stances:-Mr. Hughes was a holder of twenty Mackeson, Q. C. contra. The VICE-CHANCELLOR said he now thought his view in chambers unmaintainable, and he should therefore disallow the claim for interest, without prejudice to Mr. Hughes carrying in, if he thought fit to do so, a new claim for the estimated value of his right to indemnity at the time of the winding-up; and, subject to any objection on the liquidator's part, he proposed to give Mr. Hughes-whose case was a representative onehis costs. Solicitors: Tilleard, Goddard, and Holm. PHILLIPS V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Practice-Suspension of injunction-Extension of time for purposes of appeal-Costs. THIS case came before the court on the 8th Feb. last (vide Notes of the Week, Feb. 17), on a motion on behalf of the plaintiff, the proprietor of the refreshment rooms at Swindon station, and an interim injunction was then granted restraining the defendants from stopping the morning express from Paddington to Bristol, and the afternoon express from Bristol to Paddington at the Swindon station, for a less period of time than ten minutes. Subsequently (on the 14th Feb.), on an application by the parties, the operation of the injunction was suspended till the 1st April, in order that the company might have sufficient time to make new arrangements. H. A. Giard now applied, on behalf of the defendants, for leave to have the injunction further suspended till the 1st May. He stated that the defendants intended to appeal against the order, and that every effort had been made to expedite the hearing before the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices, but that it could not come on before first day of Easter Term. Montague Cookson, for the plaintiff, resisted the application. The VICE-CHANCELLOR said it appeared to him that efforts had been made to bring on the hearing of the appeal, and that he ought not to refuse the extension of time asked for. But as it was an indulgence to the defendants, they must pay all the costs of the application. Solicitors: Carter and Bell; Young, Maples, Teesdale, Nelson, and Co. received any part of the sum to which he was Bagley, for the appellant, argued that there Griffiths, for the debtor, 'argued that the The CHIEF JUDGE ruled that these accounts The CHIEF JUDGE said that it was a matter of costs. Solicitor for the appellant, Braund. LEGISLATION AND JURIS- THE CHANCERY FUNDS BILL. Parliament: TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF THE That your petitioners deem such removal of the property of the suitors from the control of the court, which is charged with the administration of them to that of the Government to be highly objectionable. That your petitioners desire to be allowed to state here some of the many grounds on which the proposed transfer appears to them to be objectionable, viz: First, that as the Government would be inde pendent of the Court of Chancery, the judges of that court would be without the power of compelling obedience to their orders for the transfer or payment to the suitors of stocks and moneys which they might award to them. Secondly, that the technical and minute details of accounts which are necessary in the peculiar nature of Chancery proceedings, could not be expected to be duly attended to and satisfactorily carried out where the officials are not under the control and supervision of the court which is charged with the duty of, and interested in, adapting and working out the accounts, according to the natures and specialities of the cases on which it is adjudicating. Thirdly, because it would increase to an unsafe degree the already great centralisation of power, in the hands of the Government of the day, by giving to that fluctuating and uncertain body the command of such vast funds, and at times also, of course, when Parliament would not be sitting. Fourthly, because such funds having accrued mainly from the non-claims or over-taxation of former suitors ought to be regarded (subject only to securing the repayment of any sums to be claimed by the rightful owner) as applicable to the reduction of the present heavy taxes on Chancery proceedings) which are much in excess of the taxes attending proceedings at common law) and the facilitation of the general administration of justice. That the establishment of a deposit account, where their money may be placed at £2 per cent. interest (the only benefit the Bill proposes to confer upon Chancery suitors) might be readily afforded to them in some other manner, and in no way renders necessary the proposed transfer of the Chancery funds to the Government. That your petitioners are also of opinion that far too arbitrary a power of making rules and orders is proposed to be conferred on the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury only, and that such power should not be exercised without the concurrence of a majority at least of the permanent Chancery judges for the time being. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your honourable House not to pass the Bill intituled, "A Bill to abolish the office of AccountantGeneral of the High Court of Chancery, and to amend the law respecting the investment of money paid into that court, and the security and manage ment of the moneys and effects of the suitors thereof." And your petitioners will ever pray, &c. PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION. Let a joint committee of both Houses be formed, to be called "The General Committee." Let all private Bills and petitions respecting them be laid before this committee. Let them appoint a commission, pro hac vice, not more than five, not fewer than three. Let one member of the commission be a barrister of fifteen years' standing. The committee should be a member of the commission. Let the commission have power to subpoena witnesses, examine upon oath, and award costs. Let the barrister decide all questions upon the admissibility of evidence. Let every commission be attended by a shorthand writer, whose note shall be conclusive throughout the entire proceedings. Let the commission hold its sittings at some place as near the locus in quo as may be con venient. Let them take evidence and make decisions upon all disputed points, and settle the entire Bill. THIS was an appeal from a decision of the regis- THE following petition has been presented to will determine in each case whether an engineer trar sitting as judge of the County Court of Leeds, granting an injunction to restrain a plaintiff in the County Court from proceeding to execution upon a judgment which he had obtained there against a debtor whose affairs were under liquidation. On the 12th April 1871, Howard, the debtor, filed a petition for the liquidation of his affairs by arrangement, and at the first meeting the creditors resolved to accept a composition of 5s. in the pound, to be paid within one month from the resolution being confirmed. At this meeting. Mr. Hemingway, a creditor, attended (by his proxy) and tendered a proof for £17 12s. Part of this sum, amounting to about £2, was for law expenses, and was disallowed by the chairman of the meeting, but the rest of the claim, amounting to £15 12s., was allowed. At the second meeting, this resolution was confirmed, and in the month of May the resolutions were registered. It appeared from the evidence, that the debtor's solicitor had written to all the creditors shortly after the second meeting, stating that the debtor was ready to pay the amount due from him under the deed of composition, or to forward it by Post-office order. The appellant, however, in his affidavit, stated that he had received no such order, nor had he, down to the 6th Dec. last, That the main object of such Bill is to transfer to Her Majesty's Paymaster-General for the time being, all the control, powers, and authorities, now vested in or capable of being exercised by the Accountant-General of the High Court of Chancery, so that the Government of the day may obtain possession and absolute control of the rapidly increasing stocks, funds, and securities (already amounting in value to nearly sixty millions sterling), as well as of the large sums of cash held by such Accountant-General in trust for the suitors, and subject to the rules and orders of the court. Let any party have power to move for a new trial upon the whole, or upon any part, of the Bill in which he is interested. Let