Page images


[ocr errors]

causes now in my office.” What was Lord Kenyon's any reform is to be effected in relation to this im. estates over which he had a power of disposition reply to this supplicatory appeal to him ! “So much post it will be best secured by combined action on to the plaintiffs, who filed this bill to obtain th; worse for your clients who have employed such the part of solicitors in England and Ireland. If possession of the lands which, though not forming a man! You shall remain suspended until the no substantial movement is set on foot it may part of the settled estates in 1719, were included court decides on the rule.” The rule came on to fairly be contended that we do not require such in the schedules to the Acts of 1803 and 1843. be heard at a future day, after the affidavits on reform.

Held, that the intention of the Legislature was to the part of Mr. Lawless had been filed. The

vest in the trustees lands which were actually charges against him were found to be wholly Mr. T. REDWOOD, Professor of Chemistry to part of the settled estates in 1719, and that the without foundation, and the rule was accord the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, and plaintiffs were entitled to recover. Hald also ingly discharged. Mr. Lawless was in conse analyst under the Adulteration of Food, Drink, that where a person has intruded upon the estate quence restored to his profession, but not to his and Drugs Act, writing to the Daily Telegraph of an infant, the, infant may sue in equity, character or peace of mind. He sunk under the on the 19th inst, upon the subject of the adul. although he has both a legal and equitable title, anmerited disgrace to which he had been subteration of bread, observes, in relation to the and is entitled to account. Crowther v. jected, and died of a broken heart. It is not failure of legal proceedings'in & case under the Crowther (23 Beav. 305) not followed : (Howard, improbable that under changes which are in con. | Adulteration Act : "The result of this and some v. Earl of Shrewsbury (29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 862. templation in relation to both branches of the other cases in which proceedings have been taken Rolls.) legal profession, the government of our own body, under the Adulteration Act, shows the necessity PRACTICE-SETTLEMENT-LEASES AND SALES and the power of suspension or removal from its of having legal assistance to conduct the prosecu- OF SETTLED ESTATES ACT, s. 1.-A testatrix de. ranks may be altogether entrusted to the Council tions, instead of leaving them, as the county cases vised real estate to trustees upon trust for A., in of the Incorporated Law Society, just as the are row left, to be conducted by the inspectors. case she should attain twenty-one, or marry premembers of the Bar are subjected to the This is especially the case where the defendants viously to attaining that age; with a gift over in authority of the several Inns of Court, which are professionally represented. I consider that strict settlement in case A. should not live to consist of persons of their own order." The the failure of the case heard yesterday at Edgware attain a vested interest: Held, that this was a case of Mr. Lawless, in these days happily was entirely due to the want of legal assistance in limitation “by way of succession,” within the without precedent, is yet of a nature to occasion preparing and presenting the evidence for the pro- meaning of the Act: (Re Horn's Settled Estates, anxiety to all of us, and the sooner the power secution." It certainly does seem idle to expect 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 830. V.C. M.) of removing a solicitor's name from the roll is that inspectors appointed under the Act in ques- PLEA TO WHOLE BILL-PLEA OF “NOT A transferred from the judges to the Incorporated tion should be capable of instituting and conduct- PARTNER IN THE MONTE VIDEO FIRMI”--PLEA Law Society (of which every solicitor ought to be ing such proceedings. The new Government may OVERRULED.—The bill alleged that the defendants, a member), the better.

take a different view of what is and what is not A., B., and C., carried on business as merchants a wise economy as compared with that which at Montevideo under the firm of A. and Co.; and

governed the policy of the late administration at Liverpool under the firm of B. and Co.; and We publish in another column a report in connec- upon such matters.

that the members of both firms were identical. tion with the annual banquet of the Manchester

He further alleged that certain goods (the subject. Incorporated Law Association. Mr. P. F. Garnett (vice-president of the Incorporated Law Society A MEMBER of the Legal Practitioners' Society, matter of the suit) were consigned to A., B., and of Liverpool) stated his views of the great valu. also a member of the incorporated Law Society, C., to their firm of A. and Co, through their firm and utility of law societies, when proposing the writes to us to say that he considers that the of B. and Co.; and that A., B., and C., as well in toast of the evening. We fau, however, to discover first-named society ought to be supported by the respect of their firm of A. and Co., as in rethe “ methodical and combined influence of which Profession on the principle that prevention is spect of their firm B. and Co., received these he spoke. It is the very thing that is wanted so

better than cure that is, that it is far wiser to goods with full knowledge that they were the badly. We venture to assert that there is prac protect the Profession from the depredations of plaintiffs' trust property, and sold them and

received the proceeds for them on that footing. tically no combination amongst us, none such, unqualified men who take from them the earn. at all events, as Mr. Marshall, of Leeds, has ings to which they are entitled, than permit The defendant C. pleaded to the whole of the bili, advocated, but there are signs of such action as

such depredations, and yet support the Solicitors that he was not, and never had been, a partner in is required, the arguments in favour of which, by Benevolent and other similar associations. We the Monte Video firm; and averred that the the most able and intelligent members of our

agree in part with our correspondent; for instance, members of the two firms were not identical. branch of the profession, are so forcible that it proper protection was afforded the Profession Held that, though this plea would have been a they must bear their fruit in due season. In all against the encroachments complained of, we good plea if the bill had merely sought to charge other professions, owing to combination, there are

cannot doubt but that much work now under him as a partner in the Monte Video firm, yet as steps by which a man can rise to a position of taken by accountants and agents of all kinds it contained allegations sufficient to render him distinction and honour, while for solicitors there would pass into solicitors' offices-it may be the liable as a partner in the Liverpool firm, the latter at present exists no such means to such a desirable offices of those least prosperous, who are, how. liability was totally uncovered by the plea, which end.

ever, none the less on that account entitled to be must therefore be overruled : (Roberts v. Le Hir, protected by the Legislature; and if work go

29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 873. V.C. M.) changed hands, the demands on the funds of APPORTIONMENT— PARTNERSHIP Profits We gather from editorial answers to correspon. Solicitors' charitable institutions would certainly INCOME.-Profits in a partnership business partly dents in the School Board Chronicle that the decrease.

earned in the testator's lifetime, but not ascereditor of that publication is beset with all kinds

tained until after his death, are not apportionable, of questions, principally relating to the Education

SHARP practice amongst solicitors is not to be but are income of the testator's estate : (Lambert Act, of a strictly legal nature. It is not, there. fore, surprising to find such notes as the follow. days. A case has just been brought to our notice countenanced or tolerated for a moment in these v. Lambert, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 878. V. C. B.

PRACTICE-EVIDENCE-CROSS-EXAMINATIONing :-“ With every desire to answer in full your in which a plaintiff's attorney, having received EXPENSES OF WITNESS-Order 5th Feb. 1861, query, we must beg to refer you for a reply either from the defendant's attorney certain pleas for RULE 19.- The expenses of a witness summoned to the legal adviser of your board, or to any other which an order for leave to plead them was for cross-examination must, in the first instance, competent lawyer."

necessary, and it was not issued owing to the be borne by the parties on whose behalf his The Irish Law Times and Solicitors' Journal, re

fault of the clerk to the defendant's attorney, he evidence in chief has been given : (Richards v. ferring to the Irish solicitors who are elected (plaintiff's attorney) signed judgment for want of Goddard, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 881. V.C. H.). members of Parliament, observes as follows of a plea. On a summons to set aside such judg


CLIENT PROPERTY Mr. Charles E. Lewis, M.P., for Londonderry ment, it was stated that defendant's attorney had

COVERED FOR INFANT-FUND IN COURT-LIEN City :-“It is true he is an Englishman, and that the plaintiff's attorney must have known 127, s. 28.-A solicitor's lien for costs in any suit no intimation that the judgment was signed, and

FOR Costs-JURISDICTION—23 & 24 Vict. C. practises in London, but we are much mistaken if that the non-issuing of the necessary summons he does not make the common interests of the for leave to plead was a pure oversight from

the property must be established by filing

a bill under

or proceeding instituted for recovering an infant's Irish and English solicitors his especial study. fact that in engrossing the pleas which were He is already well known in London (indepen. delivered the clerk copied in the fold of the paper under the Attorneys and Solicitors' Act 1860 :

the general jurisdiction of the court, and not dently of his large practice) for his exertions in the usual memorandums by counsel as to leave re. reference to the Incorporated Law Society of England, and has also, we believe, had the good quired, &c. The master, of course, ordered the (Pritchard v. Roberts, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 883.

