« EelmineJätka »
according to law; (2) that they had failed to act judicially in determining the applications; and (3) that they were actuated by extraneous conditions - namely, the shareholding and nationality of shareholders and directors of the London and Provincial Electric Theatres Company Limited. By sect. 2 of the Cinematograph Act 1909 a county council may grant licences to such persons as they think fit to use the premises specified in the licence for the purposes aforesaid—that is, for the exhibition of pictures or other optical effects by means of a cinematograph, &c. The facts were as follows: The applicants applied for a renewal of the cinematograph and music licences in question. At the time of the applications for renewal this country was at war with Germany; three out of the six directors of the company were German and the bulk of the shares were held by persons of German nationality. In these circumstances the council had to consider whether renewals could be granted with due regard to the public interest. There was no suggestion that apart from the existence of the war there was any ground for refusal, and no complaint had been made as to the way in which the company had carried on its business in the past. It had been contended before the council that during the war the German directors would cease to act, and that the shareholders of enemy nationality could not receive any dividends for their shares, so that their existence was immaterial. The council refused to renew the licences, and the above rules were then obtained. For the county council it was contended that the matter was entirely in the discretion of the council, and for the applicants it was contended that the council had taken into account extraneous matter as the German directors could exercise no influence in the company during the war. The · Divisional Court held (discharging the rules), that the matter was in the discretion of the council, and the court would not interfere with the exercise of that discretion by granting a mandamus. The applicants appealed. The respondents were not called upon at the hearing of the appeal.
Held, that it had not been shown that the respondents had taken into account any extraneous considerations. The decision of the Divisional Court was right, and the appeal must be dismissed.
[Rex v. London County Council; Ex parte London and Provincial Theatres Limited. Ct. of App.: Buckley, Pickford, and Bankes, LJJ. March 22 and 23.-Counsel: for the applicants, George Elliott, K.C., Gordon Hewart, K.C., and W. Frampton; for the respondents, Sir Robert Finlay, K.C. and A. H. Bodkin. Solicitors: Sterns; Edward Tanner.] Insurance (Marine) Policy Collision Damage between insured Ship and other Ship-Backwash-Collision between other Ship and third Ship.
Appeal by the defendants from the judgment of Bailhache, J., reported 137 L. T. Jour. 319. The plaintiffs, owners of the steamship C., sued the defendants, underwriters of a policy of marine insurance dated the 8th Sept. 1911 for one year upon the hull and machinery of the C. valued at £19,000, in the sum of £1300. The policy contained the following clause: "It is further agreed that if the ship hereby insured shall come into collision with any other ship or vessel and the insured shall in consequence thereof become liable to pay and shall pay by way of damages to any other person or persons any sum or sums not exceeding in respect of any one such collision the value of the ship hereby insured, this company will pay the assured such proportion of three-fourths of such sum or sums so paid as its subscription hereto bears to the value of the ship hereby insured, and in cases where the liability of the ship has been contested or proceedings have been taken to limit liability with the consent in writing of this company, the company will also pay a like proportion of three-fourths of the costs which the assured shall thereby incur or be compelled to pay." On the 4th Oct. 1911 the C. was going up the Seine with another vessel called the R. The C. desired to pass the R. and gave the necessary signals. While the C. was passing the R., another vessel, the G., was coming down the river. In order to avoid the R. and the G., the C. drew too near the R. by negligent steering, the result being that they touched, and the R. struck the C. a glancing blow, in consequence of which very little damage was done to either vessel. The C. ran into the bank, and the backwash from her propeller operated on the starboard bow of the R., and she came into collision with the G., the damage being large, which the owners of the C. were ultimately held liable to pay to the R. Bailhache, J. held that the defendants were liable under the policy as the forces set in operation by the C. caused the collision. The defendants appealed.
Held, that the collision with the G. was in consequence of the collision of the C., and that the C. by this collision caused the R. to come into contact with the G. Appeal dismissed. [William France, Fenwick, and Co. Limited v. Merchant Marine Insurance Company Limited. Ct. of App.: Lord
Reading, C.J., Swinfen Eady, L.J., and Bray, J. March 12, 16, 17, and 18.-Counsel: for the appellants, Sir R. B Finlay, K.C., Leslie Scott, K.C., and MacKinnon, K.C.; for the respondents, Roche, K. C. and Balloch. Solicitors: for the appellants, Waltons and Co.; for the respondents, Botterell and Roche.] Insurance (Marine)-Policy-“ Held covered”—Subject-matter— Misdescription-Honest Misapprehension.
