Page images

Examination of Solicitors in Chancery.

165 jor part of them, shall be satisfied of the fitness served his clerkship, as aforesaid, to answer, and capacity of the applicant to act as a soli- either personally or in writing, to the quescitur, then the said examiners, or the major tions hereunto annexed, and also to any other part of the said examiners, shall give him a questions touching the service or conduct of the certificate, under their hands, lestifying such applicant, unless it shall appear to the satisfacfitness and capacity; and the said Master shall tion of the said examiners, or the major part sign the said certificate, in testimony of his of them, that he is unable to procure the said having been present and presided at the said attorney or attorneys, solicitor or solicitars, to examination, and such certificate shall be in attend or answer any such questions as aforeforce until the end of the term next following said. the date thereof, and no longer, unless the That every person so applying shall also attime shall be specially extended by order of the tend the said Master and examiners at the Master of the Rolls.

Rolls House, at such time or times as shall be That the examiners so to be appointed, shall duly appointed for that purpose, and shall anconduct the said examination under regula- swer such questions as the said examiners shall tions to be first suhınitted to, and approved by then and there, in the presence of one of the the Master of the Rolls.

Masters of the High Court of Chancery, put The regulations comprised in the Master of to him, by written or printed papers, touching

as well the matters hereinbefore mentioned, the Rolls' order of 28th July 1836, contain, as also touching his fitness and capacity lo act among other things, the following directions. as a solicitor.

That every per-on applying to be adınitted a This examination at the Rolls House of one solicitor of ihe High Court of Chancery, pur- or two persons occasions as much trouble suant to the said orders, shall, within the first seven days of the term in or as of which he is i (except in the number of answers to be considesirous of being admitted, leave or cause to dered) as the examination of one hundred and be left, with the secretary of the Incorporuted upwards at t!e Law Society. Besides the four Law Society, at the hall of the said society in solicitors who must attend with one of the sworn Chancery Lane, for the ivspection and consideration of the examiners, his articles of clerks, a master in Chancery is also required clerkship duly stamped, and also any assign- to lie present. A new set of questions ment which may have been made thereof, together with answers in writing to the several

must be prepared, because those which have questions hereunto aunexed, b signed by the been used at the common law examination applicant

may be communicated by some of the candiThat every person applying for admission shall also, it required, sign and leave, or cause

dales; or if the equity examination took place to be left, with the secretary of the said society, first, the questions used thereat would be for the inspection and consideration of the ex- liable to the same objection. We suppose, aminers, answers in writing to such other written or printed questions as shall be pro however, that the candidates have soine reason posed by the said examiners touching his said for preferring this mode of entering the professerrice and conduct. And inoreover that every sion, however unusual it has now become. person applying for adınission shall, if required, procure the attorney or attorneys, so

The following are their names and descripLicitor or solicitors, with whom he shall have tions :


On the day after Hilary Term, 1810.

Clerks' Names and Residence.

To whom articled, and Residence. Henry Cook, Kingston upon Hull.

Thomas Thompson, Kingston-upon-Hull. Augustus Manning, the younger, 8, Hertford Jonathan Norman Dalston, Hertford Street,

Street, May Fair; aná Chalk Hill House, May Fair.
Kingsbury, Middlesex.

5 These are the same questions as are put at Common Law, varying only the profession of

an attorney to that of solicitor.


166 Reasons for the Unpopularity of Attorneys.Mode of Examining Articled Clerks.

teem of which he complains to exert bis pbiTHE WANT OF ACCOMMODATION FOR losophical powers in this matter. ATTORNEYS IN COURTS OF LAW.

The following is the extract referred to :

There will probably never be wanting those To the Editor of the Legal Observer.

who will join in abusing and ridiculing attor.

neys and solicitors. Why? In almost every Sir, It appears to ine most extraordinary, that the action at law, or suit in equity, or a proceeding Law Society (which I inay take to represent conceives a natural dislike for his opponent's

which may or may not lead to one, each client one part of their profession) does not endeavour

attorney or solicitor. to redress the great inconvenience that arises to attornies engaged in trials, either at West- fendant's attorney for putting him (the said

" If the plaintiff succeeds, he hates the deminster, Guildhall, or Lincoln's Inn, from the want of tables to write on, in order to take plaintiff) to so much expence, and causing him notes, so that they are obliged to put them so inuch vexation and danger; and when he

comes to settle with his own attorney, there is selves, perhaps for hours, in the awkward pos- not a little heart.burning in looking at his bill ture of writing on their knees, or any other of costs, however reasonable. expedient they may hit upon. It is but justice to say, that I believe the Courts of Cosimon the ignorance and unskilfulness of his attor.

