Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Perjury in Judicial Proceedings.

NICE questions have often arisen in prosecutions for perjury as to whether the false evidence was given in a judicial proceeding, and more particularly since the custom grew up of constituting by statute courts of a semi-judicial nature, empowered to take evidence upon oath. The Criminal Appeal Court had an interesting point to decide this week upon an indictment for perjury under the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889. By sect. 7 of that Act, "Whoever wilfully and corruptly swears falsely in any oath or affidavit taken or made in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall be guilty of perjury in every case where, if he had been so sworn in a judicial proceeding before a court of competent jurisdiction, he would have been guilty of perjury." The appellants had adopted a form of procedure somewhat novel even to the annals of crime. One of them, a picture dealer, had issued a writ in the High Court against a fictitious and non-existent defendant, against whom he obtained judgment for default of appearance, upon an affidavit by the other appellant that the writ had been duly served upon the alleged defendant. The alleged plaintiff then consigned pictures, presumably unsaleable otherwise, to the alleged defendant, and obtained the proceeds of a sale thereof by the sheriff, who seized and sold them under a writ of fieri facias. writ of fieri facias. The perjury charged against one appellant was the false swearing in the affidavit as to the service of the writ, whilst the other was indicted for aiding and abetting, and suborning him to commit perjury. It was contended on behalf of the appellants, who cited in aid of their contention the case of Reg. v. Pearce (7 L. T. Rep. 597; 3 B. & S. 531), that the proceedings in question were not a judicial proceeding, as no defendant was in fact in existence. In that case the prisoner was charged with perjury on the hearing of an amended judgment summons, in a cause where the court, which had no jurisdiction so to do, had amended a summons issued upon a judgment recovered in a plaint by a single woman, by adding the name of a man whom she had married subsequently to obtaining the judgment, so that the cause had in fact no existence. It was also suggested that as the proceedings in the civil action were based on a state of affairs that did not exist, no indictment for perjury could lie, and therefore the false oath in the affidavit could not be the subject of an indictment under the Act. The appeal was dismissed, the court holding that the evidence showed an offence within the above quoted section, and also that the perjury was committed during the course of a duly constituted judicial proceeding. Perjury is an offence at common law only if committed under oath administered in a judicial proceeding, but the tendency has always been to widen rather than to limit the scope of this rule. Thus it was decided in King v. The Queen (14 Q. B. 31) that perjury may be assigned on an oath taken before the commencement of a legal proceeding, but for the purposes of such proceeding; and, in Rex v. White (M. & M. 271), that it might be assigned on an oath taken in an affidavit made for the purpose of a motion in Chancery, which motion was never in fact made.

The Prevention of Crime Act 1908.

THIS week the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the conviction of an appellant upon an indictment for being a habitual criminal on the ground of no sufficient notice being given of the grounds on which he was so charged. Sect. 10, sub-sect. 4, of the Prevention of Crime Act 1908 contains a proviso that: "A charge of being a habitual criminal shall not be inserted in an indictment (b) unless not less than seven days' notice has been given to the proper officer of the court by which the offender is to be tried, and to the offender, that it is intended to insert such a charge; and the notice to the offender shall specify the previous convictions and the other grounds upon which it is intended to

found the charge." The appellant had been convicted on evidence showing that he had been previously convicted, and that since such conviction he had been associating with another man who had been convicted of coinage offences similar to that which formed the main charge against the appellant. No notice of these facts, except of the previous conviction of the appellant, was given to him. The proviso in the Act of 1908 is not merely a direction for the purposes of practice, but a strict compliance with its terms is apparently a condition precedent to an indictment under sect. 10 of the Act.

LEGISLATION.

Diseases of Animals.

THE weight of the arguments in favour of some definite scheme for the consolidation of enactments to be found scattered passim over our piecemeal legislation may be understood by a glance at a new measure recently introduced in the House of Commons with the object of bringing together, without amendment, the various sections in different Acts which are concerned with the diseases of animals. The principal Act on the subject at the present time is that of 1894, itself a consolidatory measure. This is an enactment of prime importance entering into the daily life and habits of a large number of persons engaged in agricultural and kindred pursuits. Out of it has grown a mass of orders issued by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries the bare enumeration of which would occupy more than a page in this journal. In addition, the Local Government Board have exercised certain powers. Under this general heading we find also legislation in 1910 affecting the export of unfit horses, and during the session of 1911 this protection from suffering was extended in the Poultry Act, which Act is to be cited together with the catena of statutes comprehensively described as the Diseases of Animals Acts 1894 to 1911. The new measure not only deals, then, with this complex mass of legislation, but further includes sect. 2 of the Dogs Act 1906.

The New Bill.

