Selections from Correspondence.-State of Law Bills in Parliament. HOLDING OFFICE DURING CLERKSHIP. Can a clerk, while serving under articles, hold the office of Town Clerk of a borough without vitiating the service? The duties of the office are very slight, and will not, on the average, occupy one day in a month; but the duties cannot be perforined in over hours. [The office of Town Clerk being usually 33 entered into possession, and within the last 10 years sold and conveyed it for a valuable consideration to a British born subject, who continues in possession. Has he a good title? and if not, would the Crown, on a memorial being presented, confirm the title? and if so, what are the usual terms of so doing? A held by an attorney, we think the occasional STATE OF LAW BILLS IN PARLIA attendance to discharge the duties of that office will not prejudice the articles of clerkship. It has been held by the Examiners that an articled clerk may hold the office of Deputy Coroner. At all events, it is clear that the service may be subsequently made up.-ED.] SELECTIONS FROM CORRE- RENT UNDER INSOLVENCY. THE Law preserves for a landlord, a year's rent under a fi. fa., but in too many cases he loses it. In the case of an insolvent debtor, I think that his property or effects should in all cases be liable to make good the rent not exceeding a year. And in cases where the debtor has clandestinely removed his goods whereby a loss of rent is incurred, he should not be allowed the benefit of the Act until that rent was made good. It would also be convenient to provide in cases of clandestine removal of goods to avoid a distraint, that on their being followed by the landlord within the 30 days, they should be held and considered the identical goods, and that the onus should lie on the tenant to prove the contrary: the difficulty in proof is almost insurmountable at present. Will no member take this into consideration and prepare a Bill to remedy the defects? AMICUS. ASSAULTS UPON WOMEN. Judgment Execution. Mr. Crauford. In Select Committee. Witnesses.-Mr. J. Butt. For 3rd reading, Extension of Cornwall Stannaries' Court.- Criminal Procedure.-Mr. Aglionby. For 2nd reading, May 19. Appointment of Public Prosecutors.-Mr. merston. Registration of Bills of Sale.-In Committee, May 17. Mercantile Laws of England and Scotland. Apportionment of Rent, &c.-Sir William Molesworth. It appears to be admitted on all hands that an imprisonment of six months with hard labour is inadequate to put an end to, or even diminish, the evil of brutes in human shape-Mr. R. Phillimore. cruelly beating their wives, whom they have sworn to cherish. It may be well worth consideration whether, if power were given to the justice or two justices to superadd 40 lashes save one, in very serious cases,-a remedy to a more extended degree, which would effectually, when soundly applied, put an end to Ribbonism in Ireland. At least, such is the opinion of many enlightened individuals in the Emerald Isle. L. PURCHASE OF AN ALIEN. An alien, nearly 20 years ago, purchased some freehold property within a manor belonging to the see of Canterbury. The alien died, when his nephew, a Swiss, also an alien, theron. In Select Committee. Goderich. For 2nd reading, May 16. May 15. - Property Disposal.-Mr. Whiteside. For 2nd reading, May 24. Mortmain. Mr. Headlam. In Committee, May 17. Drainage of Land.-Mr. Ker Seymer. For 2nd reading, May 17. Real Estate Charges.-Mr. Locke King. For 2nd reading, May 18. 34 Notes of the Week.-Superior Courts: Lords Justices. LAW PROMOTION. THE Queen was this day (3rd May) pleased to confer the honour of Knighthood upon Richard Budden Crowder, Esq., one of the Judges of her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas. From the London Gazette of May 5. INNS OF COURT COMMISSION. The Queen has been pleased to appoint Sir William Page Wood, Knight, a Vice-Chancellor; Sir John Taylor Coleridge, Knight, one of the Justices of the Court of Queen's Bench; the Right Honourable Joseph Napier; Sir Alexander James Edmund Cockburn, Knight, her Majesty's Attorney-General; Sir Richard Bethell, Knight, her Majesty's Solicitor-General; Sir Thomas Erskine Perry, Knight; John George Shaw Lefevre, Esq.; Henry Singer Keating, Esq., one of her Majesty's Counsel; Thomas Greenwood, Esq.; James Stewart, Esq.; and Germain Lavie, Esq., to be her Majesty's Commissioners for inquiring into the arrangements in the Inns of Court and Inns of Chancery, for promoting the study of the Law and Jurisprudence, and securing a sound education to the students.-From the London Gazette of 5th May. QUEEN'S BENCH SITTINGS IN BANC. This Court will, on Saturday the 13th day May inst., hold a Sitting, and will proceed in disposing of the business now pending in the Special and New Trial Papers, and give judgment in cases previously argued. NEW MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT. The Honourable Thomas Edward Mostyn Lloyd Mostyn, for the County of Flint, in the room of the Honourable Edward Mostyn Lloyd Mostyn, now Lord Mostyn, summoned to the House of Peers. RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS. Lords Justices. In re Thompson's Trust. May 8, 1854. WILL.-CONSTRUCTION.-BEQUEST BY A testator bequeathed a sum of stock to his daughter Elizabeth, and her issue, with benefit of survivorship on the death of any child under 21, and in case there should be no child or children living at the time of her death, or being any they should die under 21, then unto all and every his children then living, and the child or children of such his said children as should be then dead in equal shares per stirpes. The testator also gave a further sum of stock to another daughter, M., on similar trusts as expressed concerning the legacy to Elizabeth, and in default of issue in favour of his other children. It appeared that a child, who was dead at the date of will, had left three children: Held, confirming the decision of Vice-Chancellor Wood, that they were not entitled. share or shares should also from time to time survive in the same manner as the original shares, until the several shares should become payable. The testator further directed, that in case there should be no child or children of his said daughter living at the time of her decease, or of any sale, assignment, or incumbrance or anticipation by her, or being any they should die under 21, the 15,000l. should go unto all and every his chil dren then living, and the child or children of such of his said children as should be then dead, in equal shares and proportions, but so that such his grandchildren should only have and be entitled among them to such share or shares as their parent or parents would respectively have been entitled to in case they had been then living. There was a like sum of 15,000l. given to another daughter, Anne Cresswell, and also a further sum of 10,000l. to his daughter, Mrs. Metcalf, on similar trusts as expressed concerning the legacy of Mrs. Sutton, and in default of issue, in favour of his other children and their issue, or as near thereto as the death of persons and other circumstances would permit. It appeared that at the testator's death, there were two sons and the three above-named daughters surviving, and that another daughter named Mary Anne Tunstall, was dead at the date of the will, but had left three children, and that Mrs. Metcalf died in April, 1853, without issue. The children of Mrs. Tunstall now claimed a fifth part of the 10,000l. given to Mrs, Metcalf. The Vice-Chancellor Wood having held that they were not entitled, but that the four surviving children took the 10,000l. stock, this appeal was presented, (reported 2 Equity Reports, 236). THE testator, by his will, dated in February, 1837, gave a sum of 15,000l. 3 per cent. consols., in trust to pay the dividends thereon from time to time to his daughter Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Sutton, for life for her separate use, and after her death, or in case she should assign, incumber, or anticipate, then in trust to pay and transfer the 15,000l. unto and among all and every of her children, to be equally divided between them, if more than one, share and share alike; and if but one, then to such only child. He directed the shares to be payable at 21, and that if any of the children should die under 21, the share of the one so dying should go to the survivor or survivors of them at such time as the respective original share or shares should become payable, and that such surviving or accruing contrà. Walker, Amphlett, and Haynes in support; Chandless and Haldane for the executors, Superior Courts: Lords Justices.-Rolls.-V. C. Kindersley.-V. C. Stuart. The Lords Justices said, that the appeal must be dismissed, but without costs. 35 Baily and Grenside for the wife; G. Lake Russell for the husband; Fleming for the trustees. The Vice-Chancellor said, the intention of the covenant was that property over which the husband had any power should be settled on the trusts of the settlement, and that in respect of the property in question, which was bequeathed to her separate use, he had no power, and it must be transferred to such parties as she might direct for her exclusive use. Flight v. Camac. May 9, 1854. VENDOR AND PURCHASER. DEDUCTION OF The deduction by a purchaser of income tax The Master of the Rolls said, that the transaction took place in 1833, and the bill was not filed till 1850. There was no evidence to show that the parties did not know at the time they Whitehead applied for the direction of the were selling to their trustee, although by the Court in reference to the right of a purchaser rules of this Court he was not permitted to to deduct income tax on the interest payable, purchase from his cestuis que trusts. It ap-on payment of the purchase-money into Court. peared they had a solicitor to advise and protect them, and, although, if the application had been sooner, they could have obtained a decree to set it aside, upon the evidence, that the property might have fetched a higher price, yet as no excuse was shown for the delay in coming to the Court, no relief could now be given: Champion v. Rigby, 1 Russ. & M. 539; Lord Selsey v. Rhoades, 1 Bli. N. S. 1; 2 Sim. & Stu. 41; Gregory v. Gregory, Coop. Chan. Cas. 201; Jacob. 631. The bill would therefore be dismissed, but without costs. Vice-Chancellor Kindersley. HUSBAND AND WIFE.-COVENANT BY HUS- In a marriage settlement the husband cove- By the marriage settlement of Mr. and Mrs. Ramsden, the former covenanted that he would do all acts necessary for settling to the same uses as those mentioned in the settlement all property which might be given or bequeathed to his wife. The trusts of the settlement were for the husband for life, with remainder to the wife for life, with remainder to the issue of the marriage. It appeared that certain property had been afterwards bequeathed to her separate use, and the question was, whether there should be a settlement of the same. It appeared that the practice had been under the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, to disallow the deduction, but as the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 34, s. 40, entitled and authorised the purchaser to make the deduction, while in the former Act (s. 102) he was only authorised to deduct income tax, the question was now raised. Jones Bateman for the vendors. The Vice-Chancellor said, that although it might be just a purchaser should be entitled to deduct income tax, yet as the opposite practice had prevailed' and there was nothing in the new Act to alter it, it must be adhered to, and if an alteration were desired an application must be made to the Lord Chancellor. Vice-Chancellor Stuart. Brook v. Biddall. May 3, 1854. TER. ORDER FOR A COMMITMENT ON An order was made, with costs, on motion ex- See Humble v. Humble, 12 Beav. 43; Hol|royd v. Wyatt, 1 De G. & S. 125. 36 Superior Courts: V. C. Stuart.-V. C. Wood.-Queen's Bench. J. H. Palmer, in support, cited Hennegal v. Evance, 12 Ves. 201. The Vice-Chancellor granted the application, with costs. Cooke v. Wagster. May 3, 1854. WILL. CONSTRUCTION. WHAT PASSES until some other person became the proprietor. THE testator, by his will, dated in June, 1852, after directing the payment of his debts and funeral and testamentary expenses, gave all his freehold and leasehold property, and his trades, ready money, mortgages, shares in public companies, and all other his estate and effects, in trust to permit his wife to have the use and enjoyment of his house, garden, and premises situate at Handsworth, free of ground rent, and also the use and enjoyment of all his household furniture, &c., then in and about the said house, for the term of her natural life durante viduitate, and also by codicils the interest and annual income arising from certain shares in the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company. The testator died in November, 1852, and a call was afterwards made on some of the shares, and in the following December a dividend was declared in respect of the earnings up to the preceding Michaelmas. It appeared that by the company's deed of settlement the net profits were divisible rateably among the proprietors to such an amount as the directors should decide on and declare at the annual or half-yearly general meeting, and no holders of shares were entitled A testator gave to his widow all his ready money and securities for money, money in the funds, and money in the bank, if any, which might be due and owing to him at his death: Held, that a sum in the hands of a person for investment, and for which the testator's personal representative had proved in an administration suit of such person's estate, passed to the widow, where there would otherwise be an intestacy. THE testator, by his will, dated in April, 1848, gave to his widow all his ready money and securities for money, money in the funds, and money in the bank, if any, which might be due and owing to him at the time of his death. It appeared that the testator had directed his solicitor to pay a portion of the proceeds of sale of a real estate to a Mr. Chambers, a surveyor, for investment; and that at the time of Mr. Chambers' death the same remained in his to any dividend thereon declared after they hands. The testator's personal representative had obtained the allowance in an administration suit of a claim for such amount after deducting a sum due from the testator, and the question now arose, whether such amount passed to the widow under the will. Prior and Eddis for the plaintiff; C. Hall for the personal representative. The Vice-Chancellor said, that, having regard to the circumstance that there would be an intestacy as to the amount in question if it did not pass under the gift, and the testator's intention would not be accomplished by its exclusion, it must be held to pass under the words "ready money" to the widow. Vice-Chancellor Wood. Clive v. Clive. May 4, 1854. WILL.-CONSTRUCTION.- PERSONAL OCCU should have ceased to be proprietors thereof. This special case was now stated for the opinion of the Court, on the questions whether the widow was restricted to the personal use and occupation of the house and furniture, or whether she might let it; whether the calls on the above shares were payabble out of the residuary estate or by the widow; and whether the dividend declared in December formed part of the residuary estate or belonged to the widow. Rolt and Karslake for the executors; James and Morris for the widow; Bovill and T. H. Terrell for other parties. The Vice-Chancellor said, that the widow and all persons claiming under her were entitled to have the use and enjoyment of the house and furniture during her widowhood, and that in accordance with Jacques v. Chambers, 4 Rail. Ca. 499, the calls on the shares were payable out of the testator's residuary estate. As the testator must be taken to be aware of the effect of the deed of settlement, and the dividend would, under it, be held in suspense until some other person became the proprietor, and the case amounted to a specific devise, the widow was entitled to the dividend, and there would Court of Queens Bench. PATION OF HOUSE. CALLS ON SHARES Exparte Bailey and another. May 1, 1854. Held, that the order of commitment by a justice under the 4 Geo. 4, c. 34, of colliers for absenting themselves from their masters' service without their consent and without Superior Courts: Queen's Bench. any lawful excuse, need not set out that the witnesses were examined in their presence, provided it shows a contract to serve within the Act. Ir appeared that two colliers had been convicted, on the complaint of the agent of Messrs. Marshall, for absenting themselves from their service without their consent and without any lawful excuse, and an order for their commitment to prison for two calendar months, with hard labour, was thereupon made by one of the justices for the county of Monmouth. The commitment set out that the defendants had contracted with Messrs. Marshall in the capacity of colliers for the term of one month, and so on from month to month, determinable upon either party giving one month's notice, for the wages of 18. 10d. per ton for cutting coal. A habeas corpus had been granted, and the prisoners were discharged on recognizances, and this motion was now made to discharge such recognizances. Smythies in support, on the ground that the warrant was bad for not setting out that the witnesses were examined in the prisoner's presence, that they had not entered into any contract of service, nor were guilty of any breach of contract. Huddleston, contrà. The Court said, the warrant appeared to have been made in execution of a preceding conviction, and did not therefore require the strictness contended for. It showed there was a contract to serve within the 4 Geo. 4, c. 34, and it was for the justice to determine whether there had been any breach. The motion would accordingly be refused. 37 trial before Lord Campbell, C. J., at the sittings after Michaelmas Terin last, the defendant had failed in establishing his plea of fraud in the representation of the amount of the business which afterwards only turned out to be about 127. a week, but it had been since discovered that the plaintiff had employed persons to purchase articles at the shop, and it was sought to have their evidence on the new trial. E. James and Dowdeswell showed cause against the rule, which was supported by Chambers and Needham. The Court said, that the rule would be absolute on payment of costs and the payment of the 2001. into Court. LIGHTING AND WATCHING ACT.-ADOPTION Held, that the meeting under the 3 & 4 Wm. THIS was a rule nisi obtained on January 24 last, to issue a distress warrant for rates under the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 90 (the Lighting and Watching Act). It appeared that at a meeting, in the year 1851, of the ratepayers of the district of Brierly Hill, in the parish of King's Winford, it was resolved that the district should be placed under the provisions of the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. NEW TRIAL ON DISCOVERY OF FRESH EVI-90, and that inspectors had been accordingly Coke v. Bishop. May 1, 1854. DENCE. PAYMENT INTO COURT.-COSTS. appointed, who made an order on the overseers In an action to recover the balance due under for a rate for the current year amounting to 1501. Before, however, the whole was colan agreement for the purchase of a business, the defendant pleaded fraud, but being un-order was made in 1853 for the collection of lected, the overseers went out of office, and an able to support the plea, the plaintiff ob- the arrears as well as of a new rate then made, tained a verdict. Fresh evidence was afterwards discovered, held, that a new the same, they were summoned before the deand on the new overseers refusing to collect trial could only be granted on payment of fendants, who however refused to issue their ⚫ the sum into Court as well as of the costs. warrant an objection having been taken that THIS was a rule nisi obtained by M. Cham- the notice convening the original meeting of bers, Q. C., on April 19 last, to set aside the ratepayers was bad, and that the churchverdict for the plaintiff and for a new trial of wardens of the parish, and not of the district, this action, which was brought to recover the were the proper parties to convene the meeting. sum of 2007., the balance due under an agreement entered into by the defendant to purchase a business carried on by the plaintiff's wife in Pimlico. It appeared that on the purchase being contemplated, the defendant had asked the production of the books, but that it had been stated none were kept, as it was a ready money business, and that thereupon the party for whom the defendant purchased had attended according to permission for a week, to see the extent of the business done, when it appeared it amounted to 30%. a week, whereupon the agreement had been signed. On the H. Hill and Cowling showed cause against the rule, which was supported by Keating and Bros. The Court said, that as the chapelwardens of the district were not the persons to convene the meeting and to give the notices, what had been done was void, and the act had not been properly adopted. The 66th section, which gave a right of appeal, only applied where the act had been lawfully adopted, and the objection could now be taken. The rule would therefore be discharged, but without costs. |