« EelmineJätka »
CIRCUITS OF THE JUDGES.-SUMMER ASSIZES. THE following judges will remain in town: The Lord Chief Justice of England, Darling, J., A. T. Lawrence, J., and Hamilton, J., during the whole of the circuits; the other judges till their respective commission days.
Notice. In cases where no date in parentheses is appended, both civil and criminal business must be ready to be taken on the first working day; in other cases the date appended indicates the day before which civil business will not be taken. In the case of circuit towns to which two judges go there will be no alteration in the old practice.
NORTH-EASTERN (GRANTHAM and SCRUTtton, JJ.).
OXFORD (LAWRANCE, J., 1; BUCKNILL, J., 2).
SOUTH-EASTERN (Phillimore, J., 2; Avory, J., 1).
Chelmsford, Mon., June 12 (Th., June 15)
To surrender at the High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. FLACK, LEWIS, late Carnaby-st, Golden-sq, working tailor. May 17. KENNEDY, BART, Southampton-st, Strand, author. May 17. LINDSEY, JAMES JOHN, Upper Kennington-la, licensed victualler's
manager. May 16.
MONTAGUE, WILLIAM, Fenchurch-st, manufacturer's agent. May 17.
To surrender at their respective District Courts. AUSTIN, GEORGE, Herne Bay, dairyman. Ct. Canterbury. May 12. BEGBIE, JAMES BIRD, Darlington, tailor. Ct. Stockton-on-Tees. May 16. BOND, THOMAS BOWMER, Sunderland, joiner. Ct. Sunderland. May 17. BANTOCK, THOMAS, Cockfield, wheelwright. Ct. Bury St. Edmunds. May 15. BRAMHILL, RICHARD THOMAS. Leeds, boot dealer. Ct. Leeds. May 15. BOYES, WILLIAM, Hemlington, market gardener. Ct. Middlesbrough. May 15. Ct. Merthyr
BRAITHWAITE, HENRY, late Abertysswg, colliery labourer.
Tydfil. May 17.
CLARKE, ISAAC THOMAS, Wrexham, commercial traveller. Ct. Wrexham and Llangollen May 16. CLEMITSON, JOHN CAIRNS, Jarrow, licensed victualler. Ct. Newcastleupon-Tyne. May 15.
CHAPMAN, A., Staines, licensed victualler. Ct. Kingston, Surrey. May 16.
DAVIES, WILLIAM GEORGE, Swansea, late coal merchant. Ct. Swansea. May 17.
DONNELLEY, HENRY, Manchester, builder. Ct. Manchester May 17. DAVIES, S. G. (trading as Davies Bros.), Cadoxton, grocer. Ct. Cardiff. May 16.
DUNSTAN, WILLIAM, Derby, saddler. Ct. Derby and Long Eaton. May 17.
DAVIES, EVAN, Merthyr Tydfil, late building contractor. Ct. Merthyr Tydfil. May 16.
FISHER, THOMAS PARKINSON, Kingston-upon-Hull, butcher. Ct. Kingstonupon-Hull. May 15.
GREY, REUBEN MILTON, Swansea, wholesale warehouseman. Ct. Swansea.
GIMSON, GEORGE, Sheffield, travelling draper. Ct. Sheffield. May 17.
JACKSON, WILLIAM, Wainfleet All Saints, gardener. Ct. Boston. May 16. KENDALL, WILLIAM (trading as William Kendall and Co.), Liverpool, builder. Ct. Liverpool. May 16.
PARKER, FRANK CAREY, Manchester, tailor. Ct. Manchester. May 15.
ROYDS, WILLIAM, Middleton. licensed victualler. Ct. Oldham. May 16.
THORP. HENRY, Dewsbury, tea merchant. Ct. Dewsbury. May 17.
TAYLOR, ARTHUR, Mortimer, late licensed victualler. Ct. Reading. May 13.
WOODHALL, JAMES WILLIAM, jun., Ramsgate, builder. Ct. Canterbury. May 18.
WRIGHT, GEORGE RUSSELL, Southampton, sign writer. Ct. Southampton. May 15.
WATERS, ALBERT, Balcombe, builder. Ct, Brighton. May 17.
GAZETTE, MAY 23.
To surrender at the High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. ADNITT, WILLIAM REUBEN (trading as Brown and Adnitt), Cromwell-pl, South Kensington, bootmaker. May 18.
