« PreviousContinue »
Hear, Joiix, Gt Dritlield, 'Upholsterer March 11 at 11 O1! Rec, Trinity House ln, Hull
Hears, Janus, Liverpool, Master Mariner March 17 at 10.30 OR Rec, 35, Victoria st, Liverpool
Hes nr, Josiirii, Manchester, Painter March 11 at 2 30 Oi! Rec, Byrom st, Manchester
Hvosos, Hnmsizr, Leeds, Warehousemzin March 15 at ll Oi! Rec, 22, Park row, Leeds
Hvonss, Joiis, jun, Ashtead, Surrey, Builder March 11 at 11.30 24, Railway app, London Bridge
H rrciiiss, Hzxar, T-irrant, Hants, Butcher March 11 at 1 Off Rec, Endless st, Salisbury
I1.\AC!, Siiios, Slioreditcli, Cook March 11 at 2.30 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st
Kezuso, Wicii/ui, Bilston, Stafford, Blacksmith March 14 at 11.30 Oi! Rec, Wolverhampton
L'J11LEY, (fsiiisroriiixa, Quebec. Durham Joiner March 11 at 12.80 Otf Rec, 25, John st, Sunderland
Moxrr, Roiirnr, Ropsley, Lines March 11 at 12 O11‘ Rec, -i, Castle st, Park st, Nottingham
Non-rn, Winman, Pudsey, Yorke, Solicitor March 11 at 11 Off Rec, 31, Manor row, Bradford
Noiiwooo. WILLIAM, Stockton on Tees, Builder Mar 23 at 3 Off Rec, 8, Albert rd, Middlesborough
Pa-ri-rasos, Hssur Foo-rs, Whitehall ct, Newspaper Proprietor Mar 11 at 11 Imperial Hotel, Dai-lingtcu
Paioa and Hawnss, Finsbury pavemt, Solicitors Mar 16 at 12 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st _
Barres, Winnial, Leighton Buzzard, Tailor Mar 11 at 12 OR Rec, St Pau ‘s sq, Bedford
Sixsinrn, Mosiis, Ashington, Northuinberland, Boot Dealer Mar 14 at 11.30 Oif Rec, 30, Mosley st, Newcastle on Tyne
Srosii, Bonner, ( fradley, Herefords, Stores Manager Mar 18 at 2 Oi! Rec, 45, Cosenhagen st, Worcester
Sriuiias, Ronsar Eneisox, outhport, Commission Broker Mar 14 at 12 Oil’ Ree. 35, Victoria st, Liverpool
\’aiii.ev, Jossrs, Long Hill, nr Buxton, Farmer Mar 15 at 10.15 Ofl‘ Rec, County chmbrs, Market pl, Stockport
Warras, 1\I.l~‘BED Sauces, Cardiff, Picture Frame Dealer Mar 15 at 11 O11" Rec, 29, Queen st, Cardiff
Sroonairr, WILLIAM, Blackpool, Printer Preston Pet Feb 7 Ord March 1 _ _
STIIAIIAN’, Ronizar Enusos, Soutliport, Commission Broker Liverpool Pet Dec 20 Ord Feb 28
Sriiosos. Siiilos, jun, Canonicorum, Dorset, Carpenter Dorchester Pet March 1 Ord March 2
Wssnu.., LIICOLN WILLIAI, Malvern Link, Worcester, Pi-inter Worcester Pet Feb28 Ord Feb 28
WHITEIIUBST, JAIRS, Longton, Stafls, Grocer Stoke upon Trent Pet Feb 28 Ord Feb 2%
London Gaune.—Tussoar, Mar. 8. RECEIVING ORDERS.
