« EelmineJätka »
CORRESPONDENCE OF THE
NOTE.-This department of the LAW TIMES being open to free discussion on all professional topics, the Editor is not responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it.
FRAUDS IN MARRIAGE SETTLEMENTS.-Can any of your readers supply me with the name and report of a case decided in equity where it was held that an ante-nuptial settlement by a husband, who was indebted at the time to such an amount as to render his settlement practically a fraud upon his creditors, could not be sustained? I recollect reading a report of the case and some very trenchant remarks by you upon it at the time, and I think it is six or seven years ago. A SUBSCRIBER.
STAMPS. SIR,-In the published report of The Incorporated Law Society of Liverpool for the present year is the following:
Under the Stamp Act 1870, a question of importance to the public and Profession has arisen. Subjoined are copies of letters to and from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in the matter.
Incorporated Law Society of Liverpool, 14, Cook-street, Liverpool, 4th Oct. 1871. Gentlemen,-I am directed by the Incorporated Law Society of Liverpool to write to you upon the proper construction of the Stamp Act 1870, with reference to that part of the Schedule which is comprised under the words "Admission and appointment or grant by any writing to or of any office or employment," and the sections bearing upon it, such sections being, as is conceived, the 21st, 29th, 30th, 33rd, 34th, and 35th. In the case of an ordinary Joint Stock Company, appointments are nearly always made by a resolution in the minute book, and so with regard to municipal corporations, workhouses, pauper asylums, gaols, county sessions, and so on. My committee think that if the true construction of the Act be that all officers of such institutions who may be appointed by minute, either with or without a letter notifying the appointment, are to be considered within the Act, the fact ought to be extensively known. I am therefore directed to ask, for the information of the Society, and, through them, of the public, what construction has been put by you on the Act, as to the classes of persons affected by it.-I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant,
F. ARCHER, Hon. Sec.
To the Commissioners of Inland Revenue,
Inland Revenue, Somerset House,
between the parties, makes no claim upon A.'s estate.
26. DONATIO MORTIS CAUSA.-A., who is in peril of
By whom should the costs of affidavits, summonses, &c.,
27. THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869-DEBTOR'S SUMMONS.
(Q. 11.) LIQUIDATION BY ARRANGEMENT.-Secured creditors may either rest on their securities, and so compel the trustee to redeem, or apply to have their securities realised under the direction of the court. So also, if the secured creditor is desirous of voting in the choice of a trustee, he may prove under sect. 16, Part IV., of the Bankruptcy Act 1869: (See rules 78, 99, 100, and 101; also Robson's Bankruptcy, p. 244. See also sect. 125, subsect. 7.)
LIVERPOOL LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. A MEETING of this society was held on Thursday, Nov. 16, at the Law Library, Booth-street, Mr. T. E. Stephens in the chair. The subject for discussion was "Is it desirable to create life peerages or otherwise to alter the constitution of the House of Lords ?" The debate was an interesting one, and various opinions were expressed on the subject.
JURIDICAL SOCIETY. THE next meeting will be held on Wednesday, Nov. 29, at eight p.m. precisely, when Mr. P. Vernon Smith will read a paper on "The effect of the contemplated fusion of law and equity on the English law of contract." Mr. Quain, Q.C. will preside. The council will meet at half-past
HULL LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. Ar an ordinary meeting of this society, held on Tuesday evening last (the president, H. Cook, Esq., in the chair), Mr. Wray introduced for discussion the "Primogeniture" question, and moved "That in the opinion of the meeting the law of primogeniture should be abolished.' Mr. Woodhouse seconded the motion, and Mr. J. Cook argued in favour of maintaining the present law. Considerable discussion followed, in which the president and Messrs. Jackson, Glover, Spink, The motion was ultimately and Hall took part. carried by a majority of one.
(13.) CONDITION OF SALE.-The condition or question
Say that land is limited to A. and the heirs of his body during the life of B.: how can it be supposed that the reversion expectant on B.'s death can be affected by anything A. may do?
