2, NEW KENT ROAD, S.E. (Opposite the Elephant and Castle). AUCTION SALES are held at the Mart, Tokenhouse-yard, City, nearly every Thursday, and on other days as occasion may require. STIMSON & SONS undertake SALES and LETTINGS by PRIVATE TREATY, Valuations, Surveys, Negotiation of Mortgages, Receiverships in Chancery, References and Arbitrations, the Adjustment of Compensation and other Claims, Sales by Auction of Furniture and Stock, Collection of Rents, &c. Separate Lists of Property, Ground Rents for Sale, and Houses, Premises, &c., to be Let, are issued on the 1st of each month; and can be had gratis on application, or free by post for two stamps. No charge for insertion. Telegraphic address, "Servabo, London." FULLER, HORSEY, SONS, & CASSELL, 11, BILLITER SQUARE, LONDON, E.C. Established 1807. AUCTIONEERS, VALUERS, AND SURVEYOR OF MILLS AND MANUFACTORIES, PLANT AND MACHINERY WHARVES AND WAREHOUSES Telegraphic Address-"FULLER, HORSEY, LONDON, WEST KENSINGTON. J. W. SIBLEY, THE CEDARS ESTATE OFFICE, (opposite) West Kensington Rents Collected, Estates Managed, Valuations, Surveys. JOHN GERMAN, SON, & BEVEN, LAND AGENTS, SURVEYORS & AUCTIONEERS, ASHBY-DE-LA-ZOUCH, LEICESTERSHIRE. WILLESLEY, DERBYSHIRE. KINGSTON, Norts. ON MANSIONS AND FLATS. Large Sums awaiting Investment, also on Freehold and Leasehold Properties, Large Estates or Farms. Good Freehold Ground-rents Wanted. Principals placed in direct communication with clients. GIBSON'S AUCTION AND ESTATE OFFICE, 22, KING-STREET, ST. JAMES', LONDON, 8.W. (Telephone 5527 Gerrard); HERTFORDSHIRE OFFICES, ST. ALBANS (Telephone No. 4); and HARPENDEN. G. F. BOX & CO., AUCTIONEERS, VALUERS, ESTATE AGENTS, RENT SALES BY AUCTION FOR THE YEAR 1898. BRIDGEWATER DEBENHAM, TEWSON, FARMER, & Tuesday, June 21 ments, Town, Suburban, and Country Houses, Business Tuesday, May 24 Tuesday, June 7 Sale of Valuable Properties at the Mart, Tokenhouse-yard, London, on March 25, 1898, at Two o'clock, in Room "A," ground-floor. Other Properties, Shares, &e, can be included in this Bale. MART, on FRIDAY, MARCH 25, 1898, at TWO o'clock. CITY of LONDON.-LEASEHOLD PROPERTIES. Ground- Description. Rent. Tuesday, June 28 Tuesday, July 5 Tuesday, July 12 2 No. 58, do. Tuesday, July 19 3 No. 59, do. Tuesday, July 26 4 5 Nos. 61,62, and 63, Barbican, and Nos. 1, 2, and 3, New Zealand-avenue...... Tuesday, November 15 6 No. 4, New Zealand-avenue 7 No. 5, do. 8 No. 6, do. 9 No. 7, do. By arrangement, auctions can also be held on other days, in town or country. Messrs. Debenham, Tewson, Farmer, & Bridgewater undertake Sales and Valuations for Probate and other purposes of Furniture, Pictures, Farming Stock, Timber, &c. DETAILED LISTS OF INVESTMENTS, Estates, Sporting Quarters, Residences, Shops, and Business Premises to be Let or Sold by private contract are published on the 1st of each month, and can be obtained of Messrs. Debenham, Tewson, Farmer, & Bridgewater, Estate Agents, Surveyors, and Valuers, 80, Cheapside, London, E.C. Telephone No. 503, Bank. OHN DAWSON & SON have received The property may be viewed on application, and particu- The above properties are held for 80 years from March, 1885, and are all sublet to responsible tenants on leases and agreements at the above rents, which could be considerably improved at the expiration of the tenancies. ISLINGTON, N.-Freehold Property, known as Nos. 1 and 2, Smith's-buildings, with the right of way from the High-street. The accommodation comprises three floors, each 25ft. by 11ft. 9in., fitted with fireplaces. Gas is laid on. The property is let on a seven, 14, or 21 years' lease to Messrs. Barber & Co., at the low rental of £40 per annum. HASTINGS.-The handsome block of Leasehold Shops and Business Premises forming the corner of Robertsonstreet and Havelock-road, undoubtedly the best position in Hastings. Held for 99 years from March, 1875, at a ground-rent of £280 per annum, and let to Messrs. Barber & Co. on a full repairing lease for 21 years from Sept. 29, 1896, at the low rent of £520 per annum. The property comprises the premises occupied by Messrs. Barber & Co., Mr. W. S. Whittingham, Mr. A. G. Wellard, and the Southern Engineering Company. May be viewed by the permission of the respective tenants, and particulars and conditions of sale obtained of Messrs. Baker & Higgs, Solicitors, 76A, Chancery-lane, W.C. (Telephone 1,013, Holborn); of Messrs. Harry Higgs & Co., Surveyors and Land Agents. 