Page images
[ocr errors]

or licence of natione, that foreigo public obipe coming into their porta, and demeaping themselves according to law, and in a friendly manner, sball be exempt from the local jurisdiction. But men of war or public veseel, when within the ports of another country and enjoying ita buspitality, must refrain from any acts which imperil its peace and good order. It should not bring into tbe couo try conspirators bent on civil strife, nor should it barbour criminals or oiber non political offenders. Custom, however, seems to sanction the right of a manof-war to take on board a political refugee who appearupin vited at the side of a vessel and asks protecti n ; and the country within whose territory the vessel is has no right to demand that such refugee be surrendered, or that the vessel be expelled because of a relusal to surender. The only remedy for refusal to surrender either a common criminal or a political offender is by direct representation to the country to which the vessel belongs through the ordinary diplomatic channels ; except, perhaps, expulsion would be justified if the vessel were being made a centre of conspiracy dangerous to the State.

During the disorders in Naples in 1849, Lord Palmerston said that while it would not be right to receive and barbour on board of a British ship-of-war any person flying from justice on a criminal charge, or who was escaping from the sentence of a court of law," yet a British man-of-war had always been regarded as a safe place of refuge for persons fleeing from persecution on account of their political conduct or opinions," whether the refugee " was escaping from the arbitrary acts of â monarcbial Government or from the lawless violence of a revelationary committee.”

While tbis country has occasionally, from motives of humanity, granted refuge on board its public vessels to political offenders, yet it has always done so sparingly so as not to encourage rebellion On the 15th Aug. 1894 The Secretary of the Navy issued the following iegulation on the subject of asylum : “ Tb: right of asylum for political or other refugees has no foundation in international law. In countries, however, where frequent insurrections occur, and constant instability of government existe, local usage sanctions the granting of asylum, but even in the waters of such countries officers should refuse all applications for asylum except when requested by the interests of humanity in extreme or exceptional cases, such as the pursuit of a refugee by a mob. Officers must not directly or indirectly invite refugees to accept asylum."

ASYLUM ON MERCHANT SHIPS. As a general rule merchant ships are not exempt from the territoria! juriediction of the country wbose waters they enter. They cannot, therefore, grant asylum. Tbis doctrine was recognised in the diplomatic correspondence in the case of Sotelo. In 1840, the French vessel L'Ocean, when making its regular voyage from Marseilles along the coast of Spain to Gibraltar, when at Valencia, took on board one Sotelo, a Spanish ex. Minister under prosecution for a political offence, without the knowledge of the Spanish authorities. On entering the barbour of Alicante, Sotelo was taken off the vessel by the Spanish authorities in spite of the protests of the captain, who invoked both the dootrine of asylum and of extra-territoriality.

The country has not admitted the right of asylum on merchant vessels or other private sbips. Thus, Mr. Buchanan, whin Secretary of State, said that "in case an American citizen charged with a crime in the city of New York ebould seek an asylum in a British merchant veesel, our authorities. I presume, would not hesitate to arrest him on board of such vessel wbilst she remained within watere under our exclusive and absolute jurisdiction. In such a case the flag of Great Britain would afford no protection agaipet the process of the law."

As to offences committed on board a mercbant vessel, the rule is thus stated in the Wildenhus cage : “ The principle which governs tbo whrle matter is this : Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or Those on board are to be dealt with exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of the ship, but those wbich disturb the public peace may be suppresord, and, if need be, the offenders punisbed by the proper authorities of the local juriediction. It may not be easy at all times to determine to which of the two jurisdic. tions a particular act of disorder belongs. Much will uudoubtedly depend on the attending circumstances of the particular case, but all must concede that felonious homicide is a subjeot for the local juris. diction, and that if the proper authorities are proceeding with the cage in a regular way the consul has no right to interfere o prevent it.”

PASSENGERS IN Transit. On the 20th March 1844 Lord Aberdeen gave an opinion for the benefit of the Secretary of the Admiralty, that if a British veseel plying between Lisbon, Portugal, and England should stop at a Spanish port en route, that the Spanish autborit es would bave a right to take off a Spanish subject who had embarked at Lisbon for England. A similar ruling was made in the case of Gamez, a political fugitive, by Secretary Bayard in instructing Mr. Hall, Minister to Central America, the 12th March 1885 ; and though a contrary ruling wae made by Secretary Blaine in the case of Barrundia, it has been the subject of some criticism.

Thin regulatiuus are eulotautially the same as those bitberto iu force, but some alterations bave been found to be necessary in oon. sequence of the new Aot, and the opportunity has been taken to make a few other amendments in pointe of detail which experience of the administration of the Act of 1908 has shown to be necessary.

The board desire to draw attention in some of the points io which the now regulations differ from those hitherto in force :

Regulation 9 (1).---As regards the conditions under which a pension oficer is not bound to investigate a claim, it may be pointed out that the period of four months in proviso (a) has now been extended to six months.

Regulation 11 (1).-In order to obviate delay in dealing with claims, provision has been made for the holding of adjourned meetings when a quorum of the committee is not present at an ordinary meeting.

Regulations 13 and 14 --These regulations correspond to the regula. tions numbered 13 and 14 in the series of 1908. Some alterations, however, bave been made in order to facilitate the procedure of committees, and to give a claimant or a pensioner an opportunity of being heard at the earliest poseíble moment.

Regulation 17.-It will be observed thać the language of this regulation differs somewhat from that of the corresponding regulation 17 in the 1908 Beries. The alterations are mainly consequential op sect. 6 of the new Aot.

Regulation 18 (3). -Under this regulation, it will in future be the duty of the committee to send notice to the pension offioer of an appeal brought by any other person.

Regulation 19 (2).-It will not be necessary in future that the commiltee should send to the pension officer information as to the board's decision on an appeal.

Regulation 23 (4). - Appointments of clerks to committees are to be notified to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise as well 88 to the board.

Regulation 34.-Provision has now been made requiring the pension committee to supply on demand, at a fee not exceeding sixpenoe, a copy of any decision of the committee.

It will no doubt be observed that the new regulations contain no provision similer to that contained in regulation 29 of the 1908 series. Any such regulation has become unnecessary in view of sect. 3 (2) of the new Act.

It will be obger ved that the new regulations are to be deemed to have had effect as from the 17th Aug. 1911.


