« EelmineJätka »
the Scoto fashion. The essentially separable character of the Scotch and the English Crowns was demonstrated by this transaction, and was emphasised by the circumstances immediately antecedent to the Soutch Union. In 1703 a Bill, entitled the Bill of Security, was passed by the Scotch Parliament, to which, however, the Royal Assent was refused, providing that on the death of Queen Anne without issue the estates should meet to name a Protestant successor, but that this should not be the same person who would succeed to the Crown of England unless a treaty had been first made securing" the honour and sovereignty of the Scotch Crown and kingdom, the freedom, frequency, and power of Parliaments, the religion, freedom, and trade of the nation from English for any foreign influence." It was at the same time made high treason to administer the Coronation oath without Parliamentary authority. In 1704 this Bill of Security with little modification was again passed by the Scotch Parliament, and, on the advice of the English Ministry, whose conduct, due to the critical position of affairs, was severely censured, received the Royal Assent. There is little doubt that a powerful factor in the passing of the Scotch Act of Union was the desire that the Scotch, like the Irish, Crown should be inseparably united to the Crown of England. By that statute it was provided that the succession to the Crown of the United Kingdoms of England and Scotland should remain to the Princess Sophia or the heirs of her body being Protestant.
Although, as we have said, the principle of law in relation to the English and the Irish Crowns was unquestionably, in the words of Mr. O'Connell, that "whoever is King de facto in England is King de jure in Ireland," there was, however, notwithstanding a conflict between the Legislatures of Great Britain and Ireland on a matter closely relating to the Crowns of the two countries. In 1789, on the occasion of the first mental dérangement of George III., the British Parliament conferred the Regency on the Prince of Wales (George IV.) with limited powers. The Irish Parliament, adopting the views of Mr. Fox and the Whig party in the British House of Commons, called on him by address to assume the full powers of the Crown. "There can be doubt," says Lord Brougham, "that Mr. Fox's opinions in 1788 were far more in accordance than those of Mr. Pitt with the spirit of a Constitution which abhors all approach to election in the appointment of a chief magistrate (Brougham's British Constitution, p. 263). The King's recovery terminated the dispute. This collision between the English and the Irish Parliaments on the Regency question was so strongly relied on as an argument in favour of the Irish Union that the opponents of that measure introduced a Bill that whoever was Regent de facto in England should be Regent de jure in Ireland.
The relations between the English, Irish, and Scotch Crowns and the controversies arising thereout thus sketched in faint outline are of the very highest value to the student of constitutional develop. ment as tending to show that for a true and lasting union of the several communities which in the aggregate constitute the British Empire the Crown, as the visible representative not merely of the majesty but of the unity of the State, is essential.
THE question of the claim of right that is sufficient to oust the, jurisdiction of the magistrates was discussed recently in the King's Bench Division in the case of Rex (Kennedy) v. Justices of the County Cork. The prosecutor (Kennedy) had been prosecuted under the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1851 for "having wilfully and by misbehaviour" obstructed a public street in a town by placing clothes and other merchandise for sale thereon. The solicitor for the prosecutor raised the point that the acts complained of were done 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 was thereby ousted. There was evidence in the course of the case that the locus in quo was a fair or market, and that on the occasion the fair was actually taking place. The alleged obstruction was upon a public thoroughfare, and there was evidence that for upwards of thirty years this fair had been carried on to the obstruction of the. public. Notwithstanding this evidence the justices convicted, and the respondent applied for a writ of certiorari to quash the conviction. It was held by the court that the proceedings were quite misconceived, that there was undoubtedly a bona fide claim of right that was possible in law, and that for that reason the magistrates had no jurisdiction and ought to have dismissed the summons.
