Page images


; that

s mere

quence o it if

at, the



r her


ov. 3.



te of








t at











evidence at the most only amounted to a common assault,
carrying the penalties enacted by sect 42 of the Offences
against the Person Act 1861, and that the conviction was bad
as it did not state the facts which constituted the offence.
[The PRESIDENT.-How can you appeal against the convic-
tion?] The conviction was part of the order. There was no
appeal to quarter sessions as a fine had been inflicted with the
alternative of imprisonment. Reliance was placed on the case
of Manders v. Manders (1897) 1 Q. B. Div. 474), and sect. 11 of
the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act 1895. Before
the second summons could be issued the conviction should
have been recorded. For the wife it was submitted that no
appeal lay to that court as regards the conviction: (Lewin v.
Lewin, 64 L. T. Rep. 834, and Goodwin v. Goodwin, 51 J. P. 583).
The Divisional Court (Sir S. T. Evans, P. and Bargrave
Deane, J.) dismissed the appeal with costs. No appeal from
the conviction for an aggravated assault lay to that court. It
might be there was no appeal from such a conviction where
imprisonment was in the alternative. It was abundantly clear
upon the evidence that the justices were entitled to find as they
did. The order for separation was complete in itself without
exhibiting the conviction.

[Bryant v. Bryant. P. Div.: Sir S. T. Evans, P. and Bargrave
Deane, J. Oct. 27.-Counsel: for the husband, Bowen, K.C.,
A. E Hughes, and H. Hardy; for the wife, W. O. Willis.
Solicitors: for the husband, Julius Edwards and Thomas, for
Tyrwhitt and Marshall, Oxford; for the wife, Andrew Walsh,
Gray, and Rose, Oxford.]

Petition for Judicial Separation by a Foreigner-Alleged Adultery
of Husband - Act on Petition by Husband-Summons to strike out
Act on Petition-Power of Court to grant Relief-Order that
Petition and Act on Petition be tried together-Practice.
Summons adjourned into court. M. P. R., an Englishwoman,
by a petition dated the 18th Sept. 1914 sought a decree of
judicial separation against her husband, J. R., a Spaniard, on
the ground of his alleged adultery. The petitioner was
residing in England at the date of the petition and subsequent
thereto. The parties were married on the 22nd March 1906 in
England, and lived in this country till April 1908 when they
went to Valencia, in Spain. In the following year they
returned to this country and proceeded to Hamburg a few
months later. On the 29th July 1914 the petitioner finally left
her husband, taking with her the two children issue of the
marriage, and came to England. The petition was served upon
the respondent in England. He entered an appearance under
protest. On the 5th Oct. 1914 he filed an act on petition
claiming to have a Spanish domicil and asking that his wife's
petition should be dismissed. On the 16th Oct. 1914 the wife
issued a summons asking that the act on petition might be
struck out on the ground that it disclosed no ground for
disputing the jurisdiction. Bargrave Deane, J. adjourned the
summons into court. For the wife it was contended that she had
come to this country for protection owning to the husband's
adultery. Even if all the facts set out in the act on petition were
true, the court, inheriting the powers of the old ecclesiastical
courts, had power to grant the wife a judicial separation.
Reliance was placed on Armytage v. Armytage (78 L. T. Rep.
689). [BARGRAVE DEANE, J.-How do I know she was justified
in leaving her husband? I have no facts before me.] If the act
on petition remained on the file the wife would be prevented
from laying the facts before the court, for it disputed the
power of the court to grant relief. For the husband it was
submitted that the case was distinguishable from Armytage v.
Armytage (sup.). In that case cruelty was alleged, and the
court could not give relief to a foreigner on the ground of
adultery. To do so would extend the case cited.

Held, that the application was premature. If the wife's allegations were true, the ecclesiastical courts would have had the power to grant relief on account of the husband's adultery. The power to do so was inherited by the court. petition would be tried with the petition for judicial separation on oral evidence, and the husband must file an answer to the petition.

The act on

[Riera v. Riera. P. Div. Bargrave Deane, J. Nov. 3.Counsel for the wife, Bayford; for the husband, Grazebrook. Solicitors for the wife, Sharpe, Pritchard, and Co., for W. Boyle, Liverpool; for the husband, W. P. Ellen, for J. Peace, Liverpool.]

Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act 1895 (58 & 59 Vict.

39)-Summons by Wife alleging persistent Cruelty-Withdrawal in Court-Second Summons for same Offence-Order made by Justices-Appeal by Husband-Res judicata-Allowed. On the 11th April 1914 A. C. H. summoned her husband, E. J. H., before the Highgate justices for persistent cruelty. The summons came on for hearing on the 20th May 1914 and was withdrawn by consent of both parties. On the 4th July 1914 A. C. H. issued a seco d summo is alleging the same complaint.

