Page images
[ocr errors]

Kennedy, agreeing with the view taken by the County Court judge, came to the conclusion that the workman's entrance into the place in question was merely an act done honestly in furtherance of the object which he was instructed to effect-i.e., drilling a hole; while Lord Justice Buckley was equally convinced that the place was altogether outside the scope of the workman's employment. On such a doubtful question, it is not in the least surprising that this divergence of opinion should have occurred. Putting aside, as unnecessary to be considered, anv complication arising from the workman's perversity in ignoring official directions, all that had to be decided was whether the sphere of his employment was so limited and defined as to exclude the "top hole,' as it is styled. The Scotch case cf Conway v. Pumpherston Oil Company Limited (1911, 1 Scots Law Times, 440) was accepted by the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Kennedy as a guide to their decision, being treated as undistinguishable from the present case. Lord Justice Buckley, on the other hand, preferred to take Weighill v. South Heaton Coal Com pany Limited (4 Butterworth's W. C. C. 141)-a case decided by the Court of Appeal last March-as an authority more in point. Indeed, it seemed to his Lordship to be identical with Harding's case (ubi sup.). To compare, and attempt to reconcile, the ever-growing mass of Beemingly conflicting judicial decisions on the vital question as to what is, and what is not, an "accident arising out of and in the course of the employment" of a workman is fast becoming a task beyond all human ingenuity. "Confusion worse confounded," it is, as each fresh "bead" is added to the lengthy "roll." Relatively far simpler to be dealt with were the facts in the case of Rose v. Morrison and Mason Limited (noted ante, p. 148), which came before the Court of Appeal on the same day as Harding's case (ubi sup.) was argued. There the workman had, with inconceivable recklessness, as in Harding's case (ubi sup.), voluntarily entered a dangerous place. He stooped down and entered a hoist for a particular purpose of his own, and as it was in the course of being worked he was inevitably crushed to death. There was no ground for assuming that it was through inadvertence that he got into the hoist, for although the accident happened at night time, the spot where the hoist was erected was amply illuminated. Furthermore, the fact that it was necessary for him to stoop to enter the hoist precluded any suggestion that he did so not perceiving where he was going. Under those circumstances none of the learned judges of the Court of Appeal felt any difficulty in upholding the finding of the County Court judge that the dependants of the workman were entitled to compensation. On no account could it be successfully maintained that the risk which the workman had taken was one necessary or reasonably incident to his employment, so as to establish that the statutory requirement had been complied with.


A FEW words about the apportionment of dividends and income as between tenant for life and remainderman, and otherwise, may not be out of place. A point which perhaps is not generally understood is that in apportioning dividends on shares it is important to ascertain the data up to which the dividend is declared, which is generally a few weeks before it is declared. The Apportionment Act 1870, s. 2, provided that after the passing of that Act all rents, annuities, dividends, and other periodical payments in the nature of income should, like interest on money lent, be considered as accruing from day to day, and be apportionable in respect of time accordingly, and by sect. 5 the word "dividends" is to include all payments made by the name of dividend, bonus, or otherwise out of the revenue of trading or other public companies divisible between all or any of the members of such companies, whether usually declared at any fixed times or otherwise, and all such divisible revenue is for the purpose of the Act to be deemed to have accrued by equal daily increment "during and within the period for or in respect of which the payment of the same revenue shall be declared or expressed to be made." But the word "dividend" is not to include payments in the nature of a return or reimbursement of capital. Every company registered under the Companies Act 1862 is a company within the meaning of the term in the Apportionment Act (Re Lysaght; Lysaght v. Lysaght, 77 L. T. Rep. 637; (1898) 1 Ch. 115). This being so, if a dividend be declared after the death of the testator for a period ending in his lifetime, it is submitted that the tenant for life would not be entitled to any part of such dividend. The point arose incidentally and presumably was decided in Re Oppenheimer; Oppenheimer v. Boatman (96 L. T. Rep. 631; (1907) i Ch. 391). There a testator bequeathed shares in a limited company to his trustees upon trust to pay "the income arising therefrom to his wife for life. He died on the 4th Jan. 1906. Some time after his death a dividend for the financial year ending the 31st Oct. 1905 was declared; an interim dividend for the next financial year had been declared, but the full dividend was not yet declared. The company's articles provided in effect that every dividend should be deemed to accrue and fall due upon the day on which it was declared, and not before, and should belong and be paid to those members who should be on the register at the date when such dividend was declared. The main question for decision was whether the articles did not amount to an express stipulation against apportionment within sect. 7 of the said Act, which provides that it is not to extend to any case in which it is expressly stipulated that no apportionment shall take place. The form of the question

[ocr errors]

