Page images


Superior Courts : Queen's Bench; Common Pleas. vessel remained a reasonable time at the Mau- case. This was an action on a policy of insurritius, and, in order properly to decide the ance on the ship Edward Colson, for a voyage question, the jury ought to have taken into from Liverpool to Sydney and Hobart Town, their consideration the particular circumn out and home, with liberty to call and stay for stances of the number of vessels at the Mauri- the purposes of the voyage at all and every tius, the sınall quantity of freight there, and port and places on either side of the Cape, such the necessity of the ship staying till it could calling and staying not to be deemed a deviaget a cargo. The jury put in a written paper, tion. "The ship arrived at Sydney and then stating that they found for the defendant on proceeded to the Mauritius where it arrived in the plea that the partial discharge of the crew March 1334. It stayed ibrough that year and vitiated the policy. That verdict cannot be until the month of April 1335, when finding it sustained, for in fact there is no such plea on impossible to get a cargo it sailed for Europe. the record. The only pleas are that the vessel On the homeward voyage it was lost. The aswas not lost by the perils of the sea, and that sured claimed as for a total loss. This claim was there had been a deviation ; on the first plea resisted on the ground that the delay at the it was clear that the plaintiff was entitled to a Mauritius was a deviation, and that the assured verdict. So he was on the second. The Mau. having in the interval between the Spring sea. ritius was a place into which the vessel had, by song of 1334 and 1835, discharged the crew, the the terms of the policy itself, a right to go, and voyage insured must be considered to have it stayed there no longer than was necessary, and been abandoned. The jury returned a verdict only for a necessary purpose. Under such cir. for the defendant finding that there had been a cumstances the delay was perfectly justifiable deviation, the discharge of the crew in their In Raine v. Bella a ship sailed from Spain, opinion amounting to one. A rule has been being insured from a loading port in Spain to moved for to set aside this verdict, but the London, and in the course of the voyage it put Court does not see any reason to disturb the into Gibraltar for provisions, which could not verdict, as the evidence appears to be satisfacbe obtained before, on account of a scarcity at tory. The Court further desires to say, that the ports of loading. While at Gibraltar, the thought the mere discharge of the crew might vessel took in soine chests of bullion, but as not be in itself a deviation, it was a strong eri. the jury negatived the going into Gibraltar, or dence to shew that the delay was unnecessary, the staying there for any purpose but that of and such delay being unnecessary would altaking in necessary provisions, a verdict was ready be equivalent to a deviation: found for the plaintiff, and the Court sustained Rule refused.-Irving v. Burnand, H. T. the verdict. In Harley v. Bruggin,b the vessel 1840. lay on the coast of Africa for two months, and

Common pleas. the Court of Common Pleas there directed a

CORPORATION BYE LAW.- CONSTRUCTION, new trial, with the express view of submitting to the jury the question whether it so stayed

The bye law of a corporation must receive a for the purpose of trading. That is the ques.

reasonable construction, although its lantion which ought to have been left to the jury guage, token literally, might appear incon: in the present case. If the vessel stayed at the

sistent with that construction. Mauritius, as it did, for the purpose of trading, This was an action of debt, and the declara. there the stay at a port which was included in tion set out letters patent of 4 Wm. & Mary, the policy, could not be deemed a deviation. incorporating in one company all and singular The partial discharge of the crew might be a persons using the trade of poulterers, or sellfact for the consideration of the jury in deter. ing. poultry wares, coneys, butter and eggs mining the question of reasonable delay, but within the city of London, or within seven if the vessel was at the Mauritius for the pur-miles thereof, by the name of the "Master, Warposes contemplated at the time the policy was dens, and Assistants of the Company of Poul. entered into, its stay cannot vitiate the policy. terers, London;" by which it was declared, The reasonableness of sending the ship on an that there should be one master, four wardens, intermediate voyage was a question left for and sixteen assistants of the said company, lo the jury in Ongier v. Jennings by Lord Eldon, be chosen and elected as thereinafter men. and that direction was not afterwards disputed. tioned; and that they should have power of All the cases turn solely on the question whe- making such reasonable laws, acts, orders, orther the ship was employed on purposes dif- dinances, and constitutions in writing, as to ferent from ile voyage. Here the employment them or the greater part of them, whereof the was in pursuance of the voyage itself. 'If the master and one of the wardens for the time delay is not accounted for, the underwriters being to be two, should seem fit, good, and are discharged; Pulmer v. Fenning ;d but if convenient, according to their best discretion, it is, and it appears to be a delay in pursuance touching and concerning the good estate, order, of the object of the voyage, as it was here, and government of the said company, and of they still continue liable.

