« EelmineJätka »
It is, therefore, obvious, that for all cases similarly represents the true, being subject to large reduc. circumstanced, this proviso of the section cited tions, in the way of payment to the Ecclesiastical should be repealed.
Commissioners, and to other charges. Again, mortgagees, and all other incumbrancers, It is observable also, that the machinery for the including those in the section cited—the owners of collection of the poor-rate would not be rendered perpetual unredeemable charges alone excepted— in the least more complicated or expensive, by are exempt from any deduction for poor-rate. Now, rendering the several charges on landed and other when it is remembered to what an extent Irish property liable to it; the primary liability might property is incumbered, some idea may be formed be left as at present, and an enactment enabling the of the vastness of this inmunity from taxation, and person liable to any annual charge to deduct the rate the disproportionate burthen thrown on the landed from every pound in such annual charge, in the same proprietor. To say that three-fourths of the way as a tenant deducts the landlord's proportion received rental of Ireland is absorbed in the pay, when paying bis rent, would be sufficient in every ment of incumbrancers, would be to under estimate case, except that of funded property, and here the the amount so applied ; and it seems impossible tax could be deducted in the same way as the to give reasons to justify the exemption of this vast income tax now is. class—"fruges consumere nati”—from contributing The difficulty of adjusting the proportion the to the poor-rate.
incumbrancer should pay, whilst the rate varied Indeed it has not been attempted except in the from place to place, even over different parts of the case of redeemable charges, such as mortgages, in same property, may have hitherto been a reason which, it is contended, that taxing these securities for dispensing with deductions from these classes would throw an undue supply of land into the of income, but will be no longer applicable should market, every creditor being anxious to call in his a general rate be adopted. loan.
The principle that land, and land only, should But, in the first place, this result would not be chargeable with the support of destitution, follow, because, by taxing funded, and every other implies that all poverty is rural, but this position is species of property, there would be no advantage not sound, and, even if it were, now that the gained by a transfer of capital from one taxed land, from an unforeseen and unaccountable visitasecurity to another; and secondly, if it did follow, tion of Providence, has ceased to yield her strength, it would be an advantage to the country at large, it seems in the highest degree inequitable to charge whose prosperity is retarded by nothing more than even the support of rural pauperism exclusively on the existence of incumbered estates, which, with land, and even that the present law does not do, the powerful auxiliary supplied by the Incumbered but throws this support on the weakest portion of Estates Act, would be brought into the market the population deriving a subsistence and an income with a clear title, to be transferred froin their from land. embarrassed proprietors to a more solvent class. Farmers, who are the producers, and landlords
Funded property is likewise exempted, and this, who, though nominally the proprietors, are frein all likelihood, arose from the difficulty of fixing quently the ill-paid agents of their own estates, the per centage it should bear for poor-rate under have been placed in the brunt of the battle, whilst the present system of local taxation ; but, as incumbrancers—those hungry absorbents of the already adverted to, by rendering this species of marrow of the soil—have escaped both the sight of property liable to poor-rate, the objection—if it destitution, and the legal necessity of contributing be an objection—to taxing mortgagees and other to its relief. creditors would be obviated, and there would be Assuming that we have proved our point-that no difficulty in estimating the amount of contri. the present imposition of poor-rate is unequal, and bution if the tax were a general one.
that the tax should be levied from every species of Nor should the enhanced value that land would property, we proceed once more to enforce our acquire by the imposition of a general tax be views, that the best remedy for existing distress, overlooked; as it is obvious that the removal of and only safeguard against supervening calamity, a portion of the burden under which it is now will be the imposition of a general tax. We may sunk, would tend much to augment its value, go further, and say that it is the only remedy that and general taxation, by diminishing the desirable-Ireland can apply. ness of loans, would promote the investment of We have objected to local taxation, because, in the capital in land ; in other words, sales, and not distressed districts, it would not supply sufficient loans, would be promoted, and this is a national means for relieving destitution, and because it tends object of incalculable importance.