in the summons was whether the dividends declared since the testator's death belonged to her as income, or whether they were apportionable under the Act, so that the whole dividend for the financial year ending the 1st Oct. 1905 and an apportioned part of the accruing dividend for the following year belonged to the testator's estate, and it was decided by the court that the articles did not amount to an express stipulation against apportionment, and that the dividends were therefore apportionable between the testator's estate and the widow. The question whether the whole dividend for the financial year ending the 31st Oct. 1905 formed part of the corpus of the estate is not expressly dealt with in the judgment as reported, but, as the whole of it accrued prior to the death of the testator, it is submitted that it was part of the capital of his estate, and therefore was not apportionable. Another question of not infrequent occurrence is whether the Act applies to an occasional payment by way of bonus or surplus profits, as, for instance, where the payments were made under the deed of settlement of a life assurance society providing for distribution of a bonus or surplus profits among its shareholders once in every five years, unless a special meeting of shareholders should otherwise direct. In Re Griffith; Carr v. Griffith (41 L. T. Rep. 540; 12 Ch. Div. 655) it was held that the Act applied in such a case. A question germane to this, but not strictly one of apportionment, is whether, as between tenant for life and remainderman, bonus dividends-that is, bonuses declared out of accumulated profits-are. to be treated as capital or income. The question depends on the power of the company to capitalise its profits, and on its exercise of that power. If the company has power either to distribute its profits as dividends or to convert them into capital, the decision of the company in accordance with its regulations is binding on everybody interested under the settlement: (see Bouch v. Sproule, 57 L. T. Rep. 345; 12 App. Cas. 385, where the bonus dividend was held to be capital). But if a company, having power before recommending a dividend to set aside out of profits a reserve fund for equalising dividends, &c., resolves to divide its accumulated profits as dividends, any dividends so allotted in respect of settled shares belong to the life tenant as income, even though described as 'special bonus": (see Re Alsbury, 63 L. T. Rep. 576; 45 Ch. Div. 237). The Act does not apply to the profits of a private trading partnership (see Jones v. Ogle, 28 L. T. Rep. 245; L. Rep. 8 Ch. 192), nor to the profits arising from a newspaper (Re Cox's Trusts, 9 Ch. Div. 159), as they are not dividends or periodical payments within the meaning of the Act. The Act applies to specific devises and bequests: (see Capron v. Capron, 29 L. T. Rep. 826; L. Rep. 17 Eq. 288; and Pollock v. Pollock, 30 L. T. Rep. 779; L. Rep. 18 Eq. 329). But, of course, there would be no apportionment if the testator specifically bequeathed all the dividends of certain shares to a legatee, as in Jones v. Ogle (before cited). The question of apportionment sometimes arises upon a change of investment. Stock ought to be sold so as to make the time of accruer of the last dividend the starting point as nearly as practicable for the commencement of the interest on the new investment. If, however, the stock is sold on an intermediate day between two dividends, although the price may be increased by the near approach of the dividend, it is not the practice to pay to the tenant for life the estimated amount of the current dividend out of the proceeds (see Schole field v. Redfern, 8 L. T. Rep. 487; 2 Dr. & Sm. 173; and Re Sir Robert Peel's Settled Estates, 102 L. T. Rep. 67; (1910) 1 Ch. 389). In that case, upon the direction of a tenant for life, trustees for the purposes of the Settled Land Acts had invested capital moneys in their hands in the purchase of stocks on which at the date of purchase dividends had been earned and declared, but not paid, and it was held that the tenant for life was not entitled to such dividends. Mr. Justice Warrington in the course of his judgment said: "Now there is here, of course, no question of apportionment. Treating the dividends as accruing de die in diem, the whole of the dividends had been earned and had accrued before the purchase in question." And after referring to the cases of Bulkeley v. Stephens (hereinafter mentioned), Scholefield v. Redfern (before cited), and Freman v. Whitbread (13 L. T. Rep. 550; L. Rep. 1 Eq. 266), he said: All those cases have to do with the purchase or sale, as the case may be, during a half year-that is to say, during a dividend-earning period; and I think it appears from the judgment in Schole field v. Redfern, whiche is referred to at some length by Mr. Justice Stirling in Bulkeley v. Stephens, that the reason why the court has in the case of a purchase under those circumstances declined to apportion the dividend as against the tenant for life, and has in the case of a sale declined to apportion the dividend in favour of the tenant for life, has always been the difficulty there is under such circumstances in arriving at the true sum-that is, at that part of the purchase money-which is to be treated as representing the dividend for that purpose. In this case no such difficulty arises.


[ocr errors]


dividends have been earned at the time of this contract, and the. real state of things is simple. For convenience, the vendor is to receive the dividend so earned, but he has to pay it over again to the purchaser. The purchaser, in fact, pays to the vendor the amount of such dividend; the vendor holds that in his hands until he receives the dividend, and then he pays the dividend to the purchaser. In that case, where the dividends, as here, have been entirely earned before the investment was made by the trustees, it seems to me that the dividends form part of the capital.' Bulkeley v. Stephens (74 L. T. Rep. 409; (1896) 2 Ch. 241) the facts were shortly as follows: Certain Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation Stock, forming part of a testator's residu ary estate,


[ocr errors]

was limited by his will upon trust for his wife for life, and after her death "to pay, transfer, and assign my residuary estate, and the stocks, funds, and securities upon which the same shall be invested, unto and amongst" certain beneficiaries. After the death of the tenant for life the said stock was sold cum div." under an order of the court for the purpose of distribution. After the sale a dividend was declared and received by the purchaser in respect of profits, a portion of which had been earned prior to the death of the tenant for life. It was held. that the estate of the tenant for life was not entitled, under the Apportionment Act 1870, to be paid out of the purchase money of the stock anything in respect of the dividend; but, inasmuch as if the trust had been strictly carried out in accordance with the terms of the will, by transferring the investments to the beneficiaries, the representatives of the tenant for life would have been in a position, either directly or through the trustees, to obtain payment of an apportioned part of the dividend, their claim ought under the special circumstances of the case to be acceded to. The decision seems to have turned almost entirely on the fact that the order to sell the stock was made in the absence of the legal personal representatives of the tenant for life. If such personal representatives had been present, they might have urged with success that the tenant for life's estate ought not to be placed in a worse position than if the trust had been carried out in the strict and proper mode-namely, by transfer to the legatees. The latest decision on the Act appears to be that of Re Ford; Myers v. Molesworth (104 L. T. Rep. 245; (1911) 1 Ch. 455), where the facts were shortly as follows: M. F., who was tenant for life of the P. and T. Settled Estates, by her will bequeathed to the person next entitled to the freehold of the P. and T. Estates all arrears of rent in respect of the same estates which shall then be due to me." The testatrix died on the 4th March 1910. The rents belonging to the estate were payable quarterly, according to the tenancy agreements, on the usual quarter days, but were collected half-yearly at Michaelmas and Lady Day. Held, by Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady, that the bequest included not only all arrears due at the preceding Michaelmas and unpaid, but the rents due at Christmas and the apportioned part accrued from Christmas to the death. In other words, that the language which the testatrix had used was wide enough to include, and did include, all rent up to the death as apportioned under the



In the House of Lords the following causes will be taken on Monday next at 10.45: Moss Steamship Company Limited v. Whinney (consideration); Pott, Cassels, and Williamson and others v. Watson Laidlaw and Co. Limited (consideration), and John D. Hope and Co. and another v. Glendinning (consideration).

