Page images
PDF
EPUB

interest in the Easington and Undersea royalties, and in addition I agree
to indemnify you and the company against all claims and liabilities under
the Pespool lease, taking an assignment of the same as from May, 1896,
and repaying the £1,000 already paid by the Messrs. Lamb." The tender
by the plaintiffs' agents was, "Referring to previous negotiations, we, on
behalf of the South Hetton Co., offer for these royalties such a sum as
will exceed by £200 the amount to-day offered for them by the other
intending purchaser, coupled with a transfer of the Pespool lease, if the
other offer be on that footing." The liquidator accepted Mr. Barwick's
offer. The plaintiff company thereupon brought this action on the ground
that they had made the highest money tender, and claimed specific per-
formance of their alleged contract, an injunction to restrain the comple-
tion of the contract with Mr. Barwick, and damages. North, J., on
motion by the two defendants to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of
claim on the ground that it shewed no reasonable cause of action, came
to the conclusion that the plaintiffs' offer, even if it could be considered
a valid tender, did not fulfil the condition, "all other things being equal
and satisfactory," and accordingly struck out the statement of claim and
dismissed the action. The plaintiff company appealed.
THE COURT (LINDLEY, M.R., and RIGBY and VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, L.JJ.)
dismissed the appeal.

to read the words "partly of agricultural land and partly of buildings,'
to mean partly of agricultural land uncovered with buildings, and partly
of agricultural land covered by buildings, but this would be a somewhat
violent construction, and in my opinion cannot be accepted as the true
construction. Nor can I bring myself to think that if, apart from section
5, the definition of agricultural land, or of market-garden, ought to be
construed as including the buildings erected on the land for the cultiva-
tion of it, one provision of section 5, which can be construed consistently
with such construction, ought to make one reject it. Moreover, I do not
think that to read clause (c) of section 5 as applying only to hereditaments
not part and parcel of the agricultural land leads to any results incon-
sistent with the apparent intention of the Legislature, for, supposing some
building to have been erected which, in addition to its use in assisting
the cultivation of the agricultural land, would serve another purpose-e.g.,
which would serve as a residence for the farmer and his family, I do not
think that there is anything in the cases which would necessitate or
justify holding such a building to be part and parcel of the agricultural
land, although it would clearly be part of the hereditament consisting
partly of agricultural land and partly of buildings. It would, however,
be, according to the general law of rating, a single hereditament, because
occupied under one occupation by the same person or persons.
On
the other hand, a hay-barn in a meadow, or a cowshed, would be
part and parcel of the agricultural land as serving for the cultiva-
tion thereof and nothing else. I understand the decision in the
Llandudno case (ubi supra) to have been based on this principle. It is more
reasonable to suppose that the Legislature intended such a result than to
put a construction on the Act which necessitates treating a hay-barn or a
Cowshed as a rateable hereditament separate from the agricultural land.
I think, therefore, that the conclusion of Collins, L.J., is right, and that
section 5, clause (c), only applies to buildings outside the definition of
agricultural land, and gives a qualified exemption to such buildings when
used only for the cultivation of land, and that there is nothing in this
section to prevent the definition of agricultural land being read in accord-
ance with previous decisions. Section 6 only deals with returns to the
Local Government Board, and seems to me to follow exactly the lines of
section 5 and clause (c), and throws no further light on the construction of
the definition clause. The only remaining section which throws any
light on the matter is the 9th, which contains the definition. I have
already dealt generally with the words of the definition and the judicial
decisions thereon, so far as the old precedent has been followed, but some
index to the meaning of the Legislature is to be gathered from the words
of the definition itself, both those which appear in the old form and those
which are supplementary to it. First, there is the word "only," which
qualifies "arable, meadow, and pasture ground." If you treat the word
only" as intended to exclude buildings on such land from agricultural
land as defined, and from the benefit of the exemption, then it would
seem to follow that in the case of market-gardens, &c., buildings will not
be excluded. But I do not think that the word "only" affects the
question of the inclusion or exclusion of buildings from the definition.
*Only" is meant to cover and exclude that class of cases in which the
land, although used as arable, meadow, or pasture ground, might be used
for some other ultimate purpose, and does not, in my judgment, cover the
use of arable, meadow, or pasture ground, as the stables in which horses
or cows shall stand, or a hay-barn in which the hay shall be stored; such
user being merely a means to the user of the arable, meadow, or pasture
ground as such. As to the words "but does not include land occupied
together with a house as a park, gardens, other than as aforesaid," I
think "other than as aforesaid" means other than market-gardens and
cottage-gardens, and it might be argued that the definition of agricultural
land does not include land occupied together with a house as cottage-negotiations.”
gardens or market-gardens. If this is so it is difficult to suppose that the
Act meant land occupied together with a house as arable, meadow, or
pasture ground not to fall within the definition of agricultural land. The
conclusion at which I have arrived on the question raised by the case is
that such land does come within the exemption, because these builings
are part and parcel of the market-garden, which by the terms of the
definition is agricultural land, and are buildings used for the purpose of
cultivation of the agricultural land and for no other purpose. I think
judgment should be for the respondents, and that the appeal should be
dismissed. COUNSEL, Sir Richard Webster, A.G., S. H. Day, and
Trevor; Joseph Walton, Q.C., and Clavell Salter. SOLICITORS, Solicitor of
Inland Revenue; Ravenscroft, Woodward, & Hills, for Melvill Green &
Charles, Worthing.

[blocks in formation]

This was an appeal by the plaintiff company from a decision of North, J. (reported ante, p. 233). The action was brought for specific performance of an alleged contract by the defendant company (which was in liquidation) by its liquidator, Mr. Holmes, for the sale of the Easington and Undersea royalties. The defendant company was also lessee of the Pespool royalties. The defendants were the company, the liquidator, and Mr. Barwick, a rival purchaser. The liquidator was in negotiation both with the plaintiff company and Mr. Barwick, and proposed that sealed tenders should be sent in to be opened in the presence of the chairman and directors of the defendant company; his letter concluded: "And the highest net tender I receive (all other things being equal and satisfactory), that tender I will at once accept.' "Mr. Barwick's tender was as follows: "I hereby offer you the sum of £31,000 for the company's

LINDLEY, M.R.-If this is looked at as a suit for specific performance, I confess I am startled; it is grotesque; merely as an action for damages there is more in it. Both the plaintiff company and Mr. Barwick wanted to get the property and made offers for it. Mr. Barwick made a further offer to Mr. Holmes, the liquidator, and the liquidator asked for sealed tenders for the purchase of the Easington and Undersea royalties. Assume that he would accept the highest money tender in accordance with his letter: "And the highest net money tender I receive (all other things being equal and satisfactory), that tender I will at once accept," I do not gather that it was any part of the bargain that anybody else should tender. Barwick sent in a tender in the following words. [His lordship read the letters both of Mr. Barwick and of the plaintiff company, and continued :] I have not the slightest doubt that if the liquidator chose to accept the offer of the plaintiffs it was open to him to do so, and the plaintiffs would have been bound by it. But we have to consider whether he was bound to accept it; does it fairly answer the description of the liquidator, the "highest net money tender"? Whether it was a tender at all depends upon whether there was any other tender at all. The plaintiff's offer was illusory, and did not answer the conditions stated when tenders were asked for. It was not the "highest money tender" either in a business sense or in a legal sense. I confess that to my mind if we upheld the plaintiffs' contention we should be encouraging trickery and establish a very bad precedent. We should be opening the door to the grossest fraud both on vendors and on purchasers. Another ground of complaint is that the liquidator was bound to accept the highest net money tender if other things were equal and satisfactory. This letter is, to say the least of it, extremely ambiguous; it may mean, and I am not sure that it does not mean, an offer of £200 more than any other tender coupled with a transfer of the Pespool lease as from the day of transfer, and not from May, 1896. Further, I am not sure that the previous negotiations can be brought in. The result is that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

RIGBY, L.J.-I am of the same opinion. It is reasonably clear that the plaintiff company were not renewing their offer; but they intended to get rid of their offer to take a transfer of the Pespool lease if their competitor did not also offer to take a transfer. It is impossible to say, in the face of those ambiguous words, that they meant to say, "If anything is said about it, we will take a transfer as from the day previously mentioned in our

VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, LJ.-I agree, and have nothing to add. Appeal dismissed.-COUNSEL, Swinfen Eady, Q.C., and O. Leigh Clare; CorensHardy, Q.C., Vernon Smith, Q.C., and Micklem; Younger. SOLICITORS, Crossman, Prichard, Crossman, & Block, for Dees & Thompson, Newcastle-onTyne; Botterell & Roche; E. Flux & Leadbitter, for Ryott & Swan, Newcastle-or-Tyne.

[Reported by W. SHALLCROSS GODDARD, Barrister-at-Law.]

High Court-Queen's Bench Division.

KNIGHT v. NORTH METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS CO. Bruce, J.
12th March.
MASTER AND SERVANT-PRINCIPAL AND AGENT-RESPONSIBILITY OF TRAMWAY
COMPANY FOR ACTS OF CONDUCTOR.

Action for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution tried before Bruce, J., and a jury. The following statement of the facts is taken from the judgment: The plaintiff, who was travelling with his wife on one of the defendant company's trams, tendered a sixpenny piece to the conductor in payment of the fare for himself and his wife; he received in exchange two tickets and 4d. change. Shortly after, the conductor alleged that the sixpenny piece was a counterfeit, and he asked the plaintiff for another. The plaintiff said, "The sixpenny piece is a good one," and refused to give the conductor another. Shortly after the tram arrived at the place where the plaintiff's journey ended, and the plaintiff and his wife got out. There was a police-constable at the spot, and the conductor gave the plaintiff in charge for passing a counterfeit coin. A person wearing the uniform of the defendant company, who was identified by the police-constable as an inspector of the company, came up at that time. The conductor spoke to him, and the inspector said to the conductor, "Give me your badge and satchel, and take him down to the station and charge him." The plaintiff was then taken to the nearest

police-station by the constable, accompanied by the conductor, and the inspector took the place of the conductor on the tram. At the police station the conductor signed the charge-sheet. The plaintiff was admitted to bail about 2 a.m. on the 8th of April. The plaintiff appeared in court to answer to the charge the same day, and, after the conductor and the constable had given evidence, the magistrate dismissed the case. In point of fact the sixpenny piece was genuine. During the hearing at the police-court an inspector of the company-not the inspector who was present when the plaintiff was given into custody-was present, but took no part in the proceedings. The jury found that the conductor had the authority of the defendants to act as he did, aud that the defendants ratified his acts, and they found a verdict for the plaintiff. On these findings judgment was reserved.

BRUCE, J., in the course of a considered judgment, said: I have felt considerable doubt about this case, and after consideration I have come to the conclusion that I should enter judgment for the defendants. I did not think it right to stop the case at the time, because I thought it better that any facts that either party wished to be submitted to the jury should be found by them, and that the jury should assess the damages, so that in any case the expense of a new trial might be avoided. The only questions that I was asked to submit to the jury beyond the amount of damages, related to the authority of the conductor to act on behalf of the defendant company in the manner in which he acted, and to the question whether the defendant company ratified his acts. Both these questions the jury answered in favour of the plaintiff, so that the question now to be considered is whether there was any evidence to shew that the conductor acted within the scope of his authority express or implied, or to shew that the defendant company ratified his proceedings. The first question that arises is whether there is any evidence that the conductor was acting within the scope of his authority as the defendants' servant. It was not suggested that he had any express authority to give into custody persons who might be suspected of passing counterfeit money. This case does not resemble the numerous class of cases, of which Goff v. Great Northern Railway Co. (3 E. & E. 672) is an example, in which persons have been given into custody by the officials of railway companies for travelling on a railway without having paid the fare and with intent to defraud. In those cases power is given by statute, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, ss. 103 and 104, to all officers and servants on behalf of the company to apprehend such persons. In cases of that class it has been held that where some servant of the company has authority to do a particular act, which, if done at all, must be done immediately, a servant on the spot, in the absence of any superior servant to whom he can refer, may be considered as clothed with implied authority to act on the emergency. In the present case there is nothing to shew that any officer of the company had under any circumstances authority from the company to give passengers into custody for passing counterfeit coin. The case of Charleston v. The London Tramways Co. (Limited) (4 T. L. R. 629) seems to be conclusive on this point. Had the charge against the plaintiff been that he had attempted to avoid payment of his fare or any charge of a like nature within the 51st section of the Tramways Act, 1870, a very different question would have arisen, and the case would then have come within the principle of Goff v. The Great Northern Railway: see also Rayson v. South London Tramways Co. (1893, 2 Q. B. 304). The ground upon which counsel for the plaintiff contended that the conductor had implied authority was founded upon the direction of Blackburn, J., in Allen v. London and South-Western Railway Co. (L. R. 6 Q. B. 65). That learned judge stated that a servant who had the charge and custody of his master's property may be fairly said to have implied authority to do all acts which are necessary for the protection of the property intrusted to him. He adds; "I am inclined to think that if a man in charge of a till were to find that a person was attempting to rob it, and he could not prevent him from stealing the property otherwise than by taking him into custody, the person in charge of the till might have an implied authority to arrest the offender; or if the clerk had reason to believe that the money had been actually stolen and he could get it back by taking the thief into custody, and he took him into custody with a view of recovering the property taken away, it might be that that also might be within the authority of a person in charge of a till. I am not, however, prepared to pronounce a decided opinion on these supposed cases." The learned judge does not pronounce a decided opinion. It is possible that if the matter ever comes up for decision it may be found that it is not enough to confer authority upon the servant to arrest that he should believe that his master's property is in danger. It may be found that it is necessary that the property should be actually in danger: see Edwards v. The London and North-Western Railway Co. (L. R. 5 C. P. 445). But I do not need to consider this distinction for the purposes of this case. I take the words of Blackburn, J., in the fullest sense, and it does not appear to me that there is evidence to bring the present case within the lines laid down by him. I cannot see that the acts of the conductor can be said to have been done with the view of recovering the property of the company, or that there was any evidence from which the jury could properly infer that the acts were done with any such view. That the acts were done by the conductor to make an example of the plaintiff, and in that sense indirectly to protect the company's property, I do not doubt, but to admit such a state of things as affording any evidence of an implied authority on the part of a servant to give a person into custody would be to go far beyond the principles laid down. It would be to affirm the principle that every servant who is intrusted with the property of his master has an implied authority to put the law in motion with reference to any offence that may be committed with reference to the property. As to the second question, whether there had been any ratification on behalf of the company, there is evidence that the inspector who was on the spot when the plaintiff was given into custody ratified

the act of the conductor. But there is no evidence that the inspector had any authority to act on behalf of the company in sanctioning the act of the conductor. There is no evidence of express authority, and the case a3 to his implied authority is not so strong as that as to the implied authority of the conductor. It is said that the fact that the conductor appeared at the police-court is evidence that the company must have given him leave of absence, but there is nothing to shew that he obtained leave from auy officer with authority to sanction the prosecution. It must constantly happen that the conductors obtain leave of absence, but it would be going beyond reasonable inference to assume that an officer who had authority to graut leave of absence had authority to sauction a prosecution. An inspector of the company was present at the policecourt, but took no part in the proceedings. I do not think his presence was a ratification by him of the proceedings, but, even if it were, there is no evidence that his presence was by the authority of an officer who had the authority of the company to ratify the proceedings. There must, therefore, be judgment for the defendants.-COUNSEL, Ruegg, Q.C., and Norman Craig; Kemp, Q.C., C. W. Mathews, and F. Richardson. SOLICITORS, C. V. Young & Windsor; H. C. Godfrey.

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

REG. v. COCKSHOTT AND OTHERS. Ex parte RICKERBY. Div. Court.
3rd March.
JUSTICES-PETTY SESSIONS-RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY-SUMMARY JURISDIC.
TION ACT, 1879 (42 & 43 VICT. c. 49), s. 17 (2).

The pun

The summons came

In this case the justices of the borough of Southport shewed cause against a rule for a certiorari to bring up a conviction to be quashed. Rickerby was summoned under section 3 of the Betting-Houses Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 119), for keeping a shop as a betting-house. ishment for that offence is a fine not exceeding £100, and in default of payment of the fine or in the first instance, if the justices should think fit, imprisonment with hard labour for six months. on for hearing on the 5th of November. At the instance of defendants' counsel it was adjourned till the 6th of November. When the case came on the town clerk stated the charge against the defendant and was about tɔ ask him whether he desired to be tried by a jury in accordance with section 17 (2) of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 49), but at that moment, as was clear to everyone in court, negotiations were going on between the prosecutor and the defendant's solicitor, and the town clerk abstained from asking the question. The defendant's solicitor then stated that his client would plead guilty but he desired nevertheless that the case should be opened fully. The facts were then stated fully by the prosecuting solicitor, after which the defendant's solicitor said that the case was overwhelming, and he had advised his client to plead guilty. The justices imposed a fine of £50 and costs. Neither the defendant nor his solicitor were aware that he was entitled to be tried by a jury. Section 17 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, provides that a person charged before a court of summary jurisdiction with an offence in respect of the commission of which the offender is liable, on summary conviction, to be imprisoned with hard labour for a term exceeding three months, may, before the charge is gone into, claim to be tried by a jury. Subsection 2 is as follows: "A court of summary jurisdiction, before the charge is gone into in respect of an offence to which this section applies, for the purpose of informing the defendant of his right to be tried by a jury in pursuance of this section, shall address him to the following effect: You are charged with an offence in respect of the commission of which you are entitled, if you desire it, instead of being dealt with summarily, to be tried by a jury; do you desire to be tried by a jury.'" The defendant obtained the rule nisi on the ground that the caution required by section 17 had not been given to the defendant, and that it did not appear upon the conviction that the caution had been given. On behalf of the justices it was contended that the defendant was only entitled to receive the caution after a plea of "not guilty," but that here the defendant had announced his intention of pleading guilty.

THE COURT (WRIGHT and DARLING, JJ.) made the rule absolute. They said that since the offence was not an indictable one it was not necessary in the conviction to state that the caution had been given, but it was essential that the caution should in fact be given before the charge was gone into. Unless the defendant had the knowledge of his rights before the charge was gone into the privilege given to him was of no use to him. It was intended by the Legislature that the defendant should be aware of his option to be tried by a jury before anything was done. The caution ought to be given before the defendant pleaded. Protection was even more necessary at that stage than later; for it might happen that the defendant, having no confidence in the bench, pleaded guilty in the hopes of thereby securing a lighter sentence, and yet if he had known that he had the right to be tried by a jury he would have availed himself of it. There could be no waiver of the right to be cautioned, as was suggested by counsel, because there was no knowledge of it. It was doubtful whether there could be any waiver at all.-COUNSEL, Danckwerts; Randolph. SOLICITORS, Rowcliffes, Rawle, & Co.; Pritchard, Englefield, & Co., for Brighouse, Brighouse, & Jones, Southport.

[Reported by C. G. WILBRAHAM, Barrister-at-Law.]

[blocks in formation]

ment by the bankrupt to his wife was void against the trustee as a fraudulent preference. The respondent was not represented by counsel. Counsel for the trustee, having proved the insolvency of the debtor at the date of the payment, submitted that the onus of proof there shifted to the respondent, and that it was for her to prove that the payment was not made with a view to prefer. He cited the dictum of Vaughan Williams, J., in Re Eaton, Ex parte Viney (1897, 2 Q. B. 16, 45 W. R. Dig. 12). WRIGHT, J., held that the onus of proving the payment to have been made with a view to prefer was still upon the trustee. The dictum cited was only an isolated dictum, and was inconsistent with the judgment of Cotton, L.J., in Ex parte Lancaster, Re Marden (32 W. R. 483, 25 Ch. D. 311), where he held that it was for the trustee to make out that what was done by the debtor was done with a view of giving a preference.COUNSEL, 4. Read. SOLICITORS, Plunkett & Leader.

[Reported by P. M. FRANCKE, Barrister-at-Law.]

LAW SOCIETIES.

SCLICITORS' MANAGING CLERKS' ASSOCIATION.

ANNUAL DINNER.

The fifth annual festival of the Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association was held at the Holborn Restaurant on Thursday, the 10th inst., the chair being taken by the President, Mr. MAURICE KELLEHER. Among those present were Lord Justice Vaughan Williams, Master T. H. Fischer, Q.O., Mr. F. O. Crump, Q.C., Mr. T. W. Wheeler, Q.C., Mr. J. G. Witt, Q.C., Mr. J. M. Astbury, Q.C., Dr. J. A. Rentoul, Q.C., M.P., Mr. W. H. Upjohn, Q.C., Mr. Bargrave Deane, Q.C., Sir Granvill Temple, Mr. C. Ashworth James, Mr. D. Stewart-Smith, Mr. J. Austen-Cartmell, Mr. T. R. Haslam, Mr. Rowland Beevor, and Mr. H. W. Lawrence. After the loyal toasts,

Lord Justice VAUGHAN WILLIAMS proposed the health of "The Association." It was a great pleasure to him to propose the toast and to do anything he could to honour the law. He was quite sure that they all took a pride in the administration of the English law, which was not only the admiration of the country but of the whole civilized world. He did not believe that any number of well-devised statutes or skilfully-worded announcements of the eternal principles of justice of which some of our neighbours were so fond of talking would have achieved the results which had been achieved by the English law if it had not been for the esprit de corps, and the great body of tradition which existed among every section of the profession. The objects of the association, as appeared by the rules, were to advance the assistance of solicitors' managing clerks by the interchange of opinions upon questions of importance to the legal profession, and to promote their union socially and professionally by lectures, discussions, and otherwise as the council might deem expedient. In any profession that had to deal with the confidential sort of interests with which lawyers had to deal, it was perfectly impossible for it to carry on its duty to society unless its members felt that they might safely confide in each other's honour. He believed it was the existence of such associations as this which enabled the profession to maintain the esprit de corps and body of tradition which was really essential if its members were to have confidence in each other, and it was to be found in every branch of the profession. He regretted that at the present moment there was not an association of judges to carry out among the judges the sort of object which was stated in the rules of the association. But although that was the case it had been recognized in times past that there was a place amongst judges for such an association, so far as the common law judges were concerned, although it was an accident of history that each judge had to be a member of Serjeants' inn previous to his promotion to the bench. But the judges were not content with that association, and they formed, if not in name at all events in practice, an association within that association of Serjeants'-inn. Serjeants'-inn covered in many respects the same objects as did the association in that it was largely used for the promotion of that sort of feeling amongst the serjeants which the asscciation desired to promote amongst managing clerks. And the practice of the common law judges used to be to dine together so many times a year at the Old Hall in Serjeants'-inn, and at these meetings they used to discuss matters that were interesting to them collectively and to interchange opinions upon subjects of importance to the judicial bench. Serjeants'-inn had gone, and he thought the meetings of the judges, so far as they did meet as benchers of the Inns of Court and at the council of judges under the Judicature Act, were very sorry substitutes for such an association as the common law judges used to have. He hoped the time would come when the judges would once a year dine together and exchange opinions upon subjects which were interesting to them. But this desire of association made itself apparent in almost every section of the legal profession. Could it be doubted that to a large extent the Inns of Court performed, and were intended to perform, the Fame sort of services to the bar which the association performed among managing clerks. Bar messes had the same, amongst other, objects. In each of these it was intended to promote that mutual confidence and trust in the honour of each other, and that guidance as to what one should do in difficult cases which the association had in view. The Incorporated Law Society performed for solicitors the functions which the Inns of Court performed for the bar. There were other associations such as that of the county court judges, and in days gone by there was a Club of Special Pleaders. They all set before them the promotion of that sort of bond which should unite the members of the profession together, and he could not imagine any branch of the profession which would derive more

advantage from such an association than the solicitors' managing clerks. The duties of solicitors were most responsible, but it could not be thought that his business would be conducted by the solicitor alone, and when one spoke of the graver responsibilities of solicitors, and of the confidential duties they had to perform, the same proposition was absolutely true of the managing clerks, who, under their principals, had to perform those duties. It was, of course, of the utmost importance in the performing of the duties of a solicitor that the soliciter or his managing clerk should be able to conduct it so that he could feel that he could deal with his This sort of opponent with full confidence in his honour and integrity. mutual trust could not exist unless there was some bond which held together the various gentlemen so engaged, and he regarded the association not only as of great benefit to its members, but as a great benefit to society, because it made it possible for the business of the law to be conducted in such a way as to be a real benefit to those who were engaged in it. There were people who talked of having to have recourse to one's lawyer as if it were a great misfortune. They might just as well speak in the same way of having recourse to their doctor when they were ill. He had the same sort of opinion of a man who had complicated business matters to deal with, and who insisted upon being his own lawyer, as he had of a man who was ill and who looked in the columns of the daily newspaper to see what pill would cure him. He was about as likely to do good to himself in one case as in the other. They did not want quacks in either profession to conduct the business of the citizens of this country. All lawyers liked to see plenty of business about. Did they not see that the judges did not like the litigation of the country to be disposed of elsewhere than in court? And that feeling ran through every section of the profession. It was said that this meant that they wanted people to quarrel. That was an absurd proposition, because people would quarrel whether there were lawyers or whether there were not. People had diseases whether there were doctors or whether there were not. What they wanted was not that there should be more quarrels or more diseases, but that those who wanted relief, those who were ill either in body or estate, should go to the proper quarter, so that what they required to be done should be done in the best way for them. What the whole profession wanted was that the business That should be conducted speedily, honourably, and economically. which was true of the penny stamp and of the carrying of letters was equally true of the law and legal business, and where there was an association of gentlemen like this they would not tolerate among themselves that the expenses of legal business should be unnecessarily increased. It must be recollected that lawyers had all a body of prejudice to fight against to a large extent, although this was, he believed, very much dying out. He believed that whatever section of the profession it might be the uniting of its members together by bonds of this sort promoted confidence in one another, and promoted a good body of tradition, in that way doing a service to the community at large, and to the legal profession, and especially to that section of it to which the members of the association belonged.

The CHAIRMAN responded. He spoke of the flourishing condition of the association both as to membership and funds, though he thought that as there were 800 or 900 managing clerks in London a membership of a third of that number was not so large as it ought to be. The association had a library of some 500 volumes, and during the past few months lectures had been delivered by members of the profession which had been of the greatest value.

Mr. W. BRIGGS, proposed the toast of "The Legal Profession."

Mr. F. O. CRUMP, Q.C., returned thanks. Referring to the observations of Lord Justice Vaughan Williams as to the desire of the judges that litigation should be decided in the courts, he asserted that the bench and the courts were not numerous enough. The citizens did not desire that their disputes should be heard before arbitrators. The profession was of opinion that the bench was not sufficiently numerous, and that the courts and Lord Justice Vaughan Williams would be doing a great service if he were not open in sufficient number to dispose of the accumulation of work, were to urge upon his brother judges to make a representation to the higher authorities with regard to the matter.

Mr. T. R. HASLAM, responding for the solicitor branch of the profession, said he had taken very great interest in the association because he believed that, conducted in the admirable way in which it had been, it was bound to do the very greatest service for those on whose behalf it was instituted. Solicitors who had watched its progress were keenly desirous that the association should go on and prosper, because they believed that the best interests of its members were their's, as their's were the best interests of its members. Indeed, he did not know of any profession or business of which it could be more truly said that co-operation in the fullest sense of the word was so essential an element of success as in the office and practice of the solicitor. On the one hand, the solicitor recognized that without capable and industrious managers his business and that of his clients must necessarily and immediately be in danger, and that it was his duty, therefore, to do all that lay in his power to encourage those around him who were struggling late and early for the advancement of that business. On the other hand, the managing clerk knew that just as he was successful in carrying out the business entrusted to his care so he was promoting the success of the solicitor, and he was entitled to expect that he should participate in that success.

Mr. T. C. TUNSTALL submitted the toast "Our Guests," Master FISCHER and Dr. RENTOUL, Q.C., M.P., returning thanks; and the remaining toasts were "The Officers," proposed by Mr. J. W. HOBBS, Mr. A. TURNER (secretary) and Mr. W. J. SMART (treasurer) responding, and "The Chairman," given by Mr. J. M. ASTBURY, Q.C., the PRESIDENT returning thanks.

THE SELDEN SOCIETY. The following is the report of this society for the year 1897 : 1. The society still shows a elight increase in the number of its members, which was 265 for 1897, as compared with 256 for 1896.

2. Volume XI. of the publications, forming a second volume of "Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty," was edited by Mr. Reginald G. Marsden, and published in May as the volume for 1897. Volume XII., for 1898, will be a volume on the Court of Requests, by Mr. I. S. Leadam. This is already in the press, and will be published in the course of the summer. Volume XIII., for 1899, will be a volume of "Select Pleas of the Forests," by Mr. G. J. Turner. The preparation of this volume is in an advanced stage, and it is believed that it will shortly be ready for press.

3. The council have further considered the proposal to reprint the year-books of the reign of Edward II., which was left in their hands after the discussion at the annual meeting of last year, upon the understanding that the undertaking, if practicable, would be acceptable to the members of the society. Negotiations are still pending which prevent any definite announcement at present of the result. But the council hope that the task will be definitely commenced by the year 1900 or 1901, either by this society alone or by it in conjunction with another public body. In the latter event it will be possible to carry the publication through in a shorter period than if the work be undertaken by the society alone.

4. Under the rules the following members of the council retire by rotation-namely; Mr. Scargill-Bird, Mr. Justice Stirling, Mr. Westlake, Q C., Judge Meadows White, Mr. Justice Wills.

Mr. Westlake, Q.C., desires to be excused from serving again, on account of his frequent absence from London. Mr. Chadwyck Healey, Q.C., has been nominated under rule 7; and the Council have adopted his nomination in the place of Mr. Westlake, and have re-nominated the other four retiring members, who are willing to serve again. 5. The period of Lord Herschell's office as president has expired. The council have nominated in his place the Master of the Rolls, who has kindly consented to accept the office. The council desire to record their gratitude to Lord Herschell for accepting the presidency of the society in a time of difficulty, which has happily passed away.

6. The election of the Master of the Rolls to the office of president creates a casual vacancy in the office of vice-president, the filling of which falls to the council under rule 8. The council have selected Sir Frederick Pollock for this office in the place of the Master of the Rolls. appointment in its turn creates a casual vacancy in the council, which

This

has also been filled under rule 8, by the selection of Mr. C. I. Elton, Q.C., in the place of Sir Frederick Pollock. 7. An abstract of the accounts, with the report of the auditors, is NATHANIEL LINDLEY, vice-president.

annexed.

THE HEREFORDSHIRE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. The annual general meeting of this society was held on Thursday, the 15th of February, when there were present: Mr. E. H. Cheese (president), Mr. Joseph Carless (vice-president), Messrs. H. C. Beddoe, C. B. Beddoe, W. J. Humfrys, J. Gwynne James, F. R. James, J. Lambe, E. L. Wallis, J. F. Symonds, R. H. Symonds-Tayler, T. G. Chance, and J. R. Symonds (hon. sec.).

The minutes of the last general meeting were read, confirmed, and signed. The report of the committee for the past year was received and adopted. The following recommendation of the committee in reference to the resolution of the last general meeting requesting them to report as to some better way of effecting some change in the constitution of the committee each year was adopted: "That at least two members shall retire from the committee each year and their places be filled by other members, and in the absence of other vacancies the Hereford member and the member from outside Hereford who have respectively attended the least number of meetings shall be those to retire."

It was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Gwynne James, seconded by Mr. J. F. Symonds, that Mr. Joseph Carless be elected president for the ensuing year.

It was resolved, on the motion of Mr. H. C. Beddoe, seconded by Mr. Humfrys, that a cordial vote of thanks be accorded to Mr. Cheese for his services as president during the past year.

It was resolved, on the motion of Mr. J. Lambe, seconded by Mr. E. L. Wallis, that Mr. William Masefield be elected vice-president for the ensuing year.

It was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Cheese, seconded by Mr. Carless, that Mr. J. R. Symonds be re-elected hon. sec. and hon. treasurer for the ensuing year.

The following were elected as the committee: Messrs. H. C. Beddoe, Humfrys, J. Gwynne James, Llanwarne, Lambe, Wallis, C. D. Andrews, Cheese, and Lilley.

The following are extracts from the report of the committee: Members.-The number of members is now fifty-four. Four new members were elected at the annual meeting; one has resigned; and the committee have with regret to record the death of Mr. G. H. Piper, one of the oldest practitioners in this district, who was president of the society in the year of its incorporation.

Land transfer.-The committee await with some interest the result of the first experiment in compulsory registration under the Act passed last

session, but at present it seems rather a matter of doubt whether or not the adoption of the Act will be vetoed by the County Council of London, which has been selected as the first compulsory area. The committee adhere to the opinion that compulsory registration will add to instead of

decrease the cost of transfer of land.

County Court Rules.-The committee, in conjunction with most of the other law societies, protested against the Draft Rules issued in March last, which were felt to unduly interfere with the right of a plaintiff to sue in the court of the district where the cause of action arose. The Draft Rules were withdrawn and others substituted, which appear to the committee to be free from objection, but they made some minor suggestions thereon to the Council of the I.L.S.

Appointment of a deputy-coroner.-The committee have been called upon to deal with a somewhat painful matter in which they felt it their duty to enter an emphatic protest against the appointment by a coroner, a member of the society, of his own clerk, unadmitted, as deputy-coroner. The facts have already been laid before the members and also submitted to the Council of the I.L.S., who, after referring the matter to a special committee, have thoroughly indorsed the action of this committee in protesting against the appointment. The coroner tendered his resignation as a member of the society, which was at once accepted by the committee.

THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY FOR CARDIFF

AND DISTRICT.

The following are extracts from the report of the committee:Members.-The number of members for the year 1897 was 109, as against 107 in 1896, and there were 9 subscribers to the Library.

Accommodation for Society in New Town Hall.-The society met twice in last year, namely, on the 21st January and the 27th July, and at the lastnamed meeting it was resolved that the requirements of your society for increased accommodation in the New Town Hall at Cardiff should be again brought before the Cardiff Corporation, and that your committee should co fer with the members of the legal profession, who were also members of the Corporation, with a view to induce them to assist in urging_on the Corporation and their officials the before-mentioned requirements. In consequence of this resolution, the secretary called the attention of Messrs. members of the Town Council) to the efforts which this society had from George David, Henry White, C. A. J. Ward, and Lewis Morgan (who were time to time made to obtain suitable accommodation in the new Town Hall for the due administration of justice, and the secretary handed to each of these gentlemen a list of requirements which your society has all along considered is necessary for the above purpose. Mr. David and Mr. White

accordingly urged upon the Town Hall Committee to grant the full accommodation which this society believes to be requisite, and these gentlemen informed the secretary that the Town Hall Committee had acceded to very nearly all the requirements made. The secretary has lately inspected some of the plans exhibited at the Town Hall for the new Municipal Buildings and Law Courts, and he found there that provision of one large room was made for the Society's Library. It has always been the desire of your committee to obtain two rooms for the purposes of the Library, and your committee yet hope that that accommodation will be afforded to the society.

Office for Stamping Deeds.-It is with much satisfaction that your Com mittee have to announce that, upon their urgent application, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have promised to erect the necessary machinery for the purpose of stamping deeds in Cardiff, when the new Inland Revenue Offices have been built. This will be a saving of much time, and be a great convenience, not only to the local practitioner, but also to his clients. It is only right that the committee should acknowledge the services which Mr. Maclean, M. P., has rendered to the society on this subject.

EQUITY AND LAW LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY. The annual general meeting of the Equity and Law Life Assurance Society was held on Tuesday at the Society's House, 18, Lincoln's-innfields, Mr. J. M. CLABON (the chairman) presiding.

The report stated that the new sums assured under 522 policies during the year had amounted to £489,369, of which £63,521 were re-assured, and £130 deferred annuity. The new premiums were £25,196 12s. 1d., and the re-assurance premiums £1,774 178. 10d., leaving net new premiums of £23,421 148. 3d. The gross amount of assurances in force at the end of the year was £9,068,191 7s., of which £1,061,521 were re-assured; and the net premium income was £282,125 19s. 9d., as against £274,307 14s. 3d. in the preceding account, showing the satisfactory increase of £7,818 58. 6d. The amount received for interest and dividends was £95,848 18s., while the reversions yielded a profit of £11,433 7s. 9d. In order to take up new investments of a desirable character, it had been found necessary to realise some convertible securities, and these had yielded a profit of £30,750 7s. 7d. over the price at which they stood in the books. As consideration money for annuities £1,290 8s. had been received; and minor receipts had yielded £553 15s. 6d. The claims by death under seventy-three policies had amounted to £181,432 11s., and eight endowment assurances matured for £5,954 6s. These sums included bonus additions of £50,936 17s. The society's payments were lessened by claims by death under re-assurance policies with bonuses for £18,750 3s. 6d. In both number and amount the claims were considerably below the expectation. The net amounts were less by upwards of £86,000 than in the preceding account. with-profit policies, which became claims by death, on some of which bonus had been surrendered during the lifetime of the assured, and were increased by upwards of 40 per cent.; while on those on which the bonus had been left till death the increase was more than 56 per cent.

The

The deaths of ten annuitants were announced during the year, causing the termination of annuities of £1,541 28. 4d. The funds were increased during the year by £193,211 2s. 9d, which is a larger sum than has ever before been added in one year. They now amount to £3,206,606 4s. 5d. Excluding reversions, outstanding premiums and interest, and cash at bank, the funds were invested to produce an average rate of £3 143. 8d. per cent., as compared with £3 15s. 2d. in the preceding account.

Mr. A. F. BURRIDGE (actuary and secretary) having read the notice convening the meeting,

The CHAIRMAN moved the adoption of the report and accounts. Before proceeding to deal with it he referred in sympathetic terms to the death of the late Lord Justice Kay, who, he said, became a director about twenty years since. With regard to the report, the society had had another prosperous year, and were £193,000 better off than they were at the beginning of the year. Various reasons accounted for that. In the first place the claims were very much less than they naturally would be in the expectation, and in the next place, with the desire of increasing the interest, the board had sold some of the securities in order to put the amount out on mortgage, and in so doing had gained £30,000, owing to their having risen in price. That was & double gain as it were, because the deaths being less than the expectation the society were still receiving the premiums, and again they were putting off the payments, and thus this was an item of very great advantage. He was a very old director; he believed he was the oldest member of the society except Mr. George Rooper; but when he joined the society nearly fifty years ago the reserve stood at £130,000. In 1872 it first rose to £1,000,000. In 1884 it reached £2,000,000, in 1896 it was about £3,000,000, and now it had reached £3,200,000, an ample fund to meet all their liabilities from whatever source. The board had been very careful to keep on the side of safety with regard to the securities, but their investments produced £3 14s. 8d. per cent. There was a variety of practice in offices. Some offices brought their reversions into account, and so got to a rate of 4 per cent. or thereabouts, and this society might act in the same way; but it so happened, according to the constitution, that they only valued their reversions at the quinquennial period, and so they lost the benefit of them in calculating the rate of interest. As to the investments, the board had sold out some on the Stock Exchange, and put the amount realised out on mortgage, and so raised the rate by a few shillings, whilst keeping to the strict safety rule. The securities were all carefully appraised by a special committee. The former practice was that the chairman and deputy-chairman, with two or three other good men-one from Lincoln's-inn, one from the City, and so on-formed the committee. But it was thought, after a time, that the directors in general ought to be a party to the examination of securities, and so now two members of the board in rotation were added to the committee; and this was the case in that, as in all other committees, because the Investigating Committee and the Accounts Committee were on the same principle. As to the new business, this year the business had not increased, in fact, it had diminished, though not very much. Various causes accounted for that. The Jubilee year had affected it, and so there were not so many proposals, and then the state of things altogether as regarded buying and selling on the market and so on had had its effect, and the society had not got so much new business as usual. The difference was not much, because last year the society reinsured a great deal, whilst this year they had not reinsured so much; so the difference was not very large. During the year eight policies had become claims in which the amount insured had more than doubled, and in some cases considerably more than doubled. There was one policy dated 1850, the original sum assured being £10,000, and the amount of the policy at the time of death was £26,117 98. In another case, dating from the same year, £250 had increased to £580 23.; another, dated 1856, had increased from £500 to £1,182 128.; in another, 1861, a a policy of £1,000 had increased to £2,296 83. ; another, dated 1863, had increased from £5,000 to £10,551 14s.; another, dated 1864, had gone from £500 to £1,030 2s.; another, 1868, from £600 to £1,204 15s. ; and another, dated 1871, from £500 to £1,040 16s. This showed at all events that the office could compete with offices in general in the large profit which accrued to insurers. As to the interest and dividend during the year, the board made £95,000 by interest and profit on reversions realised. Although they did not take the reversions into account by the yearly increase, but only every five years, it was a fact that last year, £11,000 odd did so fall in. As to the expenses, the office compared very favourably with other offices. It had been a sort of rule that an office cught not to spend more than about 10 per cent in expenses. The society had not expended 10 per cent, but only 9.6 fer cent, and the average for the past three years was 9.5 per cent, so that the expenses were very light. As to the rate of death at different ages, last year, the deaths under 50 years of age were 10-3 in number; between 50 and 60 they were 23-2; between 60 and 70 they were 158; between 70 and 80, 23.5; and 80 and above, 28.1. He believed it would be found on examination of the list of deaths that the average age was good. The society used to be rather fond of taking money and granting annuities, but it was found that the people who bought the annuities were generally good lives, people who thought they would live long, and the result was that it was not a profitable business, and a great many years ago the board thought it well to discontinue the granting of annuities. Annuities had ceased during the year to the amount of £1,541 annually, so that the society was beginning to come to an end of the unprofitable business. He could only say that the Equity and Law, having an age of more than fifty years, had continued to flourish, as he hoped it would continue to flourish, and he hoped they would all join in its advantages. Mr. CECIL H. RUSSELL (deputy-chairman) seconded the motion, adding his expression of deep regret at the loss sustained by the society by the death of the late Lord Justice Kay. As the chairman had said, Lord Justice Kay attended the board meetings more frequently than many men in his judicial position would have been able to do. But as one who knew him

very intimately, having been his pupil at the Bar, he could say that up to nearly the last days of his life his interest in the society had remained unabated. The motion having been agreed to,

Mr. RUSSELL proposed the election of Mr. Justice Grantham as a director in the place of the late Lord Justice Kay.

Mr. GEORGE POWELL seconded the motion, and it was carried. On the motion of Mr. KISCH, seconded by Mr. C. HARRISON, the retiring directors, Mr. Justice Phillimore, Sir Arthur Watson, Q.C., Mr. Church, and Mr. Ingram were re-elected.

On the motion of Mr. J. T. PRIOR, seconded by Mr. A. G. PERRING, the retiring auditors, Mr. Bailey and Mr. Pitcairn, were re-elected, and their remuneration was fixed at £31 10s. each. Mr. WIGAN moved and Mr. PRIOR seconded a vote of thanks to the directors, and that their remuneration be 3,500 guineas. This was agreed to, and the chairman returned thanks. On the motion of Mr. HARRISON, a vote of thanks was passed to the chairman for presiding.

The CHAIRMAN, in returning thanks, said the directors were not the only persons who contributed to the prosperity of the society. First there was Mr. Burridge, the actuary and secretary, who had amply fulfilled all expectations and who, he hoped, would live long to manage the society. Then there was the assistant actuary, Mr. Phelps, who was a most valuable man. society had a most excellent medical officer in Dr. Thompson, a most excellent solicitor, and a most admirable staff.

Mr. RUSSELL seconded the motion, and it was adopted.

The

Mr. BURRIDGE, in returning thanks, said it was very refreshing after the daily round of a year's work to receive such a vote as this, moved and adopted in such a spontaneous manner. Although the value of new business must vary from year to year according to accidental circumstances, yet he was glad to say the energy of the staff remained at a very high level, and they exhibited an enthusiasm which proved that they were very proud to work for the society. He should like that there should be included in the vote the inspectors and agents, from whom he had received very great assistance. It was the constant effort of the staff to maintain the society in that position of prosperity and financial strength which the chairman had been able to prove it occupied to-day.

BRITISH LAW FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY. THE annual general meeting of the British Law Fire Insurance Company was held on Friday, the 11th inst., at Cannon Street Hotel, Mr. H. T. NORTON (Chairman) presiding.

The report stated that the net annual premium income was £57,256 6s. 4d., as compared with £55,130 03. 11d. in the previous year, being an increase of £2,126 5s. 5d. The net losses, after adjusting those outstanding at the end of 1896, allowing for claims outstanding at the end of 1897, and deducting the amounts recoverable by reinsurance and indemnities, amounted to £29,768 8s. 9d. The loss ratio for the year was 51.9 per cent. The accounts showed an available balance of £8,100 15s. 4d. The directors proposed to carry to the reserve £4,000, thus bringing the reserve up to £27,000, to declare a dividend at the rate of 3 per cent., free of income tax, for the year, and to carry forward £1,100 15s. 4d.

Mr. H. FOSTER CUTLER (Manager and Secretary) having read the notice convening the meeting,

The CHAIRMAN, in moving the adoption of the report, observed that the increase in the net annual premium income was £2,126 5s. 5d. That might seem disappointing to the proprietors. Last year the increase was £4,000, and the previous year it was £5,000, and the present increase seemed small by comparison. He might as well tell them at once for their satisfaction that the amount of new direct business had been almost as great in this year as in the previous year, and the reason it had not had so much effect in the total was, first of all, because the Board had reinsured a larger proportion of the new business than in the previous year. The risks had come in larger, he supposed. And, secondly, they had diminished the amount they had been receiving from guarantee business, instead of slightly increasing it. Between 1895 and 1896 there was an increase of the amount received by the Company on guarantee business, though not an increase greater than the proportionate increase of the direct business; but in 1896 the Company suffered heavily from its guarantee business, and he believed that had been the experience of many other offices besides. The consequence was that in 1897 the Board reduced that again, and the difference between the amount received on guarantee business in 1896 and in 1897 was a reduction of something approaching £1,400, so that made a very substantial item, and accounted for the diminution. The Board had acted on the side of caution, and this having been done once he did not think the decrease would appear again, and the Board hoped not. The net losses, after adjusting those outstanding at the end of 1896, allowing for claims outstanding at the end of 1897, and deducting the amounts recoverable by insurances and indemnities, amounted to £29,768 8s. 9d. This was a loss ratio of 51.9 per cent. There were many offices which would consider such a loss ratio eminently satisfactory. He told the meeting frankly that the Board did not consider it satisfactory for this office. The loss ratio on direct business was very small indeed, and the company had suffered, in common with other offices, by a very heavy percentage of loss on the guarantee business. The accounts showed an available balance of £8,100 15s. 4d. The directors proposed to carry to reserve £4,000, thus bringing the reserve up to £27,000, to declare a dividend at the rate of 3 per cent., free of income tax, for the year, and to carry forward £1,100 15s. 4d. Now, that £8,000 consisted first of all of £1,000 brought forward from the previous year, and then the directors had not drawn all their fees this year, and that had enabled the Board to carry £4,000 to reserve. He was sorry the dividend was small. He heartily wished the

« PreviousContinue »