Page images


puted children, C. Occleston and E, Occleston, and all other the in which they are to receive it, the court has not merely to sit in children which he might have, or be reported to have, by the said the testator's chair for the purpose of ascertaining his intention, Margaret Lewis, then born, or thereafter to be born,” at twenty- but in so sitting must take its survey at the same point of time as one or marriage. Margaret Lewis, with whom James Occleston the testator took his-i.e., at the date of his will, and not at any had gone through the ceremony of marriage, was the sister of other time, before or after. The opinion of the Lord Chancellor James Occleston's deceased wife. At the date of the will the is fortified by the opinions of Lords Chelmsford and Colonsay in two children named were living, and a third child, with whom Crook v. Hill. No doubt as Lord Justice James remarks, the Margaret Lewis was then pregnant, was born afterwards in the opinions were obiter dicta, but those learned lords would in all testator's lifetime. The Vice-Chancellor, following the view taken probability act on them if ever Occleston v. Fullalove or a similar by Lord Romilly in Pratt v. Matthew (22 Beav. 328), held that case presents itself for their decision. the child born after the date of the will was not entitled to participate. On the appeal the Lord Chancellor, while fully reeognising that

LAW LIBRARY, an illegitimate child en ventre sa mère at the date of the will might have taken, if aptly described, considered that, as in the case of Shelford's Real Property Statutes. Eighth edition. By Thomas Pratt v. Matthew, the child in question was only described as one

H. CARSON, M.A., of Lincoln'g-inn, Barrister-at-Law. London: of the class of future reputed children, and was not a persona

Sweet, Maxwell and Son, and Stevens and Sons. designata at all. That also, as far as we can gather, was the view

MR. CARSON exercised a wise discretion when he determined not of the Lords Justices. The real difficulty and the real importance of the case, therefore, centred on the question whether all the re

to increase the bulk of this very useful standard work. Whilst puted illegitimate children of the testator who might have come

adding new material which was absolutely essential, he has either into existence prior to the testator's death could be allowed to par.

entirely got rid of what was old and of little use, or reduced it so ticipate. In other words, whether the date of the will or the death

as to give him space for the additions which the growth of case

law and statute law render necessary. of the testator was the point of time to be regarded. The Lord Chan

On more than one occasion when we have had to review works cellor asserts that for the purpose of determining whether a devise

which are similar in their plan to the one before us, we have or bequest in favour of illegitimate children contravenes public policy, the date of the will must be regarded. The Lords Justices

remarked how little there is to be said. No work can call for less say that the will being totally inoperative during the life of the

ability of a high order than annotating Acts of Parliament: testator, and its contents possibly or probably known to himself

industry and a capacity to express concisely what cases bare

decided are all that is required. An excellent specimen of Mr. alone, no rule of public policy can be infringed, and that the will

Carson's work is the Partition Act (31 & 32 Vict. c. 40), p. 746; is of precisely the same force and effect as if it had be executed and re-attested at the last moment of the testator's life,

but when we say that the case law is intelligently noted up, we and that all the children who had then acquired the reputation of

can give Mr. Carson no higher praise. Througbout the volume being the testator's would be entitled. They admit agreeing

we trace the hand of a careful editor, and whilst it is quite out of with the Lord Chancellor that a provision by deed in favour of

our power to say whether he had gleaned all the learning which future illegitimate children would be void, as tending to facilitate

the reports furnish, we think it may be taken on trust that the

work is perfect. concubinage and the procreation of bastards, but deny that a

Lawyers owe to conscientious editors a very provision by will would have a similar tendency. They do not,

great deal, and if Mr. Carson cannot lay claim to the rewards of however, appear to be able to adduce a single authority in which

an original writer, he may console himself with the reflection that such a distinction has been acted on or even hinted at, which the

he has rendered a considerable service to the profession, and decision of Lord Macclesfield in Metham v. The Duke of Devon

probably stored up for application in practice a fund of learning (1 P. W. 529) seems entirely adverse.

on real property law. At the opening of the work is a table of The conflicting judgments of the Lord Chancellor and his

contents, and the volume is closed by a clear and full index. coadjutors will be read with great interest. That of the Lord Chancellor strikes us as being a clear, calm, and altogether Stephen's New Commentaries on the Laws of England. Serenth admirable statement of the law on the subject. We say of the edition. By JAMES STEPHEN, Esq., LL.D., Judge of County law, for we believe that the question raised in Occleston v. Fulla- Courts. London: Butterworths. Ime, if carried before the ultimate Court of Appeal, will be We have in this work an old and valued friend. For years we decided in accordance with the views of Lord Romilly, Vice- have had the last (sixth) edition upon our shelves, and we can state Chancellor Wickens, and Lord Selborne. We hold that the law as a fact that when our text books on particular brancbes of the will not contemplate the procreation of future illegitimate children, law have failed us, we have always found that Stephen's Comor allow them as such, to be the objects of bounty.

mentaries have supplied us with the key to wbat we sought, if We hold that on the expressions of the particular will and the not the actual thing we required. We think that these Commensurrounding circumstances, the testator intended a gift to illegiti- taries establish one important proposition—that to be of thorough mate children who were reputably his; that, as Lord Colonsay practical utility a treatise on English law cannot be reduced within says, it is impossible to provide for future illegitimate children a small compass. The subject is one which must be dealt with as such “by any form of words,” that the testator made the comprehensively, and abridgment, except merely for the purposes gift to his “ reputed children,” because of his paternity, and be- of elementary study, is a decided blunder. cause he was assured that they would not gain the reputation Serjeant Stephen gives us as heretofore four goodly volumes, of being his children without being so in reality-such children and when we say that, aided by an industrious son, he has deroted being by reason of the affinity between himself and Margaret the leisure, which is not inconsiderable in the life of a County Lewis necessarily illegitimate; that a provision for such children Court Judge, to the labour of bringing down his authorities to the by will differs only in degree and not in its essential nature from present year, incorporating as far as possible the provisions of the a gift by deed ; that a testator sitting down to provide for future Judicature Act, it will be understood that the work is one of great concubinage and its probable results, must be considered as doing present value. We are glad to see a County Court Judge em80 turpi animo, and contemplating-perhaps some extent com. ployed in keeping the world well informed on English law, on the pounding with his own conscience for-a course of conduct which two-fold ground that a Judge will probably take more pains with if he chooses to contemplate, the law will not, but will do all in his work than members of the Bar, and that his own decisions will its power to discountenance. We hold, however, that where a will benefit by his familiarity with the progress of our jurisprudence. is made in favour of a class of future children, it is a perverse mode Of the scope of the Commentaries we need say nothing. To all of construction to take the death of the testator as a standpoint, who profess 'acquaintance with the English law their plan and and then to read the will as if it had been re-executed or con- execution must be thoroughly familiar. The learned author bas firmed by codicil at the testator's death, and by this process, made one conspicuous alteration, confining.“ Civil Injuries” within ingenious, but as we think wholly unwarranted, to convert a gift the compass of one volume, and commencing the last volume with to a class of future illegitimate children who as such cannot take, “ Crimes”-and in that volume he has placed a table of statutes. into a gift to existing individuals who can.

For certain purposes

In every respect the work is improved, and the present writer can no doubt a will is read as if executed at the death of the testator; say, from practical experience, that for the student and the practhis, however, is not one of them. In order to ascertain the inten- titioner there is no better work published than Stephen's Comtion of the testator as to the objects of his bounty, and the mode mentaries.

