Page images
PDF
EPUB

FIRST MEETINGS.

ANTHONY, JOHN, Chesterfield, Innkeeper Jan 11 at 4
Angel Hotel, Chesterfield
ARROWSUCH, JOB, Cannock, Staffs, Greengrocer Jan 12 at
at 11 Off Rec, Walsall
ARTINGSTALL. ARTHUR WHITAKER, and JAMES HALLIDAY,
Silsden, Yorks, Worsted Manufacturers Jan 14 at 10
Off Rec, 31, Manor row, Bradford
CANTELO, FRANK, Sandown, I W, Ironmonger Jan 14 at
12 Chamber of Commerce, 145, Cheapside
CAUNTER, NELSON SNELLING, Sutton Coldfield, Bank
Manager Jan 13 at 11 171, Corporation st, Birming-

ham

CRICK, JOHN HENRY, Mildenhall, Suffolk, Shopkeeper
Jan 28 at 11.30 Angel Hotel, Bury St Edmunds
DAVIDSON, JOHN ANDREW, Low Harker, nr Carlisle, Farmer
Jan 18 at 12 Off Rec, 34, Fisher st, Carlisle
ELLIS, FREDERICK GEORGE WILLIAM, Gateshead, Durham,
Draper Jan 12 at 11 Cooper & Co, 145, Cheapside
FAWCETT, CHARLES ARTHUR, Dewsbury Jan 13 at 11
Off Rec, 22, Park row, Leeds

FINCH, WILLIAM HENRY, jun, Lowestoft Jan 11 at 10.20
Lovewell Blake, South Quay, Great Yarmouth
FRASER, WILLIAM FAIRBAIRN, Bootle, Lancs, General Mer-
chant Jan 12 at 12 Off Rec, 35, Victoria st, Liver-
pool

Jan 12 at 2

Off

HALLIWELL, EDWARD, Blackburn, General Dealer Jan 12
at 1 County Court house, Blackburn
HARVEY, HARRY, Ipswich, Ham Dealer
Rec, 36, Princes st, Ipswich
HOBSON, WILLIAM, Woolfold, Bury Jan 13 at 11
16,
Wood st, Bolton
HUDSON, CHARLES, Walsall, Postman Jan 12 at 11.30 Off
Rec, Walsall

HYDE, FREDERICK, Aston, Birmingham, Wholesale Fruiterer Jan 14 at 11 174, Corporation st, Birmingham

IVES, ERNEST ALBERT, Bradford, Carrier Jan 12 at 12 Off Rec, 31, Manor row, Bradford

Jan 11 at 12

JOHN, JOSEPH, Bettws, nr Bridgend, Collier Jan 13 at 11.30
Off Rec, 29, Queen st, Cardiff
JORDAN, ALFRED JOHN, Brighton, Carrier
Off Rec, 4, Pavilion bldgs, Brighton
KERSLEY, CHARLES HENRY, and GEORGE KERSLEY, Leeds,
Woollen Manufacturers Jan 12 at 12 Off Rec, 22,
Park row, Leeds

LAMOND, CORDELIA WARDE, Hotel Cecil Jan 11 at 12
Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st

LEASK, HOWARD HOOPER, Blackheath, Insurance Agent
Jan 11 at 11 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st
LUCAS, JOSEPH, Wollaston, Northamptons, Engineer Jan
11 at 11 County Court bldgs, Sheep st, Northampton
MILLICHAMP, ROBERT GEORGE, Weston Beggard, Here-
fords, Farmer Jan 11 at 11 2, Offa st, Hereford
MORTIMORE, ANDREW GEORGE, Kingsteignton, Devon,
Grocer Jan 13 at 10.30 Off Rec, 13, Bedford circus,
Exeter

NIGHTINGALE, FREDERICK RICHARD, and JOHN NIGHTING-
GALE, Heaton, Newcastle on Tyne, Hairdressers Jan
14 at 11.30 Off Rec, 30, Mosley st, Newcastle on
Tyne
NORTH, ALFRED, West Bromwich, Baker Jan 14 at 2.5
County Court, West Bromwich
PHARAOH, HENRY CHAMBERLAIN, Streatham, Builder Jan
13 at 3 30 24, Railway app, London Bridge
PRIESTLEY, MAHLON, Wibsey, Bradford, Innkeeper Jan
13 at 3.30 Off Rec, 31, Manor row, Bradford
PUGH, WILLIAM, Michaelchurch Escley, Herefords, Inn-
keeper Jan 11 at 11 2, Offa st, Hereford
SALL, ERNEST WILLIAM HENRY, Southsea, Hants, Surgeon
Jan 11 at 3 Off Rec, Cambridge Junction, High st,
Portsmouth

SCALES, THOMAS ROBERT, Bridlington, Butcher Jan 12 at 11 Off Rec, 74, Newborough, Scarborough SEAB, WILLIAM RICHARD, Harpole, Northamptons, Innkeeper Jan 11 at 10.30 County Court bldgs, Sheep st, Northampton

SHAW, CHARLES, Sherwood, Notts, Gardener

Jan 11 at 12

Off Rec, 4, Castle pl, Park st, Nottingham SMITH, WILLIAM HENRY, Smethwick, Warwicks Jan 14 at 2 County Court, West Bromwich STARKINS, SARAH, Martham, Norfolk, Laundress Jan 11 at 10.30 Lovewell Blake, South Quay, Great Yar mouth

TABERER, AUSTIN, Derby, Plater Jan 11 at 2.30 Off Rec, 40, St Mary's gate, Derby

TROWNSELL, CHARLES MORRIS, Crawley, Sussex Jan 11 at 3 Off Kec, 4, Pavilion bldgs, Brighton

TUCKER, JOSEPH, Crowhurst, Sussex, Farmer Jan 11 at 3 1, St Aldate's, Oxford

WATKINSON, THOMAS, Woodlesford, Yorks, Farmer Jan 13 at 11 Off Rec, 6, Bond ter, Wakefield

WAUGH, ROBERT, Cardiff, Commission Agent Jan 13 at 11 Off Rec, 29, Queen st, Cardiff

WEBB, ELIZABETH, Oxford Jan 11 at 12 1, St Aldate's, Oxford

WEEKS, MORGAN, Pontypridd, Glam, Commission Agent Jan 13 at 12 65, High st, Merthyr Tydfil WHEELWRIGHT, THOMAS AMPHLETT, Leicester, Grocer Jan 11 at 12.30 Off Rec, 1, Berridge st, Leicester WOOLSEY, WILLIAM, Great Yarmouth, Twine Spinner Jan 11 at 10.40 Lovewell Blake, South Quay, Great Yarmouth

ADJUDICATIONS.

ADLINGTON, JOSEPH MERARI, Tunstall, Staffs, Schoolmaster Hanley Pet Feb 5 Ord Dec 22

BAMFORTH, GEORGE, Slaithwaite, York, Plasterer Huddersfield Pet Dec 21 Ord Dec 31

BRINKWORTH, FRANK, Neath, Fish Dealer Neath Pet Dec 30 Ord Dec 80

BROADHURST, HERMAN STEAD, Staincliffe, nr Dewsbury, Mattress Maker Dewsbury Pet Dec 30 Ord Dec 30 BROWN, ZEPHANIAH MATTHEW, Leamington Warwick Pet Dec 31 Ord Dec 31

COYNE, HAROLD, CHRISTIAN DENNIS COYNE, and ARTHUR COYNE, King st, Cheapside, Bootmakers High Court Pet Dec 15 Ord Dec 29

CRABE, THOMAS, West Norwood, Builder High Court Pet Nov 22 Ord Dec 31

DICKESON, JOHN GEORGE, Durham, Cowkeeper Durham Pet Oct 26 Ord Dec 30

EVANS, WILLIAM JOHN, Bala, Merioneths, Watchmaker
Wrexham Pet Dec 30 Ord Dec 30

FRASES, WILLIAM FAIRBAIRN, Bootle, Lancs, General Mer-
chant Liverpool Pet Nov 29 Ord Dec 31
HOBSON, WILLIAM, Woolford Bury, Lancs Bolton Pet
Dec 30 Ord Dec 3)

HOWARD, WILLIAM, Crewe, Butcher Nantwich Pet Dec 30 Ord Dec 30

INGLETON, FREDERICK BEECH, Newport, Mon, Commission
KNIGHT, JOSEPH JOHN, Brixham, Devon, Fisherman Ply-
Agent Newport, Mon Pet Dec 13 Ord Dec 30
mouth Pet Dec 31 Ord Dec 31

LEASK, HOWARD HOOPER, Victoria st, Insurance Agent
High Court Pet Nov 6 Ord Jan 1
LEBOWIDGE, DAVID, Leeds, Grocer Leeds Pet Dec 30 Ord
Dec 30

MARSH, HENRY, Southsea, Wholesale Fruiterer Portsmouth Pet Dec 30 Ord Dec 30

MORGAN, WARTON EDGAR, Chancery lane, Public house
Broker High Court Pet July 9 Ord Dec 30
MORRIS, GEORGE, Morchard Bishop, Deven, Farmer
Exeter Pet Dec 17 Ord Dec 31

OWEN, BENJAMIN, Wrexham, Builder Wrexham Pet Nov 5 Ord Dec 30

OWEN, RICHARD, Bryagwran, Anglesey, Licensed Victualler Bangor Pet Dec 21 Ord Dec 30 PECKITT, FREDERICK, Barnsley, Yorks, Draper

Pet Dec 30 Ord Dec 31

Barnsley

PHILBRICK, HORACE, Southampton, Solicitor Southampton Pet Nov 8 Ord Dec 31

PITTMAN, THOMAS, Minories High Court Pet Aug 10 Ord Dec 29

POYNTON, RICHARD HERBERT, Smisby, Derbys, Butcher Burton on Trent Pet Nov 23 Ord Jan 1

PRICE, FRANK, Liverpool, Grocer Liverpool Pet Oct 22 Ord Dec 30

RADFORD, GEORGE WILLIAM, Southampton row, Law Clerk
Cambridge Pet Jan 1 Ord Jan 1

REVELL, ERNEST ALBERT, Alrewas, Stafford, Painter
Plymouth Pet Dec 23 Ord Dec 30
Portsmouth
RICHARDS, HARRY, Landport, Tobacconist
Pet Dec 30 Ord Dec 30

RIGDEN, ELIZABETH HADLEY, Leicester, Ladies' Outfitter

Leicester Pet Dec 30 Ord Dec 30

RING, DANIEL EDWY, Yeovil, General Grocer Yeovil Pet Dec 30 Ord Dec 30

ROSEMAN, AARON ERNEST, Dowlais, Furniture Dealer Merthyr Tidfil Pet Dec 29 Ord Dec 30

SEVERS, JOHN, Kendal, Fish Merchant Kendal Pet Dec 30 Ord Dec 30

SHELTON, THOMAS, Llanwnog, Schoolmaster

Pet Dec 21 Ord Jan 1

Newtown

SHERWOOD, THOMAS, Manchester, Accountant Manchester Pet Dec 22 Ord Dec 30

SHEPHERD, ALFRED, Rhyl, Flints, Upholsterer Bangor Pet Nov 25 Ord Dec 31

SIMPSON, CHARLES, Walworth, Salesman High Court Pet
Nov 13 Ord Dec 30

SLATER, HENRY, Great Grimsby, Blacksmith Great
SMITH, ARTHUR, Bradford, Grocer's Manager
Grimsby Pet Dec 31 Ord Dec 31

Pet Dec 24 Ord Dec 31

Bradford

SOWERBY, GEORGE, Lemington, Northumberland, Company Managing Director Newcastle on Tyne Pet Dec 30 Ord Dec 30

STARKINS, SARAH, Ma rtham, Nofolk, Laundress Gt Yarmouth Pet Dec 1 Ord Jan 1

STOTHARD, THOMAS SINDERSON, Blyth, Nottingham, Farmer Sheffield Pet Dec 31 Ord Dec 31

UTLEY, WILLIE WALTER, Sowerby Bridge, Yorks, Hatter Halifax Pet Dec 30 Ord Dec 30

VINE, BENJAMIN, Eastbourne, Laundry Keeper Eastbourne Pet Dec 16 Ord Dec 30

WHEELWRIGHT, THOMAS AMPHLETT, Leicester, Grocer
Leicester Pet Dec 30 Ord Dec 30

WOODWARD, JAMES ADAM, South Shore, Blackpool, Sur-
veyor Preston Pet Dec 30 Ord Dec 30
WOOLSEY, WILLIAM, Gt Yarmouth. Twine Spinner Gt
Yarmouth Pet Dec 31 Ord Dec 31

Amended notice substituted for that published in the
London Gazette of Aug. 31:

STOCKEN, HERBERT HEATHER HARRISON, Central Markets,
Butcher High Court Pet July 28 Ord Aug 19

All letters intended for publication in the "Solicitors' Journal" must be authenticated by the name of the writer.

