Page images
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

This was an action to restrain the defendant corporation from using a building at Storrs Hill, Ossett, as a hospital for small-pox patients and from receiving or treating in or at such building any person suffering from small-pox. The action, which was brought by the owners of other land and houses at Storrs Hill, and was based on private nuisance to the plaintiffs, was dismissed with costs. By the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, section 1, where after the Act “ any action is commenced . . . against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution . . . of any public duty or authority, the following provision shall have effect : (b) Wherever in any such action a judgment is obtained by the defendant, it shall carry costs to be taxed as between solicitor and client.”

Roman, J ., held that the above enactment applied, and that he had no discretion under the enactment, and must give the defendant corporation their costs as between solicitor and client.—Covnsiii., Maemorran, Q.C., and 0. L. Clare ; Goren:-Hardy. Q.C., and J. G. Wood. Sonicirons, Chester, Meyliew, Browne, 5- Griflths, for Jansen: Q Co., Wakefield; Baker, Leer, ($Poatlethwaite, for W. Brooke, Ossett.

[merged small][graphic][merged small][ocr errors]

Thiswas an appeal by the plaintiff Sharp, a trustee in bankrigtcy of the plaintiffs, Messrs. Hamming & Johnson, from an order of his onour Judge Harrington, sitting at the Birmingham County Court, ordering him to give security for,the costs of the action. In May, 1887, the original plaintiffs, Messrs. Hemming & Johnson, brought the action in the High Court to recover on a specially-indorsed writ the sum of £57, balance due to them from the defendant Davies for goods sold and delivered. On the 5th of June certain items, amounting to something over £7, were admitted by the defendant, bringing the balance claimed for by the plaintiffs to just under £50, and leave to defend was given him, and an order made remitting the action to the county court at Birmingham under section 65 of the County Courts Act, 1888. On the 30th of August the plaintiffs, Hemming & Johnson, became bankrupt, and on the 7th of October Sharp was appointed trustee. On the 31st of December Sharp applied ezparte under R. S. 0., ord. 17, rr. 4, 5, to be added as a plaintiff to the action of Hnnrning and Others v. .Dat~ies, and the application was granted. Meanwhile, although the order directing that the act-ion should be heard in the county court had been obtained some six months be-fore, no steps under that order were in fact taken until the 14th of January, 1898, when the writ and the order remitting the action were lodged in the county court. On the application of the defendant the county court judge on the 24th of January made an order for security for costs to be given by the trustee under section 94 of the County Court Act, 1888. From that order Sharp appealed. For the appellant it was argued that the action although remitted for trial as to the balance oi the claim to the county court, remained nevertheless a High Court action. Certainly it did not become in any sense a county court action until the writ was issued in the county court, and before that date Sharp became by an order of the High Court ii plaintiff in the action. The county court judge had no powerto treat the trustee as an “added” party and no jurisdiction to order him to give security. Section 94 of the County Court Act, 1888, enacted that the bankruptcy of the plaintiff in any action in the court which the trustee might maintain for the benefit of the creditors shall not cause the action to abate if the trustee shall elect to continue such action and to give security for the costs thereof; and in case the trustee did not elect to give such security within the time limited by the order, the defendant might avail himself of the bankruptcy as a defenceto the action. The power of the county court _'udgeto order security was not retrospective: Welply v. Buhl (3 Q. B. 82)) and D'Errieo v. Samuel and Another (1896, 1 Q. B. 163). Counsel in support of the order appealed from submitted that the county court judge had power under the rules to make the order. Sections 65 and 66 provided that all remitted actions and all proceedings therein shall be tried and taken in the county court as if the action bad been originaliy commenced there. The power to order security for costs must be treated as it the action had been begunin the first instance in the county court, and therefore section ‘.4-1 applied.

Wniour, J., in allowing the apcpeal, said it was not until the 14th of January, 1898, that the action ha got into the county court, because it was not until then that the writ had been issued and the order of the High Court remitting the action had been lodged in the coiuity court. From that date the action and all proceedings therein was to be treated as a county court action, but the sections relied on by the respond ent had no retrospective application. Before the action got to the county court at all the appellant had been con stituted by an order of the High Court a co-plaintiif, and long after then the action continued to be a High Court action. If a similar application had been made by the defendant while the case remained in the High Court—i.e., before the 1-1th of January, the application for security would have been refused, and Sharp's position as a plaintiff, added by order of the High Court, was not altered because ho elected to continue the action, although it was transferred to the county court.

Daauno, J . , concurred. Appeal allowed with costs, but leave to appeal granted.—Coiuvs1u., Boydell Houyhton ; Stamford Hutton. Soucirons, Belfrage §' 00., for Reece §- Hai'ris, Birmingham; Morse t§- Simpson, for W. H. W/iitelook, Birmingham.

