« EelmineJätka »
not dispute the main propositions which have been stated; but contended, as I understood, that where, as in this case, tue captors or the Crown after seizure released the goods, not only had the King's Bench Courts jurisdiction to deal with the claim for freight, but that they alone had the jurisdiction to the exclusion of this court, even when the proceeds of the cargo seized and sold are now in the hands of this court. This contention is, in my view, quite unsound. A somewhat similar argument was put forward in Le Caux v. Eden (ubi sup.) on the ground that the ship had been declared by the sentence of the Prize Court to be no prize, but it did not prevail. As I have before pointed out, the Prize Court exercised jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction, where the subject-matter had been acquitted or released, and it had been held that such jurisdiction was vested in it, even when captures had been abandoned without any proceedings having been instituted at all.
When the particular facts of the present case are looked at it is perfectly clear that this court alone has jurisdiction to deal with the claim for freight, and that it would be most inconvenient if it were otherwise. The essential facts very shortly stated are as follows: The ship's cargo consisted of 250,000 poods of birley. It was loaded at Odessa, the loading being completed after war was declared between Russia and Germany. It was all consigned to Hamburg. The Russian authorities raised difficulties about the ship leaving, but afterwards allowed her to sail on an undertaking by the master to call at Malta, Gibraltar, and Falmouth. She arrived at Falmouth and was ordered by my marshal to Liverpool. She was detained, and afterwards, on the 29th Oct., her cargo was seized. Upon the application of the marshal an order was made by this court for the sale of the cargo to prevent its deterioration and for the payment of the proceeds into
A writ was in due course issued by the Procurator-General claiming the condemnation of the cargo or its proceeds as prize. The whole cargo was sold for about £29,800. The net proceeds amount to about £28,600, and are now in court. Appearances were entered in these proceedings by the Russian Bank claiming as owners of part of the cargo-viz., 51,500 poods; by the Société Générale, claimants as to other parts-viz., 46,280 poods; and by the Prince Line Limited as owners of the vessel. So far as I have been informed, no claims have been made in respect of the rest of the cargo, over 150,000 poods, or its pro ceeds. After the sale of the cargo, an order was made with the consent of the Procurator-General and of the claimants in these terms: "Upon consent of H.M. Procurator-General, it is ordered that he do pay out to the Russian Bank for Foreign Trade the net proceeds of sale of 51,500 poods of barley ex the above vessel upon production of the copy bills of lading, payment of any charges which may have been incurred in connection with the detention thereof, and subject to any rights as to freight which the shipowners may have had over the goods at the date of the seizure thereof." A similar order was made in favour of the Société Générale in respect of 46,280 poods. The Prince Line Limited, as claimants for freight, demurrage, and charges, entered a caveat against the payment out of court of any of the proceeds without notice to them. After all these steps were taken in these proceedings the Russian Bank issued their writ in the King's Bench Division. The summons to transfer the trial of the action to the Commercial Court is stayed pending this decision. The Société Générale, through their counsel, Mr. Darby, adopted the argument of Mr. Hill, and they desire that the questions affecting them should be heard in this court. Upon these facts I repeat that it is clear beyond dispute that the owners and cargo owners are within the exclusive jurisdiction of this court.
I will only point out further that the Crown has full right to consent to the release of any ship or goods captured or seized on any grounds that the Crown may see fit. Moreover, it does not by any means follow as a necessary consequence of the release that goods were not properly seized as prize as the Crown's droits of Admiralty. In the present case, as the Empire of Russia is our ally in the war, it does not require a very vivid imagination to conceive grounds for giving up to the Russian Bank the proceeds of the portion of the cargo claimed by them quite otherwise than And if it is thought as an acknowledgment of wrongful seizure material, it would be quite open to anyone interested in these proceedings at any stage to allege and to set out to prove that the seizure of the cargo was lawful. I give directions therefore that the claim of the shipowners and all questions between them and the Russian Bank and the Société Générale be heard in these priee proceedings.
Solicitor for the Crown, Treasury Solicitor.
Solicitors for the shipowners, Wilkinson and Marshall, Newcastle.
Solicitors for the Russian Bank for Foreign Trade, Coward and Hawksley, Sons, and Chance.
Solicitors for the Société Générale de Paris, Loughborough, Gedge, Nisbet, and Drew.
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY.
RELATING TO TRADING WITH THE ENEMY.
And whereas it is exped ent in Our interest and in that of Our Allies that the Proclamations relating to trading with the enemy should apply to territory in friendly occupation as they apply to Our territory or that of Our Allies, and should apply to territory in hostile occupation as they apply to an enemy country:
Now, therefore, We have thought fit, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council, to issue this Our Royal Proclamation declaring, and it is hereby declared as follows:
1. The Proclamations for the time being in force relating to trading with the enemy shall apply to territory in friendly Occupation as they apply to Our territory or that of Our Allies, and to territory in hostile occupation as they apply to an enemy country.
2. Any references to the outbreak of the war in any Proclamation so applied shall, as respects territory in friendly or hostile occupation, be construed as references to the time at which the territory so became in friendly or hostile occupation.
