Page images

their duties according to their sense of what was right. It appeared it would have been better and more satisfactory if the Treasury were represented on the spot (hear, hear)-who might also be said to represent the interests of justice. A steppingstone towards the solution of the question would be found in the appointment of public prosecutors -(hear, hear)-and the Government had under their consideration how far it was possible they could support the Bill before the House for the appointment of public prosecutors, and introduce amendment that would provide officers on the spot who might undertake the duty of taxing officer. An intermediate authority whose interests were the interests of justice as well as the general body of taxpayers, would be an improvement on the present system. It was not, however to that, but rather to the introduction of public prosecutors that he looked to the remedy of what he deemed to be a grievance. He hoped the hon. baronet would be satisfied with the assurance that it was impossible not to admit that the present system constituted a considerable grievance, and that, therefore, he would not think it necessary to press his motion. (Hear, hear).--Mr. CROSS said two things were clear-first, that the prosecution expenses were to be borne by the country, although they were first to be paid by the county or borough, and afterwards repaid by the Treasury; but the right hon. gentleman did not appear to have turned his attention sufficiently to the latter point. The county or borough was bound to pay immediately the costs of prosecution allowed at assizes and sessions, and what was complained of was that after the charges had been allowed by the properly authorised persons, the two gentlemen in New-street struck out charges that had been properly allowed, and so the county or borough, as the case might be, lost the money which the Treasury ought to have repaid them. (Hear, hear.) And that was done by two gentlemen in New-street, who could not by any possibility know whether the charges to which they objected were necessary or not. The taxation was made in the first instance at the time of the trial, and settled by the judge, who, from being on the spot, had a knowledge of the case and the fairness of the charges, and who, in case of dispute, was immediately applied to and settled any dispute that arose. At the Lancashire January sessions, in 1871, the judge of the court directed that a peculiar indictment required to be drawn under an old Act of Parliament should be drawn by counsel; and although the fee of £1 38. 6d. was paid at the time, the county had not yet been reimbursed that sum (hear, hear), although a note was appended to the charge by the clerk of the peace that the indictment was of a peculiar character and drawn by counsel by order of the court. (Hear, hear.) In another case, in the same county, a prisoner was tried on two indictments, convicted on both of them, and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude, but in consequence of the gaoler having, through inadvertence, entered one charge in the calender, the gentlemen in New-street refused to allow more than one indictment. (Hear, hear.)--Mr. SCOURFIELD supported the motion. Considering the wealth and population of the country the expenses of criminal prosecutions were by no means out of proportion. He could not see how a reform of the system was necessarily connected with the appointment of public prosecutors.- -Mr. WHARTON said what the country required was the total abolition of the office in New-street. An instance had come to his knowledge where these gentlemen had by their official act insulted two eminent judges. At the Durham Assizes a man was prosecuted for night poaching, with violence, and found guilty and sentenced. Then arose a question of costs, whereupon Martin, B., who tried the case, said he would consult Willes, J., upon the point. He did so, and it being the opinion of both the learned judges that the costs ought to be paid by the Treasury, an order was made accordingly; but when the account was sent to New-street the examiners there struck out the costs, in direct opposition to the opinion of two very eminent judges. (Hear, hear.) They had heard a great deal about economy in connection with this subject, but he doubted whether it was good economy that convictions should break down for want of witnesses, fearing the Treasury would not allow the expenses. The only remedy that could be effectual might, he thought, be found in a scale of fees prepared with considerable latitude, and in the appointment by the Treasury of a taxing master, who should be on the spot. Whether he was a public prosecutor, or a gentleman who could accompany the judge on circuit, it did not matter. Under the present system, it was an uncommon hardship upon barristers, when payments made by them to witnesses, whose evidence was requisite to complete a case, were quite disallowed by the Treasury. (Hear, hear.) He had heard that the course adopted by the Government in this matter was defended in the interests of ratepayers. Well, all he could say on the point was that, instead of being contented, the ratepayers were greatly irritated by the operation of the


system now in practice; and, on their behalf, he demanded the reason why they should be called upon so frequently to pay these costs. (Hear, hear.)- Mr. LEEMAN, as a clerk of the peace for thirty years, indorsed every word that had fallen from the hon. baronet with regard to the taxation of costs under the present system being an abuse against and prejudicial to the administration of justice. He did not propose to trouble the House with the details, but he had in his hand particulars of the disallowances which had been made to costs paid in the division of the county where he acted as clerk of the peace, and if he were allowed to read that statement he believed it would result in the dismissal of the gentlemen in Spring-gardens at a moment's notice. (Hear, hear.) What was the present practice? It often happened that cases came before a court of quarter sessions which required the services of counsel in drawing the indictment. The chairman was acquainted with the circumstances, and under his direction, fees were paid to counsel for those services; but on the cost being submitted to the Treasury, the gentlemen in Spring-gardens struck out the very fees which the chairman of quarter sessions had allowed. (Hear, hear.) The greater part of the expenses incurred at quarter sessions was for bringing witnesses from a distance. How was it possible for the officials at New-street to know all the circumstances connected with cases of that character? (Hear, hear.) Whatever they did know of them, they were constantly disallowing payments to distant but necessary witnesses subpoenaed by the attorney for the prosecution. There was a variety of other instances to the details of which he could readily refer. Although the clerks of the peace were guided by a scale of fees fixed, if not by the present Home Secretary, at least by his predecessors, for the remuneration of counsel as well as witnesses, yet in almost every case within his own experience the officers at the Treasury took exception to them. [Mr. BRUCE dissented.] The right hon. gentleman might dissent; but he was prepared to prove the statement by the papers he had in his hand. (Hear.) With regard to one uniform scale of fees he did not think that one could be fixed for counties, because their circumstances differed so widely-as in mining, manufacturing, and agricultural districts. With the exception of the modification he concurred in the motion of the hon. baronet, and hoped it would have the entire approval of the House. (Hear, hear.)--Mr. WINTER BOTHAM wished to make an explanation in behalf of his right hon. friend, who appeared to have been misunderstood by one or two hon.members in the remarks he had offered to the House on this subject. The house and the Treasury had one object, viz., they desired that costs should be rightly ascer tained, and if correct paid by the Treasury. With respect to the first of these questions the Government agreed that the operation of the present system of ascertaining the correctness of costs was unsatisfactory. (Hear). If the Treasury were to bear these costs, it was at least a rude way of taxing to filter them through the county, especially if the county had no power of checking or controlling the costs. In fact the reason was traceable to an historical fact, that for a long while the country had been under a statutory obliligation to pay them, and it was only relieved from that obligation by the payment which was allowed from year to year. He would admit that the friction which had arisen in the working of the system afforded a sufficient reason for its reconsideration, and, if possible, its readjustment; but he did not think the scale indicated by the motion of the hon. baronet met the difficulty. His own belief was that a scale for the professional remuneration of attorneys and counsel was not possible, and his conviction was based on the experience of civil courts, where no attempt that he was aware of had ever been made to determine beforehand what should be the remuneration in any particular instance. The same observation might apply to criminal proceedings. Instead of avoiding, he believed a uniform scale of fees would produce hardship greater than that now complained of. With regard to fees payable to justices' clerks, he hoped the Public Prosecutors Bill would make satisfactory provision. As to the clerk of assize, the Government had no control over him, as he was appointed by the senior judge of the circuit to the office for life. While expressing the hope that the Public Prosecutors Bill might be so altered as to meet the difficulty in part, he wished the House to understand that the Government did not rely upon the measure for a complete remedy. The Government had more than one course before them, the adoption of any one of which would, he believed, secure a satisfactory solution of the difficulty; but it would be premature to state which plan they intended to put in force. (Hear, hear).- -Major PAGET reminded the House that the Public Prosecutors Bill to which the honourable gentleman had referred was promoted, not by the government, but by a private member, and that it would be liable to the exigencies which so frequently attended independent legislation.

