Page images
[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]

was a summons for the taxation of the bill of costs delivered by the respondents in respect of professional charges made by them in the course of winding-up the estate of a testator who died in 1887. The applicant, who was the sole surviving executor of the testator, instructed P. to act in the matter in the year 1888. Mr. P. entered into partnership with T. in the year 1891, and P. and T. continued to act in the matter for the applicant until the executorship affairs were wound.

On the 25th Jan. 1895 P. and T. delivered a bill for costs incurred, but the costs for work done by P. alone were not included; this bill included one item which was said to be a disbursement for London agency charges, amounting to nearly one-fifth of the whole bill. Subse. quently P. and T. delivered a bill for the work done by P. alone, and this bill also included the various items representing the agency charges for the period covered by the bill of the 25th Jan. 1895. It was contended that the bill of the 25th Jan. 1895 was a complete bill, that the retainer to P. was determined by implication when P. and T. took over the business, and that there were no special circumstances which would justify the court in ordering a taxation after twelve months had elapsed before the application for taxation; it was also contended that the item for agency charges was a disbursement, and should properly be charged in the cash account. Held, (1) that the applicant must be taken to have retained and employed P. and also P. and T.; (2) that the bill of the 25th Jan. 1895 was not a complete bill, and was, therefore, taxable although twelve months had elapsed since delivery ; (3) that the charges made by the London town agents of the respondents were not disbursements, and as between country solicitor and client the items of such charges were taxable, and that an order for taxation must be made.

[Re Pomeroy v. Tanner. Ch. Div. : Stirling, J. Doc. 17, 18, and 19, 1896, and Jan. 13 and 19, 1897.—Counsel : for the applicant, Graham Hastings, Q.C., and E. Ford; for the respondents, Buckley, Q.C. and Henry Terrell. Solicitors : T. T. Harlow, agent for T. H. King, Bristol ;

Carthew and Wneeler.] Person in Possession of Land under Building Agreement-Party Wall

Adjoining Owner Notices London Building Act 1894, 8. 5, sub-sect. 29 ; 8. 90.—The plaintiff was in possession of land for the purposes of building under a building agreement. The agreement provided that the plaintiff was to have possession of the land for the purpose of building, but that the agreement was not to be deemed a demise at law of the premises so as to vest any estate in the plaintiff, and the production of the certificate of the architect of the building owner was made a condition precedent to the granting of the lease. The defendant, who was an adjoining owner, was desirous of executing certain works upon a wall as to which there was a controversy whether it was a party wall or a party fence wall, and he gave the necessary notices under the London Building Act 1894 to the building owner, but not to the plaintiff. Held, that the defendant was bound before commencing the work on the wall to give him notice under sect. 90 of the London Building Act 1894, the plaintiff being an "owner” within the definition of that word in sect. 5, sub-sect. 29 of the Act; and injunction granted restraining the defendant from interfering with the wall, but without prejudice to his rights, if any, under the Building Acts.

[List v. Tharp. Ch. Div. : Chitty, J. Jan. 13.-Counsel : Byrne, Q.C. and Glen; Levett, Q.C. and Christopher James. Solicitors : W. H.

Southern; Stibbard, Gibson, and Co.] Public Health-National SchoolTrusteesRoad-Expenses-Charge on

Schools-Enforcement by Sale or Mortgage-School Sites Act 1841 (4 8:5 Vict. c. 38), 88. 6, 15Public Health Act 1875 (38 $ 39 Vict. c. 55), sect. 257.- Summons by an urban district council against the trustees of a national school asking that for the purpose of enforcing an order made in this matter, on the 23rd March 1896 (reported 74 L. T. Rep. 415: (1896) 2 Ch. 254), whereby it was declared that the sum of £111 15s. 11d., being the apportioned amount of expenses incurred for paving and other works in the street on which the school abutted, together with interest thereon and costs, were a charge on the school and premises, the property before mentioned, might be sold free from the trusts declared by the deed under which the site of the school had been conveyed to the trustees under the School Sites Act 1841 ; or for the purpose of raising the charge aforesaid, there might be given or made such other direction or order as to the judge might seem fit. The site of the school, originally forming part of the glebe of the rectory, had been conveyed to the trustees under sect. 6 of the Act of 1841, to be used “ for the purposes of a school, and no other purpose whatever." Held. that the applicants were entitled to have the sum due to them, and which had been charged on the land, raised by sale or mortgage, free from the trasts of the deed, in the ordinary way, under the direction of the judge in chambers.

[Hornsey District Council v. Smith. Ch. Div. : Kekewich, J. Jan. 13 and 14.-Counsel : Macmorran, Q.C. and E. Beaumont ; Dibdin. Solicitors : Leonard J. Tatham ; Lee, Bolton, and Lee.]

revolver, and had him removed from the churchyard. The respondent thereupon laid an information against the appellant, charging him with the ofience before mentioned, and the justices convicted. The vicar appealed upon two grounds : irst, that the Act (23 & 24 Vict. c. 32) applied only to persons not in holy orders, and secondly, that what the appellant bad done was done in the exercise of a bona fide claim of right. On the first point it was contended that, in the preamble of the Act, the object of the Act was plainly set out to be to take away the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts over persons not in holy orders, and to make them amenable to secular courts; but the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts still subsisted over persons in holy orders, and the only remedy here was in the ecclesiastical courts. And on the second point it was argued that the appellant rightly or wrongly claimed the freehold in the churchyard, and what he did was under this claim. Held, that, though the primary object of 23 & 24 Vict. c. 32 was to relieve persons not in holy orders from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts in charges of brawling, the words of sect. 2 were perfectly general, and therefore applied to all persons whether in holy orders or not, and that, though the acts done by the appellant may have been ander a bona fide claim of right, they might be riotous, violent, and indecent. The justices had found that they were riotous, violent, and indecent, and there was ample evidence to support their decision.

[Valleney v. Fletcher. Q. B. Div.: Wright and Bruce, JJ. Jan. 18.–Counsel; for the appellant, Simpson; for the respondent, W. Appleton and Borough. Solicitors : Fisher, Jesson, and Wilkins! Ashby-de-la-Zouch ; Warren, Murton and Miller, for Ransom and

Hutton, Nottingham.] Charity Commission-Scheme made under Endowed Schools ActsScheme

for Christ's Hospital Recommendation of Woman as Almoner Mandamus.-Rule calling on the Charity Commissioners to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue directed to them commanding them to determine under clause 143 of the scheme for the administration of the foundation known as Christ's Hospital, which came into force on the 15th Aug. 1890, as to whether the governors of Christ's Hospital are, or are not, bound to accept the nomination of the School Board for London and to appoint Miss Eve as the representative of the said board on the governing board of the hospital. This rule was obtained on behalf of the School Board for London. A scheme for the administration of Christ's Hospital was made by the Charity Commissioners under the Endowed Schools Act 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 56) and the Acts amending the same. Sect. 45 of the Act of 1869 provides : " A scheme shall not of itself have any operation, but the same, when and as approved by Her Majesty in Council, shall, from the date specified in the scheme, or,

if no date is specified, from the date of the Order in Council, have full operation and effect in the same manner as if it had been enacted in this Act.” The scheme now in question was approved by Her Majesty in Council, and came into force on the 15th Aug. 1890. Under this scheme (by clause 16) all duties and powers concerning the management and administration of the foundation and the endowments thereof, other than such duties and powers as are by this scheme conferred on or declared to belong to the governors, shall be vested in and exercised by the council of almoners; and (clause 17) the council of almoners shall consist of not more than forty-three persons or almoners, of whom two shall be ex-officio almoners, and the rest shall be nominated almoners; and (clause 19) the nominated almoners shall be competent persons duly qualified to discharge the duties of the office, and shall be appointed as follows : &c.

Six on the recommendation of the School Board for London. Then clause 143, upon which the present question depends, provides : “ Any question affecting the regularity or validity of any proceeding under this scheme, shall be determined conclusively by the Charity Commissioners, upon such application made to them for the purpose as they think sufficient." The London School Board had duly recommended, and the governors appointed, six persons to serve as almoners. One of these having resigned, the School Board recommended the appointment of Miss Eve in his place. The governors refused to appoint Miss Eve an almoner, on the grounds (1) that she was a woman, and therefore not qualified to be an almoner; and (2) that they had a discretion to refuse to appoint a competent person, even though duly qualified and recommended. The School Board appealed to the Charity Commissioners under clause 143, to determine the regularity or validity of the proceeding of the governors in refusing to appoint Miss Eve. The Charity Commissioners refused to decide the question, and the present rule was then obtained to compel them to decide the question. For the Charity Commissioners it was contended that the recommendation of the School Board was not a question affecting the validity of any proceeding under the scheme within clause 143, and that mandamus was not applicable. For the School Board it was contended that the question was one under the scheme. Held (discharging the rule on two grounds), that clause 143 referred only to internal matters and not to the matter in question, and also that mandamus was not the proper remedy and did not apply, as there were other remedies applicable.

[Reg. v. The Charity Commissioners. Q. B. Div.: Wright and Bruce, JJ. Jan. 12 and 13. Counsel: The Attorney-General, Warrington, Q.C., and Dibdin ; Vaughan Hawkins ; Ram. Solicitors :

Clabon ; Beachcroft ; Mortimer.] Intoxicating LiquorsSale to bonâ fide Traveller-To be consumed off the

Premises-Licensing Act 1874 (378 38 Vict. c. 49), 88. 9 and 10.–Appeal by case stated from justices. The respondent was the holder of a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors to be consumed on his premises. One Sunday, during prohibited hours, two persons entered his premises and ordered some beer, which they did not consume on the premises, but carried off in two bottles, and the said liquor was after


[ocr errors]

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. Brawling-Ticar of Parish-Riotous, violent, and indecent Behaviour in

Parish Churchyard-Claim of Right-23 & 24 Vict, c. 32, 8. 2.--Appeal by case stated from the decision of the justices convicting the appellant of riotous, violent, and indecent behaviour in a churchyard within sect. 2 of 23 & 24 Vict. c. 32. It appeared that the appellant was a clerk in holy orders. He was the incumbent of the parish of R., and the charge arose out of the following proceedings in the churchyard of such parish. The appellant, in the exercise of his right as vicar, as alleged by bim, directed a certain grave in the churchyard to be levelled. The respondent was the son of the deceased person whose grave was in question, and he attempted to prevent the carrying out of this order. The appellant, however, threatened him with a stick and also with a

sumno 18.

[ocr errors]

wards consumed by the two buyers and other persons, in a field in the neighbourhood of the respondent's premises. An information was laid against the respondent under sect. 9 of the Licensing Act 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 49). The justices found that the purchasers wer bonâ fide travellers, within sect. 10 of the Licensing Act 1874, and disniissed the

The prosecutor appealed. It was contended on his bebalf that, whether the purchasers were bona fide travellers or not, the respondent was not entitled to sell them intoxicating liquors to be consumed off the premises. Sect. 10 of the Act expressly limited the right to sell to bona fide travellers, to persons licensed to sell intoxicating liquors to be consumed on the premises, and it limited the right to the sale of “such liquors that is, intoxicating liquors to be consumed on the premises. For the respondent it was contended that the words “person licensed to sell any intoxicating liquor to be consumed on the premises in sect. 10 were meant merely to describe a person with a full licence, that is, a person entitled to sell liquor to be consamed on or off the premises. As to the word “such," it merely was used instead of “ intoxicating.” The fact that the purchaser wanted to take the liquor away might be considered evidence that in making the purchase he was not acting as a bona fide traveller seeking refreshment, but there was nothing in the act to make the mere fact of selling to a bona fide traveller liquor to be consumed off the premises an offence. Held, that the justices should have convicted, as the Act only gives power to sell to bonâ fide travellers liquor to be consumed on the premises.

(Mountifield v. Ward. Q. B. Div. Wright and Bruce, JJ. Jan. 18.Counsel: for appellant, Danckwerts ; for respondent, Geo. Elliott.

Solicitors : Wontners; A. M. Forbes.] Mandamus--Public Duties-Right or Duty to enforce-Interest --Vaccina.

tion Acts 1867 and 1874 (30 8 31 Vict. c. 84, 37 & 38 Vict. c. 75). — Rule to the guardians of the poor of L. Union to show cause why they should not prosecute certain persons resident within the district of L. for neglecting to have their children vaccinated under sect. 29 of the Vaccination Act 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 84). The rule nisi had been granted on the application of the board of works of the district of L., and, on its coming on for argument, counsel for the guardians objected that the district board of works had no such legal right or duty to enforce the discharge of their duties by the guardians as to entitle them to apply for a mandamus. Moreover, in this specific case there was another remedy in case the guardians were not properly discharge ing their duties under the Vaccination Act of 1867—the Local Government Board were given by statute the right to direct prosecutions for non-vaccination if they thought the guardians were not properly enforcing the Act (Vaccination Act 1874, s. 1, 37 & 38 Vict. c. 75). For the board of works it was contended that, under the Public Health (London) Act 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 76), ss. 55.87, and other Acts, the board of works were under the obligation to provide for the notification of infectious diseases, the disinfection of premises, the removal of persons suffering from infectious diseases, the burial of the dead, &c. Accordingly, if the result of the guardians' neglect was that small-pox became epidemic, the expense resulting therefrom would fall upon the board of works. This, it was contended, was a sufficient interest to give them the right to apply for a mandamus. Moreover, the Local Government Board had no right to apply for a mandamus more than they bad. All the Act entitled the Local Government Board to do was to give directions to the officers of the guardians as to the discharge of their duties. Counsel also cited Reg. v. Guardians of Keighley (39 J. P. 360 and 40 J. P. 70). Held, that the board of works had no legal right or duty to compel the guardians to prosecute.

[Reg. v. Guardians of Lewisham Union. Q. B. Div.: Wright and Bruce, JJ. Jan. 15.-Counsel : for guardians, Lord Coleridge, Q.C. and Schulte83 Young; for the board of works, Macmorran, Q.C. and

A. H. Poyser. Solicitors : Cuthbert Curtis ; W. W. Young.) Merchant Shipping - Passage Broker - Person acting as

18-Merchant Shipping Act 1894, ss. 320, 342.-Case stated by the police magistrate for Sheffield in the matter of two informations heard by him. The first information was laid by the appellant, a person duly authorised by the Board of Trade, that the respondent (Howden, accountant) on the 12th May 1896 did “unlawfully act as a passage broker by being concerned in the sale of a steerage passage for one Ernest Craven in an emigrant ship proceeding from the British Islands to a place out of Europe, not being within the Mediterranean Sea, without being duly licensed, contrary to sect. 342 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894.” The second information was, " that he unlawfully did receive from one James Craven the sum of £8 11s. 8d. for and in respect of a passage for Ernest Craven as steerage passenger in an emigrant ship

without giving a contract ticket signed by or on behalf of the owners, charterer, or master of the ship, and in the form required by sect. 320” of the Act. By sect. 268 (4) of the Act,“ steerage passenger” includes passages of all passengers except cabin passengers. By sect. 320, “ If any person, except the Board of Trade

and persons acting for them, receives money from any person for or in respect of a passage as a steerage passenger in any ship

proceeding from the British Islands to any port out of Europe,

he shall give to the person paying the same a contract ticket signed by or on behalf of the owner, charterer, or master of the ship.” By sect. 341, " Any person who sells or lets or agrees to sell or let, or is any wise concerned in the sale or letting of steerage passages in any ship proceeding from the British Islands to any place out of Europe, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be a passage broker”; and sect. 342 enacts that, “ A person shall not act directly or indirectly as a passage broker anless he" holds a licence so to act. Ernest Craven was a young man about seventeen years of age, and his father, James

Craven, wished to place him as a farm pupil on a farm in Canada. He accordingly wrote to the respondent, who was the secretary to the “AngloCanadian Farm Pupil Association," and neither he nor his association could act as a passage broker without offending against the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. The respondent wrote giving rates for plucing, &c., and these rates included “intermediate passage and second-class rail fare-£22," and choice was made of this rate, and the father paid the respondent this sum of £22, and received a receipt in which it was stated “that the above-named sum (£22) includes second-class steam. ship passage from Liverpool to Quebec and second-elass rail to Thamesville, together with the charges of this association for placing.” A letter of instructions was sent, and also a passenger's contract ticket. This contract ticket was obtained by the respondent from, and the £8 18s. 11d. named on the ticket was paid by him to, Messrs. Thomas Cook and Sons, duly authorised passage brokers, and was from Liver. pool to Montreal. The respondent's association, or himself, had a profit on the £22, but the amount of profit did not appear. It was contended for the appellant that Craven was a steerage passenger within sect. 268; that the respondent had been guilty of an offence under sect. 342 for acting as a passage broker in obtaining a contract ticket from Liverpool to Montreal; and that, as the £22 included the price of a passage from Liverpool to Montreal, the respondent was guilty of an offence under sect. 320 for receiving the £8 18s. 11d. in respect of a passage without giving a contract ticket. The magistrates dismissed both informations. The respondent did not appear.

Cur. adv. vult. Held (affirming the decision of the magistrate), that the respondent had not acted as a passage broker, and had not committed the offences charged in the informations.

[Morriss (app.) v. Howden (resp.). Q. B. Div.: Wright and Bruce, JJ. Jan. 15.-Counsel : Bonsey. Solicitor : The Solicitor of the Board of

Trade.] MetropolisBuildings-Building Notice-Erection of Seating in Public

Hall-London Building Act 1894, 88. 78, 145, 210.--Case stated by a metropolitan police magistrate. The appellant was summoned to answer a complaint by the respondent, the district surveyor, under the London Building Act 1894, that the appellant, at the Royal Agricul. tural Hall, within the Clerkenwell Police-court district, " did, without notice to the district surveyor, begin to execute a work respecting which the appellant ought to serve a building notice before commencing such work, contrary to the provisions of the said Act.” It was proved, or admitted, that at the time in question certain seating was, by the direction of the appellant, placed in the Agricultaral Hall, and that notice had not been given to the district surveyor previously to its being placed therein. The Agricultural Hall is a public building, licensed for music and dancing. There is a gallery constructed along each side of the hall, which is supported by iron columns, which columns are carried through the floor of such galleries up to and afford support to the roof of the hall. Access to the galleries is obtained by means of staircases, and, except on occasion of sbows, the hall contains nothing but the galleries and staircases. The hall and galleries were constructed before the commencement of the London Building Act 1894. The hall belongs to a company, by which it is let for the purpose of holding exhibitions and shows, as many as twenty, some of which are annual, taking place in a year. For certain of the shows which take place in the hall seating is required for the convenience of the spectators, while for other shows no seating is required. The company accordingly, for the purpose of its business, caused seating to be constructed some years since in such manner as that such seating could be placed in position when required, and when not required could be taken to pieces and kept until again required, and the practice is to let the ball furnished with the seating, or unfurnished, according to the requirements of the par. ticular tenant by whom the hall is taken. When the hall is let with the seating, payment for the use of the seating is either included in the rent payable for the hall, or is made separately as an additional payment by the tenant. The placing in position of this seating, upon the occasion of a military tournament in the hall May and June 1896, was the work in respect of which the respondent contended that notice ought to have been given. The seating in question was calculated to seat some 3000 persons. In support of the complaint it was contended that whenever the seating was erected and replaced work was done in connection with the hall within the meaning of sect. 78 of the Act, and that the appellant sbould have served a notice of such work under sect. 145, which provides that “where a building, or structure, or work is about to be begun, then two days. before it is begun the builder or person causing the work to be done shall serve a building notice on the surveyor.” The magistrate held that the hall, being public building, the erection of the blocks of seating was work done in connection with the building, of which notice should have been given, and he convicted the appellant. Cur. adr. rult. Held, that the seating was not a “structure or work," and that the replacing of the seating was not the " beginniog of a structure or work” within sect. 145, and that no building notice was necessary.

[Venner v. McDonell. Q. B. Div. : Wills and Wright, JJ. Jan. 15.

Counsel : Macmorran, Q.C. and R. C. Glen; Avory. Solicitors : Kingsford, Dorman, and Co.; W. A. Blaxland.]

NOTICE TO SOLICITORS.--The Provincial Solicitors' Union Limited (93, Chancery-lane, W.C.) undertakes only such lay agency as is usually transacted by Law Stationers, and accepts the same scale of charges. The Union does not undertake any agency which legally requires the services of a London solicitor. All the members of the Union are solicitors. Established 1894.-[ADVT.]


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



(From Rer v. Woodcock, Leach C. C. 500.) “This is for the second time of asking.”

So said the old parson in a small London church on Sunday morning, the 26th Oct., in the year 1788. The words which preceded the statement had been merely a brief mumble, loud enough only to be heard by the inhabitants of the first few pews, and they announced the "banns of marriage between William Woodcock, bachelor, of this parish," and some spinster, whose name we do not suppose could possibly have been caught by a single member of the congregation present. The old parson evidently looked upon the whole “publication of banns” ceremony as merely a formal and meaningless interruption of his service, which must be so rapidly disposed of as to cause no sensible delay. Of course it was right, he would have said, that every two persons meaning to take upon themselves the holy estate of matrimony should duly be "thrice asked in church” before the wedding day: it was right because it always had been done ; hut, as to the ceremony ever serving any useful purpose sufficiently important to call upon the clergy to pronounce the names of the parties distinctly, such a thing had never dawned upon his mind. Although, therefore, he dutifully repeated the formula, “If any of you know cause or just impediment why these two persons should not be joined together in holy matrimony, ye are to declare it,” he proceeded to the next part of his service without waiting for, or pretending to expect, any such declaration as he had invited, and probably without realising that he had even invited the declaration at all. If it could be supposed that either of the persons about to be married had any reason to wish their impending inarriage kept quiet, the wish was granted, for a publication by the Rev. James Fox was in truth no publication at all.

But the law was satisfied; the man and woman had now been validly twice asked in church, and the parson was to ask them for the third time on the following Sanday morning.

On Saturday, the 8th Nov. 1788, John Wood, the coachman of Mr. Harvey, the attorney, was passing down Halfmoon.street, Piccadilly. There he saw a crowd, shouting and hooting after a ruffianly-looking fellow who was running down the middle of the street. “Who is that?" asked John Wood of a bystander. “ That's the man," was the reply, “who has done the murder on his wife, Silvia Woodcock; we've sent for a constable, and we are going to follow him to a public-house.” “Oh ! if that be the case," replied the coachman, who, we suppose, was to some extent impregnated with knowledge of law through being servant to a member of the Legal Profession, “ there is no occasion for a constable, I will arrest him myself.” No sooner said than done ! He seized Woodcock immediately, and put him into a coach and carried him to the Rotation Office in Lichfield-street. In the coach he asked him whether he had not a wife of the name of Silvia Woodcock. He said “ Yes.” Wood then asked him what he had done with her, to which he replied that he had not seen her for a fortuight. “ That's very strange," said the coachman. “I do not know where she is," said Woodcock.

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

Susannah Brace was a married woman living at Enfield.

She was standing working in her garden on Monday, the 27th Oct. 1788, when she heard a knock at her front door and went to see what it was. It was her neighbour Silvia, a mulatto woman, who was used to confide all her troubles to Mrs. Brace, and, poor thing, she bad many troubles. She had made an unhappy marriage; her husband did not live with her, but he often came down from London to visit her, and made demands upon her time and money which made life almost intolerable. He would not keep her, nor make his home with her ; but he waited till she had any money or other property, and then came to see what he could get from her, for a married woman in those days was at her husband's mercy. “ Wnat is it, Sylvia ?” said Mrs. Brace. “I have come to take leave of you,” answered the other ; “my man has come to take me to Holborn to live with him, and he says be is going to be good to me now.”' A few moments afterwards the husband himself appeared at the door. Mrs. Brace knew the fellow by sight, and she distrusted him. She could imagine what his fashion of “ being good to” the poor woman would be, and suspected that it would last just as long as she had anything to give him and no longer. “You are come," said Mrs. Brace; “ well, I do not like this parting at all.” He said, “Do not you like it? Then you may keep her.” What should I keep your wife for ?" said the other. The wife herself now started up to go; it was about two o'clock. But the husband said : “What need you be in such a hurry? You are in a devilish hurry. You will have time enough.”

So they stayed awhile, and Mrs. Brace repeated her previous observations as to ber dislike of the plan. “Where are you going?” said she. “ To Holborn," was the answer. “And what is your wife to do there?” said she. “To clean the room," said he ; "and then she can stay at my lodging.” Mrs. Brace said, “ Is not your wife to come back ?" He said, “I do not know for that; but if she does not, I shall come back.” I must come back," said his wife, “ to pack up my pea-sticks ”-she had a large garden, and had made a reserve of the pea-sticks. Mrs. Brace asked several more questions with regard to the husband's intentions as to providing for his wife, and then they turned to leave. They said they would come back again before they started for London, and they did so. The husband left the keys with Mrs. Brace, and bade her good-bye. “Good-bye, Mr. Woodcock," said she.

Woodcock was tried on the 14th Jan. 1789, for the wilful murder of Silvia Woodcock, his wife, by beating her with a stick. • Woodcock pleaded not guilty, and he had no little hope for his life. One circumstance particularly he thought wonld favour him, he imagined that he had killed his wife upon the spot when he struck her down in Robinson'slane, and he was therefore satisfied that there was no one living who could say exactly what occurred, and that dead men could tell no tales. There was only the evidence of Mrs. Brace that he had been with her, and he thought that he could persuade a few old comrades of his own to prove an alibi which might possibly overthrow her story. And he knew that, if he were acquitted once, he could never be tried again, and he began to think he might yet live with that second wife to whom he had been married within a fortnight of the other's death. “Yes,” he kept repeating sanguinely,“ it is well that dead men and women tell no tales, it was the wisest thing that I could do to kill her straight." The Lord Chief Baron, Sir.James Eyre, was the presiding judge, who was supported by Mr. Justice Ashurst and Mr. Serjeant Adair, the Recorder. Mr. Silvester prosecuted, and Mr. Peatt represented the prisoner.

Woodcock's heart failed him when Mrs. Brace gave her evidence ; and when sbe repeated her question, “Is not your wife to come back ?” and his fatal answer to it, “ I do not know for that, but if she does not, I shall come back," he felt that, even without “dead men's tales," the case was looking black against him.

But when the evidence followed of Mr. Gibbs, the overseer of the parish of Chelsea, who said that he sent for the magistrate to take the examination of the deceased, and the evidence of Mr. Edward Read, the magistrate, who said that he went and took the examination and was now called to produce it, the prisoner felt that bis last chance was gone. Silvia was not dead then when he left her for a corpse ; but she had lived long enough to testify against her murderer.

Mr. Peatt, the prisoner's counsel, said that this was not evidence. It could not be received, he argued, as a statutory examination before a magistrate, because the prisoner was not present-with which argument the court agreed. He further argued that the examination could not be received as a dying declaration, because there was no evidence that the woman believed herself to be dying.

But on this latter point the Lord Chief Baron said : “My judgment is that, inasmuch as she was mortally wounded and was in a condition which rendered almost immediate death inevitable, as she was thought by every person about her to be dying, though it was difficult to get from her particular explanations as to what she thought of herself and her situation, her declarations made under these circumstances ought to be considered by a jury as being made under the impression of her approaching dissolution, for, resigned as she appeared to be, she must have felt the hand of death, and must have considered herself as a dying woman. She continued to repeat rationally and uniformly the facts which she had disclosed from the moment her senses returned until her tongue was no longer capable of performing its office. Declarations so made are certainly entitled to credit ; they ought, therefore, to be received in evidence, but the degree of credit to which they are entitled must always be a matter for the sober consideration of the jury under all the circumstances of the case."

The document containing the dead woman's declaration was in these words:

“ Middlesex to wit. The information of Silvia Woodcock, taken before me, Edward Read, Esq., one of the justices, &c., who, being duly sworn on her oath, says that she was lawfully married to William Woodcock in the parish church of Cheshunt, Herts; that they had not lived together for some months; that she lived in a small apartment at High-street, Enfield ; that on Monday last, the 27th Oct., her said husband came to her and told her he had got another lodging for her, and insisted upon her going with him to see it; that she left Enfield with him about two o'clock, and stopped once on the road and had a pint of beer; that at

[ocr errors]

" Oh!

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


Early on the morning of Tuesday, the 28th Oct. 1788, Henry Cannon, a gardener's servant, was going to market. It was about a quarter past three when he turned into Robinson's-lane, Chelsea, which was on the road to the place whence he had to fetch his master's horses to go to Covent Garden. Suddenly, by the ditch at the side of the road, he found a woman, whom at first he supposed to be dead; he saw that she had been very ill-used by somebody, and he went and called Pennyfeather, the watchman. Pennyfeather having examined the woman, and finding that she was alive, summoned a fellow-watchman named Glover to his assistance, in order to take her down to the doctor. Cannon then left them.

The two watchmen helped the woman to her feet; she was shockingly wonnded, and looked as though she had been violently beaten. She walked with the assistance of the watchmen, abont twelve or fourteen yards. Then she said that she could not walk any further, she was so weak and so faint, and she asked several times how far they were going to take her. They told her they must take her to the workhouse, which was at no great



QUARTER SESSIONS. Abingdon, Thursday, Jan. 28

Penzance, Monday, Jan. 25 Chichester, Tuesday, Jan. 26

Salford, Thursday, Feb. 18 Hastings, Tuesday, Feb. 9

Thetford, Wednesday, Feb. 3 Maidstone, Saturday, Jan. 30, at 11 West Ham, Friday, Feb. 12.


night, being very dark, he took her into a narrow lane, and asked her for her keys ; that she told him it would be time enough to give him the keys when she saw the new lodging, upon which he knocked her down with a large stick he had in his hand, and beat her about her head and face in a most horrid manner, when she fell down, but does not know what became of her till she found herself at Chelsea workhouse. Sworn before me this 29th Oct. 1788. Edward Read.”

Mr. Read said: “I read the paper over to her afterwards, and gave it to her to sign. She said that she could not see, but she said she would make a mark on the paper, which she did.”

Dead men tell no tales ? Well, Silvia was quite dead now, but her tale was being told—the tale that was hers because she had put her mark to it -the tale which the English law would not turn away from as being hearsay, if, indeed, it were the tale of a dying woman who knew herself to be dying.

The Lord Chief Baron left it with the jury to consider whether the deceased was not in fact under the apprehension of death, though she did not seem to expect immediate dissolution, and said that if they were of opinion that she was, then the declarations were admissible, but that if they were of a contrary opinion they were not admissible.

“ Gentlemen,” he concluded, “this man's fate is in your hands. The public justice of the country requires you should give the case a full and solemn consideration, both for the sake of the public, which is deeply injured by the loss of a subject in the way this poor creature has lost her life, and also the fate of the individual who is charged before you as being the author of it. You will do justice between them.”

The jury immediately gave their verdict-guilty, and the prisoner was sentenced to death.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

On Monday, the 19th Jan. 1789, William Woodcock paid the supreme penalty for his abominable crime.

Legal Proposition. In the case of homicide the dying declarations of the deceased are admissible in evidence where the death of the deceased is the subject of the charge, and the circumstances of the death are the subject of the dying declaration, provided that the deceased at the time of the declaration was in actual danger of death, and was under the impression of impending death ; but when the deceased has made no statement as to whether he or she were under the impression of death or not, it will be for the jury to decide whether he or she were so from a consideration of all the circumstances. The depositions of a deceased witness cannot be received where any other statement of the deceased would not be received, unless the necessary statutory conditions have been followed : (see Taylor on Evidence, 9th edit., vol. i., pp. 465 and following; and Archbold's Criminal Pleading, 21st edit., p. 294 and following ; cf. R. v. Welbourn, 1 East P. C. 358; and R. v. Jenkins, 20 L. T. Rep. 372 ; L. Rep. 1 C. C. R. 187).


FOR THE WEEK ENDING SATURDAY, JAN. 30. Alfreton, Monday, at 10

Liverpool, Monday, Tuesday. Wednesday, Alston, Tuesday, at 12

and Thursday, at 10; Friday (Bky and Axminster, Wednesday, at 11

Adm.), at 11
Banbury, Wednesday (Reg., Bky) and Lymington, Tuesday, at 10
Friday, at 10

Manchester, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Birkenhead,* Friday, at 10

and Friday, at 10 Birmingbam, Monday, Tuesday, Wednes- Middlesbrough, Monday and Thursday,

day, Thursday, and Friday (T.S.), at 10 at 10 Bishop's Stortford, Monday, at 10

Neumarket, Thursday, at 10 Blackburn, Monday, at 10

Newport (Mon.), Tuesday (Reg., Bky), Boston, Thursday (Reg., Bky), at 10

at 10 Bournemouth, Thursday, at 10, and from Northampton, Wednesday, at 10

day to day if necessary to finish list Northwich, * Wednesday, at 10 Bow, Monday and Friday

Nottingham, Monday, Tuesday, and Wed. Bradford (Yorks),* Tuesday, Wednesday nesday, at 9.45 (R.), and Friday (J.S.), at 10

Poole, Monday, at 10 Brighton,* Thursday (J.S.), at 11.30; · Portsmouth, Monday (Reg., Bky) and Friday, at 10

Thursday (Com. Sum.), at 12 Bristol, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Presteign, Thursday

and Thursday, at 10; Friday (Bky), Preston, Tuesday, at 10 at 11

Rhayader, Monday Brompton, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Rochdale, Friday (Reg., Bky), at 11.30 and Friday

Rochester, Wednesday, at 9.30 Buckingham, Monday, at 12

Runcorn,* Tuesday, at 10 Caistor, Friday, at 10

Rye, Tuesday Cambridge, Wednesday, at 10

Saffron Walden, Tuesday, at 10 Chard, Tuesday, at 11

St. Albans, Monday Chesham, Tuesday

St. Asaph, Friday Clerkenwell, Monday, Tuesday, Wednes- Salford, Wednesday, at 10 day, Thursday, and Friday

Sheerness, Tuesday, at 10 Cranbrook, Monday, at 10.30

Sheffield, Thursday and Friday, at 10 Denbigh, Tuesday

Shoreditch, Tuesday and Thursday Derby, Wednesday, at 10

Skipton,* Wednesday, at 9.45 Dewsbury, Friday, at 10

Sleaford, Saturday, at 10 Dorking, Wednesday

Southampton, Wednesday (Reg., Bky), Durham, Tuesday (Reg., Bky)

at 11 Eye, Wednesday

Southport, Tuesday, at 10 Framlingham, Tuesday

Southwark, Monday, Tuesday, and ThurgGainsborough, Wednesday, at 10

day, at 10.30 Gloucester, Tuesday

Stockton-on-Tees, * Tuesday and Friday, Greenwich, Friday, at 10.30

at 9.30 Halifax, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thurs- Sunderland, Thursday (Reg., Bky) day (J.S.), at 10

Swansea, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Haltwhistle, Monday, at 10.30

and Thursday Hastings, Monday

Tewkesbury, Monday Haverhill, Friday, at 9.30

Wakefield, Tuesday, at 10 Hay, Wednesday

Walsall,* Wednesday and Thursday, at 10 Holbeach, Tuesday, at 10

Warrington, Thursday Honiton, Monday, at 11

Westbromwich,* Tuesday, at 10 Ilkeston, Tuesday, at 10.30

Westminster, Monday, Tuesday, WednesKington, Friday

day, Thursday, and Friday, at 11 Knighton, Tuesday

Whitechapel, Tuesday, Wednesday, ThursLambeth, Thursday

day, and Friday Leeds, Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Wolverhampton. Monday, at 10 and Friday, at 10

Woodbridge, Monday, at 11.30 Lincoln, Monday (Reg., Bky), at 10 Woolwich, Wednesday, at 10.30.

• Other sittings are specially fixed if necessary.

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]


NEW EDITION. We have the second edition of M. Ortolan's IIistory of Roman Law (London : Butterworth and Co., 7, Fleet-street). The first edition of 1870 was in 1871 translated by Messrs. Prichard and Nasmyth. The present volume consists of a revision of that translation by Mr. John Cutler, and corresponds with the later edition of M. Ortolan's work published in 1884. The original work is one of such admitted authority and learning that this further edition will be welcomed by students and others interested in the History of Roman Law.

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

BOOKS RECEIVED. Wood Renton's Law and Practice in Lunacy. William Green and Sons, Edinburgh ; and Stevens and Haynes, 13, Bell-yard, Temple Bar.

Every Man's Own Lawyer. Thirty-fourth Edition. Crosby Lockwood and Son, Stationers' Hall-court, Ludgate-bill. Price 6s. 8d.

Dod's Parliamentary Companion 1897. Whittaker and Co., White Hart-street, E.C. Price 4s. 6d.

Risley's Law of War, A. D. Innes and Co, Bedford-street, W.C. Price 12s.

Steward's Light Railways Act 1896. Eyre and Spottiswoode, East Harding-street, E.C. Price 3s.

Hanson's Death Duties. Fourth Edition. Stevens and Haynes, Bell. yard, Temple Bar. Price 30s.

Caspersz’s Estoppel by Representation and Res Judicata in British India. Second Edition. Thacker, Spink, and Co., Calcutta ; W. Thacker and Co., London.

Local Government Directory 1897. Knight and 90, Fleet-street. Price 8g. 6d.

Haycraft's Erecutive Powers in relation to Crime and Disorder. Butterworth and Co., 7, Fleet-street. Price 6s.


IMPORTANT STATEMENT BY JUDGE CADMAX. At the Dewsbury County Court, on the 15th inst., his Honour Judge Cadman said he was indebted to the chief officials of the court for having prepared for him a table from which one was able to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not the system adopted in that court in respect to certain debtors was conducive to the general good. There were two parties to consider in cases brought before the court, the plaintiffs and the defendants. Those who were successful were entitled to their money, and ought to have it, and those who were unsuccessful were entitled to and received consideration. It was not desirable that plaintiffs who were successful in obtaining judgments should at once take out executions and sell up poor people ; at the same time it was not to be expected that plaintiffs who were willing to accept instalments should be wilfully kept, under the present system, from their money for an extraordinary length of time. In the past considerable leniency had been extended to judgment debtors, and he hoped, as he saw some present that morning, they would take notice what he had to say.

He noticed from the table before him that for four years back, in 1893, there had been 1252 judgment summonses heard, and of these close upon half, about 619, were commitments. Of this number 425 warrants were issued to compel persons to pay or go to prison, and what was the result? No fewer than 380 of the 425 persons paid at the moment the warrants were about to be executed. In 1894 the number of judgments heard was 1950, and of these 992 commitment orders were made, and 565 had warrants issued against them. As a matter of fact, 565 persons were liable to be sent to prison, and of this number 530 prevented the executions from being carried into effect by showing their ability to pay. In 1895 there was a tremendous increase, there being 2000 odd judgment summonses heard, 1567 commitment orders were made, and 935 warrants to send the debtors to prison in default of immediate payment were issued. As showing again the ability of the people to pay, out of the 935 cases 900 persons paid the amounts due from them. In 1896 the year just closed, there were 2139 judgment summonses heard, 1761 commitment orders made, and 1242 warrants issued, and 1160 persons paid without the warrants being carried out. Of these eighty-six persons were apprehended, and ten of these, who were taken down to Wakefield gaol, paid promptly their debts, three or four others expressed their opinion that they never would pay, that they would continue to be taken to the same place until imprisonment had no further claim upon them. The judgment summonses heard had increased from 1893 to 1896 from 1250 to 2139, in round numbers close upon 1000, and not very far from double. It was quite clear from the figures before him that those who preferred to have warrants issued against them could pay the money due from them earlier than they did, and it was also quite clear to his mind that the excessive leniency had not proved effective, and that there was a determination on the part of the working classes and poor people to abuse such leniency. There was undoubtedly a determination on the part of persons not to pay until the very last moment. Debtors in the past had been given every consideration, and tradesmen and other plaintiffs, who had to pay for the goods they sued for in court, were worthy of equal consideration. He, therefore, wanted persons to know and thoroughly understand against whom judgment summonses had been issued that hitherto they had been dealt with with a lenient hand. In future the rope would have to be considerably tightened, for if 1160 persons out of 1242 could immediately pay as soon as warrants had been taken out, it was absolute proof that they had the means, and could have met the instalments before. The same latitude would not be extended as hitherto. If creditors would take the trouble, after obtaining judgments, and debtors failing to meet two or three instalments, and could prove means of payment, an order of commitment would be made in respect to the payment of all arrears in a fortnight, or perhaps in a month. He hoped those present would make known what he had said, as he was determined that debtors should not be allowed to go on in the way they had been doing.

Mr. T. L. Chadwick (the registrar) observed that the average amount due on judgment summonses from each debtor was 2s. 7 d. per month, and if they had paid at the rate of one penny each per day, the debts and costs would have been paid without warrants being issued.

His HONOUR said the registrar's remarks showed how easily the money could have been paid without going to extremes, and in future such debtors would not be so easily treated. He thanked Mr. Chadwick and Mr. Keeble, the chief clerk, for the trouble they had taken in preparing the figures upon which he had based his remarks.

The Registrar said that Mr. Keeble had done the work, and he deserved the credit.

registration of title under a considerable variety of conditions. It was shown in its application to estates of various sizes, values, characters, and situations, and subject to numerous diverse legal, commercial, and political incidents.

In some of the districts observed, titles had been registered from time immemorial ; in others they had been partially registered for a long period ; while in others the system is totally new and unaccustomed, and has been preceded by no registration at all. The particular examples collected in the detailed report include (for instance) such great estates as the ancestral domains of the Bohemian nobility (among whom are to be found some of the largest landowners in Europe), subject to the strictest entails, carrying political privileges of the highest importance, and specially registered in immense separate volumes in the provincial capital ; they also include (by way of contrast) the tiny sub-divisions of the peasant proprietors of the Rhine Provinces, where the principles and practice of the Code Napoleon are still deeply rooted in the customs and feelings of the people. They include, on the one hand, specimens taken from the rapidly developing building properties in the suburbs of Berlin, with their villa residences and restrictive covenants, and, on the other, remote Silesian manors with their tenant farmers, antique rights of common, and commuted rents and services, dating from feudal times. They show the system as applied to vast featureless plains like the corn-growing regions of Hungary, to the busy mining and industrial districts of Saxony and the Black Country of Germany close to the Russian frontier, as well as to the picturesque Alpine hamlets and pastures—with their innumerable interdependent rights of way, water, and other complicated easements-to be fourd in Styria and the Saltzkammergut; they pass from the intricacies of cellars and flats, courts and passages, of the Jews' qua of the city of Prague, to the simple conditions of a quiet agricultural district in Brandenburg ; from mortgages on first-class properties, involving hundreds of thousands of pounds, and subject to the most complicated subsequent dealings by way of transfer, alteration, sub-division, and collateral security, down to rows of petty charges on diminutive shares in an inconsiderable estate ; from great cities where values are measured almost by the square inch, to trackless wastes and bare mountains of scarcely any value at all.

Over the whole of this vast and diversified tract-embracing an area more than seven times the size of England and Wales-systems of regis. tration of title differing in no essential particular from the systems established under the Torrens Acts in Australia, and partially established under the Land Registry Acts in England and Ireland, have been in almost universal operation for a considerable period, amounting in the principal Austrian provinces to upwards of eighty years, and in certain places dating from a much more remote period. The type of registration followed bears throughout a remarkable similarity to that of Lord Westbury's Act of 1862, every kind of interest in land being capable of registration, resulting, not unfrequently, in the formation of a somewhat involved and complicated record. It will be remembered by those familiar with the subject, that Lord Cairns' Land Transfer Act of 1875, by excluding certain minor interests from the register, provided a remedy for what was deemed a defect in the 1862 Act in regard to this.

Notwithstanding this liability to become complicated of which instances are given in the detailed report—the Continental registers appeared, according to every test by which their practical efficiency could be tried, to be giving complete satisfaction, and to enable landowners, large and small, habitually to transact sales and mortgages with an ease, rapidity, cheapness, and security which, to persons accustomed only to the conditions of land transactions in this country, will appear almost incredible.

To begin with the question of cost. The following are a few specimens of the fees charged on sales and mortgages in the Prussian land registry -where the fees have lately been readjusted in consequence of a careful inquiry into their sufficiency to defray all the expenses, direct and indirect, of the administration, and in the Saxon registry, where they are also intended to defray all costs of the department.


[blocks in formation]



and AUSTRIA-HUNGARY. I HAVE the honour to report that in the month of May last, in pursuance of your instructions, and with the authority of the Treasury, after communication with the Lord Chancellor, I made an investigation into the working of the system of Land Transfer by registration of title in Germany and Austria-Hungary, which are the only large European States in which that system is at present in force.

My instructions were to inquire not only into the legal but also into the financial and administrative branches of the subject, the fees and expenses, the staff, buildings, precautions against fire and other accidents, the connection with the Cadastral surveys, the relations of the central and local branches, protection against fraud and error, compensations for errors, the facilities afforded for landowners and business men in transactions relating to land, and generally into all points on which useful information appeared to be obtainable. In conducting these inquiries I was authorised to visit not only the central offices in the capitals, but the local offices in provincial towns and agricultural districts as well.

Full particulars with regard to these subjects will be found under appropriate headings in the accompanying detailed report, but before proceeding to details it may be useful to make a short preliminary statement of the method and results of the inquiry from a general point of view.

The method pursued in the inquiry was this. The Foreign Office having obtained the assistance of Her Majesty's representatives abroad, who procured for me the highest official and other facilities in the countries visited, I first made general inquiries in the respective capitals, Berlin and Vienna, consisting mainly of interviews with the chief officers of the Ministries of Justice and Finance, as to the principal features of the land registration law and of its administration, and as to the Cadastral system, maps, and offices. I also had interviews with lawyers, bankers, and other business men as to the general practical results of the system as applied to everyday transactions, and inspected the registry offices, registers, maps, and records for the central and suburban portions of the two cities. This done, I visited the registry offices and made further inquiries in Dresden, Prague, Budapest, Munich, and Cologne, together with other smaller towns in agricultural, industrial, and mining districts lying between those places, having been previously advised in the capitals as to where special features could best be studied.

By these means, as will appear from a perusal of the detailed report, I obtained a general survey of the actual daily working of the system of

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

In Austria and Hungary the registry fees are also very low, and are stated in the detailed report, but they are not calculated with reference to the cost of the department.

The cost of professional assistance (where required) is, owing to the simplicity of the system, very slight. In Prussia, there is an ad valorem scale, which, in cases where the whole conduct of the transaction is committed to a professional man, is the same as the above (Prussian) Land Registry fee scale—with a minimum of 1s. 6d. Where the lawyer is only

« EelmineJätka »