Admiralty appeals (with assessors) will be continued in Appeai Court I. on Tuesday next.

Mr. Justice Warrington (sitting as an additional judge of the King's Bench Division) will take non-jury cases on the following daya: 27th and 28th June, 4th, 5th, 6th, 11th, 12th, and 13th July. All applications in the non-jury list must be made in this court.

Mr. Justice Neville (sitting as an additional judge of the King's Bench Division) will take the case of Matthews v. Stanley (non-jury) on Wednesday next at 10.15.

The courts of the King's Bench Division will be closed on Thursday, the 29th June.

In the Railway and Canal Commission Court, judgment will be delivered in Weaver and Co. Limited v. Great Western Railway Company on Tuesday, the 27th inst., at 10.30 o'clock.

Mr. Justice Avory having finished the business at Chelmsford, on the South-Eastern Circuit, last Monday returned to town and took his seat in court on the following day, proceeding with the common jury list. He will now remain in London until the end of the present eittings.

On Tuesday last Mr. Justice Lash opened the commission at Appleby, on the Northern Circuit. He will go the circuit alone until Liverpool is reached on Saturday next, the 1st prox., when he will be joined by Mr. Justice Horridge.

Mr. Justice Phillimore leaves London to-day (Saturday) for Hertford, on the second part of the South-Eastern Circuit, and will open the commission on Monday next.

Mr. Justice Grantham and Mr. Justice Scrutton will leave London on Monday next for Newcastle, on the North-Eastern Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day.

On Saturday next Mr. Justice Horridge will leave London for Liverpool, on the Northern Circuit, to join Mr. Justice Lush, and will open the commission on the following Monday, the 3rd prox.

The June Sessions at the Central Criminal Court will commence on Tuesday next at 10.30. Mr. Justice Ridley, Mr. Justice Channell, and Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence are on the rota to attend, but it is understood that Mr. Justice Darling will be the presiding judge.

The June adjourned general session for cases arising on the north and south sides of the Thames will commence on Tuesday next, at the Sessions-house, Newington, at 10.30.

The Midsummer Quarter Sessions for cases arising in the county os Middlesex will commence on Saturday next, at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, at ten o'clock.

Lord De Villiers, Chief Justice of South Africa, has left Cape Town for England.

Mr. Paul Taylor was unable to take his seat in court at the Marlborough-street Police-court last Monday owing to a severe attack of gout. Mr. Plowden presided in court in his place.

Mr. George Walker, of Spilsby, Linos, solicitor, who died on the 1st March 1910, left estate of the gross value of £37,106 18. 2d., of which the net personalty has been sworn at £3746 153. 3d.

Sir Charles Moss, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Judicature, Ontario, is acting as Lieutenant-Governor of the Province during the absence on leave of Colonel J. M. Gibson.

Mr. Alfred Leighton Sayer, of Yew Tree House, Westfield, Sussex, solicitor, who died on the 6th March, left estate valued at £89,048 gross, with net personalty £60,493.

At the meeting of the International Women's Suffrage Congress on the 15th inst. a resolution was passed, on the proposal of Dr. Shaw (America), expressing sympathy with the arbitration movement. In regard to the suggestion for co-operation with Socialist women's organisations, the congress decided in favour of common action with all women's unions.

The judges (Mr. Justice Ridley and Mr. Justice Bucknill), on the bearing of the North West Ham election petition, having unseated Mr. C. F. G. Masterman, the returned member, there will consequently be another election for that division. It is understood that Mr. E. E. Wild, the well-known member of the South-Eastern Circuit, who contested the seat at the last lection, will again offer himself as a candidate.

Mr. James Ian Macpherson, the new member for Ross and Cromarty, is a barrister. He was called by the Middle Temple in 1906 and goes the Eastern Circuit He is a native of Inverness-shire, and was educated at Edinburgh University. He had previously contested Wigtownshire and East Renfrewshire, and is one of the ablest speakers among the Young Liberals.

The summer meeting of the London Solicitors' Golfing Society was held on the linke of the Manor Club on the 17th in-t. Mr. Gibson's Cup for the best net soore for eighteen holes was won by Mr. Arthur J. Lamb, with 83-10-73. Mr. Haslam's prize for players with handicaps of between 11 and 18 was won by Mr. J. B. Purchase, with 88-12-76. The prize for the best nine holes was won by Mr. C. J. Fox, with 40-3)=36.

The Treasurer (Mr. Edward Clayton, K.C.) and the Masters of the Bench of Gray's inn entertained the following guests at dinner on the 15th inst., on the occasion of the Grand Day of Trinity Term: Lord Barnard, Lord Strathcona, Mr. Justice Parker, the Speaker of the Union Parliament of South Africa (the Hon. J. T. Molteno, K.C.), the Bâtonnier of the Bar of the Court of Appeal of Paris (M. Busson Billault), Sir John Quick, Sir James Dewar, the Principal of London University (Dr. H. A. Miers), the President of the Law Society (Mr. H. J. Johnson), the President of the Royal College of Surgeons (Mr. Henry T. Butlin). the Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge (Mr. W. Aldis Wright), Mr. S. O. Buckmaster, KC., Mr. D. Stewart-Smith, K.C., and Mr. John Murray. The Benchers present in addition to the Treasurer were: Mr. Henry Griffith, Sir Arthur Collins, K.C., Mr. C. A. Russell, K.C., Mr. Justice Luab, Mr. T. Terrell, K.C., Mr. W. J. R. Pochin, Mr. Arthur Gill, Mr. Vesey Knox, K.C., Mr. W. P. Byrne, C.B., Mr. J. W. McCarthy, Mr. Montagu Sharpe, Mr. George Rhodes, K.C., with the Preacher (the Rev. R. J. Fletcher, D.D).

