Page images

tion is a question for the jury. (1 Web. P.C. 295.)

Carpenter v. Smith. N. P. 1841.-Abinger, C.B., in his remarks to the jury, said: "It is required as a condition of every patent that the patentee shall set forth in his specification a true account and description of his patent or invention, and it is necessary in that specification that he should state what his invention is, what he claims to be new, and what he admits to be oid; for if the specification states simply the whole machinery which he uses, and which he wishes to introduce into use, and claims the whole of that as new, and does not state that he claims either any particular part, or the combination of the whole as new, why then his patent must be taken to be a patent for the whole, and for each particular part, and his patent will be void if any particular part turns out to be old, or the combination itself not new. (1 Web. P. C. 532.) Gibson v. Brand. 1842.-If the patentee claims as his invention improvements in machinery or a new combination of machinery, and the jury find that he has only invented an improved process, the patent is void. Tindal, C.J., said: " Looking at the specification in the case, it appears to me that this patent cannot be supported at law, because the plaintiffs have, in the course of it, claimed more than they are entitled to." His Lordship also said that the specification ought to be so clearly worded as to enable any person of sufficient understanding on the particular subject to attain the result without doubt or difficulty, it being the price paid by the inventor for keeping the public out of the enjoyment of the manufacEvery party is bound to tell the public clearly, by his specification, what he claims, and what they may do or not do, without risk of an action for infringing his patent. (1 Web. P. C. 627; 4 M. & G. 179.)

ture. Cresswell, J.:


Macnamara v. Hulse, N. P. 1842.-Action for the infringement of a patent for "certain improvements in paving, pitching, or covering streets, roads, and other ways." The patentee, in his specification, said: “My invention consists in an improved mode of cutting or forming stone, or other suitable material for paving or covering roads," &c. The specification directed the blocks to be used for paving to be bevelled both inwards and outwards, but said nothing as to the precise angle at which the bevels were to be made. infringement complained of was the manufacture of wooden blocks according to the improvement of the plaintiff. Abinger, C.B., said: "If the specification leaves it to experiment to determine what is the proper angle, it is not good; but if any angle is a benefit, it will do." And, again: "I think that the words 'any other suitable material' include a wood pavement, though probably the plaintiff never contemplated it." (1 Car. & Marsh. 478; 2 Web. P. C. 129.)

Walton v. Bateman. N. P. 1842.-Tindal, C.J., held that it was a question for the jury whether the patentee has given such a description of his invention and of the manner of carrying it out as will enable a workman of competent skill in that line of business to act upon it. (1 Web. P. C. 621.) If a patentee knows a better mode than that which he states in his specification of carrying out his invention, his patent is void. (1 Web. P. C. 622.)

The Househill Company v. Neilson. N. P. 1843. -It is not necessary that the apparatus described in the specification should be productive of the greatest amount of benefit; it is sufficient if an ordinary workman, acquainted with the subject, could, by following the specification, construct an apparatus productive of some benefit. Lord Justice Clerk Hope, in addressing the jury, said: "The specification is to be read as addressed to artists, or persons of competent skill in the branch of manufacture or process to which it is applicable. Hence, known machinery need not be described, when the use of them is to be made in carrying out the object of the patent Workmen of ordinary skill, means those competent in the ordinary business and conducting of the particular trade-to furnish and construct apparatus for the purpose required. Certainly, the pursuer does not satisfy the condition of law, if he says men of the greatest science-first-rate engineers-could understand him, and would know what to do, or what direction to give. That is not enough. The specification must be for the benefit of the trade when the patent is out; it is addressed to those engaged in particular departments of trade, and who are to be employed in order to make apparatus for the purpose, those who are competent to make similar apparatus for similar purposes. But the terms in the issue do not denote common labourers or workmen employed under those which do furnish and construct such apparatus." (1 Web. P. C. 676.)

Nickels v. Haslam. 1844.-The patent was for "improvements in the manufacture of plaited articles." The specification described but one improvement. Held, by the Court of Common Pleas that this did not render the specification bad. (8 Jur. 474.)


MANY of those members of the Incorporated Law
Society who wish and recently endeavoured to
throw open the doors for the election of the council,
making it more representative, are probably un-
aware of the fact, that in Dublin the council of
the Incorporated Law Society is annually elected
by ballot.

AMONGST the many offices which might with
great advantage to the public, and in view of the
increasing necessity for a fairer distribution of
what may be called the pickings of the Profession,
justly be bestowed upon solicitors, that of clerk
of assize certainly seems one of the most con-
spicuous. A clerk of assize should be a local
solicitor, who would of course appoint his agent
to do the necessary work in London in the manner
adopted by under sheriffs.

[blocks in formation]

A CORRESPONDENT inquires of us whether soli-
citors only are competent to act as political agents
for the purpose of attending before Revising Bar-
risters. We are not aware of any enactment
limiting the right so to appear to solicitors,
though we are bound to say such a condition
would be only right and proper; but it is hardly
unless at the instigation of the representative
a matter for which provision would be made
body. If the matter is open, an express provision
that certificated solicitors alone should be qualified
for such responsible and important posts would
be desirable.

A REPORT, in circulation, to the effect that the
Council of the Incorporated Law Society have
decided to apply to Parliament with a view to
confirmation by statute of the "Scale of Com-
mission" recently circulated amongst members
of the society by the council does not, we believe,
convey the actual position of the matter. The
Scale has been submitted to the Lord Chancellor,
and in the event of his approving it, the applica-
tion above suggested will be made. As is well
known, a very large number of solicitors do not
belong to any of the existing Law Societies, either
in town or country, and we believe-and are glad
circulate the Scale in question among solicitors
so to understand-that it is in contemplation to
generally. The Incorporated Law Society repre-
sents, or should do so, not less those who are not
members than those who are so.

We are sorry to hear that the Hampshire and West Sussex Law Society established, we believe, in 1869, principally through the instrumentality of Mr. Cousins, the present clerk to the Justices of Portsmouth, has become practically defunct, and this, too, at a time when such societies are more than ever needed, and, indeed, are springing up in every part of the kingdom. The matter contained in the pages of our present issue, especially upon the subject of the serious encroachments upon the Profession, sufficiently illustrates the necessity for the existence of these societies, which, however, should be brought more in contact with the Incorporated Law Society, if they should not be in fact branches of it. We hope to hear that the country society referred to will be again resuscitated. We believe there are many young professional men in Hampshire with ample energy who may well in their own interests render that assistance with the view we suggest which older members of the Profession cannot be expected to bestow.

THE following law lectures and classes are apIncorporated Law Society. Monday, 10th, class, pointed for the ensuing week in the Hall of the Conveyancing, 4.30 to 6 o'clock; Tuesday, 11th, class, Conveyancing, 4.30 to 6 o'clock; Wednesday, 12th, class, Conveyancing, 4.30 to 6 o'clock; Friday, 14th, lecture, Common Law, 6 to 7 o'clock.

SEVERAL Country solicitors have forwarded to us a quantity of printed matter addressed to each, and marked "Private." At the sacrifice of space portant part of it, as follows, together with the we are bound to reproduce the whole of the imbody of a circular letter sent with the "scale of charges:"

Law Agency Offices, London.

beg to submit our revised low scale of agency charges In returning thanks to the legal profession we now for solicitors only, which will be found on comparison to be 25 per cent. below other agents, and to assure our patrons that all business entrusted to us will be carried out with the accuracy, fidelity, and despatch afforded by an experience of twenty years.

