there has been much debate. It is now plainly enacted that, in calculating the means of a married couple living together in the same house, the means shall be taken to be one half of the total means of the couple. Sect. 3 deals with nationality, and, as is somewhat detailed, it is difficult to reproduce succinctly its purport. It modifies the existing requirements as to conditions of nationality in the case of married women. It is made a statutory condition that for at least twelve years out of the twenty years prior to the receipt of a pension there has been residence in the United Kingdom. Then follow a series of provisos under which it is necessary to compute this twelve years' residence. Certain periods of absence are, under conditions therein set out, to be treated as periods of residence. Pensions are not to be paid to persons while absent from the United Kingdom, nor where payment is not obtained within three months after the due day can sums be payable on account of old age pensions. A very long section follows amending the law with regard to the raising and determination of questions as to old age pensions. At any time questions may be raised as to non-fulfilment of statutory conditions, or as to means, and a pension officer can, if dissatisfied with any refusal or neglect of a local pension committee, apply to the central pension authority as a person aggrieved. This Act is not to operate so as to disentitle any person who is in receipt of a pension when the Act commenced to continue to receive it, or so as to reduce the rate thereof.

(To be continued.)

IRISH NOTES.

ONE of the questions involved in the present industrial troubles in Ireland as well as England is that of the payment of a "fair wage. and if the questions at issue between employers and employed are to be submitted to arbitration, compulsory or voluntary, the definition of what is a fair wage will be a matter of no little difficulty. When the troubles between landlords and tenants in Ireland came to a head in 1881, and it was decided to establish a court, subsequently called the Irish Land Commission, to settle those disputes, it was considered at the time that it would be impossible to define a "fair rent." It was left to the discretion of the court to settle as between landlords and tenants what is a fair rent in each case, but the court was directed to have "regard to the interests of the landlord and tenant respectively," and to consider "all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district." Subject to these restrictions the matter was left at large, and it seems that if arbitration is to be brought into operation as between employers and employed, the question of a fair wage must also be left at large.

THE Local Government Board for Ireland have addressed a circular letter to the rural district councils in Ireland pointing out a number of important details with reference to the administration of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts. It is pointed out that, although in the Labourers (Ireland) Act 1911 a sum of £5,250,000 is substituted for £4,250,000 in sect. 16 of the Act of 1906 (which authorises the money to be advanced "for the provision of cottages and allotments"), the rural councils should bear in mind the undertaking given by the Government on the second reading of the Bill, that the additional million would be applied for the express purpose of enabling additional labourers' cottages to be built with or without garden allotments, and not for the purpose of increasing allotments to existing cottages. It is, therefore, necessary for each council to exclude from any pending scheme proposals for the acquisition of land for the purpose of increasing allotments to existing cottages, where the rural district council contemplates borrowing the money required from the Irish Land Commission out of the additional fund now provided by Parliament. The number of additional cottages-6000-which it was estimated could be built under the Act of 1911 was arrived at by taking £170 as the average cost per cottage and allotment, but the Local Government Board consider it very doubtful whether so large a number of cottages could be provided if a garden allotment of a statutable acre were given in conjunction with each cottage.

ONE of the subjects discussed at the conference of the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors which was held in Dublin last week was that of income tax and the administration of the Income Tax Acts. The principal matter that was referred to question of the production of balance-sheets, and many of the was the speakers advocated that balance-sheets should not be insisted upon by surveyors of taxes, and that taxpayers who object to produce such balance sheets should not be refused the statutory allowance for depreciation or placed under other disadvantages, provided that the ordinary profit and loss account had been certified by a professional accountant. It was also suggested that depreciation should be allowed on buildings and on furniture, fixtures, and fittings; that certain items should be allowed as charges against profits for income-tax purposes, including gifts or gratuities in the nature of payment for services rendered, accidental losses not covered by insurance, cost of removal of business from one place to another, and the preliminary expenses of joint stock companies; that single-premium life assurance payments should be allowed as a deduction up to one-sixth of the taxpayer's total income in the same way as when the premiums are payable by annual instalments; that the rates of depreciation on plant ard

machinery should not be left to the discretion of the Surveyor of Taxes, but, if fixed scales for particular trades were deemed impracticable, the allowance credited by the accountant who audits the accounts should be accepted; that accounts certified by professional accountants should be accepted by surveyors as correct in detail, but that it should be open to surveyors to raise questions of principle; that at the hearing of appeals by the special or general commissioners the surveyor and assessor should be required to retire at the same time as the appellant; and that the clerk to the commissioners should be fully qualified to give advice on all points of income-tax law.

لعل

J

THE only matter of interest that is stirring in legal circles at present in Ireland is the Revision Sessions which are new proceeding in the various centres. The question of separate voting in the case of latchkey voters that was raised in Kemp v. Fittall (No. 4) has been dis. cussed in a number of courts, and it has been decided that that decision does not apply to Ireland by reason of the existence of sect. 2 of the Registration (Ireland) Act 1885-a provision which is not to be found in the English code. The section provides: "For the purpose of the household qualification created by the Representation of the People Act 1884, separate rating of a dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house separately occupied shall not be necessary to entitle the inhabitant occupier of the same to be registered as a voter in respect thereof." It was argued that this section only applies to a qualification created by the Act of 1884, and that the only franchise created by that Act was the service franchise, on which alone the exemption for separate voting was intended to operate. It was pointed out, however, by one of the revising barristers that the service franchise is only a branch of the household franchise, and that the household franchise was really brought into existence in the form in which it is now to be found by the Act of 1884. Before 1884 there was no household franchise in Irish counties; since 1884 there is. So far, therefore, as Irish counties are concerned, the Act of 1884 did create the household franchise in the ordinary sense of that word. It was, therefore, decided that sect. 2 of the Act of 1885 extended to the household qualification as a whole, and it followed that the decision in Kemp v. Fittall had no application to Ireland. Another important point that is being raised is with reference to the stamping of tenancy agreements, and it has been held that, following an old decision of Lord Justice FitzGibbon, it is not necessary, in order to prove the right to the houshold qualification, that the document on which that right depends should be stamped. In Belfast there is the usual controversy with reference to "double tenancies," the question of the right to the franchise as between husband and wife, and the nonpayment of rates. These topics give rise to endless complications, but, as a rule, they do not involve any questions of

aw.

COMMENTS ON CASES.

THE decision of the Court of Appeal in Doggett v. Waterloo Tartcab Company Limited (102 L. T. Rep. 874; (1910) 2 K. B. 336) was that, on the facts there found, the contractual relationship between the driver and the proprietor of a taxi-cab must either be that of co-adventurer or of bailment, including locatio rei, or hiring of the vehicle. The facts there in regard to the position of the driver were precisely the same as those of Smith v. General Motor-cab Company (105 L. T. Rep. 113). Therefore, the House of Lords, in deciding that case, were, in effect, dealing with an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Doggett's case (ubi sup.). It is settled by a series of authorities-such as Fowler v. Lock (26 L. T. Rep. 476; L. Rep. 7 C. P. 272) and Venables v. Smith (36 L. T. Rep. 509; 2 Q. B. Div. 279)-which turned upon the position of the drivers of hackney carriages, being horse-drawn cabs, in the metropolis, that the relationship between the proprietor of a vehicle of that description and the driver is not, in ordinary circumstances, one of master and servant. Prima facie it is that of bailor and bailee. In the view taken by the learned judges of the Court of Appeal in Doggett's case (ubi sup.), the position of the driver of a taxi-cab was in most respects identical with that of the driver of a horse cab. That being so, their Lordships were unable to hold-in the absence of evidence to support the finding of the County Court judge on the point-that a contract of service existed between the driver and the proprietor of a taxi-cab within the meaning of sect. 13 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58). That section provides that workman' save as aforesaid, means any person who has entered into or works under a contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer. whether by way of manual labour, clerical work, or otherwise, and whether the contract is express or implied, is oral or in writing." In Smith's case (ubi sup.) the conclusion arrived at by the House of Lords was that, quoad the proprietor of a taxi-cab, the question whether the relation of master and servant existed between him and the driver was purely one of fact. Upon the evidence before him, the County Court judge had found that no such relation did exist. Consequently the House of Lords, acting on the wellestablished principle that the County Court judge, sitting as an arbitrator under the provisions of the Act of 1906, was an absolute judge of fact, and that his decision could only be reviewed by the superior courts on questions of law, gave their decision in accordance with His Honour's finding of fact. The claim, therefore, of the driver to compensation for personal injury by accident arising out

of and in the course of his employment entirely failed on that simple ground. In these circumstances, it became unnecessary for the House of Lords to discuss the decision in Rex v. Solomons (101. T. Rep. 496; (1909) 2 K. B. 980). That case was relied upon in Doggett's case (ubi sup.) as an authority in favour of the proposition that the driver of a taxi-cab is the servant of the proprietor. It was there held that the driver of a taxi-cab owned by a company, who wears the uniform of the company and is required to conform to various regulations issued by the company on pain of dismissal, but who takes out his cab each day to ply for hire in London, paying to the company 75 per cent. of his daily receipts, may be a "servant " within the meaning of sect. 1 of the Falsification of Accounts Act 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 24).. That authority was, however, easily distinguished by the Court of Appeal on the facts, there being nothing in Doggett's case (ubi sup.), any more than there was in Smith's case (ubi sup.), to show that the proprietor exercised over the driver of the taxi-cab such an amount of control as there appeared to be in Rex v. Solomons (ubi sup.). As regards the public, the relation of the driver of a taxi-cab to the proprietor gives rise to altogether different considerations. And the House of Lords were careful to point out that their decision in Smith's case (ubi sup.) left unaffected the liability of the proprietor to third parties-passengers, wayfarers, or others for the acts of the d river. Quoad such third parties, the driver may be treated as the agent of the proprietor, rendering the latter liable for those acts which are within the scope of the driver's authority. So that for negligence in the conduct of the business of cab driving, both the principal and the agent may be responsible to the public. This is in harmony with the opinion expressed by the Court of Appeal in Doggett's case (ubi sup.)-namely, that the proprietor might be liable to the public for any act of negligence on the part of the driver, just as if the relationship which existed between them was that of master and servant. The same is the result of the provisions of the Hackney and Stage Carriages (Metropolis) Acts 1831 and 1843; and cases like King v. London Improved Cab Company (61 L. T. Rep. 34; 23 Q. B. Div. 281), Keen v. Henry (69 L. T. Rep. 671; (1894) 1 Q. B. 292), and Gates v. Bill and Son (87 L. T. Rep. 288; (1902) 2 K. B. 38) are authorities in point. Any other conclusion would have necessitated prompt legislative intervention in the interests of the public.

