI
PAGE

Amherst

Amos

;.

v. Sommers (1788), 2 T. R. 372 ; 1


Duflfy (1890), 6 T. L. R. 339, C.

R. R. 497

..

246
628

Ancketill v. Baylis (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 577 52 L. J. Q. B. 104


48 L. T. S142 ; 31 W. R. 233 ; 47 J. P. 356 1 Colt. 289
..
361
Andalusian, The (1878), 3 P. D. 182 ; 47 L. J. P. D.
A. 65 ;
39 L. T. 204 ; 27 W. R. 172
653
Anderson v. Anderson, [1895] 1 Q. B. 749 64 L. J. Q. B. 457 ;
72 L. T. 313 ; 43 W. R. 322
590
1). Bank of Columbia (1876), 2 Ch. D. 654
543
V. Hamlin (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 221; 59 L. J. M. C. 151
63
L. T. 168 54 J. P. 757
706,718
Anderson's Estate, i?e, [1916] P. 49
127
Andrew, J?e(1876), 1 Ch. D. 358 ; 45 L. J. Bank. 57 ; 33 L. T.
556 ; 24 W. R. 197
65
V. Handcock (1819), 1 B.
B. 37 3 Moore 278 21 R. R.
;

&

&

569
Anglo-Greek Steam Co., Be (1866), L. R. 2 Eq. 1 35 Bea. 399
Anna, The (1876), 1 P. D. 253 46 L. J. P. D. & A. 16 34 L. T.
895
Annapolis, The (1861), Lush. 295
Anon. (1464), Jenk. 120, 3rd Cent. Case 41
(1584), Skinn. 110
(1675), 1 Ventr. 267
;

622
592

(1703), 6 Mod. 27
(1774), Lofft. 465
Anstee v. Nelms (1856), 1

H. & N. 225 26 L. J. Ex. 5


R. R. 536 ..
..
Anstey v. Edwards (1855), 16 C. B. 212; 100 R. R. 700
Antelope, The (1825), 10 Wheat. 66
Antony V. Cardenham (1700), 2 Bott. 194
;

108

..

Apothecaries' Co. v. Jones, [1893] 1 Q. B. 89


67 L. T. 677 41
W.R. 267; 57 J. P. 56; 17 Cox C. C. 588
Appleby ^;. Myers (1867), L. R. 1 0. P. 615 L. R. 2 C. P. 651
36 L. J. C. P. 331 ; 16 L. T. 669
Archer v. James (1862), 2 B. & S. 61 10 W. R. 565 31 L. J.
Q. B. 153
8,
Argos, Cargo ex (1873), L. R. 5 P. C. 134
Armagh Union Guardians v. Bell, [1900] 2 Ir. R. 371 ; Ir.
..
;

532
263
314
446
663
715
304
41
510
266
126

474

Armour

v.

Walker

L. T. 292

32

(1883), 25 Ch. D. 673

53 L. J. Ch. 413

501
244
632

50

W. R. 214

430

Lewis (1834), 2 C. & M. 274 4 M. & Scott 1


..
..
..
3L. J. Ex. 359; 41R. R. 10
..
Armytage iJ. Williamson or Wilkinson (1878), 3 App. Cas. 355
..
..
47 L. J. P. C. 31 38 L. T. 185 26 W. R. 559
Arnold V. Arnold (1837), 2 M. & Cr. 256 1 Jur. 255 39 R. R.

Armstrong

674

v.

693

222
V.

V.

Cheque Bank, Ltd. (1876), 45 L. J. C. P. 562


Dimsdale (1853), 2 E. & B. .580 22 L. J. M.
;

507

..

C. 161

..
;

270
201

17

644

Jur. 1157

Digitized

by Microsoft

XU

TABLE OF OASES.
PAGB

Arrow Shipping Co.

Tyiie Commiasioners, [1894] A. C. 508


A. 146 ; 71 L. T. 346, H. L

v.

356
63 L. J. P. D. &
..149
Arthuri;.Bokenham(1708), UMod. 150
Average Association, Se (1876), L. R. 10 Ch. 642 44 L. J.
51?
Ch. 569 32 L. T. 713 23 W. R. 939
,
244, 24o
Ascough's Case (1638), Cro. Car. 526
49,384,511
Ash V. Abdy (1678), 3 Swanst. 664
35 L. J. M. C. 159 14
V. Lynn (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 270
300
L. T. 224; 14W. R. 583; 7B. &S. 255
384
Ashbumham v. Bradshaw (1740), 2 Atk. 36
298
Ashbiirton, Lord v. Nocton, [1915] 1 Ch. 274, C. A
Ashbury &c. Co. v. Riche (1875), L. R. 7 H. L. 653 44 L. J.
577, 619, 620, 671
Ex: 186; 33 L. T. 451, H. L
..
..
714
Ashby V. White (1703), 1 Sm. L. C. (12th ed.) 266
Ashdown v. Curtis (1862), 31 L. J. M. C. 216 8 Jur. N. S. 511
677
6 L. T. 331
10 W. R. 667
736
..
Ashford v. Thornton (1818), 1 B. <S; Aid. 405 19 R. R. 349
Ashton-under-Lyne v. Pugh, [1898] 1 Q. B. 45 67 L. J. Q. B.
..
314
..
32; 77L. T. 583; 46 W. R. 100; 61J. P. 788
Asiatic Petroleum Co. v. Lennard's Carrying Co., [1914] 1 K. B.
..
276,677
..
419, C. A
Aspinall v. Sutton, [1894] 2 Q. B. 349 63 L. J. M. C. 205 58
6o6
J. P. 622
391
Athlumney, iJe, [1898] 2 Q. B. 551
Atkins V. Kilby (1840), 11 A. & E. 777 9 L. J. M. 0. 52 52
679
R. R. 503..
Atkinson, Re (1882), 21 Ch. D. 100 51 L. J. Ch. 452 46 L. T.
270
850 30 W. R. 562
59 L. J.
V. Bradford Bldg. Soc. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 377
454
Q. B. 360; 62L. T. 857; 38W. R. 630
46 L. J.
V. Newcastle Waterworks Co. (1877), 2 Ex. D. 441
715,721,722
..
Ex. 775 36 L. T. 761 25 W. R. 794
28 L. J. M. C. 12
V. Sellers (1859), 5 C. B. N. S. 442
121
5 Jur. N. S. 21 116 R. R. 720
Attorney-General v. Alexander (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. 20 44 L. J.
119
Ex. 3 31 L. T. 694 23 W. R. 255
244
1). Allgood (1743), Parker 3
107
V. Bailey (1847), 1 Ex. 281
17 L. J. Ex. 9 74 R. R. 672
V. Barker (1872), L R. 7 Ex. 177
41 L. J. Ex. 57 26 L. T.
249
34; 20 W. R. 509
24 W. R. 817
709
V. Basingstoke (1876), 45 L. J. Ch. 726
..
V. Bradbury (1851), 7 Ex. 97
21 L. J. Ex. 12 16 Jur. 130 507
54 L. J. Q. B. 205;
V. Bradlaugh (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 667
52 L. T. 589; 33 W. R. 673
568, 708
V. Brecon (1878), 10 Ch. D. 204; 48 L. J. Ch. 153
40 L.T.
626
52; 27 W. R. 332
u. Bristol (1820), 2 Jac. & W. 321
533
22 R. R. 136 ..
..
22 W. R. 37
530
V. Cambridge (1873), L. R. 6 H. L. 303
41 L. J. Ch.
v.- Campbell (1872), L. R.
5 H. L. 524
611; 21W. R. 34n
270
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Xlii
PAGE

Attorney-General . Capell (1686), 2 Show. 481


610
v. Chelsea Waterworks (1731), Fitzg. 195
281
V. Conduit Colliery Co. (1894), 64 L. J. Q. B. 207, C. A. ..
59
V. Constable (1879), 4 Ex. D. 172 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 455
27
W. R. 661
249
V. Davies (1802), 9 Ves. 535
7 R. R. 295
216
V. Day (1794), 1 Ves. Sen. 221
454, 455
V. Donaldson (1842), 10 M. & W. 117
11 L. J. Ex. 338
62R. R. 540
244,248
V. Dorking (1882), 20 Oh. D. 595
51 L. J. Ch. 585
..
170
w. Dorin (1912), 81 L. J. Ch. 225
..
527
V. Edison Telephone Co.
(1881), 6 Q. B. D. 244 ; 50
L. J. Q. B. 145 43 L. T. 697 29 W. R. 428
..
..
140
w. EUis (1895). 64 L. J. Q. B. 813
508
V. Emerson (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 56
59 L. J. Q. B. 192 62
L. T. 21 ; 38 W. R. 102
232
V. Exeter Corp., [1911] 1 K. B. 1092 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 636
104 L. T. 212 ; 75 J. P. 280
150,324,706
. Forster (1805), 10 Ves. 338
532
V. Furness Ry. Co. (1878), 47 L. J. Ch. 776
38 L. T. 555 ;
26W. R. 650
529
B. 267
V.
508
, [1899] 2 Q.
v.a. E. Ry. Co. (1879), 11 Ch. D. 449; 48 L. J. Ch. 428
40L. T. 265
76,619
V.
L.
6 H. L. 367
(1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 475
41
L. J. Ch. 505
26. L. T. 749 ; 20 W. R. 599, H. L
328
V. Hackney Board (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 626
44 L. J. Ch.
545 ; 33 L. T. 244
360
V. HaUett (1857), 2 H. & N. 368 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 89
115
R. R. 594
97
69 L. J. Ch. 626 ; 82 L. T.
V. Hanwell, [1900] 2 Ch. 337
778 ; 48 W. R. 690
231
V. Hill (1836), 2 M. & W. 160 ; 6 L. J. Ex. 105 ;
46
R. R. 542
248
V. Hooper, [1893] 3 Ch. 483 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 18
69 L. T.
340; 57 J. P. 564
641
V. Horner (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 254 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 227 ; 33
W. R. 93 ; 49 J. P. 326
502
V. Jones (1863), 2 H. & C. 347
33 L. J. Ex. 249 ; 6 L. T.
655
532
V. Kwok-a-Sing (1873), L. R. 5 P. 0. 179 ; 42 L. J. P. C.
64 29 L. T. 114 ; 12 Cox C. C. 565, P. 0. .. 45, 123, 159, 255,
407, 468
47 L. J. Ex. 555 ; 38
V. Lamplough (1878), 3 Ex. D. 214
L. T. 87 ; 26 W. R. 323
68,728
V. Leicester Corp., [1910] 2 Ch. 359; 83 L. J. Ch. 21 ; 103
L. T. 214 ; 74 J. P. 385
231
V. Lewes Corp. (1911), 81 L J. Ch. 40
414
. Hloyd (1747), 3 Atk. 5.51
384
-^^

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

XIV

PAGB

Attorney-General v. Lockwood (1842), 9 M. & W. 378 10 Id.


464 6 Jur. 171
10, 140, 301, 333, 406, 479
V. L. & N. W. Ry. (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 216 ; 50 L. J. Q. B.
509
..
..
170 44 L. T. 236 29 W. K. 346 ; 45 J. P. 390
620
u. L.C.C. (1901), 70 L. J. Ch. 367, 0. A
47
50 L. J. Ch. 562
V. Manchester (1881), 18 Ch. iD. 609
V.
75 L. J. Ch. 330 ; 54 W. R. 307 ;
-, [1906] 1 Ch. 643
620
70J. P. 201
69 L. J. Ch. 331
V. Margate Pier Co., [1900] ] Ch. 749
75
82 L. T. 448 48 W. R. 518 64 J. P. 405
I). Mersey
Ry., [1907] lA. C. 415; 76 L. J. Ch. 568; 97
231,619
L. T. 524 71J. P. 449
42
V. Metrop. Ry. Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 384 ; 69 L. T. 811
628
W. R. 381 58 J. P. 342
15 Jur.
V. Napier (1851t, 6 Ex. 217 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 173
271
253; 86 R. R. 247
V. Newcastle-upon-Tyne and N. E. Ry. Co.
(1889), 23
620
Q. B. D. 492 58 L. J. Q. B. 558
740
u. Panter (1772), 6 Bro. P. C. 486
. Parker (1747), 3 Atk. 576
116,532
V. Pontypridd, [1906] 2 Ch. 257
75 L. J. Ch. 578 ; 95
231
L. T. 224 ; 70 J. P. 394 4 L. G. R. 791
V. Richmond (Duke), [1909] A. C. 466 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 1,
220
998 101 L. T. 241, H. L
. Saggers (1814), 1 Pri. 182
480
218
V. Seacombe (1911), 80 L. J. K. B. 913
1 Tyr. 41 35 R. R. 701
189
V. Siddon (1830), 1 Or. & J. 220
10 Jur. N. S. 262 33
V. Sillem (1863), 2 H. & C. 431
11 L. T. 223
..
..
L. J. Ex. 93 12 W. R. 257
43, 51
V.
(1864), 10 H. L. Cas. 704 ; 33 L. J. Ex. 209; 10
10 L. T. 434
Jur. N. S. 446
400, 519
62 L. J. Q. B. 288 ; 68 L. T.
V. Smith, [1893] 1 Q. B. 239
6 41 W. R. 245 57 J. P. 389
505
V. Southampton (1849), 17 Sim. 6 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 393
..
236
V. Theobald (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 557 ; 62 L. T. 768 ; 38
W. R. 527
395,400
. Tyndall (1764), Ambl. 614
215
u. Tynemouth Corp. (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 489
..
..
620
V. West Gloucestershire Water Co., [1909] 2 Ch. 338 ; 78
L. J. Ch. 746 101 L. T. 258 73 'J. P. 453
.
..
231
V. Westminster Chambers Association (1876), 1 Ex. D.
469 45 L. J. Ex. 886 ; 35 L. T. 224 24 W. R. 996
.. 4, 71
v. Weymouth (1743), Ambl. 22
74
Attorney-General of British Columbia v. Ostrum, [1904] A. C
144 73 L. J. P. C. 11 ; 89 L. T. 509 20 T. L. R, 64, P. C. 505
Attorney-General (Ontario) v. A.-G. Dominion of Canada
(1896), 65 L. J. P. C. 26
524
Attree v. Hawe (1878), 9 Oh. D. 337 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 863 ; 38 L, T.
..
733; 26W. R. 871
.,
216
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

XV
PAGE

A ttwater, Ux p.

27 46 L. J, Bank. 41; 35
206
...
..
..
...
8,298,543
Auckland, Lord v. Westminster Board of Works (1872), L. R.
7 Ch. 697 41 L. J. Ch. 723 26 L. T. 961 20 W. R. 845
58
Austen v. Howard (1816), 7 Taunt. 28, 327 ; 2 Marsh. 352
..
307
Austerberry v. Oldham Corp. (1885), 29 Ch. D. 750, C. A.
..
685
Austin . Bowley (1913), 108 L. T. 920
47
34 L. J. Q. B. 217 ; 11
V. Bunyard (1865), 6 B. & S. 687
Jur. N. S. 879 12 L. T. 452 13 W. R. 773
..
226, 351
V. Mills (1854), 9 Ex. 288
2 C. L. R. 411 1 23 L. J. Ex. 40
18 Jur. 16 96 R. R. 717
238
Avanzo v. Mudie (1854), 10 Ex. 203 102 R. R. 533
..
..
651
Avery v. Wood, [1891] 3 Ch. 115 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 75 65 L. T. 122
39 W.R, 577
..
..
543
Ayr Harbour Trustees v. Oswald (1883), 8 App. Cas. 623, H. L.
528, 633
L. T. 682

(1877), 5 Ch. D.

25

W. R.

B.
Backwell's Case (1683), 1 Vernon 152
427,428
Badcock V. Hunt (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 145 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 134
60 L. T. 314 ; 37 W. R. 205 ; 53 J. P. 340
98
Baddeley v. Earl Granville (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 423 ; 56 L. J. Q. B.
..
..
682
501 ; 57 L. T. 268 ; 38 W. R. 63 ; 51J. P. 822
Badische Anilin und Soda Pabrik v. Hickson, [1906] A. C. 427 ,
;

H.L
165
Bagg's Case (1616), 11 Rep. 99
639
Bagge V. Whitehead, [1892] 2 Q. B. 355 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 778
66 L. T. 815 ; 40 W. R. 472 56 J. P. 548
167, 188
Bailey v. Harris (1849), 12 Q. B. D. 905 ; 18 L. J. Q. B. 115
13 Jur. 341
107,699
V. Sweeting (1861), 9 C. B. N. S. 843 ; 30 L. J. C. P. 150
9W. R. 273
513
Baily v. De Crespigny (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 180 ; 38 L. J. Q. B.
..
..
..
..
687
98; 19 L. T. 681; 17 W.R. 494
Bainbridge v. Postmaster-General, [1906] 1 K. B. 186, C. A. ..
145
Baines v. Wormsley (1878), 47 L. J. Ch. 844 39 L. T. 85 ; 27
W.R. 36
429
Baird v. Tunbridge WeUs, [1894] 2 Q. B. 867 64 L. J. Q. B.
314
151 ; 71 L. T. 211 59 J. P. 36
..
Bake v. French, [1907] 2 Ch. 215 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 605
..
347
N. 219
Baker, Ee (1857), 2 H.
334
62 L. T. 817 ;
, Be (1890), 44 Ch. D. 262 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 661
436
38 W.R. 417
563
i;. Berkeley (1827), 3 C. & P. 32
702
u. Hedgecock (1888), 39 Ch. D. 520
193
u. Herd (1894), 58 J. P. 413
Balaghat Gold Co., Be, [1901] 2 K. B. 665; 70 L. J. K. B. 866 ;
617
85.L. T. 8; 49W. R..625
;

. .

&

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF

XVI

CASES.,
FAGE

Baldwin, Ei: p. (1858), 2 De G. & J, 230 ; 27 L. J. Bank. 17


112
4 Jur. N. S. 522
Ball, Ms p. (1882), 20 Ch. D. 670; 51 L. J. Ch. 911
47 L. T.
227
213 ; 30 W. R. 738
240
Balls t>. Attwood (1791), 1 H. Bl. 546
Bancroft v. Mitchell (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 549 36 L. J. Q. B.
100
..
257 16 L. T. 558 15 W. R. 1132 8 B. & S. 558 ..
Bane v. Methuen (1824), 2 Bing. 63 ; 9 Moore 161 ; 27 R. R. 546 624
Bank of Bengal v. Ramanahan Chetty (1916), L. R. 43 Ind.
135
App.48, P. C
Bank of England v. Anderson (1837), 3 Bing. N. C. 589, 666 ;
213,531
7 L. J. Ch. 265 44 R. R. 271
V. Vagliano, [1891] App. Cas. 107 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 145 ; 64
47, 109
L. T. 353 ; 39 W. R. 657, H. L.
Bank of N. S. Wales v. Piper, [1897] A. C. 383 66 L. J. P. C.
195
73; 76L. T. 572; 61J. P. 660, P. C
627
..
Bank of Scotland v. Stewart (1891), 28 Sc. L. R. 735, Sc.
277
Bank of U. S. D. Donnally (1834), 8 Peters 361
Bankes v. Small (1887), 36 Ch. D. 716 56 L. J. Ch. 832 ; 57
160
L. T. 292 35 W. R. 765
Bankruptcy Notice, Be A, [1895] 1 Q. B. 609 64 L. J. Q. B.
..
97
429 ; 43 W. R. 305 ; 72 L. T. 312 ; 2 Mans. 164 ..
Banks v. Hollingsworth, [1893] 1 Q. B. 443 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 239
171
68 L. T. 477 41 W. R. 225 57 J. P. 436
431
Barber V. Gamson (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 281
V. Waite (1834), 1 A. & E. 514 ; 3 N. & M. 611 ; 3 L.J. M. C.
98
101
Barclay, Exp. (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 567 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 449; 30
L. T. 479 ; 22 W. R. 608
174
u. Pearson (1893), 62 L. J. Ch. 636
..
199
Barker v. Edgar, [1898] A. C. 749; 67 L. J. P. C. 115 69 L. T.
151
315
V. Palmer (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 9 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 110
45
L. T. 480 ; 30 W. R. 59
656
Barkworth v. Young (1856), 4 Drew. 1 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 153 ; 3 ,Jur.
N. S. 34 ; 5 W. R. 156
512
Barlow v. Ross (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 381 59 L. J. Q. B. 183 62
L. T. 552 38 W. R. 372 ; 54 J. P. 660
123, 128
V. Teal (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 403; 54 L. J. Q. B. 400 ; 53
L.T. 52
543,604
V. Terrett, [1891] 2 Q. B. 107 ; 60 L. J. M. C. 104
65 L. T.
148 39 W. R. 640 55 J. P. 632
475
Barnacle v. Clark, [1900] 1 Q. B. 279 69 L. J. Q. B. 15 81 L. T.
484 48 W. R. 336 64 J. P. 87
496
Barnardo v. Ford, [1892] A. C. 326 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 728: 67
L. T. 1; 56 J. P. 629, H. L
..
371
Barnes u Ackroyd (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 474; 41 L. J. M. C. 110;
26 L. T. 692 ; 20 W. R. 671
137,189
V. Glenton, [1899] 1 Q. B. 885
68 L. J. Q. B. 502 8 L. T.
606 47 W. R. 435
303
;

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Xvii
PACE

Barnes v. Shore (1846), 8 Q. B. 640 15 L. J. Q. B. 296 10 Jur.


688
Barraclough v. Brown, [1897] A. C. 615 66 L. J. Q. B. 672
;

161

243, 550
Barrack v. McCuUooh (1857), 26 L. J. Ch. 105 3 Kay & J. 110
146
3 Jur. N. S. 180 112 B. R. 60
Barrow, JSi). (1797), 3 Ves.Jun. 554
153
V. Wadkin (1858), 24 Beav. 327; 27 L. J. Ch. 129; 116
R. R. 1
76
Bartlett v. Kirwood (1853), 2 E. & B. 771 2 C. L. R. 253
23
642
L. J. Q. B. 9 ; 18 Jur. 173
v. Vinor (1692), Carth. 252
688,690
Barton v. Piggott (1874), L. R. 10 Q. B. 86 44 L. J. M. C. 5
31 L. T. 404 23 W. R. 233
230, 426, 691
V. Port Jackson Co. (1853), 17 Barbour N. York R. 397 ..
698
V. Taylor (1886), 11 App. Cas. 203
632
55 L. J. P. C. 1
Barton Regis v. Liverpool (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 295 47 L. J. M. C.
38C
62; 37 L. T. 713; 26 W. R. 382
Barwick v. English J. S. Bank (1867), L. R. 2 Ex. 259 36 L. J.
138
Ex. 147 16 L. T. 461 15 W. B. 877
Bastable v.. Little, [1907] 1 K. B. 59 ; 76 L. J. K. B. 77 96 L. T.
489
115; 71 J. P. 52; 5 L. G. R. 279
Bateman and Parker, Re, [1899] 1 Ch. 599 68 L. J. Ch. 330 80
125
L. T. 469 47 W. R. 516
63 J. P. 345
V. Mid Wales Ry. Co. (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 499
35 L. J. C. P.
632
205; 12 Jur. N. S. 453 14 W. R. 672
V. Service (1881), 6 App. Cas. 386
50 L. J. P. C. 41
..
267
Bates V. Bates (1888), 14 P. D. 17 58 L. J. P. 85 60 L. T. 125
37W. R. 230
100,101
V. Winstanley (1815), 4 M. & S. 429
293
Bath V. Berwick, [1892] 1 Q. B. 731 61 L. J. M. C. 136 66 L. T.
258 40 W. R. 414 56 J. P. 296
383
Bathishill v. Reed (1856), 18 C. B. 696; 25 L. J. C. P. 290; 107
R. R. 465
611
Batt V. Metropolitan Water Board, [1911] 2 K. B. 966 ..
393
..
V. Price (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 264
45 L. J. Q. B. 170 ; 33 L. T.
711
808 24 W. R. 318
Battersby v. Kirk (1835), 1 Hodges 451 2 Bing. N. C. 584 3
Scott 11 5 L. J. C. P. 166
80
Battersea Vestry v. Provincial Electric Co., [1899] 1 Ch. 474 68
L. J. Ch. 238 80 L. T. 31
170
Batthyany V. Boiich (1881), 50 L. J. Q.< B. 421
569
Battye v. Gresley (1807), 8 East 319
645
Baum, Be (1878), 7 Ch. D. 719 47 L. J. Bank. 48 38 L. T. 367
228
26W. R. 568
..
;

Baumann v. James
W. B. 877
Baxendale

(1868), L.

R. 3 Ch. 508

18 L. T. 424

16
41

G. E. Ry. Co. (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 244


Q. B. 137 17 W. R. 412
v.

Digitized

by Microsoft

38 L.

J.

36?

XVIU

TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE

Baxendale

Hart (1852), 6 Ex. 769 21 L. J. Ex. 123


126 86 R. R. 465
Baxter v. Langley (1868), L. R. 4 C. P. 21 38 L. J. M.
v.

16 Jur.

419

0. 1

19

L. T. 321 17 W. R. 254
575
Beal, Exp. (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 387 37 L. J. Q. B. 161; 18
L. T. 285.; 16 W. R. 852 9 B.
481,491
..
S. 395
..
V. Ford (1878), 3 C. P. D. 59
47 L. J. C. P. 56 37 L. T.
408 ; 26 W. R. 146 2 Hop.
116
C. 374
V. Town Clerk. of Exeter (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 300
57 L. J.
Q. B. 128 ; 58 L. T. 407 ; 36 W. R. 507 1 Fox 31
117
Beard v. Knight (1858), 8 B.
B. 865 27 L. J. Q. B. 359 4 Jur.
;

&

&

&

N.

S. 782

112 R. R. 810

553

Rowan

79
(1835), 9 Peters 317
Beardsley v. Giddinga, [1904] 1 K. B. 847 73 L. J. K. B. 378 ;
90 L. T. 651 ; 53 W. R. 78 20 T. L. R. 315 68 J. P. 222
101
Beaufort v. Swansea (Mayor) (1849), 3 Ex. 413 67 R. R. 677
541
Beoke v. Smith (1836), 2 M.
W. 191 6 L. J. Ex. 54 ; 46 R. R.
567
4, 406, 411
Beckett v. Midland Ry. Co. (1867), L. R. 3 C. P. 94 36 L. J. C. P.
40 ; 15 L. T. 572 15 W. R. 404
172,724
V. Tower Assets Co., [1891] 1 Q. B. 638
60 L. J. Q. B. 493
55 J. P. 438; 64L. T. 497; 39 W. R. 438 ..
..
211
..
Beckford v. Hood (1798), 7 T. R. 620 4 R. R. 527
..
..
716
V. Wade (1805), 17 Ves. 91
11 R. R. 20
157
Beckham ?;. Drake (1841), 2 H. L. 579 11 M.
W. 315 12 L. J.
..

&

&

Ex. 486

13 Jur. 921 ; 81 R. R. 301


Beckwith j;. Talbot (1877), 5 Otto 289
Beddow v. Beddow (1878), 9 Oh. D. 89 47 L. J. Ch. 558 ; 26 W. R.
570
Bedo . Sanderson (1617), Cro. Jac. 440
Beds V. St. Paul (1852), 7 Ex. 650 21 L. J. M. C. 224 86 R. R.
777
Beer v. London and Paris Hotel Co. (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 412 32
L. T. 715
:
..
..
..
..
Beeston v. Beeston (1875), 1 Ex. D. 13 ; 45 L. J. Ex. 230 33 L. T.
700; 24W. R. 96
Behn v. Bumess (1861), 3 B. & S. 751 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 207 ; 8
L. T. 207 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 620
Belasco v. Hannant (1862), 3 B. & S. 13 31 L. J. M. C. 225 ; 9
Cox C. C. 203 10 W. R. 867 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 1226 ..
..
Bell 1^. BUton (1828), 4 Bing. 615
V. Crane (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 481
42 L. J. M. C. 122 29
L. T. 207; 21 W. R. 911
V. Dudley (Earl), [1895] 1 Ch. 182 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 291
72
L. T. 14 43 W. R. 122
..
v.
Debenham
Bellamy
(1890), 45 Ch. D. 481 ; 63 L. T. 220
V. Hoyle (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. 220 ; 44 L. J. Ex. 169 : 33
L. T. 21 ; 23 W. R. 754
V. SauU (1863), 4 B. & S. 265 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 366 ; 8 L. T.
534; 11 W. R. 800
;

349
512

151
210

247

511

694

42

81
395

438

Digitized

by Microsoft

627
612

625
668

TABLE OP CASES.

XIX
PAGE

&ij. (1887), 20 Q. B.D. 1


Hakes (1890), 15 App. Cas. 506

51

Bell-Cox,
V.

L. T. 392

39

W. R.

145

60 L. J. Q. B. 89 ; 63
54 J. P. 820 ; 17 Cox C. C. 158
;

49,

446
V. Busby, [1899] 2 Q. B. 380
68 L. J. Q. B. 859 ; 81
L. T. 196 47 W. R. 636 63 J. P. 709
600
Bence, Be, [1891] 3 Ch. 242 60 L. J. Ch. 636 65 L. T. 530 .. 559
Beneficed Clerk v. Lee, [1897] A. C. 226 ; 66 L. J. P. C. 8 ; 75
489
L..T. 461
Benfieldside Local Board v. Consett Iron Co. (1878), 3 Ex. D. 54
59
47 L. J. Ex. 491 ; 26 W. R. 114 38 L. T. 530
..
Benjamin v. Storr (1874), L. R. 9 0. P. 400 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 162
724
30 L. T. 362 22 W. R. 631
Bennett v. Atkins (1879), 4 C. P. D. 80 48 L. J. C. P. 95 40
684
L. T. 66 27 W. R. 231
V. Brumfitt (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 28 ; 37 L. J. C. P. 25
17
L. T. 213 ; 16 W. B. 131 1 H. & P. 407
70
V. Daniel (1830), 10 B.
C. 500
378, 567
;;. Edwards (1839), 7 B.
C. 586 7 L. J. M. C. 49 ; 8 Id.
..
145,494
71 1 M. & R. 482 6 Ring. 230 31 R. R. 403
. Tatton, [1918] W. N. 291
728,732

Belton

&
&

153
Watson(1814), 3M. &S. 1
696
24 R. R. 401
v. Bignold (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 335
Bent V. Roberts (1878), 3 Ex. D. 66; 47 L. J. Ex. 112 37 L. T.
120
673 26 W. R. 128
Bentham v. Hoyle (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 289 47 L. J. M. C. 51 37
523
L. T. 753; 26 W. R. 314
74, 82
Bentley v. Rotherhani (1876), 4 Ch. D. 588 46 L. J. Ch. 284
42
Bentson I'. Taylor, [1893] 2 Q. B. 274
Benwell, Ex p. (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 301 54 L. J. Q. B. 53 51
577
L. T. 677 33 W. R. 242
Beresford-Hope v. Sandhurst (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 79 58 L. J. Q. B.
..
153, 155
316 61 L. T. 150 37 W. R..548 53 J. P. 805
Berkeley w.Elderkin (1853), 1 El. & Bl. 805 22 L. J. Q. B. 281
238
l7Jur. 1153
54 L. J. M. C. 57 52
V. Thompson (1884), 10 App. Cas. 45
259
L. T. 1 33 W. B. 525 49 J. P. 276
Berkeley Peerage (1861), 4 H. L. Cas. 21 8 Jur. N. S. 21 4 L. T.
369
686 4 Camp. 419, H. L
449
Berwick ;. Andrews (1703), 2 Ld. Raym. 971
23 L. J. Q. B. 321 1 Jur.
V. Oswald (1853), 3 E. & B. 678
N. S. 395 5 H. L. Cas. 856 25 L. J. Q. B. 383 2 Jur. N. S.
686
743 101 R. R. 416 H. L
Bessey v. Windham (1844), 6 Q. B. 166 14 L. J. Q. B. 7 66
376
R. R. 336
683
Best, Exp. (1881), 18 Ch. D. 488 45 L. T. 95
V. Pembroke (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 363; 42 L. J. Q. B. 212;
65
29 L. T. 327 21 W. R. 919
Beta, The (1869), 3 Moo. P. C. N. S. 23 38 L. J. P. M. & A. 76
416
12 L. T. 1
a;.

Bensley

Digitized

by Microsoft

XX

TABLE OP OASESPABE

Betham

i;.

Gregg

(1834), 10 Bing. 352

3 L. J. C. P. 121

4 M.

&

Scott, 230; 38 R. R. 449


Betts V. Armstead (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 771 57 L. J. M. C. 100 58
L. T. 811; 36 W. R. 720; 52 J. P. 471
V. Stevens, [1910] 1 K. B. 1 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 17 ; 101 L. T.
564; 73 J. P. 486
Beven v. Welsbach Incandescent Gas Light Co., [1902] 20 R. P. C.
69
Bidden V. Leeder (1823), 1 B. & C. 327
Biddulph V. St. George's Vestry (1864), 33 L. J. Ch. 411 9 Jur.
N. S. 434; 8 L. T. 44 ; 11 W. R. 524
Biffin V. Yorke (1843), 5 M. & Gr. 428 12 L. J. C. P. 162 6 Scott

381

N. R. 234; 63R. R. 337


Biggar v. Eastwood (1886), 19 L. R. Ir. 65, Ir
Biggs V. Mitchell (1862), 2 B. & S. 523 31 L. J. M. C. 163 8 Jur.
N. S. 817; 6 L. T. 242; 10 W. R. 559
Bill V. Bament (1841), 9 M. & W. 36
11 L. J. Ex. 81 ; 60 R. R.
658
Billings t;. Prinn (1775) 2 W. Bl. 1017
34 L. J. Q. B. 68 11 Jur.
Bills V. Smith (1865), 6 B. & S. 314
N. S. 154; 12 L. T. 22 13 W. B. 407
Binns v. Hey (1843), 1 D. & L. 661 ; 13 L. J. Q. B. 28 7 Jur.
1154
Binstead, Be, [1893] 1 Q. B. 199 62 L. J. Q. B. 207
68 L. T.
31 41 W. R. 452 9 M. B. R. 319
Birch ?). Lake (1674), 1 Mod. 185
Birchall v. Bullough, [1896] 1 Q. B. 325 65 L. J. Q. B. 252 74
L. T. 27 ; 44 W. R. 300
Bird V. Adcock (1878), 47 L. J. M. C. 123 26 W. R. 634
328,
V. Davey, [1891] 1 Q. B. 29
63 L. T. 741 60 L. J. Q. B. 8
39W. R. 40
Birkenhead Docks v. Laird (1853), 4 De G. M. & G. 732 ; 23
L. J. Ch. 457 ; 18 Jur. 883
Birkmyr v. Darnell (1704), 1 Sm. L. C. 299
Birley v. Chorlton (1841), 3 Beav. 499 ; 52 R. R. 202
..
..
Birmingham?). Shaw (1849), 10 Q. B. 868 3 New Seas. Cas. 445
18 L. J. M. C. 89 13 Jur. 357 74 R. R. 523
..
..
Birnie u. Marshall (1876), 35 L. T. 373
Bishop i;. Bryant (1834), 6 C. & P. 484
V. Curtis (1852), 18 Q. B. S78
21 L. J. Q. B. 391 ; 17
Jur. 23 ; 88 R. R. 819
. Duffy (1894), 22 R. 192
Soo
Bishops, Case of (1606), 12 Rep. 7
Blackburn v. Parkinson (1858), 1 E. & E. 71 28 L. J. M. C. 7 ;
117R. R. 145
Blackburn (Mayor) v. Sanderson, [1902] 1 K. B. 794 71 L. J
K. B. 590 86 L. T. 304 66 J. P. 452
Blackmore v. Mile End Vestry (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 451 51
L. J.Q. B.496; 46L. T. 869; 30W. R. 740
..
..

7,8

186

489
593
702

227

215

581

512
045

214

97
291

204
734

402

16

328
273
2.36

341
646
679

156
121
727

240

348

Digitized

by Microsoft

726

TABLE OF CASES.

XXI
PA.OS

Blackpool Motor Car Co., JSe, [1901] 1 Ch. 77


114
Blackwood v. R. (1882), 8 App. Cas. 81 ; 52 L. J. P. C. 10
48 L. T. 441 31 W. R. 645
57,271
52 L. J. Ch. 461 49
Blaiberg, Ex p. (1883), 23 Ch. D. 254
379
L. T. 16 ; 31 W. R. 906
41 L. T. 46 ; 28 W. R. 334 267
Blain, Ex p. (1879), 12 Ch. D. 512
582
Blake . AttersoU (1824), 2 B. & C. 875
Blakemore v. Glamorganshire Canal Co. (1832), 1 M. & K. 154
528
36R. R. 289
Blaker v. Tillstone, [1894] 1 Q. B. 345 63 L. J. M. C. 72 70
186
L. T. 31 ; 42 W. R. 253 58 J. P. 184
532
Blankley v. Winstanley (1789), 3 T. R. 279 ; 1 R. R. 704
..
Blithman, Be (1866), L. R. 2 Eq. 23 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 255 12
269
Jur. N. S. 84 ; 14 L. T. 6 35 Beav. 219
Bloxam v. Favre (1883), 9 P. D. 130 ; 53 L. J. P D. & A. 26;
268
50 L. T. 766 ; 32 W. R. 673
Bloxsome v. Williams (1824), 3 B. & C. 232 5 D. & R. 82
379,691
1 C. & P. 294 ; 27 R. R. 337
Blundell v. Gladstone (1841), 3 McN. & Gor. 692 12 L. J. Ch.
41
.
.
225
.
Blunt V. 'keslop (1838), 3 N."& P. 553; 7 L. J.Q. B. '216 ; 47
606
R. R. 664
Blyth V. Birmingham Waterworks (1856), 11 Ex. 781 ; 25 L. J. Ex.
628
212 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 333 105 R, R. 791
Boast V. Firth (1868), L. R. 4 C. P. 1 38 L. J. C. P. 1 19
674
L. T. 264 17 W. R. 29
118
Boddington, 5e, [1915] H. B. R. 183
209
Boldero w. Jackson (1809), 11 East, 612
466
Bolina, The(1812), lGallison75
Bolton V. Bolton (1876), 2 Ch. D. 217 ; 34 L. T. 123 24 W. R.
681
426
348
Bolton Corporation v. Scott (1913), 77 J. P. 193, C. A
Bonaker v. Evans (1850), 16 Q. B. 163 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 137 ; 15
642
Jur. 460 ; 83 R. R. 409
672
..
Bonar v. MitcheU (1850), 5 Ex. 415 19 L. J. Ex. 302 ..
Bond V. Bond (1860), 29 L. J. P. M. & A. 143 ; 2 S. & T. 93 8
261
W. R. 630
67 L. J. M. C. 105 59
V. Evans (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 249
191, 192, 490
..
36 W. R. 767 ; 52 J. P. 612
L. T. 411
455
. Hopkins (1802), 1 Sch. & Lef. 433
V. Rosling (1860), 1 B. & S. 371 ; 30 L. J. Q. B. 227 ; 4 L. T.
569
442; 9W. B. 746
40 L. J. 0. P. 47
V. St. George's (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 314
..
117
..
23 L. T. 494 ; 19 W. R. 101 1 Hop. & C. 427
Bonella v. Twickenham Bd. (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 63 57 L. J. M. C.
366
1; 58L. T. 299; 36W. R. 50; 52J.P. 356
560
Bones ?;. Booth (1778), 2 W. Bl. 1226
..
1.50, 272, 459, 461
Bonham's Case (1609), 8 Rep. 118a
Bonner v. G. W. R. (1883), 24 Ch. D. 1 ; 48 L. T 619 32 W. R.
526
190 ; 47 J. P. 580
;

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

XXll

PAGE

Jenkins (1878), 8 Ch. D. 70 47 L. J. Ch. 758


38 L. T. 81 26 W. R. 294
Bonomi v. Backhouse (1856), 9 H. L. 503 E. B. & E. 622 27
L. J. Q. B. 378 28 Id. 380 34 Id. 181 7 Jur. N. S. 809
9 W. R. 769 113 R. R. 799
Boodle V. Davis (1853), 8 Ex. 351 22 L. J. Ex. 69
Boon V. Howard (1874), L. R. 9 0. P. 277 43 L. J. C. P. 115
357,
29 L. T. 382 22 W. R. 535 2 Hop. & C. 208
Booth V. Bank of England (1840), 7 CI. & F. 509 ; 2 Scott N. R.
..
701 6 Bing. N. C. 415 4 Jur. 762 44 R. R. 272
20
V. Olive (1851), 10 0. B. 827
2 L. M. & P. 283
L. J. 0. P. 151 15 Jur. 563
u. Ibbotson (1827), 1 Yo. & J. 360
V. Trail (1883), 12 Q. B. D. 8
53 L. J. Q. B. 24 49 L. T.
471- 32 W. R. 122
..
..
..
Boothroyd, i?e"(1846), 15 m! & W. 1 15 L. J.' M. 0. 57 io

Bonnewell

v..

. .

. .

12
402

512

447
213

414
531

711

446

Jur. 117

&

M. 419 ; 13
(1843), 5 Q. B. 310 D.
669
L. J. Q. B. 93 8 Jur. 242 64 R. R. 504
Bosley v. Davies (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 84 45 L. J. M. 0. 27 ; 33
191, ,351, 565
L. T. 528; 24 W. R. 140
Bostock V. N. Staffordshire Ry. Co. (1852), 3 Sra,
G. 283 ; 25
526
..
L. J. Ch. 325 3 Jur. N. S. 245 ; 107 R. R. 89

V. Ramsey U. D. C, [ISOO] 2 Q. B. 616


69 L. J. Q. B. 945
..
359
83 L. T. 358 ; 64 J. P. 660 ; 16 Times R. 520
..
Bottoraley v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1916), 84
210
L. J. K. B. 354, D. C
Bottomley's Case (1881), 16 Ch. D. 681 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 167 43
654
L. T. 620 29 W. R. 133
Boucicault v. Chatterton (1877), 5 Ch. D. 275 46 L. J. Ch. 305 ;
35,L. T. 745 25 W. R. 287
99
Bound V. Lawrence, [1892] 1 Q. B. 226 61 L. J. M. C. 21
65 L. T. 844 40 W. R. 1 56 J. P. 118
585
Bourke i;. Nutt, [1894] 1 Q. B. 725
9
Bower D. Peate (1876), 45 L. J. Q. B. 446
633
Bowlby V. Bell (1846), 3 C. B. 284 4 Rly. Cas. 692 16 L. J. C. P.
18; 10 Jur. 669
575
Bowman v. Blyth (1857), 7 E. B. 26, 47 ; 26 L. J. M. C. 57 10
Jur. N. S. 359
167,649,664
Bows V. Fenwick (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 339 43 L. J. M. C. 107
30 L. T. 524 ; 22 W. R. 804
129,599
Bowyerw. Bampton(1741), 2 Stra. 1155,
372
Boyce v. Higgins (1854), 14 C. B. 1 23 L. J. C. P. 5 18 Jur.
Bosanquet

v.

Woodford

&

&

333
Boydell

v.

98 R. R. 510

Druramond

345
(1809), 11 East 142

2 Campb. 157

R.R.45Q

10

455,512

Boyle V. Smith, [1906] 1 K. B. 432


Brace v. Abercarn Colliery Co., [1891] 2 Q. B. 699
706; 40 W.R. 3; 56 J. P. 20
Bracy's Case (1696), 1 Salk. 348

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ill
;

60 L.

J. Q.

B.

564
465

TABLE OP CASES. ^

xxn
FAGE

Bradbury

v.

HoUen

(1872), L.

R. 8 Ex. 1

42 L. J. Ex. 28

27

L. T. 450
21 W. R. 126
350
Bradford Corporation ?;. Myeis, [1916] 1 A. C. 242, 11. L.
..
109
Bradford Union v. Wilts (1868), L. R. 3. Q. B. 604 37 L. J. M. C.
129 18 L. T. 514 ; 16 W. R. 1197
365
Bradlaugh, Exp. (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 509 47 L. J. M. C. 105 38
L. T. 680; 26W. R. 758
237
V. Clarke (1883), 8 App. Cas. 354
52 L. J. Q. B. 505 48
L. T. 681 47 J. P. 405
31 W. R. 677, H. L. 3, 4, 39, 68, 110,
453, 561, 706
Bradley v. Baylis (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 195 51 L. J. Q. B. 183 46
L. T. 253 30 W. R. 823
45 J. P. 847
1 Colt. 163
..
121
V. Greenwich Board of Works (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 384
47
L. J. M. C. Ill
38 L. T. 849 26 W. R. 693
,.
V. Newcastle (1854), 2 E. & B. 427
23 L. .J. Q. B. 35 95
R. R. 620
541
Bradshaw v. Lane. & York. Ry. Co. (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. 189
44 L. J. C. P. 148 31 L. T. 847
449
Brain?;. Thomas (1881), 50 L. J. Q.B. 662
714
BraU, Be, [1893] 2 Q. B. 381 62 L. J. Q. B. 457 69 L. T. 323
41 W. R. 623 10 M. B. R. 166
377, 568
Bramston v. Colchester (1856), 6 El. & Bl. 246 25 L. J. M. C.
S. 809
326
73 2 Jur.
106 R. R. 587
Brand v. Hammersmith Ry. Co. (1869), L. R. 4 H. L. 171
L. R. 2 Q. B. 241 38 L. J. Q. B. 265 21 L. T. 238 18
W.R. 12
368
Brandling v. Barrington (1827), 6 B. & C. 475
457
Brandon, Re (1884), 9 App. Cas. 589 53 L. J. P. C. 84
..
386
Brandon Hill, Ltd. v. Lamb, [1915] 1 K. B. 250 59 Sol. Jo. 75
118, 380, 703
Braneth v. Havering (1639), Duke on Charit. uses, p. 83
156
..
Brantom v. Griffits (1877), 1
P. D. 349 2 C. P. D. 212 46
L. J. C. P. 408 36 L. T. 4 29 W. R. 313
212
BranweU v. Penneck (1827), 7 B. & C. 536 1 M. & R. 409 .. 585
Bray v. Lancashire JJ. (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 484 58 L. J. M. C.
54 37 W. R. 392 53 J. P. 499
246, 247
482
Bread Co. v. Stubbs (1896), 74 L. T. 704
Brenan'a Case (1847), 10 Q. B. 492 11 Jur. 755 16 L. J. Q. B.
661
285 74 R. R. 409
Breslauer V. Brown (1878), 3 A. C. 689
158
Brett V. Brett (1826), 3 Add. 210
82
43
Breull, Ex p. (1880), 16 Ch. D. 484
50 L. J. Ch. 384
119
L. T. 580 29 W. R. 299
169
Brewer t. McGower (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 259
Brewster V. Kitchell (1698), 1 Salk. 198
685,686
Bridge v. Branch (1876), 1 C. P. D. 633 34 L. T. 905 ..
237, 553
V. Parsons (1863), 3 B. & S. 382
32 L. J. M. C. 95 9
474
Jur. N. S. 796 7 L. T. 784 11 W. R. 424
590
Bridgeman v. Fitzgerald (1881), 50 L. J. Ch. 9
;

..29

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

XXIV

63 L. J. Ch. 186
R. 179
15 R.
V. Richardson (1814), 2 M, & S. 568
54 L. J.
V. Savage (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 363
L. T. 129 33 W. R. 891 49 J. P. 725
Brierley Hill Local Board v. Pearsall (1884), 54
Bridger, Ee, [1894] 1 Ch. 297

70 L. T. 204

386
581

42W.

R. 355
Q. B., 464

53

692

L. J. Q. B. 25,

242
II. L
740
Brig Ann, The (1812), 1 Gallison, 62
Brigden v. Heighes (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 330 ; 45 L. J. M. C. 58 ; 34
221,350
L. T. 242 24 W. R. 272
Brighton Guardians v. Strand-Guardians, [1891] 2 Q. B. 156 60
55 J. P. 743 556
It. J. M. C. 105 ; 64 L. T. 722 ; 39 W. R. 581
Brighton Marine Co. v. Woodhouse, [1893] 2 Ch. 486 ; 62 L. J.
46
Ch. 697 68 L. T. 669 41 W. R. 488
Brighty v. Norton (1862), 3 B. & S. 305 32 L. J. Q. B. 38 ; 9
608
Jur. N. S. 495 7 L. T. 422 11 W. R. 167
576
Brindle, ^x^. (1887), 66L. T. 498
Bristol Aerated Bread Co. v. Maggs (1890), 44 Ch. D. 610 ; 59
L. J. Ch. 472 ; 62 L. T. 416 38 W. R. 574; 2 Meg. 150,
512
205
522
City, The (1901), 71 L. J. P. 5
342
Corporation v. Sinnett, [1918] 1 Ch. 62, C. A
Tramways Co. v. Fiat Motors, [1910] 2 K. B. 831 ; 79
..
48
L. J. K. B. 1109; 103L. T. 443; 26T. L. R. 629 ..
121
Bristow . Piper, [1915] 1 K. B. 271
Britain v. Rosaiter (1879), 11 Q. B. D. 128 48 L. J. Ex. 362 40
455
L. T. 240 27 W. R. 482
British Farmers, &c. Co., Be (1878), 48 L. J. Ch. 56 ; 38 L. T.
6
757; 26 W. R. 839
Insulated Wire Co. v. Prescot U. D. C, [1896] 2 Q. B. 463
671
..
64 L. J. Q. B. 811 73 L. T. 383 44 W. R. 224
..
Linen Co. . Drummond (1830), 10 B. & C. 903 34 R. R.
278
595
South Africa Co. v. De Beers Mines, [1910] 2 Ch. 502; 79
L. 'J. Ch. 345 ; 80 li. J. Ch. 65
103 L. T. 4 ; 54 S. J. Ii79
620
revsd., [1911] W. N. 245, H. L
Salicyclates, iJe, [1919]2Ch.l55
60
Britt V. Robinson (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 503
39 L. J. C. P. 265
23 L. T. 188 18 W. R. 866
495
Britton i;. Ward (1619), 2 Rol. 127
464
Broadbent v. Imperial Gas Co. (1867) 9 De G. M. & G. 436 26
L. J. Ch. 276 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 221
92
-^
V. Shepherd, [1901] 2 K. B. 274
70 L. J. K. B. 628 84
L. T. 844; 49 W. R. 521; 65 J. P. 499
655
Broadhead v. Holdsworth (1877), 2 Ex. D. 321 ; 46 L. J. M. C.
484
172; 36L. T. 320
Brockbank v. Whitehaven Ry. Co. (1847), 7 H. fc N. 834 31
L.J. Ex. 349
437
Brockelbank, Be (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 461 58 L. J. Q. B. 375
61 L. T. 543 37 W. R. 537 ; 6 M. B. R. 138
..
358, 421
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

XXV

v. Lawe (1857), 7 E. c& B. 176


26 L. J. Q. B. 107
3 Jur. N. S. 436
162
Brockwell v. Bullock (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 667 58 L. J. Q. B.
289 37 W. R. 455 53 J. P. 405
305
Brodie v. Chandos (1773), 1 Bro. C.C. 444 n
215
Bromley v. Holden (1828), Moo. & M. 175 ; 31 R.R. 727
714
Brook V. Brook (1858), 9 H. L. Gas. 193 27 L. J. Ch. 401 7
Jur. N. S. 422 9 W. R. 461 4 L. T. 93
..
256 261
V. Inland Revenue, [1896] 2 Q. B. 356
65 L. J. Q. B. 657
44W.R. 670
128
Brooke v. Shadgate (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 352 42 L. J. M. C. 98
29L. T. 90
168
Brooker v. Wood (1834), 5 B. & Ad. 1052 3 L. J. K. B. 96
3N. &M. 96
694
Brooks V. Bookett (1847), 9 Q. B. 847 16 L. J. Q. B. 178 11
Jur. 284
402
V. Cock (1835), 3 A. & E. 138
4 N. & M. 652 1 H. & W.
129 42 R. R. 348
651
u. Hamlyn (1899), 79 L. T. 734
288,646
c. Mason, [1902] 2 K. B. 743
72 L. J. K. B. 19
..
..
187
Jenkins & Co. v. Torquay, [1902] 1 K. B. 601 71 L. J. K. B.
109 85 L. T. 785 ; 66 J. P. 293
626, 671
Bros, Re, [1911] 1 K. B. 159; 80 L. J. K. B. 147
103 L. T. 728
74J. P. 483
150
Broughton v. Manchester Waterworks (1819), 3 B. & A. 1 22
R. R. 278
619
Brown, Re (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 545 47 L. J. M. C. 108 38 L. T.
682 26 W. R. 757
520
Re (1864), 5 B. & S. 280 33 L. J. Q. B. 193
165, 6.32
V. Duncan (1829), 10 B. & C. 93
5 M. & R. 114 39 R. R.
698
699
66 L. T. 649 56 J. P.
V. Foot (1892), 61 L. J. M. C. 110
581 17 Cox C. C. 509
190
46 L. J. M. C. 231
V. G. E. Ry. Co. (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 406
36 L. T. 767 25 W. R. 792
634
51 L. J. Q. B. 529;
V. G. W. Ry. Co. (1882), 9Q. B. D.744
47 L. T. 216 30 W. R. 671 46 J. P. 803 ..
.. 97, 281, 293
V. Holyhead Board (1863), 1 H. & C. 601 ; 32 L. J. Ex. 25
11 W. R. 71
7 L. T. 332
705
4 Moore .508
..
V. Howard (1820), 2 B. & B. 73
..
12
SOL. J. C. P.
V. London (Mayor) (1862), 9 C. B. N. S. 726
225 7 Jur. N. S. 755 3 L. T. 813 9 W. R. 336; & 13
C. B. N. S. 828 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 280 8 Jur. N. S. ll03
10
W. R. 522
687
& N. W. Ry. Co. (1863), 4 B. & S. 326; 32
-w. London
10 Jur. N. S. 234 11 W. R. 884 ..
L. J. Q. B. 218
119, 318
42 L. J. P. C. 18
V. McLachlan (1872), L. R. 4 P. C. 643
21 W. R. 277 9 Moo. P. C. N. S. 384
571
8 D. P. C. 852 4 Jur.
V. McMillan (1846), 7 M. <fc W. 196
1090
325

Brooklehurst

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

XXVI

PAGE

Brown

Patch, [1899] 1 Q. B. 892 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 588


716; 47 W. R. &23; 63 J. P. 421
..
..
v.

Shaw

80 L. T.

129,600

..

656, 677
Ex. D. 425
v.-Skirrow, [1902] P. 3; 71 L. J. P. D. & A. 19 ; 85 L. T.
14
645
V. Tombs, [1891] 1 Q. B. 253
60 L. J. Q. B. 38 ; 64 L. T.
139
114 ; 55 J. P. 359 1 Fox 196
487
Brown's Case (1799), 2 East P. C. 487
Browne w. La Trinidad (1887), 37 Ch. D. 1
655
Browning, Ex p. (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 583 ; 43 L. J. Bank. 129
30 L. T. 481 22 W. R. 638
702
Brownrigg v. Pike (1882), 51 L. J. P. 29
384
Brownscombe v. Johnson (1898), 78 L. T. 265 ; 62 J. P. 326 .. 523
Bruce, iJe (1832), 2 Or. & J. 436 ; 2 Tyr. 475
270
Brumfitt V. Bremner (1860), 9 C. B. N. S. 1 ; K. & G. 352 ; 30
L. J. C. P. 33 7 Jur. N. S. 371 3 L. T. 375
9 W. R. 144 660
V. Roberts (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 224 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 95 ; 22
L. T. 301 ; 18 W. R. 678 1 Hop. & C. 387
169, 674
Bruner I). Moore, [1904] 1 Ch. 305
43
Brunsfcill v. Watson (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 418
37 L. J. M. C.
103; 18L. T. 432; 16 W. R. 1009
515
Bruyeres v. Halcomb (1835), 3 A. & E. 381 4 L. J. K. B. 228
554
Bryan v. Child (1850), 5 Ex. 368 1 L. M. & P. 429 ; 19 L. J. Ex.
264 14 Jur. 510 82 R. R. 710
..
75, 79, 92, 377, 567
Buccleuch (Duke of) v. Metrop. B. of Works (1870), L. R. 5 Ex.
221 39 L. J. Ex. 130 23 L. T. 255 & L. R. 5 H. L. 418
41 L. J. Ex. 137 27 L. T. 1
538
Buokhurst Peerage, The (1881), 2 App. Cas. 1
704
Buckle V. Wrightson (1864), 5 B. & S. 854 ; 34 L. J. M. C. 43
11 Jur. N. S. 280 11 L. T. 341 13 W. R. 92
..
300
Bulkeley v. Schutz (1871), L. R. 3P. C. 764 6 Moo. P. C. N. S.
481
267,268
Bull V. Chapman (1853), 8 Ex. 444; 22 L. J. Ex. 257 91 R. R.
577
690
BuUi Coal-Mining Co. v. Osborne, [1899] A. C. 351 68 L. J. P. C.
49; 80L. T. 430; 47 W. R. 545
12
Bullivant v. A.-G. Victoria, [1901] A. C. 196 ; 70 L. J. K. B.
T.
50W.
R.
645; 84L.
IP. C...
737;
218
Bulteel & Colmore v. Trustee in Bankruptcy (1916), 32 T. L. R.
661
114
Bunny, Hx p. (1857), 1 De G. & J. 119; 26 L. J. Bank. 83;
3 Jur. N. S. 1141
612
Burbury v. Jackson, [1917] 1 K. B. 16
..
..
..
259
Burden, Be (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 24 57 L. J. Q. B. 570 59 L. T.
149; 36 W. R. 896; 5M. B. R. 166 ..
..
470
. Kennedy (1757), 3 Atk. 739
250
Burdett, 5e (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 310 57 L. J. Q. B.263 ; 58L T
708 ; 36 W. R. 345 ; 5 M. B. R. 32, C. A
702 703
Burge V. Ashley and Smith, [1900] 1 Q. B. 744 69 L. J Q B '
..
538; 82L. T. 518; 48 W. R..438
..
199
V.

(1876), 1

. .

....

Digitized

by Microsoft

'

TABLE OF CASES.

Xxvii
FACE

Burgess v. Wickham (1863), 3 B. & S. 698 33 L. J. Q. B. 17 ..


42
Burgess v. Clark (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 735 33 W. E. 269 49 J. P.
388
496
Burgess's Case (1880), 15 Ch. D. 507 49 L. J. Cli. 541 43 L. T.
45;28W. K. 792
876
Burkill V. Thomas, [1892] 1 Q. B. 312 61 L. J. Q. B. 322 66
L. T. 150 ; 40 W. R. 250
411
Burkinshaw V. Nicolls (1878), 3 A. C. 1004
6
BurUngv. Harley (1858), 3 H. & N. 271 27 L. J. Ex. 258 4
Jur. N. S. 789
414
Burn V. Carvalho (1834), 4 N. & M. 889 1 A. & E. 883
..
740
Burnby 1). BoUett (1848), 16 M. & W. 644 17 L. J. Ex. 190 11
Jur. 827
184
Burnett v. Berry, [1896] 1 Q.'B. 641 65 L. J. M. C. 118; 74
L. T. 494 44 W. R. 512
60 J. P. 375
523
Burnley, &c. Society v. Carson, [1891], 1 Q. B. 75
..
..194
Burns, The, [1907] P. 137
108,109
Bums V. Nowell (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 444; 49 L. J. Q. B. 468; 43
L. T. 342 29 W. R. 39 44 J. P. 828
385
Burton v. Henson (1842), 10 M. & W. 105 11 L. J. Ex. 348 62
R. R. 531
624
and Blinkhorn, Be, [1903] 2 K. B. 300 72 L. J. K. B.
752 89 L. T. 549 51 W. R. 668
437
Turnpike Trs. v. Wincanton Highway Board (1870), 39
L. J.M. C. 155
91
Bury V. Cherryholm (1876), 1 Ex. D. 457 35 L. T. 403
..
306
Busfield, Be (1886), 32 Ch. D. 123
55 L. J. Ch. 467 54 L. T.
220 34 W. R. 372
271,518
BusheU V. Hammond, [1904] 2 K. B. 563 73 L. J. K. B. 1005
91 L. T. 1 52 W. R. 453 68 J. P. 370
..
..
76, 77
Bustros V. White (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 423 45 L. J. Q. B. 642 34
L. T. 835
24 W. R. 721
543
Butcher v. Henderson (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 335 37 L. J. Q. B.
139 16 W. R. 855 9 B. & S. 403
730, 7.33
Bute V. Grindall (1786), 1 T. R. 338 2 H. Bl. 265 1 R. R. 220 247
Butterknowle Colliery Co. y. Bishop Auckland Socy., [1906] A. C.
627
305 75 L. J. Ch. 541 ; 94 L. T. 795 70 J. P. 361 ..
Butterley Co. v. New Hucknall Colliery Co., [1909] 1 Ch. 37
79 Id. 411 99 L. T.
[1910] A. C. 381 78 L. J. Ch. 63
818 102 L. T. 609 ; H. L
41
Buxton V. N. E. Ry. Co. (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 549 37 L. J. Q. B.
258 18 L. T. 795 16 W. R. 1124 9 B. & S. 824
..
720
41 L. J. Ex. 1, 173 26
V. Rust (1872), L. R. 7 Ex. 1, 279
..
513
L. T. 502 27 L. T. 210 20 W. R. 100, 1014
..
Byerley u. Prevost (1868) L. R. 6 C. P. 144
212
Byrne Exp. (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 310
702, 703
;

. .

C.

Cable V. Marks (1882), 52 L. J. Ch 107 47 L. T. 432 31 W. R. 221


Caistor v. N. Kelsey (1890), 59 L. J. M. C. 102; 62 L. T. 731 ..
.

Digitized

by Microsoft

131
365

XXVIU

TABLE OF CASES.
PAOB

384
359
50 R. R. 1
and Hebble Nav. Co. v. Pilling (1845), 14 M. & W. 76 3
525
Rly. Cas. 735 14 L. J. Ex. 223 9 Jur. 377 69 R. R. 660
Caldow V. Pixell (1877), 2 C. P. D. 562 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 541 36
L. T. 469 ; 25 W. R. 773
650,661
192
CaldweU . Bethell, [1913] 1 K. B. 119
Caledonian Ry. Co. v. N. Brit. Ry. Co. (1881), 6 App. Cas. 114
36
29 W. R. 685, H. L
V. "Walker's Trustees (1882), 7 App. Cas. 259 ; 46 L. T. 826 ;
172
30 W. R. 569 46 J. P. 676
Californian Fig Syrup Co., Be (1889), 40 Ch. D. 620 ; 58 L. J. Ch.
272
341; 60 L. T. 590; 37 W. R. 268
Calthorpe v. Treachraann, [1906] A. C. 24 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 92 ; 94
717
L. T. 68 54 W. R. 365
Cambridge Union v. Parr (1861), 10 C. B. N. S. 991 30 L. J. M. C.
67
241
Cameron v. Cameron (1834), 2 M. & K. 289 4 L. J. Ch. 28 ..
52
Caminada v. Hulton (1891), 60 L. J. M. C. 116 64 L. T. 572
210
39 W. R. 540 55 J. P. 727
Campbell, Ex p. (1871), L. R. 5 Ch. 703
23 L. T. 289 18
W. R. 1056
543
V. Im Thuru (1876), 1 C. P. D. 267
45 L. J. C. P. 482 35
L. T. 265 ; 24 W. R. 675
158
V. Strangeways (1877), 3 C. P. D. 105 ; 47 L. J. M. C. 6
37L. T. 672
610
Canada Shipping Co. v. British Shipowners' Mutual Protection
Society (1889), 58L. J. Q. B. 462
124, 517
Canada Sugar Refining Co. v. Reg., [1898] A. C. 735; 67
L. J. P. C. 126 79 L. T. 146
40
Canadian Pac. Ry. v. Parke, [1899] A. C. 535 ; 68 L. J. P. C. 89 ;
81 L. T. 127 48 W. R. 118
630
V. Roy, [1902] A. C. 220 ; 71 L. J. P. C. 51
86 L. T. 127 ;
SOW. R. 415
628,630
Candy v. Maugham (1844), 6 M. & Gr. 710 1 D. & L. 745 ; 7
Scott N. R. 401 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 17 7 Jur. 1040
..250
Oannan v. Abingdon, [1900] 2 Q. B. 66 69 L. J. Q. B. 517 ; 82
L. T. 382 ; 382 48 W. R. 470 ; 64 J. P. 504
..
595
..
Canterbury's (Archbp.) Case (1596), 2 Rep. 46b
601
Capel V. Child (1832), 2 Cr. & J. 558 1 L. J. Ex. 205 2 Tyr.
689; 37R. R. 761
642
Capson . Capson (1874), 43 L. J. Ch. 677
384
Cargo ea; Argos (1873), L. R. 5 P. C. 134
244
CarlJohann, The (1821), cited 1 Hagg. Adm. 113
..
..276
Carlton Illustrators v. Coleman, [19111 1 K. B. 771 ; 80 L. J. K. B.
..'
510; 104 L.T. 413
..
708,709
Carmania, The (1916), 32 T. L. R. 395
102
Carpue v. Lond. and Bright. Ry. Co. (1844), 5 Q. B, 747 ; D. & M.
608 3 Rly. Cas. 692; 13 L. J. Q. B. 133 ; 8 Jur. 464 90
R. R. 911
414

Calder

V.

Bull (1872), 3 Dallas 390


Halket (1840), 3 Moo, P. C. 28

Digitized

by Microsoft

'J^ABLE

OF CASES,

xxix
I'AGK

Carr W.Dougherty (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 371


201
V. Fowle, [1893] 1 Q. B. 251
62 L. J. Q. B. 177 ; 68 L. T.
123 ; 41 W. R. 365 ; 57 J. ?. 136
..
..
..
..
504
V. Fracis Times & Co., [1902] A. C. 176
264
V. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. (1864), 5 B. & S. 433, 941 ; 10 Jur.
N. S. 316; 33 L. J. Q. B. 63 ; 10 L. T. N. S. 265 ; 12 W. R.
127
82
Carron Iron Co. v, MacLaren (1855), 5 H. L. Cas. 459; 24
L. J. Ch. 620 ; 101 R. R. 229 ; H. L.
119
Carruthersu. Sydebotham (1815), 4 M. & 8. 77 ; 16 R. R. 392 ..
619
Carter v. Boehm (1766), 3 Burr. 1918 1 W. Bl. 593
..
454
..
-y. Murcot (1768), 4 Burr. 2163
180
V. Thomas, [1893] 1 Q. B. 673 ; 62 L. J. M. C. 104 ; 69 L. T.
436 ; 41 W. R. 510 ; 57 J. P. 438
630
and Kenderdine, Be, [1897] 1 Ch. 776 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 408 ;
44 W. R. 484 ; 76 L. T. 476
377,568
Caruthers, a; p. (1807), 9 East 44
291
Case V. Story (1869), L. R. 4 Ex. 319 ; 38 L. J. M. C. 115 20
L. T. 618 ; 17 W. R. 802
574
Casher v. Holmes (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 592 36 R. R. 680
..
601
Casswell v. Worth (1856), 5 El. & B. 849 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 121 2
Jur. N. S. 116 ; 103 R. R. 780
..
307
Castelli V. Groom (1852), 18 Q. B. 490 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 308 ; 16
Jur. 888
430,442
Castioni, Re, [1891] 1 Q. B. 149; 60 L. J. M. C. 22 ; 64 L. T.
344 ; 39 W. R. 202 ; 55 J. P. 328 ; 17 Cox C. C. 225
..
39
Castle, Be, [1917] 2 K. B. 725 ; 87 L. J. K. B. 753
203
Cates t). Knight (1789), 3 T. R. 442
..
..
238,240,556
Cathcart V. Hardy (1814), 2 M. & S. 534 ; 5 Taunt. 2
..
609
..
Catling V. King (1877), 5 Ch, D. 660 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 384 36 L. T.
514
526 ; 25 W. R. 550
..
26
Catlow i;. Catlow (1877), 2 C. P. D. 362
455
Caton v. Caton (1867), 35 L. J. Ch. 292
Cator V. Cator (1867), L. R. 2 H. L. 139
70
Cave V. Hastings (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 125 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 575; 45
512
L. T. 348
Cesena Sulphur Co. v. Nicholson (1876), 1 Ex. D. 428; 45
..
..
..
120
L. J. Ex. 821 35 L. T. 275 ; 25 W. R. 71
Chadwick v. Ball (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 855 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 396 ; 52
237, 238
L. T. 949 ..
..
V. Pearl Life Assrce. Co. [1905] 2 K. B. 507 ; 74 L. J, K. B.
500, 505
671 ; 93 L. T. 25 ; 54 W. R. 78
126
Challeston u. Parker, [1914] W. N. 200
54
Chamber Colliery Co. v. Rochdale Canal Co., [1895] A. 0. 564
510
Chamberlain v. Bradford (1901), 83 L. T. 518 ; 64 J. P. 806
V. King (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 474 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 273 ; 24
414
L. T. 736 ; 19 W. R. 931
V. West End and Crystal Pal. Ry, Co. (1863), 2 B. & S.
617 ; 32 L. J. Q. B 173 j 9 Jur. N. S. 1051 ; 8 L. T. l49
172
IJ W. R,472
;

'

. .

'

. .

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

XXX

TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE

Chamberlaine v. Chester and 'Birkenhead Ry. Co. (1848), 1 Ex.


716,718,723
370; 18 L. J. Ex.494 ..
237
Chambers v. Green (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 552 44 L. J. Ch. 600
33 L. J. Q. B.
V. Manchester Ry. Co. (1864), 5 B. & S. 588
523,655
268 10 Jur. N. S. 700
Champion v. Plummer (1805), 1 N. R. 252 5 Esp. 240 8 R. R.
513
..
..
..
795
..
74
Chancer. Adams (1696), ILd. Raym. 77
Chapman v. Chapman (1877), 4 Ch. D. 800 46 L. J. Ch. 104 .. 590
V. Milvain (1850), 5 Ex. 61
19 L. J. Ex. 228 1 L. M. &
294
P. 209 82 R. R. 564
V. Robinson (1858), 1 E. & B. 25
28 L. J. M. C. 30 5
344
Jur. N. S.434
V. Shepherd (1867), L. R. 2 0. P. 228
36 L. J. C. P. 113 ;
203
15 L. T. 477 15 W. R. 314
Chappell V. North, [1891] 2 Q. B. 252; 60 L. J. Q. B. 554 65
46
L. T. 23; 40W. R. 16
13
V. Purday (1843), 12 M. & W. 303
1 D. & L. 458
396
L.J. Ex. 7; 67 R. R. 357
Charles v. Blaokwell (1877), 2 C. P. D. 151 46 L. J. C. P. 368
135
36 L. T. 195 25 W. R. 472
513
Charlewood v. Bedford (Duke) (1738), 1 Atk. 497
..
..
Charlotta, The (1810), 1 Dods. 387
194
Charlton v. Hay (1875), 31 L. T. 437 23 W. R. 129
.:
717
Charrington v. Meatheringham (1837), 2 M. & W. 228 6 L. J.
Ex 23
729
Charters. Charter (1874), L."r. 7 H. L. 364 43'l. J. P. & M.
43
73
Chartered Bank of India v. Netherland S. N. Co. (1883), 10
Q. B. D. 521 52 L. J. Q. B. 220 48 L. T. 546 31 W. R.
445 47 J. P. 260
277,368
Chartered Merc. Bank v. Wilson (1878), 3 Ex. D. 106 47
L. J. Ex. 153 38 L. T. 254 26 W. R. 265
577, 578
Chasteauneuf v. Capeyron (1882), 7 App. Cas. 3 27 ; 51 L. J. P. C.
37 46 L. T. 65 4 Asp. M. C. 489
653
Chatterton v. Cave (1877), 2 C. P; D. 42 46 L. J. C. P. 97 35
L. T. 587 ; 25 W. R. 102 & 3 App. Cas. 483 ; 47 L. J. C. P.
545 38 L. T. 397 26 W. R. 498
350
w, Parker (1914), 78 J. P. 339
497
Chell v. Hall (1896), 12 T. L. R. 408
..
..
.,
..
704
Chelsea Vestry v. King (1865), 17 C. B. N. S. 625 34 L. J. M. C.
9 10 Jur. 1150 11 L. T. 419 13 W. R. 157
..
475
Waterworks v. Bowley (1851), 17 Q. B. 358 20 L. J. M. C.
482
85R.R.
520;
691
Cherry's Estate, i?e (1862), 31 L. J. Ch. 351
25
" Chic" IM.,Be, [1905] 2 Ch. 345-; 74 L. J. Oh. 597 93 L. T.
301 53W. R. 659
592
Chick ?;, Smith (1840), 8 D. P. C. 337 4 Jur. 86
..610
..
Child V. Hearn (1874), L. R. 9 Ex. 176 43 L. J. Ex. 100; 22
W.R. 864
603
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASKS.

XXXl
PA GE

Chillington Iron Co., Be (1885), 29 Ch. D. 159 ; 54 L. J. Ch.


624 52 L. T. 504 33 W. R. 442
Chilton V. London and Croydon R. Co. (1847), 16 M.
W. 212
16 L. J. Ex. 89 11 Jur. 149 73 R. R. 460
China, The (1868), 7 Wallace 53
Chinery, Exp. (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 342 53 L. J. Ch. 662 50
L. T. 342 ; 32 W. R. 469 1 M. B. R. 31
Ching V. Surrey C. C, [1910] 1 K. B. 736 78 L. J. K. B. 927
79 L. J. K. B. 481 ; 102 L. T. 414 74 J. P. 187 8 L. U. R.
;

&

155

526
619

477

369
Chinnery

634
v.

Evans

11 L. T. 68

13

H. L. Cas. 115

(1864), 11

W.

10 Jur. N. S. 855

R. 20

218

Doulton (1889), 22 Q. B. T>. 726 58 L. J. M. C.


133
60 L. T. 966 16 Cox C. C. 675 37 W. R. 749 53
J. P. 550
Cholmeley School v. Sewell (1894), 63 L. J. Q. B. 820 ..
..
Chorlton v. Lings (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 374; 38 L. J. C. P. 25
19 L. T. 534 17 W. R. 284 1 Hopw. & C. 1
..
.Christ's Hospital v. Hawes (1640), Duke on Charifc. Uses, p. 84
Chisholm

v.

189
412

Christie v. Cooper, [1900] 2 Q. B. 522 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 708 ; 83


L. T. 54; 49W. R. 46; 64 J. P. 692
Christophersen v. Lotinga (1864), 15 C. B. N. S. 809; 33
L. J. C. P. 121 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 180 9 L. T. 688 12 W. R.
;

155
156

191

410
24,141,447
272
Church u. Hubbard (1804), 2 Cranch 87
Churchill v. Crease (1828), 5 Bin^. 180 2 M. & P. 415
301, 728
Cigala's Settlement, Be (1878), 7 Ch. D. 351
47 L. J. Ch. 166
38L. T. 439
270
205
Citizen Insurance Co., Canada v. Parsons (1881), 7 A. C. 125 ..
Citizens Life Assurance Co. v. Brown, [1904] A. C. 423, P. C. ..
138
City & S. London Ry. v. London C. C. [1891] 2 Q. B. 513 60
L. J. M. C. 149 65 L. T. 362 40 W. R. 166 56 J. P. 6
285, 286
113
City of Westminster Council v. Watson, [1902] 2 K. B. 717
..
Clack V. Sainsbury (1852), 11 C. B. 695 21 L. J. C. P. 41 2
L. M. &P. 627
303,304
Clan Gordon^ The (1882), 7 P. D. 190 4 Asp. M. C. 513 46
L. T. 490 30 W. R. 691
619
Clapham v. Langton (1864), 5 B. & S. 729 34 L. J. Q. B. 46
10 L. T. 875 12 W. R. 1011
42
Clarence R. Co. v. G. N. of England R. Co. (1845), 13 M. & W.
706 3 Rly. Cas. 426 7 Jur. 55 3 G. & D. 389 4 Q. B.
627
46 12 L. J. Q. B. 145
Clark, Be, [1894] 2 Q. B. 393 63 L. J. Q. B. 806
70 L. T. 751
lManson207
349
V. Bury St. Edmunds (1857), 1 C. B. JST. S. 23
26 L. J. C. P.
120
12; 107 R. R. 561
. Denton (1830), 1 B. & A. 92
705
v: Gaskarth (1818), 8 Taunt. 431
2 Moore 491
20 R R.
587
516
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

XXXU

TABLE OF CASES.
PAGl.

Clark V. Molyneux (1877), 3 Q. B. D. 237 ; 47 L. J. Q. B. 230;


415
..
..
37 L. T. 694 26 W. R. 104 ; 14 Cox C. C. 10
52 L. T.
V. R. (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 92 ; 54 L. J. M. C. 66
474
136 J 33 W.R. 226; 49 J. P. 246
V. Wallond (1883), 52 L. J. Q. B. 321 ; 48 L. T. 762 ; 31
542
W. R. 551 ; 47 J. P. 551
Clarke v. Bradlaugh (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 63 51 L. J. Q. B. 1
610
46 L. T. 49; 30 W.R. 63; 46 J. P. 278
V. Crowder (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 638; 38 L. J. M. C. 118 ;
420
17W. R. 857
283,
V. Gant (1853), 8 Ex. 252; 22 L. J. Ex. 67; 17 Jur. 239
'
"
659
;

'

Powell (1833), 4 B. <& Ad. 846 1 N. & M. 492 2


64
L.J. K. B. 145
V. Roche (1877), 3 Q. B. B. 170; 47 L. J. Q. B. 147 ; 37
226,351
L.T. 633; 26 W.R. 112
694
Clay . Ray (1864), 17 C. B. N. S. 188
535
. Sudgrave (1700), 1 Salk. 33
Claydon v. Green (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 511 37 L. J. C. P. 226
74,76
18 L. T. 607 16 W. R. 1126
609
Clayton's Case (1585), 5 Rep. 1 b
Clegg . Earby Gas Co., [1896] IQ. B. 592 65 L. J. Q. B. 339;
723
44W. R. 606
Clelland v. Ker (1843), 6 Ir. Eq. Rep. 35 affirmed 6 Ir. Eq. Rep.
282
288 Ir
Clementson v. Mason (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. 217 44 L. J. C. P.
22
171; 32 L. T. 325; 23 W.R. 620
Clerke v. St. Helen's Corporation (1916), 85 L. J. K. B. 17,
V.

C.

414

Clerkenwell Vestry v. Peary (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 703; 59


641
L. J. M.C. 82; 62 L.T. 697; 54 J. P. 676
Cliflford V. Watts (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 577
40 L. J. C. P. 36 ;
22 L. T. 717 ; 18 W. R. 925
674
Climpson v. Coles (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 465 58 L. J. Q. B. 346 ;
61 L. T. 116 ; 38 W. R. 110
173
Clippens Oil Co. v. Edinburgh Water Trustees, [1904] A. C. 64
73 L. .T. P. C. 32 ; 89 L. T. 589
627
Cliquot's Champagne (1865), 3 Wallace 114
509
Cloete V. R. (1854), 8 Moo. P. C. 484, P. C
87
Clothier v. Webster (1862), 12 C. B. N. S. 750 ; 31 L. J. C. P.
216 ; 10 W. R. 624
173,630
;

V. Harper (1878), 3 Ex. D. 198 ; 47 L. J. Ex. 393 ; 38 L. T.


269 ; 26 W. R. 364
Clowes V. Staffordshire Potteries (1872), L. R. 8 Ch. 125 ; 42
L. J. Oh. 107 ; 27 L. T. 521 21 W. R. 32
Clyde Navigation v. Barclay (1877), 1 App. Cas. 790
..
..
V. Laird (1883), 8 App. Cas. 658
..
..
131, 538, 539,
Coalheavers' Case (1768), 1 Leach 66
Coatsworth -e. Johnson (1886), 55 L. J. Q. B. 220
,.
..

Clow

Digitized

by Microsoft

538

529
517
540
616
569

TABLE OF

CASES.

xxxiii
PAGE

Cobb,

Ex

p. (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 727

42 L. J. Bank.

6.3

29

21 W. R. 777
Mid-Wales R. Co. (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 342 35 L. J. Q. B.
117 12 Jur. N. S. 228 14 W. R. 775
Gobbett V. Grey (1850), 19 L. J. Ex. 137 4 Ex. 729
..
..
Cooh V. AUoook (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 1 57 L. J. Q. B. 489
..
L. T. 123

V.

228

510
736
430

Cochrane v. Entwistle (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 116 59 L. J. Q. B.


418 62 L. T. 852 38 W. R. 587
703
V. Matthews (1879), 10 Ch. D. 80 n
212
Cockerell w. Dickens (1840), 3 Moo. P. C. 133
269
Cocking V. Ward (1845), 1 C. B. 858 15 L. J. C. P. 245 68 R. R.
831
455
Codd ;. Cabe (1876), 1 Ex. D. 352, C. A
232
Coe V. Lawrance (1853), 1 El. & Bl. 516 22 L. J. Q. B. 140 17
Jur. 1115
10
Coggins w. Bennett (1877), 2 C. P. D. 568
611,612
Cohen, Exp. (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 20 41 L. J. Bank. 17 25
L. T. 473 20 W. R. 69
225
V. Arthurs (1912), 56 Sol. Jo. 344
47
V. Kittell (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 680
58 L. J. Q. B. 241 60
L. T. 932 37 W. R. 400 53 .1. P. 469
692
59 L. J. Q. B. 409
V. Mitchell (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 262
349
63 L. T. 206 38 W. R. 588 54 J. P. 804
Colbron v. Travers (1862), 12 C. B. N. S. 181 31 L. J. C. P.
..
223
257 6 L. T. 287 10 W. R. 603 8 Jur. N. S. 1105
Colchester v. Brooke (1846), 7 Q. B. 339 15 L. J. Q. B. 59
724
9 Jur. 1090 68 R. R. 458
2 Id. 253 36 L. J.
V. Kewney (1866), L. R. 1 Ex. 368
..
Ex 172 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 743 16 L. T. 463 ..
99, 248
Cole V. Coulton (I860), 2 E. & B. 695 29 L. J M. C. 125 6
333
Jur. N. S. 698
V. Greene (1843), 6 M. & G. 872
7 Scott New Rep. 682
667,671
13L. J. C. P. 30
44 L. J. C. P.
V. N. W. Bank (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. 354
162
233 32 L. T. 733
Colebrook ?;. Layton (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 578 2 L. J. K. B. 95
225
1 N. & M. 374 38 R. R. 314
Coleman v. Birmingham (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 615 50 L. J. M. C.
..
..
154
92 44 L. T. 578 29 W. R. 715 45 J. P. 521
512
17
i;. Upcot (1706), 5 Yin. Ab. 527, pi.
203
Coles V. Bristowe (1868), L. R. 6 Eq. 160
..
..480
Collier V. Worth (1876), 1 Ex. D. 464 35 L. T. 345
..
208
1 Sm. L. C. 369
Collins V. Blantern (1767), 2 Wils. 341
51
2 M. & Scott 640
V. Gwynne (1833), 9 Bing 544
702
R.R. 43
V. Middle Level Commrs. (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 279
630
..
38 L. J. C. P. 236 20 L. T. 442 17 W. R. 929 ..
8 L. J. Ex. 270 7 D. 0. P.
V. Rose (1839), 5 M. & W. 194
611
796
..714
..
Collinsonv, NewcastleR. Co. (1844), IC. &K. .546
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

XXXIV

TABLE OF CASES.

PAGE
481
Cater (1898), 78 L. T. 613
CoUtnan v. Mills, [1897] 1 Q. B. 396 66 L. J. Q. B. 170 ; 75
187
L. T. 590 61J. P. 102
18 C. C. C. 481
- V. Roberts, [1896] 1 Q. B. 45 65 L. J. M. C. 63; 74
125
L. T. 198 44 W.R. 445 18 C. C. C. 273 60 J. P. 184 ..

Colls V. Home and Colonial Stores, [1904] A. C. 179


17
..
Colonial Bank v. Whinney (1886), 11 App. Cas. 426 ; 30 Ch. D.
261 56 L. J. Ch. 43 ; 55 L. T. 362 ; 34 W. R. 705 ; 3
70,543
M. B. R.207
..
.;
43
of Australia v. Willan (1874), L. R. 5 P. C. 417
237
L. J. P. C. 39 P. C
Colquhoun v. Brooks (1887), 14 App. Cas. 493 49 L. J. Q. B.
270
53; 61L. T. 518
V. Heddon (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 129
59 L. J. Q. B. 465
268, 274
62 L. T. 853 38 W. R. 545
45 L. T.
Coltman, In re (1881). 19 Ch. D. 64 51 L. J. Ch. 3
655
392 30 W. R. 342
Colvill V. Wood (1846), 2 C. B. N. S. 210
1 Lut. Reg. Cas.
71
483 15 L. J. C. P. 160 10 Jur. 336 69 R. R. 473
Colvin V. Buckle (1841), 8 M. & W. 680 11 L. J. Ex. 33 58
12
R. R. 834
Colyer, Be (1880), 50 L. J. Ch. 79 43 L. T. 454
..
522
..
610
Combe u. Pitt (1763), 3 Burr. 1434
Commins Scott (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 11 44 L. J. Ch. 563 32
512,514
L. T. 420 23 W. R. 498
Commissioner for Stamp Duties v. Byrnes, [1911] A. C. 386 ; 80
L.. J. P. C. 114
104 L. T. 515
218
of Police V. Cartman, [1896] 1 Q. B. 655 ; 65 L. J. M. C.
113
187
Commissioners of Metropolitan Police v. Hancock, [1916] 1 K. B.
190
624
of Public Works V. Logan, [1903] A. C. 355
72 L. J. P. C.
91;88L. T. 779
501,502
of Trade, &c. I;. Bell (1902), 71 L. J. P. C. 109
..
..184
Companhia de Mocambique v. British South Africa Co., [1892]
2Q. B. 358
7
Cone u. Bowles (1690), 1 Salk. 205
510
Connan, Bb (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 690 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 472 59
L. T. 281 5 M. B. R. 89
685
Constable v. Constable (1879), 48 L. J. Ch.621
384
Constantine i). Constantine (1801), 6 Ves. 100
..
..
..
281
Constitution, The (1879), 4 P. D. 39 ; 48 L. J. P. D. & A, 13
40 L. T. 219 27 W. R. 739
203
Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Heath (1913), 29 T. L. R.

CoUis

V.

. .

i'.

308
..
..
..
..
Conybeare v. L. School Bd., [1891] 1 Q. B. 118; 60 L. J. Q. B.
44; 63 L. T. 651 39 W. R. 288 55 J. P. 151 17 Cox C. C.

191

Cook

Vr

702

261

Loveland (1799), 2 Bos.

Digitized

&

P. 31

5 R. R. 533

by Microsoft

..

..

645

TABLE OF CASES.

XXXV
I'AGK

Cook

N. Metropolifcan Tramways Co. (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 683


56 L. J. Q. B. 309 56 L. T. 448 ; 57 L. T. 476 35 W. R.
577;51J.P. 630
585
Cooke V. Vogeler, [19011 A. C. 102 70 L. J. K. B. 181 84 L. T.
10; 8 Mans. 113
267,339
Cockney v. Anderson (1863), 1 De G. J. & S. 365 32 L. J. Ch.
427
518
Coomber v. Berks Justices. (1884), 9 Q. B. D. 26 10 Id. 267 9
App. Cas. 61 53 L. J. Q. B. 239; 47 L. T. 687 47 J. P.
164 31 W. R. 356
247
Coope . Cresswell (1866), L. R. 2 Ch. 112
89
Cooper, JJe (1918), 119 L. T. 303
102
V. Hawkins, [1904T 2 K. B. 164
73 L. J. K. B. 113 89
L. T. 496 52 W. R. 233 68 J. P. 25 1 L. G. R. 833
..
251
V. Hubbuck (1862), 12 C. B. N. S. 456
31 L. J. C. P. 323 ..
17
V. Prichard (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 351
52 L. J. Q. B. 526 48
L. T. 848
31 W. R. 834
33
V. Simmons (1862), 7 H. & N. 707
31 L. J. M. C. 138 8
Jur. N. S. 81 5 L.T. 712
10 W. R. 270
194
V. Wandsworth Board (1863). 14 C. B. N. S. 180
32
L. J. C. P. 185; 9 Jur. N. S.. 1155 11 W. R. 646 ..
..
641
V. Whittingham (1880), 15 Ch. D. 501 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 752
43 L. T. 16 28 W. R. 720
708
V. WooUey (1867), L. R. 2 Ex. 88
36 L. J. M. C. 27 15
L. T. 539 15 W. R. 4.W
366
Coosaw Mining Co. v. South Carolina (1891), 144 U. S. 550
..
92
Cope V. Barber (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 393 41 L. J. M. C. 137
26 L. T. 891 20 W. R. 885
601
V. Doherty (1858), 4 K. & J. 367
27 L. J. Ch. 600 4 Jur.
..
N. S. 541 116 R. B. 370
..
61, 257, 274, 276, 543
6 L. J. Ex. 63 2
-V. Rowlands (1836), 2 M. & W. 149
Gale 231 46 R. R. 532
697
1)." Thames Haven
R. Co. (1849), 3 Ex. 841 6 Rly. Cas.
654
83 18 L. J. Ex. 345; 77 R. R. 859
Copeland, Ex p. (1853), 2 De G. M. & G. 914 22 L. J. Bank.
17 Jur. 121 95 R. B. 371
66, 479, 494, 570
17
..
..
Copeman v. Gallant (1716), 1 P. Wms. 320
83, 91
82
Copland v. Davies (1872), L. R. 5 H. L. 358 21 W. R. 1, H. L.
?). Powell (1823), 1 Bing. 373
601
V.

V. Moore (No. 2), |1898] 2 Q. B. 306; 67 L. J. Q.


689 78 L. T. 520 46 W. B. 620 62 J. P. 453
Corbet v. Haigh (1879), 5 C. P. D. .50 42 L. T. 185 28 W.
430; 44 J. P. 39
Corbet's Case (1600), 1 Rep. 88
Corbett, Ex. p. (1880), 14 Ch. D. 122 49 L. J. Bank. 74
L. T. 164 28 W. R. 569
Corbyn . French (1799), 4 Ves. 418
Core V. James (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 135 41 L, J. M. C. 19
L. T. 593 20 W, R. 201

Coppen

. .

B.
184, 191

R.

350
448
42

357
215

Digitized

by Microsoft

25
137

XXXVX

TABLE OF CASES.
tko*

Cork and Bandon Ry. Co.

v.

Goode

B. 837

(1853), 13 C.

22

583

..
17 Jur. 555 93 R. R. 655
and Youghal Ry. Co., Be (1866), L. R. 4 Ch. 748 39 L. J.
Ch. 277 21 L. T. 735
655,690
..
..
Cornell v. Hay (1873), L. R. 8 C..P. 328 42 ,L. J. C. P. 136
204
28 L. T. 475 21 W. R. 580
Cornill v. Hudson (1857), 8 E. & B. 429
27 L. J. Q. B. 8 3
Jur. N. S. 1257 112 R. R. 636
399, 564
Cornish v. Hocking (1853), IE. & B. 602 22 L. J. Q. B. 142
401
17 Jur. 1049; 93 R.R. 304
Cornwall Mining Co. v. Bennett (1860), 5 H. & N. 432; 29 L. J.
654
Ex. 157 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 539
Cortis V. Kent Waterworks (1827), 7 B. &C. 314
..
143, 293
Cory m. Prance, [1911] 1 K. B. 114 80 L. J. K. B. 346 103
L. T. 649 11 Asp. M. C. 499
149, 339, 406
Costa Rica v. Erlanger (1874), 3 Ch. D. 62 45 L. J. Ch. 743
400
35 L. T. 19 24 W. R. 955
Costarw. Hetherington (1859), 28 L. J. M. C. 198
608
..
..
Cother D. Merrick (1657), Hard 94
282
Cotton V. James (1830), Moo. & Mai. 273 3 C. & P. 505 8
L. J. K. B. 345 35 R. R. 244
576
w. Vogan, [1896] A. C. 457
..
..107
65 L. J. Q. B. 486
Couch V. Steel (1854), 3 E. & B. 402 2 C. L. R. 940 23
L. J. Q. B. 121 18 Jur. 515 97 R. R. 555 .. 709, 715, 717, 718,
720, 727
Coulbert v. Troke (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 1 45 L. J. M. C. 7 33
L. T. 340; 24 W. R. 41
612
County Theatres v. Knowles, [1902] 1KB. 480 71 L. J. K. B.
46
351; 86L. T. 132
L. J. C. P. 198

The (1891), 61 L. J. P. 11
607
Courtauld v. Legh (1869), L. R. 4 Ex. 130 ; 38 L. J. Ex. 45
19 L. T. 737 ; 17 W. R. 466
556
Courteen's Case (1618), Hob. 270
1 Hale P. C. 542
..
..Ill
Coverdale v. Charlton (1878), 4 Q. B. D. 104 48 L. J. Q. B.
128 ; 40 L. T. 88 ; 27 W. R. 257
38, 170, 545
Cowen, Ex p. (1867), L. R. 2 Ch. 563 36 L. J. Bank. 41
16 L. T. 469 ; 15 W. R. 859
227
V. Kingston-upon-HuU, [1897] 1 Q. B. 273
66 L. J. Q. B.
185 ; 75 L. T. 693 ; 45 W. R. 413 61 J. P. 356
..
..
577
Cowley V. Byas (1877), 5 Ch. D. 944 37 L. T. 238 26 W. R. 1 294
V. Newmarket Loc. Bd., [1892] A. C. 345 ; 62 L. J. Q. B.
65 ; 67 L. T. 486 56 J. P. 805, H. L
726
Cowper-Essex v. Acton (1889), 14 App. Cas. 153 ; 58 L. J. Q. B.
594; 61L. T. 1; 38 W. R. 209; 53 J. P. 756, H. L.
..
172
Cox, a; p. (1887), 56 L. J. Q. B. 532
283
V. Ambrose (1890), 60 L. J. Q. B. 114 ; 55 J. P. 23
496
V. Cannon (1838), 4 Bing. N. C. 453 ; 7 L. J. C. P. 288
..
685
V. Hakes (1890), 15 App. Cas. 606 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 89 ; 63
L. T. 392
39 W. R. 145 ; 54 J. P. 820
..
4, 49, 110, 166
D. Hill (1892), 67 L. T. 26
200

Courier,

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

xxxvii
PAGE

Cox Ws-Lawrance

(1853), 22 L. J. Q. B. 140
V. Leigh (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 333
43 L. J. Q. B. 123
L. T. 494
22 W.
730
V. Rabbits (1878), 3 App. Cas. 473
47 L. J. Q. B. 385
L. T. 430; 26 W. R. 483
Cox's Trusts, Be (1878), 9 Ch. D. 159 47 L. J. Ch. 735

30

38

27

W.R.
Coxhead

53

..

483

537
506
592

.:

Mullis (1878), 3 C. P. D. 439 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 761


39 L. T. 349 27 W. R. 136
Crabtree I). Hole (1879), 43 J. P. 799
Cracknell v. Thetford (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 629 38 L. J. C. P. 353
Craft u Boite (1669), 1 Saund. 247
Craig & Sons, 5e, [1916] 2 K. B. 497
Craig's Claim, Se, [1895] 1 Ch. 267
63 L. J. Ch. 859 ; 71 L. T.
v.

11
191
628
459

390

101
705 ; 43 W. R. 244
Crake v. Powell (1852), 2 E. & B. 210 21 L. J. Q. B. 183 95
R. R. 498
428
Crane v. Lawrence (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 152 59 L. J. M. C. 110
63 L. T. 197 38 W. R. 602 54 J. P. 471 ..
..
474, 475
V. Powell (1868), L. R. 4 C. P. 123
38 L. J. C. P. 43 20
L. T. 703
17 W. R. 161
512
Craven v. Smith (1869), L. R. 4 Ex. 146 38 L. J. Ex. 90 20
L T. 400 17 W. R. 710
200
Crawford v. Spooner (1846), 6 Moo. P. C. 1
6
Crawley r. Philips (1664), Sid. 220
159
Crawshaw v. Harrison, [1894] 1 Q. B. 79 63 L. J. Q. B. 94 69
L. T. 860 1 Manson 407
378
Crayford v. Rutter, [1897] 1 Q. B. 650 66 L. J. Q. B. 506 76
L. T. 392
45 W. R. 542 61J. P. 134
572
Credits Gereundeuse v. Van Weede (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 171 53
..
271
L. J. Q. B. 142 32 W. R. 414 48 J. P. 184
Cree v. St. Pancras Vestry, [1899] 1 Q. B. 693 68 L. J. Q. B.
414
389; SOL. T. 388
Crespigny V. Wittenoom (1792), 4 T. R. 793
582
Crigglestone Co., Be, [1906] 2 Ch. 327 75 L. J. Ch. 662 95 L. T.
592
510 13 Manson 233
1 L. J. C. P. 112
1
Crisp ,v. Bunbury (1832), 8 Bing. 394
238
M. & Scott 646 34 R. R. 747
693
V. Churchill (1794), cited 1 B. &. P. 340
42 L. J. Bank. 65
Crispin, Ex p. (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 374
267
28 L. T. 483 21 W. R. 491
Crocker v. Knight, [1892] 1 Q. B. 702 61 L. J. Q. B. 466 66
299
L. T. 596 40 W. R. 353 56 J. P. 420
27 L. J. Q. B. 321
Croft V. Lumley (1858), 6 H. L. Cas. 672
213,214
108R. R. 252
Crofts V. Haldane (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 194 36 L. J. Q. B. 85;
175
16 L. T. 116 8 B. & S. 194
111, 682
Croker v. Marquis of Hertford (1844), 4 Moo. P. C. 339
Crooke v. De Vandes (1803), 9 Ves. 197 11 Ves. 330 45 R. R.
558
343 n.
..
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

XXXVUl

PAGE

245
Crboke's Case (1691), Show 208
Cross Be; Exp. Payne (1879), 11 Ch. D. 539, C. A
8
V. Watta (1863), 13 C. B. N. S. 239 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 73 ; 9
221
Jur. N. S. 776; 7. L. T. 463
11 W. E. 210
Croysdale v. Sunbury, &c. Urban Council (1898), 67 L. J. Ch.
364
585
Crumble v. Wallsend Loc. Bd., [1891] 1 Q. B. 503 60 L. J. Q. B.
611
392 ; 64 L. T. 490 ; 55 J. P. 421
Cuckfield Board, Re (1854), 19 Beav. 153 24 L. J. Ch. 585
245,321,325
105R. R. 104
..
Cull V. Austin (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 234 41 L. J. 0. P. 153
..
4
26 L. T. 767 ; 20 W. R. 863 1 Hop. & C. 741
..
CuUen V. Trimble (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 416 ; 41 L. J. M. C.
132 26 L. T. 691 20 W. B. 691
242,625
CuUerne v. London Bldg. Socy. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 485 ; 59
554
..
L. J. Q. B. 525
..
39 W. R. 88 63 L. T. 511
Culverson v. Melton (1840), 12 A. & E. 753 2 M.
Rob. 200 ;
22
4 P. & D. 445 ; 4 Jur. 1130
Cumberland v. Copeland (1862), 1 H. & C. 194; 31 L. J. Ex.
353 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 253 ; 7 L. T. 334
291, 311
Cuming v. Toms, or Jones (1844), 7 M.
Gr. 29, 288 8 Scott
N. R. 827 ; 1 Lut. Reg. Gas. 151 ; 8 Jur. 1052 ; 14 L. J. C. P.
;

&

&

54; 66R. R. 653


Cunard v. Hyde (1858), E. B. & E. 670; 27
Jur. N. S. 40
113|R. R. 824

136
L. J. Q. B. 408; 5

(1859), 2. E. &. E. 1 ; 29 L. J. Q. B. 6 ; 6 Jur. N. S.14


Cundell v. Dawson (1847), 4 C. B. 376 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 311; 72
V.

694
694

696,701
D. 210 52 L. J. M. C. 125
51 L. T. 265 32 W. R. 769 48 J. P. 599 ,. 125, 179, 181, 186
Cureton . R. (1861), 30 L. J. M. C. 149
241
Curlewis v. Mornington (1857), 7 E. & B. 283 26 L. J. Q. B. 181
3 Jur. N. S. 660 & 27 L. J. Q. B. 269 4 Jur. N. S, 535
llOR. R. 594
454,531
Curry w. Edensor (1790), 3 T. R. 524
507
Curtis V. Embery (1872), L. R. 7 Ex. 369 42 L. J. M. C. 39
21W. R. 143
566
V. Mundy, [1892] 2 Q. B. 178
40 W. R. 317
..
166
..
V. Stovin (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 513
58 L. J. Q. B. 174 60
L. T. 772 37 W. R. 315
411,419
Cusack . L. & N. W. Ry., [1891] 1 Q. B. 347 60 L. J. Q. B.
208 64 L. T. 45 39 W. R. 244 55 J. P. 341
..
..
676
Gushing V. Dupuy (1880), 5 App. Gas. 409 49 L. J. P. G. 63
R. R. 621

Cundy

v.

Le Cocq

(1884), 13 Q. B.

42L.

T. 445

252

Ginkes (1651), Styles 283


154
Cybele, The (1878), 3 P. D. 8 47 L. J. P. D. & A. 86 37 L. T.
773 26 W. R. 345
112
Czech V. Gen. St. Nav. Go. (1867), L. R. 3 C. P. 14; 37
L. J. C. P. 3 17 L. T. 246 16 W. R. 130 ..
..
367, 368
Gustodes

u.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

XXXIX

D.
PAGE

Daglish, Ex p. (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 1072


42 L. J. Bank. 102 ;
29 L. T. 168 21 W. R. 893
173
Dakins v. Seaman (1842), 9 M.
W. 777 11 L. J. Ex. 274 6
Jur. 783 ; 60 R. R. 883
309
Dale's Case (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 376; 7 App. Gas. 240; 50
L. J. Q. B. 234 43 L. T. 786 45 J. P. 284, H. L. ..
321, 542,
646, 657
D'Allax . Jones (1856), 26 L. J. Ex. 79
701
D'Almaine v. Boosey (1835), 1 Yo.
C. 301 ; 4 L. J. Ex. Eq. 21
;

&

&

41R. R.

273

350
517
710
Daniel v. Janes (1877), 2 0. P. D. 351
167, 193
Daniels v. Trefusis, ri914] 1 Ch. 788
515
Dannebrog, The (1874), L. R. 4 A. & E. 386 44 L. J. Adm. 21
31 L. T. 759 23 W. R. 419
580
D'Arcy v. Tamar Ry. Co. (1866), L. R. 2 Ex. 158 36 L. J. Ex.
645
37; 4H. &C. 463
Dargan v. Davies (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 118 46 L. J. M. C. 122
35 L. T. 810 25 W. R. 230
361
Darlaston Loc. Bd. v. L. & N. W. Ry., [1894] 2 Q. B. 694 63
L. J. Q. B. 826
71 L. T. 461 43 W. R. 29 8 Rly. &
Canal Cas. 216
436
.,
Darley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell (1886), 11 App. Cas. 127
55 L. J. Q. B. 529 54 L. T. 882 51 J. P. 148 32 W. R.
947
12,59,611
Darlington Wagon Co. v. Harding, [18911 1 Q- B. 245 60
201
..
..
L. J. Q. B. 110 64 L. T. 409 39 W. R. 167
69 L. T. 251
Dart, The, [1893] P. 33 62 L. J. P. D. & A. 32
292
41W. R. 153
376
30 L. J. Ex. 355
..
Darvill v. Terrv (1861), 6 H. & N. 807
383, 401
Dash V. Van Kleek (1811), 7 Johnson 477
Dashwood v. Magniac, [1891] 3 Ch. 306 60 L. J. Ch. 809 65
41
L. T. 811
Davenports. R. (1877), 3 App. Cas. 115; 47 L. J. P. C. 8; 37
L. T. 727
375, 643
116
Daventry Union v. Coventry Union (1917), 86 L. J. K. B. 276
David V. Ackland, Ee, [1914] 2 K. B. 691
145
Davidson v. Burnand (1868), L. R. 4 C. P. 117 38 L.J. C. P. 73;
19 L. T. 782 17 W. R. 121
577
Davidsson v. HUl, ri901] 2 K. B. 606 70 L. J. K. B. 788 85
R. 630 9 Asp. M. C. 223 .. Ill, 244, 261, 275
L, T. 118 49
Davies v. Berwick (Lord) (1861), ,3 E. & E. 549 30 L. J. M. C.
..
..
585
84 7 Jur. N. S. 410 3 L. T. 697 9 W. R. 334
90 R. R. 885 ..
..
223
V. Eitton (1842), 2 Dr. & War. 225
45 L. J. Q. B. 137 33
V. Garland (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 260
27
L. T. 727 24 W. R. 252

Damodhar )..Deoram (1876), 1 App. Cas. 332, P. C


Danby v. Watson (1877), 46 L. J. M. C. 181

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

xl

PAGE

Davies v. Griffiths (1837), 4


D. P.O. 204
V.

Harvey

(1874), L.

30 L. T. 629

M.

& W.

377

8 L. J. Ex. 70

313

R 9 Q. B. 433

43 L. J. M. C. 121

W.

