« EelmineJätka »
the consequences of them. And there is, in limine, a plain distinction between executory and executed contracts or transactions. In the case of Taylor v. Chester (21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 359; L. Rep. 4 Q. B. 311) Hannen, J., cited an observation of Parke, B., in Scarfe v. Morgan (4 M. & W., at p. 281), “If an illegal contract is executed, and a property, either special or general, has passed thereby, the property must remain.' Upon that counsel observed, * That has never been decided ; if it were law, the court would have to go into all the circumstances of the illegal contract to see if the property had passed.” Upon this point Ayerst v. Jenkins throws some light, and the Lord Chancellor said that in cases presenting no circumstances obnoxious to the mind of the court, he thought it “consister.t with all sound principle, and with all au. thority to recognise the importance of the distinction between a completed voluntary gift and irrevocable in law, and a bond or covenant for an illegal consideration, which has no effect whatever in law." His Lordship then referred to Whaley v. Norton (1 Vern. 483), in which the Master of the Rolls said, "that there would be a difference in these cases between a contract executed and executory, and that the court would extend relief as to things executory, which, if done, it may be might stand.” To a similar effect was Lord Eldon's judgment in Rider v. Kidder (10 Ves. 366). And we conceive that the dicta and judgment delivered in Taylor v. Chester support this view as regards remedies at law as well as in equity. A completed gift for an immoral consideration cannot be set aside in equity, nor can the subject matter of an illegal contract, parted with by one person in pari delicto with another, be recovered back.
To discuss what is an illegal consideration opens a very wide field, and as we are dealing with Ayerst v. Jenkins, we will confine our attention to contracts taiuted with immorality. In that case the Lord Chancellor referred to the collection of old authorities to be found in the note to Benyon v. Nettlefold (3 Mac. & G. 100), the result of which he thus stated : 1. Bonds or covenants founded on past co-habitation, whether adulterous, incestuous, or simply immoral, are valid in law, and not liable (unless there are other elements in the case) to be set aside in equity, 2. Such bonds or covenants, if given in consideration of future cohabitation, are void in law, and therefore of course also void in equity. 3. Relief cannot be given against any such bonds or covenants in equity if the illegal consideration appears on the face of the instrument. At law the principles are equally plain and well-established; and we pass on therefore to consider the position of a particeps criminis. The practice of the court of equity is this : If an illegal consideration does not appear on the face of the instrument, the objection of particeps criminis will not prevail against a bill of discovery in equity, in aid of the defence to an action at law. And under some circumstances (but not under all), when the consideration is unlaw. ful, and does not appear on the face of the instrument, relief may be given to a particeps criminis in equity. In Ayerst v. Jenkins, as stated by Lord Selborne, relief was sought by the representative not merely of a particeps criminis, but of a voluntary and sole donor, on the naked ground of the illegality of his own intention and purpose ; and that not against a bond or covenant or other obligation resting in fieri, but against a completed transfer of specific chattels, by which the legal estate in those chattels was absolutely vested in trustees, ten years before the bill was filed, for the sole benefit of the defendant." “I know no doctrine of pablic policy,” said his Lordship, “which requires or authorises a court of equity to give assistance to such a plaintiff under such circumstances.” The governing principle in such cases is, at law as well as in equity, * In pari delicto melior est conditio possidentis”-a maxim of law established, as Mr. Justice Mellor said in Taylor v. Chester, not for the benefit of plaintiffs or defendants, but founded on the principles of public policy, which will not assist a plaintiff who has paid over money or handed over property, in pursuance of an illegal or immoral contract, to recover it back; and as Lord Truro said, in Benyon v. Nettefold, the law, in sanctioning the defence of particeps criminis, does so on grounds of public policy, namely, that those who violate the law must not apply to the law for protection. Chancellor Kent has very well and concisely stated the condition of the law in sect. 467, vol. 2, of his Commentaries,—"A particeps criminis has been held to be entitled, in equity, on his own application, to relief against his contract, when the contract was illegal or against the policy of the law, and relief became necessary to prevent injury to others. It was no objection that the plaintiff himself was a party to the illegal transaction :” (citing Estabrook v. Scott, 8 Ves. 446 ; St. John 5. St. John, 11 Id. 526; and Jackman v. Mitchell, 13 Id. 581.) "But if a party, who may be entitled to resist a claim on account of its illegality, waives that privilege and fulfils the contract, he cannot be permitted to recover the money back; and the rule that potior et conditio possidentis will apply" (Howson v. Hancock, 8 Term Rep. 575.)
We agree with Chief Justice Best, who, in Richardson v. Mellish (2 Bing. 229), expressed the opinion that the courts had gone too far in setting aside contracts on the ground that they were in contravention of the public policy, and that the objection in such cases ought to be founded on some clear and unquestionable principle and never applied to doubtful questions of policy.
THE JUDICIAL STATISTICS FOR 1872.
(Continued from page 19.) The amount for which plaints were entered in 1872 is less by £71,340 than the amount for 1871. The amount in 1871 showed an increase of £17,370 over the amount for the preceding year, following an increase of £22,197 in 1870 over the amount in 1869, of £45,432 in 1869 over the amount in 1868, and an average increase of £243,341 in each of the three years preceding 1868. The average for each plaint entered in 1872 is £2 178. 6d., against £2 178. 10d. in 1871, £2 178. 11d. in 1870, £2 169. 4d. in 1869, £2 128. 10d. in 1868, £2 6s. 70. in 1867, £278. in 1866, and £2 7s. 2d. in 1865.
The amount of debt for which judgment was obtained in 1872 on original hearings is 45-6 per cent. of the total amount for which plaints were entered. In 1871 this proportion was 49-7 per cent.; in 1870, 49-9 per cent. ; in 1869, 50:5 per cent. ; in 1868, 51:3 per cent. ; in 1867, 52-2 per cent.; in 1866, 51:1 per cent. ; in 1865, 50-2 per cont. ; in 1864, 55•7 per cent.
The amount of costs in 1872 shows an increase of £690, as compared with the amount for 1871. The amount for 1871 was less than the amount for 1870 by £649. The amount for 1870 showed an increase of £2045 on the amount for 1869, following an increase of £1655 in 1869 on the amount for 1868, and an average increase of £6967 for each of the three years preceding 1868. The costs are 4:8 per cent. of the amount of debt for which judgments were obtained on original hearings in 1872, against 4-6 per cent. in 1871, 4:7 per cent. in 1870, 4:4 per cent. in 1868, and 41 in each of the years 1867 and 1866.
The amount of fees in 1872 was less by £8765 than the amount for 1871. The amount for 1871 exceeded the amount for 1870 by £5186, there having been a decrease of £4649 in 1870 as compared with the amount for 1869. The amount for 1869 showed an increase of £2919 as compared with the amount for 1868, following an averege increase of £32,233 for each of the three years preceding 1868.
