Page images
PDF
EPUB

mitted to the magistrates, they declined to approve of the recommendation.

The question although at that time apparently settled was not really so, for complaints were from time to time made in the council and other public places of the excessive amount the clerk was receiving for the work done. Sheffield was not the only place where this system was found to exist. The question had for some years been agitated in other large towns in England.

A Parliamentary Commission was appointed in 1858, and evidence taken upon the subject, the whole tenor of which was that it was desirable to pay magistrates' clerks by salary rather than by fees. Since that time most of the large towns have adopted the principle of payment by salary instead of fees: Manchester, Liverpool, Birming ham, Leeds, Bristol, and Newcastle being amongst the earliest to carry out that improvement, and Sheffield is about the only large town that has not done so.

On the 12th February, 1873, the council passed a resolution recommending that the clerk to the borough justices should be paid by salary, in lieu of fees. The following is a copy of the resolu

tion :

"Resolved-That in the opinion of this council, the clerk to the justices of the borough of Shef. field should be paid by salary, in lieu of fees and other payments, and that a salary of £2000 per annum be paid to Mr. Albert Smith, the present clerk, he thereout defraying the expenses of clerks, printing, stationery, and all other expenses incidental to the office. That a copy of this resolution be laid by the mayor before the justices of the borough of Sheffield, for their consideration and approval, and that subject thereto another copy of the said resolution be forwarded by the mayor to Her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, for his approval."

The above resolution was laid before the borough justices on the 13th March 1873, aud the following resolution was passed by them approving of the

recommendation

[ocr errors]

"Resolved: That this meeting, after mature consideration, approves of the recommendations contained in the resolution of the town council now read, and that the mayor be requested to certify the same to the Secretary of State, and inform the council of the approval by this meeting."

The resolutions also received the approval of Mr. Albert Smith.

The mayor forwarded the resolutions of the council and the justices to the Home Secretary, who requested that a statement showing the average amount of fees received by the clerk during the last five years should be furnished to him, and Mr. Smith made the following return: Receipts of Fees, showing the average for five years, by Albert Smith, magistrates' clerk in petty and special sessions for Borough of Sheffield, and Disbursements. £ . d. 3159 17 2 2939 16 4 3668 15 8 3527 5 4 3030 18 4 £16,326 12 10 3265 6 6 544 4 5

1867 Total fees received

1868

Ditto

1869

Ditto

1870

Ditto

1871

Ditto

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Your committee find that the average net income of Mr. Smith for that period has been at least £2000 per annum.

On the 6th May 1873, the Home Secretary transmitted to the council a new table of fees, which had been prepared by the Examiners of Criminal Law Accounts, and recommended the same for adoption by the council, in the place of the table of fees in force, a copy of which had been forwarded to him at his request.

Unfortunately, Mr. Smith was taken ill, and Mr. Thorpe, his chief clerk, having died, Mr. Smith resigned the office of magistrates' clerk, and the council were compelled to begin again de

[ocr errors][merged small]

place relative to the new table of fees, and that depu-ditional on the clerk devoting the whole of his
tation had an interview with Mr. Winterbotham, time to the performance of the duties of his office,
the Under Secretary of State, and conferred with that being a matter entirely for the justices to
him on the subject of the resolution passed by the determine. Neither can the town council make
council on the 12th Feb. last, and also to the new any stipulation as to what expenses shall be
table of fees to be made by the council and as defrayed by the clerk. All that a town council
to the salary to be paid to the clerk to be appointed can do is simply to recommend that a certain sum
in the place of Mr. Albert Smith, who had resigned shall be paid instead of fees. If that recommenda-
the office; when Mr. Winterbotham informed tion is adopted by the justices and by the Secretary
them that he should be glad to receive and sug. of State, the Act of Parliament defines for what
gestion from the council as to the proposed new duties the salary is to be received. It cannot be
table of fees, and would be prepared to consider for anything more or for anything less."
and sanction any reasonable recommendation
which the council might make as to the amount of
salary to be paid to the clerk. Mr. Winterbotham
considered that £1800 per annum would be ample
remuneration for the duties the clerk had to
perform, including payment of clerks and office
expenses, and he had no hesitation in saying that
the Home Office would sanction such remunera-
tion.

On the 29th Oct. 1873, the council passed the
following resolution :-
"Resolved: That in pursuance of the 14 and
15 Vict. cap. 55, this council recommends to Her
Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home
Department, that the clerk to the justices of the
peace for this borough be paid by salary in lieu of
fees and other payments, and that a salary of
£1800 per annum be paid to the clerk to be
appointed in the place of Mr. Albert Smith, who
has resigned such office, provided that the clerk
devotes his whole time to the duties of his office,
and defrays the expenses of clerks, printing,
stationery, and all other expenses incidental to

his office."

The resolution was forwarded to the Home Secretary, who stated that finding, from communications which had been made to him from the Sheffield borough justices, that they and the town council were not agreed upon the recommendation

the town council, and considering all the

he would not be giving effect to the provisions of
circumstances of the case, he was of opinion that
the 9th section of the Act 14 and 15 Vict. cap. 55,
if he made an order upon such recommendation,
approved of it.
until he had been satisfied that the justices

The mayor laid before a meeting of the borough
justices, convened for that purpose, and held on
the 21st Nov. last, a copy of the resolution passed
by the council on the 29th Oct. 1873.

The justices present were: Joseph Hallam,
Esq., mayor; John Fairburn, Esq., ex-mayor;
J. E. Davis, Esq, Sir John Brown, Henry E.
Hoole, Esq, William Fisher, Esq., Edward Vickers,
Esq., Mark Firth, Esq., and W. K. Peace, Esq.

The resolution having been read, it was pro-
posed by Sir John Brown, and seconded by Mr.
H. E. Hoole, and resolved-

"That the justices of the said borough at this
meeting disapprove of the recommendation con-
tained in the said resolution of the said town
council."

Proposed by Sir John Brown, seconded by Mr.
William Fisher, and resolved-

Your committee deeply regret that the magistrates should have thought it necessary to retire from the principle they had laid down, as to the desirability of paying their clerk by salary rather than by fees, as it must be admitted by all that the remuneration which the new clerk will receive will be out of all proportion to the work he has to do. In order that the council and the public may be properly informed upon this head, Mr. Jackson, the chief constable, at the request of your committee, has carefully prepared an estimate of the fees that would be received by a clerk, assuming that the clerk took all the fees to which he is entitled-that estimate is based upon the quantity of business actually done in 1871 ; and from it your committee find that the total amount of fees that would be received under the table of fees now in force will be £3616 10s. 6d., and under the new table £3123 168., showing a difference of £492 148. 6d.

The fees increase year by year, and it may be estimated that in twenty years time the income from fees will amount to £5000 per annum, at the least.

