« EelmineJätka »
the Scoto'ı fasbion. The essentially separable character of the Scotch but that sometimes it might be better to follow. He agreed, how" and the English Crowns was démonstratod by this transaction, and ever, that the matter was worthy of consideration, though he was was emphasised by the circumstances immediately anteoedent to the not prepared to give the undertaking. Another of the Irish members Soutcb Union. In 1703 a Bill, entitled the Bill of Security, was passed suggested that such an undertaking if given ought to be made to by the Scotch Parliament, to which, however, the Royal Asgent was apply to County Court judges who had been Parliamentary candirefused, providing that on the death of Queen Anne without issue the dates before they were raised to the Bonch. It is understood that estates should meet to name a Protestant successor, but that this tbe Ulster Party are bringiog forward again a Bill for the purpose of should aot be the same person who would succeed to the Crown of placing these appointments in the hands of the judges cf assizə. England unless a treaty had been first made securing “ the honour and sovereignty of the Sootch Crown and kingdom, the freedom, frequency, and power of Parliaments, the religion, freedom, and
IN nearly all the appeals under the Workmen's Compensation Act trade of the nation from English for any foreigo influence.”
wbich have come recently before the Court of Appeal the questions It was at the same time made high treason to administer were questions of fact, and the court simply upheld the finding of fact of the Coronation oath without Parliamentary authority. In 1704
the County Court judge, deciding in each case that there was evidence this Bill of Seourity with little modifioation was again passed to support that finding of fact. In the case of Fitzgerald v. Murphy, Hby the Scotch Parliament, and, on the advice of the English Ministry, which was an appoal under the Act of 1906, and which came before whose conduot, due to the critical position of affairs, was severely
the court on the 14th ult., it appeared that on the evening of the consured, received the Royal Assent. There is little doubt that a 22nd Feb. the applicant, who was the widow of a deceased workman, ypowerful factor in the passing of the Scotch Act of Union was the
had a conversation with her husband when he returned from work, desire that the Scotch, like the Irish, Crown should be inseparably
and he told her that a small stone had fallen on him and struck him united to the Crown of England. By that statute it was provided
behind the ear while he was working in a pump-bole for the respondent. that the succession to the Crown of the United Kingdoms of England
He showed the applicant the mark. On the followiog morning it and Sootland should romajn to the Princess Sophia or the heirs of her
appeared as a small out with a black mark at the end of it. The body being Protestant.
deceased workman continued working all the week, and was continually Although, as we have said, the principle of law in relation to the complaining of pain. On Monday, the 27th Feb., be had to retura English and the Irish Crowns was unquestionably, in the words of
early from work, and remained at home until the following Saturday, Mr. O'Connell, that " whoever is King de facto in England is King de
when he went to hospital, where he died on Tuesday, the 7th March. jure in Ireland," there was, however, notwithstanding a conflict bet weon
He died from blood poisoniog arising from a wound at the back of the Legislatures of Great Britain and Ireland on a matter closely
The medical evidence was that the scratch in the skin was relatiog to the Crowns of the two countries. 10 1789, on the occasion
sufficient to admit poisonous matter into the system, and tbat the of the first mental dérangement of George III., the British Parliament
tissue in the immediato neighbourhood of the wound showed symptoms conferred the Regency on the Prince of Wales (George IV.) with
of acute blood poisoning. A witness for the defendant stated that on limited powers. The Irish Parliament, adopting the views of
the 22nd Feb. the deceased bad called his attention to the fact that Mr. Fox and the Whig party in the British House of Commons,
comething behind his ear was causing him trouble. The witness eaw oalled on him by address to assume the full powers of the what appeared to be a pimplo behind the ear, but he saw no scratch Crown. "There be doubt,” says Lord Brougham,
and no blood. On the following day the deceased told the witness " that Mr. Fox's opinions in 1788 were far more in accordance
that a pebble had fallen on him. The County Court judge dismissed than those of Mr. Pitt with the spirit of a Constitution which abhors
tho application on the ground that he was not satisfied that death all approaob to election in the appointment of a chief magistrato
was caused by accident arising out of or in the course of the deceased's (Brougham's British Constitution, p. 263). The King's recovery
employment. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the terminated the dispute. This collision between the English and the
ground that there was evidence sufficient to support the finding of faot Irish Parliaments on the Regenoy question was so strongly relied on
of the County Court judge. -89, an argument in favour of the Irish Union that the opponents of that measure introduced a Bill that whoever was Regent de facto in TRE case of Austin v. Guardians of the Dunshaughlin Union, which England should be Regent de jure in Ireland.
came before the King's Bench Division on the 19th ult., raises an The relations between the English, Irisb, and Scotch Crowns and
i important question as to the evidence in prosecutions under the Sale the oontroversies arising thereout thus sketched in faint outline are of Food and Drugs Acts. The prosecution in question was one in of the very bighest value to the student of constitutional develop.
respect of the sale of butter which was alleged not to be of the ment as tending to show that for a true and lasting union of the
nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by the several communities which in the aggregate oonstitute the British
defendants, the guardians of the union. The guardians had Empire the Crown, As the visible ropresentative not merely of the
purchased forty pounds of butter from Austin, the plaintiff. When majesty but of the unity of the State, is essential.
ibe butter was delivered the master of the workhouse on the 24th Jan. cut off about half a pound of it, and made it up into a parcel addressed to Sir Charles Cameron, the analyst for the
workhouse. The master stated that he gave it to an inmate of the IRISH NOTES.