The following are the totals, under the different headings in the returns, of the proceedings in equity in the whole of the County Courts, for each of the years 1872, 1871, and 1870, with the average for the years 1867, 1868, and 1869, and the totals of the proceedings from the commencement of the operation of the Act on 1st Oct. 1865 to 31st Dec. 1866.
From 1st Oct.
Average 1865 to
1872. 1871. 1870. 1867-8-9, 31st Dec. 1866. Number of plaints entered : For administration of estates ... 225 226 212 224
2:8 For the execution of trusts... 27 26 24 52
55 70 58
77 Number of petitions or potices filed :
For the appointment or removal of trustees
24 31 19
15 For partitions
21 12 19
5 For injunctions...
30 45 14
33 Number of instances of payments by
trustees under section 24 o 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142
23 Total number of equitable suits or proceedings 683 767 668 685
831 Amount of subject matter in
dispute or otherwise £103,491 £116,692 £87,804 £87,834 £128,162 Amount of attorneys' costs allowed
£5,199 £4,499 £4,849 £5,364 £5,031
Registrars £1,817 £1,838 £1,815 £1,967 £2,339
£628 £684 £654 L612 £847
266 Number of appeals
8 Numbers committed for contempt
5 Number of warrants of execution, possession, &c....
6 3 8 13
22 The following are the totals shown in the returns of the proceedings in Admiralty suits in the County Courts in 1872, 1871, 1870, and 1869 :
1872 1871 1870 1869 Total number of Admiralty suits or proceedings
337 Arrests of vessels ...
99 Final decrees
123 Amount of claims
£35,536 £34,402 £28,345 £28,675 Amount of Attorneys' costs allowed £1,488 £1,556 £1,729 £1,591 Amount of fees : Court fund ...
£588 £574 £630 2528 Registrar
£528 £487 High Bailiff
£308 £247 £343 £263 Suits or proceedings pending
10 Warranty of execution
10 Vessels sold : Amount realised
£176 £656 £598 £541 Costs of sale
£65 Cases settled » adjourned sine die
transferred to the High Court of
withdrawn It is supposed that the majority of the cases given as pending in the Hartlepool and Liverpool Courts and in City of London Court have been settled out of Court. It is stated also that in many instances the attorneys agreed upon the costs and settled the cases out of court, and that con. sequently they are not included in the return.
CITY OF LONDON Court. Under the Act 30 & 31 Vict. o. 142, which came into operation on the 1st Jan. 1868, the Sheriffs' Court of London was assimilated with the County Courts under the title of the City of London Court.
The following were the proceedings in this court for the recovery of
debts in each of the years 1872 and 1871, with the average for 1870, 1869, and 1868, and the number in 1867 under the former jurisdiction of the court.
1870-69-68. Plaints entered
14,257 13,683 14,604 11,739 Cases from the Superior Courts
58 Without a jury...
6079 5719 6585 5574 Judgments : For plaintiff...
4576 4542 5406 4353 For plaintiff by consent or admission. 1146
306 For defendant
228 190 189 176 Judgment summonses : Issued
1179 1022 1158 1021 Heard
255 231 Debtors imprisoned
1905 1807 1903 1386 Sales made
2 Total amount for which plaints entered £60,751 £53,365 £64,498 242,651 On judgments obtained by plaintiffs on original hearings : Amount of debts
£24,725 £23,053 £27,916 £18,858 Amount of costs ...
£2169 £1904 £2235 £1532 Total amount of fees on all proceedings £6882 7097 7998 5400 Number of days of sitting
1872, 1871. 1870, 1869.
1868. Total number of equitable suits or proceedings 2
9 11 14 Number of plaints entered : For administration of estates
1 For the execution of trusts
1 For foreclosureor redemption, or enforcing any charge or lien...
1 For specific performance
5 For delivering up or cancelling any agree
ment for sale or purchase...
1872. 1871. 1870. 1869. 1868
3 Number of petitions or notices filed :
For the appointment or removalof trustees
2 3 3 2 3
£1465 £1313 £3906 £2589 £3563 Amount of attorneys costs allowed
£79 £22 £62
£134 Amount of fees : Payable to consolidated fund
£22 £20 £17 registrars
£18 £29 £46
£45 £35 high bailiffs...
£5 £15 £15
1872. 1871. 1870. 1869, Total number of Admiralty suits or proceedings. 151 191 147 125 Arrests of vessels
43 45 Final decrees
56 64 Amount of claims...
£12,150 £17,111 £12,284 £12,078 Amount of attorneys' costs allowed
£1513 £1243 £1124 £545 Amount of fees : Court fund
£252 £286 £232 £221 Registrar
£238 £225 £213 £170 High Bailiff ...
£43 £47 £49 £48 Suits or proceedings pending
6 Warrants of execution
£267 £124 £34 £146 Costs of sale
£18 Cases adjourned sine die
4 transferred to High Court of Admiralty...
SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. in the constitution of the society brought about the law at present stands, a magistrate has no
by the new charter and bye-laws proceeds, "your power to order the production of the prisoner We remind our readers that the annual certificate committee have no doubt that henceforward the before the coroner. It is, however, very hard on duty has been payable since the 15th inst., and council will take a much more active lead in all an accused person that to the double expense of a must be paid before the 16th Dec. The names of matters that interest the Profession throughout defence in the two courts he must add that of an solicitors taking out certificates before the 1st the kingdond." The Vice-President on the occa- application to the Superior Court for a writ of Jan. next will appear in next year's Law List. In sion in question expressed“ his gratification that habeas corpus, and very embarrassing to his solithe case of renewal certificates solicitors are on the tendency of recent imperial measures had citor to feel that he cannot have his client before certified from the 15th Nov. until the date of been in the direction of placing solicitors on an
the coroner under the above circumstances except renewal, where such certificate is obtained after equality in regard to public appointments with by virtue of such writ. the 15th Dec.
barristers of seven years' standing." We are The following law lectures and classes are ap
glad to hear it, and trust that such tendency may A COMPLAINT reaches us that the copies of affipointed for the ensuing week in the hall of the become more perceptible.
