« EelmineJätka »
Arn. 4th edit. 6+2.
[See further on this subject, and as to (2) ani | Art. 2. Oldendorff is to have the right to use was carried on from the 1st Jan. 1873, up (3). Warranties : Express - Neutrality.]
and carry on the firm of Barthelmes and Co. for to the 23rd July 1873, when the petition for 5.-Violation of Embargo.
five years from the 1st Jan. 1870, and Barthelmes liquidation in the matter was filed ; but the A Government in time of war having laid an binds himself not to establish any business in embarrassments of the firm began in the month embargo on all ships sailing for a particular port Yorkshire during that period. Art. 3. Olden. of June. Upon the question whether the form of an insurance on a contravention of such embargo dorff agrees to take for bis account, and credit Oldendorff and Myers agreed to adopt the debt of is void :
Barthelmes with, certain stock and effects 20001., and the liability of Oldendorff to the comArn. 4th edit. 639; Delmada v. Motteur, 1 Hild, amounting to £2803 15s. 60. Art. 4. Barthelmes mission of half per cent to Barthelmes, there is a Park. Ins. 505.
hands over to Oldendorff for collection certain direct and irreconcilable conflict of evidence 6.-In violation of the Country's War Policy. trade debts, amounting to £6279 123. 4d., which upon the affidavits of the two debtors. I have
Trading with the enemy during war without a Oldendorff agrees to collect and there with pay carefully read and considered those afidavits, and licence is illegal, and the insurance on such certain trade liabilities of Barthelmes, amounting I have come to the conclusion that, whatever may trading is void :
to £4429 0s. 3d., and to pay out of the remainder have been the intention of Oldendorff upon the Potts v. Bell, 8 T. R. 548.
a balance of the receipt £1000 to Barthelmes' subject, it was never the intention of Myers to Exception.-A native of a belligerent country liquidation account at the Bradford Banking adopt those liabilities as liabilities of the partner. domiciled in a neutral country may trade with Company, and the rest upon three months' notice ship; that he believed, and was justified in the enemy of his country and insure the adven. after 1st Jan. 1871. Art. 5. Barthelmes agrees believing, and acted on the belief, that the 20001. tare:
to leave Oldendorff against guarantee capital to formed part of Oldendorff's capital, and that the Bell v. Reid; Bell v. Butler, 1 M. & S. 726 ; Willson v. the amount of £2000 for five years from 1st Jan. commission was a liability which Oldendorff would Marryatt, 8 T. R. 31. 1870, with interest at 5 per cent. per annum, pay:
settle and; arrange with Barthelmes. And All insurances effected in the home country to able half yearly; Barthelmes takog upon himself it appears to me that the lotters from Olden. protect property liable by its situation in an the liability upon bills drawn previously to 1st dorff to Barthelmes, set out in Oldendorff's enemy's country to British capture, are void : Jan. 1870 and due in 1870 amounting to affidavit dated 8th Nov., 11th Dec., 23rd Dec.
£2519 78. 10d. An insurance on goods to a friendly or neutral
Art. 6. For cession of the 1872 ; 13th Jan., 7th Feb., and 26th June 1873,
confirm the view of the transaction as given by port there to be delivered to a neutral is valid goodwill of the business Oldendorff agrees though the neutral himself be resident in a port
to pay Barthelmes a commission of que half Myers. The letter of 27th June 1873 is the first of hostile occupation :
the amount of a business letter in which Oldendorff treats Myers as in any
turned over by him during the five years beginBromley v. Hesseltine, 1 Camp. 75. See Hobbs v. Hem- ning 1st Jan. 1870 to the end of 1874, and to
way interested in his proposals to Barthelmes, and ming, 34 L. J., 117, C. P..
I observe this was written from Whitby after render a half yearly statement of the same. Art. Myers, as he states, had ascertained the em.
8. Oldendorff agrees to take Barthelmes' ware- barrassed position of the firm, and had decided to COUNTY COURTS.
house in Bradford on a lease of fourteen years at stop payment, and Oldendorff says he never did a yearly rent of £400 payable half yearly, with a communicate with Myers as he stated in that
right to sublet part or the whole thereof. Art. letter he should. It has been attempted, however, NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.
9. Oldendorff agrees to induce Mr. H. Aver. to be made out that apart from express agree. FORECLOSURE SUIT-COUNTY COURTS Acts– dieck, of Bradford, to guarantee Barthelmes the duct the firm of Oldendorff and Myers has by con. Costs.-In a suit to foreclose a mortgage for £50. payment of £4000 within five years from the 1st sentadopted these separate liabilities of Oldendorff Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to his full Jan. 1870, and agrees to pay all necessary stamps as joint liabilities of the firm. The conduct recosts of suit : (Brown v. Rye, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. and legal expenses. The lease provided for by lied upon consists in the payment to Barthelmes 872. M. R.)
Art 8 was duly executed. The guarantee provided by cheques drawn in the name and payable out
for by Art. 5 was duly given. From the 10th of the funds of the fimr of two cheques for £200 and BRADFORD COUNTY COURT.
March 1870 down to the month of Jan. £393 10s. 3d. The cheque for £200 was for half (Before W. T. S. DANIEL, Esq., Judge.)
1873, the agreeement was acted upon by both a year's rent of the warehouse. This warehouse Jan. 23 and Feb. 6.
parties, and the terms thereof complied with, had been leased by Barthelmes to Oldendorff for
except as to the payment of the first year's fourteen years, from 1st Jan, 1870, at £100 per E« parte BARTHELMES ; Re OLDENDORFF AND commission provided by Art. 6. Barthelmes annum, and was occupied by the firm at the same ANOTHER.
having released Oldendorff from the payment of it rent, as sub-tenant to Oldendorff; the firm were Bankruptcy-Surety-Substituted liability. by reason of the badness of trade arising from not the assignees of the lease, but they held it In order to transfer a separate liability of A. into the French and German war, Oldendorff carried from Oldendorff at the same rent, and the £200
the joint liability of A. and B., there must be on the business from the 1st Jan. 1870, and thus paid direct by the firm to Barthelmes was the mutual agreement of both A. and B. to do received the assets and paid the debts of the old not a payment for which they were liable to Bar. 80. That agreement may be proved by conduct. firm of Barthelmes and Co., and reduced the thelmes, but their liability to Oldendorff being of There must also be the agreement of the creditor balance due to Barthelmes to £2000, which he the same amount as his to Barthelmes, the payment of A. to accept the liability of A. and B. in lieu retained on loan according to Art. 5, secured by was made direct to avoid the needless circuitof two and discharge of the liability of A.: (Ex parte Averdieck's guarantee, according to Art. 9 In cheques, and appears to me to have no bearing on Whitmore, 3 Deac. 365; Rolfe v. Flower, L. Rep. the early part of 1872 the account between Olden. the question. The other cheque for £393 10s. 3d. 1 P.C. 27.)
dorff and Barthelmes was made up to 31st Dec. was for the balance over and above the £2000 Semble, if a creditor accept the joint liability of A. 1871, and showed a balance of £2051 9s, 6d., the which was due to Barthelmes from Oldendorff up to
and B. in lieu of the separate liability of A., he £51 93. 6d. being due for interest on the £2000. 31st Dec. 1873: this sum was paid by a check drawn discharges a surety for the separate debt of A., This sum of £51 9s. 6d. being small was not paid, in the name of the firm by Oldendorff and which as accepting a distinct and perhaps less valuable but the balance was continued and carried forward: when it was pointed out to him by Myers (as security. (See observations by Alderson, B., (See Oldendorff's affidavit, 30th Dec. 1873, pp. 2, 3, stated by him in the 21st paragraph of his affidavit, Lyth v. Ault, 7 Ex. 669.)
