Page images

Costs-Taxation of-Drawing Case for Opinion of Counsel not in conveyancing Matter and before Action-Perusal of Particulars -Schedule of Documents prepared on handing over Papers to new Solicitors-Solicitors' Remuneration Act 1881, s. 2Practice Master's Notes in Annual Practice-Appendix N in Annual Practice.

This was a summons by a client to review taxation of a solicitor's bill of costs. There were (inter alia) three items in dispute-viz., (1) drawing case for the opinion of counsel (not in a conveyancing matter and before litigation), for which a charge of 28. per folio had been made; (2) perusing particulars delivered in pursuance of an order in the action, for which a charge of 68. 8d. had been made; (3) making a schedule of the documents which were handed over to a new solicitor upon withdrawal of retainer to the old solicitor.

[ocr errors]

Held, that (1) 2s. per folio was a proper charge. Drawing case for counsel, not being in a conveyancing matter and not being in an action, was other business" within the meaning of sect. 2 of the Solicitors' Remuneration Act 1881. Textwriters when they say that Kay, J. in Standford v. Roberts (50 L. T. Rep. 147; 26 Ch. Div. 155) decided that sched. 2 of the order under the Act applied to conveyancing business only are misleading. The learned judge in that case only decided that the scale applied to conveyancing whether in an action or not. Held, that (2) particulars were a "pleading" within the meaning of Appendix N, and a charge of 6s. 8d. for perusal was rightly allowed. Held, that (3) the charge for the schedule of documents was rightly allowed, as it was for the benefit of the new solicitor, who could have refused to accept it. Re Catlin (18 B. 514) did not cover the case.

[Re R. P. Morgan and Co. Ch Div.: Neville, J. Nov. 19.Counsel: J. E. Harman; Owen Thompson. Solicitors: Stanley Evans and Co; Helder, Roberts, and Co.] Will-Construction of "Money to my Account."

[ocr errors]

Meaning of Words " Belongings" and

A testatrix made her will without legal assistance which contained the following bequests: "Dressing bag and all silver with my initial on it to Mary Robertson; big brooch, necklace, baby robe, books, pictures, and all other belongings to my sister Helen Mary, except what books Gordon (my brother) may choose; watch and all jewellery (except what is mentioned above) and all lace to my sister Jeanie Louise Harrison; any money to my account to my nephew Linden Temple Harrison; two scarf pins and my father's diamond ring to my brother Gordon." There was no other residuary bequest. A codicil contained the following bequests: "To my goddaughter Edith Winifred Graham I bequeath £100 clear from the estates of the late Mrs. Bradfield and Dr. Frank Shearer, and to my godson Linden Temple Harrison the same amount,' but no residuary bequest. Considerable sums of money from the estates of Mrs. Bradfield and Dr. Frank Shearer over which the testatrix had absolute disposing power were in the hands of trustees.

[ocr errors]

Held, that the words "all other belongings" passed all property of which the testatrix did not specifically dispose, and that the words "money to my account" passed only money standing to the credit of her account at her bank, and did not pass the moneys in the hands of the trustees.

[Re Bradfield; Bradfield v. Bradfield. Ch. Div.: Eve, J. Nov. 12.-Counsel: G. A. Johnston; Maugham, K.C. and G. M. Hildyard; Jessel, K.C. and T. Bucknill; S. M. Edwards. Solicitors Thomas E. A. Baker; Greenside and Son.] Partnership-Dissolution of-Partner an Alien Enemy-Practice as to Appointment of Receiver and Manager-Trading with the Enemy Act 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 87), s. 3.

The plaintiff was in partnership with his father and brother under the firm of J. R. Rombach Baden Clock Company. The plaintiff was a naturalised British subject, but his father was an alien enemy residing in Germany and his brother was an alien enemy resident in London. The plaintiff had had the active management of the partnership business for eighteen years. Since the outbreak of war the business of the firm had practically ceased. At the time of the outbreak of war there was a large sum due from customers in England and the colonies, part of which had been collected and the creditors in England paid in full, but there was a difficulty in collecting the balance of the debts due to the partnership owing to the defendants being alien enemies. The plaintiff commenced an action for dissolution of the partnership, and now moved ex parte for the appointment of a receiver and manager. It was stated that on an ex parte motion, in a case where one of the partners was an alien enemy, Warrington, J. had refused to make an order.

Held, that the case did not fall within sect. 3 of the Trading with the Enemy Act 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 87), but that this was an ordinary commercial undertaking, and the plaintiff was appointed receiver and manager until further order upon

giving security. His Lordship said that it was important that there should be uniformity of practice on such applications, and that he had consulted Warrington, J., who said that he had considered that the case before him fell within sect. 3 of the Trading with the Enemy Act 1914, and that he had laid down no rule applicable to ordinary commercial undertakings. [Rombach v. Rombach. Ch. Div.: Eve, J. Nov. 13.Counsel: L. W. Byrne Solicitors: Wansey, Stammers, and Co.] Donatio mortis causa-Validity-Bonds in sealed Packet placed in locked Box at Bank-Delivery of Key to Donee subsequently.

A testator about to undergo a serious operation went with his wife to his bank, which had the custody of certain bearer bonds belonging to him, and placed them in a sealed parcel addressed to her and locked them in a box which he left at the bank, having discussed the matter with the assistant manager. He did not then hand over the key, but showed it to his wife, and also a list of the securities in the sealed parcel. Subsequently on their return from the bank the testator handed over the keys and the list of securities to his wife with an injunction to lock them up carefully. This she did in a drawer of her own of which she kept the key. The same day the testator underwent the operation from which he shortly after died. This summons raised the question whether this was an effective donatio mortis causa.

Held, that this was sufficient delivery to effectuate a donatio mortis causa, and that there was no authority which_negatived the proposition that an inchoate or imperfect delivery of chattels might be sufficient to effectuate such a gift.

[Re Wasserberg; Union of London and Smiths Bank Limited v. Wasserberg. Ch. Div.: Sargant, J.-Nov. 3, 4, and 16.— Counsel: Grant, K.C. and Samuel Green; Romer, K.C. and J. G. Wood; Martelli, K.C. and W. S. Sherrington Solicitors: H. H. Wells and Sons; Stevens, Sons, and Parkes; Ray, Jackman, and Falck.]

Infant — Action by — Infant Next Friend· Solicitor - Implied Warranty of Authority-Liability for Defendant's CostsMeasure of Damages.

Application by the defendants H. G. and his wife A. G., and the father and mother of the infant plaintiff L. M. F., in an action commenced against them on the 8th Feb. 1913 and set down for trial, to set aside the writ of summons in the action and all subsequent proceedings on the ground that the next friend, E. J. P. M, of the infant plaintiff at the date of the writ was himself under the age of twenty-one years, and asking that the plaintiff's solicitors and E. J. P. M. might pay the costs of the action. On the 11th Feb. 1913 the defendants" solicitors wrote to the plaintiff's solicitors asking them to supply information as to the next friend and in particular inquiring his age, subsequently stating that they desired to know his position and what his object was in bringing the action, which in the view of the defendants' solicitors was not brought in the interests of the infant. The plaintiff's solicitors replied that the information asked could not have any bearing on the merits of the action. E. J. P. M., it was discovered, did not attain twenty-one until the 22nd Sept. 1913, but it appeared the plaintiff's solicitors, from E. J. P. M.'s appearance, came to the conclusion that he was of full age. There was no evidence that the co-defendants, the parents of the plaintiff, knew that E. J. P. M. was not of full age or falsely represented him as being of full age, but the plaintiff's mother had selected and suggested him on the refusal of another individual to act as next friend, and for some months after the action was brought the plaintiff and her parents were represented by the same solicitors. On behalf of the applicants Geilinger v. Gibbs (76 L. T. Rep. 111; (1897) 1 Ch. 479) and Fricker v. Van Grutten (75 L. T. Rep. 117; (1896) 2 Ch. 649) were referred to.


Held, that for putting forward an infant as next friend without inquiry the plaintiff's solicitors were liable. measure of damages in the case of an agent representing that he has an authority which in fact he has not is laid down in Yonge v. Toynbee (102 L. T. Rep. 57, at p. 63). The solicitors must pay the costs of the action, including the present application, as between solicitor and client, but in the circumstances the plaintiff's parents would not be given any damages. Writ and subsequent proceedings set aside. No order as to

E. J. P. M.

[Fernée v. Gorlitz. Ch. Div.: Eve, J. Nov. 19.--Counsel: Jessel, K.C. and W. F. Swords; P. O. Lawrence, K.C. and Galbraith. Solicitors: Reid, Sharman, and White; Rubinstein, Nash, and Co.]

Will-Devise-Before Wills Act-Trust in fee simple-Gift over in Case of Death unmarried and without Issue-No LimitationExtent.

A testator by his will, dated the 24th Jan. 1827, devised all his freehold estate situate at E. to a trustee and his heirs upon trust to receive and take the rents and profits and


them to

Nov. 28, 1914.]

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


his sister S. or to permit her to receive and take the same during her life, and after death in trust to and for his nephew J. L., his heirs, and assigns for ever to and for his and their own use and benefit, but in case of his death unmarried and without lawful issue then upon trust for his niece S. B. during her life and after her death upon trust for all her children living at her death, share and share alike, who being sons attained the age of twenty-one years or being daughters attained that age or married, with benefit of survivorship amongst the children. The testator died on the 10th May 1828. S. died in 1841. J. L. married, but his wife died in his lifetime without issue, and in 1893 he also died having executed a disentailing assurance and disposed of his real estate by will. S. B. had issue who attained twenty-one years, but all had died. This was a summons to determine whether the property devolved by virtue of the will of J. L. or under the gift over contained in the testator's will.

Held, that J. L. took under the testator's will an equitable estate in fee simple defeasible in the event of his death without leaving a widow or issue, and that the gift over only affected the previous equitable estate in fee simple given to J. L. so far as was necessary to give effect to the subsequent interests, and, by the old law prior to the Wills Act, that these interests given to the children of S. B. were mere equitable estates for life, and that therefore the property devolved under the will of J. L.

[Re Jones; Last v. Dobson. Ch. Div.: Sargant, J. Nov. 5 and 6.-Counsel: Romer, K.C. and W. F. Webster; H. S. Preston; W. A. Jolly; Martelli, K.C. and J. Austen-Cartmell. Solicitors Welman and Sons, for Last and Goodford, Windsor: Benham, Barrett, and Synnott; R. H. Behrend and Co.; Indermaur and Brown.]



Charter party-Sale of Vessel after Date of Charter party-Tender
of Vessel-Refusal of Charterers to load-Whether Charter-party
affected by Sale.

On the 15th Sept. 1913 a vessel which formerly belonged to the claimants was chartered by the respondents to proceed to Odessa and load wheat or other grain for Rotterdam and Hamburg. While the vessel was discharging before proceeding to Odessa she was sold by the claimants, who duly notified the charterers of the sale. She was duly tendered for loading at Odessa, but the respondents refused to provide a cargo. In arbitration proceedings it was found as a fact that the claimants were ready and willing to perform their contract, and that they had duly tendered the vessel. On a case stated: Held, that while a party to a contract cannot so assign it as to make the assignee solely liable, he may arrange for another person to discharge the burden of the contract in the first instance provided it does not involve the doing of something which requires special performance by him, and that, inasmuch as the provision of a ship did not require any personal skill on the part of the owners, they were entitled to sue upon it although they were only ready to perform it vicariously.

[Fratelli Sorrentini v. Elias Buerger. K. B. Div.: Atkin, J. Nov. 16.- Counsel: R. A. Wright; Roche, K.C. and Mackinnon, K.C. Solicitors: Parker, Garrett, and Co.; W. W. Stocken.] Company-Registered in England-Shares mainly held by Alien Enemy-Right to recover Price of Goods sold and delivered.

Plaintiff company sued for £5753 2s 11d., the value of tyres sold and delivered to the defendant company. Defendant company by affidavit under Order XIV. denied liability on the ground that payment of the said sum would enure "to or for the benefit of an enemy " within the proclamation of the 9th Sept. 1914, par. 5 (1). The capital of the plaintiff company was £25,000 in shares of £1 each, of which shares 24,998 were held by Germans and a German company; one share by one Paul Brodtmann, managing director; and one share by one Frederick Wolter, secretary, the two latter being at the outbreak of war resident in England It was alleged that no payment received by plaintiff company since the commencement of the war had been remitted to the enemy. For the defence it was contended that it was illegal to help the enemy, which principle included any act which directly or indirectly increased or might increase his financial stability. Payment to a campany must eventually increase the funds of the shareholders (The Hoop, 1 C. Rob. 196, and The Tommi, 31 Times L. Rep. 15; Exposito v. Bowden, 7 E. & B. 763; Furtado v. Rogers, 3 Bos. & P. 191). On behalf of the plaintiffs it was submitted that, upon it being established that the plaintiff company was an English company, any inquiry into its constitution was immaterial: (Salamon v. Salamon, 75 L. T. Rep. 426; (1897) A. C 22).

Held, plaintiff company was entitled to recover.

[Continental Tyre and Rubber Company (Great Britain) Limited v. Thomas Tilling Limited. K. B. Div.: Lush, J.

[ocr errors]

[Vol. 138-83

Nov. 23.-Counsel: Hogg; Scott, K.C. and Jowitt. Solicitors.
Stephenson, Harwood, and Co.; Hicklin, Washington, and
Parliament Franchise-Parliamentary Elections - Borough a
County of itself-Two Mayors in Parliamentary Borough-
Person entitled to Lists of Voters-Municipal Corporations Act
1882, s. 244-Redistribution of Seats Act 1885. 8. 12 (4).


Rules for a mandamus to the revising barrister of Llanelly and to the revising barrister of Carmarthen to hand lists of voters to the town clerk of Llanelly, the rules having been obtained at the instance of the mayor of Llanelly. On the 15th Sept. 1913 the revising barrister for the borough of Llanelly revised the lists of Parliamentary voters for the borough, and on the 16th Sept. 1913 the revising barrister for the borough of Carmarthen revised the list of Parliamentary voters for that borough. The town clerk of the borough of Llanelly applied to the revising barristers to hand to him the revised lists of voters for the two boroughs, claiming that he was the proper person to receive them. The ground of his claim was that, the population of Llanelly (which was 32,000) being larger than that of Carmarthen (which was under 12,000), the mayor of Llanelly was the proper person under sect 12, sub-sect. 4, of the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885 to whom the writ of election was to be directed, and that therefore the town clerk of Llanelly was under that sub-section the town clerk who was to receive the revised lists of Parliamentary voters from the revising barrister. Carmarthen is an ancient municipal borough, having by a charter been created a county of itself, and it elected two sheriffs (now one sheriff) annually, to whom writs were to be directed. It returned a member of Parliament by itself down to 1832, when, under the Representation of the People Act 1832, Llanelly was joined with it for this purpose. The writ for the election of a member of Parliament for Carmarthen and Lianelly was directed, as it had hitherto been, to the sheriff of Carmarthen. In 1913 Llanelly was incorporated as a municipal borough. The Municipal Corporations Act 1882, s. 244 (1) and (2), and the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885, s. 12 (4), were referred to.

Held, discharging the rules, that as Carmarthen was a county of itself, ect. 244 (2) of the Act of 1882 had no application to it, and that therefore sect. 12 (4) of the Act of 1885 did not apply to it; that the returning officer was the sheriff as hitherto; and that the town clerk of Carmarthen was the person entitled to receive the lists of voters.

[Rex v. Richards and Rx v. Williams. K. B. Div.: Darling, A. T. Lawrence, and Sankey, JJ. Nov. 13.-Counsel: Macmorran, K.C. and G. W. Bailey; E. G. Palmer; Foote, K.C. and R. M. Montgomery, K.C. Solicitors: Baker and Sons, for Town Clerk of Carmarthen; Rhys Roberts and Co, for Spowart, Llanelly.]

Personal Injuries-Negligence-Evidence-Acts of Third Parties.
Appeal from the Clerkenwell County Court. The plaintiff
sued for damages for personal injuries caused by a sun blind,
hung outside the defendant's shop, and projecting over the
pavement, having fallen upon his head. The County Court
judge found that the accident was due to the mischievous act
of a third party in jumping up and catching hold of the blind;
and that similar accidents had happened with similar blinds
On these findings
on previous occasions from the same cause.
he held that the defendant had not discharged the duty of
seeing that the blind was sufficiently fixed to prevent its
coming down by the act of third parties.

Held, on appeal by defendant, that there was evidence of negligence as the defendant ought to have contemplated the possibility of such acts on the part of third parties, with the consequential risk to persons using the highway, and to have guarded against the danger. Appeal dismissed.

[Wheeler v. Morris K. B. Div.: Avory and Rowlatt, JJ
Nov. 23.-Counsel: Mayer, K.C. and D. 0. Evans; Powell,
K.C. and Lambert. Solicitors: Burchell, Wilde, and Co.;
Fielder, Jones, and Harrison.]

Trade Union-Erpulsion of Member-Action by Member for
Injunction and Damages - Illegal Society - Trade Union
Act 1871, s. 4.

Appeal from the County Court judge at Clerkenwell. K. was a printer's assistant and a member of a registered trade union society, and as such possessed certain privileges of working in printing houses not possessed by non-unionist workmen. He was expelled by a resolution for alleged misconduct" in working for several hours during the day for a firm of carriers whilst he was employed at night in his trade as a printer. The rules provided for the expulsion of members for "misconduct " and conduct detrimental to the reputation of the society," but only mentioned specifically acts relating to printing work. K. obtained a declaration in the County Court that the resolution was ultra vires and void, and for an injunction with damages. Defendants appealed on the ground that the trade

union was a society in restraint of trade, and that the action was brought on an agreement unenforceable by sect. 4 of the Trade Union Act 1871.

Held, following Yorkshire Miners' Association v. Howden (92 L. T. Rep. 701; (1905) A. C. 256) and Osborne v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (104 L. T. Rep. 267; (1911) 1 Ch. 540), that the agreement was not within the exception of sect. 4. On the construction of the rules, held, by Horridge, J., that "misconduct" was left to the decision of the society, but, by Rowlatt, J, that the expulsion was ultra vires. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

[Kelly v. National Society of Operative Printers. K. B. Div.: Horridge and Rowlatt, JJ. Nov. 12 and 13.—Counsel: Holman Gregory, KC. and Harold Morris; Rigby Swift, K.C. and Clifford Penney. Solicitors: R. Wilberforce Allen; Shaen, Roscoe, and Co.]

Trading with the Enemy-C.i.f. Contract-Tender of Documents after Outbreak of War-Goods to be delivered at HamburgSeller not entitled to force Acceptance of Documents involving Delivery of Goods to Alien Enemy.

The claimants, who were produce merchants of Liverpool, in May 1914 sold certain Chilean honey to the respondents to be shipped on a German-owned steamer and delivered at Hamburg, terms c.i.f. cash in Liverpool against documents. The honey was shipped on the 28th June and the shipment was declared on the 28th July, but the ship was interned at a neutral port. On the 4th Aug. war was declared with Germany, and on the 5th Aug. a proclamation was issued prohibiting trading with the enemy, and on the same day the shipping documents were tendered. The respondents having refused payment on the documents:

Held, that the respondents (the buyers) were justified in refusing the tender of the documents on the ground that if they accepted them they would be offending against the provisions of the proclamation of the 5th Aug., inasmuch as it might involve trading with the enemy.

[Duncan, Fox, and Co. v. Schrempft. K. B. Div.: Atkin, J. Nov. 17.-Counsel: Barrington-Ward; Greaves Lord. Solicitors: Chester and Co., for Morecroft, Sproat, and Killey, Liverpool; Weightman, Pedder, and Co., Liverpool.] Workmen's Compensation-Bankruptcy of Employer-Transfer of existing Liability of Employer to Insurance Company-Abrogation of Employer's Rights against Insurance Company.

A workman having sustained an accident received compensation from his employer for several weeks, the sums paid being reimbursed to the employer by an insurance company. After the workman had returned to work, further injury resulting from the accident supervened in respect of which the workman made a claim in the County Court against the trustee in bankruptcy of his employer. An award having been made in favour of the workman for a lump sum in commutation of all liabilities, the employer sought to recover the same, together with costs, in an arbitration with the insurance company.

Held, that by virtue of sect. 5 (1) of the Workmen's CompenEation Act 1906 the employer's rights as against the insurance company had vested in the workman, and that it was not competent for the employer to make any claim under the policy.

[Craig and Hancock v. Royal Insurance Company Limited. Atkin, J. Nov. 18-Counsel: Grimwood Mears; BarringtonWard. Solicitors: Blyth Richardson; Pritchard, Englefield, and Co., for J. H. Glover, Liverpool.]

IN BANKRUPTCY. Bankruptcy-Company as petitioning Creditor-Agent for Company acting under Seal-Two Petitions on the same Authority— Bankruptcy Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, s. 148.

W. was the debtor of a company. On the 4th July 1914 there was a meeting of the company authorising its agent under seal to present a petition. On the 7th July 1914 an entirely new act of bankruptcy took place. On the 16th July 1914 the original petition was dismissed, and during the hearing the petitioning creditor had to prove his authority. On the 13th Aug. 1914 the second petition was heard by the registrar of the County Court of Lincolnshire, and at that hearing the petitioning creditor produced the same authority. The debtor now appealed against the receiving order made by the registrar on the ground that the company's agent was not duly authorised under the company's seal as required by the Bankruptcy Act 1883, s. 148.

Held, that as the new act of bankruptcy of the 7th July 1914 did not exist on the 4th July 1914, the date of the resolution, it not being an act of bankruptcy the company could avail themselves of at that date, the authority did not justify the agents doing an act which could not have been intended by it.

The authority must have reference to available acts of bankruptcy.

Re W. K. B. Div. in Bank.: Horridge and Rowlatt, JJ. Nov. 16.-Counsel: H. G. Robertson, for L. S. Davies, in H.M. Forces; E. H. Cannot. Solicitors: P. J. Rutland, agents for John Tonge, Great Grimsby; Woolfe and Woolfe, agents for Brown and Son, Great Grimsby.] Bankruptcy-Moratorium-Suspension of Payment-Bankruptcy Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 6 (1) (b)-Postponement of Payments Act 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 11)-Proclamations thereunder. S. was a registered alien. An alleged act of bankruptcy-viz., notice of suspension of payments-took place on the 9th Sept. 1914. The debt was in respect of goods sold and delivered on the 21st April. On the 13th Oct., the registrar of the County Court of Brentford held that, by virtue of the moratorium, at the date of the alleged act of bankruptcy there was a debt due but not payable, and that the debtor could not commit an act of bankruptcy. He found on the evidence an act of bankruptcy would have been committed if the moratorium had not existed. From this decision the petitioning creditor now appealed.

Held, though by virtue of the two proclamations prior to the 12th Sept., the date the petition was presented, the debt was not due until the 4th Oct., there was a good debt. There is nothing in the proclamations to stop a man giving notice of suspension if he likes, as he did in this case on the 9th Sept. There was a debt within sect. 6 (1) (b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1883, and there was an act he could commit if he chose, and the receiving order ought to be made.

[Re Sahler. K. B. Div. in Bank.: Horridge and Rowlatt, JJ. Nov. 17.-Counsel: M. E. Hansell; E. Tindale Davis. Solicitors: Harold Mayhew and Darling; Busby.]



Smith on Companies. Twelfth Edition. Stevens and Haynes 13, Bell-yard, Temple Bar. Price 78. 6d.

Criminal Cases. Vol. 11, Part 1. Stevens and Haynes, Bellyard, Temple Bar. Price 3s. 6d net.

Willis on National Health Insurance through Approved Societies. Hodder and Stoughton, Warwick-square, E.C. Price 10s. 6d. net.

Willis on the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906. Fifteenth Edition. Butterworth and Co., Bell-yard, Temple Bar; Shaw and Sons, 7 and 8, Fetter-lane, E.C. Price 5s. net.

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


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.