50, Green-street, Grosvenor-square (Telephone 1,729, Gerard), and at 66, Barbican; and of the Auctioneers, Gibsons, 22, Kingstreet, St. James, S.W. (Telephone 5,527, Gerard), and at St. Albans (Telephone No. 4), and Harpenden. PERIODICAL SALES. ESTABLISHED 1843. MESSRS. H. E. FOSTER & CRANFIELD (successors to Marsh, Milner, & Co.) conduct Shares and Debentures, Mortgage Debts and Bonds, and on the FIRST and THIRD THURSDAYS in each month March 3 May 19 Aug. 4 Oct. 20 Aug. 18 Nov. 3 June 16 Sept. 1 Nov. 17 Sept. 15 Dec. 1 Oct. 6 Dec. 15 April 7 M1 MONTHLY PROPERTY AUCTIONS. ESSRS. H. E. FOSTER & CRANFIELD beg to announce that their MONTHLY PROPERTY AUCTIONS are held at the MART, Tokenhouseyard, E.C., on the THIRD WEDNESDAY in every month MR. F. H. B. RIDDLE is instructed to throughout the year. The dates for 1898 are: SELL by AUCTION, at the MART, Tokenhouse Yard, E.C., on TUESDAY, MARCH 8, TWO o'clock punctually, in One Lot. The above valuable FREEHOLD GROUND RENTS, abundantly secured on high-class property, situate close to Wandsworth-common Station, in the County of Surrey, Auction Room for Sale of Furniture and every descrip- and comprising 16 houses in Nightingale-lane, 11 houses CENT in Bolingbroke-grove, 30 houses in Granard-road, 15 houses in Morella-road, 21 houses in Estcourt-road, 8 houses in Thurleigh-road, 10 houses in Nightingale-parkcrescent, and 4 houses in Blenkarne-road, the whole ENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY.-Shep-forming a compact estate, and presenting an investment herd's Bush, Notting-hill, West Kensington Park, of unexceptionable character not often to be obtained, with and District. Owners wishing to Sell or Let Property in reversion in 1981 to the rack rents, estimated at about these districts should send to C. RAWLEY CROSS & Co., who £7,000 per annum. have more applications than they can suit; particulars inserted in their Western Suburbs Register free. Rent collections undertaken (large or small), and Property of all kinds managed on inclusive terms; punctual payments guaranteed; references to clients of 20 years' standing.-Offices, (Established 1877). Telephone Kensington. "Bchester House." (facing) Uxbridge-road Station, W. MESSRS. HERRING, SON, & DAW, 54, Borough High-street, and 52, Chancery-lane, W.C. O INVALIDS.-A List of Medical Men in with full particulars. Schools also recommended.-MEDICAL, &c., ASSOCIATION, LTD., 8, Lancaster-place, Strand, W.C. Tel.add.,"Triform, London." Telephone No.1,854, Gerrard. AUCTIONEERS, ESTATE AGENTS, VALUERS, 6, IRONMONGER LANE, CHEAPSIDE, E.C., MESSRS. H. GROGAN & CO., 101, Park street, Grosvenor-square, beg to call the attention of intending Purchasers to the many attractive West-End Houses which they have for Sale. Particulars on applica117, WESTERN ROAD, BRIGHTON. (Established 1773.) tion. Surveys and Valuations attended to. Suitable clauses, settled by Counsel, can be obtained on application to THE LICENSES INSURANCE CORPORATION AND GUARANTEE FUND, LIMITED, 24, MOORGATE STREET, LONDON, E.C. Mortgages Guaranteed on Licensed Properties promptly, without 1HE PERFECTED SYSTEM OF LIFE ASSURANCE. EMPOWERED BY ADVANTAGES. 1. Financial Security. 2. Freedom from all restrictions 3. Protection from risk of for- 4. Guarantee of surrender value. GENERAL DIRECTORS. DIRECTORS. Ludlow, The Right Hon. Lord. Mills, Richard, Esq. Pennington, Richard, Esq. Assurance Claims and Bonus Paid £390,000 £3,000,000 £6,600,000 BONUS, 1896.-A REVERSIONARY ADDITION was made to Policies at the last Division In the Solicitors' Journal. Ridley, Re. Ridley v. Vaughan.. Verney's Settled Estates, Re Watkins v. Lindsay In the Weekly Reporter. Allen v. Flood and Another (continued). CURRENT TOPICS. that a committee should be appointed by the Council of the THE SUGGESTION, contained in Mr. FRASER's letter last week, Incorporated Law Society to watch the progress of the Land valuable and well-timed. If such a committee is appointed at Transfer Act, 1897, in its application to London, appears to be an early date, it will be able, even before London becomes subject to the Act, by the dissemination of information as to the practical procedure to be adopted when it has come into operation, to render great service to metropolitan solicitors. Then, after the 1st of July, there will certainly be urgent need of some body to collect statistics with regard to the working of the system; to consider and report on difficulties which arise, and generally to keep a watch on the working of the Land Registry Office. We hope that the suggestion will be carried into effect at an early date. The new rules, when they appear, will, no doubt, furnish sufficient food for a good deal of consideration on the part of such a committee. MR. JUSTICE BARNES, after having shewn exceptional qualifications for the duty of trying witness actions as an additional judge of the Chancery Division, is, it appears, to be relegated to his duties in the Probate and Divorce Division, and Sir FRANCIS JEUNE is take his place, probably for the remainder of the sittings. THE REMOVAL of Messrs. FRESHFIELDS & WILLIAMS from Bank-buildings to premises in Old Jewry, which are, we believe, intended to be known as New Bank-buildings, ends an occupation of offices which, we fancy, is without a parallel for length among solicitors. Mr. J. W. FRESHFIELD and Mr. JOSEPH KAYE, solicitors to the Bank of England, in 1809, moved into offices (originally called "New Bank-buildings ") which were erected for them by Sir JOHN SOANE; and in these same offices, long known as Bank-buildings, during a period of eighty-eight years, the business of the successors of the original partners has been carried on. THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY are issuing to each of their members a Handbook of the Society, which is full of informaof Profits at the rate of £1 188. per annum for each £100 assured, together with a proportion of interest to solicitors and articled clerks. It contains, tionate addition upon all previous Bonus attached to the Policy. The additions per £1,000 Basured made to Policies ranking for a full five years' Bonus range from £95 to £200, and the average is £116, or over £23 per annum, The Valuation was made on a 23 per cent. basis, Hm Table of Mortality. first of all, a history of the society, followed by a history of the profession; then comes a list of legal appointments of a public nature, arranged under the headings of "Appointments confined to Barristers," "Appointments confined to Barristers or Solicitors," and "Appointments confined to Solicitors," with the salaries and references to the statutory qualifications. Information is next given as to the admission of English solicitors in the colonies, and of colonial solicitors in England. Part 2 contains the charters, Acts, bye-laws, and rules affecting solicitors, and the regulations with reference to solicitors' examinations, with information as to prizes; and we are particularly glad to see included a complete list of the Honours men since 1856. person THE Criminal Evidence Bill has been introduced in the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor, and its text has now been published. The leading provision is that every person charged with an offence, and the wife or husband, as the case may be, of the person so charged, is to be a competent witness at every stage of the proceedings, whether the person so charged is charged solely or jointly with any other person. Upon this clause there are engrafted a series of provisoes. The charged is not to be called as a witness without his consent; and, save in proceedings under certain specified Acts, the wife or husband is not to be called without the like consent-that is, the consent of the person charged. Moreover, a limitation is placed upon the cross-examination of the prisoner as to credit. He is not to be asked any question tending to shew that he has been previously convicted, or is of bad character, unless (1) the previous conviction would be admissible evidence of the offence for which he is being tried; or (2) he has himself called evidence of good character; or (3) he has given evidence against any other person charged with the same offence. These provisions as to cross-examination were omitted in last year's Bill, and have been now re-introduced apparently in deference to the objections which were then raised." They have formed, however, the subject of a vigorous attack by Mr. Justice GRANTHAM in a letter to the Times of the 2nd inst. learned judge complains that an old hand, who is giving evidence on his own behalf, will have, at any rate, in cases under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, an unfair advantage over the prosecutor, and unless his credit can be destroyed by cross-examination as to previous convictions, the prosecutor and his witnesses will very probably leave the court under the suspicion of perjury. Under the existing statutes which make prisoners competent witnesses, it seems that the practice of the judges varies, some allowing and some refusing to allow cross-examination as to credit where no evidence of character has been given. It is possible that in the class of cases to which Sir WILLIAM GRANTHAM refers, a previous bad record raises a strong presumption against the prisoner, and may serve to fortify a case which on oath of prosecutor against oath of prisoner could not succeed. But this is a presumption which is not lawfully admissible as evidence, and in some cases it would lead to wrongful conviction. The only safe plan is to adhere to the principle that the prisoner must be tried on the evidence relating to the particular charge against him, and his previous history is only relevant to rebu evidence of character. W. R. 37). schedule to the principal contract. His lordship said that such a document was lacking in one of the essential elements of a contract-namely, "in the description of the thing to be purchased," and that although in the Kharaskhoma case the Court of Appeal would not say what degree of particularity was necessary, yet their judgments clearly shewed that there must be some particularity. In the case before his lordship there was no particularity whatever, for the filed document did not contain a single word of information about the situation of the property or businesses, nor did it state whether the leasehold premises consisted of one house or fifty, or were demised at rack-rents or ground-rents; the property was merely described by reference to a schedule which did not form part of the document itself and which it was not possible to inspect. His lordship decided, therefore, that the contract was bad, and in making the order for the rectification of the register, followed the course adopted by the Court of Appeal in Re The New Eberhardt Co. (38 W. R. 97)-which case, however, is not reported upon this particular point-and only ordered the applicant's name to be struck off the register. It would seem, therefore, that in cases of rectification of the register on the ground of irregularity in the filed contract, the order should simply direct that the applicant's name be struck off the register, and should not be in the form frequently used, which directs that after the applicant's name has been cancelled a new and sufficient contract should be executed and filed, and new shares issued and delivered to the applicant. news A CURIOUS POINT, upon which there seems to be no authority, arises on the question of registration of copyright in a newspaper. It was originally held (Cox v. Land and Water Journal Co., 18 W. R. 206, L. R. 9 Eq. 324) that a newspaper did not require registration under the Copyright Act of 1845, and it was there pointed out by MALINS, V.C., that none of the objects for which registration was required in the case of a book seemed to apply in the case of a The paper. This decision, however, was not followed by JESSEL, M.R., in Walter v. Howe (29 W. R. 776, 17 Ch. D. 708), where it is laid down that a newspaper is clearly within the Act and requires registration, and this view was also adopted in Cate v. Devon, Sc., Newspaper Co. (40 Ch. D. 500). It may, therefore, be taken as settled law that a newspaper must be registered under the Copyright Act, and therefore the date of publication of the first number must be registered, and such registration "protects each subsequent number as it is published": see Scrutton on Copyright. If this is so, at what date does the copyright expire? It is not the name of the paper which is protected, for there is no copyright in a title Kelly v. Hutton, L. R. 3 Ch. 703); and if it were, it would be have expired. It is, therefore, the matter published which is obvious that the copyrights of all the leading newspapers would protected, but in the case of a daily paper new matter is published daily, and if a newspaper is a book, each number is a new book, or at any rate a new edition, which is entitled to copyright in respect of all new matter. There seems to be this dilemma: if the newspaper itself is entitled to protection only when registered, that is equivalent to saying that there can be copyright to a title, because the title is the only part of a newspaper which does not change; and this is bad law. If, on the other hand, the matter published is protected, it is difficult to see any logical reason for protecting-eg., an article published in a newspaper merely because the proprietor of that paper is the registered owner in respect of a publication perhaps forty years earlier and concerned with entirely different matters. It would seem, therefore (as is so frequently the case in copyright law), that, although no doubt the decision of JESSEL, M.R, was correct, inasmuch as a newspaper comes within the words of the Act, the reasons given by MALINS, V.C., for the contrary view are equally cogent. And, whatever may be the true view of the matter, it would appear to be necessary for owners of newspapers to re-register at the end of forty-two years from the date of first publication, though the point does not seem to have arisen in practice. THE DECISION OF KEKEWICH, J., in Re Maynards' (Limited) upon the sufficiency of the statement of the consideration in a contract filed under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1867, comes as a sequel to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Re Kharaskhoma Exploring and Prospecting Syndicate (Limited) (46 In the latter case the Lords Justices, in deciding that it was not sufficient for the filed contract to recite that by a previous unfiled agreement it was agreed to allot the shares "for the