Page images
[ocr errors]


Affidavit in Bankruptcy.--Extracts from Parish Registers.---Manor of Kennington. 243 in proposing “ The Bench, the Bar, and the precedent, the Court would make one in this Profession."

case. That such a form of attestation was The Lord Justice Turner said, as his name had been associated with the toast, he could sufficient appeared plain. The Legislature innot have any hesitation in taking upon himself tended that affidavits should be sworn before the daty of thanking them for its reception. some functionary duly authorised to receive He thought the toast a very good one, combin. them, and that where such funetionary was a ing as it did the whole Profession. He believed foreign functionary, the fact of his authority that so long as the Profession remained united, it would be difficult to make any impression should be attested by the certificate of a notary. unfavourable to its continuance or prosperity. Where affidavits were made before a British They would all remember the old fable of the minister, consul, or vice-consul, no notarial bundle of sticks : how easy it was to break certificate was required ; and the reason for them gingly, and how impossible it was found to do so when bound together. This old fable that was, because the fact of such persons should teach the Profession a great lesson, filling their respective offices was easily cawhen united together for objects important and pable of proof, independently of any notarial right in themselves they could not be assailed attestation or certificate. Exparte Bird, in re suecessfully, but when disunited they were mable to protect themselves from injury. Carne, 2 De G., M‘N. & G. 963. Union for a just and righteous cause was me. ritorious. Disanion amongst those who were SIGNATURE OF EXTRACTS FROM aiming at the accomplishment of a just and

PARISH REGISTERS. proper object only excited our pity and contempt. Every person amongst them who had others in his employ must know how much

Certain documents purporting to be copies his personal interest was connected with those of, or extracts from, parish registers, were immediately in his service, and he thought signed thus :- A.B., incumbent,” or A. B., they would all feel it was their bounden duty rector,” or “ A. B., vicar,” or “ A. B., curate.” to render assistance and support to those de- The Lords Justices said, that the words recpendent upon them, and who were members of this Society. It iras to him personally a tor or vicar, in the copies might, by a reasongreat gratification to see so many assembled able intendment, be taken to mean rector or that evening, and he hoped the results would vicar of the parish or place mentioned in the be conducive to the best interests of the So- copy, but that where the words were only inciety, and that it might continue to flourish as it well deserved.

cumbent or curate, it might be a question Mr. W. Royers proposed the health of the whether such persons were the proper persons trustees of the Society, which was warmly re- to have the custody of registers. Solicitors sponded to

would save themselves and the Court much Mr. H. W. Cole returned thanks in the absence of the trustecs.

trouble, and their clients expense, if in all such The Chairman then proposed the health of cases, to the name of the person signing the the Ladies, who, be trusted, might never have extract, the words of the aforesaid parish." a more disagreeable impression of the Law were added. In re Hall's Estate, 2 De G., than bad been made upon them that evening. M'N. & G. 748. NOTARIAL, ATTESTATION



To the Editor of the Legal Observer. Ils เวลา : 1 -All affidavit under the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, on the sth July, charges the petition of the

SIR, Your correspondent "FAIR PLAY,!! 8. 243, purported to be sworn before a magis- copyholders of the Kennington manor (which trate at New York, and there e, was a notarial was inserted in The Observer of June 17) certificate that the gentleman described in the with passion, prejudice, unfairness, and in

justice." Heavy charges, no doubt, if true, and jurat as a magistrate actually filled that office which he makes a mere show of suppotting in On an objection Being taken to the

suffin the following easy and off-hand way l + town, biency of the attestation on the ground that 1. “The i tone of the petition generally! the notary was not present when the affidavit (says " PATR Plavi")" and the charge of that was sword, Lord Oranworthy, L.J., asked if

tempted extortion sbows passion.') . Now, with

regard to the tone of the petition, if your there was for any settled

practice for authority correspondent's mode of argument hadsbeen a upon the point?, and being informed that none little more in unison with his signaturex ifrin had been found, visaid, that if there were no fact he had not been himself blinded by one

