« EelmineJätka »
The learned recorder introduced the question of insanity, which 'came as a surprise even to the prosecution. In support of the appeal it was argued that the only case left to the jury was whether or not the prisoner was insane. In any event, the appellant was entitled to have his defence left to the jury, even supposing it was not a good one. Held, following Rex V. Dinnick (74 J. P. 32), that it was a miscarriage of justice if a prisoner's defence, however weak, was not left to the jury, and that therefore the conviction must be quashed.
[Rex v. Hill. Ct. Crim. App. Darling, Coleridge, and Hamilton, JJ. Oct. 23.-Counsel: Oddie, instructed by the Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal; Boyd, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.]
The German Commercial Code. Translated and briefly annotated by A. F. SCHUSTER. Stevens and Sons Limited, Chancery-lane.
THERE are two methods of translating, the first of which is the word for word method, rendering the German into English as literally as possible, while the second is giving the general effect in intelligible English. Both have their advantages, and in the present volume we are glad to see that the translator has sought, as far as possible, to combine both methods. The German system of subdividing the sections into paragraphs and sentences has been retained, the whole forming a very useful book for all those who desire to become acquainted with the German Commercial Code. In appendices will be found translations of the Custody of Negotiable Instruments Act 1896 and the Private Limited Companies Act 1898.
An Introduction to Commercial Law. By ERNEST G. DIXON Butterworth and Co., Bell-yard.
THIS book states the main outlines of the subject plainly and simply, so that the commercial student who desires to become acquainted with a competent knowledge of commercial law will find in its pages sufficient matter to give him a good groundwork in this direction. The whole field of the subject is covered, and the author is wise, having regard to those for whom the work is intended, in not incumbering his pages with references to decided cases and statutes.
The Agricultural Holdings Act 1908. By AUBREY J. SPENCER. Stevens and Sons Limited, Chancery-lane. As a matter of fact, this volume is really the fifth edition of the same author's Agricultural Holdings (England) Act 1883, and the opportunity has been taken by him of revising the notes to the Act of 1908 in the light of two years' experience of its working, while the forms have also been subject to revision. A general form of tenancy agreement is given, which undoubtedly will be found useful, with such adaptations and additions as may be required to meet the conditions and customs of that part of the country where it is proposed to use it.
Equity in Roman Law. By W. W. BUCKLAND. University of London Press and Hodder and Stoughton, Warwick-square. IN these lectures, delivered in the University of London, the author attempts to show the essential kinship not of the Roman and the English law, but rather of the Roman and the English lawyer. He has taken a number of equitable notions, and has shown how the Roman lawyer, in the main without the help of legislation, modified the law in directions almost identical with those followed by our equity courts. It is a distinctly interesting book.
Mr. Reginald E. de Beer has brought out an Analysis of Salmon's Jurisprudence (Stevens and Haynes, Bell-yard). Like all other works of this description, it is designed to assist students preparing for examination, and, if only used in conjunction with the larger work, such an analysis as this is of very great assistance. The author, while compressing the subject-matter as much as possible, has preserved all that is essential, and we have little doubt that students will find the book both clear and useful.
The Justices' Handbook on the Law of Evidence, by Mr. W. C. Maude (Sweet and Maxwell Limited), is one that we can well recommend for the use of justices who are not lawyers, for whom it is intended. The law on the various points dealt with is stated concisely and to the point, but we think, however, the book would have been still more useful had the index been further elaborated.
To those who delight in satire we can cordially recommend Bluff's Guide to the Bar, "expurgated and edited" by Mr. St. John Lucas (Methuen and Co. Limited). The Profession will perhaps appreciate most How to attend before the master and How to write opinions, while How to describe a great case and How to report a case will appeal to the public at large. Its 137 pages are replete with good-natured wit.
Messrs. William Hodge and Co., Edinburgh and Glasgow, have sent us another of their interesting series of Notable English Trials. This volume deals with the trial of Simon, Lord Lovat, of the '45, and has been edited by Mr. David N. Mackie.
Arbitration and Awards. By D. F. DE L'HOSTE RANKING, E. E. SPICER, and E. C. PEGLER. H. Foulks Lynch and Co., Fenchurch-street.
THIS little book provides a concise account of the law and practice of arbitration and awards, specially designed and eminently useful for those laymen who from time to time find themselves called upon to act as arbitrators. A set of forms has been provided and the various documents required in the course of an arbitration, a hypothetical case having been put forward to which the forms have been adapted.