3. The certificate of any person authorised by a Secretary of State to give such certificates that any territory is in friendly or hostile occupation within the meaning of this Proclamation, or as to the time at which any territory so became or ceased to be territory in friendly or hostile occupation, shall, for the purposes of this Proclamation, be final and conclusive.
4. Nothing in this Proclamation shall be taken to prohibit anything which may be expressly permitted by Our licence or by a licence given on Our behalf by a Secretary of State, or the Board of Trade, or the Lords Commissioners of Our Treasury, whether such licences be specially granted to individuals or be announced as applying to classes of persons, or to prohibit any special arrangements which may be made by any such licence or otherwise with Our authority for special treatment of any occupied territory or persons in any such occupied territory entitled to such special treatment.
5. This proclamation shall be called the Trading With the Enemy (Occupied Territory) Proclamation, 1915.
Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace, this Sixteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, and in the Fifth year of Our Reign.
GOD SAVE THE KING.
APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK
NOTICES OF APPEARANCE AT HEARING MUST REACH THE SOLICITORS BY 6 P.M.
DURHAM COKE AND BYE-PRODUCTS COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in,
GLOUCESTER LIGHT CAR COMPANY LIMITED.--Petition for winding-up, or
GEORGE ROGERS AND SONS LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by March 31,
HAWORTH AND CO. (CABINET MAKEKS) LIMITED-Petition for winding-up
LIGHTHOUSE RADIATOR COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by
MOSS BRICK, TILE, STONE, AND COAL COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send
OTTO LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard March 2, at Royal
CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LAST DAY OF PROOFS.
BROWN (George Edward), La Mesa, San Diego, California, U.S.A., and all persons interested in the property to which the action of Brown v. Brown (1913, B. No. 3879) relates, but who have not been served with notice of the judgment, to come in, by April 1, and establish their claims at chambers of Warrington and Sargant, JJ., and enter their names at Room 254, Royal Courts of Justice. Hearing April 13, at 12, at said chambers, Room 252. BEECH (Archibald, the elder), Chorlton-upon-Medlock. Persons interested in the hereditaments or proceeds thereof, to which the action of Goodall v. Sutcliffe relates, to come in, by April 15, before Master C. Hulbert, at chambers of Warrington and Sargant, JJ. Hearing April 22, at 12.30, at said chambers.
RELF (Catherine), Rolvenden, who died about April 19. 1914. Her creditors, and creditors jointly with William David Dunk, with whom the deceased carried on a farming business at Windmill Farm. March 17; T. Buss, of Buss and Levett, sols., Tunbridge Wells. March 24; Joyce and Eve, JJ.. at 12.30.
CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35.
LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. ARMITAGE (Richard), Patricroft and Manchester. March 20; March, Pearson, and Akenhead, Manchester.
ANSTICE (Edward Pigott), Penarth. March 19; H. M. Rees, Cardiff.
ALLEN (Katharine), Eastbourne. March 31; Hunter and Lawford, 10.
BENTLEY (Mary), Southport. March 31; Butcher and Barlow, Bury. BULLARD (Archibald), Bayswater. March 25; Cooper, Bake, Roche, and Fettes, 6 and 7, Portman-st, Portman-sq, W.
BADHAM (Edward James), Blackheath. March 30; Foster. Spicer, and Foster, 7, Queen-st-pl, E.C.
BIRD (George Adolphus), Southsea. March 25; R. J. Foskett, 6 and 7. Portman-st, Portman-sq, W..
BRADLEY (Katherine Harris), Richmond. April 6; Salter and Lees, 30, Great St. Helen's, E.C.
BRADSHAW (John), Cheetham. March 20; Sale and Co., Manchester. BENTLEY (Capt. Gerald Wilson), Middlesex Regiment. March 31; Kearsey, Hawes, and Wilkinson, 108A, Cannon-st, E.C.
BOND (Catherine Kirwan), Croydon. March 31; Mott and Son, 22, Bedford-row, W.C.
BRADLEY (Harriet Ann), Champion Hill. March 26; Sandom, Kersey, and Knight 52, Gracechurch-st, E.C.
BARLOW (Eustace Hepburn), Pateley Bridge and Woodbridge. March 31; Larken and Co., Newark-on-Trent.
CARTER (Letitia), Putney, or CARTER (Eliza Annette). March 31; J. Allward, 10, Gray's-inn-sq, Holborn, W.C CHESNEY (Joseph Benjamin), Southwick.
Stansbury, 222, Strand, W.C.
CHAPPELL (Susannah), Chelmsford.
March 25; Walmsley and
March 22; Sandom. Kersey, and
Knight, 52, Gracechurch-st, E.C.
CHAPMAN (Jacob), Hastings. March 20; E. W. Gyton, 13, Westbere-rd,
CARBONELL (Deaconess Eleanor), Usk. April 2; Masterman and Everington, 11. Pancras-la, Queen-st, E.C.
CHAPMAN (Jane),York. March 25; R. S. Petty, York.
