« EelmineJätka »
DISSOLUTIONS OF PROFESSIONAL PART
948 Professional Lists.-Notes of the Week.-Superior Courts : Lord Chancellor.
Wilkinson, Richard Reeves, Gosport. June ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF DEEDS BY MARRIED 30.
WOMEN. This Bill has been thrice reprinted with amendments. As passed in the House of
Lords and now in the House of Commons, it From 20th June to 21st July, 1854, both in taken bona fide, although one or both of the
will render valid all existing acknowledgments, clusive, with dates when gazetted.
Commissioners may have been interested or Bockett, Daniel Smith, and George Cowburn, concerned in the transaction, or attorney for 60, Lincoln's Inn Fields, Attorneys and So- one of the parties ; but authorising the Court, licitors. July 14.
where proceedings were instituted before the Browne, John, William Kingdon, James 13th July, to dispose of the same as if the Act Smith Kingdon, and Francis Josiah Cotton, had not passed, except that if the Court is sa10, King's Ams Yard, Moorgate Street, Attor- tisfied that the parties have been induced by neys and Solicitors (so far as regards the said the rule of Hilary Term, 1834, to acknowledge John Browne). June 27.
deeds before Commissioners, one of whom may Castle, Charles, Alfred Henderson, and have been interested in the transaction, the Eustace Barham, Bristol, Attorneys, Solicitors, Court may refuse to quash the certificate on and Conveyancers (so far as regards the said such terms as to costs as may be thought fit. Charles Castle). July 11.
And the Common Pleas may make rules for Fisher, Thomas, and George Stone, Liver- preventing Commissioners who are interested
from taking acknowledgments. pool, Attorneys and Solicitors. July 4.
Hall, James Wallace Richard, and Henry, Minett, Ross, Attorneys and Solicitors. July
LAW APPOINTMENT. 7. Lees, Charles, and George Humble, Brad- Henry Connor, Esq., to be Chief Justice of the
The Queen has been pleased to appoint ford, county of York, Attorneys and Solicitors. Supreme Court of her Majesty's Forts and
Settlements on the Gold Coast, and Assessor Simcox, John, Thomas Simcox, and Edward or Assistant to the native Sovereigns and Chiefs Walford Simcox, Birmingham, Attorneys and within the countries adjoining to the said Forts Solicitors. July 18.
and Settlements.- From the London Gazette of Straford, Joseph Cooper, and Hen. Plumbe, July 25. Cheltenham, Attorneys and Solicitors. July 18.
It is much to be regretted that new and important Bills should be introduced so late in
the Session as to prevent the due consideraAMENDMENTS IN THE BRIBERY BILL.
tion of their effect. This Bill was brought in The clause to which we lately called atten- the 30th June, and at first sight appeared to tion in this Bill, prohibiting attorneys from re- be unobjectionable ; but, on further examinaceiving any emolument for their services at tion, it unnecessarily extends the powers of the election of Members of Parliament, if they the Oficial Assignees, and continues the useless were electors, has been struck out. The clause expense of Brokers in all cases, instead of comin the amended Bill affecting professional men, bining (as the Commissioners recommend) the as well as all others, is the 17th, under which duties of the broker with those of the mesall bills, charges, or claims, especially includ- senger. The professed object is to diminish ing “agents, are to be sent to the candidate expense, but we apprehend that this laudable within a month from the day of election, and end is, in many instances, lost sight of. by the 18th clause, the bills so received are to Would it not be better to wait until a combe sent by the candidate or his agent within prehensive measure can be prepared, in ac; three months to the election officer. Then by cordance with the Commissioners' report and the 19th clause, no payments are to be made of the evidence given by practical men reexcept through such'officer.
garding many defects not remedied in this Bill ?
RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS.
Walton (ante, p. 189), that the Orders of Knowles v. Mount. July 22, 1854.
October 23, 1852, directing the allowance
of 6s. 8d. for every three appearances et SOLICITORS' COSTS. - ENTERING APPEAR- tered, only apply to matters in Judges'
ANCE WHERE MORE THAN THREE DE- Chambers.
This was an application for a direction to Held, od ling the decision of Morritt o. I the ring Master in this suit, in which there
Superior Courts : Lord Chancellor.-Lords Justices.