It will be seen that our scale enables the country practitioner to secure to himself nearly the full benefit of his charges.

London, W.C.

[blocks in formation]

Service of Restraining Order on Judgment Creditors, and making Affidavit of Service

Attending Meeting of Creditors, and letter re

porting result, as per time engaged
Probate Registry.

Valuations made for Probate in town or country.
5 per cent. commission on total value; (one-
third of the commission allowed to solicitors)

Wills proved, or Letters of Administration extracted

for country solicitors, in their own names....
Court fee
Searching Will

Attending for any other purpose at Registry.

Somerset House.
Passing Residuary Account (according to time)
Passing Succession Account,

Paying instalment of Succession Duty
Paying increase on Probate or Letters of Admi-
Paying duty on Legacy

Obtaining return of Probate Duty
Search for Birth, Death, or Marriage

Attending Stamping Deed

Denoting Stamp to Duplicate Deed
Obtaining Adjudication Stamp on Deed
Registering Company
Joint Stock Companies' Registry.

Annual and other Returns filed

2 0 3 6

50 2 6 1 0


3s. to

7 6

.2s. to

5 0


2 0

3 0

3 0

2 0

1 0

1 0

5 0

Companies' Books, Prospectuses, Share Certifi cates, Letters of Allotment, forms of application for Shares and Common Seal supplied at 25 per cent. less than any other Registration Agent.

General Business. Books Audited and Accounts prepared (charge by arrangement). Searching Records at Public Record Office. Contracted Latin translated, copied, and verified by affidavit (as per time engaged). Obtaining execution of Deed (cach name) Payment into County Court Notices inserted in Newspapers, &c. (each). Friendly Societies enrolled Passport obtained from Foreign Office

Law Stationery usual charges.

5 0 2 0

2 6

1 6

5 0 2 6

Articled Clerks prepared for examination in Solicitors'
Bookkeeping and Accounts.

It is not enough to say that it is our actual duty
to expose this; not enough to say that the thanks
of the Profession are due to those country solicitors
to forward such matter to us. It must also be said
whose sense of professional etiquette impels them
it before over and over again--that no society is
that we are perfectly surprised-we have written
formed to stamp out this touting, these depreda-
tions by unqualified persons, which is assuming
is for us to give publicity to a wrongful state of
in London very large and serious proportions. It
things; it is for the Profession to rectify it. No
doubt other business is transacted besides that
suggested by "The Scale of Charges.”

[blocks in formation]

adultery and cruelty, which were known to her before the former decree. Held, that the d cre of judicial separation was no bar to her petition for a divorce: (Green v. Green, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 251. Div.)

WILL TORN BY DISAPPOINTED LEGATEEPROBATE OF THE PIECES AND AN AFFIDAVIT.— A disappointed legatee got possession of the will after it had been read over to her, and tore it in pieces. One of the pieces was missing, and was supposed to have been carried away by her. The court allowed the contents of the missing part to be proved by affidavit, and granted probate of the pieces thus supplemented: (In the goods of G. Clift, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 259. Prob.)


MATRIMONIAL SUIT-JUDICIAL SEPARATION - PERMANENT ALIMONY ALLOWANCE CHILDREN.-The joint income of the parties amounted to £563, of which the wife had £196 arising from property se tled on her by her husband. There were three children of the marriage, and the court, in allotting permanent alimony to the wife, allowed £30 a year for each of these children in addition to the £196 a year of which she was already in possession: (Todd v. Todd, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S.: 52 Div.)

MATRIMONIAL SUIT-DESERTION-HUSBAND FREQUENTLY IMPRISONED-WIFE'S REFUSAL TO RESUME COHABITATION.-The husband, who was the respondent, had been several times convicted of larceny, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The first separation occurred when the husband withdrew from home, with his wife's consent, for the purpose of concealment. On his release the wife refused to return to cohabitation, and ultimately sued for a divorce. Held, that there was no desertion, the original separation having been with the wife's consent, and the subsequent separation being involuntary on the husband's part, and caused by the refusal of the wife, which was not founded on any matrimonial misconduct: (Townsend v. Townsend, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 254. Div.)

[blocks in formation]

[Yes; it is as you suggest, but see our note to the letter of "An Old Practioner" on this subject.-ED. Sols. Deptmt.]

I am obliged to you, and so must be all the commissioners, for ascertaining from the highest authority their position under the Judicature Act, and I collect from the remarks contained in the LAW TIMES of the 25th Oct., that I as a Commis. sioner in Chancery, and a Commissioner at Common Law for tive counties, will be enabled to administer oaths relating to common law in all parts of England and Wales, and that a commis. sioner at law, although his commission should only extend to five counties, will be able to administer oaths relating to the Chancery and Probate divisions, and to common law matters throughout England and Wales, so that we shall all have equal powers. I am induced to trouble you with this letter because a correspondent was of opinion that commissioners would only retain similar powers to those which they now possess. It would be a very great advantage if London Commissioners could administer oaths in the country, and vice versa.

AN OLD PRACTITIONER. [You take an incorrect view of the matter. Members of the Profession already holding commissions will be enabled to exercise them in reference to all business in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, but where the commission defines the limits within which it can be exercised, the terms of the commission in this respect will still hold good.-ED. Sols'. Deptmt.]

[Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the
National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons
respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three
months, unless other claimants sooner appear.]
DAWSON (Maria), 33. Bedford-square, widow; ALCOCK
(Harry), Wilton Castle, Wexford, Ireland, Esq., and
DEVEREUX (John Daly, Ballyrank's House, Wexford,
Esq. 222 163. Sd. Reduced Three Per Cent. Annuities.
Claimants, said Maria Dawson, widow, Harry Alcock,
Esq., and John Daly Devereux. Esq,

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35.
Last Day of Claim, and to whom_Particulars to be sent.
BARNES (Jane), 9, Linden Grove, Peckham, Surrey, widow.
Dec. 31; W. Edwin, solicitor, 56, Blackman-street,
BARNES (John H.), Bushery Grange, Watford, Herts, and
the Stock Exchange, London, Esq. Dec. 31; Clayton and
Sons, solicitors, 10, Lancaster-place, Strand, Middlesex.

in Beverley.

BEALL (Samuel). Great Charlotte - street, Blackfriars,
Survey, pawnbroker. Dec. 1; J. Attenborough, solicitor,
63. St. Paul's Churchyard, London.
BLACKWOOD (Sir Henry) Bart, Portsea. Dec. 1; Grueber
and Cooper, solicitors, 5, Billiter-street, London.
CARRINGTON (Edmund), Beverley, veterinary surgeon.
Jan. 1; Robinson and Son, solicitors, North Bar Within
COOKE (Geo., formerly of Fleet-street, London, late of
Kendall-place, Vassall-road, North Brixton, now known
as 103. Vassall-road, Brixton, Surrey. Jan. 1; Messrs.
Freshfields, solicitors. 5, Bank-buildings, London.
DRAGE (WM.), 9. Arrow-street, Leytonstone road, Essex,
gentleman. Dec. 1; Jacobs and Co., solicitors, 20, Budge-
row, Cannon-street, London.
DONDERDALE (Richard), Wheatley Brook, Thornley, Lan-
caster, yeoman. Dec. 27: R. W. and A. Arcroft, solicitors,
4 Cannon-street, Pre-ton.
EAGLE (Geo. C.), 187, Upper Thames-street, London, and
13, Rutland-gste, Middlesex, and of Wargrave, Berks,
wool warehouse keeper. Nov. 15: Drake and Son, solici-
tors. 3, Cloak-lane. Cannon-street, London.
EVE (Rev. Henry), The Rectory, Ockenden, near Romford,
Essex. Dec. 1; A. E. Francis, solicitor, 9, Austin
GARROD (Joseph N.), Falcon-square, and Wyndham House,
Carlton-hill. St. John's Wood, London, Esq. Dec. 8;
Robinson and Preston, solicitors, 35, Lincoln's-inn-fields,

Friars, London.


HARRISON John), Gladon. Yorks, formerly a slabber, after-
Dec. 1; J. Hartley, solicitor, Otley,

wards a grocer.

street, London.

solicitor, Otley.


HAY Lieut-Gen. Chas. C. R.), formerly of 22, Cornwall-
gardens. South Kensington, Middlesex, late of Redboat
Villa, Freshwater, Isle of Wight. Dec. 15; Farrer and
Co., solicitors, 66, Lincoln's-inn-fields. Middlesex.
HEWETT (Charlotte), late of 13, Southgate-street (formerly
called Chernock-place), Winchester, spinster. Dec. 31;
Barnes and Bernard, solicitors, 11, Great Winchester-
HILL (Catherine), Compton-walk, Southampton, widow.
Dec. 27; Hickman and Son, solicitors, Southampton.
HOLDSWOTH (Jas.), Otley, York. Dec. 1; J. Hartley,
HOUSTOUN (Wm.), Dhulough, Co. Mayo, Ireland, Esq.
Dec. 20: G. Rooper, solicitor, 17, Lincoln's-inn-fields,
MACLACHLAN (Daniel), Ventnor, Isle of Wight, physician.
Nov. 29: Lawrie, Keen, and Rogers, solicitors, 24,
Knightrider-street, Doctors'-commons, London.
MAITLAND (Isabella R.), formerly of 18, Stratford-place.
late of 17, Sevmour-street, Marylebone, Middlesex, spin-
ster. Dec. 2; Dawes and Sons, solicitors, 9, Angel-court,
Throgmorton-street, London.
MOYCE (Elizabeth M.), formerly of Mason's Hill, Bromley.
Kent, late of Shipborne, Kent, widow. Dec. 15; Walker
and Martineau, solicitors, 13, King's-road, Gray's-inn,
NIELD (Alice), Woodfield Cottage, Alderley Edge. near
Manchester, spinster. Jan 29; F. Whitaker, Duchy of
Lancaster office, Lancaster-place, Strand, London.
PATERSON (Sarah), 48, Tufnell-park-road, Holloway, Mid-
dlesex, widow. Nov. 30; W. A. Williams. 17, Grafton:
road, Holloway.
SIDWELL (Ann), 15, Eldon-square, Reading, Berks, widow.
Dec. 22: Pownall and Co., solicitors, Staple-inn, London.
SMITH (Wm.). 5. Adelaide-terrace, Kingston-upon-Hull,
gentleman. Feb. 1 Tewney and Dawber, solicitors, 16.
Parliament-street, Hull.
SOLOMON (Samuel). Pine Apple Lodge. Peckham Rye,
Surrey, and Coven-garden, Middlesex, market grower of
fruit. Dec. 1: W. H. Oliver, solicitor, 64, Lincoln's-inn-
flelds, Middlesex.
SOUTH (Jas.), Spittlegate. Lincoln, brickmaker. Dec. 26;
R. A. White, solicitor, Grantham.
Nov. 30:
STEWART (Cha. A.), Manchester. merchant.
Hinde, Milue, and Ludlow, solicitors, 7, Mount-street,
TIPPETT (Jane H.). 37, Addison-road, North, Notting-hill,
Kensington Middlesex, spinster. Dec. 3; A. Norris,
solicitor. 2, Bedford-row, London.
WILSON (Rev. Wm.), Southampton. Dec. 27; Hickman and
Son, solicitors, Sonthampton.
Woon (Richard), Duke of Wellington public house. Leete-
street (formerly South-street). Chelsea, Middlesex,
licensed victualler. Nov. 20; Nash and Co., solicitors, 2,
Suffolk-lane, Cannon street, London.



Friday, Oct. 24.

By Messrs. WINSTANLEY and HORWOOD, at the Mart.
Fifty Shares in the Auction Mart Company (£25 paid)-sold
for £687.
Sixty shares in the Animal Charcoal Company (£6 paid)-

for £285.

By Messrs. NORTON. TRIST, WATNEY, and Co..
Surrey, Reigate - The Quarry-hill Estate, comprising
mansion and 16a. 1r. 35p,-freehold-sold for £12,000.
Near East Grinstead.-The Old Fstate, containing 438a. Or.
15p., freshold-old for £'6,000, including timber.
An enclosure, containing Sa. Ir. 10p.-sold for £300.
Wood-street. E. C.-Nos. 2, 3, and 4, St. Alban's-court, free-
hold-so'd for £2200.


By Messrs. GADSDEN, ELLIS, and Co.,

80.-sold for £1320.

City-Nos. 18 and 19, Ironmonger-lane, freehold-sold for
Middlesex. Hanworth.-An enclosure, containing 14a. 2r.
A Cottage and plot of land-sold for £170.
A house, with shop and garden-sold for £210.
Ealing.-No. 13, Castle-hill-mews, freehold-sold for £200.
Wednesday, Nov. 5.

By Messrs. EDWIN Fox, and BOUSFIELD, at the Mart.
City of London.-No. 29, Budge-row, term 77 years-sold

for £7000.


MENT. A settlement on a marriage under which
property is settled to the wife for life, with re-
mainder as she should, notwithstanding her
coverture, by deed or will appoint, with remainder
to her executors and administrators without re-
straint on anticipation: held, to vest in equity the
entire corpus in the wife for all purposes as fully
as a similar gift to a man would vest it in him.
The judgment of Turner, L.J., in Johnson v.
Gallagher (3 De G. F. & J. 513; 4 L. T. Rep. N. S.
77) followed and approved. Shattock v. Shattock
(L. Rep. 2 Eq. 182; 14 L. T. Rep. N. S. 452)

dissented from. The proposition that a married woman's separate estate is not liable to her "general engagements" is accurate, if it is merely meant to say that goods sold to a married woman in the ordinary course of domestic life, and contracts made by her in respect of property not her separate estate, do not necessarily impose a liability to be satisfied out of her separate estate: (Chartered Bank of Australia v. Lempriere, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 186. Priv. Co.)

LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT 1845- TRUSTEES WITH PAYMENT OUT OF COURT POWER OF SALE-COSTS.-A testator devised real estate to trustees upon trust, to sell when his youngest son should attain twenty-oue, and to divide the proceeds of sale as therein mentioned, and he directed that the receipts of the trustees should be good discharges. Before the youngest son attained twenty-one a portion of the real estate was purchased by a burial board under their statutory powers, and the purchase-money was paid into court under the 69th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. On the youngest son attaining twenty-one the estate became divisible into eight shares. The trustees and the persons entitled to two of these shares presented a petition praying either that the whole fund in court might be sold and the proceeds paid to the trustees, or that two-eighths might be sold and the proceeds paid to the petitioners entitled thereto, and that the remaining six-eighths might be carried over to the separate accounts of the persons entitled thereto, and that the board might be ordered to pay the costs. The board asked that the whole fund might be paid to the trustees, in order to save the costs of further petitions. Held, that the board were not entitled to require the whole fund to be paid out at once. Quare, whether the trustees were persons "absolutely entitled" within the meaning of the 69th section of the Lands Clauses Act: (Re Lowry, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 233. Chan.).

LANDLORD AND TENANT-NOXIOUS SHRUBS— IMPLIED WARRANTY-COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF GAME.-A tenant for life of an estate with Powers of leasing, granted a lease of a farm. The lessor died, and in a suit which was instituted for the administration of his estate, the lessee brought in a claim for damages sustained by the loss of some sheep and cattle which died, more than six months before the lessor's death, from eating branches of yew trees growing on the lessor's land, which projected into the lessee's field, and from eating cuttings of the yew trees which had been thrown into the lessee's field by the lessor's servants. Held (reversing the decision of the Master of the Rolls) that the claim could not be sustained, as the cause of action (if any) died with the lessor; and the executors were freed from all liability, no action having been brought within the time appointed by the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42. The lessee made another claim for damages sustained since the lessor's death by loss of cattle which had died from eating yew cuttings lying on lessor's land, to which the cattle had gained access through a fence which was out of repair, and which the lessor had not covenanted to keep in repair. Held, that the executors of the lessor were under no obligation to keep the fence in repair, and that the claim could not be sustained. The lease reserved the game on the farm to the lessor. Two months before the lease was executed, the lessor's steward verbally promised the lessee that the game should be killed down, and it was on the faith of that promise that the lessee entered into the lease. In spite of this promise the shooting was let to a gentleman who kept a large quantity of game. On a claim by the lessee for damages caused by the depredations of the game, Held (reversing the decision of the Master of the Rolls), that the verbal promise constituted a good collateral agreement, and was binding upon the lessor, and that the lessee was entitled to be paid the amount of the damages sustained by breach of it out of the lessor's estate: (Erskine v. Adeane, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 234. L. JJ.)

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

LIGHT AND AIR- - EASEMENT GENERAL WORDS-LESSOR AND LESSEE-SUBSEQUENT ACQUISITION OF ADJOINING HOUSE.General words in a grant must be restricted to what the grantor had power to grant at the date of the grant. In 1864 A. granted to B. a lease for twenty-one years of a house "together with all edifices lights easements, advantages, and appurtenances thereto belonging, or therewith held, used, or enjoyed. At the date of the lease A. held, for the residue of a term expiring at Christmas 1868, an adjoining house, over which most of the light came to the back windows of the house leased to B. On the expiration of his lease A. purchased the fee simple of the adjoining house, and in 1872 he pulled down that house with the intention of rebuilding it to a greater height than its former height. B., whose lights were not ancient lights, filed a bill to restrain A. from raising the new house to a greater height than the old house. Held, that the lease

to B. only amounted to a grant of the light coming over the adjoining house during A.'s term in it, and that on subsequently acquiring the fee simple of the adjoining house A. was not estopped either at law or in equity from dealing with the house in such a way as to interfere with B.'s lights. Bill accordingly dismissed with costs. Decision of Malins, V.C., reversed: (Booth v. Alcock, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 231. Ch.)


Friday, Oct. 3.

Mr. Wells addressed the court, contending that for Mortimer at six o'clock. He got into the train the matter complained of had been done under the at Weymouth at 12.30. It was stopped at Trowrules and regulations for the government of the bridge for some time, for some unaccountable Ancient Order of Forestry, which provided for the reason, and again at Didcot, where he was transsettlement of all disputes arising among the ferred to another train, and placed in a siding, members. The high court was the governing and off went the train in which he had taken his body in the order; and when an application was ticket. He was told he would catch the Mortimer made for the opening of a new court, it granted a train. He reached Reading at 5.57, and the train dispensation for that purpose. The court had the was stopped outside the station by the signal power to make its own laws; but before it could for five minutes. He saw the Mortimer train at the be affiliated to the district the laws had to be cer- Lower Station, and told the guard it would go. tified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies. The The guard said "No." When he got into the district had no power over the funds of any court station he told a porter and an inspector he belonging to it, save the funeral money, which in wanted to catch the Mortimer train, but when he this case had been refused owing to the execu reached the lower platform the train started, and tive committee having suspended the Robin Hood he was left behind. He asked the inspector why for a violation of the laws. His Honour's prede- he did not stop the train, and he said he was not cessor and the judge of another County Court looking. There was no train to Mortimer for an elsewhere had decided that the laws of the Forest-hour and a quarter. He had ordered his carriage ers provided for the settlement of whatever dis- to meet him at Mortimer, and his family were order-putes might arise in the order. anxiously expecting him, as he had told them the weather was rough; he therefore took a carriage to Mortimer, for which he paid 10s., and he now sued the company for that amount. He then read the following correspondence he had had with the Great Western Railway Company:

(Before W. H. COOKE, Esq., Q.C., Judge.) KENNEY AND CTHERS v. WELLS. Friendly society-Interference in litigation-Laws of the society-Decree of Foresters' Court ing a sale of mortgaged property. THE principal business here to-day had relation to this case, probably one of the most remarkable which has ever been brought before a court of justice, and possessing immense interest for those belonging to friendly societies.

Wilkin, of Lynn, appeared for the plaintiffs. The defendant had no legal representative. Wilkin, in his opening, said that he had to bring under the attention of the court, a matter which affected the administration of justice, his

Honour's character-

His HONOUR (facetiously interposing).-"Good

me!" (Laughter.)

gracious! I hope you are not going to frighten Wilkin said he was not going to do that; but he was sure his Honour would say, after hearing the facts which it would be his duty to lay before him, that any thing more extraordinary he had never listened to, affecting as it did his powers as a judge, and an attempted illegal interference with the pewers of this court. The plaintiffs, James Kenney, William Coe, and Henry Hamond, are trustees of the Court Robin Hood (No. 1302) of the Ancient Order of Foresters, at Downham; and the defendant, Willis Wells, is secretary to the Ancient Order of Foresters Friendly Society, at Lynn, registered pursuant to the Act of Parliament, the former being a branch of the latter, which, from its position, claimed a control over its funds. In Aug. 1869, the Court Hobin Hood advanced to one Robert Norton, of West Dereham, the sum of £400 upon mortgage of some copyhold property. At that time a man named Philip Jackson was one of the trustees of the Robin Hood and became the custodian of the deeds of Norton's property. For reasons which amply warranted it in taking that step, the Robin Hood resolved upon calling in its money from Norton, but failing to obtain this without a resort to liti

gation, Jackson was asked to join his co-trustees in the bill which it had been found necessary to which he refused. In the notice which was served file on the equity side of the court against Norton, upon Jackson he was made to understand that in the event of his neglecting or refusing to join with the co-trustees in the suit, he would be made

a defendant at his own risk as to costs-and

defendant he was made. At the hearing of the suit, when asked to account for the non-production of the deeds, Jackson stated that his house had been burned, and gave his Honour to understand that the deeds were burned with it; but, at all events the decree prayed for was granted, and the mortgaged property ordered to be sold, there being due for debt and interest £473, the costs amounting to £63 123. 9d., making a total of £537 12s. 9d. The sale realised but £436 1s. 2d., leaving a deficiency of £101 11s. 7d. Jackson having rendered himself liable for the costs, a distress was issued for their recovery; but as that had been done under the authority of a court of competent_jurisdiction, it seemed difficult to believe that Jackson, whose frequent appearance before his Honour would justify the impression that he was as well acquainted with the effect of an order duly made by an English court of justice as most men, should have tried to defeat it by an appeal to a body of individuals who, while indulging in high-sounding titles, had no power to interfere with a process of his Honour's court.

