Page images

charges were properly chargeable to and payable by the county council, having regard to the nature and object of the charges and the length of time during which they had been presented and paid by the county councils and judicially sanctioned. The Court of Appeal now, however, has decided that it is not obligatory on the County councils to pay these expenses, and accordingly the application for a writ of mandamus has been refused. Lord Justice Holmes, however, intimated that, although there was not any legal obligation upon them to do so, the county councils would be acting legally if they did incur the expenditure. It is difficult to see, however, how they can incur this expenditure in the event of a ratepayer coming forward and objecting to their doing so. The decision is one of very considerable importance to county councils in Ireland.


[ocr errors]


HOWEVER justified may have been Lord Justice Buckley's cavilling at the inappropriate use of the expression "retrospective" when speaking of the operation of a section of an Act of Parlament, it is too compendious a word to be likely to be readily abandoned. Despite all protests, that word was employed throughout the arguments in the recent case of West v. Gwynne (noted ante, p. 32), and, erroneously or not, the meaning thereby intended to be conveyed was abundantly plain: Does sect. 3 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 13)-prohibiting the exaction of a fine for a licence to assign or underlet demised property in the absence of " expressed provision to the contrary" in the lease-apply as well to leases executed before the commencement of that Act as to leases executed afterwards, the words, on the face of the section, being per fectly general and not limited to the future? That was the important question that required determination in that case, and the conclusion unanimously arrived at by the learned judges of the Court of Appeal, adopting the view entertained by Mr. Justice Joyce, was that by the words with which the section begins-" in all leases -was indicated existing leases of every date. This decision was not come to without a very close and searching examination of the provisions, not only of the Act of 1892, but also of the principal Act of 1881. For the general rule is that, unless there be clear words to the contrary, statutes do not apply to a past, but to a future, state of circumstances, as was said by Baron Alderson in the case of Moon v. Durden (2 Ex. 22, at p. 40). quoting the maxim Nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet, non præteritis (2 Inst. 292). This accords with the statement in Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes (4th edit., p. 322) "that no statute shall be construed so as to have a retrospective operation, unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary or distinct implication." Several authorities are cited in support of that proposition, and among them is the decision of the House of Lords in Smith v. Callendar (84 L. T. Rep. 801; (1901) A. C. 297). In the Act of 1881 no regular system is followed in regard to specifying whether or not a section is "retrospective "-to use once again the convenient, albeit objectionable, expression. But in Part 3, headed "Leases," and comprising secte. 10 to 14 inclusive, it is noticeable that there is always a definite provision. Sects 10, 12, and 13 are made prospective only; while sect. 14 "applies to leases made either before or after the commencement of this Act, and shall have effect notwithstanding any stipulation to the contrary." In the part headed "Leases, Underleases, Forfeiture" in the Act of 1892-which Act is to be read with the. Act of 1881-and comprising sects. 2 to 5, nothing is said as to whether the same apply to leases made before, as well as to leases made after, the commencement of the Act. As was pointed out, however, by the Master of the Rolls (Cozens-Hardy), sects. 2, 4, and 5 are merely extensions of sect. 14 of the principal Act, so it was unnecessary to add the same provision as is appended to seot. 14. And sect. 3, if not actually an amendment of sect. 14, may well be treated as such, inasmuch as it indirectly affects the question of forfeiture, the subject which is specifically dealt with by sect. 14. One contention in the course of the argument, worthy of full consideration, was that the Legislature had deliberately provided a clue to their intentions by the insertion of the words in sect. 3 of the Act of 1892 unless the lease contains an expressed provision to the contrary.' It was argued that lessors contracting after the passing of that Act were thereby apprised of the necessity for introducing a provision as to a fine into the lease if the same were desired; whereas previously they would have been unaware of that requirement. In other words, subsequent lessors would have notice to contract themselves out of the section, while antecedent lessors would not. Therefore the section, it was urged, ought not to be construed as relating to leases already in existence. The Court of Appeal, however, were not disposed to read the words "in all leases equivalent to "in such leases as shall be executed after the commencement of this Act." Admitting that the section was a marked interference with existing rights, that, it was said, was the effect of most Acts of Parliament-an undeniable result. And as the Master of the Rolls very forcibly expressed it, he declined to "construe the section in such a way as to render it inoperative for many years wherever leases for ninety-nine years, or, it may be, for 999 years, are in existence."


Re Sir 8. M. Maryon-Wilson's Estate (noted ante, p. 9) will cause some perturbation to trustees whose powers of investment extend to securities of British colonies or dependencies. The case in question

[ocr errors]

was to determine whether trustees could invest money arising under the Settled Land Acts in stock issued by the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario, and the like. The investment clause referred to "the stock or securities not payable to bearer... of any British colony or dependency." The application at once raised the definition of the word "colony and dependency," and it was disputed that a province could be either of these entities. It is quite clear that for certain purposes-e.g., for those of the Colonial Stock Act 1877-they are "colonies," and the Interpretation Act 1889, 8. 18 (3), would seem to point in the same direction; but the question in the case arose under a will, and not under either of these Acts. Mr. Justice Eve has felt compelled to give a narrower definition to the word "colony," and he defines it so as to limit its meaning to the aggregate of provinces, and to exclude the individual provinces which compose the complete Dominion of Canada. The perturbing question for trustees is obviously as to the status of the divisions of Australia and South Africa since recent legislation has fused them into a composite body. The word "dependency" might be thought to have been sufficiently elastic to sanotion the investments alluded to above, but there seems to be still more doubt as to the true meaning of this word than exists in the case of the term "colony." Probably it is to be regarded as denoting a smaller entity than colony." Certainly in the case of Australia the expression "New South Wales and its dependencies," as used in old Acts relating to Australasia, refers to such comparatively insignificant areas as Norfolk Island, which was administered from the island continent. It seems strange that a question which would have been expected to have been decided long ago should furnish so much doubtful matter for trustees and their advisers, and it is to be hoped that the Court of Appeal may have come opportunity of expressing its opinion.


THE recurrence of case after case in which insurance companies are reaping a not altogether creditable harvest out of premiums received by their agents from the less-informed classes of society seems to justify to some extent the demand that the matter should be placed upon a new legislative basis. Policies worthless for lack of insurable interest are continually being taken out by poor persons, who are persuaded by the glib assurances of pushful agents, and it is not very satisfactory that the companies should be able to retain the premiums unless the plaintiff is in the very strong position of being able to prove the agent's fraud or dishonesty. Phillips v. Royal London Mutual Insurance Company was a case where the plaintiff was demanding a return of premiums on policies showing no insurable interest. The agent was proved to have represented that they were good and valid policies, and the premiums were paid on the faith of these representations_until the facts were realised, when repudiation at once followed. The plaintiff had no means of proving fraud, but in the County Court he succeeded in getting judgment. The Divisional Court held that this was wrong, for the case was one only of innocent misrepresentation-a matter in itself insufficient to base a claim for a return of the premiums. The position, therefore, is that plaintiffs in these cases are at a considerable disadvantage, and no redress will be given unless fraud is alleged and proved. The agent who conducts the back-door insurance business at suburban houses, like the agent who pesters young servant girls to buy trashy sewing machines at a price higher than that for which a better article could be bought elsewhere, will be alert to so act as to keep on the windward side of the law, and there is ground for suppos ng that Parliament might usefully consider Harse v. Pearl Insurance Company (90 L. T. Rep. 245; (1904) 1 K. B. 558). Lord Collins (then Collins, M.R.) says: Unless there can be introduced the element of fraud, duress or oppression, or difference in the position of the parties which created a fiduciary relationship to the plaintiff so as to make it inequitable for the defendants to insist on the bargain that they had made with the plaintiff, he is in the position of a person who has made an illegal contract and has sustained a loss In consequence of a misstatement of law, and must submit to that lose. Neither on the findings of the jury nor in the evidence can I find anything that brings the case within any of the classes that I have indicated." The plaintiff accordingly failed to establish his claim to a return of premiums.



PART 1 of the Revenue Act 1911, which passed on the 31st March 1911, makes some important alterations in the law as to duties on land values as enacted by the Finance (1909-10) Act 1910. Sect. 1 of the new Act renders any contract made after the passing of that Act between a transferor and transferee, or a lessor and lessee, for the payment by the transferee or lessee of increment value duty, void.

By sect. 2, sub-sect. 3, of the principal Act it was provided that on proof to the commissioners that the site value of any land at the time of any transfer on sale of the fee simple of the land, or of any interest therein, which took place at any time within twenty years before the 30th April 1909 exceeded the original site value of the land as ascertained under that Act, the site value at that time should be substituted, for the purposes of increment value duty, for the original site value as so ascertained. By sect. 2 of the new Act the said sub-section is extended to the case of any transfer on sale which took place twenty years or more before the 30th April 1909, and which was a transfer to the person who is the owner of the land, or any interest

therein, at the time when an application is made under that provision. And in cases where the original site value has been finally settled before the passing of the new Act, an application may be made under the aforesaid sub-section within three months after the date of the passing of the new Act.

It will be remembered that sect. 13 of the principal Act gave rise to much question. It was thereby provided that on the determination of any lease of land there should be charged and paid on the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor by reason of the determination of the lease a duty, called reversion duty, at the rate of 10 per cent. By the interpretation clause (sect. 41) the expression " lessor includes the person for the time being entitled to the reversion, whether freehold or leasehold, expectant on the determination of the lease. It is obvious that a lease might determine not only by effluxion of time, but by surrender and merger, and doubts arose in the latter case as to who ought to pay the duty, or who was the person to whom any benefit accrued by reason of the determination of the lease. These doubts are, or affect to be, removed by sect. 3 (1) of the new Act, which provides that, in relation to a lease which has determined, the person in whom the lessor's interest was vested immediately before the expiration of the term for which the lease was granted, or, if the lease has determined before that time, immediately before the transaction or event in consequence of which the lease has determined, is the lessor for the purpose of sect. 15 of the principal Act, and is the person to whom any benefit accrues from or by reason of the determination of the lease for the purpose of the other provisions of that Act relating to reversion duty. Sect. 15 of the principal Act made reversion duty recoverable from any lessor to whom any benefit accrued from the determination of a lease.

Sub-sect. 2 of sect. 3 of the new Act provides that where, whether before or after the passing of such Act, a lease of any land deter. mines on the vesting of the lessor's interest and the lessee's interest in the same person before the expiration of the term for which the lease was granted, the amount of the reversion duty (if any) payable shall not be the full duty, but such an amount as would, with compound interest at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum for the residue of the term for which the lease was granted, produce the amount of the full duty-that is, the duty (if any) which would have become payable if the lease had not determined until the expiration of the term for which it was granted, and if the total value of the land were at that time the same as it is when the lease actually determines.

Sub-sect. 3 provides that no reversion duty shall be charged where the lease is determined in pursuance of an agreement between the lessor and the lessee for the acquisition by the lessee of the lessor's interest if at the time of the determination of the lease (a) it had (at least fifty years to run and (b) the total value of the land does not exceed £500.

Sub-sect. 4 provides that where a lease of any land held upon trust for any body of persons is determined by surrender to the lessor upon terms that he shall grant to such persons severally leases of various plots representing in the aggregate the whole of the land leased for a term equal to the unexpired term of the original lease, and at rents amounting in the aggregate to, but not exceeding, the rent reserved by the original lease,fno reversion duty shall be payable on the determination of the lease. But the lessor is to deliver an account under sect. 15 of the principal Act in the same manner as if reversion duty were payable.

By sub-sect. 5, sub sect. 3 of sect. 14 of the principal Act is repealed; that sub-section made an allowance in respect of reversion duty in cases where a lease was surrendered and a fresh lease granted for a term extending at least twenty-one years beyond the date on which the original lease would have expired.

Sect. 4 of the new Act substitutes twenty years for ten years as the limit of time for taking expenditure into account for the purposes of ascertaining undeveloped land duty under sect. 16 of the principal Act.