workhouse to post. A certificate from the analyst was produoed,
which was addressed to the master of the union and which stated as Toe question of the claim of right that is sufficient to oust the
follows : “ I, the undersigaed, public analyst for the county of Meath, jurisdiction of the magistrates was discussed recently in the King's
do hereby certify that I received from you on the 25th Jan. a sample Bench Division in the case of Rex (Kennedy) v. Justices of the County
of butter for analysis whiob when measured weighed six fluid ounces
and was marked buttor. I have analysed the same and declare the Cork. The prosecutor (Kennedy) had been prosecuted under the
result of my analysis to be as follows: I am of opinion that the said Sammary Jurisdiotion Act 1851 for “ having wilfully and by misbehaviour "obstruoted a public street in a town by placing clothes
sample, which had undergone no obange in its constitution that would and other merchandise for sale thereon. The solicitor for the
interfere with its analysis, was composed almost entirely of fats
foreign to butter.” The justices, oon vioted. The inmate of the prosecutor raised the point that the acts complained of were done
workhouse who had posted the parcel was not produced, nor was the under a bona fide supposition of right and in the reasonable assertion of that right, and it was contended that the jurisdiction of the justices
analyst. It was argaed that there was no evidence that the sample was there by ousted. There was evidence in the course of the case
analysed by Sir Charles Cameron was identical with the sample sent
by the master of the work bouse. It was pointed oat that there was that the locus in quo was a fair or market, and that on the oooasion the fair was aotually taking place. The alleged obstruction was upon
no evidence that the sample was posted at all. It was also argued
that the certificate was deficient, inasmuch as it did not give the a public thoroughfare, and there was evidence that for upwards of thirty years this fair had been carried on to the obstruction of the percentage of the butter and foreign fats of which the article was, public. Notwithsta oding this evidence the justices convicted, and the
composed. The King's Bench Division oame to the conclusion that
the magistrates had sufficient evidence before them to justify the respondent applied for a writ of certiorari to quash the conviotion. It
conviction. The court decided that the certificate was evidence of was held by the court that the proceedings were quite misconceived,
the matters contained in it, and, in view of the phraseology of the that there was undoubtedly a bona fide claim of right that
certificate and the statements contained in it, the court came to the possible in law, and that for that reason the magistrates had no
conolusion that the decision of the magistrates should be upheld. jurisdiction and ought to bave dismissed the summons.
This decision was largely based on the decision of the Irish courts in
Enniskillen Guardians v. Hilliard (14 L. Rop. Ir. 214), in which it was ONE of the Irish members raised an interesting question in Parliament
held that under somewhat similar circumstances there was sufficient on the 20th ult. with reference to the appointment as revising barristers
evidence that the milk taken from the vendor was the milk submitted of barristers who have been unsuccessful Parliamentary candidates.
to the analyst. In Ireland the appointment of assistant revising barristers is made by the Lord.Lieutenant under the Revising Barristers (Ireland) Act 1886. Mr. Birrell, in answer to the question, said that he could give no
HANDWRITING EXPERT.--Mr. D. Blackburn, late expert to the Natal general undertaking that barristers who had been Parliamentary
Criminal lovestigation Department, joint author of " The Detection of candidates for Ulster seats would not be appointed to act as assistant
Forgery” (Layton's, Farringdon-street). Address 2, Carlton-mansions, revising barristers in Ulster. He thought, however, that if both sides
Coldbarbour-lane, S.W.-[Apvt.] would agree to a self-denying ordinance as to this matter there was a NOTICE OF REMOVAL.-The Sanitary Engineering Company, good deal to be said for it, provided that the candidature was not of Domestic Sanitary Engineers, after thirty-six years occupation of old date. Captain Craig, who asked the question, wished to know 65, Victoria-street, bare removed their office to No. 2, Army and was it not possible for His Majesty's Government to set an example Navy-mansions, 115, Victoria.street, Westminster (corner to their successors in office by relusing to make such appointments. Francis-street).' 'Phone : Westminster 316. Telegrams : "Sanitation,” Mr. Birrell thought that a good examp'e was always worth setting, London.-[ADVT.]
of £5 or upwards, to exeoute a contract note and to transmit the same to his principal, or to the vendor or purchaser of the stock, as the case may be, under a penalty of £20. But this section doos not apply in the case of transactions carried out in the course of their ordinary business relations between members of Stock Exchanges in the United Kingdom, a'd by sect. 79 the provisions as to contrast notes are extended to sales and purchases of options, but the stand duty on a contract for an option is to be une balf only of that chargeable on a contract note.
A Few words may pot be out of place with regard to Part 5 of the Finance (1909-10) Act 1910, consisting of secte. 73 to 79, dealing with stamps. As is well known, sect. 73 bas doubled the duties ohargeable on conveyances on sale, but this does not apply to transfers of stock or marketable securities as defined by sect. 122 of the Stamp Act 1891, or to a conveyance where the amount or value of the consideration does not exceed £500 and the instrument contains & statement certifying that the transaction thereby effected does not form part of a larger transaction, or of a series of transactions, in respect of which the aggregate amount or value of the consideration oxceeds £500. Seot. 74 deals with voluntary dispositions inter vivos, and sub-sect. 1. thereof (provides that any voluntary conveyance or transfer inter vivos shall be chargeable with the same duty as if it were a conveyanco or transfer on sale, with the substitution in each case of the value of the properly conveyed for the amount or value of the consideration for the same-80 that in future a voluntary settlement of real estate will be liable to a stamp of £l per cent. on the value thereof, instead of a more deed stamp of 109. It is apprehended, however, that, having regard to seot. 73, and reading the two sections together, a voluntary transfer of stock would only attract a duty of 108. per cent. on the value thereof. Voluntary conveyanoes or transfers to charitable institutions incorporated by special Act, and provided the property transferred is to be held for tho purposes of an open space or for the purposes of its preservation for the benefit of the nation, are exempted from sub-sect. 1. Sub sect. 2 requires that the stamp on every voluntary conveyance or transfer shali be adjudicated under sect. 12 of the Stamp Act 1891. Sub-sect. 4 provides that where an instrument is chargeable with duty both as a conveyance or transfer under this section and as a settlement noder the Stamp Act 1891, the instru.' ment is to be charged with duty as a conveyance or transfer under this section, bat not as a settlement. This sub-section cannot, it is thought, apply to a marriage settlement as that is not voluntary; but it seems doubtful how a voluntary settlement of stock which is transferred by separate instrument to the trustees of the settlement ought to be stamped. It certainly looks as if such transfer would have to be stamped with 103. per cent. on the value of the stook transferred, and that the settlement would also have to be stamped with 5s. per cent. on such value. Sub-sect. 5, which is the most drastio portion of Part 5, provides that any conveyanco transfer (not being a disposition made in favour of a purchaser or incumbrancer or other person in good faith and for valuable consideration) shall for the purpose of sect. 74 be deemed to be a voluntary conveyance, and (except where marriage is the con. sideration, the consideration for any conveyance or transfer "shall not for this purpose be deemed to be valuable consideration where the commissioners are of opinion that by reason of the inadequacy of the sum :paid as the consideration, or other circumstances, the opnveyance or transfer confers a substantial benefit on the person to whom the property is conveyed or transferred.” The learned editor of Alpe on the Law of Stamp Duties, 12th edit., p. 118, goes so far as to suggest that it appears to be doubtful whether a conveyance of land sold by public auction, or a transfer of stook at the price of the day, could safely be excluded from the category of voluntary dispositions inter vivos," as the consideration might be, and often is, most inadequate, or by reason of other circumstances the transaction might be substantially beneficial-to the purchaser. But we think that would be patting an extreme construction on the section. It will, however, probably have a serious effect on deeds of family arrangement and the like where, in consideration of some small concession, substantial provision is being made, whether by way of annuity or otherwise, for the poorer members of the family. It seems obvious that in such a cabo ad valorem duty of £l per cent. in the case of land and 108. per cent. in the case of stock will be charged on the value of the property conveyed or transferred. It is believed that the Commissioners of Inland Rovenue regard and treat a declaration of trust as a conveyance or transfer, and, if that is the correct view, any person who resorts to that expedient io order to escape the duty must be prepared to face litigation on the point. See, however, some observations on that point in this journal for the 8th Oct. last, p. 516. The following documents are by sub-seot. 6 exempt from sect. 74Damely,(1) a conveyance or transfer for nominal consideration for the purpose of securing the repayment of a loan; (2) or made for effectuating the appointment of a new trustee, or the retirement of a trustee, whetber the trust is expressed or impliei; (3) or under which no beneficial interest passes in the property conveyed or transferred ; 44) or made to a beneticiary by a trustee or other person in a fiduciary capacity under any trust, whether expressed or implied ; (5) or a disentailing assurance not limiting any new ostate, other than an estate jo lee simple, in the person disentailing the property. And this sub-section is to have effect notwithstanding that the circumstances oxempting the conveyance or transfer from charge under geot. 74 are not set forth in the conveyance or transfer. By seot. 75 the stamp duties on leases are doubled, oxcept in the cases of leases on whiob a fixed duty of ld. is ohargeable under the Stamp Act 1891. By sect. 76 the stamp duties chargeable on the issue of certain marketable securities are doubled. Sect. 77 increases the duty on contract notes for the purchase of stock, and, if a contract note advises the cale or purchase of more than one description of stock, the note is to be deemed to be as many contract notes as there are descriptions of stock sold or purchased. Sect. 78 obliges any person who buys or sells stock of the value of £5 or upwards as a broker or agent, and any person who by way of business deals as a principal in any stock, and buys or sells any such stock of the value
OCCASIONAL NOTES. Subject to any appeal which has already been 'in the list, the following appeals will be taken in Appeal Court II. on Monday port, from the Probate and Divorce Division final and new trial list :Divorce : Stevenson v. Stevenson. Probato ; . Roberts (deceased). Lovatt v. Jones, and Swan v, Swan.
Short causes and petitions will be in Mr. Justice Warrington's list for hearing on Monday next, but will not be taken boforo two o'olock.
Mr. Justice Warrington (sitting as an additional judge of the King's Boooh (Divisioo) will continue the hearing of non-jury cases on the following days- viz. : 4th, 5th, 6th, 11th, 12th, and 13th July.
Mr. Justice Bucknill will take the case of Garroway y, Tucker (non-jury) on Wednesday dext.
In the Railway and Canal Commission Court judgment in Newcastle Grain and General Warehousing Company Limited v. North-Eastern Railway Company will be delivered on Monday at eleven o'olook.
Mr. Justice Phillimoro left London on Saturday last for Hertford on the second part of the South-Eastern Circuit, and opened the oommission on the following Monday. As the civil businoge at Guildford (the last town on the circuit) is fixed to be taken on Thursday, tho 201h inst., there is a very slight possibility of the judge rocuroing to London this side of the Long Vacation.
Mr. Justice Grantham and Mr. Justice Scrutinn le t London on Monday last for Newcastle, on the North. Eastern Circuit, and opened the commission on the following day. There is a very slight possibility of these judges returning to London before tho Long Vacation, as the commission day for Loode, the last town on the circuit, is fixed for Monday, the 17th inat... and it is un ierstood that the work tbero is considerable.
Mr. Justice Horridge will leave London today (inturday, for Liverpool, on the Northern Circuit, to join Mr. Justice Lush, and will open the commission on Monday next.
On Monday next Mr. Justice Channell and Mr. Justico Coleridge will open the commission at Bristol, on the Western Circuit. When the business at this town is finished they will return to London, whero they will remain until the end of the present sittings.
OR Taesday next Mr. Justice Bray and Mr. Justice Bankes will leave London for Chester, on the North and South Wales Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day.
Mr. Justice Ridley will leave London on Wodnesday next fur Note tingham, on the Midland Circuit, to join Mr. Justico Pickford, and will open the commission on the following day. When the business at this town is finished, Mr. Justice Pickford will return to towa, where he will remain until the end of the present sittings, and Mr. Justice Ridley will continue the cirouit, going on to Warwick and thea to Birmingüam on Saturday, the 15th inst. At the last-named town he will be joined by Mr. Justioe Buckpill. The commission at Birmingham will be opened on Monday, the 17th inst.
The commission day for Swansea, on tho South Wales Circuit, has been altered by the judges (Mr. Justice Bray and Mr. Justice Bankee) from Tuesday, the lith inst., to Friday, the 14th inst., and the commission will be opened on the following day.
There are now nine judges of the King's Bench Division away on circuit, thus leaving nipe to assist in the disposal of the London business—piz, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ridley, Mr. Justice Darling, Mr. Justice Buokoill, Mr. Justice Bray, Mr. Justico A. T. La wrence, Mr. Justice Hamilton, Mr. Justice Avory, and Mr. Justice Bankes. The number will be further reduoed to sis on Tuesday and Wednesday next, when on the former day Mr. Justico Bray, and Mr. Justice Bankes will leave for Chester, on the North and South Wales Circuit, and Mr. Justice Ridley will leave on tho following day for Nottingham, on the Midland Circuit, to join Mr. Justice Pickford. There being one judge required for the Commercial Court and one for Chambers only four will be available for the Xisi Prius business. This state of affairs will not improvo this side of the Long Vacation. Up to this period three judges will be required on several occasions for the Court of Criminal Appeal, and on Monday, the 17th inst., one will be required to preside at the Jalg Sessions at the Central Criminal Court. The following judges will be detained at the last towns on their respective circuits until the end of the present sittings-viz. : Mr. Justice Grantham and Mr. Justice Sorutton at Leeds (commission day Monday, the 17th inst.); Mr. Justice Phillimore at Guildford, on the SouthEastern Circuit (commission day Monday. the 17th inst.); Mr. Justice Ridley and Mr. Justice Backpill at Birmingham, on the Oxford and Midland Circuit (commission dav Saturday, the 15th inet.); Mr. Justice Bray and Mr. Justice Banken at Swansea, on the South Wales Circuit (commission day Friday, the 14th inst.); and Mr. Justice Horridge and Mr. Justice Lush at Manchester, on the Northern Circuit (commission day Monday, the 17th inst.jo
The June Sessions at the Central Criminal Court were opened on Tuesday last before Sir Forrost Fulton, K.C. (Recorder), Sir Albert Bosanquet, K.C. (Common Serjeant), the Lord Mayor, and Sheriffs. Tbe calendar contains the names of 108 persons charged with offences.