to throw land out of cultivation. The foregoing observations manifest the inequa- Undoubtedly there is much weight in the argulity of the imposition of the tax, and exhibit the ment, that a local tax makes it the direct interest injustice of exempting the most solvent descriptions of the locality to be vigilant in lessening expendiof property from contributing to it.
ture in the relief of the poor, and stimulates landBurdening the income of a clergyman by double holders and landowners to give employment; but the ordinary rate, is an instance of an injustice of this argument pre-supposes that each locality can the opposite kind, and deserves especial notice, as support its own poor, and in the existing condition the second rate, thus imposed, is not for the benefit of Ireland is wholly intenable, as nearly one-half of the poor, but of the proprietor liable to pay of the country is admittedly unequal to the suptithe rent-charge, and this double deduction is made port of the destitute. They must either be fed on the gross income of the clergyman, which never from other sources, or be left to perish of want.
These are the alternatives.
a new trial, the court gave no opinion on the What are those other sources?
amendment. 1. The national treasury.
Tested by the language and intention of the 2. Local taxation, confined to individual proper statutes (9 Geo 4, c. 15, and 3 & 4 Vic. c. 105, s. ties, with a rate in aid.
48), and the decisions thereon, the correctness of 3. An equal general tax, levied off the whole this amendment seems more than doubtful. island.
The first of these statutes provided only for the It would be a delusion to expect that Irish amendment of variances between “any matter in poverty is to be perennially fed with supplies from writing, or in print, produced in evidence and the imperial sources. Except in periods of intense record;" so that the desired amendment must have distress, such as the late famine, we must struggle been taken from the written instrument in evidence, on with our own resources. This source of supply by substituting the ipsissima verba for the passage may be considered as cut off, and the question of se. mistated. Under the latter statute, if the legal lection rests between the other two, and the last only effect only was intended to be stated, and mistaken, can be depended upon; for, let us ask, over what the mistake could be amended by introducing the extent is the rate in aid to be levied ? Let us take, true legal construction, provided that in neither for instance, the province of Connaught; is there case the amendment was material to the merits. a large proprietor in that immense province who Thus a guarantee declared on as addressed to the can say, give me my own poor, including infirm and plaintiff” alone, but which, in fact, was addressed able-bodied, and I will support them, and pay my to “the plaintiff, or person or persons, for the time proportion of the workhouse and uniou expenses. being, carrying on the business," was held clearly a Suppose, there would be- and the supposition is a variance that might have been amended at Nisi strong one-will that proprietor be able to bear a Prius, Boyd v. Moyle (2 C. B. 644); and the same rate in aid for the support of his poorer neigh-rule was laid down in Evans v. Fryer (10 Ad. El. bours? It is obvious that he could not, and that 609); Whitwitt v. Scheer (8 Ad. & El. 301). But bis property must sink into the neral mass of whilst the court will exercise large degree of destitution. If all Connaught cannot feed its own liberality in construing these statutes, there is no poor, would, could, or should Munster? Where, case to be found which decides that an averment then, can you place the limit, short of the whole can be introduced which would have the effect of island? What imaginary boundary can you draw changing the nature of the defence, the necesbeyond which the rate in aid is not to be extended? sity for such averment having been obvious to the If you studiously exclude the rich portions of the pleader. In Jelf v. Oriel (4 Car. & P. 22), Lord island from contributing to the rate in aid of Tenterden refused to amend a declaration which poverty in the poorer districts, you deliberately stated a special acceptance at A. or at B., and the consigo their inhabitants to starvation. It is ob- bill appeared to be accepted at B. only, saying, "It vious that the principle of a local rate in aid is would only encourage want of care in drawing wholly inapplicable, and that the only alternative pleadings,—that the act (9 Geo. 4) was meant only is a general tax.
to aid clerical mistakes, and not such as any mau It being established, then, that the rate in aid who could read would avoid making.” These ob. can only be limited by the extent of the island, the servations, though valuable as coming from the only question remains between local taxation, con- author of the statute, as a warning to the practifined to individual estates, with a general tax, and tioner to avoid such mistatements, must be rea general tax without any reference to locality. ceived with the qualification, that if the defence This question, however, we must reserve to a future or plea be not altered by the amendment, the article.
