Page images

an express provision to the contrary) be payable out of the settled legacy or property in exoneration of the rest of the deceased's estate ; by section 24 (1) " unless the context otherwise requires (a) this part of this Act

High Court-Queen's Bench Division. shall come into operation on the 1st day of July, 1896, which day is in

GAGE v. BRAELEY. Div. Court. 26th March. this part of this Act referred to as the commencement of this part of this METROPOLIS–STREETS--Print DISTRIBUTED BY Way of ADVERTISEMENTAct; and (6) the expression 'deceased person' means a person dying after the commencement of this part of this Act.”

METROPOLITAN STREETS Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 134), s. 9.

By section 39 of the same Act it is enacted that

Part IV. of this Act This was a case stated by an alderman of the City of London, and shall be construed together with Part I. of the Finance Act, 1894.” involved a question under section 9 of the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867. The above-named testator Gibbs died on the 31st of May, 1896 (that is to That section provides as follows: “No picture, print, board, placard, or say, before the date fixed for the commencement of the Act of 1896), notice, except in such form and manner as may be approved of by the having by his will disposed of part of his personal estate upon trusts Commissioner of Police, shall by way of advertisement be carried or constituting a settlement within the meaning of the Act of 1894, and distributed in any street within the general limits of this Act by any haviug bequeathed the residue of his personal estate in shares to a charity person riding in any vehicle or on horseback or on foot. Any person and to certain persons. The trustees had paid the estate duty payable doing any act in contravention of this section shall be liable for each in respect of the settled personalty out of the residuary estate. The offence to a penalty not exceeding 103. This section shall not apply to action was brought to administer the trusts of the will, and upon the the sale of newspapers." The appellant was a lad in the employment of further consideration of the action, the point was taken on behalf of the the proprietors of the Financial Times. Au information was laid against persons entitled to the residue, that the trustees ought to have paid the the appellant for distributing, on the 19th of November, 1897, certain above-mentioned settlement estate duty out of the settled funds, and not prints by way of advertisement contrary to the section above set out. out of the residue, the contention being that the effect of the wording of The appellant on the day in question stood opposite the entrance to the the Act of 1896 was that it was retrospective in effect and abrogated the Stock Exchange in Throgmorton - street, and distributed the prints decision in Re Webber.

gratuitously to persons passing in and out of the Stock Exchange. He STIRLING, J., held that the rule laid down in Re Webber was binding on was told by the respondent that he must obtain the leave of the Commishim, and applied to the present case, the testator having died before the sioner of Police. He thereupon moved to a different part of the street, commencement of the Act of 1896 ; and that the trustees had properly and distributed the prints indiscriminately. The prints contained certain paid the duty in question out of the residue.-COUNSEL, Buckley, Q.C., and items of news from South Africa. Evidence was tendered by the appellant, Medd; Upjohn, Q.C., and Rashleigh ; Sir R. E. Webster, A.G., and 'Ingle but rejected by the alderman, that, after the Financial Times of the 19th Joyce ; Grosvenor Woods, Q.C., and R. J. Parker. SOLICITORS, Simpson 8 of November, 1897, was printed and issued, certain news arrived from Co., Smiles g Co.; Treasury Solicitor.

South Africa, and that, it being too late to insert the news in the news. [Reported by W. Scott THOMPSON, Barrister-at-Law.]

paper, the proprietors had it printed on a separate sheet, and distributed Re KECK AND HART'S CONTRACT AND THE VENDOR AND

in the manner described. The alderman found that the print was dis, PURCHASER ACT, 1874. Stirling, J. 23rd March. tributed with the object of advertising the Financial Times newspaper,

and SETTLED LAND—COMPOUND SETTLEMENT—JOINTURE DEEDS—APPOINTMENT not been approved of by the Commissioner of Police. He convisted the

that it was not itself a newspaper. He found also that the print had OF TRUSTBBS OF THE COMPOUND SETTLEMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE appellant. SETTLED LAND ACT_SETTLED LAND ACT, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict, c. 38), ss. THE COURT (WRIGHT and DARLING, JJ.) allowed the appeal on the 2 (1), 20 (1) (2) (i.) (ii.) (iii.).

ground that the print was a publication of news, and was not in itself an This was a summons taken out by a vendor under the Vendor and advertisement. They said that it would be wrong to hold that merely Purchaser Act, 1874, asking for a declaration that a requisition by the because the object of distributing a print was to advertise a newspaper, purchaser had been sufficiently answered. The facts were as follow. By that the print itself was a print carried or distributed by way of advera will certain real estate stood limited to legal uses in favour of Henry tisement within the meaning of section 9. The words " by way of adverLittelton Powys Keck for life, with remainder to Harry Leycester Powys tisement” implied that the thing itself was an advertisement, and not Keck for life, with remainder to his sons in tail male, with remainder that it was used for the purpose of advertising.--Counsel, Danckwerts to Charles Powys Keck during life, with remainder to his sons in tail and Spensley; W. H. Leycester. SOLICITORS, J. E. Lickfold; The City male, with remainder to Thomas Powys Keck for life, with remainders Solicitor. Henry Littelton and Charles Powys Keck were dead; Harry

(Reported by C. G. WILBRAHAM, Barrister-at-Law.) Ley cester Powis Keck and Thomas Powys Keck were still living. Henry Littelton Powys Keck, Harry Leycester Powys Keck, and Thomas Powys REG. v. ROBINSON AND ANOTHER, JUSTICES, AND KIRKHAM. Div. Keck bad all executed jointure deeds under a power for that purpose

Court. 28th March. contained in the will. In 1897 Harry Leycester Powis Keck entered into BASTARDY ORDER - APPLICATION FOR SUMMONS-THREE APPLICATIONS TO a contract with Sir Isaac Hart to sell, as tenant for life, a portion of the estates devised by the will. The vendor required trustees to be appointed

DIFFERENT MAGISTRATES-TIMB-35 & 36 Vict. C. 65, s. 3. for the purposes of the Settled Lund Acts of the will and all three In this case a rule nisi had been obtained calliug upon the justices of jointure deeds, on the ground that they formed together a compound Staffordshire to show cause why an order of the justices dated the 29th of settlement. The vendor took out the present summons.

December, 1897, by which H. Corbishley was adjudged to be the putative STIRLING, J. - In the present case the purchaser has taken the objection father of the illegitimate child of Annie Kirkham, and was ordered to pay that although there are existing trustees of the will for the purposes of 3s. a week towards the maintenance of the child, should not be quashed. the settled Land Acts, it is necessary that they should be appointed The facts were as follows: The child was born on the 9th of September, trustees of the compound settlement created by the will and the three 1896. On the 10th of October, 1896, the mother made an application to jointure deeds.

The grouud for the objection is to be found in the a magistrate for a sunmons for a bastardy order against Corbishley. The cases of Re Meade's Settled Estates (1897, 1 Ir. Rep. 121) and Re Tibbits' summons was issued and came on fur hearing on the 21st of October, Settled Estates (1897, 2 Ch 149). Now certainly in Re Tibbits and possibly when no order was made, there being no proof of service.

On the 21st of in Re Meade, a question arose which I have not to consider. In Re Tibbits October, 1896, further applications were made to three separate magisthere were four deeds which created a charge on the interest of the tenant trates, Robinson, Philips, and Brierly, but no summonses were then for life, and North, J., was of opinion that having regard to section 4 of issued owing to the difficulty of effecting service. On the 28th of July, the settled Land Act, 1890, he had power to appoint trustees of the com

1897, a summons was issued based on the application to the magistrate pound settlement arising from the original settlement and those four Brierly. This summons was served on the defendant, and the hearing deeds. Possibly that was also the point in Re Meade's Settled Estates.

took place on the 3rd of November, 1897, when the justices disagreed as to

Tbe But here I have nothing to do with any charge on the estate of the tenant whether there was any corroboration of the woman's evidence. for life, nor have I to consider whetner under section 38 of the settled chairman stated that the summons was not dismissed on its merits, and Land Act, 1882, there is or is not jurisdiction to appoint trustees the applicant was told that if she could bring further evidence she might of the so-called compound settlement. The question is whether the apply again. On the 10th of November the applicant applied to the tenant for life can make a good title to a purchaser without having magistrate Robinson for a further summons, which was issued returnable trustees so appointed. There is no decision exactly is point, and

on the 17th of November, but no proof of service being given, no order it seems to me I must go to the Act itself. Now, here we have

was made. On the 17th' of November a fresh summons was issued by & will which constitutes & settlement within the definition con

Robinson wbieh recited that it was based on the application of the 21st of tainrd in section 2 (1), and the vendor is a tenant for life under that October, 1896. This summons was heard on the 29th of December, 1897, settlement. Then under section 20 (1) he can convey the land for the when the order now sought to be quashed was made. By 35 & 36 Vict. C. estate or interest which is the subject of the settlement--that is, in the 65, s. 3, an application for a summons for a bastardy order must be made present case, for the fee simple. By section 20 (2) he can convey the within twelve months of the birth of the child. If the application is made settlement, and from all estates and interests subsisting or to arise there after the twelve months (see Reg. v. Justices of Lancashire, 38 J. P. 215); under. Can the tenant for life convey the land freed from the jointures ?

The Court (Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, C.J., and Mathew, J.) disIt seems to me that he can, and I am confirmed in this view when i charged the rule. examine the exceptions set forth in section 20 (2) (i.) (ii.) (iii.). It seems

Lord RUSSELL OF Killowen, C.J., said that the case in support of the to me that under section 20 the tenant for life can make a good title, and order was put in two ways. First, it was said that what took place at tibe it equally follows that the trustees of the will may give a good discharge hearing, on the 3rd of November, of the summons issued in July was not to ihe purchaser for the purcbase-money. It seems to me that under those circumstances the vendor has made a good title, and I ought to declare the principle of Reg. v. Justices of Lancashire (ubi suyra), but his lordship that the requisition need not be unswered. -COUNSBL, Buckley, Q.C., and felt bound to give effect to the decisions of Reg. v. Thomas (8 L. T. 460) Hewitt, Sampson. SOLICITORS, Preston, Slow, & Preston, for R. W. Berridge between a case in which there had been a hearing on the facts, and a mind & Sons, Leicester ; Field, Roscoe, & Co., for Storey, Leicester. (Reported by J. Í. STIBLING, Barrister-at-Law.]

which had been dismissed without being heard on the preliminary ground


that the summons was bad in form. This case did not come within Reg. premises, and the plaintiff accordingly completed the work at a cost of V. Justices of Lancashire, in which case the summons was wrong in form, £24. After the work had been finished it was ascertained that there was and the justices, instead of amending it as they might have done, dis- no order authorizing the drainage of the two houses into one pipe. missed it, but it was held that that was not such a hearing as would Consequently the defective pipe was a sewer for the repair of which the exhaust the original application. The present case was governed by defendants were liable. The plaintiff then brought this action to recover Staples v. Staples, and the last summons taken out could not be regarded the £24 paid by him for the execution of the work. The county court as a continuation of the July summons, but as a fresh summons. That gave judgment for the defendants. On appeal it was contended for the being so, it must be founded on an application made within the twelve plaintiff that the money spent by him was money which he had been months. As to that, it was contended that of the three applications compelled by law to pay in respect of work which the defendants were made on the 21st of October, 1896, there was on the 17th of November, legally compellable to execute, and that, apart from the common law 1897, one still remaining unexhausted. That depended on whether those principle, the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the defendants under three applications could be regarded as three separate applications for all section 11 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. The plaintiff relied purposes, for if they were to be regarded as only one, then they were on Gebhardt v. Saunders (1892, 2 Q. B. 452). exhausted by the summons granted on the 28th of July. His lordship was The Court (Lord Russell OF KILLOWEN, C.J., and MATHEW, J.) allowed of opinion that these three applications must be treated as one, except the appeal. for the sole purpose of enabling the applicant, in case one magistrate was Lord Russell of KıllowEN, C.J., said that at the time when the unable owing to death or other caures to issue a summons, to obtain the nuisance existed it was impossible to discover from a casual inspection summons from one of the other magistrates to whom application had been whether the defective conduit pipe (to use a neutral word) was a drain made. For all other purposes they were merely duplicates, and if one for the repair of which the plaintiff was liable or a sewer for the condition application was used the others were exhausted. In this case, after the of which the defendants were responsible. Under these circumstances the summons of the 28th of July bad been issued, there did not remain any notice was addressed to the owner or occupier of the premises. The application made within the twelve months, on which a fresh summons owner made enquiries, and thinking that he was liable, did the work, and could be based, and therefore the order made on the summons of the 17th spent money which, if the facts had been known, should have been of November must be quashed.

expended by the defendants. The plaintiff now contended that he could Maturw, J., concurred.-COUNSEL, Montague Lush; Hume Williams. recover that money from the defendants. The question turned on sections SOLICITORS, Chester & Co; Everitt f Hodgkinson.

