« EelmineJätka »
LIVERPOOL--Brown v. Forward and others
LANCASHIRE-Bridgewater v The Mayor of Bootle-cum- Rice r. Slee. Appeal [Martin, B.-- Mr R. G. Williams Linacre
Kendall r. Kay Special case LIVERPOOL-Ross r. Ross (L. C. B.-Yr Quain YORKSHIRE-Norris and others v Barnes
Dixon 1. Ramsden, Appeal HAYTS-Jones r. Williams (Willes, J.-Mr Lopes MIDDLESEX --Reg. v. St. Ives Union
Australian A. Company v. Saunders. Demurrer.
Varley v. Coppard. Demurrer
Seymour v. The London and Provincial Marine In.
surance Company. Special case [Blackburn, J.-Mr H. James LANCASHIRE–Reg. v. Wigan Churchwardens
Starr t. Stringer. Appeal MIDDLESEX-Butt v. Watson
LIVERPOOL- Bridgewater 1. The Borough of Liverpool Fuller y, Fuller. Deinurrer [Blackburn, J.-Mr Huddleston YORKSHIRE, W.-Reg. v. Roberts and others
Jay v. The South-Eastern Railway Company. Special MIDDLESEX-Target v. Vincent (the younger)
WESTMORLAND-Noble v. Carr
Johnson ". Barnes. Special case
Power r. Wigmore. Appeal
Thames Sulphur Company t. Loftus. Demurrer Rirer Thames [L. C. J.-Mr Pollock CARLISLE-Same v. Same
Arilen v. Wilson (Bart.) Special case
Best v. Hill. Demurrer
Young r. Frost. Demurrer
The Brecon Market Company ». The Neath and Brecon pany Mellor, J.--Sur J. Karslako WAKEFIELD-Shaw v. Wakefield Board of Health
Railway Company. Special case
Hunt r. Wilson. Appeal
Boulton v. Pickernell. Special case
Yellend r. Lumsden. Special case LIVEEPOOL-Jones v. The Neptune Marine Insurance KENT-Dann v. Mandy
Horne and another v. The Midland Railway. Special Company (Blackburn, J.-Mr Aspinall EXETER-Reg. r. The Strand Union
case Tried during Tern.
BMMINGHAJ-Simpkin ?, The Justices of Birmingham The Watermen's Company v. The Overseers of Penge. MIDDLESEX-Harris t'. Davis [Lush, J.-Mr O'Malley WAKEFIELD-Ward v. Wakefield Local Board
Thursday, April 25.
The Strand Printing Company v. Dorington. Special SPECIAL PAPER,
Court of Common Pleas.
Cope r. Barber. Appeal
SITTINGS IN BANCO.
Greenhill r. Webster and others. Demurrer The Wardens of Sutton Coldfield v. Maskall. Special Monday, April 15 Motions and new trials
Cox v. Blatherwick. Demurrer case. (Stands for amendment)
Cory r. The Church wardeus of Greenwich. Appeal Tuesday
16 Ditto The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Company v.
Royal v. Yaxley. Appeal
17 Ditto Guthrie. Special case. (Stands over)
Monday, April 29.
Pearmany. Buttner. Demurrer
19 Ditto Goschen and otbers v. Demana and others. Special
Lawr, Hugh. Demurrer
Straker v. Storey. Demurrer
Detmar v. Brand. Appeal
Roberts v. Crowe. Appeal
Barrett v. Markham. Appeal
25 Special paper
26 Motions and new trials Martyn v. White. Demurrer
Saturday. 27 Ditto
Court of Exchequer.
29 Special paper Cresswell v. Crowdy. Demurrer
SITTINGS IN BANCO.*
Monday, April 15 Motions, per new trials
16 Per motions and new trials Huntley v. The Mayor, &c., of City of Bristol. De
17 Motions and new trials inurrer Saturday 4 Ditto
18 Ditto Hawthorn r. Boyd. Special case.
6 Ditto Monday
19 Ditto The Eccleshill Worsted Mill Company v. Ackroyd. Tuesday 7 Ditto
Saturday 20 Ditto
22 Special paper Mercer v. Graves. Demurrer
Tuesday 23 Motions and new trials Playford v. Page. Special case
SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS-IN TERM.
Wednesday 24 Special paper Christoffersen v. Hansen. Demurrer
Thursday 25 Motions and new trials
26 Ditto Kirkwood r. McDonald. Demurrer
Saturday. 27 Ditto
No London sittings this Term.
Monday 29 Special paper Furner v. The Guardians of the Poor of St Olave
30 Motions and new trials Union. Special case
Wednesday May 1 Special paper
2 Motions and new trials
3 Ditto The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police v. Bell.
NEW TRIAL PAPER-ENLARGED RULES.
Saturday 4 Ditto
6 Ditto The Gas Light and Coke Company v. The Vestry of Perks v. The London and North-Western Railway
Wednesday 8 Ditto
* The Court of Exchequer will, when convenient, sit murrer Gripe v. Wilkie
in two divisions. Harrison and others v. Garthorne and others. De- Wilkie v. Gripe nurrer Same v. Same
SITTINGS AT Nisi PriuS-IN TERM.
Tuesday .......April 16 | Tuesday .............
..........April 30 Scales and another v. The London and South-Western Beckervaise v. Lewis
No London sittings this Term.
Thursday.. ..May 9 | Monday
.May 1 Eynon r. The Birmingham Capal Company. Demurrer
Austin v. Cull
NEW TRIAL PAPER.
Denoon v. The Home and Colonial Assurance Company For Judgment-Mored Michaelmas Term 1868. Same t. Same.
Nanns v. Wilkinson
Simpson v. Blues
Mored Michaelmas Term 1871.
For Argument - Moved Hilary Term 1872.
Beldam . Great Eastern Railway
Bocock v. Great Northern Railway
[ By les, J.-Defendant in person
Bayley r. Seddon
[Byles, J.-Mr H. James Hampden r. Walsh. Demurrer MIDDLESEX-Jennings v. Woolley
For Argument-Moved Michaelmas Term 1867. Siddons v. Schmidt. Appeal
[Keating, J.-Mr. D. Seymour LINCOLN- Earl Beauchamp v. The Inclosure Commis. Smith v. Darby. Demurrer MIDDLESEX-Sharpe v. Powell
sioners for England and Wales (To stand over) Morris r. Buller and Wife. Demurrer.
[Keating, J.-Mr. Metcalfe
[Pigott, B.-Mr Field Demurrer Kayer. The Mayor of Huddersfield. MIDDLESEX-Harrison v. Dickinson
Moved Michaelmas Term 1870 Joscer. The Royal Marine Insurauce Company. De
[Brett, J.-Sir J. Karelako NORWICH - Betts v. The Great Eastern Railway Commurrer.
LONDON-Revell t. Blake
[Byles, J.-Mr. Powell
pany (To stand over) (Charnell, B.-Mr Bulwer Tomlin v. Lowe. Demurrer
LONDOX - Beckervaise r'. Lewis [Byles, J.-Mr. Kenealy
Moved Hilary Term 1871.
