Exeter Frome Chelmsford Cheltenham Chester Chesterfield Cockermouth Colchester Coventry Croydon Derby Dewsbury.. Dorchester Dudley Durham East Stonehouse Edmonton 10 ... ... ... ... 18 4 Windsor Wolverhampton Worcester... Wrexham... 12 12 ... Yeovil York ... 7 6 13 4 7 1 11 20 9 7 4 10 4 8 19 26 5 11 4 42 4 9 10 Manchester, Tuesday and Wednesday, at Newark, Saturday, at 10 Newport (Mon.), Thursday and Friday,at 10 Oldham, Thursday, at 9; before Registrar (Bankruptcy), Friday, at 11 Pembroke Dock, Wednesday Penzance, Wednesday, at 10 Pontefract, Monday and Friday, at 10.30 Pontypool, Wednesday, at 10 Pontypridd, Thursday and Friday Portmadoc, Wednesday, at 10 Portsmouth, Thursday, at 10 Redruth, Tuesday, at 10 Richmond (Yorks), Thursday, at 10 Rochdale, Friday, at 9 Rochester, Wednesday, at 9.30 Romford, Friday, at 11 Clerkenwell, Monday, Tuesday, Wednes- Romney, Monday, at 11 Durham, Monday and Tuesday, at 10 East Stonehouse (Plymouth),* Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday Edmonton, Tuesday, at 11 Epsom, Friday Guisborough, Friday, at 10.30 Halifax, Tuesday and Wednesday, at 10 Runcorn,* Tuesday Saddleworth, Friday, at 10 * Sandbach, Monday Southam, Saturday, at 10 Southport, Tuesday, at 10 Southwark, Monday, Thursday, St. Helens, Wednesday St. Neots, Tuesday, at 11 Swindon, Wednesday, at 10; Thursday Tunstall, Monday, at 9.30 Uppingham, Thursday, at 10 Uxbridge, Tuesday, at 10 Wakefield, Tuesday, at 10 Waltham Abbey, Wednesday, at 11 Wandsworth, Tuesday, at 11 Watford, Monday, at 10 Wellingborough, Tuesday, at 11 Wells, Tuesday, at 10 Westminster, Monday, at 12; Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, at 11 Weston-super-Mare, Monday, at 10 Weymouth, Thursday, at 10 Widnes, Friday Wigan, Tuesday, at 10 Windsor, Friday, at 10 Wirksworth, Thursday, at 11.30 Woolwich, Wednesday, at 10.45 Yarmouth, Friday and Saturday *Other sittings are specially fixed if necessary. Pwllheli, Tuesday, at 10 Southampton, Tuesday, at 10 and St. Austell, Monday, at 10 ASHBOURNE COUNTY COURT. Tuesday, June 17. (Before His Honour Judge BARBER, Q.C.) WILLIAMS v. BOOTH. Will-Construction-Residuary legatee. THE solicitor for the plaintiff was W. Matthews, of Ashbourne; and J. S. Rigby represented the defendant. This case was tried on the 23rd April, and His HONOUR now delivered judgment as follows: This is a friendly action, brought to obtain a judicial decision as to the proper construction of a home-made will, which, like many other home-made wills, is not free from difficulty. The plaintiff claims as a residuary legatee to have her share of residue paid over to her; the defendant, executor and trustee, doubts whether, according to the terms of the will, he would be justified in acceding to her request. The facts are shortly these: Dorothy Booth, widow, by her will, dated the 18th March 1882, after directing payment of her debts, funeral and testamentary expenses, and after giving two specific legacies, directed the sale of her household furniture, and gave one equal third share of her estate, real and personal, to her son, William Booth, absolutely; one other third upon trust for the benefit of her daughter, Alice Higton, and her children; and the remaining third (to which alone this present action relates) was disposed of in the following words: "I give and bequeath the other third share of my real and personal estate to be divided amongst the three children of my deceased daughter, Dolly Pickstock, in equal shares, on their all attaining the age of twenty-one years (that is, the youngest of the said three children shall attain the age of twenty-one before any one of the said three children shall receive their shares of the third share of my estate), and all the interest that may accrue on the said share to be paid to them at the same time in equal shares, viz,, one-third to Dorothy Booth Pickstock, and one-third to Lilian Booth Pickstock, and one-third to Elizabeth Booth Pickstock;" and then follow these words, which mainly cause the present difficulty: "And should any of the said three children die before the youngest attaining twenty-one, leaving no issue, then the other two to take her share in equal shares or the survivor of them." The testatrix died on the 3rd March 1885, and her will was duly proved on the 4th May in the same year. The three children of Dolly Pickstock were all living at the death of the testatrix, but Lilian Booth Pickstock has since died an infant, and without having been married; the eldest of the three has attained twentyone, and has married, but has as yet no issue; she is the present plaintiff. The youngest of the three children is an infant, aged about fifteen, and is still unmarried. The estate has been realised, and the third share bequeathed to Dolly Pickstock's three children is now represented by the sum of £201, and the plaintiff now claims that one-half of this amount as representing her own original share, and as half of the accrued share of her deceased sister, should be paid over to her. What then is her interest under the will? Any doubt which might be caused by the words upon their all attaining twenty-one" is, I think, removed by the testatrix's parenthetical explanation which immediately follows. She does not intend to give to the children as a class as in Leeming v. Sherratt (2 Hare, 14); she divides this third share among her three grandchildren nominatim, and simply declares that none of them is to receive her share, either of the principal or of the interest which may have accrued upon it, until the youngest of the three has attained twenty-one. The present case up to this point is almost on all-fours with Cooper v. Cooper (3 L. T. Rep. Ñ. S. 800; 29 Beav. 229), which Sir J. Romilly, M.R. distinguished from Leeming v. Sherratt upon grounds which are precisely applicable to the present action. I have no doubt, therefore, that, according to the true construction of the first part of this bequest, each of the three children who survived the testatrix took an absolute vested interest on the testatrix's death in one-third of this share of residue, and that only the payment of each such third share was postponed until the youngest child attained twenty-one. I also accede to the argument addressed to me by Mr. Matthews, that when a legacy or share of residue is absolutely vested the legatee is, as a general rule, entitled to have it paid over to him, although the event, until the happening of which the time of payment was postponed, may not have happened. The case of Re Wrey (53 L. T. Rep. N. S. 334; 30 Ch. Div. 507) is an apt illustration of the working of this rule. There a young man, who was not to be paid the principal of his legacy until his marriage, having a vested interest, and being of age, was held entitled to have the principal transferred, although he had not married. But in that case there was no gift over, and the question here is whether treating the gift as conferring an absolute vested interest, it can be devested by the subsequent devesting gift. Several cases were cited to me as bearing on this point, and especially Bubb v. Padwick (13 Ch. Div. 517), which, so far as it cast doubts on Re Arrowsmith's Trusts (2 De G. F. & J. 474), is disapproved by Fry, J. in Re Chaston (18 Ch. Div. 218). But all the cases cited were cases in which the gifts over were in case of the death of a legatee before receiving payment of his legacy. The court always leans so strongly against disturbing a vested interest that it has frequently construed the words payment or receipt as referring not to the times of actual payment or receipt, but to the time when the legatee is entitled to require payment, or the time when the payment or receipt ought to take place. But these authorities do not appear to me to have any direct bearing on the case. The testatrix has in terms which I consider to be sufficiently clear given to each of the three children an absolute vested interest, and in a subsequent clause she has in terms equally clear devested this vested interest in the event of any of the three children dying before the youngest child attains twenty-one without leaving issue. She was as competent to make this devesting gift as she was of making the original gift. It is quite possible that the plaintiff may die without leaving issue before her younger sister attains twenty-one, in which case the gift over would take effect. I am therefore of opinion that the defendant cannot safely or properly pay over to the plaintiff any portion of her original share until her younger sister attains twenty-one. But I think that the plaintiff is entitled to claim at once her portion of the share of her deceased sister, for it is well settled that, in the absence of a clearly expressed intention, an accrued share is not liable to the same restrictions as an original share. To this extent, therefore, I accede to the plaintiff's application. BILLS OF SALE.