The death of Mr. Hyacinth Plunkett, K.C., the Father of the Irish Bar, has raised the question as to his successor in that honourable position. The Father of the Bar has generally come to be regarded not as the member of the Bar whose call to the Outer Bar is of a date earlier than other living barristers, but as the member of the Bar who is still actively practising at his Profession and is senior to all others so engaged in respect to his call to the Outer Bar. Mr. Plunkett, who was recognised as Father of the Bar, at which he practised till the last, was junior by seven years in his call to the Outer Bar to Mr. William Irvine, K.Č., who was called to the Bar in 1846, but has long since retired from practice. It seems that Mr. Stephen Ronan, K.C., the King's Advocate-General in Ireland, who was called to the Outer Bar in that country in Michaelmas_Term 1870 and is in leading practice both on the Common Law and Equity sides, is now the Father of the Irish Bar. Mr. Ronan has broken the record in being the first Father of the Irish Bar who is a King's Counsel not only in Ireland, but in England. He has been a member of the Inner Bar in Ireland since 1889. He was called to the English Bar in 1888 at the Inner Temple, and took silk in this country in 1909. He has appeared in the English courts, both in stuff and in silk, in cases in which his knowledge of the laws affecting the registry of title in Ireland has rendered his advocacy, from his exceptional knowledge and experience in these subjects, of very special value. Mr. Ronan has, strange to say, appeared in silk in the Royal Courts of Justice in this country twenty years before he was called to the Inner Bar in England. He was in 1888-9 one of the counsel for the Times before the Parnell Commission. He came back to Dublin to be called within the Bar in 1889, and on his appearance before the commission in silk-the members of the English and the Irish Bars having similar status in respect to their calls before that tribunal was warmly congratulated by its members.

The Treasurer and Masters of the Bench of the Middle Temple entertained the following guests at dinner on the 15th inst., on the occasion of the Grand Day of Trinity Term: The Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Devonshire, the Rev. Marquis of Normanby, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Lord Aldenham, Lord Alverstone, Mr. Justice Bray, Sir Francis Maclean, Sir Douglas Straight, Sir J. T. Woodhouse, the Master of the Temple, the Archdeacon of London, the Governor of the Bank of England, and the Under Treasurer. The Masters of the Bench present were: The Treasurer (Mr. H. D. Greene, K.C.), Lord Mersey of Toxteth, Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton, Mr. Balfour Browne, K.C., Mr. Francis Williams, K.C., Mr. English Harrison, K.C., Mr. McCall, K.C., Mr. Muir Mackenzie, Mr. Erskine Pollock, K.C., Mr. C. C. Scott, K.C., Mr. Abel Thomas, K.C., M.P., Mr. Brogden, Mr. Astbury, K.C, Mr. Macmorran, K C., Mr. Strachan, K.C., Mr. Terrell, K.C., M.P., Chancellor Scott Fox, K.C., Sir Rufus Isaacs, K.C., M.P., Mr. Gill, K.C., Mr. Hume-Williams, K.C.. M.P., Mr. Lindsay, K.C., Mr. Aspinall, K C., Mr. Laing, K.C., Mr. Hamilton, KC.. Mr. Ingpen, K.C.. Mr. Glyn, K.C., Sir S. T. Evane, Mr. Muir, and Sir F. Low, K.C., M.P

MM. Engerand and Laniel have introduced into the French Chamber ■ Bill described by the Paris Press as having for its object the protection de la maternité. That some such measure is needed, all who read the foreign news in the daily newspapers are aware, but the statistics of mortality among the newly born given by a Paris contemporary are nothing less than appalling. In Paris, we read, of every thousand children of less than a year in age, 154 die in the better quarters, and among the poor the number is given as 277. or almost double. In certain towns of the Nord Department, notably at SaintPol-sur-Mer, the mortality among infants reaches to 509 per 1000. No doubt many factors have to be taken into consideration-heredity, for instance-but heredity does not stand incriminated alone. Many infants born weakly would live if they received proper nourishment, or if they were not deprived of a mother's care. Moved by the ravages among the infants of the poorer classes, owing to artificial alimentation, MM. Engerand and Laniel have drafted the principal clause of their measure to enact that all women (mothers of children in arms) employed in business or factories must be allowed to return to their homes for one hour daily during the time of their employment, pour allaiter leurs enfants. The Bill, we are informed, will doubtless become law.

Lord Alverstone, who presided at the complimentary dinner to Mr. J. A. Fuller-Maitland, the late musical critic of the Times (see ante, p. 145), possesses a fine voice, and was for many years a surpliced member of the choir of Kensington Parish Church. The associations of the Judicial Bench with the Church have been of the strongest. Time was when the Lord Chancellor was all but invariably an ecclesiastic, and since the Reformation the Great Seal has been held, both in England and Ireland, by ecclesiastics. A surpliced Attorney. General is scarcely stranger than a preaching Lord Chancellor, a capacity which was undoubtedly filled by Earl Cairns. In recent times two gentlemen who attained to a considerable position in the profession of the Bar-the late Right Hon. Sir William Marriott, Q.C., M.P., who was Judge-Advocate-General, and His Honour the late Judge Bowen Rowlands, Q.C.-had been in early life clergymen of the Established Church. If Lord Alverstone has sung in a church choir, robed in a surplice, the late Lord Grimthorpe, better known as Sir Edmund Beckett, QC.. the famous leader of the Parliamentary Bar, was wont to read the lessons at Divine service in Bath Abbey, robed in a surplice; and the Right Hon. Richard Cherry, one of the Lords Justices of the High Court of Appeal in Ireland, is constant in his attendance at the services in St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, as & bellringer.