[ocr errors]

(Hear, hear.) One grievance of which he had to complain was this: when costs were first examined the Treasury officials acted with singular astuteness by disarming their adversaries. They said, Now that the expenses of prosecution are to be made by us, we have a right to retain the vouchers for them," and they had been so retained up to the present time, and were never returned to the clerk of the peace. The result was that the items objected to were known to the objectors, but never to anybody else; and the taxation of costs was thus conducted solely on behalf of the Treasury, irrespective of the ratepayers. The sole object of this minute taxation, he believed, was to put a stop to irregularities in expenditure, but the actual course adopted was to receive the vouchers and lock them up. It was said that certain fees were only allowed by the Treasury in extraordinary cases; but the question whether a case were or were not extraordinary should be decided by the judge who tried it, and not by irresponsible gentlemen at Westminster who took upon them to set his decision aside. He was glad that the Treasury at length saw the necessity of making some concession in reference to this matter; but he could not help recollecting that last session the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied in a very different sense, contending that there was no ground for the Government acceding to the application that had been made to them. He thought that to remedy the matter which was complained of, the position in which counties and boroughs stood in reference to being reimbursed the costs of prosecutions should be clearly defined by statute. Another thing required was that the costs should be taxed upon the spot, where any necessary explanations could be given. When the present subject was taken into consideration by the Government he hoped that the scale of fees established in 1858 would also be considered. In applying the scale to counties the Government acted upon this singular principle. They said that any county fee which was above the Government scale should be reduced; but they declined to raise any item that was lower than their own scale. It was this that had given rise to the difference of scale in different counties, which had been complained of. He trusted that if this motion were not pressed to a division the hon. baronet in withdrawing it would reserve to himself the right to bring it forward again in case it should not be satisfactorily dealt with by the Government.--Mr. C. READ observed that the disallowance of costs in counties by the Treasury was 6 per cent, whilst in boroughs it was no less than 11 per cent.; and, therefore, the question was one which had even more interest for borough than for county members. He not only objected to these deductions, but to the system which prevailed in making them. The counties sent up all their details of expenses and vouchers; and then they received an intimation that there would be certain deductions, which they could not trace, so that no assistance was afforded them if they desired in future to conform to the scale of the Home Office. Last year, in Norfolk, £42 was claimed as expenses for prosecuting a very dangerous burglar, and from that large sum the Treasury deducted 6d. in respect of mileage charged for a witness. There were fourteen or fifteen witnesses, and it was impossible to say to which the deduction applied. How could a gentleman in London know the exact distance which a witness had travelled? In another case 13. 6d. charged for the detention of a witness was deducted; but how could a gentleman in London know whether or not a witness was improperly detained? Further, the Government was extremely tardy in this and all other cases of paying money that was due from them, whilst the Chancellor of the Exchequer required the taxes before they were due. (Hear, hear.) In the case of these allowances sometimes more than twelve months passed before the counties received them. The clerk of the assize was neither a servant of the ratepayers nor a servant of the Government, and he did not know where they could find a better taxing officer. The public prosecutor would not be so good a taxing master. The First Minister of the Crown said it was a serious thing that the judges of the land should have the expenditure of the public money; but he would rather trust his life with the judges of the land than he would trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a sixpence. (A laugh.) -Mr. PELL said that although this grievance was an old one, it did not, like wine, improve with age. Men of all politics wished to see the grievance remedied. The country wanted to see payment follow immediately the allowance of the taxing master. Very often, however, twelve months elapsed before the money was paid. In his own county the fees were settled as far back as 1838. The counsel's fees in the county were a guinea, in the boroughs two guineas; but in 1866 the counsel's fee was raised to two guineas. In Leicester the fees were two guineas, but they had been reduced one-half. In Shropshire he learned that three guineas were allowed for what in Leicester

shire they paid two guineas. How was it that three guineas were allowed in some cases, and only one guinea in others? The anomaly ought to be remedied. (Hear, hear.)-Mr. HENLEY thought the Government should come forward and settle the question. For twenty-five years the Government had been robbing the ratepayers with a strong hand. (Hear, hear.) How was this to be remedied? According to the practice of the last twenty-five years they never knew when they were going to get the money; and the necessary result was that the ratepayers were taxed. He did not know how they could avoid putting the counties and boroughs to that inconvenience. If they went on the system they did now, the people would think they were plundered of what was taken from them. At times the allowance had been twelve months in arrear; and although the amount was not large, its nonpayment might lead to an additional farthing rate. Now that the matter was being undertaken by the Govern ment, he hoped that the question of public prosecutors would be put an end to. He said let the charges be settled so that the_public might know what they were about. Do not let a judge order a payment of £10, and then the county taxing master say the amount was only £8 17s. Gd. This was like swindling. (Hear, hear.)--Col. BARTTELOT observed that the whole of the debate had been in favour of the proposal of his hon. friend, and there had not been one voice raised to controvert the opinions he had laid down. If he gathered aright the opinion of the Treasury bench, it was that they meant to deal effectually with the proposition of his hon. friend. The House expected that the Government would deal effectually with it, and at once. If the Government failed, he hoped the House would hold them responsible for the failure, and that his hon. friend would bring the matter forward again at the very earliest possible opportunity.--Mr. DISRAELI had taken a deep interest in this question, representing a county contiguous to that with respect to which his right hon. friend the member for Oxfordshire had addressed them. He wished on their part to express what they wished and desired. He thought their wishes were reasonable, and their requirements ought to be granted. What they required was fixed charges and prompt payment. These were the two points on which they hoped Government would satisfy them, and he trusted that the discussion would be made to secure this result. He very much regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been present on this occasion, and that the subject, which was peculiarly the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been left to be dealt with by the Home Secretary.--Mr. BAXTER.-The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been present the whole of the evening, and only left a few minutes ago. Mr. DISRAELI.-Why did he not speak? -Mr. BAXTER.-Because the Home Secretary had stated so fully and exhaustively the views of the Government on the subject. As to the remarks of my hon and gallant friend the member for Sussex, I may say the Government accept in the fullest sense the responsibility to which he refers.--Sir M. LOPES then withdrew his motion.

Monday, March 18.


