246

attorney, before he undertakes to "put himself in the place" of the suitor, may inquire into the nature of the case, and if he thinks it nefarious may decline the retainer.

The general impression is that the barrister speaks only from his instructions, and is not responsible for their accuracy, either in the facts stated, or the legal conclusions drawn from them on his client's behalf. The attorney, however, has better means of previously ascertaining the truth by inquiries of the proposed client, by the investigation of the correctness of documents, of circumstances noticed in correspondence, by personal examination of witnesses, applying tests of veracity, and ascertaining the character and credibility of the suitor and his witnesses. The attorney, therefore, may be censurable for undertaking a bad case, where the barrister would be wholly blameless.

Practically, however, the attorney in the outset relies on the truth of his client's statement, and it is only in the progress of the case that he finds out or suspects that he has been deceived. We hear sometimes that a barrister "throws up his brief;" but this is after actual disclosures are made before the court which show that there is no chance of success. The attorney also may at any stage of a cause withdraw from it, on giving due and reasonable notice to the client of his intention. Of course it could not be endured that an attorney should undertake a case, perhaps give a favourable opinion of it, and then suddenly abandon it because he entertained doubts or

LAW APPOINTMENTS.

William Gillespie Dickson, Esq. Advocate, has been appointed Advocate-General of the Mauritius. Mr. Dickson passed Advocate in 1847, and is the author of a valuable Treatise on the Law of Evidence.

Daniel M'Dermott, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, has been appointed Magistrate of College-street Police Office, Dublin, in the room of Richard Bourke, Esq., deceased. Mr. M'Dermott was called to the Irish Bar in Easter Term, 1827.

William Gernon, Esq., Barrister-at-Law of the North East Circuit, has been appointed secretary to the Board of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland, in the room of Daniel M'Dermott, Esq. Mr. Gernon was called to the Irish Bar in Easter Term, 1844.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

It is this day (28th July) ordered, by her Majesty in council, that the Parliament be prorogued from Tuesday the 29th day of July instant, to Tuesday the 7th day of October next.

DEATH OF MR. BRYAN HOLME.

We have to record with much regret the decease on the 16th July of Mr. Bryan Holme, the founder of the Incorporated Law Society. He was the senior partner in the eminent and highly respected firm of Holme, Loftus, and Young, New Inn. He was admitted on the Roll of Attorneys in 1802 and died in his 80th year. He was for some time past engaged

in projecting another institntion for the relief of aged and infirm attorneys under the name of "the Attorneys Benevolent Institution." We expect soon to collect materials for a full memoir of the deceased.

LONDON UNIVERSITY DEGREES.

Doctor of Laws.

have investigated.

It should always be borne in mind that an attorney is an officer of the court, and as such is trusted by the judges; and whilst he discharges his duty to his client he is bound not to connive at any proceeding for the purpose of deceiving the court. He is to do the best he can for his client's interest; he should strengthen the various points of his case as far as possible, and ought not to expose any weak points of it. His professional opponents must find out the defects for themselves, and bring them before the court. The attorney is neither judge of the law nor jury on the facts; his duty is to bring his client's case for trial and adjudication in the best form and manner in his power; but without deceit.

ATTORNATUS.

NOTES OF THE WEEK.

LORD WENSLEYDALE.

The Queen has been pleased to direct Letters Patent to be passed under the Great Seal, granting the dignity of a Baron of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland unto the Right Honourable James Baron Wensleydale, and to the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style, and title of Baron Wensleydale, of Walton, in the county Palatine of Lancaster. From the London Gazette of 25th July.

Lords Justices.

Gallimore v. Gill. July 23, 1856.

WILL AND CODICIL CONSTRUCTION-LIABILITY OF REAL ESTATE TO DEFICIENCY WHERE PERSONAL INSUFFICIENT FOR DEBTS AND LEGACIES.

A testatrix, by her will, gave her real and personal estate to her executors, and directed them to convert the personal estate into money, and to pay a pecuniary legacy thereby given and her debts, and to hold the entire residue of her estate in trust for her grandchildren. By a codicil she gave various other pecuniary legacies, but it appeared in an administration suit that her personal estate was insufficient to pay the debts and legacies: Held, affirming the decision of Vice-Chancellor Stuart, that the real estate was chargeable with the deficiency.

Mrs. Gillett by her will gave and devised her real and personal estate to her executors, the defendants, and directed them to convert the latter into money, and to pay her debts and a certain pecuniary legacy thereby given, and to hold the entire residue of her estate in trust for her grandchildren. By a subsequent codicil she gave various other pecuniary legacies.

It appeared in an administration suit that the personalty was insufficient to pay the debts and legacies, and the Vice-Chancellor Stuart having held that the real estate was chargeable therewith and liable to make good the deficiency, this appeal was presented.

Faber in support; Dickinson for the executors. The Lords Justices (without calling on Wigram contrà) said the appeal must be dismissed.

Thompson v. Finch. July 23, 1856.

BREACH OF TRUST-SOLICITOR CO-TRUSTEE-
STRIKING OFF THE ROLL.

A sum of money in the hands of trustees (one of whom was a solicitor) was lent on a security in the former's name, and which ultimately proved of no value, and the sum was lost. The Lords Justices, on affirming the decision of the Master of the Rolls, declaring that such trustee was liable, made an order on the solicitor to shew cause on a day named why, on the materials before the Court in that suit and two other suits, he should not be struck off the roll.

THIS was a suit by the tenant for life of a fund in the hands of two trustees (a Mr. Finch and a solicitor) for a declaration that Mr. Finch was liable to replace the fund which had been lent on a security in his name, and which ultimately proved of no value, and the money was lost. The Master of the Rolls having made a declaration accordingly, this appeal was presented.

R. Palmer and Shebbeare for the plaintiff; Follett and Osborne for Mr. Finch; Bagshawe and Southgate for certain infants.

The Lords Justices, in affirming the decree of the court below, said that the matter could not, as to the co-trustee, who was a solicitor, rest, but that it was the duty of the court, having regard to the interests of society at large, to make an order upon the

247

solicitor upon a day named to shew cause why, upon the materials before the court in the present suit, and also in Finch v. Shaw, and Colyer v. Finch, he should not be struck off the roll. The solicitor to the suitors' fund would take the necessary steps to carry out these directions.

Master of the Rolls.

Hodgson v. Hodgson. July 23, 1856.

TRUSTEES BREACH OF TRUST-PROFIT BY
STRANGER-COSTS.

Trustees in order to obtain a greater rate of interest
of a trust fund sold out the stock, and lent it to
one of the testator's sons. Afterwards in a suit being
threatened, the trustees invested the same amount
of stock, but the cash paid for the purpose was
less than was received on the sale: Held, that the
trustees were not bound to give the estate the benefit
of such difference. The plaintiff, who was entitled
to a contingent interest, was put to his election
between the stock re-purchased, or such a sum as
the original stock produced laid out in the purchase
of stock at the price of the day. The trustees
were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs, but no
order as to those of the cestuis que trustent-the
sale having been made with their concurrence.
Held, that a stranger to whom a trust fund is im-
properly lent, will not be called on to account for
the profit for the benefit of the estate, although
secus if lent to one of the trustees.

A TESTATOR gave to three of his children the interest of a sum of £2,000 Three-and-a-Quarter per Cents., each for life, and the principal to their children upon their death. It appeared that the trustees, in order to obtain a greater rate of interest, had sold out the whole £6,000 stock for £5,925 cash, and lent the same to one of the testator's sons. They, however, repurchased the same amount of stock, upon this suit being threatened, for a sum of £5,340.

R. Palmer and Karslake for the plaintiff, who had a contingent interest, claimed that the estate should have the benefit of the difference.

Roupell, Cairns, Selwyn, Speed, Baggallay, and Keene for the defendants.

The Master of the Rolls said that although the sale and loan of the trust fund was a breach of trust, it did not appear that the trustees had made a profit thereout. The person to whom it was lent had not so traded with it as to produce any profit; but even if he had, the court could not have made him accountable as a trustee. If one of the trustees had made a profit, of course it enured for the benefit of the estate, but it was otherwise in the case of a stranger to the estate. The plaintiff would elect to take the stock repurchased, or to have such a sum as the original stock produced laid out in the purchase of stock at the price of the day. The trustees would pay the plaintiff his costs, but no order would be made as to those of the cestuis que trustent, who had concurred in the sale.

Baldwin v. Baldwin. July 4, 24, 1856.

GIFT TO ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS FOR BUILDING CHURCH-VALIDITY OF-MORTMAIN ACT.

Held, that a gift by will of a sum of money to

248

trustees in trust to pay the same to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the building and endowment of a church at S., if the parish of B., in which S. was situated, should at the testator's death, or within twenty-one years afterwards, be divided into two parishes, is valid under the 6 & 7 Vict., c. 7, although void under the 9 Geo. 2, c. 36. WILLIAM BALDWIN, by his will, dated in May, 1854, gave a sum of £8,000 to trustees in trust to pay the same to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the building and endowment of a church at Sedgley, Staffordshire, if the parish of Bilston, in which that place was situated, should, at his death, or within twenty-one years after, be divided into two parishes, The parish had not yet been divided, and the question arose whether the bequest was valid.

Cur ad vult. The Master of the Rolls said it must be assumed that the commissioners would not divide the parish unless it were expedient, and there appeared to be no reason why they should be deprived of the bequest. Although under the Statute of Mortmain (9 Geo. 2, c. 36), the gift was void, yet it was clearly within the scope of the Church Building Act (6 & 7 Vic. c. 7), and as such was valid.

Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.

Prince of Wales Assurance Company v. Trulock. July 28, 1856.

INJUNCTION-EXECUTION IN ACTIONS ON POLICIES OF INSURANCE-DEMURRER FOR WANT OF EQUITY.

been proved shewed there was a complete defence at law, and that the miscarriage could be set right. It also appeared that when the second trial came on, no attempt was made to postpone on the ground of Brade's absence, but a verdict was allowed to go in that also. It was competent on that ground to move for a new trial, and therefore as relief could be had at law, the demurrer must be allowed.

Vice-Chancellor Wood.

In re Watford Burial Board. July 26, 1856.

BURIAL BOARD ACT-CONVEYANCE FOR NEW GROUND -SANCTION OF CHARITY COMMISSIONERS.

Held, that the sanction of the Charity Commissioners under the 16 & 17 Vict., c. 137, s. 17, is necessary to a petition for the sanction of the Court to a proposed conveyance, under the Burial Board Act, 1516 Vic. c. 85, of a piece of land applicable to the repairs of aparish church, to a district board for a new burial ground.

THIS was a petition for the sanction of the court to a proposal for the conveyance, under the Burial Board Act, 15 & 16 Vic. c. 85, of a piece of land, applicable to the repairs of the parish church of Watford, to the burial board for a new burial ground, the old one having been ordered to be closed. The board proposed to pay a yearly sum of about £30, which was the average proceeds of the land in question.

W. H. Terrell in support.

The Vice-Chancellor said that as this was charity

obtained a verdict, and in another action upon a second policy the verdict also passed for him. The plaintiff's then filed a bill to restrain the issue of execution on the ground that one B., who had with the defendant obtained the policies by false representations, was kept out of the way, and could not be served with a subpona: Held, that inasmuch as a new trial could be obtained at law on that ground, a demurrer for want of equity must be allowed.

THIS was a bill to restrain the issue of execution in two actions brought against the present plaintiffs on two policies of insurance for £7,000 and £4,000 on the life of a Mr. Jodrell, on the ground that these policies were obtained by false representations of his being a temperate man and having a very good life. It was alleged that one Brade, who had combined with the defendant in the scheme, had been purposely kept out of the way on the trial, and that the plaintiffs were unable to serve him with a subpoena, althoughthey had sought to do so by all the means in their power. This was a demurrer for want of

equity.

Baily and C. T. Simpson in support; Glasse, and Freeman contrà. [Cur. ad. vult.

The Vice-Chancellor said that it did not appear by the bill what pleas had been pleaded to the actions, which was very material. From the statements in the bill, it was obvious that the person procuring the policies in the manner alleged would never be entitled to recover on either, and the facts alleged would constitute a good defence at law to any action brought in respect of the policies. It was not suggested that the plaintiffs were ignorant on going to trial of any of the facts except of Brade's beneficial interest in the policies. It was stated that his non-production was a surprise on them. But the very statement that if he had been produced their case would have

sent of the Charity Commissioners (under the 16 and 17 Vic. c. 137, s. 17).* It must be shewn that the application was made with their sanction, as well as that they approved of the particular proposal. The delay might be inconvenient to the parties, but the application should have been made before.

