Information about Trove user: Cerridwen

View user profile in the Trove forum

Tags

Display options

top tags

Recent comments

Display options

Text corrections

Hall o' fame ranking

Rank Corrector Lines corrected
1 JohnWarren 6,023,014
2 noelwoodhouse 4,005,152
3 NeilHamilton 3,494,044
4 DonnaTelfer 3,476,321
5 Rhonda.M 3,439,264
...
369 midland1 138,235
370 Armadale4 138,162
371 jeffreyd 138,059
372 Cerridwen 137,942
373 Lance.Dwyer 137,812
374 Joy.Earnshaw 136,607

137,942 line(s) corrected.

Corrections by month

April 2020 215
March 2020 21
December 2018 163
October 2016 125
July 2016 422
June 2016 344
May 2016 54
May 2015 375
March 2015 55
November 2014 151
July 2014 67
June 2014 121
May 2014 1,314
April 2014 5,358
March 2014 6,325
February 2014 5,622
January 2014 10,547
December 2013 8,144
November 2013 7,979
October 2013 9,902
September 2013 5,469
August 2013 6,904
July 2013 7,277
June 2013 5,348
May 2013 4,789
April 2013 6,466
March 2013 7,883
February 2013 4,657
January 2013 7,973
December 2012 11,896
November 2012 5,804
October 2012 6,172

Hall o' fame ranking

Rank Corrector Lines corrected
1 JohnWarren 6,022,812
2 noelwoodhouse 4,005,152
3 NeilHamilton 3,493,915
4 DonnaTelfer 3,476,295
5 Rhonda.M 3,439,251
...
368 midland1 138,235
369 Armadale4 138,162
370 jeffreyd 138,050
371 Cerridwen 137,942
372 Lance.Dwyer 137,812
373 Joy.Earnshaw 136,365

137,942 line(s) corrected.

Corrections by month

April 2020 215
March 2020 21
December 2018 163
October 2016 125
July 2016 422
June 2016 344
May 2016 54
May 2015 375
March 2015 55
November 2014 151
July 2014 67
June 2014 121
May 2014 1,314
April 2014 5,358
March 2014 6,325
February 2014 5,622
January 2014 10,547
December 2013 8,144
November 2013 7,979
October 2013 9,902
September 2013 5,469
August 2013 6,904
July 2013 7,277
June 2013 5,348
May 2013 4,789
April 2013 6,466
March 2013 7,883
February 2013 4,657
January 2013 7,973
December 2012 11,896
November 2012 5,804
October 2012 6,172

No text corrections for 'Government Gazettes'


