« EelmineJätka »
“ Table showing the Comparative Cost of Copying and Engrossing as charged by Solicitors
and Law Stationers.
: "This table, it will be observed, comprises Committee feel the more bound to put this fact most of the ordinary charges for copying and prominently forward, inasmuch as the Judges engrossing in Conveyancing and Common have, so lately as in Hilary Term, 1853, in Law proceedings; and it shows that the attor- their directions to the Taxing-Masters, exney charges, and is allowed on taxation, sums pressly authorised this rate of payment. varying from three and one-third to four times " To show the mode in which this operates, the amounts charged by the law stationer; an analysis of a few of the regular charges for that is, from three and one-third to four times some of the ordinary proceedings is given, bethe market value of his commodity. And your ginning with
“A Solicitor's Bill of Costs, for a Common Lease of Thirty Folios on Two Skins.3
Attending you on your instructions to take a lease
of, &c. .
folio . . . . .
? “ 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 NOTES OF THE WEEK. the solicitor's professional skill; 21. 10s. for copying; and 21. 6s. 8d. for materials, moneys paid, &c. And of this, 11. 10s. only is RESULT OF THE VOTES IN THE NEW PARfor the preparation of the important document | LIAMENT ON THE CERTIFICATE DUTY. itself. Now if 11. 10s. be a sufficient remune- ' Adding to the 219 members who voted ration for drawing the document, surely 21. 10s. for the Bill on the 10th of March, must be more than a proportionate remunera those who voted on former occasions, tion for its transcription and engrossment.
or who paired off' in favour of the And the truth of this will be seen by inspec
Bill, the number in support of the tion of the column in which the law stationer's measure is . . . .
. charges are contained.
Deducting 167 votes against the Bill “Supposing, then, that the skilled labour is
18 and former votes and pairs, making. 223 properly charged for, it appears that by taking the law stationer's charges for the unskilled,
The actual majority at present is. 95 and striking off the attendance at the Stamp Office (which, in fact, seldom if ever takes
1 Thus, of the present Parliament, no less than place), the saving effected will be as follows: 541 members have recorded their votes, lear-On the copying and engrossment, ll. 178. : ing only 100 who have not voted on either on the parchment, 3s. : and the 6s. sd. for the side,-a large majority of whom it is confi. attendance; making 21. 6s. 8d. on the whole- dently expected will also support the Bill. a saving, that is, of 2916 per cent."
1. It is also observable that the Cabinet Minis. ters and other holders of office, to the number
of 35, were all in their places and voted against 4 We should have thought the true question the Bill, and that 9 members who previously was, whether the solicitor was paid too much voted for it, on the present occasion voted on the whole for his skill, labour, and respon against the repeal. On the result, it appears sibility ?
that at least two-thirds of the House are in [To be continued.]
| favour of the Bill.
RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS,
AND SHORT NOTES OF CASES.
c. 42, and the executors now questioned she
ther the bequest was not void under the StaChurch Building Society v. Barlow. March 7, tute of Mortmain, as tending to bring land 8, 1853.
into mortmain. CHARITABLE BEQUEST.-STATUTE OF MORT | Rolt and Speed for the plaintiffs: Walker • MAIN.-SOCIETY FOR BUILDING CHURCHES.
and Bird for the executors.
The Lords Justices said, that as the Act inA testator gave to the Society for Building corporating the society had not given any ex.
Churches a sum of money, equal to a certain press power to the company to purchase land,
into morimain. The testator, John Brown, by his will, March 9.-- Pennell v. Roy-Order for indated in May, 1846, gave to the Society for junction discharged. Building Churches such a sum of money as - 9. - In re Probert's Estate - Vesting should be equal to the average market price or order under the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 60, refused. value of 5,5001. 3 per cent. reduced bank an- - 9, 10.-Turner v. Blamire-Appeal disnuities on the day next before that on which missed from Vice-Chancellor Kindersley. the executors should pay the same. The tes. - 11.-In re Leake, exparte Warrington tator expressly charged the charitable bequests -Cur. ad. vult. in his will on such part of his personal estate - 12.-Attorney-General v. Wyggeston Hos: as he could by law charge with the payment pital — Petition struck out of the paper, with thereof, and exonerated all his other property liberty to apply. from payment of the same. It appeared this - 14.-In re Great Western and City June society was incorporated under the 9 Geo. 4, tion Railway Company, exparte Lord
Superior Courts : Lords Justices.-Rolls.--V. C. Kindersley.
407 Mauley and others – Order for payment of On a petition to obtain the sanction of the money out of Court.
Court to an agreement by the guardians of Mar. 14.-Richmond v. Jefferies-Costs of an infant for the exchange of land, and to claim for administration to come out of estate. approve of a conveyance, a reference was
– 14.-Countess of Mornington v. Earl of directed to the Master according to the Mornington- Judgment on further directions former practice,-it being a casus omissus and costs.
in the 15 16 Vict. c. 80, ss. 40, 41. - 15.-Earratt v. M'Dermott-Part heard. This was a petition to obtain the sanction
of the Court to an agreement entered into by Master of the Rolls.