Sir, The Board of Inland Revenue have had before them your letter of the 4th inst., requesting information as to the proper construction of the Stamp Act 1870, as regards the charge of duty, under the head "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 of persons affected by it. It is, of course, impossible to purchase by A. and B., as agents or trustees for A.'s specify all the classes of persons affected by the charge son; secondly, a payment by A. and B. by direction of to which your letter refers. It will probably afford A.'s son of a moiety of the purchase money to the suficient information to acquaint you that all appoint-vendor; and, thirdly, the giving of a promissory note 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 character, were prior to the Stamp Act, 1870, and are absence of express contract to the contrary, there now under that Act liable to ad valorem stamp duty. appears to be an implied assumpsit on the part of the I may add that where an appointment is made by a son to repay A. and B. forthwith the moneys already resolution 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 note at maturity. If this be so, A. and B. the resolution is the writing liable to the stamp duty. can prove, discount being allowed on the sum repreI am, Sir, your obedient servant, sented by the note. Any sum which A. and B. may recover as plaintiffs against the vendor, or any reduction from the full amount of the note, which they may obtain by a successful defence, would, I think, be deemed part of the bankrupt's assets. I think also that A. and B. would be compellable to lend their names to the trustee in bankruptcy, for the purpose of any action or suit in reference to the alleged misrepresentations. Z. Y.
WM. LOMAS. The subject is one of universal application. I think that a comparison of the Acts will show that they differ, and beyond all doubt the sections are new, and carry the law far beyond what it was prior to 1870. Every attorney is in some way interested, and the matter requires ventilation.I am, Sir, yours obediently, T. M.
NOTES AND QUERIES ON
NOTICE.-We must remind our correspondents that this
23. MUNICIPAL ELECTION-CABS.-Is the employment of hired cabs or carriages by a candidate at a municipal election illegal? If so, a reference to the statute or case on the point will oblige. Would it make any difference if the candidate employed his own carriage for the conveyance of voters? A. X.
24. EQUITABLE MORTGAGE SECURITY.-A., who is one of a number of trustees of a chapel, wishes to make an advance of 2501, on mortgage of the chapel land and premises, but is advised he cannot do so, on the princi. ple that a man cannot convey to himself. In like manner can A, with safety, lend the money on an equitable security, i.e., deposit of deeds and a promis. sory note, signed by all the trustees (sans se), which he is willing to do and take on himself all risks? H. H.
25. LEGACY DUTY.-A., by his will, bequeaths an unconditional legacy of 10001. sterling to B. B. receives from A. 1000l. in casu, a few hours before the latter's decease, and, being satisfied that the gift was in lieu of the legacy, though no words to that effect passed
(Q. 17.) MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT.-The Act
(Q. 18.) REMAINDER.-The words "unto such of his said
missible, according to the nature of the property, to her
(Q. 20.) STAMP.-28. appears to be the proper duty.
(Q. 21.) WESLEYAN MINISTER. -No; vide 3 Geo. 4,
AN EVENING BEVERAGE-GACA'OINE. - The Food Journal says:-By a new process to which the nibs are subjected, the principal part of the oil is effectually removed; a thin beverage, well adapted for afternoon or evening use, as a substitute for tea, being the result. The flavour of Caca'oine will, in addition, be a great attraction to all."-Each packet or tin is labelled, "JAMES EPPS & Co., Homeopathic Chemists, London." Also makers of Epps's Milky Caca'oine (Caca'oine and Condensed Milk.)
[N.B.-Announcements of promotions being in the nature of advertisements, are charged 28. 6d. each, for which postage stamps should be inclosed.]
THE name of Mr. Joseph Rayner, formerly of Slead House, near Huddersfield, Yorkshire, now of West-bank, Blundell Sands, Liverpool, solicitor, and Town Clerk of Liverpool, and previously of Bradford, has been inserted in the Commission of the Peace for the West Riding of Yorkshire.