[ocr errors]




(From the l'un dian Liu T'im«s.) This well-known cage established the rule which, after the lapse o over forty years, bas come to be generally regarded as a principle tirmly embedded in our legal system, and a rule founded, to use the language of Lord Cranworth, in good sense. The rule as finally determined in the House of Lords, on appeal, may be briefly formu. lated thus : “ The occupier of land who brings or keeps upon it anytbing likely to do damage if it escapes is bound at his peril to prevent its escape, and is liablo for all the natural and probable consequences of its escape, even if be bas been guilty of no Degligence.”

A double duty, the relore, reats upon the owner or occupier of land, A negative as well as a positive one. While it is his duty to refrain from active injury, at the same time it is equally his duty to guard and protect his neighbour, lest he suffer harm by reason of possible danger in contequence of what he brings or keeps upon his land. auch a case he becomes an insurer of his neighbour, ad has been aptiy said, against all harm independently of the existence of either willut intent or negligence. Formerly it has been held by many able judges that the duty in such a case was merely the duty to take all reasonable and prudent precautions in order to sateguard bis neighbour from all injurious effecte its presence might cause, but go more. The decision, however, of the House of Lords settled the question, once and for all, tbat it was an absolute duty to be observed at his peril.

This, like many good rules, is subject to exceptions. These exceptions we will proceed briefly to recapitulate.

First EXCEPTION. If the act done which causes the iojury is that of a stranger, the owner or occupier of the premises is not liable. To the case of Box v. Jubb et al. (1879, 4 Ex. Div. 76) it was held defendants were not liable under the following statement of facts. The defendants possessed a reservoir with sluices connected with a watercourse. The plaintiff's premises were flooded by reason of the overtlowing of the defendants' reservoir. The overtlowing was caused by the emptying of a large quantity of water from a reservoir of a third party into the watercourse at a point some distance above defendants' premises. The defendants' reservoir was constructed and maintained in 4 proper mapoer so as to prevent the over flowing of the reservoir under vil ordinary circumstances. No wrongful act or negligence was attribut. able to defendants.

In reversing the judgment of the County Court in favour of plaintiff, Chief Baron Kelly said : “ The matters complained of took place through no default or breach of duty of the defendante, but were caused by a stranger over whom and at a spot where they had no


THE OLD AGE PENSIONS ACTS 1908 AND 1911. The Local Government Board bave issued new regulations which bave been made under sect. 10 of the Old Age Pensions Act 1908 ag amended by the Old Age Pensions Act 1911. Tbe new regulations supersede the regulations of 1908 and 1910, which are revoked.

control. It seems to me to be immaterial whether this is called vis major or the uplawful act of a stranger; it is sufficient to say that the defendants bad no meang of preventing the oocurrence. I think the defendants could not possibly have been expected to anticipate that which happened here, and the law does not require them to construct their reservoir and the sluicer and gates leading to it to meet any amount of pressure wbich the wrongful act of a third person may impose. The judgment must be entered for the delendante."

Io commenting upon the case of Nichols v. Marsland (1875, L. Rep. 10 Ex, at p. 259). Baron Bramwell is reported, is referring to the water in the defendants' reservoir, in mapper following: “ Suppose a stranger let it loose, would the defendant be liable ? If so, then if a miscbievous boy bored a hole in a cistern in any London bouse, and the water did miscuief to a neighbour, the ocoupier of the house would be liable. That cannot be."

Baron Pollock, in his judgment in Box V. Jubb, remarks that the case of Rylands v. Fletcher is ristinguishable. In that case the water that caused the injury was collected by the occupier. Here the water was not accumulated by the defendants, but came from elsewhere and added to that wbich was properly and safely there. For this the defendants, both on principle and autbority, cannot be held liable. The overflow, which in tbis case caused the injury, did not proceed from the act or default of the defendants, but from that of a stranger over which they bed no control.

could not have been guarded against. by any ordinary exertions of human skill and prudence.”

In the case of Nichols v. Marsland (L Rep. 10 Ex. 255), affirmed on appeal in 2 Ex. Div. 1, where the defendant for.ed ornamental pools by damming up with artificial banks a stream which flowed through his land and which was allowed to escape from the pools by weirs into its original course, and an extraordinary rainfall caused the stream to owell 80 that the embankments were carried away by the pressure of the water, and injured the plaintiff's adjoining property, it was held that the action was not maintaina ble ; the jury having found that the escape of the water was caused by the Act of God, and tbat there was no negligence on the part of the defendant in the construc.ion or maintenance of the embankments.

Lord Justice Mellish, in delivering judgement, said: “The remaining question is, Did the defendants make out that the esca pe of the water was owing to the Act of God ? Now the jury bave distinctly found, not only that there was no negligence in the construction or the maintenance of the reservoirs, but that the flood was so great that it could not reasonably have been anticipated, although, if it bad been anticipated, the effect might have beon prevented; and this seems to us in substance a finding that the escape of the water was owing to the Act of God. However: great the fluod bad been, if it had not been greater than floods that had happened before and might be expected to oocar again, the defendaot might not have made out that she was free from fault; but we think she ought pot to be held liable because she did not prevent the effeot of on extraordinary act of nature, which she could not anticipate. In the late case of Nugent v. Smith (1 C. P. Div. 423) we held that a carrier might le protected from liability for a los occasioned by the Act of God, if the loss by no reasonable precaution could be prevented, although it was not a bsolutely possible to prevent it.

It was indeed ingeniously argued for the appeliant that at any rate the escape of the water was not owing solely to the Act of God, because the weight of the water origioally in the reeervoirs must have contributed to break down the dams as well as the extraordinary water brought in by the flood. We think, however, that the extraordinary quantity of water brought in by the flood ie in point of law the sole proximate cause of the escape of the water.

It is the last drop wbich makes the cup overflow.”


SECOND EXCEPTION. Aout her exception arises in the case where water is brought or kept upon his premises by the defendant, pot exclusively for his own purpose, but with the consent of the plainiiff, and likewise for his benefit. In such a case the defeodani is only liable for negligence. It usually finds its application in the stories of a building in the occupancy of different tenants, where water esca pes from an upper story. In like cases the water is brought upon the premises for the mutual benefit of the different occupants and with their express or implied consent.