CHIDLEY (Harriet), Lee Brockhurst. March 25; Lucas, Salt, and Glover, Wem.
CLERKE (Lieut.-Col. Holt Waring), Fulham. March 25; Meade and Balmer, 22. Red Lion-sq. W.C
CHAPMAN (John), Llandudno Junction. April 6; W. H. Boocock and Son, Halifax.
DAVIS (Anna Margaret), Nailsworth. March 31; E. L. Wallis, Hereford. DOWNES (Thomas), Walsall. Within seven days from Feb. 19; S. Pearman Smith and Sons. Walsall.
DAVIES (David), Gorwydd. April 14; W. Lloyd and Son, Lampeter.
DAKIN (William Howard), Norwich. April 1; Cozens-Hardy and Jewson,
EDMONDS (William), Colyton, Great Cumberland-pl, W., and Liverpool.
GROOM (Sarah Elizabeth), Streatham. April 20; Andrew, Wood, Purves,
HAMER (Joseph), Halifax. April 2; Jubb, Booth, and Helliwell, Halifax.
HIGGINBOTTOM (Joseph) Chiswick and Chelsea. March 25, G. F. Wilkins. Chelsea, S.W.
HOWLETT (John Godfery), Bracondale.
April 1; Cozens-Hardy and
HOOK (William). Paddington. March 22, Trower, Still, Parkin, and Keeling, 5. New-sq, Lincoln's-inn, W.C.
INGRAM (Maria Louisa), Richmond.
INGESTRE (Viscount), New Cavendish-st, Portman-sq mond and Richards, 26, Lincoln's-inn-fids, W.C.
March 31; Ham
JOHNSTON (Mary Ellen), Bayswater-ter. March 25; Beamish, Hanson, Airy, and Co., 60, Lincoln's-inn-fids, W.C.
JENKINS (William Joseph), South Norwood, and Bread-st-hill, E.C. March 13; Peard and Son, Croydon.
JONES (Margaret), Ealing. March 19; J. C. Cooper, Dauntsey House, 4B, Frederick's-pl. E.C.
JACOBS (Annette Josephine), Brondesbury. March 31; Jacobs and Greenwood, 10, New Broad-st, E.C.
KELSALL (Edwin Stanway), Burslem. Feb. 27; D. B. Ellis, Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent.
KELSALL (Edwin Dudley), Burslem. Feb. 27; D. B. Ellis, Tunstall, Stoke on-Trent.
KELLY (Julia Catherine), Bexhill-on-Sea. April 12; A. Tyler, 5, Clement'sinn, W.C.
LITTLETON (Alfred Henry), Lancaster-gate, and Hove. March 19; Adams and Adams, 5, Clement's-inn, W.C.
LOADER (George), Kemp Town, Brighton. March 5; Miller and Smiths, 3, Salters Hall-ct, Cannon-st, E.C.
LEE (Henry), Cacharris. Feb. 27; E. Roberts and Lewis, Dowlais. METCALFE (Eleanor Etheldreda), Harbledown. March 20; H. Fielding, Canterbury.
MALE (Alice Maud), Leamington. March 16; Rowlands and Co., Birming ham.
MAPLES (Sarah), otherwise Louise Stanley, Paddington. March 20; Hallowes and Carter, 39, Bedford-row, W.C.
MCGRATH (Sarah), Liverpool. March 31; C. J. Stewart. 3 and 4, Clement's-inn, Strand, W.C.
MOORHOUSE (Edward Dobson), Altrincham. April 6; Sale and Co.. Manchester.
NICHOLSON (Thomas Woodall), Halifax. March 1; W. H. Boocock and Son, Halifax.
PHILLIPS (James), Westminster. March 20; Yeilding and Co., 13,
PAYNE (Harold), Portsmouth
March 31; Harvey, Harvey, and Way,
PAGE (Ernest William), Southminster. March 31; Clapham, Fraser. Cook, and Co., 15, Devonshire-sq. E.C.
PHILLIPS (Mary Anne Hawkes), Torquay. March 31; A. Belfield.
PITTS (Bernard), Westminster Palace Hotel.
March 23; Francis and
REECE (John), Marple. April 22; R. Higham and Co., Manchester.
ROBINS (William George). Hull. April 7; R. Davis, Hull.
STANNARD (John Warren), Writtle. March 25; L. Gray. Chelmsford.
SMETHURST (Charles), Pendleton. March 31; the executors, at the office, of Farrar and Co., Manchester.
SUTTON (Jane), Torquay. March 16; Wainwright, Pollock, and Co., 1. Church-ct, Clement's-la. E.C.
SAINSBURY (Edward), Chiswick. March 25, E. F. and H. Landon, 53 New Broad-st, E.C.
SMITH (Arthur Edward), Brockley, and Camomile-st, E.C. March 27. W. H. Jones, 19, Spital-sq, E.
SHARP (Margaret Ann). Mirfield. March 31; E. B. Wilson and Topham Mirfield.
SMEDLEY (Robert Newton), Bewdley. April 2; Makinson, Rainer, Son, and Wolstenholme, Manchester
SPEECHLEY (Elizabeth), California, Eston.