Appeal by the defendants from a judgment of Bailhache, J. reported 111 L. T. Rep. 839; (1914) 3 K. B. 1131. The plaintiffs claimed under a policy of marine insurance dated the 23rd July 1912 for £100, which was subscribed by the defendants at and from London to Malta, and expressed to be on four cases of printing machinery in the ships G and O, against ordinary marine perils, including risk of breakage. The policy contained a replacement clause, and also the following clause on an attached slip: In the event of deviation being made from the voyage hereby insured, or of any incorrect definition of the interest insured, it is agreed to hold the assured covered at a premium (if any) to be arranged." The machinery in question was in fact second hand. The plaintiffs' ca e was that certain of the machinery was damaged by reason of perils insured against-viz., by breakage during the insured voyage and while it was covered by the policy-and was damaged and broken on arrival at Malta. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that the fact that the machinery was secondhand was not disclosed to them, and that, therefore, they were entitled to avoid the policy. Bailhache, J. held that, as the plaintiffs honestly thought that to describe secondhand machinery as "machinery was a sufficient and correct description of the interest insured, there was such a mistake or misapprehension as entitled them to rely on the "held covered" clause. The defendants appealed.
Held, that the mistake in the description of the interest insured, which must mean the subject-matter of the assurance, was such as entitled the plaintiffs to rely on the " held covered " clause. Appeal dismissed.
[Hewitt Brothers v. Wilson and others. Ct. of App.: Lord Reading, C.J., Swinfen Eady, L.J., and Bray, J. March 23 and 24.-Counsel: for the appellants, Compston, K C. and MacKinnon, K.C; for the respondents, Langdon, K.C. and Dobb. Solicitors: for the appellan's, Ballantyne, Clifford, and Hett; for the respondents, Ashley, Tee, and Sons.]
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-CHANCERY DIVISION. Administration Income of Residue till P yment of Debts, Legacies, and Duties-Period of more than a Year from Death of Testator-Adjustment.
A testator by his will, dated the 14th Dec. 1908, gave his real and personal estate not otherwise disposed of to his trustees in trust to sell and pay out of the proceeds all debts, legacies, funeral and testamentary expenses, annuities, and duties, and to divide the residue into nine equal shares and to invest and pay the income of one ninth share to each of his three daughters during her life with remainders over. He further authorised his trustees to postpone the sale and conversion of the whole or any part as long as they should think proper, and directed that the income from his estate should after his death be treated as income and no part of it added to the capital. The testator died on the 18th Feb 1909, leaving a very large estate, the payments in respect of which were not concluded until some five years after the testator's demise. This summons raised the question of the adjustment of the accounts as between the tenants for life and the remaindermen of the daughters' shares and as to whether a scheme devised by the accountants for the estate should be adopted or not.
Held, that the clause in the will did not displace the rule in Allhusen v. Whittell (16 L. T. Rep. 695; L. Rep. 4 Eq. 295) and Re McEwen (109 L. T. Rep. 701; (1913) 2 Ch. 704), which should continue after the expiration of the first year; that the suggested scheme was not the true principle upon which to proceed; and that the tenant for life was not entitled to income on any part of the estate which was used for the discharge of liabilities after the first year.
[Re Wills; Wills v. Hamilton. Ch. Div.: Sargant, J. March 16.-Counsel: Grant, K.C. and R. F. MacSwinney; Romer, K.C. and E. Knowles Corrie; Martelli, K.C. and H. J. H. Mackay. Solicitors: Adams and Adams; Russell, Caoke, and Co.]
Leaseholds-Restriction on Assignment-Company-Receiver and Manager for Debenture-holders-Contract to sell-Executors of Owner of Frehold-Refusal to grant Licence to assign-Application to Court for leave to assign without Licence.
Summons raising the question whether assignees of a leasehold interest under a sub-lease for over seventy years dated the 24th July 1899 were entitled to assign that interest with
out licence from their immediate lessors. The sub-lease contained a clause which provided that "the lessees will not at any time during the said term assign or sublet the said demised premises." It was also provided that the expression "the lessees" used therein should, where the context admitted, include besides the lessees their respective executors or administrators, while the words "the lessors" should include their executors, administrators, or assigns. The facts were as follows: When the assignment took place in 1899 to R. S. and Co. Limited, a licence to assign was obtained from the lessors. In 1900 the company sub-demised the property to the trustees for the debenture-holders of the company, and on this occasion also a licence to demise was obtained. In 1906 a receiver and manager was appointed by the court of the assets of the company, which included the property at Hebburn, in the parish of Jarrow, county of Durham, in respect of which this difficulty as to the licence to assign arises. In 1910 the receiver entered into an agreement with P.'s Shipbuilding and Iron Company Limited for a tenancy of the shipyard belonging to R. S. and Co. Limited, at Hebburn, with the option to P.'s Company to purchase the property for cash or for a larger sum in debentures of a company to be formed. P.'s Company took up the option. The executors of one of the lessors refused his licence to assign without an undertaking from P.'s Company; hence this application.