considerations therein mentioned," expressly declared that they had no intention of determining with what degree of particularity the consideration must be stated. The question of particularity, however, has not been long in coming up for decision. In Re Maynards' (Limited), KEKEWICH, J., has just held that the filed contract does not state the consideration with sufficient particularity if it merely contains a recital which, while setting out in full the price to be paid and the manner of payment, simply describes the property sold as "the businesses, property, and leasehold hereditaments" mentioned in the THE BILL introduced by the Lord Chancellor, which has recently passed its second reading in the House of Lords, will, if becomes law unaltered, be one of the shortest Acts on the Statute Book, for the operative part of it consists of less than three lines. It is to be known as the Bail Act, 1898, and it provides that "Where a justice or coroner has power to admit to or accept bail for appearance, he may dispense with sureties if, in his opinion, the so dispensing will not tend to defeat the ends of justice." Bail is at present in most cases granted under the provisions of section 23 of Jervis's Act (No. 1), which gives justices discretion to admit an accused person to bail "upon his procuring such surety or sureties as, in the opinion of the justice, will be sufficient to ensure the appearance of the accused at the time and place of trial." It no doubt often happens that a man who is not in the least likely to attempt to escape from justice is kept in prison awaiting trial for a considerable time, simply because he cannot obtain sureties. It is also the fact that the powers given to them by the Assizes Relief Act, 1889, are but little used by justices except where the accused person can be released on bail, because of the hardship of keeping him in prison till the quarter sessions when he has the opportunity of being sooner tried at the assizes. Even when these powers are used, some of the judges insist on clearing the gaols in spite of the Act. This course is not expressly forbidden by the Act, and certainly seems but in accord with the principle of gaol delivery. It is, however, obviously contrary to the intention of the Act, and both the Lord Chancellor and Lord HERSCHELL seem to have strong doubts as to the legality of the judges so doing. Apart from the difficulties placed in the way of granting bail by the necessity of the accused person finding sureties, we venture to doubt whether the magistrates are so loath to release accused persons on bail as the Lord Chancellor and other judges seem to think. In most cases discretion must be left to justices to admit to bail or not, and if they have any well-founded doubt as to the available security being sufficient to bring about the appearance of the accused at the trial, they ought merely to Probably the judges who have recently been adversely criticizing the magistrates in this respect really know but little of the reasons which lead them to refuse bail in any particular case. These reasons do not appear on the depositions, and neither the committing justice nor the justices' clerk, who probably knows most about them, is present to give the reasons. refuse bail. Parliamentary elections," and the first three paragraphs relate to nomination, and to nothing else, and cannot apply to elections of county councillors, the nomination being in their case regulated by the enactments already referred to. But the final paragraph of the section provides for the case of a candidate at a contested election dying after the nomination and before the poll, and requires the returning officer in such a case to countermand notice of the poll, and to commence the proceedings afresh. This provision the court has held to be a provision relating to the poll, and therefore applicable in the case of the death of a candidate at a county council election, and a mandamus was accordingly issued on Wednesday last requiring the returning officer at the election in question (Central Hackney) to countermand the poll. This avoids what might have been an injustice (or an undue benefit) to some of the other candidates or their political parties; but it seems to involve a somewhat strained interpretation of the statute, and further difficulties seemed at the time likely to arise. When is the election for this division to be held? Clearly the returning officer has no power to fix the date, and it may be doubted whether the county council have such power, except in the case of the ordinary annual election; and in that case there is a limit of dates which it would now be impossible to conform to. It may also be doubted whether the county council will be properly constituted until