Page images

MERCHANT, EDMUND LANGDON, St. Stephen's-by-Saltash, farın bailiff. Ct. Plymouth

and East Stonehouse. Meeting. Jan. 26, at 10.30, at 10, Athenæum-ter, Plymouth.

Exam. Feb. 1, at 11, at Townhall, East Stonehouse. MORRIS, SARAH LEES, Great Bridge, grocer. Ct. West Bromwich, Meeting, Jan. 27,

at 11, at 23, Colmore-row, Birmingham. Exam. Feb. 3, at 2.15, at County Court,

West Bromwich. MACKRILL, ALFRED, Whitefriars-st. manufacturing stationer. Ct. High Court.

Meeting, Jan. 26, at noon, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. Exam. Feb. 26, at 12.30, at

Bankruptcy-bldgs. NELSON, FREDERICK (trading as Fred. Nelson and Co.), Milnrow, flannel manufac

turer. Ct. Rochdale. Meeting. Jan. 23, at il, at Townhall, Rochdale. Exam,

Jan 29. at 11.30, at Lecture-ball, Rochdale. POWELL, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS, Wood Green. Ct. Edmonton, Meeting, Jan. 27, at 3,

at 95, Temple-chmbrs, Temple-av. Exam. Feb. 15, at 11.30, at Court-house,

Edmonton. PORTWAY, CRESSEL JOHN, late Egham, grocer. Ct. Guildford and Godalming Meet

ing, Jan. 26, at 12.30. at 24, Railway-approach, London Bridge. Exam. March 9,

at 1, at Townhall, Guildford. QCIN, MARY MATILDA, Bradford, Yorks, house furnisher. Ct. Bradford. Meeting,

Jan. 27, at 11, at office of Off. Rec. Bradford. Exam. Feb. 2, at 10, at County

Court, Bradford. ROBERTS, HENRY HOBBS, late Coborn-rd, Bow, licensed victualler. Ct. High Court.

Meeting, Jan. 29, at noon, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. Exam. Feb. 16, at 11.30, at

Bankruptcy-bldgs. REID, DAVID, Kingston-upon-Hull, nurseryman. Ct. Kingston-upon-Hull. Meeting,

Jan, 27, at 11, at office of Off. Rec. Hull. Exam. Feb. 15, at 2, at Court-house,

Hull. SURGUY, THOMAS MATTHEW, Sutton-st, Commercial-rd, undertaker. Ct. High Court,

Meeting, Jan. 28, at 11, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. Exam. Feb. 16, at 11.30, at Bank

ruptcy-bldgs. SANDON, ALFRED GEORGE, Merton, builder. Ct. Croydon, Meeting, Jan. 28, at 11.30,

at 24, Railway-approach, London Bridge. Exam. Feb. 10, at 11, at County Court,

Croydon. TREMAYNE, JAMES, Constantine, labourer. Ct. Truro. Meeting. Jan. 28, at noon,

at office of Off. Rec. Truro. Exam. Feb. 20, at 11.45, at Townhall, Truro. WALKINGTON, FRANCES GEORGINA, and WALKINGTON, DELIA, Harrogate, milliners.

Ct. York. Meeting, Jan. 29, at 12.30, at office of Off, Rec. York. Exam. Feb. 5, .

at 11, at Courts of Justice, York, WADE, JAMES, late Old Trafford, civil engineer. Ct. Salford. Meeting, Jan. 27, at 3.,

at office of Off. Rec. Manchester. Exam. Feb. 10, at 2.30, at Court-house,

Salford. WALKER, HENRY DE L., Spencer-mansions, West Kensington, gentleman. Ct. High

Court. Meeting, Jan. 28, at 2.30, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. Exam. Feb. 16, at 11.30,

at Bankruptcy-bldge. YEOMAN, GEORGE, laie Dore-ct, dining-room carver. Ct. High Court. Meeting,

Jan. 29, at 2.30, ai Bankruptcy-bldgs. Exam. Feb. 16, at 11.30, at Bankruptcybldgs.


GAZETTE, JAN. 19. SKIRVING, MAXWELL, late York-st, St. James's, no occupation. Ct. High Court.

Exam. Feb. 9, at 11.30, at Bankruptcr-bldgs.

BRAYE, JOAN, Brompton-sq. Ct. High Court. Order, Jan. 13.
BASTER, FREDERICK GEORGE, Oulton Broad, boat builder. Ct. Great Yarmouth.

Order, Jan. 15.
BLOOMFIELD, DANIEL, L'ggeshall, miller. Ct. Great Yarmouth. Order, Jan. 14.
BUMSTEAD, STEPHEN, Hastings, fisherman. Ct. Hastings. Order, Jan. 16.
BAKER, THOMAS, Scarborough, fruit salesman. Ct. Scarborough. Order, Jan. 16.
BYRNE, FREDERICK (trading as Frederick Byrne and Co.), Wandsworth, cabinet

manufacturer. Ct. Wandsworth. Order, Jan. 16. CASH, ALEXANDER WILLIAM (trading as Cash and Co.), Laurence Pountney-bill.

Ct. High Court. Order, Jan. 18, CHILTON, ARTHUR THOMAS, late Chigwell, farmer. Ct. High Court. Order, Jan. 16. CLAYTON, THOMAS WILLIAM, Carshalton, market gardener. Ct. High Court. Order,

Jan. 15. Cuzick, JAMES, jun, Dudley, general dealer. Ct. Dudley. Order, Jan, 14. DOMMETT, JOIN, Dulverton, farmer, Ct. Exeter. Order, Jan, 15. GREAVES, JOSEPH EDWARD ELSWORTH, Rochdale, mechanical engineer. Ct. Roch

dale. Order, Jan. 16. GREAVES, JAMES (trading as Herbert John Greaves), Newcastle-on-Tyne, innkeeper.

Ct. Newcastle-on-Tyne. Order, Jan. 16. HAYWARD, WILLIAM ELIJAH, Willenhall, late coal merchant. Ct. Wolverhampton.

Order, Jan, 15. HOWSE, GEORGE WILLIAM (described in receiving order as Thomas Howse),

Bermondsey New-rd, butcher. Ct. High Court. Order, Jan. 18, KING, BENJAMIN (trading as Walter King), Pembury-rd, Lower Clapton, shoe

manufacturer. Ct. High Court. Order, Jan. 13. LYLE, JAMES, Crystal Palace-rd, East Dulwich, mining engineer. Ct. High Court.

Order, Jan. 13. LISCHEID, EUSTACE, Wiesbaden-rd, Stoke Newington, baker. Ct. Edmonton. Order,

Jan. 14. MIDDLETON, JOSEPH, New Cleethorpes, fish merchant. Ct. Great Grimsby. Order,

Jan, 15. MORRELL, CHARLES RICHARD, Brighouse, joiner. Ct. Halifax. Order, Jan. 16. NEWEY, ALBERT EDWARD, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, plumber. Ct. Manchester,

Order, Jan, 15. PICKETT, CHARLES, late Queen's-rd, Peckham, butcher. Ct. High Court. Order,

Jan. 15. PRITCHARD, RICHARD WILLIAM (described in Receiving Order as R. W. Pritchard,

trading as R. W. Pritchard and Co.), Calabria-rd, Highbury. Ct. High Court.

Order, Jan. 13. PAYNE, CHARLES, Bridgwater, licensed victualler. Ct. Bridgwater. Order, Jan. 14. PORTWAY, CRESSEL JOHN, late Egham, grocer. Ct. Guildford and Godalming.

Order, Jan. 14. PRICE, ROBERT, Penygraig, grocer. Ct. Pontypridd. Order, Jan. 15. ROBERTS, HENRY HOBBS, late Coborn-rd, Bow, licensed victualler. Ct. High Court.

Order, Jan. 15. RIDEOUT, MARTHA ANN, Fontmell Magna, farmer. Ct. Salisbury. Order, Jan. 15. ROGERS. JOHN, Walsall, grocer. Ct. Walsall. Order, Jan. 14, STEVENS, CHARLES LLEWELLYN, Mare-st, Hackney, bootmaker. Ct. High Court.

Order, Jan. 15. SLATER, ARTHUR, Derby, fitter. Ct. Derby. Order, Jan. 15. TREMAYNE, JAMES, Constantine, labourer. Ct. Truro. Order, Jan. 14. WALKINGTON, FRANCES GEORGINA, and WALKINGTON, DELIA (trading as F. G. and D.

Walkington), Harrogate, milliners, spinsters. Ct. York. Order, Jan. 14. WILLIAMS, JOHN VAUGHAN, Penarth, shipowner. Ct. Cardiff. Orier, Jan. 16. WELLS, WALTER EDWARD, Great Grimsby, plumber. Ct. Great Grimsby. Order,

Jan. 15. WEDGWOOD, ROBERT, late Middlesbrough, grocer. Ct. Stockton-on-Tees and Middles

brough. Order, Jan. 14. WILSON, HARROP, George-st, Portman-sq, licensed victualler. Ct. High Court. Order,

Jan. 15. YEOMAN, GEORGE, late Dove-ct, dining-rooms carver. Ct. High Court. Order,

Jan. 13. The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the Gazette of Dec. 25. MEADOWS, ERNEST JOAN DOVE (trading as Ernest Meadows and E. Meadows),

Streatham Common, cheesemonger. Ct. Wandsworth, Order, Dec. 21.


GAZETTE, JAN. 19. SOMERS, THOMAS JOHN, Longton, late innkeeper. Ct. Burton-on-Trent. Adjudication,

April 13, 1896. Annulment, Nov. 4, 1896.

Winding-up of Companies.


GAZETTE, JAN. 15. GRAY AND GILBERT LIMITED, Great St. Helen's. Ct. High Court. Order, Jan. II.

Pet. Dec, 17.


GAZETTE, JAN. 15. ABBOTT, EDWARD HENRY, late Knightrider-st, publican. Ct. High Court. Order,

Jan. 11. BOND, MORGAN GEORGE, Bridgend, baker. Ct. Cardiff. Order, Jan. 8. BARNARD, CHARLES TURNER, Oulton Broad, smackowner. Ct. Great Yarmouth.

Order, Jan, 12. BATSTONE, JOHN WILMINGTON, Wells, baker. Ct. Wells. Order, Jan. 12. BAILEY, JOHN WESLEY, Willenhall, die-sinker. Ct. Wolverhampton. Order, Jan. 13. COOK, HENRY HATT (trading as the Factory Clothing Company), Leeds, clothier. Ct.

Leeds. Order, Jan, 11. COPLEY, FRED AUGUSTINE, late Levenshulme, schoolmaster. Ct. Stockport. Order,

Jan. 11. DANGERFIELD, RICHARD JAMES, Swansea, tobacconist. Ct. Swansea. Order, Jan. 12, DALLAS, JAMES, late Willington, innkeeper. Ct. Durham. Order, Jan. 11. DAVIES, DAVID, Cardiff, labourer. Ct. Cardiff Order, Jan. 12. DENTON, ERNEST, Accrington, commission agent. Ct. Blackburn. Order, Jan. 12. DE FALBE, CARL VIGANT, lato Grosvenor-sq. Ct. High Court. Order, Jan. 12. EDWARDS, DAVID JOHN, late Cwmburla, grocer. Ct. Carmarthen. Order, Jan. 8. FURSE, ERNEST HENRY, late Southampton-bldgs, Euston-rd, cabinetmaker. Ot. High

Court. Order, Jan. 11. GLOVER, CHARLES WILLIAM, Leeds, general dealer. Ct. Leeds. Order, Jan. 18. GOWING, GEORGE HENRY, Mulbarton, farmer. Ct. Norwich. Order, Jan. 12. GAUNTLETT, HENRY, Cosham, yeoman. Ct. Portsmouth. Order, Jan. 12. HALSE, CHARLES SPENCER (described in Receiving Order as Spencer Halse), late Cole

man-st. Ct. High Court, Order, Jan. 12. HANDLEY, JOHN, Cirencester, outfitter. Ct. Swindon. Order, Jan. 12. HALLGARTY, THOMAS, Wakefield, hairdresser. Ct. Wakefield. Order, Jan 12. HOLLIDAY, FREDERICK MONTAGUE, Wakefield, fish salesman. Ct. Wakefield. Order,

Jan. 13. HARRIS, JOHN HERBERT, Hartlebury, farmer. Ct. Kidderminster. Order, Jan. 13. JOHNSTON, ROBERT, Chipping Campden and Mickleton, hosier. Ct. Banbury. Order,

Jan. 13. JONES, CHARLES HENRY, Oswestry, grocer. Ct. Wrexbam. Order, Jan. 13. KITCHEN, FRED, Shipley, wheelwright. Ct. Bradford, Yorks. Order, Jan. 11. MAXWELL, WILLIAM, Waterloo, joiner. Ct. Newcastle-on-Tyne. Order, Jan. 12. MITCHINSON, JOSEPH, late Trenholme Bar, farmer. Ct. Stockton-on-Tees and

Middlesbrough. Order, Jan. 11. NEALE, CHARLES THOMAS, Orston, gentleman. Ct. Nottingham. Order, Jan. 13. NORTH, CHARLES WILSON, Doncaster, cattle dealer. Ct. Sheffield. Order, Jan. 12. PARK, JOHN, Cockermouth, licensed victualler. Ct. Cockermouth and Workington.

Order. Jan. 13. POWELL, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS, Wood Green. Ct. Edmonton. Order, Jan. 9. QUIN, MARY MATILDA, Bradford, Yorks, house furnisher. Ct. Bradford. Order,

Jan. 12. REEDER, ROBERT, St. John's Wood-rd, licensed victualler. Ct. High Court. Order,

Jan. 12. RAWLINGS, ABSALOM, late Drybrook, innkeeper. Ct. Gloucester. Order, Jan. 11. REID, DAVID, Kingston-upon-Hult, nurseryman. Ct. Kingston-upon-full. Order,

Jan. 11. SCOTT. Johx, Hesket-in-the-Forest, coal agent. Ct. Carlisle. Order, Jan. 12. SANDERS, JAMES, Silverton, dairyman. Ct. Exeter. Order, Jan. 13. SLINGER, THOMAS, Halifax, tobacconist. Ct. Halifax. Order, Jan. 13. THOMPSON, HENRY, Birmingham, furniture dealer. Ct. Birmingham. Order, Jan. 11. Toogood, WILLIAM CUTTING, Great Grimsby, provision dealer. Ot. Great Grimsby.

Order, Jan. 12. VINCE, ROBERT ALFRED, Somersham, dealer. Ct. Ipswich. Order, Jan. 9. WORCESTER, ARTHUR, Fishburn, porter. Ct. Stockton-on-Tees and Middlesbrough. Order, Jan. 11.

GAZETTE, JAN. 19. ADDERLEY, FREDERICK CECIL, the Façade, Bream's-bldgs, clerk. Ct. High Court.

Order. Jan, 15. AMERY, WILLIAM THOMAS, and AMERY, THOMAS JAMES (trading as George Amery

and Sons), Seymour-pl, Bryanston-sq, coach builders. Ct. High Court. Order,

Jan. 13. AMSON, JOHN, Crewe, bailder. Ct. Nantwich and Crewe. Order, Jan. 14. ASHFOLD, FREDERICK GEORGE, Plymouth, baker. Ct. Plymouth and East Stonehouse.

Order, Jan, 14. BEDFORD. EDWARD THOMAS, Fulham-rd, glass dealer. Ct. High Court. Order,

Jan. 13.


BIRTHS. CJILTON THOMAS.-On the 10th inst., at 31, Huskisson-st, Liverpool, the wife cp

Arthur Chilton Thomas, Barrister-at-law, of a daughter. CLARKE.-On the 10th inst., at 14, Hatch-st, Dublin, the wife of Charles Xerille

Olarke, D.L., of Graigneuve Park, co. Tipperary, of a son. JONES.-On the 9th inst., at Cliff House, Rottingdean, the wife of H. R. Jones,

Solicitor, of a daughter. MOUNTAIN.-On the 16th inst., at 7, Clarence-ter, Grimsby, the wife of Arthur Mountain, Solicitor, of a son.

MARRIAGES. CULLINGHAM-EVERETT.--On the 14th inst., at the Presbyterian Church, Ipswich,

James Barry Cullingham, of Ipswich. Solicitor, to Florence Harriet Nusses,

eldest daughter of Robert Lacey Everett, J.P., of Rushmere, Ipswich. DANAVALL-ABERCROMBIE.—On the 16th inst., at St. George's, Hanover-sq, John

Martin Danavall, of Dominica, in the West Indies, Second Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of the Leeward Islands, to Gertrude Mary, second daughter of the

late Alexander Abercrombie, B.O.S., Commissioner of Dacca. Evans—RIMINGTON.-On the 1st ult., at S. Mark's Church, Sydney, John Bowen

Owen, second son of the late John Evans, Q.C., M.P., Bencher of the Inner Temple, to Nina Janet, second daughter of George Rimington, of Bombay and Eastbourne.

DEATHS. BUCKMASTER.--On the 9th inst., at Southfields, Wandsworth, in his 79th year, the

Rev. Ralph Nevill Buckmaster, formerly of Holland-st, Kensington, eldest son of

the late John Buckmaster, of Windsor Castle, Jamaica, Barrister-at-law. PRINGLE.-On the 14th inst., at Cheltenham, Julia Frances, widow of Mark Pringle,

J.P., D.L., formerly of Oakendean, Cowfold, Sussex, in the 86th year of her age. SCEALES.-On the 17th inst., at 15, Oraven-rd, London, A. D. Sceales, Barrister-at

law, of the Middle Temple, aged 55. THORNEY.-On the 10th inst., at Southside, the Park, Hull, John Joseph Thornes,

Solicitor, and Coroner of the Borough of Kingston-upon-Hull, aged 69 years, Tw188.-On the 14th inst., at Fulham, Sir Travers Twiss, Q.C., D.C.L., F.R.S., etc., il

his 88th year.

To Beaders and Correspondents.

COUNTRY ADVOCATE.- We do not give opinions upon matters of law.
All communications must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer

not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. Anonymous communications are invariably rejected. All communications intended for the Editorial Department should, in order to prevent delay, be addressed to the EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES." Advertisements, orders for papers, &c., should be kept distinct, and addressed to the Publisher, Mr. HORACE Cox, "Law Times" Ofice, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C.

Vol. VIII., Part 2, price 58. 6d. MARITIME LAW REPORTS (New Series). By J. P.

ASPINALL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Containing all the Decisions in the Admiralty Courts of England and Ireland, and in all the Superior Courts, with a Selection from the Decisions of the United States Courts; with Notes by the Editor. Quarterly, price 5s. 6d., and will be sent free by post to subscribers. NOTE! Vols. I. to III. of the Reprint of Vols. I. to V. of the New Series (1871 to

1887) is now ready. The whole Set of Five Volumes will be supplied in half calf for £10.

HORACE Cox, "Law Times" Omice, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C.


Now ready, Vol. XVII., Part 7, price 5s. 6d. COX'S REPORTS of all CASES decided by all tho Superior

Courts relating to MAGISTRATES, MUNICIPAL, and PAROCHIAL LAW, Vols. I. to XVI. from 1860 to 1894, can now be had.

HORACE Cox, “Law Times " Omice, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.O.


For One Year .............................
£2 14 0 For One Year

£2 2 0 For Hall a Year... 1 7 0 For Hall a Year.....

1 1 0 The volumes of the LAW TIMES and of the LAW TIMES REPORTS are strongly and uniformly bound at the office, as completed, for 58. 6d. for the Journal, and 5s. for the Reports. Portfolios for preserving the current numbers of the LAW TIMES, price 59. 60. ; LAW TIMES REPORTS, price 3s. 6d. The Publisher undertakes the binding of the Law TIMES and LAW TIMES REPORTS at the following rates :

Per Volume. LAW TIMES, in half calf, office pattern ...............

58. 6d. LAW TIMES REPORTS, ditto, ditto

58. Od. Parcels of volumes for binding should be sent to the Publisher, LAW TIMES Omice Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C., by whom they will be returned in abou & fortnight bound.

Just published, demy 12mo., price 2s. 6d., New Edition of NEWTON'S PATENT LAW and PRACTICE, including the

Registration of Designs and Trade Marks. This work is designed to serve as a reference manual for Patent Agents, with respect to the practice established under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Acts; as a compendium of the Patent Laws for the use of Solicitors; and as a legal and commercial guide to inventors and manufacturers interested in Patent Rights. New Chapters on Copyright have been added.

HORACE Cox, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C.

The Law and the Lawyers.

TO ADVERTISERS. SCALE OF CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS. Four lines of thirty words, or less than thirty words, in body type ......... 38. 6d. Each additional line, or ten words, or less than ten words

09. 60. For three insertions a reduction of 10 per cent. ; for six insertions a reduction of

20 per cent. Advertisers whose reference is under initials to this office should remit 6d. additional

to defray postage in transmitting replies to their Advertisements. Advertisements must reach the office not later than five o'ciock on Thursday

afternoon, and must be accompanied by a remittance. Post-office Orders payable to HORACE Cox.

The House of Commons is to be asked by Mr. ATHERLEY Jones next month to present an address to the QUEEN, praying for a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Judicature Act. Here is a great opportunity for a candid critic.



THERE would appear to be little hope that English solicitors will obtain any modification of the certificate duty. Even Irish solicitors, whose business is said to be disappearing, are not encouraged by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER to expect any

relief. Sir JOSEPH LEESE has brought in a Bill to repeal the statute which compels members of the House of Commons appointed to an office of profit under the Crown to submit themselves to re-election. He has submitted to be interviewed on the subject, and says that the best men are often passed over because their seats are not secure. Are all Crown appointments governed by political considerations, and do the best men generally sit for doubtful seats ? Are the best men for legal appointments all in the House of Commons ? These are interesting questions upon which opinions may and do differ.


MANTLE (app) v. JORDAN (resp.).

Local government-County council JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE

-Bye-law-Use of obscene language


dwelling-house abutting ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF CANADA V.

public street


LEADING ARTICLES; &c. Law of Canada-Dominion Act 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 3), s. 109-Annuities to Indian tribes--Lands subject to

TO READERS AND CORRESPONDENTS.. 285 any trust or interest-Liability of

LEADING ARTICLES. -- Topics of the

Week-A Gratuitous Judge-The province


City Judges and the Hampstead

Constable-Servants of the Crown-
AND OTHERS.-Law of Victoria-
Administration and Probate Act

Irrerocable Voluntary Settlements 1870 - Will - Value

- Leases by Tepants for Life

of estateDeposit receipts


Warrants of Execution issued by

County Courts-Sale of Goods Act SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE. 1893, sect. 18, r. 4......





292 HARVEY. Contract Personal OUR LITERARY COLUMN. — Stories service-Agreement by employed to from the Law Reports

295 ** act exclusively for" employers 528 LAW LIBRARY


LIMITED. - Insurance Policy OF MAGISTRATES. -Quarter Sessions against burglary-Execution by

- Previous Conviction".

297 insurers-Nonpayment of premium COUNTY COURTS. -Sittings of the --Waiver of pre-payment-Recital.. 531 Courts





GENERALINTELLIGENCE.-Some PecuStamp duty--Contract for sale of liar Judgments-Accident Ingurshare of patent...


ance: Inhaling Illuminating Gas or DARLOW 1. BLAND AND OTHERS.- Bill Anästhetics-Codification of Merof sale -- Validity - Consideration cantile Law-Rating of Advertisenot “truly set forth"-Promissory ments-Unclaimed Stock and Divinote-Consideration less than £30... 387 dends in the Bank of EnglandDixox v. THE GREAT WESTERN RAIL

Heirs-at-Law and Next of Kin WAY COMPANY.-Railway-Accom- Appointments under the Joint Stock modation works --Fence -- Fence Winding-up Acts--Creditors under erected more than five years after Estates in Chancery-Oreditors opening of railway

under 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35...


Society - United Law SocietySuing in forma pauperis–Affidavit Union Society of London-Cardiff verifying case for opinion of counsel Incorporated Law Society-Leices-Case and opinion made exhibits... 512 ter Law Society-Somerset Law KICKHAM . ATTENBOROUGH; KIRK


302 HAN E. GILL.-Sale of goods--Goods PROMOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS ...... 302 delivered " on sale or return". CORRESPONDENCE....

302 Goods pawned by buyer---Title of LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL--Bar Expawnee

543 aminations: Results and New ProHIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

spectus- The January Final-Calls

to the Bar-Examinations at the CHANCERY DIVISION. PETTY . TAYLOR, - Copyright

Incorporated Law Society in the Registration - Proprietor-Validity

year 1896-Council of Legal Educa

tion: Eanter Pasg Examination -Trustee or agent-Copyright Act

303 1812 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 45), s. 13

1897-Students' Societies



House of Lords, Session 1897 (No.2), struction of policy-Arrival in

Cause List-Rota of Registrars“ final port"

549 Order under the Stannaries Court L'AFREVILLE (app.) c. THE LONDON (Abolition) Act 1896, dated Dec. 16,

COUNTY COUNCIL (resps.). ---Public 1896_Order of Court-Circuits of health (London)--Farmer keeping the Judges, Winter Assizes, 1897 305 COWS on his premiseg—"Cow- THE GAZETTES.

306 keeper"

550 BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS ... 308 Vol. CII.-No. 2809.

It is desirable that the attention of practitioners in Admiralty actions should be drawn to the fact that an order has been made by the Treasury and the LORD CHANCELLOR abolishing fee No. 145 in the list of Supreme Court fees. This fee was } per cent. on all sums paid into court in Admiralty actions. No similar fee existed in other divisions of the court, and, having regard to the large sums which it is necessary

pay into court

in actions for limitation of liability and in tenders in salvage actions, it had become a serious and quite unreasonable addition to the costs of some Admiralty suits. As a matter of fact, it was frequently evaded by arrangements, under which parties agreed to pay the amount tendered to a banker as a stakeholder, or to accept the offer as a payment with an undertaking from a solicitor. This, however, was not possible in every case, and, on the representation of the President of the Probate Division, the Treasury have acted judiciously in abolishing this vexatious impost.

......... 545

A CORRESPONDENT writes : Please allow me to supplement a notice posted in the registrar's office of the Brompton County Court, with reference to renewal of bailiffs' certificates, and a copy of which notice was put in the LAW

Times of the 16th inst., by pointing out that, in accordance with rule 2 of the Law of Distress Amendment Act 1895, certificates granted to bailiffs on or since the 2nd Feb. 1896 need not be renewed till the 1st Feb. 1898.

The Royal Academy has an income of £36,000 per annum. Out of that it pays £10,000 to support an art school. There is but one dinner in the year—the great social function bringing together all the distinguished men of the day. This is all the eating and drinking taking place at the cost of the institution. Many hundreds a year are given to poor artists out of the annual income. The effort seems to be on the part of a great intellectual profession to get as far away as possible from the grossness of city companies.

so as not to vacate his seat in the House of Commons, has discharged duties gratuitously, which otherwise would have been discharged by some brother barrister out of Parliament, to whom the usual remuneration might be of very material consequence. Commissioners of Assize are, as we have said, to all intents and purposes, during the continuance of the Commission, judges of the High Court. In former times members of the Order of the Coif alone could fill these offices, just as, till our own times, the Judicial Bench was confined to members of that order. Queen's Counsel have only been authorised to be on these commissions by the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 25, and County Court judges by a very recent statute, 47 & 48 Vict. c. 61, s. 7. The Judicature Act provides, that commissioners, while engaged in the exercise of their duty, shall be “deemed to constitute a court of the High Court”: (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 29). Judges, notwithstanding the permanent character of the tenure of their office, are disabled from sitting in the House of Commons, and every objection that, on constitutional grounds, could be urged against the retention by a judge of a seat in the House of Commons could, with enhanced force, be urged against the retention of a seat in that assembly by a Commissioner of Assize.

DURING the hearing of a case in the Queen's Bench Division before Mr. Justice Day last week the following dialogue took place. Counsel (at the end of a long speech): "Then, my Lord, comes the question of bags; they might have been full bags, or half full bags, or again, my Lord, they might have been empty bags.” Judge : “Or they might have been windbags.

The answers given by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL last week to Mr. Swift MacNEILL with reference to the appointment of Mr. DARLING, Q.C., M.P., as Commissioner of Assize on the Oxford Circuit of which he is a member, places the facts and the circumstances connected with this incident clearly before the members of the Legal Profession and the public at large. We cannot recognise the explanation as in any way satisfactory. A special Commissioner of Assize is to all intents and purposes while on circuit indistinguishable in his powers and duties from any one of HER MAJESTY's judges in a similar position. Such Special Commissioner is rarely a practising barrister on the circuit on which he is appointed by the Crown to go as temporary judge. The ATTORNEYGENERAL admitted that, “It is not usual to appoint a member of the House of Commons as a Special Commissioner of Assize," nor could he mention such an appointment, and he ventured the statement that Mr. DARLING was not appointed a Special Commissioner of Assize. “ The name of the hon. and learned member was included in the Commission in the ordinary way, and he sat by virtue of that fact.” He added that Mr. DARLING “filled the place of second judge, and he did a great deal more work than a Queen's Counsel has been called upon to do, but except in that case he fulfilled no other function,” but nevertheless did so without fee or reward of any sort or kind.” This may be very sublime, but it is not good business.

LORD GRIMTHORPE and the correspondent of the Times who gave an account of the proceedings on the confirmation of the election of the ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, have raised between them a question of great general interest to lawyers. In Reg. v. Archbishop of Canterbury (11 Q. B. 483; 17 L.J. 252, Q. B.; 12 Jur. 862), the court was equally divided on the question whether a rule which had been granted for a mandamus should be discharged or “go.” Lord GRIMTHORPE contends that the judgment, though of an equally divided court, is an authority that opposers are not entitled to be heard ; the Times correspondent contends that the judgment decides nothing. On the whole we think that the Times correspondent is right, and on this ground : Prior to the Judicature Acts no appeal lay from the discharge of a rule for a mandamus, though an appeal by demurrer to a return was expressly authorised by 6 & 7 Vict. c. 67 (passed before Reg. v. Archbishop of Canterbury was decided, and since repealed by the Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure Act 1883 as having been superseded by Rules of Court), the preamble to which recited that writs of mandamus were frequently awarded, and often in cases of considerable importance, and that it was expedient that parties interested should be enabled, in certain cases, to have the judgments of the Court of Queen's Bench reviewed. By reason of the writ not having been issued in Reg. v. Archbishop of Canterbury (ubi sup.), there was never an appealable judgment in that case, so that it has not the authority of an appealable case not appealed, which we believe is in the course of time as good as the authority of a case in the House of Lords.


From this statement we gather these conclusions : (1) that duties discharged invariably by a Special Commissioner of Assize were discharged by an Ordinary Commissioner of Assize, who was a member of the House of Commons; (2) that an Ordinary Commissioner of Assize discharged these duties without fee or reward, to which fee and reward would be attached if discharged by a Special Commissioner ; (3) that the fee and reward were not taken because their acceptance would have brought Mr. DARLING under the provisions of the Place Act, and have accordingly rendered his seat in the House of Commons vacant; (4) that his office was an Ordinary and not a Special Commissionership of Assize, because the Special Commissionership, to which in practice fee and allowance attach, might perhaps--even although in the particular case no fee or allowance was given

- be held, from its nature and character, to be office of profit under the king."

It is not often that a case of so widely general importance as the Brighton Hotel case comes before the courts. The simple point is, how long'may a guest stay at an inn after he has been once received as a guest if he continues to behave properly as such, and upon that point there is no direct authority whatever. A Divisional Court has held, affirming a County Court judgment, that the guest may stay only a reasonable time, but, looking to the general importance of the question, has given leave to appeal. At most seaside resorts the practice is almost universal for guests to take rooms beforehand for an indefinite time with the expectation of staying as long as they please without being under any liability to receive a notice to quit.

On the other hand, a practice equally prevails on the part of innkeepers of letting rooms for a future day in the expectation, usually realised, that rooms then occupied will become vacant when the future day arrives. Sometimes, though very rarely, it happens that the



GRAVE constitutional considerations are involved in this incident, omitting altogether any comment on the circumstance which is perfectly obvious that a member of the Bar,


guests, whose quitting in time has been calculated upon, THE CITY JUDGES AND THE HAMPSTEAD decline to quit when the time comes, leaving the unfortunate

CONSTABLE. innkeeper in difficulty as to which contract he shall break, All that can be said has been said in explanation of the convichis implied contract with the existing guest to entertain tion and sentence of the constable Murray and the studied him in a particular room or in some other room, his


condemnation by the Common Serjeant of the Hampstead contract with a newly-arrived expectant to reserve a room magistrates. for such expectant. The extent, and even the existence, of

We have studied the details of this singular case with the the implied contract with the existing guest appears now to

greatest care, and what started the City judges on a false scent be called in question by the innkeeper, while on the part of

of an imaginary miscarriage of justice it is difficult to under

stand. The solicitors for the prosecution are evidently under the existing guest it appears to be contended that he has a

the honest impression that they have vindicated the Old Bailey right, once installed in an inn, to remain there for life. It

methods. We fail to see it. They also honestly believe that will be of very great advantage to the public generally that

the Hampstead Bench was guilty of sharp practice and injustice. the legal points should be decided.

We cannot agree.

A good character and an employer's support are all very well. Is every charge to be adjourned where these

factors come in? “The cunning manipulation of penalties The utility of the short Act of Parliament which became

is hardly a worthy suggestion. But if every court or judge law last year to prevent abuse of the process of the High Court, or other courts, by the institution of vexatious legal injustice, much of our present civil procedure is hopelessly bad.

which prevents or refuses an appeal is guilty of flagrant proceedings, has been amply demonstrated by the application In a somewhat laboured defence of the Common Serjeant, our of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL for an order under the Acts correspondents make what appears to us to be a most damaging against ALEXANDER CHAFFERS, to prevent him commencing admission. “What was Parrent to do ?” they ask. "He had any further action against anyone without an order the a thirty-five years' character swept away by this conviction. court. That gentleman, since 1891, has brought no less It was in this predicament he consulted us. Mr. Freke than forty-eight actions against the PRINCE OF WALES, the Palmer, we believe, had previously advised him that it was no ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, Lord Esher, several County

good his trying to press his appeal. There was no other way out Court judges, and numerous other persons, in none of which

of the difficulty but a prosecution of the man upon whose evidence, and upon whose evidence alone, he had been convicted.

It was has he been successful, except one brought in the City of

easy to foresee that the prosecution would be fraught with London Court to recover the cost of the copy of an affidavit

great difficulties. Apart from the fact of the difficulty of supplied These facts amply demonstrate the need that

obtaining a verdict upon the evidence,” &c. existed for such an enactment to save persons from vexatious The evidence was weak indeed ; but there turned out to be and vindictive litigation.

no difficulty. It now seems that the Recorder by no means

discouraged the finding of a true bill; the Common Serjeant A DECISION as to what is not contempt of court has been

went breast high with the prosecution--in a case where the recently given, and a judicial statement made defining the

prosecuting solicitors foresaw the difficulty of obtaining a offence. The editor of a provincial newspaper, on the return

verdict upon the evidence !

We remain at a loss to see where the facts are which cast of a rule to show why he should not be committed for

even a suspicion upon the bona fides of Murray. And how contempt for publishing in his paper an editorial notice

upon the evidence forthcoming a tribunal could be carried calculated to prejudice the fair trial of four men committed

away as judges and jury were to what appears to us a hasty, for trial on a charge of night poaching, through his

intemperate, and an unjust conciusion, we find it impossible to counsel, offered an apology, and, on his paying the costs, explain. the Court discharged the rule. After the hearing of that Perjury is one of the most serious offences known to the law. case, he published in his paper a comic account of the It is wilful and corrupt false swearing Committed by the proceedings, and it was now sought to commit him for police it becomes an enormity. Circumstantial evidence, wild contempt because it brought the court into ridicule. But

inferences from medical evidence, must be looked at in such a Justices WRIGHT and BRUCE refused to act, for such a

case with very grave scrutiny. It is too late now to compare report would not tend to prejudice the fair trial of the

the characters of Parrent and Murray. At the time of the trial accused. As Mr. Justice Wright said, "These applications

one was as good as the other.

The lesson to be learned from the case is a serious one. The are quite mistakingly called applications for contempt of

police are not immaculate. The unpaid magistracy are not court. They are really applications to prevent the course

miracles of wisdom. But to convict a constable of good of justice being interfered with. It was unfortunate and

character upon the oath of a convicted offender, with scarcely a bad taste to report in such a way, but the court did not vestige of corroboration, and to condemn magistrates in almost sit to punish bad taste.”

unmeasured terms of censure, is a rash and dangerous proceeding. Such a conviction and such censure ought to be based

upon facts about which there can be little or no controversy. A GRATUITOUS JUDGE. Let me breathe again now that my seat is secure, And my name as a judge must for ever endure.

SERVANTS OF THE CROWN. In most delicate scales have my virtues been weighed,

CERTAIN recent cases have placed finally on an unambiguous basis the For I sat as Her Majesty's judge and Unpaid !

relationship existing between the Crown and its servants, whether military

or civil. Since this relationship constitutes an important exception to the Me a Judge of Assize ! What can mortal desire

ordinary doctrine of employment, and of contracts relating to employBut to burn with a holy juridical fire,

ment, it will be useful to state briefly the position of Crown servants and And to scrawl one's sweet name on the National page

the conditions of their tenure of office. With not £7 10s. as a nominal wage ?

“ All offices, whether limited as ito tenure by a specified term or not so

limited, are held subject to one of two conditions : they are held either Bare expenses and glory (in spite of McNeill)

‘at pleasure,' or 'during good behaviour,' and unless otherwise stated Make a simple Q.C. quite an ecstacy feel.

their occupants hold 'at pleasure':” (Anson). A servant who holds

his office “ at pleasure " is liable to instant dismissal, and no remedy Some more judges like this would make Law quite a drug, known to English law follows such dismissal, even though it be obviously And a judgment a thing which all suitors would hug. unjust. The Civil Service, for instance, is regarded as of permanent

character, and as being absolutely independent of politics. This Then quaff we the wine cup for Darling and Deptford !

permanency is, however, merely a customary arrangement, which is liable We'll all get our law without going into debt for't.

at any time to be disregarded. In 1763 Henry Fox dismissed wholesale A solicitor's bill is all fiddle-de-dee

political opponents from so-called non-political Crown places. Servants

of the Crown who are appointed to hold office “ during good Whilst the Bar won't take work which results in a fee.

behaviour” have, without a term of years is specifically mentioned, a life Second Sheet.

other dispositions ; and the draftsman receiving instructions for an instrument of this kind shoulă therefore provide for the revocation of the settlement, unless he is satisfied that it is the settlor's own wish to make it irrevocable.” If such is the case, it is the daty of the solicitor to explain that such a provision is usual, and what will be the effect of omitting it. Two cases may be cited as showing the danger of omitting this necessary precaution. The principle is well stated by Lord Justice James in Hall v. Hall (28 L. T. Rep. 383; L. Rep. 8 Ch. 430) in 1873, where the earlier cases are carefully reviewed, and the almost identical case of Toker v. Toker (31 Beav. 629 ; 3 De G. J. & Sm. 487) was followed. The Lord Justice said that there was no rule that a voluntary settlement containing no power of revocation was voidable at the will of the settlor, nor was there any foundation in principle for such a rule. But if it could be shown that she was not fully aware of what she was doing, the settlement would be set aside. In this case the solicitor was examined vivá voce, and it was quite clear from bis evidence that the settlor completely understood the deed to be irrevocable. Her subsequent conduct in tearing ap the deed proved change of mind, but not that at the time of the execution, her mind was other than expressed in the deed. The other case is James v. Couchman (ubi sup.), which was a suit for rectification, before Mr. Justice North in 1885. It was proved that it had not been explained to him that the settlement did. not contain the usual power to appoint as he wished on failure of his issue, and the learned judge held that the settlement must be rectified by the insertion of such a power. Having regard to the above decisions, it is advisable in all such cases that the settlor should sign an acknowledgment (which may usefully be indorsed on the draft of the settlement) that the deed has been read over and fully explained to him, that he understands it to be irrevocable, and that such is his wish.

interest in their office. Such appointments are either made directly by the Crown by sign-manual warrant, or by letters patent, or they are made informally by some department under the Crown (such as the Council of India). Such servants are not liable to instant dismissal, but, in the event of misbehaviour in the matter of their office, are, in the case of direct Crown grants, dismissed by the issuing of a writ of scire facias revoking the grant. In the case of indirect Crown grants, it is probable that the form of dismissal is less formal and more expeditious.

An officer is first given permanent rank in the army by warrant or commission under the sign-manual. In the case of Re Tufnall (34 L. T. Rep. 838; 3 Ch. Div. 164) it was held that every officer holds his office subject to the will of the Crown, and is liable to be dismissed at any moment without cause assigned: and there is no such thing as a military appointment permanent in the sense of being tenable for life, or until the holder is disqualified by misconduct or incapacity from fulfilling the duties attaching to it. Moreover, in the case of Mitchell v. The Queen (1896) 1 Q. B. 121, n. ; 6 Times L. Rep. 181, 332), Lord Justice Fry said, “I am clearly of opinion that no engagement between the Crown and any of its military or naval officers, in respect of services either present, past, or future, can be enforced in any court of law.” This definite reference to the naval service is important, as an officer in the navy is not appointed directly by the Crown, but holds a commission from the Lords of the Admiralty.