ONE of the Irish members raised an interesting question in Parliament on the 20th ult. with reference to the appointment as revising barristers of barristers who have been unsuccessful Parliamentary candidates. 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 general undertaking that barristers who had been Parliamentary candidates for Ulster seats would not be appointed to act as assistant revising barristers in Ulster. He thought, however, that if both sides would agree to a self-denying ordinance as to this matter there was a good deal to be said for it, provided that the candidature was not of old date. Captain Craig, who asked the question, wished to know was it not possible for His Majesty's Government to set an example to their successors in office by refusing to make such appointments. Mr. Birrell thought that a good examp'e was always worth setting,
but that sometimes it might be better to follow. He agreed, however, that the matter was worthy of consideration, though he was not prepared to give the undertaking. Another of the Irish members suggested that such an undertaking if given ought to be made to apply to County Court judges who had been Parliamentary candidates before they were raised to the Bench. It is understood that the Ulster Party are bringing forward again a Bill for the purpose of placing these appointments in the hands of the judges cf assize.
IN nearly all the appeals under the Workmen's Compensation Act which have come recently before the Court of Appeal the questions were questions of fact, and the court simply upheld the finding of fact of the County Court judge, deciding in each case that there was evidence to support that finding of fact. In the case of Filzgerald v. Murphy, which was an appeal under the Act of 1906, and which came before the court on the 14th ult., it appeared that on the evening of the 22nd Feb. the applicant, who was the widow of a deceased workman, had a conversation with her husband when he returned from work, and he told her that a small stone had fallen on him and struck him behind the ear while he was working in a pump-hole for the respondent. He showed the applicant the mark. On the following morning it appeared as a small out with a black mark at the end of it. The deceased workman continued working all the week, and was continually complaining of pain. On Monday, the 27th Feb., be had to retura early from work, and remained at home until the following Saturday, when he went to hospital, where he died on Tuesday, the 7th March. He died from blood poisoning arising from a wound at the back of the ear. The medical evidence was that the scratch in the skin was sufficient to admit poisonous matter into the system, and that the tissue in the immediate neighbourhood of the wound showed symptoms of acute blood poisoning. A witness for the defendant stated that on the 22nd Feb. the deceased had called his attention to the fact that Comething behind his ear was causing him trouble. The witness saw what appeared to be a pimple behind the ear, but he saw no scratch and no blood. On the following day the deceased told the witness that a pebble had fallen on him. The County Court judge dismissed tho application on the ground that he was not satisfied that death was caused by accident arising out of or in the course of the deceased's employment. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was evidence sufficient to support the finding of fact of the County Court judge.
THE case of Austin v. Guardians of the Dunshaughlin Union, which came before the King's Bench Division on the 19th ult., raises an important question as to the evidence in prosecutions under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. The prosecution in question was one in respect of the sale of butter which was alleged not to be of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by the defendants, the guardians of the union. The guardians had purchased forty pounds of butter from Austin, the plaintiff. When the 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 workhouse to post. A certificate from the analyst was produced, which was addressed to the master of the union and which stated as follows: "I, the undersigned, public analyst for the county of Meath, do hereby certify that I received from you on the 25th Jan. a sample of butter for analysis which when measured weighed six fluid ounces and was marked butter. I have analysed the same and declare the result of my analysis to be as follows: I am of opinion that the said sample, which had undergone no change in its constitution that would interfere with its analysis, was composed almost entirely of fats foreign to butter." The justices convicted. The inmate of the workhouse who had posted the parcel was not produced, nor was the analyst. It was argued that there was no evidence that the sample analysed by Sir Charles Cameron was identical with the sample sent by the master of the workhouse. It was pointed out that there was 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. percentage of the butter and foreign fats of which the article was composed. The King's Bench Division came to the conclusion that the magistrates had sufficient evidence before them to justify the conviction. The court decided that the certificate was evidence of the matters contained in it, and, in view of the phraseology of the certificate and the statements contained in it, the court came to the conclusion that the decision of the magistrates should be upheld. This decision was largely based on the decision of the Irish courts in Enniskillen Guardians v.¡Hilliard (14 L. Rep. Ir. 214), in which it was held that under somewhat similar circumstances there was sufficient evidence that the milk taken from the vendor was the milk submitted to the analyst.