Held, that the lessees were not entitled to assign or sublet without the consent of the lessors.
[Re Robert Stephenson and Co. Limited; Poole v. The Company (No. 2). Ch. Div.: Sargant, J. March 11, 12, and 23. Counsel for the appellant, Mark Romer, K.C. and G. M. Simmonds; for the executors of the lessors, A. L. Ellis; for Palmer's Company, Percy Wheeler; for the newly-formed company, E. D. Cheetham Strode. Solicitors: Slaughter and May; Rawle, Johnstone, and Co., for Cooper and Goodger, Newcastle-on-Tyne; Roney and Co.]
KING'S BENCH DIVISION. Arbitration-Legal Misconduct of Arbitrators-Importing Clause from previous Contract-Non-finality and Inconclusiveness of Award-Suspension of Delivery under Sugar Contract-Royal Commission on Sugar.
By a contract of the 14th May 1914, the sellers sold to the buyers 500 bags of sugar, at 15s. 3d. per cwt., for delivery of 250 bags each month during Nov. and Dec. 1914. On the 12th Oct. 1914 the sellers wrote to the buyers that, as the Royal Commission on Sugar had forbidden the delivery at the contract price of any sugar sold before the war and made from Government supplies, they regretted that they had no alternative but to suspend delivery of the November-December contract. On the 13th Oct. 1914 the sellers were informed that the Royal Commission on Sugar were not interfering with any sugar bought before the war, but would not allow any contracts to be completed out of their sugar, and that all forward sales could be liquidated with sugar outside of their supplies. On the 14th Oct. the sellers wrote to the buyers that their covering against the said sale was cancelled by the war clause, and, as the Royal Commission had forbidden the sale of sugar at less than the current price, they were compelled to suspend delivery under the contract. In fact there was no war clause in their contract of the 14th May, which, however, contained a clause referring disputes to arbitration. There had been previous contracts between the buyers and the sellers, and in one instance-viz., under a contract of the 7th Oct. 1912-there was a clause for suspending deliveries for (inter alia) " causes beyond control of sellers." Ultimately the questions under the contract of the 14th May 1914 were referred to arbitration, and an award was made that the sellers were entitled to suspend delivery under the contract of the 14th May 1914. In the proceedings at the arbitration one of the arbitrators brought forward the consideration that it was perfectly well known to everyone in the sugar trade that the sellers sold only upon certain terms as to suspension of deliveries; and he produced the contract of the 7th Oct. 1912 as evidence that the buyers knew of the above-mentioned terms, but he stated that he did not contend that the contract of the 17th Oct. 1912 in any way governed the contract under discussion. The buyers moved to set aside the award (1) on the ground that it was not final and was uncertain as it did not decide for what periods or on what events the sellers were entitled to suspend deliveries, nor what the rights or obligations of the parties were in the events that had happened or would be after the period of suspension; and (2) that it was wrong in law and bad on the face of it as the contract contained no provision for the suspension of deliveries.
Held, that the award must be set aside on the grounds that there was legal misconduct by the arbitrators in taking into
consideration a contract other than the contract referred to them, and that it was inconclusive and not final.
[Walford, Baker, and Co. v. Macfie and Sons. K. B. Div. : Lush and Atkin, JJ. March 16 and 17. Counsel: A. M. Latter; A. R. Kennedy. Solicitors: Rehder and Higgs; Simpson, North, Harley, and Co., Liverpool.]
Insurance (Marine)-Policy-Valued Policy-Total Loss-Subrogation-Right of paying Underwriters to be subrogated.