On the 22nd July 1914 the summons was heard and determined,
the justices making an order against the husband, on whose
behalf it was contended the matter was res judicata. The
husband appealed and relied on a dictum of Sir Francis Jeune
in Pickavance v. Pickavance (84 L. T. Rep. 62). For the wife it
was urged that the withdrawal had been conditional on an
agreement of separation being entered into.

The Divisional Court held that the withdrawal of the first
summons prevented; a second summons relating to the same
matter being heard, and allowed the appeal.

[Hopkins v. Hopkins. P. Div.: Sir S. T. Evans, P. and Bargrave Deane, J. Oct. 27.-Counsel: for the husband, L. J. A. Pile; for the wife, C. L. Beddington. Solicitors: for the husband, J. B. Lander; for the wife, Forbes and Mc Lean.]

Criminal Law-Murder-Sentence of Death-Defence of Insanity
-Substitution by Court of Order for Detention in Custody as a
Criminal Lunatic-Criminal Appeal Act 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 23),
8. 5, sub-s. 4.

Appeal against conviction for murder and sentence of death
before Avory, J. The appellant was a foreman platelayer and
had occasion to report to the railway company two fellow-
platelayers in connection with their work. He added to his
report a statement that he suspected them of having tried to
poison the water in his water bottle. In consequence of this
report disputes arose between the appellant and his fellow-
platelayers. As the result of an inquiry held by an official
of the company, the statements made by the appellant were
found to be incorrect. A day or two later the two men and
the appellant went together to their cabin to procure their
tools. Shortly afterwards the appellant told a police constable
that he had struck the two men. They were subsequently
discovered in the cabin dead with their skulls battered in.
The appellant afterwards stated that he had killed both
men with a pick shaft. At the trial of the appellant the
defence of insanity was set up, and evidence was given that he
suffered from a chronic delusion that attempts were being
made to poison him.

Held, that on the evidence the appellant was insane at the time of committing the act, and the court, acting upon the power given to them by sect. 5, sub-sect. 4, of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907 quashed the sentence of death, and ordered the appellant to be kept in custody as a criminal lunatic under the Trial of Lunatics At 1883 in the same manner as if a special verdict had been found by the jury under that Act.

[Rex v. Gilbert. Ct. Crim. App.: Bankes, Horridge, and
Rowlatt, JJ. Nov. 2.-Counsel: for the appellant, Sir Ryland
Adkins, instructed by R. S. Wood and Co., High Wycombe;
for the Crown, C. A. McCurdy and L. W. J. Costello, instructed
by the Director of Public Prosecutions.]

Criminal Law-Inciting Persons to Trade with the Enemy-Royal
Proclamation-Trading with the Enemy Act 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5,
c. 87, s 1 (1) (b) (2.

Appeal against a conviction of the Central Criminal Court
for soliciting and inciting persons to trade with the enemy
contrary to the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act
1914. The appellant was a clerk employed by a German firm.
He came to this country in September last with proposals to
be put before certain English shipping firms. Six German
ships had been mortgaged to London firms. On the outbreak
of war some of these ships were interned and some were in
foreign ports. With regard to those ships in neutral ports the
proposal was that English shipping firms should take them
over, the mortgages on all six ships to be cancelled and the
sum of £15,000 to be paid to the German firms through a bank
in Rotterdam The question before the court was whether in
making this proposal the appellant had acted contrary to law.
There was nothing to show that the English firms to whom the
proposal was submitted had been asked to trade with the
enemy without a licence.

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 they should accept it without considering the necessity for a licence, and that the appeal must be dismissed.

[Rex v. Spencer. Ct. Crim. App: Lord Reading, C.J., Darling and Coleridge, JJ. Nov. 9.-Counsel: for the appellant, Eustace Fulton, instructed by the Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal; for the Crown, R. D. Mur and Travers Humphreys, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.]

[merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

The Council of Legal Education has issued its Calendar for the coming session 1914-1915. It contains all the usual useful information and can be obtained at the offices of the Council at 18 Old-square.

The Incorporated Accountants' Year Book for the coming session 1914-15, has just been issued by the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors. It comprises a list of members, articles, bye-laws, and examination papers.

The interesting lectures by Dr. Henri Rolin, An Introduction to the Study of Colonial Law, reported in our issues of the 23rd and 30th May this year, have now been prirted by the University of London Press. Dr. Rolin is professor of Colonial Policy in the University of Brussels, and his lectures delivered at University College drew a distinguished audience.

The Cambridge Pocket Diary for the 1914-1915 Session (Cambridge University Press) is specially prepared for the convenience of members of the university. Besides giving useful miscellaneous information, it provides room for jotting down engagements.

Martial Law within the Realm of England (John Long Limited) is a little outline of the subject by Mr. James M. Lowry, who acknowledges his indebtedness to Sir A. Cockburn's researches.

We have received from Messrs. Stevens and Haynes Part 10 of Vol. 10 of Mr. Herman Cohen's Criminal Appeal Cases, containing the index to cases reported from the 12th Jan. to the 29th July.