[blocks in formation]

nesday, and Thursday, at 10;
Friday (By), at 11
Builth, Thursday, at 2
Burslem, Thursday, at 9.30
Camelford, Thursday, at 11.30
Canterbury, Tuesday, at 10

t of Par



9th S




[blocks in formation]

lebt da

Chertsey, Friday

tan 3*

Chesham, Tuesday, at 10

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

Carmarthen, Friday

Chesterfield Friday, at 9.30

Chichester Wednesday

Chipping Sodbury, Saturday, at 11
Clerkenwell, Monday, Tuesday

(J.S.). Wednesday, Thursday,
and Friday, at 10.30
Consett, Wednesday, at 10.30
Crediton, Tuesday, at 10.30
Crickhowell, Thursday, at 10.30
Daventry, Thursday, at 10
Dewsbury, Tuesday (R. By)
Doncaster, Wednesday, at 10
Dorchester Friday, at 10
Durham, Tuesday (R. By)
East Retford, Tuesday, at 11
Edmonton, Friday and Saturday,

at 10


Wednesday and Thurs

day, at 10
Eve. Wednesday, at 11
Frome Tuesday (By at 11), at 11
Glossop, Wednesday, at 10
Gravesend, Saturday, at 10
Great Malvern, Friday, at 10
Greenwich, Friday, at 10.30
Guildford, Thursday
Harrogate Friday, at 9
Hastings, Tuesday
Hay, Saturday, at 10

Helmsley Thursday, at 10.30
Hereford, Tuesday, at 10
Hertford, Wednesday, at 10.30
Hinckley Wednesday, at 10.30
Hitchin, Monday, at 10
Holmfirth, Friday

Holsworthy. Tuesday, at 10.30
Holywell. Monday

Honiton, Friday, at 10.30
Huddersfield. Monday. Tuesday
(J.S. at 10.30), Wednesday, and

Hull, Monday, Tuesday, Wednes-
day, Thursday, and Friday
Huntingdon. Wednesday, at 10
Ilford, Tuesday, at 10.30

Jarrow, Tuesday, at 10

Kingston-on-Thames, Tuesday, at

[blocks in formation]

Loughborough, Tuesday, at 9.30
Ludlow, Wednesday, at 10
Lynn, Friday, at 10
Maidstone, Thursday, at 9
Manchester, Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday, and Friday, at 10
Margate. Thursday, at 10
Market Bosworth, Thursday, at


Midhurst, Monday
Mildenhall, Monday
Nantwich, Saturday, at 10
Narberth, Tuesday

Newport 1. of W.), Wednesday, at


Newton Abbot, Friday, at 10.30
North Shields, Thursday (J.S. &
A.O.), at 10

Northwich, Wednesday, at 10
Nottingham, Thursday (R. By) and
Friday (J.S.), at 10
Nuneaton, Friday, at 9

Oldham, Tuesday, and Saturday
(J.S.), at 9.30

Pembroke Dock, Wednesday
Penrith, Thursday, at 11
Peterborough Tuesday, at 9.30
Pontypridd, Monday
Porth, Friday

Portsmouth, Monday (R. By), at
11; Thursday, at 10.30
Presteign, Friday, at 2
Preston, Tuesday, at 10
Ramsgate, Wednesday, at 10
Ripon, Saturday, at 9.30
Rochdale, Friday (J.S.), at 9.30
Ross, Saturday, at 10
Salford, Monday, Tuesday, and

Sandbach, Tuesday, at 2
Sandwich Friday, at 10.45
Sevenoaks Friday, at 10
Sheffield, Thursday (By at 2) and
Friday, at 10
Shipston-on-Stour, Tuesday, at 10
Shoreditch, Tuesday and Thursday
Soham. Tuesday, at 11
Southam, Friday at 10
Southampton, Tuesday, at 10
South Shields, Thursday, at 10
Southwark, Monday, Tuesday, and
Thursday at 10.30
Spalding, Wednesday, at 10
Spilsby, Thursday, at 10
Stafford, Friday, at 9.30
Stockport. Friday, at 10
Sunderland, Thursday (R. By)
Swindon, Wednesday, at 10.30
Thirsk, Wednesday, at 10.30
Tonbridge, Wednesday, at 10
Torquay, Saturday, at 10.30
Trowbridge Friday, at 10.30
Tunbridge Wells, Tuesday, at 9.30
Tunstall. Wednesday, at 9.30
Usk, Friday, at 11

Wakefield, Tuesday, at 10; Thurs-
day (R. By, at 11
Wallingford, Monday, at 11
Walsall, Wednesday

Waltham Abbey, Thursday. at

Wandsworth, Monday

Westbromwich, Friday (J.S.)
West Hartlepool, Friday at 9,30
West London (Brompton), Mon-
day, Tuesday. Wednesday,
Thursday and Friday, at 10.30
Westminster, Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday, and Fri-

Weymouth, Tuesday, at 10
Whitechapel Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, and Friday
Wimborne, Saturday, at 10
Wincanton, Wednesday
at 11
Windsor, Thursday, at 10
Wirksworth, Thursday, at 10
Wolverhampton Thursday
Wood Green Monday, at 10.30
Woolwich, Wednesday, at 10.30
Wrexham, Wednesday and Thurs-

Yeovil. Thursday, at 10
York, Tuesday, at 9.30
Ystrad Tuesday.

Other sittings are specially fixed if necessary.

[blocks in formation]


during the last year of his apprenticeship up to the 15th Feb. last, when his period of apprenticeship expired, were 8s. a week. From the 15th Feb. last up to and at the time of the accident hereafter mentioned the applicant was in the respondents' employ as chauffeur of taxicabel et by the respondents to individual members of the public. His wages were 10s. a week, from which weekly sum 1s. for livery and 4d. for insurance money was deducted. The applicant was further entitled to be paid by the respondents a commission of ls. in the pound upon all takings of his taxicab. The applicant further received tips of uncertain amount from the hirers of his taxicab. His average weekly earnings were from £2 5s. to £2 10s. a week. It was proved that soon after the war was declared his earnings very largely increased. There are many forts round about Plymouth, and during mobilisation many officers hired taxicabs of the respondents, to be driven to such forts, and, of course, to other places. The tips alone received by the applicant in the week ending the 27th Aug. last amounted to £4 58. 4 d., and his earnings to £5 5s. 10 d. His earnings in the first week in August were £3 15s. 3d., in the second week 4 6s. 6d., and the third week £4 1s. 9d. It was proved that since the declaration of war and before the 5th Sept. the applicant had been ordered by the respondents to drive hirers of the taxicab to many of the forts surrounding Plymouth, and that he had so driven them to such forts. That about a week before he had driven a hirer to Fort Rennie at night. The night was fine and the weather fair. The applicant was fully aware of the fact that sentinels with loaded rifles were posted at the approaches to all these forts, with orders to fire on anyone continuing to approach without permission after being challenged by such sentries. At 2 a.m. of the morning of the 5th Sept. last the applicant was ordered by the respondents to drive an officer to Fort Rennie, a fort from four to five miles from Plymouth. Before starting, the officer warned the applicant that he should be very careful because of sentries. There were two side lights on the taxicab, and an acetylene head lamp. The applicant swore that whilst proceeding at the rate of six miles an hour, and whilst on the look-out for sentries, and seeing none, he was suddenly shot after he had just begun to go through the village of Down Thomas. further swore that his front glass was partially raised, and that he heard no challenge whatever from a sentry, and that the reason why he was going so slow was that he was on the look-out for one; and, further, that when he was proceeding to Fort Rennie a week before, he was not challenged then at the village, but further on in a narrow lane leading to the fort. It was proved that the engine made a certain amount of noise, and that the glass screen in front of the driver's seat presents a very strong barrier to the passage of sound of a human voice. The sentry who shot the applicant swore that the applicant was mistaken as to the place where this happened. He swore that he and another sentry were stationed at Rex Corner, just outside the village of Down Thomas on the Rennie Fort side of the village. He swore that he saw the lights of the car approaching for some time, and heard the engine. That, in obedience to the orders given him, he challenged the applicant twice and received no answer. That he then challenged him a third time, when the applicant was about four to five yards away from him, and he, the sentry, was in the glare of the light thrown from the head lamp. That then he had the rifle at the present, and, receiving no answer, fired at the tyre of a wheel of the taxicab, and stepped back. The taxicab pulled up about twelve to fifteen yards further on, and it was then found that the applicant had been grievously wounded and injured. By consent Dr B. Castle Powell's report was put in evidence, marked "A," and initialled by me. It would appear that applicant was wounded in four places in the legs-one leg has been amputated, and it is possible that further amputation may be necessary. It was contended for the applicant that upon this evidence there was personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment caused to the applicant. For the respondent, that there was no acccident, and, further, that, if there were, the personal injury by accident did not arise out of the employment. Mr. Ward contended that the applicant ran no greater risk than any member of the public, and that the inquiry arose out of conditions brought into existence by the war, and that the Workmen's Compensation Act therefore does not apply. It appears to me that as regards the applicant the shooting was clearly an unlooked-for mishap or an untoward event not expected or designed by the applicant, and was therefore an accident within the meaning of sect. 1 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906. I have no doubt that the applicant was on his guard, and that the reason why he failed to hear the challenge was that, owing to the wind and rain, the noise of the engine, and the presence of the glass screen, he was unable to do so. The real question appears to me to be whether the accident arose out of the employment. I am conscious of the fact that a similar risk might have occurred to anyone using the highway where the accident happened. The sentries were in the highway

over which there was a thoroughfare to another part of the country. They were not in the private or separate approach to the fort. The question whether the accident arose out of the employment depends upon whether or not the applicant was more exposed to the risk of such accident than ordinary persons by reason of his employment. I am of opinion that the evidence shows that he was more exposed to the risk of the accident than ordinary members of the public, and that the risk he ran was appreciably and substantially greater than that of ordinary persons. I have already referred to the evidence of the movements and activity of officers in proceeding to and from the various forts round Plymouth from the commencement of mobilisation down to the time of the accident in the respondents' taxicab, for which the respondents earned reward. I am of opinion that it has been established that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, and I give my award for the applicant for £1 a week, the largest sum that I have jurisdiction to award him, with costs on B scale and items 31 and 70. I will only add that although I have read all the authorities cited in argument, I have not specially referred to them. It is important to the parties to have my award promptly, and no real advantage would be gained by particular reference to them.


Deal, Friday, Dec. 11.
Manchester, Wednesday, Dec. 9

West Ham, Friday, Dec. 4, at


Trusts During War.

THE new Bill presented by the Solicitor-General trenches upon the well-established doctrine of delegatus non potest delegare. It is intended to get over a very substantial difficulty occasioned by the war wherein many persons occupying fiduciary positions are now involved in one way or another. It is obvious that the affairs of the cestuis que trust may become critical if the trustees leave the country at short notice on national service and adherence is continued to the rules of law and equity which might be invoked in regard to delegation. The new Bill proposes that notwithstanding such rules, and whether or not a trustee is one of several or a sole individual, a trustee (not, however, being an implied or constructive trustee) is to be able by a power of attorney, attested by one or more witnesses, to delegate to the donee of that power the execution during any period for which the trustee is engaged on war service, and a further period of one month thereafter, of any trust of which he is the trustee. This would create ambiguity unless there were added some clearer indication of what is contemplated by the expression war service." A person will be deemed to be so serving if on active service as a member of the Crown military or naval forces and (not "or" it will be noted) if engaged on service in any work abroad, in connection with the present war, of the British Red Cross, or the St. John's Ambulance Association, or any other body with similar objects, and if, in connection with the present war, he is a prisoner of war in the enemy's country, or interned in a neutral country. Furthermore, the Bill will also apply to trustees who are not engaged in war service for the period during which, being abroad, they are unable to return to England for any reason connected with the war.

Consequential Provisions.

It is made sufficient evidence of the facts involved if a donee under the power of attorney makes a statutory declaration that the donor is engaged on "war service" within the abovementioned limits, or the donee can make a declaration that in any transaction he is acting in execution of the trust. Such evidence is to be sufficient as to the fact as regards any person dealing with the donee. It is important to notice, having regard to difficulties which sometimes crop up in practice with the Bank of England and certain other institutions, that the Bill plainly

states that this bank, the Bank of Ireland, the PaymasterGeneral, the Accountant-General of the Irish Supreme Court, and any other person are not to refuse to act on the authority of these powers of attorney notwithstanding that such a power is not attested by two witnesses, or that it fails in some other respect to comply with some formality required by law or practice. It is proposed that these powers are to be deposited at the Central Office of the Supreme Courts under sect. 48 of the Conveyancing Act 1881 without further verification of execution. It is noteworthy that the delegate may himself pass on his delegated power, for the donee under the power of attorney is enabled to give to someone else authority to transfer inscribed stock. Such stock will include shares, funds, annuities, or securities transferable in books kept by any person or by any instrument of transfer, either alone or accompanied by other formalities, and any share or interest therein. It will be noted that this Bill is not intended to apply to Scotland.

Wills of Seamen and Marines.

THERE are two Navy and Marines (Wills) Acts of 1865 and 1897 respectively which affect persons within those Acts dying after the 3rd June 1897, and certain rather strict regulations are to be found governing bequests of wages, prize money, bounty money, grants and allowances, or moneys payable by the Admiralty, which bequests to be valid have to be made in conformity with certain requirements. Dr. Macnamara's new Bill will alter the present law considerably, for, notwithstanding these two Acts, the Admiralty is to be given new power. In the case of a will made by a person being or having been a seaman or marine who may have died or may hereafter die during or in consequence of the present war, the Admiralty can pay or deliver or or other allowance, any wages, grant, other money payable by the Admiralty or other effects or money in charge of the Admiralty, to any person claiming to be entitled thereto under such will, although it is not made in conformity with these Acts, if the Admiralty are satisfied that compliance with the demands of those Acts may be properly dispensed with. The wording of the nature of the grants affected by this Bill and the earlier legislation is not identical, but presumably it is intended to cover every item. It will be noticed that the Bill is not to be regarded as a permanent addition to the statutes, for it is expressly confined to deaths during the present war or in consequence of it.

Trading with the Enemy.

YET another measure is being pushed forward to check the leakage of money to enemies by devious conduits. It affects persons and bodies resident or carrying on business in any country with which we are for the time being at war. The Board of Trade is to appoint a custodian of enemy property for England and Wales, for Scotland, and for Ireland respectively, and to these custodians are intrusted powers of receiving, holding, preserving, and dealing with property paid to or vested in him. The Board of Trade will determine any question arising as to which custodian is the right one to approach. As regards England and Wales, the authority will rest with the Public Trustee, and he will have to abide by the Public Trustee Act 1906 as regards accounts and audits. Dividends, interest, or shares of profit to which an enemy would be entitled had no war existed are to be paid by persons, firms, or companies to the custodian. If these sums had been customarily paid into some bank account or to any other person in trust for an enemy, the person, firm, or company must call for payment of the sum to be made to the custodian and furnish the latter with particulars. There are heavy penalties for enforcing these provisions. In the case of persons or bodies whose documents are under the earlier Act of this year open to inspection, any question arising as to the amount payable is to be settled by the person appointed to inspect or on appeal by the Board of Trade. The inspector can call for the distribution of all sums properly payable as dividends, interest, or profits. These powers are also exercisable by a controller under sect. 3 of the Act. The custodian must be afforded information by any person who holds or manages for or on behalf

« EelmineJätka »