in

the county of day of

186

1. WHEREAS X. Y. late of deceased duly made his will dated the and thereby devised to his son 4. Y. his freehold and copyhold estate called

heirs and assigns certain &c. all in the county of (except the house in which he then resided called with the land and appurtenances attached thereto thereinafter devised) and the said testator appointed his cousin W. H. his friend the said A. B. and his eldest daughter J. B. (then and therein called J. W.) executors and trustees thereof and the said testator devised and bequeathed unto the said W. H. and A. B. and J. B. their heirs executors and administrators ALL that his messuage or mansion-house in which he then resided called with the land and appurtenances belonging or attached thereto or usually enjoyed therewith situate in the parish of in the said county of and also all the household furniture plate linen and china and other chattels and effects being in or about the said premises upon trust to permit such of his seven daughters (including the said J. B.) as should be desirous of so doing and should at the time of his death be unmarried to reside in the said mansion-house from the time of his death and so long afterwards as they or any one of them should be unmarried and to have the use of the said land and appurtenances attached or belonging thereto and of the said furniture chattels and effects and after the decease or marriage of all and every one of his said unmarried daughters the said testator directed that the said mansion house called with the said lands and appurtenances attached or belonging thereto and the said furniture chattels and effects should thenceforth be holden in trust for the said A. Y. his heirs executors and administrators absolutely and the said testator devised all that his freehold farm with the appurtenances called in the parish of and also his farm and lands called in the county of and also his freehold farm situate in the parish of in the county of and all other his real estate whatsoever and wheresoever not therein. before disposed of unto and to the use of the said W. H. and A. B. and J. B. and their heirs upon the trusts thereinafter declared concerning the same and the said testator also gave and bequeathed unto the said W. H. A. B. and J. B. their executors and administrators all the Government Stock Dock Stock shares policies and shares in the Fire Insurance Office and Sale Rooms and all other the personal estate wheresoever and of what nature or kind soever not therein before disposed of which he might be possessed of or entitled to or might have power to dispose of at the time of his decease upon the trusts thereinafter directed concern

ing the game that was to say he directed his said trustees and executors to hold the said real and personal estates so devised and bequeathed to them as aforesaid upon trust as soon as conveniently might be after his decease to recover and receive the amounts payable upon any of the said policies of assurance and shares and to call in and receive at their discretion all moneys owing to him and to convert into money such other parts of his said personal estate as might not consist of money or securities for money and upon trust out of the moneys to be recovered and received on any of the said policies of assurance and the moneys to arise from such conversion of personal estate to pay his debts funeral and testamentary expenses or to invest or keep invested the residue of the said moneys in or upon any of the public stocks or funds of Great Britain or at interest upon Government or real securities with power from time to time to alter vary and transfer such stocks funds and securities at their his or her discretion and he further directed his said trustees and executors their heirs executors and administrators respectively to receive the rents interests dividends and annual proceeds of the said real and personal estates respectively so devised and bequeathed to them and to pay apply and divide the clear income arising therefrom respectively unto and equally between and among all his daughters during their respective natural lives for their respective use and benefit and it was his intention that the share or shares of such one or more of them as might happen to be married be paid to her or them free from the control debts or engagements of her or their husband or busbands and without any power of alienation charge or anticipation in any manner howsoever and as to the said real and personal estates and " principal trust fund" so devised and bequeathed in trust as aforesaid and the moneys arising from the conversion thereof and of every part thereof (subject to the trust last aforesaid) the said testator directed that from time to time upon the decease of each and every one of such of his said daughters as should die without having been married and without leaving issue one equal part of the said " principal trust fund (the same being considered as divided into equal parts) should go and belong to and be held in trust for such person or persons for such interests and in such manner and form as each such daughter as last aforesaid so dying as last aforesaid should by her last will and testament have given devised and bequeathed the same and in case any or either of such daughters as last aforesaid should die without having made any such devise or bequest then that their or her shares or share of the said trust fund should go and belong to their or her next of kin according to the Statutee of Distribution and he further directed that from time to time upon the decease of each and every one of such of his daughters as should have been married and should die leaving issue the share of each one of such daughters should go and belong and be held in trust for all and every the child and children of such daughter who should have attained or should live to attain the age of twenty-one years in equal shares and if there should be but one child then the whole of such mother's share should go and belong to such one child and in the meantime during the minority of any such child or children the dividends and annual income of each child's share should be applied for his her or their benefit and for the purposes of facilitating a division (should it become necessary) of the said farms lands and real estate the said testator thereby authorised and directed his said trustees and executors and the survivors or survivor of them as they or he should think proper and expedient so to do to make sale and dispose of the said farms lands and real estate so devised in trust or any part thereof at any time or times either by public auction or private contract and it being his wish that there might be always three trustees the said testator directed that in case any or either of his trustees thereby appointed or any to be appointed under this present provision should depart this life or leave this kingdom to reside beyond seas or decline or become incapable to act then and in either of the said events the acting trustee or trustees for the time being should nominate any fit person or persons to supply the place of the trustee or trustees respectively so dying or leaving this kingdom to reside beyond the seas or declining or becoming incapable to act as aforesaid.

