« EelmineJätka »
JONES, CECIL (trading as H. J. Soper), Plymouth, corn merchant. Ct. Plymouth and East Stonehouse. June 2.
Lowe, WILLIAM, Alfreton, saddler. Ct. Derby and Long Eaton. June 2.
NICHOLSON, HENRY LOUIS, Manchester, commercial traveller. Ct. Salford. June 2.
NIXON. WILLIAM HENRY, late Ilford, wine merchant. Ct. Croydon. May 31.
OGDEN, SAMUEL (late trading as S. Ogden and Co.), Haworth, late brewer.
ROBERTS, JOHN, Llanddeiniolen, quarryman. Ct. Bangor. June 1.
TYRER, ROBERT, Darwen, teacher of music. Ct. Blackburn and Darwen.
TERRY, CHARLES EDWIN RYDER, Leamington, manufacturer. Ct. Warwick.
USHER, THOMAS, Sittingbourne, butcher. Ct. Rochester. June 1. WALLIS, AUGUSTUS WILLIAM, and HOLLING WORTH, CHARLES THOMAS, late Long Eaton, lace manufacturers. Ct. Derby and Long Eaton. June 1. "WREN, RICHARD, Bishop Monkton, innkeeper. Ct, Northallerton. May 31.
GAZETTE, JUNE 2.
BATTSON, BENJAMIN GEORGE, Old Queen-st, Westminster, architect. Ct. High Court. May 30.
BAYLY, WILLIAM E., Cranley-pl, South Kensington. Ct. High Court. May 29.
BLAKE, EDWARD WILLIAM, St. Petersburg Hotel, journalist. Ct. High Court. May 29.
BAINES, WILLIAM EDWIN, Harrogate, baker. Ct. York. May 29.
BESWICK, EDWARD, Rochdale, chip potato dealer. Ct. Rochdale. May 29. BLENKINSOP, BENJAMIN, late Lincoln, licensed victualler, Ct. Lincoln. May 30.
BETTS, HAROLD HAMPTON, late Hove, licensed victualler's manager.
Brighton. May 29.
CONQUEST, GEORGE OLIVER; OZMOND, CHARLES; and OzMOND, GEORGE MAURICE (described in the receiving order as George Conquest, Charles Ozmond, and G. M. Ozmond), late Hoxton, theatre proprietor. Ct. High Court. May 29.
COOK, THOMAS, York, waiter. Ct. York. May 29.
EVANS, LEMUEL, New Tredegar, labourer. Ct. Tredegar. May 31.
HUGHES, DOROTHY, Llanfairfechan, publican, widow. Ct. Bangor.
NORRIS, NEHEMIAH, Eccles, picture dealer. Ct. Salford. May 31.
POPPLESTONE, JAMES ARTHUR, Goldhawk-rd, Shepherd's Bush, tailor.
ROBERTS, EVAN EVANS (described in the receiving order as Evan Roberts),
SCOTT, FREDERICK WILLIAM, and SCOTT, WALTER JAMES (trading as Scott
SHEWARD, EDWIN THOMAS, Dudley, cattle dealer. Ct. Dudley, May 30. SARGENT, JOHN GEORGE, late Kilsby, licensed victualler. Ct. Peterborough. May 30.
SHEWELL, GEORGE DE CŒURDOUX, Rochester, haulage contractor, Ct. Rochester. May 29.
WARD, CECIL MONTAGU (described in the receiving order as Cecil Montague Ward), Stepney, lieutenant in the navy. Ct. High Court. May 29.
GAZETTE, JUNE 6.
BAKER, STEPHEN, Halesowen. Ct. Stourbridge. June 2.
June 1. June 2.
Ct. Bradford. May 31.
BAMBER, JAMES WILSON, Gray's-inn-sq, collector of fee farm rents. Ct. High Court. June 2.
CARDASH, BERNARD, Tonypandy, furniture dealer. Ct. Pontypridd, Ystradyfodwg, and Porth. June 2.
CRESSWELL, ROBERT SMITH, Brassington, farmer. Ct. Derby and Long Eaton. June 1.
DYER EDWARD, Malvern Link, late timber merchant. Ct. Worcester.
GOLDBERG, ALEXANDER, and GIBIAN, ISRAEL (described in the receiving
LOWE, WILLIAM, Alfreton, saddler. Ct. Derby and Long Eaton.
