« EelmineJätka »
CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. ANDREWS (George). Watfield, Suffolk, farmer. March 25; Hayward and Sons, solicitors, Needham-market. ATWOOD John C., 1, Impasse Moulin Joli, Belleville, Paris. March 12; Simon and Cullingford, solicitors, 85, Gracechurch-street, E.C.
BAYLIS WID. H Bilston, Staffs, collier agent and hook-
S. R Davies, solicitor, Ross.
CAMPBELL Lieut.-Gen. John), Lipson-terrace, Plymouth,
Feb. 29; Brooks and Co., solicitors, 7. Godliman-street,
Doctor's Commons, E.C.
COOKE Isane), Moulton Anstendyke, Moulton, Tincoln,
solicitor. Bruton, Somerset.
dlesex. March 16; J. S. Ward, solicitor, 52, Lincoln's innfields, W.C.
DREW (John P., Milford-house, Llanllwchaiarn, Montgomery. March 6; Woosnam and Talbot, solicitors, Newtown, Montgomery.
DRIVER (Mary A.), 4, Highbury-park, Highbury, Middlesex. April & Rixon and Son, solicitors, 52, Gracechurchstreet, E.C.
DUGMODE (Juo.), Esq., Swaffham, Norfolk. March 1: H
Saunders and Bradbury, solicitors, 41, Cherry-street,
EWINGS Wm.) Esq., 29, Russell-square, W.C.
barrel maker. March 1; Saunders and Bradbury, soliciFEENEY (Jro. F., Church-road, Edgbaston, near Bir
tors, 41, Cherry-street, Birmingham.
mingham, newspaper proprietor. March 1; Saunders and
FRANCIS (Wm.), 10, Redman's-row, Mile-end, Middlesex.
agent. March 1; F. V. Budge, solicitor, Princes-street,
HAIMES (Selina), Edgerton-street, Sheffield. Feb. 20; W.
Abinet and Co., solicitors, 3, New Broad-street, F.C.
25; Field and Co., solicitors, 36, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C.
CALLS TO THE BAR.
MIDDLE TEMPLE.-Hiram Shaw Wilkinson,
W. became the purchaser. He, afterwards, upon
might be, unto H. L. and R. H., their heirs, executors, and administrators, according to the nature which were held applicable only to personalty: and quality thereof respectively, upon trusts Held, that certain freehold and copyhold property of which the testator became possessed subsequent to the date of his will, passed to the trustees, but with a resulting trust in favour of the the heir-atlaw and customary heir of the testator: (Longley v. Longley, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 736. M. R.) tator by his will bequeathed to each of the persons thereinafter named, including a married Philip Colley, Esq., B.A, London; Herbert Alexander Wix, Esq., LL.B., niece, for his or her own absolute use, 10.000l., Cantab.; Thomas Holme Cardwell, Esq., B.A., "except as hereinafter limited." After bequeathbridge; Reginald Godfrey Marsden, Esq., BA., directed that the legacies to his nieces were to be Oxford; Charles John Howe, Esq., B.A., Caming certain annuities to three ladies, the testator Oxford; Bowen May, Esq. jun., M.A., S.C.L., with the annuities, were to be in trust for their invested, and the interest therefrom, together Cambridge; John Edmund Linklater, Esq., B.A., separate use, and in case any one of the three anOxford; Charles Frederic Davison, Esq., B.A., S.C.L., Oxford; Arthur Frederick Jeffreys, Esq.,nuitants, or either of his nieces, should become B.A., Oxford; William Charles Gayner, Esq, bankrupt or insolvent, or sell, mortgage, or disM.A., Oxford; William Henry Thompson, Esq., pose of the annual sum or interest bequeathed to M.A., Cambridge; Charles Norman Bazalgette, her, then the same should cease and become part Esq., B.A., Oxford; George Rodie Thompson, of his residuary estate as though she were dead, Esq., B.A., Cambridge; Walter Bradford Wood except in respect of his married niece, whose leINCE Ralph P..18, Montague-square, Middlesex. Feb. 20; Esq., B.A., Cambridge; Hungerford Tudor Bod: appointment, and in default to them equally. gate, Esq., M.A., Oxford; Francis Adams Hyett, gacy was to go to her children according to her T. H. Dixon, solicitor, 35, John-street, Bedford-row, W.C.' LAYTON (Hannah), Headingley, Leeds. May 1; C. Tem-dam, Esq.; Clement Ireby Fisher, Esq.; Robert Upon the death of the married niece it was held, pest, solicitor, 10, Albion-street, Leeds. that she took the legacy for her life only, with remainder to her children as she should appoint, and in default to them equally, and that therefore her husband ought not, in respect of it, to take out administration to her. Where the Crown, being interested in respect of administration duty, consented to appear, the court decided the question between the Crown and subject on petition: (Re Ware's Trusts, 25 L. T. Rep. 737. V.C. B.)
HALL, otherwise Halsey (Caroline), Reading, March 11;
LOVELL (Ann), Jewry-street, Winchester, March 25; Lee
and Best, solicitors, Winchester.
MARSHALL (Wm.), Solway-view, Whitehaven, Cumberland,
MOODY (Christopher), Cock Mill Farma, Pilton, Somerset,
PAYNE Geo. A.), Esq., East End-house, Fairford, Gloucester.
Morris, Esq., M.A., Cambridge; John Winter-
GRAY'S-INN.-Edward Henry Hunt.