The plaintiffs insured the defendants' ship H. for one year from the 20th May 1912 for 45,000l. against ordinary sea perils by a policy dated the 6th June 1912 in which the H. was valued at 45,000l. During the currency of the policy the H. came into collision with the E, and was totally lost. A collision action was brought by the shipowners, and both vessels were held to blame, and the blame was apportioned, the owners of the H. having to pay seven-twelfths and the owners of the E. five-twelfths of the damage. The registrar took the value of the ship as at the 15th Nov. 1912, the end of the current season, and fixed it at 65,000l. He took the loss of hire up to the same date and assessed it at 2000. The shipowners appealed, and the President held that the value of the ship should be taken in Nov. 1917, and the hire assessed to that date, and remitted the report to the registrar for reconsideration of the figures on that basis. On coming before the registrar the parties compromised, and agreed on a lump sum of £67,000 for the two items under consideration, being the same total as the registrar had awarded, without apportioning it. The owners of the E. had no interest in the apportionment. Five-twelfths of the £67,000 was accordingly paid, being £26,000 odd. The underwriters, who had paid for a total loss of the H., then claimed to be subrogated to the payment received for the loss of that ship from the E. The shipowners replied that this payment was based on a value which was not the insured value, and that the underwriters could only receive five-twelfths of the insured value (£45,000), which, when set off against sums due from the underwriters under the running-down clause, left nothing payable.
Held, (1) that the underwriters were entitled to recover to the extent to which they had paid in respect of the subject-matter insured any sums which the defendants had received in respect of the loss of the same subjectmatter, although that sum was based on a larger value than the insured value; and (2) that, as the underwriters only insured the ship for one year, they were not concerned with the value of the ship in 1917, and that as on the evidence the value of the ship at the time of the loss must be taken to be £65,000, in respect of which the defendants had received from the owners of the E. £26,900, the underwriters were entitled to be subrogated to the defendants to the full amount of £26,900, and to recover from the defendants the difference between that sum and the £19,600 payable under the running-down clause.
[Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Company Limited v. British and Chilian Steamship Company Limited. K. B. Div. Com. Ct. Scrutton. J. March 1-Counsel: Maurice Hill, K.C. and D. Stephens; Leslie Scott, K.C. and Raeburn. Solicitors: Alfred Bright and Sons, for Batesons, Warr, and Wimshurst, Liverpool; Rawle, Johnstone, and Co., for Hill Dickinson, and Co., Liverpool.]
Life Assurance-Policy under Life Assurance Act 1909, s. 36— Several Policies on same Life-Liability of Insurance Society.
In an action in the Shoreditch County Court, D. W., a married woman, claimed £19 against a collecting society, on a policy, under the provisions of sect. 36 of the Assurance Companies Act 1909, for that amount, payable on the death of her, mother, F. G., and in the alternative for the return of premiums. Other members of D. W.'s family had also insured F. G. under similar policies to the amount of £279 13s. 9d., and had been paid £240. D. W. herself was paid by three insurance offices various sums of £24, £24, and £22 4s. on policies that she had taken out on the life of her mother. The County Court judge gave judgment for the plaintiff for £10. From this decision the plaintiff appealed, asking that judgment might be entered for her for the full amount claimed-viz., £19-or in the alternative for the sum of £2 88. 9d., the amount of premiums paid by the plaintiff over and above the amount which would have been payable on a policy of £10. The society also appealed on the ground that the policy sued upon was one of a series not effected for the purpose of insuring money to be paid for the funeral expenses of a parent, but by way of gaming, contrary to the provisions of the Life Assurance Act 1874, and was therefore void; and upon the further ground that the plaintiff had already received under other policies sums of money largely in excess of those she was called upon to pay in respect of funeral
Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover under the policy, that the premiums could not be recovered, and that judgment must be entered for the defendants on both claims. [Wolenberg v. Royal Co-operative Collecting Society. K. B. Div.: Lush and Atkin. March 17 and 18.-Counsel: David White; Lincoln Reed. Solicitors: S. A. Clenen and Co.; W. B. Glasier.] Sale of Goods-C.i.f. Contract-Payment against Shipping Documents-Moratorium-Effect of Postponement of Payment Proclamation, Aug. 6, 1914.
On the 12th June 1914 the plaintiff bought from the defendant five chests of opium at £117 per chest, shipment from Calcutta during July 1914, payment cash against documents on steamer's arrival. On the 30th July 1914 the plaintiff was notified by the defendant that the opium was on the steamship N. due in London on the 9th Aug. 1914. She arrived in fact on the 17th Aug. The parties discussed questions and corresponded as to the effect of the moratorium proclamations on their contract. The learned judge found that the defendant never tendered the shipping documents, and refused to complete the contract; and that the plaintiff did not dispense
with the tender of the documents or announce his intention of repudiating before the defendant had an opportunity of tendering. The plaintiff bought opium against the defendant, and claimed the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time he bought against the defendant.