davits now issued from the chambers of the ComIncorporated Law Society. Monday, 24th, class,
mon Law Judges are in many cases so badly Conveyancing, 4.30 to 6 o'clock ; Tuesday, 25th, The delay in issuing commissions for oaths in the has forwarded one of these, and we certainly think
written as to be hardly legible. A country solicitor class, Conveyancing, 4.30 to 6 o'clock; Wednesday, common law courts has always been somewhat the complaint is very well founded if what is 26th, class, Conveyancing, 4.30 to 6 o'clock; excessive, and we are sorry to hear, that with a before us may be taken as a specimen. The idea Friday, 28th, lecture, Common Law, 6 to 7 o'clock number of London and country applications to the conveyed to our minds is that some incompetent p.m. Members of the Incorporated Law Society judges to be so appointed, more delay than ever youth is set to work to copy affidavits at so much are entitled to attend the lectures. Subscribers may be expected, owing to the greater demand than are not admitted after lectures have commenced. usual on the time of their Lordships. In applica. law stationers or writers. Solicitors have a right
a day or week instead of their being entrusted to tions made during the present week, we are told to expect that they should be so copied as to ALTHOUGH the elevation of Mr. Hall to the that the commissions will not be ready for a Chancery Bench meets with undoubted approval
, month at the least, perhaps two. This delay is the facilitate the despatch of business, not to impede it. yet there is a somewhat strong feeling amongst more unfortunate, as when the Supreme Court of solicitors that the claims of older and equally Judicature Act comes into operation the mode of The Master of the Rolls on a recent occasion competent men have been overlooked. Mr. Glasse, issuing commissions for oaths generally, is likely dealt somewhat summarily with the parties to a Q.C., Mr. Amphlett, Q.C., and Mr. Southgate, to undergo some material alterations.
suit which, being the last cause on the paper on Q.C., are named as such. There is a report, for
the day in question, was ordered to be struck out which we cannot vouch, that Mr. Hall, duri
because neither counsel nor solicitors was present. the
TIE inconvenience which country solicitors ex. vacation, was occupied, at the country seat of the perience who are in the habit of appearing in cogent reasons before he would consent to restore a.
His Honour added that he should require very Lord Chancellor, with laborious work connected with legal measures which have been or will be with the practice which often obtains of an stances. No doubt his Honour has, since the comia
magistrates' courts is very great in connection cause to the paper struck out under such circumsubmitted to the Legislature.
accused person being committed to custody ander mencement of Term, made great progress with his
remand, or for trial, before the finding of the list, but the altered state of things in his court, as At the annual meeting of the Incorporated Law coroner's jury. A very strong illustration of this regards despatch of business, takes the Profession Society of Liverpool held on the 5th inst., the is to be found in the case of Re Reardon, referred somewhat by surprise, and as it is probable that report, which was taken as read, after stating to by us in our last issue, page 36, where the the parties to the cause in question have been long that the number of members was 191, and after prisoner was by such committal prevented from waiting for a hearing, and as, if not restored to the referring to the legislation of the session, contained attending
the inquiry before the coroner, although paper, it will probably be very many months before the following, on the subject of the organisation it was desired by the coroner himself that the the cause is again reached, it is to be hoped that of the Profession. "Your commiitee think it prisoner should be called as a witness, and where the suitors will not be thus severely dealt with right to refer to the great advance made by the the prisoner's attorney swore that he was advised owing to the neglect (if any) of their professional Incorporated Law Society of England towards this and believed that it was necessary that his client advisers. Solicitors will do well to watch more object.” The report, after stating the alteration should be tendered as a witness. No doubt, as closely the cause list.
NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.
addressed to the company, to A. Furness, and the have passed between the clerk of Mr. King and RENTCHARGE IN FEE-REAL ACTION-3 & 4 other shareholders in it; and to Mr. Nutt and Mr. Mr. Shearman and his clerks at the interview in WILL. 4, c. 27, s. 36.-The old remedy by real Robert King, their respective solicitors ; and to his office on the 8th April 1873. Mr. Shearman's action for the recovery of a rentcharge in fee Mr. Robert King and his solicitor. The facts of version of what occurred was in effect this : That having been abolished by s. 36 of 3 & 4 Will. 4, the case were shortly these : In Dec. 1872, the Mr. King's clerk then handed the authority to a C. 27, an action of debt is now maintainable applicants, who were two of the shareholders of clerk of Mr. Shearman's for Mr. Shearman's therefor: (Thomas v. Sylvester and others, 29 the company, presented a petition to wind it up. approval; that it was taken in to him, and L. T. Rep. N. S. 290. Q. B.)
The petition was heard on the 22nd Feb. 1873, returned to Mr. King's clerk, with an intimation SPECIFIC LEGACY- DIVIDEND - APPORTION. and was dismissed with costs. The order directed that it would be all right if signed, when the latter MENT ACT 1870.—The dividend on shares in a payment by the petitioners to the company and said the signatures to it would be obtained. Those public company, partly earned before the testa- the opposing shareholders, who were sixty-six in statements were corroborated. Mr. King's clerk, tor's death, but declared afterwards, belongs number, of their costs of the petition. The costs however, said that, after some general conversaentirely to the specific legatee of the shares ; and were taxed at 1441. 18s. 3d., the taxing-master's tion, the authority was taken in to Mr. Shearman, the Apportionment Act 1870 does not introduce certificate being dated the 4th April. On that who, as Mr. King's clerk was informed, perused any new rule in this respect : (Whitehead v. day, Mr. King, the solicitor of the company, and the it, but declined to give an opinion on it, and said Whitehead, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 289. V.C. M.) shareholders who had opposed the petition, wrote to he would require everything to be done in strict
PRACTICE-REVIVOR-BILL DISMISSED-PETI. Mr. Shearman, the solicitor of the petitioners, a form. Mr. King's clerk was told Mr. Shearman TION OF APPEAL-SUBSEQUENT DEATH OF PLAIN. | letter, in which he said that unless he received the declined to approve the authority. The clerk then TIFF.-In a suit to obtain a declaration that the amount of the taxed costs in the course of the ensu. left Yr. Shearman's office, saying, Well, then, defendant was a trustee of certain real estate for ing Monday he should proceed to enforce payment. he shall have everything in strict form." Mr. the plaintiff, the bill was dismissed. The plaintiff That demand of payment was one which Mr. King's clerk in other respects denied the allega. presented a petition of appeal, but died before the King was not entitled to make, the practice not tions of the other side, and his statements were appeal was heard. On the application of a person enabling him to enforce payment until either the corroborated by Mr. King and other witnesses. claiming to be a devisee of the plaintiff, that the 17th April, or some later period. Mr. Shear. Dickinson, Q.C. Finlay (of the Common Law sait might stand revived against the defendant, man, upon receipt of that letter, wrote to Mr. Bar), and C. H. Turner, in support of the motion, and that the petition of appeal might, if neces- Hollington informing him of the taxation of the contended that the issue of the writs was clearly sary, be amended, order made : (Chadwick v. costs, and requesting to have a cheque for the wrongful and an injury to the applicants, for Chardwick, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 284. Chan.) amount by the next morning. Mr. Hollington which they had a right to sue at law. As the
LANDLORD AND TENANT - LEASEHOLD IN- called upon Mr. Shearman the next morning and applicants had a clear right of action, the court TEREST-YEARLY TENANCY.-Agreement entered gave him a cheque for the amount. That was on a would not allow them to lose it by upholding into between A. and B., and signed by them, Saturday; and on the following Monday, the 7th these writs. whereby A. “agreed to let” to B. a certain shop, April, Mr. Shearman wrote to Mr. King, where. De Gex, Q.C. and Ingle Joyce, for King, opposed " at the yearly rental of £36;" and A. further upon the latter sent on the next day, the 8th the motion, and submitted that the applicants' agreed “not to give B. notice to quit as long
, a clerk, to Mr. Shearman with a form of case rested on the assumption of the validity of he continued to pay the rent when due." At the authority for his approval—that being an autho- a contract which could not be entered into. No time of entering into the agreement, A. was a rity from Mr. King's clients to pay the taxed costs solicitor could bind even his own clients not to lessee of the shop for a term of years, of which to him as their solicitor. It was alleged on be- issue execution within a given time. But here about ten years remained unexpired: Held, that half of the applicants that, on the clerk taking to the applicants were not Mr. King's clients. Want under the agreement, B. was not merely a yearly Mr. Shearman on that occasion the form of autho- of good faith on his part towards someone else's tenant, but had a right to remain in possession rity, it was approved by him, and returned to the clients was out of the question. He had really for the unexpired residue of A.'s term, as long as clerk approved, and that the clerk stated the been misled by Mr. Shearman. If the applicants he paid his rent when due: (Re King's Leasehold authority would be signed in a few days. On the were in any respect right in their views, they Estates, 29 L. T. Rep. N.S. 288. V.C. M.)
