« EelmineJätka »
or incoming tenant stabling accommodation for horses with sufficient straw for bedding without any allowance being made for the same and shall permit the landlord or incoming tenant to lead out manure to plough the land for fallow and to do all other necessary acts.
(c) He shall leave the usual area sown with clover or grass seeds of good quality which shall not have been depastured on or after day of preceding and shall be allowed by the landlord or incoming tenant the prime cost of the seed and sowing. (d) He shall be entitled to sow not more than acres of arable land as an away-going crop of wheat. The corn only shall belong to himself and this he shall sell to the landlord or incoming tenant if so required at a valuation to be made according to the principles of valuation adopted at the time of his entry.
(e) He shall also be paid on quitting the value of his tillages and other outgoing customary rights such value to be ascertained according to the principles of valuation adopted at the time of his entry.
(f) He shall also be paid on quitting in respect of improvements made by him and included in Part 3 of the 1st schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1908 compensation in accordance with the scale adopted by the Cleveland or Yorkshire Chamber of Agriculture or other the recognised agricultural authority for the county of York and the tenant accepts such scale as fair and reasonable compensation in substitution for the compensation provided by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1908.
(9) Generally he shall have all the usual rights and be subject to all the usual obligations of the outgoing tenant according to the custom of the country and on all occasions (except as herein stipulated or in the case of a special agreement) the custom of the country shall be binding upon either party
PROVIDED ALWAYS that the allowances and compensations herein agreed to be paid to the tenant are conditional upon the general state of the farm and its crops so that if the land be unclean or in an exhausted state or the buildings and premises out of repair or the farm out of proper cultivation or if the tenant shall have neglected to observe or perform any other stipulations herein on his part contained there shall be set off and deducted from the compensation to which the tenant would otherwise be entitled such an amount as shall be ascertained to be due to the landlord for damages compensation cr otherwise.
17. Landlord's Repairs.-The landlord shall during the tenancy keep in good and tenantable repair the outer walls main timbers and roofs of the farmhouse and buildings subject to his receiving written notice from the tenant that such repairs are required. He shall also paint all outside woodwork and ironwork when necessary. 18. Allowance for Manure.-For the first three years of his tenancy the tenant shall be allowed the sum of £ per annum to be expended in the purchase of artificial manures or feeding stuffs.
19. Tenant to Keep Farm Book.-The tenant shall keep a farm book in a form required by the landlord in which shall be entered in every year particulars of the cropping and management of each field of the produce sold off or removed from the farm of the return to the farm of feeding stuffs and artificial manures of the consumption on the farm of corn grown thereon by animals other than horses regularly employed on the farm and of the manuring of the fields and shall allow such farm book to be always open to the inspection of the landlord or his agent together with proper vouchers or satisfactory evidence of the several before-mentioned matters.
20. Conditions of Re-entry.-If any rent hereby reserved shall have been in arrear for twenty-one days (whether payment thereof shall have been legally demanded or not) or if there shall be any breach of any of the conditions herein contained and on the tenant's part to be observed and performed or if the tenant shall become bankrupt or compound with his creditors or execute any bill of sale or assignment of his effects or suffer his effects or any part thereof to be taken in execution or if the tenant shall exercise any of his rights under sect. 26 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1908 in such a manner as to injure or deteriorate or be likely to injure or deteriorate the farm then and in any of such cases (save as provided by the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881) the andlord may re-enter and determine the tenancy without giving any notice to quit.
21. Tenant to Pay Cost of Record.-In the event of the tenant requiring a record of the condition of the farm under the provision in that behalf of sect. 27 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1908 the cost of making such record shall be borne wholly by the tenant. 22. Compensation for Game.-Notice of any claim for compensatien under sect. 10 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1908 shall be sent by the tenant to the landlord on or before the 30th day of September in each year and the period of twelve months mentioned in sub-sect. (2) of the said section shall be deemed to extend from the 1st day of September in one year to the 31st day of August in the following year.
23. Landlord's Permission to Resume Possession. The landlord shall have the right to resume possession of any part of the farm upon giving one calendar month's previous notice in writing for the purpose of exchanging intermixed or detached lands and of consolidating farms or for the erection of such holdings or allotments or for building dwelling-houses planting trees making gardens improving the land and making new roads and diverting
and altering existing roads and watercourses and for quarrying mining colliery or other purposes making reasonable compensation to the tenant therefor either by the substitution of other land or by reduction of rent and also by payment for any loss of growing crops that the tenant may suffer.
24. Distress.-In case of distress for rent the landlord shall be at liberty to provide that any hay straw or green fodder which shall have been distrained may be sold on the terms that the same may be consumed either on or off the premises.
25. General. The terms stipulations and conditions of this agreement shall not be altered or determined by any increase or decrease in the rent which may be mutually agreed upon by the landlord and tenant or may be occasioned by any provision in this agreement except as regards the amount of rent payable.
26. Arbitration.-All claims differences and disputes between the parties hereto as to any matter or thing arising in respect of the tenancy shall be settled by reference to a single arbitrator in manner provided by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1908. IN
On Wednesday next Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady will take the case of Jones Brothers Limited v. Anglo-American Optical Company (retained cause for trial, with witnesses).
Judgment in The Matter of Hall's Charity, Severn Commissioners v. Trustees of Hall's Charity and others, will be delivered by Mr. Justice Warrington to-day (Saturday), at 10.30.
In the King's Bench Division motions for judgment will be taken on Monday.
As soon as a day has been appointed for the trial of a commercial case, entry thereof must be made with the associate and with the judge's clerk before five o'clock on the day when the order fixing the date of such trial is made, otherwise the appointment will be cancelled.
Undefended Divorce causes will be proceeded with to-day (Saturday) in Court II.
Mr. Cecil Chapman, the Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, is confined to his house through illness.