4, 5, and 11 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. [His lordship read (Reported by F. 0. ROBINSON, Barrister-at-Law.]

the sections.] If a notice was served on a person under section 4 and

not complied with, then under sub-section 4 the person was liable to a ROGERS », HAWKEN. Div. Court. 29th March.

fine. It was contended for the defendants that the person served could CRIMINAL LAW-STATEMENT BY ACCUSED- ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE,

not be fined unless that the nuisance was caused by the default of the person

served with the notice. It was no doubt competent for the person to give This was a special case stated by justices for the borough of the South evidence that he was not liable, but supposing tbat he was not in a position end-on-Sea. An information was preferred at a petty sessional court against the respondent by the appellant, who was an inspector of the in the absence of such evidence give effect to the notice and require the

to do so, his lordship was not convinced that the magistrate might not Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, charging the respondent person to comply with the order, not finally deciding the question of with cruelty to a mare by causing the same to be worked while in an

liability but making him primâ facie liable and leaving the further question unfit state on the 15th of October, 1897, contrary to 12 & 13 Vict. c. 92, of liability to be subsequently dealt with. That was the view of the court 8. 2. The only witness called was the appellant, who, having given in Gebhardt v. Saunders (ubi supra), and he was not prepared to differ from evidence as to the condition of the animal on the day in question, that view. Consequently, the plaintiff had been legally compelled to do tendered evidence as to the guilty knowledge of the respondent, con

work which the defendants were liable to do. Moreover, section 11, which sisting of admissions made by him to the appellant. The evidence provided in effect that where no nuisance order was made but a nuisance tendered was as follows: “I saw the defendant. I was in uniform., I existed when the notice was served, the cost of abating the nuisance said to him, 'Is it true that your carman told the police you sent the should be deemed to be money paid for the use and at the request of the animal out and knew it was lame,' to which the defendant replied, person by whose act or default the nuisance was caused. It was contended

Yes, I sent Yost out with it. I had said nothing whatever to the that section 11 was only intended to refer to cases under section 8, but his defendant as to the likelihood of proceedings.” It appeared that a lordsbip thought it applied also to a case such as the present: The police-sergeant had stopped the respondent s man Yost on the 19th of plaintiff was therefore entitled to succeed against the defendants in this October, when driving the mare, and to him Yost had, in the absence of

action. the respondent, made a statement implicating his master, the respondent.

Mathew, J., concurred. Appeal allowed. --Counsel, Ball; Maemorran, The police-sergeant was with the appellant on the 20th of October, when

Q.C. SOLICITORS, Andrew, Wood, f Purves ; Bayley, Adams, Hawker, $ the appellant without any warning or caution confronted the respondent Noble. with the statement made by Yost, by means of direct questions; the

[Reported by F, O. ROBINSON, Barrister-at-Law.] replies thereto involved the whole issue against the respondent, and at the hearing constituted the whole case against him. The justices found as a fact that the respondent's admissions were not voluntary, and held them inadmissible; and as there was no other evidence against the respondent they dismissed the information.

Solicitors' Cases. The Court (Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, O.J., and Mathew, J.), allowed the appeal.

Re HAWKES, ACKERMAN v. LOCKHART. C. A. No. 2. 24th and Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, C.J., said that the observations of Cave, J.,

25th February; 23rd March. in Reg. v. Male (17 Cox 0. C. 689), although perfectly justifiable in the SOLICITOR AND CLIENT–SOLICITOR'S LIEN-ADMITTED LIEN AS AGAINST circumstances of that case, could not be regarded as laying down the

CLIENT—RIGHT AS AGAINST THIRD PARTY CLAIMING INSPECTION OF general proposition that statements of the accused made in answer to the

DOCUMENTS-ADMINISTRATION ACTION-ACTION COMMENCED BY EXECUTORS questions of a police-constable, and not being induced by the hope held

OF CLIENT—CREDITOR HAVING CONDUCT OF ACTION – RIGHT TO PRODUCout of some advantage to the accused or by threats, were inadmissible in

TION—LIEN ACQUIRED BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION. evidence. There was no rule of law excluding statements made under such circumstances. In the present case there was no ground for

This was an appeal from a decision of Kekewich, J., who had ordered Mr. suggesting that the statement of the accused was not made voluntarily John F. S. Cridland, a solicitor, to produce for inspection at his office certain and it was therefore admissible. The case must go back to the justices documents upon which he claimed to have a lien. Mr. Cridland appealed, and for them to hear the evidence and adjudicate upon the case.

contended that he was not bound to produce the documents until his bill of MATHEW, J., concurred. Case remitted. - COUNSEL, Colam; Grubbe. costs was paid. The appeal was argued on the 24th and 25th of February, SOLICITORS, 8. G. Polhill; Adolphus Maskell.

and judgment was delivered on the 23rd of March.

THE COURT (LINDLEY, M.R., and RIGBY and VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, L.JJ.), [Reported by F. O, ROBIxson, Barrister-at-Law.]

dismissed the appeal. ANDREW V. ST. OLAVE'S BOARD OF WORKS. Div. Court. 29th LINDLEY, M.R., said : This is an appeal by a solicitor from an order of March.

