Page images

Saturday, March 9.


s. 41.


Company-Winding-up-Transfer to County Court Companies Act 1837 (30 31 Vict. c. 131) THIS was a petition by a creditor for an order to wind-up the above-named company. The order to wind-up was not opposed, but the company applied to have the proceedings transferred to the County Court of Birke.head, under the provisions of the Companies Act 1852, s. 41, on the grounds that the company was a purely local one, that all the creditors resided at Birkenhead or Liverpool, and that the assets of the company only amounted to about £100.

Robinson was in support of the petition. Kardswell and Sladen appeared for the company. The VICE-CHANCELLOR made the order to windup the company, an 1 directed the proceedings to be transferred to the County Court of Birkenhead. Solicitor for the petitioner, Redhead. Solicitor for the company, W. W. Wynne.

F.iday, March 8.

GUMM V. HALLETT. Arbitration-Taree arbitrators-Award of oneCommon Law Procedure Act 1851, s. 13. THIS cause came on upon exceptions to the chief cleck's certificate, by which he had disallowed a sum of £334 10s. 10d., claimed under an award, the validity of which was disputed. By the terms of the reference to arbitration under which the award was made, all matters in dispute were to be referred to three arbitrators, one to be chosen by each party, and the third to be chosen by the two so appointed, and the award of any two of them was to be final. Disputes having arisen, and one of the parties having neglected to appoint an arbitrator, the arbitrator appointed by the other party made an award alone.

Little QC. and Jackson appeared in support of the award.

Kay, QC. and Charles Hall onposed it. The VICE-CHANCELLOR held that the award was inoperative, and that the arbitration clauses of the Common Law Procedure Act 1854, did not apply when the reference was to more than two arbitrators. The exception must therefore be disallowed.

Solicitors: Lawford and Waterhouse; Simpson and Cullingford.

March 7 and 8.

Railway company-Right to use the line-Motion
to restrain obstruction.

on the de

THIS was a motion on behalf of the plaintiffs in the above suit, for an interim injunction to restrain the defendants, their servants and agents, from locking the gates fendants' railway, or permitting the same to be locked, and from keeping or permitting the same to be locked, and from making or permitting any other obstruction, or doing or permitting any other thing so as to prevent or in terfere with the proposed use by the plaintiffs of the railway. The bill, in the suit, besides praying for an injunction in the above terms, also prayed for damages in respect of the alleged wrongful conduct of the defendants. The plaintiff's proposed to run their own trucks and ongines along the defendants' line, and to pay the proper tolls for nsing the line, and they maintained that as they had in every respect complied with the Act of Parlia ment regulating such matters they were entitled to the injunction asked for. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that in such a case as this an interim injunction could not be awarded. evidence showed that the gates were locked to prevent persons coming improperly on the line. The object of the plaintiffs was to save some £3000 or £4000 a year, which they now paid to the defendants for tolls. As that saving would be at the expense of the defendants, they desired that the case should be dealt with upon the strictly legal rights of the parties. No irreparable injury had been proved, and as no ground had been shown for the court's interference, the motion ought to b refused.


Greene, Q.C. and A. G. Marten for the m ›tion. Lindley, Q.C. and Cracknall for the defendants. The VICE-CHANCELLOR declined to make any order upon the motion.

Solicitors: Bircham, Dalrymple, Drake, and Burt; Field and Co.

[blocks in formation]

London, and Mr. Chadwick, the liquidator,
through the National Bank of Liverpool (Limited),
and Mr. Henry Alers Hankey, for the purpose of
obtaining the sanction of the court to certain
compromises entered into, as was alleged, with
the only two outstanding claimants against the
estate of the International Contract Company
(Limited), by means of which compromises it was
intended to put an end to all substantial litigation
subsisting with reference to the estate of the com-
pany, and thereby to facilitate the ultimate winding-
up of its affairs at an early date. The company
was in process of winding-up, under an order
made in July 1865. Mr. Hankey was formerly a
director of the company, and he stated that in
July 1871, he promoted a scheme for the purpose
of closing the winding-up, but that it failed by
reason of the oppositi n offered to it. The total
amount of the debts proved against the company
in the winding-up was £314.846 163. 3d., and the
creditors were forty-six in number. The petition
prayed that the proposed compromises might be
sanctioned by the court, and that the liquidator
might be ordered to concur in all acts and instru-
ments necessary for formally expressing the same,
and giving effect thereto; and that for those
purposes such directions might be given as to
proceedings in chambers or otherwise as the
circumstances of the case required The petition
was served only upon the liquidator of the

Sir R. Palmer, Q. C. and Kekewich, for the

The Solicitor-General and Marten; Lindley, Q.C.,
Miller, Q. C., Waller, A. G. Marten, Jackson, and
Horton Smith for creditors who supported the

Sir John Karslake, Q.C. and Whitehorne, for
the official liquidator, and Napier Higgins, Q.C.,
Macnaghten, aud Ince for creditors, opposed the

Solicitors: Stevens, Wilkinson, and Harris;
Tatham and Son; M. A. Rofy; Lewis, Munns and
Co.; Tilleard, Godden and Holme.

Tuesday, March 12.
(Before Lord PENZANCE.)


Monday, March 11.

(Before Lord PENZANCE, J.O.) TOMKINS v. TOMKINS (the Queen's Proctor intervening).

Dissolution-Decree nisi-Queen's Proctor's inter-
vention-Particulars of Queen's Proctor's charge
required Amendment of his petition only
allowed on his paying the petitioner's costs.
In this case the wife, the petitioner, had obtained
a decree misi for the dissolution of her marriage,
and on 14th June 1871, the Queen's Proctor inter-
vened and charged her with collusion. suppression
of material facts, and adultery. On 10th Feb. 1872,
the petitioner obtained an order calling on the
Queen's Proctor to furnish particulars of the
charges of adultery; and

Searle now moved on behalf of the Queen's Proctor for leave to amend his petition by amending certain dates. It was impossible to give particulars until this was done, because the particulars would not correspond with the dates in the petition.

Inderwick, for the petitioner, submitted that she was a poor woman, and that the Queen's Proctor ought to pay the costs to which she was put by the motion.

The COURT.-Certainly. The Queen's Proctor will not be permitted to amend his petition except on the condition of paying the costs. Attorneys for petitioner, Vizard and Crowder.


Thursday, March 7.


The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, though there were Mr. EYKYN asked the Home Secretary whether, independent creditors who supported the petition taking into consideration the absence of a public ing to the evidence, he must treat the petition as and co-petitioners with Mr. Hankey, yet, accord-prosecutor, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to undertake the prosecution of the presented by Mr. Hankey himself for his own person who laid claim to the Tichborne estates, personal benefit. If he were to countenance the and such other persons as might be proved to petition, the course suggested would lead to exhave been implicated therein. He was not aware treme inconvenience, and was one which the last night when he gave notice of his question that court ought not to encourage. Under these cir- the Attorney-General, at the close of this remarkcumstances he should make no other order than able case, had stated that the Government would that of dismissing the petition with costs, prosecute the claimant for perjury. He hoped he excep'ing the costs of the creditors who supshould be forgiven if he asked the Government whether it was their intention to prosecute any ported it. Mr. SCOURFIELD.-Is it not the fact that the per other of the parties connected with the case.son calling himself Sir Roger Tichborne has been liberated on bail and has left England- -The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.-My right hon. friend the Home Secretary has desired me to answer the question of the hon. member. It is true that at the conclusion of the trial yesterday I did make a statement that the Government of the country were prepared to take up the matter and conduct against the claimant a public prosecution, and I may observe that in any case of this kind they prosecute almost as a matter of course. The question is not in the least degree affected by the existence or non-existence of such a functionary as a public prosecutor. There is no doubt the prosecution will be conducted, and conducted with the best ability the Government have at must excuse me from saying a word about con(Hear, hear.) My hon. friend their disposal. ducting a prosecution against any other person than the claimant. Although it would be most unjust and improper to make any charges against persons for purposes foreign and collateral to the real inquiry, it must be in the knowledge of the House that the arrest of other persons than the claimant is a matter of the gravest possible consideration. (Hear, hear.) It is undergoing careful and anxious consideration. I trust the House will think that sufficient, and not desire me to say any more about it. With regard to the question of the hon. gentleman upon the subject of bail, I have no public or private information on that subject. (Hear, hear.)

In the Goods of PARNELL.
Will-Guardians of minor, appointed with power
to survivor to appoint a guardian in case of the
death of one-12 Car. 2, c. 24.
THOMAS PARNELL, late of the Hermitage Bridge
Estate, Smithfield, died on 14th March, 1839,
having duly excented a will bearing date, 9th
May, 1862, of which he appointed William King
He also, by his will, appointed them to be the
Tossett, and Louisa Parnell, spinster, executors,
guardians of his daughter, Ciara Jane Parnell
during her minority, and he further directed
that in the event of the death of either of
them, the survivor should nominate and appoint
another person to be his or her co-guardian of
Clara Jane Parnell. Probate of the will was
granted to Louisa Parnell on 14th June 1869, power
being reserved for the other executor to come in
and prove. Louisa Parnell died 8th Sept. 1871,
having intermeddled with the estate, leaving a
will duly executed, but which did not appoint any
executors. A part of the estate of Tuos. Parnell
was unadministered,and Clara Jane Parnell was still
under age. On 16th Nov. 1871, Wm. King Tossett
executed a deed by which, in accordance with
Granville Park, Blackheath, in the county of
the terms of the will, he appointed, Wm. Tossett, of
Kent, to be the guardian of the said Clara Jane
Tossett, and on the 30th Dec. 1871, he renounced
his right to probate, and executed a consent that
a grant of administration with the will annexed
should be made to Wm. Tossett as testamentary
guardian of the said Clara Jane Tossett, substi-
tuted on the death of Louisa Parnell.

Wm. Tossett with the will annexed of the unad-
Bayford now moved accordingly for a grant to

ministered estate of Tho. Parnell. He cited 12
Car. 2, c. 24; Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, 146;
Vaughan's Reports 181; Rees Williams' Reports
703 (in the notes).

The COURT held that the language of the sta-
tute of Car. 2 was sufficiently general, and made
the grant.

Attorneys, Satchell and Chapple.

Friday, March 8.


On the motion for going into Committee of Supply. Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN rose to move the following resolution:--"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the judge of a County Court district in which the Welsh language is generally spoken should be able to speak and understand the language." He had no desire to claim for his own countrymen any special privilege Rule in the sense in which that phrase was used whatever. Welshmen were not advocates of Home on the other side of the Channel, or, indeed, in any sense whatever. They claimed for themselves no right whatever except that which he had always understood to be the birthright of every subject of the kingdom, whether Englishman or Welshman, Scotchman or Irishman - to have justice dealt out to them as far as circumstances would permit. The county of Montgomery was

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

the most exclusively Welsh part of Wales. In that district at least four-fifths of the population habitually spoke Welsh. They carried on the ordinary intercourse of life, concluded bargains, wrote letters, and made their wills in that language. He remembered that when on circuit many years ago a story was told about Baron Parke, after addressing a Welsh jury with his usual facility for an hour in the summing up, being suddenly interrupted by one of the jury saying, "Let that old gentleman cut his speech short; I have not understood a single word he has been saying." At Anglesea last year a butcher was tried for stealing sheep, and he was acquitted because the jury did not understand English, the language in which the speeches of counsel and the evidence were delivered. As to resorting to the services of interpreters in such cases, the truth was that the meaning of a word might not be accurately rendered by the interpreter, and thus the judge or the counsel might be put on a wrong scent. For instance, in one case a witness was represented to have said that a man was seen with a "school" upon his back, the Welsh word for school being the same as that for ladder. In another case, according to the interpreter's rendering of the evidence, the prisoner was stated to have stolen a compass;' but the witness, who knew more of English than the interpreter did of Welsh, cried out, "No, no; she took a turnip, not a compass." Now it should be remembered that the County Courts were rough and ready-in fact, people's courts," as they were called, in which attorneys or advocates were but rarely employed. He had sat once in a County Court, and out of no fewer than forty cases, only in one was an advocate employed, and that only on one side. In most cases the judge was obliged to act as judge, jury, and counsel for both parties; he had to sift and probe the case and check the wanderings of the witnesses. If his right hon. friend the Home Secretary were to appoint as magistrate at Bow-street a gentleman who understood nothing but Chinese the case would be parallel, for to these poor people English was Chinese. Formerly for the Welshspeaking districts a knowledge of Welsh was required in County Court judges. Lord Lyndhurst made it a sine quâ non. He laid stress on this fact, because he was charged with wanting the Lord Chancellor to establish a new precedent. But all he asked was that the Lord Chancellor should follow the example set by one of his predecessors. There was no man at the Bar more competent to discharge the duties of a County Court judge than Mr. Tindal Atkinson, but he did not speak Welsh. Whether from that cause or not he did not know, but Mr. Atkinson wished to be removed, and Mr. Homersham Cox was appointed in his place. He did not wish to speak with any disrespect of Mr. Homersham Cox. That gentleman had written works on the differential calculus and on the British Constitution, and besides, was a very powerful political writer for the press, whose services he believed and he did not use the word invidiously-were placed at the disposal of the Government. But Mr. Homersham Cox was certainly not a man of large practice. He (Mr. O. Morgan) had the honour of practising in the same courts with Mr. Homersham Cox for ten or twelve years, and he had never seen him hold a brief. If the Lord Chancellor had said he could not get a good man who could speak Welsh this motion would never have been brought forward, but no such reason was given. He himself certainly knew at least half a dozen gentlemen at the Bar who could speak Welsh fluently, some of whom would be admirable County Court judges, and, taken by the test of practice, far superior to Mr. Homersham Cox. The reasons given by the Lord Chancellor for the appointment were threefold. The first was, that in the case of suits between an Englishman and a Welshman, a judge selected for his Welsh acquirements would become an object of distrust to the Englishman. Now, if the Lord Chancellor were asked to appoint a man who could not understand a word of English there might be some ground for the imputation; but surely a Welshman had as good a right to distrust a judge who could not speak a word of Welsh. Besides, Mr. Johns and Mr. Richards, who were chosen for their Welsh acquirements, were never distrusted by anyone. Then the Lord Chancellor took his stand on an old statute passed more than 300 years ago, which provided that all justices, sheriff's, coroners, and so forth should proclaim and keep the session in the English tongue, and which forbade the use of Welsh. But if, under that statute, men who spoke Welsh were not eligible, then Mr. Johns and Mr. Richards should not have been made County Court judges. But if all that was meant was that the proceedings should be carried on in English, then the judge who knew both languages could carry out the law quite as well as one who knew only English; besides that he would have the inestimable advantage of being able to check the evidence just as Chief Justice Bovill the other day corrected an interpreter who was making a wrong use of a French word. But he could not

help thinking that the statute in question was dug mitted. In the case in which two men were up from the rubbish of past centuries, seeing equally well qualified for the office of County that it had remained for 100 years at least a dead Court judge, the preference ought, he thought, letter. Another objection made by the Lord to be given to the man who could speak the Chancellor amounted to this-that it was desir-language of the people. He would, however, able to get rid of the Welsh language. Now, this lay down no rigid rule in the matter, but would was the first time he had ever heard of a Lord leave to the Government the responsibility of Chancellor who, in dispensing judicial patronage, choosing the fittest person. On the North and did so, not on the ground of the judicial qualifi- South Wales Circuits, at the Chancery Bar, and cations of the man appointed, but because his on the Northern Circuit, he found there were only appointment would be likely to encourage or dis- seven barristers who spoke Welsh. That was a courage a particular language. A writer in the very small number, and it would, under those Pall-mall Gazette-a journal always entitled to circumstances, be inexpedient to fix the area of respect-remarked with great truth that the com- selection within so narrow a limit. There was plete extirpation of the Welsh language in 1900, undoubtedly a very strong feeling in Wales that desirable as such a result might be, was not a good the two gentlemen who had been referred to ought which he had a right to purchase at the expense not to have been appointed. There was an impresof a failure of justice in 1872. (Hear, hear.) This sion in the principality that it was sought to do experiment of trying to extirpate a language had away with its ancient language, and he hoped, been tried twice- by the substitution of the considering the facts of the case, the Government Russian for the Polish language in the Polish would be able to agree to the resolution with such courts, and by the substitution of German for modification as the insertion after "should," of Hungarian in Hungary. In both cases the attempt the words "as far as the limits of selection will was received with a cry of execration throughout allow." That was the amendment which he had Europe, and in both cases it utterly failed. You placed on the Notice Paper, but he regretted he was could not thus drive out a language, which was prevented by the rules of the House from moving it. only the reflection of thought; you could not Mr. SCOURFIELD understood that the hon. and force the full-grown ideas of one people into the learned member for Denbighshire was willing to language of another. It was the old story accept the principle of the amendment of the hon. Naturam expellas furcâ, tamen usque recurret." member for Montgomery, and in that case the Mr. Homersham Cox, returning from his first cir- resolution, which at first wore a rather warlike cuit, flushed with judicial triumphs, wrote to all appearance, resolved itself into the most harmless the London newspapers saying that he had per- truism, that it was desirable that County Court formed the business of the circuit to everybody's judges in Wales should understand the Welsh satisfaction as well as his own. Unfortunately, language. The question was an administrative there appeared next day in the Daily News a com one, and he did not see what advantage would muication which rather took the shine out of this result from passing an abstract resolution on the letter, alluding to a case tried before Mr. Cox, in subject. No one would say that it was not desirwhich much time had been lost in translating from able that County Court judges in Wales, otherwise Welsh into English, and afer two hours had been properly qualified, should speak the Welsh lanspent the judge said that the case must be tried guage, but he should be sorry to affirm a resolution by a jury. It was said that an influential memo- which might limit the area of selection.—Mr. rial had been signed in favour of the appointment. RICHARD trusted that the Government would Now, solicitors were not quite disinterested wit- accept the resolution of the hon. and learned memnesces on this subject, because the judge's igno- ber for Denbighshire, together with the principle norance of the language drove a considerable of the amendment, which the forms of the House amount of business into their hands. But the prevented from being moved. There were two Welsh solicitors were men of high honour, and fallacies prevalent in England with respect to though much pressure was brought to bear upon Wales, which exercised an injurious effect on the the ninety solicitors on this circuit, only nine of relations between the two countries. For instance them had signed the memorial. There could it was asserted or implied that it was necessary to hardly be a stronger proof of the feeling in the discourage, and, if possible, to extinguish the district. He had received many letters on the Welsh language, in order to establish a closer subject, but would only refer to two. One was political union between the two countries, lest the from a gentleman who for fourteen years had banner of Welsh independence might be raised, acted as County Court judge upon a Welsh cir- and endeavours made to procure a separation of cuit, and who said he was fully persuaded the Principality from England. A more prepos that a knowledge by the judge of the language terous and unfounded fallacy never troubled the in which the great majority of the people thought brain of any human being. There was no body of and spoke was of vast importance to the suitors; persons to be found more loyal to the Crown, and and the other letter was from a most experienced more faithful to the existing Constitution than registrar in Wales, who also considered it essential Welshmen. (Hear.) Another fallacy in England that the judge should possess a knowledge of the was that there existed among Welshmen an inWelsh language, because, otherwise, however tense antipathy to the English language, and that good the interpreter, the judge did not arrive at they erected artificial barriers to prevent that lana full knowledge of the truth, and it was abso- guage from spreading in Wales. That was not lutely impossible that justice should be properly only not true, but it was the converse of the administered. The question was essentially a truth, for there was an eager and universal desire suitor's and not a solicitor's question. He would among Welshmen to acquire the English language; add that there did not exist on the face of the but it was equally true that, while anxious to earth a more peaceable or loyal people than the learn the English language, Welshmen were at inhabitants of South Wales. He would appeal to the same time strongly attached to their native the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the tongue.- Mr. HOLLAND observed that it was Home Department, who was himself half a Welsh- felt to be a very great grievance by suitors in the man-he wished he was a whole one (a laugh) Welsh County Courts that in consequence of the to corroborate that statement. The Welsh did judge's ignorance of the Welsh language they not shoot their landlords, or even pull down park were compelled to employ either an advocate to palings. (A laugh.) If they did so they would, state their case, which entailed considerable experhaps, receive from the Government a little pense, or else to employ an interpreter, which more attention. But be that as it might, all he from the nature of the language often led to very asked for them was ex debito justitie, and he confi- great mistakes. The losing party generally attri dently appealed to that House, which never turned buted the loss of their case to the fact that it had a deaf ear to the claims of justice. The hon. and not been properly explained to the judge. He learned gentleman concluded by moving "That, in understood that Mr. Homersham Cox was a man the opinion of this House, it is desirable, in the of very respectable attainments; his talents, he interests of the due administration of justice, that believed, were fully recognised where he was intithe judge of a County Court district in which the mately known, and he hoped the Home Office Welsh language is generally spoken should be would before long take an opportunity of removing able to speak and understand that language."him from the position which he now held to some Mr. PARRY seconded the resolution, maintaining place where he would be more appreciated. (Hear.) that the grievance of which his hon. and learned friend complained was a real and by no means a sentimental grievance.- Mr. HANBURY-TRACY cordially concurred with those who argued in favour of the desirability of having efficient County Court judges. He was, at the same time, strongly of opinion that it would be unwise to make the area of selection too small. It would be admitted by everyone that it was of great importance that a judge should understand the language of the district in which he administered justice, but it should not be forgotten that there was always considerable difficulty in finding competent persons to fill these judicial offices. If, therefore, an abstract resolution like the present were passed without affirming the principle that judicial ability, general attainments, and legal experience were of paramount importance, a great mistake would, in his opinion, have been com

Mr. M'ARTHUR said the result of the appointment of Mr. Cox was that a considerable portion of the principallity had been practically deprived of the benefits conferred by the establishment of County Courts. He hoped the Government would yield to the suggestion of his hon. and learned friend. He considered that, having submitted the case to the Lord Chancellor, his hon. and learned friend could not avoid bringing it before the House"

Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS agreed in every word that had fallen from his hon. and learned friend who brought forward this subject. Sufficient importance was not attributed to the fact that a County Court judge had chiefly to deal with small cases, and if the judge were not acquainted with the language of the people it was utterly impossible that justice could be done. It was very easy to sneer at provincial sensibilities; but nothing short of a feeling of indignation could be engendered by the disre

gard of such complaints as this. Had it been believed or even asserted that the Lord Chancellor in appointing this particular judge had made an effort to secure a man possessing these qualifications this motion would never have been brought forward; but Mr. Homersham Cox had never been heard of until he was made a County Court judge in Wales, and, therefore, it could not be supposed that he had had such legal experience as qualified him to fill that post. Possibly it might be true that the present Lord Chancellor was not to blame in the matter, but it was a great shame that an appointment to an important office like that of a County Court judge, who had to act as both judge and jury, should be made on any other considerations than the fitness of the person appointed to hold the office. (Hear, hear.) He should accept this motion as meaning that the House did not altogether look with approbation upon a disregard of the qualifications to which he had referred in the case of such an appointment. It was quite painful to him as a Welshman to be told that all this fuss was made because the appointment had not been given to a Welshman; all that the Welsh asked was that they should be placed on a footing of equality with the rest of the United Kingdom. It was as absurd to appoint a County Court judge in Wales who could not speak Welsh as it would be to appoint one in Cornwall who was ignorant of mining matters. In conclusion, he begged to express his entire and enthusiastic concurrence in the observations that had been made by the hon. member for Denbighshire. Mr. O. STANLEY most cordially supported the motion of the hon. member for Denbighshire. It was of course of importance that the person who was appointed to the office of a County Court Judge in Wales should speak Welsh; but the appointment of a man who possessed legal attainments would in any case give satisfaction. Mr. BRUCE said that, although the motion which had been so ably brought forward by the hon. and learned member might be construed to be a very mild censure upon the present or the preceding Government with respect to the practice pursued in the appointment of County Court Judges, still he could not regret that it had been made, because it was but seldom that the House was troubled with questions relating to Wales. During his twenty years' experience in that House this was only the third occasion on which there had been a debate on exclusively Welsh affairs, and this was the first time when the necessary, but, perhaps, extraordinary anomaly connected with the administration of justice in Wales, had been brought under their notice. It was quite true, as had been observed by the hon. member for Pembroke, that the speech of the hon. member for Denbigh shire covered more ground than his motion strictly warranted, because he had entered into a statement of facts relating to trial by jury and to the Superior Courts. When it was remembered, how


that the present system had been in force for upwards of 350 years, it was wonderful that complaints with reference to its operation and to the anomalies it involved had not been more frequently made. The English system of law was first applied to Wales in the reign of Henry VIII, and the effect produced upon the minds of a people speaking Welsh exclusively by justice being administered by Englishspeaking judges and barristers must have been extraordinary. In process of time the worst features of the case had undoubtedly been amelio. riated, but even at the present moment anomalies still existed which were startling. Thus, in many parts of Wales it was impossible to call together a jury who could understand all that was addressed to them by the judge. How justice had been administered under these circumstances it was impossible to say; but perhaps generally there were one or two men on the jury who understood English, and were enabled to explain what occurred to them, although doubtless in an imperfect way. The hon. and learned gentleman had told a story of a trial in Anglesea in which a man got off solely because the jury did not understand a word of the evidence, which had been given in English. He had, however, beeu informed that the learned Judge who had presided at that trial was a thorough master of the Welsh language, although it would have been impossible for him, under the present state of the law, to have translated the English evidence into Welsh, although Welsh might be translated into English. The case of a County Court Judge was undoubtedly very different from that of a Judge of assizes or quarter sessions. In the latter case the Judge could avail himself of the facilities which were offered to him by means of interpreters of ascertaining the meaning of the Welsh witnesses, whom the Welsh-speaking jury could understand; but in the former case the Judge was placed in a position of considerable difficulty, as he had to act upon the ill-translated statements of witnesses of whose language he was totally ignorant. The Government, in making the appointment in the present case, had undoubtedly acted upon the general practice that had been followed for a long

time past-of looking rather to the legal attainments of the person appointed than to his know ledge of the Welsh language. It was only thirtyfive years ago that any Act was passed requiring that all clergymen appointed to a Welsh living should speak Welsh, and he should think that, a proper regard being had to legal attainments, a similar provision with regard to Welsh County Court Judges would not be out of place. In appointing a gentleman who, though not acquain. ted with Welsh, would do honour to any appointment, the Lord Chancellor acted as most of his predecessors would have done. He was not indifferent to the wishes of the Welsh people, for no member of the Government took a heartier interest than his noble friend in the effort made by his right hon. friend at the head of the Government to appoint a Welsh Bishop. (Hear, hear.) The Lord Chancellor had authorised him to say that he admitted the force of much which had been urged. Legal fitness would, of course, be always the first consideration; but after the representations which had been made by hon. members connected with Wales, the Government, as also he was sure all future Governments, would make the knowledge of Welsh a consideration. He believed that at no time since the conquest of Wales by Edward I. had there been more Welsh-speaking people than at present. It was hardly 100 years since the Cornish tongue had died out, and in the time of William Rufus the population of Exeter was so equally balanced that service in the cathedral was directed to be performed alternately in Welsh and English. He agreed with his hon. friend (Mr. Richard) that the Welsh could only be won over by kindness, attention to their wishes, and ample provision for education. It was a mistake to suppose that the life of the Welsh language would be prolonged by insisting on County Court judges understanding it. The only effect of it would be to implant in the minds of the people a feeling that they were treated with a degree of justice and consideration which he was bound to say they had not hitherto received. The Govern. ment were willing to accept the motion with the amendment of the hon. member for Montgomery. (Hear, hear.) He believed there would be some difficulty in accepting it at the present moment, and he would suggest that it should be re-introduced later in the evening in its amended shape, in which the Government would heartily accept it. The resolution was then withdrawn.

Tuesday, March 12.


Mr. NEWDEGATE asked the Lord Advocate whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Governmeut, now that the law of death bed had been repealed, to introduce any measure for the limitation or restraint of the alienation of property in Scotland, whether real or personal, in mortmain. -The LORD ADVOCATE said he was unable then to give the required information. The subject was under consideration, and he hoped shortly to be able to answer the question.


Mr. STAPLETON gave notice that he would, on Tuesday, the 9th April, move for a select comdeclarations, with a view to correct their abuse. mittee to inquire into the subject of statutory

Wednesday, March 13.

JUSTICES' CLERKS (SALARIES) BILL. MR. MAGNIAC, in the absence of Sir D. Salomons, moved the second reading of this Bill, the object of which was, he said, to carry still further the principle of the Act of 1861-viz., that all judicial officers should be paid by salaries instead of by fees. The Bill provided in future for the payment of the clerks of justices by salaries in lieu of fees. He moved that the Bill be read a second time, with the understanding that it should be committed pro formâ, and have certain amendments added.- -Sir. H. SELWIN-IBBETSON seconded the motion. He approved of the principle of the Bill, which would go to remove from justices' clerks the unjust suspicion of encouraging litigation with a view to their fees; whilst by a periodical revision of the salaries the country would be secured from loss. Some amendments would be necessary in Committee.--Sir M. H. BEACH opposed the change. If change were to be made at all, it should be made by the Government, and not by a private member. It would be his duty to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.- -Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH thought that the House ought to be favoured with an opinion from the Treasury bench before going to a division. Lord MAHON supported the second reading. In his opinion justice often miscarried under the present system. Mr. HUNT also supported the Bill. He thought that the legal advice of the magistrate should have no inducement to encou rage litigation. Mr. WINTERBOTHAM said that Government heartily approved of the principle of the Bill, both as to the payment of salaries and the recovery of fees.--After a few observations

from Mr. Pell it was announced from the chair that the time had arrived for the adjournment of the discussion.- -The Game and Trespass Bill, and the Game Law (Scotland) Bill were postponed.--The report of the committee of supply was brought up and agreed to.--Mr. H. JAMES obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the better prevention of corrupt practices at municipal elections.


Mr. BARNETT, in the absence of Mr. Stephen Cave, the hon. member for New Shoreham, moved the second reading of this Bill, and stated that that hon. member would take the opportunity of making a full explanation of the measure on going -Sir H. SELWIN-IBBETSON said into Committee.

that there was an objection to some of the clauses, but, under the circumstances, he should postpone his remarks until the discussion of the Bill on going into Committee. Mr. SHERIDAN also postponed his observations, expressing his sorrow for the cause of the absence of the right hon. gentleman.- -Mr. HERMON thought the right hon. gentleman had done a good service in bringing in a Bill to make an investigation into a society which had brought ruin to thousands of families. He suggested that some of the gentlemen who were receiving pensions from the Government should be appointed to the office of commissioners under this Bill, and should be obliged to accept the appointment or abandon their pensions.

-Mr. C. FORTESCUE said that if the commission

proposed by the Bill were to be appointed at the public expense, it would require a very strong case. He believed the matter to which it referred to be of a very exceptional character. and could not help looking personally with some favour on the Bill. It was perfectly obvious that it was their duty to defer their decision till they had heard the right Sir S. NORTHCOTE hon. gentleman's statement. thanked the House for the consideration extended to his right hon. friend, and quite approved of the course suggested on all sides. The Bill was then read a second time, on the understanding that the discussion of its merits should come on on the motion for going into committee.



NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. COUNTY-NOTICE OF OBJECTION DESCRIP TION OF OBJECTION-DIVIDED PARISH.-Sect. 22 of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 58, which provides that in the case of a parish forming part of more than one polling district, the part of such parish situate in such polling district shall be deemed to be a separate parish for the purposes of the revision of voters, and the lists and register of voters does not render it obligatory on an objec tor having his qualification in such a parish to show on the face of his notice to which particular polling district he belongs, but it is still sufficient, notwithstanding this enactment, for him to describe himself as on the list of voters for the parish in question: (Chorlton v. The Overseers of Tonge, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 25. C. P.)

COUNTY FRANCHISE-FREEhold-ShareES IN A BRIDGE.-By an Act (12 Geo. 1, c. 36) commissioners were appointed for building a bridge across the river T. from F. to P., after compen. sating the proprietors of the then existing ferries, and a pontage or toll was granted to and vested in the commissioners, to be by them applied as directed in the Act. By a subsequent Act of Geo. 2, for more effectually enabling the commissioners to complete such work, they were empowered to convey in perpetuity the tolls and income of the said bridge or ferries to such persons as would undertake to erect and maintain the bridge. The commissioners accordingly, in 1728, contracted with thirty persons, whe subscribed the necessary funds and became the shareholders of the bridge, to build and maintain the bridge, and compensate the proprietors of the said ferries; and afterwards, the bridge having been built, the commissioners in 1729, by a deed which recited the above Acts, and their powers thereunder, conveyed the said bridge and tolls and all such grounds adjacent and belonging to the same as they had power to convey, by virtue of the said Acts, to certain trustees in fee, in trust to permit the said thirty shareholders to receive the said tolls and income and have the sole management thereof. The management of the property was vested in a committee of management, appointed annually by the shareholders. The Thames Navigation Act 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 149). s. 10, sub-sect. 6, subsequently vested the bridge and the lands thereunto belonging, and the tolls, &c., in the management and their successors for the time being, subject to the trusts on which the same were held at the time of the passing of the Act. W. and certain other persons, who all deduced their title from the thirty persons above

committee of

mentioned, and were respectively the holders of a share or part of a share, duly claimed to be registered as voters in respect of the said share or part of a share, for the county of M. and the county of S., these being the counties in which F. and P. were respectively situate. In each case the share or part of a share so held was of the clear annual value of 40s. It having been decided in Tepper v. Nicholls (11 L. T. Rep. N. S. 509, and 34 L. J. 61, C. P.), before the passing of the above-mentioned Thames Navigation Act 1870, that the commissioners had no power to convey the land belonging to the bridge which had become vested in them by virtue of the said Acts; and that the said shareholders having knowledge of the commissioners' title under the said Acts, acquired nothing more under the said deed than the commissioners could lawfully convey, viz., the tolls and income; and consequently that none of the shareholders had, as such, any freehold estate, which would qualify him for a county vote: Held, that the above-mentioned section of the Thames Navigation Act 1870, did not alter the nature of the interest which the shareholders had in the bridge so as to qualify them for a county vote. Tepper v. Nicholls considered and explained: (Wadmore v. The Overseers of Putney, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 28. C. P.)

If anyone still expects that the ballot will extirpate bribery at elections he would do well to read and digest the following extract from the corre spondence of the New York World, from Albany, the state capital: "It is admitted cn all sides that one of the greatest evils of the present time is the use of money in the purchase of votes at elections. The boldness with which this is done in several parts of the state on the day of election has become a proverb. It has grown to be a great evil, and the very foundation, the fountain, of the corruption in office both legislative and executive. If a man finds that he has to purchase his election by the buying of votes, he naturally considers that the office is his by purchase, and he cannot be blamed for using that position to reimburse himself and secure a profit on his original invest ment in the purchase of votes at the polls. This evil has increased at an alarmin rate during the last ten years in the rural districts of the state, until men who have otherwise good repute and consider themselves models of purity, and stand high in churches, stand at the polls all day with a roll of bills in one hand and ballots in the other, offering a price to every person who will vote the ticket which they present. This is not done in the city of New York. In that respect the elections there are purer than in any other part of the state. But the evil does exist at the state capital, and in almost every other county. As long as it is openly and unblushingly practised the bribery and corruption in legislative bodies cannot be effectually stopped. The Governor in his last two annual messages has pointedly called the attention of the Legislature to this matter, and urged the amendment of the State Constitution prohibiting the use of money at the polls, and disfranchising those who either purchase votes or those who sell their votes."



[ocr errors]

interest only, and assigned to his brother all his
per onal estate absolutely. He was acquitted of
the charge on the ground of insanity. Hell, that
the settlements were inoperative on the grounds of
the lunacy of the settlor, because they were
executed under a misapprehension, and because
the vent which they were framed to meet had not
happened: (Manning v. Gill, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 14.
V.C. B.)

[ocr errors]

DESIGNS ACTS (5 & 6 VICT. c. 100, 21 & 22 VICT.
c. 70, s. 5)-" PATTERN
JUNCTION.-Where the plaintiff, who had regis-
tered a "pattern" by sample without specifica-
tion under the Designs Acts, moved to restrain
the defendant from using a pattern, similar in
principle, though differing in style, to his own,
The court refused to grant an injunction, and
ordered the motion to stand over till the hearing
of the cause: (Thom v. Syddall, 26 L. T. Rep.
N. S. 15. V.C. W.)


SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION - DISCHARGE-AN- FORFEITURE. Subject to the life interest therein of P., property was devised to trustees upon trust thereout to pay an annuity of 100l. to A. (husband of the testatrix) during his life, with a direction that if A. should become bankrupt, or should assign, charge, incumber, or suffer any act whereby the same would, if belonging absolutely to him, become vested in any other person or persons, then and in such case the said annuity should not be payable, or should cease to be payable, as the case might require, in the same manner as if A. was dead; with a further direction that it should be lawful for her trustees in their discretion and without assigning any reason for so doing, at any time to refuse or discontinue payment of the annuity to A. during the whole or any portion of his life. Two years before the date of the will, A. was, with the knowledge of the testatrix, adjudged bankrupt under a sequestration according to Scotch law. P. survived the testatrix, and died in April 1868. On the 29th Aug. 1868, A. obtained his discharge under the sequestration, and on the 10th Feb. 1869, the trustee under the sequestration was discharged from his office of trustee. Held (reversing the decision of James, V.C.) that, notwithstanding the words of futurity in the will, and the discretion given to the trustees, the existing bankruptcy operated as a forfeiture of the annuity: (Trappes v. Meredith, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 5. Ch.)

PRACTICE-ATTORNEY-SUSPENSION IN ONE COURT-COURSE TO BE PURSUED IN ANOTHER— 23 & 24 VICT. c. 127, s. 25.-Where an attorney has been suspended in another court for a limited period in consequence of professional malpractices, this court, before taking any action in the matter, will require to be furnished with affidavits stating the nature of the malpractices in question, and if they are such that the court thinks the attorney ought to be struck off the rolls altogether, the court will not strike him off, but suspend him for the same period as he has already been suspended in the other court, and order that he be further suspended from practising in this court until a further order shall be made: (Re Brution, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 33. C. P.)

Tuesday, Jan. 30.

(Before Lord PENZANCE, J.O.)

Divorce practice-Important to solicitors.

SPECIFIC PERFORMAFCE-SETTLEMENT-CONSTRUCTION ESTATE OF TRUSTEE IN this case a petition was filed on behalf of RULE IN SHELLEY'S CASE.-By & settlement, property was Alphonsine Phoebe Silver, residing at St. Germainlimited to the use of A. and B. successively, dur-en-Laye, near Paris, for a dissolution of her ring their respective lives, with remainder in case marriage with the respondent, Ebenezer David C. should, at the death of B. be discovert, to the Silver, of No. 10, Gray's Inn-square, conveyancer. use of C. in fee, but in case C. should then be a A petition for alimony was also filed; but premarried woman (which happened) to the use of D.,viously to the hearing thereof the respondent his heirs, and assigns, upon trust to receive the caused inquiries to be made, which resulted in the rents and profits, and to pay the same to C. for important discovery that the petitioner had given her life for her separate use, and after the deterno authority whatever for the suit to be instimination of that estate, to stand seised of the tnted, and was in nowise coguisant of the present premises to such uses and upon such trusts as C. proceedings. should by will appoint, and in default of such appointment to the use of the heirs and assigns of C. for ever. Held, that the estate of D., the trustee, was confined to the life of C., and consequently that the limitation to the heirs and assigns of C. was legal, and did not coalesce with her equitable life estate, and a bill by C. to enforce specific performance of an agreement to purchase the fee of the property, dismissed with costs: (Cooper v. Kynock, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 10. M. R.) PRACTICE-PARTITION ACT 1868 (31 & 32 VICT. C. 40), s. 4-BILL FOR PARTITION-PRAYER FOR "PARTITION OR SALE."-A bill filed under the Partition Act 1863 should pray for a partition; or, in the alternative, for a sale: (Holland v. Holland, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 17. Q. B.)

CRIMINAL LUNATIC-SETTLEMENT TO AVOID FORFEITURE INOPERATIVE.-A person under a charge of felony previous to his trial conveyed all his real estate to his brother, reserving a life

Serjt. Parry (with whom was Bauford) obtained
a rule (which was argued on the 18th July last)
calling upon the petitioner to show cause why
her petition for alimony should not be dismissed,
and Mr. Vyner, her solicitor, be ordered to pay to
the respondent the costs that he had incurred in
relation thereto. In support of the application a
great many ativadits were read, but the most im-
portant was one by Mr. Frederick Kent, a solicitor,
Council of the city of London, who deposed that
of 39, Cannon street, and a member of the Common
at Dr. Silver's request he had seen the petitioner
at St. Germain-en-Laye; and she had in his pre-
sence signed a document wherein she distinctly
stated that she had made no affidavit or signed
any petition to this court. In this document she

also admitted to Mr. Kent that she had three
children (since her marriage with the respondent)
by a person of the name of Oller, a painter. After
reading the affivadits filed in reply, his Lordship
in July last referred the whole matter to the

registrar, in order that the parties might be crossexamined upon their affidavits, the registrar reporting the result to the court.

Serjt. Parry, on behalf of the respondent, now moved to make absolute the rule that had been obtained, for Mr. Vyner, the petitioner's solicitor, to pay the respondent's costs and to dismiss her petition.

Dr. Spinks (with whom was Searle) submitted that inasmuch as Mr. Vyner had been grossly imposed upon, he was not liable to such a proceeding as the present, he having acted with perfect good faith.

His LORDSHIP dismissed the petition, and following the rule of the Common Law Courts, ordered Mr. Vyner to pay the respondent's costs.

ARMITSTEAD (Robert). Killington, Westmoreland, yeoman.
April 10; Win. Robinson, solicitor, Sedbergh, York. April
25; V.C. M., at twelve o'c ock.
CARR (Mary), Carr-lodge, Horbury, York. March 19; Carr
and Cadinin, solicitors, Gomershall, near Leeds. March
25; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock.
COLTHORPE Sarah A.), Occold, Suffolk. March 31; Roy and
Cartwright, solicitors, 1, Lothbury, E.C. April 11'; V.C. B.,
nt 12 o'clock.
CRANSTON (John), Gateshead, Durham, timber merchant.
March 26; Jos. W. Swinburne, solicitor, Gateshead.
April 9; V.C. M., at two o'clock.
GARNER (Frederick W. R., Bridge-street, Cambridge,
tobacconist and lodging-house keepër. March 28; Saumel
Peed, solicitor, Cambridge. April 9; V.C. M., at twelve

HATFIELD (Weston J.), Cambridge, newsparer proprietor;
April 0; John Eadeu, solicitor, Cambridge. April 1s;
M. R., at eleven o'clock.

HEATH (Thos.), Fairfield, near Liverpool, gentleman. April
S; Win. Barrell, solicitor, 16, Lord-street, Liverpool. May
2: V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.

HOLMES (Harry G. V.), Elnathan-villas, Lothian-road,
Camberwell, Surrey, choolmaster. April 10; James
Mote, solicitor, 1, Walbrook, E.C. April 21; M. R., at
MATTHEWS (Jas.), 35, Great St. Helens, E.C., and 9, Cham-
twelve o'clock.
pion-place, Upper Clapt n, Middlesex, merchant. April
8; B. J. Lake, solicitor, 10. New-square, Lincoln's-inn-
QuICK Jas. S), St. Ives, Coruwad, master mariner. April
square, W.C. April 12; V.C. M., at twelve o clock.
8; R. H. Bamfiel, solicitor, St. Ives, Cornwall. April 22;
M. R., at twelve o'clock.
ROWLEY (Wm.), Clement-street, Birmingham, p ́arl button
manufacturer. April 4; R. M. Wood, so.icitor, 25, Water-
loo-stre t, Birmingham. Apui 1: M.R., at eleven o'clock.
SWEET Alfred), Mount villa, Cookhain Dean, Berks., gentle-
man. April 6; T. Baddeley, jun., soligor, 4, Loman-
st.eet, Goodman's-fields, Middlesex. April 15; V.C. M..
at twelve o'clock.

TAYLOR (Chas. L.), Esq, Beaulien Gorey, near St.
Helier's, Jersey. April 8; R. A. Parker, solicitor, 41,
Bedford-row, W.C. May 23; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.
Tour (Thos.), Dorset Arms, Clapham-road, and 9, Stockwell-
villas, Stockwell. Surrey, licensed victualler. March 21:
F. Sncil, solicitor, 1, George-street, Mansion-house, E.C.
March 27; V.C. M,, at 12 o'clock.
TURNER (Rich rd, Horsham, Sussex, maltster. April 10;
Johnson and Rayer, solicitor, Chichester. April 15;
V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.
WILLIAMS (Benjamin R. 41, George-street, Portman-
square, Middlesex, gendleman. April 8; Langley and
G.bbon, solicitors, 2, Great James-street, Bedford-row,
W.C. April 15: V.C. M., at twelve o'clock."

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35.
Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent.
BARTER (Elizabeth), 2, Rockville, Albert-road, South Nor-

wood, Surrey. April 0; Lewin and Co., solicitors, 52,
Southampton-street, Strand, w.C.

BATTENSBY (Jane S., Queen's-crescent, Haverstock-hill, Middlesex. April 10; Davies and Co., solicitors, 17, Warwick-street, Regent-treet, W.

CLOWES (Thos.), Esq., 2, Maitland-park-villas, Haverstockhill, Middlesex. May 1; J. and J. K. Kaight, soliciters, 25, Bedford-row, W.C.

DENT (Win. F.), Newcastle-street, Strand, and 10, Chepstow. place, Westbourne-grove, Middlesex, lead merchant. April5; J. Aldridge, solicitor, 27, Montague-place, W.. DEXTER (John P.), Panton-street, St. Martins-in-the-fields, Middlesex, and 2, Lower Gore, Kensington, Middlesex. April 20; Pike and Son, solicitors, 25, Old Burlingtonstreet, Middlesex.

DOWNING (Rev, Henry E.), the Rectory, Wells-next-the-Sea,
Norfolk, clerk. April 15; R. Petch, solenors, 8, John-
strect, Bedford-row, W.C.

EDWARDS (Benjamin, 1, Elizabeth-cottages, Shooter's-hill,
Kent, gentleman. March 25: Jenkinson and Co., solici
tors, 1, Corbet-court, Gracechurca-street, E. C.
EDWIN (Augustus, Esq., 21, Bellevue-villas, Seven Sisters'-
road, Holloway, Middlesex. May 1; S. D. Garrett,
solicitors, 60, Doughty street, W.C.

HAMMERTON (John H., Hart-street, Henley-on-Thames,

Oxford, gentleman. April 15; Bell and Co., solicitors.
Bow Churchyar, Cheapside, EC.

HARDING (Cathering A. M., Mitcheldean, Gloucester.
April 10: Valpy and Chaplin, solicitors, 19, Lincoln's-in-
fields, W.C.
HINDLEY Chas, Esq., East Acton, Middlesex. March 25;

W. H. Oliver, solicitor, 61, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C.

solicitor, Exeter.

HOLROYD (George C.), Esq., Exeter. April 1; C. J. Follett,
HOWARD W., Northernhay, St. Davids, Exeter, high
constable. May 1; 11. W. Hooper, solicitor, 1s, Bedford-
circus, Exeter.
JEKYLL Clara A., 43, York-terrace, Regent's-park, N.W.
April 20; E. F. Sealy, solicitor, 61, Lincoln's-inn fields,

NEWBALD (Wm.), 21, Sister-street, Kingston-upon-Hull,
wharfinger. April 21; J. H. Hill, solicitor, 7, Parliament-
street, Hull.

PERRY (John), Devon-lodge, Anerly-road, Upper Norwood,
Surrey, gentleman. May 9; J. E. Fox, solicitor, 65, Chan-
cery-lane, W.c.

PRESTON (Wm.). Esq., Liverpool, and Ellel Grange, Lan-
caster. April 26; Harvey and Alsop, solicitors, 12, Castle-
street, Liverpool.
PRICE (John W., Grosvener-place, Margate, Kent.
gentleman. May 1; G. W. Hussey, solicitor, 20, Great
Knightrider-street, E.C.
SCOTT (James), Esq., Bishop's Down-grove, Tunbridge
Wells, Kent. April 6; Scott and Co., solicitors, 11,
Lincoln's-inn fields, W.C.

SIMS Wm., 129 Jermyn-street, St. James's, Middlesex,
dairyman. April 25, H. P. Cobb, solicitor, 53, Lincoln's-
inn-fields, W.Č.

TEEVAN John W., 30, Chesham-street, Belgrave-square. and 1, Essex-court, Temple, E.C., barrister-at-law. June 4. Drummond and Co., solicitors, Croydon, Surrey.

[blocks in formation]


UNLAWFUL WOUNDING.-To support a verdict of guilty of unlawful wounding under the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 19, s. 5, the act must be done maliciously as well as unlawfully. Prisoner, who was jealous of persons going in pursuit of wild fowl, fired a gun, while the prosecutor was on the water in his punt in pursuit of wildfowl, about twenty-five yards off, to frighten and deter him from again coming into the creek for the purpose of fowling. As the prosecutor slewed his punt round he was struck by the shots from the prisoner's gun, but if he had not slewed the boat round the shot would not have struck him. Held, that the con

viction of the prisoner for unlawfully and maliciously wounding the prosecutor under sect. 5 of 14 & 15 Vict. 3. 99, was supported by the evidence: (Reg. v. Ward, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 43. Cr. Cas. Res.)


ON Friday, March 1, at the Borough Police-court,
Mr. C. Mills, the newly-appointed magistrates'
clerk, took his seat. There were no attorneys
present. The mayor, in congratulating Mr. Mills
upon his appointment, said that there were a con-
siderable number of candidates, but that gentle-
man was the only one proposed, and he was unani-
mously elected. The office was a very important
one, because it bore relation to the due administra-
tion of justice, not only because of the competent
knowledge of the law which was necessary, but
likewise in regard to the order of the business:
whether parties coming to the court had due and
adequate opportunity of stating their cases to the
bench so as to insure proper adjudication. Of course
these matters involved a great responsibility, but
personally he (the mayor) might say that he had
witnessed the conduct of Mr. Mills in another
official position in the town, and, judging from the
manner in which he had discharged the duties of
that position, it angured well for the way in which
he would perform his duties as magistrates' clerk.
If the manner in which Mr. Mills would discharge
his duties here be anything like the way in which
he has discharged them at the Chamber of Com-
merce, it would be not only satisfactory to himself,
but to the magistrates who sit upon the bench.
There was a matter which would make the duties
somewhat difficult to discharge. Mr. Mills suc-
ceeded a gentleman who had held the position for
upwards of forty years. That gentleman has had
to retire from his post in consequence of physical
illness, which every one regretted. For forty-three
years he discharged the duties of the office, and he
carried away with him a character of spotless
integrity, not only in that office, but there was one
unanimous and universal feeling of deep regard
towards Mr. Laycock thoughout the entire district.
Having to follow so able and excellent a man,
must necessarily involve a great responsibility,
and he could not wish Mr. Mills anything better
or higher than that, when the time came for him
to retire-for they all, both magistrates and clerk,
must retire at last he would be able to retire with
the same feelings of universal respect as his pre-

decessor had done.