A little book which has been prepared in consequence of the passing of the Criminal Justice Administration Act 1914 is Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, by Mr. H. Booth (Thos. Dornan Limited), who treats of some of their powers and duties, and gives copious extracts from the Act.

Messrs. Gee and Co. Limited have published, in quarto boards, The Bankruptcy Act 1914 and the Deeds of Arrangement Act 1914, with an index of ten pages. It contains the King's printer's copies of the Acts.


Manual of Emergency Legislation. Edited by Alexander Pulling, C.B., King's Printer of Acts of Parliament. Wyman and Sons Limited, 29, Bream's-buildings, E.C. Price, with supplement, 3s. 6d.

Gore-Browne on the Effect of the War on Commercial Engagements. Jordan and Sons Limited, 116 and 117, Chancery-lane, W.C. Price 2s. 6d. net.

Ball and Mills on Bankruptcy and Bills of Sale. Third Edition. Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons Limited, 1, Amen-corner, E.C. Price 5s. net.

Turner on the Bankruptcy Act 1914 and the Deeds of Arrangement Act 1914. Solicitors' Law Stationery Society Limited, 22, Chancery-lane, W.C. Price 3s. net.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

obvious that as to the common law jurisdiction not much dispute can be raised as to whether or not a claim for debt or damages or the annual value of a hereditament exceeds £100. The equitable jurisdiction deals with such subjects as administration of estates, foreclosure of mortgages, and specific performance, amongst others, and in cases of this nature the £500 limit has not always been easy of determination. As an example of the inconsistent results obtained, it has been held that, in the case of specific performance of a contract of sale, the actual amount of the purchase money is the criterion, even where the property, being the subject of a mortgage, in fact exceeds £500 in value: (Rex v. Birmingham County Court Judge, 90 L. T. Rep. 514; (1904) 1 K. B. 827). On the other hand, an action for the cancellation of a lease of property exceeding £500 in value is not within the County Court jurisdiction, although the actual interest granted by the lease does not exceed that amount in value: (Angel v. Jay, 104 L. T. Rep. 642; (1911) 1 K. B. 666). In the case of Sunderland v. Glover (noted ante, p. 12), the Divisional Court laid down some useful rules for the guidance of County Court judges when these questions arise. The dispute in that case arose over a sum of £350, and as to whether that sum did or did not form part of a testator's estate which in fact exceeded £500 in value. On objection by the defendant that the action was in effect one for partial administration of an estate exceeding in value the limit of jurisdiction, the judge dismissed the action. In taking this course the judge applied sect. 114 of the County Courts Act 1888, which enables the court to strike out with costs an action "commenced over which the court has no jurisdiction." The Divisional Court, in reversing this decision, ruled that this course should only be taken where the want of jurisdiction is manifest on the face of the proceedings apart from the evidence given. Apart from

that, and where

the value is disputed, the judge must come to a judicial determination of the matter upon the evidence, and, should his conclusion be that the subject-matter exceeds £500, he is to transfer the proceedings to the High Court by virtue of sect. 68 of the Act. That section contemplates the excess over the limit being made to appear during the progress of the action. The two sections are to a certain extent contradictory, since sect. 114, although it contains the words "action commenced," would not in practice be invoked until the trial, and, moreover, its terms are peremptory. Sect. 68 does not indicate at what stage in "the progress "of the action the appearance of the objection justifies a transfer. The Divisional Court have, in effect, laid down a useful rule of practice in this respect. It should be mentioned that where the judge, on inquiry, determines that the limit is not exceeded, he should go on and hear the action, presumably leaving a right of appeal to the party dissatisfied with his ruling in this respect. It would seem likely that the draftsman of the Act in relation to sect. 114 only contemplated common law actions, or at least such actions in which in respect of amount or subject-matter it was obvious that the court could not have jurisdiction.



Aberdare, Monday
Alfreton, Monday, at 9.30
Ashton-under-Lyne, Thursday, at


[blocks in formation]

Bradford (Yorks), Tuesday, and Wednesday (R. By), at 10; Thursday (J.S.). at 10.30; Friday, at 10

Braintree, Thursday, at 11 Brentford, Friday, at 10 Bridgwater, Friday, at 10 Brighton, Wednesday (R. By), at 11; Thursday, and Friday (J.S.. &c.), at 10

Bromsgrove, Monday, at 10
Bury, Monday (J.S.), at 9
Cambridge, Wednesday (By)
Chelmsford, Monday, at 10
Cheltenham, Thursday and Friday
Chester, Thursday and Friday
Clerkenwell (special week), Mon-
day, Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, and Friday, at 10.30
Crewe, Wednesday, at 10
Croydon, Tuesday,
and Thursday

Darlington, Wednesday, at 9 Derby. Wednesday, at 10; Thursday (J.S., &c.), at 10.30