Kekewich, J., ordering him to produce certain documents on which he has a METROPOLIS-NUISANCE-DEFECTIVE Sewer - ABATEMENT BY OWNER AFTER 1895, indebted to his solicitor, Cridiand, who had in his possession some

lien. The facts are as follows: a person named Hawkes died in August, NOTICE-LIABILITY OF SANITARY AUTHORITY FOR EXPENSES INCURRED deeds and documents belonging to the deceased on which he, Cridland, had - PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) Act, 1891, ss. 4, 11.

the ordivary solicitor's lien. In May, 1896, the executors of the deceased This was an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the judge employed Cridland to institute an action for the administration of the estate of the Southwark County Court. The action was brought to recover £24 of the deceased ; and such action was accordingly commenced by the under the following circumstances. The plaintiff was the owner of two executors, Cridland acting for them, and the usual administration judgment houses, Nos. 5 and 6, Vine-street, Southwark. The defendants served was pronounced. The action not being prosecuted with due diligence, an two notices under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, ss. 2 and 4, one order was made on the 14th of May, 1897, giving tbe conduct of the action in respect of each house, addressed to the owner or occupier of the to a creditor. The executors remained parties to the action, and Cridland premises, stating that the board being satisfied of the existence of a continues to act for them. The estate of the deceased is not sufficient to pay nuisance at the premises arising from defective drainage, required his creditors. A question has arisen whether steps should be taken to get in the abatement of the puisance by the removal of the defective drain, and a debt said to be due to the estate of the deceased ; and to determine this the construction of a new drain into the common sewer. The plaintiff question it is necessary to see some of the documents on wbich Cridland commenced the necessary work, and on the ground being opened up it was had a lien, as before stated, before the action was commenced, and discovered that the two houses were drained into one drain. The plain- which are still in his possession. On the 7th of February, 1898, tiff's surveyor searched the records and found an order for a combined Kekowich, J., ordered Cridiand to produce the documents in question at his system of drainage, which he erroneously thought related to these office to the solicitors of the creditor having the conduct of the action for



their perusal. This order was made to enable them to prepare and lay before who discharged them. The point, therefore, made before us by the counsel a case for his opinion as to what steps, if any, should be taken to get appellant'e counsel had not to be considered. I proceed now to examine the in the debt referred to. Cridland has appealed against this order; the authorities more particula:ly relied upon by the appellant in support of his ground of bis appeai being that the documents ordered to be produced came contention. The first and most important is Warburton v. Edge (9 Sim. 508). into his possession, not from the executors for the purposes of the action, but The facts of that case are not very clearly stated; but, as I under:tund them, from the deceased in his lifetime, and that he, Cridland, had a lien on them there was an administratrix abroad. She had a solicitor here, who had acted before and at the time of his original client's death, and before any retainer for her in a suit for the administration of her deceased's estate, but who had by his executors. A great number of authorities were referred to by counsel, been instructed by her to act for her no longer. A receiver had been but none of them were exactly in point, and it is necessary to consider the appointed. The solicitor had some documents which came into his hands question for decision on principle. A solicitor's lien is simply a right to after the death of the deceased, and on which he claimed a lien, not only for retain bis client's documents as against the client and persons representing the costs of the suit, but for other costs due to him from the administratrix him. As between the solicitor and third parties, the solicitor has no greater before the commencement of the suit. The plaintiffs were creditors of the right to refuse production of documents on which he has a lien than his client decease 1, and they petitioned for an order of a very unusual nature. They would have if he had the documents in his own possession. This principle is prayed for an order on the solicitor to deliver to the receiver, or to deposit as applicable at law as it is in equity. Accordingly, it has been with the Master, all deeds, &c., in his custody relating to the personal estate long settled that if a solicitor is required by his clieut to produce of the deceased subject to any lien the solicitor might have. and for an documents under a subpæna duces ticum, the soli itor refuse inquiry into the existence of any lien wbich the solicitor might claim, and to do so if he has a lien upon them; but that the lien is no answer to a to the amount due to him in respect of it; and if necessary demand for their production by a third party. See Hope v. Liddell (3 W. R. for a taxation of his bill of costs, to the intent that it might be 581 ; 7 De G. M. & G. 331), and Hunter v. Leathley (10 B. & C. 858). This paid out of the estate of the deceased. Shadwell, V.C., refused to doctrine is not confined to production under the exigency of a subpana duces make any order on this pe'ision. He said the plaintiffs had no right to the tecum. The same principle applies to other applications for production by production of the documen's, as some of them had come into the solicitor's solicitors who are acting for their clients in litigation. See, at Law, Ley v. hauds before the suit commenced, and he had a lien on them for costs Barlow (1 Ex. 800), and in Equity, Furlong v. Howard (2 Sch. & Lef. 115). incurred in o her business besides the conduct of the suit. The ViceNothing can be clearer than Lord Redesdale's judgment in this last case : Chancellor also said the paintiffs had no right to tax the solicitor's bill.