We have received from Charles and Edwin Layton A Treatise on Insurance Companies' Accounts, by T. B. Sprague, and revised by A. D. Sprague, which shows in particular how the annual revenue account and balance-sheet of a company should be drawn up so as to be in strict conformity with the schedules of the Insurance Companies Act 1909.
Messrs. Stevens and Sons Limited and Sweet and Maxwell Limited have sent us an analytical digest of all the cases published in the Law Journal Reports and the Law Reports during the years 1906-1910, together with references to the statutes passed during the same period. It has been prepared by Mr. James S. Henderson.
The Profession will be glad to receive the fifth edition of Odgers on Libel and Slander (Stevens and Sons Limited), the present issue of this standard work having been prepared by the author, Mr. W. Blake Odgers, LL.D., Mr. Bromley Eames, and Mr. Walter Blake Odgers. Numerous decisions since the publication of the last edition six years ago have rendered necessary considerable modification of the part dealing with the law of fair comment, and a new section has been introduced under Qualified Privilege" as to statements made in or copied from Parliamentary or official papers. The whole book has been thoroughly revised, and all relevant decisions included down to April last.
Mr. William M. F. Waterton, of the Divorce Registry, has prepared the seventh edition of that excellent work Oakley's Divorce Practice (Jordan and Sons Limited, Chancery-lane). As the Profession are aware, this treatise is not concerned so much with the law of divorce as with practice and procedure, and the book as it now appears contains all necessary information for the practitioner on every point ordinarily arising in connection with matrimonial causes. The text has been carefully revised and considerably amplified, and some rearrangement of the matter where desirable has been carried out.
notes of this Practice (the Red Book) have all been carefully revised and brought up to date, all relevant cases reported down to September last having been included. Naturally the new rules published during the year relating to the practice of the Supreme Court-namely, in March and July last-have been duly incorporated in their proper places. As to the citation of cases, we are glad to see that lengthy statements of the facts have been avoided, and the importance of presenting the statements in a clear and concise form has throughout been kept in view. All obsolete matter has been deleted, and, wherever useful, practical directions are given as to the exact steps to be taken, and where, when, and how each step should be taken. The table of cases contains references to all the contemporaneous reports, and the table of statutes has been brought up to date.
We have received from Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons Limited Parts 1 and 2 of the Commercial Encyclopædia, which is to be complete in about thirty-six fortnightly parts. The idea of the editor has been to compile a work which will provide in compact form a book of reference upon any subject which can legitimately claim to fall within the scope of business life. The articles on the different branches of commercial law have been written by acknowledged authorities on the various subjects, and all the latest decisions have been incorporated. Careful attention has also been given to the law and practice in connection with the Stock Exchange.
Mr. W. Carlyle Croasdell writes a useful little tract on the Law of Copyright in relation to Cinematography. He begins with a short résumé of the Copyright Acts, including some reference to the Bill which is now before the House of Commons, and goes on to remedies for infringement of copyright.
Mr. Cyrus French Wicker's pamphlet on Neutralisation is perhaps of special interest at the moment. The author gives an analysis of permanent neutrality, and then deals with treaties and the effects of neutralisation, and finally with the United States and neutralisation, the last chapter being a reprint from the Atlantic Monthly.
Law for the American Farmer, by John B. Green (New York: The Macmillan Company), is a neatly arranged book, each chapter in headed paragraphs, designed to help the farmer to recognise his rights and duties when a controversy likely to ripen in a litigation is impending. The subject is treated of in thirty chapters, from the modes of acquiring a farm to co-operative fire insurance.
The Council of Legal Education have issued their Calendar for 1911-12 from the offices of the council, containing the usual usefully tabulated information.
We have received No. 31 of that useful little compilation The Quarterly Noter-up, by J. M. Easton (Stevens and Haynes), being that for the third quarter of the year.
Part 9 of vol. 6 of Criminal Appeal Cases, edited by Herman Cohen, can now be had from Messrs. Stevens and Haynes.
The London School of Economics and Political Science (University of London) has issued its Calendar for the Seventeenth Session, 1911-12. The lecturers in law will be Sir John Macdonell, Professor Morgan, Drs. Higgins and Farkas, and Messrs. Disney, Manson, and Wright.
Sugar Beet, Some Facts and Some Illusions (Horace Cox), is an interesting work by Home Counties on the economics of this important question. The sub-title, "A Study in Rural Therapeutics," suggests the author's point of view, and he makes out a strong case for the sugar beet industry and the possibility of its being profitably established in England. Great Britain consumes more sugar per head than any other country, and four-fifths of that sugar is made from beetroot, so it behoves us to be interested in the subject. The book, which originated in a series of articles in the Field and the Times, is well illustrated.