HANDWRITING EXPERT.-Mr. D. Blackburn, late expert to the Natal Criminal Investigation Department, joint author of The Detection of Forgery" (Layton's, Farringdon-street). Address 2, Carlton-mansions, Coldharbour-lane, S.W.-[ADVT.]
NOTICE OF REMOVAL.-The Sanitary Engineering Company, Domestic Sanitary Engineers, after thirty-six years occupation of 65, Victoria-street, have removed their offices to No. 2, Army and Navy-mansions, 115, Victoria-street, Westminster (corner Francis-street). 'Phone: Westminster 316. Telegrams: "Sanitation," London. [ADVT.]
A FEW words may not be out of place with regard to Part 5 of the Finance (1909-10) Act 1910, consisting of sects. 73 to 79, dealing with stamps. As is well known, sect. 73 has doubled the duties chargeable 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 a 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 exceeds £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 conveyance or transfer on sale, with the substitution in each case of the value of the property conveyed for the amount or value of the consideration for the same so that in future a voluntary settlement of real estate will be liable to a stamp of £1 per cent. on the value thereof, instead of a mere deed stamp of 10s. It is apprehended, however, that, having regard to sect. 73, and reading the two sections together, a voluntary transfer of stock would only attract a duty of 10s. per cent. on the value thereof. Voluntary conveyances or transfers to charitable institutions incorporated by special Act, and provided the property transferred is to be held for the 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 under the Stamp Act 1891, the instrument is to be charged with duty as a conveyance or transfer under this section, but 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 stock 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 drastic portion of Part 5, provides that any conveyance 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 consideration) 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 conveyance 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 stock 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 putting 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 case ad valorem duty of £1 per cent. in the case of land and 10s. 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 Revenue 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 in 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-sect. 6 exempt from sect. 74namely, (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, whether the trust is expressed or implied; (3) or under which no beneficial interest passes in the property conveyed or transferred; (4) or made to a beneficiary 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 estate, other than an estate in lee simple, in the person disentailing the property. And this sub-section is to have effect notwithstanding that the circumstances exempting the conveyance or transfer from charge under sect. 74 are not set forth in the conveyance or transfer. By seot. 75 the stamp duties on leases are doubled, except in the cases of leases on which a fixed duty of 1d. is chargeable 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 sale 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
of £5 or upward, to execute 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 does 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, and by sect. 79 the provisions as to contract notes are extended to sales and purchases of options, but the stamd duty on a contract for an option is to be one-half only of that chargeable on a contract note.
Subject to any appeal which has already been 'in the list, the following appeals will be taken in Appeal Court II. on Monday next, from the Probate and Divorce Division final and new trial list :Divorce : Stevenson V. Stevenson. Probate : 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 before two o'clock.
Mr. Justice Warrington (sitting as an additional judge of the King's Bench (Division) 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 v. Tucker (non-jury) on Wednesday next.
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'clock.
Mr. Justice Phillimore left London on Saturday last for Hertford on the second part of the South-Eastern Circuit, and opened the commission on the following Monday. As the civil business at Guildford (the last town on the circuit) is fixed to be taken on Thursday, the 20th inst., there is a very slight possibility of the judge returning to London this side of the Long Vacation.
Mr. Justice Grantham and Mr. Justice Scratton 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 the Long Vacation, as the commission day for Leeds, the last town on the circuit, is fixed for Monday, the 17th inst... and it is unierstood that the work there is considerable.
Mr. Justice Horridge will leave London to-day (Saturday) 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. Justice Coleridge will open the commission at Bristol, on the Western Circuit. When the business at this town is finished they will return to London, where they will remain until the end of the present sittings.
On Tuesday 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 Wednesday next for Nottingham, on the Midland Circuit, to join Mr. Justice Pickford, and will open the commission on the following day. When the business at this town is finished, Mr. Justice Pickford will return to town, where he will remain until the end of the present sittings, and Mr. Justice Ridley will continue the circuit, going on to Warwick and then to Birmingham on Saturday, the 15th inst. At the last-named town he will be joined by Mr. Justice Bucknill. The commission at Birmingham will be opened on Monday, the 17th inst.
The commission day for Swansea, on the South Wales Circuit, has been altered by the judges (Mr. Justice Bray and Mr. Justice Bankes) from Tuesday, the 11th 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 nine to assist in the disposal of the London business-viz, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ridley, Mr. Justice Darling, Mr. Justice Buoknill, Mr. Justice Bray, Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence, Mr. Justice Hamilton, Mr. Justice Avory, and Mr. Justice Bankes. The number will be further reduced to six on Tuesday and Wednesday next, when on the former day Mr. Justice Bray and Mr. Justice Bankes will leave for Chester, on the North and South Wales Circuit, and Mr. Justice Ridley will leave on the 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 Nisi Prius business. This state of affairs will not improve 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 July 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 Scrutton at Leeds (commission day Monday, the 17th inst.); Mr. Justice Phillimore at Guildford, on the South-Eastern Circuit (commission day Monday. the 17th inst.); Mr. Justice Ridley and Mr. Justice Bucknili at Birmingham, on the Oxford and Midland Circuit (commission day Saturday, the 15th inst.); Mr. Justice Bray and Mr. Justice Bankes 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.).
The June Sessions at the Central Criminal Court were opened on Tuesday last before Sir Forrest Fulton, K.C. (Recorder), Sir Albert Bosanquet, K.C. (Common Serjeant), the Lord Mayor, and Sheriffs. The calendar contains the names of 108 persons charged with offences. The June adjourned general 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'clock, and the second on Monday, the 24th inst., also at eleven o'clock. 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 inst.
Mr. Plowden stated at the Marylebone Police-court on the 20th ult., 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 Dreyfus, has been elected President of L'Ordre des Avocats in succession to M. Busson-Billault.
Dr. P. Vinograd off, Corpus Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford, has been elected 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 the South-Eastern Circuit. is also the judge of the Norwich 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 he wore the chain of office as Mayor of Kensington. He had previously requested that his seat as mayor might be given to a member of the council, but this request was refused by a majority of the council.
A verdict of suicide whilst temporarily insane was returned at the inquest at Kingston on the 28th ult. on the body of George Wallace Beal, sixty-two, a retired solicitor, of Lichmond Park-road, Kingston, who on Saturday shot himself with a five-chambered revolver. Mr. Charles Beal stated that his brother had no financial trouble, but suffered from strange delusions.
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 United States Senate this session.
The Englishwoman for July opens with a short review of the position as regards the suffrage movement, by Miss Edith Palliser. Geraldine Hodgson gives a clever answer to certain statements made in Thoughts on Paradox, 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 account 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 Gunnar Heiberg; and Shakespeare's Women, by Muriel Gray.
The Java Bode reports an insurance case recently decided in the Sourbaya Court. The Amsterdamsche 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 they were protected by the suicide clause in the policy, which they urged included involuntary self-destruction. The court held 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 behests of an unscrupulous Monarch, so now they were prepared to go to prison rather than obey-he would not say the dictates of an unscrupulous 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. Frayling, 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 in 1884 to the Treasury Solicitor's department, which was amalgamated with that of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and has acted as principal representative of the Director of Public Prosecutions from 1885 till the present sessions. He is the author of a paper on "Infanticide, its Law and Punishment," and is about to publish a volume of reminiscences,
The conferring of a Privy Councillorship 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 Andrews, who was an eminent jurist and member in the Irish House of Commons for Londonderry, and John Hely Hutchinson, who was Prime Serjeant at the 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 til 1794, respectively Provosts of Trinity College, Dublin, and were both members of the Irish Privy Council.
According 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. This number was made up as follows: In the legal search room, 36,439, and in the literary search room 48,334. In the former room the value of stampe purchased by the public and cancelled amounted to £492 133. Searches on behalf of Government departments, whose archives are deposited in the Public Records Office, amounted to 1727, and 5039 documente were issued or inspected. The number of volumes or bundles 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 Churchyard 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 the 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 records. At Westminster, which holds jurisdiction over the route of the Coronation procession, there were only two cases of drunkenness. At Marylebone, Mr. Plowden remarked that it was somewhat 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 which was shown by the crowa 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 one 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 convict under circonstances até uzntes. Two issues were placed before them. The first was, "Is the accused Capelle guilty of having 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 jury replied "No,' and to the second "Yes," adding "under extenuating circumstances.' The reading of the verdict caused surprise in court, we read, and the result was equally a surprise to the jury, for the first answer was an acquittal. But it was too late to legally amend the verdict.
The Chalons-sur-Saone Tribunal has 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 his counsel contended that the company could not be held responsible for a workman in the employment and pay of another principal (patron). The tribunal rejected this plea and held that as the work had been executed according to the plans of the company's engineers, and under their supervision, independently of that exercised 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-inn on the occasion of his visit to the City. The King and Queen, after passing through Finsbury and Islington, drove past the north end of Gray's-inn Gardene, in Theobalds-road. The Benchers assembled at this point to present their address. The portion of Theobalds-road which abuts upon the Ion was formerly known a the King's Way. It is so described in Stow's Survey. Later it became King's-road and it was not until 1878 that it received its present name. The King's Way was constructed by the order of James I., and was used by him when he travelled from Whitehall to his hunting lodge at Theobalds or to Newmarket. The guests of the Inn at the garden party on Thursday 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 halted here. Mr. E. Clayton, K.C., the Treasurer, presented the address, and was accompanied by other Benchers of the Inn in levée drees, robee, and full-bottomed wigs.
Me. Rodolphe Rousseau, one of the best known members of the Paria Bar, the author 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 heap-for he is an enthusiastic motorist and a member of the Automobile Club. He resides in the Rue Saint Lazare, but the noise is such that he asserts that it is only with difficulty that he and his clients can hear one another's voices at consultations in his chambers. Me. Rousseau has taken action against the Compagnie des Omnibus. M. Monier, the President of the Tribunal, has remitted the case to M. Laloux, the architect, to make a report to the court. Complaints of a similar nature are rife in Lincoln's-inn, among those having chambers overlooking Chancery1e. whenever from any cause the Strand motor traffic is diverted to Holborn, via Chancery-lane. In 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 decision than the Police Commissioner.
At the Lincolnshire County Court holden at Louth recently, before His Honour Sir George Sherston Baker, shortly after the hearing 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, had followed him there and wished to argue the case with him. He (Mr. Clitherow) declined to do so, and informed the defendant that he did not wish to speak to him. Thereupon the defendant retorted: "I have a jolly good mind to punch your head." His Honour directed a constable to bring the defendant back into court at once, whereupon the defendant said that he apologised unreservedly to Mr. Clitherow, and that he had not the remotest intention of insulting him. His Honour said he was not sure that he ought to allow Mr. Clitherow to accept the apology. It was an insult to an 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 be considered what course he should adopt. Later in the day His Honour had the defendant brought back into court, and, after cautioning him as to his future conduct 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 Westminster, Mr. Justice Ridley, Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady, Sir James H. Ramsay, Major-General Sir A'fred Turner, Sir Henry Llewellyn Smith, Sir William Graham Greene, Sir Frederic W. R. Fryer, Sir Josiah Henry Symon, Sir William Patrick Byrne, the Dean of Canterbury, Mr. Charles Archer Cook, CB, Vice-Admiral F. S. Inglefield, 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), Čaptain Montagu W. Consett, R.N., Captain W. H. Smith, D.S.O., Captain Archibald Campbell Douglas, and Mr. G. H. Rhodes. The Benchers present were: Sir Edward Clarke, K.C., Lord Macnaghten, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice 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, KČ, Mr Lofthouse, K.C., Mr. Romer, K.C., Mr. Dixon, Mr. Peterson, 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 extract may be thus translated: "The tribunal of Yssingeaux 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 the mistake that had been made, made reparation by condemning itself to pay the costs which the parties had incurred through the error of the tribunal." Saint Martin, le philosophe inconnu, the pseudonym under which most of his writings appeared, we are told, recalls this judgment to show that the Republic had broken away from the routine and abuse of the old régime. Then the writer in the Débats, 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 errors frequently arises, and if the delicate example of the tribunal of Yssingeaux has 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 Haussmann 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 philosophy, was a welcome guest in our midst; and as to Haussmann, 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-inn Hall on the 20th ult. The Elizabethan hall, familiar to Burghley and Bacon, and the scene of the masques and revels of sixteenth and seventeenth century lawyers, presented a gay appearance while dancing was in progress. Twelve thousand roses, red or pink, had been used
in the decorations. There were festoons of roses upon the oak wainscot, rambler roses covered the embrasures of the stained-glass windows, and baskets of roses were suspended from the hammer-beams of the oak roof. The Minstrels' Gallery was occupied by the band of the Grenadier Guards. The guests, who numbered 500, were received in the hall by the Treasurer and Mrs. Clayton, assisted by Mrs. Mattin. son and Mrs. Russell. The hall was connected by a covered way with the gardens, which were thrown open as a promenade. They were illuminated by Chinese lanterns and coloured lamps. From the main walk a path, picked out by fairy lamps, led to the catalpa tree which 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. Among those who accepted invitations were: Lord Alverstone and Miss Webster, Lord Justice Buckley and Lady Buckley. Lord Justice Kennedy and Miss Kennedy, Mr. Justice Joyce and Miss Joyce, Mr. Justice Parker and Lady Parker, Mr. Justice Eve and Lady Eve, Sir 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 Henry, 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 Mig Buckmaster, Mr. J. M. Astbury and Mrs. Astbury, the Hon. 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 Benchers present in addition to the Treasurer were: Mr. Henry Griffith, Mr. M. W. Mattinson, K.C., Mr. C. A. Russell, K C., Mr. W. T. Barnard, K.C., Mr. H. E. Duke, K.C., M.P.. Mr. A. E. Gill, Mr. Vesey Knox, K.C., Mr. J. R. Atkin, K.C., Mr. W. P. Byrne, Mr. J. W. McCarthy, Mr. Montagu Sharpe, and Mr. F. A. Greer, K C.
NOTES OF RECENT DECISIONS NOT YET REPORTED.
BY OUR REPORTERS IN THE SEVERAL COURTS.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Ship-Bill of Lading-Lien for unpaid Freight due from limited Company-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 lading which contained a clause giving the shipowners a lien not only for freight due thereunder, but also for any previously unsatisfied freight due 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, charging to yours respectfully the Company,' by A. F. W., Receiver and Manager." The address given for delivery was to the company, care of the agente. 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 exercise a lien in respect of unsatisfied freight which had become 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) affirmed, Lords Shaw and Mersey dissenting.