In Carstairs v. Taylor (L. Rep. 6 Ex. 217) the plaintiff hired of the defendant the ground floor of a warehouse, the upper part of which was occupied by the defendant himself. The water from the roof was collected by gutters into a box, from which it was discharged by a pipe into the drains. A hole was made in the box by a rat, through wbioh the water entered the warehouse and wetted the plaintiff's goods. The defendant had ased rea-odatle care in examining and looking to the security of the gutters and the box. In an action for the damage co caused, it was beld that the defendant was pot liable, either on the ground of an implied contract or on the ground that he had brought the water to the place from wbich it bad entered the warebouse. The court held the defendant could only be liable in case he was guilty of negligence, since the roof was the common protection of both, and the collection of water running from it was also for their joint benefit.

In a New Brunswick case—that of Tennant v. Hall (27 N. B. Reports, p. 499)-the question underwent careful consideration. The plaintiff in this case leased from the defendant the ground floor of a building. The upper part of the building was occupied by the defendant. The roof was flat or nearly so. lo the centre was a box sunk into the roof into wbich the water drained. The water thus accumulated was conveyed by a pipe to the cellar and thence idio a rewer in the street. During a severe rainstorm, the pipe proving insufficient to carry off the water, it backed up and ran down through the building, and injured plaintiff's stock of goode. Verdict was fouod for defendant. On motion for a new trial, Mr. Justico King, after referring to the rule laid down by the House of Lorde in Rylands v. Fletcher, said: “This case is within the class of cases already alluded to, where a landlord in possession of part of the leased premises does 80 aot for th benefit of plaintiff, as one of his tenants, as well as for the benefit of himself and others of the tenants. In such case he is excused by the mere absence of wrongful act, or negligence, in the construction and maintenance of the work tbrough wbich the damage is caused. Now here there can be po doubt that the water was led away from the roof for the benefit of all the tenants (the plaintiff amongst others) as well as of the defendant. The roof was a common protection for all, and all were interested in the safe carrying a way of the water naturally falling upon it. Then, as to the absence of negligence in the construction and maintenance of the cistern and pipes, there was evidence on wbich the jury might indeed have found either one way or the other, but they have found in favour of the defendant, and no queetion is made as to the terms in which the learned judge left to the jury such question of negligence ; nor indeed do I perceive that any valid objection could be taken to the way in which it was so leit. I therefore think that the verdict should not be disturbed.”

THIRD EXCEPTION. The rule does 1.0t apply when the damage is the result of vis major or, as is generally expressed, the Act of God. Difficalty bas frequently arieen as to the interpretation of the pbrast, Act of God. Mr. Justice Brett's definition of what is termed the . Act of God” is fequently referred to as a model of precision and accuracy. He defines it as “ such a direct and violent and sudden and irresistible act of nature as could not by any amount of ability bave been tore. s'en, or, if forureen, could not by any amount of human care and skill have teen lenited

Chief Justice Sir jobn Allen of New Brunswick, in Tennanı v. Hall, defines vis major as a “ violent and irresistible act of Oature which

FOURTH EXCEPTION. In Nield et al. v. London and North-Western Railway Company (1874, L Rep. 10 Ex. 4) defendants were held not liable, under the following statement of facts. They were the owners of a canal dear a river. The canal, however, was not supplied with water from the river. Fearing an overflow of a flood of water from the river, during an extraordinary rainfall, they erected a barricade of planks in the canal above their premises. The overflow from the river broke into the oanal at a point above the barricade, and at a point opposite the plaintiff s premises, which were likewise situate on the banks of the canal above the premises of the defendanta. The water being penned baok by the obstruction flooded plaintiff's premises. The court, on appeal, found the defendants were not liable, since they had nothiog to do with bringing the water to the place where it did the injury complained of, and they were justified upon the principle of self-preservation to guard themselves the way they did against sudden and extraordinary casualties. Baron Bramwell said : " Therefore, on the ground that the defendants in sense brought the water, or caused it 10 come to the place where the damage bappe ned, but that it came by natural causes, tbat is, by a heavy fall of rain, and the overflowing of the river, the defendants had the right to protect themselves against it, and the plaintiffs cannot complain although what the detendants did in so protecting them. selves suggtated the damage to them."

Io flodgson v. Mayor of York (1873, 28 L. T. Rep. 836) it was held the owner of land was not liable for damage done his neighbour 10 consequence of the overflow of a stream, running through it, caused by the growth of weeds or the deposit of silt in its bed.

Where the owner of a coal mine, in bis operations, caused a sub idence of the surface, and a consequent flow of rainfall into an adjacent lower coal field, the injury arising from gravitation and percolation is not a valid ground for any claim of damages. See Wilson v. Waddell (1876, L. Rep. 2 App. Cas. 95).

In Giles v. Walker (1890) 24 Q. B. Div. 656) it was held no duty was cast upon an owner or ocou pier of land to cut thistles naturally growing thereon to prevent their seeding. It he do not cut them and the seeds were carried by the wind upon his neighbour's land and damage thereby caused he was not liable.

[ocr errors]

SUMMARY. 1. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, which renders one liable for accidental harm regardless of negligence or wrongful intent, is said to be one of the most important cases of absolute liability ricognised in our law.

2. Under this rule the occupier is not only liable for the acts of the members of his family, bis servants, bis guests, or licenszes permitted to use his laod, but, in addition, he is vicariously liable for the acts of an independent contractor, even though he acts in excess or disregard of his authority. See Black v. Christ Church Finance Company (1894) A. C. 48).

3. This rule of absolute liability extends to damage done by the trespass of the cattle of the owner or occupier of the land upon tbe ad jojping property of bis neighbour. See judgment of Chiet Justice Lord Coleridge in Ellis v. Loftus Iron Company 1874, L. Rep. 10 C. P. 10): “It has been held again and again that there is a duty on a map to keep bis cattle in, and if they get on another's land it is a tres pa 98 ; and that is irrespective of any question of negligence, whether great or small.”

4. It likewise applies to the case of one who brings upon a street or public highway anything dangerous or interferes with any dangerous tbing already there which causes damage to ad oining property, and this apart from any proof of negligence. See Midwood v. Mayor of Manchester (1905) 2 K. B. 597).