His HONOUR said that a more outrageous violation of the law of the land in an effort to defeat the process of a legally-constituted English tribunal, or a piece of greater tyranny than had been attempted to be exercised by those whom the defendant represented, he certainly had never heard. It was he (his Honour) and not the plaintiffs, who had ordered Jackson to pay the costs in the equity suit. If he had been wrong in that, Jackson would, upon application, have had every facility for appealing against his decision to a competent authority; but, instead of that, he went to a body of men who had absolutely no power in the matter whatever. As he had said, he had never heard anything like it; but he would like to hear what answer the defendant had to make to the complaint.

His HONOUR said that there could be no doubt that they had the power to settle any differences arising between them as Foresters, but not as British subjects. Here was a case in which money was lent on mortgage, which the lenders were obliged to have recourse to legal proceedings to get back. The Foresters could not issue a decree ordering a sale of the property. He (his Honour) would not like to say positively that Jackson had sworn that the deeds were burned, but that certainly was the impression left upon his mind at

the time.

Mr. Wells said it was one reason why Jackson and he (defendant) believed that they were in had been restored that the deeds were not burned, Downham at this moment.

His HONOUR remarked that that made the matter all the worse, and Jackson might consider himself fortunate that he was not now undergoing penal servitude. The Foresters had no power to take evidence upon oath; yet here they seemed to have gone behind his (the judge's) back, and, hearing what Jackson had to say, preferred to accept his version of what occurred, without giving him (his Honour) an opportunity of defending himself for giving a judgment after hearing witnesses duly sworn. In the whole course of his life he had never listened to anything so astonishing on the part of the people who professed to be in their right senses. The plaintiffs were clearly entitled to a judgment treating the suspension as a nullity, and to an order requiring the defendant to pay the funeral money.

Mr. Wilkin said that he was happy at being able to state from his own knowledge that both Mr. Wells and the officers of the district he had in attendance with him were persons of the highest respectability, and he was sure that they really did not mean to do anything wrong.

His HONOUR said that he, too, was convinced of Mr. Wells' respectability; and in the circumstances he thought the best thing to be done, be adjourn the case for a couple of months, in the instead in giving an immediate judgment, would hope that a mutual arrangement would in the meanwhile be arrived at. He would be glad to see Mr. Wells on another occasion, although he hoped never again to see him in this matter. (Laughter.)

Mr. Wilkin concurring in the course suggested, an adjournment till the December sitting was ordered.

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

Forsyth Q.C., conducted his own case, W. F. Blandy, acting as his solicitor; and Gledhill appeared for the defendants.


The Firs, Mortimer, Reading,
29th Aug. 1873.
"Sir,-I am sick, as everybody else is, of com-
plaining of the Great Western Railway Com-
pany. Yesterday I left Weymouth by the 12.30 ex-
press train, and by your time table I ought to have
arrived at Reading by 5.35 p.m., my ticket being
for Reading. I had arranged for my carriage to meet
of course, to go on from Reading by the six p.m.
me at Mortimer at a quarter past six, intending,

train. We did not reach the signal post at Read-
ing (having changed at Didcot from the express
train into another) until four or five minutes
before six. The signal stopped us from entering
the station at Reading for five minutes, and the
Mortimer train was standing at the lower plat-
form, so that it was perfectly well known that the
train from Didcot had arrived. When we got
into the station at two minutes past six I hurried
down to the Mortimer train, and saw it set off
before my eyes, and leave me behind. I spoke to
the inspector, and asked him why he allowed it
to go when passengers were on their way to it.
His answer was, 'Well, sir, I was not looking.
I was obliged to take a carriage to my house at
Mortimer, for which I paid 10s. This sum, of
course, I demand from the company. If it is not
paid, I shall at once instruct my solicitor to com-
mence an action in the County Court against the
company, to recover the amount. The arrange-
ments at the Reading station are simply disgrace-
ful, and I wish you could hear what your own
officers along the line say about them.-Your
obedient servant,

"You can send the 10s. by P.O.O. or stamps. I had come from the Channel Islands, and my family were naturally made anxious by my nonappearance by the six p.m. train from Mortimer.” The following reply was sent :

66 London, 1st Sept. 1873.

"W. Forsyth, Esq, Q.C.,

The Firs, Mortimer, Reading. "Sir, I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 29th ult., in which you complain of the train by which you travelled on Thursday last missing the connection at Reading for Mortimer, and I have to express my regret for the inconvenience to which you were put in consequence. I will at once have inquiries made into your complaint and by an early post communicate with you again. Yours obediently,

"J. GRIERSON, per A. BEASLEY." Mr. Forsyth next sent the following letter: "The Firs, Mortimer, Reading. 5th Sept. 1873. "Sir,-You have had quite time enough to make the inquiry relative to my claim, and as I do not intend to be trifled with, I beg to inform you that unless I hear from you satisfactorily by return of post I shall on Monday next instruct my solicitor to commence an action against the G.W.R. Co."W. FORSYTH." Yours obediently. "The Traffic Manager, G.W.R. Co." The reply to that letter was this:

[ocr errors]

G.W. Railway, Gen. Manager's Office, Paddington Station, 9th Sept. 1873. "Sir,-In the absence of Mr. Grierson, who is out of town for a day or two, I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date. It shall be laid before him on his return, and a reply sent you as soon as possible.

Forsyth said, in opening the case, that he brought the action on public grounds, to endeavour to stop the system of unpunctuality on the Great Western Railway, whereby it was utterly impossible to make an engagement with confidence and safety, and, being sworn, deposed "Yours faithfully, A. BEASLEY. to the facts as follows: In the month of August "W. Forsyth, Esq., Q.C., The Firs, Mortimer." he was travelling from the Channel Islands to Forsyth said he freely admitted that as a matter Mortimer, where he resides. It happened to be of law, in case of anything beyond the control of rough weather at the time, and he had written to the company occurring to delay the train, they his family and said he should be home on Thurs- were absolved from fulfilling their contract to day, Aug. 23th, at six o'clock, if the weather convey passengers at a certain time. It was not allowed. The wind was high and the sea rough at an absolute guarantee. He then quoted the case the time. The time bills showed that the train of Denton v. Great Northern Railway, in which, left Weymouth at 12.30 p.m., and reached Read-according to the printed time tables a passenger ing at 5,35, and there was a train to leave Reading train was to leave plaintiff's station in London at

five o'clock, to arrive at Peterborough at 7.20 the same evening, and Hull at midnight. It turned out the train did not go as advertised. Lord Campbell and Mr. Justice Wightman held that the publication of the time table was an under taking to convey the passenger. Mr. Forsyth was then proceeding to read a newspaper report of a case, in which Mr. Warwick Cole, the Birmingham County Court judge, had given judgment against the London and North-Western Railway Company, when

Gledhill objected, on the ground that newspaper reports were not taken as evidence by judges. He apprehended that they required a proper law report.

His HONOUR observed that newspaper reports were sometimes better. [The objection was withdrawn.]