[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]


be a desideratum in grirding, and to effect which purpose of producing stitches either to unite or

various contrivances had been adopted, and seve- ornament fabrics, whatever may be the means <By C. Higgixs, Esq., M.A., F.C.S., Barrister-at-Law.) ral, if not many, patents taken out), any patent employed for working such shuttle and needle

taken out for a method of performing the opera. when employed together.By a disclaimer he COMPLETE SPECIFICATION.

tion is substantially confined to that method, and stated, “I do not claim the use in a machine of (Continued from p. 161.)

cannot be extended to other methods obviously several needles and shuttles, nor do I claim any Sellers v. Dickinson. 1850.- Per Pollock, C.J.: different, because they involve some common prin. of the mechanical parts separately of which the The specification should be met with candoar ciple applied to the common object, and may machinery shown in the drawing is composed." and indulgence. Per Rolfe, B.: The court should apparently be described by the same general Held (affirming the judgment of the Court of

Queen's Bench), that the claim was not confined read a specification as a person of ordinary phrase. (11 Ex. 739.) understanding would do, not loosely conjecturing

Booth y. Kennard. 1857.--Action for the into the single application of a shuttle in combina. anything, but, at the same time, not scanning it fringement of a patent for “Improvements in the tion with a needle, as shown in sheet 1, but as if it were a special plea. (5 Ex. 312.)

Manufacture of Gas.” The specification stated extended generally to the application of a shuttle

the invention to “consist in the direct use of with a needle, for attaining the object therein Wallington v. Dale. 1852...The sufficiency of seeds, leaves, flowers, branches, nuts, fruit, and stated. (6 Jur. N. S. 271.) the description of an invention contained in a

other substances and matters containing oil, or Hills v. The London Gas Light Company. 1860. specification is a question for the jury. (7 Ex. oily or resingus matter." The specification also -In a patent for an improved mode of manufac888.) Heath v. Unwin, Ex. Ch.

stated “that the mode of using seed and con- turing gas the plaintiff claimed a mode of purify. 1852. - Coleridge,

structing the apparatus used under this my patent ing gas by means of “hydrated or precipitated C.J., in the course of his judgment, said the in preparing gas may be the same as the apparatus oxides of iron." Held, that this included

only specification, to be perfect , must be taken to used in the ordinary mode of making gas with precipitated

hydrates. Bramwell, B., in deliver. specify impliedly

all the chemical equivalents of coal."" The claim was as follows : "1 claim for ing the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, said: those chemical means expressly stated for pro

The next objection was that the plaintiff's spe. ducing the promised result, which were at the making gas direct from seeds and matter herein time of specifying known to ordinarily skilled named for practical illuminations or other useful cification was insnfficient on this ground. He chemists or to the patentee himself; the latter of purposes, instead of making it from the oils, says: 'I use the hydrated or precipitated oxides. these seems to me to be as necessary'as the former. resins, or gums, previously extracted from such It was said that included all hydrated oxides, and

substances." A previous patentee had, by his inasmuch as some of the natural hydrated oxides If the inventor of an alleged discovery, knowing specification, proposed, for the manufacture of would not do, the plaintiff's specification was bad.

, could by the disclosure of one preclude the public gas, to ase fatty substances, such as greaves or Now, that question turns upon this : If the plaintiff from the benefit of the other, he might for his own expressed from seeds, such as oil cake ; also beech it is open to that objection; but if he means only

graves; also the residuum after the oil had been in his specification means all the hydrated oxides, profit force upon the public an expensive and difficult process, keeping back the simple and nuts, mast, cocoa nuts, and other matters abound. those hydrated oxides which are also precipitated, cheap one, which would be directly contrary to ing in oil, and he proposed to use these substances that is, the artificial hydrated oxides—it is not the good faith required from every patentee in his separately and in combination, Held, first, upon open to that objection. It may be said that the communication with the public.' Alderson, B.,

the authority of Bush v. Fox, that as the want of language is in any sense ungrammatical, and that said: “Every specification is to be read as if clearly from the two specifications in evidence, it cannot be right. To say, The works of Shake.

novelty in the plaintiff's invention appeared hydrated or precipitated--the whole or the partby persons acquainted with the general facts of the mechanical or chemical sciences involved in mine the identity of the

two supposed inventions. viously be an inaccuracy, which cannot be judged

was for the court, and not for the jury, to deter- speare, or Hamlet and King Lear,' would obsuch invention. Thus, if a particular mechanical process is specified, and there are for some parts Secondly, that the claim, being merely for making by the ordinary rules of grammar, and therefore

gas direct from seeds and matter stated in the we must endeavour to find out the proper mean. of it as specified, other well-known mechanical equi. specification, without reference to any method of ing of this inaccurate expression. valents, the specification of those parts is in truth doing it, was too large and general

, and could not us, apon looking at the specification, that the

It appears to a specification of the well-known equivalent also, be supported. (2 H. & N. 84; 26'L. J. N.S., Ex. plaintiff uses those equivalent expressions, be; to those to whose general knowledge we refer, namely, mechanics, and readers of specifications ; 305.)

cause he says hydrated or precipitated,' and and so it is with chemical equivalents also in a

Thomas v. Foxwell. 1858.-Lord Campbell, C.J., that oxide of iron may be conveniently prepared specification which is to be read by chemists. But in delivering the judgment of the Court of Queen's for these purposes, and

so on; and therefore it is

obvious that when he uses that word hydrated, it may be that there are equivalents, mechanical. Bench, said: “We by no means lay down, as a and chemical, existing, but previously unknown general rule, that upon a question of novelty of he uses it as synonymous with precipitated to ordinary skilful mechanics and chemists. These invention such as this, raised by the comparison and consequently, when he speaks of using are not included in the specification, but must be of two specifications, it must necessarily be a hydrated or precipitated oxides, he means' such

Upon expressly stated there. (2 Web. P. C. 243, 245.)

pare question of law for the court. The specifi- hydrated oxides as are precipitated."

cations may contain expressions of art and com. the comparison of two specifications, the same Crogsley v. Potter. N: P. 1853. - Pollock, merce, upon which experts must be examined, learned judge says : " We hold that there C.B. said: “This patent is taken out for the and there may be conflicting evidence raising a are certain cases in which, upon the mere collo. making of coach lace, carpets, velvets, and vel. question of fact to be determined by the jury. cation of the two specifications, or the speci. veteens of all sorts, and it must be competent to But it is quite clear that there may be cases in fication of a patent and a previous written docu. do all and every part of that work, by the means which the court would be bound to decide the ment, the court may say that the patentee has stated in the specification, otherwise the patent question of novelty exclusively; for the two been anticipated. Undoubtedly that is so; the is not good. A patent for an invention specifications might be, in ipsissimis verbis, the process may be described in identically the same which is merely to obstruct every subsequent same; and if they be in such plain and common words, or, if there be a variety in the words, there improvement, which is to step in and prevent the language that the judge is sure he understands may be no variety in the process. Probably it exercise of the ingenuity of mankind and the their meaning, he is bound to construe them as he will be found that in the case of what are called introduction of other inventions adapted to the does other written documents. (5 Jur. N.S. 38.). mechanical patents, the court can do so more particular subject to which the invention may be Lister v. Leather. 1858.- A patent for a com- readily than in the case of chemical patents, or in applicable-a patent which has for its object to bination is not a claim that each part thereof is other cases where the invention depends on what snatch and grasp at everything in all directions new : (8 E. & B. 1004; 3 Jur. N. S. 811.) Affirmed may be called the occult qualities of matter, those which may possibly come within the general lan-on appeal to the Exchequer Chamber. Held, also, in fact which are not the subject of popular know. guage the patentee may choose to adopt in his that a patent is a patent for a combination, if a ledge. (5 H. & N. 363, 368; 29 L. J., N. S., specification-a patent, the object of which is, combination is distinctly stated in the specifica- 421, 424., Ex.) not to benefit the world by its communication, tion to be a part of the invention, although the but to obstruct, by the very general character of combination is not expressly claimed; for a the claims made for conferring peculiar privi. claim is not an essential to a specification, or SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. leges on the patentee; such a patent as that, in necessary for the protection of the invention. my judgment, cannot be supported. :::· The Nor is it necessary to disclaim those matters We are very glad to notice that in addition safest course for patentees to adopt in framing which manifestly form no part of the invention : to those solicitors who sat in the Commons their specifications is, instead of including every. (8 E. & B. 1004; 27 L. J., N. S., 295, Q. B..). House of Parliament last session, and who again thing, to confine themselves specifically to one The Patent Type Founding Company v. good thing, and a jury will always take care that Richards.