rini ta'r choice ispu6 vi

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


Manor of Kennington--Enfranchisement of Copy holds. or all of the four faults which he charges upon they recommend the continuance of the tenure the petition, he could not have failed to see with commuted rights, shows unfairness.” The that all the strong language contained in it, cause of unfairness in omitting to notice the and which is comprised in the passages given Commissioners' 6th Report, would of itself be in italics, is that—not of the petitioners them- unfair, unless such omission was intentional, selves, but-of the Real Property Commis- which I am warranted in saying it was not. sioners and of the Select Committee of the But on looking carefully at this report, I find House of Commons, and is merely cited by the no ground whatever for alleging that the Competitioners as the opinions of very high autho- missioners have at all changed their opinion as rities, in support of the prayer of their petition. to the desirableness of entirely abolishing copyThe charges of causing litigation and extortion, hold tenure, although on account of the oppoof much needless expense and difficulty, of pre- sition in certain quarters, and other adverse venting or checking improvements, and of mute influences, they doubt its practicability. They, rially diminishing the public wealth, are charges therefore, recommend "a limited system of brought against copyhold tenures generally by compulsory commutation ;” but it is to be such the Real Property Commissioners. The stigma a system as will entirely remove, not merely of being ill adapted to the wants of the present what they here call the vexations,” but likeday, and a blot on the judicial system of the wise what they denominate the substantial country,--of being highly inconvenient to the economical evils of the copyhold tenure." owners of the land and prejudicial to the general These (they again assert) consist in uncertain interests of the State,-and of operating, where fines which drive capital from improvements the fine is charged upon the improved value, as on the land, and in rights of timber, and to a a tax upon the capital of the copyholders and a control over buldings, which rights are found direct check to all building and all agricultural pernicious. improvements,-is a stigma attached to copy- A reference to that report seems, however, hold tenures, not by the petitioners, but by a in fact to be of less consequence, inasmuch as Select Committee of the House of Commons. the House of Commons, which is the authority The strong and energetic language employed that must chiefly deal with the question, has in (as appears above) both by the Commissioners no way indicated that even such a commutaand by the Committee, in the discharge of tion of rights would be considered by it as an solemn public duties, sufficiently indicates adequate substitute for “the ABOLITION OF their respective opinions as to the nature and copyhold tenure," which the Committee has extent of the mischiefs and inconveniences declared (as stated by the petitioners) “would arising out of copyhold tenures ; and the term not only be a great public benefit, but should "extortion," objected to by “Fair Play,” be made, if possible, a national object." This nowhere occurs in the petition, except in the disposes of the charge of “unfairness.” passage above quoted from the Report of the 4. “The attempt to deprive the lord of a Commissioners. The charge of “passion,' portion of the rights to which he is clearly entherefore, as applied by an anonymous writer titled, subject to which the copyholders took to these two public authorities, is simply ri. their property, and the extent of which they diculous.

had ample means of knowing, shows “in2. “The attack on the system of copyholds justice.” Instead of an argument, this is a universally, because in a single manor incon- mere petitio principii, a begging of the whole venience may be felt under special circum- question at issue between the authorities and stances, shows prejudice.” It requires but a the copyholders of the manor of Kennington. very small degree of discrimination to perceive It is denied in toto that the lord is entitled to that the language employed both by the Com- the rights of which the copyholders complain. missioners and the Committee, and likewise But to come to proofs. the opinions of the eminent lawyers, states- Take, for example's sake, the case of a small men, and political economists, referred to by plot of copyhold ground which has become the petitioners at the outset of their petition, eligible for building, and is now let for that point expressly to the objections and evils in- purpose. Suppose this ground, with a frontcident to copyhold tenures generally, and by age of from 40 to 50 feet to have been worth no means to any inconvenience felt merely 11. a year in its original state as land, and being under special circumstances in any single now built upon, to be at present worth 10l. a manor. The prayer of the Kennington copy- year by way of ground-rent to the lessor or holders' petition points to two different objects, copyholder, and 1001. a year by way of imthe one to remedy the mischiefs in their own proved or occupation rent to the lessee or manor, the other to redress the grievances in. builder, under a lease for å term of (say) 70 cidental to copyholds generally. The autho- years. Now, it is quite clear that the advanrities cited are cited of course in support of the tage which the lessor or copyholder derives latter object which disposes of the charge of from this building operation, is the immediate prejudice..

conversion of a rent of 11. into one of 101. a 3. "Quoting the opinion of the Committee year, thus at once increasing the value of the (says “Fair Play") " in favour of the entire property ten fold, with the future prospect in abolition of copyholds, and keeping back the reversion of the improved rent of 1001., thus carefully prepared 6th Report of the Commis- increasing it again on the expiration of the sioners made long subsequently, and in which term in the same ratio. This being so, can Manor of Kennington-Enfranchisement of Copyholds.

245 anything be more clear than that the amount being tired of paying interest at a rate which of advantage to the lessor or copyholder, in the nearly absorbs his rental, viz., 8l. or 9l. out of way of present and prospective rent is, or ought 101. á year or from pressure, or any other to be the precise measure of advantage to the cause, resolves, or is obliged to sell, another lord, in the way of present and prospective fine, fine thus becomes payable. If, on the other and one with which he ought to be abundantly hand, the copyholder should happen to die, his satisfied. Upon the original value of the land representatives would, of course, find themhe was entitled on death or alienation to a fine selves in no more enviable position than himof 21., being two years' value, and no more. self. In either case the lord now comes to give Being now built upon, he is become entitled to the orange another squeeze, forgetting that, as a fine of 201. on the ground-rent reserved; and he extracted two-thirds of the juice before, on the expiration of the lease, but not before, he there is now only one-third left. But resumcan fairly claim a full fine of 2001. on the rack- ing, for the purpose of illustration, the case rent or improved value. During the continu- of sale, how are all the demands to be satisance of the lease this rent (minus of course the fied ? The present value of the copyholder is ground-rent) belongs by clear and indisputable about 240l. Of this sum the mortgagees' claim right, to the lessee or builder, and to no one else. 1801., being in fact the amount of the former It is the equivalent he gets for his expenditure fine. The copyholders' equity of redemption in building, which expenditure is the sole cause is, therefore, worth no more than about 601., of the improved value of the land. To obtain, and upon this the lord again demands a simitherefore, this improvement, the copyholder lar fine, being about thrice the amount! Whemust be contented with the progressive increase ther this is to be paid by the vendor, or by the of his rent, first from 11. to 101., and ultimately purchaser, signifies nothing to the purpose, for from 101. to 1001., and with the same object in it is at any rate the copyhold which must pay view, the lord must be contented with the pro- it

. If an intending purchaser finds that, ingressive increase of his fine in the same ratio. stead of assessing fairly a fine of 201. upon the But if he is so unreasonable as to desire to ground-rent, which is the thing he is about to charge the copyholder with a present fine upon buy, he will have to pay 1801. in respect of the a future and remote interest, let us see how this improved or rack-rent, which belongs to somepalpable injustice will work.

body else, and which will not come within his Suppose a copyholder or lessor to die, and own grasp for perhaps 50 years to come, he that the lord demands from the heir or devisee will of course do one of two things: he will a fine of 2001., being two years’improved value, either decline to buy at all, or he will deduct this is in fact a tax upon the interest, both of the proper fine from the fine exacted, and will the lessor and the lessee, the latter being en- then give just 1601. less for his copyhold than titled to no more than 90l. a year after deduct- he would otherwise have given and than it ought ing the ground-rent. But suppose again, that to be fairly worth, ---that is to say, 100l. instead in order to avoid the anomaly and odium of of 240l. If, therefore, the lord persists in his taxing both parties, his own immediate tenant unjust demand, the vendor will not only be and his tenants' tenant, the lord allows the mulcted of his equity of redeinption, but must ground-rent to be deducted and assesses the make good the deficiency to the mortgagee; or, fine at 1801. This exorbitant charge upon if unable to do so, the latter must likewise be the copyholder, whose entire interest or cus- mulcted of nearly half bis mortgage-money. tomary fee belore the land happened to become If, however, it should happen, in some more available for building, was worth at (say) 24 favourable instance, that the ground-rent, years' purchase on the original rental, about which represents the value of the copyholder's 241., and no more, and on the present ground- interest, should bear a somewhat larger profent about 2401., amounts to an absolute con- portion to the rack-rent, on which the lord fiscation of something like two-thirds of his unreasonably demands to assess his fine, then property! Although all these figures are, of it might possibly confiscate not more than course, assumed, for the purpose of argument about one-half of such interest. In this case, and illustration, yet, keeping in view the rela- the mortgagee might get back his money, tive proportion which the ground-rent upon a which went to pay the first fine, and the lord building lease usually bears to the improved or would take all the rest in satisfaction of the rack-rent, it will be found in practice that upon second. this comparatively povel mode of assessing To return, then, to the case of the manor of fines, an amount varying from one-half to Kenningtonwhether such a right as this be, about two-thirds, would be the average mea- as your correspondent, “ Fair Play,” asserts, sure of this unjustifiable confiscation. Let us a portion of the rights to which the lord is now follow the exaction and its consequences, clearly entitled,” and the resistance to which to its next stage.

fairly lays the copyholders open to the charge To place these consequences in a clear light, of " injustice," may be safely left to any im. we will suppose that the heir or devisee, not partial person to decide. It presents one inbeing provided with the money, mortgages the superable bar, (as laid down by the Committee property for 1801. to satisfy the fine, although, of the House of Commons) to all buildings if he should pay it out of his own funds, the and improvement, and the refusal to grant any effect is precisely the same. Suppose next, license for a building lease for a longer term that after a few years the copyholder, either than 30 years, unquestionably presents an.