March 31; Jackson and
SLIGO (Marchioness of), Eccleston-sq. Feb. 28; Trower, Still, Parkin.
TAYLOR (Edwin Young), Newport. March 27; R. F. Eldridge and J. B.
THOMAS (Henry), Hobart, Tasmania. March 15; Snow, Fox, and Higgin-
TOMMEY (Alice), West Burton. March 2; E. B. Johnson, West Burton,
TONGUE (Katharine). Teignmouth. March 16; Jordan and Son, Teignmouth.
TEAGUE (Martha), Blackheath. March 15, F. W. Hughes and Son, 103, Edgware-rd, W.
URQUHART (Capt. Edward Frederick Maltby). Elm Park-grdns, S.W. March 25; Meade and Balmer, 22, Red Lion-sq. W.C.
WRIGHT (Henry), Wallington. March 25; Rivers and Milne, 88, Gracechurch-st, E.C.
WATKIN, otherwise JOSEPH-WATKIN (Annie Emma), Dolgelly. March 25; White and Leonard, Bank-bldgs, Ludgate-cir, E.C.
WYATT (Marianne), Llandudno. March 1; Chamberlain and Johnson, Llandudno.
WOODALL (William Otter), Scarborough. March 31; F. Bedwell, Scarborough.
WODEHOUSE (Right Hon. Edmund Robert), Chester-sq, and Farnborough, March 15; Hills, Godfrey, and Halsey, 23, Queen Anne's-gate, Westminster, S.W. WOGAN-BROWNE (Vera). Fethard. March 31; Hasties, 65, Lincoln's-innflds, W.C.
WALKER (Peter Arthur Carlaw), Osmaston Manor. March 31; Rutherfords Liverpool.
WOOD (James John), Hardway. April 1; Churcher and Churcher. Gosport.
WALKER (Philip), Little Perdis well. March 31; W. W. Bannister, Stourbridge.
WOODROFFE (Charles Showler), Crouch End. April 10, Hays, Roughton, and Dunn, 11-12, Clements-la, E.C.
WATTS (Albert), Woking. March 20; J. W. Barton, Woking.
LEGAL ASPECT OF THE BRITISH PHARMACOPŒIA,
A MEETING of the Medico-Legal Society was held at 11, Chandosstreet, Cavendish-square, W., on Tuesday, the 16th inst., Professor Harvey Littlejohn, M.A., M.B., F.R.S.E. (president), taking the chair.
Mr. H. Wippell Gadd, F.C.S. (Middle Temple), read a paper entitled "Some Medico-Legal Aspects of the new Pharmacopoeia.' Reviewing the history of the production of the Pharmacopoeia and the scope of its authority, he said that, by the Medical Act of 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. 9), the duty was cast upon the General Medical Council of publishing a book to be called the British Pharmacopoeia, but this Act did not make such book binding on any person or body of persons. By the Medical Act of 1862 exclusive rights were given to the General Medical Council of publishing, printing, and selling the British Pharmacopoeia, and by sect. 15 of the Pharmacy Act 1868 a penalty was provided against any person who should compound any medicine of the British Pharmacopoeia except according to the formularies of the said Pharmacopoeia. That referred to compounding as distinct from selling, and it was obvious that it would always be difficult to prove such an offence. As a matter of fact, he had not been able to find any record of this part of the section having ever been put into force. Strangely enough, the enforcement of the standards set up by the British Pharmacopoeia by penal proceedings had only been effected under the terms of Acts in which it was not mentioned. He was speaking of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, under which there had been several leading cases: (White v. Byewater. 19 Q B. Div. 582; Dickins v. Randerson, 84 L. T. Rep. 204; (1901) 1 K. B. 437; Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Limited v. Cowling, 88 L. T. Rep. 239; Hudson v. Bridge, 88 L T. Rep. 550; and Fowle v. Fowle, 65 L. T. Rep. 514). The general effect of those cases was that when a compounded medicine was demanded by a name which occurred in the Pharmacopoeia, an article made in accordance with the formula and answering the tests, if any, of the Pharmacopoeia was presumed to be required, and that only very strong evidence to the contrary would suffice to rebut such a presumption. It was noteworthy, however, that all these cases dealt only with simple commercial transactions--that was to say, the actual sales of medicinal preparations. None of them had to do with the dispensing of physicians' prescriptions-a transaction which, though usually involving a sale, differed from a sale pure and simple. He desired to draw attention particularly to the question as to what are the legal relations involved in dispensing, and he submitted that when a prescription was presented by the owner thereof-i.e., usually the person who has paid a physician a fee for, inter alia, writing the prescription-for dispensing, and the pharmacist accepted it for that purpose, a contract was tacitly made between the parties to the effect that the pharmacist would translate the prescription and make up the medicine in accordance with what appeared to him, in the light of his technical training and experience, to be the intention of the prescriber. The Pharmacopoeia was not published until the 31st Dec. 1914 and came into operation on the following day. He would ask them to consider the position of a pharmacist to whom was presented a prescription dated on or after the 1st Jan. 1915, when the new British Pharmacopoeia came into fo ce. Was he necessarily bound to make up-was he, indeed, always justified in making upsuch a prescription with ingredients compounded in accordance with the formula, and answering to the tests, and conforming to the standards therein contained? He submitted that in some cases it was conceivable that, by so doing, the pharmacist might lay himself open to an action for negligence for not exercising such skill and knowledge as would be presumed to be that of an ordinary and average practitioner of his profession. In an extreme case the negligence might be such as to incur criminal liability and to justify a prosecution for manslaughter, although there might, and doubtless would, be contributory negligence on the part of the prescriber, for which he also might have to answer. In proof of this he cited a striking example-that of tincture of strophanthus, which, after the formula given in the new Pharmacopoeia was far too strong and which was, therefore. dangerous in use, owing to its toxic effect upon the heart. It might be noted that the following appeared in the preface to the Pharmacopoeia: "It must be clearly understood that the 'doses mentioned in the Pharmacopoeia are not authoritatively enjoined by the council as binding upon prescribers. They are intended merely for general guidance, and represent in each instance the average range of the quantities which, in ordinary cases, are usually prescribed for adults. The medical practitioner will exercise his own judgment and act on his own responsibility in respect of the amount of any therapeutic agent he may prescribe or administer. Where, however, an unusually large
