Page images

RHODES (Deborah), Spring-la, Eldwick, near Bingley, Yorkshire, widow. March 12;

J. Bedford, solicitor, Myrtle-pl. Bingley. SIMPSON (George), 51, Monkgate, York, gentleman. March 10: J. A. Sbaftoe, solici

tor, Bland's-ct, Coney-st, York. SCOTT (Forster), Matfen Low Hall, Corbridge, Northumberland, farmer. March 3;

E. Clark, solicitor, Market-la, Pilgrim-st, Newcastle-on-Tyne. SHAW (Robert), Colne Hall, Colne, Lancashire, gentleman. March 25; Hartley and

Pilgrim, solicitors, Colne, Lancasbire. SWIFT (Thomas), Parliament-row, Hanley, Staffordshire, draper. Feb. 27; Challinors,

solicitors, Hanley. STATHAM (John Henry), 94, Abbotsford-st, formerly of 92, Robin Hood's Chase, both

in Nottingham, builder. March 5; J. C. Warren, solicitor, Weekday Cross,

Nottingham. SCHMIDT (Gottfried), 19, Lexington-st, Golden-sq, tailor. March 3; H. T. Triemer,

solicitor, 3, Pinner's-ct, Old Broad-st. STAGG (Mary White), 3, Malvern-villas, Yardley-rd, Acocks Green, Worcestershire,

widow. Feb. 28; Powell and Browett, solicitors, 104, Colmore-row, Birmingham. SUTTON (Thomas), 77, Hibbert-st, Bolton, Lancashire, provision dealer. March 25 ;

J. Yates, -olicitor, 35, Chapel-st, Southport, STONE (William Henry), Lower House, Thursley, Godalming, Surrey, formerly of

Lea Park, Godalming, gentleman, March 4; Sandilands and Co., solicitors, 12,

Fenchurch-avenue. SMITH (Amy), Bath, Somersetshire, formerly of Caterham, Surrey, widow of the late

David Macdonald Smith, Esq., R.N. March 16; Hulbert, Hussey, and Metcalfe,

solicitors, 10, New-sq, Lincoln's-inn. SMITH (John Musgrave), the Travellers' Rest inn, Crossgates, near Leeds, beerhouse

keeper. March 6; Middleton and Sons, solicitors, Calrerley-chmbrs, Victoria-sq,

Leeds. SPEAKMAN (Thomas), Coal Gate Farm, Wrightington, Lancashire, yeoman.

March 25; T. B. Rowe, solicitor, Observer-chmbrs, 27, Wallgate, Wigan. SHERIDAN (James), 124, Acomb-st, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Manchester, Lancashire,

and of 19, St. Ann's-sq, Manchester, boot and shoe manufacturer. March 31

W. H. Todd, solicitor, 82, Market-st, Manchester. SOANE (Dorothy Louisa), 42, Alma-ter, Hastings, Sussex, widow. March 7; Young,

Son, and Coles, solicitors, Bank-bldgs, Hastings. TOWNSEND (Archibald Constable), Coleman House, Broadway, and of 28th Street,

New York, both in the U.S. of America, journalist. March 8; J. Indermaur and

F. W. F. Brown, solicitors, 22, Chancery-la. TEBBUTT (Caroline), Melton Mowbray, Leicester, widow. March 1; Latham and New,

solicitors, 8, High-st, Melton Mowbray. THOMPSON (Frederick), sen., 40 and 41, Adrian-st, Dover, Kent, licensed hawker.

March 20; Lewis and Pain, solicitors, 7, Castle-st, Dover. TAYLOR (John William), Home Farm, Lower Green, Speldhurst, Kent, farmer.

March 1: T. Buss, solicitor, Tunbridge Wells, Kent. VARDEN (Elizabeth Susannah), 28, George-st, Euston-sq, widow, formerly of 5,

Farquhar-rd, Upper Norwood, Surrey. April 5; Pilgrim and Phillips, solicitors,

17, Coleman-st. WILLCOCK (Stephen Cleverley), formerly of Durnford-et, Stonehouse, late of Bideford,

Devon, gentleman. March 24 ; Rooker and Bazeley, solicitors, Bideford, Devon. WILKINSON (Hannah), 462, Glossop-rd, Sheffield, spinster, boot and shoe dealer.

March 16; W. Irons, solicitor, 10, St. James-st, Sheffield. WINGFIELD (Susanna), 6. Sillwood-pl, Brighton, Sussex, spinster. April 1; Stuckey,

Son, and Pope, solicitors, 4, Princes'-pl, North-st. Brighton. WHYTE (Arthur Walter James), Linares, Jaen, Spain, British vice-consul. April 3;

E. F. B. Harston, solicitor, 4, Bishopsgate-st Within. WAITELOCK (John Lupton), Black Lion hotel, Mill Hill, Leeds, innkeeper. April 14;

Wilkinson and Garland, solicitors, 8, East-parade, Leeds.

Bewn (Samuel), Spotland-rd, Rochdale, Lancashire, painter and decorator. March 13;

Standring, Taylor, and Standring, solicitors, King-st, Rochdale. BEUZEMAKER (James Jeremiah), 87. Southampton-row. March 1; Longbourne,

Stevens, and Powell, solicitors, 7, Lincoln's-inn-flds. BROWN (Thomas Wibrow), Ilseham, Cambridgeshire, builder. March 1; T. P.

Bendall, solicitor, Newmarket, Cambridgeshire. CARR (Dr. Henry Wilkinson), 16, Greville-rd, Kilburn. March 1; E. S. Carr, solicitor,

325, High Holborn. CLEMENTS (Joseph), Arkwright-st. Nottingham. March 4; H. H. Carter, solicitor,

Eldon-chmbrs, Wheeler-gate, Nottingham. COLES (Arnold), Yeovil, Somersetshire, surgeon. March 19; W. March, solicitor,

Yeovil. CAMROUX (Ferdinand Ferguson), 189, Cromwell-rd, S.W., formerly of Vanbrugh

Park, Blackheath. April 2 ; Thrupp and Chidell, solicitors, 89, New Bond-st. CLEMENTS (Jane Killin), Castlereagh, Richmond-rd. Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey,

widow. Feb. 27; W. H. Parslow, 117, Richmond Park-rd, Kingston-on-Thames.

T. J. Robinson, solicitor, , Furnival's-inn. CASSON (William), Kibworth Beauchamp, Leicestershire, retired surgeon. March 31;

A. Baines, Esq., one of the execrtors, Rostherne, Leicester. Wade, Bilbrough,

Booth, and Co., solicitors, 8, Piccadilly, Bradford. CROSSLING (Thomas), 1, Percy-ter, and of 85, Clayton-st, both in Newcastle-upon

Tyne, glass merchant, or his widow, CROSSLING (Sarah Rebecca), late of 1, Percy

ter. March 8; Arnott, Swan, and Walker, solicitors, 21, Pilgrim-st, Newcastle. CROSSLING (Sarah Rebecca), formerly of 1, Percy-ter, late of 15, Lilv-cres, both in

Newcastle-upon-Tyne, spinster. March 8; Arnott, Swan, and Walker, solicitors,

21, Pilgrim-st, Newcastle. COOKSON (Cornelius), 38, Wright-st, Greenbeys, and of the Princess tavern, East-st,

both in Manchester, beer retailer. March 20; Charles Heywood, Son, and Hudson,

solicitors, 3, Mount-st. Albert-sq, Manchester. COHEN, otherwise BLIND (Mathilde), the Poplars, 20, Avenue-rd, Regent's Park, and of

96, Belgrave-rd. March 22; R. S. Garnett, solicitor, 27, West-hill, Highgate. DEACON (James William), formerly of 2, Bruce-villas, Manor-rd, Lea Bridge-rd,

Leyton, Essex, late of 2, Eldon-st, Chatham, Kent, March 3; Fowler, Perks,

and Co., so icitors, 9, Clement's-la, Lombard-st. EXGLEHEART (Eliza Anne), Eye, Suffolk, spinster. Feb. 27; Sprott and Morris,

solicitor, Shrewsbury. FLACK (James Michael), 3, Broadway, Stratford. Essex, provision merchant.