249 were 46 defendants, as to the allowance for en- A testator, by his will, devised certain copytering the appearance.
hold estates (inter alia) to his wife for life, Speed in support.
with remainder on her death to his three The Lord Chancellor said, that in Morritt v. younger children therein named, and by a Walton (ante, p. 189), he had perhaps some- subsequent will he gave to his wife for life what hastily decided there was no objection to all the stock, crop, and effects of his real the allowance of 6s. 8d. for every three ap- and personal estate, and after her death pearances, whether on bill or claim, as on pro- he gave all his crop, property, personal ceedings in Chambers, but upon referring to estates, and effects, among his children (exthe preface of the Orders of October 23, 1852, cept his eldest son) living at his death. No it appeared they were confined to matters in surrender was made by the testator of the the Judges' Chambers. Measures had been copyholds to the use of his will: Held, taken to remedy this, and an order was in pré- dis: issing with costs an appeal from paration to meet the difficulty. This applica- Vice-Chancellor Wood, that the copyholds tion would therefore stand over for a week. possed under the first, and not under the
second will; and that a surrender must be
supplied in favour of the three children Lords Justices.
born at its date. Ia re ) Kenna, caparte Hunt. July 21, 1854.
This was an appeal from the decision of
Vice-Chancellor Wood (reported 1 Kay, 479). BANKRUPTCY.--TAXATION OF BILL OF AC- The testator, Thomas Freeman, by his will, COUNTANTS
IN dated in June, 1804, devised certain copyholds, TRADE, &c.—JURISDICTION.
to the reversion in fee of which he was entitled, Semble, that the Lords Justices have not ju- together with all other his freehold, leasehold,
risdiction under the 12 g. 13 Vict. c. 106, and copyhold estates, to his wife for life, with s. 12, to entertain the petition by way of remainder to his three younger children, appeal from the Commissioner taxing the Thomas, John, and Eliza in fee, and
bequeathbill of accountants, for selling by tender ed a sum of 101. to his eldest son, Edward, as the stock-in-trade and premises of a bank- he was provided for. By a subsequent will, rupt.
dated in August, 1807, and purporting to be
his last will and testament, after reciting that This was a petition, by way of appeal from his eldest son, Edward, would become upon the decision of Mr. Commissioner Skirrow, his decease entitled to all his freehold estates, taxing the bill of Messrs. Hunt, accountants, which would be an ample provision for him, for selling by tender the stock-in-trade and he bequeathed all and singular the stock, crop, premises of the bankrupt.
and effects, both real and personal estates, By the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 12, it is en- to his wife for life, and after her death all bis acted, that “the Court in the exercise of its crop, property, personal estates and effects, to primary jurisdiction by virtue of this Act, shall all and every his child or children (except Edhave superintendence and control in all matters ward) living at his decease, to be equally dividof bankruptcy, and shall hear, determine, and ed between them, share and share alike. It apmake order in any matter of bankruptcy wbat-peared that the testator had not surrendered ever, so far as the assignees are concerned, the copyholds to the use of his will, and that relating to the disposition of the estate and there were two other children, Louisa and effects of the bankrupt," "and also in any Mary Ann, born after the date of the first, but matter of bankruptcy whatever, as between the before that of the second will, who were all assignees and any creditor or other person ap- living at the testator's death in September, pearing and submitting to the jurisdiction of 1807. The copyholds fell into possession in the Court," "and subject in all cases to an October, 1851, and the assignees of his son appeal," &c.
John (the heir-at-law and customary heir of Karslake in support, referred to s. 83 of the the eldest son, Edward, deceased) had brought former Act, 5 & 6 Vict. c. 122.
an action to recover possession of the copybold Little for the assignees.
estates against the other son, Thomas, who The Lords Justices said, that the Statute thereupon filed this bill for an injunction and conferred no jurisdiction in this case, and it to have a surrender supplied in favour of the appeared also, that this was the opinion of the objects under the first will. The Vice-ChanLord Chancellor in providing for this very cellor having held that the copyholds passed matter by e. 16 of the new Bankruptcy Bill in- under the first will, which was not revoked by troduced this session. No order would there- the second, and that a surrender must be supfore be made, but with liberty to the petitioners plied in favour of the three children born at to apply to the Lord Chancellor.
its dates, this appeal was presented.
W. M. James and Metcalfe for the plaintiffs ;
Chandless and C. C. Berkeley for the defend-
TO SURRENDER COPYHOLDS TO USE OF must be dismissed, with costs.
FAILURE OF UNDERTAKING.
