« EelmineJätka »
WHITMORE (Thomas), formerly of Dudley, Worcestershire, licensed victualler, late of
the Black Swan inn, High-st. Cradley. Worcestershire, cab and car proprietor.
Dec. 21; T. Homer, solicitor, High-st, Brierley aill. WILDSMITH (Lucy), Mostyn Villa, Albany-rd, Sheffield. Jan. 11; Oxley and Coward,
solicitors, Rotherham. WHITAKER (Hannab), 161, Roundhay-rd, Leeds, wife of Matthew Henry V hitaker.
Jan, 30; Terns and Son, solicitors, 42, Bank-st, Leedis.
ELECTION. A MEETING of this debating society was held on Friday evening last week in the Inner Temple Lecture-hall, 3, King's Bench-walk, Temple. Mr. F. W. Sherwood (the president) was in the chair, and there was a large attendance. The debate was opened by Mr. C. Cavanagh, of the Middle Temple, who moved, " That it is to the interest of the Bar and of the pnblic that the Benchers of each several Inns of Court should in future be elected by the suffrages of the respective barristers belonging to such Inn."
Mr. Cavanagh said :-In rising to support this motion I must own to a sense of diffidence-to a sense, indeed, of considerable diffidence—when I remember how large is the issue at stake-how small my capacity for grappling with the various bearings the subject involves. As I look around this crowded house I am reminded that there are many here who must needs be more qualified than I am to deal with a matter which demands a knowledge and research to which I can lay no claim, and from whom I may expect the indignant criticism that a display of ignorance deservedly calls forth. But, Sir, I would ask the kind indulgence of my hearers on the ground that when I had the honour of accepting your invitation to speak to the motion on the card, I did not realise the difficulties that would attend the task--still less did I anticipate that I should have had so little time to devote to the work of preparation. I come now, however, before you honestly to discuss the question at issue to the best of my poor abilities, and I rely on the fairness of honourable members to give a patient hearing to what I shall have to advance. To those who on reading the terms of the motion are gathered together to listen to an impeachment or indictment of the Benchers, let me at once say that I am not here to attack individuals—that with the Benchers (all or any) I have no particular quarrel-that personal animus I must altogether disclaim ; but that, with the principle upon which Benchers are raised to that dignity, with the mode in which they are elected, with the fashion in which they exercise their functions --with all that I am at variance ; all that I do impeach, and do indict, and do charge most heartily and most earnestly. To those, on the other hand, whose conservative convictions may be shocked at what may seem the revolutionary tendency of the proposal before the House, let me say that my object is not to destroy but to preserve ; not to introduce what is new, but to restore what is old; to bring back what I hope to prove before I have sat down was, according to ancient custom and usage, the undoubted right of the barristers of the several Inns of Court to representation in their Parliaments. Before I address myself to the immediate matter of debate, it is necessary I should briefly recall the history of the institutions to which we belong, for without going a little into the past it will be impossible adequately to appreciate the position we hold in the present, and that to which we aspire in the future. As is well known, the precise origin of the Inns of Court is lost in antiquity ; this much, however, is generally admitted—that the practice of the law England was origi. nally in the hands of the clergy—that to the provision in the Magna Charta of Henry III., confirming that of King John-Communia placita non sequantur curiam sed teneantur in aliquo certo loco--for locally fixing the court where suits between subjects were heard, is to be attributed the appearance of a new order of men wholly devoted to the profession of the law-that about the reign of Edward III, this new order of men, then known as professors or students or apprentices of the law, had gradually settled in much the same legal quarters as they now possess, but that at that period and for ages after the tenure on which those quarters were held was only leasehold. I need not go minutely through the vicissitudes through which the Inns of Court passed in those early days; it is sutficient to note that in the beginning there was apparently no such thing as Benchers ; indeed, at p. lxii. of the Introduction to the Calendar of Inner Temple Records, published this very year under the editorship of Master Inderwick, it is said : “ The term Bencher (lez Benchers) is first mentioned in the Records in 1527,” though I admit they must have been of earlier origin, as the Harleian MS. 1094, f. 75, speaks of Ralph Andrew being a Bencher of Gray's Inn in 1311. By the time of Henry VIII. the Benchers in fact appear to have attained a definite status as the governing body in the respective societies to which they belonged; they formed an important number of the members that constituted the Parliament or legislative assembly of each Inn of Court ; but, as I shall presently show, they most certainly did not form the sole members of such assembly.
But to come to the all-important documeut and date under and at which the Benchers of the Middle and Inner Temple acquired most of the property that is now vested in them. That document, Sir, as given on p. 146 of Dugdale's Origines Juridiciales, consists of Letters Patent, issued the 13th Aug. in the sixth year of James I. unto Sir Julius Cæsar then Chancellor and Under Treasurer of the King's Exchequer, Sir Henry Montague Knight then Recorder of the City of London, William Towse and Richard Daston, Esquires, then Treasurers of the said Inns
of Court, and the other therein enumerated Benchers thereof, whereby a grant is made of the mansions with the gardens and appurtenances therein described, to have and to hold the same to the said Sir Julius Cæsar and the other enumerated Benchers, their heirs and assigns for ever, “for lodgings, reception, and education of the professors and students of the laws of this realm, yielding and paying to the said King, his heirs and successors, at the receipt of his Exchequer, viz., for the mansion called the Inner Temple the sum of £10 yearly, and for the mansion called the Middle Temple £10 yearly also at the Feasts of St. Michael the Archangel and the Annunciation of our Lady, by equal portions.” Let the House mark well those words, “ for lodgings, recep. tion, and education of the professors and students of the laws of this realm.” There beyond all question is a trust, a trust as plain and definite as words can express, a trust of which every member of each society is entitled to claim the benefit, a trust for the due performance of which the Benchers are made responsible. Nor is the grant of James I. the earliest evidence of a trust, for there are entries to show that the Middle Temple Hall was built not out of an impersonal Treasury, not out of the pockets of the Benchers only, but by contribution in given proportion by all the then members of the society. The same is true to a certain extent of the Old Hall and one of the gateways of Gray's Inn; and, if necessary, it can be shown that the property held by the Benchers of that Inn, as well as of Lincoln's Inn, is held in trust for the respective members of those societies. I will not stop here to inquire into the administration of those trusts ; but even here I must point out that the most elementary duty of a trustee towards his cestui que trust is noto. riously disregarded : accounts are not rendered-accounts are not open to the inspection of those who as beneficiaries have every right to see them! May I ask whether such a state of things should be tolerated any longer ; may I ask whether it is not a sufficient justification of the present motion that elected Benchers could and should insist on the accounts being disclosed to every member of the society who desired to examine them ? But to pass to the Benchers in their legislative capacity-the assembly in which an Inn of Court makes its rules and orders is called in the Middle and Inner Temple a Parliament, in Gray's-inn a Pension, and in Lincoln's. inn a Council, and the proper constitution of these assemblies according to ancient usage and custom, was not of Benchers only, but of Benchers and at least certain number of Utter Barristers. This may be gathered from a return to a Commission issued by Henry VIII., and printed in the year 1663 in Waterhouse's Commentary upon Fortescue's “ De Lacdibus Legum Angliæ,” in which the following passage occurs at p. 546 : “ Every quarter once or more, if need shall requiro, the Readers and Benchers
one of the officers to summon the whole company openly in the Hall at dinner, that such a night the Pension-or as some Houses call it, the Parliament-shall be holden, which Pension or Parliament in some Houses is nothing else but a conference and assembly of their Benchers and Utter Barristers only, and in some other of the Houses is an assembly of Benchers and such of the other Utter Barristers and other and wise men of the House as the Benchers have elected to them before time, and these together are named the Sage Company, and meet in a place therefore appointed, and there treat of such matters as shall seem expedient and for the good ordering of the House, and the reformation of such things as seem meet to be reformed.
And always at the Parliament bolden after Michaelmas, two auditors are appointed there, to hear and take the accounts for the year of the treasurer, and in some House the accounts before the whole company at the Pension.” And Dugdale, speaking of the Middle Temple, says, at p. 196 of his Origines: “Item, at certain times in the yeare, the Benchers and Utter Barristers do resort together, and there they do consult and advise themselves concerning the causes of their House, and make decrees and orders concerning such things as they thinke meet to be reformed in the House ; and that they call a Parliament." The above passages prove two things : first, that the Pension or Parliament included members of the society other than Benchers ; secondly, that the accounts of at least some one Inn, if not more, were taken before all members of the Pension. But can these passages be relied on? Most certainly they can, so far as the constitution of the Parliament is concerned ; for here is an entry given at p. 305 of the work I have referred to as edited by Mr. Inderwick, of a Parliament, on the 12th June, 22 Eliz. 1580: “It is ordered that if any of the Outer Bar shall discover the secrets in Parliament they shall be disabled at all times after for their preferment in coming to the Bench.' So you see, Sir, so well was it established that the Utter Barristers were part and parcel of the Parliament, that there was an actual order inflicting pains and penalties on such of them as were guilty of a breach of parliamentary confidence, an order which demonstrates on the face of it that there was a contradistinction between members of Parliament who were Benchers and those who were only Utter Barristers. In what Inn of Court I should like to ask are barristers other than Benchers now admitted to the Parliament thereof, and at what period and by what right were they first excluded therefrom? It was no small change to have denuded the legislative assembly of the men who were in touch with the majority of the Profession-no small change to have appropriated the whole power of the society-no small change to have got rid of what I contend was in substance the really representative element of the Bar. I invite honourable members, therefore, to pause before they condemn the motion I am submitting on the ground of its novelty ; the real innovators were the Benchers who have usurped that which did not belong to them. I have gone, Sir, at greater length than time warrants into the history of our societies; my apology is that you cannot debate the question we are considering without looking back. In the retrospect I have taken you have weighty arguments in support of the present motion. You have proof of the fiduciary character occupied by the Benchers ; how have they acted up to that character ? You have proof of the original constitution of onr legal parliaments; how are they now
constituted ? You have proof of the rendering of accounts; why are they not still rendered ? I claim that, with a Bench elected by the general vote of each society you would have trustees who must perform their duties—a parliament which truly represented the body for which it exists-accounts which would bear the light of inspection. All this, I say, wouid be in accordance with the traditions of the past; how mnch more with all that is best in the institutions of the present ? For what are the grand principles of civilised modern society ? Surely, that those who are interested in the affairs of a com
ommunity should have a voice in its management; that the mode in which they have expressed their wishes should be through representatives elected by a majority of votes, and that taxation and representation should go together. These are the principles which have made England what she is, not merely in her political, but also in her municipal, in her commercial, indeed, in all relations of which her sons have reason to be proud. But, Sir, I can well believe that there are some who may regard the Benchers as at present created as something sacred upon which it would be unholy to lay sacrilegious hands, and some who may object that the Benchers have up to this done well enough, and there is no need for improvement. In reply I beg to point out that the motion does not contemplate the deposition of any existing Bencher, it merely provides for the election of future Benchers. On the other hand, I utterly deny that the Benchers have hitherto done well enough; on the contrary, I assert they have conspicuously failed to conduct the affairs of the Inns of Court in a manner of wbich the Bar can approve. First, how have they expended their income, and what is that income? Let me read from the minutes of the late Lord Coleridge's evidence before the Gresham Commission at p. 1007: “ I do not know," bis Lordship, who belonged to the Middle Temple, begins, “whether the commissioners have before them the income of the Inns of Court. I only know about my own Inn. I have no right to inquire, and I do not know anything about the other Inns; but I do not think I under-rate it if I say they have £100,000 a year. I may be wrong about that. I think the income of my own Inn is somewhere about £27,000 a year. I have always understood the Inner Temple to be much richer. I do not know what the income of Lincoln's-inn is, and I have always heard the income of Gray’s-inn put at about £10,000 or £12,000. Therefore, I think I make a fair estimate in saying that, putting the four together, it would be something like £100,000 a year. That is a very large sum of money, and it is a sum of money which, if properly administered (when I say properly adminis. tered, I am not aware of anything like improper administration in the sense of being corrupt), and made the most of for professional education.
But there are some drawbacks. First of all, there are very large expenses. £100,000 does not represent the balance they have, that is their gross income.” His Lordship then refers to “a very badly built building which cost £50,000, with which none of the present Benchers had anything to do, to sums paid to teachers, professors, and prizes, to the dinners-exceedingly cheap, and that cost the Inn a great deal of money ; therefore," his Lordship winds up, “ the dinners are a very considerable expense, and there are a great many charges ; but still the sum is very large.” Just think of £50,000 going at one swoop out of the coffers of the Middle Temple for a building, for the responsibility of which Lord Coleridge, who subsequently became a Bencher, was anxious to exonerate his then compeers, a building the chambers in which are too expensive for any ordinary working barrister, a building which Lord Coleridge elsewhere in his evidence considered the best thing to do with would be to pull it down. Just think of this enormous sum of £50,000 of the funds of the society employed by its then Benchers-by its then trustees-without once consulting its cestuis que trust !
Is there any political, municipal, or commercial, social institution in the world in wbich such a thing could happen with impunity ? How else have the Benchers managed their income ? The time was when the rent of a chamber was three shillings and four pence per annum; subsequently, a fine of 51. was paid for an admission to chambers for life; multiply these figares by twenty, if you will, still the rents of the present day are simply preposterous. Who will dare to say the Benchers have not failed in the administration of their income? Take another matter. No one rejoices more than I do that the Inns of Court should have the fellowship of our judges, if such a thing be in any way proper. But is it proper that the judges should be Benchers ? I answer “ No,” if their appellate capacity from the Benchers as visitors is to continue. Yet here we have a change of the most serious kind introduced by the Benchers into each society without the consent of the general members thereof. Then, Sir, as to the admission to the Bar, look at what the Benchers have done ? Against all ancient orders and precedent they have suddenly permitted solicitors to come straight over and be called without eating dinners or keeping terms. It is perfectly monstrous that a step which must revolutionise the whole Profession in .a very short time should have been taken without the general consent of its members, for, instead of the liberal education of a University, we shall in future have the mill of a solicitor's office as the fitting curriculum through which the future barrister should pass. Lastly, Sir, it may seem ungracious to complain of those modern institutions—I mean the Bar Committee—the Bar Council-nay, I fmust even add the Barristers' Benevolent Association. For how did all these things come into .being ? Was it not because the Benchers have failed to satisfy the needs for which they exist ? And are not each and all of these bodies standing monuments of the incompetency of the Benchers as at present constituted to meet the wants of the Profession? Let it not be said that I have nothing but blame for our present governors ; I gladly admit that efforts --I believe great, and true, and successful efforts--have been made in recent times by the Council of Legal Education ; let me also add that by the continuous exertion of one of the Benchers the library of the Middle Temple has lately been greatly improved. But, when I have put as much as I can on the credit side, what have we What is the normal Bencher of
these days after all but a corpse for all practical purposes? Yes, I say a corpse in an advanced stage of putrefaction so far as running with the times is concerned, so far as using opportunities for the benefit of the Bar is concerned-so far, in a word, as the general interests of his society is concerned. And now, Sir, having trespassed so far, I should ask the House to consider what advantages we may expect from an elected Bench that would truly represent the Bar. We should have a guarantee that no measure could be passed without our consent; we should have new blood constantly infused into a body that sorely needs revivification ; we should have our finances administered in broad daylight. But there are higher and greater things to look for ; there is the arrest of the rapid downward movement socially as well as intellectually to which the Bar has been so long subject; there is the revival of the grandeur that once surrounded the Ions of Court; there is the disappearance as unnecessary of the Bar Council and the Barristers' Benevolent Society ; there is the spectacle of the Bar being learned in deed and not in name only, of being in right of its knowledge and accomplishments the acknowledged leader of all that is great and all that is good in the land.
Mr. F. 0. Crump, Q.C, in supporting the resolution, said he was in the position of one of the corpses referred to by the opener, and he could not deny that he wanted revivifying. This was not his fault any more than it was the fault of any other individual Bencher. The Inns of Court were bandicapped. In the first place, the abolition of Serjeants’-inn had flooded the Inns of Court with Her Majesty's judges, who, however estimable, ornamental, and socially advantageous, were not desirable as an element in the active government of the Profession. Occasionally it was necessary to call attention to the shortcomings of the courts and the necessity for reforms, which suggested a certain amount of antagonism between the judges and the practitioners. Moreover, judges could not be expected to take an energetic part in the details of government. This was not the only blot. Men remained Benchers long after they had ceased to practise, and when they had become County Court judges, and unless located in London could take very little part in the work of the Bench. But, what was much more serious, the Profession had four administrative heads instead of one. No single Inn could act on behalf of the whole Bar. A resolution carried by Inn A. was sent to Inns B., C., and D. Different views might and did prevail in each. In such case a joint committee would be appointed. The report of this committee would go to the Inns A., B., C., and D. all of which might differ upon it. This occurred when the Bar Council was formed, and it took nine months to get even an answer from the Benchers, whether or no they would furnish the funds required. Under such conditions-after he had been a Bencher for two years—he saw how hopeless it was to expect to do any good with the existing machinery, and at the riek of earning much unpopularity, he launched the scheme of a Bar Association, which resulted in the formation of that young, vigorous, and active body, the General Council of the Bar. The Benchers generally thought it would infringe their privileges and bitterly opposed it. Now he believed they generally approved it. Individually Benchers were liberal-minded men, and disposed to meet the wishes of the Bar; those of his Inn (the Middle Temple) were quite disposed to consider carefully any practical proposal for improving the Bench by making Benchers elective or in any other way. This, however, would not secure the necessary reform. The Benchers ought, undoubtedly, to do all the work required of a governing body. They ought to be able to protect the interests of the Bar, to secure by vigilance the efficient administration of justice, to keep open the field of labour available to the Bar, and to prevent the passing of Acts of Parliament obnoxious to the interests of the Profession. All this was now being done by the Bar Council, which only in last session stopped the progress of four Bills in Parliament until the clause precluding the employment of counsel was struck out. The executive committee of the council-a thoroughly able, influential, and representative body-was able in a few hours, without consultation with anybody, to bring their views before the Lord Chancellor, and he gave the kindest and most indulgent hearing to every remonstrance which came from the council. It would be seen, therefore, that his (Mr. Crump’s) view that the existence of the Bar Council was an absolute necessity had been justified. He would not wish, however, that it should be inferred from anything which he had said that he considered the Benchers had failed in their duty. They had matters of internal administration to occupy them ; the position of a treasurer of an Inn involved great attention and hard work; but the labours of treasurers and Benchers did not really affect the daily life—the practising life-of the Profession. In the conditions under which they carried on their operations they could not lead the Bar in accordance with its highest traditions. The present position was wholly anomalous ; the election of Benchers by the Bar was undoubtedly a stop in the right direction. It would get rid of dead branches, but, unless there was but one root of government-a body capable of acting swiftly and effectually in the name of the whole Bar, with one common interest and one common object--the evils of the existing system would remain. He cordially supported the resolution. (Cheers.)
Mr. Candy, Q.C., in rising to oppose the resolution, said that he had come prepared to support, but had been converted by the arguments of the learned opener.
He had followed with the closest attention and the greatest interest the historical sketch of the origin of the Inns of Court, but he failed to understand how the proposal to substitute popular election for co-optation would remedy the evils of which the learned opener complained. Wonld the suffrage send the same men to the Bench of the Inn ? If yes, how would the change in the mode of selecting the governing body improve the administration of the funds of which the Benchers were trustees for the Profession? If under the new system men of a different stamp were sent to the Bench, would that necessarily be an improvement? It was said that, as they were now constituted, the
to do with all modern advancement, that principle of popular representation wbich is at the basis of the greatness of the British Empire.
The resolution was carried by a large majority.
SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, London, on the 9th inst., Mr. Richard Pennington, J.P., in the chair. The other directors present being Messrs. H. C. Beddoe, J.P. (Hereford), W. F. Blandy (Reading), W. Beriah Brook, H. Morten Cotton, Samuel Harris (Leicester), John Hunter, J. H. Kays. F. Rowley Parker, Sidney Smith, Richard W. Tweedie, F. T. Woolbert, and J. T. Scott (secretary). Mr. Lewis Fry, M.P. (Bristol) was elected as chairman of the board îor the ensuing year, and Mr. Henry Moreten Cotton (London) as deputy-chairman). A sum of £360 was distributed in grants of relief, seven new members were admitted to the association, and other general business transacted.
UNITED LAW SOCIETY. The society inet at the Inner Temple Lecture Hall, on the 7th inst., Mr. C. W. Williams taking the chair. Messrs. C. Garnett, 0. K. Dibb, and G. F. W. Galbraith were elected members of the society. Mr. W. S. Sherrington opened a debate on the motion, “ That this House condemns the hostile attitude of many amateurs towards professionalism in sport." Mr. A. W. Marks opposed, and Messrs. S. E. Hubbard, J. W. Weigall, W. F. Symonds, C. Herbert Smith, and C. Kains-Jackson also addressed the House on the motion. Mr. Sherrington replied, and on a division the mction was lost by one vote.
UNION SOCIETY OF LONDON. The society met at the Inner Temple Lecture Hall, on Wednesday, the 9th inst: : Mr. R. Pike. Glasgow, president, in the chair. :After reading of the minutes, and the disposal of private business, Mr. Haythorne Reed brought forward the motion on the agenda paper, viz. : “ That in the opinion of this House private property should be exempted from capture at sea." Speakers : For the motion, Messrs. Haythome, Reed, Robt. Brown, and Jenks; against, Messrs. Withero, Kinipple, F. W. Sherwocd, and Willson. The motion was lost.
Benches of the several Inns were not a representative body. That was an assertion he could not admit. It was true that they were not elected by the suffrages of the members of the Inng. But it was quite possible for a governing or a legislative body to be in the best sense of the word representative of the class whose interests it was bound to safeguard without resorting to the ballot-box. Witness the House of Lords, which kad been not so long ago, and might be again, more truly representative of the current opinion of the country than the chamber which was the outcome of popular suffrage. Everyone knew that the Benchers of to-day included men who were themselves practising barristers and in daily contact with the Bar with whose sentiments and views they were perfectly familiar. It was true that until recently Queen's Counsel had come up for election in order of seniority, and, unless there was any valid reason against it, his election was a matter of course. But he believed there bad always been a discretionary power to introduce new blood by electing members of the junior Bar who had attained such a position in the Profession as justified their appointment to the governing body. The practice was to keep up the proportion of stuff to silk by electing a junior to fill a vacancy caused by death of a junior. Of course there
some purely ornamental Benchers, who represented the views of a bygone generation. But, as
a rule. these men were, if not useful, harmless members of the body. Lord Palmerston was right when he laid it down that a committee should consist of not more than three members, two of whom should not attend its meetings. If his learned friend Mr. Crump, whose zeal and energy in the task of organising the Bar no amount of apathy on the part of his colleagaes could damp and no amount of covert opposition could weaken, found himself too often alone when he had expected to find himself strongly supported by his colleagues, he might treat such isolation as a tribute to bis organising capacity. He thought that, whaterer might be the demerits of the Benchers of the present day, the learned opener bad failed to show that the proposal on the card would provide an effective remedy, and for the reasons he had given he should vote against the motion and hoped that many others would follow his example.
An animated debate followed.
Mr. Cavanagh, in reply, said: I must begin by expressing my surprise that the opposition have not made more of an argument which I had intended in my opening to have anticipated, but wbich only seems to kave been used by the honourable member who first rose to support. I allude to the objection that the proposed mode of election to the Bench might result in a system of toučing. Sach an objection I at once meet by my experience as a member of many years' standing of what takes place on the largest circuit of the country, and of what I know of my brother barristers. My experience is, that every member of the circuit excrcises his vote whenever it is required in the most independent manner, and from my personal knowledge I am convinced that any attempt at undae influence would be indignantly resented, and entirely fail of its purpose. Moreover, Sir, I must express with some warmth my feelings on the supposed inability of the Bar of England properly to exercise an important franchise. I repudiate, I emphatically repudiate, the suggestion that the members of an honourable profession cannot be trusted with a power of voting when some of the humblest of Her Majesty's subjects are electors to the most important positions. Then Mr. Candy asked how things would be improved if the Benchers were to be elected by popular voice, and many of the succeeding speakers echoed the same sentiment. I reply that an election supposes a constituency, and that the man who presented himself for election Fould be required of his constituents to have a programme policy which they would insist on having carried out. The motion is purposely framed in general terms, but I contemplate that election should be triennial or otherwise recurrent. Then, again, Mr. Crump referred to the system with which the Benchers were incumbered, and how difficult united action on the part of the Inns was found to be. Well, to break through any obroxious system is one of the objects of the proposal, and, although, as I have already stated, it is not sought to depose any existing Bencher, I should hope, I should believe there are public spirited men on the Bench, such as Mr. Crump, who, if they retired and sought re-election would be returned at the head of the poll. Another matter that Mr. Crump referred to was the secrecy with which the proceedings of the Bench were carried on : that, Sir, I say is a thing urgently calling for reform. The day is past when things are to be kept in the dark; all that is honest and straightforward need not fear the light of publicity. As to Mr. Candy's question on the working of the motion, I claim that it is much for the interest of the public that the Bar should have the advantage of popular representation ; I claim that, when that representation exists, there will be a speedy improve. ment in the administration of the funds of the Inns of Court which in redounding to the advantage of tbe Profession must also redound to the good of the general community. I repeat that representation means control of taxation and rendering of accounts; it means that to any candidate who seeks my vote and refuses to make the question of accounts a part of his policy, I shall say “Begone!” I forbear to retail my own recent experience when I informally put a question on this subject. I have eince had an acknowledgment of my formal application, but that is not what a cestui que trust is entitled to ; he has a right to have the accounts open to his inspection without delay. Since I came into this room an honourable member has handed a correspondence he has had with the authorities of his Inn, in which they practically refuse to give him any information whatever in respect of the finances of his own society. That is not what is done by the House of Commons, nor by a municipal body, nor by a club, nay, even the private banks now pablish their accounts. I appeal to honoarable members to show by their vote to-night that they do not approve of the conduct of their Benchers in this matter. I appeal for support of a principle which has had so much
CORRESPONDENCE, This department being open to free discussion on all Professional topics, the Editor
does not hoki himself responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it.
PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS.--Can any of your readers inform me whether Mr. Alexander, who has just been appointed a taxing master, and Mr. Raven, who has also been appointed a chief clerk, are barristers or solicitors? Taxing musterships and chief clerkships are the only things we solicitors can ever hope to receive in the way of rewards for long services, and now under the present Lord Chancellor these seem to be distributed amongst briefless barristers and unqualified individuals. What is the committee of the Incorporated Law Society doing? Asleep, as usual, I am afraid.
Mr. H. R. T. Alexander was admitted a solicitor in 1868, and Mr. H. B. Raven was admitted in 1883, which we observe disposes of all our correspondent's aspersions.-Ed. L. T.]
CERTIFICATE DUTY.--At the present time a large number of your readers are paying this impost, and I write to suggest whether some pressure cannot be brought to bear upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abolish it next session. The tax cannot be of any practical value to the Government, as it probably does not produce much, if any, more than £100,000 per annum. On an income of £300 per annum, the £9 15 equivalent to an additional income tax of over 1s. 3d. in the pound. But the certificate duty is not only unjust, but also an indignity. Members of other learned professions--the Anglican and Latin clergy--physicians, surgeons, barristers, are not so taxed. Why should solicitors have to take out a licence like common hawkers? It is, I am afraid, useless to appeal to the Law Society on the subject, and I therefore address myself
S. P. C.
SETTLEMENT ESTATES DUTY.-Referring to “ Executor's" letter appearing in the Law Times newspaper of the 7th ult., it may be of interest to executors generally to learn that on Monday last Vice-Chancello: Hall, at Liverpool, decided that the expression “the deceased” in sect. 19 (1) of the Finance Act 1896 meant a person dying after the 1st July 1896.
J. F. HARRISON AND BURTON.
And I beg to inform you that if a remittance is not sent to me by return of post, other proceedings will be taken without further notice.--Yours truly,
." This “ Fellow of the Society of Accountants Incorporated” subsequently, and as a condition of accepting the terms of payment offered by the debtors, requested them to "sign the enclosed promissory note for my costs.” My clients declined to do so, and they were promptly sued in the County Court for the whole debt claimed. On submitting the documents to the Incorporated Law Society, I am informed that it would be difficult to obtain a conviction against the accountant inasmuch as he intimates be is “accountant, &c.," and therefore is not, I suppose, within the penal clauses of the Solicitors Act 1874, The Incorporated Law Society cannot interfere. Practising solicitors may be surprised that the foregoing facts are not strong enough to obtain the conviction of an accountant, who writes a " letter before action,” and demands bis “ costs."
GEO. E. SOLOMON.
NOTES AND QUERIES. None are inserted unless the name and address of the writer are sent, not necessarily
for publication, but as a guarantee of bona fides.
Answers. (Q. 9.) COMBINED RECEIPT AND CHEQUE.—Your correspondent “ J.” does not seem to me to have quite understood the Acts. The Act of 1891 provides that a receipt over £2 shall be stamped 1d. Then follows a list of exemptions, i.e., receipts not requiring a ld. stamp. The Finance Act 1895 repeals the exemption, but specifically provides that the repeal of the exemption shall not operate in respect of the payee of a draft payable to order, i.e., the exemption stands as I said. The origin of my letter was a statement made to me by a friend of mine that Messrs. Spiers and Pond were sending out cheques with penny stamps or places for penny stamps on a form of receipt at the back of their cheques. This seems to me, having regard to what I wrote, as a folly of precaution.
ARTHUR M. SMITH.
(Q. 14.) AMERICAN HOLDING PROPERTY IN ENGLAND.-The will as to the English freeholds and leaseholds must be made in English Form (Dicey's Conflict of Laws, 516, 519, 523). The simplest way is for the American to make a separate will in English form for the English property, and in his American will to refer to his English will as governing the devise of the English property. Let conveyance be made to the American. As to power of attorney see sect. 9 of Conveyancing Act 1882, and Bythewood & Jarman, vol. 4, p. 855 et seq.
and Lawson Taylor (articled clerks) were also present. The subject for discussion was the October (Law Notes) Moot: Smith sells some lands to Jones. The title deeds relate to other lands retained by Smith, and include not only the deeds abstracted but also deeds and documents of a date anterior to the starting point of the abstracted title. In the conveyance to Jones the usual acknowledgment and undertaking as to the deeds is given. Jones's solicitor insists that the acknowledgment must be made to extend to all the deeds in Smith's possession ; but Smith's solicitor contends that the deeds, &c., to be set out in the schedule must be confined to those which appear in the abstract, and he refuses to allow his client to bind himself to produce the earlier title deeds. Jones's solicitor will not give way and a summons is taken out in Chancery chambers, under sect. 9 of the Vendor and Purchaser Act 1874, to determine the question in dispute. What will be the judge's decision ?” Mr. T. Backhouse led for the affirmative, and remarked that it would be very seldom a vendor would refuse, or a purcbaser insist on, an acknowledgment for production being given. He read Dart's Vendor and Purchaser, p. 160. The negative might assert that a purchaser has not the power of inspecting the earlier deed after completion because he has no such power before. The omission of this acknowledgment may in many cases be of great hardship to the purchaser; for instance, suppose one man purchases property from another, the title to which is limited, say to ten years, and the purchaser is afterwards compelled to sell the property to the corporation, and the price is fixed by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, then the corporation call for a forty years' title, how is the purchaser going to furnish it (having only a ten years' one himself) without he has such acknowledgment? A purchaser is entitled to the whole of the deeds however ancient, if he purchases the whole of the property to which the deeds relate, and therefore he (Mr. Backhouse) was of opinion that Jones could call for a covenant to produce the earlier deeds in Smith's possession which affirmatively evidenced the former's title. Mr. David Smith argued for the negative, and said there was nothing on the face of the question to show whether the title abstracted was for a longer period than the usual forty years or a shorter period, or whether the property was sold under an open contract, and the usual forty years' title given; but that, whether 100 years' title or only five years' title was given, it made no difference as long as the title was of the length stipulated for in the contract: (Conveyancing Act, sect. 3, sub-sect. 3). By that sub-section the purchaser was not entitled to the production of or to make any inquiry with respect to the prior title deeds, and if he had no right to their production he could surely have no acknowledgment when there was no right to acknowledge. It appeared to him that the whole matter came back to the question, “ When does the title commence ?” and if the purchaser got an acknowledgment of his right to produce all the documents relating to the property purchased subsequent to the date stipulated for the commencement of the title, he had got all that he was entitled to. As to the point put forward by Mr. Backhouse on the supposition that the purchaser had only got (say) ten years' title, and he might be compelled to sell under the Lands Clauses Act and be obliged to show a forty years' title, although it does seem at first that he would be put to some hardship thereby, still, if you will look deeper into the matter you will see that it came about by the purchaser's own fault in the first instance in not requiring a forty years' title before he contracted to purchase, so as to fortify himself against any such possibility, and if the purchaser were a prudent man he would have taken all these matters into consideration before buying property and taking a title shorter than forty years, and he must therefore stand the consequences of his own folly. Messrs. A. L. Garnett, R. Procter, T. E. Rodgers, T. G. Sandy, jun. (solicitors), J. K. Pickup, and W. F. Sutcliffe supported Mr. Backhouse; whilst Messrs. J. C. Pollard (solicitor), H. Ogden, R. M. Prescott (town clerk, Nelson), A. Riley, and F. Roberts, supported Mr. Smith. Mr. S. Davies delivered a learned summing-up, which was loudly applauded by the students, and on putting the question to the vote the purchaser's side was decided to be correct by a majority of one. A hearty vote of thanks to Mr. Davies for his able, lucid, and impartial summing up, carried nem. dissen., terminated a very pleasant debate.
CARDIFF.—The second ordinary meeting under the auspices of the Cardiff and Law Students' Debating Society was held in the Town Hall on Thursday the 3rd inst. : Mr. T. H. Stephens (official receiver) presiding over a large attendance, which included Messrs. W. J. Board (deputy town clerk), G. Beynon Harris, E. W. Pocock, T. E. Harris, R. A. Wheatley, G. Robertson, C. A. Bailey, A. E. S. Thomas, A. E. John, C. S. Goodfellow, J. H. Morgan, A. M. Tapson, E. Stephens, H. C. Schroeter, and others. After the routine business had been transacted, the bon. secretary (Mr. Robert A. Wheatley) read letters from his Honour Judge Owen, who consented to be president; Messrs. A. F. Langley, T. H. Stephens, consenting to be vice-presidents; and Messrs. H. Cousins, George David, D. Maclean, Ivor Vachell, and several other leading solicitors in the town, accepting the position of honorary members. Mr. Pocock, in submitting the subject for discussion, • The committal of married women for contracts made during marriage," contended that the Debtors Act 1669 met the requirements of these times, but the Married Women's Property Acts of 1882 and 1893 placed married women in such a position and gave them such exceptional, privileges that the law in doing so should also have provided remedies for creditors and others injured by the abuse of the concessions granted. Mr. Pocock's contention was carried by a majority of six.
DEWSBURY, WAKEFIELD, AND DISTRICT.----An ordinary meeting was held at the Law Library, Dewsbury, on Wednesday, the 2nd inst. ; Mr. G. E. H. Maggs in the chair. There were also present : Messrs. W. Ibberson, W. Gledhill, J. Marshall, N. N. Shaw, W. W. Barker, S. A. R. Preston, W. H. Kingswell, F. C. Hodgson, T. Catterall, T. S. Starkie, and H. Pickles (hon. sec.). J. Marshall proposed and W. H. Kingswell seconded, “That
LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.
STUDENTS' SOCIETIES. LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.—The usual weekly meeting of the above society was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, on Tuesday, the 8th inst. ; chairman, Mr. Arthur E. Clarke. There was a joint debate with the Gray’s-inn Debating Society on the motion, “ That in the opinion of this House the working classes can hope to obtain satisfaction of their real needs under a Liberal rather than under a Conservative Administration.” Mr. L. A. Atherley-Jones, Q.C., M.P., opened in the affirmative on behalf of the Gray’s-inn Debating Society; and Mr. J. Cornelius Wheeler opened in the negative on behalf of the Law Students' Debating Society. The following gentlemen also spoke : Messrs. J. B. C. Stephens, A. Maconachie, R. H. Armstrong, Archer, White, A. K. Donald, F. Hinde, Herbert Smith, H. E. Miller, C. L. Bangley, E. L. Chapman. Mr. Atherley-Jones replied. The motion was lost hy fourteen votes.-The subject for debate at the next meeting of the society on Tuesday, the 15th inst. is, “ That this society regrets the decision in Reddaway v. Banham (74 L. T. Rep. 289; (1896) A. C. 199)."--The Society's Annual Smoking Concert has been aranged to take place at the Monico Restaurant, Piccadilly Circus, on Wednesday, the 16th inst., at 8 p.m.
BLACKBURN AND DISTRICT DEBATING.-A meeting of the society was held on Wednesday, the 2nd inst., in the Law Library, Blackburn : Mr. George Porter presiding over a good attendance. The subject for debate, which was of local and practical importance, ran as follows: “ A., being lessee of six houses which are demised by the same lease, sells one of them to B., and in the assignment gives B. the usual power of distress and entry on the houses retained by A. to secure A.'s performance of the covenants of the lease so far as they relate to the houses retained by him. Is this power of distress valid ?" Messrs. Hand and T. R. Thompson led for the affirmative, and were supported by Messrs. Hilton, Hindle, and Marsden. Messrs. Knowles and E. Cooper led for the negative, being supported by Messrs. T. Backhouse, Calvert, Campbell, Ferguson, Riley, Sharples, and W. Thompson. After the Chairman had lucidly sum med up the various arguments, the question was decided in favour of the negative by a majority of two.
BURNLEY AND DISTRICT.-The members of this society met for the fifth time this session in Cronkshaw's hotel on the 3rd Dec. Mr. S. Davies, solicitor, presided, and Messrs. A. L. Garnett, R. Proctor, T. E. Rodgers, J. C. Pollard, T. G. Sandy, jun, R. Whittingham (solicitors), T. Backhouse, H. Collinge, H. Ogden, J. K. Pickup (secretary), R. M. Prescott (town clerk, Nelson), A. Riley, F. Roberts, D. Smith, W. F. Sutcliffe,
THE COURTS AND COURT PAPERS.
this society offers its respectful congratulations to Mr. L. Atherley-Jones Q.C. M.P., barrister-at-law, on his appointment as one of Her Majesty's Counsel.” The motion was carried. The subject for the evening was a debate on the following: “Simpkins, the owner of a horse and trap, wbilst driving out on a highway, along which a company run their steam trams, observed a tram approaching ; fearing that the horse might become restless he endeavoured to attract the attention of the engine driver to stop the engine, but in vain ; when in close proximity to the engine, the horse swerted, overturning the trap and precipitating its occupants into the adjoining pavement. Can Simpkins recover damages ?” W. Ibberson opened the debate in the affirmative, and W. Gledhill followed in the negative. On the debate being thrown open the following also spoke : Messrs. W. H. Kingswell, S. A. R. Preston, F. C. Hodgson, J. Marshall, W. W. Barker, N, N. Shaw, and T. Catterall. After the leaders had replied, the Chairman summed up minutely and on putting the qnestion to the vote it was decided in favour of the affirmative by six to three.
LEEDS.--The eighth ordinary meeting of the half session was held on Monday, the 7th iust., at the Law Institute ; Mr. E. N. Whitley in the chair. Arrangements were made for the mock trial, which has been fixed for the 28th and 29th Jan. next. The subject for debate was as follows: ** Mr. Kodak takes, without permission, a snapshot of a lady and a gentleman in a boat under a tree. The gentleman has his arm round the lady's waist. This photograph Mr. Kodak is in the habit of showing to his bachelor friends who visit him at his chambers. Major Sprightly has for some time past been very suspicious of a certain Mr. Brown, who, he considers, is too attentive to Mrs. Sprightly. A Mr. Smith, in company with Major Sprightly, calls at Mr. Kodak's chambers one evening, and Major Sprightly is introduced to Mr. Kodak. Eventually Vr. Kodak showed his collection of snapshots, including that of a lady and gentleman in a boat. Major Sprightly recognises his wife and Mr. Brown, and Mrs. Sprightly, when charged, has to admit that she has carried on a foolish but innocent flirtation with Mr. Brown. Major Sprightly declines to cohabit any longer with his wife. Has Mrs. Sprightly a right of action against Mr. Kodak?" Mr. A. E. Masser opened in the affirmative, and Mr. H. Stephenson in the negative. An interesting discussion was continued by Messrs. Jackson, Bowling, Clegg, Hutley, and Snowdon, and, a vote being taken, there was a majority for the negative,
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.- QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.
MICHAELMAS SITTINGS 1896.
ADDENDA TO THE CROWN PAPER. METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT-London ESSEX — Reg. v. Johnson and others County Council v. Hobbis
(Justices) and others LONDON- Billing r. Prebble
LINCOLNSHIRE - Reg.
0, Deeping Fen DENBIGHSHIRE (LLANRW8T)-Davies r.' Drainage Trustees Jones
v. County Council of METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT--Brad- Durham
ford r. Dawson, sen., and another SUFFOLK (LOWESTOFT) Mayor, &c., of LEICESTERSHIRE- Mantle o, Jordan
Lowestoft v. Turner and others METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT - Coll NORFOLK-Reg. Longe and others man v. Mills
(Justices) and another YORKSHIRE, W.R. - Wetherby, &c., LONDON-Watson (for Board of Trade) 1. District Council v. Hewling
Dr. Jaeger's, etc., Company Limited LONDON-Killin v. Swatton
NORFOLK (GREAT YARMOUTH-Woods v.. MIDDLESEX (SHOREDITCH) - Morley v. O'Donnell Abbott and Co.
WILTSHIRE (WARMINSTER) — Temple r'n YORKSHIRE (WAKEFIELD) --- Fawcett v.! Warminster, &c., Council and another Johnson
ENGLAND-Reg. v. Richardson WEST HAM-Gardiner v. Petersen
LONDON-Segrue Limited and another v. MIDDLESEX (BROMPTON) McGrath
Loewenstein Humphreys Limited
LONDON-Dyer r, Southwark, &c., ProMETROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT-Schwer
perty Association zerhof v. Wilkins
YORKSHIRE (LEEDS)--Verity and another KENT (RAMSGATE)-Webb and Co. r. v. Weston Waterman
DORSETSHIRE (SHAFTESBURY)-Rutter v. SOUTHAMPTON-Reg. v. Edmunds
Guardians, &c., of Shaftesbury Union MIDDLESEX-Reg. c. His Honour Judge MIDDLESBROUGH-Whickham r. Ashe
Paterson and Carmichael and Co. GLOUCESTERSHIRE (WINCHCOMBE)--HardLONDON-Breay v. Browne
ing v. Smith MIDDLESEX (BOW)– Townsend r. Ches&LONDON-Gill o. Great Eastern Railway peake, &c., Steamship Company
Company METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT--Venner YORKSHIRE (LEEDS) — Midland Railway r. McDonell
Company v. McKay and Co. YORKSHIRE (SHEFFIELD)-Smith (trading DERBYSHIRE-Vallancey r. Fletcher 38 the British Advertising Company) v. LONDON-Reg. v. Justices of London Oldtield Bros.
MIDDLESEX-Mountitield r. Ward GLOUCESTER Reg. Clay (revising GLOUCESTERSHIRE-Colchester, Wemyss, barrister) and another
and Co. r, Gloucestershire C.C. LANCASHIRE (CHORLEY) Joint Com- MIDDLESEX (SHOREDITCA) Maloney o.
mittee River Rible v. Croston Urban Rettig District Council
Reg. v. Hayhurst and others. KENT (GREENWICH)-Storell v. Browning (Justices) and Co.
PETERBOROUGH-Cook v. Gaches LEEDS—Reg. v. Soden and Overend YORKSHIRE, W.R. ---Reg. 1. Justices of LONDON - Sassoon and Co. V. Anglo- West Riding of York
Arabian Steamship Company, de 8.8. MIDDLESEX (CLERKENWELL)-Heather v. Ailsauald
Marsh ; Marsh, claimant SAME-Same r. Same, de 8.s. Wihlerspool WORCESTERSHIRE – Worcester County Sr. IVES — Reg. 0. Hain and others Council r, Worcester Poor Law Union (Justices) and another
and others YORKSHIRE (SHEFFIELD)-Midland Rail- WARWICKSHIRE (BIRMINGHAM)-Moseley way Company r. Haigh
. Wood KENT-Conservators of Bayes Common r. LONDON-Reg. v. Vestry of Camberwell Bromley Rural District Council
STAFFORDSHIRE (WEST BROMWICH) LONDON-Reg. v. Guardians of Lewisham Bridge r. Woodward Union
WARWICKSHIRE (BIRMINGHAM) — Parish LANCASHIRE (BURNLEY)
and another r, Tomkinson Waggett
MIDDLESEX (WESTMINSTER)-Quinland v. SAME (BLACKBURN)-Morley v. Spencer Mowlem and Co. SURREY-Hawker. Dunn
GLAMORGANSHIRE (CARDIFF)-Broadbent YORKSHIRE, W.R.--Reg. 1. Edmondson and Son r. Pedler and Sons; Pedler and others (Overseers of Keighley)
Bros. and Co., claimants MONTGOMERYSHIRE Dean, de., of IPSWICH-Bramble v. Lowe
St. Asaph r. Overseers of Llanrhaiad r- SHEFFIELD- English v. Jackson yn-Mochnant and others
SURREY (SOUTHWARK)-Gearon r. RunciHEREFORDSHIRE (HEREFORD)-Bridges r. man and Co. Priestley
SURREY (FARNHAM AND ALDERSHOT) MIDDLESEX (WHITECHAPEL)--Verrent r. Shaw v. Lutman
London and India Docks Joint Com- SURREY (LAMBETI)-Reg. v. The Judge mittee
of the Lambeth County Court and LANCASHIRE (MANCHESTER) — Birch . Wilson Gartside and Co. Limited
YORKSHIRE (BRADFIELD)-Midland RailSHEFFIELD--Morriss r. Howden
way Company v. Jabez Cole and Co. LONDON--Reg. v. Charity Commissioners KENT-Quinland v. Edison.
The death is announced at Nice, on the 7th instant, of Judge FERRELL who was for many years County Court Judge at Clerkenwell, and subsequently in South Wales. The deceased Judge retired from the Bench in 1877, and was eighty-seven years of age at the time of his death.
Sir HENRY LUSHINGTON PHILLIPS, K.C.M.G., died at Southport on the 5th inst. He was a son of Mr. Aldcroft Phillips, of Pendleton-hall, Man. chester, and was born in 1829. He was called to the Bar at the Middle Temple in 1850, and was appointed Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Natal in 1858. He became Acting Chief Justice of Barbados in 1877, and temporary Judge of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements in the same year.
In 1878 he was made Senior Puisne Judge of Natal, and in the same year he was transferred temporarily for service as legal adviser to the High Commissioner in Cyprus. He retired in 1880, when he re. ceived the honour of knighthood. He had previously, in 1877, been created a C.M.G. Sir Henry married Agatha, daughter of Mr. Charles Knowles, of Shrewsbury.
Mr. THOMAS MICHAEL ELLISON, Solicitor, of Glossop, Derbyshire, died on Nov. 29th, at the age of seventy-three. The deceased gentleman was the son of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Ellison (nee Miss Esther Dalton, of Hollingworth). At an early age he was sent to Mr. Dobson's private scademy, where he received the foundations of a good classical education. He afterwards proved himself a distinguished scholar at Prior Park, Bath, and at Oscott College, near Birmingham, where his educational course was completed. Mr. Ellison was then articled to Mr. Francis Thornley King, of the firm of Stone, King, and King, solicitors, at Bath. On the death of bis principal, he proceeded to the office of Earle, Hopps, and Orford, of Blanchester, and was admitted as a solicitor in 1846, first practising as such at Stalybridge in partnership with his cousin, the late Mr. John Dalton, of Hollingworth. After a time he returned to Glossop, his native place, where he set up in practice on his own account. He became clerk to the Glossop Reservoir Commissioners. In 1857 he was nominated clerk to the Glossop Burial Board; he wa also elected as clerk to the County Justices for the division of Glossop, and shortly afterwards became town clerk of Glossop on its incorporation in 1867, in which year he was afterwards appointed clerk to the Borough Justices. In 1893 he was appointed Regis'rar of the Glossop County Court in succession to the late Dr. Jobn Hibbert, of Ryde, by his cousin, the late Judge Ellison.
The deceased gentleman retained all these numerous appointments up to the time of his death. The deceased was twice married, and leaves five sons and two daughters.
COURT OF APPEAL, AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CHAN
CERY DIVISION).—MICHAELMAS SITTINGS 1896. ROTA OF REGISTRARS IN ATTENDANCE FOR THE WEEK ENDING
Dec. 19. Monday. Tuesday. Wednesday. Thursday. Friday. Salurday. APPEAL CT. II. Pugh Beal......... Pugh Beal........ Pugh
Beal Chitty, J....... Leach Godfrey
Godfrey Leach Godfrey NORTH, J. ...... Clowes Jackson ... Clowes Jackson ... Clowes Jackson STIRLING, J.... Larie Carrington Lavie Carrington Lavie Carpington KEKEWICH, J. Farmer
Farmer Rolt ......... Farmer Rolt ROMER, J....... Pemberton Ward ...... Pemberton Ward ...... Pemberton Ward.
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE-CHRISTMAS VACATION
During Christmas Vacation all applications which may require to be immediately or promptly heard, are to be made until Thursday the 31st Dec. to the Hon. Mr. Justice Chitty, and after that date to the Hon. Mr. Justice Cave.
Mr. Justice Chitty will act as Vacation Judge from Tuesday, the 22nd Dec. to Monday, the 31st Dec., both days inclusive. His Lordship will sit in Queen's Bench Judges' Chambers on Tuesday, the 29th Dec., and (if necessary), on Wednesday, the 30th Dec. On other days, within the above period, applications in urgent matters may be made to his Lordship by post or rail.
Mr. Justice Cave will act as Vacation Judge from Friday, the 1st Jan., to Saturday, the 9th Jan., both days inclusive. His Lordship will sit in
HAYXES'S STUDENT'S GUIDE TO THE JURISDICTION AND PRACTICE OF THE ADMIRALTY SUBDIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.Especially prepared for the use of Candidates for the Final and Honours Examinations of the Incorporated Law Society. Price 28. 6d.---HORACE Cox, “ Law Times” Office, Windsor House, Bream’s-buildings, E.C.[ADVT.]