* Which enacts that, "before any suit, petition, or other proceeding (not being an application in any suit or matter actually pending) for obtaining any relief, order, or direction concerning or relating to any charity, or the estate, funds, property, or income thereof, shall be commenced, presented, or taken, by any person whomsoever, there shall be transmitted by such person to the said board, notice in writing of such proposed suit, petition, or proceeding, and such statement, information, and particulars as may be requisite or proper, or may be required from time to time, by the said board, for explaining the nature and objects thereof; and the said board, if upon consideration of the circumstances they so think fit, may, by an order or certificate signed by their secretary, authorise or direct any suit, petition, or other proceeding to be commenced, presented, or taken with respect to such charity, either for the objects and in the manner specified or mentioned in such notice, or for such other objects, and in such manner and form, and subject to such stipulations or provisions for securing the charity against liability to any costs or expences, and to such other stipulations or provisions for the protection or benefit of the charity, as the said board may think proper," &c. "and (save as herein otherwise provided) no suit, petition, or other proceeding for obtaining any such relief, order, or direction as last aforesaid, shall be entertained or proceeded with by the Court of Chancery, or by any court or judge, except upon and in conformity with an order or certificate of the said board."

LAW BILLS POSTPONED OR NEGATIVED, 1856.

HAVING in the last number recorded, under the various heads to which they appeared to belong, the bills-upwards of fifty in number -which passed both Houses of Parliament, and finally received the royal assent, we proceed now to sum up the (so called) failures of the session, classifying the several projects in the departments of law and practice which it was sought to improve or alter, namely: 1st. The Administration of Justice; 2nd. Mercantile or Commercial Law; 3rd. The Law of Property; 4th. The Church, Poor Law, and Marriages; 5th. The Criminal Law, Proceedings before Magistrates, Public Health, &c.

On comparing the general review we gave last week, of the acts passed in the recent session, with those which have been negatived or postponed, it will be found that, whatever may have been defective in the political,

social, or financial labours of the Government, there has been a considerable amount of

success in the projects for amending the law, both in the number of the acts which arrived at maturity, and in their practical or general importance. It must be acknowledged,

indeed, that some valuable measures have been deferred, to which the profession gave their support; but on the other hand there are several which, by the commencement of the next session, may be rendered less objectionable, if not more beneficial.

1st. In the department of the ADMINISTRATION of JUSTICE, it may be observed with regard to the bill for improving the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, that although the defects of that great tribunal had been often urged, the remedy proposed by the bill of the last session was for the most part novel and somewhat startling. It ought not to excite our surprise that a change, which involved some of the constitutional principles of the House of Lords, should be received with doubt and opposition, particularly in reference to the question of life peerages, and the creation of a new class of noble yet salaried judges. After all that has been said for and against the remedy in question, it is perhaps better that its farther VOL. LII. No. 1,483.

consideration should be postponed till another session, when the excitement that first accompanied the proposition of life peerages shall have subsided, and the important judicial nature of the subject may receive a calm and circumspect consideration in all its bearings; so that in the result, the House, as a legislative body, may be relieved of the duty of construing and administering the law, or be reinforced so effectually as to give undoubted satisfaction to the country.

Next in importance to the High Court of Appeal, is that of the series of measures proposed to be substituted in the place of the ecclesiastical courts. In regard to the branch of testamentary jurisdiction," besides the direct opposition which was made by the several classes of persons whose interests were affected by the bill, there was a great conflict of opinion amongst our most learned form the duties of the abolished courts. The legislators as to the tribunal destined to perthe nature of the disease, but disagreed on three principal consulting doctors agreed on the remedy. The Solicitor-General at length yielded several important points to Sir Fitzroy Kelly and Mr. Collier, and incorporated many of their views in his amended bill. But these concessions were not deemed sufficient by the House of Commons, and another session has consequently been lost.

The same fate attended Mr Headlam's bill for abolishing the archidiaconal, manorial, peculiar, and other petty courts, and transferring their jurisdiction to the Diocesan Courts, leaving untouched the Prerogative Courts. Nothing short, however, of the total abolition of all vestige of ecclesiastical dominion in secular matters will meet the demand of the age.