LONDON-Hiibut v. Hickson and others
(Brett, J.-Mr. Butt
Martin, B.-Mr Joyce Brown u. Ward. Demurrer
Mored Michaelmas Term 1871. Mosenthal v. Henderson. Special case
MANCHESTER-Ormerod , King [L. C. B.-Mr Quain
LIVERPOOL-Holme v. Hammond (Part heard)
(L. C. B.- Mr Holker
LIVERPOOL-Golden v. Whitworth (Part heard) M'Cormick v. The Dock Company of Kingston-upon. Same . Wingrove. Demurrer. Special case to be
[L. C. B.--Mr Holker Hull
Mi Philbrick Mr Pollock stated
LIVERPOOL—The Liver Alkali Compavy v. Johuson
Martin, B.-Mr Butt Full . Whitaker [Mr Hopwood-Mr Herschell
CROYDON-Collis v. The Imperial Royal C. A. A. Commurrer [Mr Willis-Mr Finlay The Mayor of Poole v. Jennings. Special case
pany Re Bobbins, Gage, and others
[Bramwell, B.-Mr Haukins Reg. 0. The Vice-Chancellor of Oxford
LEEDS-Tebbutt v. Waite (To stand over) [Mr Adams Clark v. Leathley. Special case Reg. o. Friend [Mr LerrisMr Lopes Reynolds v. The Manor of Woodham Waltei. (Part MIDDLESEX–Taylor v. Gower
[Haonen, J.-Mr Kemplay
(To stand over) Rez. 1. Rookes
[Mr Leucis-Mr Lopes heard) Appeal Reg. o. The M. T. L. Board of Health [Mr Day Harris v. Sarmanga. (Part heard) Special case
[Martin, B.--Mr Thesiger Reg. v. The Borough of Sunderland Osmond v. Turner. Special case
Moved Hilary Term 1872. [Mr Field-Mr Crompton Chippendale v. The Metropolitan Board of Works. LONDOX-Lane v. Lay
(L. C. B.-Sir J. Karslake Reg. v. Vulliamy [Sir J. Karslake-Mr Philbrick Special case
LONDON--Taylor v. The Manchester, Sheffield, and Lin. Key. t. Rounding and others Steel r. Braunan. Appeal
colnshire Railway Company [L. C. B.- Mr Porcell
LONDON-Butler v. Gillet Special paper
(L. C. B.-Mr Field
For Judgment. LONDON-Foulger v. Stedman
Barrows *. Green and another. Demurrer. (Stand LONDON-Same v. Sawyer
De Mattos v. Saunders. Special case
The Great Western Railway Company v. Blower. over till issue in fact tried) LONDON-Same v. Cartwright
Niebuhr r. Kraushaar. Demurrer. (Stands over till LONDON --Same v. Morrell Lankester v. Trounce. Demurrer
issue in fact tried) LIVERPOOL-The Mersey Dock and Harbour Board v. Armstrong v. Baron. Demurrer
Spoor v. Green Special case
Eadon v. Jeffcock Special case
Gazette, April 9.
To surrender in the Country. BRAGG, ISAAC, and STEPHENS, THOMAS FRY, drapers, Birken
hend. Pet. April 5. Dep..Reg. Morgan. Sur. April 25 EDWARDS, JAMES, butcher, Swansea. Pet. April 4. Reg. Morris.
Sur. April 19 FREEMAN, JOSEPH, coal merchant, Watford. Pet. March 27.
Reg. Blagg. Sur. April 17 GOLDEN, JAMES WILLIAM, oll dealer, Huddersfielc. Reg. Jones,
jun. Sur. April 27 LOVE, JAMES, draper, King's Lynn. Pet, April 3. Reg. Partridge.
Sur. April 22 MURRAY, MATTHEW, draper, Wallsend. Pet. April 4. Reg.
Mortimer. Sur. April 20 NEILSON, CHARLEY DUNCAX, provision broker, Liverpool. Pet.
April 6. Reg. Watson, Sur. April 23 SEARLE, WILLIAM, shipbroker, Liverpool. Pet. April 3. Reg.
Watson, Sur. April 92 WAITES, ARTHUR EDMUYD, currier, Pontypool. Pet. April 5. Reg. Roberts. Sur. April 20
Gazette, April 5.
Liquidations by Arrangement.
For Argument. Downing v. Mowlem. Demurrer. (To stand over) Riche v. The Ashbury Railway and Carriage Iron Com
pany. Demurrer. (To stand over) Waugh v. The North British Railway Company. De
murrer. (To stand over) Granville v. Fich. Special case Whitehouse v. The Birmingham Canal Company. De
murrer. (To stand over) Peel (Bart.) v. The Metropolitan Board of Works.
Special case. (To staud over) The Duke of Buccleugh v. The Metroj an Board of
Works. Special case Carson v. Adams. Demurrer. (To stand over) Sear v. Green. (Part beard.) Demurrer. (To stand
over) Allgood v. Blake. Spec'al case Rouch v. Same. Special case Clenell o. Same. Special case Reed v. Same. Special case. Allgood and others v. F. D. Blake. Special case Taubman v. The Pacific Steam Navigation Company.
Demurrer Cobbett v. Howard and others. Demurrer Jackson v. Tatam. Demurrer Hill and another v. The Mayor of London. Demurrer Daniel and another v. Stepney and another. De
murrer Whitechurch and others v. The East London Railway
Company. Special case
(resp ). Appeal
QUEEN'S BENCH ERRORS.
For Judgment. D. Hawkins r. Lord Rokeby Fowler v. Hollins
For Argument. Reg. v. Price Hoskins and another v. Hepton Ionides v. The Pacific Fire and Marine Insurance
COMMON PLEAS ERRORS.
For Argument. Fallows. v. Hampson and another. (Part heard. To
stand over.) Frampton and others v. Brown and others. (Part
heard) Smith and others v. Kirk and another Kirk and others v. Earl Verulam and others The Lords, Bailiffs, and Jurats of Romney Marsh v.