seek re-election, two others are seeking election

Ch. 1859. — The specification of an if that be a real invention, no man, under colour invention, which consists in the use

at the approaching Parliamentary contests. Even

known now it is not too late for others to take the field of improvement, shall be allowed to interfere materials in new proportions, is not necessarily in some of those small constituencies in which 2 with that which is the offspring of their genius.” bad for uncertainty, though the patentee does not candidato appearing upon the

at the (Macrory's P. C. 239.)

limit himself to the precise proportions recom- eleventh hour has, almost as much to his own Hastings v. Brown. 1853.—A specification in a mended. The patentee is bound, according to the surprise as that of his supporters, found himself patent, for a particular construction of wind- authorities, to state what he considers the best successful. None better than solicitors know that lasses, stated that the object was to hold, with proportions. A specification stated in substance, if they can only secure a fair representation in out slipping, a chain cable of any size.” Before that the usual practice in the manufacture of type the House of Commons, the many ills that their the date of the patent constructions were known was to employ lead and antimony, and in some branch of the Profession is heir to will speedily by which a windlass might be made to hold a cases to add a small per centage of tin; that the cease to be, and we shall hear no more of the meek. single chain cable of any assigned size. Held, object of the invention was to obtain tougher ness with which they have endured their exclusion that the specification did not unequivocally show metal by employing tin in large proportions with from judicial ofices, their subordination to the that the object was to construct a single windlass antimony, greatly reducing or wholly omitting the other branch, and their exile from the dignity of which might hold different chain cables, whatever use of lead; that the best proportions were and the most solid rewards in connection with the their size, and that such a windlass was therefore seventy-five of tin and twenty-five of antimony, legal profession. not protected by the patent. (1 E. & B. 450 ; 22 but that this might be, to some extent, varied L. J. Q. B. 161.)

and that, if lead were used, it must not exceed The following lectures and classes are appointed Bush v. Fox, H. L. 1856.-In an action for an fifty per cent. of the whole, one part of antimony for the ensuing week, at the Law Institution, for alleged infringement of a patent, where the defence to three of tin, or tin and lead, being the best. the instruction of students seeking admission on is that the supposed invention is not new, the Held, on demurrer, that the specification was not the Roll of Attorneys and Solicitors : Monday, judge may compare the plaintiff's specification bad on the face of it for uncertainty, and that the 2nd Feb., class, 4.30 to 6 p.m., Conveyancing; with the specification of a previous patent, and evidence of persons acquainted with the usual Tuesday and Wednesday, ditto ; Friday, 6th Feb., may on such comparison direct the jury to find a modes of manufacture was necessary to determine lecture, 6 to 7 p.m. To prevent interruption at verdict. (5 H. L. C. 707 ; Macrory's P.C. 183.) whether the invention was stated with sufficient lectures, subscribers are not admitted to the hall

Bovill v. Pimen. 1856.–Pollock, C.B., in the precision. (1 John Rep. 381; 6 Jur. N. S. 39.) after lectures have commenced. course of delivering the judgment of the court in Thomas v. Forwell. Ex. Ch. 1859.-The patentee this case, said : It appears to us that where a of a sewing machine, in his specification, claimed subject is not new, as this certainly was not, viz., “the application of a shuttle in combination with On Wednesday, the President and Council of the " the cooling of substances undergoing the pro- a needle, as shown in sheet 1, for forming and Incorporated Law Society dined at their hall in cess of grinding" (which had been long known to ' sewing loops of thread or other substance, for the 'Chancery-lane. Among the guests present were


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Sir Barnes Peacock, Baron Pollock, Baron one evening to meet Mr. Heather, and arrange an done, and the accountant and receiver's charges Amphlett, Mr. Sheriff Johnson, Mr. Joseph amicable adjustment of family differences. Mr. which had been allowed by the court upon affidaBrown, Q.C., and Mr. G. Little, Q.C. The Lord Heather is, however, welcome to the admission of vit and full information had been improperly paid, Mayor, and Mr. Alderman and Sheriff Whetham, the fact that by this time the domestic troubles the order of the Vice-Chancellor, which gave leave who had accepted invitations were prevented from of this unfortunate gentleman, with his wife and to falsify accounts, would have rectified such mis. attending by engagements connected with the two sons, were so bitter that he may be said to take or wrong; but we must still add the mistake, pending election.

have moved between our office and that of Mr. or the wrong, cannot in any way be laid to our

Heather in bewilderment and agony - desiring door, as we fully informed the chief clerk, and A LONDON solicitor, writing to us on the subject wife, and that an end might be put to serious per. charges and the need for the accountant's

work. of the improper advertisements (in relation to the sonal conflicts between himself and his sons.

above all things to recover the affections of his that officer satisfied himself by evidence as to the

We legal Profession) which find their way into newg.

We close this letter, which is made longer papers which it might fairly be expected would say again, emphatically, that more in the capacity than it otherwise would be, because,

unlike Mr. not insert them, observes, “There was a certain of friend than solicitor (for, as several persons Heather, we do not indulge in round' statements, class of advertisement of quack doctors which knew, Mr. Merriman deeply sympathised with Mr. but prefer to appeal to fact and evidence in every used to appear, but which respectable papers listening to sad and distressing details of family

Beall) he spent many anxious hours with him, instance. refuse to insert. They were physically dirty Those

One other circumstance must weigh with all invitations to the Profession which you so often

feuds. Mr. Merriman uniformly advised Mr. reasoning men. The bill was filed 15th Aug. 1871, and properly expose are morally nearly as bad." Beall not to concur in a separation by his wife, Mr. Beall was found lunatic 25th March 1872. The following seems to indicate that this kind of

as there appeared to be no real or sufficient We always expected, and do now hope, that Mr. thing is beyond all question on the increase. ground for it, and it was only in the absence of Beall may regain his liberty, and call upon

us for We take the advertisement from a Surrey news. affairs, that Mr. Powell took his positive instruc- bebalf

. We have no fear of meeting our real Mr. Merriman, who chiefly attended to Mr. Beall's the justification of the course we adopted on his paper :

client. LEGAL ASSISTANCE.-Messrs. P. and V., land agents

tions touching a deed of separation. and accountants, are prepared to carry out and con.

Mr. Heather makes in his letter, as well as in Perhaps Mr. Heather would also like the admisduct liquidations and arrangements with creditors upon

his affidavit and in the petition, slight and pass- sion from us that after the proceedings before the reasonable terms, without publicity; bankruptcy, or ing, not to say contemptuous reference to Mr. police magistrate, when Mr. Beall was sent to the suspension of business, also all actions and executions, Merriman's appearance thrice before the magis. asylum at the instance of his family, Mr. Heather whether in the Superior or County Courts, immediately trate” for Mr. Beall. Your readers will be able was regarded in the light of an adverse

party; stayed by injunction: Chancery, divorce, probate suits; to put a fair construction upon the surrounding that we did not consider his firm wore persons to and common law actions, conducted with dispatch, and County Coutrs attended; wills, leases, assignments,

and underlying circumstances of these three ap. be taken into our confidence, and that we did and agreements prepared; money advanced on mort

pearances. Mr. Heather was there also. Mr. not look upon them as people having a right to gage, reversions, bills of sale, &c., and debts collected Beall dreaded the presence of Mr. Heather, and it control our actions.-Yours obediently, at tive per cent. - Apply to P. and 'V., W.C. is not to be denied that Mr. Heather procured the

MERRIMAN AND POWELL. For the credit of the Profession some means doctors to give medical testimony for locking him ought to be devised for checking the practices of up in an asylum ; while, on the contrary, Mr.