REAL PROPERTY AND
NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. VENDOR AND PURCHASER-DOUBTFUL TITLE Deane and Co., solicitors, 11, South-square, Gray's-inn, -WILL-GIFT TO TRUSTEES IN TRUST FOR AN W.C. PLOWDEN (Col. Jas. C.), New Park-house, Chale, Isle of UNMARRIED WOMAN.-A testator devised and beWight. Feb. 29; Blake and Snow, solicitors, 2, College- queathed certain freehold, leasehold, and personal hill, Cannon-street, E.C. ROBERTS Wm., Lebuinam-cottage, Elm-place, Brompton, property, and the rents, issues, and profits thereof Middlesex, commercial traveller. Feb. 29; Brooks aud to trustees upon trust to pay to or permit his Co., solicitors, 7, Godliman's-street, Doctor's-commons. daughters, A. and L., to receive in equal shares SAVORY (Jno.), Esq., 22, Sussex-place, Regent's-park, N.W., for their respective lives, for their separate use, and 29, Chapel-street, Belgrave-square, Middlesex. March and after their respective deaths upon trust to 25; Elackinore and Son, solicit rs, A:resford. SMITH (Adam), 17, Gracechurch-street, E.C., merchant. convey and assure, assign, pay, and transfer the March 1; Hillyer and Co., solicitors, 12, Fenchurch-street, whole thereof unto and equally between the reSTEPHENS (Robert), 13, The Paragon, Bath, gentleman. Spective husbands of them, his said daughters, March 1; Henderson and Salmon, solicitors, 50, Broadto hold to them respectively, and their respective street, Bristol. TAYLOR Mary M.), 18 West-lodge, Cookham, Berks, Marching to the several natures and qualities thereof reheirs, executors, administrators, assigns, accord35; G. Chettle, solicitor, 15, Featherstone-buildings, Hol- spectively. Provided always that if either of his THOMAS (Julia), Crownbrook, Forest-hill, Surrer. Feb. 29; said daughters should happen to depart this life Blake and Snow, solicitors, 22, College-hili, Cannon-street, unmarried, then and in such case the share of E.C. TYAS (Wm. T.), Lower Edmonton, Middlesex, gentleman. such daughter, in and to his aforesaid trust estate March 1: P. Purvis, solicitor, Winchmore-mill, Middlesex. shonld accrue and belong to the survivor of WEBB Elizabeth, Northwarborough, Odiham, Hauts. them, his said daughters, and be taken and enMarch 2; Lamb and Brooks, solicitors, Odiham, Hants. WRIGHT (Thos., Bierly-hill, Starordsire, and 189. Pownall-joyed by her for her life in like manner as was road, Dalston, Middlesex, Feb. 28; F. R. Smith, solicitor, therein before directed with respect to her original 70, King William-street, E.C. shar, and on her decease the whole should devolve to, and should be conveyed and assured, assigned, and transferred to the husband of his said surviving daughter, as was therein After the testator's death, L. married, and her before directed with respect to her original share. husband died in her lifetime, having by his will given to her all his interest under the testator's will. Subsequently, a portion of the freehold property devised by the testator on trust for L. and her husband, was put up for sale, and at the sale
EPPS'S CHOCOLATE.-"Nous n'avons en France qu'une seule usine où la préparation du Cacao emploie un matériel et un personuel aussi considérables que ceux
que nous avons vus dans l'usine de Messieurs Epps C'est une véritable curiosité dans son geure que cette immense fabrique."-La Situation (the Imperialist rgan). The wrapper of each cake of Chocolate is labelled "JAMES Erps & Co., Homoeopathic Chemis's, london." Also, mokers of Epps's Milky Chocolate (Chocolate and Condensed Milk).
NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. SCRIP CERTIFICATES-SHAREHOLDER-RECTI FICATION OF REGISTERS.-Suit for the purpose of having the plaintiff's name removed from the register of shareholders of the defendant company. The prospectus of a railway company, issued after its incorporation, stated the capital to be 255,000l., in 5100 provisional scrip certificates to bearer of 50. cach, 11. to be paid on application and 41. on allotment; and that on registration of the scrip, of which due notice would be given, the certificates for 50l. would be divided into five shares of 101. each. The Act by which share should be issued by the company, or should the company was incorporated enacted that no vest in the person accepting the same, until not less than 20 per cent. on the nominal amount thereof should have been paid thereon. The plaintiff applied for and obtained a number of scrip certificates, on the nominal value of which he paid company to register his certificates, but the direc up only 10 per cent. He never applied to the tors registered them against his will, and put his name on the list of shareholders in respect of a corresponding number of shares. Held (affirming the decision of the Master of the Roils, and folRailway Company (18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 679; L. lowing Eustace v. The Dublin Trunk Connecting Rep. 6 Eq. 182), that the directors could not turn the plaintiff from a scripholder into a shareholder without his application and against his will, and that he was. therefore, entitled to have his name removed from the register of shareholders: (McIl
wraith v. The Dublin Trunk Railway Company, himself, by neglecting to take security for costs, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 776. Ld. Chan.) COMMONABLE Where the promoters of an undertaking acquire by in conveyance from the lord of the manor, the right the soil of any lands subject to any rights of common, but no effectual meeting is held for the appointment of a committee by the commoners, to agree with the promoters as to the amount of compensation for the extinguishment of their commonable rights; it is the duty of the promoters, and not of the commoners, to take the initiative in getting a surveyor appointed by justices, to determine the amount of compensation. Where the promoters fail to do so, and enter upon the land without payment or deposit of compensation to the commoners, whose rights of common are disturbed by the promoters, any such commoner may maintain an action against the promoters for the injury thereby sustained: (Stoneham v. The London, &c., South Coast Railway, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 788. Q. B.)
NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT-UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CONTRACT BY TELEGRAM-STATUTE OF FRAUDS.-Plaintiff having entered into a contract with one C., the brother of the defendant, for the sale of some hay, brought an action againt defendant for not accepting. The judge at the trial admitted letters and telegrams signed by C. as evidence against the defendant, and the jury found for the plaintiff: Held, that there was sufficient evidence of the authority, and that the two telegrams, of which one was signed in C.'s name, and in the other the name of defendant was not mentioned as buyer, together constituted a sufficient memorandum of the contract to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, on the ground that defendant might be treated as the undisclosed principal of C., who appeared on the telegrams to be liable as principal: (McBlain v. Cross, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 804. C. P.) AUCTIONEERS' IMPLIED AUTHORITY-CLAIM OF LANDLORD-PASSING OF PROPERTY ON SALE. Two partners authorised an auctioneer to sell the effects of the partnership, and to hold the proceeds as stakeholder until they should join in directing him as to the disposition thereof. The sale took place under conditions, one of which was, "Each and all lots shall be taken to be delivered at the fall of the hammer, after which time they shall remain, and be at the exclusive risk of the purchaser, and the auctioneer shall not be called upon for compensation for any injury or loss sustained after that time." When the sale was over, but before the lots had been all removed, the land lord demanded rent from the auctioneer, who promised to pay it out of the proceeds of the sale, in order to avert the distress which the landlord threatened. Held, in an action by the partner, who was entitled, according to the joint direction of both of them, to the whole proceeds, against the stakeholder, that the property in the goods sold had passed to the purchasers at the time of the promise to pay the rent, and therefore the stakeholder was liable to the plaintiff for the amount he had so promised: (Sceeting, app. v. Turner, resp. 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 796. (Q. B.)
COUNTY COURTS. CHESTER COUNTY COURT. (Before J. W. HARDEN, Esq., Judge.)
HARRISON V. BOOTH.
THIS was an action of a somewhat singular character. At the Pentice Court held in April, Mr. Booth, who was then residing in Liverpool, sued Mr. Matthew Harrison on an IO U for 15. odd, but a verdict was given for the defendant, one of the grounds of defence being that there had been a partnership between the two, in connection with which this IO U had been given. Mr. Harrison also pleaded a counter claim on another I O U of 31. 10s. He now brought a suit in the County Court to recover the costs incurred in that action, about 11., and also the 31. 10s. in question.
