« EelmineJätka »
R. A. MCCALL, Esq., K C., LL D., Attorney. General of the Duchy of Lancaster, and a Bencher of the Middle Temple, and J. K. F. CLEAVE, Esq, M A., Barrister-at-Law.
J. W. CLARK, Esq., K.C., Legal Adviser to the
J. I. STIRLING, Esq., M.A., Barrister-at-Law.
Specimen Pages and full Prospectus on application. BUTTERWORTH & CO, 11 & 12, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR, LONDON.
To Readers and Correspondents.
All communications must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer, 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."
Any contributions that may be sent on approval will be carefully considered by the Editor; but no responsibility whatever can be accepted in respect thereof, although, if unsuitable, every effort will be made to return them, provided that a stamped addressed wrapper is inclosed for that purpose.
The copyright of all contributions (including reports paid for) shall belong to the proprietors of the LAW TIMES, together with the right of republication in any form they may think desirabla. Apart from any express agreement that may be made, contributions are only received and considered on these conditions. Advertisements, orders for papers, &c., should be kept distinct. and addressed to the Publisher, Mr. HOBAOE Cox, "Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream'sbuildings, E. C.
TO SUBSCRIBERS.-PREPAYMENT TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION.
TO ADVERTISERS.-SCALE OF CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS. Four lines of 30 words or less £ 8. d. One page. than 30 words in body type
3 6 Half page.... 6 One Column
10 0 0 500
3 10 0
Each additional line....
Advertisers whose reference is under initials to this office, should remit 6d. additional
Vol CXXXI -No. 3573.
HOUSE OF LORDS. SMITH V. GENERAL MOTOR-CAB COMPANY.- Empoyer and workman Contract of service-Driver taxicab KOFFYFONTEIN MINES LIMITED AND OTHERS v. MOSELY.-CompanyArticles of association-Increase of capital
OWNERS OF STEAMSHIP RAPHAEL v. BRANDY-Employer and workman Compensation — Amount -Concurrent contracts of service KITCHENHAM v. OWNERS OF THE STEAMSHIP JOHANNESBURG.-Employer and workman-Compensa
WALTERS v. STAVKLEY COAL AND IRON COMPANY. - Employer and workman-Accident in course of employment
STEAD AND ANOTHER. SMITH. Practice Costs-Taxation - Noncontentious business HEWITT AND OTHERS v. OWNERS OF THE STEAMSHIP DUCHESS. Employer and workman-Death by accident arising out of employment 121 SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATUR. COURT OF APPEAL ROBINSON v. BEACONSFIELD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.-NegligenceAgent-Disposal by contractor of sewage removed under contract from cesspool
Re A DEBTOR; Ex parte THE DEBTOR (No. 35 of 1911)-BankruptcyBankruptcy notice-Validity
HIGH OOURT OF JUSTIOL KING'S BENCH DIVISION. SLEM (app) v. MEADOWS (resp.).. By-aw Valici y-By-law prohibiting the bolding of meeting on parades and foreshore 127 JENNER . SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Negligence Railway company Level crossing - Uer without interruption by railway company BRINSON v. DAVIES.-CommissionHouse agent-Commission note on sale of licensed premises - Person prepared to purchase found by agent-Sale by owner PHILLIPS ROYAL LONDON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. Insurance, life Contract Illegality....
BOWEN.Practice- Interpleader proceedings-Issue tried by master-Appeal from order on issue-Court to which appeal lies... 141 PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND
BALTY DIVISION, ADMIRALTY BUSINES§. THE KINGSLAND. - Admiralty Charter party Demurrage
Delivery ac ording to
port-Discharge by port authority... 143
COUNT COURTS. Sittings of the
NOTHS AND QUERIES.....
LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. - Council
The Law and the Lawyers.
IT is really difficult to imagine anything more fatuous than the strike which has taken place this week in Ireland. Because the railway companies would not comply with the demand of the men that they should not be compelled to handle goods of firms which were in dispute with their employees the railway companies being compelled as common carriers to carry such goods-the whole of the railway organisation of Ireland has been thrown out of gear. At the time that the Trades Disputes Act 1906 was passed we protested strongly against the measure, which for all practical purposes placed the unions and their executives beyond the control of the law. The country now will be able to appreciate what is the effect of such a proceeding, and of placing any section. of the community beyond such control. Nowadays the so-called leaders have practically very little control over the men that they are supposed to lead, and the legalisation of the so-called peaceful picketing-which might be more aptly described as organised intimidation-has placed in the hands of a minority a strong weapon of offence against a majority of workers who are content to have their grievances remedied by legitimate means.
WE should be the last to assert that genuine grievances do not exist amongst many classes of workers, both as regards wages and other matters; but, at the same time, it is not to be supposed that employers, whether public or private, will Second Sheet.
be dictated to, as to the management of their businesses, by trade union officials, who only represent, at the most, a portion of their employees. There is very little doubt that this question of labour unrest will have to be taken in hand at the earliest possible moment by the Government. On the one hand it must be seen to that industrial conditions are made such that the worker may obtain a fair and proper share of the proceeds of his labour, while, on the other hand, means must be found for preventing a few officials responsible to nobody, save a section of the workers, from interfering with the whole business of the nation and inflicting severe loss upon both capital and labour alike.
THE County Courts Statistics for 1910, which have just been published, are interesting in many ways, and are especially at the present time, as Lord LOREBURN's proposals for further extending the jurisdiction of those tribunals have passed the House of Lords. Our readers will recollect that the County Courts Act 1903, which extended the jurisdiction, came into operation in Jan. 1905, and during the recent debates in the House of Lords the LORD CHANCELLOR laid stress upon the demand, which he averred existed throughout the commercial community, for a further extension. The present statistics clearly show that the extension provided by the Act of 1903 has not been of much service to litigants, and the figures which we give below demonstrate that actions above £50 and not exceeding £100 show a distinct tendency to diminish during the six years of the operation of the Act, while the existing "voluntary jurisdiction" above £100 has been resorted to during 1910 in but 384 cases.
THE figures we have given above include the year before and all the subsequent years since the Act of 1903 came into operation, and even the most ardent advocate of extension will be hard put to it to discover anything to support his contention that any great desire exists to resort to the County Courts for the settlement of large disputes. We have always contended either that the extension of jurisdiction, if availed of to any extent, would be at the expense of the poorer class of litigant, or that, if conferred on the County Courts, it would not be resorted to, and that in either case any change was inadvisable. As to the second of these conclusions, the statistics for the past six years are fairly conclusive, and it is to be hoped that, in the interests of the County Courts themselves and the smaller litigants that resort thereto, Lord LOREBURN's proposals for further extension will die a natural death.
1,324,320 1908 1,286,376 1909 1910
Perhaps the most notable feature in the above figures is the decline of trial by jury in the County Court, while the number of days on which the courts have sat although it is true that sittings other than those of the judges are included -shows that the recent aspersions made with regards to the work of the judges are without foundation. Next week we shall deal with the figures with reference to the imprisonment of debtors, which, we are glad to see, shows a very substantial diminution, for, in fact, in 1910 but 8198 debtors were imprisoned, as compared with 8919 in 1909.
THE recent circular of the Chief Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the subject of motor borns shows that this official recognises alike the nuisance and the fact that it is not quite easy to see at present how it is adequately to be met. It is impossible to contend that the profusion and variety of sounds, many of them exceedingly startling, emitted by motor horns of one type or another do not constitute a grave and growing addition to the volume of street noise. If the Legislature is to be invoked, then it must itself remember that it is the Motor Car Act which has largely led to the nuisance, and magistrates and coroners have accentuated the evil by constantly dwelling on necessity for warning. The authorities first complained that motors were too noisy, and now it is a grievance that they are too silent and their approach has to be heralded by more and more novel warnings to attract the attention of persons.
