there was a motion on the part of the friendly encumbrancer who had filed the bill, seeking in fact to get the carriage of the proceedings with a view of naming the receiver. You can have no idea of the struggle that was made in that case to get the carriage of the proceedings, although it was at the suit of a creditor who I believe has not the slightest chance of being paid a shilling; the solicitor by getting the appointment of the receiver would have put into his pocket some hundreds a-year in the shape of costs, and I defeated that by drawing up a special order, directing the Master in appointing a receiver to have regard to the person who was named being the fittest person for the office, without regard to the circumstance of the person proposing him having the carriage of the proceedings, and that led to Mr. Richard Pennefather being appointed receiver.

1158. You are aware that he was connected with the estate?—Yes, that was the reason I took these measures with a view to his being appointed.

1159. Are you aware that since he has had the receivership the estate has improved?—That was what I expected; my object was to have him appointed and I framed the order in such a way as to defeat the very pettifogging object of Mr. Norris and his solicitor to have the estate badly managed.

1161. Are you aware that there are improvements going on on that estate, through the appointment of Mr. Pennefather as receiver?—I did not hear that; but the advantage of having a proper receiver I can exemplify, by a case that came before me this term. An application was made to abate the rents upon that property; in general, when applications of that kind are made to me, I feel great difficulty in disposing of them; I cannot tell but that the receiver may be bribed to request me to abate the rents, when probably I ought not abate them. But when I saw the title of this estate in the paper, I stated that if Mr. Pennefather would write me a letter, stating what abatement he thought it would be right to make I would at once make the order.

1162. Are you not of opinion that if you could get men connected with properties as receivers, in à high class of life, and of high character, the whole system would be very much improved?—I think that the public is vitally interested in obtaining that result.

1169. Sir J. Graham.] Is it not within the purview of the Court, and within the power of the Court, to regulate the appointment of receivers?—I did so in that case, and in the case of another property, where the same circumstances occurred in another county. The gentleman who was agent of the estate was a gentlemen of most respectable character; he had been agent for 30 years. I drew up a similar order in that case; I defeated the object of the petitioner, and I got that agent appointed receiver. But it rarely happens that the respondent or defendant comes forward to litigate the point; and the fact, as Master Murphy tells me, and which I believe to be so, is, that if Parliament were to call for a return of the parties who nominated the receivers, and whose names are I believe given in the Parliamentary re turn, in the vast majority of cases you would find that the receivers appointed were the nominees of

the plaintiff's or petitioner's solicitors; and when you find that to be so, you may infer that in nine cases out of ten, if not in 99 out of 100, the appointment is not a proper one.

1165. If Sir Edward Sugden's suggestion of a Receiver Master were adopted, and if an officer were appointed of high station and character, and it were his duty, in the absence of parties, to make inquiries before the selection of a receiver were made, would that obviate the evil?-It would be better than the present system; but it is quite plain, in my opinion, that you ought to have the receiver named by some person who has no object in view but to have a local agent resident in the district, who is to act independently of the solicitor and everybody in the cause. By what particular machinery you are to arrive at that result is a question of difficulty.

1166. You have rejected the solicitor's clerk and the agent of the solicitor, and you have stated the difficulty of arriving at the truth in appointing a receiver in the absence of parties; does it not appear to you that the great evil of the system, whatever rules the Court may adopt, arises from the circumstance of so large a quantity of encumbered property coming within the jurisdiction of the Court? No doubt.

1167. Is that evil without remedy?—I do not know that it is. I am under the impression that you might simplify conveyancing so much, that, having also simplified the proceedings of the Court, you might sell property quickly in Chancery, provided always, that from the improved state of the country there were purchasers for it. You might in that case sell property within a year after the filing of the bill, and the Court would then be justified in refusing to appoint a receiver in any case, unless there would be danger to the property. For example, if it were a leasehold, and the property liable to be evicted for non-payment of rent, or the property was deficient; but in case the property would be ultimately sufficient to pay every creditor, I think the Court ought not to take possession of the property if they could sell it within any reasonable time.

1168. You have stated what alterations of the law you would recommend with reference to judgments, and you have given in a draft of a bill which touches a portion of the evils which now arise from the law of conveyancing; if famine should disappear, and purchasers could be found, by these legislative alterations do you think that the condition of Ireland would be as much improved as we could hope to see it by legislation?—I have already stated that that bill had only relation to such alterations in the law of conveyancing as occurred to me upon the cases that arose in the court; but it would require a totally independent and distinct measure to simplify the law of conveyancing generally, not only with reference to sales in the court, but sales out of the court.

1169. Mr. R. Osborne.] Have you seen the plan which I have submitted to the Committee for the purpose of simplifying proceedings?—I have read it over, but I cannot say that I am familiar with it.

1170. You are not able to give any decided opinion whether it would or would not effectually remedy the present evils?—I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that it would be an improvement

manner.

1174. Supposing the Executive Government were vested with the appointment of district receivers, would not the pressure upon the Government be excessive from each county to job the appointment? -That might be a reason for not giving it to the Government; but my opinion is that country gentlemen, acquainted with country duties, might be selected, and they would act under public responsibility, and I may say Parliamentary responsibility. There are persons in every county who might be found willing to take the office, and who would properly discharge the duties of it; but whether they would be the men selected by the persons in whom the patronage was vested is another question.

1175. Considering the present unhappy condition of Ireland, would not the competion for the office be extreme?—Yes; but on the other hand, from that very circumstance you might get gentlemen at present willing to take the office who formerly would not have accepted the office, and whose qualifications would stand higher than the qualifications of the persons selected would have been if the present unhappy state of affairs did not exist.

1176. Mr. R. B. Osborne.] You are of opinion that in adopting any system for the managment of estates very much of the success of that system would depend upon the characters of the men who were appointed?—No doubt every thing would depend upon that; but if Colonel Dunne, or yourself or Sir William Somerville, were asked whether you could mention gentlemen in the counties in which you reside, you would have no difficuly in selecting persons who would be acknowledged by all as the best persons for executing the duties.

1177. Sir J. Graham.] Have you any security that those will be the gentlemen who will get the appointments?—No; but the success of the system will altogether depend upon it. The present evils arise from solicitors abusing their patronage, and the same evils would arise from a similar abuse of tronage under any system.

pa

1180. Chairman.] Have you any objection to giving the Court the same power in creditors' receivers matters as they have in the case of minors? I not only see no objection to it, but I should think on the whole it would be desirable; but I wish to guard myself against being understood to express an opinion that it could be carried to so great an extent as some persons would anticipate. 1181. The Court would be cautious in exercising the jurisdiction?—Yes.

1182. You are aware that it is proposed to make judgments for poor-rate a primary charge upon property?—I did not know that.

1185. Has your attention been called to the clause in the Sheriff's Act which gives the judgment credi tor applying for a receiver the costs of the petition?

Yes, that is a mischievous clause. Although I observe that it purports upon the face of it not to be imperative upon the Court to allow those costs, yet practically, ever since the passing of Sir Michael O'Loghlen's Act, it has been the uniform practice, both of the Court of Exchequer and the Court of Chancery, to order those costs in priority; and therefore, though a single Judge may disapprove of that construction, or of the course adopted in carrying out the statute, it is too much to expect him to say, "I differ from all the Judges who have acted upon this construction." But I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that it is most desirable for the Legislature to alter that portion of the Act, and to let the costs be paid according to the priority of the demand. Any gentleman of the Committee who is desirous to know the mode in which the funds in these cases are distributed, and the rule of law applicable to their distribution, will find a most able judgment of Sir Edward Sugden upon the subject in the third volume of Jones and Latouche's Reports, in the case of Abbott v. Stratton. The rule, I may observe shortly to the Committee, is this: if a puisne creditor obtains an order for a receiver under Sir Michael O'Loghlen's Act, he is entitled (and that is reasonable, I consider,) to apply towards the payment of his puisne demand, all rents actually received before the order for extending the receiver; and thus, if a judgment creditor of the year 1848 had obtained an order for a receiver, and after six months a judg ment creditor of the year 1847 extended the receiver, you would pay the puisne judgment creditor of 1848 so far as the rents actually realized by the receiver in the interval between his appointment and his extension. That is reasonable enough; but it has been carried further than that; although the receiver has not received one single fraction prior to the extending order, the costs of the puisne creditor are prac tically paid in priority. The language of Sir Michael O'Loghlen's Act would appear not to make it impe rative. I will read the first words of the Act, which at first sight it would be said did not require alte ration; the words of the 38th section are, "The Court shall have power, if it shall think fit, to direct

