Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

The magistrate decided that the service of any summons, even if anonymously addressed-i.e., "To the owner -was a notice, the service of which was provided for by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts and must be served under section 1 of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, personally or at the last known place of abode. He was also of opinion that even if a summons addressed "To the Owner" in a case where the owner could not be found was not provided for by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts there should be evidence before him that reasonable diligence had been exercised by the complainant to discover the owner of the property, and in the present case he was not satisfied that the valuation list or rate had been examined or the rate collector interrogated or other obvious means taken to discover who the owner was. Section 188 (i.) of the Act is as follows: "Any notice, order or other document required or authorized to be served under this Act, the service of which is not provided for by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, the Land Clauses Acts, or the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, may be served by delivering a copy thereof at, or by sending a copy thereof by post to the usual or last known residence in the United Kingdom of the person to whom it is addressed, or by delivering the same to some person on the premises, or if no person be found on the premises, then by fixing a copy thereof on some conspicuous part of the building."

THE COURT (WRIGHT and KENNEDY, JJ.) discharged the rule WRIGHT, J., thought that in this case there had not been sufficient care taken to ascertain who the owner was to entitle the London County Council to act under the section. In his opinion, before a magistrate could hold that such a service as this was valid, the complainant must prove (a) that he had made all the inquiries he could, (b) his failure to ascertain who the owner was, and (e) that the premises were empty. The application against the decision of the magistrate therefore failed. KENNEDY, J., concurred.-COUNSEL, Sutton; Horace Avory. SOLICITORS, Herries, Wilkinson, & Rakes; W. A. Blaxland.

[Reported by ERSKINE REID, Barrister-at-Law.]

GALLAGHER v. RUDD. Div. Court. 2nd Nov. LICENSING ACTS-JUSTICES-LICENCE TO RETAIL INTOXICATING LIQUORS AT BARS OF THEATRE-LIQUOR SUPPLIED AFTER CLOSING TIME ΤΟ EMPLOYÉES AND "BONA FIDE" SPECTATORS ONLY-LICENSING ACT, 1874 (35 & 36 VICT. c 94), s. 9.

This was an appeal by Mr. Gallagher against a conviction by the justices of Durham, for that he, on the 23rd of January last, at the borough of Stockton-on-Tees at 11.20 p.m., did sell intoxicating liquors at the Theatre Royal at an hour when the premises ought to have been closed. The facts set out in the special case were these: The appellant was manager of the Theatre Royal at Stockton under a licence pursuant to 6 & 7 Vict. c. 68. On the 11th of October, 1896, the appellant was granted a theatre excise license under 5 & 6 Will. 4, to sell intoxicating liquors by retail at that theatre. On the night in question the performance concluded at the theatre at 10.55, but the appellant kept one of the bars open for the sale of liquors until 11.20 pm, at which time two police officers entered the theatre by a door at the back-the public entrance being closed-and found between thirty and forty persons in the bar. All the persons in the bar were either persons who were employed in the performance or had been bond fide attending the performance as spectators. The justices convicted the appellant, and fined him a nominal penalty of 33. 6d. with costs. The question for the decision of the Divisional Court was whether, on these facts, the appellant was guilty of an offence under section 9 of the Licensing Act, 1874. For the respondent it was contended that theatres came within the same provisions as ordinary public-houses so far as the sale of intoxicating liquors were concerned. The closing hour was 11 p.m., and any sale of liquor after that hour was a contravention of the Act, and that, therefore, the conviction in this case ought to stand.

THE COURT (WRIGHT and KENNEDY, JJ.) dismissed the appeal. There was not an absolute exemption from the provisions of the Licensing Acts in favour of theatres. These places, where they had a licence, were placed on the same footing as ordinary public-houses. The justices, therefore, had properly convicted the appellant.-COUNSEL, Luck; Simey. SOLICI TORS, Hack & Morris, for Thomas & Malkin, Stockton-on-Tees; Crump & Sprott, for Archer & Parkin, Stockton-on-Tees.

[Reported by ERSKINE REID, Barrister-at-Law.]

MURPHY v. ARROW. Div. Court. 2nd Nov. GAMING-BETTING HOUSE-PERSON FOUND THEREON-RECOGNIZANCEBETTING HOUSES ACT, 1853 (16 & 17 VICT. c. 119), s. 1, 3, 11; 33 HEN. 8, c. 9, s. 14.

This was a case stated by a metropolitan police magistrate, the question in which had reference to the power of magistrates in dealing with persons found upon and arrested in a betting house. The Betting Houses Act, 1853, provides (section 2) that a house used for the purpose of betting shall be taken and deemed to be a gaming house within the meaning of the Gaming Act, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, and section 11 gives justices power by warrant to order the arrest of persons keeping the same or who shall be found thereon. The form of warrant prescribed is the same as that given in the schedule of the Gaming Act, 1847. That form of warrant directs the person to whom it is addressed to enter the suspected house and to arrest as well the keepers of the house as also persons "there haunting, resorting, and playing." The latter words were taken from 33 Hen. 8, c. 9, an Act giving powers to justices and others to deal with houses used for unlawful gaming, powers which section 3 of the Gaming Act, 1847, was intended to extend. The former Act prohibits the using and maintaining of any common house, alley, or place for unlawful games.

