« EelmineJätka »
negative. Those in touch with village life will realise the consequences. Supplies will be brought on to the ground in spite of the vigilance of the single-handed policeman, and the Coronation committee-men will not be too astute to notice the facts. Drunkenness will tend to increase, and the preservation of order will be rendered more difficult. No one suggests that justices should seek popularity at this or any other time, but it would certainly have tended towards good feeling at this special juncture if there had been in some rural areas more discrimination in the exercise of their discretion as to occasional Licences.
A STARRED question on the notices of motion supplied to members of the House of Commons will draw attention to a matter which has already been the subject of action by the persons chiefly concerned. Mr. King's interrogatory to the Home Office was skilfully designed to bring out the fact that the Motor Car Act 1903 was passed several years ago, as its date testifies, and when passed it was intended to be a transitory measure, and it was definitely stated that its term of existence was to be two years. After this it was purposed to pass further legislation. The fact that the Act was a transitory measure was the reason for the Legislature not troubling to provide for the removal from drivers' licences of any indorsements thereon. The result is that drivers whose licences have been indorsed (in many instances in respect of offences they have either not committed or offences not indorsable at all) have been unable after many years to get rid of the indorsement. It is well known that chauffeurs have been organising some protest against the indelibility of the stain on their licence, and Mr. King's question had the same object in view. The question was so framed as to bring out some serious facts, and it invited the Government to introduce a Bill whereby fresh licences can be issued free from the record of an offence long since atoned for. Mr. Burns' recent reply was not otherwise than sympathetic, and its tone in general would seem to suggest that the Government may introduce amended legislation.
A PAMPHLET has been issued concerning the Borstal institutions which accounts for them and their work up to date. They are at present four in number. The original one forms a part of Borstal Gaol, on the hills above Rochester, where there is accommodation for about 400 lads. Another is at Feltham, in the valley of the Thames, where there are some 200 under training. The third one, for girls only (this is a new departure), is in part of the female prison at Aylesbury, and up to the present thirty-six girls have been received there. Lastly, a wing of the old Canterbury Prison has been adapted for "unsatisfactory cases." In one way and another the lads are kept at it for fifteen hours out of the twenty-four; from 5.30 in the morning, when they are heartened for the day's work with a cup of milk and a biscuit, till 8.30 in the evening, when lights are turned out. Drill opens the day, and after breakfast at seven there is work in the shopз or in the open until the general parade at 11.45. After dinner work is resumed till tea-time at 5.30. There is a short chapel service at about six, when opportunity is taken to read out "letters from old boys." Between 6.30 and bed-time there are evening classes for the juniore, and the others read in their cells. There is no really idle time throughout the day. For certain weaklings the programme may be a trifle severe, but there is at any rate none of the unwholesome solitude and monotony that youths in an ordinary prison have to endure.
STRANGE as it sounds, these Borstal establishments are probably the only penal institutions in the country in which really hard work is performed. We are assured, however, that "it is a stimulating and educative hard labour, and the whole atmosphere of the place is quite different from that of the ordinary prison, just as the appearance and bearing of the lads are quite different from that of prisoners." We suggested some time ago that while the physical training and discipline of the Borstal institutions are scarcely suited to youngsters of delicate or defective physique, there are many criminal weaklings of tender age, whose very weakness makes it easier for them to go on slipping down the ladder, and who badly need the opening to an honest life that seems to lie from the portals of Borstal. We now learn that "it is hoped to start special institutions for their reception"; but that "to convert the boy who is crippled, or has a weak heart, into a selfEupporting man, it will be necessary that he should be taught a trade thoroughly, and it is hard to see how this can be done within the limits of a three years' sentence." During the past twelve months 212 discharged lads have come under the care of the Borstal Association, 174 of whom are at present satisfactory," and not more than eighteen "at present unsatisfactory," while fifteen have been reconvicted. One of the 174 is now a shopkeeper. The Borstal institution for girls at Aylesbury has been in operation for about
eighteen months. At present the courts are committing few girls to this place, but fifty-seven have been received, and twenty-seven discharged. Since," says Mrs. Thompson, the hon. director on the girls' side," there has not been time for many of the girls to pass into free life after the expiration of their period of supervision, the Borstal system for girls has not yet really emerged from the experimental stage. But considering the bad quality of the material, it is impossible not to see in this beginning great promise for the future when the system, both before and after discharge, comes to be more fully developed in the light of experience."
AERIAL NAVIGATION ACT 1911.
THE following notice has been issued by the Home Office :
In pursuance of the power conferred on me by the Aerial Navigation Act 1911, I hereby, for the purpose of protecting the public from danger, make the following order :
I prohibit the navigation of aircraft of every description over the county of London on the 22nd, 23rd, and 29th days of June.
I prohibit the navigation of aircraft of every description over the county of London and over the urban districts of Penge and Beckenham on the 30th day of June.
I prohibit the navigation of aircraft of every description over Windsor Great Park on the 3rd and 4th days of July.
W. S. CHURCHILL, One of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.
Home Office, 12th June 1911. Any person navigating an aircraft in contravention of the foregoing order is liable on conviction to imprisonment for six months, or to a fine of £200, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
June 22, 23, and 29, the dates mentioned in the first prohibition, are those of the three Royal processions; June 30 is the day of the King's Fête to London school children at the Crystal Palace; and on July 3 and 4 His Majesty is to hold reviews of the Officers Training Corps and Boy Scouts at Windsor.