Manor of Kennington-Enfranchisement of Copyholds. other. It is said to be a fact, that in some of and the copyholder would thus be vietimised the royal manors acts of injustice and oppres- in the shape of rent instead of fine. On sion are sometimes committed by the autho- coming, bowever, to the conclusion of your rities which are elsewhere unknown, simply correspondent, " Fair Play's," letter, I discobecause the high personages who are the par-vered that the whole of his

arguments were still ties really interested, and who would readily further invalidated by his misapprehension of redress such grievances if known, are of course the premises on which they are built. He says entirely ignorant of the practical working of that he finds “no difficulty in giving the leasethe system complained of. But can your cor. holder due control over the selection of the the kingdom of England, in which the lord thus obviously confounding the case of the (blind alike to his own real interest and to Kennington copyholds, which are of inhethat of the copyholder) demands a fine which ritance with that of a manor in which they are on the next repetition amounts to confiscation, beld only for lives, such an interest being of and refuses to grant a building lease for a course peculiarly inapplicable and inconvenilonger term than would suffice for the erection ent for being moulded to the purposes of a of a mud hut or a cabin of lath and plaster! If building lease. The owners of such interests he can, perhaps he will have the goodness to must, of course, deal with the difficulties

, inname it, and thus afford the opportunity of as- separable from all merely life hold tenures; certaining how much building takes place whether copyhold or ecclesiastical, in the best within the manor, and how the system in ge- way they can. neral works.

Although I have trespassed upon your space Your correspondent would console the copy- at much greater length than I originally in holders of the manor of Kennington by assur- tended, I beg to suggest, before I conclude, a ing them that if any inconvenience (!) has in fair and equitable remedy for the chief grievcertain cases arisen, it “ has arisen solely from ance, the ruinous fine, of which the Kenning: the want of a little common sense on the part ton copyholders so justly complain. Looking of the copyholders”!! “An ignorant impa. impartially to both sides of the case and to the tience of taxation,” no doubt, but excusable, due protection of every interest, there can be no one would hope, where it involves a positive doubt, I think, that in assessing the fine, the confiscation. They might possibly be willing lord may be entitled to tax the improved rent to compound for the singular compliment paid before it actually comes into the copyholder's to themselves, if they could be spared in future possession, and that the real questions to be the “inconvenience” inflicted on their pockets. solved are, the period when ? and to what elYour correspondent refers to some fortunate tent? First, as to the period when-this is manor with which he is connected—it would clearly not at or near the commencement of seem as steward—and in which he is enabled to the demise, but when by the expiration of a get over this pons asinorum with the greatest considerable portion (say from tivo-thirds to ease. I apprehend, however, that it must be three-fourths) of the term granted, the imby some more convincing logic and more per- proved rent approaches so near to possession suasive eloquence than he displays in his letter, as to add to the copyholder's reversionary inthat he contrives to induce both copyholder terest a marketable value, in addition to that of and builder to work so harmoniously together the ground-rent, but not a single day before, for the benefit of the lord. But, on the slight- Next, as to the extent-clearly not to the full est examination his grand panacea appears to amount of such improved rent, it being still be founded on a palpable fallacy. He says reversionary, but to the full amount of such that no copyholder should grant a lease for marketable value, and not a single shilling building purposes, " without making it one of beyond. We thus arrive at a simple, and the terms of the lease that all payments for at the same time fair and unobjectionable fines, beyond two years' purchase on the rent rule for computing the fine due to the lord. reserved, should be payable by the lessee” (!) He is entitled to two years' rent of the land, which, without at all relieving the copyholder

, as land, and to two years' ground: rent when would merely put the original grievance in an- built upon, being (at, say 2-1 years" purchase), other shape. In 9 cases out of every 10, or about one-twelfth of the entire inheritable more probably 19 out of 20, the builder, declin- value. As soon, however, as the copyholder's ing to travel beyond the usual and intelligible reversionary interest in the improved or rack, principle, of so many feet frontage, at so much rent upon a building lease acquires any real per foot, would refuse altogether to be ham- value (which will generally be found to be pered by such a stipulation. In the tenth or after the expiration of about 50 out of 70 twentieth case, the builder who might be years), it becomes faitly liable to taxation in the foolish enough to accede tontity and thus to same ratio. Add then, in the case of a fine fetter and complicate a common building payable on death, one-twelfth of such markettransaction, and all future sales and mortgages able value, as shown by the tables to the two of his lease, with questions for an actuary, years' ground-rent, or,

of alienation, would require to be indemnified against s

such take one

twelfth of the purchase price as re corn, or something not much more valuable, justice i manifestly be done both to the Word *would necessarily be the annual reservation; and to the copyholder, without troubling the

in the




Selections from Correspondence. - Professional Lists.