this election has been held, and the vacancy certainly cannot be treated as a casual vacancy, and filled up accordingly. The Court, however, appear to have cut this knot also on Thursday by fixing a date for the election. WHERE A Solicitor is appointed executor or trustee under a will, and the usual provision is inserted that he shall be entitled to charge the estate for professional services, a series of cases, to which must be added the recent decision of KEKEWICH, J., in Re White (46 W. R. 247), establish the proposition that any sums which the solicitor so takes he takes as a legacy with the usual incidents of a legacy. Thus the provision is void altogether under section 15 of the Wills Act, 1837, if the solicitor is a witness of the will, and since the payment must be postponed to debts, he cannot charge if the estate is insolvent. The question was raised in Re Barber (34 W. R. 395, 31 Ch. D. 665), where the solicitor-executor was an attesting witness to the will, A DIVISIONAL Court (GRANTHAM and WRIGHT, JJ.) has and where also the estate was insolvent. It was decided by removed (for the present, at all events) the difficulty occasioned CHITTY, J., against the solicitor upon the Wills Act, though he by the death of a candidate at the election of county councillors considered that the insolvency was also an answer to the claim. for one of the divisions for the county of London. The death Apart from the provision in the will the executor could not have occurred after the nomination and before the poll. The diffi- had his costs. Hence he took them by the bounty of the culties which arose well illustrate the dangers which beset testatrix-that is, as a gift; and since a gift to an attesting the modern system of legislation by incorporation and refe- witness is rendered void by section 15, the provision failed. rence. The Local Government Act, 1888, provides (sec- This decision was approved by the Court of Appeal in Re Pooley tion 2) that county councillors shall, subject to the (37 W. R. 17, 40 Ch. D. 1), where again the solicitor, who was provisions of that Act, be elected in like manner as executor and trustee under a will and was empowered to charge town councillors in a borough; and section 75 incorporates his costs, was an attesting witness. An attempt was made to certain parts of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, in- distinguish the payment of costs from a gift on the ground that cluding section 58 of that Act. Turning to this section, we the solicitor did work for it, but the court considered it a suffifind that it provides that "if an election of councillors is con- cient answer that he could not have got paid except under the tested, the poll shall, as far as circumstances admit, be conducted direction in the will. In that case COTTON, L.J., declined to go as the poll at a contested Parliamentary election is, by the so far as to say that there was a legacy upon which legacy duty Ballot Act, 1872, directed to be conducted, and" [subject to would be payable, but in Re Thorley (39 W. R. 565; 1891, 2 certain modifications] "the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872, Ch. 613), where annual payments were directed to be made to relating to a poll at a Parliamentary election shall executors for their trouble in carrying on the testator's business, apply to a poll at an election of councillors." There is thus no the Court of Appeal held that these were liable to legacy duty. doubt that the poll at a county council election is to be con- The case was considered to rest upon the same principle as Re ducted according to the provisions of the Ballot Act. It is to Pooley, and LINDLEY, L.J., said it could not be decided otherwise be observed, however, that there is no express incorporation of without running counter to the reasoning of the court in that the provisions of that Act with respect to matters arising before case. BOWEN, L.J., described the annual payments as conthe poll; and further, that in a county council election the dates ditional gifts of money out of the testator's estate, the conditions are fixed within certain limits by the council itself, and the being that certain services should be rendered, and that the nomination of candidates is regulated by a series of rules con- estate should bear fruit sufficient to satisfy the annuities. It tained in the 3rd schedule to the Municipal Corporations Act; might seem to follow that costs payable to a solicitor would also so that as to these matters the Ballot Act can have no applica- be subject to legacy duty, but the practical inconvenience would tion. Then, turning to the Ballot Act, we find that section 2, be very considerable, and it is understood that the Inland and many subsequent sections, relate to