Page images
PDF
EPUB

spondence from beginning to end; and that although the two letters relied upon would, if nothing else had taken place, have been sufficient evidence of a complete agreement, yet the plaintiffs themselves had shown that the agreement was not complete by reopening the matter and stipulating afterwards for an additional term, not on a mere matter of form, but of considerable advantage and importance to them, which kept the whole matter of purchase and sale in a state of negotiation only; and that therefore the defendant was at liberty to put an end to the negotiations, as he did by withdrawing his offer, although the ten days named in his letter of the 29th May had not elapsed.

OCCASIONAL NOTES.

Mr. Justice Stephen, who is passing the vacation at his seat near Dundalk, has quite recovered from his recent illness.

At the Leicester Bankruptcy Court on Wednesday the registrar granted a receiving order against the estate of Lionel Percy Chamberlain, solicitor, for fourteen years clerk to the Leicester Guardians. The order was made on the petition of the debtor himself. The liabilities are stated to be about £40,000. The debtor had become insolvent through building speculations.

Mr. Louis Tennyson d'Eyncourt, the senior Metropolitan Police Magistrate, who for the last thirteen years has been one of the occupants of the bench at Westminster Police-court, has tendered his resignation to the Home Secretary, but will continue to hold office until his successor is appointed. Owing to advancing years Mr. d'Eyncourt's retirement was not altogether unexpected, but the announcement of his resignation was received with the deepest regret by the professional gentlemen and others connected with the court, by whom his ever-courteous bearing and his patient, kindly disposition will long be remembered. Mr. d'Eyncourt was called to the Bar (Inner Temple) on the 1st May 1840, and as he was appointed a magistrate (to Worship-street Police-court) on the 9th Aug. 1851, he has completed over thirty-nine years' public service.

Great as are the delays too frequently occurring before an action gets to trial in the English courts, we think the Appellate Courts of the United States compare anything but favourably with our own Court of Appeal. At the close of October Term 1885, 904 cases remained on the docket of the United States Supreme Court, undisposed of. By cases docketed during October Term 1886 this number rose to 1403, of which 455 in all were disposed of during that term, leaving 948 cases undisposed of at the close of October Term 1886, or a net increase of forty-four cases. At the beginning of October Term 1889 the number of cases docketed was 1243, since increased to 1494; being a net increase of 300 cases since the close of October Term 1886, or less than three years. From a return prepared by the clerk of the Supreme Court it appears that at the close of October Term 1889 there remained on the docket of that court, undisposed of, 1180 cases, being 232 more than four years ago.

recess.

Circular letters have been sent by the Local Government Board to all sanitary authorities as to the mode of applying for provisional orders under the Public Health Act 1875, the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, the Local Government Act 1888 (sect. 54), and the Gas and Water Works Facilities Acts. The board state that they deem it desirable to follow the practice of previous years and to fix a day before which all applications for provisional orders under the Public Health Act 1875 must be made, if it is wished that the order should be confirmed during the session of 1891. They also consider that the day so fixed should extend to applications for provisional orders under part 1 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890. The necessity for this course is the more urgent as the board have received an intimation from the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means in the House of Commons that it is his intention to move, early in the next session, a sessional order providing that no Bill to confirm provisional orders originating in the House of Commons shall be read a first time after the Whitsuntide The board have accordingly determined that all such applications must be received by them not later than the 30th Nov. next, subject to this exception-namely, that where the application is for an order to put in force the compulsory powers of the Land Clauses Consolidation Acts, or to confirm an improvement scheme under the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, and the advertisements were not published until November, the application may be received not later than the 21st Dec. next. The board also draw special attention to the standing orders of both Houses of Parliament, which require that in any case where it is proposed by a Bill confirming a provisional order to authorise the compulsory taking, in any urban sanitary district, or in any parish or part of a parish in a rural sanitary district, of ten or more houses occupied, either wholly or partially, by persons belonging to the labouring class as tenants or lodgers, the sanitary authority shall deposit with the board, and also with the Clerk of the Parliaments, and at the Private Bill Office, on or before the 31st Dec., a statement of the number, description, and situation of such houses, and of the number, so far as can be ascertained, of the persons residing in such houses, and a copy of so much of the plan (if any) as relates thereto. The requirements of the board with regard to applications for provisional orders under part 1 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890 have been detailed in a series of instructions. It provides that the application shall be by sealed petition, which has to be accompanied by certain documents, maps, declarations, and books of reference.

LAW LIBRARY.

Reports of Rating Appeals (1886-1890) heard before the Queen's Bench Division and the Court of Appeal and the London Quarter Sessions, together with a Digest of Practice in Rating. By WALTER C. RYDE, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. 1890. London: Butterworths, 7, Fleet-street.

THIS work may be roughly described as consisting of three parts, the first is a treatise on, or digest of, the practice of rating and rating appeals under the Valuation Metropolis Act 1869. The

second part of the book, from which it takes its title, is a collection of reports of rating appeals heard before the General Assessment Sessions and the Quarter Sessions of London, and appeals heard by the Queen's Bench Division and the Court of Appeal from those sessions, and in some cases from sessions other than those in the metropolis. The third part is in the form of an appendix, and contains all the Acts relating to making and appealing against poor rates and valuation lists. The author has in the cases reported by him, and which extend over the last four years, succeeded in doing what is often the last thing considered by a reporter, viz., bringing_out clearly the point of the case on which the decision turned. In some few cases he has become somewhat too diffuse in giving the evidence under the names of the witnesses where a summary of it by the editor would have been sufficient; but, if a fault, this is certainly one on the right side. The use of the book is considerably increased by a copious and well-arranged index. The first part of the work, which its author relegates to the position of an introduction, is perhaps the most valuable part of the book, and is in fact a nearly complete treatise on rating in the metropolis. The author has done his work most conscientiously and well, and has succeeded in producing an excellent book upon a difficult subject, and one which every person, whether lawyer or layman, who has any business in rating or rating appeals, will be well advised in procuring.

NEW EDITION.

The eighth edition of Mr. Albert Gibson's Guide to Stephen's Commentaries has just been published ("Law Notes" Publishing office). The last edition having been out of print for some time, and a new edition of Mr. Serjeant Stephen's Commentaries having been published and having been appointed by the Incorporated Law Society for the intermediate examination in 1891, the present edition will be welcome to all intending candidates. The editors are Mr. Albert Gibson and Mr. Arthur Weldon, who have also just issued the seventh edition of their Aids to the Final Examination. Both books, as far as we have been able to examine them, have been accurately brought up to date, and will be found of service by those for whose use they are intended.

BOOKS RECEIVED.

The Poor Law Statutes 1879-1889. By A. Macmorran, and M. S. J. Macmorran, Barristers-at-Law. Shaw and Sons, Fetter-lane and Cranecourt, E.C.

Blackie's Modern Cyclopedia. Vol. VII. Edited by C. Annandale. Blackie and Son Limited, 49 and 50, Old Bailey, E.C.

COUNTY COURTS.

SITTINGS OF THE COURTS.

FOR THE WEEK ENDING SATURDAY, SEPT. 20.