DAVIS, MOSES, Brondesbury-rd, Kilburn, builder. April 25.
KAHN, LEWIS, Grove-rd, Bow, horsehair manufacturer. May 19.
To surrender at their respective District Courts. ALLEN, HENRY, Lanlivery, licensed victualler. Ct. Truro. May 20. BAINBOROUGH, JOSEPH WILLIAM, Cleethorpes, late grocer. Ct. Great Grimsby. May 16.
BROWN, ROBERT F., late King William-st, architect. Ct. Colchester. May 19.
CARLYLE, FREDERICK JOHN, Sunderland, solicitor. Ct. Sunderland.
COOPER, ALBERT, Crewe, fish merchant. Ct. Nantwich and Crowe.
DOUGLASS, ERNEST, Middlesbrough, painter. Ct. Middlesbrough. May 17.
LACEY. WILLIAM HENRY, Glastonbury, hairdresser. Ct. Wells. May 18.
MOFFATT, MARTIN JORDAN, Halifax, insurance superintendent. Ct. Halifax. May 20.
MARTIN, DAVID, Aberdare, collier. Ct. Aberdare and Mountain Ash. May 18.
NICHOLSON, WILFRED, Kingston-upon-Hull, builder. Ct. Kingston-uponHull. May 20.
PATTEN, SUSAN, Walsall, draper, widow. Ct. Walsall. May 17. PEARSON, WILLIAM ARTHUR, Levenshulme, grey cloth merchant. Manchester. May 19.
ROBERTS, ISAAC. Manchester, builder. Ct. Salford. May 19. SLIPPER, CHARLES RICHARD (trading as Slipper and Beard), Sydenham, house furnisher. Ct. Greenwich. May 17.
SMITH, JOSEPH FRANCIS, Aspley Guise, builder. Ct. Luton. May 18.
SLAWTHER, GEORGE MEGGESON (late tradling as the United Wholesale Cash Grocers), late Newcastle-upon-Tyne, grocer. Ct. Newcastle-uponTyne. May 19.
SLATER, JOHN ŠISSON, Lytham, barrister-at-law. Ct. Preston. May 19. WILKINSON, CHRISTOPHER SMITH, Darlington, chartered accountant. Ct. Stockton-on-Tees. May 15.
WELLS, JAMES GRAY, late Salford, foreman brewer. Ct. Salford. May 19. Amended notice substituted for that published in Gazette, May 16. WILLIAMS, GWILYM, late Buckingham. Ct. Banbury. May 12.
ADJUDICATIONS: GAZETTE, MAY 19.
AUSTIN, GEORGE, Herne Bay, dairyman. Ct. Canterbury. May 12
BRAMHILL, RICHARD THOMAS, Leeds, boot dealer. Ct. Leeds. May 15.
BRAITHWAITE, HENRY, late Abertysswg, colliery labourer. Ct. Merthyr Tydfil. May 17.
CORONEL, EDWARD EMANUEL (described in the receiving order as Edward Coronel, trading as Edward Coronel and Sons), Edgware-rd, cigar merchant. Ct. High Court. May 13.
CLARKE, ISAAC THOMAS, Wrexham, commercial traveller. Ct. Wrexham and Llangollen. May 16.
CLEMITSON, JOHN CAIRNS, Jarrow, licensed victualler.
upon-Tyne. May 15.
DAMPER, ARTHUR CARTER, Fordcombe, farmer. Ct. Tunbridge Wells, May 16.
DAVIES, WILLIAM GEORGE, Swansea, late coal merchant. Ct. Swansea, May 17.
DAVIES, EVAN, Merthyr Tydfil, late building contractor. Ct. Merthyr . Tydfil. May 16.
DUNSTAN, WILLIAM, Derby, saddler. Ct. Derby and Long Eaton. May 17.
DONNELLEY, HENRY, Manchester, builder. Ct. Manchester. May 17. FLACK, LEWIS, late Carnaby-st, Golden-sq, working tailor. Ct. High Court. May 17.
FISHER, THOMAS PARKINSON, Kingston-upon-Hull, butcher. Ct. Kingston; upon-Hull. May 15.
GIMBLETT, EDMUND COSLETT, late Marlborough-rd, Upper Holloway, beer retailer. Ct. High Court. May 17.
GREY, REUBEN MILTON, Swansea, wholesale warehouseman.
GIMSON, GEORGE, Sheffield, travelling draper. Ct. Sheffield. May 17.
HYDE, WILLIAM JAMES (described in the receiving order as James Hyde,
MYERS, ISAAC, Sutherland-av, Maida Vale. Ct. High Court. May 16.
REDMAN, LUCY, Guiseley, milliner, spinster. Ct. Leeds. May 16.
RAVENSCROFT, JOSEPH, Bolton, tobacconist. Ct. Bolton. May 17.
SURGEY, CORNELIUS, and SURGEY, ARTHUR (trading as C. Surgey and Son), Birmingham, coal merchants. Ct. Birmingham. May 16.
SHORROCK, HERBERT (trading as J. Shorrock and Sons), Blackburn, joiner. Ct. Blackburn and Darwen. May 17.
SHARPE, WALTER JAMES, late Broadwater, grocer. Ct. Brighton. May 15. THORP, HENRY, Dewsbury, tea merchant. Ct. Dewsbury. May 17. WOODHALL, JAMES WILLIAM, jun., Ramsgate, builder. Ct. Canterbury. May 18.
WRIGHT, GEORGE RUSSELL, Southampton, sign writer. Ct. Southampton. May 15.
WATERS, ALBERT, Balcombe, builder. Ct. Brighton. May 17.
GAZETTE, MAY 23.
ALLEN, HENRY, Lanlivery, licensed victualler. Ct. Truro. May 20. ADNITT, WILLIAM REUBEN (trading as Brown and Adnitt), Cromwell-pl, South Kensington, bootmaker. Ct. High Court. May 18. BAINBOROUGH, JOSEPH WILLIAM, Cleethorpes, late grocer.
Grimsby. May 16.
COOPER. EDWIN WILLIAM (described in the receiving order as Edward William Cooper), Tadema-rd, Chelsea, estate agent. Ct. High Court. May 18.
CHAPMAN, A., Staines, licensed victualler Ct. Kingston, Surrey. May 19. CURWELL, THOMAS WARING, Birkenhead, joiner. Ct. Birkenhead. May 20. CCOPER, ALBERT, Crewe, fish merchant. Ct. Nantwich and Crewe. May 20.
DOUGLASS. ERNEST, Middlesbrough, painter. Ct. Middlesbrough. May 17. DAVIES, SAMUEL GRIFFITH (trading as Davies Bros.), Cadoxton, grocer. Ct. Cardiff. May 20.
DCPSON, CHARLES WILLIAM, late Tanner-st, Bermondsey, manufacturer of
HODGE, SAMUEL, Sidmouth, photographer. Ct. Exeter. May 19.
KENDALL, WILLIAM (trading as William Kendall and Co.), Liverpool, joiner. Ct. Liverpool. May 20.
LACEY, WILLIAM HENRY, Glastonbury, hairdresser. Ct. Wells. May 18. LAPRAIK, THOMAS STEWARD (described in the receiving order as Thomas Stewart Lapraik), Mincing-la, consulting engineer. Ct. High Court. May 19.
LAWRENCE. HENRY, Orleton, beerhouse keeper. Ct. Leominster. May 20. MARTIN, DAVID, Aberdare, collier. Ct. Aberdare and Mountain Ash. May 18.
MOFFATT. MARTIN JORDAN, Halifax, insurance superintendent.
Halifax. May 20.
NICHOLSON, WILFRED, Kingston-upon-Hull, builder. Ct. Kingston-uponHull. May 20.
PATTEN, SUSAN, Walsall, draper, widow Ct Walsall. May 17.
RICHARDS, W. G., Ynysddu, boot dealer. Ct. Newport, Mon. May 20. RICHARDS, ANTHONY REYNELL THRELFALL, Southampton, underwriter. Ct. High Court. May 19.
SEENE, ROBERT (trading as Joseph Fenn and Co., and the Continental Garage), late Borough High-st, engineer Ct. High Court. May 18. STEVENS, LEONARD FRISWELL, Park-pl, St. James's, gentleman. Ct. High Court. May 18.
SUMSION, HENRY, Watney-st, Commercial-rd, grocer. Ct. High Court. May 18.
SLIPPER, CHARLES RICHARD (trading as Slipper and Beard), Sydenham, house furnisher. Ct. Greenwich. May 17.
SMITH, JOSEPH FRANCIS, Aspley Guise, builder. Ct. Luton. May 18. SLATER, JOHN SISSON, Lytham, barrister-at-law. Ct. Preston. May 19. THORN, ALFRED LEWIS, Tabernacle-st, Finsbury, printer. Ct. High Court, May 19.
