National company being £1875 per ship, and any special reinsurances of the English company were to be on common account. By art. 3 the participation was to be pari passu. By arts 4 to 7 the whole control of the business was to be with the English company at 24 per cent. commission on premiums paid or allowed to the National company and 10 per cent. on profits of the National company from the business. By art. 10 the agreement was to be executed in a spirit of trust one with the other and by the arbitration clause the arbitrators were relieved from judicial formalities and might abstain from following the strict rule of the law. It was contended that the agreement was in the nature of a partnership agreement. Held, however, that there could be no real doubt as to its true character. It was intended to cover marine risks; it was one of reinsurance by which, in return for a part of the premiums, the National company was bound to indemnify the English company against a corresponding part of loss incurred. It was, therefore, one of sea insurance, and not being expressed in a policy duly stamped it was invalid. The liquidator's rejection was therefore right and the summons would be dismissed. [Re The National Benefit Assurance Company Limited ; Ex parte The English Insurance Company Limited. Ch. Div. Eve, J. May 10 and 31.-Counsel: Porter, K.C. and Andrewes-Uthwatt; Dunlop, K.C. and L. W. Byrne. Solicitors: Parker, Garrett, and Co.; William A. Crump and Son.] Law of property-Undivided shares-Entirety vested in possession subject to incumbrances-In whom vested Statutory trusts-Law of Property Act 1925 (15 Geo. 5, c. 20), s. 205 (1) (vii.); Sched. I., Part IV., par. 1 (1) (a), (2), (3), (9). By his will dated the 13th Nov. 1909 the testator devised to the use of his trustees certain hereditaments upon trust, during the life of his wife, out of the income to pay certain annuities, and to pay the balance of the income to his said wife. The testator directed that from and after the death of his wife the trustees should stand possessed of the abovementioned hereditaments (which he described as the share of his daughter E.), upon trust to pay an annuity of £500 to his daughter's husband W. for his life, or until he did, or attempted to do, or suffered any act or occurrence whereby by operation of law or otherwise the benefit of any provisions conferred on him for life without restriction would pass to or become vested in any other person or corporation. The testator empowered W. by will or codicil to charge all or any part of the daughter's share with the payment of any sum not exceeding £10,000 for the benefit of one or more of the issue of his daughter E., and he directed his trustees to raise such sum by sale or mortgage of the said share and to hold it in trust for the person or persons entitled thereto. The trustees were, subject as hereinbefore mentioned, to stand possessed of such said share and the net income thereof in trust, in the events which happened, for such of the children of E. in equal shares who survived the testator and attained twenty-one, or, being female, married. The testator's wife died in 1911. The daughter E. died before the date of the will, leaving W. her husband, surviving. There were four children of E., all of whom survived the testator and attained vested interests, namely, the two plaintiffs, who were each entitled to their shares absolutely, and Mrs. W. and Mrs. O., whose shares were vested in the trustees of their respective marriage settlements. The trustees, who were also executors, were given no power of sale by the will, nor were they trustees for the purposes of the Settled Land Acts 1882 to 1890. This summons was issued for the determination of the questions in whom, on the coming into force of the Law of Property Act 1925, E.'s share became vested; whether such share vested in trustees free from the annuity and the power of charging £10,000; whether the consent of W. (the husband) was necessary to enable the trustees to exercise the trust for sale and power of management vested in them by reason of holding E.'s share upon the statutory trusts; and, whether, if he consented, such consent would determine his annuity of £500. Held, that Sched. I., Part IV., par. 1 (1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 applied, and that the entirety of the land was vested in the defendant trustees upon the statutory trusts in trust for persons entitled in undivided shares, namely, two of the children and the marriage settlement trustees of the other two, the incumbrances being divested under par. 1 (1) (a). Pars. 1 (2) and 1 (3) did not apply. The annuity was an incumbrance under sect. 205 (1) (vii.), but the power to charge a sum by will that might never be exercised was not. If and when exercised it would affect. the proceeds of sale in the hands of the trustees, and the consent of the annuitant to a sale would have to be obtained in accordance with par. 1 (9) of Part IV., but such consent would not determine the annuity within the meaning of the will. Re Earl of Carnarvon's Highclere Settled Estates (136 L. T. Rep. 241; (1927) 1 Ch. 138) and Ryder and Steadman's Contract (ante, p. 469) both followed. [Re Pedley; Wallace v. Wallace. Ch. Div.: Russell, J. April 27 and June 2.-Counsel: Winterbotham; H. W. Dollar; P. H. Brough; C. D. Myles. Solicitors: Pedley, May, and Fletcher.] Settled land-Subsisting charge and jointure-Settlement deemed to be subsisting Trustees Contract to sell the land subject to charge and jointure-Settled Land Act 1925 (15 Geo. 5, c. 18), 88. 3, 31, 33. By virtue of a disentailing deed of 1924 certain property was assured to the use of A. in fee simple subject to all charges and incumbrances affecting the same. By a deed of 1925 a yearly rentcharge of £4000 was charged on the property. On the coming into force of the Settled Land Act 1925, on the 1st Jan. 1926, the property was vested in A. in fee but subject to two family charges which were interests vested in possession, viz., the sum of £8750 secured by a term of 200 years limited by a settlement of 1880, and the jointure rentcharge of £4000 which was originally charged by a settlement of 1883 under the power in the settlement of 1880, afterwards transferred to other lands exclusively, and ultimately reimposed upon the property by a deed of 1925. Prior to the disentailing deed of 1924 the property had been subject to the compound settlement constituted by the documents specified in an order of the Chancery Division dated the 1st March 1920, or some of them, under which the trustees of the 1880 settlement were appointed trustees for the purposes of the Settled Land Acts 1882 to 1890 of the compound settlement constituted by the settlements of 1880 and 1883, a deed of 1891, a deed of the 2nd Feb. 1892, a settlement of the 9th Feb. 1892, and a disentailing deed of 1914, or any two or more of them. By a vesting deed of 1926 it was declared that the property was vested in A. in fee simple upon the trusts and subject to the powers and provisions subject to which, under the compound settlement therein mentioned, or otherwise, the same ought from time to time to be held, and that the trustees of the 1880 settlement were the trustees of such compound settlement for the purposes of the Settled Land Act 1925. Upon a contract for the sale of the said property by A. the question was raised whether, if the purchase money was paid to the existing trustees, the purchaser would get a good title discharged from all claims in respect of the sum of £8750 and the £4000 jointure rentcharge. A., the vendor, accordingly issued this summons asking for an order that the objections of the purchaser had been sufficiently answered and that a good title to the property had been shown. Held, that the vendor had shown a good title to the property, and that on the receipt by the trustees of the purchase money the property in the hands of the purchaser would be discharged from the £8750 and the £4000 jointure rentcharge. [Re Lord Alington and the London County Council's Contract. Ch. Div. Russell, J. May 19, 20, 24, and June 2.--Counsel: Topham, K.C. and J. V. Nesbitt; Stamp. Solicitors: Nicholl, Manisty, and Co.; T. Bullivant.] Settled land-“ Undivided shares vested in possession "Tenant for life". -“Persons having the powers of a tenant for life “Person entitled to the income of land”—Law of Property Act 1925 (15 Geo. 5, c. 20), s. 205 (1) (xxvi.) ; Sched. I., Part IV., par. 1; Sched. I., Part II., pars. 5, 6 (c)-Settled Land Act 1925 (15 Geo. 5, c. 18), s. 20 (1) (viii.). Under the will of the seventh Earl of Stamford and Warrington the entirety of his Lancashire estate on the 31st Dec. 1925, immediately before the coming into operation of the Law of Property Act 1925, stood limited to trustees for a term of 1000 years. In the meantime, and subject thereto, G. was entitled to one undivided moiety of the estate for life, with remainder to H. for life, with remainder to B. for life, with remainder to her son as tenant in tail, with remainder over. G. died on the 31st Messrs. Gee and Sons, Publishers, Limited, have just issued a Supplement to Dominion Income Tax Relief, by Mr. Ronald Staples. This supplement deals with the legal and practical aspects of the new arrangement between this country and the Irish Free State, and brings the main volume up to date. We have received from William Hodge and Co. Limited, three books dealing with Scots Law. The first of these, on the Law of Intestate Succession in Scotland, is by Mr. James Walker, and contains comparative tables showing the division of movables in Scotland and notes on the division of intestate estates in the Dominions. The others are on Heritable Rights in Scotland, and Destination and Vesting, both by Mr. Alfred J. Clarke. They are all clear and concise statements of the law in Scotland on these subjects, and, as such, should be useful to practitioners this side the Border, who desire primary information on the matters with which they deal. NEW EDITIONS Messrs. Stevens and Sons Limited have just published Part III. of that company classic, Palmer's Company Precedents, which deals with debentures and debenture stock. It is the Thirteenth Edition and has been prepared by Mr. Alfred F. Topham, K.C., assisted by Mr. Evelyn Riviere and Mr. Alfred R. Taylour. As Mr. Topham points out, in no branch of Company Law have the precedents and forms been so much affected by the statutes of 1925 as in the case of debentures and debenture stock, for, besides the necessary alterations in the reference to statutory provisions, the important changes in the form and legal effect of mortgages and charges have produced corresponding changes in the form of debenture trust deeds and other documents intended to create charges on the property of companies. A new edition of Part III. is therefore very welcome to the Profession and the name of the present editor is sufficient guarantee that the work has been well done. The chapter on banking and advance securities which, in the last edition, was incorporated in Part I., has now been transferred to this volume. Broom's Commentaries on the Common Law passed through many editions, and when it was found necessary to re-arrange and re-write it a few years before the war, it was done by the late Mr. Blake Odgers, K.C., and his son, Mr. W. Blake Odgers, and appeared as Odgers on the Common Law of England. A Third Edition has now been prepared by Mr. Roland Burrows, who has been assisted by Mr. R. A. B. Powell, Mr. J. Alan Bell, Mr. H. A. Street, and Mr. C. M. Cahn. The present editor has had no light task, for the work now extends to nearly 1700 pages and includes Contract, Tort, Criminal Law and Procedure, Civil Procedure, the Courts and the Law of Persons. It is a complete guide to the Common Law jurisprudence of this country, the arrangement being systematic and the contents accurate. The Conduct of and Procedure at Public and Company Meetings, by Mr. Albert Crew, now appears in its Ninth Edition, revised and enlarged (Jordan and Sons Limited). A new chapter on Meetings of Creditors and Contributors in a Winding-up has been added, and the book should continue to be an invaluable guide to chairmen of meetings and directors of companies. A Tenth Edition has just been issued of Gibson's Probate and Divorce, the editors being Mr. Arthur Weldon, Mr. H. Gibson Rivington, and Mr. A. Clifford Fountaine ("Law Notes" Publishing Office). This excellent explanatory treatise on the law and practice in Probate and Divorce matters has been brought well up to date, and the important legislation of the past two years duly incorporated. Mr. Marston Garsia has just brought out a Third Edition of Real Property and Conveyancing in his Nutshell Series Third Sheet (Sweet and Maxwell Limited). Part I. deals with the elements of the Law of Real Property and Part II. with the elements of Conveyancing. The present book contains the law as it is, only referring to the old law where it seems absolutely necessary for explanatory purposes. His Majesty's Stationery Office are publishing Volume 8 (East Africa) of the Mining Laws of the British Empire and of Foreign Countries. The part, which we have received, relates to Tanganyika, Kenya, Nyasaland, and Zanzibar. We have received from Waterlow and Sons Limited Tolley's Handbook of Income Tax 1927-28. This useful little publication also deals with the very drastic alterations proposed to be made in the taxing law this year. Apparently those in authority are now appreciating the usefulness of reports of Excess Profits Duty and Corporation Profits Tax Cases in connection with income tax cases, for we have received from His Majesty's Stationery Office Parts 1 and 2 of Volume 12 of Reports of Tax Cases, which contains excess profits duty cases decided from 1918 to 1920. Abingdon, Thursday, July 14. Bath, Saturday, July 16. Berwick-upon-Tweed, Friday, July 22. Canterbury, Monday, July 25. Leeds, Tuesday July 12. Lincoln, Saturday, July 16 at 10. Portsmouth, Thursday, July 7. Rochester, Thursday, July 21. Saffron Walden, Thursday, July 14. Salford, Tuesday, July 5. Salisbury, Friday, July 22. The Eighth International Congress of Actuaries is to be held in London from the 27th to the 30th of this month under the hon. presidency of the Prince of Wales. This is the first congress to be held since the War and delegates from all parts of the world will attend. The discussions and papers will deal with the following subjects among others: Insurance of Under-Average Lives, Risk Premium, Method of Reinsurance, Recent Developments in Industrial Insurance, Group Insurance and Disability Benefits in Life Insurance Contracts. These discussions will take place in the Council Chamber of the Guildhall of the City of London, except in the case of one for which the Hall of the Institute of Actuaries will be used. which have led to this legislation being introduced have in effect been, whether they were or were not so intended, a challenge on the part of local bodies to the overriding powers of Parliament to which those local bodies owe any measure of authority entrusted to them. The challenge has developed on the duties of district auditors, who, again, are creatures of Parliament tied down by sect. 247 of the Public Health Act 1875, which enacts that auditors shall disallow every item of account contrary to law and surcharge the same on the person who makes or authorises the making of an illegal payment. In so doing they are a protection to the general body of the ratepayers, and in their administration the auditors are themselves subject to appeal. The new principle has been accepted by the substantial second reading majority, but it is possible that the Standing Committee to which it has been sent may introduce some verbal changes in the wording by which that principle is brought into application. The purity of local administration as a trusteeship of the moneys of uninformed ratepayers is a matter which goes to the very roots of the social well-being of the whole community. OCCASIONAL NOTES Mr. Justice Avory and Mr. Justice Salter, for want of time, were unable to dispose of all the cases in the Civil List at the Bristol Assizes which commenced on Thursday, the 16th June last. Mr. Justice Avory will return to this town for their disposal when the business at Winchester is finished. Mr. Justice Sankey and Mr. Justice Roche will open the Commission at Swansea on the North and South Wales Circuits on Wednesday next, the 29th inst. When the business at this town is finished, they will return to London and remain until the end of the present sittings. The undefended nullity (medical) suits will be taken on Friday, the 29th July next, at 10.30. The June Sessions at the Central Criminal Court will commence on Tuesday next, the 28th inst., at the Old Bailey, at 10 o'clock. Mr. Justice Roche, Mr. Justice Greer, and Mr. Justice Wright are on the rota to attend. The June adjourned quarter and general sessions for cases arising on the north and south sides of the Thames will commence on Tuesday next, the 28th inst., at the Sessions House, Newington, at 10.30. At a meeting of the Union Society of London held on Wednesday, the 15th inst., at the Middle Temple Common Room, Mr. J. Meyler Symmons opened the following debate, viz. :- "That this House regrets the South African Flag." In support of Mr. Symmons, Mr. D. M. Clarke, Mr. K. Ingram, Mr. D. F. Ryan, Mr. O. K. Baker spoke. Mr. D. F. Brundret opposed, and was supported by Mr. F. A. Freeman, Mr. H. N. Sunyat and Mr. J. Single. In the result the motion was carried by seven to one.e. The annual general meeting of the Society will be held in the Middle Temple Common Room on Wednesday next, the 29th inst., at 8 o'clock p.m. Mr. J. E. G. de Montmorency (Quain Professor of Comparative Law) will deliver a public lecture in connection with the centenary celebrations of London University, at University College, Gower-street, on Friday next, the 1st July, at 5.30 p.m., entitled " A Century of Jurisprudence." Admission is free and without ticket. Wednesday, the 22nd June, being the Grand Day of Trinity Term at the Inner Temple, the Treasurer, Judge AtherleyJones, K.C., and the Masters of the Bench entertained at dinner the following guests :-Lord Bledisloe, Lord Blanesburgh, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Major the Hon. J. C Darling, Mr. Justice Swift, Sir Edward Boyle, Colonel Sir George McLaren Brown, the Treasurer of the Middle Temple, the President of the Law Society, the Rev. the Master of the Temple, Lieutenant-Colonel A. F. Poulton, and the Rev. the Reader. The following Benchers were present in addition to the Treasurer :-Lord Darling, Mr. R. F. MacSwinney, Sir Francis Taylor, K.C., Lord Ullswater, Sir Ernest Moon, K.C., Sir Lancelot Sanderson, Judge Gurdon, Mr. Alexander Grant, K.C., Mr. Justice Acton, Mr. G. ThornDrury, K.C., Mr. Ernest B. Charles, K.C., Mr. G. F. L. Mortimer, K.C., Mr. H. P. Macmillan, K.C., Mr. E. W. Wingate-Saul, K.C., Mr. C. R. Dunlop, K.C., and