not followed. The court refused to make any order as to the costs of an unsuccessful claim made by the plaintiff against the testator's estate: (Lancefield v. Iggulden, 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 156. V.C.B.)

dant to an action of ejectment to recover a piece of woodland, adduced evidence of adverse possession for more than twenty years, and the action was discontinued. Subsequently the plaintiff in the action from time to time walked in the wood, and turned his cattle into it, in order to assert his alleged right, and to bar the Statute of Limitations. At length he cut down a tree in the wood, whereupon the defendant to the action filed his bill for an injunction: Held (affirming the decision of the Master of the Rolls) that as the result of the action of ejectment showed the defendant to that action to be in possession of the wood, he was entitled to the injunction. Lowndes v. Bettle (10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 55; 33 L. J. 431, Ch.) approved and followed: (Stanford v. Hurlstone, 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 140. Chan.)

of personal estate: (Prescott v. Barker, 30 L. T.
Rep. N.S. 149. Chan.)

He must

He

his remuneration, and made no provision as to it. The plaintiff might have refused to become WILL-CONSTRUCTION-BEQUEST OF RESIDUE either receiver or trustee, unless he had pay. TO CHARITIES-PURE AND IMPURE PERSONALTY ment of his charges in some way secured to -MARSHALLING-MORTMAIN ACT.-J. M., who him; but he accepted such office without PRACTICE-MONEY ADVANCED BY TRUSTEE- died in March 1866, by will, in July 1855, after any stipulation on the subject, and without taking INTEREST.-A trustee will be allowed interest appointing executors and trustees, and bequeath-care to see that the value of the assets which upon money advanced by him, and applied in pay- ing legacies specific and pecuniary, and giving would come to his hands, as receiver or trustee, ment of his testator's debts, or otherwise on certain annuities, said, 66 as to all the residue and would cover his costs and expenses. account of his personal estate : (Finch v. Prescott, remainder of my personal estate and effects either have relied on the expectation that the 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 156. V.C.B.) whatsoever and wheresoever, which I may be estate coming to his hands would be sufficient, or, INJUNCTION-TRESPASS-WASTE.-The defen-Possessed of or entitled to at the time of my by inadvertence, he forgot the subject altogether. namely, one equal third part or share thereof to lien on the promissory notes, which were to be decease, I give and bequeath the same as follows: He did not appear to have asserted any claim to a St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington, aforesaid, one delivered to him as trustee for the creditors. other equal third part or share thereof to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, and the remaining one equal third part or share thereof to the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and my will is, and I expressly direct, that the three last mentioned legacies or bequests shall respectively be paid and satisfied out of such part of my personal estate as can lawfully be applied to the payment thereof, and which shall be reserved by my trustees or trustee for the time being for that purpose, and that such legacies and shares of residue shall respectively be applied to the purposes of the said hospital and societies respectively, and the receipts of the respective treasurers of the said hospital and Societies respectively shall be sufficient discharges for the same respectively." The suit was one for administration, and the question raised was as to the marshalling of debts, legacies, and annuities. Held, that the direction that the charitable bequests were to be satisfied out of such part of the testator's personal estate as could lawfully be applied to the payment thereof, and which should be reserved for that purpose, was a plain direction to marshal the assets, so as to give the charities the fullest benefit they were capable of taking: (Miles v. Harrison, 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 152.

SONAL ENJOYMENT

WILL GIFT OVER ON BANKRUPTCY-PER- FORFEITURE OF LIFE ESTATE.-Testator gave specific legacies, and gave all his residuary real and personal estate to S. and C. upon trust for conversion and investment, and to pay thereout an annuity of £250 to S. and also an annuity to E., and subject thereto and to his debts, the remainder of his real and personal estate to be held in trust for C. for life, or until he should become bankrupt or insolvent, or do or suffer anything which but for that provision would deprive him of the personal enjoy. ment, in which case there was a gift over. S. and C. were appointed executors. Testator died in June 1870 considerably indebted. His personal estate not specifically bequeathed was under £20. C. was adjudicated bankrupt in July 1871. In January 1872, a scheme for arrangement of the bankrupt's affairs by paying 20s. in the pound was made, and the bankruptcy was annulled and an order was made vesting his property in S. In January 1873, the order vesting the bankrupt's property in S. was rescinded. Prior to his bankruptcy C. had received the rents of the testator's real estate, but since then S. had received them. The rents had been applied towards paying the testator's debts, and the annuities so far as they would extend, but S.'s own annuity was in arrear, as the rents were not sufficient to pay it in full. C. had received nothing for his own use. Held that as C. had not been deprived of the personal enjoyment of the residuary estate, there had been no forfeiture of his life interest: (Robins v. Rose, 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 152. V.C. B.)

WILL-DEVISE OF ALL LANDS AND HEREDITAMENTS-STRICT SETTLEMENT-LEASEHOLDS CONTRARY INTENTION.-The 26th section of the Wills Act throws the onus probandi upon those who assert that a devise of "lands "does not include leasehold estates in land, but that onus is satisfied by showing from the whole will sufficient grounds to satisfy a reasonable man that the testator did not intend by the word "lands" to pass leasehold estates. A testator, by his will made in 1861, devised all his messuages, lands, and hereditaments in the county of Middlesex, and all other lands and hereditaments in England belonging to him, to the use of his eldest son for life, with remainder to his eldest son's issue in tail male, with an ultimate remainder to his own right heirs. He also bequeathed all his money, securities for money, goods, chattels, and personal estate to trustees upon trusts corresponding with the trusts of the hereditaments thereinbefore devised in strict settlement, but so that the same should not vest absolutely in any person thereby made tenant in tail by purchase unless such person should attain twenty-one. As to the devised realty, the will contained a power of sale, empowering the trustees to invest the proceeds of any sale in the purchase of freeholds or leaseholds convenient to be held therewith. The will also contained a bequest of certain chattels and heirlooms in strict settlement, so far as the rules of law and equity would permit. The testator, both as to any leaseholds to be purchased under the power, and as to the chattels, repeated the proviso that the same should not vest absolutely in any person thereby made tenant in tail by purchase, unless such person should attain twenty-one. At the time of his death, the testator was possessed of both freehold and leasehold estates in the county of Middlesex: Held (affirming the decision of Malins, V.C.) that the leaseholds did not pass under the devise of lands and hereditaments by virtue of the 26th section of the Wills Act, inasmuch as there was sufficient indication of a contrary intention appearing on the face of the will; but that they passed under the ultimate bequest

Chan.).

