Proposed Half-Holiday on Saturdays. PROPOSED HALF-HOLIDAY ON SATURDAYS. MEETING OF SOLICITORS. ON Saturday the 1st December, a meeting of Solicitors was held at the house of the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery Lane, in reference to the movement at present on foot, for making Saturday a half-holiday in regard to legal business. Mr. Ridsdale, of the firm of Ridsdale and Craddock, was called to the Chair. The Chairman said, that the time hitherto recognised as their business hours amounted almost to an exclusion of every other pursuit, whether of a literary, social, or domestic character. It was chiefly on account of the respite from toil and drudgery that it would afford to the unfortunate law clerks that he desired the change. That they might the better be enabled to judge of what steps they ought now to take in the matter, he would request his friend Mr. Castle Smith, to lay before them the results of the former meeting. 115 sition, he and those acting with him thought that a public meeting at Guildhall would express the voice of the people on the matter, and so remove his lordship's scruples. As the late Lord Mayor, Alderman Moon, was opposed to early closing, they applied to Sir James Duke, who obtained for them the use of the Hall, and consented to act as Chairman of the Meeting. The meeting was accordingly held on the 15th Aug., and was attended by about 5,000 persons representing profes sions and trades, who unanimously agreed to a series of resolutions approving the adoption of the half-holiday in all government, law, public, and other offices and wholesale houses, as they considered that it would not be incompatible with public convenience. The object of the present meeting was to take measures for communicating these resolutions to the Council of the Incorporated Society, requesting of them to get the consent of the Lord Chancellor and of the Chief Judges of the Equity and Law Courts to meet together to receive a deputation of the Profession, accompanied by Sir J. Duke, the Chairman of the Guildhall meeting; Mr. John Gillibrand Hubbard, late Deputy Governor of the Bank of England; Mr. Ambrose Moore and other Directors of the London Joint-Stock Bank, and by the other gentlemen who moved and seconded the resolutions of that meeting, and who might fairly be considered as exponents of the commercial and public voice upon the question, as it was desirable that the popular element should be conspicuous in the deputation. It was also desirable that they should have the present Lord Mayor as a member of it, as he was a great friend of the movement; and also the Rev. Dr. Cumming, who, as a Scotchman, was likely to have great weight with Lord Campbell, who, as he before remarked, was alone opposed to the proposed alteration in the hours of business, for whatever objections the Master of the Rolls had entertained towards it they had now vanished, and the Lord Chancellor had so far fallen in with their views that even now he closed his Court at 3 o'clock on Saturdays, and would do so at 2 o'clock were it not that he thought his doing so might appear a pointed difference of opinion between himself and the Lord Chief Justice. Mr. Castle Smith then stated, that several members of the Profession, observing a growing disposition on the part of the mercantile and trading community of London to cease from business at mid-day on Saturdays, memorialised the Council of the Law Society of the United Kingdom to apply to the Lord Chancellor and the Judges to fix that two o'clock on Saturdays should be henceforth considered the close of that day for conducting legal business in all its branches. That memorial was signed by the representatives of the principal legal firms in the kingdom. The Council reported to him that they were entirely in favour of the proposal. A correspondence then took place between himself and the Society with regard to their putting themselves in communication with the Lord Chancellor and the Judges upon the matter. The result was, that they learned that Lord Cranworth and all the Judges concurred in the measure as a desirable one, but that Lord Campbell would not be a party unless the closing hour was fixed at five o'clock in the afternoon. Several applications had been since made to his lordship to alter that determination, for although he was the only Judge opposed to their closing busi- A variety of suggestions having been enterness at two o'clock, yet his opposition com-tained, it was at last resolved that the resolupletely barred their success, as without his tions of the public meeting held at the Guildsignature they could not obtain a rule of Court, hall should be submitted to the Council of the ordering that service after two o'clock on Sa- Law Society, with a request that they would turdays should be deemed service at 10 o'clock solicit an interview with the Lord Chancellor the following Monday. In justice to his lord- and the Chief Justices of the Equity and Comship, he (Mr. Smith) should say that he was mon Law Courts, and that they would invite not adverse to the movement on general prin- the movers and the seconders of the resolutions ciples, but because he thought that, as the passed at that meeting, and whatever other Judges received good salaries for their services, gentlemen they might think fit, to join a dethe public might be the first to say, if they putation of the Profession at such interview.agreed to close their Courts at an early hour From the Daily News of 3rd December. on Saturday, that they were receiving a full day's pay for a half day's work. Finding that such was the ground of his lordship's oppo 116 Correspondence.-Notes of the Week.-Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor. SELECTIONS FROM CORRE SPONDENCE. MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT. PERMIT me to put the following case with reference to "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854," and to request your opinion, or that of any of your readers thereon: There are three ships, A., B., and C.-A. is sailing down the river Thames under the guidance of a pilot, whom the owner has been compelled to take on board. Apprehensive of being run down by B., which is following close in her wake, A. leaves the prescribed course, and drives in among some vessels moored near the side of the river-in so doing,, A., from the mismanagement of the pilot damages one of them, C., to the amount of upwards of 500l. Now, by the Act above-named, it would appear that the owner of C. has a claim against the pilot of A. only, and that to the extent of no more than 100/. Is this so? AN ARTICLED Clerk. DOCTORS' COMMONS.-DEFECTIVE INDEX. Can you inform your readers whether any progress has been made in making lists dictionarywise of the wills and administrations in the registry? Surely an income of some 8,000l. a year might afford the public the accommodation. The nuisance of a search there to a professional man for hours is intolerable. A SOLICITOR. SEARCHES IN PARISH REGISTERS. Possibly it may afford information to some of the members of the Profession who require evidence from parish registers, that by sending the usual fee of one guinea to the Parish Clerks' Society, all the registers connected with it are speedily searched, and the person who succeeds in finding the entry of the register receives the M. A. fee. RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS. Lord Chancellor. Edwards v. Hall. Nov. 7; Dec. 3, 1855. CHARITABLE BEQUEST. MORTMAIN. STATUTE OF churches or chapels in populous parishes, so that the poor might have the Gospel preached to them in this country; and she wished a preference given to those parishes, the churches of which were under the patronage of the trustees of her late friend, the Rev. Chas. Simeon, and other similar trusts. The Vice-Chancellor having held, that the bequest was not within the Statute of Mortmain, 9 Geo. 2, c. 36, this appeal was presented. A testatrix, by her will, directed her executors as to so much of her personal estate as should not be disposed of by her, to apply the same as opportunity might offer, or such parts as by law might be legally upplied to such purposes, in the endowment of Rolt and Bevir in support; Wigram and district churches or chapels in populous Cole, contrà; Solicitor-General and Wickens parishes so that the poor might have the | for the Attorney-General. Gospel preached to them in this country, and she wished a preference given to those parishes the churches of which were under the patronage of the trustees of her late friend, the Rev. Charles Simeon, and other similar trusts: Held (dismissing with costs an appeal from Vice-Chancellor Wood), that the gift was not within the Statute of Mort main. Cur, ad. vult. The Lord Chancellor said, the bequest was opposed on two grounds,-first, as being void under the Statute of Mortmain, and second (which had not been argued in the Court below), on the ground of the residue being composed of canal shares, Grand Junction Waterworks' shares, and gaslight company's shares which savoured of realty. In respect to the first quesTHIS was an appeal from the decision of tion, there was a current of authorities which Vice-Chancellor Wood (reported 22 Law Jour. ought not to be disturbed, proceeding from the (N. S., Ch. 1078). The testatrix, Miss Jane Attorney-General v. Davies, 9 Ves. 535. The Cook, by her will dated in June, 1850, directed case nearest to support the view of the heir-ather executors as to so much of her personal law was, Attorney-General v. Hodgson, 15 Sim. estate as should not be disposed of by her, to 146, but neither that nor Longstaff v. Renniapply the same as opportunity might offer, or son, 1 Drew. 28, were applicable to the present such parts as by law might be legally applied case. The argument was, that "endowment" to such purposes, in the endowment of district meant erecting a building. On this point the Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor.-Lords Justices.-V. C. Stuart. observations of Sir W. Grant in Chapman v. Brown, 6 Ves. 404; referring to the judgment of Lord Hardwicke, in Vaughan v. Farrer, 2 Ves. S. 182, were worthy of attention. But after all, the only legitimate guide was the language of the Statute itself, which enacted (s. 1), that no money, goods, chattels, stocks in the public funds, securities for money, or any other personal estate whatsoever, shall be laid out or disposed of in the purchase of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments. It was then contended, that there was a tendency to a purchase of land, which was sufficient to bring the case within the Statute: Trye v. Corporation of Gloucester, 14 Beav. 173. But where there was a bequest to do two things, one of which was legal and the other was not, the Court would sustain that which was valid and reject the other. The Vice-Chancellor was therefore right in the first point. As to the other, whether the shares having as their origin some estate or interest in land were subject to the operation of the Statute, which, by s. 3, enacted, that "all gifts, grants, conveyances, appointments, assurances, transfers, and settlements, whatsoever, of any lands, tenements, or other hereditaments, or of any estate or interest therein, or of any charge or incumbrance affecting or to affect any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or of any stock, money, goods, chattels, or other personal estate or securities for money to be laid out or disposed of in the purchase of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or any estate or interest therein, or of any charge or incumbrance affecting or to affect the same," "shall be absolutely and to all intents and purposes null and void." Undoubtedly the words " any estate or interest therein very extensive, and if the point were now argued for the first time, there might be reason to give effect to the arguments, that every shareholder in an incorporated company was more or less interested in land, and besides it might happen that all the shares should be دو 117 COSTS OF SUIT FOR INJUNCTION TO RE- An injunction, which was granted by the having interfered with the defendant's preIt appeared that the plaintiffs in this case mises under the powers of their Act of Parliament, had filed a bill to restrain him from proceeding to obtain payment of compensation under the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, and that the injunction which had been granted by the Master of the Rolls had been discharged by the Lords Justices, but without costs, as the filing of the bill had been justified by the decision of London and North Western Railway Company v. Smith, 1 M1N: & G. 216, giving leave to the defendant to apply for costs if he succeeded in obtaining an award in his favour. Upon his having obtained the same, he now applied for his costs of suit. company, contrà, on the ground that the com- The Lords Justices said, that, under these were circumstances, the application was premature and must stand over. come vested in one individual. On the other hand, no shareholder in such a company understands himself to possess more than the security for the payment of the value of his share and its dividend. The case of Myers v. Perigal, 11 C. B. 91; 2 De G., MN. & G. 599, was conclusive of this question with respect to shares in public companies. As to the question of the arrears of rent, which it was contended were not personalty as arising from land and recoverable thereon, it might just as well be contended that a sheriff's office in possession for the recovery of rent, had an interest in the freehold. In coming to this conclusion, the decision of the Master of the Rolls in Ware v. Cumberlege, would be overruled. This appeal would therefore be dismissed with costs. Lords Justices. Vice-Chancellor Stuart. Exparte Nash, in re London, Tilbury, and АСТ. COSTS OF INCUMBRANCERS OF APPEAR- Held, that a railway company were liable to the costs of the mortgagees and receiver of certain land taken under their Act on their being served with a petition by the tenant for life for the investment of the purchasemoney and payment of the dividends. investment of the purchase-money of certain A QUESTION arose on this petition for the lands taken by the above company and for payment of the dividends to the petitioner, who was tenant for life, whether the company were liable under the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, s. 80,1 1 Which enacts, that "in all cases of moneys deposited in the bank under the provisions of this or the special Act, or an Act incorporated Sutton Harbour Improvement Commissioners v. therewith, except where such moneys shall Hitchins. Dec. 3, 1855. have been so deposited by reason of the wilful LANDS' CLAUSES' CONSOLIDATION ACT.-refusal of any party entitled thereto to receive 118 Superior Courts: V. C. Stuart.-V. C. Wood. to pay the costs of certain mortgagees and of the receiver who had been served and appeared. W. Forster in support; Greene for the railway company, contrà, as to such costs; Nalder for the trustees and the receiver. The Vice-Chancellor said, that the costs must be paid by the railway company. Russell v. Kellett. Dec. 4, 1855. CHARITABLE GIFT. CONSTRUCTION.—OB JECTS OF GIFT.-CY PRES. after giving various legacies, gave a sum of 51. each to such poor widows, or credible industrious unmarried women upwards of 40 years of age, residing in the town and hamlet of Ulverston and the several parishes of Uswick, and having no relief from those places, and also a sum of 21. 10s. to poor credible industrious persons residing in the town of Ulverston with two children or upwards, or above 50 years of age, maimed or otherwise unable to gain a living, and whose income should not exceed 51. The testatrix died shortly after the date of her will, and a suit was instituted in 1832, in which certain inquiries were directed. The testatrix, by her will, dated in 1825, gave a sum of 51. each to such poor widows or credible industrious unmarried women upwards of 40 years of age, residing in the town and hamlet of Ulverston and the several parishes of Uswick, and having no The Vice-Chancellor said, that there was relief from those places; and also 21. 10s. to poor credible industrious persons resid- such an intention of individual bounty to the ing in the town of Ulverston with two chil- objects in existence at the date of the will that dren or upwards, or above 50 years of age there was no transmissible interest, and that maimed or otherwise unable to gain a the doctrine of cy près could not be applied. living, and whose income should not exceed The objects in existence at the period of dis51. Held, that only those objects in exist-tribution were therefore alone entitled. ence at the period of distribution would be entitled, and that the doctrine of cy près could not be applied. Wigram and Bowring for the plaintiff; Malins, G. L. Russell, Pole, Shapter, Freeling, and Fischer for the different defendants; Wickens for the Attorney-General. THE testatrix, by her will, dated in 1825, the same, or to convey, or release the lands in Vice-Chancellor Wood. Manchester and Sheffield Railway Company v. 1855. ORDERS OF NOV. 2, 1850.-FURTHER TIME ΤΟ SET ANSWER AFTER After exceptions to an answer, and further In this case it appeared that a further answer had been put in upon exceptions to the answer having been allowed, and that the plaintiffs had, notwithstanding, set down the exceptions for hearing. The defendants then submitted to put in a further answer, and gave notice of their intention to apply at Chambers for further time. By Order 14 of Nov. 2, 1850, it is provided, that "the plaintiff having filed exceptions for insufficiency to a defendant's answer, is to set them down for hearing after the expiration of eight days, but within 14 days from the filing of such exceptions. If he does not, the answer on the expiration of such 14 days is to be deemed sufficient;" and by Order 16, that "after the filing of exceptions to a defendant's answer for insufficiency, and any further answer put in, the plaintiff has 14 days from the filing of such further answer, within which he may set down the old exceptions. If the old exceptions be not set down within 14 days after such further answer put in, the answer is on the expiration of such 14 days to be deemed sufficient." Rolt and G. W. Collins for the plaintiffs; Superior Courts: V. C. Wood.-Queen's Bench. 