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 desirable. 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. HORACE Cox, "Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream'sbuildings, E.C.
TO SUBSCRIBERS.-PREPAYMENT TERMS OF SUBScription. WITHOUT REPORTS. WITH REPORTS. For One Year ............................................................£2 14 0 For One Year ....................£2 2 0 1 1 0 170 For Half-Year.............................................................. For Half-Year......................................................... Foreign. WITHOUT REPORTS. WITH REPORTS. 0 For One Year...........................£2 44 For One Year.. ..........£3 0 122 1 10 0 For Half-Year. For Half-Year... Portfolios for preserving the current numbers of the LAW TIMES, price 5s. 6d. LAW TIMES REPORTS, price 38. 6d.
The Publisher undertakes the binding of the LAW TIMES and LAW TIMES REPORTS at PER VOLUME. the following rates:
6d. LAW TIMES in half calf, office pattern...................................................................................................... 59. ditto, ditto LAW TIMES REPORTS, LAW TIMES REPORTS, ditto, ditto, with Statutes at end............ 58. 6d. Parcels of Volumes for binding should be sent to the Publisher, LAW TIMES Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.O.
TO ADVERTISERS.-SCALE OF CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS. £. d. | One page...................................................... 10 00 Four lines of 30 words or less than 30 words in body type ... 8 6 Half page................................................................ 6 One Column ....... Each additional line..... Advertisements ordered for a series of three insertions are charged 10 per cent, under scale, and for six or more insertions 20 per cent. under.
5 0 0 3 10 0
Paragraph Advertisements 18. per line, minimum 58. No series discount. Advertisers whose reference is under initials to this office, should remit 6d, additional to defray postage in transmitting replies to their Advertisements.
Advertisements must reach the office not later than five o'clock on Thursday afternoon and must be accompanied by a remittance.
Post-Office Orders payable to HORACE COX.
Vol. CXXXI.-No. 2557.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
COURT OF APPEAL. CARDIFF CORPORATION . HALLEmployer and workman-Accident -Compensation-Weekly payment -Review-Ability to do any light work-Inability to obtain it ......... PIERCE v. PROVIDENT CLOTHING AND SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,-Employer and workman-Death caused accident- Compensation Claim by dependant ..................... 473 HAYDON. HAYDON.-BankruptcyPractice Judgment summonsOrder to pay a sum of money within a stated time-Order of commitment for nonpayment......... 477 METROPOLITAN WATER COLLEY'S PATENTS LIMITED.Water supply - Domestic purposes "-" Trade manufacture or business purposes "-Factory
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. CHANCERY DIVISION. DIXON-HARTLAND;
BANK Estate duty Liability for-Sum covenanted to be paid to trustees of settlement and charged on real estate ...... .................................
110 PARLIAMENTARY SUMMARY.- Topics 111 CRIMINAL LAW AND THE JURISDIOTION OF MAGISTRATES.—Topics COUNTY COURTS.-Sittings of Courts....... GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.-Reclaimed Stock and Dividends in the Bank of England-Heirs-at-Law and Next of Kin-Appointments under the Joint Stock Winding-up ActsCreditors under Estates in Chancery -Creditors under 22 & 28 Vict. c. 35 114 PROMOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS LAW SOCIETIES.-Berks, Bucks, and
LEGAL OBITUARY.-Mr. Hyacinth Plunkett. K.C.-Mr. Charles Wallwyn Radcliffe Cooke-Mr. Herbert John Allcroft
116 Schwenck Gilbert THE COURTS AND COURT PAPERA. Circuits of the Judges: Summer Assizes High Court of Justice: Whitsun Vacation Notice THE GAZETTES.............................................................. BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND Deaths
117 117 118
KING'S BENCH DIVISION Contract HANAU . EHRLICH. Agreement for definite time exceeding one year-Power determine within year by notice BOARD
OF TRADE v. ANGLOAMERICAN OIL COMPANY LIMITED. Ship Distressed
SOCIÉTÉ COLONIALE ANVERSOISE AND
New building-Old boundary wall -Notice to set back
The Law and the Lawyers.
