« EelmineJätka »
MERCIANT, EDMUND LANGDON, St. Stephon's-by-Saltash, farm bailiff. Ct. Plymouth
and East Stonehouse. Meeting. Jan. 26, at 10.30, at 10, Atheneum-ter, Plymouth.
Exam. Feb. 1, at 11, at Townhall, East Stonehouse. MORRIS, SARAH LEES, Great Bridge, grocer. Ct. West Bromwich, Meeting, Jan. 27,
at 11, at 23, Colimore-row, Birmingham. Exam. Feb. 3, at 2.15, at County Court,
West Bromwich. MACKRILL, ALFRED, Whitefriars-st. manufacturing stationer. Ct. High Court.
Meeting, Jan. 26, at noon, at Bankruptcy-blugs. Exam. Feb. 26, at 12.30, at
Bankruptcy-bldgs. NELSON, FREDERICK (trading as Fred. Nelson and Co.), Milnrow, flannel manufac
turer. Ct. Rochdale. Meeting. Jan. 25, at 11, at Townhall, Rochdale. Exam.
Jan 29, at 11.30, at Lecture-ball, Rochdale, POWELL, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS, Wood Green, Ct. Edmonton. Meeting, Jan. 27, at 3,
at 95, Temple-chmbre, Temple-av. Exam. Feb. 15, at 11.30, at Court-house,
Edmonton. PORTWAY, CRESSEL JOHN, late Egham, grocer. Ct. Guillford and Godalming Meet
ing, Jan. 26, at 12.30, at 21, Railway-approach, London Bridge. Exam. March 9,
at 1, at Townhall, Guildford. QUIN, MARY MATILDA, Bradford, Yorks, house furnisher. Ct. Bradford. Meeting.
Jan. 27, at 11, at office of Off. Rec. Bradford. Exam. Feb. 2, at 10, at County
Court, Bradford. ROBERTS, HENRY HOBBs, late Coborn-rd, Bow, licensed victualler. Ct. High Court.
Meeting, Jan. 29, at noon, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. Exam. Feb. 16, at 11.30, at
Bankruptor-blogs. REID, DAVID, Kingston-upon-Hull, nurseryman. ('t. Kingston-upon-Hull. Meeting,
Jan, 27, at 11, at oilice of Off. Rec. Hull. Exam. Feb. 15, at 2, at Court-house,
Hull. SURGUY, THOMAS MATTHEW, Sutton-st, Commercial-rd, undertaker. Ct. High Court.
Meeting, Jan. 28, at 11, at Bankruptcy-bldys. Exam. Feb. 16, at 11.30, at Bank
ruptey-bldgs. SANDON, ALFRED GEORGE, Verton, builder. Ct. Croydon. Meeting, Jan. 28, at 11.30,
at 24, Railway-approach, London Bridge. Exam. Feb. 10, at 11, at County Court,
Croydon. TREMAYNE, JAMES, Constantine, labourer, Ct. Truro. Meeting, Jan. 28, at noon,
at office of Off. Rec. Truro. Exam. Feb. 20, at 11.45, at Townhall, Truro. WALKINGTON, FRANCES GEORGINA, and WALKINGTON, DELIA, Harrogate, milliners.
Ct. York. Meeting, Jan. 29, at 12.30, at office of Off, Rec. York. Exam. Feb. 5,
at 11, at Courts of Justice, York. WADE, JAMES, late Old Trafford. civil engineer, Ct. Salford. Meeting, Jan. 27, at 3,,
at office of Off. Rec. Manchester. Exam. Feb. 10, at 2.30, at Court-house,
Salford. WALKER, HENRY DE L., Spencer-mansions, West Kensington, gentleman. Ct. High
Court. Meeting. Jan. 28, at 2.30, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. Exam. Feb. 16, at 11.30,
at Bankruptcy-bldgs. YEOMAN, GEORGE, lale Doro-ct, dining-room carrer. Ct. High Court. Meeting,
Jan. 29, at 2.30, ai Bankruptcy-bldgs. Exam. Feb. 16, at 11.30, at Bankruptcyblugs.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC EXAMINATION.
GAZETTE, JAN. 19. SKIRVING, MAXWELL, late York-st, St. James's, no occupation. Ct. High Court.
Exam. Feb. 9, at 11.30, at Bankruptcr-bldgs.
BRAYE, John, Brompton-sq. Ct. High Court. Order, Jan. 13.
Order, Jan. 15.
manufacturer. Ct. Wandsworth. Order, Jan. 16. CASH, ALEXANDER WILLIAM (trading as Cash and Co.), Laurence Pountney-bill.
Ct. High Court. Order, Jan. 18. CHILTOX, ARTHUR THOMAS, late Chigwell, farmer. Ct. High Court. Order, Jan. 16. CLAYTON, Tuomas WILLIAM, Carshalton, market gardener. Ct. High Court. Order,
Jan. 15. CUZICK, JAMES, jun, Dudley, general dealer. Ct. Dudley. Order, Jan. 14. DOMMETT, JOHN, Dulverton, farmer. Ct, Exeter. Order, Jan. 15. GREAVES, JOSEPH EDWARD ELSWORTH, Rochdale, mechanical engineer. Ct. Roch
dale. Order, Jan. 16. GREAVES, JAMES (trading as Herbert John Greaves), Newcastle-on-Tyne, innkeeper.
Ct. Newcastle-on-Trne. Order, Jan, 16. HAYWARD, WILLIAM ELIJAH, Willenhall, late coal merchant. Ct. Wolverhampton.
Order. Jan. 15. Howse, GEORGE WILLIAM (described in receiving order as Thomas Howse),
Bermondsey New-rd, butcher. Ct. lligh Court. Order, Jan. 13. KING, BENJAMIN (trading as Walter King), Pembury-rd, Lower Clapton, shoe
manufacturer. Ct. High Court. Order, Jan. 13. LYLE, JAMES, Crystal Palace-rd, East Dulwich, mining engineer. Ct. High Court.
Order, Jan. 13. LISCHEID, EUSTACE, Wiesbaden-rd, Stoke Newington, baker. Ct. Edmonton. Order,
Jan. 14. MIDDLETON, JOSEPH, New Cleethorpes, fish merchant. Ct. Great Grimsby. Order,
Jan, 15. MORRELL, CHARLES RICHARD, Brighouse, joiner. Ct. Halifax. Order, Jan. 16. NEWEY, ALBERT EDWARD, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, plumber. Ct. Manchester.
Order, Jan. 15. PICKETT, CHARLES, late Queen's-rd, Peckham, butcher. Ct. High Court. Order,
Jan. 15. PRITCHARD, RICHARD WILLIAM (described in Receiving Order as R. W. Pritchard,
trading as R. W. Pritchard and Co.), Calabria-rd, Highbury. Ct. High Court.
Order, Jan. 13. PAYNE, CHARLES, Bridgwater, licensed victualler. Ct. Bridgwater. Ortler, Jan. 14. PORTWAY, CRESSEL John, late Egham, grocer. Ct. Guildiord and Godalning.
Order, Jan. 14. PRICE, ROBERT, Penygraig, grocer. Ct. Pontypridd. Order, Jan. 13. ROBERTS, HENRY HOBBS, late Coborn-rd, Bow, licensed victualler. Ct. High Court.
Order, Jan. 15. RIDEOUT, MARTHA ANN, Fontmell Magna, farmer. Ct. Salisbury. Order, Jan. 15. ROGERS. JOHN, Walsall, grocer. Ct. Walsall. Order, Jan. 14. STEVENS, CHARLES LLEWELLYN, Mare-st, Hackney, bootmaker. Ct. High Court.
Order, Jan. 15. SLATER, ARTHUR, Derby, fitter. Ct. Derby. Order, Jan. 15. TREMAYNE, JAMES, Constantine, labourer. Ct. Truro. Order, Jan, it. WALKINGTON, FRANCES GEORGINA, and WALKINGTON, DELIA (trading as F. G. and D.
Walkington), Harrogate, milliners, spinsters. Ct. York. Order, Jan. 14. WILLIAMS, JOHN VAUGHAN, Penarth. shipowner. Ct. Cardiff. Orier, Jan. 16. WELLS, WALTER EDWARD, Great Grimsby, plumber. Ct. Great Grimsby. Order,
Jan. 15. WEDGWOOD, ROBERT, late Middlesbrough, grocer. Ct. Stockton-on-Tees and Middle
brough. Order, Jan. 14. WILSON, HARROP, George-st, Portman-sq, licensed victualler. Ct. High Court. Order,
Jan. 15. YEOMAN, GEORGE, late Dove-ct, dining-rooms carver. Ct. High Court. Order,
Jan. 13. The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the Gazette of Dec. 25. MEADOWS, ERNEST JOHN DOVE (trading as Ernest Meadows and E. Meadows),
Streatham Common, cheesemonger. Ct. Wandsworth. Order, Dec. 21.
GAZETTE, JAN. 19. SOMERS, THOMAS JOHN, Longton, late innkeeper. Ct. Burton-on-Trent. Adjudication,
April 13, 1896. Annulment, Nov. 4, 1896.
Winding-up of Companies.
GAZETTE, JAN. 15. GRAY AND GILBERT LIMITED, Great St. Helen's. Ct. High Court. Order, Jan. 11.
Pet. Dec, 17.
GAZETTE, JAN. li. ABBOTT, EDWARD HENRY, late Knightrider-st, publican. Ct. High Court. Order,
Jan. 11. BOND, MORGAN GEORGE, Bridgend, baker. Ct. Cardiff. Order, Jan. S. BARNARD, CHARLES TURNER, Oulton Broad, smackowner. Ct. Great Yarmouth,
Order, Jan. 12. BATSTONE, JOHN WILMINGTON, Wells, baker. Ct. Wells. Order, Jan. 12. BAILEY, JOHN WESLEY, Willenhall, die-sinker. Ct. Wolverhampton. Order, Jan. 13. COOK, HENRY HATT (trading as the Factory Clothing Company), Leeds, clothier.
Ct. Leeds. Order, Jan. 11. COPLEY, FRED AUGUSTINE, late Levenshulme, schoolmaster. Ct. Stockport. Order,
Jan. 11. DANGERFIELD, RICHARD JAMES, Swansea, tobacconist. Ct. Swansea. Order, Jan. 12, DALLAS, JAMES, late Willington, innkeeper. Ct. Durham. Order, Jan. 11. DAVIES, DAVID, Cardiff, labourer. Ct. Cardiff Order, Jan. 12. DENTON, ERNEST, Accrington, commission agent. Ct. Blackburn. Orler, Jan. 12. DE FALEE, CARL VIGANT, late Grosvenor-sq. Ct. High Court. Order, Jan. 12. EDWARDS, DAVID JOHN, late Cwmburla, grorer. Ct, Carmarthen. Order, Jan. 8. FURSE, ERNEST HENRY, late Southampton-bligs, Euston-rd, cabinetmaker. Ot. High
Court. Order, Jan. 11. GLOVER, CHARLES WILLIAM, Leeds, general dealer. Ct. Leeds. Order, Jan. 18. GOWING, GEORGE HENRY, Mulbarton, farmer. Ct. Norwich. Order, Jan. 12. GAUNILETT, HENRY, Cosham, yeoman. Ct. Portsmouth. Order, Jan. 12. HALSE, CHARLES SPENCER (described in Receiving Order as Spencer Halse), late Cole
man-st. Ct. High Court. Order, Jan. 12. HANDLEY, JOIN, Cirencester, outfitter. Ct. Swindon. Order, Jan, 12. HALLGARTII, THOMAS, Wakefield, hairdresser. Ct. Wakefield. Order, Jan 12. HOLLIDAY, FREDERICK MONTAGUE, Waketield, fish salesman. Ct. Wakefield. Order,
Jan. 13. HARRIS, JOHN HIERDERT, Hartlebury, farmer. Ct. Kidderminster. Order, Jan. 13. JOHNSTON, ROBERT, Chipping Campden and Viekleton, hosier. Ct. Banbury. Order,
Jan. 13. JONES, CHARLES IIENRY, Oswestry, grocer. Ct. Wrexbam. Order, Jan. 13. KITCHEN, FRED, Shipler, wheelwright. Ct. Braviford, Yorks. Order, Jan. 11. MAXWELL, WILLIAU, Waterloo, joiner. Ct. Newcastle-on-Tyne Order, Jan. 12. MITCHINSON, JOSEPII, late Trenholmo Bar, farmer. Ct. Stockton-on-Tees and
Middlesbrough. Order, Jan, 11. NEALE, CHARLES THOMAS, Orston, gentleman. Ct. Nottingham. Order, Jan. 13. NORTH, CHARLES Wilson, Doncaster, cattle dealer. Ct. Sheffield. Order, Jan. 12. PARK, JOHX, Cockermouth, licensed victualler. Ct. Cockermouth and Workington.
Order, Jan. 13. POWELL, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS, Wood Green. Ct. Edmonton. Order, Jan. 9. QUIN. MARY MATILDA, Bradford, Yorks, house furnisher. Ct. Bradford. Order,
Jan. 12. REEDER, ROBERT, St. John's Wood-rd, licensed victualler. Ct. High ('ourt. Order,
Jan. 12. RAWLINGS, ANSALOM, late Drybrook, innkeeper. Ct. Gloucester. Order, Jan. 11. REID, DAVID, Kingston-upon-Auli, nurseryman. Ct. Kingston-upon-full. Order,
Jan. 11. SCOTT. John, Hesket-in-the-Forest, coal agent. Ct. Carlisle. Order, Jan. 12. SANDERS, JAMES, Silverton, dairyman. Ct. Exeter. Order, Jan. 13. SLINGER, THOMAS, Halifax, tobacconist. Ct, Halifax. Order, Jan. 13. THOMPSON, HENRY, Birmingham, furniture dealer. Ct. Birmingham. Order, Jan. 11. Toogoon, WILLIAN CUTTING, Great Grimsby, provision dealer. Ct. Great Grimsby.
Order, Jan. 12. VINCE, ROBERT ALFRED, Somersham, dealer. Ct. Ipswich. Order, Jan. 9. WORCESTER, ARTUCR, Fishburn, porter. Ct. Stockton-on-Toes and Middlesbrough, Order, Jan. 11.
GAZETTE, JAN. 19. ADDERLEY, FREDERICK CECIL, the Façade, Bream's-bldgs, clerk. Ct. High Court.
Order, Jan, 15. AMERY, WILLIAM THOMAS. and AMERY, THOMAS JAMES (trading as George Amery
and Sons), Seymour-pl, Bryanston-sq, coachbuilders. Ci. High Court. Order,
Jan, 15. ANSON, JOHN, Crewe, builder. Ct. Nantwich and Crewe. Order, Jan. 14. ASHFOLD, FREDERICK GEORGE, Plymouth, baker. Ct. Plymouth and East Stonehouse.
Order, Jan. 14. BEDFORD. EDWARD THOMAS, Fulham-rd, glass dealer. Ct. High Court. Order,
BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.
BIRTHS. CJILTON THOMAS.-On the 10th inst., at 31, Huskisson-st, Liverpool, the wife cp
Arthur Chilton Thomas, Barrister-at-law, of a daughter. CLARKE,- On the 10th inst., at 14, Hatch-st, Dublin, the wife of Charles Xerille
Clarke, D.L., of Graigneure Park, co. Tipperary, of a son. JONES.-On the 9th inst., at Cliff House, Rottingdean, the wife of H. R. Jones,
Solicitor, of a daughter. MOUNTAIN.-On the 16th inst., at 7, Clarence-ter, Grimsby, the wife of Arthur Mountain, Solicitor, of a son.
MARRIAGES. CULLINGHAM-EVERETT.--On the 14th inst., at the Presbyterian Church, Ipswich,
James Barry Cullingham, of Ipswich, Solicitor, 10 Florence Harriet Nussey,
eldest daughter of Robert Lacey Everett, J.P., of Rushmere, Ipswich. DANAVALL-ABERCROMBIE.-On the 16th inst., at St. George's, Hanover-sq, John
Martin Danavall, of Dominica, in the West Indies, Second Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of the Leeward Islands, to Gertrude Mary, second daughter of the
late Alexander Abercrombie, B.C.S., Commissioner of Dacca. EVANS-RIMINGTON.-On the 1st ult., at S Mark's Church, Sydney, John Bowen
Owen, second son of the late John Evans, Q.C., M.P., Bencher of the Inner Temple, to Nina Janet, second daughter of George Rimington, of Bombay and Eastbourne.
DEATHS. BUCKMASTER. --On the 9th inst., at Southfields, Wandsworth, in his 79th year, the
Rer. Ralph Nevill Buckmaster, formerly of Holland-st, Kensington, eldest son og
the late John Buckmaster, of Windsor Castle, Jamaica, Barrister-at-law. PRINGLE,--On the 14th inst., at Cheltenham, Julia Frances, widow of Mark Pringle,
J.P., D.L., formerly of Oakendean, Cowfold, Sussex, in the 86th year of her age. SCEALES.-On the 17th inst., at 15, Craven-rd, London, A. D. Sceales, Barrister-at
law, of the Middle Temple, aged 55. THORNEY.-On the 10th inst., at Southside, the Park, Hull, John Joseph Thornes,
Solicitor, and Coroner of the Borough of Kingston-upon-Hull, aged 69 years. Twiss.-On the 14th inst., at Fulham, Sir Travers Twiss, Q.C., D.C.L., F.R.S., etc., ir.
his 88th year.
To Readers and Correspondents.
COUNTRY ADVOCATE.- We do not give opinions upon matters of law.
not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. Anonymous communications are invariably rejected. All communications intended for the Editorial Department should, in order to prevent
delay, be addressed to the .. EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES." Advertisements, orders for papers, &c., should be kept distinct, and addressed to the Publisher, Mr. HORACE Cox, “ Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C.
Vol. VIII., Part 2, price 58. 6d. MARITIME LAW REPORTS (New Series). By J. P.
ASPINALL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Containing all the Decisions in the Admiralty Courts of England and Ireland, and in all the Superior Courts, with & Selection from the Decisions of the United States Courts; with Notes by the Editor. Quarterly, price 5s. 6d., and will be sent free by post to subscribers. NOTE! Vols. I. to III. of the Reprint of Vols. I. to V. of the New Series (1871 to
1887) is now ready. The whole Set of Five Volumes will be supplied in half call for £10.
HORACE Cox, “Law Times” omce, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C.
Now ready, Vol. XVII., Part 7, price 58. 6d. COX'S REPORTS of all CASES decided by all the Superior
Courts relating to MAGISTRATES, MUNICIPAL, and PAROCHIAL LAW, Vols. I. to XVI. from 1860 to 1894, can now be had.
HORACE Cox, “Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.O.
£2 2 0 For Half a Year. 1 7 0 For Hall a Year...
1 1 0 The volumes of the LAW TIMES and of the LAW TIMES REPORTS are strongly and
uniformly bound at the office, as completed, for 5s. 6d. for the Journal, and 6s. for
the Reports. Portfolios for preserving the current numbers of the LAW TIMES, price 58. 6d. ;
LAW TIVES REPORTS, price 39. 60. The Publisher undertakes the binding of the LAW TIMES and LAW TIMES REPORTS at the following rates :
Per Volume. LAW TIMES, in hall call, omce pattern
58. 60. LAW TIMES REPORTS, ditto, ditto
58. Od. Parcels of volumes for binding should be sent to the Publisber, LAW TIMES Omce
Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C., by whom they will be returned in abou a fortnight bound.
Just published, demy 12mo., price 29. 6d., New Edition of NEWTON'S PATENT LAW and PRACTICE, including the
Registration of Designs and Trade Marks, This work is designed to serve as a reference manual for Patent Agents, with respect to the practice established under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Acts; as a compendium of the Patent Laws for the use of Solicitors; and as a legal and commercial guide to inventors and manufacturers interested in Patent Rights. New Chapters on Copyright have been added.
HORACE Cox, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C.
The Law and the Lawyers.
39. 6d. Each additional line, or ten words, or less than ten words.
Os. 60. For three insertions a reduction of 10 per cent. ; for six insertions & reduction of
20 per cent. Advertisers whose reference is under initials to this office shonid remit 6d. additional
to defray postage in transmitting replies to their Advertisements. Advertisements must reach the office not later than five o'ciock on Thursday
afternoon, and must be accompanied by a remittance. Post-office Orders payable to HORACE Cox,
The House of Commons is to be asked by Mr. ATHERLEY Jones next month to present an address to the QUEEN, praying for a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Judicature Act. Here is a great opportunity for a candid critic.
THERE would appear to be little hope that English solicitors will obtain any modification of the certificate duty. Even Irish solicitors, whose business is said to be disappearing, are not encouraged by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER to expect any relief. Sir Joseph LEESE has brought in a Bill to repeal the statute which compels members oł the House of Commons appointed to an office of profit under the Crown to submit themselves to re-election. He has submitted to be interviewed on the subject, and says that the best men are often passed over because their seats are not secure. Are all Crown appointments governed by political considerations, and do the best men generally sit for doubtful seats ? Are the best men for legal appointments all in the House of Commons ? These are interesting questions upon which opinions may and do differ.
MANTLE (app) +. JORDAN (resp.). -
Local government-County council JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE
-Bye-law-Use of obscene language
in dwelling-house abutting PRIVY COUNCIL.
on ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF CANADA r.
552 ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ONTARIO; ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEREC v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ONTARIO.
LEADING ARTICLES; &c. Law of Canada-Dominion Act 1867 (30 & 31 Vict, c. 3), s. 109-Annuities to Indian tribes--Lands subject to
TO READERS AND CORRESPONDENT8.. 285
LEADING ARTICLES. any trust or interest--Liability of
- Topics of the province
Week-A Gratuitous Judge--The
522 THE MASTER IN EQUITY v. PEARSON
City Judges and the Hampstead
Constable-Servants of the Crown-
Irrevocable Voluntary Settlements 1810 -- Will - Value of
Leases by _Tepants for Life
Warrants of Execution issued by
County Courts-Sale of Goods Act SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE. 1893, sect. 18, r. 4.....
285 COURT OF APPEAL.
COMMENTS ON CASES THE MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE OCCASIONAL NOTES...
290 ASSOCIATION t. THE NEW YORK NOTES OF RECENT DECISIONS NOT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND
292 HARVEY. - Contract Personal OUR LITERARY COLUMN. Stories service-Agreement by employed to from the Law Reports
29.5 "act exclusively for" employers 528 LAW LIBRARY
296 ROBERTS 0. THE SECURITY COMPANY CRIMINAL LAW AND TAE JURISDICTION
LIMITED. -- Insurance Policy OF MAGISTRATES.-Quarter Sessions against burglary-Execution by
-- Previous Conviction
297 insurers-Nonpayment of premiuni COUNTY COURTS. Sittings of the
--Waiver of pre-payment-Recital.. 531 Courts
297 INLAND REVENUE. Revenue
GENERALINTELLIGENCE.-Some PecnStamp duty--Contract for sale of liar Judgments--Accident Ingurshare of patent....
ance: Inhaling Illuminating Gas or DARLOW 1. BLAND AND OTHERS.- Bill Anästhetics-Codification of Mer
of sale -- Validity - Consideration cantile Law-Rating of Advertisenot “truly set forth "-Promissory ments-Unclaimed Stock and Diri.
note-Consideration less than £30... 537 dends in the Bank of EnglandDIXON O. THE GREAT WESTERN RAIL
Heirs-at-Law and Next of Kin WAY COMPANY. - Railway-Accom- Appointments under the Joint Stock modation works - Fence-Fence
Winding-up Acts--Creditors under erected more than five years after
Estates in Chancery-Creditors opening of railway 539 under 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35.....
298 SLOANE . TAE BRITAIN STEAMSHIP LAW SOCIETIES. - The Hardwicke
COMPANY LIMITED. - Practice - Society United Law Society Suing in formui pauperis-Affidavit Union Society of London--Cardiff verifying case for opinion of counsel Incorporated Law Society-Leices
-Case and opinion made exhibits... 542 ter Law Society-Somerset Law K12KHAMr. ATTENBOROUGH; KIRK
Society HAM R. GILL.-Sale of goods--Goods PROMOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS 302 delivered sale or return" CORRESPONDENCE....
302 Goods pawned by buyer-Title of LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL -Bar Expawnee
513 aminations: Results and New ProHIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
spectus-The Janunry Final-Calls
to the Bar Examinations at the CHANCERY DIVISION. PETTY r. TAYLOR. -- Copyright
Incorporated Law Society in the Registration - Proprietor-Validity
year 1896—Council of Legal Educa
tion: - Trustee or agent-Copyright Act
Easter Pass Examination
303 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 15), s. 13
LEGAL OBITUARY.--Mr. Edwin Mor-
305 CROCKER AND OTHERS • STURGE AND THE COURTS AND COURT PAPERS.ANOTHER.- Marine insurance-Con
House of Lords. Session 1897 (No.2), struction of policy-Arrival in Cause List-Rota of Registrars-" final port"
549 Order under the Stannaries Court L'UFREVILLE (app.) r. THE LONDON (Abolition) Act 1896. dated c. 16,
COUNTY COUNCIL (resps.). --Public 1896_Order of Court-Circuits of health (London)--Farmer keeping the Judges, Winter Assizes, 1897 305 cows on his premises— CowTHE GAZETTES..
550 BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS 308 Vol. CII.-No. 2809.
It is desirable that the attention of practitioners in Admiralty actions should be drawn to the fact that an order has been made by the Treasury and the LORD CHANCELLOR abolishing fee No. 145 in the list of Supreme Court fees. This fee was per cent. on all sums paid into court in Admiralty actions. No similar fee existed in other divisions of the court, and, having regard to the large sums which it is necessary
pay into court
in actions for limitation of liability and tenders in salvage actions, it had become a serious and quite unreasonable addition to the costs of some Admiralty suits. As a matter of fact, it was frequently evaded by arrangements, under which parties agreed to pay the amount tendered to a banker as a stakeholder, or to accept the offer as a payment with an undertaking from a solicitor. This, however, was not possible in every case, and, on the representation of the President of the Probate Division, the Treasury have acted judiciously in abolishing this vexatious impost.
A CORRESPONDENT writes : Please allow me to supplement a notice posted in the registrar's office of the Brompton County Court, with reference to renewal of bailiffs' certi. ficates, and a copy of which notice was put in the LAW
Times of the 16th inst., by pointing out that, in accordance with rule 2 of the Law of Distress Amendment Act 1895, certificates granted to bailiffs on or since the 2nd Feb. 1896 need not be renewed till the 1st Feb. 1898.
The Royal Academy has an income of £36,000 per annum. Out of that it pays £10,000 to support an art school. There is but one dinner in the year—the great social function bringing together all the distinguished men of the day. This is all the eating and drinking taking place at the cost of the institution. Many hundreds a year are given to poor artists out of the annual income. The effort seems to be on the part of a great intellectual profession to get as far away as possible from the grossness of city companies.
so as not to vacate his seat in the House of Commons, has discharged duties gratuitously, which otherwise would have been discharged by some brother barrister out of Parliament, to whom the usual remuneration might be of very material consequence. Commissioners of Assize are, as we have said, to all intents and purposes, during the continuance of the Commission, judges of the High Court. In former times members of the Order of the Coif alone could fill these offices, just as, till our own times, the Judicial Bench was confined to members of that order. Queen's Counsel have only been authorised to be on these commissions by the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 25, and County Court judges by a very recent statute, 47 & 48 Vict. c. 61, s. 7. The Judicature Act provides, that commissioners, while engaged in the exercise of their duty, shall be “deemed to constitute a court of the High Court”: (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 29). Judges, notwithstanding the permanent character of the tenure of their office, are disabled from sitting in the House of Commons, and every objection that, on constitutional grounds, could be urged against the retention by a judge of a seat in the House of Commons could, with enhanced force, be urged against the retention of a seat in that assembly by a Commissioner of Assize.
The answers given by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL last week to Mr. Swift MacNeill with reference to the appointment of Mr. Darling, Q.C., M.P., as Commissioner of Assize on the Oxford Circuit of which he is a member, places the facts and the circumstances connected with this incident clearly before the members of the Legal Profession and the public at large. We cannot recognise the explanation as in any way satisfactory. A special Commissioner of Assize is to all intents and purposes while on circuit indistinguishable in his powers and duties from any one of Her Majesty's judges in a similar position. Such Special Commissioner is rarely a practising barrister on the circuit on which he is appointed by the Crown to go as temporary judge. The ATTORNEYGENERAL admitted that, “It is not usual to appoint a member of the House of Commons as a Special Commissioner of Assize," nor could he mention such an appointment, and he ventured the statement that Mr. DARLING was not appointed a Special Commissioner of Assize. “ The name of the hon. and learned member was included in the Commission in the ordinary way, and he sat by virtue of that fact." He added that Mr. DARLING “filled the place of second judge, and he did a great deal more work than a Queen's Counsel has been called upon to do, but except in that case he fulfilled no other function,” but nevertheless did so “without fee or reward of any sort or kind.”
This may be very sublime, but it is not good business.
LORD GRIMTHORPE and the correspondent of the Times who gave an account of the proceedings on the confirmation of the election of the ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, have raised between them a question of great general interest to lawyers. In Reg. v. Archbishop of Canterbury (11 Q. B. 483; 17 L. J. 252, Q. B.; 12 Jur. 862), the court was equally divided on the question whether a rule which had been granted for a mandamus should be discharged or “go.” Lord GRIMTHORPE contends that the judgment, though of an equally divided court, is an authority that opposers are not entitled to be heard ; the Times correspondent contends that the judgment decides nothing. On the whole we think that the Times correspondent is right, and on this ground : Prior to the Judicature Acts no appeal lay from the discharge of a rule for a mandamus, though an appeal by demurrer to a return was expressly authorised by 6 & 7 Vict. c. 67 (passed before Reg. v. Archbishop of Canterbury was decided, and since repealed by the Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure Act 1883 as having been superseded by Rules of Court), the preamble to which recited that writs of mandamus were frequently awarded, and often in cases of considerable importance, and that it was expedient that parties interested should be enabled, in certain cases, to have the judgments of the Court of Queen’s Bench reviewed. By reason of the writ not having been issued in Reg. v. Archbishop of Canterbury (ubi sup.), there was never an appealable judgment in that case, so that it has not the authority of an appealable case not appealed, which we believe is in the course of time as good as the authority of a case in the House of Lords.
From this statement we gather these conclusions : (1) that duties discharged invariably by a Special Commissioner of Assize were discharged by an Ordinary Commissioner of Assize, who was a member of the House of Commons; (2) that an Ordinary Commissioner of Assize discharged these duties without fee or reward, to which fee and reward would be attached if discharged by a Special Commissioner ; (3) that the fee and reward were not taken because their acceptance would have brought Mr. Darling under the provisions of the Place Act, and have accordingly rendered his seat in the House of Commons vacant; (4) that his office was an Ordinary and not a Special Commissionership of Assive, because the Special Commissionership, to which in practice fee and allowance attach, might perhaps-even although in the particular case no fee or allowance was given
-- be held, from its nature and character, to be an office of profit under the king.”
It is not often that a case of so widely general importance as the Brighton Hotel case comes before the courts. The simple point is, how long'may a guest stay at an inn after he has been once received as a guest if he continues to behave properly as such, and upon that point there is no direct authority whatever. A Divisional Court has held, affirming a County Court judgment, that the guest may stay only a reasonable time, but, looking to the general importance of the question, has given leave to appeal. At most seaside resorts the practice is almost universal for guests to take rooms beforehand for an indefinite time with the expectation of staying as long as they please without being under any liability to receive a notice to quit. On the other hand, a practice equally prevails on the part of innkeepers of letting rooms for a future day in the expectation, usually realised, that rooms then occupied will become vacant when the future day arrives. Sometimes, though very rarely, it happens that the
GRAVE constitutional considerations are involved in this incident, omitting altogether any comment on the circumstance which is perfectly obvious that a member of the Bar,
guests, whose quitting in time has been calculated upon, decline to quit when the time comes, leaving the unfortunate innkeeper in difficulty as to which contract he shall break, his implied contract with the existing guest to entertain him in a particular room or in some other room, or his express contract with a newly-arrived expectant to reserve a room for such expectant. The extent, and even the existence, of the implied contract with the existing guest appears now to be called in question by the innkeeper, while on the part of the existing guest it appears to be contended that he has a right, once installed in an inn, to remain there for life. It will be of very great advantage to the public generally that the legal points should be decided.
"The utility of the short Act of Parliament which became law last year to prevent abuse of the process of the High Court, or other courts, by the institution of vexatious legal proceedings, has been amply demonstrated by the application of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL for an order under the Acts against ALEXANDER CHAFFERS, to prevent him commencing any further action against anyone without an order of the court. That gentleman, since 1891, has brought no less than forty-eight actions against the PRINCE OF Wales, the ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, Lord Esher, several County Court judges, and numerous other persons, in none of which has he been successful, except one brought in the City of London Court to recover the cost of the cɔpy of an affidavit supplied. These facts amply demonstrate the need that existed for such an enactment to save persons from vexatious and vindictive litigation.
THE CITY JUDGES AND THE HAMPSTEAD
CONSTABLE. All that can be said has been said in explanation of the conviction and sentence of the constable Murray and the studied condemnation by the Common Serjeant of the Hampstead magistrates.
We have studied the details of this singular case with the greatest care, and what started the City judges on a false scent of an imaginary miscarriage of justice it is difficult to understand. The solicitors for the prosecution are evidently under the honest impression that they have vindicated the Old Bailey methods. We fail to see it. They also honestly believe that the Hampstead Bench was guilty of sharp practice and injustice. We cannot agree. A good character and an employer's support are all very well. Is every charge to be adjourned where these factors come in? “The cunning manipulation of penalties ” is hardly a worthy suggestion. But if every court or judge which prevents or refuses an appeal is guilty of flagrant injustice, much of our present civil procedure is hopelessly bad.
In a somewhat laboured defence of the Common Serjeant, our correspondents make what appears to us to be a most damaging admission. “What was Parrent to do ?" they ask. “He had a thirty-five years' character swept away by this conviction. It was in this predicament he consulted Mr. Freke Palmer, we believe, had previously advised him that it was no good his trying to press his appeal. There was no other way out of the difficulty but a prosecution of the man upon whose evidence, and upon whose evidence alone, he had been convicted. It was easy to foresee that the prosecution would be fraught with great difficulties. Apart from the fact of the difficulty of obtaining a verdict upon the evidence,” &c.
The evidence was weak indeed ; but there turned out to be no difficulty. It now seems that the Recorder by no means discouraged the finding of a true bill; the Common Serjeant went breast high with the prosecution—in a case where the prosecuting solicitors foresaw the difficulty of obtaining a verdict upon the evidence !
We remain at a loss to see where the facts are which cast even a suspicion upon the bona fides of Murray. And how upon the evidence forthcoming a tribunal could be carried away as judges and jury were to what appears to us a hasty, intemperate, and an unjust conciusion, we find it impossible to explain.
Perjury is one of the most serious offences known to the law. It is wilful and corrupt false swearing Committed by the police it becomes an enormity. Circumstantial evidence, wild inferences from medical evidence, must be looked at in such a case with very grave scrutiny.
It is too late now to compare the characters of Parrent and Murray. At the time of the trial one was as good as the other.
The lesson to be learned from the case is a serious one. The police are not immaculate. The unpaid magistracy are not miracles of wisdom. But to convict a constable of good character upon the oath of a convicted offender, with scarcely a vestige of corroboration, and to condemn magistrates in almost unmeasured terms of censure, is a rash and dangerous proceeding. Such a conviction and such censure ought to be based upon facts about which there can be little or no controversy.
A DECISION as to what is not contempt of court has been recently given, and a judicial statement made defining the offence. The editor of a provincial newspaper, on the return of a rule to show why he should not be committed for contempt for publishing in his paper an editorial notice calculated to prejudice the fair trial of four men committed for trial on a charge of night poaching, through his counsel, offered an apology, and, on his paying the costs, the Court discharged the rule. After the hearing of that case, he published in his paper a comic account of the proceedings, and it was now sought to commit him for contempt because it brought the court into ridicule. But Justices Wright and BRUCE refused to act, for such a report would not tend to prejudice the fair trial of the accused. As Mr. Justice WRIGHT said, “These applications are quite mistakingly called applications for contempt of court. They are really applications to prevent the course of justice being interfered with. It was unfortunate and bad taste to report in such a way, but the court did not sit to punish bad taste.”
A GRATUITOUS JUDGE. Let me breathe again now that my seat is secure, And my name as a judge must for ever endure. In most delicate scales have my virtues been weighed, For I sat as Her Majesty's judge and Unpaid ! Me a Judge of Assize ! What can mortal desire But to burn with a holy juridical fire, And to scrawl one's sweet name on the National page With not £7 10s. as a nominal wage ? Bare expenses and glory (in spite of McNeill) Make a simple Q.C. quite an ecstacy feel. Some more judges like this would make Law quite a drug, And a judgment a thing which all suitors would hug. Then quaff we the wine cup for Darling and Deptford ! We'll all get our law without going into debt for't. A solicitor's bill is all fiddle-de-dee Whilst the Bar won't take work which results in a fee.
SERVANTS OF THE CROWN. CERTAIN recent cases have placed finally on an unambiguous basis the relationship existing between the Crown and its servants, whether military or civil. Since this relationship constitutes an important exception to the ordinary doctrine of employment, and of contracts relating to employment, it will be useful to state briefly the position of Crown servants and the conditions of their tenure of office.
“ All offices, whether limited as ito tenure by a specified term or not so limited, are held subject to one of two conditions: they are held either ‘at pleasure,' or during good behaviour,' and unless otherwise stated their occupants hold 'at pleasure':” (Anson). A servant who holds his office “at pleasure" is liable to instant disinissal, and no remedy known to English law follows such dismissal, even though it be obviously unjust. The Civil Service, for instance, is regarded as of a permanent character, and as being absolutely independent of politics. This permanency is, however, merely a customary arrangement, which is liable at any time to be disregarded. In 1763 Henry Fox dismissed wholesale political opponents from so-called non-political Crown places. Servants of the Crown who are appointed to hold office “ during good behaviour” have, without a term of years is specifically mentioned, a life
interest in their office. Such appointments are either made directly by other dispositions ; and the draftsman receiving instructions for an instruthe Crown by sign-manual warrant, or by letters patent, or they are made ment of this kind should therefore provide for the revocation of the informally by some department under the Crown (such as the Council of settlement, anless he is satisfied that it is the settlor's own wish to India). Such servants are not liable to instant dismissal, but, in the make it irrevocable.” If such is the case, it is the daty of the event of misbehaviour in the matter of their office, are, in the case of direct solicitor to explain that such a provision is usual, and what will be Crown grants, dismissed by the issuing of a writ of scire facias revoking the effect of omitting it. Two cases may be cited as showing the the grant. In the case of indirect Crown grants, it is probable that the danger of omitting this necessary precaution. The principle is well form of dismissal is less formal and more expeditious.
stated by Lord Justice James in Hall v. Hall (28 L. T. Rep. 383 : An officer is first given permanent rank in the army by warrant or L. Rep. 8 Ch. 430) in 1873, where the earlier cases are carefully commission under the sign-manual. In the case of Re Tufnall (34 L. T. reviewed, and the almost identical case of Toker v. Toker (31 Beav, 629 ; Rep. 838; 3 Ch. Div. 164) it was held that every officer holds his office 3 De G. J. & Sm. 487) was followed. The Lord Justice said that there subject to the will of the Crown, and is liable to be dismissed at any was no rule that a voluntary settlement containing no power of revocation moment without cause assigned : and there is no such thing as a military was voidable at the will of the settlor, nor was there any foundation in appointment permanent in the sense of being tenable for life, or until the principle for such a rule. But if it could be shown that she was not fully holder is disqualified by misconduct or incapacity from fulfilling the duties aware of what she was doing, the settlement would be set aside. In this attaching to it. Moreover, in the case of Mitchell v. The Queen (1896) case the solicitor was examined riva voce, and it was quite clear from bis 1 Q. B. 121, n.; 6 Times L. Rep. 181, 332), Lord Justice Fry said, “ I am evidence that the settlor completely understood the deed to be irrevocable. clearly of opinion that no engagement between the Crown and any of its Her subsequent conduct in tearing up the deed proved change of mind, military or naval officers, in respect of services either present, past, or but not that at the time of the execution, her mind was other than future, can be enforced in any court of law.” This definite reference to expressed in the deed. The other case is James v. Couchman (ubi sup.), the naval service is important, as an officer in the navy is not appointed which was a suit for rectification, before Mr. Justice North in 1885. It directly by the Crown, but holds a commission from the Lords of the was proved that it had not been explained to him that the settlement did Admiralty.
not contain the usual power to appoint as he wished on failure of his This disposes of the naval and military services. What is the position issue, and the learned judge held that the settlement must be rectified by of public servants under a Colonial Government. In the case of Shenton the insertion of such a power. Having regard to the above decisions, it v. Smith (72 L. T. Rep. 130; (1895) A. C. 229) their position was is advisable in all such cases that the settlor should sign an acknowledgaccurately defined by Lord Hobhouse, who said : “ Neither principle ment (which may usefully be indorsed on the draft of the settlement) that nor authority has been adduced to show that in the employment and the deed has been read over and fully explained to him, that he underdismissal of public servants a Colonial Government stands on any stands it to be irrevocable, and that such is his wish. different footing than the Home Government.” The case, moreover, decided that, in the absence of special contract, the servants of a Colonial Government hold their offices during the pleasure of the Crown. This case is, perhaps, not entirely satisfactory, as it might possibly be
LEASES BY TENANTS FOR LIFE. inferred from it that contracts for service entered into with the Crown could be enforced against the Crown, whereas it seems clear from other
A TENANT for life can lease the settled land for ninety-nine years by way authorities that the Crown can determine any contract at its pleasure. of building lease, sixty years by way of mining lease, or twenty-one In the case of De Dohsé v. The Queen (73 L. T. Rep. 687; (1896) years by way of any other kind of lease : (Settled Land Act 1882, s. 6). 1 Q. B. 118) the House of Lords decided that, even if the Crown actually The lease must take effect in possession not later than twelve months concluded a contract, there must be held to be imported into it the condi- after its date (sect. 7), and reserve the best rent that can reasonably be tion that the Crown has the power to dismiss. “ If any authority repre- obtained, regard being had to any fine taken, and to any money laid out or senting the Crown were to exclude such a power by express stipulation,
to be laid out for the benefit of the settled land, and generally to the that would be a violation of the public policy of the country, and could circumstances of the case (sub-sect. 2). As it was not stated what was to not derogate from the power of the Crown”: (Lord Watson). This was be done with any fine, the 4th section of the Act of 1884 enacted that the a case of military service, and Lord Esher, in the court below, said : “All fines were to be deemed capital money. Capital money has to be paid to service under the Crown itself is public service, and to my mind it is most the trustees for the benefit of all persons interested under the settlement, likely that the doctrine, which is said to be confined to military service,
and therefore a fine can be taken in the case of these leases, although applies to all public service under the Crown, because all public service forbidden in leases by mortgagors or mortgagees under the 18th under the Crown is for the public benefit.” In the case of Dunn v. The section of the Conveyancing Act 1881. If the lease of the settled land Queen (73 L. T. Rep. 695 ; (1896) 1 Q. B. 116), it was held that civil, as well does not conform to the provisions of the Act, the lease, though it be as military, servants of the Crown came under the rule that the Crown binding by way of estoppel for the life of the tenant for life, cannot could dismiss at pleasure. “I take it that persons employed, as the peti
bind the persons interested in remainder under the settlement. Thus in tioner was, in the service of the Crown, except in cases where there is some the recent case of Chandler v. Bradley (noted ante, p. 156) the tenant for statutory provision for a higher tenure of office, are ordinarily engaged on the life received a sum of money in order to induce him to grant a lease of nnderstanding that they hold their employment at the pleasure of the Crown. the settled property, and he granted the lease. The lessee, on his lease So I think that there must be imported into the contract for the employ. being impeached, offered subsequently to pay to the trustees a similar ment of the petitioner” (who had been engaged by Sir Claude Macdonald sum, which was to be regarded as a fine, if that would save it. The as a consular agent for three years certain)" the term which is applicable to Court held that, as the tenant for life had received a bribe for granting civil servants in general, namely, that the Crown may put an end to the the lease, it was ipso facto bad as against the remaindermen. It cannot employment at its pleasure”: (Lord Herschell). It may, therefore, be
be too often repeated that a tenant for life, in exercising any powers under asserted as a general principle, to which there are certain exceptions, that
the Settled Land Acts, must“ have regard to the interests of all parties no contractual engagement as to service entered into by the Crown can entitled under the settlement, and shall, in relation to the exercise thereof be enforced in any court of law. The prerogative of the Crown as to by him, be deemed to be in the position, and to have the duties and liadismissal certainly extends to India, and in the case of Grant v. Secretary
bilities of a trustee for those parties”: (Settled Land Act 1882, s. 53). of State for India (37 L. T. Rep. 188 ; 2 C. P. Div. 445), Mr. Justice
He is one of the parties entitled under the settlement, and therefore he Grove, in his exhaustive and luminous judgment, shows that the Crown can have regard to his own interests as well as those of others; but, in waives no rights where it has delegated powers to a body like the East taking a bribe, he had evidently considered only his own interest to the India Company, and has subsequently resumed those powers. It is exclusion of that of others. important also to note that, under the Acts regulating the superannuation The late Duke of Sutherland tried an ingenious plan for giving his allowances of the Civil Service, the decision of the Commissioners of the widow an interest in the settled property (of which he was tenant for life) Treasury as to the amount of the allowance is final, and no court of law
after his death by renewing leases every few years, so as to ensure that so has jurisdiction in the matter : (Cooper v. The Queen, 42 L. T. Rep. 617; far as possible the terms should begin to run as from his death : (Douager 14 Ch. Div. 311).
Duchess of Sutherland v. Duke of Sutherland, 69 L. T. Rep. 186 ; (1893) The position of judges, members of the Council of India, and the 3 Ch. 169). The interests of all parties entitled under the settlement were Comptroller and Auditor-General is somewhat complicated, but it really clearly not considered there, as it was an attempt to take away part of the amounts to this : “Such officers hold, as regards the Crown, during good
interest of the remainderman, and Mr. Justice Romer held the leases to behaviour; as regards Parliament, at pleasure”: (Anson). Such double
be invalid. It was also argued in that case that the leases were necescontrol is valuable.
sarily bad, as they were made to the wife of the tenant for life ; but his
requires some strong evidence to show that the lease to her is granted for IRREVOCABLE VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENTS.
the benefit of the estate, and not in order to give her an interest which she It is important in voluntary settlements that the beneficiaries should be would not otherwise have. able to show, in case the transaction is called in question, that the settlor Though the tenant for life is regarded as a trustee, the policy of the had full knowledge of what he was doing. Thus, if any unusual clause Act is take his word to a considerable extent. Accordingly, we find that is to be inserted its effect should be carefnlly explained to him : (Phillips a statement contained in a lease or in an indorsement thereon, signed by v. Mullings, L. Rep. 7 Ch. 244). The same is true if any usual clause is the tenant for life, respecting any matter of fact or of calculation under omitted. This is especially the case where the settlement is made irre- this Act in relation to the lease, shall, in favour of the lessee and of those vocable. It is usual, in voluntary settlements, to reserve to the settlor claiming under him, be sufficient evidence of the matter stated”: (sect. 7, either a power of revocation, or a power to appoint as he wishes in case of sub-sect. 5). the failure of issue or of the immediate objects of the settlement in his In Wolstenholme, Brinton, und Cherry's work (7th edit., p. 307) lifetime: (James v. Couchman, 52 L. T. Rep. 344; 29 Ch. Div. 212). instances of these statements are given, namely, an indorsement that Davidson (3rd edit., vol. 3, part 1, p. 695) says: “ Voluntary settle- money covenanted by the lessee to be laid out has been laid out, and ments are mostly executed with the view to their having a quasi-testa- a recital in a building lease that the rent reserved does not exceed one. mentary operation, and being revocable if the settlor should desire to make fifth of the full annual value of the land comprised therein with the