the taking of the poll, Revenue authorities have decided not to make such a claim: and therefore apply to municipal elections. The question which see ante, p. 256. The question of the insolvency of the estate has been decided is as to the application of section 1, or a part of arose in the recent case of Re White, and in view of the above that section. The side-note is "Nomination of candidates for authorities it would clearly have been impossible to decide it in favour of the solicitor. His claim to costs, therefore, had to interest on the debentures fell into arrear, and the debenturegive place to the payment of creditors. holders brought an action to enforce their security. In this action the bank put in a claim to rank as incumbrancers to the extent of the amount of the over-draft in priority to the debenture-holders, and the claim was allowed by ROMER, J. THE OBJECT of the system of judicial trustees, recently introduced here in analogy to judicial factors in Scotland, is to secure greater safety for the trust property. This is effected by the judicial trustee being required to give security for the due application of the property, and to bring his accounts into court every year for audit. Moreover, provision is made by the Judicial Trustee Rules, 1897, for the deposit in safe custody of all the title-deeds and certificates of the trust property, and, when so deposited, they cannot be dealt with except under an authority signed by the "officer of the court"-that is, where the proceedings are in the High Court, by a Master of the Chancery Division. In return for his trouble, the judicial trustee is entitled to remuneration out of the estate. An important question arose in the recent Scotch appeal of Hutton v. Annan, in the House of Lords, whether the effect of the passing of a new trust investment by the accountant of the court was equivalent to an approval of the investment by the court, so as to discharge the judicial factor from liability for a breach of trust involved in the investment. A judicial factor had invested trust-money in the bonds of the Greenock Harbour Trust, and the investment was in the ordinary course brought before the notice of the accountant of the court. It has been held in Scotland, and now by the House of Lords, that the investment was improper, and, were the judicial factor a private trustee, he would, of course, have to replace the money. But to absolve him from this liability on the ground that the invest-potior est jure was, he observed, only applicable where the ment had been passed by the accountant at the audit of the trust accounts would be a very serious innovation, and such a course has not been countenanced by the House of Lords. The passing, upon the occasion of an audit, of an investment prima facie regular is a very different matter from giving official sanction to the investment, and this could only be done if the investment was from the beginning under the control of the court. A judicial trustee, like any other trustee, must assume the responsibility of duly investing the trust estate, and he cannot, in order to relieve himself from his proper liability, take advantage of a system meant to insure greater security for the property. To hold otherwise would make it incumbent upon the auditor to examine carefully into every investment, with a great increase of expense to the estate. There is the less reason for this, moreover, since the judicial trustee has the right at any time to require the directions of the court as to the administration of the trust, and can exercise this right in case of doubt as to the propriety of an investment. THE PRIORITY OF DEBENTURE-HOLDERS. THE recent decision of ROMER, J., in Re Castell & Brown (Limited) (46 W. R. 248; 1898, 1 Ch. 315), is of great importance with respect to the priority of debentures not secured by a trust deed, and it shows that in future such debentures cannot be relied upon to give a first charge on the real property of the company unless arrangements are made for taking the titledeeds out of the possession of the company and depositing them in some safe custody on behalf of the debenture-holders. In 1885 Castell & Brown (Limited) issued a series of debentures for £28,000, charged upon all the property of the company, both present and future, and one of the conditions of the issue was that the charge created by the debentures was to be a floating security, but so that the company was not to be at liberty "to create any mortgage or charge upon its freebold and leasehold hereditaments in priority" to the debentures. At the time of the creation of this charge the company had certain freehold and leasehold property, and the title-deeds of the property were left under the control of the directors. In 1892 