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

Dewsbury, Thursday
Dover, Wednesday, at 10
Dunmow, Saturday, at 10.30

Durham, Monday and Tuesday, at


East Grinstead, Wednesday

Edmonton, Thursday and Friday. at 10

Ely, Tuesday, at 10


Evesham, Saturday, at 10
Falmouth, Friday, at 10
Folkestone. Tuesday, at 10
Framlingham, Tuesday

Gainsborough, Wednesday at 10
Goole, Tuesday

Grays Thurrock, Wednesday, at 11 Great Grimsby Saturday at 10 Greenwich, Friday, at 10.30 Halesworth, Wednesday

Halifax, Monday and Tuesday. at 9.30

Hanley, Wednesday and Thursday. at 9.30


Haslingden. Thursday, at 9.30
Hastings Tuesday

Hedon, Monday

Holbeach. Monday, at 11

Holmfirth, Friday

Horncastle, Monday, at 10

Hythe, Monday, at 12

Ilkeston. Tuesday, at 10; Friday
(J.S. & A.O.), at 11
Kendal, Tuesday, at 10.30
Kettering, Tuesday, at 9.30
Kidderminster, Tuesday, at 9
Kingston-on-Thames, Friday, at 10
Kirkham, Friday, at 10.30

Lambeth Monday Tuesday, and
Wednesday, at 10.30

Leeds Monday (J.S. & A.O.),
Wednesday. Thursday (J.S. &
A.O.). and Friday, at 10
Leek. Monday, at 9.30




and Thursday, at 10; Saturday. at 9.30

Leigh, Friday

Lewes. Monday

Leyburn Thursday, at 10.30

Lincoln. Tuesday at 10

Liverpool, Monday (By at 11). Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday

and Friday (B., A., & W.C.), at


[blocks in formation]

Thursday and Friday, at 10
Mansfield Monday at 10

Melton Mowbray Friday, et 10
Merthyr Tydfil. Wednesday, Thurs-
day, and Saturday
Middlesbrough, Monday, at 9.30
Mold, Monday

Monmouth Saturday, at 10
Mountain Ash. Tuesday

Newcastle-in-Emlyn, Monday,

Newcastle-on-Tyne. Tuesday, Wednesday. Thursday (By & W.C.), and Friday (Adm.), at 10


at 9.30


Newmarket Thursday, at 11
Newnham, Wednesday

Northallerton, Saturday, at 9.30
Nottingham, Wednesday at 10;
Thursday (A.O. at 10, By at 12)


Oldham, Thursday, and Satur

day (J.S.), at 9.30

Otley, Wednesday, at 9.45
Oundle, Monday, at 11
Oxford, Monday, at 10
Plymouth.* Monday,


Wednesday, Thursday, and Fri-
day, at 10

Portsmouth, Thursday, at 10.30
Preston, Tuesday, at 10
Redditch, Friday, at 10
Redruth. Thursday, at 10
Rugby Thursday, at 10
Runcorn, Tuesday

St. Albans, Monday, at 10
Salford, Monday and Wednesday
Sheerness, Thursday, at 10
Sheffield, Wednesday (J.S.) and
Friday at 10

Shoreditch, Tuesday and Thursday
Shrewsbury, Monday and Friday
at 10


Sittingbourne, Friday, at 10
Sleaford. Thursday, at 10
Southampton, Tuesday, at 10
Southwark, Monday, Tuesday, and
Thursday, at 10.30
Stockport, Friday, at 10
Stockton-on-Tees, Tuesday, at 9.30
Stokesley, Friday, at 10.30
Stourbridge. Wednesday
Thursday at 10
Stowmarket, Friday
Sunderland, Wednesday, Thursday.
and Friday (By), at 10
Taunton Tuesday, at 10
Tavistock, Saturday, at 10
Thetford, Thursday, at 11
Thornbury, Monday
Thorne, Friday, at 11
Tiverton, Wednesday, at 10
Todmorden, Wednesday
Towcester, Wednesday, at 10
Tredegar Tuesday and Wednes-
day, at 10.30

Truro, Tuesday, at 10.30
Uppingham, Monday, at 10.30
Wakefield, Tuesday, at 10
Walsall Wednesday, and Thurs-
day (J.S.)

Walsingham, Friday, at 11
Wandsworth. Monday
Wareham, Monday, at 10

Wellington (Salop),* Tuesday, at

Wellington (Somerset),

[blocks in formation]

Weston-super-Mare Monday. at 10
Whitchurch, Saturday, at 10
Whitechapel. Tuesday, Wednesday.
Thursday, and Friday

Wigan, Tuesday (R. By at 2.15).
at 9

Williton. Thursday, at 11

Winchester, Monday (R. By), at
11; Wednesday (By at 11), at 10
Winsford, Tuesday, at 2
Wolverhampton, Fridav
Woodbridge Monday, at 11.15
Woolwich, Wednesday, at 10.30
Worksop. Tuesday, at 10
Wrexham Wednesday (By).