Arnsams, \Vii.u.ui, Birmingham, Joiner Birmingham Pet Mar 3 Ord Mar 3
Bssr, Hssar Jaiirs, Wootton, Berks, Schoolmaster Oxford Pet Mar 5 Ord Mar 5 _ _
BULTRTON, Camus Hssar, Tredegar, Mon, Commission Agent Tredegar Pet Mar3 OrdMar 3
Baa-rrox, Tiioiuis J anus, Welshpool, Licensed Victualler Newtown Pet Mar 3 Ord Mar 3
Baoansesr, JAII-33, Barrow in Furness, Fishmonger Ulverston Pet Mar 3 Ord Mar 3
Coass, Siimsn, Leicester, Painter Leicester Pet Mar 8 Ord Mar 3
Comm’, Wii.i.iai|, Thornton Heath, Surrey, Builder Croydon Pet Feb 26 Ord Mar 3 _ _
Ei.uo'r, Giioiios S-roxoii, Southwell, Notts, Physician Notttiugham Pet Mar 5 Ord Mar 5
F1-:a'rniiiis'i'o.\':, Bonsiir Hasar, Hutton Bushell, Yorke, Farmer Scarborouglh Pet Mar 5 Ord Mar 5
Fiui, Eowaao, Favers am, Kent, Grocer Canterbury Pet Feb 15 Ord March 3
Fnimnnn, Wiauaii, Gt Grimsby, Master Fisherman Gt Grimsbg Pet March 3 Ord March 3
Goonau. loiioic Wn.i.iaii, Birmingham, Artist Birmingham Pet March 4 Ord March 4
Guiiiisa, Haaar, Botherham, Labourer Sheflield Pet March 4 Ord March 4
Han-ri.nY, Ronsirr, Rochdale, Pork Butcher Roclidale Pet Feb 22 Ord March 5
Hares, Toii Rowers, Atherton, Lanes, Grocer Bolton Pet March 4 Ord 4
Hvosos, Winniau, Bed Lion st, Holborn, Letterpress Printer High Court Pet March 5 Ord March 5
Husros, Nswosir, Botherhain, Saddler Sheflleld Pet Feb 18 Ord March 3
Isonnrisno, Jaxss Tuoius, Moss Side, nr Manchester Salford Pet Feb 18 Ord March 3
Josrs, Joim Waarsa, Ystrad House, nr Llandovery, Banister Carmarthen Pet March 4 Ord March 4
Klasiuw, ROBERT Mi-rciisi.L, Batley, York, Journeyman Currier Dewsbury Pet March 4 Ord Man-li 4
Ki-i-cues, Jaiirs, Halifax, Quarryman Halifax Pet March 2 Ord March 2
Lrss, Fiiiio, Kingston upon Hull, Grocer Kingston upon Hull Pet Fe 17 Ord Mar4
Mn-cau.i., Jons Eowaao, Tenterden, Kent, Butcher Hastin Pet Mar 3 Ord Mar 3
Nicu0i.s, %i.iziiiin-rir, Aglsham, Norfolk, Dressmaker Norwich Pet Mar 4 rd Mar 4
Nicaonsos, Gsoaos Bonsai‘, Shildon, Durham, Ironmonger Durham Pet Mar5 _Ord Mar5
Niciionsos, WILLIAM, Shankliu, I of W, Photographer Newport 1-‘et Mar 5 Ord Mar 5
Past, As-riiuii, Lincoln, Butcher Lincoln Pet Mar 2 Ord Mar 2
PHILLIPS, Joiis, Cadoxton, Glam, Ironmonger C.irdit1‘ Pet Mar 3 Ord Mar 3
Poiiaor, JOHN‘ Hocxiso, Anhburton, Devons, Builder Exetor Pet Mar 2 Ord Mar 2
Rnmis, Itonziir Emias, Battersei Wandsworth Pet Feb 9 Ord Mar 3
B.iwi.1ss, wif1LlAM Ronissos, Worcester, Glover Worcester Pet Feb 19 Ord Mar 5
R0-r§1aii1n',Siiaiir, Bradford Bradford Pet Mar 3 Ord
Rrcnorr, Jniss, Great Grimsby Great Grimsby Pet Mar 4 Ord Mar 4
Sii.i,Biissir, Queen Anne's mansions High Court Pet Feb 14 Ord March 3
Sinsslii, Jons Riciiano, Stockton on Tees, Boilerman Stockton on Tees Pet March l Ord March 4
Siiirn, WILLIAM, West Kenaington, Jeweller High Court Pet Feb 8 Ord March 3
Siiirn, WILLIAI EDWARD, Hastings, Painter Hastings Pet March 3 0rdMareli 3
Si"oinii.|.,Tuoiias, Stockton on Tees Stockton on Tees Pet March 2 Ord March 2
Srusnss, Fusr, Harrietsham, Kent, Licensed Victualler Maidstone Pet March 2 Ord March 2
Wannace, Taoius, Copthall bldgs, Merchant High Court Pet Dec 13 Ord Feb 7
Wiiirri, Jons Bosuir, and Aarnuii Tnoiias Wiirr: Radstoek, Somerset, General Outfitters Frome Pet March 3 Ord March B