Law Quarterly Review.
Laws of England. Vol. 18. Butterworth and Co., 11 and 12, Bell-yard, Temple Bar. October. Stevens and Sons Limited, 119 and 20, Chancery-lane. Price 5s. Costello on Engineering. Percival Marshall and Co., 26, Poppinscourt, E.C. Price 5s. 3d., post free.
Prothero's Motley and Tinsel. Stephen Swift and Co. Limited, 10, John-street, Adelphi. Price 6s.
Hanson on Death Duties. Sixth Edition. Stevens and Haynes, Bell-yard, Temple Bar. Price 36s.
Taswell-Langmead's English_Constitutional History. Seventh Edition. Stevens and Haynes, Bell-yard, Temple Bar. Price 15s. Chitty's Statutes of Practical Utility. Vol. 4. Sixth Edition." Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 3, Chancery-lane; Stevens and Sons Limited, 119 and 120, Chancery-lane.
LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE
PARLIAMENT resuming its labours for an autumn session cannot possibly see its full programme adequately considered and at the same time avoid some undesirable use of the guillotine. The Lords have before them measures on Copyright, Education, Isle of Man Harbours, and Small Holdings, and the Commons have. now to consider Bills passed by the Lords on Conveyancing, Appellate Jurisdiction, County Courts, Lacy, and Enfranchisement of Places of Worship. Both Houses have to deal with the Naval Prize (Declaration of London) Bill, and Bills relating to Shops, Railway Companies Accounts, Coal Mines, National Insurance, Finance, and nearly a dozen other measures with which no progress has been made beyond the first reading. It is obvious that these must be permitted to drop, and still there will be insufficient time before Christmas to deal with the residue. It is believed that importance is to be attached to the Insurance, Finance, Naval Prize, Copyright, and Shops measures. There is evidence that the principle of the original Bills on Shops was more acceptable to the interests concerned than those of the present Bill, which has abandoned the principle of compulsory closing and substituted for it a limitation of the number of hours per week.
THE Bill to amend and consolidate the law of copyright is not likely to undergo much change in the Lords after the detailed criticism it has received in its passage through the House of Commons. One of the main objects of the Bill is to extend the existing period of forty-two years to one of fifty years. This is followed by a proviso to the effect that after a period of twenty-five years has expired (or a period of thirty years in the case of a work in which copyright now subsists) from the death of the author of a published work, the book can be reproduced for sale without infringement, if the reproducer gives notice of his intention so to do and pays certain royalties. Another clause of great importance will in effect compel the owner of a copyright to republish, or allow republication. The clause will take effect, as drafted at present, "at any time after the death of the author. The class of work is, however, not entirely general, but comprises "literary, dramatic, or musical work which has been published or performed in public." The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is to have power, on a complaint being made, to order the owner of the copyright to grant a licence on terms and conditions to be determined by itself.
THE interpretation of the word "copyright as heretofore understood has necessarily to be widened to cope with such modern inventions as pianolas and cinematographs. It is proposed now to embrace the reproduction of “ any substantial part of a work "in any material form whatsoever and in any language," and to bring within the Bill lectures, and the conversion of literary, dramatic, or musical works into records, perforated rolls, cinematograph films, and "other contrivances by means of which such works can be mechanically performed. On the other hand, the Bill expressly seeks to exclude from the penalties of infringement fair dealing with a work by way of newspaper summary or research, or drawings of sculpture, or reproductions amidst matter, in the main composed of non-copyright material, bona fide intended for school use and so described in its title, of short passages from literary works in which copyright exists. Even this, however, is further hedged in by provisos, for the source must be acknowledged, and not more than two of such passages from the work of the same author can be published by the same publisher within five years. Further security is given to lecturers by enabling them, by a printed notice affixed to the main entrance of the building in which the lecture is to be delivered and also near the lecturer himself, to prohibit its publication in a newspaper. This, however, › is not to detract from a newspaper's right to publish a summary. Newspapers are further given an express power to publish a report of an address of a political nature without infringing copyright.
