« EelmineJätka »
Grays Thurrock, Wednesday, at 11 Great Grimsby, Tuesday and Wednesday, at 10: Thursday, at 10.30 Greenwich, Friday, at 10.30
Halifax, Wednesday, at 9.30; Friday (R. By), at 10 30
Helmsley, Thursday, at 10.30
Hinckley, Monday, at 12
Hertford, Tuesday, at 10.30
Hitchin, Monday, at 10
Holsworthy,* Tuesday, at 10.30 Holt. Tuesday, at 10
Huddersfield, Thursday 9.30) and Friday
Hull, Monday, Wednesday, and
Huntingdon, Wednesday, at 10
Leeds, Monday (J.S. & A.O.),
Liskeard, Monday, at 10
Llanelly, Monday and Tuesday, at
Madeley, Wednesday, at 10
Thursday (J.S.), at 10; Friday (A.O. at 10, By at 12) Nuneaton, Friday, at 9
Oldham, Thursday, at 9.30; Friday (By), at 11; Saturday (J.S. & A.O.), at 9.30
Ormskirk, Tuesday, at 19
Penrith, Monday, at 11
Peterborough, Tuesday, at 9.30 Petersfield. Monday, at 10.15 Plymouth, Wednesday and Thursday, at 10
day, and Friday
Portsmouth, Thursday, at 10.30
Ramsgate, Wednesday. at 10
Reading, Thursday (R. By at 2), at 10
Redhill, Wednesday, at 10
Ripon, Saturday, at 9.30
Rochdale, Friday (J.S.), at 9.30 Rotherham, Tuesday, at 10
Rugeley, Tuesday (J.S.)
Sandbach, Tuesday. at 2
Sandwich, Friday, at 10.45
Scunthorpe, Monday, at 10
Sheffield, Wednesday (J.S.) and Friday, at 10
Shoreditch, Tuesday and Thursday Shrewsbury, Monday and Friday,
Southampton, Tuesday (By at 11), at 10
Scuthend, Thursday and Friday, at 10.30
Southwark. Monday, Tuesday,
Tunbridge Wells, Tuesday, at 9 30
Weymouth, Tuesday, at 10
9.30), Thursday, Friday (Reg. at 9.30), and Saturday, at 10 Launceston, Wednesday, at 20 Other sittings are
BANKRUPTCY LAW AND PRACTICE.
Re BARON ALEXANDER DE BERNICEY.
AN appeal from the decision of Dr. Boyes, Registrar of the Barnet County Court, in this matter (reported 130 L. T. Jour. 534) was heard by the Divisional Court (Phillimore and Lord Coleridge, JJ.) on the 12th May.
Maurice Bennett for the creditors; Schloesser for the trustee.
PHILLIMORE, J. in giving judgment said that when application for leave to appeal was made he was extremely doubtful if he would have granted it had he known that the registrar had not dismissed the creditor's petition, but had merely given leave for it to be withdrawn. The court upheld the registrar's grounds for his decision. The case of Re A Debtor (101 L. T. Rep. 841) was in point, particularly the portion of the judgment of Cozens-Hardy, M.R. adopted by the registrar. The petitioning creditor could not come in under rule 126; therefore the only rule he could come under was rule 183. The registrar's interpretation of that rule was the correct one. The words "at the instance of the petitioning creditor" must be added after the words" if a receiving order is made." The court inclined to think that there ought to be a rule that a petitioning creditor ought to get his costs in the case of an anticipatory petition by the debtor. But, there being no such rule, the registrar decided rightly. In answer to the contention that the debtor filed his petition in order to oust the creditor's petition, his Lordship declined to adopt such contention, because the creditor's petition was not served. It was true that he might have done it in consequence of the bankruptcy notice being served on him. But these suggestions or inferences did not affect the registrar's decision, which the court upheld, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
"That the Imperial Government should consider, in concert with the Dominion Governments, whether and to what extent and under what conditions it is practicable and desirable to make mutual arrangements with a view to the enforcement in one part of the Empire of commercial arbitration awards given in another part."
He pointed out that the law differs in the various Dominions, and that if in such a matter they could have uniformity of practice it would be a great advantage from the commercial point of view. He suggested that as it was a complicated legal question it should be referred to a committee at which he would ask the Attorney-General to attend on behalf of the Home Government.
Dr. Findlay pointed out that different parts of the Empire stood in relation to Great Britain in these matters in much the same relation as foreign countries. That, he thought, was not a right state of things in one Empire, and he would like to see some agreement arrived at in the matter.
The resolution was referred to a committee.