.337,496
R. 733
29 Ch. D. 596 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1148 53
L. T. 314 ; 33 W. E. 668 ; 50 J. P. 5
689
V. Rees (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 408
55 L. J. Q. B. 363 54
L. T. 813 34 W. R. 573
380
Davis, ^x ^. <1872), L. R. 7 Cii. 526; 41 L. J. Bank. 69; 27
L. T. 53 ; 20 W. R. 791
523
V. Bryan (1827), 6 B. & C, 651
..
..
378
30 R. R. 491
V. Comitti (1885), 54 L. J. Ch. 419
131
52 L. T. 539 ..
..
V. Curling (1846), 8 Q. B. 286
15 L. J. Q. B. 56 10 Jur. 69 ' 134
v. Curry,
67
[1918J 1 K. B. 109
u. Hardacre (1810), 2 Camp. 375
209
V. Harris, [1900] 1 Q. B. 729; 69 L. J. Q. B. 232
81 L.T.
780 48 W. R. 445 ; 64 J. P. 136
130
u. Jeans (1904), 41 So. L. R. 426, Sc
474
;;. Marlborough (Duke)
25
(1819), 1 Swan. 74 ; 53 R. R. 29
V. Park (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 862 n.; 42 L. J. Ch. 673
28
L. T. 295 21 W. R. 301
267
V. Strathmore (1810), 16 Ves. 419; 90 R. R. 846
..
456
V. Taff Vale Ry [1895] A. C. 542
64 L. J. Q. B. 488 ; 72
L. T. 632 44 W. R. 172
53
V. Treharne (1881), 6 App. Cas. 463
50 L. J. Q. B. 605 29
W. R. 869
627
Davison v. Farmer (1851), 6 Ex. 252 20 L. J. Ex. 177 ; 86 R. R.
266
294
Davys v. Douglas (1859), 4 H. & N. 180 28 L. J. M. C. 193;
118R. R. 377
574
Daw V. L. C. C. (1890), 59 L. J. M. C. 112 62 L. T. 937 ; 54 J. P.
302
423
V. Metrop. Board of Works (1862), 12 C. B. TST. S. 161
31
L. J. C. P. 223
293,322,329
Dawdy, Re (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 426 ;. 54 L. J. Q. B. 474
646
Dawes v. Painter (1674), Freem. K. B. 175
465, 477
1). Thomas, [18921 1
Q. B. 414 61 L. J. Q. B. 482 ; 66
L. T. 451 40 W. R. 305 56 J. P. 326
622
Dawson, Ex p. (1875), L. R. 19 Eq. 433 44 L. J. Bank. 49 ;
32 L. T. 101 23 W. R. 354
392,403
V. Fitzgerald (1876), 1 Ex. D. 257
45 L. J. Ex. 893 ; 35
L. T. 220 ; 24 W. R. 773
235
. Meuli (1918), 16 L. G. R. 308
267
V. Midland Ry. Co. (1873), L. R. 8 Ex. 8
42 L. J. Ex. 49
21W. R. 56
129
Day V. Brownrigg (1878), 10 Ch. D. 294 48 L. J. Ch. 173 39
W.
L. T. 553 ; 27
R. 217
151
. Savadge (1614), Hob. 87
272,459,461
V. Simpson (1865), 18 C. B. N. S. 680
34 L. J. M. C. 149
11 Jur. N. S. 487 12 L. T. .386 13 W. R. 748
..
211, 591
V.

Makuna

22

(1885),

. .

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

xU
PAGE

Deal

V. Scliofield

(1867), L. R. 3 Q. B. 8

L. T. 143; 16

Dean

37 L.

M.

J.

0. 15

17

W. R. 77; 8B. &S. 760

222

Bennett (1870), L. R. 6 Ch. 489 40 L. J. Ch. 452 24


L. T. 169 19 W. R. 363
526
1). Green (1882), 8 P. D. 79
283
V. Mallard (1863), 15 C. B. N. S. 19
32 L. J. C. P. 282
10 Jur. N. S. 346 11 W. R. 913
731
Dean of York's Case (1841), 2 Q. B. 1 57 R. R. 545 ..
52
De Beauvoir v. Welch (1827), 7 B. & C. 266 1 M. &. R. 81 .. 438
De Beers Mines v. Howe, [1906] A. C. 455 75 L. J. K. B. 858
95 L. T. 221 ; 13 Mans. 394
271
De Begnis v. Armistead (1833), 10 Bing. 107 2 L. J. C. P. 214
692
3 M. & Scott 511 38 R. R. 406
De Bode v. R. (1849), 13 Q. B. 364 14 Jur. 970 ; 78 R. R. 407 253
Debtor, e A, [1903] 1 K. B. 705 72 L. J. Q. B. 382 88 L. T.
43
401 ; 51 W, R. 370 10 Mans. 130
Deck V. Deck (1860), 29 L. J. P. M. & A. 129 2 Sw. & Tr. 90 ;
261
8 W. R. 666 2 L. T. 542
Deere, Be (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 658 44 L. J. Bank. 120 ; 33 L. T.
303
115 ; 23 W. R. 866
210
Deerhurst, Be (1891), 60 L. J. Q. B. 411 64 L. T. 118 ..
..
Delano, The, [1895] P. 40; 64 L. J. P. 8 71 L. T. 544 43
292
W. R. 66
De la Vega v. Vianna (1830), 1 B. & A. 284 35 R. R. 298 .. 278
582
De Londo's Case (1765), 2 East P. C. 1098
De Mattos v. Benjamin (1894), 03 L. J. Q. B. 248 70 L. T. 560
693
42W. R. 284
504

Denn v. Diamond (1825), 4 B. & C. 243 28 R. R. 237 ..


t). Reid (1836), 10 Peters 524
7
Dennis v. Tovell (1872), L. R. 8 Q. B. 10 ; 42 L. J. M. C. 33 27
8,175
L. T. 482 21 W. R. 170
112, 145
Denny's Trustee v. Denny, [1919] 1 K. B. 583
,.
Denny v. Thwaites (1876), 2 Ex. D. 21 ; 46 L. J. M. C. 141 35
414
L. T. 628
221
Dent w. Allcroft (1861), 30 Beav. 335
V. Clayton (1864), 33 L. J. Ch. 503
10 Jur. 671 ; 10 L. T.
444
865 ; 12 W. R. 903
v.

. .

. .

Derby

Bury Commissioners

38 L. J.
(1868), L. R. 4 Ex. 222
291, 310
20 L. T. 927; 17 W. R. 772
..
..
De Rosaz,
(1877), 2 P. D. 66 ; 46 L. J. P. D. & A. 6 36 L. T.
41
263 ; 25 W. R. 352
527
..
Devonport Corporation v. Tezor, [1902] 71 L. J. Ch. 754
Devonshire (Duke) v. Barrow Steel Co. (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 286;
686
..
.,
46 L. J. Q. B. 435 ; 36 L. T. 355 25 W. R. 469
V. O'Connor (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 468; 59 L. J. Q. B. 206
.
76, 502, 547
62 L. T. 917 38 W. R. 420 ; 54 J. P. 740
Dewhurst v. Feilden (1845), 7 M. & Gr. 187 8 Scott N. R. 1013
1 Lut, Reg. Cas. 274 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 126 9 Jur. 376 ; 66
70, 72
R. R. 696
v.

Ex. 100

Digitized

by Microsoft

. .

TABLE OF CASES.

xlii

PAGE

Dewsbury Waterworks Board

Penistonc Union (1885), 16

v.

529
302

Q. B. D. 585
..
De Winton v. Brecon Corporation (1859), 28 L. J. Ch. 600
De Wolf V. Lindsell (1868), L. R. 5 Eq. 209 37 L. J. Gli. 293
;

17 L. T. 487

Dews

V.

RUey

16

392

W. B. 324

(1851), 11 C. B.

434

20 L. J. C. P. 264

15 Jur.

555

1159; 87.R. R. 718

Diamond Coal Cutter

Co.

Mining Appliances

v.

340

Co., [1915]

W. N.

..

Diana, The (1842), 4 Moo. P 0. IJ P. C.


Dick, Be, [1891] 1 Ch. 426 60 L. J. Ch. 768 ; 64 L. T. 32 ; 39
W. R. 225
48
V. Badart (1883), 10 Q, B. D. 387 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 49
L. T. 391 ; 47 J. P. 422
Dickins v. Gill, [1896] 2 Q. B. 310 65 L.J. M. C. 187 ; 75 L. T.
32; 44 W. R. 686; 30 J. P. 488
Dickinson, Be (1882), 51 L. J. Ch. 736; 20 Ch. D. 315; 47 L. T.
266; 30W. R. 667
V. Barrow, [1904] 2 Ch. 339
73 L. J. Ch. 701 ; 91 L. T. 161
1). Ead (1914), 78 J
P. 326
..
V. N. E. Ry. Co. (1864), 2 H. & C. 735 ; 33 L. J. Ex. 91
Dicks V. Brooks (1880), 15 Ch. D. 22 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 812,; 43 L. T.
,

593
517

123

523

71.;29W. R.87
v. Neath and Brecon Ry.

Dickson

486
648
455
182
106
481

Co. (1869), L. R. 4 Ex. 87


17 W. R. 501

38

24
L. J. Ex. 57 ; 19 L. T. 402
199
Diggle t) Higgs (1877), 46 L. J. Ex. 721, C. A
V. London and Blackwall Ry. Co. (1850), 5 Ex. 442 ; 6 Rly.
Cas. 590 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 308 ; 14 Jur. 937
654
Dimmock V. Allenby (1811)cited 2 Marsh 582
563
Dingley w. Moor (1600), Cro. Eliz. 750
734
Direct U. S. Cable Co. v. Anglo-Amer. Tel. Co. (1877), 2 App.
Cas. 394 ; 46 L. J. P. C. 71
36 L. T. 265 ..
..
.36,515
Diss V. Aldrich (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 179 ; 46 L. J. M. C. 183 ; 36
L..T. 663
517
Ditcher v. Denison (1858), 11 Moo. P. C. 324 ; 117 R. R. 32,
P. C
101
Ditton's Case (1701), 2 Salk. 490
370,676
Dixon V. Wells (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 249 59 L. J. M. C. 116 62
L. T. 812
38 W. R. 606 54 J. P. 725 17 Cox C. C.
;

48

681, 684

White (1883), 8 App. Cas. 833


Dobbs . Grand Junction Waterworks
.

627

App. Cas. 49
53 L. J. Q. B. 50 49 L. T. 541 32 W. R. 432 48 J. P. 5
Dobell V. Hutchinson (1835), 3 A. & E. 355 4 L. J. K. B. 201;
5 N. & M. 251
1 H. & W. 394 42 R. R. 408
..
..
Dobson V. Eesti, [1891] 2 Q. B. 92 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 481 64
L. T. 551 39 W. R. 481
Dodd . Dodd, [1906] P. 189
Dodds V. Shepherd (1876), 1 Ex. D. 75 45 L. J. Ex. 457 34
;

(1883), 9

71

512

L. T. 358

24

W.

R. 322

Digitized

..

267
152

..

..

by Microsoft

..

..

..

314

TABLE OF CASES.
Doe

xliii

PAGE

&

Allaop (1821), 5 B.
Aid. 142
V. Bancks (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 401

V.

318..

456

Gow. 220

23 R. R.
373
157

..

&

Bartle (1822), 5 B.
Aid. 492 ; 1 D. & R. 81
..
V. Beynon (1840), 12 A.
E. 431
9 L. J. Q. B. 359
4 P. & D. 193 54 R. R. 592
V. Bold (1847), 11 Q. B. 127
13 Jur. 871 75 R. R. 304 ..
V. Brandling (1828), 7 B.
C. 643
1 M. & R. 600
..
V. Bridges (183i), 1 B.
Ad. 847 9 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 9
V.

&

41
384
83

&

&

35R. R. 483

708,709

- V. Carter (1798), 8 T. R. 57, 300 ; 4 R. R. 586


..
213, 225
. Chambers (1814), 4 Camp. 1
209
. Gooch (1820), 3 B.
Aid. 664
209
V. Gwinnell (1841), 1 Q. B. 682 ; 10 L. J.
Q. B. 212

&

IG.
.
.

&D.

180

616
99
730

Harvey (1825), 4 B. & C. 610


Holt (1852), 21 L. J. Ex. 335

Jessep (1810), 12 East 288


5
Jesson (1805), 2 Bligh, 2 ; 21 R. R. 1
99
V. Olley (1840), 12 A. & E. 481 ; 9 L. J. Q. B. 379
4
P. & D. 275 ; 4 Jur. 1084 54 R. R. 607
58
V. Owens (1842). 9 M. & W. 455
1 D. N. S. 404
12
L. J. Ex. 53
2D. N. S. 426 ; 7 Jur. 91 10 M. & W. 521
62R. R. 691
531
V. Page (1844), 5 Q. B. 767 ; D. & M. 601 ; 13 L. J. Q. B.
.384
153; 8 Jur. 999
-y. Pitchers (1815), 6 Taunt. 359
381
. Powell a839), 7 Dowl. 539
142
V. Ries (1832), 8 Bing. 178 ; 1 L. J. C. P. 73 ; 1 M. & Scott
259..
541
.,
w. Roe (1852), 22 L. J. Ex. 17
730
V. Rugeley (1844), 6 Q. B. 107 ; 13 L. J. M. C. 137
8 Jur.
..
..
686
615 ; 66 R. R. 305
. Snaith (1832), 8 Bing. 152
1 M. & Scott 230
..
..504
V. Waterton (1819), 3 B. & Aid. 149 ; 22 R. R. 328 ..
56, 144
23
Doey V. L. & N. W. Ry. Co., [1919] 1 K. B. 623
Doggettu. Catterms (1864), 19 C. B. N. S. 765 34 L. J. C. P.
129, 598
46 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 243 ; 12 L. T. 355 ; 13 W. R. 390 ..
Doherty v. Allman (1879), 3 A pp. Cas. 728 ; 39 L. T. 129 26
..
228
W. R. 513 ..
.
..
..
.
Don V. Lippmann (1837), 5 Cl'.' & F. 1 ; 47 R. R. i,' H. L.'
278
Donkin v. Pearson, [1911] 2 K. B. 412 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 1069 .. 171
116
Donne V. Martyr (1828), 8 B. & C. 62
Donoghue v. Brook (1888), 57 L. J. Q. B. 122 58 L. T. 411
117
1 Fox 100..
544
Dore 1). Grey (1788), 2 T. R. 358 1 R. R. 494
Dorin . Dorin(1876), L. R. 7 H. L. 568 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 652 ; 23
106
W. R. 570 ; 33 L. T. 281, H. L
Dormont v. Furness Ry. Co. (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 496 52 L. J.
429
Q, B. 331 49 L. T. 134 ; 47 J. P. 711 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 127 ..
.

V.

.'.'

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

xliv

PA 01!

Capel (1867), L. R. 2 C. P. 461 ; 36 L. J. M. 0. 97 ;


*14
16 L. T. 323 ; 15 W. R. 747
Doyle V. Falconer (1866), L. R. 1 P. 0. 328 36 L. J. P. C. 34;
632
15 W. R. 366 ; 4 Moo. P. C. C. N. S. 203
315
Dragoman, The (1895), 11 T. L. R. 428
Drake v. Pootitt (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 201 ; 50 L. J. M. C. 141 ; 45
*97
L. T. 42 ; 45 J. P. 798
154
Draper V. Glenfield (1631), 2 Bulstr. 345
Driffield Co. ;;. Waterloo Co. (1886), 31 Ch. D. 638 ; 55 L. J. Ch.
586
391 ; 54 L. T. 210 ; 34 W. R. 360
Drover v. Beyer (1879), 13 Ch. D. 242 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 37 ; 41
100
L. T. 393 28 W. R. 110
Drucker (No. 2), Be, [1902] 2 K. B. 210; 71 L. J. K. B. 688 ;
258
86 L. T. 692 ; 50 W. R. 592 ; 9 Mans. 241
Drummond, Be, [1891] 1 Ch. 524 60 L. J. Ch. 258 ; 64 L. T.
285
246 39 W. R. 445
V. Drummond (1866), L. R. 2 Ch. 32
36 L. J. Ch. 153 15
51,91,518
L. T. 337 15 W. R. 267
189
i;. Nicholson (1915), 79 J. P. 525
379
Drury i;. Defontaine (1808), 1 Taunt. 131
271
Dubout V. Maopherson (1889), 58 L. J. Q. B. 496
645
..
Duck V. Tower Galvanizing Co. (1901), 70 L. J. K. B. 625
Dudgeon v. Pembroke (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 581 ; 1 Q. B. D. 96
34 L. T. 36 & 2 App. Cas. 284 ; 46 L. J. Ex. 409 ; 36 L. T.
694
382 ; 25 W. R. 499
Duignan v. Walker (1859), Johns. 446 28 L. J. Ch. 867 ; 5 Jur.
612
N. S. 976 33 L. T. O. S. 256 ; 7 W. R. 562
419
Duke of Buccleuch, The, (1889), 15 P. D. 86
359
A. C. 310
, [1891]
-277,400
..
Dumfries, The (1856), Swab, 63
Dunbar Corporation v. Roxburgh (1835), 3 CI. & F. 335, H. L. .. 533
Duncan v. Dowding, [1897] 1 Q. B. 575 66 L. .J. Q. B. 362 ; 76
61 J. P. 280
18 C. C. C.
L. T. 294 ; 45 W. R. 383
342
527
V. Lawson (1889), 41 Ch. D. 394
58 L. J. Ch. 502 ; 60
269
L.T. 732; 37 W. R. 524; 53 J. P. 532
317
V. Scottish N. E. Ry. Co. (1870), L. R. 2 Sc. Ap. 20, H. L.
V. Tindal (1853), 13 C. B. 258; 22 L. J. C. P. 137 ; 17 Jur.
347 ; 93 R. R. 525
570
,
Dundalk Ry. Co. v. Tapster (1841), 1 Q. B. 667 10 L. J. Q. B.
186 ; 1 G. & D. 657 2 Rly. Cas. 686 5 Jur. 699 ..
239, 710
Dundas v. Dutens (1790). 1 Ves. Jun. 196 1 R. R. 112
..
112
Dunelm, The (1884), 9 P. D. 171 ; 53 L. J. P. D. & A. 81 51
98
L. T. 214 ; 39 W. R. 970; 5 Asp. M. C. 304
J}xmn,Mp.(1889), 23 Q. B. D. 461 58 L. J. Q. B. 375; 61
L. T. 543; 37 W. R. 537; 6M.B. R. 138
357
V. Birmingham Canal Co. (1872), L. R. 8 Q. B. 42 ; 42 L. J.
Q. B. 34 ; 27 L. T. 683 ; 21 W. R. 266
628
Dunston v. Paterson (1859), 5 C. B. N. S. 267 28 L. J. C. P,
185
5 Jur. N. S. 516 ; 33 L. T. 0. S. 222 ; 7 W. E. 163 ..
117

Downing

v.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP OASES.
_

xlv
I'AGB

Durant

v.

Withers (1874), L. R. 9 0. P. 257

43 L.

W. R. 156 9 Hop. & C. 202


Durham C. C. v. Chester-le-Street, [1891] 1 Q.
M. C. 9; 63L. T.461; 39 W. R. 188; 54
22

P. 113

J. C.

217

B. 330 60 L. J.
J. P. 759
..
;

Dutton,^a;^. (1911), 75J. P. 558


V. Atkins (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 373
40 L. J. M. 0. 157
24 L. T. 507 19 W. R. 799
..
Dyer v. Best (1866), L. R. 1 Ex. 152 35 L. J. Ex. 105 12 Jur.
N. S. 142 13 L. T. 753 14 W. R. 336 4 H. & C. 189 ..
Dyke v. Elliot (1872), L. R. 4 P. C. 184 41 L. J. Adm. 65 20
L. T. 45 20 W. R. 497
V. Gower,[1892] 1 Q. B. 220
61 L. J. M. C. 70 65 L. T.
760 56 J. P. 168 ; 17 Cox. 421
58,
;

247
150

371

534

494

186

E.

Earbly's Case (1637), 2 Bulstr. 354


229
Earl of Auckland, The (1861), 30 L. J. Adm. 121 ; Lush. 164 ..
522
Earle v. Roworoft (1806), 8 East 126 ; 9 R. R. 385
..190
..
East and West India Dock Co. v. Shaw (1888), 39 Ch. D. 531
57 L. J. Ch. 1053 ; 60 L. T. 142 ; 6 N. & M. 94
..
74
East Anglian Ry. Co. v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (1852), 11
C. B. 775 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 23 16 Jur. 249 87 R. R. 783 619, 672
East Fremantle Corporation v. Annois (1901), 71 L. J. P. C.
;

39
630
East Gloucestershire Ry. Co. v. Bartholomew (1868), L. R. 2 Ex.
168,374
16 ; 37 L. J. Ex. 17 ; 17 L. T. 256
East India Co. w.Paul (1849), 7 Moo. P. C. 85 14 Jur. 253, P. C. 408,
678
East India Ry. Co. v. Secy, for India, [1905] 2 K. B. 413 ; 74 L. J.
K. B. 779 ; 93 L. T. 220 ; 54 W. R. 4, C. A.
500, 505
East London Ry. Co. v. Whitechurch (1874), L. R. 7 H. L. 81 43
L. J. M. C. 159 ; 30 L. T. 412 ; 22 W. R. 665
..
32, 72, 417
East London Waterworks Co. . Bailey (1827), 4 Bing. 283
163
..
East V. Pell (1839), 4 M. & W. 665 ; 8 L. J. M. C. 33 1 H. & H.
622
421
Eastern Archipelago Co. v. R. (1853), 1 B. & B. 310 2 E. & B.
573,574
857 ; 23 L. J, Q. B. 82 j 18 Jur. 481 95 R. R. 856
Eastern Counties Ry., Be (1856), 5 E. & B. 974 ; 25 L. J. M. C.
342
49 ; 103 R. R. 828
Eastern Counties Ry. Co. v. Marriage (1862), 9 H. L. Cas. 32 ; 31
92
..
L. J. Exch. 73 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 53 ; 8 W. R. 748, H. L.
Eastman Photographic Co. v. Compt. of Patents, [1898] A. C. 571
36,40
67 L. J. Ch. 628 ; 79 L. T. 195 47 W. R. 152, H. L.
Easton & Co. v. Nar Valley Drainage Com. (1892), 8 T. L. R. 649 365
Eaton V. Basker (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 529 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 444 44
671
L. T. 703 29 W. R. 597 45 J. P. 616
Ebbs V. Boulnois (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 479 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 691 ; 33
412
L. T. 342 ; 23 W. R. 820
;

. .

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP OASES.

xlvi

PAGE

105,106
Eccles V. Cheyne (1856), 2 K. & J. 681
Eceles Corp. v. S. Lancashire Tramways Co., [1910] 2 Ch. 263
231, 633
.
79 L. J. Ch. 759 ; 103 L. T. 158 ; 74 J. P. 345
252
..
.
Ecclesiastical Persons, Case of (1601), 5 Rep. 14a
547
Ecroyd v. Coulthard (1898), 67 L. J. Oh. 458
317
Eddington ?;. Borman (1790), 4 T. R. 4
Edgware Highway Board v. Harrow Gas Co. (1874), L. R. 10 Q. B.
554
92 44 L. J. Q. B. 1 31 L. T. 402
Edinburgh Street Tramways Co. v. Edinburgh, []!894] A. C. 456,
231,633
..
489 63 L. J. Q. B. 769 ; 71 L. T. 301
..
..
36
..
V. Torbain (1878), 3 App. Oas. 68
37 L. T. 288
Edleston v. Barnes (1875), 1 Ex. D. 67 ; 45 L. J. M. C. 73 34
338,497
L. T. 497 ..
..
146
Edmunds w. Edmunds, [1904] P. 362
Edward v. Trevellick (1855), 4 E. & B. 59; 2 0. L. R. 1605 24
177
..
..
L. J. Q. B. 9; 1 Jur. N. S. 110; 99 R. R. 345
Edwards v. Aberayron Insurance Society (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 563
235,512
34L. T. 457
..
V. Coombe (1872), L. R. 7 0. P. 519
41 L. J. 0. P. 202 27
238
L. T. 315 21 W. R. 107
372
V. Dick (1821), 4 B.
Aid. 212 ; 23 R. R. 255
V. Edwards (1876), 2 Ch. D. 291
45 L. J. Ch. 391 ; 34 L. T.
212,458
472; 24 W. R. 713
u. Hall (1856), 6 De G. M.
G. 74; 25 L. J. Ch. 82 1 Jur.
N. S. 1189; 106 R. R. 32
206, 218, 221
60
V. Islington (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 338 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 165
134
L. T. 851 37 W. R. 753
V. Roberts, [1891] 1 Q. B. 302 ; 60 L. J. M. C. 6
55 J. P.
;

&

. .

. .

&

439
V.

L.

677

Rusholme (1869), L: R. 4 Q. B. 554; 17 W. R. 821; 38


J. M. 0. 153
10 B. & S. 526
;

Walters, [1896] 2 Ch. 157


Eede, JJe (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 228 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 376
v.

683
Eggington

38

81
25

W. R.
713

v.

Lichfield (1855), 5 E.

&

B. 100

1 Jur. N. S. 908; 103 R. R. 387


Eilbeck, Be, [1910] 1 K. B. 136 ; 79 L. J.
688 17 Mans. 1

24 L.

J. Q. B.

360

611

K. B. 265

101 L. T.

133

Elder v. Carter (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 194 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 281 62


L. T. 516 38 W. R. 612 ; 54 J. P. 692
Eliott V. Majendie (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 429 ; 41 L. J. M. 0. 147 ;
26 L. T. 504 ; 20 W. R. 721
EUerton, Exp. (1864), 33 L. J. Bank. 32 ; 10 Jur. 502; 10 L. T.
317, 722
;

EUiott,

Ee

(1891),

39

W. R. 297

Richardson (1870), L. R. 5 0. P. 744 39 L. J. C. P. 340


T. 858; 18 W. R. 1157 ..
..
Ellis V. Kelly (1861), 6 H. & N. 222 ; 30 L. J. M. C. 35 ; 6 Jur.
N. S. 113
V.

22L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

155

476
309
269

692
193

TABLE OF CASES.
_

xlvii
TAOB

McCormick

R. 4 Q. B. 271 ; 38 L. J. Q. B. 127
20 L. T. 223 17 W. R. 506 10 B. & S. 83
..
465
V. McHenry (1871), 40 L. J. C. P. 109
272
Elstone and Rose, Re (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 4 38 L. J. Q. B. 6
19L. T. 280; 17 W. R. 62; 9B. &S. 509
69
Elve V. Boyton, [1891] 1 Ch. 501 60 L. J. Oh. 383 64 L. T.
482
107
Ely (Dean) v. Bliss (1852), 2 De G. M. & G. 459 95 R. R. 169 297
V. Oash (1846), 15 M. & W. 617
15 L. J. Ex. 341
..
297
Emanuel V. Constable (1827), 3 Russ. 436
82
Emary v. NoUoth, [1903] 2 K. B. 264 72 L. J. K. B. 620 89
L. T. 100 52 W. R. 107 67 J. P. 354
188
Emerson v. Newfoundland Judges (1854), 8 Moo. P. 0. 157 97
R. R. 39, P. C
639
Emmerson V. Oliver (1905), 43 Sc. L. R. 291 Sc.
..
..607
Enderby . Gilpin (1821), 5 Moo. 0. P. 571
210
English, Scottish, &c. Bank, Be, [1893] 3 Oh. 385 62 L. J. Ch.
826 69 L. T. 268 42 W. R. 4
457
Englishman, The (1878), 3 P. D. 18 47 L. J. Adm. 9 27 L. T.
412
359
Enraght v. Lord Penzance (1882), 7 App. Gas. 240 51 L. J. Q. B.
506 46 L. T. 779 30 W. R. 753 46 J. P. 644 ..
..
321
ErdaUe V. Payne (1886), 52 L. T. 530
52
Esher Urban Council w. Marks (1902), 71 L. J. K. B. 309
..
533
Eslick, Be (1877), 4 Ch. D. 496 46 L. J. Bank. 30
35 L. T. 914
25W. R. 260
173
Evans v. Davies, [1893] 2 Ch. 216 62 L. J. Ch. 661 68 L. T.
244 41 W. R. 687
127,575
?/. Duncan (1831), ITyrw. 283'
455
V. Hoare, [1892] 1 Q. B. 593
61 L. J. Q. B. 470 66 L. T.
345 ; 40 W. R. 442 56 J. P. 664
515
w. Oakley (1843), 1 Car. &K. 125
100
V. Rees (1861), 9 0. B. N. S. .391
30 L. J. C. P. 16
313, 510
V. Stevens (1791), 4 T. R. 224, 459
98,602
and Fynch's Case (1638), Oro. Car. 473
71
Evatt V. Hunt (1853), 2 E. & B. 374 22 L. J. Q. B. 348 17 Jur.
582
1028; 95 R.R. 611
Everard v. KendaU (1870), L. R. 5 0. P. 428 39 L. J. C. P. 234
244
22 L. T. 408 18 W. R. 892
Everett v. Wells (1841), 2 M. & Gr. 269 10 L. J. 0. P. 81 9
25
D. P. C. 424 2 Scott. N. R. 525
Everingham v. Ivatt (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 685
156
Eversfield v. Mid Sussex Ry. Co. (1858), 3 De G. & J. 286 ; 28
528
..
..
L. J. Ch. 107 5 Jur. N. S. 776 114 R. R. 389
Ewart V. Graham (1859), 7 H. L. 0. 331 29 L. J, Ex. 88 5 Jur.
N. S. 773 33 L. T. 0. S. 349 ; 7 W.R. 621 ; 115 R. R. 177,
Ellis V.

(1869), L.

. .

H. L
Eyre v. WaUer
253

547

(1860), 5 H. <&
6 Jur. N. S. 512 8
;

Digitized

N. 460

W.

29 L. J, Ex. 247
R. 450
;

by Microsoft

2 L. T.

70

TABLE OF OASES.

xlviii

PAGE

Eyre

& Leicester Oorpn., Be,

[1892] 1 Q. B. 136 ; 61 L. J. Q. B.
409, 428
40 W. R. 203 ; 56 J. P. 228

438 65 L. T. 733
Eyston v. Sfcudd (1574), Plow. 459
;

. .

177

F.
Fairley

Boosey

v.

273

(1879), 48 L. J. Ch. 697

Falkland Islands Battle, Be; Ex p. H.M.S. Canopus (1917), 86


L.J. P. 47
Fanny Carvill, The (1875), 13 App. Cas. 455 n. ; 32 L. T. 646 2

102

Asp.

359

M. 0.565
Bonham (1861),

2 Johns. & H. 177 30 L. J. Ch; 239 ;


52,324
..
7 Jur. N. S. 232 ; 3 L. T. 806 ; 9 W. R. 299
12, 14
..
..
Farrell v. Tomlinson (1761), 5 Bro. P. C. 438
Fearnside v. Flint (1883), 22 Ch. D. 579 52 L. J. Ch. 479 48
303
L. T. 154 ; 31 W. R. 318
Feather v. R. (1865), 6 B.
S. 257 35 L. J. Q. B. 200 12 L. T.

Farley

v.

&

114..
..
Fellowes v. Clay (1843), 4 Q. B. 313
1). Clay (1848), 18 L. J. Ex. 89

12 L.

J.

Q. B. 212

539,573
83, 89
89

Felsted v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1914), 83 L. J. K. B.


134
1192
280
Felton . Bowers, [1900] 1 Q. B. 598
Fbnnell v. Ridler (1826), 5 B. & C. 406 8 D. & R. 204 4 L. J.
501, 691
O. S. K. B. 207 ; 29 R. R. 278
Fenton v. Hampton (1858), 11 Moo. P. C. 0. 347 ; 6 W. R. 341
632
117R. R. 32
V. Thorley, [1903] A. C. 443
72 L. J. K. B. 787 ; 89 L. T.
75
314; 52 W. R. 81
Fenwick v. E. London Ry. Co. (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 544 ; 44 L. J.
Ch". 602 ; 23 W. R. 901
104,529
V. Schmaltz (1868), L. E. 3 C. P. 313
37 L. J. 0. P. 78 18
584
L. T. 27 ; 16 W. R. 481
Ferguson and Hutchinson, Ex p. (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 280 40
..
131,485
L. J. Q. B. 105 24 L. T. 96 19 W. R. 746
Fergusson v. Norman (1838), 6 Scott 749 5 Bing. N. C. 76 1
Arm. 418 ; 3 Jur. 10 50 R. R. 613
700
Ferrand v. Hallas Land Co., [1893] 2 Q. B. 135 62 L. J. Q. B.
364, 366
479; 69 L. T. 8 41 W. R. 580; 67 J. P. 692
..
Fielden v. Morley Corporation, [1900] A. C. 133 [1899] 1 Ch.
1 67 L. J. Ch. 611 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 314 ; 79 L. T. 231 ; 47
W. R. 295, H. L.
75,104,510
Fielding r. Thomas (1896), 65 L. J. 0. P. 103
632
Filburn v. People's Palace Co. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 268 ; 69
L. J. Q. B. 471 ; 38 W. R. 706 ; 55 J. P. 181
..
..
474
Filby D. Hounsell, [1896] 2 Ch. 737
514
Finch V. Finch (1876), 45 L. J. Ch. 816 ; 35 L. T. 235 ..
..
278
Finchley Electric Light Co. v. Finchley U.D.C., [19031 1 Ch.
437 72 L. J. Ch. 297 88 L. T. 215 51 W. R. 375 ; 67
J. P. 97 ; 1 L. G. R. 244, C.
171 546
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

xlix
PAGE

Fine Art Society

v.

Union Bank

of

London

(1886), 56 L. J. Q. B.

201
70, C. A
Firebrace v. Firebrace (1879), 4 P. D. 63 ; 47 L. J. P. D. & A. 41
256
39 L. T. 94 26 W. R. 617
Firth V. McPhail, [1905] 2 K. B. 300 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 458 ; 92
69 J. P. 203 20 Cox. C. 0. 821
..
475
L. T. 567
..
6
Fisher D. Blight (1803), 2 Cranch 399
V. Bridges (1854), 3 E. & B. 642 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 276
1 Jur.
094
N. S. 157
V Howard (1865), 34 L. J. M. C. 42 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 304; 11
121
L. T. 373 13 W. R. 145
Fishmongers' Co. v. Dimsdale (1852), 12 C. B. 557; 22
506
L. J. C. P. 44
Fitzgerald v. Champneys (1861), 2 Johns. & H. 31 ; 30 L. J. Ch.
777 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1006 5 L. T. 233 5 W. R. 850 315, 321, 325
Fitzmaurice v. Heaketh, [1904] A. C. 266 73 L. J. P. C. 53
489
90 L. T. 216 ; 20 T. L. B. 302
Fitzpatrick v. Kelly (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 337 ; 42 L. J. M. C.
..
.
58, 186, 562
132 28 L. T. 558 21 W. R. 681
Flannigan v. Bishopwearmouth (1857), 8 E. & B. 451 27
470
..
L. J. M. C. 46; 3 Jur. N. S. 1103; 112R. R. 639 ..
124
..
Fleming v. Lochgelly Iron & Coal Co. (1902), 4 F. 890, Sco.
V. SeK (1855), 3 De G. M. & G. 997 ; 3 Bq. 14 ; 24 L. J. Ch.
164
29; 1 Jur. N. S. 25
84
V. Smith (1861), 12 Jr. C. L. R. 404, Ir
Fletcher v. Birkenhead Corporation, [1907] 1 K. B. 218 76
75,92,93
L. J. K. B. 218
9 Jur.
V. Calthrop (1845), 6 Q. B. 880 ; 14 L. J. M. C. 49
241,464
205 ; 1 New. Sess. Cas. 529
64 L. T.
V. Fields, [1891] 1 Q. B. 790 ; 60 L. J. M. C. 102
473
472 ; 39 W. R. 655 ; 55 J. P. 502
51 L. J. Q. B. 48 46
V. Hudson (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 611
466
L. T. 125 ; 30 W. R. 349 46 J. P. 372
30
V. Sondes (1826), 3 Bing. 580 ; 1 Bligli N. S. 144
465,603
R.R. 32
224
A. 673 35 R. R. 413
Flight V. Salter (1831), 1 B.
58 L. J. Q. B. 53 37
Flint V. Barnard (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 90
101
W. R. 185
;

&

Flower v. Lloyd (1877), 6 Ch. D. 297 46 L. J. Ch.


454 25 W. R. 793
V. Low Leyton L. B. (1877), 5 Ch. D. 347
621 36 L. T. 760 25 W. R. 545
Floyd V. Lyons, [1897] 1 Ch. 633 66 L. J. Ch.
251 45 W. R. 435
Floyer i;. Edwards (1774), 1 Co wp. 112
Foat V. Margate (Mayor) (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 299

838

35 L. T.
517

46 L. J.

Ch
360

350

70 L. T.
98
209

711 47 J. P. 535
Foley V. Fletcher (1858), 3 H. & N. 769
117 R. R. 967
Jur. N. S. 342

52 L. J. Q. B.

360

28 L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.

Ex. 100

5
464, 500

TABLE OP CASES.

PAGE

Foley V. Inland Revenue (1868), L. R. 3 Ex. 263 37 L. J. Ex. 109 311


Folkestone Corp. v. Woodward (1872), L. R. 15 Eq. 159 42
487
L. J. Ch. 782 27 L. T. 574
666
Foot u. Prowse (1725), 1 Stra. 625
Forbes v. Cochrane (1824), 2 B.& C. 448: 2 D. & R. 679 26
266
R. R. 402 ..
V Eccles Com. (1873), L. R. 15 Eq. 51 42 L. J. Ch. 97
157
27 L. T. 611 21 W. R. 169
V. Lee Conservancy Board (1879), 4 Ex. D. 116
48 L. J.
634
Ex. 402 27 W. R. 688
W.Smith (1855), 11 Ex. 161; 24 L. J. Ex. 299; 1 Jur.
409
N. S. 503; 105R. R. 467
Ford and Hill, Be (1879), 10 Ch. D. 365 48 L. J. Ch. 327 ; 40
539
L. T. 41 27 W. R. 371
Ford V. Drew (1880), 5 C. P. D. 59 49 L. J. C. P. 172 41
L. T. 478
116
28 W. R. 137
..
.V. Hart (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 273; 43 L. J. C. P. 24; 29
L. T. 685; 22 W. R. 159
..
..
117
2 Hop. & C.167 .,
V. Kettle (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 139
51 L. J. Q. B. 558 46
L. T. 666 30 W. R. 741
15,369
V. Pye (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 269
43 L. J. C. P. 21 29
L. T. 684 22 W. R. 159 2 Hop. & C. 157
117
V. Wiley (1883), 23 Q. B. D. 203
58 L. J. M. C. 145 60
L. T. 74 37 W. R. 709 53 J. P. 485 16 Cox. C. C. 683 ..
196
Fordham v. Sheis (1864), 33 L. J. Q. B. 67
288
Fordyce v. Bridges (1847), 1 H. L. C. 1 11 Jur. 157 ..
..
1
Ford's Hotel Co. v. Barlett, [1896] A. C. 1
65 L. J. Q. B. 166
73 L. T. 665 44 R. R. 241
46
Foreman v. Canterbury (Mayor of) (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 214 40
L. J. Q. B. 138 24 L. T. 385 19 W. R. 719
..
725, 726
Forsdike v. Colquhoun (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 71 49 L. T. 136 47
J. P. 393
147
V. Stone (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 607
37 L. J. C. P. 301
..
608
Forster V. Taylor (1834), 5 B. & Ad. 887 3 L. J. K. B. 137
39R. R. 698
696,701
Fortescue v. St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, [18911 2 Q. B. 170 60
L. J. M. C. 172 63 L. T. 443 39 W. R. 31
335, 336
Forth w. Chapman (1720), 1 P. Wms. 663
558
Foster v. Diphwys Casson Slate Co. (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 429 56
L. J. M. C. 21
51 J. P. 470
128, 579
V. Gt. W. Ry. Co. (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 515
51 L. J. Q. B. 233
46L. T. 74; 30W. R. 398
151
i) L. C. & D. Ry. Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 711
64 L. J. Q. B. 65 526
D. Oxford, c%c. Ry. Co. (1853), 13 C. B. 200
22 L. J. C. P.
99 17 Jur. 167 93 R. R. 494
698
Foster's Case (1590), 5 Rep. 59
285
i). Case (1614), 11 Rep. 63 a
296
Fotherby v. Metrop. Ry. Co. (1866), L B. 2 C. P. 188 36
L. J. C. P. 88 12 Jur. N. S. 1005 15 L. T. 243 15 W. R.
;

. .

112

716

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.
,

li

v. Taylor (1860), 5 H. & N. 202


29 L. J. Ex. 154 ; 8
R. 279
Foulger v. Steadraan (1873), L. K. 8 Q. B. 65 42 L. J. M. 0. 3
26L. T. 395
Foveaiix, Re, [1895] 2 Ch. 501 64 L. J. Oh. 856
73 L. T. 202 ;
43W. R. 661
..
..
Fowler v. Barstow (1882), 20 Ch. D. 240 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 103 ; 45
L. T. 603 30 W. R. 113
. Padget (1798), 7 T. R. 509 ; 4 R. R. 511
Fox V. Wallis (1877), 2 C. P. D. 45 ; 35 L. T. 690 25 W. R. 287
Foxon V. Goscoigne (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 654 43 L. J. Ch. 729 ;
31 L. T. 289 22 W. R. 939
Frame u. Dawson (1807), 14 Ves. 387
France v. Button, [1891] 2 Q. B. 208 60 L. J. Q. B. 488 64
L. T. 793 39 W. R. 696
Francis, Ex p., [1903] 1 K. B. 275 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 120; 88
L. T. 176 51 W. R. 267
67 J. P. 153 20 C. C. C. 381 ..
v. Maas (1888), 3 Q. B. D. 341 ; 47 L. J. M. C. 83
38
L. T. 100 ; 26 W. R. 422
Franconia, The (1877), 2 P. D. 163 46 L. J. P. D. & A. 33 36
L. T. 640 ; 25 W. R. 796
,.
..
Frankland, Re (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 18; 42 L. J. Q. B. 13 28
L. T. 18
Franklin v. B. of England (1826), 1 Russ. 575 ; 9 B. & C. 156
4 M. & R. 11 32 R. R, 611
. Godfrey (1894), 63 L. J. M. C. 239
Fraser v. Hill (1853), 1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 392 1 C. L. R.

Foulgar

PACE

W.

553

194

448
518
422
655

24
455

135

610

90

556

65

457
193

7,

H.

693

Frederici i;. Vanderzce (1877), 46 L. J. C. P. 194


..
..141
C. 381 31 L. J. M. C. 249
Fredericks v. Howie (1862), 1 H.
..591
8 Jnr. N. S. 750 6 L. T. 544 10 W. R. 796
..
C. 400 6
Free v. Burgoyne (1826), 2 Bligh N. S. 78 5 B.
B. &C. 27, 538; 9D. &R. 14; 31R. R. 2
161
Freeman v. Appleyard (1862), 32 L. J. Ex. 175 7 L. T. 282

&

&

IN.

R. 30

3 N. & M. 883
..
30 L. J. M. C. 123
S. 301
V.
..
..
289, 606,
9 W. R. 141 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 846
Freemantle v. London and N. W. Ry. Co. (1861), 10 C. B. N. S.
..
89; 31L. J. C. P. 12; 9 W. R. 611; 2F. &F. 337
Freestone, Ex p. (1856), 1 H. & N. 93 25 L. J. M. C. 121
2 Jur. N. S. 525 108 R. R. 471
Freke i;. Carbery (1873), L. R. 16 Eq. 461
Fremington School, Be, Ex p. Ward (1846), 10 Jur. 512
Frend^;. Dennett (1858), 4 C. B. N. S. 576; 27 L. J. C. P.
..
..
654,
314 4 Jur. N. S. 897 114 R. R. 859
..
Fricke v. Poole (1829), 9 B. & 0. 543 ; 4 M. & R. 48 ..
Fritz V. Hobson (1880), 14 Ch. D. 542 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 735 42
28 W. R. 722
L. T. 677
Frost, 5e (1893), 67 L. J. Ch. 691
V.

Moyes (1834), 1 A, &


Read (1860), 9 C. B.

E. 338

575
403

680
628

574
269
643
671
464

Digitized

by Microsoft

321
511

TABLE OF CASES.

lii

PAGE

Fry

V.

Cheltenham Corporation

(1911), 81 L. J.

K. B. 41

..

414

Fuller V. Redman (1859), 26 Beav. 600 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 324 ; 5


29, 727
Jur. N. S. 1045
Fumivalli;. Coombes (1843)^ 5 M.
G. 736 ; 12 L, J. 0. P. 265

&

283

63R. R. 455
Hudson, [1893]

V.

378
Fusilier,

27

W.

41

1 Ch.

335

62 L. J. Ch. 178

R. 358

The (1865), 3 Moo. P.


11 Jur. N. S. 289

C. C. N. S. 51
12 L. T. 186 ; 13

68 L. T.

135
34 L. J. P. M. & A.
W. R. 592, P. C. 98, 112

G.

653
w. McDaid, [1898] W. N. 104
Gale V. Laurie (1826), 5 B. & C. 156 29 R. R. 199
..
516, 564
441
Galena i;. Amy (1866), 5 Wallace 705
Gallagher v. Rudd, [1898] 1 Q. B. 114 ; 67 L. J. Q. B. 65 77
351
L. T. 367 ; 46 W. R. 108 ; 61 J. P. 789 18 C. C. C. 654 ..
692
Gallini v. Laborie (1793), 5 T. R. 242 2 R. R. 581
Galloway v. London (Mayor) (1864), L. R. 1 H. L. 34 ; 35 L. J.
530
Ch. 477 12 Jur. N. S. 747 14 L. T. 865
V. Maries (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 275
51 L. J. M. C. 53 ; 45
L. T. 763 ; 30 W. R. 151 ; 46 J. P. 326
600
Gallsworthy v. Selby Commissioners, [1892] 1 Q. B. 348 ; 61
L. J. Q. B. 372 66 L. T. 17 56 J. P. 356
629
Gambart i). Ball (1863), 14 C. B. N. S. 306 32 L. J. C. P. 166
8 L. T. 426 9 Jur. N. S. 1059
11 W. R. 699 ..
146, 481, 491
V. Sumner (1859), 5 H. & N. 5
29 L. J. Ex. 98 ; 5 Jur.
N. S. 1109 8 W. R. 27
290
Gambler v. Lydford (1854), 3 E. & B. 346; 23 L. J. M. C. 69 ;
2 C. L. R. 951 18 Jur. 352 ; 97 R. R. 518
247
Gapp V. Bond (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 200 56 L J. Q. B. 438 ; 57
L. T. 437; 35W. R. 683
131
Garby v. Harris (1852), 7 Ex. 591 21 L. J. Ex. 160 ; 16 Jur.
456
410
Gardiner, Re (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 249 57 L. J. Q. B. 149 ; 58
L. T. 119; 36 W. R. 142; 5M. B. R. 1
476
Gardner u. Lucas (1878), 3 App. Cas. 582
386,401
V. Mansbridge (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 217
57 L. T. 265 35
\V. R. 809 ; 51 J. P. 612
16 Cox C. C. 281
348
w. Whitford (1858), 4 C. B. N. S. 665
..
..
289,325
Garland r. Mead (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 411 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 179
24 L. T. 421 ; 19 W. R. 1156
156
Gamett v. Bradley (1878), 3 App. Cas. 944 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 186 ;
39 L. T. 261; 26 W. R. 698
285, 289, 314, 315
Gaskell and Walters' Contract, Re, [1906] 2 Ch. 10 C. A.
144
Gaskell v. King (1809), 11 East 165 ; 10 R. R. 462
564, 704
Gaslight & Coke Co. v. Hardy (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 619 56 L. J.
Q. B. 168; 55L. T. 585; 35W. R. 50; 51 J. P. 6
..
108

Gage

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

liii

TAQE

&

Coke Co. li. St. Mary Abbott's (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 1 ;


Gaslight
54 L. J. Q. B. 414 33 W. R. 892
V. Turner (1840), 6 Bing. N. C. 324
9 L. J. Ex. 336 8
Scott 609 ; 54 R. R. 808
Gatty V. Fry (1877), 2 Ex. D. 265 46 L. J. Ex. 605 36 L. T.
;

182

Gatward

W. R. 305
Knee, [1902] P. 99

694

25
v.

632

226,351
;

&

71 L. J. P. D.

A. 34

86

L. T. 119

127

Brown

R. 5 P. C. 134 ; 42 L. J. Adm. 1
28 L. T. 77 21 W. R. 420
34,244
Gauntlet, The (1871), L. R. 4 P. C. 184 41 L. J. Adm. 65 26
L.T. 45
465

..
..
..312
Gay w. Matthews (1863), 4 B. & S. 425
Geams v. Baker (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 355 44 L. J. Ch. 334 33
L. T. 86 23 W. R. 543
631
Geddis v. Bann Reservou- Co. (1878), 3 App. Cas. 430 ..
628, 630
Geere v. Mare (1863), 2 H. & C. 339 33 L. J. Ex. 50 8 L. T.
463
694
General Auction Co. v. Smith, [1891] 3 Ch. 432 60 L. J. Ch.
626, 655
723; 65 L. T. 188 40 W. R. 106
General Iron Screw Co. v. Schurmanns (1860), 1 John. & H.
180 29 L. J. Ch. 877 6 Jur. N. S. 883 8 W. R. 732 4
L. T. 138
277
General St. Nav. Co. v. Brit. Col. St. Nav. (1869), L. R. 4 Ex.
..
563
238 38 L. J. Ex. 97 20 L. T. 581 17 W. R. 741
13 L. J. Ex. 168 63
V. Guillon(1843), 11. M. & W. 877
278
R. R. 807
Gentel v. Rapps, [1902] 1 K. B. 160 71 L. J. K. B. 105 85
523
L. T. 683 50 W. R. 216 66 J. P. 117
George, Me (1890), 44 Ch. D. 627 59 L. J. Ch. 709 63 L. T.
25
49; 38 W. R. 617
Gerard's Estate, Re, [1893] 3 Ch. 251; 63 L. J. Ch. 23; 69
..
70
L T 393
German Date Coffee Co., Re (i882),"20 Ch!'D. 169 51 L. J. Ch.
592
564; 46L. T. 327; 30W. R. 717
212
Gibbons . Hickson (1885), 55 L. J. Q. B. 119
Gibbs V. GuUd (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 59 51 L. J. Q. B. 313; 46
12
L. T. 248 30 W. R. 591
589
V. Lawrence (1860), 30 L. J. Ch. 170
27 L. J. Ex.
V. Liverpool Docks (1858), 3 H. &. N. 164
173
321 4 Jur. N. S. 636 117 R. R. 636
608
2 M. & R. 457
..
..
V. Stead (1828), 8 B. & C. 528
Giblett V. Hobson (1833), 3 M. & K. 517 4 L. J. Ch. 41 ; 41
215
R. R. 114
Gibson v. Holland (1865), L. R. 1 C. P. 8 1 H. & R. 1 11 Jur.
N. S. 1022 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 5 14 W. R. 86 13 L. T.
273,513
293
39 L. J.
V. Preston Corporation (1870), L. R. 5 Q. B. 219
10 B. & S.
22 L. T. 293 ; 18 W. R. 689
Q. B. 131
306,726
942

Gaudet

v.

(1872), L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

liv

PAGE

Chelsea (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 141 ; 59 L. J.


653
Q. B. 612; 61 L. T. 388 54 J. P. 104
and Bury, Ee (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 368 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 181
657
58 L. T. 522 ; 36 W. R. 468 52 J. P. 119
Gilbert . Gosport & Alverstone U. D. C, [1916] 2 Ch. 587
510
..
u. Jones, [1905] 2 K. B. 691
133
Gildarfc v. Gladstone (1810), 11 East 675
528
12 East 439, 668
..
Giles V. Grover (1832), 1 CI.
F. 74 2 M. & Scott 197 ; 9 Bing.
128 ; 36 B. R. 27
250,610
Gillow V. Durham C. C, [1911] 1 K. B. 222 80 L. J. K. B. 380 ;
104 L. T. 36 75 J. P. 33 ; 8 L. G. R. 1059
634
Gilmore v. Shuter (1678), 2 Lev. 227 ; 2 Mod. Rep. 310
384
..
Girdlestone v. Allan (1822), 1 B. & C. 61
431
Glasbrook t>. Owen (1890), 7 T. L. R. 62
201
Glasgow Ry. Co. v. Hunter (1871), L. R. 2 Sc. App. 78, H. L. 172
Glass . Patterson, [1902] 2 Ir. R. 660
1
Glassington I). Rawlins (1800), 3 East 407
606
Gleaves v. Marriner (1876), 1 Ex. D. 107 ; 34 L. T. 496 24
VV. R. 639
661
Glossop V. Heston Local Board (1879), 12 Ch. D. 102
49 L. J.
Ch. 89 40 L. T. 736 ; 28 W. R. Ill
723, 724
Glynn v. Margetson, [1892] 1 Q. B. 337 61 L. J. Q. B. 186 62
L. J. Q. B. 466 ; 66 L. T. 142 ; 40 W. R. 264 ; 7 Asp. M. C.
148
368
Goddard, Be (1850), 1 L. M. & P. 25 19 L. J. Q. B. 305 87
R. R. 522
705
Godlonton v. Fulham, &c. Property Co., [19051 1 K. B. 431 ;
74 L. J. K. B. 242 ; 92 L. T. 362
652
Godman V. Croftor, [1914] 3 K. B. 803
675
Godwin v. Walker (1896), 12 T. L. R. 367
523
Goerz v. Bell, [1904] 2 K. B. 136; 73 L. J. K. B. 448 ; 90 L. T.
675; 53 W. R. 64
..
..
271
Goldberg v. Liverpool Corporation (1900), 82 L. T. 362
231
Golding V. Stocking (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 516 ; 38 L. J. M. C.
122 ; 20 L. T. 479 ; 17 W. R. 722 ; 10 B.
S. 348
67, 492
Goldshede v. Swan (1847), 1 Ex. 154 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 284 74 R. R.
623
43
Goldsmid, Be (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 295 56 L. J. Q. B. 195 35
W. R. 148
214
Giflford V. St. Luke's,

&

&

V. Hampton (1858), 5 C. B. N. S. 94
27 L. J. C. P. 286
4 Jur. N. S. 1108 116 R. R. 578
66, 542
Goldsmiths Co. v. West Metro. Ry., [1904] 1 K. B. 1 72 L. J.
K. B. 931 89 L. T. 428 52 W. R. 21 ; 68 J. P. 41 20
T. L. R.7
607
V. Wyatt, [1907] 1 K. B. 95
76 L. J. K. B. 166 ; 95
L.T. 855; 71J. P. 79
62,539
Goldson V. Buck (1812), 15 East 372
323
Goodman's Trusts, Ee (1881), 17 Ch. D. 266 50 L. J. Ch. 425
44 L. T. 527 29 W. R. 586
256

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

Iv
PAGE

Goodwin

Corporation, [1902] 1 K. B. 629 ; 71


86 L. T. 682; 66 J. P. 533
Gordon, JfiB p. (1875), 44 L. J. Bey. 97
Gordon d. G.W.R.|(1881), 8 Q. B. D. 44 51 L. J. Q. B. 58;
45 L. T. 509 ; .30 W. R. 230 ; 46 J. P. 294
v. Howden (1845), 12 CI. & F. 237, H. L
v. Jennings (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 45 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 417
;
46 L. T. 534 ; 30 W. R. 704 ; 45 J. P. 519 ..
..
..
V. London City & Midland Bank (1902), 71 L. J. K. B. 215
v.

Sheffield

K. B. 492

L. J.

326
309

C.

Gore

370
693
585

201

Grey

(1863), 13 C. B. N. S. 138 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 100


..
287
Gorely, Exp. (18B5), 4 De G. J.
S. 477 ; 34 L. J. Bank. 1
10 Jur. N. S. 1085 ; 11 L. T. 319 ; 13 W. R. 60
..
86, 564
Gorham v. Exeter (Bp.) (1850), Moore, 462 ; 2 Rob. Ec. Rep. 1
V.

&

13 Jur. 238

43

15Q.B.73; 10C.B.102; 5Ex. 630; 19L.J.Q.B.

V.

279; 19 L.J. C. P. 200; 19 L. J. Ex. 376 14 Jur. 480,


89 Id. 725
..
..
535
522, 876 81 R. R. 504; 82 Id. 797
Gorman, Ex p., [1894] App. Cas. 28 63 L. J. M. C. 84 70
L. T. 46 ; 58 J. P. 316
^31
V. Waterford, &e. Ry. Co., [1900] 2 Jr. R. 341, Ir
636
Gorris v. Scott (1874), L. R. 9 Ex. 125 43 L. J. Ex. 92 30 L. T.
354,725
431 ; 22 W. R. 575
Gough V Davies (1856), 2 K. & J. 623 25 L. J. Cli. 677 110
84
R. R. 402
..
723
Gould V. Birkenhead Corporation (1910), 8 L. G. R. 395
61 L. T. 732; 54 J. P.
V. Haynes (1890), 59 L. J. M. C. 9
210
405 16 Cox C. C. 732
V. Stuart, [1896] A. C. 575; 65 L. J. P. C. 82; 75 L. T.
254
110
Goulder v. Rook, [1901] 2 K. B. 290 70 L. J. K. B. 747 84
186
L. T. 719 ; 49 W. R. 684 65 J. P. 646
Gover's Case (1876), 1 Ch. D. 182 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 83 33 L. T. 619
717
24W.R. 125
Gowan v. Wright (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 201 56 L. J. Q. B. 131
378,567
35W. R.297
147
Gower I). Tobitt (1891), 39 W. R. 193
Gower's Walk Schools v. London T. & S. Ry. Co. (1890), 24
Q. B. D. 326 59 L. J. Q. B. 162 62 L. T. 306 38 W. R.
172
343
Grace v. Bishop, (1856) 11 Ex. 424 25 L. J. Ex. 68 105 R. R.
114, 358
606
Graham v. Ingleby (1848), 1 Ex. 651 5 D. & L. 737 74 R. R.
683
808
58 L. J. Q. B. 117
37
V. Lewis (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 1
118
W. R. 73 ; 53 J. P. 166 59 L. T. 35, C. A
Grainger v. Gough, [1896] A. C. 325 65 L. J. Q.B. 410 74 L. T.
271
435 44 W. B. 561 60 J. P. 692
Gramophone Co. v. Stanley, [1908] 2 K, B. 89 77 L. J. K. B.
271
834 99 L. T. 39 15 Manson 251
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

Ivi

PAGE

Grand Junction W. W. Co.


67 L. J. Ch. 603

Grant

Anderson

v.

78 L.

& Co.,

Hampton U.C, [1898] 2 Ch. 331


..
46 W. B. 644
T. 673

v.

708

61 L. J. Q. B.

[1892] 1 Q. B. 108

& W.

J.

267

107;66L.
V.

T. 79
Ellis (1841), 9

R.R. 694
V.

Kemp

M.

113

[11 L.

Ex. 228

60

297
403

..

(1834), 2 Or.

&

M. 636

V. Langaton, [1900] A. C. 383; 69 L, J. P. 0. 66 ; 82 L. T.


71
..
.;
629; 64J. P. 644
Graves v. Ashford (1867), L. R. 2 C. P. 410 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 139
146,481
16 L. T. 98 15 W. R. 498
23 L. J. Ex.
V. Legg (1854), 9 Ex. 642
2 C. L. R. 1266
41
228; 96 R. R. 931
Graves' Case (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 715 ; 20 L. T. 877 ; 17 W. R.
345
1018
.330,376
Gray w. Cookson (1812), 16 East 13
11
V. PuUen (1864), 5 B. & S. 970 ; 34 L, J. Q. B. 265
633
L. T. 669 ; 13 W. R. 257
..
V. Smith (1889), 43 Ch. D. 208
59 L. J. Ch. 145 ; 62 L. T.
512
335; 38 W. R.310
..
523
V. Sylvester (1897), 61 J. P. 807
46 W. R. 63
Graydon, Be, [1896] 1 Q. B. 417 65 L. J. Ch. 328 ; 44 W. R.
576
495 74 L. T. 175 ; 3 Mans. 5
Great Australian Co. v. Martin (1880), 5 Ch. D. 1 ; 46 L. J. Ch.
518
289; 35L. T. 874; 25 W. R. 246
Great Central Gas Co. v. Clarke (1862), 13 C. B. N. S. 838 ; 32
327
L. J. C. P. 41 ; 11 W. R. 123
150
Great Charte v. Kenniugton (1743), 2 Stra. 1173
Great Eastern Ry. Co. v. Goldsmid (1884), 9 App. Cas. 927 ; 54
L. J. Ch. 162 ; 52 L. T. 270 ; 33 W. R. 81 ; 49 J. P.
260
480,682,683
Great Northern Committee v. Inett (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 284 46
L. J. M. C. 237 ; 25 W. R. 584
684
Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Winder, [1892] 2 Q. B. 595 61
L. J.Q. B. 608
712
Great Northern Steamship Co. v. Edgehill (1883), 11 Q. B. D.
225
715 ' 722
Great WesternRy. Co. v. Bailie (1864)," 5 B. '& S. 928 34
L. J. M. C. 31 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 264 ; 11 L. T. 418 ; 13 W. R.
203
196
V. Bishop (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 550; 41 L. J. M. C. 120
26 L. T. 905 20 W. R. 969
475
V. Rly. Commrs. (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 182 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 483 ;
45 L. T. 206 29 W. R. 901 56 J. P. 35
520
V. Solihull Rural Council (1902), 86 L. J. Q. B. 852, C. A.
633
V. Swindon and Cheltenham Ry. (1884), 9 App. Cas. 809
58 L. J. Ch. 1075 ; 51 L. T. 798 ; 32 W. R. 957 48 J. P.
820
296
Great Yarmouth Union v. Bethnal Green Union (1907), 97 L. T.
440
116, 117
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.
Morley (1841), 3 M. & G. 139
SScottN. R. 638; 60R. R. 479

Greathead

v.

Greaves

Tofield (1881), 14 Ch. D. 563

v.

L. T. 100

Green

28

Ivii
PAGE

10 L. J. C. P. 246

547

50 L. J. Oh. 118

43

W. R. 840

542

Gray

(1832), 1 Dowl. P. C. 850


377
V. Jenkins (1860), 1 De G. F.
J. 454 ; 28 Beav. 87 ; 29
L. J. Ch. 505 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 515 ; 8 W. R. 380
..
313,654
V. R. (1876), 1 App. Cas. 513 ; 35 L. T. 495
294, 329, 502
V. Wood (1845)j 7 Q. B. 178; 14 L. J. Q. B. 217 ; 9 Jur.
w.

&

756

35,

Greenaway

Greener, Ex.
899

Hurd

(1792), 4 T. R. 553
p. (1880), 15 Ch. D. 457 ;

43 L. T. 184

28

447
414

W. R.

685
Parker (1861), 6 H. & N. 882; 31 L. J Ex. 4; 4
L. T. 473 9 W. R. 578
496
..
Greenwood, Ex. p. (1857), 27 L. J. Q. B. 28 8 E. & B. 605 112
R. R. 706
418
V. Greenwood (1877), 5 Ch. D. 954; 47 L. J. Ch. 298; 37
L. T. 712
26 W. R. 5
444
1). London (Bp.) (1814), 5 Taunt. 727
704
Gregory's Case (1596), 6 Rep. 19b
315
Gregson v. Potter (1879), 4 Ex. D. 142; 48 L. J. M. C.-86; 27
W. R. 840
651
Greig V. Bendeno (1858), E. B. & E. 133 27 L. J. M. C. 294 113
R. R. 576
81,474
Grenfell v. Inland Rev. (1876;, 1 Ex. D. 242 45 L. J. Ex. 465
270
34 L. T. 426 24 W. R. 582
Greves v. Wimborne (Lord) (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 862 633, 722, 725
Grey v. Pearson (1857), 6 H. L. Cas. 61 26 L. J. Ch. 473 5
W. R. 454 108 R. R. 19
5
53
Grieves i;. Case (1792), 4 Bro. C. C. 67
52 L. J. Ch. 717 48 L. T.
Griffith, Ex. p. (1883), 23 Ch. D. 69
214
450 31 W. R. 878
V. Taylor (1876), 2 C. P. D. 194
46 L. J. C. P. 15 36
415,608
L. T. 5 25 W. R. 196
35
Grill V. General Screw Collier Co. (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 600
14 L. T. 711 14 W. R.
L. J. C. P. 321 17 Jur. N. S. 727
'
65.200
..
893
Grimes, Ex. p. (1854), 23 L. J. M. C. 153 2 E. & B. 546 17
126
Jur. 554
Grimwade, Ex. p. (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 357 55 L. J. Q. B. 495
97
3M. B. R. 166
645
..
Grindley v. Barker (1798), 1 Bos. & P. 229 4 R. R. 787
210
..
Grizewood v. Blane (1852), 11 C. B. 538 21 L. J. C. P. 46
Grocers' Co. v. Donne (1836), 3 Bing. N. C. 34 5 L. J. C. P.
630
..
..
2 Hodges 120 43 R. R. 591
307 ; 3 Scott 356
259
Grocock 4). Grocock, [1919] W. N. 163
75, 123
Gross, In the goods of (1904), 73 L. J. P. 82
Groves v. Wimbourne, [1898] 2 Q. B. 402 67 L. J. Q. B. 862 79
633, 722, 725
L. T. 284 ; 47 W. R. 87

Greenhow

v.

.-.

...

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

Iviii

PAGE

Guerin, iJe (1888), 53 J. P. 468


Gully V. Smith (1884), 12 Q. B. D, 121 53 L. J. M. C. 35 ; 48
J. P. 309
Gundry v. Pinniger (1852), 1 D. G. M. & G. 502 ; 21 L. J. Oh.
405
Giinnestad v. Price (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. 65 ; 44 L. J. Ex. 44
32 L, T. 492 ; 23 W. B. 470
Guthrie v. Fisk (1824), 3 B. & C. 178 ; 3 Stark. 153 ; 5 D. & R.
24 ..
..
Gutteridge v. Munyard (1834), 1 Moo. & R. 336
Gwyn V. Hardwicke (1856), 1 H. & N. 49 ; 25 L. J. M. 0. 97
108R.R. 448
Gwynne v. BumeU (1839), 6 Bing. N. C. 453 2 Bing. N. C. 39
2 Soott N. R. 711 1 West 342 ; 7 CI. & F. 572 ; 51 R. R.

150

489
5

34
623
42

533

43,H.L

7,11,452,662

V Drewitt, [1894] 2 Ch. 616


63 L. J. Ch. 870
190..
..
Gye . Fulton (1813), 4 Taunt. 876

71 L. T.

732
380

H.

Habergham v. Vincent (1793), 1 Ves. Jun. 68, 410 2 Ves. Jun.


204; 5T. R. 92
Hack V. London Prov. Bldg. Socy. (1883), 23 Ch. D. 103 52 L. J.
;

682

Ch. 541

48 L. T. 250

31

W.

R. 393

..

..

Hacking v. Lee (1860), 2 E. & E. 906 ; 29 L. J. Q. E. 204


N. S. 952 8 W. R. 495
Hackney Furnishing Co. v. Watts (1912), 28 T. L. R. 417

164,238
6 Jur.

523
652
74

Hadden

I).

The

..

Collector (1866), 5 Wall. 107

Haddon's Estate Act, [1889] W. N. 96, C. A


Hadfleld's Case (1873), L. R. 8 C. P. 306 42 L. J. C. P. 146
28
L. T. 901 21 W. R. 637
Hadji All Akbar v. Anglo Arabian Persian S.S. Co. (1906), 11

621

Com. Cas. 219


Hadley v. Perks (1866), L. R.

368

12 Jur. N. S. 662

1 Q. B. 444

35 L. J.
14 L. T. 325; 14 W. R. 730
;

M.
;

C. 177

6 B.

63

& S.

375

564,581
Oomptoir d'Escompte (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 519 58 L. J.
Q. B. 508 37 W. R. 703
119
Haigh V. Kaye (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 469 41 L. J. Ch. 567 26 L.T.
675 20 W. R. 597
454
V. West, [1893] 2 Q. B. 31, C. A
144
Haldane v. Beauclerk (1849), 6 D. & L. 642 3 Ex. 658 18 L. J.
Ex. 227 13 Jur. 326
566
Hale, ife, [1915] 2 Ir. R. 362, Ir
127
Hall V. Knox (1863), 4 B. & S. 515 33 L. J. M. C. 1 9 L. T.
380 12 W. R. 103
420
Nixon (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 152 44 L. J. M. C. 51 32
L. T. 87; 23W..R. 612
625,704

Haggin

v.

-tf.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

lix
PAGE

(1859), E. B. & E. 765 ; 29 L. J. Q. B. 43 ; 6 Jur.


193 ; 8 W. JR. 160 113 R. E. 874
674
HaU Dare v. Hall Dare (1886), 81 Ch. D. 251 ; 55 L. J. Oh. 154 ;
54 L. T. 120 34 W. R. 82
ICO
Hallett w. Andrews (1897), 42 L. J. 68
141
Halsey . Hales (1797), 7 T. R. 194
105
y. Lowenfeld, [1916] 2 K. B. 707
12
Halton V. Cove (1830), 1 B. & A. 538 ; 35 R. R. 373
..
78
Hamilton, ife (1878), 9 Ch. D. 696
61
Hammersmith Ry. Co. v. Brand (1868), L. R. 4 H. L. 171 ; 18 W. R.
12; 21 L. T. 238 38 L. J. Q. B. 265, H. L.
92, 172, 628
Hammersmith Bent Charge, Ke, (1849), 4 Ex. 87; 19 L. J. Ex.
66
642,644
Hammond v. Pulsford, [1895] 1 Q. B. 223 64 L. J. M. C.'63; 71
L. T. 767 ; 43 W. R. 236
623
Hampden v. Walsh (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 189 45 L. J. Q. B. 238 33
199
L. T. 852 ; 24 W. R. 607
Hampton v. Rickard (1874), 43 L. J. M. C. 133; 30 L. T. 636
276
Hancock v. Somes (1859), 1 E. & E. 795 ; 28 L. J. M. C. 196 7
608
W. R. 422 ; 8 Cox C. C. 172
Hancocks v. Labache (1878), 3 C. P. D. 197 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 514
30,445
38L. T. 753; 26W. R. 402
Haney's Trusts, Re (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 275 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 272
.
. .
277
23 W. R. 662
Hanfstaengl v. Baines,'il895] A. C. 20 64 L. J. Ch. 81 ;'72 L. T.
60
1, H. L
-y. Empire Palace, [1894] 2 Ch.
1 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 417 ; 70
60,146
L. T. 459 ; 42 W. R. 454
V. Newnes, [1894] 3 Ch. 109 63 L. J. Ch. 681 ; 70 L. T. 854 ;
146
42W. R. 681
Hann, iJe (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 393 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 161 55 L. T.
519
820 ; 35 W. R. 370 4 M. B. R. 16
Harben v. Phillips (1883), 23 Ch. D. 14 ; 48 L. T. 334 ; 31 W. R.
655
173
149,315
Harbert's Case (1584), 3 Rep. 13b
Hardcastle v. Bielby, [1892] 1 Q. B. 709 ; 61 L. J. M. C. 101 66
189
L. T. 343 ; 56 J. P. 549
Harden v. Hesketh (1859), 4 H. & N. 175 28 L. J. Ex. 137 118
T> T> QI7Q
297
_
^
Harding v. Headington'(1874J,' L.R."9 Q. B. 157 ;"43 L.J. M. C.
222
59 ; 29 L. T. 833 ; 22 W. R. 262
V. Queensland Commissioner of Stamps (1898), 67 L. J. P. C.
270
144, P. C
294
Hardyw. Bem(1794), 5T. R. 538 ..
V. Fothergill (1888), 13 App. Cas. 351 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 44 ; 59
101
L. T. 659 ; 36 W. R. 629
611
..
V. Ryle (1829), 9 B. & C. 603 ; 4 M. & R. 295
550
Hardy's Case (1794), 24 State Trials 200
353
Hardymann v. Whiteker (1749), 2 East. 573 n
139
Harford V. Linskey, [1899] I Q. B. 852

Halll.

N.

Wright
S.

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES,

Ix

PAGE

Harford's Trusts,

Be

D. 135

(1879), 13 Ch.

28

W. R.

238

41

522
L.T.382 ..
..
Hargreaves v. Diddams (1875), L. K. 10 Q. B. 582 ; 44 L. J. M. 0.
194
178 32 L. T. 600 ; 23 W. R. 828
Harlock v. Ashberry (1882), 19 Ch. D. 539 51 L. J. Ch. 96 ; 45
218
L. T. 602 30 W. R. 112
Harman v. Ainslie, [1904] 2 K. B. 698 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 241 73
134
L. J. K. B. 533 ; 88 L. T. 770
641
..
Harper v. Carr (1797), 7 T. R. 270, 448 ; 4 R. R. 440 ..
450
. Taswell (1833), 6 C. & P. 166
Harrington v. Ramsay (1853), 8 Ex. 879 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 326 ; 2 E.
424
&B. 669; 22L. J. Q. B.460
Harris v. Birch (1842), 9 M. & W. 594 11 L. J. Ex. 219 1
504
..
..
D. N. S. 899 60 R. R. 834
210
w. Boston (1810), 2 Camp. 348
688
u. De Pinna (1886), 33 Ch. D. 238
265
46 L. J. C. P. 363 ..
V. Franconia (1877), 2 C. P. D. 173
V. Jenns (1861), 9 C. B. N. S. 152
30 L. J. M. C. 183 3
295,594
9 W. R. 36
L. T. 408
!;. Lucas, [1919] 2 K. B. 291
290
Harrison, Exp. (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 753 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 977 ; 51
97
L. T. 878
674
, ^a;^. (1858), 2DeG. & J. 229
V. Blackburn (1864), 17
B. N. S. 678 34 L. J. C. P. 109 ;
..
689
10 Jur. N. S. 1131 ; 11 L. T. 453 13 W. R. 135 ..
46 L. J. C. P. 57 35 L. T.
V. Carter (1876), 2 C. P. D. 26
511 25 W. R. 182 ; 2 Hop. & C. 324
577
V. London and Brighton Ry. Co. (1862), 2 B. & S. 122 ; 29
L. J. Q. B. 209 ; 31 L. J. Q. B. 113 ; 8 Jur. 740 ..
..
417
62 L. J. Q. B. 117
V. Rutland, Duke of, [1893] 1 Q. B. 142
68L. T. 35; 41W.R. 322; 57 J. P. 278
..
..
492,547
V. Stickney (1847), 2 H. L. Cas. 108
81 R. R. 61
365
Harrison's Case (1777), 1 Leach 180
573
Harrod v. Worship (1861), 1 B. & S. 381 30 L. J. M. C. 165 8 Jur.
153 ; 9 W. R. 865
502
Harrop v. Ossett (Mayor), [1898] 1 Ch. 525 67 L. J. Ch. 347 ;
78 L. T. 387 ; 46 W. R. 391 ; 62 J. P. 297 ..
..
104,510
Hart V. Herwig (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 860 42 L. J. Ch. 457
..
269
V. Marylebone Borough Council (1912), 76 J. P. 257
414
..
Hartley (Goods of), [1899] P. 40 68 L. J. P. 16 ; 47 W. R. 287 245
!;. Elnor (1917), 86 L. J. K. B. 938
67
w. Hooker (1777), 2 Cowp. 524
616
Hartnall v. Ryde Commissiooers (1863), 4 B. & S. 361 33 L. J.
..
Q. B. 39 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 257 ; 11 W. R. 763
..
726
Harvey v. Axchbold (1825), 3 D. & C. 626 ; 5 D. & R. 500 ; R. &
M. 184
209
W.Lyme Regis (1869), 38 L. J. Ex. 141
222
Hasker v. Wood (1885), 54 L. J. Q. B. 419 ; 33 W. R. 697
..
316
Haslett V. Sharman, [1901] 2 L R. 433, Ir.
98
;

'

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

Ixi
PAGK

Pedley (1874), L. R. 19 Eq. 271 44 L. J. Ch. 143 23


W. R. 155
385
Hastings, Be (1877), 6 Ch. D. 610 47 L. J. Ch. 137
25 W. R.
842
303
Haw u. Planner (1665), 1 Saund. 10
624
Hawes v. Paveley (1877), 1 C. P. D. 418 46 L. J. C. P. 18 34
L. T. 835 24 W. R. 895
237
Hawkins v. Gathercole (1854), 6 De G. M. & G. 1 24 L. J. Ch.
332 1 Jur. N. S. 481 106 R. R. 1
298,314
61 L. J. Q. B. 146 40 W. R.
V. Rutter, [1892] 1 Q. B. 668
238
128
45 L. J. C. P. 772 35
V. Walrond (1876), 1 C. P. D. 280
L. T. 210 24 W. R. 824
300
Hawthorne, Be (1883), 23 Ch. D. 743 52 L. J. Ch. 750 58 L. T.
701 32 W. R. 147
269
Hawtry v. Butlin (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 290 42 L. J. Q. B. 163
28 L. T. 532 21 W. R. 633
173
Hay u. Ayling (1851), 20 L. J. Q. B. 171
373
59 L. J. M. C. 79 62
V. Tower JJ., [1898] 24 Q. B. D. 561
L. T. 290 13 W. R. 414 54 J. P. 500
396
Haycraft Gold Reduction and Mining Co., Be (1900), 69 L. J. Ch.
645
497 ..
Hayes v. Stephenson (1860), 3 L. T. JST. S. 296 9 W. R. 53 .. 475
Haymani;. Flewker (1863), 13 C. B. N. S. 526 32 L. J. C. P.
132 9 Jur. N. S. 895
91
Haynes v. Ford, [1911] 2 Ch. 237 80 L. J. Ch. 234, 490 104
683
L. T. 696 75 J. P. 401 9 L. G. R. 702
Hayward v. E. London Waterworks (1884), 28 Ch. D. 138 54
L. J. Ch. 523 52 L. T. 175
709
7 L. J. Ex. 256 6 D. P. C.
V. Giffard (1838), 4 M. & W. 194
510
699 51 R. R. 529
Heame v. Garton (1859), 2 El. & El. 66 28 L. J. M. C. 216
183
5 Jur. N. S. 648; 33 L. T. 256
Heath v. Heape (1856), 26 L. J. M. C. 49 1 H. & N. 478 108
470
R. R. 681
Heawood v. Bone (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 179 51 L. T. 125 32 W. R.
121
752; 48 J. P. 710
Hebbert v. Purchas (1871), L. R. 3 P. C. 605 40 L. J. Ecc. 33
50, 535, 536, 537, 735
19 W. R. 898 7 Moo. P. C. N. S. 468, P. C.
Hecquard, Be (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 71 38 W. R. 148 6 M. B. R.
71
282
51
Hed-worth u. Jackson (i662). Hard. 318
63
Heelis v. Blain (1864), 18 C. B. N. S. 90 34 J. L. C. P. 88
Heinemann v. Hale, [1891] 2 Q. B. 83 60 L. J. Q. B. 650 64
267
L. T. 548 39 W. R. 485
729
Helen, The (1810), 6 Cranch 203
Hemstead v. Phoenix Gas Co. (1865), 3 H. & C. 745 34 L. J. Ex.
52
108 11 Jur. N. S. 626 13 W. R. 662 12 L. T. 313
Henderson, Be (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 509 57 L. J. Q. B. 253 58
..
97, 477
L. T. 835 36 W. R. 567 5 M. B. R. 62

Hasluck

V.

<

. .

."

'..

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

Ixii

PAGE

Henderson . Biae (1822), 3 -Stark. 168


V. Maxwell (1876), 4 Oh. D. 163
5 Oh. D. 892

478

W. R. 66
u-Eoyal British Bank

46 L.

Oh.

J".

651
E. & B. 356 1 H. & N.
685 n. 26 L. J. Q. B. 112 3 Jur. N. S. Ill 110 R. R. 629 669
y. Sherborne (1837), 2 M. & W. 236
6 L. J. M. 0. 28 333,
466, 500
Henley, Be (1878), 9 Oh. D. 469 48 L. J. Ch. 147 39 L. T. 53;
249
26W. R. 885
Henrette v. Booth|(1863), 15 0. B. N. S. 500 33 L. J. C. P. 61
9 Jur. N. S. 1293; 9 L. T. 392 12 W. R. 173
..
..
71
Henry v. Newcastle Trinity House (1858), 8 E. & B. 723 27
L. J. M. 0. 57 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 685 112 R. R. 743 ..
16
..
Herbert v. Sayer (1844), 5 Q. B. 965 ; 2 D. & L. 49 13 L. J.
349
Q. B. 209 8 Jur. 812
Hermann v. Seneschal (1862), 13 0. B. N. S. 392 32 L. J. C. P.
43 6 L. T. 646 11 W. R. 184
414
Herron v. Rathmines Improvement Commissioners, [1892] A. C.
498
527
Herschfield v. Clark (1856), 11 Ex. 712 ; 25 L. J. Ex. 113 2 Jur.
N. S. 239 105 R. R. 743
24,141
59; 25

(1857), 7

Hertford Union v. Kimpton (1855), 11 Ex. 255 ; 25 L. J. M. 0.


41 ; 105 R. R. 533
241
Hertfordshire C. 0. v. New River Co. (1904), 74 L. J. Oh. 49 ..
635
Heseltine v. Siggers (1848), 1 Ex. 856 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 166 74 R. R.
862
575
V. Simmons, [1892] 2 Q. B. 547
62 L. J. Q. B. 5 ; 67 L. T.
611;41W.B. 67
380
Hesketh v. Atherton, L. B. (1873), L. R. 9 Q. B. 4 43 L. J. M. 0.
37; 29 L. T. 530
644
Hewitt's Estate (1858), 6 W. R. 537 110 R. R. 962
..
..209
V. Price (1842), 4 M. & G. 355
11 L. J. C. P. 292 3 Railw.
Gas. 175
5 Scott N. R. 229
479,494
Hewlett V. AUen, [1894] A. C. 383 63 L. J. Q. B. 608 ; 71 L. T.
94; 42W. R. 670; 58 J. P. 700, H. L
138
Heydon's Case (1584), 3 Rep. 7b
39,123,486
Hey wood's Estate, Be, [1916] P. 47
127
Hickman -y. Maisey, [1900] 1 Q. B. 752
563
Hicks, Hxp. (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 143 44 L. J. Bank. 106 32
L. T. 432; 23 W. R. 862
..
..
611
Hickson v. Darlow (1883), 23 Oh. D. 690 52 L. J. Ch. 453 48
L. T. 449 31 W. R. 417
386
Higginson v. Simpson (1877), 2 0. P. D. 76 46 L. J. 0. P. 192 ;
36 L. T. 17 ; 25 W. R. 303
210
Higgs V. Schroeder (1878), 3 C. P. D. 252 47 L. J. Q. B. 426 ;
26W. R. 831
26
Hilder v. Dexter, [1902] A. 0. 474 71 L. J. Oh. 781 ; 87 L "r
311 ; 7 Com. Cas. 268 9 Mans. 378, H. L. ..
50
Hill, Mx p. (1877), 6 Oh. D. 63
46 L. J. Bank. 116 37 L. T. 46'25 W. R. 784
97
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLK OF CASES.
Hill,

Ixiii

PAGE

33 E. R. 664
(1827), 3 0. & P. 225
Crook (1873), L. R. 6 H. L. 283 ; 42 L.
W. R. 137

Exp.

602

V.

Ch. 702

J.

22

East & West India Dock Co. (1884), 9 A. C. 456 j 53 L.


Ch. 842 ; 50 L. T. 163 ; 32 W. R. 925 ; 48 J. P. 788
V.

41,106
J.

203, 357, 457

Hall (1876), 1 Ex. D. Ill


860
V.

London

V.

45 L. J,

M.

C. 153

35 L. T.
306

& County Assrce. Co.

(1857), 1

H.

& N.

398

26

L. J. Ex. 89 108 R. R. 6
V. Settle, [1917] 1 Ch. 319, C.
Hilliard V. Lenard (1829), M.
M. 297
HUls u. Shepherd (1858), 1 F.
F. 191
Hinde v. Chorlton (1867), L. R. 2 C. P. 104 ; 12 .Jur. N. S. 1008
15L. T. 472
Hinds V. Buenos Ayres Tramways Co. (1906), 76 L. J. Ch. 17
95L. T. 780
Hinks V. Safety Lighting Co. (1876), 4 Ch. D. 607 ; 36 L. T. 391
Hinton v. Dibbin (1842), 2 Q. B. 646 ; 2 G.
D. 36 ; 11 L. J. Q. B.
113 ; 6 Jnr. 601 ; 57 R. R. 754
Hipkins v. Birmingham Gas Co. (1861), 6 H.
N. 250; 30 L. J.
Ex. 60 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 213 ; 9 W. R. 168
..
.
188,
Hirst V. Molesbury (1870), L. R. 6 Q. B. 130 ; 23 L. T. 55 ; 19
;

&
&

440
412
397
198

169

626
653

&

23

&

W.

R. 246

529
588

West Riding Union Banking

Co., [1901] 2 K. B. 560 ; 70


L. J. K. B. 828 ; 85 L. T. 3 ; 49 W. R. 715, C. A. . .
110, 138
Hiscock, Be, [1901] P. 78 ; 70 L. J. P. D.
A. 22 ; 84 L. T. 61
127
Hitchcock V. Way (1837), 6 A.
E. 943; 6 L. J. K. B. 215;
2 N.
P. 72 ; W. W.
D. 491 ; 45 R. R. 653
396, 733
Hobbs V. Henning (1864), 17 C. B. N. S. 791 34 L. J. C. P.
V.

&

&

&

&

117
694,695
;;. Winchester Corp., [1910]
2 K. B. 271 ; 79 L. J. K. B.
1123; 102 L. T. 841 74 J. P. 413 ; 8 L. G. R. 1072
186, 475
Hobson V. Neale (1853), 8 Ex. 131 22 L. J. Ex. 175; 91 R. R.
396
404, 730
Hodgkinson v. Wyatt (1843), 4 Q. B. 749 13 L. J. Q. B. 54 . . 733
Hodgson V. Bell (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 525 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 231 62
L. T. 481 ; 38 W. R. 325
..
..
291
V. Carlisle, L. B. (1857), 8 E. & B. 116 ; 112 R. R. 469
..
247
V. Jex (1876), 2 Ch. D. 122
45 L. J. Ch. 388
.
590
14 R. R. 738
V. Temple (1813), 5 Taunt. 181 ; 1 Marsh 5
694, 699
..454
Hodsden u. Harridge (1669), 2 Wms. Saund. 64 a
..
Hodson V. Sharpe (1808), 10 East 350 ; "10 R. R. 324
..
198, 380
735
Hoggan V. Wood (1889), 16 R. (Justiciary) 96 Sco
Holborn Union v. St. Leonard, Shoreditch (1876), 2 Q. B. D. 145 ;
..
46 L. J. Q. B. 36 35 L. T. 400 25 W. R. 40
..
715
066
Holgate V. Slight (1852), 2 L. M. & P. 662 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 74 ..
513
Holland,^j;^. (1902), 71L. J. Ch. 518
HoUingworth v. Palmer (1849), 4 Ex. 281 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 409
36, 406
;

"

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixiv

FACE

Holman w. Johnson (1775), 1 Cowp. 341


Holme V. Guy (1877), 5 Ch. D. 901 46 L. J. Ch. 648 36
600 25 W. R. 547
Holmes v. Clarke (1861), 6 H. & N. 349 30 L. J. Ex. 135
;

,-

N.
i;.

V.

L. T.

47

'

-.

694,695

7 Jur.

&

9 L. T. 198
..
3 L. T. 675 9 W. R. 419
;
Pipers, [1914] 1 K. B. 57
Service (1854), 15 C. B. 293 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 24; 1 Jur.

S. 397

720
191

28
S. 258; lOOR. R. 357
Holt V. CoUyer (1881), 16 Ch. D. 718 50 L. J. Ch. 311 ; 44 L. T.
214 29 W. R. 502
107
Honeybone v. Hainbridge (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 418 56 L. J. Q. B.
130
46 ; 56 L. T. 365; 35 W. R. 520 51 J. P. 103 1 Fox 26
Hood . Barrington (1868), L. R. 6 Bq. 218
514
Hood Barrs v. Heriot, [1897] A. C. 177 66 L. J. Q. B. 356 ; 76
L. T. 299 45 W. R. 507, H. L
102
Hope V. Hope (1854), 4 De G. M. & G. 328 23 L. J. Ch. 682 ;
102R. R. 146
518
Hopkins v. Smethwick Local Bd. (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 712 59 L. J.
641
Q. B. 250 62 L. T. 783 38 W. R. 499 54 J. P. 693
Hopper, Be (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 367 8 B. & S. 100 36 L. J.
646
Q. B. 97 15 L. T. 566 15 W. R. 443
Hopton V. Thirlwall (1864), 9 L. T. 327 12 W. R. 72 ..
..
184
Hordon D. Hesketh (1859), 4 H. & N. 175
297
Horn V. Ion (1832), 4 B. & Ad. 78 2 L. J. K. B. 153 1 N. &
M. 627
570
Homsey L. Bd. v. Monarch Building Society (1889), 24 Q. B. D.
B.
38
W.
1
29 L. J. Q.
105
R. 85 53 J. P. 774, C. A.
4, 372
Homsey U.D.C. v. Hennell, [1902] 2 K. B. 73 71 L. J. K. B.
479 86 L. T. 423 50 W. R. 521 66 J. P. 613
248, 549
Horsfall v. Davy (1816), 1 Stark, 169
714
Horton v. Colwyn Bay U. C, [1908] 1 K. B. 327 77 L. J. K. B.
215 98 L. T. 547 72 J. P. 57 6 L. G. R. 211
..
..
172
Hough V. Windus (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 224 53 L. J. Q. B. 165
50 L. T. 312 32 W. R. 452 1 M. B. R. 1
390, 501, 556
How V. L. & N. W. Rail. Co. (1892), 61 L. J. Q. B. 368
519
23
B.
D. 1
Howard, -w. Beall, [1889]
Q.
156
V. Bodington (1877), 2 P. D. 203
649, 656, 658
Howarth v. Sutcliie (1895), 64 L. J. Q. B. 729
128
Howe . Synge (1812), 15 East, 540
704
Howe Machine Co., JJe (1889), 41 Ch. D. 118
..
..
618
Howell V. Coupland (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 258 46 L. J. Q. B. 147
33 L. T. 832 24 W. R. 470
674
V. London Dock Co. (1858), 8 E. & B. 212
27 L. J.
C
4Jur.
N.
S.
112R.
205;
R.
524
177;
..
..
429
Howes V. Inl. Rev. (1876), 1 Ex. D. 385 45 L. J. M. C. 86
46 L. J. M. C. 15 35 L. T. 584 24 W. R. 897
..
..
574
Hoyland v. Bremner (1846), 2 C. B. 84 1 Lutw. Reg. Cas. 381
15 L. J. C. P. 133 10 Jur. 36 69 R. R. 417
165 374
Hoyle, Re, [1893] 1 Oh. 84; 62 L. J. Ch. 182 67 L. T. 674 41
W.R.81
512,513

N.

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.
Hoyle

IxV

V. Hitchman (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 233


48 L. J. M. 0. 97 40
L. T. 252 ; 27 W. R. 487
Huber v. Steiner (1835), 2 Bing. N. 0. 202 ; 2 Scott 304 1

491

Hodges 206 ; 42 R. R. 598


Hubert v. Treherne (1842), 3 M. & G. 743
Hudson w. Bray, [1917] 1 K. B. 520

278
69
100

Ede

V.

(1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 412; 37 L. J. Q. B. 166

L. T. 764
V.

..

McRae

W.

940 8 B. & S. 640


..
..
(1863), 4 B. & S. 685
33 L. J. M. C. 65

16

W. R.

60 R. R. 600

..

18

12

42

R. 80
167, 180,194
Tooth (1877), 3 Q. B. D. 46 47 L. J. Q. B. 18 37 L. T.
462;26W. R. 95
51,521
Hudston V. Midland Ry. Co. (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 366 38 L. J.
Q. B. 213; 20L. T. 526; 17 W. R. 705
565
Huggins K. Bambridge (1740), Willes 241
245,260
Hughes, Exp. (1854), 23 L. J. M. C. 138 2 0. L. R. 1542 18
Jur. 447
685
[1893] 1 Q. B. 595 62 L. J. Q. B. 558 ; 68 L. T. 629
, Be,
41 W. R. 466; lOM. B.R. 91
99
V. Buckland (1846), 16 M. & W. 346
3 D. & L. 702
16 L. J. Ex. 233 10 Jur. 884 71 R. R. 701
..
..
413
V. Chatham (1843), 5 M. & Gr. 64
7 Scott N. R. 581
1
Lut. Reg. Cas. 51
13 L. J. C. P. 44 7 Jur. 1136 ..
217, 218
V. Chester Ry. Co. (1862), 1 Dr. & Sm. 524
3 De G. P. &
J. 352
8 Jur. 221 31 L. J. Ch. 97 7 L. T. 197 9 W. R.
760
91
V. Coed Talon Colliery Co., [1909] 1 K. B. 957
78 L. J.
K. B. 639 10 L. T. 565
55,346
V. Lumley (1854), 4 E. & B. 358
24 L. J. Q. B. 29 99
R. R. 609
404
V. Morris (1862), 2 De G. M. & G. 349
21 L. J. Ch. 761
16 Jur. 603
465,570
V. Smallwood (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 306
69 L. J. Q. B. 503
V.

63L. T. 198
Hull Dock Co. V. Browne

553
(1831), 2 B.

&

Ad. 59

36 R. R. 459
500, 504, 628

Mitchell (1839), 11 A. & E. 205 9 L. J. Q. B. 29 2


Rail. Cas. 70
3 P. & D. 141 62 R. R. 318 ..

70, 575
Hnmfrey v. Gery (1849), 7 C. B. 567 78 R. R. 762
..
..
303
Humphreys v. Green (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 148 52 L. J. Q. B. 140 ;
455
48 L. T. 60 ; 47 J. P. 244

Humble

V.

v. City Steam Bt. Co. (1860), 3 E & E.


..
30 L. J. Q. B. 25 7 Jur. N. S. 67 3 L. T. 732
Hunt V. G. Northern Ry. Co. (1851), 10 C. B. 900 2 L.M. & P.
..
268 20 L. J. Q. B. 349; 15 Jur. 400 84 R. R. 840
29 L. J. Ex. 222 6 Jur.
V. Hibbs (1860), 5 H. & N. 123
N. S. 78 ; 2 L. T. 379 8 W. R. 238
48 L. J. C. P.
V. Wimbledon Loc. Bd. (1878), 4 C. P. D. 48
207 ; 39 L. T. 35 ; 27 W. R. 123

Hungerford Market Co.


365

679

297

660

Digitized

by Microsoft

671

TABLE OF OASES.

Ixvi

PAGE
Clare, [1899] 1 Q. B. 635 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 278
197 ; 47 W. R. 394 ; 63 J. P. 308
V. Gibbons (1856), 1 H.
N. 459 ; 26 L. J. Ex. 1

Hunter .

&

80 L. T.

193
5 W..R.

12
10 Jur. N. S. 1249 108 R. R. 672
Nockolds (1850), 1 Mac. & G. 640; 1 H. & T. 644 19
..
74, 303
L. J. Ch. 177 14 Jur. 256
84 R. R. 217 ..
269
V. Potts (1791), 4 T. R. 182
2 H. Bl. 403 2 R. R. 353 ..
419
Hurcum u. Hilleary, [1894] 1 Q. B. 579, C. A
Hurlbatt v. Bamett, [1893] 1 Q. B. 77 62 L. J. Q. B. 1 67
561
L. T. 818 41 W. R. 33
Hussey v. Home Payne (1879), 4 App. Gas. 311 48 L. J. Ch.
512
846 41 L. T. 1 27 W. R. 585
153
Hussey's Case (1611), |9 Rep. 71, b
315,322
Hutching . Player (1663), Bridg. 272
Hutchinson, Be (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 521 55 L. J. Q. B. 582
31
34W. R. 476
.,
V. Gillespie (1856), 11 Ex. 798
25 L. J. Ex. 103 2 Jur.
711
N. S. 403 105 R. R. 799
3 C. L. R. 115 24
V. Greenwood (1855), 4 E. & B. 324
510
..
..
L. J. Q. B. 2
1 Jur. N. S. 329 99 R. R. 491
Huxham V. Wheeler (1864), 3 H. & C. 75 33 L. J. M. C. 153
322
..
..
10 Jur. N. S. 545 10 L. T. 342 12 W. R. 713
Hyams v. Stuart King, [1908] 2 K. B. 696 77 L. J. K. B. 794
210
99L. T. 424
Hyde v. Johnson (1836), 2 Bing. N. C. 776 5 L. J. C. P. 291
..
..
69, 138
3 Scott 289; 2 Hodges 94; 42 R. R. 737
Hyman v. Van den Bergh, [1908] 1 Ch. 167 77 L. J. Ch. 154
17
98I^T. 478
91

V.

I.

West Ham Union (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 69 51 L. J. Q. B.


8 App.
17 ; 46 L. T. 149 30 W. R. 303 46 J. P. 660
928
Cas. 386 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 650 49 L. T. 205 ; 31 W.
47J. P. 708
Imperial Gas Co. v. London Gas Co. (1864), 10 Ex. 39 2 C. L. R.
102
1230 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 303
2 W. R. 627
18 Jur. 497

lies V.

&

350

12
Pemsel, [1891] App. Cas. 531 ; 61 L. J.
..
..
Q. B. 266 55 J. P. 806
1, 108, 448, 640, 544
India, The (1863), 32 L. J. P. M. & A. 185 ; 1 B. & L. 221 ; 12
L. T. 316
278
(No. 2) (1864), 33 L. J. P. M. & A. 193
296, 735
Indian Chief, The (1800), 3 Rob. C. 12
111,265
Industry, The (1812), 1 Gallison 114
..
..
338, 500, 501
Ingate^!. Austrian Lloyd's Co. (1858), 4 C. B. N. S. 704
27 L. J.
C. P. 323 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 976 ; 114 R. R. 905
673
Inglis V. G.
Rail. Co. (1852), 16 Jur. 895, H. L. Sco. ..
138, 139
Ingliss ?;. Grant (1794), 5 T. R. 530
258

R. R. 466

Income Tax Commrs.

v.

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.
Ingram

&

TAGB

Royle

541, C.

Ings

V.

Ixvil

v.

London

C. P. 86

Services Maritimes du Tr^port, [1914] 1 K. B.

& S. W. Ry. Co. (1868), L.

17

W.

276,677
R. 4 C. P. 19

R. 120

38 L.

J.

..
398
Inland Revenue v. Angus (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 579 38 W. R. 3 504
V. Forrest (1891), 15 App. Cas. 334
60 L. J. Q. B. 281
63 L. T. 36 39 W. R. 33 ; 54 J. P. 772
508
V. Oliver, [1909] A. C. 427 ; 78 L. J. P. C. 146 ; 101 L. T.
140; 53 S. J. 649
509
V. Scott, [1892] 2 Q. B. 152
61 L. J. Q. B. 432 67 L. T.
173 ; 40 W. R. 632 56 J. P. 580, 632
544
Institute of Patent Agents v. Lockwood, [1894] App. Cas. 347
63 L. J. P. C. 74 71 L. T. 205
..
..
66,93,283,527
International Pulp Co., Jie (1876), 3 Ch. D. 594 ; 45 L. J. Ch.
446 35 L. T. 229 ; 24 W. R. 535
269
lona, The (1867), L. R. 1 P. 0. 426 ; 4 Moo, P. C. N. S. 336 ; 16
L. T. 158
517
lonides v. The Pacific Insurance Co. (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 517
41 L. J. Q. B. 190 ; 26 L. T. 738 21 W. R. 22
..
204
..
Irish Land Commission v. Brown, [1904] 2 Ir. R. 200, Ir.
..
457
V. Grant (1884), 10 App. Cas. 14
52 L. T. 228 33 W. R.
357
..
..
..
..
..
..
297
Irish Peat Co. v. Phillips (1861), 1 B. & S.'598
30 L. J. Q. B.
363 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1189 4L. T. 806 9 W. R. 873
654
..
Ironsides, The (1862), Lush. 458
31 L. J. P. M. & A. 129 6
401
L. T. 59
Irresistible, The (1822), 7 Wheat. 551
733
64 L. J. Q. B. 191 ; 71 L. T.
Isaacson, Re, [1895] 1 Q. B. 333
812 43 W. R. 278
702 703
..
Isherwood v. Oldkiiow (1815)'," 3 M.'& S. 382 ; leR. R."305 .. 539
38 L. J. Ex. 89 20
Isitt V. Beeston (1869), L. R. 4 Ex. 159
576
L. T. 371 ; 17 W. R. 620
151
Ives, iJe (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 665
-y.lWillans, [1894] 2 Ch. 478; 63 L.J. Ch. 521 ; 70 L. T.
47
674 ; 42 W. R. 483
723
Iveson . Moore (1699), 1 Salk. 15
;

..

'

Jackson*. BarryRy. Co., [1893], ICh. 238,.C. A


24 L. J. Ex. 301 105
V. Beaumont (1855), 11 Ex. 300
R. R. 536
22 L. J. Ex. 13 91 R. R.
V. Burnham (1852), 8 Ex. 173
..
421
V. Roth (1918), 35 T. L. R. 59. D. C
39 L. J. C. P. 321
V. Spittall (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 542
22 L. T. 755 18 W. R. 1162
27 L. J. Q. B. 448 4
V. WooUey (1858), 8 E. & B. 778
Jur. N. S. 656 112 R. R. 774

683

by Microsoft

349
210

Digitized

151

277

391

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixviii

PAGE

Brett (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 1 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 377 ; 32


235,237,238
L. T. 522 23 W. R. 556
..
..
..
V Credit ILyonnais (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 589 53 L. J. Q. B.
156 50 L. T. 194 32 W. R. 761
277, 674
78
V. Hart (1900), 2 F. (Just. Cas.) 33, Sco
James v. Buena Ventura Syndicate, [1896] 1 Ch. 457 65 L. J. Ch.
130
284 74 L. T. 1 ; 44 W. R. 372
. S. W. Ry. Co., (1872); L. R. 7 Ex. 287
41 L. J. Ex. 82
241,678
27 L. T. 382 20 W. R. 238
41
Jameson, Be, [1908] 2 Ch. Ill 77 L. J. Ch. 729 98 L. T. 745
39
V. Brick Co. (1878), 4 Q. B. D. 208 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 249
349
..
L. T. 594 ; 27 W. R. 221
..
733
Jaques . Withy (1788), 1 H. Bl. 65
..
566
Jarman, Ex. p. (1877). 4 Ch. D. 835 46 L. J. Ch. 485 ..
Jarrett v. Hunter (1886), 34 Ch. D. 182
56 L. J. Ch. 141 ; 55
514
L. T. 727 35 W. R. 132 51 J. P. 165
652
Jarvis v. Hemmings (No. 1), [1912] 1 Ch. 462
Jay V. Johnstone, [1893] 1 Q. B. 25, 189 62 L. J. Q. B. 128
542
68 L. T. 129 ; 41 W. R. 161 57 J. P. 309
Affd.,
Jay's Furnishing Co. v. Brand & Co., [1914] 2 K. B. 132
652
[1915] 1K.B. 458
3 C. L. R. 625 24
JefiFerys v Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. Cas. 815
L. J. Ex. 81 1 Jur. N. S. 615
..
4, 74, 273, 274, 275, 291
Jeffreys v. Gurr (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 833
1 L. J. K. B. 23 ; 36
617
R. R. 769
Jeffries v. Alexander (1860), 8 H. L. C. 594 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 148
7
Jur. N. S. 221 ; 2 L. T. 768
208,210,216,225
Jenkins v. Gt. Central Ry. (1912), 81 L. J. K. B. 24
..
26
..
V. Jones (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 128; 51 L. J. Q. B. 438
46
L. T. 795
30 W. R. 668
310
Jenner v. S. E. Ry. Co. (1911), 105 L. T. 131 ; 75 J. P. 419 55
S.J. 553
635
Jennings v. Hammond (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 225 ; 51 L. J. Q. B.
493;31W. R.40
091
Jennings' Cabe (1838), 2 Lew. C. C. 1.30
582
Jesson V. Wright (1820), 2 Bligh 55 21 R. R. 1, H. L
369
Jestons D. Brooke (1778), 2 Cowp. 793
210
Jesus College Case (1616), Duke on Charit. Uses, p. 78
156
Jewel V. Stead (1856), 6 E. & B. 350 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 294 ; 1 Jur.
N. S. 1136
612
Jeyes 1!. Booth (1797), 1 B. & P. 97
685
Johannes, The (I860), Lush. 182
268,272
Johannesberg Co., Be, [1892] 1 Ch. 583; 61 L. J. Ch. 284; 66
L. T. 605; 40 W. R. 456
436
Johns 1). Ware, [1899] 1 Ch. 359
174
Johnson, Ex p. (1863), 3 B. & S. 947 9 Jur. N. S. 1128 ; 32
L. J. M. C. 193; 11 W. R. 620; 8L. T. N. S. 275 ..
..
13
^tc^. (1839), 7Dowl. 702
585
V. Colam (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 544 ; 44 L. J. M. C. 185 ;
32 L. T. 725 23 W. R. 697
242

Jacobs

V.

Digitized

by Microsoft

. .

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixix
PAGE

Johnson

M.
V.

Croydon (Mayor)
117 54 L. T. 295

55 L. J.
(1886), 16 Q. B. D. 708
C.
50 J. P. 487
;
;
Harris (1855), 15 C. B. 357 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 40 ; 100 R. R.
v.

523

386

104
52 L. J. Q. B. 343 ; 48
L. T. 435; 31 W. R. 768; 5Asp. M,C. 51
577
V. Hudson (1809), 11 East 180
699
10 R. R. 465
..
..
V. Johnson, [1900] P. 19
69 L. J. P. 13 81 L. T. 791 ; 64
J. P. 72
152,519
>. Rees(1915), 84L. J. K. B. 1276
211
i; Upham (1859), 2 E. & E. 250 ; 28 L. J. Ex. 252 ..
450
..
i;. WUson (1882), 46 L. T. 647
..319
..
..
..
Johnston v. Coal Consumers' Co. of Toronto, [1898] A. C. 447
67 L. J. P. C. 33 78 L. T. 270, P. C
721,722
Johnstone v. Abercrorabie (1892), 30 Sc. L. R. 260, Sc.
474
Jolly V. Hancock (1852), 7 Ex. 820 22 L. J. Ex. 38 16 Jur.
550
648
Jones, Ex. p. (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 663 ; 44 L. J. Bank. 124
33
502
L. T. 116 ; 23 W. R. 886
Be (1852), 7 Ex. 586 16 Jur. 801 21 L. J. M. C. 116 .. 574
Be (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 589 Affd. 59 L. J. Q. B. 331
..
358
Be, [1891] 2 Q. B. 231
60iL. J. Q. B. 751 ; 64 L. T. 804
40 W. R. 95 8 M. B. R.210
576, 579
u Badley (1867), L. R. 3 Eq. 635
221
-v. Bird (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 837 ; 1 D. & R. 497 ; 24 R. R.
630
579
V. Carmarthen (1841), 8 M. & W. 605
10 L. J. Ex. 401 ;
621
58R. R. 826
V. Conway Water Supply, [1893] 2 Ch. 603; 62 L. J. Ch.
..
363
..
767 69 L. T. 265 41 W. R. 616 57 J. P. 501
126
V. Davies, [1901] 1 K. B. 118; 70 L. J. K. B. 38
..
..
..589
V.
..
[1898] 1 Q. B. 405 67 L. J. Q. B. 294
V. Eestiniog Ry. Co. (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 733; 37
L. J. Q. B. 214
18 L. T. 902 17 W. R. 28 ; 9 B. & S. 835 632
428, 438
V. Harrison (1851), 6 Ex. 328 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 166
21 L. J. M. C. 102 ; 16 Jur.
V. Johnson (1852), 7 Ex. 452
365
840
80 L. J. Ch. 145 103
V. Llanrwst U. C, [1911] 1 Ch. 393
723
L. T. 751 75 J. P. 68 ; 9 L. G. R. 222
y.Mersey Docks Co. (1864), 11 H. L. Cas. 443; 35 L. J.
V.