COUNTY COURTS.

BIRMINGHAM COUNTY COURT.
Wednesday, April 1.
(Before Mr. H. W. COLE, Q.C., Judge.)
HARRISON V. JOHNSON.

Accountant's charges.

handed over these promissory notes to the creditors, without stipulating that his costs and expenses should be first paid. But now, upon finding that the estate in his hands was deficient, he had brought this action against the defendant for that deficiency. No authority had been cited to him (the judge) which supported the plaintiff's claim, nor had any principle been stated, which appeared to him to apply to the present case, and entitle the plaintiff to maintain the action. There was no express contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, and he was unable to imply one. The plaintiff as receiver was an officer of the Court of Bankruptcy which appointed him. As trustee he was appointed by the creditors, and he was a trustee for them. But neither as receiver nor as trustee was the plaintiff in his opinion entitled to compel the defendant to pay his charges. There must, therefore, be a verdict for the defendant.

In reply to Wilkinson, his Honour said he should be willing to grant a case for the Superior Court.

HUNTINGDON COUNTY COURT.
Wednesday, April 8.

(Before EDMOND BEALES, Esq., M.A., Judge.) HEARN V. THE GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY

COMPANY.

Carriage of goods-Owner's risk-Loss of market
-Delay.

Burton, of Huntingdon, for the plaintiff.
This case was partly heard at the last court, and
was of great importance to fishmongers and other
tradesmen.

Burton said that the action was brought to recover the sum of £6 17s. 9d., damage sustained by the plaintiff, a fishmonger, by reason of the non-delivery, in reasonable time and in due course, of a quantity of fish consigned to him on the defendants' railway from Yarmouth to Huntingdon. On 10th Oct. last a quantity of fish was sent from Yarmouth, but was not tendered to the plaintiff until a little before 4 p.m. on the follow

day, when the market was over, and he was then unable to dispose of the fish. The fish should have been delivered in the usual course at 9 a.m. He admitted that the fish were consigned at owner's risk, but that from the very fact of the delay the company had been guilty of wilful negligence.

THE plaintiff in this case was an accountant,
carrying on business in Birmingham, and the de-
fendant a person who, on the 19th Sept. 1871,
presented his petition to the Court of Bankruptcy
for a liquidation of his estate by arrangement or
composition. The action was brought to recovering
£22 15s. 4d. as the balance of the accounts of the
plaintiff's receipts and payments as receiver and
trustee in the proceedings under the Bankruptcy
Act, which terminated in the defendant's creditors
accepting a composition. By an order of the
Court, dated Sept. 19th, the plaintiff, who had
previously rendered assistance to the defendant
in his attempt to arrange his affairs, was appointed
receiver. A meeting of the creditors took place
on the 5th Oct., who passed resolutions under the
Act of 1860 to accept a composition of 5s. in the
pound, payable as therein mentioned, and it was
resolved that promissory notes for the composition
required, and payable as agreed, should be handed
to the trustee within seven days of the date of the
confirmation. The plaintiff also received his
appointment as trustee. The composition had
since been paid.

His HONOUR, in delivering judgment, said that
under such circumstances, if any of the debtor's
estate were now in the hands of the plaintiff, as
receiver or trustee, the defendant might call upon
him to hand the same over to him; but the defen-
dant could not do so except on the terms of the
amount of the plaintiff's charges for which he
would have a lien on the estate in his hands,
being first ascertained by the Court of Bank.
ruptcy, and paid by the defendant: (Ex parte
Lyons, re Lyons, L. Rep. 7 Ch. 494; 26 L. T.
Rep. N. S. 491.) But in the present case
there was no such estate, and the defendant
therefore made no demand. On the contrary,
however, there was a deficiency of the estate to
meet the plaintiff's charges and he had therefore
insisted that the defendant was personally liable
to pay such deficiency, and he had brought this
action to recover it. The charges of the plaintiff
as receiver and trustee amounted altogether to
£23 198. 9d. He made other demands, but the
property and money received by him had been
slightly more than sufficient to satisfy every
demand, except his costs and charges as receiver
and trustee. This claim of £22 158. 4d. consisted
in part of the unsatisfied portion of the £23 198. 9d.,
and the question was whether the plaintiff was
entitled to recover the same by this action
against the defendant. The resolutions of the
creditors, under which the plaintiff was ap.
'pointed trustee, were silent on the subject of

Moore, for the company, said that the company was not liable, inasmuch as the fish was conveyed at owner's risk, and a special low rate was charged, in consideration of which the plaintiff had agreed to take the risk of delay. By paying an extra rate the plaintiff could have held the company to be liable. It had been decided in several cases in the superior courts, and also by his Honour, that damages for loss of market could not be recovered, in the absence of notice having been given to the company that goods were required for market.

His HONOUR.-I agree with the common law principle that the company are the insurers of the goods they convey, and that they have no right to get rid of their liability by any difference in the rate.

Moore. The company lose thousands a year by carrying the fish at a lower rate, which all goes into the fish merchants' pockets; and although, by taking advantage of the low rate, they save a vast amount of money in the course of a year, they still, when they have any small loss, require the company to pay their claims. They could not expect to have the advantages of the low rate and also have the claims paid.

Burton characterised the lower rate as a delusion and a snare, and a lasting disgrace to all the railway companies.

His HONOUR said that he thought the law as to this point of owner's risk was in a most unsatis. factory state, and had never been definitely decided.

The plaintiff's case was stopped at an early stage by his inability to produce the receipt for the payment of the fish, which were the subject of the action.

His HONOUR said that he could not sue for loss of market. He should have accepted the fish and sold them for what they were worth and then brought his action to recover the difference. He nonsuited the plaintiff, but would not allow any costs to the company.

(Before Mr Serjeant TINDAL ATKINSON, Judge.) there must, therefore, be a nonsuit entered in

BANKRUPTCY LAW.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. PROOF ON BILLS-PRODUCTION OF PRACTICE. -A creditor who seeks to prove upon bills of exchange or promissory notes must, on tendering his proof, exhibit his securities in like manner as under the old law, which in this respect is not altered by the late Act: (Ex parte Jacobs; Re Carter, 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 133. Bank.)

PARTNERSHIP — BANKRUPTCY - JOINT AND SEPARATE ESTATE DECEASED PARTNERS RIGHTS OF CREDITORS.-By a partnership deed it was stipulated that in case of the death of any partner, the partnership should not be dissolved, but that the surviving partners should carry on the business, and that the share of the deceased partner should be ascertained, and the payment thereof secured to his representatives in manner therein provided. The firm consisted of four partners, two of whom died during the partner. ship, and first the three and afterwards the two surviving partners continued the business for a

session of 1866, when every committee-room was
occupied.

WITHDRAWAL OF ELECTION PETITIONS.-
Notice has been given to withdraw the election
petitions relating to Kidderminster, Stockport,
and Isle of Wight.

:

STYLE in which an oath was administered by a
German justice of the peace in Lincoln, Wis.
"You as awfully swear you will tell the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, the best
what you can."

CASES IN THE PROBATE COURT.-There are 20
itself, and 12 special juries, and only one common
cases in the list for the term before the court
jury case, making 33. Last Term there were 9
cases without juries, 20 special juries, and 13 com-
is still retained in the cause paper.
mon juries. The case of Tichborne v. Tichborne

TRIAL OF ELECTION PETITIONS.-Three more

election petitions have just been appointed for
hearing. The Barnstaple petition will be taken
before Mr. Justice Mellor on the 27th inst., and
the Stroud petition on the same day before Mr.

rulings he owned he thought the Lord Chancellor should be made aware of it. Without discussing the particular point before the Court of Queen's Bench in the case alluded to or presuming in any way to question the correctness of the view taken by that eminent judge, we think it due to you to state that we have been perfectly satisfied with your rulings generally, that we consider you bestow more than usual attention and care on all cases coming before you, that your judicial conduct during the whole time you have been the Judge of this circuit has commanded our high respect and esteem, and that we have the fullest confidence in your able and impartial administration of the law in your several courts." This address was signed by four barristers and thirty attorneys practising in the several courts. His Honour returned thanks at some length. He said he had read with great indignation what Mr. Justice Blackburn was reported to have said, but upon reflection he deemed it the best thing to attribute the remarks to some mistake or exaggeration in the report, or to some grave misapprehension as to the real facts of the On one point-the conditions under which

case.

few months. The latter then filed a petition for Baron Bramwell. On the 28th inst. Mr. Justice the company had been allowed to appeal-the

of the deceased partners had not been paid or secured to their representatives. There had been no stock taking, but a great part of the stock-in. trade, consisting of machinery, which was in existence when the partnership was first constituted, still remained in specie: part, however, had been disposed of, and replaced by the three, and other part by the two partners. Held, that the creditors of the four were not entitled as against the creditors of the three and of the two to have the proceeds of such portion of the machinery as could be distinguished as having existed when the partnership was first constituted, and which still remained in specie, applied in satisfaction of their claims in priority to the claims of all the other creditors: (Ex porte Furness; Re Simpson and Co., 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 134. Bank.)

GARNISHEE Order-BANKRUPTCY-CREDITOR HOLDING SECURITY-BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869 (32 & 33 VICT. c. 71), ss. 12 AND 16.-A garnishee order obtained and served by an execution credi. tor, especially when made absolute before the bankruptcy, constitutes the execution creditor a creditor "holding a security on the property of the bankrupt" within sect. 12 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869. An execution creditor who has obtained, served, and made absolute a garnishee order befere the bankruptcy, is also a creditor holding a charge on the bankrupt's estate, as a security for a debt due to him" within sect. 16, sub-sect. 5, of the Bankruptcy Act 1869. The word "charge," in sect. 16, sub-sect. 5, has a wider meaning than the word "mortgage" or "lien" contained in the same section: (Emanuel Bridger; Roberts (garnishee), 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 194. Q. B.)

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Tuesday, April 14.
(Before Mr. Registrar PEPYS.)
Re H. J. WELCH.

Proof-Bankruptcy Act 1869, s. 31-Wife's
ance under separation deed-Trustee of deed
allowed to prove.

THE question in this case, which arose under the
31st section of the Act, was whether the trustee
under a deed of separation, executed by the
bankrupt and his wife, was entitled to prove
against the bankrupt's estate in respect of the
estimated value of the allowance agreed to be
made to the wife for the support of herself and
family.

Grove will hear the Dudley petition. The Hackney
Petition is disposed of.

HIGHWAY LEGISLATION. Considerable discussion took place at the Devonshire Chamber of Agriculture on legislation affecting highways consequent on the abolition of turnpikes, and resolutions were carried that it was expedient that the expense of the repairs of all roads should be paid by the persons using them, and that the expense could in part be raised by a license tax on all horses and carriages using such roads; that it was expedient that the expense of principal improvements of main roads in highway districts should be defrayed from the common fund; and that the whole of the expense of permanent improving should not be thrown solely on the occupier. We may mention that some of the above suggestions are at the present time adopted in the north of France, and we believe successfully.

said, as the solicitor of the company himself would admit. So far as he could gather from the report his decision was reversed without the shadow of or an attempt at argument, and in no very courte

ous terms. He was borne out in his views on the

main point in the case by one of the most eminent courts of jurisprudence in the world-the Supreme Court of the United States-in which the very question at issue here had been made the subject of an elaborate and exhaustive argument.

