« EelmineJätka »
CORRESPONDENCE OF THE between the parties, makes no claim upon A.'s estate.
LIVERPOOL LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. 26. Donatio MORTIS Causa.-A., who is in peril of A MEETING of this society was held on Thursday, NOTE.-This department of the Law TIMES being open to
death, delivers, as a gift, into the hand of B. 10001. in Nov. 16, at the Law Library, Booth-street, Mr. free discussion on all professional topics, the Editor is not cash, but makes no condition that it shall not take effect responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it. in the event of his recovering from his existing
disorder, T. E. Stephens in the chair. The subject for dig
though such a condition would be implied. Can this be cussion was “Is it desirable to create life peerages FRAUDS IN MARRIAGE SETTLEMENTS.-Can liable to legacy duty? If so, how is the distinction to treated as & donatio mortis causa, and consequently
or otherwise to alter the constitution of the
House of Lords ?” The debate was any of your readers supply me with the name and be drawn between it and a gift inter vivos when made teresting one, and various opinions were expressed report of a case decided in equity where it was shortly before death ?
on the subject. held that an ante-nuptial settlement by a husband, who was indebted at the time to such an amount By whom should the costs of affidavits, summonses, &c.; 27. THE BANKRUPTCY Act 1869-DEBTOR'S SUMMONS.
JURIDICAL SOCIETY. as to render his settlement practically a fraud be paid in the event of the debtor discharging the The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, upon his creditors, could not be sustained ? I re- liability within the time prescribed on the summons? Nov. 29, at eight p.m. precisely, when Mr. P. collect reading a report of the case and some very I am disposed to think by a creditor resorting to this Vernon Smith will read a paper on “ The effect of trenchant remarks by you upon it at the time, and very summary process he should pay the costs, there I think it is six or seven years ago. being nothing in the Act to impose them upon the
the contemplated fusion of law and equity on the debtor ?
English law of contract.” Mr. Quain, Q.C. will
preside. The council will meet at half-past STAMPS.-SIR,- In the published report of The
Answers. Incorporated Law Society of Liverpool for the
(Q.11.) LIQUIDATION BY ARRANGEMENT.-Secured cre. HULL LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. present year is the following:
ditors may either rest on their securities, and so compel Ar an ordinary meeting of this society, held on Under the Stamp Act 1870, a question of importance the trustee to redeem, or apply to have their securities Tuesday evening last (the president, H. Cook, to the public and Profession has arisen. Subjoined are realised under the direction of the court. So also, if the Esq., in the chair), Mr. Wray introduced for dis. copies of letters to and from the Commissioners of
secured creditor is desirous of voting in the choice of a Inland Revenue in the matter.
trustee, he may prove under sect. 16, Part IV., of the cussion the" Primogeniture" question, and moved Incorporated Law Society of Liverpool,
Bankruptcy Act 1869 : (See rules 78, 99, 100, and 101 ; also "That in the opinion of the meeting the law of 14, Cook-street, Liverpool, 4th Oct. 1871.
Robson's Bankruptcy, p. 244. See also sect. 125, sub- primogeniture should be abolished.” Mr. Wood. Gentlemen,--I am directed by the Incorporated Law
Z. Y house seconded the motion, and Mr. J. Cook Society of Liverpool to write to you upon the proper
argued in favour of maintaining the present law. construction of the Stamp Act 1870, with reference to (13.) CONDITION OF SALE.-The condition or question Considerable discussion followed, in which the that part of the Schedule which is comprised under the does not preclude a purchaser from requiring all the words “ Admission and appointment or grant by any deeds essential to a sixty years' title to be abstracted president and Messrs. Jackson, Glover, Spink, writing to or of any office or employment," and the and
produced. It is very different
from a condition
that and Hall took part. The motion was ultimately sections bearing upon it, such sections being, as is con. the title shall commence with any given deed. The carried by a majority of one. ceived, the 21st, 20th, 30th, 33rd, 34th, and 35th. In the condition referred to would preclude a purchaser from case of an ordinary Joint Stock Company, appointments saying that there pever was any such deed as recited, are nearly always made by a resolution in the minute but not from objecting that, by reason of its absence, PROMOTIONS & APPOINTMENTS book, and so with regard to municipal corporations, he would not bave adequate evidence in support of his workhouses, pauper asylums, gaols, county sessions, title. A reference in the condition to the loss of the (X.B.-Announcements of promotions being in the nature and so on. My committee think that if the true con particular deed, or to the specific defect, is, in general, of advertisernents, are charged 28. 6d. each, for which struction of the Act be that all officers of such institu. to be recommended as being much less lively to dis. postage stamps should be inclosed.] tions who may be appointed by minute, either with or credit the sale than a more sweeping condition: (See without a letter notifying the appointment, are to be Warde v. Dickson, 7 W. R. 148 ; 1 Davidson on Convey. The name of Mr. Joseph Rayner, formerly of considered within the Act, the fact onght to be exten. ancing, 444, 3rd edit.)
Z. Y. Slead House, near Huddersfield, Yorkshire, now sively known. I am therefore directed to ask, for the
of West-bank, Blundell Sands, Liverpool, soli. information of the Society, and, through them, of the (Q. 14.) BARRING ENTAIL. — " Articled Clerk" con: citor, and Town Clerk of Liverpool, and previously public, what construction has been put by you on the founds the grantor of the quasi etail and the cestui of Bradford, has been inserted in the Commission Act, as to the classes of persons affected by it.-I am, qui vie, who need not necessarily be the same person. Gentlemen, your obedient servant, I suppose his question is, Does the simple conveyance
of the Peace for the West Riding of Yorkshire. F. ARCHER, Hon. Sec. bar the reversion to the grantor ? I should think To the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, not, else how could the estate be a quasi entail ?
Dr. Robert C. Fluker, J. P., has been appointed Somerset House.
Sheriff for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
Say tbat land is limited to A. and the heirs of his Sir,-The Board of Inland Revenue have had before body during the life of B. : how can it be supposed that then your letter of the 4th ins..., requesting informa. the reversion expectant on B.'s death can be affectel by
LEGAL OBITUARY. tion as to the proper construction of the Stamp Act anything A. may do?
Z. Y. 1870, as regards the charge of duty, uuder the bead
H. R. EVANS, ESQ. "Admission and Appointment of Grant" by any writing (Q. 16.) FRADULENT MISREPRESENTATION.-The transto or of any office or employment, and as to the classes action seems to resolve itself into three parts : First, a
The late Hugh Robert Evans, Esq., solicitor, of of persons affected by it. It is, of course, impossible to purchase by A. and B., as agents or trustees for A.'s Ely, who died on the 25th Oct., in the sixty-sixth specify all the classes of persons affected by the charge aon ; secondly, a payment by A. and B. by direction of year of his age, was the eldest son of the late to which your letter refers. It will probably afford A.'s son of a moiety of the purchase money to the Hugh Robert Evans, Esq., of Ely. He was born suficient information to acquaint you that all appoint; vendor; and, thirdly, the giving of a promissory pote in the year 1805, and was educated at Bary ments by any writing to office, or employment held by A. and B. under the like direction to the vendor for during good behaviour, or otherwise, of a permanent the other moiety of the purchase money.