A POINT of no small complexity arises where a foreign author first publishes a work in this country and is a national of a State conferring no adequate protection to works of British authors. The difficulty is met by enabling His Majesty in Council to direct that the provisions of the new measure conferring copyright on works first published within our dominions are not to apply to citizens of that country not resident in our dominions. Clause 29, dealing with international copyright, 18 one of the
greatest importance. The general object is to enable an Order in Council to apply the measure to works first published abroad and to literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works made by foreign subjects, and, moreover, to treat residence abroad as though it were residence at home. This general purpose is, however, whittled down by a whole set of provisos whereby it is proposed to secure certain points in the interests of British authors. These include provisions such as His Majesty may deem expedient to require for the protection of works entitled to copyright under Part 1, in itself an exceedingly elastic expression, and provisions limiting the term of copyright to that subsisting in the country to which the order relates. This particular clause suggests possibilities of greater clarity were it redrafted into some shorter and more comprehensive form. A very important clause may be foundviz., clause 31-which debars persons from title to copyright in works, published or unpublished, otherwise than under this new measure. This cuts away the old common-law rights concerning which difficulties have in the past arisen.
THE meeting of the House of Commons on the 24th inst., the day to which by its own resolution it had been adjourned, is commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as the reassembling of Parliament, whereas it was the meeting of one House of Parliament alone. Adjournment is solely in the power of each House respectively, and each House can adjourn at a different date to a different day from that fixed for the meeting of the other House. Parliament during an adjournment of both or either House of Parliament is technically in session, and in the short adjournments at Easter and Whitsuntide the prayers for the High Court of Parliament now assembled are read in the churches of the Established Church. On the meeting of the House of Commons after its long adjournment, business was resumed at the point at which it had been suspended. An adjournment differs widely from a prorogation, which is the act of the Crown affecting both Houses. Parliament can only commence its deliberations at a time appointed by the King, neither can it continue them any longer than he pleases. The effect of a prorogation is at once to suspend all business until Parliament shall be summoned again. Not only are the sittings of Parliament at an end, but all proceedings pending at the time are quashed, except impeachments by the Commons and appeals before the House of Lords. Every Bill must, therefore, be renewed after a prorogation as if it had never been introduced.
THE reconstruction of the Cabinet in one respect is in conformity with the principle, on which great stress has recently been laid on constitutional grounds, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the responsibilities attached to the holder of that office in respect of the administration of the criminal law and advice tendered to the Crown in the exercise of the prerogative of pardon, should be a gentleman of legal training or of some experience as a lawyer. Mr. McKenna, who is the new Home Secretary, was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple in 1887, and practised at his profession, to which he devoted his exclusive attention, till his election to the House of Commons in 1895. The fact of his having been "bred to the Bar," to use Mr. Pitt's description of himself, will serve him in good stead in his new office, and his appointment thereto must be welcomed by the upholders of the constitutional principle that for the office of Home Secretary a gentleman learned in the law is desirable. This principle has been observed in the appointments to this office of Messrs. Walpole, Gathorne-Hardy (Earl of Cranbrook), Mr. Bruce (Lord Aberdare), Mr. Lowe (Lord Sherborne), Mr. (Viscount) Cross, Mr. Childers, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. H. Matthews (Viscount Llandaff), and Mr. Asquith, the present Prime Minister.
THE position of Lord Privy Seal, to which the Earl of Carrington has been appointed, was formerly an office of great trust, although its duties were neither onerous nor burdensome. They consisted in applying the Privy Seal once or twice a week to a number of patents. From the time of Henry VIII. the Privy Seal has been the warrant of the legality of grants from the Crown, and the authority of the Lord Chancellor for affixing the Great Seal. In 1884 an Act was passed to simplify the issue of instruments under the Great Seal which abolished the duties formerly assigned to this department. The Lord Privy Seal, having but
light duties officially, is at liberty to afford assistance to the Administration in other ways, and has often been called on to bestow his attention on subjects which required to be investigated or undertaken by a member of the Government. At times the Lord Privy Seal has been dispatched on a special mission abroad, the Seal being put into commission. This occurred when Lord Durham held the office, and afterwards when Lord Minto was Lord Privy Seal (see Todd's Parliamentary Government of England, ii., pp. 803-804). Mr. Gladstone once compared the position of a First Lord of the Treasury who was not head of the Government to that of the Lord Privy Seal. "He will be in the possession of an excel. lent sinecure-a sinecure substantially in the same sense as that held by the Lord Privy Seal, whose duties consist of affixing that important instrument from time to time" (Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3rd series, 310, p. 100).