Dr. Robert C. Fluker, J. P., has been appointed Sheriff for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
H. R. EVANS, ESQ. THE late Hugh Robert Evans, Esq., solicitor, of Ely, who died on the 25th Oct., in the sixty-sixth year of his age, was the eldest son of the late Hugh Robert Evans, Esq., of Ely. He was born in the year 1805, and was educated at Bury Grammar School, admitted a solicitor in 1827, and has practised with considerable success since that period. In 1850 he was appointed clerk of the peace for Cambridgeshire, besides which appointment he held many others, amongst which may be mentioned those of secretary to the Bishop of Ely, chapter clerk and registrar to the Dean and Chapter of Ely, deputy-registrar of the Diocese of Ely, clerk to the magistrates of the Ely division, receiver and expeditor-general to the Bedford Level Corporation, treasurer to the Ouse Outfall Board, clerk to the Wash Commissioners, Road Trustees, &c. He was twice married, and leaves a widow and five children. His second son (Mr. William Johnson Evans), succeeds him in his practice and in most of his appointments. The remains of the deceased were interred in the cemetery at Ely.
W. CRUISE, ESQ. THE late William Cruise, Esq., barrister-at-law, who died at his residence at Rahood, near Kells, in the county of Meath, on the 25th Oct., was the second son of the late William Piers Cruise, Esq., Q.C. The deceased gentleman, who was a magistrate for the county of Dublin, was called to the Bar at Dublin in Trinity Term in 1844.
Professional Partnerships Dissolbed.
Gazette, Nov. 7.
ELMHIRST, JAMES, and PARKIN, ALFRED, solicitors and conveyancers, Thorne. Oct. 31.
Gazette, Nov. 10. STEPHENS and SON, attorneys and solicitors, Maidstone. Sept. 30. (John Cribb Stephens and John Beeching Stephens.)
Gazette, Nov. 17.
To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street.
Box, JOHN, wine merchant, Cheltenham. Pet. Nov. 18. Reg. Gale. Sur. Dec. 6
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.
LITTLER, JOSEPH, hotel keeper, Bangor. Pet.
MASON, WILLIAM, provision dealer, Harborne.
Nov. 18. Reg.
Pet. Nov. 17.
PIPER, EPHRAIM, wheelwright, Rotherham. Pet. Nov. 16. Reg.
POWELL, DAVID, grocer, Birmingham.
REVILL, JOSEPH, tailor, Sheffield.
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
Liquidations by Arrangement.
Gazette, Nov. 17.
ALDOUS, EDWIN, shipbuilder, Brightlingsea; Dec. 4, at twelve, at offices of Smythies, 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
ARKINSTALL, THOMAS, out of business, Walton Heath; Dec. 4, at eleven, at office of Sol., Hodgkinson, Stone
ARTHUR, JAMES, commercial clerk, Walsall; Nov. 28, at eleven, at office of Sols., Wilkinson and Gillespie, Walsall BAILEY, GEORGE, stonemason, York; Nov. 29, at three, at office of Sol., Dyson, Castlegate
BARNES, THOMAS, victualler, Middlesbrough; Nov. 29, at two, at office of Sol., Garbutt, Newcastle
BARON, JAMES, schoolmaster, Lytham; Dec. 1, at eleven, at the Queen's hotel, Lytham. Sol., Moore, Warrington
BARTON, JEFFERY, veterinary surgeon, Buckland; Nov. 29, at 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