Where difficulty is experienced in procuring the Journal with regularity, it is requested that application be made direct to the Publisher.

MAPLE & CO

FURNITURE

FOR

OFFICES BOARD ROOMS

COMMITTEE ROOMS BANKS

CONSULTING ROOMS

SPECIALITIES IN

ROLL TOP TABLES

BOOK CASES AND CABINETS

WRITING CHAIRS EASY CHAIRS

TURKEY CARPETS

LINOLEUMS FOR CLERKS' OFFICES

LONDON & PARIS

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]
[graphic]

JEWELS AND SILVER PLATE, &c.

SPINK & SON, GOLDSMITHS AND SILVERSMITHS, 17 AND 18, PICCADILLY, W., and at 1 AND 2, GRACECHURCH-STREET, CORNHILL, LONDON, E.C., beg respectfully to announce that they ACCURATELY APPRAISE the above for the LEGAL PROFESSION OF PURCHASE the SAME for cash if desired. Established 1772.

Under the patronage of H.M. The Queen and H.S.H. Prince Louis Battenberg, K.C.B.
THE COMPANIES ACTS, 1862 TO 1890.

Every requisite under the above Acts supplied on the shortest notice.

The BOOKS and FORMS kept in stock for immediate

MEMORANDA and ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION speedily printed in the proper form for registration and distribution. SHARE CERTIFICATES, DEBENTURES,

SEALS designed and executed. No Charge for Sketche CHEQUES, &c., engraved and printed. OFFICIAL

Solicitors' Account Books.

RICHARD FLINT & CO.,

Stationers, Printers, Engravers, Registration Agents,
FLEET-STREET, LONDON, E.O. (corner
of Serjeants'-inn).
Annual and other Returns Stamped and Filed.
ESTABLISHED 1851.

Study of Inebriety. Thirty years' Experience. Excellent BIRKBECK BANK

Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane, London, W.C. INVESTED FUNDS - £8,000,000. Number of Accounts, 75,061. TWO-AND-A-HALF per CENT. INTEREST allowed on DEPOSITS, repayable on demand.

TWO per CENT. on CURRENT ACCOUNTS, on the minimum monthly balances, when not drawn below £100. STOCKS, SHARES, and ANNUITIES purchased and sold for customers.

SAVINGS DEPARTMENT.

Sma Deposits received, and Interest allowed monthly on each completed £1.

The BIRKBECK ALMANACK, with full particulars, post free.

lock to differ, and one LONSDALE PRINTING WORKS, To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

THE OLDEST & WEALTHIEST EXISTING MORTGAGE INSURANCE OFFICE.

VOL. XLII., No. 11.

The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter.

LONDON, JANUARY 15, 1898.

The Editor cannot undertake to return rejected contributions, aud copies should be kept of all articles sent by writers who are not on the regular staff of the JOURNAL.

CURRENT TOPICS

Contents.

177

THE LAW GUARANTEE AND TRUST SOCIETY, THE REAL REPRESENTATIVE............ 179

[ocr errors]

LIMITED.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

SUBSCRIBED CAPITAL FIDELITY GUARANTEES OF ALL KINDS. ADMINISTRATION AND LUNACY BONDS. MORTGAGE, DEBENTURE, LICENSE, AND CONTINGENCY INSURANCE. TRUSTEESHIPS FOR DEBENTURE-HOLDERS, &C.

[blocks in formation]

To see that the Insurance Covenants include a policy covering the risk of LOSS OR FORFEITURE OF THE LICENSE.

X

Suitable clauses, settled by Counsel, can be obtained on application to THE LICENSES INSURANCE CORPORATION AND GUARANTEE FUND, LIMITED,

24, MOORGATE STREET, LONDON, E.C. Mortgages Guaranteed on Licensed Properties promptly, without special valuation and at low rates.

ALLIANCE ASSURANCE COMPANY.

Established 1824. Capital, £5,000,000 Sterling.
HEAD OFFICE: BARTHOLOMEW LANE, LONDON.
Chairman: RIGHT HON. LORD ROTHSCHILD.

LONDON BRANCHES: 1, ST. JAMES'S ST., S.W.; 63, CHANCERY LANE, W.C.;
NORFOLK ST., STRAND; WIGMORE ST.; 3, MINCING LANE, E.Č.
LIFE AND FIRE INSURANCES AT MODERATE RATES.

Life Policies free from Restrictions, with Perfect Security and Liberal Bonuses.

[blocks in formation]

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.................. 183
LEGAL NEWS .................................... 184
COURT PAPERS..

WINDING UP NOTICES
CREDITORS' NOTICES....
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.

Cases Reported this Week.

In the Solicitors' Journal. Leeds and Hanley Theatre of Varieties (Lim.) v. Broadbent...

In the Weekly Reporter.

An Arbitration between The London County Council and the City of London Brewery Co., In re

187

........... ........ 189

[blocks in formation]

CURRENT TOPICS.

MR. SAMUEL AUGUSTUS MASON SATOW has been appointed deputy to act in the place of Mr. G. A. CROWDER, one of the masters in Mr. Justice ROMER's chambers, who has obtained three months' leave of absence on the ground of illness. Mr. SATOW was admitted in 1871.

WE ARE informed that the St. James's Vestry, adopting the Special forms of Policies have been prepared to provide for payment of ESTATE DUTIES. recommendation of their Law and Parliamentary Committee, have decided to answer the communication from the London County Council adversely to the Land Transfer Act, 1897, being

[blocks in formation]

WE REFERRED last week to the breach of faith on the part of the promoters of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, involved in the official letter which has been sent to the Common Council of the City of London, suggesting that the City should be included in the experimental area. A correspondent points out that under the Act there is no power to make registration compulsory in the City. He says, "by section 20 (11) "county " has the same meaning as in the Local Government Act, 1888, except that it includes a county borough. By section 100 of the last-mentioned Act"county" does not include a county of a city or of a town. The City is not a county borough (see 3rd schedule of the Local Government Act, 1888), but a county of a city; hence the compulsory provisions cannot be applied to it."

BEFORE ANY County council accepts compulsory registration of title, says a correspondent, it should certainly read and consider Mr. H. W. B. MACKAY'S article in the Harvard Law Review for January. It contains an unprejudiced and dispassionate discussion of the advisability, or rather the inadvisability, of applying registration of title to an old commercial and manufacturing country, where dealings with real estate are complicated and titles are often defective. The writer shews by examples that the registration of partial interests, if carried to its logical conclusion, is utterly unworkable, and, on the other hand, that no satisfactory system of caveats has yet been discovered. This warning voice from America ought to strengthen the reluctance already displayed to allow the new system to come into operation.

IN OUR ISSUE of the 18th of December last we regretted the uncertainty introduced by the decision of KEKEWICH, J., in Leeds and Hanley Theatre of Varieties v. Broadbent (reported ante,

p. 115) into the law as to the construction of covenants or provisoes for "punctual payment" of interest. The Court of Appeal has now, as reported elsewhere, unanimously reversed that decision. The result is that when a mortgagor (or presumably any other person) has a privilege secured to him on condition of "punctual payment" of interest due upon a certain day, he must, to entitle himself to claim that privilege, pay the money on the very day when it becomes due, and that he is not punctual if he comes to pay & reasonable time after. This conclusion seems to be consistent both with common sense and with general convenience. It is difficult to dissent from the remarks of the Master of the Rolls that the words punctual payment "cannot mean anything else" than payment on the due date, and that the mortgagor has only himself to blame if he suffers loss through his delay. The only case in point, Hicks v. Gardiner (1 Jur. 541), is an authority for the view now adopted by the Court of Appeal; and the usual form of proviso, which expressly contemplates payment within a specified number of days after the due date, points in the same direction. It would be a surprise to business men to be told that, after they had agreed for punctual payment of a sum of money, they were at liberty to bring it within any number of days after the due date which a judge might happen to think reasonable.