March 3; G. E. Philbrick, Girdler's Hall, 39, Basinghall-st, agent for Messrs.

Haynes and Co., solicitors, 113, Bow-rd. FERRIS (George), New-rd, Chippenham, Wiltshire, gentleman. March 1; Wood and

Awdry, solicitors, Chippenham. FIT PATRICK (Annie), formerly of Cathay, Uxbridge-rd, Ealing, afterwards of

24. Chepstow-pl, Bayswater, widow. March 15; J. H. Bird, solicitor, 2, Gresham

bldgs, Guildhall. FEBRAND (Hon. Fanny Mary), 41, Berkeley-sq, and of Villa Maurice Alice, Cannes,

France, widow. March 25; Mason, Edwards, and Mason, solicitors, 70, Lincoln's

ipn-flds. GABBUTT (Henry), 13, Regent-ter, Kingston-upon-Hull, gentleman. April 1; Middle

miss and Pearce, solicitors, 11, Parliament-st, Kingston-upon-Hull. GILLER (Henry John), 21, Bartlett's-bldgy, Holborn, and of 89, Bremfelde-rd. Clapham,

Surrey, commercial agent. March 5; P. G. Robinson, solicitor, 7, King's-bench

walk, Temple, GODMAN (Joseph), Park Hatch, Godalming, Surrey, and of 55, Lowndes-sq, gentle

man. March 18; Park, Nelson, Morgan, and Ferguson Davie, solicitors, 11,

Essex-st, Strand.
GOSDEN (Mary Ann) Swiss Cottage public house, King's-rd, Chelsea.

Feb. 28;
Blackford, Riches, and Norton, solicitors, 15, Walbrook.
GREENHILL (Emma), 13, St. Mary's-ter, Paddington, spinster. March 3; T. H

Meynell, solicitor. 37, Furnival-st. GILLMAN (William Hobbs), formerly of 25, George-st, late of King-st-parade, both in

Stroud, Gloucestershire, hosier. Aprill; Winterbotham and Sons, solicitors, 5,

Rowcroft, Stroud, Gloucestersbire. GARTON (Thomas), formerly of 22. Cedar's-rd, Clapham, Surrey, gentleman, March 13; Neish, Howell, and Macfarlane, solicitors, 66,

Watling-st. GOSLING (William), 268, Sherlock-st, and 136, Pershore-rd, both in Birmingham,

cooper and packing-case maker. March 9; G. Huggins, solicitor, 63, Temple

row, Birmingham. HARRISON (James), Woodlands, Cromptons-la, Wavertree, near Liverpool, Lanca

shire, gentleman. March 15; Payne and Frodsham, solicitors, 7, Harrington-st,

Liverpool. HUGHES (Joseph), Middle Crane-st, Chester, gentleman. March 1; Sharpe and

Davison, solicitors, 12, Abbey-sq. Chester. HOLDAWAY (Sarah), 12, Carlton-pl, Soutbampton, spinster. March 15; A. C. Hallett,

solicitor, 28, Portland-st, Southampton. HANSON (Charles), 171, Abbey-st, Derby, pork butcher. April 1; J. and W. H. Sale

and Son, solicitors, Market-pl, Derby. HARTLEY (James), Wortley, Leeds, Yorkshire, woollen-cloth manufacturer. April 9;

Addyman and Kaye, solicitors, 15, East-parade, Leeds. IRELAND (Mary Ellen), Downton, near Shrewsbury, Shropshire, spinster. March 1;

Sprott and Morris, solicitors, Shrewsbury. KEMPE (Ellen Wason), Rue Clairal, Bergerac, Dordogne, France, formerly of Bakewell,

Derbyshire, and of Liverpool, Lancashire, spinster. March 18; Belfrage and Co.,

solicitors, 35, John-st, Bedford-row. KYDD (James), 116, Hampton-rd, Forest Gate. Essex, builder. March 20; Baylis and

Pearce, solicitors, Church-ct-chmbrs, Old Jewry. LOWE (Ann) Northwood, Alpass-rd, St. Michael's, Liverpool. April 2 ; J. A. O'Hare,

solicitor, Venice-chmbrs, 61, Lord-st, Liverpool. LAIDLAW (John), Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, gentleman March 18; Little and

Mills, solicitors, Stroud. LLOYD (Margaret), St. Catherine's, St. Mary Church, Torquay, Devon, spinster.

March 9: Tozer, Whidborne, and Tozer, solicitors. Teignmouth. MEADOWS (William Heather), Villa des Prairies, Deauville, France, and of 45, Rue

Jouffray, Paris, and Conholt Park, Wiltshire, gentleman. March 9; Dawson,

Bennett, and Ryde, solicitors, 2, New-sq, Lincoln's-inn. MUNCEY (Richard), 40, Marylands-rd, St. Peter's Park, Paddington. Feb. 17; Plun

kett and Leader, solicitors, 60, St. Paul's-churchyard. MICHELL (Amelia), 3, Hillmorton-rd, Rugby, Warwickshire, widow of the Rev.

Richard Michell, D.D. Feb, 24; Morrell and Son, solicitors, St. Giles, Oxford. MOLLERUS-LE CHAMPION (Caroline Muriel Valencia), 64, Redcliffe-sq, wife of Loftus

Charles de Launay Mollerus Le Champion. March 6; Lewis and Lewis, solicitors,

Ely-pl, Holborn. NATHAN (Edward), Broombill Lodge, Burnaby-rd, Alum Chine, Bournemouth, Hamp

shire. March 6; Freeman and Son, solicitors, 7, Foster-la, Cheapside. NOADE (James), formerly of Bumble Hole, Dudley, Worcestershire, late of 46,

Florence-rd, Handsworth, Staffordshire, gentleman. March 4; J. Davies,

solicitor, Netherton, Dudley. NUTTALL (Lettice), Goosnargh-la, Goosnargh, formerly of Jacob's Farm, Goosnargh,

Lancashire, spinster. March 6; J.J. Dallas, solicitor, 7, Guildhall-st, Preston. NORRIS (Stephen Perceval), Burley Lodge, Bath-rd, Bournemouth, Southampton,

gentleman, formerly of New Broad-st and Blomfield-st, London. April 6;

Porter. Sandford, and Kilvington, solicitors, 36, King-st, Cheapside. NEILL (William Alexander). formerly of 28. Davies-st, Berkeley-sq, barrister-at-law.

March 19; Leslie, Antill, and Arnold, solicitors, 1, Gresham-bldgs, Basing

hall-at. PONTIFEX (William), Chilworth Manor, Chilworth. Surrey. March 16; Pontifex,

Hewitt, and Pitt, solicitors, 16, St. Andrew-st, Holborn Circus. PENGELLY (James), 16, Leigham-st, and of 2, Millbay-rd, Plymouth, Devonshire,

shipping agent. March 15; Bulteel, Rowe, and Munday, solicitors, Mulgrave-st,

Plymouth. PARKINSON (Margaret Smith), Belgrave House, Scarborough, Yorkshire, widow.

March 3: Swainson, Son, and Roper, solicitors, Bank bldgs, Lancaster. RISCH (Carl Hermann Gustav), 23, Westcombe-ter, Blackheath, formerly of Belvedere

Cottage, Lansdowne-rd, Charlton, telegraph engineer. June 24; A. W. Stone, solicitor, 83, Powis-et, Woolwich.

COMMERCIAL FAILURES AND BILLS OF SALE.- According to Stubbs Weekly Gazette, the number of failures in England and Wales gazetted during the week ending the 6th Feb. was 165. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 160, showing an increase of 5. The number of bills of sale in England and Wales registered at the Queen's Bench for the week ending the 6th Feb. was 156. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 172.



DISTRICT. The following address was delivered by Mr. Walter Scott, the president, at the annual ordinary general meeting of the society, held the 21st Jan. :

"In venturing to follow some of the former presidents of this society in the delivery of an address to the members at the close of the society's year, I do not presume to suppose that I can say anything which will be new or beneficial, but I think that a few remarks, though only superficial, on the events of the year which are of chief interest to our Profession, will not be inappropriate to the occasion. First, I should like to state to the members generally that I highly appreciate the honour which was paid me by the committee in asking me to become president of the society for the year which has now closed. It is true that the feeling of pleasure with which I received the invitation was somewhat tempered by the recollection that my personality had not much to do with my being selected, but that the chief reason for the honour bestowed on me consisted in a fact which I could reflect upon with somewhat mixed and sobered feelings, namely, the fact that, with one or two exceptions, I was the senior member of the Profession in Cardiff who had not served in this honourable office. I have had the curiosity to compare the list of Cardiff solicitors for the year upon which we are just entering with that. for the year 1869, in which I first entered upon the Legal Profession by becoming articled to my late dear friend and partner, Sir Morgan Morgan. In that year, 1869, I find thirty-four solicitors only on the list, while this year the number is 147. This extraordinary increase to more than four times the number in twenty-eight years, is an evidence of the contemporaneous growth of this busy town. But I sorrowfully notice that of the thirty-four here in 1869, ten only are now with us.

In the past year we have had to regret several gaps in our profession caused by death. Immediately after our last annual meeting we lost our valued hon. treasurer, Mr. H. F. Lynch-Blosse, who had most efficiently discharged the duties of that office from the first formation of the society in 1886. Shortly afterwards, we were all deeply grieved by the comparatively

sudden death of Mr. Daniel Rees, the highly esteemed clerk to the borough magistrates. More recently, we have heard with regret of the death, after a long illness, of Mr. J. T. Coe. But these gaps have been filled many times over by the accession of new members, and I am glad to know that our articled clerks are not only strong in numbers, but are also up and doing for their own benefit. The recent establishment of the Cardiff Law Students' Debating Society, is, I think, likely to be most useful to those clerks who avail themselves of its opportunities. It is true that we have seen several such societies started in former years, and that their life has in each instance been short. But I do not think that this means they have not been aseful. It is inevitable that as those who form and take the chief part in such a society complete the term of their articles, and are no longer articled clerks, their retirement should weaken and probably cause the death of the society. But while it exists, it undoubtedly is a means of improving one's method of speaking and arranging ideas.

In considering what professional subjects of interest there were in the past year, one naturally turns first to the legislative proceedings of Parliament. No Act of first-class importance was enacted in the past session. The most important to lawyers is the Judicial Trustee Act, which creates a person heretofore unknown to the law. The Act gives to any person intending to create a trust, any beneficiary, or any existing trustee (in which term is to be included executors and administrators) the power to apply to the High Court, or to such County Courts as may be specially authorised, for the appointment of a judicial trustee to act either alone or jointly with a trustee or trustees already existing. The judicial trustee may be either a private person appointed on the nomination of the appli. cant or an official of the court. He may receive remuneration out of the estate, and is to have his accounts audited by the prescribed persons (who these are to be has not yet appeared), and may be required to give security, anless he is a court official. The entire working machinery of the Act is apparently to be supplied by rules made by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence, so far as solicitors' remuneration is concerned, of the rule authority constituted ander the Solicitors' Remuneration Act 1881. It is, perhaps, questionable how far this system of legislation by rules, which is nowadays so frequently adopted by Parliament, is preferable to the embodiment of all necessary provisions in the Act itself. Possibly legislation by rule, being outside the contentious atmosphere of the House of Commons, is more expeditious, but the old-fashioned way certainly produced a more compact and complete measure. A clause of very great importance to trustees generally is introduced into this Judicial Trustee Act. I refer to sect. 3, which empowers the court to relieve any trustee from liability for a breach of trust where he has acted honestly and reasonably and ought fairly to be excused. The section applies to all trustees, and is retrospective, and will doubtless be beneficial in many cases where, before the Act, a trustee, having acted in perfect good faith, would have been obliged to make good some loss of the trust fands, and thereby sustained great hardship.

“ Among the other Acts of the session we find two relating to legal practice—the Burglary Act, which relieves assizes by permitting simple cases of burglary to be tried at Quarter Sessions, and the Vexatious Actions Act, which provided a somewhat cumbroas mode of stopping persistent litigants with fanciful causes of action. It is doubtful whether this Act will be of much practical use, as the inherent jurisdiction of the court provides a simpler and sufficiently efficacious way of dealing with all ordinary cases of this kind. I may also mention the Finance Act, which endeavours to mitigate some hard cases found to arise under the Act of 1894, and the Friendly Societies Act, which, with its companion, the Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, forms an addition to the useful list of consolidating statutes which are gradually being added to our statute book. The other legislation of the session does not appear to call for notice on this occasion. The clumsy practice of renewing certain Acts year by year by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act is again adopted, and among the numerous Acts which depend for their continued existence upon this annual renewal we find the Ballot Act, the Employers' Liability Act, several Acts relating to Parliamentary election procedure and the prevention of corrupt practices, the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, and many others which are in constant use. It is difficult to see why these Acts, which are nearly all well tried measures that have obtained universal approval, are not at once made permanent.

“Of the Bills which were brought into Parliament, but not proceeded with, I do not propose to speak, as such measures as the Land Transfer Bill, Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill, Joint Stock Companies Bill, and others have been so often and so fully discussed, that I doubt whether anything new can be said about them. The London Law Society prepared and intended to introduce a bill having for its ebject the reversal of the rule established by the case of Reg. v. His Honour Judge Snagge, which decided that a duly admitted solicitor could not, while employed as clerk by another, personally conduct a County Court case for his principal. The society's bill provides not only for the right of audience of a solicitor in such a case as this, but goes further and sanctions the employment of one solicitor by another as advocate. This last provision will doubtless be considered an infringement of the rights of counsel, and will meet with considerable opposition from the Bar. It would be of great use to solicitors, but the other part of the Bill allowing a solicitor acting as clerk to another to conduct his principal's case is absolutely necessary, and we have all found the great inconvenience caused by the Oxford case. It is hoped that the Bill will be introduced in the coming session, and that this part of it, if not the whole, may become law.

“I am glad to know that nearly all the members of our profession in actual practice in Cardiff are members of this society, and I am sure that the existence of the society has been, and will continue to be, of the very greatest benefit to us.

“I should like to take this opportunity of commending to the notice of those who are not already members of the chief society, the Incorporated

Law Society of the United Kingdom, the desirability of joining it. It is by combination in this manner that solicitors can best advance the interests of their own profession, and also secure for their views on legal matters and legislation affecting the public welfare, proper representation and full consideration. It is sometimes said that the London society does not do as much for solicitors, or at all events for country solicitors, as it could and ought. It would be difficult to find any society or individual of whom it could be said that it or he had done all that could and ought to be done, but I am satisfied that the London society has at all events done a great deal of good in many ways for our profession, and deserves much greater support than it at present receives from country solicitors. I had the pleasure and advantage of attending the annual provincial meeting of the society held in Birmingham in October last, and I can assure those who have not attended any of these gatherings, that a great deal of useful work is done thereat, and very considerable benefit may be gained by hearing the discussions on the various subjects brought before the meeting, and in exchanging views with the members attending. I should much like to see our own society in a position to invite the London society to hold one of these annual gatherings at Cardiff, and I trust it may soon be found possible to do this. The result would be substantially beneficial to our town, and to our profession in it.

“ While referring to the Birmingham meeting, I should like to call attention to one of the many resolutions passed on that occasion. A paper was read on the past and present modes of administration of estates of debtors,' and a very interesting discussion followed, which resulted in the passing of the following resolution unanimously : That this meeting is of opinion that the administration of assets by the Board of Trade in cases of bankruptcy, and under the Companies' Winding-up Acts, has proved unsatisfactory, and should not be continued.'

“It would take too long to repeat the arguments of the various speakers, but the universal tendency was to deprecate the present system of official interference, and to recommend a return to a system somewhat similar to that in force under the 1869 Act, but with sufficient safeguards against the abuses to which that system was found to lend itself. A strong opinion was also expressed in favour of some provision for enabling a large majority of creditors to bind a small minority in dealing with insolvent estates by means of a deed of arrangement. These views met with the unanimous support of the members present (several hundred in number), and they will, I think, commend themselves to those of us who have had much bankruptcy practice.

A matter which has recently engaged a good deal of attention at meetings of the Legal Profession is the desirability of shortening or otherwise altering the Long Vacation. This is perhaps a subject of greater importance to London than to provincial practitioners, but it certainly does seem anomalous in these days that the public courts should be almost entirely closed for nearly three months at one time in addition to several days at Easter, Wbitsuntide, and Christmas. A feeling appears to be pretty generally entertained that the Long Vacation could very well be shortened and at the same time placed a little earlier in the year. If it were to commence at the end of July and end about the third week in September, it would, I think, be both beneficial to the public interest and also be convenient to the judges and the Profession generally.

“ Another subject of professional interest which I should like to touch upon is that of the distinction drawn between party and party and solicitor and client costs. I am aware that this subject has been discussed over and over again, and I only trouble you with a passing reference to it, because I consider that it should be kept in view and pressed, when opportunity offers, upon the notice of those in anthority. The distinction is both unfair and unreasonable. An aggrieved suitor brings an action and obtains his remedy. To ensure this result much work is done by the plaintiff's solicitor, and that it is properly and necessarily done is shown by the charges for it being allowed on a taxation of the costs as between himself and his own client; and yet, when the costs of the action are taxed against the unsuccessful party, a substantial portion of the charges is disallowed as not being party and party costs, and the winner in the action has to pay the expense of work which could not with safety have been left undone. I firmly believe that the necessity thus unfairly thrown upon solicitors of going to their clients with a bill of extra costs is one of the causes for the aversion now shown by the public for litigation. They abandon their just rights because they will have to pay a substantial portion of the cost of enforcing them, and then the poor solicitor has to bear the blame. The public cannot understand, and neither can I, why the wrongdoer should not bear the whole of the reasonable cost of setting the wrong right. I feel strongly that it is of great importance to our clients as well as to ourselves that this state of things should be altered.

“At our last annual meeting some of our Barry friends were inclined to complain of our committee for having expressed the opinion that a separate County Court at Barry was unnecessary. During the past year the subject has again engaged the attention of the committee, though in a somewhat different form. The committee have not been asked to alter the opinion previously expressed, and it is not necessary for me to say whether they would have done so or not. The point now put before them arose out of a suggestion that the new Barry Court, if formed, should be attached to the Swansea and Bridgend Circuit instead of to Cardiff. This suggestion was at once objected to, and a statement of facts and figures was laid before the Lord Chancellor, in order that, if the new court were formed, it should be kept in the Cardiff and Newport Circuit, and matters equalised by transferring some of the smaller coarts now included in that circuit to the surrounding ones. Having regard to the close connection between Cardiff and Barry it is obviously undesirable that they should be on different circuits. Up to the present time, however, the Lord Chancellor does not appear to have considered that the establishment of the proposed separate court is called for.

CORRESPONDENCE. This department being open to free discussion on all Professional topics, the Editor

does not hold himself responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it.

“ In conclusion, I must repeat what has been said by all former presidents of this society, but still cannot be said too often or too emphati. cally, and that is, that the society is enabled to continue a useful career mainly by the indefatigable efforts and unceasing diligence and care of our honorary secretary, Mr. G. F. Hill. Personally I have found, as my predecessors have found, that his exertions render the office of president some. thing like a sinecure, and the work probably is consequently all the more efficiently performed. For his courteous and all sufficient assistance I tender him my most hearty thanks. I have also to offer to you, gentlemen, my thanks for the patience and kindness with which you have listened to this address.”

[ocr errors]

UNITED LAW SOCIETY. On Monday, the 8th inst., Mr. C. W. Williams in the chair, Dr. C. Herbert Smith opened a debate on the motion “ That this society disapproves of compulsory vaccination.” Mr. A. H. Richardson opposed, and moved an amendment: “That this society is of opinion that the revaccination of children between the ages of ten and fourteen should be made compulsory by law.” Messrs. C. Kains-Jackson, N. Tebbutt, F. J. Lampard, W. S. Sherrington, E. W. Sinclair Cox, and P. H. Edwards also spoke on the subject, and Dr. Smith replied. The result of the votes taken in conclusion was that the original motion was lost by four votes, and the amendment by two.


HARDWICKE SOCIETY. The weekly meeting was held in the Inner Temple Lecture Hall, King's Bench Walk, on Friday, the 5th inst. Sir Herbert Stephen moved and Sir Harry Poland, Q.C. opposed the following resolution : “ That persons accused of crime, and tried before juries, ought not to be competent witnesses in their own cases.' The motion was carried.

UNION SOCIETY OF LONDON. The society met at the Inner Temple Lecture Hall on Wednesday evening, the 10th inst.; Mr. J. Arthur Price, president, in the chair. After the reading of the minutes and the disposal of private business, Mr. Wm, Allan, M.P., brought forward the motion on the agenda paper, viz. : “ That this house calls upon Her Majesty's Government to increase the strength of the army and navy without further delay.” Speakers : For the motion, Messrs. Wm. Allan, M.P., Copeland, Sherwood, and Hildesheimer; against, Messrs. Jenks and Kinipple. The motion was carried.

THE LAW RELATING TO BILLS OF SALE.-The announcement in the Queen's Speech that a measure has been prepared to amend the Bills of Sale Acts will, I hope, justify me in addressing you on that obscure bat important subject. I do not propose to discuss the manner in which the existing Acts can most usefully be amended, nor shall I attempt to apportion between the Legislature and the Legal Profession the responsibility for the present state of the law. My object is to draw attention to a remarkable feature of the statutory form of a bill of sale, prescribed by the schedule to the Act of 1882, which appears to have been generally overlooked. It was decided by one division of the Court of Appeal, in 1893, that if the grantor of a bill of sale fails to pay the debt thereby secured at the time stipulated in the bill of sale for payment, and does not apply to the court for relief within five days after seizure, he cannot afterwards redeem the chattels except by bringing a suit for redemption : (Johnson v. Diprose, 68 L. T. 485; (1893) 1 Q. B. 512). It was subsequently decided by the other division of the Court of Appeal that the grantor has no right to redeem by paying the money before the stipulated date or dates of payment; and this point seems to have been considered so obvious that no reporter thought it worth while to report the decision. I have been gradually forced to the conclusion that these decisions are founded on erroneous interpretation of the statutory form, and that the Profession generally have misconceived the nature of the grantor's right to redeem. The whole question of the right to redeem turns upon the interpretation of two clauses in the statutory form. By the first of these clauses the grantor assigns the chattels" by way of security for the payment of the sum of £ and interest thereon at the rate of per cent. per annum (or whatever else may be the rate]

This clause, as I bave elsewhere endeavoured to show, forms the condition of the bill of sale, which qualifies or restrains the title of the grantee. It is equivalent in its legal effect to a proviso for redemption; and it contains no restriction whatever as to the time when the power to redeem may, or must, be exercised. The grantor, in assigning the chattels, reserves an unfettered right to defeat the assignment, and redeem the chattels, upon payment of the principal moneys secured by the bill of sale, with interest thereon at the specified rate. A condition in this form comes within the principle laid down in Plowden's Commentaries, p. 16: “If a man makes a feoffment in mortgage upon condition that if he pay to the mortgagee £20 that then he shall reenter; inasmuch as no day of payment is limited, the mortgagor may pay it when he pleases; for he is to have the benefit, viz., his land again (See also Howell v. Price, 1715, Finch, Prec. Ch. 423.) The second clause, which is in the nature of a further security, co-ordinate, not with the condition, but with the operative words of assignment, is the covenant for payment: “And the said A. B. doth further agree and declare that he will duly pay to the said C. D. the principal sum aforesaid, together with the interest then due, by equal payments of £

day of (or whatever else may be the stipulated times or time of payment]

This clause gives the grantee an additional remedy by action ; and it protects the grantor by prohibiting the grantee from requir. ing payment to be made “at a time to be ascertained by nothing but his mere choice and volition": (Hetherington v. Groome, 51 L. T. 412; (1884) 13 Q. B. Div. 789). According to the ordinary principles of legal interpretation, the condition and the covenant are independent. A breach of the covenant, though it entitles the grantee to take possession of the chattels under sect. 7 of the Act, does not work a breach of the condition. If the covenant for payment were contained in a separate bond, this would be too clear for argument. The fact that the two clauses are contained in the same deed can be no justification for cutting down the grantor's right of redemption by importing into the condition words which were inserted for his protection in the covenant for payment. The case of Brown v. Cole (1845) 14 L. J. 167, Ch.), which is cited in the text-books, has no bearing on this question; for in that case the day for repayment was specified in the proviso for redemption. It is hardly necessary to add that, if this reasoning is sound, the result is of the greatest importance. Not only is the grantor entitled to redeem at any time after the bill of sale has been executed, whether he is in default or not, and whether the chattels have been seized or not, but any attempt to fetter his right would apparently avoid the bill of sale under sect. 9 of the Act. Moreover, his right to redeem is a legal right, not only in its inception, but so long as the security subsists, and the refinements con. cerning an equity of redemption after condition broken, in which the Court of Appeal revelled in Johnson v. Diprose, may be brushed away without hesitation or regret. There may be a superadded equity for the purpose of giving validity to a second bill of sale, which at common law would operate only by estoppel ; but, in so far as concerns the relation between grantor and grantee, these equitable refinements seem altogether unnecessary and mischievous. It is perhaps a long time since anyone has said a good word for the much-abused statutory form ; but, if the view above expressed is right, the statutory form is in one respect a better form than has hitherto been supposed. By a simple technical device i secures a most desirable result which could not easily be attained in any


SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, London, on Wednesday, the 10th Feb., Mr. Lewis Fry, M.P. (Bristol) in the chair, the other directors present being : Messrs. W. H. Cockburn (Brighton), H. Morten Cotton (deputy chairman), Grantham R. Dodd, Wm. Geare, Samuel Harris (Leicester), Augustus Helder, M.P. (Whitehaven), John Hunter, John H. Kays, F. Rowley Parker, Richard Pennington, J.P., Henry Roscoe, Sidney Smith, Richard W. Tweedie, Frederic T. Woolbert, and J. T. Scott (secretary). A sum of £501 10s. was distributed in grants of relief; six new members were admitted to the association ; and other general business transacted. It was announced at this meeting that Sir John B. Monckton had consented to preside at the thirty-seventh anniversary dinner of the association to be held at the Hotel Cecil on Monday, the 24th May.

on the


PORATED LAW SOCIETY. The annual general meeting of this society was held at the Law Library, Pierpoint-street, Worcester, on Friday, the 29th Jan. The members present were : Messrs. A. J. Beauchamp (president), F. R. Jeffery (vicepresident), E. A. Davis, J. H. Yonge, W. W. A. Tree, T. Southall, T. G. Hyde, J. Stallard, J. Stallard, jun., A. E. Lord, J. L. Wood, A. A. Maund, W. T. Curtler, T. H. Gallaher, T. R. Quarrell, S. B. Garrard (hon. treasurer), and W. B. Hulme (hon. secretary). The annual report of the committee and the hon. treasurer's accounts for the past year were received and adopted, and the following officers of the society were elected for the ensuing year, namely: President, Mr. F. R. Jeffery ; vice-president, Mr. W. W. A. Tree; hon. treasurer, Mr. S. B. Garrard ; and hon. secretary, Mr. W. B. Hulme; Messrs. T. Southall, F. Corbett, E. A. Davis, J. H. Yonge, and A. J. Beauchamp were elected members of the committee, in addition to the officers of the society, and Messrs. G. F. S. Brown and W. T. Curtler were appointed auditors. Mr. A. P. Parker, solicitor, was unanimously elected a member of the society.


other way.

Queries. 25. STAMP.-Having regard to the decision in Hadgett v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (37 L. T. Rep. 612 ; 3 Ex. Div. 46), is a deed, whereby one of three trnstees is discharged from the trust under sect. 11 (1) of the Trnstee Act 1893, and also containing a release by him of the trust property to the two continuirg trustees, liable to two stamps of 10s. each, or only one?

R. L.

THE LEGAL PROFESSION-CERTIFICATE DUTY.—Your correspondent's article on the “Hedge Lawyer," which appeared in your issue of a few weeks ago, brings to view before the professional eye another ground of complaint which solicitors have, and from which they suffer and must continue to suffer, notwithstanding all the suggestions made and advice given by correspondents and outside critics. Wherefore should this be ?

referred to are men of ability and great experience, and do their work efficiently. I have had over twenty-five years' experience in Chancery practice, and have invariably met with practical ability, courtesy, civility, and assistance in chambers. The views I put forward are those held by the members of the council of this association (some of them men of forty years' standing), and all will esteem it a favour if you will be good enough to allow us to express them through your columns. It may occasionally happen in individual cases that delays arise, but, if so, they are almost invariably the result of the practice which prevails in these days of filling up vacancies by appointing gentlemen who (though they may be of great general ability) have no qualification for the particular post, instead of, as in the old days, filling them up by the appointment of solicitors' clerks of many years' standing.

ALFRED TURNER, Hon. Sec. Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association.

Simply because there is no union of the Profession, solicitors are too jealous of each other; too much engrossed with their own affairs, and have not the time nor probably the inclination to attend to business which is necessary for the general welfare of the whole Profession. Even assuming solicitors are alive to their own interests, all they appear to do is to write and talk about their grievances, and there the matter seems to end. I need only take one instance, viz., that relative to the annual payment for a certificate to practise. Prior to Christmas last letters appeared in your paper, couched in somewhat strong language, setting forth the bardship resulting from the imposition of this tax, and the injustice thereof. But what is the result? Things are as before with this exception: that the Irish solicitors appear to have moved in the matter so far as relates to the certificate duty they have to pay, and, though at present without any perceptible result, it is to be hoped that they will again make application for its abolishment. You, Sir, unfortunately take a pessimistic view as regards the abolition of this duty, for in your issue of the 30th ult. you state at p. 285, “ 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.” This in your opinion may be so, but I am not aware that English solicitors as a body have approached the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If they would through the committee of the Incorporated Law Society approach the Chancellor of the Excheqner and bring all the influence of the legal gentlemen who sit in Parliament to their aid, the probabilities are they would meet with success, and the certificate duty, if not altogether abolished, would be considerably reduced in amount. I fail to see why, if Irish solicitors have not met with much encouragement, English solicitors should remain apathetic; on the contrary, they should exert themselves more than ever, in order to make their power and influence felt for the purpose of abolishing an unjust and iniquitous tax.


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

CERTIFICATE DUTY.-In your issue of the 30th ult. you say :

“ There would appear to be little hope that English solicitors will obtain any modification of the certificate duty.” Will you permit me to suggest through your columns that at all events we should obtain some modification of the fee of 5s. charged by the Incorporated Law Society for registering the fact that the certificate duty has been paid ? The amount of this fee seems unduly high. There are, I believe, upwards of 14,000 certificates taken out by English solicitors, so that the society would appear to derive no less an income than £3500 per annum for discharging the clerical work of noting that the duty has been paid. The actual cost of this work must be almost nominal. So long as the society makes a substantial profit from this registration, it must be difficult for its officials to be altogether free from bias on the question of certificate duty, and in the interest of the Profession at large it is undesirable that they should have an actual interest in maintaining the existence of what so many solicitors regard as an invidious tax.


EXAMINATION RESULTS—NEW SYLLABUS. At the January Final 135 candidates passed out of the 191 who presented themselves, and at the Intermediate 169 out of 202, so each examination shows a small percentage of failures. At the London LL.B., however, matters were somewhat different, and at the Pass examination there were only twelve men in the first division and six in the second, and some 50 per cent. were rejected; while at Intermediate LL.B. there were three men in the first division and about seventeen in the second, and we believe about two-thirds of the candidates failed altogether. As regards the London LL.B. Honours examination, there were five candidates in the first class, five in the second, and one in the third; while at the Intermediate LL.B. Honours test two names appear in each of the three classes. A very curious feature of the Honours list is that at the final test the first two classes are composed of candidates who designate themselves "private study " in the books of the university, and there is a Lincoln's-inn man in the third class; wbile at the Intermediate examination students of the Inns of Court and university men are at the top, and private study candidates fill the lower places. The change in the London syllabus will favour candidates. Book xliii., “ De Interdictis," a nasty subject, of which there was no translation extant, gives place to Book xviii., title 1, “ De contrabenda emptione,” and Book xix., I., “ De actionibus empti venditi,” nice subjects, of which there is a good translation. Other changes are the substitution of “ Copyright” in the place of "False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution," and * Satisfaction” and “Trusts instead of “Election” and “Advancement and Resulting Trusts ;” while, instead of the awkward subject of “ Waste," students will have to deal with the “ Devolution of Real and Personal Property on Death,” and the latter is a subject they would have to get up in any event under the general headings, so its appearance amid the special subjects tends to curtail the necessary amount of reading.


THE FINAL Pass EXAMINATION.—In view of the approaching public demonstrations and celebrations throughout the country to commemorate Queen Victoria's Diamond Reign of sixty years to be held in June next, the Incorporated Law Society, U.K., would confer a great and praiseworthy benefit on those articled clerks who have passed the intermediate examination, but have failed to pass the final examination, if the society would be graciously pleased to grant to such articled clerks a final pass certificate, on some such conditions as the following :-1. Every such clerk to produce to the society his intermediate pass certificate. 2. Every such clerk to satisfy the society that he has continued in the Legal Profession, as managing or other clerk, from the time of his having passed the intermediate examination to the present time. 3. Every such clerk to receive instruction from the society under its legal education system, by correspondence or otherwise, from the present time to the time of his receiving his final pass certificate. 4. Every such clerk to pay to the society for such instruction the fees charged by the society, according to its scale of charges, during the time of his instruction. I passed the intermediate examination in the year 1877, and have on two or three occasions tried my best to pass the final examination ; but have unfortunately failed to do so, owing to having arduous duties to perform as managing clerk, and insufficient time for reading and study; and no doubt there are many other articled clerks similarly circumstanced. I sincerely hope and trust the Incorporated Law Society, U.K., will kindly entertain and accede to my suggestion.



EXAMINATION.-Jan. 1897. The following 135 candidates (whose names are in alphabetical order) were successful at the Final Examination held on the 19th and 20th Jan. 1897: Aspden, Daniel Morris Glyn, Hugh Douglas, B.A. Prentice, John M., B.A. Atkinson, Charles

Greaves, Alfred Ernest Preston, Cecil Evans Bailey, Wilfrid O., R.A. Griffith, Rowland Parry Preston, Harold George E, Baines, Peter Ellis Eyton Gunn, Alfred Saunders Price, Arthur Woodfine Baker, Arthur E., B.A. Hall, James, B.A.

Prior, G. M., B.A. LL.B. Barlow, Evan Hanbury, A. W. L.

Pritchard, Henry Gibbon Barrett, Herbert Roper Hancock, George Coulter Pullan, Walter Bawtree, John Francis Higgins, Henry Vincent Redhead, Claude E. A. Beavon, Alfred Roger Hines, Charles William | Robertson, W. A..B.A. Beesley, Eustace Barton Hollis, George Mercer Scrope, Stephen F. E. Birch, John Boschetti Hopton, Ulric

Scruton, Walter Blew, William John B. Hossack, Anthony H.. BA. Seaman, Charles H. A, Bradley, William H. C. Howe, William John B. Skinner, Frederick H. Bretherton, Edward G. Hursthouse, Henry

Smallshaw, William H. B. Browne, C. E. O., B.A. Isaac, Edward S. W.. B.A. Sneath, Frederick C. R. Bryant, Henry C.B.A. Jackson, Donaldson Bell Spencer, Edmund T. Burch, Thomas William Johnson, Francis Woods Stenning, Edward Herbert Carless, Wilfrid T. Jones, Henry

Stephen, Lessel P., BA. Clapham, Henry Sheffield Judson, Henry Darnton Storey, Frank Dakers Clements, Herbert W. Kevill, Thomas Halliwell Swallow, Isaac H., B.A. Collis, Frederick Orton King, Charles K., M.A. Swanwick, Eric D., B.A. Coltman, Thomas L., B.A. Kitchingman, W. E., B.A. Syrett, Clarence Goullee Cran, George Rose Kitson, Henry Lane

Talboys. Harold Ivo D'Alessio, Albert P., B.A. Learoyd, H., M.A., LL.B. Taylor, Domville Mascie Daniel, Archibald Lee, Arthur Herbert

Teesdale, John Hermann Darby, Charles Henry Leman, H. M., B.A., LL.B. Thomas, Edgar Charles Davies, Charles R. B.A. Lesser, Albert

Thomas, Edward Davies, William Thomas Mander, Harry Iliffe Tilly, Thomas P., B.A. Day, Henry G. C., B.A. Marris, Tom

Upton, Thomas E. T. Deane, Henry John

Martin, William Harold Walbrook, Angus F. 0. Dixon, Charles Percy Mason, Harold P., LL B. Webb, Henry G., B.A. Dymond, Robert

Massey, Arthur Frederick Weir, Clement B., M.A. Dyson, John

Meggitt, Joseph Bloom Welton, George Eccles, Malcolm

Metcalfe, Thomas Davis Wild, James Herbert Evans, John Owen G. P. Morton, Albert

Wildey-Wright, F.J. A. Farr, William Edward Myer, Ernest Alex

Wilkin, Henry Eugene Farwell, Frederick Arthur Nix, Henry John

Williams, Edward Percy Feltham, Harold S. K. North, Harold George Williams, Jenkin Rees Field, Frank Osbaldiston North. Leonard Alfred L. Williamson, Arthur Pee) Forwood, W. M. M., B.A. Nutt, Walden Hubert Williamson, Frank l'owler, Sydney John Oppenheim, Watkin, B.A. Wilson, Henry Barker Francis, Percy Ollivant Parker, Edwin Charles Wood, John Orewe Francis, William Watkins Parkhouse, William Aldis Wood, Percy Franklin, Francis

Peile, Frank K., B.A. Wood, William W., B.A, Franks, Arthur James Pile, George H. H., B.A. Young, John Joseph B.


CHANCERY BUSINESS.—At a recent meeting of the council of the Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association, attention was called to the letter in your issue of the 30th ult. from a “ Chancery Solicitor" referring to the (as he alleges)“ scandalous manner in which matters in Chancery are delayed by the dilatory behaviour of certain of the junior clerks.” The council regret that the writer has thought fit to try to disparage a body of men who always render solicitors and their clerks every assistance in the routine of chamber work incidental to the progress of an action. If “ Chancery Solicitor” had any complaint to make, he had a remedy, viz., to speak to the chief clerk, who would have investigated and properly dealt with it. He, however, does not take this (the proper) course, but makes his complaint through the medium of an influential legal paper, and treats the matter as “a public scandal.” The adoption of this method is unfair, as, although only “certain junior clerks” are referred to, the accusation, in the absence of a specific reference to the individuals complained of, naturally falls upon all, and the whole body are held up to censure for what may be the shortcoming of one. It cannot be denied that, as a rule, the officials

[ocr errors]


at otrlarles Ernest I.


EXAMINATION.-Jan. 1897. The following 169 candidates (whose names are in alphabetical order) were successful at the Intermediate Examination held on the 21st Jan. 1897:Addison, Gerald Lacy Gunn, Herbert O., B.A. Parry, Hubert, B.A. Andrews, Reginald H. E. D. Haines, John Wilton Phillipps, John Clement Atkey, Sidney C., B.A. Hammond, Hugh

Pritchard, Malcolm Arthur Atter, Charles

Harley, Edward Mortimer Radcliffe, Joseph Greaves Awdry, John West Harlow, Jonathan

Rastall, Herbert George Barker, Wilfrid W. Hartley, Frank

Rawlins, Fredk. P. F. M. Barrett, Henry George Hilbery, Henry Moncaster Riddett, Arthur Elliott Barron, Walter Edwin Hislop, Geoffrey

Rigby, William Beavan, Thomas Nicholls Holt, Edward Haworth W. Rising, Arthur P., B.A. Bere, Frank W., M.A. Hooker, James Ayerst A. Roberts, Charles Ernest Berkeley, George B. H. Hotson, John Herbert, B. A. Robinson, Henry Berry, Charles

Howells, Alfred Thomas Sargeaunt, Frederick L. Bewes, Leonard Henry Hughes, Herbert Athelstan Scard, Herbert Cowper Blair, John

Humphrey, Reginald M. H. Schofield, Simeon Bolton, Frederick W. G. Hunt, Arthur Patrick W. Scorer, Charles Reynolds Brp dot Thomas C. Hunt, Frederick Giles Scott, Frederic Heslop Ince, John Oscar

Smith, Francis O., B.A. RNST on Hinton

Ivens, Alfred Hubert Smith, Vivian Francis C. Bullock' ohn Cooper Jackson, William

Spencer, Edward Smith Burchell, Alfred William Johnson, Herbert

Spooner, Guy Leopold
Burgess, Edwin Ernest Johnstone, James, B.A Steward, George F. R.
Burgess, Robert Percy H. Jones, Hywel Owen, B.A. Stops, John Faulkner
Burrough, William G. Jones, Reginald Cecil Storr, Paul
Byfield, Bertram D.

Jordan, John Richard Stow, Ernest Charles S. Bygott, William

Kaye, Arnold Joseph Stretton, Joseph Hope
Carver, Frank Tom
Keates, Gerald

Swayne, George C.
Chadwick, Tom

Kedge, Robert Watson Sword, Horatio B. D. Calle, John Herbert, B.A. Kirby, Henry John A. Sword, John Gow D. Conror, Edward Arthur Kunhardt, Ferdinand H. Symes, Reginald A. C. Cork, John Sydney, B.A. Latham, Arderne M., B.A. Taylor, Cecil George Crofton, John Ffolliott Lear, Charles Roberts Ticehurst, Frederic Gorham Cross, Cecil Woodrow Lee, Charles Wilfrid

Toft, Thomas
Cuthbert, John
Lewis, Henry

Tucker, Harlowe T. F. Danger, Thomas Instone Little, Lawrence Henry Tunnard, Conolly Norman Davidson, James Douglas Longhurst, Alexander D. Turner, Henry H., B.A. Daries, Ellis Williaz Lovell, Charles Edward Vanderpump, Paul George Davies, George

Lowe, Octavius Bernard Walford, Lionel Julian Day, William Rogers Loye, Reginald Philip Wallington, Hubert Joseph De Frece, Alfred

Luxmoore, L. A., B.A. Warner, William Charles Down, Francis Patton Lyon, Jasper

Watson, Harold Collier Dunn, Wilfrid

Maguinness, Alban D. Watts, Ralph Jackson
Duxbury, Yates
Marsden, Edward

Waugh, Edgar Newton Evans, Ernest Robert Mason, James Ernest Webster, Baron Dickinson Evans, Thomas Pugbe Meadows, William

Weddall, Thomas Noel R. Findeisen, Alfred Gustave Millar, James

White, Frank
Fisher, William R., B.A. Miller, William John W. Whitehead, James C.
Foat, Sidney Thomas Mills, Frederick Fletcher Williams, E. W. V., B.A.
Foster, Charles B., B.A.

Moore, Ernest

Wilson, George H., B. I.
Fountaine, Arthur C. Morgan, Thomas Aaron Wilson, Joseph
Fox, Charles Richard D. Morland, William Thornhill: Wisbey, Percy Francis
Freeman, Alfred William Morris, William Francis Wood, Bertram Wilmot
Gooding, Frank
Needham, Henry C,

Wood, Frank Henry Gould, Henry Norman Neville, John Herbert Woodhouse, Harold J. S. Green, Andrew Olivey, James

Wright, Charles Dawson Green, Walter Howard Oram, Abel John Henry | Wright, Hubert Grenside, Henry Ralph Page, Dudley Stuart Wyld, Henry Calcraft. Grindrod, Charles Oswald

part of A. in the construction of the machinery. Can X. sustain an action against A. for damages ?” Mr. James Bracewell opened in the affirmative, and said that the point involved was one of negligence. He said negligence was admitted, and also damages arising from such negligence, and the only point he had to prove was that the damages were not too remote. He cited Heaven v. Pender (49 L. T. Rep. 357), Levy v. Langridge (7 L.J. N. S. 387), George v. Skivington (21 L. T. Rep. 495; 39 L. J. 8, Ex.), Elliott v. Hall (54 L.J. N. S. 518), and Hawkins v. Smith (Law Notes, 1896, 270). Mr. W. F. Sutcliffe argued in the negative, and based his contentions on the fact that no privity of contract existed between A. and X. He said that the damages were too remote, and that persons could not maintain actions who were not parties to the contract. He instanced a case of a gentleman's coachman being injured whilst driving the gentleman's coach, through a defect in the making of the carriage. If this case were maintainable, he said the coachman might bring his action against the coachmaker or the smith, although he could not sue his master, the person with whom he contracts. He also quoted portions from Anson on Contracts, and cited Collis v. Selden (L. Rep. 3 C.P. 495), Winterbottom v. Wright (10 M. and W. 109), and Alton v. Midland Railway Company (12 L. T. Rep. 703 ; 34 L. J. 292, C.P.). Councillor Emmett and Messrs. T. B. Nowell, J. C. Pollard, J. Procter, T. E. Rodgers, LL.B., F. Roberts, and H. Ogden also spoke. The chairman then summed up the various speakers' arguments, and on the question being put to the meeting it was decided that X. would have a right of action (against A.) by a majority of ten.

LEEDS.-On the 21st Jan. Mr. J. A. Compston, Barrister-at-Law, delivered the first of his course of lectures on “ The Law of Torts." Mr. Norton Carter occupied the chair. On Monday, the 1st Feb., Mr. F. W. Goodall took the chair at a meeting, when Mr. Charles Scriven delivered an interesting lecture on “ Some Principles of the Mercantile Law.” There was a fair attendance at each of these meetings

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.—The eleventh general meeting of the society was held in the Law Library on Wednesday, the 3rd inst. ; Mr. E. Maynell, Barrister-at-Law, in the chair. It was resolved to hold a mock trial during the present session, and Messrs. Pybus, Oliver, Elsdon, Stewart, Sanders, Heath, and Chapman were appointed a committee, with Mr. Chapman as secretary, to organise it. The subject of debate was: “That the case of South Staffordshire Waterworks Company v. Sharman (74 L. T. Rep. 761; (1896) 2 Q. B. 44) was wrongly decided.” Messrs. Cole and Ord opened in the affirmative, and Messrs. Heath and Parrington in the negative. When the debate was declared open, the following also spoke: Messrs. Hadaway, Sanders, Lemon, Chapman, Senhouse, and Winn, and Mr. Cole replied. The chairman summed up the debate, and on putting the question to the meeting it was decided in the negative. There were twenty members present.

[ocr errors]


STUDENTS' SOCIETIES. LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.-The usual weekly meeting of the above society was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, on Tuesday, the 9th inst. ; chairman, Mr. Neville Tebbutt. The subject for debate was : “That the case of Pitt Pitts v. George and Co. (1896) 2 Ch. 866) was wrongly decided.” Mr. A. E. Clarke opened in the affirmative, and Mr. G. H. Moy seconded. Mr. C. W. Vickers opened in the negative, and Mr. Ernest L. Chapman seconded. The following members also spoke : Messrs. Mellins, Smith, A. Tickson, A. W. Watson, and the opener replied. The motion was lost by one vote. At the next meeting of the society members will be invited to make impromptu speeches on subjects which will then be provided for debate.

BIRMINGHAM.--A meeting of this society was held on Tuesday, the 2nd inst., in the Law Library, Bennett's Hill, Mr E. C. Rogers, LL.D., being in the chair. A debate took place on the following point : “ Mr. Kodak takes, withoot permission, a snapshot of a lady and gentleman in a boat, under some trees. The gentleman has his arm round the lady's waist. This photograph Mr. Kodak is in the habit of showing to his bachelor friends who visit him at his chambers. A Major Sprightley calls at Mr. Kodak's chambers one evening, and eventually Mr. Kodak shows his collection of snapshots, including that of the lady and gentleman in a boat. Major Sprightley recognises his wife and Mr. Brown, of whom he has for some time past been very suspicious, and Mrs. Sprightley, when charged, has to admit that she has carried on a foolish, but innocent, flirtation with Mr. Brown. Major Sprightley declines to cohabit any longer with his wife. Has Mrs. Sprightley a good right of action against Mr. Kodak ?” The speakers were : For the affirmative, Messrs. A. F. Lovatt, H. Winterbotham, and F. W. Green. For the negative : Messrs. F. 0. Hobson, M. C. Blewitt, G. Green, H. Willison, G. E. T. Edalji, G. Botteley, H. d'Egville, and F. H. Whitehouse. The chairman having summed op, the question was put to the meeting, and decided in the negative by a majority of nine votes.

BURNLEY AND DISTRICT.-The members of this society held their eighth ordinary meeting on Thursday, the 4th Feb., in Cronkshaw's Hotel. Amongst those present were Messrs. T. H. Roberts (who presided), R. Baldwin, A. B. Clarke, E. F. P. Emmett, T. B. Nowell, J. C. Pollard, J. Procter, T. E. Rodgers, LL.B. (solicitors); T. Backhouse, J. Bracewell, H. Collinge, H. Ogden, A. Riley, F. Roberts, and Walter F. Sutcliffe (articled clerks). The subject for discussion was as follows : “X., a person in Y.'s employ, receives an injury caused by reason of a defect in certain machinery supplied by A. to Y. The accident is due to negligence on the



Thursday, 21st Jan. 1897. I, HARDINGE STANLEY, BARON HALSBURY, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, in pursuance of the Rules of the Supreme Court, Dec. 1886, do hereby order that on and after the 19th day of Jan. 1897, until further order, every cause or matter in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, commenced in the District Registry of Liverpool or the District Registry of Manchester, shall be marked with the name of the Hon. Mr. Justice Byrne, one of the judges of the Chancery Division. And do also order that all causes and matters in the Chancery Division now proceeding in the said District Registries, and assigned to Mr. Justice Kekewich, be transferred to the said Mr. Justice Byrne, but that, nevertheless, the two actions mentioned in the schedule hereto shall remain with Mr. Justice Kekewich, but for trial or hearing only.

Retained by Mr. Justice Kekewich.
Jones, Brothers, and Co. v. Hallworth and Sons.
Re Hilton ; Webster v. Braxton.



NORTH-EASTERN (Lord Russell, C.J. and Bruce, J.).-Newcastle (2), Friday, Feb. 19; Durham (2), Friday, Feb. 26 ; York (2), Friday, March 5 ; Leeds (2), Wednesday, March 10. End Thursday, March 24.

MIDLAND (Pollock, B. and Charles, J.).--Oakham, Wednesday, Feb. 17; Lincoln, Thursday, Feb. 18 ; Derby, Wednesday, Feb. 24; Nottingham (2), Tuesday, March 2; Warwick, Monday, March 8; Birmingham (2), Saturday, March 13. End Thursday, March 24.

OXFORD (Day and Wright, JJ.).- Monmouth, Friday, Feb. 19 ; Hereford, Wednesday, Feb. 24; Shrewsbury, Saturday, Feb. 27; Stafford (2), Saturday, March 6; Birmingham (2), Saturday, March 13. End Thursday, March 24.

NORTHERN (Collins and Kennedy, JJ.).—Lancaster, Wednesday, Feb. 17 ; Manchester (2), Monday, Feb. 22; Liverpool (2), Wednesday, March 10. End Thursday, March 24.

« EelmineJätka »