the sole ground of the motion be the power of the party moving to produce new and important evidence. Let this motion be made before the general committee, with power for the general committee to award costs of the motion. decision of the commission. two Houses be appointed, to be called "The Let the appeal be heard before this committee. Let the proceeding upon appeal be confined to the Bill, petitions, and evidence taken before the commission. Let the Committee on the Bill have power to award costs, and to deal with any award of costs made by the commission. The members of the commission should be men of weight and position. There may be a question whether on commissions sitting during the Parliamentary recess it will not be advantageous, if there is no Parliamentary objection, to place members of either House. Another question will be whether a scheme of this nature should be tried in the first instance, upon Bills of class No. 2. The withdrawal of Bills of this class from the ordinary committee rooms would be a great relief to the House of Commons. Bills of another class, such as amalgamation Bills, may continue to be dealt with under the existing system. I don't suggest that the tribunal, of which I have offered a sketch, would be a cheap tribunal. The payment of commissioners should be sufficiently high to attract men of good position. But such a tribunal would be far cheaper than the present system. If, according to the standing orders. private Bills are divided into classes, Class No. 2 contains those Bills in which are provisions for works. If you take into account the interests at stake, it would be cheaper than proceedings at law or in equity. Also, there would be this advantage, that if the experiment were tried and were to fail, there would be no commissioner entitled for life to a large salary. The pecuniary claim of each commissioner would end with the commission itself. ecutors, upon trust to sell the same immediately after his decease, or so soon thereafter as the said trustees might see fit so to do. The testator was, at the time of his death, entitled to shares in an unlimited company then in high repute. The executors did not convert the shares as directed by the will, and about two years after the testator's death the company suspended payment, the result being a heavy loss to the testator's estate. Upon a bill filed by some of the cestui que trusts against the executors to render them personally liable for the loss: Held, that they ought to have converted the shares within twelve months after the testator's death, and that they were liable for the loss occasioned by their omission to do so. No distinction was made in the case of one of the executors who did not prove the will, and did not attain twenty-one until more than a year after the testator's death: (Sculthorpe v. Tipper, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 119. V.C. M.) PRACTICE REVIVOR DEATH OF SOLE PLAINTIFF-15 & 16 VICT. c. 86, s. 52.-A person served with notice of decree, who elects to take a benefit under it, is entitled to the usual order of revivor: (Austen v. Gilman, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 129. V.C. W.) - SALE OF LEASEHOLDS-PARLIAMENTARY CONTRACT-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE-ASSIGNMENT OF LEASEHOLDS.-A railway company had given notice of their intention to take certain lands. The leaseholders compelled them to proceed to arbitration, on which an award was made, and the former brought an action on the award. The company objected that no assignment of the lease had been made, but ultimately agreed to pay the compensation money awarded on receiving the key It may be asked why the motion for a new trial and the deeds. This was done, and six months is introduced. The reason is that no witness afterwards the leaseholders required the company would be present at the trial of the appeal. It is, to accept an assignment, and to covenant for therefore, indispensable that there should be ample indemnity. The company refused, and the leaseopportunity for bringing all necessary evidence holders filed a bill to compel them. Held (reversbefore the commission. That the committee on ing the decision of the Master of the Rolls), that the Bill must arrive at their conclusion without a the company were bound to accept an assignment personal examination of the witnesses would be from the plaintiffs. A mere notice to tre it does an objection to this proceeding as compared with not constitute a contract, but where the price has those of committees under the existing practice; been fixed by an arbitrator under the Lands but it is an objection common to almost all juris-Clauses Consolidation Act, everything is concluded dictions in the nature of an appeal, and it flows between the parties, and there is a contract which from the necessity of avoiding the expense and can be enforced in equity: (Harding v. Metroinconvenience which are inseparable from the politan Railway Company, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. actual presence of witnesses. 109. Chan.) SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. SUIT FOR DISSOLUTION BY THE HUSBANDCo-RESPONDENT DISMISSED FROM THE SUIT20 & 21 VICT. c. 86, s. 28-21 & 22 VICT. c. 108, s. 11.-The court has power to dismiss a co-respondent from a suit before the hearing even without his own consent. In a husband's suit for dissolation the respondent appeared absolutely, and afterwards filed an answer demurring to the jurisdiction, which she subsequently, under the directions of the court, amended by answering to the facts. The co-respondent appeared under protest, and filed an act on petition denying the jurisdiction of the court. The petitioner under the order of the court filed an answer to this; and both causes having been set down for hearing, the petitioner moved that he might be allowed to withdraw his answer to the act on petition, aud that the co-respondent might be dismissed from the suit. The court made the order as prayed: (Wilson v. Wilson and Howell, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 139. Div.) BY VENDOR AND PURCHASER-MORTGAGE EXECUTOR TO BUILDING SOCIETY-EXERCISE OF POWER OF SALE-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.-An executor took shares in and became a member of a building society to obtain advances for the purposes of his executorship, and mortgaged certain leaseholds belonging to his testator to the society to secure the advances and his subscriptions on the shares. The society sold the property under the power of sale in the mortgage, but the purchaser raised the objection that the mortgage was invalid. Held, that the mortgage was valid so far as it was a security for the advances actually made to the executor, but that the clauses purporting to secure to the society the payment of instalments due by the executor as a member were inoperative: (Cruikshank v. Duffin, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 121. V.C. M.) LIBEL-BILL OF DISCOVERY-ACTION AT LAW-DEMURRER.-Under the provisions of the 19th section of 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 76, re-enacted by 32 & 33 Vict. c. 24, a person complaining of a libel in a newspaper may file a bill against the printer and publisher, to ascertain the names of the proprietors, for the purpose of bringing his action against the proprietors alone : (Dixon v. Enoch, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 127. V.C. W.) EXECUTOR OMISSION TO CONVERT WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS-SHARES IN UNLIMITED COMPANY-LIABILITY OF INFANT EXECUTOR.-A testator devised and bequeathed his residuary estate to four trustees, whom he also appointed his ex SUIT FOR NULLITY. BIGAMY-TRIAL BY AFFIDAVIT. In a suit for nullity on the ground of bigamy, the court held that it had no power to permit the facts to be proved by reading affidavits taken in a suit in Chancery: (Lumley v. Victor, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 141. Div.) DISSOLUTION SUIT - DECREE NISI-VARIA TION OF SETTLEMENTS · APPEAL ΤΟ FULL COURT.-The wife, against whom a decree nisi had been pronounced, appealed to the full court against an order varying the settlements made on the marriage, and the trusts of her father's will. In the husband's case for appeal were certain statements which she complained of as scandalous and impertinent. On motion to strike them out, the court held that the court of appeal was the proper tribunal to regulate the terms of the case laid before it: (Milne v. Milne and Fowler, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 141. Div.) SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE-PAROL AGREEMENT CORRESPONDENCE- STATUTE OF FRAUDS. Plaintiff in a suit for specific performance alleged a verbal agreement to take a lease of a house, and put in as evidence a letter from the defendant to the plaintiff, which showed all the terms of the agreement, except the date when the lease was to commence, and a second letter from the defendant to the plaintiff, which referred to the previous letter as applying to a lease to commence from Michaelmas 1870, but added certain conditions, some of which the plaintiff did not admit to form part of the alleged verbal agreement. Held, that the first letter did not constitute a memorandum in writing of the alleged agreement sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, and that if the second letter was put in as evidence, the plaintiff must take the whole of it, which was evidence of an agreement, if any, different from that sought to be enforced, and that therefore the bill must be dismissed with costs: (Nesham v. Selby, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 145. Rolls.). THE PROPERTY IN SLAVES. THE following letter has been addressed to the New Orleans Times: "I have recently read two briefs for the plaintiffs in suits, pending in the Supreme Court of the United States, to recover the price promised for slaves, which, after the contracts of sale were made, were declared to be property no longer by the sovereign authority. "The cases are Holmes v. Sevier and Osborne v. Nicholson, and the arguers are Hon. A. H. Garland, of Arkansas, and Hon. P. Phillips, of Alabama. These are the only briefs I have ever seen on the side of the plaintiff's which contained much show of argument, and the contentions are what I should in defence either maintain or not controvert. The arguers contend: "That slavery existed at, and was not inconsistent with, common law; that the federal constitution recognised and guaranteed it; that the slave tenure was not the creature of positive law; that there was no defect in the original contract; that the subject of the contract was a proper and legal one; that the question of morality is not in issue; that abolition did not vitiate the original contract; that amendments 13, 14, and 15 were not intended to retroact; that amendment 5 has no application; that the plaintiff cannot be held to a warranty; that res perit domino, the defendant lost the slave. Discovering no other points in their arguments, I concede all they claim. But when the defendant has lost the slave, the question is still to be settled, whether he is to pay the price agreed on? Agreed on '-how and where? In the agreement, the contract, the joint act of two minds, the unity made up of reciprocal obligations, which must be produced as the basis of judicial action—at least as between the original parties. "A note is mere evidence of an obligation in the contract.-Why should these arguers be allowed to sever the note from this bilateral and commutative transaction, and thus confine the attention of the court? Is it not unfair and wrong, to consider the note as the measure of the obligations between the parties, while excluding every other element or part of the contract? Suppose there was no note; at best it is mere evidence of an underlying obligation, which can be as well proved without a note. And suppose this two-sided and reciprocal contract, has simply a negro on the one side, and a promise to pay for him on the other. Suppose further, that the next day after the transaction, the sovereign declares the negro or the promise-it is immaterial which-to be no longer property. And, finally, suppose that on the day following the destruction of the propertyquality, an attempt is made to enforce judicially the side of the contract that happens not to be destroyed: or, in other words, the obligations, only, that remain legal and possible to be enforced. Would this be lawful or just? "A part of such a contract has become null and void. In the case before us we must let the negro out altogether. He was only contemplated as property, and no unexecuted obligations that affect him will be recognised and enforced by the courts. Will they enforce those on the other side of the same contract? If yea, where is their power to do so? Whatever obligation is attempted to be enforced, must arise under this contract, which must be produced. It is the law between the parties, and the sovereignty has annulled-say one-half, or, in other words, has pro. hibited the performance of one-half the obligations contracted, or annihilated one-half the property or rights stipulated. Where is the warrant for the courts to recognise and enforce the death of onehalf of a contract, and the life of the other? or to rob the Peter of the contract to pay the Paul? For the defendant, having lost the slave, and then paid for him, would suffer the full loss of the slave's value, while the vendor, getting his full pay, would not suffer at all. Is this right, under an equal contract? 'But the note! the note!! the note!!!' I beg pardon, I left the note out of the case. We have nothing before us but the contract, with the negro on the one side and the price on the other. And the sovereign took the negro out of it, a minute, a day, a month, a year, or two years, or five years, after the contract was made. So that when, after the sovereign has legislatively destroyed the object of the contract, he-the same Sovereign-proceeds judicially to enforce payment for that object, the defendant naturally says: 'I never assented to this mutilated thing you are enforcing, any more than a man does to a contract made by him under duress, fraud, or mistake of fact. To my sovereign, the want of my consent is a full defence; and, before the God of Justice, he dare not deny it.' As the sovereign has absolute control of contract and parties, and unlimited dominion, it can deny a remedy to the plaintiff in all these cases, on the principle that as a party bindeth himself, so he shall be bound; and the defendant only bound himself to a contract with a slave in it, which the sovereign has taken out. No word as to remedy did the Sovereign speak; and in our country of written law, not providing a remedy, which the sovereign has done. And, by the way, is equivalent to denying it, especially as to acts what sort of jurisdiction can the creature (the court) have over the creator's acts, and the consequences thereof, unless specially conferred? Can such court rectify the mischief the creator has wrought? Think of a jurisdiction which is not over the act, and cannot reach the doer of the damage, and compel him to repair it! Think of a writ directed to the Sovereign-a trial-judgment -and execution, all by the Sovereign's court! "To make a part of a contract illegal is to dissolve it.-Now, when by the act of the Sovereign, lawmaking power, a part of the contract is destroyed, or the obligations of it have become illegal, and thereby impossible of enforcement, the said contract is dissolved, as is shown by reason and common sense, as well as numerous and undisputed English, French, and American authorities, some of which I will now cite. Lord Ellenborough, in the case of Atkinson v. Ritchie (10 East, 530), says it is a proposition which admits of no doubt,' that no contract can properly be carried into effect.... which being made consistently with the rules of law at the time, has become illegal, in virtue of some subsequent law.' Neither can it be questioned that if . . . . contracts, which were fairly and lawfully made at the time, have become incapable of being any longer carried into effect, without derogating from the clear public duty which a British subject owes to his Sovereign and the State, of which he is a member, the non-performance is not only excusable, but a matter of peremptory duty -an obligation on the part of the subject.' In the case of Barker v. Hodgson (3 M. & S. 267), Lord Ellenborough, speaking of one of the covenants of the contract said, 'If, indeed, the performance of this covenant had been rendered unlawful by the Government of this country, the contract would have been dissolved on both sides.' The same principle was recognised in Touting et als v. Hubbard (3 B. & P. 296), by Lord C. J. Alvanley. Also in Evans v. Hutton (4 Man. & Gr.) by Lord C. J. Tyndal. So in Melville v. De Wolf (1 Jur. N. S. 758), where the Government actually prevented one of the parties from performing his obligations under the contract, the court said, 'The contract must be considered as dissolved by the supreme authority of the State, which was binding on both parties.' Lord C. J. Abbott, in his work on Shipping (p. 596), states the principle as follows: If an agreement be made to do an act, lawful at the time of such agreement, but afterwards, and before the performance of the act, the performance be rendered unlawful by the Government of the country, the agreement is absolutely dissolved.' Various applications of the principle will be found in 12 Mass. 370; 15 Johnson, 14; 16 Johnson, 348; 2 Wash. C. C. R 312. See also, Presb. Ch. v. City of New York (5 Cowen, 538; 1 Ld. Raym. 317, 321; 1 Salk. 198; 15 Ga. 213). Here is a general principle, which has been ap plied to a great variety of cases, and which is peculiarly applicable to the question before us. No obligation that touches the quondam slave, or requires him to be treated as property, is legal, or susceptible of being enforced; e. g., the vendor's privilege; the special mortgage; a guaranty that he shall be a slave for life; a promise of his services; or any stipulation implying control or ownership of him. Nor could a case of redhibition be settled. All slave obligations are stricken out. All others, say these attorneys for plaintiffs, survive! The Sovereign declares a part of a contract dead and useless, and with the same mind (for courts only speak his will) declares the rest living and active! One party is discharged, and the other bound! Is not this absurd? What is required as a starting point, in the decision of all the slave contract cases, is a principle or rule that will apply to all those between the original parties, whether there are notes or not; for in them the contract must be before the court, and all the equities are to be let in. It is such a ru'e that I seek. Do not the above cases furnish it? "Dogmatism v. Higher Lavism.-The leading members of the Bar dispose of the whole subject with the phrase res perit domino, and a Podsnappian wave of the hand. I submit that all true argument in these cases starts from, and leaves behind, the said maxim. Beyond doubt the defendant has lost the slave. The Bar is prejudiced against the defence, simply because the most of the advocates of it have made it an object of derision-nay, have drawn to it cankering odium. It seems now moribund-' murdered in the house of its friends.' Those who formed the crest of the black surge that swept over and ruined us, foamed out the madness thereof, in such forms as these: Slavery was contra bonos mores, and hence these titles were null; amendment 5 of the Federal pact (adopted in 1731) made slavery thenceforward illegal, by declaring that no man should be deprived of his liberty without due process of law; amendments 13, 14, and 15 retroacted, and vitiated all slave contracts; the defendant was evicted by a paramount title-the slave's natural right to his freedom, and hence plaintiff is bound in warranty; slavery was on an unstable basis, was originally imbued with a caducity and proneness to extinction, and was naturally short-lived, because people's moral sense was against it, and the words 'slave' and 'slavery' were not in the Federal constitution, and hence, nobody knows what; the States cannot, but the Government (not being prohibited) can impair the obligation of contracts and nullify these slave notes; the Government (not the people in their political capacity) abolished slavery, &c. These and other similar contentions do no credit to any class, except those who want a law above or outside of the constitution, through which to MAGISTRATES' LAW. evade the sacred rules and requirements thereof. The cases are rare in which entire recovery against the defendant would be just, and common where even a partial one would be unjust. If the defendant did not lose, but was benefited, he should pay principal and interest. If the Sovereign destroyed-A court of equity will not restrain a person the tenure as soon as the slave was bought, and the defendant had only trouble and expense without any benefit, to make him pay the price with interest would be unmitigated injury. Indeed, if courts were empowered to ascertain and determine justice, they would, in the infinite variety of cases, find it at every possible point between the above extremes. No court pretends that the Sovereign has authorised it to investigate the merits of, and do equity in each case; and no evidence has been taken in any one of them. Why ? Because the Sovereign uttered but a single fiat-"Let slaves be property no longer"-and said no more. Surely courts cannot extract authority from profound silence; and they have none which is original. Judicial settlement was not contemplated. This is evident because-First, the Sovereign would have said so, if it was. Secondly, the import of the decree is purely legislative, and consequentially executive, but not judicial. There is no hint of hearing and determining. Thirdly, it would look to doing justice or equity in compensation indemnity, or division of loss, which was never contemplated. Fourthly, England and France had said: Slaves shall go free,' but they provided for, and their authorities did, equity. If it had been intended that our courts were to act, this example was striking, fresh and easy to follow. But no! slavery was the sum of villanies,' and slaveholders had no rights which the sable Nemesis respected; and practice kept pace with precept. Many believe the point herein set forth, to be applicable and decisive. If not so, the showing of its fallacy is almost as easy as Podsnapping it. Surely there is no argument in simply saying res perit domino, and asserting that the note is independent of the contract, and must be paid." "B. J. S." REPORTS OF SALES. By Messrs. ELLIS and Sox, at the Mart. By Messrs. WINSTANLEY and Horwoop, at the Mart. City The Hoop and Graves public-house, situate in Widegate-street, and ten cottages, area 2950 square feet, freehold-sold for £2110. By Messrs. RUSHWORTH, ABBOTT, and Co. Sutton-common.-Two enclosures of land, containing four acres, freehold sold for £750. Battersea.-Nos. 6 and 7, Castle-row, freehold --sold for £160. Nos. 1 to 4. Castle-place, and Nos. 1 and 2, Castle-lane, and another house, freehold-sold for £700. Tuesday, March 26. By Mr. W. H. MOORE, at the Mart. Tottenham, Summer Hill-road, Ivy Cottage," freehold sold for £315. Westbourne-park, Nos. 57 and 59, Swinbrook-road, term 91 years sold for £335 each. Hammersmith, No. 43 Sotherton-road, term 94 years-sold for £215. Lower Tooting, Aldis-street, house and shop, term 96 years -sold for £385. A similar house adjoining-sold for £395. By Messrs. D. CRONIN and SoNs, at Garraway's Tavern. Kensington. High-street.-The lease and goodwill of the Star and Garter, term 38 years.-sold for £0000. Borough, High-street.-The lease and goodwill of the eyed Maid, term 23 years-sold for £100. Thursday, March 28. By Mr. BEADELS, at the Mart. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. METROPOLITAN COMMONS ACT 1866-SCHEME UNDER-RIGHT OF RE-PURCHASE-INJUNCTION. from applying to Parliament on public grounds; but where a man is acting in violation of a contract personal to himself, and with which public interests have nothing to do, the relief which the court would grant if no question were raised about Parliament, will not be refused on the ground that an application to Parliament is about to be made. D. and F. purchased the interest of the lords of the manor in a common, with a view of dedicating the same to the public as a recreation ground, and by the deed of conveyance rights of re-purchase were reserved to the owners of certain equitable interests in the common, in case the whole of the common should not be so dedicated. D. and F. subsequently transferred the purchase to the Metropolitan Board of Works, upon the terms expressed in the above conveyance. The board presented to the Inclosure Commissioners a memorial under the Metropolitan Commons Act 1866, praying that a scheme might be prepared for the dedication of the common to the public, and it was stated in the memorial that part of the common might be advantageously sold by the board. The commissioners having requested the board to prepare a scheme, a scheme was prepared by them in one of the provisions of which power was given to the board to acquire any rights of re-purchase affecting the common, first making compensation for the same, and also power to sell or let a certain part of the common. This scheme was afterwards published by the commissioners as a scheme under the Act. On a bill filed by one of the parties to whom a right of re-purchase had been reserved on the original conveyance to D. and F., an injunction was granted restraining the board from promoting or supporting the above scheme, or any other scheme inconsistent with the terms on which the common was conveyed to D. and F., and from doing anything to prejudice the right of re-purchase reserved to the plaintiff: (Telford v. The Metropolitan Board of Works, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 150. V.C. B.) THE LIQUOR LAWS. The following letter has been addressed by Sir W. Bodkin to the Home Secretary. It states the results of his extensive experience at the Bar and on the bench: "DEAR SIR,-Having had peculiar opportunities, during a long series of years, as a barrister and magistrate, of witnessing the working of the system of licensing houses for the sale of intoxica ting liquors, what has occurred to me may not perhaps be unacceptable with reference to the Bill about to be introduced in the next session of Parliament. In this belief I venture to make the present communication, satisfied that, being altogether impartial and disinterested, you will excuse my intrusion upon your attention. The mistake already made (if I may take the Blue-liberty of saying so) has been to regard the exist ing system as utterly indefensible, and to call for very large alteration, if not its entire abolition; and the unsuccessful attempt last session will, it may be feared, tend to encourge the expectation of some elaborate measure when the subject is again brought under the consideration of Parlia Essex, Shenfields.-Freehold farm, known as Winberns, with resid nce and 47a. Br. 13p.-sold for £1000, Great Baddow-Fr chold pleasure farm, known as Lath coats, with house and farm buildings, and 92a. 2r. 19p.sold for £35 -0. A plot of land containing 3r. 38p.-sold for £60. A ditto, containing la. Ir. 6p.-sold for £75. Five plots, containing da. 2r. Sip. -sold for £307. Brentwood-High-street, a freehold residence with garden is shares of clo each (fally paid up), in the Patent Nitro and stabling-sold for €1080. Phosphat Company, and 123 new shares of £10 each -sold for £13, 196. 17 shares of £10 each (fully paid up), in the Agricultural Hall Company, and 22 preference shares of £10 each-sold for £3172 108. 75 shares of £10 each (2 paid), in the Royal Farmers and General Insurance Company-sold for £25 15s, 22 shares of 100 each (50 paid, in the London Wharfing and Warehousing Company--sold for £1100, 183 shares of £50 each paid up, in the Norfolk Estuary Company-sold for £is 10s. By Messrs. NEWBON and HARDING. Haggerston.-No. 71, Margaret-street, term 8 years-sold for £70. Hoxton. No. 37, Bevenden-street, term 18 years-sold for £168. for £170. Kentish-town.-No. 37, Leighton-road, term 13 years-sold Canonbury-No. 32, Douglas-road, term 73 years-sold for £770. Mile-End.-No. 101, Devonshire-street, freehold-sold for Canonbury.-No. 3, Canonbury-park North, term 64 yearsTottenham-court-road, Nos. 10, 11, and 12, Tottenham-mews, copyhold stabling-sold for £1000. £389. sold for £630, No. 5 sold for £510. EPPS'S CHOCOLATE.-"Nous n'avons en France qu'une seule usine où la préparation du Cacao emploie un matériel et un personnel aussi considérables que ceux que nous avons vus dans l'usine de Messieurs Epps C'est une véritable curiosité dans son geure que cette immense fabrique."-La Situation (the Imperialist labelled "JAMES EPPS & Co., Homeopathic Chemists, organ). The wrapper of each cake of Chocolate is London." Also, makers of Epps's Milky Chocolate Chocolate and Condensed Milk). ment. "I am fully impressed by the magnitude of the evils resulting from habits of intoxication, and I have constantly before me proofs of the destita. tion and misery, vice and crime, such habits entail; but I think comparatively slight alterations are all that can, with prudence or justice, be sanctioned, when the large amount of property in vested in the various branches of the liquor trade (and which has been so invested with the sanction of law) is seriously considered. Not, however, that my opinion as to limited interference rests solely on that ground, but chiefly that very little can be usefully done by the Legislature in dealing with this very difficult and delicate subject. "The first question is, whether the granting of licenses shall be removed from the jurisdiction of the magistracy, and placed in other hands. Many changes have been suggested, but that which seems at present most favoured I consider the most objectionable of all which have come to my knowledge. To give the power of granting licences to ratepayers in populous places would be to es aggerate all the evils complained of. Every application would be the subject of local contention, and it is lamentably true that on such occasions the more respectable and quiet inhabitants refuse to interfere. If the principal canse of evil is the too numerous licensed houses, the evil would be immeasurably increased by the proposed transfer of authority. There is rarely an application now made for a new license which, however objectionable, is not supported by a host of ratepayers, aided, in many cases, by parochial officers and vestrymen, and the magistrates, both in petty session and appeal, continually refuse applications so supported. On the other hand, the instances are very few in which there is reason to believe that magistrates act from any other motive than a sense of duty. I have certainly known influence used on behalf of a servant or dependant about to embark in a public-house business-on very rare occasions, however; one can hardly conceive any system which would be altogether free from occasional importunity of the kind. Of any private or personal advantage to magistrates, I have never met an instance, although, as counsel for and against applicants, the facts attending such cases have been generally communicated without reserve. "The magistrates, therefore, from time to time, usefully control the partisanship of ratepayers, on which there would be no check, if their authority were withdrawn. There are, it may be admitted, more licensed houses than need be, but it very seldom happens that a new license is granted in old and settled neighbourhoods. and, except in the manner hereafter suggested, I do not see how there can be. More strict regulations as to the mode of conducting their business, would probably, in the course of time, lessen their number; and where the evil effects seemed to require stronger measures, it might be permitted to the ratepayers (in a manner, and subject to conditions to be defined), to cause the discontinuance of any license in their district, the persons interested being paid out of the rates compensation, as in the cases of public improvement, by the finding of a jury, if necessary. "A power of this nature would, I think, be much less liable to abuse than that of granting licences, whilst the burthen its exercise would impose, could not fail to confine it within proper limits. Amongst the more stringent regulations, a heavy fine upon any publican, at whose house persons were allowed to get intoxicated, would be useful, and ought to be rigidly enforced. I would also deal with habitual drunkards, and after inflicting fines on a repetition of the practice, imprison them with hard labour, as guilty of an offence against public morality. "The small fine which can at present be inflicted for drunkenness is quite inoperative; but imprisonment would not only have a deterrent effect, but, by enforcing sobriety for a season, might tend to induce abstinence for the future. "On the refusal of a licence, as the law now stands, the applicant can appeal against the refusal to the court of quarter sessions. I would give the same power of appeal against the granting of licence, providing for the costs of the appeal in the same manner. With this power of appeal, and the effects likely to be produced by stringent regulations of the trade, it may reasonably be expected that, in old and settled districts, the number of licensed houses may be gradually reduced to what is really required for the necessary supply of each respective neighbourhood. I do not pretend to have had any experience as to agricultural districts, but I believe what I have taken the liberty to suggest is applicable to all provincial towns. In the suburbs of the metropolis there have sprung up lately numerous streets and rows of houses, generally speaking adapted to the residence of the better class of working people, and evince very satisfactorily the improved condition of that class; but however much of comfort exists, the occupants are not enabled to keep any store of wine or spirits, and for whose accommodation licensed houses are obviously required. In some instances the owners of land devoted to building landably impose limitations as to the number of licensed houses permitted on their property, and these just limitations are always considered by the magistrates. To their discretion, subject to what has been already suggested, all future applications may, I think, be safely entrusted. The desire to give the working classes cheap and wholesome beer has, I fear, led to an unnecessary, and, in too many cases, mischievous extension of drinking houses. Placing them under the control of magistrates is evidently a considerable improvement; but I would still further alter the law by enacting that no house erected for, or carrying on, the beer trade, should ever receive the higher privilege of selling wines and spirits; and I would, of course, extend to all uch houses the stringent regulations before set forth. "I submit these views under a deep conviction that they embody all that can be effected by direct legislation on this important subject; they will provoke no serious opposition, for the persistent attempts at total prohibition can hardly be so considered. The ultimate cure of excessive drinking habits must be looked for from higher influences, and especially from the patriotic effort now making to impart education to all classes of the people. Again apologising for having troubled you, I have the honour to remain, dear Sir, yours faithfully, W. H. BODKIN, "Assistant Judge, Middlesex. "The Right Hon. H. A. Bruce, H.M. Secretary of State, &c." MAGISTRATES' CLERKS. THE following sensible and, as we can affirm, very truthful letter has been addressed to the Times by a magistrate's clerk. Until a public prosecutor is appointed, prosecutions in country districts are of necessity conducted by the clerk to the magistrates, for lack of any other solicitor competent and willing to undertake them for the very trifling fee allowed by the false economy of the Treasury: "Sir,-In your report of the Lewes Assizes, held on the 20th inst., the Lord Chief Justice is stated to have said : The clerk to the justices is the very person who ought not to have anything to do with the prosecution. It gives him a sinister interest in the prosecution which he ought not to have, and an indirect motive to get prisoners committed for trial. These are very hard words, and from so high a a quarter more especially so. Allow me therefore to go into a few details, or rather to be heard in my own defence. In the first place, it cannot be denied that every prosecutor is at liberty to employ his own solicitor, and I shall be borne out by my brother clerks that in all important cases this is done. In the second place, it is equally true that a great number of prosecutors are members of associations for the prosecution of felons, and that the solicitors to these conduct their prosecutions; but, in the third place, when the poor man is robbed or injured, his prosecution falls into the hands of the clerk to the justices. Now it is true, public, and notorious' that at quarter sessions all that is allowed for 'beief and solicitor' is one guinea, except in heavy cases, where sometimes two are given; and at assizes two guineas, or in very heavy cases three. Allow me, therefore, to explain what must follow if in poor cases, as I call them, the justices' clerks were not allowed to conduct them, so long as there is no public prosecutor or other official to take charge of them. First, as every solicitor will have to pay the clerk out of his guinea or two for copies of depositions, according to their length, from 5s. to 15s.; secondly, he must travel to Lewes or any other county town, or send his clerk to hand a brief to counsel, pay his fees, attend the clerk of the peace or of the indictments, and afterwards the trial; then get his costs taxed; next, assemble his witnesses together, pay and take a receipt from each on the printed form, and afterwards apply to the county treasurer with it, so signed, for repayment and his own guinea or two, and return home, if he is in time for the train, or remain by ill chance in the town all night; and, thirdly, as no respectable attorney is to be found who will undertake a prosecution on such terms, surely the clerks to justices do not deserve so severe a censure for doing what no one else of position is found to do; and I may be allowed to add that every clerk to a bench of justices is a man of position in his profession and in society. Why, then, does he undertake those cases? Because no one else is found to do the work at the price, and because he probably has two or three such cases, and until a public prosecutor is appointed there is, in fact, no one found beside to look after them. It is also a well-known truth that many gentlemen in a large way of business have nothing to do with criminal practice, and are in the habit, when such a case arises, to place it in the hands of another more conversant with itfrequently the magistrates' clerk. And were it the law that the clerks were not at liberty to undertake prosecutions at assizes and quarter sessions, does any one doubt that a class of practitioners would be found to hunt up (tout, believe is the proper word) the poor men's cases? -a change of hands not likely, in my opinion, to be approved by the Bar, or the court, or the public, or the press. If not, I respectfully would content that the clerks do not deserve the sweeping censures of the chief justice, who, believe, is, like many others, not aware of all the facts connected with small prosecutions at assizes and quarter sessions. My name would add no weight to these remarks, but is given to you as that of a clerk to two benches of magistrates in different counties for many years." Borough. Banbury. Carmarthen Devonport Exeter Hythe... Rochester Stamford Wigan "W." CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS BY MAGISTRATES' CLERKS.-The following reply to a "Magistrate's Clerk," who protested against the observations of the Lord Chief Justice at Lewes on this subject, appears in the Times:-"A correspondent has addressed you upon the observations of the Lord Chief Justice as to the impropriety of clerks of magistrates conducting prosecutions. The Lord Chief Justice said they ought not to have to do with prosecutions, as it gave them a sinister interest in the prosecutions and, an indirect motive to get prisoners committed for trial. Your correspondent says truly that this is a hard statement, but he says not a word in answer to it-not a single syllable to show that they have not this sinister interest and this indirect motive to get prisoners committed. On the contrary, he shows that they have, for that the fee allowed in each case is so small that it is only because the clerk has probably several such cases that it is worth his while to undertake them. Precisely so, and there is the mischief. Unless the clerk gets several such cases he knows it will not pay, and will not be worth his while, and so he has the interest which the Lord Chief Justice alleges in getting as many prisoners committed as possible. Moreover, the pecuniary interest is the least to be considered. There is the importance and the influence of being concerned in prosecutions, and the patronage of the briefs for the prosecution. Your correspondent says that it is chiefly with the 'small prosecutions' that the clerks to magistrates are concerned, and it is only too true that the great majority of these small prosecutions are conducted by them-that is, by the clerks, who advise the magistrates to commit the prisoners for trial. And thus we get the class of cases of which the judges are constantly complaining at the assizes. Your correspondent says that if the clerks did not conduct them respectable practitioners would not take them. This I can well believe, and the right result would follow, that they would not come to the assizes at all. At all the recent assizes the judges have complained of the great number of trivial cases sent to the assizes for trial. And no one can help suspecting that if the clerks to the committing magistrates had not the conduct of the prosecutions, these eases would not be sent for trial at the assizes, and that many of them would not be sent for trial at all, but would be summarily disposed of by the magistrates. As it is, it rests with the clerkwho has a direct interest in the committal of the prisoner-to apprise him of the power to deal summarily with the case, and to advise the magistrates either to commit for trial, or to dismiss the case, or to deal with it summarily. Can anyone doubt that the Lord Chief Justice is right? Your correspondent says the Lord Chief Justice is not aware of all the facts connected with small prosecutions at the sessions and assizes'at which he has practised or presided for about forty years. Indeed, Sir, I rather suspect that it is because he is only too well aware of the facts connected with these small prosecutions. Everyone who attends the assizes must be aware that in a large proportion of the cases prosecuted by the clerks there are acquittals, and in many of them there is no evidence at all, so that the judge either has ordered the grand jury to throw out the bill, or suggests to the jury, without hearing a defence, to acquit the prisoner. In every one of these cases there ought to have been no committal for trial, and the prisoner has been kept in prison for months improperly. In every one of these cases a brief has been delivered by the clerk to his favourite counsel before the bill has been found, and though it has been known that there was no case at all, and in every one of such cases the committal of the prisoner has been advised by the attorney who had interest in the prosecution, and who delivered the brief. Is such a system satisfactory? Your correspondent does not venture to say that it is, but only tries to show that there may be a worse. This is quite true; but is that a defence of the present system? Everyone will agree with the Lord Chief Justice that the whole system requires revision.' I am, &c.,-A BARRISTER OF TWENTY YEARS' STANDING. REAL PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. WILL-DEVISING "LANDED PROPERTY TO AN ALIEN-ALIEN ACT-CONVERSION-RIGHTS OF THE CROWN.-By a deed, landed estates at Ealing were conveyed to trustees, upon trust to sell, exchange, and make partition thereof, and in case of sale, to pay one-half of the purchase-money to L. and the other to B. for her separate use, and until the sale to hold the rent (as to B.'s moiety) for such person or persons as B. should, by deed or will, appoint, and, in default for her absolutely. B. by her will devised all her landed property at Ealing to her husband (an alien) for life. B. died before a sale of the property had been effected. Upon the question whether the share of B. in the freehold and copyhold property at Ealing was converted into money, or whether it passed as real estate under her will: Held, that no absolute trust for conversion had been impressed upon the land, and that it passed as real estate by the will of B. Also held, that the Alien Act (33 Vict. c. 14) was not retrospective, and, therefore, the husband was incapacitated from holding the life estate devised to him. On the question whether the husband's life estate belonged to the Crown or the heir-at-law of the tes tatrix: Held, that the court would enforce for the benefit of the Crown a trust of real estate created in favour of an alien, and that as against the trustee and the heir-at-law the Crown became entitled beneficially. In the case of a gift of real estate to an alien, when office was found, all rights vested in the alien were taken from him and transferred to the Crown, minus the disability of not being able to sue in respect of the land: (Sharp v. De St. Sauveur, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 142. Q. B.) MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT-COVENANT TO SETTLE AFTER ACQUIRED PROPERTY-MEANING OF TERM SHALL BECOME ENTITLED TO."-By the marriage settlements of H. and W. (two ladies who were each absolutely entitled to a share of the proceeds of the sale of certain real property subject to a life estate) each of the husbands and wives covenanted jointly and separately that if at any time during the coverture they or either of them should become entitled to any property, it should be conveyed to the trustees of the settlement upon the trusts thereof. H. and her husband survived, and W. and her husband predeceased the tenant for life. Held that the share of H. was bound, and that the share of W. was not bound by the covenant: (Re Clinton's Trust, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 159. V.C. W.) THE LAND QUESTION ABROAD. WE take the following facts from a paper published by Messrs. King : : THE REGISTER IN WURTEMBERG. estimated value of his estate-great security is THE REGISTER IN THE GRAND DUCHY OF BADEN. The transfer of land, whether by sale, gift, inheritance, or exchange, in order to be legally effected, must be registered by the authorities of the commune. The state levies a tax on the purchase and sale of land of two and a half per cent. The purchaser has in general to pay this tax, as well as the small dues for registry. There is no system by which a written agreement may be registered, nor is there any law or custom under which a tenant is considered as having a right to remain in occupation of his holding as long as he pays his rent, or to sell his interest in his farm. THE REGISTRY IN ITALY. The sale, transfer, exchange, or division of properties is effected by public notarial act. This act must be attested by, and deposited with, a notary, who retains the original in his archives, and gives a legal and authentic copy. It must also be registered in the office of registry and stamps, and the tax for registration of sale and transfer, 3:30 per cent. paid. It must also be inscribed in the register of mortgages. The total registering, notarial, and office charges on the sale and transfer of property may be considered to average about 5 per cent. on the value. Every chief town of a proThe system of registration is very simple. The vince has an office for the registry of mortgages. notarial act of mortgage, with a request for regisand entered in a register kept for the purpose, try, on stamped paper, is sent to the registrar, with ample indices for reference; the number, date, and page at which it is registered is then indorsed on the mortgage deed to facilitate reference, and the deed returned to the Owner. The charges for registration amount to about one-half per cent., exclusive of stamps of small amount. Leases or agreements must be registered, under a penalty. It frequently occurs, however, that leases are not registered, but in such cases legal actlon cannot be invoked paid. The tax for registration is small, and is in their support unless double tax and fines are paid at the office of registry and stamps; in fact, every transaction connected with land, sale, transfer, gift, exchange division, lease, or mortgage, must be registered, so that the ownership, value, and incumbrances on every acre of land in the province can be ascertained at the offices of regis. try and stamps and of mortgages, which exist in the chief town of every province. THE REGISTER IN BELGIUM. The sale of land, its transfer, exchange, or division, is effected between parties by a deed before a notary, or a decree of a court of justice. The total cost of registering a deed of sale or cession amounts to about five francs twenty centimes per hundred francs on the sum mentioned as the price. The non-registration of the deed within the time prescribed by law entails a fine which consists in the duty or tax being doubled. The main legal object of the registration is to authenticate the date of the deed, but a material object is the levying of the tax. When a deed of sale or transfer is re-registered it is transcribed in extenso in a register kept in an office ad hoc. This register is open to public inspection. The same system of registration extends to mortgages. Leases may be registered, but as this entails a fee it is seldom done. The result of registration is to give an authentic date to the lease. THE REGISTER IN PORTUGAL. of the property, its place in the Cadastre, its rate in "hardcorn" (in the Danish gadastre, or matrikul," all the land of the kingdom is rated for fiscal purposes according to its capacity for produce), the price paid, or, if there be no sale, its computed value. The deed is delivered by the buyer to the under sub-prefect of the district, who verifies the text, asks for proof that taxation is not in arrear, and calls for payment of the court's charges. This official reads the deeds in open court at the next weekly session, in extenso or otherwise makes entry in the court's journal that such a deed was read on that day, and certifies the same on the document. The paper is then copied into the protocol of deeds and mortgages, and noted in the register of real property. For every district in Denmark there is kept a threefold register of all estates, large and small, belonging thereto. The first divi sion gives the size, place, &c.; the second is historical, showing changes of ownership; the third gives the mortgages on the estate, with statement of any other circumstances that may affect proprietary rights, and references to every instance when the property has been the subject of a court-reading. To those whom it may concern, the clerk of the court delivers, on demand, written attestations on the matters relative to the contents of the register, so that intending purchasers or mortgagees are completely protected against whole process of registry and conveyance costs risks arising from imperfect information. The from one to three per cent. on the purchase of 1550. It applies to every sort of contract, and money. This system can be traced back to a law by its use Denmark is saved from those permanent certainties of swindling and collapse which charac terise British commercial civilisation. A small newspaper devoted to the " Thinglesning," or court-reading, publishes, at regular intervals, a record of the contracts registered and read throughout the kingdom, so that the progress of speculative enterprise is easily watched and measured. THE REGISTER IN PRUSSIA. The proof of title has hitherto been a recital of all the entries respecting the property in the land and mortgage registers-in many cases a costly document-which did not after all render the title indefeasible. As soon as the Bills now before the chambers become law, the entry in the land register will give an indefeasible title. The cost will be, as regards the registration, from one-tenth to one and one-third per cen, according to value, and as regards stamp, one per cent. Of the two new Bills, one establishes the land registers, and the other lays down the law of title and mortgage. These Bills are drawn on the assumption that a uniform law of title and mortgage will be desirable for the German Confederation, and in the hope that the Prussian Bills will ultimately be Federal Bills. They have the great positive merit of revising the principles of the law, and the negative merits of following neither the civil law r the German common law, and of not attempting to amend existing laws, an amendment which is usually a makeshift and no reality. They conse deviate essentially from many an important part of existing law. The leading principle of the Bill on title and mortgage is, that entry in the land register is the only proof of title. Can title to land be rendered much more simple? THE REGISTER IN THE UNITED STATES. About forty years ago a system was introduced in Wurtemburg by which the whole country was surveyed, and the extent, estimated value, and ownership of every piece of land entered in gisters kept at the office of the mayor or principal officials of each commune. Every change of proprietorship, whether caused by sale, exchange, inheritance, or marriage, is entered in the communal register, so that no possible dispute can arise as to title, &c. A duty of one per cent. on the property is charged by the State on each occasion on which a fresh entry (owing to change of The legal method used for the sale, transfer, ownership, &c.) has to be made in the register, as well as a registry fee of one-fifth per cent. charged exchange, or division of landed property is by reby the commune. By applying for permission to gistry. All transmissions of real property or inspect the communal register, an intending pur-failure to register them does not prevent the titles rights are by law subject to registration. The chaser is enabled to ascertain at a glance the extent and ownership of any piece of land, how-being pleaded in suits between the parties or their ever small, in the commune, as well as a list of any debts or charges on such property by mortgage, and the purchase or exchange would be completed by the parties appearing before the Communal Council, by whom the name of the new owner is registered. A copy of the entry in the register is made by the magistrate of the commune, and the signatures affixed. (The validity of a sale of land does not depend on the registry, which is only a measure of administration.) The deed needing. not even (to ensure validity) be drawn on stamped where the value does not exceed 50 milreis (about twelve years, reserving any rank or service of any The Communal Council are answerable paper. for the correctness of all entries with regard to every property. Conveyances, in the legal sense of the word in England, are unknown. Though the simplicity of the system is most admirable, and though it is found in every respect most practical in its results as tending to prevent much unnecessary litigation, it is to be questioned whether the extreme facility of such process has not the effect of encouraging the constant subdivision of property. The sanction of the communal authorities must be obtained to every mortgage, which must be entered in the public register, and they would of course give their consent to no new loan if the debts of the intended mortgagee amount to the representatives; but such titles, until registered, THE REGISTER IN DENMARK. Under an ancient system for registering and publishing contracts, the titles and encumbrances of every field in Denmark may be immediately ascertained by intending purchasers and mortgagees. Since local lawyers,point with reasonable pride to their system of registering and reading, as a model which the legislators of other countries might copy with advantage, I shall briefly trace the history of a Danish contract. There can be no complete seizing of lands without a deed of sale or gift. Such deed must contain an exact description In no country is land, as a subject of sale, marked with less preference, or in which United States. Landed properties are sold, transreadily passes from owner to owner as in the ferred, and exchanged by a simple deed, and there is a registrar appointed by County Court for each deeds to land in their several counties respec county in the Union, whose duty it is to register tively. The record becomes notice to all parties of the title of the grantee. No title is passed by registry only. Registry is of a deed inter partes. By Act of the Constitution of the State of New York adopted in 1846, it is declared that—“ No lease or grant of agricultural land for a longer period than twelve years, in which shall be reserved any rent or service of any kind, shall be valid." The Constitution adopted in Michigan in 1850 provides that "No lease or grant here after in agricultural land for a longer period than kind, shall be valid." Lands are appropriated by the Constitution for the support of agricultural schools. Tenancy is created both by parol and by written agreement; but most generally by the latter. Long terms are not usual in the leasing of farm lands. When no written agreement has been made, the law declares that the tenant shall quit by notice. A written agreement of lease may be recorded in the office for the recording of leases, if the parties to it make a written acknowledg ment before a justice of the peace that it is their act and deed, and that they desire to have it recorded as such. This is seldom done, however, except in cases of long terms. Very large quan tities of land are seldom held in this country, un |