Mr. W. O. Danckwerts, K.C., has quite recovered from his recent indisposition.
The salary of Mr. T. S. Sidney, the present Attorney-General of Dominica, has been raised from £400 a year to £500 a year without private practice.
Mr. Leslie Scott, K.C., M.P., has been advised by his doctor to take a rest, and he will not be able to resume his professional and Parliamentary duties until the end of the year.
The Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association will hold their sixteenth festival dinner at the Hotel Cecil on Wednesday, the 15th prox., at 6.45 p.m. The president, Mr. A. Rye, will take the chair.
Sir John Macdonell, Quain Professor of Comparative Law, will give next Wednesday the second of his course of lectures at University College, Gower-street, upon "Comparative Legal Procedure as illustrated by certain Historical Trials."
Mr. J. K. D. Hill, Stipendiary Magistrate, British Guiana, is acting as Junior Puisne Judge of that colony pending the assumption of that office by Mr. Justice Earnshaw, who has been transferred from the Gold Coast Colony.
At a meeting of the justices on the 19th inst. Mr. Edgar J. Elgood, of Orange Court, Downe, Kent, was elected chairman of the West Kent Quarter Sessions, in succession to the late Lord Cranbrook, and Mr. Coles Child, of Bromley Palace, was elected deputy chairman in Mr. Elgood's place.
The Legal Musical Society will hold their first concert of the session at the Connaught Rooms, Freemason's Tavern, Great Queenstreet, on Friday, the 10th prox., at 7.30. Mr. Justice Bucknill will occupy the chair and will be supported by several members of
The Hon. H. C. Gollan, Attorney-General of Trinidad, has resumed the duties of his office on his return from Bermuda, where his services were requisitioned by the Government of that colony in connection with rearrangements of the Civil Service recommended by a commission of which he, when Chief Justice of the colony, was chairman.
On taking his seat on Monday last Mr. Justice Bargrave Deane intimated, for the information of the Bar and the public, that in future a list of summonses to be heard by the judge taking Probate and Divorce causes would be published in a printed list, as was the practice in the King's Bench Division. The arrangement was necessitated by the inflation of the summons list by summonses added at the last moment, which caused delay and disturbance to the rest of the work of the court.
The Central Criminal Court Bar Mess will hold their annual dinner at the Grand Hotel, Charing Cross, on Tuesday, the 31st inst., at 7.30. The chair will be taken by Mr. T. A. Symmons, and he will be supported by Mr. Justice Scrutton, the Lord Mayor, Sir Albert Bosanquet, K.C., His Hon. Judge Lumley Smith, K.C., His Hon. Judge Rentoul, K.C., Sir Rufus Isaacs, K.C., M.P., Sir John Simon, K.C., M.P., Dr. Scott, Mr. Curtis Bennett, Mr. Edward Snow Fordham, and Mr. Robert Andrew Gillespie.
The Gray's inn Debating Society held their annual dinner at the Holborn Restaurant on Wednesday last. The guests included : Lord Justice Vaughan-Williams, Lord Justice Buckley, Mr. Hamar Greenwood, M.P., Mr. W. Blake Odgers, K.C., Sir R. Douglas Powell, the Dean of St. Paul's, the Rev. Dr. Fleming, Mr. A. C. Plowden, Mr. D. W. Douthwaite, Under-Treasurer of the Gray'sinn Society, and Mr. Vesey Knox, K.C. Mr. T. b. W. Ramsay, President of the Society, Mr. W. Trevor Watson, Vice-President, and Mr. George C. Ismael, Secretary, were also present.
So many members of the Legal Profession are concerned in some way or another in ameliorating the lot of their fellow-men that mention may be made of the Social Workers' Guide (Pitman and Sons. 3s. 6d.), likely to be of considerable assistance in that direction. The law and practice upon a number of subjects is stated with care and arranged conveniently in dictionary form. Fifty contributors familiar with their respective subjects have collaborated in the production of a work of reference which seems to be just what is needed at the present time.
An unusual incident has occurred during the week in the Seine et Marne Assize Court, presided over by M. Planteau. A man was arraigned for fratricide. The jury had been sworn, and the accused, one Damas, arraigned for having shot his elder brother in July last, was represented by Me. Jean Brack. As soon as the first interrogatory was put, it was seen that no witnesses were present. Inquiry showed that by error they had all been summoned to attend on the following day. The consequence was that, in terms of the law, the trial had to be put back until the next session.
The Débats publishes daily extracts from the files of a century ago. Under date the 19th Oct. 1811 we read the following dispatch from Bâle, dated the 9th Oct. : A young woman of this city, who was found guilty of the crime of infanticide, was conducted yesterday to the scaffold, where the public executioner passed three times the sword of justice above her head. She had been condemned to death in the first instance, but, having regard to the many extenuating circumstances, the sentence was mitigated and the young woman ordered to undergo twenty-five years' imprisonment.'
The second meeting of the session 1911-12 of the Union Society of London, was held at 3, King's Bench-walk, Temple, on the 25th inst., at 8 p.m. The president, Mr. A. A. Eustace, was in the chair. The subject for debate was: "That the recent unrest in the labour world has made the immediate repeal of the Trades Disputes Act imperative." Mr. Frank G. Enness opened and Mr. Herbert J. Cape opposed. Other speakers were: For the motion— Mr. W. S. Meeke, Mr. George F. Kingham, Mr. Guy Baker, Mr. W. S. Jones, Mr. Beaumont Edwards. Against the motion: Mr. A. V. Davies, Mr. S. G. Turner, Mr. H. Geen, Mr. James H. Critchley. The motion was declared carried by four votes.