V.C. H.). sense to recommend his English friends to imi. judgment to be set aside on payment of 103. 60.

PRACTICE-TRANSFER OF CAUSE-JUDGE FORtate the energy and intelligent zeal for the interests the master had set the judgment aside, and that costs. We should have preferred to hear that

MERLY COUNSEL.–Where a case involving volu. of their profession displayed by their brethren of the defendant was to be paid all his costs occa

minous accounts was attached to the court of a the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.”. Upon sioned by the judgment snapped as described.

judge who had formerly been counsel in the case, the subject of law reform the same journal says:

and his chief clerk had after much consideration, " When we consider the position of legal reforms

decided the principle upon which the accounts in England, and the anxious expectation with In addition to the names of solicitors elected were to be taken, the court refused to order a which their extension to Ireland is looked forward, members of Parliament, which appeared in our transfer of the cause to another branch of the we feel consoled to think we shall have in the two last issues, we have to add those of Mr. court till it became necessary to make some House of Commons sufficient representatives of Murphy, elected for Cork City, and Mr. Fay, application to the judge in person : (Jackson v. our professional interests to provide that due care

who headed the poll for Cavan. This makes in Ward, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 861. Chan.). shall be taken of them, and that efficiency of legal all thirteen solicitors in the House of Commons.


SER. administration shall not be considered less im

VICE-DELAY IN STAMPING-EMERGENCY_6 & 7 portant than a diminution of the charges on the

VICT. c. 73, ss. 8 & 9.–Upon the mistaken legal Consolidated Fund.” As regards the annual cer.


advice that articles of clerkship need not be tificate duty, it adds: “Some time since we called PRIVATE ACT OF PARLIAMENT-MISDESCRIP- stamped for six months after exocution, the applithe attention of the Profession to the necessity of Tion of Properties in SCHEDULE-Construc-cant's articles were executed without stamp; and agitating for a repeal of the duty which is now TiON,PLEADING-BILL BY INFANT-ACCOUNT before the first six months elapsed the applicant's annually levied from them. The amount of this INTRUSION.—The settled estates of the Duke of father became anable, in consequence of uner. duty is not much, it is urged, and solicitors in Shrewsbury were, by an Act passed in 1719, pected losses in business, to pay the amount repractice do not feel it, while it may be useful; but settled upon the Earl of Shrewsbury, with a quired. The service, however, continued under we think it is positively of no use in the interests proviso against alienation. Two Acts were sub- the articles, and three years afterwards the father of the Profession or the public; it brings in a sequently passed-one in 1803, and the other in paid the stamp and penalty. Held, upon

applicamere trifle to the treasury, and we think the pre- 1843— by which portions of the settled estates, tion to compute the service from the date of the sent a most opportune occasion to appeal to the described in the schedules, were vested in trustees, articles under 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, ss. 8 & 9, that, Government for its remission. There is a large upon trust to sell

, and invest the purchase-money although an articled clerk who has been tricked or surplus to be disposed of, and most people admit in the purchase of other estates to be settled upon misled should have every consideration, the court that the way to keep up a high professional the same trusts. Some of the lands described in will not accept as an excuse for the ordinary restandard is not to impose more taxes but to make the schedules did not form part of the settled quirements of the law upon admission to the proentrance to the Profession a difficult matter by estates when the Act of 1719 was passed. In 1856 fession of an attorney circumstances which are responsible apprenticeship and examinations.” If the then Earl of Shrewsbury devised all his loosely called an emergency, and which do not

[ocr errors]




[ocr errors]

show a bona fide intention from the commence bers).-In this case an action was brought against trade or clique, is the best tribunal for the trial ment to carry out the duties imposed; and that the defendant and the garnishee, and the question of any issue of fact, whether the dispute be on a the circumstances of this case did not constitute a was, whether a sum of money in the hands of the mercantile or any other transaction. sufficient excuse. Ex parte Matthew Breden garnishee could be attached by the plaintiff. At The Act of 1870, besides enlarging the standard (31 L. J. 321, C. P.) disputed : (Ex parte Morris | the trial a verdict was found for the plaintiff. of qualification of special jurors, introduced also Roth, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 885. Q. B.)

Objection was made by Mr. McCall for the gar: two material alterations in the mode of summon.

nishee, that the money in question was bequeathed ing. It is necessary to speak of these, since they LORD MAYOR'S COURT.

to the wife of the defendant, and was reduced have acquired some relation to the subject of the

into possession by the husband. This objection is qualification of special jurors. Wednesday, Feb. 18.

not tenable. The husband and wife presented a The first of these was the abolition, as far as all LANE v. OAKES (MACKENZIE, Garnishee.)(a) joint petition to the Court of Chancery, and upon ordinary practice is concerned, of the system of Married Women's Property Act, s. 7—Become that petition an order was made for the money to summoning a separate special jury for the trial of entitled to"Reduction into possession.

be paid to the defendant in right of his wife. each particular cause; a system which had been This was an attachment cause, tried at the The money was paid to the garnishee under a fully shown to involve, without any adequate December sittings of the court, when a verdict power of attorney given by the husband alone. degree of compensating advantage, the vices of was obtained for the plaintiff. It appeared at

That is sufficient to reduce the fund into the pos. unnecessary inconvomience and expence in all the trial that the money sought to be attached, session of the husband. The second objection their most aggravated forms. It substituted a amounting to £137, was bequeathed to the defen- made was, that under the Married Womon's Pro general panel of jurors to serve for a certain dant's wife before her marriage, subject to a life perty Act this money belonged to the wife for her limited period, and available to try all the causes interest. The defendant married in 1871. The life separate use, and therefore could not be attached which may happen to come on for hearing during interest expired in 1873, when the defendant and his for the debt of the husband. Two cases in par. that period. wife presented a joint petition to the Court of ticular were cited, where it was decided upon The second of the main alterations introduced Chancery, where the estate was being adminis- similar terms in a marriage settlement, that such by the act in question in the mode of summoning tered, to pay to the husband, in right of his wife, words covered a reversionary interest which falls juries was in fact a declaratory statement of the the money in question. In pursuance of that into possession during coverture, and would be pro- existing law, and an injunction that it should be petition the monoy was paid to the garnishee, tected by such a covenant. These cases (Archer v. better observed, rather than the initiation of any who was the attorney and agent of the defendant, Kelly, and Clinton's Trusts, sup.), were decided new practice. For it required sheriffs and their and in his hands it was attached by the plaintiff, by Kindersley, and their decisions seem to apply representatives to do what was, and always had a creditor of the defendant.

to this section of the Act. Although at first the been, their duty by summoning special as well McCall for the garnishee (instructed by Lake, property seemed to me to be unprotected by the as common jurors for service on common juries. Beaumont, and Lake), having obtained a rule for statute, I have been so much influenced by the It has been alleged that the quality of special a new trial, on the grounds that there was able argument of Mr. McCall, that after conferring juries, especially in the city of London, has no reduction into possession, and that the case with Mr. Justice Quain, I think the case comes latterly deteriorated. Now, since it is plain that came within the Married Women's Property Act, within the protection of the statute. On this this fact, if such it be, cannot possibly be attribu. 8. 7,

ground, therefore, the rule will be made absolute table to the system of promiscuous summoning Kemp, for the plaintiff (instructed by Reep, for a new trial. I make no order as to costs. just referred to, which has affected common juries Lane and Co.), showed cause.-The husband re

only, a supposition has been sometimes expressed ceiving the fund, or authorising some one to

that it must necessarily be due either to the en. receive it for him, is enough to change the wife's


largement of the standard of qualification, or to interest in the property and reduce it into pos


the new method, just now described, of summonsession of the husband : (Fleet v. Perrins, 38 MR. ERLE writes to the Law Magazine :

ing special juries; that is to say, by general L. J. 259, Q. B. ; Jones (v. Cuthbertson, 41 L. J. 146, The proper qualification of special jurors for panels instead of by a separate panel for each Q.B.) Mrs. Oakes “became entitled” to the the City of London is one of the first and most particular case. But the truth will be found to money when the will was proved in 1865. Her serious questions which must necessarily engage be that the system of summoning which is pursued right was perfect before the expiration of the life the consideration of the framer of any measure in the city of London, and which, in its principle, interest, and therefore the Married Women's intended to affect the law relating to juries, and is also followəd to a greater or less extent in many Property Act, which did not come into force till on the preparation of the bill of last session, the of the English counties, precludes the forming of 1870, does not apply. She became entitled before attention of the then Attorney-General was care- any dependable conclusion as to the quality of and not“ during her marriage."