Held, that the moratorium did not apply to a c.i.f. contract. [Happe v. Manasseh. K. B. Div. Com. Ct.: Sankey, J. March 10 and 12.-Counsel: Maurice Hill, K.C. and Morton Smith; Hohler, K.C. and C. M. Pitman. Solicitors: Herbert Oppenheimer and Nathan; Oldman, Cornwall, and Ward Roberts.]
Stock Exchange-Purchase of Shares for particular AccountPostponement of Settlement-Power of Stock Exchange Committee-Moratorium-Interest-Courts (Emergency Powers) Act 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 78), s. 1 (1) (b).
The plaintiff on the 30th July 1914, acting on the instructions of the defendant, bought 100 C. P. Shares at 165 for the mid-August account, which under ordinary circumstances would have been arranged on the 13th Aug. On the 31st July the committee of the Stock Exchange, purporting to act under rule 20 of the Stock Exchange Rules, passed a resolution to the effect that bargains open for the ordinary mid August account were to be settled at the date fixed for the mid-August account on the 27th Aug. On the 6th Aug. the proclamation respecting the moratorium came into force, under which payments which were postponed, if not otherwise carrying interest, should, if specific demand was made for payment and payment was refused, carry interest at the Bank of England rate current on the 7th Aug. 1914, which was 6 per cent. On the 11th Aug. the plaintiff made a specific demand in writing for payment on or before the 13th Aug., and stated that, if payment was refused, the 6 per cent. rate of interest would come into effect, and in the same letter added: "We make to deliver you 100 C. P. sharea." The plaintiff received on the same day a similar letter from the jobber from whom the shares were bought. The Stock Exchange Committee passed further resolutions on the 12th Aug., 4th Sept., and 2nd Oct., by which they further postponed the settlement of bargains till the 18th Nov. The plaintiff gave the defendant notice on the 11th and 19th Nov. that if he did not take up the shares by the 21st Nov. they would be sold. The plaintiff brought the present action to recover the difference in price between the shares when bought and that when sold, and interest from the 13th Aug. at 6 per cent. It was contended on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff was not entitled to sell the shares, that the price was not a reasonable one, and that the defendant was not liable for interest.
Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed, as the plaintiff was entitled to sell the shares as and when he did, and the claim for the difference and interest was therefore maintainable.
[Barnard v. Foster. K. B. Div. Com. Ct.: Sankey, J. March 10, 11, and 15.-Counsel: Gore-Browne. K.C. and Neilson; D. M. Hogg. Solicitors: Morley, Shirreff, and Co.; Timbrell and Deighton.]
From Mr. John Murray comes a book by Dr. T. Baty and Professor J. H. Morgan called War: Its Conduct and Legal Results. The learned authors have endeavoured to fill a gap in legal literature, for it would seem that, though the books on war in international law are many, there is not one on the effect of war upon the laws of the realm. The subjects dealt with cover a wide range, from defence of the realm, treason, espionage, and the law of the air, to trading with the enemy personal property of enemies, domicil, and so on.
That indispensable work, Archbold's Lunacy and Menta Deficiency, a joint publication of Messrs. Butterworth and Co., and Messrs. Shaw and Sons, is now in its fifth edition, and we congratulate Messrs. J. W. Greig, K.C., and W. H. Gattie upon the able way in which they have accomplished the arduous task of revision. This involved the inclusion of five Acts passed since the last edition was issued, and the noting of many new decisions in consequence. The great increase of matter has necessitated a larger page and the deletion of references to the repealed Lunacy Acts, but care has been taken to retain all matter of historical interest. Part 3 is entirely new, incorporating the Mental Deficiency Act of 1913. The index has been rearranged by the editors with great care.
Snell's Principles of Equity is now in its seventeenth edition, which has been arranged by Messrs. H. Gibson Rivington and A. Clifford Fountaine, and is published by Messrs. Stevens and Haynes. Few alterations have been needed in this students' classic. A short chapter on the effect of the Judicature Acts has been added after the introductory chapter, chapters on interpleader and the auxiliary jurisdiction, which seemed somewhat out of place, have been eliminated, and a certain rearrangement of the matter has been effected.
A twelfth edition of Mr. Herbert W. Jordan's Company Law and Practice has reached us from Messrs. Jordan and Sons Limited. Here the requirements of the Companies Acts 1908 and 1913 are concisely set out, together with the provisions of the Stamp Act 1891 and many other statutes which in part affect companies. The book is arranged alphabetically.