Mr. Cassel asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases the valuations of land made by valuers under the Finance Act 1910 had resulted in minus quantities, and what was the largest minus quantity yet arrived at.-The Chancellor of the Exchequer : In certain cases (chiefly in South Lancashire and Scotland) land has been conveyed subject to a fee farm rent or feu duty, the capitalised value of which exceeds the value of the land as on the 30th April 1909. Since, for the purpose of arriving at assessable site value, this charge has to be deducted, the assessable site value in such cases works out at a minus value. The total number of assessments up to the 30th Sept. last in which this result occurred was 36,610. The largest minus quantity arrived_at was £7320.— Mr. Cassel May I ask whether the result to the Exchequer of this taxation has not been so far a minus quantity?-The Chancellor of the Exchequer: No, certainly not. If the hon. member will look at the return he will see it is coming in. When the Budget was introduced I stated that it would take five years to value the land, and you cannot collect the whole of it until the assessment is complete.-Sir F. Flannery: Does the right hon. gentleman still think the valuations will be completed in five years?-The Chancellor of the Exchequer Certainly. I am informed that the valuation is making excellent progress.
SITTINGS OF THE COURTS.
Abingdon, Wednesday, at 11
Bloomsbury, Monday, Tuesday,
Bolton, Wednesday, at 9.30
Brighton, Friday (J.S. at 11.30),
Bromley, Friday, at 9.30
Chipping Sodbury, Saturday, at 11
Consett, Wednesday, at 10.30
Doncaster, Wednesday and Thursday, at 10
Durham, Tuesday (R. By)
Gravesend, Saturday, at 9.30
Greenwich, Friday, at 10.30
Leeds, Monday (J.S. & A.0.), Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, at Lincoln, Thursday (R. By), at 3 Liverpool, Monday (By at 11), Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. and Friday (B., A., & W.C.), at 10
Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, at 10
Neath, Wednesday and Thursday
Courts Act 1903, if
and Friday, at 10
Oldham, Thursday, at 9.30; Friday (By), at 11
Portsmouth. Monday (R. By), at
11; Thursday, at 10.30
Rochdale, Friday (J.S.), at 9.30
(By at 2), and Friday, at 10
Stafford, Friday, at 9.30
Sunderland, Thursday (R. By)
Tunstall, Wednesday, at 9.30
Wakefield, Tuesday, at 10, Thurз
day (R By), at 11
Waltham Abbey, Thursday, at 11
Wigan, Tuesday, at 9
Other sittings are specially fixed if necessary.
THE differences in the criminal law in England and Ireland, more especially the disability of the accused or the wife or husband of the accused to be examined as a witness in Ireland, and the fact that there is no Court of Criminal Appeal in Ireland to reverse the verdict of a jury on a matter of fact, were discussed on the 20th inst. at an inaugural meeting of the Law Students' Debating Society in the hall of the King's-inns, Dublin, over which the Hon. Mr. Justice Barton presided, Lord Justice Cherry, Mr. Serjeant Moriarty, and Mr. Swift MacNeill, K.C., M.P., taking part in the discussion. Lord Justice Cherry maintained the advisability of the extension to Ireland of the Prisoners' Evidence Act of 1898. Mr. Serjeant Moriarty took an opposite view on the ground that accused persons, even if innocent, would be inclined in their cross-examination to tell falsehoods which would be detected and utilised to cast discredit on their evidence as a whole. Mr. MacNeill justified the exclusion of prisoners on trial and their wives and husbands from the witness-box on the grounds on which the late Lord James of Hereford and Lord Russell of Killowen deprecated the extension to Ireland of the legislation rendering such persons competent witnesses in this country. On the 22nd March 1888 the late Lord James of Hereford, speaking in debate in the House of Commons on the second reading of the Criminal Evidence Bill of that year, used these words: "He did not think it possible to assert that the conduct of criminal cases in Ireland was the same as that in England. Anyone who watched the conduct of criminal cases in England knew that no prosecuting counsel ever thought of exercising any ingenuity to secure a conviction. The judge was always careful to secure that no prosecuting counsel should for a moment exceed his duty; but he was not quite sure that in some classes of cases there would not be an acuter phase of forensic rivalry than would be displayed in this country, so that the efficacious principle would not be the same in Ireland as in England. Therefore this Bill should not be extended to Ireland." Lord Russell of Killowen, then Sir Charles Russell, an ex-Attorney-General for England, speaking in the same debate, said: "In Ireland, rightly or wrongly, under the existing system a widespread distrust in the administration of justice was unquestionably felt, and it would be intensified if it were extended to Ireland."
IN the King's-inns discussion on the differences in the criminal law of England and Ireland two little-known episodes in judicial and legal history were brought to light. Lord Justice Cherry said: "Trial by jury was of such value in every civilised country that attempts to remove it had always failed. An attempt was made in Ireland by a statute, passed in 1882, of a temporary character to constitute a tribunal of three judges to try criminal cases; but the late Mr. Baron FitzGerald wrote to Mr. Gladstone that, if the Bill became law, he would resign his position on the Bench. The Bill passed into law, and Mr. Baron FitzGerald did resign. The portion of the Bill to which Mr. Baron FitzGerald objected was never put in force." Mr. Serjeant Moriarty related the reason for the apparently unaccountable failure to extend to Ireland the law for the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal. "When," he said, "the Bill was introduced for the Criminal Appeal Court in England in 1907, Mr. Redmond asked him (Mr. Serjeant Moriarty) to express his views on it, and he did so. It was decided, however, that the Act should not be extended to Ireland, as, if it were, the Act of 1898, which enabled prisoners to give evidence on their own behalf, would have to be extended likewise to Ireland."
MR. SERJEANT MORIARTY also referred to the fact that members of the Order of the Coif in Ireland could not accept briefs for the accused in Crown cases. In this country, when the Order of the Coif was in existence-or, to speak more accurately, when serjeants were appointed, for the Order of the Coif has never been abolished, but is only, as Earl Cairns once explained, suspended-it was one of the advantages appertaining to its members that they were able to appear against the Crown in
Crown cases without the licence which had to be obtained under similar circumstances by King's Counsel on a payment of £9 9s. The Order of the Coif in Ireland, which has always been confined to three members, who take precedence immediately after the law officers of the Crown, and are rather to be regarded as King's Serjeants, is on a wholly different footing. In times gone by, serjeants were entitled by etiquette to go as Commissioners of Assize when there was a vacancy on the Bench or when a judge was unable, from ill-health or otherwise, to go on circuit. They were also entitled to a brief in every Crown case on the circuit of which they were members. Mr. Serjeant (Lord Chief Justice) Lefroy actually resigned his membership of the Order of the Coif when he was passed over as a Commissioner of Assize. Now all these privileges have been abolished, and precedence and preaudience at the Bar and a social precedence before that of County Court judges alone remain to the serjeants-an office for which in recent years gentlemen practising exclusively in equity, as, for instance, the late Mr. Serjeant Campion and the late Mr. Serjeant Jellett, have been selected.
STONE UNION v. NEWPORT UNION (SALOP).
AT Staffordshire Quarter Sessions, on the 18th inst., before Lord Hatherton, C.M.G., and other justices, the guardians of the Stone Union appealed against an order of adjudication obtained by the guardians of the Newport Union. There were various grounds of appeal, but the court only dealt with the first of these-namely, that the order was bad and defective on the face thereof.
Herbert Davey, who appeared for the appellants, drew the attention of the court to the fact that, while the justices who made the order were described as justices in and for the county of Stafford, it was stated at the foot of the order that the same was made at Newport, in the county of Salop. The justices had, therefore, acted outside their jurisdiction, unless it could be shown that they both had jurisdiction to act in the county of Salop as well as in the county of Stafford. It was, however, a fact, that one of the two justices only held office for the county of Stafford, he being an ex-officio justice of the peace as chairman of a district council in that county. He was therefore not qualified to act in the county of Salop. Further, such justice was one of the guardians of the Newport Union, and, counsel contended, the order of adjudication was bad upon that ground. He referred to Rex v. Great Yarmouth (1827, 6 B. & C. 646), where the court decided that an order of removal which had been obtained by "the churchwardens and overseers of the poor was bad by reason of the fact that one of the magistrates who made the order was one of the churchwardens of the removing parish.
Milward, for the respondents, contended that these objections were not covered by the grounds of appeal, and ought not to prevail.
The COURT were against the appellants on the question of the jurisdiction of the justices, but they decided that the order was bad on the ground that one of the justices who made it was a guardian of the complaining union. The order was accordingly quashed, but the court agreed to state a case on both points if called upon to do so.
MEDWAY UNION v. GODSTONE UNION.
AT Surrey Quarter Sessions (Kingston-on-Thames), on Friday, the 20th inst., before Sir William Vincent and other justices, the question was raised, upon an appeal by the guardians of the Medway Union against an order of removal made by two justices for the county of Surrey on behalf of the Godstone Union, whether a man who had been for two years an inmate of the Lingfield Farm Colony had obtained a status of irremovability under the provisions of sect. 1 of the Poor Removal Act 1846.
Herbert Davey, for the Godstone Guardians, contended that the residence must be excluded in the computation of time necessary for a status of irremovability, inasmuch as the man in question was residing as a patient in a hospital" and was in part maintained by a rate or subscription raised in a parish in which he did not reside, not being a bona fide charitable gift": (9 & 10 Vict. c. 46, s. 1, proviso).
Evidence was given that the farm colony, containing about sixty men, was under the same management as the Lingfield Epileptic Colony for Children, of whom there were about 170. Various private subscriptions were received on behalf of the colony, but all these were swallowed up in capital expenditure. Everything required for maintenance was taken from a common store, and all the matters which might be included under that head were paid for out of a common fund. The cost of maintenance of the inmates (men and children) averaged 13s. weekly, but whereas only 10s. 6d. weekly was charged for the men, 14s. weekly was charged for the children. The consequence was that the men were maintained at the expense of the sums paid for the children to the extent of 2s. 6d. per week each man. The pauper in question was paid for
privately at the rate of 10s. 6d. per week, but there were only about 5 per cent. of the inmates so supported, the remainder of the men and children being sent by boards of guardians and education authorities. It therefore appeared that, out of £7330 received in one year for maintenance, nearly £7000 was paid for from public rates.
Counsel cited the cases of St. Olave's Union v. Canterbury Union (76 L. T. Rep. 517), Ormskirk Union v. Chorlton Union (89 L. T. Rep. 256), and Christchurch Union v. Islington (70 J. P. 247); and contended that the words "patient in a hospital" not only included the cases of sick people receiving medical treatment in institutions, but extended to persons who were being trained mentally under care and discipline in places provided for the reception of that class of people. He further contended that, inasmuch as the large proportion of the sums received for maintenance was paid from public rates, and as it was clear that the 10s. 6d. paid for the inmate in question did not cover the cost of his maintenance, the residence came within the mischief of the proviso to the Act of 1846.
Burknill, for the Medway Board, contended that the provisions of the Act had been complied with by the residence of the man at the colony. He cited Fulham v.Thanet (1881, 44 L. T. Rep. 678). The COURT allowed the appeal, and declined to staté a case.
LICENCES AND PENALTIES.
THE Home Office has issued the following circular to clerks to justices :
Sir, I am directed by the Secretary of State to acquaint you, for the information of the justices, that his attention has been drawn to the practice in courts of summary jurisdiction in dealing with persons who have failed to take out licences to keep motorcars, or have taken out licences of a lower value than that required by law. The total amount which such persons are ordered to pay in addition to the costs is sometimes made up partly by the penalty proper, and partly by the local taxation licence duty. The penalty is payable to the local authority conducting the prosecution, while the licence duty is payable to the Exchequer, but in cases where no distinction is made in the justices' order between the amounts due under each head it becomes impossible to recover the sum properly payable to the Exchequer. I am therefore to request that you will be so good as to draw the attention of the justices to the importance of making it clear in the conviction what portion of the sum payable is to be considered as forming the penalty and what portion is licence duty claimable by the Exchequer.-I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, EDWARD TROUP.
PROMOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS. Information intended for publication under the above heading should reach us not later than Thursday morning in each week, as publication is otherwise delayed.
Mr. GEORGE STAPYLTON BARNES, C.B.. has been appointed Comptroller-General of the Labour Department, in succession to Sir George Askwith, K.C.B., who has been appointed Chief Industrial Commissioner. Mr. Barnes was called in 1883.
Mr. ROBERT CHARLES HERON-MAXWELL has been appointed Comptroller of the Companies Department, in place of Mr. G. S. Barnes, C.B. Mr. Heron-Maxwell was called in 1884.
Mr. CHARLES EDWARD JONES has been appointed Recorder of Saffron Walden and Maldon, in place of the late Judge Willis, K.C. Mr. Jones was called in 1874.
Mr. ERNEST MURRAY POLLOCK, K.C., M.P.. has been appointed Recorder of the borough of Kingston-on-Thames, in succession to Mr. Justice Avory, resigned. Mr. Pollock was called in 1885.
Mr. EDGAR J. ELGOOD, of Lincoln's-inn, has been elected chairman of the West Kent Quarter Sessions, in succession to the late Earl of Cranbrook. Mr. Eigood was called in 1875.
Mr. THEODORE Guillaume, of 9, Salisbury-square, E.C., Bournemouth, and Weybridge, a member of the firm of Messrs. Guillaume and Sons, has been appointed a Commissioner for Oaths for the Union of South Africa.
Mr. F. BRINSLEY HARPER has been appointed a Justice of the Peace for the County of London. Mr. Brinsley-Harper was admitted in March 1891.