Your committee have ascertained that at Birming. ham the two clerks to the magistrates are paid by salary, and are allowed £2100 per annum, which sum includes the cost of clerks, stationery, &c. At Leeds, the clerk is also paid by salary and

receives £1500 per aunum, which sum includes
sionery, &c.
the cost of clerks; the corporation provides sta-

borough fund, and the surplus of the amount of
The fees in those boroughs are paid into the
fees over the salary of the justices' clerk relieves
the rates to that extent; and it is, in the judg-
ment of your committee, far more to the interest
of the public, and much less of a scandal, that
funds should fructify in the pockets of the rate-
payers, than be handed over to public servants in
amounts greatly out of proportion to the value of
their services.

But this excessive remuneration is not the only evil attendant upon payment by fees, for such system has a very serious effect on the administration of justice; it frequently happens that the merits of a case would be met by a nominal fine, but then the consideration of the clerk's perquisites in the shape of fees obtrudes itself. The magistrate is often influenced by that consideration, and the general good is perverted by the question of fees or costs in which the interest of the clerk predominates. "Discharged on payment of costs" is naturally a conclusion which would relieve the defendant from any liability but for the clerk's vested right; but its real reading is "discharged so far as the interest of order, justice, and morality are concerned, but you must settle with the clerk, whose interests and those of public policy are conflicting and incompatible."

Your committee can only express again their great regret that such a favourable opportunity of effecting so desirable a change should be lost. It is continuing a practice that has been universally condemned and abandoned whenever an opportunity presented itself: however, the council and the public will see from this report that the entire responsibility of perpetuating this most pernicious state of things rests solely upon the borough justices and uot upon the council.

JOHN FAIRBURN, Chairman.
Council Chamber, Sheffield, 4th Dec. 1873.
A TABLE OF FEES TO BE TAKEN BY THE CLERK TO THE

"That the justices present at this meeting wish
to place upon record the following summary of
the grounds of their disapproval of the resolution
of the town council. First: That none of the
evils which under some circumstances attend
upon and outweigh the advantages of payment of
magistrates clerks by fees have hitherto existed in
Sheffield, and the only reason avowed by the town
council for effecting a change is the desire to
appropriate a portion of the fees for the purpose
of increasing the borough fund. To sanction any
such attempt appears to the justices to involve &
direct infringement of the doctrine emphatically
laid down by the present and late Secretaries of
State that such an application of fees involves a
public scandal; and that if the fees are more than
sufficient for the purpose of remunerating the
clerk, they should be reduced. Further, the jus-
tices, for whose assistance the clerk is appointed,
have no means of increasing a salary once fixed,
in case they should find that the duties or expenses
of his office are increased (and with an increasing
population they must increase); so also a fixed
salary must operate as a bar to the advancement
of subordinate clerks-a point of very consider.
able importance in the efficience of all adminis.
trative duties; moreover, the payment of a fixed
salary instead of fees leaves unprovided for a con-
siderable amount of labour and expenditure con-
nected with the police office, heretofore defrayed
by the clerk, although not incidental to the dis-
charge of his strict duties. Secondly, that the Return to and filing...
amount of salary recommended by the council is
inadequate, considering the numerous staff of
skilled and experienced clerks required to attend
on two courts, and in the clerk's office concurrently,
and the large expenditure for payment of printers,
stationery, books, and other matters. Thirdly,
that apart from the above reasons influencing the
justices in withholding their approval, the resolu-
tion of the town council is in its terms objection-
able if not bad on its face. The town council
have no power to make any recommendation con

JUSTICES OF THE SAID BOROUGH.
Appointment.
Of Parochial or other Officers (except Con-
stables), to contain the names of all the
persons appointed at the same time to the
same office

Of Special Constables under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c.
76, for each person, to include Notice, Oath,
and Certificate

(No more than £2 2s. to be charged for
one day,irrespective of the number appointed.)
Certificate.-(Seo “ Order.")
Certiorari.

...

Commitment.-(See "Warrant.")
Complaint.-(See "Information.")

Conviction.
Every Conviction (to include all persons con-
victed on the same charge)

words...

Copy.

£ s. d.

030

010

0 10 0

026

Of Alehouse Licence, under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 44... 0 2 6
Of Depositions for Prisoners, per folio of 90
0 0 11
Of Depositions for Prosecutor, per folio of 90
words
0 0
0 0 4

Of any other Document, per folio of 72 words

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Every Licence to a Theatre (6 & 7 Vict. c. 68) for each calendar month Every Licence to deal in Game and Notices. Every Licence consent or authority not otherwise provided for, including registration when the same is necessary

050 050 040

To provide carriages under the Mutiny Act... Every warrant to arrest, detain, or commit, to include the name of every person included in the same charge not otherwise provided for

[ocr errors]

026

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

...

030 0 1 0

010 010

01 0

Every other warrant Return to warrant or backing warrant, including oath, in each case... Provided always that nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorise the demand of any fee contrary to the provisions of any Act of Parliament now or hereafter to be passed.

No fees to be taken in indictable offences, in adjudications under the Criminal Justice or Juvenile Offenders Acts, or in summary convictions in addition to the fixed fees above-mentioned, nor for reswearing any person to any examination, nor for any oath, affirmation, or declaration, to obtain pay, pension, or allowance from Govern. ment, a friendly society, or charitable fund.

BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS.

When holden.

Tuesday, Jan. 13 Friday, Jan. 16 Thursday, Jan. 15.. Monday, Jan. 12 Thursday, Jan. 15. Monday, Jan. 12 Wednesday, Jan. 28..

Recorder.

C. S. Whitmore, Esq., Q.C
R. H. Hurst, Esq., M.P.
D. Brown, Esq., Q.C.
A. M. Skinner, Esq., Q.C.
R. H. Hurst, Esq., M.P....
T. Gunner, Esq....
J. Catterall, Esq.

REAL PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING.

THE LANDS CLAUSES ACT. AT a meeting of the Institution of Surveyors, held last Monday evening at its rooms, Great George-street, Westminster, Mr. F. A. Philbrick, read an important paper on "The Lands' Clauses Consolidation Act, with some suggestions for their amendment."