Superior Courts: Rolls.-7. C. Kindersley.
be admitted in evidence, provided they respec. Anon. July 8, 1854.
tively purport to be sealed or impressed with a
stamp, or sealed and signed, or signed alone, as PAYMENT OP DEPOSIT Out Of COURT ON required,” &c., " without any proof” “ of the
signature or of the official character of the perCATE OF CHAIRMAN OF HOUSE OF LORDS
son appearing to bave signed the same, and COMMITTEES-EVIDENCE.
without any further proof thereof, in every case Held, that the certificate of the chairman of in which the original record could have been
the House of Lords' Committees, under the received in evidence." 9 & 10 Vict. c, 20, s. 5, cannot be received The Master of the Rolls said, that the Act under the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, s. 1, on an did not apply to cases where the original docuapplication for the payment out of Court ment was produced, and that the signature of the deposit, on the failure of the under- must therefore be proved.
taking, without proof of the signature. This was an application, for a direction to Roper v. Whieldon. July 20, 1854. the registrar to receive the certificate of the CHARITABLE BEQUEST.- MISDESCRIPTION, Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, under the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 20, s. 5,' with
Bequest to the “ Aged Needlewomen's Soout proof of his signature, for the purpose of
ciety.” There were two societies with się drawing up the order for paying out of Court
milar objects : the “ Distressed Needlethe amount of deposit.
women's Home," and the “ Distressed Lloyd in support, referred to 8 & 9 Vict. c.
Needlewomen's Society :" Held, that the
latter was entitled. 113, s. 1, which enacts, that “whenever by any Act now in force or hereafter to be in force, any
The testator, by his will, dated in Septemcertificate, official or public document, or docu- ber, 1852, gave a legacy of 400l. to the "Aged cument or proceeding of any corporation or Needlewomen's Society.” It appeared that joint-stock or other company, or any certified there were two societies called the Distressed copy of any document, bye-law, entry in
Needlewomen's Society," and the “Distressed
any register or other book, or of any other proceed Needlewomen’s Home," and which had both ing, shall be receivable in evidence of any par
the same objects. ticular in any Court of justice, or before any
Forster for the latter society; Roupell, legal tribunal, or either House of Parliament, Berkeley, and Dauney, for other parties, were or any Committee of either House, or in any
not called on. judicial proceedings, the same shall respectively. The Master of the Rolls said, that the Dis
tressed Needlewomen's Society was entitled. " Which enacts, that if the petition or bill for the purpose of making or sanctioning any Vice-Chancellor Kindersley. such work or undertaking “shall be rejected or finally withdrawn by some proceeding in
Morritt v. Walton. July 19, 1854. either House of Parliament, or shall not be al- SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS OF lowed to proceed, or if the person or persons by whom the said money was paid or security deposited shall bave failed to present a petition,
An order was made directing substituted ser
vice of an order to revive obtained under or if an Act be passed authorising the making the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 52, "upon the of such work or undertaking, and if in any of death of the sole plaintiff, on the solicitors the foregoing cases the person or persons named in such warrant or order," &c., “apply
of the various defendants, who were rery
numerous and had appeared. by petition to the Court in the name of whose Accountant-General the sum of money men
This was a motion that the service of the tioned in such warrant or order shall have been order obtained under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, paid," &c., “shall by order direct the sum of s. 52, to revive this suit upon the death of the money paid in pureuance of such warrant or
sole plaintiff might be substituted on the soorder," &c. " and the interest and dividends licitors of the defendants, who were very nuthereof to be paid or transferred to the party
merous and had all appeared, or parties so applying, or to any other person
Tripp in support. or persons whom they may appoint in that be
The Vice-Chancellor granted the application. half;" &c.," upon the production of the cer, tificate of the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords with reference to any proceeds Exparte Governers of Oakham and Uppingham ing in the House of Lords, or of the Speaker
, of the House of Commons with reference to
del cosÝS PETITION
RAILWAY any proceeding in the House of Commons,”
FOR PAYMENT OK DIVIDENDS ON PUR &c., “ whích certificate the said Chairman or CHASE-MONEY OF IS1989 LANDS, Speaker shall grant on the application in writ- In the orders which had been ing of the person or persons, or the majority of
a the persons named in such warrant, or the sur- other lands of part of the purchase-money vivor or survivors of them.'' | .1 5345 !!
of school lands taken by a railway come! OSE (916 H 279tr H.7 mil
232h BUM QM22 YES IT
ORDER TO REVIVE.