Sect. 5 of the new Act amends sect. 26 (1) of the principal Act by enabling the commissioners at the request of the owner of any pieces of land which are contiguous, and which do not in the aggregate exceed 100 acres, to value those pieces of land together for the purposes of that Act, although they are in separate occupations, if the commissioners are satisfied that in the special circumstances of the case it is equitable to do so; and any such valuation may be made, although any of the pieces of land have been valued before the new Act, if the request for the valuation under such Act is made by the owner of the land within three months after the passing of such Act, and in that case the previous valuation is to be of no effect.

Seot. 6 of the new Act provides that where under the provisions of any lease or agreement any statutory company are required to pay over any part of the increment value to His Majesty or the Government, such part is for the purposes of the provisions of the principal Act, as to the collection of increment value duty, to be treated as increment value arising in respect of land held by His Majesty.

Sect. 7 of the new Act declares that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have under sub-sect. 4 of sect. 33 of the principal Act a right of appeal to the High Court against the decision of a referee.

REFERRING to "The Conveyancer" (130 L. T. Jour. 570) dealing with the question whether a husband and wife can assign leaseholds to each other by way of gift, an esteemed correspondent calls attention to two comparatively recent decisions which seem to support the contention there put forth that they can-namely, Lister v. Hooson (98 L. T. Rep. 75; (1898) 1 K. B. 174) and Mason, Templier, and Co. v. De Fries

(101 L. T. Rep. 476; (1909) 2 K. B. 831). In the former case it was assumed that a gift of £250 by a man to his wife was in itself valid, though it was set aside as a voluntary settlement because it was made within two years of the husband's bankruptcy. In the case of Mason, Templier, and Co. v. De Fries it was decided that wearing apparel purchased by a married woman for her personal use with money supplied for the purpose by her husband is prima facie her separate property, and, in the absence of evidence to rebut this presumption, or to limit or qualify her possessory title, cannot be claimed by the husband as against an execution creditor of the wife. In the course of his judgment Lord Justice Farwell said: "The husband may impose what conditions he pleases on making a gift to his wife, and husband and wife may make what bargains they please not being in fraud of creditors or otherwise illegal. If a husband buys a piece of old lace he may give it to his wife on the terms that she does not part with it without his permission, but this arrangement would have to be proved by evidence as a matter of fact; it would have to be proved that the condition was imposed, or that the bargain was in fact made, just as if the parties were not husband and wife, but strangers.

[ocr errors]


In Appeal Court II., after the remainder of the appeals from the Chancery Division (general list), entered in the printed sittings list, have been disposed of, Workmen's Compensation Appeals will be taken, but not before Monday next.

Judgment will be given in Gregory v. Mayor, &c., of Torquay (Civil Paper) to-day (Saturday).

Motions for judgment will be taken to-day (Saturday),

Mr. Justice Avory will take the case of Naters v. Willmot (for further consideration) on Monday next, at e'even o'clock.

The judges of the Supreme Court will rise for the Whitsun Vacation on Friday, the 2nd prox., after which the courts will be closed until Tuesday, the 13th prox, when the Trinity Sittings commence. There will be no sitting at the courte during the Vacation, and all applications "which may require to be immediately or promptly heard may be made to Sir S. T. Evans, who will act as Vacation judge from Saturday, the 3rd prox., to Monday, the 12th prox., both days inclusive. The judge will attend at King's Bench Chambers once during the Vacation to hear applications and summonses, but the day and time have not yet been fixed. On other days within the above period applications in urgent matters may be made to him by post or, if necessary, personally.

Mr. Justice Ridley and Mr. Justice Channell will leave London on Monday next for Hull, and will proceed with the hearing of the election petition on the following day.

Mr. Justice Avory will leave London on Monday next for Huntingdon, on the South-Eastern Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day.

Mr. Justice Coleridge leaves London on Tuesday next for Dorchester, on the Western Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day.

Mr. Justice Bray will leave London on Thursday next for Haverfordwest, on the South Wales Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day.

On Wednesday next Mr. Justice Bankes will leave London for Newtown, on the North Wales Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day.

Mr. Justice Grantham has fixed the commission days of the summer assizes on the North-Eastern Circuit as follows: Newcastle-on-Tyne, Monday, June 26; Durham, Monday, July 3; York, Tuesday, July 11; Leeds, Monday, July 17.

The judges (Mr. Justice Horridge and Mr. Justice Lush) have fixed the following commission for holding the summer a sizes on the Northern Circuit-viz.: Appleby, Monday, June 19; Carlisle, Saturday, June 24; Lancaster, Wednesday, June 28; Liverpool, Saturday, July 1; and Manchester. Monday, July 17. Mr. Justice Lush will go the circuit alone until Liverpool is reached, when he will be joined by Mr. Justice Horridge.

The May Session at the Central Criminal Court will commence on Tuesday, the 23rd inst., at 10.30. The Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Darling, and Mr. Justice Bucknill are on the rota to attend. but it is understood that Mr. Justice Darling will be the presiding judge.

The May adjourned general sessions for cases arising on the north and south sides of the Thames will commence on Tuesday next, the 23rd inst., at the Sessions-house, Newington, at 10.30.

An intermediate session for cases arising in the county of Middlesex will commence on Wednesday, the 31st inst.

The Inns of Court Easter Term ends on Monday next, the 22nd inst.

The courts and offices of the Supreme Court will be closed or Saturday, the 27th inst., being the day appointed to be kept as the King's Birthday.

Mr. Charles Cole, of Devonshire House, Southsea, Hants, retired solicitor, who died on the 17th ult., left estate of the gross value of £59,955, with net personalty £55,910.

In consequence of the death of the daughter of Mr. Justice Gibson, who with Mr. Justice Dodd has been engaged in hearing the East Cork election petition, & further postponement has taken place. The proceedings will probably be resumed on Monday.

Mr. Thomas Smith Gleadowe, of Stanley-place, Chester, barristerat-law, formerly H.M.'s Inspector of Schools for part of the Cheshire district, who died on the 9th Feb. last, aged sixty-eight. left estate of the gross value of £51,461, with net personalty £51,162.