The Lord Mayor and the Lady Mayoress gave a dinner at the Mansion House on Monday to meet His Majesty's judges." Among those present were the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division, Lord Justice Vaughan Williams, Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton, Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Farwell, Lord Justice Buckley, Lord Robson, Lord Shaw, Lord Gorell, Lord Mersey, Mr. Justice Phillimore, the Seyd Ameer Ali, Mr. Justice_Grantham, Mr. Justice Scrutton, Mr. Justice Horridge, Mr. Justice Eve, Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence, Mr. Justice Neville, Mr. Justice Warrington, Mr. Justice Joyce, Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady, Mr. Justice Bray, Mr. Justice Parker, Mr. Justice Hamilton, the Lord Advocate, the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General for Ireland, the President of the Law Society, Sir George Lewis, Mr. R. Wallace, K.C., the City Solicitor (Sir Homewood Crawford), Sir William Soulsby, and a large number of other representatives of the English and Colonial Bar.-The Lord Mayor, in proposing" His Majesty's Judges," said that they all felt absolute confidence in the impartiality and independence of the Bench. The citizens of London had followed with the keenest interest and great admiration the care which the Lord Chancellor had been taking in supervising the appointment of justices, and he would say, on behalf of all present, that they did not regard great partisanship in politics as a peculiar qualification for the judicial administration of the law. The Lord Chancellor, in reply, said that it had long been his opinion that the method and spirit in which British justice was administered throughout the British Empire was one of its mainstays and one of those features of our rule which most maintained the permanence of His Majesty's dominions. He thanked the Lord Mayor for what he had said about himself. It would be regarded one day or other, he believed, not only as true, but 85 a truism, that if we wished to have justice administered we ought to select

men who were most suitable for the purpose.-The Lord Chief Justice gave the toast of "The Profession of the Law."-The AttorneyGeneral, in reply, said that the reputation of His Majesty's judges did not depend on laudatory phrases employed with regard to them. It was grounded on the justice with which they administered the law, and might he add that their reputation would suffer, indeed it would never have been as great as it was, were it not for the fact that they themselves invited full, free, and frank criticism. The Bench never could be above criticism, and never ought to be above it. The moment that the Bench resented criticism, the Bench would have lost a great part of its hold over the minds and the sentiments of the people. So long as criticism was administered in the right spirit, without, of course, imputing any personal motives, so long would His Majesty's judges welcome it; and so long as they did welcome it they would continue to hold the high position which they had attained among the community of this country.-The President of the Law Society also responded to the toast.




The fire in the Temple on the 10th inst. will recall the fact that it has been subjected on many occasions to the visitations of the fire fiend. The Temple suffered severely in the Great Fire of Sept 1666, while still more serious injuries were inflicted on it by fire in 1678. It has, moreover, been the scene of many other disastrous fire, notably those of 1677, 1678, 1683, 1704, 1736, and 1838. In the lastmentioned fire the chambers in Paper buildings of Sir John (Lord Chancellor) Campbell and Mr. (Justice) Maule were destroyed Several memorials of fires are to be seen in the Temple. A stone tablet on 4, King's Bench walk commemorates the fire of 1677: Conflagratam Ano 1677. Fabricatam Ano 1678. Ricardo Powell, Armiger Thesaurar." In Pump-court there is the following inscription in reference to the fire of 1678: "Vetustissima Templariorum Porticu Igne consumpta, An° 1678. Nova hæc sumptibus medij Templi extructa. An 1681. Guielmo Whitelocke, Arm. Thesaur." The sundial in Brick-court is the successor of an older one which perished in the fire of 1704, which is commemorated by the following inscription: "Phoenicis instar revivisco. Martino Ryder, Thesaurio, 1704." It was only by a free use of gunpowder under the direction of the Duke of York and a timely dropping of the wind that the Temple was saved from complete destruction in 1666, while in 1678 the Church and the remaining buildings to the east were only saved from destruction by blowing up the intervening houses. Mr. H. H. L. Belloo, in his well-known work The Inner and Middle Temple, which is a treasure-house of information reference to the history and associations of the Temple which are 80 dear to every Templar's heart, telis the following anecdote in reference to the fire of 1678, in which the ludicrous is strongly blended with the tragic. In 1668 the City claimed jurisdiction over and the Temple, Lord Mayor, being invited to the Reader's Feast in the Inner Temple Hall, came endeavouring to carry his sword up. This produced and very serious disturbance, Lord Mayor, having refuge in the chambers of a barrister, at length escaped out of the Temple." But," writes Mr. Belloc, although the lawyers had so far the best of it, the dispute was to cost them dear afterwards. In 1678 a fire broke out in the chambers of one Thornbury, in Pump-court, and was far more disastrous even than the Great Fire. Breaking out at midnight, it continued till noon next day, destroying the whole of Pump court, Elm.court, Vine-court, the greater part of Hare-court and Brick-court across the lane, the Cloisters and part of the Inner Temple Hall. The Thame" was frozen and the water supply stopped by the frost, so that the engines had to be fed with beer from the Temple cellars, which was soon exhausted. During the fire Sir William Turner, Lord Mayor, arrived with assistance, but could not lose so good an opportunity of asserting the City's claim by endeavouring to have his sword borne up before him. Distracted as the lawyers were, they would have none of it, and, beating it down, the Lord Mayor departed in wrath and wreaked his vengeance by turning back a fire engine on its way from the City, and then soothed his outraged dignity by getting right royally drunk at a neighbouring tavern": (Belloc's Inner and Middle Temple, pp. 324-325). Mr. Belloc relates the following anecdote in connection with the fire at Paper-buildings in 1838 : "Two new CODbuildings, said by temporary writers to be very elegant,' were added in 1830 to the south-east wing. At the time of their destruction by fire in 1838, John Campbell, afterwards the famous Lord Chancellor, and Sir John Maule were inmates. In fact, the story goes that the latter before retiring to rest, after a convivial evening, carefully placed his lighted candle under his bed. At any rate, the fire broke out in Maule's room; but perhaps it would be more charitable to accept Campbell's version that he had gone to bed, leaving a candle burning. by his bedside : (Belloc's Inner and Middle Temple, p. 70).