Though a solicitor may have a lien on a deed for his costs, yet, if his client The petition being really à petition by a creditor for the taxation of the is bound to produce it for the benefit of a third person, so also must the soli- solicitor's costs and for payment of them by the administratrix, the order of citor. I know this is not so understood in general; but the common opiuion, the Vice-Chancellor seems to have been right. But if he meant to say that that the solicitor may withhold it from all parties in such a case is erroneous. the creditors had no right to have th, documents produced for the purposes The right is cnly as between his client and him." It is on this principle of the action because of the lien, the Vice-Chancellor, in my opioion, went that Courts of Equity order solicitors acting for clients who are parties to too far. Having regard to what he said in Baker v. Henderson (4 Sim. 27), actions to produce documents on which the solicitors have a lien, if their pro- he may have meant to go this length. That case presents no difficulty, duction is necessary for the purpose of doing justice to other persons besides although the first few words of the judgment were relied upon by counsel their respective clients. Administration actions are the most familiar instances for the appellant. In Re Capital Fire Insurance Association (32 W.R. 260; of such actions; but the principle is not confined to them. As, however, we 24 Ch. D. 408) an order was made to wind up a company. The company are dealing with an administration action, I will refer only to such actions had employed a solicitor, who, when the petition for a windiog-up order It must not be forgotten that before the Juoicature Acts a creditor could was presented had a lien on some documents which the liquidator wanted. be restrained from enforcing his debt at law after a decreo for the adminis- Chitty, J., made an order directing the solicitor to deliver these documents to tration of his debtor's estate, and a Court of Equity never allowed the the liquidator, but subject to the solicitor's lien. On appeal this order was creditors to be defeated by allowing the proceedings under the decree to be discharged as to some of the documents- viz., those referred to in the sec "nd embarrassed by the liens of the solicitors of the parties. The solicitors of order, on which the solicitor had a lien before the petition was presented. the parties to the proceedings are not deprived of their liens, and treated as The ground of this decision, as I understand it, was that the solicitor if they had none; but they are not allowed to render the proceedings never was the solicitor of the liquidator in the winding-up proceedings, abortive by refusing to produce documents in their possession which are and was not acting for the Company in those proceedings (see per wanted by other persons tban their own clients, and which such other Cotton, L.J., p. 417), the liquidator having employed another solicitor. persons have a right to see. But even as between solicitor and client, where The Court, moreover, pointed out that as to these documents the liquidator the client is a party to an action, his solicitor may be bound to produce, for could obtain production of them under the winding up sections of the Com; the purposes of the action, any documents of the client which are wanted for panies' Act, 1862, as decided in Ex parte Payne and Layton (L. R. 4 Ch. 215) the purposes of the action, and which have come into the solicitor's possession (ses per Cotton, L.J., 24 Ch. D. 420). No doubt Cotton, LJ., said (see in the course thereof, or for the purpose of co ducting the same. See p. 420) that Boughton v. Boughton did not apply to " such a case." Ross v. Laughton (1 V. and B. 349), and other cases collected in 2 Dan. Ch. expression, I understand, was meant the case of documents in the hands of a Prac. 1717 (edition 5). This rule, however, does not cover the point to be solicitor before an administration suit commenced, the solicitor not being decided in the present case. To return, however, to administration actions. employed in tbat suit by the client against whom the lien could be asserted. If a creditor sued his debtor, or his executor, at law, and required the In such a case the solicitor would be a stranger to the litigation, and could defendant's solicitor by a subpæna duces tecum to produce a document belong- not be compelled to produce documents except as a witness by subpæna duces ing to the defendant, but in the possession of the solicitor, who had a lien tecum. That was the sort of case wbich Cotton, L.J., had to consider. I upon it, I take it to be plain that the lien would not justify the solicitor do not understand the observation to apply to the case of a solicitor who is in refusing to produce the document, and Ley v. Barlow (ubi supra) shows that employed in an administration suit by a party to the suit, and who could be an order for its production might be made, even before trial, without a sub- made by the other parties, or by creditors, to produce the documents otherwise pona. If these are the principles on which the Court acts in an administra- than by subpoena. Boden v. Hensby (40 W. R. 205 ; [1892] 1 Ch. 101) was a tion action if the production is ordered in order to prevent the legal rights partition action. The plaintiff had changed his solicitor, and it was held of creditors from being defeated, it cannot matter whether the documents that the solicitor could not be compelled to produce documents on which he which are wanted came into the hands of the solicitors of the parties before had a lien before the action was commenced, although he could not withor after the death of the deceased, or before or after the commencement of hold those which came into bis possession afterwards. North, J., who the action for administration, nor can it matter whether the executors are decided this case, acted on the authority of R2 Capital Fire Insurance Associaplaintiffs or are defendants, nor who has the conduct of the action. Having tion (ubi supra). If third parties were entitled to have the documents regard to the rights of the creditors, if Hawkes's executors now had the co- produced, Boden v. Hensby (ubi supra) went too far in favour of the solicitors duct of the action their solicitor could not, in my opinion, effectually rely These were the principal authorities referred to, and the only ones which it is on their lien on the documents of the deceased to prevent their production necessary to notice. None of them appear to me to compel the Court to for the purpose of enabling the executors to get in the assets of the deceased. reverse the order appealed from. That order seems to me right iu principle, The rights of the creditors under the administration judgment, and their and the appeal therefore ought to be dismissed with costs. inability to sue at law, explain the apparent anomaly that the RIGBY, L.J., delivered judgment to the same effect. executors should be entitled to obtain production from their own solicitor

VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, L.J , said that he agreed in the result, bat preferred of documents on which he has a lien as against them. The fact that they to give his own reasons, which differed considerably from those of the other have been deprived of the conduct of the action does not improve the solicitors members of the Court 'He thought that the solicitor's duty to produce in position, so long, at all events, as his clients remain parties to the action, and cases like the present arose from his duty to his client, and not to third have not discharged him. See on this point Bennett v. Baxter (10 Sim. 417), persons. A solicitor, by accepting the client's retainer, must be taken to Mr. Cridland's clients are still parties, and he acts for them. It is un: might prove necessary in the suit. Even if this view was wrong, the obliganecessary, therefore, to consider what his right might be under other circum- tion to produce might be held to arise in the case of an administration stances. The general rule of the Court, founded on the principles above action, or any action in which the rights of persons other than the client referred to, is very emphatically stated in Belaney v. Ffrench (L. R. 8 Ch. were concerned, but he preferred to rest his judgment on the ground of 918). That was an administration suit, and it was the case of a solicitor who obligation to the client. In the present case the solicitor had not been dis; had acted for several of the parties to it, and had been discharged by them, and charged, and the liability to produce could not be limited to papers received who refused to produce documents belonging to them, but on which he had for the purposes of the action.—Counsel, Stewart Smith ; P. Rose Innes. a lien. The receiver who had been appointed in the action wanted to see the SOLICITORS, Cridland 8: Co.; Frame & Son. documents. James, L.J., said :-"A solicitor cannot embarrass a suit by

[Reported by R. C. MACKENZIE, Barrister-at-Law.] keeping papers which belong to an estate which is being administered by the Court, and cannot use that means of obtaining payment." Re Boughton,

MAW v. BEST, Q. B. D. Div. Court. 19th March. Boughton v. Boughton (31 L.J. 517 ; 23 Ch. D. 169) is another recent decision to the same effect, and Fry, J., there points out the importance of the rights

COUNTY Court ACTION-SCALE OF Costs APPLICABLE. of creditors. It is, however, true that the documents which were in question in these cases came into the solicitors' hands from the clients

The plaintiff claimed £27—namely, £12 101. for rent and £14 103. for dilapidation. The defendant admitted the claim for £12 10s., and

By this


originally counter-claimed £49 128. 8d., but subsequently withdrew an policies even if the amounts were smaller than to obtain very large item of £40, thereby reducing his counter.claim to £9 123. 8d. After policies often invulving a certain amount of outside risk which action brought, defendant paid into court a sum which, with the £9 128. 8d. did not appear upon the policies, and they had done this to a very counter-claimed, exceeded the plaintiff's claim for rent. On the trial, considerable extent. They had also in doing this done something else judgment was given for the plaintiff for £12 108., the amount admitted by which in the opinion of the Board was of much more importance, defendent, and for defendant on his counter-claim. The deputy-judge namely, they had widened the area of the Company's connection, that gave plaintiff her costs on £12 103. up to the date of defendant's payment was to say they were tapping a great many more districts in order to into court, and ordered that defendant should bave the costs of defending secure life policies than was formerly the case, which h: thought was a very the action as from that date. The defendant's solicitor carried in his satisfactory feature. In the Life Department 534 policies had been issued, costs for taxation on the Scale B, applicable where the plaintiff claims the net sum assured being £327,986. Clisims had arisen under 137 policies, between £20 and £50. The registrar (Mr. Hugh Bedwell), however, only for £97,000 including bonus additions of $75,000 so assured, leaving the allowed the costs on Scalc A, applicable where the plaintiff claims be- net claims £89,000, a sum which was much within the amount expected. tween £10 and £20. The defendant's solicitor then applied to Mr. Harold The premium income amounted to £143,000, being £4,000 more than that Thomas, the deputy-judge, sitting on the 30th of December, for a review of 1896, and the funds were increased by £86,000, amounting at the of the taxation, but Mr. Thomas confirmed the registrar's decision. The close of the year to £1,584,000. He should like in this matter being one of principle, and of much importance to solicitors nection to bring before the meeting what the figures to some extent generally, inasmuch as the solicitor was precluded from claiming against were in 1887, that being a period of ten years, which he had taken to show defendant any costs beyond those allowed on taxation, the Incorporated the position of the Company now as compared with what it was at that time. Law Society, on the matter being submitted to them, agreed to support The claims in 1887 were £161,000 as against £137,000 in the year under an appeal to the Divisional Court. It was contended that the review of review; but the policies issued were only 426 against the present issue ta xation was a matter in the diecretion of the county court judge, and was of 534, and the premium income for 1897 was £143,000 as against not subject to appeal.

£93,000 in 1887. He thought this very satisfactory. Coming to the Fire The Court (Wills and DARLING, JJ.), however, held that there had Department, it would be seen that the net premiums amounted to £357,000, been no exercise of discretion on the part of Mr. Thomas, but merely which was £3,000 more than in the preceding year. But the losses, he was an application of the rules rezarding costs, with which the court did not sorry to say, had amounted to £205,000. As they perhaps knew already, agree. The plaintiff's claim being for £27, it was clear that by the com there had been one or two very large fires during the year under review, bined operation of the scales of costs and ord. 50a, r. 15, the defendant notably one in Melbourne and another in Jewin Street. It must, howwas entitled to have bis costs taxed under Column B of the Higher Scale.- ever, always be remembered that it was the Company's business to provide COUNSEL, R. W. Harper; Ernest Hatton. SOLICITORS, A. Ll. Russell, for such contingencies, and they were not all evil, as they tended to increase Malton; 4. E. B. Soulby, Malton and Pickering.

care in selecting risks. Comparing the figures of the Fire Department, the

net premiums for the year under review amounted to £357,000, wbilst In the names of colicitors in the report of Re West London and in 1887 they were $104,000. This showed rather a startlicg rise. General Permanent Benefit Building Society (ante, p. 363) Mesers. Ward, The losses, of course, were heavier. The surplus for the year Bowie, & Co. are incorrectly described, and for“ Vaizey & Riddell” there 1897 amounted to £45,870, and the directors proposed to apply, this should be read Riddell, Vaizey, & Smith.

first in payment of a dividend for the year of 24s. per share, and of this amount 5s. per share had already been paid, leaving to be paid 19s. per share. That would amount to £28,800. They also proposed to add to the Fire Fund

£15,000, which was a very respectable sum, though it was not so large as last LAW SOCIETIES.

year; but last year was an abnormally successful year. Still, the Board

thought that £15,000 was a good amount, and this addition brought up the INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.

Fire Fund to £385,000, which was considerably in excess of the premium

income. There was a balance of £2,000, which was carried to the Reserve SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING.

Fund, and would bring it up to £52,000. That made the to‘al amount of In purcuance of tbe resolution passed at the adjourned annual general fire and reserve funds the very considerable sum of £437,000, which he meeting held on the 15th of July, 1881, a special general meeting of the thought a very satisfactory figure, considering that the premium income was members of the society wijl be held in the Hall of the Society on Friday, \ £357,000. But the Board did not want it to stop at that; they wanted to the 29th of April, 1898, at two o'clock precisely.

build up the reserves. He would not say how high they wished to go; Members who desire to move resolutions, or to ask questions, should but if he could be told to what extent the business was to increase, then he give notice of them to the secretary on or before the 7th of April, 1898, would say, how much the reserves were to be raised to. The directors hoped as it will be necessary to include them in the notice convening the

to go on increasing the reserves as the business increased. The Fire and meeting

Reserve Furds in 1887 were $239,000; they were now £437,000, which was

a very considerable increase. The total assets of the Company now ATLAS ASSURANCE COMPANY.

amounted to £2,287,000, which compared very favourably with the amount

in 1887, which was £1,855,000, showing that ibe total assets had increased The annual general court of proprietors of the Atlas Assurance Company by £430,000. In the statement of the assets of the Company there was held on Friday, the 25th ult., at the Company's House, Cheapside, Mr. an item of mortgages, and he was pleased to inform the meeting C. A. PRESCOTT (Chairman) presiding.

that the amount was not so great as it used to be. They were all good The pinetieth annual report, which was submitted to the meeting, stated mortgages, or else provided for. Wherever the company had any investthat during 1897 there were issued in the Life Department 534 policies, ments standing at a premium which were repayable at par at a future datu assuring £354,486, at annual premiums of £13,009 12s. 93., of which £26,500 the premium was generally written off out of the interest and he might was reassured at annual premiums of £1,226 10s. 10d., leaving the net new say that the investments if taken at the market price of the day would sums assured for the year £327,986, with annual premiums of £11,783 ls. 11d., show a considerable profit, and those that might have depreciated in and single premiums of £1,75012s. 10d. There were issued in addition four value bad been liberally provided for and written down. If any gentleman leasehold policies for £2,250, at annual premiums of £98 138. 10d. Proposals desired to make any comments or ask any questions he would be happy to for £65,485 were declined. Claims arose under 137 policies for £97,313 2s., answer. including bonus additions, of which £7,500 128. 6d. was reassured, leaving