The Burlington Magazine for this month contains a sympathetic notice of the late Mr. Max Rosenheim, by Mr. Charles Read; a note, with a beautiful coloured illustration, on the English Primitives; a description, by Mr. Lionel Cust, of Mr. Pierpont Morgan's newly acquired miniature of Thomas Cromwell; while Miss Coulson James describes a visit she made to S. Giovanni, in Persiceto, to see a little-known Francesco Francia. Chinese stone sculpture at Boston; the Italian medals in the Salting Collection; old Chinese porcelain made from English silver models; and Gilbert Jackson, portrait painter, are among the remaining articles in this number.
In the City of London Court. on the 19th inst., in the case of Wiskemann v. Barnes, Mr. F. B. Wrightson, plaintiff's solicitor, applied for the appointment of the plaintiff as a receiver in respect of what he described as a valuable life policy for a considerable sum in the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited. Plaintiff had obtained judgment against the defendant for £7, and, as the defendant was now in Montreal, Mr. Wrightson said there was no means of the plaintiff's judgment being satisfied except by the plaintiff being empowered under a receivership order to deal with the policy under the supervision of the court. He could not get a charging order. Defendant had mortgaged the policy; but there was a valuable equity attaching to it. Sir John Paget, Bart., K.C., deputy judge, said he did not like making such orders except in cases of great emergency. Mr. Wrightson said it was really a case of emergency, because, unless he obtained his order, the defendant might deal with the policy by surrendering it and so get the value of it. Sir John Paget said that the later authorities were against such orders being made ex parte. Mr. Wrightson said that when the receiver was appointed the policy would not be surrendered unless with the specific authority of the court. He would give that undertaking. Sir John Paget made the order as asked on Mr. Wrightson's undertaking not to deal with the policy without the order of the court, and to be responsible in damages, if any.
The new number of the Edinburgh Review contains an interesting article on the history of the Inns of Court. Owing to the recent publication of another volume of the Pension Book of Gray's-inn and Mr Ingpen's new edition of Master Worsley's Book, special attention is paid to the history of the Inns in the eighteenth century. It is suggested that the Middle Temple was more flourishing than the other Inns," and evidence is produced t> show that that Inn "was the alma mater of the English-trained lawyers who took a leading part in laying well and truly the foundations of the American Commonwealth." Attention is. directed to the development of the libraries of the Inns during the eighteenth century, and the further extension of it is regarded as one of the foremost features in their history during the last century."
In Ireland, estates that have passed through the Landed Estate" Courts are registered compulsorily in the Registration of Title Office. Great complaint is just now being made with regard to the delay the registration involves. At the present time there are approximately 18,500 first registrations untouched, including 5000 labourers' cottages, and the arrears are constantly growing. It has been represented to the authorities that this is a very grave matter, causing expense and embarrassment to small owners, who are compelled by law to register their titles, but who are prevented by the delay from dealing with their holdings. The fact that these complaints are rife in Ireland, where the system has been in operation for some fifty years, is certainly significant, and should be considered by the Lord Chancellor in view of his proposal to extend to the whole of England the system, which in this country has only been on trial as an experiment for the last twelve years in the county of London.
It is of interest to know that Lord Loreburn, who will have completed six years in office as Lord Chancellor, has at the present time been in possession of the Great Seal without interruption in its tenure for a longer period than any of its holders since the Reform period, with the exception of Earl Cairns, who was Chancellor from Jan. 1874 till April 1880, and the Earl of Halsbury, who was Chancellor from June 1895 till Dec. 1905, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Lord Asbourne, having a concurrent tenure of the Great Seal of Ireland. It is, however, with the Great Seal of Ireland that the tenure of Lords Chancellor in modern times breaks the record. Lord Lifford was Lord Chancellor of Ireland from 1767 till 1784, and Earl Manners from 1807 till 1827. These dignitaries were the longest in office of any Chancellors sinceEdward I.'s time, and of any since the Conquest, save twoStephen Ridel, in the reign of Richard I., and Formund le Brun, in the reign of Henry III. Ridel officiated thirty-three years, and Le Brun four-and-twenty.
In the Church Quarterly Review is an article by Mr. C. E. A. Bedwell, Librarian to the Middle Temple, about the Temple Church. Use is made of the various books on the subject, from Mr. Addison's work published in 1843 down to the new edition recently prepared by Mr. M. Muir Mackenzie of Mr. Macrory's Notes on the Temple Organ. The article reviews the history of the church from the time that it was the property of the Knights Templars,. directs attention to some interesting points, such as the esteem in which it has been held as a place of sepulture," and emphasises, in the words of the late Mr. Inderwick, that the church has been "not only structurally, but sentimentally," the centre of the homes and associations of the members of the two Temples. Another article in the same number deserving of particular mention is a brilliant piece of special pleading by Dr. Headlam, Principal of King's College, upon The Value of the Establishment of the
Mr. Birrell revealed no secret to any student of constitutional practice and development when, in his speech at Ilfracombe on the 19th inst., he stated that in the promised Government measure for the establishment of a Home Rule system in Ireland the contemplated Legislature will consist of two Chambers. "The principle of two Houses," or the "bicameral system," as it has been termed by Jeremy Bentham, is in accordance with the genius of Anglican statesmanship, which discards the idea of three or four estates or of one House only. Both are equally and essentially un-Anglican. * practice "Although," writes Professor Lieber, alone can show the whole advantage that may be derived from the system of two Chambers, it must be a striking fact to every inquirer in distant countries that not only has the system of two Houses historically developed itself in England, but it has been adopted in the United States and by all the British colonies where local Legislatures exist. The bicameral system accompanies the Anglican race like common law, while no one attempt at intreducing the unicameral system in larger countries has succeeded."
