and the hall? What is the liability of such an owner to persons having business with their tenants ? These are difficult questions, and it is doubtful whether the last case on the subject, that of Lewis v. Ronald (noted 127 L. T. Jour. 619; Times, Oct. 28), will tend to elucidate the question of what exactly is the duty of the owner to these persons. This case is complicated by the fact that the delict alleged against the owner was the leaving of a part of a staircase in total darkness. The plaintiff walked into this darkness, and the Divisional Court have held that that fact justified a nonsuit on the ground that there was no evidence that the accident to the plaintiff was caused by the negligence of the owner of the flats. The main result of the case from the owner's point of view is this, that after dark his safest course, as regards such persons coming upon his premises, is to leave the stairway in total darkness. Nay more, he may safely leave a part of the staircase lighted with an invitation at the head, Tradesmen's Entrance," and leave the lower part of it in total darkness with no indication that this lower part is part of a staircase. For what are the facts of this case?

On the 23rd Nov. last the plaintiff, a fishmonger's assistant, in the course of his duty went to a block of flats to deliver some fish to one of the defendant's tenants. He arrived at the block of flats between 5 and 5.10 p.m., when it was almost dark, having seen a notice outside in the terms 3, "Tradesmen's Entrance." The plaintiff, who had never been to the premises before, passed through an entrance and found that he had to go down a flight of steps. He did so, and found an archway on his right. Passing through the archway he found himself in total darkness, and, taking a step forward, fell head foremost down a further flight of steps. The distance between the bottom of the first flight of steps and the top of the second was said to be only three or four feet. On his calling out, a porter arrived and turned up an electric light, which lit up the second flight of steps, saying that the other porter and he would get into trouble over this. By the terms of the agreements between the defendant and his tenants the former agreed to keep the hall, corridors, lifts, and staircases clean and in good repair, and to pay for the necessary lighting for the staircases and hall. The plaintiff brought his action against the defendant. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case the defendant's counsel took the point that there was no evidence that the accident was caused by any negligence of the defendant or his servants. The County Court judge reserved the point, and, evidence having been called by the defendant, summed up to the jury in favour of the defendant. The jury, however, found that the defendant was guilty of negligence in not sufficiently lighting the staircase, and that the accident was due to such negligence. They also found that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence, and they assessed his damages at £35. His Honour Judge Bray, after considering the matter, nonsuited the plaintiff upon the ground that there was no evidence that the plaintiff's accident was caused by the negli gence of the defendant. The Divisional Court upheld the decision of the County Court judge apparently on the ground that there was no invitation to the plaintiff to walk down the staircase when it was not lighted.

The case law on the subject is of interest. In Wilkinson v. Fairrie (32 L. J. 73, Ex.) the plaintiff, a carman, being sent by his employer to the defendants' premises for some goods, was directed by a servant of the defendant to go to the counting-house. In proceeding along a dark passage of the defendant's in the direction pointed out, the plaintiff fell down a staircase and was injured. Baron Bramwell directed a nonsuit upon this sort of alternative: if it was so dark that he could not see, he ought not to have proceeded without a light; if it was sufficiently light that he could see, he might have avoided the staircase, which was a very different thing from a hole or a trapdoor down which a man might fall. Chief Baron Pollock in the Court of Exchequer upheld this decision, but upon the ground that there was no contract and no public or private duty on the part of the owners of the premises that they should be in any other or different condition to that in which they were. "It certainly was not the duty of the owners of the premises to have the passage lighted." In the leading case of Indermaur v. Dames (14 L. T. Rep. 464; 16 L. T. Rep. 293; L. Rep. 1 C. P. 274; L. Rep. 2 C. P. 311), where the plaintiff went upon certain premises on lawful business in fulfilment of a contract in which both he and the occupier had an interest, and fell down a hole which was unfenced at a place that was badly lighted, it was held that the occupier was guilty of a breach of duty to the plaintiff, who was there on lawful business, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the exercise of reasonable care by the occupier to prevent damage from unusual danger of which the occupier knew or ought to have known, such as a trapdoor left open, unfenced and unlighted. Apparently the argument was taken in this case that the plaintiff ought not to have gone across the floor to fetch his tools as the light was 80 bad; for we read in the judgment of the court delivered by Mr. Justice Willes : "As for the argument that the plaintiff contributed to the accident by not following his guide, the answer may be that the guide, knowing the place, ought rather to have waited for him, and this point, as a matter of fact, is set at rest by the verdict." Mr. Justice Willes also said: "In the case of Wilkinson v. Fairrie (sup.), relied upon for the defendant, a distinction was pointed out between ordinary accidents such as falling downstairs, which ought to be imputed to the carelessness or misfortune of the sufferer, and accidents from unusual covert danger such as that of falling down into a pit." Mr. Justice Blackburn said: "It always struck me that that case ought to be supported, on the ground that the plaintiff chose to go on to the premises and

wander about in a way the defendant could not anticipate; the plaintiff there was a mere volunteer at the utmost." In both Wilkinson v. Fairrie (sup.) and Indermaur v. James (sup.) the plaintiff brought his action against the occupier of the premises where he met with his injuries. In Miller v. Hancock (69 L. T. Rep. 214; (1893) 2 Q. B. 178), the decision in the Court of Appeal upon which counsel for the appellant mainly relied, the plaintiff, who had in the course of bnsiness called on the tenants of one of the floors of a block of flats, fell while coming down the staircase, through the worn and defective condition of one of the stairs, and sustained personal injuries. The plaintiff sued the owner of the block of offices. The court held that there was by necessary implication an agreement by the defendant with his tenants to keep the staircase in repair, and, inasmuch as the defendant must have known and contemplated that it would be used by persons having business with them, there was a duty on his part towards such persons to keep it in a reasonably safe condition, and the action was therefore maintainable. This decision would seem to be based upon the view that the owner of the block of offices was the occupier of the stairway. Huggett v. Miers (99 L. T. Rep. 326; (1908) 2 K. B. 278) was another case where the accident occurred on the staircase of a block of offices. The plaintiff, who was in the employ of one of the tenants, came down the staircase when all the lights had been put out, and, failing to find his way out through the street door into the street, went down the stairs towards the basement, and fell through a door opening upon a flagged courtyard at some distance above the level of the ground. In that case the agreements for the letting of the offices contained no provision with regard to the lighting of the staircase. But it appeared that each of the tenants had gas lights on the landing, outside the entrances to their offices, which were supplied with gas from their own meter. At night each tenant as he left, his office turned off his own light. The court held that there was no duty towards the plaintiff imposed upon the defendant to light the staircase, and that consequently the action was not maintainable. Counsel for the plaintiff in this case relied upon the decision in Miller v. Hancock (sup.), although the facts were very different in the two cases; for in Huggett v. Miers (sup.) it appeared that the tenants in fact lighted the staircase themselves. The court, however, were at some pains to distinguish the case of Miller v. Hancock. Gorell Barnes, P. said: "The words reasonably safe, as there used, meant, I think, reasonably safe as regards the repair and condition of the material structure."" Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton said: "The case of Miller v. Hancock appears to me to stand entirely on its own facts, and I confess that I do not feel quite clear as to the exact ground upon which it was decided. In my private opinion, looking at the judgments in that case, particularly that of Lord Justice Bowen, which appears to me to be the most lucidly expressed, the ratio decidendi was as follows: The court came to the conclusion that, as between the landlord and the tenants, the landlord had undertaken the obligation of keeping the staircase in a reasonably safe state of repair; and they considered that, under those circumstances, the landlord, by letting the different offices to the tenants, had authorised the tenants to invite persons to come to them for business purposes, and therefore to use the staircase; and the court consequently ascribed to the landlord himself the invitation given by the tenant by his authority, and based upon that invitation so ascribed to the land lord a duty on his part towards those so invited to keep the staircase in a reasonably safe state of repair. If that be the ratio decidendi in that case, it can have no bearing on the present case, because it would be impossible to infer here that the landlord authorised the tenants to invite persons to use the staircase at any hour of the night when it was in a state of darkness."

6

If the decision in Miller v. Hancock be good law, it is difficult to under. stand the nonsuit in Lewis v. Ronald. In this case the defendant had expressly contracted with [his tenants to light the staircases when necessary, and it would seem, on the authority of Miller v. Hancock, that he was under a duty to persons having business with the tenants to keep the staircase in a "reasonably safe condition." Why should we put the arbitrary limitation on those words, "as regards the repair and condition of the material structure," suggested by Gorell Barnes, P. in Huggett v. Miers? It is true that Mr. Justice Darling said that he did not decide the case on the ground that the defendant was not under a duty to the plaintiff, though he doubted whether he was. That being so, the decision must be that there was no evidence that the defendant was guilty of any negligence causing the accident. Mr. Justice Buckmill said that it seemed to have been assumed that the notice "Tradesmen's Entrance was placed outside the building by the landlord. It would appear from the porter's remark that he must have neglected to turn up the electric light when it became dark. There was no question of the plaintiff wandering about in the dark; for there was only one way past the invitation, Tradesmen's Entrance." The learned judges by their judgments seem to have held that there was no evidence of the defendant's negligence, because he went into the pitch-dark doorway. But did not the invitation he had passed entitle him to assume that he was entering upon a level passage? Whether that is so or not, it would appear that the County Court judge and the judges of the Divisional Court supported the nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff caused the accident by going on into the dark archway. But is not this a judicial finding that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence? He may have been so guilty; but the jury said he was not, and surely this question was for them, and not for the County Court judge. this decision is good law, one thing is clear: occcupier, whether he be the occupier of a room, or of a passage, or of a staircase, if he wish to safeguard himself against those to whom he owes the duty of providing against "unusual

66

an

66

danger," should leave his premises in pitch darkness. Any invita tion he may give, such as come in here," addressed to any person or class of persons, is rebutted if only he leaves his premises unlighted. In that case he will be safe; for the plaintiff who enters his premises, upon his invitation, and meets with an accident will be nonsuited. The judges in the Divisional Court did not call upon counsel for the respondent; this is the more curious as Mr. Justice Bucknil when he came to deliver judgment said that he agreed with the decision, although with great doubt, and he considered the case a very difficult one. On the application of the appellant's counsel the court at once granted leave to appeal. The writer would like to hear the case argued in the Court of Appeal. The distinction between this case and that of Miller v. Hancock is not very apparent, and an appeal might afford further elucidation as to the exact effect of the earlier decision. C. G. M.

IRISH NOTES.

THE resumption by Mr. Justice Gibson of his judicial duties at the beginning of the Michaelmas Sittings was a source of unalloyed satisfaction to the Profession generally. Some time ago a rumour was current that his Lordship, although restored to health, did not intend to take up his judicial work again. Fortunately, this rumour has proved to be baseless. Mr. Justice Gibson's retirement from the Bench would be a real loss to the country. His knowledge of case law and his grip of legal principle are phenomenal. He has a caustic wit, which he exercises to the discomfiture of troublesome litigants and unreliable witnesses, but he is the kindliest of men.

CONSIDERABLE curiosity has been expressed in Parliament as to the special pension officers who have been sent from England to Ireland to inquire into the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act. It appears that six inspectors were sent to Ireland in the early part of the year to inspect the work of the pension officers. The instructions given were of a general character. They were to satisfy themselves as to whether proper care had been taken by the pension officers in investigating claims, and to give particular attention to the ages of claimants, in view of the statements then current that a large number of persons under the statutory age had been granted pensions. In England and Scotland the special attention of the pension officers was not drawn to the question of age, owing to the fact that the Registration of Births Act was already in force in both places, and there was not the same difficulty in obtaining documentary evidence of age as existed in Ireland.