4, 5, 6, 7, 9). From this evidence it is clear that and not specifically contradicted by Oldendorff). Shaw, instructed by Wood and Killick, for the the £2000 was originally a loan from Barthelmes Oldendorff stated he had told Schreiber (the motion.
to Oldendorff on his separate security, and the cashier) to place to the debit of his private Jordan, instructed by Rawson, George, and payment was guaranteed by Averdieck to Bar. account, and this payment, therefore, proves Wade, opposed.
thelmes, as the separate debt of Oldendorff. In nothing to the point. I am unable, therefore, to This was an application by or on behalf of the autumn of 1872 Oldendorff was desirous find either from the evidence or the conduct of Ernestus Emilius Barthelmes, of Erfurt, Germany, of obtaining a working partner to assist him the partners, sufficient ground for concluding gentleman, made in the matter of the liquidation with capital and in the conduct of the busi. that Myers ever agreed that these separate by arrangement of Ludolf Henry Oldendorf and
The defendant was introduced to him liabilities of Oldendorff for the 20001, and the Joseph Myers, of Bra iford, stuff merchants, through a friend of both parties, and after some commission, or either of them, should be treated trading in co-partnership as Oldendorf and negotiation a partnership was agreed to be formed as joint liabilities of the firm. But even if such Myers, for an order directing that the decision of between them, and the terms were contained in an an agreement were established, it must then be the trastee rejecting the proof by the said E. E. agreement dated the 22nd Nov. 1872. Art. 1. shown by Barthelmes that before the petition for Barthelmes upon the joint estate of the said The stock of the business now carried on by liquidation he knew of this agreement, and adopted debtors, may be raised or reversed, and that the Oldendorff, under the firm of Barthelmes and Co., the firm as his debtors in lieu and discharge trustee may be directed to admit the said E. E. to be taken on 31st Dec. 1872, and the assets and of the separate liability of Oldendorff. Mr. Barthelmes as a person entitled to prove upon the liabilities of the firm to be ascertained by the Barthelmes is resident in Germany, and on the joint estate of the said debtors for the sum of balancing of the books as early as possible after day on which his proof was made, the 19th £2368 123, 5d. The notice of motion by an amend that day, the balance thon standing to the credit Aug. 1873, he was in Bradford, and was examined ment made by consent at the hearing, asks for of the old firm being transferred to Oldendorff's and cross-examined privately and voluntarily at certain alternative relief, with which it will account, and reckoned as his share of capital in the office of the trustee's solicitor by his own be more convenient to deal hereafter. The debt the new partnership business. Art. 2. This solicitor and the solicitor of the trustee, and both of £2368 128. 5d. sought to be proved against agreement to be based upon the assumption parties consented at the hearing before me that the the joint estate is composed of a
Oldendorff's capital thus ascertained examination might be read as evidence. I have £2000, originally a separate loan by Barthelmes amounts to £8000, and Myers to deposit read that examination, and have not been able to to Oldendorff, and £:368 128. 5d. for commission £5000 in the business as his requisite share find in it anything which would show an adoption due from Oldendorff and Barthelmes, upon an of capital. Art. 3. The capital of each partner, of the liability of the firm in lieu and discharge agreement which originally was the separate to bear interest at the rate of 5 per cent. per of the separate liability of Oldendorff. And I am agreement of Oldendorff. The question whether annum. Art. 4. The profit or loss to be apportioned unable to understand how Mr. Barthelmes could these two debts, originally separate, have become three-fifths to Oldendorff, two-fifths to Myers. have intended or been advised to make such an joint, depends upon whether the facts, as esta. Art. 5. The drawings of the respective parties adoption. The debt of Oldendorff was guaranteed blished by the evidence show-first, that the firm from the bnsiness not to exceed in one year by Áverdieck, who was represented to be, and I of Oldendorff and Myers had assumed the liability £1000 by Oldendorff
, and £600 by Myers, unless presume is, a substantial man and able to meet to pay these two debts, as joint debts of the firm ; by consent of his copartner. Art. 7. The part. his guarantee ; and Mr. Barthelmes was thereand, secondly, that Barthelmes had, before the nership now formed to be carried on under the fore always secure of receiving 20s. in the date of the petition for liquidation, agreed to name of L. H. Oldendorff and Myers, and to com. pound in this debt, treating it as the separate accept the firm as his debtors, and to discharge monce from 1st Jan. 1873, and to continue for debt of Oldendorff, whereas by accepting the joint Oldendorff from his original liability in his sepa
five years from that time. Art. 14. Should any liability of the firm in discharge of the separate rate engagements. The facts are as follow :- losses arise from the debts due to the firm of liability of Oldendorff he might (according to the Barthelmes had for some time prior and up to the Barthelmes and Co., and placed to the credit of judgment of Baron Alderson in Lyth v. Ault, 1st Jan. 1870, carried on the business of a stuff Oldendorff in the new partnership, such losses to 7 Exch. 669, probably would) have lost the benefit merchant at Bradford, and by an agreement dated be placed to the debit of Oldendorff's private of Averdieck's guarantee by substituting a difthe 10th March 1870, between himself and Olden. account. Art. 15. This agreement to be rectified ferent and what might have been a less valuable dorff. Art. 1. Barthelmes transferred to Olden- after the opportunity has been given of verifying security, the benefit of which Averdieck would dorff his said business as from the 1st Jan. 1870, the facts upon which it is based. The partner have lost if he had been called upon to pay upon from which date it was to be deemed to have been ship between Oldendorff and Myers, as consti- his guarantee. It was suggested during the argucarried on by Oldendorff on his sole account.' tuted by the agreement of 22nd Nov. 1872, ment by the counsel for the trustee that this
sum of that
motion was really made in the interest of Aver. to the subordinate easement rights reserved to the rabbits had eaten up a great deal of the wheat dieck, because as it appears from the proceedings the vendor and those claiming under him. The and vetches, and were beginning to injure the that the dividend upon the joint estate will be vendor has already been fully compensated for root crop. In the month of Aug. 1873, the lessee much larger than the dividend upon Oldendorff's injuries sustained by him in consequence of the had a valuation made, and the damage to the separate estate, and as upon Avordieck paying company having taken his land, and the deed of wheat was certified to be upwards of £37 78. Barthelmes this debt in full, he will be en. conveyance to the company recites this. The Notice of the valuation was sent to the defendant, titled to the benefit of Barthelmes' prool - it use of the line in the way complained of is neces. but he did not attend to it. The damage to the is for the benefit of Averdieck that the proof sary to the proper working of the traffic. The vetches and other crops was estimated by the should be made against the joint estate. The claim, if recoverable at all, is in the nature of plaintiff at £12 13s. and upwards, and he now suggestion is plausible, and be well founded, " unforeseen damage,” and must be recovered snes the defendant for £50 damages, according to but I have no facts in evidence before me that before two justices, as prescribed by the Lands' the above valuation and estimate. The amount show that Barthelmes' proof is made for such a Clauses Consolidation Act. Moreover, the plain. of damage was admitted, but the liability of the parpose, and I rest my decision upon the absence tiff must prove
that he has sustained special plaintiff,
under the lease, or otherwise, was disof sufficient evidence that Myers over agreed to damage resulting in actual loss.
puted, and a verdiot for the plaintiff was takon, adopt Cldendorff's liabilities to Barthelmes for the
His HONOUR said there could be no doubt as subject to the opinion of the court as to the £2000, and the commission on either of them as
to the jurisdiction of tho court, and he would defendant's liability: It appeared by the evidence liabilities of the firm of Oldendorff and Myers ; award 40s. damages, with costs on the lower scale. of the plaintiff on the trial that the rabbits could and also upon the ground that even if such an
Judgment accordingly. be destroyed by means of ferrets in the autumn agreement were shown to have been madla. Bar.
or winter, but not in the spring or summer, on thelmes ever agreed to adopt the joint liability of
account of the young rabbits, which the ferreta the firm in lieu and discharge of the separate
NEWBURY COUNTY COURT.
devoured, instead of pursuing the old rabbits. liability of Oldendorff ; and according to the cases (Before H. J. STONOR, Esq., Judge.) The plaintiff deposed to a conversation with the leg. of Ex parte Whitmore (3 Deac. 365), and Rolfe v. Flower (L. Rep. 1 P. C.
agent during the treaty for the lease, as to the both these must Thursday, Feb. 19.
rabbits on the farm, but it was of so vague & congur. The motion, therefore, so far as it seeks to
RICKETT8 v. HEATH.
nature as certainly not to amount to a collateral discharge or vary the trustee's decision respecting Reservation, or grant of sporting to lessor- parol agreement within the cases of Erskine v. the proof as a proof against the joint estate, will be Whether exclusive or Concurrent=Construction Adeane® (29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 234), and Morgan v. refused with costs. The notice of motion, however, of lease.