5. In the case of Hargroves Aronson and Co. v. Hartopp et al. (1905) 1 K. B., 472) defendants were held liable upon the following facts : Plaintiffs were tenants of the ground floor in a building of w bich tbe defendants were landlorde. The rain water from the roof was carried off by a gutter, the possession and control thereof being in defendants. The gutter having become stopped up, notice was given by plaintiffs to defendants that it required cleaning. Defendants neglected to act upon this notice. After the lapse of four or five days from receipt of the notice, plaintiffs suffered damage by reason of the rain water having found its way into their premises in consequence of the stoppage. Verdict was found for plaintiffs on the ground of negligence.

6. In Miller v. Hancock (1893) 2 Q. B. 177) tbe defendant, a landlord, was held liable to a person not a tenant for allowing the common stairway of rented premises to get into a defective condition, whereby the plaintiff suffered damage.

7. Formerly, for the accidental esos pe of fire from the premises of an ocoupier, or in the case of setting fires in clearing land or destroy. iog brushwood, in case of damage to peighbouring property, the lia bility was the same as for the escape of any other dangerous thing. The common law rule, however, is now virtually overborne by statutory enactments, the rules and regulations of cities, towng, and municipalities, with respect to keeping, setting, and guarding fires. See Filliler v. Phippard (1847) 11 Q. B., p. 347). Ač p. 354 Chief Justice Lord Denham is thus reported: “The ancient law, or rather oustom of England, appears to have been that a person in whose bouse a fire originated, wbjob afterwards spread to bis neighbour's property and destroyed it, must make good the lo88. Aod it is well establiebed that when the fire was occasioned by a servant's negligence, the owner, the master of the house where it begao, is answerable for the consequences to the sufferer.'

8. A landlord is liable for damage done for a nuisance existing at the time of the letting of the premises without taking any covenant from the tenant to prevent or discontioue it.

9. If a private puisance bas been in existence for twenty years oontiouously, a presoriprive right to continue it is acquired as an easement appartenant to the land. It is otherwise in regard to a public puisance which la pse of time cannot legalise.

10. Where a nuisance is caused in the exercise of statutory powers no action will lie if done without negligence. An action, however, will lie for doing that which the Legislature bas authorised if it cause damage and is done negligently. In Canadian Pacific Railway v. Parke (1899) A. C., (535) the court beld : Whether an act amount. ing to a puisanoe is justified or not by statute is a question of construction in each cace. When the terms of the statute confer an absolute power, wbich is exercised without negligence, the nuisance is justified. When the terms are permissive merely, the proper ipference is that the power must be exercised subject to the common law rights of other persons.


[ocr errors]

BALL (James), Rochdale. Nov. 21; D. Thompson, Rochdale.
BLAIR (Robert Cuthbert), Abbottabad, India. Oct. 11; Maddison,

Stirling, Humm. and Davies, 33, Old Jewry, E.C.
BURSILL (Louisa), Hove. Nov. 1; Stacpoole and Co., 7, Union-ct, Old

Broad-st, E.C. BERESFORD (Lieut.-Gen. Mostyn de la Poer), East Molesey. Oct. 15;

Wordsworth, Blake, and Co., 43, Bloomsbury-sq, W.C. BETTS (Jannette Wilson), Clifton. Sept. 30; Page and Thompson,

Bristol. BROOK (Fred), trading as Walker and Brook, Elland. Nov. 1; J. Ayrton,

Brighouse. BARKER (Emma), Bournemouth Oct. 7; Walker, Martineau, and Co., 36,

Theobald's-rd, Gray's-inn, W.C. BURNETT (Alice), South Shields. Sept. 21; Grunhut, Gill, and Ruddock,

South Shields. BURN (Helen), Liverpool. Nov. 3; Lloyds Bank Limited (Trustee Depart

ment), 71, Lombard-st. E.C., or the sols, Rogers and Birkett, Liver

pool. BATTERS (Mary Ann), Ilford. Oct. 16; Pettiver and Pearkes, 21, College

hill, E.C. Carr (Arthur), Blackpool. Oct. 28; C. H. Beech, Manchester. Cox (Maria Goodenough), Staplegrove. Nov. 15; Channer and Channer,

Taunton. Davis (Robert) and Davis (Harriett), Milverton. Claims against their

estates in respect of the carrying on of Preston Farm by H. Davis, and the trustees James Davis and George Skinner in respect of their carrying on the farm since the death of H. Davis. Oct. 12; G. H.

Kite, of Kite, Broomhead, and Kite, Taunton. Dear (John), Baldock. Oct. 15; Reynolds and Miles, 70, Basinghall-st. DEEKS (Harry Thomas), Sudbury. Nov. 1; Steed and Steed, Sudbury,

Suffolk. Duck (Edward George). Bournemouth, Bath, and Clifton, Bristol.

Nov. 6; Simmons, Collins, and Co., Bath. FLAXMAN (Samuel George), South Woodford and Stratford. Oct. 20;

Prestons, The Grove, Stratford. FAZAKERLEY (Edward), Liverpool. Oct. 16; W. H. Fazakerley, at the

offices of A. M. Hannay and Horton, Liverpool. FAULDING (Ann), Tenterden. Oct. 16; Sharp and Benest, 60, Watling-st,

S.E. GILMORE (Mary Caroline). Wilmington, Haywards Heath. Oct. 24; W. D.

Mercer, 27, Chancery-la. GRIGSON (Edward Snape), Westminster, S.W. Oct. 20; Allen and Son,

17, Carlisle-st, Soho-se, W. GoodMAN (Harris), Tipton. Oct. 4; Hooper and Fairbairn, Dudley. HURROLL (Elizabeth), Brighton. Oct. 1; Thomas Eggar and Co.,

Brighton. HARDY (Elizabeth), Alvaston. Oct. 14; W. Hollis Briggs. Derby. HOPKIN (Thomas), Ewenny. Oct. 15; E. W. Miles, Cowbridge, S.O.,

Glamorgan. HODDER (Abraham), Portland. Oct. 12; Andrews, Son, and Huxtable,

Dorchester. HAYMAN-JOYCE (John), Eastbourne. Oct. 16; Coles, Sons, and Tilburn,

Eastbourne. HUTCHINSON (Thomas), Clitheroe. Oct. 17; G. J. Holme, Clitheroe. HARPER (Frances Elizabeth), South Kensington. Oct. 13; C. R. Freeman,

at the offices of Freeman and Son, 30a, George-ot, Hanover-sq. W. Holmes (George Augustus Mortimer Leigh), Chelsea. Oct. 21; H. G.