In the course of his remarks he said that the Lands' Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, with the amended Acts of 1860 and 1869, presented a tolerably complete code of law on the subject. It was formerly held that no subject could be compelled to part with his property; but as the wealth of the country increased, and the population also, the wants of the community became greater, and hence it was necessary for Parliament to grant compulsory powers for the taking of land for building, railway, and other purposes. The earliest Act of this character was the New River Act of 1605, which was framed for the purpose of bringing a free stream of running water to the northern part of London. The necessities arising for the making of streets, roadways, docks, and other works of an important public nature, specifics for these objects were sought for and obtained through Parliament; and these applications had been of late years very numerous, especially towards the latter part of the last century. The Lands Clauses Act was pretty general in its provisions. The power of purchase by agreement was expressly limited to those lands which were authorised to be taken. The taking of land involved the purchase, though the purchase of the land might involve damage or

-

[blocks in formation]

injury to the former owner of the land who required compensation. The Act had to deal with various intricate and involved points; they had to consider positive law, or law laid down by enactment. Obviously, therefore, they should know exactly what they intended to effect, so as to be clearly understood, and to devise proper machinery to the results desired to be attained. It was very necessary that the principles of compensation should be clearly laid down. The purchase of the real estate involved, amongst other things, (1) parties able and competent to contract, and (2) the price to be paid. With regard to the fixing of the price, there were lands of such value that it was impossible to fix a price so as to tempt the owner; but the law was a fixed principle in all cases, though it should be borne in mind that hard cases made bad law. With regard to the Statute of 1845, he objected to the careless manner in which the Legislature had framed the Act, giving rise as it did to so many contentions. Speaking of the question of arbitrations, he thought that it was a useless formality for an arbitrator to make a declaration before proceeding to award. The question, too, of the taxation of costs involved many difficulties which, he trusted, would be taken into account, causing as it did great inconvenience. But when the different clauses were framed, they were not so well understood as they were at present. He would suggest the amendment of the 47th section of the Act, which referred to the jury proceedings. He would also advocate the creation of a court which should be presided over by judges and subject to a high court of appeal, which court should be charged with the duty of deciding all things arising out of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act; the funds would, he thought, be easily obtainable by all

claimants paying a certain percentage towards it, which money, he was of opinion, would be well spent and would effect a great saving. In conclusion, he said that the Act had now been in operation for many years, and under it property to the value of millions had changed hands under compensation for damages, and he trusted that while venturing to suggest some amendments of the Act, the main principles of it would receive the consideration which their practical utility and good work demanded.

Mr. Clark briefly proposed a vote of thanks to the reader of the paper.

Mr. Ryde, in seconding the proposition, said that with regard to the amendment of the Lands Clauses Act two important suggestions had been thrown out by Mr. Philbrick. In the first place he advocated that the law should be amended, so as to give the opportunity of first contesting the right of the land to compensation before proceeding to the amount of compensation. To any such view he (the speaker) would have the greatest objection; and whether in the interest of com. panies or not, nothing should be done to increase the hardship upon the claimant. If the law were amended, it would give to the company, not prepared to pay the money, opportunity for delay, which some companies would be certain to avail themselves of. This was one question, of which the judgment of the institution would be serviceable. The other important alteration was that there should be a court of appeal. It was very desirable that mistakes of all kinds should be corrected, but were there after all many mistakes made? They must not cavil at the judgment; and taking a broad view, when the companies took a proper course, were there any mistakes made, and did many companies pay on the whole very much more than they ought to pay? The great objection would be that more liti gation than was necessary would consequently take place; and a company, not liking a decision, would appeal against it, and the matter would go on till all the money would be spent in litigation. One of the clauses of the amended Act of 1869, which dealt with the question of costs, did nobody any good, he thought, and injured companies more than anybody else. Arbi. trators considered, according to this clause, that their clients would have to pay the costs of the action if they did not recover from the company, and so the objectionable clause was bad in principle, and was a miserable failure, and it urgently required amendment.

Mr. Philbrick explained that it was never his intention to suggest that any alteration of the system should be effected when once the amount of compensation was fixed, but as to errors of principle he intended his remarks to apply.

On the motion of Mr. Ryde, the further discussion of the paper was adjourned till the 19th inst., and the proceedings then terminated.

COMPANY LAW.

EUROPEAN ASSURANCE ARBITRATION. Tuesday, Jan. 6.

(Before LORD ROMILLY.)

THE ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN COMPANY'S CASE. Rights of Companies inter se-Liability to indem nify-Limitation-Deed of Settlement.

THE question in this case was whether the liability of the British Provident Life and Fire Assurance Society to indemnify the Anglo-Australian and Universal Family Life Assurance Company was limited or unlimited. These two companies were registered and incorporated under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110. In 1858 the Anglo-Australian Company transferred its business to the British Provident Society. This transfer was carried out by means of an amalgamation deed, dated the 1st June 1858, and another deed of the 28th Oct. 1858, whereby the whole of the property of the Anglo-Australian Company was assigned to the British Provident Society. The former deed contained a covenant by the British Provident Society that the shareholders of the Anglo-Australian Company should, out of the funds and property of the British Provident Society, be absolutely held harmless, and indemnified against all liabilities in respect of the Anglo-Australian Company by reason of their execution, as shareholders, of that company's deed of settlement. Some time after a shareholder of the Anglo-Australian Company presented a petition to the Court of Chancery for winding-up the company, but Kindersley, V.C. dismissed the petition with costs on the 20th Jan. 1860, one of the grounds for his decision being that the British Provident Society would, under the deed of the 1st June 1858, have to pay all the debts of the AngloAustralian Company in exoneration of the shareholders of that company. In June 1860, the AngloAustralian Company filed a bill against the British Provident Society, praying that that society might be compelled to perform specifically their contract of indemnity contained in the deed of the 1st

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

June 1858, and to pay the debts of the AngloAustralian Company. In June 1861, the British Provident Society filed a cross bill against the Anglo-Australian Company, praying that it might be declared that the deed was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, and that it should be delivered up to be cancelled. On the 13th Jan. 1862, Stuart, V.C. made a decree that the British Provident Society was bound, according to the terms of the deed of the 1st June 1858, out of the funds and property of the British Provident Society, absolutely to hold harmless and to indemnify the Anglo-Australian Company against all liabilities. The decision was subsequently confirmed on appeal by Lord Chancellor Westbury. On the 22nd April 1864, on the petition of persons claiming to be creditors of the British Provident Society, Kindersley, V.C. declared that the Anglo-Australian Company was entitled to stand as a creditor of the British Provident Society in respect of the debts undertaken by the deed of the 1st June 1858. In pursuance of this order, the whole of the liabilities of the AngloAustralian Company were paid by the British Provident Society, except those on certain policies contained in the schedule of the deed of amalgamation. Mr. Harman and Mr. Pratt held two of these policies and were declared by Lord Westbury in June last to be entitled to prove on their policies against the Anglo-Australian Company. This company now applied that the British Provident Society might be ordered to pay Messrs. Harman and Pratt the claims they had on the Anglo-Australian Company. The case was heard on the 3rd Dec. In the argument,

Shebbeare appeared for the Anglo-Australian Company and contended that these claims must be paid in full by the British Provident Society, inasmuch as they had in express terms covenanted to indemnify the Anglo-Australian Company absolately.

tiff, and the remainder of which she had paid in instalments.

