Attorneys to be Admitted.-Notes of the Week. Clerks' Names and Residences. Greenway, Kelynge, jun., 2, Percy-circus, Pen- Grimmer, William Henry, 129, Tachbrooke-st., 269 To whom Articled, Assigned, &c. G. C. Greenway, Warwick; J. Smith, Warwick W. Borlase, Penzance M. Foster, Bradford; J. Swithinbank, Leeds. G. Powell, 3, Raymond-buildings Grimshaw, John, jun., 4, Lower Calthorpe-street, ton; and Norwich Hill, William James, jun., 4, Upper Chadwell-st., Hill, John Edwards, Halifax J. Richmond, Ashton-under-Lyne R. Fulford, Exeter R. Hewitt, Northampton; Sir William Foster, J. Garland, Dorchester Hirtzel, George, 20, Doddington-grove, Kenning- J. Daw, Exeter; J. S. Kingdon, King's-arms-yard ton-road; and Exeter Hitchings, Richard Neville, 31, Bloomsbury-st., Hole, Charles Marshall, 9, Powis-place, Great Hughes, Charles Leadbitter, Newark-upon-Trent Peckham Jenning, Thomas Amas, 25, Gloucester-gardens, Julius, Edric Adolphus, 22, St. Paul's-road, Cam- King, Robt., 10, Frederick's-pl., Mile-end-road Kinneir, Henry, 27, Mornington-road; Albionterrace; and Exeter Legge, Alfred, Gateshead Lever, Charles Baldwin, 12, Tavistock-square; and King's-road Lloyd, Henry, 13, Durnford-ter., Kentish-town; Lush, Frederick Matthew, 13, Durnford-terrace, Lynch, George Sanderson, 41, George-st., Port- Marchant, John, jun., 57, Coleman-street; and J.James, Wrington C. H. Rhodes, Chancery-lane H. Hough, Oakham; F. Charsley, Amersham J. Atkins, White-hart-court J. R. Wilson, Stockton-upon-Tees K. King, Maidstone J. Marsden, Wakefield L. Hicks, Gray's-inn-square E. Every, Exeter; Wm. Kingdon, King's-armsyard G. W. Cram, Newcastle-upon-Tyne C. Lever, Frederick's-place C. C. Lewis, sen., Brentwood F. Bowker, Winchester J. H. Todd, Wichester H. A. Palmer, Bristol F. Sanders, Exeter A. Mant, Storrington; G. Waugh, Gt. James-st. Morris, James Shippard, North Shields NOTES OF THE WEEK, H. Marshall, Godalming A. W. Irwin, Gray's-inn-square H. Whickham, Stroud; J. Blaxland, Crosby-sq. E. Scott, Wigan G. Kewney, North Shields. [To be continued.] vellous is the discovery in commercial England, that we must now imitate the "summary diligence" which has prevailed on the other side of the Tweed for 200 years; and this, after THIS project has made some progress in the all the improvements effected during the last Committee of the House of Commons. Mar-20 years, both in the Superior and Inferior BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL. 270 Notes of the Week.-Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor.-Lords Justices. INNS OF COURT AND CHANCERY. Courts! The attorneys need not oppose this tors "eaten of the root that takes the reason alteration of the law and practice. It can do prisoner?" them no harm, either in town or country. We took the matter up, because an attempt was made to make a "handle" of this topic (as has Several of the gentlemen who hold the office been done on many other occasions), for the of Principal in the Inns of Chancery have purpose of imputing blame to the London so- been called before the Commissioners, but, as licitors for neglecting the interests of their might be anticipated, they have little to comCountry brethren. One only of all the Pro- municate. The nature and constitution of vincial Law Societies interfered on the ques- these "ancient and honourable Societies" are tion of authorising all attorneys to act as nota- well known, and it may not unreasonably be ries in noting and protesting bills under the asked-what is the object of the Commission? proposed Act. Is not this a sufficient proof If any of the Inns of Chancery have a surplus that the Profession in the country did not en- income, what is it proposed should be done? tertain any fears of the effect of the scheme? Do the Benchers of the Inns of Court We retain the opinion that the public interest claim the surplus? Is it to be added to the does not call for this alteration of the law, and rental of the Inns of Court for the advantage of that at all events it should be postponed until the Bar, or applied towards the improvement the whole subject of the assimilation of the of the attorneys and solicitors? We presume Laws of England and Scotland can be care- that branch of the Profession will lose no time fully considered, with the advice which the in suggesting a plan that may meet with geMercantile Law Commissioners may commu- neral approval for the better acquisition of nicate by their report. After a Royal Com- legal knowledge, and facilitating the discharge mission of Inquiry has issued, can any course of professional duties. Might we suggest that be more injudicious than passing an Act on a the governing bodies of the Inns of Chancery mere fraction of a complicated and extensive and the Council of the Incorporated Law Sosystem, before the evidence has been received ciety should unite in considering this important or considered? Have not some of our legisla- | subject? RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS. Lord Chancellor. In re Tillie and Henderson's Patent. July 29, SEALING PATENT. 1854. COSTS OF OPPOSING SPECIFICATION. An application to seal a patent was postponed until the payment of the costs of opposing successfully certain parts of the specification before the Solicitor-General. THIS was an application to seal this patent. Baggallay in support; Webster, contrà, on the ground of the nonpayment of the costs of opposing successfully certain parts of the specification before the Solicitor-General. The Lord Chancellor said, that the patent could not be sealed until the costs in question were paid. Lords Justices. subject to the right of freebench therein of the been informally admitted to an undivided vendor's mother, Ann Beasley, and who had moiety instead of having her freebench set out according to the custom. By an indenture of even date, the testator was to enjoy undivided possession of the entirety, paying an annuity of 40l. to Mrs. Beasley for her life, and retaining 400l. of the purchase-money until six months after her death, and he accordingly entered into possession, but was never admitted thereto. Upon his death in February, 1851, intestate, as to the residue of his real and personal estate, and leaving the defendant, John Smith, his customary heir, the latter was admitted to all his copyhold estates, with the exception of the estate in question, and upon the death of Mrs. Beasley, in 1853, the testator's widow filed this bill for an administration, claiming freebench, and for a commission to set it out. The Master of the Rolls held, that the Smith v. Adams. July 24, 25; Aug. 1, 1854. plaintiff was not entitled to freebench in respect SUR RIGHT OF WIDOW OF UNADMITTED of the moiety in which Mrs. Beasley had a life interest, but only as to the other moiety upon the admission of the defendant, and that he was trustee for her to its amount until he should Held, reversing the decision of the Master of be so admitted. The defendant appealed from the Rolls, that the widow of an unadmitted the latter part of the decision. surrenderee of copyholds is not entitled to freebench therein. THIS was a suit for the administration of the estate of George Smith. It appeared that he purchased in July, 1845, of John Beasley, certain copyhold hereditaments held of the manor of Weedon Beck, Northamptonshire, Lee and Horace Wright in support; Swanston and Jolliffe, contrà. Cur. ad. vult. The Lords Justices said, that the Dower Act, 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 105, did not extend to freebench. The right to freebench depended upon the seisin of the husband, who in this Superior Courts: Lords Justices.-V. C. Kindersley. case was never seised, and having died before admittance, could not be seised by relation or otherwise. The plaintiff could not have compelled her husband to be admitted during his lifetime, and she had no better right upon his death to call on his heir to be admitted. She had, therefore, no grounds whatever for equitable relief against the heir, and it was difficult to see how the heir could be treated as a trustee, and in the absence of fraud or other special circumstances, it would be going beyond any existing authority to convert him into a trustee (Vaughan v. Atkins, 5 Burr. 2764; D'Arcy v. Blake, 2 Sch. & Lef. 387). The bill must therefore be dismissed without costs, but if, however, she wished to try the question at law, it would be retained for a year, with liberty to apply by mandamus or otherwise, as she might be advised; the costs to be reserved, but if she failed the bill would then be dismissed with costs. Held, that an investment cannot be ordered under the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 16, s. 69, of the purchase-money of freehold lands taken by a railway company in the purchase of lands held on lease for 1000 years of which 750 were unexpired, although the demise contained no covenants nor proviso for reentry. THIS was an application under the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 16, s. 69, for the investment of the purchase-money of certain freehold lands taken by the above railway company in the purchase of premises held on lease for 1000 years, and of which 750 were unexpired. Dart, in support, stated that in the demise there were no covenants nor proviso for reentry, citing In re Cann's Estate, 19 Law J., N. S., Ch., 376, where Bruce, Lord Justice, when Vice-Chancellor, had sanctioned an investment in copyholds. The Lords Justices (without calling on Bacon, contrà) said, that the section referred to did not confer any jurisdiction to make the order asked, and the application was accordingly refused. Farquhar v. Addington. July 31, 1854. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES AFTER DECREE ON TAXATION OF COSTS. Quære, whether the examiner can, after decree, proceed to examine witnesses whose evidence is required on the taxation of costs without a special order. But on an application for such order being made, it is necessary to mention the names of some of the witnesses whom it is intended to examine. THIS was an application for an order on the 271 examiner to examine witnesses whose evidence was required on the taxation of costs under the decree in this suit. The examiner objected to proceed without a special order. Malins and C. Browne in support; Greene, contrà. The Lords Justices said, that the names of some of the witnesses, whom it was intended to examine, must be mentioned, and the application stood over accordingly. Vice-Chancellor Rindersley. Morgan v. Morgan. July 29, 1854. MARRIED WOMAN. -- EQUITY TO SETTLE- : A married woman became entitled, since the insolvency of her husband, to a sum of 920l. Held, that there must be a settlement to her separate use of the whole, and after her death the capital to go to the children of the marriage. Pearson appeared in support of this petition on behalf of Mrs. Morgan for the settlement to her separate use of a sum of 920l. to which she had become entitled since the insolvency of her husband. Osborne for the husband, contrà, as to a moiety of the fund. The Vice-Chancellor said, that there must be a settlement as prayed, -the children to take the capital upon the wife's death. - TRUSTEES' ACT 1850. NEW TRUSTEES, An application under the 13 & 14 Vicl. c. 60, THIS was a petition under the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 60, s. 32, for the appointment of two new trustees of this society, upon the death of one and the other being of weak intellect. Taylor and Hallett for the several parties. The Vice-Chancellor said, that the Act conferred no jurisdiction with reference to the removal of the trustee of unsound mind, and that the application must therefore be made either to the Lord Chancellor or Lords Justices. 272 Superior Courts: V. C. Kindersley.-V. C. Stuart.-V. C. Wood. payers had resolved that the fund should clared that if any of her said children should be applicable to the two national schools; die, leaving any child or children, such child but the Attorney-General had certified that or children, if more than one, should have and the dividends should be paid to a dispen-take the share of his, her, or their respective sary near the parish in order that the poor parent equally. This special case was now might receive medical relief, and order ac-presented under the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 35, as to cordingly. the construction of the will. THE testatrix, Mary J. Stanes, by her will, dated in December, 1837, gave to her executor, Mr. Larcher, the sum of 500l. to be distributed by him among the poor and needy of the parish of Great Baddow in the county of Essex, in every respect as he should choose. It appeared that Mr. Larcher died without having proved the will, and that one of the residuary legatees had administered and paid the amount into Court. A meeting of the rate-payers had been held, at which it was resolved that the sum in question should be applied for the two national schools of the parish under the direction of the Court, and this petition was presented by the parties about to act as the trustees for the purpose. On the hearing, in July, 1853, the matter was referred to the AttorneyGeneral, who now certified that the fund should be invested in the names of trustees, and the dividends be paid from time to time to the funds of the Chelmsford dispensary, near which the parish of Great Baddow was situate, in order that its sick poor might receive medical relief under the nomination of the trustees, and this application was now made for an order in accordance with such certificate. Selwyn and Cairns in support; Terrell for the Attorney-General; Osborne for other parties. The Vice-Chancellor made the order as asked and for the appointment of the four trustees. WILL. Vice-Chancellor Stuart. Gray v. Cann, July 31, 1854. CONSTRUCTION. - WHETHER GIFT A testatrix directed her executors to