Page images
PDF
[graphic]

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 Consohdation 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.”

Tiia Covar (Wmonr and KENNEDY, JJ.) discharged the rule

Wnicnr, J ., thought that in this case there had not been sufiicient care taken to ascertain who the owner was to entitle the London County Oouncil 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, (6) his failure to ascertain who the owner was, and (r) that the premises were empty. The application against the decision of the magistrate therefore failed.

Kansans, J., concurrcd.—(JouNssi., Sutton; Horace Avery. SoLi0i'i'oiis, Herrier, Wilkiiison, 8* Rakes ; IV. A, Bla.z;l¢mi,

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

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&7Vict. c. 68. On the llth of October, 1896, the appellant was granted a theatre excise license under 5 8: 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 p m., 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 band jids attending the performance as spectators. The justices convicted the appellant, and fined him a nominal penalty of 3s. Gd. 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 cf 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 Couar (Wiueiir 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 8pp€l.l81'it.-——COUXSBL, Lac-; Sinwy. Soi.icirons, Hack it Jlorria, for Thomas Q Malkin, Stockton-on-Tees; Cramp QSprolt, for Arrlier 5- Parkin, Stockton-on-Tees.

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

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, wasintended to extend. The former Act prohibits the using and maintaining of any common house, alley, or place for unlawful games.

[graphic]

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_ofllcers 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_m hke 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 raid 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 liouses and arrest the keepers of the same and persons found thereon. The appellant, with eighty-eight other p(ersons, was, on the 5th of May, 1897, arrested by the police on premises nown 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, ut ordered him to be bound in his own recognizance £20 “ no more to play, haunt, or exercise from thcnceforth ” 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 liorse-races was not a “ game ” or “an unlawful game " 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. THE Couar (LINDLEY, M.R., and CHITTY, L.J.) dismissed the appeal. LINDLBY, 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 vrarrant for the arrest of persons found ina 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. Cl{lT‘l‘\', L.J., concurred.—Counss1., Pm-all ; Danvkwcrts. Soi.icii'ous, Paltimon §- Brewer; Wontner Q San.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

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 a plication of the judgment creditor; and (4) that no evidence was given gefore 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 Uhilian 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 flve

[graphic]
[graphic]

the Debtors Act, 1869, application is made by a judgment creditor to a court having bankruptcy jurisdiction for the committal ofa 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 ay the debt for not more than six weeks or until payment of the sum £18, 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 (rl) 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.

Tux Covnr (A. L. Snrrn, RIGBY, and COLLINS, L.JJ.), without calling upon counsel for the respondent, dismissed the appeal.

A. L. Sniru, 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, bad 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.

Rienr and Conuxs, L.JJ., delivered judgments to the same effect. Appeal dlflml8B8d.—COUNBBL, Muir Mackmzie ; Real, Q.C., and Harwell. Soucvrons, Harwood §' Sleplmuon ; F. W. 5- IT, Hilbery.

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

Members.-'I'he 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 unnecessar obli ations and expenses upon plaintiffs, and resolutions were sent to the itule gommittee 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 difi‘erent 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 suggeflions 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

ay fixed by the Order, an such Ordcr maybe revoked or varied; but a

[graphic]

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 Urder is to be made l-ill file <>Xpir&ti0n 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-lhirdi 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 flousos 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 tho Act is thus very different from all precedin Bills, and compulsion is reduced to a minimum. In fact, the Act may be gescribed 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 en aged. It is understood that the first experiment will be made in the Administrative County of London or part thereof.

INCORPORATED LEEDS LAW SOCIETY. The following are extracts from the report of the committee :

Membz.-rs.—The present numbervof members of the society is 126, and of library subscribers -under Rules 3 and 4—nine. Three members have reaigugd during the year, and six new members of the society have been electe .