THE decision of the King's Bench Division in Rex (Barry) v. Mahony under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts is of some importance. A. had been convicted under those Acts for selling adulterated milk, the prosecutor being a local inspector under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, who procured and produced on the hearing of the complaint the usual analyst's certificate. A. had purchased the milk f.om a wholesale dealer, and had sold it in the state in which he had received it. He instituted a prosecution against B, the person from whom he had purchased it, and tendered on the hearing of the complaint the analyst's certificate that had previously been used against himself. B. was convicted. It was held by the Divisional Court that the conviction must be quashed, there being no proper certificate within the meaning of sect. 20 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875, a section which enables "the person causing the analysis to be made " to take proceedings under the Act.

THE Conferring of a baronetcy on the Right Hon. William Moore Johnson, who has been for six-and-twenty years a judge of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, has given universal gratification to all sorts and conditions of men in Ireland, with whom the learned judge is a universal favourite. The giving of a baronetcy to a pu'sne judge in Ireland is without a precedent for upwards of a century. The last occasion on which a similar honour was conferr.d was the granting of a baronetcy in 1799 to Mr. Michael Smith, one of the Barons of the Irish Court of Exchequer, who in 1801 was promoted to the Mastership of the Rolls. Baronetcies have since the Union been conferred on four Irish Lord Chancellors, on two Irish Chief Justices, and on four Irish Masters of the Rolls, but in no case on an Irish puisne judge, although in 1800 a baronetcy was conferred on Mr. John Stewart on vacating the position of Attorney-General and declining judicial preferment, and was in 1868 offered to Mr. Edward Litton, a Master in Chancery, who, however, declined the honour. Mr. Justice Johnson is one of the batch of ten gentlemen who were called to the Inner Bar in Ireland on the same day in 1872, on every one of whom prosperity shone-a circumstance to which reference was made by Sir Samuel Walker, Bart., the Irish Lord Chancellor, in his tribute from the Bench to Lord Justice FitzGibbon, who, like himself, Lord Ashbourne, and Sir Andrew Porter, took silk on that memorable day.

left the Commons the Bill contained seventy-two clauses. Of these, thirteen were financial clauses, which the House of Lords did not touch. Then there were twenty-two uncontroversial clauses. Of the remaining thirty-seven, twenty-four were struck out altogether, and the remaining thirteen were altered in a very substantial manner. When the Bill came back to the House of Commons, the Chief Secretary for Ireland moved the rejection of the Lords' amendments. en bloc. The necessity for the passing of some measure at once is vital. Agreements representing land of the value of fifty millions of pounds have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners, and 175.000 tenants are awaiting the completion of those transactions. The ruinous loss occasioned by the flotation of Land Stock at a discount. has almost exhausted the Ireland Development Grant-a grant which was made in 1898 for educational purposes. Mr. Birrell stated that. that grant would be entirely exhausted in January next. After that. time every penny of loss arising from the flotation of stock at a discount will come directly out of the pockets of the Irish ratepayers through the medium of rates which the county councils will be obliged to strike. From the point of view both of the ratepayers. and the tenants the situation is extremely serious, and it is to be hoped that some via media will be found by Mr. Birrell and Lord Lansdowne.

THE last public act of the Royal University of Ireland took place on the 29th ult. at Earlsfort-terrace. On that day there was the last public conferring of degre. s. The university was dissolved cD the 31st ult. by virtue of sect. 31 of the Irish Universities Act 1908, and the National University of Ireland, with its four constituent colleges, and the Queen's University with its college in Belfast. began their respective lives. The his ory of university education in Ireland, outside of Trinity College, has been complex and troublous The three Queen's Colleges of Belfast, Cork, and Galway were founded. in 1845: (8 & 9 Vict. c. 64). The Queen's University was dissolved by the University Education (Ireland) Act 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 60), which enabled the Royal University of Ireland to be established by charter. The three Queen's Colleges remained as teaching institutions. merely, and the Royal University was simply an examining body. During the thirty years of its existence it undoubte ly did good work. Since 1879 it had three successive Chancellors-namely, the Duke of Abercorn, the Marquis of Dufferin, and Lord Castletown. Its Vice-Chancellors were six-namely, Lord O'Hagan, Lord Emly, Mr. Redington, Lord Morris, Monsignor Molloy, and Sir Christopher Nixon. In 1881-2, 1898 students presented themselves for examination. The number who entered for examination this year was 4394, but there were about 6000 names on the roll of the university. At the conferring of degrees last week, Sir Christopher Nixon, in the course of a magnificent address, said: "Our university has run its course; it has fulfilled its destiny. It is a case of the King is dead -long live the King. The Senate can look back upon the past with equanimity, and can look forward to the future with hope. The National University of Ireland and the Queen's University of Belfast will bring to fruition the seed which we have sown. The desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose.'' The degree of LL.D. honoris causa was conferred upon Lord Castletown, Mr. Edward Cuming, K.C., the Lord Chief Baron, Mr. Commissioner Finucane, and others. The two new universities began their corporate careers on Monday last.