Mr. Edward Henry Pember, K.C., of Vioar's Hill House, Boldre, Lymington, who died on the 5th ult., aged seventy-sever, left estate of the gross value of £149,454, of which the net personalty has been eworn at £123,828.

The Treasury has appointed as senior usher at Bloomsbury County Court Mr. George Allen, who was for twenty-three years in the City Police force, and whose father died in his eighty seventh year while holding office as an usher of the court.

At Bloomsbury County Court on the 17th inst., on counsel venturing to excuse certain legal points which he was citing as they were part of an ancient statute, His Honour Judge Granger said he had long since arrived at the conclusion that old law was often very good law.

A presentation was made to Mr. S. O. Buckmaster, K.C., on the 11th inst., by the Cambridge Liberale, in recognition of his having been the only Liberal returned for the borough of Cambridge since 1880. He was defeated by Mr. Almeric Paget in Jan. 1910 by 586 votes, and in Dec. 1910 by 343.

The Stoke Newington Borough Council have received a letter from the Home Secretary stating that, not having received any intimation that they contemplate withdrawing their by-law as to roller-skating on public footways, he has thought it necessary to take steps to procure an Order in Council disallowing it. The disallowance, Mr. Churchill adds, will not prejudice further consideration of the subjcot.

The Medico-Legal Society will hold their next meeting on Tuesday, at 8.30 p.m., at 11, Chandos-street, Cavendish-square, W., when Dr. J. Smith Whitaker, medical secretary to the British Medical Association, will read a paper upon "National Insurance against Sickness." Members of the Legal Profession are invited to be present and to take part in the proceedings.

Mr. H. Y. Stanger, K.C., Recorder of Nottingham, in addressing the grand jury at the quarter sessions on the 12th inst., announced that that was probably the last occasion on which he would have the honour of addressing them as recorder of the city. Mr. Stanger, who is a native of Nottingham, was appointed less than a year and a half ago. His eyesight has recently given him trouble, and it is presumed that his early retirement is due to this cause.

Sir Harry Poland, K.C., is contributing to the Marine Magazine a series of articles on famous British admirals. The present issue contains his account and criticisms of the court-martial and execution of Admiral Byng. In later issues Sir Harry Poland will write on Admiral Lord Dundonald and others. The magazine may be obtained from the secretary of the Marine Society, Clark's-place, Bishopsgate, E.C., price 1d.

The Hardwicke Society will hold their annual ladies' night debate on Tuesday, at the Middle Temple Hall, when Mr. A. M. L. Langdon, K C., will move:" That the Parliamentary franchise should be extended to women." Among the speakers will be Mrs. Despard, Mrs. Hodgkinson, Mr. A. MacCallum Scott, M.P., and Mr. J. R. LortWilliams. Members and guests' cards may be obtained from the honorary secretary, Mr. August Cohn, 1, Brick-court, Temple.

Caesar Cella, alias Crispi, has pleaded guilty to a burglary, says the New York correspondent of the Times, after comparison had been made of his finger prints with those on a window pane which had been removed from the building. The case is regarded as a great triumph for the Bertillon system, the conviction being the first which has followed upon such evidence in this country. Comparison was made with 150,000 finger prints.

The Royal Horticultural Society will hold their annual spring flower show in the Inner Temple Gardens on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday next. The gardens will be open on the first and second days from twelve until seven, and on the third day from nine to six. On Wednesday, the 24th inst., there will be a private show from 7 a.m. to twelve, the admission to which will be by ticket only. This year's show promises to be as good and as great as any of its predecessors. The band of the Royal Artillery will be in attendance.

Lord Alverstone, who presided at the eighth annual festival dinner of the Church Lads' Brigade, which was held at the Hotel Cecil on the 11th inst., has always taken a keen interest in all that relates to the well-being of these lads. He spoke in the highest terms of the good work that was being done by this institution, and made an eloquent appeal for funds to enable the governing body to maintain and extend the general work of the brigade, and help some 13,000 lads to enjoy the advantages and healthy surroundings of the annual camps. During the evening the sum of £877 17s. was collected.

The Treasurer and Masters of the Bench of the Middle Temple will in November next award the King Edward VII.'s Scholarship Fund for Legal Study and Research of one hundred guineas to assist a barrister of the Middle Temple in pursuing legal study and research connected with English and Foreign Law, International Law, and Comparative Legislation. Applications for appointment may be made in writing before the 12th Oct. to the Under-Treasurer, Middle Temple, who will at any time supply information as to the subjects suggested and the qualifications required, &c.

A portrait of the late Judge Shaw, Recorder of Belfast, was unveiled at the university on the 13th inst. by Lord Chief Baron Palles. It was also announced that a prize for economics had been founded in memory of him. The Lord Chief Baron said that for eighteen years Judge Shaw had administered justice in a manner which would have done honour to the most distinguished jurist of the century, while he had rendered valuable service to the cause of education in Ireland as Commissioner of National Education and as Chairman of the Belfast University Commission.

Friday, the 12th inst., being the Grand Day of Easter Term at Gray's-inn, the Treasurer (Mr. Edward Clayton, K.C.) and the Masters of the Bench entertained at dinner the following guests: Mr. Justice Joyce, Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady, Mr. Justice Neville, Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence, Bart., Sir Ray Lankester, K. C. B., Lieut.-General Sir Robert S. S. Baden-Powell, K.C.B., K.C.V.O., the Treasurer of Lincoln's-inn (Sir Henry Giffard, K.C.), Sir Arthur Pinero, Mr. Registrar Hope, the President of the Surveyors' Institution (Mr. Leslie R. Vigers), and Mr. A. R. Ingpen, K.C. The Benchers present, in addition to the Treasurer, were Lord Ashbourne, Mr. T. Terrell, K.C, Mr. W. T. Barnard, K.C., Mr. W. J. R. Pochin, Mr. Arthur Gill, Mr. E. F. Vesey Knox, K.C., Mr. W. P. Byrne, C.B., Mr. J. W. McCarthy, Mr. Montagu Sharpe, Mr. F. A. Greer, K.C., Mr. T. M. Healy, K.C., with the Preacher (the Rev. R. J. Fletcher, D.D.).