Griffiths (23 L. T. Rep. N. S. 783). The two proceeds to ask in the alternative that if the The case was heard before a jury in January questions which now remain for my decision court shall be of opinion that the said E. E. last.
are, firet, whether the defendant is liablo Barthelmes is not entitled to prove upon the joint The plaintiff is a farmer, residing at Faccombe, under the lease, and, secondly, whether he is estate of the said debtors therefor, a declara North Hants, and he sned the defendant (Mr. liable in consequence of the subsequent transtion that such of the assets and property now in Alan Boman Heath), his landlord, who resides at actions. With regard to the defendant's the possession or under the control of the trastee East Woodhay, for the sum of £50 as damages liability under the lease, it is to be observed that as were on the 31st Lec. 1872, the separate estate sustained by him in consequence of his failing to the provisions of that instrument
are most inaccu. of the debtor Oldendorff, trading as Barthelmes keep down the rabbits on the estate as he (defen. rately framed. In the first place the usual and and Co., but which are included as assets in the dant) had promised to do.
almost universal error is committed of excepting joint balance sheet filed by the debtors, are the W. H.Cave appeared for the plaintiff.
or reserving to the lessor the game, rabbits, and separate estate of the said Oldendorff, and appli. Sills, barrister (instructed by Smith, of And. wild fowl with liberty to hunt and shoot the same, cable in the first instance to the discharge of his over), for the deferdant.
instead of inserting a grant by the lessee to the separate liabilities, and that for the purposes The damages were admitted, and his Honour lessor to that effect, but as it is well established aforesaid, all necessary accounts may be teken, and then said the case resolved itself into a nonsuit that such an exception, or reservation will operate inquiries made, and for an order declaring and as. or otherwise upon the terms of the covenant. as a grant by the lessee, if he executes the lease certaining the rights of the said E. E. Barthelmes He directed the jury to give a verdict for the (Wickham v. Hawker, 7 M. & W. 63), this point is in respect of the joint and separate estates of the plaintiff for the full amount, subject to his de perhaps immaterial. The next point, however, is said debtors respectively. Upon this part of the cision on the point.
of much importance and difficulty, and practi. notice of motion, I decline to make any such His HONOUR, this day, delivered judgment as cally affects the present case, viz., whether this order as asked for. First, because the order asked follows: By a lease dated the 13th April 1863, grant is a grant to the lessor of an exclusive right for would be premature, as there is no proof Mr. A. B. Heath demised to Mr. E. Ricketts á of shooting or only a grant of a concurrent right on the file showing that Barthelmes is a separate farm at Faccombe, in the connty of Hants, for a with the right which the lessee has at common creditor of Oldendorff for any definite sum, but, term of seven years, from Michaelmas 1862. In law (Year Book, 14 Hen. 3, Bac. Abr. “ trespass”, secondly, because it is reasonably clear that there the lease was contained the following exception or H. 3; Lifford's case, 11 Rep. 48 ; Moore v. Earl cannot be any such assets, inasmuch as by the reservation : Except and always reserved unto of Plymouth, 7 Taunt. 614), and which since effect of the partnership articles of 29th Nov. the said A.B. Heath, his heirs and assigns, all game, 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 32, is wholly unrestricted and un. 1872, and what was done under them by the rabbits, and wild fowl, with full and free liberty qualified unless by the agreement of the parties. debtors as shown by the twenty-first par. of Olden. for the said A. B. Heath, his heirs and assigns, and Upon the whole I am of opinion, but with some dorff's first affidavit, all the assets of the firm of his and their gamekeepers, servants, friends, and doubt, that the lessor's right is not exclusive but Barthelmes and Co., were, as from the 1st Jan, acquaintances, and all and every other person or is concurrent with the lessee's. The covenants 1873, carried on to the firm of Oldendorff and persons by their orders and consent, at all times which follow however expressly bind the lessee not Myers. They formed part of the capital of Olden. during the term hereby granted to hunt, course,
to exercise his concurrent right as to "hares, dorff in the firm of Oldendorff and Myers just as shoot, or sport in, upon, or over the said hereby partridges, pheasants, or other game,” but not much as the £1000 or whatever the sum may have demised lands and premises, or any part thereof." affecting whatever right he otherwise would been which Myers brought into the firm as And in the said lease was contained & covenant by have to shoot and destroy rabbits and wild fowl. eapital, , and the whole became joint estate the lessee not to shoot or destroy bares, partridges, For although the term "game” does sometimes and to be applied in payment in the first in pheasants, or other game (but not mentioning include rabbits (Jeffreys v. Evans, 34 L. J., 263, stance of the joint debts. If any creditor of this rabbits), and not to permit any persons except the c.P.), yet it is clear that they are not intended to partnership had recovered judgment against the lessor to shoot or destroy the game (but not men- be included in the term “ game” in these covedebtors, I apprehend it is quite clear he could tioning rabbits) in or upon the said premises, nants, as the word " rabbits” is superadded to it have taken in execution as goods of the partner with an exception that in case the rabbits injured in the previous reservation or grant. At the end ship, the goods which are by the notice of motion the crops, and the lessor should not, after notice of these covenants, indeed, comes an exception sought to be declared to be the separate estate of in writing to that effect, destroy the same or which singularly and improperly relates to Oldendorff. In truth, what this part of the notice refuse compensation for such injury, it should be rabbits, although they are not inentioned, nor, as of motion aims at, is to raise a question affecting lawful for the said E. Ricketts after such notice I think, included in the covenants, and this ex. the capital account between the partners—a ques. and refusal of compensation (but no mention ception appears to me to be altogether void under tion with which the joint creditors have no con. as to refusal to destroy the rabbits), to destroy a the rule that an exception must relate to part of cern, and cannot be raised so as to prejudice them. sufficient quantity of rabbits by ferrets, but in a thing previously granted or covenanted to be I therefore make no order upon the alternative no case to set a gin or wire, or use any other done : (Touch. 77.) This exception provides that part of the notice of motion, and dismiss the rest instrument for the purpose of killing such rabbits. in case the rabbits injure the crops and the lessor of the motion with costs.
In 1863-4-5 the lesses did not shoot or destroy shall not, after notice in writing, destroy the same
rabbits. In 1865 the rabbits had increased and or refuse compensation for such injury, it shall be COCKERMOUTH COUNTY COURT.
did damage, and such damage was valued at £50 lawful for the lessee after such notice and refusal
by two valuers and paid by the lessor to the of compensation, to destroy a sufficient quantity Wednesday, Feb. 25.
lessee. In 1866-7-8 the lessee had permission to of rabbits by ferrets, but in no case to set a gin, (Before T. H. INGHAM, Esq., Judge.) shoot, and kept down the rabbits. In the autumn or wire, or any other instrument for the purpose." FEARON V. THE MARYPORT AND CARLISLE
of 1868 this permission was revoked, but subse- As I have already said, it is in my opinion utterly RAILWAY COMPANY.
quently it was renewed and the lessee shot until void, and nowise limits the concurrent right of
Feb. 1869. Since then the lessee neither shot nor the lessee to shoot the rabbits and to prevent Railway-Obstructing a level crossing. destroyed any rabbits till September last. In the them becoming
a nuisance, and on this point I This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who spring of 1872 the rabbits had again increased, and would refer to the dictum of Byles, J., in Jeffreys is a tenant farmer residing at Crosby, near Mary on the 10th May in that year the lessee's attorney v. Evans (34 L. J. 265, C. P.), as to the right of a port, against the defendants, for having nogli. wrote to the lessor complaining that the rabbits lessee to destroy rabbits when they become a gently and improperly obstructed a level crossing were doing considerable damage to the lessee's nuisance, even where the right of sporting granted leading over the company's line of railway to the crops and requiring the lessor to destroy them or to the lessor was exclusive. To sum up this part plaintiff's field at or near to Ballgill. The plain. to pay compensation, and in answer thereto the of the case I am of opinion that under the very tiff alleged that he had the right to use the lessor wrote to the lessee's attorney a letter dated inaccurate and contradictory provisions
of the crossing, and that from the year 1869 up to the 11th May 1872, in which he says, I am surprised lease, the lessee is entitled concurrently with the date of bringing his action, it had been almost to hear about the rabbits, as I'am told there is lessor at any time to shoot the rabbits or otheruninterruptedly blocked up by mineral and other scarcely a rabbit in the whole place,
but I must wise to destroy them. The only argument to the trains, being shunted over, and allowed to remain refer you to the lease.” In the summer of 1873 contrary which I can see is
, that on the construc. upon it. The company had compensated the the rabbits had increased to a very great extent, tion of the various provisions contained in the plaintiff, it was alleged, on a previous occasion and had done serious damage to the growing crops lease, a general intention is discoverable, that for a similar obstruction, and had promised him On the 16th Jane 1873, the lessee's solicitor
again the lessee should neither shoot nor destroy that a further repetition of it should be prevented. wrote
to the lessor, requiring him to destroy the game or rabbits, except in the one case of the This the company had failed to do, and the rabbits or to pay him compensation, and on pabbits
crops or the lessor refusing plaintiff claimed £50 as compensation. the 8th July 1873, the lessor wrote a' letter to compensation, and that to carry out the intention,
Wicks, of Cockermouth, appeared for the the lessee's solicitor, simply declining to give the right of shooting granted to the lessor is to be plaintiff.
any compensation, and took no steps to de- considered as exclusive, and the word “ E. T. Tyson, of Maryport, for the defendants.- stroy the rabbits. 'In Sept. 1873, the lessee put in the covenants is to be held to include rabbits The company's statutory rights are paramount on two men to trap the rabbits, but previously but I cannot conceive that this argument would
prevail in a court of law. If it did, however, the the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy), that the applica afterwards be made by the bank to the firm of result would be that in 1872, when the lessee's tion must be refused, inasmuch as there had been Thomas and J. B. Littler, or to either of them crops had been injured, and the lessor refused
no fraud on the part of the debtor, and none of alone. A memorandum to this effect was signed compensation, the lessee would still have then the creditors had, in fact, been deceived as to by Thomas Littler, and accompanied the deposit. acquired the right to destroy a sufficient number the value of his property : (Exc parte Linsley, re In Oct. 1872 Thomas Littler retired from the of rabbits to prevent the recurrence of that injury Harper, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 857. ^ Chan.)
business, but it appearing shortly afterwards that in 1873, by ferrets, but not by gins, wires, or other
the firm was insolvent, the partners filed in this instruments, which latter words I consider must
court, on the 12th Oct., a petition under the be confined to instruments ejusdem generis, and ABERYSTWITH DISTRICT COURT OF 125th and 126th sections of the Act of 1869. At a therefore leave the lessee full power to shoot
statutory meeting of their creditors, held on the with guns, or otherwise destroy the rabbits as
Friday Feb. 20.
30th of the same month, it was resolved by the pre. they were driven put by the ferrets. It follows (Before John JENKINS, Esq., Registrar and scribed majority, that the creditors accept in satis. that whether the plaintiff had all along the right
faction of their respective debts a composition of 108 to shoot the rabbits and prevent them becoming
in the pound, payable in two instalments of 58., the a nuisance at common law, unrestricted by, or
Re JONES; Ex parte MILES.
second to be guaranteed by the persons named in notwithstanding, the provisions of the lease (as I Liquiilation by arrangement-Leave to proceed de the resolution. It was also resolved that the think) or whether he acquired that right by the novo on petition-Discrepancy between debtor's terms of the composition be embodied in a deed, to increase of the rabbits in 1872, and the refusal of statement and proofs-Adjournment of first be prepared by Mr. C. S. Brooke and approved of the lessor to give compensation, he clearly had it meeting.
on behalf of the creditors, such deed, to contain in his power by destroying the rabbits in the Griffith Jones for Miles, a creditor.
proper covenants for carrying into effect the reso. winter of 1872 to have prevented the injury to his David Pugh for trustee.
lutions and for releasing the debtors. At a second crops in 1873, for which he now sues, and to which Jones applied to set aside the resolutions passed statutory meeting in the same matter, held on the he is therefore certainly notentitled, and there must for liquidation of the debtor's affairs by arrange. 11th Jan. 1873, the foregoing resolutions were, be a verdict for the defendant. It becomes un. ment at a meeting held on 20th Sept. last, on the with a modification which is for present purpose necessary for me further to consider the effect of following grounds : First, that the court had no immaterial, duly confirmed. The Manchester and the correspondence and transactions between the power to order de novo first and subsequent Liverpool District Banking Company was plaintiff and defendant subsequent to the lease, meetings on the petition, which had lapsed by assenting creditor at both meetings, and voted in but I am strongly inclined to think that in any reason of the non-attendance of a quorum of favour of the resolutions. Similar meetings were case the plaintiff would have a legal as well as an creditors at a previous meeting ; secondly, that a also called of the private creditors of the partners, equitable claim against the defendant for the discrepancy appeared in the amount of two claims at one of which-namely, of J. B. Littler's credi. damage to his crops in 1872 if he had sued for in the debtor's statement of his affairs and the tors—the foregoing resolutions were unanimously them, inasmuch as he forbore to exercise his proofs exhibited; thirdly, that the first meeting adopted ; at the other it appeared that there was rights at common law or under his lease from summoned upon the order to proceed de novo only one privato creditor of Thomas Littler, and 1869 up to that time, in the reliance, and on the not having been attended by a quorum of credi. he had been paid. On the 10th Feb. the resolu. implied agreement, that the defendant would tors, and no resolution for adjournment having tions were duly registered, and the composition compensate him for his subsequent losses, in the been passed, the proceedings lapsed again, and no was afterwards paid and accepted by the creditors. same manner as he had compensated him in subsequent meeting could be legally held. The deed prepared by Mr. Brooke with the view of 1865, but this point, according to my view, is The REGISTRAR.- Respecting the first ground, carrying the resolutions into effect was in sub. immaterial at present. In the exercise of the dis. I was at the time I granted the order to proceed stance as follows: It bore date the 20th March cretion which the Legislature has wisely given to do novo, and still am of opinion, that this was a 1873. The parties were Thomas Littler and J. B. the County Courts as to costs, and which the case in which I ought to exercise the enabling Littler, of the first part; the creditors who might common law courts do not possess, I shall give power given by the Bankruptcy Act 1869 to hold execute it, of the second part ; and Thomas no costs to the defendant, and I strongly recom- à first and subsequent meetings of creditors, Fowles and John Issard, as trustees, of the third mend the plaintiff and defendant, in the face of where the first lapsed for want of the presence of part. After reciting, amongst other things, the this very inaccurate lease, and under all the cir. a quorum of creditors ; secondly, I am also of proceedings in composition, and that it had been cumstances of the case, to leave any future differ. opinion that a discrepancy between the debtor's agreed that the securities held by the Manchester ences between them to the arbitration of some statement of some of his creditors' claims and the and Liverpool District Banking Company upon competent person, unless happily they can come proofs exhibited, if I believe the same arose from the private estate of Thomas Littler should not be to a satisfactory settlement by mutual forbear- forgetrulness or error of judgment, is not a ground prejudicially affected by their assenting to and ance and concession without such aid.