every member thereof; and in what order and

Cur. adv. vult. manner the said master, wardens and assis. Lord Denman delivered judgment in this tants, and all and every person or persons be

ing free of the company within the limits 9 East 185. b Park on Ins. 469. aforesaid, should demean and behave them. c 1 Comp. 505, n.

selves, as well as in all and singular matters, d 9 Bing: 460 ; 2 Moore & S. 624.

causes and things, touching and concerning Superior Courts : Common Pleas.

431 the said company or anything thereuoto ap- tions requisite for taking the office. In The pertaining, with power of imposing fines Master und Wardens of the Innholder's Comto be recovered by action of debt, &c. pany v. Gladhill,a which was an action similar The declaration then stated the acceptance to the present, the declaration omitted to alof the letters patent by the company and lege that the defendant was a freeman of the that the said company was afterwards made city of London, as well as a freeinan of the a Livery Company of the City of London; particular corporation, and on that ground it and went on to aver, that in the year 1692, a was held bad on special deinurrer. In this certain reasonable ordinance in writing was case it is truly averred that the defendant was made at a convocation of the master and a freeman of the city of London as well as of wardens, by which it was ordered and establish the corporation, but that does not establish the ed that the master, wardens, and assistants of validity of the hye-law itself : that averment in the said company for the time being, or the its terms shews the bye-law to be bad. greater part of them, from time to time, and Barstow, contra — The bye-law must receive at all times thereafter, when and so often as a reasonable construction, and it will not be they should think it convenient or find it need-intended that the company will elect persons ful, should and might call, nominate, choose, to the livery who are not qualified ; but the and admit into the livery or clothing of the presumption will be the other way. The Master said company, such and so many persons being 8c., of the Vintners' Comp. v. Passey,b City freemen of the said company, as they should of London v. Vunaker ;c the London Tobacco think meet, honest, and of ability, to be called Pipe Makers' Comp. v. Woodroffe. In the last and admitted into the said livery; and that every of these cases the word “persons” was held to person who should be so called, elected, and be confined to eligible persons. That case is chosen into the said livery, and should refuse not to be distinguished from the present. If or deny to be of the same livery, not having the defendant was ineligible to the livery in any such lawful, just or reasonable cause or ex- consequence of not being free of the city, that cuse for such his refusal and denial, as by the fact should have been pleaded by him. inaster, &c. should be judged sufficient, should Mellor, in reply.--There the office in ques. for every time of such bis refusal or denial, for- tion was that of warden of the company, and feit and pay to the master, &c. for the time be- consequently a corporale office, the qualiticaing for the use of the said company, the sum oftions for which were entirely matter for the re101. The declaration further set out the con- gulation of the company itself: here, a new firmation of this ordinance, and notice to the qualification is made necessary by a power over defendant of the premises ; and that the de- which the company have no control. This is fendant was on the 6th March, 1828, duly ad- not merely a corporate office; by being a mitted to the freedom of the Poulterer's Coun- liveryman, rights are acquired beyond the scope pany, and was afterwards duly admitted to the of the corporation. freedom of the City of London, and became a

Cur. adv. tult. freemen of the City of London as a poulterer ; Tindal, C.J.-Tlie question turns on the and that the defendant so being such freeman, validity of the bye-law set out in the declaraafterwards on the 9th March, 1838, the greater tion, by which it was ordained that the master, part of the master, wardens, &c., at a court of &c., might nominate to the livery such and so ibe company, beld at the Guildhall of the many persons, being freemen of the company, city of London, thinking the defendant a meet, as they should think ineet, honest, and of abihonest person, &c., did noininate and call him lity, and it is objected that the bye-law eminto the livery and clothing of the said com- pewers the company to call in and nominate pany, and thereof gave notice to the defendant, to the livery other than freemen of the city. and required him to attend at a court, to be It was argued that it is necessary that a perheld by them on 28th June, 1838, at which son so nominated should be a freeman of the court they were ready to admit bim ; but that city, as well as of the company; and as the in. though he had no good cause or excuse, he corporation of this particular company exrefused to attend or be admitted to the livery, tends to the distance of seven miles beyond the whereby an action had accrued to the said city of London, there may be many who are master, wardens, &c., to demand and have of freemen of this company without being freeand from the defendant the sum of 101. men of the city. If the bye-law is to be conBreach, non-payment. General demurrer and strued according to the letter, it would cerjoinder.