UNIFORMITY OF LAWS.
Sir Joseph Ward moved:
That it is in the best interests of the Empire that there should be more uniformity throughout its centres and Dependencies in the law of Copyright, Patents, Trade Marks, Companies."
He instanced a number of points in regard to which uniformity would result in a considerable saving of time, expense, and trouble. The whole work regarding patents could with great advantage be made uniform throughout the Empire. It was generally conceded that where uniformity could be established in laws affecting people throughout the Empire it was a good thing to work for. Complete uniformity in these matters was perhaps not possible, but more uniformity was certainly desirable, and he thought patents recognised in one part of the Empire should be recognised in all parts of it. Dr. Findlay thought that wherever possible Imperial scope should be given to the laws relating to the subjects dealt with in the resolution. At present a patent might be granted in New Zealand, but it would not be recognised in Australia. In his view it was conceivable that a patent granted in London should have validity throughout the Empire.
Mr. Buxton supported the resolution, stating that the Home Government were strongly in favour of more uniformity in regard to the question mentioned. They could probably not get absolute uniformity, but the present confusion was so great and was such a
disadvantage to the persons concerned and to the public that every step taken in the direction of uniformity was a gain. The resolution was agreed to.
Mr. Fisher formally moved: "That it is desirable that the attention of the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies should be called to the present state of the Navigation Laws in the Empire and in other countries, with a view to secure uniformity of treatment to British shipping; to prevent unfair competition with British ships by foreign subsidised ships; to secure to British ships equal trading advantages with foreign ships; to promote the employment of British seamen on British ships; and to raise the status and improve the conditions of seamen employed on euch ships."
Mr. Pearce said that whenever the Commonwealth proposed to pass a Navigation Law, it was reminded by the Board of Trade of the existence of the Merchant Shipping Ast 1894, and the Board of Trade had pressed on the consideration of the Commonwealth Government a view to which, as far as he knew. [no Dominion Government (had assented-viz., that the Merchant Shipping Act overrode the Dominion legislation, even in the territorial waters of the Dominion itself. He believed that both Canada and New Zealand had passed Navigation Acts containing provisions similar to those challenged by the Board of Trade in the case of the Commonwealth. Dr. Findlay.-One of ours was reserved for two years.
Mr. Pearce said that it was necessary to have a clear understanding as to how the matter should be dealt with as between the United Kingdom and the Dominions. He agreed as to the desirability of securing uniformity, but he submitted that before the attempt was made the Commonwealth should be permitted to pass its own legisla tion, and then the matter could be dealt with. To interfere with the passage of such a Bill really impinged on the legislative power of the Commonwealth. There was no desire to put British shipowners at a disadvantage as compared with foreigners, but the Australian Government must in justice to their own shipowners see that they were not put in an unfair position as compared with the British shipowners. To secure that, it was necessary that they should have a free hand to place their legislation on the statute-book.
Mr. Harcourt pointed out that the communication of the views of the Board of Trade was made at an early stage under the impression that it would be to the advantage of the Commonwealth Government to know those views at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Buxton said there was no desire to interfere with the constitutional rights of the Dominions. The Board of Trade, however, were bound to consider and make representations in reference to the interests of the whole trade of the United Kingdom, and it would be inexpedient if the communications of the Home Government were not made until after the law had been passed. The Government were willing to accept the proposed resolution provided that it read: "That it is desirable that the attention of the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Dominions should be called to the desirability of taking effectual steps to secure, &c."
Mr. Buxton then made a statement to the conference, pointing out in what respects the object aimed at in the resolution had been of late attained.
Mr. Brodeur said that their legislation was somewhat in a state of chaos since the passing of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. Various amendments were made between 1867 and 1894, and concurred in by the Imperial Government, but that legislation had been overridden by the Act of 1894. The Merchant Shipping Act should be amended in such a way as to give the Governments of the Dominions absolute power to deal with the question.
Sir Joseph Ward said it was not the experience of New Zealand that pressure had been brought to bear upon them. When they proposed a new law they sent it to the home authorities, as it was desirable to know the points upon which the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act would be in conflict with their proposals. He did not mean by that that they accepted the suggestions of the Home Government as directione, but they were glad to know whether there might be conflict, and if possible to avoid it. He would be glad for the Dominion Governments to have greater powers in dealing with these matters. Considerable delay sometimes occurred before the Royal Assent was given to a Bill. They on the spot were in a better position to know the special requirements of their own people and the best method of meeting them than the Imperial Parliament. He took strong exception to the position that enabled coloured crews, even from portions of the British Empire, competing in intercolonial trade with white seamen, and he Was going to do all in his power to prevent the disastrous result that would follow British shipping companies who paid the regulation wages under the Arbitration Court to officers and men through competition with cheap coloured labour. The British seamen in New Zealand had to maintain their families ashore, and it was impossible for a white man to maintain a wife and family upon the rates of pay that coloured crews received, and he held that there should be no restriction in the power of the Overseas Governments to deal with these matters as they felt to be necessary in the interests of white crews. It could not be denied these matters were of great importance to Oversea Dominions who understood their local conditione, and were in a better condition to legislate than the Imperial Parlia ment. He also dealt with the wages of seamen, and manning.