At the London Sheriffs' Court on Tuesday, before Mr. UnderSheriff Burchell and a jury, the case of Marmont v. German was decided, the matter coming before the court in the form of a writ of elegit. Mr. D. W. Drummond, for the plaintiff, said that his client, Mrs. Julia Marmont, had obtained judgment against the defendant, Frederick German, for £499 188. 8d., representing money lent and interest, but the amount had not been paid. He called evidence to prove that the defendant was possessed of certain house property. The under-sheriff explained to the jury that it was their duty to find whether the defendant was seized of the property mentioned, and whether the annual value was £64 149. If their answers were in the affirmative the plaintiff would take possession and satisfy her debt and costs from the annual receipts from the property, after which the defendant would again come into it in his own right. The jury found 1or the plaintiff, and judgment was given accordingly.

Mr. Justice Darling has called attention to the new rules respecting the disposal of cases on Saturdays. His Lordship said the rules provided that Order XIV. cases ready for trial would, where practicable, be in the list for and disposed of on Saturdays, and that if it were found necessary judges would take cases from the lists of other judges; that cases part heard on Friday would, in the event of no order being made to the contrary, be continued on Saturday, unless the judge trying the case were urgently required for Order XIV. cases, or had previously fixed a case for further consideration; that cases in Friday's list not reached on Friday, and cases not in Friday's list at all, should not without special order be put in the list on Saturday; that cases for further consideration or argument should, where practicable, be fixed for hearing on Saturday; and that the Lord Chief Justice and any judges on the rota to sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal on any Monday, and the judge of the Commercial Court, should not be required to sit on Saturday.

A return was issued on Monday of the alien passenger traffic between the United Kingdom and ports in Europe or within the Mediterranean during the three months ending the 31st March 1911. In the period under review 75,153 alien passengers landed in the United Kingdom, as compared with 88,942 in the corresponding quarter of 1910. Cabin passengers numbered 27,701, and 20,460 were transmigrants. Leave to land was refused in 200 cases, 183 males, eight females, and nine dependants, a class which includes wives travelling with their husbands and children under twenty-one years of age. The number of alien passengers who embarked in the United Kingdom for ports in Europe and the Mediterranean Sea during the first three months of the year is given as 63,175, as compared with 56,461 in 1910. The first-class passengers numbered 26,567, the second-class 16,463, and the third-class 20,145. The expulsion orders issued during the three months amounted in number to, against 122 in the corresponding period of 1910.

An incident illustrating the effect of the separation of the Church from the State in France occurred during the present session of the Assize Court of the Seine. When calling the names of the jurors, the President read out that of the Abbé Barrué. The Avocat-Général rose and asked if M. Barrué were an ordained priest. The Abbé replied that he was. "In that case," said the Avocat-Général, “'1 consider that it is incompatible for him in the quality of a minister of religion to serve on a jury." The Abbé protested. "I am." he said, a professor with full independence. I am present here because I would add that I am in equality with any other citizen. I have not studied the question as to whether I have the right to serve, but I think I have." The court retired to deliberate, and in the result decided that the Abbé did possess that right. The lots were then drawn, but the name of the Abbé remained in the urn. Art. 3 of the law of the 21st Nov. 1872 enacts that there is an incompatibility between the functions of a juror and those of a ministre d'un culte recognised by the State. But the court in the present instance held that the law of the 21st Nov. 1872 was no longer applicable, since the law of the 9th Dec. 1905 upon the separation of the Churches from the State, in art. 2, declares: "La République ne reconnait, ne salarie, ne subventionne aucun culte," evidently the words upon which the Abbé relied in his contention, "Je me suis présenté ici parce que suis égal à tout autre citoyen."

Representatives of large British shipping firms waited upon the President or the Board of Trade on Monday and placed before him views on the subject of Imperial merchant shipping legislation. Mr. Russell Rea, M.P., introduced the deputation, and among the speakers were Mr. Norman Hill (Liverpool), who referred to the difficulties of imposing standards on those engaged in international trade, and Mr. P. A. Molteno, M.P., who expressed the opinion that there should be one source of Imperial legislation for oversea shipping. Mr. Buxton, in reply, said that he was glad to have the views of the trade before him and would bear them in mind when the subject came up for discussion at the Imperial Conference.

Sir Edward Bradford, formerly Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, died suddenly at his residence in London on the 13th inst., aged seventy-five. He was a son of the late Rev. W. M. K. Bradford, Westmeon, Hants, and was educated at Marlborough. At the age of seventeen he entered the Indian Army, in which he had a distinguished career. On his return to England he became Secretary in the Political and Secret Department of the India Office. In 1889 he was made an Aide-de-Camp to Queen Victoria, a post which he retained till 1893. In 1890 he succeeded Mr. Monro as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Sir Edward was created a G.C.B. and a K.C.S.I. in 1885, and a G.C.V.O. in 1902, while last year he was made an Extra Equerry to His Majesty just as he had been under King Edward. In 1902 he received a baronetcy, in which he is succeeded by his son Evelyn Ridley Bradford, who was born in 1869 and is a major in the Seaforth Highlanders. He was twice married, first in 1866 to a daughter of Mr. Edward Knight, Chawton House, Hants, and Becondly, in 1898, to a daughter of Mr. William Nicholson, Basing House, Hants.

The grand jury appointed over two months ago to investigate the alleged "wave of crime" in the city of New York made an elaborate report on Wednesday discrediting the complaints of an increase of crime and whitewashing the Police Department and Mr. Gaynor's administration, says the New York correspondent of the Times. It admits that there has been "somewhat of an increase" in crime, but attributes it to the invasion of the city by tramps and criminals from elsewhere. It commends the mayor for his attitude towards the police and crime and for his efforts to prevent brutality and "grafting by the police, but recommends a modified restoration of plain clothes detectives and "freer use of the club." Elaborate statistics are presented tending to vindicate the efficiency of the police and to discredit the notion that crime is increasing in New York at an abnormal rate. The grand jury makes no indictment nor even severe eriticism of any high officer of the city government or of the Police Department. In the meantime every observant citizen is fully aware that all sorts of crimes and flagrant manifestations of social vice are more numerous and general than they have been for many years.

[ocr errors]

A picture representing Charles King, a Chinese boarding-house keeper, taking the oath at the Poplar Coroner's Court during the East End murder case, in which the witness is depicted blowing out a candle to signify that if he lies his soul will be blown out with the flame recalls some of the quaint ceremonials attending the taking of oaths recorded in the books. A Chinaman has been thus sworn in R. v. Entrehman (1 Car. & M., p. 248). On entering the box, the witness immediately knelt down, and a china saucer having been placed in his hand, he broke it. The officer of the court, through an interpreter, then addressed him thus: "You shall tell the truth and the whole truth, and if you do not tell the truth your soul will be cracked like the saucer." The form of swearing a Mahometan in R. v. Morgan (1 Leach C. C., p. 54) was as follows: The witness first placed his right hand on the Koran, put the other hand to his forehead, and brought the top of his forehead down to the book and touched it with his head. He then looked for some time upon it, and, being asked what effect that ceremony was to produce, he answered that he was bound by it to speak the truth. The deposition of a Gentoo (Omichund v. Barker, 1 Atk., p. 21) has been received who touched with his hand the foot of a Brahmin. Buddhists have been sworn by the three holy existences-Buddha, Dhamma, and Pro Sangha— and the devotees of the twenty-two firmaments," and a Parsee on the Zend-Avesta, or by binding a holy cord" round his body: (see Roscoe's Nisi Prius, 17th edit., pp. 161-162).


[ocr errors]


The United States Supreme Court has decided against the Standard Oil Company in the case in which that concern is charged with violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law. The court declared that the business carried on by the company was "a conspiracy and monopoly in restraint of trade." It recommended, however, that the period to be given to the company in which to conform to the law requiring its dissolution should be extended to six months. Advices from Washington indicate that the decision has raised a important issue, which is likely to be the chief subject before the country for some time. It is even predicted that an agitation will be immediately set on foot to obtain legislation restoring the potency of the Anti-Trust Law, the enforcement of which the Radicals declare is virtually impossible in view of the decision in the Standard Oil case. It is reported that as the result of the judgment the Government will not attempt to prosecute the Steel Trust, as it is believed that the Trust could maintain the plea that whatever restraint of trade it has effected has been " reasonable." Mr. Stanley, whose resolution to investigate the affairs of the Steel Trust was adopted by the House of Representatives on Tuesday, took occasion to explain from the floor that when he alleged that the Steel Trust had violated the Anti-Trust Law he did not mean the law enacted by the Supreme Court on Monday. It is pointed out that the assumption of the right to discriminate between good and bad trusts by the Supreme Court conflicts with the views of.

Mr. Taft, who, in his message urging Federal incorporation of trusts on the 7th Jan. 1910, said that no such distinction exists under the Anti-Trust Law. The Standard Oil case was first heard in 1906 before a Federal Court, sitting in Missouri. The United States Government alleged that the company, having since 1899 acquired control of sixtyfive minor oil companies, which in their turn controlled forty-nine others, had violated sect. 1 of the Sherman Law of 1890, which forbids combinations and conspiracies in restraint of either Inter-State or foreign trade. The Missouri Court found unanimously in favour of the Government; and the Supreme Court, to which the company appealed, has confirmed that decision and dissolved the company

That favourite subject with Mr. Taft, the defects of the criminal law of the United States, was treated with admirable lucidity in an address which the President delivered in New York on the 13th inst., says the Washington correspondent of the Times. Why was it that, though the English and American systems were based on the same broad lines, the administration of justice in England was "the admiration of the world," while in the States the majority of criminals escaped punishment? Mr. Taft had two explanations to offer-curtailment of the power of the judges over the conduct of trials, due to unfounded fear of judicial tyranny; and a lighter regard for the law on the part of the people. The President dwelt mainly on the former tendency, and closed his speech with a reference to the latest example in the Constitution of Arizona, which is awaiting ratification by the President and Congress. He trusted that the strong sense of humour of the American people would not be lacking in respect of this "nostrum," by which the judge was made liable to "recall" if his rulings and conduct in court did not suit a small percentage of the electors in hie district. After that it is obvious that Arizona will have to revise its Constitutional labours.

Wednesday being the Grand Day of Easter Term, the Treasurer (Mr. Justice Bray) and the Masters of the Inner Temple entertained the following guests at dinner: The Duke of Northumberland, Sir Joseph Ward, Premier of New Zealand; Sir Elliott Lewis, Premier of Tasmania; Mr. Fisher, Premier of Australia; the Rev. the Master of the Temple, Mr. Justice Horridge, Sir Francis Hopwood; M. Fourcade, representing the Bâtonnier de l'Ordre des Avocats; Sir Henry Giffard, K.C., Treasurer, Lincoln's-inn; Mr. H. D. Greene, KC, Treasurer, Middle Temple; Mr. E. Clayton, K.C.. Treasurer, Gray's-inn; Mr. C. A. Harris, C.B.; Mr. G. B. Shirres, Vice-Master, Trinity Hall; Lieutenant-Colonel Stuart Sankey, Inns of Court Officers Training Corps; the Rev. the Reader, and the SubTreasurer The following Masters of the Bench were also present: Mr. Justice Grantham, Viscount Knutsford, Judge Lumley Smith, K.C., Lord Eversley, Mr. R. A. Bayford, K.C., Mr. J. M. Moorsom, K.C., Mr. Justice Darling. Sir Francis Maclean, K.C., Mr. E. M. Underdown, K.C., Judge Wheeler, K.C., Mr. A. J. Ram, K.C., Mr. Justice Ridley, Mr. G. Boydell Houghton, Lord Robscu, Sir William Aason, M.P., Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady, Sir Edward Davidson, K.C., Mr. R. P. Blennerhassett, K.C., Mr. R. F. MacSwinney, Mr. G. M. Freeman, K.C., Mr. L. A. Atherley-Jones, K.C., M.P., Mr. Hugo Young, K.C.. Mr. S. A. T. Rowlatt, Mr. A. D. O. Wedderburn, K.C., Mr. Ernest Page, K.C., Mr. Justice Hamilton, Mr. A. B. Kempe, Mr. A. G. Rickards, K.C., Mr. E. Marsball Hall, K.C., M.P., Lord Robert Cecil, K.C., and Mr. Ernest Moon, K.C.



Old Age Pension-Decision of local Pension Committee-Statutory
Conditions-"Final and conclusive"-Old Age Pensions Act 1908
(8 Edw. 7, c. 40), 8. 7, sub-s. 2.-Sect. 7, sub-sect. 2, of the Old Age
Pensions Act 1908 provides that "the decision of the local pension
committee on any claim or question which is not referred to the
central pension authority
shall be final and conclusive."

M. applied for an old age pension, and it was awarded to her by the local pension committee, and no appeal against the award was brought in the manner prescribed by the Act. Afterwards facts came to the knowledge of the pension officer which showed that M. was not entitled to a pension under the the Act, and he thereupon raised question in the manner provided by the Act, but the local pension committee decided to continue the pension. The pension officer thereupon appealed to the Local Government Board, in the manner prescribed by the Act, and the board deprived M. of her pension, on the ground that she had not fulfilled the statutory conditions. Held, that they had jurisdiction to do so. Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ireland (1911, 2 Ir. Rep. 88) affirmed.

[Murphy v. Attorney-General for Ireland. H. of L. May 12Counsel: J. O'Connor, K.C. and E. Lupton; Redmond Barry, K.C. (A.-G. for Ireland), S. Ronan, K.C., and W. E. Wylie (all of the Irish Bar). Solicitors: George Guvan Duffy, for M. J. O'Connor and Co., Dublin; Beveridge, Greig, and Co., for T. T. Mecredy and Son, Dublin.]

COURT OF APPEAL. Bankruptcy-Petition-" Sufficient Cause" why Receiving Order should not be made-Knowledge by Creditor that Debtor in DifficultiesRight of Creditor to commence Action to recover Debt-Claim which

cannot be supported in Law-Extortion-Bankruptcy Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 7, sub-s. 3.-In the case of an insolvent debtor it is not extortion on the part of a creditor to demand payment of what is due, and to enforce by legitimate means payment of what is due; nor to make openly a claim which cannot be supported in law, and to decline to assent to a deed of assignIment when the claim is not admitted. A creditor who knows that his debtor is in difficulties is none the less entitled to bring hie action, obtain judgment, issue execution, and enjoy the fruits of it (unless he be intercepted by bankruptcy proceedings), and none the less because the result may be that he will obtain payment in full and other creditors will not. Re Shaw; Ex parte Gill (83 L. T. Rep. 754), Re A Debtor (91 L. T. Rep. 664; 21 Times L. Rep. 139), and Re Mills (94 L. T. Rep. 41; (1906) 1 K. B. 389) considered.

[Re A Debtor. Ct. of App.: Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Buckley and Kennedy, L.JJ. May 12.-Counsel: Hansell; Tindal Atkinson, K.C. and Alan Macpherson. Solicitors: Ward, Bowie, and Co., agents for Walter and E. H. Foster, Leeds; Robbins and Co, agents for Longbotham and Son, Halifax.]

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. CHANCERY DIVISION. Mortgagor and Mortgagee-Demand for Payment off-Execution of Reconveyance-Tender-Additional Interest in Lieu of Notice-Keeping Money idle after Tender.-A mortgagor received notice from the mortgagee to pay off the principal and interest, and that in default of payment within three months the mortgagee intended to sell. A few days before the expiration of the three months the mortgagor's solicitors posted the draft reconveyance to the mortgagee's solicitors, and suggested the last day of that term for executing it; but the mortgagee's solicitors insisted that the mortgagor should execute before the mortgagee, and the execution was postponed. The mortgagee's solicitors then returned the draft reconveyance with a note that six months' additional interest was payable in lieu of notice to redeem, and cited Bartlett v. Franklin (17 L. T. Rep. 100). Five weeks later the mortgagor attended at the mortgagee's solicitors' offices and tendered principal and interest to date, which was refused on the ground stated in the note on the draft. Two months after this the mortgagor took out a redemption summons, and in time an order was made for an account, payment, and reconveyance. The master made his certificate, finding that good legal tender was made and refused, and awarding interest up to the date of tender, and fixing a day for payment. The mortgagee took out a summons to vary the certificate, and did not attend on the day fixed. The summons to vary asked for a reversal of the finding as to tender and for interest up to six months after the date of the certificate. At the hearing of the summons to vary, the point was raised that the mortgagor should have kept the money idle after tender. It was found on the evidence that the mortgagor, without actually having the money ready, left a sufficient amount of security with his banker to enable him to borrow it at any moment, and that meanwhile he used the mortgagee's money in his business. Held, (1) that the mortgagee was wrong in insisting that the mortgagor should execute the reconveyance first; (2) (explaining and distinguishing Bartlett v. Franklin) that the original demand for six mon.hs' additional interest was wrong, on account of the notice to repay already given by the mortgagee; but (3) that the mortgagor must pay interest up to the date of actual repayment, by way of accɔunting for his profit made on the mortgage money after tender.

[Edmondson v. Copland. Ch. Div.: Joyce, J. March 29, 30, April 27, 28, and May 9-Counsel: for the mortgagee, Younger, K.C. and A. F. Topham; for the mortgagor, Hughes, K C. and E. F. Ball. Solicitors: Paines; F. J. Berryman, for Brennan and Brennan, Maidstone.]

Bilway Company-Running Powers over another's Line-Company A., with general running Powers over Company B.'s Line, purchasing Undertaking_of_ _Company C., which has to and from a Junction connecting the B. and C. Lines limited running Powers over B.'s Line -Whether A., having entered B.'s Line over the Junction, has general or limited running Powers over B.'s Line in Connection with the C. Line-Railways Clauses Act 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 92), 88. 38, 39, 40, 41.-The predecessors of the G. C. R. Company were by the Midland Railway (Mansfield, &c., Lines) Act 1865 given running powers over the M. R. Company's lines between Mansfield on the south and Shireoaks on the north. By the Lancashire, Derbyshire, and East Coast Railway Act 1897, s. 4. sub-s. 2, the D. Company were anthorised to construct a short line known as the S. curve, and to form a junction with the M. R. Company's line between Mansfield and Shireoaks, and by sect. 26 were given power to enter into agreements with the M. R. Company with respect to the regulation of traffic upon the railways of the contracting companies. By an agreement made in 1898 between the M. R. and D. companies, the latter were given running powers over the M. R. line between the junction and the S. Colliery, subject to a toll of 31. a ton, reduced to 2d. a ton by a subsequent agreement entered into in 1902. The S. junction was used in connection with these running powere, and also for the interchange of traffic between the D. and M. R. companies. By the Great Central and Derbyshire Railways Act 1906 the G. C. Company were authorised to acquire the undertaking of the D. Company, and by clause 4 of an agreement scheduled to the Act provision was made for the continuation of the payment of the toll of 2d. a ton in respect of the colliery traffic already mentioned. The Act of 1906 did not refer to the running powers of either company over the line of the M. R.

Company. The question which the G. C. and M. R. companies sought to have determined in the present action was whether the G. C. Company had the right to come on the M. R. line over the S. junction, and then exercise their running powers granted in 1865 over the M. R. line, or whether their rights to use the junction were limited to such rights as were possessed by the D. Company. The question was whether the present case could be distinguished from Midland Railway Company v. Great Western Railway Company (28 L. T. Rep. 718; 8 Ch. App. 841). The defendants relied upon sect. 38 et seq. of the Railway Companies Clauses Act 1863, and upon the provisions of the Act of 1897 taken in connection with the agreements of 1898 and 1902, as differentiating the present case. Held (following the case cited above), that the plaintiffs, having a legal right to carry traffic over the D. line and a legal right to carry traffic over the M. R. line, and the two lines being connected by a junotion lawfully inserted under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, which contained no prohibition with regard to user, were entitled to use the two lines in conjunction as one continuous line, subject, with regard to traffic to and from the S. Colliery, to the agreement of 1906, the costs to follow the event.


[Great Central Railway Company v. Midland Railway Company. Ch. Div. Neville, J. April 26, 27, and May 10.-Counsel; C. A. Russell, K.C., Jenkins, K.C., and Cozens-Hardy; Upjohn, K.C, and Sargant. Solicitors: Dixon H. Davies; Beale and Co.] Settlement-Shares-Bonus Dividend - Capital or Income - By an indenture of settlement dated the 22nd April 1910, H. N. in consideration of natural love and affection to his three children assigned to his daughter M. H. N. and P. C., the plaintiffs, as trustees the settlor's one-third share in the residuary estate of K. N., who died on the 25th Aug. 1909, upon trust to receive and invest it (inter alia) in the ordinary shares of any company in the United Kingdom, with power for the trustees to vary and transpose. The trusts declared of the income were as to one third for the plaintiff M. H. N. for life with a provision against anticipation, with power to her to appoint by will, and in default of appointment in trust for her next of kin. The remaining two thirds were settled on like trusts for the settlor's children the defendants A. L. N. and N. L. N. The settlement contained a declaration that the trustees might determine whether any moneys should for the purposes of the settlement be considered as income or capital. On the 29th Dec. 1910 the executors of K. N. transferred to the plaintiff trustees 145 £10 fully-paid shares of the E. Gas Company Limited, part of K. N.'s residue. The shares as ta ken over at the market price of the day-namely, at 24represented £3480. The E. Gas Company Limited had been regietered as an English limited company in 1859, and had a reserve of undivided profits of over £100,000 on a capital of £840,000, with a depreciation fund of over £700,000. In Feb. 1911 the directors proposed, and resolutions were passed, to sell certain shares held by them as trustees for the company to increase its capital, and to distribute £250,545, standing to "depreciation and redemption account and representing accumulated undivided profits, among the shareholders by way of a bonus equal on fully-paid shares to £3 68. 8d. each. They gave a valuable option to shareholders of applying for new shares at par in proportion to the amounts paid on shares. Forty-eight and one-third new shares were offered to the plaintiffs at £483 6s. 8d., and they signed a "bonus dividend warrant" asking that the amount might be applied in payment .for the new shares allotted to them. The ailotted £10 shares were worth £20 each, but, in consequence of the increase of capital, the value of the company's shares had fallen. On a summons asking whether the forty-eight and one-third shares were income or capital, or partly income and partly capital: Held, following Re Northage; Ellis v. Barfield (64 L. T. Rep. 625; (1891) W. N. 84), that only the excess of value of the new shares over £483 was capital, and that the tenants for life were entitled to a charge on the fortyeight and one-third new shares for that amount as income.

(Re Nisbet's Settlement; Nisbet v. Nisbet. Ch. Div.: Eve, J. May 16.-Counsel: W. H. Cozens-Hardy; E. A. Wurtzburg. Solicitors: Ellis, Munday, and Clarke.]


Public Health-Order to do certain Work-Non-compliance-Work done by Local Authority-Notice of Demand-Authentication of NoticeSufficiency of Notice-Public Health Act 1875, 88. 36, 266.-Case stated by justices for the county borough of Rotherham. A complaint was preferred by the corporation of Rotherham (the respondents) against the appellant, under sect. 36 of the Public Health Act 1875 for the recovery of the sum of £53 83., being the amount of expenses incurred by the respondents, as the local authority, in providing nine water-closets and three ashpits in respect of certain premises in the borough, of which premises the appellant was the owner. The justices, having heard the complaint, ordered the appellant to pay the amount with costs. The following were the facte. The respondents were the local authority under the Public Health Act 1875 for the urban district, and the appellant was the owner of certain premises and dwelling-houses within the urban district. In compliance with a resolution of the respondents, three notices were served on the appellant requiring her in pursuance of sect. 36 of the Public Health Act 1875 to provide in respect of the aforesaid dwelling-houses nine water closets and three ashpits. The appellant failed to carry out the requirements of the notices and did not do the work. The respondents in accordance with the terms of the notices did the work required to

« EelmineJätka »