“Table showing the Comparative Cost of Copying and Engrossing as charged by Solicitors and Law Stationers. prominently forward, inasmuch as the Judges have, so lately as in Hilary Term, 1853, in their directions to the Taxing-Masters, expressly authorised this rate of payment. "This table, it will be observed, comprises | Committee feel the more bound to put this fact most of the ordinary charges for copying and engrossing in Conveyancing and Common Law proceedings; and it shows that the attorney charges, and is allowed on taxation, sums varying from three and one-third to four times the amounts charged by the law stationer; that is, from three and one-third to four times the market value of his commodity. And your "To show the mode in which this operates, an analysis of a few of the regular charges for some of the ordinary proceedings is given, beginning with— "A Solicitor's Bill of Costs, for a Common Lease of Thirty Folios on Two Skins.3 "The charge by the new directions of Hilary Term, 1853, is 4d. per folio." 3 "This bill (as also that for a Declaration,) was kindly drawn out by a solicitor for the Committee!" 406 Remuneration of Solicitors.-Notes of the Week.-Superior Courts: Lords Justices. "This bill, therefore, contains 31. 3s. 4d. for the solicitor's professional skill; 27. 10s. for copying; and 21. 6s. 8d. for materials, moneys paid, &c. And of this, 17. 10s. only is for the preparation of the important document itself. Now if 17. 10s. be a sufficient remuneration for drawing the document, surely 27. 10s. must be more than a proportionate remuneration for its transcription and engrossment. And the truth of this will be seen by inspection of the column in which the law stationer's charges are contained. "Supposing, then, that the skilled labour is properly charged for, it appears that by taking the law stationer's charges for the unskilled, and striking off the attendance at the Stamp Office (which, in fact, seldom if ever takes place), the saving effected will be as follows: -On the copying and engrossment, 17. 17s.; on the parchment, 3s. ; and the 6s. 8d. for the attendance; making 21. 6s. 8d. on the wholea saving, that is, of 29 per cent.* The actual majority at present is 95 Thus, of the present Parliament, no less than 541 members have recorded their votes, leaving only 100 who have not voted on either side,- -a large majority of whom it is confidently expected will also support the Bill. It is also observable that the Cabinet Ministers and other holders of office, to the number the Bill, and that 9 members who previously of 35, were all in their places and voted against voted for it, on the present occasion voted against the repeal. On the result, it appears that at least two-thirds of the House are in favour of the Bill. RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS, Lords Justices. c. 42, and the executors now questioned whether the bequest was not void under the Sta Church Building Society v. Barlow. March 7, tute of Mortmain, as tending to bring land 8, 1853. CHARITABLE BEQUEST.-STATUTE OF MORT MAIN.—SOCIETY FOR BUILDING CHURCHES. A testator gave to the Society for Building Churches a sum of money, equal to a certain amount of 3 per cent. reduced bank annuities, which he expressly charged on such part of his personal estate as he could by law charge with the payment thereof. The society in question was incorporated under the 9 Geo. 4, c. 42, which only empowered the company to repair, enlarge, or build churches on land already in mortmain: Held, that the legacy was valid and not within the Statute as tending to bring land into mortmain. THE testator, John Brown, by his will, dated in May, 1846, gave to the Society for Building Churches such a sum of money as should be equal to the average market price or value of 5,500l. 3 per cent. reduced bank annuities on the day next before that on which the executors should pay the same. The testator expressly charged the charitable bequests in his will on such part of his personal estate as he could by law charge with the payment thereof, and exonerated all his other property from payment of the same. It appeared this society was incorporated under the 9 Geo. 4, into mortmain. Rolt and Speed for the plaintiffs; Walker and Bird for the executors. The Lords Justices said, that as the Act incorporating the society had not given any express power to the company to purchase land, but only to repair, enlarge, or build churches on land already put in mortmain, such a power could not be implied, and it was also provided by the Act that the committee of management were not to make any regulations as to the dealings of the society which should be repugnant to the laws of the land. The legacy was therefore valid and must be paid to the society. Superior Courts: Lords Justices.-Rolls.-V. C. Kindersley. Mauley and others - Order for payment of money out of Court. Mar. 14.-Richmond v. Jefferies-Costs of claim for administration to come out of estate. 14.-Countess of Mornington v. Earl of Mornington-Judgment on further directions and costs. 15.-Earratt v. M'Dermott-Part heard. Master of the Rolls. 