In the Grammar School, admitted a solicitor in 1827, and character, were prior to the Stamp Act, 1870, and are absence of express contract to the contrary, there has practised with considerable success since that pow under that Act liable to ad valorem stamp duty. appears to be an implied assumpsit on the part of the period. In 1850 he was appointed clerk of the I may add that where an appointment is made by a son to repay A. and B. forth with the moneys already peace for Cambridgeshire, besides which appointresolution recorded in a minute book, and there is no paid, and to furnish them with funds to satisfy the other writing of appointment which is duly stamped, promissory vote at maturity. If this be so, A. and B.
ment he held many others, amongst which may be the resolution is the writing liable to the stamp duty. can prove, discount being allowed on the 'sum repre: mentioned those of secretary to the Bishop of Ely, I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
sented by the note. Any sum which A. and B. may chapter clerk and registrar to the Dean and
Wx. LOMAS. recover as plaintiffs agaivst the vendor, or any rednc. Chapter of Ely, deputy.registrar of the Diocese of The subject is one of universal application. I tion from the full amount of the note, which they may Ely, clerk to the magistrates of the Ely division, think that a comparison of the Acts will show
obtain by a successful defence, would, I think, be receiver and expeditor-general to the Bedford that they differ, and beyond all doubt the sections
deemed part of the bankrupt's assets. I think also
that A. and B. would be compellable to lend their Level Corporation, treasurer to the Ouse Outfall are new, and carry the law far beyond what it
names to the trustee in bankruptcy, for the purpose of Board, clerk to the Wash Commissioners, Road was prior to 1870. Every attorney is in some way any action or suit in reference to the alleged misrepre. Trustees, &c. He was twice married, and leaves interested, and the matter requires ventilation. - sentations.
Z. Y. a widow and five children. His second son (Mr. I am, Sir, yours obediently, T. M.
William Johnson Evans), succeeds him in his (Q. 17.) MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT.-The Act practice and in most of his appointments. The has nothing to do with the question. If the shares be remains of the deceased were interred in the ceme
separate estate, a married woman could always hold NOTES AND QUERIES ON them. I know of nothing to prevent her name being on
tery at Ely. the register.
Z. Y. POINTS OF PRACTICE.
W. CRUISE, ESQ. (Q. 18.) REMAINDER.-The words "unto such of his said The late William Cruise, Esq., barrister-at-law,
grandson's lineal descendant or descendants as at the who died at his residence at Rahood, near Kells, NOTICE.-We must remind our correspondents that this time of his decease sbould be bis heir or heirs at law'
in the county of Meath, on the 25th Oct., was the column is not open to questions involving points of law
are unquestionably words of purebase, and would be so such as a solicitor should be consnlted upon. Queries wil
second son of the late William Piers Cruise, Esq., be excluded which go beyond our limits.
even if there were not superadded words of limitation, X.B.-Xone are inserted unless the name and address of the
Doe v. Garlick (14 M. & W. 698). As therefore the appli. Q.C. The deceased gentleman, who was a magis. sriters are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a
cation of the rule in Shelley's case is entirely excluded, trate for the county of Dublin, was called to the guarantee for bona fides.
R. B. F. takes only an estate for life with remainder to Bar at Dublin in Trinity Term in 1814.
THE GAZETTES. of hired cabs or carriages by a candidate at a municipal real and personal representatives : (Monkhouse . Holme election illegal ? If so, a reference to the statute or
1 Bro. C. c. 228; Blamire v. Geldart, 16 Ves. 314), and Professional Partnerships Dissolbed. case on the point will oblige. Would it make any difference if the candidate employed his own carriage
many other cases.
Gazette, Nor. 7. for the conveyance of voters ?
z. Y. ancers, Thorne. Oct. 31. 24. EQCITABLE MORTGAGE SECURITY.-A., who is one
Gazette, Nov. 10. of a number of trustees of a chapel, wishes to make (Q. 21.) WESLEYAN MINISTER. --No; vide 3 Geo. 4, STEPHENs and sos, attorneys and solicitors, Maidstone. Sopt. 30. an advance of 2501 , on mortgage of the chapel land avd c. 126, s. 32, and Smith (app.) v. Barnet (resp.), 40 L. J. (John Cribb Stephens and John Beeching Stephens.) premises, but is advised he cannot do so, on the princi. Rep. 15, Q. B. M. C.
C.C. ple that a man cannot convey to himself. In like
Bankrupts. man per can A, with safety, lend the money on
AN EVENING BEVERAGE-GACA'OINE. The Food equitable security, i.e., deposit of deeds and a promis.
Gazette, Nov. 17. acry nute, sigued by all the trustees (sans se), which be
Journal says:-By a new process to which the nibs are is willing to do and take on himself all risks ?
To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street.
subjected, the principal part of the oil is effectually
Sols. Murray and Hutchins, Birchin.la. or evening use, as a substitute for tea, being the result. 85. LEGACY DUTY.- A., by his will, bequeaths an The Alvour of Caca'oine will, in addition, be a great MIRABITA, FERDINAND, merchant, Old Brond. t. Pet. Nov. 10. unconditional legar y of 1 1001, sterling to B. *B. receives attraction to all." - Each packet or tin is labelled, Reg. Murray. Sol. Sydney. Finsbury circus. Sur. Nov. 28 from A, 10001, in casi, a few hours before the latter's JAMES E & Co., Homeopathic Chemists, London." MURE, WILLIAM THOMAS HENRY STRANGE, distiller, West Ham,
and Alfred pl, West Brompton, and Wanstead.pk, under styles decease, and, being satisfied that the gift was in lieu of Also makers of Epps's Milky Caca'oine (Caca'oine and of Metcall and Co., and Mure and Co. Pet. Dec. 1. Reg. Hazlitt. the legacy, though no words to that effect passed ' Condensed Milk.)
Sols. Nash, Field, and Co., Suffolk-la. Sur. Dec. 1
Pet. Nov. 11.
To surrender in the Country. ACE, GEORGE, ship chandler, Swansea. Pet. Nov. 14. Reg. Morris.
Sur. Nov. 28 BARNES, JOHN WILLIAM, builder, Adolphus-st, Deptford. Reg.
Farnfield. Sur. Nov. 28 EDMONDS, JOIN SALISBURY, Are brick manufacturer, Glyn
Heath. Pet. Nov. 13. Reg. Morgan. Sur. Nov. 28 FULLAGER, HENRY, farmer, Mereworth. Pet. Nov. 14.
Reg. Scudamore. Sur. Dec. 5 HAYWOOD, FREDERICK MICHAEL, scrivener, Derby. Pet. Xor, 15.
Reg. Weller. Sur. Noy. NEW, STEPAEN, printer, Sheffield. Pet. Nov. 4. Reg. Wake.
Sur. Dec. 7 PICK, JOHN, carpenter, Quadring. Pet. Nov. 11. Reg. Gaches.
Sur. Nov. 29 REED), THOMAS, cattle dealer, Salford. Pet. Nov. 14. Reg.
Hulton. Sur. Nov. 29 RENSHAW, WILLIAM, watchmaker, Northampton. Pet. Nov. 8.
Reg. Dennis. Sur. Dec, 2 SEYMOUR, GEORGE, brewer. Wednesbury. Pet. Nov. 14. Reg. Clarke. Sur. Dec. 4
Gazette, Nov. 21. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. PARKER, GEORGE, víctualler, Dean-st, Soho. Pet. Nov. 17. Reg. Murray. Sur. Dec. 5
To surrender in the Country. Box, JOHY, wine merchant, Cheltenham. Pet. Nov. 18. Reg.