No. 45.-VOL. I.

PRICE

(Per Annum, 1 10s. (Single Number, 9d,

WILLIAM BURKE, ESQ., and
WILLIAM JOHN DUNDAS, Esq.,
Barristers-at-Law.

CHARLES HARE HEMPHILL, Esq.
and
WILLIAM HICKSON, Esq., Bar-
risters-at Law.

Bankrupt Court...... ROBERT GRIFFIN, Esq. and W.G.

ROBERT GRIFFIN, Esq. and W. G. CHAMNEY, Esq. Barristers-at-law..

DUBLIN, SEPTEMBER 8, 1849.

THE Legislature have passed "An Act to amend the Law concerning Judgments in Ireland." During its progress through the House of Commons it was altered three times, and is now so curtailed of its just proportions that no one familiar with its first appearance could recognize its present features. The English Solicitor-general cut off a limb here, and added a joint there, so hastily that it is not surprising that it should have been put together a little imperfectly.

What measure could survive the rapid changes it underwent, and yet retain a regular and distinctive character? The bill originally contemplated that no future judgments were to be a charge upon lands until lodged in the hands of the sheriff, and that no receivers were to be appointed by petition. The latter left judgments a charge in all cases from their entry, where the debt exceeds £150, and even under that sum in Courts of Equity when administering assets, and a receiver may, in all cases, be obtained where the debt exceeds the before mentioned sum, and the judgment is a year old; and it is not a little doubtful whether a receiver cannot be obtained upon a judgment for even so small a sum as £10 after the death of the cognizor.

The history of the measure shews that it is the reflex of the opinion of the judges and Irish lawyers who were examined before the Poor Law and Receiver Committees, and that the Solicitor-general took up the subject as a matter of duty, quite ready to adopt the views of "gentlemen opposite." He appears, in fact, to have acted on the belief that the law of judgments in Ireland was pretty much the same as that in England, and that where it differed, an assimilation would be desirable,-and where it was alike, a change.

The law of the two countries differed in the summary power to appoint receivers, and in the power of assignment at law; it coincided in making judgments charges upon lands from the time of their entry. The first bill placed the law of the two countries upon the same footing as to receivers, and the power of assignment, and varied it by making judgments in Ireland a charge only from the time of lodging the writ in the sheriff's hands.

These changes are based upon the evidence given by Dr. Longfield and Mr. Butt; the former observes, "I would have judgments placed in the same position as they were in formerly; that the judgment creditor should have the right of execution against all the property which the debtor had when he took out execution against him, but he should not have the right to disturb the possession of any purchaser of real and personal property from his debtor, and the judgment then would cease to be an incumbarnce."

And Mr. Butt, in reply to the following question:-"What would you say if it were limited to the estates a man had at the time of obtaining judgment? I think that would be an improvement; but having thought a good deal upon that subject, I would be strongly of opinion that the best thing that could be done would be to abolish altogether the law, making judgments a charge upon landed property." And again-"I would abolish the law of making a judgment a charge upon land, as it now is, I would allow a landed proprietor to borrow money on judgment, under the penalty, if he did not repay it, of having his creditor take him in execution, or take his goods in execution, or take his land in execution; but I would not allow a judgment to subsist as an indefinite charge upon land."

This evidence was given in March, and the first judgment bill was laid on the table of the House