tainly, according to the terms of it, extend to Mellor supported the demurrer, and con- persons not being free of the city; and accordtended that the bye-law set out in the declara- ing to the judgment of Foster, J., in The Master tion was void, as it purported to extend to all and Wardens of the Innholders' Company v. freemen of the company, wbereas none can be Gladhill, might be fairly contended to be void, liverymen who are not also freemen of the city as including persons not properly eligible to of London. It is admitted that there are many the livery. "We think, however, that the byefree of the company who are not free of the law must receive a reasonable construction, city. Now a law that imposes on its members and that the persons mentioned in it must be the necessity of taking on themselves an office taken to mean persons properly qualified in to which they are ineligible is void, inuch more when the body making that law has not the a Sayer's Rep. 274. b 1 Burr. 240. power of giving such members the qualifica. c Carth. 480.

0 7 B. & C. 852 432 Law Bills in Parliament.- Easter Term Examination. - Editor's Letter Box.

other respects, according to the case of The To consolidate and amend the Law of Sewers: London Tobacco-Pipe Maker's Company v. [ln Committee.] Woodroffe. We cannot distinguish that case To give Summary Protection to persuns em. from the present, and our judgment must ployed in the publication of Parliamentary therefore be for the plaintiff.

Papers. [Passed.] Lord J. Russell. Judgment accordingly.-- The Masters, War. To improve the High Court of Admiralty. dens, &c. of the Poulterers' Cumpany v. Phillips, H. T. 1810. C. P.


The following clause bas been added to the LIST OF LAW BILLS IN PARLIA- publication of Parliamentary Papers :

Bill for giving Summary Protection to the MENT, WITH NOTES.

That in every such civil proceeding, within

forty-eight hours after the delivery of such Ronal Assrnt.

certificate and affidavit, the defendant shall

cause a notice in writing to be delivered at the Brighton Small Debts Court. 23 Murch. residence, oftice, or lodgings of the plaintiff

or of the attorney of the plaintiff, as the case House of Lords.

inay be, indorsed on the writ, in which notice Copyholds Enfranchisement. Ld. Brougham.

it shall be stated that such proceeding is stayed [In Selert Committee.]

pursuant to this act. Frivolous Suits Act amendinent, touching costs.

(For second reading.) Lord Denınan. EASTER TERM EXAMINATION. Rated Inhabitants Evidence. [In Committee.]

As the term ends on Wednesday the 13th Vagrants' Removal. [For third reading.)

May, the earliest day on which the examina. Bolton Small Debts Court.

tion can take place will be Monday the 4th [11 ('ommittee.]

May. It will probably take place on Tuesday For facilitating the Administration of Justice.

the 5th. (For second reading.] Lord Chancellor. For The commutation of Manorial Rights. The number of applications included in tbe

(For second reading.) Lord Redesdale. printed list for next term is 162; but deduciFor defining the powers of the Metropolitan ing the names of those already examined and

Police Justices. [In Committee. See p. 420, ante ) passed, and several who have omitted to give Marquis of Normunby.

notice of examination, we understand the For giving Suinmary Protection to the public cation of Parliamentary Papers.

number of candidates at present is 133. Pro[For second reading.]

bably a few more may be added by leave of the

Court or a Judge.
House of Commons.

There seems, thrrefore, to be no falling off To amend the Law of Copyright. [In Committee.] Mr. Serjt. Talfourd.

in this branch of the profession. . To extend the Terin of Copyright in Designs of woven Fabrics.

Mr. E. Tennaut.

THE EDITOR'S LETTER BOX. [In Committee.) To carry into effect the Recominendation of The letters on Powers coupled with Interest, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

and on the proposed Articled Clerks' Club shall

Lord J. Russell. be attended to. To extend Freemen and Burgesses' Right of We think the letter of W. F. is not so judi. Election.

Mr. F. Kelly. cious as we could have wished it to be, and it Drainage of Lands.

Mr. Handley. would be preinature to publish it till the House [111 Committee.]

of Lords has come to a decision, To amend Tithes Commuta:ion Act.

A Constant Reader" should make some [l'assed.]

