BANKRUPTCY LAW.

BIRMINGHAM COUNTY COURT.
Thursday, Dec. 11.

(Before H. W. COLE, Q.C. Judge.) Re MORRELL AND GAITES, Ex parte SHARP. Bankruptcy-Fraudulent preference. THIS was an application by Mr. Luke J. Sharp, the trustee in the bankruptcy for an order to compel Mr. William Bedford, of Vyse-street, Birmingham, jeweller, to deliver up to them certain jewellery goods and diamonds, deposited with him a few days before the bankruptcy, and for payment of costs.

Robert Duke, solicitor, Birmingham, appeared for the trustee, and James Motteram (of the Oxford Circuit), instructed by J. C. Fowke, solicitor, Birmingham, opposed the motion on behalf of Mr. Bedford.

The application was heard on the 28th Nov. last, and the court reserved judgment.

Bedford's possession. His Honour said he did not regard that fact as one of any importance, as the box and its contents were unquestionably sent to Bedford by way of security for his debt, and not merely for safe custody. The question was whether the remaining jewellery stock now in the possession of Bedford could be retained by him as against the claim of the trustee in the bankruptcy. His opinion was that the deposit of that jewellery with Bedford was not the voluntary or spontaneous act of the bankrupts, or either of them, but the result of pressure, which, under the advice of Mr. Fowke, was put on Morrell by Bedford on the 22nd Aug. Under such circum. stances, although Bedford knew that the bankrupts were then in a state of bankruptcy, his Honour considered it to be well established by the case of Ex parte Topham, Re Walker (L. Rep. 8 Ch. App. 614), that this was not a fraudulent preference, and that Bedford was entitled to retain the jewellery stock now in his possession until the whole debt due to him was satisfied, including the £95 for which the acceptance was given by the bankrupts. He, therefore, declared that Bedford was entitled to a valid lien upon such of the jewellery stock deposited with him on the 22nd Aug. as still remained in his possession for the £183 6s. 5d., which was due or owing to him from the bankrupts at the time of the bankruptcy, and that such deposit was not a fraudulent preference; but he declared that Bedford had no lien upon the thirteen rings, except for the sum of £11 14s. (part of the £183 68. 5d.) due to him for work and labour thereon. He ordered that, on payment by the trustee to Bedford of such £11 14s., Bedford should deliver up the rings to the trustee; and he ordered the assessed jewellery stock now in the possession of Bedford to be sold by him, and that he should retain thereout the balance of the said £183 6s. 5d., together with his costs of or relating to the present application the surplus, if any, to be paid over to the trustee.

:

BRISTOL COUNTY COURT. Friday, Nov. 21.

(Before E. J. LLOYD, Q.C., Judge.) Re CHARLES JAMES BUDGE.

Composition

His HONOUR, in delivering judgment, said it appeared that on the 30th July last, Bedford sold and delivered some 9-carats brilliants for £95 to the bankrupts, Morrell and Gaites, who were jewellers, carrying on business in Birmingham, and took their acceptance for the price bearing date 30th July, and payable about six months after date. On the same day the bankrupts sent back the brilliants to Bedford to be mounted, and he mounted them in thirteen rings, for which work the further sum of £11 14s. became due to him. On the 16th Aug. he sent the rings to the bankrupts' place of business too late for them to receive them, and they were brought back. But on the 18th Aug. he again sent the rings, when they were duly received and a receipt given for them. Under these circumstances all lien on the part of Bedford in the rings was of course gone at that time. It appeared, however, that later on the same day, Morrell, one of the bankrupts, sent back the rings to Bedford, and shortly afterwards called upon him and asked him to hold them for a few days, as he (Morrell) and his partner were then quarrelling. This Bedford promised to do, and he had since retained possession of the rings, which were part of the goods in question. Besides the £95 and £11 14s., there was in August a further debt of £76 68. 5d. owing from the bankAdjudication Bankruptcy Act rupts to Bedford for sundry goods sold. On the 1869, s. 126, sub-s. 11. 18th Aug. the bankrupts were served, at the Beckingham, who appeared for a creditor, said in instance of a French creditor named Grillot, with that matter he had to make application to have a a trader debtor summons, dated the 16th Aug., debtor adjudged a bankrupt, in accordance with and therefore Morrell went to Bedford and in- the provisions of the 11th sub-section of the 126th formed him of the facts, and expressed a desire section of the Bankruptcy Act. The debtor for that Bedford should co-operate with him in taking some time previous to the filing of his petition on such steps as might be necessary in the interest of the 21st Dec. 1871, carried on business at St. the English creditors. Bedford then went with Vincent's-terrace, Hotwells, as commission agent Morrell to the office of Mr. Duke, his solicitor, and and dealer in cigars. At the first meeting of under the advice of Mr. Duke, who appeared to creditors held under his petition a resolution was have considered the interests of the general body passed accepting a composition of 2s. 6d. in the of English creditors rather than the interests of pound, 1s. 3d. to be paid in two months, and Bedford personally, signed a trader debtor sum- 1s. 3d. in four months, and the debtor asked Mr. mons on the bankrupts for the debt due to him, Philip Owen to secure that composition to the and it was served on them. Thus far Bedford creditors, and he agreed to do so. The resolution had had no advice except that of Morrell's soli- was confirmed at a subsequent meeting, and the citor, Mr. Duke, who appeared never to have been estate was directed to be vested in Mr. Owen for consulted, except to protect the interests of the the purpose of securing him against the liability whole body of English creditors. On the 22nd which he had undertaken on becoming surety. Aug. Bedford consulted his own private solicitor, Shortly after the second meeting some disagreeMr. Fowke, and in consequence of the advice ment took place between Mr. Budge and Mr. which that gentleman gave him, he sought an Owen, the latter alleging that the debtor had not interview with Morrell, and asked him for some given up to him the whole of his estate, and Mr. security for his debt. A request from Bedford at Owen having paid some of the composition dethat critical time was nearly equivalent to a com- clined to pay the others until the whole of the mand, and Morrell did not attempt to resist it, but estate was given up. That occasioned some delay, at once agreed to send Bedford some goods as in the interim the debtor's wife died, and it then security for the debt of the firm owing to Bed- transpired that there was a policy of assurance ford, and another debt owing to another creditor, on her life in the Westminster and General Assurnamed Cohen, who had since repudiated all claim ance Office for £200, which policy existed at the to the security; and if anything was left after time he filed his petition, but which he never paying them, Morrell stated that he wished it to disclosed in his statement of affairs. As be held for the English creditors generally. In soon as that fact came to the knowledge of consequence of what had been agreed to at that Mr. Owen he sent to the Assurance Company interview, Morrell, on the evening of the same not to pay the money over without his con22nd Aug. sent on behalf of the firm, two boxes currence. Subsequent to the meetings at which of jewellery to Bedford. Later in the evening, the composition was arranged upon, and prior Morrell and Mr. Robeson, the traveller of the to the death of the debtor's wife, the debtor firm, called on Bedford, and represented to him assigned or charged the policy to Mr. Morris, that the jewellery was more than enough to pay a wine merchant in this city, who claimed off Bedford's debt and Cohen's also; and, as upon that policy a sum of £120, and he consethat was the fact, Bedford allowed them to take quently gave notice that no money should be paid away part of the stock deposited, leaving one over by the assurance office without his conbox and a parcel, together worth £700. Bedford's currence. It might be that Mr. Morris and the debt being now satisfactorily secured, he deter- creditors could have arranged matters between mined not to go on with the trader-debtor sum- themselves, so that the application which he (the mons, which he had taken out through Mr. Duke, learned counsel) was then making would have and he communicated that intention to Morrell been rendered unnecessary; but for some reason on the 25th Aug. On the 25th Aug. Grillot, or other Mr. Budge also gave notice that he the French creditor, presented his petition in objected to either Mr. Morris or Mr. Owen rebankruptcy, returnable on the 10th Sept., on ceiving the money, and claimed it for himself. which day Morrell and Gaites were adjudicated Under those circumstances it was manifest that bankrupts. Bedford had since given up to the the composition could not proceed, nor could the trustees a further portion of jewellery stock, not proceedings go any further until that matter was necessary to answer his claim, but he still held settled and the money paid over. He (Becking the remainder, which was said to be in a locked-ham) was instructed by a creditor for £40 to up box, the key of which had never been in apply to his Honour that the debtor might be

