« EelmineJätka »
marriage, unless the same be recelebrated within a given time, say within six months after the passing of the Act. We have considered this point more at length in the article above referred to. Perhaps, and probably, our anxieties as to the details of the alteration in the law are somewhat premature, since there is too much reason to fear that in the present as in former sessions the vis inertice of the House of Lords will be sufficient to resist any alteration whatever.
instance, the valuable recommendations of the Judicature Commissioners as to procedure would tend very materially to lighten the labours of the judicature, and this has an obvious connection with the constitution of courts and the distribution of jurisdictions. These considerations appear to show that it is not possible thoroughly and satisfactorily to deal with the subject unless it is treated as a whole.
It is the general opinion of the Profession that it would never do to extend the jurisdiction of the County Courts without improving their procedure; and, indeed, it is, we believe, a pretty general impression that their jurisdiction has been extended already farther than it ought to be with the present imperfect and defective procedure. As Mr. Justice Maule pointed out twenty years ago, it is impossible difficult exercise appellate jurisdiction – which can only relate to the law where the judge decides without a jury, and to decide both fact and law, for it is often difficult to separate fact from law, which is essential to an appeal. There again we see how judicature is implicated with procedure, and how impossible it is to settle appellate jurisdiction without reference to courts of first instance. Lord Westbury's observatio:s as to the defects of our appellate jurisdiction have been often made during the last half centmy, and they were made by Lord BROUGILAN and Sir EDWARD Sugden long ago. It is easy to point ont faults in a system; the difficulty is in proriding the proper remedy, and in that way Lord WESTBURY has done nothing. The labour las been thrown upon the Judicature Commissioners, and our own idea is, that the subject cannot be dealt with satisfactorily until they have presented their report. This appears to be the impression of the CHANCELLOR who has submitted his Bill to them, but on this subject one part of it so depends upon another that it is difficult to deal with them separately. The original jurisdiction in first instance forms the necessary basis or foundation, and to begin with appellate jurisdiction appears to be like beginning a building with the superstructure. The first question to be settled is, What are to be our courts of first instance: And as to that we must await the report of the Judicature Commission. If they cannot agree upon the subject how is it likely that the Legislature will be able to do so? Andif they can, then it will be best to begin at the basis, and work our way upwards to the summit. Since the session of 1870 the subject has progressed, and is now in a much more advanced position. It is become apparent that we require our local jurisdiction to be reconstructed, and if the local courts are made courts of first instance (as in every other country), then our Judges at Westminster will be made available for appellate jurisdiction.
Appellate jurisdiction culminates in the supreme tribunal; and as to this, Lord WESTBURY adopts our suggestion to strengthen the Lords, as the supreme judicial tribunal, by making the Judges of the Superior Courts and of the Judicial Committee members of the House for judicial purposes. But this, it is obvious, must in a great degree depend upon how far the Judges are at leisure to exercise appellate jurisdiction in the supreme tribunal, and also in the intermediate tribunal; and this again depends upon what are to be the tribunals of first instance.
THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION. When Lord WESTBURY called the attention of the House of Lords to the subject of the Judicature Bills he ought to have borne in mind that no one was less entitled than himself to do so. For beyond all doubt he it was, more than anyone else, who caused their failure by his opposition in the Lords. They were framed in substantial accordance with the recommendations of the Judicature Commission, signed by Lord Cairns, and, although that noble and learned lord made some just criticisms on the rererse side, they were not designed to defeat the measure; and, in point of fact, his influence succeeded in passing it through the House-at lcast such part of it remained. But it was lost in the House of Commons mainly through the delay caused by the opposition of Lord WESTBURY upon grounds utterly untenable. One was that the Bill did not include the rules, and left them to be framed by the Court. This, however, was in entire accordance with the first principles of jurisprudence, with the most approved precedents, and with the recommendations of the commissioners. And eventually the House passed the Bill without the rales, thereby in a great degree affirming the same view. But Lord WESTBURY had excited such prejudice against the Bill by calling it a “ Skeleton Bill," that it was long delayed. Again, he objected that there was no provision that the rules should be promptly made. To meet this objection the CHANCELLOR provided that the rules should be made by a Committee of the Privy Council, of which the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER should be a member. This, again, was in entire accordance with ancient precedent, and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER is in fact a member of the Court of Exchequer, and in that character is sworn, and there takes precedence of the LORD CHEF Baron, and sits with the Judges when the sheriff's are appointed. But be that as it may, the alteration was made to meet Lord WESTBURY's objection, and so soon as it was made the Bill was assailed by the Lord CHEF JUSTICE on that very ground, and he called on the CHANCELLOR DO adhere to the Bill as it was originally drawn. This, however, was so late in the Session that the Bill was virtually lost. The House of Commons, however, were accessory to the loss of the Bill. for during the interval which had elapsed after the Bill left the Lords, no effort was made nor a single question was asked to promote its success, and the Government finding, on the one hand, no effort used in its favour, and, on the other hand, a strong secret influence exerted among their supporters to defeat it, mainly through the Lord Cher JUSTICE and Lord WESTBURY, they, having a tolerable excuse on account of the period of the session, allowed it to drop. That it was defeated by the influence of the supporters of the Government is clear. The Minister has a large majority. The Bill had been passed in the Lords by the influence of Lord CAIRNS ; its warm opponents were Liberals. The Government were all powerful in the Commons; they could have passed it if they had pleased. It could only have been the machination of their own supporters that prevented it. And the delay caused by Lord WESTBURY afforded the only possible excuse. He then is more than any other person responsible for the loss of the measure, and he of all men was least entitled to complain of it. We have spoken of
measure, because in any view the measures really constituted one, and the subject requires to be so treated. We have had enough, as Lord Cairns said, of piecemcal legislation on the subject. It requires to be treated as a whole. This was the view of the Judicature Commissioners, who, finding that by the original commission they were not anthorised to deal with the jurisdiction of the House of Lords, and of the County Courts, suggested an extension of its scope, so as to comprise both those parts of the subject; and that course was accordingly taken in the constitution of the new commission now sitting.