Section 14 is as follows: "Be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that it shall be lawful to all and every the justices of the peace in every shire, mayors, sheriffs, bailiffs, and other head officers within every city, town, and borough within this realm, from time to time, as well within liberties as without, as need and case shall require, to come, enter, and resort into all and every houses, places, and alleys where such games shall be suspected to be holden, exercised, used, or occupied, contrary to the form of this statute; (2) and as well the keepers of the same, also the persons there haunting, resorting, and playing, to take, arrest, and imprison, and them so taken and arrested to keep in prison, unto such time as the keepers and maintainers of the said plays and games have found sureties to the king's use, to be bound by recognizance or otherwise, no longer to use, keep, or occupy any such house, play, game, alley, or place; (3) and also that the persons there so found, be in like case bound by themselves, or else with sureties, by the discretions of the justices, mayors, sheriffs, bailiffs, or other head officers, no more to play, haunt, or exercise from thenceforth, in, at, or to any of the said places, or at any of the said games." Section 3 of the Gaming Act, 1847, gave the justices, &c., power to issue their warrant to the police to enter suspected houses and arrest the keepers of the same and persons found thereon. The appellant, with eighty-eight other persons, was, on the 5th of May, 1897, arrested by the police on premises known as the Frascati Club at 32, Gerard-street, Soho, under a warrant issued by the magistrate in pursuance of section 11 of the Betting Houses Act, 1853. All the persons arrested were brought before the magistrate on the 12th of May. Four of them were charged with keeping a house for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto contrary to section 1 of the Betting Houses Act, three of whom were convicted, the remaining person being discharged. The appellant with the eighty-four other persons applied to be discharged. It was proved that the premises were used by the keepers thereof for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto. The appellant was arrested at 3 30 p.m., and it was proved that betting had taken place just prior to that time. The magistrate refused to discharge the appellant, but ordered him to be bound in his own recognizance in £20 "no more to play, haunt, or exercise from thenceforth" at any gaming house pursuant to section 14 of 33 Hen. 8, c. 9. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that there was no evidence that the appellant "used or exercised any unlawful game on the premises nor that he was a person "there haunting, resorting, and playing" within section 14 of 33 Hen. 8, c 9, because there was no evidence of the length of time he had been on the premises nor whether he had been there before nor of what he was doing there on the occasion when he was arrested. It was further contended that although a betting house was declared to be a gaming house by section 2 of the Betting Houses Act, yet betting on horse-races was not a game' an unlawful game or within 33 Hen. 8, c. 9, or an unlawful game " within 2 Geo. 2, c. 28, s. 9, and that under those statutes only players of unlawful games were liable to be treated in the manner in which the appellant had been treated.

66

66

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

THE COURT (LINDLEY, M.R., and CHITTY, L.J.) dismissed the appeal. LINDLEY, M.R., said that the object of the Legislature in enacting section 2 of the Betting Houses Act was to put persons found in a betting house in the same position as persons found in a gaming house. Section 11 gave the magistrate power to issue a warrant for the arrest of persons found in a betting house. The form of warrant to be used was in the schedule to the Gaming Act, 1847, and followed the words of 33 Hen. 8, c. 9, s. 14, directing the person to whom it was addressed to enter the suspected premises and arrest as well the keepers thereof as also the persons "there haunting, resorting, and playing." From this concatenation of sections it was clear that a betting house was to be treated as a common gaming house, and where persons were arrested in it they were to be treated as if they had been arrested in a common gaming house. Any other construction of these sections would give the go-by to the express words of the sections. CHITTY, L.J., concurred.-COUNSEL, Purcell; Danckwerts. SOLICITORS, Pattinson & Brewer; Wontner & Son.

[Reported by C. G. WILBRAHAM, Barrister-at-Law.]

Bankruptcy Cases.

Re CLARK, Ex parte CLARK. C. A. No. 1. 29th Oct. BANKRUPTCY-JUDGMENT DEBTOR-FOREIGN SUBJECT-SUMMONS TO COMMIT -JURISDICTION OF COURT TO MAKE RECEIVIng Order-DeиTORS ACT, 1869 (32 & 33 VICT. c. 62), s. 5-BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883 (46 & 47 VICT. c. 52), s. 103, SUB-SECTION 5.

This was an appeal by the debtor against a receiving order made at chambers by Day, J., upon a judgment summons on the following grounds: (1) That the appellant was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Bankruptcy; (2) that the judge had no jurisdiction to make the said order; (3) that the order was made without the appellant having any opportunity of giving evidence in answer and opposition to the application of the judgment creditor; and (4) that no evidence was given before the judge which could justify the making of the receiving order. The facts of the case were as follows: The execution creditor, Schulze, had, in May, 1897, recovered judgment in this country on a bill of exchange against the appellant, a Chilian subject. In July, 1897, the debt not having been satisfied, the appellant, who was temporarily in this country on business, was served with a judgment summons asking for a committal. Upon the hearing Day, J., who was satisfied that the appellant had means, made a receiving order against him under section 103, sub-section 5, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. That section provides that "Where, under section five