other hand, it was alleged that Mr. Shearman re- ought to have asked the court to exercise its PLEA THAT DEFENDANT IS NOT EXECUTOR, fused to approve the authority, and that it was summary jurisdiction over solicitors as its own ADMINISTRATION SUIT.-A testator by his will re-delivered to the clerk, he being informed that officers. But the case was not one in which the appointed A. and B. his executors. A creditor's Mr. Shearman declined to give an opinion upon court would exercise such a jurisdiction, and, on suit was instituted against the two executors for it, but would require everything to be in the whole of it, the motion should be refused with the administration of the testator's estate, and strict form, or to that effect; and that the costs. the bill alleged, as the fact was, that one of the clerk aid not say that the authority would be Lindley, Q.C. and Brooksbank were for the com. executors, B., had not proved the will or re- signed in a few days. There was no communica- pany. nounced probate. It also alleged that B. was
tion between Mr. Shearman and Mr. King in the Dickinson, Q.C. was heard in reply. indebted to the testator's estate, and that A. was
interval between the 8th April and the 23rd April. The VICE-CHANCELLOR having at the conclusion insolvent, and did not intend to enforce the debt On the 21st April Mr. King, as solicitor for the of the arguments reserved his judgment, now deli. against B. By his answer B. disclaimed all in- company, issued the two writs again.-t
the goods vered it. He stated the facts of the case
as terest, and offered to renounce. The plaintiff then of the applicant-the one against Mr. Lullington, above set forth, and, after minutely commenting amended his bill, introducing allegations with a directed to the sheriff of Middlesex, and the other on the evidence, said he thought that upon it the view to interrogating B. as to his debt to the to the sheriff of Surrey, each for the sum of correct conclusion was that the authority sent by estate. To the amended bill B. put in a plea that £144 18s. 3d. The writs were lodged by Mr. Mr. King for approval by Mr. Shearman was ap, he had by deed renounced probate before the bill King with the
sheriffs, and both writs were exe- proved
by him, that Mr. King's clerk was informed was amended. Held (reversing the decision of cuted on the 22nd April. The officers were placed that Mr. Shearman had approved it, that such Maling, V.C.) that the plea could not be sus. in possession of the business premises of Mr. clerk did state that the signatures would be obtained : (Morley v. White, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 289. Hollington at about half past five of the after- tained and the authority furnished in a few days, Chan.).
noon of that day, he not having cash in hand to and that Mr. King's clerk did not correctly inform TAXATION OF Costs-OUTPORT CHARGES- pay the amount, and being unable to obtain it him of what had occurred at the interview of the AGENT NOT ATTORNEY OR PROCTOR_REVISION from his bankers ; the officers were also placed in 8th April. If that was the correct conclusion
it -SEPARATE BILLS OF Costs. The practice, possession of Mrs. Hollington's private residence. followed that the writs should not have been which has hitherto obtained in the High Court of Mr. Hollington having communicated with Mr. issued as they were issued, and that the appliAdmiralty, of presenting separate bills of costs for Shearman, paid, on the following morning, under cants had established that they were issued conthe London proctor's charges and for the outport protest, £154 4s. 9d., the amount of the costs, and trary to good faith. Mr. King must be respon. or country agency charges, is now objectionable £9 6s. 6d., the costs of the levy, to the officers. sible, although he might not have been correctly and must be discontinued for the future. Although at the time of that payment Mr. Shearman and informed by his clerk of what had occurred. The a proctor may employ an agent, who is not an
Mr. Hollington only knew of the execution Vice-Chancellor had said that the writs should attorney or solicitor, to act as clerk pro hac vice, directed to the sheriff of Middlesex, and had not not have been issued. It was said on the argufor the purpose of collecting evidence in a cause, heard of a writ having been issued to the sheriff ments that what happened did not amount to an &c., in the outports, and may lawfully charge for of Surrey ; but in the afternoon of the same day agreement not to issue execution at the time the expenses incurred in respect of such agent, as
Mr. Shearman was informed by Mrs. Hollington when it could, according to the practice of the agency charges made by such an agent for doing of the execution levied on her premises. Mr. court, be issued, but at most amounted only to a work which is essentially the work of a proctor, Shearman thereupon informed the officers in poses, statement that the signatures would be procured attorney, or solicitor, such as “ taking instruc? sion of Mrs. Hollington's
premises that he had if they could be procured, so as to allow of tions for brief and drawing the same,
&c., will paid the £154 4s. 9d., but the officers reqạired payment being mado under the authority to Mr. not be allowed upor taxation : (The City of payment of £4 0s. 6d., the expenses of the levy. King instead of to the parties; that payment to Brussels, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 312. Adm.)