that until such memorial were enrolled the trans-
feror should continue liable to all judgments and
executions. In 1859 negotiations were commenced W. Mann, who appeared for the plaintiff, said
for transferring the business of the British Com- the defendant was a married women, living apart
mercial Company to the British Nation Life As- from her husband, supporting and maintaining
surance Association. This association had power herself by her own industry, and receiving no
to take a transfer of, or to purchase, or to acquire assistance from her husband, whom she had not
the business of any other companies of a similar seen for five years. The question which would
nature, upon such terms as might be thought fit. arise in the case was whether she was liable for
The negotiations for the transfer were commenced debts apart from her husband. She was carrying
by a letter sent by the secretary of the British on a separate business of her own in Southport,
Nation Association to the directors of the British and he might take it that she was carrying on that
Commercial Company, proposing a "union of the business in accordance with the first section of
business" of the two companies upon certain the Married Women's Property Act, and that all
terms, one of which was "that the shareholders the property which she had become entitled to
of the British Commercial should be paid off at since she had been carrying on the business sepa-
the rate of 25s. per share, and their shares trans-rately would be her separate property, held for
ferred." This proposal was subsequently approved her separate use, independently of her husband.
by extraordinary general meetings of both com- She was therefore, clearly possessed of property
panies. The arrangement was carried out in this independently of her husband, and the 11th
way: By a deed dated the 8th Feb. 1860, a large num-section of the Married Woman's Property Act
ber of the shareholders covenanted with Messrs. gave her the power to sue for any debts that
Bemingham and Lake to transfer their shares into might be owing to her in respect of that property.
their names or into the names of their nominees, There was certainly no section in the Act imposing
and in the meantime to hold the shares in trust on a wife a liability to be sued in her own name,
for Messrs. Bemingham and Lake. A very large but he suggested that the fact of the Act having
number of shareholders executed this deed, and vested property separately in her and given her
subsequently transferred their shares. A few the exclusive control over it, implied a liability in
neither executed the deed nor transferred their her to pay debts in respect of that property or the
shares. By a deed dated the 7th June 1860 business by which she acquired it. Taking it as a
Messrs. Bemingham and Lake declared themselves matter of contract, he contended that the fact of
to be trustees of all shares transferred to them for a husband allowing a wife to carry on business
the British Nation Association. Finally, by a separate and apart from him impliedly conferred
deed dated the 31st Dec. 1864, after reciting inter upon her a power to contract debts in her own
alia that the shares transferred into the names of
name. It was clear that in equity a married
Messrs. Bemingham and Lake were all the shares woman might bind her separate estate by a con-
of the British Commercial Company except some tract, and it was a question whether she had not
few shares, the owners of which were unknown, it power to do so by law, This property in her
was witnessed that the holders of 11,880 shares business was vested in the defendant, and it was
(out of 12,000 shares) transferred them to the only a reasonable inference that a wife should be
British Nation Association "to the intent that the enabled to bind her separate estate by a contract.
British Commercial Company and the capital and
business thereof might thenceforth be amalga-
mated and merged in the British Nation Associa-
tion."

Napier Higgins, Q.C., and Montague Cookson appeared for the official liquidator of the British Provident Society. They did not dispute the liability under the covenant, but contended that Mr. Chatteris held five shares in the the terms of the British Provident Society's deed British Commercial Company, and on the 7th of settlement were such as to limit the liability of March 1860 he executed the deed of the 8th Feb. the shareholders to the subscribed capital of the 1860 in respect of his shares. Nothing further company; and that, consequently, it was not comwas done by him. He never received any conIn 1872 an petent for the directors to cast upon the share-sideration in respect of his shares. holders an unlimited liability in respect of the order was made to wind-up the British Commerindemnity of the deed of the 1st June 1858. cial Company, and the official liquidators now Reference was made to the following cases, in applied to have Mr. Chatteris's name placed on the which the liability was held to be limited: Re list of contributories. Indemnity Claims (Reilly's Alb. Rep., p. 17; 15 L. J. 141); Re British Nation Indemnity Claims (Reilly's Europ. Rep. 3; Law Times' European Reports, p. 4).

Smith (of the firm of Smith and Boyer) argued that as far as the Married Women's Property Act was concerned, there was no implied liability such as that contended for, because if there had been any intention to set aside a long-established principle of law, there would have been an expressed provision to that effect. There was no question of separate estate in this case, and no pretence that the wife had pledged her separate estate.

His HONOUR said he was not aware that this

question had ever been raised before. The defendant was a married woman, living separately Napier Higgins, Q C., contended at some length from her husband and carrying on business sepathat to free Mr, Chatteris from all liability would rately from him, and the goods in respect of be in effect to undo the decision of Lord Westbury which she was sued were goods supplied to her in Blundell's Case (L. T. Eur. Rep. 39). It was in the way of her trade. Certain payments had true that Mr. Rivington had been freed from all been made on account of those goods, and she was liability (Rivington's Case, L. T. Eur. Rep. 57), now sued for the balance remaining due. In but that case differed from this in several impor answer to the claim the defendant set up the plea tant particulars. Here there was no transfer of of coverture, and the question was whether that a good defence. It was perfectly the shares, and consequently no enrolment. Mr. plea was to common law it would be a Chatteris still appears as a shareholder in the last clear that in had no enrolled memorial. Moreover he never received good defence for a married woman any consideration in respect of his shares. All he power to contract such a debt as that in question by the common law. But it was suggested did was to execute the deed. that under the Married Women's Property Act, sects. 1 and 11, the liability contended for in the present case was imposed upon a married women, not expressly, but by implication. From the language of the 1st section it struck him that it was clearly enabling. It gave a married woman the power to acquire property for

Lord ROMILLY delivered judgment. After stating the facts of the case, his Lordship said that Lord Cairns's decision in the former of these two cases turned upon the terms of the contract, and all his argument tended show that in this case his decision would have compelled the British Provident Society to pay the liabilities on the policies of Messrs. Harman Moreover, there was an express decision to this effect by Stuart, V.C., and confirmed on appeal by Lord Chancellor Westbury. Lord Cairns's decision was grounded on the fact that there was not in the case before him any power to amalgamate, and that the directors acted ultra vires when they attempted to alter the funda

and Pratt.

F. C. J. Millar appeared for Mr. Chatteris, and contended that the case was governed by Rivington's case, where Lord Westbury laid it down that the formalities of transfer were necessary only in the case of a going company, and that the transaction between the two companies was not

mental principle of the original deed of settlement ultra vires, and after this lapse of time could only her separate use, and it did not impose any

by giving to the directors a new authority to cast on the shareholders a liability exceeding that which would arise from the amount subscribed on the original shares. The cases before Sir John Stuart, Sir Richard Kindersley, Lord Cairns, and Lord Westbury all substantially pointed in the same direction, and tended to show that the liability of the British Provident Society under the deed of the 1st June, 1858, was an unconditional liability not limited to the subscribed capital of the company.

CHATTERIS'S CASE.