[Reported by Easiusn Ram, Barrister-at-Law.'|

[merged small][ocr errors]

This was an appeal from a decision of Mr. FitzRoy Cowper, sitting as deputy-judge at Marylcbone County Court. The question, which arose upon an interpleader issue, was whether a bill of sale was void if tho registration copy omitted to state the date of the bill of sale. The leamed deputy-judge held that the bill of sale was invalid, and the claimant under the bill of sale appealed. In support of the appeal counsel contended on the authority of Re Hewer, Ea: parts Kahen (21 Ch. D. 871), that a “ true copy " was not necessarily an exact copy, and that the omission of the date from the registered copy did not per re invalidate the bill of sale, if good in other respects. It was an omission which would not mislead a person who searched the register for information. It was distinguishable from a clerical mistake. [Wniour, J., referred to Tuck v. Southern Counties Deposit Bank (42 Ch. D. 471).] The bill of sale itself was correctly dated the 10th of November, 1897. Counsel in support of the depauty-judge’s decision appealed from relied upon Parsmis v. Brand (25 Q. . D. 110). The objection to the validity of the bill of sale had been lodged under section 9 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, which enacted thr '2 a bill of sale made or given by way of_ security for the payment of money by the grantor thereof sh:-ll be void unless made in accordance with the form of the schedule annexed to that Act. The schedule required the date to be given, and the form of the registered copy followed the schedule. An omission or irregularity in either of a material fact rendered the bill of sale invalid. _

Waionr, J., in giving judgment, said the appeal of the claimant must be allowed. On the main point argued—namely, whether the omission of the dat/e in the registered copy invalidated the bill of sale, he_ was of opinion that the omission was not such an error as would mislead a creditor searching the register. The date had been correctly given in the bill of sale, and a person finding a blank in the registered copy could refer to the affidavit and would there find, in this _case, the date accurately entered. As, however, other objections against the validity of_ this bill of sale had been raised during the hearing of tl_ie_ appeal relating to matters of fact the case must be remitted for the decision of the deputyjudge on these questions. The appellant. however, should have the costs of this appeal in any event. Those of the first trial to abide the r_csult of the second trial. It was an extremely technical objection which the appellant came to that court to get rid of.

Daauxo, J ., concurred. Appeal allowed.—-Cocxssi._, Turrell; Frank Hallor. Soucirons, T. Howard S.-nith; A. II. D. Monwezlcr.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

This was an appeal from Wright, J . (see 46 W. R. 207), who refused an application by C. P. Piers, the assignee of Turnbull, a secured creditor in the bankruptcy, for leave to amend his proof by altering the valuation of his security from nil to the full amount of the debt proved for. Turnbull owing to false information as to the value of his security, had valued it at nil, and had voted at a meeting of creditors in respect of the _full amount of his debt. He subsequently assigned his debt to C. P. Piers, who discovered that the security was equal to the whole amount of the debt, and he therefore applied for leave to amend his proof. Wright, J ., relying upon the case of E2: parts Clarke, Re Burr, 40 W._ R. 608, came to the conclusion that the omission to value the security did not arise from “ inadvertence." He held that what “ inadvcrtence " means_ is _the contrary to deliberate election, and he therefore refused the apphcation. From this judgment Piers now appealed.

March 18.—-Tun Cotiir (A. L. Siiirn, CHITTY, and COLLINS, L.JJ.), having taken time to consider their judgment, dismissed the appeal.