for invalidating the proceedings, and that it would receiving payment of the composition, Thos. and Verdict for defendant without costs. be necessary to show the debtor wilfully mis. J. B. Littler assigned the property comprised in
stated the claims of friendly creditors, or inserted the securities held by the bank, and also their
fictitious claims to constitute the statutory personal estate and effects, to Fowles and Issard, BANKRUPTCY LAW.
majority of creditors favourable to the debtor, or to indemnify them against any loss they might for some other fraudulent purpose-there is sustain by reason of their having guaranteed
nothing to lead me to believe that this exists in the second instalment of the composition. Then NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.
this case ; thirdly, I am of opinion the first followed a release of the debtors conditioned upon BANKRUPTCY “PENDING PROCEEDINGS FOR
meeting of creditors, which was properly convened the payment of the composition, covenanted by OR TOWARDS LIQUIDATION"-Costs OF LIQUI: upon the order to proceed de novo for the 13th them, and the sureties to pay it, and a declara. DATION PROCEEDINGS
Sept. not having been attended by a quorum of tion that the deed should in nowise prejudice the BANKRUPTCY RULES
creditors, the law of its own motion adjourned the rights and remedies of the creditors against sure. 1870, R. 292.-A debtor filed a petition for liqui. meeting to the 20th of the same month, at the ties, or in respect of any collateral securities they dation by arrangement, under which a receiver
same hour and place, pursuant to Article 94 of the might hold. Upon this state of facts Mr. Jordan was appointed. At the first meeting the creditors Bankruptcy Rules, 1870. The proceedings which contended, first, that the principal debtors being negatived a resolution for liquidation by arrange- took place at that meeting appear from the file to discharged by force of the resolutions, followed by ment, and on the following day the debtor was
have been quite regular, and the resolutions passed payment of the composition, the liability of adjudicated bankrupt. Held, that the bankruptcy thereat for liquidation of the debtor's affairs by Thomas Littler as surety was also at an end : had occurred “pending proceedings for or towards liquidation," within the meaning of the 292nd of arrangement having been subsequently registered, (Slater v. Jones, 29 L. L. Rep. N. S. 56; Capes the Bankruptcy Rules 1870, ipasmuch as through further applied to rescind an order bearing date C...P. 519).
I cannot and will not set them aside. Mr. Jones v. Ball, Ibid; Edwards v. Combe, L. Rep. 4 the appointment of the receiver the property re
Secondly, that as a right of 17th Feb. 1872, to restrain one John Williams, a action once suspended is gone for ever, and mained under the protection of the court, and creditor from proceeding in an action commenced cannot be revived. (Ford v. Beech, 11 Q. B. that the costs of the abortive proceedings for by him against the debtor in the Exchequer of 867), the deed of the 20th March 1873, in so liquidation must therefore be paid out of the Pleas to recover £120, on a promissory note of the far as the provisions were framed
with a view
to debtor's estate. Decision of the Chief Judge in debtor, but I see no ground whatever for doing so, set up or keep alive for the benefit of the bank, Bankruptcy affirmed : (Ex parte Howell ; re llawes, and as the other and principal application failed, Thomas Littler's guarantee, and the securities 29 L. T. Rep. N.S. 859).
this and the other restraining orders granted in deposited by him for the partnership debt was BANKRUPTCY ASSIGNMENT OF Goodwill this case continue. I think the trustee is entitled inoperative. The learned counsel also submitted AND FIXTURES-NON-DELIVERY OF POSSESSION to his reasonable costs of resisting the applica- that it was inoperative because, while it professed -SALE BEFORE BANKRUPTCY.-A debtor exe. tion.
to embody the terms of the composition, it con. cuted an assignment of the goodwill and fixtures
tained stipulations which the creditors did not of his business to his brother, in satisfaction of
NANTWICH COUNTY COURT.
contemplate in passing the resolution. Mr. Heelis moneys advanced. Two years afterwards the debtor, who had retained possession of the good.
Wednesday, Feb. 18.
on the other hand, relied upon Ex parte Peacock
(2 G. & J. 27) and Ex parte Davenport (1 M. D. & will and fixtures, sold them, and his brother (Before St. J. YA? ES, Esq., Judge.)
D. 313), as showing that where a joint creditor has obtained payment of the purchase-money. The Re T. and J. H. LITTLER; Ex parte T. LITTLER. a security upon the separate estate of one partner debtor was then insolvent, and soon afterwards Creditor and surety-Resolution to accept com. he may prove against the joint estate without presented a petition for liquidation by arrange- position to which creditor assents-Aboslute giving up his security. He also argued that as ment. Held (reversing the decision of one of the release of surety:
Thomas Littler was solvent as to his separate registrars), that the payment of the purchase. This motion was heard on 13th Jan.
estate at the date of the resolutions, he was free to money to the debtor's brother was not a fraud Jordan, instructed by Lisle, supported the deal with it as he might think fit, and at all events upon the other creditors, and could not be set motion on behalf of T. Littler.
he could not be admitted to falsify his own solemn aside : (Ex parte Wilson, re Wilson, 29 L. T. Rep. Heelis, solicitor, opposed for the Manchester act. Upon the first point I hold altogether with N.S. 860. Chan.).
and Liverpool Dictrict Banking Company, who Mr. Jordan, for whether the resolutions operate COMPOSITION MOTIVE OF are creditors for £1669 128. 9d.
as an accord and satisfaction defeasible by con. DEBTOR-FRAUD— PROPERTY SUFFICIENT TO Feb. 18. - His HONOUR delivered his judg. dition subsequent, that is by nonpayment of the PAY DEBTS IN FULL,BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869, ment, as follows: Mr. Jordan, by his motion, composition, or a new agreement of which the s. 127.-A debtor, whose property was sufficient asked for an order upon the Manchester and consideration to each creditor is the forbearance to pay his debts in full, filed a petition for liquida- Liverpool Banking Company to deliver up certain of the others, the effect of them is that by the tion, and the requisite statutory majority of his title deeds which had been deposited with them
by agreement of the creditor
the surety is placed in a creditors, with a knowledge of the value of his Thomas Littler in June 1870. In June 1870 situation different from that in which he had con. property, passed resolutions to accept a composi- Thomas and James Brotherton Littler, who tracted to be placed, and his liability is gone. tion of 10s. in the pound, partly from a desire to then in partnership as bone grinders Creditors may, no doubt, when they resolve on a assist the debtor, and partly in order to avoid the and manure dealers, got into difficulties, and composition, reserve their rights and remedies necessity of waiting for their money till the Thomas deposited with the Manchester and against sureties : (Re Glendinning, er parte property was realised. Two months after the Liverpool District Banking Company the deeds Buck, 517; Bateson v. Gosling, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. creditors had granted the debtor his discharge, a which were the subject of this motion, and which 570.) But the reservation must appear on dissenting creditor applied to the court to rescind related exclusively to his private estate,as security the face of the resolutions. If it do not the the resolutions. Held (affirming the decision of 'for advances which had already been or might defect cannot be cured by parol evidence of
intention, or by subsequent arrangement. Ex ing Company of the deeds deposited with them in CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.-The next Sessions parte Peacock and Ex parte Davenport, apon June, 1870. The order will be made accordingly, will commence on the 2nd March. The judges on which Mr. Heeils relies, are not in point. They and the bank must pay the costs.
the rota are Mr. Justice Keating, Mr. Justice cases in bankruptcy. This is a composi
Archibald, and Baron Pollock. tion, which is a very different thing. In bank.
POOR RATES.- For the year ending the 25th ruptcy there is no agreement. It is as the result
March 1873, the sum levied in England and Wales of adjudication that the estate is realised, and
was £12,426,566, being 10s. 6d. per head, less a distributed so far as it will go. But the debts
halfpenny. The sum of £24,068 was disbursed are not realised, at all events until the bankrupt MR. C. J. COLEMAN, of the Northern Circuit, has in legal charges during this period. obtains his discharge. In composition the credi: been appointed stipendiary magistrate Shef
THE ALBERT ARBITRATION.-We understand tors agree to accept part of their respective debts field.
that Lord Cairns will continue to act as arbitrain satisfaction of the whole, and upon payment of
The Times states that “It was proposed to tor in this matter, as it is so near completion. the sums agreed to be accepted the original lia. confer upon the Right Hon. Russell Gurney the The final dividend has been paid, and the final bility is ipso facto at an end. It remains only Grand Cross of the Bath, in recognition of his award may be looked for within the three years now for me to deal with the deed of the 20th labours in the Washington Claims Commission, from the passing of the Act, which received the March, upon which Mr. Heelis in a great measure but Mr. Gurney did not desire a distinction which Royal assent on the 25th May, 1871. A short rests his case. His contention was in reality seemed incompatible with his profession.”
Act is to be passed to deal with the unclaimed that, whatever might be the effect of the composi.
dividends, and the arbitrator's duties will then be
THE TEMPLE Church. — There is a special ended. tion, his clients, the bank, were by force of the service in this edifice every Wednesday evening special provisions contained in that deed expressly during Lent, at eight o'clock, and a lecture by derminster Board of Guardians stated recently
PAUPER ELECTORS.-The chairman of the Kid. restored to their original rights and remedies the Rev. Dr. Vaughan, Master of the Temple. that it was an "abstract question ”—whether it against Thomas Littler and his private estate, precisely as if the resolutions of the 10th Feb. had The subject of the lectures will be “The Lord's
was legal to fetch a pauper out of a workhouse to never been passed. Whether as between the
Prayer.” principal debtors and the general body of credi: of the Times directs public attention to the fact consequently, the question should not be dis.
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.-A correspondent that it was not illegal for the pauper to vote, and,
poll at an election. The clerk to the board stated tors the deed is void, only in so far as it goes
that members of both Houses of Parliament cussed; but according to another opinion, on a beyond the scope of the resolutions, or void as a whole, and to use Mr. Jordan's words “ so much
now take the same oath before taking their seats, scrutiny the vote would be disallowed as being
so that no person can be excluded for his religious that of a pauper, although as his name was on the waste paper,” is a matter which I am not called upon to decide, nor is it material, for the instal belief. The statute 29 Vict: c. 19 (30th April register the pauper had a right to record his vote ments are paid. The question is whether as 1866) is cited in support of this statement.
without impediment. As in the case of a close between the surety and the creditor claiming the
INNKEEPERS' LAW.-The Rev. Arthur Blom. election-and the recent Hertfordshire election is benefit of the suretyship, the provisions of the field, in the Times inquires whether the Licensing an instance-even one vote is of consequence. deed suffice to renew the liability of the former, Act has repealed, what he terms the “old law,
This question is one which should be decided by which was suspended or discharged by the resolu- cited in the Cabinet 'Lawyer, Digest of Laws, competent legal authority. tions to which the latter had assented. I am of pp. 166-7, that “ Innkeepers are bound by law to LORD CHANCELLOR O'HAGAN AND THE IRISH opinion that they fail altogether in their object receive guests who come to their inns,” and that BAR.- Dublin, Feb. 21.-A gratifying demonstraupon principle, for a right of action once sas. “if an innkeeper refuses to entertain a guest on tion was made to-day in the Court of Chancery on pended by the act or agreement of the party tendering him reasonable price, not only may his the occasion of Lord O'Hagan sitting for the last entitled to it is gone for ever and cannot be house be suppressed, but damage obtained by time before handing over the seals of office. As it revived : (Cheetham v. Ward, 1 Bos. & P.630, 633 ; action.”
was expected that some public expression would Ford v. Beech (11 Q. B. 867). And upon authority,
DR. MAIR, Editor of “ Debrett's House of be given to the feeling of respect and esteem the recent decision of Bacon, V.C., in Wilson ve Commons, and the Judicial Bench,” in an entertained for him by the Bar, all the benches of Lloyd (28 L. T. Rep. N. S. 331) is conclusive. The elaborate summary of the late Parliament, pub- the court were filled with members of the Profes. facts were almost on all fours with those of lished by him in the Times a few days ago, stated sion representing different political parties. the case now before me. Omitting all extraneous that the said Parliament existed five years and Among the Queen's Counsel who testified their matters, the plaintiff in that case was surety for forty-eight days, during which period 54 mem- desire to join in paying a tribute to the Chancellor the defendant in respect of certain bonds in which bers died, 23 resigned, 18 succeeded to peerages, for the uniform courtesy and kindness which he Messrs. Harvey were the obligees. The defendant and 11 to baronetages, 11 were created peers, evinced to all who came within his court, and for and his partner, Chatteris, filed their petition 5 were promoted to baronetcies, 20 were sworn his impartiality and dignity in the discharge of under sects. 125 and 126 of the Act of 1869. The Privy Councillors, 15 accepted office of profit his official duties, were some prominent members creditors resolved to accept a composition, payable under the Crown which were incompatible with of the Conservative party who are spoken of as by instalments, and that a deed should be pre- Parliamentary position, 31 were unseated, 9 re- likely to hold office ander the new Government. pared to give effect to the resolutions. Messrs. ceived the honour of knighthooà, 1 changed his After judgment had been given in two causes Harvey proved their debt and were assenting constituency, 6 seats were disfranchised, 135 new which stood on the list, the Solicitor-General creditors. The resolution contained no reserva. members were elected.
asked permission, on behalf of the Bar, to express tion of the existing rights against sureties ; but in FRENCH LAW OF MARRIAGE. The Civil their appreciation of the manner in which the the deed which was afterwards executed the credi. Tribunal of Toulouse has given judgment in a Lord Chancellor had presided during the last five tors reserved to themselves, as in bankruptcy, their cause of nullity of marriage recently, under these years. They cordially acknowledged the attention respective rights and remedies against any surety circumstances : About fifteen months since notice and patience with which he had ever listened to or sureties or person or persons other than the said was given to the Maire of the Commune that each one of them, as well as the kindness and undebtors in respect of the said sums of money thereby two persons would appear before him for the failing courtesy which he had shown to them all, released. Provisions were added to meet the performance of the civil form of marriage. The and the dignity with which he had discharged the event of the debtors making default in payment of maire, for some unexplained reason, quitted the duties of his high office. They felt that his exerthe instalments, and the debtors were released. town suddenly, after receipt of the notice, and cise of the important jurisdiction committed to him The learned Vice-Chancellor, in the course of a instructed his deputy not to perform the cere- had been such as to command the respect and con. lengthened judgment, in which he goes fully into mony. A member of the municipal council, a fidence of the Bar and of the public, and now that the law of the subject, citing numerous cases, general of division, consented to act in lieu of he was about to retire they desired to assure him especially Oakely v. Pasheller, decided in the the maire, and solemnised the marriage. Proceed that he carried with him the very best wishes of House of Lords and reported in 4 C. & F. 203, ings were adopted to declare the marriage null the Irish Bar for his welfare and happiness. Lord says—" The resolutions are clear and distinct, and void; but the court, after hearing the evi. O'Hagan listened to the valedictory address with beyond the possibility of doubt, and contain no dence, decided it to be valid. It was pleaded that visible emotion, and replied as follows :-" Mr. reservation of any rights, though there is a the irregularity was caused by the ill-will of the Solicitor-General, I am deeply moved by the reservation in the deed. But even if I were to maire, and that the husband and wife had acted words you have spoken, and by the feeling which gire more effect to that reservation than I am honourably.
