298' Attorneys and Solicitors of Ireland→Annual Report. pense which have been occasioned to the pub-vantage of the opportunity to present a special lic, and to the members of both branches of memorial to the Judges on the subject, setting the Legal Profession, who practise in the In- forth several recent instances of the evil concumbered Estates Court, in consequence of the sequences arising from the practice, referring Court being at such a distance from the place to the course of business in England, and where the Law and Equity business of the praying that a rule might be made, requiring country is transacted, and where the Bar and that all attorneys resident in the country, Solicitors are of necessity obliged to be in con- should register the name of a Dublin agent, stant attendance, and praying that the Court being an attorney, resident and practising in and offices might be removed to the immediate Dublin, to transact their Dublin business, and neighbourhood of the Four Courts. that the name of such Dublin agent should be signed, as agent, to all writs, orders, or other documents requiring the signature of an attorney. "Your Council have not as yet been made aware that any step has been taken to accomplish so desirable a measure, but they received an intimation in the month of July last, that it was in contemplation to make arrangements for the sittings of the Court to be held at or in the neighbourhood of the Four Courts, though it was not intended to make any change in the site of the offices, and that, consequently, while the Commissioners were to transact the judicial business of the Court at the Inns' Quay, the various officers were to carry on their portion of the public business in Henrietta Street. Your Council were and are of opinion that any such arrangement would tend to increase, instead of diminish the inconvenience now felt by the public and the Legal Profession, and they were resolved on protesting against the impolicy of any such partial change, if the intention of effecting such had been officially announced. Your Council take this opportunity of urging on the attorneys and solicitors of Ireland, the propriety of bringing this matter (each in his own county or borough) under the consideration of the members of Parliament for Ireland, with a view of having the subject pressed on the attention of the Government, during the next Session of Parliament. "The same matter was brought under the consideration of the Judges, by a former Council of this Society, on the occasion of the preparation of General Rules under the Process and Practice Act, and an objection was then raised by the Judges that they had no power, under the provisions of that Act, to make such a rule, but, in reply to the memorial above referred to, your Council were favoured with a communication from the Lord Chief Justice, that his lordship had received the memorial of the Society, which he would bring under the notice of the Judges, as a matter deserving their most serious consideration; and your Council have reason to know, that the framing of such a rule as that sought for was mooted amongst the Judges, but the final consideration of it was postponed, and it at present remains an undecided question. "The attention of your Council having been called to the case of Wisdom v. Kelly, referred to in the last-mentioned memorial (in which case, persons acting as town agents had been guilty of the grossest malpractices), your Council conceived it to be their duty to appear "In Michaelmas Term, 1853, a barrister, on a pending motion, for an attachment against under peculiar circumstances, made an appli- a certain individual, and point out to the Court cation to the Court of Exchequer to be ad- the mischievous effects produced by the pracmitted an attorney, without having served an tice they had publicly and formally complained apprenticeship. This gentleman was the bro- of; and upon the discussion of the motion, the ther of an attorney, whose death was caused Court were of opinion, that a member of the by a railway accident. The Council felt it their Profession, and a clerk who acted as town duty to oppose the application, but it was agent, were equally guilty with the individual granted by the Court, with apparent reluc- referred to, and that proceedings should be intance, and under a certain supposed state of stituted against them; and, accordingly, the facts, which was afterwards ascertained to be Court granted a conditional order for an atunfounded. The Council, on behalf of this tachment against them, and committed to your Society, therefore felt themselves bound to Society the carriage of the proceedings, the bring the true state of facts before the Court, result of which was, that the order for an atand to apply to have the name of the gentle-tachment was made absolute, but directed not man alluded to struck off the Roll of Attor- to issue until further order. neys, in which they were successful, a result which your Council trust will be attended with beneficial effects, and which, it is hoped, will induce the Courts of Law to be less disposed to entertain favourably, and to scrutinise more closely, applications of such a nature. "A resolution having been passed at a general meeting of this Society, referring it to your Council to consider the prevailing practice of country attorneys employing, as town agents, unprofessional persons. Your Council, when the new Rules, under the Common Law Procedure Act, were in preparation, took ad "Your Council regret to state, that although successful in punishing the offenders in this particular case, yet the Court, in pronouncing judgment, did not hold out any hope that a General Order would be framed to meet the evil; although one of their lordships, in observing upon this case of Wisdom v. Kelly, and the mischievous effects of the practice complained of, stated:-That what struck him as most objectionable was, that it was alleged that the country attorney employed a person, not a professional man, to do business in his name, and that this person, without any autho Attorneys and Solicitors of Ireland.—Insufficient Number of Perpetual Commissioners. 299 rity from him, had undertaken to act for him, and the result was, that three actions were instituted, in a very oppressive manner, upon one bill of exchange, and he thought that the practice of an attorney employing a non-has constantly supported the claims of the professional man to institute proceedings in his name, without previous communication with him, was one which could not be tolerated by the Court.' stain from then bringing the subject forward. The Society, therefore, did not present any petition on the subject, and Lord Robert Grosvenor, who, through his strong sense of justice, Profession, announced in his place in Parlia ment, that his clients did not admit that the relief afforded to them was satisfactory, but that, on the eve of a war, they felt constrained to defer their claim till the state of public affairs should permit it to be again brought forward; and from the manner in which this intimation was received, it was evident that the prudent course had been adopted. In closing their exertions with respect to this matter for the present, the Council may, how "Your Council are aware that cases where clerks act without the authority of an attorney, are of constant occurrence, but in consequence of the dexterous manner in which such cases are managed, an opportunity of bringing them before the public seldom occurs; and as they conceive the practice to be most mischievous, both to the Public at large, and to the charac-ever observe, that after a contest continued ter and welfare of their own Profession, they beg to impress on the Society the propriety and importance of not relaxing their endeavours until some general rule shall have been made, calculated to remedy so gross an abuse. "The Public and the Profession are aware that great inconvenience has been felt in consequence of the difficulty experienced in getting leading counsel to attend at the trial of cases in which they hold briefs; much of this inconvenience arises, no doubt, from the circumstance, that, after Term, the three Superior Courts of Law commence their Nisi Prius sittings simultaneously, and from the natural desire which each suitor has to procure the services of the most eminent men of the day. Your Council, however, were of the opinion that some arrangements might be made by the members of the Bar, as a body, to remedy so serious an evil; and they hoped it could have been done in some way by which the interests of the Public and of the Bar would be equally consulted; with this view your Council addressed a letter to Sir Thomas Staples, Bart., as the Father of the Bar, on the subject. This communication was brought before the Bar at a special meeting, and the Council received a letter in reply from Sir Thomas Staples, stating, that the Bar, as a body, declined to entertain the subject. Your Council still hope that the Bar of Ireland will see the propriety of framing such regulations as will enable the suitors and attorneys, when they retain counsel and send them briefs, to count on the attendance of at least one leading counsel through the entire progress of a case, and to have the advantage which such an attendance alone can give, and which the clients and attorneys are reasonably entitled to expect. "With respect to the Annual Certificate Tax, your Council, previous to the last Session of Parliament, had a communication with our during four Sessions of Parliament, the Profession has been relieved of part of the tax, and an opening has been made to press, at a more favourable opportunity, the right of the Profession to its total repeal. "Your Council recommend to their brethren of the Profession, the conveniences and other advantages derived from being members of this Society, and making their appointments to meet and transact business at the Solicitors Room, in preference to the Hall of the Four Courts, where they cannot have the requisite accommodation and are exposed to constant interruption; and they would beg leave to direct the attention of members of the Society to the rules established for its management and government, and recommend a strict observance of them, as in several instances complaints have been made of gentlemen frequenting the Solicitors' Room whose subscriptions are in arrear. "Your Council, before concluding their report, cannot avoid observing, that applications have in frequent instances been made to them, to investigate cases of alleged misconduct, and to adjust differences arising out of questions of practice by professional gentlemen who have never joined the Society; and although difficult, if not impossible, for your Council to refuse to interfere on that ground, yet it is a subject of regret, that while so many members of the Profession are still to be found, who, in availing themselves of its assistance to redress their wrongs, admit its utility and the benefits to be derived from it, at the same time, by declining or neglecting to subscribe to its funds, withhold from the Society that pecuniary support and aid, without which its efforts to benefit the Profession must necessarily be greatly limited and impeded." brethren in England, through the medium of INSUFFICIENT NUMBER OF PER the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery Lane, London, and after full consideration of the whole subject, and although they would have been willing to renew the application for its abolition in that Session, if there was any hope PETUAL COMMISSIONERS. To the Editor of the Legal Observer . SIR,-Will you allow me to draw attention of success, yet from the then state of public to the increasing inconvenience to the public affairs, and the uncertainty of a continuance of peace, it was deemed more expedient to ab- and the Profession, which arises from the 300 Insufficient Number of Per. Comrs.-Appeals before Lord Chan-Barristers Called. scarcity of Commissioners to take acknowledgments of deeds by married women? I know of two towns in which the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas has refused to fill up the vacancy caused by the death of a Commissioner in each, by which the single Commissioner now remaining is rendered useless, and parties have to travel, in the one case 12 miles, and in the other nine, to the residences of other Commissioners in order to get acknowledgments taken-a cause of unnecessary inconvenience and expense, the latter often amounting to a moiety of the total cost of the conveyances in cases of small properties. I know also a case of a solicitor in a large town, having furnished to the Lord Chief Justice, with his memorial applying for the appointment of Commissioner, a certificate from the Registrar of Deeds of the county of York, that he had registered upwards of 200 deeds in one year, together with the highest possible testimonials of character, standing, and quali fications, yet this gentleman could not get the appointment, and his numerous clients and himself are still exposed to the inconvenience of going to the offices of other solicitors to get acknowledgments taken, and delays are often experienced by them from the difficulty of finding two Commissioners at home. I have heard of other cases in which both the solicitors and the public have great cause of complaint from the withholding these appointments, and I have no doubt that many of your readers could furnish from their own experience further instances. What reason there can be for putting the Public and the Profession to this inconvenience, it is not easy to comprehend. There can be no object in creating a monopoly, as the remuneration is so trifling, and there seems no reason why a sufficient number of respectable solicitors should not be appointed in every town in England to conduct efficiently the public business of the country in regard to acknowledgments. It would be easy to guard against improper persons obtaining the appointments by the Lord Chief Justice requiring applicants in the first instance to submit their names for approval to the Council of the Incorporated Law Society, in the same manner that the Lord Chancellor has already done with respect to Commissioners to administer Oaths in Chancery. A SUBSCRIBER. APPEALS BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR. BUSINESS OF THE COURT. Mr. Malins mentioned an appeal from ViceChancellor Wood, which embraced the same question as one from Vice-Chancellor Stuart, and expressed a hope that his Lordship would direct them to be heard at the same time. His Lordship asked if they would take much time? Mr. Malins was afraid they must occupy three or four days. His Lordship observed, that if they were so long they must go into the paper of the Lords Justices. An understanding had been come to, that in the distribution of appeals for the present, the Lords Justices were to hear those that were likely to take time, and his Lordship to hear short ones, that could be disposed of in a single sitting. His Lordship was obliged to sit for several days in the week in the House of Lords, and it was inconvenient to have the hearing of cases resumed at intervals; he therefore proposed to take no appeals except short ones. From the Morning Chronicle of Feb. 15. BARRISTERS CALLED. Hilary Term, 1855. LINCOLN'S INN. Jan. 26. William Smart, Esq., B.A. Henry Perkins Wolrige, Esq., B.A. INNER TEMPLE. Jan. 26. John William Slegg, Esq., B.C.L. Fred. Kneller Haselfoot Cock, Esq., M.A. MIDDLE TEMPLE. A. Legall, Esq. L. C. Burt, Esq. Mills. In the matter of Abraham, Esq., and Mary his wife, and Richard Edmonds, gentleman, and Martha his wife Manning v. Manning. The account of Ann Manning, the legatee Mytton v. Mytton. The account of the purchase-money of the Coal Mines in Oswestry M'Pherson v. Money. The account of George Forbes Mackenzie v. Musgrove Micklethwaite v. Vavasour, and Swainson v. Vavasour Massingberd v. Walls. In Master Montagu's office Mosley v. Ward. Money arising from the sale of the real estates of the testatrixes Susannah Roberts and Dorothy Townman Marsh V. Whitfield Mainwaring v. Wilding Newen v. Beare Newell v. Griffin. The account of the de fendant Hugh Vance Newell v. Griffin. The account of the de fendant Richard Parry Newell v. Griffin. The account of the defendant William Parry Nee v. Hardman Norman v. Kynaston Poulteney v. Jones Paul v. Jarritt. The account of costs Priestley v. Lamb Potter v. Moore Parsons v. Nevill. Jacob Hern the son's account Parr v. Orme Peacock v. Peacock Pine v. Pine Palmer v. Potter Proctor, George, Esq. Prescott, Sir George v. Beeston, Bart., of Cheshunt, Herts Pickford v. Randoll. The account of the infant defendant Lydia Wakeman Peacock v. Saggers. William Saggers' share of residue 302 Unclaimed Dividends in Chancery-Causes undealt with for Fifteen Years. Roundell v. Currer. The personal estate of John Currer Francis Elizabeth Reeve, of Bath, widow Ross v. Franklin. The account of the plaintiff Mary Wood, deceased Roffey v. Greenhill Radcliffe v. King. The legacy account of Jane St. Leger Rice v. Lloyd Raworth v. Marriott Samuel Rodbard and wife, of Ebercreech, near Wincanton, Somersetshire Rainford v. Park and Chaffers. The account of Olive Hall Thomas, Hannah Thomas Hall, George Hall, Elizabeth Humming, and Bella Hall Rogers v. Rogers Reade v. Reade. Vicarage of Shipton under Whichwood's account Rolph v. Tidswell Smith v. Pontifex. The Lambeth Sunday School account Smith v. Roberts. The account of personal estate of the testatrix Sitwell v. Sitwell. The legacy account. William Hoare, Esq., absent beyond seas. Stanhope, Walter Spencer, of Cannon Hall, in the county of York, Esq. Sauer v. Shute Slater v. Walker Shawe v. Witham. The plaintiff Richard Shawe, his account Tully v. Bradford Tucker v. Gloucester, Bishop of Thames and Medway Canal, The Company of Proprietors of the Tresselt v. Haedy Thompson, Susannah, In the Matter of Rushton v. Waddilove. The account of the Howard, Esq., the trustee of the annuitant Vicar of Aldborough Ryder v. Webb and Selwyn v. Webb Stevens v. Averay Robert Crooke and Eliza beth his wife, their account Shairp v. Baker. The account of the chil dren of Alexander Shairp Earl of Stafford v. Cantillon Solicitor-General v. Cooks Winford Stephens v. Dixon Mary Buckley Exparte the Rector of the Rectory and Parish Church of Tillington in the county of Sussex Thomas v. Miles and Waysmith v. Thomas. The account of the personal representatives of William Miles, the son Thistlethwayte v. Morshead. The defendant Elizabeth Morshead's account Thomas v. Morris Taylor v. Oldham. The account of the per Smith v. Fitzgerald Lord Southampton v. Duke of Grafton. The account of principal, under the deed of 790. Salmon v. Glenister Slade v. Griffiths and Clark v. Slade Sherard v. Earl of Harborough Scates v. Hayes Sykes v. Lord Henniker Stephenson v. Heathcote and Heathcote v. Evelyn Shirley, of Eatington, in the county Sells v. Jenkins. The leasehold estate Stackhouse v. King. The plaintiffs the infant's account Stone v. Kemp Shelley v. Lloyd. The account of the rents and profits of Tynygrigg Tenement Earl of Shaftsbury v. Duke of Marlborough. The Woolvercot Lease Renewal Fund Stenhouse v. Mitchell. The infant's general interest account Trevelyan v. Putt Stoe. The account of the defendant Mary Secker Tuffnell v. Stoe. The account of William Tuffnell, Thomas Samuel Jolliffe, and William Northey Trevor v. Trevor. Widow Turffs, the an nuitant's account Thompson v. Woodthorp. The account of the defendant Thomas Wild, the infant Thompson v. Woodthorp. The account of the defendant Sarah Ann Wild, the infant Tylney, John, Earl, in London, Middlesex, and Essex, in Trustees, to be void, exparte the Purchaser or Purchasers of the Estates devised by the Will of Unet v. Cotton. The account of the de fendant William Cotton, the grandson Veitch v. Edye. James Borthwaite's ac Elizabeth Whitley's Sparkes v. Ommanney. John Ommanney Monument in Stockton Churchyard, the ac Scruton v. Middleton the testator's son's account count |