119. W. Forster for the defendants who undertook | allowing him to declare on the case for the into pay the plaintiffs' costs of setting down the jury to his reversion. exceptions. The Vice-Chancellor said, that the 17th Order of Nov. 2, 1850, directed, that " after exceptions to an answer for insufficiency are set down for hearing, if a defendant not being in contempt submits to answer, or the Court holds the answer to be insufficient, the Court may, in such cases, appoint the time within which such defendant is to put in his further answer." It was hazardous for the plaintiffs to have granted time, as it might have amount ed to a waiver of the exceptions, and 14 days would now be allowed. A railway company purchased lands which were mortgaged, and the mortgagee died without an heir: Held, that they were liable to the costs of a petition under the Trustees Act, 1850, to appoint a person to convey and for a vesting order. IT appeared that the above company had taken, under 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, certain land which had been mortgaged, and the purchasemoney was paid into the London and Westminster Joint-Stock Bank, with consent. Upon the death of the mortgagee, leaving no heir-atlaw, the question arose whether the railway company were liable for the costs of appointing a person to convey and of obtaining a vesting order under the Trustees, Act, 1850. By the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 76, s. 222, it is enacted, that "it shall be lawful for the Superior Courts of Common Law, and every Judge thereof, and any Judge sitting at Nisi Prius, at all times to amend all defects and errors in any proceeding in civil causes, whether there is anything in writing to amend by or not, and whether the defect or error be that of the party applying to amend or not; and all such amendments may be made with or without costs, and upon such terms as to the Court or Judge may seem fit; and all such amendments as may be necessary for the purpose of determining in the existing suit the real question in controversy the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 96, that "it shall between the parties shall be so made;" and by be lawful for the Superior Courts of Common Law, and every Judge thereof, and any Judge sitting at Nisi Prius, at all times to amend all defects and errors in any proceedings under the provisions of this Act, whether there is anything in writing to amend by or not, and whether the defect or error be that of the party applying to amend or not; and all such amendments may be made with or without costs, and upon such terms as to the Court or Judge may seem fit; and all such amendments as may be necessary for the purpose of determining in the existing suit the real question in controversy between the parties shall be so made, if duly applied for." Montague E. Smith in support. Graham v. Glover. Nov. 14, 1855. COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACT, 1854.OF PRISONER AS WITNESS BEFORE ARBITRATOR.-HABEAS CORPUS. W. R. A. Boyle for the petitioner in support, ATTENDANCE The Vice-Chancellor said, that the costs were payable by the railway company as costs incident to the conveyance or to the title. Court of Queen's Bench. May v. Footness. Nov. 6, 1855. COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACTS, 1852, 1854. -AMENDMENT OF DECLARATION. Held, that the Judge has power under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 76, 8. 222, and the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 96, to amend the declaration at the trial in accordance with the evidence, by converting the action from trespass qu. cl. freg. into on the case for injury to the plaintiff's reversion. THIS was a motion, pursuant to leave reserved, for a rule nisi to set aside the verdict for the plaintiff and to enter a nonsuit in this action of trespass qu. cl. fregit, on the ground that the Judge who presided at the trial had improperly amended the declaration, upon its appearing in evidence that the plaintiff was in actual possession by his tenant, and thereby Held, that an arbitrator appointed under the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 3, is within the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 42, s. 40, and à rule was granted for a habeas corpus to bring up as a witness before such arbitrator, a prisoner in custody for debt. THIS was a motion for a habeas corpus to bring up a witness in custody for debt, in order to give evidence before an arbitrator, appointed under the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 3.' 'The ap 1 Which enacts, that "if it be made appear, at any time after the issuing of the writ, to the satisfaction of the Court or a Judge, upon the application of either party, that the matter in dispute consists wholly or in part of matters of mere account, which cannot conveniently be tried in the ordinary way, it shall be lawful for such Court or Judge, upon such application, if they or he think fit, to decide such matter in a summary manner, or to order that such matter, either wholly or in part, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the parties, or to an officer, of the Court, or, in country causes, to the Judge of any County Court, upon such terms as to costs and otherwise as such Cout or |