Recent corrections

Article Changed Old lines New lines
SUPREME COURT. FIRST TERM. -- SITTINGS IN BANCO. TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1880. Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Sir FRANCIS SMITH, Knight, and Mr. Justice DOBSON. COMMON LAW. PAGE (APPELLANT), WEBB (RESPONDENT). (Article), The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), Wednesday 12 May 1880 [Issue No.5904] page 2 2020-04-09 00:06 had filled since his death in 1SCS, performing all tho
necessary duties for twelvo years. Mrs. Hudson,
younger children who wero minors, a daughter, now
at New Norfolk. There wero no rules to depend
npon, as there had been apparently no previous
application under tho charter. He produced
affidavits necessary to support tho facts stated.
The matter had been before Mr. Jnstice Dobson,
in Chamber?, and the learned judge then threw out
that before it came, as ho ordered, before tho Full
Conrt, it would bo necessary or advisable to servo
soma or tnese ucncliciaries under tho will. Accord
Mr. J nstice Dobson said there was a ease —
Pitjield v. P'djield — of an analogous character to this,
heard boforo tho Court fifteen years ago, and in
that tho accounts should be passed according to the
dictates of tho ecclesiastical law in England. It
would bo better if citations wero served in this
case, and also if tho learned counsel would look
at the stato of the ecclesiastical law on tho other
had filled since his death in 1868, performing all the
necessary duties for twelve years. Mrs. Hudson,
younger children who were minors, a daughter, now
at New Norfolk. There were no rules to depend
upon, as there had been apparently no previous
application under the charter. He produced
affidavits necessary to support the facts stated.
The matter had been before Mr. Justice Dobson,
in Chambers, and the learned judge then threw out
that before it came, as he ordered, before the Full
Court, it would be necessary or advisable to serve
some or these beneficiaries under the will. Accord-
Mr. Justice Dobson said there was a case —
Pitfield v. Pitfield — of an analogous character to this,
heard before the Court fifteen years ago, and in
that the accounts should be passed according to the
dictates of the ecclesiastical law in England. It
would be better if citations were served in this
case, and also if the learned counsel would look
at the state of the ecclesiastical law on the other
SUPREME COURT. FIRST TERM. -- SITTINGS IN BANCO. TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1880. Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Sir FRANCIS SMITH, Knight, and Mr. Justice DOBSON. COMMON LAW. PAGE (APPELLANT), WEBB (RESPONDENT). (Article), The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), Wednesday 12 May 1880 [Issue No.5904] page 2 2020-04-08 23:59 ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
Mr. A. Dobson (instructed liy Butler, Mclntyre,
and Butler) nppenred iu support of a petition in tho
matter of the will of Thomas Hudson, Into of
Hobart , Town, deceased, and in tlio matter of a
-charter of justice. The petitioners were W.
Belbin and John Pcarce, and they asked for
with tho terms of the charter, which tho learned
counsel quoted. _ Tho will of the deceased ap
pointed tlio petitioners his trustees; positions thoy
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
Mr. A. Dobson (instructed by Butler, Mclntyre,
and Butler) appeared in support of a petition in the
matter of the will of Thomas Hudson, late of
Hobart Town, deceased, and in the matter of a
charter of justice. The petitioners were W.
Belbin and John Pearce, and they asked for
with the terms of the charter, which the learned
counsel quoted. The will of the deceased ap-
pointed the petitioners his trustees; positions they
SUPREME COURT. FIRST TERM. -- SITTINGS IN BANCO. TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1880. Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Sir FRANCIS SMITH, Knight, and Mr. Justice DOBSON. COMMON LAW. PAGE (APPELLANT), WEBB (RESPONDENT). (Article), The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), Wednesday 12 May 1880 [Issue No.5904] page 2 2020-04-08 23:57 havo beon nonsuited. The appoal was therefore up
Mr. Justico .Dobson concurred in the judgment.
Costs, both of the appeal nnd action below, wero
ordered to abido the result of tho appeal to tho Fall
have been nonsuited. The appeal was therefore up
Mr. Justice.Dobson concurred in the judgment.
Costs, both of the appeal and action below, were
ordered to abide the result of the appeal to the Full
SUPREME COURT. FIRST TERM. -- SITTINGS IN BANCO. TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1880. Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Sir FRANCIS SMITH, Knight, and Mr. Justice DOBSON. COMMON LAW. PAGE (APPELLANT), WEBB (RESPONDENT). (Article), The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), Wednesday 12 May 1880 [Issue No.5904] page 2 2020-04-08 23:55 stead of soiling, ho returned the horses, what com
