LAW DEPARTURE FROM. (Vide PUBLIC ORDER.) LAWS-COLONIAL LAWS--REPUGNANCY. The Statutes 28 & 29, Vict. ch. 63 to remove doubts as to the validity of Colonial Laws is of an enabling character; i.e. one to assist and help the Colonial Legislatures and Colonial Courts. If the provisions of a Colonial Law are capable of being construed so as to avoid repugnancy to an Imperial Statute, that construction should be given to them. Laws to be repugnant must be inconsistent with each other and irreconcilable. PROCUREUR GENERAL v. MAGISTRATE OF Do. ... ... p. 77 A Draft Report of the Master against which there are objections or exceptions which are admitted by the Court cannot be considered as correct and binding, under Art. 148 of the General Rules of Court. A Report not binding upon a party who has made objections, is not binding either upon the other party or parties who have not made any. The silence before the Supreme Court of one of the parties, quoad such a Report, does not deprive him of his right to appeal afterwards to the Privy Council. BEAUVERGER v. VIEN p. 4. -MASTER'S FEES. (Vide SALES.) NOTARY- DUTIES OF DEED OF NOTORIETY DEED OF SALE. 10. Before drawing up a deed of notoriety, a notary ought, himself, to question the proposed witnesses on the facts which the deed is to contain and to satisfy himself that the facts can be prima facie relied upon. 20. Until such a deed of notoriety has been signed and the facts ascertained, it is not right or proper that a deed of sale be drawn up and executed. 30. It is the duty of all notaries, carefully and strictly, in all cases, to adhere to the provisions of Sect: 12 of ord: 25 of 1888. PROCUREUR GENERAL V. A. JOLLIVET p. 19 COMBINATIONS LEONINE AGREEMENTS EVID ENCE. 1o. The intention that a partnership should not have the full ownership of a contribution (apport) but only the use and enjoyment thereof (jouissance) need not be formally expressed. This intention may be gathered from the circumstances of the case. 20. Co-partners may, by mutual agreement, derogate the enactments of art. 1851 of the Code Civil and convenant, for instance, that one of them only shall be liable for repayment of a sum of money contributed by the others. 30. The only limit to the combinations which partners may make among themselves is art. 1855 of Code Civil, which is the only one applicable to Partnerships. 40. The "apport" of a partner who, bringing moneys into the concern, is entitled to the reimbursement of the principal merely, is the interest on the amount by him con. tributed. He thereby shares in the losses of the partnership. 50. The inequality in the "apports" cannot prevent an agreement for equality in the profits or inequality in the contribution to the losses. Such an agreement is not "leonine." DE ROSNAY & LANGLOIS VERONGE p. 16. v. FAULT-ONUS PROBANDI- REFU SAL TO ADMIT PASSENGER ON BOARD. When a Maritime Company undertook to carry a passenger from Australia to Natal, via Seychelles and Mauritius, per first steamer leaving Mauritius, and when all steamers refused to take passengers from this Colony, through the existence here of an epidemic of small pox, it was held : 1o. That as the parties to the contract well knew that there was no steamer of the Company plying between Mauritius and Natal, the Company's obligation was simply to cause the passenger to be conveyed from this Island to Natal by the first steamer leaving soon after the arrival of their boat at Mauritius. 20. That, under the contract, the Company was not bound to send the passenger to Natal by any circuitous route, through Madagascar or England, etc. 30. That the stopping of the Passengers' traffic with Natal, as above, was a fortuitous circumstance and a case of "force majeure ". 40. That the fact that the respondent would have found here a steamer conveying passengers to Natal, if he had come straight from Seychelles to Mauritius, did not alter the position, the respondent having consented to tranship and come from Seychelles to Mauritius viâ Aden and Tamatave and the circuity of the journey not being due to any fault of the Company. 50. That it was incumbent on the Company to prove the absence of "faute" on their part. 60. That the master of a ship has the right to refuse to admit on board |