WHATEVER may be the result of the verdict of the coroner's jury in the case of the Cripplegate fire, there can be no doubt that the holding of the inquiry was imperatively necessary, and it is certainly an anomaly that the statute under which the inquiry was held should be confined in its operation to the City of London. Anciently it has been supposed that the duties of a coroner included inquiry into fires, and, indeed, into felonies generally (see Mirror of Justice, ed. 1642, pp. 45, 100), but neither COKE nor HALE recognize any such jurisdiction (4 Inst. 271, Hale P. C., ii., 57), and according to them the coroner could inquire of "no felony but of the death of man, and that super visum corporis." In spite of these opinions, however, it was intimated in Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown (II., 83, ed. 1824) that the old jurisdiction was still exerciseable, and though it had long fallen into desuetude, it was revived in the middle of the present century, and inquiries into the origin of fires at which there had been no loss of life were held in London, Lincoln, Doncaster, and some other places. At length objection was taken by the owner of premises in Manchester, upon which a fire had occurred, to the holding of the inquest; and, in Reg. v. Herford (29 L. J. Q. B. 249), it was held that the non-user of the jurisdiction for many hundred years was strong evidence that it never existed, while, even if it did anciently exist, it could not after such non-user be revived without the authority of Parliament.

So FAR as the country generally is concerned, the result of Reg. v. Ilerford has been confirmed by the Coroners Act, 1887, which, by section 44, provides that a coroner shall not hold inquests of felonies except felonies on inquisitions of death. The authorities of the City of London, however, saw the advantages which would accrue from investing a public officer with the power of holding a judicial inquiry into the cause of fires, and by the City of London Fire Inquests Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. xxxviii.), it was enacted that in case of loss or injury by fire within the City of London and the liberties thereof situato in the county of Middlesex, it should be the duty of the coroner to consider any report made to him under the Act by the Commissioner of City Police or the Chief Officer of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, and to hold an inquest if either the Lord Mayor or the Lord Chief Justice or a Secretary of State should so order, or the coroner should be of opinion that proper cause for such an inquiry existed. Upon such an inquest the coroner has the same powers as when holding an inquest upon death, and, if the jury find that there is a case of arson against known persons, their verdict has the effect of an indictment. In the case of the Cripplegate fire the verdict lacks this result, inasmuch as the finding is that the premises where the fire originated were "wilfully fired by some person or persons unknown," but it is unlikely that the proceedings will end here, and, even if they should, the inquiry into the efficiency of the fire brigade has

been in itself of great importance. Obviously the power of holding similar inquiries should exist throughout the country.

THE PROVISIONAL Land Transfer Rules, 1897, which we published in our issue of the 1st of January, lead us to hope for a serviceable code of rules when the old rules of 1875 and 1889 are superseded. We have not hitherto been backward in condemning the provisions of the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897, as impracticable and mischievous; it is therefore a relief to us that we are able to regard the new rules with so much comparative satisfaction. The Advisory Committee appointed under section 22 of the Act of 1897 have, during their short period of service, we venture to think, already more than justified their existence. The principle underlying the Acts is to disregard the reasonable wishes of landowners for the sake of securing a rigid system of transfer; the new rules, on the other hand (see e.g., rule 41), recognize that a certain amount of flexibility is essential. A most arduous task, however, still lies before the committee. They may do much to simplify and define the practice at the Land Registry, but nothing short of a power to override the express provisions of the Acts could enable them to constitute a scheme of registration in respect of which it could not be reasonably predicted that a general muddle would ensue upon its application. The new rules being merely provisional, it may be somewhat premature to attempt any criticism. But we may suggest that no instrument is ever registered (see rule 28); nor do the rules (see rule 2) appear to get over the difficulty involved by reason of the loose definitions contained in section 6 (10) of the Act of 1897. Inasmuch as many of the difficulties arising on the Acts are at present let unprovided for (for instance, as to whether a mortgagee by deposit of the certificate is safe in making further advances without making a new search for cautions), we apprehend that the order putting in force the compulsory provisions will not be allowed to take effect until the full code of rules has been issued. Possibly objection may be taken to the regulation (see rule 38) under which the registrar is to enter on the register notice of a mortgage by deposit of the certificate. It is, we have reason to believe, a very common practice for bankers in Yorkshire, at the instance of their clients, not to register a memorandum of their charge in the local deeds registry, on account of the publicity incidental thereto. So long, however, as the secrecy of the Land Registry registers is hedged in by proper precautions, this objection would appear to have little substance in it, though care should be taken that when the entry is cancelled the cancellation should not appear on the register, as landowners often do not wish their successors to know that they effected even a temporary loan. To conclude, we may respectfully wish the Advisory Committee every success in their efforts to modify and explain the haphazard and obscure legislation effected by the Acts.