plaint could bo mado, and how was tho plaintiff
damnified ? It Boomed oleaily th t tho plaintiff had
suffored no injury whatever, and that ho ought to
stead of selling, he returned the horses, what com-
plaint could be made, and how was the plaintiff
damnified ? It seemed clearly that the plaintiff had
suffered no injury whatever, and that he ought to
SUPREME COURT. FIRST TERM. -- SITTINGS IN BANCO. TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1880. Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Sir FRANCIS SMITH, Knight, and Mr. Justice DOBSON. COMMON LAW. PAGE (APPELLANT), WEBB (RESPONDENT). (Article), The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), Wednesday 12 May 1880 [Issue No.5904] page 2 2020-04-08 23:52 days, the limit mentioned in the Aot.
Tho Chief Justice said that it was admitted that
distress was lawful, Tlie defendant, thcroforo, bad
a right to sell after 15 days, IVlien, thorcforo, in
days, the limit mentioned in the Act.
The Chief Justice said that it was admitted that
distress was lawful, The defendant, therefore, had
a right to sell after 15 days. Whenen, therefore, in
SUPREME COURT. FIRST TERM. -- SITTINGS IN BANCO. TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1880. Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Sir FRANCIS SMITH, Knight, and Mr. Justice DOBSON. COMMON LAW. PAGE (APPELLANT), WEBB (RESPONDENT). (Article), The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), Wednesday 12 May 1880 [Issue No.5904] page 2 2020-04-08 23:49 Commissioner of that Court was reversed by tho
Full Court, and all costs wero allowed.
Tho Solicitor- General briolly addressed the"
Court, intimating that tho only point whioli he was
instructed to rely upon in opposiug tho appeal was
that tho vordiot was justified, on tho ground that
tlio defendant detained one of tho horses after 15
days, the limit mentioned in tbo Aot.
Commissioner of that Court was reversed by the
Full Court, and all costs were allowed.
The Solicitor-General briefly addressed the
Court, intimating that the only point which he was
instructed to rely upon in opposing the appeal was
that the verdict was justified, on the ground that
the defendant detained one of the horses after 15
days, the limit mentioned in the Aot.
SUPREME COURT. FIRST TERM. -- SITTINGS IN BANCO. TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1880. Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Sir FRANCIS SMITH, Knight, and Mr. Justice DOBSON. COMMON LAW. PAGE (APPELLANT), WEBB (RESPONDENT). (Article), The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), Wednesday 12 May 1880 [Issue No.5904] page 2 2020-04-08 23:47 enable him to recover compensation for the trcB- '
pass of the plaintiff's stock, and that under these cir
cumstances the horses were illegally detained. Tho
letters would not justify tlio verdict, and also called
tlie attention of the Court to tlio form of tlie plaint,
action for wrongful distress, but tlio Court over
ruled tlio objections made. The point submitted to
the Court was whether the Court of General Ses
plaintiff, and whether the plaintiff . should not bo
nonsuited, or judgment entered for tho defendant.
Mr. Dobson contended, first, that the justices had 1
no powor to enter a verdict for tho plaintiff' iu an
action of dotcuue. as tlio form of tbo ulaint did not
admit of it, tlie plaint and particulars being only
tho nature of tho action/ lie contended that tlie
letters referred to before could not bo said to waive -
tho right to keep tlie horses as a distress. He
qnoted Wood/all, S Edn., p. 410, as to tho right of
obliging him to sell if lie chooses to resort to his
aud whether, when distress is, lawfully made an
action of detonuo can ho brought for tlio goods,
inasmuch as they aro lawfully iu the custody of tho
J. Jnrvis in Rogers v. Parker, 35 L. J., C. P., p.
331, ' and Glynn v. Thomas, 35, L. J., Ex., p. 135,
where it was hold that detention was lawful-
until the sum owing was paid. In con
tending for tlio oosts -of tho appeal, as well.
as the costs o tho Court below, tlio loarnod
oounsol quoted. (7aye v. Collins,3L.I.,C.P., p.3Sl.:
Schraedsr v. Ward, 33 L.J., C.P., p. 150, Addison,
p. 1,031, nnd n case beard in this Court, .
Atkins v. T.M.L.U. Co., an appoal from tlio Court
of Requests at lOvandali', when tho decision of tho
Commissioner of that Court was ruvorsetl by tho
enable him to recover compensation for the tres-
pass of the plaintiff's stock, and that under these cir-
cumstances the horses were illegally detained. The
letters would not justify the verdict, and also called
the attention of the Court to tlio form of tlie plaint,
action for wrongful distress, but the Court over-
ruled the objections made. The point submitted to
the Court was whether the Court of General Ses-
plaintiff, and whether the plaintiff should not be