Mr. Buxton pointed out in reply to Mr. Brodeur that the Act of 1894 was a consolidating Act, and that its enactment imposed no new
restriction on or interference with Canadian merchant shipping legislation.
The resolution as amended on the suggestion of Mr. Buxton was unanimously carried.
The conference then adjourned until the 8th inst.
AERIAL LAW CONGRESS.
DURING the past week the International Congress of Aerial Law bas met in the Trocadero in Paris. The following were among those who have taken part in the deliberations which have resulted in a series of resolutions being adopted from which in the future may be developed an Aerial Code. A translation of the text of the report of the proceedings, as published in Paris, will be found below.
Among those who have taken part in the debates are MM. Edoardo Bosio, Advocate of the Court of Cassation at Turin; Barbarin, of Monaco; Pittard, of Geneva; Perowne, English delegate; Alexander Meyer, German delegate; Professors Carpentier and de Lapradelle, of the Faculty of Law in the University of Paris; Me. Talamon, avocat au Conseil d'Etat; Me. Delayen, avocat à la Cour d'Appel; M. Henry Couannier, editor in chief of the Revue Juridique Internationale de la Locomotion Aérienne; Boccon-Gibod. avoué à Paris; Dor, avocat at Marseilles; Dr. Reymond, senator; Hennequin, Directeur au Ministère de l'Intérieur; M. Franchille, member of the Institute of International Law; Commandant Renard, and Sir Thomas Barclay, LL.D.
M. Millerand was the president of the congress, which met in
Sir Thomas Barclay at the last meeting brought forward a motion in favour of forbidding the use of explosives by aerial appliances in time of war, but this was rejected after speeches by MM. de Lapradelle and Talamon in the name of the French group and Herr Meyer on behalf of Germany.
TRANSLATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS.
BOOK I.-PUBLIC AERIAL LAW.
Chapter 1.-General Principles of Aerial Navigation (Circulation). Art. 1. Aerial navigation is free save for the rights of the States subjacent (sous-jacents) to take measures to ensure their proper security and that of the person and the goode of the inhabitants thereof.
Chapter 2.-Concerning the Nationality and the Registration of Aeroplanes.
Art. 2. Every airship must have a nationality, and one only. Art. 3. The nationality of the airship is that of its owner. If the airship is owned by a company, the nationality shall be determined by the place of the headquarters of such company. In case of different nationalities of different co-owners of the airship, the nationality shall be that of those who own two-thirds of the value of the airship.
Art. 4. Every airship must carry a distinctive mark of its nationality.
Art. 5. Every airship must carry on board a descriptive document containing particulars necessary to distinguish it (propres à individualiser).
Art. 6. Every proprietor of an airship before being allowed to make an ascent or circulate (mettre in circulation) beyond private aerodromes must have obtained from the public authority the inscription of this airship in the register of matriculation kept by the authority competent (for that purpose). Each State shall regulate the registration of airships within the limits of its own territory.
Art. 7. Every airship must carry a distinctive mark indicating the place of its registration.
Art. 8. The registers shall be published.
Chapter 3.-Concerning Landing.
Art. 9. Airships can land on property not inclosed.
Art. 10. It is forbidden them, except in the case of force majeure, to land: (a) Upon fortified works and in the neighbourhood of such works in the radius determined by the military authority; (b) in the interior of agglomerations (a group of small towns or villages forming one municipality), exception being made in regard to places designated by the public authority.
Art. 11. Every landing carries with it the obligation to repair any damage effected. However, should there be blame on the part of the victim, the author of the damage shall be, in proportion to this blame, discharged in all or in part the reparation which would otherwise be incumbent upon him.
Art. 17. The owner of the wreck must claim it from the authority who has taken charge thereof within a year from the date of the demand, paying the costs incurred in guarding it. Moreover, he must pay the finder a premium for the discovery calculated at the rate of 10 per cent. upon the value of the wreck at the date of its being handed over.
ST. GILES' CHRISTIAN MISSION.
THE annual meeting in connection with the work of the St. Giles'
Mr. James Gracie stated that letters of regret at their absence had teen received from Lord Justice Kennedy, Sir Edward Fry, Sir Alfred Wills, Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence, Mr. Justice Warrington, Mr. Justice Eve, and Sir Arthur Jelf. He then made a statement of the work of the mission. He said that during the past year the work had proceeded on the old lines with success. One most cheering characteristic had been the very large number of discharged prisoners for whom employment had been found. Many women and children had also been assisted during the imprisonment of husband or father, and this branch of the mission's operations was one of the best means for winning the men to better things when they were once again at liberty. Many years ago the mission commenced special work for homeless and destitute women and girls, and the home and refuge in Drury-lane had sheltered thousands and saved them from evil and danger. One of the mission's best-known fields of labour was that among young lads who are in danger of criminal careers. An average of 500 such lads were received annually into the homes of the mission and the results were most encouraging. It was a rare thing for the boys to do other than well in the situations found for them. The Probation of Offenders Aot had added largely to Mr. Wheatley's responsibilities. When the Act came into force he was appointed, honorary probation officer to a considerable number of courts of justice in and around London. A total of 1256 probationers had passei through his hands, of whom only 131 had failed to fulfil the conditions of their probation. This was exceedingly satisfactory, and all the more satisfactory as it had not only saved the men and lads from imprisonment, but it had also saved the country from the heavy expenses which their imprisonment would have entailed, Although the mission rendered such material aid to the Government, it did so without the aid of a Government grant, and the mission was still a voluntary Christian agency dependent upon the free will offerings of the charitable. During the year 26,662 ex-prisoners were provided with a free breakfast, 6156 were assisted. 191 convicts were assisted on their release from penal servitude, and 366 men, women, and boys were received on probation and assisted under the Act.
The Lord Mayor said he had had a close acquaintance of at least twenty-five years with the m esion, and in his judgment the work it did was so large, the management was so good, the methods so well thought out, the economy practised so great, the results secured so encouraging, that he could with all his heart commend it to the charitably disposed for their continued sympathy and their increased support. He could speak emphatically with regard to the value of the mission's work in connection with the Probation Act, so far as the City magistrates' courts were concerned.
Mr. Wheatley (superintendent of the mission) gave a report of a number of cases that had been assisted during the year, particularly under the Probation Act.
The Rev. W. Cuff, in the enforced absence of Mr. Loveland Love land, K.C., who had been announced to do so, moved : "That this meeting of the friends and supporters of the St. Giles' Christian Mission desires to record its grateful sense of the blessing of God, continued during its whole history, and especially during the bygone year."
Mr. E. A. Jelf, in seconding the motion, spoke of the immense service the Probation Act had rendered to those who were in danger of becoming habitual criminals. Instances, which might have been prevented had the Act been in force years ago, came under his personal knowledge, such as an offender who had begun stealing as a boy at the time of the Crimean War, and another who had been convicted seventy-two times. The mission had been working with success for fifty years to prevent such things as these being possible.
Mr. Stephen Collins, M.P., moved a resolution to the effect that the mission was worthy of increased financial support.
The Rev. A. Baldwin (late Chaplain, H.M. Prison, Wormwood Scrubbs), in seconding the resolution, said he had watched for many years the work of the mission; he had seen the boys in the rough and what it was possible for the mission to turn them into, so that they were able to keep situations with credit to themselves and satisfaction to their employers for possibly twelve years, without changing. A grand mistake was made in not catching such boys when they were young, instead of leaving them to grow up to become vagabonds and criminals. Anyone might see boys selling newspapers around railway stations, learning to gamble and, as a result, to steal, and then they got into prison, so that there was great expense to the country. He urged that the right thing to do was to take them off the streets and train them to become honest and reputable citizens.
Sir Albert de Rutzen, in moving a vote of thanks to the Lord Mayor, said the mission had been in existence some fifty years, and for the greater part of that time he had known Mr. Wheatley, of whose personal labours he could speak in the highest terms. He ventured to say that there was not an organisation in London that had, in his experience, done as much, or half as much, good as the mission. Indeed, the amount of good it did was beyond belief, and it deserved, as it needed, considerable financial support. The expense of carrying it on was very great, and he marvelled that it had been possible to keep it going with its work constantly increasing as it had been. Anyone who followed up closely, as he had done, the work of the mission could only come to the conclusion that it was a blessing to London.