Lord WESTBURY seems to desire the regulation of appellate jerisdiction separately by itself, without regard to jurisdiction of first instance, or to procedure. But this is a rery difficult course to take satisfactorily, for appellate jurisdiction is necessarily dependent upon jurisdiction in first instance, and its exercise is necessarily implicated with procedure. How is the subject of appellate jurisdiction to be dealt with, unless it be first settled whether the courts of Westminster Hall are to continue courts of first instance ? or, whether, as appears to be contemplated, the County Courts or provincial courts of a superior character are to be the courts of first instance, and the Judges of the Courts of Westminster are to be reserved for the constitution of Superior Courts or Courts of appellate jurisdiction? One of the truest observations of Mr. BextAJI was this-that judicature and procedure are so implicated that it is impossible to treat them satisfactorily apart; for
BANKRUPT PARTNERS PROVING AGAINST THE
BANKRUPTCY ESTATE. The rules respecting the right of partners in a bankrupt firm to prore in competition with their own creditors has been considered in the recent case, Re Conia's Estate, and the judgment of V. C. Malins materially affects the law which previously obtained with reference to this very important question. The facts on which the decision was given are shortly these: In 1866 Mr. Cania was a merchant in Bombay, being the sole member of the firm under which he traded. He was also a partner in a London firm holding seven-eighths shares, while another partner held one-eighth. This London firm failed, and at the time of the failure was indebted to the Bombay firm to the extent of some £32,000 on bills for advances. The Bombay firm soon afterwards failed also, and the claim made before the Vice-Chancellor was that the representatives of the bankrupt Bombay firm should be allowed to prove against the bankrupt London firm for this £32,000. It was contended that the case came within the exception to the general rule forbidding bankrupt partners to prove in competition with their creditors, which permits proof where the delst is in respect of a distinct trade carried on by one or more of the partners. The Vice-Chancellor, however, considered that even if this exception could now be sustained, which he very much doubted, it could only be in respect of goods sold, and not of cash advances; that, therefore, if Mr. Cania had remained solvent he could not have proved, and his creditors had not a better right than himself; so the proof was disallowed. The general rule as to bankrupt partners proving against the bankrupt estate is the well known rule laid down by Lord Eldon, in E. parte Sillitoe (1 Gly. & J. 382). The exception which was relied on in Cania's case was established by Er parte Cook (Mont. 228), and the exception has always been considered and acted on as sound.
Crucia's case, however, has not definitely removed the exception, but the doubt expressed by the Vice-Ciancellor has so shaken the portion of it left in existence, that it cannot be followed with
safety. The case positively decides that if the debt sought to be proved is for money, the exception made in Cook's case does not apply, but the general rule prevails, and the ViceChancellor has virtually expressed a very grave doubt as to whether Cook's case can now be considered law at all. It is very unsatisfactory to have a point of such great and widespread importance left so doubtful.
It will be noticed that Cania's case was one in which all the partners of the firm seeking to prove were members of the firm against which the claim was made. It is important to remember that if the positions had been reversed, and the London firm, containing a partner who did not belong to the Bombay firm, had claimed to prove against the Bombay firm, the claim would have come within another exception to the general rule -- one resting on altogether different grounds. This exception was established so long ago as St. Barbe's case (11 Ves. 41:3), and has since been repeatedly affirmed. Neither this exception nor the reasoning on which it is based has been at all touched by the decision in Cania's case, and they still remain law.
THE HARE AND RABBIT GRIEVANCE. A VERI creditable attempt to get rid of what fariners will recog. nise as the hare and rabbit grievance, has been made by Sir HENRY SELWIN IBBETSON, and sundry honourable members acting with him. They have brought in a Bill for the amendment of the laws relating to game and trespass, the object of which is to redress the hardships of which complaint is now frequently made, when hares and rabbits are permitted to increase and multiply under the fostering care of restrictive covenants, rigidly enforced by game-preserving landlords. There are few lawyers who have not, at some time, had cases brought under their notice in which tenants or neighbours have complained of serious damnum but which their legal advisers were compelled to describe as sine injuriâ. The Bill which now lies before us aims at abolishing this anomaly, by giving every occupier of land a right to protection from the ravages of ground game, which he may graut away or surrender if he likes, but which if kept in his own hands, will make excessive game-preserving a very expensive hobby to the landlord, and a very fairly remunerative source of income to the farmer.
Passing over the inevitable short title and interpretation clauses, we come to the 5th section, which contains, as it were, the marrow of the entire measure.
When the Bill has become law, every occupier of land will, prima facie, be entitled to pursue, take, and kill "hares and rabbits, unvexed by fear of forfeiture, and untroubled by dread of action, suit, prosecution, or proceeding, “any covenant, reservation, grant or agreement with the owner or any other person to the contrary notwithstanding.” We do not quite understand why the words we have put between inverted commas were inserted, because, as might have been expected, existing rights of landlords and other persons are expressly saved, as are also the tenant's powers of contracting himself out of any rights the Bill may confer upon him. The operation of the section is limited to land above 2s. 6d. an acre net annual rateable value.
The Act is to apply to all cases where hares or rabbits are maintained in excessive and unreasonable numbers on a “ holding," or part of a “holding,” which is elsewhere defined as “any continuous tract of land in the occupation of one occupier, whether as owner or tenant to one or more owners, or partly in one way, and partly in the other;" which holding is to be deemed continuous, if severed only by fences, walls, ditches, roads, or railways. We canrot see the use of this long and involved definition, or the reason for making the sufferer's right to redress in any degree dependent upon the manner in which the wrongdoer holds his land. It is true that an attempt is made to get rid of somo of the difficulties which the term, “ continuous tract of land "suggests. But the books abound in hard cases which have arisen out of circumstances unforeseen by framers who have inadvertently used words which, when judicially spelt over, have been found to fail of their object through exceeding care in explaining what might safely have been left at large. The principle of the Bill is that the person who preserves hares and rabbits to such an extent as to injure his neighbour, is no longer to be exempt from the applicacation of the maxim, Sie utere tuo ut alienum non ladus. The soundness of the principle none can question. Why then should those who recognize it seek to limit it by the accidental and utterly immaterial circumstances of continuity or non-continuity of a tract of land, unless indeed they want to clear the way for the passage of the traditional coach and six through their Act of Parliament?
Subsequent portions of this measnre provide that when by lease, reservation, covenant, grant, or agreement, the owner, or those claiming under him, have the right to destroy hares and rabbits reserved to them, the owner is to be sued. In every other case, the occupier is to be responsible, thus in effect making the author of the mischief answerable for his own acts. In Scotland, “the exclusive right” of taking, &c., game, is vested in the occupier in the absence of express reservation- a provision which will probably merely cause the introduction of a few words not hitherto included in Scotch conveyancer's common forms.
By the 9th section the sporting value of land is to be included in its
annual rateable value, and care is taken for the proper adjustment of the sporting and agricultural proportions of the rate between the different persons entitled. And the 10th, by a formidable array of sub-sections, endeavours to effect the same object with respect to shootings in gross.
The machinery by which the newly acquired rights of the injured occupier are to be vindicated, is somewhat complex in character. Proceedings are to begin by a notice from the claimant to the defendant, giving particulars of alleged damage, and of the place where the damage-doing animals are maintained. The defendant has a month at least, by way of tempus penitentie, but if the nuisance then continues unabated, he may, within not less than one month, nor more than two mouths, serre a second notice reciting the first, aud threatening to proceed under the Act. Personal service is not to be required. The claiın is limited to one year, and not more than one claim a year can be inquired into, and then only when proper particulars have been supplied. The defendant is to be at liberty to enter upon the claimant's land for the purpose of destroying the obnoxious quadrupeds in his own way, subject only to liability to further pay, ments for any damage he may do; and the plaintiff's refusal to permit entry for such a purpose is to bar his right of action. Either party to the dispute may appoint a surveyor to inspect the other party's holding, free from risk of criminal or civil proceedings for trespass, and seven days' notice must be given of intention to cut, gather, or feed off any crop, &c., for injury to which damage
claimed. Default in doing this is to bar the right of action in whole or in part.
Having thus taken all conceivable pains to make sure that the litigants shall know exactly what they are fighting about before they go to law, the Bill provides for the nomination of referees and umpires by agreement in the ordinary way. Failing agreement, either party may apply to the local County Court in England, or to the Sheriff's Court in Scotland, to nominato “a surveyor, valuer, or other competent person,” to inquire and report as to the nature and amount of damage; the reasons for believing that the mischief has been done by the defendant's hares and rabbits; the means the defendant has taken to get rid of them; and any other matters which the arbitrators, &c., may think fit. Here we see a curious example of non-professional dread of law and lawyers. The reference is to take place before non-professional persons, who will have to construe a new Act, abounding with nice points, instead of appointing as arbitrator some barrister or solicitor, who might be perfectly competent, not only to ascertain the facts, but to apply the law. We are bound to add that the success of this part of the plan bids fair to be precisely as great as its merit. The Court which has directed the surveyor to report, is to take all the circumstances into consideration, to hear evidence, if necessary, and to direct the payment of damages and costs as it shall think fit. The tribunals mentioned are to have unlimited jurisdiction in the first instance. No appeal from them is to be permitted except on matters of law, and then only by leave of the court, but as the appellate tribunal is not named. we do not quite understand where an intending appellant is to go with his special case, or what court will feel competent to entertain it, unless the omissiom is supplied before the Bill passes. The two concluding sections deal with existing interests, and with the cessation or transfer of liability on change of tenancy.
As already intimated, the Bill which now lies before us is by no means faultiess. Its value is in the principle it ailirms, rather than in the machinery it provides. If
, as is probable, disputes arising under it are of such a nature that a reference will be the best way of getting at the truth, it would be far better to authorise a reference to a legal umpire, by whom the whole matter could be disposed of at once, with power to state facts for the opinion of a County Court Judge, or of a Superior Court, as the parties may prefer, the appeal lying direct to the latter, unless both parties should desire to have it dispused of by the former. In appearance, the Bill promises “to do the thing cheap" by keeping clear of the lawyers. In reality, it casts upon suitors the expense of a double or treble inquiry, through which they will be practically compelled to avail themselves of legal assistance. The parties are to go before " a surveyor, valuer, or other competent persou," who will act partly upon evidence, partly upon view, and partly upon his own notions as to what the Act means. He is not to make an award, nor even to assess the damages. He is to report the result of his inquiries to the court, which may confirm or reject his conclusions in whole or in part, may hear evidence, and in short go into the whole matter de noco. This will necessitate the furnishing of copies of the report to the litigants some time before the court sits, and those who know how much ingenuity is often employed in picking a hole in an adverse award, will be able to estimate the chance of maintaining what will be virtually an award, which lacks only the element of finality. We do not know that the Profession would have much reason to complain of this. if they were content to consider the matter solely in the light of their own interests; but as every honourable practitioner must wish the law to be free from fair cause of reproach, we can but advise the honourable baronet who has introduced the Bill to modify his machinery if he desires to achieve the success to which his sincerity as an unofficial law reformer undoubtedly entitles him. STATUTORY DECLARATIONS. Sir GEORGE BOWYER did good service in drawing attention to the defect in the law as to statutory declarations, and we were happy to observe a notice of a question in Parliament upon the subject. We are not sure, indeed, that the fault was in the law; and that it was not rather in its administrators. We understand that in the City the Aldermen will not allow a statutory declaration before them without observing what is declared, and exercising a judgment upon it so far as to see that it is not an abuse, at least not an obvious abuse, of the statutory power. And we must say that this appears a far more proper and sensible view of the law than that which appears to prerail in the Police Courts of the rest of the metropolis. It is a scandal to see the name of a magistrate affixed to an atrocious slander. It is no ano swer to say that the statute in general terms allows declarations to be maile. The Legislature nerer intended that the power should be abused for the purposes of slander, and no magistrate is obliged to take part in what he knows to be a gross abuse of the law. The Legislature intended the power to be exercised for useful purposes — for the purposes of businessand not to be abused for the purposes of private defamation or the extortion of money. It is easy to see if a case is of this character ; and if it is, then no one will say that the declaration ought to be allowed. There are innumerable cases in which merely to follow the words of a statute would cause intolerable vexation. Blackstone gives instances, in order to show that a sensible construction is always to be placed upon a statute. The truth is that a statute is always to be construcd, as Loru COKE says, along with the common law, and so far subject to it that it is always to be construed in accordance with the common law, except so far as the intention of the Legislature has been clearly expressed to the contrary. If, however, the Act allows of such an absurdity as that the signature of the magistrates should be affixed to attest and authorise an obnoxious slander, then the sooner it is altered the better. But that it is not so appears from this, that if the magistrate in such a case were to decline to affix his signature, the Queen's Bench most certainly would not giant a mandamus.
The following are the regulations respecting “statutory declarations” in force at the Mansion House :-_“ 5. The subject matter and the facts set forth in the affidavit or declaration will be examined, and only such affidavit as is authorised by law (see para. 6), or such declaration as appears to be necessary and proper,' will be taken. 6. Affidavits must be such as justices are authorised by some statute to take; and, if under a foreign or colonial law, in order to give validity to instruments designed to be used there, the Act, or a verified extract from it, should be produced. In all other cases where the document is required for a foreign country, or the colony of Victoria, an affidavit seems to be the proper document to be made. 7. As a general rule declarations should be made in all cases where they are required to be used in the United Kingdom, and in our colonies, except Victoria. Declarations may also be made in all the cases referred to in paragraph 6, wherein an affidavit is necessary. The Statutory Declaration Act (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 62), authorises the taking of a declaration in relation to actions in our colonies except Victoria ; and of execution of wills or deeds (sect. 10); and also by sect. 18 where it may be necessary and proper in many cases, not herein specified, to require confirmation of written instruments or aliegations, or proof of debts, or of the execution of deeds or other matters.'" Mr. OKE adds, “ declarations will, therefore, not be received respecting immoral practices, or involving criminal charges or supposed criminal charges, affecting the declarant or other persons, whether or not they are the subject of proceedings cominenced, pending, or determined, nor in any other improper
Of course, an affidavit of the saine purport cannot be taken."
the collapse of the most gigantic swindles that ever stained the commercial history of any country. The new Eric Board is, according to the latest news, in full power, with everything working harmoniously, although Gould and three of his supporters have been permitted for the present to remain upon the board. It may be fairly concluded that he and his confederates are no longer able to exercise any separate control over any of the operations of the company, and that he has simply been allowed to remain for a time in order to make use of his intimate knowledge of the state of affairs for more speedily clearing the way to repair the mischief that has been done. Attention in the stock markets this week so far has been absorbed by the fortnightly settlement, which has revealed but a limited extent of speculation. A scarcity of stock was particularly apparent in the home railway market.
The Bank rate of discount remains at 3 per cent., and the demand has not been sufficient to justify the impression that there would be any rise in the value of money at present.
By comparison with last Thursday the British Funds have fallen ), and Bank of England Stock 2 per cent., which latter movement usually precedes the shutting of the transfer books till the 6th of April, Indian Enfaced Four and a Half Paper and the Five and a Half Joint Stock is higher.
In American Securities, besides the rise in Erie Railway Shares alrearly referred to, there has been an advance of 5 in the Atlantic and Great Western Bonds and also in the Debentures, but the Five Twenty Bonds of 1862 are lower.
The changes in the prices of British Railway Stocks are mostly unfavonrable for the week, owing to the absence of speculative buying and the realisations which, as a rule, immediately precede the settlement, which is concluded to-day. Owing to the scarcity of stock the contango rates have been light; otherwise the traffic receipts are considered satisfactory. The principal changes in prices are a fall of 1. in North Eastern ; of 1 in Great Northern ; of in London and North Western ; and of in Great Northern A, and Lancashire and Yorkshire, &c. On the other hand London and Brighton has risen 2; and South Eastern .
The usual operations in the markets preliminary to the introduction of a new loan have been apparent in the case of Peruvian. The Peruvian Six Per Cents. of 1870 are 3. higher, and the Five Per Cents of 1865 21, ani the new loan for about £30.000.000 sterling is daily expected. Sontlı American Stocks are all higher ; but Spanish and French have been du)). Turkish have improved between and per cent. Uruguay Stock bas risen 2 this day.
The principal movement in Miscellaneous Shares has been a rise of 2 in Telegraph Construction.
One or two small new undertakings have appeared during the week, but in this respect there has been a lull. The condition of the Money Market is still favourable to appeals for capital, and it is probable, unless adverse circumstances of an unforseen nature occur, that more activity in new projects will be witnessed in the coming week.
The sum of £2000 has been withdrawr. from the Bank this day, and there has been a heavy discount demand.
The latest quotations for British Funds are as follows: Consols, for money, 921 to 923 ; ditto 5th April Account, 92: to 92; Reducel, 91 to 31 ex. div.: New Three per Cents., 91 to 914 ex. div. ; Exchequer Bills, 2s. to 7s. prem. ; India Five per Cent. Stock, 1092 to 110 ; ditto Four per Cent., 102 to 103; ditto Enfaced Paper Four per Cent., 961 to 97; ditto Fire and a Half Per Cent., 1081 to 108; ; Bank of England Stock, 246 to 218 : Metropolitan Three and a Half per Cent., 95, to 96}; and French Rentes in this market, 55.1 to 56.
The price of French Rentes received from Paris this morning was 56f. 82c. Market firm.
In the market for American Securities, the United States 5.20 Bonds of 1882 are marked 92. to 923 ; ditto, 10.40 Bonds, 89 to 89! ; Atlantie and Great Western Bonds, 42 to 42; ; ditto Debentures, 46 to 47; Eries, 35to 35%; Illinois, 108) to 109; and United States Funded Loan, 89% to 8:13.
In the Railway Market the prices are :-Caledonians, 117 to 1171: Great Eastern, 195 to 49 ; Great Northern, 135 to 136 ; ditto, s, 165 to 159 ; Great Western, 112 to 112) ex div.; Lancashire and Yorkshire, 157 to 1571 ; London and Brighton, 795 to 793 ; London, Chatham, and Dover, 27 to 27}; London and North - Western, 154 to 1547: London ani South-Western, 108.; to 109; Manchester and Sheffield, 725 to 733; Metropolitan, 69 to 69} : ditto District, 33 to 33; Midland, 1421 to 143 : North British. 61% to 62; ; North Eastern Consols, 170 to 1774 ; SonthEastorn, 98 to 99); ditto deferred, 77} to 78; Grand Trunk of Canada, 20 to 20); Great Western of Canada, 213 to 219; Antwerp and Rotterdam 19 to 19.); Great Luxembourg, 174 to 173 ; and Lombardo Venetian, 19 to 1911
The prices of the principal Foreign Stocks are recorded thus :-Argentine, 1868, 95} to 957; do., 6 per cent., 1871, 921 to 92: Brazilian, Per cent., 1865, 95% to 9:1; do., 5 per cent., 1871, 95 to 954; Egyptian, 7 per cent., 1848, 35to 85%: do., Viceroy Loan, 88 to 90; do., Khedive Mortgage Bonds, 79.5 to 792: Greek 5 per cent. Stock, 17 to 171: French Morgan 6 per cent. Loan, 1004 to 100%; do., National, 6to 67 pm. ; Italian of 1861, 671 to 68% ; Mexican, 14 to 15; Paraguay 8 per cent. 881 to 1 do. Scrip, 81 to 8 pm. ; Peruvian, 5 per cent. 1865, 100, to 100; do., 6 per cent. 1870, 84 to 84? ; Spanish 3 per cent. 31% to 31$; do. Quicksilver, 80 to 81} ; do. 3 per cent. 1871, 31; to 312 : Turkish, 5 per cent. 1863, 51. to 513; do. 6 per cent. 1865, 60 to 074; do. 6 per cent. 1859, 61. to 615; do. O per cent. 1871, 73 to 73} ; and Uruguay, 741 to 74).
In the Telegraph Market, Anglo-American Stock is quo'ed at 118 to 120 : Anglo-Mediterranean. 109 to 171; British Australian, 9 to 91; Britisha Indian Extension, 11% to 12 ; ditto Submarine, 101 to 10; Chinas, 9 to 9 Cubas, 8 to 8; Falmouths, 111 to 11.); Great Northern, 15. to 16 Marseilles, Algiers and Multa 87 to 9%; Mediterranean Extension, 4 to 5 : Reuter's, 10% to 114: French Cables, 237 to 244 ; Submarine, 225 to 235; and West India and Panama, 63 to 63.
In miscellaneous shares the prices are as follows :-Credit Foncier of England, 5, to 5.; Crystal Palace, 22 to 24; General Credit and Discount. 23 to 2; pm.; Globe Marine Insurance, 14 to 17: Hooper's Teleraph Works, 2 to 3 pm.; Hudson's Bay. 101 to 10.; London Finance, 16 to 17; London General Omnibus Company, 81 to 86; London Tramvays, 12 to 12); National Discomt, 13 to 13! ; Native Guano, 18 to 20; Nei Lombiem Poosphate, 8. to 9; Phosphate Sexnge, 39 to 41; Royal Mail Steam. 89 to 91.; Telegraph Construction, 31% to 32; and Universal Marine, 87 to
THE STOCK MARKETS.
City, TIRSDAY, Marcu 14. The markets for Public Securities have ruled fairly steady since we last wrote, but there has been a decidedly smaller amount of business transacted, with a marked falling off in the extent of speculative operations. The main reasons for this latter feature are traceable primarily to two causes; first, as prices are high generally the new large issues in the shape of foreign loans, one or two of which are daily expected, will enter into strong competition, as they must obviously appear upon the market offering inducements to intending investors, and also to holders of other stocks, so that they may be tempted to exchange; secondly, the continuous drain of gold, which, upon a compara, tively unimportant scale, proceeds unchecked when considered collaterally with the prospective efflux, which, to some extent, must follow the success of one or two large operations of the kind, under, existing circumstances, deters the speculator, who wisely waits for the lower level which would' immediately follow a rise in money before he further operates. Interest has been chiefly centred upon the Erie Railway proper:y, the shares of which have advanced a further 3. dollars since last Thursday upon
NOTES OF THE WEEK, plaintiff remained on the register until the wind. I the proceeds of the sale, but the sheriff, if
ing-up in Dec. 1866, when he was placed on the he had notice of a bankruptcy petition was to COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY. list of contributories, and was compelled to pay a hold the proceeds on trust for the trustee. (Before the LORDS JUSTICES.)
large amount for calls. On a bill by the liquidator A fortiori was this the case where there had been Feb. 26 and March 2, 3, anul 7.
in the name of the plaintiff against the defen. a seizure and no sale. The trustee was, therfore,
dant for an indemnity, the ViceChancellor held entitled to the proceeds of sale ; he was not, how. Wilson v. O'LEARY.
that there was an implied obligation on the part of ever bound to have the goods soid, but was Will, Construction-Two codicils-Repetition of the defendant to indemnify the plaintiff, that this entitled to have them delivered to him. legacies-Cumulative or substitutional. implied obligation was not varied by ms of
Lord Justice MELLISI was of the same opinion. This was an appeal from a decision of Bacon, V.C. the written receipt, and that the liquidator was
Appeal accordingly dismissed with costs. By his will, dated the 8th Sept. 1860, Sir De Lacy entitled to enforce this obligation in the plaintiff's Evans, after giving certain legacies, &c., gave ail name. (See 25 L. T. Rop. N. S. 483.) From this
Solicitor for appellant, William Thomas, for the residue of his property to his two nephews John decision the defendant appealed.
Eden, Pears, Logan, and Eden, Liverpool. and Henry O'Leary in equal shares. The testa- Higgins, Q.C. for the appellant.
Solicitors for the trustee, Neal and Philpot, for tor's will, together with two codicils, one dated the
Without calling upon
W. and A. Clare, Liverpool. 17th June 1867 and the other undated, but in fact Cotton, Q.C. and T. A. Watson, who appeared executed in Jan. 1868, was duly proved by the for the respondents,
Friday, March 8. executors. In both the codicils the testator gave Lord Justice JAMES said that it was a per
COHEN V. WATSON. legacies to the same persons, the amounts given to fectly plain case, and that the decision of the some of the legatoes in the second codicil being Vice-Chancellor must be affirmed.
Vendor and purchaser — Specific performance the same as those given to them in the first. The Lord Justice MELLISH concurred.
Delay--Subject matter of contruct in ruinsresiduary legatees contended that the second Appeal accordingly dismissed with costs. Neglect of vendor. codicil was evidently intended to be substituted Solicitors for the appellant, Alfred Cox.
This was an appeal from a decision of the Master for the first. The following tabular form shows Solicitors for the respondents, Linklaters, Hack of the Rolls. The plaintiffs, who were mortgagees the legacies given by the two codicils : wood, and Addison.
with a power of sale of certain leasehold property FIRST CODICIL. SECOND CODICIL.
put it up for sale by auction, on the the 26th Nov. £.
Thursday, March 7.
1868, it being provided by the conditions that the Col. Townsend Wilson 4000 Col. Townsend Wilson 2000 Gen. Sir R. Dacres ...
concurrence of the mortgagor should not be reEx parte MARSHALL; Re WADDINGTON. 2000 Gen. Sir R. Dacres 1000
quired, and that the sale should be completed on Adml, Sir S. Dacres. 2000 Adm. Sir S. Dacres 1000 Company-Bankruptcy of contributory after com- the 5th Dec., and the defendant became the purJohn O'Leary.. 2000 Henry O'Leary
mencement of winding-up-Order of discharge, chaser. In Oct. 1868, the mortgagor had instituted Henry O'Leary 3000 Alexander Greig 500
Liability provable-Release of contributory. Alexander Greig 500 Mrs. Sleeinan. 1500
a suit to restrain the mortgagees from selling, and Mary Avne Sleemar... 1500 I will and bequeath £1500 This was an appeal from an order of Mr. Registrar had registered the suit as a lis pendens. The defen.
I will and bequeath £1500 to my excellent head ser. Brougham, sitting as Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, dant refused to complete unless the lis pendens to my excellent servant vant, Samuel Smart, or dismissing a debtor's summons issued by the ap. were removed, which the plaintiffs refused to do, and friend Samuel Smart, Smouth, and £500 extra if pellant against Waddington. The appellant was saying that it was unnecessary, as an injunction or Smouth, and an addi.. he with me at my the registrar of the Stannaries Court, and as such had bern refused in the suit. The plaintiffs filed tional £500 if he sbould be death. with me at my death.
I bequeath a year's
the official liquidator of the Wendren Consolidated their bill in Jan. 1871, for specific performance of I will and bequeath a wages, liberally inter. Mining Company, which was ordered to be wound. the contract. The Master of the Rolls having year's wages to every one preted, to my servants. up in the Stannaries Court in Nov. 1866. Wad. dismissed the bill on the ground of delay, the of my servants.
I bequeath £2000 to my dington was placed on the list of contributories. plaintiffs appealed. It appeared that the plaintiffs I will and bequeath £2000 dear and valued friend In Dec. 1868 he was adjudicated a bankrupt, and had neglected the property, and allowed the houses to Deborah Warr, my Capt. W. Eastwick, of the housekeeper, and the at. Council of India.
in his statement of affairs he entered the company to go to ruin. tached friend of my late
as one of his creditors in respect of calls. In Sir Richard Baggallay, Q.C. and Bush for the dear wife.
Feb. 1869 he obtained an unconditional order of appellants. The second codicil ended with the words, “ These £156 155, 6d. having been made against hiin in respondent.
discharge. An order for a call amounting to Southgate, Q.C. and G. W. Laurance, for the shall be free of legacy daty," which words were Nov. 1870, the debtor's summons not in the first codicil. The Vice-Chancellor (see against him for that ainount.
was issued Lord Justice JAMES said that the vendors were 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 327) having held that the having dismissed the summons, on the ground they were not entitled to come here for specific
The Registrar not justified in neglecting the property, and that egacies given by the second codicil were cumu. that the company's debt might have been proved performance, when they had so utterly neglected ative and not substitutional, the residuary lega. in the bankruptcy, the official liquidator appealed. their duty and allowed the property to go to rack ees appealed. Kay, Q.C., IV. Pearson, and Phear, for the
De Ger, Q.C. and Bagley, for the appellant. and ruin.
Lord Justice MELLISH concurred.
Roxburgh, Q.C. and Doria, who appeared for the Appeal accordingly disinissed with costs. May (of the Common Law Bar) for General and respondent,
Solicitors for the appel lant, Evans and Laing. Admiral Dacres.
Lord Justice JAMES said that the case was Solicitors for the respondent, Paule and Fearon. Amphlett, Q.C. and Renshaw, Q.C. for the N. S. 615 ; L. Rep. 6 Ch. 582), where their Lord.
clearly governed by McEven's case (24 L. T. Rep. executors. Eddis, Q.C., Charles Hall, and H. S. Milman, became bankrupt after the commencement of the
Saturday, March 9. ships held that the liability of a contributory, who
BISHOP v. WISE. for the other legatees. Lord Justice JAMES said that it had been con
winding-up was provable in the bankruptcy, and Will-Construction-Absolute gift-Qualification that the bankrupt, on obtaining his discharge,
of gijt in subsequent part oj vill. ended that the two codicils were so similar that was entitled to be removed from the list of con. the court must from that fact arrive at the contributories.
This was an appeal petition from a decision of clusion that the testator intended to substiute the
Wickens, V.C. By his will, dated the 16th May
Lord Justice MELLISH concurred. second for the first one. It was, however, ad.
1821, Benjamin Bishop, after giving certain lega. mitted that that part of the first codicil giving
Appeul accordingly dismisseil writh costs. cies, directed the residue of his property to be the legacy to Mrs. Warr, which was omitted in
Solicitors for the appellant, Le Riche and Sole. divided into equal portions, and to be paid to as the second codicil, must stand. There was not
Solicitors for the respondent, R. W. Stacpoon. many of his children as should be living at the enough to lead the court to depart from the
time of his doccase, to be for ever at their disgeneral rule of construction that gifts by two tes.
Ex parte RAYNER; Re Joynson.
posal, with the following reservation only : “ The tamentary instruments to the same person are to Bankruptcy Act 1869, s. 87 – Execution on goods of eldest daughter, Murtha Bishop, whom it hath
cqual share or portion which shall fall to my be construed cumulatively. The Vice-Chancellor's trader for orer £50—Seizmiercithout sale-Peti. decision must, therefore, be upheld.
tion for liquidation-Rights of execution creditor certain investments” (specifying them) " and the
pleased Gou to afflict with fatuity, shall remain in Lord Justice MELLISH concurred.
and trustee-Injunction restruining sale.
proceeds or interest of such her equal portion Appeal accortlingly dismissed. Costs out of This was an appeal from a decision of the Chief shall be applied for her support and maintenance the estate.
Judge in Bankruptcy, affirming a decision of the during her life. At the death of my said daughter, Solicitors for the appellants, Williams and Judge of the Liverpool County Court. The facts Martha Bishop, the property thus bequeathed to James.
were shortly as follows. The sheriff of Chester her shall be divided in equal portions among as Solicitors for the respondents, Stephens and under a writ of fi. fo. seized the goods of Johnson, many of my other children as may be living at the Langdale; Nicholl, Burnett, and Newman.
a trader, on the 12th Oct. 187), to satisfy a judge time of her decease.” The testator died in 1824,
ment obtained by Rayner for £819 odd. On the leaving, in addition to Martha Bishop, three other March 1 aud 8.
14th Oct. Johnson filed a petition for liquidation children, a son and two daughters, him surviving. HEMMING v. MADDICK.
by arrangement, and on the same day a receiver Martha Bishop, who was in 1843 found to be a
was appointed, and an interim injunction granted person of unsound miud, survived her brother and Company-Trustee of shares-Implied agreement restraining the sale by the sheriff. On the 16th two sisters, and died in Feb. 1870. The suit was by cestui que trust to indemnify - Express agree- Oct. the receiver entered into possession, and one for the administration of the testator's estate, ment Suit for indemnity by liquidator in on the following day the sheriff withcrew. On the and the petition was presented to settle who was name of trustee.
16th Nov. the sheriff re-entered and another in- entitled to Martha Bishop's share on her death. This was an appeal from a decision of Malins, V.C. terim injunction restraining the sale wns granted on The Vice-Chancellor having held that Martha On the 4th Dec. 1865, the plaintiff, at the request the 21st Nov. and mudo absolute on the 29th Nov. Bishop had acquired an absolute interest in her of an agent of the defendant, applied for and The execution creditor appealed to the Chief share, the petitioner appealed. was allotted 250 £10 shares in a company. The Judge, who dismissed his appeal, and he now Greene, Q.C. and Cecil Dale, for the appellant. defendant furnished the money payable on appli. appealed to this court.
Dickenson, Q.C., Osborne Morgan, Q.C., Hordy, cation and allotment, and it was understood that
De Gex, Q.C. and Arthur Cohen (of the Common Q.C., Mallor, Kinydon, and Dauney for the next of the plaintiff was to have no beneficial interest, but Law Bar), for the appellant.
kin of Martha Bishop. was to hold the shares to dispose of them as the Little, Q.C. and W. Potter (of the Common Law Lord Justice James said that the first gift was defendant should direct. He, however, received | Bar), for the trustee.
an absolute gift of the share to Martha Bishop, twenty-five guineas as a consideration for his Lord Justice JAMES was of opinion that the but it was contended that the gift was cut down part in the transaction, and he signed a receipt case was concluded by the words of the 87th to a life estate by tho subsequent words. The for this money in which it was expressed to be section of the Act, the meaning of which was that testator directed her share on her death to be paid to him in consideration of his taking risk of the title of the execution creditor was not to be divided equally among as many of bis other applying for the shares, the application and allot. completed even hy sale, if within fourteen dags children as might be then living. None of his ment money only being paid thereon. On the oth from the date of the sale the trustee received notice other children were then living, and the principle Dec. 1865, the defendant directed the plaintiff to of a bankruptcy petition. It was the plain was that where a gift was cut down for a certain
ransfer the shares to one Pott, and on the 12th of intention of the irgislature that in such a purpose, it was not cut down for other purposes the same month the plaintiff did so. The com. case the srizure and orale of the goods should tot expressed. The Vice-Chancellor's decision jany, however, refused to accept Pott, and the not vest in the creditor an absolute title to must therefore be affirmed.
Lord Justice MelLISH was of the same opinion. granting specific performance of contracts founded pressed their desire for a Gaelic service. But
Appeal accordingly dismissed with costs. on letters. Here there was more than a doubt as there was no evidence that any Highlanders reSolicitor for the appellant, Charles Fiddey. to the agreement. There was really no written sided in London who could not speak English. Solicitors for the respondent: Tompson, Picker. memorandum of an agreement.
Cotton, Q.C. and Kekewich, in support of the ing, Styan, and Neilson ; Baker, Folder, and Upper. Lord Justice MELLISH concurred.
petition. ton; Purson and Lee.
Appeal accordingly dismissed with costs. Glasse, Q.C. and Freeling for the Caledonian
Solicitors for the appellant: Pearson and Lee. Asylum.
Solicitors for the respondent: Aldridge and Hemming for the Attorney-General.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that the money
must be considered as having been raised for Settlement - Construction-Estate of trustee-Rule in Shelley's case.
the benefit of those“ who could not speak English This was an appeal from a decision of the Master
March 4 and 11.
sufficiently to attend an English service with
profit,” and that there was no evidence of there of the Rolls. The suit was one by a vendor for
COCKAYNE V. HARRISON. specific performance of an agreement to purchase Will–Construction-Specific bequest of farming application to change a scheme settled by the
being any such persons resident in London. An certain real estate. By a settlement made on the
stock during willowhood. marriage of the plaintiff with her late husband, This was a suit for the administration of tho made with the consent of the Attorney General,
court, and acted on for a long period, should be and dated the 10th Nov. 1811, the property in estate of James Cockayne, who, by his will, gave a question was limited to the use of the plaintiff's specific legacy of his farming stock, consisting of present application. The petition must be dis
whereas the Attorney-General was opposed to the father and mother successively, during their re- heasts, stock of bay and straw, turnips, clover, I missed without costs. spective lives, with remainder in case the plain. beans, and other consumable articles, to his wife tiff shonld at the death of her mother be disc during widowhood, and she claimed to be entitled Bradley.
Solicitors : Day; J. T. Simpson; Raven and covert to the nse of the plaintiff in fee, but in absolutely. case she should then happen to be a married H. Davey for the plaintiff.
Saturday, March 9. woman, to the use of Benjamin Smith, his heirs
Fellowes for the widow. and assigns, upon trust, to take and receive the Sir R. Baggallay, Q.C. and Miller, Q.C. for other Dissolution of partnership - Proof by partner
NARRAWAY v. BEATTIE (CAMA's ESTATE). ronts, issues and profits thereof, and to pay the same parties. when received into the proper hands of the plain. Lord ROMILLY held that the widow was only
against estute of firm- Distinct trades-Debt tiff for her life for her srparate use, and after the entitled to an interest in the farming stock during
in respect of cash advances, and debt in respect determination of that e-tate to stand seised of her widowhoo:1, that the property should be sold
of Gooils supplied. the premises to such uses and upon such trusts as and the proceeds invested, and the income paid to
B. F. CAMA, residing at Bombay, carried on the plaintiff, notwithstanding coverture, should her until her death or second marriage.
business in London, in partnership with Prestonjee, by will anpoint, and in default of such appoint. ment to the use of the heirs and assigns of the Blyth, and Marsland.
Solicitors: Field and Roscoe; W. Berry; Wilkins, under the firm of B. F. Cama and Co ; and also
carried on business in Bombay on his sole plaintiff for ever. The only question was whether
account under the firm of B. F. Cama, Sons, the plaintiff was entitled under this settlement to
and Co. The business of the Bombay firm
Tuesday, March 12. an estate in fee simple in the property. The
was distinct from that of the London firm,
Wood 1. WEIGHTMAN. Master of the Rolls held that the estate of Benja
but the two firms had large mercantile dealings min Smith, the trustee, was confined to the Liability of executors-Ailvertisements for creditors together, and the London firin acted as the
-22 & 23 l'ict. c. 35. plaintiff's life, and consequently that the limita.
correspondents in England of the Bombay firm. tion to her heirs and assigns was legal, and did | This was a suit to make the executors of a de- Thero was
current account between them not conleece with her equitable estate for life, ceased trustee liable for a breach of trust, It in respect of these dealings, and at the date and his Lurdship accordingly dismissed the bill appeared that the executors had inserted adver: of the stopping payment by both firms (which for specific performance with costs. (See 26 L. T. tirements for creditors to come in and prove their occurred in Aug. 1866), there was a balance Rep. N. S. 10.) From this decision the plaintiff claims, in two local papers only, and that three of £35,000 due on this account from the London appealedl.
weeks was allowed within which they were to come firm to the Bombay firm. Cama executed an C. Hall and Whitehorne for the appellant.
in and the execntors claimed to be freed from assignment for the benefit of his creditors, and Sir Richard Bagya!lay, Q.C. and Bedwell for the liabilito, inasmuch as the plaintiff's claim was one Prestonjee also executed a similar deed ; but no respondant.
of which they had not notice at the time of dis assignment had been executed of the joint Lord Justice JAMES said that the Master of the tribution. The plaintiff contended that the estate of the London firm. A bill was filed Rolle appeared not to have had present to his executors were liable, as the advertisement had | by the assignees of Prestonjee against Cama mind the br ad distinction between the rules as
not been inserted in the London Gazette, or in any and his assignees for a dissolution of the to the construction of technical words in a deed London daily paper and also þecause in those London firm and accounts of the partnership. and in a will. To hold that the words of the advertisements which had been issued, sufficient
A dissolution was decreed, and in taking limitation in this case did not give the trustee the time had not boen allowed for creditors to come in. tho accounts in chambers, ' Cama's assignees, fee would be to overrule all the cases on the Sta
Sir R. Baggallay, Q.C. and Chapman Barber who represented the Bombay firm, claimed to tute of Uses. There was not such a doubt as to for the plaintiff.
prove against the estate of the London firm for the title ns to prevent the court from forcing it
Fry, Q.C. and Marten for the executors.
£35,000, being the balance of the current account. upon a purchaser, and the plaintiff was therefore
Dunning and Rogers for other parties.
The question was adjourned into court. entitled to a decree for specific performance,
Lord ROMILLY said that the 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, Cotton, Q.C. and kekewich for Cama's assignees, Lord Justice MELLISH was of the same opinion. exempted executors from liability upon their giving representing the Bombay firm. Solicitors for the appellant, Sheffielil and Sons.
such or the like notices as would be given by the Glasse, Q.C. and Macnaghten for the assignees Solicitors for the respondent, Budd and Son.
court in an administration suit, and the court of Prestonjee.
London Gazette, generally in the Times, as well as could not, in competition with his own creditors,
in some othe London daily paper, and also in the prove against his own firm. An exception to this
local papers in the case of country causes. The execu- / rule occurred when the partner carried on a dis. NESHAM v. SELBY.
tors had not complied with the requirements of the tinct trade from his firm ; but this exception was Specific perfornuance-Agreement for lease-Nemo. Act, and further three weeks was too short a time confined by the authorities to the case where the randum in writing-Correspondence-Statute of to fix as the period within which claims must be debt arose in respect of goods supplied. In the Frauds.
brought in. There must, therefore, be a decreo present case, therefore, where the debt arose in Tais was an appeal from a decision of the Master that the executors, as well as the estate of the respect of cash advances, the proof could not be of the Rolls. The suit was one for the specific testator, are liable for the breach of trust.
allowed. performance of an alleged agreement by the de.
Solicitors : R. H. Nettleship; Thomas and Solicitors: Waller and Handson; Uptons, fendant to take the plaintiff's house for seven Hollams.
Johnson, and Upton. years from Michaelmas 1870, at the yearly rent of £120. The bill alleged a verbal agreement to
V. C. MALINS' COURT. that effect, followed, first, by a letter from the defendant to the plaintiff agreeing to take the
Friday, March 8.
V. C. BACON'S COURT. house npon certain conditions, but not stating ATTORNEY GENERAL 1. STEWART.
Thursday, March 7. when the term was to commence; and, secondly, Chority-Scheme cy près - Application to restore Re THE PATENT Floop. Cloth COMPANY by another letter from the defendant to the plain.
money to original purpose.
(LIMITED) (DEAN AND GILBERT'S CLAIM). tiff, in which the defendant stated that he thought This was a petition presented in the above snit, Company Travelling agent Commission it best to say that it was clearly understood on his and also under Sir S. Romilly's Act (52 Geo. 3,
Winding-up-Compensation. part that the plaintiff agreed to let the house for c. 101), by three Highlanders, resident in London, MESSR3. DEAN AND GILBERT were employed by seven years from Michaelmas 1870, upon the con with reference to a sum of money raised in 1809 the above-named company as commission travel. ditions mentioned in his first letter. These were to provide a Gaelic service in London “for persons lers and agents, for a period of three years certain conditions as to the house being put in proper coming from the Highlands of Scotland who could from May 1867, and for their services they were to repair, and were more fully set out in the second not speak English." In 1827 an information was receive a coinmission upon all orders obtained by letter The plaiutiff did not admit that they filed with reference to this money, which was paid them of 5 per cent. On the 24th Jan. 1868 the formed part of the verbal agreement, and in his into court; and in 1830 a decree was made sanc. company passed a resolution to wind-up volun. reply to the defendant's second letter did not tioning a scheme by virtue of which the income of tarily, for the purpose of reconstituting it on a expressly accept those conditions, but promised the fund was paid to a clergy man who conducted different footing. Shortly afterwards the company generally that the honse should be put into good a Gaelic service in London until 1844, when he re- was ordered to be wound-up under the super. repair. The defendant having afterwards refused signed. A reference having been made to the vision of the court. During the first year of their to take the lease, the plaintiff filed his bill for master, he found by his report in 1846 that a fit engagement Messrs. Dean and Gilbert received specific performance, which the Master of the and proper person could not be then found for commission the sum of £399. They now Kolls dismissed with costs on the ground that the to conduct a Gaelic service in London; that sought to be allowed to prove as creditors against correspondence did not constitute a memorandum it did not appear from past experience that Gaelic the company for the same amount of commission in writing of the alleged agreement sufficient to preaching was required or desired in London, and for each of tho two years which were unexpired satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds. he approved a scheme for the application of the under the agreement. From this decision the plaintiff appealed.
money in educating Scotch children at the Caledo. kay, Q.C. and Locock Webb were in support of Dauney (Southgate Q.C., with him) for the nian Asyluın. A decree was made confirming this the application. appellant.
report, and the money was applied accordingly Little, Q.C. was for the liquidator. Without calling upon
until 1871, when this petition was presented. It The VICE-CHANCELLOR held, that Messrs. Dean Fry, Q.C. and Chilty for the defendant, was stated in the petition that a fit and proper and Gilbert were entitled to claim compensation
Lord Justice James said that the first letter person could now be found to conduct the Gaelic under tho agreement, and it was referred to the was a mere written offer, and that the second service, and the etition prayed that the money chief clerk to ascertain the amount. letter contained other terms which were not ac. should be so applied. The petition was supported Solicitors for applicants, Lumley and Lumley. cepted. The court had gone quite far enough in by the evidence of numerous persons who ex. Solicitors for liquidator, Phelps ard Sidgwick.'