Ir is an excellent and salutary rule that the action of the judges should not be attacked in debate in Parliament save upon a substantive motion, and it is to be deeply regretted that the Home Secretary should have seen fit to cast aspersions upon the Bench in general which have absolutely no foundation in fact. The occasion of this outburst was the debate for the second reading of the Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill, a measure designed to meet the situation created by the Osborne judgment, and, after referring to what he described. as "a very unseemly spectacle of workmen's organisations being harassed and worried and teased by a number of legal decisions which came with the utmost surprise to many lawyers," Mr. CHURCHILL stated that where class issues and party issues were involved it was impossible to contend that the courts commanded general confidence, and that a very large number of people had been led to the opinion that they were, unconsciously no doubt, biassed.
As anyone who has taken the trouble to inquire is aware, this so-called "unseemly spectacle" consisted in the courts of law of this country refusing to allow the undoubted rights of a minority to be totally disregarded and trampled upon by wealthy and powerful organisations and doing what they have always done in the past, and we sincerely trust will not be prevented from doing in the future-namely, upholding the rights of individuals against oppression. It is quite likely that the actions of our courts have not been welcome
to the executives of those bodies affected thereby, but we have yet to learn that a judgment against any body or person declaring such body or person guilty of an illegality has been cordially received by the party implicated.
THERE was another extraordinary sentence in the speech of the Home Secretary to which we desire to refer, for it shows the wrong-headed conception that he holds with regard to the position of the courts of this country. He said: “The trade union movement ought to develop and should be spared from warfare between the great hierarchy of the law and the workmen's guilds without injury to the rights of individuals." From this it would appear, as well as from his other observations, that he considers that the functions exercised by the courts have been used merely to harass the trades unions. As between the law and individuals or bodies of individuals there is no question of warfare, and, although recent legislation has attempted to place certain privileged bodies outside the control of the law and the courts, complete immunity from all such control can only be disastrous for the nation at large. A further step to attain this end is attempted by the present Trade Unions Bill, inasmuch as it is sought to substitute the Registrar of Friendly Societies as the sole authority to determine the legality or otherwise of certain matters which the Bill is designed to bring about. This is another attempt to place judicial functions in the hands of an executive officer, and to oust the jurisdiction of our courts in matters which are pre-eminently fitted for their consideration. The Bill, too, certainly affords ill-protection to the rights of the minority, and is so designed to make those who differ from the action of their executive marked men, and the history of the past shows that is anything but an enviable position for a workman to find himself placed in.
THE expression "guilty of infamous conduct in a professionai respect "in sect. 29 of the Medical Act 1858, for which the General Medical Council may erase the name of a practitioner from the register, is an unfortunate one, and has been extended in such a way as to place some medical men who have been adjudged guilty of conduct that can in no way be considered disgraceful or dishonourable in any ordinary sense, on a par with those whose actions have been truly infamous." A considerable amount of sympathy will be extended to the two medical gentlemen whose names have been recently erased-one for administering anesthetics for a bone-setter, and the other for his connection with the Sandow Institute-and it is difficult for the lay mind to bring their actions in any sense within the expression "infamous." We quite agree, as the secretary of the council has pointed out in an explanatory statement, that the position and status of a registered medical practitioner carries with it duties and responsibilities towards the community; but, at the same time, we think that constructions have been placed upon the section which are far beyond the intentions of its framers.
THE law on the points raised is clear. It was laid down by the Court of Appeal in 1889 in Allbutt v. General Medical Council (61 L. T. Rep. 585), following Ex parte La Mert (4 B. & S. 582), that if the council, acting bona fide and after due inquiry, have found a medical practitioner guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect, the court cannot review their decision. Following this case in 1894 came Allinson v. General Medical Council (70 L. T. Rep. 471), where the same tribunal pointed out that if there was any evidence on which the council could reasonably arrive at their conclusion their decision is final. In the course of the judgment in the later case, a definition-though not an exhaustive one-was given as to what the expression in sect. 29 means. It was "if it is shown that a medical
man, in the pursuit of his profession, has done something with regard to it which would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by his professional brethren of good repute and competency," then he may be found guilty of conduct within the section.
BEQUESTS TO SERVANTS.
A TESTATOR often includes "servants" among those who are selected in his will as the objects of his bounty. It is usual to make it a condition precedent to such gifts that the servant should be in the testator's service at the time of his death, not being under notice to quit, and also that the servant should have completed a certain number of years in the family service.