nonsuited, or judgment entered for the defendant.
Mr. Dobson contended, first, that the justices had
no power to enter a verdict for the plaintiff' in an
action of dereune, as the form of the plaint did not
admit of it, the plaint and particulars being only
the nature of the action, he contended that the
letters referred to before could not be said to waive
the right to keep the horses as a distress. He
quoted Woodfall, S Edn., p. 410, as to the right of
obliging him to sell if he chooses to resort to his
and whether, when distress is lawfully made an
action of detenue can be brought for the goods,
inasmuch as they are lawfully in the custody of the
J. Jarvis in Rogers v. Parker, 25 L. J., C. P., p.
221, and Glynn v. Thomas, 25, L. J., Ex., p. 125,
where it was held that detention was lawful
until the sum owing was paid. In con-
tending for the costs of the appeal, as well.
as the costs of the Court below, the learned
oounsel quoted. (Gage v. Collins,2 L.R.,C.P., p.38l,
Schroeder v. Ward, 32 L.J., C.P., p. 150, Addison,
p. 1,021, and a case heard in this Court, .
Atkins v. T.M.L.R. Co., an appeal from the Court
of Requests at Evandale, when the decision of the
Commissioner of that Court was reversed by tho
SUPREME COURT. FIRST TERM. -- SITTINGS IN BANCO. TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1880. Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Sir FRANCIS SMITH, Knight, and Mr. Justice DOBSON. COMMON LAW. PAGE (APPELLANT), WEBB (RESPONDENT). (Article), The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), Wednesday 12 May 1880 [Issue No.5904] page 2 2020-04-08 23:28 Smith, Knight, arid Mr. Justice Dousox.
An appeal from a decision of tho Conrt of General -
Mitchell) appeared in support of tho appeal ; and
Mr. DonsoN stated that tlie action in question:
General Sessions at which it was heard was liehl at
Brighton, on the 4th December last. Iu it William
Webb sued Frederiok Page, the owner of certain -
'Run" for wrongfully distraining 011 that run two1
rent duo by D'Archy to the defendant. Tho horses
were detained for, different periods, and then re
turned, and for expenses incurred nnd general loss,
that he was not guilty. Mr. Dobson detailed tlie
submitted by counsel, when the Court gave judg
was lawful, but that the letters which had1
been put in evidence showed that tlio tnkiug
and that the defendant had kept tho horses to:
Smith, Knight, arid Mr. Justice Dobson.
An appeal from a decision of the Court of General -
Mitchell) appeared in support of the appeal ; and
Mr. Donson stated that the action in question:
General Sessions at which it was heard was held at
Brighton, on the 4th December last. In it William
Webb sued Frederick Page, the owner of certain
'Run" for wrongfully distraining on that run two
rent due by D'Archy to the defendant. The horses
were detained for, different periods, and then re-
turned, and for expenses incurred and general loss,
that he was not guilty. Mr. Dobson detailed the
submitted by counsel, when the Court gave judg-
was lawful, but that the letters which had
been put in evidence showed that the taking
and that the defendant had kept the horses to:
SUPREME COURT. SECOND TERM.—SITTINGS IN BANCO. TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1880. (Article), The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), Wednesday 7 July 1880 [Issue No.5952] page 2 2020-04-08 23:04 from first to last beeu grossly mismanaged, and
given oo each call, and each member shall be liable
the jury in finding that the want of nootice
The plaintiff's wife, therfore,. ttaHëH <* **íf
RESERVED JUDGMENTS.
heard at the Civil Sittings in April before the
Chief Justice, the amount claimed being £92 8s.,
being three calls of 1s. per share upon 616 shares in
the defendant.The defence was purely technical,
and was set up in consequence of dissatisfaction,
defendant's counsel, Mr Dobson, referred at the
trial to a letter of the defendant's dated 1st
November, 1878, put in by the plaintiff's counsel,
wherein the defendan asserted that the mine had
from first to last been grossly mismanaged, and
although the shareholders in Melbourne represented
had never been consulted, as they should have been,
alleged liability having been taken, it was con-
which provided that seven days' notice at least be
given to each call, and each member shall be liable
the directors, which said "person or persons," times
and places shall be specified in the notices of such
and payable at the office of the company on such
argued at some length, and it was ultimately
arranged by consent that a verdict should be entered
moved for on April 27, and obtained, and on May
4 it was argued before the Full Court, the Attorney-
absolute, arguing that the notice was sufficient, and
read and put in at the trial, was a conditional
promise and sufficient acknowledgment, although
full notice had not been given and sufficient waiver