Winsos, JAMES Leeds, Canvassing Bookseller Leeds Pet Feb 11 Ord March-1
Amended notices substituted for those ubliiihed in the Iondon Gazette of 15th and 2531 Feb :
Bnsrorl, REGINALD Jossrii, Acton, Financial Agent Brentford Pet Dec 20 OrdFeb11
Rec, 7, e , e y
FILE. Eowaiio, Faversham, Kent, Grocer Mar 17 at 12 Off Rec. 73, Castle at, Canterbury
Gaaosna, Hiisiir, Manchester, Furniture Dealer Mar 16 at 3.30 Off Rec, Byrom st, Manchester
Gasxis, Fassx, Burton on '1‘-rent, Grocer Mar 16 at 11.30 Midland Hotel, Station st, Burton on Trent
Guns, Ciiasuis Hoaacs, Leeds, Commission Agent Mar 16 at 11 Off Rec, 22, Park row, Leeds
Hawicz, ‘Hinin-, St Blazey, Cornwall, Fhrmsr Mar 15 at 12 OE Rec, Boscawen st, Truro
Haves, T011 Rowers. Mouton Green, nr Ecclcs, Grocer Mar 18 at 11 16, \Vood st, Bolton
Huosns, WILLIAM, Red Lion st, Holborn, Iottorprcss Printer Mar 15 at 2.30 Bankruptcy bld£,_ Carey st
Josss, Tiiiorur Ricnaiio, Cardiff, Tailor 18 at 11.30
R 29 Q st Cardiff
ADIU DICATION S.
WHAT TO EAT. DRINK, AND AVOID.
Di'st.—Under this bead we will consider what is the best. Every man or woman must be a law unto themselves as to what to eat, drink, and avoid. The saying, “ One man's meat is another man's poison," is very true, and the time of year, and the climatic surroundings have much to ssly in the mnttcr. In the Arctic Regions you can eat and re ish tats or fat mixtures such as would be fatal to you in the tropics. Why do our countrymen sutfcr so much from liver complain; T It is because our insular training in the British Isles has induced a love for roast beet, spirits, and strong beers. and we indulge in these with one result, liver complaint. Were we only rational and adapted our diet to our surroundingilwo would lead healthier, hagpier lives. ‘Were we to n great extent to shun animal foo we would be healthier.
The foregoing observations lead us up to consider why Dr. Tibbles’ Vi-Cocoa acts so beneficially on the liver. Dr. Tibbles’ Vi-Cocoa has in it the four ingredients of a purely vegetable extraction, and while these in combination act most beneficially on the liver, they cannot in any sense of the words be either considered dru-/s or medicines. They are neither more or less than strengthening, nourishing restoratives. They give tine and vigour to every organ of the body, while at the some time they build up the whole constitution in a way that has never been done before. This purely vegetable blend not only stimulates the liver to s proper discharge of its functions, but it build.s up its various tissues to the highest Bitch of efliciency.
Merit, and merit alone, isjw at we claim for Dr. Tihbles' Vi-Cocoa, and we are prepared to send to any reader who names the " Socicrroiis‘ . onn:uli.," a dainty sample tin of Dr. Tibhles' Vi-Cocoa tree and pod} paid. Therc is no magic inall this. It is a plain, honest, straightforward offer. It isdone to introduce the merits of Vi-Cocoa into every home. Dr. 'l'ibblei<' Vi-Cocoa as 8 concentrated form of nourishment and vitality is invaluable; nay, more than this; for to all who Wish toface the strife and battle of life with greater endurance and more sustained exertion, it is absolutely indispensable.