407 On a petition to obtain the sanction of the Court to an agreement by the guardians of an infant for the exchange of land, and to approve of a conveyance, a reference was directed to the Master according to the former practice,-it being a casus omissus in the 15 16 Vict. c. 80, ss. 40, 41. THIS was a petition to obtain the sanction of the Court to an agreement entered into by the guardians of an infant for the exchange of Dean and Chapter of Ely v. Hensley. Feb. 14, land near Huddersfield under a private act of 1853. JURISDICTION IN EQUITY IMPROVEMENT ACT. ORDER TO REVIVE. DEATH OF SOLE DEFENDANT. Held, that under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 52, a plaintiff upon the death of a sole defendant is only entitled to an order to revive and to be enabled to carry on the suit as if such defendant's executors were original parties thereto, and cannot also call on them to admit assets, or for the common account to be issued. IT appeared that the plaintiffs had proceeded, upon the death of the sole defendant after appearance and before decree, to obtain the common order to revive as against his executors under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 52. Fleming now appeared for a direction to the Registrar to draw up the order for the revival of the suit against such executors, and that they should admit assets, or for the common account to be taken. The Master of the Rolls said, the plaintiffs were only entitled under the Act to an order to revive and to be enabled to carry on the suit against the executors as if they had been original parties, and the application was accordingly refused. Parliament which had been obtained for the purpose, and for the settlement of a proper deed of exchange. Russell and Renshaw, in support, said, that under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 80, ss. 40, 41, a reference could only be made to the conveyancing counsel in cases of sales or mortgages, and that a reference must be made to the Master under the old practice. Hardy for other parties. The Vice-Chancellor said, it was evidently a casus omissus in the Act, and that the best plan would be to send the matter to the Master who would approve of a deed of exchange prepared by the conveyancer of the parties according to the usual course. Certain property was given to trustees on trust to be paid to the testator's daughters on their attaining 21 or marriage with the trustees' consent, and the trustees were empowered in the event of their marrying under age with their consent to settle their respective shares on them and their children: Held, that a daughter who married under age and without consent was not entitled to payment until she attained 21. THE testator, by his will, gave his property to trustees therein named on trust for his daughters to be paid to them on their attaining the age of 21, or upon their marriage under that age with the trustees' consent. There was also a provision that if any of the daughters married under age with the trustees' consent, they might pay it over at once or at their discretion settle it on her and her children. It appeared one of the daughters married under age and without the consent of the trustees, who now filed this bill for a settlement on her of her property. J. Baily and Hare for the plaintiffs; Drewry for the defendants. The Vice-Chancellor said, that as the daughter had married without consent, she was not entitled to payment until she attained 21. 408 Superior Courts: V. C. Kindersley.-V. C. Stuart.-V. C. Wood. Mar. 12.—In re London Conveyance Company-Stand over to 1st day of Easter Term. 12.-Ruck v. Barwish-Judgment as to allowance to Indian trustees. ADMINISTRATION SUIT.-RIGHT OF LAND- A testator held property under an agreement Mar. 14.-Watson v. Alcock-Injunction granted to restrain action at law. 14.-Parker v. Rooke-Judgment on fur Other directions and costs. And semble, such leave is necessary, under s. 13, where any of the parties are under disability. THIS was an application under s. 13 of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 35, for leave to set down a special case for argument, where one of the defendants was a married woman. By s. 13 of the Act, it is provided that By an agreement dated October, 1847, Lord" when any married woman, infant, or lunatic, Ward agreed to grant, and the testator in this administration suit, agreed to accept, at the yearly rent of 2,000,, a lease of certain plantations in Jamaica, for the term of 21 years determinable by either party at the end of the first 10 or 15 years, and that the lease should contain all usual and proper covenants. It appeared that no rent had been paid, although the testator entered into possession and continued to occupy until his death in August, 1849, and that possession was given up to Lord Ward in December following. No lease had been executed of the premises in accordance with the agreement. The Master having reported on the reference to take accounts, that Lord Ward was entitled to the arrears of rent as a specialty creditor, exceptions were taken thereto. Swanston and Goodeve in support; Malins and Renshaw, contrà. The Vice-Chancellor, after referring to Clough v. French, 2 Coll. 277; Dunk v. Hunter, 5 B. & Ald. 322, and Way v. Yalley, 2 Salk. 651, said, that as in the present case there were no words in the agreement by way of present demise, the remedy of the landlord was simply dependent on the Law of Contract, and did not subsist by force of the relation of