A. L. Snirii, L.J., read the following judgment: The question raised,


upon the appealis whether Mr. Turnbull, who was a creditor of Sir Eustace Piers, a bankrupt, has omittedto value his security, and that such omission has arisen rom inadvertence within the meaning of rule 10 of Schedule I. of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. Wright, J ., decided against Mr. Turnbull’s assignee, Mr. Piers, who appeals. Rule 10 is as follows : “ For the purpose of voting a secured creditor shall, unless he surrenders his security, stateinhis plroof the particulars of his security, the date when it was given, and t e value at which he assesses it, and shall be entitled to vote only in respect of the balance (if any) due to him after deducting the value of his security. If he votes in respect of his whole debt he shall be deemed to have surrendered his security, unless the court on application is satisfied that the omission to value the security has arisen from inadvertence." Sir Eustace Piers was adjudicated a bankrupt upon the lst of October, 1890, and Mr. Turnbull, upon the 3rd of October, 1891, sent in his proof against the estate, which, so far as material, was as follows: “ The said Sir Eustace Piers was at the date of the receivin order—-viz., the 1st of October, 1890—and still is justly and truly indebted to Thomas Turnbull in the sum of £494 5s. for professional services rendered, work done, and fees payable by the said Thomas Turnbull as solicitor for and on behalf of the above-named bankrupt at his request, for which sum 1 say that I have not received any manner of Bfliiiflfuntion or security whatsoever, save and except a charge upon certain debuztures which is considered worthless.” Having thus sent in his proof, Mr. Turnbull in March, 1892, voted at a meeting of creditors in respect of his whole debt of £494 5s. Mr. Turnbull’s assignee in the year of 1897 for the first time contended that when Mr. Turnbull sent in his proof upon the 3rd of October, 1891, he omitted to value his security, and that this arose from inadvertence. Now, pausing here, can it be truly said that Mr. Turnbull, when he sent in his proof upon the 3rd of October, 1891, omitted to value his security? It seems to me that he did not, for he then deliberately elected to assess the value of his security as being worthless, and to prove against the estate of Sir Eustace Piers in respect of his whole ebt, and having done so proceeded to vote at a meeting of creditors as being a creditor against the estate for the whole amount of his debt. It appears to me that he then omitted nothing. He assessed the value of his security at what he then believed to be its value-i.e., as worthless. Assessing the value of a security as worthless is equally an assessment as if the assessment had been of some value. This, in my opinion, suffices to determine the present case against the appellant. But, assuming that Mr. Turnbull had omitted to value his security, which I think he had not, did he do so by inadvertence? What is said is this—that Mr. Turnbull was induced in October, 1891, to assess the value of his security as being worthless by information which led him to believe that it was so, but that by reason of a litigation which has taken place in subsequent years it has been found out that his security is not worthless, and in 1897 the appellant sought to amend the proof by valuing his security at £494 and to adhere thereto rather than to prove as he did against the estate for his debt. The finding out by subsequent events that in October, 1891, Mr. Turnbull was in error in electing to assess as worthless his security is not, in my opinion, “inadvertence” within the meaning of the rule. This word oints to forgetfulness or accident, and not, as Vaughan Williams, J ., well puts it in Ex parts Clarke (40 W. R. 608), to the case of a creditor having the choice before him of what he will do and balancing the advantage and deliberately electing to prove and abandon his security. I agree with Wright, J., that the word “inadvertence” in this rule means the opposite of deliberate election, and that it does not cover a deliberate election, though based upon false grounds. What Mr. Turnbull did in October, 1891, did not arise either from forgetfulness or accident, though it may have been a mistake. But this is not the word in the rule, and when I see that in rule 13, Schedule Il., the Legislature has used the words “mistaken estimate,” it shews me that it meant by “inadvertence” something other than a mistake. If North, J ., in the case of Re Lister §- Co. (40 W. R. 589; 1892, 2 Ch. 417) intended to hold that the words “ inadvertence ” and “ mistake" were convertible terms I cannot agree with him. In my judgment the appellant fails to shew that Mr. Turnbull has either omitted to value his security, or that he did so by inadvertence, and the appellant must establish both to bring himself within the rule. I ray nothing about the length of time which has elapsed nor the other circumstances of this case, for the appellant docs not, in my judgment, bring himself within the rule. I agree with the tjudge of the court below, and the appeal must be dismissed with cos .

Clll'l'I‘\', L.J., also read a judgment to the same effect.

COLLINS, L J .—I also agree that upon the facts of this case Turnbull cannot be said to have omitted to value his security through inadvertence. As regards, however, the words “ omission to value the security ” in rule 10 of Schedule I., I am far from satisfied that the Legislature did not intend them to cover both the case where there is a valuation of a security at nil and the case where there is an omission to place any value on the security. I cannot think it was intended that totally different results should follow. In my opinion the word “ value ” in the schedules is usrd as denoting a positive value. It is not necessary, however, for us to decide this point now, as the case clearly does not come within the provision as to lnadvertence. Appeal dismissed.— Couvsan, Jllcfntg/re; Cozms-Hardy, Q..C., and Napean. Soucrrons, W. Eley; T. Edwards.

[ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

Appeal from the judgment of the Divisional Court (Wright and Kennedy, J J .) aflrming the decision of the Brighton County Court Judge. The plaintiif, who was a solicitor and a creditor of the defendant, was informed by the defendant that he was unable to pay his debts, and_. was instructed by him to file his petition in bankruptcy. The plaintiff accordingly did so, and the defendant was adjudicated bankrupt. The plaintiff carried in his bill of costs incurred i11 connection with the filmg of the petition, and received out of the assets part of the amount thereof under rule 125 of the Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, which provides for “ the taxed costs of the petitioner " being paid out of the assets, and brought this action to recover the balance of the costs so incurred. These costs were incurred prior to the date of the receiving order; and the bankrupt had not obtained his discharge. The county court judge held that the defendant had, by informing the plaintiff that he was unable to pay his debts, committed an act of ankruptcy under section 4, sub-section 1 (A), of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883; and he held that the plaintiff could not recover. The Divisional Court aflirmed this judgment. The plaintiff appealed.

Tl-{B Covar (A. L. Surm, Cmrrv, and Course, L.JJ.) dismissed the appeal.

A. L. Sim-u, L.J., said that the question was whether this debt for costs incurred after notice of the act of bankruptcy, and before the receiving order, was a debt provable in bankruptcy. If so, the plaintiff could not recover by reason of section 9, sub-section 1, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. Section 37, sub-section 3, made all debts and liabilities, with certain exceptions, to which the debtor was subject at the date of the receiving order provable in bankruptcy. This debt came within that category, and was therefore provable in bankruptcy. Sub-section 2 of that section, however, created a personal incapacity to prove where the person seeking to prove had notice of an available act of bankruptcy when the debt was contracted. This debt was contracted after notice of an available act of bankruptcy, and therefore, though the debt was provable in bankruptcy, the plaintiff could not prove it. The debt being provable, section 9, sub-section 1, prevented the plaintiff from suing

or it.

Cm-rrr and Cotnms, L.JJ., concurred, painting out that the distinction was drawn in section 3'7 between the character of the debt and the personal capacity of the person seeking to prove.—Cou::sr-:r., Firminger and E. Bowen Rowlands ; E. T. Holloway. Somcrroas, C’. R. Sawyer 5- Ellis,‘ R. Hewlett, for A. Mirams, Brighton.

[merged small][graphic][merged small]

The annual general meeting of the members of the Selden Society was held on Wednesday in the Council Room, Lincoln's Inn Hall. The chair was taken by the Master of the Rolls, and among those present were Mr. Justice Romer, Mr. Justice Stirling, Mr. Justice Byrne, Mr. Justice Wills, Sir F. Pollock, Mr Farwell, Q.C., Mr. Lawrence, Q G., Mr. Seward Brice, Q.O., Mr. Chadwyck-Healey, Q.C., Professor Westlake, Q.C., Mr. Cyprian Williams, Mr. Stuart Moore, Mr. Marsden, Mr. F. K. Munton, Mr. Turner, and Mr. B. Fossett Lock (hon. secretary).

We printed the annual report, ante, p. 348, from which it appeared that there was a slight increase in the number of members, wh ch was 265 in 1897, as compared with 256 in 1896.

Professor Wasruucs, Q.O., moved, and Mr. Justice Braxa seconded, the adoption of the report and accounts.

The Master of the Rolls was elected president, Sir F. Pollock a vicepresident, and Mr. Scargill-Bird, Mr. Justice Stirling, Mr. Justice Wills, Mr. Chadwyck-Healey, Q.C., Mr. C. I. Elton, Q.C., and Judge Meadows White were elected to fill vacancies on the council.

The Mas-ran of the Ror.Ls said that the society was this year in a distinctly better position than in the past year. Its influence was, however, not so extended as it ought to be, and the value of its publications was not appreciated so largely as it would be if they were better known. They might possibly improve their position if they were to appoint a small subcommittee to consider what steps could be taken to widen their sphere of influence and to gain fresh subscribers. He could not help thinking that unless they exerted themselves in some such way the progress of the society, if aipy, would be very slow. In the matter of the Year-books something h been done. A small sub-committee had been appointed to confer with the Oxford authorities to see whether some co-operative measures could not be adopted. There were so many gaps in the Yearbooks that to fill them up would be a very formidable business. The society could hardly hope to undertake such a task unless they could get external help. He hoped that that assistance would be shortly obtained and the Year-books made of real value, not only to lawyers, but to historians.

Mr. Lmnssr suggested that printing the Year-books was really the work of the Treasury.

The llhsrsa of the Roms was not at all sanguine that they could get the Treasury to take the matter up. From what he knew of their habits he thought they were more likely to help the society if it undertook the work.

On the motion of l\Ir. Justice 1Vrr.r.s, seconded by Mr. Cascxsxrnoara, Q,.C., a vote of thanks was passed to Lord Herschell for his services as president during the past three years

47 Vwr. c. 52), s. 9, sun-sscrros 1 ; s. 37, son-sscnoxs 2, 3. 4, Votes of thanks were also passed tb the oflicers and president.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


The annual dinner of the Birmingham Law Students’ Society was held on Saturday night, the chair being occupied by Lord Justice Rigby, president for the year. His lordship was supported by the Lord Mayor '(COlll10lllOl' Beale), the two judges now conducting the Birmingham Assizes, Lord Chief Justice Russell and Mr. Justice Kennedy, Mr. A. McBean (Mayor of Wolverhampton), Mr. I. Bradley (city coroner), Mr. Jelf, Q.C., Mr. Harris, _Q.C., Mr. Amphlett, Q.C., Mr. Registrar Parry, Mr. T. H. Russell (president of the Birmingham Law Society), Mr. J . J . Parfltt, Mr. H. A. l'earsoii, Mr. T. Norris Foster, Mr. S. S. Dorsett, Mr. B. Grimley, Mr. G. T. Edwards, Dr. Showell Rogers, Mr. F. S. Pearson, hlr. C. B. Smith, Mr. Perie (marshal to the Lord Chief Justice), Mr. hennedy (marshal to Mr. Justice Kennedy), Mr. E. V. Hiley, Mr. A. H. Coley, Mr. L. J. Sharp (official receiver), Mr. M. Butcher, Mr. C. H. Saunders, Mr. H. F. Sharp, Mr. S. M. Slater, Mr. A. H. McBean (hon. sec.), &c., the company numbering altogether over a hundred.

The SECRETARY announced apologies for absence from a number of gentlemen, among them the Recorder of Birmingham (Mr. J . S. Dugdale, Q.C.), Mr. Registrar Glaisyer (vice-president of the society), Judge \Vliitehorne, Sir Richard Harington, Mr. Buzzard, Q.C., Mr. A. L. Croclrford (Mayor of Sutton Ccldfield), Mr. T. M. Colmore (stipendiary magistrate), the town clerk of Birmingham (Mr. E. O. Smith), and the clerk of the peace (Mr. C. E. Mathews).

Lord Justice RIGBY, in his presidential address, expressed the great sympathy_which the senior members of the profession had in the progress of the junior members. He was not one of those who held that there ever could be a fusion of the two branches of the profession. There was a difference in the duties of a solicitor and the duties of a barrister which was absolutely ineifaceable. At the same time he recognized, with pleasure, that the Inns of Court and the Incorporated Law Society had done a great deal towards making it possible for any member of either branch to pass with the slightest inconvenience to the other. He exhorted the students of the law to aim at high ideals, considering not only how they should turn their profession to lucrative account, but having regard to _the interests of their profession, the interests of their clients, and the interests of the country, which to a great extent were committed to them. A considerable number of years ago it was a fashion to speak in a depreciatory manner of English law as distinguished from other systems of law; but that was all changed now, and they all realized that the English system had practically no competitor, except in those systems which directly derived their origin from the Roman law. Although from time to time we wisely allowed ourselves to be taught by the great masters of Roman law, yet our attitude in the main was a stubborn and sturdy resistance to that law, and he ventured to say it was a wise and a most happy resistance. The result was that our law, with all its det'ects—and he did not deny its great and serious defects-had really been a_home product of the English nation. It had derived from its Teutonic ancestors that sense of freedom, that principle of equality among men, which would [always make it in that respect the superior of the Roman law as that had been translated into modern life. The common law had shewn it_was capable of answering accurately and completely the wants of nations in very diflicult and very different positions in the world. ’1'urning to the objects of the society, his lordship said he saw they rovided for the argument of moot points and for trials, which were excellent means of preparing students for the practice of advocacy. The real secret of advocacy was that they should know what they ought to argue about and for. ‘Eloquence was not advocacy, and if not kept in restraint was even injurious to advocacy. They had had great instances, and he need not go beyond his next-door neighbour (the Lord Chief Justice), of eloquence made to subserve the purpose of advocacy and not to obscure or lead away from it, and in that case they got the combination of unrivalled means of persuasion.

The Piiiisinsxr then proposed "The Birmingham Law Students’ Society,” to which Mr. A. H. MoBasr~r replied. He said that the society now had a membership of 316, of whom 250 were honorary and 66 student members. The honorary members were gentlemen of the Bar and solicitors of Supreme Court. A mock trial was held in November last, and had a record attendance of the public, between 900 and 1,000 persons being present, and during the past six months of active work twelve ordinary meetings were he d, with an average attendance of twenty-one members.

_ Mr. H: A. PEARSON, in a humourous speech, proposed " The City and Corporation,” which was acknowledged by the Loan Msroii.

Mr. A. H. Coriir proposed “ The Bench and the Bar.” He said they were satisfied that the great traditions of the past were maintained in the bench and the bar of the present. It had happened in the history of this country that the bench had stood between the subject and the Crown, and the bench and the bar had ever been foremost in defending the liberties of the people of this country. They were proud to notice the administration of justice in the land. Whatever stormy political seas her Majesty’s 'udges had crossed, when they had arrived secure in the haven 01 H16 llelwh all party passion passed away. There was no deflection to the right hand or to the left, but they administered perfect justice to all classes of the Queen’s subjects.

The Loan Cnrar J USTICB, in repl , said the Lord Mayor had referred to the fact that that _was the first vlsit which he had made in a judicial

capacity to the city. He hoped it would not be the last. The vice

[ocr errors]

president of the Birmingham Law Society had referred in not undeserved terms to the reputation of the English bench. He would content himself with saying in regard to the bench of the present day that while it did not claim to be always right, it endeavoured to discharge its duty fairly between man and man, without fear and without favour, and regardless of popular feeling, on whatever side that popular feeling was displayed. He hoped he might be allowed to make a reference to a subject cognate to that dealt with by the president. Lord Justice Rigby reminded them that the objects of the society were advancement in the knowledge of law and in the practice of advocacy. Cognate to that subject was the subject of education in the legal profession, and as that was a subject very close to his heart he hoped they would forgive him it he said a word upon it. He would address himself to the branch of the profession represented by the young men present who were in the position of articlcd clerks. There was nothing more remarkable in connection with that branch of the profession than the great advance which had been made in the last half-century in what he might call the status in public estimation and in the morale of that branch of the profession. He thought it was remarkable the amount of good which had been effected by the profession itself by its various organizations and law societies in the great centres of population throughout the country. Those societies had raised the tone of the members of the profession individually and collectively, and had exercised a. disciplinary force over the individual members which had worked enormous good. But while he noted that remarkable advance, he was by no means clear that the movement had not been retrograde in reference to the general legal education of the members of that branch of the profession. At the present moment, in some of the great towns—for example, Liverpool, Manchester, and to a limited extent in Birmingham—sometl1ing was done towards what he might call the liberal education of articled clerks. He did not think they did enough. In London at one time the Incorporated Law Society had a number of lecturers, who had classes more or less considerably attended, and periodical examinations in relation to the teaching of those classes. All that was done away with, and absolutely the education which led up to the final examination of those who desired to become solicitors of the Supreme Court was, as regarded London, and in the main the rest of the country, carried on by a system of cramming, and not by a system of liberal and enlightened study, instruction, and education. As regarded his own branch of the profession, he could not say that things were much better, and he desired to utter a word or two of deliberate warning on the subject which could not be long neglected without entailing very serious consequences to the profession. There were certain exclusive privileges given to members of the bar. They had rights of exclusive audience in the Supreme Courts, and they had rights of pre-audience in many other courts. There were various important oflices throughout the country, some judicial, some quasi-judicial, and some administrative, which were almost exclusively considered to belong to members of the Bar. He wanted to know what right could the profession of the Bar urge for the maintenance of those exclusive rights and privileges unless they were able to shew special and peculiar learning and fitness for the discharge of the duties appertaining to those positions. \Vhat was the position with regard to legal education in London? Ho was not saying before them what he had not said face to face with the representatives of the Inns of Court. Those lnns in bygone days had done great things, but in the matter of legal education they were lagging far behind the needs of the day. They had means by which the great cause of legal education on a broad, liberal, and enlightened basis might be carried on, and what was done instead was to appoint a limited number of readers and teachers to deliver a certain number of lectures, at which attendance was registered, followed by an examination which he had demonstrated could, in the case of the cramming of a man of average ability, be mastered in a period not exceeding six months, and that, forsooth, was supposed to be adequate preparation for the pursuit of a profession which involved, as their president had said, not only great opportunities, but also grave resiponsibilities. They had not got the opportunity or the means, so long as e ucation was considered fit to be dealt with in that random fashion, of creating a body of men of the professorial class, of whom they had now and then illustrations such as the late Sir Henry Maine-men whose interest it would be to cultivate the law as a thing to be taught by them, and taught on scientific and broad and enlightened principles. But with the law student for the bar, as with the law student for admission on the roll of solicitors of the Supreme Court, the same system of cramming to a great extent prevailed. The promised Teaching University for London offered an opportunity which he hoped the Inns of Court would avail themselves of, of remedying this state of things by creating a faculty or school of law in connection with that university. That there was need of such a faculty, not confined merely to English law, but open to other systems also, amomeut’s consideration of the extent and the responsibilities of this great empire would at once remind them. From the central governing point of London we sent out to the world-to our Crown colonies and in large measure to the colonies that had rights of self-government conceded to them—meu who had to teach those who had to administer the law, _and not our own system of law, but, it might be, the French system modified by the English law, it might be Mohammedan, Dutch, Portugese, or Spanish law, influenced and modified in part by English law, and to some extent altered under its influence. He said, then,that the present state of education for the profession of the law, notwithstanding that something was, he was grateful to acknowledge, done in both the universities, was not up to the needs of the profession, or creditable to those who ought to shew an active and lively interest in this great public object. Proceeding to support the advice given to the students of the Birmingham society by the president, the Lord Chief Justice said that in preparing to argue a case the first thing was to ascertain with exact precision the facts that


had to be dealt with, and the next thing to see what was the principle involved in the question arising upon those facts. He would further say that in his judgment the first, the highest, the most essential quality for successful advocacy was not gifts of speech, nor a knowledge of case law — but the judicial faculty — the faculty capable of judging his own case, and trying to put himself in the pasition of his adversary, and judging his case too, and from a consideration of both endeavouring to arrive at what was a strong point of bis own care, what was the central fact, or set of central facts, on which the case ought in his judgment to turn. Though gifts of speech, and even at times gifts of eloquence, had, when filly applied, great and important value, they sunk into insignificance compared with the importance of realizing a clear conception of what was the point in dispute, and conveying that clear conception with with perspicacity to the tribunal bcforc whom the practitioner appeared. Ho had heard men with great elegance of language and great facility of speech deliver themselves of—nothing. But he had never known any man who had anything worth saying who had not at his command suiliciently powerful and clear language adequately to convey that which was worth conveying. He did not deprecnte the cultivation of speech, but he did desire to impress upon them not to put it in the first rank, and to realize that it was the cultivation of the mind, not the cultivation of the tongue, which was the great gain to be gathered from practice in such societies as theirs.

Mr. Justice Ksrmsnr, who next replied, said he did not take quite such a gloomy view of legal education as the weighty words of the Lord Chief Justice (possibly ought to have impressed him with, though he fully endorse all that could be said in favour of a great improvement. As a recently-appointed member of the Council of Legal Education he could only ask that there should be much co-operation from all branches of the profession. He believed there was no desire to do anything except to get at the best of what could be got, and that the most profitable form of discussion was that which spoke out unfalteringly, whether it be praise or blame, with regard to the system under discussion. After humorously expressing a hope that the cause list at the present assizcs might in future be doubled in length, his lordship said he believed it was a great thing to have caures and criminal cases tried in the places where the parties resided. He wantcd to see the circuits in the country maintained, and even strengthened, so that the provinces: might feel that from time to time the bench was brought to the homes of the people, endeavouring to the best of their lights to show that English justice permeated every corner of the realm.

Mr. Jsni-', Q.C., responding for the bar, entered a plea for the maintenance of a high moral standard among legal practitioners. In these days of slumps and booms, of cycle syr.di';atos and secret commissions, it seemed to him—and he said it with real sorrow and regrct—thiit the commercial integrity and morality of this country was going through a very dangerous crisis, and he believed he should have the sanction of my lords and all present in saying that the great legal profession, in both branches of it-, from the Lord Chancellor down to the lJ1ill1blCr‘i2 solicitor’s clerk, had means and opportunities, which possibly no other boiy of men had, of discouraging by word, by deed, by example, by abstention in every possible way, tlic slightest deviation from the right, and the honest, and tho true path. Ho earnestly cntreated the young men before him to bear in mind the opportunity they had of ringing out the false and ringing in the true.

Mr. ll. F. SHARP, who proposed “The Birmingham Law Society,” expressed the indebtedness of the students’ society to the parent body.

Mr. T. H. Russsnn replied.

The remaining toast was the health of the President, briefly proposed by Mr. J . J . Paiirir-r, and responded to by Lord Justice Biciir.



The death is announced, on the 21st iiist., of lifr. Enwann SAMUEL Bsi.r., a member of the firm of Carter &: Bell, solicitors, of 6, Idol-lane, London. Mr. Boll, who was the elder son of the late Rev. Dr. S. Bell, M.A., of Lancaster, where he was educated, came to London in 18-18, and was articled with Messrs. Smith, Stenning, & Croft, of Basinghnll-street. He was admitted a solicitor in Michaelmas term, 1854, and after being with Messrs. Wilson, Bristows, & Co , for some years. in 1860 he entered into partnership with the late Mr. Richard Gardner Mathews (formerly of the firm of Hill 8: Mathews) and Mr. \Villiam Carter, thcn constituting the firm of ltfathews, Carter, & Bell. Mr. Bell has long had a considerable connection amongst the produce and allied trades in the City of London, where he was well known and much respected.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

GENERAL. Mr. Justice Byrne will be the Easter Vacation Judge.

The death is announced of Sir William Lambert Dobson, Chief J ustice of Tasmania. He was the eldest son of Mr. John Dobson, solicitor and notary public, of Gateshead, Durham, and afterwards of Hobart, Tasmania.

At the annual meeting of the Equity and Law Life Assurance Society held on the 15th inst., the Hon. Ml‘. Justice Grantham was elected a director of the society in the room of the Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Kay, deceased.

It is stated that the late Mr. Frederick \Vaymouth Gibbs, Q,.C , C._B., by his will, has bequeathed to the trustees of Lincoln’s-inn, of which society he was a bencher, the service of plate presented to him by the Queen and the silver vase presented to him by the Prince of Wales on his ceasing to be tutor to his Royal Highness.

The following are the arrangements made by the judges (Bruce and Big ram, JJ.) for holding the ensuing Spring Assizes on the Northern Circuit : The Commission day at Manchester will be on Monday, the 18th of April, and the trial of special jury causes will be proceeded with before Bruce, J ., the following morning, while Bigham, J ., will try the prisoners. The Commission day at Liverpool will be Monday, the 2nd of May, and special jury causes will be tried the following morning.

On Monday last the Lord Chancellor moved in the House of Lords the second reading of the Special Juries Bill, and explained that it was intended to remove a certain inconvenience which had been found to arise when the same set of special jurors were required to be in attendance for the trial of the whole of the special jury cases to be heard at assizes. The object of the Bill was to enlarge the power of the sherifl so as to enable him to summon a greater number than forty-eight special jurymen, who should be divided into two sets for the trial of the special jury cases down for hearing at the assizes. The Bill was read a second time.

During the hearing of an appeal on the 17th inst , says the Times, Lord Justice A. L. Smith said he would mention a matter which he had mentioned before, but he repeated it, because he desired that it should be known. Where the consideration of a case depended on documents which it was necessary for the court to follow, three copies of such documents ought to be provided for the use of the members of the court. He did not mean that they wanted budgets of all the documents relating to a case ; he only spoke of really material documents. Copies of such documents must be supplied for the judges, because the court simply could not get on without them, and it was inconvenient for counsel to have to hand up their copies. I-Ie was only speaking of this court. In his opinion the costs of three copies of really material documents ought to be allowed on taxation.

In thc course of a lecture on “Ancient Ideals of Justice in English Law,” delivered by Sir 1*‘. Pollock on Saturday evening, at the “forking Men's College, hc said that under all the changes of procedure which hai taken place in our system of law there were fundamental ideas of justice. and these were national ideas. \Ve were so familiar with them as to be lcd into supposing that they belonged to what was called natural. justice, and such as must obtain in any civilized country. That, however, was not the case, as an examination of foreign systems of law would shew. The first principle of common law justice was that the procedure of the couit should be public. There might have to be exceptions for reasons of policy or morality, but if any judge desired to exclude the public he had to show reason for doing so. The second principle was that the proceedings in a law suit were taken by the pirtics themselves and not by the court. The parties proceeded at their own risk, and it was not the duty of the court to help them. Even the Court of Chancery, which came from another system, no sooner began to be worked by English judges for the ordinary affairs of English people than the English principle crept into it and prevailed, and a suit in Chancery became as much a game between the parties, the court seeing fair play, as an action in the common law courts, although the rules were more complicated. The third principle was that the judges alone were authorized to interpret the law. What the judges declared to be law was law, and no executive officer had any business to interfere with that function. These three principles were now peculiar to the English-speaking world, and if one went back far enough in history one would find that they wcre part of the ancient body of customs which our Germanic ancestors brought from the Continent of Europe.

[merged small][ocr errors]

Date Arrlan Comrr Mr. Justice Mr. Justice ‘ No. 2. Non-rri. Srianixo. Monday, March Mr. Rolt Mr Pugh Mr. Baal Tuesday Godfrey Lavie Leach Wednesday. Rolt Pugh Beal Thursday . Godfrey Lavie Leach Friday, April . Rolt Pugh Benl Saturday ...... ... ............ .. 2 Godfrey Lsvie Leach Mr. Justice Mr. Justice Mr. Justice Kaxswica. Roiriia. Brass. Monday, March Mr. Pemberton Mr. King Mr. Jackson Tuesday . Ward Farmer Carrington Wednesda Pemberton King Jackson Thursda . Ward Farmer Carrington Frida , ‘pril... Pemherton King Jackson Saturday"... 2 Ward Farmer Carrington

[merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

KABOOXGA, Liiiii-sn—(‘reditors are required, on or before April 23, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to John Richard Phillips, 70 and 71, Bishopsgate st. Snell & Co, 1 and 2, George st, Mansion House, solors for the liquidator

Livsiirooi. AND Gs.\-zrisi. ASSURANCE Co, Liiii-ran-—Creditors are required, on or before April 30, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Robert John Berry, 7. Sweeting st, Liverpool

Msrnorouins arm Pl!-OVINCIAL Sroass, Ll511'1‘EU—P€lJ1J: for winding up], presented March 17, directed to be heard on Wednesday, March 30. Francis & Jo nson, 26, Austin

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

London Guutle.— Fainsr, Mar. 18.

Asiiiraos, Au-asp Runners, Leeds Leeds Pet Mai-ch 1-1
Ord March 14

Ari-an-"soy, THOMAS, Halifaii, Auctioneer Halifax Pet March 18 Ord March 16

BAILEY, Aiirririi Ca.uv:<ii.\r, Victoria st, Company Promoter High (‘curt Pet Feb 25 Ord March 15

BZLLISDEIK, Jossrii, Leeds, Tailor Leeds Pethlareh 15 Urd March 15

Bnrxli-r, Hr.\'a\", Weston under Penyard, Farmer Hereford Pet March 16 Ord March 16

Bisnor, Wiiirsa, Batley, York, Fishmonger Dewsbury Pet March 15 Ord March 15

Coazs. \Viu.isu HENB\', York, Labourer York Pet March 11 Ord March 14

Diisisa, Wii.i.iui, Neath Neath Pet March 15 Ord March 15

DAVIES, CBABLII EDWARD Gnvesend, General Merchant High Court Petlilaroli 14 Ordliarch 14

DAVIES, DAVID MOIOAI, Penarth, Glam, Clothier Cardifl Pet March 14 Ord March 14

DAT) as Groiios, Neath, Clothier Neath Pet March 3 onimmii 15

DAVIIS, MARTIN, Llawhadeu, Psmbrolreshire, Farmer Pembroke Dock Pet March 16 Ord March 16

Dicirscs, Doruio Wii.i.iiiii, Gloucester st, Bloomsbury High Court Pet March 15 Ord Marsh 15

Dussiroan, Ronni-r, K~, Yorks, Barman Bradford Pet March 15 Ord 15

Eosan, Hiuivrr, Abinger, Surrey, Butcher Croydon Pet March 8 0rd March 15

Eoonssroxa, Joan Bishop Auckland, Durham, Mason Durham Pet March 15 Ord March 15

Giaiisiio, Faun G, Morley, Yoi-k,Clothier Dewsbury Pet March 5 Ord March 15

Gocoa, Taouss, Wolverhampton Painter Wolverhampton Pet Mareh14 Ord

March 14 HAi.n, Fnnnicx Ossett, York, Igbourer Dewsbury mmmnii at March14


HAY\\'ARD, Gsoiicis, Port-sea, Baker Portsmouth Pet March 15 Ord March 15

HIATT, RACHEL, Birmingham, Grocer Dudley Pet March 12 Old ltflirclii 12

HIGGINS, CHARLES Gaoaoa, Nottingham, Musician Nottingham Pet March 16 Ord March 16

Hossos, JOSEPH, Wakefield, Grocer Wakefield Pet March 16 Ord March 16

HOUGIITON, Fiiiioimicx Gsoiius, Bolton, Tobaeconist Bolton Pet March 14 Ord March 14

Howiirm, RICHARD, jun, Birkdale, Cab Driver Liverpool Pet March 16 Ord March 16

JACKSON Eon.-roii, Headingley, Leeds Leeds Pet March 15 as lliarch 15

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[graphic][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »