Page images
PDF
EPUB

Byng, CHABLES WILLIAM, and ROBERT BYNG, Halesowen, DaycheS, THEODORE, Brixton High Court Pet Nov 25

WHY WOMEN ARE ATTRACTIVE. Worcester, Builders Jan 20 at 11.40 W Ś Mobberley, Ord Jan 7 Solicitor, High st, Stourbridge

DEEKS, JOHN, Legtopstone, Builder's Foreman High Why is one woman attractive and another not? It isn't CHITTENDEX, FREDERICK JOHN, Love, Sussex, Coach Builder Court Pet Jan 6 Ord Jan 6

entirely a question of age, or features, or intellect. The Jan 18 at 3 Off Rec, 4, Pavilion bldgs, Brighton DIGBY, Hugh MOUNTJOY, Putney Wandsworth Pet Jan most admirable and attractive thing about an attractive COPNALL, JOHN, Borrowash, Derbys, Wheelwright Jan 19 5 Ord Jan 5

woman is her womanliness. Everybody admires a at 3.30 Off Rec, 40, St Mary's gate, Derby

DUFFY, PETER, Darlington, Labourer Stockton on Tees womanly woman, She must have health, of course, CROMPTON, GEORGE FREDERICK, Bolton, Tobacconist Jan Pet Jan 4 Ord Jan 5

because without it she would lose the brightness of her 20 at 11 16, Wood st, Bolton GOLDitox, FREDERICK Henry, Islington, Draper High

eges, the fulness of her cheeks, and her vivacity. Health CROWTHER, GEORGE EDWARD, Greetland, nr Halifax,

Court Pet Jan 7 Ord Jan 7

brings all these things, but health means more than most Greengrocer Jan 21 at 11' Off Rec, Townhall chmbrs, GREEN, COBnelius, Stourbridge, Painter

Stourbridge people think of. If pale, nervous, and weak, a woman Halifax

Pet Jan 5 Ord Jan 5

lacks good health. Women who are pale and wan should DE BERNALES, EDGAR A, York bldgs, Adelphi, Editor GREENBAUM, Max, Landport, Pastrycook Portsmouth

not resort to iron, drugs, and tonics, except by the advice Jan 18 at 11 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st

Pet Jan 3 Ord Jan 6

of a properly qualified medical man. They should try DEEKS, John, Leytonstone, Builder's Forentan Jan 18 at

instead to nourish and build up their blood by the vital 2.30 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st HAGUE, WILLIAM, Wheatley, nr Donca ster, Bottler

nourishment imparted by Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa. And so EVANS, WILLIAM JOHN, Bala, Merioneths, Watchmaker

Sheffield Pet Jan 6 Ord Jan 6

rosy cheeks and comeliness may be attained. Surely the Jan 19 at 12 Crypt chmbrs, Eastgate row, Chester

HENRY, PETRAROYA, Broad st, Golden sq, Tailor High road is pleasanter than the thorny and nasty path paved FURSE, JOSIAH, Mevagissey, Cornwall, Fisherman Jan 20

Court Pet Jan 6 Ord Jan 6

with drugs. at 12.30 Off Rec, Boscawen st, Truro HILLARD, THEOPHILUS, Trowbridge, Oil and Colour Mer

Nurse Tillotson, Alexander Hotel, St. Leonard's-on-Sea, GARWOOD, CHARLES THOMAS, Gt Yarmouth Jan 22 at 12

chant Bath Pet Jan 7 Ord Jan 7

writes: "I have tried Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa, and like it Off Rec, 8, King st, Norwich HOLDER. John, Charlton Kings, Glos, Market Gardener

very much. I shall have much pleasure in recommending GIBBS, WILLIAM, Bedminstez, Bristol, Butcher's Assistant

Cheltenham Pet Jan 5 Ord Jan 5

it to my patients." Jan 19 at 12.30 Off Rec, Baldwin st, Bristol

JAMES, ALBERT, Sawston, Cambridge, Baker Cam Miss 6. Percival, Post Office, Burgh, writes :-"I do not GOLDSTON, FREDERICK HENRY, Islington, Draper Jan 19 bridge Pet Jan 6 Ord Jan 6

think any other can equal yours. My father has been at 2.30 Bankruptcy blogs, Carey st

Johnson, ROBERT, Wiske, Yorks, Farmer Northallerton taking ordioary cocoa, but I think Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa is GREEN, CORNELIUS, Stourbridge, Painter Jan 20 at 11.30 Pet Jan 7 Ord Jan 7

better. I will tell my friends of your Vi-Cocoa." W & Mobberley, Solicitor, High st, Stourbridge JOLLIFFE, HERBERT, Sheffield, Grocer Sheffield Pet Jan Mrs. King, Linden Cottage, Wimbledon Hill, Surrey, GEEEN, ROBERT, Astley, nr Stourport, Farmer Jan 20 at 7 Ord Jan 7

writes :-"I think Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa is delicious, and 2.30 Ivens & Morton, Solicitors, Kidderminster GROVES, John, St Ives, Cornwall, Fish Buyer Jan 20 at 12

Kelsall, GEORGE, Loughborough, Bookbinder Leicester quite fulfils all said about it.”
Pet Jan 7 Ord Jan 7

Mre. Budden, Bradwardine, Bournemouth, writes :-"I Off Rec, Boecawen st, Truro

am pleased with Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa, and like it, and will HART, JOHN HENRY Mark, Marylebone, Coachbuilders LANE, WALTER, Bedminster, Bristol, Grocer Bristol Pet certainly use it in future." Salesman Jan 19 at 12 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st

Merit, and merit alone, is what we claim for Dr. Tibbles' HENRY, PETRAROYA, Broad st, Golden sq, Tailor Jan 18 McBLAIN, Joux, Gloucester rd, Draper High Court Pet

Vi-Cocoa, and we are prepared to send to any reader who at 12_Bankruptcy bldge, Carey st

Dec 16 Ord Jan 7

names the SOLICITORS' JOURNAL a dainty sample tin of Dr. HOLMES, EDWARD, Oldham, Plumber Jan 18 at 11 Off

Milton, John WILLIAM, Landport, Grocer Portsmouth Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa free and post-paid. There is no magic Rec, Bank cbmbrs, Queen st, Oldham

Pet Jan 6 Ord Jan 6

in all this. It is a plain, honest, straightforward offer. JAMES, ALBERT, Cambridge, Baker Jan 19 at 10.16 Off Pearson, Joseph Wood, Winslow, Hereford, Farmer It is done to introduce the merits of Vi-Cocoa into every Rec, 5, Petty Cury, Cambridge

Worcester Pet Jan 8 Ord Jan 8

home. Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa, as a concentrated form of KNIGHT, Joseph John, Brixham, Devon, Fisherman Jan 20 at 11 Law Society's chmbrs, Athenæum lane,

ROBBINS, JOHN ROBIN, Shrewsbury, Salop, Hairdresser pourishment and vitality, is invaluable; nay, more than
Shrewsbury Pet Jan 7 Ord Jan 7

this, for to all who wish to face the strife and battle of Plymouth RUNOIMAN, JOAN FINLAY, Gt James st, Bedford row,

life with greater endurance and more sustained exertion, LAKEMAN, JAMES, Parliament hill, Accountant Jan 18 at Journalist High Court Pet Nov 5 Ord Jan 7

it is absolutely indispensable. 11 Bankruptcy bldge, Carey st

Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa can be obtained from all chemists, LEAMAN, JAMES, Torquay, Builder Jan 20 at 10.45 Off

SANSOM, WILLIAM RICHARD SMEETH, Plymouth, Sign grocers, and stores, or from Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa, Limited, Rec, 13, Bedford circus, Exeter

Writer Plymouth Pet Jan 5 Ord Jan 5

60, 61, and 62, Bunhill-row, London, E.C. Write for free MARSH, HENBY, Southsea, Wholesale Fruiterer Jan 18 at TAYLOR, WALTER JOHN, Seaton, Devons, Builder Exeter

sample. 3 Off Rec, Cambridge Jnctn, Portsmouth

Pet Jan 6 Ord Jan 6 MATTHEWS, JAMES RYMER, Almondsbury, Glos Jan 19 at WILLIAMS, ALFRED ED WARD, Bargoed, Glam Merthyr 12 Off Rec, Baldwin st, Bristol

Tydfil Pet Jan 7 Ord Jan 7 Mirrin, H, S Kensington, Hosier Jan 18 at 2.30 Bank Wilson, BENJAMIN, York, Book keeper York Pet Jan 8 M.S A., Patent Agent (late of H.M. Patent Office) ruptcy bldgs, Carey st

Ord Jan 8

36, Chancery-lane, London, w.C. Letters Patent obMOORE, Thomas, Albrighton, Salop, Faulier Jan 19 at WRIGHT, ALICE, Newington causeway, Mantle Dealer 'ained and Registration effected in all parts of the 11.30 Off Rec, 42, St John's hill, Shrewsbury

High Court Pet Dec 22 Ord Jan 5

World. Oppositions conducted. Opinions and Searches MORRIS, GEORGE, Morchard Bishop, Devon, Farmer Jan

as to novelty. 20 at 10.30 Off Rec, 13, Bedford crcs, Exeter

Amended notice substituted for that published in the NEWMAN, JOSEPH MARTEN, Fulking, Sussex, Grocer Jan

London Gazette of Jan 4:

Special Advantages to Private Insurers.
REES, Foun, Byrncoch, Glam, Collier Jan 21 at 11 OR PECKETT, FREDERICK 30 Featherstone, Yorks, Draper THE IMPERIAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Rec, 29, Queen st, Cardiff
REVELL, ERNEST ALBERT, Alrewas, Stafford, Painter Jan

LIMITED. FIRE.
19 at 11 Law Society's chmbrs, Athenæum lane, Ply-
mouth

Established 1803.
RICHARDS, HARRY, Landport, Tobacconist Jan 18 at 3.30 All letters intended for publication in the 1, Old Broad-street, E.C., 22, Pall Mall, 8.W., and 47,

Off Rec, Cambridge jnctn, Portsmouth
RIGDEN, ELIZABETH HADLEY, Leicester, Ladies' Outfitter

Chancery-lane, W.C.
Solicitors' Journal" must be authenticate
Jan 18 at 12.30 Off Rec, 1, Berridge st, Leicester

Subscribed Capital, £1,200,000; Paid-up, £300,000. ROBBINS, John Robin, Shrewsbury, Salop, Hairdresser Jan

Total Funds over £1,500,000. 19 at 11 Off Rec, 42, St John's hill, Shrewsbury by the name of the writer.

E, COZENS SMITH, General Manager. SANSOM, WILLIAM RICHARD SMEETH, Plymouth, Sign

Writer Jan 20 at 10.30 Law Society's chmbrs,
Athenaeum In, Plymouth
Subscription, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE, which in-

ASSURANCE POLICIES SAVIGNY, EDGAB RODRIGUEZ, Red Lion ct, Fleet st Jan 19 at 12 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st

WANTED for large sums on lives past forty-five. cludes Indexes, Digests, Statutes, and PostSMITH, ARTHUR, Bradford Jan 18 at 11 Off Rec, 31,

Considerably over surrender value given. Manor row, Bradford SMITH, Irvin, Manningham, Bradford, Grocer age, 528. WEEKLY REPORTER, in wrapper,

Speedy settlements and highest references. Jan 19 at

Also Reversions and Life Interests purchased. 11 Off Rec, 31, Manor row, Bradford STOTHARD, THOMAS SINDERSON, Blyth, Nottingham, Farmer 268.; by Post, 288. SOLICITORS' JOURNAL,

T. ROBINSON, Jan 18 at 3 Off Rec, Fig Tree lane, Bheffield

Insurance Broker, 85, High-street West, Sunderland. TAYLOR, WALTER JOHN, Seaton, Devonshire, Builder Jan 268.; by Post, 288. Volumes bound at the

30 at 10.45 Off Rec, 13, Bedford circus, Exeter WHITFIELD, WILLIAM STOREY, Newcastle on Tyne Jan 19 at 12 Off Rec, 30, Mosley st, Newcastle on Tyne office-cloth, 28. 9d., half law calf, 58. 6d.

THE REVERSIONARY INTEREST SOCIETY,

LIMITED WILKINSON, ALFRED, and JOSEPH SPENCER, Bradford, Mineral Water Manufacturers Jan 18 at 12 Off Rec, Where difficulty is experienced in procuring the Purchase Reversionary Interests in Real and Persona

(ESTABLISHED 1823), 31, Manor row, Bradford WILSON, BENJAMIN, York, Book keeper Jan 24 at 12.15 Off Rec, 28, Stonegate, York Journal with regularity, it is requested that property and Life Interests and Life Policies, and

Paid-up Share and Debenture Capital, £613.725. ADJUDICATIONS. application be made direct to the Publisher.

17, KING'S ARMS YARD, COLEMAN STREET, E.C. ATREY, ALBERT JAMES, Cannon_st, Commission Agent High Court Pet Jan 7 Ord Jan 7

E DE AND SON, Ord Jan 6 BLANKS, Susan, Shoreditch High Court Pet Jan 4 Ord manding modern premises, No. 6, High-street, occupying

per annum, secured upon most substantial and comJan 7

ROBE an unequalled position in the prosperous town of Croydon.

MAKERS BROOMHEAD, JAMES, Sheffield Sheffield Fet Jan 7 Ord

The lease is direct from the Corporation for a term of 99
Jan 7
BULLOCK, ROĐERT GEORGE, Kentish Town, Cab Proprietor occupation of the lessees, The Croydon Coffee Tavern Com-
years from the 24th June, 1893, and the premises are in the

BY SPZOIAL APPOINTMENT
High Court Pet Dec 16 Ord Jan 7
BENG, CHARLES WILLIAM, and ROBERT BYNG, Halesowen,

pany (Limited). Price, 36 years' purchase.-Apply, HOOKER
Worcester, Builders Stourbridge Pet Jan 5 Ord
& WEBB, Auctioneers, Croydon.

To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of the

Judicial Bench, Corporation of London, &c. Jan 6 CHANDLER, CHARLES, Bunwell, Norfolk, Builder Norwich Pet Jan 8 Ord Jan 8

PATENTS and TRADE-MARKS.

ROBRS FOR QUEEN'S COUNSEL AND BARRISTERS. CHITTENDEN, FREDERICK Joux, Hove, Coachbuilder Brighton Pet Jan 7 Ord Jan 7

SOLICITORS' GOWNS.
Pet Jan 6 Ord Jan 7
COPNALL, JOHN, Borrowash, Derbys, Wheelwright Derby 322, High Holborn, W.C.

Clerks, and Clerks of the Peace,
Pet Jan 6 Ord Jan 6
CROMPTON, GEORGE FREDERICK, Bolton, Tobacconist Bol-

(and at LIVERPOOL, MANCHESTER, and BIRMINGHAM), ton Pet Jan 6 Ord Jan 6

Corporation Robes, University and Clergy Gowns. CROWTHER, GEORGE EDWARD, Greetland, or Halifax, LONDON and INTERNATIONAL AGENTS of ProGreengrocer Halifax Pet Jan 7 Ord Jan 7 vincial and Foreign SOLICITORS in

ESTABLISHED 1689. Dawson, CHARLES, North Cave, York, General Dealer

PATENT matters. Kingston upon Hull Pet Jan 7 Ord Jan 7

Representatives in all Capitals.

94, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

LIFE

Custoon, Peter Paven a lans, Salop, Builder Leominster W. P. THOMPSON & CO., Law Wigs and Gowns for Registrars, Town

INTEREST

The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter.

[ocr errors]

...

LAW REVERSIONARY

VOL. XLII., No. 12.
SOCIETY, LIMITED
24, LINCOLN'S INN FIELDS, W.C.
ESTABLISHED 1853.

LONDON, JANUARY 22, 1898.
Capital

£400,000 Debentures and Debenture Stock

$189,000
REVERSIONS BOUGHT.
LOANS MADE THEREON.

The Editor cannot undertake to return rejected contributions, and
Proposal Forms and full information may, be had at the Society's Offices.
W. OSCAR NABH, F.I.A., Actuary.

copies should be kept of all articles sent by writers who are not on

the regular staff of the JOURNAL. SHAW & SONS, LAW STATIONERS, PRINTERS, AND PUBLISHERS.