Forsyth then gave a brief outline of the case against the London and North Western Railway Company. That company failed to convey a person to Holyhead as advertised in their time bills. The train started from Birmingham and ought to have met the Belfast mail train at Stafford, but the train was three quarters of an hour late, and lost it. The company relied upon their notice on the time bills that every attention would be made to ensure punctuality. Judgment was given against the company. The next case quoted by Mr. Forsyth was Freeman v. The Great Western Railway Company, heard at Reading before his Honour, who gave judgment for the plaintiff. Another case referred to was one at Epsom, in which his Honour decided against the Brighton company for not taking three passengers to Epsom in consequence of the Derby races going on at the time, when the three persons were the only ordinary passengers to Epsom, and the train an ordinary one, and room in it. Mr. Forsyth defied the defendants to produce a case in their favour. The company did not become absolutely liable against all accidents. If the delay had been through an accident, such as the breaking of a tube or embankment, he should not have been there; but when it arose from neglect he brought the action in the interest of the public.

The time table was put in. Cross-examined by Gledhill: I took a return ticket from Reading to the Channel Islands. I did not inquire if there was another train immediately.

His HONOUR (to Gledhill): Yon must show that there was a train immediately.

Gledhill: There was a train in an hour and a

quarter, and he would have reached Mortimer
earlier by that than by the conveyance.
Forsyth: No.

Gledhill, for the defence, said the company fought the action on principle. The cases which Mr. Forsyth had quoted were entirely different to the one then before his Honour; cases in which there had been a ticket granted at one station to another at some distance, and the delay had arisen in one train having failed to catch another. In Hurst v. The Great Western Railway Company, where a passenger who had taken a ticket from Cardiff to Newcastle, had got into a train at Bristol, to catch a Midland train at Birmingham, but from the train being half-an-hour late he could not catch the Midland train, the Court of Common Pleas, before Erle, C.J. and Willes, J., held there was no cause of action.

facts of the case I will hear it, but I have already
given you my judgment on the law.

No evidence was offered for the defendants.
Judgment was given for the plaintiff with leave
to appeal.


Thursday Oct. 23.

(Before FRANCIS BAYLEY, Esq., Judge.)
Composition under Bankruptcy Act 1869-Action
for original debt-Must be default in payment-
If by the terms of an extraordinary resolution a
composition is to be accepted, payable on de-
mand, at a certain place, and within a certain
time, such demand must be made accordingly. A
demand made before the time mentioned in the
resolution is insufficient. If debtor makes default,
creditor may sue for original debt.
THIS was an action brought by Frederick Pearse
and Ashton Lever, trading as Pearse, Lever,
and Co., of 75, Fleet-street, advertisement agents,
against Henry Edwin Cooper, of Bethnal-green-
road, sewing machine maker, to recover the sum
of £10 19s. 4d., balance of a debt due from the
defendant to the plaintiffs, after deducting
14s. 8d., being the first instalment of a com-
position paid by the debtor.

The action was entered on the 22nd September

The defendant had given notice that he intended
to rely on the ground of defence, that the plaintiffs'
claim was barred by an extraordinary resolution
of the defendant's creditors, under the 126th sec-
tion of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, duly registered;
and that he also relied on a tender of the compo-
sition due thereunder.

S. R. Glyn, solicitor, appeared for the plaintiffs.
Davies, solicitor, for the defendant.
Glyn submitted that, as it was for the defen.
dant to prove he had complied with the terms of
the resolution, it was for him to begin.

Davies, accordingly, for the defendant, said that
he relied as his defence upon an extraordinary re-
solution passed by the statutory majority of de-
fendant's creditors, at a meeting held on the 7th
Dec. 1872, and which was in the following terms:
1. That a composition of 2s. 6d. in the pound
shall be accepted in satisfaction of the debts due
to the creditors from the said Henry Edwin
Cooper. 2. That such composition be payable by
two equal instalments on demand, at 281, Bethnal.
green-road aforesaid, at or after the exp ration
of three months and six months respectively,
from the date of this meeting. He then called the
defendant, who deposed that he had paid the first
instalment due under the resolution, that no
demand had ever been made by the plaintiffs for
the second instalment of the composition, and that
he had tendered the amount of it before action
brought. On cross-examination however the de-
fence of tender entirely failed. A boy was called
to corroborate defendant's evidence, but on cross-
examination it transpired that he could know
nothing of the matter in dispute.

Glyn then called one of the plaintiffs, who stated that on the 7th June last he had sent a clerk to No. 281, Bethnal-green-road, to demand the second instalment of the composition, and a letter was read in corroboration of the fact. The the demand at Bethnal-green-road aforesaid, and clerk was then called, who swore to having made that defendant had said he had not the money, but would pay it on the clerk's calling again., He then cited in support of his case Edwards v. Coombe (27 L. T. Rep. N. S. 315); Ex parte Hodge, re Hatton (27 L. T. Rep. N. S. 397); Slater v.

His HONOUR.-But they did not put the time tables in evidence. There was no contract to convey the passengers to a certain place at a certain time. Gledhill said that Mr. Justice Willes said in his judgment the question was whether the com. pany entered into such a contract to guarantee to take the train from Cardiff in time for the plain. tiff to go on by the next train from Gloucester to Newcastle. That depended first upon the word-Jones, Capes v. Ball (27 L. T. Rep. N. S. 57). ing of the ticket, and secondly on the other facts. As to the first, it stated that the defendants would convey from Cardiff to Newcastle, but there was no statement that the train would arrive

at a certain time.

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

His HONOUR said that there was no doubt if default had been made plaintiffs would recover; but that, looking at the terms of the resolution, it appeared to him a demand must be made at the place named in the resolution at or after the time when the composition became payable, and that in this case it had just struck him the demand had been made too soon. The resolution was passed on the 7th Dec., the six months then, at which time the second instalment would become due, would not have expired till midnight on the 7th June last.

was pleadable in bar to an action for the original debt.

His HONOUR then said that it was necessary for the creditor to comply with the terms of the resolution, and he considered that in this case it had not been done. In the resolution it was specially stated that the composition should be payable at three months and six months from the date of the first meeting. The time for payment of the second instalment did not expire till midnight of the 7th June last, and therefore the demand made on that day was premature, not being in accordance with the resolution.

Plaintiff was therefore nonsuited.


We are sorry to notice that the practice in Dub. lin of solicitors advertising the removal of their offices seems to be on the increase.

THE funeral of the late Lord Chief Justice Bovill took place on Thursday at Kingston Cemetery.

AT the Surrey Sessions on Monday the chairman, in his charge to the grand jury, mentioned the sudden death of Mr. Dalby, who had been for many years a magistrate for the county.

THE office of Examiner of the Court of Chancery, rendered vacant by the resignation of Mr. C. Otter, has been offered by the Master of the Rolls to, and accepted by, Mr. Anderson, Q.C. SIR W. H. BODKIN had to leave the bench at the Middlesex Sessions on Tuesday, from indisposition, and it is understood that he will not sit in the court again this year. Mr. Serjeant Cox presided in the first, and Mr. Barrow in the

second court.

MR. HENRY JAMES, the new Solicitor-General, on Monday evening dined in the hall of the Middle Temple for the first time since his accession to society (Sir J. B. Karslake), read grace to the office, and in the absence of the treasurer of the benchers and students assembled.

THE Royal Commission on the legal departments, consisting of Lord Lisgar (the chairman), Baron Bramwell, Mr. H. West, M.P., Mr. G. O. Trevelyan, M.P., Mr. Law, and Mr. Rowsell, have commenced their sittings in committee room in the House of Lord. The proceedings are strictly private.

ELECTION JUDGES.-At the sitting of the Court of Common Pleas on Tuesday morning an order was read appointing Mr. Justice Grove to be placed on the rota for the trial of election petitions during the ensuing year. Baron Martin was also selected by the Court of Exchequer, and Mr. Justice Mellor by the Queen's Bench.

THE NEW LAW COURTS.-The Royal Institute of British Architects held their first ordinary general meeting of the winter session on Monday evening. The secretary read the opening address of Sir Gilbert Scott, in which the president congratulated the institution that the new Law Courts were about to be commenced, and emphatically condemned the disgraceful proposal to tamper with the perfection of the edifice to save a paltry percentage.

A PETITION was lodged in the Court of Comreturn of Mr. Henry James (Solicitor-General) mon Pleas on Tuesday morning, praying that the ground that he, both by himself, his agent or should be declared null and void, on the agents, and other persons in his behalf, were Belmont, a justice of the peace; and Mr. Walter guilty of bribery, treating, personation, and undue influence. The petitioners are John Marshall, of Chorley Brannan, of 10, Hammett-street, Taunton, auctioneer. The trial of the petition will, of three weeks, before either Baron Martin or Mr. it is expected, come on for hearing in the course Justice Grove. Mr. Hardinge Giffard, Q.C., has been retained with Mr. Serjeant Balantine for the sitting member.

His inclina

SIR JOHN COLERIDGE.-The Western Morning News of to-day says:-The Attorney-General has not accepted the Lord Chief Justiceship, for it has not yet been offered to him, nor is it likely that it will be offered until after the funeral of the late Sir William Bovill; but Sir John Coleridge, before leaving Exeter for London, assured his private friends that it was his fixed determi nation to accept the offer, if, in accordance with precedents, he should receive it. tions, he said, would lead him to a contrary Glyn said that it was very doubtful whether course, but his medical attendants strongly adin any case a demand was necessary, and read vise some diminution of the severe and incessant passages from the before-mentioned cases in toil of the past few years which of late has told support of his contention. He argued that as in perceptibly upon him. But for Mr. Gladstone's the above cases it was ruled that it was the pay-pressing request, Sir John Coleridge would have ment of the composition, and not the mere agree- accepted the Mastership of the Rolls, but such a ment to pay it, which satisfied the debt; it was request is not likely under the circumstances to not necessary to prove a demand of payment, it be repeated on the present occasion. being sufficient that the composition had never been paid. He also adverted to the fact that in Slater v. Jones, and Capes v. Ball (ubi sup.), where no default had been made, it was with some considerable doubt that the judges had arrived at the decision, that a resolution for composition

THE RIGHTS OF MARRIED WOMEN.-At the Croydon County Court on Monday, Mr. H. J. Stonor delivered an important judgment, which decides several points as to the rights of married women in respect to their earnings and property. The claimant, Mrs. Laporte, claimed

under the Married Women's Property Act 1870, for property in which her earnings, as a lodging-house keeper, had been invested by her, and which had been seized in execution of judg. ments which had been obtained. Mr. Stonor held that the second section of the Act which relates to "any money or property so acquired by a married woman through the exercise of any literary, artistic, or scientific skill," not merely restricts the money or property in question to such as may be acquired after the passing of the Act (either separately from or jointly with her husband), but that it is to be further restricted to money acquired by her separately from her husband. With regard to the furniture, he could see no reason why it should not be included in the term "investment" in legal construction. As to the operation of the first section with regard to such investment, he held that furniture was vested in her at law, and was not subject to her husband's debts. As regarded £20 which the claimant had received from her sisters, and laid out in furniture, the money not being earnings, or wages, it did not fall within the Act, and judgment for that amount would be in favour of the creditors, and for the balance in favour of the claimant. Mr, Stonor called attention to the extremely careless manner in which the Act was drawn, and also to the great hardship imposed upon creditors by the Act.

THE OPENING OF TERM.-THE COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 3.-The Lord Chancellor, attended by Lord Justice Mellish, Sir George Jessel (the new Master of the Rolls), the Vice-Chancellors, Sir R. Malins and Sir James Bacon, entered his court at Westminster shortly before 2 o'clock. Before commencing the business of the day, his lordship made the following observations, which were received with marked attention and sympathy by the Bar, who remained standing, and the numerous spectators with whom the court was densely crowded :-It is impossible for us to meet here to day without a deep sense of the great losses which the Bench and the country have sustained by the death of the two eminent judges so lately taken from us; and I feel sure I shall only be giving expression to the common feeling of all the members of the Bar who are here present, as well as to our own, if I attempt, however imperfectly, to say a few words to express our sense of those losses. The late Vice-Chancellor Wickens, whom we should have hoped to see present in this court to-day, was united to all of his colleagues upon the bench, and to many of our brethren of the Bar, by the closest ties of personal affection, while to some of us he was endeared by a friendship which dated from the days of early youth. He brought to the discharge of his high duties powers of mind, and cultivation, and accomplishments such as it falls to the lot of very few men to possess, and to those qualities he added a temper the most uniformly cordial and amiable, a judgment the most sound, learning the most extensive, and all the qualities needed to make a very great judge. The greatest expectations had justly been formed of him, and during the short time he was permitted to be upon the bench he has shown that if it had pleased God he would have fulfilled all those expectations. Of the other eminent judge whom we have lost, those practising in this court have necessarily not seen so much, but all of us know how extensive was his learning, how great his experience, and all of us, I think, must know that there was no man of more indefatigable activity in the discharge of all his duties-no man of a more kindly heart. I feel sure that in the few words I have said I have expressed the feeling entertained by all members of the Bar as well as by the whole Bench of Judges, and that such feelings will be shared in throughout the country.

THE LATE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE BOVILL. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 3.-On coming into court, Mr. Justice Keating, who was much affected, said: In view of the melancholy event which has deprived the court of its chief, had we

seeing that right was ever done. To some of us it was given to know him more intimately. Those of us who had been his associates at the Bar ever found in him an honourable opponent or a loyal colleague; and full well we learnt to know that his vigorous intellect and his great earnestness secured to every client who intrusted his interests to his hands the truest and sincerest advocacy the English Bar could provide. Some there are, my Lords, who knew him better yet, and those will mourn him most. Such of us as, may be, like your Lordships, enjoyed his private friendship, learned how loving and gentle he was to those who were of him-how generous in his friendship to his associates, how considerate to those who were dependent on him, and how open and generous his hand to those who needed aid. If it be true that to live in the hearts of those we love is not to die, Sir William Bovill has not passed away from among us. A generation must go and come ere some of us will forget to mourn him, and ere every one of those for whom I have spoken, every member of the English Bar, ceases to mention his name with regard and respect.



NOTICE. We must remind our correspondents that this column is not open to questions involving points of law such as a solicitor should be consulted upon. Queries will be excluded which go beyond our limits. N.B.-None are inserted unless the name and address of the writers are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee for bona fides.


(Q. 6.) LOCAL AUTHORITY UNDER THE GAS WORKS CLAUSES ACT 1871.-Terms used in this Act have the same meanings respectively, as the same terms have when used in the Gas Works Clauses Act 1817, and in the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act 1870 (s. 4). The interpretation of the term "local authority," referred to in sect. 35, means the bodies of persons named in schedule A of the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act 1870 (sect. 2 of that Act). "A. F. W." will find the information he requires in that schedule. A. A. R.