The June adjourned goneral sessions were 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 106 persons charged with offences, sixty-eight having been committed from the north and thirty.eight from the south side of the Thames.
The Midsummer Quarter Sessions for cases arising in the county of Middlesex will commence to-day (Saturday) at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, at ten o'clock,
There will be two sittings at the Mayor's Court during the present month. The first will commence on Monday, the 10th inst., at eleven o'clook, and the second op Monday, the 24th inst., also at eleven o'clook. The court will not sit during the month of August.
A garden party will be given by the Benchers of the Middle Temple in their gardens on Thursday, the 13th iost.
Mr. Plowden stated at the Marylebone Police-court on the 20th alt., that his colleague, Mr. Paul Taylor, was rather seriously indisposed and was not likely to resume his duties for some time.
Maitre Labori, the well-known defender of Major Dreyfos, bas been elected President of L'Ordre des Avocats in succession to M. Busson.Billault.
Dr. P. Vinogradoff, Corpus Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford, has been eleoted a corresponding member by the Academy of Sciences in Berlin.
Mr. Ernest E. Wild will again stand as the Unionist candidate for North West Ham. Mr. Wild was called by the Middle Temple on the 26th Jan. 1893, and is a member of tbe South-Eastern Circuit. He is also the judge of the Norwioh Guildhall Court of Record.
Mr. William Bernard Campbell, barrister-at-law, who died in May last, left an estate of the gross value of £9007, with a net personalty of £8456. Mr. Campbell was a member of the Irish and English Bars, being called by the former in 1888 and by the Middle Temple on the 26th Jan. 1893.
Mr. Justice Phillimore attended the Coronation of His Majesty at Westminster Abbey on the 22nd inst. in his judge's rober, over which be wore the chain of office 88
Mayor of Kensington. He had previously requested that his seat as mayor might be given to a member of the counoil, but this request was refused by a majority of the counoil.
A verdict of suicide whilst temporarily insane was returned at the in quest at Kingston on the 28th ult. on the body of George Wallace Beal, sixty-two, a retired solicitor, of liiobmond Park-road, Kingston, who on Saturday shot himself with a five-chambered revolver. Mr. Charles Beal stated that his brother had no finanoial trouble, but suffered from strange delusiong.
The British Foreign Office has transmitted to Mr. Bryce the views of the Cabinet on the American draft of the proposed Anglo-American Arbitration Treaty. The Washington correspondent of the Times states that various modifications of phraseology have been suggested by the British Government. It is, however, generally believed that the treaty will come before the Voited States Senate this session.
The Englishwoman for July opens with a short review of the position as regards the suffrago movement, by Miss Edith Palliser. Geraldine Hodgeon gives a clever answer to certain statements made in Thoughts on Parados, a recent anonymous book. Problems of the Day, this month, deals with State Insurance ; Mrs. Meredith writes of Women in the Civil Service; a racy acoount is given of a day in the life of a working.man's wife. by Ada Nield Chew ; and other articles are The Amazons, by Lina Eckenstein ; Ibsen as a Man, by Gundar Heiberg; and Shakespeare's Women, by Muriel Gray.
The Java Bode reports an insurance cage recently decided in the Sourbaya Court. The Amsterdamsobe Life Insurance Society disputed their liability to pay on a policy where the insured met his death by poison self-administered, but accidentally. The company held that ihey were proteoted by the soioide clause in the policy, which they urged included io voluntary self-destruction. The court beld that suicide meant intentional self-destruction, and decree was given accordingly.
Mr. Justice Grantham, speaking at a dinner at Newcastle on the 28th ult., said that the judges felt their great position. They were the servants of the public, and had a duty towards the public. As in the past they were prepared to go to prison rather than obey the bebests of an unscrupulous Mozarob, 80 Dow they were prepared to go to prison rather than obey-be would not say the dictates of an unsornpulous Minister, but of a Minister who might bring unfounded charges against them. They would endeavour to do their duty and protect the liberties of the people.
Mr. F. G. Fra yling, who for the last twenty-five years has been the senior representative of the Director of Public Prosecutions at the Central Criminal Court, is about to retire under the Civil Service age limit. He entered the public service in 1866, when he was appointed a permanent official in the old Court of Queen's Bench. He was transferred io 1984 to the Treasury Solicitor's department, which was amalgamated with that of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and bas acted as principal representative of the Director of Public Prosecutione from 1885 till the present sessions. He is the author of a paper on "Infanticide, its Law and Puoisk meat," and is abuut to publish a volume of reminiecences,
The conferring of Privy Coupoillorship on Sir William Anson, Bart., the eminent jurist and constitutional lawyer, who is senior member in the House of Commons for the University of Oxford and Warden of All Souls College, will recall instances in former times in which heads of colleges who have been jurists and legislatore have been appointed Privy Councillors. Francis Andrewe, who was an eminent jurist and member in the Irish House of Commons for Londonderry, and John Hely Hotobinson, who was Prime Serjeant at tbe Irish Bar and member in the Irish House of Commons for the city of Cork, were both in immediate succession, from_1758 till 1774 and from 1774 till 1794, respectively Provosts of Trioity College, Dublin, and were both members of the Irish Privy Council.
Accordiog to the seventy-second report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records there were 84,773 registered applications for the production of records, state papers, &c., last year. Tbis pomber was made up as follow8 : Io the legal search room, 36,439, and in the literary search room 48,334. In tbe fos mer room the value of stampe purchased by the public and cancelled a mounted to £492 13. Searches on bebalf of Government departments, whose archives are deposited in the Pablio Records Office, amounted to 1727, and 5039 documente were issued or inspected. The number of volumes or bundlee inspected by readers with special permits from Government departments to consult such of their archives deposited in the Public Record Office as are not open to public inspection was 17,380.
