28 London and Country Commissioners in Chan.—Acknowledgments of Married Women. posed in the most tranquil haunts of seclusion, and without any object to divert the Author's mind from its preparation, it could not exhibit more decided proofs of deep attention and learned research. LONDON COMMISSIONERS TO AD- FURTHER REGULATIONS. (Signed) May 6, 1854. By order of the Lord Chancellor. MINISTER OATHS IN CHANCERY. IN consequence of the great number of The interest of Mr. Hamel's Treatise gentlemen already appointed London Comaffects three classes of the community in missioners to administer Oaths in Chancery, particular. The commercial body are pri- the Lord Chancellor will not make any marily concerned in acquainting themselves further appointments at present, unless, in with every item of its contents; the Custom- addition to the certificates now required, house officer has a commensurate interest; the applicant produces one signed by two and, considering that it deals not only with householders, stating the necessity for an the whole law for the recovery of duties, pe-additional appointment, and a statement of nalties, and forfeitures, but with that which the number of Commissioners within a regulates the institution of criminal proceed-quarter of a mile of the applicant, and that ings on the prosecution of the Crown, we need he himself carries on his business upwards scarcely say, that the interest of the lawyer of a mile from Lincoln's Inn Hall. in the volume cannot be inferior to that of either the merchant or the officer of Customs. It is a strange fact, that before the publication of this volume, no work on the Customs Laws attempted even the slightest reference to the many reported decisions in Customs cases. Mr. Walford's book, though compiled by a barrister, was a mere edition of the Statutes as they existed at its date. Mr. Hamel's work evinces a thorough in- THE applicant must be a practising sotimacy with the learning of revenue law, as licitor of ten years' standing: he will be abounding in the reports, especially in the required to leave with the usual certificate Court of Exchequer, and also, as examined signed by two barristers a memorial signed in the manuscript reports taken in short by some of the public functionaries and hand for the Customs Department. In this professional persons in the town where he respect the Author has conferred a signal benefit on the entire Legal Profession. But, the boon will be peculiarly serviceable to the Attorneys, bearing in mind the circumstance, that a large class of actions and informations, which could not be tried elsewhere than in the Court of Exchequer under the former Statutes, may under the new Act be brought in the County ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF MARRIED Courts, or before the Justices at Sessions. The course to be advised upon by the pro FURTHER REGULATIONS. resides, that he is a fit and proper person By order of the Lord Chancellor, May 6, 1854. WOMEN. MISSIONERS. fessional man is so dependent upon nice APPOINTMENT, DUTIES, AND FEES OF COMdiscriminations, as to peculiarity of circumstances and applicability of jurisdiction, that Mr. Hamel's lucid explanations appear an essential key to the Act, and ought therefore to be in the hands of every lawyer. We regret not being able to make room for some extracts from the elegantly written historical introduction to the work, nor to add further to our unqualified testimony of the ability with which the volume has been composed, than to repeat our opinion that the Customs Department have every reason to felicitate themselves on the production, by one of their own chief officers, of a treatise evincing so much learning and talent. HAVING received inquiries on the subject of the authority, duties, and fees of Perpetual Commissioners appointed under the Fines' and Recoveries' Abolition Act, we subjoin the substance of the enactments and Rules of Court on the subject: Under sect. 79 of the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 74, every deed by a married woman, not executed by her as protector, must be acknowledged by her before a Judge of one of the Superior Courts at Westminster,' or before two Perpe Masters in Chancery were authorised to take acknowledgments; but their office being abolished, the power has ceased. Acknowledgments of Married Women.-Statistics of the County Courts. tual Commissioners; &c., and under the 80th section, before such acknowledgment is received, she is to be examined apart from her husband. Perpetual Commissioners are appointed under the authority of sect. 81, by the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and the proceedings are regulated by the General Rules of Hilary and Trinity Terms, 4 Wm. 4. Under the 2nd rule of Hilary Term, it is necessary that one at least of the Commissioners shall be a person who is not in any manner interested in the transaction giving occasion for the acknowledgment, or concerned therein as attorney, solicitor, or agent, or as clerk to any attorney, solicitor, or agent so interested or concerned. Commissioners have a lien on the deed, certificate, &c., for their fees: Exparte Grove, 3 Bing. N. S. 304. The fees are fixed by rule 8 of Hilary Term, 4 Wm. 4: the items are as follow:: To the two Perpetual Commissioners for taking an acknowledgment of every married woman, when not required to go further than a mile from their residence, being 13s. 4d. for each Commissioner £1 6 8 STATISTICS OF THE COUNTY 29 ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY RETURN OF From 1st January to 31st December, 1852. 12,567 461,582 The number of days that the 60 Courts have sat, is 8,570,3 The total amount of moneys for which plaints were entered, is 1,579,3187. 5. The total amount of moneys for which judgment has been obtained, exclusive of costs, . £797,997 And by the 2nd rule of Trinity Term, 4 Wm. 4, where more than one married woman shall at the same time acknowledge the same deed, respecting the same property, the fees directed by the rules of Hilary Term to be taken, shall be taken for the first acknowledgment only; and the fees to be taken for the other acknow. ledgment or acknowledgments, how many soever the same may be, shall be one-half of the original fees; and so also, where the same married woman shall at the same time acknowledge more than one deed respecting the same property; and in every case, the acknowledgment of a lease and release shall be considered and paid for as one acknowledgment only. According to Exparte Webster, 1 Dowl. N. S. 678; 4 Scott, N. R. 636, the Commissioners must be appointed for the same district, although under s. 82 a "Commissioner for any particular county, &c., shall be competent to take the acknowledgment of any married woman wheresoever she may reside, and wheresoever the lands or money, in respect of which the acknowledgment is to be taken, may be;" but they can only act in the county for which they are appointed: Webster v. Carline, 4 Man. & Gr. 27. is And the amount of such costs is 190,480 £988,477 7. The total of the Judges' fund and officers' Clerks' fees, including those £84,390 Gross total of moneys received £269,785 309 Receiving Money out of Court.-Law of Attorneys and Solicitors. issued by the clerk of the Court is 11,044,| under which 5,231 persons were actually taken to prison. On a claim by Miss Morris under a decree in a creditor's suit against his estate, the ViceChancellor Kindersley said,-"Taking, first, the The number of appeals entered under the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, from 1st Jan. to 31st Dec., advance to Russell. The security is a reversion1852, both inclusive, was 37, and 6 were pend-ary interest in Russell, expectant on the death ing on 1st Jan., 1852, of which 8 were con- of his mother, and there is no doubt that Miss firmed, 13 were reversed, 12 were dropped, and the other 10 remain undecided. The number of plaints entered by consent of parties under the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, s. 17, from 1st Jan. to 31st Dec., 1852, both inclusive, was 25, of which 19 were tried. Morris was made aware that the property was reversionary; but she was also informed that it was an ample and sufficient security; and that she might have to wait for her interest; but it was not stated to her that its The total amount received by the treasurers on account of the general fund for the same whole value depended on Russell dying leavperiod was £42,922 ing children, living his mother. That was not 43,221 communicated to her, and, without doubt, on these facts Dixon was liable in some form And the payments RECEIVING MONEY OUT OF COURT. to Miss Morris. "Take next Horen's case. The conclusion at which I have arrived as to the facts is this: NEW REGULATION OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH. THE Common Law Procedure Act requires-Dixon had, as Miss Morris represents, a an authority to be signed by the plaintiff authorising his (her or their) attorney to receive the money out of Court. It is requested that the authority be in something of the following form, viz :— In the Queen's Bench. Between A. B., plaintiff, v. C. D., defendant. I hereby authorise Mr. E. F., my Attorney, to receive out of Court the sum of £ in on the ant in this cause. 185 day of Dated the great interest in Horen. Dixon's brother had lent to Horen 4507. He had therefore a particular interest in Horen. Then, under his recommendation, Miss Morris advanced two sums of 500l. and 200l. to Horen, on what was represented to her to be a good security, she being wholly ignorant what it really was. It turns out that, as to the 200l., the security was a piece of land held under a lease for a term of 45 years, at a ground rent of 251. a paid year, and subject to rates, taxes, &c. But, on by the defend-application for information being made to the day of ground landlord, it turns out that neither Horen, the mortgagor, nor any person on his behalf, ever took possession of the property, or even paid any rent for it. The landlord had never heard of any dealings by Horen with the property, and had considered and treated the lease as abandoned. I am of opinion, without any doubt or hesitation, that, as to that sum, Dixon is liable. (Signed) A. B., the above-named plaintiff. To the Masters of the Court of Queen's Bench. In agency cases the agent must be described as the attorney. It is requested that parties should furnish themselves with the necessary receipt stamp on leaving their papers one day for the next. Where the plaintiff is out of the jurisdiction, it is necessary that a Judge's order should be obtained. 66 So, as to the 500l., that was advanced on the security of leasehold property, as to part of which only 6 years of the term remained, LAW OF ATTORNEYS AND SO- and as to other parts of which the outgoings LICITORS. are so great that the security is absolutely worthless. "Next, as to the money advanced to Gilbert. There is no direct evidence to show that the security was not at the time of the advance of sufficient value. Dixon having moneys of Miss Morris in his hands, which he had undertaken to advance for her on securities, lent it to Gilbert, and in his account charges it accordingly. Prima facie, I should not have considered this case as standing on the same Law of Attorneys.—Points in Equity Practice.-Law of Evidence. 31 grounds as the others, there being nothing to share is definitely ascertained, because the show that the security was not originally a amount of her share is, or might be, a maproper security, nor to show that even now it ❘terial element in inducing her to give that conwould not realise a sufficient amount. But sent. On the other hand, if I now simply make then, this takes place about a year after Dixon himself bought Gilbert's equity of redemption, and so became himself the mortgagor, and he continued to pay interest. It appears to me that, under these circumstances, there was neither fraud nor negligence; but Dixon is responsible as mortgagor. In that character the 3507. is a good charge against him. an order to tax the costs, a second application to the Court will become necessary, and will be the occasion of further expense and delay, -two things from which I am always most anxious to save the parties. If the amount of Mrs. Jolly's share were below 2007., in the ordinary course of practice, the Court would order the legacy to be paid to her husband, without her consent. In the present case, having regard to the testator's property, I find that Mrs. Jolly's share cannot amount (before payment of costs) to more than about 300l., "Now, as to the form in which Dixon is to be held liable. * It is a question of account between Miss Morris and Dixon. Prima facie, his accounts would be binding; but (and I am regarding Miss Morris's claim and when the costs are taxed and paid, will not as if she had made it during Dixon's life) if Miss Morris had filed her bill, then on proof of the facts of this case, she might have surcharged and falsified the account, by showing the misrepresentations as to the investments. probably much, if at all, exceed 2001. Under these circumstances, therefore, I think that an arbitrary rule of the Court, though a wholesome and judicious rule in general, ought to give way when the justice of the case and convenience of the parties require it, and I shall therefore direct Mrs. Jolly's share to be paid “This is not, then, a mere legal demand for damages; it is a question of items in an account; a question how far, under the circum- to her husband." Roberts v. Collett, 1 Smale stances, Dixon can discharge himself by the & G. 138. disbursements made by him." Smith v. Pococke, 2 Drewry, 197. POINTS IN EQUITY PRACTICE. TAKING BILL PRO CONFESSO AGAINST DE- An office copy of a decree to take the bill pro confesso against a defendant residing in Ireland, and of an order limiting the time within which he should apply for permission to put in his answer and set aside the decree after service of notice for that purpose, was duly served on such defendant. The Master of the Rolls held such service of the order a sufficient notice under the 87th Order of May 8, 1845, and upon the defendant not applying accordingly, made the decree absolute under Order 90. Trilly v. Keefe, 16 Beav. 83. LAW OF EVIDENCE. EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE OF DESCRIPTION OF A TESTATOR appointed as his residuary legatees John Wheeler, George Wheeler, Mary Wheeler, widow, and William Wheeler, "the children of my mother's sister." There was evidence that the testator was aware of the death of John Wheeler before the date of the will, leaving a son of the same name, to whom the testator had intimated he had left some benefits by his will. It appeared that there was the widow of a child named Richard, and there no child named Mary Wheeler, but she was was evidence the testator had stated to her he had done something for her by his will. The Master of the Rolls, on the petition of John and Mary Wheeler claiming to be entitled, said, "There is clear evidence that the ADMINISTRATION CLAIM. — PAYMENT TO testator knew that there was no such person HUSBAND OF SHARE OF MARRIED WO-living as John, the son of Mary, yet he introduced the description of such a person in his MAN. On an application for payment to her hus-will, the only John Wheeler then existing being band of the share of a married woman in an the grandchild. I think it is not too much estate in course of administration by claim, to say, that John Wheeler, the grandson, was Vice-Chancellor Stuart said, "The Court intended, there being no other child of this cannot take Mrs. Jolly's consent until her name, and there being distinct evidence, that 32 Law of Evidence.-Law of Costs.—Queries of Articled Clerks. the testator stated to him that he intended to | OF APPEARANCE OF LEGAL PERSONAL RE leave him something. PRESENTATIVE ON HEARING OF PETITION ALL proceedings in a cause had been by "He has made a gift to Mary Wheeler, the widow, described as a child of his aunt. But under the circumstances, and there being evi-order stayed as against the legal personal re dence of an intention to benefit her, I must hold that he intended to include her." In re Blackman, 16 Beav. 377. SECONDARY EVIDENCE OF DEED, WHEN presentative of the testator, but his solicitor was served with a petition, which was presented to wind up the suit and to carry over to particular accounts the funds standing to the general credit of the cause, with notice that he was not interested, and should not appear at Held, that a paper which an attorney ad- the hearing. The Master of the Rolls, nevermitted to have been delivered to the defend-theless, gave him his costs of appearance on ants from his office as a copy of a deed, but the petition, as also to the purchaser of a part which he stated he was unable of his own of the estate. Rowley v. Adams, 16 Beav. 312. knowledge to vouch to be a copy, was pro perly rejected as secondary evidence of the QUERIES OF ARTICLED CLERKS. deed, which the attorney declined to produce upon the ground that it was the title-deed of his client. Volant v. Soyer, 13 Com. B. 231. LAW OF COSTS. INTERVAL OF SERVICE.-ILLNESS. B. was articled and served a year, when he was taken ill and returned home. He attended almost daily at the attorney's office and did some professional work, and also studied classics with a tutor. Will the intervals of at OF PETITION UNDER TRUSTEES' ACT, 1850, tendance be reckoned under the circumstances TO OBTAIN SURRENDER. VENDOR AND ON a sale of copyholds, the vendor contracted to surrender, or procure some person to surrender, the costs of the surrender to be borne by the purchaser. The heir was unknown, and it therefore became necessary to present a petition under the Trustees' Act, 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 60), for the appointment of a person to surrender. The question arose as to whether the costs of such petition were payable by the vendor or by the purchaser. The Master of the Rolls said, "The costs of sale, in the absence of contract, fall on the vendor, and the costs of preparing the conveyance on the purchaser; but the costs of executing it must be paid by the vendor. There is a "Here the contract is, that the vendor shall surrender or procure some person to surrender, and that the costs of the surrender shall be borne by the purchaser. difference between the mere act of surrendering and the steps which may be necessary for the purpose of procuring some proper person to perform that act. They are distinct, and the costs of procuring some proper person to surrender must, on ordinary principles, be paid by the vendor, and the costs of the surrender by the purchaser." Bradley v. Munton, 16 Beav. 294. as good service under his articles? L. |