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]



[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]




Employer and Workman-Death by Accident arising out of Employment
-Liability to pay Compensation.-The captain of a ship which was
ving in a roadstead had gone ashore, as he lawfully might do.
There was no evidence as to whether he went ashore on business
He came down
Connected with the ship or on business of his own.

to the pier and hailed the ship to send a boat to convey him on
board, and, while waiting for the boat, fell into the water, in some
unexplained manner, and was drowned. Held, that the accident
was not one arising out of his employment within the meaning of
the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, and that the shipowners
were not liable to pay compensation to his dependants. Judgment
of the Court of Appeal (102 L. T. Rep. 204; (1910) 1 K. B. 772)

[ocr errors]

[Hewitt v. Owners of the Ship Duchess. H. of L. June 15.Counsel: Greer, K.C. and Clement Davis; Atkin. K.C. and A. Neilson. Solicitors: Bower, Colton, and Bower, for Hughes and Hughes, Connah's Quay, Flint; Botterell and Roche.] Ship-Charter-party-Bill of Lading-Arbitration Clause-Incorporation. -Goods were shipped under a charter-party which contained an any dispute or claim arising out of arbitration clause by which " any of the conditions of this charter-party shall be adjusted at the rort where it occurs, and the same shall be settled by arbitration." A bill of lading was given to the shipper which provided: "He or hey paying freight for the said goods with other conditions as Deck load at fer charter"; and in the margin was written, hipper's risk, and all other terms and conditions and exceptions of charter to be as per charter-party, including negligence clause." The shipowners having sued the bill of lading holders for demurrage at the port of discharge: Held, that the arbitration clause in Mackie the charter party was not incorporated into the bill of lading 80 as to make it applicable to this dispute. Hamilton v. 5 Times L. Rep. 677) approved and followed. Judgment of the Court of Appeal (104 L. T. Rep. 10; (1911) P. 54) affirmed. Portsea Steamship Company. H. of L. [Thomas and Co. une 16.-Counsel: Leslie Scott, K.C. and Holman Gregory, K.C.; Baithache, K.C. and A. Parsons. Solicitors: Botterell and Roche, lor J. D. Rawlings, Swansea; Downing. Handcock, Middleton, and Lewis, for Downing and Handcock, Cardiff.]


[ocr errors]


HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-KING'S BENCH DIVISION. Company-Private Company-Payment of Commission upon Amount of Shares subscribed for-Failure to disclose in "Statement in the prescribed Form "-Illegal Payment Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69), 8. 89.--Appeal from the decision of His Honour Judge Woodfall, sitting at the Westminster County Court. The plaintiffs, a private company registered under the Companies Act 1907, sued the defendant, who was formerly a director of the company, to recover the sum of £100 paid to him for commission upon the amount of shares in the plaintiff company subscribed for by or through the procurement of the defendant, upon the ground that it had been paid in contravention of sect. 89 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908, and was consequently an illegal payment. That section It shall be lawful for a company to pay a provides as follows: commission to any person in consideration of his subscribing or for any shares in the company or agreeing to subscribe procuring or agreeing to procure subscriptions for any shares in the if the payment of the commission is authorised by Company or rate per cent. of and if the amount the articles the commission paid or agreed to be paid is (a) In the case of shares offered to the public for subscription and disclosed in the prospectus; or (b) in the case of shares not offered to the public for subscription, disclosed in the statement in in a statement in the prescribed of prospectus. lieu statement in lieu form signed in like prospectus and filed with the Registrar of Companies, and where a circular or notice, not being a prospectus, inviting subscriptions for the shares is issued, also disclosed in that circular or notice. (2) Save as aforesaid, no company shall apply any of its shares or capital money either directly or indirectly in payment of any commission, discount, or allowance, to any person in consideration of for any shares of his subscribing or agreeing to subscribe the company or procuring or agreeing to procure subscriptions The payment for any shares in the company. made to the defendant was not disclosed in any of the ways preThe learned judge gave judgment scribed by the above section. for the defendant upon the ground that sect. 89 did not apply to Held, that the decision of the the case of a private company. learned judge was wrong; that the section did so apply; and that the payment to the defendant not having been disclosed in & "statement in the prescribed form," that being the form of dis. closure applicable to a private company, the payment was an illegal one Held, also, that, even if the section did not apply, the payment was made without lawful consideration and could be recovered. [Dominion of Canada General Trading and Investment Syndicate Company v. Brigstocke. K. B. Div.: Phillimore and Horridge, JJ. June 16.-Counsel: Gore-Browne, K.C. and Heber Hart: Clauson, K.C. and Cecil Walsh. Solicitors: Lewis W. Taylor; Gibson and Weldon.]

manner 88





In addition to bequeathing his library to the Masters of the Bench of the Middle Temple, Robert Ashley left a sum of money to provide a yearly income for a library keeper. The Benchers lost no time in carrying out his desire, and one of his executors, William Cox, was appointed to the office in 1642. Upon his death in 1655, Thomas Manley was chosen to be his successor. Manley's career was not without interest, but some of the incidents seem to have escaped notice in the Dictionary of National Biography. In the reissue it is stated that he was the third son of George Manley. of Lache, Cheshire, but the entry of his admission to the Middle Temple, the 6th Feb. Eon and heir apparent of Thomas Manley 1655. shows that he was

of Westminster." George, it appears from a letter dated the 11th July 1646. calendared in the domestic series of State Papers, was brother of Thomas, sen., who was Clerk of the Kitchen to Charles I.