Hogg

(1883), 10 Q. B. D. 432

"

. .

..
229,543
C. 1
..
Ogle (1872), L. R. 8 Ch. 192 42 L. J. Ch. 332 28 L. T.
384
245; 21 W. R. 239
99
V. Shervington, [1908] 2 K. B. 539 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 771
75,187
L. T. 57 ; 72 J. P. 381
21
I'. Smart (1785), 1 T. R. 44
117
V. Taylor (1859), 1 E. & B. 20 ; 28 L. J. M. C. 204
194
R. R. 122
27 L. J. Q. B. 234 ; 4
V. Thompson (1858), E. B. & E. 63
101
Jur. N S. 338 113 R. R. 545

M.
V.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

IXX

PAGE

Jones

Victoria Graving

V.

Dock Co.

314 46
R. 348,

(1877), 2 Q. B. D.
144, 347 ; 25 W.

L. J. Q. B. 219 ; 36 L. T.
273, 512, 515
501
513
Jones Bros. w. Joyner (1900), 82 L. T. 768
Jones Lloyd & Co., He (1889), 41 Ch. D. 159 58 L. J. Ch. 582 ;
..
129
61 L. T. 219 ; 37 W. R. 615 1 M. B. R. 161
..
Jordeson v. Sutton Gas Co., [1899] 2 Ch. 217 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 457 ;
630
80 L. T. 815 ; 63 J. P. 692
..
Jorgensen v. Neptune Steam Fishing Co. (1902), 4 Fraser 992,
..
268, 269
Sco
..
Jortin V. S. E. R. Co. (1855), 6 De 6. M. & G. 270 ; 24 L. J. Ch.
702
343 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 433 106 R. R. 95
Jubb V. Hull Dock Co. (1846), 9 Q. B. 443 3 Rly. Cas. 795 ; 15
406
L. J. 0. B. 403 ; 11 Jur. 15 72 R. R. 332
Julius V. Oxford (Bp. of) (1880), 5 App. Cas. 214 ; 49 L. J. Q. B.
427, 432, 433,
577 ; 42 L. T. 546 28 W. R. 726 ; 44 J. P. 600
;

434, 435, 438, 443

K.

Kaufman

v. Gerson, [1903] 2 K. B. 114


73 L. J. K. B. 320
Goodwin (1830), 6 Bing. 576 31 R. R. 500
..
Kearney v. Whitehaven Colliery Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 700 62 L.

Kay

44

..

..728
J.

68 L. T. 690 ; 41 W. R. 594 57 J. P. 645


..
Reams v. Cordwainders' Co. (1859), 6 C. B. N. S. 388; 28
L. J. C. P. 285 5 Jnr. N. S. 1216
91,
Keates v. Lewis Merthyr Collieries, [1910] 2 K. B. 445 79 L. J.
K. B. 722 ; 102 L. T. 898 74 J. P. 292
Keen . Price, [1914] 2 Ch. 98
Keep V. St. Mary's, Newington, [1894] 2 Q. B. 524 63 L. J.
Q. B. 369 ; 70 L. T. 509 ; 58 J. P. 748
. Stevens (1909), 73 J. P. 112
Keighley's Case (1609), 10 Rep., 140a
Keilley v. Carson (1843), 4 Moo. P. C. 0. 63 7 Jur. 137, P. C.
Kelly, Be, [1895] 1 Q. B. 180 ; 64 L.J. Q. B. 129
71 L. T. 843
43W. R. 191
Kemp . Lewis, [1914] 3 K. B. 543
V. Neville (1861), 31 L. J. C. P. 158
V. Waddingham (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 358
Kennedy v. Cowie, [1891] 1 Q. B. 771 60 L. J. M. C. 170 64
L. T. 598 ; 39 W. R. 686 ; 65 J. P. 680 17 Cox C. C. 320
1). Gibson (1869), 8 Wallace 498
..'
..
..
445
Ketit C. C, Ex p., [1891] 1 Q. B. 725 60 L. J. Q. B. 435 65
L. T. 213 39 W. R. 465 55 J. P. 647
..
V. Gerrard, [1897] A. C. 625 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 077 ; 77 L. T
109 46 W. R. Ill ; 61 J. P. 804
Kenworthy v. Schofield (1824), 2 B. & C. 945 ; 4 D. & R. 556
26R. R. 600
Kenyon v. Eastwood (1888), 57 L. J. Q. B. 455

M.

C. 129

704
578

202
199

336
351
228
632

'

438
138
272
727

168
570

542
94

Digitized

by Microsoft

512
15

TABLE OF CASES.
Kenyon

v.

Jur. N.

Kerrison

PAGE

&

Hart

Ixxi

M.

S. 249
34 L. J.
(1865), 6 B.
S. 602
11 L. T. 733 ; 18 W. R. 406
;

C. 87

..

..

11

Cole (1807), 8 East 231


Keynaham v. Baker (1864), 2 H. tfc C. 729 33 L. J. Ex. 41 ; 9
Jur. N. S. 1346
12 W. R. 156 ; 9 L. T. N. S. 418 ..
..
Kibble, Exp. (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 373 ; 44 L. J. Bank. 63 ; 32
L. T. 138 ; 23 W. R. 433
Kimberley W. W. Co. v. De Beers Mines, [1897] A. C. 515 ; 66
L. J. P. C. 108 ; 77 L. T. 117, P. C
Kimbray*. Draper (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 160 37 L. J. Q. B. 80
18 L. T. 540 ; 16 W. R. 539 9 B. & S. 80
..
..
401,
Kine V. Evershed (1847), 10 Q. B. 148 16 L. J. Q. B. 271 11
Jur. 673
King V. George (1877), 5 Ch. D. 627 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 670 36
L. T. 759 ; 25 W. R. 638
Kingsford v. G. W. Ry. Co. (1864), 16 C. B. N. S. 761 33 L. J.
C. P. 307 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 804
10 L. T. 722 12 W. R.
1059
24,
Kingston-upon-HuU Dock Co. v. Browne (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 59
.

167
703

119

392
125

403

414

583

141

36R. R. 459
500,504,528
Rinning, Exp. (1847), 10 Q. B. 730 ; 16 L. J. Q. B. 257
..
643
;;. Buchanan
18 L. J. C. P. 332 79
(1849), 8 C. B. 271
R. R. 490
643,644
Kippins, JUx p., [1897] 1 Q. B. 1 66 L. J. Q. B. 95 75 L. T.
421 45 W. R. 188 60 J. P. 791 18 0. C. C. 459
..
574
Kirk V. Todd (1882), 21 Ch. D. 484 52 L. J. Ch. 224 ; 47 L. T.
676; 31 W. R. 69
12, 369
Kirkland v. Peatfield, [1903] 1 K. B. 756 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 355 ;
88 L. T. 472 ; 51 W. R. 544
303
Kirkleatham Local Bd., Se, [1893] 1 Q. B. 375 62 L. J. Q. B.
293
180 ; 67 L. T. 811 57 J. P. 229
Kirkpatrick v. Tattersall (1845), 13 M. & W. 766 ; 1 C. & K.
69
577 ; 14 L. J. Ex. 209 9 Jur. 214
Kirkstall Brewery, Se (1877), 5 Ch. D. 535 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 424
37L. T. 312
..
556
Kirshenboim v. Salmon and Glucksteln, [1898] 2 Q. B. 19 67
L. J. Q. B. 601 78 L. T. 658 46 W. R. 573 62 J. P. 439 195
Kish V. Taylor, [1911] 1 K. B. 625 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 607 103 L. T.
785 ; 16 Com. Cas. 59
370
Kitchen, iJe (1919), 35 T. L. R. 612
127
V. Bartsch (1805), 7 East 53 j 3 Smith 58
532
V. Shaw (1837), 6 A. & E. 729
7 L. J. M. C. 14 ; 1 N. & P.
585
791 ; W. W. & D. 278
Kitson V. Ashe, [1899] 1 Q. B. 425 68 L. J. Q. B. 286 ; 80 L. T.
323 03 J. P. 325
..
523
..
..
Kittow v. Liskeard (1875), L.R. lOQ. B.'7 44 L. J. M. C. 23';
129
31 L. T. 601 ; 23 W. R. 72
Knight, Be (1848), 1 Ex. 802 17 L. J. Ex. 168 12 Jur. 101 ;
297
74R. R. 857
69
V. Crockford (1794), 1 Esp. 190 ; 5 R. R. 729
..
..
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

Ixxii

PACK

Knight

459

Famaby

(1706), 2 Salk. 670


V. Lee, [1893J 1 Q. B. 41 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 28
41 W. R. 125 ; 57 J. P. 117
?;.

67 L. T. 688

385
107

Knight of St. Michael, The, [1898] P. 30


Knill '. Towse (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 186

J. Q. B. 136,
; 59 L.
61
..
..
38 W. R. 521 ; 54 J. P. 789
Knowles & Sons, Ltd. v. Bolton Corporation, [1900] 2 Q. B. 257 142
Kodak Lim. v: Clarke, [1903] 1 K. B. 505 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 369 ;
271
88 L. T. 155 ; 51 W. R. 459 ; 67 J. P. 213
102
Konigsberg, The, [19171 P. 174
Kronheim v. Johnson (1877), 7 Ch. D. 60 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 132 ; 37
512
26 W. R. 142
L. T. 751
Kruse v. Johnson, [1898] 2 Q. B. 91 67 L. J. Q. B. 782 ; 78
523, 525
L. T. 647 ; 46 W. R. 630 ; 62 J. P. 469
Kutner v. Phillips, [1891] 2 Q. B. 267 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 505 ; 64
280, 314
L. T. 628 ; 39 W. R. 526
291
Kyle 1). Jeffreys (1859), 3 Macq. H. L. Cas. 611, H. L
Kynaston v. Mackinder (1878), 47 L. J. Q. B. 76 ; 37 L. T. 390 B08

697

63 L. T. 47

L.

678
D. Trill (1842), 6 Jur. 272
Lafone v. Smith (1859), 3 H. & N. 735 28 L. J. Ex. 33 4 Jur.
211
N. S. 1064 117 R. R. 9.59
35
Laird 1). Briggs (1881), 19 Ch. D. 22
Lake v. Butler (1855), 5 E. & B. 92 3 C. L. R. 1124 24 L. J.
612
..
..
Q. B. 273 1 Jur. N. S. 499 103 R. R. 383
Lakeman v. Stephenson (1868), L. R. 3Q. B. 192 37 L. J. M. C.
495
..
..
57; 18L. T. 539; 16 W. R. 509; 9B. &S. 54
Laker v. Hordern (1876), 1 Ch. D. 644 45 L. J. Ch. 315 34
43
L. T. 88 24 W. R. 543
223
..
Lamb v. Brewster (1879), 48 L. J. Q. B. 277, 421
..
21 L. T.98
V. N. London Ry. Co. (1870), L. R. 4 Ch. 522
529
17W. R. 746
,
575
V. Stott (1899), 36 Sc. L. R. 913, Se
Lambert v. Hutchinson (1841), 2 M. & Gr. 858 3 Scott N. R.
142
^21
249
V. Taylor (1825), 4 B. & C. 138
..
..
6 D. & R. 188
152
Lambton i;. Parkinson (1887), 35 W. R. 545
Lamplough v. Norton (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 452 58 L. J. Q. B.
279 37 W. R. 422 53 J. P. 389
40,708
Lancashire v. Stretford (1858), E. B. & E. 225 27 L. J. M. C.
247
209; 4 Jur. N. S. 1274; 113R. R. 613
Lancashire and Yorkshire Ry.'Co. v. Bury; (1889), 14 App. Cas.
417 61 L. T. 417 59 L. J. Q. B. 85
131,035
..
..
V. Knowles (1888), 14 App. Cas. 248
20 Q. B. D. 391 57
54
L. J. 0- B. 150 52 J. P. 340

Lade

^Brick, &c. Co.


651, C. A

v.

Lanes.

&

Yorks. Rail. Co., [1902] 1 K. B.

91

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxiii
PAGE

Lancaster, Be (1878), 3 Ch. D. 498 ; 45 L. J. Bank. 147 ; 35


L. T. 649; 24W. R. 1010
D. Greaves (1829), 9 B. fc C. 628
Lane v. Bennett (1836), 1 M. &. W. 70 1 Gale 368
..
..
V. Cotton (1701), 12 Mod. 485; 1 Ld. Raym. 746 ..
..
V. Lane, [1896 J P. 133 ; 65 L. J. P. D. & A. 63
74 L. T.
557; 60 J. P. 345
V. Rendall, [1899] 2 Q. B. 673 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 8 ; 81 L. T.
445 48 W. R. 153 ; 63 J. P. 757
V. Tyler (1887), 56 L. J. Q. B. 461
Lang . Kerr (1878), 3 App. Cas. 536, H. L
V. Walker (1902), 40 Sc. L. R. 284, Sc
Langham Rink Co., iJe (1877), 5 Ch. D. 669; 46 L. J. Ch. 345;
36L. T. 605
Langrish v. Archer (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 44 ; 52 L. J. M. C. 47
47 L. T. 548 31 W. R. 183 ; 47 J. P. 295 ; 15 Cox C. C.
;

135
585
30
145

397
196
198
92
474

592

194
v.

Larpent v. Bibby (1855), 5 H. L. Cas. 481


101 R. R. 252, H. L

Latham v. Hide

492, 600
688, 694

&
&

Hughes

S. 593 ; 14 R. R. 531
(1855), 1 M.
W. 535 ; 6 L. J. Ex. 136
Lanman . Audley (1837), 2 M.
Lanston Monotype Coi'pn. v. Anderson, [1911] 2 K. B. 15
L. J. K. B. 951 ; 104 L. T. 503

Langton

(1832), 1 C. &JVI. 128

518

..
;

80
504

24 L. J. Q. B. 301

388

2 L. J. Ex. 72

D. P. C.

594; 3Tyr. 143


697
V. Lafone (1867), L. R. 2 Ex. 115
36 L. J. Ex. 97
15
W.R. 453 15 L. T. N. S. 627
92
Latless V. Holmes (1792), 4 T. R. 660
740
Lauri v. Renad, [1892] 3 Ch. 402 61 L. J. Ch. 580 67 L. T.
275 40 W. R. 679
382,387
Lavy V. L. C. C, [1895] 2 Q. B. 577 ; 64 |L. J. M. C. 262 ; 73
58
L. T. 106 43 W. R. 677 ; 59 J. P. 630
Law V. Hodaon (1809), 11 East 300 2 Camp. 147 ; 10 R. R. 513 695
Law Society v. Shaw (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 1 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 249
46 L. T. 187 ; 30 W. R. 820 46 J. P. 308 and 8 App. Cas.
..
471
407 52 L. J. Q. B. 674 49 L. T. 141 31 W. R. 754
Lawrence v. G. N. Ry. Co. (1851), 16 Q. B. 643 20 L. J. Q. B.
..
630
293 15 Jur. 652 6 Rly. Cas. 656 83 R. R. 645 ..
37 L. J. M. C. 78 18
V. King (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 345
..
67,564
L.T. N. S. 356; 16W. R. 966; 9B. &S. 325
9 L. J. Q. B. 284
V. Wilock (1840), 11 A. & E. 941
683
3P. &D. 536; 8D. P. C.681
269
Laws . Smith (1883), 9 A. C. 356, P. C
Lawson v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1896] 2 Ir. R. 418, Ir. 270
-y. Reynolds, [1904] 1 Ch. 718
150
54 L. J. Ch.
V. Vacuum Brake Co. (1884), 27 Ch. D. 137
430
16 51 L. T. 275 33 W. R. 186
413
Lea u. Facey (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 354
Leach v. Jay (1878), 9 Ch. D. 42 47 L. J. Ch. 876 27 W. R.
106
99; 39L. T. 242
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxiv

PAGE

..572
Richardson (1762), 3 Burr. 1341 ,.
Leader V. DuflFey (1888), 13 A. C. 294
13,14
10
V. Yell (1864), 16 C. B. N. S. 584
33 L. J. M. C. 231
..
L. T. 532
..
475
10 Jur.N. S. 731 12 W. R. 915
345
Learoyd, ^x p. (1880), 13 Ch. D. 321
69 L. T.
V. Bracken, [1894] 1 Q. B. 114; 63 L. J. Q. B. 96
700
668 42 W. R. 196
194
Leatt V. Vine (1861), 30 L. J. M. 0. 217 8 L. T. 581
64
Leconfield (Lord) v. Lonsdale (Lord) (1870), 39 L. J. C. P. 305
Lee V. Bude & Torrington Ry. Co. (1871"), L. R. 6 C. P. 576 40
228, 440, 460
L. J. C. P. 285
24 L. T. 827 19 W. R. 954
V. Dangar, [1892] 2 Q. B. 337
61 L. J. Q. B. 780 66 L. T.
..
548 40 W. R. 469 56 J. P. 678
167, 188, 332, 473
4 D. & L. 666 16 L. J. C. P.
V. Simpson (1847), 3 C. B. 871
105 11 Jur. 127 71 R. R. 524
178, 575
V. Taylor (1912), 23 Cox C. C. 220
193
Leech v. N. Staffordshire Ry. Co. (1860), 29 L. J. M. 0. 150 8
635
W. R. 216 5 H. & N. 160
Lees V. Newton (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 658 35 L. J. C. P. 285
14W. R. 938
100
. Summergill (1811), 17 Ves. 508
82
37 L. J. C. P. 157 ; 18
Leefce v. Hart (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 322
L. T. 292 16 W. R. 676
414
Le Eeuvre v. Miller (1857), 8 E. & B. 3^ 26 L. J. M. C. 175
122 R. R. 582
3 Jur. N. S. 1255
654, 667
Leggott V. G. N. Ry. Co. (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 599 45 L. J. Q. B.
657 35 L. T. 334 24 W. R. 784
449
Leicester Corporation v. Burgess (1833), 5 B. & A. 246 2 N. & M.
131 39 R. R. 450
321
Leigh V. Kent (1789), 3 T. R. 362 ..
..
240,532,534,735 738
Leith Council v. Leith Harbour Comm., [1899] A. C. 508 68
L. J. P. C. 109 81 L. T. 98, H. L
626
Leith Harbour Comm. v. Poor Inspector (1866), L. R. 1 Sc. App.
17
247
Le Louis (1817), 2 Dods. 229
263, 266, 272
Leman v. Houseley (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 66 44 L. J. Q. B. 22
31 L. T. 833 23 W. R. 235
..
394
Lemayne v. Stanley (1681), 3 Lev. 1
..
..
69, 514
Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier (1895), 64 L. J. P. C. 97 ..
256
Lemm v. Mitchell, [1912] A. C. 400 81 L. J. P. C. 173
..
9
Lemy V. Watson, [1915] 3 K. B. 731
191
Le Neve v. Le Neve (1747), Amb. 436
456
Leng, Re, [1895] 1 Ch. 652 64 L. J. Oh. 468 72 L. T. 407 43
W. R. 406
174
Lennox v. Stoddart, [1902] 2 K. B. 21 71 L. J. K. B. 747 87
L. T. 283 66 J. P. 469
600
Leominster Canal Co. v. Shrewsbury, &c. |Ry. Co. (1857), 3
K. & J. 654 26 L. J. Ch. 764 3 Jur. N. S. 930 112 R. R,
328
654
Lead Smelting Co.

v.

. .

.-.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

IxxV
PAGE

Leon, The (1881), 6 P. D. 148 50 L. J. P. D. & A. 59 44 L, T.


613 29 W. R. 916 4 Asp. M. C.404
..
..
277, 278
Leroux v. Brown (1852), 12 C. B. 801 22 L. J. C. P. 3 16 Jur.
263,273
1021 ; 92 R. R. 889
Leslie v. Richardson (1848), 6 C. B. 378
6 D. & L. 91 17
L. J. C. P. 324 12 Jur. 730
142
Lester, Ex. p., [1893] 2 Q. B. 113
62 L. J. Q. B. 372 ; 68 L. T.
739 41 W. R. 488
477
V. Foxcroft (1701), Colles 108
1 Wh. & T. L. Cas. 881 ..
455
V. Garland (1808), 15 Ves. 248
10 R. R. 68
605
V. Hickling, [1916] 2 K. B. 302
16,703
V. Torrens (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 403
46 L. J. M. C. 280 25
W. R.691
351,361
Le Sueur u. Le Sueur (1876), 1 P. D. 139 45 L. J. P. D. & A. 73 ;
34 L. T. 511 24 W. R. 616
256
Leverson v. R. (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 394 18 W. R. 251
54, 538
Levet V. Gas Light & Coke Co, (1918), 35 T. L. R. 47
17
Levi V. Sanderson (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 330 38 L. J. Q. B. 135
17 W. R. 413 9 B. & S. 410
728,730
Levy ;. Warburton (1901), 70 L. J. K. B. 708
693
V. Yates (1838), 8 A. & E. 129
7 L. J. Q. B. 138 3 N. & P.
692
249 ; 1 W. W. & H. 219
Lewes V. Barnett (1876), 6 Ch. D. 252 47 L. J. Ch. 144 26
W. R. 101
365,371
Lewis, Ex. j>. (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 626 24 L. T. 785 19 W. R.
835
212
,Ex.'2>. (1888), 21 Q. B. D.
57 L. J.M. C."l08; 59
426
L.T. 338; 37 W.R. 13; 52J.P.773
Be (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 724 45 L. J. Q. B. 816 35 L. T.
347
859 ; 24 W. R. 1017
V. Carr (1876), 1 Ex. D. 484
46 L. J. Ex. 314 36 L. T.
500
44;24W.R.940
V. Davis (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. 86
44 L. J. Ex. 86 23 W. R.
664
635
56 L. J. M. C. 45 56
V. Fermor (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 532
196
35 W. R. 378 51 J. P. 371 16 Cox C. C. 176
L. T. 236
47 L. J. Q. B. 133
V. G. W. Ry. Co. (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 195
41
37 L. T. 774 26 W. R. 255
732
. Hughes, [1916] 1 K. B. 831, C. A
;;. Roberts (1862), 11 C. B.
N. S. 23 31 L. J. C. P. 51
136
5 L. T. 351
S. 485
K. & G; 402 8 Jur.
V. Weston-Super-Mare Local Board (1888), 40 Ch. D. 55
140, 231, 530
58 L. J. Ch. 39 59 L-.T. 769 37 W. R. 121 ..
Lichfield Corporation v. Simpson (1845), 8 Q. B. 65 15 L. J. Q. B.
714,715
78;70R. R. 417
65 L. J. M. C. 64 74
Liddell v. Lofthouse, [1896] 1 Q. B.295
600
L. T. 139 44 W. R. 349 60 J. P. 264
..607
..
1 D. N. S. 767
Liffin . Pitcher (1842), 6 Jur. 537
695
Lightfoot V. Tenant (1796), 1 Bos. & P. 551 4 R. R. 735
177
Limland . Stephens (1801), 3 Esp. 269
;

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

. .

TABLE OF OASES.

Ixxvi

PAGE

Lincoln College Case (1595), 3 Rep. 59 b


54, 375
454
Lincoln v. Wright (1859), 4 De G.
J. 16 ; 28 L. J. Oh. 705 ..
271
Lindsey i>. Barron (1848), 6 0. B. 291
V. Leigh (1848), 11 Q. B. 455 ; 3 New Sess. Cas. 99 ; 17
464
L. J. M. 0. 50 12 Jur. 286
Linton v. Blakeney Co-op. Soc. (1865), 3 H. &. C. 853 ; 34
731
ii. J. Ex. 211; 13L. T. 39; 13W. R. 843
Lion Insurance Co. v. Tucker (1883), 12 Q. B. D. 176 53
..
..
96
L. J. Q. B. 189 ; 49 L. T. 764 32 W. R. 546
683
Lismore V. Beadle (1842), 1 Dowl. N. S. 566
Little V. Poole (1829), 9 B. & C. 192
7 L. J. (0. S.) K. B. 158
696
32R. R. 630
30
Littledale, Ex. p. (1873), L. R. 9 Ch. 257 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 529
202
L. T. 213
22 W. R. 443
Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner (1861), 2 De G. F. & J. 502 ;
569,649,653,667
SOL. J. Ch. 379
Llandaff Market Co. o. Lyndon (1861), 8 10. B. IST. S. 515 ; 30
..
322
L. J. M. 0. 105 6 Jur. N. S. 1344 ; 8 W. R. 693
..
Llanover, He, [1903] 2 Ch. 330 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 729 ; 88 L. T. 856
385
51W. R. 615
544
Lloyd, i;a!. ^. (1851), 1 Sim. N. S. 248
, Ex.
60 L. J. Q. B. 751 64 L. T.
p., [1891] 2 Q. B. 231
804 ; 40 W. R. 95 8 M. B. R. 210
576, 579
V. Lloyd (1885), 14 Q. B. D.' 725
53 L. T. 536 ; 33 W. R.
420
457 49 J. P. 630 15 Cox 0. 0. 767
Lloyd Italiano, Re (1885), 29 Ch. D. 219 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 748 33
\V.R.728
268
Lobb V. Stanley (1844), 5 Q. B. 574 D. & M. 635 ; 13 L. J. Q. B.
69
117; 8 Jur. 462
..
Lock, Re, Ex. p. Poppleton (1890), 63 L. T. 320 ; 39 W. R. 15 7
M. B. R. 184
28
Lockwood V. Att.-Gen. (1842), 10 M.
W. 464 ..
..
..
10
Lodge V. Huddersfield Corpn. (No. 1) (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 568
314
v.\
(No. 2) (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 571
314
Logsdon V. Booth, [1900] 1 Q. B. 401 69 L. J. Q. B. 131 ; 81
L. T. 602 ; 48 W. R. 266 ; 64 J. P. 165
133
V. Trotter, [1900] 1 Q. B. 617
69 L. J. Q. B. 312 ; 82 L. T.
151 48 W. R. 365 64 J. P. 421
133
Lolley's Case (1812), 1 R. & R. 236 ; 2 0. & F. 567 n. ; 37 R. R.
249
256
London and Blackwall Ry. Co. v. Lim'ehouse (1857), 3 K. & J.
123 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 164
314,322
and N. W. Ry. v. Evans, [1893] 1 Ch. 1 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 1 ; 67
L. T. 630 41 W. R. 149
627
and N. W. Ry. Co. v. Ashton, [1919] 1 K. B. 623 ; W. N.
234
23,367
and S. W. Ry. Co. v. Flower (1876), 1 0. P. D. 77 45
L. J. 0. P. 54
33 L. T. 687
634
and S. W. Ry. Co. v. Hills, [1906] 1 K. B. 512 75 L. J.
K. B. 340 ; 94 L. T. 517 ; 70 J. P. 212
523

&

&

.'.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxvii

London and Suburban Land

Co. v. Field (1881), 16 Ch. D. 645


50 L. J. Ch. 549 44 L. T. 444
and Yorks. Bank v. Belton (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 457 54
L. J. Q. B. 568 34 W. R. 31 50 J. P. 861
..
..
Association of Shipowners v. London and India Docks, [1892]
3 Ch. 242 ; 62 L. J. Oh. 294 67 L. T. 238 7 Asp. M. C.

107

129

195

550

Bank

Mexico

Apthorpe, [1891] 2 Q. B. 378 ; 60 L. J.


Q. B. 653 ; 65 L. T. 601 ; .39 W. R. 564
Brighton & S. C. Ry. v. Truman (1885), 11 App. Cas. 45 55
L. J. Ch. 354 ; 42 L. T. 250 ; 34 W. R. 657 ; 50 J. P. 388
Brighton & S. C. Ry. v. Watson (1879), 4 C. P. D. 118 ; 48
L. J. C. P. 316 ; 40 L. T. 183
711,
Chatham & Dover Ry. v. S. E. Ry. (1889), 40 Ch. D. 100
58 L. J. Ch. 75 ; 60 L. T. 370 37 W. R. 65
(City of) V. Wood (1701), 12 Mod. 669
272, 459,
(Corporation) v. G. W. Ry. Co. [1910] 2 Ch. 314
79
L. J. Ch. 622 ; 103 L. T. 20 54 Sol. J. 562
..
..
(Corporation) v. London Joint Stock Bank (1881), 50 L. J.
Q. B. 594, H. L
,.
Cotton Co., Be (1866), L. R. 2 Eq. 53 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 425 ;
14 L. T. 135 ; 12 Jur. 313 14 W. R. 575
C. C. V. Att.-Gen., [1902] A. C. 165 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 268 ; 86
L. T. 161 ; 50 W. R. 497 ; 66 J. P. 340
..
231, 619,
C. C. V. Aylesbury Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 106 ; 67 L. J. Q, B.
24 77 L. T. 440 ; 61J. P. 759
C. C. V. Bermondsey Bioscope Co , [1911] 1 K. p. 445 80
L. J. K. B. 144; 103 L. T. 760
75 J. P. 53 ; 9 E. G. R. 79
of

v.

270

630
712

680
461

. .

. .

. .

42

549

60
623
465

77,
0.

75,

524

Humphreys, [1894] 2 Q. B. 755 ; 63 L. J. M.


58 J. P. 734 ; 38 Sol. Journ. 632 ; 71 L. T. 201 43
W. R. 13
113
C. C. V. London School Board, [1892] 2 Q. B. 606
40 W. R.
..
604; 56 J. P. 791..
280
C. C. V. Payne (No. 2), [1905] 1 K. B. 410
196
C. C. V. S. Metrop. Gas Co., [1904] 1 Ch. 76
73 L. J. Ch.
136 89 L. T. 618 52 W. E. 161 ; 68 J. P. 5 ; 2 L. G. R.
161 ; 20 T. L. R. 83, C. A
108,611
C. C. V. Wandsworth & Putney Gas Co. (1900), 82 L. T. 562 286
, &c. Dairy Co. v. Morley & Lanceley (1911), 80 L. J. K. B.
908
446
Furnishing Co. v. Solomon (1912), 28 T. L. R. 265
..
652
Joint Stock Bank v. London (Mayor) (1875), 1 C. P. D. 1 ;
45 L. J. C. P. 213 ; 32 L. T. 781
549,574
School Board v. Wood (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 415 54 L. J. M. C.
145 ; 54 L. T. 88 ; 50 J. P. 54
371^
School Board v. Wright (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 578: 53
L. J. Q. B. 266 ; 50 L. T. 606 ; 32 W. R. 577
48 J. P. 484 371
Long V. Gray (1863), 1 Moore, P. C. C. N. S. 411 9 Jur. N. S.
805 8 L. T. 738 11 W. R. 900, P. C.
555
C. C. V.

215

I.S,

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxviii

PAGE

Long Eaton Recreation Grounds Co.

-y.

Midland Ry. Co.

(1902),

71 L. J. K. B. 837
Longford, The (1889), 14 P. D. 34 58 L. J. P. & A. 33 60 L. T.
108,
373 37 W. R. 372 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 371
Longman v. Bast (1878), 3 0. P. D. 142 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 211 ; 38
L. T. 1
26 W. R. 183
Looker . Halcomb (1827), 4 Bing. 188
Lopez V. Burslem (1843), 4 Moo. P. C. C. 300, P.
Lord, Be (1855), 1 K. & J. 90 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 145 103 R. R. 27
S. 269
37 L. J.
11. Lee (1868), L. R.
3 Q. B. 404 ; 9 B.
Q. B. 121 16 W. R. 856
Love V. Bell (1884), 9 App. Cas. 286 53 L. J. Q. B. 258 51
L. T. 1
32 W. R. 725 ; 48 J. P. 516
Lovering v. Dawson (1875), L. R. 10 0. P. 711 ; 44 L. J. C. P.

-.

..
..
321 32 L T 819
Low V. Routledge "(1868), 33 lV J. ChV 717 'lO JurV 922 'io L. T.
838 ; 12 W. R. 1069 and L. R. 1 Ch. 42 35 L. J. Ch. 114
11 Jur. N. S. 939 13 L. T. 421 14 W. R. 90 and L. R.
3 H. L. 100 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 454 ; 18 L. T. 874 ; 16 W. R.

687

. .

&

361
519
241
278
403

'.

142

627

644

1081,

H.L

111,651
63

..
Lowcock V. Broughton Overseers (1883), 53 L. J. Q. B. 144
Lowe, E p., [1891] 1 Ch. 627 60 L. J. Ch. 292 64 L. T. 487
39 W. R. 369 2 Meg. 418
;

61
D. 667 54 L. J. Q. B. 561 53 L. T.
402, 608
886; 34 W. R. 144; 50 J. P. 244
V. Myers, [1906] 2 K. B. 265 ; 75 L. J. K. B. 651
95 L. T.
35
55,346
Lowther v. Bentinck (1875), L. R. 19 Eq. 166 44 L. J. Ch. 197 ;
31 L. T. 719 32 L. T. 156
597
V. Radnor (1806), 8 East 113
20 R. R. 542 n
585
Lucas V. Harris (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 127; 56 L. J. Q. B. 15 55
L. T. 658
35 W. R. 112; 51 J. P. 261
126
Lucey v. Ingram (1840), 6 M. & W. 302 ; 9 L. J. Ex. 196 55
R. R. 621
619
Luckraft v. Pridham (1877), 6 Ch. D. 205 46 L. J. Ch. 744 37
L. T. 208
26 W. R. 33
325
Ludlow V. Pike, [1904] 1 K. B. 531 73 L. J. K. B. 274 90 L. T.
458 ; 62 W. R. 475 ; 68 J. P. 243 20 T. L. R. 276 ..
224
..
Lumley, Be, [1894] 3 Ch. 135 63 L. J. Ch. 897 71 L. T. 7 ; 42
W. R. 633
402
Lundy Co., Be (1871), L. E. 6 Ch. 462 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 588 24
L. T. 922 19 W. R. 609
502
LuDt V. London and N. W. Ry. Co. (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 277 35
L. J. Q. B. 105 12 Jur. N. S. 409 ; 14 L. T. 225 ; 14 W. R.
497
636
Lurcott V. Wakely, [1911] 1 K. B. 905 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 713 104
L. T. 290
42
Lyde V. Barnard (1836), 1 M. & W. 101 5 L. J. Ex. 117 ; 1 Gale
388 ; 46 R. R. 269
419,445
,,

V.

Fox

(1885), 15 Q. B.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

Ixxix
PAGE

Lylea v. Southend-on-Sea, [1905] 2 K. B. 1 74 L. J. K. B. 484


92 L. T. 586 ; 69 J. P. 193
413,510
Lyme Regis v. Henley (1832), 1 Bing. N. C. 222 ; 5 Bing. 91 ; 3
B. &A. 77; 3M. &P. 278; 37R. R. 125
724
Lyn V. Wyn (1662), Bridg. Rep. by Bannister, 122
280, 314, 318
..
Lyne's Settlement Trusts, Re Gibbs, [1919] 1 Ch. 80
..
268
Lyon Fishmongers' Co. (1876), 1 App. Cas. 662 46 L. J. Ch.
..
68 35 L. T. 569 25 W. R. 165, H. L.
630, 578, 724
Lysaght, Re, [1898] 1 Ch. 115 ; 67 L. J. Oh. 65 ; 77 L. T. 637 ..
147
V. Clark, [1891] 1 Q. B. 652 ; 64 L. T. 776
267
Lysons i. Knowles, [1901] A. C. 79 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 170
..
124
;

!'.

M
Maas

V.

Pepper, [1905] A. C. 102

74 L. J. K. B. 462

92 L. T.

211
46 L. T. 907
131
(1880), 5 C. P. D. 194 49 L. J. C. P.
443 ; 42 L. T. 481 ; 28 W. R. 584
678
218, 233, 234
Macbeth v. Ashley (1874),"L. R. 2 Sc. App. 352, Sco.
..
V. Chislett, [1910] A. C. 220 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 376
..
94
MoCalmont v. Rankin (1853), 2 De G. M. & G. 403 ; 22 L. J. Ch.
570
554; 95R. R. 151
McCausland v. O'Callaghan, [1904] 1 Ir. R. 376, Ir
174
..
73
Macclesfield's (Lord) Case (1725), 16 State Trials 1389 ..
MaoDougall v. Paterson (1861), 11 C. B. 766 21 L. J. C. P. 27 ;
2 L. M. & P. 681 ; 6 Ex. 337 n. ; 15 Jur. 1108 ; 87 R. R.
4,117,428,437
869
86
Mace . Cadell (1774), Cowp. 232
33 L. J. C. P. 124 ; 10
V. Philcox (1864), 15 C. B. N. S. 600
633
Jur. N. S. 680 ; 9 L. T. 766 12 W. R. 670
187
Macey w. McKenzie (1903), 67 J. P. 261
McEwen v. West London Wharves, &c. Co. (1871), L. R. 6 Ch.
374
655
108
Macfarlane v. Lord Advocate [1894] A. C. 307
McGregor v. Deal, &c. Ry. Co. (1853), 18 Q. B. 618 22 L. J. Q. B.
..
..
672
69 ; 7 Rly. Cas. 227 17 Jur. 21 ; 88 R. R. 715
228
McHenry, .Ba;. JJ. (1883), 24 Ch. D. 35, C. A
M'Inany v. Hildreth, [1897] 1 Q. B. 600 66 L. J. Q. B. 376 ; 76
600
L. T. 463 ; 61 J. P. 325
682
Mcintosh, iJe (1892), 61 L.J. Q.B. 164
Maclver v. Burns, [1895] 2 Ch. 630 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 681 ; 73 L. T.
267
39;44W.R.40
Mackay, Exp. (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 643 42 L. J. Bank. 68 ; 28
212
L. T. 828 21 W. R. 664
McKinnon v. Penson (1854), 9 Ex. 609 23 L. J. M. C. 97 ; 18
725
Jur. 513
60
Mackonochie v. Martin (1881), 6 A. C. 424, H. L
McLean v. Nichol (1861), 7 Jur. IS. S. 999 4 L. T. 863 ; 9 W. R.
513
11

371

Mac, The (1882), 7 P. D. 126


McAUisteru. Rochester (Bp.)

61 L. J.

Adm. 81

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

IXXX

PA&E

McLean

Prichard (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 285 ; 58 L. T. 337 ; 36


W. E. 508
Macleary D. Tate, [1906] A. C. 24
Macleod v. Att.-Gen. for N.S.W., [1891] A. C. 455 ; 60 L. J. P. C.
55 65 L. T. 321, P. C.
McManus v. Cooke (1887), 35 Ch. D. 681 56 L. J. Ch. 662 ; 56
L. T. 900 35 W. R. 754 51 J. P. 708
..
'Master v. Lomax (1835), 2 Myl. & K. 32 4 L. J. Ch. 28
v.

120
204
257

MacPhail

u.

McQueen

v.

R. 159, Ir

Phillips, [1904] 1 Ir.

455
51
590

Jackson, [1903] 2 K. B. 163 72 L. J. K. B. 606 ;


607
88 L. T. 871 ; 1 L. G. R. 601 ; 67 J. P. 353
..
..565
Macrow t. G-. W. Ry. Co. (1871), 40 L. J. Q. B. 300
..
374
McSlaraith v. Dublin, &c. Ry. Co. (1871), L. R. 7 Ch. 139
..
..
62
McAVilliam v. Adams (1852), 1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 136
;

100
McWilliams, Ex p. (1803), 1 Sch. & Lef. 169, Ir
Maddison v. Alderson (1883), 8 App. Cas. 473 52 L. J. Q. B.
454, 455
737 49 L. T. 303 31 W. R. 820 47 J. P. 821
Madell V. Thomas, [1891] 1 Q. B. 230 60 L. J. Q. B. 227 64
L. T. 9 39 W. R. 280
209,212
Madrazo v. Willes (1820), 3 B. & Ad. 353 22 R. R. 422
266
..
Magdalen College Case (1615), 11 Rep. 71b-73a ..
207, 245, 252
Hospital V. Knotts (1879), 4 App. Cas. 324 48 L. J. Ch.
373, 375
579 40 L. T. 466 27 W. R. 682
Maggi, Re (1882), 20 Ch. D. 545 51 L. J. Ch. 560 ; 46 L. T.
362; 30 W.R. 729
174
Magnet, The (1875), L. R. 4 A. & E. 417 44 L. J. Adm..l
359
..
Main v. Stark (1890), 15 A. C. 388 59 L. J. P. C. 68 63
L. T. 10
382
Makin V. Watkinson (1870), L. R. 6 Ex. 25 40 L. J. Ex. 33;
23 L. T. 592 ; 19 W. R. 286
634
Maleverer t;. Redshaw (1670), 1 Mod. 35
701
Malins v. Freeman (1838), 4 Bing. N. C. 395 7 L. J. C. P. 212 ;
44R. R. 737
373
Mallan v. May (1844), 13 M. & W. 511 14 L. J. Ex. 48 9 Jur.
19; 63R. R. 708
4
Manchester (Mayor) v. Lyons (1883), 22 Ch. D. 277
..
..295
Manley v. St. Helens Co. (1858), 2 H. & N. 840 27 L. J. Ex.
159 115 R. R. 842
635
Mann V. Nurse (1901), 17 T. L. R. 569
180
Manning i. Lunn (1845), 2 Car. & K. 13
622
V. Phelps (1854), 10 Ex. 59
24 L. J. Ex. 62 ; 102 R. R.
475
297
Mansel v. Cogham, [1905] 1 Ch. 568 74 L. J. Ch. 327 92
L. T. 230
626
Mansell v. R. (1857), 8 E. & B. 54 27 L. J. M. C. 4 Dears. &
B. C. C. 375; 112R. R. 468
543
Mantle v. Jordan, [1897] 1 Q. B. 248 66 L. J. Q. B. 284; 75
L. T. 552 61 J. P. 119
18 C. C. C. 467
523
Manton v. Tabois (1885), 30 Ch. D. 92 54 L. J. Ch. 1008 53
L. T. 289 33 W. R. 832
..
..
..
..
..
59Q
;

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxxi
PAGE

& Co. V.

Junior A. & N. Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D. 369; 52


L. J. Oh. 67 47 L. T. 589 ; 31 W. R. 70
March, Re, Manderw. Hams (1884), 27 Ch. D. 166 54 L. J. Ch.
143; 51 L. T. 380 32 W. R. 241
155,
Margate Pier Go. v. Hannam (1819), 3 B. & Aid. 266 22 R. R.
378
Maria, The (1839), 1 W. Rob. 95

Maple

131

385

Marianna Flora, The (1826), 11 Wheat. 1


Marine Mansions Co., Re (1867), L. R. 4 Eq. 601

665
619
272

37 L. J.

Ch. 113

669
Kettering (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 308 ; 42
L. J. M. C. 137 ; 28 L. T. 446 ; 21 W. R. 737
..
..
90
Markham v. Stanford (1863), 14 C. B. N. S. 376 8 L. T. 277 .. 678
Marks v. Benjamin (1839), 5 M. & W. 565 ; 9 L. J. M. C. 20
3 Jur. 1194 52 R. R. 839
499
Marlborough, Re Duke of, [1894] 2 Ch. 133 63 L. J. Ch. 471 ;
70 L. T. 814 ; 42 W. R. 456
454
Marsden, Ex p. (1876), 2 Ch. D. 786 45 L. J. Bank. 141 34
L. T. 700 ; 24 W. R. 714
645
V. Meadows (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 80
50 L. J. Q. B. 536 ; 45
L. T. 301; 29W. R. 816
174,212
V. Saville Foundry (1878), 3 Ex. D. 203; 26 W. R. 784
..
17
Marsh v. Higgins (1850), 9 C. B. 551 ; 1 L. M. &
253 19
L. J. C. P.297; 82R. R. 436
388,397
MarshaU v. Berridge (1882), 19 Ch. D. 233 51 L. J. Ch. 329;
511
45 L. T. 599 ; 30 W. R. 93 46 J. P. 279
V. Bowen (1845), 7 M. & Gr. 188
899 1
8 Scott N.
Lut. Reg. Cas. 278 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 129 ; 9 Jur. 164 ; 66
R. R. 700
165, 374
V. Exeter (Bp.) (1862), 13 C. B. N. S. 820; 31 L. J. C. P.
532
262
610
i;. James (1874), 43 L. J. C. P. 281
21
V. Martin (1870), L. R. 5 Q. B. 239 ; 39 L. J. Q. B. 85
313
L. T. 788 ; 18 W. R. 378
16
V. NichoUs (1852), 18 Q. B. 882 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 343
238
Jur. 1155 ; 88 R. R. 822
V. Pitman (1833), 9 Ring. 601 ; 2 M. & Scott 745 ; 35
229
R. R. 630
V. UUeswater Co. (1863), L. R. 7 Q. B. 171 ; 41 L. J. Q. B.
724
41 ; 25 L. T. 793 20 W. R. 144
39
Marshalsea Case (1613), 10 Rep. 73a
428
Marson V. Lund (1849), 13 Q. B. 664
Martin, Ex p. (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 212, 491 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 667 ;
624
28W. R. 143
494
w. Ford (1793), 5 T. R. 101
V. Hemming (1854), 10 Ex. 478 ; 24 L. J. Ex. 3 ; 102
52
..
R. R. 686 ..
38 L. J. Ex. 1 ;
V. Maoonochie (1868), L. R. 2 P. C. 365
647
19 L. T. 503 17 W. R. 187, P. C

Market Harborough

v.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxxii

Mary Clark Home

v. Anderson, [1904] 2 K. B. 645 ; 73 L. J.


99
91 L.>T. 457 20 T. L. E. 626
..
414
Mason v. Aird (1882), 51 L. J. Q. B. 244 30 W. R. 522
j;. Barker (1843), 1 C; & K. 100
670
Masper v. Brown (1876), 1 C. P. D. 97 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 203 ; 34
L. T. 254 24 W. R. 369
..
362
Masserene (Viscount) v. Inland Revenue, [1900] 2 Jr. R. 138, Ir. 509
Massey v. Burton (1858), 2 H. & N. 597 27 L. J. Ex. 101 ; 3
217
Jur. N.S. 1130; 115 R. R. 714
611
I). Johnson (1810), 12 Bast 67
V. Morris, [1894] 2 Q. B. 412 ; 63 L. J. M. C. 185
70 L. 'I'.
873 42 -W. R. 638 58 J. P. 673
192, 490
608
V: Sladen (1868), L. R. 4 Ex. 13
38 L. J. Ex. 34 ..
..
Masters, Re (1869), 33 L. J. Q. B. 146 9 L. T. N. S. 733
..
82
V. Child (1698), 3 Salk. 66
216
Mather v. Brown (1876), 1 C. P.'D. 596 45 L. J. C. P. 547
34 L. T. 869 ; 24 W. R. 736 '
30,651
V. Fraser (1856), 2 K. & J. 536
25 L. J. Ch. 361 2 Jur.
N. S. 900; 110 R. R. 350
174
V. Scott (1837), 2 Keen 172
6 L. J. Ch. 300 ; 44 R. R. 229 215
Mathers u. Penfold, [1915] 1 K. B. .514
96
Mathieson v. Harrod (1868), L. R. 7 Eq. 270 38 L. J. Ch. 139
19 L. T. 629 ; 17 W. R. 99
651
Mattison v. Hart (1854), 14 C. B. 385 2 C. L. R. 314 23 L. J.
C. P. 108 ; 18 Jur. 380 98 R. R. 668
5
Maurice v. Marsden (1850), 19 L. J. C. V\ 152
711
May, Ex p. (1862), 2 B. & S. 426 31 L. J. M. C. 161
342
V. G. W. Ry. Co. (1873), L. R. 7 Q. B. 364
L. R. 8 Q. B.
26 41 L. J. Q. B. 104 42 L. J. Q. B. 6 26 L. T. 17 ; 27
L. T. 620
7,501
Mayer -y. Harding (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 410 16 L. T. 429 15
W. R. 813; 9B. &S. 27n
674
Mayfair Property Co., Be, [1898] 2 Ch. 28 67 L. J. Ch. 337 ..
39
Mayhew v. Wardley (1803), 14 C. B. N. S. 550 8 L. T. 504

K. B. 806

. .

353 492 547

Mayor

t;.

Collins (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 361

59

L. J.

B. 199; 62

L. T. 326
88 W. R. 349
166
Mecca,- The (1894), 64 L.J. P. D.
A. 40
278
Meeking w. Meekiug, [1916] W. N. 367
..
..
..
..160
Meggeson V. Groves, [1917] 1 Ch. 158
70
Melliss V. Shirley Loc. Bd. (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 446 55 L. J.
Q..B. 143 4 53 L. T. 810 ; 24 W. R. 187
50 J. P. 214
..
671,
688, 697
Melson, Be, [1906] 1 Ch. 841 75 L. J. Ch. 509 ; 94 L. T. 641
;

&

54 W. R. 468 ; 13 Mans. 190


Mercantile Bank v. Gladstone (1868), L. R. 3 Ex. 233

Ex.130
Mercer v. Denhe, [1904] 2 Ch. 534

592
;

37 L. J.

678
;

[1905] 2 Ch. 538

74 L.

J.

Ch. 723
V.

Liverpool, &c. Ry. (1903), 72 L. J.

Digitized

K. B. 128

by Microsoft

..

..

55
172

TABLE OF CASES.

'

Ixxxiii

Mercers' Co. . Bowker (1725), 1 Stra. 639


:
Merchant Taylors v. Truscott (1856), 11 Ex. 855 ; 25 L. J. Ex.
173 2 Jur. N. S. 356
Meredith v. Holman (1847), 16 M. & W. 798 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 126 ;

4^59

823

73R. R. 718
469
Merle, The (1874), 31 L. T. 447
8
Merrick v. Liverpool Corp., [1910] 2 Ch. 449 79 L. J. Ch. 751;
103 L. T. 399; 74 J. P. 445 ; 8 L. G. R. 966
708
Merry weather w. Nixon (1799), 8 T. R. 186
354
Mersey Docks w. Cameron (1864), 11 H. L. C. 443 35 L. J. M. C.
22 12 L. T. 643 ; 13 W. R. 1069 ; 20 C. B. N. S. 50 ; 11
Jur. N. S. 746
246,247
V. Gibbs (1866), L. R. 1 H. L. 93
35 L. J. Ex. 225 ; 12
Jur. 571 ; 14 L. T. 677, H. L
145,629
V. Henderson (1888), 13 App. Gas. 595 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 152 ;
59 L. T. 697 37 W. R. 449
'
..
..
423
V. Lucas (1883), 8 App. Cas. 891
53 L. J. Q. B. 4 ; 51
L. J. Q. B. 116 49 L. T. 781
32 W. R. 34; 48 J. P. 212
246, 289, 325
V. Turner, [1893] A. C. 468, H. L
6
Messon v. Alcard (1853), 8 Ex. 260 22 L. J. Ex. 45
..
19
..
Metrop. Asylums District v. Hill (1881), 6 App. Cas. 193 50
L. J. Q. B. 353 44 L. T. 653
29 W. R. .617 45 J. P. 664,
;

H. L
589,630
Metrop. Board . MacCarthy (1874), L. R. 7 H. L. 243 43 L. J.
31 L. T. 182 23 W. R. 115, H. L
C. P. 385
172
V. Metrop. Ry. Co. (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 192
38 L. J. C. P.
631
172 19 L. T. 744 17 W. R. 416
51 L. J. M. C. 24 45 L. T.
V. Steed (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 447
423
612 30 W. R. 891
Metrop. Ry. v. Fowler, [1893] A. C. 416 62 L. J. Q. B. 553 69
591
L. T. 390 42 W. R. 270 57 J. P. 756, H. L
Metrop. Water Board v. Solomon, [1908] 2 Ch. 214 77 L. J. Ch.
630
..
520 98 L. T. 712 72 J. P. 259 6 L. G. R. 594 ..
256
..
Mette V. Mette (1859), 1 Sw. &jTr. 416 28 L. J. P. 117
..
51
Mew, Re (1862), 31 L. J. Bank. 89 10 W. R. 790
..
28 L. J. M. C. 53
5
Michell V. Brown (1858), 1 E. & E. 267
117 R. R. 206
334,335
Jur. N. S. 707
Micklethwait, lie (1855), 11 Ex. 452 25 L. J. Ex. 19 105 R. R.
504
614
Middlesex JJ. v. R. (1884), 9 App. Cas. 757 53 L. J. Q. B. 509
75
51 L. T. 513 48 J. P. 104 33 W. R. 49 15 Cox C. C. 542
Middleton v. Chichester (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 152 40 L. J. Ch. 237
371
24 L. T. 173 19 W. R. 299, 369
Midland Ry. Co. v. Pye (1861), 10 C. B. N. S. 179 30 L. J. 0. P.
9,382
314 4 L. T. 510 9 W. R. 658
52 L. J. Q. B.
V. Withington Loc. Bd. (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 788
414
689 49 L. T. 489 47 J. P. 789
..
263
Mighell V. Sultan of Johore (1893), 63 L. J. Q. B. 593
;

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLl; OV CASES.

Ixxxiv

PJGK

Migotti

V.

4C. P. D. 233 48 L. J. C. P. 695


..
27 W. K. 744 14 Cox C. C. 305 ..

Colvill (1878),

L. T. 747

40

606, 610

Milch V. Frankau, [1909] 2 K. B. 100


Mile End Guardians v. Hoare, [1903] 2 K. B. 483 73 L. J. K. B.
..
651 89 li. T. 276 67 J. P. 395 1 L. G. R. 732 ..
Miles V. Bough (1843), 3 Q. B. 845 3 G. & D. 119 3 Bly. Cas.
668 12 L. J. Q. B. 74 61 R. R. 409
V. Hatchings, [1903] 2 K. B. 715
72 L. J. K. B. 775 89
L. T. 420
MUl V. Hawker (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. 92 44 L. J. Ex. 49 33 L. T.
177 ; 24 W. R. 348
Miller, He, [1893] 1 Q. B. 327
62 L. J. Q. B. 324 68 L. T. 367
..
..
41 W.R. 243f57 J. P. 469; lOM.B. R.21
. Dudley JJ. (1898), 46 W. R. 606
21 L. J. Ex. 197
6, 8, 20,
V. Salomons (1853), 7 Ex. 475

608

492

138

167

555

133
81

369
406, 452, 552
729
Miller's Case (1764), 1 W. Bl. 451
28
42 L. J. Q. B. 57
Mills V. Scott (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 202
617
L. T. 265 21 W. R. 438
. Wilkins (1703), 6 Mod. 62
74
Mills' Estate, Se (1887), 34 Ch. D. 186
56 L. J. Ch 118 55 L. T.
151,152
665 35 W. R. 133
56
Milnes v. Huddersfield (Mayor of) (1886), 11 App. Cas. 511
528
L. J. Q. B. 1 55 L. T. 617 34 W. R. 761 50 J. P. 670 ..
480
Milton V. Faversham (1867), 10 B. & S. 548 n
Minehead Loc. Bd. v. Luttrell, [1894] 2 Ch. 178 63 L. J. Ch.
364
497; 70L. T. 446; 42 W. R. 667
Minet v. Leman (1855), 20 Beav. 278
24 L. J. Ch. 547
7 De
G. M. & G. 340 1 Jur. N. S. 410, 692
109 R. R. 155 150, 324
Minor v. London & N. W. Ry. Co. (1857), 1 C. B. N. S. 325 ; 26
L. J. C. P. 39
2 Jur. N. S. 1168 28 L. T. O. S. 104 107
R. R. 681
119,580
Minty V. Sylvester (1916), 84 L. J. K. B. 1982, D. C
210
Mirehouse v. Rennell (1833), 1 CI. & F. 527
8 Bing. 490 1
M. & Scott 683 7 Bligh N. S. 241 36 R. R. 139 ..
..
7
Mirfin v. Attwood (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 330 38 L. J. Q. B. 181
20 L. T. 778 17 W. R. 820 9 B. & S. 414
728
Mist V. Metropolitan Water Board (1915), 84 L. J. K. B. 2041 ..
393
Mitchell V. Aberdeen Insurance Committee, [1918] W. C. & Ins. C.
206, Ct. of Sess., Sco
109
V. Crawshaw, [1903] 1 K. B. 701
72 L. J. K. B. 389 88
L. T. 463 67 J. P. 179; 20 Cox C. C. 395
187
V. Simpson (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 183
59 L. J. Q. B. 355
63 L. T. 405 .38 W. R. 565
109
Mitford Union v. Wayland Union (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 164
59
L. J. M. C. 24
63 L. T. 299 38 W. R. 632 54 J. P. 757 314
Mobbs V. Vandenbrande (1864), 4 B. & S. 904 33 L. J. Q. B.
177 10 Jur. N. S. 745 9 L. T. 760 12 W. R. 405
.,
510
Mogg . Hodges (1750), 2 Ves. Sen. 52
638
Mohummud e;. Bareilly (1874), L. R. 1 Ind. App. 167 ..
;

..14

Digitized

by Microsoft

* *

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxxvi

PAGE

Palmer (1824), 2 B. & C. 729 ; 4 D. & R. 283


26 R. R. 537
(0. S.) K. B. 145
V. Parry (1856), 17 0. B. 334
25 L. J. 0. P. 141
N. S. 285 104 R. R. 715

Morgan

v.

2 L. J.

2 Jur.

415

660

;;.

Thome

(1841), 7

M.

& W.

400

10 L. J. Ex. 125

728,730
D. P. C. 228 5 Jur. 294
Morish v. Harris (1865), L. R. 1 C. P. 155 35 L. J. C. P. 101
12 Jur. N. S. 627 14 L. T. 764 14 W. R. 479 1 H. & R.
590,594
358; IH. &P.305
Morisse v. Royal Brit. Bk, (1856), 1 C. B. N. S. 67 26 L. J. C P.
283, 440
62 3 Jur. N. S. 137 107 R. R. 582
;

9 Jur.
Morrall v. Sutton (1844), 1 Phil. 533 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 266
98,281
637 ; 65 R. R. 434
43
Morrell u. Studd & Millington, [1913] 2 Ch. 648
70
Morris u. Baron, [1918] A. C. 1, H. L
V. Carnarvon C. C, [1910] 1 K. B. 840
79 L. J. K. B. 670
634
..
102 L. T. 524 74 J. P. 201 8 L. G. R. 485
..
496
v.Howden, [1897] 1Q.B. 378
..
V. Mellin (1827), 6 B. & C. 446
378, 542, 567
!;. Wilson (1859), 5 Jur. N. S. 168
512
326
Morrison v. Gen. Steam Navig. Co. (1853), 22 L. J. Ex. 233
..
164
19 L. J. Ex. 20 80 R. R. 645
V. Glover (1850), 4 Ex. 430
Morritt V. N. E. Ry. Co. (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 302 ; 45 L. J. Q. B.
23
289 34 L. T. 940 24 W. R. 386
Morton v. Copeland (1855), 16 C. B. 517 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 169 ; 1
135
Jur. N. S. 979
V. Palmer (1882), 51 L. J. Q. B. 7
45 L. T. 426 ; 30 W. R.
121
115
Mosdel v. Middleton (1673), 1 Vent. 237
701
Moses V. Parker, [1896] A. C. 245 65 L. J. P. C. 18 ; 74 L. T.
252
112
..
"
Mostyn v.' Fa.hiigB.s (1770), Cowp. 161 1 Sm. L. C. 591
273
Motteram v. E. C. Ry. Co. (1859), 7
B. N. S. 58 29 L. J. M. C.
446
59 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 583
Mouflet V. Cole (1872), L. R. 8 Ex. 32 42 L. J. Ex. 8 ; 27 L. T.
612
678 21 W. R. 175
Moul V. Groenings, [1891] 2 Q. B. 443 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 715 65
556
L. T. 327 ; 39 W. R. 691
Mounsey v. Ismay (1865), 3 H. & C. 486 34 L. J. Ex. 52 11
Jur. K. S. 141
51,579
Mount V. Taylor (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 645 ; 37 L. J. C. P. 325;
18 L. T. 476 16 W. R. 866
728
Mountcashel v. O'Neill (1856), 5 H. L. Cas. 937 2 Jur. N. S.
1030 101 R. R. 458, H. L
136
Mountifield v. Ward, [1897] 1 Q. B. 326 66 L. J. Q. B. 246 76
L. T. 202 45 W. R. 288 61 J. P. 216 18 C. C. C. 515 ..
222
Mountjoy v. Wood (1856), 1 H. & N. 58 ; 108 R. R. 453
249
..
Mousell Bros. v. L. & N. W. Ry. Co., [1917] 2 K. B. 837 ; 87
L. J. K. B. 82
1.35,182,183,184,604,613
.... ..
Mouysv. Leake (1799), 8 T.R. 411
..
..
703
;

'.'.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxxvii
PAGE

Moxon

Sheppard (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 627 59 L. J. Q. B. 286


62 L. T. 726 38 W. R. 704
24,25
Moyle V. Jenkins (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 116 51 L. J. Q. B. 112 ; 30
W. R. 324
55
Much Waltham i-. Peram (1696), 2 Salk. 474
217
Muggeridge, iJe (1860), Johns. 625 29 L. J. Ch. 288 ..
..112
Muir V. Hore (1877), 47 L. J. M. C. 17 .37 L. T. 315 ..
..
304
V. Keay (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 594
44 L. J. M. C. 143 23
W. R.700
574
Mulkem v. Lord (1879), 4 App. Cas. 182 48 L. J. Ch. 745 40
L. T. 594 27 W. R. 510
164,239
Mullett V. Huchison or Hutchinson (1828), 7 B. & C. 639
..
506
Mulliner v. Midland Ry. Co. (1879), 11 Cli. D. 611 48 L. J. Ch.
258 40 L. T. 121 27 W. R. 330
633
MuUins V. Collins (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 292 43 L. J. M. C.
67 29 L. T. 838 22 W. R. 297
178,190
Mumford v. Collier (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 279 59 L. J. Q. B. 552
38W. R. 716
703
Munday v. Asprey (1880), 13 Ch. D. 855 49 L. J. Ch. 216 28
W. R. 471
512
Municipal Bldg. See. v. Kent (1884), 9 App. Cas. 260; 53
L. J. Q. B. 290 51 L. T. 6 32 W. R. 681 48 J. P.
352
164,238
Munro V. Butt (1858), 8 E. & B. 738 4 Jur. N. S. 1231 112
R. R. 752 ..
368
Murphy, Be (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 397 46 L. J. M. C. 193 36
L. T. 698; 26 W. R. 536
298
Murray V. Charming Betsy (1804), 2 Cranch 64
263
V. E. I. Co. (1821), 5 B. & Ad. 204
24 R. R. 325..
571
..
V. Epsom Local Board (1896), 66 L. J. Ch. 107
..
698
..
V. Thomiley (1846), 2 C. B. 217
1 Lut. Reg. Cas. 496
1 Bar. & Am. 742 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 155
10 Jur. 270 09
R. R. 477
64
Murtagh v. Barry (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 632 59 L. J. Q. B. 388
38W. R. 526
152,519
685
Musgrove, ^x ^. (1843), 3 M. D. & D. 386
86
w. PandeUs, [1919] 2 K. B. 43, 0. A
Mussell V. Burch (1876), 35 L. T. 486
180
Musurus Bey v. Gadban, [1894] 2 Q. B. 352 63 L. J. Q. B. 621
264
71 L. T. 51 42 W. R. 545
Mutter V. Eastern and Midlands Ry. (1888), 38 Ch. D. 92 57
617
L. J. Ch. 315
59 L. T. 117 36 W. R. 401
Myers v. Bradford Corporation (1915), 84 L. J. K. B. 306
413, 414
V. Veitch (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 649
38 L. J. Q. B 316
567
20 L. T. 847 17 W. R. 918
V.

N.

Nance, Be, [1893] 1 Q. B. 590


733 41 W. R. 370

62 L. J. Q. B. 500

Digitized

by Microsoft

68 L. T.
023

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxxviii

PAGE

523
Finlay (1902), 85 L. T. 682
National Merc. Bank, Ex p., Be Haynes (1880), 15 Ch. D. 42
49 L. J, Bank. 62 ; 43 L. T. 36 28 W. B 848 44 J. P.
31,484
780
National Telephone Co. v. Baker, [1893] 2 Ch. 186 62 L. J. Ch.
628
699 68 L. T. 283 57 J. P. 373
;;. Kineston-upon-HuU (1903), 89 L. T. 291
52 W. R. 26 ;
413
IL. G. R. 777
Nelson v. Anglo- American Land Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 130; 66
617
L. J. Ch. 112 ; 75 L. T. 482 45 W. R. 171
577
Nesbitt V. Lushington (1792), 4 T. R. 783 ; 2 R. R. 519
Netherlands Steamboat Co. v. London Corporation (1904), 68 J. P.
527
.;
377, C. A. ..
NethersoU v. Indig. Blind Schoor(1870), L. R. 11 Eq. 1 ; 40
:.
638
..
..
L. J. Ch. 26 ; 23 L. T. 723 19 W. R. 174
Nettleton v. Burrell (1844), 8 Scott N. R. 738 7M. & Gr. 35
1 Lut. Reg. Cas. 157 ; 14
8 Jur. 1033 ; 2 D. & L. 598
26
L. J. C. P. 37 66 R. R. 658
New Eberhardt Co., Be (1889), 43 Ch. D. 118 59 L. J. Ch. 73 ;
16
62 L. T. 301 38 W. R. 97 1 Meg. 441
New River Co. v. Johnson (1860), 2 El. & El. 435 29 L. J. M. C.
172
93; 6Jur. N. S. 374; 8W. R. 179
New Sharlston Collieries v. Westmorland, [1904] 2 Ch. 443 n. ;
627
73L. J. Ch. 341n
New Windsor Corporation v. Taylor, [1899] A. C. 41 ; 68 L. J.
295
Q. B. 87 ; 79 L. T. 450 ; 63 J. P. 164
Newby v. Colt's Arms Co. (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 293 41 L. J. Q. B.
119
148 26 L. T. 164 ; 20 W. R. 383
V. Sims, [1894] 1 Q. B. 478 ; 63 L. J. M. C. 229
70 L. T.
463
105; 58 J. P. 263
Newcastle Corporation v. A.-G. (1845), 12 CI. & F. 402 ; 69
R. R. Ill, H. L
156,532
V. Morris (1870), L. R. 4 H. L. 661 ; 40 L. J. Bank. 4 ; 23
L. T. 569 ; 19 W. R. 26
320,546
Newington v. Cottingham (1879), 12 Ch. D. 725 ; 48 L. J. Ch.
687
226; 40L. T. 58
Newman v. Hardwioke (1838), 3 N. & P. 368 7 L. J. M. C. 101
8 A. &E. 124; 1 W. W. &H. 284
605,606
;;. Jones (1886), 17
55
Q. B. D. 137 ; 55 L. J. M. C. 113
L. T. 327
50 J. P. 373
190,192
Newport Bridge, Be (1859), 2 E. & E. 377 ; 29 L. J. M. C. 52
6 Jur. N. S. 97 ; 1 L. T. 131
4.30
Trustees, Hx p. (1849), 16 Sim. 346
12
18. L. J. Ch. 49
Jur. 932 80 R. R. 88
617
New's Trustee v. Hunting, [1897] 1 Q. B. 607 66 L. J. Q. B.
554, C. A
214
Newson,i?e, ife Two Solicitors (1909), 53 Sol. Jur. 342 ..
438
..
Newton v. Boodle (1847), 3 C. B. 795 4 D. & L. 664 16
L. J. C. P. 135 ; 11 Jur. 148
26
V. Cowie (1827), 4 Bing. 234 ; 12 Moore 457 ; 29 R. R. 541
651

Nash

u.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.
Newton

v.

Ellis (1855), 5 E.

Jur. N. S. 850

&

B. 115

24 L.

Ixxxix
J. Q. B.

103 R. R. 396

Young (1805), 1 B.
Nga Hoong v. R. (1857),
.

& P.

PAGE
1
134, 413, 586

337

N. R. 187

7 Cox. 489

365

7 Moo. Ind. App. 72,

111,265
Niboyet (1879), 4 P. D. 1 48 L. J. P. D. & A. 1 39
L. T. 486 27 W. R. 203, C. A
256,261
NichoU V. Allen (1862), 1 B. & S. 934 31 L. J/ Q. B. 283
6 L. T. 699 10 W. R. 741
436, 634
Nicholls V. Hall (1873), L. R. 8 0. P. 322 42 L. J. M. C. 105
21W. R. 579 28 L. T. 473
182
Nichols V. Marsland (1876), 2 Ex. D. 1 46 L. J. Ex. 174 35
L. T. 725 25 W. R. 173
674
Nicholson v. Ellis (1859), E. B. & E. 267 28 L. J. Q. B. 238
5 Jur. N. S. 385 113 R. R. 639
348
V. Fields (1862), 7 H. & N. 810
31 L. J. Ex. 233 10
W. R. 304
76, 464, 466, 500, 504
V. Holborn Assessment Committee (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 161
56 L. J. M. C. 54 55 L. T. 775 35 W. R. 230 51 J. P.
341
247
NicoU V. Fenning (1882), 19 Ch. D. 258 51 L. J. Ch. 166 45
107
L. T. 738 30 W. R. 95
Nina, The (1867), L. R. 2 P.^C. 38 37 L. J. Adm. 17 17 L. T.
278
585 5 Moo. P. C. C. N. S. 60
26
Nind w. Arthur (1849), 7 D. & L. 252
Nitro-phosphate Co. v. London, &c. Docks Co. (1878), 9 Ch. D.
724
503 39 L. T. 433; 27 W. R. 267
Nixon V. Phillips (1852), 7 Ex. 192 21 L. J. Ex. 88 ..
9, 304
540
Noble . Durell (1789), 3 T. R. 271
388
- u. Gadban (1855), 5 H. L. Cas. 504
Norcutt. Dodd (1841), Cr. & Ph. 100 10 L. J. Ch. 296; 64
112, 146
R. R. 224
258
Norden . James (1777), 2 Dick. 533
Nordenfelt, Ee, [1895] 1 Q. B. 151 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 182 71 L. T.
71
565
Norman, Be, [1893] 2 Q. B. 369 63 L. J. Q. B. 34 69 L. T.
405
674..
Normandy, The, [1904] P. 187 73 L. J. P. D. & A. 65 ; 90
113
L. T. 351 52 W. R. 634; 20 T. L. R. 239
267,580
Norris, iJe (1888), 5 Morrell 111
674
V. Carrington (1864), 16 C. B. N. S. 10
333
. Crocker (1851), 13 Howard 429
North, Be, [1895] 2 Q. B. 264 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 694 72 L. T. 854
608,610
59 J. P. 724 2 Mans. 326
N. Central Wagon Co. v. Manchester S. & L. Ry. Co. (1888), 32
Ch. D. 477 35 Ch. D. 191 13 App. Cas. 554 55 L. J. Ch.
59 L. T. 730 37 W. R. 305,
780 56 Id. 609 58 Id. 219
P.

Niboyet

v.

-^

HI

...
N. Eastern Breweries ^'. Gibson (1904), 68 J. P. 356
N. Eastern Ry. v. Hastings (Lord), [1900] A. C. 260, H. L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

..97
..
..

195
132

TABLE OP OASES.

XC

FAGE

R. 7 H. L. 12; 43
L. J. Q. B. 185;, 30 L. T. 275 ; 22 W.R. 56
N. London Ry. Oo. v. Metrop. B. of Works (1859), Johns. 405 ;
..
28 L. J. Oh. 909; 5 Jur. N. S. 1121
..
..
,.
N. Metrop. Tramways Oo. v. London C. 0., [1898] 2 Oh. 145 ;
67 L. J. Ch. 449 ; 78 L. T. 711 46 W. R. 554 62 J. P. 488
..
N. of England Ry. ;;. Langbaurgh (1871), 24 L. T. 544 ..
N. StaflFordshire Ry. Oo. v. Dale (1858), 8 E. & B, 836 27 L. J.
..
..
M. 0. 147 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 631 112 R. R. 800
V. Waters (1913), L. G. R. 289
N. Wales Gunpowder Oo., Be, [1892] 2 Q. B. 220 ; 61 L. J. Q. B.
625 67 L. T. 178 40 W. R. 561
Northampton Oorporation v, Ellen (1904), 70 L. J. K.B. 329 ..
Northumberland (Duke) v. Inl. Rv., [1911] 2 K. B. 343; 80
reversed on appeal, 81
L. J. K, B. 875 ; 104 L. T. 506
N. Eastern Ry. Co.

v.

Wanless

(1874),. L.

635
530
510
131

635
719

289
679

504
Northwich v. St. Pancras (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 164 58 L. J.M. 0.
..
73 60 L. T. 444 37 W. R. 206 53 J. P. 196
313,314
Norton v. Lond. & N. W. Ry. Oo. (1879), 9 Ch. D. 623 11 Ch. D.
118 13 Oh. D. 268 40 L. T. 597 27 W. R. 773 ..
..
526
701
u. Simmes (1614), Hob. 12
Noseworthy v. Buckland (1873), L. R. 9 0. P. 233; 43 L. J. 0. P.
22 W. R. 155 2 Hop. & 0. 127 ..
27; 29 L. T. 675
..
653
Notley ;. Buck (1828), 8 B. & 0. 164
7
Novello V. Sudlow (1852), 12 0. B. 177
21 L. J. 0. P. 169
16
92 R. R. 674
Jur. 689
716
V. Toogood (1823), 1 B. & 0. 554
2 D. & R. 833
25 R. R.
507
205
Nowell V. Worcester (Mayor) (1854), 9 Ex. 457 ; 2 p. L. R. 981
23 L. J. Ex. 139 18 Jur. 64 96 R. R. 793
672
Nugent V. Smith (1876), 1 0. P. D. 423 44 L": J. 0. P. 697 34
L. T. 827 25 W. R. 117
672
Nunn V. Fabian (1865), L. R. 1 Oh. 35 35 L. J. Ch. 140
..
455
K.
B.
V. Tyson, [1901J 2
487 70 L. J. K. B. 854; 85 L. T.
123; 50W. R. 16
102
Nunn's Estate, ^e, [1894] llr. R. 252, Ir
505
Nuttall ^;. Pickering, [1913] 1 K. B. 14
125
Nutter u. Moorhouse (1904), 68 J. P. 134
13
Nutton V. Wilson (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 744 58 L. J. Q. B. 443 37
W. R. 522 53 J. P. 644
496
L. J. K. B. 240, 0.

O.
v. Turquand (1867), L. R. 2 H. L. 325
36 L. J. Oh. 949 ;
16 L. T. 808, H. L
Oaten v. Auty, [1919] 2 K. B. 278
Oath before Justices (1611), 12 Rep. 131
O'Connor v. Bradshaw (1850), 5 Ex. 882 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 26
..
Odell, Ex p^ (1879), 10 Oh. D. 76
48 L. J. Bank. 1 ; 39 L. T
W.
333 ; 27
R. 274
,

Oakes

376
676
624
213

Digitized

by Microsoft

21?

talBle of cases.

xcii

PAOE

Owens

Jones (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 469 37 L. J. Q. B. 159;


..
308, 334
18 L. T. 357 16 W. E. 932 9 B. & S. 243
389
Owen's Patent, 5e (1898), 79 L. T. 458
..
Oxford Corporation v. Wildgoose (1690), 3 Lev. 293
62
..
V.

&

The (1864), 33 L. J. P. M.
Jur. N. S. nil 10 L. T. 541
67 L. J. P. D.
, [1898] P. 170

Pacific,

& L.

243

10

79 L. T. 125

46

A. 120; B.

99

W.

&

A. 65

R. 686

..

268

.-

Revenue Commissioners

Paddingfcon Burial Board v. Inland


(1884), 53 L. J. Q. B. 224

246
Paddington Union v. Westminster Union, [1915] 2 K. B. 644 .. 383
51 L. J. Ch.
Padstow Assur. Assoc, He (1882), 20 Ch. D. 137
555,091
344 45 L. T. 774 30 W. R. 326
34 L. T. 638
Page, lie (1876), 2 Ch. D. 323 45 L. J. Bank. 1
227
24W. R. 502
29 L. J. Ch. 398 6 Jur. N. S.
V. Bennett (1855), 2 GiflF. 117
392
419;8W. R. 339
10 L. J. Ex. 434
..
609
V. Pearce (1841), 8 M. & W. 667
Paget V. Foley (1836), 2 Bing. N. C. 679; 5 L. J. C. P. 258 ; 3
303
Scott 120 2 Hodges 32 42 R. R. 698
Pain V. Boughtwood (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 353 59 L. J. M. C. 45
54 J. P. 469
62 L. T. 284 ; 38 W. B. 428
16 Cox C. C.
747
137, 186
Paine, Be, Ex p. 'Read, [1897] 1 Q. B. 122; 66 L. J. Q. B. 71
75 L. T. 316 45 W. R. 190; 3 Mans. 309
114
Painter v. Liverpool Gas Co. (1836), 3 A. & E. 433 5 L. J. M. C.
108; 6N. &M. 736; 2H. & W. 233; 42R. R. 423
..
641
Palliser v. Dale, [1897] 1 Q. B. 257
66 L. J. Q. B. 236 76 L. T.
14 45 W. R. 291, C. A
164,239
Pallister v. Gravesend (1850), 9 C. B. 774
19 L. J. C. P. 358
82R. R. 522
530,704
Palmer v. Metrop. Ry. Co. (1862), 31 L. J. Q. B. 259 ..
..
680
V. Snow, [1900] 1 Q. B. 725
69 L. J. Q. B. 356
82 L. T.
199 48 W. R. 351 64 J. P. 342
584
V. Thatcher (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 346
47 L. J. M. C. 58
37
L. T. 784 26 W. R. 314
11,301
Palmer's Trade Mark, In re (1882), 21 Ch. D. 47
51 L. J. Ch.
673 46 L. T. 787 46 J. P. 772
369
Pape V. Pape (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 76 57 L. J. M. C. 3 58 L. T.
399 36 W. R. 125 52 J. P. 181
470
Paradine v. Jane (1647), Aleyn 26
674
Parbury, Ex p. (1861), 3 De G. F. & J. 80 30 L. J. Ch. 513
7
Jur. N. S. 503 ; 4 L. T. 62 9 W. R. 470
..
..
19, 374
Pardo V. Bingham a869), L. R. 4 Ch. 735 39 L. J. Ch. 170 20
L. T. 464 17 W. R. 419
399
Parish . Sleeman (1860), 29 L. J. Ch. 96
622
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

xem

TABLE OF CASES.

PAGE

Park Gate Iron Co.

Coatea (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 634 39 L. J.


C. P. 317 ; 22 L. T. 658
18 W. R. 928
680, 683, 684
..
Parker, Be (1888), 21 Ch.D. 408 52 L. J. Ch. 159 47 L. T. 63 ;
31 W. R. 212 ; 47 J. P. 36, 516
692
V. Adler, [1899] 1 Q. B. 20 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 7
79 L. T. 381
..
..
186
47 W. R. 142 ; 62 J. P. 772 19 C. C. C. 191
V. G. W. Ry. Co. (1844), 7 M. & G. 253
7 Scott N. R. 835
13 L. J. C. P. 105 ; 8 Jur. 194
528
V. Inge (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 584
55 L. J. M. C. 149 55 L. T.
555
300; 51J. P. 20
V. London C. C, [1904] 2 K. B. 501
73 L. J. K. B. 561
90 L. T. 415 ; 52 W. R. 476 68 J. P. 239 2 L. G. R. 662 ;
20T. L. R. 271
413
V. Talbot, [1905] 2 Ch. 643
75 L. J. Ch. 8 ; 93 L. T. 522
54W. R. 132; 4L. G. R. 27; 70 J. P. 43
133
569
V. Taswell (1858), 2 De G. & J. 559
27 L. J. Ch. 812
..
47
Parker, Gaines & Co. v. Turpin, [1918] 1 K. B. 358
..
..
205
Parkinson V. Potter (1885), 16 Q. B. I). 161
Parkyns v. Preist (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 313 ; 50 L. J. M. C. 148 50
481
L. J. Q. B. 648; 30 W. R. 13; 45 J. P. 751
42 L. T. 273
28
Parlement Beige, The (1880), 5 P. D. 197
W. R. 642
263,264
558
Parrish . Hackney Corp. (1912), 55 S.J. 670
Parry v. Croydon Gas Co. (1863), 15 C. B. N. S. 568 9 L. T.
..
327, 335, 504
694 ; 12 W. R. 212 ; 11 C. B. N. S. 579
Parsons v. Brand (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 110 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 189
16
62 L. T. 479 38 W. R. 388
631
Partheriche V. Mason (1774), 2 Chit. 658
Partington V. A.-G. (1869), L. R. 4 H. L. 100 38 L. J. Ex. 205,
504
H. L
..
354, 356, 717, 718
Partridg v. Naylor (1596), Cro. Eliz. 480 ..
Partridge v. Mallandaine (1880), 18 Q. B. D. 276 56 L. J. Q. B.
555
251 ; 56 L. T. 203 35 W. R. 276
34 L. T.
Pascal, Bx p. (1876), 1 Ch. D. 509 ; 45 L. J. Bank. 81
267
10; 24W. R. 263
Pasmore v. Oswaldtwistle U. D. C, [1898] A. C. 387 ; 67 L. J.
.
709, 723
Q. B. 635 ; 78 L. T. 569 ; 62 J. P. 628
589
Passey v. Oxford L. B. (1879), 43 J, P. 622
Patent Bread Co., Be (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 289 ; 26 L. T. 228 ; 20
669
W. R. 347
394
Paterson . Poe (1883), 8 App. Cas. 678
Pathe Freres Cinema, Ltd. v. United Electric Theatres, Ltd.,
141
B. 1253, C. A
[1914] 3
271
Patorni v. CampbeU (1843), 12 M. & W. 277 ; 13 L. J. Ex. 85 ..
Patten v. Rhymer (1860), 3 E. & E. 1 ; 29 L. J. M. C. 189 ; 6
..
350, 361
Jur. N. S. 1030 ; 2 L. T. 352 ; 8 W. R. 496 ..
M. 189 ; 40 L. J. P. & M.
Patterson v. Patterson (1870), 2 P.
100
5 23 L. T. 568 19 W. R. 232
82
Pattison D. Bankes (1777), Cowp. 543
694
Paxton V. Popham (1808), 9 Bast 408
v.

. .

&

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

XCIV

PAGE

Payne, Ex p. (1849), 5 D.
634; 79R. R.892

&

L. 679

18 L. J. Q. B. 197

Cross (1879), 11 Ch. D. 539, C. A


V. Cork Co., Ltd., [1900] 1 Ch. 308
V. Regem, [1902] A. C. 552 ; 71 L. J. P. C. 128 ;
84; 51 W. B. 351
63 L. T. 456
V. Thomas (1891), 60 L. J. M. C. 3
,

13 Jur.

318
8
523

Ex p., Re

87 L. T.
218
;

54 J. P.

- 23
Reg. (1858)," 4 C. B. N. S. 264 ;" 27 L.'j. O.P. 224";
611,656,684
114R. R. 707
53 L. J. Ch. 977 ; 51 L. T.
Peake, Re (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 753
878
97
112,145
Pearoe w. Bulteel, [1916] 2 Ch. .544
66 L. J. Q. B. 457 ; 76
V. Gardner, [1897] 1 Q. B. 688
L. T. 441 ; 45 W. R. 518
513
46 L. T. 342
46 J. P.
V. Scotcher (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 162
248
194
Pearks Gunston V. Ward, [1902] 2 K. B. 1
186
Pearlmoor, The, [1904] P. 286
368
Pearse v. Morrice (1834), 2 A. & B. 84 4 L. J. K. B. 21 ; 4 N. & M.
48
380
61 L. J. Q. B. 585 ; 67 L. T.
Pearson, Re, [1892] 2 Q. B. 263
367 40 W. R. 532 9 M. B. R. 185
267
V. Holborn Union, [1893] 1 Q. B. 389
62 L. J. M. C. 77 ;
68 L. T. 351 ; 57 J. P. 169
247
V. Kingston-on-Hull (1865), 3 H. & C. 921 ; 35 L. J. M. C.
36;13L. T. 180
476,594
32 L. J. M. C. 121 ; 9
Pease v. Chaytor (1863), 3 B. & S. 620
11 W. R. 563 ..
Jur. N. S. 664 8 L. T. 613
..
..
611
V. Norwood (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 235
38 L. J. C. P. 161
17W. R. 320
611
Peate v. Dickin (1834), 1 C. M. & R. 422 ; 4 L. J. Ex. 28 5Tyr.
116
584
Peerless, iJe (1841), 1 Q. B. 143
150
Pelham v. Pickersgill (1787), 1 T. R. 660 ; 1 R. R. 348 ..
..
711
Pelham Clinton v. Newcastle, Duke (1901), 71 L. J. Ch. 53, C. A.
99
(1902), 72 L. J. Ch. 424, H. L
Pellew V. Wonsford (1829), 9 B. & C. 134 ; 4 M. & R. 130 ; cited
49R. R. 693
12,606
Pendlebury v. Greenhalgh (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 36
45 L. J. Q. B.
3; 33L. T. 472; 24W. R. 98, C. A
189,726
Penn v. Alexander, [1893] 1 Q. B. 522 62 L. J. M. C. 65 ; 68
L. T. 355 ; 41 W. R. 392 17 Cox C. C. 815 57 J. P. 118 ..
121
Penny & S. E. Ry. Co., Re (1857), 7 E. & B. 660 ; 26 L. J. Q. B.
225 5 Jur. N. S. 957 ; 110 R. R. 773
237
Penstred v. Payer (1639), Duke on Charitable Uses, p. 381
..
53
People, The K. Tibbetts. (1825), 4 Oowen 358
401
V. Utica Insur. Co. (1818), 15 Johns. N. Y. Rep. 352
..
92
Pepin v. Bruyfere (1902), 71 L. J. Ch. 39
269
Peppin V. Cooper (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 431
307

824
Peacock

. .

r."

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

XCV
PAGE

Perchard

Heywood

R. 468 53 R. R. 128
317, 527
Perkins, Be (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 613
59 L. J. Q. B. 226
38
W. R. 710 2 Meg. 197 7 M. B. R. 32
..
...
..
369
V. L. & N. W. Ry. Co. (1874), 1 Ry. & Can. Traffic Gas. 327
617
w.Sewell (1766), IW.Bl. 659 ..
..
82
Perks V. Severn (1806), 7 East 194 3 Smith K. B. 339 ..
..
464
Perring v. Trail (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 88
43 L. J. Ch. 775
30
L. T. 248 22 W. R. 572
638
Perry V. Clements, [1901] 49 W. R. 669
346
V. Eames, [1891] 1 Ch. 658
60 L. J. Oh. 345 64 L. T. 438
39W. R. 602
..
..
245,252
V. Skinner (1837), 2 M. & W. 471
6 L. J. Ex. 124 M. & H.
122 1 Jur. 433 46 R. R. 656
369, 389, 417
PeshaU . Layton (1788), 2 T. R. 712
362
Peters v. Cowie (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 131
46 L. J. M. C. 177
36
L. T. 107
67, 154
V. Sheehan (1842), 10 M. & W. 213
1 D.N. S. 943
6 Jur.
739 12 L. J. Ex. 177
684
Peto V. West Ham Overseers (1859). 2 E. & E. 144 28 L. J. M. C.
240 5 Jur. N. S. 1209 7 W. R. 586
572Pettamberdass v. Thackoorseydass (1850), 7 Moo. P. C. 239 5
Moo. Ind. App. 109 15 Jur. 257, P. C
385
Pharmaceutical Society v. Armson, [1894] 2 Q. B. 720
64 L. J.
..
558
Q. B. 32 71 L. T. 315 42 W. R. 662 59 J. P. 52 ..
V. Jacks (1911), 80 L. J. K. B. 767
689
49
V. London, &c. Supply Assoc. (1880), 5 App. Cas. 857
28 W. R. 957
45 J. P. 20,
L. J. Q. B. 736.; 43 L. T. 389
H. L
110,573,689
V. Nash,. [1911] 1 K. B. 520
80 L. J. K. B. 416
103 L. T.
802 75 J. P. 151
140,689
62 L. J. Q. B. 305 68 L. T.
V. Piper, [1893] 1 Q. B. 686
490 41 W. R. 447 57 J. P. 502
558
V. Wheeldon (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 683
59 L. J. Q. B. 400
140
62 L. T. 727 54 J. P. 407
70 L. J. K. B. 386 84 L. T.
V. White, [1901] 1 K. B. 601
188 -49 W. R. 407 65 J. P. 340
140
Philipps V. Rees (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 17
59 L. J. Q. B. 1
61
43
L. T. 713 .38 W. R. 53 54 J. P. 293
643
Phillipp's Charity, i?e (1845), 9 Jur. 959
Phillips, i?e (1861), 30 L. J. Bank. 1
210
26 L. J. C. P. 168
3
V. Clark (1857), 2 C. B. N. S. 156
5 Jur. N. S. 1081 109 R. R. 646 ..
..
367
Jur. N. S. 467
R. 6 Q. B. 1
40 L. J. Q. B. 28
11. Eyre (1871), L.
10
384
B. &S. 1004
55 L. J. Q. B. 512
V. Goff (1886),. 17 Q. B. D. 805
35
W. R. 197 50 J. P. 614
663
5 M. & R. 15 ..
V. Hopwood (1829), 10 B. & C. 39
..
727
4 T. R. 182 2 R. R. 353 269
V. Hunter (1795), 2 H. Bl. 402
u. Poland (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 204
35 L. J. C. P. 128 12
358
Jur. N. S. 260
v.

(1800), 8 T.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

xcvi

PAGE
27
Phillpott V. St. George's Hospital (1857)', 6 H. L. Cas. 338
208, 215, 221
L. J. Ch. 70
3 Jur. N. S. 1269 108 R. R.
20 L. J. C. P. 11
PhiUpotfcs V. Phillpotts (1850), 10 C. B. 85
;

WO

165,374,376
Phipson V. Harvett (1835), 1 C. M. & R. 473 4 L. J. Ex. 36 6
2"^' ^^
Tyr 54
Phoenix Bessemer Co., Re (1876), 45 L. J. Ch. 11 33 L. T. 403
388,404
24W. R. 19
Phythian v. Baxendale, [1895] 1 Q. B. 768 64 L. J. M. C. 174

84R. R. 460

125
Marriage (1876), 1 Ex. D. 364 ; 45 L. J. Ex. 594 ; 35
212
L. T. 343 24 W. R. 88
37
Pickering v. llfraoombe Ry. Co. (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 2.35
,.
702
.
L. j! C. p. 118 16 L. T. 650 16 W. R. 458
42 L. J. C. P. 217 ; 21
V. James (1873), L. R. 8 C. P. 489
637,716
W. R. 786 29 L. T. 210
343
22 W. R. 798
.
V. Marsh (1874), 43 L. J. M. C. 143
7 D. & R. 49 28 R. R. 430 546
V. Noyes (1825), 4 B. & C. 639
..403
Pickup V. Wharton (1834), 2 Cr. & M. 405 3 L. J. Ex. 97
Picton (Municipality) v. Geldert, [1893] A. C. 524 ; 69 L. T. 510 ;
726
42 W. R. 114 ; 63 L. J. P. C. 37
19,242
Pierce V. Hopper (1720), 1 Stra. 249
Piggott V. Rush (1836), 4 A. & E. 912 ; 6 L. J. K. B. 272 ; 6
454
N. &M. 376; 2H. &W. 29
7
Pike . Hoare (1783), Eden, 184
39 L. J. Ch. 435 ; 18
V. Nicholas (1869), L. R. 5 Ch. 251
350
W. R. 321
PJlcher V. StaflFord (1864), 4 B. & S. 775 ; 33 L. J. M. C. 113 ; 10
497
Jur. N. S. 651 ; 9 L. T. 759 12 W. R. 407
301
Pilkington v. Cooke (1848), 16 M. & W. 615 ; 17 L. J. Ex. 141 ..
188
u. Rois, [1914]3K.B.321
Pinhorn v. Sonster (1853), 8 Ex. 138 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 336 ; 22
..
403,404
L. J. Ex. 18
..
Pinkerton v. Easton (1873), L. R. 16 Eq. 490 42 L. J. Ch. 878 ;
24
29 L. T. 364 ; 21 W. R. 943
255
Piot,
p. (1883), 48 L. T. 120
544
Pitman . Maddox (1699), 2 Salk. 690
450
Pitt V. Shew (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 208
30
Pitts V. Millar (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 380
43 L. J. M. C. 96
98 ' 474
L. T. 77 377
..
.
.
Planche v. Braham (1837), 4"Bing. N. C. 17 ; 8*0. & P. 68 ; 6
Scott 242 3 Hodges 288"; 1 Jur. 823 ; 7 L. J. C. P. 25 ; 44
350
R. R. 642
Plant V. Potts, [1891] 1 Q. B. 256 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 33
63 L. T.
419
730 ; 55 J. P. 277 1 Fox 206
Plasterers Co. v. Parish Clerks Co. (1851), 6 Ex. 630 ; 20 L. J. Ex.
362 ; 15 Jur. 965 ; 86 R. R. 413
8
Piatt V. Sheriffs of London (1550), Plowd. 35
.
316, 452
. .
Pletts V. Campbell, [1895] 2 Q. B. 229 ; 64 L. J. M. C. 225 ; 73
490
L. T. 344 ; 43 W. R. 634 ; 59 J. P. 502

72L.

Pickard

T. 465

v.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

XCVll
PAGE

Plumstead Bd. of Works v. Spaokman (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 878


53 L. J. M. C. 142 51 L. T. 760 49 J. P. 132
..
..
Plymouth, &c. Tramway Co. v. General Tolls Co. (1897), 75 L. T.
;

467
Pointon

357

595

Hill (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 306


53 L. J. M. C. 62
50
L. T. 268 32 W. R. 478 48 J. P. 341
15 Cox C. C. 461 ..
Poland, Re (1866), L. R. 1 Ch. 356 35 L. J. Bank. 19 14 L. T.
v.

474

502 12 Jiir. 425


..
..
114,358
Pole t). Bright (1892), 61 L. J. Q. B. 139
519
Poll V. Dambe, [1901] 2 K. B. 579 70 L. J. K. B. 721 84 L. T.
870 50 W. R. 28 65 J. P. 774 9 Asp. M. C. 220
..
257
Pollard, Re (1868), L. R. 2 P< C. 106
5 Moo. P. C. N. S. Ill,
P. C
639
Pollock V. Lands Imp. Co. (1888), 37 Ch. D. 661
57 L. J. Ch.
853 ; 58 L. T. 374 ; 36 W. R. 617
314
Pommery v. Apthorpe (1886), 56 L. J. Q. B. 155 ; 56 L. T. 24 35
W. R. 307
271
Ponsford V. Walton (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 167 37 L. J. C. P. 113 ;
17 L. T. 511 16 W. R. 363
204
Pope V. Tearle (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 499 ; 43 L. J. M. C. 129 30
L. T. 789 22 W. R. 950
562
..
Porter v. Bradley (1789), 3 T. R. 143 1 R. R. 675
..
559
Portingell, Exp., [1892] 1 Q. B. 15 ; 61 L. J. M. C. 1 ; 65 L. T.
603 40W. R. 102 ; 56 J. P. 276
55
Portsmouth (Mayor of) v. Smith (1885), 10 App. Cas. 364 ; 54
61
L. J. Q. B. 473 ; 53 L. T. 394 ; 49 J. P. 676
Postmaster-General, Ex p. (1879), 10 Ch. D. 595 48 L. J, Bank.
84 40 L. T. 16 27 W. R. 325
249,252
V. Early (1827), 12 Wheat. 136
551, 552
V. Nail Telephone Co., [1907] 1 Ch. 621
146
22
Potter V. Duffield (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 4 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 472
W. R. 585
514
5 L. J. Ex. 93 n. ; 4
V. Newman (1836), 2 C. M. & R. 742
142
D. P. C. 504; IT. &G. 29
Poulsum V. Thirst (1867), L. R. 2 C. P. 449 36 L. J. C. P. 225
134
16 L. T. 324 15 W. R. 766
Poulters' Co. v. Phillips (1840), 6 Bing. N. C. 314 9 L. J. C. P.
62,357
190;4Jur. 124
PowdreU v. Jones (1855), 2 Sm. & G. 407 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 123 ; 18
56,616
Jur. 1111 ; 97 R. R. 273
PoweU V. Boraston (1864), 18 C. B. N. S. 175 1 H. & P. 179
34 L. J. C. P. 73 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 160 11 L. T. 734 ; 13 W. R.
590
465
49 h. J. Q. B. 428 ; 43
V. Fall (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 597
628, 632
L. T. 562
13
- V. Guest (1865), 18 C. B. N. S. 72 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 1238
W. R. 274 34 L. J. C. P. 69 1 H. & P. 149 11 L. T. 599 117
[1897] 2 Q. B;
v. Kempton Racecourse Co., [1899] A. C. 143
63
47 W. R. 585
242 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 392 80 L. T. 538
'.

J.P. 260, H.

Digitized

73,92,129,599,600

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

xcvui

PAGE

Powell V. Main Colliery Co., [1900] A. C. 366 69 L. J. Q. B.


346
758 83 L. T. 85 49 W. R. 49
74
Powlter's Case (1610),
Rep. 33b
105 L. T.
Pratt V. Martin, [1911] 2 K. B. 90 80 L. J. K. B. 711
353
49; 75 J. P. 328
522
Preece u. Pulley (1880), 49 L. J. C. P. 686
Prentice v. London (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. 679 44 L. J. C. P. 353
164,239
33 L. T. 251 25 W. R. 695
Price V. Union Lighterage Co. (1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 374
65, 200
545
Prices of Wine (1618), Hob. 215
388
Prince t). U. S. (1814), 2 Gallison 204
..
215
Pritchard v. Arbouin (1827), 3 Russ. 456 27 R. R. 106
153
..
V. Bangor Corporation (1888), 13 A. C. 241, H. L.
Proctor V. Manwaring (1819), 3 B. & Aid. 145
..
299, 466, 490
517
Protector, The (1839), 1 W. Rob. 45
Pryce v. Monmouthshire Canal Co. (1879), 4 App. Cas. 197
49
504
L. J. Ex. 130 40 L. T. 630 27 W. R. 666
63
Pulborough School Board Election, He, [1894] 1 Q. B. 725
L. J. Q. B. 497
70 L. T. 639 42 W.R. 388 58 J. P. 572
;

lMansonl72

384,389,396

Pulbrook, JEx p., [1892] 1 Q. B. 86 61 L. J. M. C. 91 66 L. T.


134
..
159 ; 40 W. R. 175 56 J. P. 293 17 Cox C. C. 464
449
Pulling V. Gt. Eastern Ry. Co. (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 110
..
..
Pulsford u. Devenish, [1903] 2 Ch. 634
.714
Purdy V. Smith (1859). 1 E. & E. 511 5 Jur. N. g. 912 28
542
L. J. M. C. 150
117 R. R. 314
;

Q.

Quartz Hill Co., Se (1882), 21 Ch. D. 642 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 940 ; 31


W. R. 173
Queensland Industrial Soey. v. Pickles (18651, 35 L. J. Ex. 1 ..
Quilter v. Mapleson (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 672 ;' 52 L. J. Q. B. 44 ;
47 L. T. 562 31 W. R. 75
Quin V. O'Keefe (1859), 10 Ir. C. L. R. 393
Quinn V. McKinlay, [1902] 2 K. B. Jr. 315
Quinton v. Bristol (Mayor) (1874), L. R. 17 Eq. 524 ; 43 L. J. Ch.
783 30 L. T. 112 22 W. R. 434
;

105
731

393
35
316
530

R.
Radcliffe v. Bartholomew, [1892] 1 Q. B. 161 ; 61 L. J. M. C. 63
65 L. T. 677 40 W. R. 63 56 J. P. 262
607
Radford v. Williams (1914), 78 J. P. 90
125, 490
Radnorshire Bd. v. Evans (1863), 3 B.
S. 400
32 L. J. M. C.
;

&

100

9 Jur. N. S. 890

7 L. T. 677
Raebum v Andrews (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 118
30 L. T. 15 22 W. R. 489
;

588

Digitized

by Microsoft

43 L.

J. Q.

B. 73

618

TABLE OF CASES.

xcijc
PAGE

Railton V. Wood (1890), 15 App. Cas. 363 59 L. J. P. 0. 84 63


L. T. 13, H. L
162,357
Railway Sleepers Co., Re (1885), 29 Ch. D. 204 54 L. J. Ch. 720
52 L. T. 731 33 W. R. 595
607
Ramsden v. Lupton (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 17 43 L. J. Q. B. 17 ;
29 L. T. 510 22 W. R. 129
226
Ramshay, Ex p. (1852), 18 Q. B. 173 21 L. J. Q. B. 238 ; 16
Jur. 684
639
Randall, Ltd. v. British & American Shoe Co. (1902), 71 L. J. Ch.
;

683
Randleson, ^a;

Randolph

17W.

v.

p. (1828), 1

Mont.

MUman (1868),

c&

669
213

M'Arth. 86

L. R. 4 C. P. 107

38 L. J. C. P. 81

R. 262

502
Rapier v. London Tramways Co., [1893] 2 Ch. 588 63 L. J. Ch.
36; 69L.T. 361
630
Rashleigh, Kx p. (1875), 2 Ch. D. 9
45 L. J. Bank. 29 34 L. T.
193 24 W. R. 496, C. A
398,406
Raven, iJe (1915), 111 L. T. 938
147
Rawley v. Rawley (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 466 46 L. J. Q. B. 675 36
L. T. 191 24 W. R. 995
74,101
Rayuer v. Rayner, [1904] 1 Ch. 176 73 L. J. Ch. 114 ..
..
99
Rayson v. South London Tramways Co., [1893] 2 Q. B. 304
62
L. J. Q. B. 693 69 L. T. 491 42 W. R. 21 ..
92
.,
..
Read v. Anderson (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 779 52 L. J. Q. B. 219
53 L. J. Q. B. 532 51 L. T. 55 32 W. R. 590 49 J. P. 4 ..
210,
693
V. Edwards (1864), 17 C. B. N. S. 245
34 L. J. C. P. 31 .. 563
V. Joannon (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 300
69 L. J. Q. B. 544
63
L. T. 387
38 W. R. 734
61
V. Lincoln (Bp.), [1892] A. C. 644
62 L. J. P. C. 1 67 L. T.
128 56 J. P. 725
43, 50, 108, 736
V. Storey (1861), 6 H. & N. 433
30 L. J. M. C. 110
284, 645
Beade v. Conquest (1862), 11 C. B. N. S. 479
178
Readshaw . Balders (1811), 4 Taunt. 57
704
Rebeckah, The (1799), 1 C. Rob. 230
529
Receiver of Police District v. Bell (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 433
41
L. J. M. C. 163
328
Recker v. N. British & Mercantile Insurance Co. (1915), 84
538
L. J. K. B. 1813
Rede i;. Farr (1817), 6 M. & S. 121 18 R. R. .329
..
..373
Redfem, Re (1878), 6 Cli. D. 133 47 L. J. Ch. 17
..
..
444
64 L. T. 68
V. Redfem, [1891] P. 139
60 L. J. P. 9
39
W. R. 212 55 J. P. 37
166
Redgate v. Haynes (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 89 45 L. J. M. C. 65 33
L. T. 779
191, 490
..
180
Reece v. Muller (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 626 51 L. J. M. C. 64
Reed v. Ingham (1854), 3 E. & B. 889 32 L. J. M. C. 156 2
1 Jur, N. S. 61
97 R, R, 821
,,
515, 587
C. L. R. 1496
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

'

FAGE

Reed V. Nutt (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 669 59 L. J. Q.


;

B. 311

62 L. T.

362

38 W. R. 621 54 J. P. 599
Wiggins (1863), 13 C. B. N. S. 220 32 L. J. C. P. 131
11 W. R. 148
7 L. T. 423
Reeve v. Gibson, [1891] 1 Q. B. 652 60 L. J. Q. B. 451 64 L. T.
141; 39 W. R. 420
635

V.

388

316
10
31 L. J. M. C. 241
Yeates (1862), 1 H. & C. 435
470
W. R. 779
26
Regent U. S. Stores, Re (1878), 8 Ch. D. 75 38 L. T. 84
680
W. R. 425
668
Reid V. Croft (1839), 5 Bing. N. C. 68 8 L. J. C. P. 22
54 L. T.
55 L. J. Ch. 294
V. Reid (1886), 31 Ch. D. 402
382,387
100 34 W. R. 332
71 L. T. 299 43 W. R.
V. Wilson (1895), 64 L. J. M. C. 60
574,575
47;58J. P. 544
Reigate Rural Council v. Sutton District Water Co. (1908), 99
83, 94
L. T. 168
59
Reigate Union v. Croydon Union (1889), 14 App. Cas. 465
126
L. J. M. C. 29 53 J. P. 580
Rein v. Lane (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 144 36 L. J. Q. B. 81 8
507
B. &S. 83
63
59 L. J. Ch. 641
Rendall v. Blair (1890), 45 Ch. D. 139
502
L. T. 265 38 W. R. 698
112
Renpor, The (1883), 8 P. p. 115, C. A
Republic of Bolivia Exploration Syndicate, Re, [1914] 1 Ch. 139
205,264
83L. J. Ch. 226
Restall V. L. and S. W. Ry. Co. (1868), L. R. 3 Ex. 141
37 L. J.
730
Ex. 89 18 L. T. 331 16 W. R. 872
237,328
R. B.Abbot (1780), Doug. 553
Adams (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 66 58 L. J. M. C. 1 59 L. T.
903 53 J, P. 377 16 Cox C. C. 544
488, 501
33
Adamson (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 201
45 L. J. M. C. 46
L. T. 840 24 W. R. 250
426, 439, 441, 442
115
Adlard 1825), 4 B. & C. 772
681
Aikin (1765), 3 Burr. 1785
645
Aldborough (1849), 13 Q. B. 190 18 L. J. M. C. 81
..
Allan (1864), 4 B. & S. 915
33 L. J. M. C. 98
10 Jur.
674
N. S. 796 9 L. T. 761 12 W. R. 422
Ailday (1837), 7 E. & B. 799
26 L. J. Q. B. 292
3 Jur.
N. S. 961 110 R. R. 835
621
Allen (1812), 15 East 333
248
41 L. J. M- C. 97
26
(1872), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 367
L. T. 664 20 W. R. 756 12 Cox C. C. 193
558
Allendale (1789), 3 T. R. 382
217
All Saints (Derby) (1810), 13 East 143
522
All Saints (Wigan) (1876), 1 App. Cas. 611
L. R. 9 Q. B.
327 35 L. T. 381 25 W. R. 128
365
Ampthill (1824), 2 B. & C. 847
675
Anderson (1869), L. R. 1 C. C. 161 38 L. J. M. C. 12 19
L. T. 400 17 W.
208 11 Cox C. C. 198
264
V.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

ci
PAGE

R.

