Page images
PDF
EPUB

assigned to the Attorney-General, who is empowered at his discretion and on his own responsibility to institute the necessary proceedings against the offending parties. In proceedings in cases of bribery and other misconduct arising out of Parliamentary elections it had been usual heretofore for the House of Commons to take the initiative and to order the AttorneyGeneral to prosecute offenders, but since the passing of these Acts the initiative has been left to the Attorney-General.

Burns opposed the amendment, and suggested that there must be some inherent advantages in the Act in question, otherwise it would not have lasted so long, and, further, he submitted that if the Act was forthwith repealed the effect would be that tradesmen would be rated on their profits and farmers on their stocks, and accordingly the position of both in respect of the burden of rates would be still further worsened.-Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen, after hearing the statement of the right hon. gentleman, wished to withdraw his amendment.-Viscount Helmsley moved to report progress.-The committee divided, and the votes were: For the motion, 68; against, 180; majority, 112.

[ocr errors]

PARLIAMENTARY SUMMARY.

IN the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord Oranmore and Browne asked His Majesty's Government whether in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law, the Public Trustee for Ireland would be responsible to and under the control of the Irish Executive or of the Imperial Government, and by whom would future vacancies in this office be filled. He said a considerable amount of the funds administered by the Public Trustee for Ireland consisted of money derived from the sale of estates. Few landlords were now actually dependent upon the interest from those funds, for they still had their house and demesne land. With an Irish Parliament, however, that would amount to almost nothing owing to vindictive taxation. If in addition the Public Trustee were under the jurisdiction of the new Irish Government, and measures were passed varying the securities in which the trust funds might be invested, the lot of the Irish landlord would be very hard.-Lord Ashby St. Ledgers said the position of the Public Trustee for Ireland was not affected by the Bill. He was an official under the Land Purchase Act 1903, and as land purchase was a reserved service, he would be appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant on the advice of the Imperial Government.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, replying to Captain Campbell, who asked a question about naturalisation in Canada, Sir E. Grey said: The effect of naturalisation in Canada is to make the person so naturalised a British subject within the limita of the Dominion only, and it is so stated in their certificates. Consequently they are not, strictly speaking, British subjects when beyond the limits of the Dominion. They are, however, in pursuance (of the general consular instructions, accorded the good offices of British Consular officers in all countries. It is one of the objects of the measure foreshadowed in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the present session of Parliament to remove such inequalities in these matters as at present exist.

any,

Sir J. D. Rees asked the Under-Secretary for India what steps, if had been taken to compensate Mr. Clark, the judgment against whom in the Calcutta High Court was reversed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and what steps, if any,

had been taken to amend the system under which barrister judges were now appointed to the High Courts in India and to introduce reforms into the composition of the High Court of Calcutta. Mr. H. T. Baker: Mr. Clark was obliged to be present in England in connection with the hearing of the Privy Council appeal, and was, therefore, placed on deputation instead of furlough. As regards the latter part of the question, no steps of the kind suggested have been taken.

The House went into committee on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, Mr. Whitley in the chair.-Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen moved an amendment limiting the operation of the Act to six months in order that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill might be thoroughly discussed and overhauled. Each Act which was contained in the schedule should be discussed on its merits.Mr. Masterman said the amendment of the hon. member rested on a false assumption that the Government would have nothing to do before next June. The prospects of the Bill being discussed in detail would be greater after June than before June. If time permitted, he would like very much to take up the work of seeing which of these Acts might be added permanently to the statutebook.-After some discussion, the committee divided, and there voted: For the amendment, 113; against, 214; majority, 101. Viscount Helmsley moved a drafting amendment to leave out the words saying that the Acts after the 31st Dec. 1913 "shall then expire unless further continued," which it was contended were redundant.-Mr. Masterman, opposing the amendment, submitted that the committee had better keep to the recognised form of words which had been used for the last thirty years.-After discussion, the committee divided, when there voted: For the amendment, 100; against, 206; majority. 106.

On the schedule, Šir A. Griffith-Boscawen moved to omit from the list of Acts to be continued the Poor Rate Exemption Act 1840. He submitted that personal property ought to bear its fair share of taxation and not be exempted from local rates. Land ought not to be the only form of property taxed.-Mr.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

WE are threatened with a larger number of appeals from the decisions of the assistant revising barristers than have been taken since 1893. Activity in the revision courts is said to be an omen of an election, but that hardly applies in Ireland, because in the closely contested Parliamentary divisions there is the same activity year in and year out. It is true all the points of substance under the registration laws have been already decided, but it would also be true to say that, having regard to numerous cases upon certain provisions, it is impossible now to say what the law is. Appeals in Ireland from these courts are taken to the Court of Appeal direct, and not to the King's Bench Division as in England. The composition of the Court of Appeal varies frequently, and this circumstance in itself leads to a little variety. The Lord Chancellor of the day never sits on the hearing of these appeals on the ground of interest, but ex-Chancellors acting as Lords Justices always take part in them.

THE powers and responsibilities of auditors have greatly increased under recent legislation. Even more than controlling central authorities do they now stand between the public and unlawful outlay, and cause defaulting officials or representatives to make good losses occasioned by their negligence. This was bound to follow the granting of local government and the growth of popular institutions. An interesting example of the necessity of strict audit as well as of its exercise was published last week. The Armagh Board of Guardians employed a contractor to carry out certain sewerage works on their premises. During the excavations the earth fell in, burying two or three workmen completely, and four others risked their own lives in order to save them. The board having the facts reported to them highly commended the heroism of these four men, and ordered a sum of £10 to be divided between them as a reward for their gallant conduct. The auditor took a more technical view of the case, and observed: While sympathising with the object of the payment, I could find no statutory authority for making such a payment out of the rates, and consequently I was obliged to surcharge it." Under the Local Government (Ireland) Acts the guardians have an appeal from this decision to the Local Government Board, and it was intimated that it would be resorted to. It remains to be seen what view the central authority will take upon the point.