the Debtors Act, 1869, application is made by a judgment creditor to a court having bankruptcy jurisdiction for the committal of a judgment debtor, the court may, if it thinks fit, decline to commit, and in lieu thereof, with the consent of the judgment creditor, and on payment by him of the prescribed fee, make a receiving order against the debtor. In such case the judgment debtor shall be deemed to have committed an act of bankruptcy at the time the order is made." From that order the debtor appealed. On his behalf it was contended that, even though an order might have been made under section 5 of the Debtors Act, 1869, by which section power is given to any court to commit judgment debtors having the means to pay the debt for not more than six weeks or until payment of the sum due, nevertheless the learned judge had no jurisdiction to make the order under section 103 of the Act of 1883, as the conditions precedent contained in section 6, sub-section 1 (d) of that Act, and which apply to the making of a receiving order under section 103, as well as to an order under section 7, had not been complied with. Sub-section 1 (d) provides that "A creditor shall not be entitled to present a bankruptcy petition against a debtor unless (d) the debtor is domiciled in England, or, within a year before the date of the presentation of the petition, has ordinarily resided or had a dwelling-house or place of business in England." If those conditions did not exist a receiving order could not be made under section 7, and it followed that such an order could not be made under section 103. The power to make such an order is confined to the same class of cases as an order on a petition under section 6. It was further contended that there was no evidence of means.

THE COURT (A. L. SMITH, RIGBY, and COLLINS, L.JJ.), without calling upon counsel for the respondent, dismissed the appeal.

A. L. SMITH, L.J., in giving judgment, expressed his opinion that, as regards means, it was clear that Day, J., was satisfied that the appellant had means to pay the debt, or a part thereof, and that being so, the learned judge had jurisdiction to make a receiving order against him under section 103. It was contended that the appellant did not come within sub-section 5 of that section, upon the ground that a bankruptcy petition could not be presented against him, because a petition could only be presented against a debtor who was domiciled in England or who, within a year before the date of the presentation of the petition, had ordinarily resided or had a dwelling-house or place of business in England. The court had to construe section 103, and, in his opinion, the right construction was that when the judge has jurisdiction to commit a debtor under section 5 of the Debtors Act, 1869, he has jurisdiction to make a receiving order against him, under section 103 of the Act of 1883, if he think fit, in lieu of making a committal order. In his opinion the learned judge at chambers had evidence before him that the appellant had means of paying, at any rate something, and therefore he had jurisdiction to make the receiving order now appealed from. RIGBY and COLLINS, L.JJ., delivered judgments to the same effect. Appeal dismissed.-COUNSEL, Muir Mackenzie; Reed, Q.C., and Hansell. SOLICITORS, Harwood & Stephenson; F. W. & H. Hilbery.

[Reported by E. G. STILLWELL, Barrister-at-Law.]

LAW SOCIETIES.

LAW ASSOCIATION.

At a meeting of the directors, held at the Hall of the Incorporated Law Society, on Thursday, the 28th inst., the following being present-Mr. Sidney Smith (chairman), and Messrs. C. Burt, S. J. Daw, H. C. Nisbet, R. H. Peacock, J. Vallance, and Arthur Carpenter (secretary)-a sum of £805 was distributed in grants of relief, and the ordinary general business was transacted.

SUSSEX LAW SOCIETY.

The following are extracted from the secretaries' report:Members.-The Society now numbers 62 members, of whom 43 practise in Brighton and 19 in the country. County Court Rules, 1897.-The Committee has during the year had under consideration the County Court Rules of March, 1897, which it was considered imposed in some cases unnecessary obligations and expenses upon plaintiffs, and resolutions were sent to the Rule Committee calling attention to the matter, and giving statistics of the Brighton County Court in support of the Committee's representations. Attention had previously been called to the matter in the Brighton Court by Mr. Buckwell, a member of our Society, and representations made by a number of Law Societies in London and the country. The rules have since been rescinded, and new ones are under consideration, which, it is hoped, may to some extent remove the objections felt.

The Land Transfer Act, 1897.-Solicitors will, no doubt, consider the chief event of the legal year to be the passing of the Land Transfer Act, 1897. This Act has been passed practically by the unanimous agreement of all those who have for so many years past taken prominent part in the support of, or opposition to, the different Land Bills which have been introduced by successive Governments. The opposition of the Incorporated Law Society and the Associated Provincial Law Societies, and also of the country societies generally, to the last Bill was almost at the last moment withdrawn in view of the fact that the Lord Chancellor accepted nearly all the amendments and suggestions proposed by Solicitors. The Act comes into operation on the 1st of January next. By it a real representative is established, and registration of title upon sale of land may, by Order in Council, be made compulsory in any County, or part of a County, defined in such Order after a day fixed by the Order, and such Order may be revoked or varied; but a

draft of the proposed Order is, six months before the Order is made, to be sent to the Council of the County to which it is to apply; and such order shall not be made if within three months after the receipt of the draft the County Council shall, at a special meeting at which two-thirds of the members shall be present, resolve that compulsory registration is not desirable in their County. The first Order is not to affect more than one County. No further Order is to be made till the expiration of three years from the making of the first Order, and not then except at the special request, as to any County, of the County Council, to be expressed by resolution at a meeting at which two-thirds of the members shall be present. If the Council of the first proposed area object to compulsory registration, it can, it appears, be proposed for another area. Every proposed Order has to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within the specified time, and it is to be void if disapproved of by Parliament. Penalties are imposed on unqualified persons who charge for preparing documents for the registry. It will be seen that the Act is thus very different from all preceding Bills, and compulsion is reduced to a minimum. In fact, the Act may be described as tentative and experimental only, and it will be very easy to alter, amend, or improve it as experience of its working may suggest. It is a great thing to have got rid (if only for a time sufficient to enable experience to come in) of the unceasing discussions and differences in which we have been for so many years engaged. It is understood that the first experiment will be made in the Administrative County of London or part thereof.