-The number of bills of sale in England and Wales registered at the Queen's Bench for the week ending July 5 was 140. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 170, and the corresponding weeks for the three previous years 206, 201, and 252.Stubbs' Weekly Gazette. LAW SOCIETIES. INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. THE following is the material portion of the annual report of the Council: RULES OF DEBATE.-At the special general meeting, held on April 12, 1889, a committee was appointed to consider and report to the then next general meeting whether any, and what revised or additional rules of debate were desirable, and, if in their opinion any such revised and additional rules were desirable, to prepare and submit draft rules with their report. The committee held several meetings and prepared some new rules of debate, the adoption of which was moved by the president on behalf of the council at the annual general meeting, held en the 12th July 1889, as new and additional bye-laws, and on the motion being 'put to the meeting, they were carried, and are now in operation. SOLICITORS ACT 1888.-Last year the council [informed the members that they had obtained an Act of Parliament providing amongst other things for the appointment of a committee of seven members of the council to hear all applications for removing the name of a solicitor from the roll or requiring him to answer allegations contained in an affidavit, and, if necessary, to report their finding to the court. The last report contained full information as to the rules which had been made in pursuance of the Act. Since the Act came into operation on the 1st Feb. 1889, 183 applications have been made to, and considered by, the committee; of these, eighty did not disclose any such cause for complaint against the solicitor as required an answer from him; twenty-two were by solicitors who, for various reasons, applied to have their names removed from the roll on their own request; and sixty-three cases were heard, with the result that twenty-nine were, by the leave of the committee, withdrawn ; in fourteen cases the committee reported that no prima facie case was made out, and in twenty they reported adversely to the solicitors. Of these last the court in one case, accepting the recommendation of the committee, did not make any order; in five the solicitors were suspended from practice for a greater or less period, and eight were struck off the rolls. The remaining six cases have not yet been reached. Of the remaining eighteen cases, two were not dealt with because the solicitors complained of had been punished under other applications, and sixteen are awaiting hearing. In addition to the cases dealt with by the committee under the Act, seven cases of conviction of solicitors for criminal offences have, under authority of the council, been brought before the court, and the names of the offenders removed from the roll. PROFESSIONAL PURPOSES.-The council have during the past year obtained convictions against unqualified persons in nine cases under the 12th section of the Solicitors Act of 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 68). SOLICITORS (MAGISTRACY) BILL 1890.-In their last report the council informed the members that they had petitioned in favour of a Bill the object of which was to make practising solicitors eligible as justices of the peace for any county, notwithstanding that they may practise within that county. The Bill has again been introduced this session in practically the same shape, and the council have again petitioned in its favour, pointing out that, although solicitors are now restrained from acting as justices in counties in which they practise, they may, nevertheless, act as such in boroughs, which appeared to be an anomaly for which no adequate reason exists. The council urged that it would be for the public advantage that men who have had a legal training, and who possess the knowledge and experience which solicitors acquire, both before admission and in the course of their practice, should not be restrained from administering justice in magisterial courts in their own counties. It was, however, added that it would be desirable that the Bill should contain a provision to the effect that any solicitor, appointed to act as a justice for the county in which he carried on business, should not, either directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, practise in any court in which he might sit as a justice. The petition was placed in the hands of the Right Hon. H. H. Fowler, M.P., who kindly presented it to the House of Commons. SOLICITORS' REMUNERATION ORDER.-The council continue to receive numerous applications from members of the society for their opinion on questions arising under this order, or otherwise, as to professional charges, and a committee of the council sit every fortnight to deal with these questions. CALL OF SOLICITORS TO THE BAR.-In pursuance of the resolution passed at Newcastle-upon-Tyne in Oct. 1888, the council communicated with the four Inns of Court, and set forth in detail the reasons against the regulation which made it imperative on a solicitor who wished to be called to the bar to cease from practice for one year, and urged upon the Benchers of the various Inns the justice of altering their regulations by providing that a solicitor who has for five years been admitted, or qualified for admission, may be eligible to be called to the bar without keeping any terms, provided he, on examination, satisfied the authorities that he possessed the necessary legal knowledge and the same qualifications as to education and character as are required of students for the bar-the preliminary examination required by the society being accepted as a sufficient educational test. The council have much satisfaction in reporting the adoption by the Benchers of this suggestion. One of the consolidated regulations of the four Inns of Court now provides as follows: "14. A student who previously to his admission at an Inn of Court was a solicitor in practice for not less than five years (and, in accordance with rule 7, has ceased to be a solicitor before his admission as a student), may be examined for call to the bar without keeping any terms, and may be called to the bar upon passing the public examination required by these rules without keeping any terms; provided that such 'solicitor has given at least twelve months' notice in writing to each of the four Inns of Court and to the Incorporated Law Society of his intention to seek call to the bar, and produce a certificate signed by two members of the council of the Incorporated Law Society that he is a fit and proper person to be called to the bar.' LORD FIELD.-On the occasion of the retirement of Mr. Justice Field from the bench, and his elevation to the peerage as Lord Field of Bakeham, the council unanimously passed a resolution congratulating his Lordshipwho during the early part of his professional career had practised as a solicitor-upon his receiving the well-deserved honour of a peerage which Her Majesty had been pleased to confer upon him in recognition of his long and eminent services as one of Her Majesty's judges. THE LATE MR. JUSTICE MANISTY. On the death of Mr. Justice Manisty, who had also in his early days practised as a solicitor, a resolution was unanimously passed by the council on behalf of the society, conveying to Lady Manisty and the family of the late Mr. Justice Manisty the expression of their sympathy and condolence under the loss which they had sustained by his death. RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT.-Last year the council stated that, in conjunction with the Bar Committee, a joint application had been made to the Lord Chancellor asking that a sufficient opportunity should be afforded to them for the consideration in draft of any proposed rules. The matter was brought before the annual provincial meeting at Leeds last October, when the council were requested to continue their endeavours in this direction, and they have this year prepared a Bill to secure the publication of rules in draft, and after communications with the authorities it has been introduced into Parliament by the Right Hon. H. H. Fowler, M.P., and has been read a first time. The council are of opinion that, if this Bill is passed, it will secure to the Profession and the public an opportunity of discussing, and, where desirable, of procuring amendments of proposed rules before they come into operation. The council are now frequently consulted by the rule-making authorities on the drafts of rules affecting the practice of the Profession. SUPREME COURTS OF JUDICATURE (PROCEDURE) BILL.-The council considered this Bill, which was introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Finlay, Q.C., M.P., the object of which is to abolish divisional courts, except for the hearing of certain proceedings. This alteration was recommended by the council in 1882, and again in 1884. The council expressed their approval of the principle of the Bill, subject to a provision being introduced into it to the effect that the decision of a judge in chambers should be final, except in the following cases-viz.: (1) If the Court of Appeal in the special_circumstances of the particular case gives leave to appeal; (2) if the order is one for final judgment under Order XIV.; (3) if the judge has granted, or has refused to grant, an injunction or to appoint a receiver; and (4) if the order is one finally staying an action. The council consider that the jurisdiction of the divisional courts need not be retained for applications against solicitors. In their experience the decisions in the cases which have been disposed of in the Chancery Division before a single judge have been as satisfactory as those in the divisional courts. These views were communicated to the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Finlay. JUDICATURE FEES.-The council have considered the subject of the decrease in the receipts from Judicature Fee Stamps during the past three years, as to which the Treasury have recently been in communication with the Lord Chancellor, and on which their opinion has been asked. The printed returns from the various departments, which have been addressed to the Lord Chancellor and laid before the council, show in considerable detail the deficiency. The main items which appear to require notice are those relating to the associates, taxing, affidavit, and writ departments in the Queen's Bench Division, and to the Probate Registry. It is a matter of common knowledge that Queen's Bench actions in which mercantile men are engaged have very greatly diminished in late years, and the statement in the return by Master Pollock, that there are now in every department of trade lay arbitrators," and that "there is an increasing practice of resorting to them for the determination of mercantile disputes," cannot be doubted, although there may be some question as to the correctness of his opinion that these lay arbitrators," from their special knowledge, command the confidence of business men.' One of the chief causes appears to be the risk of costs to which the litigants may be exposed. Apart from the expense involved by interlocutory applications and appeals, the modern system of giving a successful appellant his costs in the Court of Appeal, and also in the court below, has instigated appeals, and made it impossible for the advisers of a proposed litigant to intimate the possible amount of costs which the litigation may involve. The delay, particularly in the time of hearing actions, also has a very unfortunate effect. Business men prefer having their differences (in all cases in which they do not involve questions of principle) decided, in one way or the other, promptly, than to await the decision by a tribunal which, if its decisions could be obtained, would command more confidence, but where the cost of obtaining a decision and the period within which a decision can be counted upon with certainty are unknown factors. Changes of partnership take place, and it is more than inconvenient that accounts should be outstanding over long periods, and for these and other similar reasons commercial men choose the lesser evil and prefer lay arbitrators to decisions in the court. The commercial actions which are still brought before the court consist of cases involving important matters of principle where both parties desire a judicial decision, and where, in most cases, the facts are admitted or are incontestable, and cases in which the defendant simply desires to obtain delay, and where the plaintiff is forced to commence proceedings, and the defendant's case breaks down at the hearing. The council are aware that the above reasons will not account for more than a substantial portion of the falling off in the business of the Queen's Bench Division. They can, however, only attribute the remainder of this falling off to accidental circumstances and to the fact that the recent improvement in trade has much decreased the number of debt-collecting" actions. As regards the Probate Registry, the council were unable to offer any definite suggestions. The receipts here will, perhaps, always be subject to considerable variations year by year. SETTLED LAND ACT AMENDMENT BILL.-The attention of the council having been called to various points in which the Settled Land Acts require amendment, a Bill has been prepared for the purpose, and has been introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Herschell, and is now in Committee of that House. In the event of the Bill passing the House of Lords, Mr. Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., M.P., has kindly undertaken to take charge of it in the House of Commons. The following are the main provisions of the Bill, with some explanatory observations: In many counties land is unsaleable and improvements urgently needed which could be effected if the trustees happened to have capital money in hand, but at present there is no authority to raise funds by way of mortgage except for the purposes of exchange or partition. Power is therefore given to tenants for life to raise money by mortgage for any of the purposes to which capital money arising under the Settled Land Acts is authorised to be applied, and the list of improvements authorised by the Act of 1882 is extended to include (inter alia): 1. Bridges. 2. Putting the settled land and buildings in such condition as to enable them to be let to the best advantage. In proper cases the court may authorise the application of capital money towards payment for improvements, notwithstanding that a scheme was not previously submitted for approval as required by the Act of 1882. Money settled on the same trusts as proceeds of sale is made applicable in the same way as capital money arising under the Act of 1882. In the event of there being no trustees of a settlement within the meaning of the Settled Land Acts the trustees of any other land subject to the same limitations, or trustees having a future power of sale, are made trustees within the meaning of the Acts without the necessity of any application to the court. In other words, persons authorised by the settlement to receive capital, and whom the court would appoint as a matter of course, are constituted trustees within the Act. All the provisions of the Conveyancing Act of 1881 with regard to the appointment of new trustees are made applicable to trustees for the purposes of the Settled Land Acts, whether appointed by the court or otherwise. Power is also given to grant leases for not exceeding twenty-one years at the best rent without notice to the trustees, and to make the rent reserved in mining leases vary according to the price of minerals. The provision of the Settled Land Act 1882 prohibiting the sale or leasing of the principal mansion-house on an estate, without the sanction of the court or trustees, has given rise to much difficulty, and has been construed to include farmhouses and town houses. It is therefore provided by the Bill that where a house is usually occupied as a farmhouse, or where the site of any house with park and pleasure grounds does not exceed 100 acres in extent, the house shall not be deemed a principal mansion-house within the meaning of the Act. The restriction thus amended is also extended (as it should be) to an exchange. Power is also given for the creation of easements on exchange or partition of lands. Tenants for life are also authorised to make any conveyance necessary for giving effect to a contract entered into by a predecessor in title, which, if made, would be valid against his successors. Except in the case of contracts for leases or other contracts made under the Act, there is no express power for a successor to do this, and a vesting order would be necessary where the successor could not himself make the contract. RULES UNDER THE LUNACY ACT 1890.-The council considered the draft of proposed rules under the Lunacy Act 1890, and submitted their observations for the consideration of the Lord Chancellor. It was urged that the rules as now framed would expressly continue (rule 3) the present practice in lunacy, which closely resembles that of the old masters in Chancery, and is cumbersome and productive of much delay. It was suggested that the present is a convenient opportunity of assimilating this practice to that of the Chancery Division-in particular by giving the masters authority to make such orders as, in similar cases, are now made by the Chancery chief clerks. At present almost all orders in lunacy are made upon a certificate of the master. The certificate might safely be dispensed with in, practically, every case except that which is expressly provided for by rule 25 as to inquiries after inquisition found. The existing power to appoint an interim committee of the estate and person (Lunacy Orders 1883, r. 35) was not repeated in the draft rules. The council were of opinion that such a power might often be of great value in affording protection to the estate or person of a lunatic. The council understood that the existing rule was based on the recommendation of the committee (of which the late Master of the Rolls was chairman) which was appointed by the Lord Chancellor to make inquiries as to the practice in lunacy in the year 1882, and they could not see why it should now be omitted. TAXATION OF COSTS (RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT, MAY 1889).-In their last annual report the council called attention to new rules of court dealing with the taxation of solicitors' costs as against a fund in court or a company in liquidation issued in May 1889, and laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament without any previous communication with the Profession. The rules, as issued, practically made the taxing master the only authority in all matters within their scope, and from his decision no appeal would have been possible. It would have been competent for a taxing master to declare that no attendance before him was necessary, and, without examining details or considering difficult points, to allow a gross sum for the bill, without giving any reasons for his decision, from which there was no appeal. A representative meeting of solicitors was held, and a small executive committee was appointed, by whom a detailed report was prepared, which was forwarded to the Lord Chancellor, with a request that he would receive a deputation. This his 'Lordship was good enough to do on the 27th May, and, although the number of the deputation was limited to twelve, every law society throughout the kingdom concurred in the action taken, and most of them sent up representatives to the preliminary meeting. At the interview with the Lord Chancellor, the president stated in detail the objections to the new rules, and urged the justice and expediency of solicitors being consulted before any new rules, and particularly any which affected their remuneration, were promulgated. His Lordship promised that the rules would be considered in connection with the report of the committee with as little delay as possible. On the 28th June the president was able to report to the council that new rules had been laid before both Houses of Parliament, annulling the rules of May 1889, and giving effect to some though not to all the recommendations of the council. Under the altered rules, an appeal is in all cases given from the decision of the taxing master, though as regards the taxation as against a fund, or a company in liquidation, the penalty of loss of the costs of taxation will still apply in cases in which one-sixth of the professional charges (not as in a taxation against a client of the total bill of costs) is taxed off. The attention of the Lord Chancellor was called to this serious objection, but for the present no further amendment has been obtained. AUDIENCE IN COUNTY COURTS.-The attention of the council was drawn to the fact that notwithstanding the terms of sect. 72 of the County Court Act, which gives the right of audience in County Courts to solicitors' clerks who are themselves duly qualified solicitors, some of the County Court judges refused to hear them. The council expressed their willingness to defray the expenses of obtaining a judicial decision upon the point, and took steps to have their views on the matter conveyed to the judges in question. No further complaints have reached the council. BUSINESS IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION.-At the special general meeting of the society, held on the 31st Jan. 1890, a resolution was passed appointing a committee, consisting of seven members of the council and ten members of the society, specially conversant with practice, to confer with the Bar Committee upon the best mode of facilitating the despatch of business in the Chancery Division. The committee have met several times, and are engaged in collecting information on various points, and the council therefore postpone submitting any report to the general meeting. TRUSTS AND TRUST COMPANIES.-The council have considered the Public Trustee Bill, and the Trust Companies Bill, which have been again introduced into Parliament this year, and they see no reason to depart from the opinion they expressed last year on the general policy of the Public Trustee Bill, to the effect that its result would be the establishment of a large central office for the administration and execution under public officials of private estates and private trusts, which would add considerably to the expenses of trusts, and surround their administration with the routine and delays inseparably connected with a Government office. The council repeat the doubt which they expressed last year, viz. whether, having regard to the Trustee Act 1888, and the Trust Funds Investment Act 1889, a Bill for the appointment of a public trustee or for establishing trust companies is really required. But in case the Bills, or either of them, should become law, the council made numerous_suggestions for their amendment, many of which have been adopted. In particular, in the Bills of last session, no adequate provision was made for retaining the assistance of the solicitors previously employed in connection with a trust, but the conncil have secured the insertion of a suitable clause for the purpose in both Bills now before Parliament. These Bills provide for the public trustee and trust companies being paid for their services as trustee. A leading provincial law society has recently expressed the opinion that trustees should, as a rule, be at liberty to charge for their services, and the council have this question under their consideration. The recent decisions in Re Roberts (43 Ch. Div. 52), and in Re Wallis (W. N. 1890, p. 89), that a mortgagee cannot charge his mortgagor for professional services rendered by himself in preparing the security or in realising it, render the consideration of this question more necessary. COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) BILL 1890.--The council considered this Bill, which, as originally drawn, was open to grave objection. The views of the council were communicated to the law officers of the Crown and to the Grand Committee on Trade, and amendments were prepared and placed in the hands of the Right Hon. H. H. Fowler. Of these amendments several were adopted. There remain, however, some further important amendments which Mr. Fowler has given notice of his intention to move when the Bill comes up for consideration on report. JUSTICES' CLERKS CONDUCTING PROSECUTIONS.-It being understood that a Bill would be introduced this session relating to the conduct of prosecutions by justices' clerks, the council appointed a committee to report upon the matter. In the meantime the council having been informed that it was proposed to make the consent of the committing magistrates a condition precedent to the employment of their clerks in conducting prosecutions, passed a resolution that they saw no objection to that proposal, and communicated it to the Attorney-General. The committee made a report, but, before adopting it, the council wished to have the views of the provincial law societies, and a circular was accordingly addressed to each, and their opinions were asked (1) upon the point above mentioned; (2) as to the desirability or otherwise of the proposal contained in a Bill introduced in the session of 1885, which had for its object the extension to county justices' clerks of the disqualification which already exists in borough ; (3) as to whether any cases had arisen in which clerks to justices had been by themselves or their partners engaged in proceedings before such justices. With regard to the second question, the council said that it ought to be considered with due regard to the necessity for ensuring the proper conduct of prosecutions throughout the country, including rural districts, on which point reference was made to the fifth and final report of the Judicature Commissioners on Public Prosecutors. The council considered the practice referred to in the third question was obviously objectionable, and one which might be clearly prohibited by the justices, and they asked whether it was necessary or desirable to prohibit such a practice by legislative enactment. Replies have been received from twenty-two societies, which indicate that on the main question (the second) great difference of opinion prevails. The council have therefore not thought it expedient to take any further action pending the introduction of the Bill, which, it is now announced, will not be this session. LAND TRANSFER BILL.-In view of the expected re-introduction of this proposed measure, the council thought it desirable to review the objections they had raised, on the part of the public and the Profession, to the Bill as withdrawn from the House of Lords last year. Conferences between the council and representatives of the provincial law societies, and of solicitors practising in London and the neighbourhood, have been held in the society's hall, the president on each occasion being in the chair and conducting the proceedings. At these meetings it was determined that no pains should be spared in bringing to the notice of the leading members of both Houses of Parliament the objections alluded to above, viz.: (1) The compulsory character of the Bill. (2) Its skeleton form, the measure having to be completed and worked by rules to be issued by the Lord Chancellor, on his sole authority. (3) The creation of a system extending over the whole of England and Wales, with an army of officials to carry it into execution, for none of whom is any special qualification prescribed. All the influential provincial law societies, and a large number of individual members of the society, actively assisted the council in carrying this intention into effect, and the thanks of the Profession are due to them for the time and labour which they gave up to this object. No Bill has as yet been introduced into Parliament in the present session. LEGACY AND SUCCESSION DUTY.-In their last report the council drew attention to the fact that under the 21st section of the Inland Revenue Act 1888, in the case of a will in the very common form which directs the conversion of the testator's residuary real and personal estate and the payment out of the proceeds of debts, funeral expenses and legacies, the duty on legacies should be apportioned; that the values of the real and personal estate should be separately ascertained, and that succession duty should be paid upon such part of the legacy as is proportionate to the value of the real estate, and legacy duty on such part as is proportionate to the value of the personal estate. In order to obviate the inconvenience which must necessarily arise, and prevent the expense incurred in ascer taining the relative values of the real and personal property and preparing the account, which is wholly disproportionate to any benefit to be derived by the revenue from the enactment, the council suggested a clause for insertion in wills. It was also suggested that in the case of wills already executed a short codicil to the same effect should be made when opportunity occurred. Since the issue of the clause the attention of the council has been drawn to the fact that in certain cases it would not work satisfactorily, and they therefore took the opinion of counsel on the subject, under whose advice it has been altered in the form in the note. (a) LAND CHARGES REGISTRATION AND SEARCHES ACT 1888. - The council have inquired into the case of Reg. v. Holt (38 W. R. 236), which was brought forward by the Municipal Corporations Association, in consequence of an opinion taken by them of the law officers of the Crown in March 1889, the court having decided that charges under sect. 257 of the Public Health Act 1875 need not be registered. If this view be correct, it is considered that the result will be very greatly to lessen the usefulness of the Land Charges Act 1888. Charges similar to those created under sect. 257 of the Public Health Act 1875 are very numerous. It appeared to the council that the balance of advantage was in favour of (a) I direct that all legacies given by this my will or by any codicil hereto [and the legacy duty thereon] shall be paid primarily out of my personal estate in exoneration, as far as may be, of the proceeds of sale of my real estate. The words in brackets should be used when the legacies are given free from duty. registration, as it is always practicable for local authorities to enforce prompt payments, and, after a short period of delay, to register only such charges as may be delayed in payment and doubtful of recovery. Under these circumstances the council submitted a case to Sir Horace Davey and Mr. Howard Elphinstone to advise, having regard to the case of Reg. v. Holt, whether charges under sect. 257 of the Public Health Act required registration, and whether a fresh case was expedient; and also whether statutory charges not amounting to rentcharges would affect a purchaser without notice, and whether new legislation was desirable. The opinion was as follows: "We are of opinion that charges made under sects. 257 of the Public Health Act 1875 require registration under the Land Charges Act 1888, in order to be valid against a purchaser for value of the land charged therewith, and that it is expedient to bring the decision in Reg. v. Holt before the Court of Appeal by a fresh test case. The question whether a statutory charge on land affects a purchaser for value does not, in our opinion, depend upon notice. We do not consider that new legislation is necessary on the point decided in Reg. v. Holt." The result was that a communication was subsequently received from the Municipal Corporations Association, suggesting that municipal authorities should keep local registers of all charges on land amounting to £5 and upwards not registered under the Land Charges Act 1888, and that otherwise such charges should not affect a purchaser, and that the local authority should supply certificates of official searches, and the association were to procure for that purpose the insertion of clauses into the Public Health Amendment Bill of the present session. COMMISSIONERS FOR OATHS.-The attention of the council was called to, and their opinion asked upon, the reported obiter dictum of one of the judges of the Supreme Court in a recent case, in which his Lordship, after observing that the affidavits before him were not read over in the commissioner's presence, and that he took no means to ascertain whether he knew to what the deponents were swearing, said it was the duty of a commissioner before he administers an oath to satisfy himself that the witness thoroughly understands to what he is going to swear, and that the commissioner should not be satisfied by anyone but the witness himself. The council prepared a statement which they issued to their members, and published in the newspapers, in which they expressed the view that (subject to the exception contained in Order XXXVIII., r. 13, of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1883, as to blind and illiterate deponents), all a commissioner is required to do is to see that the deponent is apparently competent to depcse to the affidavit, and that he knows that he is about to be sworn by the commissioner as to the truth of the statements it contains, and that the exhibits (if any) are the documents referred to. The entire responsibility for the contents of the affidavit rests, in the opinion of the council, with the deponent and the solicitor who prepares it. It is obvious that it would be impossible for the commissioner to determine whether the deponent understood every statement made in the affidavit, unless he himself had read it to the deponent, and had himself mastered the facts of the case. Such a course would, in the opinion of the council, be impracticable, and beyond what they consider to be the duties of the commissioner. In all cases in which oaths are administered by officials of the court, and official persons other than solicitors holding commissions, no such course as that now suggested has ever been adopted. It may be stated in general terms that what is required of the person administering the oath is to ascertain that the deponent is actually in his presence, by inquiring whether the signature to the affidavit before him is the name of the deponent, and is in his own handwriting; and if the answers are in the affirmative, the oath is administered. The council also expressed the following opinion in answer to an inquiry, viz., that it is not the duty of a commissioner to mark annexed documents unless called upon to do so, in which case he is entitled to a fee of 1s. for marking each document. The commissioner cannot have any knowledge of such documents without reading the affidavit, which he is not required to do. DISTRESS FOR RENT: BAILIFF'S FEES.-Under the decision in Coode V. Johns, the percentage on levying distress for rent was held to be payable to the landlord, and not to the bailiff who executed the distress. This decision has been reversed by the recent case of Phillips v. Rees (38 W. R. 53). The result is, that whilst the landlord remains responsible for the regularity of the distress (in other words, for the conduct of the bailiff), he can recover nothing from the tenant in respect of his expenses (other than the specific matters mentioned in the schodule to the rules under the Distress for Rent Amendment Act 1888), and yet the bailiff, as regards whose employment the landlord has in many cases no choice, is to receive a considerable percentage, which in many cases will exceed any reasonable remuneration for his services. The council drew the attention of the Lord Chancellor to this matter, and pointed out that as the bailiff is still in law the agent of the landlord, and is entitled, irrespective of the Act or rules, to receive from him reasonable remuneration, it seemed that justice and convenience would be alike promoted by directing payment of the percentage to the landlord, and leaving the remuneration of the bailiff to be settled between them. It was also observed that, unless some steps were taken in this direction, the landlord would often be placed in a most unfair position. The bailiff would not be placed at a disadvantage, inasmuch as he is under no obligation to undertake a distress, and is able to stipulate for such remuneration as he may think adequate. It was therefore suggested to the Lord Chancellor that a new rule ought to be made directing that the expenses mentioned in the schedule to the existing rules should be payable to the landlord. COUNTY COURT RULES.-The council are in communication with the Lord Chancellor and the secretary to the County Court Commission on this subject, and expect that the Rule Committee of County Court Judges will shortly meet some representatives from the council for the purpose of discussing the points in the rules which the council consider require amendment, all of which have already been published in the reports of the society. The committee appointed last year to consider the suggestion as to a central issuing office and a central court for the trial of metropolitan remitted cases are collecting statistics, and do not propose to present their report until after the Long Vacation. BANKRUPTCY BILL 1890.-The council considered this Bill, and came to the conclusion that its main object appeared to be still further to discourage, and practically to prevent, private arrangement between debtors and their creditors, that the creditors and the debtor were the only persons having any pecuniary interest, and, if they desired to distribute the assets promptly and inexpensively, it was difficult to understand why they should not be at liberty to do so, especially as the law gave no power for a majority of creditors to bind a minority, however small the minority might be. Amongst other provisions, the council also objected (1) To the proposed extension of the duration of an act of bankruptcy to six months; (2) To the reduction of the petitioning creditor's debt to £20; (3) To the removal of the restrictions of the Act of 1883, which preclude the official receiver from acting as trustee; (4) To the stringency of the penal clauses of the Bill. The council procured notice to be given of amendments for giving effect to their views, and communicated with Sir A. Rollit and other members of Parliament on the subject. So far as the Bill has proceeded, effect has been in a large measure given to their suggestions. The council is much indebted to Sir A. Rollit, the member having charge of the Bill, for the great assistance which he has rendered to them in the matter. BANKRUPTCY RULES 1890.-Under these rules a clerk to an official receiver is enabled to take part in the public examination of a debtor, and to act for an official receiver in any examination before the court under sect. 27 of the Bankruptcy Act 1883, and on any unopposed applications to the court. Communications were addressed to the Lord Chancellor and the Board of Trade, in which the council expressed a strong opinion that the provision was on principle objectionable, and calculated to work unsatisfactorily; and they asked that it should be reconsidered on the grounds that it is contrary to the public interests and the intention of the Bankruptcy Act that official receivers should be empowered to delegate important parts of their official duties, especially to clerks of whose fitness no guarantee is afforded, and that the provision requiring the leave of the court to be obtained was inadequate to prevent the possible abuse of the practice referred to. A reply, in which it was understood the Lord Chancellor concurred, was received from the Board of Trade to the effect that the board were entirely in accord with the council in strongly deprecating an undue delegation of the more important duties of an official receiver, such as the conduct of a public examination or an examination under sect. 27. The rule was, they stated, framed solely to meet sudden emergencies, and it would still be necessary for the official receiver to submit to the Board of Trade the name and qualifications of any clerk proposed as his substitute, and that care would be taken to limit the authority of the board to those exceptional circumstances, and, further, to cases in which such delegation was not inconsistent with the public interest. BANKRUPTCY SEARCHES.-In July 1888 the council called the attention of the Board of Trade to the subject of the protection to purchasers for value against the secret title of trustees in bankruptcy, and the difficulty of effectual searches under the present system. The council urged upon the Board of Trade the necessity for legislation providing that a bankruptcy should not affect a purchaser for value without notice until after registration, and that an official certificate of search should, as in other official registers, be given, so as to protect both solicitors and purchasers from loss. In the meantime they urged that the utmost possible facilities should be given to intending purchasers and mortgagees for searches against bankruptcies under the present system. A letter was subsequently received from the Board of Trade to the effect that the first volume of a lexicographical index to all bankruptcies for the five years ending the 31st Dec. 1888 was completed. On inspection of the new index in Portugal-street, it was found that it enabled a searcher in a few seconds to ascertain whether any person of a given address had been bankrupt at that address between the 1st Jan. 1883 and the 1st Jan. 1889, either in London or in the country. The council thanked the Board of Trade for the facilities thus afforded, and at the same time reiterated their opinion that an arrangement for an official search was desirable, and that further legislative provisions were still necessary for the protection of purchasers without notice. The council have much satisfaction in reporting that the new index in the Search-rooms in Portugal-street is being kept up as to London bankruptcies daily, and, as to country bankruptcies, twice a week after the issue of each London Gazette. The new index is a continuation of the five years' index, 1883 to 1888. It is stated that the eighteen months, Jan. 1, 1889, to June 30, 1890, will probably be bound up in a separate volume, and the future index continued. It will doubtless be felt that the results thus attained are valuable, although there is not yet any provision for official searches, nor for the protection of solicitors who trust to the new index. COMPANIES (MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION) BILL.-Last year a committee of the House of Lords was appointed to consider the expediency or otherwise of allowing a company to alter its memorandum of association. The council, in August last, made a representation to Lord Herschell, who was chairman of the committee, in which they urged that a company registered under the Companies Act should be able to amend its memorandum of association; that the absence of such a power had always thrown a great responsibility upon company lawyers, having regard to the fact that any mistake made in the original preparation of the memorandum of association could not afterwards be corrected except by the expensive process of a pro formâ liquidation of the existing company and registration of a new company, as in cases of reconstruction; that the recent imposition of the original duty of 1 per cent. on the capital of a company would, in a case of any such necessity, operate as a great hardship. With regard to private Acts of Parliament, the council pointed out that the expense even of the most simple unopposed Bill was considerable at least £600-and to many companies such expense might be a great inconvenience; in fact, in some cases prohibitive. If the principle of the right to amend a memorandum of association was once admitted, it seemed to the council that a much simpler and equally safeguarded way of carrying it out in practice would be by the passing of an amending Act of Parliament to the effect that any company, if authorised by its articles of association as originally framed, or as amended by special resolution, might by special resolution amend its memorandum of association, and providing further that any such resolution should only be valid if afterwards confirmed by order of the court, on petition in the same way as is now done in cases of reduction of capital. The expense in such case would be small compared with what would have to be incurred in obtaining a private Act of Parliament, and it seemed to the council much better that such questions should be considered and determined by the judges of the Chancery Division, instead of by members of Parliament, who in most cases would not possess the requisite technical knowledge. The ceuncil pointed out a further objection to a private Act of Parliament, viz., that it could only be obtained during a limited period of the year, whereas the courts, subject to the ordinary vacations, are open to the public all the year round. The House of Lords Committee reported in favour of a company being allowed to alter its memorandum of association, and a Bill for carrying the suggestion into effect has been been introduced this session, and has been considered by the council, who expressed their approval of the Bill, but made numerous suggestions for its amendment, some of which have been adopted by the Legislature. SALE OF GOODS BILL. Last session, but after the issue of their annual report for 1889, the council considered the Sale of Goods Bill, and made a representation thereon to Lord Herschell, in which they pointed out that codification of the law with reference to the sale of goods was very desirable in the interests of the pubiic and of men of business, and that, in their opinion, the Bill contained an able and well-arranged statement of the existing law, and, as a preliminary to amendments to be made later, the council hoped the Bill would become law, but they added that in their opinion the existing law in many respects required simplification and amendment. RETAINERS OF COUNSEL.-Since the issue of the last annual report the council have further considered the rules as to the retainers of counsel, and are glad to be able to announce the approval of the Attorney-General to the rules as printed in the Appendix [see last week's LAW TIMES]. COUNSEL'S FEES.-Last year the council referred to the correspondence which had taken place between them and the Bar Committee with reference to the fact that some junior counsel insist on having a fee of twothirds of that paid to the senior. At the date of the last report the correspondence was unfinished. The whole of it is now printed in the Appendix [see last week's LAW TIMES]. Notwithstanding the letter from Mr. Lofthouse of the 13th May 1890, the council adhere to the view expressed in their letter of the 27th March 1889. ADMINISTRATION BONDS.-In reply to an inquiry as to whether an administrator would be allowed in his accounts the amount paid by him to a guarantee society as the premium for their entering into the required bond, the council stated that, as the bonds of such companies are now accepted as security, they could see no reason why the premium paid for obtaining the bond, without which administration would not be granted, should not be allowed as a proper administration expense. The payment of such a premium has been allowed by the masters in lunacy to the committee of an estate, and the allowance was approved by the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices. A similar allowance has also been made in the Chancery Division to the guardian of an infant's estate on passing his yearly accounts, but the allowance does not appear to have come before the judge in person, or to have been objected to by any party. In the Chancery Division, the premium paid by receivers who have given as security the bond of a guarantee society is not, as a rule, allowed under that name, but the council believe that in practice an addition sufficient to cover the payment is frequently made to the remuneration. It should be borne in mind that a receiver is a paid officer, while an administrator acts gratuitously, so that in the latter case there is a stronger ground for the repayment. MIDDLESEX REGISTRY.-The annual reports for the last six years have contained references to the proceedings adopted to test many points of dispute between the Profession and the Middlesex Registry, and the 1889 report shows that at the time of its issue two actions were awaiting trial. Those actions met with the same success as all the prior proceedings, and an Act of Parliament having since come into operation preventing the recurrence of the main dispute, it is convenient to summarise the whole position. At the special meeting of the society in Jan. 1883, on the motion of Mr. F. K. Munton, the following resolution was passed: "That in the opinion of this meeting the Middlesex Registry officials ought to exhibit conspicuously their statutory scale of fees, and that the council of this society should lend the weight of its approval to any proceedings commenced by a member to recover back moneys taken in excess of such scale." The resolution was forwarded to the Registry, but no active steps were taken by the officials to exhibit the list of fees, as they had for some time been in dispute with various practitioners as to the proper amount thereof, whereupon Mr. Munton, with the concurrence of the council, commenced an action against the Registry, which led to the principal fees being definitely fixed. The allowance of one of the fees in dispute in the first action incidentally raised the point whether the oath of a London deponent, hitherto demanded to be taken at the Registry itself, could be administered outside, and a second action was commenced by Mr. Munton to test this. That case went to the Court of Appeal, and the decision was unanimous that the Chancery commissioner who took that particular oath rightly did so, the plaintiff obtaining judgment accordingly, the memorial being duly accepted under such judgment. The Court of Appeal, however, left the point open whether commissioners appointed since the Judicature Act could effectually administer the oath, and the Registry, while obeying the court's order as to the old and gradually dying out Chancery Commissioners, refused to accept memorials sworn before any other. As soon as an opportunity arose (it being necessary to select personal conveyancing transactions where delay in registration would be unlikely to jeopardise the title), Mr. Munton instituted a third action against the Registry, confined to the question of the rights of commissioners appointed since the Judicature Act. In this particular action, however, Mr. Munton happened to be a grantor, and objection was taken that only a grantee could effectually raise all the points at issue, whereupon Mr. Munton availed himself of an occasion where he was mortgagee, and commenced a fourth action, which in due course also became ready for trial. The defendants refusing to amalgamate, the two further cases went into court, the result being a verdict for the plaintiff on all points. Numerous other defences were raised from time to time, but they all failed, and by these several proceedings the following decisions have been arrived at: (1) That the maximum fees payable on memorials are 1s. for 200 words, and fid. for every additional 100; 2s. 6d. for oath and exhibit, and 1s. for indorsing registration on original indenture. (2) That a deed of enfranchisement can be registered. (3) That the execution of a memorial by a grantee need not be witnessed by the person who attests the execution by the grantor. (4) That memorials can, at option, be deposed to outside the Registry before Chancery commissioners appointed under the 1853 Act. (5) That memorials may also be deposed to before a commissioner appointed under the Judicature Acts. (6) That the oath to a memorial need not be verified by affidavit, the indorsed certifiIcate of the commissioner being sufficient. (7) That the deponent is sufficiently described in the memorial as clerk to a solicitor whose place of business is given. As previously stated, points (4) and (5) were afterwards set at rest by the Commissioner for Oaths Act, which came into operation on the 1st Jan. last. During the present year Mr. Munton brought before the society several other points which it is suggested require regulation, i.e., whether (8) the Registry ought to undertake official searches, and give affirmative and negative certificates; (9) whether the so-called "private" lexicographical index ought to be open to inspection on payment of the ordinary fee of 18., having regard to the fact that since such "private" index has been compiled and maintained no attempt to improve the ordinary parliamentary index has been made, and whether in any case 2s. 6d. per name (as contradistinguished from 18. per transaction, the statutory fee for the public index) ought to be exacted; (10) whether needless delay in returning deeds does not exist as an incentive to payments for expedition," according to the practice which has grown up, and for which there is no statutory |