the directors obtained from the Union Bank, the company's bankers, permission to overdraw the company's account, and the title-deeds of part of the freehold and leasehold property were deposited with the bank with a memorandum of deposit as security for the overdraft. The bank manager had no notice of the existence of the debentures, and he made no inquiries. Subsequently the Under the above circumstances the dispute related to the priority of two equitable incumbrances, of which the charge in favour of the debenture-holders was first in point of time; and hence, had the equities been equal, that charge would, according to the ordinary rule, have prevailed. On the other hand, the bank had possession of the title-deeds, and the question arose whether this gave it a better equity, so as to displace the priority based upon the order of creation of the charges. Possession of the title-deeds is, of course, a circumstance of great weight in determining priorities, and the authorities go to shew that as between equities otherwise equal it is decisive. "We have," said KINDERSLEY, V.C., in Rice v. Rice (2 Drew. p. 81), "ample authority for the proposition, or rule of equity, that as between two persons whose equitable interests are of precisely the same nature and quality, and in that respect precisely equal, the possession of the deeds gives the better equity." In that case a vendor conveyed without receiving the purchase-money, and handed over the deeds with an indorsed receipt to the purchaser. The purchaser mortgaged by deposit and absconded. Applying the rule just quoted, KINDERSLEY, V.C., held that the possession of the title-deeds gave the equitable mortgagee a better equity than that which the vendor had in respect of his lien for unpaid purchase-money, and that the former, although later in date, was entitled to priority. The maxim qui prior est tempore equities of the parties were in all other respects equal. One of the authorities upon which the Vice-Chancellor relied was a dictum of LEACH, M.R., in Foster v. Blackstone (1 My. & K. p. 307). "A better equity," said Sir JOHN LEACH, "is where a second incumbrancer, without notice, takes a protection against a subsequent incumbrancer which the prior incumbrancer has neglected to take. Thus a declaration of trust of an outstanding term, accompanied by delivery of the deeds creating and continuing the term, gives a better equity than a mere declaration of trust to a prior incumbrancer." This is a case in which the equities, apart from the possession of the title-deeds, are obviously precisely equal, and the possession of the deeds gives the priority. In Lloyd's Banking Co. v. Jones (33 W. R. 781, 29 Ch. D. 221) PEARSON, J., treated the rule in question as perfectly settled: "The doctrine of this court has always been that where there are equities which are otherwise equal, the possession of the deeds gives priority to the person who has got them." In the present case ROMER, J., while admitting the rule, took exception to the generality with which, in the above cases, it was stated. So expressed it might be understood as giving the possessor of the deeds a necessary priority without regard to the circumstances under which they came into his hands. "In my opinion," said the learned judge, "these observations, if taken without any limit or restriction, go too far, for I do not think a prior equitable incumbrancer would have his priority where he did not obtain the deeds, if the deeds came to the hands of the subsequent incumbrancer through no default of any sort on his part." But before considering the question of default on the part of the debenture-holders there is the preliminary point whether the bank was put upon inquiry as to the existence of the debentures so as to be affected by constructive notice of them. In this case the equities of the two parties would not be equal, and the above rule would have no application. It is, of course, well settled that where debentures have been created as a floating security, the company, so long as they retain that character-that is, until upon default or otherwise the security crystallizes-is at liberty to deal with its property either by way of sale or mortgage; and it can by deposit of title-deeds create a charge on the specific property to which they relate which will rank in front of the debentures (Wheatley v. Silkstone Coal Co., 29 Ch. D. 715). It was to avoid this result that the practice arose of introducing into the debentures a special restriction upon creation of any mortgage or charge which should take priority of the debentures. At a time when such a restriction was still uncommon, it was held in a matter affecting personal property that notice of the debentures did not necessarily impose the |