FIRST DAY OF TERM.-Wednesday being the first day of Easter Term, the Lord Chancellor entertained the Judges, Queen's Counsel, Serjeants, &c., at his Lordship's residence, 5,' Cromwell Houses. This being the first levée of Lord Cairns since his appointment for the second time as Lord Chancellor, it was very numerously attended. All the Chancery and nearly all the common law judges were present. The only common law LINCOLN'S-INN.-The new buildings in Lin- judges who were absent were the Lord Chief coln's-inn have now been completed, and most of Justice of the Common Pleas (who was absent on the chambers are occupied. They form the west account of the death of his mother), Mr. Justice side of Old-square, fronting the hall, library, and Lush, and Mr. Justice Quain. The judge of the garden. The block is divided into four sub-divi-Court of Admiralty (Sir R. Phillimore) was also five sets of chambers on each. The style is semi- Justice James, Lord Chief Baron Kelly, Vicesions, each of which consists of five floors, with absent. The judges who attended were-Lord Gothic, with gables at each end. The block is Chancellor Hall, Lord Ardmillan, Baron Pigott, 140ft. in length and 80ft. in height. The internal Justice Denman, Vice-Chancellor Bacon, Baron arrangements have been very carefully attended Amphlett, Justice Blackburn, Baron Cleasby, to, and rooms have been arranged for barristers, Lord Justice Mellish, Lord Chief Justice Cockpupils, and clerks, with the usual offices and burn, Vice Chancellor Malins, the Master of cellars. The external aspect of the building is in the Rolls, Justice Brett, Justice Archibald, strange contrast with its quaint and smoke- Baron Pollock, Justice Keating, Sir Montabegrimed neighbours, the materials used in the gue Smith, Justice Grove, Justice Mellor, and brick facing. The entire cost has been £10,000, were the Attorney-General (Sir R. Baggallay), construction being Ancaster dressing with red Baron Bramwell. Among the Queen's Counsel and the work has been executed by Messrs. Jack the Lord Advocate, and the Solicitor General son and Shaw. of Scotland, James Anderson, F. Roxburgh, John Gray, Holker, A. E. Miller, Montagu Chambers, Serjeant Simon, George Little, W. Huddleston, Inderwick, R. G. Williams, H. Hawkins, Gates, Watkin Williams, Joseph Shee, Dickinson, Lumley, Westlake, H. Cotton, Brown, Eddis, Fry, Higgins, Renshaw, Archer Joseph Kay, W. T. S. Daniell, T. E. Winslow, Locke, Swanston, Prentice, Day, J. Shapter, Phil. brick, James Fleming, F. Waller, Dr. Deane, Lopes, E. E. Kay, E. J. M'Intyre, Fitzjames, Stephen, Bristowe, John Pearson, P. H. Edlin, Prideaux, H. M. Jackson, B. S. Follett, Joseph Chitty, N. Lindley, Osborne Morgan, Sir H. James, Bazalgette, Marten, T. Southgate, and J. R. Kenyon (Treasurer of the Middle Temple). The Lord Chancellor, at the conclusion of the "breakfast," proceeded with the other judges to open the courts at Westminster, where they arrived shortly before Westminster Hall and about the neighbourhood to witness the procession, but not nearly so large aз is customary when the courts are opened in November. There was moderate cheering as Lord Cairns and the other judges passed up the hall.

A LEGAL ANOMALY.-Without the least reflection either on the magistrate or the clerk-both of whom are gentlemen of considerable experience, and are, indeed, helpless in the matter-it cau allow-court into the manslaughter at Flathouse was a scarcely be denied that the inquiry at the police deplorable waste of time. We are fully aware that some of the judges strongly object to trying prisoners on coroners' inquisitions, probably from the fact that it is not every community which has secured the services of so competent and careful a coroner as Portsmouth has, and depositions taken before a magistrate, under the advice of a legally qualified clerk, are generally superior to those taken under less favourable circumstances. But the fact remains that after the fullest inquiry before the coroner, precisely the same ground was traversed by the magistrate, and that, in fact, the a literal copy of those taken before the former. This might have been pardonable enough in the last century; but we are accustomed to value time more highly than our great grandfathers were wont to do, and are somewhat impatient under the repetition of a task the necessity for which is not very obvious. So long, however, as the judges adhere to a decision repeatedly expressed, the case is, apparently, beyond remedy.— Hampshire Telegraph.

Bagley appeared for the creditor, who appealed from the rejection of the proof by the trustee. E. C. Willis for the trustee.

By the deed, which was dated in 1869, the depositions sworn to before the latter are almost two. There was a considerable crowd assembled in

husband and wife agreed to live separate and apart from each other, an allowance of 10s. per week being made to the latter. The trustee under the deed claimed to rank as a creditor for £407, which was sworn to as being the value of the allowance.

His HONOUR thought the appellant was entitled to prove for the sum claimed. But for the bank. ruptcy he could have sued the husband for the

husband for the arrears of the allowance, and no reason existed why the wife should be deprived of the benefit of the deed. The proof must be admitted.

LEGAL NEWS.

PRIVATE BILLS IN PARLIAMENT.-The first of several groups of private Bills will be taken on or about the 21st instant, when it is expected that several committees will, for the purpose, be appointed. It is believed that there will be a great pressure of private Bill work this session, Owing to the short time within which the business must be got through. Old parliamentarians anticipate a repetition for a brief period of the

MR BEALES AND MR. JUSTICE BLACKBURN.—

on Wednesday, at the April sitting of the Cam-
bridge County Court, Mr. Beales, the judge,
acknowledged the receipt of an address which had
been presented to him in consequence of some re-
marks made upon him by Blackburn, J. in the
Court of Queen's Bench. The address was as
follows:-"Dear Sir,-We, the undersigned bar-
risters-at-law or attorneys practising before you
in the courts of which you are the judge, have
read with much pain and regret a report in the
LAW TIMES of the 7th Feb. 1874, of a remark
alleged to have been made by Blackburn, J. in re-
versing a decision given by you in the case of
Taylor v. The Great Eastern Railway Company,
that if you were in the habit of making such

CORRESPONDENCE OF THE

PROFESSION.

NOTE.-This Department of the LAW TIMES being open to free discussion on all professional topics, the Editor is not responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it.

BILLS OF SALE ACT 1874.-There is now an opportunity before the second reading of this Bill of inserting a clause to remedy what I believe is generally acknowledged, certainly in text books, and by some of the judges, to be a defect in the Bills of Sale Act (17 & 18 Vict. c. 36), sect. 1-I mean the priority of an unregistered bill of sale over a subsequently registered one. At present registration is useless as against an unregistered security. Although a grantee takes the precaution to register his bill of sale, he often finds, when he attempts to enforce it, that he is defeated by some

prior bill-perhaps a clandestine one-of which he could possibly know nothing. A prudent man, before advancing money on the security of a bill of sale, searches at the Queen's Bench office for prior bills, and, if he finds none, is generally satisfied; but I have known cases in which necessitous grantors have concealed the fact that there was an unregistered charge already on their goods, and the further duly registered security was worthless. Surely registration ought to give a security preference to one secretly given, and of which the public may know nothing, or what is the value of registration ? As the law stands, to give a registered bill priority over a bill of anterior date, but not registered, one of two things must happen-either the grantee must sue his grantor, obtain a judgment, issue execution, and thus rank with ordinary execution creditors; or the goods must be seized by the sheriff under fi. fa., which has the effect of avoiding the first bill entirely, and the second registered bill then takes its true position, although, if there had been no execution, the unregistered bill would have prevailed over the registered one: (See Richards v. James, 15 W. R. 580; Begbie v. Fenwick, 24 L. T. Rep. N. S. 62; Nicholson v. Cooper, 3 H. & N. 384.) The latter alternative has occurred within my experience, and I heard it publicly stated from the bench the other day by one of our Vice-Chancellors that he could not see why the Act of 1854 did not go on to make an unregistered bill of sale void as against a subsequently registered one. If such a clause be inserted, it would settle the law on that point, which at present gives rise to a good deal of litigation. Let unregistered bills of sale take precedence to one another according to date, but be void in relation to registered bills of sale.

MANAGING CLERK.

Will you allow me to suggest that the schedule to the Bills of Sale Amendment Bill should require the name and address of the solicitor who prepared the bill of sale to be stated therein. Small auctioneers often lend money on bills of sale, which they prepare themselves, charging an exorbitant sum for doing so.

A SOLICITOR.

Upon reading your comment upon the Bills of Sale Act (1854) Amendment Bill, and the substance of the proposed measure in your columns, it has occured to us whether the words in sect. 4 of the Bill, "any mortgage of or security or charge upon any personal chattel," would include a species of security upon personal chattels, commonly known as a “Bad luck deed," or deed of attornment, whereby a debtor is enabled, without the publicity of a bill of sale, to give a valid security upon his chattels, and thus evade the spirit of the Bills of Sale Act. We have found these deeds of attornment of frequent occurrence of late, and we shall be glad to know whether the proposed amendment Bill of Mr. Lopes will meet

their case.

S. AND B.

upon the premises, for a debt which was pre-
existing at the date of the deed. Acting on
behalf of the trustee under the liquidation, I
gave notice of motion to set aside the deed,
but as the estate was a small one, and looking
at the decisions in Morton v. Woods and Jolly v.
Arbuthnot, and a decision of the learned judge of
the Exeter County Court, I consented, although
with much reluctance, to compromise the matter
by payment out of the estate of a sum equal to
about one-half the claim, and the attornment deed
was given up. I think in the proposed Act it
should be enacted "that where by any deed or
other instrument in writing a rent is reserved for
the purpose of securing any principal sum of
money to the person in whose favour such rent
is reserved, or any person or persons in trust for
him, so that any personal chattel may be liable to
be distrained for payment of such principal sum,
then that such deed or instrument in writing
shall be null and void unless the requirements of
the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 25, or of this Act, be
complied with." It may be that the 3rd section
will have the effect of rendering deeds of the
above description void, but as the measure is a
most important one I think it desirable the Bill
should not pass without its provisions being well
considered, and I hope to see in your columns the
views of other members of the Profession upon
the point I have raised.

UNDER

JOSEPH GIBBS.

OFFICIALS
THE LAND TRANSFER
has a right to complain of the Land Titles and
BILL.-I think our branch of the legal profession
Transfer Bill, that the appointments proposed to
be made of registrar, assistant registrars, and
examiners of title, both in the London and dis-
trict registries, are reserved exclusively for bar-
risters. This reservation it is difficult to justify.
It cannot be said that solicitors are excluded on
the ground of incompetency; for it requires little
acquaintance with the facts to be aware that
there are a vastly larger number of competent
conveyancers among solicitors than among bar-
risters. I can see no other ground for the exclu-
sion of solicitors than the precedents which have
so often made legal appointments a monopoly of
the other branch of the Profession. These prece-
dents are not founded on justice, and it cannot be
the interest of the public or the aim of the Legisla-
ture to perpetuate injustice. The main object of the
Bill is to simplify conveyancing by the abolition of
the time-honoured abstract of title. It is childish
to suppose that when this abolition is effected the
profits of solicitors will not be enormously dimi-
nished, or that the increase in the number of
transactions will be sufficient to compensate for
such diminution. No compensation is provided
by the Bill, and doubtless none is contemplated
by its promoters. The branch of the Profession
which it is especially proposed to injure by the
Bill has an especial claim to a share in the appoint-
be hoped that members of Parliament who are also
ments which are to be created thereby, and it is to
tion of the clauses objected to. I cannot see why
solicitors will do their best to obtain a modifica-
all the appointments referred to should not be
thrown open to barristers and solicitors of ten
this would be that the best men could be appointed
irrespective of the branch of the Profession to
which they belong. Doubtless the superior poli-
tical influence and compact organisation of the
Bar would secure the lion's share of appointments
for barristers, and they could not reasonably
complain of the excision from the Bill of what is
an injustice to, and a slur upon an honourable
and learned profession.