Marshall, who (instructed by Mr. Massey) appeared for the defendant, contended that as to the costs no action would lie in the County Court. It was perfectly true that as a general doctrine of law, an action would lie in one court upon the judgment of another court of competent jurisdic tion; but even this would not apply except with many restrictions and limitations. Thus an action would not lie on a decree in equity (Carpenter v. Thornton), nor from an inferior to a superior common law tribunal (Emerson v. Lashley, 2 H. Bl.), nor upon a Country Court judgment (Berkeley v. Elderkin, 1 E. & B.). The Pentice court had its own machinery for carrying its judgments into exe. cution, but of this the; laintiff had omitted to avail
under the 41st section of its rules, from Booth, who resided within its jurisdiction. The plaintiff now sought to atone for his own negligence by resorting to the process of another court, and so bringing action upon action, and needlessly increasing the costs against the defendant. If he had properly availed himself of the remedies given him by the Pentice Court, and they had proved defective, it might have been different, as in the case of a foreign court whose judgment it was sought to enforce in England; but he had not done so. If an action would not lie on the judgment of a County Court in a Superior Court, it seemed anomalous if the opposite rule should be good; besides it was extremely doubtful whether the costs alone, as severed from the judgment, would be a good cause of action. That was emphatically denied in Emerson v. Lashley, where it was said that "in actions brought in the Superior Courts, the costs became a duty only by being united with the judgment; but as to the conduct of the interlocutory proceedings, they are fit to be regulated by the authority of the court where they arise." His HONOUR said the point was rather a nice one, and he would reserve it.
To the further claim of the plaintiff, on the IO U, the partnership was alleged as a defence.
His HONOUR said he was inclined to think that was a private transaction, but he would enter a formal verdict for the plaintiff on both points, with stay of execution until he had delivered judgment.
THIS action was in trover for a ferret belonging to the plaintiff, in the possession of the defendant. The facts were these: On the 23rd April 1871 (Sunday), the plaintiff was the owner of a ferret, and he and three companions were in certain inclosed grounds, and used the ferret for the purpose of catching rats, as they alleged, rats being un article in considerable demaud in Manchester and Liverpool for sporting purposes. When they were so using the ferret it was put into a hole in a bank, und they could not get it back, and at length left it. A few days afterwards a ferret was found at liberty stray ing about in lands in the occupation of one Hanson, at a conside abie distance from the place where the plaintiff had lost his ferret. Hanson took possession of the ferret. There was no mark of ownership upon it, and he did not know, nor had any reason to suppose it belonged to the plaintiff. The defendant was the gamekeeper of a person who had the right of sporting over the land in Hanson's occupation, and it was his duty to preserve the game and destroy vermin. Hanson gave him the ferret, and he took and has kept it ever since. On the 29th April, the plaintiff having been informed that the defendant had in his possession a ferret which had been found by Hanson, asked the defendant to show it to him, which he did. The plaintiff identified it as the one he had lost on the 23rd, and demanded it from the defendant, and he refused to give it up, insisting that Hanson had a right to give it to him, whether it had been the plaintiff's or not, of which he knew nothing. Evidence was given as to the identity of the ferret which satisfied the court.
Badwin, for defendant, insisted that a ferret, being an animal feræ nature, could not be the subject of larceny (Rass & Ry. C.C. 350.) There was no property in it, at all events after the possion was lost.
Deane, for the plaintiff, insisted that ferrets, being saleable and articles of merchandise, were objects of property, and trover would lie for them, and that property was not lost by loss of posses. sion if they could be identified, and here the ferret was identified.
His HONOUR, referring to 2 Bl. Com. p. 392, observed, that the property in animals, feræ nature, is of a base or qualified nature. They are no longer the property of a man than while they are confined in his keeping or actual possession; but if at any time they regain their natural liberty his property instantly ceases, unless they have animum revertendi, which is only to be known by their usual custom of returning, as hawks or pigeons, or deer chased out of a park. But Blackstone adds, "if these stray without my knowledge, and do not return in the usual manner, it is then lawful for any stranger to take them." Applying the law thus laid down to this case, his Honour said. I am of opinion that when the plaintiff, on the 23rd April, lost his ferret and abandoned all pursuit of it, and left to go wherever and do what ever its wild nature would lead it, he lost all property in it. He was not responsible for any injury
it might do, and Hanson, when he found it, might lawfully kill, keep, or dispose of it. Thus at large on his land, without any known or visible owner, it was as much vermin as a weasel or polecat; and in giving to the defendant, it became as much his property, while in his possession and kept and fed by him, as it was the property of the plaintiff while in his possession and kept and fed by him. Judgment for the defendant.
COLNE COUNTY COURT.
LORD. HAIGH AND ANOTHER. Promissory note-Agreement-Stamp-Leeds v. Lancashire (2 Camp. 205), Cholmely v. Darby (14 M. & W. 344), applied.
Francis Hartley, Burnley, for plaintiff. Nowell, Burnley, for defendants. THIS action was by payee against four persons as makers of a joint and several promissory note for 521. and interest at 5 per cent., payable on demand. The sum sought to be recovered was 121. 8s. 7d. The plaintiff was the treasurer of a loan society; two of the payees were principals, and two were sureties, though on the face of the note all appeared to be principals. The note was for payment of the 521. and interest on demand, or until the whole principal be repaid. The money had been lent on the terms of repayment being made by certain monthly instalments, extending over a period of forty-eight months from the date of the note, with a penalty or fine, a farthing per pound for each monthly payment that was not duly paid made. These terms were contained in certain rules of the loan society. It was not a registered society, but it was by the application of these rules to the note that the amount sought to be recovered was ascertained.
Nowell, on behalf of the sureties, objected, first, that the agreement proposed to be proved raised the contract arising on the note, which was to pay on demand; whereas, according to that agreement, the principal money was not recoverable so long as the monthly instalments were paid, and in effect time was therefore given to the principal in violation of the contract for which the sureties were bound.
Hartley, in answer, stated he should prove that the sureties were aware of the terms on which the 12oney was lent, and that the terms of the note, until the whole principal sum be repaid, had reference to the rules and the effect of them.
It was then objected on behalf of the sureties that without admitting the fact that they knew of the terms of the loan, the action must be considered as having been brought on the note and the rules together, and that the rules, as embodying an agreement, could not be received unless they were stamped as an agreement; and
His HONOUR, after considering the case, held, on the authority of Leeds v. Lancashire (2 Camp. 205), and Cholmeley v. Darby (14 M. & W. 334), that the agreement was a necessary part of the plaintiff's case, and not being stamped the rules could not be received in evidence, and he must be nonsuited.
Bescoby, of Retford, applied for a new trial in the case of Duke v. Senior, heard at the last court, when judgment was given against Senior, as president of the Union Sick Gift Society, held at Askern.
Palmer here interrupted Mr Bescoby, saying that he objected to the application altogether, on the ground that immediately after the decision the last court day the advocate then appearing for the defendant applied for a new trial on the very ground that was going to be argued to-day (that the rules of the society were not registered), that his Honour refused the application, and that the judge, having once refused to grant a new trial, he had no further power to entertain the case.
Here a warm discussion took place between Bescoby and Palmer, the former wishing to make his application and the latter objecting.
HIS HONOUR at length said he should like to hear one gentleman at a time.
Palmer said he had a right to oppose the application, but Bescoby replied that this must be at the proper time.
Bescoby then made his application, quoting the case of Smith v. Pryor, and contending that where the rules of a society have not been enrolled (as in this case), and not certified, then, in the meaning of the Act, it was not a friendly society at all, and his Honour had no jurisdiction.
Palmer again opposed the application, quoting the case of the Great Northern Railway Company v. Mossop (25 L. J.) in support of his argument.