A gift to "servants" includes both indoor and outdoor servante, unless it is expressly limited to "domestic" or "household" servante, in which case outdoor servants are excluded from benefit. Difficulty,. however, is apt to arise where the gift consists not of a definite sum of money, but of a "year's wages or "the amount of a year's wages ; for in such a case the question arises as to whether the testator intended to confine his gift to those members of the clase who have been hired at a yearly rate of wages, or whether the worde "a year's wages is only a means of defining the gift, at whatever period the servant might be hired.
In connection with this branch of the subject, the case of Blackwell v. Pennant (1851, 9 Hare, 551) is of long-standing authority; indeed, it is an instance of the length of time for which a decision doubted by the courts nevertheless may remain standing.
In that case a testator gave legacies to his servants in the worde "I give to each of my servants living with me at the time of my decease, and who then shall have lived in my service for three yeare, one year's wages." The plaintiff complied with both conditions. He had been in the service of the family for three years, and he was living in the service at the time of the testator's death. He was, however, hired at weekly wages, while other servants were hired by the year; and upon this ground Vice-Chancellor Turner held that he was not entitled to the legacy. Where a testator," he says, "givee
a year's wages, he must, I think, be understood to mean that he gives to those whom he has hired at yearly wages. The nature of the gift explains the persons for whom it was intended." In this he professed to follow the previous case of Booth v. Dean (1 My. & K. 560), but in that case the bequests seem to have been disallowed because the servants were "outdoor" and not "indoor" servants.
The case of Blackwell. Pennant was followed in Re Ravensworth; Ravensworth v. Tindale (92 L. T. Rep. 490; (1905) 2 Ch. 1). There Lord Ravensworth bequeathed property to his wife, subject to payment by her "to all servants who shall be in my employment at my death and shall have been in my employment five years previously thereto of one year's wages, and of all death duties thereon, in addition to any wages which may be accruing or owing to any of them and unpaid by me at my death." At his death, besides indoor servants employed at a yearly wage, there had been in his service for the previous five years various outdoor servants employed at a weekly rate of wages paid monthly or fortnightly. Mr. Justice Joyce in deciding the case said that whatever difficulty he might feel in understanding the reasoning of Blackwell v. Pennant (ubi sup.) and older decisions, he thought he ought to follow them, and he therefore held that the bequest only applied to servants hired by the year. Court of Appeal (Lord Alverstone, C.J. and Lords Justices Vaughan Williams and Stirling) affirmed the decision. Loid Alverstone, C.J., in his judgment, agreed that it might be desirable that these authorities should be reviewed by the House of Lords, although he was not sure that he would not have arrived at the same conclusion apart from the authorities. Lord Justice Stirling eays distinctly that if the question had been free from decision he was not satisfied that he would have decided it in the same way.
These cases are cited in Key and Elphinstone's Precedents of Cor veyancing (see under " Wills," 9th edit., vol 2, at p. 795), and it is there expressly stated that a bequest of the amount of one year's wages" does not apply to servants whose wages are calculated by the week or month. "If such are intended,' says the learned author to the draftsman, "say or fifty-two weeks."
In Re Earl of Sheffield; Ryde v. Bristow (104 L. T. Rep. 412) Mr. Justice Neville had before him a very similar case to those which have been previously cited. The testator, who died in 1910, made the following bequest: "To each of my servants (indoor or outdoor) who at my death shall be and thall for five years previously have been in my service and shall not then be under notice to quit given or received by such servant, I bequeath the amount of one year's wages in addition to what may be then actually due to them for wages.' At the date of the testator's death three indoor servants had fulfilled the required conditions; these had been engaged at a yearly wage and were entitled to the legacy of "the amount of one year's wages." Of the outdoor servants several had fulfilled the required conditions, but only two had been engaged at a yearly wage, and those two were in receipt of prior bequests of £50 each under the will; the rest were mostly labourers on the estate and were engaged at weekly wages. The question was raised by the residuary legatee as to whether the latter were entitled to benefit under the be quest. It is to be noted that the words of bequest used by the "the amount of a year's wages," and counsel for the "weekly' servants argued that there words distinguished the care
from Blackwell v. Pennant and Re Ravensworth (ubi sup), in both of which cases the words used were one year's wages"; for the express allusion to the amount" showed that the testator only intended thereby to limit the amount of the bequest and not the class of beneficiaries thereunder.
That argument, however, was in some measure met by the fact that in an Irish case, Breslin v. Waldron (4 Ir. Rep. Ch. 333), where similar words were used-viz, "the amount of one year's standing wages Blackwell v. Pennant had been followed; and, further, this construction had the support of the passage in Key and Elphinstone's Precedents above referred to.