Contributory-Amalgamated companies-Release of shareholder of amalgamated company. THIS case involves the curious question as to whether, in the British Commercial Insurance Company, which has been ordered to be wound. up, there shall be more than one contributoryviz., one of the amalgamated companies, the British Nation Life Assurance Association. The British Commercial Company was established under a deed of settlement, dated the 1st May 1821. This deed contained no provision enabling the company to transfer its business to, or to amalgamate with another company. It contained various provisions prescribing the method of transferring shares from one proprietor to another. Subsequently an Act of Parliament was passed enabling individual partners in the company to transfer their shares, and providing that on every transfer of shares a memorial thereof should be enrolled in Chancery within three months, and

be disturbed as a whole, not by fragments.
After hearing Higgins in reply,
Lord ROMILLY reserved judgment.

COUNTY COURTS.

MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT.
Tuesday, Jan. 6, 1874.
(Before J. A. RUSSELL, Q.C., Judge.)

M'GOVERN v. HINKEY.
Married Women's Property Act-Liability of mar
ried woman to be sued.

H., a married woman, carried on business at S.,
apart from her husband, and received no assis-
tance from him. The property acquired in the
business so carried on was admitted to be her
separate property, under the first section of the
Married Women's Property Act. She was sued
for a balance of money due for goods supplied to
her in the way of her trade.
Held, that the 11th section of the Act does not
impose a liability to be sued, but only enables a
married woman to maintain an action in her
own name to recover earnings or other property
declared by the Act to be her separate property.
W. Mann, solicitor for the plaintiff.

Smith, solicitor for the defendant.
The plaintiff, John M'Govern, haberdasher,
Union-street, Manchester, sued the defendant,
Margaret Hinkey, draper, 95, Lord-street, South-
port, for a sum of £15 128., the balance of a debt
of £35, which she had contracted with the plain-

liability on her that she was not subject to before. By the 11th section a married woman was empowered to maintain an action in her own name to recover earnings or other property declared by the Act to be her separate property. That was clearly an enabling enactment, and such being the case the question was whether he was to infer that not only had this ability been created, but that a liability had been likewise imposed. Inasmuch as the statute did not impose any liability in respect to the property mentioned in sects. 1 and 11, the liability of the woman stood just as it did at common law. But did not the statute itself show that, in expressly making her, in sect. 12, liable in respect to debts contracted before marriage. He could not, therefore, go beyond the letter or the spirit of the Act, which was clearly enabling to a woman, but not rendering her subject to any liability except such as was expressly imposed upon her. He thought the liability of the defen dant stood just as it did in common law, and she was not, therefore, liable in this action. He dismissed the case.

Smith, on behalf of the defendant, applied for costs, which were granted.

MIDDLE TEMPLE HALL.-Mr. Watts, R.A., has been engaged by the Benchers to paint the portrait of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, which is to be placed in the Hall, with the consent of the Prince, who has complied with the request of the Benchers that his portrait should be painted for this ancient society.

BANKRUPTCY LAW.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. EVIDENCE-UNSTAMPED LETTER, OR ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF MONEY-WHETHER ADMISSIBLE-THE STAMP ACT 1870, 88. 16, 48, 54.-A letter or order directing the payment of a sum of money out of a particular fund is a bill of exchange within the meaning of ss. 16 and 48 of the Stamp Act 1870, and as such will not be received in evidence unless it has been properly stamped at the time of the making thereof: (Ex parte Shellard; Re Adams and Kirby, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 621. Bank.) SHARES-ASSIGNMENT OF-DECLARATION OF TRUST-ORDER AND DISPOSITION-CHOSE IN ACTION-THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869, s. 15, SUBSECT. 5.-A. was the registered owner of certain railway shares, which had been deposited with him by B. as security for advances. B. assigned the shares, subject to A.'s charge, by way of declaration of trust to C. for value. On B.'s bankruptcy, C. claimed the shares as his property, subject to the lien of A., but the registrar of the County Court decided against him. On appeal: Held (reversing the decision of the registrar) that the shares were not in the order and disposition of B., and that he held them in trust for C.: (Ex parte Barry; Re For, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 620. Bank.)

BILL OF EXCHANGE-POSTING IN LETTER ADDRESSED TO INDORSEE-ATTEMPTED STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU-RULES OF FRENCH POST OFFICE. -The rules of the French post office allow a person who has posted a letter to have it returned to him at any time before it has been dispatched from the office where it was posted, upon satisfying the functionaries that he is the person who posted the letter. C. posted at Lyons a letter, addressed to D. of London, containing certain bills of exchange on London, indorsed to D. On the same day C. received a telegram from D., stating that a foreign bill in exchange for which the bills on London were sent would be dishonoured, and requesting him not to remit. C. thereupon sent his clerk to the Lyons post office, from which the letter had not yet been dispatched, to reclaim the letter, but through the clerk's mistake the requisite formalities were not_complied with, and the letter was dispatched and reached D. in due course. The day after he received the letter D. filed a petition for liquidation, and the bills of exchange contained in the letter came into the hands of the trustee in the liquidation. Held, that owing to the rules of the French post office, the property in the bills would not pass till the letter containing them was dispatched from the office where it was posted; and that as C. had with D.'s assent made a bona fide attempt to recover possession of the bills before the letter was dispatched from the post office, the property in the bills did not pass to D., and C. was entitled to have them delivered up to him: (Ex parte Cote; Re Deveze, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 598. Ch.)

LEGAL NEWS.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL ON PRIMO-
GENITURE, ENTAIL, AND LAND LAW
REFORM.

IN the course of his speech at the Oxford Druids'
dinner, last week, Sir Wm. Harcourt said: Before
going to the main question, let me dispose of a few
minor points. First, there is what is called the
Law of Primogeniture. (Hear.) That is a big
word, but it is not a large affair. To alter it
would neither effect such changes as some fear,
nor would it operate at all to the extent which
some hope. I don't know that any one wishes-I
am sure I do not-to prevent any man from dis-
posing of his own property at his death as he
pleases. The right to do this is one of the greatest
stimulants to industry and prudence-things in
which society is deeply interested. (Hear, hear.)
As you will presently see, what I desire is to make
the right still more absolute than it already is.
But when a man is unwise enough to die intestate
the law, in the case of his goods, makes for him
such a will as a just and fair man might be ex-
pected to make. In the case of land, on the con-
trary, the law makes a will which no conscientious
man in his sound mind would make. It accumu.
lates on one child the whole of the estate, without
regard to the interests of those for whom any
good man would feel bound to provide. Surely,
to reform such a state of the law would be a just
and a wise policy. (Cheers.) It need not lead to
subdivision, for in the case of small properties
the estate might be sold for the benefit of all.
Well, then, as to the transfer of land, every one
agrees that the present system of conveyancing
and charging is costly, dilatory, and vexatious.
(Cheers.) Who objects to an amendment of that
state of things? (Cheers.) Not, I suppose, the
proprietary class. (Hear, hear.) Every one who
buys or sells, I imagine, wishes to get as much as