County Court Rules.—In the month of February several new County Court rules, proposed by a committee of Count Court judges, approved by the full committee of judges, and signed by the ilord Chancellor, were issued to come into force on the 25th of March following. These rules effected serious changes 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 according y concurred with the Associated Provincial Law Societies in representations to the Lord Chancellor on the probable effect of the rules. In conse ucncc of the criticism from this and other quarters which the new rules rovdlzed, the were suspended, and a'fresh 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 fnl‘II1S of affidavits, especially, given in the schedule were unnecessarily long and confusing. Ofhcial 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, an passed through that House with little, if any, discussion. Negotiations passing, it is understood, between the Lord Chancellor and the Incorporated Law Society of tho 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 srea, and then only if the County Council of such area di not object. The position of matters was not considered satisfactory by the Committee of this Society, and more especially us a strong 8ll8piClOl1 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 ever society in Yorkshire responded to the invitation to meet in Leecis and consider the matter, which was very fully and freely discussed. It is not necessa to report in detail the various stages of the opposition which was determines 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 re ard to the Bill as they thought proper. The fight maintained by the Yoriicshire 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 assed through the House of Commons and has now been placed in the Statute hook 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 io be a success in some other part of tho country. It may

[graphic]

be noted, however, that the first area in which the Bill is to receive its trial is not defined by the Statute, and on ihis 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 he the first area to which the benefits I f the Bill will be olfercd. It will be interesting to sec if the offer is "declined, and, if so, whore such olfer will be mxt made. The remarks of the Chairman of the West Riding County Council, ss 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 tho effect of the measure than probably has been given hitherto. Before leaving this subject, your committee desire to call attention to the juslifiat-ls fears that the measure is only another instance of the desire on the part of successive Governments to extend tho range of oflicialisni at the expense of private labour, based on the lines of commercial competition, and wi'hout any suflicicnt apparent benefit to the persons mostly interested.

Rea1Ig1_ratr'uu. qf Mr. Marsha.ll.—The Committee report with great regret the l'68LfiI1fltl.0I1 by Mr. Marshall of the oilice of Honorary Secretary, which he has fi_l| with so much benefit to the Society for a eriod of over twenty-five years. At an er traordinary meeting of the members, lield on Thursday, the 19th of August last, the following resolution on the subject was passed :

“ That the resignation I-y Mi". Marshall of his lOSlll0I1 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 disgsal of, an rendered to, the Leeds Law Society by him, in the capacity of on. Secretary to the Society, and adds the hope that, though severi ag his ofliciul connection with, he will continue to assist the work of the Society by his valuable counsels as a member.”

[blocks in formation]

Aitkens, Louis Edwardes Houghton
Alderson, Reginald Liddon
Allen, Frank Barnes

Bagram, Donald John

Barrett, Alfred Howard

Barre, Harward

Bayley, Hugh

Bazett, Hugo Campbell
Bostock-Smith, Stuart
Carnelly, Stepten Henry

Carter, Maurice Frederic
Churchill, John Abel Vy vyan
Cooke, Herbert Edgar

Couves, Cyril Chapman

Cox, William Herbert
Crawley-Boevey, Char les Arthur
Crofton, Henry

Cruikshank, Robert Scott
Crump, Alfred

Eaden, Sydney Percival Purlriss
Eaves, Bertram Henry

Foley, Frank \Vilsoii

Foot, Isaac

Fraser, Dudley Robert

Garnett, Harold Gwyer

Gedye, Reginald Edward Lower
Gibson, Jasper Edward Berkeley
Gillman, Arthur Charles
Glenshaw, Ernest Albert Isaacs
Gritllih, George Heston
Harding, Lauranco

Hatch, Andrew Dreweatt
Hodge, John

Ingledew, James Wilfred Gordon
Ingledew, Norman Murray
Jarvis, Sydney Herbert
Jennings, Francis Henry

Jones, David Stanley

Jones, Evan

Jones, Herbert Bartlett

Keeling, Gilbert Russell Wilson
Lamb, Benjamin Edward

Leeae, Cecil Mellor

Mukinson, William Owen
Malkin, Arthur

Martin, Walter

Morgan, William Herbert Nicholl Murton-Neale, Douglas William

Hastings

Newcombe, Charles Henry Knill
Newstead, Hugh Marriott
Oldlng, Montague Toplady
Partridge, Percival Walter
Peacock, Herbert Henry
Pennington, Edward

Penny, Bryan de Quetville
Poyser, Charles Lnngtord

Price, George Meyrick

Rawlins, Howard St. George
Rawlinson, Charles Cecil

Reed, Baron N oiil

Reynolds, Charles Alan.

Riddle, Henry Alfred

Ridgway, Thomas

Riley, Pennington

Robertson, Herbert Ernest
Seabroke, Claude

Shearman, Herbert Henry Atheiton
Shepherd, Leonard

Sidgwick, Reginald Mears
Thomas, George

Thornley; Ernest James
Tumllty, John Spencer
Wainwright, Arthur

Ward, Francis Morley

\Veekes, Gilbert Terrell

Wood, Francis William Gent
Wyatt, Frederick Richard

Yeo, Thomas Farquhar

Young, Sydney Norman

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

Irmaa TaurLa.—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 Pill' Gibbons, Frederic Graham, Hon. Hubert George Lynlph Howard, Harldld John Henry Irish, Herbert Jenner-Fust III., John Felix Kershaw, Wallingford 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.