" If the plaintiff

fails, of course it is through Pleas and Exchequer are the only two where

ney or solicitor, and he hates almost equally there is such accommodation.

his own and his opponent's attorney. There are also other inconveniences, such as

“ Precisely so is it with a successful or unthe want of secure places to lay papers ill, and

successful defendant. a room where might be left coats, hats, &c.,

“ In fact, an attorney or solicitor is almost and where there should be a person to take care of them, and give tickets to persons de always obliged to be acting adversely to some positing things in his charge (such as is the one, of whom he at once makes an enemy, for practice at some of the public institutions); in pointed alınost invariably at our pockets.

an attorney's weapons must necessarily be fact, a sort of “ attorneys' robing room:" and

“ He is necessarily also called into action in why, I would ask, should not attornies liave the

cases where all the worst passions of our na. same conveniences as barristers, who have a

ture-our hatred and revenge, and our self ingreat deal more responsibility upon them than

terest-are set in motion. Consider the mischief they. I trust, that the mention of this (ainongst in society, if the vast majority of attorneys and

that might be constantly done on a grand scale many grievances of our fraternity) in your solicitors were not honourable and able men ; valuable journal, will soon cause redress.

conceive them for a moment, disposed everyA Constant Reader. where to stir up litigation, by availing them

selves of their perfect acquaintance with almost all men's circumstances--artfully inflaming ir.

ritable and vindictive clients, kindling instead REASONS FOR THE UNPOPULARITY

of stifling family dissensions, and fomenting

public strife : why, were they to do only a OF ATTORNEYS.

hundredth part of what it is thus in their power to do, our courts of justice would soon be

doubled, together with the number of our We have occasionally in the course of our la- judges, counsel, and attorneys.” bours called attention to the prejudice which exists against attorneys, and have endeavoured 'to account for it. Amongst other articles we

MODE OF EXAMINING ARTICLED would refer to one of the 9th March last. We

CLERKS. incline to believe that of late years this prejudice has diminished, and ceriainly there are

Sir, now few, if any, of those wholesale attacks The proper and satisfactory method of deagainst the profession as a body, which for- termining the law upon any point that may merly appeared in the columns of the daily arise, is, I conceive, to seek for some acknows

ledged rule bearing upon it either directly or newspapers. We have much pleasure in lay- analogously: or at least for some principle to ing before our readers an extract from Black- which it may be referred and when a case, wood's Magazine for December, which we ob- although it may never have been decided by a

Court, or even have ever before arisen,-is serve has been quoted by the Morning Herald, clearly within the grasp of a rule of law, laid headed “absurd ridicule of attorneys.” We down by our text writers, and emanating from invite a learned correspondent who is desirous a most reasonable principle of jurisprudence,

having any idea of our legal system, of tracing the cause of the professional dis-es- would feel as perfectly satisfied of its legal Practice in Bankruptcy. - The Student's Corner.

