![handle is hein.journals/pumpct9 and id is 1 raw text is: LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 1889.
PUMP COURT. .
ZbeLjctple IJtbwper anti ucbttru,
CURRENTE CALAMO
De Lege; de Omnibus Rebus et Quibusdamu Alis.
Iv the case of Jroqan v. Shaw, before the Court
of Appeal (Lord Esher, M.R., Lindley and Bowen,
L.JJ.), a curious point was decided. Defendant was
Mr. John Shaw, the well-known outside stock and
share dealer. The terms of dealing with him were that
anyone desiring to speculate in stocks through his agency
must deposit a certain amount of money to cover the rise
or fall in the value of the shares sold or bought. On June
30th, 1888, plaintiff entered into a contract with Mr. Shaw,
that the latter should buy for him fifty Hotchkiss Ordnance
shares'at 16-, to be delivered next account-day, which
would be July 14th. Mr. Hogau deposited £1 per share
as cover. On the back of the contract were the following
conditions :- Liability strictly limited to the cover in
hand. John Shaw reserves to himself the right to close
stock without notice whenever the cover is exhausted.
On July 6th, at four o'clock, the shares in question
fell to l52, and the fall consequently exhausted
the cover. Mr. Shaw, however, did not become
aware of the fall till the next morning, when
he telegraphed to the plaintiff to say that the cover was
exhausted and the transaction was closed. It wasadmitted
that before the telegram was despatched the shares had
slightly risen again, so as to bring them within the cover.
The plaintiff then brought this action for the non-delivory
of the shares on July 14th. The damages were agreed at
£60, which represented the amount of the deposit and £10
profit. At the trial, before Huddleston, B., the jury were
discharged, and judgment entered for the plaintiff. The
Divisional Court declined to interfere. The Court of
Appeal confirmed the judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
holding that by the terms of the contract Mr. Shaw reserved
to himself the right to close the transaction when the cover
was exhausted, and that inasmuch as he had not elected to
close the transaction before the shares rose, so as to come
within the cover again, his right was gone.
AN interesting question on the law of discovery was
raised before a Divisional Court, consisting of Denman
and Charles, JJ., in Lowden v. Lakey. Defendant, the
pateontee of certain shoe protectors, had brought an action
against plaintiff and others to restrain an infringement of
his trade-mark, and the get up of the cards upon which
he a-old his protectors. He obtained in February last a
perpetual injunction restraining plaintiff and others from
infringing the trade-mark, and selling protectors on cards
similar to his own. Defendant, having heard that
plaintiff was spreading reports amongst the trade that
certain cards were not within the injunction, prepared, and
subsequently published in the Boot and Shoe Trades Journal
an advertisement. This advertisement was submitted to
counsel for the purpose of ascertaining whether it was
libellous. Plaintiff brought an action for libel in respect
of the publication of this advertisement, and obtained an
order from a master for production of the draft advertise-
ment submitted to counsel. Defendant appealed, and
Wills, J., referred the question to the Court, who held,
reversing the Master's order, that though the communica-
tion had not been made to counsel for the purpose of legal
proceedings, or with reference to existing or contemplated
legislation, it was privileged, and its production could not
therefore be compelled.
In re Duckworth, the question as to what constitutes
desertion within the meaning of the Married Women
(Maintenance in case of Desertion) Act of 1886, so as to
entitle Justices to make an order for maintenance against
the husband, was raised. The facts were as follows:-
The parties were married in August, 1881 ; cohabitation
was discontinued in October in that year, when the hus-
band, who it was stated had ill-treated his wife, turned
her out of doors. The following May a child was born,
and a few weeks previously the wife obtained an order
from Justices that her husband should pay her 8s. per
week until the end of June. Before the end of June he
left the country, not returning until August, 1886, and
having in the interim contributed nothing to support his
wife and child. She then took out a summons under the
Act of 1886, and the Justices, being apparently satisfied
that the husband had deserted his wife, were about to
make an order, when an offer was made by him to take
her back. This offer, however, consisted merely of a
formal letter, written by his solicitor to her, to the effect
that he was willing to take her back and find a house for
her, and that the offer would be used in evidence against
her if she did not avail herself of it. She did not,
however, resume cohabitation, and in March last wrote him
a letter, which she sent by her little boy to her
husband's house, asking him to take her back. The little
boy was sent away, and the letter not read. Subsequently
she went herself, and was refused admittance. She wrote
to her husband's solicitors, but with no result, and she then
took out another summons under the Act of 1886. The
magistrates found as a fact that the husband had deserted
his wife, and that the offer made by him on a former
occasion to take her back was not bond fide. They accord-
ingly made an order, and declined to state a case. An
application was now made to a Divisional Court, consisting
of Lord Coleridge, L.C.J., and Mathew, J., to make absolute
a rule nisi for a mandamus to compel them to state a case ;
but the Court declined to do so, holding that there was
ample evidence to justify the magistrates in holding that
there had been desertion, and that it was not necessary
the desertion should have begun after the passing of the
Act.
TiE vexed question of the liability of a cab proprietor
for damage caused by the negligence of the driver of a
cab hired from him, has at length been set at rest by the
decision of the Court of Appeal in iing v. The London
Improved Cab Company. There can be no doubt that the
relationship which existed at Common Law between a
proprietor who lets his vehicle on hire, receiving a fixed
VOL. IX.
(trnxd
No. 142.
IJA
]VnInVI](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/pumpct9&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most