adjudged a bankrupt. By that means, all claims on the part of the debtor would be entirely got rid of, and also all claims on the part of Mr. Owen, and it would simply be a matter to be dealt with by the assignee under the bankruptcy on the one hand, and Mr. Morris on the other. If they should be unable to come to a proper understand. ing about it, the assignee would have his remedy in bringing the matter before the court, and taking his Honour's direction, giving Mr. Morris notice of the intended application.

His HONOUR inquired what amount of the estate had been got in.

Beckingham replied that he was unable to state. Mr. Owen received portions of the estate, but not half what the composition amounted to at 2s. 6d. in the pound.

His HONOUR-What is the amount of the debts?

Beckingham-The total amount of liabilities was £602 16s. 9d.

His HONOUR observed that it seemed to him to be a very proper application, but he would hear the other side.

Essery (who appeared for the debtor)'said he had no opposition to offer to the application. His HONOUR thereupon adjudged the debtor a bankrupt.

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT.
Friday, Dec. 5.

(Before PERRONET THOMPSON, Esq., Judge.) Ex parte HEWETSON; Re MALLEY.

Bills of Sale Act-Registration.

A., in consideration of B. giving him his acceptance for £300, agreed to hand B. railway advice notes for rope lying at the railway station of the value of £300. The agreement further provided that A. might sell the ropes on account of B. handing him over the cash as received, and guaranteeing him a profit of £1 per ton, or in the event of A. being in a position to redeem the goods before the sale, he was to have the option on paying B. £1 per ton profit. Before anything was done under the agreement, except the delivery of the advice notes to B., the estate of A. went into liquidation, and his trustee finding the ropes standing in the name of A. in the railway company's books, sold them on behalf of creditors. B. moved the court for an order upon the trustee for the value of the goods, when objection was taken to the validity of the agreement on the ground that it required registration under the Bills of Sale Act.

Held, subject to any further evidence to be adduced, that the agreement was a bill of sale, and invalid without registration.

THIS was a case which by consent was left to a jury under the provisions of the 72nd section of the Bankruptcy Act. It was the second instance at Liverpool, in bankruptcy matters, where the assistance of a jury had been invoked. The facts of the case were shortly these: In September last year Mr. Christopher Malley, a rag and rope merchant, made application to Mr. Robert Hewitson, also in the same trade, with whom he had previously transacted business, for his acceptance of two bills for £150 each. Hewitson assented conditionally upon being secured, and accordingly Malley gave him railway advice notes for certain flax tow ropes lying at the railway station of the value of about £300. The terms of the arrangement were reduced to writing, and were as follows:

C. Malley, Liverpool.

30th Sept. 1872.

To R. Hewitson & Co., Liverpool. Gentlemen,-In consideration of your accepting bills for the sum of £300, I hereby hand you warrants for 30 tons tow ropes, and I draw on account at £7 per ton. I also agree to sell them for your account at the best terms and price I can get, and hand you over cash for them as sold, guaranteeing you a profit of £1 per ton; should I at any time prior to the goods being sold, hand you over the cash for the amount of the bills, you will hand me warrants, and I will give you £1 per ton profit, and all over the above price to be equally divided, less expenses. CHRISTOPHER MALLEY.