Ampthill, Friday, at 10
Barton-on-Humber, Thursday, at 10
Bath, Thursday, at 10
Bedford, Thursday, at 10
Biggleswade, Monday, at 10.30
Bolton, Wednesday, at 9.30
Bradford (Wilts), Friday, at 10
Brigg, Wednesday, at 10
Brighton, Friday, at 10
Bungay, Wednesday
Bury, Monday, at 9
Caistor, Tuesday, at 10
Chester, Thursday
Colchester, Friday, at 11
Crewe, Wednesday
Denbigh, Tuesday
Devizes, Monday, at 10
Diss, Tuesday

Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday

Harleston, Monday

Huntingdon, Wednesday, at 10

Lincoln, Monday (Motions in Bankruptcy), at 10.30

Lowestoft, Thursday

Macclesfield, Thursday

Market Rasen, Friday, at 10
Oldham, Thursday, at 9
Rochdale, Friday, at 9

St. Asaph, Friday

Southend, Tuesday, at 11

Swindon, Wednesday, at 10

Tavistock, Saturday

Waltham Abbey, Wednesday, at 11
Wigan, Tuesday, at 10
Wrexham, Wednesday

East Stonehouse (Plymouth),* Monday, | Yarmouth, Friday and Saturday. * Other sittings are specially fixed if necessary.

[blocks in formation]

JOHN WILLIAM BEESON V. JANE LOMAS (Widow) AND WILLIAM LOMAS. HIS HONOUR.-The plaintiff is a skilled painter, mostly employed in decorative work, and capable of earning high wages. The defendant, Jane Lomas, is the present owner of five cottages in New Bridge-street. Her son, William Lomas, was made a defendant on the assumption that he was co-owner with her; but, as it appeared at the trial that he merely managed the property for her, I dismissed him from the action. Through this block of cottages there runs a passage, arched over, communicating from New Bridge-street with the back entrances to the five cottages, thus forming means of access thereto. In the month of May last one of these cottages was occupied by Mr. Truswell, a friend of the plaintiffs. The other four were, and had for a long time been, unoccupied, and were undergoing repair by the defendant's directions. In the course of the work an excavation from two feet to two feet six inches in depth was made at the back of the four cottages and across the end of the passage, in order to provide

[ocr errors]

a water supply. I see no reason to doubt that this was a necessary and proper work. This hole or excavation was left open for about a week without any barrier or other protection; for I place no reliance on the evidence of Charles Fuller, who alleges that he placed a flag over the hole. Late on the evening of the 12th May, when it was quite dark, the plaintiff went to fetch his two daughters from Mr. Truswell's, and went by the way he was in the habit of going, viz., by the passage leading from New Bridge to the back entrance of Truswell's cottage. He was not aware that there were any repairs being done, or that there was any trap or obstacle in his way. He fell into the hole at the end of the passage and sustained serious injuries which I need not describe. They necessitated his removal to the hospital, a doctor's bill of five guineas reduced earnings, and the loss of a good deal of profitable work. It was not seriously contended at the trial that the defendant, if this were an ordinary case, would not be liable for the consequences of the negligent act of her workmen, whom she employed without any special contract, or that the sum claimed by the plaintiff (£25) was in itself excessive or unreasonable; and practically the defence was rested on the ground that the plaintiff was a bare licensee, who went on the defendant's property at his own risk, and could not therefore recover any damages. The case of Indermaur v. Dames (14 L. T. Rep. N. S. 484; L. Rep. 1 C. P. 274, affirmed by the Exchequer Chamber, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 293; L. Rep. 2 C. P. 311) was most strongly relied on by Mr. Walker on behalf of the defendant; but I think that it tells more against than for him. The facts were these: The defendant, a sugar refiner, had on his premises a hole or shoot on the level of the floor, used for raising sugar to the different storeys, an appliance necessary and proper in such a business. While in use it was necessarily left unfenced; when not being used it was at times left open for the purpose of ventilation. A patentee had recently fixed a patent gas regulator on the premises, and the plaintiff, as a gasfitter in his employ, had gone to the premises to test its working. He accidentally fell through the hole, and was injured, without any fault or negligence of his own, and it was held that the defendant was guilty of a breach of duty towards the plaintiff in leaving the hole unfenced. Prima facie, this is a strong case against the defendant; the hole was a necessary and proper thing in such a building, and the accident happened in the daytime when there is more reason for imputing contributory negligence to the plaintiff. But Mr. Walker relies on certain dicta in the judgment of Willes, J., who delivered the judgment of the whole court. The learned judge, after holding that the authorities respecting guests and other bare licensees were inapplicable to the case before them, said: We have to consider what is the duty of the occupier of a building with reference to persons resorting thereto in the course of business, upon his invitation, express or implied. The common case is that of a customer to a shop; but it is obvious this is only one of a class, for whether the customer is actually chaffering at the time, or actually buys or not, he is according to an undoubted course of authority and practice entitled to the exercise of reasonable care by the occupier to prevent damage from unusual danger which the occupier knows, or ought to know, such as a trap left open unfenced and unlighted.' The principle in the words I have just read seems to me exactly applicable to the present case, for I can draw no distinction for the present purpose between the occupier mentioned by Willes, J. and the owner of unoccupied houses, who for a time is virtually occupying them himself, and is for his own convenience and profit repairing them. It is obvious that when an owner constructs a row of houses with a passage running through the middle of the block, providing an access to the back premises where, in houses of this class, the living rooms are generally to be found, he is doing what he considers to be conducive to advantageous letting, likely to procure and keep him tenants at an adequate rent. The practice is common enough, especially in towns, and it appears to me that an owner, when he provides such a passage for the convenience of his tenants and his own indirect advantage, impliedly invites tradesmen and others to make use of the passage which he has provided as a means of access to his tenants' houses for any lawful purpose. It is, I think, clear from a perusal of the whole judgment that the court was not disposed to narrow the application of the rule; and I can only come to the conclusion that a man going for a lawful purpose, as this plaintiff undoubtedly was, to the house of one of the defendant's tenants by the defendant's implied invitation, stands in the same position as a customer who goes to a tradesman's shop and is similarly entrapped. But even if I am pressing the principle too far in this case (and I do not think I am), there are other expressions in the judgment of Willes, J. which completely justify me in finding a verdict for the plaintiff. He says: The class to which the customer belongs includes persons who go, not as mere volunteers or licensees, or guests or servants, or persons whose employment is such that danger may be considered as bargained for, but who go upon business which concerns the occupier, and upon his invitation, express or implied;" and a little lower down the learned judge adds these words: "And with respect to such a visitor at least, we consider it settled law that he, using reasonable care on his part for his own safety, is entitled to expect that the occupier shall on his part use reasonable care to prevent damage from unusual danger which he knows or ought to know, and that when there is evidence of neglect, the question whether such reasonable care has been taken by notice, lighting, guarding, or otherwise, and whether there was contributory negligence in the sufferer, must be determined by the jury as a matter of fact. In this case I find as a jury that there was a gross negligence on the part of the workmen employed by the defendant for which she is in law responsible, and that there has not been any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff which in any way bars or affects his right to relief. I therefore award the full amount which he claims. I ought to add that I have carefully examined the other cases which were cited at the trial. The case of Clark v. Chambers (38 L. T. Rep. N. S. 454; 3 Q. B. Div. 327) is a strong case, for the defendant did not authorise the unlawful act which by the intervention of a third party was the immediate cause of the plaintiff sustaining a serious injury to his eye, and making the defendant responsible for it. The case which I have just adjudicated on is a far stronger one against the defendant.

66

Solicitors: Middleton for plaintiff; Walker for defendant.

WARNING TO INTENDING HOUSE PURCHASERS AND LESSEES.-Before purchasing or renting a house have the sanitary arrangements thoroughly examined by an expert from the Sanitary Engineering and Ventilation Company, 65, Victoria-street, Westminster opposite Town Hall [Estab lished 1875], who also undertake the Ventilation of Offices, &c.-[ADVT.]

Practice

GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.

VACATION BUSINESS.

(Before LAWRANCE, J., sitting as Vacation Judge.)

Friday, Sept. 5.

SENIOR V. WHITWELL.

Contempt-Injunction-Attachment-Delivery of possession― Delay in taking proceedings-R. S. C. 1883, Order LII., r. 4. THIS was a motion for leave to issue a writ of attachment against the defendant for not complying with an order of the court, dated the 28th March 1890, by declining to deliver up possession of certain household furniture and other chattels and effects in a house, and also of market gardens adjoining the house, and the growing crops thereof, and by interfering with the management of a market garden formerly carried on by one Joseph Whitwell. It was stated that, under the will of Joseph Whitwell, who died in Jan. 1890, property including the market garden in question had been given to the defendant, his son, subject to his giving security for £1000 to the satisfaction of the testator's executors and trustees. It was further alleged that the order was obtained on the 28th March 1890; and the security not having been given, the order was served on the defendant on the 14th Aug., and notice of motion for attachment subsequently given.

Dauney, for the defendant, took the preliminary objection that the motion was irregular, on the ground that Order LII., r. 4, of the R. S. C. had not been complied with. Order LII. provides that every notice of motion for attachment shall state in general terms the grounds of the application, and where such motion is founded on evidence by affidavit, a copy of any affidavit intended to be used shall be served with the notice of motion. Moreover, the order which the defendant was alleged to have broken was made on the 28th March, and there was no evidence that he had received any notice of it until the 14th Aug.

LAWRANCE, J. said that, under the provisions of the R. S. C., the court had power to direct a postponement of the motion, copies of the affidavits to be served in the meantime, but, as the defendant did not desire a postponement, the motion would be disposed of on the merits. Maclaren for the motion.-The defendant has not given the required security, and there is a danger that the property would be damaged if the motion is not acceded to.

LAWRANCE, J. said the defendant had offered to give security which the applicant had refused to accept, and the offer seemed to him a very fair one. A very long time had elapsed since the order was obtained before any proceedings were taken to put it in force. The mere fact that security was to be given to the satisfaction of the trustees was not equivalent to their being entitled to demand it. An order was obtained and kept in the pocket, and then when the security could not be obtained, it was suddenly produced like a pistol at the defendant's head. The defendant was entitled to be treated with fairness whatever sort of person he might be, and it was usual to give notice before taking proceedings. The defendant had offered to give security to the satisfaction of the court, and, as it had not been accepted, this motion would be dismissed with costs.

Solicitors: Andrew_Wood and Co., for Senior, Nottingham; Henry Ikin, for H. A. Child, Leeds.

Wednesday, Sept. 10.

Re SMITH; WALKER v. SMITH. Practice-Contempt of court-Discharge from custody-Non-delivery of account.

THE defendants in this case, who were executors under a will, had been committed to prison for breach of a certain order to bring in an account. The defendants were uneducated persons in a humble position of life. They now applied to the court by motion for discharge from prison. In support of the application it was stated that the only moneys subject to the trusts of the will were rents and profits of certain freehold premises situated at Fosdyke, Lincolnshire, and had been from time to time deposited in the Boston Savings Bank. The particulars of the sums of money, which amounted to £188 in the year 1888, were contained in the bank or deposit-book, which had been handed to them by the plaintiff on the 17th June 1888, and had not been in their possession since that date. Except as aforesaid no other sums of money subject to the trusts of the will of the original testator had come into the hands of their testator. One of the defendants further stated in his affidavit that the only moneys which had come into his hands were two several sums of £3, being two half years' rent of the premises at Fosdyke, and which became due in April and Oct. 1888, and were received by him from the tenant. These two sums, he stated in his affidavit, he was ready and willing to bring into court, but he had made payments in connection with the estate amounting to the best of his belief to the sum of £1. The other defendant stated that he had not at any time received any sum or sums of money subject to the trusts of the will. They further stated that their failure to comply with the terms of the order of the court was due to the fact of their being uneducated persons, and not through any attempt or desire to treat the order of the court with disrespect or contempt. It appeared that the defendants had been confined in prison for nearly three weeks at a time of the year when their presence was urgently needed upon their farms, and that they were daily incurring great loss and damage.

Martelli for the motion.

Hewitt, for the plaintiff, observed that the affidavit spoke only as to knowledge and belief in several important particulars, but he did not press the objection.

LAWRANCE, J. made the usual order for discharge.
Solicitors: Page and Scorer; Robinson, Preston, and Stow.

Re SECOND WOLVERHAMPTON BUILDING SOCIETY. Building society-Power to borrow—Creditor—Frame of petition. THIS was a petition by a creditor for £118, for moneys advanced to and deposited with the society. A question had previously been raised whether the petitioner was a creditor of the society, on the ground that it was doubtful whether the society could borrow money. It was now urged that the cases showed that an unlimited power of borrowing might be given to a benefit building society, and that the authority was in this case given by rule 86 of the rules of the society, which provided that:

"As often as it shall be deemed advisable to make an advance on any share or shares, or any fractional part of shares, when there shall not be sufficient balance in the hands of the bankers to the credit of the society, it shall be lawful for the board to apply for and receive any sum of money either from the bankers or others as a loan to enable the board to make such advance accordingly."

Marten, Q.C. and Winslow for the petition.

Seward Brice, Q.C. and Cam for depositors to the extent of about £10,000.-The petitioner has never applied for a share, and no share has ever been allotted to him. The petition must be amended so as to make it quite clear that it was a creditor's petition. Rule 86 did not give unlimited power to borrow. Something must be done with reference to the affairs of the society; but, if a wrong order was made, proceedings might be taken hereafter to set it aside. An action had been commenced asking for a declaration that the moneys which had been deposited were held in trust for the depositors, and for a receiver, and a receiver might be appointed in the action.

Walker for other parties interested.

[blocks in formation]

Re GATLING ARMS AND AMMUNITION COMPANY. Company-Winding-up-Debt-Insolvency-Proof of. THIS was a petition by a creditor to wind-up the above company. Marten, Q.C. and Macnaghten for the petition.

Sir A. Watson, Q.C. and Martelli, for the company, said that the petitioner had not done what was necessary to entitle him to a winding-up order. The company was not really insolvent, a valuation having been recently made which showed property worth £200,000, while the debts were only that of the petitioning creditor for £255 and one of about £100,000 to the New Oriental Bank. The petitioner had not served a demand requiring payment of his debt within twenty-one days, and if such notice were not given the mere fact that a creditor had not been paid his debt did not entitle him to present a petition unless he could prove from other sources that the company was insolvent. The reason the company could not pay the debt was that large foreign orders had been received which were not paid for until finished.

Tanner and Lawrence for other parties.

LAWRANCE, J. made the usual winding-up order, with the usual order as to costs.

THE REVISION COURTS.

CITY OF LONDON.

Mr. Octavius J. Williamson, the revising barrister for the City, held a court for the revision of the lists in the South Court, Guildhall, on the 8th and 9th inst. Mr. Secondary Roderick was in attendance. At the opening of the court attention was drawn to the fact that, in making up the lists of voters, the overseers had in some instances inserted the names of people who had been objected to over and over again at the annual revision, and whose names had been struck out repeatedly. The Revising Barrister pointed out that it did not follow because a man was objected to and his name struck off one year he was not entitled to have it on the next. He should deal with each case on its merits.-A curious point arose in the course of the revision as to whether an occupier is entitled to be on the list of electors in respect of more than one address. The name of Mr. James Sheppard Scott appeared in the lists in respect of a suite of offices at 36, St. Mary-at-Hill, and for other offices in Fenchurchstreet. Mr. Loader objected to the St. Mary-at-Hill address. Mr. Inkersole said the claimant was a member of the Court of Common Council, and it was part of the qualification of a Common Councilman that he should be on the list for the ward which he represented. As a matter of fact Mr. Scott was one of the representatives of the Billingsgate Ward, but as he might at some future time feel disposed to contest another ward, and as he was really the tenant of the other offices, he desired to be placed on the list for that address also. The name was allowed to appear for the two addresses.