fully directed to the matter. The point is one of the special jurors' list taken as a whole. This M'Call, for the garnishee, in support of his rule. some difficulty, since no criterion of the posses. will be understood on a statement of what that There was no reduction into the possession of sion of intelligence and good judgment can be system is. . To describe it in the shape in which the husband. This is often a difficult question to fixed by Act of Parliament, nor can a peculiar it is found in the City. The secondary, with whom determine. The onus is upon the plaintiff to show degree of knowledge of commercial matters, such the duty of summoning jurors rests, does not at any

some clear and distinct act” on the part of the as is supposed to be wanted to give a Guildhall time, when called upon to discharge this function, husband : (Scarpellini v. Aitcheson, 14 L. J. 333, special juror a proper aptitude for his duty be resort to any general list of jurors supplied from the Q.B). In Hart v. Stevens (14 L. J. 150, Q. B.) the ascribed as a certainty to any man, except as a whole area of the City, but lays the 28 wards into interest on a promissory note given to the wife consequence of his following some avocation which which the City is divided successively under con. before marriage was received by the husband compels the acquisition of such knowledge. Rint tribution. His plan, as it has been given in evi. during coverture, and it was held not sufficient to it will be found by experiment that it is, in prac. dence, is to "work,” to use a common expression, reduce the debt into the possession of the hus. tice, quite impossible to particularise specific two wards at a time, taking half the special, and band. In Prole v. Soady (37 L. J. 248, Ch.), where callings as necessarily rendering those who pur. half the common jurors who may be wanted at the the fund was carried over to the joint account of sue them desirable as special jurors in the city. moment, from each of these wards; and after ex. husband and wife, it was held no reduction into To take one case only, out of a great number, as hausting the lists of these two districts, to treat possession by the husband. “Reduction into an example. Men who are described simply as two other wards, the next in geographical se. possession is a question of intention ; therefore it agents," take, as is well-known, a very im. quence, in the same manner. In actual practice, seems to me that the joint authority of husband portant part indeed in mercantile transactions. this scheme of summoning would not seem to be and wife negatives any intention on the husband's But the profession of men styling themselves always quite strictly adhered to, since the result part to reduce the money into possession." (Per agents, extends from the members of a most which is witnessed is that of jurors brought from Cleasby, B., Jones v. Cuthbertson, 42 L. J. 223, Èx.) respectable and wealthy class down to persons even a still narrower field than would be covered Secondly, the case comes within sect. 7 of the living from hand to mouth on their wits, and by the arrangement just described. For it will be Married Women’s Property Act, which provides ready, like a Græculus esuriens, to do anything in seen on inspecting the lists of special jurors sup. inter alia that “where any woman married after the world for a shilling.

plied to any of the Superior Courts for its sittings the passing of this Act shall during her marriage

In default, then, of any available test which at Guildhall, that in many instances the whole, or become entitled to any sum not exceeding £200 could be founded on a man's profession of his nearly the whole, of the men whose names appear under any will, such property shall belong to the fitness to be a special juror, and the old formula or any particular panel are drawn from some woman for her separate use." It was intended of “banker, merchant, or Esquire," having single, and frequently very small, locality. Last so far to do for married women what is proved to be little better than useless, it was year one of the panels which was furnished to the sometimes accomplished by marriage settle thought necessary, in framing the Juries Bill, to Court of Common Pleas, was almost equivalent to ments. The Act is to be construed with propose, as has been already stated, that 'the a column of the directory under either of the head. reference to its policy : (Winter v. Winter, 16 qualification of special jurors should be consti. ings, “Woolbrokers,” or “ East India Avenue.” L. J., 112 Ch.) Her property in expectancy tuted by rating or rental only. It is not, of The jurors' list is made out by streets, and not needed no such protection, but that in possession course, for a moment denied that rating or according to the alphabetical order of the names, or capable of being reduced did, being subject to rental supplies but a very imperfect indication so that in the natural course of things a summon. the marital rights of the husband; and the lan. of a man's capacity for serving as an effective ing officer, when dispatched on a professional guage of the section bears out this view. This special juror. Still, these tests, rough as they excursion, has to net his prey by proceeding along section, as well as the 8th, which refers to real are, afford some evidence, however inconclusive, some series of contiguous houses. This system of property, follows the language of the usual cove. of vigorous and successful habits of business, or summoning has prevailed for a great many years nant in a marriage settlement. In Archer v. Kelly at any rate of the prosecution of some substantial past, and was handed down to, and not introduced (29 L. J. 911, Ch.) Kindersley, V.C., held that calling, or of the possession of some such means by, the present secondary. It is unquestionably “ become entitled” signified a change of condition and position in life as are generally found to be a bad one, combining, as it is so we'l calculated to from expectancy to possession. °According to accompanied by a certain degree of education, do, the maximum of public inconvenience with plaintiff's construction, the language of the sec. and they may, therefore, be at least preferred to the minimum of expediency as regards the tion should have been “shall become entitled to the caprice, or opinion, or, as will certainly be jury box. Each trade or business, as is well any interest whatsoever :" (Mackenzie's Settle suspected, the favour dependent on occult con. known, is concentrated in some particular locality ment, 36 L. J. 320, Ch.) The construction for siderations, of the framers (in many cases very in the city. The district which takes in a part of which I contend is upheld in ('linton's Trust (41 ignorant people) of the jury lists, which are pro- the Bank and of the Royal Exchange, in the Broad. L. J. 192, Ch.), where Wickens, V.C., discusses all bably the very worst "fancy" qualifications street ward, is largely occupied by stockbrokers, the cases. The wife of the defendant, therefore, which could possibly be invented. It may very and dealers in stocks and shares of all descripbecame entitled to this money upon the death of reasonably be doubted whether there is any tions. The head quarters of corn merchants are the tenant for life, that is, during her marriage sufficient foundation for the common assumption in Mark-lane, and those of sugar brokers in and after the passing of this Act. The money that causes involving questions relating to Mincing-lane, both of which streets, or the greater being therefore due to the wife, and the judgment peculiar interests, as, for example, shipping cases, part of each, are in Tower ward. Tower-street, being against the husband, this is not a debt cannot be satisfactorily tried except by special with its wine merchants, is in the same ward. owing or accruing to the judgment debtor so as to juries composed of men who are practically Fruit merchants are thickly settled in the adjoin. be attachable : (Dingley v. Robinson, 26 L. J. 55, familiar with such matters. Probably, a mixed ing ward, that of Billingsgate. Each leading Ex.)

Cur adv, vult. assembly containing men of business of various business, in short, which is followed in the City, The DEPUTY RECORDER (Sir Thomas Cham- occupations, and thus free, as a body, from the has, generally speaking, its own local habitation,

bias or contracted opinion which may, unsus. or, at any rate, a local nucleus which is its centre (a) A short report of this case appeared last week, pectedly, sway the members of any particular of vitality. The area of each ward being, roughly

[ocr errors]

speaking, not more than about one twenty-eighth companies carrying on their business within the BROWN (Richard, Luton; Beds, timber merchant. April

4; , of a square wile, the effect of its being fastened City should be made liable to serve there as special BROWKO Richards,

Bromtrees Hell, Bishops Froome, apon for jurors is partially to depopulate it for jurors: In the absence of any express provision BHerekoran emas told me wita: Burley, near Exercise

, Esq. May 1; Wm. Wentsolicitor, . the time being, and the trades carried on within for bringing such officers within the scope of the

ironmaster. April 1; Weddall and Parker, solicitors. it are, on such occasions, more or less paralysed, Act, by enduing them with an ex officio qualif. Selby. the bulk of those who conduct them being car cation, they would as now, being neither rated nor CLARK (Susannah), formerly of Vigo-street, Regent-street, riod into captivity at Guildhall. The juries also, paying rent, nor being, in any sufficiently full

and late of 127. Abbey-road, St. John's.wood, Middlesex,

widow. April 12; J. Wills, so.icitor, 53, Carter-lane, which are thus collected, are not so completely legal sense, occupiers of premises, escape service. Doctor'.-coinmons, London. efficient for the purposes of justice as they would the propriety of this measure will scarcely be CLIFFORD (Rixht Hon. Sophia, Baronesa de). Kirkby Mal. be if composed of men familiar, taking them alto. questioned when it has been mentioned that there

lory, near Hinckley, Leicester, and nf 3, Carlton House

terrace, Middlesex, and also of Dalgar Park, near Shrale, gether, with a greater variety of occupations, and are nearly 1500 of such companies holding pre- co. Mayo. Ireland, widow. April 13 : Wing and Du Cane, thus less liable, as a body, to be affected by any mises in the City, and constantly using the courts solicitors, 1, Gray's-inn-square, London, W.C. of the narrowing influences or feelings which are as litigants, and since mercantile business is pasg.

