insurance. Yours faithfully, (Sgd) FRANK ARTHY, for Supt.The Registrar, County Court, Devizes. County Court Office, Devizes, 17th Sept. 1912. Dear Sir,National Insurance Act 1911.-I have received your letter of the 13th inst. May I respectfully point out that you do not answer the question which I asked? Admittedly apparently this court is not one to which the Treasury circular of the 12th July last applies, as the assistant bailiffs are not whole-time employees. So far as I know, no order has as yet been issued by the Treasury as to the manner in which the employer's contribution to the National Insurance tax is to be dealt with. The assistant bailiffs in courts like this being remunerated by salaries fixed, and refunded, by the Treasury, I presume the Treasury will discharge the employer's proportion of the tax, and I desire to know how such proportion is to be dealt with in my books. Or am I to understand the last paragraph of your letter as an intimation that the Treasury seeks to evade liability for payment of the employer's proportion of the tax, and to cast it upon some other official of the court who will have to provide it out of his own private purse?-Yours faithfully, (Sgd) JOSEPH T. JACKSON, Registrar.-The Superintendent, County Court Department, Treasury, Whitehall, S.W. County Court Department, Treasury, Whitehall, S.W., 23rd Sept. 1912.-Dear Sir,-National Insurance Act 1911.—In reply to your letter of the 17th inst., I am to state that the employer's contribution is a liability that falls upon you in the capacity of employer, and a refund is only contemplated by the Treasury in cases where the officer gives his whole time to County Court work.-Yours faithfully, (Sgd) FRANK ARTHY, for Supt.-The Registrar, County Court, Devizes. County Court Office, Devizes, 24th Sept. 1912.-Dear Sir,National Insurance Act 1911.-I have received your letter of the 23rd inst., and note that the Treasury intend to cast the employer's proportion of this tax upon the high bailiff personally. I am forwarding a copy of the correspondence to the Association of County Court Registrars, to the Law Society, and to other quarters. Yours faithfully, (Sgd) JOSEPH T. JACKSON.-The Superintendent, County Court Department, Treasury. CERTIFICATES IN CONVEYANCES-FINANCE (1909-10) ACT 1910. As a good many solicitors have hesitated to accept the opinion of the Law Society as to the insertion of the usual certificate in conveyances from an original vendor to a subpurchaser where the original contract was for over £500 and the sub-contract under £500, we inclose herewith copy of a letter to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and copy of their reply which bears out the opinion of the Law Society and will decide this question. STURTON AND STURTON. 26, Great Tower-street, E.C., 20th Sept. 1912.-Dear Sirs,Finance (1909-10) Act 1910.-With reference to the certificate to be inserted in conveyances where the consideration does not exceed £500 under sect. 73 of the Act, we shall be glad if you will let us have the commissioners' opinion as to whether the vendor is justified in giving the certificate in the following circumstances: The owner in fee simple contracts for the sale of an estate for a sum far exceeding £500. His purchaser. enters into various sub-contracts to sub purchasers in which the consideration is under £500. The sub-purchasers are taking their conveyances, so far as their individual lots are concerned, direct from the original vendor, the intermediate vendor joining in to convey his interest. The council of the Law Society give it as their opinion that in such circumstances the transaction does not form part of a larger transaction so far as the purchasers are concerned, as they are responsible for the stamping of the documents. We shall be glad if you will let us have the commissioners' decision upon this.-Yours truly, STURTON AND STURTON.-The Commissioners of the Inland Revenue, Somerset House, W.C. Inland Revenue, Somerset House, London, W.C., 26th Sept. 1912.