Viscount BURY asked whether the regulations in force at the Mansion-house as to these declarations were according to law? In answer to a question which he had put on Friday his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General had stated that the Act imposed a statutory duty on a magistrate, and left him no option with respect to refus ing to receive a statutory declaration, or to neglect the discharge of any duty imposed on him by law. Now, there was clearly some discrepancy between the law as laid down by the Attorney-General and the practice to which he had called attention. He had, he might add, received a letter, in which it was stated that the alteration at the Mansion. house Court had not been made in consequence of any recent case, and that it had been in force since 1865. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said there was a slight inconvenience in prefacing a question by something approaching a legal argument. To the statement he had made on Friday he had nothing to add, nor had he anything to withdraw from it. He certainly did not mean to state, nor did he believe he had stated, that if a magistrate chose to take on himself a full inquiry, and had the means of satisfying himself that such inquiry was complete and satisfactory, he would not be justified in refusing to receive such a declaration as that to which the noble lord had referred, or any other declaration. What he said was that the law cast on the magistrate the duty of taking a statutory declaration which the smallest consideration must enable him to know often contained matter highly objectionable with regard to individuals. In order that a magistrate should satisfy his mind that he ought or ought not to receive a statutory declaration he must go through it, unless he was willing to take

it on the faith of the professional persons by whom it was prepared. In the case in question it was not the making the declaration, but the circulating of it which had done the mischief: and if Mr. Chaffers, instead of making that declaration, had chosen to print the paper and circulate it by hundreds of thousands, the object of his attack might let it pass or meet it as had been actually done by indicting him. If the magistrate chose to take upon himself the duty of inquiring, he was of course at liberty to do so. What he had stated was simply that the magistrate did that on his own responsibility, but that the law cast upon him the duty of receiving a statutory declaration independently, generally speaking, of the contents of the document, and that duty he was called upon to discharge like every other.


NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. BOROUGH FRANCHISE-OCCUPATION OF PREMISES IN SUCCESSION-PAYMENT OF RATES BY THE LANDLORD-30 & 31 VICT. c. 2, s. 27.-The 26th section of the Representation of the People Act 1867 does not deprive the occupier of a house in immediate succession within the year, and which house is of less value than £10 per arnum, of the right to the franchise, such person having paid the rates in respect of the premises so occupied by him. Held also, that the actual payment of the rates by the landlord is a legal payment by the tenant where the payment is made by the landlord by virtue of an agreement existing between them: (Moger v. Escott, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 99. C. P.)


[blocks in formation]

By Messrs. C. C. and T. MOORE. Mile-end.-Nos. 52 and 53, Allas-road, term 95 years-sold for £900.

Bromley-le-Bow.-Freehold residence, Sherwood-housesold for £700.

Lower Edmonton.-A double-fronted residence, term 97 years-sold for £650. By Messrs. NEWBON and HARDING. Barnsbury-park, No. 20, term 37 years-sold for £115. No. 30, Albion-grove, terin 72 years-sold for £500, Camden-town, No. 9, Belmont-terrace,term 91 years-sold for £115.

City-road, No. 337, term 12 years-sold for £250.

Regent's-park-Nos. 7 and 8, Hanover-cottages, term 40 years-sold for £760. Islington.-No. 23, Gibson-square, term 55 years-sold for 4100. No. 1, Oakley-road, term 60 years-sold for £395. Regent's-park.-No. 161, Albany-street, term 41 years-sold

By Mr. H. E. MARSH, at Guildhall Tavern.

for £150.

Nos. 13 and 14, Brownlow-mews, same term -sold for £130.

Gray's-inn-road, No. 119, term 20 years-sold for £115.

Tuesday, March 19.

By Messrs. DRIVER, at the Mart. Herts, Ware, freehold maltings, with two dwelling-housessold for £3050, By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER. Camberwell, Nos. 15 and 16, Church-path, term 73 yearssold for £400.

By Messrs. HARDS, VAUGHAN, and LEIFCHILD. Staffordshire, near Wolverhampton, the surface lanes known as the Moseley Hole Estate, of 107a. Or. 3 p.-sold for tsan. Two plots of surface land, containing 11a. 2r. 14p.-sold for £555. The absolute reversion to £1800 sterling on a life aged 79 years-sold for £360.

Wednesday, March 20,

By Mr. H. E. MURRELL, at the Mart. Chelsea.-Nos. 45 and 46, Radnor-street, leasehold-sold for £275 each. Westbourne-terrace North, No. 31, term 78 years-sold for


Hackney. Cricket-neld-road,-Albion Villa, freehold-sold for £500.


Westminster-the Queen-square Chapel, freehold -sold for
By Messrs. EDWIN Fox and BOUSFIELD.
Clapton.-Copyhold residence, known as "The Hollies,"
with stabling-sold for £1910.

Isle of Wight, Ventnor.-Florence Villa, leasehold-sold for
Tottenham.-No. 3, Markfield-road, freehold-sold for £109.

[ocr errors]

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. ALLEGED PATENT-CIRCULARS THREATENING PROCEEDINGS FOR INFRINGEMENT - REFUSAL TO BRING ACTION TO TRY VALIDITY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING CIRCULARS.-There is no prima facie presumption in favour of a patent No. 36, adjoining, same term-sold for £450, which has not been established at law. Patentees, having notice of a proposed sale by R. of articles which they alleged to be an infringement of their patent, wrote to R. to obtain formal proof on which to found legal proceedings, which R. furnished to them. They subsequently issued a circular to the trade stating that they had notice of an intended infringement, and threatening proceedings in every case. On being pressed by R. to bring an action to determine the validity of the patent, they refused to do so, but continued to issue the circulars. It was proved that these circulars injured R.'s trade: Held, under the above circumstances, that the patentees were bound either to bring an action or to cease from issuing the circulars; and upon their refusing to bring an action, an injunction was granted restraining the issue of the circulars: (Rollins v. Hinks, 26 L. T. Rep. N.S. 56: V.C. M.)


PRACTICE-BANK OF ENGLAND EVIDENCE OF DEATH OF STOCKHOLDER.-14 & 15 VICT. c. 99, s. 14.-In order to prove the death of a stockholder, having a joint account, to the satisfaction of the authorities of the Bank of England, it is necessary that the burial certificate should be accompanied by a declaration proving its examination with the register, and an affidavit or declaration of identity. The court will not interfere with the discretion of the bank with regard to such proof, notwithstanding its practice is different: (Prosser v. The Governor and Company of the Bank of England, 26 L. T. Rep. N.S. 60. V.C. W.)

WRITTEN CONTRACT-ORAL EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN-WEEKLY HIRING.-The plaintiff entered the defendant's service under an agreement in writing in the following terms: "13th April 1871. I hereby agree to accept the situation as foreman of the works of Messrs. Roe and Co., flock and shoddy manufacturers, &c., and to do all that lays in my power to serve them faithfully, and promote the welfare of the said firm, on my receiving a salary of £2 per week, and house to live in from 19th April 1871." Held, that this was prima facie a weekly hiring, and that oral evidence was inadmissible to show that it was intended that the hiring should be for a year: (Evans v. Roe and another, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 70. C. P.)

PATENT-NEGLIGENCE IN PATENT AGENTIGNORANCE OF THE LAW.-The defendant, a patent agent, nearly a year after the decision of Lord Chancellor in Ee parte Bates and Redgate 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 410; L. Rep. 4 Ch. App. 567), obtained provisional protection for an invention of the plaintiffs (his principals), and then allowed five months to elapse before taking final steps to have the patent sealed, in consequence of which delay a second inventor succeeded in obtaining a patent for the same invention, although provisionally specified at a later date, and the Attor


NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. BASTARDY-ORDER QUASHED ON APPEAL FOR WANT OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE-DECISION FINAL. The adjudication of a court of quarter sessions, quashing an affiliation order after the merits of the case have been heard on appeal is final, and bars any subsequent application to justices in respect of the same cause of com plaint. The mother of a bastard child took out a summons in obedience to which the person therein alleged to be the putative father appeared before three justices, who after hearing both parties and witnesses on either side, made an affiliation order upon the defendant, against which he appealed to quarter sessions. There the respondent and two witnesses, on her behalf, were examined and crossexamined, and at the close of her case the court decided that no sufficient corroborative evidence had been given to support her testimony, and, therefore, quashed the order. She afterwards applied to justices and obtained another summons to the defendant, but when the case was about to be heard his counsel submitted that it was res judicata. The justices agreed in thinking that the decision of the quarter sessions was conclusive, and refused to hear the case: Held, that they were right: (Reg. v. Glynne, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 61. Q.B.)

COSTS OF PROSECUTION-MANDAMUS TO THE LORDS OF THE TREASURY.-By 7 Geo. 4, c. 61, ss. 22 & 23, an order for the payment of costs of prosecutions may be made by the courts before which they are tried. By sect. 24 the order for payment is to be made by the officer of the court upon the treasurer of the county, who is thereby authorised and required upon sight of every such order forthwith to pay the money in such order mentioned, and shall be allowed the same in his accounts. By sect. 26 the justices at quarter sessions were to make regulations as to costs. By 14 & 15 Vict. c. 55, ss. 4 & 5, the power of quarter sessions to regulate costs of prosecutions was transferred to the Secretary of State. By the Annual Appropriation Acts since 1835 there has been a grant of a gross sum each year for charges formerly paid out of county rates. By 29 & 30 Vict. c. 39, s. 14, when any sum shall have been granted to her Majesty by an Act of Parliament to defray expenses for any specific public services, it shall be lawful for her Majesty from time to time,

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

by her royal order under the royal sign manual, countersigned by the Treasury, to authorise and require the Treasury to issue, out of the credits to be granted to them on the Exchequer accounts, the sums which may be required from time to time to defray such expenses, not exceeding the amount of the sums so voted or granted. The accounts of costs of prosecutions in the county of Lancaster, after having been duly taxed by the proper officers, and paid out of the county rates, were re-taxed by officers of the Treasury, and part of them were disallowed. The justices of the county obtained a rule nisi for a mandamus to compel the Lords of the Treasury to pay the dissallowed balance to their treasurer: Held, that the Lords of the Treasury had no right to tax these costs after they had been allowed by the proper officers; but that this court had no jurisdiction to issue a mandamus to compel the Lords of the Treasury to pay the balance: (Reg. v. The Lords of the Treasury, 26 L. T .Rep. N. S. 64. Q.B.)

[blocks in formation]

THE business of the assizes is concluded. The more serious charges broke down (except two or

three not of a nature to mention), and the failure

of one of them raised an important question as to the allowance of costs of prosecutions, and a still more important question as to the proper parties to conduct them. The bill for child murder was thrown out, there being nothing to connect the woman charged with the child found, and the same deficiency in the evidence operated against a charge of concealment of birth. The prosecution, however, had been directed by the Bench of magistrates at Uckfield, and the superintendent of police was bound over to prosecute, and the clerk to the Bench was directed to conduct the case, which he accordingly did. He prepared a brief for counsel, and his clerk applied to the clerk of assize (who is the taxing officer) to know what fee would be allowed. The officer said he did not think it would be proper to deliver the

brief until it was seen whether the bill was found. Nevertheless, the brief was delivered to the counsel usually employed by the attorney, and the feemarked, it was said, four guineas-was paid. The grand jury, however, threw out the bill, and though it was then suggested that they might find a bill for concealment of birth, yet, as already stated, the same deficiency in the evidence which operated against the charge of murder operated equally against the charge of concealment. Indeed, one could not see on what evidence the charge was founded or the commitment had proceeded. The prisoner had had a child, and the body of a


was found; that seemed all; and of course the Lord Chief Justice, in charging the grand jury, suggested that the bill should be thrown out, as it was. When the attorney came

[blocks in formation]

to the clerk of assize to have his costs taxed, the
officer allowed the attorney's costs for preparing
the brief, &c., but not the fee for the brief, obser-
ving that the attorney's clerk had been told he
had better not deliver the brief until it was seen
whether the bill was found. The Lord Chief
Justice being referred to by the officer ap-
proved his judgment. The attorney, however,
was not satisfied, and Mr. Grantham, the
counsel he had retained, applied to the Lord
Chief Justice to reconsider his opinion on the
point, pressing upon him the importance of
counsel having their briefs in time to read them
and prepare themselves before ths bill was found.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, however, inquired
who directed the attorney to conduct the prosecu-
tion, and finding that the magistrates had done so,
said his power as to costs was limited to the
actual prosecutor.
Grantham urged that the attorney was clerk to
the magistrates who directed the prosecution.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.-So much the worse.
He is the very person who ought not to have
anything to do with the prosecution. It gives
him a sinister interest in the prosecutions which
he ought not to have, and an indirect motive to
get prisoners committed for trial.

Grantham urged that it was not until after the
prisoner was committed for trial that the clerk to
the magistrates was directed to prosecute.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.-Yes, but if he

knows that he is always to conduct the cases it
gives him a direct interest in having prisoners
committed for trial.

Grantham urged that the fees allowed were not
of sufficient amount to operate as an inducement
to a respectable practitioner.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed that the whole system was bad and required revision. In the present instance, he could not, he said, direct the payment of any costs to the attorney, as he had not been retained by the prosecutor, the superintendent of police. Here the magistrates directed the prosecution, and directed their clerk to conduct it. This was a vicious system which had been put an end to in a county with which he had been connected. However, in this case he would make no order, and would leave it to be settled by the officer after more particular inquiry into the cir


The parties accordingly went before Mr. Avory, the deputy clerk of assize, whose experience in such matters is well known on this circuit, and he, or his assistant, allowed the fees, on the ground, as our reporter understood, that it was the usual practice to allow the fees on briefs delivered before the bills were found, and that the circumstances in this case were not sufficient to justify a departure from the ordinary course. The reason of the practice was stated to be that counsel may be prepared in the event of the bills being found. Upon this subject it may be mentioned that there is none upon which the practice more varies in different counties, or even in the same, than this of delivering briefs to counsel. In some cases counsel are always retained, in others hardly ever.


When holden.

Friday, April 5
Friday, April 5
Thursday, April 4.
Wednesday, April 3.
Thursday, April 11
Wednesday, April 10
Tuesday, April 9
Thursday, April 4..
Friday, April 12.
Saturday, April 6
Monday, April 8
Monday, April 8
Thursday, April 4

Newcast-un-Lyme. Friday, April 5


Friday, April 12
Monday, April 8

Tuesday, March 26
Wednesday, May 1



[blocks in formation]



W. Smith.
E. Drew.
G. H. E. Rundle.
W. G. Ledger.

J. W. Ward.
J. Howard.

W. W. Hayward.
W. Winterbotham.
T. Heald.

after making such payments, they drew out the
amounts of their fees as directors. In Jan. 1868
the company was ordered to be wound-up: Held,
that these payments could not be treated as made
in satisfaction of calls, and that the directors
(Ex parte Sykes, L. T. Rep. N. S. 92.

[merged small][ocr errors]

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. LANDLORD AND TENANT MORTGAGE OF REVERSION-PAYMENT OF RENT IN ADVANCEATTORNMENT.-The 4 Anne, c. 16, s. 10, provides that no tenant shall be prejudiced by payment of rent to any grantor, or by breach of any condition for non-payment before notice shall be given him of such grant by the grantee. A., having granted a lease for five years to the defendant from Midto him for more than four years in advance. In summer 1864, persuaded defendant to pay his rent 1865 A. mortgaged the reversion of the premises to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in Nov. 1866, requested the defendant to pay rent to him in future, but omitted to state that he was mortgagee of the reversion, and the defendant took no notice of the notice to pay rent. In an action to recover the rent due for two and a half years from Midsummer 1866 to Christmas 1868: Held, that the notice, together with the collateral circumstances, were sufficient to put defendant in possession of the fact that plaintiff was the mortgagee; and that although all prepayments prior to the giving of such notice were payments of rent as against the plaintiff's claim, yet the plaintiff was entitled to recover rent from the date of the notice: (Cook v

Guerra, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 97. C. P.)



EXPECTED TO ARRIVE BY A PARTICULAR SHIP. Defendants, merchants at Liverpool, purchased 600 tons of nitrate of soda, through their agents at Valparaiso, who chartered the vessel Precursor to bring it to England, and informed the defendants of this by letter. The defendants then entered into the following contract with the plaintiff: "We have this day sold to you about 600 tons, more or less, being the entire parcel of nitrate of soda expected to arrive at port of call, per Precursor, at 12s. 9d. per cwt. . . . Should any circumstance or accident prevent the shipment of the nitrate, or should the vessel be lost, this contract to be void." The greater part of the nitrate of soda had been, in the mean time, whilst lying at the port of loading, destroyed by an inundation caused by an earthquake, and the charter of the Precursor cancelled by the defendants' agents at Valparaiso. These agents, on hearing from the defendants of their contract with the plaintiff, nitrate of soda, obtained a transfer of a fresh subsequently purchased another 600 tons of charter of the Precursor, and sent the nitrate of soda to England. On its arrival, the plaintiff claimed this cargo, which the defendants refused to deliver, having previously sold it to other puron the above contract: Held (affirming the judg chasers, whereupon the plaintiff brought an action ment of the Queen's Bench), that the plaintiff was not entitled under his contract to claim the nitrate of soda which arrived by the Precursor. (Smith v. Myers and another, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 103. Ex. Ch.)

[blocks in formation]

The directors of a company were, by their articles must be settled upon the list of contributories: weight and amount was to be sent. The wool was

the shareholders willing to advance the same, all and the invoice price was £27 9s. On payment of or any part of the amounts of their respective the £15 the defendant gave the agent a receipt, shares beyond the sums actually called for. They BREAKFAST.-EPPS'S COCOA.-GRATEFUL AND COMFORTwere also empowered to set apart and receive for which govern the operations of digestion and nutrition, the balance paid after.". This was the first transING." By a thorough knowledge of the natural laws stating the "wool to be delivered to-morrow, and their remuneration a certain minimum sum on the and by a careful application of the fine properties of action between the parties, and it is usual in such 1st. Jan. of every year. The company being in well-selected cocoa, Mr. Epps has provided our break- cases before delivering wool to require either payvery embarrassed circumstances, although there fast tables with a delicately-flavoured beverage which ment or a satisfactory reference. The defendants was a large amount of uncalled capital, the direc- may save us many heavy doctor's bills."-Civil Service misapprehended the effect of the receipt given, tors, at various times between Oct. 1865 and Aug. Gazette. Made simply with Boiling water or Milk. Each and required payment of the balance before sending 1866, paid up in advance of calls the amounts for packet is labelled-"JAMES EPPS and Co., Homoeopathic the wool. And on the 17th Nov. wrote to plaintiff Chemists, London." Also, makers of Epps's Milky which they were respectively liable. Immediately Cocoa (Cocoa and Condensed Milk). asking for payment of the balance, and offering to

send off the wool. The plaintiff did not reply to this letter. On the 23rd Nov. the defendant wrote again to the same effect, but received no reply. At this time wool had not risen in price. In Dec. and Jan. wool rose in price, and the defendants, treating the contract as broken by the plaintiff, resold the wool without notice to him. No further communication_took place between the parties until the 29th Jan. 1872, when the agent who had bought the wool called at the defendant's warehouse, offered the balance, and required delivery of the wool. He was then told the specific wool had been sold. On the 30th Jan. the defendants wrote to plaintiff, offering to let him have the Girling wool. This letter was not answered by the plaintiff, but on the 31st his attorney wrote to the defendants, demanding payment of £9 6s. 3d. as damages for breach of contract (being the difference in price in wool of the description sold between the 16th Nov. and the 29th Jan.), and demanding repayment of the £15. In reply the defendants' attorney remitted the £15 without prejudice, and offered the plaintiff Girling wool of the same quantity, the same quality, and at the same price as that sold on the 16th Nov. This offer was not accepted, and without any further communication from the plaintiff or his attorney, the summons in this case was issued on the 21st February.

His HONOUR said: There has undoubtedly been a breach of contract by the defendant, and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment, but under the circumstances the damages will be nominal. If the plaintiff's contention is correct, the breach of contract was committed on 16th Nov. by not sending the wool as mentioned in the receipt, but on that day wool had not risen in price. The defendant appears to have misunderstood the effect of the receipt, not having kept any copy, and treated the plaintiff as in default by not remitting the balance, or taking any notice of his application for it. Their subsequent resale of the wool without notice, to the plaintiff was also unauthorised-they had no right to rescind the contract without notice even if they had not been in default themselves, as the plaintiff contended they were, by not sending the wool as promised by the receipt without waiting for the balance. On the 29th Jan., when wool had risen thirty per cent. or 1d. a pound, the plaintiff treats the contract as still unbroken, and upon being told that the wool had been sold by the defendant, sought to take advantage of a breach as committed on the 29th Jan., and to charge the defendants with the difference of price on that day. The defendants offered the next day to supply the wool, and by their attorney's letter of the 1st Feb. (returning the £15 without prejudice) offered in distinct terms to supply the plaintiff with wool of the same quantity, quality, and price. The offer, if accepted, would have placed the plaintiff in the same position as he would have stood on the 16th Nov., when the breach was committed, if he had then gone into the market and bought. No evidence was offered to show that the plaintiff had suffered any special damage by non-delivery on the 16th Nov., and as the defendants' offer on the 1st Feb. (nearly three weeks before the summons was issued) if it had been accepted, would have placed the plaintiff in the same position as regards any loss as if the contract had not been broken, or, treating it as broken on the 16th Nov. he had on that day bought similar wool in the market. I think for these reasons he is only entitled to nominal damages. The claim is, in truth, for the increased cost of an imaginary purchase by way of penalty, not for damages really sustained by breach of the actual contract. Damages are intended as compensation for loss, not penalty for breach. The 19 & 20 Vict. c. 97, sect. 2., provides specific relief for a plaintiff who is really damnified by non-delivery of specific goods pursuant to contract. Here this specific relief was offered and refused.

March 5 and 12,


Common carrier-Ordinary contract to despatch
with due diligence, carry safely, and deliver in
reasonable time-Regulated by usual course of
business and ordinary exigencies of traffic--Rail-
way company not bound to deliver perishable
goods at a particular time and for a particular
market without special contract: (Hughes v.
Great Western Railway Company, 23 L. J., N. S.,
153, C. P.; Taylor v. Great Northern Railway
Company, L. Rep. 1 C. P. 385: Lord v. Midland
Railway Company, L. Rep. 2 C. P. 339.)
Wilson (Lees, Senior and Wilson, Bradford) for

Robinson (Terry and Robinson, Bradford) for defendants.

note, and made it both the right and the duty of the defendants to sell the goods, and this they did to the best advantage, and the proceeds have been paid into court. As cases of this description are occasionally occurring, and persons in the situation of the plaintiff fancy themselves injured, I would observe that if parties want to have goods delivered at a particular time at a particular place for some special purpose of their own, they must enter into a special contract with the carrier for the purpose, and the carrier will then be entitled to charge accordingly. Here the plaintiff wants the benefit of a special contract, paying only the ordinary fare-he wants the benefit without the burden. The cases of Hughes v. Great Western Railway Company (23 L. J., N. S., 153, C. P.), Great Northern Railway Company v. Taylor (L. Rep. 1 C. P. 385), and Lord v. Midland Railway Company (L. Rep. 2 C. P. 339), are authorities which warrant this decision.


NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. BILL OF SALE-ACT OF BANKRUPTCY — -AsSIGNMENT OF THE WHOLE OF A DEBTOR'S AVAILABLE PROPERTY TO SECURE PAST DEBTEAST INDIA COMPANY PENSION EXCEPTEDTRADER AND NON-TRADER-FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE - BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869, s. 6. SUBSECT. 2.-A debtor by a bill of sale assigned to a creditor in consideration of a then existing debt, and without any present consideration, the whole of his property, except a pension of 10s. 6d. a day, to which he was entitled as a military officer retired from the service of the East India Company: Held, that the bill of sale was void as against the trustee under the bankruptcy of the debtor, as it was practically an assignment of the whole of the debtor's property to secure a past debt, the pension not being property which would pass to the trustee. Per Lord Justice Mellish:Under the Bankruptcy Act 1869, s. 6, subsect 2, it is immaterial whether the debtor, making a fraudu lent conveyance of his property, is a trader or not Semble, that in such a case it is not necessary to prove actual fraud on the part of the debtor making the conveyance: (Ex parte Hawker, Re Keely, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 54. Chan.,

being common carriers, had failed to carry and de-
liver the goods in a reasonable time after they re-
ceived them; and the plaintiff, in consequence of
such failure, having refused to receive them when
tendered, lost the profits of a sale. The defendants
paid £12 into court (and a proportionate amount of
costs), being the amount the goods realised on sale
by them. The case arose out of the following cir-
cumstances:-The plaintiff is a butcher at Brad-
ford, and was in the habit of sending fresh meat for
sale on Saturday, at Mirfield, a village about
twelve miles from Bradford, where there is a
station on a branch line of the defendants' com-
pany. There is no public market at Mirfield, but
the plaintiff had for some weeks previously to the
transaction in question opened a private shop and
stall near the station for the sale of meat on
Saturday, and he had generally commenced his
sale between nine and ten a.m., and finished about
midday. He had upon several previous occasions
sent his meat from Bradford on the Friday after-
noon by the defendants' railway, to be despatched
by goods train, and charged at the ordinary goods
rate, and with one or two exceptions he had found
the meat ready for him at the Mirfield station by
8.30 a.m. on Saturdays, and he calculated upon its
arriving at about that time, with a view to his
sales, as arranged. On Friday the 25th Nov. last
the plaintiff delivered to the defendant's carter to
take to their station at Bradford a quantity of fresh
meat (beef, mutton, and pork), weighing 5 cwt.1qr.,
consigned by himself from Bradford to himself at
Mirfield to be forwarded as goods, on conditions
stated at the back of the consignment note, one
of those conditions was as follows: "All perish-
able articles refused by the person at the place
to which directed... will be forthwith sold by
auction or otherwise without any notice to sender
or consignee; and payment or tender of the net
proceeds of such sale, after deduction of freight,
charges and expenses, shall be accepted as equiva-
lent to delivery. The company will not be re-
sponsible for any claim upon any such articles on
the ground of loss of market, provided the same
be delivered within a reasonable time after they
came into the possession of the company." The
meat which was expected to arrive at Mirfield at
8.30 on the morning of the 26th did not arrive till
10.55, and was tendered for delivery to the
plaintiff at his stall at 11.25; but he then refused
to receive it, stating that his customers were
gone, and added that the company had been late
in their delivery before, and he would now make
them pay. He offered the station master to take
the meat if he would sign an undertaking that the
company should pay any loss he might sustain upon
the sale of the meat. The station master declined
to do this; and having telegraphed to his prin-
cipal for instructions, he offered the meat for sale,
and after some treaty sold it to a person named
Terry for £12, which was the best price he could
get. After Terry had bought the meat the plain-
tiff offered to buy it again from him at a price
which Terry refused; the plaintiff lent Terry his
stall and conveniences for sale, and Terry sold all
the meat the same evening, and realised a con-
siderable profit. Terry stated in evidence that
there was plenty of demand for the meat,
and the plaintiff could have sold it in the after-
noon, at a fair profit, before he left Mirfield, if he
had received it when tendered by the company.
The goods were forwarded by the company in the
usual course, and the delay in the arrival of the
goods train at Mirfield was not shown to be the re-
sult of any negligence on the part of the company,
but was the unavoidable consequence of the traffic.
It appeared in evidence that there was no goods
train despatched from Bradford to Mirfield on the
25th Nov., after the meat was delivered; but the
meat having been placed in a separate van for
Mirfield, was, according to the usual course, taken
by a pilot engine to the Low Moor station in the
course of the night, and placed upon a siding there
ready to be taken up on the Saturday morning by
the goods train from Goole to Mirfield. This train,
subject to delays occasioned by traffic, is expected
to arrive at Low Moor station at 7.30 a.m., and, if
it arrives at that time, it may be expected
at Mirfield at 8.20 a.m., but the evidence showed
that, owing to the unavoidable exigencies of
traffic, it was materially late at Mirfield, which
was its place of ultimate destination. I am
of opinion that, under the circumstances thus
established in evidence, the judgment must
be entered for the defendants. They have per-
formed the contract they entered into with the
plaintiff, they despatched his goods with due
diligence, they carried them safely and tendered
them for delivery in a reasonable time after arrival.
The plaintiff's case has been rested upon a sup-
posed right to receive the goods at Mirfield at a
particular hour, 8.30 a.m., that being the hour at
which he calculated they would arrive, and as
being most convenient to himself, but his contract
with the railway company gave him no such right.
When the goods arrived in due course and were
tendered to him he was in the wrong in refusing to
receive them, and thereby brought into operation
the special clause indorsed on the consignment

His HONOUR.-This action was brought to recover the sum of £25 9s. 10d., the cost price of cer tain perishable goods consigned to the defendants to carry, with the addition of the profits expected to arise on sale, on the ground that the defendants,

Saturday, March 9.

(Before Serjeant WHEELER, LL. D., Judge.)
Bankruptcy Act 1869, s. 15-Goods on the premises
of a trader without any special mark upon them
to distinguish them from the rest of his stock.
Held, on bankruptcy of trader to be in his order
and disposition.

THIS was a motion argued some time ago, upon which the court had reserved its judgment. The facts and argnments are there fully set forth.

His HONOUR said, this was a motion by Mr. Bolland, the trustee of Mrs. Williams for an order upon Mesrrs. Honey, Baggs and Co., the trustees of Jeffrey and Co. to pay over to them the sum of £363 88. 3d., the proceeds of the sale of certain stock-in-trade alleged to be the property of the bankrupt Williams. Mr. Gully appeared as counsel for the trustee of Mrs. Williams, in support of the motion, Mr. Wheeler for the trustees of Messrs. Jeffery and Co. against it. It seems that for some time prior and up to the month of April, 1867, a Mrs. Aspinall carried on business as a dealer in baby linen in Old Bond-street, and in that month became insolvent, being indebted at the time to Jeffery and Co. in a large sum. On the 27th of the month, Jeffery and Co., into whose hands the estate of Mrs. Aspinall had passed, entered into an agreement with Mrs. Williams that she should succeed to the shop and premises in Bond-street, the value of the stock, after certain deductions by way of discounts and drawbacks from the cost price, being assessed at 2760, to which were added the sums following-fixtures blinds, and shop furniture, £246; house furniture, £40; lease and goodwill, £150; shop improvements, £284; making together £1480, which sum was augmented by £1000 as the assessed loss on Mrs. Aspinall's debt to Jeffery and Co., making a total of £2180. The agree ment provided that Mrs. Williams was to be allowed two guineas a week for housekeeping, calculated to cover the maintenance of four persons, with an addition of 10s. 6d. a week if a fifth person were found necessary; this allowance not to include gas, coal, wages for servants, or repairs. She was to have a yearly salary of £60. The net profits, after deducting all necessary expensesrent at the rate of £150 a year, and interest on the money invested by Jeffery and Co., including the £1000 due from Mrs. Aspinall's estate-were to be divided into two equal parts-one for the benefit of Jeffery and Co., in liquidation of their claim of

such goods were, at the commencement of the bankruptcy, in the possession of Jeffery and Co., as reputed owners, with her consent, and therefore belonged to and formed part of the estate of Jeffery and Co. Under these circumstances, I am of opinion that their trustees are entitled to retain the sum in question, £368 8s. 3d., the produce of the sale of the goods. But I also think that the costs of all parties should come out of the fund, as the case appears to me to have been a very proper one for inquiry.


THE REVISED STATUTES.-The editor of these statutes writes-"That the third volume, carrying the work down to the union with Ireland (A.D. 1800), is nearly through the press, and may be expected to appear within two or three weeks from the present date. The time of publication of the successive volumes is necessarily dependent on the progress of expurgation, which is carried on by Bills periodically presented to Parliament, for repealing the obsolete Acts. Meanwhile, the cost of the revised edition to the public is not effected by the time of publication; and it is my interest, much as possible." as it is also my duty, to expedite the work as

NEWGATE PRISON.-The following is the official report of the state of Her Majesty's gaol of Newgate on Sunday, the 17th March :-Prisoners under female; ditto ten years, 5 males; ditto seven sentence of penal servitude for 15 years, 1 male, 1 years, 5 males, 2 females; ditto five years, 8 males, 1 female; prisoners whose judgment is respited, 30 males. 5 females; prisoners remanded for next 5 males, 1 female; prisoners committed for trial, session, 9 males, 2 females; prisoners for further examination, 7 males, 3 females; prisoner insane females; grand total 86. upon arraignment, 1 male; total, 71 males, 15 male; patients not in the infirmaries, 9 males, 2 In the infirmary, 1


which came before Vice-Chancellor Bacon on Wednesday, affecting the practice of the Stock Ex


change, his Honour held that when a contract has been made, subject to the rules of that institution, a jobber who has purchased shares and passed a name without objection, is freed from liability.

£1000, and the other for the benefit of Mrs. Williams in liquidation of their claim upon her. I may mention that, according to the evidence, there never were any profits from the business, the interest and expenses absorbing the whole proceeds. At the end of twelve months from the date of the agreement, Jeffery and Co. were to be entitled to terminate it; but in that case Mrs. Williams was to be permitted to remove her furniture, and was not to be liable for loss if any. She was to furnish weekly accounts of business done and of moneys received and paid, and to keep books to the satisfaction of Jeffery and Co. Jeffery and Co. did not at the end of the twelve months mentioned in the agreement put an end to it, but, on the contrary, a memorandum was endorsed continuing the agreement, and it remained in force up to the date of the bankruptcy of Jeffery and Co. After it had been entered into, Mr. Jeffery became responsible for the rent of the premises occupied by Mrs. Williams, and in the year 1870 the Central Railway Company gave her notice that they required them for railway purposes, and the conpensation to be paid in consequence was arranged by Mr. Jeffery, and the money received and retained by him without question being made either at the time or since as to his right to do so, and without any statement of account as to the money being either given or asked for. In Feb. 1870 the company required possession of the premises, and the stock in trade of Mrs. Williams was then removed by Jeffery and Co.'s men, and in the carts belonging to them, to Compton House-it is said, in view of Mrs. Williams obtaining another place of business. The goods were placed in a room in Compton House without any special or designating mark upon them. This room was appropriated to the reception of goods purchased, and in it goods intended for sale were marked, and when marked were passed into the shop premises for sale. The room was kept unlocked, and was, of course, accessible to the servants of Jeffery and Co. Mrs. Williams had no key of the room. In this place the goods removed from Bold-street continued until the bankruptcy of Jeffery and Co., when they were taken possession of and sold by their trustees, realising the sum now in question. It appears that from time to time during the con tinuance of the business of Mrs. Williams she had further goods supplied by Jeffery and Co. These goods were invoiced to her and entered against her name in their books. She received no goods for sale on her premises except those which came from Jeffery and Co. During the whole term of her trading she gave acceptances for very large amounts to Jeffery and Co., those amounts having no reference to any accountings between the parties, or to the state of her indebtedness to the firm, or to the before-mentioned agreement; the lady accepting from time to time, without inquiry, whatever bills were sent to her for acceptance, no statement of account being made between the parties, or any balancing or settlement come to, and the acceptances, when due, being provided for as of course by Jeffery and Co., without: resort had or suggested to Mrs. Williams. In the meanwhile she rendered weekly accounts, as provided by the agreement, of the business done and of the moneys received and paid by her, and she received weekly her housekeeping allowance of two guineas, and her salary she received monthly. Thus matters continued, the agreement being in force the whole time, up to the bankruptcy of Jeffery and Co. The acceptances given by Mrs. Williams included the purchase money mentioned in the agreement; but whether any particular acceptance was for that sum, or whether it formed part of several acceptances, does not appear. It will be observed that the agreement states that Messrs. Jeffery and Co. were to receive payment of the purchase money by bill, to be accepted by Mrs. Williams, and the term 66 purchase money was relied upon by the learned counsel for her trustee as showing that there was a change of property by the agreement, and that it then became and thenceforth continued Mrs. Williams's. But, of course, in construing the agreement, or the terms contained in it, the whole document must be looked at, and it is immaterial what may be the strict import of or connected with his attendance as a barrister in any particular phrase if, taking the whole scope court, he should receive a salary of £6000 per and term of the document, it be clear that that annum, to be annually voted by Parliament, in was not the sense which the parties intended it to lieu of the fees hitherto payable to the Solicitorbear when they used it. It appears to me that the General for such duties. 3. That so far as such facts of this case are inconsistent with the conten- fees had been hitherto paid out of public moneys tion that the agreement confers, or was intended and charged to the accounts of the several estab. to confer, any right of property upon Mrs. lishments of Her Majesty's service, such pay. Williams except in an event which never hap-ments should be discontinued; and so far as Mr. pened, or that, pending that event, there was any change of property. And the same view, in my mind, applies to the subsequent alleged purchases by Mrs. Williams, which were really the mere transfer to her, for the purpose of sale, of portions of the stock of Compton House, the shop in Bold-street being, in fact, for the time, merely a fort of branch establishment to Compton House. It appears to me, moreover, that, supposing the property in the goods on the premises had in fact been changed, and become vested in Mrs. Williams,