a man,

167 hearing as if the victum of a judge upon the claim might be provedl under a fiat, and cited very point itself were laid before him. Now, Ex parte Williamson, 2 V'es. sen. 249, and that what I maintain, is, that having cited the prin- the assignment was sustainable in equity (Row ciple, and quoted one of our best writers (1 v. Dawson, I Ves sen. 332; Duke of Chandus might have quoted many) to the effect that an V. Talbot, 2 P. Wims. 608 ; and Lord Towns. infant can contract only for necessaries, and it end v. Wyndham, 2 Ves. p. 6); that there was being plain, that although an action inight be no case in which an assignment, especially of inaintained for necessaries (what are necessa- a chuse in action, operated otherwise than by ries is, I apprehend, for a jury to say), yet the putting the assignee in the situation of the cognovit, an instrument which confesses such assignor (Purdew v. Jackson, 1 Russ.); and action, can itself never be properly defined a that the Court possessed an equitable as well contract for necessaries, so, evidently, not such as a legal jurisdiction, and consequently, was a contract as an infant can enter into. But, coinpetent to take cognizance of the claim. because I do not refer to a case in point, I am Mr. Commissioner Holroyd said, the contold, my answer is unsatisfactory. Some per- stant practice of the Court had been to require sons there are, certainly, who, ignorant of law the assignor or his legal personal representaAs a science, and never caring “ rerum cogno- tive to concur with the assignee. scere causas" confine their attention to report Mr. Egon said, that Ex parte Lloyd, 1 Rose, books, and, as far as their memories will en 4, tended to establish a different doctrine. able them, become a walking dictionary of There Lord Eldon said, " The assignee has decided cases, and from babit, can neither purchased the right of an individual who was comprehend nor understand any thing but entitled to prove, and is, as such purchaser, what a judge las laid down : such men are, if entitled to his advantages, remedies, and equiat all, lawyers in a very narrow sense of the ties, and therefore to prove in lis name.” word, and in their minds, he will become Mr. Arnold maintained that Ex parte Lloyib the greatest lawyer who has the strongest legal had been overruled by Er purte Herbert, 2 or artificial inemory, though” (l quote Sir Glynn & Jameson, 66. William Jones) “if law be a science, and Mr. Egan replied Ex parie Herbert decided really deserve so sublime a name, it must be a very different point, namely, that “a creditor founded on principle, and claim an exalted who had proved bis debt, and subsequently rank in the empire of reason.”

assigned it, was entitled to sign the bankrupt's A. E. F. cerificaie;' the distinction between the two

cases was obvious from the language of the

Lord Chancellor ; " I remember no instance PRACTICE IN BANKRUPTCY. (said his Lordship) wliere after a creditor had

proved, and subsequently assigned bis debt,

the purchaser had heen allmitted to sign the We have received a report, of which the fol- certificate.” The bankrupts having passed their lowing is the substance, from a correspondent examination, their accounts were admissible on whom we rely, shewing the circunstan- evidence; for the rule in equity was to admit ces in which the Court of Bankruptcy will the best evidence which the circumstances of adınit the proof of a debt by the assignee of a the case attorded, Whitfield v. Faussett, Cas. deceased creditor without the concurrence of temp. Lord Hardwicke. And the deed of arthe creditor's executor.

rangement entered into by the chief crediMr. Egan applied for leave to prove a debctors with the bankrupts and their assignees standing in the name of the late Lord Lang-(whereby 23,0001. was secured to Mr. Chamford. He stated that, when the commission bers, sen. a consideration for submilof bankruptcy was issued against Messrs. ting to the commission), was also additional Chambers and Son, they were indebted to the evidence. That deed Lord Langford executed late Lord Langford on the balance of a bank- at the request of the assignees; they had reing accouut. His Lordship sub:equently as- cognized bis Lordship as a creditor, and they signed his claim, but the debt remained un- consequently were stopped from opposing the proved, and hence arose the necessity for the proof. present application.

Mr. Commissioner Holroyd was of opinion Mr. Arnold (counsel for the bankrupt's as that proof for the amount which appeared on signees) said, although there was no disposition the bankrupt's books ought to be admitted.on the part of his clients to offer objections, The proof was adınitted accordingly. yet they were bound to scrutinize every claim set up against the bankrupt's estate ; and he contended that the present application could

THE STUDENT'S CORNER. not be granted, as the executor of the deceased nobleman had not joined with the assignee.

Mr. Egun said, the will left by his lordship was calculated to cause considerabie litigation, and that it had not been proved. He, how- To the Editor of the Legal Observer. ever, maintained that, although an equitable

Sir, creditor could not take out a commission of The question raisel by Y. Z., p. 59, is attended bankruptcy, yet an equitable as well as a legal with all the difficulty of a couflict between

[ocr errors]



[blocks in formation]

!!pon the

[ocr errors]

words and intention. There are but few in the comunitted) many of your readers may suppose. profession who would not be startled by the I own I am most anxious to meet with the proposition denying that a child inherited all observations of any gentleman whose view may its parent left, and asserting that the aunt came be adverse to my own, as ), like every body in for a share equal to the child. It is impos- else, would be a willing convert from the opisible to suppose the legislature meant to make nion I have expressed. this inroad upon justice, good sense, and vene

J. B. W. rable rule ; but if we are to look at the words used (our only legal guide to the intention), I fear it is as impossible to escape the conviction To the Editor of the Legal Obserrer. that such has been the effect of the late act

Sir, 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 106.