Mrnnna TBMPLE.——LeWlB Forayth Allen, Douglass Horace Boggs-Rolfe, Frederick Reinhardt Cronje, Thomas Holland, Frank Noel Keen, and Samuel Joyce Thomas. _

Gua\"s Iiw.-Cornelia Adriaan Ber-gems, William Stanley Varenne Cullerno, William Bede Dalley, Dahyabhai Pitamberdaa Dernsari, Robert Alfred Leach, Isai-das Cadharom, and Charles Piirchas.

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 Hrsroiur.

LiNcoLN's INN.-—SlIBllliel' Inl Batra, Charles Alan Bennett, William John Henry Brodrick, William Ernest Hoilams, William Kirk, William George Bandles, Charles Harold Smith, and Zau 'lha.

Irmaa Taxrna.-Ernest Alabaster, Stanley Bean Atkinson, \Villiam Edward Colston Baynes, Hubert Ernest Langton Bolton, Angus Campbell, Francis Joseph Dessain, Samuel John Forster, Henry Ernest Fowler, ames Thorniley Fox, Harold S encer Morris, Francis Robert Sanderson, Henry Mark Stebbing, George lgumphreys Vivian Sutherland, and Gerald \Voods Wollaston.

MIDDLE TaMi>i.ir.—Mi.rza Mohammad Zoolcadur Beg, Frederick Henry Berryman, Jonathan Fulton Carr, Syed Mohammad Cassim, Chaman Lal Dhingra, Charles Henry Edwards, Tom Ekin, Robert Lyell Guthrie, Harold Frederick King, Erasmus Darwin Parker, Ernest Wrigley Perkins, Philip Norman Richardson, and John Jackson Wilks.

GnAY‘s lNN.—I‘I8I‘l)€l'li Campbell Bennitt, Madhu Sudan Bhagat, Alexander Macneil Cowan, Mohammad Abdul Aziz Khan, Frederick Gurdon Palin, Bamchandrs. Vasudro Paranjpe, Des Raj Sahni, and Johannes Christoflbl Steginann.

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

Roman Law sun CONSTITUTIONAL Law AND LEGAL HISTORY.

Lmcoi.u’s Irm.—Charles Ernest Rowland Abbott, John Henry Nicholas grmstrong, James Evans, Joshua Arthur Nunn, and Harold Claughton

cott.

Immrn Taui>i.a.—Kenneth Eldmann Chalmers, Frederick Thomas Henry Henlé, Gilbert Jordan, Robert Charlton Lane, George Thomas Martin, gharlea James North Russell, Aubrey Augustus Smith, and Cecil Willie

urner.

Mrnnna Tanrr.a.—Robert Malcolm Booth, Kenneth James Greaves, and Horace Cecil Monro.

Ga.\r’s Ii~m.—Joseph Baptista.

The number examined was 21, and of these 17 passed. One candidate was postponed until the Easter Examination, 1898.

ROMAN Law.

Lrr<coi.n’s INN. —Walter Ernest Savory Callender, Sam Sidley Kay, Shurendra Lal Khaatgir, Charles James L'Estrange, Cyril Arthur Liddon Lewis, and Chaturbhai Bhailalbhai Patel.

INNER Tiuu>La.—Edward Gustavus Bear, Richard Feethnm, Graeme Harrison, Eugéne Nielen Marais, Guy Harden Guillum Scott, Alexander Walki r, Henry Stafford Webber, and George Bevil Hastings Whaler.

MIDDLE Taau>i.a.—Shaikh Saiduddin Ahmed, Valentine Browne, W'illiam Alexander Francis Balfour Browne, Harold Richard do Carteret, Kanji Premji Dodia, Ernest Arthur Ebhlswhite, James Fairbairn, Ludwig Freyberger, Ewart Scott Grogan, Percy Alfred Harris, Sir John Keane, Owen hl0ScB, William Robert Po tame Russell, and William Stocken.