Mr. J. P. CURRIE seconded the motion, the net claims £89,812 9s. 6d., a sum much within the amount expected. Mr. John COLES said the Chairman had stated that the Board were favourThe premium income amounted to £143,723 19s. 2d., being £4,062 149. 20. ing the augmentation of the number of life policies even if for small more than that of 1896, and the funds were increased by £86,484 185. 8d., amounts. He had nothing whatever to say against the Company increasing amounting at the close of the year to £1,584,195 9s. 2d. In the Fire Depart. its area of operations, but at the same time he thought that if the Company ment the net premiums were £357,520 128. 11d., beiog £3,067 8s. 8d. more were fortunate enough to get policies for large amounts other offices would than those of the preceding year, and the losses amounted to £205,017 13s. 6d., be ready to take a part of the risks and would probably give some being 57.3 per cent. of the premiums. TŁe surplus for the year, being business to the Company in return. But he was sure the society was balance of profit and loss was £45,870 ls. 1d., of which the directors have quite alive to all these points. Ho cbserved that the premiums income resolved to apply £28,800 in payment of a dividend of 24s. per share (being in the Fire Department was stagnating somewhat and he looked upon that 24 per cent. on the original paid-up capital) free of income tax; in adding as a somewhat favourable feature. The Company bad got to £375,000. £15,000 to the Fire Fund, bringing it up to £385,000; and £2,070 1s. 1d. to In 1895 it was £368,000 and in 1896 £354,000. 'He gathered from that the Reserve Fund, bringing it to £52,664 10s. The Fire and Reserve Funds that the Board were rather looking to quality than quantity, and probably would then stand at £437,664 10s.' The total assets of the Company now in the near future there might be an even smaller loss ratio ihan at the amounted to £2,287,029 12g. 1d.

present time. The total fund seemed to have grown in the last few years Mr. S. J. PIPKIN (Secretary) having read the notice convening the from £399,000 to £460,000. On the whole he considered the report a very meeting,

excellent ono, wbich reflected very great credit on the management of The Chairman moved the adoption of the report and accounts. He said the Company. that before referring to the actual business of the report he could not but The resolution was carried unanimously. speak of the loss the Company had sustained by the death of the late Sir On the motion of the CHAIRMAN, seconded by Mr. CURRIE, the retiring William Baynes and Mr. Richard Blaney Wade. This had been mentioned directors, Mr. H. Brooks, Mr. B. B. Greene, Air. F. Greene and Mr. H. from that side of the table before, but the directors had thought it more Mosenthal, were re-elected, courteous and graceful to insert an allusion to it in the first published report Mr. Fox BATTEY moved the re-election of the auditors, Messrs. Price, which was put before the shareholders. Coming to the figures of the report Waterhouse, & Co., and that their remuneration be £250. he remarked with regard to the Life Department that he was happy to say

M. F. L. H. COLLINS seconded the motion, remarking that the Company there had been a steady increase in the number of policies issued during the could not be in better hands. last three years, which was very satisfactory bearing in mind that the The motion having been agreed to, endeavour of the directors had been rather to obtain a larger number of MR. COLEs moved a vote of thanks to the directors, local directors,



managers, and staff in London, and the various officers throughout the country, so that they might express their obligation to those who were bearing the burden and heat of the day and upholding the position of the THE OPERATION OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSACompany.

TION ACT, 1897. Mr. COLLINS seconded the motion. He was sure that all of those who had In the course of his address as chairman of the Law Accident and to transact business with the Company could bear testimony to the courtesy Contingency Insurance Society (Limited) on Wednesday, Mr. Richard and prompt attention they received from the staff who conducted the opera. Pennington said : It is desirable that I should say a few words about the tions of this large establishment. Doubtless it would be the pleasure of all Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897, which comes into force on the 1st the proprietors to put on record that those who were in the country, the of July this year. The Act involves an entirely new principle in British local boards and agents, were each and all deserving of a hearty vote of law; and it will most materially affect the fortunes of companies like ours, thanks for their services.

and we confidently look to the legal profession to interest itself in acquir. The vote having been carried,

ing business on behalf of this society. Although we are aware that The CHA'RMAN returned thanks on behalf of the directors, observing that employers of labour (particularly those connected with mining operations, they always tried to do their best for the Company. They took a great and so forth) who are affected by the Act are naturally anxious as to the interest in it, and he hoped the results were not unsatisfactory.

responsibilities of the new burden which has been imposed upon them, it

is probably doubtful whether they have fully realized that it is a burden The GENERAL MANAGER, in respɔnding, for the managers and staff, too dangerous for them to bear without the aid of insurance ; indeed, thanked the meeting for this vote, and said he was perfectly sure that unless insurance is sought for and secured, disaster will overtake both the when the report of the meeting went to the Company's representatives employer and the employed. It has been stated that something like all over the world it would convey a feeling of very great gladness 6,000,000 of workpeople will be affected by the operation of the new Act, to the minds of those who had worked so hard for the Company in aud, 'as there are some 13,000,000 or 14,000,000 of workpeople, there foreign fields, and in very difficult fields, especially during the last year remains another 6,000,000 or 8,000,000 to be provided for hereafter, or two. They would appreciate highly the fact that they had not been because the Legislature has not hesitated to admit that the present Act forgotten by the meeting.

is but a stepping-stone, and its general application to all workpeople

may therefore be expected; moreover, it may be taken for granted that SOLICITORS' MANAGING CLERKS' ASSOCIATION.

those who are now outside the scope of the Act will strenuously press

their claims for benefits similar to those which will be enjoyed by Mr. J. Austen-Cartmell delivered the eighth of the series of lectures workmen to whom the Act applies, and an extension of the prinin the Old Hall, Lincoln's-inn, on Tuesday, a very large audience on ciple cannot be long withheld. At present there appears to be some the "Finance Acts, 1894-6." Sir R. T. Reid, Q.C., M.P., presided. The difficulty in interpreting certain clauses in the Act. The usual methods lecturer, in opening the subject, said the estate duty was a tax of for arriving at decisions on these points will no doubt be adopted in due universal applicability. It was a charge upon all property “from or to