Contents.
GENERAL AND MANUFACTURING STATIONERS.

CURRENT TOPICS ................................. 191 LAW SOCIETIES ................................ 201
THE WORKING OF THE NEW RULES AS LEGAL NEWS

202 To DIRECTIONS

191

COURT PAPERS............
DEALERS IN PARCEMENTS.

203 BIAS IN A JUDGE

195
WINDING UP NOTICES ........

.................. 203
REVIEWS
............................................ 196 CREDITORS' NOTICES...........................

203 CORRESPONDENCE ............................... 196 BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.....

201 6, 7, 8, AND 9, FETTER LANE; 2 AND 10, CRANE COURT,

LONDON, E.C.
THE OLDEST & WEALTHIEST EXISTING MORTGAGE INSURANCE OFFICE.

Cases Reported this Week.
THE LAW GUARANTEE AND TRUST SOCIETY,

In the Solicitors' Journal.

In the Weekly Reporter. LIMITED.

A. M. White, Re

198 Bagley (Appellant) v. Butcher and A Solicitor, Re. Ex parte The Incor

Another (Respondents)

................ 189 SUBSCRIBED CAPITAL £1,000,000. PAID-UP · £100,000.

porated Law Society...

200 Buckley v. Hanson

198

International Society of Auctioneers FIDELITY GUARANTEES OF ALL KINDS. ADMINISTRATION AND LUNACY

Davies (A Solicitor), Re, and Re The and Valuers, In re. Baillie's case ... 187
Solicitors Act, 1888

199 Knowles & Sons (Limited) (Appellants) BONDS. MORTGAGE, DEBENTURE, LICENSE, AND CONTINGENCY Fetherstonbaugh's Settlement, Re 198

v. Sinclair (Respondent)..

189 INSURANCE. TRUSTEESHIPS FOR DEBENTURE-HOLDERS, &c.

Gower v. Couldridge and Others 197
Henderson's Transvaal Estates (Lim.)

Piston and Tong's Contract, In re 187 v. Barnato Brothers

201 Saunders, In re. Saunders v. Gore 180 HEAD OFFICE: 49, Chancery-lane, W.C. | CITY OFFICE : 56, Moorgate-street, E.C.

Jamieson & Co. v. Jamieson

197 M'Lean v. Monks

Stevens, In je. Cooke v. Stevens 177

199 IMPORTANT

Pixton and Tong's Contract, Re 201

Stokes v. Prance

183 TO SOLICITORS

White, Re. Pennell v. Franklin.

The Queen v. William Jones...... 191
In Drawing LEASES or MORTGAGES of
LICENSED PROPERTY

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

ARRANGEMENTS have been made for expediting the trial of
Suitable clauses, settled by Counsel, can be obtained on application to
THE LICENSES INSURANCE CORPORATION AND the judge who takes the chamber business of the Queen's Bench

actions set down for trial under order 14. When practicable, GUARANTES FUND, LIMITED, 24, MOORGATE STREET, LONDON, E.C.

Division will sit in court to try these actions on every day when Mortgages Guaranteed on Licensed Properties promptly, without a sufficient number como into the list.

special valuation and at low rates. LEGAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE

IT IS PROPOSED to hold an exhibition of sketches and drawiogs SOCIETY.

by the late Sir FRANK LOCKWOOD at an early date, and to devote

the proceeds to the augmentation of the funds of the Barristers' ESTABLISHED OVER HALF A CENTURY. Benevolent Association. We understand that the judges and 10, FLEET STREET, LONDON.

leading counsel, and several other possessors of sketches, have agreed to lend them for the purposes of the exbibition; but

there are believed to be many amusing cartoons (drawn on the FREE,

backs of briefs or other papers) in the possession of solicitors SIMPLE,

which are difficult to trace. Many solicitors bave already promised contributions, and it is hoped that all who have any sketches by Sir FRANK will kindly send them to Mr. E. MACRORY, Q.O., 7, Figtree-court, Temple, E.C., when a receipt will be given for them, as well as an undertaking to return them at the close of the proposed exhibition.

..... 200

[ocr errors]

X

x

THE
PERFECTED SYSTEM

OP

LIFE
ASSURANCE.

TRUSTEES.

ON WEDNESDAY LAST Mr. Justice WRIGHT, referred to an

observation made by his predecessor in Re New Weighing A ND

Machine Co. (W. N. 1896, p. 48) to the effect that, SECURE.

although there is no express rule requiriog notice to be given

to the company of the filing of the statutory affidavit in support FUNDS · £3,000,000. INCOME

+373,000. of a winding-up petition, the practice of giving notice of filing YEARLY BUSINESS

£1,000,000.
BUSINESS IN FORCE

£11,000,000. is a convenient one, and must in future be followed. He said

he had spoken to Lord Justice WILLIAMS on the subject, and The Right Hon. Lord HALSBURY (Lord High Chancellor of England).

the Lord Justice said he never intended to lay down such a The Hon, Mr. Justice KEKEWICH. The Right Hon. Sir James PARKER DEANE, Q.C., D.C.L.

rule as to statutory affidavits, but only to requiro that when an WILLIAM WILLIAMS, Esq.

additional or supplemental affidavit was filed, notice of filing RICHARD PENNINGTOX, Esq.

should be given in order to avoid unnecessary applications for Bacon, His Honour Judge. Masterman, Henry Chauncy, Esq.

adjournments being made in order to answer such affidavits. Davey, The Right Hon. Lord. Mathew, The Hon. Mr. Justice,

In future it would be unnecessary to give notice of the filing of
Deane, The Right Hon. Sir James Parker, Meek, A. Grant, Esq. (Devizes).
Q.C., D.C.L.

Mellor, The Right Hon. John W., Q.C., the statutory affidavit.
Ellis, Edmund Henry, Esq.
Finch, Arthur J., Esq.

Mills, Richard, Esq.
Frere, Geo. Edgar, Esq.

Morrell, Frederic P., Esq.(Oxford). Garth, The Right Hon. Sir Richard, Q.C. Pennington, Richard, Esq.

THE SPEECH of Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACII at Swansea on Harrison, Chas., Esq., M.P.

Rowcliffe, Edward Lee, Esq. Healey, C. E. H. Chadwyck, Esq., Q.C. Saltwell, Wm. Henry, Esq.

Monday is the first intimation of the dissatisfaction of the Johnson, Charles P., Esq. Williams, C. Reynolds, Esq.

Government with the dilatory manner in which the House of Kekewich, The Hon. Mr. Justice.

Williams, Romer, Esq. Ludlow, The Right Hon. Lord. Williams, William, Esq. Lords Committee has, for the past two sessions, been dealing

DIRECTORS.

M.P.

with the Companies Bill. In 1896 the inquiry was largely imposed upon them. The section provides that where a trustee taken

up with the question whether a director of a company is liable for a breach of trust, but has acted honestly and should, as the Bill proposed, be under an obligation to use reasonably, and ought fairly to be excused for the breach of reasonable care and prudence in the exercise of his powers. trust and for omitting to obtain the directions of the court, then Obviously a director who will not use this care is not worth his the court may relieve him, either wholly or partly, from salt. Last session the inquiry was practically at a standstill. liability. In applications under the section it will probably be The Chancellor of the Exchequer intimates, in pretty plain easy to shew that the trustee acted honestly, and the burden of language, that the House of Lords is too friendly to "guinea- the case lies in the proof that he has acted reasonably. This is pigs." The Committee, he says, are so timid and careful, that a proof, it seems, which he can rarely furnish. In Barker v. nothing shall be done to prevent responsible men from becoming Ivimey (45 W. R. 495) one trustee had, upon the recommendadirectors of companies that the inquiry is likely to last an in- tion of his solicitor co-trustee, made a mortgage investment definite number of years unless it is accelerated by the pressuro without proper inquiry as to the nature and value of the security. of opinion in the commercial world. Possibly this next BYRNE, J., declined to lay down any general rule with respect session it will be conducted with a little more activity. to the application of the section, but he found nothing in the It would be better still if the Government would revise case to assist to the conclusion that the trustee had acted their Bill, and carry only such a measure as will meet the reasonably, and he refused him relief. In Mosley v. Keyworth evils which admittedly exist. The greatest is the facility, to (41 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL 722) an application to ROMER, J., was which Sir. M. HICKS-BEach refers, with which a person partially successful, and an executor obtained relief in respect forming his business into a one-man company" can pay of payments made to legatees while he was ignorant of a himself what price he pleases for the business in debentures, claim against the estate which ultimately appears to have and then set up the debentures against the creditors of the left it insolvent. But relief was refused in respect of sums company. Good service might, without any inquiry, be done applied for the maintenance of the testator's family after an by making a process of this kind impossible, and there are action to enforce the claim had been commenced, although its other admitted" defects in the Companies Acts which could extent was then unascertained. The latest case is Ravenshaw v. readily be dealt with. The Board of Trade would be Barker, decided by NORTH, J., last Saturday. Here the execuwell advised to substitute for the present Bill a measure less trix, who was the widow of the testator, had retained as part of ambitious but more practical.

the trust estate several investments which should have been converted within a year of the testator's death. On some of

them there had been a loss, amounting altogether to £1,593. IN THE case of Re Fetherstonhaugh's Estate NORTH, J., has declined On others there had been a gain, so that if the gain could be to exercise the power of the court under section 37 of the Settled set against the loss the net deficit would be only £349. It Land Act, 1882, by authorizing a sale of heirlooms. By that appeared that the widow had acted on the advice of a business section it is provided that, where chattels are settled so as to

man that the securities would increase in value. But North, devolve with a settled estate, the tenant for life may sell them, J., declined to allow that her conduct was reasonable, and he but such a sale is not to be made without an order of the court refused relief. To retain the securities, he said, might have This is a power which, as was laid down by Chitty, J., in Re been a very reasonable thing for a man to do with his own Earl of Radnor's Trusts (15 Ch. D. 402), in a passage quoted property, but not for a trustee. According to the ordinary rule with approval by Lord ESHER, M.R., in the same case (p. 418), that the trustee cannot take advantage of an appreciation of cannot be exercised according to any fixed rules. 51

say

some of the securities, the widow was held liable for the entire emphatically," observed CHITTY, J., “that this discretion ought loss of £1,593. Section 3 of the Judicial Trustees Act can not to be crystallized, as it would become in course of time, by hardly be said, so far, to have produced any amelioration in the one judge attempting to prescribe definite rules with a view to position of trustees. The practical outcome appears to be that bind other judges in the exercise of the discretion which the sound reason requires a trustee to follow the ordinary technical Legislature has committed to them.” Undoubtedly this is a rules, and if he fails to do so he acts unreasonably, and cannot principle which should always prevail where a discretion has have relief—a conclusion which the Legislature hardly intended. been vested in the court, though there is no harm in following such indication as the decided cases give. In the case just mentioned Lord ESHER observed that if the tenant for life could Two CASES have, within the last fow days, been before a not live in the family house without some assistance from the Divisional Court in which section 51 of the Public Health Acts sale of the heirlooms, that is a fact which ought to be taken Amendment Act, 1890, has been considered. The section very much into consideration. Clearly, in any such case, provides that in districts where the Act has been adopted the beneficial occupation of the family estate by the owner a house, room, garden, or other place