THERE has been considerable discussion in the newspapers recently with reference to the strength and personnel of the Iri h Bench. It has been suggested that the Irish Bench is at present ridiculous y overmanned, and that there should be a considerab.e cutting down in the number of the judges. The persons who have been carrying on these discussions do not seem to be aware that since 1877 there has been an enormous reduction in the number of the Irish judges. That year was the date of the passing of the first Judicature (Ireland) Act, corresponding to the Judicature Act 1875. At that time there were the following judges on the Irish Bench: Five Chancery judges, including the Lord Chancellor, the [Master of the Rolls, the ViceChancellor, and two Land Judges; four Queen's Bench judges, four judges of the Common Pleas, four Exchequer judges, two Bankruptcy judges, one judge of the Probate and Matrimonial Court, one Admiralty judge, and a Lord Justice of Appeal, making altogether twenty-two judges. Since that time the reduction in the strength of the Irish Bar has been very considerable. In 1906 the number of judges was as follows: Four Chancery judges, including the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, Mr. Justice Barton, and one Land Judge; ten judges of the Lords King's Bench Division, two Justices of Appeal-making altogether sixteen judges. Then the Labourers (Ireland) Act of 1906 provided that the next two vacancies in the King's Bench Division were not to be filled-a provision which will result in leaving the number of judges at fourteen. One of the newspapers, in commenting on this matter, stated that there was a proposal two years ago to cut down the number of the Irish judges by two, and that this proposal was not persevered in. The comments of that paper, at any rate, were based on ignorance of the provisions of the Labourers (Ireland) Act 1906. It is difficult to say how the number of judges in Ireland can be cut down any farther. The five circuits into which the country is divided occupy the attention of ten of them during the whole of March and July, and occupy the attention of four of them during nearly the whole of December. At present one of the Lords Justices must go out on circuit every assize, and, when the event cont.mplated by the Act of 1906 happens, both Lords Justices must go out on circuit every assize, as well as one of the Chance y judges. Irish civil

judicial statistics make it very clear that the Irish judges are fully occupied. The fact that the Bench in England is undermanned, does not prove that the Bench in Ireland is overmanned.

COMMENTS ON CASES.

66

THE recent case of Re Whiteley; Whiteley v. Bishop of London (noted ante, p. 596), and a little further back that of Re Yates; Throckmorton v. Pike (96 L. T. Rep. 758), illustrate in a most forcible manner the reluctance on the part of the court to read into a will anything that precludes the application of the general rule that a legatee is entitled, until actual payment of his legacy, to interest thereon from the expiration of twelve months after the date of the death of the testator. The rule is perfectly well settled; and its object is, of course, to compensate the legatee for the delay in payment to him. It was enunciated by Sir William Grant, M.R. in the case of Wood v. Penoyre (13 Ves. 325, at p. 333) in the year 1807. His Lordship there pointed out that, for the sake of general convenience, the court holds the personal estate of a testator to be reduced into possession within a year after his death; and that, upon that ground, interest is payable upon legacies given out of that personal estate from that time, unless some other period is fixed by the will. "Actual payment," the learned judge went on to say, I may in many instances be impracticable within that time; yet in legal contemplation the right to payment exists, and carries with it the right to interest_until actual payment." Again, in the more modern case of Re Lord's Estate; Lord v. Lord (17 L. T. Rep. 105; L. Rep. 2 Ch. App. 782, at p. 789) Lord Cairns observed that the rule of law was clear, and there could be ro controversy with regard to it, that a legacy payable at a future day carries interest only from the time fixed for payment. But his Lordship added: "On the other hand, where no time for payment is fixed, the legacy is payable at, and therefore bears interest from, the end of a year after the testator's death, even though it be expressly made payable out of a particular fund which is not got in until after a longer interval." The rule thus established was made the basis of rule 64 of Order LV., which provides that, in taking an account of legacies, interest is to be computed thereon "from the end of one year after the testator's death, unless otherwise ordered, or unless any other time of payment

is directed by the will." The question raised in Re Whiteley; Whiteley v. Bishop of London (ubi sup.) was whether postponement, by the terms of the will, of payment of the legacy under consideration operated to deprive the legatees of the benefit of the rule. Inasmuch as the legacy consisted of a round million and the testator died in Jan. 1907, a huge sum in the shape of interest was at stake. As appears from our note, the general trustees of the will were directed, at such time or times and from time to time as they should think fit, but, nevertheless, as soon after the testator's death as circumstances would permit, having regard to the amount of his residuary estate at his death and the possibilities of sale and realisation thereof, and having regard also to the directions contained in the will with respect to such sale and realisation, to set apart and appropriate the legacy. There was a wide power to postpone the conversion of his estate. But Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady, before whom the case came in the court of first instance, could not spell out of the provisions of the will any direction fixing the time for payment of the legacy, such as was referred to by Lord Cairns in his statement of the rule in Re Lord's Estate; Lord v. Lord (ubi sup.) as above set forth. The legacy was not payable at any definite time, his Lordship thought, but the matter was left quite indefinite, depending upon a variety of circumstances connected with the realisation of the estate. In this view the learned judges of the Court of Appeal expressed their entire concurrence, so that the legacy carried interest in conformity with the rule. The earlier decision of the Court of Appeal in Re Yates; Throckmorton v. Pike (ubi sup.) affords an even better exemplification of the tendency of the court to abstain from departing from the rule. In that case legacies were directed to be paid out of the residuary estate of a testatrix subject to the payment of the income of that estate to certain persons during their life. The contention urged against the application of the rule was that the legatees were entitled to payment of their legacies until the annuitants were satisfied, and there was money coming from the residuary estate available for the purpose of paying the legacies. On that ground it was argued that a particular time for payment of the legacies was fixed by the will, and, therefore, prevented the rule from being taken advantage of. The Court of Appeal, affirming the decision of Mr. Justice Joyce, decided against that contention. They considered that although the will created in favour of the annuitants a priority in point of right, it did not give priority in point of time, so as to determine the period at which the legacies would become payable; and that consequently the rule came into operation. The desirability of excluding such operation in express terms, whenever it is the ntention of the testator that it should be so, is emphasised by these wo decisions.

not

THE name of Mr. E. J. Wythes is well known to most Chancery practitioners through the case of Re Wythes; West v. Wythes (68 L. T. Rep. 520; (1893) 2 Ch. 369), which established the rights of an equitable tenant for life as to the custody of title deeds on giving certain undertakings. This gentleman has now obtained further legal recognition in the decision of a most curious case on the law of compensation in respect of accidents. A recent claim conFourth Sheet

sidered by His Honour Judge Tindal Atkinson at Epping raised the point whether compensation could be required by a widow whose husband died in his service. The facts were that the deceased was a gardener, a portion of whose duties was to look after the fowls. A young cockerel pecked him in the arm about a year ago, and in consequence blood poisoning supervened. About a month later symptoms of insanity were shown, and the unfortunate man whilst in this condition committed suicide. It was urged that these events were all sequelae of the accident, and His Honour, upon the evidence, came to that conclusion, with the result that the widow obtained the sum of £156 with costs. There are now upon the books a series of strange causes for the illnesses and deaths of employés. They all emphasise the necessity for insurance against the heavy claims which may result from them.

A YEAR or two ago attention was drawn in these columns to the carelessness of the Thames Conservancy officials in protecting riverside property from the devastation wrought by floods. It is only fair to note that in consequence of strong protests there have been shown far more energy and foresight during the past few weeks. It is encouraging to find that at last the Conservancy is suggesting what has so often been pressed upon them by outsiders-viz., that regulations should be framed for the guidance of their officers, and that the latter should not be left to their own initiative. This point of view does not seem to err on the side of originality, nor does it seem particularly brilliant for river conservators to discover that in dealing with weirs it is necessary to begin at the bottom of the river and to work upwards. It is still necessary to allow for the varying capacities of individual weirs and the differences in the gradient, causing a corresponding difference in the speed of the current, between individual locks. Now that the Thames Conservancy are enabled to devote more attention to the upper river and to the interests of those who reside near its banks, it is to be hoped that the health of residents may be more fully secured, and that the heavy losses once sustained through the absence of adequate precautions may become matters of past history.

WHERE a life interest is released to the persons entitled in reversion more than a year before the releasor's death, so that the life interest is merged, for the purposes of estate duty no property passes on the death of the tenant for life: (Attorney-General v. Beech, 75 L. T. Rep. 565; (1899) A. C. 53). Still, it does not follow that for the purposes of hotchpot the death of the tenant for lite should not be taken as the date on which the shares are to be fixed of the persons who have had appointments made in their favour and of those who have not, though the tenant for life may have released his life interest in the share of one of the appointees. In Re Kelly's Settlement; Gustard v. Berkeley (noted 127 L. T. Jour. 618; (1909) W. N. 203) a tenant for life had a power of appointment among her children, with the usual trust in default of appointment and hotchpot clause. She appointed specific sums of stock at different times to her three daughters on their respective marriages and released her life interest in these sums, so that the appointees took an interest in possession. Part of the fund remained unappointed, and on the death of the tenant for life the question was raised as to the date on which the sums of stock were to be valued for the purposes of hotchpot. If the tenant for life has not released his life interest, clearly it is his death from which interest is payable and at which the value of the appointed shares must be fixed. Can the release, which is, in effect, the gift of the life interest, make any difference? Lord Justice Farwell in his standard work on Powers (2nd edit., p. 370), says: "If there is a prior life interest, and an appointment is made to an object and the life interest is released, the appointee gains nothing at the expense of the other objects during the lifetime of the tenant for life; they have been deprived of nothing which they would otherwise have had during that period, and can only require the appointee to account for interest as from the date of the life tenant's death.' That seems to be certain, but at what time are the specific stocks to be valued? That was the question at issue in Re Kelly's Settlement; Gustard v. Berkeley, and, on the same principle as that on which inte rest is given in such cases from the death of the tenant for life, Mr. Justice Warrington held that the surrender of the life interest was immaterial to the hotchpot clause, under which only appointed interests have to be brought into account, so that the valuations must be made at the death. This is, we think, correct, as on any other principle the life interest wou'd be considered in the account. There are, however, some serious difficulties in always making the valuation at the death of the tenant for life. Suppose, for instance, the appointee of a specific sum of stock to whom the life interest therein has been released sells the stock, say, for £1000, and before the death of the tenant for life the stock of that particular company has ceased to have any value at all owing to the company having been wound-up, the share appointed will be treated as having no value, and the appointee will receive £1000 without having to bring it into account. The answer is, that if that particular stock had been appointed and there had been no release of the life interest, it would have had no value at the death of the tenant for life. Of course, a power to vary might have been reserved, if the life interest had not been released, but then the release was the extinguishment of such a power, and the stock must be treated as having been specifically appointed without any power to vary. After all, the appointee takes the chance of the value of the stock going up or down during the existence of the life interest. It might have become, say, of the value of £2000, then in the case supposed the appointee would have lost £1000.

THE CONVEYANCER.

THE following questions frequently confront the practitioner when he sits down to draw or settle a draft appointment of new trusteesnamely: (1) Whether a retiring trustee must concur in appointing a new trustee under the statutory power; (2) whether, when the person nominated by the trust instrument for the purpose of appointing new trustees is unable or unwilling to execute the power, the statutory power can be resorted to; and (3) whether, if the trust instrument enumerates certain events upon which the donee of the power may appoint new trustees, he is restricted to those events, and on the occurrence of any other event specified in sect. 10 of the Trustee Act 1893 the statutory power becomes exercisable. Each of these questions seems to be well covered by authority. As to (1), a retiring trustee need not concur in the appointment (see Coates to Parsons, 56 L. T. Rep. 16; 34 Ch. Div. 370), though he would usually be a party to the deed to testify his desire to retire; and it would appear from that case that the onus of proving that he was willing to act lies upon the person making the objection. As to (2), in Re Elizabeth Blake (a person of unsound mind) (W. N. 1887, p. 173), where the person appointed to exercise the power of appointing new trustees conferred by 23 & 24 Vict. c. 105 was a lunatic, it was held that the appointment could be made under the statutory power, although under the circumstances of that case the court thought it better that the appointment should be made in lunacy. And in Re Sheppard's Settlement Trusts (W. N. 1888, p. 234), where by a settlement the power of appointing new trustees was vested in the husband and his wife during their joint lives, and they, living apart, were unable to agree in the selection of new trustees, it was held that the personal representative of the last surviving trustee was entitled to exercise the statutory power. As to (3), see Re Wheeler and De Rochow (76 L. T. Rep. 601; (1896) 1 Ch. 315), where by a marriage settlement the husband and wife or survivor of them were empowered to appoint new trustees in certain specified events, including the event of a trustee becoming incapable, but not the event of a trustee becoming unfit, and one of the trustees became unfit, by reason of his being an absconding bankrupt, but not incapable, it was held that the appointment of a new trustee ought not to be made by the surviving husband, as the person nominated in the settlement, but by the continuing trustee under the provisions of the Trustee Act 1893.

In the following precedent the retiring trustee joined in the appointment. Such precedent is not adapted to every case where there has been a breach of trust.

county of

day of of the first part C. D. of and E. F. of in the said of the second part and G. H. of in the and I. J. of in the county of in the county of day of 189

190

BETWEEN

county of of the third part. WHEREAS X. Y. late of by his last will dated the appointed F. M. and the said C. D. and E. F. executors and trustees thereof and bequeathed (among other pecuniary legacies) to his said trustees the three several sums of £a £b and £c upon the trusts thereinafter declared of the same respectively and after bequeathing certain annuities and directing his executors to appropriate or purchase in the names of his trustees a sufficient sum of bank annuities to answer the said annuities declared that the funds to be so appropriated or purchased should (subject to the payment of the annuities thereby bequeathed) be held by his trustees upon the trusts therein mentioned and the testator bequeathed the residue of his personal estate and effects to J. F. and S. L. in equal shares. AND WHEREAS the said X. Y died on the day of 189 and his said will was duly proved by the said C. D. and E. F. in the Principal Probate Registry on the day of the said F. M. having renounced probate and disclaimed the trusts thereof.

189

AND WHEREAS the said X. Y. did not die seised or possessed of any real estate and the said C. D. and E. F. duly got in and realised his personal estate and after paying all funeral and testamentary expenses and death duties and satisfying all the legacies bequeathed by the said will other than the said trust legacies duly set aside three sums of £a £b and £c to satisfy the said trust legacies and purchased a sufficient sum of bank annuities to satisfy the said annuities and transferred the residue of the said personal estate to the said J. F. and S. L. in equal shares.

AND WHEREAS by an indenture dated the

day of

189 and made between the said C. D. and E. F. of the one part and the said A. B. of the other part the said A. B. was appointed to be a trustee of the said will in the place of the said F. M.

AND WHEREAS the moneys set aside as aforesaid to satisfy the said trust legacy of £a are now represented by the several stocks funds shares and securities specified in the first part of the schedule hereto. AND WHEREAS divers losses have been incurred in connection with the moneys set aside as aforesaid to represent the said trust legacy of £b and the said moneys are now represented by the several stocks funds shares and securities specified in the second part of the schedule hereto.

AND WHEREAS divers losses have also been incurred in 'connection with the moneys set aside as aforesaid to represent the said

trust legacy of £c and the said moneys are now represented by the several stocks funds shares and securities specified in the third part of the schedule hereto.

AND WHEREAS the said annuity fund is now represented by the stocks and securities specified in the fourth part of the schedule hereto.

AND WHEREAS the said C. D. and E. F. are desirous of being discharged from the trusts of the said will and the said A. B. C. D. and E. F. are desirous of appointing the said G. H. and I. J. to be trustees thereof in the place of the said C. D. and E. F.

AND WHEREAS the several stocks funds shares and securities specified in the schedule hereto are intended forthwith to be transferred into the joint names of the said A. B. G. H. and I. J.

NOW THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH that in exercise of the power for this purpose by the statute in that behalf and of every or any other power them hereunto enabling they the said A. B. C. D. and E. F. hereby appoint the said G. H. and I. J. to be trustees of the said will of the said X. Y. in the place of the said C. D. and E. F. AND the said A. B. C. D. and E. F. hereby declare that all the hereditaments (if any) chattels and property whether real or personal (including things in action and the right to receive and recover the same) which are now subject to the trusts of the said will of the said X. Y. shall vest in the said A. B. G. H. and I. J. for all the estate and interest now subject to the trusts of the said will upon the trusts and subject to the powers and provisions applicable thereto by virtue of the said will or otherwise. [Declaration of trust as in Key and Elphinstone's Precedents, vol. 1, p. 122, 9th edit.] IN WITNESS &C.

King's Bench final and new trial appeals (odd numbers) will be heard in Appeal Court II. on and after Monday next.

In Appeal Court I. the following will be in the paper to-day (Saturten o'clock: Re Courtenay Clarke and Sutcliffe v. Great day), at Western Railway Company.

Lord Alverstone, C.J. will give judgment in Martin, Martin, and Webb v. Standard Land Company Limited on Monday next, at 10.15. Mr. Justice Bucknil will take the case of Smith's Advertising Agency v. Johnston to-day (Saturday).

Mr: Justice Sutton will give judgment in Gray v. Central London Properties Syndicate Limited on Monday next, at 10.30.

The nomination of sheriffs for England and Wales took place on Friday in the Lord Chief Justice's Court.