-Gentlemen,-I have laid before the Board of Inland Revenue your letter of the 20th inst., relative to the inclusion of the certificate required by sect. 73 of the Finance (1909-10) Act 1910 in certain conveyances, and, in reply, I am directed to acquaint you that, on the facts stated, the board see no objection to the inclusion of the certificate in a conveyance from the original vendor to the sub-purchaser, provided that the total consideration for the property bought by the latter does not exceed £500.-I am, Gentlemen, your obedient Servant, S. MINNIS, for Secretary.-Messrs. Sturton and Sturton. it as his opinion that where there is in a lease power to the lessee to terminate it at a certain period the termination puts an end to the right to sue for breaches of covenant already existing unless the right is expressly reserved. It is true that the common form proviso makes the lease terminable "subject to the rights of the lessor for or in respect of any antecedent_breach," but, according to the case of Blore v. Guilini (88 L. T. Rep. 235), this express reservation is not necessary in order to preserve the lessor's right. This case was not apparently cited to Mr. Justice Neville. SOLICITOR. THE ROYAL VETO.-It is very usual to state, and has even been stated by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on the 21st Feb. 1911, that no English Sovereign has attempted to exercise the veto since the days of Queen Anne, when she rejected the Scottish Militia Bill of 1707. But a search of the Journals of either House of Parliament does not seem to afford the slightest authority for the above conclusion, which seems further open to impeachment on very conclusive, if indirect, evidence. According to an entry in the sixteenth volume of the Journals of the House of Commons from Nov. 1708-11, a Bill "to regulate the militia in that part of Great Britain called Scotland in the same manner as the militia in England is now regulated" was ordered to be prepared: (Commons Journals, vol. 16, 8 Anne, 1708, pp. 150-1). But this measure was dropped in the House of Commons, and was never even read a second time, as fuly appears on a further reference. This Bill, therefore, could never possibly have formed the subject of the Royal veto, since, so far from having been assented to by both Houses, it never even passed the House of Commons. I submit that this measure is the measure referred to in the column on Parliamentary Practice and Constitutional Law in the LAW TIMES on the 7th Sept. 1912. I have searched the Journals of both Houses from 1705 to 1709, and cannot meet with any mention of any other Scottish Militia Bill except the above. The question is, of course, of great importance, as, if I am right, there is no ground for attributing to Queen Anne the exercise of her Royal veto, and the statement in the Earl of Halsbury's Laws of England (vol. 6, s. 585, p. 390) is incorrect. It appears to reinforce my view, if only indirectly, that in the Encyclopædia Britannica (Art. Veto) a very different conclusion is arrived at-viz., that the Royal prerogative of veto has not been exercised since 1692. There is absolutely conclusive authority that the Royal veto was exercised in the case of two Bills in that year. The reference 19 not given in, the Encyclopædia, but on a consultation of the Lords Journals (5 W. & M., vol. 15, p. 289) it appears that the formula of vetoLe Roi et la Reyne se aviseront was returned as regards two Bills one for the frequent calling of Parliaments, and another dealing with a prerogatival right of pre-emption as regards Royal mines. The fact that I have verified and ascertained the reference in the Encyclopædia Britannica, and have failed to do so as regards the reference in the Earl of Halsbury's Laws of England, the precise locus not having been given in either case, may be taken to afford indirect evidence that the latter cannot be substantiated. As I have explained, I did not confine my search to one year of the Journals of the Houses of Parliament, which, in turn, must be accepted as authority on the subject of the exercise of the Royal veto. I have also consulted Lecky's History of England, and no less than four histories of the reign of Queen Anne, and in none of them can I find the slightest authority for the exercise of the veto in that reign. It may be remembered that Bagehot considers that the right of veto merely flows from the monarch being a separate co ordinate authority with the House of Lords and the House of Commons (p. 57), and, at least till the end of the reign of George III., the King of England was a separate co-ordinate authority with the House of Lords and the House of Commons. N. W. SIBLEY, B.A., LL.M. 25, Lord-street, Liverpool. 