At the Court of Common Council on the 26th ult., Mr. William Reid asked who was responsible for the exclusion of the public from St. Paul's Churcbyard on the day of the Royal progress. The Lord Mayor said that the matter rested entirely with the police. Deputy Wallace suggested that someone had blundered. He did not like tbe idea of so many people being kept away. A policeman of sound judgment should have been left at the barricades with instructions to admit people so far as the capacity of the thoroughfares to hold them would admit.. A strong impression was abroad that we were a little too much policed and barricaded upon the occasion in question. On the motion of Deputy Morton, M.P., the whole question was referred to the Police Committee for report.
The London police courts opened on the 23rd ult. to deal mainly with cases in which bail could not be obtained. The charges were very few, and at Lambeth the list was among the shortest in the court's reoorde. At Westminster, which holds jurisdiotion over the route of the Coronation procession, there were only two cases of drunken
At Marylebone, Mr. Plowden remarked that it was somewbat of a surprise, although an agreeable one, to find such an exceedingly small list of charges. He was prepared to find a great many cases, and all he could say was that one could not find a more striking tribute to the order and decorum wbich was shown by the crowd that thronged the streets on Coronation night. It was a most creditable result to the police as well as to the public.
There appeared before the Assize Court at Aveyron last week ovo Capelle on a charge of killing his wife during a domestic quarrel a month ago. There was no doubt as to the guilt of the accused, and the jury intended to con viot under circonstances atié cuintes. Two iegues were placed before them. The first was, “Is the accused Capelle guilty of baviog administered the blows and wounds to hie wife wilfully, without the intention of killing her ?” The second ran, " Have these blows and wounds wilfully administered resulted in the death of the victim ?” To the first question the joy replied “ No, and to the second “Yes," adding "under extenuating circumstancee.' The reading of the verdict caused surprise in court, wo read, and the result was equally a surprise to the jury, for the fist answer was an acquittal. But it was too late to legally amend the verdict.
The Chalons-sur-Saone Tribunal bas within the past few days had an interesting case under investigation. The Compagnie des Mines de Blanzy at Montceau-les-Mines instructed M. Chaillet, a local builder, to repair a building on their property. While the work was in progress, one of the employés of M. Chaillet, named Labaume, touched with his saw one of the company's electric wires charged with 5000 volts and was killed on the spot. M. Coste, the manager of the Blanzy Mines, was charged with homicide par imprudence. His plea was a denial of all responsibility, and bis counsel contended that the company could not be held responsiblo for a workman in the employment and pay of another principal (patron). The tribunal rejected this plea and beld that as the work had been executed according to the plans of the company's engineers, and under their supervision, independently of that esercised by M. Chaillet. the company were liable. M. Coste was condemned to a fine of 50 france ior homicide par imprudence avec sursis.
The King received an address from the Honourable Society of Gray's-ion in the occasion of his visit to the city. The King and Queen, after passing through Finsbury and Ielington, drove past the north end of Gray's-ipo Gardene, in Theobalds-road. The Beachers assembled at this point to present their address. The portion of Theobalde-road which a buts upon the lon was formerly known &B the King's Way. It is eo described in Stow's Survey. Later it became King's-road and it was pot until 1878 that it received its present name. The King's Way was construoted by the order of James I., and was used by him when he travelled from Whitehall to his hunting lodge at Theo balds or to Newmarket. The guests of the Ion at the garden party on Thureday witnessed the Royal procession from a stand erected in the gardens. A gate was specially constructed in the wall at the northern end of the main walk, and their Majesties' carriage balted here. Mr. E. Clayton, K.C., the Treasurer, presented the address, and was accompanied by other' Benchers of the lon in levée drees, robee, and full-bottomed wigs.
in the decorations. There were festoong of roses upon the oak wainscot, rambler roses covered the embrasures of the stained-glass windowe, and baskets of roses were suspended from the hammer-beams of tho oak roof. The Minstrels' Gallery was occupied by the band of the Grenadier Guards. The guests, who numbered 500, were received in the ball by the Treasurer and Mrs. Clayton, assisted by Mrs. Mattin. Bon and Mrs. Russell. The ball was connected by a covered way with the gardens, wbich were thrown open as a promenade. They were illuminated by Chinese lanteros and coloured lamps. From the main walk a path, picked out by fairy lamps, led to the catalpa tree wbich was planted by Francis Bacon and, according to tradition, was brought to this country by his friend Raleigh. Herr Wurm's band played in the gardens, and a concert was given in the Middle Library. Amooy those who accepted invitations were : Lord Alverstone and Miss Webster, Lord Justice Buckley and Lady Buckley, Lord Justice Kennedy and Miss Kennedy, Mr. Justice Joyoe and Miss Joyce, Mr. Justice Parker and Lady Parker, Mr. Justice Evo and Lady Eve. Sic Samuel and Lady Evans, Mr. Justice Horridge and Lady Horridge, the Attorney-General and Lady Isaacs, the Treasurer of Lincoln's.ion and Lady Giffard, the President of the Law Society and Lady Johnson, Sir Edward Morris, Sir George and Lady Reid, Sir Edward and Lady Clarke, Sir Charles and Lady Mathews, Sir Lawrence and Lady Gomme, Sir Edward and Lady Hepry. Mr. R. Wallace, K.C, and Mrs. Wallace, Mr. Clavell Salter, K.C., M.P., and Mrs. Salter, Mr. and Mrs. Harold Cox, Mr. Owen Seaman, Mr. S. O. Buckmaster, K.C., and Mieg Buckmaster, Mr. J. M. Astbury and Mro. Astbury, tbe Hoo. R. McBride and Mrs. McBride, Mr. L. S. Amery, M.P., and Mrs. Amery, and Mr. Hamar Greenwood, M.P., and Mrs. Greenwood. Among the Benobers present in addition to the Treasurer wore : Mr. Henry Griffith, Mr. M. W. Mattinson, K.C., Mr. C. A. Russell, K C., Mr. W. T. Barnard, K.C., Mr. H. E. Dake, K.C., M.P.. Mr. A. E. Gill, Mr. Vevey Koox, K.C., Mr. J. R. Atkin, K.C., Mr. W. P. Byrde, Mr. J. W. MoCarthy, Mr. Montagu Sharpe, and Mr. F. A. Greer, K C.