INCORPORATED LEEDS LAW SOCIETY.

[ocr errors]

The following are extracts from the report of the committee:Members. The present number of members of the society is 126, and of library subscribers -under Rules 3 and 4-nine. Three members have resigned during the year, and six new members of the society have been elected.

County Court Rules. -In the month of February several new County Court rules, proposed by a committee of County Court judges, approved by the full into force on the 25th of March following. These rules effected serious changes committee of judges, and signed by the Lord Chancellor, were issued to come in the practice of issuing summonses for service out of the district. They required the plaintiff not only to bring himself within Section 74 of the County Court Act, 1888, but they added to his statutory obligations the necessity of showing that there was a "balance of convenience" in favour of leave being given him, and they also require him, wherever the defendant resided more than twenty miles from the court to which he was summoned, to deposit in court a sum sufficient to cover the defendant's travelling expenses and attendance. Your committee considered that these alterations were uncalled for, and that they would cause great inconvenience to plaintiffs in the recovery of their just and undisputed debts. They accordingly concurred with the Associated Provincial Law Societies in representations to the Lord Chancellor on the probable effect of the rules. In consequence of the criticism from this and other quarters which the new rules provoked, they were suspended, and alfresh draft modifying the rules objected to was issued in the month of May. The new rules, although less open to serious objection than the original ones, were by no means satisfactory, and the forms of affidavits, especially, given in the schedule were unnecessarily long and confusing. Official attention has been called to these points by addressing a memorandum to the Rule Committee, before whom the new rules will come for sanction and approval. The new set of rules, issued in draft in May, have not yet been confirmed, and your committee are therefore not in a position to report to what extent the criticism to which they have been subjected has borne fruit.

Land Transfer Bill.-This Bill, in a somewhat modified form, but containing the obnoxious compulsory clauses, was again introduced last Session in the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor, and passed through that House with little, if any, discussion. Negotiations passing, it is understood, between the Lord Chancellor and the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom resulted in that Society consenting not only not to oppose but actually to approve the Bill if certain amendments were accepted by the Lord Chancellor, and for the same reasons the Associated Provincial Law Societies determined not to oppose the Bill. The compulsory powers, however, were to remain, but their operation was to be limited to some comparatively small area, and then only if the County Council of such area did not object. The position of matters was not considered satisfactory by the Committee of this Society, and more especially as a strong suspicion was entertained that the first area to be selected would probably be the West Riding, or some other portion of the county of York, and they consequently determined to seek the opinion of the profession of the county through the committees of the various law societies. Nearly every society in Yorkshire responded to the invitation to meet in Leeds and consider the matter, which was very fully and freely discussed. It is not necessary to report in detail the various stages of the opposition which was determined on at these meetings, and it is, perhaps, sufficient to say that in the result it was determined to seek an amendment of the Bill providing that the first area should be Middlesex ; but ultimately the sub-committee appointed by the Yorkshire Law Societies, in consequence of information received and what transpired in the House of Commons, were deputed to take such action with regard to the Bill as they thought proper. The fight maintained by the Yorkshire Law Societies was short but sharp, leading at one time to the reasonable expectation that the Bill would not and could not pass into law this Session, but ultimately, after considerable trouble and negotiation, it passed through the House of Commons and has now been placed in the Statute Book in a form which will enable it to have at least a fair trial without, it is hoped and expected, having any effect in Yorkshire until it has been proved to be a success in some other part of the country. It may

be noted, however, that the first area in which the Bill is to receive its trial. is not defined by the Statute, and on this point reliance is placed entirely on the promises made on behalf of the Government, the result being that it is expected the County of London, exclusive of the City, will be the first area to which the benefits of the Bill will be offered. It will be interesting to see if the offer is declined, and, if so, where such offer will be next made. The remarks of the Chairman of the West Riding County Council, as recently reported in the local press, are, however, somewhat significant, but in the interests of property owners, it is hoped that more attention will be given by the Council to the probable result of the operations and the effect of the measure than probably has been given hitherto. Before leaving this subject, your committee desire to call attention to the justifiable fears that the measure is only another instance of the desire on the part of successive Governments to extend the range of officialism at the expense of private labour, based on the lines of commercial competition, and without any sufficient apparent benefit to the persons mostly interested.

Resignation of Mr. Marshall.-The Committee report with great regret the resignation by Mr. Marshall of the office of Honorary Secretary, which he has filled with so much benefit to the Society for a period of over twenty-five years. At an extraordinary meeting of the members, held on Thursday, the 19th of August last, the following resolution on the subject was passed:

"That the resignation by Mr. Marshall of his position as Hon. Secretary of the Society, be and is hereby accepted, and that the meeting desires to express and record its high appreciation of his abilities and services, which during the long period of about twenty-five years have been placed at the disposal of, and rendered to, the Leeds Law Society by him, in the capacity of Hon. Secretary to the Society, and adds the hope that, though severing his official connection with, he will continue to assist the work of the Society by his valuable counsels as a member."

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.
PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION.