THE interest awakened by the Parliament Bill, the House of Lords Reconstitution Bill, the meeting of the Imperial Conference, and the presence in this country of the leading statesmen of the British dominions beyond the seas will render well worthy of reproduction a concise statement as to number of Chambers, number of members, and duration of Parliaments of self-governing dominions of the British Empire furnished by Mr. Harcourt, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reply to a question addressed to him for written answer and circulated among the papers of the House of Commons on the 23rd March. The statement embodies valuable information to the student of the versions of the British Constitution, which is itself in the process of comprehensive reform. Further information regarding the membership of Upper Chambers of self-governing colonies may be found, as Mr. Harcourt states, in a footnote in Parliamentary Paper 81 of session 1910, while in the case of Lower Chambers he is careful to inform us that power exists universally of earlier dissolution by the Governor-General or Governor respectively.
THE bringing of an action by Mr. William Peel for statements imputing drunkenness to him as a candidate for the Parliamentary election for Taunton, which the jury found to have been falsely spoken, but not spoken for the purpose of influencing the election, shows the trend of public opinion towards a higher standard of personal character in public men and of constitutional morality than in days gone by. The first Parliament which met in Scotland after the Restoration of Charles II. acquired the name, by which it is known in history, of "The Drunken Parliament." Sir Walter Scott in his Tales of a Grandfather says: "When the Scottish Parliament met, the members were in many instances under the influence of wine, and they were more than once obliged to adjourn because the Royal Commissioner (Middleton) was too intoxicated to behave properly in the chair." In the eighteenth century, hard drinking among the upper orders was very common, and practised without injury to their public position by men who in Parliament conducted the affairs of the nation. Harley, Earl of Oxford, a Prime Minister and a former Speaker of the House of Commons, is said to have come not infrequently intoxicated into the very presence of Queen Anne. Bolingbroke, when in office, sat up whole nights drinking, and in the morning, having bound a wet blanket round his forehead and eyes to drive away the effects of his intemperance, he hastened without sleep to his official business. The entertainments of Sir Robert Walpole when Prime Minister were drunken orgies. The intellect of Carteret was clouded by drink, and Pulteney is said to have shortened his life by intemperance. Pitt took large quantities of port to sustain his strength and spirits during political conflict, and on at least one occasion was not in a condition to answer an attack in the House of Commons. Mr. Lecky endeavours to excuse this vice in that statesman by reminding his readers that it was "shared by probably the majority of the statesmen who were his contemporaries" (History of England in the Eighteenth Century, v., pp. 11-12). No revolution of public
sentiment has been more remarkable than that which within a century bas banished drunkenness from public life and rendered indulgence in this vice wholly incompatible with the retention of any position for which public confidence is requisite.
In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. Wedgwood asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to the case of the boy Joyce, who was fined £10 at the Tower Bridge Police-court for a first offence against the AntiGambling Laws and sent to prison for one month as he could not pay; and when he proposed to bring in his Bill intended to stop youths being sent to prison when they could not pay police-court fines, and so being turned into gaolbirds.-Mr. Churchill: Yes, sir. My attention has been called to the case. The fine was paid by a member of the visiting committee of the prison. As the bookmakers who employ such lads as Joyce are believed to make considerable profits from street-betting. it would be useless to impose a small fine in such cases or to refrain from enforcing the fine by imprisonment when the offender fails to pay. In a Bill now under my consideration it is proposed to empower magistrates to substitute other punishments for imprisonment in default of payment of fines; but I would remind my hon. friend that, if any effective check is to be put on street-betting and the grave evils that arise from it, the punishment to which those who carry it on render themselves liable must be sufficiently severe to be actually deterrent. If offenders were to be exempted from punishment on account of their youth or their previous good character, bookmakers would find it profitable to employ none but boys of good character on this illegal business-a result which I am sure my hon. friend would deplore as much as anyone.
Mr. King asked the Home Secretary whether he was aware that when the Motor Car Act 1903 was passed it was definitely stated that the Act would only be in force for two years, would then be followed by further legislation, and, therefore, no provision was made for removing from motor-driving licences any indorsements for offences under the Act; whether persons were still suffering from having licences indorsed years ago and had no opportunity to remove suca indorsements; and whether he would introduce a short Bill by which deserving motor drivers might have issued fresh licences free from record of a stain long since atoned.-Mr. Burns, on behalf of Mr. Churchill, replied that the point w.uld no doubt require consideration when the Motor Car Act 1903 came to be amended. He could not make any announcement as to any legislation at the present time.
In the House of Commons, on Wednesday, Mr. G. Roberts for Mr. Hodge asked the Home Secretary if he would state what number of criminals during each year between 1907 and 1910 inclusive came from America, Germany, and Russia.-Mr. Churchill: The only figures I can give relate to aliens received into prison on conviction, and the separate nationalities are available only for the years 1909 and 1910. They are as follows: During 1909 the prisoners claiming birth in America numbered 622; those claiming birth in Russia, 517; and those claiming birth in Germany, 455. For 1910 the figures are: merica, 607; Russia, 394; Germany, 357.