Sir Robert Anderson seconded the motion. He said that a great deal of sympathy was wasted on criminals who did not deserve either sympathy or help; but the boys who were helped by the mission were often the victims of their surroundings. He had found the mission of the greatest assistance in the case of discharged criminals, and he could not but feel that the fact that there was no State grant in its aid was a scandal and a reproach upon the government of the country. He had watched the work of the mission for many years, and nothing had so commended itselt to his confidence.
The Lord Mayor, in returning thanks, observed that none were more competent to speak of the work of the mission than the two gentlemen who had just addressed the meeting.
TO THE PEOPLE OF GREAT AND GREATER BRITAIN. WE, the undersigned, desire to express our alarm at the low and degrading views of the racial instinct which are becoming widely circulated at the present time, not only because they offend against the highest ideals of morality and religion, but also because they therefore imperil our very life as a nation.
The Declining Birth-rate.-Many caus s, old and new, are conducing to the evasion of the great obligations of parenthood, and the degradation of the marriage-tie; evidence of this being found, to some extent, in the decline of the birth-rate.
The Circulation of Pernicious Literature. Our youth of both sexes is in danger of being corrupted by the circulation of pernicious literature for which no defence can be offered-a circulation which has to-day reached an extent and developed a subtle suggestiveness without parallel in the past. This is an evil that can be controlled, and so long as we knowingly permit it to continue, the serious consequences lie at our door."
The Moral Education of the Young.-The situation is further aggravated by the fact that our systems of education too frequently ignore the sacred and responsible functions which confront the young on reaching maturity. The tendencies of the age make it imperative that they should be taught to entertain high conceptions of marriage, as involving duties to the future of the nation and the race. The great truth must be enforced that the racial instinct, as this term declares, exists not primarily for individual satisfaction but for the wholesome perpetuation of the human family. Such physiological knowledge should also be imparted as shall protect our youth, at any rate to some extent, from those who would seduce their innocence or trade upon their ignorance.
The Nation and the Feeble-minded.-Certain laws of heredity and development, no less natural or divine than other laws which are universally acknowledged, must also receive due recognition, and govern our national policy. A high proportion of immorality and inebriety is due to neglect of the incurably defective-minded, whose progeny, lamentably numerous under present conditions, too frequently resemble their parents, and largely reinforce the ranks of These degradation and shame. must receive permanent care apart from the community, that they and posterity may be protected.
We believe that only along these lines-by raising the ideals of marriage, by education for parenthood, and by intervening to prevent degeneracy-can we cope with the demoralisation which is sapping the foundations of national well-being. We earnestly commend these suggestions, therefore, to all who love the good cause, and desire to maintain through the coming time our national traditions of marriage and the home.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester.
The Lord Bishop of Truro
The Right Hon. Sir J. E. Gorst, M.A.,ELL.D., F.R.S., K.C.
Sir Thomas Glen-Coats, M.P.
J. Ramsay Macdonald, M.P.
Sir Wm. Ramsay, K.C.B., LL.D., D.Sc., F.R S. (Ex-President of the Chemical Society).
Prof. Sir Wm. Crookes, O.M., F.R.S., D.Sc. (Secretary of the Royal Institution of Great Britain).
Sir T. Clifford Allbutt, K.C. B., M.D., D.Sc., LL.D., F.R.S. (Regius Professor of Physic, Cambridge).
Sir Victor A. H. Horsley, M.D., F.R.S.
Sir James Guthrie, LL.D.
Sir A. Pearce Gould, K.C.V.O., M.S.
Sir Thomas Oliver, M.D., LL.D., D.Sc.
Sir Alex. R. Simpson, M.D., D.Sc., LL.D. (Emeritus Professor of Midwifery, &c., University of Edinburgh).
Sir Thomas Myles, M.D. (Hon. Surgeon to the King in Ireland). The Countess of Chichester.
Lady Theresa C. Rücker.
Lady Henry, Somerset.
Florence E. Booth (Salvation Army).
Sophie Bryant, D.Sc., D.Litt.
Beatrice Webb, LL D. (Mrs. Sidney Webb)
Mary Soharlieb, M.D., M.S.
Venerable W. M. Sinclair, D.D. (Archdeacon of London).
Rev. T. C. Fitzpatrick, M.A. (President of Queens' College, Cambridge).
F. W. Mott, M D.. B.S, F.R.C.P., F.R.S.
James Little, M.D., LL.D. (Regius Professor of Phyeic, University of Dublin).
S. Squire Sprigge, M.A., M.D., B.C. (Editor of the Lancet).
A. C. Seward, M.A., F.R.S. (President Cambridge University Eugenics
Harvey Littlejohn, M.D. (Professor of Forensic Medicine, University of Edinburgh).