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Before his admission to the Middle Temple, Thomas' Manley was pubhad made some attempts at authorship. In 1649 lished Temporis Angustiae: Stollen Hours Recreations. Being Meditations fitted according to the Variety of Objects." The title-page confirms the statement as to the Christian name of his father by describing him as "Thomas Manley, jun.," and gives evidence as to the date of his birth in the additional information, gent and student, Anno Aetatis 21." The little volume consists of 8 mi religious moralisings, and was followed in 1652 by "The Affliction and Deliverance of the Saints: or the whole booke of Job composed iato English Heroicall Verse Metaphrastically." of which the dedication to Mr. Thomas Challoner, M.P., was dated from Westminster. Hoping, perhaps, to be on the winning side in the conflict with the Crown. Manley translated a poem by Payne Fisher with the title "Veni, Vidi, Vici: The Triumphs of the most excellent and Illustrious Oliver Cromwell, &c., set forth in a Panegyricke. Written originally in Latine, and faithfully done into English Heroicall Verse," which was also published in 1652. Manley's appointment as library keeper was made by an order of He was to receive the Parliament of the Inn on the 25th May 1655. to attend from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. and £20 a year and a chamber, and from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. in summer, and from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. in winter." He was also required to give security for safekeeping the books and discharge of his trust. Manley does not appear to have been attentive to his duties, and on the 31st Oct. 1656 the Benchers admonished him to Probably matters improved for a attend or to be displaced." time, but on the 21st May 1658 the Benchers requested Mr. Mr. to call Manley, the Library Keeper, before Treasurer Meanwhile a him, and place another in if he see padlock must be put upon the library door." Two of the Masters of the Bench were desired" to peruse the catalogue of books to see if all be there." The next entry on the subject in the minutes of Iter CaroParliament is the appointment of his successor, James Fitzgerald. At the Restoration, Manley wrote a tractate entitled linum being a succinct Relation of the necessitated Marches, Retreats, and Sufferings of His Majesty Charles the First from Jan. 10, 1641, till the time of his Death, 1648." He claims that "the author, my father and self were testes cculati, speaking only what we had sorrowfully scen and known." Since Manley was only twenty years of age when Charles I. was beheaded, his own part cannot have been considerable, but his father certainly suffered for adhesion to the Royalist cause. It may be thought that anxiety to obtain the Royal favour was shown further by the publication in the following year, 1661, of "a short view of the Lives of those Illustrious Princes Henry Duke of Gloucester and Mary Princess of Orange, deceased: late Brother and Sister to His Majesty the King of Great Britain.”


The most interesting of Manley's publications is "The Solicitor. Exactly and plainly declaring, both as to knowledge and practice, how such an Undertaker ought to be qualified. As also His Parts, Qualities and fitting Endowments for such a Weighty Employment. In a more special manner than hath ever been heretofore published by any hand whatever." The only copy in the British Museum is of the Second Edition, corrected," and published in 1663, and on the titletwelve years a Practitioner." The page the author is described as five qualities which Manley considered to be necessary in a soliciter

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

First, he ought to have a good natural wit.

must be perfected by learning and

Secondly, that wit must be refined by education. "Thirdly, that education


[ocr errors]

Fourthly, And lest learning should too much elate him, it must be balanced by discretion.

"And Fifthly, to manifest all those former parts, it is requisite that he have a voluble and free tongue to utter and declare his conceipts."

80 me

In order to put a stop to the harm done by unqualified men, Manley proposed "That no man should dare to undertake to be a Sollicitor either in Common Law, or in Equity, unless he had for five of the Inns of Court or been of years before at least Inns of Chancery, and shall be legally admitted and entered in a Roll for that purpose, to be kept in the Petty Bag Office in Chancery, under a certain pain and punishment; and that no Ciyent do enter. tain any other than one so qualified; by which means, if any abuse be offered, the Court may take a cognizance there of and punish the

[merged small][ocr errors]

The greater portion of the quaint little volume of a few more than 100 pages is occupied with hints as to practice.

In 1665 was published Manley's translation of Grotius, De Rebus Belgicis, and in 1669 his pamphlet written against Sir Thomas Culpepper's views on usury, followed in the next year by a continuation of Trotman's abridgment of Coke's Reports.

The library of the Honourable Society of Gray's-inn possesses a volume by Manley which is not in the British Museum. It contains a collection of forms under the title "The Clerk's Guide, Leading into Three Parts-viz: (1) Of Indentures, Leases, &c. (2) Letters of Attorney, Warrants of Attorney, Mortgages, Licences, Charter Parties, &c. (3) Bills, Answers, Replications, Rejoynders in Chancery, &c., under which are comprehended the most usual forms of Clerkship. To which is added, a Fourth Part of Fines, Recoveries, Statutes, Recognisances, Judgments, &c., Distresses, and Replevins. Illustrated with Cases, and the Statutes Relating to the same." In the same year, 1672, Manley completed a new edition of Cowell's "Interpreter, containing the genuine Significations of such obscure words and terms used either in the Common or Statute Lawes of this Realm." It is clear, therefore, that, although negligent as a librarian, he had acquired some power of application as a legal writer.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

On the 28th Sept. 1672 Charles II. addressed to Sir Francis North, Solicitor-General, Treasurer of the Middle Temple, and the rest of the Masters of the Bench a letter respecting "our well beloved subject Thomas Manley to the intent he may be the more encouraged and enabled to prosecute the effect and purpose of his learning: we have thought fit by these our letters to require you that immediately upon sight hereof you cause the said Thomas Manley to be admitted to the degree of a Barrister and qualify him to practice as a Councellor at law without the ceremonys and formality thereto accustomed. We will not doubt of y' ready compliance with our pleasure in this behalfe, which we shall take in very good part. And so we bid you farewell." Accordingly on the following 24th Jan. "Mr. T. Manley is called to the degree of the Utter Bar ex gratia, paying his arrears.' The effect and purport of this letter appears to be entirely misunderstood in the reissue of the Dictionary of National Biography, where it is stated that he was made a King's Counsel.


