Roscoe's Digest of the Law of Evidence on the Trial of Actions at Nisi Prius

Page 588, line 17.

Addenda and Corrigenda.

cxlvi

Add, "Beer v. Foakes, was affirmed in D. P., and is noted, W. N., 1884, p. 125."

593, line 23 from bottom.

For "14," read, "1st."

594, line 24.

Add, "Read v. Anderson, was affirmed in C. A. (diss. Brett, M. R.), and is noted, W. N., 1884, p. 140."

598, line 16.

To" Vallance v. Blagden," add reference, "26 Ch. D. 353." 599, line 9.

To "Meakin v. Morris," add reference, “12 Q. B. D. 352." 603, line 18 from bottom.

Add, "See, however, post, p. 1133."

607, line 8.

Add, "Green v. Humphreys, was however reversed in C. A., and is reported, 53 L. J., Ch. D. 625."

621, line 1.

Add, "L. & County Bank v. Terry, 25 Ch. D. 692, C. A.”

Rolls v. Miller, was affirmed in C. A., and is reported 50 L. T.,

Add, "See also R. v. Williams, 9 Ap. Ca. 418, P. C."

692, line 14,

Add, "The Warkworth was affirmed in C. A., and is noted, W. N., 1884, p. 162.

695, line 14 from bottom.

To" Whalley v. Lancashire & Yorkshire Ry. Co.," add reference, “13 Q. B. D. 131, C. A."

703, last line.

Add, "Griffiths v. London & S. Katherine Docks Co., is reported, 12 Q. B. D. 493, and was affirmed in C. A., W. N. 1884, p. 156." 706, line 13.

Add "Morgan v. L. General Omnibus Co., was affirmed in C. A., and is reported, 53 L. J., Q. B. D. 352."

709, line 26.

Add, "In The Vera Cruz, 9 P. D. 96, C. A., however, it was held that an action in rem would not lie under Ld. Campbell's Act, against a foreign ship." 712, line 21 from bottom.

Add, "Bell v. Love, was affirmed in D. P., and is reported 9 Ap. Ca. 286." 713, line 13 from bottom.

Add, "As to the effect of the statute of limitations, see Mitchell v. Darley Main Colliery Co., W. N. 1884, p. 163, C. A."

735, last line.

Add, "Kensit v. Gt. E. Ry., was affirmed in C. A., and is noted W. N. 1884, p. 156."

749, line 19.

To" Ager v. Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.," add reference, "53 L. J., Ch. D. 589."

Page 753, line 24.

Add, "Duck v. Bates, was affirmed in C. A., and is reported, 53 L. J., Q. B. D. 338."

754, line 14.

To "Nichols v. Pitman," add reference, "26 Ch. D. 374, C. A.” 762, line 23.

Add, “ Wittman v. Oppenheim, W. N., 1884, p. 122, Pearson, J." 764, line 6 from bottom.

To “Leonard v. Wells,” add reference, “26 Ch. D. 288, C. A.” 766, line 16.

To "In re Anderson's Trade-Mark,” add_reference, “26 Ch. D. 409, C. A."

779, line 21.

Add, "Accord. Smith v. Chadwick, 9 Ap. Ca. 187, 189, 192, et seq., per Ld. Blackburn."

780, line 17 from bottom.

To" Smith v. Chadwick," add reference, “9 Ap. Ca. 187, D. P." 795, last line.

Add, "So, to restrain the utterance of slanderous statements, of the plaintiff, to the like effect. Loog v. Bean, 26 Ch. D. 306, C. A." 831, line 14.

Add, See further, Heawood v. Bone, 13 Q. B. D. 179." 856, line 29.

Add, "And the district board cannot prevent wires being placed across the street, at such a height above it, as not to interfere with the traffic. Wandsworth District Board of Works v. United Telephone Co., W. N. 1884, p. 148, C. A."

884, line 21 from bottom.

Add, "Ex pte. Gould, W. N. 1884, p. 154, Q. B. D."

996, line 6.

Add, "See Ex pte. Cunningham, W. N., 1884, p. 144, C. A.” 996, line 17.