V. C. MALINS' COURT. such persons as the advertisers.

Beall's confidence and reliance were placed in Mr.
Merriman, who struggled hard to prevent his

Monday, Jan. 26.
being sent to the asylum. Mr. Maude, the

THOMSON V. FLYNN. We regret that in a letter from Mr. Heather Merriman contended to the last that Mr. Beall's magistrate, and the two dootors are aware Mr. County Court Equity Jurisdiction-Value of Pro.

perty Exceeding £500--Plaint Dismissedwhich appeared in our last issue on the sub- case was one of temporary mental aberration, or Cause should have been transferred to the Court ject of this case, some intemperate expressions were insanity in its initial, acate, and easily curable of Chancery. used, casting serious reflection upon professional stages. Mr. Beall was removed to Dr. Wood's This case, which was an appeal from the Lambeth gentlemen who had been opposed to him. We Asylum, Mr. Merriman giving in the end only a County Court, had a bearing of some importance inserted the letter as emanating from a solicitor reluctant consent, when Dr. Wood said that he upon à point of County Court practice. The of twenty-eight years' standing, with less regard was far from thinking that Beall's case was an suit was instituted by plaint in the County Court to the phraseology than we should have given to incurable one. Whose visits after that were the for the partition of a house, 22, Camberwell Park. ordinary correspondence, and the objectionable sole indications of human sympathy available to the plaint containing an allegation that the value passages certainly escaped our observation. Mr. this poor man? Mr. Merriman, on Mr. Beall's of the house was under 5001. On the case coming Albert Turner and Mr. White, who are mentioned invitations, was the only person who visited him on for hearing, the defendant's counsel raised å by Mr. Heather, are entitled at our hands to the until these visits were prohibited by the doctor, with preliminary objection to its being heard on the explanation that no reflection was cast upon the concurrence of Mr. Heather and the person ground that the property to which it related them by either Vice-Chancellor Wickens or the who had officiously made himself responsible for exceeded the statutable value, and in support of Lords Justices. We certainly concur with Mr. his maintenance in the asylum-the eldest son and the objection a surveyor was examined and crossTurner that under these circumstances the stric- present committee to his estate. Neither wife, examined who swore that the value was over 5001. tures which were inadvertently admitted into our child (nor of course Mr. Heather), called upon Thereupon the County Court judge found as a columns under Mr. Heather's signature may be him for some time, and this gentleman of con- fact that the property exceeded in value 5001., treated with that indifference which sweeping siderable property was left without simple luxuries and, acting under sect. 14 of the County Court accusations inconsistent with recorded judgments and some common necessaries.

Act, 1867, dismissed the plaint with costs. No deserve. Considering the case of decided import. We may next refer to the charge that “Merri- application was made on the part of the plaintiff ance to the Profession, we treated it elabo. man, Albert Turner, and White then concocted to have the cause transferred to the Court of rately, and found no cause for casting injurious the suit.” What truth there is in this men. Chancery. The plaintiff now appealed. The reflections upon Messrs, Merriman or Mr. A. dacious assertion is shown in an uncontradicted question for the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor Turner and Mr. White, who were concerned with affidavit. Mr. White knew nothing of the suit was whether the County Court judge was at them. Mr. Heather's letter must be taken, there until the bill had been filed. It is fair to Mr. liberty to make the order dismissing the plaint, fore, to be the heated production of an irritated Albert Turner to say that he conferred with us as or whether he was bound, by the prior Act of opponent, and, for our part, we should have been to what was best to be done, and what is called 1865, sect. 9, “ to direct the said suit to be trans. glad had the strong expressions which he used the “concoction” of the suit, was the result of ferred to the Court of Chancery,” it having been not appeared in our columns.

the best thoughts of two conscientions solicitors, ascertained, “during the progress of the ut,” We have received the following communication after advice upon a full and clear statement of that the subject matter exceeded 5001. in value. from Messrs. Merriman and Powell, which we the facts by two equity counsel.

Cotton, Q.C., and P. L. Wilkinson, for the trust may, so far as the Profession is concerned, We do not think it worth while to overlay your appellant, contended that, as the value of the close this correspondence :

columns by any reference to the statements about property exceeded 5001., it was the duty of the SIR, -Although nothing is further from our the next friend. The next friend would have County Court judge, instead of dismissing the wish than to have any personal controversy with been Mr. Dunfee, a friend of twenty years' stand. suit, to have transferred the matter to the Court Mr. Heather, we cannot allow the letter which ing, who had, more than any other living being, of Chancery. The 14th section of the Act of appeared in your last issue to remain unanswered, the coufidence of Mr. Beall, but that gentleman's 1867, which provided that, * whenever an action as there is no single statement which is entirely health was at the time not good, and he suggested or suit is brought in a County Court which the accurate, and several of them are directly opposite that we should find somebody else. We, however, court has no jurisdiction to try, the judge shall to the sworn testimony filed in the Court of fully accept the moral responsibility of the action order the cause to be struck out," was controlled Chancery, upon which perjury might be assigned, taken in this matter, and have all along avowed by sect. 9 of the Act of 1865, which made it but which had not even met with responsible con- that the next friend was asked by us to accept imperative on the judge to direct the cause to be tradiction, that is, by counter affidavit.

that post. His circumstances are, however, ex. transferred. The first allegations of Mr. Heather are a denial travagantly misstated by Mr. Heather, and the Glasse, Q.C., and Cozens Hardy appeared in that we were employed by Mr. Beall in November contradiction of this matter, as on others, is also support of the order of the court below. 1870, and that he never consulted us about undercmbodied in two affidavits which remain unan. The VICE-CHANCELLOR said he had heard taking some complicated matters in which he (Mr. swered.

nothing to raise any doubt that the statement in Heather) was engaged. Our call book, letter It is a remarkable thing that Mr. White was the plaint that the value of the property was books, and cheques show that we did act for him appointed receiver, with the concurrence of Mr. below 5001. was believed by the plaintiff to be at and from that time. The affidavit of Mr. Heather, and that Mr. Heather's son and partner true; but on the plaint coming on for hearing a Dupfee, a friend, who had known him twenty who attended the sale of the stock, admitted, as witness was called who swore that the value years, and a former client of ours, shows that Mr. was the fact, that an unusually good sale had been was above 5001., and on that evidence tho Beall came to us because he was dissatisfied with effected.

learned County Court judge came to the con. Mr. Heather. Mr. Merriman's affidavit states Mr. Heather is just as inaccurate in his figures clusion that it was in fact worth more than that Mr. Beall did propose to remove his general as other things. The sum which we have tem. 500l. It was therefore clear that his jurisdiction business from Mr. Heather, but from a general | porarily to find, is a heavy one, but it does not was at an end. Then the question arose, What was dislike to take business away from another nearly reach £1000, as he states. Whatever his proper course to take? The Vice-Chancellor solicitor's office, he declined to do so. We may the costs of winding-up the estate may have been, was clearly of opinion that an application ought to add that letters addressed to us by our unfortunate we are at all events not property responsible for have been made on the part of the plaintiff to the client since his incarceration up to a very recent their amount. The suit has been held by the County Court judge, under sect. 9 of the Act of date, betray a strong aversion to Mr, Heather, and Vice-Chancellor and Lords Justices to have been 1865, to transfer the suit to this court; but that a belief rightly or wrongly that that gentleman properly commenced, and it was indeed the only was not done. The case was similar to that of had not acted properly by him.

mode in which the property of Mr. Beall could be Birks v. Silverwood, before him in 1872 (L. Rep. The statement that we were not instructed with protected from utter waste. Our own costs, for 14, Eq. 101), when he decided that the County reference to his unhappy family differences is which we are willing to be held accountable, were Court judge, having, during the progress of the further contradicted by the affidavit of Mr. Powell, £207 65.5d. But again what need, on this account, snit, ascertained that the value of the property who during Mr. Merriman's absence on business of an appeal from the late Wickens, V.C.'s deci. was over £500, and having, accordingly, directed in Paris went down in obedience to an urgent sion ? If the manager or clerk of Mr. Beall's the suit to be transferred to this court, had per. message, to Mr. Beall's residence, at Sydenham,' business received £50 more than he ought to have' formed his duty in so doing. But it had been

[ocr errors]

contended by Mr. Glasse that the 14th sect. of the TRADERS' CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION (Limited). Creditors JAMIESON (Andrew), formerly of Great Winchester-street,

to send in by Feb. 17 their names and addresses and the London, and of Tower-buildings. North Chapel.street Act of 1867 was not referred to in that case, and

particulars of their claims and the names and

addresses of Liverpool, merchant, late of 18. Gloncester-egnare, Hyde that, if it had been, he would have come to a dif. their solicitors, if any, to F. B. Smart, 85, Cheapside, Lon. park, Middlesex, Esq. May 1; Hunter, Gvatkin and Co. ferent conclusion. It was true that he was not

don, the official liquidator of the said company. March solicitors, 9, New-square, Lincoln's-in, Middlesex.

