Table of Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883, Cited. 46 & 47 Vict. c. 61, s. 44 770, 771 823, 825 s. 50 823 RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT, 1883, CITED. The pages at which the Rules are set out are indicated by the numerals ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA. The reader is requested to insert the cases on the following pages, and note the errors therein mentioned in their proper places in the work. The cases have, for convenience of removal, been printed on one side only. These addenda and corrigenda are referred to by the letters "Add," followed by the page to which the particular addendum refers. Addenda and Corrigenda. cxliii Page 76, line 16 from bottom. Add, "Bradlaugh v. Gossett, 12 Q. B. D. 271.” 78, line 9. Add, "Cooper v. Moon, W. N., 1884, p. 78, Field, J.; Cooke v. Wilby, 25 Ch. D. 769, cited post, Add. p. 109." 79, line 26 from bottom. Add, "In construing a marine policy, the Court will take judicial notice of what appears on the admiralty chart of the portion of the sea to which the insurance relates. Birrell v. Dryer, 9 Ap. Ca. 345-347, 353, D. P.” 89, line 17. Add, "By order in Council, of June 26th, 1884, Warwickshire has been divided into two divisions." 109, line 4 from bottom. Add, "By Rules, 1883, 0. xxxviii. r. 6, ante, pp. 77, 78, affidavits may be sworn in Her Majesty's dominions in foreign parts before any judge, court, notary public, or person lawfully authorized to administer oaths, or in other foreign parts, before any of Her Majesty's consuls or vice-consuls, and judicial notice is to be taken of their seal or signature. By 21 & 22 Vict. c. 95, s. 31, where there are no consuls or other persons mentioned in 18 & 19 Vict. c. 42, s. 3, ante, p. 77, an affidavit, for use in the Court of Probate, might be made before any foreign local magistrate, or other person, having authority to administer an oath.' This provision is now extended by J. Act, 1873, s. 76, to all divisions of the High Court. Cooper v. Moon, W. N., 1884, p. 78; in which case Field, J., allowed the filing of an affidavit sworn before a notary where there was no British consul. The decision of Chitty, J., in Cooke v. Wilby, 25 Ch. D. 769, is founded on the practice in Court of Chancery." 127, line 16. Add, "See Wright v. Sanderson, 53 L. J., P. D. & A. 49, C. A. " 139, line 17. Add, "See also Wright v. Sanderson, 53 L. J., P. D. & A. 49, C. A.” 148, line 23. For "Medan," read "Maden." 161, line 12. To" Kennedy v. Lyell," add, "affirmed, 9 Ap. Ca. 81, D. P." 162, line 19 from bottom. Add, "See further, Reg. v. Cox, W. N. 1884, p. 162, Q. B. D." 180, line 22. Add, "Priestman v. Thomas, 9 P. D. 70, affirm. in C. A., W. N. 1884, p. 143." 214, line 18 from bottom. For "sect. 17 (2 a)," read “sect. 15 (2a)." 231, line 8 from bottom. For "Denman," read "Henman." 234, lines 2, 3. For sect. 15 (2 b), ante, p. 216," read "sect. 15 (2 a), ante, p. 214." 262, line 19 from bottom. Add, "It has however since been decided that consent, given by counsel, by the authority of his client, to an order, there being no mistake or surprise, cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn, although the order has not been drawn up. Harvey v. Croydon Sanitary Authority, 26 Ch. D. 249, C. A.” 274, line 17. For 274, line 20. no longer," read "still." Add, "Vide post, p. 908." |