John Gray M'Kendrick, LL D, MD., F.R.S.
C. W. Saleeby, M.D., F.R.S.E., F.Z.S.
H. Rider Haggard, J.P.
Horace Darwin, M A., F.R.S.
Major Leonard Darwin (President Eugenics Education Society).
Theo. Bulkeley Hyslop, M.D., C.M., F.R.C.P.
Howard Marsh, M A., M.C. (Master of Downing College, Cambridge).
J. W. Ballantyne, M.D., F.R.C.P.E., F.R.S.Edin.
Rt. Rev. P. M'Adam Muir, D.D. (Moderator of the General
Rev. Prebendary Carlile (Founder of the Church Army).
Sir w. P. Hartley (President of the Primitive Methodist Conference). Rev. C. Silvester Horne, M.A., M.P. (President of the Congregational Union of England and Wales).
Rev. James Henry (Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland). Rev. H. T. Chapman (President of the United Methodist Church). Rev. W. Edwards, B.A., D.D. (President of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland).
Rev. John Hornabrook (President of the Wesleyan Conference). Rev. James Mellis (Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of
"LAWS grind the poor, and rich men rule the law," said Goldsmith in bis Traveller." This is a sample of the jibes constantly aimed at the law by wits and cynics, by agitators and anarchists, and especially by those unfortunates who think, rightly or wrongly, that the law has done them an injustice. Great is the number of those who think they have been wronged by the law, and even of those who have suffered real injustice. But, after all, how much does this admission mean? Does it mean that our law is a kind of juggernaut of inhumanity and injustice, or only that, in spite of a dominant purpose to secure justice, it is subject in its operation to human imperfections ?
As the law, in ideals and purpose, represents Divine justice, those who contemplate these may say with Hooker that her seat is the bosom of God and her voice the harmony of the world." On the other hand, those who look at the miscarriages of justice and the
grievous wrongs sometimes done in the name of the law because of its imperfections too often think of the law itself as a cruel monster of evil. But everywhere its purposes correspond to the moral development of the lawmakers, and its practical wisdom and justice depend upon the degree of their intelligence. The humanity of the law as it is actually administered is a well-nigh perfect index of the grade of civilisation of the people.
It is increasingly characteristic of the law of to-day that it is aiming to protect the defenceless, to help the helplese, to reserve the rights and provide for the wants of those who cannot adequately care for themselves. By a few of many instances, even the least intelligent can see that the humanity of the law is steadily increasing, and that every year new steps are taken to prevent oppression, to abolish suffering, to protect life and health, to better the conditions of living, to provide intellectual and moral training, and in many ways to give to all increased privileges and higher opportunities for wholesome and happy life.
It may particularly emphasise the spirit of the time to call attention especially to the revolution that has been made during a single generation in the treatment of animals. Laws and societies to prevent cruelty to animals are found everywhere. The work of Henry Bergh in New York has been multiplied a thousandfold, until bru al teamsters and all who have to do with the care of animals have learned to fear the Land of the law. Not only beating, but overloading or otherwise abusing, animals is made a statutory offence. Under Federal law and some State laws, 89 shown by the note in 44 L. R. A. 449, shipments of live stock are made subject to penal provisions if the stock is carried more than the specified number of hours without being unloaded for food, water, and rest. So there are statutes making it unlawful to indulge in such old-time sporte as cock fighting, dog fighting, or fights between other animals. The laws against cruelty to animals, as shown in Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 1. p. 419, also impose an obligation to kill an injured and suffering animal when it is cruel to keep it alive, and to kill it in such a way as to inflict the least possible pain and suffering. So the laws have taken cognisance of the subject of vivisection, and heated debates still go cn respecting the extent to which they should go. These illustrate how far the law has come toward the high level of humane consideration, even for those animals which men in the past have used or abused, no matter how cruelly, without fear or thought of any power to interfere.