From the East Africa Protectorate comes Law Reports, vol. 4, 1911-1912, containing cases determined by the High Court of East Africa, the Court of Appeal, and the Judicial Committee. The reports are compiled by the Chief Justice of the Protectorate, Mr. R. W. Hamilton.
The Constable's Pocket Book, by T. O. Hastings Lees (Shaw and Sons), is a concise manual of police duty and criminal law. The present volume is the fifteenth edition for which Mr. Frank P. Tyrrell is responsible.
From Mr. Effingham Wilson comes a fifth edition of Mr. Charles Beatty's useful little book on Death Duties. It is a practical guide through the intricacies of a complicated subject, that has in no way been simplified by the passing of the Finance Act 1914, which is here noted.
Ridges on the Constitutional Law of England. Second Edition. Stevens and Sons Limited, 119 and 120, Chancery-lane. Price 15s. Glaister on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. Third Edition. E. and F. Livingstone, Edinburgh. Price 15s. net. Stock Exchange Ten-Year Record 1905 to 1914. Frederic C. Mathieson and Sons, 16, Copthall-avenue, E.C.
Heath on First Freehold Chief Rents as an Investment. Second Edition. John Hayward Limited, 20 and 22, Bride-street, E.C. Price 28. net
Smith's Tr nslation of Immanuel Kant's "Perpetual Peace." George Alen and Unwin Limited, Ruskin House, Museumstreet, W.C. Price 23. net.
Betts on "Busones." The Author, 50, Bedford-row, W.C. Price Is. net.
Farnol's Chronicles of the Imp." Sampson Low, Marston, and Co. Limited, 100, Southwark-street, S.E. Price 3s. 6d.
Bristol, Thursday, April 8, at 10.30 Bury St. Edmunds, Monday,
April 12, at 11.15 Cambridge. Thursday, April 8 Cardiff, Friday, April 9, at 10.30 Carlisle. Wednesday, April 7 Carmarthen, Thursday, April 8 Chester, Friday, April 9 Croydon, Wednesday, March 31, at 10
Derby, Thursday, April 8, at 10.30 Devizes, Monday, March 29 Doncaster, Thursday, April 8 Dudley, Monday, April 12. at 10.30
Faversham, Monday, April 12 Folkestone. Monday, April 12, at
Great Yarmouth, Monday, April 19
Grimsby, Tuesday, April 13
Hereford, Friday, April 9
Leeds, Tuesday, March 30
Norwich, Monday, April 12
Portsmouth Thursday, April S
Scarborough, Monday, March 29 Shrewsbury, Wednesday, April 14, at 10.30
Southampton, Wednesday, April 14 Stoke-on-Trent, Tuesday, April 27 Sunderland. Monday, April 12
Thetford, Friday, April 23
Warwick, Thursday, April 1
Wenlock, Friday, April 9.
THE Act on this subject has for its main purpose to make it possible for naval marriages to be solemnised in any legal place where marriages might be solemnised in this kingdom, and its operation is confined to the duration of the war. When the measure was before the Lords, certain changes were made in it which the Commons could not accept without some demur. The Act therefore affords special and temporary facilities in favour of officers, seamen, and marines borne on the books of any of His Majesty's ships where they are one of the parties to an intended marriage. If the parties have duly fulfilled all the conditions required by law to enable them to be married in any
particular place of worship or in any particular district in the United Kingdom, then, by obtaining a certificate from the officer commanding the ship to the effect that owing to the exigencies of the public service the naval party cannot be allowed to proceed to that place of worship or to that district, the marriage can be lawfully solemnised or contracted in any other building in the United Kingdom in which marriages can lawfully be solemnised or contracted as though the parties had duly fulfilled the legal conditions pertaining as to that building. On the Commons receiving the measure from the Lords, they added a proviso, after some considerable debate, which entails that, where the marriage could not have been solemnised elsewhere than in a place of worship of a particular denomination, nothing in the Act will authorise the solemnisation of the marriage elsewhere than in such place of worship. This phrase leaves the law where it stood as regards the place of solemnisation, and it supersedes an amendment by the Archbishop of Canterbury which provided that no marriage after banns could be solemnised elsewhere than in a Church of England building. Another useful addition to these temporary facilities is contained in a section whereby certificates of the publication or proclamation of banns or of notice of marriage issued for the purpose of an intended naval marriage are to be valid for twelve months.
THIS is another Government Act concerned with the navy in which the Lords made certain amendments which in this case were able to command the assent of the Commons. It was introduced by the Attorney-General, and the 1st section abolishes the death penalty for striking superior officers and renders every person punishable by penal servitude who strikes or attempts to strike, or draws or lifts up a weapon, or uses or attempts to use violence against his superior officer, whether or not the latter is in the execution of his duty. The Act also deals with the offence of absence without leave in wartime and the term of imprisonment can be in excess of ten weeks, and, furthermore, among offences triable by court-martial are included those arising not only in arsenals, barracks, or hospitals, but also other premises held by or on behalf of the Crown for naval or military purposes, and canteens, sailors' homes, and places of recreation. The Act also contains provisions where offenders have ceased to be subject to naval discipline since their offence, and affords power to inflict dismissal from the service in addition to imprisonment. Another change in the law enables a court-martial to be held not only on board ship, but also in some other convenient place if the Admiralty or officer ordering the court-martial in any particular case so directs. In addition to amendments of law relating to consecutive sentences, a long section deals with the power to suspend sentences, and provides more fully than is the case in the existing Naval Discipline Act for the relations between the naval and military forces when acting together.
THE Speech from the Throne on the 11th Nov. indicated that the only measures to be submitted at that stage of the session were such as seemed necessary for the attainment of the paramount object upon which this country should set every effort of every class. The result of the brief sittings up to the end of last year was to add to the statute-book the Acts relating to the Anglo-Portuguese Commercial Treaty, Defence of the Realm Consolidation, Exportation of Arms, Finance, Government War Obligations, House of Commons (Commissions), Injuries in War (Compensation), Local Authorities (Disqualifications), Navy and Army Insurance, Navy and Marines Wills, Trading with the Enemy, Trusts, and other minor measures. To this list there must now be added a further series of measures which have recently received the Royal Assent. There are three Army Acts dealing with the usual annual requirements, amending the existing Army Act, and in a special degree remodelling the law in the matter of suspensions of sentences. The sea service received attention in Acts relating to Naval Discipline and Naval Marriages (already touched upon), and, in addition, there was the excellent precautionary measure of Mr. Runciman's introduction relating to restrictions on the transfer of British ships. Two additions were made to the Defence of the Realm legislation, one affecting judicial proceedings and the other conferring drastic powers for the effective mobilisation of the resources and energies of industry. The Customs (War Powers) Act stops up certain loopholes available to thoughtless or criminal persons whereby supplies might conceivably reach enemy aliens, and further legislation deals with compensation for injuries received in war in special connection with postal employees. The National Insurance Act 1911 has been amended by two new Acts affecting Parts 1 and 2 thereof respectively, and there is legislation in favour of the great universities, whose arrangements have been somewhat upset by the general exodus, entailing special need for making statutory enactments to meet the exigencies so created. The Legal Proceedings against Enemies Act, moved by the Attorney General, may also be referred to as a notable accession to the emergency legislation of this session. When Parliament meets on the 14th April it will be necessary to find some solution of the problem of the Welsh Church. Mr. McKenna's Bill on this subject is the only one which remains in an incomplete stage upon the official list of public Bills which members of Parliament will be handling on that day. Public opinion and the possible pressure of events are likely to force fupon Parliament the disagreeable necessity for some drastic legislation on the subjects of drink control, industrial disputes, and aliens, and the whole subject of the aniline dye production scheme will call for fresh consideration, having regard to the financial failure already realised at its very inception. There are also questions of the utmost importance to the taxpayer to be answered in regard to the national financial position and the rise in the prices of everyday commodities. The record of business done shows that the output of legislation has been alike expeditious and wide in scope, and that despite this, much remains to be done before the nation can feel that it is exerting its full force in this titanic struggle.
Mr. Justice Sankey, who will act as Easter Vacation judge from Thursday, the 1st April, to Monday, the 12th April next inclusive, will attend at King's Bench Judges' Chambers on Wednesday, the 7th prox., at 1030, to hear applications and summonses. On other days within the above period applications on urgent matters may be made to him by post or, if necessary, personally.
Master Chitty and Master Bonner will act as Vacation masters during the Easter Sittings. They will, however, not sit in chambers on Saturday, the 3rd April, nor on the following Tuesday, the 6th April next.
Mr. Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice Sankey have appointed the following commission days for holding the spring assizes on the Northern Circuit-viz.: Liverpool, Monday, April 12; and Manchester, Monday, May 3.