Judge Sir T. Snagge, sitting at the Kettering County Court on Tuesday, referred to the 118 judgment summonses before him as the highest number he had ever had in that court. He was sony to say that throughout the whole of his circuit judgment summonses were increasing by leaps and bounds. One reason was the Married Women's Property Act and another the hire-purchase system. It was a monstrous system, but unfortunately it was the law. The Treasury were running County Courts like a shop, and the more customers there were attracted to the shop the more fees went into the Treasury. It was oppressing and repulsive work for the County Court judges. There were four or five score of poor, wretched people, broken down-the bankrupts of the working class who could hardly keep body and soul together, with too large families
and too small wages, with the cost of living increasing and further taxes about to be put on them. In face of that he had to make orders to screw the last penny out of them or give the breadwinner three weeks in gaol. It was an odious and dreadful system, but fifty-four County Court judges with himself were administering it all over the country. He did not think the public understood what went on in the County Courts, and he was sure that the Legislature did not. It would seem that the Legislature had no time to deal with such topics.
In the City of London Court, on Tuesday, Sir John Paget, Bart., K.C., deputy judge, gave a decision, which he said was of importance to solicitors and executors, in which Messrs. Jones, Lang, and Co., auctioneers, King-street, Cheapside, E.C., sued Mr. Frank Bindley, solicitor, 4, Mitre-court, Temple, to recover the sum of two guineas for inspecting property at 8, Oat-lane, in December and making a valuation upon his instructions. Mr. R. F. Taylor, a member of the plaintiff firm, said he did not know anyone else in the matter except the defendant. Defendant gave him details of the property, and asked him to make the valuation. Solicitors were coming to them every day acting for executors, and that had been the practice for many years. They could never carry on their business as surveyors if solicitors were not personally liable. He did not know that the defendant was acting for Mr. Thomas Briggs, an executor of an estate. He did not know even now who the defendant's principal was. Defendant said he did not pledge his own authority when he went to the plaintiffs. He gave them instructions on behalf of Mr. Thomas Briggs, and plaintiffs had specific notice of who his principal was. The deputy judge said he must find for the defendant. Plaintiffs had acted as agents for a disclosed principal, either disclosed by name or by description. Defendant said he would not ask for costs in the circumstances.
An interesting case has been decided within the past few days by the First Chamber of the Civil Tribunal in Paris, presided over by M. Monier. The question was of a delicate nature, as it arose from a family quarrel. An application was made by M. Ferdinand Perrier, a banker, against his son-in-law and his wife, M. and Mme. Marshal. There had been a quarrel between the parties on some financial issue, with the result that they were not on speaking terms, and M. and Mme. Marshal forbade Mme. Marshal's father and mother to visit their little daughter, Denise Marshal, three years of age. M. Ferdinand Perrier' is a cousin of the late President of the French Republic, M. Casimir Perrier. Through Me. Charles Cornet, the grandparents, the demandeurs, sought the court's intervention. After hearing counsel, the court decided in favour of the grandparents. The President in his decision said that there was no doubt generally as to the absolute right of a father of a family to deprive his children of all communication with strangers, and even with relations, but there were exceptions to this rule, and the exercise of these exceptions belonged to the court. This was the case when the father, without motif grave et exceptionnel, interdicted all intercourse between his child and her ascendants. This was an abuse of the paternal power to deprive the grandparents of a right which had its source both in civil and moral law. M. and Mme. Marshal had not offered any serious argument to justify their refusal. They could not invoke the inconvenience of distance, seeing that the demandeurs dwelt at 20, de la Rue Erlanger, and M. and Mme. Marshal were living at No. 32 in the same Rue, so the court would decide in favour of the conclusions of the demandeurs.
NOTES OF RECENT DECISIONS NOT YET REPORTED.
BY OUR REPORTERS IN THE SEVERAL COURTS.
COURT OF APPEAL.
Employer and Workman-Death of Workman alleged to be caused by Wasp's Sting- Accident arising out of and in the Course of the Employment"-Compensation-Claim by DependantsAdmissibility of Evidence of Doctor as to Statement made to' him by deceased Workman-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 widow and grandchild of a deceased workman and his employer as to the liability of the latter to pay compensation under that Act to the applicants, as the dependants of the former, in respect of the injury caused to them by his death through an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment" of the deceased. The deceased was employed as engine-driver and blacksmith on the farms of his employer. On the 18th Oct. 1910 he went with his employer's machine to help to thresh his employer's wheat. While the work was in progress some of the labourers saw wasps upon the drum and at the back of the machine close to the deceased, who was engaged driving the engine. No wasp was seen elsewhere that day or thereafter. The deceased subsequently became ill and a doctor was called in, and the deceased made a communication to him in the presence of his wife. On the 1st Nov. 1910 the deceased died. In cross-examination the doctor said that death was caused by blood poisoning, which was set up by the sting of a wasp, which was the only possible thing to account for it. The doctor said in the witness-box that the deceased told him he was threshing wheat and must have
disturbed a wasps' nest, as wasps were about, and one stung him; and that he sat down and unlaced his buskin, and took a dead wasp off his stocking. Under these circumstances the questions were whether there was evidence that the deceased was stung by a wasp while working for his employer and the accident was one arising, "out of" as well as in the course of his employment. The doctor's evidence was objected to as mere hearsay, and therefore inadmissible. It was decided by the County Court judge that the evidence was admissible on the authority of the decision of the Irish Court of Appeal in Wright v. Kerrigan (1911, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 301; 45 Ir. L. T. Rep. 82); and that the accident arose "out of the deceased's employment. The employer appealed. Held, that there was no risk peculiar to the deceased's employment of being stung by a wasp; and that therefore the accident did not arise "out of " that employment, although admittedly it arose in the course of" the same. Held, also, that the marginal note to the report in the Irish Law Reports of the case of Wright v. Kerrigan (ubi sup.) was not borne out by the judgments in that case, and the decision there was not really inconsistent with that in the case of Gilbey v. Great Western Railway Company (102 L. T. Rep. 202). Appeal allowed.