PARRITT, JOHN EDWARD GREVILLE (trading and described in the receiving order as Parritt and Co.), Mark-la, East India merchant. Ct. High Court. June 2.
PILIDES, SOPHOCLES. Mark-la. Ct. High Court. May 31.
TYRER, ROBERT, Darwen, teacher of music. Ct. Blackburn and Darwen.
WEAVER, HERBERT ASTLEY, Romford-rd, Stratford, late secondhand furniture dealer. Ct. High Court. June 1.
WHEELER HENRY FRANCIS, late Oxford-grdns, Notting Hill, engineer. Ct. High Court. June 1.
WALLIS, AUGUSTUS WILLIAM, and HOLLINGWORTH, CHARLES THOMAS, late Long Eaton, lace manufacturers. Ct. Derby and Long Eston. June 1.
WORRALL, EDWARD CHARLES, and JOHNSON, FREDERICK (trading as E. C. Worrall and Co.), Kingston-upon-Hull, timber merchants. Ct. Kingston-upon-Hull. June 1.
WREN, RICHARD, Bishop Monkton, innkeeper. Ct. Northallerton. May 31. Amended notice substituted for that published in Gazette, May 23. SUMSION, HENRY EDWARD (described in the receiving order as Henry Sumsion), Watney-st, Commercial-rd, grocer. Ct. High Court. May 18.
GAZETTE, JUNE 2
MORGAN, WILLIAM, Woolwich, engine driver. Ct. Greenwich. May 30.
BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.
GUTTERIDGE.-On the 31st ult., at The Rydings, Bickley, Kent, the wife of Harold Cooke Gutteridge, Barrister-at-law, of a son.
JESSEL. On the 2nd inst., at 6, Gloucester-sq, Hyde Park, the wife of Albert H. Jessel, K.C., of a daughter.
MCCLURE. On the 26th ult.. at 16, Heriot-row, Edinburgh, the wife of Alexander Logan McClure, K.C., of a daughter.
O'HAGAN. On the 29th ult., at 44, Courtfield-grdns, S.W., the wife of Henry O'Hagan, Barrister-at-law, of a son.
WILKINSON. On the 25th ult., at Shanghai, the wife of H. P. Wilkinson, Crown Advocate, of a daughter.
HARTILL PEARSON.-On the 1st inst., at St. Michael's Church, Malton, Sydney Hartill, M.B., M.A. Oxon., of Abbots Langley, Herts, to Muriel Gladys Blannin Pearson, fifth daughter of Hugh W. Pearson, Solicitor, of West Garth, Malton, Yorkshire.
VAUGHAN WILLIAMS-PHILLIMORE. On the 1st inst., at St. Mary Abbots, Kensington, Roland Edmund Lomas Vaughan Williams, only son of Lord Justice and Lady Vaughan Williams, to Grace Agnes, youngest daughter of Mr. Justice and Lady Phillimore.
BERNARD.-On the 19th ult., at Calgary, Alberta, Canada, William Leigh
DOWSE. On the 1st inst., at 26, Gordon-sq, W.C., Henry Archibald
SODEN. On the 2nd inst., at 34, Hanover-gate-mansions, Regent's Park, Sarah Isabel Clavering, wife of Thomas Spooner Soden, Barrister-atlaw.
In this new work the subject of Fire Insurance has been dealt with in the most exhaustive and practical manner possible. Any matter having the smallest real connection with the question is included, and the style in which the book is written is clear, lucid, and uniformly straightforward. The principles of the law are formulated in practical working rules, and the logical order of the subject has been followed throughout.
The plan of the work is that it should be the most exhaustive, practical, and illuminating work on the subject in existence. Special new points are dealt with, such as Legality of Valued Policies in Fire, Application of Gambling Act 1774 to Fire, Equitable Assignments of Fire Policies, Taxation of Fire Insurance Companies' Income, Assurance Companies Act 1909 as applied to Fire, Lloyd's Policies.
To Readers and Correspondents.
All communications must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. Anonymous communications are invariably rejected.
All communications intended for the Editorial Department should, in order to prevent delay, be addressed to the " EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES."