A TREATISE ON ORDER XIV., and the Rules and Practice Thereunder and relating Thereto. By ERNEST ARTHUR JELF, M.A., Barrister-at-Law, &c. Price 5s., post free.-HORACE COX, Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C.-[ADVT.] WHERE TO FIND YOUR LAW.-Being a Discursive Bibliographical Essay upon the various Divisions and Sub-Divisions of the Law of England, and the Statutes, Reports of Cases. and Text Books containing such Law, with Appendixes for Facilitating Reference to all Statutes and Reports of Cases, and with a Full Index. By ERNEST ARTHUR JELF, M.A., of New College, Oxford, Barrister-at-Law of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, and of the SouthEastern Circuit. Third Edition, greatly Enlarged, price 10s. 6d., post free. HORACE COX, "Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C.-[ADVT.]
THE COUNTY COURTS CHRONICLE AND GAZETTE OF BANKRUPTCY.To enable it to treat more completely of the many matters on which the Judges, Officers, and Practitioners require to be kept regularly informed and to give to it the importance which, as the Journal of the County Courts, and their long-established official organ, it is entitled to assume, it has been greatly improved and enlarged in accordance with the extension of the Jurisdiction of the County Courts under 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142, 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, 51 & 52 Vict. c. 43, and 53 & 54 Vict. c. 63. The Reports of Cases relating to County Courts Law decided by the Superior Courts are in octavo form, as more convenient for citation in Court. Communications are specially invited to the department of "Queries," which is designed to do for the County Courts what the Justice of the Peace" does for the Magistrates' Courts. N.B.-The "County Courts Chronicle" was commenced with the County Courts. It is recognised as the official organ of the Courts. Monthly, price 1s. 6d. -HORACE COX, "Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream'sbuildings, E. C.-[ADVT.]
HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. SAUNDERS (William John). Persons claiming under an inquiry as to whether Pennooty (daughter of Cana Bapoo, of Cannannore, East Indies) and her four children living on Oct. 5, 1848, in the will of above-named William John Saunders respectively referred to, are living or dead, and if any have died since the death (June 4, 1910) of Isabella Saunders, their legal personal representatives to come in, by Jan. 7, 1912, at chambers of Swinfen Eady and Neville, JJ. Hearing Jan. 11, at 11.30, at said chambers, Room 701.
APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK
NOTICES OF APPEARANCE AT HEARING MUST REACH THE SOLICITORS BY 6 P.M. ON THE
ANGLO-GREEK MACHINERY COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by
F. AND H. STOKES AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Oct. 27, to
JAMES H. TOZER AND SON LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Dec. 1, to J. W. Davidson, 6, Castle-st, Liverpool. Alsop, Stevens, Crooks, and Co.. Liverpool, sols. to liquidator.
KEYMER BRICK AND TILE COMPANY (1904) LIMITED.-Petition for windingup to be heard Oct. 31, at Royal Courts of Justice. Braby and Waller. 5, Arundel-st, Strand, W.C., sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by Oct. 30.
LIVINGSTONE MUIR AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Dec. 1, to L. H. Weatherley, 14, George-st, Mansion House. Redfern, Hunt, and Co., Dauntsey House, Frederick's-pl, Old Jewry, E.C., sols. for liquidator.
MORLEY ROLLER SKATING RINK LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Nov. 6, to A. Hooper, Old Bank-chmbrs, Cheapside, Bradford.
N. AND T. LONSDALE LIMITED.-Creditors whose claims have not been admitted to send in, by Nov. 6, to J. H. S. Matthews, 2. Sudell-cross, Blackburn, or A. C. Palmer, 271, Friar-la, Leicester. H. Backhouse, Blackburn, sol. for liquidators.
PALMER AND MYCROFT LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Nov. 7, to A. G. Mellors, 1. King John's-chmbrs, Bridlesmith Gate, Nottingham. SOUTH AND WEST YORKSHIRE TRADING COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Nov. 7, to G. W. Townend, Carlisle-chmbrs, Goole. TAK-KOS-KOPE COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Oct. 31, at Royal Courts of Justice. Fraser and Christian, 4. Finsbury-cir, E.C., sols. for pet. Notices of appearance by Oct. 30. WHITLEY BAY AMERICAN ROLLER SKATING RINK LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Nov. 9, to A. Campbell, Victoria-bldgs, West-st, Gateshead.
CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
BEBBINGTON (John). Walgherton, Nantwich. Nov. 25; R. R. Edleston.
GASH (Joseph), Bishop Auckland. Dec. 8; J. T. Proud, sol.. care of J. T. Proud and Son, Bishop Auckland. Dec. 15; Swinfen Eady, J.
GRAHAM (George), Halifax. Dec. 30; T. P. Haseldine, of Haseldine and