[Amys v. Barton. Ct. of App. Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Fletcher Moulton and Farwell, L.JJ. Oct. 25.-Counsel : for appellant, Dodson; for the respondents, Bagge. Solicitors: for the appellant, Watson, Sons, and Room, agents for Barton and Sons, East Dereham; for the respondents, Morris and Bristow, agents for C. H. Large, Swaffham.]
Employer and Workman-Injury by Accident Compensation — Proceedings not commenced within Six Months of the Time of the Accident-Public Authorities Protection Act 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 61), s. 1—Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58). 8. 1.-An arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 was requested between a workman and his employers 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 workman in the employment of the respondents, and in Feb. 1910 he injured his knee while engaged in his employment. He continued, however, to perform his ordinary duties until Nov. 1910, when his leg became so bad that it had to be operated upon. Compensation was then claimed by the workman, which was awarded to him by the County Court judge. The employers appealed. In opposition to the appeal, the objection was (inter alia) raised that the County Court judge was wrong in law in holding that the Public Authorities Protection Act 1893 did not afford an answer to the workman's claim for compensation, having regard to the fact that the proceedings had not been commenced within six months of the time of the accident. Held, that an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 was not within the Public Authorities Protection Act 1893, and that sect. 1 of that Act could not be read without seeing that it did not apply to such a proceeding as the present. Appeal dismissed.
[Fry v. Mayor, &c., of Cheltenham. Ct. of App. CozensHardy, M.R., Fletcher Moulton and Farwell, L.JJ. Oct. 24. Counsel for the appellants, W. Shakespeare and Gibbon; for the respondent, R. A. Willes. Solicitors for the appellants; Ford and Ford, agents for Wansbrough, Robinson, Tayler, and Tayler, Bristol; for the respondent, W. H. Martin and Co., agents for Heath and Eckersall, Cheltenham.]
Lunacy Application for Liberty to attend Proceedings-Right of Next of Kin to attend.-In July 1906 T., who was tenant for life of certain settled land, was found to be a person incapable of managing his affairs, but capable of managing himself, and not dangerous to himself or others. A committee of T.'s estate was subsequently appointed without remuneration; and a cousin of T., who, in default of male issue to T., was next heir to the title and also tenant for life in remainder of the settled land, was given liberty to attend the proceeding generally. That committee having died, another was appointed in his place, likewise without remuneration. The result of the management of T.'s estate by the committees successively was to increase the income arising there from from a merely nominal figure to several hundreds per annum. In June 1911 a summons was taken out on behalf of T. and his wife asking that they or one or other of them might be at liberty to attend future proceedings in the matter generally at the expense of the estate. The summons came on to be heard before Master Fischer, but he did not think proper to make order thereon. The applicants appealed Fletcher Moulton, L.J., but the appeal was dismissed. The applicants then appealed to the Court of Appeal. In support of the appeal it was argued that in cases where a lunatic was incapable of attending proceedings it was usual to permit him to be represented by his next of kin; and that T.'s wife, who asked to be allowed to attend, was in the position of the next of kin (see Re Webb, 2 Cooper, 102, at p. 105, and the authorities reported in notes to that case). It was in nowise suggested that anything improper had been done by the first committee or his successor in the management of T.'s estate. Held, that, in so far as the application for liberty to attend the proceedings concerned T. personally, it could not be acceded to, the committee having been appointed because T. was unfit to manage his estate himself; and that, as to T.'s wife, there was no right for her to attend,
as she was not the next of kin of T.; but that, even if she were, it was within the discretion of the master in lunacy to decide that she should not be allowed to attend. Held, also, that if any application were made by one of the next of kin, the master would no doubt deal with it as he thought fit, and his decision would be open to appeal. Appeal dismissed.
[Re Marquess of Townshend. Ct. of App. Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Farwell and Buckley, L.JJ., sitting in Lunacy. Oct. 21.Counsel for the appellants, Romer, K.C. and T. T. Methold; for the respondents, Micklem, K.C. and Boome; F. E. Farrer. Solicitors for the appellants, Dawson, Bennett, and Co.; for the respondents, Coe and Robinson; F'arrer and Co.] Practice-Contempt of Court-Motion to commit-Service of Copies of Affidavits-Order XLII., rr. 6, 7-Order LII., 7. A.An interim injunction having been obtained against the defendant in an action restraining him from retaining possession of a certain machine, notice of motion was given to him that a writ of attachment should issue against him for breach of the injunction, or, in the alternative, that he should be committed for contempt of court in disobeying the order. Upon the motion being made in court, a preliminary objection was made on behalf of the defendant that a copy of the affidavit in support of the motion had not been served upon him with the notice of motion. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that this was not necessary, as the motion was in the alternative for committal, and that Order LII., r. 4, which was the only rule on the subject, only applied to motions for attachment. The cases of Litchfield v. Jones (25 Ch. Div. 64 and the memorandum of Mr. Registrar Lavie (given in a note to Re Evans; Evans, v. Noton (68 L. T. Rep. 271; (1893) 1 Ch. 252) and Harvey v. Harvey (51 L. T. Rep. 508; 26 Ch. Div. 644, at p. 654) were referred to. It was decided by Warrington, J. (ante, p. 292) that, having regard to the observations of Chitty, J. in Harvey v. Harvey (ubi sup.), and the general opinion of the Profession, there was no distinction for this purpose between a motion to issue a writ of attachment and a motion to commit; that rule 4 of Order LII. must be construed as applying to all cases where the person of the subject was liable to be attached or taken into custody; and that therefore the preliminary objection to the motion must prevail. The plaintiffs appealed. Held, that it was contrary to the plain meaning and policy of the rule that the distinction referred to should exist; and that therefore service of the affidavits was not required in the present case. Appeal allowed.
[Taylor Plinston Brothers and Co. Limited v. Plinston. Ct. of App. Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Farwell and Buckley. L.JJ. Oct. 21. Counsel for the appellant, James G. Wood; for the respondent, J. Rolt. Solicitors: for the appellant. W. Drake; for the respondent, Meredith, Mills, and Clark, agents for H. T. Smith, Southport.]
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-CHANCERY DIVISION. Contract-Lease-Option in Writing-Alleged to be conditional, but Condition not stated-Withdrawal before Acceptance-Communication of, by Third Parties-Specific Performance or Damages.-N., a solicitor practising at S.-place, at offices rented from the defendant until the 25th Dec. 1910, died on the 30th April 1910, and two other solicitors, the plaintiff and R., entered into negotiations with the object of acquiring the goodwill of his practice and the offices. On the 3rd May 1910 R. had made no definite offer to N.'s executor. On the 4th May the defendant signed and gave to the plaintiff an unconditional option to take the premises formerly used by N. for a term of years from Christmas 1910 at £85 a year, "this option to remain open for a period of seven days." On the 5th May the defendant let the offices to R. at a premium and at £75 rent, R. having acquired the practice from N.'s executor. Within the seven days, on the 10th May, the plaintiff, in writing, exercised his option to take the premises. He brought an action against the defendant claiming specific performance of the agreement contained in the letters of the 4th and 10th May and damages. The defendant alleged that the option was without consideration, and was given on the terms that the defendant should purchase the goodwill of the practice formerly carried on by N., which the plaintiff had failed in doing, and that prior to his exercise of the option the plaintiff was informed that the option had been withdrawn. Two facts were relied on in support of this. On the 5th May, after an interview between R., the defendant, N.'s executor, and his solicitor, the plaintiff telephoned asking if he could still negotiate with the executor. The solicitor replied informing him who were present, and that they had settled with R. On the same day R. took possession of N.'s office, and a clerk of N. called on the plaintiff and informed him of the fact. Dickinson V. Dodds (34 L. T. Rep. 607; 2 Ch. Div. 463) was cited. Held, that there was not Rep. 607; 2 Ch. Div. 463) was cited. Held, that there was not
a continuing offer by the defendant, and that the plaintiff was too late on the 10th May in purporting to complete the contract. Also that the contract with R. was, prior to the offer to the plaintiff, accepted on the 10th May, and that, had the plaintiff succeeded, he would not have been entitled to specific performance. Action dismissed without costs.
[Cartwright v. Hoogstoel. Ch. Div.: Eve, J. Oct. 24.Counsel: Jessel, K.C. and L. W. Byrne: Lawrence, K.C. and Ward Coldridge. Solicitors: Harry Pfahl and Causton;
Nonweiler and Romain.]
Practice-Fund in Court-Jurisdiction-Certificates m Respect of foreign Bonds-Inquiry as to Bonds outstanding-Distribution -Exclusion of Bondholders not coming in.-It appeared that a fund of about £5000 was in court in this action to a separate account, and that the same was now deemed available for distribution among the persons holding bonds of the Republic of Bolivia under a loan effected about 1872. The plaintiff, as holding some of the bonds, asked for distribution of this fund. He had had payments made on his bonds to the extent of 45 per cent., and he had received a certificate entitling him to share in respect of any available balance. He asked for an inquiry as to what bonds were now outstanding, and that, on that inquiry being answered, the fund might be distributed among the bondholders who came in and proved, irrespective of and to the exclusion of any bondholders who might not have replied to the inqury. The official solicitor raised the question whether the court had jurisdiction to so distribute the fund to the exclusion of non-proving bondholders, or whether it was necessary to retain in court such part of the fund as might represent the proportion payable to the non-proving bondholders. Williamson v. Naylor (3 Y. & C. Exch. 208), Ashley v. Ashley (36 L. T. Rep. 200; 4 Ch. Div. 757), and other cases were cited. Held, that it was clear that, inasmuch as there had been no certificate in the action showing who all the bondholders were, and therefore it remained uncertain who or what interests these bondholders who might not come in under the inquiry might be or have, the court had jurisdiction to make the order. The court proceeded upon the footing that it is obligatory upon those claiming to participate to make their claim, and, if after a reasonable opportunity to make their claim they have not made it, they must be treated as having abandoned their right to participate in the fund, and left it to be distributed among those who have made and established their claim. The fund would therefore, after a reasonable opportunity had been given to the bondholders to come in and prove, become distributable among those persons who had come forward and established their claims.
[Wilson v. Church. Ch. Div. Eve, J. Oct. 25.-Counsel : Lawrence, K.C. and G. M. Simmonds; J. D. Davenport; C. Dill: 1. T. Methold. Solicitors: Terrell and Varley: Davenport, Cunliffe, and Blake; Hyland, Atkins, and Roger; Official Solicitor.] Will-Bequest to Chapel Building Fund-Executory Bequest to same-Immediate Bequest held invalid in 1876 under Statutes of Mortmain-Claim to executory Bequest-Plea of Res judicata -Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 42)Application of Act to Building Fund.-By his will, dated in 1871, R. S. gave the sum of £800 upon trust, directing that his widow, E. S., should have the income until her death or remarriage, and that, after the happening of the first event, £400, (one-half of the fund) should be paid to the P. M. Chapel Building Fund. A further immediate bequest of £200 was given to the same fund for the purposes of the said fund." H. S. died in 1874. His executors, having been advised that the bequest to the P. M. Chapel Building Fund was void under the existing Statutes of Mortmain, paid the £200 into court, and, the then treasurer of the fund having been legally represented, an order was made in chambers, dated the 8th May 1876, directing that the £200 should form part of testator's residuary estate. In 1897 the P. M. Chapel Building Fund changed its name to the L. Chapel and School Extension Fund. E. S. died in 1909. A summons having been taken out to determine the right of the treasurer of the L. Chapel and School Extension Fund to the £400, it was contended that that bequest was to the same party, for the same purpose, and subject to the same legal objection as that for £200, and was therefore res judicata under the order of 1876 further, that, being in favour of a fund whose objects were to buy land for the erection of buildings, it transgressed the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act of 1888. Held, that the bequest was not invalid under the Act, inasmuch as the fund, besides the purchase of land, had other objects to which the money might be applied. Held, further, that, the decision of 1876 having been, on these grounds, erroneous, there was no estoppel by res judicata to the claim to the £400.
[Re Richard Surfleet's Estate: Rawlings v. Smith. Ch. Div.: Parker, J. Oct. 18.-Counsel: Romer, K.C., and A. Greenwood; Owen Thompson; N. M. Vickers. Solicitors: H. H. Bowyer; Edward Downes, for Allisons and Stainland, Louth.]
Will-Executory Bequest to Members of a Class and their "Issue" -Issue to take the parent's Share-Meaning of "Issue."-M. K., by his will. gave a life interest in his residuary estate to S. E., and directed that after her decease his trustees should divide the corpus equally between such of the children of his brother T. K. as should be then living "and the issue (if any) then living of such of them as should be then deceased .. in a due course of distribution according to the stocks and not to the number of individual objects, and so that the issue of deceased children should take by way of substitution the share or respective shares only which the parent or respective parents would it living have taken." S. E. died in 1911. Of T. K.'s children, one was alive and two had died leaving issue. Of these latter, one, H. E. H., had left a daughter, F. S. P., who survived S. E., and H. E. H. had also had issue two sons who predecease i S. E., leaving issue. Held, following the decision in Sibley v. Perry (7 Ves. 531), that the wording of the will and the reference to the parent's share precluded the grandchildren of H. E. H.
from sharing, and that the one-third share of H. E. H. was payable to F. S. P. alone.
Re M. B. Knight (deceased); Wadey v. Parrott. Ch. Div.: Parker, J. Oct. 19.-Counsel: G. R. Northcote; C. B. L. Tennyson; W. E. Hollams. Solicitors for all parites: Field, Roscoe, and Co.]
Will-Legacy of specific Shares on attaining Twenty-six years Severed Gift-Whole or Part of Income given to Legatee meanwhile-Gift of Accumulations to Legatee at Twenty-six-Whether Legacy vested or contingent.-By his will dated the 8th Sept. 1906 N., besides making certain devises and bequests, bequeathed (clause 13) all his shares in a limited company to his trustees upon trust, to divide the shares as nearly as might be into four equal parts, and he declared that his trustees should hold such four equal parts of such shares (a) as to one fourth part upon trust for his wife during her life, and after her death he directed (inter alia) that a moiety of such fourth part should be held as to one-half thereof upon the trusts thereinafter declared concerning the fourth part of the shares thereinafter bequeathed for the benefit of my son G. V. W." (d) "As to the remaining one equal fourth part of the shares upon trust, out of the income and profits arising therefrom, to pay to my son G. V. W. an annual sum not exceeding (a certain named sum), if the income and profits shall amount to so much, until he shall attain the age of twenty-six years, and when and so soon as he shall have attained the said age of twenty-six, my trustees shall hold such last-mentioned one fourth part of my shares and the accumulations of income arising therefrom, upon trust for my son G. V. W. absolutely. By subclause (b) in certain events, G. V. W. was also to take a certain gift over absolutely. The testator died in 1907, and G. V. W. died intestate in 1908, aged twenty-three years. The trustees of the will issued this summons to determine (inter alia) whether G. V. W. took under the will a vested interest in the one fourth part of the shares and in the one moiety of another fourth part thereof thereby bequeathed. The learned judge, after referring to Hanson v. Graham (6 Ves. 239), Pearson v. Dolman (3 Eq. 315), Saunders v. Vautier (Cr. & Ph. 240), Watson v. Hayes (5 My. & Cr. 125), Greet v. Greet (5 Beav. 123), Fox v. Fox (19 Eq. 286), Held, that the words employed primarily indicated contingency, and that if they stood alone G. V. W. would not have taken the capital, but that, taking the gift as a whole, it was a severed gift, and the fact that the whole of the income was, sooner or later, given to the legatee when he attained twenty-six, was enough to show that the contingency imposed by the word "when" was overborne by the other expressions in the will, and that the testator intended the legacy solely for the benefit of G. V. W.: the legacy, therefore, was vested, the reference to the age of twenty-six being simply an indication of the manner and the time at which the testator intended the legatee should enjoy the benefit conferred, and not a limitation of the gift itself.
[Be Baron Nunburnholme; Wilson v. Nunburnholme. Ch. Div. Neville, J. Oct. 13.-Counsel: Copping: Peterson, K.C. and Pepys: Dighton Pollock; Jenkins, K.C. and C. 4. Bennett: T. Methold; Ashworth James. Solicitors: Woodhouse and Davidson; Collyer, Bristowe, and Co.; Taylor, Son, and fiumbert.]
KING'S BENCH DIVISION.