NOTWITHSTANDING the very extensive discretionary powers given to the Education Department by the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, the Department has deemed it necessary to consult the law officers of the Crown upon the question whether a debt, in respect of the annual maintenance of a school, contracted before the passing of the Act, on the 18th April, 1897, can be defrayed out of the "aid grant" directed by the Act to be annually paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. The answer of the law officers in the negative, together with the reasons for it, which has been sent round in an official circular to the associations representing 14,000 voluntary schools in England and Wales, has created some disappointment, and a correspondent of the Times has boldly questioned the correctness, in point of law, of the opinion. The question raised is as difficult as it is serious. The words of sub-section 2 of section 1 of the Act are that "the aid grant shall be distributed by the Education Department to such voluntary schools and in such manner and amounts as the Department thinks best for the purpose of helping necessitous" (there is no definition of "necessitous ")"schools, and increasing their efficiency, due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions"; and it is added in sub-section 7 that "the

decision of the Education Department upon any question relating to the distribution or allotment of the aid grant shall be final." The effect of sub-section 7 we take to be, that it was a pure act of grace on the part of the Education Department to take the opinion of the law officers. On many points the action of the Department may be questioned before the courts of law, but this is not one of them. The words of sub-section 7 are too strong to be got over, and the action of the Department in administering the aid grant cannot be questioned by certiorari or otherwise. Rightly or wrongly, Parliament has clothed the Department with absolute power of distribution amongst voluntary schools. But is the opinion right or wrong? The reason given for it is that a payment for the purpose of extinguishing a debt "would not be for the purpose of helping the school or increasing its efficiency, but for the purpose of relieving the individuals who had maintained the school in the past.' If the debt is not in reality chargeable to the school fund, but only to individual managers who have advanced its amount to the school fund, so that by paying it out of the aid grant the school fund will not gain pro tanto, this reason seems to be quite sound. But in the course of the administration of a voluntary school, as ordinarily conducted, the assets for the financial year ending in March, 1898, would no doubt be diminished by the sum required for payment of the debt, and to pay the debt out of the aid graut would, it appears to us, be to "help" the school within the meaning of the Act. It is, we think, somewhat unfortunate that the opinion of a court of law cannot, by virtue of the peremptory terms of the 7th sub-section, to which we have referred, be taken upon this question.

[ocr errors]

THE PROVISIONS of section 116 of the County Courts Act, 1888, distinguishing between actions founded upon tort and upon contract continue to be a source of litigation, and an important decision upon this distinction was given in the recent case of Turner v. Stallibrass (46 W. R. 81). If an action founded on contract is brought in the High Court, and the plaintiff recovers less than £20, he gets no costs, and if he recovers £20 and upwards, but less than £50, he gets costs only on the county court scale. If, however, the action is founded on tort, the corresponding limits are £10 and £20. The section seems to assume that actions of contract and tort are readily distinguishable, but although in general it is perfectly easy to say in which category an action falls, there is a considerable area of debateable ground, and a controversy which puzzled pleaders in the old days when forms of action existed, has, by the wisdom of the Legislature, been kept alive for the benefit of the present generation of lawyers. The difficulty chiefly arises when a contract exists between the parties, and in the course of the execution of the contract damage has been caused which prima facie would be a subject for compensation even apart from the contract. In Fleming v. Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Co. (27 W. R. 481, 4 Q. B. D. 81) it was considered that any such injury arose out of the contract, and hence an action against a railway for negligently carrying goods was held to be an action founded on contract, but in Taylor v. Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Co. (43 W. R. 120; 1895, 1 Q. B. 134) that principle seems to have been set aside. A distinction was now taken between acts of omission or nonfeasance and acts of misfeasance, and it was considered that acts of the latter class would give rise to a cause of action founded on tort. Hence an action against a railway company for personal injury to a passenger was deemed to be of this class where the injury was caused by a porter negligently shutting the carriage door. In other words, the tort was not excluded by the contract to carry safely. Subsequently, however, in Kelly v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (43 W. R. 497; 1895, 1 Q. B. 944), it was seen that the distinction missed the real point, and it was held that the test of tort was whether the defendant had violated a duty which was imposed upon him independently of the special contract. Thus an action for personal injury caused by the negligence of a railway company was held to be an action of tort without regard to the exact nature of the conduct, whether nonfeasance or misfeasance, to which the injury was due. The latest case Turner v. Stallibrass-has arisen in connection with a contract of agistment. The plaintiff delivered a horse to the defendants to