The special care of the law for those who cannot help themselves is emphasised also with especial force in its care for children. A parent whose negligent failure to supply food or other necessaries causes his child's death is guilty of manslaughter, or if his failure was wilful, he is guilty of murder, as shown by the authorities in Wharton on Homicide (3rd edit., p. 686). And the same rule applies to the abandonment or exposure of the child. The parent may be also guilty of manslaughter by failing to provide medical attendance. On these questions the law has long been settled. Neglect to provide children with sufficient food or bedding for the requirements of health has also been made an offence. The tender regard of the law for the interests of youth is also shown in the laws, which are by some thought too strict, to prevent children from taking part not only in dangerous exhibitions or performances, but in those which are deemed detrimental to their moral welfare. Many are the statutes of the various States dealing with questions of this kind. So the education of children has become one of the most important and prolific subjects of legislation. Laws which deal with some phase of it have become legion. It is true that the welfare of the State itself is involved in this question, so that it is not solely a matter of humanity to the children; yet there is an increasing recognition of the duty of the State to the children themselves, and this element is the chief, if not the only, one in those statutes wh ch deal with the care of the blind, deaf and dumb, defective, feeble-minded, or other classes of children who are not likely ever to become real factors in the body politic. Institutions great and small are multiplied every where for the support, care, and development of all these children.
Adults, as well as children, when helpless and needy, are treated by the law as wards of the State. It is too much to say that the State is yet doing its full duty toward all these, but it already does much. The maintenance of homes for the poor has long been a settled policy, and the sacredness of the obligation to them is emphasised by making the overseer of such a place criminally responsible for manslaughter, or murder in an extreme case, if he fails to provide necessary food and care for those in his charge. It would make a long list to enumerate all the institutions and all the statutes that aim to provide for the various classes o those who are unable to care for themselves. Hones for old soldiers, homes for the feeble-minded, homes for epileptics, homes for the insane, homes for the blind, are everywhere provided and maintained by the law in the interest of humanity.
In dealing with offenders, the chief consideration has been protection to society, rather than humanity. But the interests and welfare of the offender are rapidly coming to be given a large place in the treatment of lawbreakere. Indeed, with juvenile offenders, the tendency now is to make them wards of the court with proper oversight and training, and not to treat them as criminals at all. Even for adults the system of parole is an application of the same policy.
Laws for the protection of women have also increased manifold. The recognition of their lesser ability to defend themselves against attack, or to meet the strain of excessive toil, has led to numerous statutes to shield them from these dangers. Enactments for this
purpose have not always been sustained by the courts, but they have been upheld in many cases.
Going beyond the case of the helpless and of the defective, beyond the case of children and of women, the law has in recent times begun to recognise that there is a great class of people competent to contract and to earn their own living who are yet, by virtue of their situation, put at a disadvantage, and practically, if not theoretically, unable adequately to protect their own interests in some important matters. This is the class largely composed, indeed, of mature and able-bodied men who are so bound by the circumstancs and conditions of their employment as to be more or less at the mercy of employers. In this vast field the law of modern times has undertaken the humane work of providing necessary restrictions and regulations of the terms and incidents of many employments. To make even an enumeration of the statutes on these subjects would fill pages. One illustration may suffice. Take, for instance, the legislative restrictions of the hours of labour. Their constitutionality has been considered at length in notes in 65 L. R. A. 33 and 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1130, showing much divergence of view among the judges upon the questions involved, especially with respect to the reasonableness of the regulations in particular cases. Space will not permit any review of those statutes. But they furnish an overwhelming illustration of a great ard enlarging field of the law that is pervaded with humane purroses.
Many other examples of the law's humanity might be reviewed, and while it is easy to enumerate its defects, imperfections, and miscarriages and many critics see nothing else-yet a fair view of all that is being done and attempted for the interests of humanity incontestably shows that the law increasingly recognises its obligation toward the helpless and the needy and all who cannot adequately care for themselves. The extent of this recognition and of the practical administration of this purpose of the law is limited only by the degree of the enlightenment and moral development of the people.
BEDFORD ASSIZES. FRIPP v. BURTON.
Landlord and Tenant-General Agent-Notice in his own Name-Notice ambiguous-Validity
ACTION tried before Pickford, J. on the 3rd inst. The facts were as follows: The plaintiff, a married woman, owned a number of cottages and land adjoining at Gravenhurst, Beds. Her brother, John Parrish, who resided with her, managed her properties, carried out repairs, paid all outgoings, gave receipts for rent, and arranged and terminated tenancies. In Nov. 1906 the plaintiff let to the defendant a cottage and land on a yearly tenancy at £12 per annum. In March 1908 the defendant took from Parrish-who, in fact, acted as agent for the plaintiff, although the defendant thought he was the owner-the adjoining cottage, at a rental of £6, on a yearly tenancy from May 1908. All receipts for rent of both properties were given by or in the name of Parrish. On the 9th Nov. 1909, Parrish, in exercise of his general authority, served upon the defendant a notice to quit in these terms: "I hereby give you notice to quit and deliver up the two cottages and land situate at Gunhill, Gravenhurst, which you hold of me, on the 14th Nov. 1910.-(Signed) JOHN PARRISH." The defendant having refused to give up possession, the plaintiff commenced proceedings to recover possession of both properties, but the writ was amended to a claim for recovery of the property let in Nov. 1906. J. F. Eales for plaintiff; C. E. Dyer for defendant.