The following candidates (whose names are in alphabetical order) were successful at the Preliminary Examination held on the 13th and 14th of October, 1897.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Hastings

Newcombe, Charles Henry Knill
Newstead, Hugh Marriott

Olding, Montague Toplady
Partridge, Percival Walter
Peacock, Herbert Henry
Pennington, Edward
Penny, Bryan de Quetville
Poyser, Charles Langford
Price, George Meyrick
Rawlins, Howard St. George
Rawlinson, Charles Cecil
Reed, Baron Noël

Reynolds, Charles Alan

Riddle, Henry Alfred
Ridgway, Thomas

Riley, Pennington

Robertson, Herbert Ernest
Seabroke, Claude

Shearman, Herbert Henry Atherton
Shepherd, Leonard

Sidgwick, Reginald Mears
Thomas, George

Thornley, Ernest James

Tumilty, John Spencer
Wainwright, Arthur
Ward, Francis Morley
Weekes, Gilbert Terrell

Wood, Francis William Gent
Wyatt, Frederick Richard
Yeo, Thomas Farquhar
Young, Sydney Norman

COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION.

INNER TEMPLE.-George Frederick Assinder, Maurice Mills Baker, Harry Barnston, George Arthur Harwin Branson, Herbert Benjamin Cohen, John Bede Dalley, Nigel George Davidson, John Dove, Thomas Clarke Pilling Gibbons, Frederic Graham, Hon. Hubert George Lyulph Howard, Harold John Henry Irish, Herbert Jenner-Fust III., John Felix Kershaw, Walling. ford Mendelson, Samuel Henry Ramsden, Edward Cleland Richardson, George Ridehalgh, John Slingsby Roberts, Frank Shackleford, Arthur Stiebel, Richard Trevithick Gilbertstone Tangye, and Bernard Kedington Rodwell Wilkinson.

MIDDLE TEMPLE.-Lewis Forsyth Allen, Douglass Horace Boggs-Rolfe, Frederick Reinhardt Cronje, Thomas Holland, Frank Noel Keen, and Samuel Joyce Thomas.

GRAY'S INN.-Cornelis Adriaan Bergsma, William Stanley Varenne Alfred Leach, Isardas Cadharom, and Charles Purchas. Cullerne, William Bede Dalley, Dahyabhai Pitamberdas Derasari, Robert

The total number examined was 114, and the number who passed was 52. Of the 62 candidates who failed, 18 were ordered not to be admitted for examination again until the Easter Examination, 1898, and two until the Trinity Examination, 1898.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND LEGAL HISTORY.

LINCOLN'S INN.-Shanker Lal Batra, Charles Alan Bennett, William John Henry Brodrick, William Ernest Hoilams, William Kirk, William George Randles, Charles Harold Smith, and Zau Tha.

INNER TEMPLE.-Ernest Alabaster, Stanley Bean Atkinson, William Edward Colston Baynes, Hubert Ernest Langton Bolton, Angus Campbell, Francis Joseph Dessaio, Samuel John Forster, Henry Ernest Fowler, James Thorniley Fox, Harold Spencer Morris, Francis Robert Sanderson, Henry Mark Stebbing, George Humphreys Vivian Sutherland, and Gerald Woods Wollaston.

MIDDLE TEMPLE.-Mirza Mohammed Zoolcadur Beg, Frederick Henry Berryman, Jonathan Fulton Carr, Syed Mohammed Cassim, Chaman Lal Dhingra, Charles Henry Edwards, Tom Ekin, Robert Lyall Guthrie, Harold Frederick King, Erasmus Darwin Parker, Ernest Wrigley Perkins, Philip Norman Richardson, and John Jackson Wilks.

GRAY'S INN.-Herbert Campbell Bennitt, Madhu Sudan Bhagat, Alexander Macneil Cowan, Mohammed Abdul Aziz Khan, Frederick Gurdon Palin, Ramchandra Vasudro Paranjpe, Des Raj Sahni, and Johannes Christoffel Stegmann.

The number examined was 59, and of these 43 passed.

ROMAN LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND LEGAL HISTORY. LINCOLN'S INN.-Charles Ernest Rowland Abbott, John Henry Nicholas Armstrong, James Evans, Joshua Arthur Nunn, and Harold Claughton Scott.

INNER TEMPLE.-Kenneth Eldmann Chalmers, Frederick Thomas Henry Henlé, Gilbert Jordan, Robert Charlton Lane, George Thomas Martin, Charles James North Russell, Aubrey Augustus Smith, and Cecil Willie Turner.

MIDDLE TEMPLE.-Robert Malcolm Booth, Kenneth James Greaves, and Horace Cecil Monro.

[blocks in formation]

LINCOLN'S INN. - Walter Ernest Savory Callender, Sam Sidley Kay, Shurendra Lal Khastgir, Charles James L'Estrange, Cyril Arthur Liddon Lewis, and Chaturbhai Bhailalbhai Patel.

INNER TEMPLE. Edward Gustavus Bear, Richard Feetham, Graeme Harrison, Eugéne Nielen Marais, Guy Harden Guillum Scott, Alexander Walker, Henry Stafford Webber, and George Bevil Hastings Wheler.

MIDDLE TEMPLE.-Shaikh Saiduddin Ahmed, Valentine Browne, William Alexander Francis Balfour Browne, Harold Richard de Carteret, Kanji Premji Dodia, Ernest Arthur Ebblewhite, James Fairbairn, Ludwig Freyberger, Ewart Scott Grogan, Percy Alfred Harris, Sir John Keane, Owen Moses, William Robert Po tame Russell, and William Stocken.