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.
Parliament which had been obtained for the
purpose, and for the settlement of a proper JURISDICTION IN EQUITY IMPROVEMENT
T deed of exchange. ACT. ORDER TO REVIVE. - DEATH OF
Russell and Renshaw, in support, said, that SOLE DEFENDANT.
under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 80, ss. 40, 41, a reHeld, that under the 15 8. 16 Vict. c. 86, s. ference could only be made to the conveyanc
52, a plaintiff upon the death of a sole de-ing counsel in cases of sales or mortgages, and fendant is only entitled to an order to re- that a reference must be made to the Master vive and to be enabled to carry on the suit under the old practice. as if such defendant's executors were origi- Hardy for other parties. nal parties thereto, and cannot also call on The Vice-Chancellor said, it was evidently a them to admit assets, or for the common casus omissus in the Act, and that the best account to be issued.
plan would be to send the matter to the Master It appeared that the plaintiffs had proceed. who would approve of a deed of exchange preed, upon the death of the sole defendant after pared by the conveyancer of the parties accordappearance and before decree, to obtain the ing to the usual course. 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
e Taylor v. Austen. March 12, 1853. Registrar to draw up the order for the revival BEQUEST. — CONSTRUCTION. TO DAUGHof the suit against such executors, and that TERS ON MARRYING WITH TRUSTEES' they should admit assets, or for the common CONSENT. account to be taken. The Master of the Rolls said, the plaintiffs
Certain property was given to trustees on
trust to be paid to the testator's daughters were only entitled under the Act to an order to
on their attaining 21 or marriage with the revive and to be enabled to carry on the suit
trustees' consent, and the trustees were emagainst the executors as if they had been origi.
powered in the event of their marrying nal parties, and the application was accord
under age with their consent to settle their ingly refused.
respective shares on them and their children:
Held, that a daughter who married under March 9.- Attorney-General v. Armstrong
age and without consent was not entitled to - Inquiry directed as to management of cha
payment until she attained 21. rity and for account. - 9.-Pennell v. Deffell - Exceptions al
The testator, by his will, gave his property lowed to the Master's report.
to trustees therein named on trust for his - 10.-Edwards v. Tuck; Same v. Sutton daughters to be paid to them on their attain-Clause for accumulations held void. ing the age of 21, or upon their marriage under
- 11.-Weddcoll v. Nixon-Decree for that age with the trustees' consent. There was specific performance.
also a provision that if any of the daughters - 12.-Mudge v. Futvoye-Judgment for married under age with the trustees' consent, the plaintiff-costs reserved.
they might pay it over at once or at their dis- 12. — Richards v. Scarborough Market cretion settle it on her and her children. It Company- Order of course discharged, with appeared one of the daughters married under costs.
age and without the consent of the trustees, - 12.- Ratcliffe v. Winch - Injunction who now filed this bill for a settlement on her granted to restrain action in County Court. of her property.
- 12, 14.-Duke of Beaufort vi Patrick J. Baily and Hare for the plaintiffs; Drewry Cur. ad. vult.
for the defendants. - 14,15.-M-Cleod y. Annesley-Decree for The Vice-Chancellor said, that as the daughaccount, with costs.
ter had married without consent, she was not
entitled to payment until she attained 21. Vice-Chancellor Zindersley. Thornhill v. Thornhill. March 11, 1853. 1 March 9, 10.-Ind v. Wightwick-Cur, ad. MASTERS' ABOLITION ACT.-- REFERENCE TO vult. APPROVE or conveYANCE FOR EXCHANGE - 10.-Vaughan y, Vanderstegan – Stand
over. OF INFANT'S LAND.
408 Superior Courts : V. C. Kindersley.-V. C. Stuart.–V. C. Wood.
Mar. 12.-In re London Conveyance Com- Mar. 14.-Watson v. Alcock - Injunction pany-Stand over to 1st day of Easter Term. granted to restrain action at law.
- 12.- Ruck v. Barwish-Judgment as to - 14.–Parker v. Rooke~Judgment on fur. allowance to Indian trustees.
ther directions and costs.
Vice-Chancellor ewood. Vincent v. Godson. March 15, 1853.
Sidebottom v. Watson. Feb. 25, 1853. ADMINISTRATION SUIT.-RIGHT OF LAND-TURNER'S ACT. LEAVE TO SET DOWN A LORD OP PREMISES HELD UNDER AGREE
SPECIAL CASE FOR ARGUMENT.-MARMENT OF LEASE AS SPECIALTY CRE
Leave granted to set down a special case for for a lease, which should contain the usual
argument, under the 13 8. 14 Vict, c. 35, and proper covenants, and he entered into
where one of the defendants was a married possession, but had never paid any rent nor
woman. executed the lease in accordance with the
And semble, such leave is necessary, under agreement : Held, allowing an exception to
s. 13, where any of the parties are under the Master's report on a reference in an ad
disability. ministration suit, that the lessor was not This was an application under s. 13 of the entitled to rank as a specialty creditor in 13 & 14 Vict, c. 35, for leave to set down a respect of the arrears of rent,--the relation special case for argument, where one of the of landlord and tenant not existing under defendants was a married woman. such agreement.
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 is party to a special case, application may be administration suit, agreed to accept, at the made to the Court by motion, for leave to set yearly rent of 2,0001,, a lease of certain planta down the same, of which motion notice shall tions in Jamaica, for the term of 21 years de- be given to every party to such case in whom, terminable by either party at the end of the as executor, administrator, or trustee, any profirst 10 or 15 years, and that the lease should perty in question therein is or is alleged to be contain all usual and proper covenants. It vested in trust for or for the benefit of such appeared that no rent had been paid, although married woman, infant, or lunatic, to such the testator entered into possession and con- married woman and her husband, or to such tinued to occupy until his death in August, infant, or to such lunatic and his committee, if 1849, and that possession was given up to Lord any, as the case may be ; and that upon the Ward in December following. No lease had hearing of such motion, the said Court may been executed of the premises in accordance give leave to set down such case, if it shall be with the agreement. The Master having re- of opinion that it is proper that the question ported on the reference to take accounts, that raised therein shall be determined thereon, and Lord Ward was entitled to the arrears of rent shall be satisfied by affidavit, or other sufficient as a specialty creditor, exceptions were taken evidence, that the statements contained therein, thereto.
so far as the same affect the interest of such Swanston and Goodeve in support; Malins married woman, infant, or lunatic, are true, and Renshaw, contrà.
but otherwise may refuse such application."
Prendergast, in support, said the statements Clough v. French, 2 Coll. 277; Dunk v. Hunter, were duly verified, and the question was a 5 B. & Ald. 322, and Way v. Yalley, 2 Salk. I proper one to be argued, but that a question 651, said, that as in the present case there were had arisen whether it was not sufficient to prono words in the agreement by way of present duce the affidavit to the registrar without mendemise, the remedy of the landlord was simply tioning it in Court. dependent on the Law of Contract, and did! The Vice-Chancellor, in making the order, not subsist by force of the relation of landlord held that the case had been properly menand tenant, and that Lord Ward was therefore tioned to the Court. not entitled to rank as a specialty creditor in respect of the arrears of rent, and the exception March 9.-Domville v. Lamb-Appointment must accordingly be allowed.
under power held valid.
– 10.-Alston v. Eastern Union Railway March 9.-Wildes v. Davis-Part heard. Company-Stand over.
-10.--Simpson v. Chapman-Inquiries andl - 10.-Buckley v. Cooke-Part heard. accounts directed in administration suit.
- 11.- Havens v. Middleton — Objection - 11.- Fowler v. Reynal — Judgment on overruled as to title. further directions and costs.
- 12.-In re Bedford Charities-Order for - 11.—Mossop v. Morris -Judgment on taxation and payment of trustees' costs. further directions and costs.
- 9, 14,- Earl of Lindsey v. Great Northers - 12.- Hopkins v. Alliott-Bill disrnissed Railway Company-Injunction granted. without costs.
- 15.-Aichison v. Le Mann-Part heard.
The Legal Observer,
DIGEST, AND JOURNAL OF JURISPRUDENCE.
SATURDAY, MARCH 26, 1853.
LAW OF EVIDENCE AND PROCE- Our readers are already in possession DURE BILL.
(see ante p. 105) of the leading provisions of this Bill, and must participate in the ge
neral desire to be informed how far the LORD CRANWORTH'S SPEECH ON THE
more important provisions meet the apSECOND READING.
proval of the noble lord, who from his poThe Lord Chancellor already shares sition at the head of the legal department, the fate of erery cautious and considerate may be considered upon such matters to Law Reformer. He is accused of being represent the Government? Lord Brougham, behind the time, of obstructing the spirit of upon moving the second reading of the Bill, progress, and of a thousand other vague adverted especially to three of the changes misfeances, of which the true meaning is, it was intended to effect, and argued with that he does not lend himself, and will not his accustomed eloquence and ability, that resign his own judgment, to those who all those changes were eminently deserving 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 Ist. That the husbands and wives of parfoundation beyond the wishes of those who ties, in all civil actions, shall be competent propagate the rumour—that Lord Cran- and compellable to give evidence, with this worth does not give entire satisfaction to modification, that husband or wife shall the leading members of the Cabinet with not be examined upon matters communiwhich he is associated, and attention is con- cated by the one to the other during costantly directed to her Majesty's Solicitor- verture. General as “the coming man." Sir Richard 2ndly. It is proposed, that a witness Bethell has the good fortune to have shall not be excused from answering any it supposed, with or without authority, question upon the ground that the answer that he has a goodly flotilla of Legal Re- may tend to criminate him. forms, on the stocks ready to be launched, 3rdly. That in all courts, and in all civil whenever his position renders it desirable, actions, the parties should be allowed the and his friends are not backward in antici- option of having their cases tried by the pating his elevation to the Woolsack, as if Judge without the assistance of a jury. 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
Vol. xlv. No. 1,307.