Next came Mr. Hadfield's bill to repeal the restriction which prevented, under a heavy penalty, any agency allowance to pass between the proctor and the solicitor who introduced the business, who is responsible for the costs, and has bestowed a large part of the labour (sometimes the whole) of collecting the evidence and preparing the case for hearing. This proposed repeal was opposed by the proctors, but the session was too far advanced to make any useful progress with the bill.

Whenever it shall be determined to abolish

250

the ecclesiastical courts, due provision must be made for adjudicating on divorce and matrimonial causes. Whether this jurisdiction ought to be transferred to a new court of record, or to one or more of the present superior courts, remains to be discussed and decided.

The ecclesiastical courts, having likewise jurisdiction over the offences of the clergy (whether doctrinal or moral), it is manifest that effectual provision must be made for hearing and adjudicating on those important questions before that branch of jurisdiction can be abolished. Various plans have been suggested both by lords spiritual and temporal to effect this object, but at present without any satisfactory result.

So far as to the appellate jurisdiction of

the House of Lords and the various courts ecclesiastical.

evidence. This bill

Two other measures were brought forward relating to the Common law Courts, but they have also been postponed, namely: 1st. Sir Fitzroy Kelly's bill for amending the procedure in actions and extending the rules of was very properly postponed by the learned member. Indeed, its provisions have not yet been discussed in Parliament, and require careful consideration. 2nd. Mr. Craufurd's Judgments Execution Bill to enable English judgments to be enforced in Ireland and Scotland, and vice versa. We presume that as this measure has been before the House in two sessions of Parliament without success, there must be some potent objections of which we are not aware. Perhaps some influential debtors out of our jurisdiction are able to stir up an opposition and prevent effectual proceedings against their property. If this be so, we trust justice will overtake them next session.

2nd. As to MERCANTILE OR COMMERCIAL LAW, our readers are aware that although the Joint Stock Companies Act has received the royal assent, including the valuable provisions relating to "limited liability " partnerships, the bill for the amendment of the general Law of Partnership has been withdrawn, in consequence of an alteration having been carried which would have defeated the main object of the bill. Whether it will be again revived seems at present doubtful.

The next important amendment related to Shipping Dues and passing Tolls, which involved the interests of many corporate towns and seaports, whose representatives succeeded in postponing the relief sought by our numerous merchants and ship owners. The bill was referred to a select committee, and in the next session it may be expected that a satisfactory adjustment will be effected,-compensating the ports and harbours so far as may be just and expedient, and relieving our shipping of oppressive burthens.

The bill for abolishing the preference given by the present law to specialty over simple contract debts made but little progress, and the views of the learned member who introduced it have not yet been sufficiently considered. These changes in our old laws require searching investigation before they are adopted.

3rd. The bills which have not been proceeded with respecting the LAW OF PROPERTY are the following :—

The amendment of the law of copyholds, which was introduced late in the session by the Lord Chancellor, was only intended, we believe, for consideration before next session, and probably several additional provisions will be suggested for the further amendment of that part of the law.

The bill for placing the reversionary interests of married women in personal property on the House of Commons, made no progress in the same footing as realty, although it passed the House of Lords beyond the first reading. This was owing, we believe, to some mistake or misapprehension in the language of the bill, and which will probably be made clear by another session.

Further amendments were proposed by a bill relating to advances for the drainage of lands; and another bill was introduced for amending the law relating to the conveyance of lands for charitable uses, both of which were postponed at the end of the session, and will probably be re-proposed.

4th. The bills relating to the abolition or regulation of CHURCH RATES; the further regarding TITHE Commutation Rent Charges, amendment of the Poor Laws; the provisions have been postponed; and the bill for removing the restrictions in the law of MARRIAGE as to the sisters or nieces of deceased wives, which has often passed the Commons, was negatived by the Lords.

5th. Several bills for amending the CRIMINAL Law, the PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES, &c., stand over till another session. Amongst these are—

Trust Property Criminal Appropriation.
The Summary Jurisdiction of Magistrates.
The Qualification of Justices of the Peace.
Aggravated Assaults.

Public Prosecutors.

Public Health Acts amendment. Burial Acts amendment.

To which postponements may be added two bills for amending the Oath of Abjuration; and the bill for the reform of the Corporation of London. It has also been proposed to appoint a Minister of Justice, with a competent staff, for the purpose of superintending and revising all proposed new enactments.