COHEN (Justina), 11, Queen's-gardens, Middlesex, widow.

March 19; Dawes aud Soos, solicitors, 9, Ange-court, sometimes found to prevail in particular circum. ing in a constantly increasing degree into the Throgmorton-street, London. scribed localities, or among the members of limited hands of companies, the burden of service on DINNISG (Henry), 45, Duke.street, St. James.square, Mid.

dlesex, East India United Service Club, St. James-square, communities. In view algo of the well known juries at Guildhall, which is now thrown on

Middlesex, a Brevet Colonel in H.M's Bengall Staff natural tendency which leads some men who, private traders only, would become more and Corps. March 14; B. W. Crose, solicitor, 4, Bell-yard, although of sound intelligence, are of so diffident more oppressive and unfair if the present total DUNDØRDALE ( Thos.). Horseshoe Inn, Church-street, Prese

Doctors' , London. or pliant a disposition as to surrender their whole exomption of all the representatives of companies ton, innkeeper. March 9; R. W. and A. Ascroft, solici. independence of understanding to an inveterato were to continue. The very, moderato proposal Don Ron Henry. Greatworth, Northamptop. March

tora, , Cannon-strect Preston. habit of submitting their own opinion to the conof the Juries Bill was materially enlarged by the

12th; Weston and Barnes, solicitors, Brackley, North. trol of such of their neighbours as may happen to House of Commons by extending its terms so far ampton, possess a more robust decisiveness of judgment as to reach, not the managing director or manager GABLE (John), formerly of West View, Bickley, Kent, and

late of Lubbock-road, Chislehurst, Esq. March 90; or a spirit of more active self-assertion, it is better only, but every director of every public company

Beachcroft and Thompson, solicitors, 18, King's-road, that the members of any given jury should come carrying on its business within the City. Some Bedford.row, London. from weveral different distriots, rather than from remonstrance or protest on the part of directors GREEN ($s. John), formerly a Lieat. in H.M.: sth Regt. of

L, but late , Esq. May ; Jas. Pearse, one only, since in the latter case they would be who have no semblance of actual occupation in solicitor, Bedford. likely to be all more or less personally known to their own persons of premises in the City, and HendeaSox, John), Ambie, Northumberland, fish curer. one another, and some of them might exercise an who are only bound to attend occasionally at their

April 1: Allan and Davies, solicitore, 23, Grainger-street,

Newcastle-upon-Tyne. undue ascendancy over the rest.

respective offices, may probably be anticipated if HODGSON (John), late of Walmgate, York, innkeeper, and It is obvious that the quality of juries must, the proposal to make them liable to serve as of Topcliffe Park, York, farmer. April 6; Geo. Crambie, under the system which has been described, vary special jurors for the City should at any future HOLLYMAN (Wm.), Clevedon, Somerset, butcher. March

solicitor, 46, , . extremely according to the spots from whioh they time pass into law.

35; H. Woodford, solicitor, Clevedon. may bappen to have been taken. The Aldgate,

HU ESTON (John), formerly of 89. Leman-ktreet, WhiteLangbourne, and Tower Wards probably supply


chapel, then of 36, Moyston.road, Addington road, Bow,

Middlesex, gentleman. March 20; J. M. Bernard, the best jurors, and those of Farringdon Without CROUCH (Wm.), Queen's Head, 12, Whitecross-street.

solicitor, 19, White Lion.street, Vorton Folgate, London.

London, publican, pext-of-kin to come in by March 13, and Cripplegate Without, which are largely occu. at the chambers of the M. R., Apri, 16, at the said

HUMB Mat:hew, 8, Peveril.street, Battersea, urrey, tailor.

April 13: Bootys and Bayliffe, solicitors, Raymond buildpied by retail tradesmen, the worst. A short time chambers at a quarter past one o'cloek, is the time ap

ings, Gray's-inn, Middle-ex. ago, in the result of the arrangements which are

pointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. HUNTER (Patrick), Roden, Salop, and of Liverpool, Esq. pursued at the Secondary's Office, the common

March 2; Laces and Co., solicitors, 1, Ucion-court, Liver.

pool, jury panel of forty-eight jurors, which served UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE JENYNS (Bоame Gambier), former's Colonel of the 13th throughout the after-term sittings in the Court of


Hursass, and late of 19, Redcliffe -gardens, Middlerek, (Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the

Colonel in Her Majesty's army, Common Pleas at Guildhall was exclusively com.

Assistant AjntantNational Debt, and which will be paid to the persons General at head-quarters, C.B. May 13; Walters and Co., posed of mon qualified as special jurors, and respectively, whose names are prefixed to each in three solicitors, I, Lincoln's-inu, London. several of the most considerable names in the

months, unless other claimants sooner appear.)

KELHAX (Chas. B.), 79, The Grove, Camberwell, Surrey. City were noticeable on it. The special jury

CREED (Geo.), Charlton, Musgrave, Somerset, gentleman, colonial broker. March 31; Charles R. Kelham, 19, The

one dividend on the sum of £1606 1. 4d. New Three Grove, Camberwell. Surrey. panel, which was provided for the same court for per Cent. Annuities. Claimant Wm, Perry, one of the KINGHORN (Margaret J.), 36. Lorrimore-square, Wilworth. the same period, was of a very inferior quality to executors of Geo. Creed, deceased.

Şurrey, spinster. April 21; E. Byre, solicitor, :, WhiteMORSKEAD (Caroline Mary), Richmond, Surrey, spinster, that of the common jury. A reasonable complaint, Westininster, Middlesex. £2012. 10d. Three Per Cent. Annuities. Climnants Sir was made of the composition of the special jury

KEEN Wm.),, Northmoor, Oxon, gentleman. March 5

Warwick Chas. Mor head, Bart., surviving executor of Wm H. Walsh, solicitor, 16, New-inn, Hall.street, Ox panel, but could the two panels have been inter. Caroline Mary Morshead, spinster, deceased.

ford. changed, no ground for adverse observation could

LAMBE (Augnsta M.), Hendon, Middlesex, spinster. March

10: Harting and Son, solicitors, 21, vincoln's-inn-fields, have arisen. Application was made not long APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK Middlesex. since to the Court of Common Pleas by Sir John


MACHRECOR Walter F.), Liverpool, engineer, March 31; Karslake for a new trial of a cause which had been CALLIARD'S MANIFACTURING COMPANY (LIMITED.) Credi

Pears and Co., solicitors, 8. Harrington-street, Liverpool, heard at Guildhall, on the ground that the special

tors to send in by March 13, their names and ad.

MARKHAM (Arthur B.), 'Northampton. attorney.nt-law. dresses and the particulars of their claims, and the

April 6; Messrs. Markham, solicitors, Northampton. jury which had tried the case had not consisted of names and addresses of their solicitors (if any) to Jas.

MATTRISS (Geo.!, Bristol, confectioner. May 1; Whittingsuch elements as to possess even any moderate Taylor, Rochdale, the official liquidator of the said Com.

ton, solicitor, 11, Small-street, Bristol. pany. March 27, at the chambers of the M. R.. at eleven PIERCE (Mary A.), formerly of the "York hire Grage public. degree of capacity for dealing with a mercantile o'clock is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicacing

house, London-street, Middlesex, late of 2, Brunswick question in a satisfactory manner. It may quite upon such claims.

villas, Wood-street. Barnet, widow. March 15; E. J. confidently be assumed that in the case just

Layton, solicitor, 2, Suffolk lane, Cannon-street, London,

E.C. referred to the state of circumstances which CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. RAMSEY (Nathan), 123, Sloane-street, Chelsea, Middlesex, apparently with much justice, formed the subject


butler. March 28; E. Pope, sulicitor, 1, Gray's Inn. of complaint, arose from the accident that some

ATMORE (Michael), Kirstead, Norfolk, farmer. March 10; square, London.
F. Fox, solicitor, Norwich. March 23; V.C. H., at one

REEVE (John), 113, Oxford-street, Reading, Berks, gentleinfelicitous vein of special jurors had been struck o'clock.

man. March 25; Satchell and Chapple, solicitors, 6, by the summoning officer, and that the yield Buss Edwd.). Ham Farm, Lexham, Kent, farmer. March Queen-street, Cheapside, London. thence obtained was untempered by the admix.