Dr. Tibblcs’Vi-Cocoii can be obtained from all cheniists, grocers, and stores, or from Dr. Tibbles’ Vi-Cocoa, Limited, 60, 61, and 62. llunhill-row, London, E.C.
SPATRIA AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE
(viii Carlisle), situated in one of the finest _Stockraising districts of the country. _Practioal and scientidc instruction. Success in Examinationa_ot‘ Surveyors Institution. Preparation for colonies. Six farms, creiimery
IDALRYMPLE HOME, RICKMANSWORTH, BEETS.
For Gentlemen, under the Act and privately.
For Terms, &c., apply to
R. WELSH BRANTHWAITE,
COLD J EWELLERY
With 1 drawer. + With Idnirers $ With 2 drawers and shelf. These are 5 to 6 inches less nside
measurement. best lever look, duplicatekeys Fitted with Chubb‘s Look, 7s. Gd. each extra. Wrought iron and steel Fire and Burglar Resisting,dUnpickahlc, \Vulgeproof Book, Cash, and Jewellery e.
2 in. Fire resistiu-r chambers,
IN BALLOT BOXES
SPECIAL LINES REGISTERED FOLDING vormo scnEE'.‘5- d All kinds of Boxes made and Strong Booms Fl"/9
cry, K. QB . on Solicitors, Accountants, &c.
Mastennan. Henry Chauncy. Esq. Mathew, The Hon. Mr. Justice. Meek, A. Grant, Esq. (Devizes).
Mills, Richard, Esq.
Morrell, Frederic P., Esq. (Oxford).
Rowcli e, Edward Lee, Esq.
Williams, William, Esq.
Coal and Coke Co. (Lixn.) ............. .. 345 l
THE suoossrron put forward a fortnight ago in these columns, that a. committee should be appointed by the Incorporated Law Society to watch the progress of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, in its application to London, has, we have reason to believe, met with strong approval, not merely in London, but also elsewhere. Country solicitors, who know that it the experiment in London succeeds, they will come under the barrow, are naturally anxious to learn from an authoritative and independent source what are the practical results of the working of the system, both as regards the public and the profession. They feel that unless an active London committee is appointed with the specific object of collecting and circulating information on the subject, they will be unable, in case the question of the adoption oi the Act comes before their own local authority, to adduce any evidence or form any accurate opinion as to the results of the experiment in London. To London solicitors the existence of such a body will be of the greatest value, in furnishing them both with information as to the practical procedure to be adopted, and with suggestions as to the best mode of meeting the various difficulties which are likely to arise from time to time. We do not think that the Incorporated Law Society are likely to let slip so obvious a. means of proving to the profession at large the value of a central law society.
THE nnmcrros by the House of Commons of Mr. P1c1msson.r.’s
Criminal Appeal Bill does no more than reserve the discussion of the proposed change till next year ; though, after the acceptance of last year’s Bill, it would have been more useful to have given the measure a second reading and to have left it to be dealt with in Committee. The project has been too long before the public and has met with too much favour for there to be any chance of its being abandoned. The real question at issue is whether the Court of Criminal Appeal shall have only the right of revising sentences (except in capitzil cases), or shall have power to order a_ new trial. The Council of Judges, by their resolution of 1892, advised that the court should be one primarily for the revision of sentences, but with the power of quashing or diminishing sentences on reference from the Home Secretary. There was to be no power, however, to order a new
trial. It was upon the lines of this recommendation that Mr. P1c1rnason.r.’s Bill of last year was drafted. The present Bill went further, and proposed to give a right, un er _certa1n conditions, to apply for a new trial, so that the final issue of the matter would be left to a jury. It is probable that this enlargement of the scope of the measure has led to its rejection. The Home Office does not hear matters in public, and its decisions have no efiect in securing uniformity of sentences. The want of such uniformity is one of the defects in the admin
Tun DECISION of ROMER, J., in Ru Woods and Lewis's Contract (reported mzla, p. 325) is a noteworthy addition to the collection of cases in which the provision as to payment of interest during delay in completion of a purchase of land has been construed strongly against the purchaser; as to which see the summary in 2 Dart, 6th ed., p. 724. On examination of the title offered to the purchaser, a defect was discovered in the conveyance to the vendor, which purported to be made under the authority of an insurance company’s Act of Parliament, the power in this behalf conferred by the Act not having been duly pursued. A deed of confirmation was required by the purc aser, and eventually obtained by the vendor, and though the purchase was not completed until nearly three months after the date fixed by the contract, the court found that there was no undue delay on the part of the vendor in complying with this requisition. There was an interest clause in the contract extending to delay from any cause whatever other than the “ default of the vendor." The defect was not actually known to the vendor at the date of the contract, and the learned judge refused to hold that ignorance of such a defect amounted to a “default” on his part, and therefore decided that the purchaser must pay interest from the date named in the contract until completion. His lordship observed: “The imputation of default in this case to the vendor can only be justified by holding that . . . it is reasonable to assume, for the purpose of the clause as to interest, that the vendor is bound, or must be taken to know, every possible defect of his title. . . . It does not appear to me to be reasonable to impute to him knowledge of all possible defects of title for the purpose of such a clause.” It may be questioned whether the present doctrine is not unduly favourable to vendors. The time fixed for completion is presumably fixed with regard to what the vendor believes to be reasonable, having regard to the state of this title to be investigated, and the purchaser would seldom be in a position to correct, and is therefore generally obliged to accept, the vendor’s estimate of what is a reasonable time to allow. It seems open to criticism that a clause intended as a protection against loss to the vendor from the purchaser’s unduly protracting his investigation of title, should be construed so as to protect the vendor against the consequences of delay in com letion caused by his own ignorance or mistake, however excusable. The argument for the purchaser in Slrerwin v. Skakeapcar that “ the contract proceeds on the hypothesis of the vendor performing his part of the contract” may be too wide, but the observations of Tunnnn, L.J. (5 De G. M. & G., at p. 535), shew that he did not consider it altogether inapplicable to the circumstances of these cases on the application of the interest clause.
the requirements of clause 28 of the Bill, without at the same time disclosing business secrets, but a statement of accounts which is made purposely vague is apt at the same time to be useless. The case might be met by distinguishing between public and private companies, but hitherto no one has suggested a satisfactory method of attaining this result. For the rest Mr. Sn\'cL.ua bore testimony to the utility of the Companies Acts in Belfast. The fraudulent use of the Acts, he said, is there unknown, and they are used exclusively for legitimate business purposes. Mr. PALmsn’s criticisms of the Bill were given more 111 detail. He objected to the provision of clause 6, under which a company is not to commence business or exercise any borrowing powers until certain conditions as to the allotment of and payment for shares have been complied with. It would, indeed, as he pointed out, be impossible for a company to raise money on debentures in the ordinary way simultaneously with the flotation of the company. This criticism does not interfere with clause 3, under which the directors are not allowed to go to allotment until a prescribed minimum amount of capital has been subscribed. Clause 7, dealin with the returns of allotments to the registrar, is intended to take the place of the unfortunate section 25 of the Companies Act, 1867, but it repeats the diflicultyas to the meaning of the expression “paid in cash,” to which the Lord Chancellor has on several occasions drawn attention (Ra Jolumnesburg Hotel Co., 39 W. R. 260; l89l, 1 Ch. 129; Ooragum v. Roper, 41 W. R. 90; 1892, A. C. 125), and which, apparently, he still looks forward to considering in the House of Lords. But if a mutual set-off is not to be treated as a payment in cash, the present Bill ought to provide so expressly. Other matters dealt with by Mr. Pammn, whose evidence was not concluded, were underwriting commissions and the liability of directors. To abolish underwriting is recognized as impracticable, buta limitation to a five per cent. rate was suggested. The suggestion was met with the obvious criticism that it is impossible in such a matter to apply a uniform rule to all companies. All initial expenses form a deduction from the capital of the company, and to that extent are analogous to the issue of shares at a discount; but expenses must be incurred, and analogies are not to be pressed too far. On the proposed explicit enactment of the liabilities of a director, Mr. PALMER repeated the current opinion that it does not alter the law, though it may frighten desirable men—0r, as Lord Faaasa shortly put the point, “it means, so far as directors are concerned, ‘ Beware I ’ ”
A REMARKABLE difference of judicial opinion as to the applicability of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, to glasshouses erected upon market gardens has been manifested throughout the proceedings in Smillz v. Richnzonrl (reported elsewhere). The Act, by section 1, limits the liability of the occupier of “agricultural land" to the payment of one-half only of the rate in the pound payable in respect of buildings and other hereditaments. The definition clause (section 9) defines “agricultural land” to mean “any land used as arable, meadow, or pasture ground only, cottage gardens exceeding one-quarter of an acre, market gardens, nursery grounds, orchards, or allotments." The property in the present case consisted of four acres of land used by a market gardener for his business, on about half of