[Moss Steamship Company v. Whinney. H. of L June 26.Counsel: Bailhache, K.Č. and Robertson Dunlop; Sir A. Cripps, K.C. and Leck. Solicitors Rawle, Johnstone, Gregory, Rowcliffe, and Rowcliffe, for Hill, Dickinson, and Co., Liverpool; Davidson and Morriss]
Ship-Marine Insurance-Competency of Master-Warrant of Seaworthiness-Non-disclosure of material Facts-Valued 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 had not been to sea for twentytwo years, and that he had lost his last ship, and had had 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 nondisclosure to the insurers of concurrent policies on freight and disbursements, and of honour policies for considerable sums chiefly taken out by the managing 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 Mackinnon; J. 4. Clyde, K.C., C. D. Murray, K.C. (both of the Scottish Bar), and W. Raeburn. Solicitors: Waltons and Co., for J. and J. Ross, Edinburgh; W. A. Crump and Son, for Webster, Will, and Co, Edinburgh, and Wright, Johnston, and Mackenzie. Glasgow.]
COURT OF APPEAL. Employer and Worm-Accident-Compensation-Award by Committee Applia in to County Court to review - Jurisdiction. Refusal to hear A p'ication-A pel-Court of Appeal-Divisional Court-Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), sched. 2, pars. 1 and 4.-An application was made to a 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. Sir 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 Co., 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 (b); sched. 2, par. 9 (b).-H., a collier, met with an accident in 1908, which caused permanent injury to his hand. He was then earning 24s. 2d. a week. The employers paid him half wages till Aug. 1908, when he was given light work at the colliery 88 a 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 hill to the mine to perform it. In Dec. 1910 he applied to register a memorandum of the 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 12. 1d. 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 him 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 his 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.: CozensHardy, M.R., Buckley and Kennedy, L.JJ. June 1.- Counsel : Sankey, K.C. and Parsons; C. A. Russell, K.C. and F. H. Gaskell. Solicitors: Bell, Brodrick, and Gray, for C. and W. Kenshole, Aberdare; Sharpe, Pritchard, and Co., for Cuthbertson and Powell, Neath.]
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-CHANCERY DIVISION. Company-Articles of Association-Directors-Number to be not less than Four-Three Directors only-Allotment-Validity.-The articles of association 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 company, with power (clause 81) to appoint additional directors. It was further provided (clause 88) that the "continuing directors " might act notwithstanding any vacancy in their body, and (clause 109) that at any meeting of the directors three in number should be sufficient to form quorum. Messrs. S. and S duly elected W. F. B. as 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 purBuance 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 company. On the 25th May 1909 an order was made upon a hareholder'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 shareholders 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 the 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 allotment, 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 Cɔ] 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 de benture 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 1st 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.]
Authority-Highway-Vacant Land adjoining-InclosurePublic Right of Way-User-Common ΟΥ waste 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 his property, so as to inclose certain tracts of land. The defendants, the local highway authority, contended that, the land in question having been unfenced, the public had acquired a right of way over it, extending as far as the old banks which bounded the fields adjoining; and, further, that the land was common or waste land within the meaning of sect. 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 any 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 as to form two bays; the plaintiff's new feace incloses these bays, and also a strip of land lying between them. Evidence given showed that the two bays had always been overgrown with trees and brushwood, 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 hedge, which, in 1892, had 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 cou'd not now, under different circumstances, be ignored, and that the existence of these boundaries and the user 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 or waste land within the meaning of the Turnpike Roads Act 1822. Held, further, that when the lord of a manor incloses a strip of land by the side of a highway, whatever he leaves between his fence and 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 of brushwood had 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: Bidule, Thorne, Welsford, and Sidgwick; Nicholson, Patterson, and Freeland.] Partnership-Joint and several Liability of Partners for Instalments of a Debt-Payment of Instalments out of Partnership Assets-Judgment recovered for Nonpayment of later Instalments-Satisfaction of Judgment by one Partner alone-Right to Contribution—Right to Assignment of the Judgment-Breach of statutory Obligation-Damages-Equitable Rights between the joint Debtors-Suretyship-Right of Surety 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. In 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 jointly and severally liable for £5000, payable by half-yearly instalments of £500. The first two instalments were paid out of the assets of the second partnership. P. obtained judgment for nonpayment of the third instalment, and it was subsequently paid by D., who also paid the fourth. 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 had 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