16; Edward Norwood, solicitor, Charing. Kent. March ROBERTS (John), Hempnall, Norfolk, woodman. March 30; V.C.H., at two o'clock,

28: Hotson and Furness, solicitors,'Long Stratton, Norture with it of the produot of any sounder mine. DELBRIDGE (John), Gwinear, Cornwall, farmer. March 11; folk, It is a matter of simple arithmetical demonstra.

Frederick V. Hill, solicitor, Helston, Cornwall. March SANDERS (Wm.), Chesterfield, fruiterer. April 4; John tion that if the entire City, and not merely some 25 : M.R , at eleven o'clock.

Cutis, solicitor, Nex-square Chesterfield. DUXCOMBE Wm.), 102, Gloucester-crescent, Westbourne- SKULL (Edwin), High Wycombe. Bucks, chair manufacone, or two, small precinct, or precincts, within park, Middlesex, job master. March 20; Robert A.

turer. March 81 ; Keziah Skull, Frogmore-street, High its area were to be taken as the recruiting field on

Kelley, solicitor, 8%. Great James-street, Bedford.row, Wycombe.

Middlesex. March 27 : V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. all occasions when jurors are demanded, a special Foster Laura, Stubbington House, Crofton, Southamp

SMITH (Walter), 22, West Parade, Newcastle-upon-Tyne,

gentleman. April 4; Hoyle and Co., solicitors, 20, Colo jury of so poor a quality as that which incurred ton, and of Matlock Bach, widow. March 5; N. Don. lingwood-street, Newcastle-upon Tyne. the observation of Sir John Karslake could not

nithorne, solicitor, Fareham, Southampton. March STRAITON (Alexander, 15, Knight Rider-street, London, 12; V.C M., at twelve o'clock.

watch and clock inaker. Aug. 13; Ingledew, Ince, and ever, according to all the distinct arithmetical

FOSTER (Rev. Wm.), Stubbington House. Crofton, Sonth. Greenine, folicitors, St. Benet-chambers, Fenchurch. conditions of probability, have existence.

ampton. March 5; N. Donnithorne, solicitor, Fareham. stri., London. It will thus be seen that no reliable judgment | Hewitt Jonas B.).'18, Wood Vale, Forest-hill, Surrey, March 12; V.C, M., at twelve o'clock.

SWAT James), Charlton, Andorer, gentlemnd. March 13;

John Smith, solicitor, High-street, Andover. can be formed from any single example as to the journalist. March 12; Wm. M. Spencer, solicitor, 8.

TOMPKINS (John), Brill, Bucks, 'farmer. March 28; J. and result of any given standard of qualification until Gray's-inn-square, London. March 23 ; V.C. M. at twelve T. Parrott, solicitors. Aylesbury. it has been ascertained whether the sheriff who


YATES (Joseph), formerly of Clarence-street, and late of HUDSON (Wm), Walworth, Surrey, gentleman. March 19; St. Mark's, Cheltenham, china and glass dealer. March has supplied the panel summons at all times from W.Overbury, solicitor, Norwich, April 13; M. R. at twelve 25; W. Jessop, solicitor, Cheltenham. the whole body of the county, whether corporate HCGHES (Richard), Morden Lodge, Morden, Surrey, Esq.

o'clock. or at large, for which he acts, or whether, under March 22, Boltin, Robbins, and Busk, solicitors, 1, New.

REPORTS OF SALES. some private arrangements of his own devising, square, Lincoln's-inn, London. March 31;M. R. at twelve he draws upon limited portions of it only. Ample JOHNSOS* (John), jun., Newton-le-Willows, York, farmer.

o'clock, provision was made by the Juries Bill against the

Thursdry, Feh, 19.
March 20; John Teale, solicitor, Leyburn, Bedale, York.
summoning by sheriffs on various independent
March 30; MR., at twelve o'clock.

By Messrs. NEWBON and HARDING, at the Mart. SHEPPARD (Henry), West Camel, Somerset, yeoman. March systems of their own, of which the public has no

Waterloo-road-Nos.25 and 27. term si years-sold for £790, 16; Geo. Tuson, solicitor, llchester, March 31; M.R., at

Hornsey-Nos, 4 and 5, Rose-villas, freehold-Foid for £715. knowledge whatever, and founded on their own twelve o'clock.

Upper Holloway-No. 15, Junction.road, freehold-sold for

L550. caprice, convenience, or notions of expediency, by

No. 37, Gloucester-rond, term 78 years--sold for £235. imposing on them under penalties, easily recover- CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Barnsbury-No, 14, Huntingdon-street, term 95 years-sold able, the observance of a rota. The objection that

for £195. Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent.

By Mr. H. E. MURRELL. the system which is, as has been described, followed BARTLEY (Heury J.), 30. Somerset-street, Portman.square,

per Holloway-Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 7, Davenant-road, term in the City of summoning the inhabitants of a

Middlesex, and of 19,, Abbey-place, St. John's-wood,
Middlesex; and also 4, Nelson-crescent, Ramsgate, Kent,

81 years--sold for £1105. whole street at a time, economises the distance to gentleman. April 10; Bartley and Co., solicitors, 30,

Lisson-grove-No. 15, William-street, term 17 years-sold

or £115. be traversed by the summoning officer, would

Somerset-street, Portman-square, Middlesex.
BISHOP (John), 38, Bernard-street, Russell.square, Middle-

Portland town-Xos, 6 and 7, Townshend-cottages, term 44 have been fully met by the provision of the Juries sex, Eag., F.R.S. March 25; J. F. White, solicitor, 31,

years-old for £396. Bill, which required that all summoning should be Guilford-street, London.

Kilburn-Freehold ground-rent of £35 148.-sold for €965.

A ditto of el 183. per annum-sold for £15. by post, under certain prescribed arrangements. BOLTON (Clara), 7, 91d Bond-street. Middlesex, widow.

March 25; Bowen May, 67, Russell square, London. The direction to summon, by post only, secures Booth (Henry), Victoria-road, Surbiton, Surrey, corn merother advantages also, among which may be men. chant. March 2; T. Donnithorne, solicitor, 30, Grace.

To Correspondents. tioned that it precludes, in the sole way probably Botros Elizabeth A.), Fetcham, Surrey, widow. March

church-street, London.

A CONSTANT READER.-(1) “An Articled Clerk" ought to in which this can be insured, all attempts to 17; Wm. A. Everest, solicitor, Epsom.

serve his principal in the way suggested. It is not likely corrupt summoning officers, and it thus relieves | BRAHAM (Elizabeth), 18, Litchfield-terrace, St. John's that anything in the articles of clerkship entitle the such officers from the imputations and suspicions

Wood, Middlesex, widow. March 81; Barnard and clerk to refuse to do so; but raad the articles. (2) AS
Harris, solicitors, 12, Finsbury-circus, London, E.C.

regards working after office hours, the principal can fix of bribery to which they are now exposed.

BRIGSTOCKE (Rey. 'I hos.), B.D., Incumbent of St. Kathe- his own office hours from time to time, and unless unrea: It was proposed by the Juries Bill that in the

rine's, Milford, Pembroke, April 20; Bootys and Ba. sonable the clerk must conform to them. The clerk is

gliffe, solicitors, 1, Raymond-buildings, Gray's-inn, City of London the managing directors of public

pot obliged to work as suggested on Sundays.-Ed. Sols.' London,


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

erect "

[ocr errors]



A. B.-The advertisement headed "Who's your Lawyer?" in due time paid £900 as Chief Clerk. Mr. Alder. they more usually crossed. The plaintiff crossed

which you take from the south Wales Daily News, has 80 often been exposed in this journal that we feel its re

man Figgins said up to that time he had sup- the line at à point some distance from the regular production will serve no good purpose. No doubt the ported the motion for the increased stipend in crossing, and was knocked down and injured by so-called law agents are contravening the 2nd section connection with the office of Chief Clerk, believing a train of the defendants' driven at four miles an of the Attorneys Act 1848, it is a matter for the Incorpo. it to be the duty of the court

to maintain the high hour. There was a short curve

at the spot, but deal

standard in the administration of justico with no whistle or other warning was given by the

which the Mansion House justice room had been defendants. Held, no evidence of negligence to No less than fifty-seven members of the Bar (in long associated, but when he saw the class of go to the jury, and a rule to set aside a nonsuit addition to those who at the recent

election gained candidates who were presenting themselves for discharged: (Harrison : The North - Eastern admission to the House of Commons as parliaelection he thought £1000 a year was a great deal Railway Company, 29, L. T. Rep. N. S. 845. Ex.). mentary representatives), sought election, and too much, some of them having been junior clerks were defeated or withdrow. This, with the 107 in at salaries of between £200 and £300 a year. DITING SHARES OF THIRD PARTY AS FULLY PAID

WINDING-UP-COMPROMISE OF ACTION-CRE. the House, makes 164 who sought to enter it. MR. J. A. FREEMAN, of Brighton, has been derman Sir Thomas Gabriel, replying to Mr. Alder. the company, a compromise, which was made a

He submitted that even £750 was too much. Al. UP.-An action having been brought by W. against appointed town clork of that town.

He was admitted an attorney in Hilary Term 1852. The well the onerons and responsible duties which do- pany were to pay £3200 to W., and to credit cer;

man Figgins, said, with much emphasis, knowing rule of court, was agreed upon, whereby the comtown council marked their appreciation of the volved on the Chief Clerk to the Lord Mayor, he tain shares held by F., with a sum which would services of Mr. Black, the late town clork, by hoped the selection would be made from no such make them fully, paid up. Certificates of the passing z very flattering resolution. Mr. C. K. FRESHFIELD, M.P. for Dover, was olass as that to which Mr. Alderman Figgins had shares as fully

paid up were given to F., and they reforrod. It occurred to Sir Thomas that a rational were marked in the books of the company as such. admitted an attorney in Easter Term 1834. He way of solving the matter was to rosolve that, in: Shortly afterwards the company was ordered to be had previously sat in Parliament, and was formerly stead of making the salary £1000 a year, it should wound-up. Held, that the crediting Fi's

shares solicitor to the Bank of England, one of the most not exceed £1000. That would give the Court of ander the terms of the compromise with W. responsible posts that it could possibly fail to the Aldermen a discretion in the matter; and if they a payment in cash within the meaning of the 25th lot of a member of either branch of the Profession got a man for the office worth £1000 a year, well section of the Companies Act 1867: (Ferrao's Case, to fill.

and good; but if not they could hold their hand. 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 876. V.C. B.).
Mr. Alderman Sidney, as the mover of the amend. CONTRIBUTORY-TRANSFER OF SHARES BY A

ment, said he had no objection to adopt the sug- MORTGAGEE TO HIS SERVANT.-By the direction MAGISTRATES' LAW.

gestion of Sir Thomas Gabriel by inserting in the of P. certain shares in a company, of which he

amendment that the stipend should not exceed was mortgagee, were transferred into the name NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.

£1000. Mr. Alderman Stone said he had no doubt of E., one of his servants. The company was BASTARDY-APPLICATION-HEARING OF SUM. they would find a man in all respects competent ordered to be wound-up and a return of copital MONS-CONSTRUCTION OF

RATE.-The mother of to discharge the duties of the office for £1000 a had been made to the shareholders. E. duly ac. a bastard child signed a form of application for a

year, and well worth the money. He thought Mr. counted to P. for the moneys received by her in summons against the putative father containing Alderman Figgins was in error as to the class of the winding.up. Notice of

a further return of the words who saith that she hath been deli. men who were solicting the office. The court bad capital had been given, and E. now claimed to be vered of a bastard child since the passing of the not yet advertised for candidates. He submitted absolutely entitled to the shares, on the ground Bastardy Laws Amendment Act 1872.” When

that if they made it a condition that none but that the transfer to her was made in fraud of the tha summons came on to be heard, objection was

members of the legal profession should be eligible, company, in order that P. might escape all liataken by the defendant that the child was born they would find no difficulty in electing a suitable bility in respect of the shares. On bill filed by before the passing of the Act; the mother was

man. He thought the salary should not be less P., held, that the transfer was not fraudulent, sworn and admitted this was so, and the justices than £800 & year, if they did not give £1000 a and that E. was a trustee of the shares for P.: dismissed the summons. Upon another summons,

year eventually. He suggested that there should (Colquhoun v. Courtney, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 887. reciting the same application but without the be a reference back to the committee that the M. K.) mistako therein, justices made an order of 2s.6d. salary should not be less than £800, but should RAILWAY COMPANY-AGREEMENT TO BUILD & week against the defendant.

Held, upon

be increased to £1000 if the committee should A STATION-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.-In con. certiorari, that the dismissal of the first summons

think fit. This suggestion was supported and sideration that W. would withdraw his opposition was not such a hearing as to exhaust the applica- that £1000 a year was none too much to enable a of a railway, the promoters agreed with W. to

enforced by Mr. Alderman Cotton, M.P., who held to a Bill before Parliament for the construction tion; and that the order upon the second sum. mons was within the justices' jurisdiction : (R. v. man in such a responsible position to live as a

a station” on his land. W. accordingly The Justices of Lancashire, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. gentleman, and that Mr. Alderman Figgins had withdrew his opposition, and the Bill was duly 886. Q.B.)

been a little wrong in his premises, seeing passed. The company subsequently, while ad. DEBTORS' ACT 1869, S. 15, SUB-SECT. 5- that the Court of Aldermen had never given mitting themselves bound by the agreement, reFRAUDULENT REMOVAL PROPERTY

it out that the salary was to be £1000. The fused to build the station. On a bill filed by W. DEBTOR-ASSIGNMENT BEFORE LIQUIDATION.

motion for that sum as the salary was also warmly for specific performance of the agreement, Held, --A debtor on the 17th Oct. 1873 filed his petition supported by Sir Thomas White.,, Alderman Sir that the agreement was too vague in its terms to for the liquidation of his affairs by arrangement, Benjamin Phillips explained that the matter had enable the court to make a decree for specific per. and a trustee was duly appointed.

In Dec. 1872 been well discussed by the committee, who were formance, but an inquiry was directed as to com. he had assigned his property to L. and W., to of, opinion that, if an eminent man could be pensation to which W. was entitled, and the com. whom he was indebted (L. having then advanced obtained, a salary of £1000 a year would not be pany were ordered to pay all the costs : (Wilson a further sum of £350 for the purpose of enabling too much, the duties of Chief Clerk at the v. The Northampton and Banbury Railway Com. the business to be carried on), upon trust, for the Mansion-house, as they all knew, being very pany, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 879. V.C. B.) benefit of L. and W. and his scheduled creditors. onerous, and requiring a thoroughly able man for WINDING-UP CREDITOR'S PETITION There were other creditors than those scheduled. their satisfactory discharge. The only question PRACTICE. - A creditor who has presented a On the 14th, 16th, and 17th Oct. 1873, the debtor with the committee was whether a proper man petition for winding-up a company is dominus litis, fraudulently removed portions of the property so

could be obtained for £1000 a year. He was sorry and is therefore entitled at the hearing to have his assigned to L. and W., and in respect of these Mr. Alderman Figgins had to some extent pre- petition dismissed upon payment of the costs

of removals, he was indicted under the Debtors' Act judiced the matter. The duty of the court clearly all parties, including the costs of a creditor who 1869, 8. 11, sub-sect. 5, for having, within four

was to avoid appointing an inferior man, and to appeared, although he had notice that the months next before the commencement of the bid for a thoroughly good one. He was willing petitioner intended to have the petition dismissed : liquidation of his affairs, fraudulently removed

co to amend his motion that the minimum salary (Re The Hereford &c., Engineering Co., 29 L. T. part of his property, of the value of £10 and might be £800, and not exceed £1000. Eventually Rep. N. S. 881. V.C. B.)

AGREEMENT OF COMPANY TO ASSIGN PRO. upwards : Held that the offence was not proved, the motion was adopted in that form. Mr.

Alder. for the property was not his at the time of re

man Stone then suggested that it be an instruc. PERTY-ULTRA VIRES-COMPANIES ACT 1862.moval, but that of L. and W., the trustees under tion to the committee to select the candidates The directors of a limited company agreed to the assignment. Secondly, that the assignment from the legal profession, submitting that, to fill assign the property and goodwill of the company required to be registered under the Bills of Sale such an office worthily, the Chief Clerk should be to A., who was to use his best endeavours to form Act. 17 & 18 Vict. c. 36, and was inoperative a man of position and education, and capable of a new company. The agreement did not bind A. against the trustee under the liquidation : (Reg.v. holding his own. The suggestion was supported to form a new company, or state anything as to Creese, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 897. Cr. Cas. Res.)

by Mr. Alderman Gibbons, who argued that, if its proposed pamo, capital, or shares. B., a share, they could not find in the legal profession a holder, gave notice of his objection to the proposed

gentleman competent to perform the duties, they transfer, but resolutions were passed confirming CHIEF CLERK TO THE LORD MAYOR. were not likely to meet with him out of it. The the agreement, and for winding-up the company On Tuesday, at a meeting of the magistrates of motion for confining the selection to the legal voluntarily. The resolutions for winding up the the City of London, held at the Mansion House, profession was agreed to, and the court adjourned. company were subsequently abandoned. Held, the Lord Mayor presiding, the Court, pursuant to

on bill filed by B. against the directors and the notice, proceeded with the further consideration

company, that the agreement with A. and the of a report of their General Purposes Committee


resolution confirming it were ultra vires, and that on the reference of the 20th Jan. last relative to

the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restrain. the duties and emoluments of the Chief Clerk to

ing the transfer to A. : (Bird v. Bird's, &c., Sewage the Lord Mayor, and recommending that the


Co., 29 L, T. Rep. N. S. 881. V.C. B.) salary of the office be £1000, and that the pay. PRACTICE-PETITION-CONSENT.-A petition RAILWAY - NEGLIGENCE INVITATION ments for copies of depositions should no longer to wind-up a company will, for the future, be ALIGHT-SEASON TICKET HOLDER-CONTRIBU. form part of the emoluments of the Chief Clerk ; called on in its turn in the list of petitions, TORY NEGLIGENCE.- Where, upon the approach also that the committee be authorised to advertise instead of being treated, as heretofore, as an of a train to a station the name of the station is for candidates for the office. Sir Benjamin Phil. opposed petition: and if, when the petition is called out by the officials of the company, and the lips now moved that the report of the committee called on, the company appear and consent, and train overruns the platform and comes to a final be approved and adopted. To that Mr. Alderman no one appears to oppose, the petition will be stop, and no warning is given to the passengers, Sidney objected, holding that £1000 a year was taken as unopposed, and the order made thereon and no attempt made to back the train, held suffic an extraordinary leap from £300, the salary of accordingly : (Re Bellway, 8c. Coal Company, cient evidence of negligence on the part of the which the late Chief Clerk was in receipt on his 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 828. V.C. M.)

company to be left to a jury. If a passenger gets first being appointed Assistant Clerk in the justice EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE — CROSSING OF out after the train has stopped, and is injured by room. He moved, as an amendment, that the LINE BY PERMITTED TRESPASS—WHETHER ANY falling where there is no platform, the fact that it report of the committee be adopted, with the WARNING NEED BE GIVEN TO PERMITTED TRES- was so dark where the plaintiff alighted that he modification that £750 be substituted for £1000. PASSERS.—The defendants drove trains over a could not see the platform is not necessarily proof The amendment was seconded by Mr. Alderman line belonging to a dock company, and running of contributory negligence on his part, the other Allen, who took occasion to remind the court between the dock and a public promenade. The facts having happened : (Wellen v. The London, that, although Mr. Oke was originally in the public were allowed to cross the line at all Brighton, and South Coast Railu 29 L. T. Rep. receipt of £300 a year as Assistant Clerk, he was 'points, but there was one regular crossing where 'N. S. 888. C. P.)


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

REAL PROPERTY AND rolling and pitching of the ship in a storm, and illegal by some subsequent law, the assured may CONVEYANCING.

dying shortly afterwards in consequence of the prosecute it without sacrificing his insurance. injuries received :

Where the policy is avoided in consequence of Laurence v. Aberdein, 5 B. & Ald. 107.

the illegality of the risk, the underwriter is en. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.

Loss from kicking of animals when ship tirely discharged from all liability, although he PRACTICE-SUIT by MORTGAGEES FOR SALE laboured in a storm, although insurance free of himself was aware of the illegal nature of the AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION OF TESTATOR's mortality:

adventure. EsTATE-COSTS.-A legal mortgagee who insti.

Gabuy v. Lloyd, 3 B. & C. 793,

Arn. 630, 4th edit., citing Bynkershoek Quæst. Jur. tutes a suit for the sale of the mortgaged pro.

Pub. lib. 1, c. 21 ; and Holman v. Johnson, 1 Cowp. Examples of what are not.

(per Lord Mansfield) 341, 343. perty, and for the general administration of the

Meat becoming putrid by prolongation of voyage Illegality is not presumed if the instrument can mortgagor's estate, is entitled to hare the amount owing to storm and tempest:

be read so as to be consistent with a legal object. of his principal, interest, and costs, paid out of Taylor v. Dunbar, L. Rep. 4 C. P. 206.

The policy may be illegal on the following the proceeds of the sale of other mortgaged pro. Loss by spontaneous combustion generated by grounds : perty in priority to the costs of the suit : (Pinchard chemical change of the thing insured :

(1) That the adventure is opposed to the v. Fellows, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 882. V.C. B.) Boyd v. Dubois, 3 Camp. 132.

policy of the law. WILL-CONSTRUCTION-ELECTION.-A testa. Ship necessarily on ground when tide was low.

See Arn, 4th erlit., pt. II., c. 5. trix advanced £900 to M. on an assignment by Nothing fortuitous :

(2) That it is in fraud of the Revenue, him of a covenant by F. to transfer to M. £1000

Magnus v. Buttemer, 11 C. B. 876; 21 L. J. 119, C.P. stock, and to pay interest at £5 per cent. By her Ship in graving dock blown over by a violent

Trade, or Navigation Laws of the home

country. will she gave F. £3000, and all sums due to her gust of wind :

(3) In contravention of international com. by him, and directed her executors not to require Phillips v. Barber, 5 B. & Ald. 161.

mercial treaties and occasional statutes. payment of the £900 due from M., but out of the hauled up on beach : Ship driven on an enemy's coast bilged in being

(4) In contravention of the law of nations. £3000 given to F. to retain enough to purchase

Green v. Elmslie, Peake, 212.

(5) In contravention of embargo. £1000 stock, in satisfaction of the covenant by Leakage of oil by pitching of ship. But stowage

(6) In violation of the country's war policy. F., and to pay the surplus thereof beyond the not disturbed :

1 and 2.-Revenue and Navigation Laws. £900 and interest to M. F. having predeceased

Crojts y, Marshall, 7 C. & P. 597. her, she by her codicil directed the 3000 to form Damage sustained by a ship from the fire of a contract of insurance in respect of them is

The export or import of goods being prohibited, part of her residuary estate, but directed her another vessel of the same nation mistaking her illegal and void. executors not to call on Fi's representatives for for an enemy:

Note.--A contemplated violation of the laws of foreign payment, or transfer of the £1000 stock, nor to Cullen v. Butler, 5 M. & Sel. 461.

countries does not affect the insurance : (Arn. enforce payment by M. of the £900. A special Damage caused to a merchantman by the fire

531, 4th edit. ; 3 Kent, Com. 8. 263.) [The latter case having been filed, in order to ascertain the of the enemy when being defended against cap- author says: "The principle does no credit to rights of the defendant M., and the representa- ture :

the commercial jurisprudence of the age."} tive of F., Lord Justice James (sitting for Vice- Taylor v. Curtis, 6 Taunt. 608; 2 Marsh Rep. 309. A violation of statutory regulations as to the Chancellor Wickens) decided that M. was not at Electric cable insufficiently insulated ; expense equipment of vessels would seem to be an illegality liberty to enforce aguinst F.'s estate, the covenant of laying it down lost through the chemical action avoiding a contract of insurance. to transfer the £1000 stock. Held, on appeal, of the salt water on the wire :


4th edit. 635. that the decision of the court below was correct,

Peterson v. Harris, 1 B. & S. 336; 30 L. J. 354, Q. B. 3.-Commercial Treaties and occasional Statutes. except as to the trifling difference between the Destruction of ship's bottom by worms in seas

All insurances on ships or goods navigated or £900 and the value of the £1000 stock where worms ordinarily assail ships, unless (£10 12s.6d.) the payment of which M. was sheathing be torn off by violent action af the sea mercial treaty to which the home country is a

conveyed contrary to the provisions of any comat liberty to enforce against F.'s estate : (Synge and the bottom thus exposed : V. Synge, 29 L. T. Rep. 855. Ch.)

1 Ph. 1101 ; Kent. 3, p. 305-306; Rohl v. Parr, 1 Esp. party or statute passed for temporary purposes is 441; Martin v. Salein, 3 Mass. Rep. 429; Hazard 7.

void. N. Eng. Ins. Co., 8 Pet. Sup. C. Rep. 557.

NOTE.-Lord Stowell says, “Every treaty is part of Damage by rats :

the private law of each of the countries which are MARITIME LAW. Hunter v. Potts, 4 Camp. 203; Laveroni v. Drury, 8

parties to it, and is as binding on the subjects of Exch. 166; 22 L.J. 2, Ex.

each as any part of their own municipal laws : SPECIMENS OF A CODE OF MARINE Commingling of goods, and owners refusing to

(The Eenroom, 2 C. Rob. Adm. R. 1, 6.)
accept an apportionment:

Prohibited Trading.
Spenee v. Unien Marine Ins. Co., L. Rep. 3 C. P. 427. No licence being obtained an insurance is in.
By F. 0. CRUMP, Barrister-at-Law.

Live stock thrown overboard to save the rest, a valid. (Continued from p. 219.)

scarcity of provisions having occurred owing to If only a small portion of a cargo owned by one PERILS OF THE SEA.

the protraction of the voyage in consequence of person, or by several acting in partnership or by

the gross ignorance of the captain : Definition.

a common agent, covered by one contract of in. Perils of the sea embrace all kinds of marine to the unavoidable prolongation of the voyage is vitiated entirely.

Live stock perishing from want of food, owing surance, comprises prohibited goods, the contract casualties, such as shipwreck, foundering, strand. in consequence of bad and stormy weather, without ing, &c., and every species of damage to the ship fault of the captain and crew :

Parkin v. Dick, 2 Camp. 221; Hagedorn v. Bazett, 2

M. & G. 100, or goods at sea by the violent and immediato

Gregson v. Gulbert, 3 Dong. 282 · 2 Marsh. Ins. 493; If part of a cargo is legal, but the residue, action of winds and waves, not comprehended in Tatham v. Hodgson, 6 T. R. 656; 5 B. and Ald. ill. though legal, is intended to cover an illegal design, the ordinary wear and tear of the voyage, or directly referable to the acts and negligence of

By Collision.

and the whole is insured in one policy, the in.

surance is void : the assured as its proximate cause.

The loss recoverable in each case is governed by Gibson v. Vaughan, 12 East, 302. Aru. 41h edit. 681; Ph. sect. 1099, the terms of the running down clause.

A licence having been obtained, the contract is Element of Negligence.

See Coey y. Smith, 22 Court of Sess. Ca. N.S. 955 ; not void by reason of prohibited goods of other

and Taylor v. Dewar, 5 B & S. 58; 33 L.J., 41 Q.B., Although negligence may be the remote cause which are in conflict, and: Xenos v. Fox, L. Rep. persons being on board, but is invalid to the extent of the loss, yet if the perils of the sea be the

3 C. P. 630.

that the assured has exceeded his licence by proximate cause the loss may be recovered :

Where the collision is purely fortuitous, and shipping a surplus of prohibited goods : Davidson v. Burnand, L. Rep. 8 C. P.'117. (A disthere is no fault on either side, the loss is recover

Keir v. Andrade, 6 Taunt. 496; Butler v. Allnutt, 1

Stark, 223, charge pipe left open and by loading brought able : below the water liue); Human v. Parish, 2 Camp. Buller v. Fishor, 3 Esp. 67; Xenos v. Fox, L. Rep. 3

An informality in the mode of obtaining & 14); Everti y. Hannam, 2 Marsh. Rep. 74; 6 Taunt. C. P. 630 ; Smith v. Scott, '4 Taunt. 126 ; De Vaue licence for exporting prohibited goods makes it 375; Blyth v. Shepherd, 9 M. & W. 763, to be consi. v. Salvador, 4. Ad. & E. 420.

of no effect, and avoids the contract of insurance dered overruled ; Bully v. Fishe; 3 Esp. 67; If damage to the ship only be provided for by if made on a general cargo belonging to the same Hodgson v. Malcolm, 2 B. & P., N. S. 339.

the "running down" clause, damages for personal owners : If the negligence of agents of assured in allow. injuries sustained from the same collision by Camelo v. Britton, 4 B. & Ald. 184 ; Gibson v. Servioe, ing a ship to be condemned and broken up when

5 Taunt. 433. persons on board either of the vessels, cannot be she might have been repaired brought about con. recovered :

An act may contravene the strict terms of an demnation the underwriters are not liable :

Taylor v. Devar, 5 B & S. 58 ; 33 L. J. 141, Q. B. order in council without amounting to an illeTamer v. Bennett, Ry. & M. 182.

Anowner whose ship had done damage to another gality so as to avoid a contract of insurance. Ecamples of what are Losses by Perils of the Sea. standing by and seeing his ship sold, under a Ex gr.-If the object be legal:

Foundering at sea proximately caused by the decree of a court of admiralty, for less than she Atkinson v. Abbott, 1 Camp. 535; 11 East, 135. fury of storms and tempests. is worth, can only claim for the amount actually

4.The Law of Nations. Shipwreck caused by the ship being driven paid under the decree, and cannot claim for loss Contravention may be : ashore, or on rocks and shoals in mid-seas, by by reason of the forced sale under decree :

(1) By a neutral supplying to a belligerent violence of the winds and waves.

Thompson v. Reynolds, 7 E. & B. 172 ; 26 L. J. 93, articles which are contraband of war. The immediate and necessary consequences of

Q. B.; Xenos v. Fox, L. Rep. 4 C. P. 665.

(2) By violating blockade. shipwreck:


(3) By engaging in the privileged trade of a Dent v. Smi:h, L. Rep. 4 Q. B. 414. Stranding, where it is fortuitous and not arising interest insured is illegal, or if the contract con. An insurance upon a subject is void if the


Contraband of war includes : in the ordinary course of the voyage: Fletcher v. Inglis, ? B. & Ald. 315. (Ebbing tide, templates an unlawful use of it.

Arms, warlike equipments and naval and hard and uneven bottom, swell in barbour.)

Redmond v. Smith, 1 M. & Gr. 437.

military supplies. Ship taken in tow by man-of-war, and obliged If the trade be illegal it defeats the policy on

Provisions destined for a military force, or to a to carry a press of sail to keep up with her, the ship as well as that on the cargo.

place which is beseiged or blockaded. shipped seas and damaged cargo:

Any illegality in the prior stages or at the outset Articles of ordinary convenience or necessity if Hagalorn v. Whitmore, 1 Stark. 157.

of an integral voyage vitiates a policy, though going to a belligerent port where such articles are Loss of masts, spars, sails, and rigging by carry. effected only to protect some later stage of it in used for warlike purposes. ing press of sail to escape an enemy: which there is no illegality.

Raw materials capable of being turned to the Cocington v. Roberts, 2 B. & P., N. Š., 378.

The illegality of a distinct and separate voyage purposes of war. Deterioration of tobacco by fætid odours of has no effect on the voyage or venture described

[See fuller enumeration of particular goods, hides damaged by salt water shipped in bad in the policy.

Arn., 4th edit., pp. 647, 618.] weather :

Arn. 630, 631, 4th edit.; Phillips, sect. 231; Sewell Marsh Ins., 54, 55. Montoya v. Lond. Ass. Co. 6 Ex. 451.

v. Royal Exchange Assurance Company, 4 Taunt. Contraband of war may be insured in a neutral Damage below the water line from violent 855.

country if its nature is made known to the under. grounding as the result of a storm :

A contravention of law, though it have relation writer. Harrison v. The Universal Marine Insurance Company, to the subject or the risk, will not affect the [See “ Concealment: Liability to Capture."]. 3 F. & F. 191.

insurance if it be remote, and distinct from the Such insurances are void in the country of the Plunder by wreckers : contract, or only collateral.

hostile belligerent, and cannot be enforced in his Bondrett v. Hentigg Holt, 149.

Phillips, sect. 221.

courts. Live stock bruised and lacerated by the viol A risk legal in its commencement becoming Arn., 4th edit., 649, n. 3.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« EelmineJätka »