Mr. Shearman was, on behalf of his client, Mrs. Mr. King would have been a good payment
Hollington, obliged to pay, and accordingly did without the authority, and that Mr. King could VICE-CHANCELLOR HALL'S COURT.
pay that sum in order to procure the withdrawal not, as solicitor of the company, bind the company
of the officers. On the same day Mr. Shearman not to issue execution when execution could be Wednesday, Nov. 19.
wrote to Mr. King complaining of his conduct in issued. As to the construction thus put upon Re THE COMMONWEALTH LAND, BUILDING, Es- issuing the writs as he had, thereby wantonly what passed at the interview, the Vice-Chancellor
TATE, AND AUCTION COMPANY (LIMITED). putting Mr. Shearman's clients to great and un- thought it was not correct. It was to be observed Solicitor and client-Writs of fi-fa issued against necessary damage, annoyance, and inconvenience, that Mr. King's clients were interested in obgood faith—Process.
informing him of the payments which, under pro- taining payment before the time when a writ could This matter came on to be heard on a motion on test, he had made, and concluding by a request be executed, and that what occurred provided behalf of Mrs. Ann Hollington, and Mr. Alfred that Mr. King would let him have the promised for and contemplated such earlier payment-the Jordan Hollington. The notice of motion asked authority and receipt signed by the shareholders, applicants thus making a concession in favour of that two writs of fieri facias, dated the 21st of as also the master's certificate. That letter was Mr. King's clients. Whether or not payment April 1873, issued by the above-named company delivered by Mr. Shearman's clerk to Mr. King, could without the authority have been properly and Alfred Furness and others, shareholders in it, who thereupon stated that the only reply he had and
effectually made to Mr. King it was not neces. and directors respectively, to the Sheriffs of to make was that Mr. Shearman had better send sary to determine, seeing that Mr. King and Mr. Middlesex and Surrey, against the goods and the balance (30s.) due to him for copy affidavits Shearman acted upon the view that the anthority chattels of the applicants, might be set aside, as on the petition. Mr. King did not send any other was necessary. Mr. King had not as solicitor for issued contrary to good faith, and that the com- reply. There was no further communication be- his clients, authority to contract with the debtor pany, A. Furness, and the other shareholders, or tween the solicitors. Mr. Shearman gave the after judgment that his clients would not enforce Mr. Robert King might pay the costs of the notice of motion, which, as amended, was to the payment of their demand until a specified time; application. The notice asked, in the alternative, effect above stated. The motion came on to be but he had, as the Vice-Chancellor thought, that , if the court should think the writs ought heard on the 13th inst., and
the arguments occu- authority to arrange on their behalf
for acceleranot to be set aside, then Mr. Robert King might pied the court during that and the following day. tion of payment. In Lovegrove v. White (L. Rep. be ordered to pay to the applicants the damages, | A great deal of evidence was adduced on both 6 c. P. 444), Mr. Justice Smith said: “The costa, charges, and expenses attending the issuing sides, but a brief reference to a small portion of it attorney has, no doubt, control
over the process of of the writs, and also the costs of and occasioned is all that is here necessary. A principal discus- execution so far as such purpose is concerned ; by this application. The notice of motion was sion in the case arose upon what was alleged to 'but that he has not complete control over it is
shown by the decision that if the debtor has been years ago, and that he was, therefore, entitled to l. Clarke.-My Lords, I have just been instructed taken on a ca, sa. he cannot consent to his dis the benefit of the Statute of Limitations. In to show cause, but I am in this position-that the charge, though in the case of a fi. fa. he can consent 1868 a suit of Weldhen v. Fluker (to which the office copies have not been taken of the affidavits to the withdrawal of it, as in Levy v. Abbott, plaintiff Lyall was a party), was instituted with that were used in support of the rule, nor has. (4 Exch. 588). If it is for the advantage of the reference to some of the matters in notice been given of the affidavits on which I now client, he may accept payment of the debt by in. dispute between the parties to this suit, and a show cause. Under those circumstances I can gtalments; but he cannot, I think, enter into a decree was pronounced. The decision of the ques. only ask your Lordships to allow the matter to be binding agreement that execution shall not issue tions in this suit depended on this-whether an enlarged until next Term. for a given period of time." Mr. King, for his insolvent could, after making of a vesting order, KEATING, J.-What is the excuse for not in. clients, by his clerk presented the authority, and, and before his discharge, by any act or acknow. structing you before ? as the Vice-Chancellor considered, stated by such ledgment of his—as, for example, by the signature Clarke. I have heard of none. clerk that it should be signed and forwarded in a of his schedule and the filing of his affidavit, Garth.-The rule was moved in January last, few days. Nevertheless, misled by the statement alter the position of his creditors under the insol. and at the request of the Law Institution, at my of his clerk, Mr. King took no step whatever to vency. The 9 Geo. 4, c. 14, and the 2 & 3 Will. 4, instance, it has been enlarged at some intervals to get the authority signed. He made no communi. c. 27, and several authorities, were cited in the the present time. cation to Mr. Shearman that he was not doing so; arguments. It will be sufficient for the purpose DENMAN, J.-Not January, it was in May. but the time for execution having arrived, hé of this report to refer very briefly to the 40th sec.
Garth. This gentleman has been already susissued the writs. The Vice-Chancellor could not tion of the latter statute. By that section it is pended from practice in this
court for two years, but regard the issuing of execution urder such provided that no action or suit shall be brought by a rule in January, and now this
is an entirely circumstances as contrary to good faith-in say. to recover any sum of money secured by any different offence which was brought before the ing which he did not impute to Mr. King any mortgage, judgment, or lion, or otherwise, charged court, for misappropriating
a sum of £50 that was wiiful wrongful act, be having received from his upon or payable out of any land, at law or in handed to him by a gentleman in July last year, clerk the version given to him of what occurred. equity, but within twenty years nast after a pre- for paying probate duty. I applied for the role in Mr. Shearman was led by Mr. King, acting sent right to receive the same shall have accrued April, and at Mr. Biddles' own request, it has been through his clerk, to believe that payment was to to some person capable of giving a discharge for enlarged by the Law Society up to this time ; and be made to Mr. King after he had obtained the or release of the
same, unless in the meantime upon the last occasion there was the usual ruledue execution of the authority. Mr. Shearman, some part of the principal money or some interest drawn up-that any affidavits he had to file in therefore, properly abstained from paying the thereon shall have been paid, or some acknow. costs, even after the time when execution could ledgment of the right thereto shall have been before the Term, and this is the first intimation
answer to the application should be filed a week issue for nonpayment thereof. The applicants now given in writing, signed by the person by whom we have received. asked that the writs might be set aside, they de- the same shall be payable, or his agents, to the
Clarke. If I were allowed to go into the facts siring to proceed at law against Mr. King or his person entitled thereto, or his agent ; and in such I think there are matters upon the affidavits clients to recover damages. It was not, however, case only within twenty years after such payment before me on which I should ask your Lordships alleged that the levying of the executions occasioned or acknowledgmont, or the last of them, if more to go into the question. any pecuniary loss to the applicants or either of than one, was given. them. Annoyance there must have been, but the Dickinson, Q.C. and Fielding Nalder were for charge ?
KEATING, J.-What was the nature of the Vice-Chancellor did not think that justice required the plaintiff in the case. that the writs should be set aside. He thought
Greene, Q.C. and Methold, for the defendant, him with 256 to pay probate duty. Instead of
Garth.-A gentleman in July last year entrusted that the proper order to be now made was, under were not called on. all the circumstances, that Mr. King should pay The VICE-CHANCELLOR, after an elaborate
paying it, he received the money and misapproto Mr. Hollington the sum of £9° 6s. 6d., the examination of the authorities referred to in the priated it. He was applied to over and over again Shearman to the Sheriff of Middlesex, and to Mrs. been set up to the plaintiff's claim was the made to the Law Society, and Mr. Williamson amount of the costs, paid by him through Mr. arguments, said the principal defence which had by other solicitors, who were instructed to apply Hollington the sum of £4 Os. 6d., the amount of Statute of Limitations. In reply to that the wrote to him a letter, in which he told him the the costs paid by her through Mr. Shearman to plaintiff had relied on the effect of certain litiga- accusation against him, and asked what answer the Sheriff of Surrey, and also to pay the appli. tions in a suit of Weldhen v. Fluker, in which a he had to it, and this is the answer that he makos. cants their costs of this
motion. As regarded the decree had been nade, and by which it was said in February 1873, the money having been paid to other respondents, he should not make any order the plaintiff here had been entitled to redeem the him the previous July. 'Sir,- At the time I upon the motion.
As to Mr. King, he considered property. But the questions argued now were received the cheque from this gentleman an that he had jurisdiction to make him pay the costs not raised in that suit. It might well be that attachment was issued against me, compelling occasioned by his having issued execution under there might have been acknowledgments available
me to absent myself from my office for some time, the circumstances, as in the cases of Re Hogan then, which would not be so now; and that and ultimately, when going there, I was taken and (3 Atk. 812); Aubrey v. Aspinall (Jac. 4,1); although the statute could not then have been set imprisoned for upwards of six weeks. In conse. Browrie v. Davies (4 Jur. N. S. 683); Bayley v. up, it might be so here. The proceedings in that Buckland (1 Ex. 1). The company had filed an suit had no bearing on the questions at issue in quence my business became neglected, nor could I affidavit of the liquidators of it (the company this one, which, in truth, depended on the 40th get money from many people who were indebted being now in the course of being wound-up under section of the statute of the 3.& 4 Will
. known, and I was pressed on all sides, and, a voluntary winding-up), and that affidavit had 4, 9. 27. To that statute Lord St. Leonards although I made every effort, I could not raise been replied to by Mr. King. In those affidavits had given a most liberal interpretation-an inter- the money to repay. Had I been left alone I Mr. King and the liquidators were at variance as pretation to which also the Vice-Chancellor ac- should have done so. That is his explanation. to whether the latter sanctioned the writs of ceded. But Lord St. Leonards was not dealing exocution. The Vice-Chancellor did not consider with a case or cases similar to this. The statute
Clarke.—There were fees owing to Mr. Biddles. it necessary to say which of the two parties, Mr. was one which shortened the time for setting up
KEATING, J.-So he says. King or the liquidators, was right as to that, titles to real estates; and although, no doubt, it Clarke.-For business done by him. because he thought that under the circumstances was to be construed liberally, the true policy of
KEATING, J.-At all events, this is a gentleman the order he had mentioned should be made it must never be lost sight of. That was to quiet who thoroughly knows the practice of the court. against Mr. King, although he was, he thought, persons in the possession of their lands; and, The rule has been enlarged from the 30th May led to act as he did through not having been though construed liberally, it must not be so read last, he does not take out copies of the affidavits, accurately informed by his clerk of what occurred as to let in claims which the policy of it clearly, if and five minutes before the case comes on he at the interview on the 8th April, and because not expressly, excluded. Then what was there in hands a brief to the learned counsel, without he did not consider the case one for giving costs the present case to take it out of the operation of putting him in the situation of being heard. He to the company.
the statute? An insolvent had, on his own petition, does not even come here to attempt to take out
obtained an order denuding himself of all interest copies, or to see how matters are going; in fact, Wednesday, Nov. 19.
in his own property, and vesting it in trustees, he appears to me to treat the court, or at least the
for the benefit of his creditors. Could it be said proceedings, with something very like contempt. LYALL v. FLUKER.
that he might directly after such an act on his We see no reason why the rule should not be made Mortgage--Redemption-Statute of Limitations. own part, by any acknowledgment of his, take absolute to strike him off the rolls, The plaintiff in this case filed his bill for (inter from his creditors that property which he had alia) an account of what was due to him for prin. deliberately made theirs, and which, but for such cipal, interest, and costs in respect of certain acknowledgment on his part, was completely
Re John STAINER JONES. judgment debts and equitable charges, or mort theirs ?. So to hold would be most unreasonable.
Garth, 2.C.-In this case, my Lords, I have to gages, on some land at Shorne, in the county of The Vice-Chancellor then referred to the section Kent. It appeared from the bill that on the as above stated, and continued : Who was the rule calling upon the attorney to shew cause why
move that the rule be made absolute. It was a 21st May 1841, and the 24th Dec. in the person by whom the money was-for the purposes he should not be struck
is same year, William Neely gave the plaintiff two of the Act, and of this suit-payable? The object no cause shown. The rule was obtained in June warrants of attorney, with defeasances, to secure
of this suit was, it must be remembered, to try last. to him, by means of the land in Kent, the repay. the title to land. Then, by whom, and to whom,
KEATING, J.-Is it to strike him off the rolls ? ment of two sums of £500 and £1000, with was the money payable ? By the assignee in the
Garth.-Yes, my Lord. interest. In that year the plaintiff obtained judg. insolvency to the owners of the land. It was not
KEATING, J.-What was the ground of tha ment against William Neely for £1000 and costs, payable by the debtor himself.
He was not, rule ? and in 1813 a judgment for £2000 and costs. therefore, the person contemplated by the statute.
Garth.-There were no less than four charges Those judgments were duly registered and re
Whatever might have been the effect of the against him. He has shown no cause and has registered, and were so for the last time on the debtor's acknowledgmonts under other circum. filed no affidavits. There were four cases against 13th Feb. 1867. In 1849 William Neely took stances—if, for example, the insolvency had been him. One was, a writ was sent to him for service, the benefit of the Act for the Relief of Insol- at an end when it was given—was another ques. and for service only, without any authority to vent Debtors, and the defendant was appointed tion altogether. But as the case now stood, he receive the money.
He told the person upon his assignee. On the 17th March 1849, the must hold that the plaintiff had failed to establish whom he served the writ that he had better pay Insolvent Court made the usual vesting order, on
his case, and that his bill in this suit must be dis- the money, and the money was paid, £34, for the petition of William Neely. In the schedule missed, with costs.
which he never accounted. About four months filed and signed by him in the insolvency, and
afterwards another writ was served upon the after the making of the vesting order, he admitted APPLICATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEYS. debtor at the suit of the same person, and then it the debts due from him to the plaintiff. More- COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 11.
turned out that this man had received the money, over, in an affidavit sworn by him on the 4th Aug. 1852, in the insolvency, he also stated the (Before KEATING, BRETT, GROVE, and Denman, and had not accounted for it and the money had
to be paid over again. Another case was, he was debts due from him to the plaintiff. The defendant
employed by a schoolmistress, near Bristol, to denied the due registration of the judgments; he
Re JOHN HENRY BIDDLES.
collect a sum of money for her, £10, which he also claimed to be entitled to the lands, in priority Garth, Q.C.-In this case, my Lords, a rule was collected, but he never let her know anything to the plaintiff, and he insisted that the debts and obtained to strike an attorney off the rolls, and about receiving the money, and appropriated it equitable charges were all dated more than twenty 'I shall ask that the rule may be made absolute. to himself. There are two other cases, one a case
of probate duty, and the other was an application
REPORTS OF SALES.
justified a liberal payment to counsel, this was for one of the arbitrators for the arbitrator's fees,
one. It was not a very large fee, but the master and the arbitrator never authorised him to apply.
Tuesday, Nov. 18.
has reduced it. It is a question of principle, of The arbitrator applied afterwards and the money
By Mr. H. E. MURRELL, at the Mart.
great and grave importance, not only to the Bar, had to be paid twice over, because this money had Blooomsbury.- No. 89. Devonshire-street, freehold-sold for but to the public
; it is conceded that the attorney been misappropriated.
for the petitioner was acting for the benefit of KEATING, J.-You had better call him.
Gray's inn-road. – No. 18, Wilson-street, term 37 years, his client, and that being conceded I think it of the Mr. John Stainer Jones was called three times Camden-road. -- Nos. 70 and 72, Brecknock-road, term 78 last importance to the public that when a solicitor by the officer of the court, and there was no
thinks fit to give a proper remuneration to a reply.
Euston-road. No. 188, Seymour-street, term 18 years-sold counsel, his authority should not be treated with KEATING, J.-Then let the rule be made abso. No. 168, same street and term-sold for £175.
levity and set aside. I think no taxing-master, lute to strike him off the rolls.
Paddington.-No. 22, Cambridge.place, term 48 years-sold whether of this or any other court, can be as
bona fide for his client. He has means of knowing Re JAMES JONATHAN THORNLEY.
Wednesday, Nov. 18.
what is just to the Bar, taking into account the Garth, Q.C.-My Lords,- In this case I am going St. Christopher.--A sugar estate, known as Godwin's plan think this was a most proper fee, both in amount
By Messrs. HARDS and VAUGHAN, at the Mart.
merit of the counsel he thinks fit to employ. We to make an application to your Lordships that the
tation, containing 601 acres, with plant and live stockrule should be discharged, but I think I ought to sold for £6500.
and in principle. As to the item of the subpoenas, tell your Lordships what the nature of the appli.
By Messrs. BOXHAX and Sox.
which is an item of very considerable magnitudo, cation is, in order that you may deal with it, De Beauvoir Town,-The lease of the Perseverance Tavern, we see no reason to doubt the statement of Mr. Con. notwithstanding we have not been able to serve the
term 49 years--sold for £1850.
cannon that it would be dangerous to serve sub. defendant. The Court of Exchequer have sus.
Dalaton.- Nos. 9 and 10, Gayhurst-villas, term 71 years, pænas with more names than one. But it is stated
bold for £450. pended him from practice for two years, and the
By Messrs. RUSHWORTH, ABBOTT, and Co.
by the master that there was an agreement that Court of Queen's Bench have done the same
Mount-street. No. 7, Bell-yard, term 13 years-sold for subpoenas should be allowed for each two witthing. In this court the rule is that all the £450.
nesses ; the matter was quite in his discretion materials in the other courts should be brought Fitzroy-square.--No. 88, Fitzroy-street, term 12 years-sold and we decline to interfere. As to the item of here, that your Lordships may deal with it as
fees on the briefs of counsel, I apply all I said they did, or as you please. Mr. Thornley is, so
before to this. 150 guineas were given to each of far as we can ascertain, in America at the pre
the leading counsel; but this was cut down. I sent time, and I should ask your Lordships to
will again refer to the judgment of Bovill, C.J., deal with it as the other courts have dealt with it,
in the Southampton case. The first question and suspend him for two years, or else to dis
ELECTION PETITION COSTS.
argued there was as to the fees allowed to the charge the rule, whatever your Lordships think In view of the coming general election it may be leading and junior counsel. If these fees were right. We have not been able to serve him, and interesting to our readers to peruse the judgments allowed as being a uniform standard of allowance there is no doubt he is abroad.
in a case heard some time since in Dublin on the without reference to the particular case, we think BRETT, J.-Why should it not be postponed ? above subject. It is the well-known case of this course would be wrong, and that the master Garth, Q.C.-Of course we can enlarge the rule. Nolan v. Trench. Keogh, J., said: “The gene. ought to exercise his judgment in each case, but I do not know that that is of any advantage, except ral principles upon which we should proceed in at the same time we see no objection to the master to myself and my learned friend. If he comes this case are clearly laid down by Bovill, C.J.: adopting such a scale as an average for ordi. back another application can be made ; it is 'It impossible to lay down with exactness any nary cases. This was an extraordinary case. The merely to prevent my coming to the court every rule upon the subject, but generally it would seem master allowed 100 guineas as the usual fee. He Term, or twice every Term, and asking your that all such costs should be allowed as a solicitor should have exercised his discretion. There should Lordships to enlarge the rule. If you allow the would ordinarily incur in the conduct of his be no uniform rule in a case of such magnitude. rule to be struck out that will be the best course. client's business, excluding those extraordinary As to the consultation fees and refreshers, we do
KEATING, J.-Then at your request we strike costs which may have been occasioned either by not think they should have been reduced, but we it out.
the default of the client, as by his incurring a decline to interfere with the discretion of the
contempt, or by his express instructions as to master as to the number of consultations. As to Correspondence.