Any contributions that may be sent on approval will be carefully considered by the Editor; but no responsibility whatever can be accepted in respect thereof, although, if unsuitable, every effort will be made to return them, provided that a stamped addressed wrapper is inclosed for that purpose.
The copyright of all contributions (including reports paid for) shall belong to the proprietors of the LAW TIMES, together with the right of republication in any form they may think desirable. Apart from any express agreement that may be made, contributions are only received and considered on these conditions. Advertisements, orders for papers, &c., should be kept distinct, and addressed to the Publisher, Mr. HOBAON OOX, “Law Times" Omce, Windsor House, Bream's buildings, E.O.
TO SUBSCRIBERS.-PREPAYMENT TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION. WITHOUT REPORTS. For One Year ...........................2 14 0 For One Year.....................................................................£2 2 0 For Half-Year............................ 1 7 0 For Half-Year..................................................................... 1 1 WITHOUT REPORTS.
For One Year...........................£3 0 0 For One Year......................£144
For Half-Year..... ....... 1 10 0 For Haif-Year...... 1 2 3 Portfolios for preserving the current numbers of the LAW TIMES, price 58. 6d. LAW TIMES REPORTS, price 38. 6d. The Publisher undertakes the binding of the LAW TIMES and LAW TIMES REPORTS at the following rates: PER VOLUME.
LAW TIMES in half calf, office pattern....................................................................................... 58. 6d. LAW TIMES REPORTS, ditto, ditto.......
LAW TIMES BEPORTS, ditto, ditto, with Statutes at end............ 58. ed. Parcels of Volumes for binding should be sent to the Publisher, LAW TIMES Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.O.
LEADING ARTICLES, &c.
TO READERS AND CORRESPONDENTS ... 141
LAW STUDENts' Journal-Council
NOTICE TO ADVERTISERS. CORONATION HOLIDAYS.-Next week the LAW TIMES will be published on Wednesday morning. Advertisements, to ensure insertion, must reach the office not later than Tuesday at 6 p.m.
The Law and the Lawyers.
THE general summary of appeals and causes for the present sittings shows 182 appeals and 1089 causes set down for hearing, as compared with 179 and 1569 respectively at Trinity 1909 and 149 and 1470 this time last year. So far as the Court of Appeal is concerned, there has been another rise in the number of appeals awaiting disposal, and this is due chiefly to the cases coming from the King's Bench Division and from the County Courts under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The position of the lists is, of course, far better than that which obtained even five years ago, but, at the same time, efforts should be made to continue to ensure that appeals should be heard within at most three months of their being entered. The following table shows the figures in the Appellate Court at the commencement of the Trinity Sittings for the past ten years:
........... 8 10 0
TO ADVERTISERS.-SCALE OF CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS. Four-lines of 30 words or less £. d. One page............................... 10 0. than 30 words in body type... 86 Half page................................. 5 00 Each additional line............. 6 One Column Advertisements ordered for a series of three insertions are charged 10 per cent, under scale, and for six or more insertions 20 per cent. under. Paragraph Advertisements 1s. per line, minimum 58. No series discount.
IN the Chancery Division there are 265 causes for hearing, as compared with 165 at Easter last and 315 a year ago. In addition, there are thirty-six companies' winding-up matters for hearing before Mr. Justice SWINFEN EADY and Mr. Justice NEVILLE.
IN the King's Bench Division the satisfactory state of affairs which we were able to record at Easter last still continues, and steady progress has been made in dealing with the lists. The heavy arrears in the Civil Paper and in actions for trial have disappeared, and both appeals from County Courts and actions in the High Court have a prospect of being disposed of within a reasonable time of setting down. As we have pointed out before, this is largely due to the fact that the recent addition to the numbers of the judges of the King's Bench has enabled more continuous methods to be adopted, and, although a considerable amount of time has been occupied by election petitions, the steady work which has been possible during the past six months has brought about the most satisfactory results. The figures at Trinity for the past ten years are sufficiently convincing, and for the purpose of comparison we give those at Easter 1910 and 1911.
By the death of His Honour Judge BACON the County Court Bench has lost one of the most notable of its occupants. Not only a good lawyer, the late judge was a keen student of human nature, and as such was admirably fitted for the position that he held. His place will be difficult to fill, especially so far as the Whitechapel Court is concerned, for his linguistic abilities and his wide knowledge of our alien population were of the greatest assistance to him in administering justice in that locality.
