110%, the amount of an award given by an umpire in arbitration in respect of a fire occurring on premises in Gutter-lane on June 22, 1888. The defendants pleaded that the umpire exceeded his power, and that the claim was fraudulent.

Mr. Candy, Q.C., and Mr. E. Hume Williams appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Finlay, Q.C., and Mr. Graham for the defendants. Mr. Candy, for the plaintiff, said that his client by assignment was the holder of a policy for 5007. on the defendants in respect of premises occupied at the date of it by Wiedemüller. The facts showed that a month after the insurance was taken out a fire occurred on the premises, and the assured sent in a claim, which was resisted by the company. An action was brought, which was afterwards stayed, and when the present proceedings were in chambers the question was referred to arbitration. The arbitrators were unable to agree, and an umpire, after inquiry, on May 9, 1889, made an award of 110., being in respect of goods belonging to Wiedemüller and one Chas. Trevor, for whom he held goods on commission. The umpire directed payment of the sum forthwith, but defendants resisted the award, and hence the present action. In the meantime Wiedemüller had parted with his interest in the award to a Mr. White, who on his part had assigned it to the present plaintiff. The material issue between the parties was that Wiedemüller professed to exhibit accounts of the loss sustained which he knew to be false, and the question was how far the defendants, not having taken any steps to set aside the award of May 9, 1889, were now entitled to set up under one of the conditions of their policy an allegation that the whole thing from beginning to end was Voided by reason of the fraudulent misrepresentations of Wiedemüller. The policy and assignments were then put in, after which,

Mr. Graham, on behalf of the company, said that the whole occurrence was remarkable. The fire occurred exactly one month after the insurance, and the original claim sent in was for 937. 3s. 11d. in respect of Wiedemüller's goods, and 4367. 7s. 9d. in respect of the goods of Charles Trevor, which, it was said, Wiedemüller held on commission. It turned out that at the time Trevor and Wiedemüller were living in one room at a small tavern near. After the salvage had been sorted-the fire being found out and extinguished almost immediately—the services of a Mr. Lewis were retained by Wiedemüller as valuer, and he advised that the claim for 5297. 11s. 8d. could not be sustained; that Wiedemüller had better abandon the claim altogether and take the salvage and make what he could of it.

Evidence was then given which showed that the value of the goods was nothing like the amount first claimed, and that the damage done was not so great as alleged.

The Foreman of the Jury: We are of opinion it is a fraudulent claim. Mr. Finlay said he would not press the case further.

Mr Candy said he would only say that the only question of any in portance, that of fraud, was not gone into before the arbitrators or umpire, and that it was only when a claim was made for payment of the award that the defendants decided to fight the case.

Mr. Justice Wright said he had only to say that the plaintiff could not complain, because the claim under the policy was originally assigned by Wiedemüller to Mr. White, who acted for him, and then assigned to the plaintiff for a debt of 201. and payment of another 157. He thought it was the absolute duty of the defendants to have the matter tested, both in the interests of the public and of their own shareholders.

The jury thereupon gave a verdict for the defendants, having found that it was a fraudulent claim.

His lordship gave judgment accordingly.

Mr. Candy: Under the circumstances, may I ask you to make the order without costs.

Mr. Justice Wright: I have no power unless good cause is shown.

-MASTERS AND WORKMEN

CLASS SOMETIMES SPECIFIED BY STATUTE

ARCHITECT

WHY BARRISTERS USUALLY APPOINTED - LIABILITY OF AWARD BY LAY ARBITRATOR TO BE SET ASIDE — QUALIFICATIONS OF ARBITRATOR-MUST BE INDIFFERENT-LUNATICS AND INFANTS-DEBTOR OR CREDITOR OF PARTY-SECRET INTEREST -BAD FEELING BIAS OR PREJUDICE PRIVATE ARRANGEMENTARBITRATOR MUST BE INCORRUPT-BUYING UP CLAIMSAS ARBITRATOR BETWEEN BUILDER AND CLIENT ARBITRATOR IN OWN CASE-TABLE III. METHOD OF APPOINTMENT-REGULATED BY SUBMISSION-ACCEPTANCE NECESSARY TO PERFECT APPOINTMENT WHERE ARBITRATORS AND UMPIRE EMPLOYED, FORMER CANNOT ACT UNTIL LATTER APPOINTED-MUST NOT BE CHOSEN BY TOSSINGUP-RULES FOR GUIDANCE OF ARBITRATOR-MUST ENDEAVOUR TO DO AS TRIBUNAL WOULD HAVE DONE-MUST LOOK CAREFULLY TO SUBMISSION-ARBITRATOR NOT ALWAYS BOUND BY STRICT RULES OF PRACTICE-MAY ALLOW INTEREST-MAY EVEN DISREGARD THE STRICT LAW-LIMITS OF TIME FOR ADMISSION OF MATTERS-CLAIMS ARISING AFTER DATE OF WRIT--EXAMPLES-DURATION OF ARBITRATION-AWARD MAY BE MADE ON DATE OF SUBMISSION-TIME ALLOWED UNDER ARBITRATION ACT-HOW TIME MAY BE EXTENDED-WHERE TWO ARBITRATORS AND UMPIRE, DUTY OF LATTER IF FORMER DO NOT AWARD WITHIN PROPER TIME-BY LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT TWO ARBITRATORS MUST AWARD WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS OF ENLARGEMENT ARBITRATOR CANNOT EXTEND TIME NAMED UNLESS UNDER SPECIAL POWER-FORM OF ENLARGEMENTWHEN ARBITRATOR NOT LIMITED TO ONE ENLARGEMENT-UNDER LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT TWO ARBITRATORS MAY ENLARGE TIME TO THREE MONTHS-EXTENSION BY CONSENT-ATTENDANCES WHEN NO PROPER ENLARGEMENT-POWER OF COURTS TO ENLARGE TIME-DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAME AND THAT OF ARBITRATRATOR- TABLE IV. ARBITRATOR'S POWERS AS ΤΟ LIMITS OF ARBITRATION.

WE now approach, viz. the consideration of who may

E now approach, perhaps, the most important part

be an arbitrator, the method of his appointment, his duties and qualifications, and the principles which should guide him.

Sometimes the class from which the arbitrator for settling particular disputes should be selected is indicated by statute, as under 5 Geo. IV., c. 96, by which it is enacted that the referee for settling, by arbitration, disputes between masters and workmen, is to be a justice of the peace, if the parties can agree on one; if not, there are to be two arbitrators, one a master, or the agent or foreman of a master, and the other a workman in the calling respecting which the dispute has arisen.

I alluded in a former chapter to the subject of disputes between masters and workmen, saying that though by special Acts they were made subjects for arbitration, they were not likely much to concern the surveyor. Here, again, it would almost seem that, from the apathy of the profession, or from some other cause which would surely be worth while to try to discover, a class of work for which, in certain cases, no one should be so qualified as the surveyor, had fallen into other hands. In the numerous, frequent, and lamentable contests between labour and capital, to which no callings are more subject than the building trades, who so fit a person to hold the scales of justice as the surveyor-the man who, acquainted with the nature of the interests involved, the class of parties concerned, the qualifications called into requirement, the nature and value of the services rendered, is yet a partisan to neither side, though a friend to both? The ever-raging warfare between the two great elements in the economy of our commercial system might, and indeed does, form a fruitful subject for the essays of the philosopher. Even the late Lord Beaconsfield had his pet theory on the matter, attributing the discord which is continually making itself apparent by "strikes," to, I believe, the depreciation in value of gold. With such abstract theories we have nothing to do, but with the practical and business portion of the subject the architect and surveyor is intimately concerned. In his own proper person he is one of the chief sufferers by the stagnation

which is ever and anon caused by a "difference" between the operatives in some particular department of the building trades and their employers. In the inconvenience occasioned, not only to himself, but to his clients, by the occurrence of a strike during the progress of building operations under his superintendence, he is again made aware of his interest in the dispute. And this being so, why, I ask, should not the architect, having so close a connection with the matters in difference, accustomed, as he is, to act as arbitrator between clients and contractors, and accustomed, too, as he is (or should be) to weigh the evidence and facts, and form an impartial opinion thereupon, be the person customarily selected as arbitrator in such disputes?

The foregoing paragraph appears in the previous edition of this book, and I am glad to find the advice then given has been followed.

My readers will remember the very long and serious strike in the carpenters and joiners' trade in London which extended over so many months and which appeared to be incapable of settlement till the parties agreed to refer their dispute to the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, whose award up to this date has been honourably observed by both parties.

The difficulties of the position must not be overlooked nor lightly estimated, for there is one grand distinction between awards given in disputes of this character and those of arbitrators appointed to decide an action-at-law. This is, that in the latter case the award can be enforced, but in the former there is no guarantee beyond the good sense and honourable feeling of the parties, that they will abide by the arbitrator's decision. He is therefore in this truly dignified but difficult position, that he must convince both sides of the justice of his decision, to secure for his award respect and obedience. Truly this is a glorious responsibility, and happy the man that can rise to the greatness of the occasion. Patience, clear-headedness,