247 lessee or builder with what in no way concerns sorted to. The Court sat regularly twice a him. The lord who demands more than this week, and three Commissioners adjudicated does a palpable injustice to the copyholder, on debts not exceeding 40s., and five on debts and the lord who takes less (as many do) takes of 5l, The business was done with dispatch less than he is fairly entitled to.

and regularity, the High Bailiff of Southwark This I do not hesitate to state from my own being the executive officer. Some hundred knowledge, having had no inconsiderable ex- thousand cases were decided upon. The Com. perience in copyholds as steward for nearly missioners comprised magistrates, solicitors, half a century.

R. L. and those gentlemen who had filled the offices

of churchwarden, overseer, &c.; and the busi

ness was done with much less inconvenience SELECTIONS FROM CORRESPONDENCE.

and loss of time to the public than in the much vaunted County Courts, and at very much less

expense. ANNUITY OR RENT-CHARGE.- FRANCHISE. A.; in 1820, grants his son, B., for B.'s life,

Erratum.- Page 227, ante, in the Letter of an annuity or rent-charge of 421. a year, issuing ogt of a freehold estate, which is duly re

a Barrister on Copyhold Enfranchisement, in gistered with the clerk of the peace. A. dies, the last paragraph but one, for “subsidies" devising the freehold estate to B., in trust for read “absurdities.” sale. A., soon afterwards, sells and conveys the estate, without noticing the annuity, the existence of which did not at the time occur

PROFESSIONAL LISTS. to B., nor was it specifically conveyed or excepted. - Under these circumstances, is B. now entitled to exereise his right of voting for repre- Appointed under the Fines and Recoveries' Act, sentatives for the county ?


with dates when gazetted.

Dalrymple, Arthur, Norwich, in and for the COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.

city of Norwich and county of the same city,

also in and for the county of Norfolk. July A Correspondent is informed that the Se- 18. eond Common Law Procedure Bill contains a clause enabling the Judges to order a reference

Bell, Alfred, 59, Lincoln's Inn Fields, in of accounts before trial. We hope the Bill will and for the county of Middlesex, also in and pass.-Ed. L. O.

for the city of London and the city and liber. ties of Westminster.

Frere, Bartle John Laurie, 6, New Square, MORTGAGE BALANCE.

Lincoln's Inn, in and for the county of MidOn the hearing of a claim for foreclosure, a dlesex, also in and for the city of London and decree is made for a sale, but the proceeds the city and liberties of Westminster. turn out to be insufficient to pay the mortgage Stephens, William, 30, Bedford Row, in and money. Is the mortgagor discharged from the for the county of Middlesex, also in and for the deficiency, or can the mortgagee recover of city of London and the city and liberties of him the balance under the usual covenant for Westminster. payment or otherwise?

J. E.


Appointed under the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 78, with I shall feel obliged by any of your readers

dates when gazetted. informing me whether it has generally become the practice in manors to discontinue summon- Dalton, John Edward, Leicester. July 21. ing the Coury Leet. It would seem that the Field, Thomas Henry, Gosport. June 30.5 recent alterations in the law bas scarcely left Harrison, Robert Ovington, Sunderland. them anything to do.

B. +1+1 Ayo TVOS

June 23. tind salt 010)"}{:

14:19) Y .?!?!) Lyddon, Richard, Folkestone. June 30. THE ABOLISHED COURTS OF

Marshall, Thomas, Sheffield. June 30. o There cannot be a greater inistake than was Mawson, William Willmott, Manchester made by a noble Lord when he stated that June 23. there was a denial of justice in the recovery of Millns, Adolphus Frederick, New Windsor. smali , debts, anterior to the establishment of July 4.4

9'), County Courts. Many small debt Courts existed to be do.. and 151., and the Court for shallo July 140

Pattisson, Samuel Houston, Great CoggleSouthwark and many of the parishes in Surrey: Pearse, Nicholas

, Wiveliscombe. June 30. soas, mas, much and very satisfactorily re- Preston, Arthur. Norwich, June 20,0 m3 od gorld out 11.00 1857


[ocr errors]




[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« EelmineJätka »