66 the final REGISTRATION OF TITLE.-To those who, like Mr. Rubinstein, were sanguine enough to look to the members of the Legal Profession for support in his campaign against the extension of the registration of title to land, the lukewarm reception given to his able paper on The Land Transfer Problem" at the recent provincial meeting of the Law Society is very disquieting. Instead of again shelving the question-for that is what the amendment adopted at the meeting amounts to-surely it would have been wiser to have made it the leading topic for discussion. It should, however, be noticed that the opposition to the free discussion of Mr. Rubinstein's motion emanated chiefly from country practitioners who, not being affected by the Land Registry Acts, cannot have the faintest conception of the supreme muddle into which a large number of titles are thrown once they get entangled in the closely woven meshes of the compulsory regis D. The sive, if hvoluer . 170 t Brian nmous en readi This B eet of t ons. in the thei mal Lavi e seard 03, and a tish Mu great in tration net. Mr. Rubinstein-like all his professional brethren in London who have extensive dealings with registered land-is, however, fully aware of the endless difficulties which these Acts introduce into simple everyday conveyancing transactions. Hence his uncompromising and strenuous hostility to the pragmatical officialism set up by this compulsory system. The thirteen years during which the Act of 1897 has been in operation and the adoption of various expedients to make it popular and workable have given London solicitors ample opportunity of judging whether the Act does really cheapen and simplify the transfer of land. They have, however, come to a contrary conclusion, and I think that there is abundant justification for their so doing. Notwithstanding, they have been compelled to submit to and make the best of the clumsy and cast-iron procedure established by the rules, the carrying out of which has obliged them to resort to deeds outside the register, and to adopt other precautions without which they would have been unable to obtain for their clients that complete security of title which the Land Transfer Acts should but do not give. This dual system conse quently gives rise to great confusion where simplicity once preprevailed. Indeed, confusion must always be the inevitable outcome of a system that does not provide an exact mirror of the title, the one essential of any perfect system of registration, which, strange to say, the 1897 Act was apparently designed to prevent. Moreover, this expensive compulsory system does not afford the same protection against fraud as an improved system of registration of deeds such as that advocated by Mr. Rubinstein would give. Registration of deeds can, as is well known, be effected with but little trouble and expense, but dealings with registerel titles under the compulsory system is extremely costly and troublesome, as the following instances which recently came under my notice will clearly show. The survivor of three mortgagees wished to transfer a registered charge which was created by a proprietor who had since died, the transferees desiring a variation in the terms of their security. The documentary and other evidence required by the registry was as follows: (1) An elaborate instrument of transfer of charge which had to be submitted to the registrar for approval; (2) a transfer of the equity from the surviving non-proving executor of the deceased proprietor's will to the trustees thereof; (3) a certificate of the death of one of the executors; (4) a certified copy of the act of probate of the will of the other executor who died abroad; (5) a declaration by the non-proving executor accepting the trusts of the will; (6) a statement proving exemption from ad valorem