In December last, Malley's affairs went into liquidation, and Mr. Bolland was chosen trustee. He at once put a stop upon all goods lying at the different railway stations in the name of Malley, and amongst other goods those now in question, for which Hewitson held advice notes. The trustee subsequently obtained delivery of these goods and caused the same to be sold by auction. Hewitson thereupon commenced an action against the trustee for the value of the rope, but the court restrained the proceedings, and directed the issue between the parties to be tried by a jury in the County Court.

Kennedy (instructed by Masters and Fletcher), appeared for Hewitson; and

Timpron Martin, solicitor, for the trustee. Kennedy, after briefly detailing the facts of the case, called Mr. Hewitson, who produced the agreement between the parties.

Martin objected to its reception on account of its being unstamped, and the court sustained the

objection, and thereupon the stamp duty, and a penalty of £10, was deposited with the registrar. The witness then produced the railway advice notes, and Martin took exception to their being received without being stamped. He submitted that, like a dock warrant, they required a penny stamp, that is, assuming that they were of any value. His HONOUR, after referring to the authorities, decided that they did not require to be stamped.

Gazette appeared only four days before the meeting.

Gill, in reply, said the practice was not imperative as to the length of notice in the Gazette, as already in this very matter the court had considered resolutions passed at a meeting which had only been advertised seven days. The main question for the court was, had all the creditors been apprised of the meeting? He submitted that they had, and the best proof of that was the fact that every creditor of the bankrupt, except one for a Mr. Hewitson then deposed to the facts already very small amount, was present or represented at stated, and added that he had given the trustee the meeting. The only meeting which the rules formal notice not to sell the property. On cross-required to be advertised ten days was that called examination he admitted that in March last he by the registrar, namely, the first meeting of creeffected a composition with his creditors of 1s. 6d. ditors; but all other meetings, even those called in the pound. He could not state the amount of by the court, under sect. 20, were to be summoned his liabilities, but thought they were under as the court might direct, and, without such £2000; the amount that the composition came to direction, by notice being sent to each creditor, he could not tell. The acceptances which he gave as had been done here, stating the object of the to Malley formed part of his liabilities, and meeting. although he had paid only a composition upon them he claimed the full value of the goods from Mr. Bolland. He had not, when arranging with his creditors, disclosed the ropes in question as part of his assets, as he was advised by his solicitor that it was not necessary.

Mr. Malley corroborated the last witness as to the nature of the transaction; and on crossexamination stated that his liabilities were, at the date of his liquidation, £15,000.

Several witnesses were then called, who deposed that it had been their custom to regard railway advice notes as symbols of ownership, and that in both buying and selling goods they regarded the possession of the advice notes as equivalent to possession of the goods.

This evidence concluded the plaintiff's case; and

Martin, after a lengthy discussion as to the particular issue to be left to the jury, said he should ask for a nonsuit on the ground that the agreement between the parties amounted to a bill of sale, and required registration to be of any validity. He had no wish to impugn the bona fides of the transaction between the parties, but he submitted that as the agreement amounted to an authority or licence to take possession of the ropes, it came within the 7th section of the Act, and was a bill of sale. He cited Re Steele and Keeling, and also the case of Sheridan v.

His HONOUR said it appeared to him clear, on reference to the prescribed form of advertisement under sect. 28, that notice of the meeting must be advertised in the London Gazette and a local newspaper, and he understood the Chief Judge had so laid down the practice. The meeting, therefore, having to be advertised in the Gazette, the only question was as to the length of notice to be given, and as other meetings called by advertisement in the Gazette required ten days, he thought it would be a salutary practice to adopt here. If there was not some such rule, meetings might be called on the same day on which the advertisement appeared, and thereby the notice would be nugatory. With respect to the court having on a former occasion considered resolutions passed at a meeting called by a seven days' notice, it was only done on Mr. Cotton waiving his objection to the notice. In the present case he did not consider the resolutions had been passed at a meeting duly convened, and therefore he should decline to entertain them.

(Before J. F. COLLIER, Esq., Judge.)
Friday, Dec. 5.

Re TRUMBLE.

Proof of debt by a partner against the estate of Held, that until the partnership debts were dishis late partner.

charged there was no right of proof.

Majesty who may desire to resort thereto. 2. That it is desirable, in the establishment of such school, to provide for examinations, to be held by examiners impartially chosen, and to require certificates of the passing of such examinations as may respectively be deemed proper for the several branches of the legal Profession as neces sary qualifications (after a time to be limited) for admission to practise in those branches respectively."

In support of these resolutions a petition was presented, which was signed by about 900 members of the Bar, including 18 Queen's counsel, and by 6000 out of about 10,000 solicitors practising in England aad Wales. Though the Government opposed the resolution chiefly on the ground that there was not likely to be time for dealing with the question by Bill, the resolutions were only defeated by a majority of 13 in a House of 219 members. Since then the four Inns of Court have adopted a new scheme for teaching and examin. ing students for the Bar. The committee of the Legal Association, however, say that what is wanted is a school of law not confined to one branch, but open to students in both branches of the legal profession, as well as to such of the public as wish to study law as a science, and that this school should be administered by a public and responsible governing body, not by selfelecting bodies which claim to be irresponsible, and which may at any moment modify or abandon the schemes they have set in operation.

The deputation appointed to wait on the Lord Chancellor (who ceased to be the president of the association when he was appointed to the Woolsack) were: Mr. Amphlett, Q.C, M.P., Professor Sheldon Amos, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Fry, Q.C., Mr. Kay, Q.C., Mr. Lindley, Q.C., Mr. J. C. Mathew, Mr. Osborne Morgan, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Pearson, Q.C., Mr. Westlake, Mr. Arthur Williams, and Mr. Alfred Wills, Q.C. (representing the Bar); with the following solicitors: Mr. Janson, president, and Mr. F. J. Bircham, vice-president of the Incorporated Law Society; Mr. Clabon, Mr. Cookson, Mr. Hollams, Mr. Jevons (of Liverpool), Mr. B. G. Lake, Mr. Marshall (of Leeds), and Mr. Ryland, of Birmingham, members of the council of the Incorporated Law Society; Mr. W. J. Farrer, Mr. H. B. Freshfield, and Mr. J. V. Long

bourne.

Mr. Amphlett, Q.C., M.P., in introducing the

(5 L. T. Rep. N. S. 27).

Kennedy cited Ex parte North-Western Bank, re Slee (27 L. T. Rep. N. S. 461), and maintained that the agreement was no more than a letter of hypothecation and a transfer of goods in the ordinary course of business, and did not require regis

tration under the Bills of Sale Act.

His HONOUR said he should be prepared to charge the jury that the agreement amounted to a bill of sale, and therefore, without registration, was null and void. It was a point, however, which he should like to consider further, and, as there was no dispute as to the facts of the case, but the whole question was one of law, he would suggest that the jury be discharged and the matter left for the decision of the court. The parties ultimately agreed to that course, on the understanding that the right to adduce further evidence was reserved. The jury were then discharged.

Re JOHN CROSS.

Bankruptcy Act 1869-Sect. 28-Practice. Held that meeting of creditors must be convened by a ten days' notice in Gazette and local newspaper. THIS was a case which had been before the court

for several months. The bankrupt, who was formerly a colliery proprietor at St. Helens, in the first instance presented a petition for liquidation, and, after several futile attempts to effect a composition with his creditors, he was declared bank. rupt, and Mr. Bewley chosen trustee. The liabilities were about £8000, and assets £50. A

meeting of creditors was afterwards called under the 28th section, and an offer of 6d. in the pound accepted, but, owing to some informality, it was not approved by the court. Another meeting was then called at which 4d. in the pound was accepted, but again the court refused to approve thereof. On appea to the Chief Judge, he at first directed the court to confirm the resolutions, but afterwards changed his mind, and affirmed the decision of the court below. Another meeting has since been held, at which the creditors again resolved to accept 4d. in the pound, and,

Gill (solicitor) now applied for the approval of the court to the resolution.

Cotton (solicitor) on behalf of the Roughdale Fire Clay Company, dissentient creditors, objected to the court taking the resolution into consideration, seeing that it had been passed at a meeting which had not been duly convened. According to the practice of the court it was necessary that notice of the meeting should be given in the Gazette and one local newspaper ten days prior to its being held; but in the present case the notice in the

admission of a proof of debt for over £1000, which had been tendered by Mr. George Trumble against the estate of the debtor, and rejected by the trustee. It appeared that for some time prior to 1866 the debtor was a partner of George Trumble, and that they then made an assignment of their estate for the benefit of their creditors. At the date of the assignment the partners stood indebted to the Adelphi Bank in a considerable sum on open account, and also on promissory notes to the extent of £1650. George Trumble has since paid in settlement of the bank's claim £950, and is now the holder of the promissory notes, and in respect thereof sought to rank upon the estate of his late co-partner, the present liquidating debtor. The claim, it was stated, had been the subject of previous litigation, and although it involved a nice legal question as to the right of a solicitor to bind his client to a compromise, yet its solution was not necessary for the disposal of the issue

before the court.

His HONOUR (after hearing Goffey and Etty, solicitors for the parties concerned) said that nothing was clearer than that one partner could not prove against the separate estate of his co-partner, unless he had paid the co-partnership debts in full, or in some other way satisfied those debts. Here Mr. George Trumble expressly stated that he had paid none of the joint creditors except the Adelphi Bank, nor was there any evidence that the debts had been in any other way satisfied. On that ground he thought the proof of debt property rejected, and should dismiss the appeal with

coste.

Notice of appeal was given.

LEGAL NEWS.

A GENERAL SCHOOL OF LAW. A DEPUTATION from the Legal Education Association waited upon the Lord Chancellor at his private room in Lincoln's-inn, on Friday afternoon, the 12th inst., for the purpose of ascertaining what steps the Government are prepared to take in order to give effect to the object of the Association. It will be remembered that in the Session of 1872 Lord Selborne (then Sir Roundell Palmer, and President of the Association) submitted to the House of Commons the following resolutions :

"1. That it is desirable that a general school of law should be established in the metropolis by public authority for the instruction of students intending to practise in any branch of the legal Profession, and of all other subjects of her

a

representative body. He reminded the Lord Chancellor that in March 1872 his Lordship, in the House of Commons, proposed two resolutions embodying the principal object of the association, that object being to establish a general school of law where the students of both branches of the Profession might receive instruction, and also to insure compulsory examination before any student is allowed to practise either branch. These resolutions, though opposed by the Government, were only defeated by a majority of thirteen. This result was very encouraging, and still more encouraging were the speeches made by the eminent persons who opposed the resolutions, especially by the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister. What they then said amounted to approval of the principle advocated by the associa tion, though they thought that the time was inopportune, and that the House was not called upon to pronounce upon an abstract resolution. Mr. Gladstone said the House could hardly be tion was before them in a practical shape, and he expected to give a decided opinion unless the quesadded that no man could be more competent than his Lordship was to prepare a Bill on the subject. Since then the Inns of Court had established a their own students, and, although there might be new scheme of education and examination for defects in this scheme, he believed it was an honest attempt on the part of the Inns of Court to meet the requirements of enlightened opinion on the subject. Still, it did not cover the whole

ground. There was no security in it for perma

nence, because any one of the four societies which now concurred in supporting it might at any moment retire from the scheme, and, owing to the constitution of the governing bodies of the Inns of Court, it was difficult to procure from time to time in such a scheme any changes which the circumstances of the case might require. Under these circumstances, the association had criticised, though not in any offensive spirit, the details of the scheme as far as concerned the instruction proposed for members of the Bar. "The essential point," they said, "in which this scheme is, in the opinion of the committee, wholly inadequate to supply an efficient school of law is that it seeks to establish an organisation for teaching law con fined to students for one branch of the legal Profession only." And they added:

"The committee feel that, under these circumstances, it is the duty of the association to persevere not less earnestly than hitherto in its endea vours to accomplish the objects for which it was formed. The committee venture to think that the time has arrived when, in the words of the Solicitor-General, it is practicable and desirable

for the Government to take action in the matter. They believe that, to repeat his own words, that 'opinion has been so far formed and decided that a definite course can be marked out by so much general assent as shows that another system is earnestly desired and wished for,' and they feel assured that when the proper time comes for considering the details of a scheme embodying the views of the association, it will receive the favourable consideration of those who are most able to decide what is most likely to accomplish the greatest good that can be done by education."" It might be asked why had they taken no steps to bring the subject before Parliament during the last session? It would be no breach of confidence to say that his Lordship was so occupied with the details of the Judicature Bill that it was thought better to let the matter rest for another year. The Association, however, were of opinion that the object they had in view would suffer prejudice if another session were allowed to pass without calling the attention of Parliament to it. Their principal object to-day, therefore was to ascertain whether individually, or, what would be much better, because it would open up a better prospect of success, as a member of the Government, his Lordship would be able to bring forward a Bill on the subject the next session of Parliament.

The Lord Chancellor said it gave him much pleasure to see so many of his old friends and co-operators in this work, and he was glad to assure them of his continued and unabated interest in the object for which this association had been formed. His opinions respecting it had already been publicly expressed, and they were in all respects entirely unchanged. He should not, therefore, omit to use any opportunities which might occur in promoting the objects of the association. Last session his hands were too full of other things, and it would not have been prudent for him then to take charge of this additonal measure. He reminded those that were present that one only of the important measures of Law reform then introduced by him had become law; and the other measure, which he hoped to re-introduce in an improved and amended form, would occupy considerable time and require great attention in the approaching session. He was not, therefore, now able, on the part of the Government, to enter into any engagement with regard to the Bill which the association desired to pass. When the time came for the Government to decide upon that question they would take into account the whole of the measure which they desired to promote, and they would, doubtless, consider, among other things, whether the last session of the present Parliament was, with regard to this particular measure, a desirable time for pressing it forward. The Government would no doubt consider this question with a disposition to forward the objects which the association and he also had in view; and if he could persuade his colleagues to adopt his view, they would then also, no doubt, be disposed to support, either in the next session or some other session-supposing they were in office -such a measure on the subject as he might recommend to them. For his own part, however, speaking now as an individual, he did not intend to allow more time to pass without reducing into proper form a measure which should be fit to be submitted to the Government for their consideration, provided that he could obtain such information as he desired, and in taking this course his present intention was not to confin. himself to the scheme for a general school of law This would form an important part of his measure, which would so far proceed in the lines and upon the principles laid down by the association. But he thought it would be expedient also to deal with the constitution and government of the Inns of Court, and he proposed to do so in accordance with the principles put forward in the report of the Royal Commission which some time ago sat upon that subject. When he should have succeeded in formulating a proper measure for this purpose his intention was-and he had some reason to believe that Mr. Amphlett agreed that this would be the proper course-to communicate the draught Bill, not only to the Inns of Court, but to the Incorporated Law Society and the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Society. He should then have the advantage of considering their observations upon the draught Bill before he finally invited the Government to consider it. This was the course he proposed to take. He thought he should thereby be furthering the ultimate success of the object they had in view, and he need not say that if, with out prejudice to other business which would Occupy the Government, it were in his power to propose the Bill next Session, he should be most happy to do so-the earlier the better. On the other hand, if the Government took the view he had already indicated-that to promote such a Bill in the last Session of Parliament would be to invite a party conflict upon it-he should then reserve to himself the right of adopting the course which seemed at the time most expedient. But

whatever course might be taken by the Government or by himself, and whether the Bill were introduced as a Government measure or privately, those who were present might be assured that, as far as he was concerned, he should act with a view to promote, as far as was possible the cause in which they all took an interest, and to secure its ultimate success.

Mr. Pearson, Q.C., said he had heard with great satisfaction his Lordship's intention to enlarge the scope of the Bill. At the same time, he did not think the new scheme of the Inns of Court quite so narrow as it had been represented. His own Inn now admitted to the law lectures all persons, whether they were students for the Bar or not. Such admission, however, came too late, and the result was that they had not made the start which they ought to have made, and would have made had there been a larger measure dealing with the position both of barristers and solicitors.

Mr. Amphlett, as chairman of the Association, thanked his Lordship, for the reception he had given to the deputation.

Mr. Farrer, on the part of the solicitors, also thanked his Lordship, congratulating the Association on the wise and bold measure which the Lord Chancellor was ready to introduce.

The deputation then withdrew.

PROPER RETALIATION.-At Warwick Assizes Baron Pigott, in charging the grand jury, drew attention to the large increase which had occurred in cases of violence in the county, and said his experience was that no punishment was so efficacious as that of flogging. He had noticed that the most hardened and dangerous criminals, who evinced no emotion when penal servitude was mentioned, showed signs of concern and apprehension at the slightest reference to a flogging. As cases of violence had gone up from two to thirteen, he intended to avail himself of Adderley's Act in all proper cases.

ON Friday, 12th Dec., Sir John Duke Coleridge, Knight, was by Her Majesty's command, sworn of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, and took his place at the Board accordingly. On the same day the honour of Knighthood was conferred on Henry James, Esq., Q.C. M.P., Her Majesty's Attorney-General; on William George Granville Venables Vernon Harcourt, Esq., Q.Č., M.P., Her Majesty's Solicitor-General; on Charles Hall, Esq., a Vice-Chancellor; on Archibald Paull Burt, Esq., Chief Justice of the Colony of Western Australia; and on William Henry Doyle, Esq., Chief Justice of the Bahama Islands.

Mr. Justice

STRONG expressions in courts of justice, according to present views, must be repressed; and the fastidiousness of people's ears is not to be allowed to form their rule of conduct. It is curious to notice the change which a few years has produced in this respect. Mr. Hayward, Q.C., in his "Biographical and Critical Essays" says (p. 140), "During the first quarter of the century the best bred people swore. Best (the first Lord Wynford) during the trial of Carlisle for blasphemy, audibly exclaimed to a brother judge, I'll be d-d to h-1 if I sit here to hear the Christian religion abused.' Lord Eldon was in the habit of revising drafts of bills during prayers in the House of Lords. He had just risen from his knees when, in reply to an ironical comment of Lord Grey, he said, 'D-n it, my lord, you'd do the same if you were as hard worked as I am.'" Swift's line is adopted by us in its integrity :-"We never mention Hell to ears polite."

THE DUC D'AMAULE ON THE DUTY OF A JUDGE.-It is known (says Galignani) that the president of a court-martial must be the last to reply to the questions put by the prosecution. Nevertheless, he is allowed to address some words to his colleagues before the opening of the deliberations properly so called. That is what the Duke of Amaule should have done, and what he did. We are in a position to give, if not the text, at least the exact sense of his address :-" Gentlemen," said he, after having pointed out that he was speaking before the opening of the deliberations, you must have remarked the attitude which I have taken up in the course of these debates. Contrary to what is done by many presidents of courts-martial, I have neither taken part with the defence nor at all with the accusation. I have treated all the witnesses in the same manner, whatever their rank, and in whatever sense they might come to depose. I contracted that habit in England, during my long exile, in attending the judicial pleadings of that country, and I think in that I have had your approbation. I take the liberty of expressing here the desire that, henceforward, military justice in France may inspire itself with that rule. There is another custom of English Judges and law courts which I would equally recommend to your attention. We are not here only as Judges charged to call for the application of the penalty, we are also jurymen, and in that quality we have to pronounce on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Well, you

know that on this question the English law requires that the jury should decide unanimously. Let us therefore try, gentlemen, to be in accord, and to be so seems the more easy that the mili tary law excludes, in such circumstances, all extenuating circumstances." After that address the Judges voted thanks to the President for the manner in which he had exercised his functions. They were each in turn then consulted for their verdict, commencing with General de Malroy, the youngest of them. The law forbids the publication of the opinions expressed by the members of the court.-Pall Mall Gazette.

A DEPUTATION of employers recently waited on the Home Secretary, in reference to the questions involved in the proposed repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the amendment of the law of master and servant, and the alteration of the law of conspiracy. The deputation included more than one solicitor, who explained the actual operation of the Acts in question, as well from the employers' point of view as from that of the employed.

JUVENILE THIEVES.-A boy, aged eleven, has been convicted at Birmingham, for stealing three sovereigns from his mother. Mr. Kynnersley, the stipendiary magistrate, observed: "Here is another boy who ought to be sent to an industrial school, but the School Board has just taken that power out of our hands. Very likely the boy will turn out a professional thief; and if so, the Borough may thank the School Board for it. The boy will be discharged." It deserves notice whether a dozen strokes with a birch rod would not be salutary in cases of juvenile theft.

A JUDICIAL MUDDLE.-The makeshift arrangement by which Lord Selborne sat for some time as Master of the Rolls has produced a curious conflict of authority. We will mention two cases. The first involves rather a nice point of equity, but perhaps may be made intelligible out of Lincoln's-inn. A portion of certain land devised to a tenant in tail is taken by a railway company by virtue of its compulsory powers. The purchasemoney is paid into the Court of Chancery under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. Ought the court to allow this fund, representing land, to be paid to the tenant in tail without requiring the execution of a disentailing deed? The late Master of the Rolls held that under like circumstances no such deed was necessary. So also did Vice-Chancellor Malins, and the practice was generally regarded as settled. Lord Selborne, however, declined to follow the cases upholding this doctrine, and made the order for payment conditional upon the production to the registrar of a properly executed disentailing deed. A case involving the same question came before Vice-Chancellor Malins last Friday, and he adhered to his own decisions. "I consider," said his honour," that I am bound to regard the Lord Chancellor when sitting for the Master of the Rolls simply as if he were the Master of the Rolls, and only therefore as a judge of the first instance" -that is to say, of no higher authority than the Vice-Chancellor himself. His Honour had previously held the same language in another class of cases, where the two courts upon the same facts unhappily also came to diametrically opposite conclusions. Lord Selborne, at the Rolls, decided, in opposition to recorded cases, that the purchasemoney of land sold under the Settled Estates Act is not to be regarded as "cash under the control of the court," the result of which decision is that, for the purposes of interim investment, the money can only be laid out in the purchase of Exchequer Bills or in the Three per Cents. Sir Richard Malins, on the other hand, treats such purchasemoney as cash which is under the control of the court, the result of his decision being considerably to enlarge the power of investment. "It appears from the reported cases," said the Vice-Chancellor referring no doubt to successive decisions at the Rolls by Lord Romilly and Lord Selborne-" that the Master of the Rolls has first held that such purchase-money is cash under the control of the court, and has subsequently decided the opposite way. I have always treated it as cash under the control of the court, and I adhere to my previous decisions. I should be very sorry to see any disposition to narrow the construction of the Act under which the power of investment has been extended." Technically, of course, Lord Selborne, while sitting for the Master of the Rolls, may for the time have divested himself of his authority as Lord Chancellor. But as it is more than probable that his opinions in the Lord Chancellor's Court would be the same as those he held at the Rolls, it is clear that the unsuccessful litigants in the two cases we have mentioned would appeal against Sir Richard Malins' decisions with a certainty that they would be reversed. Perhaps the respective suitors, having in view the costs of appeal, will hardly be comforted by this knowledge. Meanwhile it seems that, for judicial purposes, a Lord Chancellor is not always a Lord Chancellor, but in a lower court may lose his dignity of a judge of appeal, and be regarded, both in theory and pragtice, as somebody else.—Pall Mall Gazette.