dose appears to be prescribed, it is the duty of the pharmacist, or dispenser, to satisfy himself that the prescriber's intention has been correctly interpreted." This solemn enunciation of an obvious platitude did not affect the legal question. It was undoubtedly the duty of the pharmacist or dispenser, a duty which had always been honourably carried out, to satisfy himself that the prescriber's intention had been correctly interpreted, but he (Mr. Wippell Gadd) submitted that it was ultra vires for the General Medical Council to take cognisance of such duty, the function of that body in this respect being confined to setting up standards which should be available to practitioners on the one hand and dispensers on the other. Among the changes made by the new Pharmacopoeia, tincture of opium, known popularly as laudanum had been increased in strength, and had thereby become liable to the more stringent regulations governing articles in Part 1 of the Poisons Schedule. From a public and medical point of view it was doubtless an unmixed benefit that the sale of laudanum by retail should be restricted as much as possible, but it was curious that it should be necessary, in order to check the use of a drug, to increase its strength, and it was evident that such a sudden increase of strength might in itself be a source of danger. In concluding he directed attention to a concrete suggestion for dealing with the whole matter, which was put forward by the President of the British Pharmaceutical Conference in 1913 in a Bill, the terms of which he (Mr. Wippell Gadd) was associated with him in settling. The Bill proposed that the powers in relation to the Pharmacopoeia now exercised by the General Medical Council should be transferred to a new body constituted ad hoc, to be called the British Imperial Pharmacopeia Commission, to consist of medical men and pharmacists practising in the United Kingdom and the colonies, chemists, an analyst, and a barrister-at-law of not less than five years' standing, who was to be appointed by the Treasury. It was further proposed that new editions of the Pharmacopoe'a, which should be issued at intervals not exceeding ten years, should in every case be published six months before they became authoritative, so that those concerned might become familiarised with any new standards before their practice was required to be governed by them. When Parliament was able to resume its legislative activity, it was hoped that early attention would be devoted to this important subject.
SOLICITORS' MANAGING CLERKS' ASSOCIATION. MR. JUSTICE ATKIN presided at a meeting of the Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association, in Gray's-inn Hall, on Friday, the 19th inst.
Mr. Frank Newbolt, K.C., lectured upon "The Sale of Goods." After referring to a number of leading cases upon the subject, he said he must offer a word of warning. It was important, as well as comparatively easy, to remember cases, but it was much more important-nay, absolutely essential-to remember the Act. Compared with the actual words of the code, previous judicial decisions were of little moment. He would emphasise the principle that, in considering the case of every_client, it was necessary to go to the Act itself for one's law. Reported cases were often, if not always, apt to mislead, and, in particular, the man who lived on headnotes courted disaster. But his warning went much farther. You might know by heart everything that Lord Bramwell had ever said about the subject, and he said much; you might have a favourite and well-annotated copy of Blackburn on the effect of the contract of sale; you might speak with the tongue of Cairns or of Selborne; but if you had not the Act before you your clients' interests were not safe. It would be seen by the Act that the law relating to the sale of goods was, unfortunately, not the same in England as in Scotland, for the law on this everyday subject ought surely to be the same in every civilised country, and there could be no object in retaining two systems of jurisprudence in the British Isles. After citing a number of cases as examples to illustrate the importance of having a mind active to apply first principles to the facts of a particular case, he directed attention to possible difficulties which might arise in considering a claim or a defence in connection with a sale of goods, and suggested the course that was desirable in order to bring out the principles of action which should, he conceived, influence the practising lawyer. Speaking of the relation of the Act to the summary jurisdiction of the High Court, he said that about 90 per cent. of the judgments were signed under Order XIV., and of these a vast number were concerned with the sale of goods. What a lot of money was annually wasted in litigation owing to mistakes which could be avoided by a careful perusal of the Act! A specially indorsed writ was very often issued by the seller of goods and followed by a summons for judgment, when he was only entitled to damages. Specific interest was claimed on overdue purchase money, or sect. 4 was overlooked. The defendant might also overlook this
obstacle, or he might repudiate a contract for breach of a condition when he should claim damages by way of set-off and counterclaim for breach of warranty. These mistakes were sometimes costly, and were due to the negligence of some practitioner who had not recently studied the Act. As regarded sect. 4, it was much more important to be textually familiar with its words than to know how they differed from those of sect. 17 of the repealed Statute of Frauds which it superseded. There were points of difference, and they might be due to an all-wise Legislature or to a negligent draftsman, but it was only the existing words which mattered. The lecturer read the section and pointed out how misconceptions might arise. He then dealt in detail with the question of property in goods, how it passed and revested, and how the Act helped one to understand the purely theoretical aspect of the transfer of property it created, concluding with a typical example as an illustration of the difficulties which might arise in this connection. If such questions excited the curiosity of those he was addressing, he recommended them to look at the Act, and then to read the case of Groom v. Barker (138 L. T. Jour. 109.)