stamp duty; (7) a copy of the instrument of transfer of charge; (8) a certificate as to the value of the land; and (9) evidence of payment of estate duty. The fees and extra costs incurred by reason of the ormulad land being on the register are as follows: Registry fees, £10; regards certificate of death, 3s. 7d.; office copy probate act, 12s.; stamp, another 108.; additional costs, £5; total, £16 5s. 7d. Now let me compare renthe procedure when the title is not registered. Assuming the ascerta solicitor acts for all parties as in the present example, the only d have document required would be a transfer of the mortgage in which Dating to statemet 3. 555, p. only are erogative lutely o the case t given Lord of all necessary parties would concur. The only outgoings payable g been would be: Stamp duty, 15s.; fees for registry in Middlesex, of the idence 7s. 6d.; total, £1 2s. 6d. It will thus be seen that the extra ained, I expense to the client entailed by reason of the fact that the land was on the register amounted to upwards of £15 over and above what he would have had to pay had the land been unregistered. Similar instances occur This is by no means an isolated case. nd, and daily. Surely it is not a question of extending such a costly and system as this, and the amendments proposed by the Royal Commission would only aggravate the evil. Abolition would at Bag therefore seem to be the only solution. exercise he mond se of Lad the end LEGAL OBITUARY. H. L. EWENS. Mr. WILLIAM TOMLINSON PAGE, town clerk of Lincoln, died on the 27th ult. He was born in 1847, and after being educated at Lincoln Grammar School he was articled to the late Mr. Thurstan George Dale. Mr. Page began to practise as a solicitor on his own account, and in 1878 he was elected to the city council, with which he has ever since been associated-as councillor, alderman, mayor, deputy town clerk, and town clerk. In 1899 he succeeded the late Mr. H. K. Hebb as deputy town clerk, and on the death of Mr. John Thomas Tweed he was appointed as his successor. Mr. Page was admitted in 1870. " at the BILBROUGH, EDWARD POWER; PLASKITT, WILLIAM LEVERS; and Foss, EDWARD, Solicitors, 5, Fenchurch-st, E.C., under style of Foss, Bilbrough, Plaskitt, and Foss. Sept. 30. E. P. Bilbrough and W. L. Plaskitt will continue to carry on business at above address under style of Foss, Bilbrough, Plaskitt, and Co.; E. Foss at 1, Lombardct, Gracechurch-st, E.C., under style of Frederick Foss and Son. PEET, THOMAS ERNEST, and DAVIS, EDWARD, solicitors, 3, New-ca. Lincoln's-inn, W.C. Sept. 29. Bankrupts. THE BANKRUPTCY ACTS 1883 AND 1890. To surrender at the High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. To surrender at their respective District Courts. AVERY, HERBERT ERNEST, Tavistock, licensed victualler. Ct. Plymouth. Sept. 23. APPLEYARD, SAMSON COOKE, Leeds, grocer. Ct. Leeds Sept. 21. BRADY, H. E. (male), late Smethwick, builder. Ct. West Bromwich, Sept. 23. BUSH, HARRY HEDLEY, Tavistock, gentleman. Ct. Plymouth. Sept. 23. BARNES, JOSEPH, Stoneclough, ropemaker. Ct. Bolton. Sept. 25. BEARDSMORE, THOMAS EDWARD, Hockley Heath, silversmith. Ct. Birmingham. Sept. 25. COOPER, ELLEN, late Longton, beerseller. Ct. Stoke-upon-Trent and Longton. Sept. 23. CLATWORTHY, JAMES, Bristol, wheelwright. Ct. Bristol. Sept. 24. HARRIS, WILLIAM, Ebbw Vale, journeyman mason. Ct. Tredegar. JONES, EMMANUEL (trading as E. L. Jones), Llanelly, provision merchant. Ct. Carmarthen. Sept. 20. JONES, THOMAS TIMOTHY, Llandebie, colliery repairer. Ct. Carmarthen. Sept. 21. JONES, THOMAS, Treorky, miner. Ct. Pontypridd, Ystradyfodwg, and Porth. Sept. 24. MOUNCHER, EDWIN, Southampton, undertaker. Ct. Southampton. Sept. 24. MOTLEY, GEORGE (trading as Topliss and Motley). Market Rasen, late fancy dealer. Ct. Lincoln. Sept. 24. MOORE, WILLIAM, Tottenham, builder. Ct. Edmonton. Sept. 23. PIPER, CHARLES, Prittlewell, builder. Ct. Chelmsford. Sept. 25. Ct. Ct. SNARE, THOMAS DANIEL JOSIAH (trading as Thomas Snare), Great Stanmore, draper. Ct. St. Albans. Sept. 24. SHERWOOD, SAMUEL, Swinton, bootmaker. Ct. Sheffield. Sept. 23. SAYER, WILLIAM, Bradfield, wheelwright. Ct. Norwich. Sept. 25. SPOONER, EDITH JANE, late Bedford, spinster. Ct. Bedford. Sept. 24. THOMSON, EDWARD, Rochford, farmer. Ct. Chelmsford. Sept. 23. Ct. Ct WITHERS, FRANK, Bristol, general furnisher. Ct Bristol. Sept. 24. WATERMAN, FRED, and SLADE, JOSEPH HAROLD (trading as F. Waterman and as Waterman and Slade), Tonypandy. Ct. Cardiff. Sept. 23. WARD, WILLIAM NEWENS, Luton, straw hat manufacturer. Ct. Luton Sept. 23. WATSON, HERBERT, Husborne Crawley, butcher. Ct Luton. Sept. 23. WATKINS, THOMAS, Cwmpark, coal miner. Ct. Pontypridd, Ystradyfodwg. and Porth. Sept. 24. WILLIAMS, THOMAS JOHN, Truro, grocer. Ct. Truro. Sept. 23. GAZETTE, OCT. 1. To surrender at the High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. COWPER-COLES, COWPER BICKERTON, Broad-st-pl, company promoter Sept. 26. DONALDSON, HUNTER FREDERICK, late North Audley-st, Grosvenor-sq. GERRETT, ALFRED, Oxford-rd, Ealing. Sept. 27. MAYILL, TERDAT (trading as Mayill and Co. and the Furnwell Company), WARLAND, JOHN ALFRED HENRY, late Lee-on-the-Solent. Sopt. 26. To surrender at their respective District Courts BOOTH, GEORGE DAVID, Littleborough, grocer. Ct. Rochdale. Sept. 28. DAUBNEY, JOHN WILLIAM, late Irby Top, farm labourer Ct. Great EMMS, FREDERICK GEORGE, Gorleston-on-Sea, solicitor. Ct. Great Yarmouth. Sept. 23. FIELD, FREDERICK, Ealing, bank clerk. Ct. Brentford. Sept. 27. HOLDEN, FRANK, Manchester, yarn agent. Ct. Manchester. Sept. 26. Ct. SAINSBURY, EDWARD GEORGE (late trading as H. Beebe), late Ludgatearcade, printer. Ct. Greenwich. Sept. 24. SMITH, CHARLES EDWARD, Tewkesbury, general dealer. Ct. Cheltenham. SUDUL, WILLIAM, Reading, hosier. Ct. Reading. Sept. 27. ADJUDICATIONS, GAZETTE, SEPT. 27. AVERY, HERBERT ERNEST, Tavistock, licensed victualler. Ct. Plymouth. APPLEYARD, SAMSON COOKE, Leeds, grocer. Ct. Leeds. Sept. 21. COOPER, CLAUDE FREDERICK GEORGE, Clapham, draper. Ct. High Court. Ct. Wandsworth. Sept. 24. CLATWORTHY, JAMES, Bristol, wheelwright. Ct. Bristol. DUKE, GILBERT ASHTON, late Regent-st, Waterloo-pl, solicitor. Ct. High GOODE, ARTHUR WILLIAM, Hunt End, farmer.. Ct Birmingham. Sept. 23. HUTCHINSON, FRANK, Sheffield, late grocer. Ct. Sheffield. Sept. 23. Ct. Middles HAWKINS. THOMAS, late Wigan, artificial teeth maker Ct. Blackburn and Darwen. Sept. 23. JONES, EMANUEL (trading as E. L. Jones), Llanelly, provision merchant. Ct. Carmarthen, Sept. 20. JONES, THOMAS TIMOTHY, Llandebie, colliery repairer. Ct. Carmarthen. Sept. 21. JONES, THOMAS, Treorky, miner. Ct. Pontypridd, Ystradyfodwg, and Porth. Sept. 24. HAMILTON, ARTHUR FREDERICK (late trading as the Tokenhouse Wine Com JOHNSON, CARL (described in the receiving order as Carl Johnson, other- SAYER, WILLIAM, Bradfield, wheelwright. Ct. Norwich. Sept. 28. SWIFT, FRANCIS WILLIAM, late Piccadilly, Westminster. Ct. High Court. Amended notice substituted for that published in Gazette, July 19. EDELSTEIN, WILLIAM (known and described in the receiving order as William Edelsten), Brixton-rd, Brixton, variety agent. .Ct. High Court. July 16. BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS. BIRTHS. JONES.-On the 23rd ult.. at 7, North-view, Wimbledon Common, the wife of G. Edwardes Jones, Barrister-at-law, of a daughter. WALDO. On the 22nd ult., at 40. Lansdowne-rd, Holland-pk, W., the wife of Frederick Joseph Waldo, M.D., Barrister-at-law, of a daughter. MARRIAGE. KENNEDY-ELKINGTON.-On the 24th ult., at St. Mary's Church, Chepstow, the Rev. Horace Kennedy, Vicar of Ditton Priors, third son of Lord Justice Kennedy, to Audrey Leigh, daughter of the late Leigh Elkington, of Fladbury, Pershore. DEATHS. ALDOUS.-On Aug. 30, James William Aldous, of Ipswich, Solicitor, aged 46. PEVERLEY.