3; at the chambers of the M. R. 11.30 o'clock, at the said KING (Christopher), Leeds, boot and shoemaker. April 1; referred to that section, and if, on now referring

chambers, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudi. 0. Tempest, solicitor, 10, Albion-street, Leeds. to it, he thought that that decision was wrong, he cating upon such claims.

LISBURNE (Right Hon. Ernest A., Earl of), Crosswood,

Llanafon.y.ITAwscoed, Cardigan. Feb. 28; Tatham and shonld not hesitate to say so. Now, what was the

Co., solicitora, 86, Lincoln's-inn-felds, Middlesex. object of the Act of 1867 ? The 34th section CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. MINTER Sophia), formerly of 61. Balls Pand-road, Isling. enacted that that Act, and the several Acts there


ton, but late of 81, Essex-road, Ixlington, Middlesex, mentioned, including the Act of 1865, should be ALSTON (David T.). Cheyrey Rock, Sheppey, Kent, oyster

widow. Feb. 26; A. C. Cronin, solicitor, 3, Bloomsburgand coal morchant. Feb. 20; Wm. Clarke, solicitor, 66, square, London,

What was the construed together as one Act.

Gresham House, Old Broad-street, London, March 2.

MAUGHAN (Wm. K.), Laura-placo, Lower Clapton, Middlemeaning of the words in sect. 144"Whenever an V. C. M., at 12 o'clock.

sex, gentleman. March 1; R. S. Gregson, solicitor, action or suit is brought in a County Court which


(John T.). 19, Victoria-park, Dover, E:9., a colonel in Angol.conrt, Throgmortod-street, Londou. the Bombay Stati Corps of H.M's Army. Feb. 23 ; Barnes

O'BRIEN (Hon. Emma, Bintherwicke-park, Northampton, the court has no jurisdiction to try”? They re. and Bernard, solicitors, ll, Great Winchester-street.

widow. March 13; Rickards and Walker, solicitors, su, ferred to actions for distress, assault, seduction,

London. March 5; V.O. H., at one o'clock.

Lincoln's-inn-fields, Middlesex.

OXSLOW (Jas.), Bury-street, Birmingham, carter. Feb. 10; and others, which might be brought in the superior BIGG Elen E.), Hyde, Slaugham, Sussex, spinster. March

*; Prior, Bigs, and Co., solicitors, 61, Lincoln's-inn-fields,

Coleman and Coleman, soicitors, 27, Colmore-row, Bir: courts, but not in the County Court. If an action London. March 16; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock,


SIMMANCE (Jos.), Melbourne, Cambridge, publican and of that class were brought in the County Court, BUCHANAN (Rev. Alexander H.). Hales Hall, Drayton, Staf. the judge would order the proceedings to be

ford. Feb. 23 ; 0. Lucas, solicitor, 50, Fenchurch-street,

farmer, March 12; Hale Wortham, solicitor, Boyston, London, March 9; M.R., at eleven o'clock.

Herts. stayed, and the person filing the plaint would BURTON (Richard C. F.), Captain in H.M.': 83rd Rogiment SMITA (Chas.)., Arundel-street, Sheffield, tinner and have to pay the costs of them.

brazier. March 7: Watson and Esam, solicitori, 29, If he were to say

of Foot, late of Willington Manor, near Bedford. Feb.
28; F. Lamb, solicitor. 35, Bedford-row, London; March

Bank-street, Sheffield. that in any case where a person,

in the absence of
14; V.0. H., at twelve o'clock.

SMITH (Emma), 37, Chester-square, Middlesex, spinster, any mala fides, filed a plaint stating that he ColebY (Wm.), Prince of Orange Hotel. Gravesend. Kent,

March 31; T. W. Nelsun, solicitor, 6, Lawrence Pountnes. vorily believed that the property the subject of it

licensed victualler. Feb. 23;, E. J. Layton, solicitor, -.

lane, London. Suffolk-lane, Cannon-street, London. March3; V.C.M.,

SOULE (Rov. Israel M.), St. John's-hill, Battersea, Surrey. was worth less than £500, the County Court judge at noon.

March :1; J. B. Batten, solicitor, 32, Great George-street, was at liberty to dismiss the plaint because some COLYER (Edward), Forest Hill, Surrey, gentleman. Feb.


19; 8. G. Ratcliff, solicitor, 3, St. Michael's-alley, Corn. SUTHERLAND (Charlotte), formerly of 19, Pelham-street, person came forward to say, perhaps, that the

hill, London.

Fulham-rd, Middlesex, late of 11. James-street, Larkball. property was worth £501, it would be inflicting a DUKE (Sir Jas.). Laughton Lodge, Laughton, Sussex, and lane, Clapham, Surrey, widow. Feb. 28; Shepheard and great hardship on the poorer class of persons, for 72, Portland-place, Middlesex, Bart Feb. 93; J. Pon. Sons, solicitors, 32, Finsbury-circus, London.

SWINGLER titex, solicitor, St. Andrew's-street, Holborn-circus, Lon.

(Thos.). Douglas whose benefit the County Court Acts were passed.

House, Litchurch, near don. March 4; V.O. H., at one o'clock.

Derby, ironmaster, manufacturer of' bar iron, railway The 9th section of the Act of 1865, and the 14th FLEWKER (John J.), formerly of Derby, late of Dawlish, engineer and cool master. March 25; Henry Swingler, section of the Act of 1867, must be taken as standing gentlemen., Feb. 28; Pearson and Whidborne, solicitors,

The Laurels, Duffield road, Derby.
Dawlish. March 7; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock.

SWINNERTON (Robert), Weddington, near Nuneaton, together, and he read the 9th section in the same

farmer and timber merchant. Feb. 28; C. Buchanan, HOOPER (John), 35, Elsham-road, and 14, Argyll-street, way as he did in Birks v. Silverwood, and just as

solicitor, Nuneaton.

Middlesex, gentleman. Feb. 20; G. Ford, solicitor, 8, if he had then been referred to the 14th section

TAYLOR (Rev. Henry J.), heretofore of Dalverton, Somerset, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London, Feb. 27; V.O. M., at twelve o'clock.

late of Boauchamp, Washfield, near Tiverton, Doron, namely, that though it did not appear in the plaint, HULUB (Samuel). Cheadle Hulme, Chester, timber mer.

clerk. Feb. 13; C. E. Rowclitfe, solicitor, Scogumber,

Somerset. yet it did appear upon the suit coming on for hear.

chant. Feb. 28; Mr. Edwin H. Boothroyd, solicitor, ing that the value of the property was over £500, Jates John),

Wrington, Somerset, solicitor. Feb; 16;
Stockport. March 16; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock.

THACKWRAY (Esther), formerly of Harrowgate, York, late

of ii, Oxford-terrace, Hyde-park, Middlesex, spinster, it wonld thus appear “ during the progress of the

Chas. J. Simmons, solicitor, Wrington.

March 2;

March 1; F. and T. Smith and Sons, solicitors, 15, Fure suit" within the meaning of the 9th section. He V.C. H., at twelve o'clock.

nival's-inn, London,

Tilden, (Joha. Ifield Court, Kent, Esq. March 16; E. was therefore of opinion that the County Court Lucas (Jane, Eastbourne, Sasser: widow. Fob. 28; J.