CORRESPONDENCE OF THE

PROFESSION.

NOTE.-This Department of the LAW TIMES being open to free discussion on all professional topics, the Editor is not responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it

THE CHARGES OF THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.-There can be but one opinion as to the new scale of ad valorem charges promulgated by the Incorporated Law Society, namely, that in small cases the fees allowed are inadequate. It occurs to me that a satisfactory scale might perhaps be framed by a combination of an ad valorem fee, and special fees for particular parts of the work, somewhat on the principle of the scale for probates and administrations. Sufficient fees ought to be allowed for investigating the title, or else the client ought not to expect the practitioner to be responsible.

EDWIN HYDE CLARKE.

BEALL v. SMITH.-The order against Messrs. Merriman and Co., the solicitors for the plaintiff in the case of Beall v. Smith is, as you will observe, calculated to create "some alarm in the mind of the profession;" and it is of the greatest importance that the facts of that case should be correctly and fully stated, in order that we may know as nearly as possible under what circumstances we may venture to rely upon the orders of a chief clerk and the decrees of a Vice-Chancellor's Court, and be sure that these decisions, hitherto thought to embody an indemnity to the solicitors, do not in fact carry latent and tenable responsibilities to them. Will you permit me to say that I think it is incumbent upon Messrs. Merriman and Co., in the interest of the Profession as well as for their own sakes, to let us know what are the facts on which they rest their appeal? If they can show complete bona fides, or, as Vice-Chancellor Wickens puts it, if nothing more has occurred on their part than "an error of judgment," they are entitled to the sympathy of the Profession now, and their gratitude hereafter, if they can reverse the decision of the Lords Justices, and if they satisfy the Profession at once upon that point we ought in reality to make their cause our own. There would appear to me no good reason why Messrs. Merriman and Co. should hesitate to lay that statement before the readers of the LAW TIMES, as the case has already been twice before the courts, and the evidence has now become (like the judgment itself) public property. The test of bona fides I take to be this: Was anything material, or was indeed any fact known to Messrs. Merriman and Co., concealed from the court? If the Vice-Chancellor and his chief clerk were made acquainted with all the facts of the case, it would appear to be a cruel decision which visits the solicitors with punishment for an error of judgment in which the court (as the Vice-Chancellor says), must in that case have participated, and so made its own. If on the other hand, Messrs. Merriman and Co. have not acted with perfect frankness towards the court, and if they have withheld any facts from its knowledge, then the Profession can have no sympathy with them, and the decision will moreover, when rightly understood, carry no alarm into the ranks of the Profession. A SOLICITOR

[We have received elaborate affidavits from Messrs. Merriman, who inform us that they think of applying to the full court for a re-hearing.-ED. L. T.]

46. ALLOTMENT OF STOCK.-Will any of your readers say what is the practice with reference to allotments of shares in respect of ordinary stock held under setnew entres he Great Western Railway and Midland Railway have lately issued new shares to the holders of ordinary stock which command a premium from the date of allotment. Supposing £1000 ordinary stock in either of the above lines held by trustees under marriage settlement in trust, say for the lady for life; an allotment of new stock is made; the trustees have refused to take it up. Would the trustees in this case be justified in handing over the premium which may be obtained on selling the new stock to the lady, treating it as division or bonus, or are they bound to treat it as capital. The question must have arisen continually of late, but we are not aware of any decision on the point, and we should be glad to know what is the practice.

B. AND W.

47. EASEMENT.-A. purchased a house and garden some three years ago. The garden is bounded on one side by the gable end of a house belonging to B. (acquired about sixteen years ago), to which gable end are nailed fruit trees belonging to A., which have been there, or trees in their stead, for upwards of twenty years. B. a short time ago placed (without permission) a spout along this gable end over the land of A., and upon being requested to sign an agreement that such spout remained only by sufferance, and was to be taken away at A.'s request, he refused, unless A. likewise gave an agreement in similar terms as to the trees nailed on his house end. As A. and his ancestors in title have enjoyed the easement of nailing the trees to the house now belonging to B. for upwards of twenty years without any agreement, has he not acquired the Please say what are A.'s rights, and right to do so. refer me to cases: and, should A. have no right, please say what B. can compel A. to do.. S.

A SUBSCRIBER.

THE UNION SOCIETY OF LONDON. AT a meeting of the Union Society of London, at

the 16th inst., the following subject was submitted to discussion and carried, "That in the opinion of this house the system of representation should be by personal instead of local constituencies."