Ga.n’s Ir~m.-Charles William Arnett, Alexander Jabez Balm, George William Clarke, Horace James Douglas, Thomas Markenzie Ledlie, Ruthlal Brijal Maj Mudar, Anandarai Bapubhai Mazmundar, Geor e Ignatius Mendcs, Edward Owen, Mehar Chand Pebra, John Henry Fregerick Reed, Andrew Baxter Russell, Narain Dass Sethi, Bhai Gurbakeh Singh, and Manilal Umedram Thakore.

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

LAW ST UDENTS’ SOCIETIES.

Law Srunlms’ Danurmo SOCIE'l‘\'.— October 26.—Chairman, Mr. Seager Berry.— The subjfct for debate was: “ That the Land Transfer Act, 1896, will not wor .” Mr. W. M. Woodhouse opened in the aflirmative. Mr. McCurdy opened in the negative. The following members also spoke: Messrs. G. R Reid, \Vatson, F. Berryman, H. Jones, J. Brennan, H. H. Richardson, Hamilton Fox, E. A. Bell, Neville Tebbutt. The motion was carried by fifteen votes.

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.

[graphic]
[merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The Weslmimter Gazelle says that Lord Justice William is distinguished for his unoonventionality. 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 Sheriif, who hastened to greet him with the reverence to which judges are accustomed on circuit. Meanwhile Mr. Justice VaughanWllliams was getting out of a third-class compartment in the rear of the train and devoting his attention to his lug age. The distinguished-looking man, whom, to his utter embarrassment, gs High Sheriff had mistaken for the j udgc, was the late Mr. Bovill, the Clerk of the Circuit.

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 cf 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 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 IfiL.D., and member of the Senate. He was proposed by the Lord. Chief

aron.

On Tuesday the ceremony of swearing in the newly-alppointed judges, Mr. Justice Darling.and Mr. Justice Channell, took pace in the Lord Chief J ustice's Court, Mr. Justice Mathew presiding. There was ii 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 Ofiicer of the Crown Ofiice, every person in Court standing. The oaths were administered to Mr. Justice Darling first, he being the senior of the two Judges. All the

[graphic]

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 boiling the sum of 500 dols. The window, which was to have been placed in St. ark's Church, Syracuse, depicted, among other things, a trio of angels. One of the angels was without wings, and this Mr. Mclntosh is is sai to have considered so inartistio, that he refused either to accept the window or pay the contract price. On the other hand, Miss Tilliughast 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.

Tun following circula.i'_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 se ect the County of London. In a paper. by Mr. J . S. Rubinstein, read at the recent meeting. of the Incorporated Law Society at Sheflield, several serious defects in t e 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 a peared 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 Estate: Gazette of October 30,

1897 :“T0 the Editor of the Eslales Gazette.

“ Sir.—In the Estates Gazelle of the ‘Jth instant you were good enough to 've prominence to my paper on the Land Transfer Act, 1897, and in your ldading 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 Oflice, 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 existence in this country. Your correspondent informs us that ‘ lands are allowed to be placed under Torrens Act only when their titles are found lo be unchallen cable,’ and that ‘ the Act provides that on the issue of a certificate the tiile of the person named on the certificate is indefensible.’ 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. _

“ 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 influeiice of solicitors. I have reason to believe that in the Colonies this temptation is amongst certain classes irresistible. Many apparently hold the view that ‘all is fair in love, war, and land sales. One caso_has come under my 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 hein 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 inthe 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, erhaps, too much to suggest that the facilities given by the Torrens Act gr 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.

“ 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, venture to think, be exceedingly grateful to him.-" Yours truly,

‘ “ J . S. BUBINBTBIN»

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

THE SOLICITORS’ JOURNAL. [Vol. 42.1

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

No. 8.
1597.
Circular to Secretaries of Public Companies in the United Kingdom.
Stamps.

Inland Revenue, Somerset House, London, W.C.
June 1, 1897.

Sia,—-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 suflicient 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 sueh 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. Caariia.

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

Dean Sm,—Refening 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
suy that the Law Society adhere to their request that the Board of lnlaiid
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
stain .
I iiiiid 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. Gone, Esq., Solicitors’ Department, Somerset House, W.C.

Inland Revenue, Somerset House, W.C.
October 16, 1897.

Sui,-—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 Bowel! v. The Commissioners of lnland Revenue against a receipt specifying the Debentures covered by the payment.

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

The Board are unable to give any pledge as to the course to be ado ted 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 isner.

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. Ciiarsu, Secretary.

[graphic][merged small]
[graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »