Page images

has been placed on the judges, while some of the trials have extended to an inordinate length of time, and this despite the fact that special tribunals of three judges were set up for the trial of cases of anarchical and seditious crime. The point made by the correspondent is that the creation of a High Court for Eastern Bengal and Assam, with its headquarters at Dacca, would be a much more effective method of coping with the congestion of judicial business than the expansion of the High Court of Bengal at Calcutta to twenty judges from its present number of fifteen. Except for judicial purposes Bengal has been divided, and, as he truly points out, "the concentration at Calcutta of all appellate jurisdiction from two large provinces containing eighty-six and a half million people (nearly double the population of the United Kingdom) is without parallel in any part of the Empire." This certainly seems to be the most sensible manner of dealing with the present position, and is one that should certainly give satisfaction.

THE returns of the seventy-five companies which have embarked in the business of insurance against employers' liabilities in respect of accidents are eloquent testimony to the magnitude of the risks and the financial burdens consequent upon them. The claims paid have eaten up no less than 67 per cent. of the premiums, and the expenses entailed have cost another 36 per cent., whilst the increased provision necessary to meet outstanding claims and unexpired risks represents another 7 per cent. In a word, there is a loss of 10 per cent. on received premiums, and the actual loss for one year has been over a quarter of a million. Since the period covered by these figures, mainly 1909, the companies have been naturally driven to increase their rates, but it is still a question whether the insurers are even now earning a legitimate profit. No policy-holder can in the end be deemed to be satisfactorily insured unless the insurers are making some reasonable gains out of this branch of their business, and, unless this should prove to be the case, companies may be compelled to withdraw from this expensive undertaking-a circumstance of considerable gravity to all employers of labour. The causes for this state of things are not far to seek. Judicial decisions have rarely erred on the side of niggardliness in amount or as regards the limits of the risks. The latter tend to extend themselves in area as the years go on, and it must be further admitted that malingering is developing in a considerable degree, and legitimate claims are thereby growing into something inordinate. The matter is indeed one of some gravity, and the Legislature might profitably consider whether the experience of the past few years has not been such as to justify some overhaul of the existing law as judicially interpreted. Even now the rates of premium are serious items in a commercial balance-sheet, and, if a further increase is needful, the results must be to impose a still more onerous burden on the industrial situation.

THE CORONATION CEREMONIAL. THE approaching Coronation is full of interest to the student of the development of the English Constitution. The contrast in its effects between the coronation of an English Sovereign of the present day ard the same ceremonial in early times cannot, perhaps, be more vividly pictured than by the statement of the fact that formerly there was a real interregnum between the death of one king and the election or cleric's choice of another. Until the new king was crowned the king's peace was in abeyance. The State had no one to represent it for the purpose of enforcing the peace, which was, however, maintained by the justiciar during the interval preceding the coronation of the new king: (Stubbs' Select Charters, p. 446; Anson's Law and Custom of the Constitution, ii., the Crown, Part 1, p. 227). The Crown was elective. No man had a right to become king till he had been called to the kingly office by the clerics of the

assembly of the nation, and no man actually was king till he had been admitted to the kingly office by the consecration of the Church. Edward I. was the first king whose reign began before his coronation; he was absent in Palestine when his father died, and his right was acknowledged without opposition.

But even in this case there was an interregnum. The regnal years of Edward I. are not reckoned from the day of his father's death, but from the day of his funeral, when the prelates and nobles swore allegiance to him. Edward II. dated his reign from the day after his father's death. No sign of the doctrines that the king never dies, that the throne never can bevacant, that there can be no interregnum, and that the reign of the next heir begins the moment the reign of his predecessor is ended can be found at any time earlier than the reign of Edward I. (Freeman's Growth of the English Constitution, p. 144). From the accession of Edward I., the first king who reigned before his coronation, hereditary succession became the rule in practice.



The king in early times was not only elected, but he went through a twofold election, the second being the form of an ecclesiastical consecration to the kingly office. "That form," writes Mr. Freeman, we still retain, but in modern times it has become a mere form-a pageant, impressive, no doubt, and instructive, but still a mere pageant which gives the crowned king no powers which he did not equally hold while still uncrowned. The death of the former king puts at once his successor in possession of every kingly right and power; his coronation in no way adds to his legal authority, however much it may add to his personal responsibility towards God and his. people. But this was not so of old time. The choice of the national assembly gave the king so chosen the sole right to become king, but it did not make him king.

The king-elect was like a bishop-elect, and the recommendation of the Crown, the election of the chapter, and the confirmation of the archbishop give a certain man the sole right to a certain see, but it is only the purely religious rite of consecration which makes him actually bishop of it. So it was of old with a king. The choice of the Witan made him king-elect, but it was only the ecclesiastical crowning and anointing which made him king. And this ecclesiastical ceremony involved a further election. Chosen already to the civil office by the nation in its civil character, he was again chosen by the Church—that is, by the nation in its religious character by the clergy and people assembled in the church-when the crowning rite. was to be done : (Freeman's Growth of the English Constitution, pp. 146-147).

Down to the time of Henry VIII. the old ecclesiastical form of choosing the king remained in the coronation service, which in its present form falls into three stages of ceremonial which are full of historical and constitutional interest: First, the recognition and the oath; then the anointing, investiture, and actual crowning; and, lastly, the homage of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal.

The recognition represents the great officers of the Witan or council presenting the Sovereign of their choice to the assembled. people, who are asked to record the national approval of the chosen king-the people being for this purpose more especially represented by the boys of Westminster School, who take the part played by the crowd at a mediæval coronation. While the coronation oath indicates the contractual character of English sovereignty, the anointing, the investiture, and the crowning would seem to confer upon Royalty its sacred character, while the homage of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal represents the oath of fidelity by the Ministry of Saxon times, and later by the great vassals of the Crown, which gave practical security to the new reign (see Anson's Law and Custom of the Constitution, ii., the Crown, Part 1, pp. 235-238).

When the coronation was not merely a recognition of the king chosen by the nation, but a second election, it must always have been a mere form, although absolutely essential, as the choice of the nation had already been made before the ecclesiastical ceremony began. To the superficial observer the Crown of England would seem to be purely hereditary, the people having no voice, much less a power of selection, in its occupant. A closer student of the Constitution would come to a different conclusion-that kings who have been called to reign by the direct operation of the law under the provisions of the Act of Settlement are invested with power which flows

directly from the will of the people, and that the objects which were once best secured by making the throne elective are now best secured by making the throne hereditary by statute.


A DECISION of great importance to all owners of house property in congested areas has recently been pronounced by Mr. Justice Parker in Foulkes v. Salisbury-Jones and another (Times Newspaper, May 20, p. 3). The facts were extremely simple. The plaintiff, a lessee of a London house, sued the defendants, who were respectively the owner and a builder of an adjoining house. The plaintiff c mplained that the defendants in demolishing the building as a preparation for extensions were interfering with her enjoyment of her own house through the dust and debris created and distributed by them. She formulated her claim for injunction and damages on two chief grounds. First, it was urged that no notice had been given as required by the London Building Act; and, secondly, on the broad consideration of nuisance.

The first ground may be dismissed briefly, for, although Mr. Justice Parker concluded that the Act had not been complied with in its integrity, the learned judge thought that the non-compliance was not such as would justify him giving damages. On the ground, however, that the defendants had not exercised proper precautions to protect the plaintiff from dust and débris, and had by their negligence in this particular evidenced a want of reasonable skill and care, Mr. Justice Parker held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages and costs.

In these cases the lawyer always turns at once to Harrison v. Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company (64 L. T. Rep. 864;(1891) 2 Ch. 408), where Lord Justice Vaughan Williams (then a judge of first instance) considered at some length, in the course of a case where a statutory company was causing annoyance by its operations, the precise point now in issue. The learned judge (p. 865) is reported to have said: "It frequently happers that the owners or occupiers of land cause, in the execution of lawful works in the ordinary user of the land, a considerable amount of temporary annoyance to their neighbours, but they are not necessarily on that account held to be guilty of causing an unlawful nuisance. The business of life could not be carried on if it were sO. For instance, a man who pulls down his house for the purpose of building a new one, no doubt causes considerable inconvenience to his next-door neighbours during the process of demolition; but he is not responsible as for a nuisance if he uses all reasonable skill and care to avoid annoyance to his neighbour by the works of demolition. Nor is he liable to an action even though the noise and dust and the consequent annoyance be such as would constitute a nuisance if the same, instead of being created for the purpose of demolition of the house, had been created in sheer wantonness or in the execution of works for a purpose involving a permanent continuance of the noise and dust."

[ocr errors]

Mr. Justice Parker's decision emphasises the condition introduced by the words set out above in italice. It is vital to the decision to determine whether that reasonable skill and care have been displayed. In the case under comment, the defendants, like so many other builders and owners, had ignored the main consideration, and were relying too strongly on the much-advanced phrase in which the necessities of the "business of life" are indicated. The decision, being one of so important a character to all residents in towne, should be kept in mind for use where the facts are similar; but it may possibly be asked whether the principle enunciated in it is not capable of further extension, and if a plaintiff, in an area where (say) the disturbance caused by his neighbour's dog cannot be dealt with under by-laws or other such simple methods of proce. dure, cannot bring effective pressure to bear by showing that the neighbour bad not used "all reasonable skill and care to avoid annoy. ance" either by keeping the dog indoors or by lodging it in some more distant portion of his premises or otherwise. There are plenty of persons whose amenities are as much prejudiced by noise as were those of the plaintiff by the dust created in the demolition of a house.


THE rule of the Irish Chancery Courts with reference to the question of costs of administration actions, where the rights of the personal representative and of mortgagees are in conflict, was well illustrated in the case of Bell v. Butterly, which came before Mr. Justice Barton on the 2nd inst. The rule was originally laid down by the Court of Appeal in Hilliard v. Moriarty (1894, 1 Ir. Rep 316), where it was decided that in a creditor's administration suit the ordinary rule is that a mortgagee does not lose his priority by consenting to a sale of premises mortgaged to him by the deceased, nor does he thereby undertake to pay the costs of the sale in the event of a deficiency.

THE question of the appointment of magistrates is one of difficulty in Ireland as well as England. Mr. Birrell, in answer to a question that was addressed to him in Parliament, thinks that he has not enough evidence before him to satisfy him that there is any necessity for setting up advisory committees such as exist in England. He says that the appointment of magistrates rests exclusively with the lieutenants of counties and the Lord Chancellor, but he is always Second Sheet.

ready to communicate with the Lord Chancellor on the subject, and he adds that he has repeatedly done so. "I have always found him," says Mr. Birrell, "anxious and ready to add to the commission of the peace proper persons."

THE Trinity Sittings opened on Thursday, the 1st inst. It is expected that the term will be very much broken up for various reasons. First of all, the courts did not sit on Whit Monday, the 5th inst.; then it is expected that by reason of the Coronation the courts will be adjourned from Wednesday, the 21st inst., till Monday, the 26th inst. Several of the Irish judges are going to London at that time. His Majesty's visit to Dublin will cause another break in July and the courts in Dublin will be closed on Monday, the 10th July, when His Majesty holds a levée at Dublin Castle. The assize judges will probably come back to town on the 7th prox., and remain until the King and Queen leave Ireland. This will probably have the effect of running the assize work-on the North-East Circuit at any rate-into the Long Vacation. Some promotions have taken place by reason of the death of Mr. Serjeant Jellett. Mr. Serjeant O'Brien, the Third Serjeant-at-Law, has been raised to the rank of Second Serjeant-at-Law, whilst Mr. T. F. Molony, K.C, has been made Third Serjeant-at-Law, and at the meeting of the Benchers on the 1st inst. he was co-opted a Bencher.

AN amusing incident has taken place in Belfast which is of some interest on the question of local government. Some time ago Mr. Curley, one of the members of the Belfast Corporation, issued an invitation to a large number of people to breakfast in the City Hall in Belfast to meet the General Assembly" of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. At a meeting of the Belfast Corporation on the 1st inst., the Lord Mayor, Mr. M-Mordie, M.P., referred to the invitation, and stated that Mr. Curley had no authority to use the City Hall for such a purpose. He added that even if the corporation allowed him the use of the Townhall he should think it his duty to bring the matter before the High Court. The Lord Mayor referred to the breakfast as of a "denominational character." Mr. Curley appears to have had the authority of the Improvement Committee in the matter. However, he has altered his plans, and is giving the breakfast in another building in the city. It appears, however, that the Lord Mayor himself had been granted the use of the Botanic Gardens Park in Belfast-which also is municipal property-for the purpose of giving a garden party, and in the minute of the 3rd May, in which was recorded the liberty that was given to him by the corporation, it is stated that the garden party is being given "in connection with the General Assembly." It is difficult to see the difference between Mr. Curley's proposed use of the City Hall and the Lord Mayor's use of the park. However, the corporation has ordered the reference to the General Assembly to be deleted from the minute of the 3rd May. The general terms of the minute, however, are not so important as the actual facts. A matter of a similar character came before Sir A. M. Porter, the Master of the Rolls, in 1902, in AttorneyGeneral v. Midleton Guardians (3 N. I. J. R. 38). In that case the board of guardians had passed a resolution granting the use of the board room in the workhouse for meetings of the United Irish League. It was held on the application for an interlocutory injunction that the building was vested in the Local Government Board, and that it could not be used for purposes not connected with Poor Law administration without the approval of that board.

THE case of Rer (Odlum) v. King's County Justices, which came before the King's Bench Division on the 2nd inst., was a decision on sect. 9 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1851, which corresponds with sect. 65 of the Highway Act 1835 in England. Both those sections enable a county surveyor, where roads are being prejudiced by the shade of trees or hedges on the highway, causing an exclusion of sun and wind, to get an order from a bench of justices that such hedges shall be cut or pruned in such a manner that the road shall not be prejudiced by the shade thereof. In Odlum's case the county surveyor of King's County had served a statutory notice on the owner of the land calling on him to cut certain hedges so that the roads should not be prejudiced or obstructed by the same. There was an addendum to the notice stating that the hedges were to be cut to a height of 4ft. The magistrates made an order that the hedges were to be cut to that height. This order was sought to be quashed on certiorari on the ground that the preliminary notice which was a condition precedent to jurisdiction being exercised was a bad notice, inasmuch as it called upon the owner to cut the hedges to a particular height, and as the judges had not shown on the face of their order that they considered it was necessary to cut the hedges to a height of 4ft. in order that the shade of the hedges should not prejudice the road. The court decided both points against the prosecutor, and discharged the additional order for certiorari. This decision seems to be entirely in accordance with the decision of the court in England under sect. 5 of the Highway Act 1835 in Brooke v. Jenney (2 Q. B. 274). In that case it was decided that the attention of the party offending should be explicitly called, in the summons, to the manner in which he is required to do what is wanted. Lord Denman, C.J., said: "It is not enough to call upon him to cause the hedges to be cut, pruned, or plashed when he may well be in doubt what it is these words mean; nor to direct him to remove the said obstruction complained of without pointing out what the obstruction is; nor where it is specificially limited to the exclusion of sun and wind." The Court of Queen's Bench held that the order was bad for not specify

ing particularly in what manner and to what extent the owner was to cut the hedges; that this was a substantial defect, and not one merely of form; and that the surveyor was liable to an action of trespass for cutting the hedge in default of the owner's obeying the order.


THE Comparatively recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Ireland Re Domville and Callwell's Contract (1908, 1 Ir. Rep.475) calls attention to the vexed question of compound settlement. The law on that subject is rather a tangled skein if that case is to have any weight, and it is difficult to say with certainty under what circumstances it is necessary that trustees of the compound settlement for the purpose of the Settled Land Acts should be appointed. The point turns principally upon sects. 2 and 20 of the Settled Land Act 1882 and sect. 4 of the Settled Land Act 1890. Sect. 2 of the former Act provides, in effect, that any instrument, or any number of instruments, whether made before or after, or partly before and partly after, the commencement of the Act, under or by virtue of which land, or any interest therein, stands for the time being limited to or in trust for persons by way of succession creates a settlement, and is in this Act referred to as a settlement or as the settlement, as the case requires. Sect. 20 of the same Act provides, in effect, that on a sale, &c., the tenant for life may convey the land for the estate or interest the subject of the settlement, or for any less estate, discharged from all the provisions of the settlement, and from all estates, interests, and charges subsisting or to arise thereunder, except (1) estates, interests, and charges having priority to the settlement, and (2) such other estates, interests, and charges as have been conveyed or created for securing money actually raised at the date of the deed, and (3) leases and grants at fee farm rents or otherwise, &c., made before the date of the deed; and sect. 4 of the Act of 1890 provides that every instrument whereby a tenant for life in consideration of marriage or by way of family arrangement, not being a security for money advanced, assigns or charges his interest under the settlement is to be deemed one of the instruments creating the settlement, and not an instrument vesting in any person any right as assignee for value within the meaning of sect. 50 of the Act of 1882. The facts in Re Domville and Callwell's Contract were shortly as follows: Lands were settled by will on the vendor for life with remainder to his first and other sons in tail. The will contained powers of jointuring and charging with portions for younger children. The vendor joined with his eldest son in a disentailing deed, dated 1891, and conveyed the land to trustees to such uses as the vendor and his eldest son should jointly appoint, and in default of and until such appointment, upon the pre existing trusts of the will, and so as to restore the old uses and powers. The trustees of that deed were appointed trustees for the purposes of the Settled Land Act. Some time afterwards-namely, in 1885-the vendor joined with his eldest son in a deed whereby he released the power of charging portions under the will, and in lieu thereof he and his eldest son, under the power of appointment in the disentailing deed, appointed the said lands to trustees for a term for raising new charges for younger children. Subsequently by a deed of appointment, dated in 1904, in exercise of the power given to them by the said disentailing deed, the vendor and his son settled the said lands on the vendor for life, with remainders over, The life estate was expressed to be in restoration of the vendor's old life estate under the will, and the power of jointuring thereunder was restored. The deed contained power of jointuring by future tenants for life, and of charging portions for younger children, and with payment of certain sums for purposes therein specified. The trustees of that deed were appointed trustees for the purpose of the Settled Land Acts. In exercise of the power under the will and resettlement, the vendor, by deed dated in 1906, executed his power of jointuring on the occasion of his subsequent marriage. It would appear from the argument that there was a mortgage on foot for the payment of costs, &c., created under the powers of the deeds of 1895 and 1904, and it was admitted in argument (but whether rightly seems open to question) that if trustees were appointed of the compound settlement, the purchaser would not be concerned with such mortgage. The purchaser required trustees of the compound settlement constituted by all the above-mentioned documents to be appointed, and it wae held by the Court of Appeal that the will and subsequent instruments constituted a compound settlement, and that the purchaser was entitled to require the appointment of trustees of such compound settlement for the purpose of the said Acts. The court of first instance had decided that such trustees were not necessary. The principal argument for the appellants was that the will alone did not constitute a settlement, because the life estate of the vendor was the only interest then subsisting under it, and, further, that under sect. 20 of the Act of 1882 the vendor could only convey free from charges, &c., subsisting or to arise thereunder, whereas here there were charges which did not arise thereunder. The appellant's counsel distinguished Re Lord Wimborne and Browne's Contract (90 L. T. Rep. 540; (1904) 1 Ch. 537) on the ground that in that case there were jointure and portions remaining to be raised under the original settle. ment, and they relied upon Re Mundy and Roper's Contract (79 L. T. Rep. 583; (1899) 1 Ch. 275) and Re Cornwallis West and Munroe's Contract (88 L. T. Rep. 351; (1903) 2 Ch. 150), as explained by Lord Wimborne and Browne's Contract, as being directly in point. The

[ocr errors]

Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in the course of a reasoned judgment, put the following proposition: "If under the disentailing deed the . lands had been limited to the use of the father and son as joint tenants in fee simple, and they under their ownership had by various deeds created charges on their lands, and subsequently under the same ownership had given back the lands to the first tenant for life as by restoration of his former life estate, with the powers annexed, could be sell discharged from all the intervening charges? Mr. Walker said he could. That may be so, but I am not aware of any deciding that.' Lord Justice Holmes, after referring to numerous decisions bearing on the point, said: "All which and other authorities I have read with reasonable care, but with little profit or satisfaction. Different judges have come to different conclusions; deductions are drawn which it is hard to follow, and in most of them trustees of a compound settlement were, as a matter of fact, appointed whether it was necessary to do so or not." Lord Justice FitzGibbon thought that even if the question were doubtful it would be the duty of the court to give the benefit of the doubt to the purchaser. With the latter dictum we respectfully agree. The case of Re Domville and Callwell's Contract is not binding on the courts in England, and it would seem to conflict with Re Mundy and Roper's Contract and Re Cornwallis West and Munroe's Contract, as explained by Lord Wimborne and Browne's Contract, before cited, which seem to show that as long as there are trustees of the original will or deed creating the settlement the tenant for life under such will or deed can sell not only free from the limitations and charges created by the original settlement, but also from any limitations or charges created by any resettlement or sub-settlement, without trustees of the compound settlement being appointed. Assuming that, however, to be the case, suppose that the re-settlement by the father and eldest son, after the usual dieentailing asssurance, begins by creating a term of 500 years to raise money, and subject thereto the estate for life under the original settlement is restored, and then money is borrowed on mortgage of the term, can the tenant for life sell free from such mortgage either with or without trustees of the compound settlement being appointed? It is submitted that he cannot. The point, however, is by no means free from difficulty. Under sect. 20 of the Settled Land Act 1882 the tenant for life has power on sale to convey the land for the estate or interest the subject of the "ettlement, i.e., as a rule, the fee simple (see Re Knowles' Settled Estates (51 L. T. Rep. 655; 27 Ch. Div. 707) and the observations of Mr. Justice Stirling in Ducane and Nettlefold's Contract (78 L. T. Rep. 458; 1898) 2 Ch. 107), but he cannot convey free from charges arising under the settlement and create for securing money actually raised at the date of the deed. It may be said that money borrowed under a term created by the resettlement is not a charge arising "under the settlement." It is a charge arising under the compound settlement, but is that "the settlement" within the meaning of sect. 20 of the Settled Land Act 1882 ? "Settlement" of itself may include several instruments and therefore includes a compound settlement, but does it mean that in sect. 20? It would seem from the observations of Mr. Justice Stirling in Re Marquis of Ailesbury and Lord Iveagh (69 L. T. Rep. 101; (1893) 2 Ch. 358) that it does not. But even then it is a strong thing to say that the tenant for life can convey free from such a mortgage. Notwithstanding the difficulties, however, there appears to be a consensus of opinion among English lawyers that as a rule it is not necessary to appoint trustees of the compound settlement where deeds have been executed subsequent to the original settlement affecting the interest created thereby: (see Re Ducane and Nettlefold's Contract and Re Lord Wimborne and Browne's Contract, respectively before cited, and Wolstenholme's Conveyancing and Settled Land Acts, p. 326, 9th edit.). Sect. 4 of the Settled Land Act 1890 is not to be read as providing that an assignment made by a tenant for life of settled land in consideration of marriage or by way of family arrangement is to be deemed one of the instruments creating the settlement for all the purposes of the Act, but is limited to the purpose of excluding the operation of sect. 50 of the Settled Land Act 1882-that is, the section which prevents the powers of a tenant for life from being assignable (see Re Ducane and Nettlefold's Contract).


Sir S. T. Evans sat in chambers last Thursday and disposed of several summonses and applications. He will not sit again during this vacation, and his duties as Vacation judge will terminate on Monday next.

The Whitsun Vacation will end on Monday next, and on the following day the Trinity Sittings will commence, lasting until Monday, the 31st July.

Yesterday Mr. Justice Bray opened the commission at Presteign, on the South Wales Circuit. When the business at this town is finished he will return to London, where he will remain until Tuesday, the 4th July, when he will return to the second part of the circuit at Chester, being joined by Mr. Justice Bankes.

To-day (Saturday) Mr. Justice Bankes opens the commission at Mold, on the North Wales Circuit. When the business at this town is finished he will return to London and will remain until Tuesday, the 4th July, when he, being joined by Mr. Justice Bray, will return to the second part of the circuit at Chester, and will open the commission on the following day.

When the courts reopen there will only be ten of the judges of the King's Bench Division available to assist in the disposal of the London business-viz, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Darling, Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence, Mr. Justice Grantham, Mr. Justice Phillimore, Mr. Justice Channell, Mr. Justice Hamilton, Mr. Justice Scrutton, Mr. Justice Horridge, and Mr. Justice Lush. There will be six of the judges away on circuit, and Mr. Justice Ridley and Mr. Justice Bucknil will be engaged for a considerable time with the hearing of the North-West Ham election petition. At no time during the sittings will there be more than eleven judges of the King's Bench Division available.

The North-West Ham election petition will commence on Tuesday next. Mr. Justice Ridley and Mr. Justice Bucknil will be the presiding judges. Mr. Alderson Foote, K.C., will lead for the petitioner, and the respondent will be represented by Mr. Dickens, K.C., Mr. Hemmerde, K.C., M.P., and Mr. Hugh Fraser.

The June Sittings at the Mayor's Court will commence on Monday next at 10.30.

The June general session for cases arising on the north and south sides of the Thames will commence on Tuesday next at the Sessionshouse, Newington, at 10.30.

The Inns of Court Trinity Term will commence on Tuesday next and will end on Tuesday, the 18th July, both days inclusive.

The International Peace Congress at Clermont Ferrand concluded its labours on Wednesday by passing a motion in favour of the limitation of military expenditure.

Mr. N. J. Paterson is acting as Attorney-General of Grenada and St. Vincent during the absence on leave of the Hon. D. T. Tudor, who has arrived in England.

Mr. Hall T. Price is acting as Attorney-General of the Colony of British Honduras, in consequence of the departure on leave of Chief Justice F. M. Maxwell.

Mr. A. K. Young, Chief Justice of Seychelles, has assumed the duties of the office of Governor during the absence on leave of Mr. Walter E. Davidson, who has arrived in England.

During the absence on leave of Mr. T. A. Thompson. Registrar of the Supreme Court and Marshal of Trinidad, Mr. L. H. Lovelace will act for him, and Mr. F. Collins will perform the duties of Chief Clerk and Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court.

Mr. William Lawrence Wemyss Pearson, of The Albany, Piccadilly, W., and of Hare-court, Temple, E.C., barrister-at law, who died on the 6th May last, aged fifty-six years, left estate of the gross value of £65,283, of which the net personalty has been sworn at £64,783.

The Hon. D. M. Eberts, K.C., for may years Attorney-General for British Columbia, and now Speaker of the British Columbia Legislature, is unable to come to England this year, having had to undergo a serious surgical operation. According to latest advices he is now convalescent.

The following have been appointed Nautical Assessors for the County Court of Somersetshire, holden at Bridgwater: James Smart, Bridgwater, Harbour Master; William Holding. Bridgwater, Master Mariner; George Warren, Bridgwater. Master Mariner; John Exon, Bridgwater, Master Mariner; L. W. Nurse, Bridgwater, Master Mariner.

The World Peace Foundation Publishing Company of Boston have sent us some of their papers, principally two pamphlets, one on the International Duty of the United States and Great Britain, by Edwin D. Mead, and a reprint of Sir Edward Grey's speech in the House of Commons on Union for World Peace. We think it was a good idea to print the latter in pamphlet form.

The Scientific Press Limited has issued a new edition of Sir Henry Burdett's Hospitals and Charities, being a year book of philanthropy and the hospital annual. Its scheme is comprehensive and its information up to date, and items are easily found in a very complete index. Some interesting and perhaps surprising statistics are given in the first chapter, on the volume of charity. The chapter on Nursing has been enlarged and contains fuller information than hitherto.

On Friday evening of last week a flash of lightning set fire to the Palais de Justice at Evreux, France. In a very short time the fire apread and reached the wing adjoining the prison. The work of extinction was considerably hampered through scarcity of water. The fire was discovered at five o'clock, and by half-past seven the upper stories were completely destroyed, as was also the assize hall. By eight o'clock the prison was in such danger that 130 men and women incarcerated were removed to the soldiers' houses. The Palais de Justice dates from 1875. The archives were destroyed with their contents, but the minutes of judgments of the Civil Tribunal and the Tribunal of Commerce were saved. One man was injured.

A sensational trial has just terminated before the Assize Court of the Basses-Pyrénées. It has been known as the affaire des avortements. A qualified medical practitioner was indicted, and with him twelve women, who, it was alleged, were his accomplices. The jury has acquitted all the parties, who came from Bayonne. In view of the dow birth rate of France, it can be supposed that all the responsible writers in the Press deplore the collapse of the prosecution. But what strikes the English student of the French legal system is that during the trial, under the auspices, it is alleged, of certain Socialists, the Department was placarded with bills in which the crime was not only "excused, but praised as the exercise of a primordial law," and the judges seemed powerless to deal with the authors.

Mr. Arthur Stewart Diffield, M. A. Cantab, who has just been appointed Registrar of Chelmsford County Court, succeeds his father, Mr. William Ward Duffield, who held the appointment for a period of twenty-eight years and recently resigned on attaining his ninetieth year. Mr. A. S. Duffield was educated at Rugby and at Trinity Hall, Cambridge. He rowed for his university against Oxford in 1890. He was admitted a solicitor in 1894. and is a member of the firms of Duffield and Son, Chelmsford, and Duffield, Bruty, and Co., London. Mr. Roland Edmund Lomax Vaughan Williams, son of Sir Roland Vaughan Williams, was married to Miss Grace Phillimore, daughter of Sir Walter Phillimore, at St. Mary Abbot's Church, Kensington, on the 1st inst. The officiating clergy were Prebendary the Hon. J. S. Northcote (cousin of the bride) and Prebendary Somerset Pennefather, vicar of the parish. The bridegroom was supported by Mr. Rhys Williams as best man. The reception was held at Cam House, Campden-hill, the residence of Sir Walter Phillimore, and the bride and bridegroom afterwards left for Lechlade.

Mr. M. Mair Mackenzie has brought the late Mr. Macrory's Notes on the Temple Organ up to date in a third edition. The original text is undisturbed, Mr. Mackenzie having confined himself to merely supplementary matter. The reconstruction of, and additions to, the organ which the Benchers of the two societies of the Temple have lately caused to be carried out by Mr. Rothwell, organ-builder, under the supervision of Dr. Walford Davies, are dealt with. The book now has four illustrations, and is published by G. Bell and Sons at half-a-crown.

It is obvious that there is still room for legislation in regard to bird-catching, if the facts given in a pamphlet published by the Humanitarian League are correct. The case for the caged bird is well stated in The Other Side of the Bars, by Ernest Bell, who shows that the meshes of the law in the various Wild Bird Protection Acts and the Wild Animals in Captivity Act are too wide to entrap the wary bird-catchers. Mr. Bell admits, however, that, from the point of view of supply and demand, the bird-cagers are chiefly responsible for the cruelty inflicted on thousands of small birds.

The Lord-Lieutenant of Surrey (Colonel the Hon. H. Cubitt) has, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, invited the following magistrates of the county to serve on a committee to advise as to the appointment of county justices: Sir William Vincent, Bart.. chairman of Quarter Sessions; Sir Charles Walpole, deputy chairman of Quarter Sessions; Mr. A. W. Chapman, chairman of the Surrey County Council; Mr. R. V. Barrow, chairman of the Croydon County Bench; and Mr. J. Cable, of Guildford. These gentlemen have consented to serve, and the first meeting will be held shortly. The three last mentioned hold Liberal views in politics.

Judgment was given on the 1st inst. in the Central Hull election petition, Sir Henry Seymour King, who for twenty-five years has represented the division, being unseated. The court held that the distribution of coals and the entertainment of children became illegal when continued at the time of an election, though they recognised Sir Seymour King's good intentions, and acquitted him of any corrupt motive. A hostile crowd hooted the judges when they left the court, and two pieces of coal, one of which struck Mr. Justice Ridley on the back of the head, were thrown at their motor-car. Two men who had run away directly after the outrage had been committed were arrested.

The numberless wise and witty sayings of Mr. Birrell in his writings, on the platforms, and in Parliamentary debate have tended to throw into oblivion his brilliant mots when practising at the Bar, of which the following, recorded some time ago in the lay Press, may serve as a specimen : If you are going to punish a man," he said, when addressing a jury for the defendant in a libel action, "if you are going to punish a man simply for having a lively fancy, I don't know where it will end." There wouldn't be many to punish,"


said Mr. Justice Darling. "I don't know," rejoined Mr. Birrell, "that many judicial vacancies would be created, my Lord"-an observation which, when addressed to the brilliant author of Scintille Juris, was ipso facto deprived of everything that savoured of bitterness.

In the Burlington Magazine for June the editorial deals with the recent extensions at the National Gallery and the British Museum, and criticises a method of "improvement" which leaves outside the opinions of the officials in charge of the departments concerned. Mr. Lionel Cust continues his notes on pictures in the Royal Collections, giving examples of nine portraits. Mr. Roger Fry writes about the Richard Bennett collection of Chinese porcelain which is now on view in Bond-street, the proceeds of the exhibition to go to the National Art Collection Fund. Mr. G. F. Hill has an eleventh series of notes on Italian Medals; Mr. Claude Phillips writes of an unrecognised Carpaccio; F. Melian Stawell reviews the new book Letters of Vincent van Gogh, and J. A. Joyce The Ruins of Mexico, by C. G. Rickards.

At Hull Police-court on the 2nd inst., William Lount, a witness in the election petition trial, was charged with assaulting one of His Majesty's judges, Sir Edward Ridley, by striking him with a piece of coal. Supt. Sharp said a large crowd assembled as the two election petition Judges were leaving the law courts in a motor-car. Witness was standing near the prisoner, who, as the motor-car passed, threw something at the vehicle, at the same tire using objectionable language. Witness at once took prisoner into custody. The car was stopped, and Mr. Justice Bucknili said something which witness could not hear because of the noise. Witness subsequently received a piece of coal (produced) from one of the mounted police. On the app'ics. tion of the police, prisoner was remanded for seven days and was admitted to bail, one surety in £50 or two sureties in £25.

The Kensington Borough Council recently adopted resolutions urging the London County Council (1) to claim in aid of the rates the profits of the Middlesex Deed Registry, estimated at £15,000 a year, following the example of the Yorkshire County Councils, who receive the profits of the Yorkshire Registries; and (2) to take action in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Land Transfer to obtain the extension of the Middlesex Deed Registry to the whole county of London which, it is estimated, would increase the profits to £27,000 per annum. The movement has already obtained the support of the following metropolitan borough councils : Battersea, Bermondsey, Chelsea, Fulham, Hammersmith, Poplar, Stoke Newington, Wandsworth, and Woolwich. The Local Government Committee of the London County Council have the proposals under consideration.

The ninth annual Bar Golf Tournament began on the links of the Prince's Club at Sandwich on Wednesday, when the first round was decided. Of the judges who had entered, Mr. Justice Lush (11) was beaten by Mr. Alexander Glen, K.C. (16), at the nineteenth hole after a tie, while Mr. Justice Bucknil (17) was defeated by Mr. A. Macpherson (8) by two holes. Mr. Justice Sorutton (13) had a walk over, Mr. D. M. Kerly (14) scratching. Mr. H. W. Beveridge, the Scottish International, who owed 4 strokes, played wel'. He beat Mr. E. Morten, K.C. (13), by 6 and 4. In the second and third rounds, Mr. D. M. Smith (plus 1), who won last year, Mr. J. E. K. Hall (3), and Mr. E. C. Clay (8) walk over owing to the withdrawal of Mr. A. T. Bucknill (11), Judge Lush Wilson (15), and Mr. W. M. Heald (5), respectively. Mr. Justice Lush, captain of the Bar Golfing Society, has presented a silver cup for the best return against Bogey this week.

The Local Government Board has issued reports made on the results of experimental investigations designed to prove the extent to which infection may be carried by flies. Experiments were made to measure the possible range of flight of flies, and further observations were recorded on the ways in which artificially infected flies carry and distribute pathogenic and other bacteria. The experiments and observations quoted in the report show definitely that artificially infected flies, both house-flies and blow-flies, are capable of infecting fluids, such as milk and syrup, on which they feed and into which they fall. In the case of the house-fly, infected with certain microorganisms, gross infection may be produced in milk for at least three daye, and a smaller degree of infection for ten days or even longer. Blow-flies produced gross infection for six to nine days with nonapore-bearing micro-organisms and some degree of infection for three or four weeks.

Letters have been addressed by the Cobden Club to Sir Edward Grey and President Taft in support of Anglo-American arbitration. "The proposed treaty," they say in the letter to the Foreign Minister, "would be an inestimable security for lasting peace between the two nations, and we hail with satisfaction your testimony to the spirit of reasonableness and good will which characterises_negotiations with the United States." In the letter to President Taft the following passages occur: "You have devoted your high authority and influence to the promotion of a measure which, under Providence, will render war between the two English-speaking nations, spread as they are over the globe, an impossibility. Your proposal to refer all differences to arbitration has found an echo on both sides of the Atlantic, and if, as we feel assured will be the case, it is ratified in a treaty wide in its terms and generous in its confidence, you will gain for yourself and your country a triumph greater and more lasting than ever was acoorded to military achievement."

Mr. H. Westbury Preston, the clerk and solicitor, called attention at the meeting of the Hampstead Board of Guardians on the 1st inst. to a peculiar case and one for which, so far as he was aware, there was no precedent. Some weeks ago a woman who had been separated from her husband became an inmate of the workhouse because the man did not pay her the 153. a week due under the separation order, and she was destitute. The man was now petitioning for a divorce, and the woman had been served with a copy of the petition. As the guardians would, in the event of the man being successful, have to keep the woman and her children, he (the clerk) had entered an appearance in the Divorce Court on her behalf. The Rev. Henry Gow, the chairman, asked how far the guardians could legally go in such a case, and Colonel Sheffield questioned if the Local Government Board auditor would allow expenditure for such a purpose. The board approved the clerk's action, and instructed him to proceed with the defence and to report to them on the matter from time to time.

Delegates from London, Sheffield, Bradford, Halifax, Huddersfield, Doncaster, Hull, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh, and other towns, attended the thirty-ninth annual conterence of the National Society of Brassworkers, at Birmingham, on Monday. A resolution was passed heartily supporting the Government's Insurance Bill, but suggesting certain amendments. One of these was that the contributions of the State, the employer, and the workman should be equal, which would mean for invalidity threepence each, and for unemploy ment twopence each. A deputation was appointed to wait upon the Home Secretary to urge the institution of a public inquiry into the unhealthy and dirty character of metal polishing, with the view of prohibiting women and girls from following that employment. It was also resolved "That this society expresses to the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, M.P., its high appreciation of the service he has rendered to the cause of labour by his manly denunciation of the gratuitous and irrelevant remarks of judges in cealing with labour questions, and assures him that in the opinion of trade unioniste judges are mostly biassed against trade unions."

The errors in matters of law into which novelists have been betrayed have often been a source of entertainment to persons learned in the law. A still more amusing chapter might be written embodying a collection of the errors of writers in the lay Press on matters of Parliamentary procedure and practice. The other day an organ of the lay Press accounted for Lord Haldane's elevation to the peerage on the following ground-that the Lord Chancellor was finding the strain too great of taking a leading part in political discussion in the House of Lords and at the same time enforcing the rules of order in that assembly as its ex officio speaker. The Lord Chancellor has no authority whatever in the House of Lords more than any other member. When a member of the House of Lords speaks to a point of order, he addresses the House, not the Lord Chancellor. He cinnot call upon a member to address the House. There is no such thing as "catching the Chancellor's eye." When two rise at the same time. unless one gives way, the House, not the Lord Chancellor, will call on one of them to speak. When, more than a generation ago, it was in 1869 suggested that the Lord Chancellor should be invested with more extended powere, it was pointed out by the Lord Chancellor himself that as he was a Minister of the Crown not chosen by the House, and as the Lord Chancellor was often a member of the least experience in the House, he could not properly exercise powers of enforcing order such as are the powers with which the Speaker of the House of Commons is invested. Most remarkable of all, the Lord Chancellor, although sitting on the Woolsack in the House of Lords and empowered to put the question, need not be a peer at all.

In the City of London Court on the 31st ult, Mr. William J. Pike, bill discounter and moneylender, 20, High Holborn, with a head office at Bristol, sued W. R. Perry Limited. inquiry agents, Bush lane House, Cannon-street, E.C, for £33 18s. 2d. as damages for giving him incorrect information. Mr. Attenborough, plaintiff's counsel, said that the claim was made by one of the subscribers of the defendants, and the information they gave him was wholly inaccurate. Plaintiff had been carrying on business for many years, and for twenty years was a subscriber to the defendants. Defendants issued books of inquiry forms of 100, for which they were charged £4 104. Plaintiff was asked by one Fryer for a loan for £30, and he gave as security the name of Major Madan, lately an officer in the North Staffordshire Regiment. It was necessary that the plaintiff should know about the major's commercial status, and he asked the defendants about him. He lived at the Limes, Hampton. Defendants gave some information to the effect that the major paid £30 a year rent, was respectable, and care was advised in granting a loan. Plaintiff made the advance to a large extent on defendants' report, and now that he lost his money it was found that the major was made a bankrupt in 1903. Plaintiff therefore demanded damages. He only got £7 out of the major. The major had not obtained his discharge, and the man who had obtained the loan had absconded. Mr. Stuart Bevan, defendants' counsel, said that if the plaintiff had not given them the wrong name he would have had the correct and full information. Defendants were not responsible for any claim on the part of the plaintiff, as they gave information upon the undertaking not to hold them responsible for damage or loss arising from insufficient or inaccurate information whether by reason of mistake or negligence of yourselves, or your servants, agents, correspondents, or otherwise." They had thousands of inquiries every day, and there was nothing to show that the major would not still pay up. Judge Lumley Smith was quite satisfied that in fact there had been no negligence on the part of the defendants. He was also satisfied that they were protected by the conditions that they would not be responsible if there had been. Judgment for the defendants with costs.

[ocr errors]

In the City of London Court on the 31st ult., before His Honour Judge Lumley Smith, K.C., a claim was made by Mr. James Knox, trading as James Knox and Co., 1, Jewin-street, against Mr. Horace J. Knox, 10, Walbrook, E.C., to recover £85 damages for detaining blouse-making, button-holing, and lace-stitching machinery. Mr. Harold Brandon, plaintiff's counsel, stated that the action was brought against the defendant as the trustee under a deed of assignment of a firm called Rayner and Palmer, blouse manufacturers, &c., Hackfordroad, Brixton. Plaintiff was a dealer in machinery. He did not, as a rule, enter into hire-purchase transactions at all. On the occasion in question a Mr. Harden called upon the plaintiff and asked him for certain blouse-making machinery. Plaintiff had done business with Harden before. Harden had traded as The Misses Harden," "The Holland Blouse Company," and afterwards as "Rayner, Palmer, and Co.," the latter of whom he said were two of his travellers. He wanted the machinery in their names because there were reasons why he should not sign the document. It was agreed that Harden or Rayner and Palmer should have machinery to the value of £126 on a hire-purchase agreement, and to give bills as collateral security. That was done. The bills were made payable on the same date as the hire-purchase inetalments. Six or seven bills were paid, but on the 23rd Feb. one was dishonoured. Then the plaintiff found that Harden, or Rayner and Palmer, had made a deed of assignment for the benefit of creditors. The trustee, the present defendant, refused to give up the machinery, although it was the plaintiff's absolute property until all the instalments were paid. The hirer could not give the defendant an effective title until he had completely paid for the machinery. Plaintiff therefore demanded the return of the machinery. First, the defendant said that the bills were taken in substitution of the hire-purchase agreement. If so, the defendant should have got them back. Defendant also said that the plaintiff bad credited the bills in defendant's account. Harden conducted the whole of Rayner and Palmer's business. Mr. Charles Jones, defendant's counsel, said the plaintiff sold the machinery out and out to

« EelmineJätka »