LORD HOWARD DE WALDEN is credited with an intention to work out a scheme for use upon his London property to mitigate the present grievances which mark the relationship of a tenant with his landlord. It is very easy to understand the position which each party takes up. The landlord will urge, when he takes over on the falling in of leases property worth hundreds of thousands of pounds by reason of the enterprise of tenants or the accidental circumstances of environment, that it was this possibility of ultimate gain in future years which induced him or his predecessors in title to accept a small initial ground rent. The tenant has less difficulty in assenting to this argument when fairly stated and fairly applied than he has in acceding to heavy and technical claims for dilapidations in respect of a building which is about to be pulled down. He can also complain too often of terms made especially onerous by a landlord who knows that the tenant's vocation is such that he must live in or near a restricted area. The difficulty of reconciling freedom of contract with some reasonable restrictions on oppression made possible by the particular circumstances is one which it is not easy to see how to overcome. Some adaptation of the principle already established in the legislation affecting agricultural holdings and market gardens in respect of improvements might be possible, or some definite land purchase scheme might be evolved under which tenants could compulsorily determine their leases on payment of an equitable sum. It is easy enough to suggest the bare outline, but far from easy so to fill in the details as not to inflict some confiscatory penalty on owners, either by taking away the property specially concerned at an unfair price, or by injuriously affecting some scheme for an estate as a whole by interrupting its continuity. If Lord HowARD DE WALDEN can devise some plan by which a ground landlord can give tenants facilities for acquiring a permanent interest in their property without asking for some impossible quid pro quo, other landowners in the metropolis may follow suit, and by so acting do a great deal to lessen some very real grievances under which leaseholders have suffered for many years.
NOTEWORTHY DECISIONS OF THE JUDICIAL YEAR. (Continued from page 431.)
There have been a considerable number of cases during the past twelve months in which the many aspects of a SOLICITOR'S professional life were discussed. Woodbridge and Sons v. Bellamy (103 L. T. Rep. 852; (1911) 1 Ch. 326) was a Court of Appeal case in which the decision of Mr. Justice Eve was reversed. The defendant, a solicitor, entered into an agreement of service with the plaintiffs, who were themselves solicitors carrying on business in London and a suburb. In consideration of appointing him their conveyancing clerk at the suburb at a stated salary, the defendant agreed not to carry on within a radius of five miles from that suburb the profession of a solicitor. When the engagement ended the defendant started business in London and wrote from his office there a letter on behalf of a client residing within the prescribed area demanding payment of a debt. The letter got into the hands of a person who was not the debtor; the same bought up the debt, and the solicitor received payment for his services. The plaintiffs urged that this proceeding infringed the condition. and the Court of Appeal held that there had been no infringement and refused an injunction. Re Dee Estates Limited (130 L. T. Jour. 573; (1911) 2 Ch. 85) was case turning on the right of the solicitor of original trustees of a debenture deed issued by a company to a lien. The solicitor was acting for the trustees alone, and not for the company. Costs were incurred in investigating a title, and the solicitor was held by the Court of Appeal to have a right of lien on the deed as against subsequent trustees and debenture-holders. Browne v. Black (104 L. T. Rep. 392; (1911) 1 K. B. 975) arose out of sect. 37 of the Solicitors Act 1843, whereby no solicitor can commence an action for the recovery of fees until the expiration of one month after such solicitor shall have delivered unto
the party to be charged therewith, or sent by the post to or left for him at his counting house, office of business, dwelling-house, or last known place of abode," a bill of such feep. By sect 48 a month is to be taken to mean a "' calendai month The Divisional Court had further to consider the meaning of " month, and they held that it meant a clear month, and if a bill is sent by post it must be posted at such a time that it will in the ordinary course of post be delivered to its addressee a clear calendar month before an action is commenced, and that for this purpose it is necessary so
to reckon the month as exclusive of the days on which the bill is delivered and the action instituted. Simmons v. Liberal Opinion Limited; Re Dunn (104 L. T. Rep. 264; (1911) 1 K. B. 966) is an exceedingly important decision. The application was one asking that the solicitor should be ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the action less a sum of £150 which had been received from a co-defendant. The facts were briefly these: A libel action of a political character had resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff against Liberal Opinion Limited. The solicitor had entered appearance for the defendant, and had delivered a defence. Certain documents were prepared by him in which there were references to the company. Some search by the plaintiff's solicitors made them doubtful whether there was such a company as Liberal Opinion Limited. The solicitor wrote an evasive reply to a communication on this point. It transpired that the company had not been actually registered. The plaintiff sought to have the solicitor made personally responsible for the costs on the ground that Liberal Opinion Limited was not a limited company, and that the solicitor had no authority to appear or defend the action. The Court of Appeal held that a solicitor must be held to warrant the authority which he claims, and felt clothed with jurisdiction to order the solicitor to pay the Lord Justice Buckley was much impressed by the evasive letter already referred to, which he regarded as tantamount to a statement that there was such a limited company.