The question of Y. Z., at p. 59, Your correspondent H. C., p. 105, in stating Inheritalice Act, appears to me to raise a fine the act did not touch the case. He evidently point, as to the case of coparceners ; and alhad in his inind the fifth canon, viz. “ that on though it has not been decided since that act

failure of lineal descendants or issue of the passed, yet I cannot bring my mind to the conperson last seised, the inheritance shall declusion of your correspondent “ Shepton"scend to the blood of the first purchaser ;” and “that upon the death of one daughter, leaving seeing that in the case put by Y. 2. there was no issue, a son, her inoiety or share will not defailure of lineal descendants of the person last scend upon her son alone; but, that instead seised, rationally concluded that here we had

Shepton' concludes that the moiety, of which nothing to do with ascertaininy who was the the daughter dying was seised, would desceod first purchaser ; that equity Qefore the statute) to her son and the surviving daughter in equal being material only where from a failure of proportions.” Now, with all deference, I ask descendants, collateral kindred became entitled.

Shepton ” how this can be ? A. purchases Unquestionably such a notion of the old laws an estate in fee simple, dies intestate, leaving was strictly accurate, and it is much to be two daughters coparceners,—one of the doughwished the new law ipade no alteration respect-ters, baving become seised of her moiety by ing the necessity of looking out for the first lineal descent, dies leaving a son,—does he not purchaser. But I conceive the words of the inherit from his mother as her lineal heir, and act cannot be got over. The 2d sec, enacts as such, is he not entitled to her moiety? The “ That in every case descent shall be traced case, I conceive, is not within the Inheritance from the purchaser.” The purchaser is be Act at all, except so far as confirms ihe son's who first acquired the estate to his family. title to his inoiher's moiety in toto. I agree Now, before the act, descendants only had to with your correspondent H. C., 19 L. 0., p. trace themselves to the person Inst seised. So 105, ihat the case is within the first canon of that before the statute, the child, in the case putrescent-A. is the last purebaser-lhe daughter by Y. Z., only had to trace himself to bis dying, takes her moiety by descent, and it is mother, who was the person last seised; but proved she so takes, and that she is not a par. since the act he must trace himself to the purchaser ; and!, that therefore, her son is also euchaser, who was the grandfather 4.-and as to titled to her moiety by descent, and would still the moiety of the estate in question the child be coparcener with the surviving daughter. I cannot trace hiinself as sole heir to the pur- Inst. 164 a; 2 Blk. Com. 188. chaser A., seeing his aunt is also heir, and the

J. E., jua. two as coparceners must share.

It appears to me that the point hinges upon the statute having rendered it necessary, even in the case of lineal descent, to go up to the first purchaser ; that necessity, I repeat, before

To The Editor of the Legal Obserrer, the act not extending to cases of lineal descent, but being confined to collateral descent. The It is laid down by Blackstone as a fundawords “ in every case” are sufficiently exten- mental principle of collateral descents, that the sive to embrace the case of a lineal descent; | iuberitance shall only result back to the heirs but if doubt could arise upon those, the definic of the body of the first purchaser, upon failure tion of the word “ descent" in the explanatory the issue and lineal ancestors in the last clause settles it. Descent shall mean the proprietor; and this rule is not affected by title to inherit land by reason of consanguinity 3 & 4 W.4, c. 106. To apply this rule to the as well where the heir shall be an ancestor or case put by Y. Z. (p. 59, of the present vol.), collateral relation as where he shall be a child it is evident that the whole undivided moiety or other issue."

of which A.'s daughter died seised, will descend When it is considered that if the child took to her son first, as being lineally descended from jointly with the aunt, and afterwards died, the last proprietor; and A.'s other daughter leaving a child, the last-named child would being only collaterally related to her sister have a noiety of his diminished share again, can never succeed to any part of her sister's the construction of the act, if literal, does ap- moieiy, until failure of 'all ber sister's lineal pear so outrageous and absurd, that a court of descendants in infinitum. Although the 3 & 4 jaw would construe the statute otherwise (al. W.4, c. 106, s. 2, says the descent must be though a violence to the words might be thus traced from the purchaser (defining what is


The Student's Corner.- Correspondence.



meant by “purchaser,”) yet it does not by this

SELECTIONS annul the first principle of descents, viz., that FROM CORRESPONDENCE. inheritances shall lineally descend to the issue of the person who last died actually seised in