The Corporation of Trinity House Renneck v. Larkworthy Bailey v. Johnson Mullen and another v. Crossfield Brignall v. Cohen and another Brookman v. Sinith Towerson v. The Aspatria Agricultural Co-operative
Society The Company of Afriean Merchants v. Harper James v.* The London and South-Western Railway
Company Mouflet r. Colo Buxton v. Rust
Gazette, April 5. BEDBOROUGH, ELEANOR, widow, Slough; April 19, at four, at
office of Sol, Long, Windsor CASRIL, RENNETT, outfitter, Hull; April 17, at eleven, at office of
Sol., Ayre, Hull COLLIS, HENRY, miller, Croydon; April 18, at twelve, at office of
Brett, Clarke, and Co., accountants, Leadenhall-st. Sol., Davis,
Harp-la, Great Tower-st Cross, Jony, boot manufacturer, Tabernacle-walk, Finsbury;
April 22, at two, at office of Sols., Dod and Longstaffe, Berners
st, OxfordCURETON, WILLIAM, grocer, Nantwich; April 20, at twelve, at
the Railway hotel, Stoke-upon-Trent. Sol., Litchfield, New.
castle DEAN WILLIAM, baker, Bristol; April 18, at twelve, at office of
Sols., Henderson and Salmon, Bristol EASTWOOD, JOHN, blacksmith, Burnley; April 19, at three, at
office of Sol., Baldwin, Burnley ELLAMS, SAMUEL, builder, Newcastle; April 12, at eleven, at
Office of Sols., E. and W. Tennant, Hanley GREES, ALFRED, general smith, Stourbridge; April 19, at ten,
at offices of Sol.. Prescott, Stourbridge GROVE, JOHN FITZROY, out of business, Brick-hill-la, Upper
Thaines-st; April 22, at three, at office of Sol., Brighten, Bishops.
gate-st without HAPPEY. JOHN WALKER, hosier, Hull; April 17, at eleven, at the
Queen's hotel, Birmingham. Sol, Summers, Hull HOPKINSON, JOSEPH, stone merchant, Bramley, in Leeds: April
24, at eleven, at ottice of Beswick and Co., accountants, Albion.
st, Leeds HORTON, CHARLES, farmer, Barston ; April 18, at three, at office
oľ Sols., Ryland and Martineau, Birmingham HOWES, WILLIAM, costume skirt manufacturer, Basinghall-st,
London, und Middleton-rd, Dalston; April 18, at three, at office of Sol., Sydney, Leudenhalist JOHNSON, RICHARD WILLIA3, innkeeper, Bermondsey ; April 12, at twelve, at the London Warehousemen's Association, Gutter
la, Cheapside. Sel., Marsden, jun. JOHNSON, WILLIAM HENRY, corn merchant, Mark.la; April 19, at three, at the Bridge House hotel, Borough High-st, South
wark, Sol., Simpson, Borough High.st, London bridge JONES, WULIA, iroiterer, Ncwcastle; April 15, at 57, Queen-st,
Wolverhampton, in lieu of place originally named LAMB, JOUX ATKINSON, tailor, Hunmanby, April 23, at two, at
the Beverley Arma hotel, Beverley. Sol., Richardson, Scar.
borough LEETE, WILLIAM, builder, Little Cadogan-pl, Chelsea; April 23,
at three, ut office of Sol., Thomson, New Broad-st LUKE, JOSIAH, tailor, Carey-st, Lincoln's-inn, and Park-villas,
Park-pl, East-end, Finchley; April 22, at two, at office of Sol.,
Brlant, Old Broad.at LUMB, JOSEPH DYSON, victualler, Liverpool; April 23, at three,
at office of Sol, Nordon, Liverpool MANSLEY, STEPHEN, contractor, New Pellon; April 19, at three,
at ofice of Sol,, Boocock, Halifax MILLS, HENRY, silversmith, Oxford-st; May 1, at two, at office of
Sols., Harcourt and Macarthur, Moorgate-st PALFREY, THOMAS, bootmaker, Weobley; April 20, at eleven, at
the Talbot inn, Leominster. Sol., Cheese, Hay PARKES, ISRAEL, ironmaster, Westbromwich ; April 18, at twelve
at the Queen's hotel, Birmingham. Sol., Griffin, Birmingham PAYN, EMILY, boot seller, Lymington; April 19, at three, at office
of Sol., Killby, Southamptou PRATT, JOHN, sausage skin dealer, Vaughan-rd, Camberwell,
and Brixton rd; April 9, at two, at office of Sol., reston, Lon don-wall SANDER-, JOSEPH BROOK, builder, Fulham ; April 13, at one, at
office of Sol., Biddles, Southainpton-bldgy, Chancery.la SCOTT, WILLIAM, furniture broker, Huddersfield; April 15, at
eleven, at office of Sol., Sykes, Huddersfield SHERRATT, THOMAS, family miller, Hampstead-rd ; April 13, at
eleven, at office of Sol., Daniel, Rolls-chibs, Chancery.la SOLOMON, FREDERICK, carpenter, Cheltenham; April 13, at twelve, at Northfield . house, North-pl, Cheltenham.
Sol., Potter STOOKS, EDWARD, grocer, Queensbury, near Bradford ; April 13,
at ten, at office of Sol., Gant, Bradlord WHITE, WILLIAM, innkeeper, Wykeham; April 23, at twelve, at office of Sols., Moody, Turnbull, and Graham, Scarborough
Gazette, April 9. ALLEN, JOHX, corn factor, Wakefield ; April 22, at eleven, at the
Foresters' Hall, Wakefield. Sols., Wainwright, Mander, and
Whitham, Wakefield ANDERSON, CHARLES WALTER, fancy denler, Birmingham; April
19, at twelve, at office of Sol., Griffin, Birmingham BAILEY, THOMAS SHARPE, baker, Bootle; April 20, at twelve, at
office of Sols., Thornley and Heaton, Liverpool BARKER, CHARLES, hosier, Edgware-rd: April 23, at two, at
office of Sols., Phelps und Sidgwick, Gresham-st BAYLES, RICHARD), grocer, Bristol; April 22, at twelve, at office
of Sols., Messrs. Henderson and Salmon, solicitors, Bristol. Sol;
Salmon, Bristol BEDFORD, TUOMAS, sen., farmer, Ampney Saint Mary ; April 20,
at two, at the Ram hotel, Cirencester. Sol., Jones, Malmesbury BIBBS, JOHN, sen., butcher, Ledbury: April 2, at eleven, at
the Feuthers hotel, Ledbury. Sol., Piper, Ledbury BRIERLEY, SAMUEL, factory operative, Sinailbridge, near Roch.
dule: April 24, at eleven, at office of Sols., Messrs. Roberts,
Rochdale BROWNE, WALTER, 'dentist, Nottingham; April 19, at four, at
Office of Sols., Messrs. Browne, Nottingham CARR, MILrox, innkeeper, Westward; April 24, at one, at office
of Sol., McAlpin, Carlisle CLIFFORD, ALEXANDER, printer, North Shields; April 23, at half past twelve, at oftice of Sols., Leitch, Kewney, Dodd,
GUMPRECHT, GUSTAVE, merchant, Wood-st, London, and Rue
Magnan, Paris : April 22, at three, at the London Tavern, Bishopagate-st Within. Sol., Holmes, Eastcheap HAWKSWORTH, THOMAN, chemist, Birmingham; April 19, at
three, at office of Sol,, Parry, Birmingham HETHERIXGTUN, SARAH ANN, corset maker, Leeds; April 23, 45
three, ut office of Sols., Fawcett and Malcolm, Leeds HINGLEY, HERBERT, builder, Oldwinslord; April 28, at one, at
office of Sol., Homer, Brierley. hill HUGHES, JOHN, licensed victualler, Aberavon ; April 22, at three,
at office of Sol., Tennant, Aberaron HUNBAND, JAVES, vut or business, Great Ayton; April 16, 2
eleven, at office of J. Greener and Co., accountants, Stats
Middlesborough JEPSON, WILLIAM, cotton manufacturer, Chorley: Apr,
eleven, at office of Sols., Boote and Edzar, Manchester JONES, FREDERICK GEORGE, furnishing tronninger,
April 20, at eleven, at offices of Sols., Gardner and Hurner, Mig
chester KEELEY, WILLIAM, oilman, Hornsey.rd, Holloway: April 29. 44
three, at office of Mr. Birchall, Southumpton.blogs, Chalory..
Sol., Harrison, Furnival's inn, Holborn LADLEY, CHARLES, cuttle salemman, Trowse Newton; Apr]),
at eleven, at the Angel Inn, Brigg. Sol., Masun, Barton-upon
Humber LANGTON, THOMAS, timber merchant, Rotherhithe: April 2,
two, at office of Messrs. Slater and Pannell, Guildhall.chubs,
Basinghall-st. Sol., Hewitt LANKESTER, EDWIX, doctor of medicine, New West-end, Hamp
steul; May 1, at three, at offices of Sols., Lewis, Munds, and
Longden, Old Jewry LARNACH, JOHN LOGAN, lithographer, Birmingham; April 19,
three, at office of Sol., Jaquce, Birmingham LAWSON, JOnx, grocer, Alderney-rd, Globe-rd, Mile End; 11
22, at two, at office of Sol., Layton, jun., Greshanat LYON, JAMES, watch manufacturer, High-st, Peckham; April 14,
at two, at Office of Mr. Coker, public accountnt, Chesapside.
Sol, Barrett, New-inn, Strand MANLEY, JOHN, baker.' Thorverton; April 19, at eleven, at dice
of Sol., Huggins, Exeter MORRIS, JOHN, chemist, Longton; April 25, at two, at omce
Sul., Welch, Longton MORTON, GEORGE FRANCIS, veterinary surgeon, Guisborosb; April 17, at eleven, at office of J. Grecner and Co., SALES,
Middlesborough. Sol., Dobson, Middlesborough NADEN, ARIDUR, wine inerchant, Birmingham; April 2, at hay.
past ton, at urtice of Sol., Exien, Birmingham NEWMAN, WILLIAM, whoemuker, Great Rissington; April 16, 4 elever, at the Talbot inn, Slow-on-the-Wold Sol., Frable,
Stow on the Wold OWENS, GEORGE HASSALL, poulterer, Birkenhead; April 19, at
two, at office of Sol., Downham, Birkenhead PIERCE, ALFRED EDWARD, engineer, Oxford-st. April 19, a:
three, at office of Sol., Lewin, Southampton-st, Strand PIKE, RICHARD, carpenter, Bethnal Green-rd: April 22, at three, at office of Hayles, Weatherhog, and Co., accountants, King,
Cheapside. Sol, Perrin, King st, Cheapside POTTER, MARK, maltster, Wakefield; April 19, at one, at otce ?
Messrs. Fernandes and G 11, Wuketield PULLAN, CHARLES, shawl madufacturer, Leeds; April 29, at
eleven, at the Wharton hotel, Leeds. Sol, Yevdall READ, JAMES, fish merchant, Bungay; April 19, at twelve, st
office of sol., Palmer, Great Yarınouth RENCH, ALICE, lodging-house keeper, Exeter; April 17, at eleres,
at othco of Sols., Terrell and Petherick, Exeter ROBERTSON, JAMES WILSON, bullion dealer, Ashill-cottage, Pin.
ber, and Aldersgate-st; April 2, at one, at ottice of Sol, 30,
Bedford-row ROBINSON, THOMAS, manufacturer, Wakefield; April 22, at eleven
ut office of Sol, Nettleton, Wakefield ROGERS, Axx, widow, out of business, Moteombust, Belgrare.ST:
April 17. at one, at office of Mr. 'Coker, public scoala Cheapside. Sol., Barrett, New-inn, Strand RUSSELL, EDWIN JAMES, builder, Nunney: April 22, at three, 8:
Office of Sola, Cruttwell ana Daniel, Frome SMITH, CHARLES, farmer, Church-st, Hampton ; April 19, af te
at offices of Sol., Girwood, Verulam.bldg., Grayson SMITH, FREDERICK, watchmaker, Falıouth; April 5, at twelva.
at office of Sols., Genn and Nalder, Falmouth SMITH, JOHN, licensed victualler, Bubbenhall; April 30, at twere
at office of Sols., Messrs. Minster, Coventry SPENCER, WILLIAM, manure agent, Gorleston: April 3, 4
twelve, at office of SOL., Wiltshire, Great Yarmouth TETLEY, EDWARD THEOPHILUS,stuff manufacturer, Bingley and
Baildon: April 20, at ten, at office of Sols., Wulson and Dicions
Bradford THOMAS, JAMES, commission agent, Manchester; April 4, *
three, at office of Sol., Dewhurst, Manchester WARREN, WILLIAM HENRY, tailor, Exeter; April 20, at eleven,
at office of J. O Harris, Wreford, and Co., accountants, Excití. Sol., Higgins, Exeter WARWICK, HENRY, bootmaker, Harrow-rd, Paddington ; April
at half past three, at office of Rule and Head, accutants, Westbourne-grove, Bayswater. Sol., Yorke, Marylebone.ro WEIL, LOUIS, fancy timming manufacturer, Little Alest, Goodman's-tields, Whitechapel; April 2), at two, at ofices Ladbury, Cullinan, and Viney, cheapside. Sole., Lewis sod
Lewis, Ely.pl, Holborn WILSON, GEORGE ALLAX, commission agent, Liverpool; Aprile
at two, at ottice of Mr. Minguud, accountant, Lime-al, Liverpool Wilson, ROBERT, poulterer, Newcastle upon Tyne ; April , 2!
twelve, at office of Sol., Gibson, Newcasile-upon-Tyne WINTERBURX, Jons, auctioneer, Birkenhead, and I Ferpco!;
April 19, at two, at office of Lawrence and Dixon, Liverpoo Sok., Dixon
Orders of Discharge.
Gazette, April 5. POIXTON, SAMUEL, contractor, Hanley SIMMONS, DAVID, builder, Charlton Kings, near Cheltenham
BAXKRUPTS' ESTATES. The Official Assignees, &c., are given, to whom apply for the
Dividends. Dary, H. wine merchant, first and final, 5s. At offices of Trus G. Mayor, 20, Carlton-rd, Worksop.-Harmserik, Gwine ald chant, final, 5d. At office of Sol, Buckland, kingstas Thames.- Lubke, C. T. coul merchant, tirat and final, 1s. A: of Trust., Lovewell Blake, Hall-quay. Great Yarmouth.-Y. Telley, jun., Tetley, and Ward, manufacturers, second, is. A of Trust., 'C. J. Buckley, 43, Old-market, Bradford.-Pa.R. grocer, first, 105. At Trust., c. T. Starkty, 37, Cannaah Bu mingham.-Priestly and Reser, worsted stutt' manufactants, and final sep. of Koper, 205. At Trust., A. B. kemp, Hal In$"; Bradford. --Kinder, J. and s. contractors, first, lus. Ai cha Trust., T. Kendall, stone merchant, Shipley.
Professional Partnerships Dissolbed.
Gazette, March 29. COOPER, THOMAS, and COOPER, WILLIAM, attorneys and solici.
tors, Congleton and elsewhere. Mareh. Debts by W. Cooper. KNOTT, A. W. and H, N., attorneys, solicitors, and conveyancers,
Worcester. March 21. (Ambrose William Knott and Henry Nicholls Knott) Debts by A. W. Knott.
Gazette, April 2. GRAY, JOHNSTON, and MOOXSEY, attorneys and solicitors, Ray.
mond.bldgs. Gray'y im. March 30. (Thomas Johnston und
Ewart Simon Mounsey.) PROVIS and DONNITHORPE, attorneys and solicitors, Fareham. Jan. 31. (Thomas John Provis and Nicholas Dunnithorne.)
Debts by Donnithorne. SAWBRIDGE, CHARLES, and WREXTMORE, ISAAC HARRIS, attor.
neys and solicitors, Wood-st, Cheapside. March 30
daughted the late Charles Mount-ford Burnett,
Esa, N.1), Westomode House, Alton. CLARKE-GRAY.-On the oth inst., at All Saints, North Keesten
ton, Thomas Sinclair Clarke, Esq., of the Inter Temple, tr. ter-at-law, to Jane, second daughter of William Gray, Ess,
East Bolton, Northumberland, HARWOOD-PRATT.-On the 5th ult., John 1. Harrood. E444 barrister, Middle Temple, to Georgina L. Prats, rue Brest eldest daughter of the late A. . D. Brukne, Ext., Boyal Marines.
DEATHS. MALCOLM.-On the 5th inst., at Brighton, aged 79, Jelin Georgia
April 22, at one, at ottice of Sols., Press and Inskip. Bristol
surance Society. Bloomsbury.st, Beu Jord.sq; April 20. at hall.
office of Messrs. Smith, Lewis, and Jones, Merthyr Tydfil. Sol.,
office of Sols., Reed und Cook, Taunton
chmb, and wine merchant Guildhall-chimbs, Basinghall-st,
Sol., Kearsey, Old Jewry
20, at tw, ut office of Jessis. Berkeley and Calcott, Lincoln's.
inn-Helds. Sol., Calcott
at Chancery.chibs, Quality.ct, Chancery.la, Sol., Pain
19, at twelve, at office of Mr. Jucksun, accountant, Bristol
Sol., Fletcher, Vorthwich
Gazette, April 5.
Reg. Pepys. Sols. Messrs. Lumley, Old Jewry-chibs. Sur.
To surrender in the Country.
April 3. Reg. Iulton. Sur. April 17
April 2. Reg. Talbot. Sur. April 24
Dennis. Sur. April 20
Reg. Dennis. Sur. April 20
Marshall, Sur. April 24
Hulton. Sur. April 16
bourne. Pet. April... Reg. Gale. Sur. April
Pet. April 3. Reg. Watson. Sur. April 23
Malcolm, Esq., of 61, St. George's •quare, Belgravia, barrisid,
of the luner Temple, and Masur of ihe Crown office. SAUNDERS -On the stb inst., at the residence of his brother, the
Rectory, St. Luke's, Old Street, Charles Saunders, Es Pin c rder of Plymouth, Devonport, and Wells, and Judge is inte Sumeset hire County Courts.
To Readers and Correspondents.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Joux COLERIDGE) has consented to take the chair at the forthcoming annual festival of the United Law Clerks' Society, which will take place at the Freemasons' Tavern on Saturday the 8th of June.
All anonymous communications are invariably rejected.
not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith.
ONE of the three Recorderships vacated by the death of Mr. CHARLES SAUNDERS, that of Wells, was merely honorary, without salary and without work; but the Recorderships of Plymouth and Devonport are consolidated offices of some value. Previously to the appointment of Mr. Saunders they were held by two men; but they were united in him on a plea of economy--the union having been accompanied by a considerable diminution of the salaries. From the heavy nature of the business, however, it would be desirable that they should be again separated.
NOTICE. The LAW TIMES goes to press on Thursday evening, that it may be received in the remotest
parts of the country on Saturday morning. Communications and Adrertisements must be transmitted accordingly. None can appear that do not reach the office by Thursday
afternoon's post. When payment is made in postage stamps, not more than 5s. may be remitted at one time.
CON T ENTS.
We understand that it has been resolved by the leading law students' societies of the country to hold a congress in Birmingham in the latter part of next month, for the purpose of taking into consideration various matters affecting the interests of articled clerks. The congress will consist of delegates from the various societies, and will last two days. Papers will be read and speeches delivered on such questions as legal education; law students' societies, and how they can be made most useful; the examinations; law lectures, and on other subjects. Societies which have not received any communication on the question, and are desirous of sending delegates, should communicate at once with Mr. H. W. STANBURY, Birmingham ; Mr. J. T. WOODHOUSE, Hull; or Mr. W. T. HOLDEN, Liverpool, the secretaries of the respective societies in these towns.
263 RAVENSCROFT v. RAVEN SCROFT, SMITH,
AND WITHÁY (the Queen's Proctor Inter-
205 COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY. CHATFIELD , BERCHTOLDT
Legacy duty-Annuity for lives charged
V. C. MALINS' COURT.
274 R. TIE HERCULES INSURANCE COMPANY
(LIMITED) (Pugh's CASE; SHARMAN'S
277 Re THE BIRKEX HEAD BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY Company-Winding up
291 BEAK Y. BEAK
Donatio inortin caneg--Gift of cheque, and
281 ASTOX V. MEREDITH
Practice-Partition Act 1968 (31 & 32
281 VYSE 1. FOSTERPractice-Affidavit of documents 282
V.C. WICKENS' COURT.
C. 127 (An Act to Amend the Laws relat.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Landlord and Tenant--Lessor and les.
LEADING ARTICLES, &c. TO READERS AND CORRESPONDENTS 453 LEADING ARTICLES :Topics of the Week.
453 A Supreme Court of Appeal
45 Limited Interests in Consumable Chattels 456 The Qualification of Justices of the
457 STOCK MARKETS.
457 NOTES OF THE WEEK: House of Lords
459 Court of Appeal Chancery..
458 Rolls Court
458 V.C. Bacon's Court.
459 Court of Probate
459 LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE:House of Lords.......
459 House of Commons SOLICITORS' JOURNAL :Notes of New Decisions
463 Unclatined Stock and Dividends in the Bank of England
403 Creditors under Estates in Chancery 403 Creditors under 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35
46: Reports of Sales
463 MAGISTRATES' LAW: Borough Quarter Sessions
463 REAL PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING: Notes of New Decisions
464 COMPANY LAW:Notes of New Decisions
464 MERCANTILE LAWNotes of New Decisions
464 MARITIME LAW:Notes of New Decisions
464 COUNTY COURTS:Aberdare County Court
465 Chester County Court
465 Colne County Court
466 BANKRUPTCY LAW :Notes of New Decisions
466 Halllax Bankruptcy Court...
466 LEGAL NEWS............
467 CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PROFESSION NOTES AND QUERIES ON POINTS OF PRACTICE
467 LEGAL EXTRACTS:Prospects of the Bar as Affected by Recent Legislation.
467 LAW SOCIETIES:
Articled Clerks' Society
168 Hull Law Students' Society
468 Manchester Incorporated Law Association..
Whilst the LORD CHANCELLOR is busy about his great court of appeal, Mr. Bruce is equally diligent in giving to the world convincing evidence of the necessity for a properly constituted court for the hearing of appeals on questions of fact in criminal cases, and, we might add, the recommendations to mercy by juries in capital felonies. The LORD CHANCELLOR drew a telling picture of two high appellate courts giving contrary decisions on the same question, but this is hardly so remarkable as a court of appeal, exercising the prerogative of mercy, reversing its own deliberate judgment in the course of a few hours. The proceedings of Mr. BRUCE with respect to the reprieve of Patrick LENNARD are extremely curious; and no criminal who has an energetic clergyman amongst his acquaintances need abandon hope until he is absolutely on the drop, whatever intimations of hard-hearted resolves may have been received from the Home Office. If capital punishment is to be abolished, let it be done by Parliament, and not by the vacillating and frequently feminine action of a minister.
290 EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. TOLEMAS V. PURTBURY AND OTHERS... Ejectment
202 COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. Er parte GREENER, Re J. DOUGLAS AND Co., Fr parte SNOWBALL, Re SAMEDeparting out of England-Remaining abroad
THERE seems to be a peculiar craving in the present day for technical information on subjects of ordinary importance.
We have had questions of all sorts poured in upon us relative to the Tichborne case, and had we answered them all we should have gone some way towards the production of a treatise on the proceedings in an action at law. The daily papers were not so reticent, and entered into elaborate explanations of the technical points of the great case. The arrest of a Belgian in France, charged with a murder in England, has offered another opportunity for the display of legal learning, and the leading journal devotes a column of large type to the discussion of a point of law which the writer concludes by admitting “has no practical importance for us because the English law is clear that having, as alleged, committed a crime in this country against a person under the protection of our law, DIXBLANCS is liable to be tried here, and our courts will not inquire into the regularity of her arrest. It seems to us rather a waste of power to rake up principles from the old reports to prove nothing at all; but the process may possibly go some way towards preparing the country for the time when law will be taught in our schools--a period considered by some enthusiasts as by no means remote.
Some caustic comments have been passed upon the nature of the punishment inflicted upon the ruffians who have been found guilty, at the Old Bailey, of assaults upon women.
We do not for a moment suggest that such comments are not perfectly appropriate, but they should be accepted with a qualification. It should be remembered that courts of justice are wholly dependent upon the press for the opinion which the public may form regarding their proceedings, and there are frequently mitigating circumstances, more especially in cases of assaults upon women, which may suggest themselves to the Judge on observing the demeanour of witnesses, which are never brought to the attention of the public. An assault upon a woman is rarely unprovoked, and we are not at all sure that our Judges give too much weight to the plea of provocation. In a case in which Mr. Commissioner Kerr is said to have passed too light a sentence, one of the series of assaults was, indeed, said to have been wholly unprovoked. But, doubtless, there was a continuing quarrel. The Judge intimated to the jury that there was no intention on the part of the
It is understood that the Recorder is to be elevated to the Peerage on his return from his present mission-a fit reward for his many public services. Sir T. CHAMBERS will certainly be elected to the Recordership that will then be vacated, and the Common Serjeantcy will be open to competition. Mr. Serjt. Robinson and Mr. Besley are the only candidates whose names have yet been mentioned in connection with the probable vacancy.
VOL. LII.-No. 1516
prisoner to inflict actual bodily harm. There must have been some good ground for such intimation, for the learned commissioner is by no means a lenient Judge. In all probability were the cases upon which strictures have been passed more thoroughly known, with every little incident of a trial made plain as it is to an impartial Judge, the critics would be less severe. We do not, however, apprehend any serious consequences to Mr. Commissioner KERR, who is remarkable among Judges for his contempt of public opinion.
the court proceed to inquire, “is the effect of this rule when applied in a joint action against several joint debtors ? Certainly not that it shall sever the judgment, which in a joint action ex contractu would be an anomaly. In such a proceeding if evidence is offered of an acknowledgment or payment by one only of the defendants it is strictly inadmissible, unless indeed offered to be followed by a similar acknowledgment or payment by the others, which would be sufficient to take the case out of the statute as to all. It follows that in this case the jury should have been instructed to find for the plaintiff as against all the defendants only the amount of the second instalment and interest. Whether the plaintiff could maintain an action against those not affected by the bar of the statute in consequence of their acknowledgment or payment for the first instalment, need not now be discussed, nor on what principles contribution between the joint debtors is to be regulated. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof."
The new Licensing Bill has been introduced in the House of Lords. The object of it is not revolutionary or extreme: it is not to disturb existing interests, but to limit the number of licences, and to prevent by stringent police regulations the abuses of the present publichouse and beerhouse system. The granting of licences is not to be taken out of the hands of the magistrates, but no new licence is to be valid until approved by the SECRETARY of State. The magistrates are to appoint a moderate number as a committee to grant new licences, and the only duty of the full Bench will be to confirm or disapprove the acts of the committee. As to the renewal of old certificates no change is proposed. All questions of *renewals will continue to be dealt with at Brewster Sessions subject to an appeal to Quarter Sessions. The Bill does not give to the ratepayers any direct control over the issue of new licences, but any person who objects to the transfer, renewal or grant of a new licence will be entitled to appear before the Brewster Sessions, from which an appeal is to lie to the Quarter Sessions, or to the confirming body in the case of a new licence. Such objectors, however, must give security for costs, and on the objections proving frivolous or vexatious, may be ordered to compensate the publican. A register is to be kept of serious and repeated offences on the part of publicans and beerhouse keepers, and the penalty for drunkenness is to be increased from 5s. to 10s. There are detailed regulations in the Bill for the opening and closing of public houses. There is nothing remarkable in the Bill, and the only doubt raised at the present stage is whether the committee of revision is a good invention. Experience will be the best teacher on the subject, and as an appeal lies to the Quarter Sessions little harm can result.
A SUGGESTION is made by a contemporary that County Court Judges should in no case commit a debtor to prison without being clear, in the first place, that he bas the means to pay; that is to say, that the principle of the Debtors' Act should be more strictly carried into effect. * Both creditor and debtor, in the opinion of the Daily Telegraph, would gain enormously by the abolition of imprisonment for debt. The writer who puts forward these observations is evidently unfamilar with the system of County Court commitments. He calls it “the facile County Court com. mitment,” and is evidently under the impression that a creditor has merely to go to a County Court Judge, and on his own statement obtain an order for commitment. Now, by the Debtors' Act Rules of Jan. 1870, it was provided by the County Court Judges appointed to frame them, that “no order of commitment under the Act shall be made unless a summons to appear and be examined on oath, hereinafter called a judgment summons, shall have been personally served upon the judgment debtor." Further, every judgment summons shall be issued ten clear days and served five clear days before the day on which the judgment debtor is required to appear. And as showing the intention of the Judges to require strict proof of the ability of the debtor to pay, Rule 12 says:
Any witness may be summoned to prove the means of the judgment debtor, in the same manner as witnesses are summoned to give evidence upon the hearing of a plaint." This procedure hardly justifies the description of " the facile County Court com. mitment.” And as a matter of fact, we know that County Court Judges are very reluctant to commit, and only do so upon proper evidence and in extreme cases. To exempt debtors from imprisonment, is to relieve their future income of all li#ility for past debts, a principle which is distinctly repudiated in our recent bankruptcy statute, and we cannot agree with our contemporary, that the power of imprisonment exercised as it is by our County Court Judges could be advantageously abolished. Its existence is certainly no argument in favour of Mr. Bass's ridiculous Bill for the abolition of small debts.
MR. VERNON HARCOURT succeeded in defeating a very objectionable clause which it was proposed to insert in the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill. Mr. LEATHAM brought forward a clause providing that no voter shall, after marking his vote on his ballot paper, wilfully display such paper in such manner as to make known to any person the name of the candidate for or against whom he has so marked his vote." This proposition plainly discovers the difficulty of Parliament in attempting to do two things in one measure, to give protection to voters, and to punish offences. To make the ballot optional would obviously be absurd. It is equally absurd to make secresy compulsory. But if ballot papers be shown, intimidation and bribery will still be possible, said the supporters of the proposed clause; to which it was replied that under any conditions corrupt practices will be possible. The only thing to be done is that which Mr. Harcourt suggested,--provide for the punishment of a voter showing his paper with a corrupt intent. "We are surprised to see that the Daily News fails to appreciate any distiction between the words “ wilful” and “ with corrupt intent," for this singular reason, that the intention must be proved.” What intention? In the one case an innocent intention, and in the other a corrupt intention; the first not punishable by any known law, and the second a well recognised element in criminal offences. To say that unless a corrupt intent were proved in the case of a wilful act, no conviction could follow, is to accept Mr. HARCOURT's argument and to condemn the proposed clause. It is simply and absolutely impossible to render a voter criminally liable for an act perfectly innocent in itself. Secrecy cannot be made compulsory, and no Act could stand the test of actual practice which attempted to make it so. As Mr. HARCOURT says, the criminal intent being absent, no Judge would direct a conviction, and no jury would convict.
We had recently (Law Times, vol. lii. p. 403) to point out the inconveniences likely to arise from the withdrawal of questions arising under the winding-up of life assurance companies from the ordinary tribunals, and their submission to a special arbitrator appointed by statute. We endeavoured to impress upon our readers that the decisions of Lord Cairns in the Albert arbitration, or of any arbitrator howevereminent appointed under similar conditions “are and ought to be treated as valueless as part of our case law, however great the temptation may be to cite them as authorities in our regular courts; whilst on the other hand the arbitration court itself would do well to remember that the judgments of even inferior conrts
as such binding upon it and not to be disregarded or departed from." In a case in the Rolls Court on the 16th inst., in Re The English Assurance Company, Holdich's Cas", Lord ROMILLY had to choose whether he should follow a decision of the present Lord Justice James when Vice-Chancellor in Re The Albert Life Assurance Company; Bell's and other cases (22 L. T. Rep. N. S, 697), or a decision of Lord Cairns in the Albert arbitration in Lancaster's case.
The question at issue was as to the true method of valuation, or measure of proof, in respect of current policies in the liquidation of a life office. Sir W. MI. JAMEs, in the case before referred to, held that the true measure of proof is the sum which a substantial and solvent company, with a substantial proprietary, something like (the liquidating company, baring exactly, or as nearly as possible, the same rates of assurance, would take to continue the policy at the subsisting premium. Lord Cairns, on the other hand, thought the measure of proof was the present value of the sum assured, less the present value of the future premiums payable; and, as we infer from the remarks of Lord Romilly, such values were to be ascertained by abstract mathematical formulæ, and without regarding the state of health of tho insured, either at the time of the winding-up or of the claim or proof. We are pleased to see that Lord ROMILLY followed the decision of Sir W. M. JAMES in preference to that of Lord Cairns, not merely because the decision of Lord Cairns, even if it had not been opposed to an authority which was binding upon him as an arbi, trator, is in reality no authority at all, but also because we feel
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has been discussing the question whether the Statute of Limitations is a bar to an action on a note due by instalments. "If,” say the court," the plaintiff could have maintained a suit for the first instalment immediately after it fell due, his cause of action then accrued, and the statute of limitations began to run. It is unnecessary to inquire what the law would have been if this had been an action of debt and the plea actio non accrevit infra sex annos, for as we have seen an action of debt could not have been maintained on this promissory note until after all the instalments had fallen due. But being assumpsit there would seem to be no question that as to the first instalment the action was barred.” Another question discussed in the same case had reference to the effect of an acknowledgment by one of several joint debtors in an action brought against them jointly. Observing that it is no longer open to question that a payment on account or an acknowledgment by one of two or more joint debtors will not take the case out of the statute as to the others, “What,"
that the loss sustained by persons insured in a life office which fails sonal prejudice on the part of this House." We had not read his ought to be estimated by actual and practical, and not by purely Lordship's brief speech when we wrote the opening of this article, mathematical, considerations.
and we observe that he concurs with us that it was by no means a proper or necessary course to go into the history of the juris
diction of the House of Lords. " It has been as completely settled A SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL.
as the jurisdiction of any other court in the country, and it has The history of the jurisdiction of the House of Lords with which been exercised for better or for worse for a very long period of Lord HATHERLEY favoured the Peers on Monday was doubtless time.” That simple fact was all that it was necessary to state in exhaustive, and gives a very clear idea of the condition of one of order to found the proposition of Lord HATHERLEY. our chief appellate courts. We are nevertheless of opinion that To proceed to the constitution of the proposed court. That it the speech might have been advantageously abridged. In all should be presided over by the LORD CHANCELLOR we cannot admit history there is a period anterior to which the modern student to be essential. Very recently we have had occasion frequently does not consider it desirable or necessary to carry his investiga- to complain of the loose manner in which much of the business tions, and the LORD CHANCELLOR might profitably have confined which falls outside the scope of the judicial duties of that learned his attention to the precise limits covered by his intended Bill. Judge has been transacted. When we reflect upon the extent of “The Bill,” he said, “which I shall hereafter introduce is confined the patronage vested in the LORD CHANCELLOR, and the important entirely to the appellate jurisdiction which this House exercises in and onerous labours which devolve upon him as a minister of the respect of common law and equity in England and of civil proceed- Crown, and Speaker of the House of Lords, it is impossible to say ings in Scotland, and also to the appellate jurisdiction exercised by that he could actually and efficiently preside over a court sitting five it in respect of cases arising in Ireland.” Then he adds, “ I have days a week throughout the legal year. His presence in the court not confined my investigations to those particular objects;" and would be occasional, or, if constant, the work must inevitably inthereupon he launches into an historical dissertation, which was terfere with the discharge of his other duties. Nor do we see that certainly unnecessary to convince anyone who has the slightest it is necessary or desirable that the Chiefs of the Common Law knowledge of the subject, that the exercise of an appellate jurisdic- Courts should be members of the court. Now that the tion by a fluctuating and narrow body of law lords must have courts at Westminster can sit in two divisions it is frequently a ridiculous results.
difficult matter to form the courts so as to grapple with the We put on record in another column this dissertation, as we business, and it is very undesirable that the chiefs should be taken admit it to be, as Lord HATIERLEY says, interesting.
away to sit in a court of appeal. But putting aside these four ceed to the actual question, we find it thus stated—“ How members what remains ?- English and Irish ex-Lord Chancellors, really to secure a court of appeal which shall sit as a court, noble lords who can claim even by the fact of having practised as which shall be a real and not a sham court, which shall barristers, to be called “ law lords,” and Privy Councillors eligible excrcise jurisdiction by its members sitting, not as
for the Judicial Committee. Here we have an ample field of mittee of the House to whom they are supposed to be respon- selection for the first division of the court, the second division, sible, but to whom, in fact, they owe no responsibility whatever, according to the plan of the LORD CHANCELLOR, being filled by the which shall take upon itself the whole responsibility and sit, as members of the Privy Council now forming the Judicial Comother courts do, throughout the whole legal year, for the adminis- mittee. As regards the chiefs of the Common Law Courts however, tration of justice.”
we should be very glad to see them made eligible for election to the To put the CHANCELLOR's proposal clearly we will state it in Court of Appeal as paid members on retiring from their own courts. paragraphs.
At present Judges continue to hold their positions because they I. There shall be one Great Court of Appeal.
are disinclined to lapse into a life of inactivity, upon a pension so II. The Great Court shall be formed in two divisions, but the very much smaller than their official salaries. We observe that
judges of one division not to be incapable of sitting in the members of the new Court of Appeal are not to be required to other.
serve after attaining seventy years of age, and it might perhaps (a) In the one division English and Irish Ex-Chancellors be difficult to induce Common Law Judges to resign before that
of specified standing, and Law Lords, who, as barristers, period of life. But we consider that it would be a wise provision have practised for a certain number of years, and Privy that chiefs of the Common Law Courts should not hold their apCouncillors who are now capable of being appointed to pointments after attaining sixty-five, but that on arriving at that sit on the Judicial Committee.
age they should become members of the Court of Appeal with (6) In the other division, tne members now forming the £6000 a year. There are many Judges admirably fitted for the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and others to more solemn business of an appellate court who are almost inbe elected.
capable of sitting at Nisi Prius. This is not often the case with a III. In each division there shall be not less than three nor more Common Law Chief; but there are other reasons which might
than four paid members receiving £6000 a year, and Ex- render it desirable for a Chief to retire, and election to a Court of Lord Chancellors to receive such a sum annually in Appeal would enable him to do so with a gain rather than a loss addition to their pensions, as will raise their allowance to of dignity.
The one serious difficulty which appears at present to be in the IV. The head of the court to be the LORD CHANCELLOR.
way of LORD CHANCELLOR is connected with the abolition of a V. The three chiefs of the Common Law Courts to be members fiction, namely, the supposed sanction of the Sovereign to the of the court.
judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
. The VI. A certain number of years' service to be necessary to entitle idea of appellants from countries out of Great Britain is that the
members of the court to a pension, but in other respects appeal, not to an English court, but to the Queen in Council. the offices to be held upon the same footing as judgeships There is undoubtedly much in this, as a species of superstition, and in the Common Law Courts.
absolutely nothing in it as a matter of fact. Lord Cairns recogThe practical effect of this scheme, as sketched by the LORD nises this as a large and important question. The colonies have unCHANCELLOR, will be this :
doubtedly very great respect for the decisions of the Privy 1. To secure continuous sittings from November to February of Council and an appeal to the Queen in person, though known to
not less than five days a week, Saturdays being possibly be a mere form, is a link in the chain which binds them to the devoted to preparing judgments.
mother country. The question put by Lord Cairns is perfectly 2. To unite in one court the appellate jurisdiction of the Court justifiable: “Is the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee to be of Chancery and the Exchequer Chamber.
abolished without any consultation with the colonies, and without 3. Probably to diminish the very heavy fees now payable before their having an opportunity of offering an opinion upon it ?” If
a case can be set down for hearing in the House of Lords. so, it is his Lordship's opinion that it would be one of the strongest The prominent consideration in the mind of the LORD CHAN- measures ever taken in this country. cellor evidently was the effect which a transfer of jurisdiction It would be premature to go more fully into this or any might have upon the position and the dignity of the House of other question arising out of the proposals of the Lord CHANLords. Indeed, he would not have proceeded by resolution in the CELLOR until the Bill is before us, but we do not first place had he not desired to pay the utmost deference to the that there could be any great difficulty in making one division of sensitive feelings of the House. Nevertheless he adroitly prepared the court the court to advise the Sovereign on appeals from India the way for the inevitable conclusion by informing their Lordships and the colonies. The dissatisfaction of Ireland at having her that the original exercise of the appellate jurisdiction met with appeals disposed of by a court not being in name the House of considerable opposition, and had been frequently opposed during Lords, may perhaps be met by the provision making Ex-Lord its existence. We do not desire to see any institution hastily Chancellors of Ireland eligible for the Court of Appeal. In short abolished, but it is hardly possible to regard with patience any the two divisions of the Court might take those portions of the suggestion that a desire on the part of the House of Lords to part business now transacted by the House of Lords and the Judicial with nothing which they now possess which adds to their power Committee respectively, admiralty appeals being heard by the and importance in the country should be allowed even to impede division not represented by the Judicial Committee. An important so obvious a reform as the amalgamation of the courts of appeal. question of principle is involved in the proposed consolidation of And it is satisfactory to find that Lord Cairns at once disposed of jurisdiction, and the proposals of the Lord CHANCELLOR require the question of prejudice. He remarked “ I am sure I need not graver consideration than can be bestowed upon them if they are say, for myself, and everyone of your Lordships, that the question to be treated as matters of detail only. Before details are reached of appellate jurisdiction is one upon which there should be no per- the great principles must be settled with scrupulous care.
£6000 a year.