61 L. J. M. C. 143
Anglesey JJ., [1892] 2 Q. B. 29
67
L. T. 322 ; 56 J. P. 440
Antonelli (1906), 70 J. P. 4
Arkwright (1848), 12 Q. B. 960 18 L. J. Q. B. 26 13 Jur.

V.

656
489

76 R. R. 442
658
Armagh (Archbp.) (1722), Stra. 516
252,253
Armitage (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 773
42 L. J. M. 0. 15 27
L. T. 41 ; 20 W. R. 1015
18,676
Ashburton (1846), 8 Q. B. 871 ; 15 L. J. M. C. 97 ..
26
..
Astley (1785), 4 Doug. 389
216
Aston (1850), 1 L. M. & P. 491 ; 4 New Sess. Gas. 283 19
L. J. M. C. 236 14 Jur. 1045
608, 676
Athos (1723), 8 Mod. 144
82,91
Atkins (1765), 3 Burr. 1706
708
Audly (1700), Salk. 526
229
Bacon (1870), 11 Cox C. 0. 540
497
Badger (1856), 6 E. & B. 137
25 L. J. M. C. 81
2 Jur.
N. S. 419 ; 106 R. R. 547
167, 179
BaUey (1800), Rus. & Ry. 1
740
Baines (1706), 2 Lord Raym. 1267
241
(1840), 12 A. & E. 227 ; 10 L. J. Q. B. 34 4 P. & D.
283
362; 5 Jur. 337
Ball (1834), 6 C. & P. 563 40 R. R. 819
85
Balme (1777), 2 Cowp. 648
707
Banbury (1834), 1 A. & E. 136 3 L. J. M. C. 76 3 N. & M.
292
6
Bank of England", [1891] 1 Q. B. 785 60 L." J. Q. JS. 497";
164
64 L. T. 468 39 W. R. 558 55 J. P. 695
Barclay (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 306 51 L. J. M. C. 27 46 L. T.
102
30 W. R. 472 46 J. P. 167 & 8 Q. B. D. 480
51
L. J. M. C. 47 ; 46 L. T. 335 30 W. R. 672 46 J. P. 693 ..
504
10
Barham (1828), 8 B. & C. 99
Barlow (1693), Garth. 293 2 Salk. 609
..
425, 441, 707
Bamet Sanitary Auth. (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 558 45 L. J. M. C.
13
105; 35L. T. 362
Barret (1708), 1 Salk. 383
681
Bateman (1858), 8 B. & B. 584 4 Jur. N. S. 301 27 L. J.
80
M. C. 95 ; 112 R. R. 705
466
Baude (1603), Cro. Jac. 41
..
Bawbergh (1823), 2 B. & G. 222 3 D. & R. 338
..380
642
Bayly, [1898] 2 Ir. R. 335, 347, Ir
Beadle (1857), 7 E. & B. 492 ; 26 L. J. M. G. Ill ; 3 Jur.
249
N. S. 863 110 R. R. 694
467
-^ Beaney (1820), R. & R. 416
499
Beecham (1851), 5 Cox G. C. 181
12
Bellamy (1823), 1 B. & C. 500
Belton (1848), 11 Q. B. 388 3 New Sess. Cas. 77 17 L. J.
M. C. 70 ; 75 R. R. 423
521,678
98 L. T.
Benson, [1908] 2 K. B. 270
77 L. J. K. B. 644
493
933; 72 J. P. 286

300

Digitized

by Microsoft

CU

TABLE OF CASES.
FAGE

R.

Berkley (1754), 1 Ken. 80


249
Berkshire Jus. (1878),. 4 Q. B. D. 469
48 L. J. M. C. 137
27W. R. 798
608,609
Berry (1859), 28 L. J. M. C. 86 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 320 32 L. T.
O. S. 323 7 W. R. 229 1 Bell C. C. 46
681
Bertrand (1867), L. R. 1 P. C. 520
36 L. J. P. C. 51 ; 16
L. T. 752 ; 16 W. R. 9
683
..
4 Moore P. C. C. N. S. 460
Beverley Gas Co. (1837), 6 A. & E. 645 6 L. J. M. C. 84 ..
110
Bewdley (1712), 1 P. Wms. 223
538
Bigg (1717), 3 P. Wms. 434 2 East P. C. 882
92
Bird (1898), 42 Sol. J. 397
480
Birmingham (1846), 8 Q. B. 410
106
216
(1828), 8 B. & C. 29 ; 32 R. R. 332
Bishop (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 259 14 Cox C. C. 404 ; 49 L. J.
M. C. 45 42 L. T. 240 44 J. P. 330 ; 28 W. R. 475
..
187
Biswell (1847), 2 Cox C. C. 279
..
..
..487
Bjomsen (1865), 34 L. J. M. C. 180 10 Cox C. C. 74 ; L. &
C. 545 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 589
13 W. R. 664 12 L. T. 473 ..
265
Blaby, [1894] 2 Q. B. 170 ; 63 L. J. M. C. 133
..
..
396
Blane (1849), 13 Q. B. 769 3 New Sess. Cas. 597 ; 18 L. J.
M. C. 216 13 Jur. 854
43,275,276
Bleasdale (1792), 4 T. R. 809
353
Bloomsbury C. C. Judge (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 778 ; 55 L. J.
Q. B. 443 ; 56 L. T. 321 51 J. P. 212
674
Bloxham (1844), 6 Q. B. 528 14 L. J. Q. B. 13 ; 1 New
Sess. Cas. 370 2 D. & L. 168
8 Jur. 1117
683
Blues (1855), 5E. & B. 291
521
Board of Education, [1910] 2 K. B. 165 ; 79 L. J. K. B.
595 102 L. T. 578 74 J. P. 259 8 L. G. R. 549
..
229
Boiler Explosion Commrs., [1891], 1 Q. B. 703 j 60 L. J.
131
Q. B. 544 64 L. T. 674 39 W. B. 440
Bond (1837), 6 A. & E. 905
..
655
Boteler (1864), 4 B. & S. 959 33 L. J. M. C. 101 ; 12 W. R.
466 ..
..
441
Boultbee (1836), 4 A. & E. 498
6 N. & M. 26
5 L. J.
M. C. 57 43 R. R. 412
248
Boulton (1850), 1 Den. C. C. 508
2 C. & K. 517 ; 3 Cox
19 L. J. M. C. 67 13 Jur. 1034
C. C. 576
499
Bowerman, [1891] 1 Q. B. 112 60 L. J. M. C. 13 63 L. T.
532 ; 39 W. R. 207 55 J. P. 373 17 Cox C. C. 151
472
Bowman, [1898], 1 Q. B. 663
233
Bowyer (1831), 4 C. & P. 559
485
Brackenridge (1868), L. R. 1 C. C. 133 37 L. J. M. C. 86
18 L. T. 369 16 W. R. 816 ; 11 Cox C. C. 96
..
343
Bradford (1860), Bell C. C. 268 8 Cox C. C. 309 29 L. J.
M. C. 171 6 Jur. N. S. 1102 ; 2 L. T. 392 8 W. R. 531 .. 489
Bradford Navigation (1865), 6 B. & S. 631
34 L. J. Q B
191 11 Jur. N. S. 769 ; 13 W. R. 892
..
..
632
Bradlaugh (1883), 2 Q. B. D. 569 ; 46 L. J. M. C. 286 and 3
Q. B. D. 607 ; 48 L. J. M. C. 5
346

w.

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

ClU
PAGE

R.

Bradshaw (1860), 2 E. & E. 836 29 L. J. M. C. 176 6 Jur.


N. S. 629 8 W. R. 435
341,342
Brice (1821), R. & R, 450
487
Bridge (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 609 59 L. J. M. 0. 49 62 L. T,
297 38 W. R. 464 54 J. P. 629 17 Cox C. C. 66
326
Bridgewater (1774), 1 Cowp. 139
153
(1790), 3 T. R. 550
217
Bridgnorth (1839), 10 A. & E. 66 8 L. J. M. C. 86 ; 2 P. &
D. 317 ; 3 Jur. 384 50 R. R. 334
217
Brighton (1861), 1 B. & S. 447 30 L. J. M. C. 197 5 L. T.
56; 9 W. R. 831
106
Bristol Dock Co. (1810), 12 East 429; 11 R. R. 440
..
723
Brixton Prison (Governor), Slattmann, Ex p., [1912] 3 K. B.
424
159
Brodribb (1816). 6 C. & P. 571
85
Brooks (1847), 2 C. & K. 402
101
Brown (1800), 2 East P. 0. 1007
470
..
..
(1852), 17 Q. B. 833 ; 21 L. J. M. C. 113
574
Buchanan (1846), 8 Q. B. 883 ; 15 L. J. Q. B. 227 10 Jur.
736
708, 712, 713
Buck (1726), 2 Stra. 679
709
Bucks JJ. (1803), 3 East 342
19,370
17 Jur.
(1853), 2 E. & B. 447 ; 22 L. J. M. C. 139
295
530; IC.L. R. 443
Burnaby (1703), 2 Lord Rayni. 900
179
Butler (1685), 1 W. Bl. 649
153
Byrde (1890), 60 L. J. M. C. 17 63 L. T. 645 39 W. R.
426
171 ; 55 J. P. 310 17 Cox C. C. 187
Cambridge JJ. (1835), 4 A. & E. Ill
5 L. J. M. C. 6
5
N. & M. 440 1 H. & W. 600
237, 645
426, 439, 441
(1839), 8 Dowl. 89
639
Cambridge University (1722), Stra. 557
Canterbury (Archbp.) (1848), 11 Q. B. 483
17 L. J. Q. B.
532
252 ; 12 Jur. 862 75 R. R. 458
28 L. J. Q. B. 154 5 Jur. N. S.
(1859), 1 E. & E. 545
643
958; 117R. R. 331
72 L. J. K. B. 188 ; 88 L. T. 150
, [1903] 1 K. B. 289 ;
254
51W.R.277
135
Carew (1851), 20 L. J. M. C. 44 n
22 R. R. 333
330
Carlile (1819), 3 B. & AM. 161
655
Carnarvon (1820), 4 B. & Aid. 86 ; 22 R. R. .636
681
(1835), 5 N. & M. 364
Carr (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 76 ; 52 L. J. M. C. 12 ; 47 L. T. 451
31 W. R. 121 ; 47 J. P. 38 ; 15 Cox C. C. 129 4 Asp. M. C.
264
604
43 L. J. Q. B. 105 ; 30
Castro (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 360
4
L. T. 32U ; 22 W. R. 187 ; 1 Hopw. & C. 741
..
..
333
Cator (1802), 4 Burr. 2026
Champneys (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 384 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 95 24
314
L. T. 181 ; 19 W. R. 386

V.

. .

^-

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

CIV
R.

Chantrell (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 587 44 L. J. M. C. 94 ; 32


18>637
..
L. T.305 ..
..
232
Chapman (1838), 8 C.
P. 558
116
Charles (1772), Burr. Set. C. 706
20 L, J. M. C. 181
P. 117
Charlesworth (1851), 2 L. M.

V.

&

&

574
501
B. 447
Cheltenham (1841), 1 Q. B. 467 1 G. & D. 167 ; 10 L. J.
150,237
M. C. 99 ; 55 R. R. 321
636
Chertsey J J. (1878), 47 L. J. M. C. 104
Cheshire Lines Comm. (1873), L.R. 8 Q. B. 344; 42 L. J.
640
M. C. 100; 28L. T. 808
29 L. J. Q. B.
Chichester (Bishop of) (1859), 2 E. & E. 209
432
23 6 Jur. N. S. 120

468,469
..
..
..
Child (1830), 4 C. & P. 442
42 L. J. M. C. 34 659
Chorlton Union (1872), L. R. 8 Q. B. 5
Christchurch (1849), 12 Q. B. 149 ; 18 L. J. M. C. 28 ; 83
392
R. R. 863
55 L. J. M. C.
Cinque Ports JJ. (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 191
371
156 34 W. R. 789
244
..
Cityof London Court Judge (1883), 53 L. J. Q. B. 28
63 L. T.
(1890), 25 Q. B. D. 339 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 429
168
..
492 38 W. R. 638
..
66 L. T. 135
61 L. J. Q. B. 337
, [1892] 1 Q. B. 273
6, 244
40 W. R. 215 7 Asp. M. C. 140
52 L. T.
(1885), 14 Q. B. D. 905 54 L. J. Q. B. 330
710
537 33 W. R. 700 ; 49 J. P. 407
352,354,355
Clark (1777), 2 Cowp. 610
Clear (1825), 4 B. & C. 899 7 D. & R. 393 28 R. R. 498 714
Cleworth (1864), 4 B. & S. 927 9 L. T. 682 33 L. J. M. C.
584
79 10 Jur. N. S. 360 ; 12 W. R. 375
522
Clifton (1794), 2 East 168
Coaks (1864), 3 E. & B. 249 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 133 2 C. L. R.
153
947; 18 Jur. 378
16 W. R.
18 L. T. 489
Cohen (1868), 8 Cox C. C. 41
184
941
468
Coke (1721), 1 East P. C. 400
CoUingwood (1848), 12 Q. B. 681 3 New Sess. Cas. 252 ;
..
126
17 L. J. M. C. 168 12 Jur. 750
Commanding Officer Middlesex Regiment, [19171 2 K. B. 129 267
Consistory Court (1862), 2 B. & S. 339 31 L. J. Q. B. 106
..
..509
5 L. T. 795 8 Jur. N. S. 1131 10 W. R. 343
248
,
..
Cook (1790), 3 T. R. 319
572
(1774), 2 East P. C. 616
Corfe Mullen (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 211
663, 666
Cornforth (1742), 2 Stra. 1162
106,486
Cottle (1851), 16 Q. B. 412 ; 20 L. J. M. C. 162
15 Jur.
480
721 83 R. R. 519
5 Jur.
Cotton (1859), 1 E. & E. 203
28 L. J. M. C. 22
241
N. S. 311 7 W. R. 62

90R. R. 816

Charretie (1849), 13

'

'.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

CV
PAGB

R.

522
Cousins (1864), 4 B. & S. 849 ; 33 L. J. M. 0. 87
.
118
(1851), 20 L. J. Q. B. 359
59 L. J. Q. B. 228 62
(1890), 24 Q. B. D. 60, 533
70
L. T. 583 ; 38 W. R. 408
450
Cox (1759), 2 Burr. 785
Crawshaw (1860), 30 L. J. M. C. 58 ; 3 L. T. 51 ; 9 W. R.
713
68 ; Bell C. C. 303 ; 8 Cox C. C. 375
342,528
Croke (1774), 1 Cowp. 26
Crowan (1850), 14 Q. B. 221 3 New Sess. Cas. 663 ; 19
404
L. J. M. C. 20 ; 13 Jur. 1099
Cubitt (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 622 ; 58 L. J. M. C. 132 ; 60
706
L. T. 638
248
Cumberland (1803), 3 B. & P. 354
438
(1836), 4 A. & B. 696
528
Cumberworth (1836), 4 A. & E. 731
572
Cunningham (1804), ,5 East 478
526
Cutbush (1768), 4 Burr. 2204
538
(1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 379
22
DamareU (18671, 37 L. J. M. C. 21
.
526, 642
DarUngton School (1845), 14 L. J. Q. B. 67 .
114, 122, 532
Davie (1837), 6 A. & E. 374
332
Davis (1783), 1 Leach 271
2 N.
M. 349 3 L. J. M. C.
(1833), 5 B. & Ad. 551
464
29;39R. R. 563
22
(1853), 22 L. J. M. C. 143
31,484
(1870), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 272
354,356
Dean (1843), 12 M. & W. 39
600
Deaville (1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 272
118
Deighton (1844), 13 L. J. Q. B. 241
196
De Mamey, L1907] 1 K. B. 388
265
De Mattos (1836), 7 C. & P. 458
663
Denbyshire JJ. (1803), 4 East 142
729
Denton (1852), 21 L. J. M. C. 207
265
Depardo (1807), 9 R. R. 693
425
Derby (1694), Skin. 370
424
Derby JJ., [1917] 2 K.B. 802
13
Derbyshire JJ. (1845), 7 Q. B. 193
237
(1758), 2 Ken. 299
Dickenson (1857), 7 E. & B. 831 ; 26 L. J. M. C. 204 ; 3 Jur.
588
N. S. 1076 ; 110 R. R. 852
96
Dickinson, 1917] 2 K. B. 393
184,
S, 11 ; 4 Camp. 12 ; 15 R. R. 381 ..
Dixon (1814), 3 M.

V.

Coward
Cowper

&

&

Dobbins (1883), 48 J. P. 182


Doherty (1887), 16 Cox 306
Doubleday (1861) 3 E. & E, 501
Dove (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 596
Dowling (1857), 8 E. & B. 605 27
;

342
178
595
283
L.'J. Q. B.

706

Downes

(1789), 3 T. R. 660

Digitized

by Microsoft

28

112 R. R.

418
300

TABLE OF CASES.

CVl

PAGE

R, w.D'Oyly (1840), 12 A.
54R. R. 553

& E. 139

&

Dunne

(1813), 2 M.
S. 201
Unrsley (1832), 5 A.
E. 10
Dyott (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 47 ;
799; 47 J. P. 54

&

4 Jur. 1056

& D.

4 P.

52

6 N. & M. 333
H. & W. 9
61 L. J. M. 0. 104 30 W. R.

155
100
365

28
Dyson, [1894] 2 Q. B. 176
58 J. P.
63 L. J. M. C. 124
528 70 L. T. 877 42 W. R. 526 1 Mansou 283 ..
..
197
275
Eastbourne (1803), 4 East 103
East London W. W. Go. (1852), 17 Q. B. 512 21 L. J. M. C
591
49; 2E. &E. 447
217
Eaton (1-787), 2 T. R. 472 1 R. R. 436
Edmundson (1859), 2 E. &E. 77 8 Cox C. C. 212 28 L. J.
597
M. C. 213 5 Jur. N. S. 1351
100
Edwards (1829). 9 B. & C. 652
2
23 L. J. Ex. 42
18 Jur. 384
(1853), 9 Ex. 628
C. L. R. 590
96 R. R. 886
250,610
53 L. J. M. C. 149 51 L. T.
(1884), 13 Q. B. D. 586
398
586 ..
Effls (1854), 6 Q. B. 501
27
Blmsly (1834), 2 Lew. 0. C. 126
467
Ely (1850), 15 Q. B. 827
4 New Seas. Cas. 222
19 L. J.
M. C. 223 14 Jur. 966 81 R. R. 822
635
Erdheim (1896), 65 L. J. M. C. 176
618
13 W. R.
Essex (1864), 34 L. J. M. C. 41
11 L. T. 486
186
345
2 R. R. 470
..
..
(17-92), 4 T. R. 591
535, 626
C. C. Judge (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 704
56 L. J. Q. B.
315 57 L. T. 643 35 W. R. 511 51 J. P. 549
..
708, 710
Evans (1890), 54 J. P. 471
439
65 L. J. M. C. 29 44 W. R. 271
[1896] 1 Q. B. 228
60 J. P. 39
259
Everdon (1807), 9 East 101
421
Everett (1852)i 1 E. & B. 273 22 L. J. Q. B. 3 93 R. R.
..
133..
297
Eye Corporation (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 271
2 D. & R. 172
IB. &C. 85; 23R. R. 270
438
Eyre (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 487
37 L. J. M. C. 159
18
16 W. R. 754 9 B. & S. 329
L. T. 511
603
Farewell (1744), 2 Stra. 1209
249
Farmer,- [1892] 1 Q. B. 637
61 L. J. M. C. 65
65 L. T.
736 40 W. R. 228 56 J. P. 341 17 Cox C. C. 413
259
Farrow (1857), D. & B. C. C. 164 3 Jur. N. S. 167
..
490
Faversham Fishery Co. (1799), 8 T. R. 352 4 R. R. 691 .. 704
Fawcett (1868), 11 Cox C. C. 305
426,442
Fell (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 380
240
Ferrall (1850), 2 Den. C. C. 51
T. & M. 390
20 L.J. M. C
..
..
39; 15 Jur. 42
707
Finnis (1859), 1 E. & E. 935
28 L. J. M. C. 201
5 Jur

..
N-.-S. 791; 117R. R.-530
..
..
..
342,441
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.
R.

V.

CVli

Fitchie (1857), 1 D. & B. C. C. 175 ; 7 Cox 0. C. 257


26
L. J. M. C. 90 3 Jur. N. S. 413
..
Fitzroy-Cowper (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 533 59 L. J. Q. B. 265
62 L. T. 583 ; 38 W. R. 408
Fletcher (1871), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 320
40 L. J. M. C. 123
24 L. T. 742 19 W. R. 781 12 Cox C. C. 77
..
Ford (1907), 12 Canada Or. Cas. 555
Fordham (1839), 11 A.
E. 73 3 P. & D. 95 ; 9 L. J. M. C.

PAGE

499

139

&

681
179

3; 52R. R. 281

667
Forrest (1789), 3 T. R. 38 1 R. R. 628
645
Foulkes (1875), L. R. 2 C. C. R. 150 ; 44 L. J. M. 0. 65 32
L. T. 407 ; 23 W. R. 696
494
FranciB.(1735), 2Stra. 1015
466
French (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 507
10
Fretwell (1862), L. & C. 161
31 L. J. M. C. 145
9 Cox
C. C. 152 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 466
6 L. T. 333 ; 10 W. R. 545 .. 490
Frost (1839), 9 C. & P. 129
564
Fylingdales (1827), 7 B. & C. 438
150
Gale (1876), 2 Q. B. D. 141
46 L. J. M. C. 134 ; 35 L. T.
526 13 Cox C. C. 340
491
Ganz (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 93 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 419 46 L. T.
592
265
Gardner (1774), Cowp. 79
110
Garrett (1853), Dears. C. C. 233 ; 6 Cox C. C. 260 ; 2 C. L. R.
106 ; 23 L. J. M. C. 20 ; 17 Jur. 1060
472
Giles (1820), 8 Pri. 293 36 R. R. 27
610
Gillyard (1848), 12 Q. B. 527 ; 17 L. J. M. C. 153 12 Jur.
655 ..
J.
..
..
.,
..
..
.
237
Glamorganshire (1850), "i L. M. & P."336 'i9 L. J. M. C.
232
172 15 Jur. 679
Glover (1814), R. R. 269
492
Gompertz (1847), 9 Q. B. 824 ; 16 L. J. Q. B. 121 ; 11 Jur.
204
204; 72 R. R. 458
Gordon (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 354 58 L. J. M. C. 117 60 L. T.
493
872 ; 53 J. P. 807 ; 16 Cox C. C. 622
Gould (1704), 1 Salk, 381
712
689,690
Gravesend (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 240
Great Bolton (1828), 8 B. & C. 71
560,564
145
Great Faringdon (1829), 9 B. & C. 641
Great Salkeld (1817), 6 M. & S. 408
..217
150
Great Yarmouth JJ. (1882), 8 Q. B. D.525
429
G. W. Ry. (1858), 28 L. J. M. C. 59
436
G. W. Ry. Co. (1852), 1 E. & B. 874 22 L. J. Q. B. 263 ..
Qreen (1851), 2 L. M. & P. 130 ; 20 L. J. M. C. 168 ; 15
705
Jur. 128
Greene (1837), 6 A. & E. 548 ; 1 N. & P. 631 W. W. & D.
550
..
..
291
..
..
..
^-^'(1852)', 17 Q. B. 793 21 L. J. M." 0. 137
16 Jur. 663 625
11 Cox C. C. 193
36
Greenland (1867), L. R. 1 C. C. 95
308
L.J.M..O. 37;.19L, T. 364; 17 W. R,179
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

CVm
R.

V.

TABLE OP CASES.

Gregory (1833), 5 B.
M. 478
Griffiths, [1891] 2 Q.

& Ad. 555

3 L. J. M. C. 25

2 N.

&

PAGE

713
B. 145

60 L. J. M. C. 93

39

W. R.

386
719
Grirawade (1844), 1 Cox C. C. 85 ; 1 Den. 330
1 C. & K.
488
592
..
Gwenop (1789), 3 T. R. 133
78,91
22
Hadfield (1870), L. R. 1 0. C. 253 ; 39 L. J. M. C. 131
489
L. T. 664 ; 18 W. R. 955 ; 11 Cox C. C. 574
707
Haigh (1813), 3 T. R. 637
487
Haines (1821), R. & R. 451
216
Halifax (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 211
95
Hall (1822), 1 B. & C. 123 25 R. R. 321
179
(1828), 3 C. & P. 409
[1891] 1 Q. B. 747 ; 60 L. J. M. C. 124 64 L. T. 394 ;
17CoxC. C. 278
710,714
Hammond (1852), 17 Q. B. 772 21 L. J. Q. B. 153 85
R.R. 674
118
459
Hampden (1637), 3 State Trials 1235
Hamstall Rid ware (1789), 3 T. R. 380
645
Hanson (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 519
300
Hants JJ. (1840), 1 B. & Ad. 654 9 L. J. M. C. 109 ; 35 R. R.
407
105,346
Harden (1852), 2 E. d, B. 188 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 299 ; 17 Jur.
804
288
Hardy (1871), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 278 40 L. J. M. C. 62 23
L. T. 785 ; 19 W. R. 359 ; 11 Cox C. C. 656
489
Harper (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 78 50 L. J. M. C. 90
44 L. T.
615 29 W. R. 743 ; 14 Cox C. C. 574
472
..
..
..
Harrald (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 361 ; 41 L. J. Q. B. 173
26
L. T. 616
20 W. R. 328
155
Harris (1836), 7 C. & P. 429
467
582
(1836), 7 C. & P. 446
498
(1842), Car. & M. 661
(1791), 4 T. R. 202
2 R. R. 358
707
Harrogate (1850), 15 Q. B. 1012 20 L. J. M. C. 25 ; 16 Jur.
422 ; 4 New Sess. Ca. 319
246
Harvey (1747), 1 Wils. 164
465
Hastings (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 692 n. 1 D. & R. 148 ; 24 R. R.
657
427
Haughton (1853), 1 E. & B. 501 22 L. J. ]Vt 0. 89 ; 17 Jur.
455 ; 93 R. R. 264
..
..
550
Havering-atte-Bower (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 691 ; 2 D. & R.
176 ; 24 R. R. 532
427
Hawkesworth (1786), 1 T. R. 450; 2 East P. C. 255
..
204
Hazelton (1874), L. R. 2 C. C. 134 ; 44 L. J. M. C. 11 ; 31
L. T. 451 ; 23 W. R. 139
493
Hellier (1851), 17 Q. B. 229 ; 21 L. J. M. C. 5 ; 15 Jur. 901 312
Helton (1742), Burr. S. C. 187 ; 2 Stra. 1168
..
106
..
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

M.

0. 135

ex

TABLE OF OASES.
FAQE

R.

V.

Hyde

337

(1852), 7 E.

..

&

B. 859 n.

21 L. J.

M.

C.

94

16 Jur.

237
312

..

&

Idle (1818), 2 B.
Aid. 149
Ingall (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 199

46 L. J. M. C. 113 35 L. T.
649,659,660
11.57
33 L. J.
Ingham (1864), 5 B. & S. 257 ; 9 Cox C. 0. 508
12 W. R. 793 569
Q. B. 183 10 Jur. N. S. 968 ; 10 L. T. 456
660
Ingram (1697), 2 Salk. 593
Inland Revenue Commrs. (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 569 57 L. J.
296
M. C. 92 ; 59 L. T. 378 36 W. R. 696 52 J. P. 390
Ipstones (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 216
37 L. J. M. 0. 37 ; 17
103
L. T. 497 16 W. E. 538 9 B. & S. 106
207
Ipswich Union (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 269 46 L. J. M.
382,386
36 L. T. 317 25 W. R. 511

552; 25

W.

James (1786), 1 East 303 n


Jay (1858), 8 E. & B. 469 27 L.
;

..249

J.

M.

C. 25

4 Jur. N. S.

246
407 112 R. R. 649
467
Jeans (1844), 1 0. & K. 539
32 L. J. M. C. 1 ; 9 Jur.
Jenkins (1863), 3 B. & S. 116
639
N. S. 570 7 L. T.272 11 W. R. 20
582
Jenniug's Case (1838), 2 Lewin 0. 0. 130
488
Jepson (1767), 2 East P. C. 1115
322
- Johnson (1839), 6 01. i& F. 41
49 R. R. 14, H. L
681
(1720), 1 Stra. 261
54 R. R.
Jones (1841), 12 A. & E. 684 10 L. J. M. C. 5
464
661
488
(1851), 5 Cox C. C. 226
471
(1897), 67 L. J. Q. B. 41
487
Jordan (1836), 7 C. & P. 432
84 L. T.
Kane, [1901] 1 K. B. 472 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 143
586
240; 65 J. P. 26
2
Kensington (1847), 12 Q. B. 654 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 332
230
Jur. 747
634
Kent (Inhabitants) (1811), 13 East 220 ; 12 R. R. 330
Kent JJ. (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 305 ; 45 L. J. M. C. 112
135
12W. R. 635
62 L. T.
(1890), 24 Q. B. D. 181 ; 59 L. J. M. 0. 51
361
..
114 38 W. R. 253 ; 54 J. P. 453 17 Cox C. C. 61
..635
Kerrison (1813), 1 M. & S. 435 ; 14 R. R. 491
..
344
Kettle, [1905] 1 K. B. 212
Keyn (1876), 2 Ex. D. 63 ; 13 Cox C. C. 403 ; 46 L. J. M. C.
264,265,274,277
17
354
King (1711), 1 Salk. 182
492
(1716), 1 Sess. Cas. 27
Kingston-upon-Thames JJ. (1858), E. B. & E. 256 ; 27 L. J.
341
M.C. 199 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 758 ; 113 R. R.631
487
Kipps (1850), 4 Cox 0. C. 167
*
Knapp (1853), 2 E. & B. 447 22 L. J. M. C. 139 ; 17 Jur.
295
530 1 C. L. R. 443 95 R. R. 634
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

CXI
PAQE

R.

Knight

(1909), 73 J. P. 15
Lambe (1792), 5 T. R. 76
Lancashire (1858), 8 E.
B. 563
L. J. M. C. 161 ; 112 R. R. 693

179
360

&

Land Tax Com.

&

(1853), 2 E.

4 Jur. N. S. 375

27

655

B. 694

22 L.

J. Q. B.

386

95 R. R. 759
357
Langford (1842), Car. & M. 602 2 Moo. C. C. 252
179, 497
LangriviUe (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 83
54 L. J. Q. B. 124
52
L. T. 253 33 W. R. 213
47
Lawrence (1830), 4 C. & P. 231
487
683
(1909), 25 T. L. R. 374
Leeds Ry. Co. (1852), 18 Q. B. 343 21 L. J. M. C. 193 398, 399
Leicester (1827), 7 B. & C. 6 9 D. & R. 772 5 L. J. (O. S.)
M. C. 95 ; 31 R. R. 135
662
Leicestershire JJ. (1850), 15 Q. B. 88 4 New Sess. Cas. 124
19 L. J. M. C. 209 14 Jur. 550
674, 677
Leigh R. D. C, [1898] 1 Q. B. 836 67 L. J. Q. B. 562 78
L. T. 604 46 W. R. 471 62 J. P. 355
365
Lesley (1860), 1 Bell 220
29 L. J. M. C. 97
8 Cox C. C.
269; 6 Jur. N. S. 202
8 W. R. 220 1 L. T. 452
264
Leverson (1867), L. R. 4 Q. B. 394 18 W. R. 251 ..
..
539
Lewes Prison (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 576 44 L. J. M. C.
176 32 L. T. 673 24 W. R. 13
735
Lewis (1857), D. & B. 182 26 L. J. M. C. 104
..
265, 557
Lichfield (1842), 2 Q. B. 693
11 L. J. Q. B. 122 2 G. & D.
10 6 Jur. 624 57 R. R. 768 ..
577
Lightfoot (1856), 6 B. & B. 822 25 L. J. M. C. 115 2 Jur.
N. S. 786 4 W. R. 655 20 J. P. 677 106 R. R. 814
23, 258
Lindsey (1811), 14 East 317 12 R. R. 529
634
Linford (1857), 7 E. & B. 950 110 R. R. 909
..
..
342
Littlechild (1871), 40 L. J. M. C. 137
352
Little Coggleshall (1817), 6 M. & S. 264
220
Liverpool JJ. (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 638 52 L. J. M. C. 114
49 L. T. 244 33 W. R. 20 47 J. P. 596
17
Llangian (1863), 4 B. & S. 249 32 L. J. M. C. 225 8 L. T.
287,562
422 11 W. R. 776
Lloyd (1767), 2 East P. C. 1122
488
Local Govt. Bd. (1883), 10 Q. B. D. 321 52 L. J. M. C. 4
48 L. T. 173 31 W. R. 72 47 J. P. 228
92
Lofthouse (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 433 35 L. J. Q. B. 145 12
Jur. N. S. 619 14 L. T. 359 14 .W R. 649 7 B. & S. 747 660
London (1764), 3 BuiT. 1456
729
London (Bp.) (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 243 59 L. J. Q. B. 169
62 L. T. 167 38 W. R. 214 54 J. P. 340
..
442, 443
London C. C, [1892], 1 Q. B. 190 61 L. J. M. C. 75 ; 66
L. T. 168 40 W. R. 286 56 J. P. 8
150
London JJ. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 357 59 L. J. M. C. 146 63
L. T. 253 39 W. R. 11
340
64 L. J. M. C. 100
72 L. T.
[1895] 1 Q. B. 616
105,346
211 43 W. R. 387 59 J. P. 820
18 Jur. 285

. .

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

CXU
R.

London J J.

V.

& C.

London (Mayor

C,

[1893], 2 Q. B. 476
"

69 L. T. 682

of) (1847),

PACE
360,

..

-'

673, 674

13 Q. B. 1

16 L.

J.

Q. B. 185

323

llJur. 867

Long

R.R

(1841), 1 Q. B. 740

409

..

..

G.

& D.

367

6 Jur. 98

55

..

Loom

(1827), 1 Moo. 0. C. 160


Lopes (1858), 1 D. B. 525 ; 27 L. J. M. C. 48 ; 4 Jur. N. S.
98 ; 7 Cox C. C. 431
P. 596 ; 40 R. R.
Loveless (1834), 1 M.
Rob. 349 ; 6 C.

680
572

&

85
825
62,66,522
Loxdale (1758), 1 Burr. 447
126
Luflfe (1807), 8 East 193
9 R. R. 406
Lundie (1862), 31 L. J. M. C. 157 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 640 5 L. T.
704
..
830 ; 10 W. R. 267
..
Lynch, [1903] 1 K. B. 444 72 L. J. K. B. 167 88 L. T.
267
26; 51 W. R. 619; 67 J. P. 4]
77 L. T. 568
67 L. J. Q. B. 59
[1898] 1 Q. B. 61
168
..
46 W. R. 205 8 Asp. M. C. 363 18 C. C. C. 677 ..
10
Mabe (1835), 3 A. & E. 531
McCann (1868). L. R. 3 Q. B. 677 37 L. J. M. C. 123 ; 19
247
L. T. 115 16 W. R. 985
729
MoKenzie (1820), R. & R. 429
485
McMahon (1894), 15 N. S. W. L. R. 131 Aust
Maidenhead (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 494 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 444 46
365
J. P. 724
Mainwaring (1858), E. B. & E. 474 27 L. J. M. C. 278 4
13
Jur. N. S. 928 113 R. R. 735
581
Mallinson (1758), 2 Burr. 679
Manchester (1857), 7 E. & B. 453 26 L. J. M. C. 65 110
R. R. 678
91, 200
99
38 R. R. 258 n
(1821), 4 B. & Aid. 504
2 C. L. R. 974 23 L. J. M. C.
(1854), 3 E. & B. 336
247
48 18 Jur. 267 97 R. R. 511
Manchester Corp., [1911] 1 K. B. 560 80 L. J. K. B. 263
53
104L. T.54; 75 J. P. 73; 9L. G. R. 129
3 D. & R.
Manchester Waterworks (1823), 1 B. & C. 630
591
20
Mankelow (1853), Dears. C. C. 169 ; 6 Cox . C. 143 22
487
L. J. M. C. 116 17 Jur. 352
250
Mann (1727), 2 Stra. 754
Mansel Jones (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 29 ; 60 L. T. 860 ; 37 W. R.
139
508; 53 J. P. 739
15
Margram (1793), 5 T. R. 153
85
Marks (1802), 3 East 157 6 R. R. 577
Marriot (1692), 4 Mod. 144
709
190
Marsh (1824), 2 B. & C. 717
Mashiter (1837), 6 A. & E. 153 ; 6 L. J. K. B. 121 1 N. &
P. 314 ; W. W. & D. 173 45 R. R. 433
114, 122 532
..
;

264

&

&

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

CXIU
PAGE

R.

V.

Mattersey (1832), 4 B. & Ad. 211 2 L. J. M. C. 16


1 N.
&M. 49
216
Matthews (1797), 10 Mod. 26
353
Maude (1842), 2 Dowl. N. S. 58 11 L. J. M. C. 120 6 Jur.
,.
106,486
646 65 R. R. 753
Maulden (1828), 8 B. & C. 78 32 R. R. 344
..
..
365
Mawgan (1838), 8 A. & E. 496 3 N. & P. 502
..
..
729
426
Meade (1916), 80 J. P. 332
178
(1909), 78 L. J. K. B. 476
Medway Union (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 383 37 L. J. M. C.
..
313
100 18 L. T. 431 16 W. R. 979 9 B. & S. 439 ..
MeUingham (1732), 2 Bott. 363
15
232
Merionethshire (1844), 6 Q. B. 163 13 L. J. M. C. 114 ..
..
..
734
13 L. J. M. C. 158
(1844), 6 Q. B. 343
Metrop. Board of Works (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 358 38 L. J.
172
Q. B. 201 17 W. R. 1094
Metrop. Com. Sewers (1853), 1 E. &B. 694 22 L. J. Q.B.
242
234; 17 Jur. 787; 93 R. R. 348
40 L. J.
Metrop. District Ry. (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 698
32
C 113
Meyer (1876), 1 Q. B.D.'l73 34 L. T. 274;"si nom. R. v.
150
Harrison, 23 W. R. 392
Middlesex (1851), 1 L. M. & P. 621 4 New Sess. Cas. 302
135
20 L. J. M. C. 42 86 R. R. 893
293
(1831), 2 B. & Ad. 818 36 R. R. 758
346
(1817), 6 M. <fe S. 279
608
Middlesex JJ. (1843), 2 Dowl. N. S. 724
345
(1888), 32 Sol. J. 221
Middlesex Regiment (Commanding Officer), [1917] 2 K. B.
2(i7
129
Midland Ry. Co. (1855), 4 E. & B. 958 1 Jur. N. S. 797 ., 572,
592
32
44 L. J. M. C. 137
(1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 389
23 W. R. 921
572, 592
L. T. 753
116
Mildenhall (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 374
62 L. T.
59 L. J. M. C. 56
Miles (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 423
..
362
572 38 W. R. 334 17 Cox C. C. 9 54 J. P. 549 ..
Mill (1850), 10 C. B. 379 1 L. M. & P. 695 20 L. J. C. P.
369,390
16 15 Jur. 59 84 R. R. 618
Milledge (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 332 48 L. J. M. C. 139 40 L. T.
152
748 27 W. R. 659
8 Jur. 717
59 R. R. 134 ..
4
Millis (1844), 10 CI. &F. 534
645
Mills (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 578
117
Mitchell (1818), 10 Bast 518
82 L. J. K. B.
Mitchell, mcp. Livesey (1913), 77 J. P. 148
430, 435, 436
153
Monck (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 544 46 L. J. M. C. 251 36
L. T. 720
38, 357
178
Moore (1852), 3 C. & K. 319 16 Jur. 750
236
Moreley(1760), 2Burr. 1011
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

CXIV
R.

V.

TABLE OF CASES.
734
683

Morgan (1736), 2 Stra. 1066


Monson (The Veronica Case)

(1903), 67 J. P. 267
Morris (1867), L. R. 1 C. C. 90 ; 36 L. J. M. C. 84
636 ; 15 W. R. 990 ; 10 Cox C. C. 48 ..
Ad. 441
(1830), 1 B.
Morrison (1859), Bell C. C. 158 ; 8 Cox C. C. 194 ;

16 L. T.

362
729

&

C. 210 33 L. T. O. S. 220 7 W. R. 554


Morton, [1892] 1 Q. B. 39 61 L. J. Q. B. 39

M.

40

28 L. J.

499

65

T. 611

W. R.

109 ; 56 J. P. 105
(1881), 7 Q. B. D. 244 ; 50 L. J. M. C. 113 ; 44 L. T.
823 ; 29 W. R. 758 ; 45 J. P. 696; 14 Cox C. C. 583
Mount (1875), L. R. 6 P. C. 283 ; 44 L. J. P. C. 58 ; 32 L. T.

152

Most

279; 23

W.

262
582
220
217
592

R. 572

Murrow

(1835), 1 Moo. C. C. 456


Mursley (1787), 1 T. R. 694
Mvott (1863), 32 L. J. M. C. 138
N4ath (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 707 ; 40 L. J. M. C 193
70
Neville (1846), 8 Q. B. 452 ; 15 L. J. M. C. 33

489

R. R.
591

738

Newman

(1882), 's Q.B.'

0.706; 5i"l. J.'m.

C. 87;

46

;
30 W. R. 550 46 J. P. 612
115,
Nicholson (1810), 12 East 330 11 R. B. 398
426,
Norfolk (1832), 4 B. & Ad. 238 2 L. J. M. C. 23
..
39 R. R. 713
(1834), 5 B. & Ad. 990
..
North CoUingham (1823), 1 B. & C. 578
..
North Curry (1825), 4 B. & C. 953 ; 7 D. & R. 424
293,
Northleach (1834), 5 B. & A. 978
..
NorAvich (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 310
93 L. T.
Novis, [1905] 2 K. B. 456
74 L. J. K. B. 633
534 69 J. P. 288 ; 21 Cox C. C. 33
O'Connor (1882), 15 Cox C. C. 3
45 L. T. 512 ; 46 J. P.
214
Oldham (1852), 21 L. J. M. C. 134 ; 2 Den. 473
(1868), Mayor and Corporation of, L. R. 3 Q. B. 474
37 L. J. M. C. 169 18 L. T. 240 46 W. B. 789 9 B. & S.
202
16 L. J. M. C. 110
Overseers (1847), 10 Q. B. 700
..
11 Jur. 487
Owens (1859), 2 E. & E."86 28 L. J.' Q. B. 316
..
..
(1828), 1 Moo. C. C. 205
Oxford (Bp. of) (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 525 48 L. J. Q B. 609
41L. T. 122
426,
Oxford (V. C.) (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 471 ; 26 L. T 506
71,
Oxfordshire J J. (1813), 1 M. & S. 446
Oxley (1852), 6 Q. B. 256
Paddle (1822), R. & B. 484
Paget (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 151 51 L. J. M. C. 9 45 L.T.
794; SOW. R. 336
Papworth (1802), 2 East 413
Parker (1837), 7 C, & P. 829 ; 2 Moo. C. C. 1

L. T. 394

472
116
438
521
564
115
296
663

341

588
76

551

625
152
467

Digitized

by Microsoft

432
117
655
705
488

101
103
493

TABLE OF CASES.
R.

CSV

Patteson (1832), 4 B. & A. 9


1 N. & M.
2 L. J. K. B. 33
612; 38R. R. 191
Paty(1770), 2 W. Bl. 721
Pawlefct (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 491
42 L. J. M. C. 157; 29
L. T. 390
Payne (1866), L. R. 1 C. C. 27 35 L. J. M. C. 170 12 Jur.
N. S. 476 ; 14 L. T. 416 ; 11 W. R. 661
Pease (1832), 4 B. & A. 30 2 L. J. M. C. 26 ; 38 R R. 207
Pelly, [1897] 2 Q. B. 33 66 L. J. Q. B. 519 ; 76 L T. 467
45 W. R. 604 ; 61 J. P. 373 18 C. C. 0. 556
Pembridge (1842). 3 Q. B. 901 3 G. & D. 603 ; 7 Jur. 553
12 L. J. Q. B. 47, 259 61 R. R. 433 ..
45, 103,
Pharmaceutical Society, [1899] 2 Ir. R. 132 ..
Phillips (1842), 2 Moo. C". 0. 252
12 Jur.
(1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 648 ; 35 L. J. M. C. 217
N. S. 920; 14 W. R. 791
369,
Pickford (1861), 1 B. & S. 77 ; 30 L. J. M. C. 133
Pierce (1814), 3 M. & S. 62 15 R. R. 410
..
Pilfield, [1919] 2 K. B. 249
Pilkington (1844), 2 E. & B. 546 17 Jur. 554
..
Finder (1855), 24 L. J. Q. B. 148
..
Plowright (1686), 2 Mod. 95
D.
Ponsonby (1842), 3 Q. B. 14 11 L. J. M. C. 65 ; 1 G.
713 ; 6 Jur. 642 61 R. R. 128
56 L. J.
Poole (Mayor of) (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 602, 683
36 W. R. 239 52 J. P. 84 16
M. C. 131 ; 57 L. T. 485

V.

668
603

521

596
628

361*

510
61
179

424
18
87
102
126
653
237

.'v:

247

CoxC. 0.323

726
498
Pooley (1800), R. & R. 12
Poor Law Commissioners (1838), 6 A. & B. 1 6 L. J. M. C.
41;1N. &P. 371
7,315,556,560
Port of London Authority, Ex. p. Kynock, [1919] 1 K. B.
109
176, C. A.
392
Portsea (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 384 50 L. J. M. C. 144
55 L. J. Q. B. 567
34
Portugal (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 487
586
W. R. 32
57" L. J. Q. B. 138; 58
Poulter (1888), 20 Q. b'.'d. 132
172
L. T. 534 52 J. P. 244 36 W. R. 117
Powell (1852), 21 L. J. M. C. 78; L. R. 2 C. C. R. 403 16
498
Jur. 177
120
Poynder (1823), 1 B. & C. 178 2 D. & R. 258 25 R. R. 345
3 C. L. R.
Pratt (1855), 4 E. & B. 860 Dears. C. C. 502
492, 547, 563
686 24 L. J. M. 0. 113 1 Jur. N. S. 681
103
Preston (1839), 7 Dowl. 593
497
Price (1833), 5 C. & P. 510
706,,707
3 P. & D. 421 4 Jur. 291
(1840), 11 A. & E. 727
606
(1854), 8 Moo. P. C. C. 203, P. C
Prince (1875), L. R. 2 C. C. R. 154 44 L. J. M. C. 122 32
180, 181, 190
L. T. 700 24 W. R. 76 13 Cox C. C. 138
586
(1827), 2 C. & P. 517
315,322
Pugh (1779), 1 Dougl. 188
..

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

ex VI

PAGE

E.

Purdey (1864), 5 B. &


N. S. 153 11 L. T. 309

34 L. J. M. C. 4 ; 11 Jur.
909
346
13 W. R. 75
Ratcliffe (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 74 ; 52 L. J. M. C. 40 47 L. T.
304
388 15 Oox 0. C. 127
Read (1849), 13 Q. B. 524 ; 4 New Sess. Cas. 7 ; 18 L. J.
365
M. 0.164; 13 Jur. 789
(1878), 3 Q. B. D. 131 14 Cox 0. C. 17 47 L. J. M. C.
471, 491
50 37 L. T. 722 26 W. R. 283
Reason (1853), Dears. & B. C. 0. 226 2 C. L. R. 120; 6
..
..494
Cox C. C. 227 23 L. J. M. C. 11 17 Jur. 1014
616
Reyce (1767), 4 Burr. 2075
708
Richards (1800), 8 T.R. 634; 5 R.R. 489
Riley, [1896] 1 Q. B. 309 65 L. J. M. C. 74; 74 L. T. 254
..
146
..
44W. R. 318 60 J. P. 519; 18 0. C. C. 285
70 L. J. K. B. 590 ; 84 L. T.
Roberts, [1901] 2 K. B. 117
426
530; 49 W.R. 488; 65 J. P. 359
487
Robins (1844), 1 0. & K. 456
Robinson (1759), 2 Burr. 800
331,707
Bell 0. 0. 34 5 Jur. N. S.
(1859), 28 L. J. M. 0. 38
471
203 32 L. T. 502 7 W. R. 203
705
(1852), 17 Q. B. 466
Robsou (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 137 55 L. J. M. 0. 55 53 L. T
823 34 W. R. 276 50 J. P. 488 15 Cox C. 0. 772
..
114
Rochester (1851), 7 E. & B. 910; 27 L. J. Q. B. 45; 110
R. R. 889
660, 663
Rose (1847), 2 Cox 0. 0. 329
176
1 Jur. N. S.
(1855), 5 B. & B. 49 24 L. J. M. 0. 130
803 103 R. R. 358
526
Rowlands (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 530; 51 L. J. M. 0. 51; 46
L. T. 286 30 W. R. 444 ; 46 J. P. 437 15 Oox 0. 0. 31
467
Russell (1849), 13 Q. B. 237 3 New Sess. Cas. 368 18 L. J.
M. C. 106 13 .Jur. 259
283
(1833), 1 Moo. 0. 0. 377
487
2 Smith 424 8 R. R. 506
(1805), 6 East 427
723
A. C. 446; 70 L. J. K. B. 998; 85 L. T. 253;
, [1901]
20CoxC. 0. 51
258
Saddlers' Co. (1863), 10 H. L. Cas. 404; 32 L. J. Q. B.
337; 9 Jur. N. S. 1081; 11 W. R. 1004, H. L.
112, 306, 357
Saffron Walden (1846), 9 Q. B. 76
9 New Sess. Oas. 360;
15 L. J. M. 0. 115 10 Jur. 639 72 R. R. 186
..
..
612
Sainsbury (1791), 4 T. R. 456 ; Nolan 8; 2 R. R. 433
150, 706
St. Albans (1853), 22 L. J. M. 0. 142
17 Jur. 531
..
237
St. George's Hanover Square (1812), 3 Camp. 222
13 R. R.
792
306
St. George's Union (1871), L. R. 7 Q. B. 90; 41 L. J. M. 0.
30; 25 L.T. 696; 20 W.R. 179
71
St. GUes (R. V. Chadwick) (1847), 11 Q. B. 173
75 R. R.
313
106
St. Gregory (1835), 2 A. & E. 99
4 L. J. M. C. 9 4 N. &
M. 137
376

V.

S.

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.
R.

&

James, Westminster (1836), 5 A.

St.

V.

cxvii

E. 391

2 H.

& W.

253

PAGE

322

Martin's (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 493


36 L. J. M. C. 99
8B. &S. 536; 16L. T. 625; 15W. R. 1096
St. Mary Abbotts, [1891] 1 Q. B. 378
60 L. J. M. C. 52
64 L. T. 240 39 W. R. 278; 55 J. P. 502
St. Mary, Lambeth (1838), 3 Nev. & P. 416
47 R. R. 613
St. Mary, Whitechapel (1848), 12 Q. B. 127
12 Jur. 792 3
New Sess. Gas. 262 17 L. J. M. C. 172 12 J. P. 598
..
St.

Matthew (1875), 32 L.T. 558

-St.

135
155

246

392
153
376

1066 Gas. temp. Hardw. 323


Pancras (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 375 69 L. J. Q. B. 245 38
W. R. 311 54 J. P. 389
229,442
St. Paul, Exeter (1829), 10 B. & G. 12
15
St. Peter, Hereford (1831), 1 B. & Ad. 916
15
St. Sepulchre (1831), 1 B. & Ad. 924
216
(1859), 1 E. & E. 813 28 L. J. M. G. 187 5 Jur. N. S.
386
876; 7W. R. 447
Salisbury (1838), 8 A. & E. 716 3 N. & P. 476
320
Salop (1838), 8 A. & E. 173
607
29 W. R.
(1881), 6 Q. B. D. 669; 50 L. J. M. C. 72
667
677
Saltren (1784), Gald. 444
640
Sanchee (1697), 1 Ld. Raym. 323
305
Sanders (1839), 9 C. & P. 79
579
Sankey (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 379; 47 L. J. Q. B. 96 ..
625
..
Scaife (1851), 17 Q. B. 238 5 Gox C. G. 243 2 Den. C. C.
281 20 L. J. M. C. 229; 15 Jur. 607
534
Scot (1790), 3 T. R. 602
532
Scott (1856), Dears. & Bell G. G. 47 25 L. J. M. C. 1 28 2
Jur. N.S. 1096
618
Seburg (1870), L. R. 1 G. G. 264
39 L. J. M. C. 133 22
L. T. 623 18 W. R. 935 11 Cox G. G. 520
264
Sedgley (1831), 2 B. & A. 63 36 R. R. 475
572
Selby Dam Drainage Gommissioners (1892), 61 L. J. Q. B.
629
372
Senior (1864), 1 L. & C. 401;" 9 Cox C. G.'469; 33 L. J.
M. C. 125 10 Jur. N. S. 547 10 L. T. 428 12 W. R. 749 295
266
Serva (1845), 1 Den. 104 2 C. & K. 53
467
Shadbolt (1833), 5 G. & P. 504
Shaw (1865), L. & G. 579; 10 Gox G. G. 66; 34 L. J. M. G.
..
681
169 11 Jur. N. S. 415 12 L. T. 470 13 W. R. 692
Shee (1843), 4 Q. B. 2; 3 G. & D. 80; 12 L. J. M. G. 53,
247
186 7 Jur. 810 62 R. R. 266
Shepherd (1841), 1 Q. B. 170 4 P. & D. 534 5 Jur. 432
247
Shiles (1841), 1 Q. B. 919
369,424
13
Shrewsbury (1853), 1 E. & B. 711 22 L. J. M. G. 98
1 L. J. M. G.
Shrewsbury Gas Co. (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 216
595
18; .37R. R. 409
St. Nicholas (1737), 2 Stra

St.

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

CXVIU

TABLE OF CASES.
I'AGE

R.

D. 323; 55 L. J. M. C. 153; 55
L. T. 126; 34 W. R. 656 50 J. P. 743
..
55, 678
..
Silvester (1864), 33 L. J. M. C. 79; 10 Jur. N. S. 360; 4
584
B. & S. 927 9 L. T. 682; 12 W. R. 375
498
Simpson (1842), Car. & M. 669
Skeen (1859), Bell C. C. 97 28 L. J. M. C. 91
6, 357 365
Slade (1888), 21 Q. B. IX 433; 57 L. J. M. C. 120 59 L. T.
127, 471
640; 37 W. R. 141 52 J. P. 599; 16 Cox C. C. 496
Slater (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 267 51 L. J. Q. B. 246 30 W. R.
410 46 J. P. 694
27,568
Sleep (1861), 1 L. & C. 44 30 L. J. M. C. 170 8 Cox C. C.
184
..
472; 7 Jur. N. S. 979 4 L. T. 525 9 W. R. 709 ..
22
Smith (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 604
18
(1870), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 266 39 L. J. M. C. 112
W. R. 932
145,146,478
346
..
..
(J860), 29L. J. M. C. 216; 8W. R. 589
542
(1791), 4 T. R. 414
13 L. J. Q. B. 166
(1844), 5 Q. B. 614 D. & M. 564
642
8 Jur. 599
17
17 L. J. M. C. 6
(1868), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 110
681
L. T. 263 16 W. R. 140
11 Cox 0. C. 10
9 Cox C. C. 110 31 L. J. M. C.
(1862), 1 L. & C. 131
105 8 Jur. N. S. 199 5 L. T. 761 10 W. R. 273
733
28 L. T.
(1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 146 42 L. J. M. C. 46
129 21 W. R. 382
734
Sneyd (1841), 9 D. P. C. 1001 5 Jur. 962 61 R. R. 843 .. 663
Somersetshire JJ. (1826), 5 B. & C. 816 6 D. & R. 469
237
Southampton (1852), 21 L. J. M. C. 201 18 Q. B. 841 ; 17
Jur. 254
306
Southampton Income Tax Commissioners, Ex p. Singers,
9
[1917] 1 K. B. 259 86 L. J. K. B. 66, C. A
South Kilvington (1844), 5 Q. B. 216 3 G. & D. 157
13
L. J. M.C. 3; 7 Jur. 1108
218
South Shields Licensing JJ., [1911] 2 K. B. 1
80 L. J.
K. B. 809; 75 J. P. 299
465,614
South Wales Ry. Co. (1849), 13 Q. B. 988
18 L. J. Q. B.
310 13 Jur. 1095 6 Rly. Cas. 197 78 R. R. 569
237
6 Rly. Cas. 489 19 L. J. Q. B.
(1850), 14 Q. B. 902
272 14 Jur. 828
638
South Weald (1864), 5 B. & S. 391 33 L. J. M. C. 193 10
Jur. N. S. 1099
10 L. T. 498 12 W. R. 873
438,
Sparrow (1740), 2 Stra. 1123
Spratley (1856), 6 E. & B. 363 25 L. J. Q. B. 257
N. S. 735; 106R. R. 632
Spurrell (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 72; 35 L. J. M. C.
Jur. N. S. 208 13 L. T. 364 14 W. R. 81 ..

V.

Shurmer

(1886), 17 Q. B.
;

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

-^

'.

East 151
Bl. 689; 23 L. J. M. C. 17

StaflFordshire JJ. (1802), 3

(1854), 2 EI.

&

1073

18 Jur.
15

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

cxix
PAGE

R.

V.

Sbalfordshire JJ. (1806), 7 East 549

3 Smith 555

668

Ei.

R.

19,370,374
(1810), 12 East 572
E. 842; 6
(137), 4 A.
J. M. 0. 165

&

6L.

& M.477;

N.

& W.

2 H.

48;

521

Stainforth (1848), 11 Q. B. 66
3 New Sess. Cas. 53
L. J. M. C. 25; 12 Jur. 95
Stephens (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 702 35 L. J. Q. B. 251
Jur. N. S. 961 ; 14 L. T. 593 14 W. R. 859
Stepney (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 383 43 L. J. M. C. 145
L. T. 808
Stepney Corporation, [1902] 1 K. B. 317 ; 71 L. J. K.
;

. .

. .

17

464
15
137, 184

30
735

B.

238
Stevens (1834), 1 Moo. C. C. 409
467,
Stewart (1858), 8 E. & B. 360; 27 L. J. M. C. 81
4 Jur.
N. S. 187; 112 R. R. 597
246, 247,
Stimpson (1863), 4 B. & S. 307 32 L. J. M. C. 208 ; 10
Jur. N. S. 41; 9 Cox 0. C. 356
Stock (1838), 8 A. & B. 405
Stoddart, [1901] 1 K. B. 177 70 L J. K. B. 189 83 L. T.
538 ; 49 W. R. 173 ; 64 J. P. 774 19 Cox C. C. 587
..
Stoke BHss (1844), 6 Q. B. 158 D. & M. 135 13 L. J. M. C.
151; 8 Jur. 536; 66 R.R. 332
Stoke Damerel (1836), 7 B. & C. 563 1 M. & R. 458
..

709
582

248

180
734

210

15,

705
10,

380

Stone (1854), 23 L. J. M. C. 14 Dears. C. C. 251


17 Jur.
1106
469
(1796), 1 East 639
681
Storr, (1766), 3 Burr. 1698
708
Strachan (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 463 ; 41 L. J. Q. B. 210; 26
L. T. 835; 20W. R. 629
417
Stratford-on-Avon (1809), 11 East 176
116
Streeter, [1900] 2 Q. B. 601; 69 L. J. Q. B. 915; 83 L. T.
288; 48 W. R. 702; 64 J. P. 537
478
Stretfield, (1683) 32 L. J. M. C. 236
11 W. R. 736
..
365
StrugneU (1865), L. R. 1 Q. B. 93
581
Sunderland Customs (1914), 83 L. J. K. B. 555
..
102
Surrey (1849), 6 D. & L. 736
621
Surrey JJ. (1880), 6 Q. B. D. 100 50 L. J. M. 0. 10
19, 345
Sussex (1865), 4 B. & S. 966; 34 L. J. M. C. 69
11 Jur.
N. S. 300; IIL. T. 740; 13 W. R. 471
19
4 B. R. 390
344
(1797), 7 T. R. 107
Swan (1849), 4 Cox C. C. 108
729
Sykes (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 52 ; 45 L. J. M. C. 39 ; 33 L. T.
566 24 W. R. 141
230,636
Sylvester (1862), 2 B. & S. 322 ; 31 L. J. M. C. 93
..
233
Tankard, [1894] 1 Q. B. 548; 63 L. J. M. C. 61
70 L. T.
42 42 W. R. 350 58 J. P. 300 17 Cox C. C. 719
114, 622
28 L. J. Q. B. 173
Tart (1859), 1 E. & E. 618
6 Jur.
N. S. 679; 117R. R. 374
137
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

. .

TABLE OF CASES.

CXX

PAGE

R.

V.

Tatlock (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 157

46 L. J. M. 0. 7

35 L. T.

499
134
Taylor (1915), 84 L. J. K. B. 1671
Tewkesbury (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 639 ; 37 L. J. Q. B. 285
152
..
..
18 L. T. 851; 16 W. R. 1200 ; 9 B. & S. 683
Thallman (1863), L. & C. 326 9 Cox C. C. 388; 33 L. J.
492
M. C. 58; 9L. T. 425; 12W. R. 88
Thomas (1878), L. R. 2 0. C. 141 44 L. J. M. C. 42 31
46f5
L. T. 849; 23W. R. 344
497
(1830), 4 0. & P. 237
683
ThornhiU (1838), 8 C. & P. 574
740
Thurston (1662), 1 Lev. 91
216
Tillingham (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 180
Timmins (I860), 30 L. J. M. 0. 45 Bell C. C. 276 ; 8 Cox
487
..
3 L. T. 337 9 W. R. 36
C. C. 401; 6 Jur. N. S. 1309
180, 181
Tinkler (1859), 1 P. & F. 513
Tithe Commissioners (1850), 14 Q. B. 474; 19 L. J. Q. B.
425,427
177 80 R. R. 271
Titterton, [1895], 2 Q. B. 61 64 L. J. M. C. 202 ; 73 L. T.
62, 328
345; 43 W. R. 603; 59 J. P. 327
660
Todmorden (1841), 1 Q. B. 185 10 L. J. M. 0. 65 ..
..
464
Toke (1838), 8 A. & E. 227 7 L. J. M. C. 74
ToUey (1803), 3 East 467
12
Tolson (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 168 58 L. J. M. C. 97 ; 60 L. T.
178, 181
899 37 W. R. 716 54 J. P. 4 16 Cox C. C. 629 ..
Tone Conservators (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 561
567
Totnes (1848), 11 Q. B. 80 18 L. J. M. C. 46
..
..
645
Totnes Union (1845), 7 Q. B. 690; 2 New Sess. Cas. 82; 14
639
L. J. M. C. 148; 9 Jur. 660; 68 R. R. 539
Ad. 465
Townrow (1830), 1 B.
493
Treeve (1796), 2 East P. C. 821 ; 15 R. R. 381
184
Trueman, [1913] W. N. 198
211
Tuchin (1704), 2 Lord Raym. 1066
250
Tucker (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 417 46 L. J. M. C. 197 36 L. T.
478 25 W. R. 697 13 Cox C. C. 600
574
Turvey (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 520
457
Twyford (1836), 5 A. & E. 430; 6 N. & M. 830
..
..
624
Tyler, [1891] 2 Q. B. 588 61 L. J. M. C. 38
..
134
..
Univ. of Cambridge (1723), 1 Stra. 557
639
Upper Papworth (1802), 2 East 413
103
Usworth (1836), 5 A. & E. 261 ; 5 L. J. M. C. 139 .
71
Vandeleer (1718), 1 Stra. 69
622
Varlo (1775), 1 Cowp. 250
532
Vasey, [1905] 2 K. B. 748; 75 L. J. K. B. 117, C. C. R. ..
44
Verelst (1813), 3 Camp. 432 14 R. R. 775
665
Vine (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 195 44 L. J. M. C. 60 31 L. T.
842; 23 W.R. 649; 13 Cox CO. 43
396
Wagstaff (1819), R.
R. 398
488
Walker (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 355 44 L. J. M. C, 167 33
L. T. 167
707

520;13Cox328

. .

&

. .

&

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

Cxxi
PA GR

R.

1).

Wallis (1793), 5 T. R. 379


49,532
Walne (1879), 11 Cox C. 0. 647, C. 0.
493
Walsall (1854), 3 C. L. R. 100
232
Waltham (1849), 3 Cox C. C. 442
467
Warwick (1846), 8 Q. B. 926 15 L. J. Q. B. 306 10 Jur.
962 ; 70 R. R. 694
127,509
Warwickshire (1856), 6 E. & B. 837 25 L. J. M. C. 119
106R. R. 819
341
Washbrooke (1825), 4 B. & C. 732; 7 D. & K. 221
..
658
Watson (1806), 7 East 214 3 Smith 283
7
Waudby, [1895] 2 Q. B. 482; 64 L. J. M. C. 536 73 L. T.
582
352; 44 W. R. 64; 18 Cox C. C. 194; 59 J. C. 505..
..
Wa veil (1779), 1 Doug. 115
..229
..
(1829), 1 Moo. C. C. 224
471
Webb, [1896], 1 Q. B. 487 65 L. J. M. C. 98 74 L. T.
269
428; 44W. R. 527; 60 J. P. 280; 18C. C. C. 312 ..
..
Weil (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 701
53 L. J. M. C. 74; 47 L. T.
630 31 W. R. 60; 15 Cox C. C. 189
420
Welch (1875), 40 J. P. 183
349
Welland (1822), R. & R. 494
467
WeUs (1836), 4 Dowl. 562
735
498
Westbeer (1740), 2 Stra. 1133
Western (1868), 32 J. P. 390
464
521
West Riding (1842), 2 Q. B. 705
521
Ad. 667
(1833), 5 B.
606
23 R. R. 421
(1821), 4 B. & Aid. 623
(1876), 1 Q. B. D. 220 ; 35 L. J. M. C. 97 ; 35 L. T.

&

358
..
..
[1891] 1 Q. B. 722 ; 60 L. J. M. C. 122
West Riding C. C, [1896] 2 Q. B. 386
West Riding JJ. (1841), 1 Q. B. 325
..
..
;
69 L. J. Q. B. 13
, [1900] 1 Q. B. 291
Weymouth (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 332 ; 48 L. J. M. C. 139 40
L. T. 748 ; 27 W. R. 659
White (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 358 54 L. J. M. C. 23 52 L. T.
116 ; .33 W. R. 248 ; 49 J. P. 294
Whiteley (1858), 3 H.
N. 143 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 120 117
,

728
296
233
33
586

152

&

626

295

R. R. 634
(1889), 23 Q. B.

D. 482

58 L. J. M. C. 164

61 L. T.

496
27
R. 2 C. C. R. 3; 42 L. J. M. C. 9
..
618, 681
L. T. 693 21 W. R. 176 12 Cox C. C. 251 ..
330
Wigg (1705), 2 Salk. 460
Wacock (1845), 7 Q. B. 329 1 New Sess. Cas. 651 14 L. J.
74,446
..
M. C. 104 9 Jur. 729
,..
228
Wilkes (1769), 4 Burr. 2527
74,448
Williams (1758), 1 W. Bl. 95
468
(1790), 1 East P. C. 424
488
(1843), 1 Cox C. C. 16
629
..
(1884), 9 App. Cas. 418 53 L. J. P. C. 64

253; 54 J. P. 134

Widdop

(1872), L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CXXU

TABLE OF CASES.
FACE

R.

V.

Willmett (1848), 3 Cox C. C. 281


Wilson (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 42 ; 37 L; T. 354

184
;

25

W.

R. 44;

45

13 Cox C. C.630
(1857), D.

&

B. 127

26 L. J. M. C. 18; 7 Cox C. C.

473,490
190; 2Jur.N. S. 1146
Wimbledon Local Board (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 459; 51 L. J.
..
153, 155
..
Q. B. 219 ; 46 L. T. 47 ; 30 W. R. 400
554
Windsor, Mayor (1844), 7 Q. B. 908 ; 13 L. J. Q. B. 337 ..
645
Winwick (1800), 8 T. R. 454
230
Withyham (1854), 2 C. L. R. 1657
237
Wood (1855), 5 E. & B. 49
467
(1830), 4 C. & P. 381
(1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 559 38 L. J. M. C. 144 20 L. T.
481
654; 17 W. R. 850; lOB. &S. 534
108
Woodhouse, [1906] 2 K. B. 501
216
Woodland (1786), 1 T. R. 261 3 East 11 n
Woodrow (1846), 15 M. & W. 404 2 New Sess. Cas. 846 ;
184
16 L. J. M. C. 122
469
Woolcock (1833), 5 C. cfe P. 516
Worcestershire JJ. (1839), 3 P. & D. 465 12 A. & E. 283
I Arn. & H. 80
7
3 Jur. 1050
..242
(1854), 3 E. & B. 477 23 L. J. M. C. 113
..
287
(1816), 5 M. & S. 457 ; 17 R. R. 397
Worksop Board (1865), 5 B. & S. 951 34 L. J. M. C. 220
II Jur. N. S. 1015 10 L. T. 297 12 W. R. 710
..
658
..
Wright (1834), 1 A. & E. 434
74, 245, 253
709,712
(1758), 1 Burr. 543
Wycombe Ry. Co. (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 310; 36 L. J. Q. B.
528
121 ; 15 L. T. 601 15 W. R. 489 ; 8 B. & S. 259
..
..
Wymondham (1843), 2 Q. B. 541
126
Wynn (1719), Bunb. 39
250
110
York (1837), 6 A. & E. 419 25 R. R. 423 n
York and N. Midland Ry. Co. (1853), 22 L. J. Q. B. 41 .. 529
Yorkshire (1834), 5 B. & Ad. 1003; 3 L. J. M. C. 54; 1
A. &E. 563
217
681
(1815), 3 M. & S. 493
Youle (1861), 6 H. & N. 753 ; 30 L. J, M. C. 234 ; 4 L. T.
299;9W. R. 637
330,334
Younger (1793), 5 T. R. 449; 2 R. R. 638
450
Zulueta (1843), 1 C. & K. 215
44, 262
R. (Gallagher) w. Tyrone J J., [1901] 2 Ir. R. 497, Ir
118
Reuss V. Bos (1871), L. R. 5 H. L. 176; 40 L. J. Ch. 665; 24
L. T. 641
151
;

iJe (1880), 49 L. J. P. & M. 67


Reya, Exp. (1877), 6 Ch. D. 332 ; 46 L. J. Bank. 122
17; 26 W. R. 193
Reynolds v. Att.-Gen., Nova Scotia, [1896] A. C. 240
P. C. 16; 74L. T. 108
Rhodes v. Rhodes (1882), 7 A. C. 192, P. C

Reuss Kostritz,

Digitized

by Microsoft

278
;

37 L. T.

65 L. J.

223
382
5

TABLE OF CASES.

cxxiu
PAGE

Smethurst (1838), 4 M. & W. 42 6 Id. 351 7 L. J.


Ex. 273 9 Id. 330; 1 H. & H. 237 2 Jur. 893 4 Jur. 702
Rhymney Ry. Co. o. Rhymney Iron Co. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 146
59 L. J. Q. B. 414; 63 L. T. 407 38 W. R. 764
..
..
Richards v. Dyke (1842), 3 Q. B. 256; 2 G. & D. 493; 6 Jur.
1035
V. James (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 285
36 L. J. Q. B. 116
16
L. T. 174 15 W. R. 580 8 B. & S. 302
V. McBride (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 119
51 L. J. M. C. 15 45
L. T. 677; 46 J. P. 247; 30 W. R. 121
Richens v. Wiggens (1863), 3 B. & S. 953 32 L. J. M. C. 144 9
Jur. N. S. 1055 8 L. T. 384; 11 W. R. 617
Richmond v. N. Lond. Ry. Co. (1868), L. R. 3 Ch. 679 37 L. J.
Ch. 886
Richmond Gas Co. v. Richmond Corp., [1893] 1 Q. B. 56 62
L. J. Q. B. 172
67 L. T. 554
41 W. R. 41
56 J, P. 776
Richmond Hill Co. v. Trinity House, [1896] 2 Q. B. 134 65 L. J.
Q. B. 561; 75L. T. 8; 45 W. R. 6
Rickard v. Graham, [1910] 1 Ch. 722 79 L. J. Ch. 378 102 L. T.
482
Ricket V. Metrop. Ry. Co. (1867), L. R. 2 H. L. 175; 36 L. J.
..
560,
Q. B. 205 16 L. T. 542; 15 W. R. 9.37, H. L.
Ricketts v. Bodenham (1836), 4 A. & E. 433; 5 L. J. K. B. 102;
6 N. & M. 171
1 H. & W. 753
5 D. P. C. 120
43 R. R.
384
Rider v. Kidder (1805), 10 Ves. 360 53 R. R. 269
V. Wood (1860), 1 K. & J. 644
29 L. J. M. C. 1 103 R. R.
295
Ridgway v. Stafford (1851), 6 Ex. 404; 20 L.J. Ex. 226; 86
R. R. 347
V. Wharton (1854), 6 H. L. Cas. 238
27 L. J. Ch. 46 4 Jur.

Rhodes

-c.

369
709

286
379
14

303

530

622

127

373

724

. .

286
112

176

300

N. S. 173
512
Ridler . Punter (1593), Cro. Eliz. 291
376
Ridsdale v. Clifton (1877), 2 P. D. 276; 46 L, J. P. C. 27
36
L. T. 865
50,97,536,537
RUey V. Read (1879), 4 Ex. D. 100 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 437 ; 27 W. R.
414
116
Ringer v. Cann (1838), 3 M.
W\ 343 1 H. & H. 67 7 L. J. Ex.
589
108; 2 Jur. 256; 49 R. R. 627
Ripley j;. Waterworth (1802), 7 Ves. 425
457
;

&

Ripon

The (1897), 66 L. J. P. 110


Whatmore (1878), 8 Ch. D. 467

263

City,

Rishton

v.

W. R.
v.

Ritchie

v.

47 L. J. Oh. 629

Smith

& 0. 499

3 D.

26

Wear Commrs.

v.

& R.

788

2 L. J.

622

(1849), 6 C. B. 462;

18 L. J. C. P. 9;

63; 77 R. R. 369..
River

512, 513

827

Hughes (1824), 2 B.
K. B. 61; 26R. R. 424

Ritcher

13 Jur.

693

Adamson

Cas. 743; 47 L. J. Q. B. 193

Digitized

(1877), 1 Q. B. D. 546 ; 2 App.


1, 8, 40, 150, 176, 529
37 L. T. 643

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

CXXIV

PASE

Elvers v. Adams (1878), 3 Ex. D. 361 48 L. J. Ex. 47 ; 39 L. T.


617
39; 27 W. R.381
284,308
Rix i;. Borton (1840), 12 A. & E. 470
..
..
577
Roberts, Se, [1900] 1 Q. B. 129; 69 L. J. Q. B. 19
V. Davey (1833), 4 B.
A. 665; 1 N. & M. 443; 38
375
R.R. 348
43 L. J. M. C. 135;
V. Egerton (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 494;
562
30 L. T. 633 22 W. R. 797
33 L. J. Ex. 65 9 L. T.
V. Orchard (1864), 2 H. & C. 769
414
727; 12 W. R.253
3 C. L. R. 513 ; 24 L. J.
V. Phillips (1855), 4 E. & B. 450
515
Q. B. 171; 1 Jur. N. S. 444; 99 R. R. 553
59 L. J. M. C. 129;
V. Woodward (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 412
63 L. T. 200 38 W. R. 770 55 J. P. 116 17 Cox C. C. 139 193
Robertson, Exp. (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 733; 44 L. J. Bank. 99;
683
32 L. T. 697 23 W. R. 906
715
V. Amazon Tug and Lighterage Co. (1881), 51 L. J. Q. B. 68
Robinson v. Briggs (1871), L. R. 6 Ex. 1 40 L. J. Ex. 17 23
121
L. T. 395
34 L. J. C. P.
V. Collingwood (1865), 17 C. B. N. S. 777
198
18 10 Jur. N. S. 1080 11 L. T. 313 ; 13 W. R. 84
V. Dixon, [1903] 2 K. B. 701
72 L. J. K. B. 717; 89
185
L. T. 132; 52 W. R. 8 67 J. P. 386
298, 333, 466
V. Emerson (1866), 4 H.
C. 352
..
.
62
V. Jenkins (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 275 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 147
471
L. T. 439 38 W. R. 360
V. Waddington (1849), 13 Q. B. 753 ; 18 L. J. Q. B. 250
607,
13 Jur. 537
Robson, Be (1881), 19 Ch. D, 156 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 337 ; 45 L. T.
208,216
418 30 W. R. 257
V. The Kate (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 13
57 L. J. Q. B. 546 59
113
L. T. 557 36 W. R. 910 6 Asp. M. C. 330
Rochdale Building Society v. Mayor &c., Rochdale (1886), 51
340
J. P. 134
Rochdale Canal v. King (1849), 14 Q. B. 122 ; 18 L. J. Q. B. 293 ;
236
14 Jur. 16 80 R. R. 222, 233
..
263
Rochefoucauld v. Boustead (1896), 66 L. J. Ch. 75
..
345
Rochfort V. Atherley (1876), 1 Ex. D. 511 ; 35 L. T. 602
..
Rockett V. CUppingdale, [1891] 2 Q. B. 293 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 782 ;
289
64L. T. 641
;

&

. .

&

Roddam

v. Morley (1857), 1 De G.& J. 1 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 438 ; 3


Jur. N. S. 449; 118R. R. 1
Roddy V. Fitzgerald (1858), 6 H. L. Cas. 823 ; 108 R. R. 327, H. L.
Roderick v. Aston Local Board (1877), 5 Ch. D. 328 ; 46 L. J. Ch.
802 36 L. T. 328 25 W. R. 403
;

Rodrigues v. Melhuish (1854), 10 Ex. 110


W. R. 618; 102R. R. 503
Rogers, Be, [1894] 1 Q. B. 425

63 L.

J. Q.

24 L. J. Ex. 26

503
99
631

2
11

B. 178

lManson387

70 L. T. 107

577

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXV

Hull Dock Co. (1864), 34 L. J. Ch. 165 11 L. T. 463 13


R. 217
604
Rogers, Jungblut & Co. v. Martin (1910), 26 T. L. R. 459
afi'd.
1
K.
B.
A
C.
19,
[1911],
652
Roles . RosevTell (1794), 5 T. R. 538
294
Rolle V. Whyte (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 286 37 L. J. Q. B. 105 17
L. T. 560 16 W. R. 593 8 B. & S. 116
..
..
64, 565
Rolls V. St. George, Southwark (1880), 14 Ch. D. 785
49 L. J.
Ch. 691 44 J. P. 680 43 L. T. 140 28 W. R. 867
170, 545
Roniney Marsh v. Trinity House (1872), L. R. 5 Ex. 204 39
L. J. Ex. 163 22 L. T. 446; 18 W. R. 869 and L. R. 7 Ex.
247 41 L. J. Ex. 106
..
724
Rona, The (1882), 51 L. J. Adm. 65
34
Ronard, .Be (1916), 85 L. J. K. B. 393
H8
Rooker, iJe, [1916] W. N. 293
114
Rooke's Case (1598), 5 Rep. 100a
228
Roper V. Knott, [1898] 1 Q. B. 868 67 L. J. Q. B. 574 78 L. T.
594 46 W. R. 636 62 J. P. 375
348
Rose V. Groves (1843), 5 M. & G. 613 6 Scott N. R. 645
1 D.
& L. 61 12 L. J. C. P. 251 7 Jur. 951 63 R. R. 415
724
1). Himeley (1808), 4 Cranch 241
257
V. Rose, [1897] llr. R. 9, Ir
407
Rosewarne v. Billing (1863), 15 0. B. N. S. 316 33 L. J. C. P.
12 W. R. 104 ..
55; 10 Jur. N. S. 496 9 L. T. 441
..
693
Ross V. Rugge-Price (1876), 1 Ex. D. 269 45 L. J. Ex. 777 34
L. T. 535; 24 W. R. 786
714
Rosseter v. Cahlmann (1853), 8 Ex. 361 22 L. J. Ex. 128
..
257,
259, 260
Rossiter v. Miller (1877), 3 App. Cas. 1124 48 L. J. Ch. 10 39
L. T. 173 26 W. R. 865
..
..
514
Rothes V. Kirkcaldy Waterworks Commrs. (1882), 7 App. Cas.
702, H. L
357
Rothschild V. Inland Revenue, [1894] 2 Q. B. 142 70 L. T. 667
42 W. R. 542 58 J. p. 399
11
Routledge v. Low (1868), L. K. 3 H. L. 100
37 L. J. Ch. 454
18 L. T. N. S. 874 16 W. R. 1081, H. L
274
Rovard, He (1916), 58 L. J. K. B. 393
380
Rowning i;. GoodchUd (1773), 2 W. BL 906
716
Royal Aquarium v. Parkinson, [1892] 1 Q. B. 431 61 L. J. Q. B.
..
409 66 L. T. 513; 40 W. R. 450; 66 J. P. 404
..
27
Royal Bank of Scotland v. Tottenham, [1894] 2 Q. B. 715
64
L. J. Q. B. 99
..
226, 351
71 L. T. 168 43 W. R. 22 ..
Royal British Bank v. Turquand (1856), 6 E. & B. 327 24 L. J.
672
Q. B. 327 1 Jur. N. S. 1086 106 R. R. 623
Royal Mail Co. v. Braham (1877), 2 App. Cas. 381
46 L. J.
P. C. 67 36 L. T. 220; 25 W. R. 651
573
Ruabon Co. ;;. G. W. R., [1893] 1 Ch. 427 62 L. J. Ch. 483 68
L. T. 110; 41 W. R. 418
627
Ruck V. WUliams (1858), 3 H. & N. 308 27 L. J Ex. 357 117
R. R. 697
173,724

Rogers

v.

W.

. .

.'

'

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXVl

Ruckmaboye

PAGE

Lulloobhoy (1852), 8 Moo. P. C. C. 4; 5 Moo.


Ind. App. 234
Rumball V. Schmidt (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 603
30
46 L. T. 661
W. R. 949 46 J. P. 567
Rumsey v. N. E. Ry. Co. (1863), 14 C. B. N. S. 641 32 L. J.
C. P. 244 10 Jiir. N. S. 208 8 L. T. 666 11 W. R. 911 ..
Russell, ^a;j3. (1812), 19 Ves. 163
Ex p. (1875), L. R. 10 Oh. 255 44 L. J. Bank. 42 32
L. T. 4 23 W. R. 817
V. Oambefort (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 526
58 L. J. Q. B. 498
61 L. T. 751 37 W. R. 707
V. Men of Devon (1788), 2 T. R. 667
1 R. R. 585
i;. Prat (1589), 1 Leon. 193
Russell Institution v. St. GUes S;c., Bloomsbury (1854), 23 L. J.
M. 0. 65
Rustomjee v. R. (1877), 1 Q. B. D. 487; 2 Q. B. D. 69 46 L. J.
Q. B. 238 36 L. T. 190 25 W. R. 333
Ruther v. Harris (1876), 1 Ex. D. 97; 45 L. J. M. C. 103; 34
L. T. 825
Rutland v. Rutland (1595), Cro. Eliz. 377
Ryall r;. RoUe (1749), 1 Atk. 165
i;. Rowles (1750), 1 Ves. 367
Bylands v. Fletcher (1868), L. R. 3 H. L. 330 37 L. J. Ex. 161
19L. T. 220
v.

409

612

678
249

227

. .

. .

267
726
449

508

249

490
449
91
112

632

S.

Sadler v. Whiteman, [1910] 1 K. B. 868 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 800;


[1910] A. 0. 514 79 L. J. K. B. 1050 103 L. T. 296
540
Saffery v. Mayer, [1901] 1 K. B. 11 70 L. J. K. B. 145 ; 83 L. T.
394 49 W. R. 54 ; 64 J. P. 740
556,693
St. Cross i). Howard de Walden (1795), 6 T. R. 338
..
..108
St. GUes, Camberwell v. Hunt (1887), 56 L. J. M. C. 65
52 J. P.
132
367
St. Gobain Co. v. Hoyermann's Agency, [1893] 2 Q. B. 96 ; 62
L. J. Q. B. 485 69 L. T. 329 41 W. R. 563
..
..
267
St. John, Hampstead v. Cotton (1886), 12 App. Cas. 6
56 L J.
Q. B. 225; 56L. T. 1; 35 W. R. 505; 51J. P. 340
..
4,5
;

. .

St.
St.

St.

Juan Nepomuceno

(1824), 1 Hagg. Adm. 265 ..


..
266
Leonard's v. Franklin (1878), 3 C. P. D. 377
47 L. J. C. P.
W.
L.T.
16
R.
882
129;
727; 39
110, 573
Losky V. Green (1861), 9 C. B. N. S. 370; 2 F. & P. 106: 30
L. J. C. P. 191 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 394 3 L. T. 297 9 W. R. 119 543
Mary j;. Radcliffe (1717), 1 Stra. 60
116
Pancras v. Battenbury (1857), 2 C. B. N. S. 477; 26 L. J
C. P. 243 3 Jur. N. S. 1106 ; 109 R. R. 765
240 712
Sepulchre, ^a;jp. (1863), 33 L. J. Oh. 372
..
..
1125
Thomas's Hospital v. Hudgell (1900), 70 L. J. K. B. 115
..
506
Werburgh Overseers v. Hutchinson (1880), 5 Ex. D. 19 49
L. J. M. C. 23; 42L. T. 153; 28W. R. 153 ..
..
17,8!
;

St.

St.

St.

St.
St.

. .

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

cxxvii
PAGE

Salaman v. Warner, [1891] 1 Q. B. 734; 60 L. J, Q. B. 624; 39


W. R. 547
Sale V. Lambert (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 1 43 L. J. Cli. 470 22 W. R.
;

97

478

514

Sales Agency V. Elite Theatres, [1917] 2 K. B. 164, C. A.


..
225
Salford (Mayor) v. Lancashire C. C. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 384; 38
W. R. 661 59 L. J. Q. B. 576 63 L. T. 409
..
..
617
Salisbury's (Bishop of) Case (1613), 10 Rep. 60b
375
Salkeld v. Johnston (1849), 2 C. B. 749 1 Mac.
G. 242 2 Ex.
256 18 L. J. Ch. 493; 84 R. R. 255 ..
..
52, 74, 89, 91
Salmon v. Buncombe (1886), 11 App. Cas. 627 ; 55 L. J. P. C. 69
55L. T. 446
44,407,408
Salomons v. Miller (1853), 8 Ex. 778 22 L. J. Ex. 169
17 Jur.
;

&

463;

91R. R. 759

20,552
72 L. J. K. B. 627 ; 88
L. T. 868 52 W. R. 95 ; 67 J. P. 306 1 L. G. R. 753
525
..
Salt Union v. Wood, [1893] 1 Q. B. 370
68 L. T. 92
62 L. J.
M. 0. 75 ; 41 W. R. 301 57 J. P. 201 7 Asp. M. C. 281
132
Salters' Co. v. Jay (1842), 3 Q. B. 109
2 G. & D. 414 ; 11 L. J.
Q. B. 173 ; 6 Jur. 803 61 R. R. 147
323
Saltmarshe v. Hewett (1834), 1 A. & B. 812 ; 3 N. & M. 656 ; 40
R. R. 436
224
Saltoun V. Adv.-Genl. (1860), 3 Macq. 659 6 Jur. N. S. 713
8
W. R. 565
108
Sandiman v. Breach (1827), 7 B. & C. 96
9 D. & R. 796
31
R. R. 169
584
Sandys, Ex p. (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 863 ; 1 N. & M. 591
.
642
Sankey, Be (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 17 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 238; 38 W.R.
533
618
SanPaulo Ry. Co. v. Carter, 1896] A. C. 31 ; 65 L.J. Q. B. 161
73 L. T. 538 44 W. R. 336 ; 60 J. P. 84
270
San Teodoro v. San Teodoro (1880), 5 P. D. 79 49 L. J. P. 20
42L. T. 331
256
Santos V. lUidge (1860), 8 C. B. N. S. 861
28 L. J. C. P. 317
29 L. J. C. P. 348 8 W. R. 705 6 Jur. N. S. 1348
44, 262, 266
Saunders, Be, [1895] 2 Q. B. 117, 424; 64 L. J. Q. B. 739
73
L. T. 172 ; 44 W. R. 30 59 J. P. 740 2 Mans. 361
126
..
V. Holborn Bd. of Works, [1895] 1 Q. B. 64 ; 64 L. J. Q. B.
101 ; 71 L. T. 519 43 W. R. 26
715, 726
V. S. E. Ry. Co. (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 456
49 L. J. Q. B. 761
43 L. T. 281 29 W. R. 56 44 J. P. 781
121
Savarkar, Ux p., [1910] 2 K. B. 1056 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 57 ; 103
L. T. 473
134
Savings Institution u. Makin (1844), 23 Maine .360
..
..282
Savoy (Overseers) v. Art Union of London, [1896] A. C. 296 65
L. J. M. C. 161 74 L. T. 497 45 W. R. 34 60 J. P. 660 .
508
Saxonia, The (1862), Lush. 410 31 L. J. Adm. 201 8 Jur. N. S.
315 10 W. R. 431 ; 6 L. T. 6 15 Moo. P. C. C. 262
..
277
Scadding v. Eyles (1846), 9 Q. B. 858 15 L. J. Q. B. 364
402
Scale . Rawlins, [1892] A. C, 342 ,,
.,
14

K. B. 245

Salt V. Scott-Hall, [1903] 2

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

CXXVm

TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE

..
Scales V. Pickering (1828), 4 Bing. 448 ; 1 M. & P. 195 ..
Scaltock V. Harston (1875), 1 C. P. D. 106 45 L. J. G. P. 125 ;
34 L. T. 130 ; 24 W. E. 431

528

634
Scarborough (Mayor of) v. Rural Authority of Scarborough
554
(1876), 1 Ex. D. 344 34 L. T. 768
Scatohard v. Johnson (1888), 57 L. J. M. C. 41 52 J. P. 389 .. 125,
187, 490
Schmitz, Exp. (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 509; 53 L. J. Oh. 1168;
477
50 L. T. 747 32 W. E. 812 1 M. B. R. 55
Sohofield, JEx p., [1891] 2 Q. B. 428 60 L. J. M. C. 157 64 L. T.
..
134
780; 39 W. R. 580 56 J. P. 4 17 Cox C. C. 303 ..
Schwerzerhof v. Wilkins, [1898] 1 Q. B. 640 67 L. J. Q. B. 476
410
78 L. T. 229 62 J. P. 247
Scott V. Avery (1856), 5 H. L. C. 843; 25 L. J. Ex. 303; 2
235
Jur, N. S. 815
395
. Craig's Representatives (1896), 24 E. 462, Sco
V. Glasgow, [1899] A. C. 470
68 L. J. P. C. 98 81 L. T.
523
302; 64 J. P. 132
V. Morley (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 120; 57 L. J. Q. B. 43; 57
..
476
L. T. 919 36 W. R. 67 52 J. P. 280 4 M. B. B. 286
36 L. J. P. C. 65
V. Paquet (1867), L. R. 1 P. C. 552
465
4 Moo. P. C. C. N. S. 505
V. Royal Wax Candle Co. (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 404; 45
..
573
L. J. Q. B. 586 34 L. T. 683 24 W. E. 668
..
V. Uxbridge Ry. Co. (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 596
35 L. J. C. P.
440
293 12 Jur. N. S. 602
Scottish "Widows' Fund v. Craig (1882), 20 Ch. D. 208; 51
709
L. J. Oh. 363 30 W. R. 463
Sorimshire ;;. Scrimshire (1752), 2 Hagg. Cons. 395
..
..260
Soutt V. Freeman (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 1*77 46 L. J. Q. B. 173
35 L. T. 939 25 W. B. 251
319
Seaman . Busley, [1896] 2 Q. B. 344, C. A.

..
..
..
166
Secretary of State for India v. Sooble, [1903] A. C. 299 72 L. J.
K. B. 617 89 L. T. 1 51 W. R. 675, P. C
500,505
Sefton, Se, [1898] 2 Ch. 378 67 L. J. Ch. 518 78 L. T. 765 47
W. R. 49
144
Selkrig v. Davis (1814), 2 Rose 311 2 Dow. 250
269
Sellar v. Bright & Co., Ltd., [1904] 2 K. B. 446; 73 L. J. K. B.
643 91 L. T. 9 52 W. R. 563 20 T. L. R. 586
579
..
..
Selmes v. Judge (1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 724 40 L. J. Q. B. 287
24 L. T. 905 19 W. E. 1110
414
Senior v. Metrop. Ey. Co. (1863), 2 H. & C. 258 32 L. J. Ex.
225 9 Jur. N. S. 802 8 L. T. 544 11 W. E. 886 ..
172
Seward v. The Vera Cruz (1884), 10 App. Cas. 59 54 L. J. P. 9;
52 L. T. 474 38 W. E. 477 49 J. P. 324 5 Asp. M. C.
386
8,63,314,317
Scwell V. Taylor (1859), 7 C. B. N. S. 160; 6 Jur. N. S. 582 29
L. J. M. C. 50; IL. T. 37
574
Shackell v. Eosier (1836), 2 Bing. N. C. 634 3 Scott 59 2
Hodges 17 42 R. E. 666 5 L. J. C. P. 193
702
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

cxxix
PAGE

Shaftesbury v. Russell (1823), 1 B. & C. 666


B. R. 534
Shaftoe's Charity, Be (1878), 3 App. Cas. 872

& E.

3 D.

47 L. J. P. C. 98

84; 25

236

38L.T.793
Shardlow

v.

345

D. 90

Cotterell (1881), 20 Ch.

L. T. 572

30

W.

51 L.

J.

Ch. 353

45

E. 143

Sharmam;. Merritt

(1916), 32 T. L. R. 360
Sharp w. Eettie (1884), 11 C. of SesB. Cas. (4th series) 745 So. ..
Sharpe,
p. (E. v. Arnold) (1864), 5 B. & S. 322; 33
L. J. Mat. 152 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 1018 ; 10 L. T. 458 ; 12 W. R.

511
363
722

Ex

756

26
214

Thomas

(1830), 6 Bing. 416


V. Wakefield (1889), 22 Q. B. D.

w.

239 58 L. J. M. C. 57
60 L. T. 130 ; 37 W. R. 187 ; 53 J. P. 206 and [1891] A. C.
173 60 L. J. M. C. 73 64 L. T. 180 39 W. R. 561 55
;

H. L
Sharpington v. Fulham,

108,228,233

J. P. 197,

[1904] 2 Ch. 449 73 L. J. Ch. 777 ; 91


R. 617; 68 J. P. 510; 2L. G. R. 1229 ..
413
Shaw V. Benson (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 563 52 L. J. Q. B. 575 555, 691
V. Crompton, [1910] 2 K. B. 370
80 L. J. K. B. 52 103
L. T. 501
62
V. Q. W. R., [1894] 1 Q. B. 373 ; 70 L. T. 218 ; 42 W. R.

L. T. 739; 52

W.

285; 58

V.

J. P.

Morley

318

46

(1868), L. R. 3

Ex. 137

37 L.

M.

J.

C. 105

19

599
16 W. R. 763
ReoMtt, [1893] 1 Q. B. 779 68 L. T. 688 41 W. R. 497 429
V. Simmons (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 117
53 L. J. Q. B. 29 32
103
W. R. 292
!. Thompson (1595), 4 Rep. 30b
616
Shears v. Jacob (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 513 35 L. J. C. P. 241 14
619
L. T. 286 14 W. E. 609
Sheatley, In the Goods of, [1891] P. 172 ; 60 L. J. P. 56
515
..
Sheffield Corporation v. Sheffield Electric Light Co., [1898]
606
ICh. 209
Sheil, Ex p. (1877), 4 Ch. D. 789 46 L. J. Bank. 62 36 L, T.
502,503
270; 25 W. E. 420
580
Shells V. Eait (1849), 7 C. B. 116 18 L. J. C. P. 120
..
..
Shelley v. Bethell (1883), 12 Q. B. D. 11 53 L. J. M. C. 16 49
581
L. T. 779; 32 W. B. 276 48 J. P. 244
610
SheUey's Case (1581), 1 Rep. 93b
Shepheard v. Broome, [1904] A. C. 342; 73 L. J. Ch. 608 91
717
L. T. 178; 53 W. R. Ill 11 Manson 288
195
Shepherd w. Hall (1812), 3 Camp. 180
L. T. 15

V.

V.

Hills (1855), 11 Ex. 55

V.

Hodsman

25 L. J. Ex. 6

105 R. R. 386

(1852), 18 Q. B. 316; 21 L. J. Q. B. 263

Shepherdess, The (1800), 5 Chr. Rob. 262


i;. Gosnold (1672), Vaugh. 169

Sheppard

Digitized

by Microsoft

..

.,

711,

712
320
176
533

CXXX

TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE

Sherborn v. Wells (1863), 3 B. & S. 784 32 L. J. M. C. 179 8


566
L. T. 274
Sherras v. De Eutzen, [1895] 1 Q. B. 918 64 L. J. M. C. 218
72 L. T, 839 43 W. B. 526 59 J. P. 440
.. 137, 179, 186, 187,
190, 195
Sherwood v. Bay (1837), 1 Moo. P. C. 353 43 E, E. 90, P. C. .. 101
580
Shields . Bait (1849), 18 L. J. 0. P. 120
Shiels V. Q. N. By. Co. (1861), 30 L. J. Q. B. 331
7 Jur. N. S.
119
631; 4L. T. 479
Shillito V. Thompson (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 12
45 L. J. M. C. 18
526, 596
33 L. T. 506 24 W. E. 57
Shine, Ex p., [1892] 1 Q. B. 522 61 L. J. Q. B. 253 66 L. T.
576
146 40 W. E. 386 9 M. B. E. 40
238,240,734
Shipman V. Henbest (1790), 4 T. B. 109 ..
..
..522
..
Shipperdson's Trusts, iJe (1880), 49 L. J. Ch. 619
Shoolbred v. Eoberts, [1899] 2 Q. B. 560 [1900] 2 Q. B. 497 68
199,350
L. J. Q. B. 998, C. A
59 L. J. M. 0.
V. St. Panoras JJ. (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 346
480
..
63 62 L. T. 287 38 W. E. 399 54 J. P. 231
78
Shore I). Cunningham, [1917] 2 Ir. E. 360
..
726
Short V. Hammersmith Corporation (1911), 104 L. T. 70
22 E. E. 503
..
12
V. McCarthy (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 626
Shortrede v. Cheek (1834), 1 A. & E. 57; 3 N. & M. 366; 40
41,512
E. E. 258
Showers v. Chelmsford Union, [1891] 1 Q. B. 339 60 L. J. M. C.
247
55 64 L. T. 755 39 W. E. 231
Shrewsbury v. Beazley (1865), 19 C. B. N. S. 651 34 L. J. C. P.
92
328 14 W. E. 31 13 L. T. 281
29 L. J. C. P. 34, 190
V. Soott (1860), 6 C. B. N. S. 1, 221
6 Jur. N. S 452, 472
74,296,548
Shrimpton v. Sidmouth By. Co. (1867), L. E. 3 C. P. 80; 17
440
L. T. 647
Shuttleworth, Be (1846), 9 Q. B. 651 2 New Sess. Cas. 470
16 L. J. M. 0. 18 llJur. 41
653
;;. Le Fleming (1865), 19 C. B. N.
S. 687
34 L. J. C. P.
309 llJur. N. S. 840 14 W. E. 13
55,450,578
Sill i;. Worswiok (1791), 1 H. Bl. 665
2 E. E. 816
269
..
..
Sillence, Ex p. (1877), 7 Ch. D. 239
47 L. J. Bank. 87 37 L. T.
676 26 W. B. 129
608
Simmonds i;. EUiott, [1917] 2 K. B. 894
675
V. Fulham Vestry,
[1900] 2 Q. B. 188; 69 L. J. Q. B.
560 82 L. T. 497 48 W. E. 574 64 J. P. 548
..
367
..
V. Mailing, [1897] 2 Q. B. 433
66 L. J, Q. B. 585 77
L. T. 341 45 W. E. 603 61J. P. 502
523
V. Woodward, [1892] App. Cas. 100
61 L. J. Ch. 252 66
L. T. 534 40 W. E. 641, H. L
118
Simms v. Begistrar of Probates, [1900] A. C. 323 69 L.J. P. C.
51 82 L. T. 433, P. C
206,218
Simpkin, Ex p. (1859), 2 E. & E. 392 29 L, J. M. C. 23 6 Jur.
N. S. 144
611,656
;

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP OASES.
Simpkm

V. Birmingham JJ.
M. C. 102 26 L. T. 620
;

CXXXi

(1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 482
;

20

W.

21 L. J.

B. 702

17

Simpson, Be, [1916] 1 Ch. 502


14,268
V. Blues (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 230
41 L. J. C. P. 121 26
L. T. 697 20 W. R. 680
34
V. Ready (1844), 11 M. & W. 846
13 L. J. Ex. 193
728
V. S. Staffordshire Waterworks (1865), 34 L. J. Ch. 380; 4
De G. J. & S. 679 11 Jur. N. S. 463 13 W. R 729
..
528
V. Teignmouth, &c. Bridge Co., [1903] 1 K. B. 405
72
L. J. K. B. 204 88. L. T. 117 51 W. R. 545 67 J. P. 65
1 L. G. R. 235, C. A
71,481,595
i). Unwin (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 134
39 R. R. 359
..
..
410
Sims ?;. Doughty (1799), 5 Vea. 243
281
V. Pay (1889), 58 L. J. M. 0. 39
60 L. T. 602
53 J. P.
420; 16 Cox C. C. 609
..
333
V. Thomas (1840), 12 A. & B. 536 ; 4 P. & D. 233
9 L. J.
Q. B. 399 4 Jur. 1181
112,146,303
V. TroUope, [1897] 1 Q. B. 24
66 L. J. Q. B. 11 75 L. T.
351 45 W. R. 97
16
Simson v. Moss (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 543 36 R. R. 655
..
322
..
Sinnott v. Whiteehapel (1858), 3 C. B. N. S. 674
27 L. J. C. P.
177 4 Jur. N. S. 263 111 R. R. 788
344
Sion College v. London Corp., [1901] 1 K. B. 617 70 L. J. K. B.
369 84 L. T. 133 49 W. R. 361 65 J. P. 324
..
317, 527
Skinner v. Usher (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 423
41 L. J. Q. B. 158
26 L. T. 430 20 W. R. 659
566,574
Skinner & Co. v. Shew & Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 413 62 L. J. Ch. 196
67 L. T. 696 41 W. R. 217
593
Slattery v. Naylor (1888), 13 App. Gas. 446 57 L. J. P. C. 73 59
L. T. 41 ; 36 W. R. 897
527
Slowey V. Threshie (1901), 38 Sc. L. R. 799, S. C
523
Smale v. Burr (1873), L. R. 8 C. P. 64; 42 L. J. 0. P. 20 27 L. T.
555 21 W. R. 193
225
Small V. Nat. Prov. Bk., [1894] 1 Ch. 686 63 L.J. Ch. 270; 70
173,174
L. T. 492 42 W. R. 378
66
Smelting Co. of Australia v. Inl. Rev., [1897] 1 Q. B. 175
45 W. R. 203
61 J. P. 116 128
L. J. Q. B. 137 75 L. T. 534
47 L. J.
Smith, Ex p. (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 374; 26 W. R. 682
230,231,636
M. C. 104
Ek p. (cited in Alexander v. Vaughan (1737), 1 Cowp. 402 267
59 L. J. Q. B. 554
38 W. R.
lie (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 536
212
744 7 M. B. R. 246
Re (1877), 2 Ex. D. 47 46 L. J. Q. B. 75 35 L. T. 858 .. 250
Re Hands v. Andrews, [1893] 2 Ch. 1 62 L. J. Ch. 336
..
109, 303
68 L. T. 337 41 W. R. 289 57 J. P. 516, C. A.
74 L. T. 810 45
Be, [1896] 2 Ch. 590 65 L. J. Ch. 761
107
W. R. 29
412
/?e (1919), 88 L. J. K. B. 113
24 L. J. Ch. 258 18
V. Adams (1855), 5 De G. M. & G. 712
56,144
Jur. 968 104 R. R. 249
;

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

CXXXU

TABLE OP OASES.
VAfili

Baker, [1891] App. Gas. 349; 60 L. J. Q. B. 691 65 L. T.


109
467; 56 J. P. 660, H.L
. Bamham (1876), 1 Ex. D. 419
..
588
..
34 L. T. 774
26 L. J.
V. Birmmgham Guardians (1857), 7 E. & B. 483
246
M. C. 105 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 769 110 E. B. 689
V. Brown (1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 729
40 L. J. Q. B. 214 ; 24
63,556
L. T. 808 ; 19 W. E. 1165
84 L. T.
V. Callander, [1901] A. C. 297 ; 70 L. J. P. C. 53
382
801 ..
..
..
194
. Cooke (1915), 79 J. P. 245
V. Dauney, [1904] 2 K. B. 186
73 L. J. K. B. 646 90 L. T.
116
760 ; 20 T. L. E. 444
V. Pox (1848), 6 Hare 386
12 Jur. 130 ;
17 L. J. Ch. 170
12
77E.E.152
V. G. W. Ey. Co. (1877), 3 App. Cas. 165
47 L. J. Ch. 97
357
37 L. T. 645 ; 26 W. E. 130
V. Huggett (1861), 11 C. B. N. S. 55
K. & G. 434 31 L. J.
653
..
C. P. 38 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 617
5 L. T. 357 10 W. E. 80
660
. Jones (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 328
y. Keats (1832), 4 Hagg. Ecc. 275
248
516
V. Kirby (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 131
24 W. E. 207
..
V. Kynnersley, [1903] 1 K. B. 788
72 L. J. K. B. 357 ; 88
L. T. 449 51 W. E. 548 67 J. P. 125 ; 1 L. G. E. 393
71, 595
V. Lambeth Assessment Committee (1883), 9 Q. B. D. 585
129
52L. J. M. C. 1
;. Lancaster (1869), L. E. 5 C. P. 246
169
V. Lindo (1858), 4 C. B. N. S. 395
27 L. J. C. P.
5 Id. 587
196, 335; 4 Jur. N. S. 974; 114 E. E. 785
..
64, 478, 532, 697
158
v. Lister (1895), 64 L. J. Q. B. 154
15 L. J. Ex. 149
699
V. Mawhood (1845), 14 M. & W. 452
..
. Moody (1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 43
85
V. Northleaoh Eural District Council, [1902] 1 Ch. 197
71
359
L. J. Ch. 8
V. Portsmouth JJ., [1906] 2 K. B. 229
75 L. J. K. B. 851
95 L. T. 5 ; 54 W. E. 598 70 J. P. 497
76
V. E. (1878), 3 App. Cas. 614 ; 47 L. J. P. C. 51 ; 38 L. T.
233
640
V. Eosario Nitrate Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 174
70 L. T. 68 ; 7
Asp. M.C. 417
..
42
V. Southampton Corp., [1902] 2 K. B. 250
658
V. Sparrow (1827), 4 Bing. 84
2 C. & P. 544
29 E. E. 514 691
u. Tilley (1664), 1 Keb. 712
534
V. Walton (1877), 3 C. P. D. 109
47 L. J. M. C. 45 37 L. T.
437
501
35 L. J. Ch. 454 14 L. T.
V. White (1866), L. E. 1 Eq. 626
350; 14 W. E. 510
693
32 L. J. Ch. 218 10
V. Whitmore (1863), 1 Hem. & M. 576
Jur. N. S. 65 ; 10 L. T. 128
236
V. Wood (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 23
59 L. J. Q. B. 5 61 L. T.
469
870 ; 38 W. E. 138 ; 54 J. P. 324

Smitl;..

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

CXXXUl
PAGE

Smith's Estate, Be (1887), 35 CJi. D. 589 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 726


56
L. T. 850 ; 35 W. E. 514 ; 51 J. P. 692
Smithett v. Blythe (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 509 ; 35 E. E. 358
..
Smithies v. Bridge, [1902] 2 K. B. 13
71 L. J. K. B. 555
87
L. T. 167 ; 50 W. E. 686 ; 66 J. P. 740
Smyth V. North (1872), L. E. 7 Ex. 242 41 L. J. Ex. 103; 20
W. E. 688
Sneed t>. Commonwealth (1838), 6 Dana 338 (Kentucky)
..
Sneezum v. Marshall (1841), 7 M. ife W. 417 ; 9 D. P. 0. 267 ; 10
L.J. Ex. 193
Soci6t^ Anonyme Beige des Mines d'Aljustrel v. Anglo-Belgian
Agency, (1915), 84 L. J. Ch. 849, 0. A
Society des H6tels Bennies D. Hawker (1913), 29 T. L. E. 578 ..
Societe G^n^rale de Paris v. Tramway Unions Co. (1884), 14
;

318
549

186

Q.

B.D.455

..

203
6
504
196
44

202

".

..

Society for Propagation of Gospel v. Wheeler (1814), 2 Gallison


388
105
209
Solarte v. MelviUe (1827), 1 Man. & Ey. 198
Somerset (Duke of). He (1887), 34 Ch. D. 465 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 733
163
56 L, T. 145 35 W. E. 273
Somerset v. Hart (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 360 ; 53 L. J. M. C. 77 ; 48
J P 327
192 490
V. Wade, [1894] Tq. B.'574;
63 L. J.*M. c!'l26 '70 L. T.
482; 42 W.E. 399; 58 J. P. 231
187,192,490
..
..
Southam, Be (1882), 19 Ch. D. 169
51 L. J. Ch. 207 ; 45 L. T.
606
635 30 W. E. 126
Southampton Bridge Co. ;;. Southampton L. Bd. (1858), 8 E. & B.
28 L. J. Q. B. 41
3 Jur. N. S.
808 ; 27 L. J. Q. B. 128
629
1261 112 E. E. 785
South of Ireland Colliery v. Waddle (1868), L. E. 3 C. P. 468 37
16 W. E. 756 and L. E. 4
L. 3. C. P. 211
18 L. T. 405
38 L. J. 0. P. 338 17 W. E. 896
..
163, 619
C. P. 617
^
50 L, J.
S. E. Ey. Co. V. Ey. Commrs. (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 586
520
Q. B. 201 ; 44 L. T. 203 ; 45 J. P. 388
173
Southport Banking Co. . Thompson (1887), 57 L J. Ch. 114 ..
62 L. J.
Southport (Mayor of) v. Morriss, [1893] 1 Q. B. 359
M. C. 47 ; 57 J. P. 231 ; 41 W. E. 382 68 L. T. 221 ; 7 Asp.
132
M. C. 279
;

'

'

South Staffordshire Tramways Co. y.-Sickness, &c. Assrce. Assn.,


64 L. T. 279
60 L. J. Q. B. 47, 260
[1891] 1 Q. B. 402
606
39 W. E. 292 55 J. P. 372
Southwark, &c. Water Co. v. Hampton Urban Council (1898),
572
68 L. J. Q. B. 207
67 L. J. Ch. 657
V. Wandsworth Board, [1898] 2 Ch. 608
630
79 L. T. 132 47 W. B. 107 62 J. P. 756
22
South Yorkshire Ey. Co. v. G. N. Ey. Co. (1853), 9 Ex. 55
619,655
L. J. Ex. 305 96 E. E. 550
Sowerby v. Smith (1874), L. E. 9 C. P. 524; 43 L. J. C. P. 290
502,546,647
31L. T. 309; 23 W. E. 79
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXxiv

PAGE

59 L, J. Q. B. 306; 62
24 Q. B. D. 728
L. T. 849 ; 38 W. K. 497 7 M. B. B. 100
Spaekman's Case (1849), 1 McN. & G. 170; 18 L. J. Ch. 261 ..
Spencer v. Metrop. Bd. of Works (1882), 22 Ch. D. 142; 52
L. J. Ch. 249; 47 L. T. 459; 31 W. E. 347
Spice V. Baoon (1877), 2 Ex. D. 463 46 L. J. Ex. 713 86 L. T.
896; 25 W. E. 840
Spioer v. Barnard (1859), 1 E. & E. 874; 28 L. J. M. C. 176; 5
Jur. N. S. 961 7 W. E. 467; 117 R. E. 497
Spiers & Pond v. Bennett, [1896] 2 Q. B. 65 65 L. J. M. 0. 144
74 L. T. 697 44 W. E. 510 60 J. P. 437
..
58, 59,
Spilsbury v. Micklethwaite (1808), 1 Taunt. 146; 9 E. E. 717 ..
55 L. J. Q. B. 48 ; 56
Spittall V. Brook (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 426
L. T. 364; 35W. E.520; lFox22
..
S. S. B., iJe, [1906] 1 Ch. 724
,
Stable, JJe, [1919] P. 10
Staoey v. Lintell (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 291 ; 48 L. J. M. C. 108 ; 40
L. T. 553 27 W. E. 551
StaUard v. Marks (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 412 ; 47 L. J. M. C. 91 ; 38
L. T. 566 ; 26 W. E. 694
Stamp, Ba;^. (1846), IDeG. 345
Standard Manufacturing Co., Be, [1891] 1 Ch. 627; 60 L. J. Ch.
61,
292 64 L. T. 487 ; 39 W. R. 369, 0. A
Stanford i;. Eoberts, [1901] 1 Ch. 440
Stanley v. Dodd (1822), 1 D. & E. 397 2 D. & E. 800 ..
..
37 L. J.
V. Western Insurance Co. (1868), L. E. 3 Ex. 71
Exoh. 215 ; 16 W. E. 369 ; 17 L. T. N. S. 518
..
..
V. Wild (1900), 69 L. J. Q. B. 318
Stapleton v. Haymen (1864), 2 H. & C. 918 33 L. J. Ex. 170
10 Jur. N. S. 497 ; 12 W. E. 817
Starey v. Ohilworth Gunpowder Co. (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 90 59
L. J. M. C. 13 62 L. T. 73 ; 38 W. E. 204 54 J. P. 436 17

Spaokman, Re

(1890),

99
592
557

651
167

. .

186
632

117
144
127

126
212
177
816
70

496

107
249

653

CoxC.

C. 65
Stead V. Carey (1845), 1 C. B. 496

195
;

14 L.

J. C. P.

177

9 Jur.

511
395
Steavenson v. Oliver (1841), 8 M. & W. '234; 5 Jur. 1064; 10
L.J. Ex. 338
728
Steed i-. Henley (1824), 1 C. & P. 574
697
Steel . Dartford Log. Bd. (1891), 60 L. J. Q. B. 256
..
..726
Steele v. Brannan (1872), L. E. 7 C. P. 261
41 L. J. M. C. 85
26 L. T. 509 20 W. E. 607
196, 330
V. Midland Ey. Co. (1866), L. E. 1 Ch. 282
12 Jur. N. S.
218 14 L. T. 3 14 W. E. 367
53
Steinson V. Heath (1694), 3 Lev. 400
711
Stephens i;. Mysore Eeefs Mining Co. (1902), 71 L. J. Ch. 295 ..
592
v. Eobinson (1832), 2C. & J. 209
696
Stephenson v. Higginson (1851), 3 H. L. C. 638, H. L
471
Stettin, The (1862), Br. & L. 199
31 L. J. Adm. 208
6 L. T.
613
563
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXXV
PASE

Stevens, Exp. (1875), L. E. 20 Eq. 786 ; 44 L. J. Bank. 136 ;


L. T. 135 ; 23 W. E. 908
w. Evans (1761), 2 Burr. 1152
V. Gourley (1859), 7 C. B. N. S. 99; 1 P. & F. 498;
L. J. 0. P. 1 6 Jur. N. S. 147 1 L. T. 33 ..
..
V. Jeaoooke (1848), 11 Q. B. 731 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 163
;

83
225
710

29
647, 688

12

Jur. 477
354,718
V. Lasoles, [1912] 1 K. B. 36, C.
55
Steward v. Greaves (1843), 10 M. & W. 711 ; 2 D. N. S. 485 ; 12
L. J. Ex. 109 ; 6 Jur. 1116
294
Stewart v. Jones (1852), 1 E. & B. 22 22 L. J. Q. B. 1 16 Jur.

1020

326
532

Lawton

(1823), 1 Bing. 374


Stiles V. Galinski, [1904] 1 K. B. 615 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 485
L. T. 437 ; 52 W. E. 462 ; 68 J. P. 183 ; 2 L. G. E. 341
t;.

90
20

T. L. E. 219
525
Stock and Share Auction, &o. Co., Be, [1894] 1 Ch. 736 63 L. J.
Ch. 245 ; 70 L. T. 235 42 W. E. 300 1 Manson 125
..
561
Stocker v. Warner (1845), 1 C. B. 167 ; 9 Jur. 136 14 L. J. C. P.
90
389
Stockport, &c Schools, Be, [1898] 2 Ch. 687
68 L. J. Ch. 41 ..
587
Stockport, &o. Ey. Co., Be, (1864), 33 L. J. Q. B. 251 ; 10 Jur.
N. S. 614 10 L. T. 426 ; 12 W. E. 762
172
Stockton & Darlington Ey. Co. v. Barrett (1844), 11 CI. & F. 590
8 Scott N. E. 641 65 E. E. 261
504, 528
V. Brown (1860), 9 H. L. Cas. 246
6 Jur. N. S. 1168 8
231
W. E. 708
Stoker i;. Morpeth Corpn., [1915] 2 K. B. 511
444,657
..
..
Stokes V. Grissell (1854), 14 C. B. 678; 2 C. L. E. 730; 23
L. J. C. P. 141 ; 18 Jur. 519 98 E. E. 814
612
V. Mitcheson, [1902] 1 K. B. 857
71 L. J. K. B. 677 ; 86
L. T. 767 ; 50 W. E. 553 66 J. P. 615
840
Stokes' Trusts, Be (1872), L. E. 13 Eq. 333 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 290
522
26L. T. 181; 20 W. E. 396
Stone V. Dean (1858), E. B. & E. 504 27 L. J. Q. B. 819 4 Jur.
674
N. S. 534
V. Yeovil Corpn. (1876), 1 C. P. D. 691 ; 45 L. J. C. P.
657 ; 34 L. T. 871 24 W. E. 1073 and 2 C. P. D. 99 ; 46
419
L. J. C. P. 137 ; 36 L. T. 279 25 W. E. 240
..
;

Fowle

App. Cas. 20 57 L. J. Q. B. 387 58


L. T. 1; 36 W. E. 742; 52 J. P. 228
Stoomvaart Maatschappij Nederland v. P. & O. Steamship Co.
(1882), 7 A. C. 816
19 L. J. C. P. 217 ..
Storie v. "Winchester (1850), 17 C. B. 653
Story, Exp. (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 166 47 L. J. Q. B. 266 38 L. T.
29; 26W. E. 329
Stoy V. Eees (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 748 59 L. J. Q. B. 310 63 L. T.
49; 38W. R. 683
Stonor

V.

(1887), 18

66
881

241

'

Digitized

644

by Microsoft

118

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXXVl

PAGE

Universal Stock Exchange, [1896] A. C. 166 ; 65


L. J. Q. B. 178 ; 74 L. T. 468 ; 44 W. B. 497 ; 60 J. P. 468,

Strachan

H.

v.

199

..110
Stradling . Morgan (1558), Plow. 204
156
Straker . Eeynolds (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 262
Stratford Union Council v. Manchester, &c. Ey. Go. (1903),
IL. G. E. 683

633

..
69,515
Streatley, IntheGoodsof (1891),60L. J. P. 56..
Stretton's Derby Brewery v. Derby (Mayor), [1894] 1 Ch. 431
..
..
628
63 L. J. Ch. 135 ; 69 L. T. 791 ; 42 W. B. 583
Strickland v. Hayes, [1896] 1 Q. B. 290 ; 65 L. J. M. C. 55 ; 74
L. T. 137 ; 44 W. B. 398 ; 18 C. C. C. 244 ; 60 J. P. 164 .. 523,

524
Strother v. Hutchinson (1838), 4 Bing. N. 0. 83 5 Scott 346
6 D. P. C. 238 ; 3 Hodges 294 2 Jur. 16 7 L. J. C. P. 1 ..
Stroud V. Wandsworth Bd. of Works, [1894] 2 Q. B. 1 68 L. J.
..
M. C. 88; 70L. T. 190; 42W. B. 355; 58 J. P. 652
Studds V. Watson (1884), 28 Ch. D. 305 54 L. J. Ch. 626 52
'
..
L. T. 129 33 W. B. 118
..
Sturgis V. DareU (1860), 4 H. & N. 622 28 L. J. Ex. 366 and 6
H. & N. 120 ; 29 L. J. Ex. 472 6 Jur. N. S. 1351 ; 118 B. E.
;

451

231

512

458,543

652

Submarine E. 14, B, [1917] P. 85


Suburban Hotel Co., Be (1867), L. E. 2 Ch. 737
710

17 L. T. 22

Suche &

Be (1875),
774 24 W. E. 184
Co.,

15

W.

102
;

86 L.

Ch.

J.

E. 1096

592

1 Ch. D. 48; 45 L. J. Ch. 12; 33 L. T.

391

Sully V. Atty.-Genl. (1860), 5 H. & N. 711 29 L. J. Ex. 464


Jur. N. S. 1018 ; 8 W. E. 472
Summerlea Iron Co. v. Thomson, [1913] S. C. (J.) 34, Sco.
;

270
..

138,

202, 210

Summers v. Holbom Bd.


M. C. 81; 57 J.

of

P.

Works, [1893] 1 Q. B. 612


326;

68 L. T. 226;

62 L.

W.

41

J.

E.

445
336
Sunderland Bd. v. Frankland (1873), L. E. 8 Q. B. 18; 42
623
L. J. Q. B. 13 28 L. T. 18
Sunderland Gdns. v. Sussex (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 99 51 L. J. M. C.
33 46 L. T. 98 80 W. E. 337 46 J. P. 375
386
..
..
Supervisors u. U. S. (1866), 4 Wallace, 435
..
..
439, 441
Surtees V. Ellison (1829), 9 B. & C. 752
728
Sussex Peerage (1844), 11 CI. & F. 85 8 Jur. 793, H. L.
1, 6, 78
;

256, 260, 501

Sutton

Sutton (1883), 22 Ch. D. 515 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 383 ; 48 L. T.


62,73,76,303
95;31W. E. 369
Sutton's Case (1627), 10 Eep. 31a
99
Swaine v. WUson (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 252; 59 L. J. Q. B. 76 62
L. T. 309 38 W. B. 261 ; 54 J. P. 484
702, 704
Swan V. Sanders (1881), 50 L. J. M. C. 67 ; 4 L. T. 424 29
474
W. E. 588 14 Cox C. C. 566
V.

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXXVll
PAOB

Spooner (1863), 3 B. & S. 329 32 L. J. M. C. 82 9


7 L. T. 623 11 W. E. 264
Swift V. Jewsbury (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 301 43 L. J. Q. B. 56
30 L. T. 31 22 W. E. 319
V. KeUy (1836), 3 Knapp, 257
40 E. E. 22, P. C
Swindells. Bulkeley (1886), 18 Q. B. B. 250; 56 L. J. Q. B.
613 66 L. T. 38 35 W. E. 189
Sydney Municipal Council v. Bourke, [1895] A. C. 433, P. C. ..
Sydney, The, [1916] P. 300
Syers u, Conquest (1873), 37 J. P. 342
Sykes v. Sowerby U. D. C, [1900] 1 Q. B. 584 69 L. J. Q. B.
464; 82 L.T. 177; 64 J. P. 340
Symingtons Petitioners (1905), 43 Sc. L. E. 157, Sc
Syred v. Carruthers (1858), E. B. & E. 469 27 L. J. M. C. 273
4 Jur. N. S. 949 113 E. E. 732

Sweeney

v.

Jur. N. S. 691

470

138
260
454
726
102
211

364
592

675

T.

Tabernacle Bldg. Soc. v. Knight, [1892] A. C. 298 62 L. J. Q. B.


50 ; 67 L. T. 483 56 J. P. 709
293
Taff Vale Ey. v. Amalgamated Soc. of Ely. Servants, [1901]
A. C. 426 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 905 85 L. T. 147 ; 50 W. E. 44
65 J. P. 596 17 T. L. E. 698
629,705
Talbot V. Shrewsbury (1873), L. E. 16 Eq. 26
42 L. J. Ch. 877
21W. E. 473
303
Tarrant v. Baker (1854), 14 C. B. 199
2 C. L. E. 78
23 L. J.
C. P. 21 ; 18 Jur. 15; 98 E. E. 589
414
Tassel v. Ovenden (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 383 46 L. J. M. C. 228 36
L. T. 696 ; 25 W. E. 692
350,351
Tate D. Wellings (1790), 3 T. E. 531
209
Tatham v. Eeeve, [1893] 1 Q. B. 44 62 L. J. Q. B. 30 ; 67 L. T.
683 ; 41 W. E. 174 57 J. P. 118
556,693
Tattle v. Grimwood (1826), 3 Bing. 493
727
Tawny's Case (1704), 2 Salk. 531
365
Taylor, Be (1877), 4 Ch. D. 159 46 L. J. Ch. 399 ; 36 L. T. 169
26W. E. 69
228
V. CaldweU (1863), 3 B. & S. 826 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 164
8 L. T.
356 ; 11 W. E. 726
674
2 C. L. E. 1247
V. Crowland Gas Co. (1854), 11 Ex. 1
23
L. J. Ex. 254 ; 18 Jur. 913 ; 105 E. E. 360
119
V.
23 L. J. Ex.
(1854), 10 Ex. 293 ; 2 C. L. E. 1247
254 ; 18 Jur. 913
697
V. Goodwin (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 228 ; 48 L. J. M. C. 104 ; 40
481
L. T. 458 27 W. E. 489
V. Greenhal^h (1876), 24 W. E. 311, reversing L. E. 9 Q. B.
487 ; 43 L. J. Q. B. 168 ; 31 L. T. 184 ; 23 W. E. 4 ..
189, 726
10 C. B. N. S. 429 30
V. Humphreys (1861), 17 C. B. 539
L. J. M. 0. 242 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1288 ; 4 L. T. 514 9 W. E. 705 121
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

CXXXVm

TABLE OF CASES.
PABE

Newman (1863), 4 B, & S. 93


C. 314 8 L. T: 424 11 W. B.

32 L. J. M. C. 186 9 Cox
74, 167
C.
752
;
V. Oldham (1877), 4 Ch. D. 395 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 105 ; 35 L. T.
72,301
696 25 W. B. 303
V. Oram (1862), 1 H. & C. 370 ; 31 L. J. M. C. 252 ; 8 Jur.
574
748 ; 7 L. T. 68 10 W. E. 800
682
u. PMlips (1802), 3 East 155
6 B. E. 575
..
V. Bogers (1881), 50 L. J. M. 0. 132
45 L. T. 314 ..
290
V. St. Mary Abbotts (1871), L. B. 6 0. P. 309
40 L. J. C. P.
117
45 ; 23 L. T. 493 19 W. B. 109 1 Hop. & C. 421 ..
V. Smetten (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 207 ; 52 L. J. M. C. 101 ; 48
600
J. P. 36
V. Taylor (1876), 1 Ch. D. 426
3 Ch. D. 145 ; 45 L. J. Ch.
520
378, 848 ; 25 W. B. 279 35 L. T. 450
642
leather. Ex p. (1850), 1 L. M. & P. 7 ; 19 L. J. M. C. 70
..
Tempest v. Kilner (1846), 3 0. B. 249 15 L. J. C. P. 10
..
575
Temiant v. Bell (1846), 9 Q. B. 684 16 L. J. M. C. 31 ; 10 Jur.
946
608
V. Bawlings (1879), 4 C. P. D. 133 ; 27 W. B. 682
..
656, 677
V. Smith, [1892] A. C. 150
61 L. J. P. C. 11 66 L. T. 327
56J. P. 596
505
V. Union Bank of Canada, [1894] App. Cas. 31
63 L. J.
P. C. 25 ; 69 L. T. 774
252
1 H. & P. 202 ; 34
Tepper v. Nichols (1865), 18 C. B.!N. S. 121
L. J. C. P. 61
11 Jur. N. S. 18
11 L. T. 509
13 W. B.
270
632 ' 633
Ternan, Se (1864), 5 B."& S. 645 33"l. J. M. C. 201 ; 9 CoxC. C.
522 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 34 10 L. T. 499 ; 12 W. B. 858 ..
..
123
Terrell, Be (1878), 4 Ch. D. 293 ; 47 L.J. Bank. 60
38 L. T. 243
26 W. B. 470 ; 46 L. J. Bank. 47
227
Terry v. Brighton Aquarium Co. (1875), L. B. 10 Q. B. 306 ; 44
L. J. M. C. 173 32 L. T. 458
...
574
V. Terry (1915), 32 T. L. B. 167
152
Tewkesbury u. Twyning (1632), 2 Bott. 1 Buls. 349
..
..216
Tewkesbury Union v. Upton-on-Sevem Union (1913), 83 L. J.
KB. 37
116
Thacker v. Hardy (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 685 48 L. J. Q. B. 289
39
L. T. 595 ; 27 W. B. 158
210
Thames, Conservators of v. Hall (1868), L. B. 3 C. P. 415 37
L. J. C. P. 163 ; 18 L. T. 361 ; 16 W. B. 971 ..
..
311, 314
Thames Haven Co. v. Bose (1842), 4 M. & G. 552 2 D. N. S. 104
5 Scott N. E. 524 ; 12 L. J. C. P. 90
3 EaUw. Cas. 177 61
E. B. 599
202
Theberge v. Laudry (1877), 2 App. Cas. 102 ; 46 L. J. P. C. 1 ; 35
L. T. 640 ; 25 W. E. 216
251,252
Theta, The (1894), 63 L. J. Adm. 160
244
Thiskell ?;. Cambi, [1919] W. E. 195
70
Thistleton w. Frewer (1862), 31 L. J. Ex. 230
394
Thoda;^, Exp. (1877), 2 Ch. D. 229, 797 45 L. J. Bank. 64, 159 ;
34 L. T. 261, 705
345
Taylor

v.

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

CXXXIX
PAGE

Thomas, Re

(1888), 21 Q. B. D. 380 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 574


447 ; 36 "W. K. 375 ; 5 M. B. K. 153
u. Kelly (1888), 13 A. C. 506, H.
V. Pritohard, [1903] 1 K. B. 209 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 23

59 L. T.

249
16

87 L. T.
688 ; 51 W. E. 58 67 J. P. 71 20 C. C. C. 376
..
249, 252
V. Quartermaine (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 685 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 340 ;
57 L. T. 537 ; 35 W. R. 555 51 J. P. 516
..
628, 682
V. E. (1874), L. E. 10 Q. B. 44
44 L. J. Q. B. 9 ; 31 L. T.
439; 23 W. R. 176
250
u. Ehymney EaU Co. (1870), 39 L. J. Q. B. 141
..
..
720
V. Stephenson (1853), 2 E. & B. 108 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 258
17
Jur. 597 ; 95 E. E. 463
483
V. Suiters, [1900] 1 Oh. 10
69 L. J. Oh. 27 81 L. T. 469
48W. E. 133
523,525
Thomas' Estate, Re (1918), 34 T. L. E. 626
127
Thompson, Re, [1894] 1 Q. B. 462 63 L. J. Q. B. 187 70 L. T.
238; 42W.E.462
347
JJe (1919), 88 L. J. K. B. 646
389
V. Brighton (Mayor), [1894] 1 Q. B. 332
63 L. J. Q. B. 181
70 L. T. 206 ; 42 W. E. 161 ; 58 J. P. 297
726
V. Farrer (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 372
51 L. J. Q. B. 534
47
L. T. 117 4 Asp. M. 0. 562
57
i;. Gibson (1841), 10 L. J. Ex. 243
608
103 L. T.
V. Goold, [1910] A. C. 409 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 905;
81 ..
..
25,55,346
V. Harvey (1859), 4 H. & N. 254; 28 L. J. M. 0. 163; 118
670
E. E. 418
39 L. J. 0. P. 264 22 L. T.
V. HiU (1870), L. E. 5 0. P. 564
636
820; 18 W.E. 1070
Thomson v. Adv.-Gen. (1848), 12 01. & F. 1 9 Jur. 217 ; 29 E. E.
270
1, H. L
. Olanmorris (Lord), (1900) 69 L. J. Oh. 337
..
..583
Thorbum v. Barnes (1867), L. E. 2 0. P. 384 ; 36 L. J. 0. P. 184
639
16 L. T. 10 15 W. E. 623
Thorley, Re, [1891] 2 Oh. 613; 60 L. J. Ch. 537 ; 64 L. T. 515
504,509
39W. E. 565
Thome, Exp. (1876), 3 Oh. D. 457; 45 L. J. Bank. 158 35 L. T.
543
532 ; 25 W. E. 186
V. Heard, [1895] A. 0. 495 ; 64 L. J. Oh. 652
73 L. T. 291
12
44W. E. 155
118
Thorp . Browne (1867), L. E. 2 H. L. 220, H. L
Thorpe v. Adams (1871), L. E. 6 0. P. 125 30 L. J. M. 0. 52 ; 23
314
L. T. 810 19 W. E. 352
V. PriestnaU, [1897] 1 Q. B. 159; 66 L. J. Q. B. 248; 45
101
W. E. 223 ; 60 J. P. 821
63
Thursby v. Briercliffe, [1894] 2 Q. B. 11
[1895] A. 0. 32
58 J. P. 428,
L. J. M. 0. 137 ; 70 L. T. 618 ; 42 W. E. 450
572
H.L
598, 599
..
p:hwaites v. Coulthwaite (1896), 65 I;. J. Ch. 238 ..
;

. .

-^

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

Cxl

PAGE

Wilding (1883), 12 Q. B. D. 4 53 L. J. Q. B. 1 49
L. T. 396; 32W. R. 80
Tidd, Be, [1893] 3 Oh. 154; 62 L. J. Ch. 915; 69 L. T. 255; 42
Thwaites

v.

W. E.25

652

454

33 L. J. C. P. 235
Tidey v. MoUett (1864), 16 C. B. N. S. 298
10 Jur. N. S. 800 10 L. T. 380 12 W. E. 802
57 L. T. 416; 35 W. E.
Tidswell, Re (1887), 56 L. J. Q. B. 548
669
;

. .

569

Timmins

u.

Timmins, [1919] P. 75
,

558
152

2 G. & D. 621
11 L. J.
(1842), 3 Q. B. 413
239
6 Jur. 1012
Tisdell V. Combe (1838), 7 A. & E. 788 3 N. & P. 29 1 W. W. &
587
H. 5; 2 Jur. 32
Ill
Titmus V. Littlewood, [1916] 1 K. B. 272
Tobacco Pipe Makers v. Woodroffe (1826), 7 B. & C. 838; 5 D. &
62,306
B. 530
Tobin V. E. (1863), 14 C. B. N. S. 505 32 L. J. C. P. 216 9 Jur.
..
..
N. S. 1130; 8 L. T. 392, 730 11 W. R. 701, 915
250
Todd V. Robinson (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 739; 54 L. J. Q. B. 47; 52
496
L.T. 120; 49 J. P. 278
ToUemaohe's Estate, ;fe, [1917] P. 246
127
Toilet t;. Thomas (1871), 24 L. T. 508
588
Tomkins v. Ashby (1827), 6 B. & C. 541 9 D. & R. 543 ..
..
506
Tomlinson v. BuUock (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 230; 48 L. J. M. C. 95
40 L. T. 459 27 W. E. 552
610
V. Consolidated Credit Corpn. (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 135
62
L.T. 162; 38 W.R. 118; 54 J. P. 644
198
Tompson v. Browne (1835), 3 M. & K. 32 5 L. J. Ch. 64
..
223
Toms V. Claoton (1898), 78 L. T. 712 46 W. R. 629 62 J. P. 505 510
14 L. J. C. P. 67
V. Cuming (1845), 7 M. & G. 88
9 Jur.
90
136
32 L. J. Q. B. 382 10 Jur.
V. Wilson (1863), 4 B. &. S. 442
N. S. 201 7 L. T. 421 11 W. E. 117
608
Tone Conservators v. Ash (1829), 10 B. & C. 349 34 R. R. 441 .. 617
Toomer . London Ch. & D. Ey. Co. (1877), 2 Ex. D. 450; 47
L. J. Ex. 276 ; 37 L. T. 161 26 W. R. 31
520
Tooth i;. Power, [1891] A. C. 291
157
Toronto (Corporation) v. Vurgo, [1896] A. C. 88 65 L. J. P. C.
4; 73 L. T. 449
524
Tottenham Board v. Rowell (1876), 1 Ex. T>. 514; 46 L. J. Ex.
432; 25 W.R. 135
348
Toutill V. Douglas (1863), 33 L. J. Q. B. 66 8 L. T. 426
731
..
Towler v. Chatterton (1829), 6 Bmg. 258 3 M. & P. 619 31
R. R. 411
397
Towns V. Wentworth (1858), 11 Moo. P. C. 543
99
Townsend v. Deacon (1849), 3 Exch. 706 6 D. & L. 659 18
L. J. Ex. 298 13 Jur. 366
409
Tracey v. Pretty. [1901] 1 K. B. 444 70 L. J. K. B. 234 88
L. T, 767 ; 49 W. R. 282 65 J. P. 196 19 C. C. C. 593 ..
231
Traill ). McAllister (1890), 25 L. B. Ir. 524
..
..
,73?

Timms

v.

WUliams

Q. B. 210

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

cxli
PAOK

Travis

Uttley, [1894] 1 Q. B. 233

v.

242; 42

Tredwen

v.

W.B.

63 L.

J.

M.

G. 48

70 L. T.

461; 58

Holman

J. P. 85
(1862), 1 H. & C. 72

4
31 L. J. Ex. 398

Jiir. N. S. 1080
10 W. K. 652
235
Trethowan, Be (1877), 5 Ch. D. 559 46 L. J. Bank. 43 36 L. T.
70; 25W. E. 399
173
Trevor -Battye's Settlement, Be (1912), 81 L. J. Ch. 646
..
41
Triumph, H.M.S., and Usk, H.M.S., Be (1917), 86 L. J. P. 127 .. 103
Tromans v. Hodkinson, [1903] 1 K. B. 30 72 L. J. K. B. 21 87
L. T. 549 51 W. E. 286 67 J. P. 30 20 C. 0. C. 360
600
Trowell v. Shenton (1878), 8 Ch. D. 324 47 L. J. Ch. 738 38
L. T. 369 26 W. R. 837
512
Trower v. Chadwick (1839), 3 Bmg. N. C. 334 3 Scott 699 2
Hodges 267 43 E. E. 659
630
Tuflfv. Drapers'Co. (1913), 82L. J. K. B. 174
224
Tunbridge Wells v. Baird, [1896] A. C. 434 65 L. J. Q. B. 451
74 L. T. 385 60 J. P. 788
170,545
Tunbridge Wells Improvement Commissioners v. Southborough
Local Bd. (1888), 60 L. T. 172
671
TunnioUffe d. Birkdale (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 450 56 L. J. M. C.
109 59 L. T. 190 36 W. E. 360 52 J. P. 452
..
..
247
Tumbull V. Forman (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 234 54 L. J. Q. B. 489
53 L. T. 128 13 W. E. 768 49 J. P. 708
387
Turner, Be (1846), 9 Q. B. 80 15 L. J. M. C. 140
..
176
..
V. Browne (1846), 3 C. B. 157
15 L. J. C. P. 223; 10 Jur.
811 ; 4 D. & L. 201
685
V. Evans (1853), 2 E. & B. 515
22 L. J. Q. B. 412 17 Jur.
41
1073 2 De a. M. & G. 740 95 E. E. 312, 681
V. Morgan (1875), L. E. 10 C. P. 587
44 L. J. M. C. 161
420
33L. T. 172; 23W. E. 659
Tnrquand v. Bd. of Trade (1886), 11 App. Cas. 286 55 L. J. Q. B.
417; 55 L. T. 30
54,78
Turtle . Hartwell (1795), 6 T. E. 426
123
Twigg's Estate, Be, [1892] 1 Ch. 579 61 L. J. Ch. 444 66 L. T.
604 40 W. E. 297
446
Two hundred Chests of Tea (1824), 9 Wheaton 430
107
..
..
Twycross v. Grant (1877), 2 0. P. D. 469; 4 C. P. D. 40; 46
L. J. C. P. 636 36 L. T. 812 25 W. E. 701
39,123,
..
204 449 717
Tyerman v. Smith (1856), 6 E. & B. 719 25 L. J. Q. B. 359; 2
680
Jur. N. S. 860
Tyson . Thomas (1825), McClel. & Y. 119
696,735
..
..
;

. .

. .

. .

'

U.
Uckfield U. D. C. v. Crowborough Water Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 664
68 L. J. Q. B. 1009 ; 81 L. T. 539 ; 48 W. E. 63
..
..
Underhill 1). EUicombe (1825), McCleL & Y. 450
V. Longridge (1859), 29 L. J. M. C. 65 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 221
..

286
711
446,

482, 497

10

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

cxlii

I'AGE

Ungley

Ungley

u.

L. T. 52

Union Bank
409

Union

25

(1877), 5 Ch.

W.

J.

Ch. 854; 37

454

R. 733

Lenanton

v.

D. 887; 46 L.
D. 243

(1878), 3 0. P.

47 L.

J. C. P.

158

38 L. T. 698

New

S. S. Co. of

Zealand

(1884), 9
5 Asp. M. C.

Melbourne Commrs.

v.

App. Cas. 365 53 L. J. P. C. 59 50 L. T. 337


93
222 P. C
United Alkali" Co. v- Simpson',' [1894] 2 Q. B. 116 ;'63 L. J. M. C.
445
..
..
141 71 L. T. 258 42 W. E. 509 58 J. P. 607
United Land Company v. G. E. Ey.Co. (1875), L.E. 10 Ch. 586
526
..
..
44 L. J. Cli. 685 33 L. T. 292 23" W. E. 896
464,465,583
..
United States y. Coombs (1838), 12 Peters 72
V. Fisher (1805), 2 Cranch 358
3 Id. 390
75, 148, 149, 263
464
u. Gooding (1827), 12 Wheat. 460
?;. Hartwell (1867), 6 Wall. 385
6,465,484
729
u. Helen, The (1810), 6 Cranch 203
265
V. Howard (1818), 3 Wash. 340

......

. .

Kessler (1829), Bald. 15


Kirby (1868), 7 Wall. 482
i-. Klintock (1820), 5 Wheat. 144
?;. McLain (1800), 2 Brev. 443 (Tennessee)
v. Morris (1840), 14 Peters 464
V. Palmer (1818), 3 Wheat. 610
75, 265,
..
V. Thirty-six barrels Of wine (1870), 7 Blatchf. 459 ..
V. Wiltberger (1820), 5 Wheat. 76, 95
..
6, 463, 464,
i;. Wood (1840), 16 Peters 342
Universal Stock Exchange v. Strachan, [189^] ^- C. 166; 65
L. J. Q. B. 429 74 L. T. 468 44 W. E. 497 ; .60 J. P. 468,
?;.

!;.

H. L

Unwin

199

Hanson, [1891] 2 Q. B. 115

v.

L. T. 511

39

W.

E. 587

55 J.

60 L.
P. 662
;

J. Q.

B. 582

65

98
113

Upame, The
UpfiU

(1912), 81 L. J. P. 110
V. Wright, [1911] 1 K. B. 506

80 L.

J.

K. B. 254

103

693
250

L. T. 834

Uppom

Sumner (1779), 9 W. Bl. 1251


Urquhart, Se (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 723 59 L.
i;.

W. E.
Urwin

v.

265
177
265
467
492
557
508
465
336

J. Q.

B. 364

38

7M.B.

E. 94
Hanson, [1891] 2 Q. B. 115
612;

60 L.

J. Q.

B. 531

..

133
100

V.

Vale

Neath Colliery

Purness (1876), 45 L. J. Ch. 276 34


L. T. 231 24 W. E. 631
Valentmi v. Canali (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 166 58 L. J. Q. B. 74
61 L. T. 731 38 W. E. 331 ; 54 J. P. 295
Vallance v. Falle (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 109 53 L. J. Q. B. 459 51
L. T. 158 32 W. R. 770 48 J. P. 519
5 Asp. M. C. 280 669,
Vallejo V. Wheeler (1774), Cowp. 143; Lofft. 631
..
..
Van Sandau, Ea; J). (1846), 1 De G. 303
Vane v. Vane (1874), L. K. 8 Ch. 383 42 L. J. Ch. 299 ..
..
of

v.

511

Digitized

376

by Microsoft

722
196
658
160

TABLE OP CASES.

Cxliii

PAGE

Q. B. 181; 9 M. B. E. 280; 62
L. J. Q. B. 277 67 L. T. 592 ; 41 W. B. 32 57 J. P. 132
v.. Taylor (1855), 4 E. & B. 910
24 L. J. Q. B. 198 ; 99

Vansittart, Be,

[1893]
;

130

. .

E. E. 823

Vaughan

382, 404

VaUey E.

Co. (1860), 5 H. & N. 679 29 L. J. Ex.


-628
247 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 899 2 L. T. 394 ; 8 W. E. 594 ..
..
214
Vautin, iJe, [1900] 2 Q. B. 325
Vaux . VoUans (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 525 ; 38 E. E. 305 ..
..656
Veitch V. Exeter (1858), 8 E. & B. 986 27 L. J. M. C. 116 4 Jur.
N. S. 584 ; 112 E. E. 853
222
Venour, Be (1876), 2 Ch. D. 522; 45 L. J. Oh. 409; 24 W. E.
v. Tafif

752
76 530
Verdin ti.'Wray "(1877)V2 Q. B. D. 608; 46 L. J.'q. B.*i70; 35
L. T. 942 27 W. E. 274
845
Vernon, The (1842), 1 W. Eob. 316
277
Vernon v. St. James' Vestry (1880), 16 Ch. D. 449 50 L. J. Ch.
227,630
81 44 L. T. 229 29 W. E. 222
Viokers v. Evans, [1910] A. 0. 444 79 L. J. K. B. 955 103
25
L. T. 292
Victorian Daylesford Syndicate, Ltd. v. Dott, [1905] 2 Ch. 624 ..
700
58
Vigers Bros. v. London C. C, [1919] 1 K. B. 56
Vinter v. Hind (1883), 10 Q. B. D. 63 52 L. J. M. C. 93 48
420
L. T. 359 31 W. E. 198 47 J. P. 373
Violett V. Sympson (1857), 8 E. & B. 344 27 L. J. Q. B. 138 3
12
Jnr. N. S. 1217
Virginia & Maryland S. Nav. Co. v. U. S. (1840), Taney and
609
Campbell's Maryland Eep. 418
364
Vowles i;. Cohner (1895), 64 L. J. Ch. 414
-..
60
Vron Colliery Co., Be (1882), 51 L. J. Ch, 389, C. A. ..
'

'

W.
v. London Union (1859), E. B. & E. 370; 28
C. 113 ; 113 E. E. 680
V. Neale (1917), 96 L. T. 786, D. C
Wadham v. Postmaster-General (1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 644 ; 40
..
..
L. J. Q. B. 310 ; 24 L. T. 545 ; 19 W. E. 1082

Waddington
L. J. M.

Wadley

v.

Wadmore

Baylis (1814), 5 Taunt. 752; 15 E. E. 645


..
..
v. Dear (1871), L. E. 7 C. P. 212; 41 L. J. C. P. 49;

26 L. T. 28

Wadsworth, Be
613

Wain

V.

20

W.

(1885),

E. 239
29 Ch. D. 517

365
162
687
541

169,632
;

54 L.

J. Ch.-638

52 L. T.

33 W. E. 558
Warlters (1804), 5 East 10; 1 Smith K. B. 299

25

7 E. E.

511

645

Wainewright, Be (1843), 1 Phil. 258


25,444,484
Waits V. Bingley (1882), 21 Ch. D. 674 51 L. J. Ch. 651 30
269
W. E. 698
V. Jones (1835), 1 Bing. N. C. 656
1 Hodges
1 Scott 730
702
..
166..
.,
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

cxliv

PAGE

Wake

12 Q. B. D. 142; 53
L. J. M. C. 1 50 L. T. 76 32 W. E. 82; 48 J. P. 197 342, 708
458
Wakefield, &o. Bank V. Yates, [1916] 1 Ch. 452
Walker i>. Constable (1798), 3 Wils. 25
604
V. Crystal Palace
Gas Co., [1891] 2 Q. B. 300; 60
..
607
L. J. Q. B. 781 ; 65 L. T. 86 39 W. B. 716
..
V. Goe (1859), 3 H. & N. 395
4 H. & N. 350 ; 28 L. J. Ex.
724
..
184; 5 Jur. N. S. 737 ; 117 B. E. 751 118 E. E. 488
V. Hobbs (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 458
59 L. J. Q. B. 93 ; 38
140
W. E. 63
V. Homer (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 4 ; 45 L. J. M. C. 34 ; 33 L. T.
489
601 ..
..
V. Better, [1911] 1 K. B. 1103
80 L. J. K. B. 623 ; 104
295
..
L. T 821 75 J. P. 331
..
..
6
V. Eichar'dson (1837), 2'm. & W. 889 ; 1 M. & hV251
L. J. Ex. 229 ; 46 E. E. 782
91, 573
60 L. J. 313
..
523
V. Stretton (1896), 44 W. E. 625
..
Wallace v. Att.-Gen. (1864), L. E. 1 Ch. 1 35 L. J. Ch. 124 .. 244
V. BlaekweU (1856), 3 Drew 538 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 644 ; 3 Jur.
283,611
N. S. 656; 106E. E. 425
v. King (1788), 1 H. Bl. 13
450
Wallgrave v. Tebbs (1856), 2 K. & J. 313 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 241
..
221
Wallis V. Pratt, [1910] 2 K. B. 1003 79 L. J. K. B. 1018 ; 103
L. T. 118
48
Wahnsley v. MUne (1860), 7 C. B. N. S. 115 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 97 ;
6Jur. N. S. 125
..
173
..
'..
Walsh V. Lonsdale (1882), 52 L. J. Ch. 2
569
V. Southwell (1851), 2 L. M. & P. 78
6 Ex. 150 ; 20
L. J. M. C. 165
135
Walsingham's Case (1579), Plowd. 562
282
Walter v. Steinkopff, [1892] 3 Ch. 489 61 L. J. Ch. 521 67 L. T.
184 ; 40 W. E. 599
350
Walton, Exp. (1881), 17 Ch. D. 746; 50 L. J.Ch.657 ; 44 L. T.
1;30W. E. 395
36,203,457
Wandsworth v. Golds, [1911] 1 K. B. 60 80 L. J. K. B. 126
103 L. T. 568 ; 74 J. P. 464
..
..
367
Wandsworth Board of Works v. United Telephone Co. (1884), IS
Q. B. D. 904 53 L. J. Q. B. 449 51 L. T. 148 ; 32 W. E.
776; 48 J. P. 676..
170,545
Wanklyn v. Woollett (1847), 4 C. B. 86 72 E. E. 545
26
Wanstead Bd. v. Hill (1863), 13 C. B. N. S. 479 ; 32 L. J. M. C.
135 9 Jur. N. S. 972; 7 L. T. 744 ; 11 W. E. 368 ..
..
589
Wanthier v. Wilson (1911), 27 T. L. E. 582
224
Warburton v. Huddersfield Industrial Soc, [1892] 1 Q. B. 817
61 L. J. Q. B. 422; 67 L. T. 43 ; 40 W. E. 346; 56 J. P.
453
590
v. Loveland (1828), Hud. & Bro. 623, Ir.
5
Ward, Be (1863), 32 L. J. Q. B. 53
142
V. Beck (1863), 13 C. B. N. S. 668; 32 L, J. C. P. 113 ; 9
Jur. N. S. 912
542,653
V.

Sheffield

(Mayor

of)

(1880),

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

cxlv

PAOB

Ward V. Gray

&

34 L. J. M. C. 146 11 Jur.
N. S. 738 12 L. T. 305 ; 13 W. E. 653
V. Hobbs (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 150
47 L. J. Q. B. 90 37 L. T.
654 26 W. R. 151 and 4 App. Cas. 13 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 281
40L. T.73; 27 W. E. 114
i;. Scott (1812), 3 Camp. 284
Warden i;. Dean of St. Paul's (1817), 4 Price 65
V. Tye (1877), 2 C. P. D. 74; 46 L. J. M. C. Ill
35 L. T.
852
Wardsop (John), Ira <fee i;i(ife o/, [1917] P. 54
Warkworth, The (1884), 9 P. D. 145 ; 53 L. J. P. D. & A. 65
51 L. T. 558 33 W. E. 112 5 Asp. M. 0. 326
..
124,
Warne v. Beresford (1837), 2 M. & W. 848 6 L. J. Ex. 192 401,
r. Varley (1795), 6 T. E. 443
Warner v. Armstrong (1834), 3 M. & K. 45
208,
V. Murdoch (1877), 4 Ch. D. 750
46 L. J. Ch. 121 ; 35 L. T.
748 25 W. E. 207
Warrmgton, Exp. (1853), 3 De G. M. & G. 159 22 L. J. Bank.
33 17 Jur. 480 98 E. E. 95
V. Furbor (1807), 8 East 242 ; 6 Esp. 89
..
..
507,
Warwick t;. White (1722), Bunb. 106
Warwick Canal Co. v. Birmingham Canal Co. (1879), 48 L. J. Ex.
550
Washer v. Elliott (1876), 1 C. P. D. 169 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 144 ; 34
..
L. T. 56 24 W. E. 432
..
WaterfaU v. Penistone (1857), 6 E. & B. 876 26 L. J. Q. B. 100
3 Jur. N. S. 15 106 E. E. 841
Waterford Peerage, The (1832), 6 CI. & P. 133 ; 49 E. E. 55,
(1865), 6 B.

S.

345

98

719
157
575

361.

15

517
729
413
693

400

304
508
241

520
151

173

539
H. L
Waterhouse v. Keen (1825), 6 D. & E. 257 4 B. & C. 200 40
422
E. E. 858
Waterton v. Baker (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 173; 37 L. J. Q. B. 65
676,680
17L. T. 468
Watkins v. Major (1875), L. E. 10 C. P. 662 44 L. J. M. C. 164
;

24 W. E. 164
182, 194
Watson, Be (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 27 59 L. J. Q. B. 394 63 L. T.
209,212
209; 38-W. E. 567; 7M. B. E. 155
644
iJe (1892), 62 L. J. Q. B. 85
10 Cox C. C. 56 ; 11
V. Martm (1865), 34 L. J. M. C. 50
588
Jur. N. S. 321 ; 11 L. T. 372; 13 W. E. 144
Watton V. Watton (1866), L. E. 1 P. D. 227 35 L. J. P. & M. 95
404
14 L. T. 742 ; 15 W. E. 288
Watts V. Ainsworth (1862), 1 H. & C. 83 31 L. J. Ex. 448; 6
512
L. T. 252
..
388
Waugh V. Middleton (1853), 8 Ex. 352 22 L. J. Ex. Ill
..
..
695
Waymell v. Eead (1794), 5 T. E. 599 ; 2 E. E. 675
573
Weavers Co. u. Forrest (1746), 1 Stra. 1241
Webb, Be; Exp. Board of Trade (1914), 83 L. J. K. B. 1386 .. 227
33 L. T. 352

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

cxlvi

V. Bird (1862), 10 C. B. N, S. 268; 4 L. T. 445; 9 W. E.


899 and 13 C. B. N. S. 841 31 L. J. C. P. 335 8 Jur. N. S.

Webb

621

579

Pairmanner (1838), 3 M. & W. 473; 6 D. P. C. 549; 7


L.J. Ex. 140
V. Knight (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 530; 46 L. J. M. C. 264; 36

606

V.

107
26 W. E. 14
528
Manchester E. Co. (1839), 4 My. & C. 116 48 B. E. 28
Webster v. SoTithey (1887), 36 Oh. D. 9; 56 L. J. Ch. 785; 56
325, 638
L. T. 879; 35 W. E. 622; 52 J. P. 36
455
w. Webster (1858), 27 L. J. Ch. 115
Weeks v Wray (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 212 37 L. J. Q. B. 84 17
606
L. T. 498; 16 W. E. 399; 9B.&S. 62
369
Welch V. Nash (1807), 8 Bast 394 9 E. E. 478
Weldon v. De Bathe (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 339 54 L. J. Q. B. 113
402
53 L. T. 520 33 W. E. 328
53 L. J. Q. B. 528 51
V. Winslow (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 784
402
L. T. 643 33 W. E. 219
Welford w. Beazley (1747), 3 Atk. 503
512
Wellington (Mayor) v. Lower Hult (Mayor), [1904] A. C. 773 73
125
L. J. P. C. 80; 91 L. T. 539; 20T. L. E. 712
..
..
Wells V. Kingston-on-Hull Corporation (1875 ), 44 L. J. C. P. 257 ..
163
V. London and Tilbury By. Co. (1877), 5 Ch. D. 126; 87
502
L. T. 302 25 W. E. 325
i;. MoSherry,
684
[1914] 1 K. B. 616
3 Scott 141 2 Hodges
V. Porter (1836), 2 Biag. N. C. 722
42; 5L. J. C. P. 250
478
Welsh V. West Ham (Mayor), [1900] 1 Q. B. 324 69 L. J. Q. B.
114; 82 L. T. 262
612
Wemperis, ife, [1914] 1 Ch. 502
154
Wendon v. L. C. C, [1894] 1 Q. B. 812 63 L. J. M. C. 117 70
L. T. 94
58
Wenlook v. Eiver Dee Co. (1885), 10 A. C. 354, H. L
655
Wenman v. Lyon & Co., [1891] 2 Q. B. 192 60 L. J. Q. B. 663
65 L. T. 136 39 W. E. 519
130
Werle v. Colquhoun (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 753 57 L. J. Q. B. 323
58 L. T. 756; 36 W. E. 618 52 J. P. 644
271
Wescomb's Case (1869), L. E. 4 Q. B. 110 19 L. T. N. S. 397 .. 117
West V. Francis (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 737 1 D. & E. 400 24 E. E.
541
178,290
V. Gwynne, [1911] 2 Ch. 15
80 L. J. Ch. 587 104 L. T.
759
92,382,385,393
West Derby Guardians v. Metro. Life Assurance, [1897] A. C.
647 66 L. J. Ch. 726 77 L. T. 284 61 J. P. 820, H. L. ..
284
West Ham v. Fourth City Bldg. Society, [1892] 1 Q. B. 654 60
L. J. M. C. 128 66 L. T. 350 40 W. E. 446
56 J. P.
488
281,296
West Ham Corporation v. G. E. Ey. Co. (1895), 64 L. J. Q. B. 340 520
West Ham Overseers v. lies (1883), 8 App. Cas. 386; 52
L. J. Q. B. 650 49 L, T. 206 31 W. E. 928 47 J. P. 708 ..
91
L. T. 791

V.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

CXlvii

West India Improvement Co. v. A.-G. of Jamaca, [1894] A. C.


243; 70L. T. 80
West India Telegraph Co. v. Home & Colonial Marine Insurance
Co. (1896), 65 L. J. Q. B. 616
v. Blythe (1854), 3 El. & Bl. 737
2 C. L. R. 1660 28
L. J. Q. B. 386 1 Jur. N. S. 85 97 R. E. 731
..
..
Westbury V. Coston (1703), 2 Salk. 532
Western Counties Ry. Co. v. Windsor & Annapolis Ry. Co.
(1882), 7 App Cas. 178
51 L. J. P. C. 43 46 L T. 351 ..
Western National Bank v. Perez, [1891] 1 Q. B. 304 60 L. J.
Q. B. 272 64 L. T. 543
39 W. E. 245
Western Suburban, &o.. Building Society v. Martin (1886), 17
Q. B. D. 609 55 L. J. Q. B. 882, C. A
Westerton v. Liddell (1857), reported by Moore 1 Jur. N. S. 1178
Westminster u. Gerrard (1621), 2 Bulst. 346
Westminster Council v. London C. C, [1902] 1 K. B. 326
71
L. J. K. B. 244 86 L. T. 53 ; 50 W. R. 429 ; 66 J. P. 199
;. Watson,
[1902] 2 K. B. 717
Westminster Fire Office v. Glasgow Provident Investment Co.
(1888), 13 A. C. 699
Westminster Vestry v. Hoskins, [1899] 2 Q. B. 474 ; 68 L. J.
Q. B. 840 81 L. T. 390 47 W. E. 649 63 J. P. 725
Westmore v. Paine, [1891] 1 Q. B. 482 60 L. J. M. C. 89 64
L. T. 55 ; 89 W. E. 463 55 J. P. 440 17 Cox C. C. 244
Westmoreland, The (1845), 2 W. Rob. 394
Westover v. Perkms (1859), 2 E. & E. 57 28 L. J. M. C. 227 248,
Wethered v. Calcutt (1842), 5 Scott N; R. 409 4 M. & G. 566
11 L. J. M. C. 123 6 Jur. 487 61 R. R. 606
82, 116,
Wetherell u. Jones (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 221
38 L. J. C. P.
Wetherfield'v. Nelson (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 571
220 ; 20 L. T. 366 ; 17 W. R. 651
Weymouth v. Nugent (1865), 6 B. & S. 22 34 L. J. M. C. 81 11
Jur. N. S. 465; 11 L. T. 672; 13 W. R. 338
Wheat V. Brown, [1892] 1 Q. B. 418 61 L. J, M. C. 94 66 L. T.
464 ; 40 W. R. 462 56 J. P. 153
Wheaton v. Maple & Co., [1893] 3 Ch. 48 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 963 69
L. T. 208 41 W. R. 677
Whidbome V. Eocles. Com. (1878), 7 Ch. D. 375; 47 L. J. Ch.
129; 37 L. T. 846
Whinney, Ex p. (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 476 1 M. B. R. 185
Whistler v. Forster (1868), 14 C. B. N. S. 248 32 L. J. C. P. 161
8 L. T. 317 11 W. R.648
83 L. T. 449 49
Whitaker, Re, [1901] 1 Ch. 9 70 L. J. Ch. 6
W. R. 106
iJe, Whitaker ?;. Palmer, [1904] 1 Ch. 299
Whitchurch v. Fulham Board (1866J, L. E. 1 Q. B. 233 35 L. J.
M. C. 145 ; 14 W. E. 277 13 L. T. 631 12 Jur. N. S. 353
White, Ex p. (1864), 88 L. J. Bank. 22 10 Jur. N. S. 189 9 L. T.
702; 12 W. E. 390
Be, [1913] 1 Ch. 231

Westbrook

694

615

321
217
501

267
164
647
486

. .

86
247

113
113

684
151
549

. .

122
699

519

549

475

. .

252
157
477

351

174
174

Digitized

by Microsoft

. .

229

385
146

TABLE OF OASES.

cxlviii

PASE

White

735

Boot

(1788), 2 T. B. 274
V. Feast (1872), L. B. 7 Q. B.
w.

L. T. 611 20 W. E. 382
V. Fellowes (see Whitehouse

353

41 L.

M.

J.

C. 81

26

180,288,645

Pellowes).
17. Pulham Vestry (1896), 74 L. T. 425
w. Granada SS. Co. (1896), 13 T. L. E. 1
44 L. J.
V. Hindley Loc. Bd. (1875), L. B. 10 Q. B. 219
Q.B. 114; 32L. T. 460; 23W. E. 651
68 L. J. Q. B. 702
80 L. T.
V. Morley, [1899] 2 Q. B. 34
761; 47 W.B. 583; 63 J. P. 550
32 L. J. C. P. 1 5 L. T.
V. Steel (1863), 12 C. B. N. S. 383
v.

367
368

726

523

155

449

Wright (1824), 3 B. & 0. 273


Whitechuroh v. E. London By. Co. (1873), L. E.

209

W.

7 Ex. 424

27

32
Smithers (1877), 2 C. P. D. 553 46 L. J. M. C. 234
290
37L. T. 378
Whitehouse v. Fellowes (1861), 10 C. B. N. S. 780 30 L. J. C. P.
..
..
173, 611, 629
305 29 L. T. 168 21 W. E. 893
Whiteley v. Barley (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 154 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 643
496
60 L. T. 86 36 W. B. 823 52 J. P. 595
38 L. J, M. C. 51 19
V. Chappell (1869), L. B. 4 Q. B. 147
470
L. T. 355 17 W. E. 175
, Heaton (1858), 27 L. J. M. C. 217
295
45 L. J. Ch. 177; 33
Whitfield V. Langdale (1876), 1 Ch. D. 61
41
L. T. 592 24 W. B. 313
Whithorne v. Thomas (1845), 7 M. & Gr. 1 8 Soott N. S. 783 1
..117
Lut. Beg. Cas. 125 14 L. J. C. P. 38 8 Jur. 1008 ..
Whitley Partners, Re, Ex p. Callan (1886), 32 Ch. D. 337 55 L. J.
Ch. 540; 54L. T. 912; 34W. E. 505, C. A. ..
..
..
69
Wigton V. Snaith (1851), 16 Q. B. 496 20 L. J. M. C. 110; 15
Jur. 346
406
Wilberforoe v. Hearfield (1877), 5 Ch. D. 709 46 L. J. Ch. 584
25 W.B. 861
157
Wild Banger, The (1862), IJ. & K. 180 9 Jur. N. S. 134 32 L. J.
Adm. 49 11 W. E. 255 7 L. T. 724
277
Wiley V. Crawford (1861), 1 B. & S. 253 80 L. J. Q. B. 319 7
Jur. N. S. 943 4 L. T. 653 9 W. B. 741
564, 692
Wilkes V. Hungerford Market Co. (1835), 2 Bing. N. C. 281
724
Wilkinson v. Calvert (1878), 3 C. P. D. 360 47 L. J. C. P. 679
38 L. T. 813 26 W. E. 829
604
V. Evans (1866), L. B. 1 C. P. 407
35 L. J. C. P. 224
12
Jur. N. S. 600 14 W. B. 963
1 H. & B. 552
..
..
513
Wilkinson's Settlement, Be, [1917] 1 Ch. 620
14
Williams, ^cB p. (1824), 13 Price 673
153
, Be (1853), 2 E. & B. 84
22 L. J. M. C. 125
95 E. E. 446 341
Williams and Stepney, He, [1891] 2 Q. B. 257 60 L. J. Q. B. 636
65 L. T. 208 ; 39 W. B. 538
395
Williams u. Allen, [1916] 1 K. B. 425
186
L. T. 494

Whitehead

21

B. 28

v.

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP OASES.

oxlix

PAQB

Williams v. Burgess (1840), 12 A. & E. 635 4 P. & D. 348


9
D. P. C. 544; lOL. J. Q. B. 10
607
V. Byrnes (1863), 1 Moo. P. C. 0. N. S. 154, P.
511
y. Gary (1695), 4 Mod. Bep. 403; 12 Mod. 71
..449
..
-=
V. EUis (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 175
49 L. J. M. C. 47
42 L. T.
249 28 W. E. 416 44 J. P.. 394
71,481,578
V, Evans (1875), L. E. 19 Eq. 547
44 L. J. Ch. 319
32
L. T. 359 23 W. E. 466
454
V.
(1876), 1 Ex. D. 277
35 L. T. 864 ..
..
482,497
V. aolding (1865), L. E. 1 0. P. 69
35 L. J. G. P. 1 11 Jur.
N. S. 51
13 L. T. 291
14 W. E. 60
586
V. Q. W. Ey. Go. (1874), 10 Ex. 16
102 E. E. 449 ..
..
526
V. Harding (1866), L. E. 1 H. L. 9; 85 L. J. Bey. 25
12
Jur. N. S. 457
389,398
1!. Hathaway (1877), 6 Gb. D. 544
288
. Jones (1811), 12 East 346; 11 E. E. 411 ..
116
..
..
V. Jordan (1877), 6 Gh. D. 517
46 L. J. Gh. 681 26 W. E.
230
511
V. Lake (1859), 2 E. & E. 349
29 L. J. Q. B. 1 6 Jur. N. S.
45; IL. T. 56
511,513
V. Lear (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 285
41 L. J. M. G. 76
25
L. T. 906
542
V. Lords of Admiralty (1851), 11 G. B. 424
617
V. Mason (1873), 28 L. T. 232
138
21 W. E. 386
V. North's Navigation GoUieries, [1904] 2 K. B. 44
73 L. J.
K. B. 575; 91 L. T. 3; 52 W. E. 564; 68 J. P. 371
20
T. L. E. 448, C. A
188
0.
(1906), 75 L. J. K. B. 334
201,202
V. Pritohard (1790), 4 T. E. 2
2 E. E. 310 ..
..
317, 527
V. Eoberts (1852), 7 Exch. 618
22 L. J. Ex. 61
369
V. Eose (1867), L. E. 3 Ex. 5
37 L. J. Ex. 12 17 L. T. 253
16W. E. 316
358
V. Smith (1859), 4 H. & N. 559
28 L. J. Ex. 286
5 Jur.
N. S. 1107; 118 E.E. 611
890
V. Swansea Navigation Ganal Go. (1868), L. E. 3 Ex. 158
37L. J. Ex. 107
656,664
. Wheeler (1860), 8 G. B. N. S. 299
278
Williamson v. Maggs (1859), 28 L. J. Ex. 5
28
V. Norris, [1899] I Q. B. 7
68 L. J. Q. B. 31 79 L. T. 415
111,177
47 W. E. 94; 62 J. P. 790; 19 0. C. G. 203 ..
..
Willion V. Berkley (1562), Plow. 223 11 Eep. 72a.
..
244, 252
Willis u. Brown (1839), 10 Sim. 127
456
87
V. Gipps (1846), 5 Moo. P. 0. 379, P.
V. Howe (Earl), [1893] 2 Gh. 545
62 L. J. Gh. 690 69 L. T.
12
358; 41 W. E. 433
44 L, J. Q. B. 137 33
V. Thorp (1875), L. E. 10 Q. B. 383
587
L. T. 11 23 W. B. 780
V. Wells, [1892] 2 Q. B. 225
67 L. T.
61 L. J. Q. B. 606
164,239
316; 41 W.E. 64; 56 J. P. 775
;

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Cl

PAGE

&

2 C. L. B. 677 18 Jur.
300
518 23 L. J. Q. B. 281 97 R. R. 654
Willock V. Noble (1875), L. R. 7 H. L. 580 ; 44 L.J. Ch. 345 32
157
L. T. 419; 23 W. R. 809
Wilson, Re (1878), 8 Ch. D. 364
47 L. J. Bank. 116; 38 L. T.
349
730 26 W. R. 582
388
V.
[1916] 1 K. B. 382
u. Halifax (1868), L.R. 3 Ex. 114; 37 L.J. Ex.44; 17 L. T.
134,413,574
660 16 W. R. 707
89, 90, 449, 453
3 Smith 123
V. Knubley (1806), 7 East 128
53 R. B. 104 111
1 B. & P. 430
V. Marryat (1798), 8 T. R. 31
15 L. J.
10 Jur. 917
V. Nightingale (1846), 8 Q. B. 1034
55
Q. B. 309; 70R. R. 727
6 B. & S.208 11 Jur.
V. Rankin (1865), L. R. 1 Q. B. 162
N. S. 173 34 L. J. Q. B. 62 13 W. R. 404 12 L. T. 20 and
..
694
..
85L. J. Q. B. 203; 14W. R. 198; 13L. T. 664
229
2 B. R. 51 5
V. Rastall (1792), 4 T. R. 757
24 L. J. Q. B. 185
1
V. Robertson (1855), 4 E. & B. 923
222
Jur. N. S. 755 ; 99 R. R. 827
34
V. West Hartlepool Co. (1865), 2 De G. J. & S. 475
455,654
L. J. Ch. 241
23 L. J. Ch. 697 101
V. Wilson (1854), 5 H. L. Cas. 40
444
R R 25
Wimbledon Local Board v. Underwood, [1892] 1 Q. B. 836 61
169
L. J. Q. B. 484 67 L. T. 55 40 W. R. 640 56 J. P. 633
154
Wimperis, 5e, [1914] 1 Ch. 502
Winch V. Thames Conservators (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 878 43
634
L. J. C. P. 167 31 L. T. 128 22 W. E. 879
539
Windsor & Annapolis By. v. B. (1886), 11 A. G. 607, P. C.
..
24
Wingfield I). Wingfield, [1919] 1 Ch. 462
39 L. T.
V.
(1878), 9 Ch. D. 658 47 L. J. Ch. 768
559
227;26W.E.711
Winterbottom v. Wright (1842), 10 M.. & W. 109 11 L. J. Ex.
368
415
582
Wiseman . Gotten (1663), 1 Lev. 79
Wlthington Loc. Bd. v. Manchester, [1893] 2 Gh. 19 62 L. J. Ch.
..
589
..
393 ; 68 L. T. 330 41 W. B. 306 57 J. P. 340
568
Withipole's Case (1628), Cro. Car. 134
Withnell v. Gartham (1795), 6 T. B. 388 1 Esp. 323 3 B. B.
541
218
Wixon V. Thomas, [1911], 1 K. B. 43 80 L. J. K. B. 104 103
247
L. T. 730; 75 J. P. 58 8 L. G. E. 1042
AVoking Urban Council (Basingstoke Canal) Act, 1911, He
76
(1914), 83 L. J. Ch. 201
Wolton?). Gavin (1850), 16 Q. B. 48; 20 L. J. Q. B. 73 15 Jur.
666
329

Willmot

V.

Rose

(1854), 3 El.

Bl. 563

.....
;

v. Hawksford (1859), 11 C. B.N. S.


31 L. J. G. P. 184 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 844 6 L. T. 618
..
Be (1872), L. B. 7 Gh. 302 41 L. J. Banlc. 21 26 L. T.

Wolverhampton Waterworks
456

Wood,

113; 20 W. B. 403

Digitized

669

570

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

cli

PAGE

Wood

V. Boosey (1868), L. R. 2 Q. B. 340


7 B. & S. 869 36
L. J. Q. B. 103 15 L. T. 530 ; 15 W. K. 309 and L. R. 3
Q. B. 223; 9 B. & S. 175; 37 L. J. Q. B. 84 18 L. T. 105
;

16W.

R. 485

651

Burgess (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 162 59 L. J. M. C. 11 6i


L. T. 593 38 W. R. 381 54 J. P. 325 16 Cox 729
195
9 Jur. 796 68 R. R. 590
V. Dixie (1845), 7 Q. B. 892
..
376
V. Priestner (1867), L. R. 2 Ex. 66, 282
36 L. J. Ex. 127 41, 43
V. RUey (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 26
37 L. J. C, P. 24 17
L. T. 216 16 W. R. 146
780
Woodall, Exp. (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 832 57 L. J. M. C. 71 59
134
L. T. 841 36 W. R. 655 52 J. P. 581
Woodgate v. Godfrey (1880), 5 Ex. D. 24 49 L. J. Ex. 1 42
212
L. T. 34 28 W. E. 816
Woodhouse v. Woods (1860), 29 L. J. M. 0. 149 6 Jur. N. S.
421;1L. T. 59
655,674,675
Woodward v. Lond. & N. W. Ry. Co. (1878), 3 Ex. D. 121 47
578
L. J. Ex. 263 38 L. T. 321 26 W. R. 354
- V. Sarsons (1875), L. E. 10 C. P. 733 44 L. J. C. P. 293
663
32L. T. 867
17 Jur. 790 22 L. J. M. C.
V. Watts (1853), 2 E. & B. 452
21
149; 95R. R. 638
878
Woolf . HamUton, [1898] 2 Q. B. 887, C. A
WooUord's Trustee v. Levy, [1892] 1 Q. B. 772 61 L. J. Q. B.
..
..
473
546 66 L. T. 812 40 W. R. 483 56 J. P. 694
WooUey v. Kay (1856), 1 H. & N. 307 25 L. J. Ex. 351 108
496
E. E. 584
Woolverton Estates, Be (1878), L. R. 7 Ch. D. 197 47 L. J. Oh.
43
127 37 L. T. 578 26 W. R. 188
Woolwich V. Fulham, [1906] 2 K. B. 240 75 L. J. K. B. 680
71 J. P.
[1907] A, C. 255 76 L. J. K. B. 739 97 L. T. 117
486
361 5 L. G. R. 801
Worcester v. Droitwich (1876), 2 Ex. D. 49 46 L. J. M. C. 241
366
36 L. T. 186 25 W. R. 336
Worcester Banking Co. v. Firbank & Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 784 63
..
..
267
L. J. Q. B. 542 70 L. T. 443 42 W. R. 402
Worcestershire C. C. v. Worcester Union, [1897] 1 Q. B. 480 66
247
L. J. Q. B. 323 76 L. T. 138 45 W. R. 309 61 J. P. 244
Worley v. St. Mary Abbot's, [1892] 2 Ch. 404 61 L. J. Ch. 601
58
66 L. T. 747 40 W. R. 566
Worms V. De Valdor (1880), 49 L. J. Ch. 261 41 L. T. 791 28
256
W. R. 346
Wray v. Ellis (1858), 1 E. & E. 276 28 L. J. M. C. 45 117 E. R.
328
208
Wright, Be (1856), 2 K. & J. 595 25 L. J. Ch. 621 2 Jur. N. S.
106
465
269
Ee (1855), 11 Ex. 458 25 L. J. Ex. 49
32 L. J. M. C. 204
V. Frant Overseers (1863), 4 B. & S. 118
424
10 Jur. N. S. 39 8 L. T. 455 11 W. R. 883
V.

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

. .

TABLE OF CASES.

chi

PASB

Wright
N.
V.

V.

Greenroyd

S.

98;

Hale

5L.

(1861), 1 B.
T. 847

Horton

L. T. 782
V.

L. J. Ex. 40

W.

8 Jur,

6 Jur. N. S.

9W.

400,403
E. 157
App. Cas. 371 56 L. J. Ch. 873; 56
..
669, 698
E. 17 52 J. P. 179, H. L.

(1887), 12

36

31 L. J. Q. B. 4

394

H. & N. 227

(1860), 6

1212; 3L. T. 444;


V.

& S. 758

M.

Ingle (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 379 55 L. J.


W. E. 220; 50 J. P. 436
;

C. 17

54 L. T.

487
621
Legge (1815), 6 Taunt. 48
46
V. London General Omnibus Co. (1877), 2 Q. B. D, 271
L. J. Q. B. 429 36 L. T. 590 25 W. E. 647
..
..
362
!). Maunder (1841), 4 Beav. 512
668
V. Mills (1859), 4 H. & N. 488
28 L. J. Ex. 223 5 Jur.
610
N. S. 771 118 E. E. 566
46 L. J.
V. Monarch Investmt. Soc. (1877), 5 Ch. D. 726
164,238
Ch. 649
38 L. J. Q, B. 213
V. Pearson (1869), L. E. 4 Q. B. 582
20 L. T. 849 17 W. E. 1099 10 B. & S. 723
..
..
603
V. Williams (1836), 1 M. & W. 77
1 Tyr. & G. 375
1 Gale
410 46 E. E. 265
17,406
Wrightup V. Greenaore (1847), 10 Q. B. 1 16 L. J. Q. B. 246 .. 313
Wroughton v. Turtle (1843), 11 M. & W. 561 1 D. & L. 473 13
L.J. Ex. 57
506
Wyatt^. Barwell (1815), 19 Ves. 439; 13E. E. 236
..
..
456
62 L. J. M. C. 158 69 L. T.
V. Gems, [1893] 2 Q. B. 225
456 42 W. E. 28 57 J. P. 665
336
V. G. W. Ey. Co. (1865), 34 L. J. Q. B. 204 ..
..
635, 636
V. Metrop. B. of Works (1862), 11 C. B. N. S. 744
31 L, J.
C. P. 217
621
Wynne t. Middleton (1745), 1 Wils. K. B. 125
501
511; 34
v.

Y.

Yarmouth

Simmons

(1878), 10 Ch. D. 518

47 L. J. Ch. 792
;
26 W. E. 802
282, 502
Yates, Be (1888), 38 Ch. D. 112 57 L. J. Ch. 697 ; 59 L. T. 47
174
36W. E. 563
44 W. E.
V. Higgins, [1896] 1 Q. B. 166 ; 65 L. J. M. C. 31
474
335; 60 J. P. 88
54 L. J. Q. B. 258; 52 L. T.
V. E. (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 648
305 33 W. E. 482 ; 49 J. P. 436
363, 568
Ydun, The, [1899] P. 236 68 L. J. P. 101 ; 81 L. T. 10 8 Asp.
M. C. 651
400,413
Yeadon Loo. Bd. v. Yeadon Waterworks (1888), 41 Ch. D. 52 58
L. J. Ch. 563 60 L. T. 550; 37 W. E. 360
444
Yearwood's Trusts, Be (1877), 5 Ch. D. 545; 46 L. J. Ch. 478;
25W. E. 461
296
Yewens v. Noakes (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 535; 50 L. J. Q. B. 132; 44
43
L. T. 128 28 W. R. 562 45 J. P. 468
v.

38 L. T. 881

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

York and N. Midland Ey. Co. v. R.


690
444

22 L.

York (Dean

.J.

Q. B. 225

(1853),

i_
1 !E1.

cliii

PAGE

& Bl. 858

7 Eailway Cas. 459

Middlesburgh (1828), 2 Y. &

17 Jur.

93 R. R.

10,436

..

of) v.

214

J. 196,

31

E. R. 566
84
York's (Dean of) Case (1841), 2 Q. B. 1 57 R. R. 545 ..
..
52
Yorkshire Railway Wagon Co. v. Maclure (1882), 21 Ch. D. 309;
51 L. J. Ch. 857; 47 L. T. 290; 30 W. R. 761
..
..
224
Youle V. Mappin (1861), 30 L. J. M. C. 234 ; 6 H. (S? N. 753
334
Young V. Adams, [1898] A. C. 469 67 L. J. P. C. 75 78 L. T.
506
9, 382, 395
V. Billiter (1860), 6 E. & B. 1
25 L. J. Q. B. 169
2 Jur.
N. S. 438 ; 8 H. L. Cas. 682
375,377
V. Davis (1863), 7 H. & N. 760
31 L. J. Ex. 250
8 Jur.
N. S. 286 ; 6 L. T. 363 ; 10 W. R. 524 and 2 H. & C. 177 8
Jur. N. S. 79 9 L. T. 145
11 W. R. 735
725
V. Gratridge (1868), L. R. 4 Q. B. 166
38 L. J. M. C. 67 ..
594
;'
V. Higgon (1840), 6 M. & W. 49 ; 8 D. P. C. 212
9 L. J.
605,606
M. C. 29
V. Hughes (1859), 4 H. & N. 76
28 L. .T. Ex. 161
5 Jur.
N. S. 101 32 L. T. O. S. 259; 118 R. R. 337
..
382, 394
51 L. J.
V. Leamington (Mayor) (1882), 8 App. Cas. 527
369, 542654
Q. B. 297
52 L. J,
V. Royal Leamington Spa (1883), 8 App. Cas. 517
..
671
Q. B. 713 ; 49 L. T. 1 31 W. E. 925 47 J. P. 660
Ystradyfodwg, &o. Sewerage Board v. Benstead, [1906] 1 K. B.
;

. .

294

171

Z.

Zalinoff v. Hammond, [1898] 2 Ch. 92 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 370


78
L. T. 456
47
Zeta, The, [1893] App. Cas. 468
53 L. J. P. 17
63 L. T. 630;
244
57J. P. 660
244
Zeus, The (1888), 13 P. D. 188
Zollverein, The (1856), Swab. 90 2 Jur. N. S. 429
..
257, 263,
272, 279
607
Zouch V. Empsey (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 522
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES.
9 Hen. III., Magna Charta ..
..
20 Hen. III., Merton
..
..
52 Hen. III., Marlbridge
..
..
3 Ed. I., Westminster 1
..
..
6 Ed. I., Gloucester
..
..
..
13 Ed. I., Westminster 2
..
..
circumspecte agatis
..
21 Ed. I., de malefactoribus in parois
17 Ed. II. c. 10, de prerogativa regis
4 Ed. III. st. 1, o. 6, amendments ..

..

..

..

..

..64,145,4(39
..

253,616

253 601
45l' 533
..
..
..
449 452
49, 153, 252, 451, 602,' 715
..
..
..
..
452
515
143 144
..
..
..
.,
250
o. 7, trespass
..
..
..
..
..
449
25 Ed. III. St. 4, c. 4, weirs
64
st. 5, c. 2, treason
..
..
..
,,
..
479
c. 22, provisors
..
..
..
..
..
ge
42 Ed. III. 0. 1, confiiination of charters ..
..
..
..
459
..
1 Bich. II. c. 12, prisoners
..
..
..
..
..
451
..
6 Rich. II. c. 2, venue
..
..
..
..
..
459
c. 5, justices
662
15 Rich. II. c. 3, admiralty
534
16 Rich. II. c. 5, prsemunire
..
..
..
..
..
96
5 Hen. IV. c. 10, jail
451

13 Hen. IV. c. 7, suppression of riots


..
660
2 Hen. V. c. 3, jurors
448
0. 4, justices
661
3 Ed. rV. c. 4, imports
727
3 Hen. VII. c. 4, fraudulent conveyance
376
6 Hen. VIII. c. 6, procedendo
534
21 Hen. VIII. c. 13, clergy
176,709
22 Hen. VIII. c. 5, bridges
115
..
..
26 Hen. VIII. 0. 14, suffiagan bishops
..
.,
739
27 Hen. VIII. 0. 10, uses
63, 573
0. 20,
305
28 Hen. VIII. c. 11, clergy
309
..
..
..
..
c. 14, wines
..
..
545
32 Hen. VIII. c. 1, wills
156
c. 9, land
309
..
..
c. 28, discontinuances
..
..
253
84 & 35 Hen, VIII. c. 5, will
156,157
.

Digitized

. .

..

..

..

..

..

..

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES.

clvi

I'AOE

545
282
157, 466, 467
'..
536
250
..
.0. 16, sale of offices
479, 709
c. 25, public-house
354
..
1 & 2 Ph. & M. c. 12, distress
83, 106
4 & 5 Ph. & M. o. 8, abduction
291
..
1 Eliz. c. 1, supremacy
536
..
0. 2, recusants
15. 376
..
5 Eliz. c. 4, apprentice
..
657
..
c. 23, writ de contumace capiendo ..
112, 145, 376
13 Eliz. c. 5, fraudulent odnveyance
428
c. 7, bankrupts
c. 10, ecclesiastical leases
253, 298, 313, 317, 375, 600
224
c. 20, benefice
317,318
14 Eliz. c. 11, ecclesiastical leases
317
18 Eliz. c. 11, ecclesiastical leases
736
28 Eliz. 0. 2, witchcraft (Irish)
534
31 Eliz. c. 5, penal action
253
o. 6, simony ..
477
c. 12, accessories

37 Hen. VIII. o. 17, ecclesiastical jurisdiction


88 Hen. VIII., Diike of Norfolk's attainder
1 Ed. VI. 0. 12, horse-stealing
5 & 6 Ed. VI. c. 1, prayer-book

..

"

39 Eliz.

c. 5,

hospitals

43 Eliz.

c. 2,

poor

156
71, 100, 154, 229, 246, 287, 521,

charitable uses
6, costs

c. 4,
c.

1 Jac. I. c. 11,
c. 15,

3 Jac.

I. c. 10,

572, 662, 706, 710


52, 448, 544
312, 730

bigamy

..

257'

422, 428

bMikrupt
conveyance of felons

c. 12, fish

..

7 Jac. I. 0. 12, shop books


21 Jac. I. 0. 16, limitations

..

86
581
544

29, 30, 68, 69, 264, 289, 302, 312,

313, 391, 397, 408, 455, 458, 571, 678


0. 19,

bankrupt

16 Car. I. c. 10, petition of right


12 Car. II. c. 17, clergy
13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4, uniformity
c. 12, poor
22 & 23 Car. II. o. 1, Coventry Act

..

0. 9, costs'
c. 25,

25 Car. II.
29 Car. II.

31 Car. II.

W. & M.
2 W. & M.
1

o. 2, tests

game
..

..

'

0. 3,

Statute of Frauds

c. 7,

Sunday Observance
Habeas Corpus

c. 2,

c. 18,
0. 5,

toleration

49, 69, 70, 250, 272, 384, 454,


511, 514, 515, 575

2,378,584

..

landlord and tenant

Digitized

86
291
158
50, 536
287, 331, 425, 707
468
312
581, 601
20

by Microsoft

..55,

159
352
300, 450, 679

TABLE OF STATUTES.

clvii

PAGE

2
3
3
4
7

W. & M. c. 8, swine
W. & M. 0. 14, debt
& 4 W. & M. c. 11, poor ..
& 5 W. & M. 0. 20, judgments
& 8 Will. III. c. 25, conveyances
c. 35,

..

165, 374

304

blasphemy
pubUc stores

330, 737

WiU.

11

&
& 5 Anne,
& 6 Anne,

11

&

28
.'.

41,
III. c. 17, lottery
c. 23, larceny
12 Will. III. c. 7, piracy
c.

10

381

Quakers

o. 35,

9 Will. III.

330
89

e.

c. 14,

game

c. 16,

brokers

7 Anne,

c. 12,

ambassadors

8 Anne,

29,30,264
190,492
64,697
205, 264

16, limitations

6 Anne,

c.

..

321, 456

20, registration

c. 7,

customs

480
537

..

taxation
19, copyright

c. 14,
c.

9 Anne,

c. 14,

gaming

mandamus

10 Anne,
12 Anne,

c. 2,

church

I Geo. I.

usury

..

st. 2, c. 5, riot

st. 2, c. 13,

I. c. 8,

Papist

20,552

..

poor

c. 27, artificers

6 Geo.

I. c. 18,

7 Geo. I.

9 Geo.

49
352
353
303
468

..

exercise of trades

c. 14,

st. 2, c. 16,

5 Geo.

274,716
716
372,559

c. 10, post-office
e. 20,

0. 21,

I. c. 7,

Bubble Act
bottomry

appeal

c. 22,

..

..

Black Act

188
712
729
176

..

10 Geo. I. c. 4, Papist
5 Geo. II. c. 20, pilotage
7 Geo. II. c. 8, stock-jobbing
..
8 Geo. II. c. 13, copyright
9 Geo. II. 0. 36, mortmain
10 Geo. II. c. 31, apprentice ..
II Geo. II. c. 19, distress
12 Geo. II. o. 29, quarter sessions
18 Geo. II. 0. 18, certiorari
14 Geo. II. c. 6, cattle stealing
17 Geo. II. 0. 3, poor rate
c. 38, poor
18 Geo. II. c. 20, justices
19 Geo. II. 0. 22, harbours
..
20 Geo. II. c. 19, apprentice
23 Geo. II. c. 13, artificers
24 Geo, II, c, 44, justices
.

67
338
64
295
19
832,615
552
359
478
..
146, 480, 650, 651
144, 214, 221, 325, 384, 573
689

198,587,714

..

'.'.

'..

81,

668
248
602
28
145, 287, 312
21,665
335
585
333

"284,308,606
11

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES.

clviii

25 Geo. II.
26 Geo. II.

wills
..
c. 14, fees at sessions
c. 33, clandestine marriages
32 Geo. II. c. 28, arrest
2 Geo. III. c. 19, game
5 Geo. III. c. 14, fish
6 Geo. III. c. 19, gloves
25,

c.

12 Geo. III.

master and servant


Boyal marriages

o. 11,

24, destroying stores

o.

61, gunpowder
III. c. 78, fire insurance
III. c. 30, deer
III. c. 26, annuities
o.

14 Geo.
16 Geo.
17 Geo.

PAGE
81

e. 6,

21 Geo. III.
22 Geo. III.

c.

50, auction

duty

c.

56, larceny

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

109,362
410
492
480
334
260
..

. .

. .

. .

..

..

..

. .

. .

. .

..

..

..

..

332
105,582
.

..

c. 70,

East India Company

c. 75,

Colonial Offices

..
83, poor relief
23 Geo. III. c. 58, stamps
..
..
25 Geo. III. c. 51, post-horse duties
26 Geo. III. c. 71, slaughter-house

107, poor
44, ecclesiastical courts
c. 48, apprentice
c. 13, date of Acts
c. 54, friendly societies

. .

. .

. .

..

..

..

. .

III. c. 54, conspiracy


..
III. c. 101, poor
III. c. 52, legacy duty
III. c. 123, oaths
III. c. 5, land tax
c. 60, land tax
39 Geo. III. c. 34, game
39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 99, pawnbrokers
42 Geo. III. c. 90, militia
43 Geo. III. c. 59, bridge

34 Geo.
35 Geo.
36 Geo.
37 Geo.
38 Ge9.

44 Geo. III.
47 Geo. III.
48 Geo. III.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

77,740

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

c. 68,

coals

c. 55,

house tax

106, expired Acts


c. 143, hcenoe duties
50 Geo. III. c. 41, hawkers ..
..
51 Geo. III. c. 36, justices
52 Geo. III. i;. 93, taxes
53 Geo. III. c. 127, justices
o.

Digitized

311
550

287,312,420

..

..

..

c.

conveyancer

..

..

o.

c. 98,

373
596
359
87
145
507
240,566
737
78
..
161
690
.

c.

c.

84, benefices
99, distress
c. 108, church
e. 161, duties

737
581

85,86

c.

27 Geo. III.
28 Geo. III.
33 Geo. III.

664
106

270
84
99
99
410
693,700
78
430
..
609
..
236
318
..
542
..
697
696

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

by Microsoft

71
741
300
322
665
67'0

286

TABLE OF STATUTES.
53 Geo. III.

c. 141,

annuities

t. 159,

shipowner

c.

160, doctrine of the Trinity


justices
..

54 Geo. III.

o. 84,

55 Geo. III.

c.

c. 1.'59,

c.
c.

56 Geo. III.

clix

harbours

137, poor
184, stamps ..
194, apothecaries

c. 50,

farm stock

excise
57 Geo. III. c. xxix, paving
0. GO, court of Exchequer
c. 93, distress
c. 99, clergy
59 Geo. III. c. 46, appeal of murder
c. 58,

c. 50,

poor

foreign enlistment
Geo. IV. c. 117, larceny
1 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 18, witchcraft
3 Geo. IV. c. 89, warrant of attorney
o. 69,

c.

71, cruelty

c.

126, turnpikes

4 Geo. IV.

master and servant


76, marriage

c. 34,

c.

95, turnpikes
..
83, vagrants
c. 84, felon
c. 97, artificers
o. 113, slave trade
0.

5 Geo. IV.

6 Geo. IV.

c.

c.

&

..

c. 57,

settlement

c.

125, pilots
46 joint-stock

57,
8 Geo. c. 27,
c. 28,
c. 29,
c. 30,
c.

bankruptcy
false verdict

c.

7 Geo. IV.

16,

c. 50,

..

66,69

..

banks

insolvents ..
criminal statutes
criminal law
false pretences
riot

66,96,

..

..

..

332^477,

..

..

83,

,.

.,

..

71, arrest
0. Ixxv, watermen
c.

9 Geo. IV.

c. 14,
o.

c.
c.

o.
o;

c.
c.

10 Geo. IV.

23,
31,
40,
60,
61,
69,
74,

0.

limitation

bankers

murder at sea
lunatic prisoner
corn ..
public-house

..

game

criminal law
7, Eoman Catbolio relief

TABLE OF STATUTES.

clx

PAGE

10 Geo. IV.
11 Geo. IV.

163,164

friendly societies
1 Will. IV. c. 47, debt

0. 56.

&

beer
64, beer

c. 51,
c.

c. 68, carriers
c. 70,

fe

2 Will. IV.
2

&

procedtire

poor
o. 22, evidence
..
..
2 Will. IV. c. 22, backney carriage

1 Will. IV.

89
301
300, 301, 321, 322, 479, 480

22, 23, 367, 419


..
..

..

..

..

..

&

253,307
161

c. 18,

c.

430
566
..182,353,410,479,492,581,601
0.32, game ..
c. 37, Truck Act
137,138,201
..
624
c. 41, special constables
.,
..
..
c. 58, interpleader
..
..
..
250
..
..
c. Ixxvi, coal ..
..
469
..
.,
..
..
518
33, land suits
..

..

c 45, representation of the people


3 Will. IV. c. 71, prescription ..
..

..

..

..

..

63,71,590

16, 17, 55, 323,


87,

578

100, tithes
297
c. 120, stage carriages
..
..
..
240,566
4 Will. IV. c. 15, dramatic copyright ..
..
135
..
..
c. 27, limitations
159,297,302
c. 42, limitations
29, 30, 142, 302, 402, 403, 458, 583
0.

..

customs
..
..
..
..
356
.,
and recoveries 160, 285, 320, 321, 443, 648
0. 90, poor
591
c. 98, usury
303,304
c. 105, dower
52, 55, 56
4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 36, 0. C. Court
537
c. 76, poor
..
..
33,98,298,625,639,660,686
c. 82, stock
518
5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 41, bankrupt securities ..
..
372, 541, 542
c. 50, highways
100, 103, 125, 189, 229 284, 308,
340, 424, 481, 496, 566, 691, 725
c. 54, prohibited degrees
..
..
101, 260, 261
c. 63, weights and measures
196, 259, 482
0. 76, municipal corporations
.. 127, 136, 155, 483,
577, 597, 660
0. 83, patent
..
..
..
..
..
389
6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 56, Scotland, process
736
c. 71, tithes
157,622
0. 76, newspaper stamps
..
..
..
..
606
c. 53,

c. 74, fines

0. 86,

registration

..

..

..

..

0. 96,

assessment

..

..

..

.,

c. c,

7 Will. IV.

&2

Vict.

&

1 Vict.

shippmg
..
26, wills
c. 45, parish notices
0. 85, injuries

special constables
106, clergy
..

Digitized

707

108,361
559
..
28
..
582
..
640

14, 127, 156, 456, 514,

c.

c. 80,
c.

..

69, 70, 666

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

by Microsoft

..

309,609,656,709

TABLE OF STATUTES.

clxi
PAGE

&2

Vict. c. 110, insolvents

2 & 3 Vict.

0. 11,

e, 37,

judgments
usury

..

..

65, 112, 146, 286, 297, 321,


324, 418, 579, 668

..

..

poUce

&4

Vict. c.
c.
0.
c.
0.
c.

&

5 Vict. c.
5 Vict. c. 27,
5 & 6 Vict. 0.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

.,

..

..

. .

61, beer
66, admiralty ..
..
85, cliimneys
86, church discipline ..
48, corporations
..
ecclesiastical leases
^.
14, com duties
.

..

..

..

..

..

551
313
493
286
..
..
223, 544, 555
364,575
..
131, 651
427
507
184
..
..
..
326
..
70, 136, 710
..
507
..

lunatic prisoner

..

..

..

income tax

..

..

..

..

c. 39,

factors

c. 45,

copyright

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

sessions
..
18, registration

&

7 Vict.

c.

c. 36,
c.
c.
c.
c.
c.
c.

&8

Vict. c.
c.
c.
c.
c.
0.

c.
0.

&

9 Vict.

o.
o.
c.
o.

exemption from rating

66, cognovit actionem


68, plays
73, attorneys
..
76, extradition ..
86, hackney coaches ..
96, Campbell's Act (libel)
12, copyright
15, factories
..
24, engrossing ..
29, game
..
84, metropolis .
..
96, insolvency ..
101, poor
110, companies
16, companies clauses
18, lands clauses

20,raUways
84, customs

..

..
100, lunatics
c. 106, real property
c. 109, wagers
10 Vict. c. 66, poor removal
c. 93, fatal accidents
c. 95, county courts

c.

&

Digitized

431,432

..

o. 35,

c. 95,

401
306

..

c, 22,

54, tithes
0. 79, stamps
c. 93, adulteration

272
..
812,730
735
..
230,669

..

c.

29
303

127, 327, 331, 581

slave trade ..
24, costs
54, lunatic prisoner

c. 73,

..

..

331,332,565,581,591

0.47, police
0. 71,

..

..

..

..

..

..

35,378
211

402,438,713
..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

122
566
211
651
..
307,494
736
..
547
..
306
..
104
..

..

..

18,258,275,625
440,690
..

202, 316, 373, 440, 654

245,325
104,131,712

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

356
187

310,319,569
198,385,559,692
99
..

..

by Microsoft

..

261,275,316
238,288,643

TABLE OF STATUTES,

elxii

PAGE

10

&

11 Vict.

gasworks
27, harbours

c. 15,
c.

102, insolvency
12 Vict. c. 21, India
c. 42, justices
c. 43, justices ..
c.

11

&

& 13

public health

103, poor

c. 106,

&

14 Vict;

14

&

15

& 16

c. 5,

..

252, 289, 898, 534, 538, 614

.,

..

..

..

..

..

c.

61,

c.

97,

IS.Vict. c. 36,
Vict.

c.

c.

17 Vict.

c.
0.

27
428
347,589,594,658,667,
670, 671
241, 287, 288
..

..

.-

..

..

..

..

..

66, 79, 357, 877, 888, 494, 567,

Church

..

..

..

of Ireland

county court
76, common law procedure
86 Chancery
30, vexatious indictments ..
..
..
34, income tax

54,

lodging-house
51, succession duty

59, cheque
c. 96, lunatics

c.

..

..
..

c.
c.
c.

c.

17

&

18 Vict.

..

107, customs
119, betting-houses
128, smoke
187, charitable trusts

c. 31,

18 & 19 Vict.

c.

c,

271,544
132,133
97,102,218,270
..

598,600
..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

. .

Digitized

495

64, 111, 181, 182, 151, 199,


265, 268, 811, 416,
522, 548, 563, 569,
653, 677, 691, 722
..
. .

..

..

..

by Microsoft

..

516

23, 24, 28, 65, 141

48, cinque ports


..

827
474

209,481

120, merchants shipping ..


125, common law procedure

118, public-houses

189
587

46,416
120,121,178,197,212,379

railways

..
36, bills of sale
c. 88, gaming
c. 60, animals ..
..
c. 90, usury
c. 102, corrupt practices
c. 104, merchant shipping

c.

..

201
652
272

o.

c.

..

310
116
318
730
27, 28, 401, 404
105
200
..
..
..

..

898
576
666
522

428,680,730

county courts
stamps ..
house duty

c. 41,
c.

79,249,289,312
..18,361,474
262,557

mutiny

60. trustees

c.

&

..

..

bankruptcy

c.

o. 71,

16

..

..

c. 123, nuisances
Vict. e. 45, sessions
c. 92, cruelty to animals
0. 96, high seas
c.

18

..

..

19

44, county court


o. 45, companies

12

..

..

426,603

c.

c. 63,

..

97,335
175
418

..

..

665
294

TABLE OF STATUTES.
18

& 19

Vict.

c.

120, metropolis

management

clxiii

TABLE OP STATtTEg.

clxlv

PAaK

25

& 26

Vict.

merchant shipping

c.

63,

0.

68, copyright

..

c. 86,

lunacy

c. 87,

friendly societies

companies

c.

89,

0.

102, metropolis

o.'lOS,

assessment

..

..65,

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

124, 131, 276

60
305
731

59, 103, 130, 202, 249, 316, 555, 592,


619, 622, 669, 690, 698

management

57, 58, 285, 360, 423,


475, 641

TABLE OP STATUTES.

clxV
PAGE

32

&.

33 Vict.

c. 62,

debtors

0. 67,

metropolis valuation

..

0. 70,

diseases of animals

..

c. 71,

bankruptcy

15, 35, 101, 151, 250, 358, 371, 377, 378,


421, 470, 471, 472, 476, 645

360,659,666,672,673

..
182, 719, 725
32, 33, 97, 158, 203, 214, 223, 227,
228, 258, 411, 412, 570, 576, 648

c.

telegraphs
..
debtors
99, habitual criminal

c.

117,

c. 73,

..

..

33 & 34 Vict.

c. 9,

0.

c.
c.

c.
c.

o,
c.

c.
c.

34

& 35

Vict.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

peace preservation

..

..

.,

..

..

..
. .

c.

pharmacy

14, naturalisation

..

public-houses

35,
52,
71,
75,
90,
91,
93,

apportionment

. .

. .

. .

extradition
national debt
..
education
foreign enlistment
clerical disabilities

married
97, stamps
99, revenue

woman

c.

86 & 37 Vict.

o.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

30, 153,
225, 226, 311, 506, 508,
..

161
154
509

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

299
661
161, 552
652
..
..
484
..

..

30,474
145, 421, 550, 690

256,385

ballot
..
S. L. R., 1872

..
..

21, 60, 470, 636, 637, 663, 716


253, 300, 376
..
..

259

bastards
adulteration

58, 561

127,128,579

mines

wUd

birds
local courts

..

..

..

..

..

constables

pawnbrokers
Ucensing 23,

693,700

..

60, extradition

66, judicature
71, salmon fishery
c. 76, railways
0. 85, shipping

c.

88, slave trade

290
171
425

81, 111, 125, 179, 186, 190, 192, 361,


490, 520, 565, 734

vagrants

Digitized

164

261,306,371
494
..
..

kidnapping

c.

0.

395

311,506,667
256,264,408

96. dilapidations

c. 38,'

. .

147, 384, 592

West

Vict. c. 19,
0. 33,
c. 63,
c. 65,
c. 74,
c. 77,
c. 78,
c. 86,
c. 92,
c. 93,
o. 94,

266,268

45,122,420

43, ecclesiastical dilapidations


0. 48, oaths
c. 79, lodgers' goods protection
..
..
e. 98, vaccination
c. 112, habitual criminals
c. 116, S. L. E., 1871

& 36

..

SO
140
373

..

0.

35

146

..

..

..
..

..

Africa
31, trade unions

c. 8,

..

..

0. 29,
c.

..

104, 325, 567, 576

o. 83,

..
..

..
..
..

661
588
45, 550
11, 151, 165, 166, 291, 292
589
..
..
..
..
151
..
..
..
359
..
..
..
..
272
..
..
..
..

by Microsoft

..

..

..

TABLE OF STATUTES,

clxvi
36

&

37 Vict.

c.

91, S. L.

K,

1873

..

TABLE OP STATUTES.
43

& 44

PAGE

c.

revenue ..
35, wild birds
42, employers' liability
12j revenue
21, married women (Scotland)

c.

25, dilapidations

c.

41,
58,

Viot.,0. 20,
o.
o.

44

&

45 Vict.

c.

c.

c.

conveyancing

c.

& 46

Vict.

c.

..
..

120, 223, 395,


393,

392,
126,

army

59, civil procedm'e .


newspaper libels

"362,363,

c. 60,

45

clxvii

61, Welsh Sunday closing


14, metropolis

14,

301
290
55
505
394
661
393
666
519
740
147
113

poor rate assessment


..
17, 28, 81
22, boilers
131
..
..
e. 39, conveyancing
..
..
648
c. 43, bills of sale
..
15, 16, 31, 118, 135, 168, 169
173, 198, 210, 211, 212, 316.
379, 380, 386, 703
c. 50, municipal corporations
127, 136, 139, 155, 483,
551, 597, 620, 624, 660
c. 61, bills of exchange
25,48,201
c. 75, married women's property
c. 20,

c.

TABLK OF STATUTES.

Clxviii

PAGE

50
51

& 51
& 52

3^8

Viet. c. 66, bankruptcy


Vict. c. 8, revenue
c. 21, distress

97,700
130, 295, 679

railways and canals


0.33, forgery
e. 37, landlord and tenant
c.

25,

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

151
322
136
623

..
..
..
41, local government
..
c. 42, mortmain
214,325,384,448,573
..
..
0. 43, county courts
. . 27, 28, 69, 130, 238, 288, 291, 292,
319, 348, 411, 428, 518, 537,
553, 580, 643, 677, 680, 730

c.

0. 56,
o.

c.

52

&

53 Vict.

c.
c.

c.
c.
c.

53

&

54 Vict.

738

bishop

1888
64, criminal procedure
7, revenue
21, weights and measures

248, 286

57, S. L. E.,

45, factors
49, arbitration
63, interpretation

c. 5,

..
'

..

363

..

..

..

..

223,395

..

..

193, 426

..

161,364,575
..

..

46, 200, 201, 409,

..

428

66, 77, 110, 332, 439, 604, 612,


613, 625, 728, 731, 733, 739, 741

27,187,305,653

lunacy

324
446
211
256
..
..
..
..
503
0. 39, partnership
Ii7
..
..
..
0. 44, judicature
..
..
518
0. 51, S. L. E., 1890
..
173
e. 53, bankruptcy
..
..
..
..
c. 59, public health
186,211
..
..
..
561
c. 63, companies
..
.,
..
128
c. 70, housing of working classes
.,
..
c. 71, bankruptcy
386, 405, 608
40,224
54 & 55 Vict. c. 8, tithe
c. 85, bills of sale
173,211
308
c. 38, stamp duties
.,
..
..
..
..
..
0. 39, stamps
128, 204, 226, 509, 511, 668, 700
c. 73, mortmain
..
..
..
..
..
215
c. 76, public health
310,326,338,738
199, 385, 600, 693
55 & 56 Vict. c. 9, gaming
73
c. 10, short titles
c. 13, conveyancing
393
737
c. 19, statute law revision, 1892
c. 32, clergy discipline
432,489
c. 62, shop hours
..
..
125
..
..
..
..
..
..
590,731
56 & 57 Vict. c. 39, industrial societies
c. 54, S. L. E., 1893
254,325,332
21, inland revenue .
c. 29, intestacy
..
c. 35, boilers
c. 37, foreign jurisdiction
c.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

. .

. .

'

c.

61, public authorities protection .. 28, 104, 108, 109,


134, 284, 308, 358, 359,
360, 413, 510, 586

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES.

clxix
PAGE

56

&

57

& 58 Viot.

57 Vict.

married women's property


..
..
71, sale of goods

63,

c.
0.

supreme court

..

public office
24, wild birds
56, S. L. E., 1894

.,

0. 16,

..

102, 387
48, 70, 390, 511, 575

..

..

..

..

.;

..

..

..

579
87
290
27
719

o. 17,
c.

c.

animals ..
..
merchants shipping

o. 57,
0.

60,

..

57, 65, 111, 124, 127, ISi,

..

132, 151,
265, 268,
416, 485,
563, 569,
c.

&

58

59 Vict.

c.

33, fugitive criminals

c.

37, factory

c. 39,

& 60

59

Thames conservancy
London building
113,

clxxxvii,

c. ocxiii,

and workshop

summary

158, 199, 256,


276, 311, 359,
516, 517, 543,
653, 677, 684,
691, 720, 722
..

..

..

..

jurisdiction (married

45,550
410

..

..

..

women)

152, 396,

'73

Vict. c. 14, short titles

707

public health
25, friendly society

c. 19,
c.

&

60

61 Vict.

c.

61

& 62

Vict.

c.

11, bishop
Vict. 0. 4, solicitors

..

..

supreme court
London government

c. 6,

c. 14,

63

27, marriages
c. 51, food and drugs
64 Vict. c. 26, land charges

&

Ed.

VIL

..

c. 10,

133,507
124, 345, 346
245,309

..

..

..

. .

. .

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..''

c.

VIL

24, intoxicating liquors

..

..

..

musical copyright
..
42, education

..

..

..

housing of working classes


..
..
county courts

..

..

..

..

c. 36,
c,

39,

c. 42,

4 Ed.

VIL

5 Ed.

VIL

6 Ed.

VIL

..

motor cars

..

c.

wild birds
28, weights and measures

c.

11, railway fires

c. 4,

c. ccix,

London building

c.

extradition
16, justices

c.

32, dogs..

copyright

Digitized

187
640
215
251

.
322
69,411
290
426
628
..

"^
122
665
343
640

c. 15,

c. 36,

474
58
321

c. 15,

c.

3 Ed. VII.

185
738
438
147
322

499,586
307,410,492

embezzlement

c. 22, factories

2 Ed.

..

..

c.

..

65, land transfer


10, finance

c.

62 & 63

..

workmen's compensation

c. 37,

359

174, 285, 423, 445, 558,


585, 586, 636, 647, 688

by Microsoft

TABLE OP STATUTES.

Clxx

FAQK

6 Ed. VII.

c.47, trade disputes

48,

c.

c. 58,

7 Ed. VII.

c. 17,

18,
21,
c. 24,
c. 29,
c. 31,
c. 43,
0. 47,
c.

8 Ed. VII.

c.
c.

c.

..

merchant shipping
..
workmen's compensation

infants
..
adulteration
limited partnerships
patents
vaccination..
..

c.

incest

o.

post office
S. L. B., 1908

..

..

..

c. 8,

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

188

..

103, 107, 129,


163, 202, 203,
440, 655, 561,
619, 622, 669,
690, 691, 698, 717

48, 60,
130, 147,
316, 428,
592,

..

..

..

..

128
140

284,545,700

finance

Geo.-V.

..

371
298
261
..
..
393
..
..
290
103, 586, 645
..
486,716
..
..
106
129
322
162,652
140,689

distress

34, electric lighting


44, housing
..
1

..

247
525
285
424
503

..

companies (consolidation)

&

..55,345,346

..

c. 69,

10 Ed. VII.
10 Ed. VII.

..

..

poisons
children

c.

..

386,389,593

c. 67,

0.

..

probation of offenders, 1907

education ..
..
marriages ..
..
clxxi, water
..
..
11, wild birds
15, costs in criminal cases
28, agricultural holdings

45,
48,
0. 49,
o. 53,
c. 55,

9 Ed. VII.

..

territorial forces

c. 9,

c.

121
705
279, 534, 654; 720, 722

89, intoxicating liquors

0.

o.

23, 102, 111,


24, licensing (consolidation)
121, 125, 147, 179, 186, 187,
190, 192, 222, 231, 232, 294,

342, 361, 395, 490, 520,


565, 636, 734
1

&

2 Geo. V.

c.
o.
c.

2 & 3 Geo. V.

..
..
..
..
670
c. 35, finance
27, animals
361, 474
38, money lenders ..
..
..
..
^ ..
381
46, copyright
..
60,131,135,146,275,290,387,
480, 491, 556, 651, 716

c. 20,

criminal law
16, 19, 416, 517, 522,

31, pilotage
Geo. V. c. 27, forgery
o.

&4

c.

28,
c. 34,
o.

& 5 Geo. V.

146,343,486

mental deficiency
bankruptcy
..

37, national insurance


47, deeds of

c. 58,

arrangement

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

266,267,268
..
388,405

..

criminal justice administration

Digitized

653
553
537

..

c. 17, aliens
c.

256
619

by Microsoft

..

86, 664

TABLE OF STATUTES.

clxxi
PAGE

4 & 5 Geo. V.

c.

& 6 Geo. V.
6 & 7 Geo. V.
5

59,

bankruptcy

61, constables

c. 61,

government

0. 14,

summertime

& 8 Geo. V.

o.

33, 66, 70, 79, 100, 112, 114,


158, 197, 203, 212, 214, 223,
227, 249, 258, 267, 309, 320,
349, 357, 377, 386, 412, 421,
435, 470, 477, 542, 546, 568,
570, 576, 579, 608, 645, 648
..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

of

time, Ireland
50, larceny

c. 45,

c.

..

India

..
624
256,359
..
605
..

605

114,472,478,487,491,493,
498, 499, 586
..
..
..
686
25, courts (emergency powers)

c. 64,

..

representation of people

Digitized

by Microsoft

..
63, 70, 71, 130,
136, 137, 139, 153, 155,
165, 554, 577, 590, 710

Digitized

by Microsoft

ON THE

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
CHAPTEE
SECTION

I.

INTRODUCTORY.

I.

STATUTE is the will of the Legislature ; and


rule of interpretation, to which
fundamental
the
all

others are subordinate,

is

that a statute

is

to

be expounded " according to the intent of them


that made it " (a). And if the words of the
are

statute

in

themselves

biguous no more

precise

unam-

and

necessary than to expound

is

these words in their natural and ordinary sense,

the words themselves in such case best declaring


the intention of the Legislature

(b).

The

object

of all interpretation of a statute i? to determine

what intention is conveyed, either expressly


impliedly, by the language used, so far as

p.

(a)

4 Inst. 330; Sussex Peerage (1844), 11

(6)

Income Tax Commissioners

543

61 L.

J.

Q. B. 265

v.

[1902] 2

p.

778

E. 660, at

R 143.

47 L.
1, p.

J.

v.

Q. B. 193
;

I.S.

by Microsoft

Adanson
see also

Glass v. Patterson,

p. 667.

Digitized

is

Pemsel, [1891] A. 0. 534,

v.

Bridges (1847), 1 H. L. 0.

Ir.

&

Biver Wear Commissioners

(1877), 2 App. Oas. 743, at

Fordyce

01.

or

INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

necessary for determining whether the particular


case or state of facts presented to the interpreter
falls

within

the task

when

is

When

it.

the intention

is

expressed,

one of verbal construction only ; but

the statute expresses no intention on a

question to which

gives rise, and yet

it

some

must necessarily be imputed to the

intention

Legislature regarding

it,

the interpreter has to

by inference grounded on certain


The Act (a), for instance, which
imposes a penalty, recoverable summarily, on
every tradesman, labourer and other person who
carries on his worldly calling on a Sunday,
would give rise to a question of the former kind,
when it had to be determined whether the class
of persons to which the accused belonged was
determine

it

legal principles.

comprised in
questions

arise

out of the prohibition

offender indictable

marily

and,

is

as well

as

is

the

punishable sum-

the validity of a contract entered

into in contravention of the

On

But two other

the prohibition.

Act affected by

it ?

these corollaries or necessary inferences from

though silent,
must nevertheless be held to have entertained
some intention, and the interpreter is bound to
determine what it was.

its

enactment,

And

the Legislature,

in such case the interpretation

must be

that which best accords with the public benefit,


(a)

Sunday Observance

Digitized

Act, 1677 (29 Oar., 11 Ch. 7).

by Microsoft

LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.

thus where a statute imposes a penalty without


expressly stating to whom it is to be paid such
penalty by implication goes to the Crown

The

(a).

subject of the interpretation of a statute

seems thus to

fall

under two general heads

What

are the principles which govern the construction


of

the language of an Act of Parliament

What

and

which guide the interpreter


in gathering the intention on those incidental
points on which the Legislature is necessarily
presumed to have entertained an opinion, but on
which it has not expressed any ?
next,

are those

SECTION

The
tion

II.

LITERAL

CONSTRUCTION.

and most elementary rule of constructhat it is to be assumed that the words

first

is,

and phrases of technical legislation are used in


their technical meaning if they have acquired one,
and, otherwise, in their ordinary meaning and,
secondly, that the phrases and sentences are to
be construed according to the rules of grammar.
;

From

these presumptions

it

is

not allowable to

where the language admits of no other


meaning nor, where it is susceptible of another
meaning, unless adequate grounds are found,
either in the history or cause of the enactment
or in the context or in the consequences which
depart,

(a)

Bradlaugh

v.

Clarhe (1883), 52 L. J. Q. B. 505 (H. L.).

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTBKPRETATION OP STATUTES.

would result from the

literal interpretation, for

concluding that that interpretation does not give


the real intention of the Legislature (a). If there

nothing to modify, nothing to alter, nothing to


qualify, the language which the statute contains,

is

must be construed in the ordinary and natural


meaning of the words and sentences (b).
The great fundamental principle is

it

" In construing iWills, and indeed, Statutes


and all Written Instruments, the grammatical

and ordinary sense

words

of the

is

to be

adhered to, unless that would lead to absurdity,


some repugnancy or inconsistency with

or

the rest of the instrument

in

which case

the grammatical and ordinary sense of the

may

words

Bac. Ab. Statute

(a)

191, p. 195

506

be modified so as to avoid that

60 L.

Mallan

Maule

J.

Q. B. 89

May

v.

(I.)

46 E. E. 567

(1844),

Beche

Cox

134, per

59 E. E.

Lord Brougham
J.

Q. B. 105

J.

J.

(b) St.

v.

M.

5,

A.-G.

v.

B.

v. Millis,

Westminster

Ex. 886, per Jessel M.E.


153

B.

v. Castro (1874),

Clarke (1883), 52 L. J. Q. B.

Lord Fitzgerald; Mornsey

24 Q. B. D.
63 L.

Bradlaugh

H. L. Gas. 815

Cull v. Austin (1872), 41 L. J. 0. P.

505, per

M. & W.

Chambers Assoc. (1876), 45 L.

43 L.

McBougal v. Paterson, 21 L. J. 0. P. 27
13 M. & W. 511 67 E. E. 707 per

Jeffery v. Boosey (1854), 4

J.,

v. Smith, (1836),

Makes (1890), 15 App. Gas.

v.

per Lord Esher M.E.

v.
;

Monarch Bldg.

Soey.,

Travis v. Uttley (1893),

G. 48.

John, Hampstead v. Cotton (1886), 12 App. Gas. 6, per

Lord Halsbury L.O.

Digitized

by Microsoft

LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.

absurdity, repugnancy, or inconsistency, but

no further "

(a).

In repeating this canon in Abbott v. Middleton (6),


Lord Wensleydale said " This rule was in sub:

down by Mr.

stance laid

Loveland

burton V.

by

described

Jessep {d), as
as can be.'

(c).

Lord

It

if

we

as

common

sense as strong

'

Cardinal Eule,' from

we should launch

departed,

of difficulties

had previously been


EUenborough, in Doe v.

had been stated by Lord Cranworth

(when Chancellor)
which,

War-

It

a rule of

'

Justice Burton in

into a sea

and as the
not easy to fathom (e)
when applied to Acts of Parliament,
;

^Olifteit JSlule

by Jervis C. J., in Mattison v. Hart " (/), who there


states " we ought ... to give to an Act of Parliament the plain, fair, literal meaning of its words,

where we do not see from its scope that such


meaning would be inconsistent, or would lead to
manifold injustice."

When
(a)

the language

is

not only plain but admits

Per Lord Wensleydale, Grey

26:L. J. Ch. 481


(1886), 12 App.

see also Vestry

Gas., at p. 6,

v. Pearson,

St. John's,

6 H. L. Gas. 106

Eampstead

and note especially Bhodes

v.

v.

Cotton

Bhodes

(1882), 7 App. Gas. (P. G.) 192, at p. 205.


(5) (1858),

7 H. L. Gas. 114, 115

28 L.

Id)

12 East, 293.
Gtmdry v. Pinniger (1852), 1

(e)

21 L.

(/)

J.

Gh. 114.

Huds. & Bro. 648.

(c)

J.

De

G. M.

& G. 502;

Gh. 405.

(1854), 23 L. J. G. P. 108, at p. 114; 14 G. B. 385.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

can

of but one meaning, the task of interpretation

It is not allowable, says

hardly be said to arise.

what has no need of interpreta-

Vattel, to interpret

tion

Ahsoluta sententia expositore non indiget

(a),

Such language best

the

declares, without more,

intention of the lawgiver, and

decisive of

is

The Legislature must be intended


it

(h).

it (c).

mean what

to

has plainly expressed, and consequently there

no room

for construction {d).

is

matters not, in

It

what the consequences may be.


Where, by the use of clear and unequivocal
such

a case,

language capable of only one meaning, anything


is

enacted by the Legislature,

though

even
(a)

Law

(6)

2 Inst. 533.

(c)

Per Buller

of N., b. 2,

B.

J.,

&

(1844), 11 01.

Per Parke

{d)

(e)

J.,

v.

Lord Campbell, B.

Banbury, 1 A.

v.

V.

Co.,

V.

v. City

from the rule

Turner,

Sussex Peerage

395

& B. 142 per

Cur.,

of London Court, [1892]

laid

down by

M.E.

Jessel

per Lord Herschel, Mersey

[1893] A. C, at

v. Skeen, 28 L. J.

M.

C. 94

p.

477

per Jervis

per
C.J.,

Bale, 21 L. J. C. P. 104; per Pollock C.B., Miller

Salomons, 21 L. J. Ex. 197


&c.

95.

Ex. D. 227

Docks &c. Board

shoM

1 T. E. 96

U. S. v. Hartwell, 6 Wallace,

Per Lord Esher M.E., B.

The Alina,

Alley

(e).

v. Blight, 2 Oranoh, 399.

1 Q. B. 273, dissenting
in

Wheat.
B.

mischievous

263.

v. Hodnett,

P. 143

U. S. V. Wiltberger, 5

Fisher

s.

must be enforced,

absurd or

be

it

it

In re (1878), 48 L.

J.

Nicolls (1878), 3 A.

Moo. P. C.

9.

v.

per Lord Brougham, British Farmers


Ch. 56

C. 1004

affirmed su6. nom, Burkin;

Crawford

v.

Spooner, 6

See Sneedv. Commonwealth, 6 Dana, 339 (Kentuoky)_

Digitized

by Microsoft

LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.

The underlying

meaning

principle being that the

and intention of a statute must be collected from


plain and unambiguous expressions used
therein rather than from any notions which may
be entertained by the Court as to what is just or
expedient (a). If the words go beyond what was
probably the intention, effect must nevertheless
be given to them (b). They cannot be construed,
contrary to their meaning, as embracing or
exclU'ding cases merely because no good reason
appears why they should be excluded or emthe

However

braced (c).

receive its fuU effect

wisdom
Ghm/nne

(a)
p.

606
(6)

When

(d).

may

must
once the meaning
be,

it

not the province of a Court to scan

is plain, it is

its

or incon-

unjust, arbitrary

venient the meaning conveyed

or its

poHcy

Burnell (1839), 7 01.

v.

duty

Its

(e).

&

P. 572

not to

is

Coleridge

J.,

at

51 E. E. 43.

&

Notley v. Buch (1828), 8 B.

G. 164.

Hoare (1763), 2 Eden, 184, per Lord Northington


but see Companhia de Mocambique v. British South, Africa Co.,
[1892] 2 Q. B. 358, 0. A. and;perOur., Dmn v. Beid (1836), 10
(c)

Pike

V.

Peters, 524
(d)

an American case.

Ornamental Woodwork Co.

Martin B. and Bramwell B.


546, per Parke J.
Biffin V. Torke,
Co.,

41 L.

(e)

B.

J.

B.

v.

Poor

v.

Brown, 2 H. & C. 63, per

& E.
& E. 7
6?. W. B.

Mirehouse v. Bennell, 1 01.

Law

Commissioners, 6 A.

63 E. E. 337, per Erskine

J.

May

v.

Q. B. 104.

Per Lord Ellenborough, B.

V. Staffordshire,

Lord Mansfield

v.

12 East, 572; B.
B.

v.

Watson, 7 East, 214, and


v. Eodnett, 1 T.

Worcestershire, 3 P.

Digitized

by Microsoft

& D.

E. 100, per

465, per Lord

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.

make the law

according

stands,

it

words

expound

reasonable, but to

the

to

it

as

sense of the

real

(a).

Apparently, however, the statutory crystallisa-

common law

tion of an existing

in the absence

of express

new and extended


And where
obKgation (6).
Act

later

tion

it

specially
is

not,

effect,

application of that

there

general

are

and

capable of reasonable

sensible application without

subjects

wiU

words to that

create a

words in a

liability

extending them to

with by earlier legisla-

dealt

not to be held that such earlier and


either indirectly repealed,

special legislation is

altered or derogated from merely

by force of such

general words, without any indication of a particular intention to do so (c).

Moreover, although

the effect of repealing a statute


as completely as
rule

if it

to obliterate it

is

had never been passed

must be taken with the

this

qualification that it

does not deprive persons of vested rights acquired

Denman

per Bramwell B., Archer

Miller v. Salomons, 21
Attuoater,

v.

&

James, 2 B.

L. J. Ex. 197, per Pollock C.B.

5 Oh. D. 30, per James L.J.

S.
;

61

Exp.

Followed in Payne

Exp. Gross, In re (1879), 11 Ch. D. 539, note, p. 552.


(a) Biffin v. Yorke,

63 E. E. 337, jjer Oresswell

Plasterers Go. v. Parish Glerks Go., 20 L. J.


Tovell (1872), 42 L. J.

M.

G. 33

J.

Ex. 362

See
;

ex. gr.

Dennis v.

" The Merle " (1874), 31 L. T.

447.

Wear Gommissioners

(6)

Miver

(c)

Seward

v.

v.

Adamson

(1877), 2 A. 0. 743.

Vera Gruz (1884), 10 A. 0. 59, at

Digitized

by Microsoft

p. 68.

LITERAL OONSTRUOTION.

by them in actions duly determined under the


repealed law (a).

But although
spective
statute

that

as

retro-

unless the intention of the Legislature

should

be

construed

so

is

and unambiguous language (6),

in plain

where

vested

which

were

who have

divested,

lawful

when

made unlawful by

language

what was the

expressed
it

seems

and acts
done are

a statute, those

must give

effect

they are bound to do this even

when they suspect (on


the

are

to interpret the law

And

to it(c).

rights

perfectly

subsequently

when

principle

operation ought not to be given to a

it

that

general

conjectural grounds only)

does

not faithfuUy express

intention of the Legislature

real

passed the Act, or would have been

it

intention

if

its

the specific case had been proposed

"It may have been an oversight in the


framers of the Act," says Parke B., in one case,
" but we must construe it according to its plain
and obvious meaning " (c?). "Our decision," says
to

it.

(a)

Lemm

400 P. C.
Singer,

v. Mitchell

Comp. Sex

v.

(1912), 81 L.J. P. 0. 173; [1912] A. 0.

Southampton Income Tax Commissioners ;

(1916), 86

Exp.

L. J.

B. 66,

0.

A.;

[1917]

1 K. B. 259.
(6)

Tomig

v.

Adams, [1898] A. 0. 469, p. 476 (P. 0.)

Bourlt v.

Nntt, [1894] 1 Q. B. 725, C. A.


(c)

Midland B. Co.

(d)

Nixon

v.

Pye, 10 C. B. N. S. 179, per Erie G.J.

V. Phillips (1852),

Digitized

21 L.

J.

Ex. 88.

by Microsoft

10

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

Lord Tenterden, in

another

(a),

"may,

in this

particular case operate to defeat the object of the

Act

but

it is

better to abide

by

this consequence

than to put upon it a construction not warranted


by the words of the Act, in order, to give effect to

what we may suppose to have been the intention


of the Legislature." " I cannot doubt," says Lord
Campbell, in another
the Legislature was

been carried into

" what the intention of


but that intention has not

(b),

by the language used.


we should abide by the words

effect

It is far better that

of a statute, than seek to reform it according to

the supposed intention."

Abinger, in another

(c),

" The Act," says Lord


"has practically had a

very pernicious effect not at

we cannot

construe

it

all

contemplated ; but

according to that result."

In short, when the words admit of but one


meaning, a Court is not at liberty to speculate on
the intention of the Legislature, and to construe
them according to its own notions of what ought
to

Nothing could be more

have been enacted (d).

dangerous than to make such considerations the


(a)

Stohe

B.

V.

Barham, 8 B. & 0. 99

Damerel, 7 B. &

(b) Coe V. Lawrence,

22 L.

M. & W.

464.

see also per Bayley

B.

J.,

v.

J.

Q. B. 140.

M. & W. 395 Lochwood v. A.-G., 10


Per Lord Denman, B. v. Male (1835), 3 A. & B.

A.-G. V. Lochwood, 9

(c)

0. 569.

531.
(d)

225,

Per

Cur., Torh

&

N. Midlcmd By. Go.

and comp. The Queen

v.

Digitized

v. B.,

22 L.

J.

Q. B.

French (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 507.

by Microsoft

LITEEAL CONSTRUCTION.

11

ground

for construing an enactment that is unambiguous in itseK. To depart from the meaning
on account of such views is, in truth, not to con-

strue the Act, but to alter

But the business

it (a).

of the interpreter is not to improve the statute

it

to expound it.
The question for him is not
what the Legislature meant, but what its language
means (6); i.e. what the Act has said that it
meant (c). To give a construction contr,ary to,
or different from, that which the words import or

is,

can possibly import,


to

make it

o&ce

is

is

not to interpret law, but

and judges are to remember that their

jus didere, not jus dare{d).

Though

this rule appears so

frequently appealed to that


trate it

it is

obvious,

advisable to illus-

by some examples to show

and the
stance,

limits of its

its

the Judicature- Act, 1873,


of limitation

s.

general scope

Thus, for in-

application.

was repeatedly decided

it

so

it is

at

law (before

24) that the statutes

which enacted that actions should

not be brought after the lapse of certain periods


(a)

Per Lord Brougham, Choynne

Lord Westbury, Exp.


per Grove
(6)

burn

J.,

51 E. E. 42

33 L.

St. Sepulchre's (1863),

per

J.

Oh. 372

per Cock-

Allhins v. Jupe, 2 C. P. D. 375.

Wigram, Interp.
C.J.,

v. Burnell,

Palmer

v.

Wills, 5th ed., 1914, p. 7

3 Q. B.

Thatcher,

D. 353; per Lord

Coleridge, Coxhead v. Mullis, 3 C. P. D. 439.


(c)

(d)

Per Mathew

J.,

Bothschild

v. Inl.

Bev., [1894] 2 Q. B. 145.

Lord Bacon, Essay on Judicature.

Bodrigues

v.

Melhuish, 10 Ex. 116.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Per Pollock C.

B.,

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

12

from the time when the cause of action accrued,


barred actions brought after the time so limited,

though the cause

was not discovered

of action

or,

practically, discoverable by the injured party at

the date of accrual, or was even fraudulently concealed from the wrong-doer until the time limited

by the Act had expired (a). The hardship of such


decisions was obvious, but the language admitted
of no other construction.
So, if an Act provides

made within

that convictions shall be

a certain

period after the commission of the offence, a con-

would
be bad, although the prosecution had been begun
within the time Hmited, and the case had been
adjourned to a day beyond it, with the consent, or

viction

made

after the lapse of that period

even at the instance,


(a) Short

& B. 73

J.

McCarthy, 22 E. E. 503

Co.,

J.

Smith

Q. B. 138

Barley Main Colliery Co.


529.

As

68 L.

J. P. C.

49

v.

B.
V.

V.

Willis v.

Heard, 64 L.

Ch. 224.

As

J.

v. Gibbons,

Violett v.

26 L.

J.

Ex. 1

(1885, 1886), 55 L. J. Q. B.

v.

Barl Howe, 62 L.

Ch. 652.

to the effect

Comp. Chap. IX, Sec.


(6)

Hunter

Oelhers v. Ellis, [1914] 2 K. B. 139

enemy, see Halsey

Pellew

Fox, 77 E. E, 152

to concealed fraud, see Bulli Coal Co. v. Osborne (1899),

and Thome
J.

v.

v. Mitchell

Guild, 51 L. J. Q. B. 313

52 L.

Brown v. Howard, 2 Brod.

Q. B. 378

Sympson, 27 L.

So,

(6).

BucMe, 58 E. E. 834
Imperial Gas Co. v.
23 L. J. Ex. 803 Bonomi v. Backhovse (1856),

Golvin v.

London Gas
27 L.

v.

defendant

of the

J.

See also Kirh

upon the contracts

of

Gibbs

v.

Oh. 690
v.

an

Todd,
alien

[1916] 2 K. B. 707, G. A.

Lowenfeld,
II.

Bellamy, 1 B.

&

C. 500;

Wonford, 9 B. & C. 134

Digitized

B.

v. Tolley,

3 East, 467;

Farrell v. Tomlinson, 5 Bro.

by Microsoft

LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.

when an Act gave

13

by an
the making

to persons aggrieved

order of justices a certain period, after

of the order, for appealing to the Quarter Sessions,


it

has been held that the time ran from the day

on which the order was verbally pronounced, not


from the day of its service on the aggrieved
person (a). Even when the order was made behind his back, as in the case of stopping up a
road, the time ran from the same date,* and not
from the day on which he got notice of

it (6),

notwithstanding the manifest hardship and

in-

from such an enactment (c).


And as a general proposition of law the rule laid
down by Lord Halsbury in Leader v. Duffey for the

justice resulting

construction of wUls applies d fortimi to the conof

struction

statutes,

consequently "whatever

must receive a construction


according to the plain meaning of the words and

the instrument,

it

sentences therein contained

and

it is

arguing in

a vicious circle to begin by assuming an intention


apart from the language of the instrument

P. 0. 438

27 L.
(a)

19 L.

Adam

J.

M.

B.

V. Derbyshire,

J.

M.

2 A. & B. 389

B.

v.

0. 278.

G. 127

Barnet, 45 L.

134.

v. Bristol,

itself.

J.

Gomp. B.

M.
v.

7 Q. B. 193

B.

v.

HuntingdonsUre (1850),

Exp. Johnson, 32 L.
C. 105

Nutter

v.

Shrewsbury, 22 L. J.

M.

East, 151.

(6)

B.

(c)

Per Lord EUenborough,

V. Staffordshire, 3

J.

Digitized

M.

0. 193

Moorhouse (1904), 68

Id. 153.

by Microsoft

C. 98.

B.

v.

J.

P.

INTBBPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

14

and, having made that fallacious assumption, to


bend the language in favour of the assumption so

made " (a).


Where an Act ordained that no converted
Papist should be deemed a Protestant unless he
received the sacrament, took the abjuration oath,

and

filed certain certificates

within 6 months from

his declaring himself a Protestant, a

compKance

iiffcer that period was held too late (b).


The Welsh Sunday Closing Act, 1881, being
fixed to come into operation on the day "next

one day

appointed" for the annual hcensing meeting, was


by a literal construction postponed for a year later
than was, in

all

probability, intended

but the

Court refused to avert this result by any departure


from the primary meaning of the words (c). The
tor to sign his will

which requires, s. 9, a testa"in the presence" of two

been

construed as meaning the

Wills Act, 1837


witnesses, has

(d),

actual visual presence


Leader

(a)

v.

And prior to the passing

(e).

Buffey (1888), 13 A. C. 294, at p. 301.

See also

Scale V. Bawlins, [1892] A. G. 342.


(h) Farrell v. Tomlinson,

mud

Bichards

(c)

v.

1 Vict.

(e)

In
In

As
re,

re,

c.

26,

s. 9.

Brown

Ch. 502.

[1917] 1 Ch. 620.

Digitized

J.

M.

0. 15.

26.

e.

v. Shirrow,

to the effect of foreign domicile

[1916]

See also Mohum-

App. 167.

McBride (1881), 51 L.

{d) 7 Will. IV., 1 Vict.

19.

5 Bro. P. 0. 438.

V. Bareilly, L. E. 1 Ind.

As

See also

71 L.

on

s.

J.

P. D.

&

A.

9, see Simpson,

Wilkinson's Settlement,

to nuncupative wills in case of

by Microsoft

LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.
of 38

&

39 Vict.

15

which repealed 5
0. 4, s. 25, it was held that if an Act of
Parliament provided that no deed of apprenticeship should be vaUd unless signed and sealed byc. 86,

s.

17,

Eliz.

justices of the peace, the omission of the seal

be

would

fatal to the validity of the

instrument (a). So,


an Act authorises orders of commitment "in
open Court," an order not in the Court, but signed

if

in another part of the building also


public,

would be invalid

provided by

s.

21

(1) of

{b),

the

open to the

and generally

Summary

it is

Jurisdic-

Act (other than a purely


such as the signing of summons,

tion Act, 1879, that any


ministerial act,

must be heard, tried, determined or adjudged


in open Court.
The Bills of Sale Act, 1878,
requiring an affidavit of the due attestation as weU
&c.)

as of the execution of the deed, the omission in the

former to mention the attestation was held

fatal,

although the attestation clause of the deed asserted


It

it (e).

would not be open to the

sailors or soldiers killed in action, see JoTin


of,

interpreter, in

Wardrop, in the

estate

[1917] P. 54.
(a)

Tiam,

B.

Damerel, 7 B. & C. 563.

V. Stohe

2 Bott. 363

B.

v.

See also B.

Margram, 5 T. E. 153

B.

v.

Melling-

v. St. Peter's,

& Ad. 916 B. v. St. PauVs, 10 B. & 0. 12 B. v. Staffordshire,


23 L. J. M. 0. 17.
Kenyan v.
(b) Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62), s. 5
B.

Eastwood, 57 L.
(c)

Ford

attestation

V.

J.

Q. B. 455.

Kettle,

by a

51 L.

solicitor is

Digitized

J.

Q. B. 558.

avoided by

s.

by Microsoft

The

necessity for

10 of 45 & 46 Vict.

16

INTEEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

such cases, to shut his eyes to the formalities

deemed them unimportant, or


because a hardship or failure of justice might
required, because he

result, in the particular case before

him, from a

neglect of any of them.

An

Act which enacted that a

43.

Attestations

was to deliver
up his licence to the pilotage authorities " whenever required to do so," would call for implicit
obedience to the letter, however arbitrarily the
power which it conferred might be misused, and
although the withdrawal of the licence would in
effect amount to a dismissal of the pilot from his
The Prescription Act, 1832,
employment (a).
making easements "indefeasible" which were
enjoyed for a number of years " next before some
suit or action wherein the claim or matter " was
brought in question, was held to leave the title to
the easements inchoate only, no matter how long
they had been uninterruptedly enjoyed, until a
c.

may now

be

made

pilot

" by one or

more

credible

witness or witnesses not being a party or parties thereto."

As

to the Act of 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 43), s. 9 ; Thomas v. Kelly


See also
(1888), 13 App. Cas., per Lord Halsbury, p. 511.

Parsons

v.

L. J. Q. B.

59 L.

J.

Brand, 59 L.

Q. B. 189

J.

Comp. Bird

See other illustrations in Be

8.

Ch. 73

Sims

v.

New

v.

Davey, 60

Eberhardt

Co.,

Trollope (1897), 66 L. J. Q. B. 11

Lester v. HicMing, [1916] 2 K. B. 302.


-

(o)

Henry

v.

M. C. 57.
the power of the

Newcastle Trinity House (1858), 27 L.

Sec. 20 (2) of 2

& 3 Geo. V.

c.

31, limits

J.

Pilotage Authority in this matter to certain specified cases.

Digitized

by Microsoft

LITERAL OONSTEUOTION.
suit or action

was brought, when the

into a complete right

&

45

17

46 Vict.

Prior to the passing of

(a).

20,

c.

ripened

title

s.

(which

altered

the

Act which provided that if the


occupier assessed to a rate ceased to occupy before
the rate was wholly discharged, the overseers

law), the earlier

should enter his successor in the rate book, and


the outgoer should not be liable for more than his

due proportion, did not relieve such outgoer from


the rest of the rate, when the premises remained
unoccupied after his removal (&).

An enactment

that a magistrate might, on the

summon

application of the mother of a bastard,

putative father for

its

months from

maintenance, within 12

its

would not authorise a

birth,

its

second magistrate to issue a second

summons

the expiration of the 12 months, merely

after

because the

first

summons could not be

served by

reason of the defendant having absented himself,

and could not be renewed

(o) 2

&

3 Will. IV.

[1904] A. 0. 179,

c.

71

Levet
(6)

L. J.

Home &

at pp. 189,

Cooper

v.

Hyman v. Van Den Bergh, 77 L.


V. Gas Ught & Cohe Go. (1918), 35
32 & 33 Vict.

M.

0. 23.

c.

B.

V.

41,

s.

16

iS**.

Simphin

v.

Colonial Stores,

190

Wright

Hubbuch, 31 L.
J.

Oh. 154.

P.

See also

v. Hutchinson,

Marsden

49

v. Saville

Birmingham, L. E. 7 Q. B.

Liverpool Justices, 62 L. J.

M.

0. 114.

I.S.

Digitized

J. 0.

v.

T. L. E. 47.

Werburgh

See, as otlier illustrations,

Foundry, 3 Ex. D. 203

482

Colls v.

Lord Macnaghten

Williams (1836), 46 E. E. 265

323;

or continued, because

by Microsoft

18

INTEBPEETATION OP STATUTES.

the justice

who had

issued

it

had died

(a).

And

as the same enactment required the justices to

hear the evidence of the mother at the hearing,

and such other evidence as she might produce,


and, if her evidence was corroborated, to adjudge
the man to be the putative father, it was held that
no order could be made against the putative father
when the mother could not be examined, having
died after the summons and before the hearing (b).
"Where an Act (c) prohibits the removal of a conviction by Certiorari to the Supreme Court, that
writ cannot be issued (the justices having jurisdic-

even

tion)

for the purpose of bringing

up a case

stated by justices for the opinion of the Court

although the object of such a prohibition

is

to

prevent convictions being quashed for technical


defects, but not to exclude the jurisdiction of the

Supreme Court, when consulted on a substantial


question which the justices themselves have
raised (d). An Act which imposed a penalty on
any person who pUoted a ship in the Thames
before he was examined and admitted a Trinity
House pilot, was held not to reach one who had
been expelled from the Society
(o) 7

&8

Vict.

c.

101

B.

v.

after

Pich/ord (1861), 30 L. J.

133.

Armitage (1872), 42 L.

(b)

B.

(c)

12 & 13 Vict.

(d)

B.

V.

c.

92,

s.

V. Chantrell (1875),

Digitized

examination

J.

M.

C. 16.

26.

U L.

J.

M.

0. 94.

by Microsoft

M.

0.

LITERAL CONSTEUOflON.

and admission

&

12 Vict.

c.

(a).

19

The Indian Insolvent Act, 11

21, wliich required the insolvent to

and provided
that his discharge should be a bar to all demands,
like a certificate under the bankruptcy laws in
England, was held to bar a debt which had not
been included in the schedule, and the creditor
file

a schedule of

all

his creditors,

had consequently been deprived by the neglect or


design of his debtor of the opportunity of opposing

where an Act gave an


appeal to the next session, and directed that " no
appeal should be proceeded upon " if it was found
by the session that no reasonable notice had been
the discharge

So,

(6).

given, but should be adjourned to the next session,

the

appellant was

secure delay by

enabled to

omitting to give any notice, so that the session


could not find that " reasonable notice " had been

In these two cases the construction


worked an injustice and enabled a person to td,ke
given

(c).

(a) Pierce

2 & 3 Geo. V.

v.
c.

Hopper (1720),

1-

31, subjects a pilot

Sec. 48 (d)

Stra. 249.

who

of

acts during suspension

to a penalty not exceeding 100.


(6)

Exp. Parhury (1861), 30 L. J. Ch. 518

Comp. Wesson

v.

Alcard, 22 L. J. Ex. 45.


(c)

9 Geo.

I.

c.

JR. v.

Bucks, 3 East, 342

B.

v. Stafford-

8 E. E. 668, The better law, however, at the present day


appears to be that an appellant cannot by any conduct on his
part make impracticable the sessions which otherwise would be
aJtire,

the next practicable sessions;

6 Q. B. D. 100, at

p. 107,

-R.

and see B.

Digitized

v.

Surrey Justices (1880),

v. Sussex,

by Microsoft

34 L.

J.

M. C.

69,

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

20

but
advantage of his own wrong or neglect (a)
the language of the Legislature admitted of no
;

other construction.

The Act which required members

of Parliament,

before voting in the House, to take the abjuration


oath in a form which concluded with the declaration that

it

was taken " on the true

faith of a

Christian," received a literal construction, which

had the

effect of

excluding Jews from Parliament

although the history of the enactment showed


that it was intended to test the loyalty, not the

member, and was directed

religious creed, of the

Roman

solely to the exclusion of

Catholics

and

though those who refused to take the oath would


have been deemed Popish recusants, and liable to
banishment as such (6). So the plain language of
the Test and Corporation Acts of Charles II.,
though the first of them was really aimed only at
the actual holders of

Roman

Catholics,

Protestant

and the second at

oflBLces,

had the

effect of disqualifying

Dissenters from public

Where an Act

disqualified

from

employment.

killing

game

all

persons not possessing land of a certain value,


(a)

See Chap. VIII, See. III.

(h) 1

161

Geo.

2,

c.

13

Miller

v.

Salomons, 21 L.

J.

Ex.

Salomons v. Miller, 8 Ex. 778. Jews were


from having to take the oath " on the true faith of a

Christian "
to

St.

22 Id. 169

relieved

As

I.

by 21 & 22 Vict.

Eoman Catholics, see

Digitized

c.

49,

amended by 23 & 24 Vict. c. 63.


c. 7, & 30 & 31 Vict. c. 62.

10 Geo. IV.

by Microsoft

LITERAL CONSTRUOTION.

21

except the heir apparent of an esquire or other


person of higher degree, it was held that esquires

not possessed of the requisite property quahfioation


were not excepted. However strange it might

seem that the Legislature should refuse them the


which it had granted to their eldest
sons (a), it was held to be safer to adopt what the
Legislature had actually said rather than to conjecture what they had meant to say (b).
So,
until 1875 under an Act which qualified for the
privilege

magistracy owners

in immediate

remainder or

reversion of lands leased for two or three lives,

was held that a remainderman expectant on


life in possession was
not qualified, as there was no lease. There was
perhaps no good reason why the quahfioation
should not have been extended to such a remainderman, but there was no actual absurdity, incon-

it

the death of a tenant for

venience, or injustice in the omission

(c).

The

which provides that


a candidate may undertake any duties which any
agent of his, if appointed, might have performed,
and may assist his agent in the performance of
such duties, and " may be present at any place
at which his agent may, in pursuance of the Act,

rule in the Ballot Act, 1872,

(a) Jones v.

Smart (1785), 1 T. E. 44.

(6)

Per Ashurst

(c)

18 Geo.

J., Id.

II. c.

See 38 & 39 Vict.

c.

20

51

Woodward y.

Watts, 22 L. J.

54.

Digitized

by Microsoft

M.

0. 149,

INTBBPEETATION OF STATUTES.

22

was construed

attend,"

literally

as

authorising

the presence of the candidate absolutely, and not


only in the event of his undertaking the duties

though it was
construction gave a barren

agent or assisting him;

of his

conceded that

this

and useless, or even mischievous, right against


which the other provisions of the Act seemed to
militate

(a).

A statute which

a Court of Bequests

person residing in a town or navi-

summon any

to

empowered

by leaving the summons at


his abode, and to proceed ex parte if he did not
appear, was held to justify ex parte proceedings
against a seafaring man who had for months before
the summons, and during the whole of the progating from

its port,

been absent beyond the seas

ceeding,

(6).

So,

where an Act authorised justices to hear bastardy


cases on proof that the summons had been served
at the last place of abode of the putative father,

was held that they had jurisdiction in a case


where the latter was abroad, and had had no
cognizance of the summons (c). The Carriers Act,
it

(a)

Clementson

v.

Mason, 44 L.

J. 0.

P. 171.

See per Brett

J.,

Id. 217.
(6)

Guherson

(c)

B.

22 L.

J.

V.

v.

M.

& E. 753.
M. 0. 21. See also B. v. Bams,
Higham (1857), 26 L. J. M. 0. 116.

Melton, 12 A.

Bamarell,.31 L.
C. 143

B.

J.

v.

Comp. B. V. Smith (1875), L. E. 10 Q. B. 604.


that in bastardy a

summons cannot be

Digitized

It

should be noted

served on the alleged

by Microsoft

LITERAL CONSTRUCTION ILLUSTRATED.

1830

which exempted a common

(a),

23

carrier

from

the loss of or injury to certain classes

liability for

value was

and
insured (6), was construed literally as exempting
him from liability, even when the loss was owing
goods

of

the

unless

declared

to his negligence, so long as such negligence did

not amount to a wilful misfeasance, or a wrongful


act inconsistent with his character of carrier

The

provisions of

Licensing Act, 1872 (repld.

Licensing Act, 1910), requiring intoxicating

69,

s.

s. 8,

liquors, sold

by

retail.

not in cask or bottle or

quantities less than half a pint, to

in

(c).

be sold

marked according to the imperial


standard, would be violated by the sale of beer,

in measures

even at the request of the customer, in a vessel


containing one-third of a quart, there being no
imperial measure answering to that quantity (c?).

The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, which


empowered by s. 50 (repld. by 46 & 47 Vict,
49) a judge to order either party to a cause

c.

to produce

documents upon the application of the

putative father out of England, B.

Lightfoot (1856), 20 J. P,

v.

677.

Wm.

(a)

11 Geo. IV.

&

(6)

Doey

&

N. W. By.

also L.
(c)

N.

K
(d)

&

v.

L.

N. W. By. Go.

Einton

v.

IV.

c.

68.

Co.,

v. Aahton,

Dihbin (1842), 57

By. Co. (1876), 45 L.

35 & 36 Vict.

c.

94

Digitized

J.

[1919] 1 K. B. 623.

[1919]

W.

E. E.

See

N. 234,
Morritt

754;

Q. B. 289.

Payne

v.

Thomas, 60 L.

by Microsoft

J.

M.

0.

3.

v.

24

INTEEPRBTATION OF STATUTES,

own

other party supported by his

was

affidavit,

held not to authorise an order on the affidavit


of another person in its stead

(a),

party

(&).

absent beyond seas

is

Act, by

s.

60 (repld. by 46

empowering a judgment

&

even though the

And

the same

47 Vict.

c.

49), in

obtain an

creditor to

order for the examination of his debtor, was held

not to authorise the examination of the directors

when

the debtor was a corporate body

the Solicitors Act, 1860, 23

& 24 Vict.

which authorises the imposition

127,

c.

of a

So,

(c).
s.

28,

charge for

costs on property "recovered or preserved" {d)

through the instrumentality of a solicitor, was


held not to authorise such a charge where the

was

an invasion of the
was a suit not respecting
property, but respecting an easement merely, or
the mode in which it was enjoyed (e) nor to a
case where the proceedings had not gone beyond
a decree for an account, and the parties had then
compromised without the knowledge of the solicitor
suit

to prevent or stop

right to light

for this

of the party

who thereby

(o) Christopherson

Kingsford

v.

v.

did recover property (/).

Lotinga,

33 L.

J.

Eerschfield v. Glarh (1856), 25 L. J.

(c)

Diclcson v.

As

to

Gomp.

G. W. B. Co., 33 L. J. C. P. 307.

(6)

(d)

C. P. 121;

Neath

what

&

Ex. 113.

Brecon B. Co. (1869), 38 L.

constitutes recovery

J.

Ex. 57.

and preservation, see

Wingfield v. Wingfield, [1919] 1 Ch. 462.


(e)

Foxon

v.

Gascoigne, 43 L. J. Gh. 729.

(/) Pinherton

v. Hasten,

Digitized

42 L.

J.

Oh. 878.

by Microsoft

Comp. Moxon

v.

NO ADDITION OR

OMISSION.

25

direction on his deathbed by the holder of a

promissory note that

it should be destroyed as
soon as found, was held not " an absolute and
unconditional renunciation of his rights" on the

note within

And a like

s.

62, Bills of

Exchange Act, 1882

(a).

rule applies where, without renunciation

in writing, the bill is given

up to a third party

(6).

It is but a corollary to the general rule in ques-

be added to or to be taken
from a statute, unless there are similar adequate
tion, that

nothing

is to

grounds to justify the inference that the Legislature intended something which it omitted to
express

(c)

"it

is

a strong thing to read into an

Act of Parliament words which are not there, and,


in the absence of clear necessity, it is a wrong

"we

thing to do "(d);

are not entitled to read

words into an Act of Parliament unless clear


reason for it is to be found within the four corners
of the

Act

itself " (e).

Sheppard, 59 L. J. Q. B. 286, where


Court.
(a)

money had been

See also Be Wadsworth, 54 L.


45 & 46 Vict.

61

c.

(6)

Edwards

(c)

Seeder Tindal

v. Walters,

Be

J.

George, 59 L. J. Oh. 709.

[1896] 2 Ch. 157, C. A.

v.

Westbury, Exp.

Sepulchre, 33 L. J.

Estate, 31 L. J. Ch.

See also
{d)
(e)

inf.

M. & Gr. 277; per


29; per Lord

O.J., Everett v. Wells, 2

Lord Eldon, Dams


St.

paid into

Oh. 638.

Marlborough, 53 E; E.

351.

Chap. IX, Sec.

Camp.

Be

Ch. 375

Cherry's

Per Lord Mersey, Thompson

v. Goold,

79 L.

by Microsoft

K. B. 911.

J.

Per Lord Lorebum L.C., Vickers v. Evans, 79 L.

Digitized

Be

Wainwright, 1 Phil. 258.

J.

K. B.955.

26

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.

But where a

Act

section of a public

is

incor-

porated in a private Act the subsequent repeal


of the public

Act

will

not repeal the section inter-

polated in the private Act

(a).

case not provided for in a statute

is

not to

be dealt with merely because there seems no good


reason

why

should have been omitted, and the

it

omission appears consequently to have been unThus, a Divorce Act, which provided

intentional.

that any order

made

for

the protection of the

woman might be
who made it, was

earnings of a deserted married

discharged by the magistrate

held not to empower his successor to discharge

though the magistrate who had made it was


dead (b), and this rule is of general application (c).
An Act which authorises the removal of lunatics
to a hospital when there is no lunatic asylum

it,

in the county,

established

does

not

authorise

such a removal when a county asylum


but

so full as to

is

(a)

JenMns

(6)

20 & 21 Vict.

ss.

7-9

Burrell,

B.

V.
(c)

v. Gt. Central
c.

85,

s.

By. (1912), 81 L.

K. B. 24.

WanUyn

v.

72 E. E. 545;

Woollett,

Ashhurton, 8 Q. B. 871.

Eiggs

v.

Schroeder (1877), 47 L. J. Q. B. 426

Boodle, 16 L. J. C. P. 135

Owen

J.

amended by 21 & 22 Vict. o. 108,


5 B. & S. 322. See also Nettleton v.

21,

Exp. Sharpe (1864),

66 E. E. 658;

exists,

be unable to receive another

V.

Henshaw

Nind

v. Arthur, 7

(1877), 47 L. J. Ch. 267

(1877), 2 C. P. D. 362.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Newton

v.

D. & L. 252

Gatlow v. Gatlow

NO ADDITION OR OMISSION,
lunatic

was

It

(a).

27

one time held that

at

if

an Act

requires that a writ, on renewal, shall be sealed with

a seal denoting the date of renewal, a copy of the


writ cannot be substituted for the original for this

purpose,

when the

original

now provided by Order 8, E.


a writ of which production
lost,

lost (6), but it

is

is

that " where

S.

C, r.

is

necessary, has been

3,

the Court or a judge, upon being satisfied of

and of the correctness of a copy thereof,


may order that such copy shall be sealed and
served in Keu of the original writ." So, also, it
was held under the repealed Act 26 & 27 Vict. c.
29, s. 7, which enacted that answers made to an
election commission should not be admitted in
evidence in any proceeding except in cases of

the

loss,

" indictment " for perjury, left such answers excluded in " informations " for perjury filed by the
Similarly, an Act requiring
"
notice of action for
anything done " by a person

Attorney- General

(c).

was held not to


extend to actions for words spoken in the execuand the provisions of the County
tion of it (d)

in the execution of his office,

(o)

B.

V. Ellis (1844),

provided for by
(&)

15 & 16 Vict.

(c)

B.

V. Slater

Viet. 0. 51,
(d)

11

s.

59,

& 12

Boyal Aquarium

This contingency

6 Q. B. 501.

is

now

68 of the Lunacy Act, 1890.

s.

c.

76

Bavies

v.

Garland, 45 L. J. Q. B. 137.

(1881), 51 L. J. Q. B. 246, and see 46

and Schedule

Vict.
v.

c.

44,

s.

4.
9,

repealed by S. L. E., 1894,

Parkinson, 61 L. J. Q. B. 409.

Digitized

& 47

by Microsoft

28

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

Court Act, 1888, which require certain formalibe gone through before bringing an action

ties to

against the

do not extend to a motion by a

bailiff,

up by the

trustee in bankruptcy for the delivery


bailiff of

property seized

When

the

(a).

Common Law

Procedure Act, 1852,

abolished the writ of distringas without providing

on lunatics in confinement

for the service of a writ

and inaccessible,

was found that no actions


could be prosecuted against them (J). So, when
it

extra-parochial places were

made

rateable, without

enactments which required

either repealing the

that a copy should be afSxed on or near the doors

making any
was held, where

of all the churches in the parish, or

other provision for publication,

it

there was no church in the extra-parochial place,


that a rate aflSxed on a church door fifty yards

from the boundary was invalid for want of publication


51

(a)

(c).

&52

&

Vict.

W. & M.

43,

c.

s.

50;

which required

20,

c.

Be Loch

(1890), 63 -L. T. 320.

Sec. 2 of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56


Vict.

c.

much

61) repeals so

of

& 57

any public Act, including the

County Courts Act, as contains a provision that notice

of action

shall be given.
(6)

Holmes

Maggs, 28 L.

(1854), 24 L, J. C. P. 24

v. Service

J.

Ex.

See

5.

s.

17 of the

Act, but see Judic. Act, 1875,


(c)

51 L.

17 Geo.
J,

M.

II. c. 3,

C. 104

and 1
s.

and Ord. 9
Vict.

4 of 45

difficulty discovered in this

Digitized

Williamson v.

Common Law

c.

& 46

and cdgnate

(5),

45

B.

Vict.

cases.

by Microsoft

Procedure

E. S. C.
v.
c.

Byott (1882),

20, avoids the

NO ADDITION OR

29

OMISSION.

that judgments should be docketed, enacted that

undocketed judgments should not affect lands as


regarded purchasers or mortgagees, or have preference against heirs or executors
c.

11, abolished docketing,

&

3 Vict,

and enacted that no

judgment should have effect unless registered


but it made no provision for the protection of
heirs and executors.
Though this was perhaps an
oversight, resulting in hardship on an executor
who had paid simple contract debts without keep;

ing suScient assets to meet an unregistered judg-

ment

which he had no notice, the Court refused


to supply the omission (a).
These were all casus
omissi which the Court could not reach by any
of

recognised canons of interpretation.

Where an Act

authorised the apportionment of

the cost of making a sewer, without limiting any

time for the purpose, the Court refused to read


the Act as limiting the exercise of the power to a
reasonable time

21 Jac.

(b).

I. c.

16,

having pro-

vided that the Statute of Limitation should not

run while the


4 & 5 Anne, c.

plaintiff

was beyond the

seas,

and

having made a similar provision


where the defendant was abroad, s. 7, 3 & 4 W. IV.
c. 42, enacted that no part of the United Kingdom

is

16,

(o) Fuller v.

Bedman

remedied by

s.

(6)

Bradley

v.

(1859), 29 L. J. Oh. 324

3 of 23

& 24

this mischief

Vict. c. 38.

Greenwich Board of Works (1878), 47 L.

111.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.

M. C.

30

INTEBPKETATION OF STATUTES.

should be deemed " beyond the seas " within the

meaning of the former Act, but made no mention


of the latter Act
and it was held that. 3 & 4 W. IV.
;

42, could not be stretched to include the latter

0.

Act

may have been no good reason for


the new enactment to the Act of

There

(a).

thus limiting

James; but there was no

ground either
the consequences

sufficient

in the context or in the nature of


resulting from the

omission, for concluding that

Anne was intended to be included. So


when the Married Women's Property Act, 1870

the Act of

(repealed with certain savings by 46


s. 2),

empowered a married

making her

liable to

action lay against her

woman

be sued,

c.

75,

to sue, without

was held that no

Sec. 11, Habitual Crimi-

(&).

nals Act, 1869 (repealed

it

& 46 Vict.

by 34

&

35 Vict.

c.

112),

in enacting that upon a trial for receiving stolen

goods, a previous conviction for any offence involving dishonesty should be

admissible against the

prisoner as evidence of his having received with


guilty knowledge, provided that notice

were given

him that the conviction would be put in


evidence " and that he would be deemed to have

to

known

that the goods were stolen until he proved

the contrary," omitted, however, to enact substan(a)

Lane

v.

N. C. 584, and see


(6)

33

M. & W. 70 Battershy v. Kirk, 2 Bing.


Mather v. Brown (1876), 1 0. P. D. 596.

Bennett, 1

& 34

Vict.

c.

93,

s.

11; Hancocks

L. J. 0. P. 514.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

LaUache, 47

NO ADDITION OK OMISSION.
that

tively

conviction

this

should be given to the

effect

and

31

was held that the omission


could not be supplied (a). Without such an
emendation, the notice was incorrect and misleading; but it did not lead to any injustice or
;

it

inconvenience or other mischievous consequence.

Although the

Bills of Sale Act, 1878, required that

the execution of

every

sale should be
"
attested by a solicitor, and that
the attestation

of

bill

should state" that the instrument was explained

by the solicitor to the grantor before execution, it


was held that no explanation was required for
the Act did not expressly enact that an ex;

planation
that

should

be

given

it

been given

(b).

only

required

had
Again, although the Bankruptcy

the attestation should assert

that

it

Act, 1869, provided for securing for the general

body of creditors the proceeds of goods of a debtor


sold in execution, it made no express provision for
dealing with his goods when seized under an elegit
and it was held that the omission, however fatal
to the whole policy of the Act, could not be supby any stretch of judicial interpretation

plied

(a)
(6)

Vict.

B.

V.

Davis (1872), L. E. 1 0. 0. E. 272.

Eepaaled as regards attestation by


c.

43,

(c).

s.

10

Exp. National Merc.

solicitor

Bank

by 45 & 46

(1880), 49 L. J,

Bank. 62.

c.

(c)

Exp. Ahbott, 50 L.

52,

s.

146.

J.

Oh. 80.

Cured by 46 & 47

See also Be Hutchinson (1885), 55 L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.

Vict.

Q. B. 582.

INTBEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

32

a Eailway Act provided that the company, while in possession, under the Act, of lands

Where

liable

to assessment to

parochial rates, should,

works were completed and liable to


assessment, be bound to make good the deficiency

until

its

in thfe parochial assessment

by reason of the land

was held, at first, that the


company was bound to make good the deficiency
in any one of the parishes through which the line

having been taken,

it

was completed within the


parish (a); but this construction was rejected by
the House of Lords, who held that when the company have completed and are actually working a
line, or part of a line, within any parish, the
company can claim, and is liable, to be assessed in
ran, only until the line

respect of the actual letting value of the line, or

part of a line, so completed and actually worked,

whether it be or be not as valuable as the assessable


property for which it is substituted, and whether
the whole of the line of railway authorised by
their Act of Parliament has or has not been
completed (6). So s. 49, Bankruptcy Act, 1869,
which enacted that " an order of discharge shall
not release the bankrupt from any debt or

liability

incurred by means of any fraud or breach of trust,"


(a)

424;

Whitechurch
see also

v.

B.

East London By.

v.

Co.,

L. E. 7 Ex. 248,

Metrop. Bistr. By. Co., 40 L. J,

M.

113.
(6)

East London By. Go.

Digitized

v.

Whitechurch, L. E. 7

by Microsoft

H. L.

81.

G.

NO ADDITION OB OMISSION.

33

was held not to be confined to a fraud or breach. of


trust committed by the bankrupt personally; for
such a construction could only have been put
upon the words either by reading "his" instead

"any"

of

before the words "fraud or breach, of


trust," or by adding the words " committed by
him " after them (a).

which would leave without


any part of the language, would be rejected,
unless justified on similar grounds (6).
Thus,
where an Act plainly gave an appeal from one
Quarter Sessions to another, it was observed that
such a provision, though extraordinary and perhaps an oversight, could not be eliminated (c).
construction

effect

32

&

which gives to certain County


Courts power to try claims under i6300, arising out
of " any agreement in relation to the use or hire
33 Vict.

51,

c.

of a ship," or in relation to the carriage of goods,

with an appeal to the Court of Admiralty, and

power to the
causes to

latter Court

itself,

County Court

was

at first held not to give the

jurisdiction over suits for the breach

32 & 33 Vict. c. 71 Cooper v. Pritchard, 52 L. J. Q. B.


and see the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, s. 26 (3.Z.).

(a),

s.

any such

charter-party, notwithstanding the compre-

of a

526,

to transfer

(6)

See Chap. IX, Sec.

(c)

B.

103.

V.

I.

West Biding, 1 Q. B. 329, and 4 & 5 Will. IV.

This mistake

is

cured by 47 & 48 Vict.

c.

43,

Schedule.

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

c.

s. 4,

76,

and

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

34

hensive nature

of

the language used;

on

tlie

ground that the literal construction would involve


the presumably unintended anomalies of giving by
mere implication a large, novel, and inconvenient
jurisdiction to the Court of Admiralty, and to the
suitor the

remedy

of proceeding in

rem when

his

claim was under 300, which he did not possess


when it exceeded it (a). But this construction
did not prevail, because

without effect the

it left

words which gave jurisdiction over any agreement


and
in relation to the use or hire of a ship (b)
;

yet

it

difficult to believe that the resulting

was

consequences were within the contemplation of the


Legislature or the scope of the enactment.

In a case where the technical language used


was precise and unambiguous, but incapable of
reasonable meaning, the Court held that

it

not at liberty, on merely conjectural grounds

(o)

(6)

Simpson
J.

had made warrants of


confess judgment void as against the

3 Geo. lY.

attorney to

44 L.

v. Blues,

39,

c.

41 L.

121; Gunnestad

J. C. P.

v. Price,

Ex. 44.

Gaudet

v.

49 L. J. P. D.

Brown, L. E. 5 P. G. 134; " The Alina" (1880),

&

A. 40.

of bills of lading for

This right includes claims by holders

damage

to goods

voyage, " The Bona " (1882), 51 L. J.


in note at
(c)

(c),

words a meaning which did not belong

to give the

to them,

was

end

of

Chap. V, Sec.

I.

See, however. Chap. IX, Sec.

Digitized

on board ship during

Adm.

I.

by Microsoft

65,

and see cases

FALLACY OF LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.

35

assignees of a bankrupt,

if not filed within 21 days


from execution, or unless judgment was signed
"or" execution was "issued" within the same
period; and the Court of Queen's Bench refused

"or" into "and," and "issued" into


"levied"; though the passage was unmeaning as
it stood, and the proposed alterations would have
to alter

given

an

it

efieet

probably, but

which, because rational, was

only conjecturaUy, the

tended by the Legislature

in-

This subject, how-

(a).

be further considered in a subsequent

ever, will

chapter

efi'ect

(b).

SECTION

III.

THE

CONTEXT

EXTERNAL

CIRCUMSTANCES.

The foregoing elementary

rule of construction

does not carry the interpreter far; for

it is

con-

where the language is precise and


capable of but one construction, or where neither
the history or cause of the enactment, nor the
context, nor the consequences to which the literal
interpretation would lead, show that that interprefined to cases

tation does not express the real intention.


(a)

Green

by 6 & 7
33 Vict.

c.

62,

22, at p. 33
(6)

v.

Wood, 14 L.

s.

28,

Quin

J.

extended

v.

by 32 &

Briggs (1881), 19 Ch. D.

O'Keefe (1859), 10

Ir. 0.

Chap. IX.

Digitized

is

to " Judges Orders "

and camp. Laird

v.

This Act

Q. B. 217.

and applied

Vict. c. 66,

by Microsoft

L. E. 393.

mTERPEBTATION OP STATUTES.

36

But
which
rally,
it

another elementary rule, that a thing

it is

is

within the letter of a statute

will,

gene-

be construed as not within the statute unless

be also within the real intention of the Legisla-

ture (a), and the words,

if sufficiently flexible,

be construed in the sense which,

more
Language

grammatically,
intention

(6).

is

if

must

less correct

in

harmony with that

is

rarely

ambiguity as to be capable

so

free

from

being used in

of

more than one sense and to adhere rigidly to its


literal and primary meaning in all cases would be
If a literal
to miss its real meaning in many.
meaning had been given to the laws which forbade
a layman to "lay hands" on a priest, and punished all who drew blood in the street, the layman
who wounded a priest with a weapon would not
have fallen within the prohibition, and the surgeon who bled a person in the street to save his
life, would have been liable
to punishment (c).
;

On

a literal construction of his promise

(a)

Bac. Ab. Statute

(6)

See

409

(I.) 6.

Caledonian B. Go.

v.

N. Brit.

Lord Selborne

Co. v. Torbain, 1

576

per Lord Blackburn, Edinburgh

App. Cas. 68

Co. V. Comptroller of Patents,

at pp. 575,

Palmer (1849), 18 L. J. Ex.


B. Co. (1881), 6 App. Cas. 114,

;per Cur., SLollingworth v.

at p. 122, per

Tramways

Mahomed

Eastman Photographic

[1898] A. C. 571, Lord Halsbury,

Direct U.S. Cable Co. v. Anglo-American Tele-

graph Go. (1877), 2 App. Cas. 394, at p. 412

and per Jessel M.E.,

Walton, Exp. (1881), 17 Ch. D. 746, at pp. 750 et seq.


(c)

1 Bl.

Comm.

61

Puff. L. 5,

Digitized

c.

12,

s. 8.

by Microsoft

FALLACY OF LITERAL CONSTEUOTION.

37

sawing the Venetian governor's body in two,


was no breach of his engagement to spare his
head nor Tamerlane's burying alive a garrison,

II. 's

a violation of his pledge to shed no blood

On

(a).

a literal construction, Paohes, after inducing

Notium to a parley under a promise to replace him safely in the citadel, claimed
to be within his engagement when he detained
his foe until the place was captured, and put him
to death after having conducted him back to
the defender of

it (b)

and the Earl

of Argyll fulfilled in the

same

promise to the laird of Glenstane, that

spirit his

he would surrender he would see him safe to


England for he did not hang him until after he
had taken him safely across the Tweed to the
if

English Bank (c).

The equivocation

ambiguity of words and

or

and especially such as are general, is said


Bacon to be the great sophism of sophLord
by
isms (d). They have frequently more than one
equally obvious and popular meaning words used
phrases,

in reference to one subject or set of circumstances


(a) Vattel,

L. N. b.

2, s.

273.

34; Grote's Greece,

(6)

Thucyd.

(c)

Burton's Sc. Crim. Tr. 17.

3,

vol. 6,

chap. 50.

Immaturce puellm, quia more

tradito nefas esset virgines strangulari, vitiatce prius a carnifice, dein


strangulatce.

jure

Suet.

Tiberius,

s.

61,

and see Tacitus, Hist.

Lib., V.,

See other instances of such frauds collected in Grot, de

c. 9.

b., b. 2, c. 16, s. 5.

(d)

See also Herodotus,

Lord Bacon, Advancement

Digitized

iv.

154.

of Learning, b. 2.

by Microsoft

38

INTEBPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

may convey

meaning quite

from what

different

the same words used in reference to another set of

circumstances and another object would convey.

General words admit^ of indefinite extension or


restriction, according to the subject to which they

and the scope and object in contemplation.


They may convey faithfully enough all that was
intended, and yet comprise also much that was
relate,

not;

or,

reach

be so restricted in meaning as not to


the cases which

all

intention.

within the real

fall

Even, therefore, where there

is

no

indistinctness or conflict of thought, or careless-

ness of expression in a statute, there

is

enough

in the vagueness and elasticity inherent in lan-

guage to account for the difficulty so frequently


found in ascertaining the meaning of an enactment, with the degree of accuracy necessary for
determining whether a particular case

But

it.

statutes are not always

falls

within

drawn by

skilled

hands, and they are always exposed to the risk

by many hands which introduce


different styles and consequent difficulties of
Nothing, it has been said by a
interpretation.
of alterations

great

authority,

so

is

construct

as to

difficult

properly an Act of Parliament

easy as to pull

It is not

(a)

Per Lord

it

St.

to pieces

(a).

Leonards, O'Flaherty

6 H. L. Gas. 142, at p. 179

and nothing so

v.

McDowell (1857),

and see Coverdale\. Charlton

48 L. J. Q. B. 128, per Bramwell L.J., 2 Q. B. D.

Digitized

enough

by Microsoft

B.

v.

(1878),

Monch

FALLACY OF LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.

39

to attain to a degree of precision whicla a "person

reading in good faith can understand,

it is

neces-

sary to obtain a degree of precision whicli a person

reading in bad faith cannot misunderstand

The
hvit

(a).

Uteral construction then, has, in general,

To

primd facie preference.

meaning,

arrive at the real

always necessary to get an exact

it is

conception of the aim, scope, and object of the

Lord
Coke (6), 1. What was the law before the Act was
passed 2. Wbat was the mischief or defect for
which the law had not provided 3. What remedy
Parliament has appointed; and 4. The reason of
Act

whole

to

according

consider,

to

According to another authority, " in


order properly to interpret any statute it is as

the remedy.

now

was when Lord Coke reported


Heydon's Case to consider how the law stood
when the statute to be construed was passed, what
necessary

as it

the mischief was for which the old law did not
provide, and the remedy provided by the statute
to

mischief"

cure that

(1877), 544, at p. 552

469, at p. 496
(a)

L.

J.
(6)

(c)

J.

meaning

true

p. 115.

Gastioni, Exp.,

[1891] 1 Q. B. 149

60

C. 22.

Heydon's Case, 3 Eep. 7b

Gomp. Bradlaugh

52 L.

J.,

The

Twyeroas v. Grant (1877), 2 C. P. D.

4 Q. B. D. 104, at

Per Stephen

M.

(c).

v.

Marshahea

Case,

10 Eep. 73a.

Clarke (1883), 8 A. 0. 354, at p. 366,

et seq.

Q. B. 505.

Per Lindley M.E., Mayfair Property

2 Ch. 28, at

p.

35

67 L.

J.

Digitized

Oh. 337.

by Microsoft

Co.,

In

re,

[1898]

INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES.

40
of

any passage,

it is said, is

to be found not merely

in the words of that passage, but in comparing

it

with other parts of the law, ascertaining also what

were the circumstances with reference to which


'

the words were used, and what was the

object

appearing from those circumstances, which the


Legislature had in view

Every clause of a

(a).

statute should be construed with reference to the

context and the other clauses of the Act, so


far as possible, to

the whole

make a

to the subject matter

As regards the

consistent enactment of

or series of

statute

as, so

statutes relating

(b).

history, or external circumstances

which led to the enactment, the general rule which


is

applicable to the construction of all other docu-

ments

is

equally applicable to statutes

(c),

viz.,

that the interpreter should so far put himself in the


position of those
(a)

whose words he

is

interpreting,

See per Lord Blackburn, Biver Wear Com.

(1877), 2 App. Gas. 743

and per Lord Halsbury

v.

L.O.,

Adamson
Eastman

Co. V. Comptroller of Patents, [1898] A. C. 576.


(b)

Per Lord Davey, Canada Sugar Bejtning

Co. v. Beg.,

[1898] A. C. 741.
(c) It

has indeed been said that

imposing with regard to Acts


of construction

J. Q.

B. 279.

Tithe Act, 1891,

it

is

s.

all

documents: Per

to the decision in this case, see

(1).

Digitized

from

Norton (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 452;

v.

As

safer to abstain

Parliament any further canons

than those applicable to

Bowen LJ., Lamplough


58 L.

of

by Microsoft

now

EXTERNAL CIBCUMSTANOES.
as to be able to see

41

what those words

relate to.

Extrinsic evidence of the oiroumstanoes or sur-

rounding facts under which a will or contract was


made, so far as they throw light on the matter to

which the document relates, and of the condition


and position and course of dealing of the persons

who made

or are mentioned in

it

is

it,

always

admitted as indispensable for the purpose not only

such person and things, but also of

of identifying

explaining the language, whenever

latently

is

it

ambiguous ,or susceptible of various meanings or


shades of meaning, and of applying it sensibly to
^the circumstances to which

Thus,

relates (a).

it

when

a Charter-Party stipulates that " detention


by ice " is not to be reckoned among laying days,

the meaning intended by this term cannot be


accurately determined without that knowledge of

Wigram

(a)

wood
In

re

Int. Wills, Prop. 5, cited

Magniac (1891), L.

V.

SJiortrede v.

Ch. 508

V.

J.

GJieeTe,

Doe

v.

Ch. 225

Legg, 23 L.

J.

Turner

Ex. 228

78 L.

J.

J.

Ch. 63
J.

36 L.

J.

& N.

Ex. 127

Lewis

22 L.

v. G.

J.

Q. B. 412; Graves

W. B.

Co.,

Bosaz, 2 P. D. 66

Butterley Co.

79 lb. 411

v.

47 L.
;

J.

Q. B.

Whitfield v.

H. L. 283

New HucJcnall

Be

Colliery

Trevor-Batty e's Settlement,

Ch. 646.

Digitized

Bash-

Nelms, 1 H.

v.

Eill v. Crook, L. E. 6

L.J.,

Baumann v. James, L. E. 3
& E. 431 Blundell v. Gladstone,

Be Be

Ch. 729

In re (1912), 81 L.

Anstee

v. Ilvatis,
;

by Lindley

Trevor-Batty e's Settlement,

v. Priestner,

40 E. E. 258

Langdale, 1 Ch. D. 61

Jameson, 77 L.

Wood

Benyon, 12 A.

133, per Bramwell L.J.

Co.,

Oh. 817

(1912), 81 L. J. Ch. 646

225, per Bramwell B.

12 L.

J.

by Microsoft

42

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

the circumstances of the port and trade which the

presumed

parties possessed, or are conclusively

have possessed;
stances

to

of these circum-

and evidence

received for the purpose of accurately

is

construing

the contract

When

(a).

a vessel

is

warranted seaworthy, the meaning must vary with


the nature, not only of the vessel but of the voyage

and evidence of these circumstances

is

admitted

in order to ascertain the precise intention of the

In a lease

parties.

keep

it

house with a covenant to

of a

in tenantable repair,

necessary to

is

it

ascertain whether the house is an old or a

one, whether

it is

new

a tenement in St. Giles's or a

palace in Grosvenor Square

which would

for that

be a repair of the one, might not be so of the


other

So, on the sale of a horse warranted to

(b).

go well in harness, the qualities of a good goer

would be different in one fit to draw a lady's


carriage, and a brewer's dray and it would therefore
be necessary to inquire what was the kind of horse
which was the subject of the warranty (c). Where
;

Hudson

(a)

M.E., Smith
also

Behn

v.

v.

V.

Ede, 37 L.

J.

Q. B. 166

Bosario Nitrate

Bumess

Co.,

on whc. see per Esher

[1894] 1 Q. B. 178;

(1861), 32 L. J. Q. B. 207,

see

and Bentson

v.

Taylor, [1893] 2 Q. B. 274.

Guiteridge v. Munyard, 1

(6)

B.

Co.,

33 L.
J.

J.

Ch. 622

Moo. & E. 336

J.

Q. B. 17, at

Q. B. 46.

Both

London v. G. W.

LurcottY. WaJcely, [1911] 1

See jdgmt. of Blackburn

(c)

L.

70 L.

p.

28

J.,

Burges

Clapham

v.

v.

of these cases relate to

Digitized

by Microsoft

K.B.

905.

WickJiam (1863),

Langton (1864), 34

Marine Insurance.

EXTEENAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

43

worded in language equally applicable to a past and to a future credit, evidence of

a guarantee

is

the state of the dealings of the parties

may

time,

was the

the

at

be given in order to determine which


which they used the words (a).

real sense in

So, in the interpretation of statutes, the interpreter, in order to

understand the subject matter

and the scope and object

of the enactment, must,

what was the mischief


or defect for which the law had not provided that
is, he must call to his aid all those external or
historical facts which are necessary for this purpose, and which led to the enactment [b], and for
these he may, as regards ancient statutes, consult
contemporary or other authentic works and writings (c), and may also consider whether a statute
was intended to alter the law, or leave it exactly
where it stood before (d). It being " a very serious
in Coke's words, ascertain

(a)

36 L.

Be

Goldshede
J.

Swan, 16 L.

v.

Ex. 127.

Woolverton Estates, 47 L.

43 L.

P.

J.

1 Ch. 305
(6)

M. & A. 73
Morrell

Gorham

Bramwell

v.

v.

J.

Ex. 284

J.,

Wood

v. Horderrp,

Ch. 127

Charter

Sf

v.

Ch. 315

J.

Charter,

v.

Moore, [1904]

v.

Millington, [1913] 2 Ch. 648.

Exeter (Bp.), Eep. by Moore,

B.

Priestner,

v.

45 L.

and compare Bruner

Studd

B., A.-O. v. Sillem (1863), 2

per Coleridge

Tewens

v.

J.

See also Laher

p.

462

H. & C. 431,

Blane, 13 Q. B. 773

see per

at p.

531

per Thesiger L.J.,

Noakes, 6 Q. B. D. 535, and see Phillips

v.

Bees

(1889), 59 L. J. Q. B., at p. 4.
(c)

See Bead

{d)

Per Cdzens-Hardy

v.

Lincoln (Bp.), 62 L. J. P. C. 1
L.J.,

Digitized

Be a

inf. p.

108.

Debtor, [1903] 1 K. B. 705.

by Microsoft

44

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

matter to hold that when the main object of a


statute is clear

it

shall be

by the

draftsman's

of law "

(a).

reduced to a nuUity

unskilfulness

or

ignorance

In his celebrated judgment in the


Alabama arbitration, Cockburn, C.J., showed, by
a reference to their history, that both the American

and English Foreign Enlistment Acts of the early


part of the nineteenth century were intended,
not to prevent the sale of armed ships to belligerents, but to prevent American and English
from manning privateers against

citizens

gerents

5 G-eo. IV.

(b).

c.

belli-

113, for the abolition

was construed to extend to


committed by British subjects out of the
British dominions, that is, on the West Coast of
Africa, by the light of the notorious fact that the
crime against which the Act was directed, was
mainly, if not exclusively committed there (c)
though it may, perhaps, not have extended to our
subjects in other parts of the world beyond our
of the slave trade,

offences

An

territories (d).

Salmon

(a)

Bex

v.

ordinance of

the colony of

Buncombe (1886), 11 App. Cas., at p. 634;


J. K. B. 117, [1905] 2 K. B. 748,

Vasey (1905), 75 L.

V.

C. 0. E.

Supplement

(&)
(c)

B.

V.

to the

London

Gazette,

Zulueta (1843), 1 Car.

20 Sept. 1872,

& K. 215

p.

4135.

SociSte des Hotels

Hawher (1913), 29 T. L. E. 578.


(d) Per Bramwell B., Santos v. Illidge (1859-60), 8 C. B. N. S.
861, and see the judgment of Wright J., in Kaufman v. Oerson,
Beunis

v.

[1903] 2 K. B. 114

73 L.

J.

Digitized

K. B. 320.

by Microsoft

BXTEBNAL CIECUMSTANOES.

Hong Kong which

45

authorised the extradition of

Chinese subjects to the government of China, when


charged with " any crime or offence against the

law of China," was construed, either by reference


to the circumstances under which the treaty (which
the ordinance enforced) had been made or to the
geographical relation of

Hong Kong

limited to those crimes which

to China, as

nations concur
An Act which authorised " the

in proscribing (a).

all

Court " before which a road indictment was preferred, to give costs,

was construed

the judge at Nisi Prius to do

so,

as authorising

partly on the

ground of the well-known fact that such indictments were rarely tried by the Court in which
they were, in the
ferred "

In

(6).

strict

sense of the word, " pre-

construing

an

was intended to
should be considered, as the two

the terms of the treaty which


carry into effect

Extradition Act

it

documents ought not to conflict


accordingly
where the treaty provided that no extradition
should be made for offences committed before it
came into operation, the Act, though silent on the
;

point, should be limited in the

There
to

is

amend the law


(a) A.-G. V.

defects

Kwoh-a-Sing (1873), L. E. 5 P. C. 179, 197.

(6)
(c)

33 & 34 Vict.

by 58 & 59

directed against

are

Pembridge, 12 L.

B.

V.

same way (c).

some presumption that statutes passed

Vict.

c.

c.

33

52,
;

B.

J.

Q. B. 47, 259.

amended by 36 & 37
v.

Digitized

Vict. c. 60,

Wilson, 3 Q. B. D. 42.

by Microsoft

and

46

INTERPRETATION OV STATUTES.

whicli have

come

into notice about the time

when

and on the ground that


s.
Eailway & Canal Traffic Act,, 1854, was
7,
passed to correct a state of the law brought into
notice by a legal warfare which had been waged
those

statutes passed;

about

negligence

only,

section to losses of goods "occasioned

neglect or

of"

default

servants, has been held not

by the

theft of a servant of

by the

company

such

that

in

reference

the

or

its

extend to a loss
the company without
to

negligence on their part, that not being, a loss by


neglect or default on their part

Agaiu, on the ground that

(a).
it

was

to

prevent

delay and costs that the Legislature enacted in


s.

Act, 1889, that, " before delivery

4, Arbitration

any pleadings or taking any other steps in the


proceedings," any party may apply to the Court
of

was held by the House


of Lords, that a defendant who had taken out a
summons and obtained an order for further time
"
for dehvering his defence had taken a " step

to stay the proceedings, it

within the section


(a)

17 & 18 Yict.

c.

52 & 53 Vict.

c.

(b).

31

Shaw

v.

G. W. B.

Co.,

[1894] 1 Q. B.

373.
(6)

A. C.

1.

Marine

But
Co.

49

see Ghappell
v.

-v.

Ford's Hotel Go. v. Bartlett, [1896]


North, 60 L. J. Q. B.

Woodhouse, 62 L.

J.

Oh. 697

Ltd. V. Knowles, 71 L. J. K. B. 351.


aflSdavits in

answer to a motion

in the proceedings''

554:, &n3. Brighton

County Theatres,

But the mere

within the section, Zalinoff

Digitized

filing of

for a Eeoeiver is not " a step

by Microsoft

v.

Hammond,

EXTEENAL CIKCUMSTANCES.

The

47

may

external circumstances which

be thus

referred to, do not, however, justify a departure

from every meaning of the language of the Act.


Their function is limited to suggesting a key to
the true sense,

when

the words are fairly open to

more than one, and they

are to be borne in mind,

with the view of applying the language to what

was intended and

of not extending it to

what was

not intended (a).


for some special
where a provision is of doubtful
import, or employs words of technical meaning,
the pre-existing law is not to be taken into consideration in construing a Codifying Act, which
implies not only the collection, but in some
respects the alteration of the law (6).
Such an

It has

reason,

67 L.

J.

been said that unless

e.g.,

Ch. 370, nor

is

a mere request for a Statement of

Claim, Ives v. Williams, 63 L.


intention to defend

by

J.

Ch. 521

nor

is

giving notice of

up the slip attached


Bowley (1913), 108 L. T. 920.
filling

to a default

But on the
summons. Austin v.
other hand attendance before a master, and acquiescing without
protest on an order has been held to be " a step in the pro-

ceedings."

out a

Cohen

summons

v.

Arthur (1912), 56 Sol.

for discovery is also " a step."

Taking

J. 344.

Parher, Gaines

&

Go. V. Turpin, [1918] 1 K. B. 368.


(a)

See dictum of Jessel M.E., Holme

and B.
A.-G.

v. Langriville,

V.

54 L.

J.

v.

Ouy, 5 Ch. D. 905

Q. B. 124; but see Hall V.C. in

Manchester (1881), 18 Ch. D., at p. 609

50 L.

J.

Ch.

562.
(&)

Per Lord Herschell, Bk. of England

A. C. 144.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Vagliano, [1891]

48

INTEEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

Act, in the main, expresses in abstract propositions the conclusions of law or equity

been reached by the


Exchange Act, 1882, and

which have

Judicature, ex gr. Bills of

In relation to the
said in a

citation of

intent

ojf

earlier

Goods Act, 1893.

Cozens-Hardy, M.E., has

latter,

modern case

Sale of

" I rather deprecate the

The

decisions.

and

object

the statute was no doubt

simply to

codify the unwritten law applicable to the sale of

goods

but in so far as there

is

an express statu-

tory enactment, that alone must be looked at and

must govern the rights of the parties, erven though


the section may, to some extent, have altered the
prior Common Law " {a).
Yet counsel, and even
eminent judges,
if

will refer to the earlier decisions

an argument

only for elucidating

And,

(6).

indeed, as regards a Consolidation Act

ex.

gr.

Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 if it reenacts, with a like context, a word or phrase in
one of the Acts consolidated which has received
judicial

interpretation,

generally,

be

that

applicable

to

interpretation will,

the same word or

phrase in the Consolidation Act

(c).

Eeference has been occasionally


(o) Bristol

Tramways

made

Go. v. Fiat Motors (1910),

to

79 L.

J.

what
K. B.

1109.
(6)

L.

J.
(c)

See judgment of Parwell L.J., Wallis

K. B. 1023.
See, however, cases cited, p. 109, inf.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Pratt (1910), 79

EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANOES.

49

the framers of the Act, or individual members of


the Legislature intended to do by the enactment,
or understood

Hengham

it

to have done (a).

knew

said that he

Chief Justice

better than counsel

the meaning of the 2d Westminster, as he had

drawn up

that

statute

(b).

Lord Nottingham

claimed that he had some reason to

know

the

meaning of the Statute of Frauds, because, he


said, it had had its first rise from him, he having
Lord
brought it into the House of Lords (c).
Kenyon supported his construction of 9 Anne,
c. 20, by the argument that so accurate a lawyer
as Mr. Justice Powell, who had drawn it, never
would have used several words where one
Lord Field refers to the improbasufficed (d).

who framed the


would not have made a

the eminent lawyers

bility that

Judicature Act,

1875,

Lord
if they intended it(e).
has,
on
more
that
he
however
Halsbury states
certain exception

than one occasion, said that the worst person to


construe a statute is the person who is responsible
for its drafting, for
(a)

For an exposition

he

is

much

disposed to confuse

of the general rules governing the

struction of Statutes, see Halsbury L.C., in Gox

15 A. C, at pp. 577
(6)

Year Book

(c)

See Ash

v.

{d)

B.

(e)

Bell-Gox

v.

Con-

Hakes, [1890]

et seq.

of 33

Ed.

I.

M. Term.

(Eolls Ed.) 82.

Abdy, 3 Swanst. 664.

V. Wallis,
v.

5 T. E. 379.

Bakes (1890), 60 L.

J.

Q. B. 89; 15 A.

p. 544.

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

C,

at

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

50

what he intended to do with the effect of the


language which in fact he has employed (a). Yet,
in determining the meaning of the rubric on vestments in the Prayer-book (enacted by the Uniformity Act, 13

&

14 Car.

II.

c.

4),

the Privy

Council, in one ecclesiastical case, referred to the

introduction of a proviso by the Lords in that

Commons, and

Act, and its rejection by the

to

the reasons assigned by the latter, in the conference which ensued,

for the

rejection,

as

indication of the intention of the Legislature

an
(b)

between the
bishops who framed or revised the rubric and the
Presbyterian divines at the Savoy Conference in
1662, as showing the meaning attached to it by
the former (c). And it has been stated as a

and in

another, to

discussion

general proposition in ecclesiastical matters that

the law excludes all historical investigation


and discussion on antecedent usage in matters of
ritual and practice it excludes one source of light
upon doubtful questions (d).
Lord Westbury,

if

when

Chancellor, referred to a speech

himself,

V.

A.

(a)

Hilder

(6)

Hebbert

made by

Attorney-General, in the House of

as

Dexter (1902), 71 L.

v.

J.

Ch. 781, at p. 783.

Purchas, 40 L. J. Bcc. 33, and see MachonoMe

v.

Martin (1881), 6 A. C. 424.


(c)

Bidsdale

(d)

See Halsbury L.C. in Bead

C,

v.

OUftort,

46 L.

J. P. C. 27.
v.

Bishop of Lincoln, [1892]

at p. 652.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Commons,

EXTEENAL OIEOUMSTANOES.

51

in 1860, in introducing the

Bankruptcy

which was passed into law in the following


year; and one of his reasons in favour of the
construction which he put on the Act was that it
tallied best with the intention which the LegislaBill,

ture (that

is,

the three branches of the Legislature)

might be presumed to have adopted, as it was the


ground on which application had been made to
one of the three. But he observed, at the same

had endeavoured,

time, that he

in forming his

opinion, to divest his mind, as far as possible, of

impressions received from the past, and to

all

consider the language of the Act as

had been

if it

him for the first time in the case


before him (a).
The reports furnish other instances (6). But it is unquestionably a rule that
presented to

what may be called the parliamentary history of


an enactment is not admissible to explain its
meaning (c). Its language can be regarded only
as the language of the three Estates of the realm,
(a) Be Mew, 31 L. J. Bank. 89, and see Hamilton, In re (1878),
Bacon G J., 9 Ch. Div., at p, 696.
(6) Ex. gr. per Hale C.B., Hedworih v. Jackson, Hard. 318;
McMaster v. Lomax, 2 Myl. & K. 32 ; Mounsey v. Ismay, 3 H. &
Hudson v.
0. 486 Drummond v. Drummond, 36 L. J. Ch. 153
;

Tooth, 47 L. J. Q. B. 18,

Q. B. D.
(c)

649

1,

See

and see Bell-Oox, Exp. (1887), 20

at p. 30.

ex. gr.

per Cur., B.

per Pollock C.B., A.-O.

Bramwell

v.

Hertford College, 47 L.

v. Sillem,

Q. B.

2 H. & G. 521, and per

B., 537.

Digitized

J.

by Microsoft

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

52

and the meaning attached to it by its framers or


by individual members of one of those Estates
cannot control the construction of

Indeed,

it (a).

the inference to be drawn from comparing the


language of the Act with the declared intention
of its framers would be that the difference between
the two was not accidental but intentional
Accordingly, the

Dower

& 4 Will.

Act, 1833, 3

(6).

IV.

was construed to apply to gavelkind lands,


although this was avowedly contrary to the in-

0.

106,

tention of the real property commissioners

prepared that Act


that

it

was

their

for

intention that

extend to lands of that tenure

Moor, who
43 Eliz.

who

they stated in their report


should not

it

Sir Francis

(c).

drew the Statute of Charitable Uses,


says, in his reading

c. 4,

on

it,

that a gift

of lands to maintain a chaplain or minister for

divine service, or to maintain schools for


chising,

was not within

intentionally omitted,
fiscated;

its

lest

they should be con-

since rehgion being variable according

to the pleasure of succeeding princes, that

(a)

Dean of

Yorh's Case (1841), 2 Q. B. 1

Pollock C.B. and Parke B., Martin

478

Cameron

v.

Cameron (1834),

Phcenix Gas Co. (1865), 34 L.


(6)

Per Tindal

p. 757,
(c)

cate-

meaning, having been

57 E. E. 545.

Bonham

v.

Ex. 108.
2 0. B. 749, at

Payne (1885), 52 L. T. 530.

(1861), 30 L. J. Ch. 239.

Digitized

Per

Hemming (1854), 10 Ex.


2 Myl. & K. 289 Hemstead v.
v.

C.J., Salkeld v. Johnston (1847),

and see Esdaile

Farley-tv.

J.

which

by Microsoft

EXTERNAL OIROUMSTANCES.

was orthodox

53

one time might be superstitious


at another, and so be forfeited (a)
but such
devises were nevertheless afterwards held to fall
at

within the Act

So, what took place before

(b).

the committee cannot be invoked for putting such


a construction on a private Act(c), as
its

wiU

limit

application to one party to the detriment of

the general public.

Although for the purpose of


the Court would be at liberty to
consider the position of the parties concerned, and

construing

may come
clause

it

the conclusion that a particular

to

was inserted

who

at the instance of a party

was present, for his protection, and conferred


upon him such an interest as to entitle him to a
mandamus to compel compliance therewith (d).
Another class of external circumstances which
have, under peculiar circumstances, been sometimes taken into consideration in construing a
statute, consists of acts

may determine
(a)

done under

it,

usage

for

the meaning of the language, at

Duke, Char. Uses, 125.

(6) Id.

134, Penstred v. Payer, Id. 381

Grieves v. Case, i Bro.

C. C. 67.
(c)

B.

V.

(d)

to

Davis

& Sons v.

Midland B.

V.

Co.,

Taff Vale By.

L. E. 1 Ch. 282

Manchester Corp., 80 L.

B.

V.

J.

Co.,
;

[1895] A. 0. 542

for

J.

K. B. 263.

construing such clauses, see

527-530.

Digitized

Steele

K. B. 265.

Manchester Corp. (1910), 80 L.

the principles

per Lord Alverstone C.J.,

by Microsoft

inf.

As
pp.

INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.

54

when the meaning

events

all

amhiguity

SECTION

is

not free from

(a).

IV.

THE

CONTEXT

EAELIEB

AND LATER

ANALOGOUS ACTS.

ACTS

Passing from the external history of the statute


to its contents, it is an elementary rule that construction

is

made

to be

of all the parts together,

and not of one part only by itself (b). Incivile est


nisi tota lege perspecta, una aliqua partioula ejus proSuch a survey is
posita, judicare vel respondere{o).
the
words are the
often indispensable, even when
for the true meaning of any passage
plainest {d)
is that which (being permissible) best harmonises
with the subject, and with every other passage of
the statute. If one section of an Act, for instance,
;

required

"notice" should be "given," a

that

verbal notice would, generally, be sufficient


if

another
(a)

See

p. 404,
(b)

section

ex. gr. Leverton v.

it

should

to inf.,

Chap. XI, Sec.

but
be

I.

Lincoln College Case, 3 Eep. 59b.

Turquand.

Blackburn,

that

B. (1869), L. E. 4 Q. B. 394, at

and other cases referred

Co. Litt. 381a

Lord

provided

v.

Board of

Per

Trade (1886), 55

L. J. Q. B. 417.
(c)

Dig.

{d)

Per Lord Esher, M.E. and Ery

B. Go.

V.

1, B,

84.
L.J., Lancashire

Enowles (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 391

Colliery Co. v.

Bochdale Canal

Co.,

and Torks.

and see Chamber

[1895] A. 0. 564, at

et seq.

Digitized

by Microsoft

p.

571,

THE CONTEXT.

55

"served" on a person, or "left" with him, or in


manner or place, it would obviously
show that a written notice was intended (a).
a particular

Sec. 2, Prescription Act, 1832, 2


71, in protecting certain stated

c.

&

3 Will. IV.

easements from

disturbance after specified periods of enjoyment,


uses an expression which unambiguously includes
all

such easements, that

is,

those in gross as well

But

as those appurtenant.

5,

s.

which, in pro-

viding a form of pleading to be applicable to


rights within the Act, gives a form

from

its

all

which could,

nature, be applicable only to rights appur-

tenant, shows that the wide expression in the


earlier section

was used in the

right appurtenant

&4
(a)

51 L.

Will. IV.

43 & 44 Vict.
J.

Q. B. 112

105, the
42; 2

c.

Wilson

Dower

So, in the

(b).

c.

restricted sense of a

Act, 1833,

word "land," which

W. & M.

5; Moyle

c.

v. Nightingale,

See also Workmen's Compeiisation Act, 1906,


that Notice of accident is to be " given "

imports that the Notice


Colliery Go. (1909),

is

78 L.

(note, p.
V.

B.

M.

v.

0. 1.

providing

which, on the context,

K. B. 539), (as to what constitutes


v. Insoles,

whilst the Claim which, under the

maybe

s. 2,

J.

to be in -writing {Hughes v. Coed Talon


J.

notice in writing see Stevens

" made,"

v. Jenkins,

70 E. E. 727

Shurmer, 55 L. J. M. C. 153. See Portingell, Exp., 61 L.

it

{Lowe

[1912] 1 K. B. 36, 0. A.),

same

section,

has to be

Myers (1906), 75 L. J. K. B. 651,


656), and need not be for a specific sum {Thompson
oral

Goold (1910), 79 L.
(6) Shuttleworth v.

followed in Mercer

538; 74 L.

J.

J.

v.

K. B. 905).

Le Fleming, 34 L.
v.

J. 0. P.

Denne, [1904] 2 Oh. 534

Ch. 723.

Digitized

by Microsoft

309
;

approved,

[1905] 2 Gh.

INTBKPEETATION OP STATUTES,

56

and

defines as including manors, messuages,

other hereditaments, both

all

and incorwas

corporeal

poreal, except such as are not liable to dower,

held not to include copyhold lands

because

s.

6,

which provides that a widow shall not be entitled to


dower, when " the deed " by which the land was
conveyed to her husband contains a declaration
to that effect, showed that only lands which were
transferable by deed were within the contemplation of the Legislature (a).
So a colonial statute
which required an executor to file particulars of
the "personal estate " of the testator was held to
refer to such personal estate only as was held by
the testator in the colony,

it

other parts of the context a

being clear that in

number

of similar

expressions had to be subjected to limitations or


qualifications

of

the same nature.

safest guides, it has

been

said, to

of the

the construction

of sweeping general words,

which are

apply in their

sense,

full literal

One

is

difiScult to

to

examine

other words of like import in the same instrument,

and to see what limitations must be imposed on


them and if it is found that a number of such
;

expressions have to be subjected to limitations

and

and that such limitations and


are of the same nature, that circum-

qualifications,

qualifications
(a)

L. J.

Smith

v.

Adams, 24 L.

Ch. 123.

Comp. Doe

J.
v.

Ch. 258

p. 144.

Digitized

Powdrell

v. Jones,

Waterton, 22 E. E. 328;

by Microsoft

24
inf.

THE CONTEXT.

57

stance forms a strong argument for subjecting the


expression in dispute to a like limitation

Where one

qualification (a).

empowered the Board

and

section of an Act

of Trade,

when

it

had

"reason to believe" that a ship could not go


to sea without serious danger to human life, to
detain it for survey and another gave the ship;

owner a right to compensation if it appeared that


there was not reasonable cause for its detention,
by reason of the condition of the ship or the act
or default of the owner it was held that the latter
;

section so modified the sense of the earlier one,

that the Board of Trade would be liable to com-

ground
if it

owner, though

the

pensate

for belief

when

it

it

had reasonable

ordered the detention,

appeared from the evidence at the

a person of ordinary skill

trial

that

would have thought that

there was no reasonable ground for detention

(6).

where one section of 25 & 26 Vict, c. 102,


enacted, that if " any building " projecting beyond
the general line of the street was pulled down, the
Board of Works might order it to be set back,
giving compensation and the next section enacted
that under certain circumstances "no building"
should be erected in any street, without the
So,

(a) Blaclcwood v.
(6)

Vict.

B. (1882), 52 L.

39 & 40 Vict.
c.

60

Q. B. 534.

see

s.

o.

459,

80, ss. 6

J. P. 0. 10.

and

and Thompson

10, repealed
v.

case under the repealed Act.

Digitized

by 57 & 58

Farrer (1882), 51 L.

by Microsoft

J.

INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.

58

consent of the Board, beyond the general line

the

would have included


alterations, whether on new sites or old, was confined by the former to buildings erected on land
which had been hitherto vacant (a). Where one

latter section, which, fer

se,

section of a repealed Act imposed a penalty for


selling " as unadulterated " articles of food

which
and another declared that
a person who sold an article of food " knowing it
to have been mixed with another substance to
increase its bulk or weight," and did not, in selHng
are in fact adulterated

it,

declare the admixture to the purchaser, should

be deemed to have sold an adulterated article, the


different wording of the two sections showed that

under the former the

seller

would be

liable

though

he was ignorant of the adulteration (6). Commenting on this latter section. Lord Bussell of KiUowen

^ Pond

says in Spiers

" I do not think

v. Bennett,

there need be mens rea in order to constitute an


(a)

Lord Auckland

v.

Westminster Board of Worlcs (1872),

v. L. G. C, 63 L. J. M. 0. 117
the meaning of " obstruction " or " encroachment " within

41 L.

J.

Ch. 723

Wendon

the Act of 1862, see Vigers Bros. v.

Comp. Worley

Doe

V. Olley,

(6)

v. St.

Mary

54 E. E. 607

35 & 36 Vict.

o.

London

C.

61 L.

J.

Abbotts,
;

Lavy

v.

74, repealed

L. G.

as to

s.

1 of

C, [1919] IK. B. 56.


See also

Oh. 601.

G.,

64 L.

by 38 & 39

J.

Vict.

M.
c.

0. 262.

63,

s. 1,

amended by 42 & 43 Vict. c. 30, 48 & 49


Vict. c. 61, s. 5, 62 & 68 Vict. c. 51, and 7 Ed. VII. c. 21
Fitzpatrich v. Kelly (1873), 42 L. J. M. 0. 132 ByU v. Gmer
(1891), 61 L. J. M. 0. 70; [1892], 1 Q, B. 220.
which

latter

Act

is

Digitized

by Microsoft

COMPAEISON OF SECTIONS.

59

offence under the second part of the section,

if

the article which was in fact altered by abstraction

was

sold without disclosure

offence under

it

would constitute an

this section " (a).

A provision in

an

Enclosure Act which reserved to the lord his right

and to the working of them as fully as


if the Act had not been passed, without paying
compensation, is materially limited by a direction
that " highways should be set out over the land "
for this latter provision would preclude him from
to minerals,

working the minerals under the highways without


leaving

adequate

support

the Companies Act,

(6).

One

section

of

which enacted that


where a company was being wound up by or
under the supervision of the Court, any distress or
1862,

execution put in force against the property of the


company after the commencement of the windingup " shall be void to aU intents," was so modified

by another which enacted that when an order for


winding-up 'had been made, no action or other
proceeding should be proceeded with against the
company, except with the leave of the Court, that

meaning and effect was only to invalidate


the proceedings which it pronounced void, when
its

true

(a) (1896), 65 L. J.
(6) Benfieldside

Ex. 491;

M,

0. 144, at p. 147.

Local Board

and see A.-G.

L. J. Q. B. 207, C. A.;
subsidences,

55 L.

J.

see

v.

v.

Oonsett

Co.

(1894),

64

as to right of action in successive

Barley Main Colliery Co.

Oh. 529.

Digitized

Iron Co., 47 L. J.

Conduit Colliery

by Microsoft

v. Mitchell

(1886)

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

60

the Court did not sanction them

Clause 21

(a).

which in
express terms requires the presiding officer at each

in the Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872,

station to exclude all persons except the clerks,

the agents of the candidates, and the constables

on duty, was found to include also the candidates


themselves in the exception, since a subsequent
clause (61) provides that

present at any place at which his

The words

may be
agent may

a candidate

Fine Arts Copyright


Act, 1862, which give to the author of every

attend (&),

of

s.

1,

and exclusive right of


copying, engraving, reproducing, and multiplying
such painting, and the design thereof, by any
means and of any size, are seen (when reference
is made to subsequent sections empowering the
owner of the copyright to obtain a forfeiture of the
original painting the sole

piratical imitations) to be inapplicable to the repre-

sentation of a painting by a tableau vivant


all

these instances, the Legislature supplied in the

context the key to the meaning in which


(a)

Vron

Be London

Cotton Co. (1866), 35 L. J. Ch. 425.

In re (1882), 51 L.

Colliery Co.,

British
ss.

In

(c).

Ltd., In re, [1919] 2 Ch. 155.


Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908.

(6) Clementson v.

Mason

25 & 26 Vict.

Copyright Act, 1911


2 Ch. 1

c.
;

used

See also

Gh. 389, 0. A., and

Salicylates,

140, 142,

(c)

J.

it

See

now

(1875), 44 L. J. C. P. 171.

68,

amended, and partially repealed, by

Sanfstaengl v. Empire Palace, [1894]

see further, Eanfstaengl v. Baines, 64 L. J. Ch. 81,

[1895] A. C. 20.

Digitized

by Microsoft

REFERENCE TO EARLIER ACTS.

61

expressions which seemed free from doubt

and
that meaning, it is obvious, was not that which
literally or primarily belonged to them.
Where the later of two Acts provided that the
earlier Act should, so far as was consistent, be
construed as one with

an enactment in the

it,

later

statute that nothing therein should include deben-

tures

was held to exclude debentures from the

earlier

one also

It

(a).

has been observed, however,

when an Act embodies

that

several distinct Acts,

one part throws no further light on the other parts


than would be cast upon them by separate and

enactments to the same

distinct

Where

effect (b).

a single section of an [Act

is

introduced

must be read in the sense


which it bore in the original Act from which it is
taken, and consequently it is legitimate to refer
to all the rest of that Act in order to ascertain
what the section meant, although one section only
is incorporated in the new Act (c).
into another statute,

Bead

(a)

Mfg.

Co.,

v.

In

it

Joannon, 59 L.
re,

J.

Q. B. 544

1 Oh. 627, 0. A.

[1891]

see also Standard

and Exp. Lowe, 60

L. J. Oh. 292.

Per Turner

(6)

27 L.

J.

Cope

L.J.,

Ch. 600.

As

subsequent statute, see Knill

59 L.
2

Ir.

J.

Q. B. 136, 697

E. 132.

And

see

v.

Boherty (1858), 4 K. & J. 367

to incorporation of

B.

inf, p.

v.
v.

earlier

Pharmaceutical Society, [1899]

541

et seq.

Per Lord Blackburn, Mayor of Portsmouth


10 App. Gas. 371.
(c)

Digitized

Acts in a

Towse, [1890] 24 Q. B. D. 186

by Microsoft

v.

Smith (1885),

62

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
Probably, the rule as to the exposition of one

Act by the language of another is satisfactorily


and most comprehensively laid down in the broad
statement of Lord Mansfield, that

"

Where

there

though made
at different times, or even expired and not referring to each other, they shall be taken and
are different statutes in pari materia,

construed together, as one system and as explanatory of each other " (a).

For instance, a by-law which authorised the


election of " any person " to be Chamberlain of
the City of London would be construed so as to
harmonise, and not to conflict, with an earlier
one which limited the appointment to persons
possessed of a certain quahfication, and " any
person" would be understood to mean only any
person

eligible

{b).

Where

a question arose as to

s. 7 of the Admiralty Court Act, 24 Vict,


which gives that Court jurisdiction over any

whether
c. 10,

(a)

B.

V.

Loxdale, 1 Burr. 447, adopted in the C. A., Gold-

smiths Co. V. Wyatt (1907),

76 L.

J.

K. B. 169

but in B.

Titterton, [1895] 2 Q. B. 67, Lord Eussell of Killowen

observes that "


materia only

Cotton

it

is

where there

L.J., Sutton v. Sutton,

is

an ambiguity."

52 L.

J.

See also per

Gh. 337, cited by Bray


v.

Tobacco Pipe Makers v. Woodroffe (1826), 7 B.

(overruling Oxford v. Wildgoose, 3 Lev. 293).


Co. V. Phillips (1840),

G J.,

proper to refer to earlier Acts in pari

Shaw V. Grompton, 80 L. J. K. B. 56; McWilliam


Macq. H. L. 136, per Lord Truro.
(6)

v.

6 Bing. N. G. 314

Digitized

&

C. 838

See also Poulterer's

9 L.

by Microsoft

J.,

Adams, 1

J. G.

P. 190.

KBFEBENCE TO LATER ACTS.

63

claim for " damage " done by any ship, included

done to persons by

injuries

collision

one reason

was that in other Acts


in pari materid, loss of life and personal injury, on
the one hand, and loss and damage to ships and
other property, on the other, were invariably
treated distinctly, and the word " damage " was
nowhere, in them, applied to injuries to the

for deciding in the negative

person
s.

(a).

expression " poasession " in

So, the

26 (now repealed) of the Eepresentation of the

People Act, 1832, which enacts that no person


shall be registered in respect of his estate or interest

in lg,nd as a freeholder, unless he has been

"in

actual possession " of

was

for six

same sense

construed in the
of Uses,

it

months

(b),

as in the

Statute

which declares that the person who has

is to be deemed in lawful
and consequently the grantee
of a rent-charge by a conveyance operating tinder
the latter statute was held to be in possession of
it, within the meaning of the Eepresentation of
the People Act, 1832, from the date of the execution of the deed (c)
though a grantee under a

the use of the land

"possession" of

it;

(a)

Smith

V.

Brown

(1871), 40 L. J. Q. B.

Vera Cruz (1884), 54 L.


(6)

The

P. D.

& A.

qualifying period under 7

months, see
(c)

J.

214

Seward

v.

The

9, inf. p. 317.

& 8 Geo. V.

c.

64, is six

s. 6.

Heelis v. Blain (1864), 34 L. J. 0. P. 88

(1873), 42 L. J. 0. P. 146.
seer's (1883),

53 L.

J.

See also Lowcock

Q. B. 144.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Eadfield's Case

Broughton Over-

64

INTBEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

common law conveyance would


sion, within the

same Act,

until

not be in posses-

he had received a

payment of the rent-charge (a).


Not only may the later Act be construed by the
light of the earlier, but it sometimes furnishes a
Thus
legislative interpretation of the earlier.
III.),
which
Chapter 23 of Magna Charta (9 Hen.
provides that "

all

down through

weirs shall be put

Thames and Medway, and through

all

England,

except by the sea-coast," was held to apply only


Ed. III. aind other

to navigable rivers, because 25

subsequent statutes spoke of

as having been

it

passed to prevent obstruction to navigation (b).


To determine the meaning of the word " broker,"
in 6 Anne,

c.

16, the

Bubble Act

(6 Qeo. I. c. 18)^

passed twelve years later, was referred


the same term was used(c).
repealed

Merchant

In

s.

Shipping Act,

to,

where
of

299,

1854,

the

which

enacted that damage arising from non-observance


of the saiKng rules should

to

primd

deemed

facie be

have been occasioned by " the wilful default "

of

the person in charge of the deck, the expression


(a)

477

(6)

Murray

v. Thorniley (1846),

25 Ed. III.

Q. B. 105

27 L.

Stat. 4, c.

and see

L. J. C. P. 305
(c)

15 L.

J. C.

Orme's Case (1872), L. E. 8 C. P. 281

P. 155

42 L.

J.

69 E. E.
0. P. 48.

Bolle v. Whyte (1868), 37 L. J.

Leconfield {Lord) v. Lonsdale (Lord) (1870),

Callis

on Sewers, 258, 4th

Clarke v. Powell, 4 B.
J. C.

& Ad. 846

Smith

P. 196, 335.

Digitized

ed., at p. 305.

by Microsoft

v.

Lindo (1858),

BEFERENOE TO LATER

65

ACTS.

"wilful default " was construed by the light of

the later Act

(a),

& 26 Vict.

25

that

shall he

of

which

ship which occasioned the


deemed to be "in fault," as

the

declares
collision

c. 63, s. 29,

including a negligent as well as a criminal fault

But where one Act

(1

&

2 Vict.

c.

110,

(&).

18)

s.

judgments to rules of Court,


the payment of money, and a later one
(Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, s. 60)
authorised creditors who obtained judgment to
recover the amount by the new process, which
it introduced, of foreign attachment, it was held
that this remedy did not apply to rules of
Court, the object of the former Act appearing to
be merely to give to rules the then existing
remedies of judgments, and of the latter, to confine
the new remedy to judgments in the strict acceptation of the term (c).
General rules and forms made under the authority
gave the

effect

of

for

an Act which enacted that they should have the


same force as if they had been included in it have
also been referred to for the purpose of assisting in
of

the interpretation of the Act


(a)

Eepealed by 57 & 58 Vict.

c.

And now by

{d).

60,

745 and Sched. 22.

s.

(6) Grill V. General Screw Collier Go. (1866), L. E. 1

611, per Willes J.

35 L.

J.

C. P. 321

the

and see Price

v.

P.

Union

Lighterage Go. (1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 374.


(c)

42 L.

Be
J.

(d)

Frankland, 42 L. J. Q. B. 13

Bestv.Pembrolce (1873),

Q. B. 212.

Re Andrew, 45 L.

J.

Bank. 57.

i.s.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.

66

Interpretation Act, 1889,

s.

31, it is provided that

made under an Act

rules, orders, etc.,

construed as using expressions in


as the

shall be

the same sense

Act (a).

The language and

provisions of expired and

repealed Acts on the same subject, and the construction

which they have authoritatively received,

are also to be taken into consideration

the Legislature uses the same

presumed that
language in

when

the same sense,

different times

for it is

dealing at

with the same subject, and also

that any change of language

some indication
Thus s. 202 of the
is

change of intention (b).


repealed Bankruptcy Act of 1849, which made
"void" aU securities given by a bankrupt to a
of a

creditor to induce the latter to forbear opposition

was construed in the


same sense as that which had been given to the
same provision in the earlier and repealed Bankruptcy Act of 6 G-eo. IV. (c). What was meant in
s. 4, Vagrancy Act, 1824, 5 Geo. IV. c. 83, by

to the bankrupt's certificate,

(a)

52 & 53 Vict.

Lochwood (1894), L.
(6)

c.

J.

63.

See

P. 0. 74,

See Chap. XI, Sec. III.

Devonpurt Corpn.

v.

Institute

B.

of Patent Agents v.

inf. p. 93.

v.

Loxdale, sup. 62, and see

Tozer (1902), 71 L. J. Oh. 754.

approved in Stoomvart Maatschappy Nederland

v.

P.

Principle
0. Steam-

<b

ship Co. (1882), 7 A. 0., at p. 816.


(c)

Goldsmid v. Hampton, 27 L.

Exp., 22 L. J. Bank. 17,

inf. p.

J. C. P. 286.

479

the statute relating to Bankruptcy; see

Digitized

See also Gopeland,

& 5 Geo. V.
s.

by Microsoft

c.

59,

is

now

44 as to preference.

REFERBNOES TO REPEALED ACTS.

67

" running away, leaving his or her child chargeable to the parish " (a),

was determined by referring


to the earher Act of 6 Greo. I., which spoke of
persons who " run or go away from their abodes
into other counties or places, and sometimes out
of the kingdom," and was therefore held not to

woman who

apply to a

her children at the

left

door of the workhouse, and returned to her usual

abode in the town, where the workhouse was


situated

(6).

Where

a repealed Act imposed

penalty on the owner of cattle found lying on a


highway " without a keeper," and the same provision

was re-enacted without the

last words, the

omission was construed as obviously showing the


intention that the presence of a keeper should no

longer absolve the owner from liability

Where

(c).

a part of an Act has been repealed,

may, although not of operative

force, still

be taken

into consideration in construing the rest, for

part of the history of the


instance,
(a)

an

Act

which

For other offences under

(fortune telling),

[1918]

new

Act{d).

imposed a

it

it is

If,

for

duty

on

this section, see Davis v. Ckrry

K. B. 109;

Hartley

v.

Elinor

(suspected person) (1917), 86 L. J. K. B. 938.


(6)

Cambridge Union

v.

Parr, 30 L.

J.

M,

G. 242, per Byles J.

and see Peters v. Gowie, 46 L. J. M. G. 177.


Lawrence v. King (1868), 37
(c) 27 & 28 Vict. c. 101, s. 25
L. J. M. G. 78; and see Qolding v. Stocking (1869), L. E.
;

4 Q. B. 516.
(d) See sup. pp. 40-48.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

68

and

racehorses, cabhorses,

repealed as

regards

all

other horses, were

racehorses,

remaining

the

words would stUl obviously include them, if the


enactment were read as if the repealed words had
never formed a part of

it (a).

Where

a statute

mineral waters, and on


other waters to be used as medicines, and the
duty on artificial mineral waters was afterwards

imposed a duty on

artificial

all

repealed, the repealed words were held essential


for

determining whether what

still

subsisted of

the Act, though wide enough to include artificial


waters,

been

was intended

to include

them.

It

has

however, to be an extremely hazardous

said,

proceeding to refer to provisions which have been

what the
stead, though

absolutely repealed, in order to ascertain

Legislature meant to enact in their


there

may

be occasions on which such a reference

would be legitimate

(b).

The construction which has been put upon Acts


of similar scope

on similar subjects, even though

the language should be different,

reason be referred
9 Geo. IV.

c.

to.

may

for a similar

Thus, the provision of

14, requiring that an acknowledgment

to take a debt out of the Statute of Limitation

should

be

signed

" by

the

party

chargeable

thereby," was held not to include an acknowledg-

L J., A.-G. v.Lamplough (1878), 3 Ex. D. 214.

(a)

Per Bramwell

(6)

Per Lord Watson, Bradlaugh

v.

Clarke (1883), 8 App. Cas.

354, at p. 380.

Digitized

by Microsoft

BEFERENCE TO ANALOGOUS ACTS.

ment by

his agent,

69

on the ground that when the

Legislature intended to include the signature of


agents, not only in other Statutes of Limitation,

but also in several sections of the Statute of


Frauds, one of which was recited in the Act,
express words had been used for the purpose

County Court Act


142, s. 11, which gave

So, the repealed

Vict, c,

of 1867, 30

(a).

& 31

jurisdiction in

ejectment when the value of the tenement did


not exceed 20, was construed, as regards the
measure of value, by reference to the Parochial

Assessments Act, 1836, 6 & 7 WiU. IV. c. 96 (6).


That which was held a sufficient signature to a
will or contract under the Statute of Frauds (c)
was held for that reason sufficient under the
repealed Bankruptcy Act, 6 Geo.

131

c.

16,

s.

under the Statute of Limitation (e), and

(c?),

(a)

IV.

Hyde

v.

Johnson (1836), 5 L.

J. G.

For limitations

P. 291.

on the principle underlying

this decision, see Whitley Partners,

In

Oh. 540, 0. A. (Cotton L.J.).

re Gallan (1886),
(6)

Be

55 L.

J.

See

Elstone and Base, 38 h. J. Q. B. 6.

Court Acts, 1888,

s.

59,

and 1908,

s. 3,

now County

under which the value

has been raised to 100.


(c)

Lemayne

v. Stanley (1681),

of (1891), 60 L.

Hubert

J.

v. Treherne,

P. 56

3 Lev. 1

EnigM

60 E. E. 600

Streatley in the Goods

v. Groehford,

5 E. E. 729

Ogilvie v. Foljamhe (1817), 17

E. E. 13.
(d) Kirhpatrich v. Tattersall (1845),
(e)

Lobb

V. Stanley,

li L.

J.

Ex. 209.

5 Q. B. 574, per Patterson

J.

as to what

will constitute a valid authentication of a contract, see Caton v.

Caton (1867), L. E. 2 H. L., at p. 139.

Digitized

by Microsoft

70

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

under the repealed Parliamentary Voters' Eegistration Act, 1843

(a).

But where the Acts

are not in pari materid, it is

fallacious to take the construction

which has heen

put upon one as controlling the construction of


another (6). For instance, the meaning put on
the words " goods " in the reputed ownership clause

Bankruptcy Acts would be no guide to its


meaning in s. 17, Statute of Frauds, now s. 4,
Sale of Goods Act, 1893, not only because the
words associated with it are different, but because
the objects of the Act are wholly different (c). For
the same reason, the Parochial Assessments Act,
1836, 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 96, was held to throw but
of the

little (if

any) light on the meaning of " the clear

yearly value " of a tenement which qualified a

voter under the Eepresentation of the People Act,

(a)
s.

47,

6 & 7 Vict.

Comp. B.
(6)

c.

18,

V.

17

s.

and Schedule VIII.

& 8 Geo. V.

repealed by 7

c.

64,

Bennett v. Brumfitt, 37 L. J. 0. P. 25.

Cowper, 24 Q. B. D. 60, 533.

Dewhurst

v.

Feilden, 66 E. E. 696, per

Waller, 29 L. J. Ex. 247, per


(1893), 63 L. J. Gh. 23

Wilde B.

and see Stanford

Maule

J.

Eyre

Gerard's Estate,
v. Boherts,

v.

Be

[1901] 1

Oh. 440.
(c)

HumUe

v.

MitcMl

and see Colonial Bank


L. J. Ch. 43

[1918] A. C.

Parker

W.

(1839), 52 E. E. 318
v.

for later cases


1,

v. Grisp,

H. L. (B)

under

9 L.

J.

Q. B. 29,

s.

4,

56

see Morris v. Baron,

Meggeson v. Groves, [1917] 1 Ch. 158

[1919] 1 K. B. 481

Thishell v. Camhi, [1919]

N. 195.

Digitized

Whinney (1886), 11 A. 0. 426

by Microsoft

CONFINED TO ANALOGOUS ACTS.

71

Because chambers are a "house"

1832(a).

for

the purposes of assessment to a poor rate under


43 Eliz. c. 2 (b), of gaining a settlement under
6 Geo. IV.

0. 57(c), of qualifying for a vote under


the repealed Representation of the People Act,

1832

and

which a burglary
might be committed (e), it did not foUow that
the same meaning was to be given to the expression in the House Tax Act, 1808, 48 Geo. III.
c. 55, repealed as to London, which imposed a
duty on " inhabited houses " (/). A bicycle, which
is a " carriage " within an enactment against furious
driving, would not necessarily be also a carriage
(d),

also as a place in

under a turnpike Act which imposed a toll on


carriages propelled by steam or other agency (g).
(a) 2 Will. IV. 0. 45,

modifications in 48

& 49

69 E. E. 473; 15 L.

27 (repealed but re-enacted with

s.

Vict.

J. C.

c. 3, s.

P. 160

5)

Wood

Cohill v.

Dobhs

v.

(1846),

Grand June. W. W.

(1883), 53 L. J. Q. B. 50.
(6)

B.

V. St.

George's Union (1871), 41 L. J.

Be Hecqmrd, 24
(c)

B.

Q. B. D. 71

V. Ustoorth (1836),

(d) Henrette v.

M.

Be Nordenfelt, 64
& B. 261.

0. 30.

L.

J.

Comp.

Q. B. 182.

5 A.

Booth (1863), 33 L.

J. C. P. 61, as to existing

law, see Eepresentation of the People Act, 1918.


(e)

Evans and Fyneh's Case, Cro. Car. 473.

(/) A.-G.
886
B.

V.

(g)

Grant

Westminster Chambers Assoc. (1876), 45 L. J. Ex.

Langston (1899), 69 L.

J. P.

0. 66.

See also

C. 47.

See also

Oxford (V.C), L. E. 7 Q. B. 471.


Williams

Sim,pson v.

Smith

V.
v.

V.

v. Ellis

(1880), 49 L. J.

Teignmouth Co. (1903), 72 L.

Kynnersley (1903), Id. 357.

Digitized

by Microsoft

M.
J.

K. B. 204, G. A.

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

72
It

may

be added that in construing Acts of a

private or local character, such as Eailway Acts,


the Courts do not shut their eyes to the fact that

embodied in them,
are in effect private arrangements between the
promoters and particular persons; and are not
special clauses, frequently found

inserted by the Legislature as part of a general

simply introduced at
the request of the parties concerned (a). If the

scheme

of legislation, but are

general provisions of such Acts were to override

such special clauses, those in whose favour the


latter are inserted would have a just claim to be
heard in Committee on every clause of the Act,

which would make


private legislation

impossible to conduct any

it

Such

(6).

special clauses are

therefore treated as isolated, and foreign to the

Act; so that their wording, contrary


to the general rule, is not to be regarded as
rest of the

throwing any light on the construction of

SECTION

v.

THE
SCHEDULE

THE

NOTES

TITLE

PREAMBLE

^RULES

MARGINAL

AND ORDERS.

Originally, bills in Parliament

tions to the King.

it (c).

were mere peti-

They were entered on the

(a)

But see

(6)

Per Jessel M.E., Taylor

rolls

sup. pp. 53-54.


v.

Oldham (1877), 46 L.

J.

Oh.

105.
(c)

Per Lord

(1874), L. E. 7

Caims, East London B.

H. L.

89.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Co. v.

Whitechurch

THE

73

TITLE.

answer; and at

of Parliament, with the King's

the end of the session, the Judges drew up these


records into statutes to which they gave a

In the execution of their

made

additions, omissions,

title (a).

task, they occasionally

and alterations; but

the practice ceased in the reign of Henry VI.,

when

bills in

the form of statutes without

The

were introduced (6).

was

title

first

about the eleventh year of Henry VII.

titles

added

In the
amended at any
(c).

Lords the original title of a bill is


stage at which amendments are admissible, when

body

have rendered
any change in the title necessary; and in the
Commons since 1854 either in committee (cZ) or
alterations in the

report

This

of the bill

or on the third reading stage of a bill (/).

(e)

title is

always on the

(a) Co. Litt. 272a.

roll (g).

And see Ilbert on

Legislative Methods, p. 5.

Per Lord Macclesfield se defendendo


1389 May, Parlmy. Pr., 12th ed. chap. 15,
(6)

(c)

Barrington, Obs. Stat. 403.

(d)

May, Parlmy.

(e) Id., p.

Pr.,

12th ed. chap. 15,

(1725), 16 St. Tr.


p. 346.

p. 376.

382.

(/) May, Parlmy. Pr., 12th ed. chap. 15, p. 385, and see
Powell V. Kempton Park Bacecourse Co., [1897] 2 Q. B. 242, at
p.

289 (0.
{g)

A.).

Per Jessel M.E., Sutton

In order to
in 1896,

facilitate

reference,

to

modern

practice the

every Act of Parliament to


a short

Ilbert, Legislative

22 Ch. D. 511, at

p. 513.

citation a Short Titles Act was passed

and according

requires

v. Sutton,

title

in

addition to

Methods and Forms,

Digitized

House

have, for
its

formal long

p. 272.

by Microsoft

of

Lords

facility

of

title,

INTBEPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

74

But

was recog-

although, the title of a statute

nised and attached to

it

by Parliament until quite

modern times, it was not considered a part of the


statute, and was therefore held to be excluded
from

consideration

thus " The

construing

in

the

statute

cannot be resorted to," says


Lord Cottenham, "in construing the enactment " (a). " The title, though it has occasionally
title

been referred to as aiding in the construction of an

no part of the law," was laid


down by the Court of Exchequer, in a well-known
and considered judgment, " and, in strictness,
ought not to be taken into consideration at all " (6).
And Lord Denman remarked that the Court had
Act,

certainly

is

down

often laid that

(c).

The rule was not, indeed,


(a)

Hunter

(6)

Per

invariably observed

84 E. R. 217.

v. NocJcolda,

84 E. E. 255, citing Lord

Cur., Salkeld v. Johnston,

11 Eep. 33b

Coke, Powlter's Case,

Lord Holt, Milk

6 Mod. 62; Lord Hardwicke, A.-O.

Lord Mansfield, JB.

American

case,

(c)

B.

V. Wilcock,

Bl. 95.
J.,

See also Chance v.


Shrewsbury

Leonards, Jefferys

Morant

v. Taylor, 1

v.

14 L.

The
J.

Collector,

M.

v. Scott,

Boosey, 4

v.

Ex. D. 194

Green, L. E. 3 C. P. 522

v.

Madden

St.

J.,

Claydon

J.,

W.

v. Wilkins,

Weymouth, Ambl. 22;

v.

and per Byles

per Lord

H. L. Cas. 982 per Grove


per Willes

v. Williams,

Adams, 1 Lord Eaym.^77


6 C. B. N. S. 1

(cZ)

and the

5 Wallace, 110.

C. 104.

& B, 446 Alexander v.


Newman, 69 R. E. 438 Taylor v. Newman, 32 L. J. M. C. 189
Bawley v. Bawley, 45 L. J. Q. B. 675 Bentley v. Botherham, 46
{d)

See

ex. gr.

B.

v.

Wright, 1 A.

L.

J.

Ch. 284

East

&

West India Bock

Digitized

v.

Shaw, 39 Ch. D. 531

by Microsoft

THE

75

TITLE.

mind, when labouring

for the

design

discover the

to

naturally seized on

the Legislature,

of

everything from which aid could be derived (a);

AND

IT IS

may

be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining

NOW SETTLED LAW THAT THE TITLE OP A


STATUTE IS AN IMPOBTANT PART OF THE ACT (6), and
and of throwing light on its
construction {d), and this rule seems to apply alike
to the " long " and " short " title (e).
general scope

its

however,

Apparently,
statute

(c),

not limited by

is

Formerly the

bill

its title (/).

was, at one of

per Selborne L.C., Middlesex Justices

(a)

its stages,

on parchment

grossed without punctuation

Bryan

of a

construction

the

v. B.,

en(g)

9 App. Gas. 772

v. Child, inf. p. 79.

Per

Cur., U. S. v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 386

U. S. v. Palmer,

3 Wheat. 631.
(6)

Per Lindley M.E., Fielding

1 Oh. 3

774

per

per Sutton

Eomer

J.,

Jones

L.J., in

v.

v.

Morley Corporation, [1899]

Shervington (1908), 77 L. J. K. B.

Amhler

v.

Bradford Corporation, [1902]

2 Ch. C. A., at p. 594.


(c)

A.-G.

Per Lord Maonaghten, Fenton


V.

Margate Pier

Co.,

69 L.

stone C.J., London County Council

J.
v.

v.

Thorley, [1903] A. C.

Ch. 331

447

per Lord Alver-

Bermondsey Bioscope

Co.,

80

L. J. K. B. 144.

on Legislative Methods and Forms, p. 269.


Margate Pier Co. (1900), 69 L. J. Ch. 331.

(d) Ilbert

(e) A.-G. V.

(/) Gross

in

the

goods of (1904), 73 L. J. P. 82

headings of sections, Fletcher

76 L.

J.

v.

K B. 218.

(g) 1 Bl.

Com. (Ed. 1844)

Digitized

as to

Birkenhead Corporation (1907),

183.

by Microsoft

INTEEPRBTA.TION OF STATUTES.

76

but as neither the marginal notes nor the punctuaation appeared on the roll, they formed no parts of
This practice was discontinued in
1849, since which time a copy of each Act, printed
on veUum by the King's printer, is preserved in
the Act

(a).

the House of Lords and constitutes the


record of statutes

ment

Both marginal notes and

(6).

now appear on

punctuation

nevertheless,

official

the rolls of Parlia-

has been said they are

it

not to be taken as parts of the statute

But

(c).

as

regards marginal notes, the rule as to their rejection for the purposes of interpretation

imperfect

of

interpretation

For

obligation.

marginal

Martin B. (d) and by Collins


Barrington, Obs. on Stat. 394

(a)

Beav. 327

per Maule

J.,

B.

purpose

the

of

was used by
M.E. (e), which latter
note

see

Barrow

Oldham, 21 L.

v.

now

is

J.

Wadkm, 24

v.

M.

C. 134.

May, Parlmy. P., 12th ed., chap. 15, p. 399.


Per Willes J., and Bovill O.J., Claydon v. Green (1868),
L. E. 3 C. P. 521
per James L.J., A.-G. v. G. E. B. Co.,
(6)
(c)

11 Ch. D. 465

per Jessel M.E., Sutton

retracting his opinion in

Lord Esher M.E., Duke

Be

v. Sutton,

22 Oh. D. 513,

and per

Venour, 2 Ch. D. 525;

of Devonshire v. O'Connor, 24 Q. B. D.

478.
(d) Nicholson V. Fields,

(e) Bushell v.

Smith

and

V.

24,

31 L.

Hammond

Portsmouth

Justices,

London Building

J.

Ex. 233.

(1904), 73 L. J. K. B.

75 L.

J.

K. B. 851.

Act, 1905 (5 Ed. VII.

and

1005,

In
c.

s.

12

OCIX),

marginal notes in that Act are used as references, and see also

Woking Urban Council (Basingstoke Canal)


(1914), 83 L. J. Ch. 201.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Act, 1911, In re

THE PREAMBLE.
learned Judge said in Bushell

"the

side-note, although,

section,

is

shows the

As

some

of

it

77

Hammond

v.

{inf.),

forms no part of the

inasmuch as

assistance,

it

the section."

drift of

to headings prefixed to

see

sections,

inf.

p. 92.

The indorsement by the Clerk


of the "date of the passing of the

since 1793

No

of Parliaments

Act

is

part of

it

(a).

iatroductory words are necessary to each

section

(6).

The preamble of a statute has been said to be a


good means to find out its meaning, and, as it
were, a key to the understanding of
it

it (c)

and

as

usually states, or professes to state, the general

object and intention of the Legislature in passing

the enactment

may

it

legitimately be consulted

purpose of solving any ambiguity, or of

for the

fixing the

meaning

of

words which

than one, or of keeping the


within

its real

scope,

(o) 33 Geo. III.

52 & 53 Vict.

(c)

"I very much

effect

of the

whenever the enacting part

c.

63,

s. 8.

regret that the practice of inserting pre-

ambles in Acts of Parliament has disappeared

for the preamble

often helped to the solution of doubtful points "

Alverstone O.J., London County Council


Co.,

80 L.

J.

Act

13.

c.

(&)

may have more

v.

K. B. 144.

Digitized

by Microsoft

per Lord

Bermondsey Bioscope

78

INTERPEBTATION OP STATUTES,
in any

is

Thus

s.

3,

of

these respects open to doubt

26 Geo. III.

who had

person

o.

107

served in

(a).

empowered every
the militia and was
(b),

married, to set up in trade in a corporate town, as


freely as soldiers

might under an

earlier enact-

ment, and declared that "no such militiaman"

removable from the town until he


became chargeable, it being open to doubt
whether this expression included all married
should

be

who had
up in trade in towns, the preamble of an
earlier Act fixed the latter as the true construction, as it was stated that the mischief to be
remedied was the state of the law which prevented
soldiers from setting up in trade in corporate
towns (c). So, as an Act which authorised aliens
who "shall have been resident" in the country
for two years, to hold land, might either be limited
militiamen, or only married militiamen

set

(a) Bae. Ab. Stat.

Turquand
11 01.

(I.)

Co. Litt. 79a, 4 Inst. 330, Plowd.

373; per Lord Selbome,


Board of Trade, 11 App. Gas. 286 Sussex Peerage,
& F. 143, 144. But where the language used in the

Halton

369;

35

Cove,

v.

E. R.

v.

schedule to an Act of Parliament varies from that of the


enacting clause to which

it

relates the language of the enacting

clause prevails, Jacobs v. Hart (1900), 2 F. (Just. Cases) 33, at


p.

37; Shore

article

v.

CunningTiam, [1917] 2

on " The

Ofi&ce

of"

Ir.

Journal, 340.
(6)

Repealed 42 Geo.

(c)

B.

V.

III. o. 90, s. 1.

Gwenop (1789), 3 T. E. 133.

Digitized

E. 360.

a Preamble," see 55

by Microsoft

For an
Solicitors'

EXPLAINS WHAT
to persons

who had

of the Act, or

DOUBTFUL.

IS

79

so resided before the passing

extend to those who should at any

time reside for the required time, the preamble

was resorted to in order to determine which of


the two meanings was the more agreeable to the
and as it recited
policy and object of the Act
that aliens were prevented by law from holding
lands in the State, and it was the interest of the
State that such prohibitions should be done away
with, it showed that the former construction was
;

less

adapted to give

effect to the intention of

Legislature than the latter

the

Sec. 137 of the

(a).

Bankruptcy Act of 1849, which enacted


that a Judge's order to sign judgment, given by
a trader defendant, should be void if not filed, was
held limited to traders who became bankrupt, a
conclusion favoured by the heading prefixed to the
section which professed to enact it "with respect
(repealed)

to transactions with the bankrupt "

construction,

it

may be
to

A wider

added, would have had the

unjust effect of enabling the trader

become bankrupt

(b).

set aside

as

who had not


void his own

deliberate act, an intention not to be imputed


to the Legislature, if the language admits of any

other meaning
(a)

Beard

v.

Bowan

case on an American
(6)

Brym

Sec. 18, 12

(c).

v. Child,

&

(1835), 9 Peters, 301.

c.

45,

Ad American

statute.

82 E. E. 710.

See 4 & 5 Geo. V.

for existing law.


(c)

13 Vict.

See Chap. VIII, Sec. III.

Digitized

by Microsoft

c.

59,

80

INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES.

which enacted that " any order " of Quarter Session might be removed to the Queen's Bench for
enforcement, was similarly confined to orders in
appeal cases, by the preamble, which, in reciting
that

it

was expedient that the law should be made

uniform in cases of appeal, showed the limited

Under a statute which


enacted that when a person came into the occupation of premises for which the preceding tenant
was rated to the poor, the old and new occupants
scope of the Act

(a).

should be liable to the rate iu proportion to the

time

of

their

occupation,

the

question

arose

whether either, and if so, which of them, was to


pay for the interval between the removal and the
beginning of the second occupation and this was
determined by the preamble, which, by reciting
that in consequence of rated occupiers removing
without paying their rates, and other persons
entering and occupying the premises for a part
of the year, great sums were lost to the parish,
showed that the object of the Act was not to
make an equitable adjustment between the two
occupiers, but to protect the parish from loss it
was therefore held that the rates were payable
for the interval between the two occupations, and
that the burden fell on the outgoing tenant, who
;

(a)

on

p.

B.

V.

Bateman, 27 L.

J.

M.

C. 95.

The

section quoted

79 does not apply to an order of quarter sessions to abate

a nvdsance.

Digitized

by Microsoft

EXPLAINS WHAT

was formerly

IS

DOUBTFUL.

81

under the Act of Elizabeth for


the whole rate (a). An Act which made it penal
for a publican to allow bad characters to " assemble
and meet together " in his house, would not be
broken by his permitting such persons to enter for
liable

taking refreshment, and remaining there as long

was reasonably necessary for that purpose;


if the preamble showed that the object in view
was the repression of disorderly conduct, not the
as

absolute denial of

character

all

hospitality to persons of bad

Under the repealed Act, 23

(b).

G-eo. II.

which recited in the preamble a doubt as to


who were legal witnesses to a will of land, and
enacted that legatees and devisees who attested
" any will " should be good witnesses, but that the
bequests and devises to them should be void, the
enacting part was limited by the preamble to wills
of land. Wills of personality, at that time, needed
no attestation and the principle of cessante ratione
c. 6,

17 Geo.

(a)

II.

e.

38,

4 Q. B. 554; 17 Geo. II.


Vict. c. 41,

s.

16,

M.

0. 23

amended ; 45 & 46
23 & 24 Vict. c. 27,

further
(6)

s.

75

38,

Greig

Act

c.

94.

Vict.

v.

Busholme, L. E.

was replaced by 32 & 33

c.

& 33

20,

Vict.

M.

41,

e.

must

prosecution, Miller v. Dudley

C. 225.

Gomp.

by 35 & 36
J.
s.

M.

0. 294.

14, 35

in every case be given

JJ.

(1898), 46

W.

E. 606.

LS.

Digitized

16, is

s.

In order to justify a conviction under this

affirmative evidence

v.

s. 3.

Bendeno (1858), 27 L.
J.

Werhurgh

Overseers of St.

32

32, repealed in part

s.

v.

See Belasco v. Hannant, 31 L.


Vict.

12,

s.

on which see

Hutchinson, 49 L. J.

Vict. c. 94,

12; Edwards

s.

c.

by Microsoft

& 36

latter

by the

82

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

cessat lex,

as well as

the injustice of depriving

persons of property, making

it

reasonably doubtful

whether the Legislature had used the expression


" any will "in its full and unrestricted meaning,
the preamble was legitimately invoked to determine

the scope of the enactment

(a).

But the preamble cannot either restrict or extend


the enacting part, when the language and the
and scope of the Act are not open to
doubt (b).
It is not unusual to find that the
enacting part is not exactly co-extensive with the
object

preamble.

In many Acts of Parliament, although

a particular mischief

is

recited, the

provisions extend beyond

legislative

The preamble is
some of the incon-

it.

more than a recital of


veniences, and does not exclude any others for
which |a remedy is given by the statute (c). The
often no

evil recited is

but the motive for legislation

remedy may both


(a)

Emmanuel

consistently and

v. Constable,

Summersgill, 17 Ves. 508

(h)

Copland

Be

Oowp. 543, and Perkins


v.

Addams, 219.

Garr

v.

Per Fortescue

J.,

J.

B.

Boyal Exchange

v. Sewell

(1766), 1

Digitized

Bankes

v.

W.

Bl. 659;

Bentley

Oh. 284.
v.

v.

See

Masters, 33 L. J. Q. B. 146.

Bavies (1872), L. E. 5 H. L. 358;

Botherham (1876), 46 L.
(c)

wisely be

4 Inst. 330; per Lord Mansfield, Pattison

(1777),

the

3 Euss. 436, overruling Lees

Brett v. Brett, 3

also Weihered v. Galcutt, 61 E. E. 606


Ass. Co., 33 L. J. Q. B. 63;

Athos (1723), 8 Mod. 144.

by Microsoft

v.

EXPLAINS WHAT

IS

DOUBtFtL.

^3

extended beyond the cure of that evil (a) ; and if


on a review of the whole Act a wider intention
than that expressed in the preamble appears to be
the real one, effect

is

to be given to

it

notwith-

standing the less extensive import of the pre-

amble
the

(b).

And generally,

meaning of

although in cases where

words used

in

statute

is

absolutely clear the

Court has no right to go


the words are capable of one

beyond them, when


meaning, and at the same time of a more extended
meaning, the Court will look to the object and
policy of the Act to see what meaning they ought
to have (c).
Thus, 4 & 5 Ph. cS; M. c. 8 (d), made
the abduction of all girls under sixteen penal,
though the preamble referred only to heiresses
and other girls with fortunes (e). So, 13 Eliz.
c. 10, which makes void all leases, gifts, grants
and conveyances of estates, made by any dean and
chapter or master of a hospital, of an hereditaments, parcel of the possessions of the cathedral

church or hospital, except

(a)
(6)

660.
(c)

for the

limited term

Per Lord Denman, Fellowes v. Clay (1843), 4 Q. B. 349.


Per Lord Tenterden, Doe v. Brandling (1828), 7 B & C.
See also Copeman

v. Gallant,

Beigate Bural Council

1 P.

Wms.

v. Sutton District

320.

Water

Co. (1908),

99 L. T. 168.
(d)

Eepealed as to England, 9 Geo. IV.

as to India, 9 Geo. IV.

o.

74,

s.

125.

(e) Co. Litt. 88b, n. 14.

Digitized

by Microsoft

c.

31,

s. 1,

which see

84

iNTEEPEETATlON OF STATUTES.

allowed by the Act, was not narrowed or controlled

by a preamble which recited only that divers


ecclesiastical persons endowed of ancient palaces,
mansions, and buildings belonging to their benefices,

not only suffered them to go to decay, but"

converted

the materials

and conveyed away

their

to

their

own

benefit,

goods and chattels to

defeat their successors' claims for dilapidations

5 Geo. IV.

c.

(a).

84, s 26, which, after reciting that

New

South Wales, after


obtaining remissions, sometimes "by their industry
acquired property, in the enjoyment whereof it
was expedient to protect them," enacted that
transported

felons

who

every felon

in

received such remission should

be entitled to sue for the recovery of any property,


real or personal, acquired since his conviction,

was held not limited by the preamble to property


acquired by his own exertions, but applied to all
property howsoever acquired, as for instance by
inheritance (b).
It has been more than once
decided that the preamble of the stUl unrepealed

37 Geo. III.

c.

which

123,

refers

mischiefs consequent on inciting

only to the

men

to sedition

and mutiny, and on administering to them oaths


with this object, did not restrict the enacting part
(a)

York

V.

&

J.

Oh. 677, and see Fleming

v.

Middlehorough (1828), 31 E. E. 566

2 Y.

196.
(6)

Gough

V. Davies,

Smith (1861), 12

Jr.

25 L.

J.

G. L. E. 404.

Digitized

by Microsoft

DOES NOT AFFECT WHAT

IS

85

PLAIN.

which made it felony to administer


oaths not only with a view to mutinous or seditious purposes, but also with a view to disturb
the peace, or to be a member of any association
for a;ny such purpose, or not to reveal any unlawful
combination or illegal act
but that the latter
words included offences foreign to politics and
of the statute,

military discipline, such as the administration of

oaths to poachers not to betray their companions,

and to workmen similarly binding them to secrecy


as members of an association for raising wages by
a strike, or for not working under certain prices (a).
So the preamble of 14 Geo, III. c. 78, which
declared that an earlier Act for the regulation
of buildings and the prevention of fire in the cities
of London and Westminster had been found inefficacious,

and that

it

would tend to the safety

of the inhabitants of those cities

tions wre established,

to the metropolis

was not

if

other regula-

suffered to restrict

83 of that Act, which enacted

s.

in general terms that in order to deter persons

from wilfully setting fire to their houses, with a


view to gain to themselves the insurance money,
the
(a)

of

directors
B.

Brodribb (1816), 6 C.

V.

6 E. E. 577

insurance

B. v. Loveless,

819, and comp. Smith v.

case decided under

s.

&

P.

40 E. E. 825

Moody

571

B.

B.

v.

v. Ball,

Property Act, 1875.

by Microsoft

&

in

Marls,

40 E. E.

(1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 43

7 of the Conspiracy

Digitized

should,

offices

Protection of

86

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

suspicious cases, lay out the insurance

damaged buildings

reinstating the

money

in

This con-

(a).

by the
circumstance that the section in question was a
was further

struction, however,

justified

re-enactment of a similar provision in the earlier

and repealed Act, with the significant omission of


the words "within the limits aforesaid," which

words remained in most of the other sections of


the later Act

Sec. 11, 21 Jac.

(6),

I.

c.

19(c),

which empowered bankruptcy commissioners to


dispose of goods which were in the possession
of the bankrupt, as reputed owner, with the real

owner's consent, was prefaced by a preamble which


recited the mischiefs of bankrupts " secretly con-

veying" their goods to other persons, and yet


remaining in the reputed ownership of them

but

the enactment was not confined to this particular


form of the mischief (d).

3 Jac.

King's
(a)

also

I. c.

10

which, after reciting that the

(e),

charged

were

subjects

Exp. Gorely, 34 L. J. Bank.

Owen

v.

14 Geo. III.

Burnett, 2
c.

78,

conveying

per Lord Westbury.

1,

& M.

The

353.

See

application of

83 to Scotland has been doubted, see

s.

Westminster Fire Office

Cr.

with

v.

Glasgow Provident Investment Go. (1888),

13 A. C. 699.
(6)

As

to the construction of

s.

86, see Musgrove v. Pandelis,

[1919] 2 K. B. 43, 0. A.
(c)

(d)
(e)

Eepealed by 6 Geo. IV.

Mace

V.

Cadell (1774),

Eepealed by 4

&

c.

s. 1.

Cowp. 232.

5 Geo. V.

Digitized

16,

c.

58,

s.

44 and Sched. IV.

by Microsoft

DOES NOT AFFECT WHAT

and

IS

PLAIN.

87

and offenders
against the law" to jail, punishable by imprisonment there, enacted that " every person " committed to the county jail by a justice "for any
offence or misdemeanor," should bear his own
charges of conveyance, if he had property, and
that if he had not, they should be borne by the
parish where he was apprehended, was held not to
be confined by the preamble to offenders against
the ordinary law, but to apply to deserters from
So, the preamble of 22 Geo. III.
the army (a).
c. 75(6), which recited the mischief of granting
colonial offices to persons who remained in England,
and discharged the duties of their offices by deputy,
was not suffered to exclude judicial offices from
the general enacting part, 'which authorised the
Governor and Council to remove "any" officeholder for misconduct although the mention of
delegation in the preamble showed that the judicial
office was not there in contemplation (c).
2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 100 {d), which after reciting
that the expense and inconvenience of suits for
the recovery of tithes ought to be prevented by
"felons

other

malefactors

Pierce (1814), 15 E. E. 410

(a)

B.

(6)

Commonly

V.

M. &

S. 62.

attributed to Burke, but really an Act of

by 57 & 58
(c)

Vict. c. 17,

s.

Lord

Act amended

Shelburne's; see Shelb. Life, Vol. III. p. 337.


1.

Willis V. Oippa (1846), 5

Moo. P.

0. 379

see also Cloete v.

The Queen (1854), 8 Moo. P. C. 484.


(d) Eepealed as a publio Act by 46 & 47 Vict.

Digitized

by Microsoft

c.

49,

g. 4.

INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES,

88

shortening the time required for the valid establishment of claims to exemption from tithes, enacted
that

when

made by a layman,
exemption should be deemed conclu-

a claim to tithes was

a claim to

sively estabhshed

by proof

of

non-payment

for

sixty years, gave rise to a celebrated legal controversy, in

much

the preamble was


Before the passing of that Act,

which the

considered.

effect of

no layman could establish exemption from tithes,


except by proving that the land in respect of
which they were claimed had formerly belonged
to one of the great monasteries, and had been
exempt in its hands the latter proposition being
usually established by such evidence of non;

payment

in

modern times

as sufficed for founding

the inference of exemption.


of the

Judges

(a),

It

was held by some

that the enactment was confined

and the preamble was invoked in support of this view. But it was considered by others (6), and finally decided (c), that
the Act applied to all cases whatsoever and that
upon proof of non-payment for sixty years the
landowner was exempt, whether the land had ever
been monastic or not. The enactment was free

to claims of this kind

(o)

Wigram V.-C,

Tindal

C.J.,

Oresswell,

Patteson, and

Coleridge JJ.
(6)

Lord Denman, Williams, Coltman, Erie

Parke, Alderson, and Piatt


(c)

By Lord

BB.

Cottenham.

Digitized

by Microsoft

JJ.,

Pollock C.B.,

PREAMBLE MAY RESTEIOT THE ENACTMENT.


from ambiguity, and contained no

89

flexible

pression capable of different meanings (a)

ex-

wMle

the preamble, which one side understood as meaning that the expense and inconvenience of the

same kind of suits as before ought to be prevented,


was thought on the other to mean that expensive
and inconvenient suits ought to be prevented in all
cases; and that this was best effected by giving
the more easy method of establishing exemptions
by simple proof of non-payment for a certain
time

(6).

Where

the preamble

is

than the enacting part,

found more extensive

it is

equally inefficacious

when otherwise
3 W. & M. o. 14,

to control the effect of the latter,

from doubt. For instance,


"
s. 3 (c), which gave creditors an action of " debt
against the devisees of their debtor, was held not
to authorise an action for a breach of covenant,
free

for the recovery of money not strictly a


" debt " {d); though the preamble recited that it

or

was not just that by the contrivance

of debtors

their creditors should be defrauded of their debts,


(a)

Per Lord

Mae. & G. 264

Cottenham, Salkeld
18 L.

J.

v.

Johnston

(1849),

Ch. 493.

& G. 242 Fellowes v. Clay


(1843), 12 L. J. Q. B. 202 4 Q. B. 313 and see S. C. (1848),
18 L. J. Ex. 89 and see upon the general question Cfeojpe v.
(6)

See Salkeld

v. Johnston,

1 Mac.

Cresswell (1866), L. E. 2 Ch. 112, at p. 118.


(c)

Eepealed by 1 Will. IV.

c.

47,

s. 3.

(d) Wilson V. Knvhley (1806), 7 East, 128.

Digitized

by Microsoft

90

INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.

had often happened that after binding


themselves by bonds " and other specialities " they
devised away their property. The mention, it was
but that

it

observed, of the action of debt in the enacting


part was

other

(a).

almost an express exclusion of every


An Act which made it penal to dye

seeds so as to give
of

'"

of seeds

them the appearance

another kind,"

could not

be

extended to

similar manipulations of old or inferior seeds, to

make them appear

as

new

of the

same

species,

by

a recital that the practice of adulterating seeds in


fraud of the Queen's subjects and the detriment
agriculture

of

required repression

An^ Act

(b).

which required the trustees of a turnpike trust to


apply the monies which they received, first, in
paying "any interest which might from time to
time be owing," next, in keeping the road in

and finally, in paying off the principal


sums due by the trust, was held not to authorise

repair,

the payment of arrears of interest

although this

enactment was prefaced by a preamble

which

recited that arrears of interest as well as principal

and could not be paid


unless further powers were granted (c).
Such

sums were due by the


off

(a)
(6)

trust,

Per Lord Ellenborongh, 7 East, 135.


v. Maas (1878), 47 L. J. M. C. 83
41 & 42
was passed to overcome the difficulties experienced

Francis

Viet, c 17,

in this case.
(c)

Marhet Earhorough

v.

Digitized

Kettering {181 B), 42 L. J.

by Microsoft

M.

C. 137

PREAMBLE MAY RESTRICT THE ENACTMENT.


an extension

91

Act would have required very


clear words, since it would have had the effect of
throwing on the ratepayers of one year a burden
of the

properly belonging to those of another

(a).

It

has been sometimes said that the preamble

may

extend, but cannot restrain the enacting part

of a

statute

But

{b).

it

support this proposition

would seem

difficult to

Several of the cases

(c).

above cited might be referred to as instances of a


meaning having been judicially given to

restricted

an enactment by its preamble (d). It could hardly


be doubted that a statute which, in general terms,

made

felony to alter a

it

but see Burton Turnpike Trustees

39 L.

M.

J.

bill

v.

of exchange,

would

Wincanton Highway Board,

C. 155.

(a)

See Chap. X, Sec.

(6)

B.

II.

Athos (1723), 8 Mod. 144; Copeman

V.

v.

Gallant,

-Wms. 320 per Lord Abinger, Walker v. Bichardson (1837),


46 E. E. 782 6 L. J. Ex. 229 per Willes J., Haymanv. Flewker,
32 L. J. 0. P. 132; per Turner L.J., Drummond v. Brummond
(1866), L. E. 2 Oh. 44 per Growder J., Kearns v. Cordwainers'
1 P.

Co.,

6 C. B. N. S. 388.

(c)

See

ex. gr.

per Parker C.B. aud Lord Hardwicke, Byall

Bolle, 1 Atk, 174, 182.

See also ^er Lord Blackburn, West

v.

Ham

Overseers v. lies (1883), 8 App. Gas. 386, at p. 388.


{d)

B.

V.

Gwenop (1789), 3 T. E. 133

sup. pp. 74, 89.

26 L.

J.

M.

See also per Gur., B.

C. 65

Hughes

See also Lancashire Brick


By.

Co.,

Manchester (1857),

v. Chester B. Co., 31 L. J. Gh. 97.

&c. Co.

and Lancashire & Yorkshire

[1902] 1 K. B. 651, G. A.

Digitized

SaJkeld v. Johnston,

v.

by Microsoft

92

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

be

restrained

fraudulent

to

preamble -which recited that

by a

alterations,
it

was desirable

to

suppress cheats and frauds effected by altering

The function of the preamble is to


explain what is ambiguous in the enactment (&),
and it may either restrain or extend it as best

bills (a).

suits the intention.

But it is a settled rule that the preamble cannot


be made use of to control the enactments themselves when they are expressed in clear and unambiguous terms (c).

The headings prefixed to sections or sets


sections in some modem statutes are regarded
preambles to those sections
{a)'B.

V.

Bigg (1717), 3 P.

of
as

(d).

Wms.

For a resume

434, arg.

of

cases on this point, see Archbold's Criminal Pleading, 25th ed.,


at pp. 772, 773.
(6)

The People

v. Utica Insur. Co.,

See also Coosmo Mining

15 Johns. N. Y. Eep. 389.

144 U.

Go. v. South Carolina (1891),

S.

550, at p. 563.
(c)

Powell

at p. 185
(d)

See

L. J. Ex.

V.

Kempton Parle Bacecourse

ex.

Brya/n, v.

gr.

264; Shrewsbury

Eastern Counties B. Co.

36 L.

Lafone,

Co.,

[1899] A. 0. 143,

68 L. J. Q. B. 392.

v.

v.

82 K. E. 710;

(1850),

19

Beazley, 34 L. J. C. P. 328;

Marriage, 9 H. L. Cas. 41

Ex. 97

J.

ChUd

Hammersmith By.

Co.

Latham
v.

v.

Brand,

Lang v. Kerr, 3 App. Cas. 636 Bayson v.


South London Tramways Co., [1893] 2 Q. B. 304 ; per Brett L.J.,

L. E. 4 H. L. 171

B.

V.

West

Local Govt. Bd., 10 Q. B. D. 321


V.

Gwynne, 80 L.

J.

Ch. 587, 588.

per -BuoMey

L.J.,

Gomp. Broadbent

v.

Imperial Gas. Co., 26 L. J. Cb. 276 per Farwell L.J., Fletcher v.


;

Digitized

by Microsoft

A FUNDAMENTAL

93

PKINOIPLE.

Rules made under an Act which prescribes that


they shall be laid before Parliament for a prescribed

which period they may be


annulled by a resolution of either House, but that
if not so annulled they are to be of the same effect
as if contained in the Act, and are to be judicially
noticed, must be treated for all purposes of con-

number

of days, during

struction or obligation or otherwise, exactly as

they were in the Act.

it

a conflict

of these rules

must be

conflict

is

and a section of the


same spirit as a
between two actions of the Act should be

between one
Act,

If there

if

dealt with.

If

dealt with in the

reconciliation

is

impossible, the

subordinate provision must give way, and probably


the rule would be treated as subordinate to the
section (a).

In a word, then,

it is

to be taken as a funda-

mental principle, standing, as it were, at the


threshold of the whole subject of interpretation,
that the plain intention of the Legislature, as

expressed by the language employed,


to be

may

accepted and carried into

is

effect,

59

New Zealand v.
;

Union S.S. Co.

Melbourne Commissioners (1884), 53 L.

9 App. Gas. 365.

(a)

whatever

be the opinion of the judicial interpreter of

Birkenhead Corporation, [1907] 1 K. B., at p. 218


of

invariably

As

Per Lord Herschell

Lockmod, [1894] A. C,

J. P. C.

to Marginal Notes, see sup. p. 76.

L.O., Institute of Patent Agents v.

at p. 360.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTBRPEBTATION OP STATUTES.

94
its

wisdom

or justice.

If the language admits of

no doubt or secondary meaning, it is simply to be


obeyed. If it admits of more than one construction, the true meaning is to be sought, not on the
wide sea of surmise and speculation, but "from
such conjectures as are drawn from the words
alone, or something contained in

them

" (a); that

from the context viewed by such light as its


history may throw upon it, and construed with
is,

the help of certain general principles, and under


the influence of certain presumptions as to what

the Legislature does or does not generally intend.

must not be strained


it apply to a case to which it
does not legitimately, in its terms, apply, on

But the language


in order to make

of a statute

account of the supposed intention of the Legislature

and the theory that that supposed intention

can only be effectually carried out by giving to


the words a meaning which they do not naturally
bear

(6).

(o) Puff. L.

N.

b. 5, c. 12, s. 2,

note by Barbeyrac

Beigate

Btiral Council v. Sutton District Water Go. (1908), 99 L. T. 168.


(6)

639;

Per Lord HerscheU, Kent


and see Macheth

v.

G. G. v. Gerard,

Chislett,

[1910]

L. J. K. B. 376.

Digitized

by Microsoft

[1897] A. C.

A. C.

220;

79

CHAPTEE
SECTION

I.

WORDS

II.

UNDERSTOOD ACCORDING TO THE

SUBJECT MATTER.

The words

of a statute,

when

there

a doubt

is

about their meaning, are to be understood in the


sense in which they best harmonise

with

the

and the object which


Their meaning is
(a).
found n(}t so much in a strictly grammatical or
etymological propriety of language, nor even in its
subject of the enactment

the Legislature has in view

popular use, as in the subject or in the occasion

on which they are used, and the object to be


attained (6). It is not because the words of a
statute, or the words of any document, read in one
sense will cover the case, that that

is

the right

sense.
Grammatically they may cover it; but
whenever a statute or document is to be construed,
it must be construed not according to the mere
ordinary general meaning of the words, but according to the ordinary meaning of the words as
applied to the subject matter with regard to which
(a)
(6)

Sup. pp. 39, 40.

Per

B. & P.

Cur.,

b. 2,

s.

JB.

16

v.

Eall (1822), 1 B. & C. 136

Puff L. N.

Digitized

b. 5, c.

12,

by Microsoft

s. 3.

Grot, de

96

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

they are used, unless there


renders

which

necessary to

it

is

something which

is

read them

in

sense

not their ordinary sense in the English


evident enough

language as so applied

(a).

in the simple case of a

word which has two totally


The Act of Ed. III., for

different

meanings.

instance,

which forbade

"provisions"

This

ecclesiastics to purchase

Eome would

at

referring to those

is

be construed as

papal grants of benefices in

England which were called by that name, and not


to food when it was seen that the object of the
Act was not to prevent ecclesiastics from living in
Eome, but to repress papal usurpations (&). The
" vagabond " of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, 5 Geo. IVc. 83, is not necessarily the mere wanderer of
strict etymology (c).
Nor is a person making a
;

bond fide collection in the street for a charitable


object a beggar within the mischief of

s.

3 of the

Vagrancy Act{d). No one is likely to confound


the "piracy" of the high seas with the "piracy"
of copyright or to give, in one branch of the law,
the meaning which would belong, in another, to
;

(a)

53 L.
(6)

Per Brett M.E., Lion Insurance Go.


J.

v.

Tucker (1883),

Q. B. 189.

1 Bl.

Comm.

(Ed. 1770) 60

Statutes of Provisors or

Praemunire passed in 1350, 1353, 1364, 1390, and 1401.


(c)

Rex

Moncl

V.

Hilton (1877), 46

V. Diehinson,

{d)

Mathers

v.

L.

J.

M.

[1917] 2 K. B. 393.
Penfold, [1915] 1 K. B. 514.

Digitized

by Microsoft

C. 163;

and see

SUBJECT MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED.


a host

such

familiar words,

of

Duty

sion

" accept,"

as

" assure," " issue," " settlement."

97

In the Succes-

which provided that the


instalments of duty payable by a successor should
cease at his death, except when he was " competent to dispose by will of a continuing interest in
the property," the competency intended was
obviously not mental sanity or freedom from
personal

Act,

1853,

but

incapacity,

by will
did not, by

tion

the

disposi-

The Gasworks Clauses Act,

(a).

an

possession of

which was capable of

estate of inheritance

1847,

due for gas "rent,"


authorise a distress for the debt under the repealed
Bankruptcy Act, 1869, which regulated the power
calling the debt

of distress of a landlord " or other person to


'

rent

16

(a)
ss.

is

'

21,

due " by the bankrupt

& 17

22

Vict. c. 51,

A.-G.

21,

s.

judgment being " final," Bidsdale


Moore, 14 Q. B. D. 627

The Mutiny

(6).

amended by 51 & 52
27 L.

v. Eallett (1857),

J.

whom

Viot.

As

Ex. 89.

2 P. D. 276

v. Clifton,

Exp. Grimwade, 17 Q. B. D. 357

c.

8,

to a
Exj).
;

Be

Henderson, 20 Q. B. D. 509; Onslow v. Inl. Bev. (1890), 59


L. J, Q. B. 556

Be

Salaman

Warner (1891), 60 L.

v.

Alexander,' [1892] 1 Q. B. 216;

L. J. Q. B. 207
(6)

Be

Be a Bankruptcy Notice, [1895]

32 & 33 Vict.

c.

71,

s.

34

J.

Q. B. 624

Binstead (1892), 62

Sill, Exp.,

1 Q. B. 609.

6 Cb. D. 63.

See

Sarrison, Exp., 13 Q. B. D. 753 ; Peake, Be, 53 L. J. Cb. 977.


As to " tolls " in Eailway Acts, see cases collected in judgment
of Field

J.,

Broim

v.

G.

W. B.

North Central Wagon Co.

v.

Co.,

9 Q. B, D. 750; see also

Manchester, 8.

L. J. Cb. 780, 56 Id. 609, 58 Id. 219.

As

8f

L. B.

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Co.,

55

to water " rate," see

98

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

Acts whioli exempt soldiers from the payment of


tolls over " bridges " would not carry the exemption to a steata ferry boat, because it is called a
'floating

bridge

The enactment which

(a).

hibited parish officials from being

pro-

concerned in

contracts for supplying goods, materials or pro-

meant

visions "for the use of the workhouse,"

" for the use of the persons in the workhouse,"

and therefore did not apply

to a contract for the

supply of materials for the repair of the buUdThis

ing'(6).

too plain to need further illustra-

is

tion.

In dealing with matters relating to the general


public, statutes are presumed to use words in their
popular sense;

But when

uti loquitur vulgits(e).

dealing with particular businesses or transactions,

words are presumed to be used with the particular


meaning in which they are used and understood
in the particular business in
Hunt (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 145

Badcoch

v.

66 L.

Ch. 350

J.

(o)

Ward

(6)

55 Geo.

III.
c.

137,

c.

122,

Comp. 4 & 5 Will. IV.


(c)

The

Fusilier,

s.

s.

Floyd

440

c.

34 L.

76,

M.

J.

Barher

s.

J. P.

v. Waite, 1 A.

Kenyon

276

Morrall

Evans

6 by

& B. 514

M. &

A. 27, per Dr. Lushington.

E. 9 Q. B. 380.
v.

v. Stevens,

v. Sutton (1844),

Digitized

s.

77, cited inf. p. 298.

Per Lord Esher M.E., Unwin

s.

E. 433, 439.

0. 146.

Hanson, [1891] 2 Q. B.

119 and The Dunelm, 9 P. D. 171; Grot.


Vattel, b. 2,

that

Lyons (1897),

v.
I.

(cZ)

repealed in part as to

ex. gr. Pitts v. Millar, L.

[d)

Haslett v. Sharman, [1901] 2

Gray (1865), 34 L.

V.

31 & 32 Vict.

See

question

b. 2,

c.

16,

s.

3;

4 T. E. 462, per Lord

65 E. E. 434

by Microsoft

14 L.

J.

Ch.

WORDS CONSTRUED IN POPULAR SENSE.

99

meaning being rejected, however, as soon as the


judicial mind is satisfied that another is more
Thus,
agreeable to the object and intention (a).
38 Greo. III. c. 5 and c. 60, which exempted
" hospitals " from the land tax, was construed as
applying to all establishments popularly known by
that designation, and even as extending to an
asylum for orphans (b)
when it appeared more
consonant to the object of the Act to give it that
wider meaning, than to restrict it to what are
;

alone "hospitals" in the strict legal sense of the


term, that

eleemosynary institutions in which


the persons benefited form a corporate body (c).
266

Doe

is,

Doe v. Harveif, 4 B. & 0. 610


H. L. Gas. 68 The Pacific, 33 L. J. P. M.
See per James L. J., Boucicault v. Ghatterton, 5 Ch. D.

v. Jesson,

21 E. E. 1

Abbott V. Middleton, 7

&

A. 120.

275

Spackman, Be, 24 Q. B. D. 728

Q. B. 595

Baifner

Hughes, Be, [1893] 1

Bayner (1903), 73 L.

v.

J.

Oh. 114; [1904]

1 Ch. 176, note, p. 191.


(a)

Per Lord Wensleydale, Baddy v. Fitzgerald


See also Pelham Clinton

Cas. 877.

71 L.
V.

Ch. 53, C. A.

J.

v.

Newcastle,

(1858), 6 H. L.
Duke of (1901),

affirmed (1902), 72 L. J. Ch. 424

Towns

Wentworth (1858), 11 Moore P. 0. 643.


(6)

4 B.

house," see

73 L.
(c)

36 L. J. Ex. 172. See B. v. Man& Aid. 504. For a similar construction of " AlmsMary Clark Home v. Anderson, [1904] 2 K. B. 645

Colchester v. Kewney,

chester,

J.

K. B. 806.

Sutton's Case,

within

s.

1,

10 Eep. 31a.

As

to

what

Poor Eemoval Act, 1846 (9 & 10

Ormskirk Union

Ormskirk Union

v.
v.

is

"
an " hospital

Vict. c. 66), see

Chorlton Union (1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 721

Lancaster Union, 107 L. T. 620.

Digitized

by Microsoft

100

INTBEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

So the power given in the Highway Act, 1835, to


a surveyor to " lop " trees growing near a highway,

was construed in the popular sense as confined to


cutting off lateral branches, and not extending to
" topping " (a). An Act which privileged a bankrupt fi;om arrest for "debt" was, on the same
principle, extended to arrests for non-payment of
money ordered to be paid by an order of the

Common

Court of Chancery, or by a rale of a

Law

Court, though technically not constituting a

debt

(b)

and the provision of the repealed s. 18

& 6

(a) 5

Will. IV.

60 L.

c.

50,

s.

of a fence

under 5 & 6 Will. IV.

1 Car.

& K.

Q. B. 531.

J.

As

125,

when

to

65

c.

Urwin

As

Q. B. 115

to

50,

what
s.

v.

(8),

Hanson, [1891] 2

removal

will justify

69, see Evans v. Oakley,

the occupier of land

obligation to the public for an obstruction, see

is

under no

Hudson

v.

Bray,

[1917] 1 K. B. 520.
(6)

By

A 5 Geo.

7 of 4

s.

1914), protection

is

V.

c.

59 (The Bankruptcy Act,

given to the property and person of a debtor

The

subsequently to the making of a receiving order.


cases are illustrative of protection

following

afforded under repealed

Acts in cases where the liability was not technically a debt


M' Williams, Exp. (1803), 1 Sch. & Lef. 169, attachment for
contempt; B. v. Edwards (1829), 9 B, & G. 652, attachment

under rule

of

ment

non-payment

for

Court

B.

v.

Dunne

(1813), 2

M. &

Master's award;

S. 201, attach-

Lees

v.

Newton

(1866), 35 L. J. C, P. 285, attachment out of Chancery.

Oomp.

Bancroft

43 Eliz.

of

v. Mitchell (1867),
c. 2, s.

Drover

v.

L. E. 9 Q. B. 549, no privilege under

Beyer (1879), 13 Ch. D, 242, refusal

to grant writ of ne exeat regno

L. E. 2 P.

& D.

189, bankruptcy

Digitized

Patterson v. Patterson (1870),


of

co-respondent

by Microsoft

Bates v.

WORDS CONSTRUED IN POPULAR SENSE.

101

Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which made a composition


binding on creditors as regards any " debts " due
to them from the debtor and provable in bankruptcy,
was held to apply to any contingent liabilities
which would be released by an order of discharge

Words

(a).

in statutes are not infrequently

construed in their popular and not in their technical

Thus, when

meaning.

it

was enacted

&

(5

WilL IV. c. 54) that marriages already celebrated


between persons within prohibited degrees should
not be annulled for that cause, unless by sentence
pronounced in a suit then " depending " it was
;

held that this last word was to be understood in

a popular and not technical sense, and that a suit

was "depending" as soon as the citation had


been issued (b).
Again, " monopoly value " in
Bates (1888), 14 P. D. 17, no privilege under
Act, 1869,

4 of Debtors

s.

from order to find security for wife's costs

Bawley (1876), 45

by

exists where the debt to be set off is enforceable

also Jones v.

Thompson (1858), 27 L.

(1881), 8 Q. B.

Bawley

v.

L. J. Q. B. 675, a right of " set off" only

" penalty "

D. 151.

J.

Q. B. 234

is

claimed to be due within the meaning

of

action.

B.

sum

not a
s.

v.

of

See

Paget

money

6 of the S. J. Act,

1879.
(a)

46 & 47 Vict.

see also

Hardy

c.

52

\. Fothergill,

Flint v. Barnard, 22 Q. B. D. 90

13 App. Gas. 351

Craig's Claim,

Be, [1895] 1 Oh. 267.


(6)

Sherwood v.

11 Moo. P. C. 324
" instituted "
nail,

66 L.

J.

Bay (1837), 43 E. E. 90. See Ditcher v. Denison,


B. v. Brooks, 2 C. & K. 402. A prosecution is
;

by the laying of the information


Q. B. 248

Thorpe

Beardsley v, Oiddings, 73 L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v. Priest-

J.

K. B.

102

INTEKPRETATION OF STATUTES.

Consolidation Act,
1910, means " capital monopoly value " and is a
lump sum to be definitely fixed upon the grant

14

s.

(1)

Licensing

of the

of the justices' licence (a).

The payment of a fixed sum " in each and every


calendar month " is the payment of an annual
sum within the meaning of the Annuity Act, 1863,
and is therefore subject to Income Tax (b).
For the purposes of s. 42 of the Naval Prize

&

28 Vict. c. 25), only such of His


Majesty's vessels " as are actually present at the

Act, 1864 (27

taking or destroying "

of an enemy's ships are

entitled to participate in the prize

other

may have

ships

Moreover, such
reward,

bounty although

helped in the fight (c).


bounty being purely a naval

the taking or destroying of an enemy's

if

ships results from

the combined

of

eff'orts

His

Majesty's sea and land forces no award of bounty


378

and a written claim

on a

sheriff, is

to goods taken in execution, served


a " proceeding instituted " within s. 2, Married

Women's Property

Act, 1893 (56

Tyson, [1901] 2 K. B. 487.

A. C. 177
(a)

Bex

Bex

Moran
V.

v.

& 57

Vict.

See also Hood Barrs

c.

v.

Nunn

v.

Place, [1896] P. 214.

Sunderland Customs (1914), 83 L.

V. Pilfield,

63)

Heriof, [1897]

J.

K. B. 555

[1919] 2 K. B. 249.

(6)

Cooper, In re (1918), 119 L. T. 303.

(c)

Falkland Islands Battle, In re H.M.S. Ganopus, Exp. (1917),

86 L.

J. P. 47.

See also The Garmania (1916), 32 T. L. E. 395

The Sydney, [1916] P. 300; The Konigsherg, [1917] P. 174;

H.M. Submarine

Vessel

E 14,

Digitized

[1917] P. 85.

by Microsoft

WOEDS CONSTRUED IN POPULAR SENSE.

103

can be made (a). And in like manner where


under the constitution of an association, originally
founded in 1861, there were frequent changes of

membership, technically amounting to the formait was held that


" formed," within s. 4,

tion of partnerships after 1862,


as

the association was

Companies Act, 1862, before the passing of the


Act, the expression must be taken in its popular
sense (6). An Act (c) which authorised the Court
before which a road indictment was "preferred,"
to give the prosecutor costs, was held to confer
authority to award them to the judge, who tried
the indictment at Nisi Prius even after its removal
Queen's Bench

into the

(d)

for

the technical

meaning of the word "preferred" would have


rendered the Act nugatory in a large majority
of cases, road indictments being rarely tried
the Assizes at which they are " preferred "

Where judgment was "recovered"


(a)

H.M.S. Triumph and H.M.S. Usk, In

for

at
(e).

600 on a

re (1917),

86 L.

J. P.

127.
(6)

of

25 & 26 Vict.

c.

Vn.

8 Bdw.

c.

69

89,

s.

i,

repealed and replaced by

see as to earlier Act,

Shaw

v.

s.

Simmons, 12

Q. B. D. 117.
(c) 5 & 6
Bdw. VII. c.

{d)

B.

V.

Will. rv.
15,

s.

()

50,

s.

95, repealed as to costs

Pemhridge (1842), 12 L.

Preston, 7 Dowl. 593


V. Ipstones.

c.

by 8

10 and Schedule.

see also B.

L. E. 3 Q. B. 216

Per Coleridge

J.,

v.

37 L.

J.

Q. B. 47, 259

J.

M.

3 Q. B. 906.

Digitized

B.

Papwortli, 2 East, 413

by Microsoft

0. 37.

v.

B.

104

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

warrant of attorney to secure an annuity of B0,


of which only ^15 were due, it was held that the
defendant was protected from arrest by the enactment that no person should be taken in execution

on a judgment "where the sum recovered does


not exceed ^620." Though technically the judgment was " recovered " for the larger sum, the

sum

was under 20

really recovered

(a).

The

Eailway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, which,


while giving companies power to take land for

temporary purposes, provided that they should not


be exempted from " an action " for nuisance or
other injury, was construed as not limited to what
were technically " actions," but included all pro-

Where

ceedings whether at law or in equity (b).

the Quarter Sessions were empowered to order


" the party against whom an appeal was decided,"

pay the costs of the successful party it was


held that the prosecutor who had procured the

to

conviction successfully appealed against,


this purpose the party appealed
(a) 7
s.

& 8

Vict. c. 6,

s.

57, repealed

against,

by 32 & 33

20 and Schedule, see under repealed Act

24 L.
(6)

J. 0.

&

s.

1,

9 Vict.

c.

20,

69 L.

67 L.
J.

c.

83,

v. Harris,

s.
;

32

Fenwick

44 L.

J.

v.

East London B. Co.

Ch. 602.

" Action " as used

Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, has been

similarly construed:

525

Viot.

Johnson

P. 40.

(1875), L. E. 20 Bq. 544


in

was for
though

J.

Ch. 347

Harrop
;

v.

Ossett (Mayor), [1898]

and see FieUen

v.

Ch. 314, A.C.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ch.

Morley Corp. (1900),

WOKDS CONSTRUED
lie

was not so on the

IN

POPULAR SENSE.

105

record, or formally, nor even

by being served with notice of the appeal (a).


The convicting justices were not the parties
appealed against, though the Act required that
the notice of appeal should be served on them.

Even the word

" party " has received the sense in

sometimes vulgarly used, of "person,"


when it is plain that Parliament so intended it
as in the repealed Chancery Amendment Act of
1852, which enacted that any " party " who made

which

an

it is

in a suit should be liable to

affidavit

examination

(6).

17 Geo. Ill,

which,

26(c),

c.

cross-

requiring the registration of annuities, to

after

check,

the preamble

as

practice

except

annuities,

states,

the

money by 'the

of raising

is

of

on

charged

annuities

whereof the grantor

pernicious

sale

life

lands

"seised in fee simple or

was construed as including


in this exception a person who was tenant for life
with a general power of appointment for such a
person, though not technically a tenant in fee
fee tail in possession,"

simple,

is

substantially so, since he can dispose

Although the word

of the property absolutely (d).

M.

(a) B. V. Hants, 9 L. J.

Beg.

V.

London

JJ., [1896] 1 Q.

C. 109

35 E. E. 407

B. 616, at

p.

631

64 L.

and see
J.

M.

G.

100.
(6) 15

& 16

Vict. c. 86,

s.

40; Be Quartz Hill

Co.,

21 Gh. D.

642.
(c)

Eepealed by S. L. E. 1861.

(d) Halsey v.

Hales (1797), 7 T. E. 194

Digitized

by Microsoft

Eccles v.

Cheyne

106

INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.

" children "


children

(a),

illegitimate

more

would be construed as including


children when such seemed to be
it

consonant

Geo.

II.

legitimate

generally confined to

is

the

to

Thus,

intention.

33 (repealed by 4 Geo. IV.

c.

c.

26
76),

which declared void the marriage of minors without the consent of their parents or guardians,

was held to apply to illegitimate children, since


clandestine marriages by them were within the
mischief which it was the object to remedy (6) and
the 4 & 5 Ph. & M. c. 8, s. 3 (c), which made it
penal to take an unmarried girl under sixteen from
;

the possession of her parents, against their wiU,

was held to apply to the taking of a natural


daughter from her putative father (c?).
(1856), 2 K.

&

Oomp. Leach

at p. 681.

J.,

v.

Jay (1878), 47

L. J. Oh. 876.
(a) B. V. Helton, Burr. S. 0. 187

8 Q. B. 410; B.
(1873),

li.

Maude

v.

E. 6 H. L. 265

see jper

E. By. Co., 33 L. J. Ex. 91

iV.

B.

v.

BirmingJiam (1846),

(1842), 65 E. E. 753

PoUook

Dorin

Hill v. CrooJc

G.B., Dickinson v.

v. Dorin,

L. E. 7 H. L.

568.
(6)

B.

V.

Hodnett (1786), 1 T. E. 96

see also B. v. St. Giles

M. G. 197
Edw. VII. c. 45, s. 3 (Punishment of Incest Act, 1908).
Eepealed by 9 Geo. IV. c. 31, s. 1.

(1847), 11 Q. B. 173

B.

Brighton (1861), 30 L. J.

v.

see also 8
(c)

(d) B.

L. E.

As
Be

7.

V.

Cornforth (1742), 2 Stra. 1162.

H. L. 568

to conflict of

Dickinson

Laws and

v.

N. E. B.

33 L.

J.

v.

Dorin,

Ex. 91.

indelibility of bastardy, see Wright,

(1856), 25 L. J. Oh. 621.

Digitized

In Borin

Co.,

by Microsoft

WORDS CONSTRUED

POPULAR SENSE.

IN

107

company incorporated tinder the


Companies Acts is not a company " incorporated
limited

by Act of Parliament " {a).


In a Customs Act, which imposes duties on
imported commodities, the articles specified would
generally be understood in their

sense

(b).

Thus, " Bohea

"

known commercial

tea was understood to

mean, not the pure and unadulterated article to


which the name strictly belongs, and which alone
is

known by

it

in China

but

teas usually

all

So, to
bought and sold at home as Bohea (c).
take an illustration from a contract, a fire policy

which limited the responsibility of insurers to


explosions by " gas," was construed as referring
only to that kind of gas which was popularly

known by
gas

that term, viz.,

common

illuminating

(d).

Where a statute
(a) Smith, Be, [1896]

applied to the United

Kingdom,

See, however, Elve v. Boyton,

2 Oh. 590.

[1891] 1 Oh. 501.


(b)

A.-G. V. Bailey (1847), 17 L. J. Ex. 9

Bailey

v.

Harris

(1849), 18 L. J. Q. B. 115.
(c)

Wehb

Two hundred
V.

chests

of

tea,

Knight, 2 Q. B. D. 530

9 Wheat. 430

see also " Gin,"

" Spirits," A.-G. v. Bailey, sup.

" Grain," Cotton v. Vogan, [1896] A. G. 457


{d) Stanley v.

65 L.

J.

Q. B. 486.

Western Ins. Co. (1868), L. E. 3 Ex. 71

The

See as to covenant not to


St. Michael, [1898] P.
carry on the business of a " beerhouse," Holtv. Collyer, 16 Oh. D.

Knight of

718, London

8f

Suburban Land Go.

v. Field,

Nicoll V. Penning, 51 L. J. Ch. 166.

Digitized

by Microsoft

50 L.

J.

Oh. 549, and

108

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

and the technical meaning

words differed in the


parts of the kingdom, the language would

different

he taken in

its

The words

of

popular sense

(a).

of a statute will, generally, be under-

stood in the sense which they bore

when

it

was

For instance, a private Act (6 & 7


c. 100, s. 8), which provided that "no
"
action in any of His Majesty's Courts of Law
passed

(6).

Will. IV.

should

be brought

against

shipowners

certain

without a month's notice, has been held not to


apply to proceedings in the Admiralty Division of
the High Court of Justice

for

when the Act was

and
was not, one of His Majesty's Courts, nor were
the proceedings there called an action (c).
And the same rule has been applied in the more
recent case of " The Burns " in which it was held
that the six months' limitation prescribed by 56 & 57

passed, the Admiralty Court

(a) Sdltoun v. Advocate-General, 3

Lord Advocate, [1894] A. C. 307


Pemsel, [1891] A. C. 531.

was not

Macq. 659

Macfarlane

v.

Income Tax Commissioners

v.

A. C. 173

(c)

73 L.

J.

See per Lord Esher M.B., Gas Light and Coke Co.

17 Q. B. D. 621

Bead

See also London County Council

Metropolitan Gas Co., [1904] 1 Ch. 76, C.


(6)

called,

v.

Bex

Sharpe
v.

v. Wahefield,

South

Ch. 136.
v.

Hardy,

22 Q. B. D. 242; [1891]

Woodhouse, [1906] 2 K. B. 501, at p. 530

Lincoln (Bp.), sup. p. 43.

The Longford, 14 P. D. 34.

de Walden, 6 T. E. 338
far this

v.

appUes to

new

See also

things, see p. 144.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Howard
& VI. How

St, Cross v.

see also Chap. XI, Sees. I

WORDS RESTRICTED TO THE MATTER.

109

Vict.

c.
61, s. 1 (a) does not apply to an
Admiralty action in rem {a).
In a Consolidation Act (see sup. p. 48), it will
be found that the language bears the meaning

attached to

it

For

in the original enactment.

instance, the provision in the Sheriffs Act, 1887,

requiring sheriffs'

officers not to take arrested


persons to prison for 24 hours, applies only to

on mesne process or Crown debts, such

arrests

being

the

construction

enactment, 32 Geo.

But

II. c.

given

28

the

to

original

(6).

in the interpretation of general

it is

words

and phrases that the principle of strictly adapting


the meaning to the particular subject matter in
reference to which the words are used, finds its
most frequent application. However wide in the
abstract, they are more or less elastic, and admit
of

restriction

matter.

expansion to suit the subject

or

While expressing truly enough

all

that

the Legislature intended, they frequently express


(a)

[1907] P. 137

Committee,

Ofc.

see also Mitchell v. Aberdeen Insurance

Sess. (So.) (1918),

Corp. V. Myers, [1916] 1 A. G.

W.

C.

&

Ins. 0. 206

242 H. L. (B.)

Bex

Bradford
v.

Port of

London Authority ; Kynoch, Exp., [1919] 1 K. B. 176, C. A.


(6)

50 & 51

Q. B. D. 183
C. A.

349,

Vict.

c.

55,

Smith, In re

s.

14;

Hands

v.

Mitchell v.

See also per Lord Watson, Smith

v.

by Microsoft

1,

Baker, [1891] A. C.

and per Lord Herschell, Bank of England

[1891] A. C. 144.

Digitized

Simpson, 25

Andrews, [1893] 2 Oh.

v.

Vagliano,

110

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

meaning and natural force


and it is necessary to give them the meaning
which best suits the scope and object of the
statute without extending to ground foreign to
the intention. It is, therefore, a canon of interpretation that all words, if they be general and
not express and precise, are to be restricted to the
fitness of the matter (a). They are to be construed

more, in their

literal

as particular if the

that

is,

intention be particular

(b)

they must be understood as used in refer-

ence to the subject matter in the mind of the


Legislature, and limited to

it.

"
Thus, enactments which related to " persons

would be variously understood, according to the


circumstances under which they were used, as including or not including corporations (c)
and as
limited to persons born in the King's allegiance,
;

(a)

Bao. Max. 10.

(6)

Stradling

v.

Morgan (1558), Plowd. 204; Bradlaugh

v.

aarhe (1883), A. C. 354, at p. 372; 52 L. J. Q. B. 505, 515;


Coxy. Hakes (1890), 15 A. C. 506; 60 L. J. Q. B. 89.
(c) B. V. Gardner, Gowp. 79; B. v. Tori, 6 A. & B. 419;
B.

Gas

Beverley

V.

Pharmaceutical Soc.
St.

Leonard's

c.

63,

s.

645; Bac.

London Supply

Go., Ltd,,

Stat.

Assoc., 5

Franklin, 3 C. P. D. 377

v.

Union Banking
Vict.

v.

Go., Id.

Uses,

Act and in

all

App. Cas. 857

Supplement,

tit.

52 & 53

" unless

the

See also Stroud's Jud. Diet, and

" Person."

Digitized

By

"
future Acts, " person

includes any body corporate or unincorporate,

contrary intention appears."

57;

Hirst v. West Biding

[1901] 2 K. B. 560, 0. A.

19, in that

43,

by Microsoft

WORDS RESTRICTED TO THE MATTER.

Ill

or as including also all foreigners actually within

the British dominions


the high seas

on
or (the meaning in prize and

(6),

(a),

or in British ships

commercial law) only persons domiciled in those


dominions (c). Under the Licensing Act, 1872,
" no person "

may

sell intoxicating liquor with"


out a license, and
any person " selling without

a license

is

made

subject to penalties

but

was

it

held that the sale prohibited was restricted to a

by a person who ought to be licensed, and

sale

did not apply to a servant

who

sold liquor, the

property of his master, by his master's orders


repealed Act

which

(d).

provided for

In a
the
recovery of wages by " persons belonging to a
(e)

would obviously be confined


to persons employed in its service on board while
in one which related to the salvage of " persons belonging to the ship," it would as obviously include
ship," this expression

Hob. 270

(a) Oourteen's Gase,

Low

(b)

Davidson

(c)

Wilson

3 Eob.

c.

V.

{d)

Marryat (1798), 8 T. E. 31

12; and see Oroker

35 & 36 Vict.

dation) Act, 1910)


;

Nga Hoong

v. B., 7

Cox, 489

Boyle

[1901] 2 K. B. 606.

v. Hill,

4 Moore P. C. 339, at

31

V. Boutledge, 35 L. J. Oh. 117, per Turner L.J.

v.

c.
;

v.

The Indian Chief,

Marquis of Hertford (1844),

p. 361.

94,

s.

3 (repealed,

s.

65, Licensing (Consoli-

Williamson v. Norris (1899), 68 L.

Smith, [1906]

1 K. B. 432.

J.

Q. B.

See also Titmus

v.

Littlewood, [1916] 1 K. B. 272.


(e)

17 & 18 Vict.

c.

84,

repealed by 57

Sched. 22.

Digitized

by Microsoft

&

.58 Vict.

c.

60,

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

112

passengers as well as crew

The 13

(a).

Eliz. c. 6,

whioh made void, as against creditors, all


voluntary alienation of " goods," was held to apply
only to such goods as were liable to be taken in
execution as the object of the Act was to prevent such property from being withdrawn from
the reach of creditors: consequently, the word
s.

1,

" goods " was held not to include choses in action,


as long as these were not subject to execution (b).

But the same word was held to include them in


the reputed ownership clauses of former bankruptcy

and insolvency Acts


fall

(c)

as they were

deemed

to

within the specific object of the Legislature,

which was to protect creditors against being


deceived by an apparent ownership of property {d).
A bungalow constructed of wood and corrugated
iron erected on a piece of land for the purpose of
(o)

The Fusilier (1865), 3 Moore P. C. N. S. 51 ; see The Cyhele,


and see The Benpor (1883), 8 P. D. 115, C. A.

3 P. D. 8

Bundas

(ft)

53 E. E. 369

v.

Dutens (1790), 1 E. E. 112

12 A. & E. 536.

Byall

(c)

Bank. 17
288,

As

v.

Kidder,

statute,

of,

[1919] 1 K. B. 583

see herein 1

& 2

v. Saddlers' Co.,

Pearce

Vict. c. 110,
;

s.

v. Bulteel,

12.

Exp. Baldwin, 27 L.

Be Muggeridge, 29 L.
10 H. L. Gas. 404.

" Insolvency," camp.

to

Sims

Eor other cases held not within the

v.

Bowles, 1 Ves. Sen. 367

V.

and B.

(d)

Bider

Thomas,

see Denny, Trustee


[1916] 2 Ch. 544

Dodd, 54 E. E. 224

v.

Norcutt

J.

J.

Ch.

goods in possession, order or disposition of a

bankrupt within the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, see 4 & 5 Geo. V,


c.

59,

s.

38

(c).

Digitized by'Microsoft

WORDS EBSTRICTED TO THE MATTER.

and

exhibition

113

but not used or occupied, or

sale,

intended to be used or occupied on the spot on

though clearly a "wooden


structure or erection of a movable or temporary
character," is not within the meaning of those
words as used in s. 13, Metropolis Management
and Building Acts Amendment Act, 1882 (repealed),
see s. 84, 57 & 58 Vict. c. CCXIII., London Building
Act, 1894, and does not require a license in
writing from the County Council for its erection.
The Act was not aimed at such a structure (a).

which

was

it

surveyor

district

under

s.

erected,

however, entitled to notice

is,

145 of the Act

(6).

Damage caused by

a ship to a pier, or by the mainsail gear of a barge


coming in contact with a pile-driving engine fixed
on a wharf, as the barge was sailing past, would
not be " damage by collision " within the meaning
of the County Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Acts,
1868 and 1869 (c). So, in Bankruptcy Acts, the
word " creditor " is found to be limited, usually,

who

to persons

(a) 45

& 46

2 Q. B. 755.

are creditors at the time of the

Viet. c.

14

London

G. G. v.

Gomp. Westminster Council

v.

Humphreys, [1894]

London

G.

G.,

71

L. J. K. B. 244.

V.

(&)

Gity of Westminster Gouncil v. Watson, [1902] 2

(c)

31

& 32

Vict.

c.

71,

The Kate (1888), 57 L.

73 L.

J. P.

s.

J.

32 & 33 Vict.

Q. B. 546

c.

51,

s.

K. B. 717.
4

Bohson

The Normandy (1904),

D. & A. 55; see also The Upcerne (1912), 81 L.

110.

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.

P.

114

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

bankruptcy and entitled to prove under

it (a)

and

the statute which makes it a criminal offence for


any member of a " co-partnership " to embezzle
the moneys belonging to

it,

has been held not to

apply to the case of an association having for

its

object, not the acquisition of gain, but the spiritual

and mental improvement of its members (b).


The complex term "inhabitant" may be cited
as having frequently furnished illustration of this

adaptation of the meaning to what appears to

most exactly the object of the Act. In the


abstract, the word would include every human

suit

being dwelling in the place spoken

A right

of.

of

way over

a field to the parish church granted to


"
the inhabitants " of a parish would include every
person in the parish (c).
But where the object

Act was to impose a pecuniary burden in

of an

respect of property in the locality (as in the case


(a)

Grace

Bank.
1

Bishop, 25 L. J. Ex. 58

v.

Under

19.

4 & 5 Geo. V.

59,

c.

which see Bulteel and Golmore


32 T. L. E. 661

Booker, In

In

& 32

C. 55.

of 31
(c)

& 32
B.

Poland, 35 L.

J.

[1916]

W.
;

Bankruptcy (1916),

N. 293.

See Paine,

Blackpool Motor Car

[1901] 1 Oh. 77.

re,

(6) 31

M.

Be

v. Trustee in

re,

Be, Bead, Exp. (1896), 66 L. J. Q. B. 71


Co.,

Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (repealed by


and re-enacted by s. 44 of that Act, as to
48,

s.

V.

Vict.

Comp. B.
Vict.

c.

116,

c.

v.

116

is

s.

J.

v.

repealed by 6

MasMter (1837), 6 L.

per Littledale

B.

Bobson (1885), 55 L.

Tankard, [1894] 1 Q. B. 548.

See also B.

Digitized

by

v.

J.

&

7 Geo. V.

K. B. 121

c.

6 A.

50,

&

s.

48.

E. 165,

Davie (1837), 6 A. & E. 374.

l\/licrosoft<^

J.

Sec. 1

WORDS EBSTRICTBD TO THE MATTER.

115

Hen. VIII. c. 5,
which throws the burden of making and repairing
bridges on the " inhabitants " of the town or
county in which they are situated, and in the
Eiot and Black Acts (a)), the expression would be
of the Statute of Bridges, 22

construed as comprising

holders of lands or

all

houses in the locality, whether resident or not,


and corporate bodies as well as individuals, but
as excluding actual dwellers

who had no

rateable

property in the place, such as servants ; it being


"infinite and impossible " to tax every inhabitant

being no householder, and

upon

trained

for

who

could not be dis-

non-payment, and therefore highly

improbable that the Legislature intended to tax

them (b).

On

the other

hand, where the object

is

to

impose the performance of a personal service


within the locality, the word " inhabitant " would
probably be construed as not comprising either
corporate bodies or non-resident proprietors. Thus,

was held that a person who occupied premises


in one parish and carried on his business in person
it

there, but resided in his dwelling-house in another,

was not an " inhabitant " of the former parish so


So,
as to be bound to serve as its constable (c).
(a)

B.

(6)

2 Inst.

Bayley
(c)

V.

North Ourry (1825), 4 B.

702

B.

v.

North,

&

0. 958, per Bayley J.

Gurry, 4 B.

&

0. 958, per

J.

B.

V.

Adlard, 4 B.

&

0. 772.

Digitized

See also B.

by Microsoft

v. Nicholson,

11

116

iNTEEPEETATlON OF STATUTES.

an Act which authorised the imposition of a rate


on all who "inhabited or occupied" any land or
house, and the appointment of a number of " inhabitants " to collect the rates, was held to throw

the latter duty only on actual dwellers in the


locality (a). But here the word " occupied " would
suggest a meaning for "inhabitants " distinct from
" occupiers."
A furnished house, not lived in

an "inhabited
dwelling-house " and assessable to inhabited house
duty (6).

during the year of assessment,

is

Again, another meaning would be given to the


same expression, where the object was to determine the settlement of a pauper, or the qualificaIn those cases, a person is an
tion of an elector.
inhabitant or resident in the place in which he
usually sleeps (c). What amounts to inhabitancy
E. E. 398;

Williams

v.

Comp.

411.

Jones, Id.

Wethered v

Calcutt, inf. p. 122.


(a)
(6)

Donne

v.

Martyr (1828), 8 B. & G. 62.

14 & 15 Vict.

c.

36,

s.

Smith

Damey

v.

(1904), 73 L. J.

K. B. 646.
(c) St.

Mary

v.

Badclife, 1 Stra. 60, per Parker O.J.

Charles, Burr. Set. C.

Mildenhall, 3 B.

Ford

V.

&

706

B.

Aid. 374

v. Stratford,

Beal

Drew, 5 0. P. D. 59

v.

Biley

v.

11 East, 176

E.

v.

B.

v.

Ford, 3 0. P. D. 73

Bead, 4 Ex. D. 100

A.-G. V. Parker, 3 Atk. 577, per Lord Hardwicke L.O.

modern

on

For

Yarmouth Union

v.

Bethnal Green Union (1907), 97 L. T. 440 ; TewJcesbury Union

v.

decisions

this

point,

see

Gt.

Upton-on-Severn Union (1913), 83 L. J. K. B. 37


V.

Coventry Union (1917), 86 L. J. K. B. 276.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Daventry Union

WORDS RBSTEIOTED TO THE MATTER.


in this sense,

it is

impossible to define.

117

Sleeping

in a place once or twice does not constitute it;

and, on the other hand, such residence generally


in a place, in this sense,

much

absence from

is

quite compatible with

But

it (a).

if

an Act requires

residence for a certain time at least, as a quahfica-

would be understood to make actual bodily


presence in the place for that time indispensable
as was held in the construction of the Act con-

tion, it

the congregation of the University of

stituting

Oxford

(b).

The same expression has received another


meaning where the object of the Act was to
preserve information as to the place where a
person was to be found at times when it was
most likely that he should be sought as in the
enactment which requires a solicitor to indorse
his "place of abode " on the summons which he
;

issues;

or a witness to a bill of sale, to add to

his signature a description of his occupation


(a)

B.

V. Mitchell,

110; Taylor

v. St.

George's, Id. 47.

Ford
V.

V.

10 Bast, 518

Mary

Abbotts,

Wescomb's Case, L. E. i Q. B.

40 L.

See also Whithorne

Pye, L. E. 9 C. P. 269

and

Ford

J. C. P.

v.

v.

45; Bond

v. St.

Thomas, 7 M. & Gr. 1

Hart, Id. 273

McDougal

Paterson, 87 E. E. 869; Bunston v. Paterson, 28 L. J. 0. P.

185

Powell

v.

Q. B. D. 426

Bonoghue

,v.

Guest,

Beal

v.

34 L.

J. 0.

Town Clerk of

Brooh, 57 L.

J.

B.

V.

Spittall v. Brooh,

Exeter,

Q. B. 122

Bethnal Green Union (1907), 97 L.


(6)

P. 69

Gt.

440.

Oxford (V.C.) (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 471.

Digitized

by Microsoft

18

20 Q. B. D. 300
Yarmouth Union v.

118

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

In these cases

"residence."

has been held,

it

considering the object which the Legislature had


in view, that the place of business constituted the

abode or residence intended (a). But in general


the place of business of a person would not be
regarded as his " place of abode " (b). It has
been held to be his " address " as a witness to a

under

bill of sale

Sale Act, 1882

(c)

indorsement

for

action

8-9 and schedule of the Bills of


but not to be his " address"
on a writ as plaintiff in an

ss.
;

(d).

clerk or servant does not " carry

in the place

meaning

where he

is

on business "

employed, within the

County and
other Courts over persons who dwell or carry on
of Acts giving jurisdiction to

business within

limits

their

(e)

but

the words

would receive a wider meaning when the object


of the enactment had reference to the distribuBrowne (1867), L. E. 2 H. L. 220.
See also B. v.
(6) See B. v. Hammond, 21 L. J. Q. B. 153.
Deighton, 13 L. J. Q. B. 241 B. v. Coward, 20 L. J. Q. B. 359.
()

Thorp

(c)

45

V.

& 46

Vict.

L. J. Ch. 252.

59

S. J.

75

c.

43

Simmons

See also Brandon

Woodward

v.

Hill, Ltd.

v.

(1892), 61

Lamb

Boddington, In re (1915), H. B. E. 183

(1914),

Bonard,

In re (1916), 85 L. J. (K. B.) 393.


{d)

748.

Etdes of

use his
2

Ir.
(e)

S. G.

Order IV.

r.

Stoy v. Bees, 24 Q. B. D.

In Ireland a magistrate suing in his


ofl&cial

place of business, B.

v.

ofl&cial

capacity

may

JJ. Go. Tyrone, [1901]

E. 497.

Graham

v. Lewis,

22 Q. B. D. 1

Digitized

58 L.

by Microsoft

J. Q.

B. 117, 0. A.

WORDS RESTRICTED TO THE MATTER.


tion

of

Courts

business between

119

Bankruptcy

different

(a).

Under the

provisions of the County Courts Act,

which gave the Superior Courts concurrent jurisdiction when the parties dwelt more than twenty
miles apart, the principal office of a railway company was its dwelling (b) but not its other offices
or stations (c).
But the manufactory or shop,
where the business is substantially carried on,
and not its registered office, is the dwelling, within
the meaning of the same provision, of a manufacturing company (c?). For fiscal purposes, a
corporation is regarded as residing where the
govening body carries on the supreme management, though the scene of its operations and
sources of profit, and even the majority of the
shareholders, are out of the country, and though
it has a foreign domioil and is registered abroad (e).
;

(a) Breull,
(6)
V.

Adams

Exp. (1880), 16 Oh. D. 484


v.

Growland Gas

Co.,

26 L.

J.

Jt

W. B.

Co.,

Co. (1861),

23 L.

J.

Ex. 254

50 L.

30 L.
;

J.

Minor

Ch. 384.

J.

Ex. 124; Taylor


v.

L.

&

N. W. B.

C. P. 39.

(c) Shiels V.

L.

G.

G. N. R. Co. (1861), 30 L. J. Q. B. 331

N. W. B. Co. (1863), 32 L.

J.

Brown

v.

Q. B. 318.

Baher (1864), 33 L. J. Ex. 41. See also


Aberystwith Pier Co. v. Cooper, 35 L. J. Q. B. 44.
(e) Newhy v. Colt's Arms Co., L. E. 7 Q. B. 293 ; Haggin v.
(d)

Keynsham

v.

Comptoir d'Eseompte (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 519

Carron Iron Co.

v.

58 L,

Maclaren, 5 H. L. Gas. 459.

Alexander, L. B. 10 Ex. 20.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.

Q. B. 508

See A.-G.

v.

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

120

A foreign

corporation which had any estahKshment

country would for the same purpose be


considered as resident here, as regards the question
in

this

of jurisdiction (a).

however, somewhat whittled


down by the decision of the Court of Appeal in
Okura & Co. v. Forsbacka Jemverks Aktiebolag (6)
This proposition

is,

which it was held that a London Firm of


Merchants who acted as agents for various firms,
in

including the defendants,

did not

represent

so

their principals as to constitute service

upon them

of a writ as valid service on their principals.

Again, the word "occupier" has received different

meanings, varying with the object of the enactment. Ordinarily, the tenant of premises is the
" occupier" of them, although he may be personally absent

from them

officer

who

virtute

officii,

But
s.

is

(c)

while a servant or an

in actual occupation of premises,


would not be an " occupier " {d).

in the Bills of Sale Act, 1854 (repealed

23, 41

&

42 Vict.

c.

31),

by
which provided that

(o) Cesena Sulphur Co. v. Nicholson, 1


(h)

[1914] 1 K. B. 715, C. A.

(c)

B.

Spurrell,

V.

Poynder, 25 E. E. 345

35 L.

(d) Clark v.
Boberts, 3

J.

M.

Bury

Ex. D. 66

Ex. D. 428.

83 L.

J.

1 B.

&

K. B. 561.
0. 178,

and see B.

v.

C. 74.

St.

B.

Edmunds, 26 L.
v. Spurrell,

V.

Prichard, 20 Q. B. D. 285.

c.

12,

s.

J. C.

Bent

v.

McClean

See in this connection 44 Vict.

24.

Digitized

P. 12

L. E. 1 Q. B. 72

by Microsoft

WOEDS EESTKIOTED TO THE MATTER.

121

personal chattels should be deemed in the possession of the grantor of a bill of sale so long as they

were on the premises " occupied " by him, actual


personal occupation, and not merely tenancy, was

and therefore the owner of chattels in


rooms which he did not personally occupy was
intended

not in the " apparent " possession of them, within


that Act

(a).

This restriction of meaning

may

be carried

still

promote the real intention, and not


exceed the object and scope of the enactment.
Thus, an Act which, reciting the inconTenienoes
arising from churchwardens and overseers making

further to

clandestine rates, enacted that those officers should

permit " eyery inhabitant " of the parish to inspect


the rates, under a penalty for refusal, was held

not to apply to a refusal to one of the church-

who was

wardens,

object of the
(a)

As
M.

word

0. 242

Sellers,

761; Penn

J.

36

c.

BoUnson

v. Briggs,

40 L.

J.

of

Ex. 17.

" traveller," see Taylor v. Humphreys, 30 L. J.

Fisher

28 L.

As the

an inhabitant.

Act was limited to the protection

17 & 18 Vict.

to the

also

v.

M.

Howard, 34 L.

C. 12

J.

M.

C. 42

Saunders^. S. E. B.

Go.,

Atkinson

49 L.

J.

v.

Q. B.

M. 0. 65; and in Ireland


6 Edw. VII. c. 39, s. 3
in England 10 Edw. VII., 1 Geo. V.
" lodger " and " occupier," Bradley v. Baylis, 8
c. 24, s. 61
Q. B. D. 195, 210 Morton v. Palmer, 51 L. J. Q.B. 7 Heawood
v.

Alexander, 62 L. J.
;

V.

Bone, 13 Q. B. D. 179.

Eettie, 192,

and as

See also Bishop

v.

Duffy (1894), 22

to hours of sale, Bristow v. Piper, [1915] 1

K. B. 271.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPKETATION OF STATUTES.

122

only

those inhabitants

previously no

who had

the churchwardens
had), the meaning of the term " inhabitants " was
access to

limited to

rates (which

the

them (a).

In another
the Queen's

case, the majority of the

Bench went

Judges of

further than the Chief

Justice thought legitimate, in giving an unusual

and even

artificial

meaning to a word,

for

the

purpose of keeping within the apparent scope of


the Act. The treaty between Great Britain and
the United States of 1842 and the 6
c.

76

(6),

&

7 Vict.

passed to give the Executive the neces-

sary powers for carrying its provisions into effect,

having provided that each State should, on the


requisition of the other, deliver

up to justice

all

persons who, being charged with murder, " piracy,"


or other

therein mentioned, committed

crimes

within the jurisdiction of either State, should seek

an asylum, or be found within the territories of


the other; it was held that the word "piracy"
'

was confined to those acts which are declared


piracy by the municipal law of either country,
such as slave-trading, and did not include those
which are piracy in the ordinary and primary
(a)

B.

V.

Wethered

v.

Bavie (1837), 6

N. E. 409.

Calcutt (1842), 5 Scott,

Mashiter (1837), 45 E. E. 433

A&

6 L.

J.

B.

v.

B. 374.

Eepealed by 33 & 34 Vict.

52,

s.

Extradition Act, 1906 (bribery inclusion).

(6)

See also

K. B. 121

Digitized

o.

by Microsoft

27.

See also The

BENEFICIAL CONSTEUOTION.

sense of the word, that

is,

123

jure gentium

for as the

was within the jurisdiction of all


States, and was triable by all, and the offenders
could not, consequently, be said to seek an asylum
in any State, since none could be a place of safety
for them, that species of the crime was not within
the mischief intended to be remedied by the treaty
or the Act (a).

latter offence

SECTION

II.

BENEtlCIAL

It is said to be the

CONSTRUCTION.

duty of the judge to make

such construction of a statute as shall suppress


the mischief and advance the remedy (6).

Even

where the usual meaning of the language falls


short of the whole object of the Legislature, a

more extended meaning may be attributed


words,

if

susceptible of

fairly

to the

If there

it.

are

circumstances in the Act showing that the phraseology

is

used in a larger sense than

meaning, that sense

may be

given to

the Legislature having intended


(a)

33 L.

Ternan, Be,

J.

M.

its

ordinary

it (c).

when

Thus,

passing the

See also A.-G.

v.

per Lord Kenyon, Turtle

v.

G.

201.

Kwok-a-Sing, L. E. 5 P. 0. 179.
(b)

Heydon's Case, 3 Eep. 7b

Hartwell, 6 T. R. 429
C. P. D. 530.

See

per Cockbuxn

ex. gr.

Be

BicTc,

O.J., Twycross v. Grant,

[1891] 1 Oh. 426.

Per Lord Bsher M.E., Barlow v. Boas (1890), 24 Q. B. D.


381, at p. 389; 59 L. J. Q. B. 183, and see Gross in the goods of
(c)

(1904), 73 L. J. P. 82.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES.

124

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, that every


workman in the prescribed trades should be
entitled

compensation,

to

it

ought to be con-

strued so as, as far as possible, to give effect to its

primary provisions
(s.

54

(4),

&

25

26 Vict

of shipowners

injury done

The repealed enactment

(a).
c.

among

where,

"by

is

63) Hmiting the liability

other things, the

reason of the improper naviga-

tion" of their ships, extends to a case where a


collision was owing, not to any default of the
crew, but to the breakdown of the steering gear

from the negHgence of engineers on shore, who


had improperly fixed it{b). It would extend to
every case where the negligence

is

that of any

person for whose negligence the owner


unless

sible,

latter

(c).

is

respon-

occurred with the privity of the

it

Where

empowered
construct bridges, and pro-

a cplonial statute

municipal councils to

vided that in certain circumstances the authorities

"adjacent" districts should contribute to the


was held that the word "adjacent" has
not by ordinary usage a precise and uniform meaning, and is not confined to places adjoining, but
of

cost, it

(a) .60

& 61

Vict.

and see Fleming


(6)

see

s.

(c)

v.

c.

37

Lysons

Loehgelly Iron

v.

&

Enowles, [1901] A. G. 79,

Coal Go. (1902), 4 P. 890.

The Warkworih (1884), 9 P..D. 145; as to existing law,


503 of 57 & 58 Vict.
Id. per Brett

c.

60.

M.E. See

also

Canada Shipping

Shipowners' Mutual Protection Society (1889), 58 L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Co. v. British
J.

Q. B. 462.

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.

125

that the degree of proximity which would justify


its

application

stances

frequently a question of circum-

is

A young

(a).

person whose work

is

partly

indoor and partly outdoor, the outdoor work being

some

from the shop where he is


employed, is when employed in outdoor work
employed "in or about a shop " within the Shop
Hours Act, 1892 (b). To supply beer at a pubUchouse to a drunken man and his sober companion,
would be to " sell " the liquor to the drunken man,
although it was ordered and paid for by the sober
at

distance

A driver who

companion (c).

leaves a carriage and

horses standing in the highway leaves

them while
they are "passing" upon such highway within
s. 78, Highway Act, 1835 {d).
Acts which gave a
"single woman" who had a bastard child the
(a)

773.

L. J.

Mayor of Wellington v. Mayor of Lower Hutt, [1904] A. C.


But see Kimberley W. W. Co. v. Be Beers Mines, 66
P. C. 108 Bateman and Parker, Be, 68 L. J. Gh. 330.

(6)

55 & 56 Vict.

c.

62; Gollman

v. Roberts,

[1896]

il

Q. B.

457.
(c)

35 & 36 Vict.

c.

94,

s.

13

this section repealed as regards

England by 10 Edw. VII. and 1 Geo. V.

As

to existing law, see

and see Badford

v.

Johnson, 57 L. J.
inf. p.
(cf)

c.

24,

s.

112, Sched. VII.

75 of Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910,

Williams (1914), 78 J. P. 90

M.

Scatchard

See, however, Gundy v.

0. 41.

Le

v.

Gocq,

186.

& 6

Q. B. 768
V.

s.

Will. IV. c.

50

Phythian

v.

Baxendale, [1895] 1

Nuttall v. Pickering, [1913] 1 K. B. 14

Parker (1914),

"W.

N. 200.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Chatterton

126

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

right to sue the putative father for its maintenance

have been held to include in that expression, not


only a widow (a), but also a married
apart from her husband
of the Acts being to

(b)

for,

woman

living

the general object

compel men to contribute to

the support of their illegitimate offspring, even a

married

woman

living under circumstances

patible with marital access,

language a single woman,

incom-

though not in popular

is

nevertheless, for the

purposes of the Acts, and therefore in the contemplation of the Legislature, as " single " as a

woman who has no husband. So where by s. 141,


Army Act, 1881, assignments of or charges upon
pensions received by officers in respect of past
services are forbidden, but nothing is said in terms

about executions or attachments,

it

has been held

that these must be regarded as included

wise the object to be effected,

as other-

viz., to

secure a

provision which should keep the pensioners from

want, and enable them to maintain a respectable


social position,
(a)

Antony

v.

would be frustrated (c),

Cardenham, 2 Bott, 194

B.

v.

soldier

Wymondham, 2

Q. B. 541.
(6)

L. J.

B.

M.

V.

Pilkington, 2 B.

0. 153

9 E. E. 406.

B.

& B.

v. Gollingwood,

Comp. Stacey

Barnes, [1901] 1 K. B. 118

546,

17 L.

v. Lintell,
;

J.

nom. Exp. Grimes, 22


M. C. 168 B. v. Luffe,
;

4 Q. B. D. 291

Jones

v.

see also Beigate Union v. Croydon

Union, 14 App. Gas. 465.


(c)

Be

44 & 45 Vict.

c.

58

Lucas

v.

Harris, 56 L. J. Q. B. 15

Saunders, 64 L. J. Q. B. 739.

Digitized

by Microsoft

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.

who has gone

127

into barracks with a view to being

"a

drafted to the seat of war is

military service" within

s.

soldier in actual

11, Wills Act, 1837(a).

The authority given by the Municipal Corporations


Act to expend the local funds upon " corporate
buildings " was construed as extending to the cost
of lining the corporation pew in the church (b).
Dogs (c), horses, cattle (d), and shares in a limited
company (e), have, by a beneficial construction,
been held to be " goods " within the meaning of
that word as used in certain statutes; while on
the other handj a linen bag has been decided not
to be a " case " in
for the

which gunpowder may be

carried,

purpose of satisfying the requirement of

the Metalliferous Mines Eegulation Act, 1872, that


explosives shall not be taken into a

26

Hiscock, Be,

Knee, [1902] P. 99

and see

(a)

1 Vict.

c.

612; StaUe, In

re,

[1901] P. 78

34 T. L. E. 626; Tollemache's Estate, In

(5)

B.

V.
(c)

&6

re,

Hale, In

Wm.

IV.

c.

[1916] P. 47
re,

[1915] 2

&

3 Vict.

c.

Gattward

71,

v.

Ir.

re,

J.

re (1918),

[1917] P. 246;

Anderson's Estate, In

re,

E. 362.

76 (repealed 45 & 46 Vict.

Warwick (1846), 15 L.
2

Kitchen, In re (1919), 35 T. L. E.

[1919] P. 10; Thomas' Estate, In

Heywood's Estate, In

[1916] P. 49

mine except in

c.

50,

s.

J.

M.

5)

Q. B. 306.

s.

40; B.

s.

23 (repealed 57 & 58 Vict.

v. Slade,

57 L.

0.

120.
(d)

39 & 40 Vict.

Richmond Hill
(e)

c.

80,

65 L.

Go. v. Trinity House,

E. S. 0. 1883, Order L.

r.

J.

Euans

Ch. 216.

Digitized

by Microsoft

c.

60)

Q. B. 561.
v.

Barnes, [1893] 2

128

INTEEPRETATION OP STATUTES,

a "case or canister," as such a case would not

by affording protection against ignition from sparks (a).


An English
effect the object of the statute

trade-mark and goodwill are property within the

Stamp Act, 1891, and so

On

a share in a colonial

is

enactment in
the Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings Improve-

patent

(6).

ment Act,

similar grounds the

which, after authorising local

1875,

authorities to purchase land for such dwellings,

provides that

rights or easements relating to

all

the purchased land should be extinguished, but

compensated

for, has been held to include under


the word " rights " inchoate as well as complete

rights

(c).

pany

to

An Act which
make,

the

for

required a railway com-

accommodation

of

owners and occupiers of the adjacent lands,

the
suffi-

from trespass,
and the cattle of the owners and occupiers from
straying thereout, was held to include in the term
cient fences for protecting the lands

(a) 35

& 36

Vict. c. 77,

(6)

s.

23 (2 6); Foster

s.

59

54 & 55 Vict.

39,

c.

(1)

Brooke

2 Q. B. 356; Smelting Co. of Australia


Q, B. 175
B.

v.

BiphwysOasson

D. 428.

Slate Co., 18 Q. B.

electrical

energy

is

v. Inl. Bev.,

v. Inl. Bev.,

property, see 9

[1896]

[1897] 1

Edw. VII.

c.

34,

19.
(c)

38 & 39 Vict.

70; Barlow

v.

c.

Boss,

36,

Butter, [1892] 1 Q. B. 668

ment

"

was construed

V. Sutcliffe (1895),

20, repealed

s.

24 Q. B. D.
;

61 L.

J.

s.

J.

Q. B. 729.

Digitized

c.

v.

Q. B. 146, where " ease-

in its strictest sense.

64 L.

53 & 54 Vict.

Gomp. Hawkins

22,

381.

by Microsoft

And

see Howorth

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.

129

"occupier" a person who merely had put his


on land with the license of the occupier (a).
And the same word, even when coupled with
cattle

"owner"

in an Act of Parliament

has been
construed, with the view of promoting the object
(6),

of the enactment, as including a person standing

on a spot in a park or place where he had no more


right to stand than any other person (c).
So it
has been held under a repealed Act that cows
agisted on the terms that the agister should take
their milk in exchange for their pasturage, were
taken in to be fed at a "

fair price " (d),

that an

agreement by a shareholder with a company to


set off a present liability of the company to pay
cash to him against future calls on his shares was
a payment of the calls " in cash " (e), that the
attendance of an uncertificated midwife at the
Dawson

(a)

Midland By.

v.

Kiitow V. Liskeard, 44 L. J.

Go.,

M.

42 L.

G. 23.

J.

Ex. 49.

As

tinguishing a license from a demise, see Smith

ment Committee (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 585,

52 L.

V.

J.

M.

C.

at.

See also

for principles disv.

pp. 593

Lambeth Assess-

et seq. ;

affirmed,

1.

(6)

See Chap. XI., Sec. IV.

(c)

See Boggett

v.

Gatterms (1864), 34 L.

Fenwick (1874), 43 L.

M.

J.

C.

Bacecourse Co. (1899), 68 L. J.

107

J.

C. P. 46

Bows

Kempton Park
Q. B. 392; Brown v. Patch
;

Powell

v.

(1899), Id. 588.


(d)

46 & 47 Viet.

London
(e)

&

Yorks.

Bank

30 & 31 Vict.

Jones Lloyd

&

61,

c.

Co.,

c.

v.

s.

45 (repealed by 8 Edw. VII.

c.

28)

c.

69)

Belton, 15 Q. B. D. 457.

131,

s.

25 (repealed by 8 Edw. VII.

Be, 41 Ch, D. 159.

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

130

confinement of the wife of an elector,

who was

sent

and paid for by the relieving officer, was


"medical assistance," so that the relief afforded
did not disqualify the elector from being registered (a), that an antenuptial agreement for a
to her

was a " marriage settlement "(6), and that "bedding" to the value of
5, which is protected from seizure by s. 147,
County Courts Act, 1888, which is incorporated

marriage

settlement

Law

into the

includes a bedstead

Table

Amendment Act, 1888,


Member " in Art. 27 of

of Distress

"

(c).

Companies Act, 1862

to the repealed

which provided that any increased capital should


be offered to the " members " joto mto, -^included
the representatives of a deceased member whose
name was on the register (rf). A statute which
requires a railway company to keep in repair a
" bridge " carrying a highway over their lines,
requires them also to maintain the roadway upon

(a)

note,
(&)

48 & 49 Vict.
s.

9)

c.

Honeyhone

41 & 42 Vict.

Q. B. 192
(e)

see also

c.

46,
v.

31,

Be

51 & 52 Vict.

2 (repealed by 7

s.

s.

Wenman

Vansittart,

21,

c.

&

8 Geo. V.

c.

64,

Hamhridge, 18 Q. B. D. 418.

s.

v.

Lyon &

Co.,

[1891] 2

[1893] 1 Q. B. 181.

4; Davis

v.

Harris (1900), 69

L. J. Q. B. 232.
(d)

L.

J.

25

& 26

Oh. 284.

L. J. Oh. 266.

Table

Vict. c. 89

James

See also Allen

v.

Buena Ventura

v.

like condition is

A appended

to 8

Edw. VII.

Digitized

Syndicate, 65

Gold Beefs of West Africa, 69

c.

contained in Article 42 of
69.

by Microsoft

BENEFICIAL CONSTBUCTION.

the bridge

A fishing-boat

(a).

131

of ten tons provided

with masts, which unshipped, and

used for

sails

but which was propelled by four oars


in harbour and shallow water, was decided to be a
"ship" within the Merchant Shipping Act, 1862,
which pro\ddes that when a collision between two

going to

sea,

" ships " takes place, the master of each ship is


bound to render assistance to the other, on pain of
the cancellation or suspension of his certificate.
2 of the repealed Merchant Shipping
Act, 1854, enacted that the term " ship " should

Though

s,

"have the meaning" thereby "assigned"


viz.,

that

it

to

it,

should " include every description of

by oars "(6),
this was considered not to be a definition, and as
not excluding vessels which it did not include (c).
On the other hand, a. steam launch used for the

vessel used in navigation not propelled

(a)

&9

Vict.

c.

20,

s.

46

Lancashire

&

Yorks. By. v. Bury,

North of England By. v. Langhaurgh, 24 L. T. 544.


See also as to a " book " within the repealed 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45,
14 A. C. 417

s. 2.

See Maple

&

Go. v. Junior

A.

&

Oable V. Marks, Id. 107; Davis v.

N.

Stores,

Comitti,

52 L.

54 L.

J.

J.

Ch. 67

Ch. 419.

For an exhaustive disquisition on the Copyright Act, 1912, see


Clerk and LindseU on Torts, tit. "Copyright." And as to a
" boiler " within

45 & 46 Vict.

c.

22,

B.

v.

Boiler Explosions Act

Gommissioners, 60 L. J. Q. B. 544.
definition of " vessel," see

57 & 58 Vict.

(6)

For

(c)

Ferguson and Hutchinson, Exp., L. E. 6 Q. B. 280.

The Mac, 7 P. D. 126; Gapp

v.

60,

s.

742.

Gomp.

Bond, 19 Q. B. D, 200; Glyde

Navigation v. Laird, 8 App. Cas. 658.

Digitized

c.

by Microsoft

INTERPEBTATION OP STATUTES.

132

purpose of carrying passengers on pleasure trips

round an artificial lake has been held not to be


a " vessel used in navigation " so as to need the
suspension on board of a Board of Trade certificate (a).

And perhaps

as a general proposition the

words of a statute should be construed in accordance with the dictum of Lord Watson, who says
with regard to deeds, in an unrecorded case, "the

deed must be read as a whole in order to ascertain


the true meaning of

its

several clauses,

and the

words of each clause should be so interpreted as

them into harmony with the other


provisions ... if that interpretation does no violence to the meaning of which they are naturally
to

bring

susceptible "

{h).

Another instance of beneficial construction is


s. 3 of the Common Lodging Houses
Act, 1853, which forbids the keeping of " a comafforded by

mon

lodging-house " unless

approved, and

registered.

it

has been inspected,

The

ment (which is repealed except


PoHce District by 38 & 39 Vict.

object of the enactas to Metropolitan


c.

65,

s.

343) being

to secure for the poor using these houses condi-

(a)

health

safeguarding

tions

17 & 18 Vict.

c.

104, ss.

2,

and preventing

318 (repealed by Merchant

Shipping Act, 1894); Mayor of Southport


1 Q. B. 359
(b)

the

v. Morriss,

[1893]

see also Salt Union v. Wood, [1893] 1 Q. B. 370.

North-Eastern By.

v.

Hastings {Lord), [1900] A. 0. 260, at

p. 267.

Digitized

by Microsoft

"

BENEFICIAL OONSTEUOTION.

spread of disease, which people

133

better

off

are

supposed to be able to secure for themselves,

was held to apply to a shelter kept


purpose and not for gain {a).

it

for a charitable

debtor residing abroad " keeps out of the way


to avoid service " of process, within the meaning

Bankruptcy Eules for substituted service (b),


and under s, 15 (7), Friendly Societies Act, 1875
of the

(repealed

Friendly Societies Act,

35,

s.

1896),

which provides that registered friendly societies


shall be entitled to the privilege of having " any

money
which

or

property belonging to the

shall be in the possession of

any

society,"
officer of

the society upon his bankruptcy, handed over to


the society in preference to any other debts or
claims against his estate,

the society

entitled

is

has been held that

it

to be

paid out of such

estate any balance due to it, in respect of moneys


received by him for it, even though he has not in
his possession those moneys in specie, and they

cannot be traced

(c).

The statutes which require notice of action


(a)

401

16 & 17 Vict.
Logsdon

v.

Talhot, 76 L. J. Oh. 8
(6)

Logsdon

Id.

617.

v.
.

Booth, [1900] 1 Q. B.

See, however,

Gilbert v. Jones, [1905] 2

Parker

v.

K. B. 691.

Bankruptcy Eules, 1886, Eule 154 (now Bankruptcy

Eules, 1915, Eule 156)


(c)

41

c.

Trotter,

for

38 & 39 Vict.

Q. B. 324

c.

Eilheck,

Be

60,

Be

s.

Urquhart, 59 L. J. Q. B. 364.

15 (7)

Be

Miller (1893), 62 L. J.

(1910), 79 L, J. K, B. 265.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

134

anything "done" under them, are construed as


including an omission of an act which ought to
be done as well as the commission of a wrongful

one

Even

(a).

criminal statutes, which are subject

what has been called a strict construction, will


be found to furnish abundant illustrations of giving
an extended meaning to a word (b).
A statute which requires something to be done
to

by a person would, except in cases subject to the


principle that delegatus non potest delegare, be complied with, in general, if the thing were done by
another on his behalf and by his authority for it
would be presumed that there was no intention to
;

prevent the application of the general principle of

law that qui facit per alium facit per


Wilson

(a)

Halifax, 37 L. J. Ex. 44

v.

See also Davis

L. J. 0. P. 225.

Newton

(1893),

J. Q.

Poulsum

v. Curling,

B. 337

15 L,

Edwards

unless

v. Thirst,

J.

36

Q. B. 56

v. Islington,

58

Rarman v. Ainalie (1904), 73 L. J. K. B. 639


1 K. B. 698.
The Public Authorities Protection Act
56 & 57 Vict. c. 61, has repealed nearly all the statutes

L. J. Q. B. 165
[1904]

24 L.

v. Ellis,

se

and substituted therefor by

requiring notice of action,

s.

1 (a)

a general period of six months.


(fe)

As

See Chap. X.

to appeal in a " Criminal cause or

matter," see Woodall, Bxp., 57 L. J.

M.

C. 71

Schofield,

Exp.

'
'

(1891), 60 L.

J.

Pulhrooh, Exp.,

80 L.

J.

M.

61 L.

K. B. 57.

" insane "

B.

C. 157; B. v. Tyler, [1891] 2 Q. B. 588;

v.

No

J.

M.

C.

91; Exp. Savarhar (1911),

right of appeal in cases of " guilty " but

Taylor (1915), 84 L. J. K. B. 1671

see also

Felstead v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1914), 83 L. J. K. B.

1192.

Digitized

by Microsoft

BENEFICIAL CONSTKUOTION.

135

was something either in the language or in


the object of the statute which showed that a
there

On

personal act was intended.

this ground, an

Act of Parliament which requires that notice of


appeal shall be given by churchwardens is complied with if given by their solicitor (a).
So in
the absence of any provision to the contrary in
the Bills of Sale Acts, it has been held that a bill
of sale may be executed by attorney, and the
grantee

purpose

may be the attorney of the grantor for such


(b).
And the repealed (c) Dramatic Copy-

right Act, 1833, 3

& 4 Will. IV. c. 15,

which required

the written consent of the author of a drama to


representation,
if

was held

sufficiently

complied with

the consent were given by the author's agent

When

its

(d).

an Irish statute, after giving to tenants for

more than fourteen years, the right of


any trees which they had planted, required

lives of for
felling

B.

(a)

20 L.

J.

V.

M.

0.

Button (1891),

60 L.

J.

M.

M. C. 42 B. v. Carew,
Un. B. v. Kent, 42 L. J. M. C. 112 France v.
60 L. J. Q. B. 488 B. v. St. Mary Abbotts (1891),
52 Walsh v. Southwell, 20 L. J. M. C. 165 B. v.

Middlesex (1850), 20 L.

C.

V.

L.

J. C. P.

&

Power

19 L.

368

Be

J.

M.

Oharles

Lancaster, 3 Oh. D. 498

imposing

J.

v.

Blackwell,

Mousell Bros.

As to effect
Banh of Bengal

K. B. 82.

liability,

see

Chatty (1916), L. E. 43 Ind. App. 48, P.

Hudson (1893), 62 L.

(6)

Furnivall v.

(c)

Eepealed by 1 & 2 Geo. V.

(d)

C. 127;

N. W. By. (1917), 87 L.

of Attorney in

Bamanathan

Huntingdonshire,

46 L.

J.

Morton

v.

Copeland, 24 L.

Digitized

c.

46,

J. C.

J.
s.

Oh. 178.
36, Sched. 2.

P. 169.

by Microsoft

of
v.

INTEEPEETATIOK OF STATUTES.

136

that "the tenant so planting"

them should

file

an affidavit within twelve months, in a form


given by the Act, which purported throughout

made by the tenant

to be

Act

of Lords construed the

struction,

it

The

House
by the

stricter con-

was said, would have rendered the

Act inapplicable to most


in view

satisfied

as

agent.

of the tenant's

affidavit

personally, the

of the cases

which

it

had

(a).

principle

well illustrated by two decisions

is

under the partially repealed (6) 6

&

7 Vict.

c.

18,

which required that the person who objected to a


voter should sign a notice of his objection, and
deliver it to the postmaster.
This was held to
require

personal

signature

delivery or receipt (d).

(c),

but not personal

was material that the

It

person objected to should be able to ascertain that

he really was objected to by the objector, which


he could not so easily do if a signature by an agent

was admitted

just as, to guard against persona-

tion, the signature

of a voting paper under the

former Municipal Corporations Act must be personal and not by agent

(a) Mountcashell v. O'Neill (1856),

51 & 52 Vict.

c.

37,

s.

See 7 & 8 Geo V.

(c)

Toms

31 L.

5 H. L. Gas. 937.

See also

1.

(6)

V.

But there was no

(e).

c.

64,

s.

47, Sched. 8

Cuming (1845), 14 L.

J.

C. P. 67

Lewis

v. Roberts,

J. C. P. 51.

(d)

Cuming

(e)

& 6

v.

Toms (1844), 14 L.

Will. IV.

c.

76,

Digitized

s.

J, 0. P. 54.

32, repealed 45

by Microsoft

& 46

Vict. o. 50,

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.
valid reason

137

for supposing that the Legislature

did not intend to give effect to the rule, qui facit

per alium facit per

in the case

se,

The knowledge

delivery.

mere

of the

of the servant

may

be

constructively that of the master within the mean-

ing of an Act, even


penally responsible (a).

when making

An Act

authorises justices to

(18

&

19 Vict.

London) which
summon a person by whose

121) (repealed except

c.

the master

act a nuisance arises, or,

as

if

to

that person cannot be

ascertained, the occupier of the premises in


exists,

it

was held

the occupier,

if

summoning

to authorise the

the person

which

who had

of

actually done

the act was his servant, since in law the act of the
latter is that of the

On

former

the same principle

it

(b).

has been held that

s.

3,

Truck Act, 1831, which provides that the entire


amount of wages earned by an artificer shall be
actually paid to
s.

which

5,

latter

Act

him
is

in the current coin of the

modified by 7 & 8 Geo. V.

Tart (1859), 28 L. J. Q. B. 173.

See also Monhs

c.

64

B.

v. Jackson,

v.

46

L. J. C. P. 162.
(a) Gore v. James, L. E. 7 Q. B. 135,

Pain

V.

Boughtwood, 59 L.

L. E. 1 Q. B. 702.
tit.

"

6th

ed., pp.

(&)

J.

M.

0.

per Lush
45)

B.

(But see

J.
v.

Stephens,

See also Stroud's Judicial Diet. & Supp.,

Knowingly," and Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, chap.

2,

6266.

Barnes

v.

Aekroyd, 41 L. J.

of this, see Sherras v.

De

M.

0. 110.

For the converse

Butzen, [1895] 1 Q. B. 918

supplying Uquor to a constable on duty.

Digitized

by Microsoft

a case of

INTERPEETATION OP STATUTES.

138

realm, would be satisfied by payment being

made

to his authorised agent (a).

On the other
Amendment Act,

hand,

Statute of Frauds

the

1828, 9 Geo. IV. c. 14, which


requires an acknowledgment " signed by the party

chargeable thereby," to take a debt out of the


Statute of Limitation, has been held to require

personal signature, and not to admit of a signature

by an agent

But

(b).

this construction

was based

partly on the circumstance that another Statute


of

made express mention


Where an Act required that

Limitation

agent

(c).

of

an

notices

should be signed by certain public trustees, or by

was held that the signature of the


clerk of their clerk, who had a general authority
from his employer to sign all documents issuing
from his ofiS.ce, was not a compliance with the
Act (d).
And a lithographic indorsement of a
their clerk, it

& 2
when

(o) 1

as to

Will. IV.

c.

37

a " set off "

is

Hewlett

v. Allen,

[1894] A. C. 383

admissible, see Williams v. North's

Navigation Collieries, [1904] 2 K. B. 44, at p. 55, C.'A.

see also

Thomson (1918), S. C. (J.) 34. As to what


an iUegal contract under the Act, see Kemp v. Lewis, [1914] 3

Summerlea Iron
is

Co. v.

K. B. 543.
(6)

Hyde

v.

Johnson (1836), 2 Bing. (N. G.) 776.

Swift V. Jewsbury, L. E. 9 Q. B. 301

L. T. 232

Barwiek

v.

Williams

See also
Mason, 28

v.

English Joint Stock Bank, L. E. 2 Ex. 259

Hirst V. West Biding Union Banking Co., [1901] 2 K. B. 560


Citizens Life Assurance Co. v.
(c)

Sup. pp. 68-69.

(d)

Miles

V.

Brown, [1904] A. 0. 423, P. G.

Brough, 32 B. 845

Digitized

61 E. E. 409

by Microsoft

Inglis v.

BENEFICIAL CONSTKUOTION.
solicitor's

name

not a compliance with the

is

the County Court

provision of

139

Eules that he

should "indorse on the particulars his name or


firm,"

but the

solicitor's

authorised clerk will suffice

name

by his

written

(a).

Again, where the statute required that the act


should be done by the party " himself," it would
hardly admit of

being done by an agent, as in

its

the case of the provision that a nomination paper


a candidate for municipal

of

delivered

the

to

town

clerk

office

should be

by the candidate

himself, or his proposer or seconder

(6).

statute

which provides that a person, not a party to an


election petition,

who

is

charged with corrupt

have an opportunity of being heard


himself" and of calling witnesses, does not

practices, shall

"by

authorise his appearing by counsel or solicitor


So, where an

Act required a special

G. N. By. (1852), 16 Jur. 895,

H. L.

(Sc.)

(c).

qualification

and see Brown

v.

Tombs, [1891] 1 Q. B. 253.


(a)

Order VI.

County Court Eules, 1903-1918

9,

r.

per Pry L.J., B.

v.

Lord Bsher M.E. dissenting.


(6) Monks V. Jackson, 46 L.
Harford

amended

v.

(c)

29

J. 0.

P. 162, distinguished in

Linskey (1899), 1 Q. B. 852, at p. 861.

The much

Municipal Corp. Act, 1882, omits " himself "

repealed 3rd Schedule, part


to voting

by proxy, see 7 & 8 Geo. V.

c.

84,

c.

51,

v.

Jackson, 46 L. J. C. P. 162.

Digitized

38; B.

in the

and 3rd Schedule.

Monks

s.

For present provisions as

2, s. 7.

46 & 47 Vict,

see also

so held

Fitzroy-Cowper (1890), 59 L. J. Q. B. 265

v.

Mansel Jones, 23 Q. B. D.

by Microsoft

INTBBPEETATION OF STATUTES.

140

As, for example, under the

for doing anything.

Pharmacy Act,

1868, which by

s.

16 prohibited

under a penalty the sale of poisons by unqualified

shopman

persons, the

of a qualified employer, not

himself qualified, was held liable to a penalty for


selling,

except under the personal supervision of

his employer (a)

receives an order for poison and forwards

who

a manufacturer

who

but an unqualified person

supplies

it

it

to

directly to the

customer, has not the conduct and management of


the sale so as to constitute
the meaning of the Act

The

him the

seller within

(h).

which enacts that in any contract


for letting a house for habitation by persons of
the working classes there shall be an impKed
" condition " that the house is fit for habitation,
has been construed as importing a promise by the
landlord to that effect, and so giving the tenant a
right to sue on it, for the purpose of giving effect
statute

to the intention
fied

& 32

31

(a)

Vict.

And

(c).

by 9 Edw. VII.
c.

121,

repealing in part the

first

also 8

Bdw. VII.

24 Q. B. D. 683
80 L.
58 L.

J.

J.

c.

55,

s.

15

s.

14.

and see 32 & 33

Vict.

15 sections of the earlier Act


;

Pharmaceutical Socy.

v.

117,

c.
;

see

Wheeldon,

see also Pharmaceutical Socy. V. Nash (1911),

K. B. 416
Ch. 39

s.

44,

c.

this principle is ampli-

Oomjp. Lewis v. Weston-super-Mare (1888),

40 Ch. D.

(6)

Pharmaceutical Socy.

(c)

48 & 49 Vict.

c.

55.

v.

72,

White, 70 L. J. K. B. 386.
s.

12; Walker

Q. B. 93.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Hohbs, 59 L. J.

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.

141

Sometimes the governing principle of the


remedial enactment has heen extended to cases
not included in

language, to prevent a failure

its

of justice and consequently of the probable intention.

Thus,

Common Law

60,

s.

Procedure

Act, 1854, which empowered a Court (upon the


application of either party to a cause supported

by the

such party, of his belief that a

affidavit of

material

document was

opponent) to order

time

it

did not admit the affidavit of the solicitor

of the party, even

was

its

in the possession of his

production, though at one

satisfied

when the

by the

solicitor's affidavit,

making an

of

forming a belief

(b),

affidavit,

and

tended to persons other than

have power

make no

make one only by


(a)

Christophersen

v.

affidavit, or

(1864),

the affidavit

33 L.

Frederici v. Vanderzee (1877), 46 L. J. 0. P. 194

Clarh, 25 L. J. Ex. 113.

Now

Andrews (1897), 42 L.

V.

Kingsford

PatM Frires

J., p.

v.

Cinema, Ltd.

v.

121;

positively

competent de-

68.

United Electric Theatres, Ltd.,

[1914] 3 K. B. 1253, C. A.

Per Erie

C. P.

Herschfield v.

G. W. B. Co., 16 C. B. N. S. 761.

(6)
(c)

{d)

J.
;

any one who can

testify to the requisite facts is accepted as a

ponent, Hallett

should

as a cor-

could formerly

their soHcitor,

Lotinga

and

ex-

The

(c).

all suitors

of getting discovery (d)

poration could

now

is

solicitors

governing principle being that

in-

perhaps of

or,

power

this

(a),

where the

and consequently

party was a corporation,


capable

party was abroad

C.J., Id.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

142

was considered a substantial com-

of the latter

pliance with the Act.

provision of 3

after depriving

&

4 Will IV.

42, which,

c.

the parties to a reference under a

rule of Court or judge's order of the

power which

they formerly had of revoking the authority of


their arbitrator, enacted that a judge might from
time to time enlarge the time

for

make

thought confined to

his award,

was

at first

the arbitrator to

had been attempted (a)


or, at all events, applicable only where the arbitrator had no power to enlarge the time, or had
not yet made his award (b) but it was afterwards
held that a judge had power to enlarge the time
in all references made by judicial order (c) and to
do so even when the arbitrator issued his award
after the time to which he was limited had expired, and the award was consequently, so far, a
cases where a revocation

nullity (d).

The

beneficial spirit of construction is also well

by cases where there is so far a conflict


between the general enactment and some of its

illustrated

(a) Potter v.

(6)

Newman

Per Tindal

and per Patteson


(c)

C.J.,
J.,

(1836), 5 L. J. Ex. 93w.

Lambert

Doe

v.

M. &

Gr. 858,

Leslie v. Bichardson, 17 L. J. C. P. 324.

(d)

Be Ward, 32

L. J. Q. B. 121

L. J. Q. B. 53

Knowles

[1900] 2 Q. B., at p. 257.


r.

v. Hutchinson,

Powell, 7 Dowl. 539.

&

Lord

See also E.

14a.

Digitized

v.

Lee (1868), 37

Sons, Ltd. v. Bolton

by Microsoft

S.

Gorporation,

C, Order LXIV.

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.

143

subsidiary provisions, that the former would be

limited in the scope of

were not

restricted.

its

An

operation

Act which, after autho-

rising the imposition of a local rate


piers

of

the latter

if

land in a parish, gives

on

all

occu-

dissatisfied

ratepayer an appeal, but at the same time requires

the appellant to enter into recognisances to prosecute the appeal, presents such a conflict.
it

Either

excludes corporations from the right of appeal,

because a corporation

is

recognisances

extends the right to them,

or

it

incapable of entering into

without compHanoe with that special requirement.

And

the latter would be unquestionably the bene-

ficial

way

The general

of interpreting the statute.

and paramount object of the Act would receive


full effect by giving to corporate bodies the same
right of appeal against the burthen imposed on

them

and the subsidiary provision would be


understood as apphcable only to those who were
;

capable of entering into recognisances

(a).

The Act De Prerogativa Eegis, which provides


that the lands and tenements of lunatics " shall

no wise be aliened," does not prohibit the


Court from giving up an interest in the real estate

in

of a lunatic in order to acquire for

and more valuable

estate.

The

him a

statute

larger

was passed

with the object of preserving the estates of lunatics,

(a) Gortis v.

Kent Waterworks (1827), 7 B. & 0. 314.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.

144

and a contrary interpretation would not have


carried out that intention (a).

The Charitable Uses Act,

1735, 9 Geo. II.

o.

36,

which prohibited the disposition of lands to a


charity by other means than by a deed executed
a year before the donor's death, was open to the
construction that it applied only to lands which
passed by deed, and therefore not to lands of copyhold tenure

But

(b).

as the object of the statute


all

lands of whatever

prohibition, the

only consequence

was, manifestly, to include

tenure in

its

that would have followed,

if

mode

of

impossible that the

had been thought


conveyance provided

it

by the statute should operate to transfer copyholds, would have been that copyholds would
have fallen within the general prohibition absolutely, and would have been incapable of passing
to a charity by any mode of conveyance (c).
Except in some cases where a statute has fallen
under the principle of excessively
tion, the

tended to
(a)

language of a statute

new

17 Edw.

S. S. B.,

In

re,

is generally ex-

things which were not

II. c.

10;

Be

re,

[1906] 2 Ch. C. A., at

Adams

(6)

Gomp. Smith

(c)

Per Lord Tenterden, Doe

v.

known and

Sefton, [1898] 2 Oh. 378; see also

[1906] 1 Gh., at pp. 724, 725

Walters Contract, In

As

strict construc-

and Gashell and


p. 10.

(1855), 24 L. J. Ch. '268.


v.

Waterton, 3 B.

&

to the presumption of enrolment in such cases, see

West, [1893] 2 Q. B. C. A., Lindley L.J., at p. 31.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Aid. 151.

Haigh

v.

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.

145

could not have been contemplated by the Legisla-

was passed. This occurs when the


Act deals with a genus, and the thing which afterwards comes into existence is a species of it (a).
Thus, the provision of Magna Charta which
exempts lords from the liability of having their
carts taken for carriage was held to extend to
degrees of nobility not known when it was made,
as dukes, marquises, and viscounts (6).
The partially repealed Poor Belief Act, 1743, which gave

ture

when

it

parishioners the right of inspecting the accounts


of churchwardens and overseers under the poor
law of BHzabeth, was held to extend to those of
guardians, officers who were created by Gilbert's

Act (22 Geo. III.), passed in 1783 (c). 13 Eliz.


made void (as against creditors)
c. 5, which
of
transfers
lands, goods, and chattels (d), did not
originally apply to copyholds or choses in action,

(a)

Per Bovill

G.J.,

per Holt CJ., Lane

Eaymond, 746

Smith (1870), L. E. 1 C. C. 720

B.

v.

v.

Cotton

H.

(1866), L. E. 1

Mod. 485,

(1701), 12

Bock

referred to in Mersey

L., at p. 124,

1.

Ld.

Trustees v. Gibbs

and Bainbridge

v.

Postmaster

General, [1906] 1 K. B. C. A., at p. 186.


(b)

1 Inst. 35.

(c)

17 Geo.

1871); B.

V.

II. c.

38

Edwards, 7 B. & G. 586


(d)

22 Geo. III.

&

For cases held not

[1914] 2 K. B. 691

C.

S.

L. E.,

541; Bennett

v.

6 Bing. 230.

to be within the statute, see Benny,

Trustee of v. Benny, [1919] 1 K. B. 583


re,

83 (repealed

c.

Great Farringdon, 9 B.

Pearce

v. Bulteel,

Bavid and Ackland, In


[1916] 2 Ch. 544.

10

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

146

INTBBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

were not seizable in execution (a) but


when they were made subject to be so taken
as these

&2

(1

of the

Vict.

they

110),

c.

fell

The Act

Act (b).

within the operation

of Geo. II.,

which pro-

tected copyright in engravings by a penalty for


etching,

engraving,

piratically

or

otherwise,

or

"in any other manner" copying them, extends


A telegram
to copies taken by photography (c).

may

be a forged instrument according to the true

The telemeaning
of
phone is a "telegraph" within the
the Telegraph Acts, 1863 and 1869, though not
invented or contemplated in 1869 (e). Every company (including a private company) (/) registered
interpretation of the Forgery

(o)

Sims

V.

(6) Norcutt

Dodd

V.

(c)

Edmunds

8 Geo.

Gambart

II.

(1841),

c.

54 E. E. 224;

Barrack

v.

Smith, L. E. 1 G. 0. 270, per

JR. v.

Edmunds, [1904] P. 362.

v.

13; see 1 & 2 Geo. V.

32 L.

v. Ball,

P. 166

J. 0.

A.-G. V. Lockwood, 9

0. P. 410;
staengl v.

(d).

Thomas, 12 A. & E. 536.

McCulloch, 26 L. J. Ch. 105


Bovill C.J.

Act

c.

and note;

46,

Graves v. Ashford, L. E. 2

M. & W. 378; Comp. Hanf-

Empire Palace, [1894] 2 Ch. 1

Id. v. Newnes, [1894]

3 Ch. 109; note also cases cited inf. Chap. X., Sec. I; for an

exhaustive j-esume of the subject in

XXI.
& 25 Vict.

Clerk and Lindsell on

Torts, Chap.
id)

24

c.

98,

b.

38,

partially

B.

V. Biley,
(e) 26.

&

65 L.

J.

M.

27 Vict.

Edison Telephone

c.

Co.,

re,

V.

c.

and
27;

C. 74.

112

32 & 33 Vict.

6 Q. B. D. 244

[1913] 1 Ch. 231.

Digitized

c.

73

A.-G. v

Postmaster General v.

National Telephone Co., [1907] 1 Ch. 621.

(/) White, In

repealed

& 4 Geo.

re-enacted by the Forgery Act, 1913, 3

by Microsoft

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.

147

under the Companies Acts is a " public company "


within s. 5, Apportionment Act, 1870 (a).
It is hardly necessary to

remind the reader that

beneficial construction is not to be strained so as

to include cases plainly omitted from the natural

meaning

the words

of

For instance,

(6).

the,

repealed Sunday Closing (Wales) Act, which required that

public-houses

certain hours

should be closed at

on Sundays, was held incapable

being consiJrued as extending to Christmas

but this incapacity

now remedied by

is

of

Day (c),
the 6th

Schedule to the Licensing (Consolidation) Act,

And

1910.

in like

from the decision

manner the anomaly

of the

resulting

Court of Appeal

(d) that

the statutory rule directing that applications for

new

by a jury should be made

trials in cases tried

to the Court of Appeal, could not be extended to

by an

cases tried

official

cured by legislation
(a)

33

& 34

Vict.

c.

referee has

now been

(e).

35

Be LysagU, [1898]

1 Oh. 115

Baven, In re (1915), 111 L. T. 938.


(6)

Sup. pp. 25-26.

(c)

44 & 45 Vict.

c.

61,

s.

Forsdike

v.

Colquhoun, 11 Q. B. D.

71.
{d)

53 & 54 Vict.

(e)

62 Vict.

c.

44,

s.

Gower

v.

ToUtt, 39

c. 6, s. 1.

Digitized

by Microsoft

W.

E. 193.

CHAPTER
CONSEQUENCES

TO

III.

CONSIDEEED

BE

PKESUMPTION

THE LAW BETOND


THE SPECIFIC OBJECT OF THE ACT MENS BEA

AGAINST ANY ALTEEATION

OE

IN CBIMINAL LAW.

Bepoeb adopting any proposed construction of a


passage susceptible of more than one meaning, it
is

important to consider the effects or consequences

which would result from it (a), for they often point


out the real meaning of the words (b). There are
certain objects which the Legislature is presumed
not to intend
and a construction which would
;

lead to any of

them

therefore to be avoided.

is

It

is not infrequently necessary therefore to limit the

words contained in an enactment


(especially general words), and sometimes to
depart, not only from their primary and literal
meaning, but also from the rules of grammatical
construction in cases where it seems highly improbable that the words in their wide primary
effect

of the

or grammatical
(a) Grot,

meaning actually express the

de B. & P.

b.

2,

c.

16,

s.

2 Oranoh, 390.
(6) Puff.

L. N.

b. 5, c. 12, s. 8.

Digitized

by Microsoft

4; U. S.

v.

real

Fisher,

PEESUMPTION AGAINST GENERAL ALTERATIONS.


intention of the Legislature

it

being more reason-

able to hold that the Legislature

expressed

intention

than

in

slovenly manner,

meaning should be given

149

that

its

them which could not

to

have been intended.

One of these presumptions is that the Legislature


does not intend to make any substantial alteration
in the law beyond what it explicitly declares {a),
by clear implication
or, in other words, beyond the immediate scope
and object of the statute. In all general matters
beyond, the law remains undisturbed. It is in
either in express terms or

the last degree improbable that the Legislature

would overthrow fundamental principles, infringe


rights, or depart from the general system of law,
without expressing

its

and to

intention with irresistible

any such effect to


general words, simply because they have that
meaning when used either in their widest, their
usual or their natural sense, would be to give
them a meaning other than that which was
General words and phrases,
actually intended.
therefore, however wide and comprehensive they
clearness

may

(b)

be in their

give

literal sense,

must, usually, be

construed as being limited to the actual objects


(a)

Per Trevor

J.,

Arthur

v.

Bokeriham, 11 Mod. 150

Earhert's Case, 3 Eep. 13b; the above passage cited

Cory V. France, 80 L.

J.

K. B, 346

and see

(6) 2 Cranch, 390.

Digitized

by Microsoft

inf. p.

see also

by counsel,

313.

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

150

the

of

beyond

and

Act,

not

as

law

the

altering

(a).

"any"

Thus, a statute which authorised

or

"the nearest" justice of the peace to try certain


cases, would not authorise a justice to try any

own

such oases out of the territorial limits of his

any in which he had a disor which he


qualifying interest or a bias (c)
was incapacitated from hearing by any other

jurisdiction

(b)

or

law

general principle of

them by any other course

(d)

to hear

less

still

proceeding than that

of

by law (e).
So, the Debtors Act,
"
any (inferior) Court " to
1869, empowering
commit for default of payment of a debt, in pursuance of an order or judgment of " that or any
other competent Court," did not authorise such a

established

(a)

See per Sir

Eomilly, Minet

J.

v.

Leman, 20 Beav. 278

Biver Wear Commissioners v. Adamson, 1 Q. B. D. 564, per


MeUish LJ., 2 App. Gas. 743 Sv. A.-G. v. Exeter Corp. (1911),
;

80 L.
(6)

K. B. 636.

J.

Hawk.

P. 0.

80 L.
(c)

Q.

1
Gt.

J.

B.

c.

65,

& C. 438

Fylingdales, 7 B.

s.

45

Sv.

The Peerless, 1 Q. B. 153

per Darling

J.,

Be

B.

v.

Bros. (1911),

K. B. 147.
V.

Cheltenham, 55 E.

B. D. 173

B.

v.

L. C.

E. 321
0.,

61 L.

B.
J.

v.

Meyer

M.

C. 75.

(1876),

B.

v.

Yarmouth JJ. (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 525.

(d)

Bonham's Case, 8 Eep. 118a

2 Stra. 1173

B.

v.

Great Charte

v.

Sainslury (1791), 2 E. E. 433

Kennington,
;

Lawson

v.

Beynolds, [1904] 1 Ch. 718.


(e) Dalt. c. 6,

s.

Guerin, In re (1888), 53 J. P. 468

Button, Exp. (1911), 75. J. P. 558.

Digitized

by Microsoft

camp.

PEESUMPTION AGAINST GENERAL ALTERATIONS.

151

Court to commit, unless the debtor was subject to


its

general jurisdiction by residence or business

An

(a).

Act wbioh authorised a distress would not

authorise a seizure of goods in custodid

The provision

in

26

s.

(8),

legis (6).

Judicature Act, 1873,

that the Court might grant an injunction in

all

which it should consider it "just and


convenient" that such an order should be made,
did not extend the authority of the Court beyond
cases in

cases where there

was an invasion

of recognised

The

provisions in

legal or equitable

R.

1,

E.

Order LY, E.

S.

rights
S.

(c).

C. 1875 (now E.

and the repealed (d)

C.)

s.

LXV,

Ord.

1,

Eailway

28,

Canal Traffic Act, 1873, that the costs

&

and

of

incidental to proceedings should be in " the discretion of the Court "

was construed as giving no


than
had always been exercised
wider discretion
by the Court of Chancery, and therefore as not
authorising an order on a successful defendant to

pay a portion of the


(a)

32 & 33 Vict.

c.

62

plaintiff's costs

Washer

v. Elliott,

(e),

45 L.

P. 144,

J. G.

explained in Ives, In re (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 665, at pp. 669, 670.


(h)

17 & 18 Viet. c. 104,

58 Vict.
(c)

c.

60,

s.

Beddow

v.

693

s.

523 ; repealed and re-enacted by 57 &

The Westmoreland (1845), 2 Eob.

Beddow, 9 Oh. D. 89

H. L. 193.

See also Jackson

1 Ch.
(tZ)

(e)

238 C.

Day

v.

394.

Brownrigg, 48

v.

v.

Barry Bailway

o.

25.

Bos, L. E, 5

[1893]

Co.,

A., at p. 249.

Eepealed by 51 & 52 Vict.


Foster

and per Lord Hatherley, Beuss

L. J. Oh. 173

W.

v.

G. W. E. Co. (1882),

Digitized

8 Q. B. D. 516

by Microsoft

Mills'

INTEEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

152

" Fresh evidence " within the meaning of

Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women)

s. 7,

Act, 1895,

which gives magistrates jurisdiction to rescind


a separation order previously made under s. 4 of

means the same sort of evidence as that


upon which a new trial would in the ordinary
that Act,

course be granted

An Act which

provided that a mayor should not

by reason of

be,

councillor
eligible

(a).

his office, ineligible

would

alderman,

or

when he acted

not

as a town
make him

in the judicial capacity of

returning officer at the election

for it

would not

be a just construction of the language used, or a


legitimate inference from

had intended

it,

that the Legislature

by a mere side-wind the


principle of law that a man cannot be a judge in
his own case (b).
So, an Act which directed the
election of officers, would be understood as authoEstate, Be,

to repeal

34 Oh. D. 24

Lamhton

v.

Parkinson (1887), 35

W.

E.

545,
(a)

13

58 & 59 Vict.

Dodd

c.

39

Dodd, [1906] P. 189,

V.

& A.
what is

Johnsons. Johnson, 69 L. J. P. D.

As

at p. 199.

to

" fresh evidence," see Timmins v. Timmins, [1919] P. 75.

As

the character of evidence which a justice should require

when

making an

order, see Terry v. Terry (1915),

Camp. MurtagJi
(h)

37 L.
B.

v.

v.

Barry, 24 Q. B. D. 632,

Owens (1859), 28 L.

B.

v.

J.

Q. B. 285

B.

Weymouth, 48 L.

1 Q. B.

504

B.

v.

J.

J.

M.

C.

519.
v.

Tewkesbury,

4 Q. B. D. 332, S. C. nom.

139;

B.

v.

Morton, [1892] 1 Q. B. 39.

Digitized

32 T. L. E. 167.

inf. p.

Q. B. 316

v. Milledge,

to

by Microsoft

Henley, [1892]

PRESUMPTION AGAINST GENERAL ALTERATIONS.

153

rising such election only

on a lawful day, and not

on a Sunday (a)

the statute declared that

the candidate

and

if

who had

he deemed elected,

the majority of votes should

would he construed as not

it

intending to override the general principle, that


voters

who

vote for a person

whom

they

he ineligible, throw away their votes

know

to

(b).

In the same way, a statute requiring a recognisance would not be understood as giving com-

women

petency to minors and married

themselves by such an instrument

may

women

since

possessed of separate estate

enter into recognisances, and

that the rule in the

it

would seem

of infants is not

case

of

The Statute of Westwhich gave a judgment creditor the

universal application

minster

to bind

But

Women's Property

the passing of the Married

Acts married

(c).

2,

(d).

writ of elegit to take half the lands of his debtor,


did not authorise the issue of the writ against the

(a)

B.

V. Butler, 1

W.

Bl.

649; B.

v.

Bridgewater (1774),

Cowp. 139.
(b)

B.

Coaks

V.

Pritchard

v.

23 L.

(18S'4),

J.

Bangor Oorp. (1888), 13 A. 0. 241

V.

Sandhurst (1889), 58 L. J. Q. B. 316

s.

B.

V.

558

B.

V.

(c)

Q. B. 183, discussed in

How, 33 L.

J.

M.

C. 53

B.

Wimbledon Loc. Board, 51 L.

Bennett

v.

Watson, 3

M. &

S. 1

see 7
v. St.

J.

Williams, Exp. (1824), 13 Price. 673.

Digitized

Beresford-Hope
c.

64,

Matthew, 32 L. T.

Q. B. 219.

Barrow, Exp., 3 Yes. 554

Hussey's Case, 9 Eep. 73.


(d)

& 8 Geo. V.

by Microsoft

154

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

heir of the debtor during his minority


s. 7,

43

Eliz,

in

c. 2,

So,

(a).

making the mother and grand-

an illegitimate child liable to maintain


it, did not reach them when under coverture (h)
and an Act which punished " every person " who
deserted his or her children would not apply to

mother

of

woman, without separate


her husband had deserted (c).
a married

And now by

estate,

virtue of the Married

woman

Property Acts a married

whom

Women's

entitled to

is

by will of personal prois bequeathed subject to

renounce or disclaim a

gift

perty notwithstanding

it

a restraint on anticipation

{d).

Again, the enactment which gave a vote for the


town councillors to every " person" of

election of
full

age

who had occupied

a house for a certain

time, and provided that words importing the masculine gender should include females for aU pur-

poses relating to the right to vote,

was

held,

having regard to the general scope of the Act, to

remove only that

disability which was founded on


but not to affect that which was the result of
marriage as well as sex, and therefore not to give
sex,

(a)

2 Inst. 395.

(6) Gustodes

Bulstr. 345
s.

v. JinJces,

Coleman

v.

Styles,

283

Draper

Birmingham, 50 L.

J.

21,

Married Women's Property Act, 1882.

(c)

Peters

(d)

v.

Cowie, 46 L. J.

Wimperis, In

re,

M.

C. 177.

[1914] 1 Oh. 502.

Digitized

by Microsoft

M.

v.

Glenfield,

G. 92

but see

PEESUMPTION AGAINST GENEEAL ALTERATIONS.

women

the right of voting to married

now removed by

dieability is

(a),

but this

the Eepresentation

An Act which

of the People Act, 1918.

155

simply

left

the determination of a matter to a majority of

vestrymen "present

meeting" would not

common law

affect the

demand

at the

a poll

and

right of the minority to


the " meeting " would there-

fore be understood as continuing until the

the poll

R.

(b).

7,

XXXVII,

Order

E. S.

end

of

C, under

which the Court has power in any cause or matter


at any stage of the proceedings to order the
attendance of any person for the purpose of pro-

may

ducing any documents which the Court

which such person could

to be produced, and

fit

think

be compelled to produce at the

trial,

does not

authorise an order for the production of documents


in the case of a person not a party to the litiga-

when

tion,

there

is

no

trial or application

and the production is not necessary


out an order already made (c).
32 & 33 Vict.

(a)

173

L. J. Ch. 143
5

(6)
c.

V.

s.

B.

12 Ad. & E. 139

54 L.

J.
J.

0.

76,

How, 33 L.

L. J. C. P. 1;

(c)

55,

Beresford-Hope

& 6 WUl. IV.

50; B.

51 L.

c.

B.

v.

V. St.

C. 53;

v.

Q. B.

by 45 & 46

Be

Vict.

White v. Steele, 32

Mary, 47 E. E. 613; B.

See B.

J.

Be March, 54

Sandhurst, sup. p. 153.


18, repealed

M.

J.

54 E. E. 553

Ch. 624.

v.
s.

for carrying

Barrald, 41 L.

see Ghorlton v. Lings, 88 L. J. C. P. 25

pending,

v.

B'Oyly,

Ghillington Iron Co. (1885),

Wimlledon Loc. Board (1882),

Q. B. 219.

Elder

v. Carter,

25 Q.

Digitized

D. 194

O'Shea

by Microsoft

v.

Wood, [1891]

156

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

In making copyholds devisable, the Wills Act,


1837, 1 Vict.

c.

26,

was construed

as not intend-

ing to interfere with the relation of lord

and

and consequently the devised copyholds


did not vest immediately in the devisee, but
remained in the customary heir until the devisee's
admittance (a). So, 39 Eliz. c. 5, which gave to
"all persons" seised of lands in fee, power to
tenant

found hospitals, was construed as not conferring


that power on corporate bodies which were dis"
abled from alienation though the word " persons
;

was wide enough

and
indeed extended to those corporate bodies which
possessed the power of alienation, such as municipalities (6). Again, the Wills Act of Hen. VIII. (c)
which empowered " all persons " to devise their
to include

corporations,

lands, did not legalise a devise of land to a cor-

nor would

have enabled lunatics


or minors to make a will, even if the 34 & 35

poration

(J),

it

P. 237, 286
secus

under 42 Vict.

23 Q. B. D.
(a)

Straher v.

BeynoUs (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 262. But


c. 11, s. 7
Howard v. Beall (1889),
;

1.

Garland

v.

Mead, 40 L.

J.

Q. B. 179

(1872), L. E. 7 Q. B., at p. 685.

Bishop

V. Curtis (1852),

88 E. E. 819

2 Inst. 721

(c)

Eepealed by 7 Will. IV. and 1 Vict.

(d)

Newcastle Corp.

32 Hen. VIII.

Uses, 78

Hawes,

Branetli

c.

v.

v. Ivatt

v. A.-G.,
c.

12

CI.

26,

&

F. 402.

s. 2.

Jesus College Case, Duke, Charit.

Havering,

Id.

83

Id. 84.

Digitized

Bveringham

18 Q. B. 878.

(b)

See as to choses in action,

by Microsoft

Christ's Hospital v.

PRESUMPTION AGAINST GENERAL ALTERATIONS.

Hen. YIII.

c.

1 (a),

157

had not been passed to prevent

The

of

the

Legislature was, obviously, only to confer a

new

a different construction (6).

object

power of disposition on persons already of capacity


to deal with their property and not to abolish an
existing disability from disposing or taking those
who were under such incapacity.
A statute which enacted that " every conveyance " in a particular form should be "vahd,"
would not thereby cure an initial defect of
title (c).

in declaring maps
"
"
provisions,
satisfactory evidence

the Tithe Act,

So,

made under its


of the

1836,

matters therein stated, as not necessarily

evidence on

a question of

between land-

title

owners, that being a matter foreign to the scope


of the

Act

But such evidence has been held


"manor map" made

(d).

admissible in the case of a

long anterior to the date of action by a deceased


(a)
(&)

Eepealed by 1 Edw. VI.


Beckford

v.

Joachim, 1 App. Cas. 82


at p. 291.
c.

75, see

5 B.

&

(c)

Eccles.

And

c.

12.

Wade, 17 Ves. 91.


;

and see Tooth

as to married

women,

Willoch v. Noble, L. E. 7

Comp.
v.

O'Shanassy

v.

Power, [1891] A. C,

before the 45 & 46 Vict.

H. L. 580

Boe

v.

Battle,

Aid. 492.

Ward

v.

Com.,

Scott,

47 L.

Camp.

J.

Oh.

c.

71,

284.

See also Whidhorne

129; Forbes

v.

Eccles.

v.

Com., 42

L. J. Ch. 97.
(d)

6 & 7 Will. IV.

s.

64

Wilberforce v. HearfieU, 46

L. J. Ch. 584.

Digitized

by Microsoft

158

INTEBPEBTATION OP STATUTES.

person conversant witli the district


built in

England

for a foreigner

(a).

So, a ship

would not be a

"British ship" within the provisions requiring


registration
still

and transfer by

bill

of sale, even while

the property of the English builder (&),

Sec.

Bankruptcy Act, 1869 (c), which made a


composition accepted under certain circumstances
by creditors binding on all creditors " whose names
are shown in the debtor's statement," with the
proviso that it " shall not affect any other
126,

creditor," excluded only non-assenting creditors,

but not creditors whose names were not stated


in the debtor's statement, who, in fact, assented
for it

was understood

as not intending to interfere

with the general principle that

competent to
a person to bind himself by such an assent (d).
12 Car. II. c. 17 (e), which enacted that all persons
it is

presented to benefices in the time of the


wealth, and

Common-

who should

confirm as directed by the


Act, should be confirmed therein, " notwithstanding

any act or thing whatsoever," was obviously not


Uster (1895), 64 L.

(a)

Smith

(6)

Union Bank

V.

v.

J.

Q. B. 154.

Lenanton, 47 L. J. 0. P. 409.

See

s. 1,

Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.


(c)

32 & 33 Vict.

c.

For present rules as


s.

71, repealed

by 46 & 47

to compositions, see 4

Viet.

c.

52,

s.

& 5 Geo. V.

169.

c.

59,

16.
(d) Campbell v.

(e)

Im

Thurn, 45 L. J. C. P. 482, discussed in

Brown (1878), 3 A. C,
Eepealed S. L. E., 1863.

Breslauer

v.

Digitized

at p. 689.

by Microsoft

RESTRICTION TO SPEOIFIO OBJECT.

intended to apply to a person


simoniacally presented
literal

(a).

It

is

159

who had been


evident that a

cons|truotion would, in these

carried the operation of the Act far

have
beyond the

cases,

intention.

Habeas Corpus Act, 1679, which, for


the prevention of unjust vexation by reiterated
commitments for the same offence, enacts that no
person who has been discharged on habeas corpus
shaU be imprisoned again for " the same offence,"
except by the Court wherein he is bound by recogSo,

s.

6,

nisances to appear, or other Court having jurisdiction in the cause, would not extend to a case
where the discharge was made on the ground that

the

commitment had been made without

jurisdic-

which he was arrested


on the second occasion was the same for this
was obviously beyond the object of the Act (b).
So, it was held that s. 26, Keal Property Limitation Act, 1833, 3 & 4 WiU. IV. c. 27, which
tion,

though the offence

for

deprives the owner of lands of the right of suing


in equity for their recovery, on the ground of fraud,

from a purchaser who did not know or have reason


to believe that any such fraud had been committed,

should be construed as subject to the

presumption that the Legislature did not intend,


(a)
(b)

Crawley

31 Car.

v. Phillips, 1 Sid.

II. c.

A.-G.

222.

v. Eiook-a-Sing,

42 L.

J. P. 0.

64;

B. V. Brixton Prison {Govt.) Slattmann, Exp., [1912] 3 K. B. 424.

Digitized

by Microsoft

160

by

INTEBPEETATION OF STATUTES.
its

general language, to subvert the established

on the subject of constructive


notice
and was therefore to be read as meaning
that the purchaser did not know or have reason to
believe, either by himself, or by some agent whose
principles of equity
;

knowledge or reason
equivalent to his

believe

to

own

(a).

is,

Sec.

47,

equity,

in

Fines and

Recoveries Act, 1833, which excludes the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery in regard to curing
defects in the

execution of the powers of

Act to tenants in

position given by the

tail,

dis-

and

the rectifyiug under any circumstances of the

want of execution

powers of disposition,

of such

has been held not to exclude the jurisdiction of


the Court from amending a deed

Act so

make

as to

parties.

The

it

made under the

effect the intention of the

object of the

Act being to prevent

the application of equitable doctrines so as to


alter the effect of a

deed executed according to

the intention of the parties, and not to exclude


the power of the Court to rectify a deed which, by

an

error, did

not conform to that intention

The Act which exempts


secution
(a)

Vane

(6) 3

& 4

in
v.

the

Montague, In

Courts

Tane (1872), L. E. 8 Ch. 383.


c. 74, s. 47
Hall Dare

re,

[1896] 1 Ch. 549

v. Small,
;

Meeking

N. 367.

Digitized

v.

See also Banhes

Gh. D. 251.

W.

Dissenters from pro-

Ecclesiastical

Will. IV.

(b).

by Microsoft

for

not

Hall Dare, 31

36 Ch. D. 716
v.

Meeking, [1916]

RESTRICTION TO SPECIFIC OBJECT.

161

conforming to the Church of England, does not

exempt a clergyman of the Church who has


seceded from it, from prosecution in those Courts
for performing the Anglican Church service in a
dissenting chapel not licensed by the bishop for
this is a breach of discipline, and not within the
scope and object of the Act (a). 27 Geo. III. c. 44,
s. 2, which enacted that no suit should be commenced in any Ecclesiastical Court for inconti;

nence or brawling after the expiration of eight


months from the commission of the offence, would
apply only to suits which might be brought

laymen

against

as well as against clergymen.

It

would therefore apply to a suit against a clergyman, when its object was the reformation of his
manners, or his soul's health but it would not
apply to a suit for deprivation for the same
;

matter of Church govern-

offences, for this is a

ment, foreign to the object and


statute

The Factors Act,

(b).

scope of the

1889, enacts inter

bys. 2 (1) that any mercantile agent entrusted


with goods or the documents of title to goods
alia

be entitled to pledge the same provided

shall

they are

in

(a) 1 "Will. IV.


c.

48; Barnes

v.

his

c.

18,

now

(6)

s. 4,

with

the

consent
& 35

repealed in part by 34

Shore (1846), 15 L. J. Q. B. 296.

Clerical Disabilities Act,

can

possession

1870 (33 & 34 Vict.

c.

91), a

v.

Burgoyne, 31 E. E. 2

5 B.

&

C. 400.

11

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

the

clergyman

relinquish his office.

Free

Vict.

By

INTEEPRBTATION OF STATUTES.

162
of

But

the owner.

this

transactions entered into


in the ordinary course of
cantile agent,

proviso

is

confined to

by a mercantile agent
his business qua mer-

and consequently does not validate

a pledge of household furniture, not in the

way

of trade, made by an agent to whose possession it


had been entrusted (a). So a Colonial Insolvent

which provided that no distress for rent


should be levied after an order of sequestration

Act,

had been made, was construed as limited to


To apply
distress on the goods of the insolvent.
a stranger taken on the
it to the goods of
insolvent's premises, would have extended the
operation of the Act to effects and consequences
beyond the policy (&). The exception does not,
however, apply in England or, to a modified
extent in Ireland (c). It has been decided that
an Act which empowered the directors of an incorporated company to make contracts and bargains
with workmen, agents, and undertakers, would be
construed as conferring on them authority to bind
the company by such transactions without consulting their shareholders

but not as so altering the

general law as to dispense with those formalities


(a)

Waddington

North Western
(6)

v.

Bank

Neale (1917), 96 L. T. 786 Div.

Bailton v. Wood, 59 L. J. 0. P. 84.

Lowe, 26 L. J. Q. B. 107.
(c)

Cole v.

(1875), L. E. 10 0. P. 354, p. 372.

See 8 Edw. VII.

c.

53.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See Brocklehurst

v.

RESTRICTION TO SPECIFIC OBJECT.

163

by which alone a corporation can bind itself to


contracts, that is, by writing under the corporate
seal (a), but this has since been overruled (b), and
it is now enacted by 8 Edw. VII. c. 69, s. 76, that
any contract made on behalf of a joint stock
company, within the scope of its business, is valid
provided it be made in the manner which if it
were the contract of a private person would render
the same kind of contract vaHd against him.
So,
Married Women's Property Act, 1882,
46 Vict. c. 75, that " a married woman shall

s.

1 (2),

45

&

be capable of suing and being sued in


as if she

were a feme

all

respects

sole," is limited to actions

relating to herself personally, and does not

make

her competent to act as a next friend or guardian

ad

litem

The

(c).

provision in the repealed Friendly Societies

Act, 1829, which required a reference to arbitraof " every

matter in dispute " between a


society and any of its members was, on the same
principle, held to be confined to disputes with

tion

members, as members

and a breach of covenant


by a member to repay a sum borrowed from his
;

society was therefore regarded as not falling within

the arbitration clause, the dispute being with the


(o) East
(6)

London Waterworks

Co. v. Bailey, 4 Bing. 283.

South of Ireland Colliery Co.

v.

Waddle (1868), 37 L.

J. 0.

P.

211; Wells v. Corp. Eingston-on-Eull (1875), 44 L. J. G. P. 257.


(c)' Be Duke of Somerset (1887), 56 L. J. Gh. 733.

Digitized

by Microsoft

164

INTBEPRBTATION OF STATUTES.

member

as

member (a)

not as

debtor,

seems clear law in cases within


ing

it

2 of the Build-

remedy

1884, that the

Society Act,

action and

's.

And

by

is

by reference to
Debt Act, 1870, which directs
the Bank of England to keep a list of unclaimed
arbitration

not

(b).

Sec. 62, National

which

to be "

open for inspection at the


usual hours of business," would not entitle a person
who has no bond fide interest in any unclaimed
stock,

is

stock to inspect such

Legislature, intituled for

which declared that

law,

affect

An Act

list (c).

Manx

of the

amending the criminal

its

provisions should not

the right of the Courts to punish contempts

and that the House of Keys, the Clerk


of the Eolls, and the registrars of Ecclesiastical
as before,

"when

Courts, should,

in the execution of their

respective offices," have the power of punishing

contempts in the same manner as a Court, was


10 Geo. IV.

(a)

20.

c.

66,

See also Prentice

Wells, 61 L. J. Q. B.

Fleming

48 L.

J.

46 L.

J.

s.

v.

27

606

0. P. 353

J.

Ex.

Willis v.

Palliser v. Bale, 66 L. J. Q. B, 236

Ch. 649, and Hack

v.

London Provid. Building

Municipal Building Socy.

v.

Socy.

Kent,

Q. B. 290.

47 & 48 Vict.

Western Suburban

c.

41

J.

Q. B. 382

(c)

J.

Self (1854), 24 L. J. Oh. 29; Mulkern y. Lord,


Ch. 745. But comp. Wright v. Monarch Invest. Socy.,

Martin (1886), 55 L.

(6)
V.

J.

Morrison v. Glover, 19 L.

v.

(1883), 52 L. J. Oh. 542;

53 L.

London, 44 L.

33 & 34 Vict.

c.

71

B.

v.

Building Socy.

Bank of England, 60 L.

497.

Digitized

dec.

17 Q. B. D. 609, C. A.

by Microsoft

J.

Q. B.

EBSTRICTION TO SPECIFIC OBJECT.

165

construed as limiting this power to the House of

Keys only when exercising

To

judicial, not legislative

that power when exercising


the latter was obviously foreign to the object of
the Act, though the language, in its primary and
functions.

give

it

included it (a). On similar grounds a


conveyance of property, knowingly (b) made solely
for the purpose of giving a vote contrary to s. 7,
full sense,

&

8 Will. III. c. 25, which declares such conveyances "void and of none effect," is void so far as
7

to prevent the right of voting being acquired

which

is

the whole aim of the Act; but

it is

(c)>

in

other respects valid between the parties, so as to


pass the property (d).

which gives the.

Sec. 19, Judicature Act, 1873,

Court of Appeal jurisdiction to hear appeals from


" any judgment or order " save as thereinafter
(s.

47) mentioned, was held not to give an appeal

against an order of discharge of a prisoner on

habeas corpus (though the order was not within


the exception), on the ground partly that as no
provision was

(a)

Be Brown

made

an order of the

for enforcing

(1864), 33 L. J. Q. B. 193, 280.

Bowen, 14 L. J. 0. P. 129 but see Hoyland v.


Bremner (1846), 69 E. E. 417 15 L. J. C. P. 133.
(c) This section seems to be repealed by 7 & 8 Geo. V. c. 64.
(6)

Marshall

v.

(d) PMllpotts V. PhUlpotts (1850),

20 L.

to ia Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik

J. C.

at p. 427.

Digitized

P. 11

referred

v. Hichson, [1906] A.

by Microsoft

C,

166

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

Court of Appeal for re-arresting the prisoner, the


order would therefore be futile, and partly that so

important a change of the law was

And
Order XXXI,

-templated by the Legislature


visions of Eules 1

and

14,

con-

not

(a).

the pro-

E. S.

C,

which entitle a defendant to interrogate a plaintiff,


and to discovery of documents, were held at one
time not to extend to the case of infant

who were not

subject

to

such

plaintiffs

discovery

in

Chancery proceedings before the Judicature Acts


were passed (6). But the law is now altered by
Order XXXI, r. 29.
In 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, which consolidates the
law relating to larceny and analogous offences, the
.provision (s. 23) which imposes a penalty for
"unlawfully and wilfully" killing a pigeon under
circumstances not amounting to larceny, was
construed as not applying to a
tentionally

and without

man who had

in-

legal justification shot his

neighbour's pigeons which were in the habit of


feeding upon hia land

his object being to prevent a

recurrence of the trespass. His act was " unlawful,"


in the sense that

it

was actionable

and"

it

was

Makes (1890), 15 App. Gas. 506 per Lords Halsbury L.C., Watson, Bramwell, and Macnaghten; diss. Lords
Morris and Meld see also Seaman v. Busley, [1896] 2 Q. B.
(o)

Cox

V.

344, 0. A.
(6)

Mayor

v. Collins,

[1891] P. 139

24 Q. B. D. 361.

Curtis v.

Mmdy,

Digitized

See Bedfern

[1892] 2 Q. B. 178.

by Microsoft

v.

Bedfern,

RESTBICTION TO SPECIFIC OBJECT.

167

undoubtedly " wilful " also ; but as the object and


scope of the Act were to punish crimes and not

mere

the word "unlawfully" was


"
construed as against the criminal law " (a). So,
civil

injuries,

an Act which visited with

fine

who demanded

road surveyor

and dismissal a

or wilfully received

higher fees than those allowed by the Act, would


not affect a surveyor who, under an honest mistake

demanded a

which he was not entitled (b)


and a sheriff, whose ofl&cer had made
an overcharge by mistake, would not be liable to
the penalty imposed by s. 29, Sheriffs Act, 1887,
upon any sheriff, etc., who takes or demands any
money or reward, under any pretence whatever,
other than the fees or sums allowed (c). An Act
which empowered inspectors to inspect the scales,
weights and measures of persons offering goods for
sale, and of seizing any found "light and unjust,"
was construed as Hmited to cases where the injustice was prejudicial to the buyer, but as not
applying to a balance which gave seventeen ounces
of fact,

fee to

(a)

v. Newman (1863), 32 L. J. M. C. 186; Co\np.


McBae (1863), 33 L. J. M. C. 65. See also Kenyan v.
34 L. J. M. C. 87 Daniel v. Janes, 2 0. P. D. 351

Tayhr

Hudson
Hart,

V.

Spicerv. Barnard, 28 L. J.

72 L.

J.

Miles v. HutcMngs (1903),

Badger, 25 L. J. M. C. 81.

B.

(c)

50 & 51 Vict.
v.

G. 176

K. B. 775.

(6)

Bagge

M.

V.

c.

55

Lee

v.

Dangar, 61 L.

Whitehead, 61 L. J. Q. B. 778.

Blyih, 26 L. J.

M.

0. 57.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J. Q.

B. 780

See also Bowmfin

v.

168

INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.

which was unjust against the


since the object and scope of the Act were

to the pound, that


seller

is,

limited to the protection of the former

So,

(a).

where a statute makes it an offence in certain cases


for any person to intimidate any other person, but
provides that nothing in the Act shall apply to

seamen,

has been held that the proviso only

it

committed hy a
seaman, and not where it is committed against a
seaman (6). And the enactment in s. 14, BlQs of
Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act, 1882, that a biU
of sale shall be no protection in respect of chattels
which but for such bill of sale would have been
liable to distress for rates and taxes, must be
restricted to cases of distress for such rates and
taxes, and has no application where proceedings by
way of execution have been taken in the County
Court under s. 261, Public Health Act, 1875, or
any section of like character in any subsequent
Act, as it could not possibly have been intended
that a bill of sale should be no protection against
operates where the

offence is

(a) Brooke v. Shadgate (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B.


GloiicestersMre
(6)

60 L.

38
J.

actually

Co.

-v.

352

East

Bartholomew, L. E. 3 Ex. 15.

& 39 Vict. e. 86, ss. 7, 16 Kennedy v. Cowie (1891),


M. 0. 170. A seaman within these sections is a person
;

employed on board ship

the sea, but

who

the exception

B.

B.

V. City

B.

and persons whose

calling

is

are not actually so employed, are not within


v.

Lynch (1898), 67 L.

J. Q.

of London Court, 59 L. J. Q. B. 429.

Digitized

by Microsoft

B. 59.

See also

RESTRICTION TO SPECIFIC OBJECT.

an execution on a judgment

were

An Act,

if

the goods seized

non-payment

liable to distress for

169

of rates (a).

which, after appointing trustees to pull

down and rebuild a parish church, authorised


them to allot the pews, and to sell the fee simple
of such of them as were not appropriated by
the Act to the inhabitants of the parish, with

power to the owners to dispose of them, was held


not to authorise a conveyance of the soil and
freehold of the land on which the pews stood, but
only the grant of an easement, or right to
the

pew during

divine service

sit

And where

(6).

in

church was buUt, under a similar Act, by subscribers in

trustees

whom

the freehold was vested, and the

had power to

sell

the pews

and a subse-

quent Act, reciting that doubts had arisen as to


the estate and interest which the subscribers and

had in the pews, enacted that the fee


simple should be vested in them, it was held that
it was not the freehold interest in the soil that
proprietors

was vested in them, but a special interest created


by Parhament in the easement (c). So, the Public
(a)

45 & 46 Vict.

c.

43,

s.

14; Wimbledon Loc. Board

v.

Underwood, [1892] 1 Q. B. 836.


(6)

Hinde

v. Chorlton,

L. E. 2 0. P. 104

Wadmore

v.

Dear

(1871), L. E. 7 C. P., at p. 224.


(c)

Brumfitt

v.

BoherU, 39 L.

J.

C. P. 95.

Lancaster (1869), L. E. 5 0. P. 246

Brewer

5 C. P. 269.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See also Smith


v.

v.

M'Gowen, L. E.

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

170

Health Act, 1876, 38


Metropolis

&

39 Vict.

Management Act,

c.

65,

and the

&

19 Vict.

1855, 18

120, which enacted that the streets should


" vest " in the local authority, were construed as
intending not that the soil and freehold should
c.

vest, but only the surface of the soil,

and as much

was necessary for doing all that


was reasonably and usually done in streets (a),
and for so long only as it continued to be a
street (6).
And it is now definitely provided by
41 & 42 Vict. c. 77, s. 27, that all mines and
of

it

in depth as

minerals under any highway shall continue to

belong to the persons entitled thereto although


the surface
authority.

may have become

vested in an urban

authority has therefore

local

power under those Acts to excavate the soil


erect lavatories below the surface of a street

no
and
(c),

or to prevent wires being carried over the street


at a height

the user of

was

which precludes any interference with


the street, and the fact that the street

originally constructed

whom

by turnpike trustees

to

the fee simple of the site was conveyed

(a) Coverdale v. Charlton (1878), 48 L. J. Q. B. 128.


Comp.
Wandsworth Board of Works v. United Telephone Co., 53 L.J. Q. B.
449; Tunhridge Wells v. Baird, [1896] A. C. 434; Battersea

Vestry v. Provincial Electric Co., 68 L. J. Ch. 238.

A.-G.

V.

Dorhing, Si L. J. Ch. 585.

(6) Bolls V. St. George,


(c)

Tunbridge Wells

v.

Southwarh, 14 Ch. D. 785.

Baird, sup.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See also

RESTRICTION TO SCOPE OP THE ACT.

makes no

difference

there can be

little

171

But, on the other hand,

(a).

doubt that actual property

{e.g.

drain pipes or things analogous in character) as


distinguished from an easement pass to the urban

authority

(6).

Sec. 12, 35

&

36 Vict.

c.

86,

which enacts that no

action entered in a local Court of record shall be

removed into a Superior Court except by leave of


a judge of a Superior Court in cases which shall
appear

such judge "

to

fit

be tried

to

"

in

Superior Court, would not authorise such removal


unless the action were

more

superior than the inferior Court

The same general

to be tried in the

fit

(c).

principle appears

to govern

the class of cases which establish that enactments


other companies to make,

requiring railway or

to persons interested in hereditaments taken or


" injuriously affected " by the companies, full com-

pensation not only for the land but for

all

damage

sustained by reason of the exercise of such parlia-

mentary powers, are limited to cases where the

damage would have been actionable but for the


Act. The general principle relates, therefore, not
(a) Finchley Electric

Light Co. v. FincMey U. B. C.

(1903),

71 L.J. Oh. 450; 72 Id. 297.


(6)

Tstradyfodwg

&c.

Sewerage

Bd.

v.

Benstead,

[1906]

1 K. B. 294.
(c)

Banhs

v.

Hollingsworth (1893), 62 L. J. Q. B. 239

V. Pearson, [1911]

2 K. B. 412

Digitized

80 L.

J.

K. B. 1069.

by Microsoft

BonMn

INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES.

172

by

to the person or business of the party prejudiced

way authorised by the

the user of the railway in the

Act

after it is

opened to the pubHc, but only to

damage resulting from the construction of the railway and works, to his estate or right in the land in
its original condition, without regard to any use to
might be put (a). In other words, the
object of the enactments is not to create new
rights, but to give compensation for actual injury {b)
where the right of action has been taken away.

which

And

it

away only when the

this right being taken

powers are in

respects duly exercised, the pro-

all

visions for compensation do not extend to cases

See per Cockburn

(o)

&

2 E.

L. E.

E. 435, p. 442
3 C.

L. E. 4 H. L. 171
'B. Co.,

225

2 B.

B.

V.

&

S.

617

v.

Comp. Metrop. Board

B. Co.

Be

V.

Biver Co,

v.

Co.

Board of Works, 88 L.

v.

&

(1868),

Crystal Pal.

Q. B. 201

J.

MacCarthy, L. E. 7 H. L. 243

Glasgow

But see the exception,


Q. B. 251, upheld by H. L. in

v.

Acton (1889), 58 L. J. Q. B. 594, applied in


v.

London,

Tilbury

59 L. J. Q. B. 162, and illustrated by Horton


J.
tit.

B.

Brand

Walker's Trustees (1882), 7 App. Gas. 259.

Gower's Walk Schools

(6)

v.

West End

Senior v. Metropolitan B. Co., 32 L. J. Ex.

Stockport B. Co., 38 L. J.

Supp.,

Johnson (1860),

Hunter, L. E. 2 So. App. 78.

Cowper-Essex

77 L.

v.

Bechett v. Midland B. Co.,

J.,

Chamberlain

Metropolitan

Caledonian B. Co.

New

Hammersmith B.

94;

P.

C.J.,

per Willes

K. B. 215.

&
v.

Southend B.

Colwyn

Bay

Co.,

U.

C,

See also Stroud's Judicial Dicty. and

" injuriously affected."


V.

Poulter

(1887),

57 L.

J.

Q. B. 138

Liverpool &c. B. (1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 128.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Mercer

v.

KESTEICTION TO SCOPE OF THE ACT.

173

where injury has been done through their improper


or negligent exercise (a).

The repealed Bills

Act which required the

of Sale

registration of bills of sale of " personal chattels,"

under which expression fixtures were expressly

in-

cluded, gave rise to several decisions governed by

the principle in question.

The object

ment obviously did not extend


registration of every

of the enact-

to requiring the

mortgage under which

fixtures

might happen to pass, for this would include most


mortgages of real property and it has been held
that the Act apphed only to cases where the
fixtures were dealt with as
separate things.
Accordingly, a mortgage of a house for a term of
years, with such a separate assignment of the
fixtures that the mortgagee might sever and deal
with them as distinct from the house, required
but a mortgage for a term of years
registration (b)
;

(a) Clothier v. Webster,

Bocks, 27 L. J. Ex. 321


357.

12 0. B. N.

Buck

v.

S.

790

c.

See also 45 & 46 Vict.


v.

Gihbs v. Liverpool

v. Fellowes (1861),

S. 780.

17 & 18 Vict.

Hawtrey

Williams (1858), 27 L. J. Ex.

See the cases collected in Whitehouse

10 G. B. N.
(b)

36 (repealed by 41 & 42 Vict.


43, 53

c.

31,

c.

& 54 Vict. c. 53, 54 & 55

s.

23).

Vict. c. 35

Butlin (1878), 42 L. J. Q. B. 163; explained in

Southport Banking Co. v. Thompson (1887), 57 L. J. Oh. 114

Exp. Daglish, 42 L.

Bank. 102

J.

Waterfall

v.

Penistone, 26

L. J. Q. B. 100, on which see Walmsley v. MiVne, 29 L. J. C. P. 97

Me

Trethowan, 46 L.

V. Coles,

58 L.

J.

Q.

J.

Bank. 43

B.

Be

346; Small

Digitized

Eslick, Id.
v.

30

Climpson

Nat. Prov. Bank, 63

by Microsoft

174

INTBEPBETATION OF STATUTES.

and with a general


power of sale over the mortgaged property, not
authorising a separate dealing by the mortgagee
of a house with its fixtures,

with the fixtures, did not require registration

(a).

Sec. 10, Judicature Act, 1875, which provides that


in the administration of the assets of a person

dying insolvent, the same rules shall be applied as


to the respective rights of secured

and unsecured

and as to the debts provable, as are in


been the subject

creditors,

force in bankrupcy, has similarly

operation

the

decisions limiting

of several

scope

of

its

(b).

The Metropolitan Building

Act, 1855

which

(c),

gave a right to raise any party structure authorised


by the Act, on condition of " making good aU

damage" occasioned thereby

to

the

adjoining'

premises, was held not to authorise the raising of


a structure

which obstructed the ancient,


See also Marsden

L. J. Gh. 270.

lights of

Meadows, 50 L,

v.

J,

Q. B.

536.
(a) Barclay, Exp.,

L. J. Ch. 361

43 L.

J.

Tates, Be,

Oh. 449

57 L.

Mather

Fraser, 25

v.

Ch. 697, and see Johns

J.

v.

Ware, [1899] 1 Ch. 359.


(b)

See Maggi, Be, 51 L.

J.

Oh

560,

and the cases

cited there,

but this case was in great part overruled by Whttaker,

70 L.

J.

Ch. 6

WCausland

See also Whitaher, In

re

v. O'Callaghan,

Whitaher

v.

[1904] 1

Be
I.

(1900),

E. 376,

Palmer, [1904] 1 Oh. 299

Leng, Be, 64 L. J. Oh. 468.


(c)

Eepealed by London Building Act, 1894, 57 & 58 Vict.

c. ccxiii.

Digitized

by Microsoft

RESTEICTION TO SCOPE OF THE ACT.

the adjoiBing premises

for the only

175

damage con-

templated by the Act was structural, and not that

which resulted from the invasion

And,

of a right.

having regard to the scope of the enactment, the


expression " making good " was understood to

mean

that the

adjoining

premises were

be

to

restored to their original state, not that pecuniary

compensation should be made (a).


Some decisions on the construction of

74,

s.

Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847,


illustrate the principle

under consideration.

That

owner of a vessel is to be
answerable for any damage done by it, or by any
person employed in it, to a harbour, pier or dock,

section enacts that the

except

when the

licensed

pilot,

literally,

as

it

made an owner

vessel

is

in charge of a

compulsorily

duly

Construed

taken.

was by the Queen's Bench

(6), it

responsible for the injury done by

ship to a pier, after she had been driven


aground and necessarily abandoned by her crew
and was dashed by the storm against the pier.

his

But

converso

House

of -Lords held,

that the

owner was not liable, on the ground that the


general scope and object of the Act were merely
to collect the clauses which Parliament usually
inserted in local harbour bills, and to give facilities
(a) Crofts V. Haldane, L. E. 2 Q. B. 194.
(5)

10

&

11 Vict.

c.

27

Dennis

v. Tovell (1872),

33.

Digitized

by Microsoft

42 L.

J.

M. 0.

DJTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

176

of procedure to the undertakers of

such works;

and that the section did not create a new

liability,

but only facilitated proceedings against the registered owner

On

this

when damages were

recoverable

(a).

general principle of construction,

statute which made in unqualified terms an act


criminal or penal, would be understood as not

applying where the act was excusable or justifiable

on grounds generally recognised by law. Thus, a


statute which imposed three months' imprisonment and the forfeiture of wages on a servant who
" absented himself from his service " before his
term of service was completed, would necessarily
be understood as confined to cases where there
was no lawful excuse for the absence (&).
A
statute which made it felony " to break from
prison," would not apply to a prisoner who broke
out from the prison on fire, not to recover his
and one which
liberty, but to save his hfe (c)
;

declared

it

piracy to "

make a

revolt in a ship,"

would not include a revolt necessary to restrain


the master from unlawfully killing persons on
board

(d),

(o) Biver
(6)
s.

17)

L. J.
(c)

{d)

even

could be justly called a revolt.

Wear Commissioners

4 Geo. IV.
;

if it

c.

34,

s.

Turner, Be, 15 L. J.

M.

0.

1.

v.

Adamson, 2 App. Gas. 743.

& 39

3 (repealed by 38

M.

0. 140.

Vict.

c.

86,

But see Eider v. Wood, 29

See also 21 Hen. VIII.

c.

13

Gibs.. Cod. 887.

2 Inst. 560.

11

& 12

Will. III.

c.

7, s.

B.

v.

Bose, 2 Cox, 329; The

Shepherdess, 5 Eob. C. 262.

Digitized

by Microsoft

MENS BBA IN CRIMINAL LAW.

And a seaman would not


who was driven by tlie
leave his ship

The

(a).

177

be guilty of " deserting,"


cruelty of his officers to
sheriff

who

a warrant the driver of the mails,

is

under

arrests

not indictable

knowingly and wilfully obstructing and retarding the mail (b).

for

As Mens Eea,

some

or a guilty mind, is with

exceptions, an essential element in constituting


a breach of the criminal law,

ever comprehensive and unqualified

language,

is

how-

statute,
it

be in

its

usually understood as silently requir-

ing that this element should be imported into

it,

unless a contrary intention be expressed or implied

" the general rule

offence "

(c).

general

terms

unless the con-

is that,

Mens Eea enters into every


for instance, which in

trary is expressed.

statute,

enacted that every person

who

committed a certain act should be adjudged a


felon, would not include a child under seven, or
an idiot, or a lunatic during the loss of his
reason

(a)

(d)

whether caused by intoxication or any

Edward V.

TrevelUck, 24 L. J. Q. B. 9

Limland

v.

Stephens

(1801), 3 Bsp. 269.


(6)
(c)

U. S. V. Kirby, 7 Wallace, 482.

Per Lord Eussell

of Killowen C.J., Williamson v. Norris

(1899), 68 L. J. Q. B. 34,
{d) 1

Hale, 706

Stat. (I.) 6.

Eyston

v. Studd,

See Exp. Stamp, 1

Plowd, 459a

De Gex,

Bac. Ab.

346.

12

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

178

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES,

other voluntary act {a)

would be unreasonmere use of an unqualified

able to infer from the

for it

term, and intention to repeal the general principle


that such persons are not capable of a criminal
intention.

Drunkenness, although producing tem-

no defence to a crime (b), but


such that the intention of

porary insanity, is

where the crime


the accused

is

is

a constituent element,

it

may

be

taken into consideration in determining whether


the accused formed the intention necessary to
constitute the crime in question

On

(c).

the same principle, an act done under an

honest and reasonable belief in the existence of a


state of things,

which

if

true would have afforded

a complete justification both legally and morally

would not, in general, fall within a


statute which prohibited it under a penalty (cZ).
Thus, a woman who married a second time within
seven years after she had been deserted by her
husband, under a bond fide belief on reasonable
grounds that he was dead, would not be guilty of
bigamy (e). A licensed victualler who supplies
for

such

act,

& K.

(o)

B.

(6)

1 Hale, 32; but seeiJ.v. Jfeade(1909),78L. J.(K.B.)476.

(c)

B.

inf. p.

L. J.

V.

Moore, 3 0.

319.

Bolerty (1887), 16 Gox, 306.

Comp. West

v. Francis,

290.

See

(d)

Beade
(-e)

V.

v.

ex. gr.

Lee

24 & 25 Vict.

M.

v.

Simpson (1847), 16 L. J. 0. P. 105

Conquest (1862), 11 0. B. N. S. 479.


c.

100,

s.

57; B.

v.

0. 97.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Token (1889), 68

MEKS BEA IN OBIMINAL LAW.

179

"whom he

liquor to a police constable

bond, fide

believes to be off duty, is not guilty of supplying

liquor to a police constable while on duty within


s.

16

Licensing Act, 1872, repealed by

(2),

Licensing

(Consolidation)

Act,

1910

s.

78 (16),

(a).

And

under a statute which made it felony for persons


tumultuously assembled to demolish a church or
dwelUng, they could not be convicted
lition

legal

was done in the bond, fide


right, though there was a riot

man

So, if a

cut

down

if

the demo-

assertion of a
in doing

it (6).

a tree or demolished a

house standing on land of which he was in undisturbed possession, and believed himself to be the
owner, he would not be punishable under statutes

which prohibited such acts in general terms;


though it turned out that his title was bad and
that the property was not his (c). If he demanded
goods with threats, bond

fide believing that

they

belonged to him, he would not be guilty of robbery,

though

(a) Sherras v.

Cundy
(6)

V.

B.

Le

De

& M.

and Mullins

2 Moo. C. C. 252

602.

he forcibly took

Bufzen, [1896] 1 Q. B. 918: but comp,

Gocq, inf. p. 186,

V. Phillips,

ford, Car.

If

civilly liable {d).

See B.

v.

v. Gollins, inf. p. 190.

S. C.

nom. B.

v.

Lang'

Badger, sup. p. 167.

Eaym.
0. & P.

(c)

B.

V.

Burnahy, 2 Lord

900.

(d)

B.

V.

Hall (1828), 3

409.

See also B.

v. Knight,

Ford (1907), 12 Canada Cr. Cas. 556, it


was held no robbery forcibly to retake money won from the
73

J.

P. 15.

In B.

V.

defendant at cards in the bond fide belief that prosecutor had


cheated.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTBKPRETATION OP STATUTES.

180

under sixteen from the custody of her


guardian, in the honest but mistaken belief that
a

girl

he was, himself, invested with that character, and


acted

simply in

the

his

of

exercise

right

as

guardian, he would not be guilty of the criminal


offence of abduction, though that is defined as

" unlawfully taking a girl under sixteen out of


the possession and against the will of the person

having the lawful care of her"

A man who

(a).

fished in a tidal river, in the

assertion

of the

general right which the law gives to fish in such

and in ignorance

rivers (6),

or in contestation of

the exclusive right of fishing in

it

claimed by

another, would not be liable to conviction for

"unlawfully and wilfully" fishing in the private


fishery

of

another

On

(c).

principle

this

may

perhaps rest the general rule of law that the


jurisdiction given to justices of the peace, to try

an offence summarily,
right or title is set

(a)

44 L.

B.
J.

P.

&

Carter v. Mureot, 4 Burr. 2163.

B.

(d)

V. Stimpson,

But see Hudson


Per Blackburn
v.

But see B.

F. 513.

(6)

Beece

a claim of
(d)

v. Prince,

0. 122, inf. p. 181.

(c)

167.

when

up on reasonable grounds

V. Tinkler (1859), 1

M.

ousted

is

MUler, 51 L.

32 L.
v.

J.

M.

WBae, 33
White

J.,

J.

M.

0. 208.

L. J.

M.

v. Feast,

0, 64

See sup. pp. 1660. 65.

L. E. 7 Q. B. 353;

Mann

v.

Nurse <1901), 17

T. L.E. 569; and as to the whole question, see Musselly. Biirch


(1876), 35 L. T. N. S. 486.

Digitized

by Microsoft

MENS REA

though their duty

IN CRIMINAL LAW.

such cases

iii

is,

181

not to acquit,

hut to forbear from adjudicating.

But how

far ignorance or erroneous belief of a

which is essential to the offence is material,


a question which has given rise to some controversy and conflict of decisions.
The substance

fact
is

of these decisions

however, that

is,

to look at the object of each

is

under

far

know-

Act that

consideration to see whether and

ledge

necessary

it is

how

of the essence of the offence created

is

Thus, the offence of unlawfully taking a

girl

(a).

under

sixteen out of the possession and against the will

would be committed, although


the offender believed, from her appearance and
asseverations, contrary to the fact, that she was
of her parents,

older

The

(6).

object of the

and wicked invasion of

to prevent a scandalous

parental rights,

Legislature being

must be supposed that they

it

intended that the wrongdoer should act at his


peril

not

If,

(c).

fall

as

it

has been held, a person would

under the enactment which punishes the

pursuit of

game on

the land of another without

the consent of the owner,

whom

of the person

(a)

Per Stephen

(h)

B.

J.,

if

he had the consent

he honestly and reasonably

Cundy

v.

Le

V. Prince, sup. p. 180.

Cocq, 13 Q. B.

See also B.

v.

D. 207.
Tinkler, sup.

p. 180.
(c)

Per

Stephen

J.,

B.

v.

Tohon

(1889),

190.

Digitized

by Microsoft

23

Q.

B. D.

INTBKPBETATION OF STATUTES.

182

he would yet be liable


to conviction if he trespassed on land which he
beHeved to be part of the property over which he

believed to be the owner

had the

license, but

which was in

person

of a different

(a),

(6),

fact the property

the statute infringed not

being a mere criminal statute, but one passed for


the purpose of protecting the peculiar rights of
those entitled to shoot game (c). The Contagious
Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, and an Order in

Council under

it,

which imposed a penalty on any

person having in his possession an animal affected

with a contagious disease who did not give notice


of

it

"with

all

practicable speed " to a constable,

was held to apply only where the person knew


that the animal was diseased (d). Where a railway Act which " for the better prevention of
accidents or injury which might arise " on the
railway " from the unsafe and improper carriage
of certain goods," enacted that every person

gunpowder

should send

or

similarly

who

dangerous

by the railway should mark or declare


their nature, under a penalty enforceable by imprisonment, it was held that guilty knowledge was
articles

(a) 1
(b)

&2

Will. IV. c. 32,

Morden v.

s.

30

Porter, 29 L. J.

B.

M.

v.

stitute a valid defence, see Dickinson v.


(c)

Watkins

v.

Cridland, 27 L. J.

C. 313.

Ead

As to what

M.

G. 28.

will con-

(1914), 78 J. P. 326.

M. C. 164.
M. G. 105. For the converse

Major, 44 L. J.

(d) Nicholls V. Ball,

42 L*

J.

this proposition, see Mousell Bros. v. L.

d;

2 K. B. 837.

Digitized

by Microsoft

N. W. B.

Co.,

of

[1917]

MENS RBA IN CRIMINAL LAW.

183

and that an agent who


dangerous goods hy a rail-

essential to a conviction,

had sent some cases of


way, without mark or

declaration,

not only in

ignorance of their nature, but misinformed of

by

it

had

answer to his inquiries,


not incurred the penalty ; on the ground that his
his principal in

ignorance, under such circumstances, proved the

and yet he was under no


legal duty to send the goods, and he might have
refused to do so without actual inspection. A
similar conclusion was come to where, although
there was no knowledge, there were means of
knowledge which were neglected. Under 9 & 10
Will. III. c. 41 (6), which after reciting that convictions for embezzhng Government stores were
absence of mens rea

{a)

found impracticable, because direct proof of the

immediate taking could rarely be made, but only


that the goods were found in the possession of
the accused, and that they bore the King's mark,
enacted that the person in whose possession goods

marked should be found, should forfeit the


goods and JB200, unless he produced at the trial an
official certificate of the occasion of their coming
into his possession it was held by the Court for
so

(a)

Eearne

v. Garton,

28 L.

J.

M.

C. 216.

of this proposition, see Mousell v. L.

& N.

For the converse


W. By.

Go.,

[1917]

2 K. B. 837.
(&)

Vict.

Bepealed and re-enacted with ampUfications, 38 & 39


c.

25 (Public Stores Protection Act).

Digitized

by Microsoft

184

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

Crown Cases Eeserved, that such


liable to conviction, in

a person

was not

the absence of proof that

knew (though he had reasonable means of


knowing) that the goods bore the Government
mark (a). This decision, however, might be queshe'

tioned on the authority of another case, which

was not

where the Court of Exchequer held

cited,

that a dealer in tobacco was liable to the penalty

imposed by the statute

having adulterated

for

tobacco in his possession, though ignorant of the


adulteration

It

(b).

may

vigilance

be doubted whether the


the

language, enforcing

for the protection

of the public from

construction

literal

of

danger or robbery, by visiting negligence (c) as weU


as misdeed with penal consequences, would not
B.

(a)

44 L.

J.

30 L.

Sleep,

V.

3 Cox, 28i

B.

M. C.

M.

J.

C. 170; B. v. Willmett (18^8),

Cohen, 8 Cox, 41.

v.

See also Hopton

49.

See Aberdare

v.

v. Thirlwall, 9 L. T.

Hammett,
N.

S. 327,

where a person found to " have in his possession the young of


s. 15, Salmon Kshery Act, 1861,
was held not liable to conviction, who,
though he knew he was in possession, did not know the fish
was salmon.
(fe) 5 & 6 Viofc. c. 93
amended by 41 & 42 Vict. c. 15, s. 25
B. V. Woodrow (1846), 16 L. J. M. C. 122. See also per

salmon," in contravention of

24 & 25 Yict.

109,

c.

Parke B., Bumby

v.

2 Bast, P. C. 821

JB. v.

(c)

Compare B.

Coppen

v.

Trade &c.
L.

&

v.

Moore {No.
v.

Bollett,

Stephens
2),

16 M. &

W.

644

B.

v.

Trew,

Dixon, 15 E. E. 381.
(1866),

35 L. J. Q. B.

[1898] 2 Q. B. 306

Bell (1902), 71 L. J. P. C. 109, A, C,

N. W. B. (1917), 87 L.

Digitized

J.

K. B. 82.

by Microsoft

251

Commissioners of
;

Mmsell

v.

MENS EEA IN CBIMINAL LAW.

185

have been more in harmony with the intention,


and have more completely promoted the object
of the Legislature.

The innocent

which, owing

spirits

natural

to

exuded from the wood and collected


of a cask, does not render the

possession of
causes,
at the

owner

have

bottom
under

liable

the Finance Act, 1898, which provides that " a


person shall not subject any cask to any process for

the purpose of extracting any spirits absorbed in


the wood thereof ; or have on his premises any cask

which
spirits

being subjected to any such process, or any


extracted from the wood of any cask " (a).

is

At the present time there

is

a large body of

municipal law which has been framed in such


terms as to make an act criminal without any

mens

By-laws which impose regulations in

rea.

the interest of the health or convenience of the


public are generally so conceived, and the

mere

them is sufficient to constitute an


Under s. 117, Public Health Act, 1875,

breach of
offence.

which empowers a justice to order the destruction of unwholesome meat which is exposed for
sale and intended for food, and to impose a fine or
imprisonment on the person to whom it belongs,
the Court decided that in order to support a
conviction of the owner under the Section it was
not necessary that there should be any proof that
(a)

61 & 62 Vict.

c.

10,

s.

|(1)

Bohinsm

L. J. K. B. 717.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Dixon, 72

186

INTBEE14ETATI0N OF STATUTES.

he had actual personal knowledge of the condition


of the meat, the object of the enactment being
that people should not be exposed to the danger
of eating poison

So the

(a).

sale

of

an

article

of food or a drug not of the nature, substance,

demanded, is to the
prejudice of the purchaser and is an ofifence
under s. 6, Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875,
though the seller (who may be a corporation) was
unaware of the fact (b). On similar grounds it has
been held that a pubhcan would be guilty of an
and quality of the

article

offence against
s.

75,

s.

13, Licensing Act,

1872 (repealed,

Licensing (Consohdation) Act, 1910),

sold liquor to a drunken person, even

he

if

though the

purchaser had given no indication of intoxication,

and the publican did not know that he was intoxicated (c). He would not, however, in such a
(a)

38 & 39 Vict.

Blaker

v.

Tillstone,

chester Corp., (1910),

case of Williams
(6)

38

& 39

c.

55 (extended by 53 & 54 Viet.

[1894] 1 Q. B. 345

79 L.

J.

v. Allen,

Vict. c. 63

771; Pearks Gunston

K. B. 1123

[1916] 1

59);

and see the interesting

K: B.

o.

see also Hohbs v. Win-

425.

D.

Betts v. Armstead (1888), 20 Q. B.

Ward,

v.
Pain v.
[1902] 2 K. B. 1
BougMwood, 24 Q. B. D. 353 Dyke v. Gower, [1892] 1 Q. B.
220; Spiers & Pond v. Bennett, i[1896] 2 Q. B. 65; Parker v.
;

Adler, [1899] 1 Q. B. 20

In Smithies

v.

Goulder

v.

Book, [1901] 2 K. B. 290.

Bridge, [1902] 2 K. B. 13, the appellant

held to have been rightly convicted for selling


ficient in fat,

Cundy

v.

was
de-

although the milk had not been adulterated

see also Fitzpatrick v. Kelly,


(c;

new milk

Le

inf. p.

562.

Cocq, 18 Q. B. D. 207

Digitized

by Microsoft

but camp. Sherras

v.

MENS EEA

IN CRIMINAL LAW.

187

case be guilty of permitting drunkenness on his

premises

But

(a).

witMn the general

a servant,

if

scope of his employment,

a drunken

sells liquor to

person, though in the absence of and contrary to

the orders of the publican, the publican

is

guilty of

an offence under that section (6). The offence of


receiving two or more lunatics in an unlicensed
house is committed, though the persons were
received in the

based on reasonable grounds,

belief,

they were

that

not

lunatics

(c).

The

honest

by a licensee that a bottle is properly sealed,


no defence to an information under s. 2, Intoxi-

belief
is

cating Liquors (Sale to Children) Act, 1901 (repealed,

s.

68, Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910),

which renders the

sale of liquors to children

under

fourteen illegal, unless in corked and sealed vessels,


if

But

in fact the bottle is not properly sealed (d).

who

a license holder

nor concurred at a

has not delegated his authority,

cannot be convicted under

sale,

the same section by reason of a barman selling to

Be
V.

Butzen, [1895], sup. pp. 137

Johmon, sup.

(a) Somerset v.
(6)

113.
(c)

(d)
V.

Wade

See also Collman


8 & 9 Vict.
c. 5, s.

Brooks

v.

See, however, Seatehard

179.

(1894), 63 L. J.

Commissioner of Police

53 Vict.

&

p. 125.

c.

315

v.

v.

C. 126.

Cartman (1896), 65 L.

J.

M.

44, repealed

and re-enacted by

100,

s.

B.

Bishop (1880), 49 L. J. M. C. 45.

v.

Mason, [1902] 2 K. B. 743.

Orawshaw, 72 L. J. K. B. 389

Jones V. Shervington, 77 L.

C.

Mills (1896), 66 L. J. Q. B. 170.

J.

Digitized

Macey

v.

See also Mitchell

MeKenzie, 67 J. P. 251

K. B. 771.

by Microsoft

188

INTEBPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

Under a special Act


which empowered a gas company to make the
a person under fourteen

necessary works

penalty

for

(a).

business, subject

its

to

should " suffer any washings to be

if it

conveyed or to flow" into any stream or place,


corrupting or fouling the water, the

company was

held liable to the penalty in a case where the

washings percolated through the bottom of its gas


tank and polluted a well, without the knowledge
of its servants (6).

The

principle that unless the Legislature has

indicated the contrary intention, the infliction of

presumed to be confined to cases


where the offender has the mens rea, is well illustrated by those cases in which it has been sought
penalties

is

to be

to render a master penally responsible for the acts

Thus a sheriff, though unquestionably liable in damages for the act of his officer in
seizing things exempt from seizure, would not be
liable to the penalty imposed by s. 29, Sheriffs Act,
1887, in respect of such wrongful aot(c); and a
of his servant.

surveyor could not be convicted of having caused


a heap of stones to be laid

(a)

Emary

upon a highway, and

of

As

to

Nolloth (1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 629.

v.

exclusion of children from bars of licensed houses, see Ghildrens


Act, 1908,

s.

120

(6) Hiplcins v.
(c)

Pilkington v. Boss, [1914] 3 K. B. 321.

Birmingham Gas

60 & 51 Vict.

c.

55,

s.

29

Go.,

30 L.

Bagge

v.

following Lee v. Dangar, sup. p, 167.

Digitized

J.

Ex. 60.

Whitehead, sup. p. 167,

by Microsoft

MENS KB A IN CRIMINAL LAW.


having allowed

189

to remain there at night to the

it

danger of any person thereon, where the stones


had been laid and allowed to remain there by a
carter acting under the orders of a person to

whom

the surveyor had given general directions as to


repairing the road, the surveyor having

knowledge of the

&

Act, 16

So, under the repealed

fact (a).

17 Vict.

c.

no personal

128,

ss.

1, 2,

in order to

support a criminal charge against an owner or


occupier of trade premises within the metropolis

employed thereon
so that the smoke was not effectually consumed,
it was held that evidence of personal negligence
was essential, and that evidence of negligence on
of negligently using a furnace

the part of a servant was insufficient

No

(6).

doubt the legal presumption is that whatever a


servant does in the course of the employment

with which he

entrusted, and as part of

is

it, is

the master's act, unless the contrary be shown

(c),

may

consequently be penally responsible for the act of his servant as if it were his
own act, unless he can show that what was done

and a master

(a)

61 L.

W.

&

J.

6 Will. IV.

M.

R. 311

(6)

C. 101

c.

Pendlehury

Chisholm

V.

50,

s.

56

Hardeastle v. Bielby (1892),

but see contra Taylor


v.

v.

Greenhalgh, 24

Greenhalgh, 45 L. J. Q. B.

3,

Doulton a889), 58 L. J. M. 0. 133.

Prummond v. Nicholson (1915), 79 J. P. 525.


Barnes
(c) A.-G. V. Siddon, 35 R. E. 701
;

L. R. 7 Q. B. 474.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

C. A.

But

see

Akroyd (1872),

190

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

was in contravention of his


ground a baker has been held

liable to

this

a penalty

which his servant had mixed

for selling bread in

alum (a);

On

orders.

whose waggoner had


carried in the carrier's waggon game not sent
by a qualified person (when the 5 & 6 Anne,
c. 14, was in force), was properly convicted of
carrying the game (b) a licensed victualler was
and a

carrier,

under

held penally responsible,


Vict. c. 94 (repealed,

78

s.

35

16,

s.

&

36

Licensing (Con-

(lb).

solidation) Act, 1910), for the act of his servant

in knowingly supplying liquor to a constable on

duty

(c),

the act being within the scope of the

employment (d) and where gaming had


taken place upon licensed premises to the knowledge of a servant who had been placed in charge
of the premises, it was held that the licensed
person had "suffered" gaming to be carried on
on the premises within the meaning of s. 17,
servant's

Licensing Act, 1872 (repealed,

knowledge
(a)

B.

V.

(b)

B.

V.

-of

Act,

(c)

Marsh, 2 B. & C. 717

M.

Foot, 61 L. J.

M. &

S. 11.

but see per Brett

J.,

B.

M.

C. 110

M.

0. 67.

See also

but see Sherras

v.

Butzen (1895), sup. p. 186.


{d)

Per A. L. Smith

J.,

v.

0. 122.

Mullins V. Collins (1874), 43 L. J.


V.

79, Licensiag

1910),

Dixon (1814), 15 E. E. 381

Prince (1875), 44 L. J.

Brown

s.

though he had no
the gaming, and had not connived

(Consolidation)

Newman

Digitized

v.

Jones, 17 Q. B.

by Microsoft

D. 137.

De

MENS EEA IN CRIMINAL LAW.

191

and under the Merchandise Marks Act,


1887, a master is criminally liable, if his servants,
within the general scope of their employment,
sell goods to which a false trade-mark or false
description has been applied, although contrary to
their master's orders unless the master can show,
that he has acted in good faith and done everything he reasonably could to prevent the commission of offences by his servants. That is to
say, under this Act the burden of proof is shifted,
and is not in accordance with the ordinary rules
and principles of criminal law, in that the prosecution has not to prove a mens rea ; but if the
defendant is able to prove an absence of any mens
at it (a)

rea,

then he

is

to be acquitted

The

(6).

decisions

were based upon


the view of the Court that, having regard to the
language, scope, and objects of the Acts, the
in these

and other

like cases

Legislature intended to fix criminal responsibility

upon the master

done by his servants in


the course of their employment, although such
acts were not authorised, and might -have been
{a)

Bond

v.

for acts

Evans (1888), 57 L.

Dames, 45 L. J. M. C. 27
V. Hole,

(6)

Bedgate

v.

J.

%.

C. 108

Bosley v.

Haynes, Id. 65

Crabtree

43 J. P. 799.

50 & 51

Vict. c. 28,

[1898] 2 Q. B. 306

Lemy

v. Watson,.

s.

(2)

Cop^pen v.

Moore {No.

Christie v. Cooper, [1900] 2 Q.

[1915] 3 K. B. 781; Holmes

1 K. B. 57.

Digitized

by Microsoft

2),

B. 522

v. Pipers,

[1914]

192

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

But

expressly forbidden.

that there

servant

as soon as

no delegation

is

it

appears

of authority to the

his act cannot be considered as that

(a),

of the master,

and

it is

necessary to show that the

had personal knowledge of the incriminating


circumstances in order to ensure conviction. Thus

latter
.

the committee of a club cannot properly be convicted of selling liquor without a proper license,

where the

sale

has been by the steward contrary

and withand where

to the express orders of the committee,

out their knowledge

assent (&);

or

gaming had taken place upon licensed premises


knowledge of a servant who was employed
upon the premises, but there was no evidence to
show any connivance or wilful bUndnfess on the
part of the licensed person, and it did not appear
that the servant was put in charge of the
premises, it was held that the justices were right
to the

to convict

in refusing
suffering

the licensed person

gaming on the premises

of

Where,

(c).

however, the facts are such as to constitute prima


(a)

See per Collins

referring to the

J.,

Somerset v. Wade, [1894] 1 Q. B. 576,

judgment

of

Stephen

(1888), 21 Q. B. D. 249, at p. 255


(6)

Newman

v. Jones,

in

J.,

17 Q. B. D. 132

35 & 36 Viet.

solidation) Act,
77.

o.

1910

94,
;

See also Massey

s.

v.

17, repealed,

s.

K. B. 119.

79, Licensing

Somerset v. Hart (1884), 53 L. J.


v.

Morris,

63 L.

J.

comp. Somerset v. Wade, [1894] 1 Q. B. 574.

Digitized

Hvans

but the person actually

selling is liable, Caldwell v. Bethell, [1913] 1


(c)

Bond

57 L. J. M. G. 105.

by Microsoft

M.

0.

185

(Con

M.
;

C.

and

MENS REA

IN CRIMINAL LAW.

a case, which though not

facie

positive proof of

193

amounting

to

knowledge on the part of the

licensed person, nevertheless indicate connivance,

such indication

is

evidence upon which a magis-

may find knowledge {a). But, on the other


hand, it may be remarked that a master would
trate

not be liable to be convicted for an unauthorised


false representation

made by

weight of sacks of coal

{b)

his servant as to the


secus, if

the represen-

was made by the servant in the course of


his employ (c).
There is a class of eases where the absence of

tation

mens rea does not control the language of a statute


and that is where the offence has been committed
;

in ignorance or misapprehension of the law, and the


statute prohibiting the act does not expressly

make

malice or wilfulness or other intent an essential

element of the offence

For instance, though a

{d).

person in possession of naval stores

is

not

liable to

conviction unless he knows that they bear the

Government mark, he would not escape on the


ground that he did not know that the possession
of such marked goods was prohibited.
A man who
Taylor (1912), 23 Cox, C. 0. 220.

(a)

Lee

(&)

52 & 53 Vict.

L. J.
(c)

M.

v.

c.

21,

s.

29 (2)

Boherts v. Woodward, 59

0. 129.

Baker

v.

Herd, 58 J. P. 413

and see Franklin

v.

Godfrey

(1894), 63 L. J. 239.
(d)

See Ellis

2 0. P. D. 351

v. Kelly,

Hunter

30 L.

J.

M.

v. Clare, [1899]

0. 35

Daniel

1 Q. B. 635.

13

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v. Jones,

194

INTBKPEETATION OF STATUTES.

unlawfully fished in a non-tidal river, or trespassed

on land in

game, would not escape

of

search,

conviction because he honestly believed that the


public

was entitled

a right not being

who absented

to fish or shoot there (a); such

known

An apprentice

to the law.

himself from his master's service,

did not escape the penal consequences by proving

that he had done so in the honest though erroneous

founded on his lawyer's advice, that his

belief,

indentures were void, and that he was consequently

who

cabman

So, a

at liberty to leave his service (h).

on the premises of
a railway company, after being requested to remove
it, is penally liable for " wilfully trespassing and
refusing to quit," though he was under the persuasion, which was unfounded, that there existed
persists in placing his cab

a legal right to place his vehicle there


It

is

Hudson

(a)

(1915),

Id.

v.

17.

v.

J.

Vine,

M.

0. 178

v.

G.

Gooie

207

WatkiTis v. Major,

9 Q. B. D. 162.

Scotcher,

e.

34,

s.

repealed by 38

Cooper v. Simmons (1862),

apprenticeship to a corporation
Carson, [1891] 1 Q. B.
(c)

M. C. 65; Smith
30 L. J. M.

J.

v.

not to

See also The

Dod. 387.

4 Geo. IV.

(6)

Leatt

Biddarm, 44 L.

164; Pearce

Charlotta, 1

s.

McBae, 33 L.

v.

79 J. P. 245

Margreaves

(c).

necessary, as regards mens rea,

Foulger

v.

valid

is

& 39

Vict.

c.

86,

31 L. J. M. 0. 138, an
:

Burnley Sc. Society

v.

,75.

Steadman, 42 L. J. M. C.

& E. 20. There


London raUway stations.
Taylor, 1 B.

Digitized

are

no longer

by Microsoft

3.

Comp. Jones

v.

privileged cabs at

MENS EGA IN CEIMINAL LAW.

195

confound a guilty mind in the legal sense of the


expression, with a guilty conscience, for an inten-

tion to do an act prohibited by the penal provisions

On

of a statute constitutes mens rea.

the other

hand, the absence of mens rea really consists in an


honest and reasonable belief in the existence of

would make the act innocent (a). A. statute which prohibited an act would
be violated, though the act were done without
evil intention, or even under the influence of a
good motive. Thus, in order to constitute the

facts which, if true,

offence of applying a false trade

description to

goods with intent to defraud, within the meaning

Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, s. 2 (1), it is


not necessary that there should be any fraud, in
of the