(Q. 7.) CONTRACT-DEBT-RUNNING ACCOUNT, &c.— B. cannot divide his cause of action against A. for the purpose of bringing two actions in the County Court (sect. 63 of 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95; and sect. 18 of 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61). A. A. R.



(Continued from page 10.)

THE PROPERTY OF MARRIED WOMEN-PROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION WITH REFERENCE THERETO. MR. C. E. Mathews read a paper upon this subject. He commenced by pointing out the manner in which the laws in force in the year 1870 were altered by the Act of that year. The Act of 1870 was a good Act, so far as it went, but it dealt partially and incompletely with a recognised social injustice. It made but small alteration in the legal relations of husband and wife; but it did some very good things, which the paper enumerated. It was generally admitted that the Act was passed for the protection of the poorer classes, and as a matter of fact the whole rule of settlement in connection with the marriage of persons in the middle and upper clases had not been affected in any way. Speaking of the rights of a husband over the property of his wife, subject to the alterations created by the Act of 1870, Mr. Mathews quoted the words of the late Chanshilling might marry a woman of great wealth, cellor of the Exchequer, that a man without a and by studying the law of cruelty to perfection might, by a course of conduct just within the law, drive his wife and children from him, seize their property, and reduce them to misery and destitution, while he fattened upon the spoils of the unhappy woman whom he had sworn to love and cherish. It was difficult to imagine any just ground for the retention of a law which would seem to be as unnecessary as it certainly was unis released by will, and for the law on this point I just. In the inevitable amendment of the law in

8. INTEREST IN LAND.-Is an agreement for a mortgage of a freehold estate an interest in land, within the meaning of the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds?

Refer to cases.

S. A.

9. EJECTMENT.-Will twenty years' possession by a

cestui que trust, without the intervention of any trustee, give a sufficient legal title to maintain ejectment? Last surviving trustee died seventy or more years ago, and no appointment of new trustees has ever been made

or executed.


S. B.

[blocks in formation]

Legacy duty is payable in respect of a debt which

would refer your correspondent to the 7th section of the Legacy Duty Act, 36 Geo. 3, c. 52. A case in point will be discovered in 3 Y. & J. 114. E. W. P. The release by the will of the testator of a debt owing to him is in the nature of a donatio mortis causa, and therefore liable to legacy duty under 8 & 9 Vict.

c. 76 s. 4.

A. A. R.

The "release" or "forgiveness" of a debt due from A. to the testator is "a legacy" to A. within the meaning of the Legacy Duty Acts, and duty is payable thereon: (Attorney-General v. Holbrook, 3 V. & J. 114).T. E. H.

this and other points, care would have to be taken in doing justice to the wife that injustice was not done to the husband. A woman of property should have larger powers of disposition over her freehold and copy hold estates, but at the same time she should be made directly liable for the support and maintenance of her household. A widow should have no right to dower, or to any interest in her husband's property, until his creditors were paid. A husband, in cases of divorce, ought no longer to be liable for costs to enable a guilty wife to carry on a suit-at any rate, unless the court was satisfied that she was otherwise unable to do so. Nor should any allowance for subsistence during a pending suit be allowed to a wife if the court was satisfied that she was able to maintain herself without it, and no perappli-manent subsistence ought to be granted if a separation or divorce was the result of a wife's misconduct. They must see that wives did not obtain important and unjust rights as respected their husband's property, in addition to the exclusive guardianship of that which was their own. With regard to the objection urged that women were unfitted to have the disposal of their own property, Mr. Mathews said he ventured to think that it was within the knowledge of all lawyers that a woman properly trusted with funds knew quite as well how to administer them as men did. He was certain that in many households the annual provision which was ensured to wives by

(Q. 2.) PRACTICE IN THE COLONIES.-A clerk, even if admitted in England, cannot, as far as I remember, commence practice in any Antipodean colony (New South Wales excepted), without passing an examinaThree months' notice of his intention to tion there. pass such examination is required, and the subjects given are the same as here, with the addition of colonial law. In New South Wales (Sydney), an attorney admitted in England has simply to make an tion to a judge at chambers for permission to practise, and put the usual notice in the Colonial Government It is not necessary to state anything to the Incorporated Law Society here.

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

consulted our own feelings we should have been so, and he is not liable for violating the Attorneys' Act, their marriage settlements caused them to be

(Q. 4.) AGENTS AND DEBT COLLECTORS.-The County Court judge is the proper person to stop the practice of debt collectors appearing as advocates in bis court. The collector considers he has a right to appear before the court by sect. 91 of 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, and sect. 10 of 15 & 16 Vict. c. 54, as long as the judge allows him to do because sect. 33 of 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, exonerates him so long as he has the leave of the judge. County Court rule 115, makes the provisions of sect. 10 (ante) applicable to all matters which may come before the should apply to the judge for a general order disallow court. "Burton-on-Trent" and his professional friends ing "agents or "debt collectors him or practising in the court.

disposed to adjourn the business. But so per-
suaded are we that such a course would be
opposed to his wishes and feelings, who would
not have desired the public interest to be post-
poned to any other consideration, we have aban-
doned that intention. The court has sustained a
most severe and serious loss-one to be deeply
and acutely felt by every member of it. A most
accomplished lawyer and distinguished judge has
passed away; no man ever sat on this or any
other bench of justice more ardently desirous of
faithfully discharging his duties. The Solicitor-Duty,
General (Mr. Henry James, Q.C.) said: In the
absence of my learned friend the Attorney-
General, I have been requested by my brethren
of the Bar to express to your Lordships the deep
and sincere regret with which we have learnt the
death of Sir William Bovill. My Lords, we all
knew him as Chief Justice of this court, and in
him we all recognised a judge singularly earnest
in his determination to do justice to every suitor
who came before him, and one who conspicuously
fulfilled the first duty of an English judge in

[blocks in formation]

(Q. 5.) SUCCESSION DUTY ACT.-The exercise of the power of sale takes the case out of the Succession Duty Act (sect. 18), so that the Purchaser is not liable to any duty by reason of the death of the annuitant. however, became payable under sect. 29 upon the purchase-money, and has probably long since been Succession duty is payable in respect of the cesser of an annuity (sects. 3, 5, and 20 of 16 & 17 Vict. c. 51, and see page 85 of Hudson on Legacy and Succession Duties). The interest of the successor will be considered to be the value of the annuity to him, such annuity to be valued according to the tables mentioned in the Act (sects. 21 and 31 same Act), and the duty thereon must be borne by the present owner as the successor, and the only person beneficially interested in the succession: (sects. 2, 3, 5, 15, 42, and 44, same Act.)

A. A. R.

treated with additional consideration and respect. A discussion then took place, in which Mr. England spoke against legislating for exceptional cases in such a manner as to destroy the mutual feelings of unity which ought to exist between husband and wife.

Mr. W. S. Allen (Birmingham) said there could scarcely be a difference of opinion as to the great left untouched the question so far as it affected scandal dealt with in the paper. The Act of 1870 the working classes; and there was something grievously defective in the law when a wife was left to bear the chief share of the consequences of her husband's misconduct, even when that misconduct had brought him within the reach of the criminal law.

Mr. Ellett (Cirencester) thought an amendment might be made by extending the jurisdiction of magistrates to cases which did not strictly come within the definition of desertion.

The Chairman referred to the hardship of requiring a respectab'e woman, who had been deserted, to go before a board of guardians before

« EelmineJätka »