« EelmineJätka »
is called upon by the Chancery Courts and the Land Commission to do a considerable amount of outside work. The number of writs of summons in the King's Bench Division issued in 1910 was 14,540, the number in 1909 being 15,020, and 15,960 in 1908. The number of appeals from the Recorder of Dublin was sixty-eight, thirty-four of which were affirmed, seventeen reversed, and seventeen settled or struck out. The corresponding numbers in 1909 were sixty-nine, thirty-six, twenty-one, and twelve. There has been a decrease also in the business in the Registry of Judgments Office, the number of judgments, revivals, lis pendens, and English and Scotch judgments registered being 4561 against 4633 in 1909. The number of recognisances and Crown bonds registered and re-registered was 223, the number in 1909 being 272. The number of negative searches in that office during the year was 2736, the number in the previous year being 3824. The figure representing the executions issued out of the King's Bench Offices was 4604, and that representing the judgments registered was 2861. The corresponding figures for the previous year were 4771 and 3216.
It appears from these valuable statistical tables that whilst business in the High Courts has been decreasing, the work of the Local Registration of Title Office has been booming. This, of course, is accounted for by the fact that registration of land in this office in the case of sales under the Land Purchase Acts is compulsory. It is true that voluntary registration of title in this office is not increasing, but the number of cases for registration lodged by the Land Commission during the year was 16,471, the number in 1909 being 15,199. The numbers of deeds (including judgment mortgage affidavits) registered in the Registry of Deeds during the last four years were 34,002 (1910), 34,857 (1909), 31,074 1908), and 31,051 (1907). The costs claimed and allowed by the taxing masters amounted to £261,441 and £224,647 respectively. The corresponding amounts for 1 were £265,455 and £232,201. It is satisfactory to observe that while the number of bills of sale was 256 in 1909, in 1910 it was only 202. The Principal Registry issued 3813 grants of probate and administration last year and 3687 in the previous year; the total amounts of fees received in the two years were £9948 and £9520. The estimated value of the property on which estate duty was paid in 1909 was £12,424,029 and in 1910 £13,893,751.
BANKRUPTCY business in the Dublin, Belfast, and Cork courts remained during the year more or less stationary. In the Court of Appeal, the number of judgments delivered was 152. eighty-nine of these cases the judgment below was affirmed; in fifty-six it was reversed; and in seven it was varied. The number of days in which the Court of Appeal sat was 104. In the District Probate Registries the number of grants of probate and administration made in 1909 was 6739 and in 1910, 7228. The total amounts of fees received in those years were £12,135 and £12,722. On circuit, the number of appeals from County Court judges which were entered was 2658, the number in the preceding year being 3017 and in 1908 2757. The causes entered for trial on circuit numbered 144 in 1910 and 152 in 1909. These statistics give a considerable amount of information with reference to business in the County Courts, which seems to be mainly business relating to ejectments. In the courts of petty sessions the total summonses issued were 110,564, being 2984 below the number for the preceding year.
LOCAL government in Ireland, according to the Local Government Board, is proceeding smoothly and harmoniously. The collection of the poor rate for the past year has been on the whole satisfactory and shows a considerable improvement on previous years.' The various county councils now fully realise the necessity for a prompt collection of the poor rate in order to meet their own expenses and the demand of the various local authorities. The board reports that "increased interest continues to be shown in the efficient and economical maintenance of public roads." The advantages of steam rolling are now widely recognised throughout the country. About 120 steam rollers are in use in Ireland, and of these more than two-thirds are employed by twenty county councils on rural roads. Definite grants have been offered by the Road Board to the Irish county councils towards the improvement of certain leading roads in each county. About 220 applications for extension of time under sect. 51 (7) of the Local Government Act 1898 for the payment by local authorities of accounts due out of the poor rate which have not been discharged within the statutory period were granted by the Local Government Board in the year ended the 31st March 1911. The report contains a considerable amount of information as to motor-car traffic in Ireland. In several instances special orders were made as to speed where the surface of the roads was not sufficiently strong for heavy and continuous traffic. In one instance, in the Killarney district, an order was made limiting the driving of motor vehicles to a speed of six miles an hour. During the year the Irish Automobile Club was authorised, in pursuance of the Motor Car (International Circulation) Order 1910, temporarily to carry out the duties of the examination of motor-cars and drivers intending to travel abroad, and to issue international travelling passes available in those countries in which the procedure is recognised. In connection with the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act 1908, the board deals with the question of assignments of farms by old persons. "Marriage assignments, we considered, would in
most cases have been made whether the Old Age Pensions Act existed or not, while other assignments, except in rare instances, were in all probability carried out with the object of getting pensions. We fear, however, that our exemption of marriage assignments from the operation of sect. 4 (3) has led to what in former times was only the custom in certain localities becoming an almost universal practice."
COMMENTS ON CASES.