66

Ar Letterkenny Quarter Sessions the other day a solicitor acting, as he stated, for the Crown Solicitor of the county, who was unable to be present, applied for a transfer of a publican's licence. Objection was taken, curiously enough, by the Sessional Crown Solicitor of the same county that his colleague was not competent to make the application, as it was contrary to the rules made for Crown Solicitors, and the said rule was put into operation against him (the objector) some time ago. The effect of the rule was that solicitors appointed to prosecute for the Crown were forbidden to interfere in any way in licensing cases, and were liable to dismissal if they did so interfere. The County Court judge said that this was altogether a question for the Attorney-General. He could not refuse to hear a solicitor who had paid his licence duty, and if in so appearing a Crown Solicitor infringed a rule of his office, it was a matter entirely between himself and his authorities. One fails to see what good reason can exist for excluding Crown Solicitors from this class of cases.

GREAT interest has been attached here to the declaration which the Chief Secretary for Ireland made in the House of Commons on Wednesday week, on behalf of the Prime Minister, that "this Government absolutely recognises its full and complete responsibility, quite apart from the future fate or fortune of the Home Rule Bill, to complete land purchase, and will take upon itself to make such alterations as can be made to secure that result." This pronouncement was definite, and is universally accepted as meaning yet another Irish Land Purchase Bill. There is a good deal of misconception about even the recent history of land purchase in Ireland. The idea that a very successful Act, that of 1903, was stopped by an Act passed in 1909 is quite inaccurate. The finance of the 1903 Act was no doubt favourable to landlords and tenants, but it was faulty, and it must not be forgotten that before its resignation the Government responsible for passing it submitted proposals to Parliament for its amendment to remove the block in the office of the Land Commission, and incidentally, indeed, to provide for payments being made to the landlords partly in stock and partly in cash. The grave trouble in the settlement of 1903 was the difficulty and ruinous cost of raising money, and that losses fell upon the public rates. Curiously enough, the Act of 1903 was the only Land Purchase Act the finance of which was a complete and disastrous failure.

INTERNATIONAL, FOREIGN, AND COLONIAL LAW.

RUSSIAN COPYRIGHT LAW.

THE recent Russian Copyright Law is of considerable interest since it is almost contemporaneous in date with the English Copyright Act of 1911. The Russian law received the Imperial Assent on the 20th March 1911, and became law as from that date. The English Act, it is true, did not come into force till the 1st July 1912, but it may in fact be considered to date from the same year since the Royal Assent was given on the 16th Dec. 1911. The Russian law is, moreover, noteworthy since it contains provisions which tend to bring it into line with the provisions contained in the Berne Convention and the later Berlin Convention of 1908, though Russia herself has not yet become a signatory to these conventions. The Russian delegates who attended the Berlin Convention did, indeed, give utterance to the view that the time had come when the exchange between Russia and foreign countries of literary, musical, and artistic productions should be regulated by international agreements: (vide Parliamentary Paper 1909 relating to the proceedings of the convention, Č.D. 4467, p. 4). If this statement portended the assent of Russia to the convention, a not altogether unreasonable view to take, it appears to have proved fallacious, and Russia, along with Austria and Hungary, is therefore to be regarded as one of the leading European States who have hitherto declined to become a party to these conventions.

This Russian law is as inclusive as the English Act-that is to say, it covers all forms of copyright, literary, musical, and artistic alike. Art. 1 provides that copyright shall cover literary works, whether written or oral; musical works, including improvisations; artistic works which include (inter alia) sculpture and architecture; and, lastly, photographic works. Prima facie it is somewhat difficult to conceive of an "oral literary work, but the provision is evidently intended to grant copyright to lectures and sermons, &c. (they are, in fact, included in the definition of a "literary work in art. 1), which possibly have not been reduced into any form of writing previous to delivery. There is, strangely enough, no reference to dramatic works in art. 1, but such works are clearly included within the scope of the law since art. 47 grants the owner of the copyright the exclusive performing right therein. Further, art. 31 forbids the dramatisation of novels or the reverse process, thereby complying with the provisions of art. 12 of the Berlin Convention, and, of course, with the English Act: (sect. 1 (2) (b) and (c).

Unlike the express provision of sect. 1 (1) of the English Act, there is no requirement in this Russian law that any work to be the subject of copyright must be of an "original" character. Under the former law the Russian courts have, it has been stated, declined to take into consideration the degree of imagination or intelligence displayed by a claimant to copyright: (Cf. Journal of Comparative Legislation, N. S. No. 26. p. 303). It is therefore impossible but to suppose that the requirement of originality was deliberately omitted from the new law, and that the requirement cannot in any way be read into its provisions, with the result that, in this respect, the Russian law is sharply distinguishable not only from the English but probably from all other copyright laws.

As regards the duration of the term of copyright, art. 11 provides that copyright in the case of literary, musical, and artistic works (the latter does not include photographic works) is to last for the

author's life and fifty years. This is, indeed, the term allowed by the majority (ten out of sixteen in fact) of the so-called "Unionist States-that is to say, States who are signatories to the Berne or Berlin Conventions-and tends to bring Russia in this regard, though outside the Union, into line with these States. No parallel to the terms of the latter part of sect. 3 of the English Act is to be found in the Russian law; indeed, the provision allowing republication by any person at the end of twenty-five years from the author's death, on proof of due notice and on payment of royalties, is probably without a counterpart in any other law. The Russian and English laws agree in granting a shorter term of copyright in the case of photographs. Art. 61, however, as compared with the term of fifty years from the making of the original negative under sect. 21 of the English Act, only allows a copyright of ten years in the case of photographs, though this period may be extended to twenty-five years if the photograph be included in a particular series, and, if it be included in a literary work, then the copyright is merged into that of such work.

In addition to the case of photographs, Russian law imposes a special term, other than the general term of life and fifty years, in several cases where the English Act recognises no necessity for exceptional treatment. Thus by art. 14 a proprietor of a paper, review, &c., who has, it would seem, purchased the copyright in an article contributed (the copyright is otherwise vested in the contributor) only obtains a copyright of twenty-five years from publication. A somewhat unusual distinction appears, therefore, to be drawn in this case between proprietor and author, for the proviso to sect. 5 (2) of the English Act, whereby a lesser term-viz., twenty-five years only from the author's death-is granted to the purchaser of a copyright direct from the author, does not apply to the case of a collective work. By arts. 13 and 30, authors, or rather editors, of works of a certain class, such as compilers of collections of popular songs, folklore, &c., which have hitherto been orally transmitted, and the editors of ancient manuscripts only acquire a copyright of fifty years from publication. It is needless to say that the English Act draws no exception in these cases. This Russian law appears to regard the case of works published anonymously or under a pseudonym with similar disfavour to that given expression to in other comparatively recent copyright laws-for instance, the Austrian Law of 1895 (art. 44), the German of 1901 (art. 31) and the Danish of 1905 (art. 23)-since, by art. 17, it grants copyright for fifty years from publication only, but, like the earlier laws, it allows the actual author, or his representatives. during the currency of the term to prove the authorship and thereby acquire the longer term. Possibly this, from an English point of view, illogical treatment of works published anonymously or under a pseudonym owes its origin to official suspicion of authors who conceal their identity. The case of records. perforated rolls, &c., which reproduce copyright music, appears to be the only one where a lesser term of copyright is allowed by English than by Russian law, for by sect. 19 (1) of the former law the term is fifty years from the making of the original plate. whereas there is nothing in art. 42 of the Russian law, which grants a copyright in such instruments to the composer, or elsewhere in the law, to suggest that the term is shorter than that governing the copyright in the original music.

Art. 42, above referred to, grants the composer of a musical work the exclusive right to adapt it for mechanical reproduction by means of disks, cylinders, &c. This constitutes another requirement of the Berlin Convention which the Russian law has adopted. The earlier Berne Convention did not consider unauthorised reproduction in this manner as an infringement of copyright, but at the date of that convention reproduction of this character was, comparatively speaking, rarely to be met with, and it was not till the invention of the phonograph and the gramophone that the question became acute from the composer's point of view. The English Act has, of course, in sect. 19 adopted the same principle as the Russian law. On the other hand, the Russian and English laws agree in declining to confer on the owner of the copyright the power to grant an exclusive right of reproduction by means of plates, &c., since, in both cases, if once such plates have been manufactured with the consent or acquiescence of the owner, then any other person is ipso facto at liberty to manufacture similar plates on payment of a royalty Whether this Russian law is retrospective in its action or not is nowhere stated. Possibly it has complied, in spirit if not in letter, with the provisions of art. 13 of the Berlin Convention. whereby it is provided that the grant of copyright in musical records, &c., shall not be retroactive in character. If this be so then the Russian law solves in the most elementary fashion the question that is dealt with at such length in sect. 19 (7) of the English Act. That the English Act in the retrospective character of these provisions deals more equitably with the composer can hardly be gainsaid. Whether, on the other hand, such provisions are, in spite of the proviso to sect. 19 (7) (b), strictly in agreement with the Berlin Convention may be another question.

The Russian law definitely classifies architecture under the heading of "artistic works," and this classification is akin, therefore, to the definition of an "architectural work of art" in sect. 35 of the English Act. In both cases, therefore, copyright would appear not to apply to a building of a purely utilitarian character, though these definitions impose upon a court of law, a singularly unsuitable tribunal one would have thought for the purpose, the obligation of deciding where the dividing line between the two classes of buildings, the artistic and the utilitarian, actually lies. Russian law also, in art. 58, contains somewhat similar provisions to those in sect. 9 of the English Act whereby the owner of the copyright in an architectural work cannot restrain the further construction of an infringing copy already commenced, or require its demolition, with the result that in both cases the actual rights conferred by the law on the owner of architectural copyright seem of a somewhat nebulous character. Copyright in architecture is definitely required by the Berlin Convention, and by some recent Continental laws-the French law of the 11th March 1902 for instance-but Russia, not being a party to that convention, was under no obligation to adopt the principle. This country, however, can scarcely be considered such a free agent since, if it is desired to ratify the convention, there can be little choice in the matter, and the principle was perhaps adopted with some misgiving though it is said to have worked well in other countries.

The question of copyright in translations is of considerable importance, since Russia's treatment of the subject probably constitutes the real reason why she has not hitherto become a signatory of the Berne or Berlin Conventions. The Russian literary output is, it seems to be freely admitted, not a large one, and the country must in consequence rely largely on translations of foreign works for her literary sustenance. Art. 35 freely allows the translation and publication in Russia, without the author's consent, of the works of the subjects of foreign States published abroad, unless protection has been stipulated for in conventions relating to the protection of literary property with the State of which the author is a citizen or subject. But Russia appears, at any rate up to as recently as 1908, to have entered in no such convention with any foreign country, for her name is conspicuously absent from the lengthy list of conventions entered into between various countries which is set out in the Parliamentary Paper of 1909 relating to the Berlin Convention: (C.D. 4467, p. 169). It is believed, however, that a convention between Russia and France will shortly be signed, while negotiations relating to copyright have apparently been entered into with Germany and Austria also. Nevertheless the position of a foreign author in Russia is, or at least has been till very recently, a very parlous one. It is true that the reprinting in Russia of literary works published abroad is, by art. 32, forbidden except with the consent of the owner of the copyright, but this provision, in order not to be inconsistent with the terms of the abovementioned art. 35, must clearly apply only to works republished in Russia in the language in which they were originally written. A Russian subject, however, who publishes his work abroad possesses, by art. 33, the exclusive right of translation, and this right is presumably not a negligible one having regard to the number of languages spoken within the limits of the Russian Empire. The right of translation of all works actually published in Russia, whether the author be a Russian subject or not, is by art. 33 vested in the author, but the right only endures for ten years from publication of the original work, and the translation itself must be made within five years from such publication. This provision is very much akin to that formerly enforced by the English International Copyright Act 1886. That Act has now been repealed by the Act of 1911, and sect. 1 (2) (a) of the latter Act appears to allow the copyright in a translation to endure for the same period as that in the original work-a step in advance from the author's point of view which distinguishes it not only from the Russian but from several other comparatively recent copyright laws.

Foreign musical composers, not being troubled with any question of translation, are to a certain extent better off under this Russian law than are the owners of foreign literary copyright, for art. 44 forbids the reprinting in Russia of musical works published abroad without the consent of the owner of the copyright according to the law of the country of publication, provided that the term of copyright be not longer than that fixed by the Russian law. Yet Russian law appears to be more than generous, from the point of view of the public, in allowing publication by third persons, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, of copyright musical works, for, by art. 43, it allows the publication of variations, transcriptions, &c., of a musical work, and in general every borrowing from such a work, provided only it be inserted in another work of such a character that the latter may be regarded as a new and original work; further, the reproduction is allowed if it be for an instructive or scientific purpose, at any rate if isolated passages only be reproduced. Even the

remarkably vague "fair dealing provision of sect. 2 (1) (i.) of the English Act can scarcely, one may hope, be regarded as capable of condoning a similar treatment of musical copyright works in this country. Lastly, art. 50 permits the public performance of a musical work without the author's consent (1) if it be given with no intention of realising a profit, direct or indirect; (2) if it take place in the course of public fétes; (3) if the receipts are exclusively dedicated to a charitable object, and the performers receive no reward for their services. Whether all these conditions are simultaneously required is not statedapparently they are not; the provision, therefore, as to public fetes is open to grave objection from the composer's point of view.

Copyright literary works may, equally with musical works, be pillaged. The term seems scarcely too strong, for art. 39 allows extracts from copyright works to be inserted in collections intended for instructive, scientific, or technical purposes. The only limit is that of length, though the extract may consist of an integral reproduction if it be of small extent. The right is not confined solely to works intended for scholastic purposes, nor is there any limitation on the number of passages from each author reproduced, as is the case in sect. 2 (1) (iv.) of the Act of 1911. Art. 3, however, which permits copies both of literary and artistic works to be made for personal use, is evidently much more akin to the "fair dealing "provision of the English Act already mentioned. It further provides that in the case of artistic works the signature or monogram of the actual author must not be included in the copy.

It would be impossible in a single article to deal with all but the most salient points of similarity, or the reverse, between this Russian law and the English Act, but it should be noticed that art. 22 is somewhat similar to sect. 8 of the English Act, inasmuch as it distinguishes, though even more markedly, perhaps, than the English Act, between the innocent and the deliberate infringer. An innocent infringer is only liable to pay over the profit he has realised, whereas a deliberate infringer may, as appears from other provisions, find himself liable, in addition, to imprisonment. It is needless to say that the English Act knows no such drastic penalty as imprisonment for any evasion, however deliberate, of its provisions; the only case where apparently it can be inflicted is that of a second conviction for knowingly hawking pirated music, since sect. 1 (1) of the Musical Copyright Act 1906 is not repealed. The Russian law makes no mention of registration, and is therein in agreement with art. 4 of the Berlin Convention. On the other hand, in contradistinction to art. 11 of that convention, it requires in many cases-for instance, by art. 48 in the case of musical works a statement to the effect that the work is copyright to be printed thereon. Prima facie, therefore, for the English Act has entirely ignored this requirement, it is easier to be an innocent infringer in England than in Russia. But this requirement of the Russian law is of further importance since its inclusion would appear to prevent Russia becoming a signatory of the Berlin Convention. Undoubtedly, however, the chief obstacle in the way of that desirable consummation is the question of translation already referred to, and there would seem little or no probability of Russia giving way on that point, at any rate in the immediate future.

The ceremony of inauguration of the new palais of the Cour des Comptes in the Rue Cambon, Paris, took place on the 17th inst. in the presence of the President of the Republic and M. Klotz, the Minister of Finance. The court, as has been previously stated in the LAW TIMES, is placed at the summit of the financial system of France, and is a corps of public auditors, whose duty it is to supervise the public funds. Called into existence about 1320 by Philippe V., surnamed "the Long," it was at first known as the chambre aux deniers. In those far-away times the accounts which came before the maîtres and clercs were sometimes of a fantastic nature. The researches of M. Charles Langlois, of the University of Paris, who has edited the inventory of a clerc of the chamber, Robert Mignon, who summarised the work of the court for the King's persual, throw an interesting light upon the usages of the times, when it seemed the aim of all public men to get rich at the expense of the State, or, to use an expression common to-day, "aux frais de la princesse." But, as a contemporary writer somewhat grimly remarks, owing to the vigilance of the court: "En ce temps-là, cette danse des écus finissait en danse macabre, et menait quelquefois les hauts fonctionnaires au gibet de Montfaucon." Among these may be mentioned Enguerrand de Martigny, the all-powerful Minister in the time of Philippe le Bel, who professed to know "tous les secrets du royaume." M. de Marillac, taken before Cardinal Richelieu for negligence in his financial duties in connection with the army in Italy, also suffered death, and Nicolas Fouquet," redouté des hommes, aimé des femmes," might have escaped had it not been for the vigilance of the chambre des comptes. The ancient régime

of the chambre continued until 1790, when it was remodelled by Louis XVI. It was alleged against the conseillers of the old chamber that they slept in their chairs and took too many holidays. That they slept in their chairs may be imagined from the fact that they were mostly old men, the doyen who delivered l'oraison funèbre of the ancient chamber having served his country for fifty-seven years. As to holidays, Thursday and Saturday in each week were fixed "festivals," the eve of every high festival was observed as a holiday, and, in order that they might have less to do, the old conseillers invoked the intercession of tous les saints du paradis. Vacances were instituted for several minor saints, and, says the contemporary writer before cited, 'Pour finir, on mit ces messieurs en vacances perpétuelles." The inauguration of the new court was followed by the séance solennelle de rentrée, at which the premier président, M. Hérault, who is retiring, bade his confrères farewell.

[ocr errors]

The erection of a memorial to commemorate the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Nova Scotia Assembly as the first Legislative Assembly of the present colonial Empire has led to claims being put forward on behalf of the seniority of Bermuda and Barbados. The facts in respect to the latter have just been set forth in an admirable historical introduction to a new revised edition of the statutes. There is evidence that an Act relating to taxation was passed in 1641, and a collection of the Acts was published as early as 1654. The oldest Act still in force is No. 1 of 1667, known as "an Act to prevent all forcible and clandestine entries into any lands or tenements within this island." Of the earlier consolidations and provisions of the statute law copies are scarce. There is not in the island a copy of the edition prepared by William Rawlin, afterwards Attorney-General, and published in 1699, nor of a later edition by his successor as Clerk of the Assembly, Arthur Zouch, nor a supplemental volume continuing the latter down to the year 1738. Of Rawlin's edition there does not seem to be a copy even in the admirable library of the Harvard Law School, and the only one in the Inns of Court is in the Middle Temple. Hall's edition, published in 1764, is regarded as a work of authority, and from that date revisions have been undertaken at more or less regular intervals, so that in regard to the form of the laws as well as the antiquity of its Legislature the island may justly claim a place of priority among the legislative bodies of the Empire.

Sir John Rees has addressed a question to the Under-Secretary for State for India in which he asks whether the Secretary of State for India is competent to remove a judge of the High Court of India on the ground of incompetency or misconduct, or whether the procedure of an address to the Crown from both Houses of Parliament obtains in respect of such a judge as it does in regard to a judge of the High Court of Judicature in the United Kingdom. The Supreme Courts in India are the creation of the Indian High Courts Act of 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 104). Every judge of these courts holds office during His Majesty's pleasure, and his salary, furlough, and pension are regulated by order of the Secretary of State in Council. A similar judicial tenure still prevails in respect to judges in the Crown colonies, and generally in all colonies not possessing responsible government. Nevertheless, the great constitutional principle embodied in the Act of Settlement, that judicial office should be holden upon a permanent tenure, has been practically extended to Indian and to all colonial judges, so far, at least, as to entitle them to claim protection against arbitrary or unjustifiable deprivation of office, and to forbid their removal for any cause of complaint except after a fair and impartial investigation on the part of the Crown. Judges of the High Courts in the United Kingdom hold as regards the Crown during good behaviour, as regards Parliament also during good behaviour, though the two Houses may extend the term so as to cover any form of misconduct which would destroy public confidence in the holder of the office. In one case only-that of Sir Jonah Barrington, judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Irelandwas a judge removed by the Crown acting on an address of both Houses (Lords and Commons Journals, July 22, 1830). Good behaviour means good behaviour with respect to the office held. Misbehaviour appears to mean misconduct in the performance of official duties, refusal or deliberate neglect to attend to them, or, it would seem, conviction for such an offence as would make the convicted person unfit to hold a public office. The forfeiture of an office held by letters patent must, it is said, be enforced by a writ of scire facias.

A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE LAW OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS, including the Text of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1908, with Notes thereon, and a Form of Farm Tenancy Agreement. By J. W. STANTON, M.A., Demy 8vo., price 5s. net, post free.HORACE Cox, "Law Times Office, Windsor House, Bream'sbuildings, London, E. C.-[ADVT.]

GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.

FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT 1870.
NOTICE TO SHIPBUILDERS AND OTHERS.

WITH reference to the war now in progress between Turkey and Greece, Bulgaria, Servia, and Montenegro, the attention of shipbuilders and others is called to the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 90), ss. 8, 9, and 23, which indicate their duties and liabilities in the matter of building and equipping ships which are intended to, or may, be used in the military or naval service of belligerents.

Sect. 8 provides that any person within His Majesty's dominions who without Royal licence builds, commissions, equips, or dispatches any ship with intent or knowledge or having reasonable cause to believe that the same will be employed in the military or naval service of the belligerents, shall be liable to fine and imprisonment and the forfeiture of the ship and equipment.

Any person building or equipping such a ship in pursuance of a contract made before the commencement of the war, shall not be liable to these penalties if

(i.) Forthwith upon a proclamation of neutrality being issued by His Majesty he gives notice to the Secretary of State that he is so building, causing to be built, or equipping such ship, and furnishes such particulars of the contract and of any matters relating to, or done, or to be done under the contract as may be required by the Secretary of State:

(ii.) He gives such security, and takes and permits to be taken such other measures, if any, as the Secretary of State may prescribe for ensuring that such ship shall not be dispatched, delivered, or removed without the licence of His Majesty until the termination of such war as aforesaid.

In any case in which overtures are made for the purchase or equipment of such ships by persons who do not satisfactorily disclose the ultimate destination of the ships, it would be the duty of all persons having knowledge of the fact to give notice to the Home Secretary in order that he might take the steps which he is empowered by the 23rd section of the said Act to take so as to ensure that such vessels should not be employed in contravention of the said Act. Whitehall, 21st Oct. 1912.

HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN.

BARROW (Copner Walton), who died at Bedford, Nov. 22, 1911. His ched or children to send in, by Nov. 30, to Young, Jones, and Co., sce. 7, Laurence Pountney-hill, E.C.

SWEETMAN (Job), Herstmonceux, who died on Aug. 11, a son of James Sweetman. Persons related to the deceased are requested to cummunicate with Andrews and Bennett, sols., Burwash.

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-CUBAN OIL, BITUMEN, AND ASPHALT COMPANY LIMITED-Petitan for winding-up to be heard Oct. 29, at Royal Courts of Just.. Stanley Evans and Co., 20 and 22, Theobald's-rd, Bedford-row, W C cols, for pet. Notices of appearance by Oct. 28.

CARR, EVANS, AND CO. LIMITED-Creditors to send in, by Oct. 26, to H.
Gooder, 2, Market-pl, Normanton.
CARTHUSIANA RUBBER ESTATE SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in.
by Nov 8, to H. M. Graham, 147, Leadenhall-st, E.C. T. Green-
wood, his attorney under power of attorney.

CENTRAL CARPATHIAN OIL COMPANY LIMITED. Creditors to send in, by
Nov. 19, to J. D. Pattullo, 65, London-wall, E.C. Mayo, Elder, and
Co., 10, Drapers'-grdns, E.C., sols. for liquidator.
Cox's LIMITED, Quarry Bank, near Brierley Hill.-Creditors to send in.
by Oct. 28, to A. E. Mason, 193, Wolverhampton-st, Dudley.
DARWEN PROPERTY TRUST LIMITED. Creditors to send in, by Oct. 31, to
B. L. Holme, 4, Church-st, Darwen. Costeker, Smitton, and Ho.me.
Darwen, sols. for liquidator.

DEMERARA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED -Creditors to send in. tv
Nov. 30, to P. S. M. Arbuthnot, 38, Eastcheap. Welch and Co.
Pinner's Hall, E.C., sols, to liquidator.

DUDLEY ROLLER SKATING COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, br Oct. 28, to A. E. Mason, 193, Wolverhampton-st, Dudley, or W E Wall, Fountain-chmbrs, Market-pl, Dudley. A. E. Mason, for se ! and co-liquidator.

FOREST MILLS COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Nov. 9, to J. M. Todd, 4, Milton-pl, Halifax. Jubb, Booth, and Helliwe Halifax, sols. to liquidator.

GEORGE PRITCHETT AND CO. LIMITED -Petition for winding up to be heard Nov. 5, at Royal Courts of Justice. Osborn and Osborn, 2, Coletar st. E.C., sols. for pets. Netices of appearance by Nov. 4

J. CHAPMAN AND CO. LIMITED.--Creditors to send in, by Nov. 15, to GT
Feasey, 28, Basinghall-st, E.C.
LLOYD LOWE LIMITED. Petition for winding-up to be heard Oct 29 at
Royal Courts of Justice. Blyth, Dutton, Hartley, and Blyth.
Notices
Gresham House, Old Broad-st, E.C., sols. for pets.
appearance by Oct. 28.

METROPOLE PROPERTIES (BEXHILL) LIMITED.-Petition for wind.ng un to
be heard Oct. 29, at Royal Courts of Justice. McKenna and Co.
97, New Bond-st, W., sols. for pets. Notices ci appearan
Oct. 28.

NEWTON AND LAWRENCE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Nev 21 G. T. Feasey, 28, Basinghall-st, E.C.

NORWICH VINEGAR AND DISTILLERY COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Nov. 15, to G. T. Feasey, 28, Basinghall-st, E.C. PERUVIAN AMAZON COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Oct. 29, at Royal Courts of Justice. Morgan, Price, and Co., 33, Old Broad-st, E.C., sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by Oct. 28.

RHONDDA STEAMSHIP COMPANY LIMITED.--Creditors to send in, by Nov. 5, to O. B. Cuvilje, 2, Stuart-st, Cardiff.

ROUMANIAN DEVELOPMENT SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Nov. 5, at Royal Courts of Justice. Phillips, Son, and Thompson, 147, Cannon-st, E.C., sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by Nov. 4.

SHORTHORN DAIRIES LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Oct. 29, at Royal Courts of Justice. Woodroffes and Ashby, 39, Eastcheap, E.C., sols. for pet. Notices of appearance by Oct. 28. STANDARD KNITTING MACHINE COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Nov. 9, to A. G. Mellors, 1, King John's-chmbrs, Nottingham.

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LAST DAY OF PROOFS.

CANNONS (Henry). Upper Holloway, and Pentonville-rd. Nov. 20;
G. F. T. Howard, of G. B. Howard and Son, sols., 12, Gray's-inn-sq,
Gray's-inn. Dec. 4; Swinfen Eady, J., at 12.
GORDON (Alfred), Clapham. Nov. 21; A. Burton, of Burton and Son,
sols., Bank-chmbre, Blackfriars-rd, S.E. Nov. 29; Master Hulbert,
at his chambers, Royal Courts of Justice, at 12.30.

GOUGH (John), Maids Moreton. Nov. 21; T. R. Hearn, of Hearn and Hearn, sols, Buckingham. Nov. 28; Warrington and Parker, JJ., at 12.30.

TARR (Francis John), Yatton and Bristol. Nov. 19; H. F. Levy, sol., Bristol. Nov. 29; Joyce, J., at 12.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35.

LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT.
A&MBRECHT (Ernst Louis), Duke-st, Grosvenor-sq. Nov. 20; Grubbe and
Troughton, 3, New-ct, Lincoln's-inn, W.C.

ATKINSON (Emma), Brighton. Nov. 20; A. C. Woolley and Bevis,
Brighton.
AZARIO (Luigi), Rupert-st. Dec. 17, E. Robins and Grimsdall, Bank-

chmbrs, Hornsey, N.

BARKER (Thomas Edmund), Sheffield. Dec. 24; Alderson, Son, and Dust, Sheffield.

BARRETT (George), Brixton. Nov. 18; H. A. Phillips, 16, South-st, Finsbury. E.C.

BARNES (Robert Baker), Gillingham. Nov. 23; Freame, Light, and Wyld, Gillingham.

BATELY (Dr. John), Gorleston. Nov. 20; Burton and Son, Great Yarmouth.

BELL (Alfred Fotherley), Hull. Nov. 30; England, Saxelbyes, and Sharp,
Hull.