of want of notice. In reply to this it was contended
that the wording of the letter naturallv construed
could not be taken as either a promise to pay or as
rule, with costs on the grounds, that though the notice
the jury in finding that the want of notice
had been waived. His Honor said :- The
plaintiffs are a tin mining company, registered
under the Mining Companies Act, 1869, and the
defendant is a member of the company residing in
Melbourne. The action was brought to recover the
amount of three calls, and was tried before me, and
verdict given for the plaintiff company, and leave
reserved to the defendant to move to set it aside
defendant in compliance with the provision in that
behalf contained in the memorandum of associa-
the motion of the defendant in pursuance of the
the form of the notices of the calls ; there being no
constitute a debt due to the company, and that the
defendant received actual notice that the calls had
been made. It was objected that the notices did
not specify the person to whom the amount of the
calls was to be paid, as required by the 63rd article
provided that each member of the company shall pay
the notices of such calls." The notice of the second
in arriving at this conclusion was occasioned by the
In that case a notice in the names of solicitois who
Justice Denman said "It is suggested that the
them sufficient." Mr Justice Williams agreed with
opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench in that case
that he had that sufficient knowledge of the pro-
fined to one point." The Park Gate Iron Co. v.
Coates L.R. 5 C.P. p, 634, is a recent case which
letter the defendant complains of the large and un-
authorised liability which had been incurred,
illegal, yet there is every desire to fairly meet every
lars I have referred to above." The particulars
trial as to the legality of the liabilities incurred by
ment , but the sole objection urged was to the form
waiver of any objection to the form of the notices ;
were distinctly confined to other points. The British
Sugar Refinding Co v. Faris, 26 L.J. Ch. 369, is another
of Justice is to treat as a waiver the tacit passing by
without objection of defects or irregularities in the
PURDY v. MUTUAL INSURANCE Co.
1878, he effected an insurance for one year from
(Limited) of Tasmania, for the following amounts :
company had not paid him the amount of his in-
surance. At the hearing of the case, the jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full
amount claimed, subject to such amount being re-
duced to £300 if the Court above should be of
opinion that the plaintiff had no interest in the pre-
goods enumerated in the policy that must not be
kept unless special notice was given to the company.
Giblin, who represented the defendant, moved the
Full Court for a rule nisi, calling on the plaintiff to
transferred the land upon which the buildings stood,
under the Real Property Act, in her own name, and
under the 2o Vic., No 16, Sections 1 and 40(which he
sole, without needing the concurrence of any other
could have no interest in these buildings, and no
spect of the store for which the policy was obtained,
wife, and would consequently have such an interest
dant company responded that though Purdy might
have retained an interest in the land he did not do
so, registration being required to make him co-
proprietor. The husband should have disclosed the
interest he had in the land, as the Act did not
recognise any interest which did not appear on the
their judgment and
of the Court, making the rule absolute with costs.
His Honor said :--In this action the plaintiff sought
to recover from the defendant company the sum of
£400 npon a policy of insurance against loss by
fire of certain buildings and stock-in-trade. The
viz., £75 on a store, £300 on the stock-in-trade,
etc., in the store, and £25 upon a stable. During
resulted in the total loss of the buildings and stock-
in-trade. Amongst other pleas, the defendant
pleaded that at the time of the loss the plaintiff
was not interested in the store and stable.
storekeeper. They occupied a cottage there as a
store and stable, which were used in the husband's
business.The land on which the store and stable
one hand it being contended for the plaintiff that
estates, or interests whatsoever, except the estate of
The plaintiff's wife, therfore,. ttaHëH <* **íf
SUPREME COURT. SECOND TERM—SITTINGS IN BANCO. FRIDAY JULY 11, 1879. (Article), The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), Saturday 12 July 1879 [Issue No.5646] page 3 2020-03-31 22:11 Bay, requesting an adjournment of tho proceed-
th¡s telegram of the magistrates ?
HALEY v. McMAHON.
Bay, requesting an adjournment of the proceed-
this telegram of the magistrates ?

Recent merge/splits

WhenSummaryCommentDetails

Read the merging and splitting guidelines.

Your lists

No lists created yet

Information on Trove's new list feature can be found here.