Sir. E. Kínatchbull. search himself into the question be states, Small Debt Courts for

before calling on other correspondents. Aston,

Has not the point on the 33d section of the Barkston Ash, Tavistock,

Wills Act been sufficiently discussed? We Liverpool, Newton Abbott, will, however, consider the further letter ifhich

Maryleb ne, Wakefield Manor. we have received. Summary Conviction of Juvenile Offenders. The saine remark applies to the suliject of

[In Committee.] Sir E. Wilmnut. Powers of Appointment in Purchase Deeds. To amend ihe County Constabulary Act. The question on the power of Coroners 10

Mr. F. Maule. compel Attorneys to serve as Juryinen on InTo amend the Laws of Turnpike Trusts, and quesis shall be noticed. to allow Unions.

Mr. Mackinnon. Letters for the editor of this work should be Prisons Act Amnendment.

addressed to the office, No. 67, Chancery [In Committee.]


The Legal Observer.


" Quod magis ad nos Pertinet, et nescire malum est, agitanius."


REMOVAL OF THE COURTS FROM together from their present inconvenient situaWESTMINSTER.

tion. I would send them to Lincoln's Inn

Fields, into the immediate neighbourhood of We lately noticed an able pamphlet in would be more convenient to the public, and

the lawyers. Let them be altogether. This favour of the removal of the Courts from more convenient in every respect to the lawyers Westminster Hall to the neighbourhood of themselves. I have scarcely ever visited any the Inns of Court, (see p. 341, ante). The courts of justice arranged so inconveniently, subject appears to excite considerable at- or with so little accommodation, as our present tention at the present time, and we have couris; and although a great deal of inoney heard from various sources that some active think that any loss would be sustained, but

has been expended in fitting them up, I do not measures are in progress for bringing the that, on the contrary, great public convenience question before Parliament.

would be obtained, by getting rid of them alHaving in our former article stated the together. Julges and lawyers are very proper arguments in favour of the removal, we now persons to carry into effect the acts of the proceed to lay before our readers the objec- legislature, but they have no necessary contions thereto, and the answers which the nexion with the proceedings of this house; Author of the pamphlet has given :

they are altogether distinct.'

Sir Frederick Pollock.-— With regard to “The objections which have been made to those members of the profession to which I the removal of the Courts of Law from West-have the honour to belong, and who are also minster, hitherto put forward, were alluded to members of this house, I apprehend it is a in the deliate in the House of Coinmons on the inatter of indifference to them, whether the 9ih of February, 1836, on Mr. Hume's motion, House of Commons be situated in the vicinity " That the Building Co.ninittee of the new of Westininster Hall, St. James's Palace, or Houses of Parliament might be instructed to Charing Cross. Even supposing the removal reconsider the fitness of the intended site." of the Houses of Parliament might occasion On that occasion, the separation of the Houses inconvenience to the members of my profesof Parliament from the Courts of Law was sion, I am quite sure that not one of them incidentally touched, on, and the following would be found to let any personal considerapassages, referring to the subject, are quoted tion of that sort prevail against what might be from the Mirror of Parliavnent:

considered the general convenience of the “ 9th February, 1836.-Mr. Hume.-'I do members of the Houses of Parliament. I renot go so far as to sry, that the neighbourhood peat, however, that the site of the Houses of of the law Courts is bad, but I am free to con- 'Parliament is a matter of perfect indifference to fess, that I would rather be at a distance from the gentlemen of the bar. It is undoubtedly thein. I know it is held by many, that the true that the Courts of Law sit a certain porsituation is convenient for those lawyers who tion of the year in Westminster Hall; but it have to attend the house ; but looking at the is also true thit the Courts of Equity sit a much small number of those gentlemen, compared longer time in Lincoln's Inn, as also does the with the other members of the house, I do not Court which I chiefly attend, at the Guildhal', think that their convenience ought to weigh in the City of London, or in its immediate much, if there are other circumstances to neighbourhood. For my own part, I should counterbalance it. I may be accused of wish care little whether, after my hours of business, ing to effect a radical change in this respect, I went from Guildhall to Westininster, or to because I would reinove the courts of law al. Pall Mall. But there is a class of persons VOL XIX, NO, 582.

2 G


Removal of the Courts from Westminster. belonging to the legal profession, -I mean the is no doubt they will all cordially subscribe, solicitors and attorneys, -and a portion of the are all we need notice on this bead. public connected with the administration of “ 2. It is in no way necessary to the public justice, to whom I believe the proximity of the service, that the judges should sit in the neighHouses of Parliament to the place where jus- bourhood of parliament. It is but rarely, and tice is administered, is of the greatest impor-on solemn occasions, that they are called upon tance at the time when the House of Lords is to advise the House of Lords ; and with the sitting as a Court of Appeal, and when com- House of Commons they have no connexion. mittees of the House of Cominons are engaged The force of the second objection, then, is on business which requires the assistance of this : that the House of Lords, and the comgentlemen of the bar. Because if the Houses mittees of both Houses, can at present be atof Parliament were to be removed from the tended by barristers, with more convenience place were justice is administered, and wbere to the Houses, and at less expense to the the members of the bar congregate together, public, than if the Courts and parliament it would be impossible for solicitors, engaged were separated. But let the extent of this in parliamentary business, to obtain that assist-convenience be clearly understood. Parliament ance and advocacy which they might desire, generally sits froin the beginning of February or the House require, without putting their till the middle of August, about twenty-six clients to a very great expense. Either the weeks, or one hundred and eighty-two days; business would remain for a length of time but out of this time the equity bar is at Westunsettled, or be done indifferently. "I do, there- minster only forty-four days, and the commonfore, think it would be a matter of great in- law bar, at the most, eighty days; which latter convenience for those who might have business number, as it includes the first fortnight in to transact with the House of Lords, or the February, during which, in general, there is Coinmittees of either House of Parliament, if no parliamentary business calling for the serthere were such an entire removal of those vices of the bar, may be reduced to sixty-six Houses, as I should look upon their removal days.—Thus, Parliament only enjoys this supto St. James's Palace, or the back of the Mews posed convenience for about one-third of the to be. It is not for any personal interest of session, and it cannot be said it experiences my own, or that of any member in this House any want of professional assistance during the belonging to the same profession, that I have remaining two-thirds of the session. thought it necessary to inake these few obser. “But Sir Frederick Pollock considers it vations, but for the benefit of those connected would be impossible for solicitors, in case of with it who are absent, and such portion of a separation of the houses and the Courts, to the public as would be affected by the proposed obtain the assistance of the bar, without put. changes.'

ting their clients to a very great expense.' “Sir Robert Peel.—' I entirely agree, that if His meaning is, that the bar would not attend all other things were nearly balanced, historical the Houses of Parliament without higher fees recollections ought to be considered of some than they receive at present. Counsels' parisaportance.

It is also of soine iin- liamentary fees, as is well known, are regulated portance that the Houses of Parliament should on a very handsome scale—they are more than be in the neighbourhood of the Law Courts, double the ordinary Court fees; and, in addiwere the judges are accustomed to sit, and tion to these, they receive a special fee of ten where those counsel and other gentlemen in guineas for each attendance." Now, let it be the legal profession, by whom the parliamentary observed, (for it seems to be an entire answer and other business is usually transacted, are to the doubt thrown out by Sir Frederick in the habit of attending ; for the near vicinity Pollock), that precisely the same fees are paid gives the house the command of the services whether the Courts are sitting at Westminster and assistance of the first men of the profesor elsewhere, and counsel willingly attend, on sion. This is important, especially after a these terins, from Guildhall and from Lincoln's general election, and I much doubt whether Inn, and even refrain from going circuit to we should retain this advantage if the Courts holl parliamentary briefs. In truth, the busiwere removed to any distance from us." ness being very easy, very agreeable, and being

considered by the bar very lucrative, there is “The reasons, then, for the present site are“1. That those members of parliament who

much inducement for them to accept it. The

most serviceable and most successful par- are at the bar find it convenient. “ 2. That the contiguity of the judges and themselves, chiefly or entirely, to that kind of

liamentary advocates are those who devote the bar to the Houses of Parliament affords business; and it is more advantageous to the assistance to the Houses and to solicitors, public, as well as more convenient to the comwhich they would not otherwise receive.

inittees, to have the attendance of gentlemen “1. As to the first point, Mr. Hume's an- of experience in parliamentary practice and swer, that the personal convenience of those precedent; hence the leaders may almost be ineinbers of parliament who practise at the said to form at the present time a distinct bar, bar, and who are very few in number, ought and the casual practitioners are mostly juniors, not to govern a public question like the pre- whose nuinbers will be found to be quite in. sent, and the disclaimer on their behalf by considerable. The business of the comunittees Sir Frederick Pullock, of any desire to have being of a continuous nature, unlike the brief their convenience considered, to which there and varying subject matters of the law Courts,

« EelmineJätka »