THE official report of last Monday's sitting of the Imperial Conference, at which the question of a Supreme Court of Appeal for the Empire was discussed, makes it clear that a distinct demand exists in our Oversea Dominions for the establishment of such a tribunal. The only matter on which divergent views may be said to have arisen was on the question of form; but, even as to this, after full consideration the conference seems to have arrived at a general agreement. At the outset Lord LOREBURN made it clear that with regard to the United Kingdom the Government were not prepared to recommend that the personnel of the judicial body in the House of Lords should be changed, but he also stated that if each Dominion would say what kind of court they preferred and the class of judges they wished to see, the Home Government would do its very best to meet their views. For himself, the LORD CHANCELLOR suggested that they should add to the highest Court of Appeal, both in the United Kingdom and for the Dominions and colonies, two English judges of the finest quality, and that the quorum should be fixed at five, the same court sitting successively in the House of Lords for the United Kingdom appeals and in the Privy Council for appeals from the Dominions and colonies; and in this way there would be substantially the same court in its full strength for both classes of appeals.
If this were done, although the old forms would be adhered to, there would be practically one final Court of Appeal in two divisions. Those who are at the present time entitled to sit in the House of Lords and on the Judicial Committee
respectively would continue to sit strengthened by two additional judges, and, in the case of the Privy Council, with such further additions, having regard to the matters to be discussed, as should be agreed upon. Provided arrangements were made, as Lord LOREBURN stated, that these two divisions should sit successively, and that the quorum should be five or any additional odd number, a really true Imperial Court of Appeal could thus be founded, and, although the old forms might be retained, we agree with Mr. MALAN that a great deal sometimes depends on a name, and no harm could possibly be done by describing the court as the Imperial Court of Appeal. The foundation of such a tribunal as suggested by Lord LOREBURN would be undoubtedly welcomed, both in the United Kingdom and throughout the Oversea Dominions, and would form a strong link for the Empire.
In conclusion, there is one other matter to which we desire to refer. However much in courts of first instance or primary Courts of Appeal dissenting judgments are of value, our view is that in a final Court of Appeal there should te only one judgment, and that the final judgment of the court. Such obtains in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and in our own Court of Criminal Appeal, and the fact that only one judgment is delivered must assist to more coherence and consistency. We cannot agree with Mr. BATCHELOR that the practice of giving one judgment only does not tend to the same close study of a case by each individual member of the court as the giving of an individual judgment would require, and the advantages of a single final judgment are obvious.
ASSIGNMENT OR UNDERLETTING BY TENANT. ONE of the many questions that arise between landlord and tenant is that of their respective rights with regard to an assignment or underletting by the tenant. Apart from any provision of the lease, the tenant has, at common law, an absolute and unrestricted right to assign his interest or to underlet. However, notwithstanding that a covenant by the tenant against assigning or underletting is not a "usual" covenant within the meaning of an agreement to take a lease subject to the "usual "covenants (see Hampshire v. Wickens, 50 L. T. Rep. 267; 7 Ch. Div. 555), the covenant is so rarely omitted that to the practitioner the common law rule has its greatest value as a guide to the interpretation of the covenant-that, being in derogation of the common law rights of the lessee, it will not be widely construed against him.
But there are now in the great majority of cases two provisos to limit the harsh operation of the covenant not to assign or underlet. One of these provisos-that, in the absence of express stipulation to the contrary, no fine or payment in the nature of a fine shall be payable for a licence or consent to assign or underlet-is statutory, being read into the lease by sect. 3 of the Conveyancing Act 1892. The other is the well-known commou form provision that the landlord's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, or withheld to an assignment or underletting to a respectable and responsible person. Both these provisos have been before the courts on several occasions, and a short note of some of the later cases may be useful.