shall not for the time being is of more importance than the preserva- be kept or used for public dancing, singing, music, or tion of heirlooms for the benefit of future generations, other public entertainment of the like kind without a licence In the present case, however, NORTH, J., seems to have for the purpose" being first obtained from the licensing leaned against any interference, on such grounds, with the justices of the district, and that any house, room, garden, settled property. The heirlooms in question consisted of a or other place kept or used " for any of such purposes collection of china, pictures, and furniture, valued altogether at without such licence shall be deemed a disorderly house, £18,000. Apparently the income immediately available from and the occupier shall be liable to a penalty.

In one of the settled estate was not sufficient to enable the tenant for life these cases, Farndale v. Bainbridge, it appeared that the responto reside there, and it was proposed to sell the chattels to the dent had hired a piece of waste land on the cliff at Margate, extent of £15,000. But this was opposed by the next tenant and had allowed persons to give entertainments thereon by for life, and NORTH, J., refused to sanction it. To a certain dancing, singing, music, &c. "The performers had a tent for extent the immediate incumbrances on the estate consisted of their own use, and performed in a small space which was roped annual instalments of succession duty, which in the course of off. No money was charged for admission to the piece of eight years would cease. In such cases it is difficult to decide ground, but a hat was sent round amongst the audience at short between the wishes of the present and of future owners, and it intervals for such donations as persons might choose to give. is the misfortune of the present owner of the property that he The justices of Margate dismissed a summons against the responhas to forfeit the income derivable from the sale of the chattels, dent for a penalty under this section, but stated a case. Now the and apparently to forego residence in the mansion, for the High Court has remitted the case to the magistrates, with an exproblematical benefit of future owners.

pression of opinion that the piece of ground was a "place" within the meaning of the Act, and a licence was required if the place

was to be used in the manner proved. This does not seem to be a TO JUDGE by the cases which have actually occurred hitherto, case within the mischief of the Act, although it certainly does section 3 of the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896, will do very littlé seem to come within the letter of it. Surely Parliament never to relieve trustees of the responsibilities wbich the law has intended to interfere with persons like the respondents, who are

em

found at every popular seaside place in the country. We seem to restrain the defendant from advertising their pianos for sale to have here yet another case of an Act having a far wider at less than cost price without in fact having any of such pianos application than was intended, and perhaps working injustice in in their possession. It is, of course, clear that the defendant consequence. Like the famous Kempton Park Racecourse case, was entitled to sell the plaintiffs' pianos at any price he chose. this case turned on the meaning of the word "place." Pro- However, annoying, it may be to a manufacturer to find his bably if the word "garden” were not used in the Act, the High goods going cheap, he has himself got for them the stipulated Court would have decided differently and more on the lines of price, and he has nothing to do with the re-sale. It is equally the Court of Appeal in the betting house case, but the use of this clear that a man's right to sell goods does not depend upon word evidently points to other open spaces being within the Act. having the goods in stock. It is matter of common knowledge It is submitted, however, that the Legislature only contemplated that à vendor frequently sells goods before he has acquired those gardens or other such places which are kept for public them, and, as STIRLING, J., pointed out, such a sale is expressly entertainment and for admission to which the public have to pay. recognized by section 5 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, where

the goods are described as “future goods." The case had to

rest, therefore, solely on the misleading character of the adverTHE OTHER CASE, Maloney v. Lingard and Others, was a tisement in intimating that the defendant had the goods in case stated by the justices of Cheshire in quarter sessions. stock, when, in fact, had any customer asked for them, they The respondents were the owners of a hall or room, which would have had to be purchased. Why it was worth while thoy let to some gentlemen for the purposes of a subscrip- for the defendant to continue the advertisement under those tion ball. The ball committee applied to the justices for an circumstances is not apparent, but here again, so STIRLING, occasional licence for the sale of liquor on the premises up J., held, the action was ill-conceived. The damage to the to 3 a.m. on the night of the ball. This was granted to plaintiffs did not follow from the misleading nature of them under section 20 of 26 & 27 Vict. c. 33, which the advertisement, but would have been just the same had powers justices to grant such a licence “ upon the occasion the defendant put the advertisement in a proper form ; had of any public dinner or ball.” The committee did not, how- he advertised, that is, that the pianos in question would be proever, apply for any licence under the Act of 1890, and the cured and sold for fifteen guineas. The cause of the injury to respondents were proceeded against accordingly. They were the plaintiffs' business was the offer to sell their pianos at cost convicted, but on appeal to quarter sessions, the conviction was price, and for this, as already observed, no action would lie. quashed subject to a case stated, on the ground that the ball Underselling is, as the Mogul case (40 W. R. 337 ; 1892, A. was not a public one. The High Court held that it was a 0. 25) shows, not an actionable wrong, and manufacturers canquestion of fact whether or not the ball was public; and that not prevent their retail customers from dealing as they like with that question had been finally decided by the court of quarter the wares supplied to them. sessions, and the appeal was dismissed. This decision was clearly right, in spite of the inconsistency that the respondents obtained one licence because the ball was public, and escaped

As A RULE it is the right of a mortgagee to realize his security from the consequences of not obtaining the other because the in such manner as he thinks best, but when the security consists ball was not public. If the ball was not public they could of goods or chattels, and these have been seized in execution at hardly make themselves liable by taking out an unneces

the instance of another creditor, this right is by rule 12 of R. S.C., sary licence. It must be a question of fact whether or not ord. 57, placed at the mercy of the court. Instead of restoring a subscription ball is public. Such a ball may be promoted to the goods to the mortgagee, the court may order a sale, and may raise money for some charitable or other object, in which case direct the application of the proceeds in such manner and upon any person who

pays
his or her money
is admitted. Of

such terms as may be just. In Forster v. Clowser (1897, 2 Q. B.

course, even in this case the committed generally reserves power to 362) the Court of Appeal (Lord Esher, M.R., and A. L. refuse tickets to improper persons, but such power could hardly Smith, L.J.; RIGBY, L.J., diss.) pressed this rule somewhat far be said to detract from the publicity of the ball. On the other against a mortgagee by compelling him to submit to a sale hand, as is very common, and as seems to have been the case before the mortgage money was due and then awarding him out here, persons may get up a ball solely for the amusement of of the proceeds interest only up to the date of payment. The themselves and of such of their friends as are willing to sub- interest, indeed, was at the rate of 60 per cent., but this circumscribe to the expenses, and to which the general public are in stance was, perhaps, hardly enough to justify an interno way invited. A ball of this sort is obviously a private one, such a decision will be repeated or not, it is clear from

ference with the terms of the security. Whether, however, and the facts of each case can alono determine whether or not the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the recent case any such entertainment is public or not.

of Stern v. Tegner (46 W. R. 82) that no further interference

with the rights of the mortgagee will be permitted, and that a It is a well-known device of the large retail dealer to sell sale under rule 12 will not be ordered where the mortgage some articles at a very small profit, or even at no profit at all, in security would thereby be in any way imperilled. The rule is order to attract the public to the wares on which he mainly in value to pay off the mortgagee, and the postponement of a sale

intended to meet the case where the goods are clearly adequate relies, and if such conduct were actionable, there would be an would simply have the effect of depriving the execution creditor opening for an abundant crop of litigation. The experiment of the fruit of his judgment. But if the proceeds of a sale by has been tried, though without success, in the case of Ajello v. the sheriff will be inadequate to pay off the mortgagee, so that Worsley before STIRLING, J., this week. The plaintiffs are piano manufacturers, who supply to their customers various the execution creditor cannot derive any benefit from the sale, classes of pianos, among others, “Class 6a" at the trade price

or even if it is doubtful whether there will be any surplus, the of £23 10s., and the “Britannia Model” at £15 158. The proper course is to direct the sheriff to withdraw and to leave defendant is a retail piano dealer in Manchester, and early in the goods at the disposal of the mortgagee. Or, as it was put 1896 he advertised a sale of pianos in a local paper. The l by CHITTY, L.J., the jurisdiction conferred by rule 12 ought not advertisement included new instruments “by AJELLO at

to be exercised against the mortgagee unless there is a reason£15 158., described in such a way as to point either to instru- able ground for holding that the sale will produce more than ments of Class 6a or of the Britannia Model. According to sufficient to answer the just claims of the mortgagee, so as to the defendant, the advertisement was meant to refer to the latter leave a surplus available for the execution creditor. class, and at the time when it first appeared he had one piano of that kind in stock, though the advertisement was continued after he had disposed of that piano, and when the plaintiffs had The Lord Chancellor has accepted an invitation to dine with the refused to supply him with any more. The plaintiffs alleged that Hardwicke Society. on Thureday, February 17. the advertisement injured their trade, inasmuch as other piano The members of the Oxford Circuit entertained Mr. Justice Darling at a dealers could not afford to sell their goods on the terms of the complimentary dinner on Monday at the Café Royal, Regent-street, in advertisement, and in the action they sought for an injunction both past and present members of the circuit were present.

celebration of his elevation to the bench, when a considerable number of

process is

Prior to the new order 30 those time fixtures were perfectly THE WORKING OF THE NEW RULES AS TO clear and well understood. Now they are confused by the overDIRECTIONS.

riding provisions of order 30. Perhaps the best way to illusIt is now nearly three months since the rule came into opera- trate this will be by restating the time fixtures affected as they tion by which the issue of a summons for directions was made actually stand when order 27 is read as ancillary to order 30. compulsory in all cases. It ought, therefore, to be possible to (a) If the writ is specially indorsed, the time for defence is ten form some estimate of its workability when applied to the days from the time limited for appearance (ord. 21, r. 6); but ordinary requirements of an action. That it is a powerful this time only applies compulsorily when the claim is for a weapon in the hands of the court for the purpose of proventing liquidated demand only within ord. 27, r. 2 (see ord. 30, r. 1 delay, and unnecessary expense may be readily conceded. But (6). If the claim is for recovery of land it is not within ord. that it is as well designed for its purpose as it might be, 27, r, 2, and therefore, not being an exception to ord. 30, r. 1, cannot be contended for a moment. If we venture to point out the plaintiff cannot proceed in default. If no defence is delivered some of its defects in operation, we hope we shall not be accused within the time he must apply for directions. Ord. 27, r. 7, of indulging in carping criticism, but rather be credited with a therefore is in direct conflict with ord. 30, r. 1: (c) Where desire to pave the way for improvement, for which there is at defendant has neither received nor required a statement of present ample room. It is always dangerous to suggest, but we claim, defence is to be delivered within ten days from entry of will even venture to accompany our criticism with suggestion. appearance (ord. 21, r. 7). This time-fixture is partly set aside The main cause of friction in the working of the new order by order 30, so far as default

concerned. 30 is the absence of any comprehensive attempt to adapt exist

If the claim is liquidated, but not specially indorsed, it is ing rules to its peremptory and overriding provisions. The within ord. 27, r. 2, and ord. 30, r. 1 (b), and the defendant Rules of the Supreme Court affecting all interlocutory proceed- must defend within the time limited, otherwise the plaintiff may ings are based upon a principle of procedure which is entirely enter judgment. If, however, the claim is for damages or opposed to that upon which order 30 is based, and the conflict detention of goods, the plaintiff cannot enter judgment in between the two becomes apparent at many points. In the default, but must apply for directions. Ord. 27, rr. 4, 5, and 6, rules as to procedure, other than order 30, the court has pre- are in direct conflict with ord. 30, r. 1. The former give the scribed certain steps to be taken and fixed the times for plaintiff the right to enter judgment in certain contingencies. taking them and the penalties for not taking them within The latter takes that right away, and imposes quite another the proper time. In order 30 the court has taken all its procedure. actions out of the operation of those rules prescribing

The sum total of all this is that the old simple provisions as interlocutory proceedings and the times for them, and placed to default of defence have been rendered complicated and them, as to their whole course, in the discretion of the confused by the new order 30. judge or master. We are not now considering which is Order 14.-Order 14 was not intended to be affected by the the better plan of the two, but it is obvious that the two plans new rule, for it is excepted from its operation by ord. 30, r. 1 (6). cinnot be in operation separately and concurrently without But we will endeavour to show how it is in fact affected. A creating confusion at many points. It is clear that one principle plaintiff suing by specially-indorsed writ wishes to amend his or the other--either definite prescription by rule or undefinod statement of claim indorsed on the writ before issuing his discretionary direction by order-must prevail, and it is highly summons under order 14. He is expressly empowered to do so desirable that the working cod of rules governing procedure without order by ord. 28, r. 2. It is a very common need, and should show clearly in all its parts which of the two is the ord. 28, r. 2 is a most helpful rule. But now the plaintiff governing principle. Or, if the rules regulating procedure are cannot amend before issuing his summons under order 14. He to be based upon e compromise between the two, then the code is barred by ord 30, r. 1, which prohibits him from taking of rules as a whole ought to reflect in all its parts the effect and any fresh step” after appearance until he has issued his limits of the compromise. The existing code needed revision summons for directions. Nor can be apply for an order to badly before the new order 30 was made. That need has amend, for that also is a “fresh step." "He must either give become infinitely greater since.

up order 14 altogether or issue a summons for directions under We will give a few practical illustrations of our meaning : order 30 solely in order to get leave to do that which ord. 28, Statement of claim.- Ord. 20, r. 1 (d), expressly empowers a

r. 2, expressly tells him he may do without order. plaintiff to deliver a statement of claim, either before appearance Again, when leave to defend is given under order 14, as it or at any time afterwards within six weeks from the appearance. usually is, without directions, the defendant's time for defence Order 30 expressly forbids him to deliver that statement of is fixed by ord. 21, r. 8, but if no defence is delivered what is claim. He must first issue a summons for directions within the plaintiff to do If the claim is within ord. 27, r. 2, he can fourteen days from appearance. If on that summons he is enter judgment by default, but if his claim is not liquidated, is ordered to deliver a statement of claim, within what time must be to issue a summons for directions, or can he proceed to trial he deliver it? Neither in order 30 nor in the form of order without doing so ? This question awaits an authoritative under it is there anything to show that an order for directions answer. must fix the time for delivery of the statement of claim. The The above are the main points at which order 30 is in conflict plaintiff, if he waits for defence, cannot get his order for direc- with existing rules. It is probable that as time goes on others tions until nearly three weeks after appearance. Therefore the will be disclosed. There are difficulties of other kinds in the timo fixture in ord. 20, r. 1 (d), obviously does not apply, and it working of order 30 which, for our present purpose, will best no time is fixed by the order for directions, there is nothing to be referred to in the form of suggestions. fix thu time anywhere. The whole of the sub-rule (ord. 20, r. Suggested improvements of order 30. 1 (d)) is overruled by rule 30, and yet it remains as if it were 1.-(a) That ord, 30, r. 1, be altered so as to permit amendin force, and gives the practitioner definite instruction which is ment of the writ either by order or without order under ord. 28, Defence.—The conflict between order 30 and the rules as to tions, or summons under order 14.

r. 2, after appearance and before issuing a summons for direcdelivery of defence is not only direct, but has complicated (6) To alter ord. 30, r. 1 (6), as follows: In lieu of the ramifications which are not apparent at first sight, and have words “or to enter judgment in default of defence under occasioned considerable friction. The times fixed for delivery ord. 27, r. 2,” to insert,'" or the entry of judgment in default of of defence are as follows: (a) If the writ is specially indorsed, defence under order 27.ten days from the time limited for appearance (ord. 21, r. 6); The object of this is twofold. It removes the doubt as to (6) if a separate statement of claim is delivered, ten days from whether an application is necessary to enter judgment in the delivery thereof (ib.); () where defendant has neither default of defence ; and it excepts all judgments in default of received nor required a statement of claim, ten days from the defence, and not merely those under ord. 27, r. 2. There is no entry of appearance (ord. 21, r. 7); (d) where leave to defend reason why judgments under ord. 27, rr. 4 to 9, should not also given under order 14, ten days from the date of the order (ord. be excepted. 21, r. 8).

2.-(â). The amendment of ord. 20, r. 1(6), 80 as to make

all wrong

« PreviousContinue »