Mr. Justice Atkin, responding to a vote of thanks, said it was always a matter of great interest to him to attend at these gatherings, because he sympathised entirely with all the objects of the association, and he believed that those lectures did a great deal of good, if it was only to the lecturer and the chairman. There was this feature, in his opinion, about the code, that its authors seemed perhaps to have it would be unfair to say forgotten, but to have failed to attach very much importance to the fact that a very considerable proportion of the commercial contracts for the sale of goods were in respect of goods that were being shipborne, or were going to be or had been shipborne, and very little information was to be found in the code as to the equal relations that resulted from the sale of goods on board ship. There were a great many problems as to goods sold c.i.f., and so on, in respect of which much elucidation would not be found in the code. was perhaps a matter that they, as members of the Legal Profession, could view with equanimity, because it, no doubt, gave rise to a good deal of litigation, not altogether unprofitable to the Profession. But it was a feature of the code that it seemed rather to have dealt with the sale of goods as though this country were not an island, and that all the contracts of sale took place on land, between merchants on land. The object of the code, he supposed, was to simplify the law, and, no doubt, it was in some respects of value to have the principles of law put in a certain number of sec'ions, thirty or forty, so that they might readily be consulted without the necessity of searching a big volume. And he supposed that if a man really knew his law on goods, and the Bills of Exchange Act, and the White Book, he was extremely well qualified to conduct most of the cases that came before him in the course of common law practice. But it would be quite clear, from what had fallen from Mr. Newbolt, and the questions of some difficulty that he had put, that the code was by no means a final settlement of the law relating to the sale of goods, and that it had by no means prevented any difficult questions from arising, and he did not think it would prevent difficult questions from arising in the future. It was apparent, looking at a great many sections of the Sale of Goods Act, that the draftsman of the Act had only found it possible to state the law in a particular section by using general phraseology, which it was extremely difficult to apply to particular cases. And that was the reason why he (Mr Justice Atkin) thought it need not be supposed that there would not be cases upon the law of the sale of goods in the future. The whole question of codification was a difficult one. It certainly was to be considered very carefully whether, in a commercial community, it was useful and valuable to attempt to stereotype by statute principles when the needs of modern civilisation and the needs of commerce were varying from day to day, and when, therefore, it was sometimes difficult to apply a prin iple which had been laid down in the statute to the changing conditions which were being brought into existence by the changing needs of a flourishing commercial community.
LORD JUSTICE BANKES presided at the annual social meeting of this society, which was held on Wednesday in Lincoln's-inn Hall. Among those present were Messrs. Barnard Lailey, K.C., Boydell Houghton, G. Jones, Bell, Master Archibald (chairman of committee), Sir Charles Brickdale, Messrs. F. W. Emery, Harvey Clifton, J. T. Rae (secretary, National Temperance League), G. W. Harrison (hon. treasurer), and R. E. Ross, LL.B. (hon. secretary). Lord Justice Bankes said he did not pretend to have made any sort of serious study of matters relating to temperance, and he
had never been a worker in the temperance cause, but he had really a very sincere respect for Mr. Ross, their secretary, and he had a profound admiration for the constitution of the society. It seemed to him that in recognising, as it did, that there were a number of persons who, whilst not quite agreeing as to the best way of achieving some good purpose, might yet unite for its furtherance the society was doing a most excellent thing. The society had three classes: one for those who gave a pledge of total abstinence, another for those who gave a pledge only to drink intoxicating liquors at meals, and the third class simply pledged themselves to assist the temperance cause. Such a combination was, in his opinion, much more valuable and likely to be successful than if the association confined itself to one special class. The society realised that men were not cast all in the same mould, and how important it was, if you desired to attack your enemy successfully, that you should attack him on a wide front rather than a narrow one. It was easy to make mistakes with regard to temperance as it was with regard to anything else. He had been told by an enthusiastic worker in the temperance cause that many years ago there was a great endeavour to alter the way in which public-houses were fitted up, so as to make them less comfortable by getting rid of the seats and so on, and many were altered so as to have standing bars only. But this had been found to be a great disadvantage and that men went from public house to public-house, and the drinking was worse than before. In the county in which he lived he was concerned in the administration of the licensing laws. A great many enthusiastic people were anxious to shut up every possible publichouse, but a very keen temperance advocate had told him that this had had a bad effect by forcing