NOTES OF RECENT DECISIONS NOT
Me. Rodolphe Rouseeau, one of the best known members of the Paris Bar, the autbor of the Dictionnaire de Procédure Civile, an encyclopædio work in twelve volumes, can stand the motor bus nuisance no longer. Me. Rousseau is not opposed to motors as such -but to those which are to be found in Paris as in London, and which should be in the scrap beap-for be is an enthusiastio motorist and a member of the Automobile Club. He resides in the Rue Saint Lazare, but the poise is such that he asserts that it is only with difficulty that be and his clients can hear one another's voices at coosultations in bis cbamberg. Me. Rousseau bas taken aotion against the Compagnie des Omnibus. M. Mooier, the President of the Tribunal, bas romitted the case to M. Laloux, the architect, to make a roport to the court. Complaints of a similar nature are rife in Lincoln's.idn, among those baviug chambers overlooking Chancerg111.e. whenever from any cause the Strand motor traffio is diverted to Holboro, via Chancery-lane. lo despair the occupants of such chambers fervently wish that Thurlow. Cromwell's Secretary of State, were back again in Old-buildings, believing he would act with more decisiva than the Police Commissioner.
At the Liocolo sbire County Court holden at Loath recently, before His Honoar Sir George Sherston Baker, shortly after the bearing of an action, the solicitor for the plaintiffs (Mr. Clitherow, of Horncastle) returned into court and informed His Honour that, as soon as he had retired to the solicitors' room to unrobe, the defendant, Mr. Banks, a schoolmaster, bad followed bim there aod wisbed to argue the case with him. He (Mr. Clitherow) declined to do so, and informed the defendant tbat he did not wish to speak to bim. Thereupon the defendant retorted: “I have a jolly good mind to punoh your head." His Honour directed a constable to bring the defendant back into court at once, whereupon the defendant said tbat he apologised apreger vedly to Mr. Clitherow. and that be had not the remotest intention of insulting him. His Honour said he was not sure that be ought to allow Mr. Clitherow to accept the apology. It was an insult to ad officer of the court, and defendant in strictness ought to be sent to gaol. He ordered the latter to be confined in the cells whilst we considered what course be should adopt. Later in the day His Honour bad the defendant brought back into oourt, and, after cautioning bim as to bis future condact when attending courts of law, ordered his release.
The Treasurer, Sir Henry Alexander Giffard, K.C., and the Masters of the Bench entertained on the 28th ult, being the Grand Day in Trinity Term, the following guests : Lord Faber, the Dean of West. mioster, Mr. Justice Ridley, Mr. Justice Svinfen Eads, Sir James H. Ramsay, Major-General Sir A'fred Turner, Sir Henry Llewellyn Smith, Sir William Graham Greene, Sir Frederic W. R. Fryer, Sir Josiab Henry Symon, Sir William Patrick Byrne, the Dean of Canterbury, Mr. Charles Archer Cook, CB, Vice-Admiral F. S. Ioglefield, Judge Jackson Palmer (Chief Judge of New Zealand Land Court), Judge Ellicott, Lieutenant-Colonel Stuart Sankey, Mr. William Hunter, K.C., M.P. (Solicitor-General for Scotland), Captain Montag: W. Consett, R.N., Captain W. H. Smith, D.S.O., Captain Arcbibald Campbell Douglas, and Mr. G. H. Rhodes. The Benchers present were : Sir Edward Clarke, K.C., Lord Macnaghted, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justico Vaughan Williams, Mr. Justice Joyce, Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr. Beale, K.C., M.P., Mr. Justice Neville, Lord Justice Farwell, Sir Charles Chadwyck Healey, K C., Lord Rathmore, Mr. Alexander, K.C.. Mr. Rawlins, K.C., Mr. Lawrence, K.C., Mr. Rowden, K.C., Mr. Norton, K.C., Mr. Younger, K.C., Mr. Gregory, Mr. Holland, K.C., Mr. Carson, K.C., Mr. Sargant, Mr. Boxall, K , Mr Loftbouse, K.C., Mr. Romer, K.C., Mr. Dixon, Mr. Petereon, K.C., Mr. Beaumont, and Canon Beeching, the Preacher.
A writer in the Débats calls attention to an interesting passage in the Journal des Décrets of Saint Martin, which appeared in the spring of 1792. The extract, as the writer observes, gives us a piece of curieuse information. The extraot may be thus translated: “The tribunal of Yesingeaux dealt civilly with a plainte having reference to a délit instead of sending it before the juge de paix, in terms of Art. XIV. of the law of the month of Aug. 1790. The tribunal, when it discovered tbe mistake that bad been made, made reparation by coodemoing itself to pay the costs wbiob the parties had incurred through the error of the tribunal.” Saint Martin, le philosophe inconnu, the pseudonym under wbich most of his writings appeared, we are told, recalls this judgment to show that the Republic bad broken away from the routine and a buse of the old régime. Then the writer in the Dibats, who has evidently caught the spirit of the philosophe inconnu, speculates somewhat unkindly: “ It would be interesting to know whether in our own time this problem of repara. tion for judicial errore frequently arises, and if the delicate example of the tribunal of Yesiogeaux bas found since the time mentioned by Saint Martin any imitators; or whether the judgment of these conscientious magistrates of the modest under-prefecture of the Haute-Loire Department, where Baron Haussman made his debut as administrator, remains unique of its kind.” At this we may leave this interesting speculation, but we may add that Saint Martin, who was intended for the law, and, after serving as an officer in the army, devoted himself to philosopby, was a welcome guest in our midst ; and as to Ha088mand, whose real monument consists of his works of improvement in Paris, he is still remembered by most readers.