Unfortunately the indefiniteness leaves the question as to how what person soever it passed.” The two Acts were of an extremely much compensation is in certain accidents to be paid a doubtful matter; complicated character, and he could only endeavour during the time at but we may feel sure that every care will be taken by our executive to his disposal to place before them a comprehensive view of them. The see that adequate rates are secured, based upon the fullest information unbappy individual called the deceased" was as safely encased in the which can be obtained. At present accident insurance offices are Finance Acts as he was in his own coffin. Indeed, the ubiquity of the threatened with new competitors in every direction in the shape of mutual deceased turned the Acts into a veritable cemetery: In concluding his societies for the protection of given trades. This is no new experience, instructive exposition of the Acts, the lecturer said he had often been and I do not think it need concern or trouble the ordinary insurance asked whether estate duty could be avoided, but he was afraid that there company, for it has generally been found that such societies are was only one way to ensure that result, and that was for a

man uuscientific in their construction, unsatisfactory in their application, and to sell his goods and give them to the poor. But alas ! the recipient insufficient for protection. If experience may be relied upon, it may be of that advice would, he greatly feared (such was the nature of man), anticipated that sooner or later they will collapse, lacking, as they do, receive it in the same spirit as his prototype and depart sorrowing those scientific methods which, coupled with security, ensure continuity No! the estate duty was a spectre that once raised could not be and cohesion, which conditions can only be obtained from an insurance laid. When the poor deceased was, after life's fitful fevers, company adopting the proved and accepted principles of in-urance. sleeping well, the ghost would haunt his home, bringing terrors to his There must always be more or less danger to the assured in a mutual unhappy executor. At the conclusion Mr. A. Turner proposed a hearty society, and it becomes particularly pronounced when responsibilities vote of thanks to the lecturer and chairman, and spoke of the difficulty are assumed in connection with businesses of magnitude involving he had experienced in understanding the provisions and intentions of the liabilities arising from catastrophes such as occur in colliery industries. Acts. Mr. T. 0. Tunstall, in seconding, said that in considering, as they It is exceedingly doubtful whether any of the schemes which have hitherto had been doing, the most difficult and complicated measure in regard to been brought forward for the coal masters' consideration have represented death duties that had ever been placed upon the statute book, they were true insurance, and if a catastrophe in a mine were to occur, involving to be congratulated in having had in their lecturer and chairman those great loss of life, the results might be exceedingly serious to the members who had been personally associated with its passing. The vote of thanks of a mutual association. Of course, if coal masters can do better for having been enthusiastically accorded, Sir Robert Reid, in acknowledg. themselves than by placing their risks in the hands of the accident coming the same, expressed the great pleasure it bad given him to be present panies they will be right in doing so; but, as a matter of fact, there can and to hear Þr. Aurten-Cartmell's admirable lecture, and observed that if be no doubt they will, in the long run, be better off with the strong and the Acts were somewhat severe in their operation they should remember powerful accident companies than by adopting the alternative method. that the revenue which they produced helped to enable our Navy to be the ratio of claims-that is, the amount paid for compensation-must be put on a more efficient and satisfactory condition.

the same, whichever plan is adopted, and the expenses of management will be approximately the same in either case, because any mutual association will have to create a properly-organized establishment similar to

that which the accident companies have already at hand, and it must be LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

evident to anyone acquainted with the subject that the ratio

of expenses of the accident companies in connection with this LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETIES.

business must be less than the ratio which will be experienced by the mutual societies, inasmuch all

expenses BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.—March 29.-Mr. W. H. King, borne by the various departments of business, and not B.A., in the chair.—The moot point discussed was, Can a man who goes merely assigned to the special business which will have to be borne to a restaurant and orders a dinner for which he cannot pay, be convicted by the mutual societies. Moreover, mutual societies will have to immeof obtaining goods by false pretences, or for obtaining credit by fraud, or diately " put up" a very large sum by way of capital account in order on any other ground ?"

The speakers in the affirmative were Messrs. H. that they may be at once prepared to meet an event which must occur Eaden, J. C. Brookes, G. E. T. Edalji, S. J. Gateley, G. Thomas, and A. sooner or later, if any reliance is to be placed upon the experience of the H. McBean; and in the negative, Messrs. W. Somers, A. H. Smith, T; P. past in connection with the mining interest. It is well known that the Orwin, T. Priest, C. H. Smith, and G. Slater. The moot was decided in leading accident companies are prepared to take up this great business in the affirmative by 12 votes to 6.

a liberal and comprehensive spirit towards the colliery interests. Even LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.–March 22.-Chairman, Mr. o. if accident companies should charge a fraction more than mutual Herbert Smith.-The subject for debate was: “That county courts should societies, it will be found that many coal masters will provide themselves have jurisdiction in divorce and matrimonial cauees. Mr. J. S. Wilkin with the absolute security afforded by a policy of a recognized insurance son opened in the affirmative. Mr. F. N. Stevens opened in the negative. company, and will be gradually followed by others to the general The following members also spoke : Messrs. G. N. Daniel, E. L. Chap- weakening of mutual associations. The results which may be expected man, C. A. Anderson, Haseldine Jones, F. J. Thompson, C. Morton to flow from the operations of this Act will no doubt be grave in

Baker, Rupert Blagden, W. D. Pleadwell, F. S. Gaylor, R. A. Gordon, their nature and of considerable magnitude. According to the · A. W. Watson, Fitton, Cohen. The motion was lost by 8 votes to 15. returns of


German state insurance for accidents to March 29.-Chairman, Mr. C. Augustus Anderson.-The subject for its operations, and over 500,000 benefited to the extent of over £3,000,000

workpeople nearly 18,000,000 persons were last year interested in debate was : “ That the case of In re Rowe, Pike v. Hamlyn (1898, 1 Ch. 115, sterling. If the experience of the Workmen's Compensation Act is proved and Law Journal, February, 1898) was wrongly decided.” Mr. H. D. Dalo to be similar to that of the German state insurance as to the number of limore opened in the affirmative. Mr. J. B. Davies opened in the nega accidents occurring in proportion to the number interested, it may be tive. The following members also spoke : Messrs. 0. Dickson, G. H. anticipated that considerably over £1,000,000 sterling will have to be paid Daniell, Archer White, Archibald Hair, Arthur E. Clarke, W. M. Plead for the 6,000,000 persons who, it is assumed, will be benefited by the Act, well,

inasmuch as the benefits provided under the English system are con


[ocr errors]



« PreviousContinue »