Manley contributed to Wentworth's Office and Duty of an Executor. published in 1676, an appendix "Wherein are contained the Natures of Testaments, Executors, Legataries general, and divers other material things relating to the same; Briefly method yzed for the use of all Persons concerned," and to him is also ascribed "a discourse shewing that the exportation of Wooll is destructive to this kingdom," published in the next year. If the accription of the authorship of the latter is correct, the publication was posthumour, as on the 24th Nov. 1676 the Parliament of the Middle Temple made an order: "T. Manley's widow shall have £5 given her." The statement added in the reissue of the Dictionary of National Biography that he died in 1690 must apply to another Thomas Manley, and not to the one who was Keeper of the Library of the Middle Temple.

[blocks in formation]

C. E. A. B.

Legislature and Judiciary. By the Right Hon. Lord SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE, LL.D., K.C. University of London Press. THIS is a reprint of his Lordship's address when opening a course of Jurisprudence last November at University College, when Viscount (then Mr.) Haldane was in the chair and delivered a Rotable speech which, unfortunately, was not recorded. There are many who will be glad to have a copy of this learned and interesting address.

Questions and Answers on Civil Procedure and Evidence. By J. A. SHEARWOOD, Barrister-at-law. Butterworth. THE aim of this little work is to show the trend of examination questions on these subjects so as to give students some guide as to what needs most attention. Questions are selected from papers set in the various law examinations during the last ten years and are grouped under appropriate headings.


No large treatise has achieved a greater success of late years than Palmer's Company Law (Stevens and Sons), which now enters on its eighth edition. First published in 1898, it is now known and valued, like the author's Company Precedents, not only throughout Great Britain, but also in America and the colonies. The great feature of the book is the careful reference to decisions in order to show clearly how the Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908 has been interpreted by the courts and its provisions supplemented by the rules of law and equity. The present edition incorporates the latest cases and so orings the work fully up to date. Mr. Edward Manson has assisted in its preparation.

Mr. H. Clemson's handbook on Methods and Machinery of Business (Butterworth) has been revised in the second edition in accordance with amendments of the Acts relating to stamp duties. In a new chapter on Consols the author reviews the causes of fluctuation and the suggestions recently made for raising the price.

Messrs. Mead and Bodkin have prepared a third edition of their little handbook on The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (Butterworth) embodying recent decisions of statute law. They have been assisted in the work of revision by Mr. H. D Roome:

As a standard text-book, Best on Evidence (Sweet and Maxwell) has occupied since it first appeared in 1849 an eminent position which Mr. Sidney L. Phipson's eleventh edition worthily maintains. The extensive changes brought about by recent legislation have been duly incorporated, and cases and statutes to March last are included. In the compilation of a very complete Digest of the Canadian Law of Evidence Mr. Phipson has been assisted by Mr. E. C. Robinson, M.A., LL.B., and by his clerk, Mr. D. K. O. Nicol, in preparing the tables of cases and statutes and revising proofs. We are glad to note that the index has been enlarged.

A Dictionary of Banking: a Concise Encyclopædia of Banking Law and Practice, by William Thomson, bank inspector (Sir Isaac Pitman and Son Limited), comprises in a single volume a large amount of information which the inquirer has hitherto been obliged to seek in several different works, and no doubt it will take its place as one of the most useful books of reference for the student, as well as for those who have more practical experience. It emanates from a gentleman who is thoroughly acquainted with the subject, and, with few exceptions, may be relied on as being accurate in theory and practice. No doubt a future edition will afford the opportunity for revision in one or two instances. With all deference to the author, we cannot agree that in practical banking the phrase Sans compte de retour is adequately explained. On the preceding page we find the vexed question of "safe bustody" dealt with, and venture to think that the author might have made more pointed reference to the disinclination of many bankers to acknowledge responsibility for "safe custody in relation to securities held on behalf of their clients. The term is often used in a rough-and-ready manner to distinguish between securities deposited with bankers as a matter of convenience from those pledged against advances, but the student of banking, to whom this book largely appeals, must be prepared to find bankers declining to accept this domestic use of the phrase as indicating their attitude to securities left in their charge. The book is carefully compiled, and certainly supplies a means of immediate reference on most points likely to occur in the practical working of a bank. As such it is well worth its place in the bank parlour. Two trifling typographical errors Herbert Centisimi, on p. 106, and are Hart," on p. 175.

[ocr errors]

The American Law Review for May-June contains: Chief Justice White, by Richard Henry Jesee; Four Uniform Commercial Acts, by George Whitelock; D lays and Reversals on Technical Grounds in Civil and Criminal Trials, by E. J. McDermott; When does a Case " arise under Federal Laws? by Charles A. Willard; and the Constitutionality of the Federal Parole Law, by A. K. McNamara.


The Green Bag for June contains articles on: The Standard Oil Decision, by the Editor; Effective Government, by Hon. George W. Wickersham; the Trial of Leisler for High Treason, by Arthur Wakeling; the Act Codifying the Laws Relating to the Federal Judiciary; the Commission on Uniform State Laws; and Ancient Criminal Punishment in Korea, by Maurice E. Allen.

The Harvard Law Review for June contains: The Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence-I. Schools of Jurisprudence and Methods of Jurisprudence, by Roscoe Pound; Unrecorded Conditional Sales in Bankruptcy, by Samuel Williston; State Control of Public Utilities; and the Source of Authority to Engage in Interstate Commerce, by Frederick H. Cooke.

[blocks in formation]
« EelmineJätka »