the men who only wanted a glass or two into the company of habitual heavy drinkers, and harm had resulted So that one should be careful before one dogmatised on matters of temperance, as on everything else. One remarkable thing that had been noticed as the result of the present terrible war was the extraordinary diminution of crime which had taken place. He had made inquiries in regard to the gaols of North Wales and had ascertained that there were only eight prisoners there, which included those who were sent there for debt. Many thoughtless people said that was because the thieves and rascals had gone into the army. That was a libel. His experience among the criminal classes, as a judge, had led him to believe that there were very few people who were wholly bad. There were a great many people who, from force of circumstances, were unable, although they desired to do so, to resist the temptation to take too much drink, and, as a result, they committed breaches of the law. His experience was that a very large percentage of crime was due, directly or indirectly, to drink. Those men who might have got into mischief if they had not enlisted were now showing their good side instead of their bad side, and, under discipline and with good food, they were able to resist temptation. They had no desire to do wrong; their wish and intention was to do right, and his belief was that they would make most admirable soldiers. What was to happen when the war was over? Would it not be possible for people to realise the advantage of being united in the face of the common enemy? The real enemy was the abuse of alcohol in this country, and should not we be able, if we were united, to do something serious to diminish that abuse? One very efficient way of doing this would be to create a strong public opinion. Drunkenness among the upper classes had been put an end to by public opinion, and by nothing else The clubs had not been shut up, nor had the wine merchants' offices. Public opinion alone had done it. Again, he could not help thinking that there was a good deal of drinking brought about because a man could get no proper food, or proper variety of food, at home, and he found his way in consequence to the public house. Further, he bel eved that if only the practice of standing drinks could be stopped, it would be an enormous step in the cause of temperance; and, if only public opinion could be set against it, it would be stopped. It was a great evil. It ought to be bad form to be stood a drink. If that could only be made the public opinion of the country, he was sure that great good would be done.
Addresses were also delivered by the Bishop of Southwark, the Hon. Lady Barlow, and Mr. W. Joynson-Hicks, who, as a member of the solicitor branch of the Profession, spoke of the great improvement which had taken place in respect of temperance amongst those connected with the law within his own experience.
Master Archibald, in moving a vote of thanks, said that Lord Justice Bankes was a very good friend of the society and had taken great interest in its work. A propos of the fact that this was the first occasion on which a lady had spoken at an annual meeting, he said that recently he had had two lady solicitors' clerks before him in chambers. One of them, a lady who had reached years of discretion, showed her discretion by saying very little, but she looked volumes and as if she was certain that he would decide in her favour. The other was a very modest young lady, who threw herself absolutely upon his sympathies. This
led him to think that great dangers were likely to come in with the advent of lady clerks into the Profession.
A very admirable programme of music was furnished by Miss Adelaide Rind, Miss Ivy Angove, Miss Jenny Hyman, and Mr. Harrington Bamford.
THE annual meeting of the Sussex Law Society was held at the Law Library, 69, Ship-street, Brighton, on Tuesday, the 16th inst.: Present, Mr. E. H. Blaker (in the chair), Messrs. J. C. Buckwell, B. Bunker, G. Cheeseman, W. H. Cockburn, G. Denman, T. Eggar, S. V. Farrington, A. F. Griffith, A. O. Jennings, J. Lord Thompson, E. M. Rollinson, W. Stevens, C. H. Waugh, H. M. Welsford, H. M. Williams, and A. C. Borlase (hon. secretary). The annual report and statement of accounts were adopted, the latter showing a credit balance of 281 28. 11d. The report stated (inter alia): (1) that there were 113 members of the society and four library subscribers; (2) that at least fourteen members of the society and ten articled clerks from Brighton and the neighbourhood were serving in the army in various capacities, one articled clerk (Mr. Cyril Pope) having been killed in action; (3) that the society in conjunction with the parent society had recently prosecuted an army officer for acting as a solicitor without being properly qualified, and that on conviction he was fined 71. Mr. A. O. Jennings, Brighton, was elected President for the ensuing year. The committees were elected as follows: General committee, H. Cane, G. Cheesman, T. Eggar, F. B. Stevens, C. H. Waugh, H. M. Williams, A. C. Woolley, the president, the ex-president, the hon. treasurer, and the hon. secretary; library committee, H. Cane, G. F. Donne, S. V. Farrington, E. W. Hobbs, H. W. Skinner, F. B. Stevens, H. M. Williams, the president, the ex-president, and the hon. secretary; education committee, the president, H. M. Blaker, T. Eggar, S. V. Farrington, E. W. Hobbs, F. B. Stevens. and A. C. Woolley. Mr. C. Somers Clarke was re-elected hon. treasurer, and Mr. Arthur C. Borlase hon. secretary. A vote of thanks was passed to the president, the committee, the auditors, and the officers.