2. AND WHEREAS the said testator duly made a codicil dated the day of 186 to his said will and by such codicil after stating that his said will was executed by him on the day of 186 but the date of the day and month was inadvertently omitted he revoked the appointment of the said W. H. as an executor and trustee of his will and appointed T. IV. to be in his place an executor and trustee together with his other executors and trustees A. B. and J. B. and after reciting that by his said will he had devised unto his son and his heirs (with other hereditaments) his estate called Farm in the county of the said testator thereby revoked the said devise so far as regarded the said estate called Farm and he devised the same with the house and appurtenances unto the trustees and executors of his will TO HOLD to them and their heirs upon such and the same trusts and for such and the same purposes as are by his said will declared concerning the mansion-house called and the land and appurtenances belonging or attached thereto or usually enjoyed therewith and after reciting that he had by his said will directed the trustees thereof to permit such of his daughters as should be desirous of so doing and should at the time of his death be unmarried to reside in his said mansion-house from the time of his death and so long afterwards as they or any of them should live unmarried and to have the use of the land and appurtenances attached or belonging thereto and of the furniture chattels and effects therein the said testator thereby declared his meaning to be that his daughter F. A. should during her life (if she should so long continue a widow) be entitled equally with

his other daughters to the benefit and enjoyment of the said mansionhouse farm and lands and it was his wish that the rents and annual income arising from the said farm and lands called and the said lands adjoining the said mansion-house and the said called be applied (so far as the same might be necessary) towards the expenses of keeping up the said establishment at and the surplus (if any) should go and belong to such of his daughters as should for the time being occupy the said mansion-house.

3. AND WHEREAS the said testator duly made a second codicil dated the day of 186 to his said will and by such codicil after reciting that T. W. had declined to act as one of the executors and trustees of his said will be thereby revoked the appointment of the said T. W. and appointed in his stead his daughter H. A. (then and therein called H. A. Y.) to be an executrix and trustee of his said will together with the said executors and trustees thereof.

4. AND WHEREAS the said testator duly made a third codicil dated the day of 186 to his said will and such codicil was in the following terms: "I revoke all land given to my son notwithstanding it may be mentioned before. I give to him the fee simple of with its manorial rights &c. and the farm at other lands' to vest in the trustees."

all

5. AND WHEREAS the said testator duly made a fourth codicil dated the day of 186 to his said will and thereby he revoked the several devises contained in his will and codicils which were made unto and for the benefit and in favour of his son and thereby devised unto his said son and his heirs the fee simple and in beritance of the estate called with the manorial rights and appurtenances thereof and of the estate called and the farm and he devised all such other parts of his real estate as by his will and codicil or any or either of them were devised to his son unto the trustees and executors of his will and their heirs upon the trusts declared by his will of and concerning his residuary real estate.

at

10. AND WHEREAS by an order of the High Court of Justice Chancery Division made by the late on the day of 188 in an action in which the said A. B. was plaintiff and the said A. Y. and others were defendante "B. B. A. 1888 B. No. ." (being an action for the purpose of having the true construction of the said will and codicile declared by the court) it was declared that according to the true construction of the said will and codicils the expression "the said principal trust fund contained in the said will in reference to the said testator's residuary estate after the decease of his daughters meant and included the whole residuary real and personal estate of the said testator and that according to the true construction of the said will the whole of the said testator's residuary real and personal estate was divisible into eight shares and that one share was held in trust for each of the eight daughters of the said testator for her life for her separate use restrained from anticipation and subject to such life interest in trust as in the said will mentioned and it was thereby also declared that according to the true construction of the said will and codioils the executors of the will of the said A. Y. (then deceased) were (subject to the right of the said G. Y. to have the use thereof during her life whilst unmarried) entitled to all the household furniture plate linen china and other chattels and effects which at the time of the death of the said testator were in or about the messuage and mansion-house called and the appurtenances belonging or attached thereto or usually enjoyed therewith in his said will mentioned.

12. AND WHEREAS all the said daughters of the said testator except the said A. E. and G. Y. have died.

13. AND WHEREAS the shares of the residuary personal estate of the said testator which were held in trust for such deceased daughters respectively for their respective lives and subject thereto as in the said will mentioned were on their respective deaths duly paid and transferred by the said A. B. or other the trustees or trustee for the time being of the said will to the representatives or children of such daughters respectively.

14. AND WHEREAS no part of the real estate of the said testator has been sold,

15. AND WHEREAS the said G. Y. as the sole surviving unmarried daughter of the said testator is now in the occupation and enjoyment of the said mansion-house called with &o. belonging and the furniture chattels and effects in or about the said mansion-house.

16. AND WHEREAS the personal estate now subject to the trusts of the said will and codícil consists of the several sums of New Console mentioned in the first second and third parts of the first schedule hereto and of the household furniture and effecte mentioned or referred to in the fourth part of the same schedule.

17. AND WHEREAS, the real estate subject to the trusts of the said will and codicils now consists of the several particulars mentioned in the first and second parts of the second schedule hereto.

18. AND WHEREAS the said A. B. is desirous of appointing the said C. D. and E. F. to be trustees of the said will and codicils in the place of the said J. R. and H. A. respectively deceased.

19. AND WHEREAS it is intended that the several sums of New Consols mentioned in the first second and third parts of the said first schedule hereto shall as soon as may be be transferred to and vested in the said A. B. C. D. and E. F. upon the trusts applicable thereto respectively under and by virtue of the said will and codicils and the said order.

20. NOW THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH that in exercise of the power for this purpose by the herein before recited will of the said X. Y. given to the said A. B. as the acting trustee thereof and of every or any other power enabling him in this behalf he the said A. B. doth hereby nominate and appoint the said C. D. and E. F. to be trustees in the place of the said J. B. and H. A. jointly with the said A. B. for the purposes of the said will and codicils or such of the same purposes as may be subsisting and capable of taking effect.

21. AND THIS INDENTURE ALSO WITNESSETH that in pursuance of the said appointment and in exercise of the power in this behalf conferred by the Trustee Aot 1893 he the said A. B. doth hereby declare that first ALL the estate and interest of the said A. B. in the mansion-house messuages farms lands and hereditaments mentioned or described in the first and second parts of the said second schedula hereto and all other (if any) freehold hereditaments which are by any means vested in the said A. B. as such surviving trustee as aforesaid and secondly ALL the furniture or effects mentioned or referred to in the fourth part of the said first schedule shall respectively henceforth vest in the said A. B. C. D. and E. F. their heirs executors administrators and assigns respectively as joint tenants upon and for the trusts and purposes upon and for which the same respectively ought to be held by virtue of the said will and codicils and order or otherwise.

22. AND the said A. B. doth hereby declare that he and his heirs will henceforth stand seised of all such and so many and such part or parts as are or is of copyhold tenure of and in the messuages farme lands tenements and hereditaments mentioned or described in the first and second parts of the said second schedule hereto and all other (if any) the copyhold hereditaments which are by any means vested in the said A. B. as such surviving trustee as aforesaid in trust for the said A. B. C. D. and E. F. their heirs and assigns as such trustees as aforesaid and to be surrendered or otherwise disposed of as the trustees or trustee for the time being of the said will and codicils shall direct. IN WITNESS &c.

The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords will sit on Monday, the 16th inst., at 10.45, when the following appeal will be heard -viz., London and South-Western Railway Company v. British Vacuum Cleaner Company Limited.

The Lord Chief Justice will leave London next Thursday for Devizes, on the Western Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day. He will go the circuit alone until Bristol is reached on Thursday, the 13th Nov. next, where he will be joined by Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence. When the business at this town is finished the Lord Chief Justice will return to London and remain until the end of the Michaelmas Sittings.

On Thursday next Mr. Justice Channell will leave London for Carnarvon, on the North Wales Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day.

Mr. Justice Pickford will leave London on Friday next, the 13th inst., for Reading, on the Oxford Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day. When the business at Stafford is finished (the commission day being fixed for Thursday, the 13th Nov. next) he will go on to Birmingham, on the Midland Circuit, to join Mr. Justice Ridley.

Mr. Justice Lawrance will leave London next Thursday, the 12th inst., for Cambridge, on the South-Eastern Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day. He will not be able to return to town until after the business at Lewes is finished, the commission day for such town being fixed for Thursday, the 7th Dec.

Mr. Justice Channell has fixed the following commission days for the ensuing autumn assizes on the South Wales Circuit-viz.: Carmarthen, Thursday, Oct. 26; Brecon, Monday, Oct. 30; and Cardiff, Wednesday, Nov. 1. At the last-named town Mr. Justice Channell will be joined by Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence.

The October session at the Central Criminal Court will commence on Tuesday next, the 10th inst., at 10.30. Mr. Justice Hamilton, Mr. Justice Scrutton, and Mr. Justice Bankes are on the rota to attend.

The October Quarter and General Sessions for cases arising on the north and south sides of the Thames will commence on Tuesday next, the 10th inst., at the Sessions-house, Newington, at 10.30. The general sessions appeals will be heard on the following Friday, the 13th inst., at 10.30.

The Michaelmas Quarter Sessions for cases arising in the county of Middlesex will commence on Saturday, the 21st inst., at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, at ten o'clock.