-On July 15, in the city of Montreal, Canada, Robert Peverley, Solicitor. POWELL. On the 24th ult., George Thompson Powell, of 28 and 29, St. Swithin's-la, E.C., Solicitor, in his seventy-fourth year ESTABLISHED IN 1890. THE MORRISH, ELIZABETH MARY, late Wandsworth, butcher, widow. Wandsworth. Sept. 25. Ct. MOUNCHER, EDWIN, Southampton, undertaker. Ct. Southampton. Sept. 24. MOTLEY, GEORGE (trading as Topliss and Motley), Market Rasen, late fancy dealer. Ct. Lincoln. Sept. 24. PRICE, WILLIAM ARTHUR, late Sutton Coldfield, works manager. Sheffield. Sept. 24. Ct. RUSSELL, ALFRED, Bethersden, grocer. Ct. Canterbury. Sept. 24 SAMWAYS, ALBERT WILLIAM, Wandsworth Common, upholsterer. Wandsworth. Sept. 25. Ct. SHERWOOD, SAMUEL, Swinton: bootmaker. Ct. Sheffield. Sept. 23. SMITH HERBERT, Sheffield, late cycle agent Ct. Sheffield. Sept. 23. SILCOX, ALBERT, Abingdon, licensed victualler. Ct. Oxford. Sept. 24. SHEPPARD, ADA, Nottingham, dressmaker, spinster. Ct. Nottingham. Sept. 23. SHAW, JOHN, Tunstall, grocer. Ct. Hanley. Sept. 23. TICHIAZ, THOMAS GEORGE, Kingston-upon-Hull, grain checker. Kingston-upon-Hull. Sept. 24. Ct. WITHERS, FRANK, Bristol, general furnisher. Ct. Bristol. Sept. 25. Ct. Luton. WATSON, HERBERT, Husborne Crawley, butcher. Ct. Luton. Sept. 23. WATKINS. THOMAS, Cwmpark, coal miner. Ct. Pontypridd, Ystradyfodwg, and Porth. Sept. 24. WILLIAMS, THOMAS JOHN, Truro, grocer. Ct. Truro. Sept. 23. EMMS, FREDERICK GEORGE, Gorleston-on-Sea, solicitor. Ct. Great Yarmouth. Sept. 28. EVANS, DAVID OWEN, Old Bond-st, ladies' tailor. Ct. High Court. Sept. 26. FOULKES, EDWIN, Clacton-on-Sea, greengrocer. Ct. Colchester. Sept. 27. FRANCKE, WILLIAM, Belsize-par, Haverstock Hill, provision merchant. Ct. High Court. Sept. 27. GAUD, HENRY HONEY, Tavistock, licensed victualler. Ct. Plymouth. Sept. 27. GOOLD, URIAH JOHN, Bristol, baker. Ct. Bristol. Sept. 27. HALL, CHARLES, late Mexborough, grocer. Ct. Halifax. Sept. 26. IV. Customs, Duties, and Regula tions. BUTTERWORTH & CO., BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR, LONDON. To Readers and Correspondents. All communications must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. Anonymous communications are invariably rejected. All communications intended for the Editorial Department should, in order to prevent delay, be addressed to the "EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES." Any contributions that may be sent on approval will be carefully considered by the Editor; but no responsibility whatever can be accepted in respect thereof, although, if unsuitable, every effort will be made to return them, provided that a stamped addressed wrapper is inclosed for that purpose. The copyright of all contributions (including reports paid for) shall belong to the proprietors of the LAW TIMES, together with the right of republication in any form they may think desirable. Apart from any express agreement that may be made, contributions are only. received and considered on these conditions. Advertisements, orders for papers, &c., should be kept_distinct, and addressed to the Publisher, Mr. HORACE Cox, "Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C. TO SUBSCRIBERS.-PREPAYMENT TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION. United Kingdom. WITHOUT REPORTS. For One Year 0 For Half-Year Foreign. WITHOUT REPORTS. For One Year ......... £2 4 4 1 2 2 £3 0 0 For One Year For Half-Year 1 10 0 For Half-Year Portfolios for preserving the current numbers of the LAW TIMES, price 58. 6d. LAW TIMES REPORTS, price 3s. 6d. Parcels of Volumes for binding should be sent to the Publisher, LAW TIMES Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C. 10 0 0 TO ADVERTISERS.-SCALE OF CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS. Four lines of 30 words or £ s. d. less than 30 words In body type Each additional line 3 6 6 One page Half page One column 5 0 0 3 10 0 Advertisements ordered for a series of three insertions are charged 10 per cent. under scale, and for six or more insertions 20 per cent. under. Paragraph Advertisements 1s. per line, minimum 5s. No series discount. Advertisers whose reference is under initials to this office, should remit 6d. additional to defray postage in transmitting replies to their Adver tisements. Advertisements must reach the office not later than five o'clock on Thursday afternoon, and must be accompanied by a remittance. Post-Office Orders payable to HORACE COX. Vol. 133.-No. 3627. CONTENTS REPORTS. HOUSE OF LORDS. OWNERS OF STEAMSHIP DEVONSHIRE v. OWNERS OF BARGE LESLIE AND OTHERS; THE DEVONSHIRE.-Ship -Collision-Steamship and barge in tow of a tug.. 179 JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. TORONTO AND NIAGARA POWER COMPANY V. CORPORATION OF NORTH TORONTO.-Law of Canada-Railway Acts 1888, 1899, and 1906.... 182 REX v. ALBERTA RAILWAY AND IRRIGATION COMPANY.-Law of Canada -Road allowances SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE. COURT OF APPEAL. CAVE AND ANOTHER v. HORSELL.— Landlord and tenant Lease Demise of shop in terrace for particular business settlements-Conflicting interests 191 SMITH-BOSANQUET'S SETTLED ESTATES. Revenue Reversion duty-Increment value duty Re SEATON; ELLIS v. SEATON.-Will Construction-Determinable life interest-Gift over... 191 192 Re CRUTCHLEY; KIDSON v. MARSDEN. -Will-Construction-Gift over in alternative events-Repugnancy 194 Re HALL; WATSON v. HALL.-WillGift of carriages, horses, harness, and stable furniture COLONIAL LAW.- Foreign Judg. ments in France GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. Lord James of Hereford Memorial Appointments under the Joint Stock Winding-up Acts-Creditors under Estates in ChanceryCreditors under 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35 515 LAW SOCIETIES.-The Law Society: Provincial Meeting-United Luw Society-Bristol-Solicitors' Bene 196 volent Association - Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.-Students' Societies. 547 549 KING'S BENCH DIVISION. REX v. COUNTY OF LONDON JUSTICES; Ex parte STANLEY.-REX v. CITY OF LONDON JUSTICES; Ex parte LoNDON COUNTY COUNCIL.-Metropolis -Rates-County rate PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMI. RALTY DIVISION. PROBATE BUSINESS. COURT PAPERS.-House of Lords- FINAL appeals and new trials from the King's Bench chiefly account for these arrears, and that list shows every likelihood of reverting to its former state. Some of the cases in that list were set down as long ago as the beginning of April last, while in 1910 the business commenced with cases set down in the preceding May, though in October 1911 some of those entered in March had not been heard. The following are the figures for the last six years at the beginning of the legal year : 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. 38 40 122 154 In 1910 the special and common jury lists dated back to the preceding March, but this year they commence with cases set down in April. Both Civil Paper and nonjury list are in a considerably better position, but the fact that jury actions set down six months ago are not yet heard points strongly to the serious nature of the delay. Divorce and Admiralty Causes. A LARGE increase must be recorded in this division, the total causes being 622 as against 508 in 1911, and 528 in 1910. There are no less than ninety-six defended and 339 undefended divorce causes for hearing, while, in addition, twenty-seven special jury and thirty-nine common jury cases are for hearing. Admiralty actions for trial number 110, and there are eleven appeals to the Divisional Court. The Case of Mr. Wilks. WE are not in the least suprised that the Revenue authorities have authorised the release of Mr. Wilks, who has been imprisoned for failure to pay his wife's income tax. With the parties to the particular case in question we have little sympathy, inasmuch as we are not satisfied of the inability to pay; but it draws attention to the fact that instances of considerable hardship might arise, and imprisonment might be inflicted. The case, however, is useful in so far as it shows the fatuous nature of the contention that, owing to the lack of the franchise, women are placed by the law in a disadvantageous position. The Times tersely sums the matter up in the following paragraph: Mr. Wilks' case is also worth noting because it illustrates the anomalies of the law of husband and wife, most of them very much to the disadvantage of the former. From one extreme the law has gone to another. The husband is liable for the wrongs committed by his wife, though he has no power to prevent her from committing them. She for many kinds of contracts is his agent, and can bind him practically to almost any amount. He may be compelled to find her in funds wherewith to carry on proceedings in the Divorce Court. Liabilities founded upon the identity of husband and wife are continued when, by reason of the Married Women's Property Acts, it no longer exists. Of these anomalies we rarely hear, though, as anyone conversant with proceedings in courts of law is aware, they lead to cases quite as hard as that of Mr. Wilks. Somehow, then, is kept well in the background the fact that, in a Parliament elected by men, laws placing them in a position of inferiority and disadvantage are passed. And these examples could be easily multiplied. Motor Licences. A SOMEWHAT extraordinary contention was raised by the London County Council before Mr. HOPKINS last week where a defendant was summoned by them for keeping a motor cycle without a licence. The defendant having taken out a motor-car licence, parted with his motor-car and acquired a motor cycle, and it was argued that a fresh licence for the cycle was necessary, reliance apparently being placed upon Part 2 of sched. 5 of the Finance (1909-10) Act 1910. The defendant consented to an order, considering £1 cheaper than the costs of a case which was asked for on behalf of the council. If, however, their contention is a right one, an immediate amendment of the schedule is necessary, for that a second licence should be necessary is both ridiculous and unjust. THE MAINTENANCE OF SEA BARRIERS. Ir would seem almost unnatural for an Englishman to evince no interest for anything relating to the foreshore. To those who are actually resident in its vicinity such questions become of necessity of more than a passing interest, and most by experience know the uncompromising force of a mighty, troubled sea, or the quiet, irresistible insidiousness of a high spring tide. The established ancient doctrine is that it is the duty of the Crown to protect the realm from incursions of the sea by maintaining barriers, or by raising artificial barriers. Still, as there does not seem to be any practical remedy available to a subject should the Crown happen to disregard this liability, we are free to conclude that it is a duty of imperfect obligation. However, in 6 Geo. 2 it was made felony, without the benefit of clergy, maliciously to cut down any sea bank whereby lands might be overflowed or damaged; and in more recent times Mr. Justice Fry, in one of his masterly and distinguished judgments, and the Court of Appeal both maintained that no subject may destroy a natural barrier against the sea; and that if the destruction of such a barrier cause injury to an adjacent landowner, the latter is entitled to an injunction against the destruction: (Attorney-General v. Tomline, 42 L. T. Rep. 880; 14 Ch. Div. 58; see also Crossman v. Bristol and South Wales Union Railway, 11 W. R. 981). The leading case turns upon the removal and sale for profit of shingle from the foreshore, an act which, in ordinary circumstances, would, by the owner, be proper and legitimate, and it serves to remind a reader how hazardous it is to reglect the principles of the law. The facts of the case were these: N. O. was the owner of land adjoining the foreshore at Felixstowe Ferry in Suffolk. One low-lying side of it was protected from the sea by a bank of shingle, which, although it was shifted from time to time by the action of the sea, formed a natural barrier. For many years O. F., the lord of the manor, and, as such, the owner of the foreshore, had removed the shingle, and sold it to shipmasters and others for ballast, and he continued so to do until N. O. alleged that at the time the action was brought, a corner of his land was, in consequence of the continual removal of the shingle, in imminent danger of being flooded, and, further, that if the removal of the shingle were continued, the whole natural barrier would be destroyed, and, as a result, his land and buildings would be washed away by the inroad of the sea. It is satisfactory to know that an injunction restraining O. F. from removing further shingle with such consequences could be granted: (AttorneyGeneral v. Tomline, ubi sup.). But, that being so, the questions will be asked, Would O. F. be bound to keep up this bank of shingle in case it was worn, or scoured, away by the sea? And, Must he have exercised ordinary care to keep the sea out? The answer to these interesting questions will be found in an earlier case which arose from a breach of a sea wall |