Page images

anything to do with the subjects of discipline and management: It is far too much to expect that the end of the existing labour troubles is in sight, though means are now afforded of adjusting industrial disputes on a proper basis. The public will support the fair and just demands of the men for proper conditions of labour, but it should be borne in mind by that section of the so-called labour leaders who desire for their own purposes to create a perpetual state of unrest, that the use of organised labour for the purpose of enforcing impossible demands will only result in an entire revulsion of public opinion, and will compei the Government to take strong steps to terminate a state of affairs becoming intolerable.

THE trial of the action Dyson v. Attorney-General, which raised the validity of the now notorious Form 4, did not occupy the time of Mr. Justice HORRIDGE for any considerable period, inasmuch as it was admitted by the Attorney-General that two out of the three points raised in the action were covered by the decision of Mr. Justice WARRINGTON in Burghes v. Attorney-General, in which the validity of Form 8 had been discussed. The only outstanding question related to the validity of requisition (i), which provides: "If the person making the return is also the occupier, state the annual value-i e., the sum for which the property is worth to be let to a yearly tenant, the owner keeping it in repair." The right, however, to raise that point on appeal was reserved, and in the near future the validity of both these forms will be discussed before the Court of Appeal.

An important question of registration law was decided this week by the Divisional Court in Smith v. Newman, the question being whether a tenant was entitled to the franchise as a rated occupier within the meaning of the Representation of the People Act 1867, such tenant being on the rate-book, but where the landlord paid all the rates in respect of the premises. The point was one of very far-reaching importance inasmuch as arrangements between landlords, tenants, and rating authorities in the case of small properties, having regard to sect. 211 of the Public Health Act 1875, are general throughout the country, and there is little doubt that had the decision of the revising barrister been upheld, the result would have been the disfranchisement of a large dumber of persons. But, as Mr. Justice DARLING pointed out, the tenant was rated as an ordinary occupier, and that, if the landlord had not paid the rates, the rating authority had their right over against the tenant; and, further, under sect. 7 of the Assessed Rates Act 1869, payment by the owner was made in such a case as this-a payment by the occupier for the purpose of franchise qualification. In fact, occupiers of this description are rated and effectively pay the rate, for it is paid in their name even although they do not physically pay it themselves.

WE are glad that the lay Press has given the widest publicity to the observations of Sir THOMAS SNAGGE with reference to judgment summonses in the County Court. As we have so often insisted in these columns, the whole system of imprisonment for debt requires revision, for, as we have shown from time to time, the Debtors Act as now administered stands self-condemned. It undoubtedly fosters a false system of credit which never would exist without the screw of the judgment summons and the committal order. We quite agree that the powers conferred by the Debtors Act are necessary in many cases where the debtors are perfectly able to pay their debts and are guilty of wilful contumacy; but it is quite clear that they have not been confined to this purpose, but have been used throughout the country merely as a lever to assist a large debt-collecting system. If it were impossible to issue a judgment summons for a debt or instal

ment less than £2, practically all the present hardships would be done away with, and County Court judges would be able to devote practically all their time to their other and more congenial duties.

PROCEEDINGS taken this week against the proprietors of the Hippodrome again bring into prominence the extraordinary and anomalous state of affairs that exists at present as to the law with regard to licences for places of public entertainment. A heavy fine was inflicted on the defendants for breaches of the existing law in presenting at a music-hall Madame Réjane in a play and a portion of the opera "I Pagliacci," conducted by the composer (Signor Leoncavallo) himself. Of course, the learned magistrate had no alternative but to punish the defendants for their infringement of the law, but, at the same time, some years have elapsed since the publication of the findings of the commission which sat to consider this subject, and Parliament has taken no steps. whatever to legalise the praiseworthy attempt on the part of the owners of these houses of entertainment to raise still further the standard of their performances.

RARELY, we suppose, has any judge been more thankful to be able to avoid a finding of fact by a decision on a point of law than His Honour Judge HARRINGTON in a case which came before him at the Wandsworth County Court this week. The defendant, having taken a house of the plaintiff for twelve months, declined to pay the rent on the ground that the house was haunted; and it is not surprising that the learned judge was of opinion that, even if such a state of affairs was made out, it would form no defence in law to the claim. From the published reports it does not appear whether the house was let furnished or unfurnished. If the latter, it is clear that no warranty of freedom from ghosts could attach, and even the most subtle mind could hardly suggest that it could be brought within the covenant of quiet. enjoyment; while, on the other hand, if the house were let furnished, we hardly think the courts would be disposed to class ghosts with the other occupants of premises which have been held to render furnished houses uninhabitable.


[ocr errors]

BEFORE the passing of the Companies Act 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 48), complaints were constant of companies being frequently permitteď to be floated that were manifestly foredoomed to failure, because of the absolutely inadequate subscription by the public upon which the directors had 'gone to allotment." The meagre capital that was at the command of the executive rendered success, at the very outset, a practical impossibility. The somewhat belated provisions of the Act of 1900 wisely put a stop to that deplorable condition of affairs, with the result that, unless the sanguine anticipations of the founders of a company as to its indulgent reception by the public are realised, no allotment whatever of shares can take place. Although it may have obtained registration, the company can never come into actual existence. For by sect. 4 of that Act it is provided as follows: “ (1) No allotment shall be made of any share capital of a company offered to the public for subscription, unless the following conditions have been compiled with-namely, (a) the amount (if any) fixed by the memorandum or articles of association and named in the prospectus as the minimum subscription upon which the directors may proceed to allotment; or (b) if no amount is so fixed and named, then the whole amount of the share capital so offered for subscription, has been subscribed, and the sum payable on application for the amount so fixed and named, or for the whole amount offered for subscription, has been paid to and received by the company." By sect. 10 of the same Act, every prospectus issued by or on behalf of a company must state (inter alia) the minimum subscription on which the directors may proceed to allotment, and the amount payable on application and allotment on each share. These provisions are respectively reproduced in the Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69), the former being re-enacted by sect. 85 (1) and the latter by sect. 81 (1) (d).

During the period of eleven years that has elapsed since the commencement of the Act of 1900-the 1st Jan. 1901-the statutory requirements as to a minimum subscription have been the subject of but few decisions of the courts that have called for reports.

[ocr errors]

The precision of the language used seemingly leaves little opening for controversy. The sparseness of the decisions is, however, counterbalanced by their importance, as appears from a brief review of what has been judicially pronounced.

One of the earliest cases that arose was Finance and Issue Limited v. Canadian Produce Corporation Limited (91 L. T. Rep. 685; (1905) 1 Ch. 37), and the opportunity was thereby afforded to Lord Justice (then Mr. Justice) Buckley to enunciate a general principle of far-reaching application. After pointing out that an allotment of shares made by the directors of a company before the minimum subscription is attained, in breach of sect. 4 of the Act of 1900, is voidable, not void, having regard to the provisions of sect. 5, his Lordship laid this down: An allotment by directors in contravention of sect. 4 is not ultra vires, but is simply a breach of a statutory duty for which the shareholder has his legal remedy. The court will not, therefore, interfere by injunction to restrain the directors from proceeding with the allotment. The facts of that case were such as are likely to be of common occurrence, seeing that there never can be absolute certainty that all applications for shares in a company will prove effective. Allowance, therefore, ought always to be made for that probability. The company issued a prospectus which stated that the minimum number of shares upon which allotment would be made was 40,000. As soon as the subscriptions amounted to 40,003, the directors allotted the shares to the applicants. It afterwards transpired that some of the applications were not effective, and that the minimum subscription had not been reached. The company proposed to give to each allottee the option to have the alloment cancelled and the application money returned. One of the applicants moved for an injunction to restrain the company from giving this option. But it was decided by Mr. Justice Buckley that the company was not acting ultra vires, and that the motion failed.

In the Scottish case of Glasgow Pavilion Limited v. Motherwell (6 F. 116), the meaning of the concluding words of sect. 4, sub-sect. 1 (b), came up for determination. The Court of Session there held (Lord Moncreiff dubitante) that the amount payable on application has been "paid to and received by" a company, prior to allotment, although part of the amount has been received after bank hours on the day of allotment in cheques which cannot be presented till the following day, when they are paid.


The decision in the Scottish case was considered to be distinguishable by Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady, and likewise by the learned judges of the Court of Appeal, in Mears v. Western Canada Pulp and Paper Company Limited (93 L. T. Rep. 150; (1905) 2 Ch. 353) for an excellent reason. The cheques which were received by the company there were duly honoured when presented for payment, whereas a contrary result happened as to some of the cheques in the later case, as the following epitome of the facts discloses In response to the issue of a prospectus, the company received applications for the full amount of the minimum subscription named, accompanied by cheques for the application money, and it went to allotment. At the time of allotment a considerable number of the cheques sent for the application money had not been credited to the company's banking account, and three of those cheques were, after the allotment, dishonoured. It was decided by the Court of Appeal, affirming the decision of Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady, that the sum payable on application for the amount fixed by the prospectus as the minimum subscription had not been "paid to and received by the company," and that therefore the allotment was voidable.


[ocr errors]

In the course of his judgment, Lord Justice Cozens-Hardy (as he then was) gave it as his emphatic opinion that, on the true construction of sect. 4, the minimum subscription upon which directors may proceed to allotment has to be actually received by the company in the ordinary mercantile business sense,' and that consequently all cheques given in payment must be cleared by the company previous to the directors proceeding to the allotment of the share capital. It is seen, therefore, that his Lordship interpreted the statutory words "paid to and received by the company as signifying "received in cash. This is entirely in accordance with the view that was unequivocally expressed in the court belowthat payment in cash is essential. And if not so distinctly acquiesced in by the other members of the Court of Appeal-Lords Justices Vaughan Williams and Stirling-there is nothing in the least to suggest that their Lordships dissented from what was said by Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The same learned judge had to deal with the observations that were made in Mears' case (ubi sup.) in the subsequent case of Re National Motor Mail Coach Company Limited; Anstis and McLean's Claims (99 L. T. Rep. 334; (1908) 2 Ch. 228). His Lordship was of opinion that, having reference to the delay of four days in paying to the company's bankers cheques for the allotment money due on the minimum subscription, the statutory requirement had not been complied with. Accordingly, the allotment to two applicants for shares, who complained of the omission by the company, was declared to be voidable at their instance.