which had been erected glasshouses of various sizes for growing tomatoes, cucumbers, and grapes: these were all built upon dwarf brick walls. The overseers of the parish returned the whole of the property as agricultural land. The assessment committee corrected this return by striking out the glasshouses from the heading “agricultural land,” and treating them as buildings, and thus rateable to the full amount. Th6 quarter sessions restored the entries of the overseers, but stated a case for the High Court. On the hearing of the case (77 L. T. 161) Conuns, J. (as he then was), agreed with the view taken by the quarter sessions, butR11>r.1=.Y, J ., dissented, holding that the glasshouses were rateable as buildings. This latter view has been upheld by a majority of the Court of Appeal (L1m>LaY, M.R., and RIGBY, L.J., Vavon.-uv WILLKAMB, L3-» dissenting). The definition of “land” in Acts of 1’ar\iM!l°“" as including buildings, given in the Interpretation Act, 1339: was invoked by the respondents. That definition, however» only applies where no contrary intention appears in the parti
cular Act in which the word occurs. In the Agricultural Rates Act “land” and “buildings” are so clearly contrasted, both in section 1 (to which we have alluded), and in other parts of the Act, that it does not seem possible to apply the definition of land in the general Interpretation Act of 1889 without doing violence to the sense of the Agricultural Rates Act. A stronger argument in favour of the exemption of the glasshouses was found in the case of Purser v. TVorflu'n_q Local Board (18 Q. B. D. 818), in which it was held that land on which glasshouses stood was a market garden or nursery ground within the meaning of section 211 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and was therefore liable to the reduced assessment provided for by that section. This decision influenced Vanonsrv Wrnnrsirs, L.J., as also did the decision in London and North- Western Railway Co. v. Llandudno Improvement Commissioners (1897, 1 Q. B. 287), in which land was held to be rateable as a railway although it was covered by the platform and roof of a railway station. But these cases were decided upon other Acts containing no such marked distinction between land and buildings as that which runs through the Agricultural Rates Act. The point, however, is a nice one, and it is probable that the last has not been heard of a case in which the opinions of Conuus and Vanornm Wrnnrsms, L.J.T., have been overruled.
In ms little book, “Prisoners on Oath,” noticed in your journal a few weeks ago (says a correspondent), Sir HERBERT Smrnsu makes the startling assertion that upon the Northern Circuit three or four innocent persons are, on the average, convicted every year, lvecause they have given evidence on tlleir own behalf. This statement is made as positively as if it were capable of actual proof, and it must strike anyone reading it as an extremely bold assertion. The Lord Chancellor, a few days ago, in moving the second reading of the Criminal Evidence Bill, commented upon it, and declared that nothing could be discovered which in any way supported it, although inquiry had been made by the Home Office. This inquiry is naturally not conclusive in the eyes of the author of the book; but the fact remains, as far as can be gathered, that his assertion is not capable of any sort of corroboration. All that it comes to is: that this gentleman, sitting in court in the course of his oflicial duties, has listened to a large number of cases being tried, and has taken particular interest in those in which the accused person has given evidence. In a few of these cases his opinion as to the guilt of the prisoner did not agree with that of the jury or of the judge. In his book the author mentions the names of several practising barristers who agree with him, and whose opinions are well worthy of consideration; but all opinions based on the assumption that innocent persons are often convicted of ofiences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, because they give evidence on their own behalf, are based on what is mere guess-work. How often has it happened that any such person has been proved to have been innocent? Against such opinions there is the broad principle stated by the Lord Chancellor, that it is impossible to imagine an innocent, man charged with a crime who would not be most anxious to meet his accuser and to tell his own story upon oath; and the strong opinion of Lord Hnsscnnm. that it is not right to deprive such a person of the opportunity of telling his story in the only way it will have weight, because some prisoners would benefit by such a proceeding. One argument was put forward by the Lord Chancellor which has not been made much of hitherto; that is, that numbers of persons are convicted of small offences in the police-courts every day on the uncorroborated evidence of one constable. The accused certainly may make a statement, but in most cases he cannot give evidence on oath, and an unsworn statement is very properly not considered of much value. This puts too much power in the hands of the police, who, excellently as they do their duty as a rule, are almost necessarily biassed to some extent in favour of getting a conviction when they make an accusation.