CONSIDERING how very large a proportion of the purveyors of food and drugs who are carrying on an extensive trade are limited companies incorporated under the Companies Acts, it would be a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs if sect. 20 (6) of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 51) were held to be inapplicable to them. That section would certainly have called for prompt amendment were it possible to come to any other conclusion as to its true meaning than that which was arrived at by the Divisional Court in the recent case of Chuter v. Freeth and Pocock Limited (105 L. T. Rep. 238). The sub-section provides that: 'Every person who, in respect of an article of food or drug sold by him as principal or agent, gives to the purchaser a false warranty in writing shall be liable on summary conviction" to certain specified penalties, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court that when he gave the warranty he had reason to believe that the statements or descriptions contained therein were true." In the present case a limited company, carrying on business as wholesale milk contractors, gave a written warranty to a purchaser of milk from it concerning the quality of the goods sold. The purchaser retailed the milk thus obtained by him to, among others, an agent of an inspector for the purpose of analysis. The public analyst having certified that the milk was deficient in quality, an information was laid against the retail dealer, who successfully established, under sect. 25 of the Act, that he had purchased the milk from the wholesale company with a written warranty as to its nature, substance, and quality. An information was thereupon laid against the company for having given a false warranty. But the magistrate declined to convict, because he was of opinion that the offence with which the company was charged could only be committed by a " able to person 'believe that the statements or descriptions contained in the warranty were true." As a corporation had no mind, it was not, he thought, capable of exercising the faculty required by the sub-section. On a case stated by the magistrate, it was contended before the Divisional Court, consisting of Lord Alverstone, C.J. and Justices Pickford and Lush, that he had formed an erroneous view of the statutory provision, as mens rea was not necessary; and that a corporation, through its servants, could have such a belief as is indicated by the sub-section. The narrow view of the sub-section taken by the magistrate did not commend itself to the Divisional Court, for, as was said by the Lord Chief Justice, if a corporation can give a warranty, there is no reason why it should not be able to "believe," through its His servants, that the statements contained therein are true. Lordship, therefore, could see no reason why the defence given by sect. 20 (6) of the Act of 1899 should not also apply to a corporaBearing in mind the provision of sect. 2 (1) of the Interpretation Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63)-that "in the construction of every enactment relating to an offence punishable on indictment or summary conviction the expression 'person' shall, unless the contrary intention appears, include a body corporate "the decision of the Divisional Court seems, beyond all doubt, correct. The concluding words of sect. 20 (6) of the Act of 1899 can scarcely be relied upon as showing a "contrary intention." Long before the passing of the Interpretation Act 1889, the view was that prima facie the word "person," in a public statute, includes a corporation as well as natural person: (see per Lord Selborne, L.C. in Pharmaceutical Society v. London and Provincial Supply Association Limited, 43 L. T. Rep. 389: 5 App. Cas. 857). And in numerous subsequent cases it has been held that " person" includes an incorporated company. But the case that was regarded as an authority directly in point was one decided by the Divisional Court, consisting of Lord Alverstone, C.J. and Justices Darling and Channell, in the year 1902, and turning upon the provisions of sect. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63). That was the case of Pearks, Gunston. and Tee Limited v. Ward (87 L. T. Rep. 51; (1902) 2 K. B. 1), and there it was held that a limited company, incorporated under the Companies Acts, could be convicted, under sect. 6 of the Act of 1875, for selling an article of food not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded by the purchaser. It was pointed out by Mr. Justice Channell that, by the general principles of the criminal law, if any matter is made a criminal offence, there is imported into it that there must be something in the nature of a mens rea, so that in ordinary cases a corporation could not be guilty of a criminal offence. But, as his Lordship remarked, there are exceptions to that in the case of acts forbidden by law under a penalty. The decision being what it was in Ward's case (ubi sup.), the Divisional Court had no course open but to decide as they did in the case now under discussion.
COPNALL ON LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS.-Post 8vo., price 3s. 6d. -HORACE COX, "Law Times" Office, Bream's-buildings, E.C.[ADVT.]
REFERRING to the precedent of a conveyance of land to a municipal corporation for statutory purposes (ante, p. 314), a correspondent questions the necessity in such a case for a recital that the purchase money shall include (1) the value of all mines and minerals, and (2) compensation for severance and damage, &c., done by the corporation; and we agree with our correspondent that prima facie such recitals are unnecessary, as, except in the case of a conveyance to a railway company, mines and minerals would pass without being specially mentioned, and, with regard to the compensation for damage by severance, &c., sect. 63 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, which deals with that, seems only to apply to compulsory purchase. It may be that in the case of the precedent in question there was a written contract which contained the allusion to the mines and minerals and damage by severance; or it is possible that the special Act under which that conveyance was made rendered the aforesaid recitals advisable. Another correspondent, referring to the same precedent, objects to the habendum being made to the corporation and their assigns in fee simple," and he suggests that Hood and Challis in the note to sect. 51 (1) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881 question the applicability of the words "in fee simple to a corporation. But that is not quite so. The learned authors of that work (7th edit., p. 145) say: The statutory words [that is, the words "in fee simple"] are upon a strict construction only applicable in substitution for the old word heirs'; and therefore it is a question whether they may be used in substitution for the words successors in a limitation a corporation sole." A municipal corporation, however, is a corporation aggregate, and in such a case the word "" successors is not necessary. In Coke upon Littleton (vol. 1, 946, 18th edit.) the law is thus stated : For in case of an abbot or prior and covent regularly a fee simple doth not passe without this word [successors]: for the diversity standeth thus between a corporation aggregate of many capable persons and a sole corporation. As if lands be given to a deane and chapter, they have a fee simple without this word [successors], for that the body never dies; but if lands be given to a bishop, parson, or any other sole corporation, who after their deceases have a succession, there without this word [successors] nothing passeth unto them but for life. But of corporations aggregate of many there is a diversity when the head and body both are capable, as in the case of deane and chapter, and when one (as hath been said) is only capable, as in case of abbot or prior and covent.' It may be true. as stated in Wolstenholme's Conveyancing and Settled Land Acts, 9th edit, in a note to the said sect. 51, that it does not apply to conveyances to corporations; but that does not render the words "in fee simple" inapplicable to such conveyances, as a corporation aggregate can hold a fee simple. In the new edition of Prideaux's Precedents (vol. 1, p. 524) the form of habendum in a conveyance to a municipal corporation is the same as in the precedent (ante, p. 314)-namely, "Unto and to the use of the Corporation and their assigns in fee simple." We quite agree that the words "in fee simple are not necessary, but it is submitted
that they are not incorrect or inadvisable, as suggested by our correspondent.