It must be borne in mind that a breach of the covenant is in most cases a serious matter, for, by sub-sect. 6 of sect. 14 of the Conveyancing Act 1881, forfeiture arising from breach of the covenant not to assign or underlet is expressly excepted from those forfeitures against which the court has power, under that section, to relieve the lessee even though the case should be one in which the landlord's consent to the assignment could not have been refused, but by oversight has not been applied for: (see Barrow v. Isaacs, 64 L. T. Rep. 686; (1891) 1 Q. B. 417). Relief, it is true, may under sect. 4 of the Conveyancing Act 1892 be given to an underlessee against forfeiture of the head lease, but the jurisdiction is one that will be cautiously exercised (see Imray v. Oukshette, 76 L. T. Rep. 632; (1897) 2 Q. B. 218). (1) To take first the statutory proviso and to deal with the cases in order of date. Waite v. Jennings (95 L. T. Rep. 1; (1906) 2 K. B. 11) was an action to recover rent from an assignee who had parted with the premises after covenanting with his landlord, in consideration of the landlord's licence to assign, to pay all future rent. (As assignee only he would, of course, not be liable for rent after parting with possession.) The second assignee failed to pay the rent. Held, by the Court of Appeal, that the assignee (covenantor) could not escape his prima facie liability under the covenant by pleading sect 3 of the Conveyancing Act 1892 (even if the covenant were a fine within the Act). The payment of a fine is not illegal, but simply not enforceable, and the covenant (looked at as a fine) was simply given for no consideration. Further, the majority of the court (Lords Justices Vaughan Williams and Stirling, Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton dissenting) were of opinion, without deciding the question, that the covenant was not a fine.
Jenkins v. Price (97 L. T. Rep. 734; (1907) 2 Ch. 229) was a claim for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to assign without further consent. The lease was of an hotel and the assignment contemplated was to a brewery firm. The landlord contended that if tied to a brewery the property would be depreciated in value, and he refused to consent to the assignment except upon condition that the rent of £100 was increased to £125 and the term, which had twelve years to run, was also increased to twenty-one years. This he considered would compensate him for the depreciation his property would undergo. Mr. Justice Swinten Eady held (without laying any stress on the required extension of the term) that the stipulation for a £25 increase in rent was a stipulation for a fine within the meaning of sect. 3 of the above quoted Act, and he made the declaration asked for. No other relief being claimed, and there being no covenant by the landlord to consent, each party was ordered to bear his own costs, the learned judge pointing out that the landlord's refusal of consent released the restriction against assigning, but gave no right of action against him.
Andrew v. Bridgman (98 L. T. Rep. 657; (1908) 1 K. B. 596) was an action for the recovery of £45 paid (not under protest) as a fine upon grant of a licence to assiga. The action was dismissed, the Court of Appeal deciding that the landlord may, notwithstanding sect. 3 of the Conveyancing Act 1892, demand a fine u on grant of the licence to assign, and, following Waite v. Jennings (sup.), that if the lessee pay such fine the payment is not an illegal one and cannot be recovered; that the operation of the section is similar to that of a proviso on a lease that consent shall not be unreasonably withheld: (see Treloar v. Bigge and other cases infra); and that refusal of the landlord to assent, except upon payment of a fine, relieves the lessee from the necessity of obtaining any consent and enables him to ignore the restriction on assignment contained in the lease. The court declined to say whether a fine could be recovered if paid under protest.
The latest case on the subject is West v. Gwynne (104 L. T. Rep. 277), and is a useful authority on two points: (a) That sect. 3 of the Conveyancing Act 1892 applies to leases executed before as well as to those executed after the commencement of the Act; and (b) that a requirement by the landlord, as a condition to the grant of his licence, that half the protit. rental to be obtained from a proposed underletting should be paid to him comes within the section, and the lessee is entitled to assign or underlet without further consent. (2) The following are cases upon the other proviso-the common form one Second Sheet.
that consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, or withheld upon a proposed transfer to a respectable and responsible person. In Treloar v. Bigge (L. Rep. 9 Ex. 151) the covenant by the tenant was that he would not assign "without the consent of the landlord. such consent not being arbitrarily withheld." The landlord refused his assent "upon advice," but gave no reason. He knew, however, that a public body wished to acquire the house compulsorily, and that it would pay him better not to have a tenant in possession who wished to remain, and this was the real reason for his refusal. Two questions were decided: (a) That the lessee might assign, if the lessor arbitrarily refused his assent, without any assent, and the arbitrary refusal would be an answer to any proceedings; (b) with some doubt upon the part of Baron Amphlett, that the refusal was not arbitrary-i.e., unfair and unreasonable. In Bates v. Donaldson (74 L. T. Rep. 751; (1896) 2 Q B. 241) the landlord wished to regain possession, and, after an assignment (for which his licence had been asked and refused), brought an action for recovery of possession. There could have been no objection to the assignee personally, or to the use to which he proposed to put the house, but the landlord claimed that, as he was willing to give the tenant the same price for her interest as the assignee had done (though he had made no formal offer), he had not harmed her by refusing his assent. This contention was unanimously overruled by the Court of Appeal, affirming Mr. Justice Mathew.