they indicate on behalf of the Bar of Ireland. disposed to do, it would be still to be observed Law REFORM.-It seems to be admitted that with that distinguished body it has been my pride that the resolutions were binding before the deed the new Government may venture upon doing to be identified throughout the chequered years of was executed. They were capable, no doubt, much in the way of law reform if its chiefs can a laborious life, and never, in all its chances and under the statute, of any reasonable modification, agree among themselves as to what should be vicissitudes, have I for one instant failed to main, but the modification must be agreed to at the done. Lord Derby two years ago indicated this tain with them the best relations of cordiality and meeting of the creditors, and must not depart sphere as one upon which a Conservative admini. confidence. And now, when my judicial career is from the original stipulation, or it must not stration might enter without embarrassment and closing, I feel a just pride in receiving such signal depart to the prejudice of any one.
without timidity. It may be added that law proof that those relations have continued unbroken recent decision in Eæ parte Radcliffe Invest- reform would certainly be popular with the to the end. Fully conscious of many shortment Company, re Glover (L. Rep. 17 Eq. 121), country. The law is viewed by laymen as an comings, I am conscious, also, that I have striven contains expressions which are in accordance awful institution, the ways of which are not to be to fulfil the duties of my great office with impar. with these views. It may perhaps be urged that understood by ordinary mortals; and if anything tiulity and faithfulness, and I thank the eminent the cases are not analogous ; that in Wilson v. can be done to make its nature more simple, the persons who bave thronged to meet me to-day for Lloyd the surety was not a party to the coniposi- amendment will be welcomed with amazement and their spontaneous assurance that I have not so tion deed ; that in the present instance he was. gratitude. There will, indeed, be much incre striven entirely without success. I pass from the But that is not the case, nor would it I think,
as dulity until the result is accomplished, for we Bench, remembering with the truest pleasure the the deed is framed, be material if he were have been so often promised wonders, and they uniform courtesy, consideration, and respect which Thomas Littler is not, however, a party to the are so slow in coming. Who that read a I have received at all times from all to whom I deed of the 20th March as surety, but as one of short paragraph in our Law Reports last week have so long had the daily privilege of listening in the principal debtors ; and in that character
he, which told us, on the authority of Vice-Chancellor this court ; and I should be the most ungrateful and his late partner (J. B. Littler), by the descrip- Malins,
that the winding-up of a small company, of men if, in the coming years and in the new tion of the debtors,” join in the provisions with a bona fide subscribed
capital of only £4500; sphere of activity on which I may enter, I should relating to the composition, as also in the clause and legitimate debts under £4000, had already not be eager and earnest on all fit occasions to aid upon which Mr. Heelis relies to defeat this motion. cost £6750, though the process was not yet com. in advancing the honour and the interest of our In fact, the two deeds resemble each other so plete, would have believed that this was the result noble profession. I believe that the maintenance clearly that they might have been the work of the of that simplification and cheapening of legal pro- of the Irish Bar and the Irish Judiciary in full same hand, and they fail in operation for the same cesses for which we have trustfully waited ? integrity, efficiency, and independence, is essential
Upon the ground, therefore, that by It is a scandal, one scandal out of many, and any in the highest sense to the welfare of Ireland; and force of the resolutions of Feb. 10, the rights and resolute attempt to abate it deserves support, I trust that the
day may never come when anyone remedies of the bank against Thomas Littler, as surety, were suspended or discharged ; and that end
as they are now, and, while they may get Again I thank you for your great kindness, and the deed of 20th March failed in reviving them, I better if we try, they will certainly get worse if with a full heart and faltering tongue l bid you hold that Thomas Littler is entitled to the return we let them alone. So we plnck up hope once all farewell." At the conclusion of Lord O'Hagan's by the Manchester and Liverpool District Bank. more, and watch to see what will be done.-Times. reply the Bar rose and applauded him with great.
.” The more
fervour as he retired from the bench. The de Chancellor of the Exchequer. The financier under the law, he is thus reported : " Onej topic monstration was creditable to the generous spirit whose chairmanship a bank has been able to pay more, and I have done with the measures of the Bar, and was in perfect unison with the 17) per cent., is no mean addition to even the we propose-the codification of the law. You feeling of the public. No chancellor has ever strong Government of Mr. Disraeli.-Sun. may be told, and to your cost, by its admin. presided in the court who so fully enjoyed or SUIT BY A BARRISTER.-A suit, instituted by istrators, that every Englishman is supposed to deserved the sympathy, esteem, and friendship, Mr. Charles Neate, late M.P. for Oxford, and of know the law. Nothing can be a greater absur. of all ranks and classes of the Irish people. Lincoln's
Inn, barrister-at-law, against the Hon. dity. No lawyer knows the law. He may know A paper “On the Rules of Evidence, as appli. Richard Denman and the Hon. George Denman, better than others where, among the hundreds of cable to the Credibility of History” will be read the executors of the late Lord Denman, and the volumes, to find the law or decided cases, and he by Mr. Forsyth, Q.C., M.P., at the meeting of the Right Hon. Sir W. M. James, the treasurer of the may give an opinion, which may be worth little or Victoria (Philosophical) Institute, on Monday Society of Lincoln's Inn, came before Vice- , more, as to what the law is. But in this 19th next, when the election of several new members Chancellor Hall on Wednesday upon a demurrer century, in a nation calling itself highly civilised, will take place.
to the plaintiff's bill. In 1869 the plaintiff peti. priding itself on its intelligence and its education, MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.-The John Bull, with tioned that his name might be taken off the books which, it says, it is spreading through all classes, reference to the selection of a judge in lieu of Sir of the Society of Lincoln's Inn, and received an what prevents us having what some nations on W. Bodkin, observes that " without saying any order to that effect, conditionally upon certain the Continent have-a simple code of law in an thing disparaging to Mr. Edlin, for a post reguir customary payments being made within a month. octavo volume, so simple that a man who runs ing great experience and tact as well as legal He did not, however, pay the dues within a may read, and which would prevent the idea of knowledge, he cannot compare with Serjeant Cox, month, but subsequentîy offered to pay all dues every Englishman knowing the law being any who has fairly earned the post, while by his owing by him upon the bond of release being longer mischievous absurdity? I would have courtesy and consideration, he has won the respect delivered up to him, but the society declined to this taught in the higher classes of our elemen. of all. Few men have had larger experience, and release him till he had signed an altered form of tary schools. I would have no man start in life are able with greater facility to get at the real petition, which had since been adopted by them, who had not had preliminary instruction in this gist of a story overlaid, as it often is, with extra- which, however, he was unwilling to do. He, code ; and if you return honest, hard-working neous matter, while his ready detection of impos. therefore, filed a bill for a decree which would Liberals, there will not be the slightest difficulty ture, and the facility with which he detects a practically enable him to leave the bar without in reducing all the various laws of the country criminal and protects a prisoner who has been making any further payments or declarations. into a small volume.” taken in by rogues, makes him no ordinary judge. THE TICH BORNE CASE.-A limit has at last The outgoing Attorney-General may be glad to been definitely set to the Tichborne trial. Yester. see Mr. Edlin provided for, but in doing so, he day the Lord Chief Justice announced that his
CORRESPONDENCE OF THE strangely forgets the good turn that Serjeant summing up would be finished on Saturday, and Cox has done him in the Taunton election. the jury will then be permitted to enter upon their
PROFESSION. THE GENERAL ELECTION. - The aggregate final labours. Whatever regret or inconvenience number of votes polled throughout the United individuals may experience at the conclusion of Note.-This Department of the Law Times being open to Kingdom was 2,485,183, of which 891.836 were this case, the public generally will welcome the free discussion on all professional topics, the Editor is not polled in favour of unsuccessful candidates. In statement of the judge. The trial during its
responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it. Scotland there were 36 contests, in which 24 progress has aroused much unhealthy excitement, Liberals polled 102,160 votes, against 30,218 votes and has exercised an influence on popular feeling
REPEAL OF ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATE DUTY. polled by 12 Conservatives. In Ireland, 83 seats which cannot be regarded as beneficial. What- - Now we are so ably and numerously repre. were contested, 83,970 votes having been given ever the termination may be, no one can sup. sented in the present Parliament by gentlemen to 50 Liberal candidates, and 54,696 to 33 Conser- pose that the respect due to the adminis. belonging to our branch of the Profession, really vatives. The 346 members who stood a contest in tration of justice has been increased, or something ought to be done to secure their aid to England and Wales received 1,306,405 votes, of the interest 'so widely felt in the result bas make an effort to have this tax repealed. It bears which 718,545 were given to '188 Conservative assisted the cause of culture in the
country. The heavily on the
younger members of the Profession members, and 587,880 to 158 Liberal members. direct tendency of a trial of this kind is to render who can barely
bring both ends to meet, because According to a parliamentary return published in the process of law a matter of popular interest, in addition to this yearly tax of £6 the income February 1873, there were 2,645,564 registered and to attract to legal proceedings a vast amount tax gatherer does not forget to make his call. I electors in the United Kingdom: 2,157,295 in of unintelligent criticism. One of the chief quite concur with your remarks and those made England and Wales, 262,758 in Scotland, and advantages of the complexity and difficulty of by "J. T. S.” in your last issue. As the leading 225,511 in Ireland. The aggregate polls in Eng. the English legal system is that its decisions are members of our Profession to whom the payment land and Wales were 2,053,511, in Scotland above the reach of shallow comment. Nowhere of £6 is a mere flea-bite, are supine in the matter, 212,330, and in Ireland 219,342. The House of else does there exist the same reverence for courts those who are needy and feel the effect of the Commons now consists of 653 members, 351 Con- of justice, and this reverence is no doubt due to burthen ought to be up and doing and not cease servatives, and 302 Liberals. The four dis- the absolute impartiality with which law has been agitating the questions until the tax is removed franchised boroughs are Beverley, Bridgewater, administered. The soit of feeling which has been altogether, it being for many reasons a most Sligo, returning formerly 6 members. There is a raised with regard to the Tichborne trial tends to unjust one. That a practitioner whose income double return for Athlone.