PERHAPS few branches of the law have of recent years been more frequently the subject of judicial decision than that relating to restrictive covenants. One of the latest cases on the point is that of Wilkes v. Spooner and another (104 L. T. Rep. 911; (1911) 2 K. B. 473), in which it was decided that the purchaser of land from one who has purchased it for value without notice, either actual or constructive, of a restrictive covenant is not bound by the covenant, although he himself had notice of it. The facts were shortly as follows: The defendant, I. J. Spooner, was lessee of No. 137, High-street, East Ham, for twenty-one years from the 29th Sept. 1903. By the lease he had covenanted not to carry on upon the premises any noisy or offensive trade other than that of a pork butcher. He was also lessee, under a different landlord, of No. 170, High-street, in which he carried on the business of a general butcher. He sold and assigned to the plaintiff his interest in No. 170, High-street, and the goodwill of his business of a butcher, and covenanted with the plaintiff that he would not carry on the business of a butcher within three miles of No. 170, High-street, and, further, that he would not " cut, sell, or deal in fresh hindquarter beef, mutton, veal, lamb, or poultry at or upon the premises No. 137, High-street, East Ham aforesaid, or in connection with the business of a pork butcher now carried on there by him.' The said I. J. Spooner subsequently gave up the business of a pork butcher and surrendered his lease of No. 137 to the landlord, and a new lease was granted to his son, G. L. Spooner, which lease contained a covenant restraining the lessee from carrying on any noisy or offensive trade other than that of a butcher. The said G. L. Spooner was aware of the restrictive covenant entered into by the father with the plaintiff in respect of No. 137, High-street, but the landlord, when he accepted the surrender, had not in fact. notice of such covenant. The said G. L. Spooner afterwards reopened No. 137, and carried on there the business of a general butcher. Thereupon the plaintiff brought this action, claiming (1) against the said I. J. Spooner damages for breach of covenants contained in the assignment to the plaintiff, and (2) against the said I. J. Spooner and G. L. Spooner an injunction to restrain them from cutting, selling or dealing in fresh hindquarter beef, mutton, veal, lamb, or poultry at No. 137, High-street. The judge
of first instance gave judgment against I. J. Spooner for £60 damages for breach of covenants by him to use his best endeavours to promote the business at No. 170 and not to assist any other person to carry on the trade of a butcher within three miles of No. 170, and against G. L. Spooner for an injunction as asked; but that judgment was reversed on appeal. The Court of Appeal thought that the landlord had no notice, constructive or otherwise, of the covenant entered into by the father in respect of No. 137, and that he became, therefore, upon the surrender free to deal with the property unincumbered from any equity arising therefrom. The principle on which the decision turned is an old one. In Lowther v. Carlton (2 Atk. 242) Lord Chancellor Hardwicke said: "It is certainly the rule of this court that a man who is a purchaser with notice himself from a person who bought without notice may shelter himself under the first purchaser, or otherwise it would very much clog the sale of estates." Again, in Sweet v. Southcote (2 Br. C. C. 65) the bill was to discover whether the defendant, who was assignee of a mortgage, had not notice that the original mortgagor was only tenant for life, stating that the title deed by which this appeared was in the defendant's hands. defendant pleaded that he was assignee of the mortgage for valuable consideration, and through many assignments from persons who had no notice. It was argued that this plea was not good, for it should have stated whether the defendant personally had notice. But the court allowed the plea, for whether the defendant had or had not notice was immaterial if those through whom he claimed had not, he having a right to avail himself of their being purchasers without notice. As stated by Lord Justice Farwell in his judgment in Wilkes v. Spooner, the authorities rest upon the ground that, in justice to the owner of land who had no notice when he acquired the land, it would not be right to hamper his power of dealing with his own land because certain persons, who possibly would be the only customers for the land likely to pay the best price, have such notice. The same principle was followed in Barrow's case (14 Ch. Div. 445).
To-day (Saturday) In the Matter of Hall's Charity, Severn Commissioners v. Trustees of Hall's Charity and others (special case), will be in Mr. Justice Warrington's list at 10.30.
On Monday next the following matter will be in Mr. Justice Neville's list: Birkbeck Permanent Benefit Building Society (petition of the society and the liquidator); Same (Court Summons No. 11-on classes of claimants).
In the Divisional Court the case of Smith v. Newman (Registration Appeal) will be taken on Tuesday, the 24th inst.
The Special Paper will be taken on Tuesday, the 24th inst. Appeals from County Courts will be heard by a Divisional Court, sitting in Bankruptcy, on Monday next.
Bankruptcy motions will be heard by Mr. Justice Phillimore after the Divisional Court on Tuesday next, and continued (if necessary) on Wednesday.
Mr. Justice Bray, Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence, and Mr. Justice Hamilton have been elected to serve as election judges during the next twelve months.
Mr. Justice Bargrave Deane has announced his intention of sitting every week-day until 4.30 p.m. instead of 4 p.m. this term, except Saturdays, when there will be no sitting.