Registration of Voters-Dwelling-house-Occupier rated in Ratebook-Agreement by Landlord to pay Rates-Rates paid by Landlord-Right of Occupier to be on Register of VotersRepresentation of the People Act 1867, s. 3, sub-ss. 3, 4.-Case stated by the revising barrister for the borough of Monmouth. At a court held before the revising barrister objection was made to the name of W. S. (the appellant) being retained in the list of Parliamentary and municipal electors. The name of the appellant appeared on Division 1 of the occupiers' list for the Parliamentary borough, and as a burgess for the municipal borough. Objection was made that he had not occupied the qualifying property as owner or tenant for the qualifying year. The appellant had during the qualifying period been the inhabitant occupier as tenant of the whole premises, which formed an ordinary dwelling-house, and were separately rated, the rateable value being £12, and the landlord, who did not reside in the house, paid all the rates in respect of the house. The appellant's name appeared in the occupiers' column of the rate-book. The landlord had entered into an agreement with the rating authorities to pay the general district rates in respect of the premises of which he was owner, at the rate of one-half the net annual value, agreeing to pay such rates whether the premises were occupied or not, and the landlord also undertook to pay the water charges and the poor rates for such premises in respect of the period of occupation; and in pursuance of this agreement the landlord paid the general district rates upon half the rateable value, and the poor rates and water charges in full. The appellant was the person whose name appeared in the rate-book as the occupier, though the landlord paid the rates. The superintendent rate collector stated that the demand note would in the first instance be served on the landlord, but that, if he became insolvent or refused to pay, the demand note would be served on the appellant, and that, if default was made, a distress would be levied on his goods. By sect. 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1867 a person to be entitled to a vote must have been rated as an occupier, and must have bona fide paid an equal amount in the pound to that payable in respect of all
poor rates. The revising barrister held that the appellant was not a rated occupier within the meaning of the Act of 1867, the rateable value being over £8, and that his case was covered by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Kent v. Fittall (No. 4) (27 Times L. Rep. 564). He therefore held that the objection to the vote was good, both as to the Parliamentary and burgess lists, and expunged the name and the names of 1284 others in the same position. Held, distinguishing the case from Kent v. Fittall (ubi sup.), and allowing the appeal, that as the premises were rated, and the appellant was the person who was in the rate-book as the rated occupier of the same and the rates had been paid, although paid by the landlord, the appellant was entitled to be on the register as the rated occupier of the premises.
[Smith (app.) v. Newman and others (resps.). K. B. Div. : Darling, Bankes, and Lush, JJ. Oct. 24.-Counsel: Foote, K.C., Coward, K.C., and Daldy; A. C. Carr. Solicitors: Bull and Bull; Wedlake, Letts, and Birds, for B. H. Deakin, Monmouth.]
IN BANKRUPTCY. Bankruptcy-Executor-Retainer-Bankruptcy Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 125.-Appeal by the official receiver from a decision of the County Court judge at Truro allowing the respondent as executrix to retain a debt due to her from her deceased husband. The respondent had advanced £200 to her husband, a farmer, before marriage, on an I.O.U. He died on the 5th March, and the respondent proved his will on the 4th April. On the 12th April she called a meeting of the creditors, who were told that the estate was insolvent, and that she intended to retain the amount of her debt. The respondent instructed an auctioneer to sell the live stock, &c., belonging to the deceased's estate, and informed the auctioneer that she would retain her debt. The sale took place on the 5th May, and the respondent was paid £200 out of the proceeds. On the 2nd May a petition for an administration order under sect. 125 of the Bankruptcy Act 1883 was filed, and an order was made on the 13th May. For the appellant it was contended that no specific assets had been appropriated before the petition, which necessary unless the debt was greater than the value of the goods. in the hands of the executor. Held (dismissing the appeal), that the claim was to the whole of the goods, and that an executor was not obliged, in the case of chattels, to retain chattels of the exact amount of his debt.
[Re Broad; Ex parte Official Receiver. K. B.. Div. in Bank. : Phillimore and Bucknill, JJ. Oct. 24.-Counsel: Hansell; Clayton, K.C. and W. T. Lawrance. Solicitors: Solicitor to the Board of Trade; King, Wigg, and Co., for J. Pethybridge, Bodmin.]
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL. Misdirection-Mistake of Fact-Effect on Jury-Onus on Prosecution to show that Jury is unaffected thereby.-The appellant was indicted for manslaughter before Mr. Justice Avory at the Central Criminal Court and found guilty. The prosecution alleged that the appellant struck the deceased an unprovoked and unlawful blow, causing his death. To support that story they called three witnesses, who deposed to the fact that there had been a discussion between the deceased and the appellant in a public-house, and that, on coming out together, the appellant struck the blow in question. The story told by these three witnesses differed in various details. The appellant called a number of witnesses, who gave evidence with regard to the same facts. Their versions of what transpired were also at variance on certain points. In summing up, the learned judge told the jury that, with the exception of the prisoner himself, who gave evidence before the coroner, none of the witnesses for the defence gave evidence before the magistrate, and that, therefore,. there was no opportunity of testing the truthfulness of what they said. As a matter of fact, some of the witnesses for the defence gave evidence before the coroner. Held, that, as the accounts given by the witnesses on both sides were conflicting, and as the question for the jury was, therefore, a very nice one as to which account they believed, it was impossible to say that the jury were not affected by the learned judge's mistaken observation of fact; that the onus was upon the prosecution to show that, if the statement had not been made, the jury would have arrived at the same verdict; and that, as the court were not satisfied upon that point, the conviction would be quashed.
[Rex v. Savidge. Ct. Crim. App. Darling, Coleridge, and Hamilton, JJ. Oct. 23.-Counsel: Stephen Lynch, instructed by William Breeze; G. F. Carter, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.]
Misdirection Omission to leave Defence to the Jury—Miscarriage of Justice. The appellant, was indicted for felonious wounding before the recorder at the Central Criminal Court. He was found guilty, but insane. Counsel for the appellant indicated that, as no appeal lay against the verdict of insanity, the appeal was against the verdict of guilty only. It appeared from the evidence at the trial that a constable saw the appellant, who was a coloured man, behaving in a curious way in the street. When the constable spoke to him, the appellant stabbed him with an awl. The appellant, who was undefended by counsel, contended that what was done was committed in self-defence, and that the constable struck him first. The constable admitted in evidence that he knocked the appellant down with his truncheon.