At the opening of the court on the second day, the Revising Barrister suggested that in future overseers when publishing their lists should insert therein the number of the ward and the parish, so as to make it easier for reference. This was in consequence of there being 116 parishes in the City, and that for each parish there are usually four or five different lists. The Revising Barrister intimated that he would give instructions for the numbers to be inserted in future.-An objection was taken to the claim of Sir Frederick Perkins, of 9, Old Jewry, on the ground that there was no No. 9. Mr. Loader said that the building was structurally severed from No. 8. The overseer of the parish said that the building was always known as No. 8. Mr. Loader observed that the previous tenant was on the list for No. 9, Old Jewry. The Revising Barrister said in legal parlance it was what was called non sequitur. If he were satisfied that the building was originally known as No. 8, he should deal with it as a mistake of the overseer. The objection was ultimately withdrawn.-The name of James Hymans, who claimed in respect of a suite of offices at 20, Devonshire-street, was objected to on the ground that the claimant had not occupied the premises during the qualifying period, and that be resided at 17, Devonshire-square. Replying to the Revising Barrister, the overseer's representatives said that Mr. Hymans did occupy

premises, which in the rate-book were described as 20, Devonshire-street. As a matter of fact, his offices were at 17, Devonshire-square, whence he had removed from 20, Devonshire-street. Both addresses were part of one united building, which was now known as 17, Devonshiresquare. Mr. Hyman's name still appeared on the door of No. 20, Devon. shire-street, and that was the proper entrance to his premises, the only entrance in Devonshire-square being by way of an area. The objection was disallowed.-An objection was taken to the claim of Mr. John Samson, of Dashwood House, New Broad-street, on the ground that the premises were occupied by a limited liability company, by whom the claimant was employed. Mr. Samson was the editor of a London and South American journal, which was the property of the company, but at the same time he was the correspondent of other journals in South America, for which he received separate remuneration, and that, it was argued, constituted beneficial occupation. The Revising Barrister said there was a difference between occupation and licence. The claimant appeared to Occupy no separate office on his own account, and for that reason he thought that the claim must be barred.-The question of overseers' expenses again came under discussion. Mr. Weston, from the office of Mr Phillips, vestry clerk to several of the city parishes, asked the Revising Barrister whether he would appoint a day on which the overseers could attend to contest the question of expenses. It was within his knowledge, he added, that the allowance of 10s. per street of twenty-five names for the printing of the lists was not sufficient; it was only "cutting" printers that would do it at that price. The Revising Barrister said he would gladly hear what the overseers and vestry clerks had to say on the subject. It was desirable that this vexed question should be finally settled. He would appoint Thursday at 2 o'clock for the discussion, and it was desirable that those vestry clerks and overseers who found it impossible to attend should send representatives, as the scale which would then be decided upon would be final.

UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE BANK OF ENGLAND. [Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three months from the date given, unless some other olaimants sooner appear.? EVANS (Rev. Thomas Simpson), Stoke Newington-common, olerk; CALVERT (Richard Aston), 11, Calvert-street, Shoreditch, gentleman; and BROOKS (John Frederlok), 160, Holywell. street, Shoreditch, bacon factor. £29 98. £2 15s. per Cent. Consolidated Stock, late New Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimants, Official Trustees of Charitable Funds, pursuant to an Order of the Charity Commissioners, dated Aug. 1, 1890. Sept. 9. MIDDLESHIP (William), Combe Sackville, Brendon, near Lynmouth, North Devon. A dividend on the sum of £1900 Consolidated Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, Phobe Ella Templeton Middleship, widow, sole executrix of the said W. Middleship. Sept. 4. ROTCH (William Dickason), Harrington-street, Liverpool, barrister-at-law; POOLE (David Charles), 24, Liverpool-street, Dover, Kent, Barrister-at-law. £72 9s. 1d. £2 158. per Cent. Consolidated Stock, late New Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, said W. D. Rotch, the survivor. Sept. 6.

SAANKOPF (Charles Henry William), Blackman-street, Southwark, baker. £25 £2 158. per Cent. Consolidated Stock, formerly New £3 10s. per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, Auguste Kemys De Bernardy, administrator of the said C. H. W. Saamkopf. Sept. 9.

HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN.

TAIT (Robert and William), sons of the late Robert Tait, sometime residing in West Arthur. place, Edinburgh, or their respective heirs and assignees, will hear of something to their ad antage if they will apply to Messrs. J. and D. Chrystal, solicitors, Stirling, Scotland.

APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP AOTS. BRANTHAM SUPPLY ASSOCIATION LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Oct. 2, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. I. L. Ensor, 17, Museum-street, Ipswich, Suffolk, the liquidator of the company. CARDIGAN UNITED MINES LIMITED.-Order for winding-up made by Mr. Justice Lawrance on Sept. 3. Pritchard, Englefield, and Co., Painters' Hall, Little Trinity-lane, agents for Brabner and Court, Liverpool, solicitors for the petitioner. GOULDEN SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Oct. 15, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims to Mr. T. Southcott, the liquidator. HETT, MAYLOR, AND COMPANY LIMITED.-Order for winding-up made by Mr. Justice Lawrance on Aug. 27, and that George Bell and Edward Harker, both of 53, Old Broad-street, be provisionally official liquidators of the company. Smiles and Co., 15, Bedford-row, solicitors for the petitioner.

HOTEL WINDSOR LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Sept. 30, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. J. E. Costello, 23, Lime-street, the liquidator of the company. W. A. Colyer, New-inn. chambers, 41, Wych-street, Strand, solicitor for the liquidator. NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Oct. 20, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. R. Allen, 24, Grainger-street West, Newcastle-on-Tyne, the liquidator of the society. G. J. Wilson, 10, Neville-street, Newcastleon-Tyne, solicitor for the liquidator.

PATENT WIREINE SOCK COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Oct. 28, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solici. tors (if any), to Mr. J. Schofield, 56, George-street, Manchester, the liquidator of the company. Crofton and Craven, 36, Brazenose-street, Manchester, solicitors for the liquidator. RIXTON AND WARBURTON BRIDGE COMPANY.-Creditors to send in, by Oct. 9, their names and addresses and the particulars of their debts to the directors of the company, addressed to them at the office of J. Longland, secretary, 2, Union-street, Warrington. STREATHAM AND GENERAL ESTATES COMPANY LIMITED.-Order for continuation of volun. tary winding-up made by Mr. Justice Lawrance, on Sept. 3. C. H. T. Wharton, 31, Johnstreet, Bedford-row, solicitor for the petitioner. WILLIAM JOHNSON AND COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Oct. 7, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. T. Worthington, 31, King-street, Wigan, Tancashire, the liquidator of the company. WENLOCK GAS COMPANY.-Creditors to send in, by Sept. 15, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Messrs. Cooper and Haslewood, Much Wenlock, solicitors for the company. WANZER LIMITED.-Mr. Justice Lawrance, the vacation judge. has, by an order dated Aug. 27, appointed Ernest Cooper, 14, George-street, Mansion House, to be official liquidator, provisionally.

OREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VIOT., 0. 85.

Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. BRAHAM (Henrietta), Fairlawn, Central Hill, Upper Norwood, Surrey, widow. Oct. 24; H. C. Nisbet and Daw, solicitors, 35, Lincoln's-inn-fields. BOWYER (Charles), Weston-street, Upper Norwood, Surrey, builder. Oct. 24; H. C. Nisbet and Daw, solicitors, 35, Lincoln's-inn-fields.

BARKER (George Cleminson), The Briers, Victoria Park, Wavertree, Liverpool, gentleman. Oct. 16: W. H. Owen, solicitor, 3, Union-court, Castle-street, Liverpool.

BENNETT (Tom), Loughborough, Leicestershire, retired baker. Nov. 1; Toone and Bartlett, solicitors, Loughborough.

BOWDLER (Mary Ann), St. John-street, Lichfield, widow. Oct. 6; A. G. and H. R. Phillips, solicitors, Shifnal, Salop.

BUZZARD (James), Blaby, Leicestershire, gentleman. Oct. 20; A. E. Baines, solicitor, 15, Hotel. street, Leicester. BARRACLOUGH (Julia Bethesda), formerly of East-parade, Harrogate, Yorkshire, late of 7, Beauchamp-hill, Milverton, near Leamington, Warwickshire, widow. Oct. 14; Large and Son, solicitors, 1, Clarence-terrace, Leamington.

BURNS (Alexander) 6, Marlborough-orescent, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, boiler smith. Oct. 10; H. 8.
Bird, solicitor, 50, Grey-street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
BATTY (Sarah), formerly of Scholes, Barwick-in-Elmet, late of Garforth, both in Yorkshire,
spinster. Oct. 9; Lumb and Bailey, solicitors, 65, Albion-street, Leeds.
BROKE (Louisa), 4, Marlborough-buildings, Bath, spinster. Oct. 6; Lewis and Lewis, solicitors,
10 and 11, Ely-place, Holborn.

BALL (Henry), 21, Market-place, Derby, dining-rooms rroprietor. Sept. 22; Eddowes and Son,
solicitors, 13, St. Mary's-gate, Derby.
BLANTERN (Mary Anne), formerly of Meeson Hall, Wellington, Salop, late of Belton Wood,
Market Drayton, Salop, widow. Oct. 15; H. Wade, solicitor, 15, Swan-hill, Shrewsbury.
BARLOW (Walter James), Great Stanmore, draper's manager, formerly of 121, Green-street,
Bethnal Green, draper. Oct. 20; Patersons, Snow, Bloxam, and Kinder, solicitors,

25, Lincoln's-inn-fields.

CHAMBERS (Clara), Heathcliffe, Penarth, near Cardiff, Glamorganshire, spinster. Sept. 30; J.
Breese, solicitor, City Press-chambers, 149, Aldersgate-street.
DAVIS (William Foster), 171, Chatham-street, Liverpool, dyer. Oct. 1; Mason and Grierson,
Bolloitors, 9, Cook-street, Liverpool.
DANCE (Charles James), Norfolk Cottage, Wellington-road, Bromley-by-Bow, gentleman. Oct. 81
Roy and Cartwright, solicitors, 4, Lothbury.

DRAKE (James Adolphus), 113, Bristol-road, Birmingham, commission agent. Oct. 6; T. J.
Hadley, solicitor, 37, Waterloo-street, Birmingham.

DAVISON (Margaret), formerly of Sunderland, Durham, late of Stannington, Northumberland,
spinster. Nov. 3; J. C. Wilford, solicitor, 17, Fawoett-street, Sunderland.
DICKERSON (Augustus Gill), Rochester, Kent, gentleman. Oct. 15; W. Ince, Montague House,
Commercial-street, London.

DUNCOMBE (Sir Philip Duncombe Pauncefort), Brickhill Manor, Bletchley, Buckinghamshire,
Bart. Oct. 1; Bell, Stewards, and May, solicitors, 49, Lincoln's-inn-fields.

DAVIS (Maria Lemaistre), formerly of Reading, Berkshire, late of Keith Lodge, Upper Norwood,
Surrey, widow. Oct. 20; Thompson and Light, solicitors, 1, New-inn, Strand.
FLINDT (Julius Emmanuel), formerly of 1, Pinner's-court, Old Broad-street, foreign exchange
broker, late of Knighton Lodge, 101, Upper Tulse Hill, Surrey, gentleman. Sept. 30; H.
Norris, solicitor, Surrey House, Victoria Embankment.

GOULDING (John), Culverland-road, St. Sidwell, Exeter, dairyman. Oct. 1; Gould and Crompton, solicitors, Exeter.

GEAREY (Charles), Alexander-street, Footscray, Victoria. Oct. 20; St. Barbe, Sladen, and Wing, solicitors, 1, Delahay-street, Westminster.

GILL (William), Barnstaple, Devonshire, retired coal merchant. Oct. 6; Riccard and Son, solicitors, Southmolton.

HILL (James), 275, Cowbridge-road, Canton, Cardiff, Glamorganshire, contractor. Nov. 1; R. W. Blake, solicitor, Church-street-chambers, Cardin.

HALL (Lucy), Lancaster Lodge, Porchester-gate, widow. Oct. 23; Nicholson Herbert, and Patterson, solicitors, 23, Parliament-street.

HURMAN (Edward), 1, the Polygon, Clifton, Bristol, gentleman. Oct. 31; Clifton, Carter, and Co. solicitors, 51, Broad-street, Bristol.

HOWELL (Charles Augustus), Old Danner, Selsey, Sussex, and of 91, Southampton-row, retired civil engineer. Oct. 15: F. J. Bonham, 65, Oxford-street.

HAWKE (Samuel), Broomhill, Sheffield, gentleman. Oct. 10; Smith, Smith, and Elliott, solicitors,
Meeting-house-lane, Sheffield.
Oct. 10; Smith, Smith, and Elliott,

HAWKE (John), Broomhill, Sheffield, schoolmaster.

solicitors, Meeting-house-lane, Sheffield.

HOLT (George), 17, Courtnell-st, Bayswater, Paddington, gentleman. Oct. 25; J. Welman,
solicitor, 76B, Westbourne-grove, Bayswater.
HATHWAY (Jonathan Ind), Preston Farm, Lyneham, Wiltshire, farmer. Oct. 31; Kinneir and
Tombs, solicitors, Wootton Bassett, Wilts.

HUDDLESTON (Ferninand), Sawston Hall, Cambridgeshire, gentleman. Oct. 17; Witham,
Lambert, and Roskell, solicitors 1, Gray's-inn-square.

HOWETT (John), Bubworth Villa, East Retford, Nottinghamshire, commission agent. Oct. 31;
Mee and Co., solicitors, Retford.
INCHLEY (Joseph), formerly of 10, Hickman-road, Sparkbrook, Aston-juxta-Birmingham, late of
Discount-villas, Ladypool-road, Birmingham, gentleman. Oct. 24; Horton, Lee, and Lee,
solicitors, 18, Newhall-street, Birmingham.

JACKSON (Henry), Heptonstall, Halifax, Yorkshire, gentleman. Oct. 18; Sutcliffes, solicitors,
Hebden Bridge.
JOHNS (Francis Tregonwell), Blandford Forum, Dorsetshire, solicitor. Nov. 11; 8. Traill,
solicitor, Blandford Forum, Dorset.
JAQUES (Mary), formerly of 1, Fern-villas, Albert-road, Teddington, late of Cambridge House,
High-street, Teddington, spinster. Oct. 8; Nickinson, Prall, and Nickinson, solicitors, 51,
Chancery-lane.
JEFFREE (John), Worthing, Sussex, retired butcher. Nov. 1; Collet and Minton, solicitors,
Worthing.

KERR (William), formerly of Weldon-street, Walton, near Liverpool, late of Claribel-street,
Liverpool, mariner. Oct. 3; R. T. Barnes, solicitor, 62, Dale-street, Liverpool.
LISTER (Charles), Holly Bank, Wilmslow, Cheshire, gentleman. Oct. 18; Payne, Galloway, and
Payne, solicitors, 28, Brazennose-street, Manchester.

MILES (William), Broad Town, Wilts, yeoman. Oct. 19; Kendall, Price, and Francis, solicitors,
61, Carey-street.
MORGAN (Rev. James Gillow), St. Joseph's College, Littlehampton, Sussex, clerk in holy orders.
Oct. 2; R. Holmes and Co., solicitors, Littlehampton.

MARTIN (Horace), West Bank, Wrotham, Kent, gentleman. Oct. 20; G. Stenning, solicitor,
Tonbridge.

MALLAM (William), Farringdon Hall, Silksworth, farmer. Oct. 18; J. and W. J. Robinson, solicitors, 35, West Sunniside, Sunderland. MORECROFT (Richard), Aughton, Lancashire, retired innkeeper. Oct. 18; Hill and Sons, solicitors, 22, Derby-street, Ormskirk.

SLATER (Joseph), the Mount, Glossop-road, Sheffield, brace and bit manufacturer, afterwards silver plater, lately out of business. Oct. 31; Rodgers, Thomas, and Sandford, solicitors, 30, Bank-street, Sheffield.

STANNAH (Emma Mary), formerly of Mansfield House, Peckham-road. Forest Hill, Surrey, late of Tregothnan, Balham Hill, Balham, Surrey, widow. Jan. 1, 1891; Barnes and Bernard, solicitors, 11, Finsbury-circus.

STRETTON (Edwin), 23, North Audley-street, Grosvenor-square, and of 15, Market-street, Mayfair, and Highclere, Heston, butcher. Oct. 15; Saxton and Morgan, solicitors, 29, Somersetstreet, Portman-square.

SHERVEY (Valentine Davey), Britannia inn, Pontymister, Monmouthshire, publican and black.
ing manufacturer. Sept. 18; T. S. Edwards, solicitor, 20, High-street, Newport.
SUTCLIFFE (John Crossley), the Lee, Heptonstall, Halifax, Yorkshire, gentleman, J.P., D.L.
Oct. 1; Sutcliffes, solicitors, Hebden Bridge.
TYRER (Harry), St. Mary Cray, Kent, coal merchant, who traded under the style or firm of
H. Tyrer and Co. Oct. 30; G. Weller, solicitor, 28, Budge-row.
THOMAS (William Gideon), York, gentleman. Oct. 15; Leeman, Wilkinson, and Badger,
solicitors, 16, Coney-street, York.

TANNER (Julian Randall), Ringwood, Southampton, grocer.
Ringwood, Hants.

Nov. 1; F. A. Johns, solicitor,

UPWARD (Henry William), 41, Westbourne Park, Paddington. Oct. 25; Hughes, Masterman, and
Rew, solicitors. 59, New Broad-street.

VENABLES (Benjamin), Atholl House, 253, Camden-road, Holloway, gentleman. Oct. 16; J. Ash.
bridge, solicitor, 238, Whitechapel-road.
WARDLEY (Henry Davenport), Lutterworth, Leicestershire, draper. Nov. 6; Watson and
Channer, solicitors, Lutterworth.

WRIGHT (William), 20, Park-road, Southport, and of the Tower, Prestwich, Lancashire, gentle-
man. Oct. 9; Payne, Galloway, and Payne, solicitors, 28, Brazennose-street, Manchester.
WILLIAMS (Sarah Ann), the Grapes inn, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, widow. Oct. 7; E. R.
Walker, solicitor, 18, St. Ann-street, Manchester.
WALKER (Henry), Waterloo-road South, Wolverhampton, gentleman. Oct. 17; Thorne, Smith,
and Thorne, solicitors, 82, Darlington-street, Wolverhampton.

[blocks in formation]

COMMERCIAL FAILURES.-According to Kemp's Mercantile Gazette the number of failures in England and Wales gazetted during the week ending Sept. 6 was 52. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 76, showing a decrease of 24, being a net decrease in 1890, to date, of 434.

BILLS OF SALE.-The number of bills of sale in England and Wales, registered at the Queen's Bench for the week ending Sept. 6 was 155. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 168, and the corresponding weeks for the three previous years 199, 237, and 228.-Stubbs' Weekly Gazette.

CORRESPONDENCE.

This Department being open to free discussion on all Professional topics, the Editor does not hold himself responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it.

THE NEW NOMENCLATURE.-The observation once made by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn that "No power on earth can efface the memory of the common law" is being singularly illustrated. After having been decently interred for about fifteen years, "attorneys" are revisiting the glimpses of the moon; that is to say, "registered patent attorneys," are now in our midst, as may be seen from a prominent advertisement on the front page of recent issues of the Times. There is a concord of sweet sound, as well as simplicity, in the new designation; that it savours of the unctuosity of Dr. Pangloss is a matter of little moment. But, possibly it will be deplored that just a tinge of uncertainty about the "attorneys will mar the sonorous effect. One would not, of course, turn to the Law List, or the Incorporated Law Society's Calendar, or the Register of Patent Agents, to find "registered patent attorneys;" where, then, is the habitation of the register of the august body? And unde derivatur registered patent attorney?" Perhaps the term is on a par with the concentrated stuff purchasable as patent medicine. A few years ago

[ocr errors]

there was an enterprising individual who issued public announcements of his readiness to advise all manner of persons upon all legal subjects, and in which he stated his qualification to be "formerly C. C. from London." It was an awkward suggestion that "C. C." only meant counsel's clerk! Of the same genus was the unqualified person who wrote letters, about the same period, in which he described himself as the " attorney" of someone else, and in which he demanded payment of an alleged debt. It will be surprising to find that the new nomenclature registered patent attorneys is not attributable to a reproduction of the spurious species referred to. Ex uno disce omnes. To view a captured specimen, duly labelled, say, at the Incorporated Law Society's Hall, or at the court usually occupied by Mr. Justice Kay, might be of interest, if only to legal antiquaries and others to whom Pope's allusion to "vile attorneys" is obscure. GEO. E. SOLOMON.

[ocr errors]

66

SHERIFFS' FEES.-On a debt of £32 14s. 8d. on an abortive execution, the charges of the officer of the sheriff of Kent, I have to pay the large amount of £13 16s. I really think some alteration should be made as to the sheriffs' charges. APSLEY E. BRIANT.

STAMP DUTY ON TRANSFER OF MORTGAGES.-I have read with interest the correspondence in your paper on the above subject, having recently. been a "victim" to the very doubtful dictum of the Inland Revenue officials, though, in justice to them, I feel bound to add that, although in my case they at first imposed a penalty of ten shillings, yet after their circular and on my making a further representation they at once refunded the full amount. The real question is, whether, on the true construction of the section, duty is payable on accrued interest, and this I venture to submit is not the case. The circular of the 1st inst., in which the authorities seek to draw a distinction between a transfer and a reconveyance, to my mind makes confusion worse confounded. The wording of both sections is practically the same. In the case of a transfer of any mortgage or of any money secured by any such instrument "for every £100 of the amount transferred," and in that of a reconveyance of any such security or of the money thereby secured" for every £100 of the total amount at any time secured." Yet the officials do not seek to make interest charge.. able with duty in the case of a reconveyance. I confess I do not see where the distinction lies. The circular of the 15th Aug. states that prior to the Stamp Act 1870 duty was payable on transfers in respect of principal only, but that by that Act the charge is "upon the amount transferred." This no doubt is so, but when it is sought to construe these words as meaning "principal and accrued interest," the proper test where there is ambiguity is to go back to the law as it stood prior to 1870, and the conclusion will be obvious that the words have reference simply to "the amount or value of the principal money secured," and to that only. Before the Inland Revenue can succeed in taxing interest with duty they they must show that the Act in clear terms imposes such charge. The board have been good enough to offer by their circular to forego any penalty in respect of interest if the instrument is tendered before the 1st Jan. next. Let me ask your readers what this would entail, not upon the authorities to whom it would be mere routine, but on solicitors all over the country? My view is, that out of every 1000 transfers executed within the last twenty years 999 have been stamped in respect of principal only. It is rather too bad to be expected to rake up within a limited time all these old transactions, and all for what purpose? The whole thing is so ridiculous and small in its conception, and so contrary to common sense, and one which, if successfully persisted in, would entail so much inconvenience, present and future, that I trust and believe the Incorporated Law Society will take up the matter and fight a test case. It would be unreasonable to expect any individual solicitor to do so, the game would not be worth the candle; but as a question closely affecting the Profession collectively and individually it is reasonable to expect our principal society to grapple with it forthwith, and as regards the result I entertain but little doubt. J. LABRON JOHNSON.

UNQUALIFIED PERSON ACTING AS SOLICITOR.-I inclose you copy of an account which has been sent in to me by a local accountant who is the auditor of our company. He has no qualification, not being a chartered accountant, and I am bringing this to your notice, as I am wondering whether he has not so far exceeded his duties as to make himself liable to prosecution by the Incorporated Law Society, by charging for advice. Your reply in your next issue will greatly oblige. ENQUIRER.

The

(Copy.)

Manufacturing Company Limited.-Dr. to C. W. -1890.-Feb. 14. To attending chairman at request, re report and accounts and advising thereon. Feb. 18. Attending at chairman's office, when instructions were given for an amended balance-sheet to be drawn, and copies to be sent to the chairman and Mr. W.; advising as to dividend, also as to best means of providing for depreciation of lease and buildings; drawing up amended balance-sheet; fair copy of same to chairman and to Mr. W. Feb. 22. Attending Mr. G., examining draft report of the directors to shareholders, advising thereon and amending same. Feb. 24. Attending Mr. G. and finally examining report. Feb. 26. Attending meeting of directors at company's office, advising on various points; also as to necessary steps to be taken for correctly analysing the accounts, when instructions were given for work to be commenced forthwith; attending at company's office for the purpose of proceeding with the analysing and rewriting of the accounts. March 1. Attending chairman at request, when, after discussion, it was decided not to rewrite the accounts as previously ordered. March 4. Attending chairman respecting proof of balance-sheet being got out by secretary, &c. March 7. Attending chairman at request and advising respecting powers of secretary to alter time of meeting. March 15. Attending annual meeting of members at request, £6 68. April 3. Posting register of shareholders up to date, writing up annual summary and return, making official copy of same for registration and forwarding same. April 18. Posting up register of shareholders and ledger, writing up cash-books and checking off same with banker's pass-books. April 26. Paid registration fee, agency, and stamp, £4 48. Total, £10 10s.

[blocks in formation]

NOTES AND QUERIES. None are inserted unless the name and address of the writer are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of bona fides.

Queries.

34. MORTMAIN.-It appears to be a not uncommon practice in the case of small charities acquiring land by means of funds subscribed for the purpose to rely upon a simple conveyance from the vendors to trustees, the purchase money being stated to be the consideration for the conveyance in the ordinary way, and no trust being disclosed by the conveyance itself, so as to keep it off the title with a view to facilitating any future dispositions of the land. Is this practice a safe one to adopt; or would not the conveyance be held to be an "an assurance of land" within sect. 4, sub-sect. 1, of the Mortmain, &c. Act 1888, and void for non-compliance with the requirements of that Act? It is true that as between the vendor and the trustees there is a valuable consideration; but is not the conveyance really, though not expressly, by direction of the several subscribers, and on that account not a conveyance for value and in good faith so as to come within the exception stated in the Act. LEX.

35. SOLICITORS' COSTS-ADMINISTRATION.-Upon what principle is a solicitor to charge who was engaged to take out letters of administration, but who was discharged from so acting after he had prepared the draft papers? PROPHETS.

36. OPEN CONTRACT-COVENANT FOR CUSTODY OF DEEDS.-On an open contract is a purchaser entitled to have from a beneficial owner an undertaking for safe custody as well as an acknowledgment for production? The negative is contended by a solicitor on the ground that a vendor never was liable under an open contract to give a covenant for safe custody. The text-books appear somewhat ambiguous, as they merely say that a purchaser is entitled to a covenant for "production and furnishing copies without more, but the covenants in the precedents all conclude with the words, "and in the meantime to keep the same safe, whole, uncancelled, and undefaced." DUBIUM.

[ocr errors]

37. MORTGAGEE-NOTICE OF PAYMENT.-Can a mortgagee be compelled to accept payment of principal and interest, and to deliver up the title deeds-the interest being calculated up to the expiration of the proper six months' (mortgagor's) notice-on a day before the expiration of the notice? It is a very unusual state of things that prompts this question. EQUITY.

Answers.

(Q. 32.) CONVEYANCE.-In reply to "Gradus" (1) the purchaser is liable for the vendor's coste, and (2) such costs are those provided by schedule 1, part 1, to the Order passed in pursuance of the Solicitors' Remuneration Act 1881. Such costs would be, in respect of £800, £12, in addition to necessary out-of-pockets (sect. 4). The reasons are, as to (1), that if it had been intended that the purchaser should pay merely his own costs, no agreement was necessary; and that the "costs of the conveyance of the property must refer to all costs, inasmuch as the deduction of title and completion of the sale by the vendor are essential parts of the conveyance. As to (2), if there is any deduction, the scale must apply: (Ex parte Mayor of London; Re Metropolitan and District Railway, 56 L. T. Rep. N. S. 13). J. H. GLOVER.

"

The Law of Inheritance and Wills-The Law of Procedure. Fees :-For a single term, £2 12s. 6d.; for the session, £6 68.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND HISTORY.

Professor Alexander Henry, M.A., LL.B. Mondays and Wednesdays, from 4 to 5 p.m. Room 2. Professor Henry will deliver during the Session a Course of Lectures on this subject, extending over two Terms. First Term (commencing Monday, Nov. 3): The Origin of the English Constitution and its Growth to the year 1600. Second Term (commencing Monday, Jan. 25): The Growth of the English Constitution from the year 1600 to the present day. Fees: -For the session, £4 48.; for the term, £2 12s. 6d.

JURISPRUDENCE.

Professor Alexander Henry, M.A., LL.B., Barrister-at-law. Mondays and Wednesdays, from 5 to 6 p.m. Room 2.

First Term (commencing Monday, Nov. 3). Jurisprudence or the Science of Law defined-The Scientific Methods of this Science The Schools of Jurisprudence (Analytical and Comparative or Historical) The Relation of Jurisprudence to Ethics, Legislation, and Natural Law-Austin's definition of Jurisprudence-Austin's relation to Hobbes and Bentham-Law Sources, Customary Law-Law made by JuristsEquity and Law-Statute Law (Interpretation)-Judiciary Law (Precedent and Analogy)-Austin's definitions and classifications of Rights and Duties-Austin's Conception of a Corpus Juris.