employ an unusual number of counsel. It appears the shorthand writer's notes, nothing delays the
to us that the parties entitled to their costs under case so much as taking down the evidence. The UNQUALIFIED PRACTITIONERS - Deeming it the orders, were entitled to an indemnity for all machinery for taking down the evidence, by means the duty of every solicitor to make known to the costs that were reasonably incurred by them in of shorthand writers, was provided by the Legis. Profession every attempt he observes, by persons the ordinary course of matters of this nature, but lature. During the whole of this case there was not solicitors to usurp the province of those who not to any extraordinary or unusual expenses in constant reference made to the shorthand writers are, I beg to call attention, through your valuable curred in consequence of over-caution or over. notes which were in the possession of counsel, medium, to the enclosed advertisement which is anxiety as to any particular case, or from con. and after all this are we to come to the conclusion repeated week after week in the Rugby Gazette sideration of any special importance arising that shorthand writers are not to be paid for by and Midland Times. Possibly it is not so flagrant from the rank, position, wealth, or character, the parties? We think they should be paid for, an invasion of the rights of the Profession as of either of the parties, or any special desire but not as charges for brief, but specifically what many others, but I think the whole system of on his part to ensure success. We think was paid for them should be allowed, and the such invasion, for, undoubtedly, it has now also that such extraordinary costs as an attorney attorney's expenses incident to procuring them. become a system, ought to be crushed ; and I would not be justified in incurring without dis- It was said that three counsel were allowed, arail myself of this opportunity of giving to the tinct and special instructions from his client, and that they should take down the notes. I legal world this notice, in the hope that the accu. ought not to be allowed, nor the costs of purely think when a counsel is in a case he should mulated showing up of these advertisements may collateral proceedings, upon which a party has act as counsel and not as a mere note-taker. induce some solicitors of ample means to take the failed, nor those which may have been occasioned As to the expenses of the witnesses, the regis. matter up in earnest. GEORGE ASHMALL. by his default, negligence, or mistake :'(Southamp- trar's certificate is not indispensable, the master
The following is the advertisement so properly ton. case, L. Rep: 5 C. P. 182.). I will first take the should allow all witnesses, bonâ fide summoned, complained of, with certain omissions, and which petitioner's notice and his objections to the taxa- no matter whether they were examined or no. we commend to the notice of the Legal Praction. The first item of importance contained in We think the party is not bound to examine titioners Society:
the affidavit of Mr. Ooncannon, the petitioner's every witness he summons. As to the objection COMMERCIAL INQUIRY OFFICE.
agent, was the retainers to counsel. The peti. that the registrar did not give his certificate till Head Office :-Cheapside.
tioner retained two leading counsel, giving them after the judge's term of office expired, our pre
each ten guineas before the petition was filed, in vious decision renders it unnecessary to decide Branches :- Manchester, Blackburn, Leicester, Edin order to secure their services. There was much this point; but we have doubt that the registrar In the interests of trade, and at a heavy expenditure discussion on the
principle of these retainers. We could give his certificate even now. As to the ap. of time and capital, these Offices have been established.
cannot see the principle on which the master plication of the respondent to reduce the taxation What members are entitled to for £338 :-Entitled to took five guineas off one, and allowed no of the master, one of the items was to disallow - Legal advice at any time, or any number of times, retainer to the other counsel. I think there the fees paid to counsel for daily consultations free of charge, on any commercial question. Debts is some doubt as to whether this retainer did where it did not appear that difficult points or applied for, subject to commission.
Our system of Debt Collecting is much approved not retain the services of the counsel for life. unexpected complications had arison during the No spending of good money after bad; special
facilities We were referred to the rules of the Bar which were trial. If that was so, the master would have had in County Courts; judgment against debtor in twelve adopted at a meeting of the Bar held on 3rd May, to have retried not only the Galway Election days; attendance to prove debt unnecessary ; commis- 1864, and by thom it appeared that a fee of five Petition, but also have decided what matters resion 5 per cent. under £20, 21 por cent. above. A care- guineas was sufficient to retain any member of quired consultations. As to the witnesses who fully revised list of swindlers, with their latest aliases the Bar for a particular court or circuit where he were examined to prove treating, the report of the
NOTICE.-In this office, a debt, after application is ordinarily practised, but the retaining fee to re judge was generally against the respondent, and made, is not left to die a natural death. Prompt, effi- tain a counsel in every case was understood and we decline to go behind that. cient, and volantary advice is given to subscribers as to was there laid down to be ten guineas. That is MORRIS and LAWSON, JJ. concurred. best means of recovering same. It in London, a clerk necessary to retain a counsel before a suit
was waits upon him in the country, by post) and obtains instituted. This jurisdiction did not exist at all at from him such instructions as will enable
us to recover the time these rules were passed. These inquiries debt without any further trouble to subscriber, and
THE BENCH AND THE BAR. without any attendance of subscriber being necessary.
are almost invariably held in a remote part of Terras : -£3 3s., £5 5s., and £10 10s. and upwards, per the country. We do not think that this retainer
CALLS TO TUE BAR. annum. N.B.-Banks and their Branches contracted comes at all within the descriptive particulars for,
court or circuit where the member of the Bar LINCOLN'S-INN. - John Morley, Esq., B.A.,
usually practised,' and, therefore, we think that Oxford; Frank Pownall, Esq., M.A., Oxford; To Correspondents.
the attorney for the petitioner was perfectly Sebastian Evans, Esq., M.A. and LL.D., Cam. STUDEST.- Wharton's Law Lexicon, price 2 guinens. justified in securing the services of these counsel, bridge; Arthur Griffith Poyer Lewis, Esq., B.A., A COUNTRY ARTICLED CLERK: – You cannot quit the service whom he, in the exercise of his discretion, thought Oxford; John Reove Brooke, Esq., B.A., Oxford of your principal without his sanction. It is an omission in your articles. No doubt the almost invariable practice
necessary for the proper conduct of his case, George Burvill Rashleigh, Esq., B.A., Oxford is to allow an articled clerk to serve the last twelve months and he was quite entitled to give them ten George Broke Freeman, Esq., B.A., Cambridge
in the office of the London agent, but this gives you no guineas each. We are of opinion that this Robert Wood Smith, Esq., B.A. and S.C.L., 01. INQUIRER.-See Order No. 3, issued by the authority of the item should be allowed, and we will send it ford; Frederick Ernest Muntz, Esq., B.A., Cam. judges, on the S1st Jan. 1863, pursuant to 23 & 4 Vict. c. back for retaxation. The next item is the case bridge; Thomas Herbert Robertson, Esq., B.A., 127, 84, 5, 8 and 2: You must present yourself for examin. laid before the senior counsel to advise proofs. Oxford ; Alexander Henry Patterson, Esq., B.A., ation entermediate founder of the two Termsonext. before Twenty guineas were paid for this,
which was Cambridge Henry Nicholas Courtney. Esq., cery.lane. The questions and answers for the last ex. cannot see on what principle. If there ever was with the Registrar ol Attorneys, Law Institution, Chan cut down by the master to fourteen guineas; we LL.B., Cambridge ; Arthur Horatio
B.A., Oxford; Edward Bellasis, Esq. ; George arnization can be obtained of Messrs. Evison and Bridge, law stationers, Chancery-lane.-ED, Sola, Dept,
a case, the magnitude and importance of which Montagu Worthington, Esq., B.A., Cambridge ;