Mr. Justice Avory will leave London on Monday next, the 23rd inst., for Carlisle, on the Northern Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day. He will go the circuit alone until Liverpool is reached on Tuesday, the 31st inst., when he will be joined by Mr. Justice Lush.
The Michaelmas Quarter Sessions for cases arising in the county of Middlesex will commence to-day (Saturday) at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, at ten o'clock.
The October adjourned Quarter and General Sessions for cases arising on the north and south sides of the Thames will commence on Tuesday next, the 24th inst., at the Sessions-house, Newington, at 10.30.
The Inns of Court Michaelmas term will commence on Thursday, the 2nd prox., and will end on Saturday, the 25th Nov. Friday, the 17th prox., will be the "call night of the term at the four
Inns of Court.
On Monday next congratulations fall to Mr. Justice Grantham on his attaining his seventy-sixth year of age, he having been born on the 23rd Oct. 1835.
Lord Robert Cecil, K.C., was on Monday elected chairman of the Hertfordshire Quarter Sessions, in place of his brother, Lord Salisbury, who has resigned.
Sir John Macdonell, Quain Professor of Comparative Law, began on Wednesday at University College a course of lectures on the chief systems of legal procedure as illustrated by certain trials.
The Lord Chancellor, who was the chief guest at the Cutlers' Feast at Sheffield on Tuesday, opened on Wednesday an extension of the Teachers' Training College, a new men's hostel, and a new wing of the women's hostel.
At Cambridge Assizes on the 14th inst. Mr. Justice Lawrance was presented by the circuit officers and members of the Bar present with a silver-gilt bowl, a silver-gilt pot-pourri vase, and an illuminated address on the occasion of his golden wedding. The presentation was made by Mr. Arthur Denman, the Clerk of Assize.
Mr. Francis Raleigh Batt, who has been appointed Law Lecturer at University College, Aberystwyth, has been one of the best-known and most successful of the Law Society's students during the past two years. He was bracketed first in the Society's Final Examination held in June last, and awarded half the Clement's inn and Daniel Reardon prizes.
Mr. H. Mansfield Robinson, LL.D., who recently resigned the Town Clerkship of Shoreditch to become Clerk to the Income and Land Tax Commissioners for East London, was presented with his portrait in oils on Monday last by a number of subscribers, in recognition of his services to the borough for twenty years. He also received an address of thanks from the borough council.
The autumn meeting of the London Solicitors' Golfing Society was held at Northwood on Wednesday. The captain's prize for the best aggregate scratch scores of the summer and autumn meetings was won by Mr. A. J. Mitchell with a return of 161; the society's prize (eighteen holes under handicap) by Mr. C. J. Fox with 76 net; and the prize for the best net score for nine holes by Mr. C. F. Jupp with 37.
Mr. W. E. Horne, M.P., president of the Surveyors' Institution, will give his opening address in the enlarged lecture hall of the Institution, 12, Great George-street, Westminster, on Monday, Nov. 13. The portrait of Lord Alverstone, for twenty-five years associate of the council, will be unveiled on that occasion, and the gold medal for the best paper read during the previous session will be presented to Mr. E. H. Blake for his paper entitled "Some Notes on Highway Law as Affecting Property Owners."
A special session was held on the 12th inst. for the purpose of fixing the days for holding the sessions of the Central Criminal Court during the legal year. The Lord Mayor presided, and there were present Mr. Justice Bray, Mr. Justice Scrutton, Mr. Justice Hamilton, and Mr. Justice Lush. The clerk of the court announced that the sittings would begin on the following days: Tuesdays, Nov. 7, Dec. 5, Jan. 9, Jan. 30, Feb. 27, March 19, April 23, May 14, June 11, and July 2; Monday, July 22; and Tuesdays, Sept. 10 and Oct. 8.
At Carnarvonshire Assizes on Friday last week several Welsh jurymen having been called upon to take the English oath declared their inability to do so owing to an imperfect knowledge of the language. Mr. Justice Channell, in insisting upon the retirement of three of the men, remarked that he had not experienced that difficulty before, and jurymen could scarcely have become more ignorant than when he was last there. It looked like a desire to get out of the work, unless the new form of oath was responsible for the difficulty. He feared that he would have to try cases with ignorant men if he failed to get sensible ones.
A Paris contemporary has been instructing its readers upon the specialities of the various foreign delinquents who come before the criminal courts in the French capital. English and Americans, we read, generally have to answer charges of picking pockets; Russians Turks have to and Spaniards are swindlers. answer acts of violence, and Belgians fraud and forgery. The Italian is generally charged with unlawful wounding; the Arab with offences against decency. The Hungarian is noted for mendicity and the white slave traffic. The German speciality is usury or trade cheating.
The roll of avocates of the Paris Bar numbers nineteen in all. Each "promotion now includes its avocate, and the latest addition is the name of Mlle. Jeanne Elise Porel, who obtained her licentiate in July last. The lady was sworn in before M. Bonnet, who presided in the First Chamber of the Court of Appeal. Another triumph of feminisme is the appointment of Mlle. Clotilde Luisi as an attachée to the Uruguayan Legation in Brussels. This lady possesses the doctor's degree in law from the University of Montevideo.
Mr. E. T. Dale (Middle Temple) will open a debate of the Henn Collins Literary and Debating Society upon The Referendum the Inns of Court Mission Institute and Working Men's Club, Drury-lane, on Wednesday, at 8.30 p.m. The meeting is open to the public, and those attending are invited to take part in the proceedings. Mr. R. E. Willcocks (Middle Temple) has accepted the office of chairman for the ensuing session. Mr. H. C. Gutteridge (Middle Temple), who has just resigned, held the position for three and a half years, and was never absent at any one of the weekly meetings.
Under the Home Secretary's new regulations for convict prisons between 600 and 700 convicts at Parkhurst Prison on Wednesday attended at the prison chapel to hear a lecture given by Mr. Norman Carr. The lecture was entitled "The Wonders of Nature," and was madé more interesting by experiments and illustrations. The work of completing the first portion of the new prison for habitual criminals at Parkhurst is being pushed forward with a view to the reception of the first batch of prisoners early in the new year. Nearly 100 acres of Parkhurst Forest are being utilised for the new prison. A dining-hall is a feature of the new buildings, and here the convicts will have their food in company, instead of in separate cells, as in the ordinary convict prisons.
An appeal on a special case stated by an arbitrator under the Workmen's Compensation Act was decided at Clerkenwell County Court on Wednesday. The arbitrator had proposed by his award to order that the workman should pay the employers their costs of the arbitration, and that, pursuant to rule 18, sub-sect. 7, of the Act, those costs should be set off against their weekly compensation payable to the workman under the award until such costs were satisfied and discharged. The judge held that the employers' costs could not be set off against the compensation awarded to an injured workman, and referred to the Scotch case (Rosewell Gas Company v. M'Vicar), in which it was held that the object of the Act was to secure that the injured workman should have for his subsistence the sum awarded to him, and it was not to be entrenched upon in any way. The matter was referred back to the arbitrator.
A question of taxi-cab law was decided by M. Lenoir de Tourteauville, juge de paix of the 17e arrondissement of Paris, last week. A taxi driver summoned his fare for 75 centimes, the minimum fare registered on the dial of the meter. In this instance, as soon as the cab started the flag was lowered and 75 centimes registered. Some of the companies carry 900 mètres for this amount, and others only 600 mètres-that would be either 975 yards or 650, as the case might be. Before either of the distances was anything like covered, the taxi-cab came to a standstill, and, as the fare was in a hurry, he engaged another vehicle. The driver of the cab which came to grief claimed 75 centimes, the sum registered, but the fare declined to pay. The court has decided that the driver was only entitled to recover such a fraction of 75 centimes as would represent the distance covered at the time of the accident.
The first meeting of the Union Society of London for the session 1911-12 was held on the 18th inst. at 3, King's Bench-walk, Temple. The president, Mr. A. A. Eustace, occupied the chair. The motion for debate was : That in the opinion of this House the continued failure of England to interfere on behalf of Turkey in the present European war is menacing to the safety of our Mohammedan Empire and to the peace of Europe." Mr. A. Stone Hurst opened, and Mr. W. R. Willson opposed. The following also spoke : For the motionMessrs. George F. Kingham, H. J. Cape, E. St. Clair Miller, R. Safford, and L. Hope Centeno. Against the motion-Dr. Abel, Messrs. H. R. Stables, F. Harrison Bellamy, J. Guy Baker, Louis Moses, W. G. Beaumont Edmonds, and W. Arthur Bright. The motion was declared lost by six votes. The society will hold its second meeting of the session on Wednesday next, the 25th inst., at the Inner Temple Lecture Room, No. 3 (North), King's Bench-walk, at eight o'clock. The subject for discussion will be: "That the recent unrest in the labour world has made the immediate repeal of the Trades Disputes Act imperative." Mr F. Ennis will open the discussion, and the motion will be opposed by Mr. H. J. Cape.
NOTES OF RECENT DECISIONS NOT YET REPORTED.
BY OUR REPORTERS IN THE SEVERAL COURTS
COURT OF Employer and Workman-Injury by Accident-Compensation— Accident arising out of and in the Course of the Employment" Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 1.An arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 was requested between the applicant and the respondents as to the amount of compensation payable to the former under that Act in respect of the personal injury caused to him by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The applicant was engaged as house surgeon at an infirmary. Having occasion to use an X-ray apparatus in certain cases, and being unaware as to the exact period of exposure required, the apparatus not having long been introduced at the infirmary, the applicant voluntarily allowed himself to be experimented upon by the apparatus being tried on his own arm. The result was that his arm was seriously injured by a sore that was caused on the same, in respect of which injury compensation was claimed by the applicant. It was decided by the County Court judge that the injury was not caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment of the applicant. The applicant appealed. Held, that, assuming that the applicant was a "workman" within the meaning of the Act, which point did not arise in the circumstances, the decision of the County Court judge was right. Appeal dismissed.
[Curtis v. Talbot. Ct. of App. Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Fletcher Moulton and Farwell, L.JJ. Oct. 16. Counsel : for the appellant, Milward; for the respondents, Joy. Solicitors: for the appellant, W. H. Martin and Co.; for the respondents, Helder, Roberts, and Co.]
Employer and Workman-Injury by Accident-Compensation— Accident arising out of and in the Course of the Employment' Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 1.-An arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 was requested between the applicant and the respondent as to the amount of compensation payable to the former under that Act in respect of the personal injury caused to him by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The applicant was
a casual labourer in the employment of the respondent, who was a farmer, and was employed on different farms belonging to the respondent, one of which was called F. Farm. To a more distant farm the workmen were conveyed in a van belonging to the respondent, but no conveyance of any kind was provided in respect of F. Farm, and it was no term of their employment that any such should be provided. The workmen had to get to this farm and return from it as best they could. Having finished his work at F. Farm on the 3rd Oct. 1910, the applicant was proceeding to K. Farm (close to which the respondent lived) for the purpose of receiving his day's pay and to inquire about the work for next day. The distance to be covered was about two miles by road. There was a shorter route by a pathway through the fields, but the applicant did not appear to have known of it. Finding an empty dung cart belonging to the respondent returning towards K. Farm, the applicant proceeded to get into it. As he was doing so the horse started, and the applicant was thrown out of it, sustaining injuries to his arm which incapacitated him for work. The workmen not unfrequently returned in such an empty cart, and this fact was known to the respondent. Under these circumstances His Honour Judge Shortt made an award in favour of the respondent, considering himself bound by the decision in Davies v. Rhymney Iron Company (16 Times L. Rep. 329). The applicant appealed. Held, that the fact that the cart into which the applicant attempted to get was the respondent's own cart did not make any difference; and that it was no part of the applicant's contract of service that he should go to the respondent's farm by a cart, and he had no right thus to add unnecessarily to the risk of the respondent, who was not thereby rendered liable to pay the applicant compensation in respect of the injury sustained by him. Appeal dismissed.
[Parker v. Pout. Ct. of App. Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Fletcher Moulton and Farwell, L.JJ. Oct. 16.-Counsel: for the appellant, Horace Fenton; for the respondent, Cox-Sinclair. Solicitors for the appellant, J. Scott Duckers; for the respondent, R. L. Butler, agent for Burch and Brooks, Canterbury.] Employer and Workman-Accident-Compensation-Payment on Production of Certificate from Medical Man-Implied Agreement -Registration-Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58). On the 26th Aug. 1909 a workman met with an accident, and his employers intimated that they would pay him half his weekly wages on production every fortnight of a certificate from the medical man attached to the works that he was still totally disabled. More than a year afterwards the man failed to produce this certificate, and in Jan. 1911 applied, under sched. 2, par. 9, to have a memorandum of agreement between his employers and himself registered by which the employers agreed to pay him the amount of half his weekly wages every week from the date of the accident." The County Court judge ordered the agreement to be registered. Held, that there was no evidence from which an agreement such as the workman applied to have registered could be inferred, the only agreement being to pay him so long as he produced the above-mentioned certificate from the medical man, and therefore the registration must be vacated.
[Phillips v. Vickers, Son, and Maxim. Ct. of App. CozensHardy, M.R., Fletcher Moulton and Farwell, L.JJ. Oct. 13.Counsel Sankey, K.C. and Theobald Mathew; Hume Williams, K.C. and J. B. Cassels. Solicitors: Bircham and Co.; G. Archibald Whigham.]
Employer and Workman
Accident Compensation Partial Recovery Capacity to do light Work-Injury by Use of Machine -Former Accident contributing to present Incapacity-Claim in Respect of earlier Accident-Right to consider Effect on later Occasion-Liability of Employer-Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 1.-In 1902 a workman met with an accident at certain works, where he was employed as a riveter, in consequence of which the first finger of his right hand was amputated at the root of the finger. He was paid compensation until the stump healed, but he could not resume his former work. In 1903 he resumed work with the same employers as a caulker, which involved using a light hammer in place of the heavy hammer used by riveters. In 1910, at the suggestion of a foreman, he commenced using a pneumatic hammer, which is much heavier and vibrates very rapidly. He used it for a few days, but then his hand became inflamed, and he was obliged to leave work. He then claimed compensation under the Act in respect of the accident of 1902. The County Court judge held that the workman could do the light work, and that, if he had not met with the accident of 1902, he would have been capable of doing the work with the pneumatic caulker, but that, owing to the injury which he received in 1902, he was less able to use that machine because the vibration caused him pain, holding the machine, as he had to do, in the mutilated hand. On this finding he held that, as the accident of 1902 was one of the contributing causes of the incapacity, the workman was entitled to the compensation claimed. Held, that, if a man meets with a second accident after a former accident, his employer at the time of the second accident is alone liable to pay compensation, even if the first accident was a contributing cause to the second; and this workman was not entitled to any compensation in respect of " the accident in 1902, even if it had contributed to his present incapacity.
[Noden v. Galloways Limited. Ct. of App. Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Fletcher Moulton and Farwell, L.JJ. Oct. 13.-Counsel: C. A. Russell, K.C. and Wingate Saul; Adshead Elliott.
Solicitors: Rawle, Johnstone, and Co., for John Taylor, Manchester; Wheatly and Daniel, for Cobbett, Wheeler, and Cobbett, Manchester.]
Employer and Workman-Injury by Accident-CompensationSunstroke-Abnormal Risk by Reason of Nature of OccupationWorkmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 1.-An arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 was requested between the applicant and the respondents as to the amount of compensation payable to the former under that Act in respect of the personal injury caused to him by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The applicant was the first officer on board one of the respondents' steamships, and on the 31st May 1911, while engaged in superintending the loading of cargo from the deck of the vessel at a port in the West Indies, he had an attack of sunstroke which caused atrophy of the optic nerves, and in the result he was incapacitated for work. On the day of the attack the applicant was exposed to the fierce rays of the sun for five hours, from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m., with an interval of half an hour for his breakfast. He had no opportunity of taking shelter, as he was posted on a portion of the black steel deck of the vessel which was unprotected by any awning, and he was compelled to lean over a hatchway during the period of the loading for the purpose of performing his duty. The County Court judge was informed by the medical assessor that he attached importance to the fact that a prolonged exposure to the rays of the sun increased the risk which a person ran of getting sunstroke. Under these circumstances the County Court judge decided that the applicant was exposed to an abnormal risk in the course of his employment; and that therefore he was entitled to compensation during total or partial disablement. The respondents appealed. The applicant did not appear, nor was he represented by counsel. Held, that the County Court judge had, on the facts as found by him, come to a right conclusion, the applicant having by reason of the nature of his occupation been exposed to a greater risk of sunstroke than other persons. Warner v. Couchman (103 L. T. Rep. 693; (1911) 1 K. B. 351) distinguished. Appeal dismissed.
[Davies v. Gillespie. Ct. of App.: Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Fletcher Moulton and Farwell, L.JJ. Oct. 17.-Counsel for the appellants Alexander Neilson. Solicitors for the appellants: Holman, Birdwood, and Co., agents for Vaudrey, Oppenheim, and Mellor, Manchester.]
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE-CHANCERY DIVISION. Royal Arms-Use in Connection with Business-Use calculated to lead to Belief of Royal Warrant Admissibility of EvidenceInjunction-Trade Marks Act 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 15), s. 68.--The plaintiffs were a body incorporated by Royal Charter having authority to use the Royal Arms. The defendants carried on business as engineers and contractors in the City of London, and they had displayed on the outside of their premises a cast-iron representation of the Royal Arms with the usual mottoes. They did not use the arms on their letters or other documents or otherwise than as above. They did not do retail business and orders were usually given them through the post. The words "by Special Appointment or by Royal Warrant," or any such words were not used. The device had been where it was for at least thirty-five years. The plaintiffs tendered evidence of persons having been actually led by the device to the belief that the plaintiffs had a Royal Warrant to use the arms. Held, that such evidence was admissible. Also held that the device was used in connection with the business of the defendants and in such a manner as to lead to the belief that they were duly authorised to use the Royal Arms, and that their action came within sect. 68 of the Trade Marks Act 1905; and an injunction was granted to restrain them from continuing to use the Royal Arms on their premises or otherwise in connection with their business to lead to the belief that they were authorised to do so.
[Royal Warrant Holders Association v. Edward Deane and Beal Limited. Ch. Div.: Warrington, J. Oct. 17.-Counsel : Astbury, K.C. and Sebastian; H. Terrell, K.C. and E. Beaumont. Solicitors: Bannister, Ram, and F'âche; Henry Gover and Sons.]
Trustees-Power to continuing Trustees to appoint new Trustees -Action for Breaches of Trust-Judgment by ConsentInquiries directed-Defendant Trustees to pay Costs-Trustees to retire-Reference to Chambers to appoint new TrusteesContinuing Trustees' Right to nominate. The question in these adjourned summonses was whether trustees of a will and family settlement, one of whom was tenant for life in possession of the income under the trust, against whom an action for breach of trust had been instituted and compromised by consent, the trustees paying the costs, had in the circumstances lost their prior right to nominate for approval new trustees under the power given to them in the will, or whether that right was suspended or subsidiary to the right of the non-trustee beneficiaries to propose new trustees of their own selection. By the will of the testator, F. J. S., who died in 1876, he gave his real and personal estate to four trustees, now represented by three of the defendants, upon trust for his wife (the first defendant) for life, and upon her decease equally between his six children as tenants in common. The will contained a power of advancement extending to one-half of each child's presumptive share, and a power to the survivors or survivor of the trustees by deed
to appoint new trustees of the testator's will. On the 6th May 1910 the plaintiffs, one of whom as a son of the testator was under his will entitled in remainder to one-sixth of his residuary estate, commenced an action against the trustees of his will for alleged breaches of trust, consisting of (a) investments upon freehold securities of inadequate value, and without any surveyor's report or valuation; (b) investments upon leasehold securities subject to heavy ground rents and of insufficient value; (c) improper advances to two beneficiaries beyond the amounts authorised; (d) an improper advance to the two defendants, without security, for the purpose of their business. On the 9th March 1911, on the trial of the action and upon motion for judgment, the defendants by their counsel consented to an order to pay the plaintiffs' costs of action when taxed, and, on the defendants submitting to make good all losses (if any) to the trust estate occasioned by the improper retention of investments or by improper advances, inquiries were ordered whether any sums had been improperly advanced. The defendants by counsel expressing their desire to retire from the trusts of the will, it was ordered that they be at liberty to retire, and that it be referred to chambers to appoint new trustees of the will in their place. The plaintiffs and the defendant retiring trustees respectively had in chambers nominated new trustees of the will and filed affidavits of their fitness. The master considered he should appoint the plaintiffs' nominees, and the summons for confirmation of their appointment was adjourned into court. Held, that, in estimating the effect of the order at the trial, regard must be had to the nature of the imputations made against the trustees, who had not been guilty of conduct of which they need be ashamed, and had submitted to make good any loss. Their conduct did not disqualify them from exercising their right under the trust to appoint new trustees. The form of order did not entirely supersede their right to select new trustees. It fell entirely within the form of order in Re Gadd; Eastwood v. Clark (48 L. T. Rep. 395; 23 Ch. Div. 134), and the two persons nominated by the retiring trustees must be appointed.
