NOTICE. In cases where no date in parentheses is appended to the names of the circuit towns both civil and criminal business must be ready to be taken on the first working day; in other cases the date appended to the name of the circuit town indicates the day before which civil business will not be taken. In the case of circuit towns to which two judges go there will be no alteration in the old practice. The following judges will remain in town :-Bray, J. and A. T. Lawrence, J., during the whole of the circuits; the other judges till their respective commission days. MIDLAND (ROWLATT, J., 2; SHEARMAN, J., 1). Aylesbury, Monday, Jan. 11 Bedford, Wednesday, Jan. 13 Northampton, Tuesday. Jan. 19 Leicester, Friday, Jan. 22 NORTH Welshpool. Monday, Jan. 11 Dolgelly. Thursday, Jan. 14 Carnarvon, Saturday, Jan. 16 Beaumaris, Thursday, Jan. 21 SOUTH Haverfordwest, Tuesday, Jan. 12 Lampeter, Thursday, Jan. 14 Carmarthen, Saturday Jan. 16 Brecon, Wednesday, Jan. 20 Oakham, Wednesday, Jan. 27 Lincoln, Thursday, Jan. 28 Nottingham, Thursday, Feb. 4 Derby, Wednesday, Feb. 10, WALES (LUSH, J.). Ruthin Saturday, Jan. 23 WALES (ATKIN, J.) Presteign, Friday, Jan. 22 COURT OF APPEAL AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CHAN. CERY DIVISION).-HILARY SITTINGS 1915. ROTA OF REGISTRARS IN ATTENDANCE FOR THE WEEK ENDING JAN. 9. EMERGENCY APPEAL CT. I... Thursday. Leach Jolly JOYCE, J. Synge Borrer Church Bloxam WARRINGTON, J Friday. Borrer Bloxam Farmer. Synge Greswell Goldschmidt. Greswell Goldschmidt. Leach Jolly THE GAZETTES Professional Partnerships Dissolved. GAZETTE, DEC. 25. Saturday. Goldschmidt Greswell Blo am Jolly Leach Farmer Church Borrer BALMER, ARTHUR, and MEAD, PHILIP CLEMENT, Solicitors, 22, Red Lion-sq. W.C. Dec. 14. Bankrupts. THE BANKRUPTCY ACTS 1883 TO 1913. RECEIVING ORDERS GAZETTE, DEC. 25. To surrender at the High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy BARTLETT, ELLIS ASHMEAD, Pall Mall, journalist, Dec. 22. BOSWELL, WILLIAM, Whitechapel, assistant in the Stewards' Department, London Hospital. Dec. 22. CROWN, JACK, Eastbury-ter, Beaumont-sq, Mile End, journeyman tailor. Dec. 21. HUBBARD, WILLIAM, Rodney-st, Pentonville, victualler. Dec. 23. PLATT AND Co., Bartletts-bldgs, Holborn-cir, merchants. Dec. 23. To surrender at their respective District Courts. Do NASCIMENTO, PORPHIRO AUGUSTO PINDER (late trading as Gomez Rosa and Co.), late Queen Victoria-st, merchant. Ct. Kingston, Surrey. June 4. DUNKERLEY, EDMUND WARBURTON, Oldham, late confectioner. Dec. 21. SMITH, HENRY ALLMAND (trading as H. A. Smith and Co. and Allmand Ct. Coventry. Dec. 21. TOGNI, COSTANTE, and FERRARI, LORENZO, Eastbourne, restaurant proprietors. Ct. Brighton. Dec. 22. WHITTAKER, SARAH ANN, and HASLAM, MARY ANN, Bolton, boarding-house proprietors, spinsters. Ct. Bolton. Dec. 21. WOOF, WILLIAM ALFRED, Cheltenham, sports outfitter. Ct. Cheltenham. Dec. 22. GAZETTE, DEC. 29. To surrender at the High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy BIGG, LEWIS EVELYN LYTTON (trading as J. T. Bigg and Son), New-st, Dorset-sq, Marylebone, fruiterer. Dec. 24. YONGE, JOHN VENN, Cheapside, chartered accountant. Dec. 24. ADJUDICATIONS. GAZETTE, DEC. 25. ALLEN, EMILY, Wormholt-rd. Hammersmith. Ct. High Court. Dec. 22. BAINES, WILLIAM CLAUGHTON, Kingston-upon-Hull, baker. Ct. Kingstonupon-Hull. Dec. 23. BARNETT, CHARLES ALFRED (late trading as Charles and Co.), Bishopsgate. confectioner. Ct. High Court. Dec. 22. BOSWELL, WILLIAM, Whitechapel, assistant in the Stewards' Department. London Hospital. Ct. High Court. Dec. 22. BYROM, ARTHUR (trading as T. Byrom), Leeds, cycle dealer. Ct. Leeds. Dec. 22. COPE, HERBERT LOCKHART, King-st, Smithfield. Ct. High Court. Dec. 22. CROWN, JACK, Eastbury-ter, Beaumont-sq, Mile End, journeyman tailor. Ct. High Court. Dec. 21. DUNKERLEY, EDMUND WARBURTON, Oldham, late confectioner. Ct. Oldham. Dec. 21. EDWARDS, ARTHUR MORLEY, Treharris, builders' ironmonger. Ct. Merthyr Tydfil. Dec. 21.. EDWARDS, WILLIAM CHARLES, and EDWARDS, SIDNEY HERBERT (trading as the City Cork Hat Company), late Cheapside, hatters. Ct. High Court. Dec. 22. GIBSON, ROBERT, Heckmondwike, farmer. Ct. Dewsbury. Dec. 21. GILBERT, WILLIAM MARSH, Felixstowe, miller's screensman. Ct. Ipswich. Dec. 21. GOLDIE, ROBERT WILSON (trading as Alfred Lee), Bradford, hatter. Ct. Bradford. Dec. 22. HARRIS, LAVINA, Droitwich, boarding-house keeper. Ct. Worcester. Dec. 21. HEBDON, HERBERT, Malton, tobacconist. Ct. Scarborough. Dec. 22. HERD, WILLIAM, Mansfield, credit draper. Ct. Nottingham. Dec. 23. JENNINGS, FREDERICK GEORGE, late Nottingham, factory manager. Nottingham. Dec, 22. Ct. KAVANAGH, CHARLES SAMUEL, Whitehall, assistant clerk. Ct. High Court. Dec. 21. KELSALL, JOHN (trading as Thomas Kelsall), Manchester, fruit salesman. Ct. Manchester. Dec, 22. KING, WILLIAM TINDAL, Little Stanhope-st. Ct. High Court. Dec. 23. MOWE, JOHN HENRY, Bury, jeweller. Ct. Bolton. Dec. 21. RICHARDS, HENRY POWELL, late Great James-st, Bedford-row, solicitor. RICHARDS, THOMAS, Merthyr Tydfil, insurance agent. Ct. Merthyr Tydfil, SMITH, HENRY ALLMAND (trading as H. A. Smith and Co. and Allmand Dec. 21. STENZEL, WILLIAM FRANZ GEORG (described in the receiving order as William Franz George Stenzel), New Bond-st, ladies' tailor. Ct. High Court. Dec. 21. TAYLOR, CHARLES FREDERICK, Rugby, builder. Ct. Coventry. Dec. 21. WATSON, JOHN ALFRED, Fulham Palace-rd, hosier. Ct. High Court. Dec. 23. WHITTAKER, SARAH ANN, and HASLAM, MARY ANN, Bolton, boarding-house proprietors, spinsters. Ct. Bolton. Dec. 21. WILLS, MARTIN, Bournemouth, greengrocer. Ct. Poole. Dec. 21. WOOD, HORACE, Nottingham, wholesale cabinet maker. Ct. Nottingham. Dec. 23. WOOF, WILLIAM ALFRED, Cheltenham, sports outfitter. Ct. Cheltenham. Dec. 22. ZADIG, ARTHUR, Queen Victoria-st. Ct. High Court. Dec. 22. GAZETTE, DEC. 29. BENSON, PERCY, Blackpool, painter. Ct. Blackpool. Dec. 23. EVANS, BEATRICE MARY (trading as E. Evans and Co.), Blaengarw, gent's outfitter. Ct. Cardiff. Dec. 22. HARTOPP, CHARLES EDWARD CRADOCH (described in the receiving order as Sir Charles Hartopp), Grafton-st, Piccadilly. Ct. High Court. Dec. 24. LEVAUX, ARTHUR MICHAE, Llanishen, assistant secretary. Ct. Cardiff. Dec. 23. SHAND, HUBERT GEORGE LESLIE, late Beulah-hill, Upper Norwood. Ct. High Court. Dec. 24. SUGARE, EDWARD JOHN (described in the receiving order as Edward WILLIAMS, SAMUEL, Oldham, publican. Ct. Oldham. Dec. 22. ORDER ANNULLING AND RESCINDING ORDER. DE TRAFFORD, HUMPHREY FRANCIS (Baronet), South-st, Park-la. Ct. High BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS. Any contributions that may be sent on approval will be carefully con sidered by the Editor; but no responsibility whatever can be accepted in respect thereof, although, if unsuitable, every effort will be made to return them, provided that a stamped addressed wrapper is inclosed for that purpose. The copyright of all contributions (including reports paid for) shall belong to the proprietors of the LAW TIMES, together with the right of republication in any form they may think desirable. Apart from any express agreement that may be made, contributions are only received and considered on these conditions. Advertisements, orders for papers, &c., should be kept distinct, and addressed to the Publisher, "Law Times Office. Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C. TO ADVERTISERS. SCALE OF CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS, Four lines of 80 words or £ s. d. ..... One page 36 Half page 6 One column £ ■ d 10 0 0 5 0 0 3 10 0 less than 30 words in body type Each additional line Advertisements ordered for a series of three insertions are charged 10 per cent. under scale, and for six or more insertions 20 per cent. under. Paragraph Advertisements 1s, per line, minimum 58. No series discount Advertisers whose reference is under initials to this office, should remit 6d. additional to defray postage in transmitting replies to their Adver tisements. Advertisements must reach the office not later than five o'clock on Thursday afternoon, and must be accompanied by a remittance. Post-Office Orders payable to the FIELD & QUEEN (HORACE Cox) L Vol. 138.-No. 3745. CONTENTS. REPORTS. SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE. COURT OF APPEAL. 769 776 JONES v. D. DAVIS AND SONS LIMITED.-Employer and work. man-Injury by accident... HAWARD V. ROWSELL and MATTHEWS. -Employer and workman-Death caused by accident-Compensation 771 SCOTT v. LONG MEG PLASTER COMPANY.-Employer and workmanInjury by accident-Compensation 773 LEWIS v. PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.-Employer and work. man-Death caused by accident. TAYLOR. CRIPPS.-Employer and workman-Injury by accident 780 CHILTON V. BLAIR AND CO. LIMITED. -Employer and workman-Injury by accident-Compensation GOODSELL v. OWNERS OF SAILING BARGE LLOYDS.- Employer and workman-Injury by accident...... 784 CLAYTON บ. HARDWICK COLLIERY COMPANY LIMITED.- - Employer and workman-Injury by accident 788 HOWELL v. DERING AND OTHERS.Practice Costs Defendant succeeds on certain issues ... ............ HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Re WILBERFORCE; WILBERFORCE v. 782 790 797 CRIMINAL LAW AND THE JURISDIO- 233 236 236 806 LEGAL OBITUARY. - Mr. Percy Illingworth-The Hon. Sir Edward Charles Macnaghten K.C. — Mr. John Travis-Cook 236 809 COURT PAPERS. Supreme Court of Judicature; Hilary Sittings, 1915-Rota of Registrars.... THE GAZETTES........ 236 243 BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS 2.4 HALL BROTHERS STEAMSHIP COM- The Law and the Lawyers. New Year's Honours. WALTER THE knighthood bestowed upon Mr. TROWER, President of the Law Society last year, may be taken as a recognition of his valuable services to the law, and as such will be cordially received by the whole Legal Profession. Some of the other honours conferred, as our list (post, p. 236) shows, are in respect of services rendered in other than legal spheres, though exception must be made in the cases of Sir JAMES ROSE-INNES, Mr. HORATIO BREVITT, and Mr. DOUGLAS OWEN. The honours list is particularly free from party rewards-a state of affairs that one wishes could be permanently main QUITE apart from actual hearings, it was fully expected that the war would bring about a substantial reduction in the number of actions entered for trial. This has hardly proved to be the case, and the effect is chiefly to be found with regard to those actions which are merely defended for time and other reasons unconnected with merits. Taking all things into consideration, the number of cases for hearing-seventy-four special jury, ninety-two common jury, and seventy-eight non-jury-is satisfactory, and most of these are cases set down last sittings. The totals for the whole work of the division for ten years are :— Probate and Divorce. Of the total-484-Probate and Divorce causes, 371 are undefended, the figures at January last year being 374 and 249 respectively. Fourteen Admiralty actions are for-trial as against thirty-six last year. DECISIONS ON WAR SUBJECTS.-II. 3. DECISIONS RELATING TO TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AND THE LEGAL POSITION OF ALIEN ENEMIES (REGISTERED AND OTHERWISE). UNDER this heading we propose to deal with three categories of decisions. In the first place, we shall give the decisions on the general law against trading with the enemy. In the second place, we shall deal with the decisions arising particularly upon the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act 1914. In the third place, we shall give a brief statement of the different decisions upon the position of enemy litigants. A. Trading with the Enemy. (a) Trading with a company whose shares are chiefly held by Germans.-In Continental Tyre and Rubber Company (Great Britain) Limited v. Thomas Tilling Limited (noted ante p. 83) the plaintiffs sued for the value of goods sold and delivered to the defendant company. The latter, however, contended that there was no liability upon them to pay, because the sum paid would enure for the benefit of an enemy within the meaning of the proclamation of the 9th Sept. The capital of the plaintiff company was 25,000 shares of £1 each, and of these shares all save two were held by Germans and by a German company. On the other hand, it was 'alleged that no payment received by the plaintiff company since the outbreak of the war had been remitted to the enemy. The defendant company contended that, insomuch as payment to the plaintiff company must eventually increase the funds of the shareholders and increase the financial stability of the enemy, that payment would be illegal. The plaintiffs contended that as the plaintiff company was an English company an inquiry into its actual constitution was immaterial. Mr. Justice Lush upheld the latter view and held that the plaintiff company was entitled to recover. The decision has been appealed from and judgment reserved. (b) Effect of the law against trading with the enemy on commercial contracts. In the case of Duncan, Fox, and Co. v. Schrempft and Bonke (noted ante, p. 84; (1914) W. N. 440) the claimants, an English firm, sold to the respondents, another English firm, through a firm of brokers, certain goods. Under the contract payment was to be made in Liverpool in exchange for shipping documents. The goods were shipped on board a German ship by the claimants, and they received a bill of lading, dated previous to the war, for carriage of the goods to Hamburg. By one of the provisions of the bill of lading, all questions under the bill were to be governed by the law of Germany and were to be decided in Hamburg. After the outbreak of the war, the respondents refused to take up the documents, contending that there was no valid bill of lading. The question arose whether the tender of the bill of lading with the other documents was in the circumstances a good tender of the shipping documents under the contract. Mr. Justice Atkin held that the respondents were right in refusing to accept the tender, for had they done so and obtained the goods they would have been carrying out a contract in contravention of the proclamation against trading with the enemy. (c) Contravention of the law against trading with the enemy.— In the case of Rex v. Spencer (noted ante, p. 37) the appellant appealed against a conviction for soliciting and inciting persons to trade with the enemy contrary to the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act 1914. The reader will, no doubt, remember that the Act made it a statutory offence for any person, during the present war, to trade with the enemy. A person is deemed to have traded with the enemy, within the meaning of the Act, if be has entered into any transaction or done any act which was, at the time of such transaction or act, prohibited under any procla mation dealing with trading with the enemy, for the time being in force, or which at common law or by statute constitutes an offence of trading with the enemy. The appellant, who was a clerk employed by a German firm, came to this country in September with certain proposals which were to be placed before certain English shipping firms. When war broke out some German ships had been mortgaged to English firms and some of these ships were nterned, while others were in foreign ports. The proposals were to the effect that English shipping firms should take over the ships and that the mortgages on all the ships should be released, and a payment of money made to German firms through a bank in Rotterdam. The question arose for the court's decision whether in making the proposal the appellant had acted against the law. The Court of Criminal Appeal (Lord Reading, Mr. Justice Darling, and Mr. Justice Coleridge) held that on the evidence before them the jury were entitled to conclude that the appellant put his proposal before the English firms intending that it should be accepted by the latter (without considering the necessity for a licence. Consequently the court dismissed the appeal. B. Decisions under the Trading with the Enemy Act 1914. (a) Application for the appointment of controller under sect. 3 of the Act.-In Re Meister Lucius and Brüning Limited (noted 137 L. T. Jour. 590; (1914) W. N. 390) a petition was presented by the Board of Trade for the appointment of a controller under sect. 3 of the Act. The company in question was incorporated under the English Companies Acts. It carried on its business at a factory in Lancashire and there manufactured synthetic indigo. German subjects residing in Germany held nearly all the shares. The directors were also Germans resident in their own country. The petition was served at the registered office of the company, and was so served on the company. It will be observed that the Act contains no provision for the making of rules. The question arose whether this was the proper way of applying to the court under this section. Mr. Justice Warrington held that in that particular case the procedure by petition was right, but his Lordship pointed out that many cases might arise under the section where a petition would be a somewhat cumbersome form of application. The learned judge said that he had no doubt that, where an Act of Parliament said that an application might be made to the court, ¡the application could be made by way of motion. His Lordship then dealt with some minor points with regard to applications under the section. In the first place, he said, the circumstances must be such that an application appeared to the Board of Trade to be justified. But the court before acceding to the application must be satisfied, on the evidence, that an appointment of a controller was desirable in the state of circumstances. The court had to be satisfied that such a state of things really existed. The evidence which the court ought to require was evidence that the information of the Board of Trade had some reasonable foundation. Further, the court ought to require the controller to give security as in the ordinary case where the court appointed a receiver. His Lordship considered that it would not be appropriate to direct the controller to pass his accounts, but the court ought to reserve to itself the power of requiring the controller, if necessary, to render and vouch his accounts, as well as those of the company, but it was unnecessary for the court to direct him to do so as a matter of course. (b) Appointment of a controller of a partnership business.-In the last-mentioned case the business was carried on by a company. In Re Koppers Coke Oven and Bye-product Company (noted ante, p. 106; (1914) W. N. 450) the court appointed a con. troller of the business of a firm. The parties were, first, a natural-born British subject; secondly, a registered subject of Germany, who had resided in Germany for upwards of twenty years, and who had applied recently for a certificate of naturalisation, which, however, had not as yet been granted; thirdly, a German subject resident in Germany. The firm carried on its business in Sheffield, and were executing contracts for other firms and companies in this country. The latter were anxious that the business should continue, so that the contracts might be duly executed. In this case the Board of Trade applied by motion stating that the board were satisfied that the business ought to be carried on. Mr. Justice Warrington appointed a controller under the Act, and made an order to that effect, which the learned judge directed was to be drawn up in the form settled in the last-mentioned case, adapted, however, to a partnership business. (c) In the case of Rombach v. Rombach (noted ante, p. 82; (1914) W. N. 423), which was an action for the dissolution of partnership, the plaintiff applied to be appointed as receiver and manager of the partnership business. One of the partners was an alien enemy. Mr. Justice Eve made the order, expressly stating that one of the reasons for so doing was that the case did not come under sect. 3 of the Act. C. Decisions Relating to the Legal Position of Alien Enemies and Licensed Aliens as Litigants. (a) Licensed alien enemy suing as plaintiff.-In the case of Thurn and Taxis v. Moffitt (noted 137 L. T. Jour. 564; (1914) W. N. 379) a lady, who was alleged to be the wife of an alien enemy, brought an action for an injunction. She resided in the United Kingdom, and had complied with the requirements under the Aliens Restriction Act 1914 and the orders made thereunder with regard to registration and residence. The defendant applied in the action for a stay of all proceedings, on the ground that as the plaintiff was an alien enemy she was not entitled to any relief. Mr. Justice Sargant, however, dismissed the application, holding, in effect, that the Act, orders, and proclamations requiring registration of alien enemies in this country were a licence to those persons to remain in this country. In his Lordship's view as the plaintiff was duly registered, she could maintain her action in our courts. (b) Right of English company to sue although shares held by Germans. In the case of Amorduct Manufacturing Company v. Defries and Co. (noted ante, p. 109) the question arose whether a company registered in England and having an office in London and a factory in Birmingham, but the shares in which were to a large extent held by persons resident in Germany, and some by naturalised Germans living in England, could sue in our courts. The court (Mr. Justice Horridge and Mr. Justice Rowlatt) held such a company could sue, because, being registered in this country, it was to be regarded as resident in England. It did not matter that some of the shareholders were alien enemies, and could not have sued in our courts on their own account as individuals. (c) Alien enemy as defendant.-In the case of Robinson and Co. v. Continental Insurance Company of Mannheim (noted 137 L. T. Jour. 565; (1914) W. N. 393) Mr. Justice Bailhache dealt with the position where an alien enemy was sued during war. The action was commenced by an English firm against a German company to recover under a policy of insurance. The pleadings had actually been closed before the war commenced. The defendants-the German company-took out a summons, after the outbreak of the war, to have all proceedings stayed during its continuance. But the learned judge dismissed the application. His Lordship pointed out that the rule that an alien enemy cannot sue in our courts while hostilities are going on was founded upon the assumption that when two countries were at war all the subjects of each country were at war also, and that it was contrary to public policy for our courts to give assistance to an alien enemy to enforce rights which but for the war he would be entitled to enforce to his own advantage and to the detriment of a British subject. But to say that a British subject's right of suit was suspended against an alien enemy during war would really be to injure the former and to favour the latter, and such a decision would, in fact, defeat the object of the suspensory rule. In short, it would be to turn a disability into a form of relief. (d) Alien enemy as defendant-Branch office in England. The same learned judge had a similar point to deal with in the case of W. L. Ingle Limited v. Mannheim Insurance Company (noted ante, p. 12; (1914) W. N. 406). The plaintiffs were claiming in respect of a loss under a marine policy of insurance issued prior to the commencement of the war. The defendants were a German insurance company having a head office in Germany and a branch office in England. The loss actually occurred after |