Superior Courts: V. C. Kindersley.-V.C. Stuart.-7. C. Wood. pany, no provision had been made for the A decree for foreclosure was made on a claim payment of the future dividends : Held, by the first mortgagee against the morte that the company and the governors must gagor and second mortgagee, and a day was each bear their own costs of a petition fixed with the consent of all parties : Held, presented by the latter to obtain such pay- that the second mortgagee could not apply ment.
to extend such day, and for a sale under This was a petition on behalf of the go
the 15 of 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 48, where the vernors of the above school, part of the land first mortgagee did not consent, and his belonging to which had been purchased by a
motion for such purpose was dismissed, railway company, for payment of the dividends with costs. on the purchase-money' which had been in- In this foreclosure claim by the first mortvested. It appeared that in the orders for the gagee against the mortgagor and second purchase of other lands with part of the money mortgagee, the usual foreclosure decree had which had been obtained provision had not been made, and a certain day was fixed by the been made for the payment of the future divi- consent of all the parties for payment of dends.
the amount due, and in default for a foreGoren and H. R. Young in support; Bovill closure. for the company, contrà, as to costs.
This motion was now made on behalf of the The Vice-Chancellor said, that the omission second mortgagee for the extension of the time had occurred through the oversight of both within which the foreclosure would operate, parties, and each must therefore bear his own and for a sale under the direction of the costs of this petition.
Court in pursuance of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86,
8. 48. Streatfield v. Bedford. July 24, 1854.
Speed in support ; Cairns, for the plaintiff,
contrà; Druce for the mortgagor. SUIT AGAINST TRUSTEE FOR ACCOUNT. The Vice-Chancellor said, that as the plainNEW TRUSTEES, APPOINTMENT
tiff did not consent, the motion must be disCOSTS.
missed, with costs. Where a suit was instituted for an account against a trustee on behalf of the next friend
Vice-Chancellor Uood. of an infant, and there was no previous application to the trustee : Held, that the Wilde v. Murray. July 6, 1854. trustee was entitled to deduct the amount of SECURITY FOR COSTS.-CROSS-BILL.-MIShis costs out of the balance in his hands
DESCRIPTION OF RESIDENCE. before paying it into Court.
motion was refused, but without costs, for The bill also asked the appointment of new an order on the plaintiff to give security
trustees, held, that the plaintiff was not for costs where he had described himself in entilled to costs, as he should have applied the bill as of a house which was in the posunder the Trustees' Act, 1850.
session of a receiver appointed in a preIn this suit by the next friend of an infant,
vious suit and let to another person, on the the devisee under a will, against the trustee
ground that the suit in question was in the for an account and for the appointment of new
nature of a cross-bill. trustees, it appeared that no application for THIS was a motion for an order on the such account had been made before the bill was plaintiff to give security for costs, on the filed, and the defendant in his answer stated, ground that he was not residing at the house that he was then and always had been ready which he had given as his address in the bill. to account and to hand over the balance to the It appeared that a receiver had been appointed guardians.
in a former suit against the present plaintiff, S. Smith for the plaintiff; Glasse and Wel and that the house was let to another person. ford for the defendant.
Karslake in support; Greene, contrà, on the The Vice-Chancellor said, that as the trustee ground that the present proceeding was in the should have been applied to before proceed nature of a cross-bill. ings were instituted, he would be entitled to de- The Vice-Chancellor said, that it was the duct the amount of his costs out of the balance settled practice not to require security for costs in his hands, which would have to be paid into from the plaintiff in a cross-bill, but that as Court. No costs would be allowed to the he had described himself as of a house which plaintiff, who should have applied by petition at the time of filing the bill was actually let to the
1850, instead of by another person, the motion would be refused, bill, for the appointment of new trustees..,,
Chillwell v. Hocknell. July 14, 1854. Site-Chancellor Stuart.
ADMINISTRATION CLAIM moostgl2OF ASCampbell x. Moxhay and another. July 6,
' 1,290 1919 1894.a.
4 Hurst v. Padwick, -17 Law J., SIN, S., Ch.1 PORECLOSURE CLAIM-MOTION TO EXTEND 169; Watteeu v. Billami18 Law J.; N. 18.,
TIME BY SECOND MORTGAGEE. Ch. 455; Vincent v. Hunter, 5 Hare, 320.
CHARITABLE BEQUEST. - MISDESCRIPTION
Superior Courts : Vice-Chancellor Wood. SIGNEES OF EXECUTOR AND RESIDUARY for any purpose whatever. The will then
proceeded,—“ It was my intention to have In an administration claim by an executor
left the house, blacksmith's shop, and preand a residurry legatee, his assignees were mises for the purpose of being converted made defendants on his becoming insolvent :
into a school-room, but I find that the Held, that the plaintiff and his co-executor
law of mortmain prevents me, and that must have their costs as between solicitor
the heir-at-law would take it." He thereand client, and the assignees as between fore gare the same to N., “in the hope he party and party, out of the estate.
will convert it into a daily school:" Held, It appeared, in this administration claim,
that the bequest was valid, as the school filed by an executor and a residuary legatee,
might be established without purchasing that upon his becoming insolvent his assignees
land by hiring an existing house for the were made defendants, and the question now
purpose. arose whether they were entitled to separate
The testator, the Rev. Richard P. Jones, by costs.
bis will, desired that 3001., which he had lent Southgate for the plaintiff; Daniel and Rou- on debenture to the Bristol and Gloucester and pell for the defendant and co-executor ; J. H. Birmingham Railway Company, should be Palmer for the assignees.
brought into the funds, and that such part of The Vice-Chancellor said, that the plaintiff the interest as might be required should be and his co-executor must have their costs as applied to keep his tomb in repair, and that between solicitor and client, and the assignees the remainder of the annual interest should be as between party and party, as they were ne- given every year during the month of Decemcessarily brought before the Court.
ber in bread or blankets to any 12 of the most deserving agricultural labourers of the parish
of Charfield, whom the rector for the time In re Deacon's Trust. July 20, 1854. being should appoint. The will then pro
ceeded :—“There are 4,0001. standing in my name in the 3 per cents., 2,0001. of which I
bequeath to my wife absolutely, and 2,000! I A testator gave a legacy to the “ General leave to pay a master and mistress of a school,
Lying-in Hospital for Unmarried Females which I wish to have established after my death in London.” It appeared there were two for the children of the Established Church; the institutions for that purpose in London, but interest of this 2,0001. will give 60l. a year, that one had been elsewhere mentioned in and it is my wish that the principal may not the will and provided for : Held, that the be spent or reduced for any purpose whatever
, other was entitled to the legacy.
and I leave the management of the school to The testator, Charles D. Deacon, by his will be under the superintendence of the rector for gave (inter alia) legacy to the “General the time being, and the rector's churchwarden. Lying-in Hospital for Unmarried Women in It was my intention to have left the house and London.” It appeared, on inquiries before the blacksmith's shop, and premises, for the purChief Clerk, that there were two lying-in hos- pose of being converted into a school-room, pitals, viz., in the York Road, Lambeth, and but I find that the law of mortmain prevents Queen Charlotte's Hospital St. Marylebone. me, and that the heir-at-law would take it. The Chief Clerk had certified in favour of the Under these circumstances, I therefore beLambeth institution.
queath the house, blacksmith's shop, and preJames, W. Hislop Clarke, and Dickinson for mises occupied by Edward Hathaway to Mr. the several parties.
Joseph Neeld, of Guttleton, who is now patron The Vice-Chancellor said, that as the Hos of the living, in the hope that he will convert pital at St. Marylebone was mentioned and it into a daily school.” ' The testator died in provided for elsewhere in the will, the testator October last, having appointed his wife (the must have intended the institution at Lambeth, defendant) his sole executrix, and the question which was therefore entitled to the legacy. arose in this suit by the rector of the parish as
to the validity of the bequest,
G. M. Giffard for the plaintiff'; Walford for Hill v. Jones. July 22, 1854.
the defendant. CHARITABLE BEQUEST.-STATUTE OF MORT
The following cases were cited - Longstaff v. MAIN.-ESTABLISHING SCHOOL.
Rennison, i Drewry, 28; In re Clancy, 16 A testator directed a sum lent on railway de Beav. 295 ; In re Laugham's Will, 1 Eq. Rep. benture bonds to be brought into the funds,
118; Edwards v. Hall, 1 Eq. Rep. 145. and part of the interest to be applied in re
The Vice-Chancellor said, that a school pairing his tomb, and the remainder for might be established without purchasing land, charitable purposes as therein directed.
as an existing house might be bired for the He also directed that the income on a sum purpose : Attorney-General v. Williams, 2 Cox, of stock should be applied to pay the master 387,' and that the bequest was therefore valid. and mistress of a school which he wished to have established after his death, and that Reported also 4 Bro. C. C. 526, the principal should not be spent or reduced