Barnard, 160, York-rd, Lambeth, S.E. HAUGHTON (Elizabeth Susan Celeste Durant), Kensington. Oct. 14;

A. H. Procter, Ealing, W. Higham (Henry), Mincing-la, E.C., and Piccadilly Oct. 31; W. Car

penter and Sons, 5, Laurence Pointney-la, E.C. HURST (Ann), Great Haseley. Oct. 23; H. C. Johnson, Oxford. IRELAND (Ann), Horsham. Oct. 16; Coole and Haddock, Horsham. Jones (William), Glandwr, Llanfyllin. Oct. 20; T. D. Jones and (o.,

167-8, Fleet-st, E.C. JEBOULT (Caroline), Taunton. Oct. 12; G. H. Kite, of Kite, Broomhead,

and Kite, Taunton. JEFFES (Alice), Stockton Heath. Oct. 7; A. J. Willett. Warrington, JEFFES (John), Stockton Heath. Sept. 30; A. J. Willett, Warrington. Jones (Ann), Penarth. Oct. 15; Morgan, Bruce, and Nicholas, Ponty

pridd. KAY (James), Higher Bradshaw. Nov. 1; T. Y. Ritson, Bolton. Keys (Thomas), Derby, and KEYS (Emma). Oct. 19; R. Sale, Derby. KINGSLEY (Richard), Hitchin. Oct, 14; F. Shillitoe, Hitchin. KENNEDY (John), Tyne Dock, South Shields. Sept. 28; Grunhut, Gill, and

Ruddock, South Shields. LLOYD (David), Swansea and Ilston. Oct. 31; ('ollins and Woods,

Swansea. Lewis (Thomas), New Tredegar. Oct. 16; Lewis, Jones, and Co., Merthyr

Tydfil. LIAS (Mary), Bermondsey'. Oct. 9; Wilkinson and Son, 141, Bermondsey

st, SE LONGLEY (Ezra), Stockton-on-Tecs. Oct. 20, Faber, Fawcett, and Faber,

Stockton-on-Tees. Lewis (Philip), Bordesley. Oct. 21; Bickley and Lynex, Birmingham. LISCOMBE (John), Sutton. Oct. 24; London and South-Western Bank

Limited, 170, Fenchurch-st, E.C. Sol., J. Warburton, 70, Grace

church-st, E.C. LOVELL (Alfred Edmund), Ilford. Nov. 1; Mckenna and ('o., 31-31,

Basinghall-st, E.C. MAKIN (Sarah), East Fulwood. Oct. 14; Turner and Sons, Preston. MCNEILL (William), Ellesmere Port. Oct. 14; F. R. Wilson, Ellesmere

Port. Mills (Mary Maria Elizabeth), Bishop's Hall. Nov. 15; Channer and

Channer, Taunton. Moore (Sarah), West Hampstead, for some time resident in Shanghai

Nov. 16; Guedalla and Jacobson, Winchester House, Old Broad at.

E.C. NORTHUMBERLAND (Most Noble Eleanor, Dowager Duchess of), Stanwick,

Oct. 14; May, How, and Chilver, 19, Lincoln's-inn-flds, W.C. NEWTON (Isabel Owen), Ladybrand, Orange River Colony. Oct. 16;

('. F. Brown and Co., Birminghain OLIVER Edward), Haverstock Hill. Oct. 25; E. E. Brook, 1. Kings

Bench-walk, Temple. PEREIRA (Emily), Sanatorium de Collonge Commune des Planchas,

Montreux, Switzerland. Oct. 23; Farrer and Co., 66, Lincoln's-inn

fids, W.C. PROCTER (George), Dresden and Longton; or PROCTER (Ellen), Dresden.

Sept. 30; E. Patterson, Longton, Stoke-on-Trent. PRICE (Elizabeth), West Malvem. Oct. 31; Russell and Co., Malvern. ROBERTS (Mary Anne), Southbourne. Oct. 31; Soomes, Edwards, and

Jones, Lennox House, Norfolk-st, Strand, WC,
ROBERTS (Charles Robins), l'pper Tollington Park and Holborn. Oct. 16;

Rossiter und Odell, 37, Coleman-st. E.C.
REDHEAD (Edward), Wallsend. Oct. 31; W. Webb, Morpeth.





--Petition for winding-up to be heard Oct. 17, at Royal Courts of Justice. F. V. Robinson, 14, Bedford-row, W.C., sol. for pet. Notices

of appearance by Oct. 16. Borneo RUBBER AND Trading COMPANY LIMITED, -('reditors to send in, by

Oct. 28 to J. Baker, Eldon-st House, Eldon-st. Curwen and Carter,

1, Gray's-inn-sq, W.C., sols, to liquidator. Bevan LOCKNUT COMPANY LIMITED.--Petition for winding-up to be heard

Oct. 17, at Royal Courts of Justice. E. Flux, Leadbitter, and Neighbour, 144, Leadenhall-st, agents for Slater and Co., Darlaston, sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by Oct. 16, to E. Flux, Leadbitter,

and Neighbour. C'ASTARA ESTATES LIMITED.--Petition for winding-up to be heard Oct. 17,

at Royal Courts of Justice. Robbins and Co., 218, Strand, W.C., agents for Wilding, Son, and Bonney, Blackburn, sols. for pets.

Notices of appearance by Oct. 16. ELSWICK AUTOCARS LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Oct. 17

(previously advertised for Aug. 16), at Royal Courts of Justice. Mills, Curry, and Gaskell, 11, Queen Victoria-st, E.C., sols for pets.

Notices of appearance by Oct. 16. JOHN MILES AND CO. LIMITED.- Petition for winding-up to be heard

Oct. 11, at Brentford County Court, at 10. Bischoff, Coxe. Bompas, and Bischoff, 4, Great Winchester-st. E.C., sols. for pet. Notices of

appearance by Oct. 9. MYERS (ACCRINGTON) LIMITED.--Creditors to send in by Oct. 9, to E Hope,

20. Willow-st, Accrington. WARRINGTON STEEL FOUNDRY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Oct. 16,

to A. Taylor, 23. College-hill, Cannon-st, E.C. A. J. Greenop and ('o., Bush Lane House, Cannon-st, E.('., solg. for liquidator.


LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO Wuoy PARTICULARS TO RE SENI ALMITAGE (Lucie), Brixton-hill. Oct. 28; Heath and Eckersall, Chelten


ROBERTSON (Margaret), Wallington. Oct. 17: Bridgman. Willcocks,

Cowland, Hill and Bowman, 4, College-hill, Cannon-st, E.('. RainFORD (Ann), Shrewsbury. Oct. 31; Sprott and Morris, Shrewsbury. REED (John Hellins). Swansea. Sept. 27; C. V. Price, Swansea. RAVENSCROFT (Edward William), Torquay. Oct. 20; G. H. Hext, Torquay. STARKIE (Richard Stringer), Strand and Charing Cross. Oct. 31; Hamlins,

Grammer, and Hamlins, Legal and General-chmbrs, 9, Fleet-st, E.C. Sauth (Emily), Hendon. Oct. 21; E. W. Hobbs and Young. Brighton. Swanston (Charlotte Hannah), Worthing. Oct. 15; Knapp-Fisher and

Sons, 27, Buckingham-gate, Westminster, S.W. STAXDING (Elizabeth), West Bowling. Oct. 31, S. Wright, Morg'in, and

Co.. Bradford. Scott (Edmund), Greenhithe. Oct. 19; G. S. Scott. Dartford. TOMES (Fanny Rosetta), Leamington. Sept. 29; Field and Sons,

Leamington Vine (Michael), Hartland. Oct. 16; Hole, Peard, and Seldon, Bideford. WARD (Annie), Sydenham. Oct. 3; Humphreys, Nimmo, and Phillips,

38, Cranbourn-st, Charing Cross-rd. WATTS (David), Chesterton. Oct. 31; H. Copley, St. Ives, Hunts. WALTERS (William), Fynone, Swansea. Oct. 31; ('ollins and Woods,

Swansea. WOODWARD (Amelia Adams), Folkestone, Oct. 15; Manby and Brevitt,

Wolverhampton. Wall (Maria Sarah), Kenilworth. Oct. 20; Thomas, Guest, and Pearson,

Birmingham. WOODHAM (Henry), Twickenham, trading in partnership with Henry

Charles Wcodham as Woodham and Son. Creditors or creditors of executors and the said H. C. Woodham in respect of their trading at the Red Lion Hotel, Twickenham. Oct. 27: H. E. Adams,

Belgravia-chmbrs, 72. Victoria-st. Westminster, S.W. WOODLAND (James), Leicester. Oct. 20; G. Stevenson and Son, Leicester. WALKER (Henry), St. Bridgets. Oct. 31; Atkinson and Bennett. White.

haven. WARTNABY (Helen), Brighton. Oct. 21; E. W. Hobbs and Young,

Brighton. Young Rosalind Ada), Hove. Oct, 1; Thomas Eggar and ('o., Brighton.

with provisions of a scheme adopted in 1910 for the establishmenc of the board in Association with the Law Socie'y and the University of Wales in its constituent colleges. Tre statemen dealt with the provision of egal education during 1911-12 and appealed for a special grant from the council. It was realised that the grant made in September last to South Wales was in advance for 1911-12 and before the joint board came into existenoe, the first meeting of the latter being beld in April 1911. Consequently other centres desirous of establishing legal teaching for the current year had been prejudiced through no fault of their own.

Av a result of correspondence between the joint board and the Swansea Board, the latter, with the approval of the Law Society, had paid over to the joint board the grant of £200 received by them on condition that the number of lectures to be given at Swadeeg in 1911.12 should be not lewer than in previous years, and that the

at Aberystwith should be continued. Further, the Aberyst with and Swansea centres guaranteed the sum of £121 and the Cardiff centre about £100, which with the Law Society's grapt of £200 makes an approximate total of £420, tbus enabling the board, in addition to continuing the instruotion, previously given at the Aberyst with and Swansea centres, to provide for courees of law lectures during 1911-12 at Cardiff. In view of the special effort which is being made by the various centres as just mentioned, the board desire to indorse the appeal contained in an application of the Cardiff centro for a special grant for 1911-12. — Tim 8.



NOTES AND QUERIES. This column is intended for the use of members of the legal Profession, and

therefore queries from lay correspondents cannot be inserted. Under do

circumstances are editorial replies undertaken. None ar: inserted unless the name and address of the writer are sent, not

necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of bona fides.


[blocks in formation]


PROVINCIAL MEETING. The council of the Law Society bave settled the following course of procedure to be adopted at the tbirtv.sixth provincial meeting of the society, to be held on Tuesday and Wednesday noxt in the University College, Shakespeare-street, Nottingham; Mr. William John Humírys (Hereford), president :"On Tuesday the proceedinge will commerce at 10.30 a m. with the president's address, after wbich tbe following papers will be

The Relations of Labour and Law. Dixon 8. Davies (London).
The Poor Man's Lawyer. H. Greenwood Wriglev (Manchester).
The Tyranny of Officialdom. James W. Reid (London).
The National Insurance Bill: Some Legal Aspects. H. Kingsley

Wood (London).
Profession, Practice and Press. T. Holmes Gore (Bristol).
The meeting will close at 4.30 p.m.

read :

30. LEASE TO A TRADE UNION.-Can any of your readers direct me to a precedent of a lease to a trade union ? Apparently under the Trade Union Act 1871, 89.7 and 8, the leage should be made to the trustees; but will the union and its funds become thereby, As is desired, liable on the covenants in the lease? If so, would proceed. ings be taken under sect. 9 of the eame Act ?


On Wednesday the reading and discussion of papers will be resumed at 11.30 a.m.. as follows:

Ap Imperial School of Law. Walter G. Hart, LL.D. (London). The Land Transfer “ Soandal ” J. S. Rubinstein (London). Proposed Amendments in the Law Relating to County Courts.

Thomas Marsden (Blackburn). On the Desirability of giving Better Facilities to Claimants as

Heirs-at-Law or Next of Kin. G. E. Moger (Kendal). His Majesty's Commission of the Peace. J. A. Howard. Watson,

F.R.G.S (Liverpool). The Maritime Conventions. Sanford D. Cole (Bristol). Women : and the Unfair Position which they occupy at the Present

Time ; from a Legal Point of View; and a few Suggestions
as to where the Law should be Altered or Extended. J. W. F.