Other sittings are specially fixed if necessary.



A German subject is under a personal disability to maintain an action in a County Court in England during the war. AT the County Court Holt, (Norfolk), on the 4th inst., this action came before His Honour Judge Mulligan, KC. It was an action for damages for breach of contract to take lodgings in Lichters' house at Sheringham. The defendant had, when war was declared, refused to go to or to pay for his lodgings. Rolfe solicitor) for Lichters.

Edmund Reeve (solicitor) for the defendant.

At the outset it was objected that Lichters was a German subject and could not, therefore, sue, and that it was against public policy to enforce a contract to live in the house of an enemy or to award damages for breach of it.

Lichters was sworn, and said that he was born in Germany in 1876, that his parents were Germans, and that he had not been

[blocks in formation]

could not point out any passage anywhere stating that subjects of
a sovereign at war with this country may sue in the courts in
England. He referred to Janson v. Driefontein Consolidated
Mines Limited 87 L. T. Rep. 372; (1902) A. C 484) and to
Robinson and Co. v. Continental Insurance Company of Mannheim
(137 L T Jour. 565; (1914) W. N. 393).

His HONOUR.-In this case Lichters was born in Germany and of German parents. He was born German and German he remains. He owes allegiance to the Kaiser and not to the King. His claim depends upon his nationality and not upon his domicil or upon the legality of the contract. He claims damages for breach of a contract entered into before, but broken after and in consequence of, the declaration of war. Is Lichters under a personal disability in respect of his suit? That is the question. In Janson's case the defendant waived the incapacity and treated the matter as if the war was at an end. In Robinson's case it was the defendant who was under disability, and he was held to be entitled to be heard under the rule audi alteram partem. Those cases do not assist. And, in my opinion, the question of the personal disability of Lichters to sue is not touched by the proclamations. Their gist is not to confer a status or right to sue in a civil court upon subjects of the Kaiser, but to enable subjects of the King to make and enforce contracts of the nature prescribed and to take away from defendants the right to plead that such contracts are void for illegality-that the trading was illegal. The proclamations have not, in my opinion, removed the personal disability of Lichters to sue. In that respect the old rule of the common law must be regarded. Under that rule when war was declared the property of Lichters became liable to confiscation and his person to detention as a prisoner of war. In modern practice that rule has been softened, but I am not aware of any instance in which it has been so far departed from as to allow a subject of a warring Sovereign to sue a subject of the King. To allow Lichters to maintain his action in this court during the war would, in my opinion, be unjust and unwarranted by law. I hold that he cannot sue during the war. must be struck out with costs.

Other similar actions were struck out or withdrawn.

[blocks in formation]

The Special Paper will be taken on Monday next.
Defended divorce causes before the court itself will be taken on
Tuesday next, and will be continued until the end of the sittings
(Saturdays and Mondays excepted).

Mr. Justice Darling and Mr. Justice Sankey will leave London on Monday next for Manchester, on the Northern Circuit, and will open the commission on the foll wing day. When the business at this town is finished they will return to London and remain until the end of the present sittings.

Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence will leave London on Thursday next for Hertford, on the second part of the South-Eastern Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day.

The November adjourned quarter and general sessions for cases arising on the north and south sides of the Thames will commence on Tuesday next, at the Sessions-house, Clerkenwell, at 10.30. The November Sittings at the Mayor's Court will commence on Thursday next at 10:30.

Tuesday next will be the "call night" of the Michaelmas Term at the four Inns of Court.

Lord Mersey of Toxteth will deliver an address at the Founder's Day celebrations of the Birkbeck Institution, Bream'sbuildings, E.C., on Wednesday, the 9th prox.

The Rev. Henry Reginald Gamble will be the preacher at Lincoln's-inn Chapel on Sunday morning next. Service will commence at eleven o'clock.

Mr. Henry Edwin Garrod, aged eighty four, of Diss, Norfolk, senior partner in the firm of Messrs. Garrod and Burne, solicitors, of Diss, left estate of the gross value of £29,147.

Mr. William Maurice Williams, of Ellerslie, Knighton Parkroad, Leicester, and formerly of Carmarthen, solicitor, who died on the 17th Sept. last, aged sixty-eight, left estate of the gross value of £7704 14s. 11d, with net personalty nil.

The second of the course of lectures by Mr. A. D. McNair, the Law Society's Lecturer in Commercial Law, on "The Effect of War on Contracts and Trade," will be delivered at the society's hall, on Wednesday next, at 5.30 pm.

The weekly meeting of the Union Society of London was held on Wednesday, at 3, Plowden-buildings, Temple, the president, Mr. Harry Geen, in the chair. Mr. Coram proposed: "That international peace is impossible." Mr. Morden opposed, and there also spoke Messrs. Cape, Willson, Baker, Burleigh, and Kingham. The motion was carried.