[ocr errors]


MR. GEORGE HASELTINE, M.A., American barrister, now connected with an eminent firm of London patent solicitors, gave evidence on Tuesday before the Parliamentary "Select Committee on Letters Patent," upon the relative merits of the English and American patent systems.

THE LAW OFFCERS OF THE CROWN. - By a Treasury minute dated 14th Dec. 1871, the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the board that Her Majesty's Government had agreed to the following resolutions respecting the terms upon which the law officers of the Crown (except Sir John Duke Coleridge, in whose case no change is

to be made) shall in future be remunerated for their services, that is to say: "1. Except as aforesaid, the Attorney-General shall receive £7000 a year for non-contentious business, and the Solicitor-General £6000 a year. 2. All fees payable for non-contentious business shall be paid into the Exchequer. 3. The law officers shall receive fees for contentious business, and for opinions connected with it, according to the ordinary professional scale. 4. All complimentary briefs and payments for services not intended to be given shall be abolished. 5. The salaries above men'tioned shall be voted by the House of Commons." The Chancellor of the Exchequer further informs the Board that, in order to give effect to these resolutions on the appointment of Mr. Jessel to be Her Majesty's Solicitor-General, he communicated to that gentleman, and Mr. Jessel accepted the following more detailed and explicit terms, that is to say:"1. That the letters patent appointing him should run in the same terms as those of his predecessor in office. 2. That for the performance of all his official duties which are non-contentious, as distinguished from those requiring

Jessel might receive such fees through other channels, he should account for them to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, and pay them over as the said Lords might direct. 4. That as regards the contentious duties of his office, and as regards his official attendance in the House of Lords, no briefs should be delivered or fees paid to Mr. Jessel unless he is expected to perform actual personal service, and that for such service personally performed his fees should be paid according to the ordinary professional scale.”


GENERAL EXAMINATION. TRINITY TERm, 1872. Rules for the Examination of Candidates for a Studentship, an Exhibition, or Honours, or Certificates, entitling Students to be called to the Bar.

An examination will be held in next Trinity Term, to which a student of any of the Inns of Court, who is desirous of becoming a candidate for a studentship, an exhibition, or honours, or of obtaining a certificate of fitness for being called to the Bar, will be admissible.

Each student proposing to submit himself for examination will be required to enter his name at the Treasurer's office of the Inn of Court to which he belongs, on or before Wednesday, 8th May next; and he will further be required to state in writing whether his object in offering himself for examination is to compete for a studentship, exhibition, or other honourable distinction; or whether he is merely desirous of obtaining a certificate preliminary to a call to the Bar.

The examination will commence on Saturday, the 18th May next, and will be continued on the Monday and Tuesday following.

It will take place in the Hall of Lincoln's-inn; and the doors will be closed ten minutes after the time appointed for the commencement of the examination.

conducted in the following order:
The examination by printed questions will be

Saturday morning, the 18th May, at ten, on
Constitutional Law and Legal History; in
the afternoon, at two, on Equity.
Monday morning, the 20th May, at ten, on
Common Law; in the afternoon, at two, on
the Law of Real Property, &c.
Tuesday morning, the 21st May, at ten, on
Jurisprudence, Civil and International Law;
in the afternoon, at two, a paper will be
given to the students, including questions
bearing upon all the foregoing subjects of

The oral examination will be conducted in the same order, during the same hours, and on the same subjects, as those already marked out for the examination by printed questions, except that on the afternoon of Tuesday there will be no oral


The oral examination of each student will be

conducted apart from the other students; and the character of that examination will vary according as the student is a candidate for honours, the obtain a certificate of having satisfactorily passed studentship, the exhibition, or desires simply to the general examination.

The oral examination and printed questions will be founded on the books below-mentioned; regard being had, however, to the particular object with a view to which the student presents himself for examination.

In determining the question whether a student has passed the examination in such a manner as to entitle him to be called to the Bar, the examiners will principally have regard to the general knowledge of law and jurisprudence which he has displayed.

A student may present himself at any number of examinations, until he shall have obtained a certificate.

Any student who shall obtain a certificate may present himself a second time for examination as a candidate for the studentship or exhibition, but only at the general examination immediately succeeding that at which he shall have obtained such certificate; provided, that if any student so presenting himself shall not succeed in obtaining the studentship or exhibition, his name shall not appear in the list.

Students who have kept more than eleven terms shall not be admitted to an examination for the studentship.

The Reader on Constitutional Law and Legal History proposes to examine in the following books and subjects:

1. Hallam's History of the Middle Ages, c. 8.
2. Hallam's Constitutional History.
3. Broom's Constitutional Law.

4. The concluding chapter of Blackstone's Commentaries on The Progress of the Law.

Candidates for the studentship, exhibition, or honours will be examined in all the above books and subjects.

Candidates for a pass certificate will be examined in 1 and 3 only, or 2 and 3 only, at their option.

The Reader on Equity proposes to examine in the

following books :

1. Haynes' Outlines of Equity; Smith's Manual of Equity Jurisprudence; Snell's Principles of Equity, or Goldsmith's Doctrine and Practice of

« EelmineJätka »