On the occasion of the reopening of the Law Courts next Thursday, a special service will be held at Westminster Abbey, at 11.45 a.m., which the Lord Chancellor and His Majesty's judges will attend. In order to ascertain what space will be required, members of the Junior Bar wishing to be present are requested to send their names to the secretary of the General Council of the Bar, 2, Hare-court, Temple, E.C., before 4 p.m. on Wednesday, the 11th inst. Barristers attending the service must wear robes. All should be at the Jerusalem Chamber, Westminster Abbey (Dean's Yard entrance), where robing accommodation will be provided, not later than 11.30 a.m. A limited number of seats in the south transept will be reserved for friends of members of the Bar, to whom one ticket of admission (or if possible two) will be issued on application to the secretary of the General Council of the Bar. No tickets are required for admission to the north transept, which is open to the public.

Sir John R. Paget, Bart., K.C., has been appointed temporarily to sit as judge of the Greenwich, Woolwich, and Southwark County Court district, in succession to the late Judge Willis.

Thira Sheet.

The Benchers of the Middle Temple have repudiated the City Coroner's jurisdiction to hold, under the City's Act of 1885, a fire inquest in respect of a recent fire in Middle Temple-lane, and Dr. Waldo is officially reporting this repudiation to the Corporation.

Mr. John George Aitchison, of Sun Insurance Buildings, Collingwood-street, Newcastle-on-Tyne, solicitor, who died on the 11th May, left estate of the gross value of £45,582, of which the net personalty has been sworn at £12,750.

The Hon. John Collier has painted a portrait of the Lord Chief Justice, in his judicial robes, for the council of the Surveyors' Institution, of which Lord Alverstone has been an Associate member for a quarter of a century. It will probably be unveiled at the first meeting of the winter session next month.

Mr. Gibson, solicitor, a former Mayor and Sheriff of Newcastle, and a large property owner in the city, has left £10,000 to the Newcastle Diocesan Society for various purposes, £2000 to the Armstrong College, £2000 to the Newcastle Royal Infirmary, and £1000 each to the Newcastle Diocesan House of Mercy, the Cathedral Nursing Society, and the Newcastle Diocesan Sons of the Clergy Society.

Mr. Loveland Loveland, K.C., who for the past fifteen years has been the Deputy-Chairman of the London Sessions and for five years previously acted as occasional Judge of the Sessions, sat for the last time on the 29th ult., his retirement having been announced on the 19th July last. For the past two months Mr. Loveland Loveland, who is seventy years of age, has been acting as Chairman of the Sessions in the absence of Mr. Robert Wallace, K.C., on vacation. It is estimated that during his occupancy of the Bench Mr. Loveland Loveland has dealt with nearly 20,000 prisoners at the Clerkenwell and Newington Sessions Houses and at Middlesex Guildhall, Westminster, where formerly he sat as Deputy.

French jurors express their views pretty freely on what they consider to be defects in their legal system, several instances having been recorded in the LAW TIMES. The jurors of the Seine at the September session of the Assizes have made two presentments to the Minister of Justice. They express the view, from their painful experience in dealing with young offenders, that the instigators of crime, directly or indirectly responsible, should be pursued, and their offence, when brought home to them, should be more severely punished than the offence of their victim, for which they should be held responsible. Drunkenness, they declare, should no longer be allowed to be considered as an extenuating circumstance. They further express the view that in coming to their decision they ought not to be informed that they have to return their verdict upon the facts adduced without considering the consequence of the verdict they may give. To separate these ideas, the jurors declare, is contrary to human nature, and they demand a voice in assigning the amount of punishment to be inflicted.

One hundred and fifty chief constables and chairmen of watch committees of cities and towns in England and Wales met in conference at the Westminster Palace Hotel on Tuesday. Seventyfive local authorities were represented. The conference was called for the purpose of considering the circular issued by the Home Office on the 15th Sept. urging police authorities "to take immediate steps to build up an adequate police reserve which will enable them to cope with future troubles without having recourse to military aid." Mr. Thewlis, ex-Lord Mayor of Manchester, presided over the proceedings. It was agreed to refer the whole question to a specially appointed committee. Representatives of nineteen cities and towns, including Manchester, Newport, Huddersfield, Leeds, Gateshead, Bradford, Nottingham, Bristol, Wakefield, Stoke, Bootle, Colchester, Cardiff, and Oldham, were appointed, with instructions to take into consideration the points raised in the Home Office circular, and report their conclusions to a future meeting.

In the City of London Court, on Monday, the case of Prior v. Covell was mentioned. Mrs. Florence Prior and her two children, 36, Hawksley-road, Blackhorse-road, Walthamstow, brought an action under the Workmen's Compensation Act against Mr. Edward Covell, butcher, 87, Central Market, Smithfield, to recover damages for the death of their husband and father respectively, he having been employed by the defendant at Smithfield Market. It seemed that on the 1st June deceased was working for Mr. Covell at 103, Central-avenue, Smithfield, and whilst a side of beef was being lowered on to his shoulder, the meat slipped and fell on his back, causing him to fall. He sustained serious injuries from which he died on the 12th June from pneumonia and a fatty heart. Mr. Daybell, solicitor for the widow, said that, having considered the medical evidence, he found it was rather a risky case, as it was quite questionable whether the deceased had died as a result of the accident or not. The widow would have been entitled to at least £150 if he had died as a result of the accident, but, if not, she would get nothing. Under these circumstances she was prepared to take £75, which her late husband's employers had offered to pay. Mr. Gardiner, solicitor for the employer, said, according to the medical evidence, the doctors failed to see how the alleged accident could have anything to do with the man's death. There were no signs of the accident, and the condition of the man's left lung, combined with the condition of the wall of the heart, were quite enough to explain his passing away. Judge Rentoul, K.C., concurred in the £75 being paid in satisfaction, and allocated £50 to the widow and £25 to the children. In another case a workman had been receiving 15s. a week from his employers, who now contended that, as he had

recovered from the effects of his injuries, the payments should cease. The workman said he had not recovered and could not get work, but the medical referee of the court, Dr. Murray Leslie, after a careful examination, said the workman was quite able to return to his former work(although he had a rupture) if he continued to wear a truss. Judge Rentoul reduced the payments to 1d. a week to keep the case alive, and said that the Workmen's Compensation Act had been very beneficial to working men. In fact, there never was a more beneficial Act passed, or a more useful one, but care must be taken, as soon as a man was fit to return to work, to see that payments ceased.

In the City of London Court, on the 28th ult., the case of Sanitor et Fils v. Wigglesworth was mentioned to Judge Rentoul, K.C. Plaintiffs, champagne merchants, of Glasgow, and 4, Monument-street, had sued the defendant, William Wigglesworth, Waggon and Horses, Newington-causeway, for £6 16s. for champagne supplied, and judgment had been obtained. Execution was levied by a bailiff of the Southwark County Court for £9 odd, including costs. The warrant was withdrawn by the plaintiffs on payment by the defendant to the bailiff of £7 10s. Plaintiffs subsequently levied for £2 9s. 6d., which they said was the balance due. That had been paid under protest, and Mr. Benham, defendant's solicitor, now applied for the second sum of money to be refunded, because the first payment was made in full settlement of all demands. Plaintiffs' London manager said it was not. Defendant told him if he did not take the £7 10s. the brewers would come in (his being a tied house), and they would lose everything. The bailiff took the £7 10s., and the plaintiffs received 6 guineas. Mr. Grant, one of the bailiffs of the Southwark County Court, said when the defendant told him the plaintiffs would take the £7 10s. he telephoned to the plaintiffs and they told him to accept it. Plaintiffs' manager said no one in their office gave any such authority. The bailiff added that he went in on a second levy on plaintiffs' express instructions. The warrant remained in force for twelve months, and if balances were not paid they went in again under the original warrant. Judge Rentoul, K.C., thought that there had been a misunderstanding. but held that the plaintiffs agreed to accept the £7 10s. in full satisfaction. He therefore granted the defendant's application to refund the second payment, and gave defendant the costs of the proceedings..

OUR LITERARY COLUMN.

STRIKING FIGURES IN THE LEGAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND.

LORD ELDON.

LORD ELDON was born in George the Second's reign, nine years before the accession of George III., and he lived to see the Coronation of Queen Victoria. Such a lifetime is impressive merely as a tract of years, but how much more impressive when we reflect what a momentous period of our history it covers-a period during which the old order was changing, yielding place to new; when democracy in England was born, and the centre of political gravity was shifting from King and aristocracy to the people; when the greatest happiness of the greatest number was beginning to dominate legislation! To say that Lord Eldon was the avowed enemy of these changes-in Lord Brougham's words, "an enemy of all reform "-is to put his conduct in the wrong light, to be unfair to him. He opposed innovations because he honestly believed that things were better left as they were. He opposed, for instance, the admission of Dissenters and Roman Catholics to political power, not because he disliked their religious tenets, but because he thought they would undermine the national Church. He opposed the abolition of the elave trade, not because he had no sympathy for the sufferings of the slave, but because he thought slave emancipation would not better their condition, and would strike a blow at the rights of property. He opposed all ameliorations of the criminal law, not because of any harshness towards the criminal, but because he really thought it would be unsafe to society to relax the existing securities for law and order. He had never heard-how could he?of the law of progress or of evolution

"Evolution ever climbing after some ideal good." He stood on the old ways, unwilling to surrender the good we have for a problematic better in the future-for "mere novelties," as his brother, Lord Stowell, called them.

Early Life at Newcastle.

Lord Eldon's father was a prosperous coal "fitter or factor of Newcastle-on-Tyne, occupying a house situate at the bottom of an alley or chare" called Love lane," leading down to the river, and it was here that John Scott-the famous Chancellor-was born in 1751. In after life he used to amuse the Chancery Bar by saying he ought not to complain of a small and inconvenient court as he was born in a "chare foot."

It is difficult to picture the venerable Lord Eldon, the oracle of the Court of Chancery, and pillar of the British Constitution, as a mischievous urchin much addicted to pranks of all sorts. But so it was. Little Jacky was undoubtedly a "pickle," despite the pains spent by his father in teaching him his catechism and "taking him to hear sermons "-indeed, in making him preach sermons himself in a

surplice improvised out of a shirt. "Jacky "seems to have been up to anything from robbing an o:chard-which he says we always considered an honourable exploit "-to dancing a hornpipe. Once, in his curiosity to see what was inside a window beneath the stone step3 of a gentleman's house, he put his head between the iron railings and was unable to draw it back again till released by a passer-by. "Oh! oh! My head will have to be cuttit off."

At school he did not particularly shine. It was his eldest brother, William-afterwards Lord Stowell-who was considered the clever one, and apropos of him there is an interesting story. The young Pretender and his Highlanders had captured Edinburgh in the famous 'Forty-five, and his line of march south lay through Newcastle: Mrs. Scott was just then expecting her confinement, and, to be out of war's alarms, she was let down at night over the city walls-the gates were closed for safety-and carried to a quiet little village in the county of Durham, where William was born. The significance of this episode was that William's birth in Durham qualified him for a scholarship at Corpus, Oxford, and a Fellowship at University, both which he obtained, and was thus enabled to give a helping hand to his younger brother, John, whose career on his leaving school seemed likely to be associated rather with the coalsack than the Woolsack. "Send Jack to me," William wrote from Oxford to his father. "I can do better for him here.", And to Oxford John went at the age of sixteen.

2

"Sat Cito si Sat Bene."

An interesting chapter might be written on "Keynotes of Great Lives," meaning by keynote that animating principle or ideal which dominates and gives unity and purpose to our lives. Mndev ayav— nothing in excess-was the golden rule of Solon; "Above all things Freedom" the truth which appealed to the learned Selden; Opere pevacto ludemus-business first and pleasure afterwards the motto of the strenuous Lord Mansfield. 66 Every man imputes himself" was the late Lord Tennyson's favourite aphorism; "The night cometh the thought which inspired the consuming energy of Carlyle. Lord Eldon's career furnishes a particularly good illustration. "When,” he says, "I left school in 1766 to go to Oxford, I came up from Newcastle to London on a coach then denominated on account of its quick travelling-as travelling was then estimated-a "fly," being, nevertheless, as well as I remember, three or four days and nights on the road. There was no such velocity as to endanger overturning or other mischief. On the panels of the carriage were painted the words Sat cilo si sat bene-words which made a most lasting impression on my mind, and have had their influence upon my conduct in all subsequent life. Their effect was heightened by circumstances during and immediately after the journey. Upon the journey a Quaker, who was a fellow traveller, stopped the coach at the inn at Tuxtord, desired the chambermaid to come to the coach door, and gave her a sixpence, telling her that he forgot to give it her when he slept there two years ago. I was a very saucy boy, and said to him, Friend, have you seen the motto on this coach? No!' Then look at it; for I think giving her only sixpence now is neither sat cito nor sat bene' In short, in all that I have had to do

in future life, professional and judicial, I have always felt the effect of this early admonition on the panels of the vehicle which conveyed me from school-Sat cito si sat bene. It was the impression of this which made me that deliberative judge-or some have said too deliberative -and reflection upon all that is past will not authorise me to deny that, while I have been thinking sat cito si sat bene, I may not have sufficiently recollected whether sat bene si sat cito has had its due influence."

What Oxford was like in those days in teaching and in morals may be judged from two stories taken from Lord Eldon's Anecdote Book. He had to pass an examination for his degree, and this was the farce: "I was examined in Hebrew and in history. What is the Hebrew for the place of a skull?' I replied, Golgotha.' Who founded University College'? I stated (though, by the way, the point is sometimes doubted) that King Alfred founded it. Very well, sir,' said the examiner, you are competent for your degree.' And what should we say nowadays to this spectacle, which young John Scott sawa Doctor of Divinity, under the influence of Bacchus, trying to make his way to Brasenose College through Radcliffe-square. He had reached the library, a rotunda, then without railings, and, unable to support himself except by keeping one hand on the building, he continued walking round and round until a friend, coming out of the college, espied his distress, and rescued him from the orbit in which was so steadily-or unsteadily-revolving. It was in these Oxford days that Lord Eldon and Lord Stowell acquired their famous taste for port wine.

he

Romance and a Rope Ladder.

"Oh! those were happy days! We were always in love then," wrote Lord Eldon, glancing back at the schoolboy time at Newcastle when they had stolen flowers to give to their sweethearts, and helped them to put on their shoes at the dancing school. And years did not abate their ardour. "We were very constant," he adds. One of the belles at the Newcastle balls was a Miss Surtees, the daughter of a banker there-a handsome, shy, reserved girl, slender of form and light of foot, with ringlets flowing over her shoulders as the mode then was; and between her and young John Scott there grew up a deep mutual attachment. But the course of true love never did run smooth; the parents of neither party approved. How should they-he was twenty, she eighteen, and neither of them had a penny; so, to keep the young lady out of harm's way, she was sent to pay long visits to an uncle who lived in Park-lane. There-in London society-she attracted much notice, especially from the Duchess of Northumberland, who would take