Mr. C. H. Jones said it would be out of place if he did not say he entirely concurred with what the mayor had advanced with regard to their late clerk. A more benevolent, able man, in the dis

to have the same confidence of the bench, and of the professional gentlemen who attended that court, that they had in Mr. Laycock for a long series of years. (Applause.)

charge of every duty with which he was asso-
ciated could not be found. It was therefore a
source of regret to the magistrates that he had
had to retire after such a long service. With
respect to the new appointment, he had no doubt Mr. J. I. Freeman said it devolved upon him,
that Mr. Mills had already won golden opinions on the part of the gentlemen around, to express,
in connection with the Chamber of Commerce, in the first place, their sincere regret at the
where there was no emolument, or, at any rate, resignation of the office which had hitherto been
if there were, it was more on the left shoulder than filled by their friend Mr. Laycock, and still more
the right. It was only due that those claims should and greater regret, if possible, on account of the
be taken into account. It did not require great cause of that resignation; and at the same time
force to be a magistrates' clerk. A gentleman, their deep sympathy with him in the affliction with
learned in the law, had told him that it did not which Providence had chosen to visit him. For
not require a man to be great in declamation; but himself he might say that he had sat by his side
it was necessary he should be learned in the law. for many years; he had watched him for a long
Then, again, Mr. Laycock had held the appoint-time; he had seen that courtesy and honour, and
ment forty-three years, therefore he must have that gentlemanly dignity of conduct with which
been a young man when he took the office. He he had discharged the duties of his office. All
(Mr. Jones) did not know Mr. Mills's age, but he this had been a source of great gratification.
was quite sure he was as old and experienced as Passing from the past to the present, it was a
Mr. Laycock was when he first took the office. He source of great pleasure not only to himself, but
believed, therefore, that Mr. Mills would fulfil his
to those gentlemen, that the choice for his suc
duties to the satisfaction of everybody, and he cessor had fallen upon their much-esteemed friend
(Mr. Jones) hop d that their new clerk would Mr. Sykes. Those who had had intercourse with
have as long a reign as Mr. Laycock, and that he him in matters of business, knew that he pos-
would give as great satisfaction.
sessed sound judgment and strict integrity; and
he was perfectly satisfied that they could not have
a better adviser in cases of legal difficulty.

Mr. C. Mills said it was a great pleasure and a
duty to return his sincere thanks for the very
kind and unanimous manner in which the magis-
trates had elected him to that post. He felt
that the honour of the appointment was enhanced
by his having to follow such a gentleman as Mr.
Laycock; yet the responsibility increased in the
same ratio by that fact. It would be his most
earnest endeavour to perform his duties not only
to the satisfaction of himself, but to their wor-
ships and to the public. He knew that it would
be impossible at once to emulate the efficiency
attained by Mr. Laycock, after his long and varied
experience. He (Mr. Mills) therefore felt the re-
sponsibility and difficulty of his position; and he
was sure he should endeavour to do his duty, not
only to his own satisfaction, but to make the
magistrates feel that they were justified in the
appointment they had made. The business of the
court was then proceeded with.

At the County Police Court, Huddersfield, on
the previous Tuesday, Mr. John Sykes, solicitor,
took his seat as clerk to the county magistrates
for the Huddersfield petty sessional division for
The magistrates present were
Upper Agbrigg.
George Armitage, Esq. (chairman), L. R. Starkey,
J. T. Armitage, W. Brooke, and J. Beaumont,
Esqrs. There was a full attendance of the attorneys
practising in the court, including Mr. T. W.
Clough, Mr. S. Learoyd, Mr. H. Barker, Mr.
Jacomb, Mr. J. I. Freeman, Mr J. Haigh, Mr.
Fenton (Messrs. Heap, Fenton, and Owen), Mr.
Sunderland (Messrs. Craven and Sunderland), Mr.
J. J. Milnes, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Ramsden, and Mr.

The Chairman opened the proceedings by allud.
ing to the resignation of Mr. Laycock, their
valued clerk, who had held the office for a term of
forty-three years; and he might say he deeply
regretted his absence. The gentlemen around him
shared that feeling, and he was happy to say that
it was the feeling of all the West Riding magis-
trates who were not present that day. He was
sure, when he saw round him so many professional
gentlemen, that they also would regret that the
magistrates were losing so valuable a man as Mr.
Laycock. He had now, for a period of twenty-
four years, sat on that bench; they had had the
advice of Mr. Laycock all that time; they had
paid a great deal of attention to it, and they had
acted upon the advice he had generally given.
He thought he might say that there were
very few courts in the West Riding of York-
shire, or perhaps in England, where fewer appeals
had been made with regard to the decisions of that
bench. A great deal of that must be attributed to
their valued clerk, Mr. Laycock, whose advice they
had oftentimes had to seek on points of difficulty.
He was sure they would all join with him in
the hope that the rest and quiet from the active
duties that he had so arduously performed might
restore him to tolerable health, and that he might
be spared many years not only to his own family
but the town at large. He thought he might
say truly that Mr. Laycock was a most valuable
man; charitable and amiable in every way; and
they would everyone feel his loss very keenly. He
would now allude to his successor, Mr. Sykes. He
was a gentleman he had known for a great many
years; he had practised at that court, and he
might briefly say that there was no professional
gentleman who had attended that court who had
taken greater pains than he had to make himself
acquainted with the different Acts of Parliament
that came before the bench, and he thought that
they could safely place the legal opinion in his
hands, and to advise the court upon it. All the
magistrates wished him every success, and that
he might have health and strength to per-
form the duties of the office he was now filling.
It was gratifying to say that he was elected
unanimously-every magistrate approving of the
selection; and they all hoped he might be spared


Mr. T. W. Clough said that the presence of the profession testified their respect to the late clerk, their highly respected townsman, Mr. J. C. Lay. cock. He had held the office of clerk to the magistrates for a long period; he had had the confidence of the profession, and had aspired to a point beyond what any other person might aspire He was sure his friend Mr. Sykes was not so ambitious as to aspire to it all at once, notwithstanding the unanimous appointment from the bench. They very much regretted the forced retirement of Mr. Laycock, though of course he was to some extent advanced in years; and, whilst expressing that regret, they also felt as a profession they ought to congratulate the magistrates on the appointment of Mr. Sykes. Mr. Sykes had had considerable experience before the bench; he had been well accustomed to the principles of advocacy, and knew how to advise their worships; and they all felt full confidence in him.

Mr. S. Learoyd then rose and said that he had sat by Mr. Sykes for many years, during which time they had frequently had to meet cach other in eombat, as advocates representing various parties; and he was exceedingly glad that so far as their worships were concerned that time had gone by. He had now to look upon his friend as one who would have to check the legal view of the cases which he (Mr. Learoyd) might put before their wor ships. As he had had the pleasure of saying many times, he felt that, when Mr. Laycock said he was wrong, that he was wrong. He believed exactly the same confidence would continue to be placed in Mr. Sykes. He was extremely sorry that Mr. Sykes had to sit in that chair. No one regretted it more than he did, that the necessity had arisen to make a fresh appointment; for in Mr. Laycock the Bench had the most implicit confidence; the solicitors around that table felt that when Mr. Laycock's decision was given, it was a just, a right, and a fair one-and from the magis trates on that bench, to the poor wretches in the dock, Mr. Laycock held out the same hand to keep their worships right, to keep the prisoners right, and protect them from injustice or injury. Mr. Laycock was well worthy of the high respect given to him; and it was an honour, a very great honour, to follow in his footsteps. As soon as the office became vacant it was a matter of great concern among the solicitors as to the appointment that would be madelest those who thought they were best fitted for it might be in reality the least fitted for it, and be the less willing to follow in the footsteps of so excellent and worthy a man for fear of the contrast which would put them so far in the shade. It was felt to be desirable that when the appointment was made, there should be the appointment of a gentleman in whose judg ment their worships and the profession would have the same confidence that they had in Mr. Laycock. He and his colleagues felt on this point that the magistrates had made the wisest of all selections. They believed it would have been impossible for their worships to have chosen a gentleman better qualified for the office than Mr. Sykes; and they were pleased that in appointing Mr. Sykes, they had acted from no other motive than that they considered he was the best manwho would best perform the duties of the office. He could express for his friend, Mr. Sykes-for he was a friend, not merely in a professional sense, but in all truth and sincerity-no better wish than that he might long continue to receive the same good feeling and respect which his professional brethren, their worships, and the public had entertained towards him; that he might for many years occupy that seat; and that when the time came that he felt he must retire from the arduous duties of his profession into the quiet of private life, he might carry with him the good feelings,

« EelmineJätka »