The Treasurer (Mr. Edward Clayton, K C.) and the Masters of the Bench gave a ball in honour of the Coronation in Gray’s-ion Hall on the 20th ult. The Elizabethan hall, familiar to Burghley and Bacon, and the scene of the manques and rovels of sixteenth and cevenlernth century lawyers, presented a gay appearance wbile danoing has in progress. Twelve thousand roses, red or pink, had been used
HOUSE OF LORDS. Ship-Bill of Lading-Lien for unpaid Freight due from limited Com
pany-Shipment by Receiver--Right to exercise Lien against Receiver. -A limited company had for many years shipped goods by the appellants' line to their agents abroad under a bill of ladiog wbich contained a clause giving the shipowners a lien not only for freight due thereunder, but also for any previously unsatisfied freight duo from the shippers or the consignees. The company got into difficulties, and the respondent was appointed receiver, and he shipped goods by a steamer of the appellants to the agents abroad with instructions to “deliver as below, chargiog to yours respectfully the Company,' by A. F. W., Receiver and Manager.” The address given for delivery was to the company, care of the agents. The appellants informed the respondent of the amount of freight, and inclosed a bill of lading in the same form as that used on previous shipments by the company. On the arrival of the goods they claimed a right to exeroise a lien in respect of unsatisfied freight which had bicome due from the company before the appointment of the receiver. Held, that they were not entitled to do so. Judgment of the Court of Appeal (103 L. T. Rep. 344; (1910) 2 K. B. 813) afirmed, Lords Shaw and Mersey dissentiog.
(M083 Sieamship Company y. Whinney. H. of L June 26. Counsel: Bailhache, K.C. and Robertson Dunlop ; Sir A. Cripps, K.C. and Leck. Solicitorg : Rawle, Johnstone, Gregory, Rowcliffe, and Roucliffe, for Hill, Dickinson, and Co., Liverpool; Davidson
and Morriss) ship-Marine Insurance-Competency of Master - Warrant of Seg.
worthiness—Non-disclosure of material Facts - l'alued Policy-Overinsurance.—A voyage policy of insurance was taken out by the owners of a ship without disclosing to the insurers the fact that the master appointed for the voyage bad not been to sea for twentytwo years, and that he bad lost his last ship, and had bad his certificate suspended. The ship was lost on the voyage by the default of the master. In an action brought by the shipowners against the underwriters on the policy : Held, (1) that there was no breach of the warranty of seaworthiness in the appointment of the master ; (2) that there was no duty on the owners to disclose the master's record to the insurers ; but (3) that the valued policy of insurance on the hull rendered void by the pondisclosure to the insurers of concurrent policies on freight and disburgements, and of honour policies for considerable sume chiefly taken out by the managiog owner in favour of himself as an individual. Judgment of the First Division of the Court of Session in Scotland (1910, Sess. Cas. 1072; 47 Sc. Law Rep. 860) reversed.
(Thames and Mersey, Marine Insurance Company v. Gunford Ship Company H. of L. June 28.-Counsel : Leslie Scott, K.C. and Mckinnon ; J. 4. Clyde, K.C., O. D. Murray, K.C. (both of the Scottish Bar), and W. Raeburn. Solicitors: Walions and Co., for J. and J. Ross, Edinburgh ; W. A. Crump and Son, for Webster, Will, and Co, Edinburgh, and Wrighi, Johnston, and Mackenzie. Glasgow.)
COURT OF APPEAL. Emplı yer and Wor! m b.-Accident-Compensation-Award by Com
mittee - Applir a'ion to County Court to review - Jurisdiction Refusal to hear A p'ication - A1 peu-Court of Appeal- Divisional Court-Workmen's Co npen tai ion Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58). scheid. 2, pars. 1 and 4.-An application was made to á County Court judge to review an award made by a committee of employers and workmen under sched. 2, par. 1, of the Act of 1906. The judge refused to hear the application, on the ground that, the award having been made by a committee, he had no jurisdiction to review
t. Held, that the judge had refused to entertain jurisdiction, and an appeal from his decision lay to the Divisional Court and not to the Court of Appeal.
(Howarth v. Sit B. Samuelson and Co. Limited. Ct. of App. : Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Buckley and Kennedy, L.JJ. June 1.-Counsel : C. A. Russell, K.C. and Meynell ; F. B. Merriman. Solicitors : Indermaur and Brown, for Callis, Blackpool ; Van Sandau and Cü., for_Belk, Cochrane, and Belk, Middlesbrough, and Barron
and Smith, Darlington). Employer and Workman-Accident-Compensation - Agreement-Award
-Review—Termination-Burden of Proof-Light Work at old Rates of Wages — Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), sched. 1, par. 1 (6); sched. 2, par. 9 (6).-H., a collier, met with an accident in 1908, which caused permanent injury to his hand. He was then earning 249. 2d. a week. The employers paid bim half wages till Aug. 1908, when he was given light work at the colliery
& signalman underground at a wage which was rather more than 24s. 2d. a week. He did this work till the 23rd April 1910, and did no work afterwards. The medical evidence was that he was suffering from heart disease and could not come to his work as a signalman, as he had to walk up bill to the mine to perform it. In Dec. 1910 he applied to register a memorandum of tbe agreement which was implied from the payment of half wages--namely, that the company had agreed to pay H. and that H. had agreed to accept 123. ld. as compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 as from the 14th Feb. 1906 and during his incapacity. The employers then applied to terminate the agreement as from April 1910. The County Court judge declined to do so, but reduced the amount of compensation to 108. a week, and found as a fact that the heart disease from which the workman suffered was not due to the accident. Held, that the burden of proof was on the person seeking to review or terminate the agreement or award ; and the fact that the employer showed that since the accident the man had earned wages equal to or greater than his old wages did not shift the burden to the workman so as to compel Lim to prove continued incapacity due to the accident; therefore the obligation which the Act imposed on an employer to satisfy the court that there was ground for terminating an agreement was not discharged by proof that the man was doing light work for the employer at bis old rates of wages, and the County Court judge was entitled to hold that a reduction only ought to be made.
(Cory Brothers and Co. Limited v. Hughes. Ct. of App. : CozengHardy, M.R., Buckley and Kennedy, L.JJ. June 1.- Councel : sankey, K.C. and Parsons ; C. A. Russell, K.C. and F. U. Gaskell, Solicitors : Bell, Brodrick, and Gray, for C. and W. Kenshoie, Aberdare ; Sharpe, Pritchard, and Co., for Cuthbertson and Powell, Neatb.)