Second Term (commencing, Monday, Jan. 26:-The Law of Persons, or Status. I. Private Conditions: (a) Husband and Wife.-Forms, Effects, and Dissolution of Marriage. The Separate Property of Married Women treated Historically. (b) Parent and Child.-Legitimacy, Legitimation, Adoption, Property, and Guardianship. (c) Guardian and Ward.-Powers, Duties, and History. (d) Master and Servant.— Master and Slave; Duties and Rights other than those arising ex contractu-History of these Relationships. The Early History of the Family, with special reference to the views of Sir Henry Maine and Messrs. M'Lennan, Morgan, Bachofen, &c. II. Political Conditions:-Sovereigns and Subjects-Forms of Political SovereigntyNationality and Domicile-International Law, Public and Private, defined Origin and History of Political Conditions. The Law of things:-I. Rights and Duties in Rem. Ownership: Possession, Vested, Contingent-Servitus or Easements, Modes of acquisition, Occupatio, Accessio, Alienation inter vivos, Prescription-Bentham's Classification of Titles-The Origin and Growth of Property in Land. Property in Common:-Village Communities in Europe and Asia-The Mark; the Manor: Feudalism; Restrictions on Alienation. Universities of Rights. Successions ab intestato, ex testamento. The History of Successions ab intestato: PrimogenitureYounger Right-Equal Division: per Capita, per Stirpes. The History of Wills: Ancient and Modern, with special reference to the Limitations and the Causes of the Limitations imposed on this mode of Succession.

Third Term (commencing Monday, May 4):-The Law of Things (continued): II. Rights and Duties in Personam. Contract: Essentials-Effect of Fraud, Duress, Mistake, Infancy, Coverture, Drunkenness, Insanity-Classifications-Quasicontract, Conveyance and Contract-Sale, Partnership-Agency-Bailments-Mercantile Contracts-Remedies for Breach-Damages and Specific Performance-Dissolution. The Early History of Contract. Tort or Delict:-Definitions-Distinguished from Crime Civil Procedure. Classifications- Culpa - Responsibility for the Acts of others. Crime :- Classifications-Effect of Insanity-Drunkenness Infancy-MistakeAccident-Self-defence-Principal and Accessory. Punishments:-Theories ofClassifications of. Criminal Procedure. The Early History of Tort, Crime, and Procedure. Codification, Ancient and Modern. Fees:-For the session, £6 6s.; for a term, £2 12s. 6d.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

LIVERPOOL BOARD OF LEGAL STUDIES.
LAW LECTURES.-SESSION 1890-91.

ARRANGEMENTS have been made by the Board for the continuation during the present session of three courses of lectures on "The Law of Real and Personal Property and Conveyancing, "Equity," and "Common Law." The courses will be delivered consecutively, and each course will consist of ten lectures and classes. At the end of each course an examination will be held, and in case there are not less than nine candidates, two prizes of the value of £3 3s. and £2 28. respectively will be offered for competition amongst articled clerks and Bar students. If there are less than nine candidates, only one prize of the value of £2 3s. will be offered. A student who has been successful in obtaining a prize in any particular course in one session shall not be eligible for a prize in the same course in any subsequent session, although he shall be cligible for a place. The subjects of the courses will be as follows:

First Course-"The Law of Personal Property," dealing more particularly with Possession, Alienation, Settlements, and Wills. Lecturer-Mr. W. A. Copinger, Barristerat-law, Reader in the Law of Real Property and Conveyancing to the Owens College, Manchester, author of "The Law of Copyright in Works of Literature and Art," "Index to Precedents in Conveyancing," "Custody and Production of Title Deeds," and "The Law of Rents."

Second Course-"The Law of Contract." Lecturer-Mr. A. T. Carter, M.A., B.C.L., Barrister-at-law, late Scholar Queen's College, Oxford; Vinerian Law Scholar and Eldon Scholar, Oxford; one of the authors of the Factors Act 1889.

Third Course-"The Principles of Equity," relating to Mortgages and other Securities, Fraud, Mistake, and Performance. Lecturer-Mr. J. S. Seaton, B.A., B.C.L., Barrister-at-law, Vinerian Law Scholar 1886, Studentship and three Scholarships, Inns of Court, 1885 and 1886.

The Lectures will be delivered weekly (on Wednesdays), from 5 to 6 p.m., in the Law Association Rooms, Cook-street. The Classes will be held in the Law Library, from 10 to 11 a.m., on the mornings following the lectures, with the exception of the Conveyancing classes, which will take place on the morning of the day of the lectures, the first class being held on Wednesday, Oct. 1.

The first course of lectures will be delivered as follows:-First lecture, Sept. 24; second, Oct. 1: third, Oct. 3; fourth, Oct. 15; fifth, Oct. 22; sixth, Oct. 29; seventh, Nov. 5; eighth, Nov. 12; ninth, Nov. 19; tenth, Nov. 26.

Fee for lectures (including classes):-Members of the Liverpool Law Students Association, 7s. 6d. each course, or £1 the three courses; others, 10s. 6d. each course, or £1 10s. the three courses; the first lecture of each course will be free.

Arrangements have also been made for the delivery of the following two courses of Evening Lectures, each consisting of six lectures, to be delivered at the University College on Fridays, at 8 p.m., commencing on Oct. 31, viz.:-1. "The Law of Companies," by Mr. P. Ogden Lawrence, Barrister-at-law; 2. "Charter Parties and Bills of Lading," by Mr. W. J. Stewart, Barrister-at-law.

The following is a short synopsis of lectures on " Law of Personal Property: "On Personal Property generally; Choses in Possession; Choses in Action; Întestacy; Mutual Rights of Husband and Wife; on the Alienation of Personal Property; Absolute; (a) Gift (b) Contract; Qualified; Mortgages or Bills of Sale; Settlements; Wills.

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON.-LAW CLASSES. THE course of instruction in these classes is specially adapted for students preparing for the LL.B. degree in the University of London, for certain of the Bar and Inns of Court (Honours) Examinations, and for the Indian Civil Service Examinations. ROMAN LAW.

Professor A. F. Murison, M.A., Barrister-at-law.

A. Senior Class. Monday and Wednesday, 7 to 8 p.m. Room 2. A course of lectures will be delivered in the first term, beginning Monday, Nov. 3, on the Digest, Book VII., Title 1 (De usu fructu et quemadmodum quis utatur fruatur). The lectures are intended specially as preparatory to the LL.B. Examination (January 1891) of the University of London. Students wishing to attend this class are requested to send their names to the professor on or before Oct. 15. Address, 5, Essex-court, Temple, E.O. Fee, £5 58.

B. Junior Class. Monday and Wednesday, 6 to 7 p.m. Room 2. These lectures are preparatory to the Intermediate Law Examination of the University of London. They include all the subjects of the Bar Examinations in Roman Law. The subjects of the lectures will be: First term, commencing Monday, Nov. 3: The Sources of Roman Law-The Law of the Family-The Law of Property. Second term, commencing Monday, Jan. 26: The Law of Contract. Third term, commencing Monday, May 4:

THE COURTS AND COURT PAPERS.

ORDER OF COURT.

Tuesday, 2nd Sept. 1890. WHEREAS, from the present state of the business before Mr. Justice Chitty, Mr. Justice North, Mr. Justice Stirling, and Mr. Justice Kekewich respectively, it is expedient that a portion of the causes assigned to Mr. Justice Chitty, Mr. Justice North, and Mr. Justice Stirling should, for the purpose only of hearing or of trial, be transferred to Mr. Justice Kekewich; Now I, the Right Honourable Hardinge Stanley, Baron Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, do hereby order that the several causes and matters set forth in the schedules hereto be accordingly transferred from the said Mr. Justice Chitty, Mr. Justice North, and Mr. Justice Stirling to Mr. Justice Kekewich, for the purpose only of hearing or of trial, and be marked in the cause books accordingly. And this order is to be drawn up by the Registrar, and set up in the several offices of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice.

[blocks in formation]
« EelmineJätka »