court will direct it to be made. The 9 Geo. 4 ad. mittedly applies only to cases of variance between
the written instrument declared on and that proTHERE are few subjects of ordinary occurrence in duced in evidence, Hanbury v. Ella (1 Ad. & El. legal practice which occasion greater difficulty to 61); Gurford v. Bayley (3 M. & Gr. 781); Webb the practitioner, than to ascertain exactly the extent v. Hill, (33 Car. & P. 485); Masterman v. Judson, to which amendments of the record can be made at (8 Bing. 224). The 3 & 4 Vic. c. 105, 8. 48, exNisi Prius. In a case argued before the Court of tends the principle of the former act, by empower. Exchequer, in Ireland, last Trinity Term (Doolan ing the Judge at Nisi Prius,-in cases where no v.Laffan, June 15, 1848), the question arose on the written instrument exists, to make amendments of following state of facts. The action was by the a similar character to those allowed under the forindorsee against the accommodation maker of a mer statute ; that is, if the unwritten subject matter promissory note, made payable, in the body of the of the action were reduced to writing, the amend. note, at a particular place. The declaration con- ment sought to be introduced should be found intained two special counts ; the first averring spe- corporated therein. Therefore, the rule laid down cial presentment, the other general. The plaintiff
, by Lord Tenterden in Jelf v. Oriel, and reiterated having failed to prove presentment at the place in the recent case of Bowers v. Nixon (2 Car. & mentioned in the first count, obtained leave, from Kir. 372) must also be adopted in the construction the learned Judge who tried the case, to amend the of this statute. In the last case referred to, in record, by inserting an averment in the general covenant on a lease, the declaration omitted to set count, that there “ were no effects in the hands of out one of the penal rents reserved. Maule, J., the maker of the note,” thereby rendering the proof says, “ It appears to me that the enactments for of presentment unnecessary. On the motion for allowing ameudments at Nisi Prius were intended to meet variances arising from mere slips or acci- cially in England,—are not only here less usual in dents, and that they do not extend to a case like practice, but would, in many instances, be improper, the present, in which the party has intentionally as amounting to the general issue. and designedly framed his pleading in a manner We shall consider the cases on this subject in two which gives rise to this objection. This being my classes, those in which the amendment sought was opinion, and the allowance of amendments being held not to be within the purview of the acts, and entirely in the discretion of the Judge at Nisi Prius, those in which the question, admitting the propriety I shall not allow an amendment in this case ;” and of the amendment in other respects, was, whether the Court of Queen's Bench, after consideration, it was in a particular immaterial to the merits, or refused a rule for a new trial. If the true cou- whether the defence would be prejudiced thereby. struction be, that "it shall be lawful for any court, In the first class we find it established that the &c., to amend when any variance shall appear object of the statutes was, not to cure vicious between the proof and the recital on the record of pleadings, but to prevent
non-suits from variances, any contract, &c., or other matter, in any particu- Atkinson v. Raleigh, (3 Q. B. 85 ; 6 Jur. 731); to lar—in the judgment of the court—not material to give the court the power of protecting a plaintiff
, the merits of the case," &c., the amendrrent in the by amending an obvious mistake, Brown v. Dean, principal case was going further than the statutes (ž Nev. & Man. 222, Denman, C. J) and not to warranted. The averment could not have been in- give either plaintiff, or defendant an opportunity of troduced under the 9 Geo. 4, not being a portion of mending their hand, by introducing on the record the written contract declared upon ; nor under the either a cause of action, or a defence different from 3 & 4 Vic. c. 105, which, if our view be correct, that first put forward; and on this principle, that extended only to such amendments as we before if the record had in the first instance stated the adverted to ; that is, when the averment intro- cause of action in its amended form, and the other duced by the amendment could be found in the party had not been misled by his opponent's pleadcontract, or other cause of action ; and, in this ing, different issues might have been raised ; when view, it is immaterial to discuss whether the amend the questiou really is not whether there is a variance ment was material to the merits, or prejudicial to between the proof and the record, but whether the the defence. The words “other matter,” which defect is in the declaration, amendments will not be appear to have been relied on in the argument of allowed ; as where the year of the demise was not the principal case, as conferring large powers of stated in the declaration in ejectment. Doe v. amendment, would seem to include causes of action Parsons, (8 M. & W. 158); see also David v. ejusdem generis with those previously enumerated, Preece, (5 Q. B. 440); Franklin v. E. of Falmouth, such as actions not directly founded on written in- (6 Car. & P. 529): Doe v. Errington, (1 Ad. & struments, ejectment and replevin, which previously čl. 750, S. C.; 3 N. & Man. 646). were not amendable under the 9 Geo. 4, as not In the next place, supposing the amendment proper professing to set out any written instrument, Ryder -as not introducing new matter, it then will be for v. Malbon (3 Car. & P. 594), and not expressly consideration whether the variance be not in a partinamed in the 3 & 4 Vic. c. 105.
cular material to the merits, or the amendment proBefore entering on an examination of the cases posed prejudicial to the defence, as where the defeuddecided on these acts, we must call the attention of ant would be thereby deprived of what would have our readers to two very important distinctions in been ground for a motion in arrest of judgment, the practice of pleading in this country and in Atkinson v. Raleigh, (5 Q. B. 79; 6 Jur. 731); or England, which must be kept in view ; first, the the pleading, as amended, would be demurrable
. allowance in England of but one count; secondly, Evans v. Powis, (11 Jur. 1043). And the best the necessity of pleading specially, defences which test of the extent to which the particular amend. in this country are admissible under the general ment is prejudicial, is that before alluded to, namely, issue, both of which will be seen to have an impor- whether the same plea would be applicable before tant effect on the law of amendment, the first, , and after the amendinent. In Souchee v. Denny, by narrowing the plaintiff's statement, would, parti- (17 Law. Jour. 171, Ex. N.S.) the words proved cularly with respect to instruments difficult of con- being different from those laid in the record, the struction, place him at a considerable disadvantage court refused a new trial, saying, “the words as if it were not for the very liberal construction the amended were actionable, but, that if the words courts have given these statutes, a construction ad inserted by amendment could have been answered inittedly adopted to relieve plaintiffs from the diffi- by a plea of justification, and that the original words culty alluded to, Smith v. Knowelden (2 Man. & could not, the amendment would not have been Gr. 561), and for which the same reasons do not proper ;" and, in a similar case, Pater v. Baker
, exist in this country, it being here in the plaintiff's (11 Jur. 170; 16 Law Jour. 124, C.P.N.S.) Wilde, power to state his case in as many forms as he C. J., says the amendment must be allowed. “ Any pleases. The second is of consequence, in consi- plea the defendant could have pleaded would have dering the rule established by the English autho- equally been an answer to both,” i.e. the amended rities, that the amendment is improper where it and original record, and the same rule is followed admits of a plea different from that on the record, in Smith v. Knowelden, (2 Man. & Gr. 561). And, Garrett v. Handely (3 B. & Cr. 462); Brashier v. in all cases where the amendment required arises Jackson (6 M. & W. 554); Boucher v. Murray merely from a mis-statement of the cause, not a (6 Q. B. 362), as being prejudicial to the defence, misconception of the right of action, the court will a test not so easily applied in this country, where be very liberal in the exercise of this power, if it the matters of defence,--that must be pleaded spe-' be uve prejudicial to the merits. Suinsbury v. Mathews, (4 M. & W. 343); Gurford v. Bayley, and not the defence to the action, that it was (3 Man. & Gr.781); Hanbury v. Ella, (1 Ad. & El. never intended by the legislature that the plaintiff' 61); Evans v. Fryer, (10 Ad. & El. 609), Whit- should be allowed at the trial not only to cure a worth v. Scheer, (8 Ad. & El. 301); Boyd v. Moyle, variance between bis statement and his proof, but, (2 C. B. 632); Smith v. Brandram, (2 Scott, N.R. in the language of Parke, B., (Doe v. Parsons,) 5:39; I Nev. & Man. 332). In Edwards v. Leach,“ to cure a defect in his declaration." (3 Man. & Gr. 229,) the demise in the ejectment By these observations we do not mean to imply was on the 15th, the proof was of a right of entry that the discretion of the judge in the principal case on the 16th. This variance was amended, and on was not rightly exercised ; if he had refused to a motion for a new trial, Tindal, C. J. says— amend, his decision could not be reviewed, and his “ There was a variance between the allegation in strong sense of justice no doubt induced him to the lease and the proof, the amendment of which allow the amendment-whether his own opinions is clearly warranted by the statute. It is said, this were favourable or otherwise-in order that the is an improper interference with the admission of question might receive a more solemn adjudication the defendant in the consent rule ; on the amend by the full Court. ment being made, the declaration is to be considered as having been always in its amended form, and the consent rule is to be taken as always applicable
(Continued from page 48.) thereto. Coltman, J.-In many instances, un
5. 'That the Bishop in whose diocese the church of such doubtedly, it may be material to the merits whether district shall be situate, shall have all ecclesiastical and the right of entry accrued on the one day or the such district, and the incumbent or perpetual curate and in
spiritual jurisdiction, powers, and authorities in and over other. In such a case the judge would in all habitants thereof, in the same manner, as if the entire of the probability refuse to amend, and Maule, J.—The said district had been formed out of parishes situate with in consent is to confess any lease that will establish such diocese; and the said district shall be deemed to be the title of the lessor;" in Mariott v. Edwards, within the limits of such diocese : provided that nothing (1 M. & Rob. 320, S C. 6 Car. & P. 208,) the court portion whereof shall be included in such district, or the
herein contained shall render the incumbent of any parish a allowed the proper parish to be inserted, the parties emoluments, rents, or tithe rent-charge of his benefice, subnot being inisled by the misdescription; and see ject to the jurisdiction of any bishop, save the bishop in Gladwell v. Stegall, (8 Scott, 60); Roberts v. whose diocese his benefice shall be situate, or prejudice his Snell, I M. & Gr. 577); Boys v. Ancell, (5 Bing rights or liabilities otherwise than same would have been N. C. 390). There is one case which illustrates affected in case such district had been formed under the pro
visions of the said first-recited act. strongly the length to which the court will go where the merits are not affected. The action was by the and it may be expedient on the death or removal of the in
6. “And whereas there are united parishes in Ireland, indorsee against the indorser of a bill of exchange. 'cumbents thereof, to disunite same : And whereas, glebe
The evidence was, that the defendant was payee of houses have been or may be built on the glebe land of the the bill, and, in that capacity, indorsed to the parishes forming same ; and the incumbents of same may plaintiff. The court allowed the amendment, as
be entitled to certain sums of inoney to be paid to such in. the defendant could raise no defence to the record : cumbents, or their executors or adininistrators, ou the re
. moval or death of such incumbents, by their successors : as amended that was not open to him in its ori.
• And whereas in the event of such uvited parishes being ginal form. This case is not opposed to Jelf v. disunited, the glebe houses would be too large for the resiOriel, there the bill was stated to be specially dence of the incumbent of any one of the two parishes accepted at “ A. or B.” in the alternative, purport
• theretofore forming such united parishes :' Be it enacted, ing to give the hæc verbri, whereas in the former after the passing of this act any such incumbent of any such case, according to the usual form of pleading, the
united parishes may, with the consent of the Lord Lieuten
ant and the Privy Council, six at least of the said Privy legal effect alone was given, which the court will, Council assenting, exchange such glebe on which such glebe as we have shewn, be most liberal in amending, house may have been built, for lands of equal or greater when the defendant is not thereby prejudiced. value in any one of such disunited parishes, whereof he, the
To apply these principles to the case under consi. said incumbent may be entitled to, in such manner, with such deration, we think the amendment went further than consents, aud under all the rules in the acts relating to the any of the cases we have referred to; first, because exchange of glebes in Ireland mentioned: provided, that in
ascertaining the value of the glebe land so to be exchanged, the averinent placed on the record was not drawn such value shall be set upon such glebe house and other from the instrument upon which the action was buildings as the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council shall founded, whether it be considered with respect to deem just; and it shall not be lawful for such incumbeut, the ipsissima verbn, or the legal effect; and secondly, his executors or administrators, to have, or claim from any because the plaintiff, having stated his cause of action successor, any sum of money to which he or they might be
entitled in respect of any such glebe house, building, or iin. in as many shapes as appeared to him necessary to
provements; and that any certificate granted to such incum. sustain it, should not be allowed to introduce an aver
bent shall, after such exchange, be null and void. ment necessarily requiring a new plea. It may be 7. That all the provisions in the said acts herein before said that as all these defences are in this country recited applicable to districts formed there-under shall as available under the general issue, that the defendant amended by this act, be applicable to districts to be formed was not prejudiced as he would be at Westmiuster, under and by virtue of this act, so far as the same are not
inconsistent with this act. if confined to one plea, but it appears to us that
8. That this act may be amended or repealed. the plaintiff having the right to state his case with
CAP. XLII. out any limit as to the number of counts, and the An Act to facilitate the performance of the duties of Justices defendant going to trial with a legal defence to
of the peace out of sessions within Enyland and Wales each, which, in Duckworth v. Harrison, (5 M. &W. with respect to persons charged with indictable offences. 427,) was held to be the defence at Nisi Prius,
[14th August, 1848.]
Sec. 12 English warrants may be backed in Ireland, and vice Sec. I. To what Companies Act is to apply.
versâ, in the event of parties escaping. Warrants 2. Act to apply to Mining Companies and certain so indorsed to be valid.
Building Societies. 14. English or Irish warrants may be backed in Scot. 3. Interpretation :—" Lord Chancellor :" “ Cumpa. land Warrants so indorsed to be valid.
" " Member :" “ Constitution of a Company :" 15. Scotch warrants may be backed in England or Ire.
Contributory:" “ Call :" “ Creditor :" * Per. land. Warrants so indorsed to be valid.
The Court :" “ Master :" “ Fiat" and 32. Act to extend to Berwick-upon-Tweed, but not to
Court of Bankruptcy :" “ Oruer ubsolute :" Scotland, Ireland, gc., ercept as to backing of
Number and Gender. warrants.
4. Short Title of Act. 33. Commencement of act.
5. Who may petition : Act of Bankruptcy : declaration 12. That if any person against whom a warrant shall be
of insolvency : Judgment against the Company : issued in any place in England or Wales, by any justice of
Decree or order against the Company : actioa the peace, or by any judge of the court of Queen's Bench,
against a member for Company's debt : Creditors or justice of Oyer and Terminer or gaol delivery, for any
Affidavit of debt, and Writ of Summons. Disso. indictable offence shall escape, go into, or be, suspected to
lution or ceasing to carry on business : other suf. be, in any part of Ireland, or if any person against whom ficient ground for dissolution. such warrant shall be issued in any county or place in Ire. 6. No Petition after Fiat but under direction of Court land, shall escape, go into, or be, or suspected to be, in
of Bankruptcy. any place in England or Wales, it shall be lawful for any 7. Proceedings in Bankruptcy to be conclusive. justice of the peace in and for the place into which such per- 8. Heading of Petition and subsequent proceedings. son shall escape or go, or where he shall reside or he, to 9. Proceedings not to be impeached by reason of the indorse (K.) such warrant shall be a sufficient authority to petitioner not having been duly qualified. all persons, to execute same in the place where the justice 10. Petition to be advertised in London Gazette, and so indorsing it shall have jurisdiction, by apprehending the
served. person against whom such warrant shall have been granted, 11. Court may order Petition to stand over for further and to convey him before the justices who granted the same,
Service, or some other justices who shall thereupon proceed in such 12. Court may make order Nisi or reference to Master. manner as if the said person had been apprehended in the 13. Court may apply the provisions of the Constitution said last-mentioned county or place.
of the Company. 14. That if any person against whom such warrant shall 14. Court may make order absolute. be issued in England or Ireland, shall escape, go into, or 15. Every order, until order absolute, to be advertised. be, or be suspected to be, in Scotland, it shall be lawful for 16. From what period Companies to be dissolved. the sheriff or steward depute or substitute, or any justice of 17. Petitioner to carry in order absolute before Master the peace of the county or place where such person shall go
within ten days. into, or be, to indorse (K.) the said warrant, which shall 18. On dissolution in Suit Court may order winding. be a sufficient authority to all persons, to execute same in
under this act. the county or place where it shall have been so indorsed, by 19. After order absolute Assets not to be disposed of. apprehending the person against whom such warrant shall 20. Master may appoint Interim Manager. have been granted, and to convey him into England, Wales, 21. Notice of appointment of Official Managers by the or Ireland where the justice who first issued the said war
Master. rant shall have jurisdiction to be there dealt with according 22. Master to appoint Official Manager. to law.
23. In appointing icial Manager, Master may either 15. That if any person against whom such warrant shall
adopt or reject proposals. be issued in Scotland, who shall escape, go into, or be, or 24. Recognizances of Official Manager and his sureties. shall be suspected to be, in England or Ireland, it shall be 25. Master may order Official Manager and his Sure. lawful for any justice of the peace in the place into which
ties to pay on their recognizances. such person shall escape, or where he shall be, or shall be 26. Master may take Security of Guarantee Society. suspected to be, to indorse (K.) the said warrant which 27. Appointments and removals to be valid without shall be sufficient authority to the persons bringing same,
confirmation, and to be advertised. and to all persons to execute the said warrant in the county 28. Manager to have custody of books, gc. or place where it is so indorsed, by apprehending the person 29. On appointment, all Estate, effects, and credits of against whom such warrant shall have been granted, and to
the Company, and all powers, &c., to vest in Oj. convey him into the place in Scotland next adjoining to Eng
ficial Manager. Registration of orders absolute land, to be dealt with according to the practice of the law of and appointments of Official Manager. Scotland, as if the said offender had been apprehended in 30. When order made on Petition by direction of the Scotland.
Court of Bankruptcy, all estate, &c. of Assignees 32 But nothing in this act shall extend to Scotland or
to vesl in Official Manager. Ireland, or to the isles of Man, Jersey, or Guernsey, save 31. Until Court shall regulate by general orders all and except the provisions respecting the backing of war.
matters relating to Official Manager not provided
for by the sct, practice as to receivers to be 33. That this act shall commence and take effect on the
followed. 20 October, 1848.
32. Court may allow Salary to Official Manager. CAP. XLIII.
33. Official Manager may employ Solicitor. An Act to facilitate the performance of the duties of justices 34. Duties of Official Manager.
of the peace out of sessions within England and Wales, 35. As to passing accounts of Official Manager ; who with respect to summary convictions and orders.
allowed to surcharge, 8c. [14th August, 1848.] 36. Official Manager to keep bouks of proceedings, CAP. XLIV.
which shall be certified by the Master. An Act to protect justices of the peace from vexatious actions
37. Master to determine what parties are to attend prodone by them in the execution of their office.
ceedings before him ; and may appoint representa[14th Auyust, 1848.]
tives of Contributories or classes of Contributories.
38. All Contributories on the list may appeur, submit CAP. XLV. An Act to amend the acts for facilitating the winding up
39. Lunatics to be represented by their Committees, and the affairs of joint stock companies unable to meet their
Minors by their Guardians. pecuniary engagements; and also to facilitate the disso.
40. Parties to name Soliciturs on whom notices to be lution and winding-up of joint stock companies, and other
[14th August, 1848.]