This disposes of the naval and military services. What is the position of public servants under a Colonial Government. In the case of Shenton v. Smith (72 L. T. Rep. 130; (1895) A. C. 229) their position was accurately defined by Lord Hobhouse, who said : “ Neither principle nor authority has been adduced to show that in the employment and dismissal of public servants a Colonial Government stands on any different footing than the Home Government." The case, moreover, decided that, in the absence of special contract, the servants of a Colonial Government hold their offices during the pleasure of the Crown. This case is, perhaps, not entirely satisfactory, as it might possibly be inferred from it that contracts for service entered into with the Crown could be enforced against the Crown, whereas it seems clear from other authorities that the Crown can determine any contract at its pleasure. In the case of De Dohsé v. The Queen (73 L. T. Rep. 687; (1896) 1 Q.B. 118) the House of Lords decided that, even if the Crown actually concluded a contract, there must be held to be imported into it the condition that the Crown has the power to dismiss. “If any authority representing the Crown were to exclude such a power by express stipulation, that would be a violation of the public policy of the country, and could not derogate from the power of the Crown”: (Lord Watson). This was a case of military service, and Lord Esher, in the court below, said: “All service under the Crown itself is public service, and to my mind it is most likely that the doctrine, which is said to be confined to military service, applies to all public service under the Crown, because all public service under the Crown is for the public benefit.” In the case of Dunn v. The Queen (73 L. T. Rep. 695; (1896) 1 Q.B. 116), it was held that civil, as well as military, servants of the Crown came under the rule that the Crown could dismiss at pleasure. “I take it that persons employed, as the petitioner was, in the service of the Crown, except in cases where there is some statutory provision for a higher tenure of office, are ordinarily engaged on the nnderstanding that they hold their employment at the pleasure of the Crown. So I think that there must be imported into the contract for the employment of the petitioner” (who had been engaged by Sir Claude Macdonald as a consular agent for three years certain)“ the term which is applicable to civil servants in general, namely, that the Crown may put an end to the employment at its pleasure”: (Lord Herschell). It may, therefore, be asserted as a general principle, to which there are certain exceptions, that no contractual engagement as to service entered into by the Crown can be enforced in any court of law. The prerogative of the Crown as to dismissal certainly extends to India, and in the case of Grant v. Secretary of State for India (37 L. T. Rep. 188; 2 C. P. Div. 445), Mr. Justice Grove, in his exhaustive and luminous judgment, shows that the Crown waives no rights where it has delegated powers to a body like the East India Company, and has subsequently resumed those powers. It is important also to note that, under the Acts regulating the superannuation allowances of the Civil Service, the decision of the Commissioners of the Treasury as to the amount of the allowance is final, and no court of law has jurisdiction in the matter : (Cooper v. The Queen, 42 L. T. Rep. 617; 14 Ch. Div. 311).

The position of judges, members of the Council of India, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General is somewhat complicated, but it really amounts to this : "Such officers hold, as regards the Crown, during good behaviour; as regards Parliament, at pleasure”: (Anson). Such double control is valuable.

LEASES BY TENANTS FOR LIFE. A TENANT for life can lease the settled land for ninety-nine years by way of building lease, sixty years by way of mining lease, or twenty-one years by way of any other kind of lease : (Settled Land Act 1882, s. 6). The lease must take effect in possession not later than twelve months after its date (sect. 7), and reserve the best rent that can reasonably be obtained, regard being had to any fine taken, and to any money laid out or to be laid out for the benefit of the settled land, and generally to the circumstances of the case (sub-sect. 2). As it was not stated what was to be done with any fine, the 4th section of the Act of 1884 enacted that the fines were to be deemed capital money. Capital money has to be paid to the trustees for the benefit of all persons interested under the settlement, and therefore a fine can be taken in the case of these leases, although forbidden in leases by mortgagors or mortgagees under the 18th section of the Conveyancing Act 1881. If the lease of the settled land does not conform to the provisions of the Act, the lease, though it be binding by way of estoppel for the life of the tenant for life, cannot bind the persons interested in remainder under the settlement. Thus in the recent case of Chandler v. Bradley (noted ante, p. 156) the tenant for life received a sum of money in order to induce him to grant a lease of the settled property, and he granted the lease. The lessee, on his lease being impeached, offered subsequently to pay to the trustees a similar sum, which was to be regarded as a fine, if that would save it. The Court held that, as the tenant for life had received a bribe for granting the lease, it was ipso facto bad as against the remaindermen. It cannot be too often repeated that a tenant for life, in exercising any powers under the Settled Land Acts, must “ have regard to the interests of all parties entitled under the settlement, and shall, in relation to the exercise thereof by him, be deemed to be in the position, and to have the duties and liabilities of a trustee for those parties”: (Settled Land Act 1882, s. 53). He is one of the parties entitled under the settlement, and therefore he can have regard to his own interests as well as those of others; but, in taking a bribe, he had evid considered only his own interest to the exclusion of that of others.

The late Duke of Sutherland tried an ingenious plan for giving his widow an interest in the settled property (of which he was tenant for life) after his death by renewing leases every few years, so as to ensure that so far as possible the terms should begin to run as from his death : (Douager Duchess of Sutherland v. Duke of Sutherland, 69 L. T. Rep. 186; (1893) 3 Ch. 169). The interests of all parties entitled under the settlement were clearly not considered there, as it was an attempt to take away part of the interest of the remainderman, and Mr. Justice Romer held the leases to be invalid. It was also argued in that case that the leases were necessarily bad, as they were made to the wife of the tenant for life ; but his Lordship said that he was by no means prepared to accede to that argument. Still, if the tenant for life and his wife are living together, it requires some strong evidence to show that the lease to her is granted for the benefit of the estate, and not in order to give her an interest which she would not otherwise have.

Though the tenant for life is regarded as a trustee, the policy of the Act is take his word to a considerable extent. Accordingly, we find that

a statement contained in a lease or in an indorsement thereon, signed by the tenant for life, respecting any matter of fact or of calculation under this Act in relation to the lease, shall, in favour of the lessee and of those claiming under him, be sufficient evidence of the matter stated ”: (sect. 7, sub-sect. 5).

In Wolstenholme, Brinton, and Cherry's work (7th edit., p. 307) instances of these statements are given, namely, an indorsement that money covenanted by the lessee to be laid out has been laid out, and a recital in a building lease that the rent reserved does not exceed onefifth of the full annual value of the land comprised therein with the

IRREVOCABLE VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENTS. It is important in voluntary settlements that the beneficiaries should be able to show, in case the transaction is called in question, that the settlor had full knowledge of what he was doing. Thus, if any unusual clause is to be inserted its effect should be carefully explained to him : (Phillips v. Mullings, L. Rep. 7 Ch. 244). The same is true if any usual clause is omitted. This is especially the case where the settlement is made irrevocable. It is usual, in voluntary settlements, to reserve to the settlor either a power of revocation, or a power to appoint as he wishes in case of the failure of issue or of the immediate objects of the settlement in his lifetime : (James v. Couchman, 52 L. T. Rep. 344 ; 29 Ch. Div. 212). Davidson (3rd edit., vol. 3, part 1, p. 695) says : · Voluntary settlements are mostly executed with the view to their having a quasi-testamentary operation, and being revocable if the settlor should desire to make

« EelmineJätka »