be agisted, and the horse was injured through the defendants negligently putting it into a field where there was a barbed wire fence. It has been held by the Court of Appeal that, apart from the contract of agistment, there was a common law duty imposed on the defendants by the bailment to take reasonable care of the horse; and the violation of this duty gave rise to an action of tort, so that the plaintiff, who had recovered £30, was entitled to costs upon the High Court scale. But it will still be open to doubt in future cases what duties spring from the bailment and what from the contract, and a distinction so vague as the one in question clearly ought never to have been made the test upon a matter of costs.

VERY FEW offences remain at the present time for which an adult can be sentenced to be flogged, and for some of those few the punishment is obsolete, and very properly so. There are, however, two serious crimes for which judges are not only legally able, but in many cases very ready, to inflict this punishment. These are robbery with violence, and the much more uncommon crime of attempting to choke, strangle, or suffocate a person with intent to commit a felony. It seems to be universally admitted that cases of robbery with violence have become much less frequent under the fear of this punishment, and probably, if all the judges acted on the principle of those few who most often pass sentence of flogging, the crime would be almost stamped out. It is not easy to understand the state of mind of those (no doubt estimable) persons who are too tender-hearted to flog a brutal ruffian who does not care what pain he inflicts in order to effect his guilty purpose." Probably acute physical pain is the only thing such a man can really feel, and it seems to be the one punishment he really. dreads. He is, most likely, as low in the moral scale as he can be, and it is ridiculous to talk of the "degrading" effect of a whipping on such a person. There are, however, several other crimes besides robbery very common throughout the country which might be dealt with by flogging, to the great advantage of the public. The quarter sessions of Essex last week passed a resolution to the effect that the criminal law should be so amended as to allow judges of assize and justices of quarter sessions, at their discretion, to inflict the punishment of flogging, in addition to imprisonment, in all cases of rape, attempted rape, and indecent assault on women and children. Most persons will probably agree, to some extent, with this resolution, especially those who are often in criminal courts and know the details of these unreportable cases. The crimes mentioned are terribly frequent. No offence in the whole calendar of crime is more brutal, or more deserving of corporal chastisement, than outrages on female children. Flogging, however, is a punishment which ought to be awarded to adults with the utmost circumspection, and (it is submitted) only by the highest judicial officers. It would be dangerous in the extreme to put such a power into the hands of chairmen of quarter sessions, who, as a rule, are without legal training, and whose experience consists in dealing with a few cases four times a year.

THE REAL REPRESENTATIVE.

Ir may be convenient, now that the real representative has made his appearance, that we should give a summary of the results which we arrived at in our former articles (ante. pp. 42 and 61), accompanied by some further remarks upon the powers of the real representative with respect to unregistered land under the Land Transfer Act, 1897, which we shall for brevity refer to as "the Act."

Where a person dies after 1897 who was solely and beneficially entitled to freehold land for an estate in fee simple in possession, it seems fairly clear that that land will vest in his executor or administrator from time to time. The Act, however, leaves the devolution of other kinds of real estate in doubtfor instance, the devolution of estates tail, or for life, the estate of a remainderman, trust and mortgage estates, an estate pur autre vie, a right of re-entry, a personal inheritance, and even chattels real may or may not be affected by the Act.

Confining our attention to the simple case first above

« PreviousContinue »