[Re Sales; Sales v. Sales. Ch. Div.: Eve, J. Oct. 13.Counsel Jessel, K.C. and W. M. Cann; Lawrence, K.C. and E. J. Heckscher; J. K. Young. Solicitors: Whale and Wates; Hughes Narborough and Thomas; Pemberton, Cope, and Co.]
Lawyer's Remembrancer and Pocket Book 1912. Butterworth and Co., 11 and 12, Bell-yard, Temple Bar. Price 2s. 6d. net.
Mews' Digest of English Case Law. Quarterly Issue, October. Stevens and Sons Limited, 119 and 120, Chancery-lane; Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 3, Chancery-lane. Price 5s. Hazeltine on the Law of the Air. Hodder and Stoughton, Warwick-square, E.C., for the University of London Press Limited. Price 5s. net.
Buckland on Equity in Roman Law. Hodder and Stoughton, Warwick-square, E.C., for the University of London Press Limited. Price 5s. net.
Maude's Justices' Handbook on Evidence. Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 3, Chancery-lane. Price 3s. 6d. net.
Parry on Food and Drugs. Vol. 2. Scott, Greenwood, and Son, 8, Broadway, Ludgate, E.C. Price 7s. 6d. net.
FIXED INCOMES.-Houses and Residential Flats can now be Furnished on a new system of Deferred Payments especially adapted for those with fixed incomes who do not wish to disturb investments. Selection from the largest stock in the world. Everything legibly marked in plain figures. Maple and Co. Ltd., Tottenham Courtroad, London, W.-[ADVT.]
WHERE TO FIND YOUR LAW.-Being a Discursive Bibliographical Essay upon the various Divisions and Sub-Divisions of the Law of England, and the Statutes, Reports of Cases, and Text Books containing such Law, with Appendixes for Facilitating Reference to all Statutes and Reports of Cases, and with a Full Index. By ERNEST ARTHUR JELF, M.A., of New College, Oxford, Barrister-at-Law of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, and of the SouthEastern Circuit. Third Edition, greatly Enlarged, price 10s. 6d., post free.-HORACE Cox, Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C.-[Advt.]
THE issue by the Speaker, during the adjournment of the House of Commons, of his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the return of a member for the Keighley Division of Yorkshire to serve in the place of Sir John Brigg, When deceased, was in strict accordance with statute law. vacancies occur by death, the law provides for the issue of writs during a recess by prorogation or adjournment without the immediate authority of the House, in order that a representative may be chosen without loss of time by the place which is deficient of its member. By 24 Geo. 3, sess. 2, c. 26, as amended by
26 & 27 Vict. c. 20, on the receipt of a certificate under the hands of two members that any member has died either during the recess or previously thereto, the Speaker is required to give notice forthwith in the London Gazette (which is to be acknowledged by the publisher), and after six days from the insertion of such notice to issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ, provided always that the application is made so long before the next meeting of the House for the dispatch of business as that the writ may be issued before the day of meeting (see May's Parliamentary Practice, p. 336).
THE dispatch by the Indian Government of an expedition of an admittedly punitive character against the Abors, whose territory is beyond the external frontiers of India, and the cost of whose chastisement is to be borne by the Indian taxpayer, raises an interesting question in reference to the employment of an Indian army at the expense of the Indian taxpayer beyond the frontiers of India without the permission of Parliament. By the Act of 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. 106, s. 55) "for the better government of India," by which the Government of the British territories in India was transferred from the East India Company to the Crown, it is provided that, except for preventing or repelling invasion of Her Majesty's Indian possessions or under other sudden or urgent necessity, the revenues of India shall not without the consent of both Houses of Parliament be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operation carried out beyond the external frontiers of such possessions by Her Majesty's forces charged upon such revenues." In 1878 the movement of Indian troops to Malta, although its expense was not defrayed by the Indian taxpayer, was strongly impugned on constitutional grounds, since, inasmuch as the Crown was not restricted in the number of the native Indian forces it might employ, the practice of bringing these native forces to Europe might avail to render abortive the restrictions on the forces in the employment of the Crown as contained in the Bill of Rights and the Mutiny Act. Ingenious defences of the constitutional position assumed by the Government were made by its legal supporters. It was said that since the passing of the Bill of Rights "the kingdom had come to include Ireland, and therefore a strict interpretation of the clause in question would prevent the Government from sending troops to that country. It was also said that it is an inherent prerogative of the Crown to move all forces by sea and land to and from any part of the British dominions, and that by a series of Acts for the government of India, including the Act of 1858, Her Majesty was entitled to move any of her Indian forces "beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian possessions." Whether this reasoning was good or bad from a strictly legal point of view-that is. as affecting to be a judicial interpretation of certain Acts of Parliament-there is no doubt that the acceptance of it must wholly defeat the policy enforced by the Bill of Rights and teasserted year by year in the Mutiny Act.
THE LAW AFFECTING MUSIC IN CHURCHES. In this twentieth century it seems strange and puritanical to read in some law volume, little more than a hundred years old, statement, made with all gravity, that an organ may be deemed necessary in a cathedral, but not in a parochial church, for the decent performance of Divine worship, and is not, therefore, a necesBary ornament to the latter. Truly, public opinion has travelled some distance since such views were entertained and expressed.
Strange as it may also seem to the uninitiated, when once an organ is placed in the church, the incumbent can, if he please, effectually, and the churchwardens can, if they jointly please, in a measure, prevent the organ from being used.
For the freehold of the church is in the incumbent, and he alone ie entitled to the custody of the key of the church: (Ĺee v. Matthews,