GREGORY W. BYRNE.

foolscap. It is, in point of style and lucidity, a very creditable production. The arbitrator's fees for a complicated reference amounted to only 400 francs. The official arbitrator being "unable to reconcile the parties" transmitted his report to the court "closed and sealed." The matter came before; the tribunal on 2nd July 1873, when the report of the arbitrator was opened and the case adjourned. On 13th Aug. 1873 the case was fully heard and argued, and judgment was given in favour of our clients on all points in all the actions. The final order of the tribunal is a most singular document, and is considerably longer than the report of the arbitrator to which, as well as to the orders of our own courts, in point of style, &c., it forms a decided contrast. Our opponent appealed from the decision of the tribunal, and, although the appeal has been appointed and placed on the list for hearing on many occasions, it has invariably been adjourned, and still remains unheard. Our correspondent in Paris, who is a solicitor, and who has the conduct of the case on behalf of our clients, is evidently wearied out with the repeated adjournments and the unsatisfactory nature of the proceedings. In advising us, towards the end of February, of a further adjournment, he writes as follows:"What one sees of the working of Tribunals of Commerce in this country makes one sincerely hope that they may never be introduced into England." We confine our letter purposely to a simple statement of facts.

BARKER AND SONS.

THE ASSIZES-JUDGES AND SOLICITORS.-A case occurred on the last Norfolk circuit which

raises a question of great importance to the Profession. A prisoner was being tried for perjury before Mr. Justice Brett. The counsel retained for the defence was engaged in the Civil Court; who was not able to get into the Crown Court he handed his brief to another learned gentleman until the first witness for the prosecution had been partially examined; he had not opened his brief, and knew nothing of the case. The attorney engaged for the defence made some suggestion to the counsel as to the line of cross-examination, whereupon the judge in a brusque and offensive he would not allow any suggestion to be made to manner, ordered the attorney to sit down, and said counsel. The facts were explained to the judge, but he repeated his determination not to permit any interference by the attorney, and stated if any such attempt were made he should know how to deal with it. For all prac tical purposes, therefore, the man was undeand, whether or no, his decision in the parfended. Mr. Justice Brett was the judge, ticular case was governed by a sound discretion useful, but the general rule laid down by his is not a question on which comment would be great importance. I am old enough to remember Lordship is one which appears to me to be of tion by every judge before whom I have had most of the great judges, and I have ever been. treated with the utmost courtesy and consideraoccasion to appear. It has never been my fortune

Seeing by your publication of the 11th inst. that you invite suggestions upon this measure, I beg to offer the following observations upon sect. 3: I apprehend this section is intended amongst other things to remedy the evil which has resulted in consequence of the execution by years' standing indiscriminately. The effect of to appear before Mr. Justice Brett. I have condebtors of secret deeds of attornment. The question which I wish to raise for the consideration of the Profession is whether sect. 3 will really hit the blot, and operate to destroy the effect of these secret deeds. A deed of attornment does not profess "to effect a mortgage for a security or charge on any personal chattel," neither is it "of such a character as that it might have been effected by means of a bill of sale." The scheme of the attornment may be stated as follows: A. is in possession of a shop and premises which he occupies from year to year at rack rent. He desires to give to his creditor B. such a security as that by the exercise of the common law right of distress B. can enter upon his premises even after bankruptcy and distrain upon the goods therein for the payment of a debt amounting, say, to £1000. A deed is prepared between A. of the one part, and B. of the other part, whereby A. demises to B. all his interest in the shop and premises for the residue of his tenancy, save the last few days, subject to redemption upon payment of the £1000. By this means B. has a term in the premises. A. then by the same instrument attorns tenant to B. of the premises, at a weekly or monthly rent of say £1000, payable in advance. There is no assignment of A.'s personal chattels upon the premises, but B., wishing to recover his money, levies a distress for his arrears of rent. The creditor, by virtue of the distress, obtains a security upon the personal chattels, but he does not directly do so by the terms of the deed, and there is nothing to prevent the debtor at any time before distress removing the goods from the premises. A case came under my notice a short time since, where a deed of the above description had been executed. The debtor filed a petition for a liquidation, and afterwards the holder of the attornment deed (a Bristol merchant) distrained

JUSTICES' CLERKS.-I would suggest that a clause prohibiting clerks to justices of counties, divisions, liberties, or franchises, from being employed in any prosecution at the quarter sessions, in short, a similar clause to that contained in the late Mr. Oke's Justices' Procedure Bill, sect. 16, and Sir David Salomons' Justices' Clerks Bill, s. 13, introduced into Parliament last session, should be incorporated in one of the Bills now before Parliament relating to solicitors, unless there is some certainty of a Bill relating more particularly to justices' clerks being also brought forward.

UNIFORMITY.

THE WORKING OF TRIBUNALS OF COMMERCE. -As the late report of the Judicature Commission has drawn special attention to the subject of tribunals of commerce, it may not be uninteresting to members of the Profession if we say that for some time back we have been concerned in a matter depending before the Tribunal of Commerce of the Department of the Seine. The matters in dispute formed the subject of two cross actions, and of a supplementary action, and were, by orders made in December 1872 and January 1873, referred to an official arbitrator, who made his report in due course in June 1873. This report goes fully into the details of the case, without technicality, and covers eleven sides of

stantly heard judges say that it is the duty of attorneys to be present to assist counsel. I have for discharging this duty. In the course of thirty never before heard any judge attack an attorney years' practice, I have never found any counsel so well up in the facts of the case as to be able to dispense with those suggestions that the attorney acquainted as he ought to be, with all the details, is able to afford him. In the hurry of the assize this is not to be expected. There are in every complicated case incidents arising, the importance of which the most careful and experienced practitioner cannot have foreseen. If it be the duty of attorneys in their instructions to counsel to exhaust every topic, to go into every detail, the costs of litigation would be greatly increased. The mass of papers would be such as to prevent the possibility of counsel mastering their contents; bat this must either be done or the attorney must have a discretionary power to communicate with his counsel as the trial goes on. If the rule laid down by Mr. Justice Brett is to be adopted, it should be well known to the Profession; the attor ney may then cease to attend the court, sending a clerk to produce papers, and counsel must have to master all the details of the case. Whatever rule may be laid down by the judges as a body will, I am sure, be honestly and faithfully carried out by the Profession. I protest against the chance of an attorney being upbraided by one judge for doing the very thing which other judges say it is his duty to do. None can deprecate more strongly than I the line adopted by some over-anxious practitioners in constantly interfering with counsel in the exercise of their duties-this is as injudicious as it is unbecoming; but counsel surely know how to protect themselves from this. A judge can rarely have the means of knowing whether the interference of the attorney is well timed or otherwise. AN OLD SOLICITOR.

that this might with advantage be done whilst the affidavit sworn before him, and he in no case Bill is in committee in the Lords.