Jacques (Bristol).
The meeting will close at 4.30 p.m.


[ocr errors]

N.B. --It ia notified that the president may make such alteration in the order of tbe pa pers as he may tbink convenient.

CORRESPONDENCE. This department being open to free discussion on all Professional topics, the

Editor does not hold himself responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it. PUNCTUATION IN LEGAL DOCUMENTS.-An interesting subject for the consideration of conveyancers is that of punctuation in legal docu. ments, and particularly in wills. One was informed, at a very early period of one's legal training that stops should not be used in legal documente. So far as regards deede, Williams' Principles of the Law of Real Property says: “No one would wish the title to his estates to depend co the insertion of a comma or semicolon,” * By the aid of capitals” (ie, capital letters) “ the practised ege at once collects the sense ; wbilst at the same time the absence of stops rendere it next to impossible materially to alter the meaning of a deed without the forgery being discovered." In apotber passage the same learned writer speaks of " that repetition which is often necessary to exactness without the dangerous aid of stops.” In Hayes and Jarman's Concise Forms of Wills, 10th edit., p. 116, one reads: “ It is well known tbat from legal instruments punctuation and parenthe-es are excluded; or, if admitted, that they are disregarded in the construction of the instru. ment

But the writer adds: “ It would seem, however, that, in constru. ing wills, maris of punctuation occurring in the original, parentbeses, capital lettere, &o., may be taken into consideration. But it is from the words and the context, not from the punctuation, that the testator's meaning is to be collected ; though, where the words are of doubtful meaning, the punctuation and other circumstances may be referred to for the purpose of assisting in the explanation." In the footn tes the writer refers to a oumber of cases. It is subunitted that if it be dangerous for the drafeman to use stops when drafting deeds, it is equally dangerous for him to use stops when drafting wills; as in the copying of a will a stop might easily be omitted which even a careful exmination of the document might not detect. drafting a will, however, if one avoids the use of stope, one must, of necessity, make a judicious use of brackets or parenthe es and capital letters ; otherwise the meaning of a cluse may be difficult to nrcertain, or it may be capable of more than one construction. 11 the use of stops whould be avoided in wills, why do the clauses in many boks of precedents contain stops - stops which seem to make

[ocr errors]

LEGAL EDUCATION IN WALES. The first annual meeting of the Joint Board of Legal Education for Wales was held at Llandrindod Wells, on the 18th inst., Mr. R. S. Cleaver (Liverpool) presiding. Mr. R. S. Cleaver weg unanimously appointed president, Alderman Lewis Morgan vice-president, Mr. E. W. Jones (Swansea), treasurer, Mr. D. Lleufer Thomas, secretary. The following were co-opted : Mr. H. W. Spowart (Llanelly) Mr G. L. Stokes, jun. (Tenby), Mr. William George (Criccieth), Mr. Francis Nuno (Colwyn Bay). The executive committee was appointed as follows: Mr. Llewelyn Jones, Mr. A. C Mackintosh, Mr Dauncey, Mr. Hopley Pieroe, Principal Ro Jir. G. F. Colbourne, Mr. W. 1. Meredith, the officers to serve er officio.

The meeting approved" of a statement petting forth an application to be submitted to the council of the Law Society in accordance



the meaning of the clauses much clearer ? Who inserts these stops in the classes in the preoedents ? If they are not intended to be used by the draftsman, why do they appear in the forms in the books of precedents; and, if they are intended to be used by the draftsman, would it not be betier if the cleages of the forme could be made 80 clear, by the frame of the sentences and the judicious use of parentheses or brackets and capital letters, as to make the clauses carry out the intentions of the draftsman witbout the dangerous aid of stops ?

G. LAYCOCK BROWN. DISENDOWMENT.--I have only just seen Mr. Tilby's letter in the Law Times of the 29th July. He upbraids me because, in an article exclusively dealing with the Church of England, I did not write the history of various other Churobes-& somewhat fatuous criticism. He points out tbat the political opinions of many early Nonconformists were different from the political opinions of many present. day Nonconformists as to the desirability or otherwise of a State Church-which is true, but irrelevant. He furtber makes the astounding assertion that Free Church property is held on the same terms as State Church property. Here be is hopelessly incorrect. Methodist property, for instance, is held for the benefit of Methodists; and the rest of the community have no interest in the property and no legal claim on the services of Methodist ministers. But all State Church property, whether of ancient origin or only given yesterday, and whether

bestowed by the State or by private individuale, is held for the benefit of the whole public as territorially divided into parishes, dioceses, and provinces. Every parishioner (altogether apart from creed confirmation) has a legal right to claim the services of the parish clergy man, and a legal right to a seat in the parish church as long as the church is not full Until Mr. Tilby makes bimself acquainted with the elementary points of the difference between the Established Church and the Free Churches, I am afraid that his well-meant efforts will be of little service to your readers.


Institutes, from Book III., Tit. 13, to the end of Book III., and will deal with the following subjects : Definition, Dature, and source of an obligation ; Essential elements of a contract-Pactum, causa; Classi. fication of obligatione ex contracta; Contracts re; Standards of care. fulness and degrees of negligence; Innominate contracts; The contract verbis-Stipulatio ; Origin and antiquity of the Roman contracts; Practical applications of the stipulatio-Suretyship, novation; Grounds on which stipulations or other contracts might be, or become, void or voidable ; Contract literis-Expensilatio, cautio ; Consengual contracts ; Sale-Conditions as to consent, price, object; Doties (i.) of seller, (ii.) of buyer; Letting and hiring; Mandate ; Partnership; Obligations quasi ex contractu ; Pacta--(i.) Nuda, (ii.) Adjecta. (ii.) Praetoriana, (iv.) Legitima; Natural obligations ; Transferability of obligations ; Modes in which obligations might be discharged. The Assistant Reader's first lectores will be delivered on Monday, the 16th Oct., at twelve and three o'clock, and the lectures will be continued on subsequent Tuesdays at twelve o'clock and Mondays at twelve and three o'clock.


LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. TO SECRETARIES.--Reports of meetings should reach the office not later than inst

post Thursday morning to ensure insertion in the current number.