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, Paternoster-row; Nov. 25, at one, at office of Sols., Biddles, Southamp ton-bldgs, Chancery-la COBDEN, RICHARD, tailor, James-st, St. James's; Nov. 28, at twelve, at office of Sol., Jones, Lincoln's-inn-chmbs, Chancerylane
COTTON, THOMAS, boot dealer, Wallgate; Dec. 2, at two, at office of Latham and Bygott, Crewe. Sol., Bygott, Sandbach COWAN, MATTHEW MITCHELL, boot maker, Maryport; Nov. 30, at one, at the Bush inn, Carlisle. Sols., Tyson and Hobson, Maryport
DELANY, RICHARD, greengrocer, Bradford; Dec. 1, at eleven, at office of Sol., Lancaster, Bradford
DIXON, CHRISTOPHER, corn merchant, Harrogate; Dec. 2, at eleven, at office of Sols., Hirst and Capes, Harrogate DUNTON, JOSEPH, photographer, Cheltenham; Nov. 28, at four, at office of Sol., Smith, 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, Manchester GASKILL, WILLIAM, merchant, Manchester, trading as Lynn, Gaskill, and Co., and the French Ultramarine Co.; Dec. 7, at half past three, at the Clarence hotel, Manchester. Sol., Ritson, Manchester GATLAND, GEORGE GEER, manufacturer's agent, Old Fish-st Nov. 28, at eleven, at office of Sol., Haigh, jun., King-st, Cheapside GIBSON, JOSEPH, tailor, Northbourne, near Deal; Nov. 30, at one, at the Royal Exchange hotel, Deal. Sol., Drew, Deal HAYWARD, EDWARD, fancy warehouseman, Ramsgate; Nov. 29, at twelve, at office of Doyle and Edwards, solicitors, Carey-st, Lincoln's-inn. Sol., Delasaux, Canterbury
HOWES, FRANCIS, out of business, Birmingham; Nov. 28, at twelve, at office of Sol., Fallows, Birmingham HUTCHINSON, THOMAS, grocer, Pickering, Nov. 30, at three, at office of Sol., Parkinson, Pickering HYMAN, DAVID, and VAN FLYMEN, NATHAN, cigar manufacturers, Cable-st, Whitechapel: Dec. 4, at two, at 15, Pinners'-hall, Old Broad-st. Sol., Stucpoole
IBBOTSON, BENJAMIN, victualler, Sheffield; Nov. 30, at two, at office of Sols., Burdekin, Smith, and Pye-Smith, Sheffield JELLEY, FREDERICK, corn broker, Sheffield, and Wortley, in Tankersley, Nov. 28, at three, at office of Sols., Burdekin, Smith, and Pye-Smith, 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
JONES, THOMAS, shoemaker, Swansea; Nov. 28, at two, at office of Sol., Jones, Swansea
LAMBERT. JOHN, poulterer, Ryde, Isle of Wight; Nov. 28, at twelve, at office of Sol., Hooper, Ryde
LAVENDER, JAMES, and POTTER, ELIEZER GERSHOM, tool makers, Birmingham; Nov. 25, at half-past ten, at office of Sol., Richardson, Birmingham
LAW, WILLIAM ALEXANDER, mineral water manufacturer, Frampton-park-rd, Hackney; Dec. 4, at two, at the Chamber of Commerce, 145, Cheapside. Sol., Rogers, Deans'-ct, Doctors'
LEEDAM, JOHN, tailor, Burnley and Bacup; Nov. 30, at two, at
LEWMAN, JOHN BERNARD, clerk in holy orders, Reading; Dec. 2,
LLOYD, ROBERT, beerhouse keeper, Blaenavon; Dec. 5, at two, at office of Sol., Jones, Abergavenny
LYNN, MATTHEW DANIEL, GASKILL, WILLIAM, and DUVAL, EDWARD JAMES, merchants, Manchester; Dec. 7, at eleven, at the Clarence hotel, Spring.gdns, Manchester. Sol., Ritson, Manchester
MACONOCHIT. JAMES, fish dealer, Aberystwyth; Nov. 29, at eleven at office of Sols., Messrs. Hughes, Aberystwyth MASKELL, WILLIAM, builder, Sandhurst; Dec. 1, at eleven, at the Swan inn, Sandharst. Sol., Langham, Hastings MCADAM, ROBERT CULLEN, umbrella maker, Leicester; Nov. 29, at three, at office of Sol., Spooner, Leicester MIDWINTER, WILLIAM HENRY, out of employment, Albany-st, Regent's-park; Dec. 2, at ten, at offiee of Sols., Evans, Laing, and Eagles, John-st, Bedford-row MOLINEUX, FREDERICK WILLIAM, civil engineer, MOLINEUX, MARIA ELIZABETH, his wife, and COPELAND, KATHLEEN STAFFORD, Spinster, theatre proprietors, Liverpool; Dec. 1, at two, at the Law Association Rooms, Liverpool. Sol., Harris, Liverpool
NEWTON, WILLIAM, grocer, Cosham; Nov. 30, at eleven, at office of Sol., Walker, Portsea
NORTHEY, EDWIN, cheesemonger, St. John's-rd, Hoxton, and Cable-st, Whitechapel: Nov. 30, at three, at office of Sols., Taylor and Jaquet, South-st, Finsbury-sq
OLDLAND, JOHN KING, grocer, Bristol; Nov. 27, at one, at office of Sols,, Stanley and Wasbrough, Bristol PILLOW, THOMAS, fun., lighterman, Trinity-sq, Tower-hill; Nov. 30, at one, at office of J. and J, Sawyer, accountants, Adelaidepl, London-bridge. Sols., Cattarns, Jehu, and Cattarns POTTER, THOMAS, solicitor, Cheltenham; Dec. 4, at twelve, at 12. Chester-walk, Cheltenham. Sol., Packwood RANDALL, WALTER ARTHUR, tailor, Littlehampton; Dec. 6, at one, at office of Smith, Fawdon, and Low, Bread-st, Cheapside. Sol., Lamb, Brighton
RENDELL, JAMES, journeyman baker, Bromley; Nov. 30, at two, at office of Sol., Layton, Gresham-st ROWLING, SAMUEL, out of business, Great Crosby; Nov. 30, at three, at office of R. W. Warner, solicitor, Princess-st, Manchester. Sols., Cobb and Sowton, Liverpool RUSSELL, FREDERICK, fancy repository proprietor, Tunbridge Wells Dec. 5, at three, at office of Sol., Cripps, Tunbridge Wells SARL, CHARLES, grocer, West Cowes, Isle of Wight; Nov. 27, at one, at the Castle hotel, High-st, Southampton SHARROCKS, ROBERT, cabinet maker, Heywood; Dec. 6, at three, at office of Sol., Rylance, Manchester
SHORT, WILLIAM HENRY, and OLDLAND, JOHN KING, grocers, Bristol; Nov. 27, at twelve, at office of Sols., Stanley and Wasbrough, Bristol
SHORT, WILLIAM HENRY, grocer, Bristol; Nov. 27, at half-past twelve, at office of Sols., Stanley and Wasbrough, Bristol SOFTLEY, JOHN JAM S, draper, Southsea; Dec. 4, at eleven, at 31, St. Thomas's-st, Portsmouth
SIMPSON, JOSEPH CHRISTOPHER, engineer, Budge-row, Cannon-
THOMPSON, GEORGE SAMUEL, draper, Newbury; Nov. 24, at ten,
TOMLINSON, WILLIAM JONATHAN, pawnbroker, Camden-rd, and Kentish-town-rd, and Gt. College st, Camden-town, and the Broadway, Barking: Nov. 30, at two, at 16, Southampton-st, Bloomsbury-sq. Sols., Stileman and Neate
TOTHILL, FRANCIS RICHARD, gentleman, Oak-hill, near Tunbridge; Nov. 24, at three, at office of Sol., Howell, Cheapside WALTHEW, FRANCIS, builder, Burntwood, Nov. 30, at two, at the Dragon hotel, Walsall. Sol., Wilson, Burton-on-Trent WARREN, MARY ANN, widow, Cheltenham; Nov. 22, at eleven, at office of Sol., Chesshyre, Cheltenham WASHINGTON, GEORGE, manager to a paper manufacturer, Manchester; Dec. 9, at four, at the Courts inn, Sherborne-st, Strangeways, Manchester
WATTS, JOHN, potter, Whitecliff, par. Newland; Nov. 27, at halfpast one, at the Angel hotel, Coleford. Sol., Williams, Monmouth
WILLIAMS, WILLIAM, contractor, Trafalgar-ter, Swansea; Nov. 27, at three, at offices of Barnard, Thomas, Cawker, and Co., Temple-st, Swansea. Sols., Brown and Davies, Worcester-pl, Swansea
Gazette, Nov. 21.
ASKEW, FRANCIS, bootmaker, Durham; Dec. 5, at eleven, at offices of Sol., Proctor, Durham
AXTENS, CAROLINE, widow, eating-house keeper, Exeter; Dec. 4, at cleven, at office of Mr. Huggins, solicitor, Exeter. Sol., Carter, Exeter
BAKER, JOHN, out of business, Birmingham; Dec. 1, at three, at office of Sol.. Parry, Birmingham
BATEMAN, THEOPHILUS EDGAR, draper, Bampton; Dec. 4, at eleven, at the Fleece hotel, Witney. Sols., Messrs. Kilby, Ban bury
BELL, JOHN JAMES, mineral water manufacturer, Newcastleupon-Tyne, Nov. 29, at one, at office of Mr. Strachan, accoun tant, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Sols., Mather and Cockcroft, New
BLOFIELD, JOHN, corn merchant, Mellis and Eye; Dec. 12, at one, at the Crown and Anchor hotel, Ipswich. Sol., Moojen, Southampton-st, Bloomsbury
BOND, HENRY, grocer, Portishead; Dec. 1, at two, at offices of Messrs. Hancock, Triggs, and Co, public accountants, Bristol. Sol., Ward, Bristol
BROOK, JOSEPH, brewer, Penistone; Dec. 4, at three, at the White Swan hotel, Kirkgate, Huddersfield. Sol., Dransfield BROOKES, THOMAS, builder, Cheltenham; Dec. 5, at eleven, at office of Sols., Winterbotham, Bell, and Co., Cheltenham BROWN, SAMUEL, pocket-book manufacturer, Birmingham; Dec. 5, at twelve, at office of Sol., Fallows, Birminghain CARPENTER, GEORGE, baker, St. Thomas the Apostle; Dec. 2, at eleven, at the Three Tuns inn, High-st, Exeter. Sol., Floud, Exeter
CARR, JOHN, brewer, Sunderland; Dec. 4, at eleven, at offices of S1, Sewell, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
CHAMBERS, EDWIN, grocer, Kingston-on-Thames; Dec. 2, at eleven at offices of Sols., Wilkinson and Howlett, Kingston-onThames
CLARKE, WILLIAM, coal merchant, Lincoln; Dec. 5, at eleven, at office of Sol., Tweed, Saltergate
COLDWELL, GEORGE HENRY HERBERT, clerk in holy orders,
COLLINS, TOM GEORGE, china dealer, Earl's-ct-rd, Kensington;
FRENDENTHEIL, GOTTLIER ADOLPH, colonial broker, Mincingla, Dec. 4, at twelve, at offices of Sol., Crump, Philpot-la FROGGATT, GEORGE, bone dealer, Stockport; Nov. 30, at three, at office of Messrs. Reddish and Lake, Stockport. Sol., Lake GADIE, CHARLES, tailor, Dalton-in-Furness; Dec. 2, at eleven, at the Temperance Hall, Ulverston. Sol., Jackson HALLAM, ENOCH, out of business, Fenton; Dec. 5, at eleven, at the Union hotel, High-st, Longton. Sol., Adderley, LongHANHAM, HENRY, shoe dealer, London-rd; Dec. 7, at two, at office of Sol., Tucker, Chancery-la HARVEY, THOMAS, corn agent, Sneinton; Dec. 6, at twelve, at office of Sol., Parsons, Nottingham HASTINGS, GEORGE, butterman, Churton-st, Pimlico; Nov. 30, at eleven, at 32, Lupus-st, Pimlico. Sol., Chidley, Great Tower-st HAWKESLEY, FRANCIS, brush manufacturer, Kingston-uponHull, Dec. 6, at twelve, at office of Mr. Benjamin Pickering, jun., Quay-st, Hull. Sols., Messrs. Holden
HAYTON, JOHN, labourer, Stockton-on-Tees; Nov. 28, at three, at offices of G. Hudson, public accountant, Stockton-on-Tees. Sols., Fawcett, Garbutt, and Fawcett
HENSHAW, WILLIAM, agent, Heaton Norris; Dec. 4, at three, at office of Sol., Johnstone, Stockport
HIGGINS, JAMES, boot maker, Calverley; Dec. 6. at eleven, at office of Sol, Carr, Leeds
HIGGS, HENRY, hatter, Bristol; Nov. 29, at twelve, at office of
HOLT, ROBERT, and PARKER, JOHN, contractors, Bradford; Dec.
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
MARKS, ABRAHAM MARKS, manufacturer of fancy goods, Middle-
PRICE, FREDERICK, labourer, Burton-on-Trent; Dec. 7, at eleven, at office of Sol., Stephenson, Burton-on-Trent PROCTOR, JOHN WELLARD, fruit salesman, Park-st, Camberwell, and Borough Market, Southwark; Dec. 4, at twelve, at the King's Head Tavern, Southwark. Sol., Ody, Trinity-st, Southwark
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, at office of Sol., Welch, Longton
RICHARDS, JOHN, beerhouse keeper, Madeley; Dec. 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-st, Manchester. Sol., Lupton, Liverpool
ROBERTS, JOHN THOMAS, beerhouse manager, Blackfriars-rd;
SALE. ELEANOR, widow, Lamberhurst: Dec. 1, at eleven, at 23,
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. 30, at three, at the Angel Hotel, Pentonville-rd TAYLOR, THOMAS STOKES, manager to a hatters' trimming seller, Union-st, Southwark; Dec. 4, at eleven, at office of Mr. Hyman, Lambs-conduit-st, Red Lion sq. Sol., Padmore, Westminster-bridge-rd, Lambeth
TAYLOR, WILLIAM ALFRED, silversmith, Birmingham; Dec. 1, at eleven, at the Great Western hotel, Birmingham. Sol., Jelf and
THICTHENER, WILLIAM, watchmaker, Barnsley; Dec. 5, at three at office of Sol, Parker, Barnsley
TURRELL, SAMUEL, fishing boat owner, Great Yarmouth; Dec. 4,
WALL, THOMAS, out of business, Wollaston, near Stourbridge;
WARDALL, FREDERICK, no occupation, Middlesborough: Dec. 6, at three, at offices of J. Braithwaite and Co., public accountants, Middlesborongh. Sol., Bainbridge, Middlesborough WATSON, JOHN, draper, Swansea; Dec. 1, at eleven, at office of Messrs. Crowther and Co., Manchester. Sol., Field, Swansea WHITBREAD, EDWARD HORNSEY, cook, Oxford, Dec. 4, at eleven at 9, Magdalen-st, Oxford
WHITE, RICHARD, un,, boot dealer, Hartlepool; Dec. 2, at eleven, at offices of Sol., Todd, Hartlepool
WILLIAMS, DANIEL, grocer, Swansea; Dec. 1, at eleven, at office of Sols., Davis, and Harlland, Swansea
The Official Assignees, &c., are given, to whom apply for the Dividends.
Bray, Child, and Roseby, colliery proprietors, sep. of Roseby, 28. 7d.; first sep. of Bray, 1s. 94. sep. of Child, 2. Sid. Kinnear, Birmingham.-Corner, J. T. travelling draper, final, Is. 34d. Daw, Exeter.-Martin, W. W. engineer, final, 11d. Daw, Exeter.-Pier point, Rev. M. A. clerk, further, 1. 344. Daw, Exeter.-Ravenscroft, W. R. banker, further, 14. 5. McNeill, Manchester.-Stelfor, J. first, id. McNeill, Manchester.- Watkins, R. grocer, first, 3. Kinnear, Birmingham.-Wilding, J. P. surgeon, first, 11d. Kinnear, Birmingham.