A LANCASHIRE SOLICITOR.

in Rule 44 made under the Bankruptcy Act 1869.
BANKRUPTCY RULES.-I think there is an error
dismiss a petition on the ground that upon the
trial of the validity of the creditor's debt it has
been decided against. The rule states that the
registrar shall give notice for the hearing of the
application "on the production of a copy of the
judgment of the court in which the question was
tried, or an office copy thereof." Doubtless the
rule was intended to be similar in form to Rule 43,
and the words "of a copy," which I have italicised,
were inadvertently inserted.

H. S.

vouches for its accuracy. On the other hand a solicitor constantly attests his client's execution of deeds involving matters of the greatest importand attest his client's signature to it, but if he He may prepare a security of £100,000

ance.

commissioner who has no interest in the matter. his client to be sworn before a specially appointed Can anybody say why this should be? What is the difference between attesting a deed and au thenticating an affidavit ? CHAS. GRUNDY.

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS' SOCIETY. With

reference to the letter of a "Disappointed Member in your impression of the 28th ult., and

DISTINCTION AT THE FINAL EXAMINATION.Although personally I have not seen any letters or other communication touching upon the subject on which I am about to make a few suggestions, yet I feel almost sure it is a well worn string. It is: Why are the prizes and rewards given to the prize men at the final examination so The rule refers to an application by a debtor to prepares an affidavit of debt for £10 he must take inadequate; indeed, I may say so paltry (£5 worth of books)? That is the reward of years of hard and difficult work and study. For my part, I think it no stimulus, and when I tell people so; they merely answer "but consider the honour of being a prizeman at all." Quite right, it is an honour, and if that honour fall to the deserving one, I say give that deserving one a substantial recollection of that great praise that is due to him. Why, I ask, do not the Incorporated Law Society at least cancel the stamp by giving £80 in coin, or howsoever otherwise the first prizeman may desire; then to the second man surely £40 is not too much; and let £20 fall to the share of the third man? and even then it is not too much. Are law students in any one point, as a class, inferior to the university students? Some say yes; and for the sake of controversy only I admit that and will apply to them: "Give great honour where honour is due." Merely a glance will suffice to show you the almost numberless scholarships, prizes, &c., of real honour to the obtainer, which at the same time carries with it a very enticing sterling quality in the shape of £ s. d. Admitting, as before, the superiority of university students, I shall not be too presumptuous by applying to the law students: "Give little honour where equal honour is due," and would that slight admitted inferiority sweep away a share of those prizes, &c. ? Certainly not. Give, as I say, little honour to the law students and only a suitable ratio of university honours, and then even my classification of rewards would die away to worthless insignificance. E. T. C.

THE NEW LAND TRANSFER BILL.-I am glad to find, from a paragraph in your last issue, that you so thoroughly agree with the statement I made a fortnight ago through your columns, that the excessive stamp duty now charged on conveyances is really one of the most serious obstacles to the free transfer of land, and that you consider a short clause might advantageously be introduced into the new Land Transfer Bill to reduce the duty to the same amount as that charged on mortgages. A perusal of the provisions of the Bill as printed in your last impression leads me to think that such a clause would find a most appropriate place in it, as it seems to me that the necessity of obtaining certificates of title will increase very considerably the expense of convey ancing during the next few years, and it would be some encouragement to purchasers of land to incur the expense of obtaining such certificates if they were relieved from an impost which would swell the expense of the transaction to a very considerable total. There is no doubt that the effect of such a provision, especially under the new Land Transfer Act, would be largely to increase the number of conveyances on which duty would be paid, as at the present time all kinds of expedients are resorted to for the purpose of avoiding the payment of stamp duties in large transactions. The duty on conveyances at present is in many cases almost a prohibitory one, and prevents many dealings with land from being carried out in a legal and business-like manner. Take, for instance, the case of a cotton spinner whose mill is worth £40,000, and is mortgaged for £30,000 (by no means an uncommon circumstance in Lancashire), such a man cannot in any way deal with his equity of redemption in this perty (which is only worth to him £10,000), even by taking in a partner, for instance, without the payment of a stamp duty of £200, i.e., 10s. per cent. on the full value of the mill, unless some expedient is resorted to for the purpose of avoiding the stamp duty payable by law on the transaction. It seems to me that on the conveyance of an equity of redemption, stamp duty ought only to be charged on the purchase money actually paid, as in all other cases, because as a rule the heavier the mortgage is, the less is the purchaser able to pay a tax on the full value of the estate. As the result of some practical experience in conveyancing in this part of the country, I am of opinion that if the Government were to introduce into their Land Transfer Bill a clause reducing the stamp duty on conveyances to the same amount as the duty on mortgages, and providing that the duty should be paid in all cases on the actual purchase money only; it would do more to "lessen the expense of conveyancing," and remove a more serious "obstacle to dealings with real property," than any other provision of the measure, and at the same time I do not believe that the revenue would suffer to any appreciable extent from the change. I trust that the president and council of the Legal Practitioners' Society will lose no time in having such a clause introduced into the Bill and I think

pro

made to remove some of the difficulties which

ARTICLED CLERKS.-I am pleased to find from your paper of the 4th inst., that an effort is being recent decisions have placed in the way of articled clerks. who have accepted offices or held employments during the term of their articles. The Bill printed in your columns applies only to clerks who may accept office after the passing of the measure. Permit me to call your attention to the case of many gentlemen who have taken commissions in the militia or volunteers, or have accepted small offices as secretaries to societies, committeemen in public institutions, and other employments. I have had many articled clerks, I have encouraged every one of them to apply for commissions in the volunteers, and have always advised those who have attained twenty-one to business. I believe the knowledge of men, and serve on committees, and to take part in public the business training they thus attain, to be a most important element in their education, a step to their future success in life. The cases decided under the 6 & 7, Vict. c. 73, and that of Re Pepper: the true question was whether the employment corn (L. Rep. 1 C. P. 473) induced me to think that undertaken was of such a nature as to occupy an undue portion of the clerk's time, and so prevent his acquiring a practical knowledge of his profession. The recent cases proceed on an entirely different footing. The decision in Re Peppercorn is questioned. The result is that several clerks have been refused admission, and one gentleman has applied to have his articles vacated, on the ground that he has been advised that his having held a commission in a militia regiment during his articles will prevent his being admitted. If this be good law I know many attorneys who have been improperly admitted; I know many articled clerks who may reasonably anticipate an objection to their admission. The principle recognised in the Bill now before Parliament is, I submit, the true principle. If so, is it not fair that it should be made to apply to the cases of gentlemen who are now serving under articles, and who, with the consent of their employers, have already occupied a portion of their leisure in pursuits not inconsistent with the tenor of their articles ?

A SOLICITOR OF THIRTY YEARS' STANDING.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS.-As the subject of the administration of oaths is attracting attention, I beg leave to renew a suggestion which made in your columns more than twenty years ago-namely, that every attorney or solicitor should ex officio be authorised to administer oaths and take declarations and acknowledgments of deeds by married women. The power to administer an oath is merely a matter of public convenience. All that is wanted is that the oath shall be administered by someone whose authority can be ascertained, and who can be found, if required, to vouch his signature, or to answer for any irregularity. The notion that a man must be in practice ten years, or that he should be specially appointed a commissioner before he can properly administer an oath is mere chamber nonsense. Judges' clerks, County Court bailiffs, and other subordinate officers are daily administering oaths all over the kingdom. The rule that I propose would save much time and trouble. Even in the City, where we have many commissioners, our clerks have to ramble about from office to office sometimes for the best part of an hour before they can get sworn. In important matters where clients have to be sworn, we generally make a previous appointment with a commissioner so as to avoid having to run about for one when wanted. Then, again, I would abolish the rule which prevents an attorney or solicitor administering an oath to his client. What the foundation of this rule is I cannot tell. No doubt those who made it had some dim notion that it would prevent fraud, but after much experience in the preparation of affidavits, I am unable to perceive that the rule has any such effect. Except in the case of a deponent who cannot read, the commissioner knows nothing whatever of the contents of an

that of "X. Y. Z.," published by you on the 4th inst., I should like, with your permission, to say a few words. I am not prepared to acquiesce in your first correspondent's view of the proposed Bill as a "feeble bantling." It seems to me, with "X. Y. Z.," that its shortness is, in fact, a merit incorporated with another measure), and is no which will facilitate its passing into law (perhaps proof of feebleness; but I venture to complain

that the society had no opportunity of discussing
its merit or demerit before it was introduced into
the House of Commons, and of making in their
proper place many of the suggestions which
general meeting of the society has been held since
have since appeared in your columns. No
the 7th Jan. last, and two committees were
appointed, one for the purpose of framing the
rules of the body, and the other to initiate certain
legislation. The latter committee met on several
generally understood by the members of the
occasions, and the result is the draft Bill which
you were good enough to publish. I think it was
society at the last meeting, that when the rules of
the society had been framed, and the draft of the
should be called to approve both, and had this
proposed Bill had been prepared, another meeting
course been followed I cannot but think that the

Bill, though still confining itself to its present
object, might have been rendered by the collec-
tive consideration of the members of the society
more complete and effective. It may be urged
and the Bill would not, in consequence, have been
that time would by this means have been lost,
introduced this session into Parliament. As it is,
however, it stands but small chance of being
passed this session, and would scarcely have
been retarded by another meeting and discus-
sion; and I think most members will agree
with me that a perfect Bill for next session is
better than a prematurely-born measure for this,
doomed in all probability to perish in the
autumnal massacre of the innocents.
submit that frequent periodical meetings of the
from the subject-matter of this Bill, however, I
society should take place, without which its
by a member of the Incorporated Law Society, as
existence is purely nominal. The motion made
referred to in your paper of the 4th April, would
apply with equal force to this society, and I, for
one, can see no advantage in occult individual
workings in the background.
A MEMBER.

Apart

NOTES AND QUERIES ON

POINTS OF PRACTICE. NOTICE.-We must remind our correspondents that this column is not open to questions involving points of law such as a solicitor should be consulted upon. Queries will be excluded which go beyond our limits. N.B.-None are inserted unless the name and address of the writers are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee for bona fides.

Queries.

All

94. WINDING-UP.-The members of a small but unsuccessful society, registered with limited liability, Societies Acts under the Industrial and Provident 1862 and 1867, are about to wind-up the concern voluntarily according to resolution passed and signed at a general meeting called for that purpose. The members are all working men and most of them poor. trade debts and liabilities can be at once paid, and the business closed, but the members will have to lose the amount of their shares, which they are all willing to do, and I beg to inquire (there being no creditors), is a notice in the Gazette of winding-up and dissolution sufficient; or, can the society be wound-up without the intervention of the court to sanction its proceedings, and in what way?

A SUBSCRIBER'S CLERK.

[The intervention of the court is not necessary, simply resolutions, as required, by statute, which must be filed with accounts at the Joint Stock Companies office.-Ed. SOLS'. DEPT.]

B. is

95. SHOP WINDOW.-A., a shop keeper, has his shop window made of glass of large size, each plate of the value of £10, in lieu of small panes of glass. engaged on some work in the street, and accidentally breaks one of these large panes of glass. Is B. liable for the full extent of the value of the glass, viz., £10P I have some recollection of a case some time ago in a County Court, but cannot just find it, where the judge decided that the person was not liable beyond the price of an ordinary pane of glass.

A. B.