[ocr errors]

he can, and to pay as little as he can help. (Hear, please, without abolishing entail altogether, sus.
hear.) I imagine that there are few vendors or pend its action so far only as it operates as a re-
purchasers actuated by the laudable desire to give striction upon the improvement of land-that is
a larger slice than they can help to their legal to say, as regards expenditure for such purposes
advisers. (A laugh.) If there be any such bene- and such purposes alone-you might with proper
volent people, I fear they are already in Littlemore protection open the entail and allow a man to act
Asylum, or are soon going there. (A laugh.) I as freely as if he were owner in fee. There would
know I am treading on dangerous ground; but not be much danger in that, for men are not apt
still I will venture to affirm that if a reform of to be spendthrifts in improvement. They are
this character is opposed, it will not be by the much more likely too spend too little than too
landed interest, but by a class of man far more much. Some such intermediate course as this
influential than Solicitors-General - I mean would appear to have been the adequate conclu.
solicitors in particular. (Hear, and a laugh.) sion from the premises established by the House
But these things are only the fringes of a great of Lords' report; but this is caly a partial and
question; there remains behind a far more material imperfect remedy. What is really waited is to
topic. I hear very frequent denunciations of what unite the actual dominion more completely with
is called the feudalism of the land laws. I am bound the nominal possession-to give to each genera
to tell you that that is not an accurate description. tion a fuller control, and therefore a greater in-
With a few exceptions, to some of which I have terest in the improvements it may make to eman-
adverted, the laws which govern the devolution of cipate land from the restraints incident to a too
land are very much the same as those which limited ownership. (Hear, hear.) You need not
affect other kinds of property. But that does not fear for" the inheritance." The unlimited energy
settle the question. If a man misuses a large of the English people will do enough and to spare
personal estate, he alone is the worse for it. If for the protection of the inheritance." To make
he ruins a great landed estate, he damages hun- inen more completely masters of their own pre-
dreds of people who reside upon and are depen-perty, having due regard to rights already vested
dent upon it. That is in itself a reason why the -to give them a more direct and personal interest
law which allows the limitation of the one should in the improvement of the soil-that is not config-
not allow the same extent of limitation in the cation. (Cheers.) I do not desire any coercive
other. Every one, I imagine, is agreed that the legislation-all I wish is that the law should not
great want in the case of land is the want of more afford special facilities and direct encouragement
capital applied to the cultivation of the soil. to arrangements which are injurious to the
(Hear.) In the present state of agricultural community. The law which alone gives the
science capital can be applied with far more
power to a man to do anything at all after
advantage than formerly. In order to its proper his death, may and ought to prescribe the
development a capital twice or perhaps three limits within which that power shall be ex
times greater than that usually invested is neces-
ercised. It has already done so to a great
sary and profitable. It is only by an increase of degree, and it may do so with advantage yet
capital that we can increase that fund which will more. Much, perhaps the greater part, of what is
yield a larger rent to the owner, a larger profit to wanted, must be accomplished not so much by
the farmer, larger wages to the labourer, and legislation, as by convincing settlers that such
which at the same time will give more abundant entails are not desirable. But if the law did not
and cheaper food to the public. (Cheers.) Surely offer the facilities, they would not be made. I do
that is not a dangerous or mischievous object! not wish to exaggerate the matter. I do not tell
(Cheers.) Now, is there anything in the present you this will do everything; but in my judgment
state of the law which discourages the application it will do much. If we can effect this, then the
of such an increased capital to the soil? It can- land of England will be like a rich mine of wealth
not be disputed for a moment that the law of under our feet, capable of being developed for the
entail, in spite of all the measures that have been advantage of the present and the coming genera
taken to mitigate its effect, is still a hindrance to tions of a great and a growing people. (Cheers.)
the application of capital to the land. Nobody It is not really a question at all of large or of
knows that better than the members of the House small estates. A man may be poor on a large
of Lords. Their report states the case very fairly. estate and rich with a small one. What is wanted
They say, "The case for parliamentary consider- for the good of the community is that land should
ation lies in this, that the improvement of land not be artificially kept in the hands of persons
in its effect on the price of food and on the dwell who are so impoverished that they cannot do jus-
ings of the poor is a matter of public interest, but tice to the soil or to those who live upon it. Any
as an investment it is not sufficiently lucrative law which helps to prevent land passing freely
to offer much attraction to capital, and that, from those who cannot to those who can do well
therefore, even slight difficulties have a power by it is economically a bad law. (Hear.) You
ful influence in arresting it." What are the cannot hinder this happening in all cases, it is true.
slight difficulties which have this powerful and You cannot make a man sell an encumbered estate
baneful influence? Why, the Lords admit that if he does not choose, but you can enable him to do
it is the limited ownership created by the law of so. You can prevent the law being employed to
entail, and they proceed to deal with it on that make it impossible for him to do that which is for
footing. My only wonder is that, having under. the good of the community. I know there are
stood so clearly the evil, the remedy they offer is those who, admitting that the economical results of
so little adequate to the disease. It is quite true the law of entail, are injurious, maintain it from
that in great families, like the Devonshires, the social considerations. They think it tends to keep up
Sutherlands, the Bedfords, and the Leicesters, old families. I have no aversion myself to old fami
the margin is so large that the pinch is not felt. lies. If they are made of good stuff, like old wine,
It is in the moderate estates, which form the bulk they grow better by keeping. If they come of a
of the land in England, that the evil reveals itself. bad vintage, the longer you bottle them the worse
(Hear hear.) A tenant for life is in possession of they grow. (Cheers.) If a man is fit to support
an estate say of £5000 a year, his income is little a great name, he will not want the law of entail
more than sufficient for the wants of his station; to sustain him in the station to which he is born.
the entailed land must go to his eldest son. How If he is not fit, the worst thing that can happen
is he to provide for his younger children, the power to his race is that he should be bolstered up in a
of charging being, as it often is, either insufficient position which he discredits. (Cheers.) I have
or already exhausted? Why, by saving for them known more families ruined by the law of entail
the money which ought to go to the land. Or, than ever were saved by it. (Hear.) To me the
suppose a man has a eldest son who has involved ordinary settlement of a strict entail seems the
himself irretrievably in debt- why should he most unnatural domestic arrangement that ever was
spend his savings on the estate only to benefit the conceived. A man has a son whom he has begotten,
usurers who will absorb it by and by? Or sup- whom he has educated, whom he knows, whom he
pose he is childless, will he spend his money on loves, whom he trusts; but it is not to him that he
the land for the benefit of the heir of entail, or confides the real dominion over that estate which is
will he keep it for those whom he desires to benefit his pride. It is the unborn grandchild, of whom
by his will? Why should he spend £20,000 to-day he knows nothing, who may be an idiot or some-
on necessary farm buildings or drainage when the thing worse, who is made the real master both of
benefit of the whole may go to-morrow to a man the father and the son. (Hear.) What is the
he does not care sixpence about? Take another consequence of this state of things? It is the
case. A man has several daughters and no son. cause of more domestic misery and dissension
The property is to go to some distant kinsman than anything else in the world. It inverts the
whom for that very reason he probably does not relation of father and son, it makes the son the
love-what will he do with his money? Will he proprietor and the father the tenant of the estate.
expend it on the estate for the benefit of the heir, (Hear, hear.) It destroys parental influence, it
or will he save it for his children? Now, here are subverts filial respect, it makes the son the
four cases-I could give you fifty more-where natural antagonist of the father, it makes the
the law of entail beyond dispute diverts capital father too often the enemy of the son. Why is it
from the land. It is said men desire to make that we see fine boys, hardly out of their teens,
settlements for the benefit of their families. Of who might have been a credit to their race, an
course they do, but it is not necessary to make an honour to their name, doomed to early bankruptcy
entail for that. You may charge your estate and premature ruin? Why is it that they fall a
without entailing it (hear, hear); and an estate prey to the gambler, the blackleg, and the money-
so charged may be freely dealt with subject to lender? Why, because they have got an indefeasi
the charge. I wish the system of charging were ble reversion to sell; because from their cradles
made, as it might easily be made, simple, and less they have been made their own masters; because,
cumbrous than it is. You might, perhaps, if you by a fatal entail of ruinous independence, they have

been emancipated from that wholesome control which might have saved their inexperienced youth from becoming the slave of its own passions, the victim of its own vices. To me, at least, the law of entail seems to be not only an economical error, but a social mistake, too often a domestic calamity. If a man has a worthy eldest son let him by all means leave him his estate; but if he is not worthy why should the law lend its aid to arrangements which compel such a destination? What father would not desire himself to have control of his estate, however willing some fathers may be that their sons should be limited? (Cheers.) I speak as a father myself. If I were the possessor of a great estate I should like to have the power to leave it at my death to a child who was worthy of it. I should like to be able to provide for those for whom I ought to provide. What I should most deplore would be to see the home I had cherished pass against my will into the hands of those who would discredit it (cheers) -to be compelled to consign a tenantry and a peasantry I had loved to the charge of one whom I knew would neglect them both. Believe me, this is a reform which ought not and which cannot be long delayed. (Cheers.) It is not an invasion of the rights of property, it is an enfran. chisement, an enlargement of those rights. The French writer, to whom I have already referred, and who is a great admirer of the English character, who contrasts with mournful envy the stability of our institutions with the political fortunes of France, makes the following observations. Allud. ing to this very subject of the law of entail, which he regards as the one great blot upon the rural economy of England, the speedy removal of which he confidently anticipates from his study of English political habits-says, "It must not be supposed that the English make no revolutions; on the contrary, they revolutionize to a great extent. They are always at it, but in their own quiet way. Thus, they attempt only what is possible and really useful, and one may be sure that at the close there will be complete satisfaction without the entire destruction of the past." (Cheers.) Don't be frightened by the word revolution. There are good revolutions and there are bad revolutions. A bad revolution is the worst, and a good revolution is the best thing in the world. (Hear, hear.) The constitution of this country is founded on a good revolution—a revolution which rejected everything that was bad, and maintained everything that was good. That is the sort of revolution which England loves. (Cheers.) I believe that such a revolution is possible in your land laws. (Cheers.) By freeing the land from the impediments which hinder its development you would greatly increase the produce of the soil-you would improve the condition of the people by procuring for them cheaper food-you would raise the wages of the agricultural labourer -you would enlarge the profit of the farmer-you would enhance the rent of the proprietor-you would augment the national fund from which the taxation of the State is fed-and the statesman who shall accomplish such a task by a just, an enlightened, a conciliatory policy, will consult the universal interests of the nation which shall confide to his prudence and his patriotism so great and beneficent a work. (Loud cheers.)

THE IRISH BENCH. THE economic question which has been raised with respect to the appointment of a successor to the late Chief Baron Pigot is still the chief subject of discussion in the journals and in professional circles. Various arguments, some of them rather plausible, but having little substantial weight in them, others possessing greater force, are urged against the proposed reduction of the judicial bench. The national sentiment is appealed to, and an effort is made to stir up popular feeling against the measure as part of a general policy of centralisation, the effect of which, it is apprehended, would be to dismantle the Irish capital of all that gives it official dignity and social influence, and reduce the country still more into the position of an inferior province. It is not to be inferred that there is not an inde

pendent public opinion in favour of retrenchment of the national expenditure, but there is an unwillingness that Ireland should be singled out for the trial of financial experiments. It is asserted that the time is not opportune for making such a change, and that if any reform be needed it should be carried out, not impulsively or with precipitation, but deliberately and after full inquiry. The Freeman returns to the subject to day, and writes in an anxious tone about the "ominous rumour." It suggests that the city members should address a direct query to the Government as to the course which it intends to take, and that should the reply point to an intention not to fill up the vacancy requisition protesting against the decision should at once be set on foot." It observes that "the people of Ireland behaved with a fatal apathy when the Landed Estates Court judgeship fell vacant," but trusts they "will adopt a prompt

[ocr errors]

and manly course on the present question. It
recalls the fact that in 1862 a Royal Commis-
sion reported strongly against the proposed
reduction, and states that since that time the
business of the courts has increased. Summing
up its objections, it says that "lopping off an Irish
judgeship would be a crucial instance of false
economy. It would injure a great institution, be
unpopular with a whole nation, be regarded with
disfavour by an entire Profession, and save-one
penny in every eighty pounds of the national ex-
penditure." The Daily Express admits the public
are anxious that efficiency should be combined
with economy, but protests against the proposal
that there should be only three judges in each of
the common law courts. It points out practical
difficulties in the way. The extent of the circuits
should be enlarged and the number of them
diminished, and the effect would be that for seven
months in the year suitors would be left without
a judge in town to transact the necessary busi.
ness. In the Assize Courts the judges have duties
to perform which do not devolve upon the judicial
bench in England, such as the fiating of present-
ments from the grand juries and the hearing of
appeals from the decisions of the chairmen of
quarter sessions, to which a new class has been
added since the passing of the Land Act. They
already spend from two to three months on the
circuits, and if these periods were extended the
inconvenience arising from their absence from
town would be proportionately increased. Besides
this, the reduction in their number would create
a difficulty in supplying the materials for an
appellate jurisdiction in the event of the Act of
last Session being extended to this country; and
the present constitution of the Courts of Appeal,
not only that in Chancery, but also the Exchequer
Chamber, is so unsatisfactory that the interests
of the public require that it should be remodelled
and placed upon a basis which would give general
confidence. Besides the difficulty of providing
for the circuits as they are now managed, there
would be another arising from the demand for a
winter assize on the part of the people of Belfast
and other districts of the North, who complain of
the inconvenience of having their cases left in
suspense during the long interval between July
and March, unless they adopt the costly alterna-
tive of sending them to Dublin. The Express
argues that, although the business of the Courts
of Exchequer and Common Pleas might be trans-
acted by three judges, it would be quite imprac-
ticable for the Court of Queen's Bench to dispense
with the assistance of one of its members. So
far from having too little to do, it has had more
than it could accomplish. This argument is
strengthened by the authority of the judicial
statistics and the records of the business. During
the Nisi Prius sittings it has been found necessary
to obtain the aid of one of the puisne judges to
get through the list of cases for trial, although
the Chief Justice has been unremitting in his
attention, and performs his judicial duties with
average rapidity. It is enough to state, in con-
firmation of the assertion as to the pressure of
business, that last year Mr. Justice Barry sat
205 days, and in the preceding year 230 days,
while it cannot be alleged that Mr. Justice O'Brien
or Mr. Justice Fitzgerald was wanting in dili-
gence or ability. It should be remembered that,
as the Daily Express intimates, the Court of
Queen's Bench in Ireland has a distinct and
peculiar jurisdiction in addition to that which
ordinarily attaches to a common law court or the
Queen's Bench in England. It has to fiat, and
therefore to examine, the presentments from the
grand jury of the county and the corporation of
the city of Dublin; it has to try railway traverses
under the Irish Railways Act of 1851, and there
are other special matters of minor interest with
which it has to deal."-Times Correspondent,
Jan. 3.

A Scotch member of the House of Commons,
Mr. M'Laren, has just been looking over the
statistics of the Irish legal establishment, with
the object of getting his countrymen to raise
a cry of "justice to Scotland," or rather to
attempt to reduce the public expenditure in
Ireland. The worthy Scot finds that in Ire-
land there are twenty judges in the Supreme
Court; there are seventeen of them who get from
£3600 to £8000. There is one Probate judge at
£3500, and two in the Landed Estates Court get
£3000 each. There are twenty judges, therefore,
in Ireland, in what might be called the Supreme
Courts, and they get £80,600. In Scotland there
are thirteen judges, who receive from £3000 to
£4000 each, and they get £41,300 among them.
Our censor finds that the Irish judges get about
twice the amount of public money which the
Scotch judges get, and his opinion is that there is
far less law and justice required to be dispensed
in Dublin than there is in Edinburgh. It is rather
inopportune, we confess, to have to meet this
statement, but the difference in the number of the
population, 3,500,000 against 5,500,000, and parti-
cularly the different social conditions arising out
of the history of the country since the Revolution,

or, indeed, since the Cromwellian settlement, fully account for the necessity. In Scotland there are few judges, but sufficient in proportion to the legal business and population. In England there are not sufficient judges for the work, nor are they sufficiently paid, as is amply proved by the fact that in a late instance an English judge actually lost his reason from overwork; others have lost their health and lives from the same cause. Secondly, the business is much in arrear; and, lastly, the leaders of the Bar are not willing to accept the dignity with its emolument, in exchange for their professional income with its attendant exertion. We shall return to this subject next week in reference to the vacancy on the Bench created by the lamented death of the late Chief Baron.-Irish Law Times.

SUICIDE OF A BARRISTER. Mr. Gilmore Evans, who has received, recently, a valuable Government appointment, committed suicide on the 2nd inst., at his chambers, in London. On Saturday afternoon Mr. W. J. Payne held an inquest at 3, Serjeant's-inn, Chancery-lane. Mr. Goodman, solicitor, of 89, Chancery-lane, having identified the body, Mrs. Wright, the housekeeper of 3, Serjeant's-inn, deposed that the deceased had been in ill-health for some weeks past, but on Thursday evening appeared more cheerful than usual, when she took him his dinner at a quarter-past 6. The next morning she went upstairs to call him about 8 o'clock, but getting no answer to her repeated knocks at the door, and being fearful that he might have become ill, she sent for Mr. Hall, the locksmith, of Fetter-lane, who broke open the door. Witness then went into the bed room, and discovered Mr. Evans lying dead in bed, with a small revolver grasped in his left hand, and a large pool of blood upon the floor, which had flowed from a wound in his head. She at once sent for a doctor and the police, but the services of the former were of course unavailing, for the poor gentleman had been dead for some six or seven hours. Mr. Hall, the locksmith, and Police-constable Woodman having given confirmatory evidence, and the surgeon having deposed that death had resulted from a pistol shot, Mr. M'Namara and Mr. Price, two of Her Majesty's Railway Commissioners, gave testimony that left little doubt upon the minds of the jury that the deceased had been suffering from extreme nervous depression and morbid agitation for some time past, and that his duties as Registrar of the Commission, although not very arduous, were somewhat novel to him, and very probably increased the agitation and depression to such an extent that his mind gave way under the unwonted strain, and he committed suicide. The jury, upon hearing this evidence, at once returned a verdict of "Suicide while of unsound mind."

THE NEW LAW COURTS AT WINCHESTER.— The new law courts at Winchester are now virtually completed, and the restoration of the old gothic hall of Winchester Castle to its former design is nearly finished. The designs of the new courts and restoration were furnished by Mr. Digby Wyatt, architect, and the total cost of the whole work has probably been over £30,000. At the Epiphany Sessions on Monday, Lord Eversley presiding, Mr. Melville Portal, chairman of the Public Works Committee, announced that they could not yet present a complete financial report, but they hoped to be able to do so at the next sessions. The committee contemplated-and they hoped to have the support of the magistrates of the county in the matter-the filling the windows of the old hall with painted glass. This was not a kind of work which they would be justified in throwing upon the county rates, but they hoped the undertaking was one that would commend itself to the magistrates at large throughout the county, and that no difficulty would be experienced in obtaining funds sufficient to fill the whole of the windows. The committee proposed to illus. trate by this means the history of the county from its earliest period, by displaying the names, arms, and deeds of those persons who were either natives of Hampshire or immediately connected with the county in a remarkable manner. These would be chronologically arranged, and the windows from one end of the hall to the other would form so many pages of county history, which well-informed persons would be able to understand easily. They had consulted Mr. Hardman, who had furnished the designs now in the room, and the windows were estimated to cost 100 guineas each. The first was already promised, the noble chairman, the Earl of Carnnarvon, Sir William Heathcote, and himself having agreed to defray its cost. Two benches of magistrates had also signified their desire to help in the matter, and their architect, Mr. Digby Wyatt, had promised a donation of £25. Lord Henry Scott, M.P., said the scheme deserved the greatest possible encouragement, and he hoped all the support possible would be accorded to it, for no one could visit that noble hall without seeing that painted glass, supposing the colouring was not so deep as to obscure the light, would be a great

« EelmineJätka »