Lord Justice Bankes has been appointed Vice-Lieutenant for the County of Flint.
Lord Justice Ronan has been sworn of the Privy Council in Ireland.
The Inner Temple Hall will be closed for luncheons after Thursday, the 1st April, and will reopen on Monday, the 12th. The Middle Temple Hall will be closed for luncheons from 3 pm. on Thursday, the 1st, until Monday, the 12th prox. The Law Society offices will close from 1 p.m. on Thursday, the 1st April, and will reopen on Wednesday, the 7th, at 10 a m. The west gate to the Temple will be closed during the Easter Vacation.
The Bar Point-to-Point races will not take place this year, and the annual dinner of the Pegasus Club has been postponed. Mr. Thomas Lean Wilkinson, aged seventy-six, of Brambamgardens. South Kensington, S. W., and of Old-square, Lincoln'sinn, W.C., barrister-at-law, left estate of the gross value of £36,329.
Mr. Henry Gutridge, of Hartington-road, Liverpool, solicitor, Clerk of the Peace for Liverpool, who died on the 12th Feb. aged eighty-one, left estate of the gross value of £5872, with net personalty £5786
Mr. Henry Adams Adkin, of Eton House, Eton-avenue, Hampstead, N W., and of Queen Victoria-street, E.C., formerly of Calcutta, solicitor, of the firm of Messrs. Sanderson, Adkin, Lee, and Eddis, who died on the 17th Feb., aged sixty-eight, jeft estate valued at £48,585 gross, with net personalty £47,695.
Mr. H. A. Sharpe, who for some forty years represented the Press Association in the London Bankruptcy Court died on the 21st inst., at Earlsfield. His familiar figure will be much missed by those whose business took them to the court, and with whom he had an almost lifelong acquaintance.
Mr. William Radcliffe, of Aigburth, Liverpool, retired solicitor, a former president of the Liverpo 1 Law Society, a former Mayor of Liverpool, a director of the Liverpool Law Association Limited, who died on the 15th Dec. last, aged eighty-nine, left estate of the gross value of £246,430, with net personalty £231,751.
Mr. Reginald Arthur Stephen, of Wootton Cottage, Northgate, Lincoln, solicitor, of the firm of Messrs. Tweed, Stephen, and Co., for many years registrar of the Lincoln County Court, a former under-sheriff for Lincoln and for Lincolnshire, who died on the 5th Dec. last, aged sixty-one, left unsettled property of the gross value of £21,214 9s. 7d., with net personalty £19,638 6s. 9d.
The Temple Church will hold a special service to-morrow at 3 p.m., after which the choir will render Bach's Passion Music (according to St. Matthew). A short service will also be held in the church on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday next at 5 p.m.
Acting upon a suggestion made by Sir R. Ellis Cunliffe, the president of the London Solicitors' Golfing Society, at its recent general meeting, the Council of the Law Society have appointed Mr. R. C. Nesbitt, one of its members, an ex officio member of the committee of the Golfing Society.
The United Law Society's Belgian Refugee Lawyers' Committee, formed to alleviate the distress among Belgian lawyers, has been able to do much good work. In all 380 members of the various branches of the Legal Profession in Belgium who have had to leave that country have been helped, and are now earning a living in this country. These include 181 avocats, 136 notaires, fourteen avoués (official solicitors), eleven law students, who have been placed at Cambridge, and twelve officials of the courts. A Federation of Belgian Notaires has been formed, and a room allotted them in the Royal Courts of Justice. The various Inns of Courts have also helped by allowing the free use of their libraries, reading rooms, and common rooms. In the City a suite of offices near the Belgian Military Legation has been secured, where legal advice is given to Belgian refugees. The Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association is making arrangements for the collection of books and magazines for the use of the soldiers in France, and the council will be glad if managing clerks and others will leave at the office of the association, 12, Newcourt, Lincoln's-inn, any books and magazines which they can spare. The object in making this appeal is to enable the association to lend their assistance to the Y.M.C.A., "who are doing such excellent work for the millions or more of the men of this country who are facing danger, disablement, and death upon the European battlefields."
A meeting of the Union Society of London was held at the lecture room, King's Bench-walk, on Wednesday; the president, Mr. Harry Green, in the chair. Mr. Claxton moved: That the present war has shown the urgent need of a re-organisation of our system of technical education." The motion was opposed by Mr. Quass, and after debate the motion was carried.
For nearly fifty years Snell's Principles of Equity, of which a new edition, the seventeenth, has just appeared, has been one of