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY-At a meeting held on Tuesday at University College (Mr. R. F. Levy, pre ident, in the chair) the subject for debate was : "That mutual consent shall be recognised as a ground for divorce." The meeting was a record one for the society in point of attendance. Of the twenty-seven present six were ladies, among them being Mrs. Tiedeman, secretary of the Divorce Law Reform Union, Mrs. How Martyn, and Mrs. Haig. Miss Ashworth opened in the affirma ive, and Mr. W. H. Easty in the negative. The following also spoke Messrs. C. F. Inniss, E. M. Duke, H. P. Wells, H. Todd Thornbery, E. Thatcher, R. H. Gregorowski, B. K. Mantri, Lieutenant H. F. Silverwood, Miss Alton, Mrs. How Martyn, and Mrs. Tiedeman. The leaders replied, and, on the motion being put to the meeting, it was lost by fourteen votes to thirteen.
PROMOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS.
Mr. ROBERT ARTHUR GRIFFITH has been appointed Stipendiary Magistrate at Merthyr Tydvil in the place of the late Sir Thomas Marchant Williams. Mr. Griffith was called by the Middle Temple in 1903, and joined the North Wales, Chester, and Glamorganshire Ci cuit.
Mr. JAMES WILLIAM MURISON, First Assistant Judge of His Majesty's Court for Zanzibar, has been appointed Judge of that court. Mr. Murison was called by the Middle Temple in 1896.
Mr. THOMAS SYMONDS TOMLINSON, Second Assistant Judge of His Majesty's Court for Zanzibar, has been appointed Assistant Judge of that court .Mr. Tomlinson was called by the Inner Temple in 1901.
NOTES AND QUERIES.
(Q. 25.) MORTGAGEE-EMERGENCY POWERS.-See LAW TIMES for the 23rd ult., p. 284, answer to Query 11. GLAUCOPIS.
I suggest the appointment of a receiver under the Conveyancing Act 1881, who would, as the agent of the mortgagor, not oust the latter from possession. Such an appointment would clearly not necessitate any application to the court under the Act. For myself, I do not see why the mortgagee should not give notice to the tenants to pay their rents to his own agent independently of the Act. Such a notice does not, I think, amount to an entry into possession. No distraint could, of course, be made upon them unless they were tenants at the date of mortgage or until they had attorned tenant to the mortgagee, as by paying rent to his agent, which they usually do without much trouble. Certainly under the Act no distress could in any case be made without leave of the court; but has any reader noticed that the distress, &c., must be for the purpose of enforcing the payment of money to which sub-sect. (b) of sect. 1 applies and considered to what money it does in fact apply? It only appears in terms to apply to enforcing the lapse of certain life or endowment policies and not to any of the other acts referred to in the sub-section. If this is correct, then no application is necessary in the cases to which we are referring.
This department being open to free discussion on all Professional topics, the Editor does not hold himself responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it.
TRUSTEES AND WAR RISKS.-I am one of three trustees of London buildings on a main thoroughfare near important Government buildinge, and not so far from St. Paul's Cathedral that an aircraft bomb, aimed from a height at either, might not fall on our clock. The property was in mortgage to an insurance company. That company gave us the name of insurers of war risks that they could recommend. Your correspondent "Glaucopis," answering Query 24, has said that in his view it cannot be successfully argued that a prudent man would "necessarily" insure against war risks. The word "necessarily" does not occur in the well-known axiom of a trustee's duty as similar to that of a prudent man. At the time I refer to, public authorities were seriously insisting on unusual precautions. All principal streets were darkened, particularly so round public buildings, and lights in buildings had to be obscured. Absolute owners were rushing to insure. We trustees insured. Surely we only did what prudent men then thought it important to do. Had we not insured, and damage occurred, the mortgagees might rightly have contended we had not exercised prudence, and made us liable. Is it not a question of what experience has taught now? I shall be glad to have further opinion of your eaders. JOSA.
LANDLORDS AND HIRE-PURCHASE AGREEMENTS.-I venture to address you on a subject which, in my opinion, is of very great importance to landlords. Sects. 1 and 2 of the law of Distress Amendment Act 1908 protect, under certain conditions, from distress the goods of any tenants, lodgers, and other persons not being tenants, and not having any beneficial interest in the tenancy of the premises; but by sect. 4 the said Act is not to apply to any goods comprised in any bill of sale, hire-purchase agreement, or settlement made by the tenant, nor to goods in the possession, order, or disposition of such tenant by the consent and permission of the true owner under such circumstances that such tenant is the reputed owner thereof. In the case of Shenstone v. Freeman (102 L. T. Rep. 682), the defendant, a broker, distained for rent due to the landlord from his tenant on a pianoforte let by the plaintiff to the wife of the tenant on a hirepurchase agreement, in consideration of monthly payments, on the terms that in case of default in payment of the monthly sums the plaintiff might retake possession of the piano. At the date of the seizure the monthly payments were in arrear. The plaintiff