Birkenhead. Wednesday Birmingham, Monday and Tuesday, at 10
Blaenavon, Monday, at 11.30 Bloomsbury, Monday, Tuesday. and Wednesday
Bolton, Wednesday, at 9.30
Bow, Monday and Wednesday
Bury St. Edmunds, Tuesday
Cambridge, Tuesday, at 11; Wednesday, at 10
Colne, Tuesday, at 9.45
Darlington, Wednesday, at 9
Great Grimsby, Wednesday (R.
Halifax, Monday, and Tuesday (J.S.), at 9.30
Hanley, Wednesday, at 9.30
Monday, Tuesday. Wednesday, at 10.30 Jarrow, Tuesday, at 10 Kidderminster. Tuesday, at 9 Lambeth, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, at 10 Langport, Wednesday, at 10
Leeds, Monday (J.S. & A.O.) and
Leek, Monday, at 9.30
Other sittings are
Manchester, Wednesday (R. By), at 10
Market Bosworth, Wednesday, at 9.45
Marlborough, Tuesday, at 10.30 Marylebone, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, at 10.30
Melksham, Wednesday, at 10.30
Norwich, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, at 10
Oxford, Wednesday (R. By), at
Paignton, Monday, at 10 Penzance, Tuesday, at 10
Pontypool, Wednesday, at 10.30 Portsmouth, Monday (C.S.), at 10.30
Rochester. Tuesday and Wednesday, at 9.30
Ross, Tuesday, at 10
St. Albars, Monday, at 10
Seaham Harbour, Monday, at 9.30
Skipton, Wednesday at 9.45
Southwark, Monday and Tuesday, at 10.30
Stamford, Monday, at 1.30
Stourbridge, Monday, at 10
Taunton, Tuesday, at 10
Weston-super-Mare, Monday, at 10
Wood Green, Monday, at 10.30 Worcester, Tuesday (Reg. undef.) and Wednesday, at 10 Worthing, Monday. specially fixed if necessary.
THE following is the official report of Monday's sitting :The Imperial Conference met at the Foreign Office on the 12th inst., at 11 a.m. There were present :
The Right Hon. H. H. Asquith, K.C., M.P. (President of the Conference).
The Right Hon. L. Harcourt, M.P., Secretary of State for the Colonies.
The Right Hon. the Lord Chancellor.
The Right Hon. Viscount Haldane of Cloan.
Canada. The Hon. L. P. Brodeur, K.C., Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Australia.-The Hon. A. Fisher, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth; the Hon. E. L. Batchelor, Minister of External Affairs.
New Zealand.-The Right Hon. Sir J. G. Ward, K.C.M.G., Prime Minister; the Hon. J. G. Findlay, K.C., LL.D., Attorney-General and Colonial Secretary.
Union of South Africa.-General the Right Hon. L. Botha, Prime Minister of the Union; the Hon. Sir D. P. de Villiers Graaff, Bart., Minister of Public Works, Posts, and Telegraphs; the Hon. F. S. Malan, Minister of Education.
Newfoundland.-The Hon. Sir E. P. Morris, K C., Prime Minister.
Lord Lucas. Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir Francis Hopwood, G.C.M.G., K C.B., Permanent UnderSecretary of State for the Colonies; Sir C. P. Lucas, K.C.M.G., C.B., Assistant Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies; Mr. C. H. L. Neish, Registrar, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; Mr. J. S. Risley, Legal Adviser, Colonial Office; Mr. A. Atlee Hunt, CM.G., Secretary to the Department of External Affairs (Commonwealth of Australia); and private secretaries to members of the Conference.
AN IMPERIAL COURT OF APPEAL.
Notice had been given of the following resolutions :
By the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia :— That it is desirable that the judicial functions in regard to the Dominions now exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be vested in an Imperial Appeal Court, which should also be the final Court of Appeal for Great Britain and Ireland. By the Government of New Zealand:
That it has now become evident, considering the growth of population, the diversity of laws enacted, and the differing public policies affecting legal interpretation in His Majesty's Oversea Dominions, that no Imperial Court of Appeal can be satisfactory which does not include judicial representatives of these Oversea Dominions.
Mr. Fisher, in moving the Commonwealth resolution, said that they wished to advance the view that it was advisable to have one Imperial Court to which all cases could be submitted for final decision. The constitution of that court need not be gone into at the moment.
Mr. Batchelor pointed out that there were at present two Courts of Final Appeal in the Empire-one the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for the Crown Colonies, India, and the Oversea Dominions, and the other the House of Lords for the United Kingdom. That was an anomalous position, and unless there were serious practical difficulties in the way it ought not to be continued in the Empire as now developed. When an appeal was made to a court of final jurisdiction there ought to be no possibility of uncertainty or of conflict of opinion in different parts of the Empire as to what the law really was. As the two bodies were composed largely of the same judges, there seemed to be no great reason against having one court. The judgments of the Privy Council were findings of a board rather than decisions of a court. It was the one court in the Empire which did not give individual judgments.
Mr. Asquith said that some people thought that that was a drawback, others that it was an advantage. One never knew whether a judgment of the Privy Council was unanimous or not, or to what extent it was dissented from.