Wasden, solicitor, Bardon, March 10; V.C. B.. at twolve

Woodard, solicitor, 2, Ingram-court, Fenchurch-street,

London. judge, instead of dismissing the suit, ought to o'clock.

TODD Matthew), South Gate, Sunderland, gentleman. have transferred it to this court; and if Birks v. NETHERSOLE (Wm. A.), Kingston, Jamaica, merchant.

March 16; Snowball and Allison, solicitors, 1 Nile-stroet, Silverwoord had been cited to him, no doubt ho

April 91; Shaen and Co., solicitors, S, Bedford-row, Hol.


born, Middlesex. May 5; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. would have so transferred it. There must, there. R13 NG' (Wm.), Martham House, Norfolk, Esq. Feb. 24;

Wilcox (Zebedeo), 218, Whitechapel-road, Middieees, soda fore, be an order discharging the order of the Wm. R. Cooper, solic tor, Upper K ng street, Norwich.

water manufacturer. Feb. 21; G. Magor Couke, solicitor,

9, Gray's-inn-square, Middlesex.

March 21: M.R., at twelve o'clock. court below, and substituting for it an order WILKINSON (Holen), Mawdesley, Lancaster, spinster. Feb.

WORRALL (Samuel), formerly of 47, Conduit-street, late of transferring the cause to this court. As the mis- 27; Wm. Banks, solicitor, Preston, March 13; M.R., at

28, Albion-street, Middlesex, Esq. March 23; Osborne

and Co., solicitors, 41, Broad-street, Bristol. carriage had occurred through the attention of

hall-past eleven o'clock.

YATES (Geo.l. Pritchett-street., Birmingham, and 43, the County Court judge not having been called to

Monument-lane, Edgbaston, electro-plater. March 2;

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT, c. 35. the case of Birks v. Silverwood, he should give no

Whateley and Co., solicitors, 41, Waterloo-street, Bir.

minghan. costs of the appeal.

Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent.

ALKIN (Ann), North-street, Atherstone, Warwick, spinster.
Feb. 10; Radford and Son, solicitors, Atherstone.

ALLAX or WYLLIE (Helen), formerly of 1, Carlton-terrace,

Edinburgh, afterwards of 1, Ashford-yilla, Cheltenham, [Transferre i to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the late or 37, Belsize-park-gardens, South Hampstead, Mid

Wednesday, Jan. 21. National Deot, and which will be paid to the persons dlesex, widow. May 1; J. W. and J. Mackenzie, solici.

By Mr. H. E. MORRELL, at the Mart. respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three tors, 16, Royal-circus, Edinburgh, or to A. G. Moncreiff Brunswick-square-No. 7. term 18 years--sold for £350, months, unless other claimants sooner appear.)

Grahame, sviicitor, 30, Great George-street, Westminster, Marylebone-No. 32, Beauinont street, term 16 years-sola KIMPTON Joseph). Jun., gentleman, and K13 PTON (Jag. Middlesex.

for 2 100, Arthur), a minor, both of Lower Sussex-place, Old Keut. ALLEN (Thos.), 2, Fortess-terrace, Kentish Town, Middle- Kensington-No. 7, Pembroke-square, term 48 years-sold road, London, £!02 03.31. New Threu per Cent. Annuities. sex, bricklayer. Feb. 14; Rooks, Kenrick, and Co., for L15. Claimant, said Arthur Kimpton, now of age, the surv.vor. solicitors, 16, King-street, Cheapside, London.

Euston-square-Seymour-street, an improved rent of £60 AU:TEX Major-General Albert G.), R.A., 4. Victoria street, per annum, term 16 years-sold for €300. HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN,

Westminster. Feb. 23; A. F. and R. W. Tweedie, Doctors' Commons-I'he lease of No. 6, Godliman-street, CLAIR (Sir Michael Benignas), who was born in the year solicitors, 3, Lincoln's.inn-fields, London,

term 8 years-sold for £175. 1777, at Maidford, Northainptonshire, and who resided in BELL (Rev. Wm.), 4, Tynemouth-terrace, St. Aubin's-road, Upper Holloway-No.11, Brunswick-road, term 70 yearsJarnaica where he practised as physician-general). and St. Helier's. Island of Jersey. March 1; Peacock and sold ior £150. then of London, and subsequently and at the time of his Goddard, solicitors, 3, South-square, Grey's-inn, Middle

Thursday, Jan. 22. death in Cromarty, Scotland. Next of kin to come in by

By Messrs. NEWBOX and HARDING, at the Mart. March 9, at the chambers of V.C. B. March 23, at the Boulter (Benjamin), 1, Stanley-terrace, Upper Holloway, Clerkenwell-Nos. 7 to 11, and Nos. 26 to 29, Thomas-street, said chambers at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for Middlesex, gentleman. March 25; J. M. Millin, solicitor, term 36 years-sold for £1310. hearing and adjudicating upon such claims.

39, Bloombury-square, London. EDMETT (Thos.), Arreton House, Maidstone, Kent, gentle. Burtos (Llward), Monument-place, Kerdal, Westmore.

Wednesday, Jan. 28. man. Next of kin to come in by March 1, at the chau- land, auctioneer, March 1; R. F. Thompson, solicitor, By Messrs. Edwin Fox and BoUSFIELD, at the Mart. bers of V.C. H. March 9, at the said chambers, at twelve Highgate, Kendal.

Holborn-No. 10, Ely-place, freeehold-sold for £3350. o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating BUSFIELD (Joha), Lexrains dane, Horton, Bradford, March Mitre-court-The Mitre Wine Vaults, freebold-sold foz upon such claims. 1; J. Green, solicitor, 2, Aldermanbury.

£2050. NETHERSOLE (Wm. Austin), Kingston, Jamaica, widow. COEEMAN (Ann D.), 22, Richmond-place, Brighton, Sussex,

The freehold house, situate in Mitre-court-sold for £$30. Next of kin to come in by April 21, at the chambers of widow. March 2; Thos. King and Son, solicitors, 31,

Ely Chapel, comprising an area of 4100ft., freehold-sold foz V.C. H. May 5, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock, Richmond-place, Brighton.

152.50 is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon Collins (Jas.), Frederick-street, Birmingham, silversmith. The Ely Mews, arca 6000ft., freehold--sold for £3050. such claims.

March 10; W. J. Burman, Solicitor, 19, Cannon street,

Nos, 22, 23, and 29, Ely-place. freehold-sold for £8520. Biriningham.

Stepner-No.71, Jubilee.street, term 27 years-sold for £990). APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK CURTIS (Augusta). Sion.row, Twickenham, Middlesex.

Commercial-road-No. 35, Portland-street, term 25 yearsWINDING UP ACTS.

sold for 2253. spinster. Feb. 20; J. McMillin, solicitor, s9, Blooms. BRAGANZA GOLD MINING COMPANY (LIMITED).-Creditors bury.square, London,

Stepney-No. 3, High-street, term 46 years--sold for 1215. to send in by March 30 their names and addresses, and Dixon (Ann. Cedar Lawn, Grappenhall, Chester, widow. the particulars of their claims, and the names and March 20; Marsh, Buckton, and Jeans, solicitors, War

dresses of their solicitors (if any), to A. A. Broad, 85, ringtoa.
Wullbrook, London, the official liquidator of the said FISHER (Robert), Finsbury Pantechnicon, Finsbury-place.

COI3ny. April 17, at the chambers of the M. R., at Middlesex, and 24, Aberdeen Park, Highbury, upholsterer.
eteren o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and March 25, J.C. Gant, solicitor, 38, Walbrook, London.
adjudicating upon such claims.