GRAY'S INN.-Charles William Arnett, Alexander Jabez Balm, George William Clarke, Horace James Douglas, Thomas Mackenzie Ledlie, Ruthlal Brijal Maj Mudar, Anandarai Bapubhai Mazmundar, George Ignatius Mendes, Edward Owen, Mehar Chand Pebra, John Henry Frederick Reed, Andrew Baxter Russell, Narain Dass Sethi, Bhai Gurbaksh Singh, and Manilal Umedram Thakore.

The total number examined was 47, and of these 43 passed.

LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETIES.

LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.-October 26.-Chairman, Mr. Seager Berry. The subject for debate was: "That the Land Transfer Act, 1896, will not work." Mr. W. M. Woodhouse opened in the affirmative. Mr. McCurdy opened in the negative. The following members also H. H. Richardson, Hamilton Fox, E. A. Bell, Neville Tebbutt. motion was carried by fifteen votes.

The following were the successful candidates at the recent Michaelmas spoke: Messrs. G. R Reid, Watson, F. Berryman, H. Jones, J. Brennan, Pass Examination, held on October 12, 13, and 14.

PASS CERTIFICATES.

LINCOLN'S INN.-Narayan Kesheo Aloni, James Frederick Clyne, Dewan Mathra Das, Narayen Dass, Alfred Lindsay Densham, Frederick Richard Finch, Samuel Emanuel Kaye, Henry Alexander Little, Alfred Loosemore, Arthur Harold Mather, Prem Lal Seth, Balwant Singh, James Ronald Walker, and Thomas Williams,

The

We understand that the Northern Circuit are to give a congratulatory dinner in honour of Mr. Justice Bigham on Saturday, the 18th of Decem ber, in the Whitehall Rooms, Hotel Metropole.

[ocr errors]

LEGAL NEWS.

OBITUARY.

Mr. CARLOS COOPER, barrister, died on Tuesday at Norwich. He was called to the bar in 1839, and settled at Norwich. He had a good practice at quarter sessions, and obtained the reputation of a sound and painstaking lawyer. In 1862 he was appointed one of the revising barristers on the Norfolk Circuit, and he discharged the duties of that office for thirty-four years. In 1865 he was appointed Recorder of Thet-placed in St. Mark's Church, Syracuse, depicted, among other things, a trio ford, and was transferred to King's Lynn in 1885. In 1872 he was unanimously elected by the corporation of Norwich judge of the City Court.

APPOINTMENTS.

The Hon. Sir ROLAND VAUGHAN WILLIAMS has been appointed a Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal, in the room of Lord Ludlow, resigned. Lord Justice Williams was born in 1838, and was educated at Christ Church, Oxford. He was called to the bar in 1864, and became a Queen's Counsel in 1889. In 1890 he was appointed a judge of the Queen's Bench Division.

Mr. ARTHUR MOSELEY CHANNELL, Q.C., has been appointed one of the Justices of the High Court in the place of Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, appointed a Lord Justice of Appeal. Mr. Channell is the son of the late Baron Channell. He was educated at Harrow and at Trinity College, Cambridge, and was called to the bar in 1863, and became a Queen's

Counsel in 1885.

Mr. ORMOND DRIMMIE MALCOLM, Q.C. (Attorney-General), has been appointed Chief Justice of the Bahama Islands.

Mr. H. D. GREENE, Q.C., M.P., has been appointed Arbitrator in disputes under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890.

Mr. THOMAS ROLLS WARRINGTON, Q.C., has been elected a Bencher of the Honourable Society of Lincoln's-inn, in succession to the late Sir George Osborne Morgan, Q.C.

Mr. HUGH BERTRAM Cox, barrister, has been selected for the post of Legal Assistant Under-Secretary of the Colonial Office, which will be rendered vacant by the retirement of Sir J. Bramston on the 14th inst.

[blocks in formation]

The Westminster Gazette says that Lord Justice Williams is distinguished for his unconventionality. His departure from the traditional habit of judges to travel in first-class compartments on their railway journeys from one circuit town to another once occasioned an amusing mistake at an assize town on the Western Circuit. The High Sheriff was waiting with his retinue to receive him. As the train drew up at the platform a distinguished-looking man stepped out of a first-class carriage. This must be the judge," concluded the High Sheriff, who hastened to greet him with the reverence to which judges are accustomed on circuit. Meanwhile Mr. Justice VaughanWilliams was getting out of a third-class compartment in the rear of the train and devoting his attention to his luggage. The distinguished-looking man, whom, to his utter embarrassment, the High Sheriff had mistaken for the judge, was the late Mr. Bovill, the Clerk of the Circuit.

members of the Bench present and Master Mellor having shaken hands with
them, the newly-appointed Judges proceeded to their respective Courts.
"Should angels have wings?" is (says the Albany Law Journal) a
question which the New York Supreme Court may be called upon to decide
in the suit which Miss Mary E. Tillinghast, a New York artist, has begun
against John E. McIntosh. It appears that, in January, 1896, Miss
Tillinghast was commissioned by Mr. McIntosh to furnish him with a
memorial window in memory of Mrs. McIntosh, deceased, the consideration
therefore being the sum of 500 dols. The window, which was to have been
of angels. One of the angels was without wings, and this Mr. McIntosh is
is said to have considered so inartistic, that he refused either to accept the
window or pay the contract price. On the other hand, Miss Tillinghast
claims that the design for the window was submitted to and approved by Mr.
McIntosh, and that it is now too late for him to object to the wingless angel.
In her suit Miss Tillinghast seeks to recover the 500 dols. for the window,
286 dols. for replacing it in the church, and 5,000 dols. for damage done to
her professional reputation by the defendant's refusal to accept the picture.

THE LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1897, AND LAND
TRANSFER IN AUSTRALIA.

THE following circular has been issued. Under the above Act, it rests with,
the Authorities to select one County in England in which, subject to the
consent of the local County Council, to try for three years the experiment
of compulsory registration of title. The authorities have intimated that
they intend to select the County of London. In a paper. by Mr. J. S.
Rubinstein, read at the recent meeting of the Incorporated Law Society at
Sheffield, several serious defects in the new Act are pointed out to support
the contention that in view of the magnitude, complexity, and importance
of the interests involved, the London County Council should not allow the
Act-admittedly an experimental one-to be first tried in London.

An article on "Land Transfer in Australia" has recently appeared in several journals, in which reference is made to the success of the Torrens Act in the Colonies. The system created by that Act is, however, essentially different from that created by the English Acts. The following letter bearing on this point is reprinted from the Estates Gazette of October 30,

1897:

"To the Editor of the Estates Gazette.

"Sir.-In the Estates Gazette of the 9th instant you were good enough to give prominence to my paper on the Land Transfer Act, 1897, and in your leading article thereon you expressed your concurrence with my contention that it would be unwise to begin the experiment with the new Act in the County of London. The following week an article appeared in your columns entitled 'Land Transfer in Australia,' signed J. P.' I cannot claim to have any expert knowledge of the Torrens Act, but there are one or two considerations that occur to me which, with your permission, the subject being a very important one, I would like to draw attention.

"1. The Torrens Act is a permissive Act, and it has succeeded because its value has been generally recognised. The Land Transfer Office, established here in 1862, has, however, been a dismal failure, but notwithstanding this, the intention now is to compel people to resort to it. There is no proper analogy between an attractive permissive Act in one country and an experimental compulsory Act in another.

"2. The Torrens Act is principally of value in the case of lands sold by the Crown since 1862 and in other cases where the titles have been of comparatively recent creation. Such simple titles, however, have practically no allowed to be placed under Torrens Act only when their titles are found to be existence in this country. Your correspondent informs us that lands are unchallenge ible,' and that the Act provides that on the issue of a certificate the title of the person named on the certificate is indefeasible.' There are no such provisions in the English Acts. The purchaser will have to take such certificate as the Registrar chooses to give him. I need not here repeat what I have said in my paper as to the hardship on a purchaser who has paid the full value for a property of having a certificate issued to him specifying that he has a qualified title only.

Amongst the calls to the Irish Bar, on Monday, by Lord Ashbourne, was (says the Dublin correspondent of the Times), one of exceptional interestnamely, that of Sir Alexander Edward Miller, Q.C., of Lincoln's Inn, who appeared in a stuff gown, wearing on his left breast the medal of a Companion of the Order of the Star of India. His presence recalled the circumstances of the eventful contest for the representation of the University'all is fair in love, war, and land sales." One case has come under my of Dublin, in which he came forward as the accredited candidate of the Conservative Government in 1875, and was opposed by Mr. Edward Gibson, Q.C., the Lord Chancellor, before whom he appeared on Monday seeking admission to the Irish Bar. It is the first instance of the kind which has ever occurred. Sir A. Miller has close ties of family and property with the North of Ireland, and was for years an active member of the general synod of the Church of Ireland. He is a graduate of the University of Dublin, an LL.D., and member of the Senate. He was proposed by the Lord Chief

Baron.

"3. In my paper I dwelt on the temptation that will exist for the amount of the consideration money to be overstated, especially if the parties act for themselves, and are, not restrained by the controlling influence of solicitors. I have reason to believe that in the Colonies this temptation is amongst certain classes irresistible. Many apparently hold the view that notice where a person was offered £3,000 for land, provided he agreed to the consideration appearing as £6,000, and the transaction was completed on that basis. The same land then rapidly changed hands twice, the consideration being stated to be first £9,000 and then £12,000-a bank lending the last purchaser £8,000 on the security of the land. Needless to say the bank found itself in the end with the property on hand, now valued at £2,000. The failure of the Australian banks is still fresh in the public mind, and it is not, perhaps, too much to suggest that the facilities given by the Torrens Act for carrying through doubtful transactions similar to the one I have mentioned may have contributed to some extent in bringing about the collapse that took place. a Many of your readers are no doubt property owners, and they may be excused if they hold the view that their interests are seriously threatened by the new Act. If J. P.' will favour us with an answer to the points referred to above, as well as those set out in my paper, your readers will, I venture to think, be exceedingly grateful to him." Yours truly, "J. S. RUBINSTEIN.

On Tuesday the ceremony of swearing in the newly-appointed judges, Mr. Justice Darling and Mr. Justice Channell, took place in the Lord Chief Justice's Court, Mr. Justice Mathew presiding. There was considerable attendance of members of the Junior Bar and the public. Mr. Justice Darling and Mr. Justice Channell having come into Court in their full buttomed wigs, the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath was administered to them by Master Mellor, the Senior Officer of the Crown Office, every person in Court standing. The oaths were administered to Mr. Justice Darling first, he being the senior of the two Judges. All the

[ocr errors]

"5 Raymond Buildings, Gray's Inn, W.C."

[blocks in formation]

Inland Revenue, Somerset House, London, W.C.

June 1, 1897. SIR,-I am directed by the Board of Inland Revenue to bring under your notice the recent decision in the case of Rowell v. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, which was reported in the Times of April 5 last, and which is of great importance to Public Companies.

The question before the Court was whether a Debenture, falling within the definition of "Marketable Security," and containing an obligation on the issuer to redeem at a sum in excess of the amount advanced, was chargeable, not merely on the face value of the Debenture, but also on the additional amount which by the instrument was termed a premium.

The Court upheld the Board's assessment that duty was chargeable on the larger amount. All Debentures of this character, therefore, in order to be valid and a good delivery, must be stamped with sufficient duty to cover the additional amount secured.

The Board are aware that a large number of Debentures have been issued which are not so stamped, and they have accordingly instructed me to state, whilst notifying the decision of the Court, that they consider it desirable, in the interest of persons who may hold such Debentures, that any Company which may be affected thereby should take an early opportunity of intimating to each Bondholder that his Debenture is not properly stamped, and that he should have the additional duty impressed without delay.

If such Debentures are presented within a reasonable period the duty will be impressed without penalty. It may be useful to mention that the ruling of the Court does not apply where the issuer of a Bond has an option to redeem at a premium before a particular date.-I am, sir, your obedient servant,

T. N. CRAFER.

Law Society's Hall, Chancery Lane, W.C.
August 10, 1897.

DEAR SIR,-Referring to what passed with the Deputation of the Council
of the Incorporated Law Society on July 20, and to Mr. Lake's subsequent
communication with Sir Henry Burdett and yourself, I am desired now to
say that the Law Society adhere to their request that the Board of Inland
Revenue should accept from the Companies the additional duty payable
under Rowell's case, on Debentures repayable at a fixed date, at a premium,
against a receipt and certificate specifying the Debentures covered by the
payment, and that any such Debenture will, on production, be marked duly
stamped.
I am also to repeat the request that, under the circumstances, and unless,
in any particular case, the Board should be of opinion that documents have
been improperly withheld from stamping, the additional duty now found to
be payable may be tendered, and the documents stamped at any time
without penalty. This request is urged as a matter of fairness to legal
advisers, who may not now be in communication with the clients on whose
behalf the documents may have been originally stamped.

It would be most convenient if a rule could be made in the direction indicated, which would be of general application in the case of existing deeds, the stamp duties on which may be affected by subsequent decisions or rules.-1 am, dear sir, yours faithfully,

E. W. WILLIAMSON, Secretary.

F. C. GORE, Esq., Solicitors' Department, Somerset House, W.C.

Inland Revenue, Somerset House, W.C. October 16, 1897. SIR,-The Board of Inland Revenue having had under consideration your letter of August 10 last, addressed to their solicitor, I am directed to acquaint you that they are prepared to accede to the proposal of your Society that Companies should be allowed to pay over the additional duty chargeable on Debentures falling within the decision in the case of Rowell v. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue against a receipt specifying the Debentures covered by the payment..

Any such Debenture will, on production, be stamped without penalty.

The Board are unable to give any pledge as to the course to be adopted with regard to Debentures on which the duty has not been tendered in advance, but they will be ready to consider favourably any application in a particular case, in which it can be shown that the failure to present the documents for stamping was not due to negligence on the part of the holder or issuer.

The Board think it would not be desirable to lay down any general rule, as suggested by your Society, for dealing with cases in which existing deeds may be affected by subsequent judical decisions or alterations in practice.I am, sir, your obedient servant,

T. N. CRAFER, Secretary.

REMARKS.

COURT PAPERS.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

(Cent. Crim.
Ct.intervng)

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

VAUGHAN LAWRANCE, WRIGHT, J. COLLINS, J. BRUCE, J. KENNEDY, J. RIDLEY, J. BIGHAM, J.
J.
GRANTHAM, WILLIAMS,
J.

Court
(Nisi Prius
intervening)
Nisi Prius North and Companies' Nisi Prius Divisional Nisi Prius Nisi Prius Divisional Nisi Prius Nisi Prius Mr. Justice Vaughan
Court
Bankruptcy
South Wales work and

Williams will be
sitting at Nisi
Prius in the event
of Bankruptcy and
Companies' work
not being ready.

2 of Her Majesty's
Judges, yet to
be selected, will
attend the Novem-
ber and December

Sessions of the

Central Criminal

Court.

J.

DAY, J.

WILLS, J.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

POLLOCK, B. HAWKINS, J. MATHEW J.

October 25 Nisi Prius Nisi Prius

South

Eastern

Western
Circuit

List

LORD

26

Circuit

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

(Ry. & Canal

Com

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

66

[ocr errors]

36

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

44

November 1

2

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

33

[ocr errors]

"

9

36

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

It is stated that the Lord Chief Justice is gradually recovering from the

injury to his knee. He has been able to walk a little, and to take May 24, 1894. The Judges named to sit in Divisional Court will, whenever t becomes carriage exercise.

The Business of the Courts will be taken in accordance with the Judges' Resolutions of necessary, sit at Nisi Prius.

« PreviousContinue »