Sir Adrian Knox, K.C. 66 On Friday evening, the 17th June, an interesting meeting was held at the London Lecture Rooms of the Metropolitan College, St. Albans, where members of the college tutorial staff reviewed the papers set at the recent Final Examination of the Law Society. The proceedings were opened by Mr. F. C. Coningsby, LL.B. Hons., solicitor (Hons.), who dealt with the Equity Paper. Mr. Coningsby pointed out that the paper was not as easy as it appeared to be from a cursory examination, although one or two of the questions were "gifts," particularly Nos. 19 and 20. The other questions, however, required very careful thought, and from the student's point of view, the paper illustrated two vital points, namely, the importance of acquiring the habit of answering problem questions, and the tendency for examiners to set questions calling for a knowledge of the Property Acts. The Conveyancing Paper was then dealt with by Mr. W. E. Davies, solicitor (Hons.), who considered that the paper was scarcely as difficult as usual, as no less than seven of the questions were straightforward. Mr. Davies pointed out that this paper also indicated that the examiners attached considerable importance to a knowledge of recent legislation. Mr. E. Meyer, solicitor (Hons.), dealt with the questions on the various branches of Common Law, which he described as the most interesting of all legal subjects. He was followed by the chairman, Mr. Westby Nunn, B.A., LL.B., who dealt with a number of questions which did not fall within the sphere of the other lecturers. He urged that the subjects of bankruptcy, company law, and general commercial law should receive as much attention from students as the other subjects in the syllabus, and demonstrated, from a consideration of the questions set, the extreme importance of wide reading. Accuracy in reproducing the words of a Statute was, he said, a merit too rarely encountered, although such accuracy alone could turn a mediocre examination paper into one capable of securing a prize. A new study of Lord Brougham by Mr. Arthur Aspinall, published by the University Press, Manchester, invites a reconsideration of Brougham as lawyer and judge as well as orator and statesman. Most of us, when recalling him, think almost exclusively of that portion, by far the longest, of his life which was spent in England, first at the Bar and then on the Bench, but it is worth remembering that his first legal work was done while he was at the Scots Bar, which he joined in 1800 and where, with the irrepressible vivacity of youth, he tormented Lord Eskgrove, the then Lord JusticeClerk, almost beyond the endurance of that learned but somewhat ludicrous judicial dignitary. "The Justice," wrote Cockburn, liked passive counsel who let him dawdle on with culprits and juries in his own way; and consequently he hated the talent, the eloquence, the energy, and all the discomposing qualities of Brougham. At last it seemed as if a court day was to be blessed by his absence, and the poor Justice was delighting himself with the prospect of being allowed to deal with things as he chose, when, lo! his enemy appeared—tall, cool, and resolute. 'I declare,' said the Justice, that man Broom or Brougham is the torment of my life!' His revenge, 66 6 as usual, consisted in sneering at Brougham's eloquence by calling it or him the Harangue.' Greatly to Eskgrove's relief Brougham very soon migrated to the English Bar, where he found freer scope for his natural gifts of eloquence and forceful expression. His powers as a speaker have sometimes been decried, but so competent a witness as Gladstone, who had no very great admiration for Brougham, quoting with deep complacency a saying of Sir Charles Wetherall apropos Brougham hearing causes on Good Friday, that he was the first judge since Pontius Pilate who had done such a thing, yet never failed to do justice to Brougham's oratorical powers. In his diary for 1838 there is an entry in which, after referring to Peel and Wellington as speakers, Gladstone adds this: "Mr. Rogers quoted a saying about Brougham that he was not so much a master of the language as mastered by it. I doubt very much the truth of this. Brougham's management of his sentences, as I remember the late Lady Canning observing to me, is surely most wonderful. He never loses the thread, and yet he habitually twists it into a thousand varieties of intricate form." Brougham's most famous forensic appearance was his defence of Queen Caroline, but his fame as a lawyer rests not on the eloquence and vigour which he displayed an advocate, but on what he was able to accomplish as a law reformer. In one of Sydney Smith's speeches on the Reform Bill there is this striking tribute to Brougham's as |