E. N. AYRTON, ESQ. THE late Edward Nugent Ayrton, Esq., who died very suddenly on the 28th ult., from an attack of serous apoplexy, at his residence at Bexhill, 48. PRACTICE-COVENANT FOR PRODUCTION OF DEEDS AND INDEMNITY OF VENDOR AGAINST LIABILITY UNDER Sussex, in the fifty-eighth year of his age, was FORMER COVENANT.-A., who is seised in fee simple of the second son of the late Frederick Ayrton, Esq., an estate, sometime since sold a portion of it to B. in an advocate in the Supreme Court of Bombay, by fee simple, and on such sale A., for himself, his heirs, Julia, daughter of the late Lieut.-Col. Nugent, executors, administrators, and assigns, entered into an unqualified covenant to produce the deeds, &c., to B., and he was brother of the Right Hon. A. S. his heirs and assigns. Of course, every tyro in con- Ayrton, M.P., the present Judge Advocate-Geneveyancing knows such a covenant runs with the land. ral. Mr. Ayrton was born at Richmond, Surrey, A. has recently contracted to sell the estate to C. Is in the year 1815, and was educated at Ealing, of A., on conveying the estate, and handing over the deeds, which then large and well-known school he was &c., to C., entitled to require a covenant from C. to captain "at the early age of thirteen. He subsehimself to produce the deeds, &c., and to indemnifyquently went to Trinity College, Cambridge, where him against liability under the former covenant. In an old edition of Dart and of Sugden on Vendors and he graduated in honours in 1836. After taking his Purchasers it is stated that A. would be so entitled. degree he spent some years in foreign travel, and Will any of your correspondents kindly communicate was called to the Bar by the Honourable Society their views on the point, and say whether there has of Lincoln's Inn in Michaelmas Term 1845. Mr. been any recent decision either relaxing or abrogating Ayrton practised at the Equity Bar, and as a conthe rule. veyancer, and though not widely known to the public, he was appreciated highly by those who knew him for his deep and scientific knowledge of the principles of equity and real property law, and for his varied learning and cultivation; he of advanced Liberal politics; he also wrote frecontributed leading articles to various newspapers quently in the LAW TIMES. Mr. Ayrton published one or two pamphlets on the subject of a decimal coinage (which he maintained should be estab lished without disturbing the existing copper currency), and on improvements in the law of real property. On the passing of Lord Westbury's Transfer of Land Act, he was also the author of an exhaustive work upon the same subject. Outside his profession also he was a man of high and varied accomplishments, and his friends regarded him as an excellent scholar. Mr. Ayrton's health failed in the summer of 1871, and from that time (Q. 35.) BILL OF COSTS, &c.-In the case of an amic-he ceased to practise at the bar. His loss will be able client, it appears that my plan holds good, admitting severely felt by many to whom he had endeared

49. COUNTY COURT-REMITTED_ACTION.-The defendant in an action commenced in Exchequer for £25 (on contract) gets it referred to a County Court under the Act of 1867. The plaintiff's attorney unreasonably delays to lodge the writ, &c., at the County Court compel the plaintiff to obey the order, lodge the writ, office. What steps should defendant's attorney take to &c? Should defendant's attorney give plaintiff's attorney the original judge's order to lodge with the writ or only the usual copy order. An early reply will much oblige.

Answers.

GEORGIUS.

(Q. 42.) CONVEYANCE-STAMP.-The ordinary stamp duty of £1 10s. is sufficient, the case being analogous to that of a conveyance of a reversion expectant on a lease to the lessee who purchases under an option of purchase given to him by the lease.

T. E. H.

Owl to be correct otherwise. The legal business done by A. is distinct from that done by A. and B., and the partnership deed should regulate the profits, between the parties, showing the different shares and the C. C. periods of distribution ?

(Q. 12.) POOR LAW.-The insertion of the following correspondence with the Local Government Board on the above subject will oblige. -"Sir,-Will you kindly favour me with a reply whether a grandson is liable to support his grandfather? I am referred by some to 43 Eliz. c. 2, ss. 6 and 7, and the last edition of Archbold's Poor Law, in the index of which I find, under 'grandfather, liability to maintain grandchildren and to be maintained by them. I cannot, however, discover anything in the page referred to in the index bearing on the subject, but the cases cited may contain some observations of the judges who tried them and considered as law. I am told by others that this was the existing state of the law until overruled by a case reported in the Justice of the Peace, vol. 31, p. 755. I have not been able to obtain a copy of this, being rather an old number. The favour of your replying to the simple question of liability or non-liability will greatly oblige.-I beg to remain, &c. The Secretary, Local Government Board.". Sır,-I am directed by the Local Government Board to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, and in reply to inform you that a grandson is under ordinary circumstances liable by the general law to contribute towards the support of his grand. father.-I am Sir, &c., DANBY P. FRY, Assistant Secre

PAUPER.

himself.

E. S. CHANDOS-POLE, ESQ. THE late Edward Sacheverell Chandos-Pole, Esq., of Radburne Hall, Derbyshire, barrister-at-law who died on the 30th ult., in the forty-eighth year of his age, was the eldest son of the late Edward Sacheverell Chandos-Pole, Esq., of Radburne, a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant, and formerly High Sheriff of Derbyshire, who died in 1863; his mother was Anna Maria, daughter of the Rev. Edward Sacheverell Wilmot, and he was born in the year 1826. Mr. Chandos-Pole was educated at Eton and at Oriel College, Oxford, and was called to the Bar by the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple in Hilary Term 1867. He was a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for Derbyshire, and served as High Sheriff of that county in 1867. According to Sir Bernard Burke, there is scarcely an existing family which can deduce so ancient a pedigree, combined with historic importance, as that of the gentleman whose death we here record. Representing the great house of Chandos, of Radburne, and a younger branch of the Ferrars, Earls of Derby, the Poles derive an uninterrupted descent from the time of William the Conqueror, and have ever maintained a leading