Gale. Sur. Dec. 0 FERRIS, JOHN PARDOE, of Heybridge. Pet. Nov, 17. Dep.- Reg.
Gepp. Sur. Dec. 8 JOHNSON, THOMAS, hotel keeper, Llandudno. Pet. Nov. 17. Reg.
Jones. Sur. Dec. 7 JULIAN, ROBERT, farmer, Truro. Pet. Nov. 18. Reg. Chilcott.
Sur. Dec. 2 LITTLER, JOSEPH, hotel keeper, Bangor. Pet. Nov. 18. Reg.
Jones, Sur. Dec. 7 MASON, WILLIAM, provision dealer, Harborne. Pet. Nov. 17,
Rek. Watson. Sur. Dec. 4
Alleyne. Sur. Dec. 4
Chauntler. Sur. Dec. 5
Sur. Dec. 7 SIMPSON, HENRY, woollen merchant, Stretford, near Manchester, Pet. Nov. 18. Reg. Hulton. Sur. Dec, 6
Gazette, Nov. 17. JENNINGS, THOMAS GEORGE, and JENNINGS, JAMES, plumbers,
Whitechapel-rd. June 27, 1871
HAYTON, Joux, labourer, Stockton-on-Tees; Nov.'s, at three, at
office of Sol., Johnstone, Stockport
of Sol., Carr, Leeds HIGGS, HIERRY, hatter, Bristol, Nov. 29, at twelve, at office of
Messrs. Williams and Co., pubiic accountants, Bristol. Sols.,
Press and Inskip, Bristol HOLT, ROBERT, and PARKER, JOHN, oontractors, Bradford; Dec.
4, at two, at office of Sol., Hutchinson, Bradford HORSMAN, FREDERICK, out of employment, Morpeth. ter,
Victoria.pk; Dec. 4, at three, at office of Sol., Knapp, Cole.
man.st HUGHES, DAVID, licensed victualler, Bangor; Dec. 8, at two, at
office of Sol., Foulkes, Bangor HUGHES, RICHARD EDWARD, grocer, Rhyl; Dec. 5, at ten, at
Office of Sol., Williams. Rhyl HUSTWAYTE, JOHN DYM CK, lace manufncturer, Nottingham ;
Dec. 11, at twelve, at office of Sol.. Brittle, Nottingham KAYE, HENRY, builder, Dartield; Dec. 7, at twelve, at the King's
Head hotel, Barnsl. y MARKS, ABRAHAM MARKS, manufacturer of fancy goods, Middle
ton-rd, Kingsland.ro; Dec. 4, at four, at offices of H. A. Dubois, public accountant, Gre-ham-bidys, Basinghall.st MORRIS, WILLIAM, cotton spinner, Chorlton upon Medlock; Dec
3, at three, at the Clarence hotel, Spring gardens, Manchester. Sols, Partington and Allen, Manchester MOTTRAM JOSEPH, hoster, Bath; Dec. 6, at half past twelve, at
the Guildhall Coffee house. Sols., Simmons and Clark, Bath MYERS, REBECCA, jeweller, Scarborough; Dec, 11, at eleven, at
office of Sols., Messrs. Hodgson, Birmingham PARNOS, GEORGE JOHN, solicitor, Strand, Harlemere, and Saint
Augustine's.rd, Camden-sq: Dec. 14, at three, at offices of SOLR.,
Lawrance, Plews, and Co., Old Jewry.chmts PERKINS, RICHARD WILLIAM, and PERKINS, FRANCIS HEINE.
KEN, coal merchants, New Dock, par. Llanelly, Dec. 4, at twelve, at the Town hall, Llanelly. Sol., Johnson, Llaneily PHILPOTT, WILLIAM, baker, Winchester; Dec. 1, at eleven, at
office of Sol., Godwin, Winchester PRIE, FREDERICK, labourer, Burton-on-Trent; Dec. 7, at eleven,
at office of Sol., Stephenson, Burton-on-Trent PROCTOR, JOHN WELLAHD, fruit salesman, Park-st, Camberwell,
and Bo ough Market, Southwark; Dec. t, at twelve, at the King's Head Tavern, Southwark. Sol., Ody, Trinity-st, South
wark PROCTOR, WILLIAM, carver, Nottingham; Dec. 6, at twelve, at
Office of Herbert, accountant Nottingham. Sol., Wilson REEVES, THOMAS, brickmaker's manager, Honeywell; Dec. 7, at
two, ac office of Sol., Welch, Longton RICHARDS, JOHN, beerhoune keeper, Madeley; Deo. 4, at three, at
office of Sol., Phillips, Shifnal RICHARDSON, JAMES, jun, hat maker, Liverpool, Dec. 7, at twelve, at the Thatched House hotel, Newmarket-pl, Market-4,
Manchester. Sol., Lupton, Liverpool ROBERTS, JOHS THOMAS, beerhouse manager, Blackfriars-rd;
Nov. 6, at eleven, at office of Sol., Russel, Walbrook SADLER, S6PTIMUS JOHN, boot dealer, Oldbury, Dec. 4, at eleven
at office of Sol., Shakespeare, Oldbury SALE, ELEANOR, widow, Lamberhurst: Dec. 1, at eleven, at 23,
Church-rd, Tunbridge Wells. Sols., Stone, Wall, and Simpson,
Tunbridge Wells SMITH, GEORGE, heald knitter, Blackburn; Dec. 1, at eleven, at
offices of Sols., T. and R. C. Radcliffe, Clackburn SWALES, ALONZO, dealer in paper hangings, Liverpool.rd, Isling.
ton; Nov. 3), at three, at the Angel Hotel, Pentinville.ro TAYLOR, THOMAS STOKES, manager to a hatters' trimming seller, Union-st, Southwark; Dec. 4. at eleven, at office of Mr. Hymun, Lambs-conduit.st, Red Lion . sq. SOI., Padmore, Westminster-bridge-rd, Lambeen TAYLOR, WILLIAM ALFRED, xilversmith, Birminghım; Dec. 1, at
eleven, at the Great Western hotel, Birmingham. Sol., Jelf and
Goule THITHEXER, WILLIAM, watchmaker, Barnsley; Dec. 5, at three
et office of Sol., Parker, Barnsley TURRELL, SAMUEL, fishing boat owner, Great Yarmouth; Dec. t,
at twelve, at office of Sol., Wiltshire, Great Yarmouth USHER, GEORGE, bootmaker, Bath; Dec. 4, at eleven, at office of
Sol., Bartrum, Bith WALL, THOMAS, out of business, Wollaston, near Stourbridge;
Nov. 29, at three, at office of Sol., Saunders, jun., Kidderminster WAINEWRIGHT, ROBERT ERNEST, attorney, John-st, Bedford.
row, Dec. 13, at three, at offices of Sols., Lawrance, Plewe, and
Co., Old Jewry.chubs WARDALL, FREDERICK, no occupation, Middlesborough; Dec. 6,
at three, at offices of J. Braithwaite and Co., public scountants, Middlesborongh. Sol., Bainbridge, Middlesborough WATSON, JOHN, draper, Swansea : Dec. 1, at eleven, at omice of
Messrs. Crowther und Co., Manchester.' Sol., Field, Swanses WHITBREAD, EDWARD HORNSEY, cook, Oxford, Dec. , at eleven
at 9, Magdalen-st, Oxford WHITE, RITARD, un., boot dealer, Hartlepool; Dec. 2, at
eleven, at offices of Sol., Told, Hartlepool WILLIAMS, DANIEL, grocer, Swansea; Dec. 1, at eleven, at office
of Sols., Davis, and Harlland, Swansea
Liquidations by Jrrangement.
LYXX, MATTHEW DANIEL, GASKILI, WILLIAM, and DUVAL,
EDWARD JAMES, merchants, Manchester; Dec. 7, at eleven, at
at otce of Sols., Mesers. Hughes, Aberystwyth
the Swan inn, Sandharkt. Sol., Langham, Hastings
at three, at ottice of Sol, Spooner, Leicester
Regent's-park; Dec. 2, at ten, at office of Sols., Evans, Laing,
and Eagles, John.st, Bedford.row
MARIA ELIZABETH, his wife, and COPELAND, KATHLEEN
of Sol, Walker, Portsen
Cablut, Whitechapel: Nov. 30, at three, at office of Sols., Taylor
and Jaquet, South-si, Finsbury.wq
of Sola, Stanley and Wasbrough, Bristol
30, at one, it office of J. and J, Sawyer, accountants, Adelaide
pl, London-bridge. Sole., Cattarns, Jehu, and Cattarns
12. Chester-walk, Cheltenham. Sol., Packwood
one, at office of Smith, Fawdon, and Low, Bread-st, Cheapside.
Sol., Lamb, Brighton
At othoe of Sl., Layton, Gresham.st
three, at office of R. W. Warner, solicitor, Princess-st, Manches.
ter. Sols., Cobb and Sowtin, Liverpool
Wells: Dec., at three, at office of Sol., Cripps, Tunbridge Wells
one, at the Castle Hotel, High-st, Southampton
at office of Sol., Rylance, Manchester
Bristol: Nov, :7, at twelve, at office of Sols., Stanley and Was.
twelve, at office of Sols., Stainley and Wasbrough, Bristol
31, St. Thomas's.st, Portsmouth
st; Dec. 5, at one, at office of Sol., Rosher, Martin's la
Brighton : Dec 4, at one, at the Guildhall tavern, Canterbury
Sol., Lamb, Brighton
at the White Hart, Newbury. Sol., Lucas, Newbury
ham: Dec, 6. at one, at office of Sol, Moss, Gracechurch-st
Sol., Morris, Chorley
Kentish.town-rd, and Gt. College-st. Camden town, and the
Bloomsbury-sq. Sols., Stileman and Neate
bridge, Nov. 24, at three, at office of Sol. Howell, Cheapside
Dragun hotel. Walsall. Sol., Wilson, Burton-on-Trent
otice of Sol., Chesshyre, Cheltenham
chester; Dec. 9, at four, at the Courts inn, Sherborne-st,
past one, at the Angel hotel, Coleford. Sol., Williams, Mon.
27, at three, at offices of Barnard, Thomas, Cawker, and Co.,
Gazette, Nov. 21.
offices of Sol., Proctor, Durham
at eleven, at office or Mr. Huggins, solicitor, Exeter. Sol.,
office of Sol. Parry, Birmingham
eleven, at the Fleece hotel, Witney. Sols., Messrs. Kilby, Ban.
upon Tyne; Nov. 29, at one, at office of Mr. Strachan, accoun.
one, at the Crown and Anchor hotel, Ipswich. Sol., Moojen,
Megers. Hancock, Triggs, and Co, public accountants, Bristol.
Sul., Ward, Brisol
White Swun hotel, Kirkware, Huddersfield. Sol., Dransfield
office of Sols., Winterbotham, Bell, and Co., Cheltenham
5, at twelve, at tice of Sol., Fallows, Birminghamn
Sul, Sewell, Newcastle upon Tyne
el ven at offices of Sols., Wilkinson and Howlett, Kingston-on
offif Sol., Tweed, Saltergate
Bristol; Dec. 1, at twelve, at officer of Mesars. Ilancock,
Xov. 30, at eleven, at Office of Sol., Weatherhead, Hereford-rd,
Dec. 11, at two, at offices of Sol., Cann, Langbourne-chmbs,
Sov. 29, at two, at offices of Lovering and Minton, Grocham-st.
Sols., Deere and Bourne, King's Arms.yd, Morrgute.st
eleven, at office of Sol., Simpson, Nottingham
Dec. 2, at twelve, at officer of Sols., Sydney, Smith, Harvey, and
Co., Basinghall-st. Sol., Courteney, Gracechurch.st
Dec. 5, at two, at office of Sol., Bellringer, Liverpool
offices of Sol., Chidley, Old Jewry
at 3, Paragon, Bath. Sol., Rickets
la; Dec. 4, at twelve, at offices of Sol., Crump, Philpot-la
office of Messrs. Reddish and Lake, Stockport. Sol., Lake
the Temperance Hall, Ulverston. Sol., Jackson
the Union hotel, High-st, Longton. Sol., Adderley, Long
office of Sol., Tucker, Chancery-la
office of Sol., Parsons, Nottingham
eleven, at 32, Lupur-st, Pimlico. Sol., Chidley, Great Tower-st
Hull; Dec. 6, at twelve, at office of Mr. Benjamin Pickering, jun.,
Gazette, Nov. 17. ALDOUS, EDWIN, shipbuilder, Brightlingsea; Dec. 4, at twelve, at offices of Sinythies, Goody, and Son, Colchester. Sol. Goody,
Colchester ANSELL, THOMAS, draper, Brighton: Dec, 6, at twelve, at offices of Smith, Fawdon, and Low, Cheapside. Sol., Lamb, Brigh.
ton ARKISSTALL, THOMAS, out of business, Walton Heath; Dec. 4, at
eleven, at office of Sol., Hodgkinson, Stone ARTHUR, JANEs, commercial clerk, Walsall; Nov. 28, at eleven,
at ottiee of solv, Wilkinson and Gillespie, Walsall BAILEY, GEORGE, stonemason, York, Nov, 29, at three, at office
of sol, Dyson, Castlegate BARSER, THOMAS, victualler, Middlesbrough; Nov. 29, at two,
at office of Sol., Garbutt, Newcastle
Queen's hotol, Lytham. Sol., Moore, Warrington
four, at the Victoria hotel, Dover. Sol., Minter, Dover BINGHAM, THOMAS EDWARD, mariner, Deal: Nov. 30, at eleven,
at the Royal Exchange hotel, Deal. Sol., Drew, Deal BURROWS, JAMES, corn dealer, Cirencester; Dec, 5, at three, at 3,
Essex.pl, Rodney.ter, Cheltenham. Sol., Marshall, Chelten. ham BUTLER, THOMAS, builder, St. John-st, Clerkenwell; Nov., 30,
at three at office of Sol., Jenkins, Tavistock-st, Strand BUTLER, HENRY, lodging house keeper, Brighton; Dec. 5, at
three, at office of Sol., Lamb, Brighton CARTWRIGHT, JOSEPH, chartermaster, Wednesbury, Dec. 1, at
eleven, at office of Sol., Glover, Walsall CLARKE, CHARLES HENRY MONTAGUE, literary agent, Paternos
ter row: Nov. 25, at one, at office of Sols., Biddles, Southampton.bldgs, Chancery-la COBDEN, RICHARD, tailor, James-st, St. James's; Nov. 28, at
twelve, at office of Sol., Jones, Lincoln's-inn-chm bs, Chancery
lane COTTON, THOMAS, boot denler, Wallgate: Dec. 2, at two, at office
of Latham and Byrott, Crewe. Sol., Bygott, Sandbach COWAN, MATTHEW MITCHELL, boot maker, Maryport; Nov. 30,
at one, at the Bush inn, Carlisle. Sols., Tyson and Hobson,
office of Sol., Lancaster, Bradford
eleven, at office of Sols., Hirat and Capes, Harrogate DUNTON, JOSEPH, photographer, Cheltenham; Nov. 2, at four,
at office or Sol., Sinith, Cheltenham DUVAL, EDWARD JAMES, merchant, Manchester, trading as
Lynn, Gaskill, and Co., and the French Ultramarine Co., Dec 7, at four, at the Clarence hotel, Manchester. Sol., Ritson, Man.
chester GASKILL, WILLIAM, merchant, Manchester, trading as Lynn,
Gaskill, and Co., and the French Ultramarine Co.; Dec. 7, at
Nov. 23, at eleven, at office of Sol., Haigh, jun., King-st, Cheap.
at the Royal Exchange hotel, Deal. Sol., Drew, Deal HAYWARD, EDWARD, fancy warehouseman, Ramsgate; Nov. 22,
at twelve, at otfice of Doyle and Edwards, solicitors, Carey.at,
Lincolr.'s-inn. Sol., Delannux, Canterbury
twelve, at office of Sol., Fallows, Birmingham
office of Sol., Parkinson, Pickering HYMAN, DAVID, and VAN FLYMEX, VATHAN, cigar manufacturers,
Cable-st, Whitechapel; Dec. 4, at two, at 1), Pinners'-hall, Old
Broad-st. Sol., Stacpoole
Office of Sols., Burdekin, Smith, and Pye. Smith, Sheffield
Tankersley; Nov, 28, at three, at office of Sols., Burdekin, Smith,
and Pye-Sinith, Sheffield JOHNSON, EDWARD, house agent, Sheffield; Nov. 30, at twelve,
at office of Sol., Johnson, Newcastle JONES, JOHN PHILIP, outfitter, Blaenavon; Nov. 28, at three, at
office of Sol., Lloyd, Pontypool
Sol., Jones, Swansea
twelve, at office of Sol., Hooper, Ryde
Frampton-park.rd, Hackney; Dec. 4, at two, at the Chamber of
W. Howard's Borough hotel, Burnley. Sol., Pullen
at office of Sol.. Marshall, Cheltenham
at eleven, at office of Sol., Page, jun., Lincoln LOCHHEAD. WILLIAM, and HOLT, JOSEPH THOMAS, smallware
dealers, Halifax; Nov. 30, at eleven, at office of Sols., Norris and Poster, Halifax LLOYD, ROBERT, beerhouse keeper, Blaenavon; Dec. 5, at two, at
office of Sol., Jones, Abergavenny
Halliday, G. King's Lynn, final, ld. At office of Trust. W. B. Lane, South Creake.- Harrix, G. sen. farmer, final, ...
A: the County Court office, Norwich.-Hinglry. W. bont contractor, 3. 34. At office of Sol. Stokes, Dudley.--Inuter, J. brewer, 155,
At 53, West-st, Gateshead. Trust. J. Robinson. -Jonet, J. butcher, A. At County Court office, Bangor. ---Jouery, J. currier, first, 2s. At Office of Trust. T. W. Pylens, Zetland-ra, Middlesburuagh. - Reus lund, J. brewer, 48. 101. At office of Trust. J. 11. Curt ide, 37A, New Cannon-s1, Manchester.-Rylands, J. cotton spinner, first and final, 18. 03. At offices of J. G. Carlil and W. P. Burkinshaw, 4, Parliament-st, Hull-Sherrin, M. H. W. music seller, first, 24. At office of Trust. J. Elles, 39, Moorgate-et. Wilton, W. J. L. car. penter, 2x. At offices of S. Cater, Esq., Sutton-rd, Plymouth.
BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS.
wife of John Armstrong, of Lincoln's inn, barrister-at-law, o
wife of Charles Bell, solicitor, of ison.
Robert Campbell, Esq., barrister, Lincoln's inn, of a son.
court, the wife of William Leverton Donaldson, Esq., barrister.
man's, Norfolk, Nathaniel Girting, Esq., solicitor, of East
son Fuyle, Esq., Chatham.
Scarborough, by the Rev. R. H. Parr, M.A., assisted by the
Montagu-street, Portmun-square, and of the Temple, solicitor.
Dorset, aged 25, Mary Jenner, wife of Alfred Pope, E-4.. solicitor.
To Readers and Correspondents.
W. H. YOUNG,- Apply to the Law Institution.
not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith.
grade, whilst the Middle Temple throws itself open to reform, and is ready to accept suggestions for the best method of educating its students. We are glad to learn that efforts are being made to establish a Law Library and Society at Cardiff. If the scheme of the Legal Education Association is carried out, as it promises to be, local societies and good libraries will be found to be of great importance.
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY
COUNCIL TITE MAGNA CHARTA
Collision-Fog --Duty and powers of
Trinity Masters as assessors in the
It is rarely that we find a Judge take to his duties so kindly as Mr. HOMERSHAM Cox has done. He is County Court Judge for Wales, and although he does not, we believe, speak the Welsh language, he has got on so much to his own satisfaction that he has burst out into eloquent praise of his circuit in a letter in the Times. Everybody is courteous and respectful, a "multitude" of knotty points of real property and commercial law have been dis posed of in a manner giving universal satisfaction--if we except
barrister who is rude enough to point out that Mr. Cox started on his career by acting illegally-and the advocates transact their business with ability which could not fail to excite admiration in Westminster Hall. We must entertain some doubt as to Mr. HOMERSHAM Cox's knowledge of the display which is necessary to excite admiration in Westminster Hall. Many very able men, as able, we venture to think, as the Welsh attorneys who practise before Mr. Cox, daily argue before the courts withont exciting in their audience that enthusiasm which has sprung into life with such rapidity in the breast of the learned Judge. But no remarks of this kind affect the happy fact of Mr. Cox's magnanimous content, and our only wonder is that Mr. Serjeant Atkinson could have been tempted to quit so delightful a sphere of labour for the troubled waters of a Yorkshire Circuit.
sinalty-- Administration suit ...... paze 469
V. C. MALINS' COURT.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
PE AXD MARISE ISSURANCE COM.
Cert:hte or costy-Action to try a
LEADING ARTICLES, &c.
73 Admiralty Jurisdiction Re-arrest of
Ship for Costs
75 The Legal Education Association
80 Court of Queen's Bench
81 Court of common Pleas,
82 Exchequer Chamber
Court of Bankruptcy
86 Creditors under E-tates in Chancery 84 Creditors under 22 & Vict. c. 35.
84 ESTATE AND INVESTMENT JOURNAL :
Stock and Share Markets
84 Revival of the Durham Court of Chancery 4 REAL PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING: Notes of New Decisions...
85 COMPANY LAW: Notes of New Decisions
85 BANKRUPTCY LAW;Notes of New Decisions.
86 Cambridge County Court Lincoln County Court
86 Newcastle County Court
86 Oldham County Court...
87 MARITIME LAW :Notes of New Decisions....
87 COUNTY CORTS:Ashbourn County Court
87 Birmingham County Court
89 Manchester Law Students' Debating Society
90 Hull Law Students' Society.
90 LEGAL OBITUARY
90 PROMOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
90 THE COURTS AND COURT PAPERS:Sittings after Michaelmas Term
90 THE GAZETTES
91 BIRTHS, MARRIAGES. AND DEATHS.
92 In the Goods of S. C.D. LEWIS
BUXTOX . RIST
Buatate of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. 17... 502 OCKFORD, BARELLI AND ANOTHER A tersent for compromising a disputed claim
501 CROWN CASES RESERVED. BEG. T. CHAN BERS Forgery-I OU-Surety..
507 REG. E. EN1FTLarceny--Lunt bank note-Mixdirection 508
COURT OF PROBATE.
509 Wil - Prosecution-Executors excluded from Probate
510 COCRT POR DIVORCE AND MATRI.
ELECTION, and ECCLESIASTICAL LAW CASES, decided by all the Coarta,
Part II. of a new volume (the 7th). Quarterly, price 58. 6d. Sent post free to sub. Seribers X.B.--The back volumes and parts may be had; the vols. at 258. each, half bound.
LAW CASES decided by all the Courts. Part II. of a new volume (the 5th) price 58. 6d. Published marterly and sent post free to subscribers. Vols. I. to IV. may be had price 428. each, ta.f xiund.
The subject of the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by registrars in bankruptcy has attracted the attention of the LORDS JUSTICES, and we are glad to see that they agree with the remarks which we made with reference to it. A case was taken before their Lordships on appeal from a registrar, and they observed that such a proceeding was not contemplated by the Act of Parliament. Withont referring to the terms of the Act, it may be safely affirmed that Parliament intended that before a case left the Court of Bank. ruptcy to be carried by way of appeal to a higher tribunal, it should have received the consideration of the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy. There are obvious reasons why this should be so. Although a registrar may act as Chief Judge he still remains a registrar, and whereas parties might be satisfied with the decision of Sir JAMES Bacon and not appeal at all, it is improbable that they will sit down under the judgment of Mr. Registrar Roche if the case be of any importance. But further, to carry a case from a registrar to the LORDS JUSTICES is to deprive their Lordships of the very valuable assistance which Sir JAMES BACON never fails to render in his judgments, whether they be right or wrong. We trust therefore, that the objections which we raised to appeals from registrar to registrar, backed up as it is by the remarks of the LORDS JUSTICES, will have the desired effect of introducing into the Court of Bankruptcy the procedure plainly contemplated by the Act of Parliament. THE carelessness shown in preparing and swearing affidavits in the TICHBORNE case presents a spectacle which is really lamentable. Can it be possible that a theory has got abroad, that because a witness takes an oath, and so asseverates the truth of his written evidence, he is in such case less under an obligation to be particular as to telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” than he would be if placed in a witness box to be examined viva voce? In this case witness after witness has got into the box, and after acknowledging that his affidavit in the Chancery proceedings was read over to him before he swore it, has denied that he ever stated averments of the utmost importance. It cannot be that these persons meant to commit perjury; the only explanation is that they thought it did not matter much what they swore to as they were not going to be cross-examined, and that they did not, therefore, pay much attention to what was written down by those whose interest it was to make the evidence as strong as possi. ble.
We do not mean that the parties wished to invent evi. dence; but there is a strong tendency on the part of everyone to, make the best of his own case. What has appeared in this case with regard to affidavits raises a question as to whether it would not be advisable to frame some form wbich every person making an affidavit should be bound to follow. Would it not be well that the commissioner administering the oath should be bound to read over the affidavit to the person making it, and to put each asseveration to him in the form of a question. This at least woull enforce the more careful preparing of affidavits before they went Lefore the commissioners. Certain it is that something ought to be done to put a stop to the present prartice. A very sensible article appeared in the Saturlay Review on the 25th ult., on “ Tribunals of Commerce.” Discontent is said to exist amongst commercial men with regard to the mode of conducting business in the Superior Courts. In the first place it is pointed out by our contemporary that the real cause of the time and cost involved in the trial of commercial disputes
REPORTS 10 JOINT - STOCK COMPANIES',
A MEETING of the Social Science Association will be held on Monday evening next, when Mr. FREDERIC Hill will read a paper on “ The Means of an Improved Organisation of Accelerating the Business of Parliament.' We think that public attention should be directed to the fact that, notwithstanding the energetic proceedings of the Inner Temple respecting legal education, the Middle Temple obtained the palm of honourable mention from Sir ROUNDELL PALMER on Wednesday. The Inner Temple was credited with an intense desire for reform, and some covetousness for the reputation of superior enlightenment, but its first practical step is condemned as selfish and retro
VOL. LII.-Mo. 1496.
is the very lax way of doing business which prevails in many markets, contracts of great magnitude frequently being entered into verbally. The decision of such cases necessarily becomes a matter of difficulty, and this difficulty cannot be got rid of by any change in the tribunal, but only by alteration of the mode of buying and selling. In the second place our contemporary points out that if the Superior Courts were abolished—and to withdraw all commercial" disputes from their cognizance would be virtually to abolish them-it is by no means clear that the new tribunals would work any better. Busy commercial men would rarely be available as assessors, and they are the judges who alone would be valuable. Again, lawyers being admitted to practise before the tribunals, and the judge being a lawyer, parties would never conduct their own cases, and the cost of the proceedings would hardly be less than it is now. On the whole, the Saturday Review considers that the commercial world should look rather to making their method of doing business more certain, and thus simplify the work of the existing courts. This is sound advice, and, if followed, must be more satisfactory than an experiment of doubtful value in the result and of certain immediate detriment to existing institutions. WHETHER Judges should care to do more than contradict misstatements concerning themselves, is a matter of opinion. A scene which has occurred in a Welsh County Court shows at least that very little is to be gained by an exhibition of temper, and a newspaper reporter is hardly a personage with whom a County Court Judge can with dignity contest a matter of fact. The incident seems worth preserving as an example to everyone who may be placed in like difficulties. The account which we reproduce is thus related by a Welsh correspondent :
At the October sitting of the Mold County Court the judge (Mr. Vaughan Williams) was reported in the local papers to have said, when he had been referred to a report in a newspaper by a solicitor in court, that" he never read the newspapers, and he believed they were not intended for those who had anything else to do." In a subsequent issue of one of the papers in which the report appeared, Mr. Judge Williams wrote to deny that he ever used such language, and asserted that the reporter was guilty of gross and wicked misrepresentation. The reporter followed with a letter in which he adhered to the truth of the statement that the judge used the remarks mentioned. The next incident was at the sitting of the Flint County Court this week. On taking his seat, Mr. Judge Williams inquired if the reporter was present. The reporter was in attendance, and made his presence known to the irate judge. The judge then charged him with inserting false reports in the paper, and threatened to send him to gaol, as had once been done in Ireland. He believed him to be a stupid and pigheaded man, and not fit for the post he held. What he (the judge) had really said was that he did not road a
"local paper which circolated only about Mold." He never said a word against the press, although in parts of his district the reporters were most incompetent. He appealed to Mr. Roper (solicitor) as to whether his statement of the affair was not correct. Mr. Roper said he was present in court at the time, but did not hear what had taken place. The reporter, with all deference to his Honour, still continued to assert that his report was perfectly correct. His Honour then again threatened to comrait the reporter, whom he further honoured by calling an “obstinate, pigheaded, ignorant fool," and finished up his most dignified and gentlemanly address by warning the reporter, who declined to apologise, that if he pursued a similar course again he would certainly imprison him.
We have already discussed the question of the appointment of Mr. GROVE, Q.C. to the vacant Judgeship in the Common Pleas, but rumours having arisen that the learned gentleman is to be transferred to the Privy Council, a further consideration arises. As to the advisability of again evading the spirit of the Act of Parliament under which he would be appointed we need say nothing, as that subject has been sufficiently discussed in the case of Sir ROBERT COLLIER. There is another and far more important question arising, which relates to the proper hearing and determining of the appeals from India. Under the original Act forming the Judicial Committee (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 41), the Commitee consists of the President of the Council, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Keeper, the two Chief Justices, or Judges of the Queen's Bench and Common Pleas, Master of the Rolls, the Vice-Chancellors, the Chief Baron or Barons of the Exchequer, the Judge of the Prerogative Court, and of the Admiralty Court, and the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, and all other persons who shall have held any of these offices at any time; and (s. 1) it is prorided further "that it shall be lawful for His Majesty from time to time, as and when he shall think fit by his sign manual, to appoint any two persons, being Privy Councillors, to be memhers of the said committee.” The Lords Justices are made members by the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 84, s. 15. There is provision made for the hearing of Indian appeals in 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 41, s. 30, where it is enacted " that two members of His Majesty's Privy Council who shall have held the office of Judge in the East Indies, or any of His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas, and who, being appointed for that purpose by His Majesty, sball attend the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
, shall severally be entitled to receive, over and above any annuity granted to them in respect of having held such office as aforesaid, the sum of 4001. for every year during which they shall so attend as aforesaid, as an indemnity for the expense they may thereby incur.” By the Judicial Committee Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 91), s. 1, Her Majesty has power to appoint, within twelve months after the passing of the Act, four persons qualified under the Act to sit as members of the Committee, with a salary of 50001. a year. The qualification necessary is, that such persons “ must, at the date of their appointment, be, or have been, Judges of one of Her Majesty's Superior Courts at Westminster, or a Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, or Madras, or Bombay, or of the late Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal.”. These qualifications clearly show that the intention was to amply provide for Indian appeals
. Now it will be remembered that Sir JAMES COLVILE, has recently resigned and that Dr. Montague Bernard has been appointed in his place, and, as Sir Joseph Napier still continues a member of the Committee, the Government can appoint no more persons under 3 & 4 Will. 4, s. 1. They have exhausted their powers under that section. Under the 30th section of that Act Sir LAWRENCE PEEL is at present the sole assessor. Under the Judicial Committee Act 1871, Sir Montague Smith and Sir Robert Collier have been appointed and they are both English Judges, and have no special know, ledge of Indian law. If Mr. GROVE is now appointed to the Judicial Committee, however important it may be to have a patent lawyer in that court, there will be only one vacancy for an Indian Judge. It cannot be expected that assessors under sect. 30 of the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 41, will be fonnd to do the work now cast upon the committee for the sum of 4001. above their pensions, and it is not fair to themselves or to the public that it should be asked of them. Our contention is simply this, that one Judge for Indian appeals is not sufficient under the Act of last year, and this is a proposition that is scarcely likely to be disputed when it is recollected that three-fourths of the appeals are from India. If the government think it necessary to appoint a Judge to the Privy Council for the better disposing of patent appeals let them wait until they can enlarge their powers next session. It is grossly unfair to use an Act of Parliament for a purpose for which it was not intended, merely because the words are sufficiently wide to enable the ministry to manipulate them for their own purposes and crotchets. As to Mr. GROVE's capabilities for the Judicial Committee we say nothing; we merely wish to point out that if such an appointment takes place, Her Majesty's subjects in India will be fully justified in repeating the outery, long heard, against the tribunal by which they are finally bound.
The appointment of Mr. Grove, Q. C., to a puisne judgeship in the Court of Common Pleas has caused the most profound astonishment in the Profession. His elevation was announced by the press with this observation-“he is widely known as a man of the highest scientific attainments.” Following closely upon the promotion of Sir ROBERT COLLIER, who was favourably known to the Royal Academy as a landscape painter, Mr. Grove's appointment suggests some curious reflections. What at present is the highest qualification for a judgeship? Apparently, proficiency in anything but law. Sir ROBERT COLLIER no doubt had political and professional claims, for a man cannot be twice Attorney-General without being a respectable lawyer, and the only question in his case is whether he is fitted by his experience for a seat in the highest Imperial Court of Appeal. But, so far as we are aware, Mr. Grove's only claim to a seat on the Bench consists of his high scientific attainments. True, he divided the lead of the Welsh Circuit with Mr. GIFFARD, but the lead of a small circuit is an insignificant matter, and when put in the balance with the vast experience of every kind of judicial procedure gained by Queen's Counsel not confined in their London business to any particular class of work, it is utterly wanting as a qualification for the Bench. Patent law and practice, which has almost entirely engrossed so much of the attention of Mr. GROVE as he has not given to science, is as distinct from the ordinary business of the common law courts as equity or admiralty, and we not long since suggested that there should be a court appointed for the trial of patent causes, of which Mr. Grove should be the Judge. Indeed, it is only upon the assumption that such a court is to be created that the appointment of Mr. GROVE can be justified. It might indeed be also justified if there were a lack of eligible men at the Bar. But this is not the case. The cream of the Inner Bar of the present generation has no doubt been skimmed by the appointments of recent years, but ample judicial power is still latent, and the Crown need not have gone out of its way to select the one man of all others whom the profession would not have nonminated for a common law judgeship.
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION-RE-ARREST OF SHIP
FOR COSTS. It has been a regular and well known practice of the High Court of Admiralty, when a ship has been arrested in a suit in that court, to allow bail to be given to the amount in which the suit has been instituted. This has been done for convenience in consequence of the difficulty and delay necessarily attendant on any inquiry into the actual value of the property arrested, and such a course is not attended with any injustice to the shipowner
, as neither he nor his bail become liable for anything
for damages beyond the value of his vessel. It sometimes occurs that the amount recovered exceeds the amount of bail. In such cases it has been very strongly laid down by Dr. Lushington that the ship cannot be re-arrested. In the Kalamazoo (15 Jur. 885),
been already said, and by the very common rule that parties are not entitled to profit by their own laches.
There is one other point to be noticed in the case, and that is the issuing of the writ to the marshal. By the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, all decrees and orders of the High Court of Admiralty whereby any sum of money or any costs, charges, or expenses shall be payable to any person, are enforceable in the same way as common law judgments, and the Judge of that court has the same powers as a common law Judge in respect of such decrees. The powers of a Judge at common law are confined to the issuing a writ to the sheriff for the recovery of costs, and such a person as the marshal does not exist at common law. If the Judge of the Admiralty Court therefore exercises his powers under that section, he should issue his writ to the officer to whom the common law Judges issue theirs, and not to an officer of his own court. The importance of this will be seen at once when we recollect that an officer, with power of seizure, is responsible for any wrongful act. A sheriff is, in England, a man who is chosen as much for his ability to sustain this burden as from any fitness for such an office; and, however wealthy and respectable the present marshal of the Admiralty Court may be, he is scarcely an officer whom the public would wish to see entrusted with new powers. It may possibly be desirable that the process of a court should be executed by its own officers, but we can scarcely expect that process to be executed with the promptness and energy it should be, when the officer who is responsible for it is not in a position to answer for his acts.
As the case was heard not upon a simple motion, but upon act on petition, we hope it may go to a court of appeal for final decision.
that learned Judge said: “It is perfectly competent to take bail to the full value; but the effect of taking bail is to release the ship in that action altogether. It would be perfectly absurd to contend that you could arrest a ship, take bail to any amount, and afterwards arrest her again for the same cause of action. The bail represents the ship, and when a ship is once released upon bail, she is altogether released from that action." This has been always followed in cases where judgment for a particular amount has been recovered, but where mistakes have been made in the amount for which bail has been given, the court has allowed the ship to be re-arrested, and the precipe to be amended, where the action has been in too small an amount; but this has only been done where the application has been made before the case has been tried on its merits and decided : (See the Flora, L. Rep. 1 Adm. 45; 14 L. T.Rep. N. S. 191; The Hero, Bro. & Lush, 447.) When a question has become res judicata the court will not interfere with the property in any
The question has recently come before the court in another form ; namely, whether the court has power to order the re-arrest of a ship to satisfy costs where the damages and costs together exceeded the amount of bail. The case in which this question arose was The Freedom (25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 392), and the learned Judge of the court, without interfering with the general question of re-arrest, decided that the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, sects. 15 and 21, gave him power to re-arrest the ship for costs. The Freedom was an American ship, and her owners resided in the United States, so that there was no means of proceeding against them by action in personam in this country. She was arrested at the suit of the owners of cargo for damage sustained to the cargo, and the case was heard before Sir R. Phillimore, and he awarded the sum of 4521. 28. 8d. as damages : (see 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 175; 3 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 359). The owners of the Freedom afterwards appealed from his
decision, and the case was heard in the Privy Council 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 452: 1 Aspinall's Mar. Law Cas.28), and there the judgment of the court below was affirmed. When the costs in both conrts were taxed, they came to 4321. 108. 3d., so that, as the bail was only for 5001., the costs and damages together exceeded the amount of bail by 3841. 128. 11d. The ship in the meanwhile had rsturned to England, and the owners of cargo now applied to rearrest her to enable them to recover this amount for costs. Their original motion was to amend the proecipe by inserting a larger sum therein as the amount of action, but, at the hearing, this was not pressed. The shipowner contended that this was the only way in which the court could give costs in this case ; and as the matter had become res judicata, the court, on the authority of decided cases, would not interfere. The learned Judge, however, held that as sect. 15 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 gave him all powers of a Judge of the Superior Courts of common law, as to the recovery of costs, and as he could frame a writ for this purpose under sect. 22, he would take that course. Accordingly he issued a writ (see 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 393), and directed it to the marshal of the court for execution.
With great respect to the learned Judge, we do not think that this decision, however right it may be in strict law, should have been given under the peculiar circumstances attaching to the Admiralty Court practice. The form of the bail bond in universal use in Admiralty causes, so far as it is material to this question, is as follows: Now therefore we, &c., consent that, if he the said shall not pay what may be adjudged against him in the said cause with costs, execution may issue forth against us,” &c. This shows clearly that when the bond is entered into the intention of the parties to it is to require and give bail in such a sum as shall cover both damages and costs. No doubt this is done for convenience, but, on the other hand, if it is a hardship to re-arrest a ship a second time to cover damages, it is equally a hardship to re-arrest her for costs. It is perfectly within the power of the plaintiffs in any cause to require, at any time before final
cree, such security as they may be able to induce the court to think requisite. In the case now under discussion, the shipowners themselves appealed from the finding of the Judge of the Admiralty Court, and it was then within the power of either the Court of Admiralty or of the Privy Council to have required further security to have been given by them : (See The Hélène, 35 L. J. 1, Adm.) This the plaintiffs did not ask them to do, but after all was over they applied for a re-arrest, because the ship chanced to be again in England. If, as Dr. Lushington says, in the case before cited, “The effect of taking bail is to release the ship in that action altogether," it is only reasonable that her owners should not be debarred from sending her to a British port by the fear of arrest. It was by the plaintiffs' own default that sufficient security was not given, and it ought not to be allowed that they should afterwards put the defendants to further trouble and expense in consequence of that default. No doubt the court has power to re-arrest, but, as it has been the unvarying practice hitherto only to exercise this power under very peculiar circumstances, it is very much to be regretted that in this case the learned Judge has seen fit to alter the usual practice. No doubt it has been said, as against this, that the defendants, being foreigners, could not be compelled by monition to pay these costs, and that the way chosen is the only means of making them do so. This, it appears to us, is sufficiently answered by what has
EXPLOSIVE COMPOUNDS. That the law relating to the storage of explosive substances has long been in an unsatisfactory state there can be no doubt, and we called attention a short time since to some points connected with the subject. It would seem, however, if the judgment recently delivered by the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of Webley v. Woolley be correct, that the law affords even less protection against the occurrence of accidents that may arise from the storage of articles of the kind in question than has hitherto been generally supposed or understood. Mr. Webley, the appellant in the case, was a gunmaker and a dealer in cartridges, carrying on his business in Birmingham, and he was charged by the respondent, as the inspector of nuisances for that town, on an information before the magistrates of the borough, with having on the 13th Feb. 1871 unlawfully kept 50,400 manufactured cartridges, containing more than 5lb. of gunpowder, without a licence as required by the Act (23 & 24 Vict. c. 139), commonly known as the "Gunpowder Act, 1860. Mr. Webley was convicted and fined 101. and 98. 6d. costs, and the magistrates at the same time ordered the forfeiture of the ammunition to the Crown. Against this conviction Mr. Webley appealed. That cartridges come within the denomination of ammunition was decided in the year 1869 in the case of Daw v. Carter, which was
an information under the same statute against a manufacturer of cartridges, and that point was quently not disputed in the case now referred to, but it was contended, in support of the appeal, that the Act was directed principally against the manufacture of explosive articles, so as to prevent the accumulation of large quantities of such articles in close proximity to the place of their manufacture, and that as the appellant was not a manufacturer of, but only a dealer in, cartridges which he bought from a manufacturer in London, he could not legally be convicted under the section in question of the Act above mentioned; and in the end the Lord Chief Justice (Mr. Justice Mellor and Mr. Justice Hannen concurring with him) expressed his opinion that the case did not come within the terms of that enactment, that the conviction was therefore wrong, and must be qnashed. “The distinction which was taken was," said the Lord Chief Justice, “a sound one, and manifestly presented itself upon a fair and proper view of b'he section, which re'ated to the manufacture and keeping of certain things; and the court ought not, from a sense of public expediency, to extend its application to something that was not properly included in it. The appellant was not a manufacturer, and the section applied only to persons who keep that which they manufacture." It is not our purpose now to seek to impugn the soundness of this judgment, although we cannot but think that words used in other portions of the Act (as, for instance, the 7th section, which enacts the penalties to be imposed for offences against the 6th section and which provides that all percussion caps made, and all ammunition, &c., made or kept in any place where under the Act it is not lawful to make percussion caps, or to make or, as the case may be, keep, ammunition, &c., or any quantity of ammunition, &c. kept in any place where udder the Act it may lawfully be kept in excess of the lawful quantity, shall be forfeited) appear clearly to indicate that it was contemplated to make provision for the keeping of the articles specified or alluded to in the Act when apart from, as well as when connected with, their manufacture. Assuming the decision of the conrt to be correct,