The Right Honourable George Houston Reid, K.C., who has been appointed to be a K.C.M.G., became a Privy Councillor in 1897; was called to the Bar, New South Wales, 1879; was a member of Legislative Assembly, New South Wales, 1880-4 and 1885-1901; has been a member of Commonwealth Parliament since 1901; Premier of New South Wales, 1894-9; and Prime Minister of Australia, 1904-5. Mr. Leslie Probyn, C.M.G., Governor and Commander-in-Chief, Sierra Leone, has been appointed a K.C.M.G. He became C.M.G. in 1903; was called by the Middle Temple in 1884; and has been Secretary to the Government of Southern Nigeria since 1901.

The Hon. Sir John Lancelot Stirling, LL.B., President of the Legislative Council, South Australia, has been appointed a K.C.M.G. He was Knighted in 1902; was called by the Inner Temple in 1871; entered South Australian Parliament, 1881; and was elected to the Legislative Council, 1890.

Mr. Justice William Moore Johnson, who has been created a Baronet, has been a Judge of the King's Bench Division, Ireland, since 1883. He was called to the Irish Bar in 1853; took silk in 1872; was Solicitor-General for Ireland, 1880-81; Attorney-General for Ireland. 1881-3; Liberal member for Mallow, 1880-3; and Privy Councillor (Ireland), 1881.

Mr. Frederick Low, K.C., one of the new Knights, has been Recorder of Rochester since 1906. He was first a solicitor, and was called to the Bar by the Middle Temple in 1890. He took silk in 1902, and was captain 22nd Middlesex R.V. from 1880-90. He was born 1856, eldest son of the late Stephen Philpot Low, D.L., of Sydenham, and is Liberal candidate for Norwich.

Mr. George Herbert Pollard. M.D., M.P., who has been Knighted, has been Liberal member for the Eccles Division of Lancashire since 1906. He is a member of the Inner Temple and a Doctor of Medicine of Edinburgh. He was mayor of Southport in 1897, and has served on the Lancashire County Council. He was born in 1864.

Mr. John Walter Napier, D.C.L., who has been created a Knight Bachelor, was lately Attorney-General and previously Unofficial Member of the Legislative Council, Straits Settlements. He is a D.C.L. of Oxford and a member of Lincoln's-inn.

Mr. Johannes Wilhelmus Wessels, who has been created a Knight Bachelor, has been Puisne Judge, Superior Court, Transvaal, since May 1902. He was legal adviser to the Commander-in-Chief from July 1900 to April 1901.

When the business at Cardiff on the North and South Wales Circuit is finished, Mr. Justice Channell will return to London.

The November sessions at the Old Bailey will commence on Tuesday next, at 10.30. Mr. Justice Grantham will be the presiding judge. Mr. Justice Phillimore, who has for some years served on the Kensington Borough Council, has been elected mayor.

His Honour Judge Edge completed twenty-one years' service on the Bench on the 6th inst.

Mr. R. Ivor Parry, solicitor, who has filled the civic chair before will be the new Mayor of Pwllheli.

The annual dinner of the Surrey Bench and Bar will be held at the Grand Hotel, London, on Wednesday, the 8th Dec., at 7 p.m.

The Lord Chief Justice will preside at a soirée given by the Concert Goers' Club to be held at the Royal Academy of Music on Monday. The November adjourned general sessions for cases arising on the north and south sides of the Thames will commence next Tuesday, at the Sessions-house, Newington, at 10.30.

The Wigan Conservative Party has decided to recommend Mr. Reginald J. Neville, Recorder for Bury St. Edmunds, as prospective candidate for Wigan.

The Hon. J. C. Smuts, Colonial Secretary of the Transvaal, is acting as Attorney-General of that Colony during the absence of the Hon. Jacob de Villiers.

Mr. Wililam Philip Hubbersty, of Birkstall Hall, Leicester, for forty years registrar of the Burton-upon-Trent County Court, who died on the 1st Aug., aged sixty-nine years, left estate valued at £69,405 11s. 4d. gross, with net personalty £50,863 6s. 8d.

Mr. Frederick William Pogmore, of Bond-street, Leigh, Lancs, and of Manchester, solicitor, who died on the 15th Oct., aged forty-six, left estate valued at £7317 gross, with net personalty £7277. He left £500 to his clerk, William Hale.

Mr. George Hadfield, of Hollywood, Pendleton, and of Manchester, solicitor, late senior member of the firm of Messrs. George Hadfield, Bennett, and Carlisle, of Manchester, who died on the 3rd Sept., aged eighty-three, left estate sworn at £215,043 gress.

Mr. Harry P. Lane, Deputy Chief Constable of Liverpool, has been elected Assistant Chief Constable of Lancashire. Mr. Lane has had nineteen years' police experience in Essex, and was for two years deputy chief constable of Kent.

The United Bank and Law Club, 21, Southampton-buildings Chancery-lane, W.C., will hold a smoking concert on the 26th inst. The club is for the benefit of those engaged in the banking and legal world.

The United Law Society held a debate last Monday, when Mr. R. C. Nesbitt moved: "That this House records its disapproval of the principles of taxation contained in the Budget." Mr. A. H. Richardson opposed. The motion was carried by eleven votes to eight.

Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady, in the Chancery Division on Saturday last, held, on the true construction of the deed of foundation, that it was competent for the governors of the Royal Holloway College, Egham, to alter the rules and regulations so as to enable a woman to be a governor or honorary governor.

"The House of Lords" will be the subject of the next debate in the Conference Room at the National Liberal Club on Monday. It will be opened by Mr. J. A. Simon, K.C., M.P., and the chair will be taken at eight o'clock by Mr. Robert Steven, vice-chairman of the Political Committee.

Mr. Arthur Smith, the new clerk to the Wigan county justices, was formerly town clerk of Wigan, and resigned that post in 1895 to resume private practice. He is clerk of the peace for the borough, a member of the Newton District Council, and chairman of the Newton' district of the Newton Division Unionist Association.

A lecture will be given next Friday in the Old Hall, Lincoln's-inn, before the Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association, by Mr. Alexander Macmorran, K.C., on "Covenants Relating to the Payment of Rates, Taxes, and Outgoings." The chair will be taken at seven o'clock by Lord Justice Kennedy.

The Master of the Rolls will preside at a conference on Registration of Teachers called by the Federal Council of Secondary School Associations in conjunction with the Head Masters' Conference, the National Union of Teachers, and the Associations of Technical Institutions and of Teachers in Technical Institutions, to be held at Clothworkers' Hall, Mincing-lane, to-day (Saturday),

Mr. Justice Phillimore opened the commission at Winchester last Saturday, after which he returned to London and sat in court on Tuesday to proceed with the Bankruptcy list. His Lordship returned to Winchester on Wednesday, and, after the business at that assize town is finished, he will proceed to Bristol on Monday, where he will be joined by Mr. Justice Coleridge.

The High Sheriff of Sussex (Mr. John Waddington), at the opening of the Sussex Assizes on Wednesday, entertained at luncheon in the County Hall, Lewes, the Marquis of Abergavenny, Lord Brassey, the members of the Bar on the South-Eastern Circuit, the Mayors of Rye, Hastings, Lewes, Brighton, Hove, and Bexhill, and many other gentlemen holding official positions in the county.

Mr. H. C. Gutteridge, of the Middle Temple, the chairman, presided on Wednesday at an informal meeting of the Henn Collins Literary and Debating Society, held at the Inns of Court Mission Institute and Working Men's Club, Drury-lane, when the "Topics of the Week were debated. Mr. W. H. Macnamara, of the Inner Temple, will give a lantern lecture next Wednesday, at 8.30, entitled "Norway: Its Scenery and People." Admission is free, and ladies are invited.

We have seen no manuscript books on the "loose-leaf" system more convenient than those of John Walker and Co. Limited, of Farringdon House, Warwick-lane. They are called the "University Expert Manuscript Books," and are made in four sizes and two bindings, a most attractive art canvas, or quarter bound leather. By using the "Expert system, the student need take only one notebook to a series of lectures on various subjects, afterwards removing the leaves and placing them in "transfer cases" set apart for special subjects. Refills, of course, are supplied.

The strange incident in the career of Sir John Gorst to which reference was made in our issue last week, of his having been at first member for a university town (Cambridge) and subsequently member for the university itself, has its parallel in the career of the Right Hon. Sir Frederick Shaw, Bart., who was Recorder of the City of Dublin from 1828 till his death in 1876, and was a great power in the House of Commons, having been offered Cabinet office, which he declined as his circumstances did not justify his resignation of the recordership. Sir Frederick Shaw was member for the city of Dublin from 1830 till 1832, and member for Dublin University from 1832 till 1848.

The Union Society of London held its fifth meeting of the 1909-10 session on Wednesday, under the presidency of Mr. George F.Kingham. The motion before the House was: " That this House would approve of the introduction of the referendum." The debate was opened by Mr. W. R. Willson, and the opposition was moved by Mr. St. John Field. Among those who spoke either for or against the motion were Messrs. Michelson, Leon Freedman, James B. Melville, Mecke, Frank Enness, Russell Davies, Roche M. P. Wright, Cape, Rodgers, and Chapman. On a division, eight voted for the motion and twelve against.

In Bankruptcy, on Monday, an adjourned first meeting of creditors was held under the receiving order made on the 5th Oct. last against Mr. Ferdinand Marcus Collings, solicitor, practising under the style of Collings and Co. at Buckingham-street, Strand, W.C. Mr. W. P. Bowyer, assistant official receiver, presided. A statement of affairs was produced showing gross liabilities £3161, of which £1000 was expected to rank, and assets £197 17s. The meeting resolved that the official receiver should apply for an order adjudging the debtor a bankrupt. It was intimated that the debtor would receive notice of the application, which might be opposed by him.

The National Peace Council recently addressed a letter to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs asking why the Anglo-German Treaty was extended by only one year when others were re-enacted for the original period of five years. In reply Sir Edward Grey states that the renewal of the Arbitration Agreement between this country and Germany "was only effected for one year owing to the question of the insertion of certain additional matter being under consideration at the time of its expiry, but that His Majesty's Government have since decided in favour of an extension of the period of renewal for a full term of five years."

66

Mr. Robert Wallace, K.C., spoke strongly at the London Sessions, on the 3rd inst., in relation to a much-needed reform-an institution for housing those criminals who, being of weak mind, should not be sent to prison, and are not insane, and therefore cannot be kept in an asylum. There is no place in which we can put the weakminded prisoner in this country," he remarked, in emphatic tones. "I have said again and again, and expressed myself in the strongest way about it, that there are these cases of people who cannot be certified as insane because they are not actually and dangerously insane. They are weak-minded and utterly irresponsible, but there is no provision made for them, in spite of our civilisation."

.

The American Consul at Nuremberg reports the establishment of a municipal bureau for the purpose of giving free information and advice to citizens of small means. The new department is under the control of the municipal government. The duties of the bureau are to furnish information to all citizens in regard to questions of rights under the law, and more particularly to matters in connection with sick, accident, invalid, and old-age insurance; in matters pertaining to the respective rights of employer and employed; in regard to police, military, school, and pauper regulations, and to the taxation laws; and to citizens and residents of small means information and advice on questions of the rights of citizenship, including all matters coming under the criminal code and as to procedure thereunder. This includes information as to the jurisdiction of the various courts dealing with the divers punishable offences, &c. Information of this class is not to be given to parties who are regarded as financially able to employ attorneys to safeguard their interests, but only to such as might suffer because too poor to pay for competent legal advice. All officials of the bureau are strictly forbidden to receive compensation, gratuity, or gift of any character for any service rendered, Over twenty of such bureaux have been established in Germany.