FLETCHER Alexander), Major in the 12th Lancers, and of GIAIN PEDROS MINING COMPANY (LIMITED).--Creditors to 2, H wick-place, Westminster. Feb. l; Major Jary, of

THE TAUNTON ELECTION PETITION. send in by Feb, 18 their names and addresses, and the Battlosdeu Park, Beds; or to G. W. Quallett. 10, New In giving judgment on this case on Monday last, particular of their claims, and the names and addresses Bond-street, London. of their solicitors (if any), to Ashurst, Morris, and Co., 6, FORD (Matthew), 8, Lincoln's Inn-fields, and 9, Keppel. Grove, J., having, stated that the respondent Old Jewry, London, the official liquidators of the said street, Middlesex, and of 58, Marine-parade, Brighton, was charged with bribery and treating by him. compnay, March 1, at the chambers of V.O. B., at tsvelve Esq. March :1 ; Wharton and Ford, solicitors, 8, Lin. self and his agents, and that there was also an o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicat. coln's-inn-fields, Middlesex, inr apon such claims.

FOUNTAIN (Nathaniel), 1, Endsleigh-street, St. Pancras, imputation of general bribery and treating, proLA GAULOISE (LIMITED).-Creditors to send in by Feb. 16 Middlesex, Esq. Feb.23 ; Me-srs. Hillearys, solicitors, 5. ceeded to give the following judgment :-In so far

their names and addresses, and the particulars of their Fenchurch-buildings, Fenchurch.street, London, claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if FREDERICK (Sir Richard, Burwood-park, Surtes, and of spondent himself, the learned counsel for the

as relates to bribery and treating by the reany), to Alfred de Lavigerie and Lewis, 1, Mansion House

Feb. 20; Baker, buildings, Queen Victorin-street, London, the liquidators Folder, and Upperton, solicitors, 52, Lincoln's Inn-fields, petitioners, at the close of his opening speech, of the said company. Feb. -, at the chambers of the Middlesex. M. R.

GARNETT (Thos.), Kendal, Westmoreland, chemist and admitted that there were no proper grounds for MILLS (GEORGE) AND Co. (LIMITED).-Creditors to send in, druggist. Feb. 25 ; Joseph Swainson, 'jun., solicitor, making any personal imputation. On this head hy Feb 28, their names and a dresses, and the particulars

Kendal. of their claims, and the names and addresses of their HARMONY (Manuel x.): New York, U.S.A., merchant. this inquiry to derogate in the slightest degree

I may at once say that nothing has transpired in enlicitors (if any) to J. Tanker and Newbould, Sheffield,

March 31 Jas. B. Batten, solicitor, 32, Great George from the high character the respondent has the liquidators of the snid company, to come and prove street, Westminster, their said claims at the chambers of the M.R.

HODGKINSON (Chas.), West Bromwich, QUEEN SILVER AND COPPER MINING COMPANY (LIMITED).- March 10: w. John Burman, solicitor, 19, Cannon-street, General ought to bear. With regard to general

pawnbroker. always borne, and which her Majesty's Attorney; Creditors to send in, by Feb.2, their names and addresses, Birmingham. and the particulars of their claims, and the names and HOLL (Edwd. H.). Bushey-heath, Hertford, gentleman. bribery and treating, and corruption, so as to

Feb. 19; Robinson and Co., solicitors, 18, Charter-house- taint the whole constituency, and thus render the 6, Ford Park, Mutley, near Plymouth, the liquidator of

square, London. the said company.

Howes (Sarah), Cookham Dean, Maidenhead, Berks, election void, the point was scarcely pressed in SANDHILL FIREBRICK, TILE, AND CLAY COMPANY (LIMITED). widow. March 1; Barker and Ellis, solicitors, '15, Bed the reply of the counsel for the petitioners, and I

-Creditors to send in by Feb. 20, their names and ford-row, London.
adelresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the IxGLEBY (Rev. Charles), Wood-bank, Cheadle, Stafford

am of opinion that no such general corruption names and addresses of their solicitors if any) to Thos. clerk. March 31; G. P. Wragge, solicitor, 4, Bennett's. was proved in this case. Undoubtedly painful W. Greenfield, Tavistock, Devon, the official liquidator of hill, . the said company. March 6, at the chambers of the M. R., Josis

(Edwd. 135, Leadenhall-street, and 1: Canonbury: the constituency, small with reference to the

disclosures were made, applying to a portion of is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon

place South, London, 10; such claims, Cooper, solici.or, 81, Guilford-street, Middlesex,

whole body, but not absolutely inconsiderable,


which showed by the mere exhibition of the wito | the magistrate committed for trial or not, it is the General has argued that the decision would apply Desses themselves, that there was a certain nom. duty of the coroner to hold an inquest whenever a to every case throughout the country-I quite ber of voters, who, for a small bribe or a small case of suspicious death occurs, and to inquire agree with him, and I am not afraid to take that supply of drink, would promise their votes to whether any person or persons were chargeable view of it. I have not any doubt that, in every either candidate-whether they would keep their with the death of the decased. If a crime is com proper case in which the law officers of the Crown promise is another question--and some of whom mitted, and the party by whom it was alleged to should think it right to do so, they would, them. had reached the lowest stage of degradation, that have been committed flies from justice, the police selves, take measures to have a prisoner brought they gloried in their shame. I see no reason, are informed by the authorities of the transaction, before the coroners' courts. I am quite sure that, however for coming to the conclusion that exten. a warrant is issued, the police are properly called in this particular case, if the Solicitor-General sive bribery or corruption prevailed at the elec. into requisition, and the accused is intercepted considered it right, he would have advised that tion. I come now to the point upon which the and made amenable to justice. The real question the present application should be made at the ex. great contest in this case arose. Did the respon. is, whether a short, summary mode should not be pense of the Crown. In cases in which the Crown dent not by himself or by any conscious autho- adopted, either with the consent of the Attorney. would not make such an application, it would rity, but by the hands of an agent or agents for General, or by & warrant issued by the magis. have to be made at the risk and expense of the whom he is responsible, so bribe or treat that trates, or otherwise, by which an accused person, prisoner, and if I should order the writ in the this election must be declared void ? The law of when it happens that he or she is in custody on a present case it would be issued at the expense of agency, as applied to election petitions, has been magistrate's warrant, could be conveyed before the party accused. Generally speaking, the very sufficiently expressed by different learned judges, the coroner's court, where such a course is proper last place in which persons desire to be is in a some of whom have likened it to the relation of and desirable. One of the grounds on which the coroner's court-it is the place they moet wish to master and servant, and another to the employer present application has been made is similar to avoid, and if the police would allow them they of persons to run a race for him; but no exact that which was relied on in Reardon's case, would keep out of it altogether. So that I do not definition, meeting all cases, has, as far as I am upon which I have explained my views. In think it likely to be a matter of frequent occur. aware, been given. Two learned judges—the late dealing with this application, I must entirely rence that persons would incur the expense of an Mr. Justice Willes and Mr. Justice Black. exclude from consideration what took place before application for a habeas corpus for the mere burn-have pointed out the difficulties of ar. the magistrate. If I were to determine that the pleasure of being present at a coroner's inquiry. riving at one. All agree that the relation is jurisdiction of the coroner could, in the slightest In country cases the expense of transmission, also, not the common law one of principal and agent, degree, be affected by the proceedings before the would have to be borne by the party seeking the but that the candidate may be responsible for the magistrate, it would have a tendency to raise an writ. Therefore, I do not think that there could acts of one acting on his behalf, though the acts unseemly conflict, and to cause, as it were, a rush be any danger of abuse resulting from the decision be beyond the scope of the authority given, or, between two jurisdictions to determine which of which I am about pronouncing. It appears to me, indeed, in violation of express injunction. So far them should have the charge of a case. Besides, apon two grounds, that the present case comes 88 regards the present case, I am of opinion that I cannot in this case hold that the inquiry of the within Reardon's case. First, it is a case where to establish agency for which the candidate would magistrates has closed. The magistrate has re- the attorney swears in his affidavit that he is ad. be responsible he must be proved by himself or manded the prisoner, but, though he might have vised to tender this woman as a witness. by his authorised agent, to have employed the been prepared to pronounce judgment on the last The Solicitor-General.--He does not swear that, persons whose conduct is impugned, to act on his day, it is still quite open to him, on the next day, or that he intends to examine her. He says, "I behalf, or to have to some extent put himself in to hear fresh evidence on the part either of the am advised, and myself verily believe, that the their hands, or to have made common cause with prosecution or of the accused, and to alter the presence of the said Anne Wyndfor Marshall will them for the purpose of promoting his election. opinion he had entertained. It is not for me to be necessary at the coroner's inquest.” To what extent such relation may be sufficient to say, should the prisoner be tendered as a witness Byrne.-In order that the prisoner may be ten. fix the candidate must, it seems to me, be a ques. before the coroner, whether he should or should dered as a witness. tion of degree and of evidence to be judged of by not refuse to receive her evidence, nor is it for FITZGERALD, J.-Even upon the statement the election petition tribunal. Mere non-inter. me to inquire with what object she might be contained in the affidavit, I would feel great diffiference with persons who, feeling interested in the tendered as a witness before the coroner. It cults in refusing the application; and I have success of the candidate, may act in support of is open to her advisers, should they think fit, already expressed the opinion, in this and other his canvass, is not sufficient, in my judgment, to to tonder her before the coroner as a witness, criminal cases, that it would be the proper course saddle the candidate with any unlawful acts of and I cannot say, if her evidence is offered, that it to enable a prisoner to have the option of tender. theirs of which the tribunal is satisfied he or his will not be material. I, for one, have long enter; ing herself or himself to be examined ; and I also anthorised agent is ignorant. It would be vain tained the opinion, and have repeatedly expressed think that the special circumstances of this case to attempt an exhaustive definition, and possibly it from the bench, that, at the final trial before render it advisable that the prisoner should be exception may be taken to the approximate limi. the judge and petty jury, prisoners should be present. Her presence might aid in the administation which I have endeavoured to express. It allowed to tender themselves and be received as tration of justice, in enabling the coroner's jury must also be burne in mind in these cases that, witnesses, if they so desired it. I believe that to find not merely a verdict--for I do not narrow although the object of the statute by which the there is a great defect in the law as it stands at the administration of justice in the coroner's tribunal of election judges was created was to pre- present, and I think that an alteration in the law court to that-but a true verdict, whatever Fent corrupt practices, still the tribunal is & to that effect should be made, as it would be most that verdict might be. It is not a judicial and not an inquisitorial one. It is a court conducive to the due administration of criminal resting upon direct evidence of the crime to hear and determine according to law, and not justice. The adviser of the prisoner has sworn having been actually seen committed; the evi. a commission armed with powers to inquire into that it would be necessary for the prisoner to be dence is circumstantial, and it is one of those and suppress corruption. Without expressing my present at the inquest before the coroner, in order cases in which it is desirable that the party self in equally strong terms with Baron Martin in that she might be tendered as a witness; and I accused should be present at the inquest. I the Wigan case, I am of opinion that the evidence must treat the application with that view as bona therefore feel bound to grant the writ (to be of of corrupt practice must establish affirmatively fide. That course, if adopted, will be taken at the the same form and nature as in Reardon's case), to the reasonablo satisfaction of the judge that peril of the party; and if Í were sitting as a again expressing the opinion that some alteration the acts complained of were done. I now proceed coroner, although I would not call upon her to be in the law is desirable, so as to render unnecesto consider the evidence in this case. And, having examined, I should be very slow to refuse t) re.

sary this very expensive kind of application. do so, his Lordship held Sir Henry James duly ceive her evidence if it were offered. It might Some short and summary process might be deelected, and ordered the petitioners to pay the affect her prejudicially, or it might have a con. vised to meet such cases as the present, and in costs.

trary effect. I do not know anything of the order to aid in the administration of justice. general facts of the case except what I have seen

in the newspapers, but I understand it to be a MAGISTRATES' LAW. case of what is called circumstantial evidence. MANCHESTER CITY POLICE COURT. The charge is one of administering poison. The

Wednesday, Jan. 21.

evidence went to to show that the accused pur.
chased the poison-that the decoased met his death

(Before Mr. HEADLAM, the Stipendiary.) by poison of the same description as that which had Bona fide travellers-Licensing Act. The following is the judgment of Mr. Fitzgerald, been purchased that she had been in his com- S., a licensed'victualler, was summoned for having in the Irish case of Re Marshall, which we re

pany shortly before the alleged murder, and that his house open for the sale of intoxicating liquors ferred to in our leading columns last week :

she made some misrepresentations when inquiries during prohibited hours, on Sunday. The only FITZGERALD, J.-I quite concur in the state. were made to her. This is a strong circumstan- persons proved to have been served were omnibus ment of the Solicitor-General that, if there is to tial case, but it is just of such a character that drivers and guards travelling from Manchester be a change in the law, it should be made by the it might be desirable that the prisoner should be

to considerable distances and back. Legislature. I confess, I think that the present present at the investigation before the coroner, Held, that they were bona fide travellers. mode of proceeding presents to the public rather though it might be considered by her legal Jordan, barrister, appeared for the defence. an unseemly aspect, and is liable to be misrepre- adviser inexpedient to tender her for examina- This was a case involving the question as to who sented; and therefore I have not any hesitation tion. Therefore, if the application rested alono is a bona fide traveller under the Licensing Act. in saying that, in my judgment, some alteration on the ground of the prisoner's desire or that of The defendant was Mr. Walter Stopford, of the of the law is required, in order to render unneces. her advisers that she should be tendered as a Old Boar's Head Hotel, Withy-grove, and he was sary such applications as the present. If the witness, I should feel very great difficulty in summoned for having his house open for the sale coroner's court is to exist as it stood originally, refusing a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. of liquors during prohibited hours on a Sunday: we are all bound to give it every assistance. It is But the application here is made, also, on other

Police-constable Enoch Wilkinson stated that not for me to say whether it should be abolished grounds. In Reardon's case I expressed an opi. last Sunday but one he entered the defendant's or amended, or subjected to any or what regula. nion, to which I still adhere, that it was desirable house by the back door, and found five men tions. Up to a very recent period, a course had on all grounds that the prisoner should be brought inside, one of whom was drinking a glass of rum. been adopted which, no doubt, was unlawful. before the coroner's court, and that I was bound Under cross-examination the witness said the man The magistrates made an order to take an ac. to assist an application for that purpose, if, in who had the rum was the guard of the Bury omnicused person before the coroner. The law officers point of law, it was competent for me to do so. bus. of the Crown expressed the opinion that the pro- in the course of the argument in that case, it There was no other evidence for the prosecution. ceeding was contrary to law, and no doubt it was was admitted by Mr. Johnson, as counsel for the Jordan said that the question involved in this 80; and, in consequence, the case of Ex parte Crown, that the court could, under special cir. case was a very important one, viz., whether his Reardon (7 Ir. L. T. Rep. 193) came before me. cumstances, issue the writ in aid of the defective client was or was not bound to treat as travellers The coroner's is a very ancient court. I believe powers of an inferior court. This I regard as a case

omnibus drivers and guards, who were constantly I may say that it existed before such officers as an coming within the principle there admitted. I am on a Sunday travelling to and from places a con. Attorney Generalor Solicitor-General were known, of opinion that, in a case where the party accused siderable distance from Manchester, The defen. So long as this ancient court exists, it must hold claims the right to be present at the coroner's dant was extremely desirous that by the magis. its inquiries. Its sitting is not merely optional inquiry in order to hear the evidence received trate's decision so important a question might be with the coroner ; and the proceedings before po. against himself

or herself, and to assist his or her settled, and he was very willing to conform to tho lice magistrates do not interfere with nor suspend counsel and attorney, I am bound to grant the law. Jordan said he would prove that the men the inquiry of the coroner. No matter whether application for that purpose. The Solicitor. i seen in the house by the policeman were all known


« EelmineJätka »