render the position of English Judges more diffi. does not exceed £150 net should have to pay a tax THE NEW HOME SECRETARY.-An episode in cult than it has been, and the intelligence that of £6 is a great injustice, and our present Premier, the General Election of 1868 is brought to our the end is near is therefore on every ground ta be I feel assured, would not permit any class to be mind by the fact of Mr. R. A. Cross, just fifty regarded as satisfactory.-Globe, 'Thursday. so unfairly burthened if the matter was properly years of age, having at one bound risen from the
TRANSFER OF LAND.-Mr. Swanston, Q.v., is brought to his notice. I trust, Mr. Editor, at position of a private member to that of a Cabinet reported by the Hampshire Telegraph to have every favourable opportunity, you will give us Minister. In 1857 he entered Parliament as one spoken as follows on the subject of the transfer your assistance by giving the subject ventilation. of the members for Preston, being then in full of land, when addressing his would be constituents
SUUM CUIQUE. practice as a barrister of the Northern Circuit. in South Hants at the recent elections :-“Let At once he made his mark as a practical member, me say a word on another point-the free transfer THE WORKING OF THE BALLOT.-In p. 295 of and carried a Bill reforming our municipal coun. of land. One of the articles of the creed of the your publication of this day, Mr. Ford suggests cils so far that candidates now require to be Liberal party is that we should have a plan for an that to avoid delay in counting up the votes" the named several days before the day of election, easy and cheap transfer of land. (Hear.) Our object presiding officer might, in the presence of the instead of coming in by stealth, as was often thé is that the capital of the small capitalist should necessary agents, examine the ballot papers, and case before. He then turned his attention to the be applied to the culture and improvement of register each vote on a list, so that almost on the vexed subject of church rates, and introduced land, so that the owner of a few hundred pounds closing of the poll each presiding officer might go, various Bills on that subject, but his Parliamen. may buy without difficulty and without serious to the returning officer with a correct summary.' tary career had to be cut short in 1862, by the expense the land on which he can lay out the rest I would suggest to Mr. Ford the great protection exigencies of the Old Bank at Warrington-of of his capital and labour, without fear of the to the secrecy of the ballot, secured by sect. 34 of which his deceased millionaire father-in-law had tyranny of the landlord, or the terrible difficulties the first schedule, providing that before the countbeen a chief proprietor-requiring new blood to which sometimes oppress the leaseholder. At pre. ing begins the whole of the ballot papers from meet the extraordinary extension of the town and sent he is deterred by seeing, before he can become the various polling stations must be mixed trade of Warrington. For four years he became owner in fee simple, what a fearful process he has together, and will illustrate it thus. An extensive a banker, and missed an excellent chance of one of to go through. It is true he may contract with landowner may have ostates reaching over the the legal prizes which fell in showers during the the owner of the land to buy a few acres. But whole of a polling district, and every tenant term of office as Prime Minister of Lord Derby, years may elapse before he can get actual posses- might vote for the opposite candidate ; at present and then of Mr. Disraeli. As a banker, a chair sion of the land ; and in all this fearful process he it would be impossible for him to trace how his man of quarter sessions, and the leading resident may have to pay more to the various lawyers en- tenants had voted, but if the numbers in every Conservative gentleman of the district, he was gaged than to the owner for the land. This is a
box could be checked with the numbers of votes pursuing a quiet course when the General Elec- rag of the barbarous ages, a remnant of the feudal for each candidate, he could make a tolerable tion of 1868 took place. There was a great want laws which, abolished in other mattere, remains guess as to how the bulk of them had voted, and of a first-class candidate among the Conservatives still in connection with landed property. The the protection to the voter intended by the ballot. of South-West Lancashire to run against Mr. Liberal party seek to sweep it away. It is dono would be much reduced. The same observation Gladstone. Day after day passed, and one after in Australia by the bill of Mr. Torrens, and would apply to the more probable tyranny exer. another refused to be a David for the time being nothing is more simple than to do it in England. cised by trades' unions, &c. I have had some The Warrington Guardian, from which we extract Can you have anything more easy and simple little experience in the working of the Ballot Act, the previous facts, called attention to Mr. Cross, than to have a list with one column for the owner and consider the present system is admirably then relieved from the most onerous duties of a of the land, and another for the land ; and if John adapted for the purpose intended. The immediate banker by the Old Bank being purchased by a Smith, the owner of acre No. 1, be minded to sell ascertainment of the result of the poll is of little company of which he became chairman. The to Richard Jones the said piece of land, to go to consequence. I would rather provide that the Times and other papers copied the article; the the register-office, say “I have entered into a con. boxes should not be opened till 10 o'clock on the Conservative press endorsed it, Mr. Cross was tract for the sale of acre No. 1, and I ask you to following morning ; everyone would then be fresh received with acclamation, and his course through register Richard Jones as the owner instead of for work.
A TOWN CLERK, South Lancashire, and especially at Preston and me?' The whole thing is done with the stroke Feb. 21. Warrington, where he was best known, was quite of a pen, and is as simple as the transfer of stock Referring to my letter hereon which found a an ovation. It is matter of history how he de- or shares. And what stands in the way? A heap place in your issue of to-day, may I add as an im. feated the first man of his age among the Liberals of vested interests and Conservative policy ; but provement on my suggestion (it is nothing more -Mr. Gladstone--and that so thoroughly that no if you return Liberal members to Parliament in than a suggestion which may be capable of prac. opposition was offered to him at the late election. sufficient strength, yon may be sure that this non: tical application) upon the subject of counting His experience as a barrister eminently fits him sense and red-tapism will soon be swept away.” the ballot papers as the votes are recorded, that for the office of Home Secretary, and his further (We suppose expression vested inte an elector ha been supplied with a ballot experience as a banker will enable him to give refers to solicitors.) 'At the same meeting, speak: paper, and having marked the same as he wishes, practical aid, when required, to his colleague, the 'ing on the subject of the codification of should, instead of depositing it in the ballot box, ,