Halliday, G. King's Lynn, final, d. At office of Trust. W. B. Lane, South Creake.-Harris, &. sen. farmer, final, 4×, 8. At the County Court office, Norwich.-Hingley, W. boat contractor, 35. 38. At office of Sol. Stokes, Dudley-Hunter, J. brewer, 158. At 53, West-st, Gateshead. Trust. J. Robinson.—Jones, J. butcher, 24. At County Court office, Bangor.-Joiesry, J. carrier, first, 2s. At office of Trust. T. W. Pylens, Zetland-ra, Middlesborough.-Reeland, J. brewer, 4. 107, At office of Trust, J. H. Gartside, 37A, New Cannon-st, Manchester.-Rylands, J. cotton spinner, first and final, 18. 03. At offices of J. G. Carlill and W. P. Burkinshaw, 4, Parliament-st, Hull.-Sherein, M. H. W. music seller, first, 2s. At office of Trust. J. Elles, 38, Moorgate-et. Wilto, W. J. L. carpenter, 2. At offices of S. Cater, Esq., Sutton-rd, Plymouth.
ARMSTRONG.-On the 16th inst., at 46, Weymouth-street, th wife of John Armstrong, of Lincoln's-inn, barrister-at-law, o a daughter. BELL. On the 19th inst., at Mapperley House, Lee, Kent, the wife of Charles Bell, solicitor, of a son. CAMPBELL. On the 20th inst., at 37, Elvaston-place, the wife of Robert Campbell, Esq., barrister, Lincoln's-inn, of a son. DONALDSON.-On the 2nd inst., at Park Cottage, Hamptoncourt, the wife of William Leverton Donaldson, Esq., barrister. at-law, of a daughter.
GIRLING-PATRICK.-On the 16th inst., at Wiggenhall, St. German's, Norfolk, Nathaniel Girling, Esq., solicitor, of East Dereham, Norfolk, to Susanna Yeatherd, only daughter of Jarman Patrick, Esq., of Wiggenhall, St. German's. TRAVERS-FAYLE.-On the 16th inst., at the Cantonment Church, Rangoon, George Francis Travers, of the Middle Temple, barrister-at-law, to Anne Caroline, eldest daughter of Higginson Fayle, Esq., Chatham. WALKER-WOOD.-On the 22nd inst., at St. Martin's Church, Scarborough, by the Rev. R. H. Parr, M.A., assisted by the Rev. J. Moore Lister, M.A., Edward Robinson Walker, of Manchester, solicitor, to Lola, second daughter of Edward Wood, Esq., of Westwood-mount, Scarborough. DEATHS. ALDERSON.-On the 18th inst., Francis Bennet Alderson, of 6, Montagu-street, Portman-square, and of the Temple, solicitor. POPE. On the 20th inst., at South Walk House, Dorchester, Dorset, aged 25, Mary Jenner, wife of Alfred Pope, Esq. solicitor.
NOTICE. NOW PUBLISHING.
A GENERAL INDEX to vols. 11 to 20 of the LAW TIMES REPORTS, New Series, will be published in ten parts, price 1s. each. Sent free of postage to subscribers. The first part is now ready. The General Index to vols. 1 to 10, N. S., may still be had, price 7s. 6d. in cloth.
The Law and the Lawyers.
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.-No. 1496.
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.
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 without 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.
THE subject of the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by registrars in bankruptcy has attracted the attention of the LORUS 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. Without referring to the terms of the Act, it may be safely affirmed that Parliament intended that before a case left the Court of Bankruptcy 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 vivâ 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 possible. We do not mean that the parties wished to invent evidence; 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 which 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 would 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 practice.
A VERY sensible article appeared in the Saturday 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
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. 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 read a "local paper which circulated 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 commit 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.
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.
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 provided 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, shall 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 knowledge 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 found 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. 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.
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION-RE-ARREST OF SHIP FOR COSTS.
Ir 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),
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. O. 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 courts were taxed, they came to 4321. 10s. 3d., so that, as the bail was only for 500l., the costs and damages together exceeded the amount of bail by 384l. 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 præcipe 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 decree, 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
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 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 107. and 9s. 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 consequently 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 the 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 court to be correct,