An important factor in the case proved to be that the only two outdoor servants who were employed at yearly wages had received legacies under a previous clause in the will, and therefore there seemed to be no object in the present clause unless the testator intended other servants to be included besides those already mentioned in the will. Some answer to this, however, seemed to be afforded by the fact that other "indoor servants who were hired at yearly wages, but had received no previous bequest, were undoubtedly entitled to benefit by virtue of the disputed clause. This last answer did not convince Mr. Justice Neville, and, relying on this argument for the residuary legatee and the words "the amount of one year's wages," he found that the testator intended to benefit all his indoor and outdoor servants who fulfilled the required conditions, including the recipients of weekly wages.
The residuary legatee appealed, but the decision of Mr. Justice Neville was affirmed (noted post, p. 105) and the older cases distinguished.
The Court of Appeal rested their decision mainly on the ground that the words "the amount of one year's wages" distinguished the case from its predecessore, even the Irish case (quoted above) not being entirely similar. Without any doubt, therefore, being thrown upon the older decisions, their effect has been somewhat limited by the Earl of Sheffield's case; for by this decision, where there is a reference to the amount in a bequest of this nature, then the period of hiring need not be taken into account in considering what class of servants are entitled to benefit.
MR. BIRRELL has given some figures showing the progress of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts 1890 to 1908 to the 31st March 1911. It appears that the amount of the housing fund available for distribution under sect. 5 of the Act of 1908 in that year was £1625 53. 3d. This was distributed amongst sixteen urban districts. The different sums allocated ranged from £598 103. 9d. in the case of the Kingstown Urban District to 93. 7d. in the case of the Kilkenny Urban District. The capital amount sanctioned by the Local Government Board for housing purposes during the year was £91,890 199. 83. A number of other urban councils applied for loans during the year, but as these cases were not ripe for final consideration, and as the amounts were not sanctioned previously to the 31st March, the councils in question did not participate in the housing fund last year. In other cases certain Provisional Order proceed igs had to be completed before the question of sanction to the loans could be considered.
THE question of the enforcement of the street-trading by-laws is giving the municipal authorities in Dublin some anxiety. In numerous instances recently, youthful delinquents, after repeated admonitions, showed no inclination to observe the regulations, and the cases were remitted to be dealt with at the police courts. The president of the Municipal Children's Court complains that he should be obliged to send children there, but, owing to the limitation of his powers, he has no other alternative. He thinks that the atmosphere of the police courts is not the best place for the trial of juveniles, altbough all such cases are heard in a considerate way and in a separate room apart from the ordinary court. It is suggested that, pending legislation on the subject, the president of the Children's Court, as representing the Public Health Committee, should, with the approval of the police magistrates, be vested with power to deal summarily with such minor offences as infringement of the streettrading by-laws. It is difficult to see, however, how such an arrangement could be carried out without legislation.
THE forty-second annual report of the Deputy Keeper of the Records in Ireland contains a valuable report on the Catholic Qualification Rolls" which form part of the Irish State papers. These rolls are so called because they contained the names of those Catholics who took certain oaths prescribed by law in order to be accorded the enjoyment of various rights, offices, and privileges. The statute 13 & 14 Geo. 3 (Ir.), c. 35, enacted that from and after the 1st June 1774 any Catholic might take the oath and declaration set out in the Act. This oath might be taken before the judges of the King's Bench or before any justice of the peace in the county where such justice resided. Lists of the persons so taking the oath were to be eent every year to the Clerk of the Privy Council. There is a bundle of these lists amongst the records of the Privy Council Office. There is also in the same collection a book described as the Test Book, 1775-6, in which the lists were entered up. This book contains just over 1500 names (practically all resident in Leinster and Munster); so that the Act Second Sheet.
would not seem to have been generally availed of. The statutes 17 & 18 Geo. 3, c. 49 (Ir.), and 33 Geo. 3, c. 21 (Ir.), contained further legislation on this subject.