Reader, Mr. A. E. W. HAZEL. During Michaelmas Term the Reader proposes to deliver lectures on Constitutional Law, including the following subjects : The nature and province of constitutional law; The characteristics of the Britfsb Constitution; Constitutional law and constitutional custom ; Con. atitutions written and unwritten, flezible and rigid, unitary and federal ; The sovereignty of Parliament and its limits; The privileges of Parliament; The procedure of Parliament; The High Court of Parliament. The first lecture will be delivered on Tuesday, the 17h Oct., at three o'clock, and the lectures will be continued on subsequent Thursdaye at three o'clock, Fridays at twelve o'clock, and Tuesdays at three o'clock.

The Reader also proposes to lecture on Legal History, including the early history of the law of real property and of contracts, on Fridays at three o'clock, beginning on Friday, the 20th Oct. The Reader will be glad to see any gentleman who desires to consult him informally as to his reading, at the end of the first lectures or the first class. EVIDENCE, PROCEDURE (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL) AND CRIMINAL Law.

Reader, Mr. W. BLAKE ODGERS, K.C. Daring Michaelm 18 Term the Reader proposes to deliver lectures as follows:

“CRIMINAL LAW AND Procedure." On Mondays and Tuesdaye, at 2 p.m. (commencing Monday, the 16th Oct.), the Reader will give an elementary couree on Criminal Law. At the conclusion of this course-- probably on Monday, the 6th Nov.--the Reader will com. mence a course on Criminal Procedure, dealing especially with Pro. ceedings before Magistrates, Trial on Indictment, Punishment, Perdon, and the Court of Criminal Appeal.

“ Law of EVIDENCE AND Civil PROCEDURE.” On Wedoesdays, at pm.

(commencing the 18th Oot.), the Reader will deliver lectures on the Law of Evidence, dealing especially with Relevancy. On Thursdays, at 2 p.m. (commencing the 19th Oct.), tbe Reader will lecture on Civil Procedure in an Action in the Kiog's Bench Division. In the lectures on Criminal and Civil Procedure the subjecte will be treated practically, with illustrations takeu from actual de positions, indictments, writs, summonses. &c.


TERM 1911. The attention of students is particularly requested to the following resolution of the Council of Legal Education :

“All lectures will begin not later than five minutes after the appointed time as stated in the prospectus of lectures. At the expiration of five minutes after the appointed time the attendance book will be olosed and handed to the lecturer, and no further entry will be permitted to be made therein except by special leave of tbe lecturer obtained on application to him at the close of the lecture.”


Reader, Mr. J. PAWLEY BATE; Assistant Reader, Mr. S. H. LEONARD.

During Mjobaelmas Term the Reader proposes to deliver lectures as follows:-

I. ROMAN LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE. ---On Wednesdaye and Thursdays (at twelve o'clock) he will deliver a course of lectures on these subjects. The first lecture will be given on Wednesday, tbe 18th Oct. This course is so arranged as to cover in the educational year the topics ordinarily treated of in oommentaries upon the Institutes of Justinian, more attention being paid to the developed Roman law tban to the antiquities of Roman legal history. In particular the Reader compares the Roman with the English law, and shows the effect of Roman law upon legal systems of the present day; and in the course of the lectures the leading ideas and terms of legal systems in general will be explained and analysed. The following topics will be discussed in Michaelmas Term : (1) The main epochs of Roman legal history--Modern importance of Roman law; (2) Gaius and Justinian-- The Institutes, Digest, Code ; (3) Modes of development of law; 4) Status and capacity and family law.

II. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW.--On Wednesdays (at three o'clock) be will deliver a couree of lectures on this subject. The first lecture will be given on Wednesday, the 18th Oct. The following topics will be dealt with: (1) Nature of subject-Sources ; (2) The pergods of international law; (3) Territorial sovereignty-modes of extension, &c.

III. PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL Law.-On Thursdaye (at three o'clock) he will deliver a course of lectures on this subject. The first lecture will be given on Thursday, the 19th Oot. The following topios will be dealt with : (1) Nature of subject--The real and the personal statute ; (2) Domicil: general character and importanoeDomioil of origin and of choice ; (3) Family relatione --MarriagaMatrimonial régime as to property--Divorce--Legitimation.

During Michaelmas Term the Aosistant Reader proposes to deliver lootures on the Law of Obligationg ex Contraotu. In connection therewith he will discuss in detail the several tities of Justinian's


During Michaelmas Term the Reader proposes to deliver lectures as follows: On Mondays and Tuesdays, “ Settled Land Acte." The firet lecture will be delivered on Monday, the 16th Oot., at four o'clock, and the lectures will be continued at the same hour on subsequent Tuesdays and Mondays. On Thuredays and Fridays, “ Elements of Real Property, commencing as follows: Future Estates in Land--Reversions -- Remainders—Executory interests ; Per. petuities ; Accumulations. The first lecture will be delivered on Thursday, the 19th Oct., at four o'clock, and the lectures will be continued at the same hour on subsequent Fridays and Thursdays. The Reader will be in his chambers, 3, Stone-buildings, Lincolo's-inn, on Monday, the 16th Oct., from 5 to 6 p.m., and will then, and aleo at the close of bis first or any other lecture, be glad to advise any gentlemen as to their course of reading, do

During Micbaelmas Term tbe Assistant Reader proposes to deliver lectures on " Wills and Succession on Death.” The first lecture will be delivered on Tuesday, the 17th Oot., at twelve o'clock, and the lectures will be continuet on subsequent Wednesdays at our o'clock, Thursdays at five o'clock, and Tuesdays at twelve o'clock,

COMMON LAW. Reader, Mr. Hugh FRASER ; Assistant Reader, Mr. J. G. PEASE,

During Michaelmas Term the Reader proposes to deliver lectures as follows : On Mondays, “Principles of the Law of Contract (illustrated by Leading Cases). Essential elements of a contract; Classification of contracta : Contracts of record and under seal: Simple contracts and con. sideration ; Contracts required by law to bo in writing. The first lectures will be delivered on Monday, the 16th Oct., at ten and five o'clock, and the lectures will be continued at the same hours on subsequent Monday8. On Fridare, "Elements of the Law of Tort." Torta distinguished from crimes and breaches of contract : Damnum eine injuria Tojuris sine damo0 ; Torts generally ; Recovery of land ; Trespass

« EelmineJätka »