LAW OF JOINT INTERESTS. infinitum. Blackstone puts a case similar to that of Y. 2. He says, “as if there be two

To the Editor of the Legrul Observer. sisters, Margaret and Charlotte, and Margaret

Sir, dies leaving six daughters, and then John Your correspondent A. B. B., is under Stiles, the father of the two sisters dies, without some misapprehension if he conceives that other issue, these six daughters shall take what is stated in your number of the 16th of among them exactly the same as their mother November last, respecting the incapacity of a Margaret would have done, had she been joint-tenant to bind his companion by bis will living, that is, a moiety of the lands of Jobi if he do not survive him, is affected by the reStiles in coparcenary, so that upon partition cent statute of Wills, 1 Vict. c. 26. inade, if the land be divided into twelve parts,

By that statute the party must have the inthereof Charlotte the surviving sister shall terest at his death, jus accrescendi præfertur have six, and her six neices, the daughters of ultimæ voluntati, and the priority of time is in Margaret, one a piece.” (Stewart's BI. favour of the survivorship against the will of

p. 1:39.) According to Y. Z., Charlotte would the deceased, as is forcibly described by Little. take nine parts.


ion and Coke (Co. Litt. 185 b.)

Mr. Stewart states it as clear, that a jointtenant is not within the recent act, as to this point (1 Vict. c. 26, by Stewarı,) but as is staied in your number of the 16th November, if the

will of the deceased be a direction of a use Sir,

under the statute of uses, be passes his share, In a society of which I am a member, a dis- and binds the survivor by it. cussion arose in respect to the effect of the The point to which A. B. B. has directed 33rd sect. of 1 Vict. c. 26 ; and the great bis remarks is totally different. There the importance of the subject induces me to hope joint-tenant devising is presuined to survive ; you will allow your columns to be the means and clearly by 1 Vict. c. 26, a general devise of investigating the subject.

by hiin esiends to aster-acquired property, and The following statement of facts involves consequently may include what he obtains by the point: A. devises to his son B. in fee sim- survivorship or partition. The point was the ple; B. died in the lifetime of A., having loy same before the recent act with respect to perwill disposed in general words of all his real sonalty, and is so slated by Mr. Jarman (10 estate to C., a stranger in blood. A. afterwards Jarın. Byth. 6.) died, and at his death a child of B. was living ; The extending the power of devising by the it has been contended that the 33rd sect. in its 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 3, to all contingent executory operation gives C. the estate, and that B.'s or other future interests &c., mentioned by child has no interest, which in other words is A. B. B., has no particular reference to pro. to allow B. the power of devising an estate in perly by survivorship among joint-tenants. which at the moment of his death he had not The jus accrescendi is as natural an incident the shadow of an interest of any kind, seeing to joint-tenancy, as a descent to heritable proihat A. bis devisor was actually living. perty. There is no contingency in it (2 P.

I scarcely believed such a doctrine could Wms. 529; Doe v. Wilson, 4 B. & Ald. 303.) be seriously laid down, until I was informed But the recent act includes the case of continthe proposition was either boldly advanced gent survivor, as where an estate is to two and lay, or received countenance froin some of the heirs of the survivor: in which case the the numerous commentators who assail the remainder in fee to the survivor is contingent, iogenuous text of a statute the instant her Ma. and was not devisable before the late act, thé jesty has declared it the law, with all the ea- object being uncertain and unascertained. gerness of unoccupied ingenuity. Neither my All these points are fully considered in the purse nor my taste permit me to indulge in treatise about to be published on the law of aught further than the bare statute, and I am joint-ownerships.

R. C. S. consequently unable to refer your readers to any of the tribe of coinmentators, save one

[Mr. Roberts also says, The new statute bearing the distinguished name of Sugden, the does not interfere with the right of survivoronly gentleman whose name I have been in-ship, so that after it, as before it, the will of a formed sanctions the construction I have referred to. I shall reel considerably indebted joint-tenant will be without effect, unless lie to any of your worthy contributors, who may becomes wholly seised or entitled.” Roberts deem it worth while to state any argument on 1 Vict. c. 26, p. 27. Ed. L. 0.] which supports the doctrine, said to have been promulgated by Mr. H. Sugden, and I believe other writers upon the statute in question.

H.D. D.

From the peculiar circuinstances in which I
am placed, I know that I shall never be called

« EelmineJätka »