His HONOUR said that the mistake had all arisen
from Mr. Shirley not being in court. Had he been in court, he would have told him that the rules had not been registered.
Palmer replied that Mr. Shirley would not know anything about it. Mr. Shirley was not the regis trar referred to in the Act; it was the register under the Friendly Society's Act that was referred to. His HONOUR said that had he have understood
through the accident of their being creditors above 10., and the resolutions of the separate creditors were not registered, through the accident of their only being creditors under 101.
His HONOUR expressed his regret that there should be no easier mode of reconciling differences of opinion among the County Court judges upon such a point as this than by an appeal; and as this question would only arise in small cases, it was
at the last court that the rules had not been en- hardly to be expected that anybody would be that, assuming that the sums were overdrawn,
rolled, it would have altered the case altogether. Peagam (who defended Senior at the last court) said he took the same objection then that Mr. Bescoby was taking now, and after the decision of the case he applied for a new trial on the very same grounds that Mr. Bescoby was applying now. His HONOUR here said that he was convinced that he had no jurisdiction, and he should grant a new trial. At the request of Mr. Palmer, he made a note of his objection.
Palmer then took another objection-that his Honour having no jurisdiction in the case, could not grant any new trial.
After a deal of discussion, His HONOUR again decided to grant a new trial, and agreed to stay execution, though, he added, "I may be wrong
BANKRUPTCY LAW. TREASURY NOTICE. THE following notice has been issued :
Treasury, Jan. 29, 1872. Dear Sir,-Finding it to be a growing practice for the attorney of a debtor who petitions under sects. 125 & 126 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, Rule 252, to print or write his name or the name of some other person, in the form of proxy attached to Form 109, I would suggest that such a practice should be stopped, and that you should refuse to receive any notices under Rule 256, in which there is any addition made to the form of proxy attached to Form 109 in the Schedule of forms annexed to the Queen's printer's copy of "The Bankruptcy Rules 1870."-I am, dear Sir, yours truly,
HENRY NICOL. The Registrar of the County Court
BURNLEY COUNTY COURT.
(Before W. T. S. DANIEL, Q.C., Judge.)
Ex parte HAIGH AND SPENCER. Bankruptcy-Liquidation by arrangement-Registration of resolution by unanimous vote at meeting of creditors under 101.-Conflicting decisions of Mr. Serjt. Wheeler and Mr. Serjt. Tindal Atkinson considered. The decision of Mr. Serjt. Wheeler followed.
Backhouse (Backhouse and Whittem, Burnley, solicitors) applied to his Honour to review the decision of the registrar, who had refused to register two sets of resolutions affecting the separate estates of the two debtors, on the ground that they had not been passed by the requisite statutory majority. The debtors, Haigh and Spencer, had carried on business in partnership together as builders, and, being in difficulties, they presented a joint petition for liquidation, and filed lists of their joint and separate creditors. Mectings of the three classes of creditors were duly held, and at each meeting resolutions were passed unanimously for winding-up by liquidation and not in bankruptcy. At the meeting of the joint creditors there were several creditors above 107., and the resolutions of that meeting were regis. tered. At each of the two meetings of the separate creditors of the debtors more than three creditors attended, but all were creditors for less than 10., and the votes were unanimous. The registrar had before him the decision of Mr. Serjt. Wheeler, at Liverpool (Re Franckel, reported in the LAW TIMES, 11th June 1870), and that of Mr. Serjt. Tindal Atkinson (Re Hughes, LAW TIMES, 30th Dec. 1871), and finding those decisions expressly to conflict, declined to register, in order that the matter might be brought before the court. Backhouse relied on Re Franckel, and urged that, having regard to rule 93, if the meeting was unanimous, the question of majorities, and how they should be composed, did not arise. To hold otherwise would make it impossible for a debtor whose debts, though numerous, were under 10., to effect either a fair composition or a prudent liquidation.
His HONOUR.-The Act has not prescribed any minimum either of indebtedness or of estate, and the rules don't provide specifically for the vote of the creditors being unanimous; they assume there will be a difference of opinion among the creditors, and provide against the mischief pointed out by Serjt. Tindal Atkinson of large creditors being outvoted by small ones.
Backhouse urged the hardship of the case in the particular instance where there was unanimity among all classes of creditors, and the resolutions of the joint creditors was registered
creditors of 101. in full made it invalid; that the deed of assignment was unequal, and therefore invalid; that the inspectorship deed provided for an assignment and for a release, that there was an assignment and a release, and that the debtors could set up this assignment and release against this claim; that there was no concealment of the money being overdrawn, and that the trustees expressly or by their conduct assented to it; and John Ingham was, for various reasons, entitled to make a deduction of certain sums mentioned. As to the first objection, he (the registrar) was of it was not necessary for the trustees to show that opinion that, under the circumstances of the case, the requisite majority in number and value had assented to the deed. As to the second objection he took it that as the Court of Chancery had decided the point he was precluded from saying anything further with regard to it. regard to the alleged inequality of the deed of assignment, it was perfectly immaterial, because the inspectors claimed not under the deed of assignment, but under the deed of inspectorship. As to the objection that the inspectorship deed provided for an assignment and a release, and that the debtors did assign and get their release, that by one of the clauses which he had read. As he thought a conclusive answer was furnished to to the other objections, they obviously depended upon the merits of the case, which, after review. the computation of the number voting, leaving ing, he (the registrar) came to the conclusion that the trustees were not aware that those moneys only the two creditors above 101.; who, as the meeting consisted of four, were not a majority within favour of the application of the trustees, and an were overdrawn. On the whole case he was in the letter of the rule and form, and thus the pre-order would be made to that effect, subject to a sence of the fourth creditor, whose presence was unnecessary, and who came to support the resolution, would have the effect of defeating it. This
found to incur the inevitable cost. It was very unpleasant to differ from any judge of co-ordinate authority, but in this case the plaintiff was bound Serjt. Wheeler and to direct the resolution to be to act in accordance with the view taken by Mr. registered; particularly as this course was in accordance with a direction he had given at Bradford, in a case which occurred there shortly after the Act came into operation. In that case the first meeting was attended by three creditors, two large creditors and one creditor under 10. They, by unanimous vote, passed a resolution accepting a composition of 10s. in the pound. The second meeting, to confirm this resolution, was duly held and four creditors attended, and by an unanimous vote confirmed the vote of the former meeting, the same three creditors attending, the fourth how ever being a creditor under 101. On presenting these resolution for registration, the registrar, looking at the form which influenced Mr. Serjt. Tindal
Atkinson, struck out the creditors under 101. from
was such a reductio ad absurdum, that to avoid defeating an arrangement which his Honour stated he was satisfied was beneficial and made uberrima fide, he authorised the registration of the resolutions, making the unanimous vote of a duly considered meeting as dispensing with the special provisions as to majorities. His Honour however added that, though the act was as applicable to small estates as to large, the rules are not so specifically applicable; and if the case was brought before the Chief Justice on appeal, his consideration might be drawn to the expediency either of some amendment, a better adaptation of the rules, or an authoritative exposition of their meaning and effect, so as to avoid the inconveniences to suitors and the Profession by there being one law at Bradford and another at Halifax, one law for
large estates, and another for small; but being both within the pale of legal protection by properly adapted rules.
LEEDS COUNTY COURT. Wednesday, Jan. 17, 1872. (Before Mr. MARSHALL, Registrar, Delegate, &c.) Re INGHAM; Ex parte CLOUGH. Bankruptcy Act 1861, ss. 194, 197-Jurisdiction of the court.
THE facts of this case are briefly stated in the re-
Simpson, solicitor, appearing for the trustees.
His HONOUR, in delivering judgment, stated: It appeared that the Messrs. Ingham, being in difficulties, executed a deed of inspectorship on the 25th Aug. 1868, whereby it was provided that the business should be carried on by certain inspectors, Messrs. Ingham covenanting with regard to the disposal of all moneys arising from the business to the benefit of the creditors, with the exception of certain sums therein named, including the payment to John and Henry Ingham of 401. each per month. In pursuance of the terms of this deed, the business was carried on for about a year and a half; but shortly before the expiration of this period it was discovered that the estate, which had paid 10s. in the pound to the creditors, was inadequate to pay the remainder. Upon that, a meeting of creditors was held, and it was decided to call for an assignment, for which provision was made in the deed of inspectorship, and that assignment was executed on the 14th March 1870. Shortly afterwards, it was discovered that the Messrs. Ingham had drawn not only the 401. per month to which they were entitled, but further sums, amounting in the case of John Ingham to 2451. 12s. 6d., and in the case of Henry Ingham to 1181. 11s. 8d. Under those circumstances, the trustees asked the court for an order that the Messrs. Ingham should pay back the sums so overdrawn. Mr. Bond, on behalf of the debtors, raised several objections, viz., that the trustees had no proof that the deed of inspectorship was assented to by the requisite majority in number and value; that the clause providing for the payment to the
reference to chambers with regard to two of the items which John Ingham claimed he was entitled
Simpson applied for the costs of the motion, which were granted.
CHIEF JUSTICE MONAHAN.-The Dublin Erening Post states, that Chief Justice Monahan is seriously indisposed.
Mr. JAMES STANSFELD, who for thirty years was Judge of the Halifax County Court, a position from which he retired only in September last, died on Monday last. An obituary notice will appear next week.
CALLS TO THE BAR.-The undermentioned gen tlemen were on Tuesday called to the Bar by the Hon. Society of the Inner Temple, viz. :-Mr. Hassard Hume Dodgson, one of the Masters of the Court of Common Pleas; and Mr. William Henry Mason, B.A. Camb.
MR. SERJEANT O'BRIEN of the Midland Circuit has been appointed by the Home Secretary to the Recordership of Lincoln in the place of the late Hon. G. C. Vernon. The learned gentleman was called to the Bar by the Hon. Society of Lincoln's inn in 1812, and raised to the rank of Serjeant-atlaw by Lord Westbury in 1862.
SALE OF THE GROSVENOR MANSIONS.-The large building known as the Grosvenor Mansions, situate in Victoria-street Westminster, let out in suites of chambers, &c., producing a rental of about 3000l. per annum, was sold by auction by Messrs. Chinnock, Galsworthy, and Chinnock, on the 25th inst., and realised the sum of 49,500!.
JUDICIAL BREVITY.-In a claim which came before the Lords Justices, on appeal from the Master of the Rolls, arising out of the winding-up of the National Assurance and Investment Asso ciation, James, L.J. delivered the following judgment:"Unless I am ordered to do so by the House of Lords, or some other competent tribunal, I shall refuse to hear an appeal for the sum of 35s." Mellish, L.J., who said nothing, was understood to concur in this judgment.
NEW QUEEN'S COUNSEL.-The following barristers have been raised to the dignity of Queen's Counsel :-T. C. Renshaw, Leofric Temple, Charles W. Wood, Æneas McIntyre, William J. Bovill, S. B. Bristowe, M. P., John Day, J. B. Torr, Nathaniel Lindley, J. Napier Higgins, Thomas H. Fischer, James Kemplay, Theodore Aston, A. E. Miller, Charles Russell, Farrer Herschell, Esqrs. Mr. Serjeant Sargood to have a patent of precedence next after S. Pope, Esq., Q.C.
JURIES OF MATRONS.-Mr. Ernest Hart proposed a resolution at a meeting of the Metropolitan Counties Branch of the British Medical Association last night, having for its object the discontinuance of the practice of empanneling an unskilled jury of matrons in certain cases. motion was adopted. Dr. Gibbons, who seconded it, remarked that he felt the country was posi tively humiliated by the position in which it had been placed by what occurred at the trial of Christiana Edmunds.
A NEW POINT OF PRACTICE.-Vice-Chancellor Malins had before him on Wednesday an applica tion by Mr. P. B. Abraham, in a suit by a creditor for the administration of the estate of an intestate.
The heir-at-law was made a defendant, and was duly served with a copy of the bill. Afterwards, however, finding that he was not likely to realise anything out of the estate, he seems to have gone to America. Mr. Abraham now applied for leave to dispense with service of notice of motion for decree, upon the ground that the heir had practically disclaimed all interest in the estate. He admitted that he had found no authority for such a departure from the usual practice of the court, but the Vice-Chancellor, looking at the peculiar circumstances of the case, gave leave for the suit to proceed in the absence of the defendant.
a junior, he was in very extensive Common Law practice, but, on obtaining a silk gown, he devoted himself almost exclusively to practice in the courts of equity, only going into Common Law Courts upon special occasions. Perhaps the most brilliant example of Mr. Palles' advocacy is his argument in the cause celebre of Croker v. Croker before the Court of Chancery Appeal. Since the elevation of the present Lord Justice of Appeal to the bench, the Chancery Bar has not (in our opinion) produced an abler lawyer or advocate than Mr. Palles, and we have no doubt that he will fill any position which he may attain with credit to himself and advantage to the public.Irish Law Times.
it, but the will was only attested by two witnesses. Is this a good or defective execution of the power; and why?
26. What powers of leasing, and for what terms of years would you give to tenants for life on a settlement of real estate, supposing that, besides farms, some of the property is in a mineral district, and some of it near a large town?
27. On treaty for a proposed marriage, it is arranged that the gentleman (who is not in trade or mercantile business) shall settle £20,000, and the lady her fortune of £10,000, both being personal estate. To whom should the first life interests in each fund be given, according to the usual practice ?
28. Does a power to trustees to invest trust moneys on railway debentures, warrant an investment on debenture stock?
SIR ROBERT COLLIER AND THE BAR. A dinner was given on Saturday night to the Right Hon. Sir Robert Collier, at Willis's Rooms, by his former colleagues of the Common Law Bar. The chair was taken by Sir J. D. Coleridge, M.P., Attorney-General, and the following gentlemen were present: Sir Travers Twiss, Queen's Advocate; P. F. O'Malley, QUESTIONS FOR THE FINAL EXAMINA- property at the decease of his wife, who survives
Q.C., Dr. Deane, Q.C., H. Manisty, Q.C., J. W. Huddleston, Q.C., Serjt. Ballantine, Serjt. Parry, Serjt. Simons, M.P., Henry James, Q.C., M.P., H. Giffard, Q.C., Sir G. Honyman, Q.C., Thomas Chambers, Q.C., M.P., C. Milward, Q.C., A. J. Stephens, Q.C., S. Prentice, Q.C., T. Webster, Q.C., G. Dowdeswell, Q.C., W. Field, Q.C., C. Pollock, Q.C., J. Gray, Q.C., J. J. Powell, Q.C., J. B. Aspinall, Q.C., W. Forsyth, Q.C., Horace Lloyd, Q.C., R. Garth, Q.C., C. Butt, Q.C., W. Mundell, Q.C., S. Pope, Q.C., H. T. Cole, Q.C., P. Edlin, Q.C., Serjt. O'Brien, Serjt. Cox, Serjt. Robinson, C. Russell, Q.C., E. M'Intyre, Q.C., S. B. Bristowe, Q.C., M.P., J. C. Mathew, Watkin Williams, M.P., A. Cohen, J. D. Archibald, J. Bridge, J. Sharpe, F. Philbrick, F. M. White, W. Holl, C. Coleman, J. O. Griffits, H. Poland, W. Willis, E. C. Willoughby, J. D. Fletcher, P. M'Mahon, M.P., F. Jeune, A. Collins, M. Howard, Dr. Tristram, F. A. Inderwick, R. Searle, J. Edwards, F. S. Pritchard, C. Clark, Evelyn Ashley, R. Bayford, H. Purcell, A. Bristowe, R. S. Wright, Walter Ballantine.
THE NEW LEGAL APPOINTMENTS IN IRELAND. -The appointments consequent on the elevation of the Attorney-General to the judicial bench have now, we believe, been completed. We have no hesitation in asserting that they are all appointments which will meet with the entire approbation of the profession and the public. At one time some apprehension was entertained that political and Parliamentary claims might possibly outweigh those of a purely professional character in determing the choice of a Solicitor-Gentral, but these fears have been completely dispelled by the announcement that the choice of the Government has fallen upon Mr. Palles, Q.C. Barry, J. has been for a long time one of the foremost advocates and common law lawyers at the Irish Bar, and has enjoyed a large share of practice, both in Dublin and as one of the leaders of the Munster Circuit. He was called to the Bar in 1845, and appointed Queen's Counsel in 1859. He was appointed third Serjeant-at-Law in 1866, and represented Dungan
non in Parliament from 1865 to 1868. He was appointed Solicitor-General in 1868, and succeeded to the office of Attorney-General in 1870, on the elevation of Mr. Sullivan to the Mastership of the Rolls. Mr. Barry was a most popular member of the legal profession, and his accession to the Bench has been welcomed by the members of both branches of the profession, and by the public, irrespective of their political opinions. The At torney-General's promotion has been well earned, and is the legitimate result of success, professional and parliamentary. His position as a Nisi Prius advocate and common law lawyer has long been established; and during the few years for which he has been a member of the Legislature he has attained a recognised position in the House of Commons. We can produce no better evidence of this latter proposition than is supplied by the following extract from an article in the Spectator, an English organ of the highest character: "Mr. Serjeant Dowse thoroughly deserves his promotion. There is not a more steady or clever politician on the list of Government officials. Hardly ever absent from a division, astute as a law officer, in the highest degree humorous and commonsensical as a general speaker, he is one of the thoroughly cheerful occupants of the Treasury Bench, and gives to its otherwise too lugubrious earnestness a ray of sunshine-nay, an air of stout enjoy ment." The appointment of Mr. Palles, Q.C., to the office of Solicitor-General is one which has been made upon professional grounds, and is, therefore, eminently worthy of approva!. What ever opinion may be entertained as to the prior claims of the eminent member of the Common Law Bar whose name was mentioned in connection with the proposed appointment, it must be admitted that Mr. Palles holds an unrivalled Position at the Chancery Bar. He has attained this high position in an unprecedentedly short time, having been called to the Bar in 1852, and appointed Queen's Counsel so recently as 1865. Almost without an interval he sprang into the very highest position as a Chancery advocate. As
LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.
HILARY TERM, 1872.-FIRST DAY.
Questions 1 to 5 inclusive.
OF THE COURTS.
II. COMMON AND STATUTE LAW AND PRACTICE 6. What are the several stages in an ordinary action at law, not involving anything special or unusual?
7. What is an interpleader?
8. State the difference between a nonsuit and a
verdict for the defendant.
9. What is the meaning of the venue? and explain the different kinds of venue. 10. For what period does a writ of summons remain in force, and what should be done to keep it in force, if not served within the prescribed period?
11. Explain the difference between pleading and demurring to a declaration.
12. What amounts must a plaintiff recover in actions on contract and on tort respectively, to entitle him to costs?
13. What are actions of trover and detenue, respectively; and what alteration in the law as to the result of an action of detenue was made by the Common Law Procedure Act 1854 ?
14. What are the principal provisions of the Summary Procedure on Bills of Exchange Act? 15. Which of the parties is primarily liable for the payment of a bill of exchange; and what step should be taken on its dishonour to preserve the liability of any other party or parties?
16. Explain the extent of an infant's liability in actions on contract, and actions on tort, respectively.
17. State what simple contracts are required by law to be in writing, and whether so required by the common law, or by virtue of any and what statute.
18. Is oral evidence admissible to alter or exand if any,
plain a written contract under any, what circumstances?
19. Explain the respective rights and liabilities of husband and wife with reference to debts due to and from the wife before the coverture, as existing before, and since the operation of the Married Women's Property Act 1870.
20. A sole executor of A. B. dies intestate, and letters of administration of his (the executor's) estate are granted. Is anybody then competent to sue for debts due to A. B., and if not, what step must be taken? and would it be otherwise if the deceased executor had left a will appointing an executor who had proved such will?
21. What is the broad general distinction between estates of freehold and estates for years, or other subordinate interests in land?
22. An estate is limited to A. for life, with re
mainder to the heirs of the body of A. on the body of B. to be begotten, with remainder over to other persons. B. dies without issue. What is then the proper legal description of A.'s interest? 23. An estate, partly freehold and partly copyhold, is limited to A. for life, remainder to B. for life, remainder to C. in tail. C. has attained twenty-one, but during his minority some land from the estate has been sold to a railway company, and the purchase-money paid into court and invested in Three per Cents. C. now desires to disentail, so as to become absolute owner, subject to the preceding life estates. Is the concurrence of any other, and what, person necessary? And state, with the requisite detail, what has to be done to effectuate C.'s object.
24. Is there any, and what, difference in effect between a limitation of an estate to E. F. for life, with the remainder to the heirs of his body, and a limitation to G. H. for life, with remainder to his first and other sons successively and the heirs of their respective bodies?
25. In 1800 a power was limited so as to be exercisable by will, executed by the donee in the presence of, and attested by three or more credible witnesses. This power became vested in A, who, by his will, dated in 1850, professed to exercise
29. A testator by his will gives to his two executors a direction to dispose of his leasehold
both her husband and the executors, and the last surviving executor dies intestate. What must be done to carry out the testator's direction?
30. A., the owner of a copyhold property in a manor where the custom of borough English prevails, contracts to sell it, and then dies, without having completed the sale, leaving several sons and a will, which, however, is inoperative as to real estate. What must be done to give a good title to the purchaser? and would any expense caused by this fall upon him, or upon A.'s estate? and to whom should the purchase-money be paid, and who would be proper parties to the ultimate surrender to the purchaser?
31. What is the special provision indispensable in a well-drawn mortgage, where the mortgage money is advanced by trustees, and why is it required?
32. A client comes to you to carry into effect a sale of an estate for 10,000l,, which he has arranged to sell to a neighbouring landowner. Describe concisely what will be the steps you will have to take, and those which will have to be taken by the purchaser's solicitor, assuming the sale to go on regularly to completion. And who will have to pay the expenses of each solicitor? And what would be the difference in this latter respect between a purchase and a mortgage?
33. Is there any, and what, difference in the form of the covenants for title usually given on a sale and on a mortgage?
34. On sale of a leasehold property, what are the usual provisions to protect the vendor against inquiries as to the performance of his obligation under the lease, and also with reference to the validity of that document ?
35. Čan a married woman dispose of a reversionary interest in leasehold or personal property, and if so, how?
Questions 36 to 40 inclusive.
V. EQUITY AND PRACTICE OF THE COURTS. 41. How can a mortgagor be exonerated from a covenant to pay the mortgage money, otherwise than by payment or re lease?
42. Does the purchaser of the equity of redemp. tion, without the concurrence of the mortgagee, encounter any and what risk, on the supposition that the principal and interest due on the mortgage is correctly stated by the vendor ?
43. Will a court of equity under any and what circumstances decree specific performance for the sale of a goodwill?
44. If an owner of freeholds has only an equitable, and not the legal estate in them, and enters into a contract for sale, is he liable to a bill for specific performance?
45. If a freehold estate is devised, subject to
the payment of debts generally and legacies, what, if any, liability attaches to the purchaser of such estate to see to the application of the purchase-money? State your reasons.
46. If leaseholds are bequeathed subject to
legacies payable to adults, what, if any, liability attaches to a purchaser from the executor to see to the application of the purchase-money? State
47. If a purchaser of freeholds has notice of an equitable claim, and sells to a person who has not notice, is the latter purchaser affected with the first purchaser's notice?
48. What is the effect of a resale by a purchaser of freeholds who has no notice of an equitable claim, to a person who has notice? Can either party enforce specific performance against the
49. If a joint tenant devises or agrees to sell his share, will such devise or agreement prevail against the surviving joint tenant in equity?
50. Will an agreement by a femme covert for the sale of her estate (not settled to her separate use), with or without the concurrence of her husband, be binding on her in equity?
51. If A. die intestate, leaving a wife, mother, two grand-daughters by his eldest son deceased,
his youngest son and two daughters, on whom and in what proportions will his real and personal estate devolve?
52. Is notice to the London agent of a solicitor of an infant purchaser binding on the purchaser, if the purchase is made under a decree of the Court of Chancery?
53. What are the rights of a solicitor who has a lien on a client's deeds and pavers, with reference to the production as well as delivery of them up to his client ?
54. If a witness who has been served with a subpoena, ad testificandum, neglects to attend, what remedy have the parties to a suit?
55. Why are infants and married women obliged to sue in equity in the name of a next friend?
VI. BANKRUPTCY AND PRACTICE OF THE
56. What is the remedy of an equitable mortgagee on the bankruptcy of the mortgagor; and what is the difference in this respect between an equitable and legal mortgagee?
57. What are the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act 1869 as regards voluntary settlements; and are different classes of persons differently affected by those provisions?
53. What is the purport of the order and dis. position clause in the Bankruptcy Act; and what is the difference of its operation in the cases of
traders and non-traders?
59. Can a proof be made against a bankrupt's estate for unliquidated damages in any, and what cases?
GO. By what means can a person in insolvent circumstances obtain a discharge from his liabi
61. State shortly the effect of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act in regard to executions under fieri facius.
62. On the bankruptcy of one member of a firm, what consequences ensue? How are the partnership assets and liabilities dealt with?
63. What is the position of the lessor, on the bankruptcy of the lessee? 64. What is stoppage in transitu? and when may it be resorted to?
65. What are the requisites to constitute a petitioning creditor's debt? May it be a secured debt? May it be an equitable debt? Must it be due? and may it sound in damages?
66. What is a compulsory act of bankruptcy? 67. If the chattels of the bankrupt are in the possession of a third person, how should the trustee proceed to recover them?
68. What are the rights to, and remedies of, the surety of a bankrupt? 69. State some of the acts of a bankrupt which
70. What is the position of a creditor who holds a mortgage by the bankrupt of a life policy, with covenant for payment of principal and interest, and to pay the premiums?
VII. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
71. Will ignorance of the law in any, and what, case excuse a person who has committe in offence?
72. What persons are held in law to be incapable of committing crimes, or excused in respect thereof ?
73. In what cases are married women protected from punishment for criminal offences? and when are they not so protected?
74. What is the precise operation of drunkenness upon the commission of crime?
75. By what statutory or other authority do justices of the peace exercise jurisdiction in criminal matters.
76. Will an action or information lie against a magistrate for a mistake in law?
77. It is frequently enacted in statutes that magistrates "may" do certain acts in execution of such statutes: it is discretionary with, or incumbent upon them, to perform such acts?
78. Proceedings are brought against a man for unlawfully taking game at night. When does the night in such case begin and end?
79. A. is the owner in fee of a game covert, through which runs a highway. B., in the day time, stands in the highway, and without any authority from A., but in spite of him, shoots the pheasants as they fly from one side of the highway to the other. Does B. commit any, and what, offence? Give reasons for your answer. SO. Where an offender is convicted summarily of an assault, can the person assaulted also main
tain an action?
81. In an indictment, or in a summary proceeding for a malicions injury to property, is it essential to prove malice against the owner?
82. Is there any general law of limitation of time for the laying of informations before justices of the peace in summary cases?
83. State under what circumstances the confessions of a prisoner are admissible in evidence against him, and under what circumstances such confessions are inadmissible.
84. What is a dying declaration, and under what circumstances is it admissible in evidence? 85. What is the rule of law as to inferring a guilty intention in parties accused?
CORRESPONDENCE OF THE
NOTE. This department of the Law TIMES being open to free discussion on all professional topics, the Editor is not responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it.
THE TENURE OF LAND IN IRELAND.-Under the above heading you were kind enough to insert my former letter in the LAW TIMES of the 20th ult., and a reply thereto in your paper of the 27th inst. from a subscriber. If "Subscriber" will kindly take the case in hand in the way he mentions, and will write to Miles, care of Messrs. Grindlay and Co., army agents, he will receive every information on the subject, and a handsome douceur, independent of all law expenses. C. ALEXANDER..
ATTORNEYS' COST OF DUTY.-I was admitted an attorney seven or eight years ago, but did not practice or take out my certificate until November last, when I commenced business on my own account in the country, having in the mean time been employed as a managing clerk. On stamping my certificate, the officials at Somerset House de the proper sum payable. On referring to the manded 6. for duty, and insisted that such was schedule to the last Stamp Act, you will find that if the attorney has not been admitted so long as
Barrow-in-Furness, 25th Jan. 1872.
BRIGHTON COUNTY COURT AND DEBT COL
MR. HARINGTON.-In the biographical and genealogical sketch of the newly appointed County Court judge of the Northamptonshire Circuit, contained in last week's number of the Harington is grandson of the late Sir John EdLAW TIMES, you mention that Mr. Richard ward Harington, of Ridlington, Rutlandshire, and cousin of the present baronet of the same name, three to whose title he is heir presumptive. You are e years, "or has not so long carried on busi the existence of any such baronetcy depends upon words apply to my case; they were not contained quite right in the pedigree, but the question of ness, the duty is 31. only. Surely the latter the solution of a somewhat interesting point of in the schedule to the former Act, and must have law. As, unlike a claim to a peerage, there is no been introduced in the present schedule for some court possessing jurisdiction to investigate the purpose, but the view taken by the officials would right to a baronetey (no civil or political privi- make them inoperative. Can you or some of your leges attaching to that dignity), it is obvious that correspondents say whether the officials are corany assertion of such a right must remain unde-rect; and if not what means could be taken cided unless the claim to property likewise inci- (other than legal proceedings) to obtain a return dentally rests upon the same title. Hence there of the duty overpaid? A. B. are, at the present moment, several instances of rival claimants to the same baronetcy, who are assuming and insisting on their rights to the title. The case of Harington of Kidlington is, however, somewhat peculiar, but not altogether singular. Though not inserted in the Baronetage of 1741, this family found its way into that by Kimble and Johnson in 1771, but with this apology in the preface:-"We have given place to the pedigree of Sir James Harrington (so spelt), of Ridlington, in Rutlandshire, though, perhaps, improperly, is that title is said long since to have expired in an Act of attainder; but by others supposed to be an illegal Act, and that the right to the title is still go d." But in a work, entitled Wotton, 1727, the following passage appears :"The Engrish Baronets," printed for Thomas "Neither was it thought proper to take notice of several, who, though they assumed this title, have either no patent, or sufficient anthority for their so doing, and to evince their right to this dignity; or though they may be within the limitations of a patent, the dignity has been extinguished by an attainder." Sir James Harington, the grandson of the first baronet of that name, sat as one of the judges on the trial of Charles I., when the House of Commons proceeded to an intended Act of Pains and Penalties. Upon to hear evidence against the regicides, with a view July 1st 1661, it was stated that Sir James Harrington and John Phelps could not be found, and Harrington appears to have escaped the capture that was thereupon directed; and by the Act he, together with others was excepted out of the general pardon. By this Act (13 Car. 2, c. 15) among other penalties, it was enacted that William Lord Thomson, Sir Henry Mild nay, Sir James Harrington, Robert Wallop, Esquire, and John Phelps, and every of them "be degraded from their several titles of honour, dignities, and preeminences, and should not thereafter use the name, title, addition, or title of lord, baronet, knight, esquire, or gentleman, or have any estates or escutcheons of arms whatsoever." The question is, whether the Act affected the titles of honour beyond the regicide's own lives. Mr. Serjeant Burke, writing to the editor of The Herald and Genealogist in 1867, says, in speaking of the Harington Baronetcy, "I conclude the Harington Baronetcy to be still a good one. The doubt is but a shadow; yet how much better would it be if Sir Edward Harington, the present baronet, had some tribunal he could resort to to cast that shade aside." Yorke on "Forfeiture for High Treason," says, p. 97, “That a man may be attained of treason by Act of Parliament, although he has never even been convicted." And further, he says at p. 86, "Titles of honour and dignities by tenure were always forfeitable by the law of England, as following the fendal reason of laws. And those which are by writ and patent, whether to the heirs general, or in tail male, are forfeited by the corruption of blood which impedes the descent and renders a family ignoble." That Sir James Harington, mentioned in the above statute, committed treason, there is no doubt. The only question is, whether his blood was not as effectually corrupted by the Act in question as if he had been capitally executed? it seems he had escaped capture and could not, therefore, be convicted, but then steps in the Act of Parliament and obviates the necessity. The lives of the regicides are spared, but were they not equally attained as if they had been tried, convicted, and executed? Temple, 30th Jan. 1872.
LECTORS.-My attention has been drawn to an article which appeared in your impression of the 20th inst, in which my character, as a practi. tioner in the County Court of Brighton, is severely impugned. On the day on which the discussion arose which led to the remarks you have thought fit to insert in your paper I was absent from Brighton, in consultation with counsel as to the course to be pursued in a case which for a long time previously had engaged my most anxious attention. I allude to the defence of Miss Edmunds. I, therefore, had no opportunity of explaining my conduct in co nection with the case which Mr. Christian thought fit to bring before the notice of I will now the court. I have since done so. briefly refer to my connection with Mr. Christian. That gentleman carries on a very extensive business as a debt collectorat Brighton and in the immediate neighbourhood, and necessarily takes out numerous sunimonses in the County Court as the ultimate resource for effecting his employers' object in re covering their debts. Many of these claims are disputed in court. For many years I have confor him; but, some time since, he was in the ducted these disputed or probably disputed cases habit of postponing his instructions until the last moment. I complained of this practice and insisted that in all cases I should be instructed before the summons was issued, and that I should settle the particulars, sign them, and charge him with the fee. To me it was a matter of the utmost indifference who held the plaint note or who took out the money. It appears that during my absence in town, Mr. Christian called at my office and saw my clerk on the subject of an action on a bill of exchange, which Mr. Christian held as indorsee. Having settled and signed my name to the particulars (the summons was to suit Mr. Christian's convenience) taken out by his clerk, the plaint note was handed to him, Mr. Christian being charged with my fee. I heard no more of it until my clerk informed me that he had taken the money out of court, and asked me for a cheque, which was immediately honded by me to him, after deducting my fee. My clerk took it round to Mr. Christian, but he declined to take it because the registrar's clerk had presumed to pay the money to my clerk without producing the plaint note. The next day he made his complaint to the registrar, who brought the matter before the judge, who decided that the registrar was per fectly justitied in paying the money to my clerk. I understand that Mr. Christian, at the court, did not intend to complain of my conduct but was possessed of an irrepressible desire of attaching some blame to the registrar's clerk, and picked out a case where he himself was plaintiff, and where he had been offered a cheque for the amount of his claim after deducting my fee. A few remarks as to agents practising in the County Courts. All who know me, or for whose opinion I care aught, are fully aware that during a lengthened and extensive practice, I have set my face against their interference with the busi ness of my profession, but debt collectors in a large town are inevitable. I am not a debt col lector, and never wish to be, but that I have been necessarily employed by them at times as an advocate or adviser I admit; and I venture to add, that to refuse to be employed by them as agents to their employers would be veriest prudery.