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-CHANCERY DIVISION. t'ompany-Articles of Association-Directors-Number to be not less
than Four—Three Directors only-Allotment — Validity.—The articles of a sgociation of a limited company (clause 79) provided that the number of directors should be not less than four or more than eight.” By clause 80, Messrs. F. S. and G. W. S. (the vendors) were constituted the first directors of the compaoy, with power fclause 8l) to appoint additional directors. It was further provided (cla uge 88) that the “continuing directors” might act notwith. standing any vacancy in their body, and (cla uge 109) that at any meeting of the directors three in number should be sufficient to form de quorum. Messrs. S. and S. duly elected W. F. B. ag a third director of the company by virtue of their power under clause 81 of the articles aforesaid, but no other director was ever elected. In pur. suance of an agreement between the company and D. M., the promoter, 2000 shares were allotted to him in payment for his services. Subsequently D. M. transferred 375 of these shares to W. E. H. in payment of certain services rendered by him as solicitor to the rompany: On the 25th May 1909 an order was made upon a phareholder's petition that the company be wound-up by the court. The liquidator applied to the court for an order to rectify the register of sharebolders by removing the names of D. M. and W. E. H. on the ground that the allotment was invalid, having regard to the above provisions in tbe articles as to the number of directors. For the shareholders in question it was argued that the company were estopped from disputing the validity of the allot. ment, and that on equitable grounds the application should be refused. Held, that the allotment was invalid and that the register must be rectified as asked.
[Re Sly, Spink, and Co. Limited. Ch. Div. : Neville, J. June 22. -Counsel: Hon. Frank Russell, K.C. and Howard Wright ; GoreBrowne, K.C. and Palmer : G. W. H. Jones. Solicitors: Tippetts ;
Lawrence Jones and Co.; Windsor and C..] Company-Debenture-Covenant to repay “on and after the 1st Jan.
1898”—Liability to repay-Claim to perpetual Mortgage-In 1892 the T. Company issued a series of debentures, the body of each deben lore containing the words “The T. Company Limited (hereinafter
called the company) in consideration of the sum of £100 paid to the company by
will on and after the let day of January 1898, at the registered office of the company, or at the bankers of the company, pay to him, the said
or other, the registered holder for the time being hereof, his executors or administrators, the sum of £100. The debentures to be paid off will be determined by ballot, and six calendar months' notice will be given by the company of the debentures drawn for payment. In the meantime the company will pay to him or them interest thereon at the rate of £4 per centum per annum.” The company never paid off any debentures, nor held any ballot, but they made no default in payment of the interest. In 1909 the plaintiff, the registered holder of a £100 debenture, gave the company six calendar months' notice to pay him off, but the notice was not complied with. The company contended that the words “ on and after," together with the subsequent provision as to a ballot, gave the company the option of repaying on the date named, or at any time after, or so long after as they might choose to hold a ballot. Held, that the words “on and after created a liability to pay on the date named, or thereafter on demand.
(Re Tewkesbury Gus Company Limited ; Tysoe v. The Company. Ch. Div. : Parker, J. June 13 and 21.--Counsel: Grant, K.C. and Owen Thompson; Romer, K.C. and F. Luxmoore. Solicitors: Surr, Gribble, Nelson, and Oliver, for Brookes and Badham, Tewkesbury ;
Thwaites and Thompson, for Sidney Baker, Tewkesbury.] Loca!
Authority-Highway-Vacant Land adjoining-InclosurePublic Right of Way-User---Common wasto Land-Turn.' pike Roads Act 1822 (3 Geo. 4, c. 126). — The plaintiff, who was lord of the manor of E. erected a fence by the side of a road situate on bis property, 80
inclose certain tracts of land. The defendants, the local highway authority, contended that, the land in question having been unfenced, the public bad acquired a right of way over it, extending as far as the old banks which bounded the fields adjoining; and, further, that the land wag common or waste land within the meaning of sest. 118 of the Turnpike Roads Act 1822; that the road was a former turnpike road to which the Act applied, and that by the section the plaintiff was precluded from making
apy erection within 25ft. of the centre of the metalling. The tracts of land in question lie between the road and an old bank, the latter receding in two places to form two bays ; the plaintiff's
feace incloses these bays, and also a strip of land lying between them. Evidence given showed that the two boys had always been overgrown with trees and bruehwood, which had, from time to time, been cut by the plaintiff and his predecessers for their own profit. About 1850 the then lord of the manor had inclosed the two bays by a bedge, which, in 1892, bud been replaced by a post-and-rail fence, this boundary inclosing the two bays, but not the strip of land between them. Held, that the boundaries proved to have been erected and allowed to remain in 1850 and 1892 could not now, under different circumstances, be ignored, and that the existence of these boundaries and the uger of the land they inclosed negatived the presumption of any public right of way; and that, owing to those boundaries, the land could not be considered common waste land within the meaning of the Turnpiko Roads Act 1822. Held, furtber, that when the lord of
manor incloses & strip of land by the side of a bighway, whatever he leaves between bis fence ana the metalled road is presumed to be dedicated to the public, and therefore, where the plaintiff's new fence came nearer to the road than that of 1850-1892, it was to that extent an encroachment on the highway. With regard to the strip between the bays where no previous fence had existed, it was held that the presumption of a public right of way was not rebutted by the fact that, in places, the growth ot brushwood bad formed an obstacle to public passage, and that the inclosure of this strip was therefore an encroachment.
[Copestake v West Sussex County Council. Ch. Div.: Parker, J. May 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, June 1, 2, and 21.-Counsel : Upjohn, K.C., Boxall, K.C., and J. G. Wood; Macmorran. K.C., Romer, K.C., Percy Wheeler, and G. Wormald. Solicitors: Bidüle, Thorne, Wels
ford, and Sidgwick ; Nicholson, Patterson, and Freeland.) Partnership-Joint and several Liability of Partners for Instalments of
a Debi- Payment of Instalments out of Partnership Assets-Judgment recovered for Nonpayment of later Inslulments-Satisfaction of Judgment by one Partner alone-Right to Contribution-hight to Assignment of the Judgment—Breach of statutory Obligation-Damages-Equitable Kights between the joint Debtors--Suretyship-Right of Surely to release-Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856.-D., H., and N. were in partnership up to March 1905. From that date the partnership was carried on by D. and H. up to April 1907. Io 1906 P. brought an action against D., H., and N. in respect of a debt incurred by N., for which the three original partners were liable. The action was compromised by N. agreeing to
pay £7500, and D. and H. agreeing to be joiotly and severally liable for £5000, payable by half-yearly instalmente of £500 The first two instalments were paid out of the assets of the second partnership. P. obtained judgment for ponpayment of the third instalment, and it was subsequently paid by D., who also paid the fourtb. The fifth was paid by D. and H. equally. The sixth and seventh were recovered from D. and H. after action brought. The elghth, after judgment bad again been obtained by P., was paid by D. An application was then made to P., by D., for an assignment of the judgments in respect of the instalments he had paid, under sect. 5 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856, which provides that