THE most remarkable feature of the preliminary summary of the Irish census which has been prepared by the Census Commissioners is the evidence that it affords that the drain on the population by emigration has been at last arrested. Although the shrinkage in the population, which has been continuous since 1841, has not yet ceased, the percentage of loss for the decade is the smallest yet recorded. The number of persons returned as constituting the population of Ireland is 4,381,951 (2,186,804 males and 2,195,147 females), showing a decrease since 1901 of 76,824 persons, or 17 per cent. The decrease in the number of males was equal to 0.6 per cent., and in the number of females to 28 per cent. The decrease in the population bas taken place mainly in the provinces of Munster and Connaught. In Leinster there was an increase of 7499 persons. The decrease in Ulster, Munster, and Connaught has been 4251, 43,103, and 36,966 persons respectively. The number of Roman Catholics in the country is returned as 3.238,656, this number being 70,005, or 2.1 per cent., under the number so returned in 1901; 575,489 are returned as Protestant Episcopalians. being a decrease of 5600, or 10 per cent.. since 1901; 439,876 are returned as Presbyterians, being a decrease of 3400, or 0 8 per cent.; and 61,805 as Methodists, being a decrease of 300, or 0.3 per cent.
OUR AUSTRALIAN LETTER.
Sydney, N.S.W., April 19.
THE principle enunciated by Lord Justice Fitzgibbon in Dunbar v. Ardee Guardians (1897, 2 Ir. Rep. 91) guided the Supreme Court of New South Wales recently in deciding as to the responsibility of the Government of that State for the act of one of its servants-a teacher in the Department of Education. It may be premised that under the New South Wales system of public education all children up to the age of fourteen years must attend the public schools, unless they attend other schools of an equal or higher standard. Bearing this in mind, the decision in New South Wales in Hole v. Williams (10 N. S. W. State Rep. 638), although following the decision in Hult v. Governors of Haileybury College (4 Times L. Rep. 623), was not upon strictly analogous circumstances. Pupils are sent to Haileybury on the motion of their parents only; pupils are compelled by the Government of New South Wales to attend the Government schools. The facts in the case were simple. The plaintiff Hole was pupil in s public school, and Doyle, the head master. sent a pupil named Smith for a certain tumbler to be used in a certain chemistry lesson which it was in his province to deliver. No warning was given Smith as to any possible contents of the tumbler. It contained some dilute sulphuric acid, and Smith, mistaking this for dirty water, throw it away. Hole, who was passing, was struck by the acid, and received serious injury to one of his eyes. He sued the Government through a nominal defendant, and obtained a verdict for £131. On appeal the verdict was set aside on the ground that the head master Doyle was not acting under any authority delegated to him by the Government when he sent Smith for the tumbler containing dangerous chemicale. The accident happened out of school hour. Reviewing the various Acts governing the public school system in New South Wales, Chief Justice Cullen eaid: "The effect of the various provisions in these enactments, so far as I think it necessary to refer to them here, is to make the schools the property of the Crown to be held under the direction, authority, and control of the Minister, who is intrusted with the general administration of the Act, and is personally exempted from actions for nonfeasance or misfeasance in connection with his dutier. ." After dealing with the principle
of liability by a person through his servants or agents as illustrated by the judgment of Lord Just ce Farwell in Hillyer v. Governors of St. Bartholomew's Hospital (101 L. T. Rep. 368; (1909) 2 K. B. 820), he said: "In the case of a teacher of a school under the Public Instruction Act, it is to be observed that there is no statutory definition of his duties, and, beyond the general legislative power conferred upon the Governor by regulation under sect. 37, the Act is silent as to any power in the Government of directing the school. master in regard to his methods of tuition. . . . Subject to any regulations, the obligations of the teacher in the selection of his methods of tuition and discipline seem to be governed by the rules of the common law under which he simply exercises an authority delegated to him by the parents of his pupils: (Fitzgerald v. Northcote, 4 F. & F. 656; Cleary v. Booth, 68 L. T. Rep. 349; (1893) 1 Q. B. 465; Hutt v. Governors of Haileybury College, sup.)." So far as the teaching of such a subject as chemistry and the accident which is the source of the action are concerned, the learned Chief Justice said: " .. I think the Government could only be held responsible for the teacher's negligence if in carrying out each minutest detail of tuition and discipline he is to be considered as acting under the orders of the Government, and this I think incompatible with the nature of his duties and the source of his authority." So far as the condition that education is compulsory in New South Wales, Mr. Justice Street in his judgment said: "The fact that the Legislature has converted the moral obligation of educating his children, which formerly rested on a parent, into a legal obligation, does not, in my opinion, materially affect the matter. In requiring that children, in the absence of some reasonable excuse, should be educated at one of the public schoole, or regularly and efficiently instructed in some other manner, the