Page images

Money paid under Compulsion of Law-Foreign JurisdictionWithdrawal of Proceedings-Action for Recovery of the Money.


The plaintiffs were a banking firm carrying on business at Glasgow, who had made advances to B. and Co., owners of the steamship Chelmsford, on the security of a mortgage on the ship. On the 23rd Oct. 1907 the F. Bank advanced to B. and Co. the sum of £1500 in exchange for a draft for £1650 payable after the vessel had gone to Australia in ballast and returned to the West Coast of South America with a cargo of coal. the same day the F. Bank wrote to the defendants, who were their agents in London, saying that they would be in order in paying over to B. and Co. the sum of £1500 on receipt of their draft for £1650, and on the 9th Nov. the defendants instructed their agents at Valparaiso to pay £550 to the captain of the Chelmsford, and they sent B. and Co. a cheque for £943 7s., being the balance less £6 13s. commission and expenses. The Chelmsford arrived at Pisagua from Sydney on the 18th June 1908, when the plaintiffs took possession of the vessel in the exercise of their rights as mortgagees. On the 8th July the agents of the defendants asked the master to accept drafts in respect of the £1650 draft, and on his refusal they arrested the vessel under an order of the Chilian court. The F. Bank communicated with B. and Co., who informed them that the plaintiffs had foreclosed. On the 11th July the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs offering to release the ship on receipt of an unconditional guarantee covering the amount of the drafts plus interest and expenses. On the 13th July the plaintiffs replied refusing to give the unconditional guarantee, but making a payment of the necessary amount under protest, and "reserving the right to open up the whole question in London." Evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiffs by a Chilian lawyer to the effect that by the law of Chili foreign vessels cannot be sequestrated in the ports of the republic for debts that were not contracted in Chilian territory on account of or for the benefit of the said vessels. The plaintiffs brought this action to recover the money so paid, contending that the money] was paid under protest and therefore recoverable. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that as the money was paid under compulsion of law it was not recover


Held, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover, on the principle that money paid under compulsion of law is not recoverable even where the proceedings were instituted under the jurisdiction of a foreign court.

[Clydesdale Bank Limited v. Schroder and Co. K. B. Div. Com. Ct. Bray, J. Oct. 18, 1911, and May 10, 1912.Counsel: Bailhache, K.C. and Raeburn; Bateson, K.C. and Leck. Solicitors: William A. Crump and Son; Stibbard, Gibson, and Co.]


Lord Lindley's monumental Treatise on the Law of Partnership (Sweet and Maxwell Limited) is in its eighth edition, which is brought out by the Hon. Walter B. Lindley and Messrs. Tomlin and Uthwatt, the appendix on the law of Scotland, as in former editions, being supplied by Mr. J. Campbell Lorimer, K.C. The text of the seventh edition has been thoroughly revised and brought into harmony with the latest decisions, while the Limited Partnership Act 1907, which has been passed since that edition was published, has been treated separately. For the present volume the editors are solely responsible, and they have done their work well, the standard maintained being all that one expects in this the leading work on partnership.


[ocr errors]

Vol. 7 of the new (sixth) edition of Chitty's Statutes, edited by W. H. Aggs (Sweet and Maxwell Limited and Stevens and Sons Limited), takes this valuable work from Land" to " Local Courts." Under Land" will be found the Land Transfer Acts which were formerly placed under a heading "Registration of Title"; and also the provisions of the Finance (1909-10) Act 1910. The Agricultural Holdings Act 1908 and the Law of Distress Amendment Act 1908 appear under "Landlord and Tenant." In the case of the title" Limitations," much increased annotation has been found necessary.

[blocks in formation]


The Commercial Laws of the World. Vol. XXI.: France and Monaco. By G. HORN. Translated by MONTAGUE R. EMANUEL. Sweet and Maxwell Limited.

THE present volume of this important work, which is being brought out under the general editorship of Mr. William Bowstead, with Sir T. E. Scrutton as consulting editor, like its predecessors, is printed in the original language and interleaved with an English translation. After the introduction a good bibliography is given, and then a review of the system and administration of justice, followed by the Commercial Code. This is divided into commerce in general; maritime commerce; simple and fraudulent bankruptcies; and commercial jurisdiction. In a supplement are given provisions of the Civil Code which may be found applicable to commercial matters.

The Duties of Employers under the National Insurance Act 1911. By WILLIAM ANNAN. William Hodge and Co., Edinburgh and London.

MR. ANNAN writes for the employer of labour who has not time to read any of the numerous books explaining this Act, which, as he truly states, is one of the most complicated ever passed. The full text of the Act occupies the main part of the book. Appendix I. consists of some useful forms of lists which an employer is recommended to prepare, classifving his employees according to their status as regards the Act.


THE judgment of His Honour Judge Woodfall in the case of Davies v. Coles and Mowlem (132 L. T. Jour. 577) dealt with points which are of extreme importance to solicitors practising in the County Court. Without fully dealing with the facts of that case, it is sufficient to say that one of two defendants applied that the plaintiff's solicitor should be ordered personally to pay that defendant's costs on certain grounds, but mainly in that the solicitor's retainer terminated upon money being taken out of court which the co-defendant had paid in in satisfaction. His Honour dealt specifically with the allegations of fact, but his judgment was interesting primarily in deciding that a County Court judge has no power to make such an order. In support of the application it had been urged, among other arguments, that the requirements of Order LIV., r. 7, which make it necessary that a solicitor should sign a roll before appearing for any person, gave the court some punitive or disciplinary power analogous to that possessed by a judge of the High Court. This view of the rule was negatived by the learned judge, and it is curious to note that no section of the County Courts Acts 1888 and 1903, nor any other rule, afford a basis for the exercise of such a power. The analogy of the High Court practice is of no material assistance, for the basis of the judge's jurisdiction there to make such an order is stated in a specific rule-viz., Order LXV., r. 11, and possibly in sect. 5 of the Judicature Act 1890. The real distinction lies in the fact that on such an application in the High Court the solicitor is regarded as an officer of the court, and the above-named rule is declaratory of an inherent jurisdiction which the High Court exercises over acts or defaults of its officers. It seems doubtful whether such a power could now be conferred on the

County Court without legislation. In the course of his judgment His Honour stated that many cases had arisen in which he wished he had had the power to make such an order. Whether it would be advisable to confer on the County Court such a wide jurisdiction in these matters as that possessed by the High Court is a little difficult to determine. The large number of courts might not be conducive to that concurrence of judicial opinion which would be desirable in the exercise of a jurisdiction involving stringent powers of punishment. At the same time the moderate views expressed by His Honour might well be considered in effecting some reform, for in some respects an action in the County Court is more open to the defaults suggested in the High Court rule than an action in the High Court itself.

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

Bournemouth. Tuesday and Wednesday, at 10

Bow, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday

Bradford (Yorks), Tuesday, and Wednesday (R. By), at 10 Brentford, Friday (J.S.). at 10 Bridgend, Thursday and Friday Bridgwater, Friday, at 10


Brighton, Thursday (R By at 10, J.S., &c., at 11); Friday (J.S. at 11.30), at 10

Bristol, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, at 10; Friday (By), at 11

Bromsgrove. Monday, at 10

Burnley,* Friday (R. By), at 10.30 Cambridge, Tuesday, at 11; Wednesday, at 10

Chippenham, Tuesday, at 10.15 Chipping Norton, Thursday, at 10 Christchurch, Monday, at 10 Clerkenwell, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday Colchester, Tuesday and Wednesday, at 10

Crewe, Wednesday, at 10 Darlington. Wednesday (C.S.), at 9 Daventry, Thursday (Reg.), at 10 Denbigh, Wednesday

Derby, Tuesday (R. By), at 11; Wednesday, at 10: Thursday (J.S & A.O.), at 10.30

Dewsbury, Monday, Tuesday (J.S. et 10.30), Wednesday, and Thursday

Dorking. Wednesday

Dover. Wednesday, at 10

Durham, Monday and Tuesday, at 10

Evesham, Saturday, at 10

Eye, Saturday, at 11

Fakenham,* Friday, at 11

Felixstowe, Monday

Flint, Monday

Folkestone, Tuesday, at 10

Fordingbridge. Thursday, at 10

Greenwich, Friday, at 10.30
Halesworth, Wednesday
Halstead, Monday, at 12

Hanley, Wednesday and Thursday,

at 9.30

Harwich, Thursday, at 12

High Wycombe, Thursday, at 10
Holbeach, Monday, at 11

Holywell, Tuesday

Ilkeston, Tuesday, at 10; Friday (J.S. & A.O.), at 11

Keighley, Wednesday, at 10

Kettering. Tuesday, at 10

Kidderminster, Tuesday, at 9
Kingston-on-Thames, Tuesday

Lambeth, Monday, Tuesday, and
Wednesday, at 10.30

Langport, Wednesday, at 10.30 Leeds. Monday (J.S. & A.O.), Wednesday, Thursday (J.S. & A.O.), and Friday, at 10

Leek, Monday, at 9.30

Leicester. Tuesday, Wednesday,
and Thursday, at 10; Saturday,
at 9.30
Leighton-Buzzard, Thursday, at 10
Lincoln, Thursday (R. By), at 3
Liverpool, Monday (By at 11) and
Thursday, at 10

Llanfyllin, Tuesday, at 10
March, Tuesday, at 10

Marylebone, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, at


Melton Mowbray. Friday, at 10
Middlesbrough, Monday, at 9.30;
Thursday (C.S. at 9.30, By at 11)
Monmouth, Saturday, at 10
Newark, Monday, at 10
Newcastle-under-Lyme, Tuesday, at


Newent, Monday

Newmarket, Thursday Newport (Mon).

[ocr errors]

Thursday and

Friday, at 10.30 Newport Pagnell, Friday, at 10 New Romney, Monday, at 12 Newtown, Monday, at 10 Northampton. Tuesday (R. By), at 12; Wednesday, at 10 Nottingham, Wednesday (County Courts Act 1903, if necessary), at 10; Friday (A.O. at 10, By at 12) Ormskirk, Tuesday, at 10 Oswestry, Thursday, at 10 Oxford, Wednesday (R. By), at 10.30


Paignton, Monday, at 10
Penzance, Tuesday, at 10
Pontefract, Tuesday and Wednes-
day, at 10

Portsmouth, Thursday, at 10.30
Redditch. Friday, at 10
Redruth, Thursday, at 10
Rhyl, Friday

Rugby. Thursday, at 10
Rye, Tuesday

St. Albans, Monday, at 10
St. Austell,* Monday, at 10
St. Helens, Wednesday
Salford, Monday
Saxmundham, Tuesday
Sheerness, Thursday, at 10
Sheffield, Thursday (By at 2) and
Friday, at 10

Shoreditch, Tuesday and Thursday
Sittingbourne, Friday, at 10
Solihull, Wednesday
Southampton, Tuesday, at 10; Fri-
day (C.S.), at 11
Southwark, Monday,

Tuesday. Wednesday, and Thursday, at 10.30


Stamford, Monday, at 1.30
Stockport, Friday, at 10
Stockton-on-Tees,* Tuesday (By
at 11) and Friday (C.S.), at 9.30
Stourbridge, Wednesday and

Thursday, at 10

Stowmarket, Friday

Stow-on-the-Wold, Wednesday
Strond. Tuesday

Sunderland, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday (By), at 10

Swansea, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday

Swindon Wednesday (By at 11), at 10.30

Taunton, Tuesday, at 10
Thorne, Thursday, at 11
Tredegar. Tuesday and Wednesday,
at 10.30

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


YOUNGS AND SON (apps.) v. DAWSON (resp.).
Workmen's Compensation Act 1906.

A memorandum will not be recorded under clause 9 of the
2nd schedule to the Act unless (1) the consideration is adequate,
and (2) there is also an intelligent and free assent to its terms.
Ar the Norwich County Court, on the 7th May, the above case
came before His Honour Judge Mulligan, K.C.

Grimwade appeared for Youngs and Son.

Bagge appeared for Dawson.

Youngs and Son employed Dawson, who is sixty-five years of age, as a bricklayer. In 1909 Dawson fell from a scaffold and was so injured that he has been and is unable to work. He was paid 12s. 3d. per week until the month of March last. Then a memorandum purporting to be a settlement and release of all claims for £130 was presented for registration. The registrar after inquiry referred the matter to this court.

The workman could not read, and when he entered the witnessbox seemed deaf and stupid. In spite of the efforts of the registrar and of counsel and of his wife, he was unable to repeat the words of the oath or to grasp the situation.

Grimwade said he had medical evidence to show that the total incapacity would not be permanent, and thus to show that £130 was an adequate consideration.

His HONOUR said that would not be enough. A memorandum of an alleged agreement ought not to be recorded where there has not been an intelligent and free assent to all its terms. Here there was nothing of the kind. The court had ocular demonstration to the contrary. Application refused.

[blocks in formation]

Abatement of Criminal Proceedings.

IN Rex v. Spokes (ante, p. 60) it was decided that the Court of Quarter Sessions has no power under sect. 5 of the Quarter Sessions Act 1849 to order the executors of an appellant, who has died since the date of conviction but before the hearing of the appeal, to pay the costs of the appeal. A person who had been convicted of an offence in connection with the driving of a motor was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. He appealed to the Court of Quarter Sessions against the sentence, and entered into the usual recognisance to appear before that court to prosecute his appeal, to abide the judgment of the court, and pay such costs as should be awarded. Before the next court of quarter sessions was held the appellant died, but counsel appeared and explained the situation. The learned recorder ultimately made an order that the executors of the deceased appellant should pay the costs of the appeal. The arguments raised, among other matters, the question of the abatement of criminal proceedings. It would seem that, in general, criminal proceedings abate upon the death of the accused person, although authority to the contrary is found in the case of Rex v. Roberts (2 Strange, 937). In that case Roberts had apparently obtained a rule nisi for a certiorari to quash a conviction under an old statute regulating the employment and work of bricklayers, but died before cause was shown against the rule. The court affirmed the conviction. The report does not state the arguments or the judgment, but presumably the court only held that the proceedings to quash the judgment abated with the death of the person who obtained the rule. Criminal proceedings do not, of necessity, abate upon the death of the prosecutor. Thus in Reg. v. Truelove (42 L. T. Rep. 250; 5 Q. B. Div. 336) the death of the informer in proceedings under the Obscene Publications Act 1857 was held to cause no abatement of the proceedings. Mr. Justice Lush pointed out that the informer gives information on behalf of the public, that after the proceedings are started it is the duty of the magistrate to go on with the prosecution, and that consequently the informer's death in no way causes the proceedings to lapse. Thus where the Attorney-General dies after laying an information, but before the matter is ended, there is no abatement: (Waller v. Hanger, Bulstrode, 261). In the case of bastardy proceedings, an abatement thereof is caused by the death of the putative father (Re

Harrington, deceased; Wilder v. Turner, 99 L. T. Rep. 723; (1908) 2 Ch. 687) and also upon the death of the mother: (per Mr. Justice Walton in James v. Morgan, 100 L. T. Rep. 238; (1909) 1 K. B. 564). The reason for the general rule that criminal proceedings abate upon the death of the accused probably is that there ceases to be any person upon whom the judgment of the court can be executed, and, since some of the former consequences of a conviction for felony and the resulting forfeiture are abolished, the reason for an abatement of the proceedings has become more cogent.

Date from which Sentence Runs.

IN a case which came before the Court of Criminal Appeal this week the point was raised, although not actually decided, whether a court of quarter sessions or of gaol delivery has power to order that a sentence shall run from a date prior to the opening of the sessions or assizes. In the contemplation of the law, the sittings of a court of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery or quarter sessions are regarded for most purposes as one day: (Whitaker v. Wisbey, 9 Cox C. C. 109). Unless otherwise ordered, the sentence runs from the first day of the sittings of the court, in the case of the assizes: (King v. The Queen, 7 Q. B. 782). By sect. 12 of 21 & 22 Vict. c. 73, in the case of quarter sessions and adjourned sessions of the peace, the sentence runs from the day when it is pronounced, unless the court otherwise orders. The Court of Criminal Appeal in cases where the operation of the sentence is suspended pending its decision usually directs that the sentence, if the conviction is affirmed, shall date from the determination of the appeal; and in cases where the operation of the sentence is not so suspended sometimes gives a similar direction. In the case referred to, the Court of Criminal Appeal doubted whether the Court of Quarter Sessions had power to ante-date the beginning of the sentence to a date previous to the holding of the court. It will be noticed that the section above referred to does not expressly deal with this point, but both in principle and in practice it would seem that no court of trial has power to order that its sentence shall operate as from a date prior to the holding of the court, because it has no jurisdiction to try the prisoner until an indictment is found and presented to it, or, in the case of petty sessions, until an information or complaint has been laid.

The quarter sessions for the borough of Burnley will be held on Friday, the 24th inst.

[ocr errors]

Some of the evidence adduced in reference to the circumstances attending the Titanic disaster directs attention irresistibly to the doctrine that necessity will excuse acts which would otherwise be crimes. The law as to compulsion by necessity is thus enunciated by Sir Fitzjames Stephen: An act which might otherwise be a crime may be excused if the person accused can show that it was done only to avoid consequences which could not otherwise be avoided, and which if they had followed would have inflicted upon him and upon others inevitable and irreparable evil; that no more was done than was reasonably necessary for the purpose, and that the evil inflicted


not disproportionate to the evil avoided." Lord Bacon gives the instance of two shipwrecked persons clinging to the same plank and one of them thrusting the other from it finding that it will not support both, and says that this homicide is excusable through unavoidable necessity, "upon the great universal principle of self-preservation which prompts every man to save his own life in preference to that of another, when one of them must inevitably perish": (Bacon's Maxims, No. 5). Sir Fitzjames Stephen expresses the opinion that in such a case the survivor could be subjected to no legal punishment. "The case," he writes, "has actually occurred in the United States: (see Commonwealth v. Holms, 1 Wallace, Jun., p. 25, quoted at length in Wharton on Homicide, s. 560). In this case, the shipwrecked sailors and passengers escaping in a boat which would not hold all, the sailors threw some of the passengers overboard. The court held that the passengers ought to have been preferred to the sailors, unless the presence of all the sailors was required for the common safety, but under any circumstances it was held the proper method of determining who was to be the first victim out of the particular class was by ballot.' I doubt whether an English court would take this view. It would be odd to say that the two men on the raft were bound to toss up as to who should go." It is, moreover, not a crime to

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

Music and Dancing Licences.

THE Bill on this subject introduced in the House of Lords has received a very considerable measure of criticism, not otherwise than reasonable, and is now before the House of Commons. The draft submitted to the Commons contemplates further considerable amendment in committee, for a clause is inserted, in brackets and heavily underlined, to indicate changes to be proposed in the committee stage. This Bill will, if and when passed into law, modify the existing law in several material points. It will sweep away in toto the Public Entertainments Act 1875, and will partially repeal the Disorderly Houses Act 1751 and the Baths and Washhouses Act 1896. It is expressly phrased so as to except the Theatres Royal in Drury-lane and Covent Garden, and such entertainments as are lawfully conducted under letters patent or Crown licence, or under the licence of the Lord Chamberlain. The Bill will, however, subject to this, apply to the administrative county of London, West Ham, Croydon, and to those parts of Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, and Surrey which are within twenty miles of the cities of London and Westminster. Nothing is said as to the particular points in those cities from which the distance is to be calculated.

Features of the Premises.

To begin with, the Bill by "premises" means houses, rooms, gardens, or other places. Such premises are not to be kept or used for "public dancing, singing, music, or other public entertainment of the like kind," without a licence, notwithstanding that they may possess a licence for the sale of intoxicants. Such licences may be granted by the county councils of the administrative counties and by the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of West Ham and Croydon. They can be given on an annual basis or for a shorter period to such persons as may be thought fit, upon such conditions and subject to such restrictions as the licences may determine, and they can be transferred by the authorities. The premises are not to be used or kept for the purposes set out except on the days and between the hours specified in the licence, and not after midnight and before noon. There is, however, a special power of indulgence given to the licensing authorities under which a licence can exempt its holder on some special occasion or occasions from these provisions during specified hours. The general importance of observing with care the limit of time is again hinted in a short two line clause setting out that the observance of days and hours of opening and closing is to be a condition of every licence. The powers given to the licensing authorities are in addition to, and not in anywise in derogation of, their existing powers.

Fees and Penalties.

THE clause relating to fees is one of some considerable length and is one to be moved in committee. It fixes maxima beyond which the licensing authorities are not to go in respect of payments for licences or transfers. The fees vary alike in respect of the sums charged and the system of charging. Where church halls, schools, institutes, and the like premises are concerned, it is possible to demand 5s. a month or part thereof, or £1, whichever amount is the lesser. This latter indulgence is not granted in respect of assembly rooms, club rooms, concert halls, baths, hotels, restaurants, public-houses, dancing halls, skating rinks, townhalls, and drill halls, but the fee remains on the 58. basis. Premises other than these are licensed on a different scale which varies from 10s. a month or part thereof to £3 a month or part thereof, according to the accommodation. In

respect of the meaning of "accommodation" the Bill is silent. The maximum transfer fee is 10s. The main penalty provided for infractions of these regulations is that premises so kept or used without a licence will be deemed disorderly houses, and, without prejudice to prosecutions on this footing, persons keeping or rated as occupier are to be liable on summary conviction to a maximum fine of £100, and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further penalty of £50 per diem for every day on which the premises are kept or used thus after conviction. Breaches or disregard of the conditions or restrictions on the licence entail possible fines of £20, and £5 per diem for continuing offences. These fines are to be paid to the licensing authority taking the proceedings leading to their recovery.

Movable Dwellings.

Nor by any means for the first time Lord Clifford of Chudleigh is pressing forward with a Bill to afford some stronger powers to regulate encampments, and few residents in rural areas will be ignorant of the annoyance and danger to health occasioned by vagrants. The general object is to give a county council power to prohibit movable dwellings altogether in specified places on the ground of danger to the public health, and to afford them power to provide suitable camping grounds by means of a purchase or lease of land. The Local Government Board is before approving such action by the county council to take into consideration the general interests of the public and the neighbourhood. The camping ground can be utilised by movable dwellings on payment of a fee, and there is a collateral obligation on occupiers of these dwellings not to encamp on any common or roadside waste without the written permission of the county council, or upon private land except with the permission of the occupier. Another power is given to the county councils to prohibit or limit the presence of movable dwellings upon specified places when constituting an annoyance to the neighbourhood, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, but the interests of travelling showmen are to be regarded. It is provided that sanitary authorities are to co-operate by affording information and otherwise, and by-laws made by them are to be enforced by the county council.


Effect of Ante-dating Receiving Orders.

THE considered judgment of the Divisional Court in the recent case of Re Teale; Ex parte Blackburn (noted ante, p. 35), which was delivered by Mr. Justice Phillimore, decides a question of such far-reaching importance that the attention of all interested in bankruptcy procedure may well be directed thereto. The two points that had to be considered in that case were thus formulated by his Lordship: First, whether the practice of dating back receiving orders was a sound one; and, secondly, if so, what was the effect thereof upon third parties. The practice referred to is thoroughly well established. Where a court of first instance declines to make a receiving order against a debtor, but on appeal such an order is duly made, the same relates back to the date when the court of first instance should have made the order. The origin of the practice was ascribed by Mr. Justice Phillimore to the learned judges who decided the case of Re Raatz (4 Manson, 50). And it had, his Lordship said, been followed pretty generally ever since-always under the direction of the court. He considered that it must be taken as sound. One excellent reason for that conclusion he pointed out: If the debtor ought to have had a receiving order made against him by the court of first instance, any conduct of his previous to the date of the order would be punishable or taken into account in considering his discharge upon the principle that the terminus ad quem in the matter of date should be the date upon which he ought to have had the receiving order made against him. Then came the second question: What was the effect of ante-dating the receiving order on the interests of innocent third parties which had accrued in the interval between the date to which the receiving order was dated back, as being

that on which it ought to have been made, and the date when it was actually made. This involved consideration of the meaning of the phrase "the date of the receiving order" in sect. 49, sub-sect. 1, of the Bankruptcy Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52)— whether it meant the former or the latter date. As to that, Mr. Justice Phillimore thought the former was the date contemplated by the section. So that transactions occurring in the interval above referred to would not be protected by the section if the receiving order was to be deemed to be ante-dated for all purposes. But his Lordship, expressing the view of Mr. Justice Bray and himself, gave it as the opinion of the court that it could not have been intended that innocent third parties, whose interests had accrued in the interval, were to be adversely affected by the ante-dating of the receiving order. They had done nothing wrong; they had not procured the improper interval, a time that ought never to have come into being. When they dealt with the debtor, he had had no receiving order made against him, and they were not parties to the proceeding in which it was eventually made. The grounds of this decision, therefore, although producing the same result as that of the learned County Court judge in the case, were different. His Honour was of opinion that sect. 49 applied, and likewise the principle of Cohen v. Mitchell (63 L. T. Rep. 206; 25 Q. B. Div. 262). Despite the lack of assistance, however, derivable from authority, the reasons assigned by the Divisional Court for their decision appear too cogent to be likely to be dissented from on appeal, should an y take place


In Appeal Court II. judgment will be delivered in the following appeals to-day (Saturday): In the Matter of the Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908 and In the Matter of The Birkbeck Permanent Benefit Building Society and Reliance Marine Insurance Company Limited v. Duder.

In the King's Bench Division the case of Attorney-General of the Prince of Wales v. Hornby and others (Revenue Paper) will be in the paper for hearing on Tuesday next.

Mr. Justice Channell will open the commission at Salisbury, on the Western Circuit, on Monday next.

Mr. Justice Bray will leave London on Monday next for Huntingdon, on the South-Eastern Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day. He will not be able to return to London until after the business at Chelmsford is finished, the commission day for that town being fixed for Saturday, the 8th prox.

The commission day at Newtown, on the North Wales Circuit, has been altered by Mr. Justice Lush from Wednesday, the 22nd inst., to Tuesday, the 28th inst., and the commission at Swansea on the same circuit has been altered from Friday, the 12th July, to Thursday, the 11th July.

Mr. Justice Scrutton has fixed the following commission days for the summer assizes on the North-Eastern Circuit-viz. : Durham, Monday, June 24; Newcastle, Tuesday, July 2; York, Tuesday, July 9; and Leeds, Monday, July 15. It is understood that Mr. Justice Bankes will accompany Mr. Justice Scrutton, but it has not yet been definitely decided.

Mr. Justice Darling and Mr. Justice Bucknill have fixed the following commission days for the summer assizes on the Northern Circuit-viz.: Appleby, Wednesday, May 29; Carlisle, Friday, May 31; Lancaster, Wednesday, June 5; Liverpool, Tuesday, June 11; and Manchester, Monday, July 1. Mr. Justice Bucknill will go the circuit alone until Liverpool is reached, when he will be joined by Mr. Justice Darling.

The May adjourned 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.

Mr. Ernest E. Wild, barrister-at-law, has been adopted as the prospective Unionist candidate for North East Ham.

The Union Society of London will hold their annual meeting at the Inner Temple Lecture Room B, 3 (North), King's Benchwalk, on Wednesday, the 26th at 8 prox., p.m. Lord Haldane, K.C., will take the chair at the annual general meeting of the Barristers' Benevolent Association, which will be held at Middle Temple Hall on Monday, the 20th inst., at 4.15 p.m. All members of the Inns of Court are invited to attend.

Mr. James Norton Dickons, of Park Drive, Heaton, Bradford, solicitor, of Bradford and Halifax, of the firm of Messrs. Dickons and Aked, who died on the 10th April, aged seventy-three, left estate of the gross value of £33,101, of which the net personalty has been sworn at £30,262.

On Sunday, the 19th inst., by permission of the Masters of the Bench of the Inner and Midale Temple, there will be collections at the Temple Church on behalf of the Inns of Court Mission Institute. The sermon at the morning service will be preached by the Rev. H. G. D. Latham, sometime Dean of Perth, West Australia, and formerly warden of the mission.

The office of Coroner for the South-Western district, rendered vacant by the death of Mr. John Troutbeck, to which Mr. S. Ingleby Oddie has been appointed at an inclusive salary of £1150 a year, carries with it the positions of Coroner and Clerk of the Market of the City and Liberty of Westminster and of the Coronership of the Duchy of Lancaster district (Savoy portion). Sir John Macdonell (Quain Professor of Comparative Law to the University of London) will deliver the third of a course of lectures upon Comparative Legal Procedure as illustrated by Trials (English and Foreign)," at University College, Gowerstreet, W.C., on Wednesday next, at 5.30 p.m. The lectures are free to the public, without tickets.

[ocr errors]

In the lists just published of successful candidates at the examinations of the Surveyors' Institution the names of the following members of the Aspatria Agricultural College occur in the Land Agency Division:-Final-Fellowship: Mr. H. Musgrave, son of Mr. E. Musgrave, solicitor, Cockermouth; Mr. A. O. Egerton, Bomere Heath, Shrewsbury.

The May Sessions for the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court were opened by the Lord Mayor at the Sessions-house, Old Bailey, on Tuesday. The Recorder, in charging the grand jury, remarked that the last sessions, which began three weeks ago, only terminated on the 10th inst. As there were now eighty prisoners for trial, it would be seen that the court was fully occupied.

The Medico-Legal Society will hold their next meeting on Tuesday, the 21st inst., at 11, Chandos-street, Cavendish-square, W., when Mr. D. H. Pettit, barrister-at-law, will read a paper on the Workmen's Compensation Act, dealing with the distinction between accident and disease. Mr. W. Wynn Westcott (Coroner for North-East London), will also read a note on Coroner's Inquest Law, entitled "A curious result of burning a new-born child." Members of the Legal Profession are invited to attend and take part in the discussion.

The estimates of the Local Government Committee of the London County Council include a sum of £10,000 for accommodation for Quarter Sessions.-Mr. G. M. Gillett moved at the meeting on Tuesday that the vote be reduced by £100, in order that the possibility of amalgamating the business of the sessions with that of the Central Criminal Court might again be considered.—Mr. Edward Smith stated that the Court of Common Council's vote, when it declined to agree to any amalgamation, was so decisive that there was no good to be gained by raising the matter again. The only thing for the council now to do was to decide as soon as possible upon the best method of providing accommodation for the Quarter Sessions.-The amendment was rejected.

Replying to a question by Mr. Stanley Holmes on Tuesday, Mr. W. Haydon, chairman of the Public Control Committee of the London County Council, said that replies had been received from twenty-five out of twenty-eight borough councils on the proposal that the borough councils should administer the Shops Act. The councils which had not yet replied were Hampstead, Paddington, and Camberwell. Four borough councils-St. Marylebone, Bethnal-green, Finsbury, and St. Pancras-had agreed to the council's proposals as regards delegation of powers, and two, Holborn and Lambeth, were being recommended to agree subject to certain conditions. Wandsworth was disposed to agree, but desired further information. Five were prepared to administer all the provisions of the Act, these being Fulham, Westminster, Kensington, Stoke Newington, and Chelsea, and Hammersmith was being recommended to that effect also. Eleven borough councils - Stepney, Woolwich, Shoreditch, Deptford, Poplar, Lewisham, Battersea, Islington, Southwark, Bermondsey, and Greenwich-refused to agree to the proposals, and Hackney was also being recommended to refuse. He hoped that the question would be finally settled at the next meeting of the council.

The phrase "killing no murder," to whose use in a political pamphlet by Mr. Chiozza Money, M.P., strong exception has been taken by his political opponents, is of historic origin, and has made its mark in constitutional history. The Irish originally stipulated with Henry II. for the use of their own laws. They were consequently held beyond the pale of English justice and regarded as aliens at the least, sometimes as enemies, in English courts. Thus, as by the Brehon customs murder was only

punished by a fine, it was not held felony to kill one of the Irish race unless he had conformed to the English law: (see Hallam's Constitutional History of England, iii., p. 352). In 1657 an attempt was made on Cromwell's life by a man named Syndercombe. The assassination of the Protector was invited by a tract immediately afterwards published in Holland, entitled "Killing No Murder, which, from the powerful manner in which it was written, made a deeper impression on the public mind than any other literary production of the age. It was widely disseminated by Saxby, an agent of Spain. Saxby was seized, and escaped execution only by dying in the Tower. Clarendon assures us that Saxby was an illiterate person, which is a sufficient proof that he was not the real author of the tract, though he acknowledged it for his own in the Tower, probably to deceive Cromwell. The writer, whoever he was, kept his secret, at least at first, for Clarendon says he could not imagine who could write it. By many historians its authorship has been attributed to Colonel Titus, who was in Holland at the time, and constantly in the company of Saxby till his departure for England.


Law Officers and Questions.

THE suggestion made by Sir Edward Carson, K.C., that the answering by Sir Rufus Isaacs of questions respecting the Titanic disaster is contrary to the practice of the House, during the Titanic inquiry, at which he is appearing as law officer of the Crown, is met by the precedent of the Parnell Commission. On the 10th Feb. 1893, Sir Richard Webster (Lord Alverstone), speaking as an ex-Attorney-General, stated that, while the proceedings of the Parnell Commission were pending, speeches were made in the House of Commons by the hon. and learned member for York (Sir F. Lockwood, Q.C.) and by the hon. and learned member for Dumfries with reference to matters which must have come to their knowledge, to a certain extent, as counsel in that case. Sir Henry James (Lord James of Hereford) mentioned on the same occasion that after the determination of the proceedings in the Parnell Commission, and after the report had been made and when the matter came up for decision before the House, he appealed to the present Attorney-General (Lord Russell of Killowen) and offered him that, if he and all the other counsel would abstain from discussing that proceeding in which they had been engaged, he and the late Attorney-General (Lord Alverstone) would also abstain. Sir Charles Russell, he added, for reasons of which he did not complain, clung to his right, and the House on that occasion had to listen to six learned counsel who had been in the case. The Parnell Commission was a commission bound to report to the House of Commons, before which also the evidence at the Titanic inquiry and the report thereon will be laid.

Federal Schemes.

MR. ASQUITH termed the distinction drawn between the federal scheme of the Home Rule Bill and other federal schemes -namely, that the federalism of the Bill was a federalism which weakened the union between Great Britain and Ireland, whereas federal systems in other countries drew more closely together countries not united but severed the merest constitutional pedantry. The constitutional history of the country abounds with fantastic subtleties. To give a few illustrations. The Convention Parliament, which voted the recall of Charles II., acted as a Parliament, restored the King, granted him a revenue, yet it was deemed safer that its acts should be confirmed by its successor, which was summoned in due form by the King's writ. The calling of the first year of the reign of Charles II. the twelfth was a similar pedantry, as was the Act 1 Will. & M. "for removing and preventing all Questions and Disputes concerning the Assembling or Sitting of the present Parliament." In the catalogue of constitutional pedantries may well be included the Demise of the Crown Act 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. 5), which briefly enacts, with a view of settling questions as to whether Ministers had not by acceptance of office under a new King at once vacated their seats, and whether the vacancies would be postponed to the end of the first six months of the new reign, that (1) the holding of any office under the Crown within

« EelmineJätka »