raise children. THE testatrix, by her will, directed her executors to raise a sum of 800l., in trust, to divide the same into eight equal parts, and to pay one part to her daughter, Mrs. Gray, or in the event of her death in her lifetime, then to her husband, another part to the children of a deceased daughter, another part to a son, and as to the remaining five parts, in trust, to pay one part to each of her other children, and she de Smale for the children of the testatrix; Bagshawe for the grandchildren; Surrage for the surviving executor and trustee. The Vice-Chancellor said, that the children of the testatrix who survived her were entitled to their shares absolutely, and that they did not only take for life with remainder to their children. The costs of all parties to come out of the estate. Vice-Chancellor CWood. Tapping v. Hooper. July 27, 1854. EQUITY JURISDICTION IMPROVEMENT ACT. The plaintiff had not delivered, under the 15 Which enacts, that "the plaintiff in any suit to be commenced in the said Court after the time hereinafter appointed for the commencement of this Act shall be bound to deliver to the defendant or his solicitor, upon application for the same, such a number of printed copies of his bill of complaint or claim as he shall have occasion for, upon being paid for the same at such rate as shall be prescribed by any General Order of the Lord Chancellor in that behalf." The 5th Order of August 7, 1852, directs that "the payment to be made by the defendant to the plaintiff for printed copies of the bill or claim shall be at the rate of one halfpenny per folio ;" and Order 6, "that no defendant shall be at liberty to demand from the plaintiff more than 10 printed copies of his bill or claim." The Legal Observer, AND SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. SATURDAY, AUGUST 12, 1854. POSTPONED LAW BILLS IN PAR- Jurisdiction of the Stannaries Courts ; LIAMENT. THE Session being about to close, it may be convenient to review briefly the various measures for the alteration of the Law which have been introduced or notified to Parliament, and subsequently negatived or abandoned. Taking them in the order of their importance, as they might have affected the interests or convenience of the Profession, they are as follow: 1st. The Bills relating to the Ecclesi- 6th. The Assimilation of the Mercantile astical Courts. These were four in num- Laws of England, Ireland, and Scotland. ber, namely the Testamentary Jurisdic- 7th. The amendment of the Metropolition Bill;-the Divorce and Matrimonial tan Buildings' Act,-a measure, no doubt, Causes' Bill;-the Amendment of the Law much needed in many respects, but difficult of Adultery as to Actions for Criminal to effect, consistently with existing rights Conversation;—and the Marriage of Dis- and interests. senters. 8th. The six Bills relating to Parlia 2nd. The Bills affecting the Law of Pro-mentary Elections, namely:-the Trial of perty and Conveyancing, viz: The Con- Election Petitions ;-the prevention of Corveyance of Real Property Amendment Bill, rupt Practices at Elections; the abolition of as to the taxation of costs according to the Property Qualification of Members;skill, labour, and responsibility;-the Ap- the abolition of Members' Privilege from portionment of Rent ;-the Personal Estate Arrest ;-the vacating the Seats of Memof Married Women;-Disposal of Property bers on accepting Government Offices ;by Persons under Religious Vows; the and a second Bill for the Prevention of Amendment of the Law of Mortmain ;- Bribery. Succession of Real Property of Intestates 9th. The Criminal Law Bills,-viz., nine by all his Children or Next of Kin ;- for the Consolidation of the Criminal Law, Amendment of the Law of Simony for the besides the following:-Amendment of Cripurpose of preventing the Sale of next Pre-minal Procedure ;-appointment of Public sentations; the Drainage of Lands ;-and Prosecutors; abolition of the Punishment the Establishment of Joint-Stock Executor of Death ;-the Prevention of Frauds as to and Trustee Companies for the Administra- Bills of Exchange;-and the extension of tion of Private Trusts. the Police system throughout England and Wales. 3rd. The enforcement of Executions on English Judgments in Ireland and Scotland, and of Irish and Scotch Judgments in England; the substitution of Declarations in lieu of Oaths;-the amendment of the Law of Arbitration; the extension of the VOL. XLVIII. No. 1,379. 10th. Several Bills were also proposed for the amendment of the Poor and Parochial Laws, namely, the Law of Settlement ;-Uniform Assessment throughout the Kingdom;-abolition of Church Rates; |