landlord and tenant, and that Lord Ward was therefore not entitled to rank as a specialty creditor in respect of the arrears of rent, and the exception must accordingly be allowed. is party to a special case, application may be made to the Court by motion, for leave to set down the same, of which motion notice shall be given to every party to such case in whom, as executor, administrator, or trustee, any pro perty in question therein is or is alleged to be vested in trust for or for the benefit of such married woman, infant, or lunatic, to such married woman and her husband, or to such infant, or to such lunatic and his committee, if any, as the case may be; and that upon the hearing of such motion, the said Court may give leave to set down such case, if it shall be of opinion that it is proper that the question raised therein shall be determined thereon, and shall be satisfied by affidavit, or other sufficient evidence, that the statements contained therein, so far as the same affect the interest of such married woman, infant, or lunatic, are true, but otherwise may refuse such application." Prendergast, in support, said the statements were duly verified, and the question was a proper one to be argued, but that a question had arisen whether it was not sufficient to produce the affidavit to the registrar without mentioning it in Court. The Vice-Chancellor, in making the order, held that the case had been properly mentioned to the Court. March 9.-Domville v. Lamb—Appointment under power held valid. 10-Alston v. Eastern Union Railway Company-Stand over. 10.-Buckley v. Cooke-Part heard. 11. Havens v. Middleton overruled as to title. Objection 12. In re Bedford Charities-Order for taxation and payment of trustees' costs. 9, 14.-Earl of Lindsey v. Great Northern Railway Company-Injunction granted. 15.-Atchison v. Le Mann-Part heard. The Legal Observer, DIGEST, AND JOURNAL OF JURISPRUDENCE. SATURDAY, MARCH 26, 1853. LAW OF EVIDENCE AND PROCE- LORD CRANWORTH'S SPEECH ON THE Our readers are already in possession (see ante p. 105) of the leading provisions of this Bill, and must participate in the general desire to be informed how far the more important provisions meet the approval of the noble lord, who from his position at the head of the legal department, may be considered upon such matters to represent the Government? Lord Brougham, upon moving the second reading of the Bill, adverted especially to three of the changes it was intended to effect, and argued with his accustomed eloquence and ability, that all those changes were eminently deserving 1st. That the husbands and wives of parties, in all civil actions, shall be competent and compellable to give evidence, with this modification, that husband or wife shall not be examined upon matters communicated by the one to the other during coverture. THE Lord Chancellor already shares the fate of every cautious and considerate Law Reformer. He is accused of being behind the time, of obstructing the spirit of progress, and of a thousand other vague misfeances, of which the true meaning is, that he does not lend himself, and will not resign his own judgment, to those who think that the essence of all good is to be of consideration and legislative support. found in perpetual change! Hence, we The clauses specially selected for discussion find it industriously whispered about involve the following propositions:though doubtless without any shadow of foundation beyond the wishes of those who propagate the rumour-that Lord Cranworth does not give entire satisfaction to the leading members of the Cabinet with which he is associated, and attention is constantly directed to her Majesty's SolicitorGeneral as "the coming man.' Sir Richard Bethell has the good fortune to have it supposed, with or without authority, that he has a goodly flotilla of Legal Reforms, on the stocks ready to be launched, whenever his position renders it desirable, and his friends are not backward in anticipating his elevation to the Woolsack, as if it were an event already determined upon. Upon all the proposed changes Lord Humbly, but decidedly differing from Cranworth pronounced his opinion with the Lord Chancellor, upon the Registration clearness and readiness. As to the first of Assurances' Bill, and some other mea- proposal, he thought, the exceptive provisures to which he has given the weight of sion introduced into the Act 14 & 15 Vict. his authority, it is impossible not to appre- c. 99, might be repealed with benefit to ciate the discretion, candour, and good society, and that many of the difficulties sense, he has evinced, upon some recent felt on the subject would be removed by occasions, amongst which we may instance, the clause now introduced, providing that the debate upon Lord Brougham's motion notwithstanding the authority given to exfor the second reading of the Law of Evi- amine a wife for or against her husband, dence and Procedure Amendment Bill. or a husband for or against his wife, no No. 1,307. VOL. XLV. 2ndly. It is proposed, that a witness shall not be excused from answering any question upon the ground that the answer may tend to criminate him. 3rdly. That in all courts, and in all civil actions, the parties should be allowed the option of having their cases tried by the Judge without the assistance of a jury. Y |