TRADE UNION cases have not during the past year occasioned any of those momentous decisions such as have been referred to in our reviews of the decisions of former years. At the same time, there is no lack of importance in the judgments of the Court of Appeal in Osborne v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (104 L. T. Rep. 267; (1911) 1 Ch. 540). The plaintiff had been expelled from the defendant society, and he brought his action for reinstatement on the ground that his expulsion was ultra vires The defendants objected that the society was at common law illegal, and, further, that the action was not maintainable because under sect. 4 (3) (a) of the Trade Union Act 1871 it was instituted with the object of directly enforcing any agreement for the application of the funds of a trade union to provide benefits to members. It was held that the rules were not in restraint of trade and that the society was lawful at common law, and that the action was not within the sub-section and consequently was maintainable. In Baker v. Ingall (104 L. T. Rep. 456; (1911) 2 K. B. 132) another action was held to be maintainable. This was instituted by the officers of a trade union against a member who had been apparently incapacitated for life and had received £100, and, having resumed work, did not return the sum in accordance with an agreement signed by him. Wilson v. Amalgamated Society of Engineers (104 L. T. Rep. 715) was heard by Mr. Justice Parker, and he laid it down that the doctrine as to compulsory levies for the purpose of representation on municipal bodies did not extend to boards of guardians.
Passing now to the wide field covered by TRUSTEES AND TRusts, we may refer to Re Sheppard; De Brimont v. Harvey (103 L. T. Rep. 424; (1911) 1 Ch. 50). Mr. Justice Parker there had to deal with a case where two trustees allowed B., their solicitor, to sell certain mortgaged premises. Before B. received any of the money one trustee died. The other trustee, having confidence in B., allowed him to receive the money, and eventually B. misappropriated it. It was held that the surviving trustee was not liable to replace the funds. Mr. Justice Parker made some general observations on a trustee's basis of confidence in a solicitor's integrity. Re Mackay; Griessemann v. Carr (103 L. T. Rep. 755; (1911) 1 Ch. 300), also determined by Mr. Justice Parker, was not altogether unlike this case. The defendant and X. were executors and trustees. X. was
a solicitor, and the will authorised the employment of agents, and that each trustee should be indemnified out of the trust against the acts and omissions of agents. The solicitor trustee having died, the defendant instructed another firm of solicitors to act. trustees' cheque book was kept by the defendant, and he signed certain cheques in respect of sums declared by the firm to be necessary for payment. of duties. The firm misappropriated the money, and the beneficiaries sought to make the trustee liable. Mr. Justice Parker gave him the indulgence accorded by the Judicial Trustees Act 1896, s. 3, on the ground that the defendant was justified in believing that, having regard to the terms of the will, he could safely pay the money to the solicitor. A Scottish case, heard in the House of Lords, viz., Eaton v. Buchanan (1911) A. C. 253), may be referred to as discussing the personal liability of a trustee who, acting on the advice of a law agent of established reputation, compromises certain claims. Palmer v. Emerson (104 L. T. Rep. 557; (1911) 1 Ch. 758) was a case where beneficiaries sought to make trustees liable for investing on insufficient security, there being no independent valuation, but reliance had been placed on another valuation made by a highly skilled person for a different purpose. Mr. Justice Eve gave the defendants the benefit of the Judicial Trustees Act 1896, and the general doctrine was stated that there is no definite rule that in all cases where a part of the premises on which mortgage money is lent is utilised for business, trustees would commit a breach of trust in advancing more than one-half of the value of the property. If the mortgaged premises are, however, so inseparable from the business premises that the discontinuance of the business would depreciate the mortgaged premises, then trustees should keep within the limits of the moiety. Re Sir S. M. Maryon Wilson's Estate (104 L. T. Rep. 671: (1911) 2 Ch. 58) was a matter of construction, and it was held that the phrase British colony or dependency in a clause empowering trustees to invest trust funds did not justify an investment in the securities of individual
provinces or settlements which went to make up the Dominion of Canada, but denoted the aggregation of provinces which made up the complete Dominion.
VENDOR AND PURCHASER cases have been curiously barren of decisions of any outstanding importance, and we can therefore pass by this section of our review with brevity. Shepherd v. Croft (103 L. T. Rep. 874; (1911) 1 Ch. 521) was a vendors' action for specific performance, and was defended on the grounds of misrepresentation and latent defect. The property was described as residential," and was sold subject to drainage, sewer, and other easements affecting the same. Errors were not to annul the sale, and no compensation was to be payable. There was no notice given in anywise of an underground watercourse in a culvert, though the vendors knew of it. Mr. Justice Parker held that this watercourse was not a drain, sewer, or easement, nor a defect in title, but was a latent defect, and the vendors were given specific performance subject to their paying compensation
There have been since the inception of the Metropolitan Water Board a series of decisions in which the law relating to WATER has been considered by a number of test cases. The decision of Metropolitan Water Board v. Colley's Patents Limited (104 L. T. Rep. 478; (1911) 2 K. B. 38) presented facts showing that the defendants occupied a paper factory and water was consumed for drinking and washing purposes and for sanitary flushing, and this was held by the Court of Appeal to entitle the Water Board to charge on the domestic purpose scale. The curious charge now known as the King's Clogg is held by the House of Lords in Metropolitan Water Board v. Adair (27 Times L. Rep. 253) to be an obligation resting on the board since the Metropolis Water Act 1902 was passed. Metropolitan Water Board v. Bibbey (104 L. T. Rep. 812; (1911) 2 K. B. 74) should be referred to when questions arise as to cutting off supplies from unoccupied premises. In this case the board were held wrong in so cutting off, and ought to have proceeded under sect. 4 of the Water Companies (Regulation of Powers) Act 1887. Stacey v. Metropolitan Water Board (9 L. G. R. 174), decided by Mr. Justice Phillimore, and the more recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Batt v. Metropolitan Water Board (noted ante, p. 320), are very important pronouncements on the non-liability of the board for the disrepair of fittings connected with the water supply.
We now pass to the subject of WILLS, and, as usual, we find a tremendous number of cases. Inasmuch as in this subject there is a peculiar difficulty in making any one decision govern the view to be formed in respect of a concrete case before the legal practitioner, it is really useless to enter into a lengthy review of those authorities which have been added to the existing long catena of cases. There is, however, a doctrine of some special general significance laid down by Mr. Justice Parker in Re Willoughby; Willoughby v. Decies (104 L. T. Rep. 536), where he has held that if a testator does not intend to give an equality by way of benefit, but by way of portion, advanced children need not bring into account anything by way of interest on sums paid to them as advances. Two cases on vesting are worth brief notice. Re Litchfield; Horton v. Jones (104 L. T. Rep. 631) shows how the court will not read into wills a collocation of words particularly to prevent vesting, while in a case already noted ante, in connection with another point (Re Williams' Settlement: Williams v. Williams, 104 L. T. Rep. 310; (1911) 1 Ch. 441) Mr. Justice Eve laid it down that if a fund is left contingently on a class attaining twenty-one years of age, the eldest on reaching that age takes a vested interest in possession of his share and a contingent interest in the shares of those persons who, being members of the class, are under that age. Re Atkinson; Atkinson v. Atkinson (103 L. T. Rep. 860) should be carefully perused by those who have to advise on some case raising the doctrines of precatory trusts. The influence of modern authority on the doctrine is there considered by the Court of Appeal. In Re Griffiths; Griffiths v. Waghorne (104 L. T. Rep. 125; (1911) 1 Ch. 246) Mr. Justice Joyce held, in regard to sect. 33 of the Wills Act 1837, that a child of a testator's son en rentre sa mère, born after his father's and the testator's death, is to be deemed "living" at the time of the testator's death within the meaning of the section above indicated.
The above may be said to be a fair review of the year's judicial work. It will be seen to be as wide and varied in scope as ever, and, with the new legislation soon requiring to be considered and applied by the Legal Profession, there is every expectation that in the course of another year or two that scope will be still more wide and varied. Modern legislation, however beneficent its purpose, can scarcely be described as possessing that polish in expression which will deprive the legal practitioner of cases advise. The decisions of the past twelve months are intended to establish principles, and each one should be a small accretion to the margin of firm ground and intelligible law. The practical difficulty is, when viewing a new circumstance, to find the principle amidst the kaleidoscopic permutations of modern affairs. Time alone can show whether some of these solutions are really satisfactory. In law, as in everyday practice, one must sometimes find that the tempting short cut per a modern decision leads one into some morass, and the true path may have to be sought by a return to more well-trodden tracks, and the old saying may apply that "the furthest way about is often the nearest way home.'
WHARTON'S LEGAL MAXIMS.-With Observations and Cases. Third Edition, price 5s., post free.-HORACE COX, "Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C.-[ADVT.]
MISCELLANEOUS PRECEDENTS (continued).
I A. B. of
1. I appoint C. D. of and E. F. of (hereinafter called " my trustees") to be the executors and trustees of this my will and I appoint them to be the trustees hereof for all the purposes of the Settled Land Acts 1882 to 1890 and also for all the purposes of sect. 42 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881.
2. I appoint my trustees herein before named and the survivor of them to act jointly with my wife during her life and after her death with any person or persons appointed by her or if none then alone to be the guardians and guardian of my infant children. 3. [Confirmation of marriage settlement.]
4. [Specific legacies.]
5 [Immediate legacy to wife.]
6. I bequeath to each of my executors herein before named if he shall prove this my will the sum of £ (free of duty).
7. [Pecuniary legacies.]
8. [Annuity to wife.]
9. [Power to appropriate funds to answer annuities.] 10. I bequeath an annuity of 53. a week to each of my servants and if they respectively shall be in my service at the time of my death such respective annuities to be free of duty and to commence from my death and to be payable by equal weekly payments of 5s. each the first payment thereof respectively to be made at the expiration of one week from my death.
11. I bequeath to my trustees for each of my said two daughters and her issue a legacy of £a and if no appropriation shall be made to meet the said annuity to my wife then I bequeath to my trustees for each of my said daughters and her issue a further legacy of £b.
12 My trustees shall stand possessed of the said legacies amounting together to £c each so bequeathed for my daughters as aforesaid upon trust to invest the same at the discretion of my trustees in any of the investments in which my residuary estate is authorised to be invested with power at the like discretion to vary the investments thereof for others of a like nature and shall stand possessed of the legacies of each daughter and the investments for the time being representing the same and all statutory accumulations of income thereof (which accumulations shall form part of the capital of such legacies) upon trust to pay the income thereof to such daughter for her life without power of anticipation during any coverture and after her death capital and income of her trust legacies and all accumulations thereof or so much there of respectively as shall not have been paid or applied under any power or trust affecting the same shall be held in trust for all or any one or more exclusively of the others or other of her children or remoter issue at such time and if more than one in such shares with such provisions for maintenance education advancement or otherwise at the discretion of any person or persons and with such gifts over and generally in such manner for the benefit of such children or remoter issue or some or one of them as such daughter shall whether covert or sole by deed revocable or irrevocable or by will or codicil appoint and in default of and until and subject to any such appointment in trust for all or any children or child of such daughter who being male attain the age of twentyone years or being female attain that age or marry under that age and if more than one in equal shares but so nevertheless that no child who or any of whose issue shall take a share under any such appointment as aforesaid shall in the absence of any direction by such daughter to the contrary take any share in the unappointed part of such daughter's trust legacies without bringing the share or shares appointed to him or her or his or her issue into hotchpot and accounting for the same accordingly.
13. My trustees may at any time and from time to time but during the lifetime of my said daughters respectively only with their respective consent in writing raise any part or parts not exceeding together one half of the presumptive or vested share of any child or other issue of my said respective daughters under the trusts hereinbefore declared and pay or apply the same for the advancement or benefit of such issue as my trustees shall think proper.
14. In case there shall be no child of either one of my said daughters who being male attains the age of twenty-one years or being female attains that age or marries then subject to the trusts and powers herein before declared in favour of such daughter and her issue her said trust legacies or so much thereof respectively as shall not have become vested or been paid or applied under any trust or power affecting the same shall be held in trust for my other daughter and so that the accruing trust legacies shall be subject to the trusts and powers hereby declared concerning the trust legacies to which they accrue.
15. [Power to daughters to appoint life interest to surviving husbands.]
16. If either of my said daughters shall die in my lifetime then her trust legacies and the income thereof shall be held upon the same trusts and with and subject to the same powers and provisions
so far as capable of taking effect as if such daughter had died immediately after me.
17. I devise all my meseuages farms lands and hereditaments known as in the parish of in the county of and in the parish of in the county of (hereinafter oollectively referred to as "the first specifically devised hereditaments") to my trustees herein before named their heirs and assigns upon trust that my trustees shall until my eldest son B. B. shall attain the age of thirty years or previously die receive the rents and profits thereof and generally manage the same (with power to repair and insure the same and to demise the same for any term of years or tenancy and for any purpose including mining and at any rent or royalty and upon any terms which my trustees think fit and to make arrangements with tenants and others and to accept surrenders of leases and tenancies and generally to deal with the same as absolute owners as my trustees in their discretion shall think best for the benefit of my estate) and after paying the expense of insurance and repairs and other necessary outgoings shall out of the said rents and profits pay the sum of £d a year to the said B B. (or during minority apply the same for his maintenance or benefit) until the said B. B. shall attain the age of thirty years or previously die and shall until the said B. B. shall attain the age of thirty years or previously die accumulate the surplus of such rents and profits at compound interest by investing the same and the resulting income thereof in any of the investments hereinafter authorised and shall stand possessed of such accumulatione in trust for the said B. B. if he shall att in the age of thirty years and if and when he shall attain that age my trustees shall convey the said first specifically devised hereditaments unto and to the use of the said B. B. in fee simple for his own use and benefit.
18. I devise all my farma lands and hereditaments known us in the parish of and my farm known as in the said parish of (hereinafter collectively referred to as the secondly specifically devised hereditaments") to my trustees hereinbefore named upon trust that my trustees shall until my son C. B. shall attain the age of thirty years or previously die receive the rents and profits and generally manage the same with all the like powers to repair insure demise and otherwise deal with the same as are herein before given to my trustees with reference to the first specifically devised hereditaments and my trustees shall from time to time out of the net rents and profits of the secondly specifically devised hereditaments apply the sum of £d a year for the maintenance education or benefit of the said C. B. until he shall attain the age of twenty-one years or die under that age and from and after he shall have attained the age of twenty-one years my trustees shall out of the said net rents and profits pay the sum of £d a year to the said C. B. until he shall attain the age of thirty years or previously die and shall until the said C. B. shall attain the age of thirty years or previously die accumulate the surplus of such rents and profits at compound interest by investing the same and the resulting income thereof in any of the investments hereinafter authorised and shall stand possessed of such accumulations in trust for the said C. B. if he shall attain the age of thirty years and if and when he shall attain that age my trustees shall convey the said secondly specifically devised hereditaments unto and to the use of the said C. B. in fee simple for his own use and benefit.
19. Provided always that if either of my said sons shall die either in my lifetime or after my decease under the age of thirty years and shall leave any child or children who shall be living after my death and being male shall attain the age of twenty-one years or being female shalt attain that age or marry then and in such case my trustees shall stand possessed of the messuages farms lands and hereditaments and the accumulations (if any) of the rents and profits thereof herein before devised in trust for the son so dying upon trust for such last-mentioned child or children in fee simple and absolutely and if more than one in equal shares as tenants in common.
20. And I declare that so long as any such child or children shall be under the age of twenty-one years the net rents and profits of the said respective hereditaments and premises and the income of the said accumulations (if any) or of such share or shares therein respectively as shall not have absolutely vested under the trusts hereinbefore contained shall be applicable at the discretion of my trustees for the maintenance education or benefit of such child or children for the time being under the said age of twenty-one years in such manner as my trustees shall think proper.
21. But if either of them the said B. B. and C. B. shall die either in my lifetime or after my death under the age of thirty years without leaving a child who shall be living after my decease and being male shall attain the age of twenty-one years or being female shall attain that age or marry under it my trustees shall stand possessed of the hereditaments and premises including the accumulation (if any) herein before devised in trust for the son so dying upon the same trusts and with and subject to the same powers and provisions in favour of the other of my said sons and his child or children as are herein before declared and contained concerning the hereditaments originally devised in trust for him as aforesaid.
22. [General devise and bequest of residuary real and personal estate in trust for sale.]
23. [Trusts of proceeds of sale to pay funeral and testamentary expenses debts legacies &c.]
24. I direct my trustees to invest the residue of the said money in their names in or upon any of the investments hereby authorised with power for my trustees at discretion to transpose such invest
ments into others of any nature hereby authorised and shall stand possessed of the said trust premises constituting or representing my residuary estate (hereinafter called the residuary trust fund ") and of the annual income thereof upon the trusts following that is to Bay as to one moiety thereof (hereinafter called "the said B. B.'s moiety") upon the like tru-ts and with and subject to the like powers and provisions so far as the nature of the property will admit in favour of the said B. B. and his children and with the like gift over in favour of the said . B. and his children as are hereinbefore declared and contained concerning the first specifically devised hereditaments save and except that the said allowance of £d a year shall not be increased or multiplied but the income of the said B. B.'s moiety may (if and whenever necessary) be resorted to for making up any deficiency in the rents and profite of the said hereditaments and as to the other moiety (hereinafter called "the said C. B.'s moiety") upon the like trusts and with and subject to the like powers and provisions so far as the nature of the property will admit in favour of the said C. B. and his children and with the like gift over in favour of the said B. B. and his children as are herein before declared and contained concerning the secondly specifically devised hereditaments save and except that the said allowance of £d a year shall not be increased or multiplied but the income of the said C. B.'s moiety may (if and whenever necessary) be resorted to for making up any deficiency in the rents and profits of the secondly specifically devised hereditaments.
25. Subject to the trusts and powers herein before contained the residuary trust fund and the income thereof and all accumulations of income or so much thereof respectively as shall not have become vested or been paid or applied under any trust or power affecting the same shall be held in trust for my said daughters and in equal shares but so that my trustees shall retain and stand possessed of the share of each daughter upon the trusts and with and subject to the powers and provisions herein before declared and contained concerning their respective trust legacies. (To be continued.)
The September sittings at the Mayor's Court will commence on Wednesday next, at 10 30.
An intermediate session for cases arising in the county of Middlesex will commence to-day (Saturday), at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, at ten o'clock.
The September adjourned general session for cases arising on the north and south sides of the Thames will commence on Tuesday next, at the Sessions. house, Newington, at 10.30, when Mr. Loveland Loveland, K.C., will sit for the last time as deputy chairman.
The judges (the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence) have appointed the following commission days for holding the autumn assizes on the Western Circuit: Devizes, Thursday, Oct. 12; Dorchester, Tuesday, Oct. 17; Wells, Friday, Oct. 20; Bodmin, Wednesday, Oct 25; Exeter, Saturday, Oct. 28; Winchester, Saturday, Nov. 4; and Bristol, Monday, Nov. 13. The Lord Chief Justice will go the circuit alone until Bristol is reached, when he will be joined by Mr. Justice A T. Lawrence.
Mr. Justice Pickford has fixed the following commission days for the autumn assizes on the Oxford Circuit Reading, Friday, Oct 13; Oxford, Thursday, Oct. 19; Worcester, Monday, Oct. 23; Gloucester, Friday, Oct. 27; Monmouth, Wednesday, Nov. 1; Hereford, Monday, Nov. 6; Shrewsbury, Thursday, Nov. 9; and Stafford, Monday. Nov. 13. At the conclusion of the business at Stafford Mr. Justice Pickford will go on to Birmingham, on the Midland Circuit, to join Mr. Justice Ridley, but the commission day for that town has not yet been fixed.
Mr. Justice Avory and Mr. Justice Lush have appointed the following commission days for holding the autumn assizes on the Northern Circuit: Carlisle, Monday, Oct. 23; Lancaster, ThursManchester, day, Oct. 26; Liverpool, Tuesday, Oct. 31; and Wednesday, Nov. 15. Mr. Justice Avory will go the circuit alone unti Liverpool is reached, when he will be joined by Mr. Justice Lush.
Lincoln's-inn Chapel will reopen for Divine service, on Sunday, the 1st prox., at eleven o'clock.
Mr. William Risdon Hall Jordan, solicitor, of Teignmouth, Devon, at one time a partner in the firm of Messrs. W. R. Hall Jordan and Son, who died in July last, in his ninetieth year, left an estate of the gross value of £1700.
On Monday next the work of the Woolwich Police-court will be transferred to a temporary corrugated iron building which will be used pending the erection of the new court on the site of the present building. The new court, which is to be commenced at once, will probably not be completed for about two years.
The eighty-ninth session of the Birkbeck College will
on Wednesday, the 27th inst. The opening address will be given in the theatre, at 7.30 p.m., by Sir William Tilden, D.Sc., F. R.S. The courses comprise Mercantile and Common Law, Equity, Conveyancing, and Patent Law, classes in English and Roman Law, and Constitutional Law and History.