Tm: Vsccrmrron BILL brought in by Mr. Crmrnm ought, if
it becomes law, to remove the greater part of the popular, Objection to the operation. The vast majority of persons ofl
education are firmly convinced that compulsory vaccination is necessary, but there is undoubtedly an enormous amount of hostility throughout the country to the law as it now is, and few will deny that there is some ground for this hostility. The Bill provides that a supply of pure calf lymph shall be placed, at the public expense, within the reach of everyone, and that no parent shall be required to submit his child to vaccination except with calf lymph. As discoveries have lately been made which enable lymph to be obtained of the utmost purity, these provisions ought to meet all the objections to vaccination on the groimd that it communicates disease. As the law at present stands, a parent must submit to his child being vaccinated with lymph taken from the arm of another child, and the parent of this second child must allow the lymph to be so taken. This, no doubt, saves expense, but it is probably at the bottom of the whole agitation against vaccination, and is obviously a very objectionable arrangement. It is further proposed to put an end to the system by which a parent is required to take the child to the public vaccinator, and to enact that that oflicer shall visit the child and perform the operation at the child’s home. This will be a great boon to the poor woman who has no one to help in her domestic affairs, and ought to remove another cause of friction. The Royal Commission on the vaccination laws recommended that no proceedings should be taken against any parent for refusing to have his child vaccinated if he made a statutory declaration that he had a conscientious objection to the operation. We are glad that the Government have refused to accept this recommendation. If it were accepted, vaccination could never be enforced ; for a conscientious objection to vaccination would probably be found in almost all those persons who conscientiously object to being fined in a police-court. Some concession, however, is to be made to the conscientious objectors. As the law stands at present, the parent who refuses to have his child vaccinated may have order after order made against him, requiring him to have the child vaccinated, as long as the child is under fourteen years of age, and may be fined for disobedience to each order. It is now proposed to relieve the parent from repeated penalties in res ect of the same child. As the maximum penalty will probably be no very large sum, it remains to be seen whether this is not leaving the door very wide open for escape from the necessity of obeying the law. On the whole, however, it seems not unlikely that the proposed change in the law will put an end to the state of things under which a town like Leicester, of 200,000 persons, can defy the law with impunity.
Tns ART of buying and selling is one with which the law interferes as little as possible, and this prudent policy is tersely summed up in the maxim caveat emptor, a maxim which in spirit applies to each party to the bargain, and protects as much the buyer who has bought some precious relic for an old song as the vender who has successfully got an unsound horse off his hands. But the vendor or purchaser who relies for his profit upon his own knowledge and the ignorance of the other side must be careful that he has himself done nothing to contribute to that ignorance. The purchaser, it has been said, is entitled to use his own knowledge, and is not bound to give the vendor information of the value of his property. He may buy an estate with a valuable mine under it from a vendor who is ignorant of the existence of the mine without breathing a word of what he knows (see Turner v. Harvey, J ac. p. l78). But he is only safe so long as he preserves s. strictly passive attitude, and so soon as he does anything by which he misleads the vendor he oversteps the limit and is liable to have his purchase set aside. Since a purchaser is under no antecedent obligation to communicate to his vendor facts which may influence his own judgment, his mere silence docs not imply any deceit, even though he is aware of circumstances of vital importance of which the vendor is ignorant. Each party to the transaction makes his own inquiries and is guided in his decision by what he himself discovers. But the case is completely altered so soon as one party abandons this attitude and takes upon himself to offer information which will influence the other side. He must then be careful that what he says is true, and that he does not create a mistaken impression by the omission of any part of the truth