Add, "A married woman may carry on a separate trade while residing with her husband; Ashworth v. Outram, 5 Ch. D. 923, C. A.; Lovell v. Newton, 4 C. P. D. 7, but if he take such a part in the trade as to make himself personally responsible, it is not such a separate business; Laporte v. Costick, 31 L. T. 434, M. T., 1874, Q. B."

1001, line 18 from bottom.

Add, "See also Ex pte. Barter, W. N., 1884, p. 138, C. A.

Where a testator directs his trade to be carried on after his death, that part of his assets only, will be liable in case of the bankruptcy of the executor and trustee of his will, which he has directed to be embarked in the trade. Ex pte. Garland, 10 Ves. 110; Thompson v. Andrews, 1 Myl. & K. 116. See Shearman v. Robinson, 15 Ch. D. 548; Fraser v. Murdoch, 6 Ap. Ca., 855, D. P.; and Strickland v. Symons, 26 Ch. D. 245, C. A.”

1005, line 9 from bottom.

Add," Casson v. Churchley, 53 L. J., Q. B. D. 335, is to the like effect." 1016, line 5 from bottom.

Add "Ex pte Chaplin, 26 Ch. D. 319, C. A.”

To" Ex pte. Johnson," add reference, "26 Ch. D. 338, C. A.”

1025, line 15 from bottom.

Add, "Nor is a 'balance order,' made in the voluntary winding up cf a company, on a contributory, for the payment of calls, made on him before the commencement of the winding up. Ex pte. Whinney, W. N. 1884, p. 154, Q. B. D.

Addenda and Corrigenda.

Page 1025, line 15, from bottom.

To" Ex pte. Schmitz,” add reference, “12 Q. B. D. 509.”

cxlviii

Add, "The creditor must be in a position to issue execution on his judgment: hence an executor cannot issue a bankruptcy notice on the judgment obtained by his testator, until he has obtained leave under Rules, 1883, O. xlii. r. 23, to issue execution. Ex pte. Woodall, W. N.

1884, p. 156, C. A.”

1025, line 10 from bottom.

To "Ex pte. Matthew," add reference, "12 Q. B. D. 506." 1025, last line.

Add, "The notice that the debtor has or is about to suspend payment of his debts need not be in writing; an oral statement to that effect to a creditor in conversation with him is sufficient. 1884, p. 154, Q. B. D. Ex pte. Nickoll, W. N. A statement of inability to pay debts is, however, insufficient. Ex pte. Oastler, W. N. 1884, p. 162, C. A." 1034, line 9.

Add, "Ex pte. Harrison, W. N. 1884, p. 114, was affirmed in C. A., and is noted Id., p. 169."

1060, line 5.

To" France v. Clark," add reference, "26 Ch. D. 257, C. A.” 1075, line 3 from bottom.

To "Show v. Port Phillip, &c. Mining Co.," add reference, "13 Q. B. D. 103."

1133, line 16 from bottom.

Add, "As to the form of judgment, see Bursill v. Tanner, 50 L. T., 589, Q. B. D."

1137, line 13.

Add, "Secus, Weldon v. Riviere, W. N. 1884, p. 154, Q. B. D. The point seems not to have been raised in Weldon v. Neal, Id. p. 153." 1137, line 23.

Add, "See Bursill v. Tanner, Add. p. 1133. committed against a married woman during coverture, the Statute of LimitaIn respect of torts tions, 21 Jac. 1, c. 16, by reason of the proviso in sect. 7, ante, p. 605, runs only from the commencement of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, Jan. 1st, 1883. Weldon v. Neal, W. N. 1884, p. 153, Q. B. D. point was not however raised whether the action was maintainable, vide The supra."

1154, line 25 from bottom.

To" Ex pte. Hunt," add reference, "13 Q. B. D. 36."

1154, line 20 from bottom.

To" Ex pte. Johnson," add reference, "26 Ch. D. 338, C. A.”

1156, line 24 from bottom.

Add, "And these sections are still in force as to bills of sale not given

as a security for money.