Page images
PDF
EPUB

LAWRANCE, J.-This appears to me to be a case of inadvertence, and I think the relief asked ought to be granted. RIDLEY, J.-I am of the same opinion.-COUNSEL, Lacey Smith. SOLICITOR, R. H. Tatley. [Reported by ERSKINE REID Barrister-at-Law.]

REG. v. ROSE. C. C. R. 5th Feb. CRIMINAL LAW-CONFESSION OF PRISONER-ADMISSIBILITY. Case stated by the chairman of the Norfolk Quarter Sessions. The prisoner, who was employed by a farmer in the management of his farm, was charged with having stolen certain sheep, poultry, corn, chaff, and grass seeds, the property of his employer. In his evidence at the trial on the 12th of January the employer stated that, having reason to suspect the prisoner, he taxed him with the theft. It appeared that with regard to some of the stolen articles, the prisoner confessed voluntarily and without any inducement or threat being held out by any person in authority. Upon this he was pressed to make a clean breast as to the other matters. As to this the case stated : "On cross-examination the prosecutor admitted that when he asked the prisoner about the corn he might have said, 'You had better tell me about all the corn that is gone, and he further stated that he would not swear that he did not induce the prisoner to confess about the corn." The nephew of the prosecutor, who was present at the interview, said that the prosecutor then "asked Rose to speak the truth, and said it would be better for him if he did so." The prisoner was convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment and bail was refused; bail was also refused by the committing magistrate on the 17th of November, since which time the prisoner had been in gaol. THE COURT (Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, C.J., and HAWKINS, MATHEW, LAWRANCE, and WRIGHT, JJ.) quashed the conviction.

Co. had in their turn by a similar document transferred the goods to the
order of Tomlinson "carriage forward," the defendants had ceased to be
liable to the plaintiffs for the cost of carriage. It was said that the
railway company had accepted first Ward & Co., and then Tomlinson, as
the consignees; that there was consequently a novation, and that the only
person liable to the plaintiffs was Tomlinson, the ultimate consignee. It
lay on the defendants to make good that position; for prima facie the
plaintiffs were entitled to make the defendants liable on the contract.
The documents which had been produced might be regarded, in one view,
as putting the one person in the place of the other. That was the
foundation of the defendants' argument. The documents were, however,
capable of the construction that the new consignees, Ward & Co. and
Tomlinson, though they were accepted by the company as consignees,
were added as it were to the original consignees. The company might
have a right to treat all three as liable for the carriage, or only one. The
of
question was, Which was the right view? His lordship was
opinion that, in the absence of more conclusive documents, the
company could not be treated as having given up their claims against
the defendants merely because they had accepted a transfer
note which said, "Please deliver to So and So, carriage forward."
The order did not go on to say that the person named was to be the
only person whom the company were to accept, and there was no
document from the company which did say so. It was quite true
that if the company did deliver to Tomlinson "carriage forward,"
the document would be a complete protection to the company if it
afterwards turned out that there was any dispute between the defen-
dants and Ward & Co. as to who was entitled to the goods, and it was
therefore to be observed that the document might be accounted for in
that way, that it was a protection note to the company, giving them
authority to deliver to a person other than the original consignee. The
authorities seemed to establish that in cases of novation there must be a
clear acceptance of the new party to the contract. A mere dealing with
original party to the contract, was not sufficient.
a new person in such a way as to make him liable, in addition to the
An intention must be
shewn to accept the one in lieu of the other. His lordship did not think
the company had done that. They had no doubt written by their agent:
That was not enough. They did not say,
"I presume I am to apply to Mr. Tomlinson for the carriage charges.'
"We accept Tomlinson instead
of the defendants." The company did apply to Tomlinson, but he failed
to pay. Then they applied to Ward & Co. with a like result. In his
lordship's opinion something more than an application such as that was
necessary to discharge the defendants. The defendants were therefore
liable to the plaintiffs in this action, but they were entitled to be indem-
nified by the third parties, without prejudice to any rights which the third
parties might have over against Tomlinson. Judgment for the plaintiffs.
-COUNSEL, Acland; Clavell Salter; Moyses. SOLICITORS, Bircham & Co.;
C. G. Scott; Coote & Co.

Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, C.J., after stating the facts, said that, assuming that the statement made by the prisoner was made under circumstances which prevented it being given in evidence as a voluntary confession, the question arose as to what course the presiding magistrate ought to take. It was easier to say what he ought not to do than to define exactly what he should do. One thing was clear, and that was that he ought not to allow the whole of the evidence to go to the jury; Whether he ought to content himself with striking out the evidence and telling the jury to disregard it or whether he ought to discharge the jury and impanel a fresh one was not a matter which was now before the court. At any rate, it was clearly wrong to admit it all. The question, however, was whether the evidence in this case was such as ought to have been left to the jury or not. It was the opinion of the court that the evidence was not such as ought to have been left to the jury. The rule was a very old one that a confession of a prisoner in order to be admissible must be free and voluntary. If it be said to him that it will be better or worse for him if he do or do not confess the confession was not admissible : East's Pleas of the Crown, vol. 2, 659; Reg. v. Baldry (21 L. J. M. C. 130); Reg. v. Jervis (1 C. C. R. 96); and Reg. v. Thompson (1893, 2 Q. B. 12). Counsel and solicitors conducting prosecutions should remember that a confession by a prisoner before it could be put in evidence must be affirmatively proved to have been made voluntarily, and they should be careful to make sure of their position in this respect when confessions of guilt formed part of the evidence on which they relied. Lastly, he thought it was a great pity that bail had not been originally accepted in FURTHER REPORT ON THE CONDUCT OF CIVIL BUSINESS IN THE QUEEN'S this case by the magistrates, and it was a greater pity that that was not done by the quarter sessions when the case was reserved for this court. Bail was not intended to be punitive, but only to secure the attendance of the prisoner at the trial. Conviction quashed. COUNSEL, Ernest E. Wild. SOLICITOR, W. A. Watts, Huntingdon. The Crown was not repre

sented.

[Reported by T. R. C. DILL, Barrister-at-Law.]

LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY CO. AND GREAT
NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. v. BISHOP, PRATT, & CO. WARD & CO.
(Third Parties). Ridley, J. 29th Jan.
CONTRACT-CARRIAGE OF GOODS-ORDER TO DELIVER TO PERSONS OTHER
THAN ORIGINAL CONSIGNEE-COST OF CARRIAGE-NOVATION.
This was an action tried before Ridley, J., without a jury. The plain-
tiffs claimed £44 58. for the carriage of bricks from Newark to Twicken-
ham. The defendants had a contract to supply some bricks to Ward &
Co., builders' merchants. The bricks were ordered by the defendants
from a firm at Newark, who consigned them, marked "carriage forward,"
to the defendants at Twickenham Station. On the arrival of the bricks
at Twickenham Station the defendants gave an order to the London and
South-Western Railway Co. to transfer the bricks "carriage forward" to
Ward & Co. Subsequently Ward & Co. gave a similar order for the
transfer of the bricks to one Tomlinson. The railway company delivered
the bricks to Tomlinson, but he failed to pay the carriage. The railway
companies now brought this action against the original consignees.
Leave was given to the defendants to bring in Ward & Co. as third
parties. It was contended for the defendants that there had been a
novation, for the railway company had treated Ward & Co. as the owners
of the bricks; in the alternative the defendants were entitled to an
indemnity from Ward & Co. On behalf of Ward & Co. it was argued
that if they were liable to indemnify the defendants, they were in turn
entitled to be indemnified by Tomlinson.
RIDLEY, J., said that in his opinion the defendants, who were the
original consignees of the bricks, were liable to the plaintiffs for the cost
of carriage from Newark to Twickenham. The defendants' contention
was that by reason of the fact that the defendants had ordered the goods
to be transferred "
carriage forward" to Ward & Co., and that Ward &

Reported by F. O. ROBINSON, Barrister-at-Law.]

LAW SOCIETIES.

THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAR.

BENCH DIVISION.

The General Council of the Bar have had under their consideration the

report of the Legal Procedure Committee of the Incorporated Law Society (adopted by the Council of that society on the 21st of January last) on the recommendations of the Bar Council contained in their report dated the 5th of August, 1897. The Bar Council are glad to notice that the Council of the Incorporated Law Society agree entirely in all the allegations formulated in the report of the Bar Council against the present method of procedure in the Queen's Bench Division, and substantially concur in the conclusions and suggestions of the Bar Council. At the time of publication the report of the Bar Council was received with marked professional approval and attracted much public attention. Under these circumstances the Bar Council desire to express their regret that no steps have been taken by the authorities to give effect to the recommendations contained in that report. A cursory examination of the circuit paper for the current winter assizes and the Hilary sittings paper for London will show that the arrangements overlap and conflict in such a way as to prevent the continuous sittings of an adequate number of courts in London, whilst for a portion of the sittings no provision at all is made for a judge to sit in the Commercial Court or at judges' chambers. The Bar Council would point out that the arrears of business in the division appear to be steadily increasing. At the commencement of the Trinity sittings, 1897, the number of casues and matters for trial was about 792, whilst at the commencement of the Hilary sittings, 1898, the number was about 987, and the opinion is expressed in the report of the Incorporated Law Society that not only is the business now increasing but must go on increasing. Nothing, however, has been done by the appointment of commissioners to go on circuit or otherwise to relieve the judges, whereas judges required to be in town as arranged have been unexpectedly taken away from London to supply accidental vacancies on circuit. The Bar Council especially refer to Mr. Justice Channell, called away to fill the place of the late Baron Pollock upon the South-Eastern circuit during his illness, to Mr. Justice Bruce going to assist Mr. Justice Wills at Lancaster, and to Mr. Justice Ridley taking the place of Mr. Justice Darling at Guildford. Whilst acknowledging that substantial progress has been made with the work during the past month the Bar Council would again emphatically express their conviction that the present staff of judges of the Queen's

Bench Division is not sufficient to meet the requirements of London and the circuits contemporaneously (that is to say, almost throughout the legal year) and to provide for the accidents of illness and other contingencies which from time to time remove judges from active work The Bar Council would call particular attention to the suggestion of the Incorporated Law Society for the appointment of a master of the lists whose duty it should be to arrange and group causes in particular courts, and to their unanimous recommendation for the total abolition of Divisional Courts. Feb. 7.

WORCESTER

AND

WORCESTERSHIRE INCORPORATED
LAW SOCIETY.

The annual general meeting was held at the Law Library, Worcester, on the 31st of January. The members present were: Messrs. F. R. Jeffery (president), F. Corbett, J. H. Yonge, T. G. Hyde, W. P. Hughes, E. A. Davis, T. R. Quarrell, R. A. Essex, H. March, W. T. Curtler, T. H. Gallaher, A. E. Lord, G. F. S. Brown, J. Stallard, jun., A. A. Maund, T. G. Dobbs, S. B. Garrard (honorary treasurer), and W. B. Hulme (honorary secretary).

The report of the committee and the bonorary treasurer's accounts for the past year were received and adopted, and the following officers of the society were re-elected for the ensuing year-namely: President, Mr. F. R. Jeffery; vice-president, Mr. W. W. A. Tree; honorary treasurer, Mr. S. B. Garrard; and honorary secretary, Mr. W. B. Hulme.

Messrs. T. Southall, F. Corbett, E. A. Davis, J. H. Yonge, and A. J. Beauchamp were re-elected members of the committee, in addition to the officers of the society, and Messrs. G. F. S. Brown and W. T. Curtler were re-appointed auditors.

The following are extracts from the report of the committee: Members. The society now consists of fifty-four members and seven subscribers, as compared with fifty-two members and eight subscribers at the end of last year.

Land Transfer Act, 1897.-A Bill drawn, meeting many of the objections to previous Bills, was introduced in the House of Commons last session. It was not opposed by the Incorporated Law Society and in due course it became law. Your committee, whilst recognizing the important modifi. cations and alterations in the Bill as compared with the Bills previously introduced, deprecated its making the registration of titles compulsory, and advocated the consolidation of the law, and passed a resolution to that effect which was in due course forwarded to the Incorporated Law Society. The Act as passed provides that the experiment of compulsory registration shall, in the first instance, be confined to the whole or part of one county, the county council of which is willing to adopt the Act. The desirability of the adoption of the Act in the county of Worcester came up before the county council in September last, aud was referred to the General Purposes Committee of the council for consideration. Your committee thereupon passed a resolution to the effect that opposition to the Act by the profession was withheld upon the ground of its experimental character, and suggesting that it should not be tried in the county of Worcester until it had been first tried in some other district, and found to be for the good of the community. It is understood that subject to the approval of the county council of London, the Act will first be tried in the county of London, or a part thereof, a pledge to that effect having been given when the Act was passed. The committee are of opinion that the provisions of the Act as to the registration of the title to land, will not, when tried, prove to be to the advantage of the public. In the meantime, in order to render such provisions still more unnecessary, your committee feel that the profession should do their best to promote and secure the passing of all such well-considered amendments of real property law as will tend to simplify conveyancing. That part of the Act establishing a real representative is of much importance and will require the careful attention of practitioners. It came into operation on the 1st of January, 1898.

Stamping debentures.-It has been decided in the case of Rowell v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (2 Q. B. 423), that where there is an obligation to redeem debentures at a premium, the debentures must be stamped to cover the premium as well as the amount secured. This does not apply to a mere option to redeem. The Inland Revenue have expressed their willingness to allow companies to pay the additional duty against a receipt specifying the debentures covered by the payment, and the debentures will, on production, be stamped without penalty.

Trustee solicitor's costs.-It is understood that, as a result of communications which have passed between a member of the Liverpool Law Society and the Controller of Inland Revenue no claims will be made for legacy duty on the proper costs of solicitor trustees who have express power under the will to make the usual professional charges. In connection with these costs, it may be noted that a solicitor trustee who defends a creditor's action where the testator's estate is insolvent is not entitled to his profit costs (Re White, Purnell v. Franklin, SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, Jan. 22, 1898).

Receipts for deposits on contracts for sale.-The result of a correspondence with the Controller of Inland Revenue has been to elicit the opinion that where the receipt for the deposit on a contract for sale is in effect distinct from the contract itself, and is signed by the person receiving the money 46 as stakeholder," it must be stamped with the duty of one penny. The society's form of contract comes within this rule.

County Court Rules.-In March last new rules were issued which, in the opinion of your committee, in common with that of most of the societies throughout the kingdom, were calculated to harass and delay plaintiffs in the recovery of their just demands. In conjunction with such societies

[ocr errors]

your society protested against the rules, and they were withdrawn. Further rules have been drafted and have been considered by your com mittee. Such rules are an improvement upon those previously issued, but your committee are of opinion that they might with advantage be further altered so as to allow plaintiffs to enter plaints within the district in which the cause of action in whole or part arises in cases where more than one application has been made to the defendant without any denial of liability. A resolution to this effect has been forwarded to the Incorporated Law Society.

UNITED LAW SOCIETY.

Feb. 7-Mr. C. W. Williams in the chair.-After the transaction of private business, Mr. P. H. Edwards moved: "That the decision of the Court of Appeal in Hunt v. Hunt (67 L. J. R., Q. B. D. 18) was right." Mr. J. W. Weigall opposed. The debate was continued by Messrs. J. F. W. Galbraith, W. J. Boycott, A. W. Sells, and Neville Tebbutt. Mr. P. H. Edwards replied. The motion was carried by one vote.

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION.

The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, London, on the 9th of The other directors February, Mr. Henry Morten Cotton in the chair. present being: Messrs. W. F. Blandy (Reading), William Geare, Samuel Harris (Leicester), Augustus Helder, M.P. (Whitehaven), Richard Pennington, J.P., Sidney Smith, Richard W. Tweedie, F. T. Woolbert, and J. T. Scott (secretary). It was announced that the anniversary dinner of the association had been fixed for Wednesday, the 15th of June, at the Whitehall Rooms, Hôtel Métropole, when Joseph Addison, Esq., had consented to preside. A sum of £476 10s. was distributed in grants of relief, eight new members were admitted to the association, and other general business transacted.

[blocks in formation]

Hanne, Herbert Curtis Lee Harris, Sydney Edmund M.A., Hartland, Linton Sidney Henning, Edward Nares, B.A. Henriques, Ralph Quixana Hind, Robert Barrow Hodgson, George Edgar, B.A. Hollebone, Oswald Frederick, B.A. Holt, Arthur Hunt, Walter John Jenkins, Ralph Percival Jennings, Thomas

Blewitt, Matthew Clive
Bowman, John Broughton
Bradford, William James
Brierley, George Herbert
Brigg, William Anderton
Butterfield, Frank Wildman
Capel, Ernest Amphlett
Cleaver, Harry Reginald
Cooper, Charles D'Oyley, B.A.
Cornock, David Stroud
Cottier, Charles Edward
Cox, Thomas Berridge
Crerar, Alfred

Cresswell, William Warneford
Crisp, John Wilson

Crombie, Norman Thompson
Crook, Algernon
Darch, Francis William
Davies, Arthur

De Frece, Alfred
Dixon, Clive Fletcher
Druce, Francis, B.A.
Dyson, William Ellis
Eastley, John Beckley

Ellis, Ernest Haughton Radcliffe,
B.A.

Evans, Richard William Picton
Evans, Thomas Henry Royston
Everett, Isaac Arthur Huskisson,

B.A.

Everitt, Clement

Ferens, John Johnson Tiil
Findlay, John, B.A.
Franckeiss, John Henry
Freeman, Bertram Seyntcler
Frith, William Alfred
Gatey, George
Glaisyer, John

Johnstone, Leopold Foster
Jones, Aneurin

Jones, John Eustace
King, Hugh John
Kite, Edward Bagehot
Leach, Basil

Leonard, Harry
Lermitte, Claude Sutton
Lewis, Evan David, B.A.
Lewis, James Hubert
Lockett, George Gordon
Lowenthal, Sidney, B.A.

Luxmore, Launcelot Alfred, B.A.
McLellan, John Stuart
Maidment, Leonard Rodolph
Manks, George Henry
Marchant, William Augustus
Marquis, Robert
Mather, Charles Leonard
Maudling, George Terry
Mead, Philip Clement
Meade, Francis Henry, B A.
Meaden, Louis

Minton-Senhouse, Alfred Darby
Morris, Percival Darter
Mumford, Guy Tallent
Newey, Edwin

Newman. Joseph Harker
O'Donnell, Patrick Michael
Ord, William Henry

[blocks in formation]

Alexander, Ernest Arthur
Almond, Arthur James
Anderson Joseph Baker
Anthony, John Randolph
Attwood, William

Barnes, Harold Douglas
Beale, John Field, B.A.
Bell, John Sackville

Booth, Ernest George
Boulton, Walter Mountford

Briggs, Edgar Frederick Hayward

Brooks-Hill, Frederick
Browne, Bertie Frederick
Burrows, Sterndale, B.A.
Cary, Charles Frederick
Church, Frederick Basil Braby
Clarke, Lionel William, B. A.
Coburn, Francis Isaacs
Davies, Hugh Christopher
Dawson, Herbert Milner
Demaine, Hanson Anthoney
Dickinson, Godfrey Nix, B.A.
Donald, Stuart Burton

Duck, William Birdsall, M.A.
Duke, Joseph

Edmunds, Frederick William White
Evans, John bichard
Fahey, James Stadden

Fenton, James Marriott

Fenwick, Edgar Arbuthnot

Fisher, Charles Stanley
Forster, Harold

Garle, Henry Ernest

Gash, Percy Reginald Frederic
George, John Edward Morgan
Gibson, William Henry Peruzzi
Goldie, Robert Henry

Goodman, Geoffry Garland, B.A.
Greenbank, William Percy
Greenhalgh. William Witham

Gregory, James Langdale

Harrison, Charles Reginald

Hayward, Evan

Henderson, Malcolm John

Hepworth, Charles Bradney
Hett, Francis Paget

Higson, Thomas Atkinson, B.A.

Hillis, Thompson, B.A.

Hilton, Robert

Isherwood, John Bradshaw

Jones, Harry Charles Davenport

Jones, Osman Wynne

Johnson, Reginald Powell

Knight, Albert Vincent

Lake, Francis John Cleverly, B.A.
Lewis, Frederic Gustave, B.A.
Linton, James Mitchelson, B.A.
Llewellyn, Frederick

Lloyd, Thomas Mitchell
Lunn, Robert

MacDermott, Edward Terence, B.A.
McTurk, John

Mawson, Harry Antony Plevna
Middleton, Thomas Henry
Miller, Edward Morgan
Munro, George Cecil
Murphy, James

Naylor, Arthur Henry
Needham, John Windsor
Nevile, Edward Farington
Newbold, Bertram Clarke
Newton, Charles Edward
Nicholson, Joseph Arthur
Nicol, Philip Stewart, B.A.
Parfitt, Aldhelm

Poulter, Horatio Orlando
Ram, Francis Robert
Ratcliff, Frederick Rowlinson, B.A.
Rawson, John Busfield
Read, Alfred William
Read, Ernest Sabine

Render, John William

Rodwell, William James
Russell, Arthur

Russell, Thomas George
Sewell, Cyril Otto Hudson Hull
Shepherd, Charles Edward
Sherwin, Alfred Inman
Smallpiece, Ferdinand William
Smith, Frederick Bernard, B.A.
Smith, Wilfred

Stokes, Alexander Huddleston
Stuart, William

Swindells, John Robinson

Thomas, George Ernest
Thompson, William

Thorn, George Herbert
Tilly, William
Topham, Walter
Troup, Arthur Malcolm
Vernede, Charles Oscar
Walker, James

Walker, James Lomas
Wharton, Norman

Whitehead, William Hingeston, B.A.
Whitwell, Arthur Percy, B.A.
Wise, Louis

Woolf, Benjamin Arthur

LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETIES,

LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.-Feb. 1.-Chairman, Mr. C. A.

Anderson. The subject for debate was: "That the case of Fielding & Co. Mr. v. Corry and Others (L. J. Q. B., 1898, p. 7) was wrongly decided." W. S. Fitton opened, and Mr. A. W. Watson seconded, in the affirmative; and Mr. A Simon opened, and Mr. R. A. Gordon seconded, in the negative. The following members also spoke : Messrs A. Baker, W. B. King, F. S. Gaylor, A. Jolly, J. H. Bate, J. S. Wilkinson, A. W. Sells, N. Tebbutt, and A. E. Clarke. The motion was carried by the casting vote of the chairman. There were forty-three members present, and two visitors.

Feb. 8.-Chairman, Mr. Rupert Blagden.-The subject for debate was: "Impromptu Debates."

THE GREAT SEAL.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

THE February number of the Pall Mall Magazine contains the conclusion of two interesting articles on the history of the Great Seal. In the course of the article the writer says that prominent amongst the many adventures of Great Seals is that which befel the first Seal of George III., held by Lord Thurlow. Lord Campbell narrates that in March, 1784, the Government decided to dissolve Parliament, and that while the necessary preparations were being made the metropolis was thrown into consternation by the news that the Great Seal had been stolen; and many persons imagined that for want of it all the functions of the executive Government must be suspended. "The truth was, that very early in the morning of the 24th March [1784], some thieves did break into Lord Thurlow's house in Great Ormond-street, which then bordered ou the country. Coming from the fields, they had jumped over his garden wall, and forcing two bars in the kitchen window, went up a stair to a room adjoining the study. Here they found the Great Seal two silver-hilted swords and a small sum of money. With the whole of this booty they absconded." The thieves were never traced, and a new Seal was ordered on the same day that the burglary occurred. Such expedition was used that by noon the following day the new Great Seal was finished in a rough fashion, and a special Order in Council was then made to authorize its use. The fourth seal of George III. also met with a strange adventure: "In the autumn of 1812 the Seal was with Lord Eldon at his country home at Encombe, when a fire broke out. On being awakened, Lord Eldon's first thought was the preservation of the Great Seal. He seized it, ran into the garden, and hastily buried it under the mould of one of the flower beds. When now he looked around him he saw what he afterwards described as 'a very pretty sight, for all the maids' had turned out of their beds and' by the flickering light of the flames could be seen standing in 'a line from the water to the fire engine,. handing buckets.' Lord Eldon was so confused by the whole affair that when in the morning he went to dig up the Great Seal he could not romember where he had buried it. The importance of recovering the Seal caused him to set all the family at work, aud he subsequently wrote, 'You never saw anything so ridiculous as seeing the whole family down that walk, probing and digging till we found it."" George IV. had one Seal only, and when William IV. succeeded him there was some contention as to the disposal of the pieces of the defaced Seal of George. The difficulty came out of the fact that when William's Seal was ordered (August 4th, 1830), Lord Lyndhurst was Chancellor, but when it was finished and ready to take the place of George IV.'s Seal (August 31st, 1831), Lord Brougham was Chancellor. Lyndhurst claimed the old Seal on the ground that the transaction must he referred back to the date of the order for the new Seal, and that the fruit must therefore be considered as having fallen in his time; while Lord Brougham insisted that the point of time to be regarded was the moment when the old Seal ceased to be the clavis regni. The matter was submitted to William IV., and he-as the Great Seal consists of two parts, the Seal and the Counterseal-gave one part to each Chancellor. Greville, in his Memoirs, gives the following account of the incident: "King William IV. is a queer fellow. Our Council was principally for a new Great Seal, and to deface the old Seal. The Chancellor [Brougham] claims the old one as his perquisite. I had forgotten the hammer, so the King said, 'My Lord, the best thing I can do is to give you the Seal and tell you to take it and do what you like with it.' The Chancellor said, 'Sir, I believe there is some doubt whether Lord Lyndhurst ought not to have half of it, as he was Chancellor at the time of your Majesty's accession.' 'Well,' said the King, then I will judge between you, like Solomon: here' (turning the Seal round and round), now do you cry heads or tails.' We all laughed, and the Chancellor said, 'Sir, I take the bottom part.' The King opened the two compartments of the Seal, and said, 'Now then I employ you as Ministers of State. You will send for Bridge, my silversmith, and desire him to convert the two halves each into a salver, with my arms on one side and yours on the other, and Lord Lyndhurst's the same, and you will take one and give him the other, and both keep them as presents from me.' 997 The first Seal of Victoria was used from July 18th, 1838, to January 23rd, 1860, and when it was defaced the seal went to Lord Campbell. The Chancellor, however, sent one side of the Seal to Lord Chelmsford, his predecessor in office and his political opponent. The second Great Seal was in use from January 23rd, 1860, to August 14th, 1878, and its design was identical with that of the first Seal. Lord Cairns took the pieces, and presented one side to the Earl of Selborne, his immediate predecessor in office. The third Great Seal of Queen Victoria is identical with the two others, no alteration in the design of any of Victoria's Seals having been made. It came into use on August 14th 1878. This Great Seal cost £500 to £600, and a year and nine months. were spent on engraving it; the Seal is made of silver, and weighs sixty ounces. It is the emblem of sovereignty-the clavis regni-the only

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

MR. JOHN CUTLER, Q.C., ON THE TRIAL OF
COMMERCIAL CASES.

instrument by which, on solemn occasions, the will of the Queen can be insurance, banking, mercantile agency, and mercantile usages. Directly an
expressed. Absolute faith is universally given to any document purport-action of this kind was commenced application could be made to the judge
ing to be under the Great Seal, as having been duly sealed with it by the who was told off to take these cases to transfer it to the commercial list,
authority of the Sovereign.
and, at the same time that he did so, the judge gave directions that the
points of claim and of defence shall be delivered so that it should be at once
apparent what were the matters at issue. The judge also settled whether
the case was to be tried by jury or not, and fixed a day for the trial. On
that day, as a general rule, the case would come on. There would, ordinarily,
be no pleadings, and none of the interlocutory proceedings which involved
so much delay and expense in an ordinary case, although the judge had full
power to allow them to be resorted to if justice required it. Under that
system it would be seen there must be a great saving of time in bringing a
commercial case to a termination, and he was told that the average time for
disposing of a commercial case from the period when it was commenced up to
the obtaining of judgment was about six weeks. That was the usual time,
but in special circumstances, where it was necessary to dispose of a case
quicker, the desired result could be obtained in a much shorter period.
He would give them one or two instances of what had been done
in the Commercial Court. The first was a case of a charterparty
dispute which arose in March, 1895. The writ was issued and the
action commenced on the 18th of April; it was transferred to the
Commercial Court on 26th of April; it came on for trial on 7th of May;
the trial took three days, and was all over on 9th of May. In another case,
there was an action commenced on the Monday before last Christmas, the
question involved being one of agency. Everything was at a deadlock in
the business until the question was disposed cf, and to make matters worse
the Christmas vacation was close at hand. It was interesting to know that
that case which began on the Monday was disposed of on Christmas Eve,
four days after it had been commenced. If that were not quick enough
procedure, he would give them another instance. There was a dispute upon
a marine policy. It was very important to save demurrage on the cargo
abroad. The writ was issued at one o'clock on a Monday, taken to the
judge who said, "Serve it to-day, and I will hear the case to-morrow at
10.30." He did so, and the decision of the judge went out by the
Tuesday night's mail. The place where the decision had to go was served
by a fortnightly mail, so if it had not gone when it did, there would have
been a considerable amount more of demurrage to pay on the cargo. He
had shown, he thought, that the proceedings of the Commercial Court
were very expeditious. He now wished to point out that the obstruction
which formerly was a great source of delay was much less possible under the
new system. He would give an illustration of that. There was an action
brought on a marine policy. The defence was deviation from one
port in China to another port in China. The log book of the ship
being in China could not be produced, and an order was obtained by
the defence to stay the proceedings until the log book was produced.
The plaintiff then applied to have the case transferred to the Com
mercial Court, which was done. For the defence attention was called
to the order to stay, but the judge decided it was not necessary
to wait for the log book, as there was a copy of the material entry
in the log book to be found on the average adjustment, and so there was
enough material before the court to proceed upon. As a result, the action
was tried and adjudicated upon within fourteen days from its transfer to the
Commercial Court. In the matter of expense the system under consideration
was very satisfactory. It saved a great deal of costs, particularly by
avoiding the interlocutory applications, and the proceedings were rendered
much less complicated, and therefore less expensive. He knew of a case in
which some important questions upon fire policies arose. Both sides
concurred in submitting the case to the Commercial Court. In the result the
costs of the proceedings amounted to £45 aside, whereas on the old system
they would have been from £250 to £300. Such was the system briefly
described, and he was sure it only required to be more generally known to
become more generally resorted to. He would give them one more instance.
A solicitor had told him of a case in which a client came to him in reference
to a commercial dispute, and was advised that he was on the right side and
ought to bring an action. The client said, "I am not going to bring an
action when probably it will not be tried for a year or so."
said, "When would you like it tried?" The client said he would like it tried
in a week. The solicitor said he could not get the case tried quite so soon,
but he thought he could ensure its being tried in about three weeks. The
action was brought and the case was tried and completely disposed of within

Ar the monthly dinner of the Article Club, held on the 2nd inst., Mr.
John Cutler, Q.C., in opening the debate on "Commerce and Law," said he
rose to do so with many feelings of misgiving. The subject was one of too
great magnitude for exhaustive treatment in an after-dinner speech. He
wished at once to say that the speakers who followed would have perfect
liberty to speak on any phase of the question which they chose. It would be
a waste of time for him to indulge in platitudes as to commerce, or in an
academic discussion of law, but he would try to state briefly what had
recently been done to bring the law and the administration of it into
harmony with the requirements of commerce, and conclude with some
remarks as to what ought to be done in the future to improve the existing
state of affairs. Before doing so he would justify his action in linking
commerce and the law, because commerce and the law were undisputably
united in fact. Commerce owed much to the aegis of the law, and legitimate
commerce could not flourish in any country where there was not a good
administration of commercial law and competent tribunals for dealing with
business disputes. But the legal profession also owed much to commerce.
It was well known that commercial prosperity and legal prosperity
advanced hand in hand, and legal depression followed closely in
the footsteps of commercial depression. He wished to remind the
company that England had been for centuries the premier commercial
country of the world, and if it was to remain so those engaged
in commerce must not rest on their laurels. He was conscious that
what he was going to say had been said before in weightier words and by
abler tongues; but he always thought that the fable of the lion and the
mouse afforded great encouragement to everyone who had the welfare and
prosperity of his country very near to his heart; and though the arguments
he was about to advance had been hammered in a far more effective fashion
by others, yet he hoped the tap of his puny hammer might not be without
some good results. The day had gone by when our commercial supremacy
was envied, but not disputed; we have now in the field of com-
merce powerful and energetic competitors striving to get our trade from us.
The efforts of those competitors up to the present time had met with a
certain amount of success, and we could not shut our eyes to the fact. We
must remember, however, that it is necessary for England to strain every
nerve to keep well ahead in the race for commercial supremacy. We had to
contend not only with the rivalry abroad, but also with difficulties at home.
It was of no use employers of labour attempting to compete with rivals
abroad if they were to be hampered at home by those whom they employed.
The country had just seen the termination of the engineers' strike, and the
loss from that strike to employers of labour was one which no amount of
statistics could adequately show. The loss to the employed was also very
great, and one which could scarcely be approximated, but the loss to the
country in driving away trade was incalculable. He must venture to
express the hope that the lesson of that strike would not be entirely lost.
He hoped that the operatives would specially recognise that by driving trade
out of the country they were diminishing the fund from which they drew
their wages.
He hoped, also, the working classes would be sufficiently
intelligent to recognise that if they are to successfully compete with the
workmen of Germany and Belgium they can only do so by putting in their
best work, and by levelling up instead of levelling down the character of
that work. Now he would point out what had been done in the last ten or
twelve years to bring the law and its administration into harmony with the
requirements of the commercial community. First, as to the administration
of the law, The law's delays had become proverbial, and litigation had
become almost treated as an expensive luxury. Commercial men, not know.
ing when their cases were likely to be heard, began to fight very shy of the
courts of law. They would almost submit to anything, and preferred the
"grin and bear it" policy or the clumsy expedient of arbitration
to settle their differences. He was happy to say, however, that that
condition of affairs had passed away to a large extent.
The change
was not due to any action of the Legislature, but to a scheme which came
into operation about three years ago. Her Majesty's judges of the Queen's
Bench Division, on February, 1895, promulgated a scheme for the speedy
trial of commercial cases. That scheme had been in operation since March
1st, 1895, and, so far as he had been able to judge, it worked admirably.
The number of cases heard under it was large and had considerably
increased, and he believed the number would increase still more if its
existence was more widely known by commercial men. The principal
advantages of the scheme were that it combined cheapness with expedition,
and that the parties to actions knew almost to a certainty the exact day on
which their cases would come on for trial. Further, they had in the
majority of cases a voice in selecting the date on which a case was
to be heard. There might be many in that room who were per-
fectly familiar with the working of the Commercial Court scheme,
and many, probably, who knew a great deal more about it than he
did. But he ventured, for the benefit of those who were unacquainted
with the scheme, to give an outline of the way in which it worked.
It was solely for the trial of commercial causes, which had been defined
as including those arising out of the ordinary transactions of merchants
and traders, amongst others those relating to the construction of
mercantile documents, the export or import of merchandise, affreightment,

three weeks.

LEGAL NEWS.

APPOINTMENTS.

The solicitor

Mr. WILFRID GIBSON, solicitor, Hexham, senior member of the firm of R. & W. & J. Gibson, of that town, has been appointed Clerk to the County Magistrates for both Tindale Ward and Bellingham Divisions. He has also been appointed by Sir Edward W. Blackett, Bart., the lord of the manor, Steward of the Manors of Henshaw, Melcridge, Ridley, and Thorngrafton. Mr. Gibson was admitted Easter, 1871.

Mr. JASPER GIRSON, LL.B. (Lond.), solicitor, Hexham, junior member of the firm of R. & W. & J. Gibson, has been appointed Clerk to the Tyne Salmon Conservancy Board, in succession to his late father, Mr. Richard Gibson. Mr. Jasper Gibson was admitted February, 1886. Mr. WILLIAM CHARLES TREVOR, solicitor, of Guisborough and Northallerton, has been appointed Clerk of the Peace and Clerk of the County Council of the North Riding of Yorkshire. He was admitted in Trinity Term, 1866, and has been deputy clerk of the peace since 1872, and deputy clerk of the county council since its formation in 1889.

[blocks in formation]

The Pall Mall Gazette says that Mr. J. Davies-Williams, town clerk of Southport, and formerly deputy town clerk of Cardiff, who was awarded the gold medal at the recent examination for the degree of LL.D. of London University, is the first Welshman who has achieved that distinction.

A return prepared by Mr. F. S. Jackson, the registrar of the Mayor's Court, of actions tried before that court last year shews that 410 suits were heard, of which 131 came before the recorder, 243 before the common serjeant, and 36 before the assistant judge. Of these 328 resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs and 58 for the defendants, 13 nonsuits were entered, and in 11 the juries were discharged or the cases withdrawn. The suits involved sums ranging between £2,300 and £10.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council resumed their sittings on Wednesday. Their first list of causes contains 19 appeals for hearing namely, from New South Wales four, Bengal three, Madras three, Bombay two, Oudh two, and Allahabad, Canada, New Zealand, Constantinople. and Ontario one each. There are also two petitions for the extension of letters patent to be heard, and three judgments to be delivered in colonial appeals.

By the death of Mr. John Fish Pownall, says the St. James's Gazette which took place this week, at his residence in Russell-square, the Bar loses one of its oldest members, the deceased gentleman having been admitted a student of Lincoln's-inn as far back as November, 1840, and called to the Bar there in November, 1843. Mr. Pownall was a justice of the peace for Middlesex, and was in his eighty-first year. He had, however, retired from practice at the Bar for some years past.

The ceremony connected with the introduction to the House of Lords of the Lord Chancellor on his elevation to an earldom is thus described by the Daily News: "His manner of introduction was unique. He was on the Woolsack wearing his black robe when the announcement of his new honour was made; but he departed at once, carrying his own official purse instead of leaving it to the Purse Bearer. Immediately afterwards Viscount Tiverton and Earl of Halsbury returned with reinforcements, the whole band arrayed like Solomon in all his glory. First came Black Rod, then the King-at-Arms, next the Earl Marshal (Duke of Norfolk), afterwards the Great Chamberlain (Lord Ancaster), and finally Lord Halsbury, with his sponsors, the Earls of Coventry and Jersey. This gorgeous procession paced with stately step and slow towards the Throne, bowing plentifully as they went. Now came the particular in which the introduction differed from others. Had the chief performer not been Lord Chancellor, he would have been led to the Woolsack, there to present his patent to the occupant of that awkward seat; but as the Earl of Halsbury could not march up to himself, he went to the Throne, from round which the railings had been specially removed, knelt on the footstool, and deposited his roll of parchment on the Throne itself, King-atArms in his blazing tabard critically superintending the_performance, while the rest of the band stood at the foot of the steps. Then the procession re-formed, wended its way to the table where one of the clerks took Lord Halsbury's patent, a fine large parchment, splendidly illuminated with coats of arms, and read it so that nobody but the nearest persons could tell what he said. Thereupon the pilgrimage was continued to the front bench third from the Throne-the Earls' bench for ceremonial purposes, but used by any peers on ordinary occasions. There the new earl and his sponsors seated themselves, rose and bowed to the Throne, repeating the movements a second and a third time, the four officials standing opposite them and bowing in unison. If the central figure had not been Lord Chancellor, he would have got no further, but his office gives him precedence over all other peers but the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Royal Family. Therefore he marched with his escort to the Dukes' bench-the front one nearest the Throne on the opposite side-where the sitting, standing, and bowing were repeated. Finally he seated himself on the Woolsack.

[blocks in formation]

p.m.,

THE PROPERTY MART.

SALES OF ENSUING WEEK.

Feb. 15.-Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, FARMER, & BRIDGEWATER, at the Mart, at 2 Modern Freehold Premises in Drury-lane; let at £230 per annum. Solicitors, Messrs. Hughes, Hooker, & Co., London. The Seething-lane Police Station (now disused), with frontage to Great Tower-street and Seething-lane, with a superficial area of 1,730ft., held direct from the freeholders for 51 years. Particulars of J. A. Brand, Esq., City Comptroller, Guildhall. (See advertisements, Jan. 22, p. 4.) Feb. 15.-Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, FARMER, & BRIDGEWATER, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Freehold Properties, comprising Two well-secured Ground-rents of £170 and £180 per annum, arising from Blocks of Shops, &c., in Moor-lane and Ropemaker-street, City; Two Shops and Dwelling-houses in Vere-street, Clare-market, amounting to £163 38. per annum; and a Plot of Building Land in Rotherhithe. Solicitors, Messrs. Beaumont, Son, & Rigden, London; Messrs. Beaumont & Bright, Malden, Essex; Messrs. Lovell, Son, & Pitfield, and Messrs. Soames, Edwards, & Jones, London; and C. Gyningham Field, Esq., of Reading. (See advertisement, Jan. 29, p. 5.) Feb. 15.-Mr. JOSEPH STOWER, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Freehold Residence at Croydon, with Lawn and Garden of a quarter of an acre. Also Leasehold Properties at Wandsworth, Brixton and Walham Green, producing nearly £550 per annum. Solicitors, Messrs. S. Hughes & Sons, London. (See advertisements, Jan. 29, p. 224.) Feb. 15.-Mr. JOSEPH STOWER, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Leasehold Properties in Kilburn, of an annual value of about £250; let to respectable tenants. Solicitor, John Jobson, Esq., London. (See advertisement, Jan. 29, p. 224.)

Feb. 16.-Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, FARMER, & BRIDGEWATER, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., The Haydon-Park Estate, Wimbledon, comprising 211 Houses and Shops, about three minutes' walk from Haydon's-road Station (L. B. and S. C. R.), and ten minutes' from Wimbledon (S. W. R.) Station; let and estimated to produce a total rental of £6,661 per annum; also about eight acres of Ripe Freehold Building Land. Solicitors, Messrs. Ashurst, Morris, Crisp, & Co., and Messrs. Kennedy, Hughes, & Ponsonby, London. (See advertisements, Feb 5, p. 4).

Feb. 16, 17.-Mr. J. HOBATIO HIBBARD, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Freehold Ground-Rents in Old Ford, Plaistow, Hammersmith, Herne Hill, and Wimbledon; together producing £205 per annum. Leasehold Investments in Chelsea and Pimlico, producing in all £1,179 10s. per annum. Solicitor, Chas. G. T. Lucas, Esq., London. (See advertisement, Jan. 29, p. 224.)

Feb. 16.-Messrs. H. E. FOSTER & CRANFIELD, at the Mart, at 2 p.m.:

Leasehold Semi-detached Residence, near Stoke Newington Station, producing £45 per annum. Solicitors, Messrs. Cameron, Kemm, & Co, London. Leasehold Shop and Business Premises at Gipsy-hill, of the value of £55 per annum ; vacant possession. Solicitor, H. E. Griffith, Esq., London.

City of London, in the centre of the contemplated approach to the Tower Bridge, Freehold Property; vacant possession on completion as to a portion, the remainder being let for twelve years unexpired, at £240 per annum. Solicitor, H. I. Coburn, Esq, London.

Leasehold Detached Residence, with stabling, at Ravenscourt-park, W.; with possession. Solicitors, Messrs. E. C. Kilsby & Son, London.

Freehold Ground-rents at Kilburn, amounting to £12 12s. per annum. Solicitors, Messrs. Pearce-Jones & Co., London.

Two Leasehold Dwelling-houses in Chelsea, producing a rental of £134 103. per annum. Solicitors, Messrs. E. C. Kilsby & Son, London. Semi-detached Leasehold Private Residence at Kensington; with possession. Solicitors, Messrs. E. C. Kilsby & Son, London.

(See advertisements, this week, back page.)

Feb. 17.-Messrs. H. E. FOSTER & CRANFIELD, at the Mart, at 2 p.m. :

REVERSIONS:

To the Moiety of a Trust Fund of the present estimated value of £12,154, in Railway and Bank Shares, &c.; two lives, aged 47 and 52. Solicitors, Messrs. Riddell, Vaizey, & Smith, London.

To One-third of £6,000 Great Indian Peninsular Railway 5 per Cent. Stock, £3,202 London and North-Western Railway Consolidated Stock, £5,000 Milwall Dock Co. 5 per Cent. Preference Stock; gentleman aged 50. And to One-third of a Legacy of £5,000, charged upon a Residuary Estate, receivable on the decease of the above gentleman and a lady aged 87. Solicitor, Charles F. Appleton, Esq., London. Absolute to One-fourth Share of a Trust Fund of Railway and Colonial Stock, of the present estimated value of £7,635; lady aged 62 and gentleman aged 59. REVERSIONARY LIFE INTEREST:

Of a gentleman aged 43, on the decease of the survivor of two ladies, aged 64 and 85, in a Tithe Rent-Charge of £450 per annum, secured on land in Sussex. Solicitor, R. E. Campbell, Esq., London.

POLICIES:

For £5,000, £1,000, £500, £100. Solicitors, Albert Myers, Esq., and James Robinson, Esq., both of London.

SHARES:

Twenty Shares of £50 each (£2 10s. paid) in the Westminster and General Life Assurance Association.

(See advertisements, this week, back page.)

Feb. 17.-Mr. J. HORATIO HIBBARD, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Freehold Estate, near the City of Rochester, in all about 6 acres, for many years in the occupation of the late owner, John Todd, Esq. Solicitor, Chas. G. T. Lucas, Esq., London, (See advertisement, Jan. 29, p. 224,)

« PreviousContinue »