BETZ (John Frederick, jun.), Philadelphia, U.S.A. Nov. 18; Wilkinson,
Raikes, and Son, 34. Nicholas-la, Lombard-st, E.C.
BIDWELL (Leonard Arthur), Upper Wimpole-st, and Bexhill-on-Sea.
Nov. 20; H. E. Lawrence, 47, Essex-st, Strand, W.C.
BILLSBOROUGH (Margaret), Preston. Nov. 16; J. Craven and Son,
Preston.

BISHOP (Albert Ebenezer), Kingston-on Thames, and Metal Exchangebldgs, Whittington-av. Nov. 22; Tatham, Oblein, and Nash, 11, Queen Victoria-st, E.C.

BOOTH (Mary Isabella), Wincle. Nov. 23; Blunt and Brocklehurst, Macclesfield.

BRINK (Sven), Higher Broughton. Nov. 30; Spafford and Street, Manchester.

BROOKES (Albert Yates), Walsall. Dec. 7; E. Evans, Walsall.

CATES (Surg.-Col. William Edward), Sidcup. Nov. 21; Fladgate and Co., 2. Craig's-ct, Charing Cross, S.W.

CHEEK (Thomas), Barnet. Nov. 18; Charles and Dayrell, 15, Copthall-av. E.C.

CLARKE (Henry Alexander), New Broad-st, and Bayswater. Nov. 30; C. N. Goodhall, King's Court, Broadway. Westminster.

CLAYTON (James), Birch Vale. Nov. 23; A. Walker, New Mills.
COOKE (Thomas Homans Wallis), Torquay. Nov. 22; Greenwell, Higham,
and Co., 18, Berners-st, W.

COLTHURST (Col. James Nicholas), Coachford, co. Cork.
Braikenridge and Edwards, 16, Bartlett's-bldgs, E.C

Nov. 30;

CONKLETON (Mary Ann), Hexham. Nov. 11; L. C. and H. K. Lockhart, Hexham.

CROFT (Rosson James), New Brighton, and Johannesburg. Dec. 2; J.
Quinn, Monkhouse, Dixon, and Quinn. Liverpool.

CROFTS (Elizabeth), Wolvey. Nov. 23; C. Blakeway, Nuneaton.
DAKIN (Elizabeth), Loughborough. Dec. 3; C. W. and F. H. Toone,
Loughborough.

DAMERIO (Carlos Novella), otherwise Giovanni Carlo Girolanno Gaetano
Novella, Guatemala. Nov 30; Coward and Hawksley, Sons, and
Chance. 30, Mincing-la, E C.

DAVIES (William) or DAVIES (Martha Jane), Johnstown, Ruabon.
Nov. 11; Allington Hughes and Bate, Wrexham.

DAVIS (Edgar), Windsor. Nov. 30; Newman, Paynter, and Co., Yeovil.
DORMAN (Olivia), Ratby. Nov. 20; J. and S. Harris, Leicester.
FORD (William Joseph), Nottingham. Dec. 1; H. G. Ford, Nottingham.
FOOTE (Doctor Harold), Wimbledon. Dec. 2; J. Quinn, Monkhouse.
Dixon, and Quinn, Liverpool.

GARRARD (Blanche), Wokingham. Nov. 18; Few and Co., 19, Surrey-st,
Strand. W.C.

GARTSIDE (Jesse), Stalybridge. Dec. 7; R. Innes, Manchester.

GREATREX (William), Stafford. Nov. 23; A. and B. Greatrex, at the offices of Greatrex, Warner, and Beswick, Stafford.

GREGORY (Mary), Leckhampstead. Nov. 19; Whitehorns and Law, Buckingham.

GRIFFITHS (William Henry), Walton. Nov. 22; H. Cross and Son, Prescot.

GRUBB (Charles). Westminster. Dec. 2; H. P. Richards, 5, Great Jamesst, Bedford-row, W.C.

HALL (James), Sale. Nov. 30; Phythian and Bland, Manchester. HARCUM (Thomas Saunders). Streatham-hill. Nov. 20; Bolton, Jobson, and Yate-Lee, 2, Temple-grdns. E.C.

HARDING (Alfred Bennick), Catford. Nov, 18; Clement Dennis and Co., 3, Lincoln's-inn-filds, W.C.

HARDING (Frederick), Olton and Birmingham. Dec. 7; Shute and Swinson. Birmingham.

HARRISON (Samuel), Long Sutton. Nov. 18; Mossop and Mossop, Long
Sutton.

HINCKLEY (Amelia), HINCKLEY (Mary Frances), and HINCKLEY (Eliza),
Great Malvern. Dec 2: Hinckley and Brown, Lichfield.
HINCKLEY (Frederick), Lichfield. Dec. 2; Hinckley and Brown. Lichfield.
HOFFER (Jacques), National Liberal Club. Whitehall-pl. Nov. 18; Hewitt,
Urquhart, and Woollacott, 158, Leadenhall-st, E.C.

HOGG (Thomas William), late living at Dr. Knobel's Sanatorium, Bourne Castle, Belbroughton. Nov. 21; Pointon and Evershed, Birmingham. HULBERT (Thomas Charles), Brighton. Dec. 1; Vandercom and Co., 23, Bush-la, E.C.

IBBERSON (Henry), Berry Brow. Nov. 23; Sykes, Heap, Marshall, and Heeley, Holmfirth.

INGLEBY (John Frederick), Eastbourne. Nov. 30; England, Saxelbyes, and Sharp, Hull.

JONES (Catherine), Neath. Nov. 30; T. Millward, Pentre.

KELLEY (Amelia), Camberwell. Nov. 20; Bolton, Jobson, and Yate-Lee, 2. Temple-grdns, E.C.

KEESING (Thomas Henry), Brighton. Nov. 16; the executors, at the office of Howlett and Clarke, Brighton.

LAWRENCE (Thomas Clarence), East Harling. Nov. 23; Fowell, Woolsey. and Thorold, Hopton, Thetford.

MARSHALL (George Arthur), Streatham. Nov. 9; Coward and Hawksley, Sons, and Chance, 30, Mincing-la, E.C.

MOORE (Caroline), Upper Norwood. Nov. 21; Martin and Nicholson, 29, Queen-st, E.C.

MOORE (Harry Arthur), Gravelly Hill. Nov. 30; Forsyth, Bettinson, and Co., Birmingham.

MORSE (William), Balham. Nov. 15; Snow, Fox, and Higginson, 7, Great St. Thomas Apostle, E.C.

Moss (Ann), South Reddish. Nov. 9; Lancashire, Humphreys, and Grundy, Manchester.

MURPHY (Patrick), Rowland. Nov. 25; Taylors, Bakewell.

NAYLOR (Marie Julie Gauckler), Southwold. Nov. 16; E. Pipe, High-st, Southwold, or the sol., E. R. Cooper, Southwold.

NEWTON (Charles), Woodhouse. Nov. 9; Jackson and Jackson, Sheffield. OAKSHOTT (Eugene Phillip), Madras, India, who died at Ealing. Nov. 30; J. Bartlett and Son, 26 and 27, Bush-la, E.C.

OLDHAM (Richard), Berry Brow. Nov. 26; Ward and Hirst, Huddersfield. PALLAVICINO (Countess Georgina Vicino). Nov. 30; J. Bartlett and Son, 26 and 27, Bush-la, E.C.

PEACOCK (James), Brighton. Nov. 20; Nye and Clewer, Brighton. PILCHER (Robert Septimus), Bowdon. Nov. 30; E. M. Pilcher, at the offices of Dendy and Paterson, Manchester.

POSTLETHWAITE (William), Broughton-in-Furness. Nov. 15; T. Butler and Son, Broughton-in-Furness.

PRITCHARD (Emma), Leeds. Nov. 4; D. Lord and Alcock, Leeds. RAVENSCROFT (Thomas), Shrewsbury, Nov. 25; Corser and Son, Shrewsbury.

RAWLINS (Walter), Swan, Pewsey. Nov. 1; Dixon and Mason, Pewsey. KOBY (Joseph), New Brighton and Liverpool. Nov. 18; Eskrigge and Roby, Liverpool.

ROWLAND (Robert), Baslow, and Psalter-la, York. Nov. 26; Taylors. Bakewell, or H. A. Morley, Sheffield.

ROWLAND (Joseph), Sheffield. Nov. 30; Howe and Co., Sheffield.

SEALE (Frederick William), Sevenoaks. Nov. 25; Tatham, Oblein, and Nash, 11, Queen Victoria-st, E.C.

SHAKESPEARE (William), Harborne, and of Birmingham, Oldbury, and Smethwick. Dec. 6; Pointon and Evershed, Birmingham.

SIMPSON (James Thain), Hastings. Nov. 30; Young, Coles, and Langdon, Hastings. SIVEWRIGHT (William John), West Hartlepool. Nov. 18; W. J. Sivewright and W. C. F. Bacon, at the office of H. W. Bell, West Hartlepool.

SMITH (Charles Henry), Liverpool. Nov. 22; J. Watson and Atkinson, Liverpool. SPURWAY (William Hudson), Bath. Nov. 19; H. Hookway, Bath. STARKEY (Thomas), Ilfracombe. Nov. 16; Barham and Watson, Bridgwater. SWEETMAN (Job), Herstmonceux. Dec. 13; Andrews and Bennett, Burwash.

SWIFT (George), Lockwood. Nov. 26; Ward and Hirst, Huddersfield. THYNE (Dr. William), Hallaton. Nov. 18; Charles and Dayrell, 15, Copthall-av, E.C.

TINDAL (Merelina), Clifton. Nov. 30; Meade King, Cooke, and Co., Bristol.

TISSINGTON (John Anthony), Derby. Nov. 14; Hobson and Marsden, Derby.

TROTTER (Harriet Amelia), Hyde Park. Dec. 1: Trotter and Patteson, 64, Victoria-st, Westminster, S.W

VICARS (John), Eskdale and Rainhill. Nov. 14; T. Butler and Son, Broughton-in-Furness

WALCOTT (Annie Finn Kingsland), Holloway. Nov. 15; Leighton and Savory, 2, Clement's-inn, Strand, W.C.

WASTELL (Charles), Walworth, S.E. Dec. 2; Pearce and Sons, St. Bartholomew House, 58, West Smithfield, E.C.

WELCHMAN (Charles Walter Frederick), Southend-on-Sea. Nov. 23; B. and F. Tolhurst and Cox, Southend-on Sea.

WILLIAMS (Joseph), Stoke Newington Dec. 1; T. D. Jones and Co., 168, Fleet st, E.C.

WILSON (Sarah Ann), Leytonstone-rd. Nov. 20; R. A. Kendrick, 43, Claremont-rd, Forest Gate, E.

WOODHOUSE (Francis) or WOODHOUSE (Mary Ellen), Shepherd's Bush, and Herne Bay. Nov. 18; Bulcraig and Davis, Donington House, Norfolk-st, Strand, W.C.

LAW SOCIETIES.

SOLICITORS' MANAGING CLERKS' ASSOCIATION. REFORM OF ELECTION LAW.

MR. JUSTICE EVE presided at a meeting of the Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association, which was held in the Old Hall, Lincoln's-inn, on Friday, the 18th inst.

Mr. J. A. Foote (Recorder of Exeter) delivered a lecture entitled " Suggestions on the Reform of Election Law." After expressing his preference for a court composed of three judges, rather than of two, for the trial of election petitions, he referred to the subject of election expenses, as to which the law was so vague and indeterminate that it might almost be termed chaotic. The Corrupt Practices Act of 1883 fixed a maximum for the election expenses of a candidate, and if the candidate or his agent knowingly exceeded this maximum the election would, on petition, be declared void. After quoting sects. 24, 28, 29, and 33 of the Act, he said he thought it could hardly be doubted that the framers of the Act contemplated election expenses as expenses incurred in the course of the election itself and, at any

« EelmineJätka »