Dyer submitted (1) that the notice was bad in form, because given by an agent in his own name without stating that it was given as agent for the landlord; (2) that the notice was bad for ambiguity, as it referred to two properties, and was clearly ineffectual as regarded the May tenancy.
Eales contended: (1) That on the facts Parrish was a general agent having authority to terminate tenancies and manage the properties generally; that although a special agent or one having a limited authority only must give notice in the owner's name or expressly on his behalf, a general agent may give the notice in his own name : (Jones v. Phipps, 18 L. T. Rep. 813; L. Rep. 3 Q. B. 567). (2) That the notice was not ambiguous; that although bad with regard to the tenancy commencing in May 1908, it was a good notice with regard to the November tenancy. One test of ambiguity is whether the tenant understands the notice clearly, and he referred to the correspondence to show that defendant had anticipated leaving.
PICKFORD, J. held on the facts that Parrish was a general agent, and therefore, upon the authority of Jones v. Phipps (sup) and Doe v. Mizem (2 Moo. & R. 56), the notice in the agent's name was good. Upon the question of ambiguity, he was of opinion that the defendant's contention failed. Ií a notice given in respect of cottage A and cottage B specifically described was good with regard to one and bad with regard to the other, the fact that it was bad as to one did not make it bad in toto. He was of opinion that the same principle applied, and that the notice was a good one to terminate the November tenancy.
Judgment for the plaintiff. Solicitors: Wade and Elwen, Shefford; Sharman and Trethewy, Ampthill.
HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. PIERSON (John Brundrett), eldest son of Mark Pierson, or, if he died after 1882, persons entitled to the real estate of the testator, Mark Pierson, who died at Altrincham, March 4, 1882, also next of kin of testator, or their legal personal representatives, to come in, by
Hearing Oct. 24, at 12,
Oct. 11, at chambers of Eve, J., Room 697. at said chambers. ROSE (Dr. Charles), Hermon Hill, Wanstead. His heir-at-law living on March 6, 1879, and the heir-at-law of his daughter, Elsie Jane Dorothea Graves Rose, of Leytonstone, living on Nov. 6. 1885, or persons entitled to his or her real estate, to come in, by July 5, and prove their claims at chambers of Swinfen Eady and Neville. JJ., and enter their names at Room 286, Royal Courts of Justice. Hearing July 12, at 12, at said chambers.
APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK
NOTICES OF APPEARANCE AT HEARING MUST REACH THE SOLICITORS BY 6 M. CN THE
AVIATION COURSES LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard
BOOT AND SHOE RETAILER LIMITED (in voluntary liquidation).-Creditors
CADOGAN LAUNDRY COMPANY LIMITED-Petition for winding-up to be heard
CENTRAL AND WEST BOULDER GOLD MINES LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 4, to C. Coming and A. A. Scanlan, the liquidators CAPITAN GENERAL CIGAR COMPANY LIMITED-Creditors to send in, by June 22, to F. Sawyer, 36 and 37, King-st, Cheapside, E.C. Sugden and Hextall, sols. for liquidator.
CORDER AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 22, to W. H. Brown, 62, John-st, Sunderland.
CHALLEN AND SON LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard June 14, at Royal Courts of Justice. Munns and Longden, 4B, Frederick's-pl. Old Jewry, sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by June 13. DUMOULIN AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 17, to R. H. McLeod, 3, Great James-st, Bedford-row, W.C.
FENLANDS PIGGERIES LIMITED.-Creditors whose claims have not been admitted to send forthwith, or by June 27, to W. Lefévre, 4, Broadst-pl, E.C.
GOSPORT ELECTRIC THEATRE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by June 17, to
G. H. CORBETT AND SONS LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 1, to
J. KRON AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by June 30, to B. W.
NILE COLD STORAGE COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 31,
WEEKLY TIMES LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by June 20, to H. A.
CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
KEY (Richard William), Harcourt-bldgs. Temple. July 8; E. Stacey, of
CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. a 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. AMES (Eliza), Richmond. June 24; Lithgow and Pepper, Wimpole House. 294. Wimpole-st, W. AITKEN (Sarah), Stratford-on-Avon. July 1; H. Russell and Son, Lichfield.
BLACKIE (Isabella), St. Bees. June 22; Chapman and Baxter, Whitehaven