THE task of consolidation is a heavy one, and results in a Bill of eighty-seven clauses and several pages of schedule matter. The general arrangement is naturally consistent with clarity, and persons concerned with this subject are enabled with more convenience to grasp what the Legislature has laid down. After setting out the powers and duties of the local authorities, we get to separation of animals and police notices. Then comes the subject of cattle plague and infected areas, slaughter by order, compensation therefor, and powers of an exceptional character when animals on transit or exposed to sale are found to be affected with disease. Then the Bill passes on to sheep, and in turn to horses, asses, and mules. Clause 24 occupies in itself over four pages, and it gives a general power to the Bard of Agriculture and Fisheries to make orders in a form which would cover the whole width of the subjects of disease and movement. This phrase includes cleansing, feeding, watering, identifying animals, collars, muzzles, and "generally . . the better execution of this Act or the purpose of in any manner preventing the spread of disease." The Bill in question was presented by Mr. George Greenwood and supported by Sir D. Brynmor Jones et alios.

Highway Legislation.

Two small measures are now before Parliament which are designed to amend certain alleged defects in the existing law relating to highways. When the Lights on Vehicles Act 1907 was passed, sect. 4 thereof gave a power to county councils to exempt from the operation of the Act for certain periods vehicles carrying, in the course of harvesting operations, farm produce to stack or barn, but the section did not expressly include the carriage of hay or straw or similar inflammable substances. As will be seen, sect. 4 applies to county councils. Sect. 3, which applies to the "council of any borough" (and as an exception the London County Council), gives a power by order to exempt

66

"any vehicle which is carrying any inflammable goods of a kind specified in the order." There seems possibly to have been some accidental omission to deal with inflammable materials in the later section, but attempts at this time of congestion to add to the perils of the roads by facilitating the movement of unlighted traffic require strong justification, more especially as it has been shown that lights can be safely carried by farm carts if properly fitted and protected. The other measure to which we have adverted is concerned with a very different point. It proposes to make an employer liable for the results of his driver's overwork. If a driver of a waggon, cart, or other such carriage on any highway" is employed consecutively for more than twelve hours, the employer or owner of the vehicle must provide an additional driver. If a driver commits offence under sect. 78 of the Highway Act 1835 and can prove that it arose through overwork without necessary sleep, the owner or employer is then to be liable to the driver's penalties in the place and stead of such driver. A further provision follows in favour of drivers engaged in collecting and delivering goods. A driver so engaged is not to be convicted for leaving the cart so as to obstruct the highway or for not having control over the animal drawing it, if he reasonable proves care and diligence, and that he has not left the cart in such a situation or for a longer time than was necessary for the execution of his work. Here again we find proposals which will require strong justification.

Welsh Disestablishment.

an

THE Bill on the above-named subject having passed its first reading by a majority of less than eighty, will now have to withstand the far more serious ordeals awaiting it as time and opportunity are afforded for a more detailed examination of its proposals. Its chief point of differentiation from its predecessor is in its allowing the Ecclesiastical Commission and Queen Anne's Bounty to continue to pay over about £69,000 a year to the Welsh Church, and in its recognising the life interests of existing incumbents during their lives and not merely during their tenure of office. Another difference is that it is now proposed that the administration of confiscated property should be vested in a commission of three persons and not, as formerly suggested, in a body of indefinite size. We do not quite gather whether the appeal given to His Majesty in Council from their decisions subsists in the new Bill. The rough financial results may be tabulated thus: The ancient parochial endowments (£116,000) are confiscated, as are also the ancient episcopal estates (£41,000), the Queen Anne's Bounty revenue from Welsh sources (£9000), and the Welsh share of Parliamentary grants (£6000). The revenue of the Ecclesiastical Commission from English sources (£50,000) is retained, and the same indulgence is given to the revenue of Queen Anne's Bounty from English sources (£19,000) and endowments later than 1662, representing something like £18,500. A total exceeding £172,000 is confiscated, and the Church is left with about £87,500 a year plus the life interests of incumbencies.

WHERE SHALL I SEND My Boy?-See "Public Schools at a Glance." Best and fullest information ever published. 2s. 6d. post free.Association of Standardised Knowledge, Ltd., 15, Buckinghamstreet, Adelphi, London, W.C.—[Advt.]

can now be

FIXED INCOMES.-Houses and Residential Flats Furnished on a new system of Deferred Payments especially adapted for those with fixed incomes who do not wish to disturb investments. Selection from the largest stock in the world. Everything legibly marked in plain figures. Maple and Co. Ltd., Tottenham Court-road, London, W.-[ADVT.]

SANITARY ASSURANCE.-Before renting or purchasing a house it is advisable to obtain an independent report on the condition of the Drains, Sanitary Fittings, and Water Supply. Moderate fees for Sanitary Inspections on application to the Sanitary Engineering Company, 115, Victoria-street, Westminster. 'Phone, 4316 Victoria. "Sanitation," London.-[ADVT.]

HEPBURN AND COCKS, Established 1790, Portsmouth-street, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London, W.C., Deed, Cash, and Despatch Box Manufacturers. Strong Deed Boxes from 5s. Special sizes at short notice. Cheapest House for Wig Boxes. Catalogues and Estimates free. 'Phone: 1015 Central.-[ADVT.]

BANKRUPTCY LAW AND PRACTICE.

Non-Trader's Notice of Suspension of Payment.

THE insertion in sect. 4 (h) of the Bankruptcy Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52) of a provision that a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy if he gives notice that he has suspended, or is about to suspend, payment of his debts constituted an entirely new form of act of bankruptcy. Although such a notice need not be in writing (Ex parte Nickoll; Re Walker, 13 Q. B. Div. 469), it must be formally and deliberately given. Mere casual talk is not sufficient: (Ex parte Oastler; Re Friedlander, 51 L. T. Rep. 309; 13 Q. B. Div. 471). Nor does a statement of a debtor at a meeting of his creditors as to his financial position, followed by an offer of a composition, fall within the section: (Re Walsh ; Ex parte Trustee, 52 L. T. Rep. 694). Whether there has been a notice of suspension, however, is not usually open to doubt, for it is by means of the sending out of a circular that a debtor commonly informs his creditors that he is unable to continue to pay his debts. And in the case of traders, there are numerous authorities dealing with instances where such a course has been adopted. But in the recent case of Re A Debtor; Ex parte Petitioning Creditors v. The Debtor (noted 132 L. T. Jour. 606), a non-trader it was who had issued such a circular. And that circumstance gave rise to the difficult point that required to be determined there. The extension of the law of bankruptcy

was

to non-traders by the Act of 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 134) a change of great importance. Previously they were obliged to petition for relief, and discharge from prison, to the Insolvent Debtors Court established by 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110. At the present time the old distinction between traders and non-traders has practically disappeared. Were it not, indeed, for the doctrine of " reputed ownership," the position of a nontrader would generally be no different from that of a trader, in so far as bankruptcy is concerned. The doctrine is confined to goods in the possession, order or disposition, of a bankrupt, in his trade or business (see Act of 1883, sect. 44 (2) (iii.), instead of applying as formerly to all goods in the possession of a trader whether connected with his business or not. That the issue of the circular in the present case would have been an act of bankruptcy if a trader had been responsible for it is perhaps beyond question. But there seems to be no direct decision that such a circular amounts to an act of bankruptcy in the case of a non-trader. The case of Re Dagnal; Ex parte Soan and Morley (75 L. T. Rep. 142; (1896) 2 Q. B. 407) was cited, but it is not really in point. The nearest case appears to be Re Scott; Ex parte Scott (or Lewis) (74. L. T. Rep. 555; (1896) 1 Q. B. 619), where the court expressed grave doubt whether the Legislature intended sect. 4 (h) of the Act of 1883 to apply to non-traders. That is the only reported case in which a non-trader was held-despite the doubt so expressed -to have made a declaration amounting to a notice of suspension of payment. As stated in our note of the present case, however, Justices Phillimore and Bray arrived at the conclusion, having regard to the facts of the case, that the circular was not such as came within the mischief of the sub-section. Although the decision was limited in that fashion, the following proposition is clearly deducible from it: In the case of a non-trader a declaration of inability to pay his debts is not necessarily a notice to his creditors of an intention to suspend payment, as in the case of a trader it most likely would be: (see Crook v. Morley, 65 L. T. Rep. 389; (1891) A. C. 316).

OCCASIONAL NOTES.

In the House of Lords Thompson v. Dibdin and others (hearing) will be taken on Monday next, at 10.45.

In Appeal Court II. the following appeal will be in the paper for rehearing before the full Court of Appeal to-day (Saturday): -Divorce: Scott (otherwise Morgan) v. Scott.

In the King's Bench Division Mr. Justice Bray will resume 'the hearing of Clydesdale Bank v. Schroeder on Monday next, at eleven o'clock.

Assigned actions will be taken on Friday next.

Order XIV., r. 8, cases, with common juries, will be taken on Monday next.

Mr. Justice Scrutton and Mr. Justice Bankes will leave London to-day (Saturday) for Manchester, on the Northern Circuit, and will open the commission on Monday next, the 6th inst. When the business at this town is finished they will return to London, remaining until the end of the present sittings. During this assize the court will sit every day, excepting Saturdays, from 10.30 a.m. to 5 o'clock p.m. The court will not sit on Saturdays unless the judge for any reason thinks it desirable.

Mr. Justice Ridley has fixed the following commission days for the summer assizes on the South Wales Circuit-viz.: Haverfordwest, Wednesday, May 29; Lampeter, Friday, May 31; Carmarthen, Tuesday, June 4; Brecon, Monday, June 10; and Presteign, Thursday, June 13. At the conclusion of the business at Presteign Mr. Justice Ridley will return to London, afterwards going back for the second part of the circuit at Chester and Swansea, but the commission days have not yet been fixed. At the last two named towns Mr. Justice Ridley will be joined by Mr. Justice Lush.

Mr. Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice Avory have appointed the following commission days for holding the summer assizes on the Midland Circuit-viz.: Aylesbury, Tuesday, May 28; Bedford, Friday, May 31; Northampton, Tuesday, June 4; Leicester, Friday, June 7; Oakham, Friday, June 14; Lincoln, Saturday, June 15; Derby, Saturday, June 22; and Nottingham, Saturday, June 29. The commission days for Warwick and Birmingham have not yet been fixed. Mr. Justice Coleridge will yo the circuit alone until Nottingham is reached. When the business at this town is finished Mr. Justice Coleridge will return to London, where he will remain until the end of the sittings, and Mr. Justice Avory will continue the circuit, going on to Warwick and Birmingham. At the last-named town he will be joined by Mr. Justice Horridge.

The May Sessions at the Central Criminal Court will commence on Tuesday, the 14th inst., at 10.30.

The May general sessions for cases arising on the north and south sides of the Thames will commence on Tuesday next, at the Sessions-house, Newington, at 10.30.

An intermediate session for cases arising in the county of Middlesex will commence on Saturday next, at the Caxton Hall, Caxton-street, Westminster, at 10.30.

The May Sittings at the Mayor's Court will commence on Monday next, at eleven o'clock.

The Duc d'Orléans has disposed of his Wood Norton and Bishampton estates to Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady.

The annual flower show of the Royal Horticultural Society will not be held in the gardens of the Inner Temple this year.

Mr. Samuel Lithgow, solicitor, of London, has been adopted as one of the prospective Liberal candidates for Devonport. Mr. Lithgow has twice unsuccessfully stood for the borough.

The President of the Law Society (Mr. W. J. Humfrys) has consented to preside at the fifty-second anniversary festival of the Solicitors' Benevolent Association on Thursday, the 6th June.

Mr. Henry St. J. Digby Raikes, Recorder of King's Lynn and a member of the South-Eastern Circuit, was last Wednesday elected the chairman of the Derbyshire Quarter Sessions. Mr. Raikes was called by the Inner Temple in 1887.

Sir John Chute Neligan, Kt., K.C., of Tralee, county Kerry, formerly Recorder of Cork, who died on the 29th June, aged eighty-five, left personal estate in the United Kingdom valued at £14,811.

Dr. Thomas Hutchinson Tristram, K.C., D.C.L., of The Elms, Hampton, Middlesex, Chancellor of the Dioceses of London, Hereford, Ripon, Wakefield, and Chichester, who died on the Sth March, aged eighty-six, left estate of the gross value of £1901, with net personalty nil.

The Town Hall Committee of the Manchester Corporation recommended the council to give its support to an application to be made by the Manchester Law Society to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for an order to extend the jurisdiction of the Salford Hundred Court of Record to £100, in accordance with the Salford Hundred Court of Record Act 1911.

Mr. Justice Bankes will take the chair at the eightieth anniversary festival of the United Law Clerks' Society, which will be held in the Grand Hall, Hotel Cecil, on Friday, the 7th June. The twenty-third meeting of the session 1911-12 of the Union Society of London was held at 3, King's Bench-walk, on Wednesday. The president was in the chair. The subject for debate was: That in the opinion of this House the powers of the Cabinet in the Imperial House of Commons have grown and are growing, and ought to be diminished." Proposed by Mr. Aubrey V. Davies; opposed by Mr. A. Safford. Other speakers were Messrs. A. Falcon and M. P. FitzGerald, Dr. Cowburn, and Messrs. W. R. Willson, J. G. Baker, and C. A. Geen. Upon a division the motion was declared lost.

[ocr errors]

Sir John Macdonell will give the first of a course of four lectures on "Comparative Legal Procedure as illustrated by Trials (English and Foreign)," at University College, Gower-street, on Wednesday, at 5.30 p.m. The lectures are open to the public without fee or ticket. They are intended not only for students, but for members of the Profession and journalists and others interested in the subject.

The quarterly meeting of the Council of the Yorkshire Board of Legal Studies was held at the Law Library, York, on the 26th ult. The chairman, Mr. F. J. Munby, presided, and there was a good attendance of members. A report by a sub committee, who had considered the best means of extending the benefit of law teaching to the towns and districts outside Leeds and Sheffield, in conjunction with the two universities, was fully considered, and their recommendations were approved. It was resolved to arrange a joint meeting of the law committees of the Leeds and Sheffield Universities, with a view, if possible, to the framing of a detailed scheme in the interests of the students.

In view of the continued conflicts of jurisdiction between the Mixed Tribunals and the Consular Courts, says the Cairo correspondent of the Times, the Judicial Adviser in his report advocates, pending a more radical solution, the establishment of a superior Commission to decide in such cases which courts are competent. With reference to the legislative powers conferred upon a general assembly of the Mixed Court of Appeal by virtue of the modification of Art. 12 of the Mixed Civil Code, Sir Malcolm McIlwraith points out that, while in regard to procedure and similar matters some improvement may be looked for from new machinery, no radical solution of existing difficulties can be expected from its creation, since to introduce fundamental changes in organisation or jurisdiction is outside the competency of the assembly. While assuredly a progressive step, the scheme can, the adviser concludes, hardly be regarded as more than a temporary makeshift and a more or less satisfactory palliative of the legislative impotence of the country.

The question of providing London with a new Sessions House. centrally situated, was again discussed last week by the justices attending the quarterly meeting at the Sessions House, Newington. The following resolution, moved by Mr. Brinsley Harper and seconded by Mr. Edmund Barnes, was carried unanimously: "That this Court desires to protest most strongly against any. arrangement being made between the London County Council and the Corporation of London which will in any way deprive the Justices of London of their rights, duties, and privileges; that the London County Council be called upon at once to provide the site for the necessary new building." The special committee of the corporation have re-affirmed their previous report viewing the suggestion of amalgamating the administration of criminal justice at the Old Bailey as desirable, if practicable, subject to the corporation's rights and privileges being preserved and financial arrangements approved, and recommending that negotiations as to details should be at once entered into. The matter will come before the corporation at their next meeting. The Lord Chief Justice, however, has forwarded to the City Corporation a unanimous resolution of those judges who are commissioners at the Old Bailey to the effect that there are serious objections to the proposal for amalgamating the administration of criminal justice there, and that amalgamation is not possible.

Mr. Lloyd George, in speaking in debate on the Welsh Church Disestablishment and Disendowment Bill, accepted the suggestion that the date of the Reformation, of which he said he was in doubt, was 1533. In the Parliament of 1533 an Act was passed against all appeals to Rome in causes of matrimony, divorces, wills, and other suits cognisable in ecclesiastical courts, while Cranmer pronounced sentence in which he annulled the marriage of Henry VIII. and Catharine of Arragon as unlawful and invalid from the beginning, and by a subsequent sentence ratified the marriage of the King to Anne Boleyn in the early part of the year. The year 1534, which witnessed the annulling by several Acts of Paliament of the papal authority in England, the subjecting of persons paying any regard to that authority to the penalties of præmunire, and the passing of the memorable Act of Supremacy, followed by another declaring all persons to be guilty of treason who refused to give the title of "the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England" to Henry VIII., may be considered as the date of the irreconcilable separation of the English Church from Rome and, as such, the actual era of the Reformation.

COUNTY COURTS, EQUITY, AND BANKRUPTCY CASES.-Published quarterly, price 4s., post free. Comprising the Decisions in Law and Equity, administered in the County Courts; the Appeals from the County Courts; the Judgments in Important Cases decided in the County Courts; and all the Cases in Bankruptcy in all the Courts.-HORACE Cox, "County Courts Chronicle" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C.-[ADVT.]

PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE AND

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

Public Documents and Parliament.

On the 25th ult. the Speaker, in reply to a question addressed to him, said: "If the Government quote from a document they are bound to produce it." It is a rule or principle of debate that a Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other State paper not before the House unless he is prepared to lay it upon the table. This restraint is similar to that rule of evidence in courts of law which prevents counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. Mr. Lloyd George, in reply to a question whether he would publish the evidence given before the Committee on Irish Finance, said he was not prepared to publish that evidence as most of it had been given on the understanding that it should be treated as confidential. The rule in respect to the production of documents cited in debate seems to apply to public documents exclusively. On the 18th May 1865 the Attorney-General, on being asked by Mr. Ferrand if he would lay upon the table a written statement and a letter to which he had referred on a previous day, replied that he had made a statement to the House on his own responsibility, and that, the documents to which he had referred being private, he could not lay them upon the table. Lord Robert Cecil (the late Marquis of Salisbury) contended that the papers, having been cited, should be produced, but the Speaker declared that this rule referred to public documents only. On the 10th Aug. 1893 the Speaker ruled that confidential documents or documents of a private character passing between officers of a department and the department cited in debate are not necessarily laid on the table of the House, especially if the Minister declares that they are of a confidential character. It is obvious that as the House of Commons deals only with public documents in its proceedings, it could not thus .incidentally require the production of documents which, if moved for separately, would be refused as beyond its jurisdiction. The Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.

THE provision in the Home Rule Bill that, "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Act, every subject of His Majesty shall be qualified to hold the office of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland without reference to his 'religious belief" will recall a curious episode in legal history. So far back as the 6th May 1872 the late Lord Coleridge, Lord Chief Justice of England, who was then Attorney-General, in reply to a question addressed to him in the House of Commons by the late Right Hon. Serjeant Sir Colman O'Loghlen, Bart., Q.C., gave it as his careful and well-considered opinion that there was then on the true construction of the various statutes relating to the subject no impediment to prevent a Roman Catholic from filling the office of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. He, however, mentioned in his answer that "a right hon. friend," not further identified, differed from him on a vital point of the case. Acting on Lord Coleridge's opinion, Sir Colman O'Loghlen did not proceed further with his Bill, and the matter may be said to have rested there till the introduction of Mr. Gladstone's Bill, which was defeated on its second reading motion on the 4th Feb. 1891. Mr. Gladstone on that occasion referred to Lord Coleridge's opinion, and said that no one charged by the Sovereign with the solemn duty of forming a Government in this country would 'venture to recommend for this office any Roman Catholic while anyone-and the opinion of Lord Coleridge was seriously contested-entertained the smallest doubt attaching to the law which would place the validity of his acts in question.

WHERE TO FIND YOUR LAW.-Being a Discursive Bibliographical Essay upon the various Divisions and Subdivisions of the Law of England, and the Statutes, Reports of Cases, and Text Books containing such Law, with Appendixes for Facilitating Reference to all Statutes and Reports of Cases, and with a Full Index. By ERNEST ARTHUR JELF, M.A., of New College, Oxford, Barrister-at-Law of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, and of the SouthEastern Circuit. Third Edition, greatly Enlarged, price 10s. 6d., post free.-HORACE COX, "Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E. C.-[ADVT.]

IRISH NOTES.

IT is stated that the Irish Insurance Commissioners have demanded that a fixed number of solicitors, who have applied for the office of solicitor to them in answer to their advertisement, must submit to a competitive examination, and that they have been met with a flat refusal. It is certainly a very novel proposal.

THE learned Recorder of Belfast has adopted a rule in his court which if generally followed would have far-reaching results. Some firms of solicitors of high standing were habitually represented in court by a solicitor, not a member of the firm, who was employed in the office at a salary. A member of the firm, or a counsel, must in future appear in every such case, and he would not permit the present practice to be continued, which was not a right or proper one.

THE Company which entertained the Recorder of Dublin to dinner last week and presented him with an eloquent address in an artistically executed album, was in one respect unique. It was a wonderful blend of all creeds and classes animated by the same feeling of respect and admiration for the remarkable man they had assembled to honour on the occasion of his elevation to the Privy Council. Mr. O'Shaughnessy's constant attention to the question of improved housing in the city of Dublin has won, as it deserved, general recognition, and he was surrounded by many public men on this occasion whose highest claim to honour and respect arises from the energy and money they have put into the same good work in the capital of Ireland.

COUNTY COURT JUDGE JOHNSTON had an interesting legal point before him last week and delivered judgment which is certain to be heard of again. Under the Irish Land Purchase Acts, where the landlord and tenants agree to the terms of a sale, and the purchase agreements are signed and lodged with the Irish Land Commission, the tenant is thereupon discharged from all liability to the vendor in respect of either rent or arrears of rent at the date of the agreement. In a case of Martin v. Collins, the solicitor for the vendor, Mr. Martin, advanced to the tenant purchasers the amount of the rent due in order to get the agreements signed, and he took an I.O.U. from each tenant. After the sale was completed he sued the tenants upon this document. Judge Johnston held that under the statute this could not be done, and that the proceeding was a mere contrivance to evade the scope of sect. 35 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1896. The decision of the King's Bench Division in Nash v. Neazor (1908, 2 I. R. 46), sustains to a great extent this decision, though the facts of the two cases were not precisely the same.

GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.

DINNER TO HIS HONOUR JUDGE EDGE. Mr. JUSTICE PICKFORD presided at a complimentary dinner given to His Honour Judge J. Broughton Edge as a mark of esteem on his retirement from the judgeship of Clerkenwell County Court, at the Hotel Cecil on Friday the 26th ult. Among those present were Sir Muir Mackenzie, His Honour Sir W. L. Selfe, His Honour Judge Howland Roberts, His Honour Judge Bray, Messrs. G. H. Radford, M.P., E. R. Bartley Denniss, M.P., G. S. Elliott (Mayor of Islington), S. P. Merlin, J. D. Cassels, F. C. Sills, J. M. Gover, W. O. Hodges, W. A. Willis, J. S. Duckers, M. T. Hodding, S. M. Robinson (President of the Hertfordshire Law Society), Cecil Scott, E. P. Debenham, A. F. Clements, and A. T. Lewthwaite (hon. sec.).

After the loyal toasts,

Mr. Justice Pickford proposed the health of "The Guest." He said that letters had been received from many persons expressing regret that they were unable to be present, among them the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Mersey, Mr. George Elliott and Mr. Neilson. Turning to the toast he observed that it was really quite superfluous to say anything at all in its favour, because it seemed to hina that when a man who had been a County Court judge for between twenty-three and twenty four years, on his retirement was met by such a gathering in his honour that was a quite sufficient testimony to his worth. He believed it to be the fact that it was very much more difficult for a County Court judge to give satisfaction to everybody than it was for a High Court judge, for the reason that his work was very much more irritating and trying. He himself had practised in the County Court a good deal and had sat in the County Court as an assessor and he knew that this was So. The judges in the High Court generally had the cases presented to them by competent.

That

counsel who were instructed by competent solicitors. was sometimes the case in the County Court, but often the case was not presented to the judge at all but thrown at him without the intervention of counsel or solicitor, and perhaps the judge had to struggle through a maze of two angry old women, both disputing and talking at the same time about an alleged debt of eighteenpence, and neither of them saying a word that had anything to do with the matter, and the judge had to be solicitor and counsel and judge as well. It followed that far greater credit was due to the judge if he did his work well than in the case of the judge of the High Court. Then it was very difficult for a High Court judge to do anything wrong without some one being down upon him in the papers, whereas often in the comfortable regions of the County Court nobody knew what was being done, and if the judge wanted to be unpleasant no one would know anything about it. Therefore it was a very great testimony to any judge to have a compliment of this kind paid to him after so many years' service. He joined the Northern Circuit a few years after their guest, who was one of the persons from whom he remembered receiving kindness and encouragement. Later they drifted apart, for he became a local in Manchester, whilst their guest was a local in Liverpool. And then their guest became a County Court judge in Devonshire, and so much satisfaction did he give that he was requested to be chairman of the quarter sessions, and when he left the County Court he was asked to remain chairman of the quarter sessions. He was there for more than ten years, and then he came to London where he gave just as much, or even more, satisfaction, with the result that when he left the Bench this dinner was given to show that those who took part in it appreciated what he did while there, and that they regretted that he had thought it right to retire. Judge Edge had from first to last shown his intention to do entire justice to the parties who came before him, to treat counsel, solicitors, suitors, and witnesses with fairness, and to extend to everybody an unvarying courtesy. He asked them to drink his health, and to wish him many years of enjoyment in the retirement to which he had now betaken himself.

The toast having been drunk with great enthusiasm, His Honour Judge Edge, in returning thanks, said that some years ago he had found that until then he had heard something like 60,000 cases, judgment summonses forming rather more than one-half the whole, the others being cases extending from a quarter of an hour onwards, and from a dispute of an account for washing up to a case which had become notorious which occupied thirteen days in the hearing. At one time, he must confess, he had aspired to wear the ermine, but fate was against him, and he became a County Court judge, in which capacity he was also a number of judges rolled into one. For the County Court judge was a judge in Admiralty, in Bankruptcy, and in Equity. He had also seated a peer who had been made a bankrupt in Parliament, and he had unseated him. He was bound to say that he thought the presence of a County Court judge on the High Court Bench would be of great assistance in the administration of justice. There were now, as one read in the papers, impending changes in the air. The Lord Chancellor's Bill contained a very sweeping measure of reform with regard to giving the County Courts unlimited jurisdiction. It seemed to him as far as common law procedure was concerned, a great stride towards the fusion of the two branches of the Profession; though he would strongly prefer that the Bar should remain separate from the solicitor branch of the Profession. The Bill seemed to him to contain clauses which would be eminently useful in the administration of justice in the County Courts. He thought those clauses were for the benefit of the public and of the Profession, and he hoped they would pass. He hoped that something would be done before long to put an end to the great amount of perjury that prevailed in the County Courts. The difficulty of arriving at the truth was getting greater than ever. He attributed this to the spread of education. Those who came into the court knew the questions that would be put to them, and they were prepared with answers, and the consequence was that counsel and advocates had to repeat questions and put them in various forms before they could arrive at the truth, if ever they did arrive at the truth, so that trials were lengthened considerably. Then there were some who thought that imprisonment for debt should be entirely abolished. But a million and some hundreds of thousand claims were entered in the County Courts, and out of them half a million of debts were paid on the simple issue of the summons, and he thought that showed the usefulness of the procedure. The very fact that there were half a million people owing debts and well able to pay them, who only did so because of the County Courts, said much for the value of the system. He could not help feeling that the honour of this gathering was a compliment paid not only to him but to the County Court Bench as a whole, and to the manner in which it was discharging its duties. He had tried to do his duty. He had done his best. He had only had one maxim in his mind which was that he would never see anything of a case but as a legal

mind saw the case. He looked at the case and not at the indi viduals engaged in it. That was simply the application of common sense to the administration of justice, of course with the addition of some knowledge of the law and applying that knowledge as well as it lay in his power to do. In saying farewell, he thanked them for the great honour which they had done him, for the kindness which every member of the Bar and every advocate who ever practised before him had always extended to him. He had never had the slightest difficulty with counsel or solicitors who came before him, and he thought that was owing very much to the feeling that he was doing his best.

The remaining toasts were "The Houses of Parliament," proposed by His Honour Judge W. Howland Roberts, Mr. G. H. Radford, M.P., responding; "The Bench," submitted by Mr. R. W. Turner, His Honour Judge Selfe returning thanks; and "The Chairman," proposed by Mr. Dodd, Mr. Justice Pickford acknowledging the compliment.

HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. HOWELL (Frank), Clapham. Heir-at-law living on June 9, 1911, or other persons entitled to his real estate, also the next of kin or their legal personal representatives, to come in, by June 5, at chambers of Warrington and Parker, JJ. Hearing June 12, at 12, at said chambers, Room 315.

APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK
WINDING-UP ACTS.

NOTICES OF APPEARANCE AT HEARING MUST REACH THE SOLICITORS BY 6 P.M.
ON THE DATE GIVEN, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.
ANGLO-AUSTRIAN COMMERCE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 23,
to J. B. Wandless, 13, Old Jewry-chmbrs, E.C.
DOUGLAS AND OLIVER LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard
May 7, at Royal Courts of Justice. Heywood and Ram, the Outer
Temple, 222, Strand, W.C., sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by
May 6.
FOLKESTONE ELECTRIC THEATRES LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 16,
to R. E. Ware, 7, Unity-st, College Green, Bristol.
HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC HOUSE TRUST COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in.
by May 23, to T. J. Searle, 72, Mansion House-chmbrs, Bucklersbury,
E.C.

J. M. BAIN AND CO. LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard
May 14, at Royal Courts of Justice. Mills, Curry, and Gaskell, 11,
Queen Victoria-st, E.C., sols. to pet. Notices of appearance by
May 13.
KEARSLEY SPINNING COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up by or
subject to supervision of the court, to be heard May 13, by Court ot
Chancery of County Palatine of Lancaster, sitting at St. George's
Hall, Liverpool, at 10.30. C. R. Hardman, Manchester, sol. for pets.
Notices of appearance by 2, on May 11.

LAWRENCE BROTHERS LIMITED-Petition for winding-up to be heard
May 7, at Royal Courts of Justice. Harris, Chetham, and Cohen,
25, Finsbury-sq, E.C., sols, for pets. Notices of appearance by May 6.
MERTHYR TELEGRAPH PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in,
by May 31, to F. A. Phillips, 34, Victoria-st. Merthyr Tydfil.
NATIONAL PROVINCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send
in, by June 3, to W. B. Peat, 11, Ironmonger-la, E.C. W. A. Crump
and Son, 17, Leadenhall-st, E.C., sole. for liquidator.
RUBBER AND OIL FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED. Creditors to send in, by
May 31, to F. H. C. Christmas, 46-47, London-wall, E.C.
SHALE SYNDICATE LIMITED.--Creditors to send in, by June 6, to A. R.
Bennett, 65, Bishopsgate, E.C.

T. HARRIS AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 31, to P. E. Robathan, 14, Dumfries-pl, Cardiff. Morgan, Bruce, and Nicholas. sols. for liquidator. WILLIAM TOLSON AND SONS (EARLSHEATON) LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 14, to W. H. Shaw, Market-pl, Dewsbury.

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LAST DAY OF PROOFS.

BRAMLEY (William Forrester), Leicester. May 29; F. Davis, of Stone and
Co., sols., Leicester. June 5; Warrington, J., at 12.
LUCAS (Ellie), Eastbourne, trading as "Ellie Francis and Co." May 27,
A. J. Hart, of Hart, Reade, Kennett, and Co., sols., Eastbourne.
June 4; Eve, J., at 12.

MASON (Frederick William), Burslem. May 27; G. F. Paddock, of
Paddock and Sons, sols., Hanley. June 5; Eve, J., at 12

OGG (Sir William Anderson, Kt.), South Dulwich. Sept. 16; A. H. McDiarmid, sol., 5, Newman's-ct, Cornhill. Oct. 16; Swinfen-Eady and Neville, JJ., at 12.

TROMANS (Arthur), Chorley. June 1; T. H. Kevill, sol., Chorley. June 10; Registrar of Preston District of Chancery of Lancaster, at 11.30.

WILLIS (Thomas Henry), Hatton. His creditors and creditors of Eleanor Willis, the executrix, as regards debts incurred by her in carrying on the testator's farming business after his death. June 1; A. S. Mather, of A. S. Mather and Son, sols., Liverpool. June 19; Registrar of Liverpool District of Chancery of Lancaster, at 11.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35.

LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. ATCHERLEY (Ann), Stanwardine-in-the-Fields. June 1: W. G. Thomas. Ellesmere, Salop. ALLCHIN (Sidney), Gravesend. May 28; Rubinstein, Nash, and Co., 5 and 6, Raymond-bldgs, Gray's-inn, W.C. ARBUTHNOT (Ann Gertrude Grace), Westminster. June 1; A. C. Kent, 176, Victoria-st, S. W.

ANSTEE (Harriette), Cardiff. May 29; J. Morgan and Co., Cardiff. BARROW (Copner Walton), Dinard, France. June 1; Halliley and Morrison, Bedford.

BERNERS-WILSON (Frederic), Northam. June 30; C. H. Burton, Liverpool.
BROUGH (Isabella), Wigton. June 8; D. J. Mason, Workington
BIRCH (William), Lower Broughton. June 1; Rylance and Sons, Man-

chester.

« EelmineJätka »