The circumstance that three of the cheques had been dishonoured was, as we have already remarked, regarded as a sufficient reason for treating Mears' case (ubi sup.) as being distinguishable from the Scottish case, because there the cheques were all duly honoured. So likewise they were in Re National Motor Mail Coach Company Limited (ubi sup.). It was, on that account, contended that, although the Scottish case might have been properly held to be distinguishable in Mears' case (ubi sup.), yet it was on all fours with a case in which the cheques had been duly honoured. The Second Sheet

facts of the two cases appeared, however, to Mr. Justice Swinfon Eady to be so different that his Lordship preferred to adopt the principle that was laid down in Mears case (ubi sup.). It is important to note the differences so existing, inasmuch as it is established by various authorities that a cheque or bill, if duly honoured, is payment as from the time of its being given: (see, inter alia, Belshaw v. Bush, 11 C. B. 191; Currie v. Misa, L. Rep. 10 Ex. 153; on appeal, 35 L. T. Rep. 414; 1 App. Cas. 554; and Felix Hadley and Co. Limited v. Hadley, 77 L. T. Rep. 131; (1898) 2 Ch. 680). In the Scottish case, cheques were received after business hours on the day of allotment, and paid into the bank the next morning. In the case before Mr. Justice Swinien Eady, there was a holding over of the cheques for several days in a way quite out of the ordinary course. They were not cleared until four or five days after the date of allotment, and no explanation was given of the reason why they were kept back. As the learned judge observed, it is not the ordinary course of business to retain a cheque for several days before paying it into the bank. However true, therefore, it may be that payment by cheque is a conditional payment, and, provided that the cheque is eventually met, the payment is good, a company has not actually received, in the ordinary mercantile business sense, the amount of the allotment money "-to quote the language of Lord Justice Cozens-Hardy in Mears' case (ubi sup.)-until cheques for it have been cleared.


The decision in Mears' case (ubi sup.) was the foundation of the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Justice Neville in Burton v. Bevan (99 L. T. Rep. 342; (1908) 2 Ch. 240). And the learned judge had occasion to formulate a highly important proposition applicable to the case of directors of a company who have actually proceeded to allotment in contravention of the provisions of sect. 4 of the Act of 1900. That section, said his Lordship, has then no further application, and any subscriber who is aggrieved by the allotment must rely upon the remedies provided by sect. 5. Sub.-sect. 4 of sect. 4, which provides for the return of all money received from applicants for shares if the previously mentioned conditions have not been complied with within forty days after the first issue of the prospectus, only applies to cases in which no allotment has been made. A director who had no knowledge of the illegal allotment was, consequently, exempted in that case from liability under sect. 5, sub.-sect. 2, of the Act.

Mr. Justice Neville had before him on a later date another case in which the statutory provisions now under discussion were the cause of the litigation-namely, Re West Yorkshire Darracq Agency Limited (25 Times L. Rep. 77). It was decided by the learned judge that there had been, in the case of both the articles of association and the prospectus, a sufficient compliance with the requirements of sects. 4 and 10 of the Act of 1900, as to the minimum subscription, there being a statement of an amount as to such minimum subscription which was ascertained as soon as it was known what shares the directors were offering for public subscription.

It will be noticed that sect. 4 only relates to capital "offered to the public for subscription." And in Sherwell v. Combined Incandescent Mantles Syndicate Limited (23 Times L. Rep. 482), Mr. Justice Warrington expressed the view that what is thereby intended is an offer by the company, and not by an individual, to anyone who chooses to come in and take shares. The facts of that case were by no means unusual. A syndicate was registered, and a prospectus, marked Strictly private and confidential; not for publication," was printed. Some of the directors, without authority, sent copies to their friends. Shares were subscribed for and allotted, but the amount named in the prospectus as the minimum subscription was not subscribed. The conclusion come to by Mr. Justice Warrington was that there had been no offer of shares to the public within the meaning of the section.

[ocr errors]

Scarce as are the reported decisions relating to the statutory restriction as to allotment of shares in a company, there is doubtless enough to indicate the more serious of the pitfalls to be evaded. And if, in the course of more than a decade, no greater number of points has cropped up and needed determination, it may by that token be reckoned that such pitfalls are rarer than in many other of the branches of company law.


AMONG the many important alterations in our methods and forms of taxation which were made by the Finance (1909-10) Act 1910, perhaps that which has attracted the least notice is the new tax known as the super-tax. It was not one of those duties which, owing to the opposition which their creation evoked, came prominently before the public eye, and it does not affect the pockets of so large a number of persons as do some of the other taxes.

At the same time, it is a duty which affects a class of persons who are obviously more or less wealthy, and who have often the inclination, as well as the means, to resist in the courts any infringement of their rights. It would therefore appear to be extremely probable that the tax will attract in the near future a great deal more thought and consideration from the Legal Profession than it has done at present.

It is a peculiar fact that, although this tax affects directly some 10,000 of our fellow-countrymen, and although there are, of course, books and good books on income tax of which everyone is aware, yet the difficulties which have arisen owing to the super-tax seem to have been given very little attention on the part of the text

[ocr errors]


book writers; and this in spite of the fact that those lawyers who have come into contact with this subject are agreed that there are here a number of questions which make the tax anything but the simple matter which at first sight it appears to be, and which in some instances lead to results of a most peculiar character.

[ocr errors]

By sect. 66, sub-sect. 1, of the Act of 1910 this tax is declared to be an additional duty of income tax, and to be levied "in respect of the income of any individual the total of which from all sources exceeds £5000," and to be payable "at the rate of 6d. for every pound of the amount by which the total income exceeds £3000." This would seem to be simplicity itself, and to the lay mind it appears to be a straightforward matter of adding another 6d. in the pound to the income tax of any individual who comes within the scope of the sub-section.

But, whatever may be the merits or otherwise of the income tax, and whatever that tax may be, it is certainly not a tax on the "income of an individual." The tax admittedly comes out of the pocket of the recipient of the income, but it is the source of income, and not the man himself, which is the subject of taxation.

Income tax is levied under five schedules. Under sched. A the rents and the profits of the landlord are taxed; under sched. B the profits of the farmer are included; sched. C deals with the income from Government securities; sched. D affects many things, of which perhaps the most important are the earnings of an individual from trade or business; and sched. E assesses the salaries of those employed in some public capacity. It can be, and it often happens, that a man derives some income under the whole of the five categories before mentioned, and, that being so, five separate assessments are made of the five classes of his income, instead of there being one single assessment on the man. Supertax, on the other hand, is a direct tax on the income of an individual.

In order to provide some way of getting round this difficulty, it is provided by sub-sect. 2 of sect. 66 of the same Act of 1910 that the income of an individual for this purpose shall be his total income from all sources for the previous year, estimated in the same way as it is estimated for the purposes of exemptions or abatements of income tax. And this is where the first difficulty comes in.

To begin with, it is not easy to say precisely what this subsection means. The Inland Revenue authorities take the view that what the Legislature intended was that this super-tax should be a tax upon the income which a man derived for the previous year. But it is more generally considered that this is not so. It is the general opinion that the construction of the sub-section is as follows: It is suggested that what the framers of the Act intended to do was to impose a tax upon the income of the individual for the year for which the assessment for super-tax is made; but, seeing that, as the super-tax returns on which the assessments are based had according to the Act to be sent in by the 31st July in each year, and that, as the year did not end until the 5th April next, it would be nearly impossible for the individual to say what his income would be, they declared that, instead of returning the figures for the particular year, he should return the figures for the previous one. His income for the year in question is thus for this purpose taken to be the same as his actual statutory income for the previous year.

The difference operates in this way: Assume a man with an income of, say, £10,000 a year dies on the 6th April. He has obviously been alive for one day of the year of taxation which has just commenced; and if the view of the authorities is correct, and the tax is a tax on his income for the previous year, then he will have to pay super-tax for the whole of that year. And, that being so, the super-tax which became payable because he lived that one day, being (in theory) one-fortieth of his income (less £3000) for a whole year, will be found on calculation to be much larger than his actual income for that day, which is obviously only one three hundred and sixty-fifth of his income for a whole year.

But if the other view is correct, and his statutory income for the previous year is only the measure of the income on which he has to pay super-tax, then equally difficult questions arise; for it is obvious that in this case his super-tax income is only one three hundred and sixty-fifth of £10,000, which is clearly much less than £5000, the standard required. In this case, is super-tax payable on this small fraction of £10,000, and, if so, how does this affect the deduction which is allowed of the first £3000? It is' submitted that the tax is payable on the fraction of the £10,000 only, and that only a corresponding portion of the £3000 can be deducted; but other opinions are also held.

Again, it is common knowledge that for the purpose of exemptions, &c., of income tax the income taken into consideration is the joint income of the husband and the wife. Suppose now that each of the two spouses has an income of £4000 a year. While they are both. living it is clear that super-tax has to be paid; but, supposing that the husband dies to-morrow, has the wife to pay supertax next year or not?

And let us pass on a little further into the subject. The theory of the framers of the Income Tax Acts obviously was that all income tax should be raised from the source whence the income arose e.g., from land, or business, or occupation; and if there was any incumbrance on this source of income, then that a proportionate part of the income tax should be deducted when paying over the annual interest or other sum payable in respect thereof. . It would therefore appear, in a simple case, that the income of an individual for super-tax purposes is arrived at by adding together

[ocr errors]

all the assessments under which he pays income tax and all sums on which income tax is deducted before payment over to him, and by subtracting therefrom all sums from which he can deduct income tax before he pays them over to the person entitled in the year on the basis of which his return is made. And this leads to some curious results.

To take as an example the common case of a tenant for life of settled estates mortgaging his life interest and as part of the same transaction taking out a policy of insurance on his own life and in the mortgage deed covenanting to keep this policy up. Now, the interest on the loan can be deducted, as it is a specific incumbrance, and, as there happens to be a provision to that effect in the Act of 1910, the amount of the insurance premiums up to one-sixth of his net income can also be deducted. But suppose, as does occur sometimes, that the amount of these premiums comes to more than one-sixth of his income, he cannot take the balance into account, as income tax can never be deducted when paying the premiums to the insurance company. Yet he has covenanated to pay one part of these premiums just as surely as he has another. And if a man on the marriage of his daughter covenants to pay her an income of, say, £1000 a year, and charges it on his estates (a source of income), then this £1000 can certainly be deducted in arriving at the father's income. But suppose he only covenants to pay it, and does not charge it on any source of his income, the opinion is at any rate held that in this case the £1000 cannot be deducted. But it is obvious that the £1000 has to be paid by the father with equal certainty in either event. And considerations of this character may, and often do, decide the question as to whether an individual is liable to super-tax at all or not.

Again, the operation of this tax affects in a very peculiar manner those gentlemen of wealth who are so fortunate as to possess and use two residences, one in England and the other abroad. In this case, if all the income of the man in question arises in Englande.g., from estates in England-then the whole of it has to be included in his return, and, if the whole of it amounts to more than £5000, he has to pay super-tax in respect of it. But if his income arises from abroad-say, from estates abroad-then he only has to include in his return the amount brought into England, and, if this amount is less than £5000, he escapes the tax altogether, and that however large his total income may be.

But perhaps the most peculiar characteristic of the super-tax is that everyone can be compelled to make a return of his income to enable the authorities to ascertain whether he is liable for the tax or not, no matter how obvious it is, on the very face of it, that he does not possess the necessary income. The law even goes so far that, although no one would, of course, suggest that the authorities could suspect a pauper in the workhouse of being the possessor of such an income as £5000 per annum, yet there is nothing to prevent their compelling him to make a return to show what his income is or is not!


THE appointment of Mr. Serjeant O'Brien, K.C., as the SolicitorGeneral for Ireland, gives great satisfaction in legal circles in Ireland. The new Solicitor-General first acquired a reputation as a practitioner in the Bankruptcy Court. His practice gradually widened out until he became the foremost commercial lawyer in the Four Courts. He was standing senior counsel to the Dublin Corporation, and he is regarded as an excellent authority on matters of local government interest and on the construction of statute law. Since the passing of the Local Government Act 1898 he has been engaged on one side or the other in nearly all the cases of importance arising under that Act.


A NUMBER of the county councils in Ireland are establishing scholarships under sect. 10 (2) of the Irish Universities Act 1908. That Act provides that a county council or a county borough council may assist by means of exhibitions, scholarships, bursaries, payments of fees, or otherwise, any students at any university in Ireland who are ordinarily resident in their county or borough, who satisfy the council that they are qualified to profit by university instruction and are in need of assistance, and who also satisfy such tests of ability as may be prescribed by the university." The King's County Council and fifteen other councils have already put this provision in force for the purpose of assisting promising students within their county. All these councils, however, have restricted the advantages which they offer to students matriculating in the National University of Ireland.

THE Michaelmas Sittings of the Irish courts opened on Wednesday, the 25th inst., and it would appear that the judges will find it difficult to get ahead of the work that has accumulated since last term. In the Court of Appeal thirty-seven cases are listed, including one case which was argued last term before Lord Chancellor Walker and the two Lords Justices. Judgment was reserved. but it is assumed that the case will not be reargued in the event of the two Lords Justices having agreed. An important question is involved in the case of Cavan County Council v. Kane with reference to an injury to a main road by a traction engine. In another case the question that is involved is as to the principle

on which compensation should be awarded by an arbitrator on the acquiring by the Belfast Corporation of a tramway concern that had become derelict. There are two cases of importance under the Town Tenants Act. There are seven appeals under the Workmen's Compensation Act, four of which are from Belfast, one from Cork, one from Wicklow, and one from Monaghan. In the King's Bench Division on the Crown Side there are fourteen cases and on the Civil Side ten cases. The Nisi Prius list contains fifty-nine cases, and it is expected that Mr. Justice Ross, and possibly Mr. Justice Wylie, will be called upon during the sittings to assist the Chancery judges.

AN effort was made last week, in a case that came before the Belfast Quarter Sessions, to apply a principle that was laid down by the Courts in England in Penn v. Alexander (68 L. T. Rep. 355; (1893) 1 Q. B. 522) to a certain state of facts. Recently the Belfast municipal tramway system was extended to a place called Glengormley, which is just outside the limit in the case of bona fide travellers. One of the publicans at Glengormley was noticed to have largely increased his Sunday trade by reason of the new traffic carried to the place by the tramcars. A great number of persons who claimed to be bond fide travellers went to the place for drink; and so flourishing did the Sunday trade become that ultimately it was necessary to employ a commissionaire to stand at the door and cross-question the persons who demanded entrance. The publican was prosecuted for having sold drink at an unauthorised time-namely, on Sunday, the 6th Aug. The case came before the local justices on the 28th Sept., who convicted. It was stated on an appeal by the publican to quarter sessions that the case was parallel with that of Penn v. Alexander. It was alleged that on the date in question more than 1000 so-called bona fide travellers were admitted to the premises; that these men came from Belfast on the trams, and that they went straight to the public-house. Undoubtedly, they were questioned at the door, and if the answers were satisfactory they were allowed in. It was argued on behalf of the police that the test in such cases was the purpose for which the person undertook the journey, and that in this case irresistible conclusion from the facts was that the great body of .these persons had travelled to Glengormley for the purpose of getting drink. It was admitted that the premises were well conducted. The acting recorder summed up the evidence and advised the magistrates to uphold the conviction of the Petty Sessions Bench. The magistrates, however, refused to do so, and unanimously set aside the conviction. The question really was one of fact, and, as regards facts, the magistrates, of course, are the ultimate court of appeal.

[ocr errors]



I would be a singular specimen of the genus farm labourer who did not seize every opportunity that came in his way of riding from one part of the farm lands to another, in preference to walking. A lift in a cart he would probably consider a far more agreeable mode of progression than trudging on foot. But, should he yield to that not unnatural inclination, he must not, according to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Parker v. Pout (noted ante, p. 552), expect to receive compensation in the event of his meeting with an accident while so engaged. For it would not be an "accident arising out of and in the course of his -employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58). Seeing that the practice is so universal for workers on farms to do precisely what was intended to be done by the applicant in that case, the decision there will probably cause surprise to very many persons. It will doubtless be the general opinion that the employer, knowing as he did that all his farm hands, in common with the whole of that tribe, lost no chance of being carried if it was offered to them, and he did not prohibit the custom, must have entered into the contract with the applicant subject to that custom. But in the view entertained by the learned judges of the Court of Appeal, it was no part of the contract of service that the applicant should travel about in a cart, whether the same belonged to the farmer or to any other individual. The applicant had no right thus to add unnecessarily to the risk of his employer. It did not thereby render him liable to pay compensation in respect of the injury sustained by the applicant. The oftcited, but unfortunately somewhat restrictedly reported, decision of the Court of Appeal in Davies v. Rhymney Iron Company (16 Times L. Rep. 329) was regarded by the County Court judge as an authority which governed the case before him. But the ground upon which His Honour relied upon that decision does not appear quite to coincide with the reason assigned by the Court of Appeal for upholding the award which he made. In short, it is by no means easy to comprehend how either the facts or the principle of Daries' case (ubi sup.) could be treated as having any application to those of Parker's case (ubi sup.). Moreover, it is open to question whether the decision in Cremins v. Guest, Keen, and Nettle fold (98 L. T. Rep. 335; (1908) 1 K. B. 469) has not weakened Davies' case (ubi sup.) as a binding authority. The case, however, that seems to be more in point is the much more lately decided one of Pierce v. Provident Clothing and Supply Company Limited (104 L. T. Rep. 473; (1911) 1 K. B. 997). There a collector and canvasser, in the habit of going his rounds on a bicycle, which,

although permitted, was neither required or desired by his employers, was killed through his bicycle coming into collision with an electric tramway car. Under these circumstances, the Court of Appeal held, reversing the decision of the County Court judge, that the workman's widow, as his sole dependant, was entitled to compensation. The very point that was determined in that case was dealt with by the Scotch courts in M'Neice v. Singer Sewing Machine Company Limited (48 Sc. L. Rep. 15; 1911, S. C. 12), which was deemed to be a direct authority by the Court of Appeal, and apparently they were much influenced thereby in the conclusion at which they arrived. But if in Pierce's case (ubi sup.) the use of a bicycle by the workman was known to, and not forbidden by, his employers, and was, therefore, really a permitted form of locomotion-as was said by the Master of the Rolls (Cozens-Hardy), referring to the finding of the County Court judge so also was the travelling in a cart in Parker's case (ubi sup.). If the mode of travelling adopted in the former case, permitted as it was, did not make the Act of 1906 unavailable, a like result might fairly have been expected to ensue in the latter. In so far as a claim for compensation was concerned, no difference could be seen by the court between the workman's riding a bicycle and going about on foot in the one case. Riding in a cart and going about on foot should consistently have been similarly regarded in the other. And the fact that the nature of the accidents was far from being identical in the two cases does not of itself seem to be reason for drawing any distinction between them.

THE decision of Mr. Justice Parker in Re Richard Surfleet's Estate; Rawlings v. Smith, a note of which appears on p. 578, raises a somewhat debatable point, and, sound as the decision may be in law, it will inevitably give rise to some very nice distinctions in practice. That the gift of a legacy to a charitable or religious fund for the sole purpose of acquiring land and erecting buildings thereon was void by the ruling in Re Watmough's Trusts (8 Eq. 272) the decision affirms; but it also lays down that where the fund had other alternative objects, the gift, in view of the possibility of its being expended on such other objects, was a valid one. Where, then, is the line to be drawn? Supposing that a charitable or religious society, possessing, as was the present case, no written constitution by which its objects could be definitely or legally determined, had been called into existence for the primary purpose of acquiring land and erecting buildings, but had, in the course of its operations, been in the habit of raising large sums on loan and paying them off as the funds permitted. Could it be pleaded that the society was entitled to take a legacy, exempt from all considerations of mortmain, on the plea that the money was to be used for the discharge of its general indebtedness? It is true that for many decades a tendency has grown up to look" with less sanctity upon real property, as distinguished from personalty, and there has been a further tendency to remove all restrictions upon a testator's right to dispose of his possessions as he pleases. The first is perhaps only natural, in view of the gradually diminished importance which the land as a whole possesses for the community and the increased percentage of the national wealth represented by personalty; and in this connection it is sometimes argued that, as charitable bodies in one way or another already hold interests in land to a considerable extent, the restrictions upon their taking it under wills might just as well be removed altogether. While the law is as it is, however, there is much to be said for the argument put forward by counsel for the residuary legatees in Re Richard Surfleet's Estate, that where the legatee is primâ facie a building fund, and where the testator's own words show that he recognises it as such, mere subsidiary objects cannot reconcile its right to take a legacy which would otherwise be held to be in mortmain. Sect. 7 of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act of 1891 has made a most important alteration in the law by enacting that personalty left to a charitable body for the purchase of land may be held as a good gift, provided that land is not so purchased; but difficulty still arises where the whole reason for that charitable body's existence makes it doubtful whether the money can be legally available for any other purpose.

[merged small][ocr errors]

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.]

COUNTY COURTS, EQUITY, AND BANKRUPTCY CASES.-Published quarterly, price 4s., post free. Comprising the Decisions in Law and Equity, administered in the County Courts; the Appeals from the County Courts; the Judgments in Important Cases decided in the County Courts; and all the Cases in Bankruptcy in all the Courts.HORACE COX, "County Courts Chronicle" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C.-[ADVT.]

THE CONVEYANCER. MISCELLANEOUS PRECEDENTS (continued). Agreement for Tenancy of a Farm in Yorkshire since the Agricultural Holdings Act 1908. AN AGREEMENT made the day of 190 BETWEEN A. B. of in the county of York of the one part and C. D. of in the county of of the other part 1. Term-Rent.-The said A. B. (hereinafter called "the landlord" which expression where the context so admits shall include the immediate reversioner for the time being expectant on this demise) hereby agrees to let and the said C. D. (hereinafter called "the tenant" which expression where the context so admits shall include his personal representatives) hereby agrees to take the farm and lands situate in the parish of in the Riding of the county of York called Farm more particularly described in the schedule hereto and hereinafter collectively called "the farm containing in the whole acres or thereabouts the tenancy to be from year to year and to commence (subject to the outgoing tenant's right to an away-going crop) as to the arable land on the day of 19 as to the pasture land on the day of and as to the remainder of the farm on the day of 19 and to be determinable at the end of the first or any succeeding year by either party giving to the other notice in writing for that purpose on or before the day of immediately preceding the expiration of such notice at the yearly rental of £ payable by equal half-yearly payments on the day of and the day of in every year the first payment thereof to be made on the day of next and subject to the conditions hereinafter expressed. PROVIDED that half a year's rent shall at any time be considered due payable and recoverable by distress or action or otherwise in advance if the landlord shall so demand it. AND PROVIDED also and it is hereby expressly agreed and declared that sect. 22 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1908 shall not apply to this tenancy.


2. Reservations.-All quarries of stone mines minerals gravel sand and clay and also plantations and also trees of every description (including fruit trees and saplings evergreens and underwood) are reserved to the landlord. Such trees shall be properly and sufficiently protected by the tenant from lopping or other injury and especially the tenant shall on every occasion of laying or pleaching a hedge give timely notice thereof to the landlord and any tree or sapling marked by the landlord or his agent shall not be cut or laid but shall be carefully preserved. The landlord and every person authorised by him shall have power to enter upon the farm for the purpose of searching for opening working and using quarries of stone mines and minerals and any gravel sand or clay pits and for plating marking barking felling or disposing of or removing the excepted trees and wood and also the timber and wood from adjoining lands and also to enter on the farm and any part thereof including the buildings at all reasonable times and for all reasonable purposes.

3. Game. The right to kill and take game rabbits or wildfowl and to sport and fish over the farm is also reserved to the landlord and all persons authorised by him in that behalf but subject as to ground game to the provisions of the Ground Game Act 1880 and of the Ground Game (Amendment) Act 1906.

4. Quiet Enjoyment. The parties hereto hereby mutually agree to observe the conditions hereinafter expressed and the landlord further agrees that the tenant paying the rent and observing the said conditions on his part may quietly hold and enjoy the premises hereby demised without any interruption by the landlord or any person rightfully claiming under him.

5. Tenant to Pay Rent and Taxes.-The tenant shall pay the rent hereby reserved at the time and in the manner aforesaid and shall also pay all rates taxes assessments outgoings and burdens payable in respect of the farm during the tenancy and no deduction is to be made from the rent in respect thereof. PROVIDED that on production of the proper vouchers and receipts for payment of and tax and landlord's property tax the tenant shall be allowed for the same upon the next payment of his rent.

6. Payments to Outgoing Tenant.-Upon taking possession of the arable land of the farm the tenant shall pay and allow to the outgoing tenant all valuations and compensations for improvements which may be payable to such outgoing tenant according to his agreement with the landlord or by the custom of the country or under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1908.

7. To Insure.-The tenant shall insure and keep insured the stock and crops on the farm against loss or damage by fire in the sum of £ at the least in some insurance office approved of by the landlord or his agent and shall produce to the landlord or his agent on the rent days in each year the receipt for the premium and the policy of such insurance.

8. To Reside in Farmhouse &c.-The tenant shall reside in the farmhouse and shall not assign or underlet the farm or any part thereof except the labourers' cottages without the consent in writing of the landlord or his agent.

9. Tenant's Repairs.-The tenant shall keep the farmhouse cottages and buildings (except the outer walls main timbers and Roofs) and all walls and fences in good and tenantable repair and shall also keep the drains belonging to the farmhouse cottages and

buildings properly cleansed and repaired and so leave the said farmhouse cottages buildings fences and drains at the end of the tenancy. He shall also whitewash every part of the farmhouse and buildings which are accustomed to be whitewashed at least once a year. He shall also lead and place upon the said premises all such materials required for repairing the said farmhouse and existing buildings as well as the materials for any additional buildings all rail-borne materials to be led from the nearest railway station. He shall also from time to time at the proper season well and sufficiently lay cut repair and keep repaired all the hedges mounds stumps rails posts stiles gates and fences and pumps and open scour cleanse and throw all ditches watercourses culverts and surface drains and so leave the same at the end of the tenancy and in case of any default by the tenant in so doing the landlord may after one month's notice in writing cause any of the said things to be done and recover the expenses thereof (with interest at the rate of £5 per cent. per annum) Vrom the tenant. The tenant shall also pay in respect of every new gate supplied by the

the sum of landlord.

10. Tenant to Preserve Game.-The tenant shall preserve all game and wildfowl (including the nests and eggs thereof) and fish hereby reserved to the landlord and (subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act 1880 and of the Ground Game (Amendment) Act 1906) shall not allow any person to shoot or sport over the farm without the landlord's permission. He shall also sign all notices not to trespass required by the landlord and shall permit his (the tenant's) name to be used in any proceedings against persons trespassing in pursuit of game or otherwise offending against the game laws on being indemnified by the landlord against all costs occasioned thereby.

11. To Preserve Trees &c.-The tenant shall not fell lop or top or suffer to be felled lopped or topped any timber or other trees on the farm without the landlord's consent except that he may top pollards usually topped but shall preserve all such trees from spoil or damage by cattle or otherwise. He shall also at his own expense plant fence and substantially protect and preserve all fruit trees supplied by the landlord.

12. To Prevent New Footpaths.-The tenant shall do his best to prevent new footpaths from being made over any part of the farm or any waste from being inclosed on the footpaths upon the farm.

13. To Cultivate Properly.-The tenant shall cultivate manure and manage the farm according to the most approved methods of husbandry having regard to the custom of the neighbourhood in reference to farms of a like nature and so as to keep and leave the land clean free from weeds and in good heart and condition. He shall refrain from irregular and excessive cropping and especially he shall not mow any grass land two years in succession without manuring between the crops nor mow twice in any year. He shall so crop the arable land that during the year before he quits the farm or at any period after he has given or received notice to quit which results in his quitting the farm he shall be able to bring the farm into the course or system of farming followed in the Riding of the county of York. He shall cut and destroy all docks nettles thistles and other noxious weeds destroy so far as he can all moles and rats and spread all mole-hills and ant-hills on the farm and in case of any default by the tenant in so doing the landlord may after one month's notice in writing cause any of the said things to be done and recover the expense thereof (with interest at the rate of per cent. per annum) from the tenant. The tenant shall not depasture in the last year of his tenancy other stock than his own nor more than was usually depastured in former years.

14. Not to Break up Pastures.-No meadow pasture or grass land shall be broken up or converted into tillage without the consent in writing of the landlord or his agent first had and obtained. Any breach of this stipulation shall entitle the landlord at once and without notice to determine the tenancy and shall in addition entitle him to recover by distress or otherwise as though it were rent the liquidated sum of £ for every acre so broken up and converted and so in proportion for every fractional part of ar


15. Not to Sell Produce off.-The tenant shall not at any time during the tenancy sell off or remove from the farm any hay straw fodder roots or green crops. The manurial value of any produce so sold off or removed shall be taken at the value fixed for the time being by the Cleveland or Yorkshire Chamber of Agriculture or other recognised agricultural authority for the time being in the county of York subject nevertheless to be increased in each case in the event of the tenant not returning to the land the full manurial equivalent of any produce so sold off and removed within twelve months after such sale and removal or before the expiration of the tenancy whichever shall first happen.

16. Rights and Obligations of Outgoing Tenant.—In addition to the rights and obligations otherwise herein specified the following shall be the rights and obligations of the tenant as an outgoing

tenant :

(a) All such manure or compost as shall be made after the day of together with all hay straw turnips or green fodder not consumed at the end of the tenancy shall be carefully heaped up and stacked or stored in the foldyards cr stackyards and left free of cost for the landlord or incoming tenant. (b) After the day of he shall allow the landlord

« EelmineJätka »