Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[ocr errors]

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, jine 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

L. 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. 141, 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.; Lorell 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 bis 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."

ToEx 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 of 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.

cxlviii

Page 1025, line 15, from bottom.

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

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, 0. xlii. r. 23, to issue execution. Ex pte. Woodall, W. N.

1884, p. 156, C. A." 1025, line 10 from bottom.

To Ec 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 sutticient. Ex pte. Nickoll, W. N. 1884, p. 154, Q. B. D. 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, de. 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. In respect of torts committed against a married woman during coverture, the Statute of Limitations, 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. The point was not however raised whether the action was maintainable, vide

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. Casson v. Churchley, 53 L. J., Q. B. D. 335." 1158, line 21 from bottom.

To Ex pte. Johnson," add reference, “ 26 Ch. D. 338, C. A.” 1159, line 20 from bottom.

Add, Casson v. Churchley, 53 L. J., Q. B. D. 335." 1159, last line.

Add, Melville v. Stringer, was reversed in C. A. and is noted W. N.

1884, p. 162." 1167, line 4.

For " execution creditor is not liable to poundage," read, "the sheriff is not entitled to poundage. Ex pte. Warwickshire, the Sherif of, W. N.

1884, p. 152, Bky." VOL, I,

1

DIGEST OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

AT NISI PRIUS.

PART I.

EVIDENCE IN GENERAL.

In forming a digest of the law of evidence, the subject may be considered with regard to, first, the nature of evidence; secondly, the object of evidence ; thirdly, proof of documentary evidence; fourthly, proof by witnesses ; fifthly, proof by affidavits or depositions, and sixthly, the effect of evidence.

It will be well here to premise that the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, 1873, 1875,* do not, nor may any rules made thereunder, alter the rules of evidence, except in empowering the court or a judge to order that in certain cases affidavits or depositions may be used in lieu of oral evidence, J. Act, 1875, s. 20, post, p. 143, and see Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883,6 0. xxxvii. and 0. xxxviii.

NATURE OF EVIDENCE. With regard to its nature, evidence may be considered under the following heads Primary evidence ; secondary evidence ; presumptive evidence; hearsay ; admissions.

PRIMARY EVIDENCE.

So, in

It is a general rule, that the best evidence, or rather the highest kind of evidence, must be given of which the nature of the case admits; and evidence of a nature which supposes better proof to be withheld is only secondary evidence, Thus, where a will of lands was to be proved, the primary evidence of it is the will itself, and not the probate ; for the ecclesiastical court had no cognizance of realty. B. N. P. 246. general, where a contract has been reduced into writing by the parties, the writing is the best evidence of its contents, and must be produced. Fenn v. Griffiths, 6 Bing: 533. So where a person was engaged as secretary on the terms contained in a resolution entered in a certain book of the employer, in action for his salary the book must be produced. Whitford v. Tutin, 10 Bing. 395, cited post, p. 3. In an action for infringement of a musical composition, the defendant cannot ask a witness whether he has not seen

* These Acts are hereinafter cited, for brevity, as J. Acts, 1873, 1875.

+ These rules (see preamble and Appendix 0) came into force on October 24th, 1883, and replace all former rules, except R. G. H. T. 1853, rr. 44 to 49, relating to juries, but they provide by O. Ixxii. r. 2, that, “where no other provision is made by the Acts or these rules, the present procedure and practice remain in force." They are hereinafter cited as Rules, 1883.

VOL. I.

B

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »