PRACTICE.

1. Parties having separate and dis-
tinct interests were joined together
as co-plaintiffs. Held, that as no
objection, for misjoinder or multi-
fariousness, had been raised by
the answer, or at the hearing in
the Court below, to the frame of
the Bill, it could not be taken upon
appeal.

Some of the Plaintiffs had died in

the course of the appeal, and the
suit had not been revived against
their representatives. In such
circumstances, the appeal was al-
lowed to be prosecuted in the name
of the surviving Plaintiffs, as this
Court is not disposed to give effect
to technical rules in pleading,
which would prevent justice being
done.

A party to a suit, having an interest
in the subject-matter in his own.
right, and also as trustee for other
parties, became insolvent, and his
interest was vested in a trustee
appointed to his sequestered estate.
Held, that he might, as such
trustee, prosecute an appeal from
an order made in the suit, notwith-
standing the insolvency and the
vesting of his estate and interest
in the trustee of the sequestered
estate.

Upon Petition, leave granted to ap-

peal from an order of the Supreme
Court, at New South Wales, al-
though no provision for appeal to
the Queen in Council was made by
the Charter of Justice, or Act of
Parliament creating that Court.

2. Appeal allowed (without prejudice

to any objection to be taken by the
Royal Court of Jersey at the hear-
ing) from a Provisional Order of
that Court, directing the infant
children of the parties to be left
provisionally in the custody of the
mother, pending a suit for a sepa.
ration. [Belson v. Belson] - 30
3. This Court will not entertain a

purely technical objection to a
party's right of action, which has
not been made in the Court below.
[The Bank of Bengal v. Macleod.]

7. Appeal allowed from Orders made
by the Judges at Sierra Leone,
striking a practitioner of the
Courts in that Colony off the rolls
of Proctors of the Vice-Admiralty
Court, and also off the rolls as At-
torney of the Court at Freetown ;
upon terms, that the Petitioner
gave notice of the allowance of
such appeal to the Judges, with
liberty to the Petitioner to set
down his case to be heard ex
parte, at the expiration of six
months after notice served. [Smith
v. The Justices of Sierra Leone]

174

8. To entitle an equitable assignee
to appear with the legal assignees
of a Patent, on a petition for a
prolongation of the Letters Pa-
tent, the name of such equitable
assignee must appear with the
other Petitioners, in the advertise-
ments, required by section 4 of the
Statute, 5th and 6th Will, IV., c.
83, and rule 2, made in pursuance
thereof. [In re Noble's Patent]

191

9. Under the Statute, 7th and 8th
Vict., c. 69, an appeal allowed di-
rect from the Assize Court, at
Kingston, in Jamaica, to the
Queen in Council, without an inter-

mediate appeal to the Court of
Error in the Island. [Hitchins v.
Hollingsworth] -
228
10. When the question is one of fact
only, and has been tried by a jury
in the Court below, this Court will
not reverse a judgment upon such
finding, unless they are satisfied
that the judgment is clearly wrong.
[Moore v. Clucas]

-

352

11. Leave given to appeal, under.
circumstances, though the time
limited by the Bombay Charter
had expired, and the decree of the
Court below sanctioning the sale
of real estate, the subject of the
suit had been partially acted on ;
the Petitioner undertaking not
to disturb the possession or title of
the purchasers of any part of the
property actually sold, to give se-
curity for costs, and to abide by
any order which the judicial Com-
mittee might think fit to make,
touching the matters in dispute.
[In re Mahomed Cazum Sherazee]

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

1. A. on behalf of himself and cer-
tain other persons resident in
Scotland, his constituents, by deed
engaged B. & C. to act as agents
and managers in New South Wales,
empowering them to purchase
sheep, cattle and land, on behalf of
A. and his constituents, for which
purpose certain sums were remitted
to the Colony, to be invested for
them and placed to their individual
interest, and the proceeds of the
stock, &c., were to be remitted to
their respective credits. B. & C.
were to receive for their trouble
and expense one-third of the pro-
ceeds of the stock. With the
money remitted, B. & C. bought
stock and lands, and conducted
the establishment in the Colony
in their own name. B & C. after-
wards became embarrassed, and
contracted liabilities in the ma-
nagement of the property, and
drew bills on A. on account of the
establishment, which bills were
endorsed by D. and other parties
in the Colony: these bills being
dishonoured, and B. & C. being
pressed by the endorsees, executed
a Deed of assignment, and con-
veyed the whole of the trust pro-
perty, and some property of their
own, to D., for himself and the other
endorsees. D. had notice of the
Deed appointing B. & C. agents
and managers, and that there was
no authority on the part of B. &
C. to draw bills on behalf of
their constituents, which could
personally bind them. Upon a

bill filed by A., and his constituents,
against B., C. & D., to set aside
the Deed of assignment, as fraudu-
lent and void, and for an account,
the Supreme Court at Sydney held,
that the Plaintiffs were not entitled
in equity to relief, and that their
remedy was to sue D. at law.
Held by the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council reversing
such decree;

First, that the decree was erroneous,
in declaring that the relief sought
by the Bill was not of a proper
equitable character; and
Secondly, that under the circum-
stances, B. & C. had, as such
agents and managers, authority to
dispose of the property entrusted
to them, in discharge of the debts
incurred by them on behalf of A.
and his constituents, in the ma-
nagement of such property, and
that the Deed of assignment was
valid as against A. and his con-
stituents, to the extent of subject-
ing such joint property to the pay-
ment of the debts and liabilities
contracted, but null and void as to
the residue, and an account di-
rected to be taken in the Court
below, of such debts and liabilities.
[The Marchioness of Bute v.
Mason]

-

66

1

2. The payee of promissory notes of
the East India Company, by a
power of attorney, authorized his
agents at Calcutta, to sell, en-
dorse, and assign," the notes.
These notes were transferable by
endorsement payable to bearer.
The agents, in their character of

private bankers, borrowed money
of the Bank of Bengal, offering as
security these promissory notes.
The Bank made the advance, and
the agents endorsed the notes,
such endorsement purporting to be
as attorney for their principal, and
deposited them with the Bank, by
way of collateral security for their
personal liability, at the same time
authorising the Bank, in default of
payment, to sell the notes in reim-`
bursement of the advances. The
agents afterwards became insol-
vent, and default having been made
in payment, the Bank sold the
notes, and realised the amount of
their loan.

Held, that the endorsement of the

notes by the agents of the payee
to the Bank was within the scope
of the authority given to them by
the power of attorney, and that the
payee could not recover in detinue
against the Bank. [The Bank of
Bengal v. Macleod]

PROFITS.

·

See "PATENT," passim.

35

PUBLIC OFFICER.
The Supreme Court at Calcutta has
power by the Charter of Justice of
1774 (14 Geo. III.), to remove, or
suspend, Officers of that Court, on
account of misconduct, and this
power of removal is not limited to
acts done by such Officer in his
judicial character, but includes

525

transactions distinct from those of
his office.

An Officer of the Court, being a share-

holder and Director of the Union
Bank at Calcutta, was a party to de-
ceptive statements, contained in the
half-yearly reports of the concern,
as to the state of the affairs of the
Bank, and also availed himself, in
his character of Director, to obtain
credit to a considerable amount
upon his personal security only,
which, by the condition of the deed
of co-partnership of the Bank,
amounted to a breach of trust. No
charge or imputation, with respect
to his judicial functions, was brought
against him.

Held (affirming an Order of the Su-
preme Court suspending such Off-
cer from office), that there were
sufficient grounds for calling upon
the Court to protect the adminis-
tration of justice, by suspending
such Officer for so misconducting
himself. [In re Grant]
[In re Grant] - 141

PUBLIC SERVICE.

See "PATENT," 1.

PUISNE JUDGE.

See "JUDGE."

PURCHASER

Of ship, without notice.
See "LIEN."

REDEMPTION.

See "MORTGAGE."

20

A general demurrer, on the ground
of the subject-matter of the suit
being res judicata, allowed to a suit
brought in the Supreme Court of
Bombay, by a party claiming cer-
tain property, which appeared by
the statement in the Bill to have
been the subject of a previous suit
in the same Court, in which the
Plaintiff had intervened by peti-
tion, and obtained some order, the
nature or effect of which was not
stated, and did not appear upon
the Record then before the Court.
[Mushadee Mahomed Cazum Shera-
zee v. Meerza Ally Mahomed Shoo-
stry]

REVIVOR.

See "PRACTICE," 1.

ROME
(Regulations of the Church of).
See "DOMICILE."

382

(Retrospective operation of).

The Statute, 9 Geo. IV., c. 14 (ex-
tended to India by the Indian Act,
No. XIV. of 1848), held to apply
to an action pending in the Su-
preme Court, at the time of its
introduction into India. [The
East India Company v. Oditchurn
Paul]
After an action was entered in the

85

Supreme Court at Calcutta, upon a
wager contract, wager contracts
were declared invalid by the Act
of the Indian Legislature, No. XXI.
of 1848. Held not to affect ex-
isting contracts, or actions already
commenced upon such contracts,
there being no words in the Act to
show the intention of the Legisla-
ture to affect existing rights.
Statutes are, prima facie, deemed to be

prospective only: "Nova constitutio
futuris formam imponere debet, non
præteritis." [Doolubdass Pettam-
berdass v. Ramloll Thackoorsey-