Some valuable remarks were made by Lords Justices Kay and Smith as to the meaning of the proviso (which was that the consent should not be unreasonably withheld in the case of a respectable and responsible person). Lord Justice Kay stating that the landlord might reasonably refuse his assent if the proposed assignee intended to use the premises for purposes to which the landlord might reasonably object, though forbidden neither by the lease nor by law, but, per Lord Justice Smith, the landlord cannot make use of the clause simply to regain possession_before the end of the term. In Young v. Ashley Gardens Properties Limited (88 L. T. Rep. 541; (1903) 2 Ch. 112) the landlord, who was under covenant to pay all rates, offered a licence containing a condition that the lessee or assignee or one of them would pay any increase in the rates due to the assignment The tenant objected to the condition, and sued for a declaration that he was entitled to a clear licence. This was altered at trial to a claim for a declaration that the defendant landlords were not entitled to impose the condition, and that the plaintiff was entitled to assign without further consent. The declaration was made as prayed, and was upheld by the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Vaughan Williams remarking that the landlord is not bound to give any reason for his refusal, but if he attaches to his consent a condition which is unreasonable the court can make the declaration asked for in that case; and costs were given against the landlord.
Re Spark's Lease; Berger v. Jenkinson (92 L. T. Rep. 537: (1905) 1 Ch. 456) was decided on a question of costs only, the substantial difference being settled out of court. The landlord occupied part of the buildings, to which there was only one entrance, and let off another part subject to a covenant on the part of the tenant not to carry on certain prohibited trades and not to assign without consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld to a respectable and responsible person. The landlord required to be informed for what purpose the portion to be underlet would be used, and that the proposed underlessee should enter into a similar restrictive covenant directly with the landlord. Taking into consideration the character of the premises and that a high class business was carried on thereon by the landlord, Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady held that he had not been unreasonable. Finally, the Court of Appeal have recently decided that a limited company can be a "respectable and responsible person' " within the meaning of this covenant: (Willmott v. London Road Car Company Limited, 102 L T. Rep. 427, overruling Harrison, Ainslie, and Co. v. Barrow-in-Furness Corporation, 39 W. R. 250).
A SERIES of important lectures have been delivered in Dublin by Professor C. H. Oldham on the "Public Finances of Ireland" and the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland. Mr. Oldham, who is one of the professors in the National University, treats the whole history of the question since the Act of Union to the present time, and it is to be hoped that his lectures will be published in book form at the earliest possible moment. Judging from the reports of these lectures in the public Press, it would appear that they afford a valuable contribution towards the solution of a very difficult and complicated question.
A QUESTION came last week before a local bench of magistrates in Ireland as to the meaning of sect. 11 of the Licensing (Ireland) Act 1836, which provides that if any licensed person shall" delay to admit" any justice or constable "into any house or place of such person" for the purpose of making a search, he shall be liable to a penalty. In the case in question a constable had been admitted to a publican's premises. When he got into the shop he saw the publican in a sto ping position behind the counter, and he told her he wished to get behind the counter to examine it. The publican caught hold of the door of the counter and said that she would not allow him to go behind it until he bad produced a warrant. The constable then moved away. The publican called him back, eaying that he could search the place now. The majority of the magistrates refused to
convict, on the ground that the words of the section referred to a delay in admitting a justice or constable into the premises, and not to the particular circumstances proved. It is not unlikely that the case will go further.