The remainder of the Rhodes Lectures for the present term on "Laws of the Empire," which were to have been delivered on Wednesday, at University College, Gower-street, W.C., have been postponed, as Mr. J. H. Morgan, the lecturer, has been given leave of absence in order to enable him to undertake a confidential mission for His Majesty's Government.

According to the Deutsche Juristen Zeitung. 529 lawyers and higher officials employed in German administration have up to now been killed on the battlefields, among them being three professors, two Privy Councillors, a hundred and twenty judges, administration officials, and public prosecutors, eighty-five solicitors, 137 assistant judges, and 173 referendaries.

Sir John Macdonell, Quain Professor of Comparative Law, University of London, will give the first of a course of lectures in International Law upon "The Interpretation and Annulment of Treaties," at the London School of Economics, Cla.e Market, W.C., on Thursday next, at 5.30 pm. The lectures are open to the public without fee or ticket. They are intended not only for lawyers, but for students of political economy, political science, and sociology, and for journalists.

The Gray's-inn Moot Society will hold a moot in the Gray's inn Hall on Monday, the 23rd inst., at 8.15 p.m., before Sir Albert Bosanquet, K.C. Any member of an Inn of Court wishing to argue should communicate as early as possible with the Under-Treasurer, Gray's-inn, from whom full particulars can be obtained.

The partnership hitherto subsisting between Mr. Frederick Romer and Mr. Alfred H. Skan, of 4, Copthall-chambers, has been dissolved by mutual consent, and all debts due to the late firm have been assigned to, and are therefore receivable by, Mr. Skan, who will conduct the business under the same style as heretofore.

That there should be some Belgian courts-martial in France may be assumed as a matter of course, but that the prisoners should be defended by members of the Bar of their own country approaches nearer the domain of things unexpected. Sixty prisoners appeared before a court-martial empanelled at Calais last week, charged with minor offences-desertion, failure to join the colours, and insubordination. The president of the court was Major Merchie, of the Belgian Headquarters Staff, who was wounded in the Battle of the Yser, and whose head was, we read, complètement enveloppée de bandes de pansement. Among counsel who defended were Me. Lousberg, of the Bar of Liége, and Me. Godtler, of the Brussels Bar, both serving with the colours. The sentences passed were of periods less than six months, avec sursis. This means that the offenders go back to the front, where they have the opportunity of retrieving their characters and escaping imprisonment.

The rebellion headed by Generals De Wet and Beyers in the Union of South Africa will direct attention to the fact that attacks upon the State itself cease, if they succeed, to be within

Under happier circumstances it might have been possible to arrange some commemoration of the jubilee on the 8th Nov. of the famous dinner given by the Bar of England to M Berryer. Few can now remember the occasion, but it left a remarkable impression upon those who took part. Lord Selborne, who presided, described the festival as "unique of its kind and altogether memorable." The central figure had had a remarkable career as an advocate. Early in life he had been engaged with his father in defending Marshal Ney-nearly one hundred years ago. For forty years he maintained, as was said at the time in the LAW TIMES, "through difficulties and dangers which in this country we cannot conceive, amid revolutions unknown to us, defiant alike of the power of kings and emperors, and the more terrible despotism of democracy, the right of free speech, which is the advocate's privilege, living which liber y can never quite perish, wi hout which it cannot exist." An excellent portrait in the Middle Temple Library of M. Berryer seated with Lord Brougham, who was primarily responsible for the organisation of the dinner, preserves the memory of one of the greatest of legal international courtesies. M. Berryer's successors at the Paris Bar have recently given a token of their desire to maintain cordial relations by presenting from their library a u eful collection of some fifty volumes of French and international law to the library of the Middle Temple, thus adding to its value for those of their Belgian, confrères who avail themselves of the invitation of the Masters of the Bench to use the library during their enforced stay in our midst.

It has frequently been said-and there is certainly some justification for the statement-that had it not been for the fact that Sir Walter Scott was early initiated into all the mysteries of the feudal system as it survived in the law of Scotland, we might never have had the long series of the Waverley novels. Certainly in those volumes he utilised to the full his intimate knowledge of the Scottish system of conveyancing, with its quaint and picturesque terminology carrying one back in thought to the very early days of the system. By Scott's time, indeed, some of the older incidents of tenure had been abolished, but there was still retained sufficient to make the feudal law interesting, at all events in theory, whatever it may have been in actual practice. Since his day, however, notable inroads have been made upon the system; the draftsman of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1874 laid ruthless hands

upon it, and now, by the Feudal Casualties (Scotland) Act 1914 which comes into operation on the 1st Jan. 1915, more radical changes still have been effected-ramely, by the elaborate provisions for the redemption and ultimate extinction of those payments of "relief" and "composition" due at irregular intervals, known collectively as "casualties," although to the English lawyer the definition of "casualties" as "duplicands and other multiples of feu duties and grassums and other sums paya le at intervals of more than one year in connection with any feu" may not elucidate the subject very much. The Act follows the trend of recent legi-lation in the endeavour to free land from all payments to "superiors," save those which are definite in amount and exigible at ascertained times.

Our obituary notice of the career of the late Right Hon. Arthur Cohen, K.C., mentions the well-known fact that Mr Cohen was offered, but declined, a puisne judgeship. Puisne judgeships in this country cannot be regarded as Ministerial appointments. These offices are in the exclusive gift of the Lord Chancellor of the day, on whose sole recommendation to the Crown

the scope of the criminal law. They put an end, if not to all The ROYAL EARLSWOOD INSTITUTION

existing law, at least to all the existing sanctions of law, and constitute a new point of departure for a fresh set of political institutions. Sir Fitzjames Stephen thinks the well-known epigram

Treason can never prosper-what's the reason?
If it does prosper none dare call it treason

a good instance of the way in which small riot is deprived of its point by the growth of knowledge. "All such sarcasms," he writes, "derive what point they have from the tacit assumption that moral and political institutions are eternal and unchangeable. Take, for instance, the well known passage in Pascal's Pensées which treats as a monstrous absurdity that what is right on one side of a river can be wrong on the other. In these days, at least, to many people there seems nothing extraordinary in this. There are many forms of morality and they may be bounded by local frontiers as well as by any others. When English law prevailed within the Indian residency towns and not in other parts of India, it would have been true to say that suttee was or was not murder according as it was or was not carried on within the Mahrattan ditch. In the same way it was morally right according to Hindoo views and morally wrong according to English views."

FOR MENTAL DEFECTIVES (formerly the Earlswood Asylum).



E. C. P. HULL, Esq., J.P., Treasurer and Chairman. For those requiring control with expert supervision, and needing Special Training in Useful Occupations. SCHOOLS, FARMING, TRADE-WORKSHOPS. Trust Funds available for the Children of Barristers and Solicitors.

Selected Cases admitted on Reduced Inclusive Fees at the rate of One Guinea a Week. Those Unable to Pay admitted by votes of Subscribers, either free or with part-payment.

Life Maintenance of Patients can be purchased at less than Annuity Rates.

Legacies as Endowments, or towards Sustentation Fund create lasting benefits.

Full information of Mr. H. HOWARD, Secretary,

14-16, Ludgate-hill, E.C.

Telephone: 5297 City.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

they are filled. In his discretion in the recommendation of gentle-
men for appointment to puisne judgeships a Lord Chancellor is
not supposed to be influenced by any pressure, no matter whence
coming, brought to bear on him-not even by the fact that a
gentleman likely to accept the position of puisne judge had that
position pressed on his acceptance by a former Lord Chancellor.
Lord Eldon, who cannot be accused of lack of deference to the
wishes of the Sovereign, when urged by George IV., when Prince
Regent, to recommend for appointment to a puisne judgeship a
gentleman whose claims were pressed on him by the Prince as a
personal matter, immediately tendered his resignation of the
Great Seal, which was not accepted. It is no secret that Lord
Chancellors have withstood pressure from Prime Ministers with
reference to appointments to puisne judgeships. It is the
practice, however, to accede to the applications of law officers
for appointments to puisne judgeships on the rare occasions
on which they have been made. Thus Sir John Rolfe (Lord
Chancellor Cranworth) was, when Solicitor General, appointed
a Baron of the Exchequer, and Sir Henry Keating and Sir
Balliol Brett (Lord Esher) were appointed from the Solicitor-
Generalship to uisne judgeships In this country, of course,
appointments to the higher judicial offices are made, as was
expressed by Sir Robert Peel in his evidence in 1850 before
the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to
report on official salaries, on the recommendation of the Prime
Minister, who, in making such recommendations, takes counsel
with the Lord Chancellor.


MR. MARTIN J. BURKE, solicitor, Belfast, has been appointed
Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the country Antrim, and the
county of the city of Belfast. The position is one of the best prizes
open to the solicitors' profession in Ireland. Mr. Burke was
admitted in 1898, and is very fortunate in succeeding to such an
important post so early in life.

THE application by the military authorities to have the public-
houses closed in Dublin at an earlier hour led to a warm dis-
cussion before the recorder. Over a dozen counsel were engaged,
and the trade were very indignant about the application. In the
end, the matter was compromised, and it was agreed that on four
days the closing hour should be 10 p.m.; on Fridays and Saturdays
9.30 p.m. The present closing hours on Sunday were not inter-
fered with in respect either of public-houses or clubs.

THERE is much indignation at the Four Courts on account of the refusal of the Treasury to pay the staff of revising barristers who acted during last revision sessions. It appears that in August last there was some controversy between the Irish Office and the Lords of the Treasury as to the number of assistants that should be appointed, but the statute unquestionably enabled the former authority to decide that issue, which it did, though the total number was not increased. The Treasury retorted by threatening to reduce the salary by nearly one-half. barristers appointed then threatened to "down tools," as one of the daily papers put it at the time. Now it appears the Treasury want guarantees for the future, and, pending their receipt, refuse payment for work and labour actually done. The position taken up by the Treasury is illogical, foolish, and absurd. It would be no answer to a petition of right by an aggrieved barrister-a course which is now spoken of as probable.



THE Cork County Council had a discussion on the 6th inst., on receipt of the order of the Election Commissioner voiding an election, as to whether the vacancy should be filled by a new election or by co-option. The commissioner voided the election, but no person was held entitled to the seat. The law upon the subject is not clear. The 103rd section of the Municipal Corporations Act 1882 is applied to the Irish code without alteration, and the reference there to the duties to be performed by local government officials plainly point to an election by the But sect. 66 of the same Act, which directs such elections to be held within fourteen days after notice of the vacancy has been received from two burgesses, is not applied, but sect. 94 (4) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act directs that casual vacancies shall be filled by the council. Under these circumstances the county solicitor held that co-option was the proper course, and it was adopted. This would point to the fact that sect. 103, above referred to, should have been, in accordance with the power conferred altered and adapted when being applied to Ireland by the Privy Council. At present there is undoubted confusion, but it appears probable that the advice given in the Cork case was sound and accurate in the circumstances.

THE King's Bench Division (Justices Gibson, Kenny, and Dodd) has delivered an important judgment on the interpretation of the Postponement of Payments Act 1914. The officials had refused to allow judgment to be marked in cases where they thought the statute applied, and where no appearance or defence had been made or delivered in the action. In other cases the Act was relied upon. The following points had been presented for the decision of the court: (a) Can an action be maintained for a debt of which the payment is so suspended? (b) If the action is premature, is that a matter which must be raised by defence? (c) If a judgment has been marked in such action, what is now the position in regard to it? (d) If the action is premature, what sh uld be done with the writ? In regard to each of these four propositions the court held as follows: (a) The debt remained a debt, but its payment was deferred. There was a statutory credit given which was at least as effectual as a contractual credit. It was never intended that writs should be issued before debts were exigible, and costs imposed upon litigants entitled to the benefit of the statute. (b) Where it was certain on the face of the writ and on the admitted facts that there was no cause of action, the court under their rules had manifest jurisdiction to set it aside. If the case went without any defence raising the issue, the court would decline to treat the non-existing cause of action as entitling the plaintiff to judgment. (c) In this event judgment marked on a writ showing no cause of action could not be allowed to stand. The officer of the court should bring such a judgment to the notice of the court at once as a formal motion by the defendant was not necessary. (d) In this case when the plaintiff himself brought the matter before the court, the action would either be dismissed, or the writ set aside. Where the defendant moved, the writ would be set aside. There still remained the few cases in which judgment had been already inadvertently marked. The counsel or solicitors for the plaintiffs in these cases should come in and have the judgments vacated, and so save inconvenience and litigation. The public interest in these cases was very great, and the able and luminous judgment of Mr. Justice Gibson was fully reported in all the newspapers.


Right of Search.

[ocr errors]

THE announcement made by the Assistant Secretary of the State Department, that the United States have accorded to Great Britain's belligerent public vessels the right of visiting and searching their merchant vessels on the high seas will direct attention to the fact that the existence of this right of visitation and search is peremptorily required to enforce the control over neutral trade which belligerents are permitted to exercise. "The right of visiting and searching merchant vessels upon the high seas," says Lord Stowell in 1799, "whatever be the ships, whatever be the cargoes, whatever be the destination, is an incontestable right of the lawfully commissioned cruisers of a belligerent nation. . . The right is so clear in principle that no man can deny it who admits the legality of maritime capture, because, if you are not at liberty to ascertain by sufficient inquiry whether there is property that can legally be captured, it is impossible to capture": (The Maria, 1 C. Rob. 359). By art. 63 of the Declaration of London it was provided that Forcible resistance to the legitimate exercise of the right of stoppage, search, and capture involves in all cases the condemnation of the vessel. The cargo is liable to the same treatment as the cargo of an enemy vessel. Goods belonging to the master or owner of the vessel are treated as enemy goods." When a commissioned vessel wishes to exercise the right of search, it is usual to fly the colours and fire off a gun, called the affirming gun, as a signal to the merchant vessel. The requirement of the affirming gun is common in continental practice, but not peremptory according to the British and American view. In order to make actual visit, an officer is usually sent on board the merchantman from the cruiser, but sometimes the master of the merchantman is summoned to bring his papers to the cruiser for inspection. Capture of a vessel searched is considered legitimate when the papers are false and insufficient, and when the results of the visit make it certain, or at least highly probable, that the vessel is engaged on an unwonted service.

« EelmineJätka »