Mr. Batchelor said that was one of the arguments sometimes used against it. The practice of giving one judgment only could 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. Moreover, the institution of one final court would be another step in the direction of Imperial unity.
Lord Loreburn, in explaining the nature of the jurisdiction already existing, said that the House of Lords heard all the appeals from the United Kingdom. In theory every peer was entitled to sit in the House of Lords as a Court of Appeal, but for a long time the attendance had been restricted to the judicial members-namely, the Lord Chancellor, four Lords of Appeal, with any previous Chancellor, and any peer who bad held high judicial office; three members formed a quorum, but the court seldom sat with less than four. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had jurisdiction, broadly spaesing, in regard to India, the Dominion and colonial courte, and certain othe: courts. From this it followed that the cases dealt with might involve old French law, Roman Dutch law, English common law, considerably modified by statutes in different Dominions, and also the Indian Codes. It was therefore necessary to adjust the composition of the tribunal to the nature of the laws with which it had to deal The judges entitled to sit on the Judicial Committee were the Lord Chancellor, the four Lords of Appeal, all Privy Councillors who had held high judicial office, two judges with special knowledge of Indian law, and also judges not exceeding five in number from the Dominions or colonies. In practice the members were the same as those who sat in the House of Lords, with the addition of Sir Arthur Wilson, who was unquestionably a judge of the very highest ability, but of whose services they would shortly be deprived. If both the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee were sitting at the same time, a distribution of the available members was made, and the utmost care was taken to equalise as far as possible the strength in the two courts. In substance the personnel of the two courts was identical, and he had never known a case in which there had been conflict between their decisions.
Dr. Findlay said that the conflict, when any, had been in connection with dicta of different members.
Lord Loreburn said that that constantly occurred in England and between different dicta in the House of Lords itself, where it was the custom for each judge to deliver his own judgment. Sometimes the judges differed in opinion, and sometimes they agreed, but for different reasone. His own view was that if in every court there was only one judgment there would be more coherence and consistency. That, however, was a point, in regard to which the Home Government would not be disposed to make any difficulty. Each constituent part of the Empire ought to judge for itself as to the kind of tribunal it wished and the composition of that tribunal. Whatever Court of Final Appeal in England was desired by any of the colonies, the Home Government would wish to give effect to the desire as far as possible, and if they would agree on the same kind of court and the same kind of judges, so much the better. With regard to the Privy Council, was it desired to have Britisa judges only? Was it desired that the Indian judges should take part in the appeals from the Dominions? Was it desired that there should be a permanent judge from each Dominion and that those judges should deal with all the appeals to the Privy Council, or that the individual judges should with the British judges deal only with the appeals from their respective Dominions? If desired, it could be arranged that all the cases from a particular Dominion should be heard consecutively and a time fixed for their hearing convenient to the Dominion concerned, so that a judge from that Dominion
might be present. Having regard to the complex nature of the jurisdiction, the best course would probably be to have always a wide membership of the Judicial Committee and that a selection should be made according to the nature of the case to be tried. That was done at present, so far as there was the necessary judicial strength. Another point for consideration was the different rules which prevailed in different Dominions as to special leave being required, as to the limit of the amount involved, as to the nature of the security to be given, and so forth. With regard to the United Kingdom, the Government were not prepared to recommend that the personnel of the judicial It body in the House of Lords should be changed. already possible to add any distinguished judge from Dominions. If each Dominion would say what kind court they preferred and the class of judges they wished to see, the Home Government would do its very best to meet their views. His own idea was that they should add to the highest Court of Appeal both in the United Kingdom and for the Dominions and colonies by selecting two English judges of the finest quality, that the quorum should be fixed at, say, five, and that the court should sit successively in the House of Lords for United Kingdom appeals and in the Privy Council for appeals from the Dominions and colonies. In that way they would have substantially the same court in its full strength for both classes of appeals.
Sir Joseph Ward pointed out that in order for a New Zealand judge to deal only with New Zealand cases it would be necessary for him to leave New Zealand for six months, and then perhaps have only one case to deal with. He and his colleagues would have no objection to Canadian or South African judges sitting in New Zealand cases, but it would hardly be practicable for New Zealand judges to come over to deal only with New Zealand cases.
Lord Haldane remarked that in connection with a Maori land case which occupied nearly ten days before the Privy Council it would have been useful if they could have had a new Zealand judge present, as an assessor, to make sure that no points of importance on a long series of special statutes were missed.
Sir Joseph Ward said that the majority of cases from New Zealand would have reference to native lands in regard to which there was much difference of legal opinion, and it was of the greatest importauce that there should be present a judge who knew the customs of the natives, which had to be considered in such cases.
Mr. Asquith pointed out that if the court sat in full strength it would meet the complaint sometimes made with regard to the Judicial Committee being a scratch court and too few in numbers. He had often argued cases in the Judicial Committee before three judges, which he thought was hardly fitting, seeing that they might be appeals from the Supreme Courts of various Dominions.
Sir Joseph Ward asked if the Lord Chancellor had any objection to there being only one court by merging the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council with the House of Lords, instead of one for the United Kingdom and another for the Overseas Dominions, and make the one a final Court of Appeal.
Lord Loreburn said it was practically the same thing, and the system which he had suggested might develop into the one court. Personally he would be very well pleased if it did. Our own system was somewhat complicated, but he did not think that the Legal Profession or the people at large at home had any quarrel with the existing final Court of Appeal.
Lord Haldane said that the Lord Chancellor's proposition was really to make one court, but to keep the old forms.
Mr. Malan said that in South Africa there was no right of appeal from their Appeal Court to any court outside the Union. But every subject had the right to petition the King, and any such petition would, as a matter of practice, go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If the committee gave leave to appeal, the case would be considered on its merits. It was not anticipated that there would be more than one such case in five or ten years. Therefore, as far as South Africa was concerned, they were generally satisfied with the present practice. It was, however, felt that the Judicial Committee was in some respects no ordinary court of law at all, and it would be an advantage to have its procedure in conformity with that of the other courts of law. The appeal to the King was one of the connecting links of the Empire, and on purely sentimental grounds it would be a right thing to have one final Court of Appeal for the whole Empire. A great deal sometimes depended on a name, and if they had one Imperial Court of Appeal, perhaps in two divisions, one dealing with appeals from the United Kingdom and the other with appeals from the Dominions and India, leaving the Lord Chancellor certain discretion in constituting the Bench of the respective divisions, the difficulty might be solved.
Mr. Brodeur said that in Canada they had been very well satisfied with the existing system of appeals before the Privy Council. view of the dispositions of the British North America Act and of the different procedures and practices of the various Provinces, it would be somewhat difficult to make a change. Everyone who had practised before the Judicial Committee must have been impressed with the great breadth of mind which prevailed among its members. Not only might a change be objected to by some of the Provinces, but it would be a reflection on the present court, which had given satisfaction.
Sir Joseph Ward said that there was not the slightest idea of reflecting on the Privy Council or its members. If such a line of argument were followed, no change at all would ever be made. New Zealand were in the peculiar position that out of their limited area some 7,000,000 acres of land were owned by natives. When litigation in connection with this land arose, native customs had to be
taken into account, and it was felt that when important cases of this kind came before the Privy Council it would be a great advantage if they had a representative judge from New Zealand present. In view of the statement of the Lord Chancellor, he would not urge that the Judicial Committee should be merged in the House of Lords. He suggested, however, that in addition to the present members of the Judicial Committee there should be a permanent judge from each of the important Overseas Dominions. The difficulty with regard to a judge coming over specially was that in all probability he would have to deal with cases which had already come before him in New Zealand. If permanent judges were appointed as he suggested, possibly for five or seven years, after which they would resume their work as Supreme Court judges, it would not only get over various difficulties which stood in the way of other proposals, but would greatly assist towards securing that uniformity and coordination of the law in different parts of the Empire which was so eminently desirable. In view of the importance of the interests involved, the question of expense, so far as each Dominion was concerned, was a secondary matter. New Zealand would hail with supreme satisfaction the presence of judges from the other Dominions in cases in which New Zealand was concerned, and he could hardly think that there would be any objection on their part on practical grounds to a New Zealand judge taking part in cases from the other Dominions.
Dr. Findlay said that the creation of one final Court of Appeal for the Empire would satisfy a great Imperial sentiment, and although the personnel would differ very little from that of the present court, it would constitute a step towards closer union. The presence of a resident colonial judge would obviate the necessity for sending over at great expense counsel from, for instance, New Zealand to see that the Privy Council were instructed on the peculiar features of New Zealand law. In any fair conception of the burdens of Empire there should be no objection to the Dominions sharing the cost of the Imperial Court of Appeal by paying the salary of one of their own judges.
Sir E. Morris said that very few appeals came from Newfoundland, and they were generally satisfied with the present arrangements. At the same time, if there was a desire for change on the part of Dominions who were more largely concerned in the work of the Judicial Committee, he would not consider himself justified in voting against the resolution. The proposed change was largely one name, the Imperial Court of Appeal instead of the Judicial Com. mittee of the Privy Council. There could be no objection to each Dominion having a representative on the permanent Court of Appeal. The principle was in harmony with the general sentiment of unification now prevailing.
Mr. Asquith asked whether the other Dominions would approve of Sir Joseph Ward's suggestion that each Dominion should appoint a resident judge who should sit not only in cases affecting his own Dominion, but in appeals from all the Dominions.
Mr. Brodeur said that in view of the different systems of law prevailing in Canada they would prefer to adhere to the existing system.
Mr. Fisher said that in Australia they desired to have an Australian final Court of Appeal; failing that, they desired to have one Court of Appeal in England. He was not at present prepared to accept Sir J. Ward's suggestion.
Mr. Malan said that South Africa would not send a resident judge to serve on the committee.
Sir E. Morris said that Newfoundland would not be prepared to appoint a man and pay his salary and expenses, in view of the small number of cases from that country.
Mr. Asquith said that he would much prefer the suggestion that the cases from a particular Dominion should be fixed to be heard at a time to suit the convenience of a judge from that Dominion. He thought that this would substantially meet Sir J. Ward's view that when cases from a particular Dominion came on it would be an advantage to have a local judge present, and the Government would be glad to meet that view as far as possible.
Lord Loreburn agreed that if there were only one or two cases, the sending over of a judge would be a large order for a comparatively small result. As he understood the discussion, there was general agreement to the following effect: That there should be for the whole British Empire one final Court of Appeal in two divisions, one for the United Kingdom, consisting of the same persons who were now entitled to sit in the House of Lords, and the other for the Overseas Dominions, consisting of the persons now entitled to sit on the Judicial Committee, with such further additions as might be agreed upon, and that it should be strengthened by the addition of two English judges.
Sir Joseph Ward thought that that represented the only modus vivendi.
Mr. Fisher said that he would withdraw his resolution and substitute the following:
That, having heard the views of the Lord Chancellor and Lord Haldane, the conference recommends that the proposals of the Government of the United Kingdom be embodied in a communication to be sent to the Dominions as early as possible."
Mr. Batchelor said that they looked forward to one final Court of Appeal for the Empire. The two divisions seemed to be a practicable arrangement for the time being, but it ought to be understood that the proposal was merely for the time being.
The original resolutions were then withdrawn, and the substituted resolution was unanimously agreed to.
THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY.
Mr. Fisher formally moved:"That the members of this conference recommend to their respective Governments the desirableness of submitting measures Parliament for the prevention of acts of conspiracy to defeat or evade the law of any other part of the Empire; that the Imperial Government make similar representations to the Government of India and the Crown Colonies."
Mr. Batchelor pointed out that at present it was often impossible to reach the people really responsible, and he suggested that the question should be referred to a committee to see if there was any possibility of securing greater co-operation on the subject throughout the Empire.
After a short conversation, the resolution was withdrawn on the understanding that the Home Government would communicate with the non-self-governing parts of the Empire to ascertain whether it was practicable for them to deal with the matter by legislation.
APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK
NOTICES OF APPEARANCE AT HEARING MUST REACH THE SOLICITORS Y 6 e.M. CN TUB
DAWFIELD LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard June 29, at Brentford County Court. Tree and Co., 6, Broad-st-pl, E.C., sols. for pet. Notices of appearance by June 28.
EXCHANGE DRAPERY LIMITED. Creditors to send in, by July 27, to H. Stanley, 33 and 35, Gorton-la, West Gorton, Manchester. LONDON PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED. Order for continuation of voluntary winding-up subject to supervision of the court, made by Neville, J., dated June 2. Munns and Longden, 4B, Frederick's-pl, Old Jewry, E.C., sols. for pet.
LAKE VIEW CONSOLS LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 25, to C. Lloyd, Salisbury House, London-wall, E.C. Birkbeck, Moreton, Thompson, and Co., 20, Copthall-av, E.C., sols. to liquidator.
MOTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY (1907) LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 14, to W. Winder and A. Burgess, 1, St. Swithin's-la, E.C. ORIENTAL CONCESSIONS LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 11, to H. Meredith, 208, Gresham House, Old Broad-st, E.C.
PRESTEA MINES LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 22, to G. G. Walker, 19, St. Swithin's-la, E.C. SHARP SCRAP PRESS LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 5, to F. P. Plunkett, of Walter Lund and Plunkett, Queen Anne-chmbrs. 41, Sunbridge-rd, Bradford. H. E. W. Fox, Bradford, sol. to liquidator. SECOND BIRKBECK PERMANENT BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY, commonly called the BIRKBECK FREEHOLD LAND SOCIETY.-Petition for windingup to be heard June 20, at Royal Courts of Justice. Rubinstein, Nash, and Co., 5 and 6, Raymond-bldgs, Gray's-inn, W.C., sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by June 19. VIOLET MELNOTTE PICTURE THEATRES LIMITED-Petition for winding-up to be heard June 20, at Royal Courts of Justice. Beyfus and Beyfus, 69, Lincoln's-inn-fids, W.C., sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by June 19.
CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LAST DAY OF PROOFS.
HONEYMAN (Joseph), Hutton Rudby, and HONEYMAN (Martha), July 15; G. H. Bowes-Wilson, sol., Middlesbrough. July 19; Swinfen Eady and Neville, JJ., at 11.30. NORTH-WEST LONDON RAILWAY COMPANY BILL 1906.-Landowners and others who have suffered loss or have incurred expense connected with the construction or abandonment of the railway, and creditors (if any) to come in, by July 6, and prove their claims at chambers of Warrington and Parker, JJ., Room 297, and enter their names at Room 299, Royal Courts of Justice. Hearing July 13, at 11, at said chambers.
POOLE (Joseph), Malmesbury. July 13; C. F. Moir, of Forrester, Moir, and Co., sols., Malmesbury. July 24; Warrington and Parker, JJ.,
CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. a 35.
LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT.
BENT (Harriett), Groby. July 10; Toller, Burgess, and Pochin, Leicester.
BEATSON (Surgn.-Gen. William Burns), Eastbourne. July 15; Whatley and Son, 27, Lincoln's-inn-flds, W.C.
BRYARS (William), Sheffield. July 9; J. B. Kesteven, Sheffield.
Coy (Henry), Walthamstow. July 15: Pearce and Sons, St. Bartholo
A. Browne and Co., Warrington. July 15; Green, Moberley, and
CROSS (James), Bognor. June 30; G. Wintringham Cutts, Bognor.
DELL Sarah Elizabeth), Totteridge.
July 3; H. H. Wells and Sons,
DUDDEN (Marianne), St. Leonards-on-Sea. July 15; Meadows, Thorpe,
and Menneer, Hastings.
DUNYO (George William), Southend-on-Sea. July 14; Kimbers and
DICKINSON (Charles Sampson), Branston and Lincoln. July 9; Hebb
FREUTEL (Charlotte), Hanover, Germany. July 24; Goldberg, Barrett, and Newall, 2 and 3, West-st, Finsbury-cir, E.C.
FORSTER (Mary Phoebe), Warkworth. July 22; the executors, at the
GILHAM (William), Swanley. July 20; E. J. Skinner, 13, Old Cavendishst, W.
HARRIS (Anne Thorne), Plymouth. July 5; Wooilcombe and Sons, Plymouth.
HOPKINSON (Henry), West Bridgford. June 19; Simpson and Lee, Not-
HALLETT (Charles Edwin), Hastings.
Boote and Dutton, Manchester HEWSON (Annie), Ashby. July 8; Baddiley and Co., Doncaster. HEWITT (Susanna), Teddington. July 31; W. Irons, Sheffield. HOPE (Daniel), Southport. June 30; E. R. Hoskinson, Liverpool. HOBSON (Edward), Wincobank. July 31; H. and A. Maxfield, Sheffield. HOLTBY (Robert), Lillings Ambo and York. July 31; Holtby and Procter, York.
IREMONGER (John), Reading. July 11; Pitman and Bazett, Reading.
JONES (Robert), Criccieth. June 23; Allanson and Co., Carnarvon.
Curwen and Carter, 1, Gray's-inn-sq, W.C.
JAMES (William), Bradford. July 15; A. G. Dewhirst, Bradford.
LOWREY (Emily), South Kensington. July 14; Nicholson, Graham, and
LANGHORN (William), Stainton, Urswick. July 1; J. F. Hodgson, Barrow-in-Furness.
LANGLEY (Samuel Oxton), Birkenhead. July 10; J. Sefton, Liverpool. LAVERTON (Isabel Mary Weaver), Polstreath, Mevagissey. June 30; Carlyon and Stephens, St. Austell.
LAW (Frank), Croydon. July 10; Rowland and Hutchinson, Croydon. MOIR (Peter), Broadhurst-grdns, Finchley-rd. July 8; J. Moir, at the office of Camp, Ellis, and Co., 14, Bedford-row, W.C.
MARTIN (Michael), Jesmond. July 9; Nicholson and Martin, Newcastleupon-Tyne.
MCLAREN (Capt. James Marshall), 1st Battalion Gordon Highlanders. July 24; Bannatyne, Kirkwood, France, and Co., Glasgow. MUDDIMAN (Charles Joseph), Sheffield. July 11; Smith, Smith, and Fielding, Sheffield.
MICHELL (Col. Thomas Bernard), Ealing. July 10; C. C. S. Dean, 2,
MEREWETHER (Lieut.-Col. Henry Arthur), Gulmarg, Kashmir. July 31;
NORRIS (Edward), Shepherd's Bush. July 31; Lydall and Sons, 37,
OUTHWAITE (Margaret), Exeter and Burley-in-Wharfedale.
Dunning, Rundle, and Stamp, Honiton.
PETTY (Thomas Dockery), West Kensington.
July 26; Jacobson, Winchester House, Old Broad-st, E,C. July 15; Guedalla and PYE (Edward), Little Horton. July 8; Westwood and Howe, Bradford. PERKIN (Ann), Handsworth. July 14; W. J. Darch, 23, Ely-pl, Holborncir, E.C.
PEARSON (William Lawrence Wemyss), the Albany, Piccadilly, and Oxford and Cambridge Club, Pall Mall. July 8; Francis and Crookenden, 3, New-sq, Lincoln's-inn, W.C.
PARSONS (Frank Donisthorpe), Milton, Melplash. July 10; R. M. P. Parsons, Misterton.
PINCH (Luke), Broughton. June 30; Carlyon and Stephens, St. Austell. PATRICK (Harriette), Cradley. July 15; E. L. Wallis, Hereford. RUDDLESDEN (George), Dewsbury. July 10; R. W. Clough, Dewsbury. RUTHERFORD (William), Gateshead. July 31; Lambert and Lambert,
RARP (Charlotte), Brighton. June 27; Francis and Veneer, 106, Bishopsgate, E.C.
ROLT (Annie), Christleton. June 27; Potts, Potts, and Gardner, Chester. RUTHERFORD (Andrew Thompson), Middlesbrough. July 10; S. F.
ROBINSON (George), Greenwich. July 11; C. G. Bradshaw and Waterson, Royal London House, 16, Finsbury-sq, E.C.
RICKABY (Thomas Henry), Basildon. July 15; R. Greening, 49, Fenchurch-st, E.C.
SARJEANT (Elizabeth Maria), Nanpantan, Loughborough.
Jennings and Thompson, Felixstowe.
SMITH (Elizabeth Parsons), Hurstmonceux. Sept. 29; the executors, at the office of R. Martin, Tunbridge Wells.
SNOWDON (William Thomas), Hartlepool. July 1; H. W. Bell, West Hartlepool.
SQUIRES (Samuel), Kettering. July 22; S. Squires, 210, Humberstone-rd, Leicester, and E. S. King, Diamond-cottages, Biggleswade, or their sol., E. T. Leeds Smith, Sandy.
SOUTHERTON (Emma), Wellington, trading as Field and Co. July 1;
Pepper, Wimpole House, Wimpole-st, W.
June 30; Lithgow and
SLATFORD (William Hewlett), Forest Gate. June 30; T. Gunning, 40, Emerald-sq, Dublin, or his sols., E. C. Kilsby and Son, East Ham. SPINKS (Harriet), Newport, Mon. Aug. 9; Gush, Phillips, Walters, and Williams, 3, Finsbury-cir, E.C.
THOMAS (Sydney John), Wynols Hill, Coleford. July 16; G. B. Taylor, Coleford.
TAYLOR (Joseph), Tipton St. John. July 15; W. H. Hastings, Sidmouth. TRAVERS (Richard), Bishop Auckland. July 22; G. W. Jennings, Bishop
TATE (Catherine), Harrogate. July 8; Kirby and Son, Harrogate.
WARREN (Arthur Bramstone). Prittlewell.
July 1: A. T. Warren, 13. North-st, Prittlewell. Sols., Wood, Son, and Langton, Southend-onSea.
WATTS (Mary Ann), Great Yarmouth. June 30; Burton and Son, Great Yarmouth.
WILKINSON (Elizabeth Osborn), Urmston. July 10; Porter, Amphlett, and Co., Colwyn Bay.
WRIGHT (Sarah Ann), Peckham Rye. July 13; Blundell, Gordon, and
The Peninsular and Oriental Company's steamship Medina, which will convey Their Majesties the King and Queen to Bombay in November for the Durbar, underwent recently a series of steam trials on the Clyde with entirely satisfactory results. She is a fine vessel of 12,500 tons gross register, with two sets of reciprocating engines developing 16,000 horse-power; length, 560ft.; displacement, 18,700 tons. She and her sister ship, the Maloja, which has been especially assigned for the conveyance of passengers to India attending the Durbar, are the largest steamers yet built for the P. and O. Company, and will be the largest of their class; in the Eastern trade, where, owing to the limitations of the Suez Canal and other causes, tonnages rule much below the Atlantic standard. The company also announce that the steamers of their branch service (one class only) to Australia via the Cape will, in future, sail at regular three-weekly intervals, instead of once a month, as hitherto. The altered time-table will commence with the new 11,000-ton steamer Ballarat on the 14th Nov.
NOTES AND QUERIES.
This column is intended for the use of members of the Legal Profession, and therefore queries from lay correspondents cannot be inserted. Under no circumstances are editorial replies undertaken. None are inserted unless the name and address of the writer are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of bona fides.
9. APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR Infant's MAINTENANCE-INFANT'S RIGHT TO AN ACCOUNT.-An infant's share under a will vests at majority. The will has no special clause either as to payment or application of income during minority, and trustees regularly pay annual income to father (sect. 43 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881), who presumably applies it for infant's education and maintenance. (1) Has infant, now of age, a right (as against his father) to call on latter for an account? (2) Subject (or not) to accounting, is father entitled to use the income for purposes of maintenance, &c., wholly irrespective of his ability to otherwise provide for same? (3) How is the position affected where the father is himself one of the trustees? Cases on the position would much oblige. DOUBTFUL.
10. HUSBAND AND WIFE-OWNERSHIP OF DOG.-A dog (two and a half years old), which was harboured and kept in a house, escaped and worried certain sheep. The attention of the male occupier of the house was drawn to the damage done at early morn, and, later in the same day as the sheep were worried, a licence was taken out in the name of his wife. Previous to this no licence had been held for the dog. In our opinion, the husband Was the owner of the dog at the time it worried the sheep, and he has simply taken out the licence in his wife's name to escape liability, the wife having no separate estate. Would this be a tort of the wife for which the husband is liable, so as to sue them jointly for damages ? If possible, please quote authorities. DUBITANS.
(Q. 8.) FINANCE (1909-10) ACT 1910-INCREMENT VALUE DUTY.— With reference to the above query in your last edition, I should like to point out that undoubtedly the ultimate liability for the payment of the increment duty will fall on the mortgagor. The object of the framers of the increment clauses was to tax the profits of persons who had transactions in real or leasehold property or interests in such property. Now, in this case the person who will benefit if increment duty is payable will be the mortgagor; he is the person liable for the increment duty. For the purpose of arriving at the correct amount of increment duty payable, it will be necessary to treat the mortgages, assignment of leaseholds, reconveyance of freeholde, and balance of purchase money as one transaction in which for increment duty purposes the mortgagor is the vendor. The mortgagees, after deducting their principal, interest, and costs, hold the balance as trustees for the mortgagor, and on payment over of the balance the trusteeship terminates. I cannot say whether the authorities would look to the mortgagor or primarily to the executor mortgagees as I am not acquainted with their method of conducting these matters; but even if the executor mortgagees were held primarily liable, I am convinced that they would only have to prove their assignment as mortgagees and payment of the balance of the purchase money to the second mortgagee to relieve themselves of all liability in the matter, G. F. ARMSTRONG.