In the case of Russell v. Mitchelstown Urban District Council, which came before Mr. Justice Wylie on the 9th inst., an important question was involved as to the power and practice of the courts as regards granting sequestration against local bodies. The plaintiff had recovered a judgment granting an injunction against the defendants in July 1910 for the abatement of a nuisance in connection with a septic tank which had been erected by the defendants for the disposal of sewage in the urban district. The defendants had made no structural alteration in the tank after the granting of the injunction, but had appointed a permanent and, as they alleged, more efficient caretaker of the works. It was argued on their behalf that they had been guilty of no wilful disobedience to the injunction, and the case of Fairclough v. Manchester Sewage Canal Company (1897) W. N. 7) was relied on. The plaintiff, on the other hand, relied on the case of Attorney-General v. Walthamstow Local Board (11 Times L. Rep. 533). Mr. Justice Wylie took the course that had been adopted in Lee v. Aylesbary District Council (19 Times L. Rep. 106), and, on the consent of both parties, appointed an independent engineer to make a report as to what means were necessary to be adopted in order to abate the nuisance.
IT is a curious circumstance that the Royal Commissioners on the Land Transfer Acts, who issued their report recently, do not refer from the beginning to the end of that report to the very complete system of registration of title which exists in Ireland under the Local Registration of Title Act 1891. The registries which exist in Yorkshire, Middlesex, and Scotland are referred to frequently, but, so far as the report is concerned, the commissioners do not seem to be aware that a system very similar to that under the English Land Transfer Acts exists in Ireland. The Registry of Title in Ireland, which was created under the Act of 1891, was largely due to the exertions of Mr. (now Mr. Justice) Madden, who was then AttorneyGeneral for Ireland. His practice in the Land Judge's Court brought him very much in contact with the question of the transfer of land. Many of the problems which the commissioners discussed in their report, and which are etated to involve great difficulties, have already been solved in Ireland, and there is no doubt that if they had examined one of the officials of the Irish Registry of Title they would have been able to present a number of recommendations that are absent from their report. The Irish system of registry is voluntary as regards ordinary transactions; it is compulsory as regards lands purchased under the Lands Purchase Acts. By reason of the enormous transactions that are at present taking place under those Acts, the operations of the Act of 1891 will in a very few years be very general in Ireland. The Act also applies compulsorily to lands acquired by rural district councils under the Labourers Acts, and to lands acquired under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act 1899. Registration may be of two kinds-registration of absolute ownership and registration "subject to equities." The latter seems to correspond with the registration of a possessory title under the English Acta. The estates capable of first registration are estates of freehold tenure, leasehold estates in which more than twenty-one years of the term are unexpired, statutory tenancies, and any right which may be registered as a burden affecting registered lands. In the case of an owner registered subject to equities," it is, of course, competent for him to go into his title and have himself registered as full owner. The "dealings" with the registered land comprise transfers (including settlements), charges, transfers of charges, transmissions on death, leases, defeasance (including sales by mortgagees and charges), releases, cautions and inhibitions, and the discharge of equities. Registered land may be sold and transferred as freely as if it were unregistered. A charge on registered land may be created either by registered disposition, or by unregistered disposition, or by deposit of the land certificate. The code deals also ully with the transfers of charges and sub charges. Land which is compulsorily registrable devolves on death on the personal representative. In the case of land which is not compulsorily registrable, it devolves in the same manner as if it were unregistered.
HANDWRITING EXPERT.-Mr. D. Blackburn, late expert to the Natal Criminal Investigation Department, joint author of The Detection of Forgery" (Layton's, Farringdon-street). Address 2, Carlton-mansions, Coldharbour-lane, S. W.-[ADVT.]
FIXED INCOMES.-Houses and Residential Flats can now be Furnished on a new system of Deferred Payments especially adapted for those with fixed incomes who do not wish to disturb investments. Selection from the largest stock in the world. Everything legibly marked in plain figures. Maple and Co. Ltd., Tottenham Courtroad, London, W.-[ADVT.]
WARNING TO INTENDING LESSEES OF HOUSES.-Before purchasing or renting a house it is very important to get an independent report on the drainage, sanitary fittings, & water supply by an expert from the Sanitary Engineering Co., 65, Victoria-st., S. W. Estab. 35 years. Tel. Sanitation London." 'Phone: 316, Westminster. Apply for prospectus. [ADVT.]
Interlocutory appeals from the Chancery Division will be taken in Appeal Court II. to-day (Saturday).
Judgment will be delivered by Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady to-day (Saturday) in British Westinghouse Electric Manufacturing Company v. Electrical Company Limited.
Mr. Justice Phillimore will take the case of Heath v. Drown (nonjury) on Tuesday next.
Mr. Justice Bankes will take the case of Williams v. Valley 【Urban District Council on Saturday next at 10.30.
The hearing of the North West Ham election petition commenced at the Law Courts last Tuesday before Mr. Justice Ridley and Mr. Justice Bucknill. This is the last election petition to be tried by the judges.
Mr. Justice Bray having finished the business at Presteign, on the South Wales Circuit, last Monday returned to London and took his seat in court on the following day, proceeding with the common jury list. He will now remain in town until Tuesday, the 4th prox., when he will return to the second part of the circuit at Chester, being joined by Mr. Justice Bankes.
Mr. Justice Bankes, having finished the business at Mold, on the North Wales Circuit, last Monday returned to town and took his seat in court on the following day, proceeding with the short cause list. He will now remain in town until Tuesday, the 4th prox., when he will return to the second part of the circuit at Chester, being joined by Mr. Justice Bray.
On Tuesday last Mr. Justice Avory opened the commission at Chelmsford, on the South-Eastern Circuit. When the business at this town is finished he will return to London, where he will remain until the end of the sittings.
On Thursday last Mr. Justice Channell left London for Exeter, on the Western Circuit, to join Mr. Justice Coleridge, and opened the commission on the following day. These judges will not be able to return to London until after the business at Bristol is finished, the commission day for such town being fixed for Saturday, the 1st prox.
Mr. Justice Lush will leave London on Monday next for Appleby, on the Northern Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day. Mr. Justice Lush will go the circuit alone until Liverpool is reached on Saturday, the 1st prox., when he will be joined by Mr. Justice Horridge. Mr. Justice Lush will not be able to return to London this side of the Long Vacation, as the commission day at Manchester is fixed for Monday, the 17th prox., and it is understood the business at this town will detain them for a considerable time.
On Saturday next, the 24th inst., Mr. Justice Phillimore will leave London for Hertford, on the second part of the South-Eastern Circuit, and will open the commission on the following Monday.
The courts and offices of the Supreme Court, including the district registries, will be closed on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday next, the 22nd, 23rd and 24th inst.
The June general session was opened on Tuesday last at the Sessions-house, Newington, before Mr. Robert Wallace, K.C. (chairman), Mr. Loveland Loveland, K.C. (deputy chairman), and other justices. The calendar contains the names of 147 persons charged with offences, ninety-three having been committed from the north side and fifty-four from the south side of the Thames.
The June Session at the Central Criminal Court will commence on Tuesday, the 27th inst., at 10.30.
The Midsummer Quarter Session for cases arising in the county of Middlesex will commence on Saturday, the 1st prox., at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, at ten o'clock.
We are officially informed that when the sittings of the Mayor's Court commence on a Monday, the court sits at eleven o'clock and not at 10.30 a.m.
On Monday last Mr. Justice Neville completed five years' service on the Bench, having been appointed on the 12th June 1906.
On Tuesday last Mr. Justice Bray completed seven years' service on the Bench, having been appointed on the 13th June 1904. Sir Pope Cooper, Chief Justice of Queensland, left for Brisbane by the Orient liner Orvieto on the 9th inst.
At a Congregation of the University of Cambridge held on the 8th inst., the Vice-Chancellor (Mr. R. F. Scott, Master of St. John's) presiding, the degree of Doctor of Laws was conferred upon Mr. Mervyn GilbartSmith, Trinity.
The First International Woman Suffrage Congress was opened at Stockholm on Monday. Delegates, about a thousand in number, were present from all European countries, and also from the United States, South Africa, and Australia.
Mr. Robert Holtby, of Lilling Hall, York, and 'of New-street, York, solicitor, Clerk of Arraigns for the North-Eastern Circuit, and Deputy Clerk of Assize. who died at Bournemouth on the 16th April, aged seventy-one years, left estate of the gross value of £123,076, with net personalty sworn at £108,511.
The late Town Clerk of Bournemouth and Mrs. Bailey have been presented with handsome gifts from Mr. Bailey's late colleagues in the municipal service, and at a meeting held recently there were some interesting reviews of Bournemouth's history during the last nine years-the period of Mr. Bailey's official association with the borough showing that it has been a period of unexampled progress and prosperity.